Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program 

Technical Work Group (TWG) Meeting 

April 23–24, 2018

Date: April 23, 2018 

Conducting: Seth Shanahan, TWG Chair 

Vineetha Kartha, TWG Vice-Chair

Committee Members/Alternates Present: 

Melinda Arviso-Ciocco, Navajo Nation (phone) 

Cliff Barrett, USAMPS (phone) 

Carlee Brown, State of Colorado 

Kerry Christensen, Hualapai Tribe

Marianne Crawford, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

Kevin Dahl, National Parks Conservation Assn. 

Bill Davis, CREDA 

Kurt Dongoske, Pueblo of Zuni

Craig Ellsworth, WAPA 

Paul Harms, State of New Mexico

Brian Healy, NPS/GRCA

Committee Members Absent:

Jan Balsom, NPS/GRCA 

Charley Bulletts, Southern Paiute Consortium 

Shane Capron, WAPA 

Robert King, State of Utah 

 Start Time: 9:30 a.m. 

Ken Hyde, NPS/GLNRA

Ryan Mann, Arizona Game & Fish Department

Jessica Neuwerth, State of California 

Don Oster, State of Wyoming 

Ben Reeder, Grand Canyon River Guides 

Peggy Roefer, CRC/Nevada (phone)

Larry Stevens, Grand Canyon Wildlands Council

Jim Strogen, Federation of Fly Fishers/TU

Michael Yeatts, the Hopi Tribe (phone) 

Kirk Young, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Katrina Grantz, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

Chip Lewis, Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Steve Wolff, State of Wyoming 

USGS/Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center: 

Helen Fairley, Program Manager 

Mike Moran, Deputy Center Director 

Interested Persons

Kevin McAbee, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Peter Bungart, Hualapai Tribe 

Rob Billerbeck, NPS 

David Braun, Sound Science LLC (phone) 

Kathy Callister, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

Paul Davidson, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (phone) 

James DeVos, Arizona Game and Fish Department 

Brent Esslin, Arizona Dept. of Water Resources 

Ed Gerak, Arizona Power Authority 

Jessica Gwinn, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Leslie James, CREDA

Nicole Jimenez, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 

Meeting Recorder: Linda Whetton 

Scott VanderKooi, Center Director 

John Jordan, Federation of Fly Fishers/TU

Kirk LaGory, NPS (phone) 

Don Ostler, Upper Colorado River Commission

Clayton Palmer, Western Area Power Administration

Theresa Pasqual, DOI Joint Tribal Liaison

Bill Persons, FFF/Trout Unlimited 

Sarah Rinkevich, DOI Joint Tribal Liaison

Dave Rogowski, Arizona Game & Fish Department 

Mike Runge, U.S. Geological Survey

Steve Spangle, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Melissa Trammell, NPS (phone) 

Lee Traynham, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

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

made and a quorum determined. 

 Approval of January 25, 2018, Meeting Minutes. Pending a few edits, the minutes were approved by consensus.

 Next Meeting Dates: June 25-26; October 10 -11. Both meetings will be held at ADWR.

 Ad Hoc Group Updates. The list was circulated for updates and finalized (Attachment 1).

o SEAHG Update – Mr. Reeder. The group met for lunch during the last TWG meeting held in Flagstaff 

and discussed concerns about Project N. He’s following up on questions raised. 

 Update on Monitoring and Research Trips (Attachment 2) 

 Update on Brown Trout Workshop Report – Mr. VanderKooi. The report was e-mailed last Friday and can be

found here (or at: https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20181069.). He thanked those who provided input. Mike Runge felt it 

was a very professional document. 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Final Minutes of April 23‐24, 2018, Meeting  Page 2

o Action Item: The TWG will recommend that the AMWG discuss the BT Report at the August 2018 

meeting and determine what further action is needed.

 Update on Funding Tribal Contracts – Ms. Traynham. Delays in getting contracts approved is a problem occurring 

throughout the Department. The Assistant Secretary for Water and his deputy, Andrea Travnicek, have reached 

out to Reclamation staff requesting a timeline to better understand how they can expedite the outstanding 

agreements and improve the contracting process. 

 Science Advisors’ Program Update – Mr. Braun. An e-mail was sent on April 17, 2018, asking the GCDAMP 

community to complete a survey focused on providing advice to Reclamation and the Science Advisors Program. 

The SAP is looking for suggestions on (1) Identifying topics that the SAP potentially could address through 

external independent review panel over the course of FY 2018-2020, and (2) Based on these specialized topics 

and the current research and monitoring priorities of the GCDAMP, identifying the disciplinary areas that need to 

be represented among the members of the expert panel for 2018-2020. Responses should be sent to Christine 

Wisnewski (christine@sound-science.org) by May 1. 

 Bright Angel Creek Translocation and the SCP review – Mr. Healy. The NPS has been working to control nonnative BT and RBT from BAC since the early 2000’s but more intensively since 2012. As part of their CFMP, 

Reclamation coordinated with the SAP to conduct a peer review of the 5-year monitoring report. The 

recommendation from the panel was to move forward with an experimental HBC translocation to BAC. 

Suppression of trout is at a sufficient level for the native fish to rebound there. NPS is working with USFWS and 

BOR to coordinate that effort and are shooting for May 14 to release about 150 year 2+ HBC in BAC. As part of 

the monitoring effort, BOR has coordinated the installation of a PIT tag antennae at the base of BAC and the 

project will involve monitoring similar to other translocation projects that have been conducted. 

The inclusion of the Total Value of Hydropower into Information and Decision Making in the 

Grand Canyon Adaptive Management Program (Attachment 3a) – Hank Jenkins-Smith. Non-market 

value is a major component of the total value of the change that’s associated with any major program. 

Non-market values are handled very poorly in frameworks that require formal benefit cost analysis. 

Jenkin-Smiths’ group has been trying to come up with a protocol for understanding how value changes 

occur. Values that concern people must be included in order to measure them. If the TWG is working on 

the technical issues associated with the operation of GCD without consideration of the full array of 

potential non-use values that are involved, then there could be areas not receiving the right attention. A 

total market value approach should be used in order to design a research program that actually informs 

what matters, rather than assume it is known which value can be excluded or omitted based on a priority 

judgment. 

The Total Value of Hydropower (Attachment 3b) – Clayton Palmer. This research can be used for 

information sharing, production of reports, decision-making and developing recommendations to the 

Secretary of the Interior. For hydropower, the research implies that the measurement of a hydropower 

effect by changing the operation of GCD is not quantitatively adequate if you use market values. Further 

analysis is needed. No changes to GCMRC’s budget are necessary and this is not Project N. Project N is 

the improvement of hydropower values through experimentation and other means. According to the 

research explained by Dr. Jenkins-Smith, hydropower is a bundled product. The dimensions of value with 

respect to hydropower are more than electricity and one needs to include all the dimensions of value 

when assessing the impact to hydropower of operational changes.

Discussion / Q&A 

 The Grand Canyon is the most revered national park or landscape in the world. Is there a way to sort out those data to 

understand which kinds of landscapes are being addressed by the public? (Stevens) 

Yes, but keep in mind we’re looking for the variety of origins for value propositions and arguments that are 

out there. Some of them may not be of relevance to an operational change. There are two steps that are 

relevant to your question, one is making sure that we’re not omitting things that may matter to people, and 

the second is putting it in the context of a geographic, historical, cultural change such as the GCD. 

 How do you calculate the emotional and the psychological costs that is inflicted upon an indigenous group? You also 

talked about willingness to pay and that obviates the Native American perspective because the Pueblo of Zuni’s 
 

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Final Minutes of April 23‐24, 2018, Meeting  Page 3

relationship to the GRCA is not valued in terms of a monetary system. The Zuni would say they’ve been paying for 

over 500 years with colonial oppression. (Dongoske) 

We work within a framework that’s been defined for the making of federal decision. The whole basis of 

benefit cost analysis comes from utilitarian models that assume value rests in the benefits and costs as 

people recognize them in a market-based economy. To the extent that we are trying to recognize this sort 

of tradition of western values in benefits and costs in a benefit framework, we’re doing so with due care to 

the array of value systems that are out there. Ultimately, we’re going to have to do a much better job of 

putting benefit cost analysis and monetizing of values as a piece of a broader and more effective 

framework. (Jenkins-Smith) 

 I think there are some people who are involved in traditional cultures where values haven’t changed for centuries and 

not thousands of years. The Zuni, Hualapai, and other tribes’ values will not change. I think the people doing the 

surveys have a bias. Hydropower interests have paid for a survey to show that there are even more values than 

hydropower. (Dahl) 

WAPA partnered with the University of Oklahoma. The University paid for the survey, WAPA did not. 

(Palmer) 

 All the indigenous people in this area have centuries of practice of conserving what they have, of not being wasteful, 

and realize they live with limited resources. In your research, are you addressing people’s values and practices about 

conservation or even controlling for instance their perceptions of climate change and living in an area where we have 

explosive population growth and relatively fine resources. (Bungart) 

Update on Potential Rainbow Trout Stocking in Glen Canyon (Attachment 4) – James deVos. The 

Arizona Game and Fish Department is a state agency and operates under the direction of the Arizona 

Game and Fish Commission which is a policy-setting body. The NPS/AGFD shared fishery goals are: (1) 

Maintaining a quality recreational RBT fishery in Lees Ferry, and (2) Maintaining healthy populations of 

all native fish (including HBC and RBS) populations in the lower Colorado River. To increase fish

numbers to the catch rate goal one fish per hour, the AGFD believes more stocking will help. The AGFD 

plans to stock 16,000 triploid RBT between April 1 – Oct 15 in 2018 and 2019, which should yield about 

32,000 fish. A 2-year research project will be conducted to evaluate out-migration into other reaches and 

will include federal partners and related needs. Approximately 5,000 fish per month will be stocked in the 

walk-in fishery. Stocked fish have a high mortality, the average rate will be 95%. The number of fish 

expected to reach the LCR is very small. Conservation measures and AGFD’s implementation approach 

were reviewed. 

Discussion / Q&A 

 Regarding the slide with 35% decline in angling, there was a graph that was a little confusing. In 2011-12 there is a 

huge boom in fish, but it seems like even before that the trend was already declining in the angler use. Can you 

answer that? (Reeder) 

When fishing is hot, there are more anglers. The quality of fish in 2012 had declined substantially in body 

condition which probably led to the decline so the interest in angling started declining. It has fallen off the 

table currently. (deVos) 

 Regarding Section 106 Consultation, who is going to be contacting the tribes? And do you have any concerns about 

whirling diseases or other diseases with these triploid fish? (Christensen) 

The FWS sent letters to the affected tribes approximately 6 weeks ago. The fish initially will be coming from 

one of two facilities, one of them is our vendor facility which follows AFS Blue Book standards, whirling 

disease free, some will come from the Canyon Creek hatchery which we have a really good record of fish 

health at that facility. With the whirling disease being in the system itself, these are catchable fish so we 

don’t suspect that would be a problem to those fish at all. (Cantrell) 

 We ought to be addressing the foodbase problem. What’s your budget and how much is re-subsidizing the trout 

fishing? (Reeder) 

About half of the Department’s license sales come from anglers so we’re actually doing an entrepreneurial 

model where we’re generating more resources to the Department than we spend for our trout fishery. 

We’re not subsidizing the angling community, we’re in the business of having opportunity and again about 

$20 million/year in fish license. (deVos) 

 Collectively we have almost 25 years of information on trout population dynamics in that reach. We have a huge 
 

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Final Minutes of April 23‐24, 2018, Meeting  Page 4

dataset, great time series, good tracking of pretty much all the factors that could be responsible there. Why don’t we 

have a predictive model yet that will tell us how to better manage for trout? (Stevens) 

We have a pretty good sense of some of the drivers. We could probably get good models from Charles 

Yackulic and Josh Korman, but we have a fairly good sense of what’s going on. Going forward we’ll have a 

better understanding of the dynamics of nutrients and that seems to be moving us into a better direction in 

trying to understand the complexity between reservoir elevation and nutrients and flows. Part of the problem 

is trying to piece together causative factors for correlations. (VanderKooi) 

Q: However, with the accumulation of so much information, we have the opportunity to build a pilot model and 

shouldn’t that be a priority for this program? 

Update on Compliance Status for Rainbow Trout Stocking in Glen Canyon (Attachment 5) – Nicole 

Jimenez, Jessica Gwinn. The FWS Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program (WSFR) collects a tax 

on fishing equipment, boats, engine, fuel, etc. and deposits the money into an aquatic resource trust 

fund. These funds can only be granted to State fish and wildlife agencies that have the authority to 

manage wildlife. Thus, the only agency in Arizona that’s eligible to receive funds out of this account is the 

AGFD. The program doesn’t consider what work should or shouldn’t be done and leaves that to the 

expertise of the game and fish agencies, but only looks at eligibility. In March 2018, AGFD requested 

funding to stock Rainbow Trout at Lees Ferry. AGFD will be required to complete Intra-Service Section 7 

Consultation between WSFR and the Ecological Services office. NHPA 106 compliance has been

initiated. The WSFR office sent invitations for government-to-government consultation with the tribes and 

continue to consult with the SHPO, the ACHPO, and the ACHP.

Discussion / Q&A 

 Would you explain the thought process as to how you came to a categorical exclusion when the Zuni’s expressed 

concern that you may have an adverse effect under 106 which prevent a categorical exclusion. (Dongoske) 

Well, having an effect on 106 doesn’t necessarily kick it out of the Cad Ex. In this case we’re looking at that 

because controversy for a NEPA is looked at as being controversy scientifically about the outcomes, not 

that there is opposition to the project. (Jimenez) 

 But you have to consider the human environment relationship and I think it’s appropriate and necessary to fully 

consider alternative perceptions, interactions with the environment, other than just a western science perspective and 

that’s what Zuni would be offering you. (Dongoske) 

We have just barely kicked off the 106 process and currently are gathering data. Once it goes through the 

process, we’ll know what further work needs to be done. (Jimenez) 

Update on Hydrology and Operations (Attachment 6) – Paul Davidson. The amount of snow this year 

has been tracking equal to the historic low year of 2002. The April to July 2018 forecasted inflow to Lake 

Powell is 3,300 kaf or 46% of average. The minimum and maximum probable hydrological forecasts are 

also below average. For Water Year 2018, Lake Powell is operating in the Upper Elevation Balancing 

Tier. There will be an April adjustment to Balancing, with releases from GCD not to exceed 9.0 maf and 

not less than 8.23 maf in the water year. The projected water year release volumes for 2019 are between 

8.80 maf and 9.0 maf. Maintenance requirements at the powerplant caused some adjustments to the 

LTEMP release volume last year. In November 2018, all units will be available for a potential High Flow 

Experiment, pending any unforeseen maintenance. 

As approved by the Asst. Secretary for Water and Science on April 13, the Bug Flow experiment will run 

May through August with steady weekend flows, normal hydropower production flows during week days, 

no monthly or weekly volumes flow changes, and week day fluctuating flows that will follow LTEMP 

guidelines.

Evaluation of Temperature Control Methods at Glen Canyon Dam (Reclamation Project C.9) – 

Project Overview and Status Update – Connie Svoboda is a hydraulic engineer with the Denver

Technical Service Center that conducts physical and numerical modeling of hydraulic structures related 
 

 

 

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Final Minutes of April 23‐24, 2018, Meeting  Page 5

to temperature control of dams. The TSC has been involved in design and testing of selective withdrawal 

systems and temperature curtains. A white paper is being prepared that will include a literature review, 

interviews with BOR operators/engineers and current operations that help better achieve temperature 

goals. This paper will be completed in FY18. The information will be provided to the Research and 

Development Office to determine whether a prize competition may provide new solutions to this problem. 

This effort should provide some basis for the GCDAMP’s investigation into the best alternatives for Glen 

Canyon. 

Action Item: TWG should send any comments or suggestions to Lee Traynham with next two weeks 

and she’ll forward to Connie. 

Update on the Status of Developing the Expanded Non-native Aquatic Species Management Plan 

Environmental Assessment (Attachment 7 ) – Rob Billerbeck. Comments received from scoping

sessions indicate NPS should share some refined alternatives and start talking about some triggers and 

tiers. NPS has some compliance for non-natives through the existing 2013 CFMP and Reclamation has 

compliance through the 2016 LTEMP, but changes in the system have produced more BT, GSF, and 

Quagga mussels. NPS wants to ensure there are sufficient tools in the toolbox to manage the nonnatives, retain the recreational trout fishery in Lees Ferry and the endangered and native fish 

downstream. The EA needs to be adaptable so that new information can be incorporated easily. 

Next steps: 

 Materials will be provided to TWG for an opportunity to comment on draft alternatives, tiers and triggers, and risk

of rating species (April) 

 Release scoping report and comments (April) 

 Meeting with AGFD regarding incentivized harvest and other concerns 

 Consultation with tribes as needed 

 Refine and finalize alternatives, tiers and triggers (May)

 Conduct analysis (May/June) 

 Work with cooperating agencies on administrative draft of EA (May/June) 

 Release EA for public comment (July) 

Discussion / Q&A 

 Change “consultation with tribes as needed” to “consultation with tribes as required by law.” (Dongoske) 

 Have you included fish parasites in your non-native species list? (Stevens) 

We have included some parasites. We’re looking at invertebrates rather than taking it down to 

pathogens. We have to cut it off somewhere. (Billerbeck) 

 There’s a lengthy list of non-native fish parasites in the system, some of which are now in some of the native fish and 

strategies for dealing with those might be important. (Stevens) 

We will provide the list of how we ranked some of them. Again, we are not including pathogens – viruses, 

bacteria, but we are including invertebrate parasites. (Billerbeck) 

 From the perspective of trying to protect the RBT fishery, those numbers are important to us. Who determined what 

those numbers are and what would lead to another tier? (Strogen) 

We’re thinking that this tier 4 version of electrofishing would look very much like what they scoped out for 

the white paper which my understanding is it would be something like 8 trips between November and the 

end of January. (Billerbeck) 

Charles Yackulic modeled that and provided it to us. Those are complete passes and there was an aspect 

of the type of shocking that would be done. It would be at this particular speed that the AGFD generally 

does their work. (Trammell) 

 Trying to wrap my head around the YY stocking and one of my reservations is while technology is (astute or stupid) 

treatment and has been around an aqua culture for decades, in the wild it’s only been applied to small streams. Are 

we gaining something other than adding adult male fish to the system? If you’re removing them, why do we need to 

add this extra population when it’s going to end up creating a second generation of all males? (Brown) 

There are things we really need to explore probably mathematically before we actually try to implement 

this. The modeling shows that if you were just introducing the YY males that it takes 10-20 years to have 

the effect that you’re trying to have. If you couple that with some sort of removal action at the same time, 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Final Minutes of April 23‐24, 2018, Meeting  Page 6

you can shorten the time period, but it is a question of the balance of how many fish you have in the 

system and how many YY males are available to stock. The broodstock isn’t even going to be available for 

a number of years so I’m hoping that during that time people doing the research can refine this technique 

and maybe actually test it and reveal a little bit more before a final decision is made on whether we would 

implement this or not. (Trammell) 

Update on Humpback Chub Species Status Assessment (SSA) (Attachment 8) – Kevin McAbee. 

The USFWS is using a new species status assessment program to increase collaboration, transparency, 

and consistency in making scientific determinations for species. There is a clear distinction and 

separation between the scientific analysis and the decision analysis. The USFWS is required to review 

the status of each federally listed species every five years. The key statutory difference between a 

threatened species and an endangered species is the timing of when a species may be in danger of 

extinction, either now (endangered species) or in the foreseeable future (threatened species).

The SSA and 5-year Review for the Humpback Chub were published in March 2018. The 5-year Review 

found that the humpback chub does not meet the definition of an endangered species, but the species 

could become endangered within the foreseeable future. Thus, the USFWS concluded that the 

humpback chub meets the definition of a threatened species. 

Discussion / Q&A 

 In the past, to downlist a species like HBC which has populations in the upper and lower basin, each individual 

population had to be reviewed for the three R’s. Now it appears as though you’re lumping the entire Colorado River 

Basin under one umbrella as the entire species. How much of this has depends on what’s happening in the Grand 

Canyon. (Davis) 

We are looking at it on a species co-level because that’s how we have to make our decision, but we have 

broken it between the upper and lower basin and honored the differences when we consider the viability. 

We still honor the difference between the upper and lower basin, but I do think you’re correct in that these 

resource conditions and this strong viability provide a really strong foundation for the safety of the species 

and allows us to accept some of the risks between the different scenarios in the upper basin. If this is the 

reality that plays out, then the HBC would reach recovery. It is not viable in the upper basin as scenario 1 

plays out but today we have four sustaining populations in the upper basin and they are paired genetically. 

Even if one of those goes away, we’re maintaining genetic diversity. We feel that even with the Dinosaur 

National Monument population becoming extirpated, it’s more tenuous, but we have redundant, resilient 

and representative populations in the upper basin. They’re just not as high quality. (McAbee) 

 Does the threatened status and the policy look out 50 or 60 years, was that something established just for the chub or 

is there a benchmark for that in other decisions? (Ostler?) 

Using the 16-year biologically meaningful timeframe was not adequate for the Service’s foreseeable future, 

so the Service requested we look out farther into the future. Foreseeable future applies to the Service’s 

ability to foresee the future not only for the species but for threats and the condition of the species. We look 

as far into the future as we can reasonably foresee. 

 Follow-up: Specifically I was trying to get at whether that time period could be 25, 35, or 40 years. Who picks the 

number and then when you’re getting out 40 years for projections, whether you’re forecasting the rate of growth of 

your kids and any other thing, we’re not very good at it. Really going out there a long ways to projection seems to be 

questionable whether it has much meaning at all. 

You’re right. We need to stop with foreseeable future where we have comfortable understanding. We could 

have a different concept for foreseeable future for non-native fish than we do for water availability than we 

do for habitat conditions. We have to look as far into the future as we can reasonably foresee. This is a 

Service comfort level based on what they know. It’s a complex topic and it’s not prescriptive .Our policies 

are shaped by solicitor’s memos. (McAbee) 

 As a member of the public and somebody that pays attention to this fish, my rough estimate is that we’ve spent 1⁄2 

billion dollars on this species. And for that 1⁄2 billion dollars we’ve certainly learned about the ecology. But, as far as I 

can tell, we have basically no idea why they are now successful in the lower basin. It’s great to have a planning 

process but it would be very nice to see a better explanation of why, from a scientific standpoint, the fish are doing 
 

 

 

 

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Final Minutes of April 23‐24, 2018, Meeting  Page 7

better now in the lower basin in this last 15 years when they weren’t 15 years before that. (Stevens) 

Annual Reporting Meeting (ARM) Discussion (Attachment 9) – Seth Shanahan. Because the ARM 

and the TWG meeting weren’t held together, the TWG missed the opportunity to ask questions at the 

ARM. In the OP and in the TWP budget process documents, there is text that outlines the kinds of 

conversations they should have. The ARM’s purpose is to review the progress of the funded work with 

the emphasis on results, findings, and scientific advances. Questions to start the discussion:

 Which results/findings/scientific advances stood out as impactful? 

o FWS wasn’t at the ARM and missed the HBC discussion. Possibly a webinar should be held to get a 

reporting of Service projects done last year? Mr. VanderKooi - there was a conflict with Kirk and the FWS 

staff and he supports having a webinar. Mr. Young concurred and FWS could do that. Suggestion by Mr. 

Ellsworth to do a webinar before the June TWG meeting. 

o Questions on the aquatic foodbase indicate it’s not clean on what’s going on. 

 Were there major omissions or projects lacking suitable progress? 

o There was a lot of concern about aquatic foodbase and if the BT controversy will continue 

o Status of funding for tribal participation. 

o When we think we’ve figured something out we get a curve ball. LTEMP is just completed and now are 

starting to think about spring HFEs. It’s difficult to understand this system. 

o It would be helpful to have a packet of information on the presentations to facilitate taking notes. 

o More time is necessary to ask questions. Can we submit something in writing and have the presenter 

respond so everyone will know the question and a response? 

o Exciting to see GCMRC involving nutrients and how the ecosystem works as a whole. 

o The TWG should be able to provide feedback on a prepared report before it is finalized and becomes a 

publication. 

o There’s confusion in this program on how things fit together. The Science Advisors are supposed to review 

GCMRC’s science as independent reviewers. They’re a program within our program and they don’t do policy. 

GCMRC doesn’t do policy so it’s a conundrum on how everything fits together. We need to explore the levels 

of review and action from preparation to final reporting. 

o Thanks to Mike Moran for organization of the ARM. 

o These subjects are in the SA Survey. People need to get that done. 

Mr. Shanahan noted the major topics of concern from the discussion: aquatic foodbase, modeling to test 

our understanding and potential management actions, BT and Spring HFEs. 

Possible LTEMP Experimental and Management Actions for 2018 (Attachment 10) – Lee Traynham, 

Scott VanderKooi. The 2016 LTEMP Record of Decision outlined the specific process for planning and 

implementing experiments and the Department’s commitment to consult with the tribes as requested. 

Macroinvertebrate Production Flows (Bug Flows) are scheduled for May-August 2018. The experiment 

impacts hourly and daily releases, but does not impact the weekly, monthly or annual release volume 

from GCD. The cost is estimated at $335,000 and is not expected to have a substantial impact on the 

Basin Fund. WAPA has not yet established a target for the end of year balance, but they know it’s above 

$112M and that Bug flows won’t have a consequential effect on WAPA’s ability to meet obligations. 

Other potential 2018 experiments include a Fall High Flow Experiment ≤ 96 hours (Oct-Nov 2018) and an 

Extended Duration Fall HFE up to 192 hours (Oct-Nov 2018), but both of these are dependent on JulyNov sediment inputs. 

Public Comment: None

Adjourn: 4:53 pm. 
 

 

 

 

 

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Final Minutes of April 23‐24, 2018, Meeting  Page 8

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program 

Technical Work Group (TWG) Meeting 

April 23–24, 2018

Date: April 24, 2018 

Conducting: Seth Shanahan, TWG Chair 

Vineetha Kartha, TWG Vice-Chair

Committee Members/Alternates Present: 

Melinda Arviso-Ciocco, Navajo Nation (phone) 

Cliff Barrett, USAMPS (phone) 

Carlee Brown, State of Colorado 

Kerry Christensen, Hualapai Tribe

Marianne Crawford, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

Kevin Dahl, National Parks Conservation Assn. 

Kurt Dongoske, Pueblo of Zuni

Craig Ellsworth, WAPA 

Paul Harms, State of New Mexico

Brian Healy, NPS/GRCA

Committee Members Absent:

Jan Balsom, NPS/GRCA 

Charley Bulletts, Southern Paiute Consortium 

Shane Capron, WAPA 

Bill Davis, CREDA 

Robert King, State of Utah 

 Start Time: 9:30 a.m. 

Ken Hyde, NPS/GLNRA

Leslie James, CREDA

Ryan Mann, Arizona Game & Fish Department

Jessica Neuwerth, State of California 

Ben Reeder, Grand Canyon River Guides 

Peggy Roefer, CRC/Nevada (phone)

Larry Stevens, Grand Canyon Wildlands Council

Jim Strogen, Federation of Fly Fishers/TU

Michael Yeatts, the Hopi Tribe (phone) 

Kirk Young, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Katrina Grantz, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

Chip Lewis, Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Steve Wolff, State of Wyoming 

USGS/Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center: 

Helen Fairley, Program Manager 

Dave Lytle, Chief, Southwest Biological Center 

Interested Persons

Kevin McAbee, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Peter Bungart, Hualapai Tribe 

Rob Billerbeck, NPS 

David Braun, Sound Science LLC (phone) 

Kathy Callister, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

Paul Davidson, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (phone) 

James DeVos, Arizona Game and Fish Department 

Brent Esslin, Arizona Dept. of Water Resources 

Ed Gerak, Arizona Power Authority 

Jessica Gwinn, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Nicole Jimenez, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 

Meeting Recorder: Linda Whetton 

Mike Moran, Deputy Center Director 

Scott VanderKooi, Center Director 

John Jordan, Federation of Fly Fishers/TU

Dave Lytle, U.S. Geological Survey (phone) 

Don Ostler, Upper Colorado River Commission

Clayton Palmer, Western Area Power Administration

Theresa Pasqual, DOI Joint Tribal Liaison

Bill Persons, FFF/Trout Unlimited 

Sarah Rinkevich, DOI Joint Tribal Liaison

Dave Rogowski, Arizona Game & Fish Department 

Mike Runge, U.S. Geological Survey

Steve Spangle, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Lee Traynham, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

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

were made and a quorum determined. 

Unresolved issues from yesterday:

1. Mr. VanderKooi - a list of the field work in the Grand Canyon between now through June was e-mailed 

to the TWG this morning.

2. Mr. Young - Clarification of the TCD process.
 

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Final Minutes of April 23‐24, 2018, Meeting  Page 9

State of the Budget and Work Plan and Consideration of Potential Changes to the Fiscal Year 2 

Triennial Work Plan Based on Criteria in Section 2.7 of the Budget and Work Plan Process

(Attachment 11a) – Seth Shanahan, Scott VanderKooi. The Triennial Budget and Work Plan Process 

table shows the next steps for the BAHG and the TWG. Today’s action is to consider potential changes 

to the second year of the TWP. In the June meeting the TWG will develop a recommendation on FY2019 

to the AMWG. Carlee Brown will co-chair the Budget Ad Hoc Group (BAHG) with Shane Capron. 

Next Steps in April: 

 TWG to receive general status update from GCMRC and Reclamation 

 TWG to provide preliminary direction to the BAHG 

 TWG to send proposed revisions to Linda by May 8 

Upcoming BAHG Calls 

 May 18 (10-12) MDT 

 May 31 (1030-12) MDT

Discussion / Q&A 

 The nature of this program often requires unplanned changes. There needs to be flexibility for unplanned events. The 

PPT presentation given by Lynn Jeka at August 2016 meeting helps understand how the basin fund works. (James) 

 Who should the tribes talk to about funding? The Hopi tribe had to cancel their routine monitoring trips and others are 

in dire straits for funding. (Bungart) 

The outstanding agreements have been approved at the Washington Office level. The three outstanding 

agreements for tribal participation are in the region and there’s a collective effort between the tribes and our 

regional acquisitions teams to get those completed and sent out as soon possible. I appreciate your 

involvement in spite of the contracting delays. (Traynham) 

 The CRAHG should not be listed on the Ad Hoc Group list, it is no longer needed. A group of people will be convened 

on a case by case basis to address issues relative to cultural resources that affect this group. Most issues dealing with 

cultural resources seem to be covered under the PA at this point. 

The CRAHG is suspended for now and if we need a subset of people involved in the process, we can activate it 

or convene a group of people to address some issues. (Shanahan) 

FY 18-20 Budget Update (Attachment 11b) – Lee Traynham. The FY18 budget increased slightly from 

what was in the TWP due to the change in the CPI from 1% to 2.2%. The total budget is $11,156,00 with 

BOR receiving $2,231,000 and GCMRC at $8,925,000. FY19 and FY20 have an assumed 1%. 

Discussion / Q&A 

 On D10, there is $29K for 2018, $30K for 2019, and $30K for 2020. In 2019, you added a $1,000 to the budget and it 

stays constant into 2020. Are you adding $30K to the $29K in 2019? Should it be $59K in total? (Dongoske) 

Yes. If we weren’t utilizing those funds, we would show a cumulative balance in 2019 of $59K. 

 If money doesn’t get spent in 2018 and moved into 2019 and 2020, at the end of these three years what happens to 

those funds. (Pasqual) 

They would be a carryover into the following years. 

Post-meeting Correction: Funds that are not spent in FY18 can be carried over into FY19 and FY20, 

provided there is reasonable justification. However, funds not used within the three-year triennial work plan 

horizon (FY18-20) will be reallocated within the Adaptive Management Program budget. The Contingency 

fund for NHPA section 106 compliance (D10) is an exception; these funds can be carried over for an 

extended period beyond the TWP planning horizon. 

 What happened to funding in the prior workplan budget that didn’t get spent? Did it get allocated, reassigned or did we 

lose it? (Pasqual) 

My understanding is that was rolled over into carryover in 2018. I’m happy to go back and get an answer to 

you. 

Post-meeting Correction: Funds that were not used within the three-year triennial work plan horizon 

(FY15-17) were reallocated within the Adaptive Management Program budget. 
 

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Final Minutes of April 23‐24, 2018, Meeting  Page 10

GCMRC FY 2018 budget update (Attachment 11c) – Scott VanderKooi - presented a summary of the 

2018 budget from the work plan in September 2017. GCMRC budgeted for $9,021,000 but expected 

$8,820,000. To make up for that difference of $200K, they used funds from the Native Fish Fund and 

carryover from FY17. Carryover from FY18-19 will balance the budget. Not shown in the total, is the work 

at Lake Powell ($150,000 power revenues) that is not funded by GCDAMP. $150K will come from the 

Experimental Fund to cover bug flows, the BT report (Mike Runge) and updating the sand routing model. 

With the adjusted CPI it is $9,587,000. The new budget for FY19 is $9,215,000 and anticipate carrying 

over $106K to FY2020. Currently there is no funding for Lake Powell. The funding agreements expired 

at the end of 2017. BOR is currently in the process of setting up a new agreement with GCMRC. 

The building overhead rate will be determined by July 2019. The pass-through rate should stay at 3.0%. 

The latest word on the new building is GSA is looking to sign a contract with the City of Flagstaff as early 

as next month. GCMRC occupation may be in December, the overhead rates will increase after 2019. 

Discussion / Q&A 

 Project F - focus on recommendations to improve the foodbase and nutrients. Maybe a little tweak in that budget. We 

need a conversation on phosphorus input. Decisions would have to be deferred to the management agencies. 

 Drivers and their influence lead to management actions and that goes to the management agencies. We 

recommended bug flows and that will take place this year. (VanderKooi) 

 This is the first year of a 20-year experimental program and pathways of where we’re going are not clear. Can the 

LTEMP models be improved, having a road map for the next 20 years? How do we get to a better management 

system? (Stevens) 

The issue of developing criteria for resource goals and objectives shows how complicated it is to try and 

meet all the program’s objectives. BOR is talking internally about advancing the objectives. Maybe in 

June we will have BOR talk about their thoughts on that process. (Shanahan) 

 Would like to encourage consideration of a trout predictive model to help inform what can be done in the Glen Canyon 

Reach. (Stevens) 

Charles Yackulic developed a model based on current numbers of trout and nutrients.. The model was for 

LTEMP and could be applied up to Glen Canyon. My question is the utility for how it would be used and 

applied? (VanderKooi) 

 Would like to explore more as it relates to the proposed AGFD stocking plan and what was used to inform the 

planning document. There might be features that might be helpful for AGFD goals. (Shanahan). 

 The idea of the model is great. Based on the number of fish and nutrients we should be able to predict how many fish 

the system can sustain. If we ask GCMRC to put a model to together will AzGF use it to inform stocking? (Crawford) 

Stocking is a short-term solution to the fishery not meeting the metrics identified with the hatchery 

management plan. It’s useful information for us to have a model to predict and explain some of the 

variation and inform management. We’re trying to set up a plan for management of that fishery including a 

self-sustaining population. (Mann) 

 Why are we so focused on TMFs when the modeling says that flows aren’t the best way to manage fish populations? 

Fish population can be managed more effectively with nutrients. We’ve been working at Flaming Gorge to model 

some of the relief and upgrade for use at Glen Canyon. (Ellsworth) 

 The model for LTEMP indicated that TMFs were a good way to manage fish. Maybe BT modeling is a different 

situation. (Billerbeck) 

 We’ve need to go into historical data that could provide more information. (Stevens) 

Temperature Control Device – Kirk Young. Connie Svoboda’s work is a great idea and needs to be 

balanced that with the urgency. There are certain events that could reset everything and one of those 

things is a really low level at Lake Powell, and warm water input from a low power pool. There are 

opportunities with this administration to structure a bill, and get Congress to do something about a 

temperature ability lever. Is there a way for us to move on the cold-water piece? Are there other partners 

that abilities for movement parallel to Connie’s effort? 

Mr. Shanahan – TWG needs to provide comments to Connie. 
 

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Final Minutes of April 23‐24, 2018, Meeting  Page 11

Mr. Mann requested that the BAHG consider reinstating the monitoring trip at Lees Ferry. It’s a really an 

important that assesses conditions of fish in the spring. It’s also one of their first opportunities for 

detection of BT. Logic costs are about $8,000. There is still a summer and fall, this would be the first year 

of not having a spring trip. 

Mr. Shanahan recapped items for the BAHG to discuss:

1. Getting ready for TMFs – some additional field work and laying the groundwork for potential work 

2. TCDs – what the efficacy study should look like

3. Potential usage of approved trout model for management actions like stocking or other types of

activities in Glen Canyon Reach that fits into the broader discussion of how we use models in this 

whole program to help us achieve the direction we think we need to give to

4. AZGFD Spring sampling in the Lees Ferry Reach

Evaluating the Frequency of Triggered Spring High Flow Experiments (HFE’s) Assumed in the 

Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan (Attachment 12) – Paul Grams. HFEs utilize tributary 

sand inputs on the bed of the river. The HFE re-suspend the sand and deposits it at higher elevations. 

HFEs transfer sand from channel and low elevations to sandbars along channel margins but they also 

erode sand from beaches. The goal of an HFE is to build sandbars with the sand in the system, the 

higher the flow the more sand you export. The calculation includes sand inputs from the Paria River 

passing the gage over time. The time period must be specified to make this equation balance. It can be 

accomplished with long-term sand accounting or a relative short-term accounting (how much you put vs. 

what you take out). The starting point is unknown for long-term accounting consequently short-term 

accounting is used to plan for HFEs. Most inputs come in July – September. The accounting period starts 

on July 1 and the flows are balanced (HFEs and other flows) so the export matches the input from the 

Paria River. All releases above powerplant capacity count towards the HFE duration, slower downramp 

reduces the duration of peak and sand concentrations. A meaningful experiment might be to follow a 

“regular” 96-hour HFE with slow downramp as part of extended duration HFE test. 

Discussion / Q&A 

 In previous HFEs there was a 56% gain on the beaches but within 3 months there was only a 15% gain. Would there 

be more sand in the system to do HFEs if we did Spring HFEs? (Reeder) 

If you’re doing a river trip in June, you would see bigger sandbars if the HFE had happened in April than if it 

had happened in November. The people on the river in the summer would experience bigger sandbars. 

(Grams) 

 There is some published information about how spring flows can disadvantage recruitment of trout. We’re a further 

away from understanding when BT emergence and when those floods would be timed. (Healy) 

Suppressing BT recruitment is based on the water temp in the winter because it affects the incubation 

period. A spring HFE would have to be a earlier, like Feb or March, in order to have an effect on 

suppressing BT recruitment because that’s about when they hatch out and they’re only vulnerable for a few 

weeks. After that, they’re big enough to withstand the kind of flood that we’re talking about here. And that’s 

in the white paper to some extent. (Trammell) 

 Can we move from prescribed triggering periods and a prescribed schedule to an experimental mode? When we have 

good sediment input in the fall, defer from a fall HFE and hold off until Mar or Apr for an HFE that will minimize the 

impacts on recreation and maximize negative impacts on BT. Can we treat this as an experiment in this program and 

just plan on it? And if so, what do we need to actually accomplish so we’re ready when that sediment trigger is 

reached during a fall period? (Stevens) 

I think there would be value in taking a step farther and looking at the average timing of the inputs of these 

events because there’s a disconnect between the two accounting periods identified, and the decision making 

process. In the fall, for example, we’re looking at the accounting period Jul – Dec, but decisions are starting to be 

made generally in Sep which is probably okay for most sediment input occurring prior in that time. The spring HFE 

time frame, flows in Feb or Mar or April, but decisions are starting to be made a month or 45 days before then, 

meaning inputs that are occurring from Jan – Feb are being evaluated. We need to have a better understanding of 

when inputs actually occur. (Fairley) 
 

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Final Minutes of April 23‐24, 2018, Meeting  Page 12

For summer inputs it basically works but the winter ones are few and far between and we need a better 

understanding for that period. Data from 1964 to present doesn’t help to predict when they’re likely to occur. 

(Grams) 

Mr. Shanahan reminded the TWG that the questions being asked are policy in nature and that the TWG 

needs to focus on what do we know about these HFEs, what are ways potentially that could modify them 

to achieve the objectives that we have for this program, and begin that dialogue. 

 Discussions on the inclusion of Project N in the TWP, designing future HFEs, should factor into the design, ways to 

help improve the hydropower resources as well as research on the fluctuation levels and ramp rates, and things like 

that. This is a perfect opportunity to start getting that resource into the mix of discussions. Is Lucas in those 

discussions? (James) 

We’re not really having discussions about changing HFE designs. There’s been a lot of discussions about 

the trigger window. We’ll include Lucas. (Grams) 

 Anytime you do an HFE, the majority of the sand ends up on Hualapai land. More frequent and longer duration HFEs 

have more of a financial impact on Hualapai tourism. Hualapai proposed mitigation in the LTEMP EIS for those 

economic impacts to the Hualapai Tribe and especially wanted to mention that to Reclamation. (Christensen) 

Mr. Shanahan requested the TWG submit questions or proposed changes to Linda by May 8. 

The Twenty-First Century Colorado River Hot Drought and Implications for the Future (Attachment 

13) – Brad Udall (Colorado State University). Dr. Udall presented information on drought conditions 

occurring now and the Grand Canyon in the 1950s. Temperatures have risen in the lower basin 2-4°F or 

in some cases 6-8°F above normal. It’s called anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming and it’s not going 

to go away. The north central mountains of Colorado have stayed wet and even the South Platte has 

stayed wet. That leads to a low snowpack, 0% in Arizona, reasonably good in the wind rivers, and awful 

in Utah. According to the NWS Forecast Center, as of April 16, Lake Powell was 46% of average. This is 

one of the sixth worst years on record. Arizona’s mountain watersheds in 2018 has been the driest winter 

ever. In March, Colorado was the warmest in 123 years of records. It was 8.8 F warmer than normal. 

May 2015 was the country’s wettest May since records began 121 years ago. In fact, it was the wettest 

month every recorded. 

 Record Colorado River flow reductions averaged 19.3% per year during 2000-2014. One-third or more 

of the decline was likely due to warming.

 Unabated greenhouse gas emissions will lead to continued substantial warming, translating to 21st flow 

reductions of 35% or more and that’s just on the temperature side.

 More precipitation can reduce the flow loss, but the lack of an increase to date and a large 

megadrought threat, reinforces risk of large flow loss.

There has been unusual 21st Century hydrology with: (1) two 5-year periods of below average flow, 

(2) only 4 years with above average flow, and (3) ~ 19% flow loss relative to 20th Century. 

Reclamation’s natural flow record of two-year running averages were evaluated up to 18-year running 

averages: 100 years of flow, and 99 traces of 2-year averages, 98 traces of 3-year, etc. The 

combined contents for the two largest reservoirs (Lake Mead and Lake Powell) were 90% full in 2000 

but ~40% in 2015. In Lake Mead this was due to structural deficit (overuse) and in Lake Powel it was 

due to drought. This is the most serious drought since records have been kept. An interdisciplinary 

team reconciled the future of the Colorado River and concluded that warming alone will drive 

Colorado River flow declines of -6.5% +/- -3.5% per °C. He offered the following conclusions:

 Temperature is impacting Colorado river Flows

 Have already lost ~7% 

 Could lose 20% by 2050, 35% by 2100 

 Increases in precipitation could reduce these temperature-induced losses (but many reasons to 

doubt this will occur)
 

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Final Minutes of April 23‐24, 2018, Meeting  Page 13

 Need to deal with greenhouse gasses  they must all go away, the sooner the better and it’s 

everyone’s responsibility 

Discussion / Q&A: 

 The president’s cabinet seems to be disbelievers. Is there any hope in terms of the present context to navigate these 

very troubled waters? Reclamation has assessed these risks. What risk are we at losing the focus? (Stevens) 

I don’t know the answer to that. Most climate sites really struggle to deal on this political sphere and figure 

out exactly how to make a difference and how to get the facts out and where they can be acted on. The 

rest of the world isn’t doing what it should be doing either. Recently there was a report on the IBBC Paris 

Treaty Goals and nobody’s really getting it done. If you want to see something optimistic, local action is 

taking place right now. Mayor Bloomberg is stepping up. In the 1970s environmental legislation happened 

because people got involved and that’s what is going to be needed again. (Udall) 

 There are social implications of climate change and warming and the drought in the southwest because water is going 

to get scarce and there’s going to be competition for what water is available. Generally in those scenarios, tribal 

people don’t fare too well. They get overrun by capitalist ventures. The societal pressures from global warming if they 

continue in the trend they are going will be much worse than we’ve ever imagined in terms of people being displaced 

and moving to places where they’re not wanted. (Dongoske) 

This is happening right now. If you’re paying attention to external water fault it’s underway in this State and 

has been for over a year. This entity and the facilities we’re using right now, the largest deliverer of 

Colorado River water and that dispute involves many things that are very difficult questions. It’s 

unfortunate but it’s also a case in point of what you’re describing. The Indians that have water rights, which 

aren’t all of them in this state, are in a powerful place and they’re part of the debate and dispute over who 

frankly has power of this water. They have a very important seat at the table and seem willing to help. 

(Udall) 

 How does the dust implications play into temperature and the precipitation? (Kartha) 

There are many papers on dust. Painter’s original paper said that 5% of loss in flow is due to additional 

dust and 3-week earlier runoff. The earlier runoff may be more important than the flow reduction. Jeff 

Deems published on super dusty conditions, they didn’t reduce the flow much. It went from 5% to 6% loss 

but increased the timing of runoff. Dust mostly does its harm in wet conditions. In dry years, dust can’t 

absorb the moisture for solar insulation for very long and so it washes out. (Udall) 

 Have you worked with any researchers that are looking through the lens of agricultural and maybe another lens that is 

very western specific? (Brown) 

The agricultural connection is fascinating on multiple levels. The U.S. Agriculture Dept is 10% of U.S. 

greenhouse gas emissions. (Udall) 

 Relative to greater flow or lesser flow, as things get drier, is there more incentive to hold water off the land building 

conservation systems? (Fairley) 

No. There is a connection between soil parchment and the moisture holding capacity of soils. When land 

is plowed soil carbon is lost. Carbon oxidizes resulting in less water holding capacity. There are multiple 

benefits and water has a benefit, fuels that have more root systems will hold more water. (Udall) 

Taking of Life Inventory (Attachment 14) – Mike Moran. GCMRC has been asked to take an inventory 

of the life they take because of their work. This is the first attempt to provide results. Data from biologists 

from 2017 includes GCMRC and partners in the AMP. Take of fish includes GCMRC, USFWS, and

AGFD. The majority of RBT taken were fish that are >150 millimeters in length. About 200 smaller RBT, 

averaging <80 millimeters, were also taken. The HBC taken were mostly under 80 millimeters. The table 

includes both incidental take and required (under permitting). Required take is shown in the shaded rows 

on the graph. Insects and plants are also included. 

Ms. Pasqual cautioned Mr. Moran that the slide referring to insect take should not refer to the mass of 

insects taken relative to mass of other objects. The intent by the program is to value the significance of 

life as perceived by the tribes. Mr. Moran said he would investigate providing information on the number 

of fish that weren’t killed. Mr. Dongoske said he would like to share the slides with the Zuni religious 

leaders and Mr. Moran said he’d provide the information to him.
 

 

 

 

 

 

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Final Minutes of April 23‐24, 2018, Meeting  Page 14

Cultural Resources Update – Mr. Chada - provided information on the Historic Preservation Plan 

(HPP): 

 A component of the 2017 Programmatic Agreement is to assure Reclamation’s compliance with 106 of the NHPA. 

 The HPP is a step-by-step guidance for the Cultural Resources Program to be followed on all actions under the 

LTEMP. 

 The HPP has a completion date of Sep 6, 2018. A draft for review and modifications is anticipated, May 13, 2018.

 The components of the HPP will consist of an introduction which identifies what the HPP is and what the 

requirements are under the Cultural Resources Program. The regulatory framework will be identified that guides 

the process to achieve compliance. 

 There is a section on goals and that focuses on compliance and other related cultural resources. 

 Historic context of the canyon over time includes both the tribal perspective and the western science perspective. 

The recorded historic properties that have been identified will be described. These consist of physical remains of 

past activities which are discussed in another section. 

 A review of the history of work over the past 20 years will be broken down by GLCA and GRCA and by Navajo

and Hualapai lands. 

 Research designs and questions for the future and an update on current monitoring programs will be included. 

Past work will be reviewed and goals identified. 

 A Remedial or treatment action plan will develop procedures for independent discoveries on any cultural

resources that have been identified in the canyon. 

 A provision for future project activities will be provided. 

 Information on dissemination to the public will be included. 

Mr. Chada - A challenge in the CR program is limited funding, the required research can be costly. The 

HPP should be completed by the next meeting. The tribes and others who were involved in developing 

the HPP. Mr. Christensen reported that the Hualapai Tribe and most of the other tribes have been 

working diligently to provide a description of the historical relationship between their tribes and the 

canyon via their past monitoring efforts, potential treatment actions that may have occurred and good 

efforts to completing the HPP. 

Mr. Stevens offered the Museum of Arizona as a venue for tribal presentations on values associated with 

the river. The Museum has opened a hall of Native American art and encouraged people to tour it the 

next time they’re in Flagstaff.

Discussion of Emerging Issues and Request for Agenda Items for Next Meeting – Seth Shanahan. 

Future agenda items identified: 

 Action item - recommend a budget to the AMWG in August.

 Action item - Linda was sending things out. 

 Ad Hoc Group List

 Experiments for the year

 Any information from the bug flow experiment for the June meeting  GCMRC can even provide 

anecdotal information.

 Elections for TWG Chair and Vice TWG Chair.

 TCD efficacy studies

 What’s the next step for the Brown Trout Report? What action is needed?  Reclamation 

 Pending AMWG appointments. 

 Need for the GCDAMP to equitably consider and integrate tribal knowledge into this program. 

 The 20-year plan for the program.

Mr. Ellsworth requested a webinar be scheduled before the June TWG meeting to receive an update on 

USFWS projects.

Public Comment: None. 
 

 

 

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Final Minutes of April 23‐24, 2018, Meeting  Page 15

Adjourn: 2:58 p.m. 

 Respectfully submitted,

Linda Whetton 

Upper Colorado Region 

Bureau of Reclamation 
 

 

 

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Final Minutes of April 23‐24, 2018, Meeting  Page 16

Key to Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program Acronyms 

ADWR – Arizona Dept. of Water Resources 

AF – Acre Feet 

AZGFD – 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

CESU – Cooperative Ecosystems Studies Unit 

cfs – cubic feet per second

CFMP – Comprehensive Fisheries Management Plan

CMINS – Core Monitoring Information Needs

CMP – Core Monitoring Plan

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)

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 Advisors – Executive Coordinator

Secretary – Secretary of the Interior

SCORE – State of the Colorado River Ecosystem 

SHPO – State Historic Preservation Office 

SOW – Statement of Work 

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