-

+Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Meeting 

April 20-21, 2017 

Summary of Actions Taken 

1. Draft Minutes for January 26, 2017, meeting were approved by consensus. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

Date: April 20, 2017 Start Time: 9:30 a.m. 

Conducting: Seth Shanahan, TWG Chair 

Vineetha Kartha, TWG Vice-Chair 

Attendees 

Meeting Recorder: Linda Whetton 

Welcome and Administrative: Mr. Shanahan welcomed the members and the public. Introductions 

were made and a quorum determined. 

	 Approval of January 26, 2017, Meeting Minutes. Without objection, they were approved by consensus. 

	 Review of Action Items. No action required. 

	 Next Meeting Date: (W) June 28, 1-5 p.m. and (Th) June 29, 8:30a – 5P at ADWR. 

	 Ad Hoc Group Updates ̶Mr. Shanahan. Chris Budwig resigned as the TWG member for FFF/TU. Seth 

recognized his contributions and involvement with the program. His departure leaves the TAHG chair 

position vacant so anyone interested in that should let Seth know. 

	 TAHG Update – Mr. Shanahan. The TAHG worked on reaching consensus on some priority issues and 

produced a document that was delivered to the TWG in January. They felt those items were consensus 

from the group. There wasn’t a lot of feedback so all the items previously brought forth remain unchanged. 

	 CRAHG Update. Nothing to report. 

	 SEAHG Update ̶Mr. Reeder. The group updated Table 1 and developed the SEAHG high priority list. 

	 AHAHG Update. Nothing to report. 

	 BAHG Update. Will be provided tomorrow during the budget discussion. 

	 Science Advisors Program Update – Dr. Braun. The SA are finishing the Knowledge Assessment Report 

and will provide feedback on the Draft TWP to BOR and GCMRC. 

	 Update on Plan for Controlling High Risk Aquatic Invasive Fish Species – Mr. Hyde. A crew will go out 

tomorrow morning to install a metal screen barrier between the upper slough and the lower slough. They 

don’t believe there is any fish in the upper slough after the successful chemical treatment last year. The 

barrier should keep the GSF from entering the one-third acre little pond that gets the warmest. A fish net 

will be done in the small portion of the lower slough which is the unknown this year and whether the 2015 

GSF ever found a spot in that lower slough to also spawn. They will net off the most likely area and 

hopefully be able to keep them out of the upper slough. They and other partners will monitor the lower 

slough. 

o	 Ms. Balsom. The second piece of the plan is to move forward with an EA to look at high risk nonnatives. They talked about GSF, BT, striped fish and others and have tried to figure out how the best 

strategy. They’re looking at beginning a public scoping process in late May/early June to open the 

dialogue on how to prevent, minimize, and reduce the presence of these potentially harmful nonnatives in the system. They would use the same affected environment as was done in the CMFP and 

look at the same geographic area from the dam downstream to the tributaries. They’re trying to do it in 

a way that is comprehensive and not have to do repeat work. It will take at least a year to get that 

process through and also look at potential management actions to reduce those threats. They’re 

hoping to engage BOR, AZGFD, and tribes as cooperators. They will also be addressing the BT issue. 

They’re looking at a more holistic process to address the issues so as not to have to revisit next year. 

	 Update on Progress Toward Completing the Brown Trout Motion Approved by the AMWG in Feb 2017 – 

Ms. Grantz. The motion recommended the workshop be held before August 2017. At the time the motion 

was passed, the timing to hold a workshop was optimistic given the need to forward that motion to the 

Department. She has given briefings to new Washington Office staff on the GCDAMP and sent a formal 
            

             

 

 

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group
 

Final Minutes of April 20‐21, 2017, Meeting
 Page 2

letter to the Washington Office. Unfortunately DOI staff and Trump transition teams have many competing 

priorities. Mr. Rhees did establish a small planning team to be led by NPS to start the process. 

 Potential Experimental and Management Actions Considered in CY 2017 – Ms. Grantz. Each year BOR 

contemplates what types of experiments could occur, but the only one likely to happen is a Fall HFE and 

possibly an extended HFE under the LTEMP. The outcome of the BT Workshop and information gathered 

there will be incorporated into the decision making for potential Fall HFEs. She is committed to determining 

early on if and when one will occur, but the decision won’t be made until Oct-Nov by the HFE Planning 

Team. 

Hydrology and Operations – Mr. Davidson. As of April 18, the Upper Basin was 106% of median with 

95% of total seasonal accumulation. There were historic snowpacks in the basin from February into 

March and the possibility of flooding similar to those seen in Salt Lake City in 1983. There was a really 

dry period the first of March and a sharp decline followed by a period of storm activity. Mid-March to early 

April brought us back up and now we’re on a pretty good reduction coming into the present time. Current 

totals in the basin show Fontenelle at 42% and Flaming Gorge at 83% with Green River expecting some 

pretty large inflows into those two reservoirs. Quite a bit of water has been released out of those two 

reservoirs preparatory for those inflows. Lake Powell is currently at 48%.The 2017 operating tier was set 

in August 2016 at 8.23 maf release year with balancing at 8.23-9.0 maf and equalization at >8.23 maf. 

GCD Operations. During Feb-Mar 2017, three units will be offline. The WY 2017 release scenarios for 

the minimum, most, and maximum will be 9.0 maf. Using the Interim Guidelines to calculate how much 

water would be released from Lake Powell and using April adjustment to balancing releases, the most 

probable unregulated inflow is 13.2 maf with a Lake Powell release of 9.0 maf. There’s a potential for a 

November 2017 HFE. 

Biological Opinion for the GCD LTEMP Plan, Coconino County, Arizona – Mr. Young and Ms. 

Gwinn. Mechanical removal of nonnative species is a controversial issue in the Colorado River through 

Glen and Grand Canyons. A spring 2015 meeting of Grand Canyon biologists (NPS, USFWS, AZGFD, 

GMCRC) to assess current trout removal triggers resulted in a concept of early conservation measure 

intervention to maximize conservation benefit to HBC and minimize the likelihood of mechanical predator 

removal. Two tiers of sequential actions were identified; the first would emphasize conservation actions 

that would take place early during an adult or sub-adult HBC population decline. The second tier would 

serve as a backstop prescribing removal (threat reduction) if conservation measures did not mitigate a 

decline in HBC abundance. Refer to Appendix D for more information. 

End of Fiscal Year 2016 Reporting of Expenditures and Carry Over Funds – Ms. Grantz. The 

approved budgets for FY2016 were: 

Reclamation = $2,083,000 GCMRC = $8,672,000 Total: $10,755,000 

The working budget factored at a 0% CPI rate and the final expenditures were as follows: 

Category FY16 Working Budget 

(0% CPI) 

FY16 Expenditures 

AMWG $365,159 $312,964 

TWG $169,294 $106,807 

Reclamation Admin. $762,227 $292,189 

Cultural Resources $766,390 $609,695 

Total $2,063,069 $1,321,655 

Note: The Non-Native Fish Contingency Fund has a current balance of $1,095,000. 

GCMRC Budget and PPT– Mr. VanderKooi. The GCMRC Annual Report was distributed in December 

with all the FY16 expenditures, so he didn’t include that information but thought people would be 

interested in what carryover would be going into FY18. He focused on the FY2017 Project Budgets and 

noted the following: 
            

             

 

 

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group
 

Final Minutes of April 20‐21, 2017, Meeting
 Page 3

	 Project 9 has a negative of $160,000. This included the additional fisheries monitoring trips that they 

hadn’t included in the FY17 budget as the natal origins study sunsetted. This budget includes costs for 

technicians, staff time and logistics. 

	 Logistics was under budgeted throughout this work plan. The previous GCMRC chief had pushed the 

staff to really limit this budget and it was drastically reduced to what was actually needed. As they’ve 

reviewed the work plan and the various activities associated with it, it appears to have been cut a little 

too close and exceeded what was budgeted for. 

Overall they are looking to finish FY17 with $130,000 in carryover. These are preliminary budget 

numbers and will likely change as they move forward in time. 

Final Report for the Fisheries Program Review – Protocols Evaluation Panel (PEP) ̶ Mr. Yackulic 

and Mr. Ward. The Fish PEP was convened in August 2016 and asked to evaluate the quality and 

breadth of the monitoring and research conducted by the fisheries program in the Colorado River and its 

major tributaries. Five questions were submitted to the panel for their consideration but they also 

identified management and institutional issues that potentially influence the effectiveness of the fisheries 

program going forward. Their recommendations include: 

	 Given the complexity of the system, trout research efforts should consider incorporating all levels of ecosystem 

into their study and develop a conceptual model to place all existing hypothesis into a broader context. 

	 The program should reconsider and clarify the goals of the translocation experiments. The reevaluation should 

also incorporate a new quantitative analysis of the effects of translocations on the donor population using the 

demographic parameters estimated by the program. 

	 An evaluation of alternative designs also could be used to identify designs that minimize handling of fish and meet 

program objectives. The program should expand its efforts using PIT tags arrays or similar technologies to 

improve data quality while minimize handling of fish. 

 The program should consider developing a separate invasive species detection program that includes 

quantitative triggers and remedial actions. 

 The program should consider developing an adaptive management framework that is sufficiently flexible to 

accommodate opportunistic learning. 

 Modeling of the potential impacts of quagga mussel on water clarity, nutrient conditions, and thermal structure 

should be considered. 

Mr. Dongoske expressed concerned with the recommendation to increase communication with the tribes. 

If the intent is to bring the scientific view, that won’t work and that often times the scientists and the Zuni 

end up talking past each other. When Zuni first raised the issue, a lot of DOI people came out to 

convince them it was the right thing to do and ran into a wall. The Zuni aren’t going to compromise their 

cultural values, beliefs, sense of stewardship and responsibility to the spirits of their ancestors. 

Status of Developing Triennial Budget and Work Plan – Mr. Shanahan. There are many aspects that 

feed into the TWP and people should utilize information received from the Annual Reporting Meeting, 

Knowledge Assessment, ad hoc group updates, TWG and AMWG discussions, etc., as they review the 

budget. He identified target dates for completing work in preparation for forwarding a motion to the 

AMWG at their August 2017 meeting. The following timeline was presented: 

 April 26 = 1st draft comments due  May 25 = BAHG in-person meeting
 

 April 28 = BAHG Call  June 6 = 2nd draft comments due 

 May 9 = BAHG Call  June 12 = BAHG Call
 

 May 16 = 2nd draft issued  June 16 = 3rd draft issued
 

 May 19 = BAHG Call  June 28 = TWG Meeting
 

 May 24 = AMWG Webinar 

Reclamation’s Triennial Budget and Work Plan – First Draft – Ms. Grantz. As people are reviewing 

the TWP, they should forward additional project details to her. In the past a 3% CPI rate was used in 

developing budgets but they’re assuming a 1% growth is a reasonable target for building outyear 

budgets. The proposed draft budget for FY2018-2020 is: 

2018 2019 2020 
            

             

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group

Final Minutes of April 20‐21, 2017, Meeting Page 4

AMP Total w/1% CPI $11,025,454 $11,135,708 $11,247,066 

Reclamation side total (20%) $2,205,091 $2,227,142 $2,249,413 

Changes noted in Section C: 

 Contract Administration has increased due to time and labor involved in getting contracts awarded. 

 Integrated Stakeholder River Trip will be done every 2-3 years and is separate from cultural resources river trips. 

 Experimental Management Fund requires input on how that functions and rolls into the Native Fish Conservation 

Contingency Fund
 

 Experimental Vegetation Treatment is a commitment from the LTEMP ROD.
 

 Evaluation of means to prevent fish passage through GCD is a new CM under the LTEMP ROD.
 

 Evaluation of temperature control methods at GCD is a new CM under the LTEMP ROD.
 

 Ridgway Rail and Southwest Willow Flycatcher Monitoring is a new CM under the LTEMP ROD 

Preliminary GCMRC FY2018-20 TWP and Budget – Mr. VanderKooi. He presented the following 

budget summary: 

2018 2019 2020 

A. Streamflow, Water Quality, and Sediment Transport 

and Budgeting in the Colorado River Ecosystem 

$1,396,000 $1,424,000 $1,453,000 

B. Sandbar and Sediment Storage Monitoring & Research $1,370,000 $1,416,000 $1,460,000 

C. Riparian Vegetation Monitoring and Research $749,000 $765,000 $788,000 

D. Effects of vegetation management and dam operations 

for geomorphic condition and sand resources at 

archaeological sites and source-bordering dunefields 

$531,000 $592,000 $543,000 

E. Nutrients and temperature as ecosystem drivers: 

understanding patterns, establishing links and 

developing predictive tools for an uncertain future 

* Up to $200,000 in Lake Powell funding available 

for FY18-19 

$689,000* $551,000* $514,000 

F. Aquatic Invertebrate Ecology (Food Base) $1,055,000 $1,147,000 $1,180,000 

G. Humpback chub population dynamics throughout the 

Colorado River 

$1,949,000 $1,940,000 $2,060,000 

H. Salmonid Research and Monitoring $1,274,000 $1,378,000 $1,430,000 

I. Aquatic Invasive Species Research and Monitoring $323,000 $394,000 $421,000 

J. Socioeconomic Monitoring and Research in the 

Colorado River Ecosystem 

$369,000 $389,000 $400,000 

K. Geospatial Science and Technology $264,000 $271,000 $278,000 

L. Administration and Support $1,570,000 $1,621,000 $1,673,000 

Total $11,539,000 $11,888,000 $12,200,000 

Note: The next budget iteration will include overhead rates separated out for each project. The City of Flagstaff has 

determined that the #4 building GCMRC is in and the building with the large conference room have outlived their 

useful life span. The buildings will be leveled and the City of Flagstaff will not enter into another long-term lease. 

Overhead rates will increase due to new facilities being planned for January 2018, but he’s very skeptical of that 

date. If the building is delayed, there is a potential for cost savings. 

Preliminary Comments from the Sciences Advisors Program (SAP) on the Triennial Budget and 

Work Plan – Mr. Braun. His review focused on (1) requirements for adaptive management under 

LTEMP, and (2) implications of 2017 Knowledge Assessment results. He determined where the 

unknowns and uncertainties were in relation to status and trends, drivers and constraints and LTEMP 

experimental and management actions results. There was an analysis of the potential impacts of the 

management and experimental actions in the LTEMP EIS. What was done for the KA was the expert 

teams putting their voices and is different from what is in the LTEMP documentation. He presented the 

LTEMP Adaptive Management Learning Matrix noting that learning will occur in the (1) and (2) boxes 
            

             

 

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group
 

Final Minutes of April 20‐21, 2017, Meeting
 Page 5

and ended with a list of potential independent review panel research project topics for the FY2018-20. 

He provided the SA comments on Reclamation’s and GCMRC’s budgets.
 

Public Comment: None 

Adjourned: 5:00 p.m. 
            

             

 

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group

Final Minutes of April 20‐21, 2017, Meeting Page 6

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Meeting 

April 20-21, 2017 

Date: April 21, 2017 Start Time: 8:15 a.m. 

Conducting: Seth Shanahan, TWG Chair 

Vineetha Kartha, TWG Vice-Chair 

Attendees 

Meeting Recorder: Linda Whetton 

Welcome and Administrative: Mr. Shanahan welcomed the members and the public. Introductions 

were made and a quorum determined. There was a lengthy discussion about holding meetings in Las 

Vegas, Salt Lake City, and Flagstaff and particularly the many options considered for the Phoenix area. It 

was decided to hold the next TWG meeting on June 28 (1-5) and June 29 (830a-3) at ADWR. 

Vegetation Monitoring by the Southern Paiute Consortium (SPC) – Mr. Bulletts. He has been the 

Consortium director for the past 10 years, but monitoring has been done since 1994. Over the last six 

years the tribal leaders want to be more involved and are looking forward to having spring floods anytime 

and seeing changes in the system now that sediment is coming in. Out of 160 sites along the corridor, 

they monitored those which they felt were the most important because it was where their ancestors 

camped and lived along the Colorado River. Their science is more along the lines of photo matching and 

counting vegetation and the Consortium probably has one of the older processes of monitoring plans 

which is laying transect lines. It’s been very hard for them to find a botanist to help them better 

understand western science. 

Budget Ad Hoc Group (BAHG) Input to the Triennial Budget and Work Plan – Mr. Capron. Thus far 

they’ve held five meetings and the notes are available here. The following timeline was announced: 

Get ideas on timeline and how we want to do business over the next few months. 

 (W) April 26 – written comments from TWG  (Th) May 25 – in-person BAHG in PHX FULL 

back to GCMRC & USBR to Linda, Seth, Scott, DAY MEETING 

Katrina  (Tu) June 6 – Comments due back to GCMRC 

 (F) April 28 – BAHG meeting 8-10 PDT, 9-11 & USBR (the third draft TWP) 

MDT  (M) June 12 – SA Call 3 hours – 12-3 PDT, 1-4 

 (Tu) May 9 – 10-12 MDT, 9-11 PDT – BAHG MDT, 3-5 EDT 

Call  Send comments to Linda  (F) June 16 – Comments due (10 days ahead 

 (Tu) May 16 – full workplan draft is sent out of the meeting for posting purposes) 

with input back to GCMRC & USBR by June 6  (Tu) June 27 – BAHG Meeting ? 

 (F) May 19 – 10-12 MDT BAHG Call  (W-Th) June 28-29 – TWG Meeting in Phoenix 

UPDATE 5/9/17: The above items are postponed per direction from the Department pending a review of 

all DOI FACA committees. An e-mail was sent on May 9 informing the AMWG and TWG. 

Because there wasn’t time to discuss Reclamation’s proposed budget and members may still have 

concerns about GCMRC’s budget, members were asked to e-mail their comments or questions to Ms. 

Grantz and Mr. VanderKooi by close of business (W) April 26, 2017. 

Group Exercise with Red/Yellow/Green Colored Cards to Identify Triennial Budget and Work Plan 

Items that Lack Consensus – Mr. Shanahan. Instructions were provided to the members on how to use 

the red (major concerns), yellow (need more information) and green (no concerns) cards to discuss the 

various projects. The issues were discussed and captured by Ms. Kartha. 
            

             

 

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group
 

Final Minutes of April 20‐21, 2017, Meeting
 Page 7

Request for Agenda Items for Next Meeting – Mr. Shanahan. Members should submit any proposed 

agenda items to Mr. Shanahan by (W) April 26, 2017. 

Public Comment: None 

Adjourned: 3 p.m. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 Linda Whetton 

Upper Colorado Region 

Bureau of Reclamation 
            

             

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group

Final Minutes of April 20‐21, 2017, Meeting Page 8

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 

ARM – Annual Reporting Meeting 

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 

BT – Brown Trout 

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 

GLCA – Glen Canyon Nat’l Recreation Area 

GRCA – Grand Canyon National Park 

GCRG – Grand Canyon River Guides 

GCWC – Grand Canyon Wildlands Council 

GSF – Green Sunfish 

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 (Reclamation 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 

SAEC – Science Adivsors – Executive Coordinator 

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 

WY – Water Year