Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Meeting 

April 19-20, 2016 

Conducting: Vineetha Kartha, TWG Chair Convened: 8:15 a.m. 

Shane Capron, TWG Vice-Chair 

Committee Members/Alternates Present: 

Melinda Arviso-Ciocco, Navajo Nation Paul Harms, State of New Mexico
 

Cliff Barrett, UAMPS (phone) Brian Healy, NPS/GRCA (phone) 

Charley Bulletts, Southern Paiute Consortium Jessica Neuwerth, State of California
 

Chris Budwig, Int’l Federation of Fly Fishers/TU Ben Reeder, Grand Canyon River Guides
 

Kerry Christensen, Hualapai Tribe Randy Seaholm, State of Colorado
 

Jennifer Crandell, State of Nevada Larry Stevens, Grand Canyon Wildlands Council
 

Kevin Dahl, National Parks Conservation Assn. Bill Stewart, Arizona Game and Fish Department
 

Bill Davis, CREDA Rosemary Sucec, NPS/GLNRA
 

Kurt Dongoske, Pueblo of Zuni Don Ostler, State of Wyoming
 

Craig Ellsworth, WAPA Michael Yeatts, Hopi Tribe 

Katrina Grantz, Bureau of Reclamation Kirk Young, U.S. Fish and Wildllife Service 

Committee Members Absent: 

Jan Balsom, NPS/GRCA Robert King, State of Utah (phone) 

Evelyn Erlandsen, State of Arizona Chip Lewis, Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Chris Harris, State of California Steve Wolff, State of Wyoming 

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center: 

Lucas Bair, Economist Scott VanderKooi, Center Director
 

Helen Fairley, Program Manager David Ward, Scientist
 

Paul Grams, Program Manager (phone) 

Interested Persons 

Mark Anderson, NPS/GLNRA (phone) John Jordan, Int’l Federation of Fly Fishers/TU 

Eric Bobelu, Pueblo of Zuni Nelson Luna, Pueblo of Zuni Fish & Wildlife Dept. 

David Braun, Sound Science LLC (Science Advisors) Lisa Meyer, WAPA (phone) 

Kathleen Callister, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Dr. Sarah Rinkevich, DOI Federal Liaison 

Bill Chada, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Peggy Roefer, UCRC/Nevada 

Marianne Crawford, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Seth Shanahan, SNWA 

Paul Davidson, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Glenn Selby, Navajo Nation DFES 

John Dillon, Grand Canyon River Cameron Staveley, Canyonland Explorations 

Jessica Gwinn, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Gaylord Stavely, Canyoneers Association 

Dawn Hubbs, Hualapai Tribe Gloria Tom, Navajo Nation 

Leslie James, CREDA (phone) T. Kim Yazzie, Navajo Nation DFW 

Meeting Recorder: Linda Whetton 

Welcome and Administrative: Ms. Kartha welcomed the members and the public. Introductions were 

made and a quorum determined. Guidelines for participating in the webinar were reviewed. 

 Approval of January 28, 2016, Meeting Minutes. Motion to approve proposed by Mr. Kevin Dahl, seconded by 

Mr. Larry Stevens. Approved by consensus. 

 Review of Action Items (Attachment 1) 

 Programmatic Agreement Update – Mr. Chada. There is overall dissatisfaction with language in the PA with 

some parties indicating they won’t accept the PA without revision. BOR has looked a range of alternatives to 

change language for a new draft or start a new draft to have one in place before the LTEMP EIS is finalized. As 

part of Section106, BOR has scheduled a consultation meeting with regulatory agencies and tribes this Friday. 

It will consist of full signatories and those include NPS, Western, and advisory councils. Hopefully the outcome 

will be a unified approach to moving forward to completing the 106 requirements and ensure cultural resources 

compliance. 

	 Current Status of the Lees Ferry Fishery (Attachment 2) – Mr. Stewart. The AZGFD is committed to providing 

updates on a regular basis, but the challenge is making real-time decisions. They’re working with GCNRA on 

how to address the situation. Mr. Budwig added that it’s a very critical situation and the loss of fish (1 million 

down to 200,000) has really impacted the guides at Lees Ferry significantly. Clients have been cancelling their 
            

             

 

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group

Final Minutes of April 19‐20, 2016, Meeting Page 2

fishing trips and it’s no longer a blue ribbon fishery up there. If recovery follows the pattern in the early 2000s, it 

will be a slow recovery process. 

Grand Canyon River Running - (Attachment 3) Mr. Staveley. He discovered the Colorado River in 

1956 and for more than 50 years he has lived and worked inside professional river running. His career 

has seen a period spanning the construction of the dams on the Colorado River system, the explosion of 

whitewater boating as popular adventure travel, and the developing fray over how the water is 

proportioned and for what uses. Before the construction of Glen Canyon Dam he organized and led 

commercial river trips in Glen and Grand Canyons. He talked about things that had occurred before 

creation of the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Programn established, i.e., changes in the 

river’s flow, hydropower agency restructuring, powerplant releases, and concluded with his hope that 

adaptive management and the increased emphasis on research-based rive and dam management will 

lead to a fair balancing of hydropower and recreational interests. His most recent book, “Taking the Big 

Red: The Colorado River-Grand Canyon Water War;” 1970 to 2016, can be purchased online. 

Hydrology & Draft Hydrograph (Attachment 4) – Mr. Davidson. 

	 Snow levels peaked on April 1 and the Upper Basin has been experiencing abnormally warm 

temperatures. Mid-elevation snow is rapidly melting. As of April 14, with 109 of 116 sites reporting, 

the basinwide SWE is 81% of median. 

April – July 2016 Forecast Potential Lake Powell Release Scenarios 

 Apr Most Probable: 5.3 maf (74%) 

 Apr Min Probable: 7.65 maf (54%) 

 Apr Max Probable: 7.65 maf (107%) 

 Average = 7.16 maf (1981-2010) 

 2016 Most Probable Inflow 

WY Unreg Inflow = 8.44 maf (78%) 

Powell Release = 9.0 maf 

 Minimum Inflow Scenario 

WY Inflow = 6.85 (63%) 

Powell Release = 9.0 maf 

 Maximum Inflow Scenario 

WY Inflow – 11.13 maf (103%) 

Powell Release = 9.0 maf 

End of month elevations indicate projected based on April 2016 modeling. Mid = 3,575’ tier, 3,525’ 

Lower, and 3,490’ at minimum pool. As of April 17, elevation at Lake Powell is at 3,591’ and is 45% full. 

Water Year 2017 is a little more problematic and elevation may drop below projected.
 

 Maintenance at GCD. Typically there are 5-7 units available during the water year to meet all 

contractual requirements. For WY2017, there are at least seven turbines for the majority of the year. 

As of 4/18/16, there’s not enough sediment input to trigger a spring 2016 HFE. 

	 Hydrograph Development for 2017. Using the 2016 hydrograph as a starting point, the projections 

for 2017 would be a 1) Most Probable Minimum at 8.23 maf, 2) Most Probable at 9.0 maf, and a 

Probable Maximum at 11.9 maf with projected April shift to equalization. Reclamation will consider 

feedback from the TWG and coordinate with DOI-DOE agencies in developing a hydrograph 

recommendation to be presented at the August AMWG meeting. 

Risk Assessment for Nonnative Fish Escapement Through Glen Canyon Dam (Attachment 5) – 

Mr. Ward. Data from other places and Davis Dam revealed seven repatriated RBS went from Lake 

Mohave to Lake Havasu via Davis Dam. The Francis Style Turbines are well known for letting fish pass 

through them. Glen Canyon Dam has these types of turbines and based on data collected, fish are going 

through GCD as well (walleye, smallmouth bass, channel catfish, striped bass, and green sunfish) based 

on their length and frequency. The depth of the penstocks prevent fish from moving through GCD as 

most fish aren’t at 75+ feet depths. Low water years at Lake Powell may explain when and why they’re 

moving through the dam. When the surface of the lake starts to cool and the temperatures mix, it’s more 

llikely to have fish that get entrained. Limiting factors are spawning, larvae survival which are influenced 

by temperatures. Threats of the fish coming through dam are smallmouth bass because they can eat a 

lot of fish and are on the cooler end of things. The other one of concern is brown trout because they’re 

extremely piscivorous. Walleye like turbid water. The following conclusions were presented: 
            

             

 

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group
 

Final Minutes of April 19‐20, 2016, Meeting
 Page 3

 Interval of drought induced warming may play a critical role in whether or not new species of 

warm water non-native fish establish in Grand Canyon 

 Cold water most of the time – although detrimental to Grand Canyon native fishes, may be the 

best way to conserve them. 

 Annual invasive species monitoring and mechanical removal below the dam may be warranted. 

 Removing areas that are habitat for warm water invasive fishes seems like a good idea 

Review of Science Advisor Program Charter and Protocols (Attachment 6) – Dr. Braun. After 

providing a brief history of the Science Advisor program, Dr. Braun said the Charter and Protocols need 

to be approved by the TWG and then forwarded to the AMWG for their approval. Key steps to updating 

the charter include: reviewing guiding documents, AMWG assessment by Mary Orton, examined other 

RIPs for large multi-institutional AMP programs for large regulated western rivers, consulted with TWG, 

GCMRC, BOR COTR, and solicited input fomr the former EC Science Advisors. There is no longer a 

standing science advisor panel so once he recives a task order from Reclamation, he can get establish a 

panel. He offered three possible modifications: 1) Allow option for establishing year-long or multi-year 

“standing panel” for ongoing/recurring needs, 2) Include a step/process for approval of potential SAs 

after EC identification and ranking, and 3) Include description of a procedure for amending charter and 

protocols in the future. 

Comments: 

 Clarify the Executive Coordinator is David Braun not Sound Science 

 Consider creating a timeframe or flow chart when independent review starts and ends 

 Consider including tribal representatives in SA panel member approval process 

 SA are empowered to hire good advisors. (If you hire crummy, you’ll get crummy work.) 

 Final selection of SA panel members should be reviewed by GCRMC chief 

 If TWG and GCMRC are included in review of panel, then it’s not an independent panel. 

 The wording “Natural cultural resources affected by the dam” and “in coordination with balance and othe 

resource programs” begs some kind of influence in terms of the cultural aspect from the tribes. It’s 

important to say the tribes have that scientific-based approach in terms of cultural resources management. 

It doesn’t stop at only archaeological resources, but it expands to other areas in terms of what is seen in 

the overall reporting, amendments, and recommendations. 

With the revised changes and comments provided, it was decided to table further action until June. 

Abundance of Humpback Chub in the Western Grand Canyon – Mr. Capron. The purpose of this 

item is to follow up on information presented at the AR meeting about new things being seen in the 

Canyon with an eye toward possibly adjusting monitoring efforts and/or changes to the budget and work 

plan. 

 Results from 2015 Seining Efforts (Attachment 7). Mr. Kirk Young. There wasn’t a lot of sampling done in the 

Grand Canyon but illustrates that a much larger proportion of YOY of fish are being seined in Western Grand 

Canyon. In 2014 HBC larvae were found at Diamond Creek down to Columbine Falls. A similar trend was found 

in 2015 so the fish are pretty small (9-10 mm), which correlates to 9 mm fish being about five days old and 10 

mm fish might be 8-11 days old. There’s a lot of uncertainty why those fish are showing up now but it could be 

that fish are reproducing and getting to a critical mass. To better understand the changes, the following could 

be done: 1) revisit use of otolith microchemistry to identify off-channel spawning, 2) use Judas fish – sonictagged HBC released into W GC to determine habitat/geographic use/movement during spawning, or increase 

surveillance of younger fish via seining (planned for 2016). 

Comments: 

 Reclamation, through the MSCP, has about $50K for HBC work that if requested by FWS could purchase sonic 

tags. 

 In the short-term seining trips will be done every year and in the backwaters, if possible. 

 Need some purposeful take for small HBC to look at microchemistry to resolve the question of where fish are 

being born. May want to look at a non-listed species like speckled dace to frame the question before taking a 

lot of chub in the context of the next 3-year budget cycle. 

 There could be some opportunistic or fall spawning occurring based on sizes showing up in October samples 

and other things. 
            

             

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group
 

Final Minutes of April 19‐20, 2016, Meeting
 Page 4

The fifth member for the Fish PEP Panel has been made. GCMRC is looking to convene the panel either 

the last week of July or the first week of August. There will be an opportunity for the TWG and AMWG to 

interact with the panel but probably not for the entire process. A one-day field trip up to Lees Ferry is 

being considered as a means of getting the panel on the river. 

Tribal Reports – Dr. Rinkevich. Some of the AMP tribes are members of the Southwest Tribal Fisheries 

Commission (SWTFC) and she felt it would be informative for the TWG to know about their work. In 

addition there has been interest in the fisheries work being done by the Navajo Nation Fish and Wildlife 

Department and eagle work being done by the Pueblo of Zuni. 

	 Southwest Fisheries Tribal Commission (Attachment 8a) – Dr. Leon. He serves as the executive 

director for the SWTFC and prior to that he was the division chief for the USFWS Fisheries and 

Aquatic Resource Conservation Program in Washington. The SWTFC is a coalition of Tribes, 

Pueblos, and Nations with a strong desire to promote self-determination through the development of 

sustainable recreational and native fisheries programs. It was formed in April 2002 in response to the 

USFWS closing a fundamentally important fish hatchery on the Mescalero Apache Indian 

Reservation in New Mexico. They transferred it fee simple to the Tribe and left nothing there making 

it impossible to raise one fish. Recreational fishing is an economic driver for the tribes in the 

Southwest. The national fish hatcheries produced recreational fish species like RBT and supplied 

them to the tribe, who then in turn promoted recreational fisheries, sold permits, generated a basic 

economy that’s quite unbelievable and allowed them to do other natural resource work and 

participate with partners in the recovery of listed species. When the USFWS walked away from the 

Mescalero fish hatchery, Butch Blazer (now undersecretary of Agriculture in DC and also a 

Mescalero Tribal member) got involved with other dedicated individuals formed the SWTFC to see 

about getting the Masclero fish hatchery back into production. The hatchery produces more fish than 

when the USFWS did when it was there. The SWTFC has had many accomplishments and has 

become an important asset to the tribes in the Southwest. Through the power of youth in 2006, it has 

become a very successful hatchery. 

	 Navajo Nation Fish and Wildlife Department - Ms. Tom, Director of the NNFWD. They’re located in 

Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah with about 18 million acres. Their department has been in existence 

since the 1960s. They have several programs and are the only tribe in the country that owns and 

operates a zoo for native wildlife found on their lands. She introduced Ms. Kim Yazzie, a fish biologist 

who runs the native fish program on the San Juan River, and Mr. Glenn Selby, another fish biologist. 

o	 Ms. Yazzie (Attachment 8b) runs the Navajo Agricultural Products Industry (NAPI) ponds 

and a fish ladder on the San Juan River and is involved in fish monitoring and non-native fish 

removals. The two main objectives of the program are: 1) to conserve Colorado Pikeminnow 

and the Razorback Suckers, and 2) proceed water development. They believe there are a lot 

of fish below Piute Falls and are proposing to put a satellite antenna pit reader there. This and 

other antennas are remotely located and all information is relayed to Utah State University. 

Every fish that comes through the capture basin is hand selected and is counted by either 

herself or another staff member. Last year it was open from April 1 – Oct 30 where all fish are 

counted and released upstream, native fish are weighed and length recorded, endangered 

fish are also scanned, weighed, and released; and non-native fish are measured and checked 

for tags and are permanently removed from the river system. The NAPI Razorback Grow-out 

Ponds are operated by NNDFW and account for approximately 40% of RBS stocking 

annually. They take measurements every day on the NAPI ponds and conduct passive and 

active harvests. NAPI Ponds have the best growth and return rates of RBS. RBS in-river 

survival is best from NAPI Ponds. Approxinately 6,000-8,000 fish are stocked from the NAPI 

ponds into the San Juan River. 

o	 Fisheries Program (Attachment 8c) – Mr. Selby. He’s responsible for the sport fishing and 

native fish management at the Chuska Mountains and Defiance Plateau. The goals for this 

program are: 1) Maintain, manage, and enhance the quality, abundance, availability, and 

diversity of sport fishing opportunities while contributing to the recovery of native fishes; 2) 

Increase public awareness of the Navajo Nation’s sport fishing resources and opportunities; 
            

             

 

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group
 

Final Minutes of April 19‐20, 2016, Meeting
 Page 5

and 3) Aggressively pursue funding adequate to support all Tribal management activities for 

all sport and native fishes and their habitats. Their sport fishing consists of lake sampling, 

stocking, and tribal hatchery operations so fish come from their hatchery as well as Inks Dam 

and Alchesay-Williams Creek. They’re currently stocking eight lakes with fish from the 

NNDFW hatchery and USFWS hatcheries. The NNDFW fish hatchery is located in Toadlena, 

NM, and began operation in 1983. They receive eggs twice a year in March and November 

and stock out twice a year in April and October. Hatchery tours are available and several 

schools and summer youth programs visit annually. 

	 Zuni Eagle Aviary (Attachment 8d) – Mr. Luna, Director for the Zuni Wildlife Department. Since 

emergence from the fourth underworld in the Grand Canyon, Zuni and other Pueblos have 

possessed and used wildlife and their parts in fulfilling their religious and cultural obligations. All 

Native Americans have reverence for both bald eagles and eagles. Zuni has historically conducted 

eagle husbandry practices since time immemorial. In order to obtain these resources they get 

fledgings when they’re getting ready to fledge out of the nest. They’ve always conducted their 

religious and cultural activites using natural resources from eagles other wildlife. They looked at all 

the species to see how they could mitigate this issue expedite the process of obtaining the eagle 

feathers. When the USFWS developed the regulations negating their ability to collect these 

individuals from the wild, they established the National Eagle Repository in Commerce City, 

Colorado, but unfortunately that facility is very limited in its ability to distribute resources to 575 

feather-recognized tribes throughout the United States and further restricts their ability to collect 

resources. It takes a tribal member from 6 months to 6 years for an eagle part. The most highly 

sought after would be the juvenile Golden Eagle with a brown tipped white tail which is only available 

in the first two years of its life. In 1993 the USFWS threatened to come into the village and get those 

eagles that were grandfathered in. To reduce that threat they looked at various options to collect 

feathers through the repository but knew that wasn’t possible because of complications with other 

tribes. They reviewed options and found out there were non-releasable eagles that were being 

euthanized because of injuries from vehicle accidents, electrocution, and various infrastructures. It 

took from 1992 to 1998 to deliver a permitting system allowing Native Americans to possess live 

eagle possession for Indian and religious purposes. Groundbreaking for the Zuni aviary began in 

September 1998 with completion in 1999. They continue to do traditional eagle husbandry and since 

1999 they’ve had 49 eagles transferred and from the United States. 

Public Comment: None 

Adjourned: 4:55 p.m. 
            

             

 

 

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group

Final Minutes of April 19‐20, 2016, Meeting Page 6

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Meeting 

April 19-20, 2016 

Conducting: Vineetha Kartha, TWG Chair 

Shane Capron, TWG Vice-Chair 

Committee Members/Alternates Present: 

Melinda Arviso-Ciocco, Navajo Nation
 

Cliff Barrett, UAMPS (phone) 

Charley Bulletts, Southern Paiute Consortium 

Chris Budwig, Int’l Federation of Fly Fishers/TU
 

Kerry Christensen, Hualapai Tribe
 

Jennifer Crandell, State of Nevada
 

Kevin Dahl, National Parks Conservation Assn.
 

Bill Davis, CREDA 

Kurt Dongoske, Pueblo of Zuni
 

Craig Ellsworth, WAPA 

Katrina Grantz, Bureau of Reclamation
 

Committee Members Absent: 

Jan Balsom, NPS/GRCA
 

Evelyn Erlandsen, State of Arizona
 

Chris Harris, State of California
 

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center: 

Lucas Bair, Economist
 

Helen Fairley, Program Manager 

Paul Grams, Program Manager (phone) 

Interested Persons 

Mark Anderson, NPS/GLNRA (phone) 

Rob Billerbeck, NPS 

Eric Bobelu, Pueblo of Zuni 

David Braun, Sound Science LLC (Science Advisors) 

Kathleen Callister, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

Bill Chada, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

Marianne Crawford, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

Paul Davidson, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

John Dillon, Grand Canyon River 

Jessica Gwinn, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Dawn Hubbs, Hualapai Tribe 

Meeting Recorder: Linda Whetton 

Convened: 8:15 a.m. 

Paul Harms, State of New Mexico 

Jessica Neuwerth, State of California 

Ben Reeder, Grand Canyon River Guides 

Randy Seaholm, State of Colorado 

Larry Stevens, Grand Canyon Wildlands Council 

Bill Stewart, Arizona Game and Fish Department 

Rosemary Sucec, NPS/GLNRA & GCNP 

Don Ostler, State of Wyoming 

Michael Yeatts, Hopi Tribe 

Kirk Young, U.S. Fish and Wildllife Service 

Robert King, State of Utah (phone) 

Chip Lewis, Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Steve Wolff, State of Wyoming 

Scott VanderKooi, Center Director 

David Ward, Scientist 

Leslie James, CREDA (phone) 

John Jordan, Int’l Federation of Fly Fishers/TU 

Nelson Luna, Pueblo of Zuni Fish & Wildlife Dept. 

Lisa Meyer, WAPA (phone) 

Dr. Sarah Rinkevich, DOI Federal Liaison 

Peggy Roefer, UCRC/Nevada 

Seth Shanahan, SNWA 

Glenn Selby, Navajo Nation DFES 

Gloria Tom, Navajo Nation 

T. Kim Yazzie, Navajo Nation DFW 

Welcome and Administrative – Ms. Kartha welcomed the members and the public. Introductions were 

made and a quorum determined. There were two issues carried forward from yesterday:
 

 Science Advisor Charter: 

o	 Hybrid PEP Panel – In talking with several members, it appears people are in favor of a 

hybrid panel. This would be a standing panel that would respond to quick turnaround issues 

but also have the flexibility to hire scientists with specific expertise. 

o	 Comment & Review Body - Most people feel the TWG doesn’t need to be a decision-making 

body but rather a review and comment body. Nobody wants independence taken away from 

the SA. Mr. Christensen said the Hualapai Tribe developed some language regarding tribal 

input into the independent review panels and can introduce that today. 

A redline/strikeout version of the SA Charter will be provided to the TWG for another review. 
            

              

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group

Final Minutes of April 19‐20, 2016, Meeting Page 7

	 Lees Ferry Trout Fishery – Mr. Reeder. There are foodbase problems and within the LTEMP and 

the Alternative D, the bug flows would be a really good thing to do. Ms. James added that CREDA 

is still trying to work with Argonne and the co-leads on out how the bug flows modeling was done. 

In concept, they think bug flows could be potentially very helpful. 

Ad Hoc Group Updates (Attachment 9) 

	 Steering Committee AHG (SCAHG) – Mr. Capron. The committee continues to meet and discuss 

preparation for upcoming TWG- meetings and other issues. 

	 Budget AHG (BAHG) – Mr. Capron. A meeting will be scheduled to help craft a budget 

recommendation for the TWG’s consideration 

	 Trout AHG (TAHG) – Ms. Kartha. The AMWG provided a new charge to the TWG at the last meeting. 

As a refresher, she provided language from the previous charge and the new charge: 

o	 Old charge - The TAHG will evaluate the GCMRC Technical Review of the Lees Ferry Recreational 

Trout Fishery Management Recommendations per the AMWG motion on 8/27/15, and make a 

recommendation to the TWG at our January 2016 meeting. The TWG will consider the 

recommendation and make findings to the AMWG at its February 2016 meeting. 

o	 New Charge - The TAHG will consider the Lees Ferry Trout Fishery Management Recommendations 

and the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center Technical memo with the caveats per the 

AMWG motion on 02/24/2016, as work plans and budgets are being developed and make a 

recommendation to the TWG through the Budget Ad Hoc Group. 

	 Administrative History AHG (AHAHG). 

o	 GCDAMP Wiki Page – Mr. Ellsworth. Links have been added for TWG and AR presentations from 

BOR’s website. He demonstrated how to access specific information and would like to include more 

101 training courses. 

o	 Administrative History AHG Contract – Ms. Crawford. It’s been difficult to get a contract through BOR’s 

acquisitions process so she’s pursing a contract through the Colorado Plateau CESU (Cooperative 

Ecosystem Study Unit). By using this mechanism, a sole source cooperative agreement can be set up 

with a university individual. The overhead would be much lower at 17% versus 26%. Several years 

ago there was a presentation given by Paul Hurt and Mark Tibo (Arizona State Univeristy) and both of 

these individuals are with the CESU. They should be able to provide a scope of work which will speed 

up the contracting process. 

o	 Cultural Resources AHG (CRAHG) – Mr. Dongoske. No assignments were given from the TWG so no 

updates to report. If the TWG wants the CRAHG to review and comment on the FY17 TWP, that 

assignment needs to be made to them. Responding to a question as to what role the CRAHG will play 

in the revision of the PA, Ms. Grantz said the PA is coming out of the LTEMP and the Section 106 

Compliance needs to be competed as part of the LTEMP process; the CRAHG would then work on 

how to implement the PA. Since most of the people on the CRAHG will be representing their respective 

stakeholders in negotiating the language of the PA., Mr. Dongoske felt this could be a conflict of 

interest because they’re not really representing the TWG. Ms. James said the CRAHG has historically 

given input to the BAHG but don’t think the CRAHG has had involvement directly with the PA. Mr. 

Capron asked if there were any objections to asking the CRAHG to review the FY17 budget and 

provide input to the BAHG. No objections were noted. In following up on whether the CRAHG would 

provide input into the PEP review, Mr. Dongoske said it’s appropriate for the CRAHG to comment on 

the review and then make a recommendation to the TWG about that review. Ms. Grantzsaid if the PA 

doesn’t get signed, BOR still has a legal obligation to complete the Section 106 process with or without 

a PA and that will be done by the LTEMP Record of Decision is signed. 

	 Socioeconomics AHG (SEAHG) – Mr. Bair. 

o	 GCMRC Workplan – Information that was presented at the AR meeting on recreation research 

associated with creel data and a model that he and the cooperators had prepared is currently in review 

for publication. There are also associated recreational surveys with anglers in GLCA and whitewater 

rafters in GRCA .That data is being compiled and analyzed and a report should be available in early 

fall. Other things moving forward within the workplan include decision science and tribal-related 

research. 

o	 NPS Survey – This is a passive use survey looking at resource status in GLCA and GRCA and is 

nearing completion as far as the surveys go. The report should be completed by late summer. 
            

              

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group

Final Minutes of April 19‐20, 2016, Meeting Page 8

o	 Oklahoma University Survey – This is ongoing research looking at broader scenarios with not only 

impacts to resources in GLCA and GRCA due to operation of GCD but also how people place 

preferences on scenarios where air emisions might change or there’s adverse impacts to rural or tribal 

communities. That research has been published and the SEAHG may take a look at that. 

If anyone is interested in joining this group, let Lucas or Linda know. 

 Core Monitoring AHG (CMAHG) – Mr. Capron. This group is tabled until after the LTEMP EIS is 

completed and will be re-established if needed. 

Comments: 

 The need to put metrics on the DFCs will be addressed after the LTEMP is completed. 

 The list of priorities for this program needs to be revisited and what the TWG’s role will be. 

 Once the LTEMP is in place it would be good for the TWG to look at the GCDAMP guidance documents. 

 Need to review the past 20 years and frame future questions. 

Triennial Workplan Budget Process (Attachment 10a) – Mr. Capron. The previous budget process 

was very time consuming and contentious at times. It was decided to do a 2-year budget and with the 

success of that, it was felt that a 3-year budget would be even better. In a memo from Anne Castle in 

May 2014 she directed the program to develop a triennial work plan and also that the TWG revise the 

guidance document for doing a 3-year work plan. The Steering Committee has been working on this 

document and a new draft will be sent to the TWG for review. The TWG will have three weeks to review 

and provide comments for the Steering Committee’s consideration. Another draft will be presented to the 

TWG for its approval and a recommendation developed for the AMWG’s acceptance in August. 

CommentsL: 

 Keep the hydrograph component separate from the budget process.
 

 This isn’t a complicated process and we just need to do it and not burden GCMRC or SA in their work. 

 The metrics for the DFCs need to be done, but it’s separate from the budget and workplan process. 

 The TWG needs to decide what it wants to accomplish in the next three years concurrent with the science 

occurring. 

 Need to discuss role of GCDAMP in context of post-LTEMP because of new responsibilities for experimentation 

which will involve AMWG and TWG. 

Science Advisor Work Plan (Attachment 10b) – Dr. Braun. He’s been meeting with people trying to 

identify tasks for the next fiscal year, reviewing the GCDAMP history, capturing topics people have 

brought up at meetings, and looking at the LTEMP EIS for upcoming assignments/involvement. He 

reviewed past program concerns and looked at other independent programs around the western U.S. to 

see what they’ve been undertaking. He’s identified some potential tasks and will eventually prioritize 

those and submit to BOR. He’s looking for tasks that have the potential to synthesize multiple knowledge 

inputs, data, methods, models and assumptions used by AMWG and the Secretary in the GCDAMP. 

Details were provided for how science advisors are selected for panels, panel reporting requirements, 

possible modifcations which may be needed, panel duration, panel member approval, and potential 

changes to the SA Charter/ protocols. 

Some additional considerations for the FY17 planning cycle needs to be information that will feed into the 

FY18-20 TWP. It’s feasible for him to run tasks when the reviews get produced and the results are 

available by July or August of 2017. Any information that comes out of a review until the summer of 2017 

won’t have much impact on the next TWP so it’s best to get information that feeds into the planning 

process. The scheduling is crucial and whatever is done in terms of SA program in FY17 incorporates 

the feedback that he receives from the TWG and culminates in the revised charter and protocols. 

He offered four preliminary ideas that have emerged from his conversations with AMP stakeholders and 

from other searches. These are just placeholders to help facilitate the transparency that’s crucial to the 

program: 

1. Reviewing a review panel to look at the overall state of knowledge that is guiding adaptive 

management. 

2. A review panel on one or more aspects of the AMP’s cultural resources management programs. 
            

              

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group

Final Minutes of April 19‐20, 2016, Meeting Page 9

3. A review panel to look at the draft TWP after there is a draft. 

4. Executive Coordinator’s participation in the development of the TWP for FY2018. 

Comments: 

 Like idea of having an individual science panel to tease out some of the conclusions. 

 Having a review of the status of state of knowledge is critical and will require a lot of group discussion. Suggest 

this be conducted as a facilitated meeting. 

 It would be good to have a single guidance document but let’s not spend a lot of time in the past. 

 Try to make the Annual Reporting less dense by having the first day focused on synthesis followed by a halfday overview process with review and SA input. 

 There was a lot of work done in the KA workshop and development of DFCs and one panel to synthesize all 

that and other data is a huge undertaking. 

	 Two major components - history of guidance documents (MRP, SSP, etc.) vs. a knowledge assessment. The 

month of October would be a good time for TWG to review those older documents and bring forward key 

components/concepts. 

Comment from Yesterday’s Meeting – Rosemary Sucec. I was struck in observing the comments 

made about what’s transpiring in the reservoir which really is the Colorado River. By calling it Lake 

Powell I think we inadvertently disconnect it from what it is, a river, and what is happening there is 

affecting downstream. It’s critical we invest in knowing more about dissolved oxygen and the effects to 

downstream life including trout, reduced lake levels, the warming of water also related to trout, and 

natives and non-natives, and quagga effects downstream, and issues related to plankton and nutrients. I 

think we’re beginning to recognize the importance of what goes on in the river above the dam to what 

happens below and it is the Colorado River. It does have the ability to effect the Colorado River 

ecosystem in the future significantly. I want to mention that GLNRA is part of the Grand Canyon 

Protection Act. It’s unfortunate from my perspective that it was omitted from the naming of the Act and 

again I think we’re realizing how important that place is to the future. It affects all life below the dam and 

the four land managers who are Hualapai, Navajo Nation, GLCA and GRCA and our responsibility to 

manage those resources in collaboration with all of you. 

Bureau of Reclamation FY17 Workplan (Attachment 10c) – Ms. Katrina Grantz. The direction from 

Anne Castle in 2014 was to organize the TWP around the four DFCs (CRE, cultural resources, 

recreation, and hydropower), TWG recommendations, and a need to be responsive to the outcomes of 

the LTEMP EIS. The budget is usually based on 3% CPI rate but having internal agency discussions, we 

may not want to use that rate because it most likely will be much lower than that. The FY16 budget was 

prepared using a 3% CPI but it actually came it at 0% resulting in a shortfall. The amount of money for 

FY16 is the same as Reclamation’s proposed budget for FY17: $2,083,000. Reclamation feels it may not 

be wise to use 3% in preparing the budget but instead use 0%. It’s easier to find extra things to do with 

money rather than cutting projects at the end. She presented Reclamation’s budget for FY17: 

 AMWG $376,180 

TWG $248,845 

Other $1,368,002 (not $1,613,766 as listed on slide) 

Cultural $793,722 

Tribal Contracts $475,000 

Comments: 

	 The Native Fish Conservation Contingency Fund currently has a balance of $824,079 but should be around $1 

million if it were allowed to grow. 

	 Need to determine what is correct amount for Cultural Program Implementation is because Tribes don’t think 

$500K was spent. Is the $500K carried over or is that new money? Tribes would like a formal breakdown on 

priorities versus what’s going for the treatment plan. 

	 Would like to see FY15 obligations and expenditures displayed. 

	 Carryover funds should not be included in annual forecast of funds. 

	 Confusion around two carryover funds (NFCCF and Experimental Flow). 
            

              

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group

Final Minutes of April 19‐20, 2016, Meeting Page 10

In preparation for today’s meeting, Mr. Dongoske said he went through the annual workplan and there 

are some specific projects that were identified under cultural resources and asked if those funded for 

2016 were integrated into the cultural program implementation. He asked if the tribal synthesis project is 

still planned as he thought he had heard it was going to be dropped for something else because it’s to be 

funded this fiscal year at $50K and next year at $70K. 

Mr. Dongoske gave an update on the Zuni Associative Values Project. He spent several days with the 

Zuni religious leaders and a film crew as they documented the Zuni Association and the important place 

on the landscape between the Pueblo of Zuni and the Grand Canyon. It was a very exciting three days 

as the Zuni leaders expressed their feelings and association between different places on the landscape 

and its connection to the Grand Canyon and Pueblo of Zuni. They also gave their views about the impact 

of impounding waterways. This morning they launched for a 9-day river trip. 

As a newcomer to Reclamation, Ms. Callister is currently setting the priorities for her office and getting a 

handle on all the budgets. She committed to provide a better accounting of Reclamation’s budget. 

TWG Discussion on FY17 Workplan (Attachment 10d) – Mr. Scott VanderKooi. Updates provided: 

	 Project 1. The lead scientist for the project retired last year and BOR has decided to revoke and pull funding 

back into BOR. The monitoring for Lake Powell will be done by the BOR’s UC Region, not GCMRC staff. Since 

USGS will not be collecting the data, they will not be able to certify that data since it’s not USGS data. They’re 

working with BOR on how to do that. USGS had a small amount of carryover funds and are working with BOR 

on how to do the forebay monitoring and other projects. Mr. Shanahan requested this topic not get lost in the 

process and that BOR provide frequent updates. 

	 Projects 2 and 3. Information can be found on the USGS website. Work will continue into FY17. 

	 Project 4. Work will continue into FY17. 

	 Project 5. Some work has been funded in conjunction with WAPA. Some of the work is sunsetting in FY16. 

	 Project 6. Work is being done by USGS, AZGFD, and USFWS in conjunction with NPS. They added evaluation 

of mainstem augmentation of aggregations or other sites. This work will also be part of the LTEMP EIS 

discussions and the Biological Assessment. 

	 Project 7. This is HBC work primarily focused in the LCR but also includes PIT tag work and some other 

smaller studies looking at potential limitations for spawning and distribution of fish. 

	 Project 8. This work also includes GCMRC portion in support of the brown trout control efforts at BAC. The 

NPS does the lion’s share of work in BAC. Ramping up in FY17 is invasive species surveillance and genetic 

monitoring of Lower Basin HBC. 

	 Project 9. A lot of effort of routine monitoring the fishery in GLCA and natal origins study looking at movement 

of trout out of GLCA and downstream. This project will sunset this year. The natal origins ending is looming 

large as they’ve relied on that study and have added a lot of things on that and learned a great deal about the 

trout and the dynamics of those trout populations and how they move from the dam down to the LCR. With that 

ending, they will need to decide how to move forward with that. The amount of funding proposed for FY17 to 

continue monitoring this population is probably inadequate. He may have cut the budget too much when 

developing the workplan. The natal origins work had been tied with the juvenilve chub monitoring work because 

that work occurs near the LCR confluence and they have to continue that work for a biological opinion. The 

budget isn’t currently structured for enough money to do that monitoring. The PEP panel will help identify a path 

forward in terms of what amount of monitoring is needed and at what scale and frequency. 

	 Project 10. Work is continuing. 

	 Project 11. Work is continuing and they’re starting to look at refilling the (Daniel Sarr) position. 

	 Project 12. Work is continuing. 

	 Project 13. Some work is sunsetting in FY16 but tribal values and perspectives will begin in FY17. 

	 Project 14. GIS work will continue. 

	 Project 15. Continuation of administration and support for GCMRC.The bid for building GCMRC’s new facility is 

being sent out any day now and the projected groundbreaking would be about a year from now with occupancy 

occurring in January 2018. There will be increased overhead rates due to increased facilities costs and also 

had to deal with budget shortfalls. Because of the delay in getting a new facility, the overhead rates dropped 

considerably. GMCRC also received some funding through the WaterSmart Program and some SWBC 

discretionary funds have been made available to some GCMRC staff to fund post-docs, bought equipment, and 

some internal USGS RFPs. As of this morning, they have 100.135% of funding going into FY17. 
            

              

 

 

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group

Final Minutes of April 19‐20, 2016, Meeting Page 11

Comments, Q&A: 

	 Concern for shortage in natal orgins funding. 

- Appendix 4 “... discuss options for equalization that minimize resource degradation.” We have 

operations with respect to GCD and 2007 Guidelines and those were to be sideboards at least in the 

LTEMP. 

o Vineetha: this was something in background discussions and is not a new project. 

	 Project 8, #6. Is it possible to maybe add or modify that project to include otolith microchemistry using 

the MSCP dollars? 

o	 Scott: Because we had proposed to fund it, we had actually gotten the permitting in place and 

then the tribal concerns were raised about directed take of fish and so we decided to forego 

that. It’s an important issue raised by the tribes. The genetic work would be on fin clips. 

	 What’s strategy for how to deal with vegetation project? 

o	 Scott: Emily Palmquist has been moving forward on that but I realized that as we moved into 

this year, that there would be a need to refill the (Daniel Sarr) position. Two options for 

continuing work is use a post-doc and hire a more senior level scientist. 

TWG Discussion on FY17 Workplan – Mr. Capron. There’s need for a BAHG meeting between now 

and the June TWG meeting so a doodle poll will be sent for availability. Send budget items to Linda. 

 Aeolian studies Aeolian deposition and vegetation work - look at pictures of pre-dam conditions to see that they 

are in fact affected by the dams. Those studies are very valuable and important work. 

 Project 10 – Is there the potential to move some funds around from that project to what Bill was talking about 

for the natal origins? 

o	 Scott: Possibly. We funded a graduate student who has been working with Dan Bumscombe. One of 

the areas of focus has been to characterize the shoreline areas in terms of sediment and substrait. Dan 

has gotten data and been able to convert it into useful information. Continue to have discussions with 

Mike Yard and Scott Wright how to move forward on this project and meet all the deliverables. 

	 Need more clarity on how the Experimental Flow Fund and Native Fish Conservation Contingency Fund 

work and current balances. 

o	 Marianne: Currently there is between $800K – $1 million in the fund. John J 

TWG Discussion on LTEMP DEIS – Ms. Kartha. She received several responses to her request for 

items to be discussed which included bug flows, low summer stead flows, and vegetation management. 

Comments, Q&A: 

 The State of Nevada is concerned about water quality in Lake Mead for low summer flows. That would have 

negative impacs on the water quality in Lake Mead. 

o	 Rob: We share your concerns. The modeling did show that extreme hydrological conditions can affect 

Lake Mead so when water levels are really low, there may be water quality changes in Lake Mead. 

Built into this process is to look at resource conditions and so if there were water quality issues were 

getting to be a problem at Lake Mead and that was a year in which LSSFs were even considered, that 

would be something be carefully considered prior to implementation of that experimental element. 

	 The Argonne models are important elements of the program. What happens to those models? 

o	 Rob: The models will be available for continued use. 

	 It’s my understanding that LSSF will become available in second 10 years but is dependent upon a certain 

lower level of chub population and a certain temperature level at the same time. It seems sort of a mitigation 

measure that’s kind of thrown out there as at least something that might be done if the chub population declines 

rather than an actual management issue that comes on. I’m not sure that it quite ranks up to the MLFF on a 

daily basis. 

o	 Katrina: It’s a tool in the toolbox. All of things such as Lake Mead water quality, impacts to hydropower 

and the state of the all the resources in the canyon would be evaluated prior to doing a LSSF. 

o	 Rob: You’re absolutely right about the second 10 years and that it would only occur in a particularl 

temperature band. You’re absolutely right that in all of our discussions with FWS and others, it’s being 

looked as a potential tool that might be necessary someday but there’s definitely not going to be any 

casual use of that. There is nothing else in the document that has had so much time spent on careful 

wording as the LSSF. 

	 It seems appropriate during annual resporting meeting to use those models as part of our assessment of where 

we are every year - take some models and do a re-run at the beginning of the year to look at conditions and 
            

              

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group

Final Minutes of April 19‐20, 2016, Meeting Page 12

results and how things have changed from the LTEMP and then as we implement various components of the 

preferred alternative as recommended by the Scretary. 

o	 Katrina: We can run CRSS an infinite number of different ways and different assumptions but it be 

difficult moving forward to always compare it to what was run in the LTEMP EIS because initial 

conditions change. 

	 And certainly some models would make sense to apply it but thinking of the HBC model - linkages to the trout 

immigration model out of Lees Ferry. Some of that we’d get anyway but to nod back to the LTEMP and its 

development of those models would be good. They’re going to be improved upon anyway and those initial 

conditions are always going to change too. It should give us the information that we’ve talked about over the 

years in this organization. 

	 CREDA has significant concerns: 

o	 LSSF should be eliminated from further consideration. 

o	 Hydropower impacts are significantly understated and they’re currently working with DOI on the 

modeling of them. 

o	 Currently only one alternative meets hydropower objectives, all others continue to negatively impact the 

resource that has already been reduced by one-third. 

o	 Concern about other steadier flow elements, fluctuating flow factor and load following curtailment after 

HFEs. 

o	 The 8,000 cfs artiticial caps should be removed as it’s not supported by science and it is an 

unnecessary reduction in operational flexibility 

o	 Reduce frequency of HFEs due to their impacts to the foodbase, hydropower and the air emissions 

from replacement power sources. 

Bug Flows. Ms. Kartha. We don’t know much about bug flows because they’ve never been conducted. It 

doesn’t seem to have any confines around it, the off-ramps are not well thought out or maybe there are 

none and there are no on-ramps either. 

	 Ted Kennedy: We had some conversations with EIS team a year or so ago detailing off-ramps and things like 

that and I’d be happy to work them on those. 

	 Rob: It’s an experimental element that hasn’t been tested in this system so it may well be appropriate to look at 

that. We’re very eager to receive more comments. 

	 Where would the effects of the bug flows have their greatest magnitude? 

o	 Ted: We expect bug flows would increase production of aquatic insects throughout Glen and Grand 

Canyon. There’s certain parts of the canyon where you have low tide, low water in the late afternoon 

when aquatic insects are laying eggs along river shorelines. There are other places where the tide is 

high in the late afternoon and so it would be those places where essentially the tides are out of phase. 

We expect we’d see the greatest benefits in Lees Ferry and then also sort of in the middle, ranite 

Gorge and places like that and the other location where the tide is completely out of phase with angling 

but we think it would actually benefit aquatic insects everywhere. 

	 There’s general acknowledgement and acceptance that we have a severely impaired foodbase in the river and 

this experiment is one of the few things, if not the only thing within the LTEMP, that might begin a process of 

trying to address that if it’s successful. This is an opportunity to do some science down in the river and if the 

worst thing about bug flows is that it turns out successful and it works, it puts another tool out there to be used 

to help enhance the aquatic foodbase. 

	 Let’s say we conduct the bug flows and the insect production increases, what kind of impact will that have on 

the trout numbers and how do you think it could effect chub? 

o	 Ted: Ultimately what matters is how many chub are out there and if we get more insect production and 

more diverse insect assemblages. We actually expect that we’ll see more chub and also more trout but 

ultimately it’s the chub numbers that really matter. I think it’s reasonable to expect that both species of 

fish will benefit. I realize there’s concerns that trout may disproportionally benefit at the expense of 

chub but we don’t have any basis for thinking that. What’s good for the goose might be good for the 

gander too. If we get chub expanding into the downstream reaches where you have warm water 

temperatures every year, maybe risks of predation by trout on chub at the LCR isn’t going to be as big 

of a deal. Maybe you don’t have chub moving downstream and establishing robust, self-sustaining 

populations is because conditions in the mainstem weigh down there in the western canyon aren’t 

amenable to drift feeding, insect-feeding fish. One thing that comes up a lot is that any time there’s talk 

about trying to improve the ecosystem, folks will pull out the non-native card. You do that, it’s going to 

benefit non-natives disproportionately to the detriment of native fish and so I posed a question to 20 
            

              

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group

Final Minutes of April 19‐20, 2016, Meeting Page 13

scientists that work in GRCA and asked if the potential benefits of improving habitat for native fishes 

outweigh the risks posed by non-natives. I think 17 out of 20 answered in the affirmative that the 

benefits of trying to improve the GRCA ecosystem outweigh the risks. There’s clearly no wrong or right 

answer. 

	 How frequently were bug flows modeled in the preferred alternative? Was it every year or upon certain specific 

on-ramp conditions? 

o	 Rob: It was not every year. There’s a huge number of runs so it varied by run. I think on average it was 

like every third year or something like that. That’s an average of a range of runs. I’d have to look that 

up to give you an exact answer. 

	 It might be helpful somewhere in the appendices to clearly show what experiments were put in, when over 

those periods of time, or the different alternatives and specific long-term strategies of those alternatives. It’s 

confusing because you’re reading an interpretation of C4 when it’s really an interpretation of all of the C runs 

put together. 

	 What’s the financial analysis of bug flows? 

o	 Rob: This continues to be discussed. 

	 There’s two components to the financial impact, one is the capacity value effect and the other is the impact on 

energy value. The capacity value was the big one described in Appendix K so roughly about $10 million of the 

negative impact was attributed to energy for the hybrid alternative. I think total was about $90 million in 

capacity. When we looked at those numbers, it didn’t chive with our mental models. We’ve been supporting 

these for awhile and thought it would be a wash for WAPA, roughly neutral. It didn’t meet our mental model so 

we did some modeling ourselves using GTMax and kind of what our assumptions on how the water would be 

moved from the weekend to the weekdays and so in our discusisons with Argonne we think that one of the big 

differences in how you look at capacity value. If you’re using August, the weekday that has the largest capacity 

need you would look at capacity available on that one day whereas Argonne looked at it for a week within one 

month so you had two days of the week where you took all that water you had on the weekend following load 

and now you drop that to flat, right? And you put that water during the week so now you have five days that are 

a little bit more capacity than 2 days that lost all that capacity and so that’s what we think may be driving those 

big capacity numbers in the analysis. Whereas our recommendation was to just look at the largest day within 

that month and look at capacity. We’ve asked that the numbers be recalculated and that’s a post-modeling 

analysis be done and we think the end result is going to be a benefit not a cost because once you move the 

water from the weekend which is relatively lower needs for capacity, the peaks are actually during the week. 

We’re actually moving a little bit more water onto the week when that peaking capacity happens in August and 

so it should be, based on our mental models, be a benefit and I think that’s how it may turn out. It hasn’t been 

done yet but we believe the direction. Instead of a big negative, it’s likely to be a smallish, positive on the 

capacity side. When you look at the energy side of it, the way we interpret Ted’s approach to doing bug flows 

was that the daily minimum for those peaks during the week would be the same minimum on the weekend so 

you move water from the weekend to the week. The whole baseline comes up and you have one consistent 

baseline all month long so that consistent shoreline stays in the same spot for the whole month and so when 

you model it that way, you end up with less of an impact to energy value as well. It’s still negative but it’s more 

– when we looked at it on a 8.23 maf year, it’s more in line of about $200,000 a year for that type of year. And 

that’s four months of implementation of bug flows. WAPA’s analysis looks at ... probably have a slightly 

negative impact to energy, smaller than the potentially the $10 million estimate and the analysis but it all 

depends on how it’s implemented, right, and it all depends on prices in any given year because we’re using one 

set of prices. There’s different ways to implement this that would probably have different levels of effect. We 

would want to be adaptive on how we exactly implemented this and where we put the water and there’s ways 

that WAPA can move this water around slightly and kind of makes a big difference in the energy value and that 

we would try to minimize that, keep to the important components of the experiment to try to have as low an 

impact as possible so that would be described post-analysis description in the EIS showing some bookends, 

showing two different hydrographs of how this would be implemented, but that the changes that would come 

would be in the post-analysis approach that Argonne took to describe in a capacity value. 

o	 Katrina: For the EIS we’ve bookended it in terms of the cost and what Shane is saying is that it may not 

be as large of a cost in terms of hydropower as what the current draft shows. We’re not planning to 

change the actual efficacy of the bug flows themselves rather the assumptions that went into how 

hydropower was moved around outside of bug flows. 

	 Would that mid-week fluctuation be over the 8,000? 

o	 No, the rules still stay in place. If you picture a hydrograph for the week right before bug flows with a 

weekend peak, over here’s the two weekend days and the 5 week weekdays, we’re going to take that 

water and just move the whole baseline up but the distance you go up and down will stay the same 
            

              

 

 

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group

Final Minutes of April 19‐20, 2016, Meeting Page 14

roughly and the shape of the peaks will stay the same roughly. We won’t violate the 8,000. We won’t 

violate the daily fluctuation. 

	 We understand that there’s a provision to go from 5,000 to 8,000,etc. so is 8,000 really a number that 

rafting guys don’t want to go below or are they okay at 7 and 6 because it seemed that that was okay 

number? 

o	 Certainly flows below 8,000 are really getting expenditially more difficult to get a big motor rig for 

example through the rapids, rocks and post more of a safety concern. It makes it more challenging. 

You’re going to have more incidences where you’re damaging equipment but as far as the guides 

are concerned, we care a lot about the ecology of the canyon and the health of the fish population. 

While some guides care more about the low flow, as a group we want to see the quality of the 

ecology improve. 

	 What happens when it comes time to implement one of these other experiments? 

o	 Rob: There would be a discussion between DOI with GCRMC about the upcoming year, about 

what sort of experiments might be appropriate. There would be a series of meetings with all of the 

government entities and would include the basin states and AZGFD and they would be looking at 

the condition of all the resources. The experimental proposal for the year would roll out to the 

TWG. If necessary, there would be consultation with FWS or with tribes on a given year or given 

issue. 

o	 From the fishing guides standpoint, it’s apparent that engagement has expended as time has gone 

by from what it was in those early meetings. 

	 Regarding the vegetative management piece, is that experimentation going to be below the 45,000 cfs flow line 

or are you looking at experiments above that line? 

o	 Rob: I think so but we’ll have to check on that. It was framed as the new high water zone so I have a 

technical question to ask about route zones, but I think that’s basically the gist that if it’s not the 45,000 

line, it would be close to it. 

	 Because you’ve done so much work in that vegetative zone, what would those experiments look like in your 

mind? 

o	 Rob: We are looking at language to clarify that a bit more, but the pieces to that adaptive experiment 

are to look at the removal of non-natives so that’s probably going to have a heavy focus on tamarisk 

but also the re-planting of natives. There are key places where that might apply. A proposal from 

CREDA was to look at places where vegetation has encroached on some of the campgrounds so we’re 

looking at strategic places for that as well at some places where there’s been mono cultures of some 

even native species that are growing in mono culturals now. And then there are a few key places that 

GCMRC has identified where they believe there is vegetation barriers to some areas where if the 

vegetation was removed, it might help protected cultural resources. Those are the four categories of 

places that would be identified. Basically these are very small acreage locations along the river corridor 

where there would be strategic reasons to do vegetative improvement. The tribes have also been very 

interested in providing input on some of these for particular reaches. 

	 Given the extensive work that has already been done with vegetative management, is there really that much 

new left to be learned? 

o	 Rob: Absolutely. You may be aware of the Granite Creek area and that really was a tiny acreage area 

compared to the rest of the river corridor and a lot was learned from that but again, GCMRC has been 

looking into this and there is quite a lot to do. Larry Stevens provided us a lot of information for getting 

into this but one of the things that Jack Schmidt when he was on a river trip with Glen and I, had said 

was this is really one of the things you can do with vegetation along here. It’s not a lot of acres but it’s 

one of the things you can and should do and he really felt there was lot to learn. 

	 The biggest concern we have is the use of the word “restoration” in the document as this is supposed to be an 

experimental thing. 

o	 Rob: We’ve gotten comments on that and we’ve had some discussions with cooperators. There might 

be a better way to describe the overall vegetative experiment and we’re open to receiving language on 

that. 

	 Regarding the scope of the socioeconomics study, it was very broad and didn’t address the same type of 

information for the power or water. It seemed to us what we’re talking about here is experiments that looked 

really refined the operations between MLFF and a flow regime that has some of these experimental aspects 

into it probably in the long run. Could that socioeconomics piece be reduced to something that really related to 

the scope of those changes as opposed to the way it’s presented in there? It looks like it goes to the entire 

canyon. 
            

              

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group

Final Minutes of April 19‐20, 2016, Meeting Page 15

o	 Rob: We’ve received comments in both direction from a number of cooperating agencies and tribes. So 

when we’re hearing that it’s too big and too small simultaneously, then maybe we’ve gotten just right. 

We’re open to input on that but really there are socioeconomic concerns to power, to recreation, to a 

number of things that we tried to capture in there. 

	 Given the idea of capturing a range then, you’ve got the big range in there, could you include a range that 

would be more compact and really relevant to dam operations? 

o	 Rob: It would be interesting to get specific comments on that to understand exactly what you mean by 

that. We have worked closely with WAPA on the hydropower pieces and we’ve worked with a number 

of entities including some work with Lucas and some experts at Reclamation on some of the recreation 

issues. We’d be interested to know technically exactly what you’re suggesting, maybe sending 

something in writing through the Upper Basin Commission or something like that might be a way for 

use to consider specifically what you mean. 

	 We want to see socioeconomics evaluated on a consistent level so that when the Secretary goes to look at this 

document to help make decisions, he or she has the entire range of potential socioeconomic impacts. 

o	 Rob: In terms of the money spent, the modeling time, certainly hydropower was the most extensive 

modeling effort. We might have to talk offline to understand more of what you mean. We welcome more 

comments on that if there’s something we didn’t analyze. 

	 Your modeling has been extensive but a lot of the socioeconomic piece doesn’t lend itself to what I would call 

modeling-eze if you will. The socio part of the socioeconomics really depends on how you frame the question 

that you then want to take and statistically analyze. That’s the piece we’d like to see a little more effort put into. 

We’ll provide some comments on that. 

	 Was the preferred alternative subject to the same comprenhsive modeling as all the other alternatives but for 

those few little minor changes that were made to it associated with changing the monthly volume of August and 

September and no loads following curtailment before a full HFE? There’s two or three small things that I 

recognize you guys put in the preferred alternative and there were minor tweaks, but I just want to confirm that 

that was the case and were subject to the same extensive modeling as shown in that great spaghetti diagram 

going from one place to the other as all the other alternatives? 

o	 Rob: Absolutely. The fact that there were substrategies where we turned options on and off but indeed 

the hybrig alternative was modeled similarly to the rest of the alternatives. We did quite a lot of 

modeling and I think absolutely passes the test for sufficient analysis and probably far exceeds what is 

done for many other processes. 

	 What do you do after this LTEMP? Because keeping you engaged here as we work through those 

questions and relationships might be quite useful to this program and hoping you won’t just go skipping off 

to some other fun EIS some place? 

o	 Rob: I’ll continue as the Colorado River Coordinator but I think much of the team has been involved 

in all of this is probably going to be around. I think the expectation is that there will be a lot to be 

figured out in the first year or two of implementation of a new LTEMP alternative. Once we get to 

the point where we’re sure that there’s going to be a ROD in place, then all of the discussions that 

came up earlier of switching gears to starting to think about all that will happen. 

Next TWG Meeting. The next meeting will be held June 14-15 in Salt Lake City. Ms. Grantz offered the 

following reasons for choosing this location: 

- ADWR is moving to a new location and their facility is no longer available so it makes this particular 

location not an option. 

- Securing conference room space in Phoenix can be expensive and would incur extra staff time to 

transport and set up the AV equipment from Flagstaff to Phoenix. 

- The BLM training center in mid-Phoenix provides very limited wi-fi capability and requires daily signin by all attendees which can be a time-consuming process. 

- The Lower Colorado Boulder City office has a conference space but no microphone capabilities so 

the mics add another layer of logistical challenge. 

- The TWG hasn’t met in SLC since the old Transition Work Group (1996-97). The UC Regional Office 

can provide the space, wi-fi capability and microphones 

- There were challenges finding a specific space in Flagstaff. With the AMWG meeting scheduled 

there in August, we felt the added costs might be costly for people to get there. 

- There is increased tourists in Flagstaff during the summer which could impact the availability of hotel 

rooms. 
            

              

 

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group

Final Minutes of April 19‐20, 2016, Meeting Page 16

If anyone has suggestions for other potential meeting sites, please provide those to Linda. Ms. ArviscoCiocco suggested Twin Arrows outside Flagstaff (24 miles from GCMRC). 

Proposed dates for FY17 TWG meetings are: 

o January 25-26, 2017 AR/TWG Meeting 

o April 18-19, 2017 TWG Meeting 

o June 20-21, 2017 TWG Meeting 

o October 24-25, 2017 TWG (webinar?) meeting 

Public Comment: None 

Adjourned: 2:50 p.m. 

Respectfully submitted, 

 Linda Whetton 

 Upper Colorado Region 

 Bureau of Reclamation 

Next TWG Meeting: 

(Tue-Wed) June 14-15, 2016 

Bureau of Reclamation 

125 S. State Street, Room 8102 

Salt Lake City UT 84138 
            

              

 

 

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group

Final Minutes of April 19‐20, 2016, Meeting Page 17

Key to Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program Acronyms 

ADWR – Arizona Dept. of Water Resources 

AF – Acre Feet 

AGFD – Arizona Game and Fish Department 

AIF – Agenda Information Form 

AMP – Adaptive Management Program 

AMWG – Adaptive Management Work Group 

AOP – Annual Operating Plan 

ASMR – Age-Structure Mark Recapture 

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 

BIA – Bureau of Indian Affairs 

BO – Biological Opinion 

BOR – Bureau of Reclamation 

BWP – Budget and Work Plan 

CAHG – Charter Ad Hoc Group 

CAP – Central Arizona Project 

GCT – Grand Canyon Trust 

CESU – Cooperative Ecosystems Studies Unit 

cfs – cubic feet per second 

CFMP – Comprehensive Fisheries Management Plan 

CMINS – Core Monitoring Information Needs 

CMP – Core Monitoring Plan 

CPI – Consumer Price Index 

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 

CWCB – Colorado Water Conservation Board 

DAHG – Desired Future Conditions Ad Hoc Group 

DASA – Data Acquisition, Storage, and Analysis 

DBMS – Data Base Management System 

DOE – Department of Energy 

DOI – Department of the Interior 

DOIFF – Department of the Interior Federal Family 

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 

GCES – Glen Canyon Environmental Studies 

GCT – Grand Canyon Trust 

GCMRC – Grand Canyon Monitoring & Research Center 

GCNP – Grand Canyon National Park 

GCNRA – Glen Canyon Nat’l Recreation Area 

GCPA – Grand Canyon Protection Act 

GIS – Geographic Information System 

GLCA – Glen Canyon Nat’l Recreation Area 

GRCA – Grand Canyon National Park 

GCRG – Grand Canyon River Guides 

GCWC – Grand Canyon Wildlands Council 

HBC – Humpback Chub (endangered native fish) 

HFE – High Flow Experiment 

HMF – Habitat Maintenance Flow 

HPP – Historic Preservation Plan 

IG – Interim Guidelines 

INs – Information Needs 

KA – Knowledge Assessment (workshop) 

KAS – Kanab Ambersnail (endangered native snail) 

LCR – Little Colorado River 

LCRMCP – Lower Colorado River Multi-Species 

Conservation

 Program 

LTEMP – Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan 

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 

NAU – Northern Arizona University (Flagstaff, AZ) 

NEPA – National Environmental Policy Act 

NHPA – National Historic Preservation Act 

NNFC – Non-native Fish Control 

NOI – Notice of Intent 

NPCA – National Parks Conservation Association 

NPS – National Park Service 

NRC – National Research Council 

O&M – Operations & Maintenance (USBR Funding) 

PA – Programmatic Agreement 

PBR – Paria to Badger Creek Reach 

PEP – Protocol Evaluation Panel 

POAHG – Public Outreach Ad Hoc Group 

Powerplant Capacity = 31,000 cfs 

R&D – Research and Development 

RBT – Rainbow Trout 

RFP – Request for Proposal 

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 

SOW – Statement 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 

TEK – Traditional Ecological Knowledge 

TES – Threatened and Endangered Species 

TMC – Taxa of Management Concern 

TMF – Trout Management Flows 

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