Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Meeting

June 20-21, 2012

FY2013-14 Biennial Budget & Workplan

DRAFT MOTIONS

If there are no policy issues for AMWG to consider:

The TWG recommends that AMWG recommend the FY2013-14 Biennial Budget & Workplan

from the Bureau of Reclamation and Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center to the 

Secretary of the Interior for approval.

If there are policy issues for AMWG to consider:

The TWG recommends that AMWG recommend the FY2013-14 Biennial Budget & Workplan

from the Bureau of Reclamation and Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center to the 

Secretary of the Interior for approval, with the following changes: ...

If there are technical issues for DOI to consider:

The TWG requests that the Department of the Interior consider the following issues in the 

development of the FY2013-14 Biennial Budget & Workplan from the Bureau of Reclamation and 

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center: ...

REPORTS AND QUESTIONS 

The discussion of these items (1-9) may lead to additional technical issues. 

1. What recommendations from the Socioeconomic Ad Hoc Group will be addressed in the 

budget?

The DOI Interagency LTEMP team has been requested to give an update on their progress

determining the socioeconomics issues that will be addressed under LTEMP.

2. Has the federal salary freeze been reflected in the Reclamation salaries in this BWP? 

Glen Knowles will report whether the Reclamation FY13-14 budget includes the freeze.

3. P. 12: Recommend that until the POAHG has a specific work plan recommendation 

with deliverables, this activity be reduced, with the funding potentially provided to have 

a synthesis of the Knowledge Assessment workshops completed this year.

It is unlikely that POAHG will have a budget completed before the TWG meeting. 

However, the chair expects to have it completed before the AMWG meeting in August.

Project C

4. P. 96: Clarifying question: please clarify the statement “Equalization resulted in the 

evacuation of cold water from deep portions of the reservoir. These unusual conditions 

resulted in the warmest release temperatures since 2005, reaching 15.2o

C on November 

12, 2011, in spite of higher reservoir elevations.” 

NOTE: This issue was not addressed at the BAHG.
June 20-21, 2012 TWG Meeting

FY2013-14 Biennial Budget & Workplan

2 | Page

Project F

5. P. 138: F.7.1 – This sentence doesn’t seem to fit together: “Monitoring will focus on 

midday collections because drift rates tend to be more variable, but higher, during 

nighttime hours. Seven samples will be collected every six weeks from each location.” Is 

it important to sample midday because of variability, or better at night? 

NOTE: This issue was not addressed at the BAHG.

6. P. 135: F.4.3 – We had been promised by FWS and GCMRC a Chute Falls translocation 

plan before the next budget cycle. It appears that document has not been prepared and 

no mention of it is in the description. Please clarify when we can expect to see a Chute 

Falls translocation plan? We believe it is important to understand the goals of the 

project, methods, research plan, important results to date, rationale for continuing it, etc. 

The second to last sentence on the next page talks about a peer review; that would be 

helpful, but we think a draft translocation plan would be a good starting point. 

NOTE: This issue was not addressed at the BAHG.

Project J

7. P. 198: On the bottom of the page this research question is highlighted, “Therefore, a 

key research question that needs to be resolved is not whether cultural sites are eroding 

or otherwise changing but whether they are eroding or changing faster or in a 

significantly different manner than they would if the dam were not present or was 

operated differently than it has been up until now.” – Question, is this the right 

question? I understand that we want to understand changes if the dam were operated 

differently. Is it appropriate to have the larger question, if the dam were not present?

NOTE: This issue was not addressed at the BAHG.

Project L

8. P. 233: Table, in the line starting “Participation in phone calls...,” “50%” should be 

changed to “5%.”

NOTE: This issue was not addressed at the BAHG.

General

9. Many river trips are identified in this work plan. A table of proposed projects and the 

time of year when these trips would take place would be helpful to determine whether 

we have the logistical support to conduct all this work, especially if non-native control 

takes place.

GCMRC will prepare this report.

TECHNICAL ISSUES FOR TWG’S CONSIDERATION 

BOR Budget and Workplan

10. P. 6: Consider changing “Experimental Carryover Funds” to “Experimental Funds” and 

changing “Native Fish Conservation Contingency Fund” to “Native Fish Conservation 

Contingency Fund Carryover”. Rationale: the experimental fund is an annual fund, 

when it carries over it goes to the native fish line. (Shane Capron)

NOTE: This issue was not addressed at the BAHG.
June 20-21, 2012 TWG Meeting

FY2013-14 Biennial Budget & Workplan

3 | Page

11. SAs' involvement in the LTEMP

Leslie James and Don Ostler will present a proposal for the SAs’ involvement in the 

LTEMP for a possible recommendation to AMWG. 

USGS Budget and Workplan: 

Project A

12. P. 57: Project A.4 may be of immediate concern to GCDAMP, especially with the HFE 

implementation looming in the horizon. Recommend that project should be funded. 

($243,300 FY13, $249,800 FY14)

If funding for this project has not been identified, it may need to be discussed at the TWG 

meeting.

Project F

13. P. 132: F.1, Question – It looks like only one annual trip is being planned. Please clarify 

whether it is one trip or two. If it is one, please explain why only one trip is needed now 

when we used to conduct two, and AGFD has provided a rationale for two in past 

discussions.

NOTE: This issue was not addressed at the BAHG.

14. Proposal: Maintain the annual creel surveys ($25,000 FY13, $25,000 FY14)

• A memo from Bill Stewart on this issue was sent to all TWG members. Historically, AGFD 

has funded a creel survey at Lees Ferry. Due to recent budget cuts, they can no longer fund 

it annually, and there will be no surveys in FY13-14. The 2009 PEP panel recommended 

maintaining the survey. These surveys are important to obtain data not gathered with 

electrofishing. They see the larger fish caught by anglers that are not as vulnerable to 

electrofishing. They also see what is being harvested, and can assess how management 

recommendations are affecting the fishery.