Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Meeting

October 20, 2011

Conducting: Shane Capron, Chairperson Convened: 8:15 a.m.

Facilitator: Mary Orton, The Mary Orton Company, LLC

Committee Members/Alternates Present:

Jan Balsom, NPS/GRCA

Cliff Barrett, UAMPS

Kerry Christensen, Hualapai Tribe

Jerry Lee Cox, Grand Canyon River Guides

Bill Davis, CREDA

Paul Harms, NM Interstate Stream Commission

Amy Heuslein, BIA

Chris Hughes, NPS/GLCA

John Jordan, Federation of Fly Fishers

Glen Knowles, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

Ted Kowalski, CWCB

Nikolai Lash, Grand Canyon Trust

Tricia McCraw, ADWR

Gerald Myers, Federation of Fly Fishers

Don Ostler, UCRC 

Clayton Palmer, WAPA

LeAnn Skrzynski, Southern Paiute Consortium

Pam Sponholtz, USFWS

Bill Stewart, AGFD

Jason Thiriot, Colo. River Commission/NV

Michael Yeatts, Hopi Tribe

Committee Members Absent: 

Charley Bulletts, Southern Paiute Consortium 

Kurt Dongoske, Pueblo of Zuni

Tony H. Joe, Jr., Navajo Nation

Robert King, UDWR 

John Shields, Wyoming State Engineer’s Office

Larry Stevens, Grand Canyon Wildlands Council

Interested Persons:

Mary Barger, public 

Perri Benemelis, ADWR

Todd Chaudhry, NPS/GRCA

Marianne Crawford, USBR

Craig Ellsworth, WAPA

Helen Fairley, USGS/GCMRC

Dave Garrett, M3

Research/Science Advisors

John Halliday, DOI

Leslie James, CREDA

Ted Melis, USGS/GCMRC

Jack Schmidt, Utah State University

Dave Slick, Salt River Project

Scott Vanderkooi, USGS/GCMRC

Terry Wilhite, WAPA

Meeting Recorder: Linda Whetton

Welcome and Administrative. Shane Capron welcomed the members. He thanked GCMRC for all their 

hard work in presenting information at the Knowledge Assessment Workshop held the past two days.

Approval of the June 28-29, 2011, Meeting Minutes. Mary Orton said there were two sets of minutes 

posted, one with more details of the discussion and the other in a more succinct, shorter format, mostly 

focused on decisions made. Members were asked to review the shorter version and communicate any 

concerns about that format. If no concerns are expressed, the new format will be adopted. Without 

objection, the original minutes were approved by consensus.

ACTION ITEM: TWG will provide comments on the shorter minutes format to Linda Whetton 

(lwhetton@usbr.gov) by November 4, 2011.

Review of Action Items (Attachment 1). Shane briefly reviewed and updated the action items list.

Old Business

AMWG Motion & Votes (Attachment 2). Mary reported that the AMWG acknowledged receipt of the 

Species of Concern AHG report at their last meeting. They also asked that TWG reconstitute the Cultural 

Resources AHG and provide two recommendations to AMWG: the first on how the program should 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 2

Final Minutes of October 20, 2011, Meeting

address conflicts of cultural values, specifically those involving Native American perspectives; and the 

second on how tribal values should be monitored and tracked in the program.

TWG Ad Hoc Group Updates: Shane provided brief updates on the work being done by the groups. 

Budget AHG – This group will start meeting again early next winter. 

Cultural Resources AHG – Kurt Dongoske, the CRAHG chair, was not present. Shane said he 

would like to revise the charge to the CRAHG today based on AMWG’s request. 

Core Monitoring AHG – Appendix B of the Core Monitoring Plan will be discussed later today.

Socioeconomics AHG – Dr. Dave Garrett, the new chair, will provide an update later today. 

Species of Concern AHG –Their work being completed, TWG disbanded the group by consensus 

without objection. 

Several members indicated their desire to be removed from or added to the ad hoc groups. The list was 

updated accordingly (Attachment 3).

Environmental Assessment Updates. Reclamation continues to work on the two EAs (High Flow 

Experiment Protocol and Non-Native Fish Removal). Reclamation hosted a meeting on September 6-8, 

2011 with tribes, SHPOs, THPOs, and other interested parties, at which time draft MOAs were 

developed. Reclamation is also working with FWS on ESA consultation and would like to get a final BO 

for these two EAs and MLFF operations completed by the end of November. 

ACTION ITEM: TWG requests that they be allowed to review and comment on the final BO. Reclamation 

will inform the TWG how they intend to handle this request.

Long Term Experimental Management Plan Environmental Impact Statement Update. A Federal 

Register notice was published October 17, 2011 (Attachment 4) that includes the schedule for scoping 

meetings for this EIS. A scoping report will be developed 30 to 60 days after the close of scoping. 

Reclamation and the National Park Service – co-leads for the EIS – will offer consultation with the tribes. 

Bill Stewart offered to be involved in the process and contribute to the scoping/poster sessions. Glen said 

Argonne Labs is overseeing the scoping process, and invited the group to review the LTEMP website 

(http://ltempeis.anl.gov/). 

Programmatic Agreement. Glen reported that, at the September meeting referenced above, the following 

timeline was developed for a new PA that would address long-term effects and recognize the entire 

canyon as a traditional cultural property:

January 1, 2012: A small group of individuals will compile and review background documents 

and create an annotated bibliography that will be sent to all participants.

March 1, 2012: Face-to-face meeting(s) will be held for brainstorming and drafting sessions.

June 30, 2012: A final PA document will be ready for review.

New Business

Next TWG Meeting – The Knowledge Assessment workshop will be held January 30-February 1, 2012, 

with the TWG meeting to follow on February 2, 2012. Dr. Schmidt said the KA would focus on the major 

questions concerning geomorphology, sediment transport, and terrestrial and cultural resources. 

Humpback Chub Five-Year Review Report (Attachment 5). Shane encouraged everyone to read this 

important document. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will make a presentation on it at the next TWG 

meeting.

GCMRC Direction and Tasks: Discussion Challenges with GCMRC and Upcoming To-Do List

(Attachment 6). Having served as the chief of GCMRC for two months, Jack Schmidt said he wanted to 

share his preliminary thoughts on GCMRC’s role in the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management 

Program (GCDAMP). He is searching for ways to achieve the mandate that GCMRC be a world-class 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 3

Final Minutes of October 20, 2011, Meeting

scientific organization, while meeting the needs of the program. He thought that it would serve GCMRC 

well if they were involved with other basins besides Colorado River through Grand Canyon. This could 

involve additional fund sources as well as additional knowledge. He had spoken with several people 

involved in the program, and said he would contact each TWG member for further conversation. He was 

concerned about some of the feedback he had received, including an indication that some people did not 

trust that GCRMC scientists were committed to the GCDAMP. 

Several members thanked him for sharing his thoughts and said they look forward to working with him. 

Other comments made included:

Concern that the scope of GCMRC’s work should be expanded beyond CRE and the magnitude 

of cost.

The staff at GCMRC are highly skilled and their expertise isn’t limited to just the Grand Canyon.

Interested in the potential for collaboration and consider doing different things to fulfill 

management of conservation for both Glen and Grand Canyons.

Need for GCMRC to develop better understanding of historical knowledge so that the tribes can 

provide and incorporate that into future plans for the Center.

GCMRC has excellent staff and practices “pure” science, in that the scientists aren’t influencing 

the data. 

Concern about improving coordination with the Park.

Suggest integrating science and tribal values by looking at the linkages and developing greater 

understanding on how to use that knowledge.

There is a lot of overlap with other programs and we need not duplicate work. 

WAPA would be willing to provide money and staff to help GCMRC gather good science in an 

effort to resolve the uncertainties.

Am happy you’re looking at other areas and leveraging agencies to look at other issues.

Concern that our processes and procedures allow us to respond to a unique opportunity to gain 

knowledge.

Concerned with how “success” is defined. It might be a balance and nothing is perfect.

We’re strong on science but weak on process. We need to add that to become a more efficient 

organization.

CRAHG Direction from AMWG Motion: Shane read the motion passed at the last AMWG meeting:

Motion

1. AMWG recommends that the Secretary of the Interior consider a review of the 

GCDAMP programs related to archaeological site monitoring and compliance with 

NHPA section 106 and the GCPA, to clarify how DOI (and the GCDAMP) is 

achieving compliance with both NHPA section 106 and the GCPA and what is 

specifically necessary to do so.

: To address cultural resources issues #1 and #2, below, AMWG requests 

Reclamation develop a timeline and process for their resolution during the meeting 

already scheduled for September 6-8, 2011, to discuss Section 106 and PA issues. 

AMWG further requests that results of that meeting be shared at the next AMWG 

meeting. To address cultural resource issue #3 below, AMWG directs the TWG to 

reconstitute the Cultural Resources Ad Hoc Group and make a recommendation to the 

AMWG on the issue at its February 2012 meeting.

2. AMWG recommends to the Secretary that Reclamation implement the process that 

has been identified in Reclamation’s 2007 Treatment Plan to comply with the 

requirements of NHPA section 106 for the operation of Glen Canyon Dam.

3. AMWG indicates its intention to make a recommendation to the Secretary on the 

following questions: How should the program fairly treat conflicts of cultural values, 

specifically those involving Native American perspectives? How will tribal values be 

monitored and tracked in this program?
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 4

Final Minutes of October 20, 2011, Meeting

ACTION ITEM: The TWG agreed without objection that the CRAHG would work on answering the 

following questions and provide an update to the TWG at its February 2, 2012, meeting: 

 How should the program fairly treat conflicts of cultural values, specifically those involving 

Native American perspectives? 

 How will tribal values be monitored and tracked in this program?

 How should TEK be integrated into the GCDAMP science program?

Shane will work with Kurt on how to address the direction given from the AMWG to the CRAHG.

GCMRC/AMP To-Do List. Shane reviewed the following items, indicating that GCMRC may not be able 

to produce updates to all of them in the coming year: 

Strategic Science Plan (Attachment 7). This establishes the high-level roles of GCMRC, SSQs, general 

monitoring, and science needs, and what is needed in the revised budget process table. This document 

is current through 2011.

Monitoring and Research Plan. This is a five-year plan for GCMRC. It establishes the general science 

programs and forms the basis for the workplan. This document is current through 2011.

Biennial Workplan (BWP): This is a detailed description of GCMRC activities, required sometime in late 

winter. The draft timeline for the budget process is based on a revised table from ASWS:

o January – Reporting meeting. TWG provides issues and priorities for DOI to consider, 

GCMRC provides annual reports using the agreed‐upon format used in 2009 and 2010.

o February – DOI provides and discusses BWP priorities and major issues, for discussion 

at AMWG.

o March – Draft BWP is sent to the ASWS from GCMRC.

o April – TWG reviews the initial BWP budget spreadsheet and workplan and provides 

direction to the Budget Ad Hoc Group (BAHG)

o May – BAHG reviews the initial BWP.

o June – TWG makes a recommendation on the BWP to AMWG, with policy issues to be 

resolved by AMWG.

Annual Reports: This report details the science which has been accomplished over the past year, and is 

given over a two-day meeting where scientists and cooperators report on their research. For the past two 

years, following the annual reporting meeting, TWG provided a list of issues derived from the annual 

reports to Interior to help inform development of the budget and workplan. 

Core Monitoring Plan (Attachment 8). Even though core monitoring has been a consistent part of the 

vision of the program, a comprehensive plan has not been completed. This document would be the result 

of a planning process to reach agreement on long‐term monitoring programs. The tradeoffs for the 

monitoring programs beyond the workplan cycle have never been fully evaluated. The plan has been to 

complete the general core monitoring plan (a strategy document including Appendix B from the TWG), 

and then, in 2012, develop some specific core monitoring programs, such as for fish, sediment and 

vegetation. Shane said he felt the TWG is ready to approve the CMP with Appendix B and make a 

recommendation to AMWG to approve it. 

Jack noted that GCMRC has finite capacity, and to the degree that GCMRC is engaged in producing 

administrative and planning documents, they cannot do research or monitoring. He suggested that 

shorter documents could be more effective, in some cases, than longer ones, and suggested that critical 

thinking was more important than lengthy documents. 

Shane said he would work with Jack behind the scenes to streamline reporting on projects, preparing 

documents, and developing the workplan, and then report to TWG. 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 5

Final Minutes of October 20, 2011, Meeting

As a proposal, the SSP and MRP could be revised and combined into a much smaller document. The 

following notes were taken on the discussion:

Monitoring and Research Plan

Report every five years at the Knowledge Assessment Workshop 

Combine SSP and MRP, revise for review this spring

Biennial Workplan

The workplan could include brief Annual Reports (or biennial reports), including an evaluation 

of last few years, successes/ failures, and the plan for the next few years

Shane asked the group to brainstorm what they feel would be the essential elements of a workplan. 

More clarity and detail on how a project relates to an SSQ – how and over what timeframe.

Clarify SSQs (to be done as SSP/MRP is updated).

Bruce Taubert developed a list we should refer to.

Clearly defined deliverables.

How projects relate to others, how projects link to others that are being done by other 

agencies.

In the reporting section: Evaluate the SSQs based on what has been learned.

Progress element – here is answer, here is how confident we are.

Here is SSQ, here is where we are in answering it, here is what we think the answer is, here is 

how certain we are as a percentage.

TWG should take lead in developing/revising SSQs (management side).

Information on project costs.

Systems orientation.

In response to a question about the reporting required by Reclamation, Marianne Crawford said she and 

Jack have come to agreement on what is expected of GCMRC to meet its contractual requirements. Jack 

assured the group there would be transparency in expenditures. 

Shane reminded the group that Anne Castle identified the program’s priorities as: 

(1) Compliance with ESA, which means focus on the native fish and particularly the humpback chub, 

(2) Focus on sediment, which includes concerns for resources downstream from the dam and being able 

to respond to a high flow experimental release, and

(3) (3 and 4) science on both non-native fish control and the recreational trout fishery. 

He reiterated that TWG’s job is to revise the MRP based on what they know and the Secretary’s 

priorities.

Economist Position. Ted Melis said the economist position description has been developed and the 

announcement will be open for 20 business days in November. They hope to hire someone by midMarch 2012. As in the past, GCMRC could set up a webinar for those stakeholders who wish to 

participate in some of the interview process. 

Election of the TWG Chair. Glen asked for nominations for TWG Chair. Jason nominated Shane, there 

were no other nominations, and Shane was elected to chair for FY12.

Socioeconomic Plan. Dr. Garrett said the SEAHG will be meeting on November 2, 2011, to merge the 

socioeconomic Information Needs (INs) into a final document. He invited the group to review the INs in 

Table 1 and his PPT presentation (Attachment 9), and let him know if any INs should be added or 

merged. He said he would present, at the February 2012 TWG meeting, revised INs plus program 

elements that could be connected. The Ad Hoc Group would then develop a longer-term science or 

management plan. 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 6

Final Minutes of October 20, 2011, Meeting

ACTION ITEM: SEAHG members planning to attend the SEAHG meeting at the Salt River Project 

(SRP) office on November 2, 2011, need to let Dave Garrett (m3research@2starband.net) and Linda 

Whetton (lwhetton@usbr.gov) know by October 26, 2011.

Administrative History Project. Mike Yeatts referred to the prospectus (Attachment 10) which was 

part of his presentation to the AMWG in August 2011. 

Motion (proposed by Mike Yeatts, seconded by Amy Heuslein): TWG recommends that AMWG 

recommend to the Secretary to accept the Administrative History Prospectus dated August 2011. 

Passed by consensus.

Public Comment: There was no public comment.

Adjourned: 2:55 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Linda Whetton

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

Upper Colorado Regional Office
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 7

Final Minutes of October 20, 2011, Meeting

General Key to 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

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

CAHG – Charter Ad Hoc Group

CAPA – Central Arizona Project Association

GCT – Grand Canyon Trust

CESU – Cooperative Ecosystems Studies Unit

cfs – cubic feet per second

CMINs – Core Monitoring Information Needs

CRBC – Colorado River Board of California

CRAHG – Cultural Resources Ad Hoc Group

CRCN – Colorado River Commission of Nevada

CRE – Colorado River Ecosystem

CREDA – Colorado River Energy Distributors Assn.

CRSP – Colorado River Storage Project

DAHG2 – Desired Future Conditions Ad Hoc Group

DASA – Data Acquisition, Storage and Analysis

CWCB – Colorado Water Conservation Board

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

GCT – Grand Canyon Trust

GCMRC – Grand Canyon Monitoring & Research Center

GCNP – Grand Canyon National Park

GCNRA – Glen Canyon National Recreation Area

GCPA – Grand Canyon Protection Act

GLCA – Glen Canyon National Recreation Area

GRCA – Grand Canyon National Park

GCRG – Grand Canyon River Guides

GCWC – Grand Canyon Wildlands Council

HBC – Humpback Chub (endangered native fish)

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

LRRMCP – Lower Colorado River Multi-Species 

Conservation Program

LTEP – Long Term Experimental Plan

LTEMP – Long-Term Experimental and Management 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

NPS – National Park Service

NRC – National Research Council

O&M – Operations & Maintenance (USBR funding)

PA – Programmatic Agreement

PEP – Protocol Evaluation Panel

POAHG – Public Outreach Ad Hoc Group

Powerplant Capacity = 31,000 cfs

Q/A/C/R = Question/Answer/Comment/Response

R&D – Research and Development

RBT – Rainbow Trout

RFP – Request For Proposals

RINs – Research Information Needs

ROD Flows – Record of Decision Flows 

RPA – Reasonable and Prudent Alternative

SA – Science Advisors

Secretary – Secretary of the Interior

SCORE – State of the Colorado River Ecosystem 

SHPO – State Historic Preservation Office(r)

SOW – Scope of Work

SPAHG – Strategic Plan Ad Hoc Group

SPG – Science Planning Group

SSQs – Strategic Science Questions

SWCA – Steven W. Carothers Associates

TCD – Temperature Control Device

TCP – Traditional Cultural Property

TES – Threatened and Endangered Species

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 (a calendar year)

Updated: Sept. 1, 2011