Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Meeting

June 22-23, 2009

Conducting: Shane Capron, Chairperson June 22, 2009

Convened: 9:30 a.m.

Committee Members/Alternates Present:

Mary Barger, WAPA

Cliff Barrett, UAMPS

Chris Harris, Colo. River Board of Calif.

Kerry Christensen, Hualapai Tribe

William Davis, CREDA

Norm Henderson, NPS/GCNRA

Amy Heuslein, BIA

Rick Johnson, Grand Canyon Trust

Matt Kaplinski, GCRG (alternate)

Glen Knowles, USFWS

Dennis Kubly, USBR

Steve Mietz, NPS/GRNP

Don Ostler, UCRC (alternate for NM & WY)

Clayton Palmer, WAPA (alternate)

Bill Persons, AGFD

D. Randolph Seaholm, CWCB

Mark Steffen, Federation of Fly Fishers

Larry Stevens, GCRG

Jason Thiriot, Colo. River Comm./NV

Bill Werner, ADWR

Michael Yeatts, the Hopi Tribe

Committee Members Absent:

Charley Bulletts, Southern Paiute Consortium

Jay Groseclose, NM Interstate Stream Comm.

Robert King, UDWR

John O’Brien, GCRG

John Shields, WY State Engineer

Interested Persons:

Matthew Andersen, GCRMC/USGS

Glenn Bennett, USGS/GCMRC

Chris Cantrell, AGFD

Jen Dierker, NPS/GRCA

Kurt Dongoske, Pueblo of Zuni

Helen Fairley, USGS/GCMRC

Dave Garrett, Science Advisors

Pamela Garrrett, M3

Research

Paul Grams, USGS/GCMRC

John Hamill, USGS/GCMRC

Leslie James, CREDA

Jeri Ledbetter, Grand Canyon River Guides

Lindia Liu, Colo. River Board of California

Andy Makinster, AGFD

Barbara McKenzie, USGS/GCMRC

Emily Omana, Grand Canyon Wildlands Council

Jane Rodgers, NPS

Tim Steffen, Federation of Flyfishers

David VanHaverbeke, USFWS

Meeting Recorder: Linda Whetton, USBR

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Welcome and Administrative. The Chairman welcomed the TWG members, alternates, and interested 

persons. Attendance sheets were distributed. He said Dennis Kubly’s flight was delayed and he would be 

arriving until around noon.

Approval of Draft Meeting Minutes. Shane asked for comments on the minutes. Bill Persons said he 

didn’t review them thoroughly but thought some things were lost in the translation and suggested Dennis 

Kubly review them. Shane said he thought the July 2008 and the March 2009 minutes could be revised and 

reduced and that a discussion on what the TWG wants in terms of minutes or notes should be held in 

conjunction with revising the TWG Operating Procedures. They should also meet FACA guidelines. Shane 

suggested using today’s meeting to prepare a more condensed version of the minutes with a review by he 

and Dennis made before sending them to the TWG. 

Action Item Tracking Report: Shane reviewed the action items (Attachment 1). 

OLD BUSINESS
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 2

FINAL Minutes of June 22-23, 2009, Meeting

Norm expressed concern about several reporting requirements that he feels are really program 

requirements, both for the Annual Report to Congress from the Secretary and the Five Year Review of the 

Operating Criteria. He feels fairly significant review processes haven’t been done and in particular the 

Annual Report to Congress. Since it’s an open report, he feels there should be periodic updates given to the 

TWG. Norm was concerned with four specific reports: 1) FY09-10 GCPA Annual Plan of Operations for 

GCD; 2) the FY09-10 GCPA Annual Reports to Congress, including the operations and allocation of costs 

reports; 3) Five-Year review of the Operating Criteria for GCD; and 4) Monthly Volume Update and 

specifically how are yearly projections and monthly determinations made. Norm wants these kept on the 

action item tracking report so Reclamation provides regular updates to the TWG. Shane said he feels 

Reclamation should provide updates on these reports at each meeting.

Leslie James said a determination should be made on which are program reports and which are not. Shane 

said the group would refine what is necessary for each meeting. Norm said he wanted to have a discussion 

about recommendations on monthly volumes as far as the hydrograph and recommendations made to the 

Secretary for the Annual Operating Plan. Shane opted to hold further discussion until Reclamation (Dennis

Kubly) was present.

NEW BUSINESS:

Update on Litigation. This was delayed until Dennis was present.

Arizona Sport Fish Consultation. Glen Knowles said the FWS is in the midst of an inter-service 

consultation. Their Division of Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program provides Federal aid to the State 

of Arizona to support its sport fish stocking program. They’re in the process of doing a Section 7 

consultation on the effects of the issuance of that money to AGFD to support that program and the effects of 

stocking sport fish throughout the state on listed species. The one-year consultation is almost finished so it 

would cover all the activities of the AGFD for one year. They’re also doing a 10-year consultation so beyond 

the one-year time frame they’re currently dealing with they would also consider the effects of stocking over 

a 10-year period. They hope to have that consultation completed by the end of this year or early next year. 

The Division of Wildlife and Sport Fish Consultation is also conducting NEPA on this action. They 

completed scoping earlier this year but haven’t completed the scoping report yet. They will prepare a NEPA 

document but aren’t sure whether it will be an EA or an EIS. 

Economics Valuation Study/Economics Workshop. Shane said the idea of this workshop came from the last 

AMWG meeting. Norm provided a white paper entitled, “Economic Values of National Park System Resources 

Within the Lower Colorado River Basin: A Compilation of Existing Data and Proposal for Future Work” (Attachment 2) 

and Helen will be responsible for setting up the workshop. Helen said the workshop would be set up in 

conjunction with the core monitoring review so they’ll be looking at later this summer for that review. 

GCMRC would bring a strawman proposal to the TWG for a broader discussion and use the workshop as 

basis for defining the scope of a project to pursue in the future. She said there might also be the potential to 

get some outside funding to get an actual study started. 

ACTION ITEM: Helen Fairley will keep the TWG apprised of the Economics Valuation Study/Economics 

Workshop details.

TWG Meeting Materials. Rick Johnson emphasized the need for the meeting materials to be sent out ten 

days in advance of the meeting in accordance with the TWG Operating Procedures. He also said the OP 

state “if materials are not provided in advance of the meeting, action on this topic may be delayed at the 

chairperson’ discretion.” He expressed frustration in not being adequately prepared for the TWG meetings 

when the materials aren’t available in advance. Shane said all the materials go through Reclamation staff so 

it’s a critical component but unfortunately people were still working on some items for this meeting past a 

set deadline. Linda said one of the problems they had was getting resolutions from the BAHG via 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 3

FINAL Minutes of June 22-23, 2009, Meeting

conference calls. She admitted that Reclamation, GCMRC, and the TWG chair need to complete the 

agenda well in advance of the meeting and then work to get the reports ready for the TWG to review. Shane 

said he feels it’s hard to make the 10-day commitment but he will continue to push for that. He intends to 

talk with Tom Ryan, Dennis, and Linda after the meeting on how to make the process work more efficiently. 

Amy said using a facilitator should be considered in helping the process. 

ACTION ITEM: A greater effort will be made to distribute meeting materials to the TWG within the 10-day 

deadline and no action will be taken on agenda items if the materials aren’t delivered on time.

TWG Ad Hoc Group Cleanup (Attachment 3a = AIF). Shane said this item has been on several TWG 

agendas but never dealt with. He referred to a PPT Kurt Dongoske had prepared toward this effort and also 

a complete list prepared by Linda with multiple ad hoc groups. Shane proposed disbanding all the ad hoc 

groups and starting fresh with a new ad hoc group list, their charges, members, and chairs. He said the 

Budget AHG and the Cultural Resources AHG should be standing ad hoc groups. The HBC AHG would be 

retained and a new Species of Concern AHG would be developed as well as a Geomorphological Model 

AHG. He proposed the TWG consider adding a Fish Implementation AHG because he feels that over the 

next year while GCMRC works to implement the PEP recommendations, the new ad hoc group could work 

with GCMRC on those recommendations and help bring forward a workplan for FY11 that integrates all the 

PEP recommendations. He reviewed the charges for the ad hoc groups (Attachment 3b). 

Concerns:

• Ad hoc groups need to complete reviews on time-sensitive issues and report back to the TWG by the due date. 

• Time frames need to be clarified and reports should be given to the TWG at least six months ahead of time.

• Ad hoc groups should be kept to a minimum.

• Need clear guidance on Cultural Resources AHG as it’s been switching with the PA.

• Those individuals involved in litigation issues should remove themselves from specific ad hoc groups.

ACTION ITEM: TWG members interested in chairing the HBC AHG (replacing Glen Knowles) should let 

Shane or Linda know. Also, any members who wish to be added or removed from the current ad hoc groups 

should let Shane or Linda know as well.

GCMRC Presentation

Paul Grams gave a PPT presentation on “Sandbar Evolution: Extending the Historical Perspective” 

(Attachment 4). He provided the following conclusions:

• Extending the sandbar monitoring data series back to 1984 would provide valuable perspective on 

present sandbar condition relative to condition following first and largest of the post-dam floods

• Implementing project requires cooperator assistance to develop methods and train staff

• GCMRC has placed project on deferred list to be implemented when funding is available

Bill Davis expressed concern in that they went through quite a process in the DFC to come up with some 

idea of how to measure sediment and he sees this as an end-run around that process. There were two 

proposals submitted to the DFC to come up with a measurement for sediment and this is the Park Service 

proposal to use 1984 as the reference point for trying to establish a number for sediment sandbar volume in 

the canyon. He doesn’t think it’s a legitimate way to go about it and a separate proposal was submitted. He 

referred to the slide on Jackass Camp which shows that in 1984 they were looking at an artifact of the predam sand volume in the river and when the floods came, those artifacts or residual amounts of sand that 

were left in the river were then deposited up on the shore. Since that time and because the sand volumes 

aren’t coming down the river, 90% of it now being retained behind the dam, there is a systematic loss of 

sediment in the canyon. The river is trying to come up to some stable level based on what it can sustain. He 

feels that using 1984 as the basis by which to establish sandbar levels in the canyon is really incorrect. It’s a 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 4

FINAL Minutes of June 22-23, 2009, Meeting

DFC question, not a budget question at this point and he doesn’t feel they should proceeding further until 

they establish what kind of number they’re looking for.

Larry Stevens believes that each of the flow years has effects that are a little questionable and if there is 

some way in this proposal to get at the question of what happened in 1983 vs. 1984, he felt it would be very 

important because those were two very different years.

Status Report on Cultural Monitoring and Archaeological Field Site Work. Shane said the intent of this 

presentation was to get an update on the monitoring program as one component of the whole cultural 

program. He said the permitting for this work was denied in FY09 and he had requested from Reclamation 

to get the letter from the Park Service describing the permit denial, but they haven’t gotten back to him yet. 

He also talked with John Hamill about that as well. He said part of the purpose of this is to better understand

the program, how to get past the permitting issue, determining if some field work will be done, and finally 

how to get the program back on track. Helen Fairley distributed copies of her PPT presentation, “Report on 

Current Status and Phase I Results of the Cultural Monitoring R&D Project” (Attachment 5a) and the NPS 

letter from Martha Hahn dated May 18, 2009, (Attachment 5b) not approving the FY07-11 Archeological 

Site Monitoring Research and Development project . She said the permitting and Section 106 compliance 

monitoring issues remain unresolved. 

Fish PEP Review, Recommendations & Proposed Workplan. Dr. Michael Bradford distributed copies of the 

“GCMRC Fish Monitoring Program – Protocol Evaluation Panel, A Draft Summary of Recommendations” 

(Attachment 6a) and the “Responses to Monitoring Questions for the PEP (Attachment 6b) and then gave 

a PPT presentation, “2009 Fish PEP Panel” (Attachment 6c). He offered recommendations for Lee’s 

Ferry, LCR HBC, and the mainstem of the Colorado River and concluded with the PEP observations: 1) 

good coverage of trout and common non-native species with randomized AGFD surveys, 2) currently no 

monitoring program for other non-native species nor mainstem natives, 3) recent studies indicate trammel 

nets may be acceptable for mainstem HBC sampling, and 4) there is a need for new non-native and 

mainstem native fish sampling program. 

Mark questioned the statement on page 5, #2.5 which reads, “It was suggested that monitoring of HBC 

subjects 65-80% of all fish in the population to handling ...” and said he had never heard that statistic 

before. Dr. Bradford said that in one of Lew Coggins’ papers there is a plot of the number of proportion of 

the stock that is tagged over time which they think has gone down recently. Shane said this is an issue that 

needs to get resolved through the implementation process to better understand the handling and integrate 

that with how often tagging is done.

2010-11 AMP Fish Monitoring: Incorporating Protocol Review. Dr. Andersen gave a PPT presentation 

(Attachment 6d). In conclusion, the FY10 analyses would include: 1) fish cooperators (USGS, USFWS, 

AGFD) reviewing fish capture data, 2) a meeting to review results in January 2010, and 3) have the Science 

Advisors on the FY11 projects. 

Bill Davis said that since Shinumo Creek is now a new site, he asked if all the new translocation sites are 

now going to become part of the AMP budget. If so, then the group needs to think this through. Matthew 

said that the Shinumo translocation was supported by the collection of fish in 2008 so there was a single 

AMP funded project to collect young HBC near the mouth. Some were moved above Chute Falls and some 

were taken to a hatchery and grown out and then translocated to Shinumo this year. The translocation into 

Shinumo was not supported by AMP funds. 

Bill also expressed concerns about mark recapture estimates with Region 6 as they had some questions 

about the AMP process. In going back from 2 to 1, he asked if they were in agreement with that as he 

thought they wanted two mark recapture estimates a year. Matthew said that shortly after he joined 

GCMRC, Region 6 had asked for a concurrent estimate because they weren’t convinced that ASMR was 

giving consistent results so they did try to deploy a lot of mark recapture efforts both in the LCR and the 

mainstem at approximately the same time. The results and the review of the ASMR was presented to 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 5

FINAL Minutes of June 22-23, 2009, Meeting

Region 6, especially to Tom Czapla, and were very well supported. Bill asked if the PEP panel would need 

to be consulted to see if they’re in agreement with this. Shane added there is a requirement in the biological 

opinion that part of our ability is to have those population estimates every year so a question for FWS is if 

the program decides to go to every 2, 3, 4 years, etc., for the ASMR, by doing the annual estimates from the 

closed population mark recapture trips, would that suffice to meet our requirements for the biological 

opinion. Shane said this may be resolved when they reconsult. Bill questioned that there are two regions 

involved. Glen said they would certainly coordinate with Region 6 and won’t change anything in the 

monitoring program unless it’s acceptable to Region 6.

Shane asked if there was desire to form an ad hoc group so they would be able to provide comments in 

January. He said GCMRC will hold its annual reporting meeting and based on results from that, a 

determination could be made on the need and charge for an ad hoc group. There was little support for an 

ad hoc at this time.

Summary of 2009 Mechanical Removal Project. Andy Makinster said they’ve only been back off the river for 

two weeks so it will take some time to analyze the data and put it in a format presentable to the TWG. He 

said the electrofishing catch rates were really fairly similar to those seen in 2000 and 2001. 

Shane asked how the group could compare what his population estimate was this year to historical 

population estimates made by Lew Coggins. Matthew said that those are the kind of initial analyses that 

Andy was talking about doing so that information isn’t available yet. However, Andy said the removal 

numbers were similar to those done in February 2003. 

Mark said he was interested in how many humpback chubs were caught, how many were caught more than 

once, and if Andy thought there were any that might have been injured or killed by the electroshocking. He 

also wanted to know more information on how the electroshocking equipment is set up, if it is more selective 

depending on the settings for size of fish, etc., and what they are doing to minimize any negative effect on 

humpback chubs that may have been caught. Andy said they thought more humpback chubs had been 

caught on this trip than had previously been seen in previous removal trips.

Shane said he would like to have a more thorough analysis of the results at the next TWG meeting if Andy 

could answer Mark’s concerns and other questions from the members. 

 

FY2010-11 Budget and Workplan Development. (Attachment 7a = AIF and GCDAMP Preliminary 

Biennial Draft Budget for FY2010-11). Shane said that since there wasn’t time for questions following 

Helen’s presentation, time would be set aside when the cultural portion of the budget is discussed. 

AMWG Recommendation and follow-up. Shane said the AMWG responded to the TWG motion and 

provided a recommendation back to the TWG. The BAHG followed up with that and responded to each of 

those issues as did GCMRC (Attachment 7b). Shane suggested going through the BAHG report first and 

discussing the individual items. He said some of the issues are still not resolved and the TWG would need 

to work through those in order to get to a budget motion. Dennis said the question might be asked whether 

or not the TWG is willing to restrict their thoughts and discussion to those parts of the budget that the 

AMWG directed them or are there other elements of the budget and workplan they have questions or issues 

about. He said that gets to the subset of the budget and workplan elements. Cliff said he felt it would be 

better to start with the BAHG report and discuss how the BAHG and GCMRC responded to the AMWG 

questions.

Reclamation Budget. Dennis said Reclamation made only one change from the previous version of the 

budget which was to remove the funding for mechanical removal based on the AMWG’s direction (#2 in 

their motion) and move it back to line 74. Reclamation removed the $141,000 from above the line but 

everything else stayed the same. He said there were a couple of questions on the treatment plan and the 

monitoring of the tribal resource monitoring that he would try and answer in lieu of Mike Berry’s absence.
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 6

FINAL Minutes of June 22-23, 2009, Meeting

Shane said that he thought the major change was that Mike had identified $75K appropriated funds that will 

be moved into the tribal monitoring line item to allow for some monitoring of cultural sites in FY10-11, but if 

that funding fell through, he would then take that money out of the $500K for the treatment plan and fund it 

that way so there would be less money for excavations and field work.

GCMRC Budget and Proposed Resolutions. John Hamill distributed copies of his PPT, “GCMRC’s 

FY2010-11 Biennial Work Plan for the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (Attachment 

7c). They assumed CPI at 0% in FY2010 and 3% in FY2011. He said there is about $1,244,064 in FY09 

anticipated carryover funds which will be used in FY2010. They received the funding for the nearshore 

ecology study (Attachment 7d) that will be implemented in FY10. Another big carryover was in the cultural 

program. Because they were unable to get into the field to perform that work, there is almost $300K 

anticipated from that project. They had established a contingency fund to support the systemwide overflight 

that was done in May and there were some proposals to use those funds both for analysis and additional 

data acquisition using water penetrating LIDAR, but those didn’t come to fruition so that fund is still available 

for use in FY10. There was also about $66K projected for carryover from the HFE to go into Synthesis of 

Knowledge that is associated with the high flow experiments in 1996, 2004, and 2008. 

Dennis Kubly said one of the big questions for the BAHG was whether or not the Experimental Flow Fund

(EFF) and the non-native contingency fund will be used in advance rather than carried over for future use.

He asked if the TWG could consider a deliberation over whether to use the carryover money or the EFF. 

John said he sees it as all the same money in that there is a budget of $10.9 million so if money is taken out 

of carryover and they decide to free up experimental flow funds, something is going to have to drop out. He 

said the money is all allocated by the FY10 proposed budget. Dennis asked if before he used the EFF 

whether GCMRC considered using carryover money as opposed to using EFF and contingency fund 

dollars. John said they looked at the preliminary budget and the recommendations from the AMWG that the 

experimental non-native fish removal should go back into the GCMRC budget and funded as an 

experimental project. John made the decision that as an experimental project, like in 2003 when it was 

previously implemented, that it was reasonable to use experimental funds. He said that if they hadn’t used 

the EFF, they would have had to find another $258K worth of projects to cut out of their budget. 

John said one of the issues raised in the BAHG report was that GCMRC was proposing to use quite a bit of 

money from the EFF. He distributed copies of a table (Attachment 7e) depicting the status of the EFF for 

FY2008-12.They started out with $926,500 in FY08 and have pretty much spent all that. He went through 

the remaining years. There is an understanding that in the years a HFE is done, the channel mapping 

project which is priced at about $400K/year would be suspended, so that money could be used to support 

experimental work.

Q: John, you said USGS is still providing $1 million of overhead money and I don’t see that in the budget. I see $647K. 

I don’t see the line item in the program funding portion. (Henderson)

A: It is not shown here as a line item because it’s captured in the reduced rate showing 21% rather than 36% or 42% 

overhead. Actually for FY09 the USGS contributed a $1.3 million rather than just $1 million. It varies based on the 

money we receive from power revenues, the more we have to cost share to reduce the burden. (McKenzie)

Q: What is on line 216? (Henderson)

A: I think that is the Lake Powell funding and the nearshore ecology appropriated dollars. (McKenzie)

Q: Do you have carryover on your side that is building up beyond that? (Kubly)

A: We carried over $66K of EFF from FY09 to FY10 and we’re proposing that those funds be used for the HFE 

synthesis in FY10. Essentially we’ve depleted the entire EFF by the end of FY09 with the exception of $66K which was 

carried over. (Hamill)

Proposed Draft Budget Motion. Shane read a proposed draft budget motion for the TWG to consider when 

they get through their final budget deliberations tomorrow: The TWG approves the FY2010-11 Draft 

Budget, Work Plan, and Hydrograph and recommends it be forwarded to the AMWG for further 

action. 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 7

FINAL Minutes of June 22-23, 2009, Meeting

BAHG Report. Dennis said he would briefly discuss the BAHG Report (Attachment 7f) and then use the 

remaining time to discuss some of the more controversial issues. Shane said he would like to take the 

issues as they come up rather than go through the entire budget report.

Concerns:

1. Hydrograph in Figure 1. Matt said it shows 14K-23K fluctuations projected in the summer and he feels 

that’s a pretty substantial significant change over what we’ve been experiencing for the last four years or so. 

After some discussion, it was decided that this concern could be pursued in the BAHG report.

2a. Moving the non-native mechanical removal program back under GCMRC. Shane said the group needs 

to determine if they’re going to do one trip or two trips. The workplan currently shows two trips. 

2b. Whether to use the funding from Experimental Flow Fund for that. Shane said there isn’t a clear 

definition of what the EFF is to be used for. Mary said she recalls Randy Peterson saying that the EFF 

started at $300K a year and then went up to $500K and it was to fund High Flow Experiments or BHBFs at 

the time.

Public Comments: None

Final issues discussed:

Pueblo of Zuni on Mechanical Removal. Kurt said the Pueblo of Zuni would prefer to see the mechanical 

removal project, both trips, not done because of their objection to the taking of life in the location where the 

removal takes place. They want to see the money reallocated to other more useful programs. 

Remaining Funds from 2008 LSSF. Dennis said he had a concern about the $58K to be spent on redds and 

early life stages. He said it doesn’t follow what the PEP recommended but he understands what Matt says 

in that it’s about the experimental flows. He asked if they learned anything from the 2008 low steady flows 

that gave an indication of whether that is money well spent.

Preparation for Budget Discussion. Shane said that last time in order to get to a budget recommendation 

they voted on each individual line item issue. He feels the TWG is going to be back there again. He knows 

people have different concerns but feels that they will have to walk through each of the issues and then 

have a hand vote whether to include it in a final recommendation. Once a full list is generated, then the 

TWG will vote on a final motion. John advised that if the group decides not to fund one project, then they 

need to tell GCMRC where to use the money.

Adjourned: 5 p.m.
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 8

FINAL Minutes of June 22-23, 2009, Meeting

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Meeting

June 22-23, 2009

Conducting: Shane Capron, Chairperson June 23, 2009

Convened: 8:05 a.m.

Committee Members/Alternates Present:

Mary Barger, WAPA

Cliff Barrett, UAMPS

Chris Harris, Colo. River Board of Calif.

Kerry Christensen, Hualapai Tribe

William Davis, CREDA

Norm Henderson, NPS/GCNRA

Amy Heuslein, BIA

Rick Johnson, Grand Canyon Trust

Matt Kaplinski, GCRG (alternate)

Glen Knowles, USFWS

Dennis Kubly, USBR

Steve Mietz, NPS/GRNP

Don Ostler, UCRC

Clayton Palmer, WAPA (alternate)

Bill Persons, AGFD

D. Randolph Seaholm, CWCB

Mark Steffen, Federation of Fly Fishers

Larry Stevens, GCRG

Jason Thiriot, Colo. River Comm./NV

Bill Werner, ADWR

Michael Yeatts, the Hopi Tribe

Committee Members Absent:

Charley Bulletts, Southern Paiute Consortium

Jay Groseclose, NM Interstate Stream Comm.

Robert King, UDWR

John O’Brien, GCRG

John Shields, WY State Engineer

Interested Persons:

Matthew Andersen, GCRMC/USGS

Glenn Bennett, USGS/GCMRC

Chris Cantrell, AGFD

Jen Dierker, NPS/GRCA

Kurt Dongoske, Pueblo of Zuni

Helen Fairley, USGS/GCMRC

Dave Garrett, Science Advisors

Pamela Garrrett, M3

Research

Paul Grams, USGS/GCMRC

John Hamill, USGS/GCMRC

Leslie James, CREDA

Jeri Ledbetter, Grand Canyon River Guides

Lindia Liu, Colo. River Board of California

Andy Makinster, AGFD

Barbara McKenzie, USGS/GCMRC

Emily Omana, Grand Canyon Wildlands Council

Jane Rodgers, NPS

Tim Steffen, Federation of Flyfishers

David VanHaverbeke, USFWS 

Meeting Recorder: Linda Whetton, USBR

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Welcome and Administrative. The Chairman welcomed the TWG members, alternates, and interested 

persons. Attendance sheets were distributed. Shane said he really enjoys being the TWG chair and 

appreciates the passion that people have for their resources. On the budget, he thought there were 

probably only a few things that the group didn’t agree on. He said he would like to take over where Dennis 

left off and let Dennis represent Reclamation and not as the BAHG chair. He said most of the issues have 

been debated and felt it was time for people to make their concerns known. He said he would like to put the 

motion on the table with a second and then consider amendments to the motion. 

Motion (Proposed by Randy Seaholm and seconded by Bill Werner): The TWG approves the FY2010-

11 Draft Budget, Work Plan, and Hydrograph and recommends it be forwarded to the AMWG with the 

following changes:

Using the BAHG Report, the following items were discussed:
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 9

FINAL Minutes of June 22-23, 2009, Meeting

Item #1

Norm said that GCMRC brought 3 options for a HFE plan and that those should be included. Norm said he 

would like to go with Option 3 because there will still be fall steady flows and developing an HFE and 

incorporate a BHBF.

Cliff said that somewhere in the budget GCMRC must’ve put money in the budget and accept #1 and then 

talk more about it as we get into the budget.

Mark said he had a problem with the hydrograph displayed in the plan. If it turns out to be like that, it will 

have some negative consequences and another example of a badly designed experiment. He couldn’t 

support the hydrograph as it was shown in the budget plan. 

Amendment to Motion (proposed by Norm Henderson, seconded by Steve Mietz): Consider in FY2011

equalized monthly volumes and study the effects, both economically and the effects on resources including 

hydropower. 

Randy spoke against the amendment stating the direction from the AMWG was to proceed in 2010 for 

MLFF and an experimental off-the-shelf HFE in 2011. He didn’t feel this was the right place to hash out the 

guidance given from the AMWG and identified in the AOP process.

Norm asked if people really understood the concept and Shane wondered if a presentation needs to be 

made at a future meeting and consider the implications. 

John stated that what Norm proposed would require a fairly significant undertaking to look at all the 

environmental effects and right now GCMRC doesn’t have the resources or the time to do it.

Proposed Amendment (by Norm Henderson, seconded by Steve Mietz) In FY2010, consider 

implementation equalized monthly volumes and study the effects, both economically and the effects on 

resources including hydropower. 

Yes = 5 No = 11 Abstain = 4

Amendment fails.

Item #2

The discussion moved to consideration of the non-native removal efforts in the LCR reach. Shane said the 

funding currently includes two electrofishing trips. Matt said that after hearing the PEP review yesterday, the 

only argument against two trips would be the additional handling of the fish. By doing only one trip it would 

reduce the amount of handling of fish in the spring and fall and reduce the number of electrofishing passes.

Larry said if the trout numbers do rise, that may trigger a removal trip but he felt it would be wise to get the 

results from the last trip before making a decision. Dennis concurred and said the substantive and technical 

basis for determining the recommended number of trips needs to be included in the TWG’s decision. John 

reminded the members that if it’s not in the budget, the work won’t be done. Matthew added that the last 

time this was discussed with the TWG, they only wanted two trips. Shane reminded the group that there 

isn’t a science plan for a non-native removal project. 

Other concerns expressed: 

• There is going to be a problem with crossing over into management activity. Need to keep a 

demarcation between science and management actions. (Garrett)

• Need for a non-native removal plan. (Capron)

• Haven’t seen any direct data that there is a correlation between trout removal and positive effects on 

humpback chub. Changing the location would lessen the effect on cultural properties important to 

Zuni. (Dongoske)
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 10

FINAL Minutes of June 22-23, 2009, Meeting

• The conservation measures are quite broad and I like the current development of having GCMRC 

come to our next meeting. (Knowles)

• Strongly oppose killing anything in the Grand Canyon. The Zunis and Hopis have sacred concerns 

and we need to consider those. (Steffen) 

Mary asked how much money is available in the budgets for 2010 and 2011 for non-native removals. John 

said there is around $300K for non-native fish removal and they would have to cut $400K from the budget. 

He advised that if they agreed with Dennis, they would be looking at cutting $450K from the budget. 

Steve Mietz said he feels GCMRC should find the money within their science budget either through cutting 

specific projects or an across the board cut to fund nonnative mechanical removal in FY2010-11. 

Dennis said at the last AMWG meeting there was a total of $2.3 million in carryover and an underfunding in 

FY09. In FY09 they had a planned 3% CPI increase, but it ended up at 4.9%. This year they are using a 0% 

CPI projection for FY 2010. FY 2009 ended up being1.9% more than what they had anticipated in their 

budget. He said in this budget there is $1.22 million of carryover, some of which is dedicated for specific 

projects. Even with that money, the dollars can’t be found to do what they thought was a management 

action. He suggested offering up $100K a year out of the EFF for mechanical removal. With regard to the 

nonnative contingency fund, that fund was set up with what little money they had from carry forward to 

begin to develop the basis for a warm water nonnative fish control contingency fund. If a warmwater 

nonnative fish problem occurs in FY2012, there could be approximately $200K available. Even though it’s 

not enough to address the issue, it would be a good start for the fund. It is prudent planning to set aside 

money for nonnative control which has been identified as a high priority. There would be no money from the 

nonnative fish contingency fund used for mechanical removal. He said there are other requests by GCMRC 

for the SCORE report and the Knowledge Assessment Workshop that are outside the intended use of the

EFF. He said the SCORE report could be deferred until FY2012 by GCMRC providing the annual reports on 

the status of resources instead and using them and the SCORE report for compliance development for what 

will come after FY2012. The Knowledge Assessment is seen somewhat differently because it really is the 

foundation for what the group knows or doesn’t know about cause and effect between dam operations and 

resource responses. He would like to see the KA Workshop maintained in the present time frame and he

would agree to seek Reclamation funding to supplement what GCMRC has to do to carry that out. 

Shane summarized what Dennis had proposed:

- $100K each year from the EFF for nonnative mechanical removal

- Not allow funding to be removed from the nonnative fish contingency fund

- SCORE report is deferred to FY2012

- Knowledge Assessment Workshop would hopefully be funded by Reclamation’s appropriated funds

Dennis said he perceived the carry forward and the underfunding as providing additional dollars for 

GCMRC. He doesn’t think it’s asking too much of them to go back and look in that funding for how they 

would fund the remainder of the mechanical removal. Matt asked how mechanical removal has been funded 

in the past. Ted said he recalled that in 2002 they were instructed by AMWG to come up with a long-term 

experimental plan which GCMRC did. It was implemented by the Department in December 2002 for 

implementation in 2003-2004. They had a total package in the budget which they had to start funding from 

their accumulated experimental funds which began in 2001 and they started expending in 2003. They didn’t 

implement the high flow experiment of 2004 until technically FY05 so for the first couple of years of the 

experimental period, they were doing so-called R-tells or trout redd studies in the tailwaters with 

experimental winter fluctuations (Jan-Mar) and doing mechanical removal six trips a year. In the first two 

approved years of that plan, they were not doing any high flow tests. They were doing experimental 

fluctuating flows and experimental mechanical removal of trout and other nonnative fish. In the third year of 

what became an extended experimental period (2005), they did the 2004 experimental high flow. Those 

experimental activities, as he recalled, were being paid for out of the EFF as it had been accumulated since 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 11

FINAL Minutes of June 22-23, 2009, Meeting

2001. The experimental era by his estimates ended in 2006 and they haven’t had an experimental plan 

since 2006. However, they did do an HFE in 2008 and paid for that again out of the EFF. 

Amendment 1: (Proposed by Steve Mietz, seconded by Rick Johnson): GCMRC should find money within 

their science budget either through cutting specific projects or an across the board cut to fund nonnative 

mechanical removal in FY2010-11. 

Amendment 2: (proposed by Dennis Kubly, seconded by Larry Stevens): 1) Mechanical Removal funding in 

FY2010-11, $100K will be provided from the Experimental Flow Fund each year. GCMRC will find in its 

budget the funds for the remaining requirement in each year (using as guidance the AMWG priorities 

described in 2004). No funds should be utilized from the Nonnative Fish Contingency Fund (BIO 2. TBD) for 

nonnative fish removal (line 72, BIO 2.R16.10) in FY10-11. The SCORE report will be completed in 2011 

with funding from GCMRC’s budget. The Knowledge Assessment Workshop would be conducted in 2011. 

The funding for that activity will be provided by the Bureau of Reclamation with appropriated funds using as 

guidance the AMWG priorities described in 2004.

Bill Persons said that since mechanical removal is a conservation measure called for in the Biological 

Opinion, he suggested Reclamation pay for it. Shane told him that if he’s suggesting a change to the 

amendment, then he needs to make a recommendation to remove funding to not use AMP dollars to fund 

the nonnative mechanical removal and that Reclamation should find appropriated dollars to fund that work.

John Hamill presented the following table concerning proposed expenditures:

FY10 FY11

Power Revenues 68,842 0

Exp Flow Fund 150,000 309,251

NN Contingency 96,466 0

Total 315,308 309,251

1. Dennis -146,466 -209,251  GCMRC would have to find $

2. Steve -246,466 -309,251  GCMRC would have to cut $

John said he still believes there will be sufficient funds in the EFF to conduct a HFE should one be 

approved under the scenarios they laid out yesterday. 

Steve said he wanted to withdraw his amendment but wants the SCORE report completed per GCMRC’s 

schedule in the amendment proposed by Dennis. Dennis accepted the change. 

Cliff questioned why the SCORE report was mentioned in the amendment because it has nothing to do with 

mechanical removal. He also said that fundamentally a SCORE report shouldn’t be done before the end of 

the 5-year experimental period is completed. He suggested finishing the discussion on mechanical removal 

and talk about the SCORE report and the KA Workshop when they come up in the budget. Dennis accepted 

those changes. 

Bill Persons said he thought GCMRC could use the EFF for 2010 in the short-term but he didn’t know what 

he was trading with so didn’t know if he could support the amendment.

REVISED AMENDMENT 2: (Proposed by Dennis Kubly, seconded by Larry Stevens): 1) Mechanical 

Removal funding in FY2010-11, $100K will be provided from the Experimental Flow Fund each year. 

GCMRC will find in its budget the funds for the remaining requirement in each year (using as guidance the 

AMWG priorities described in 2004). No funds should be utilized from the Nonnative Fish Contingency Fund 

(BIO 2. TBD) for nonnative removal (line 72, BIO 2.R16.10) in FY2010-11. The SCORE report will be 

completed in 2011 with funding from GCMRC’s budget. The Knowledge Assessment Workshop would be 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 12

FINAL Minutes of June 22-23, 2009, Meeting

conducted in 2011. The funding for that activity will be provided by the Bureau of Reclamation with 

appropriated funds using as guidance the AMWG priorities described in 2004.

Voting Results: Yes = 9 No = 9 Abstain = 1

Motion fails.

ACTION ITEM: Item #3. Linda will send an e-mail requesting volunteers for the Geomorphological Model 

AHG.

Item #4a – Shane said this was generally done. 

Item 4b – Shane said it’s been done.

Item 4c – The CRAHG recommended it be restored but there is no funding. Dennis said the BAHG 

anticipates hearing a report from the CRAHG.

Shane said that the $70K for the NPS is not in the budget. He said the Park Service provided a spreadsheet 

(Attachment 7g) to the BAHG of what the $70K paid for but he thought the budget was actually for $111K+. 

Steve said the $111K pointed out that there was a lot more being contributed to the program than just the 

$70K. Shane reiterated that the $70K is not part of the budget and someone would need to make that 

amendment and if passed, the budget would be over by $70K. Steve suggested taking the money from the 

cultural R&D program. Helen said that wasn’t the recommendation of the CRAHG. Mary said there was 

$36K for the checkdam work so that’s the $111K. Shane said he talked with Jan Balsom and the $111K 

didn’t include funding for the checkdam work. 

Kurt said the CRAHG endorsed funding the $70K for NPS participation in the core monitoring for 

development for cultural resources and the $36,500 in 2010 for the checkdam work. He said if Jan doesn’t 

believe it was part of that, then that was news to him. Shane said Jan’s explanation was that they actually 

put some of their own funds in there and it really costs them $111K to do all that work but they’re only 

asking for $70K. The $36,500 is a separate funding issue and Shane said that is more pass through to the 

tribes who would be implementing it. Mary said she thought it was $10K to the tribes and the rest was for 

NPS work in helping with the checkdam.

Helen said the proposal that the Park is asking for funding is not for its direct participation in the cultural 

R&D project, it’s basically for supporting their compliance program and activities related to Section 106 

compliance as they view those to be. In the $36,500 being requested, $10K was dedicated for the Zuni’s 

participation with the checkdam work and the $26,500 was for NPS involvement in that work as well. She 

said it’s not clear with this additional proposal stating they need $111K and what is being covered there.

She said GCMRC was very much in support of having a collaborative relationship in developing the 

protocols and developing a monitoring program for the future that would be integrated and address the 

broader needs of this program in compliance issues, GCPA and NHPA. One of her concerns in that 

proposal is for doing a separate and different type of approach to monitoring that would not be of an 

integrated nature and using different protocols that they haven’t had any involvement in developing so far. 

She feels people need to have a clear idea of what’s being proposed.

Dennis stated there is already $70K from Utah State University for NPS participation, so this is an additional 

$70K. Kurt added that whatever funding USU provides to NPS is a contractual obligation in terms of working 

in the Park in case there are some burial issues, etc., relevant to implementing the data recovery associated 

with the treatment plan. He said by putting in the additional $70K might be more confusing. The treatment 

plan is for $500K and should be left as that. This $70K is important to NPS because they’re integrating with 

GCMRC and perhaps BOR to carry out both Section 110 and Section 106 monitoring of cultural resources 

in the canyon and how that can integrate with the CRMP that’s also looking at monitoring cultural resources. 

He doesn’t want to see a duplication of effort but supports integration between what Helen’s program is 

developing and what the Park is developing under the CRMP. 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 13

FINAL Minutes of June 22-23, 2009, Meeting

Amendment (Proposed by Steve Mietz, seconded by Norm Henderson): Include an additional $70K in the 

budget for NPS participation. The role of this funding is to address coordination aspects of compliance 

activities beyond those specific to the actual data recovery, including monitoring and data management 

integration. The TWG recommends that the funding come from either the Sediment Program or the Quality 

of Water Program. Steve will provide additional information to the TWG by the end of the week. 

Voting Results: Yes = 8 No = 3 Abstain = 9

Amendment passed.

Shane asked if anyone wanted to speak to the checkdam issue. Mike Yeatts said that the checkdam project 

was in the earlier recommendation in the budget. He said the broader issue is when the $500K got devoted 

to data recovery, a number of the other aspects of the cultural compliance kind of disappeared, one of 

which was the checkdam work – trying to stabilize some of the sites so they didn’t need to go into data 

recovery. There were some monitoring issues included in the Park proposal which covered some of that 

and some of the additional tribal work is picking up some of the monitoring needs that disappeared. He said 

the checkdam work got identified as needing funding. He said it was $36,500 for participation with Zuni and 

to do maintenance with Park staff. 

Mary reported that Jonathan Damp had told her the checkdam work needs to be done because sites are 

being lost. If they’re not maintained, then they don’t work. The NPS made a proposal and plan that the 

CRAHG approved. The Zuni has a team that does the checkdam work and has been working with NPS. 

Kurt said the program was started in the early 1990s and the Zuni has a soil conservation program which 

they’re very effective at retarding erosion on the Zuni reservation and they’ve been involved with the Park 

Service. 

Amendment (Steve Mietz, Norm Henderson): Include an additional $36,500 in FY2010-11, in the budget for 

checkdam maintenance as described in the NPS proposal.

Voting Results: Yes = 6 No =11 Abstain = 3

Motion fails.

Point of Order. Steve said the TWG needs to have a process so that when the agenda is vetted through the 

TWG, people are expected to be present. He was moved to later on the agenda and had staff here earlier in 

the day who could’ve answered the TWG’s questions. He feels the TWG needs to address how the 

agendas are set for the meetings so the expertise is present and the TWG can make informed decisions. 

Shane noted it but said there was no one from the Park present at the last BAHG meeting to speak to the 

issue as well so that was partly why it dropped off. 

Item #5 – Shane said a discussion paper on the pros and cons of the two budget proposals was provided to 

the AMWG in their meeting materials.

Item #6a – The said the general agreement from TWG is that GCMRC is proposing these issues as core 

monitoring but they haven’t been approved yet and this was noted in the meeting minutes. Shane will tell 

AMWG that these activities have been identified and will be reviewed over the next two years as part of 

core monitoring.

Item #6b – Shane said there were a number of issues. GCMRC talked about staffing and about providing 

more time for reporting this year. Shane felt those issues were resolved enough to move forward. Mary said 

the TWG and AMWG asked for allocation of staff time for projects from GCMRC. Shane said GCMRC was 

not willing to do that but provided a list of reporting they’re going to do this year to deal with the issue. He 

said some people felt there wasn’t enough effort being applied to writing reports versus just doing footwork 

and research. They’ve reallocated more time in FY10-11 to do more report writing. John said the only thing 

new since the BAHG call was a listing of the specific projects that they were providing analysis and reports 

on. 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 14

FINAL Minutes of June 22-23, 2009, Meeting

Item #6c – Norm said he wanted to propose an amendment to incorporate what GCMRC has agreed to do 

in the workplan and budget. He specifically wanted a line item for the workshop and recognition of any of 

the products from the workshop that would be incorporated into the budget once the workshop is 

completed. He offered the following amendment:

Amendment (Norm Henderson, Steve Mietz): GCMRC should identify and describe in the FY2010-11 

budget and work plan, the need for and the products expected from, the 2009 economic values workshop. 

Once developed, the FY2010-11 budget will be updated to incorporate the recommendations and follow-up 

by the TWG. 

Shane said he felt Norm’s motion was in conflict to the AMWG’s request. Matt said there is capacity in the 

program to do economic analysis so he questioned why GCMRC would be asked to do that work since they 

don’t do economic analyses. There were concerns about the source of funding and Bill Persons said he 

didn’t like the second sentence because he couldn’t adopt findings from a workshop that hasn’t been held. 

The amendment was put to a vote.

Revised Amendment (Norm Henderson, Steve Mietz): GCMRC should identify and describe in the FY2010-

11 budget and work plan, the need for and the products expected from, the 2009 economic values 

workshop. Once developed, the FY2010-11 budget will be updated, subject to availability of funding, to 

incorporate the workshop recommendations. 

Voting Results: Yes = 7 No = 9 Abstain = 4

Amendment failed.

Review of Agenda & Upcoming TWG Items. 

1. Shane proposed the next TWG meeting be held at ADWR on (Tue-Wed) Sept. 29-30. He distributed 

copies of the TWG 1-Year Running Workplan (Attachment 8).

2. Shane said he hasn’t received any input on the Biennial Process White Paper. Since it has to be 

presented to the AMWG, he asked for input from the TWG. 

3. He said the AMWG is expecting updates on Shinumo from Steve Mietz and recovery activity updates 

from Glen Knowles. Regarding the HBC Comprehensive Plan, he said Rick Johnson had raised a serious 

concern that folks hadn’t had time to review it. He proposed the review of the HBC Comprehensive Plan to 

the web conference on July 21. He said the web conference would also focus on non-native control plan 

and the HBC Comprehensive Plan, however, he said they could also discuss the nearshore ecology study. 

John Hamill said he would also like to add an initial discussion on the Fall Steady Flow Science Plan. 

4. He said he wasn’t sure they would get to the GCRMC updates today and the TWG facilitation

(Attachment 9) issue is not a big concern right now.

Dennis expressed concern for items currently on the AMWG agenda that were also part of the TWG agenda 

so he said the AMWG agenda would need to be revised again. Shane said the TWG might want to consider 

having a conference call to discuss the HBC Comprehensive Plan since that’s an item on the AMWG 

agenda. Randy questioned the appropriateness of discussing the Plan until there is some kind of decision 

from the judge relative to the GCT lawsuit. He said the TWG would be trying to answer questions that the 

Service may have to do. Shane said that he sees it as a program document and feels the HBCAHG has 

done a great job in preparing the document. There are some serious policy issues that AMWG has to 

consider but from a technical perspective, Shane said he feels it’s ready to go to the AMWG. Until the 

AMWG tells the TWG not to do something that they’ve asked them to do, he said the TWG should continue 

their work and forward as appropriate. Randy suggested Shane talk with an Interior solicitor and about the 

appropriateness of the document. Dennis said that could be done and added that Glen received some 

advice about his personal participation. He thinks it has to do with the fact that the ad hoc groups are not 

decision-making bodies, they’re recommending bodies. Shane said he would follow up with Dennis and 

Reclamation. He would also set up a conference call for the TWG to discuss the Plan before it goes to the 

AMWG. 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 15

FINAL Minutes of June 22-23, 2009, Meeting

Continuation of Budget Discussion. Shane said they’re up to Item #6d and have the original portion of 

the motion available but it was amended with #1 based on the 70K for the Park Service. All the other 

proposals have failed so far. Norm said he felt it would be important to inform the AMWG on those items 

which failed. Shane said the information would be captured in the meeting minutes but he could also include 

in his report. 

Item #6d. Resolved. This was to provide the explanation for funding for where the nonnative mechanical 

removal funding went. He said there is a response and doesn’t require further discussion.

Item #6e. Resolved. This was a general accounting issue. Shane said that Dennis added in a staff person 

and should have more ability to track some of the funding issues. 

Item 6f: GCMRC should develop an on the shelf HFE science plan for a potential next HFE. John said the 

response provided was generally the synthesis needs to be done, reporting from the 2008 HFE, and then 

move to an HFE plan sometime in FY2011 after development of the SCORE report. Shane said he felt that 

was a little contrary to the 3-tiered proposal that GCMRC made in their presentation. John said the reason 

for that was because it was a major discussion item for the BAHG. Based on the BAHG’s concerns, 

GCMRC prepared the options that he presented yesterday along with their assessment of those options. 

John said there are two primary options for them and getting involved in another off the shelf science plan in 

FY2010 doesn’t make sense to them. They don’t have the results of the 2008 test or the synthesis to rely on 

the development of that plan. The other two options focused on waiting until all the synthesis is completed 

in FY2010 and then develop a plan based on that. He said the major disadvantage is that if there is a major 

sediment input, they wouldn’t be in a position to take advantage. The next option (3) was to develop a 

much-reduced in-scope science plan that would basically replicate what they did in 2008 with some minor 

adjustments and then rely on their existing monitoring programs to assess the effects. 

Norm felt the group should vote on the options. John said the options presented yesterday represented their 

most current thinking about what the choices the TWG has. They don’t favor Option 1 (single off-the-shelf 

plan for a single HFE. They can live with either Option 2 (wait until FY2011) or Option 3 (develop a reduce 

in-scope science plan). John said his thoughts were summarized in his PPT slides. Shane said GCMRC is 

looking for guidance on which approach to take. As such, he sees an amendment needed to the budget. 

Mary said she was in favor of Option 2. Don Ostler said he doesn’t believe the BO allows a HFE until the 

synthesis work is done so he doesn’t think there is the option of doing Option 3 unless they want to be 

inconsistent with the BO. Shane said that BO allows for certain activities to occur and so if another HFE was 

desired, more compliance would be needed (EA or EIS), NEPA compliance, and reconsultation under 

Section 7 because it wasn’t included in the authorized activities. 

Amendment (Proposed by Matt Kaplinski, seconded by Rick Johnson): GCMRC should develop an HFE 

science plan based on GCMRC’s Option 3 as presented to TWG in FY2010. 

Voting Results: Yes = 7 No = 9 Abstain = 3

Dennis (abstaining): There is a missing component of the downstream trout immigration question. I expect 

the FWS would probably ask us to address that and if so that’s going to increase the costs. We’ve never 

specifically addressed that. And if the HFE is going to result in the distribution of those downstream, then it’s 

certainly going to have to be addressed. 

Item #6f Proposed Amendment (Proposed by Mary Barger, seconded by Kerry Christensen): GCMRC 

should develop an HFE science plan in FY 2011 based on GCMRC’s Option 2 as presented to the TWG. 

Voting Results: Yes = 10 No = 3 Abstain = 6

Amendment passed.

Item 6g. Shane said this focused on the historical expenditures issue in the workplan and asked if people 

felt it had been resolved adequately. John said they tried to get the information done for this meeting but are 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 16

FINAL Minutes of June 22-23, 2009, Meeting

still working on it. They plan to present to the AMWG. John said going back and summarizing very precisely 

what was expended in previous years by project is not a simple task. There was never an end of year report 

issued for FY07 so that’s not part of their records and that goes back that AMWG didn’t have a meeting that 

year. John said they could provide a simple summary which would show the progression of expenses. 

Shane asked if that satisfied the group. John said it would be included in the AMWG mailout. 

Item 6h. Shane said this was the implementation of the warm water nonnative control plan efforts in 

FY2011and there is no money in the budget for field work. John said there is $300K that’s going into 

mainstem removal right now and there is always the option of re-prioritizing how that money is used. He 

said that money could be moved into warm water nonnative control. There is also money going into the 

nonnative contingency fund in FY2011 that isn’t accounted for in GCMRC’s budget which is dependent on 

carryover. 

Matthew said there is money in the budget for 2010-11 to have the annual nonnative control plan meeting 

and TWG members to discuss data from the previous year. He said there is also money in the budget to 

pursue the PEP assessment and also the mainstem monitoring to determine whether there are any problem 

species. Dennis said that if the funds are not available and there is a warm water eruption, he assumed they 

would be going back to the FWS for not being in compliance. Dennis said it will be difficult for him to vote for 

the budget because there are no dollars in the FY10-11 budget that Reclamation would be able to use to 

fulfill its conservation measures obligations. He clarified that GCMRC is taking the same position in that this 

is a management action and don’t intend to spend Reclamation’s power revenues for nonnative control but 

rather set aside science dollars for monitoring. He said that leaves the program and Reclamation and FWS 

with a dilemma because funds are not available for that compliance activity should it be needed. He said 

that’s what is in the BAHG response. John said this was a continuing problem with always coming to the 

science program to solve the compliance requirements because eventually there won’t be a science 

program. He feels funding should be sought from other sources especially for warm water nonnative fish 

control. Dennis replied that the problem with not being in compliance with the ESA far surpasses GCMRC’s 

budget problem.

Item 6i. Shane said this focused on natal origins of trout in the LCR Reach. He said there is a commitment 

for a published peer review manuscript in the next couple of years. He asked if there were additional 

comments. Matthew said there are projects being carried out in FY10-11 that will contribute to the data 

presented last fall and they’ve had additional conversations with Carl Walters on how to structure the data 

so they could be crafted into a manuscript. 

Proposed Amendment (Proposed by Dennis Kubly, seconded by ): GCMRC should use the funding ($58K) 

currently used for Lees Ferry redd counts trout early life stage work (BIO 4.M2.10-11), and address the 

natal origin question.

Bill Davis questioned if the PEP made the recommendation. Matthew said the PEP did not favor the early 

life stage work as an element of core monitoring. The reason he has maintained a scaled down version in 

the budget is largely to address the experimental flows. They have seen results from Korman where he was 

able to show a pretty direct correlation to RBT growth to experimental flows so Matthew felt it was one of 

the best tools to use if they are going to quantify fish response to the FSF. Bill said it’s difficult to pick up the 

movement and said they would probably have to use another method to measure in order to answer the 

natal origin question. 

Bill Persons said that AGFD has tried tagging large numbers of fish, small fish when they were stocking. 

From about 1995-1998 all those fish received coded wire tags. They’ve looked at how much they would 

have to tag (small trout) in the Lees Ferry Reach so that they would have a chance of detecting those fish if 

they moved downstream. He said there aren’t enough days in the year with the number of shocking boats 

they have available to tag that many fish. He suggested doing something other than tagging small fish 

because it would not be economical to do that. 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 17

FINAL Minutes of June 22-23, 2009, Meeting

Dennis said he is not addressing a natal origin question but rather he is asking what conditions in Lees 

Ferry promote emigration from the reach to downstream reaches. They should not tag only small fish but all 

size classes because if they didn’t, they wouldn’t know which size classes were emigrating from the Lees 

Ferry reach. 

Bill Davis expressed concern about not identifying the funding source.

Amendment 6i (Proposed by Dennis Kubly, seconded by Norm Henderson): GCMRC should use the 

funding currently used for Lees Ferry redd counts and trout early life stage work (BIO 4.M2.10-11), and 

address the hypothesis that the primary source of trout in Grand Canyon is the Lees Ferry Reach.

Voting Results: Yes = 7 No = 9 Abstain = 4

Motion failed.

REVISED Amendment 6i (Norm Henderson, Bill Davis): GCMRC should include as a work element the 

investigation of the hypothesis that the primary source of trout in Grand Canyon is the Lees Ferry Reach in 

FY2010-11.

Voting Results: Yes = 13 No = 0 Abstain = 5

Motion passed.

Item 6j. Budget General Issues. Shane said the other issues were taken care of but the “burden” rate was 

not. He said GCMRC doesn’t see the utility in disclosing the full burden rate. Clayton said the reason this 

issue was brought up was because some years ago the USGS provided $1 million to the program and had 

quite a bit to say about providing that to the program. However, it became known that the USGS wasn’t 

providing $1 million to the program because it was being eaten up in the burden rate. It became an issue in 

FY07 and he asked at that time that GCMRC identify the dollars used both at GCMRC as indirect costs and 

USGS. He would like to see GCMRC provide the information to the AMP. 

John said USGS uses the $1 million with two burden rates, one is for a preferred customer rate (DOI 

customers) and they offer that rate by taking USGS appropriated funds and buy down their burden rate. 

Normally it would be around 40% and with the preferred customer rate, it’s 20% but they need USGS 

appropriated dollars in order to offer that. Clayton said WAPA charges overhead for non-reimbursable 

projects, then they charge the direct costs (if labor involved) and indirect costs and show them how much is 

charged for each project. He said the reason they do that is so their customers can see what the total cost 

is for a project and can choose whether or not they want the project.

Amendment 6j (Proposed by Clayton Palmer, seconded by Randy Seaholm): GCMRC should disclose the 

total “burden” rate for each line item. 

Voting Results: Yes = 10 No = 6 Abstain = 2

Motion passed.

Motion (Proposed by Mary Barger, Cliff Barrett): The SCORE report should not be carried out in FY2010-11. 

Voting Results: Yes = 5 No = 6 Abstain = 5 

Motion failed.

Discussion on the Knowledge Assessment was rescinded by Rick Johnson.

Motion (Proposed by Steve Mietz, seconded by Rick Johnson): Deferred DASA project (12.D9.10-11) be 

included in the FY2010-11 budget.

Voting Results: Yes = 6 No = 6 Abstain = 5

Motion failed.
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 18

FINAL Minutes of June 22-23, 2009, Meeting

MOTION (Proposed by Randy Seaholm, seconded by Bill Werner: The Technical Work Group approves the 

FY2010-11 Draft Budget, workplan, and hydrograph and recommends it be forwarded to the AMWG for 

further action with the following changes: 

1) Include an additional $70,000 in the budget for NPS participation. The role of this funding is to address 

coordination aspects of compliance activities beyond those specific to the actual data recovery, including 

monitoring and data management integration.

2) GCMRC should develop an HFE science plan in FY2011 based on GCMRC’s Option 2, as presented to 

the TWG.

3) GCMRC should include as a work element the investigation of the hypothesis that the primary source of 

trout in Grand Canyon is the Lees Ferry Reach in FY2010-11.

4) GCMRC should disclose the total “burden” rate for each line item in the budget.

Representative Stakeholder Entity Vote Representative Stakeholder Entity Vote

Bill Persons

Andy Makinster

Arizona Game & Fish Dept. Y Rick Johnson Grand Canyon Trust N

Amy Heuslein Bureau of Indian Affairs A Larry Stevens Gr. Canyons Wildlands Council Y

Dennis Kubly Bureau of Reclamation A Mark Steffen Federation of Fly Fishers N

Mike Yeatts Hopi Tribe A Matt Kaplinski Grand Canyon River Guides N

Kerry Christensen Hualapai Tribe Y Bill Werner State of Arizona Y

Steve Mietz NPS-GRCA N Christopher Harris State of California Y

Norm Henderson NPS-GLNRA N Randy Seaholm State of Colorado Y

Steven Begay Navajo Nation Vacant Jason Thiriot State of Nevada Absent

Jonathan Damp Pueblo of Zuni Vacant Jay Groseclose State of New Mexico Absent

VACANT San Juan Southern Paiute Vacant Robert King State of Utah Absent

Charley Bulletts Southern Paiute Consortium Absent Don Ostler State of Wyoming Y

Glen Knowles U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service A Bill Davis CREDA Y

Mary Barger Western Area Power Admin. Y Cliff Barrett UAMPS Y

Total Yes 10

Total No 5

Total Abstain 4

Total Voting 15

Motion Passes

Public Comments: None

Steve Mietz said he would make the Shinumo Translocation presentation following the meeting. 

Adjourned: 3 p.m. 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 19

FINAL Minutes of June 22-23, 2009, Meeting

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Conference Call

July 1, 2009

Conducting: Shane Capron, Chairperson

Committee Members/Alternates Present:

• Cliff Barrett, UAMPS

• Kerry Christensen, Hualapai Tribe

• William Davis, CREDA

• Amy Heuslein, BIA

• Rick Johnson, Grand Canyon Trust

• Matt Kaplinski, GCRG (alternate)

• Glen Knowles, USFWS

• Steve Mietz, NPS/GRNP

• Don Ostler, UCRC

• Clayton Palmer, WAPA (alternate)

• Bill Persons, AGFD

• Mark Steffen, Federation of Fly Fishers

• Larry Stevens, GCRG

• Jason Thiriot, Colo. River Comm./NV

• Bill Werner, ADWR

• Michael Yeatts, the Hopi Tribe

Other Participants:

Helen Fairley, USGS/GCMRC

Dave Garrett, Science Advisors

Leslie James, CREDA

Tom Ryan, USBR

Sam Spiller, USFWS

Ted Melis, USGS/GCMRC

Shane said there were two issues up for discussion today: 1) the HBC Comprehensive Plan, and 2) Biennial 

Budget Discussion Paper. He thought it would be good to talk about the Comprehensive Plan for an hour 

and then spend 30 minutes on the biennial budget paper. He thanked the HBC AHG and especially Glen 

Knowles for all their hard work on the plan. He feels it’s ready to be moved up to the AMWG. He didn’t 

have a lot of comment about the Plan to get into too much detail. He read the motion passed by the AMWG 

at their March 2005 meeting: 

The AMWG directs the TWG to further develop the humpback chub comprehensive plan, as follows:

1. Describe linkages, sequences, and feedback loops among projects

2. Identify priorities and a timeline for completion of each action within the comprehensive plan.

3. Spell out specific steps and criteria for any actions that would be needed if a crisis occurs 

(e.g., severe population decline).

4. Continue to include active participation by GCMRC staff and any additional expertise.

5. Incorporate comments from the Science Advisors. The TWG will include a response to 

comments document in their final draft.

He asked Dave Garrett to talk about the Science Advisor comments and their responses and whether the 

TWG has been responsive to the AMWG motion. 

Shane drafted the following motion for the TWG’s consideration today: The TWG accepts the HBC 

Comprehensive Plan and forwards it to AMWG for review, comment, and consideration for 

transmission to its Implementation Plan Ad Hoc Group.

Humpback Chub Comprehensive Plan (Attachment 10a). Dr. Garrett thanked Glen and the HBCAHG for 

their work. The SAs saw the plan again in 2007 and had made some comments about tightening things up. 

The document going is only the 2007 document. They felt there were significant improvements but they 

needed some clarity and direction in Goal 2 in separating that from recovery direction. There was a lot of 

talk in those dates and the recovery group got formed. He wasn’t sure where those separations occurred 

and felt those were important. The SAs also felt there was more science needed on refugia and rearing. He 

said the SAs have seen tremendous improvement and feel it is ready to be moved forward to the AMWG. 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 20

FINAL Minutes of June 22-23, 2009, Meeting

Steve asked if the SAs tried to integrate the PEP recommendations. Shane said the recommendations 

could be found in Section 4.3 and that the recommendations would be integrated over the next couple of 

years. He said one recommendation is that the TWG add language that acknowledges the PEP review. 

Shane said he would make that change.

Dave said they didn’t do a formal review of PEP recommendations and asked if Steve had a specific 

concern. Steve asked if the SAs had any substantive comments. Shane said the plan doesn’t get very deep 

into the monitoring program. He felt it would be worth having the SAs do a two-phase approach which would 

be to look at the final PEP and have their comments and when there is a recommendation before the TWG, 

then have the SAs review and let the TWG know of their deliberations.

Steve said the PEP was going to mention focusing on the other aggregations and he felt it should be 

included. Shane suggested adding the wording in Section 4.3. 

Shane said there were two sentences that he felt troubled about and knows people are concerned to move 

the plan forward because of the litigation and USFWS not being able to comment. Section 5.0 (page 34) 

there is a sentence that reads, “this current iteration ... are necessary to conserve HBC in the lower 

Colorado River basin ..” He wants to change that to read, “the ad hoc believes the ... may contribute to the 

conservation of HBC.” He asked how people felt about that. Bill Werner said that “necessary to conserve” 

may not mean that you conserve. Shane said a recovery plan can’t be done and there are specific 

requirements for that. He felt it was necessary to use “conserve” language. It’s language that agencies 

would use in a recovery plan and gets back to Bill’s comment in that the TWG doesn’t know what will be 

done and by softening the language, it makes it a little less strong.

Glen said Shane made an excellent point and concurred with his change. He added there is a great deal of 

learning that needs to be done in finding the best possible strategy. To say that all of these need to be 

implemented is correct. Dam operations is one of the projects and they don’t have a prescription for doing 

that. 

Shane said he had another concern on page 60, appendix b, second paragraph, which reads “... and like 

previous versions to ensure recovery of HBC.” Those are terms that make him uncomfortable because of 

the litigation and language such as “which are likely to contribute to the recovery of HBC.” 

Shane asked if there was consensus in moving the document forward. Matt questioned the wording on 

page 33, section 4.1, the expanding range ... #3 on using dam releases to improve habitat, it appears in 

other parts of the document but doesn’t recognize changes in releases affect habitat for the fish. This came 

up during the hydrograph discussion for 2010. Shane said he thought that was captured in Table 1 and that 

the details can be found on page 63 on how dam operations could be used to mitigate damages. 

Matt suggested a table of contents be added and the background information section could include some 

breakdown sections. Shane said he felt good about incorporating a table of contents but felt uncomfortable 

with putting in subheadings. Bill also suggested doing a doublecheck with the references cited. Shane said 

if he knew of specific ones to let him know. 

Jason said that on page 6 the last sentence of the first real paragraph, the biological opinion be remanded 

by 2008. He thought it should be 2009. Shane concurred.

GCMRC distributed copies of:

1) Open File Report 2009-1075, “Abundance Trends and Status of the Little Colorado River Population 

of Humpback Chub: An Update Considering Data from 1989-2008” (Attachment 10b).

2) Fact Sheet 2009-3035, “Status and Trends of the Grand Canyon Population of Humpback Chub” 

(Attachment 10c).
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 21

FINAL Minutes of June 22-23, 2009, Meeting

3) Fact Sheet 2009-3033, “Status and Trends of Resources Below Glen Canyon Dam Update” 

(Attachment 10d).

Motion (Proposed by Larry Stevens, seconded by Bill Werner): In response to AMWG’s March 2-3, 2005 

motion, the TWG forwards to AMWG the following documents: (a) Comprehensive Plan for the 

Management and Conservation of Humpback Chub (Gila cypha) in the Lower Colorado Basin, (b) 

Science Advisor comments, and (c) responses to the comments by the Humpback Chub Ad Hoc 

Group. TWG has reviewed the plan and finds that it is scientifically and technically credible and 

recommends that AMWG review the plan and forward it to the Implementation Plan Ad Hoc.

Representative Stakeholder Entity Vote Representative Stakeholder Entity Vote

Bill Persons

Andy Makinster

Arizona Game & Fish Dept. Y Rick Johnson Grand Canyon Trust A

Amy Heuslein Bureau of Indian Affairs Y Larry Stevens Gr. Canyons Wildlands Council Y

Dennis Kubly Bureau of Reclamation Absent Mark Steffen Federation of Fly Fishers N

Mike Yeatts Hopi Tribe Y Matt Kaplinski Grand Canyon River Guides Y

Kerry Christensen Hualapai Tribe Y Bill Werner State of Arizona Y

Steve Mietz NPS-GRCA A Christopher Harris State of California Y

Norm Henderson NPS-GLNRA Absent Randy Seaholm State of Colorado Absent

Steven Begay Navajo Nation Vacant Jason Thiriot State of Nevada Y

Jonathan Damp Pueblo of Zuni Vacant Jay Groseclose State of New Mexico Y

VACANT San Juan Southern Paiute Vacant Robert King State of Utah Absent

Charley Bulletts Southern Paiute Consortium Absent Don Ostler State of Wyoming Y

Glen Knowles U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service A Bill Davis CREDA Y

Mary Barger Western Area Power Admin. Y Cliff Barrett UAMPS Y

Total Yes 14

Total No 1

Total Abstain 3

Total Voting 15

Motion Passes

Biennial Budget Discussion Paper. Shane said the paper (Attachment 11) was prepared following 

discussions on a 2-year budget and then the second year would roll out into the following first year. He said 

the AMWG minutes relate to the discussion. The Strategic Plan needs to be updated. The last attachment is 

trying to outline what the other options would be for a biennial budget process. There isn’t a whole lot to 

write on this. He said his perspective is that a 2-year rolling budget is going to put a lot of stress on the 

TWG and AMWG process. In the upper basin it works okay but he’s concerned about locking into a 2-year 

rolling process. He feels the only way out of that is to not do a 2-year rolling budget but take one year off 

where they don’t discuss budget and use that year to work on multiple issues. 

Ted Melis said GCMRC supported the BAHG process conception in 1997 and this idea of a 2-year budget 

was potentially that it could provide more efficiency, but the bigger objective was to have an approved plan 

that might have some budget elements in the out-years and that it was the will of some stakeholders (nonfederal) to do things that is done by the MSCP and go forward with an improved plan. GCMRC’s opinion 

was that it was a sound strategy in the plan and that it would be an approved, recommended plan and 

people could go out for more funding. On a one-year plan they couldn’t do funding for projects. He said 

GCMRC would promote a 2-year budget that hearkened back to that original plan. Ted said that even 

though John supports a 2-year non-rolling budget process, they want something that reduces staff time. If 

this new budget process requires more budget time, then they’re not supportive of that. 

Tom said Dennis would be providing additional information on the budget process to Shane and also 

information about getting appropriations, but he wasn’t sure how that would get shared with the TWG. 

Shane said Dennis did talk about it and recalled that Dennis might make a presentation to the AMWG about 

this and describe what isn’t included in this. 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 22

FINAL Minutes of June 22-23, 2009, Meeting

Motion (Proposed by Bill Werner, seconded by Cliff Barrett): In response to AMWG’s April 29-30, 2009 

motion, the TWG forwards to the AMWG a discussion paper on the pros and cons of two biennial 

budget processes.

Motion passed by consensus.

Adjourned: 10:45 AM

Respectfully submitted,

Linda Whetton

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

Upper Colorado Region

Documents distributed after the meeting:

Attachment 12:Appendix E = FY 10 GCMRC GCDAMP Budget revised June 18, 2009;

FY 11 GCMRC GCDAMP Budget revised June 18, 2009; and

FY 09, 10, 11 GCMRC Summary 

Attachment 13: Letter from Governor Norman J. Cooeyate (Pueblo of Zuni) to Larry Walkoviak, Regional Director, 

Dated June 30, 2009, Subject: Mainstem Nonnative Fish Control (BIO 2.R16.10) for FY 2010 & 2011
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 23

FINAL Minutes of June 22-23, 2009, 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: 02/03/09