Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group WebEx Meeting 

April 3, 2013 

Conducting: John Jordan, Chairperson Convened: 10 a.m. (MDT) 

Facilitator: Chris Page with Triangle Associates, Inc. 

Committee Members/Alternates Present: 

Cliff Barrett, UAMPS 

Shane Capron, WAPA 

Todd Chaudhry, NPS 

Kerry Christensen, Hualapai Tribe 

Jerry Lee Cox, Grand Canyon River Guides 

Paul Harms, State of New Mexico 

Vineetha Kartha, State of Arizona 

Robert King, State of Utah 

Glen Knowles, Bureau of Reclamation 

Nikolai Lash, Grand Canyon Trust 

Chip Lewis, BIA 

Gerald Myers, Federation of Fly Fishers 

John Shields, State of Wyoming 

Larry Stevens, GCWC 

Bill Stewart, AGFD 

Jason Thiriot, State of Nevada 

Kirk Young, USFWS

Tony Joe, Jr. Navajo Nation 

Committee Members Absent: 

Jan Balsom, NPS/GRCA 

Charley Bulletts, Southern Paiute Consortium 

Bill Davis, CREDA 

Kurt Dongoske, Pueblo of Zuni 

Chris Hughes, NPS/GLCA 

Ted Kowalski, Colo. River Conservation Board 

Don Ostler, Upper Colorado River Commission 

Mike Yeatts, Hopi Tribe 

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center: 

Phil Davis 

Dave Lytle, SBSC Director 

Jack Schmidt, GCMRC Chief 

Chris Schill, Budget Analyst

Scott Vanderkooi, Acting Deputy Chief 

Interested Persons: 

Marianne Crawford, Bureau of Reclamation 

Kevin Dahl, GCT 

Todd Dillard, Robert Lynch & Associates 

Craig Ellsworth, WAPA 

Evelyn Erlandsen, State of Arizona 

Lesley Fitzpatrick, USFWS 

Alan Foster, Triangle Associates 

Dave Garrett, M3

Research/Science Advisors 

John Hamill, Federation of Fly Fishers 

Leslie James, CREDA 

Sarah Rinkevich, FWS/Federal Tribal Liaison 

Seth Shananan, SNWA 

Rosemary Sucec, GLCA 

Warren Turkett, Colo. River Conservation Board 

Bob Wheeler, Triangle Associates 

Meeting Recorder: Linda Whetton 

Welcome and Administrative. Welcome by John Jordan. 

1. Approval of January 24, 2013, Meeting Minutes. Pending minor edits, the minutes were approved by 

consensus. 

2. Review of Action Items. (Attachment 1). 

3. Updates. 

 Sequestration - Glen reported that as a result of Sequestration there should be a 5% cut to 

the program however, DOI is evaluating whether that would include power revenues. 

Sequestration has affected Reclamation’s ability to award contracts in a timely manner and 

has really slowed down the acquisition process. John Shields requested the distinction 

between funding AMWG and other basin programs that also rely on power revenues . Glen 

will keep the group informed of any budget decisions affecting the program. 

 Ad Hoc Group Updates - These will be updated as identified in the agenda. 

4. New Business. 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Meeting 

Final Minutes of April 3, 2013, WebEx Meeting Page 2 

 The next TWG meeting will be held on June 26-27, 2013 at the Department of Arizona Water 

Resources. Linda will send an e-mail soliciting agenda items. 

LTEMP EIS Update. Glen reviewed LTEMP’s purpose and scope (Attachment 2). Alternatives from 

other sources have been received and the LTEMP team will be working closely with Mike Runge on 

evaluating them through structured decision analysis. 

The LTEMP is not considering infrastructure additions or modifications as part of the proposed action.” 

The current schedule is: 

 Preliminary Assessment –Phase I (Apr-Jun) 

 Stakeholders Workshop Tradeoff analysis (Jul) 

 Alternative refinement and experimental design (Jun-Aug) 

 Additional assessment –Phase II (Aug-Sep) 

 Public meeting to present science and alternatives (Expected between Jul 2013-Jan 2014) 

 Public Draft EIS (Expected between Dec, 2013-Apr 2014) 

Dr. Schmidt requested a date be set for the tradeoff analysis workshop as soon as possible as July is a 

busy time for field work. 

TWG Operating Procedures. Shane referenced the Agenda Information Form (Attachment 3a) and the 

latest revision of the operating procedures: 

Concerns noted: 

 Clarify TWG tasks in relation to what GCMRC does 

 Voting status of DOI members 

 Role of Reclamation Vice-chair in contacting speakers for meetings 

 Facilitation costs for TWG meetings  Reclamation will assess and report at June meeting. 

 The OPAHG suggests that Dr. Schmidt sit at the table during TWG meetings 

The changes to TWG operating procedures were incorporated into the revised document (Attachment 

3b). Shane is hopeful the AMWG will provide input to the OPAHG so a new document will be available 

for discussion at the June meeting He requested the TWG Operating Procedures be on the May 8th

AMWG agenda. 

MOTION. Proposed by Cliff Barrett, seconded by Randy Seaholm, and approved by consensus: TWG 

initially approves the revised operating procedures, as modified by the TWG on April 3, 2013, and 

requests AMWG review and comment on them before the June TWG meeting where final 

consideration will be made and the procedures adopted by TWG. 

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program Budget. 

Reclamation FY13-14 budget (Attachment 4a). 

 Reclamation will review the costs for the Triangle Associates facilitation contract. 

 Sequestration slowed the process of getting contracts done. NPS permitting contract is delayed. 

 AMP tribal members need to be involved in the LTEMP EIS, funding for items in the cultural 

program could be adjusted. 

 A final proposal of changes will be presented at the next meeting. 

GCMRC FY13-14 budget . The burden rate at GCMRC was forecasted last fall at 14% but was actually 

11%. There were minor reductions in some GCMRC projects (Attachment 4b). Burden for the new 

economist position and planning for the new cultural representative on the Science Advisors were not 

considered in the budget. The following big issues will need to be wrestled with in the FY15-16 budget: 

1. To what degree did the FY13/14 BWT address the priority science questions that were defined in 

August 2004? 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Meeting 

Final Minutes of April 3, 2013, WebEx Meeting Page 3 

2. To what degree have the priority science questions that were defined in August 2004 now been 

addressed by the HFE Protocol and the NNFC EA? To the degree to which the priority science 

questions are now being addressed by these EAs, doest that situation redefine the role o 

GCMRC in addressing these questions? Does this redefine the expectations of TWG in 

when/how monitoring and research is addressed? 

3. To what degree have the priority science questions that were defined in August 2004 been 

assumed in the LTEMP EIS process? To the degree to which the priority science questions are 

now being addressed by the LTEMP program, does that situation redefine the roles of GCMRC in 

addressing these questions? Does this redefine the expectations of TWG in when/how monitoring 

and research are addressed? 

On behalf of the TWG members, Shane advocated that GCMRC provide a more explicit link between 

where we started with the 2004 priority questions and where we are today with the workplan. Jack will 

prove a historical evolution of how some of these questions have been addressed and how they’ve 

evolved over time. 

BAHG Update. Shane identified the following items specific to the 2014 budget review: 

1. Increased aggregation sampling of HBC to reduce sampling errors in enumeration. 

2. Additional or new capture points for tagging trout in the natal origins rainbow trout study to eliminate 

possible sample errors for ascertaining the degree of downstream movement. 

 

3. Improve detection levels for HBC in the mainstem to confirm estimates 

4. What elements of the administrative history project require funding? Conduct a pilot effort on those 

elements in FY2014 and use the results to develop a more thorough undertaking in the next budget 

cycle, if warranted. 

5. Phragmites is an ecologically and culturally important species that is highly responsive to dam 

operations. Compile background data and information, including Tribal significance, in 2014 in a pilot 

analysis and if feasible, conduct the analysis in the next budget cycle in the context of integration of 

TEK within the AMP (AR meeting). 

Shane encouraged TWG to read through the budget AIF as it contains a list of other general 

considerations for the FY15-16 workplan and budget. Consider the priorities of the program and decide 

if the 2004 priorities should be adjusted due to the LTEMP EIS process. 

There will be a BAHG meeting in late May or early June if other members want to participate, let Shane 

or Linda know. 

Update on Species of Management Concern. Larry Stevens reported that in the last year they’ve 

seen RBS in the lower canyon, consequently their range now extends into Grand Canyon from Lake 

Mead. Managers and river runners are providing feedback on species information , increasing 

communication about some on rare species and providing additional distributional data. Visual siftings of 

raccoons in the lower canyon have been made for the first time. There is a second or third record of 

hognose skunk in the lower canyon. Kerry Christensen added that the translocated zebra-tailed lizards 

over wintered at Diamond Creek and reproduced, juveniles have been seen in their surveys. 

Science Advisors’ Annual Report. Dr. Garrett reviewed the goals of the SA program that provides 

independent review of science and management plans and management actions for the program 

(Attachment 5). The SA contract is behind the normal fiscal year time frame and begins in February, not 

October. SA conducted three reviews last year which included reviewing the draft FY13-14 biennial 

budget for TWG, the same for GCMRC, and a review of the socio-economic/hydropower section of the 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Meeting 

Final Minutes of April 3, 2013, WebEx Meeting Page 4 

Knowledge Assessment Report. The SAs planned activities for 2014 includes a review of the biennial 

work plan, participation in TWG/BAHG/SEAHG/AMWG meetings, and other activities as needed. Shane 

suggested integrating the SAs into the FY15-16 budget process and developing a closer relationship with 

the SAs. Jack expressed concern that in June 2014, GCRMC will be in the middle of field work. It’s good 

to start the conversations but his staff has a tremendous amount of work to pull off in the FY13-14 

workplan. 

Over-Flights in May. The following documents were provided in preparation for today’s discussion: 

Attachment 6a: FUGRO EARTHDATA, Inc., GCMRC 2013 Ortho Imagery and DSM Proposal 

Attachment 6b: Status of the Upcoming 2013 Airborne Data Collection for Colorado River Corridor 

Attachment 6c: Uses for Remote Sensing Data by GCMRC Projects. 

Attachment 6d: Progress and Plans for Processing Airborne Data PPT. 

The over flights will occur over Memorial Day weekend, May 25 through Saturday, June 1. The flows will 

be steady at 8,000 cfs. If the entire weekend isn’t needed for the over flights, Reclamation will return to 

May operations of 8,-13,000 cfs daily fluctuations. Dr. Phil Davis, USGS, said there is no other way to 

gather information on the Colorado River corridor. The fundamental goal is to obtain consistent, 

calibrated, and undistorted multispectral image and digital elevation models for the entire corridor. Since 

2009 GCMRC has collected the best possible data that exists for the canyon. It takes approximately five 

days to photograph the entire corridor. At the end of day three, they’re at about river mile 210. If the 

weather is clear the following two days, they can complete the information. 

Public Comment: None 

Wrap-Up and Next Steps. John thanked everyone for being in attendance and said the next in-person 

TWG meeting is scheduled for: 

Next TWG Meeting 

Date: Wed., June 26 - WebEx/Conference Call 

 

Adjourned: 2 p.m. (MDT) 

Respectfully submitted, 

 

Linda Whetton 

Upper Colorado Regional Office 

Bureau of Reclamation 

 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Meeting 

Final Minutes of April 3, 2013, WebEx Meeting Page 5 

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 

BHTF – Beach/Habitat Test 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 

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 

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 

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 

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 

SNARRC - Southwest Native Aquatic Resources and 

Recovery Center 

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 

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 

(Updated: 2/5/2013)