Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Meeting

September 29-30, 2009

Conducting: Shane Capron, Chairperson September 29, 2009

Convened: 9:30 a.m.

Committee Members/Alternates Present:

Mary Barger, WAPA

Charley Bulletts, So. Paiute Consortium 

Kerry Christensen, Hualapai Tribe

William Davis, CREDA

Kurt Dongoske, Pueblo of Zuni

Jay Groseclose, NM Interstate Stream Comm. 

Norm Henderson, NPS/GCNRA

Leslie James, UAMPS (alternate for C. Barrett)

Rick Johnson, Grand Canyon Trust

Dennis Kubly, USBR

Steve Mietz, NPS/GRNP

John O’Brien, Grand Canyon River Guides

Emily Omana, Grand Canyon Wildlands Council

Don Ostler, UCRC (alternate for WY)

Bill Persons, AGFD

D. Randolph Seaholm, CWCB

Sam Spiller, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (alternate)

Jason Thiriot, Colo. River Comm./NV

Bill Werner, ADWR

Michael Yeatts, the Hopi Tribe

Committee Members Absent:

Cliff Barrett, UAMPS

Christopher Harris, Colo. River Board of California

Amy Heuslein, BIA

Robert King, UDWR

Glen Knowles

John Shields, WY State Engineer

Mark Steffen, Federation of Fly Fishers

Larry Stevens, GCRG

Interested Persons:

Matthew Andersen, GCRMC/USGS

Mike Berry, Bureau of Reclamation

Marianne Crawford, Bureau of Reclamation

Jerry Cox, Grand Canyon River Guides

Alan Downer, Navajo Nation

Helen Fairley, USGS/GCMRC

Dave Garrett, Science Advisors

Pamela Garrrett, M3

Research

Mike Gozzle, University of Florida 

John Hamill, USGS/GCMRC

Ted Kowalski, Colo. Water Conservation Board

Clayton Palmer, WAPA

Tom Ryan, Bureau of Reclamation

Gaylord Staveley, Canyoneers, Inc.

Curtis Yazzie, Navajo Nation

Meeting Recorder: Linda Whetton, USBR

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Welcome and Administrative. The Chairman welcomed the TWG members, alternates, and interested 

persons. Attendance sheets were distributed. He mentioned the e-mail he sent out on Sept. 23rd which 

provided more background information on some of the agenda items (Attachment 1).

Approval of July 16-17, 2008 Minutes. Without objection, the minutes were approved. 

Approval of the March 16-17, 2009 Minutes. The following errors were noted: 1) Steve Mietz voted as an 

“abstention” for the HEC-RAS motion, 2) Helen Fairley said the correct number of sites was 232 sites and 

should be changed on page 22, line 6, 3) Bill Werner said on page 5, the “fish should be coming up from 

Lake Mead.” Pending corrections to be made, the minutes were approved. 

Approval of June 22-23, 2009 Minutes. Without objection, the minutes were approved.

Next TWG Meeting. Shane distributed copies of the TWG workplan (Attachment 2) and said the next 

TWG meeting would be a one-day meeting on January 21, 2010 following the Annual Reports Meeting on 

January 19-20 in Phoenix. He asked the members to send him suggestions for agenda items. He also 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 2

Final Minutes of Sept. 29-30, 2009, Meeting

reminded them of the Core Monitoring and Socio-Economic Workshops to be held December 1-3, 2009, at 

ADWR. 

Action items. The TWG reviewed the current action items (Attachment 3). Norm mentioned one item that 

was on a previously posted version relative to Reclamation providing updates to the TWG on the status of 

several reports. Linda said that particular document was removed because she included it as an action item 

but not being a TWG member, she couldn’t make that commitment. She said Dennis wasn’t here at the time 

the action items were discussed at the last meeting. Norm said he felt that someone needs to make that 

update. Dennis said he would address this under “old business.” Norm renewed his request that he wanted 

this to be reviewed on a regular basis. Shane committed to keeping this under “old business” so it doesn’t 

get lost. Norm asked what the difference was between an action item and something carried under old 

business. Shane said he saw the action item list as something that directly relates to the TWG that they’ve 

been asked for whereas the reports that Norm mentioned are for general information purposes. 

Chair Update from the AMWG meeting. Shane reported there was a letter sent from Anne Castle

(Attachment 4a) which included the two motions forwarded to the Secretary. However, he suggested all the 

motions be sent to the TWG. He said there were two very interesting issues: 1) the HBCCP was passed 

and sent to the Implementation Committee, and 2) the management actions were passed. He reviewed the 

other motions (Attachment 4b) and said further discussion will occur at this meeting. 

Old Business. 

BOR Reporting Update. 1) Dennis Kubly said this item didn’t deal so much with financial reporting but the 

delivery of products. He introduced Marianne Crawford and said she was hired to track those 

reports/deliverables and has already developed a spreadsheet going back to 2008 to track the deliverables 

in the work plans and tracking BOR, GCRMC, and any entities doing contracting work so the TWG would 

have a better idea of how they’re doing the science. 2) With regard to Norm’s request on the reports, Dennis 

said the process for completing those reports is underway and being managed directly from Interior with the 

assistance of the DOI agencies. He didn’t know if a BOR representative would have any more access to the 

process than the other DOI agencies but said Reclamation would commit to providing feedback as

necessary. 

Norm was concerned with the following reports: 1) Annual Plan of Operations, 2) Annual Report to 

Congress, 3) 5-year Review of the Operating Criteria, and the Monthly Volumes. Norm said that Rick had a 

list of probably nine reports that he was also interested in. 

Randy Seaholm noted for the record that some reports being monitored and tracked are okay to report on 

but some of them are clearly outside the scope of the TWG. He felt there needs to be some consistency 

between what reports the TWG can review and keep those that are outside the program outside the 

program. He said the Annual Operating Plan and determination of the monthly volumes are not part of the 

TWG’s scope. Shane said the TWG should be provided status updates on the reports but not be involved in 

how they’re developed. 

Dave Garrett said one of the concerns the Science Advisors has had for a number of years is determining 

the best way to inform the Secretary relative to various assessments and implications of actions taken in the 

GCDAMP as the program moves forward with integrating science and science with management.

Dennis said Reclamation will send out URL addresses pertaining to technical documents/reports. Policy 

issue documents/reports will be dealt with at the AMWG level and URL addresses will be sent to them as 

required.

Mechanical Removal Update – Dennis Kubly distributed copies of the Draft Agenda for the Govt-to-Govt 

consultation meeting with the DOI agencies and the Pueblo of Zuni (Attachment 5). Presentations were 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 3

Final Minutes of Sept. 29-30, 2009, Meeting

made to the tribe and the commitments the agencies have in Govt-to-Govt consultations was discussed. He 

thought it would be helpful to hear from Kurt Dongoske about the first meeting. Kurt said the biggest thing 

was to have the DOI understand the Zuni perspective. They were given a tour of the Zuni Museum and 

history of the Zuni. During the meeting they heard from the Zuni Tribal Council and the Zuni religious 

leaders. The leaders don’t differentiate between native and non-native fish but consider death of the fish as 

one thing. This is the beginning of the process. The one thing not discussed was Section 106 for approval of 

mechanical removal in 2010. The mechanical removal is an adverse impact seen by the Zuni. They 

anticipate further consultation on how those mitigative activities may be developed.

Matthew reported there are two removal trips scheduled for 2010 which will occur in May or late summer. 

Bill Persons reminded Matthew that the trips have to mesh with other schedules. Kurt said one mitigative 

measure discussed was taking the trout out of the LCR and putting them in the Lees Ferry Reach.

Farewell to Randy Seaholm. The TWG congratulated Randy on his retirement from the Colorado Water 

Conservation Board after 36 years of service. He was presented with a picture of Glen Canyon Dam, an InOut Burger shirt, and a goody bag. The TWG presented him with a farewell card and the group enjoyed 

coffee and cake (courtesy of Shane and Leslie respectively). Randy said he has thoroughly enjoyed working 

with every member. While they’ve had some healthy discussions, they have always been done them in a 

very meaningful manner in order to advance the program. 

New Business

Nomination of TWG Chair for FY2010. Shane was asked to leave the room while the TWG accepted 

nominations for TWG Chair. There was consensus Shane was doing a good job and should continue as 

TWG Chair for FY2010.

Final Tribal Consultation Plan. Mike Berry said the Tribal Consultation Plan has been finalized. It was a joint 

effort among DOI, DOE and the tribes. Helen asked what the difference was between the plan and the 

guidelines. Mike said it’s not a native tribal plan but provides guidance for how DOI and DOE will do 

consultation.

Litigation Update. Sam Spiller said they’re in the process of complying with the court order relative to the 

Grand Canyon lawsuit. Rick Johnson said the court order is coming back with a response to the judge’s 

request on the 2004 and the 2008 biological opinions. The FWS response is due the end of October and 

should be out to the public by December. 

Action Item: TWG members interested in serving as chair of the HBC AHG should let Shane or Linda 

know as soon as possible.

GCMRC Updates (Attachment 6) Shane said that since the updates were made available to the members 

ahead of time, he asked if there were any questions for GCMRC staff. Steve Mietz said he wanted to 

provide an update on the Shinumo Translocation first.

Shinumo Translocation Update. Steve Mietz reported they just completed their second monitoring trip and 

captured 116 translocated chubs during the September trip. Two chub were found above the falls on the 

highest pool they put the fish in. There were 178 recaptured if all translocations are counted. They’re 

showing growth of approximately 22 milimeters between the July and September trips. He said 13 of 116 

fish were caught below Shinumo Falls. They also did a little bit of backwater seining between river mile 115 

and 120. Out of that they were able to find 8 YOY HBC in seven different backwaters. They also found one 

223 milimeter chub in the backwater from river mile 162. The average temperature for the backwaters was 

18.1 C as compared to the mainstem which was 15.7 C so there was significant warming in the mainstem. 

Also noteworthy was they sampled hundreds of bluehead and mostly flannelmouth suckers in the 

backwaters. 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 4

Final Minutes of Sept. 29-30, 2009, Meeting

Senior Ecologist Update. Shane said he thought the last sentence in the second paragraph was pretty 

interesting. It reads, “in conjunction with estimates of HBC juvenile abundance in the nearshore ecology 

program, it now appears that a substantial portion up to 30% of the net recruitment of HBC adult population 

may soon becoming from mainstem rearing.” Rick said he also found the paragraph intriguing and 

wondered how they could get more information on the conclusions. John said Carl Walters will be working 

with GCMRC staff and other cooperators in doing some modeling. The intent is to refine the modeling 

outputs in March and then share with the TWG at an April workshop.

Under the biological update on page 4, Shane read the last sentence on the page, “Will be meeting with 

TWG to review the implications of the analyses of the FY11 is anticipated for February 2010.” He asked if 

GCMRC is anticipating a workshop with the TWG in February 2010 on the PEP implementation. Matthew 

said that was correct. Shane will update the TWG meeting schedule. 

Dennis said that since Lew Coggins will be leaving GCMRC within the next month or so, he asked GCMRC 

whow they complete their analyses. Matthew said some of it will probably be done by AGFD and F&WL. 

They expect Lew will help them get started on the ASMR analyses but he’ll be leaving in mid-November so 

some work will be contracted out.

Annual Reporting Requirements. John Hamill said a copy of the “Fiscal Year 2009 Project Report for the 

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program” (Attachment 7) was sent to everyone via e-mail. He 

said this was an outline of the report they used last year and is meant to be a fairly concise summary of 

what has been accomplished and what was intended to be accomplished. Steve said he felt some type of 

tracking needs to occur from the Annual Reports Meeting where the good ideas are captured particularly 

synthesis between some of the studies. He suggested using the Comment/Response table to capture 

those ideas. John said they won’t be able to provide answers to some of the key questions until some of the 

studies are completed but #5 will attempt to provide that information. 

Norm said he didn’t know what “key” meant and wondered if they could get a list of all the strategic science 

questions and then fill in the blanks. John said “key” is refers to the key strategic science questions and 

everything is listed that may be relevant to the study. He said some are the main focus of the study while 

others are more ripple-related. His thought was to focus on the really key ones rather than the whole 

laundry list of items. Norm advocated for a whole list of the projects.

Shane said he felt the responses should be in the SSQs. Norm felt a summary of knowledge was needed. 

John said it happens in the knowledge assessment. John reiterated the annual reports are snapshots in 

time. Norm said if it shows up as an SSQ in that project, then information for other projects should also 

brought into the process. Dennis said if you looked at comments and responses on the two plans they’re 

going to be reviewing, there is a pretty consistent call for identification of the hypothesis. He said one of the 

problems related to getting to the SSQ is it is high enough that there is a subset of unaddressed hypotheses 

under NEPA that might help get down to focusing on hypotheses or SSQ’s that are being addressed in the 

project. Dennis said it’s almost like it is missing. Mary said it would be nice to see if and when there is a shift 

in the workplan. John said he would add a note in item #4. He said the next step is to produce the reports. 

They did a survey of what people wanted to know about last year and worked with Shane to figure that out 

this year. The idea was to include the DOI agencies, tribes, etc. and see what presentations are wanted. 

John said the meeting in January would be to give a full reporting on what was learned in 2008. 

Dennis asked how the group intends to prioritize projects based on the new budget process. This could also 

include a discussion of things that haven’t been done and should be done. He said it makes sense to use 

the form and Reclamation could assist in developing the workshop. Shane will work with Reclamation and 

other parties who want to be involved. 

Defining Management Actions. Dr. Dave Garrett gave a PPT, “Evaluation of Transition of Science to 

Management Actions in Adaptive Management Programs” (Attachment 8a). He said numerous examples 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 5

Final Minutes of Sept. 29-30, 2009, Meeting

were included in the prospectus, “Evaluation of a Transition in the Roles of Science and Management 

During the Evolution of Adaptive Management Program” (Attachment 8b). There was a discussion 

between Norm and Dave on what is considered an adaptive management program. Don said he would like 

to make sure that Dave’s techniques, questions, and screening methods are based on existing law. Don 

said he was interested in the funding issues going from science to management actions and the effect it 

would have on some stakeholders financially. Bill Persons said it really falls on the managers and the TWG 

needs to assess how much risk it is willing to take and that they have the science to do the action. Sam said 

he wants the thoughts from Don to be incorporated into Dave’s document. 

John O’Brien said when the SAs were tasked to this, he wasn’t sure the group had gone from science to 

management actions or management actions to science. The HFE was done through an EA. The same for 

MLFF. They came up with an MLFF and then are looking at whether it can be done. He stated that when 

moving to management actions, stakeholders are impacted. Dave said it has occurred in many cases and 

when some agencies tried to do that, they ended up in litigation. He said it depends on managers who are 

willing to accept risk. Dave said they agreed to take this on without adding more funding for it. There will be 

four people involved. 

Norm asked about the input from management agencies and feels there needs to be direct contact with the 

SAs and the managers also need to be involved.

Shane said the TWG is supposed to be review the report and incorporate their concerns. Dave will provide 

the report on December 31. Dennis said in regard to Don’s request, he felt if Dave put out a list of criteria, 

then it could be given to the TWG. Dave said he wants all comments to him by November 1, 2009.

Jay Groseclose feels the information won’t be available to provide to the AMWG. Shane said it will be 

provided in a TWG Chair report to the AMWG as there won’t be a formal presentation by the SAs. Jay 

suggested this be included in a conference call. However, Shane didn’t feel there would be time as they 

would need the report and it would be too late to incorporate into the AMWG process. 

ACTION ITEM: Dr. Garrett will send the criteria the SAs are using to the TWG (via Linda) and will need 

comments back to him by as soon as possible but no later than November 1, 2009. 

Geoarchaeology Project. Joel Pedersen gave a PPT on the “Grand Canyon Geoarchaeology Project”

(Attachment 9). He said the cooperating agencies on the multi-year project were Reclamation, the Park 

Service, and USU contractors. He said there are 54 sites to be treated in Western Canyon. He said there 

were some major personnel changes: Dr. Kenneth Cannon as the project manager, Dr. Ted Neff as the 

Archaeology PI, Kimberly Spurr as the Field Director/co-PI, and Dr. Emily Jones who will provide tribal 

perspectives.

Q: When you were here the last time, you talked about the dichotomy between science and management. You’re 

working on a treatment plan that’s compliance with NHPA Section 106, right? So my question is: Do you feel you can 

do research inside a compliance activity? Clearly you believe you can do research inside a compliance action. I think 

that’s important if you’re working for these folks. (Kubly)

A: Yes, this project which is compliance driven, but also presents an unbelievable opportunity for me to do fantastic 

science. This project represents something that is going to a seminal contribution. (Pederson)

Q: Yesterday there was a PA meeting and Joel called in at one point to talk about the selection of sites for 2010. There 

was some discussion on whether we should use the flow lines for a site selection or site mitigation. They did do a 

ranking study. Jonathan Damp had written a research design that ranks the sites from 10 to 4 with 10 being the most 

erosive and with the most information potential. We asked for the flow lines to be added. This happened at an AMWG

meeting and a number of TWG meetings and at the August AMWG meeting it was agreed that Reclamation would 

take a look at that. At the March meeting, Mike Berry said that we would do that. I’ll read what he said: “After 

discussing this Reclamation staff, they would like to work their way back up from the bottom, the bathtub ring, as they 

determine which sites will be excavated in any given year.” So they would apply that HEC-RAS model that we talked 

about in the past. But for this project, the site criteria was based on the ranking data of 4 to 10 and that at least one 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 6

Final Minutes of Sept. 29-30, 2009, Meeting

large scale site would be chosen and for logistical reasons sites might be grouped. There was nothing provided for the 

flow lines. At the meeting yesterday I provided some data on the HEC-RAS model as to where the sites were and what 

flows lines they were because some of this stuff we talked about in here was that it’s intuitive that we would do sites 

closer to the river and secondly should we ever be allowed to have a larger flow, it would be good to have those sites 

mitigated. So the sites proposed for 2010 are at the 125 and above line. There are sites on the list below that. I would 

like to make a recommendation that the site selection for 2010 be re-done to include the flow line evaluation. At this 

time they haven’t started the work plan for these sites so it’s preliminary enough that we can do that. The second piece 

that came out of the meeting. and Kurt might want to address, is that they wanted to have a tribal perspective included 

in how the sites would be mitigated, not just a tribal presence during mitigation. That is what Western is 

recommending. (Barger)

R: The wonderful thing about science is that everyone understands it’s a learning experience. We have learned that 

many sites are actually sealed by alluvial sediment as are destroyed by them. This leads us to really question the utility 

of HEC-RAS data and the flow lines and current HEC-RAS data are simply not quantitatively applicable to this kind of 

consideration. That’s how this evolved and we hope to continue learning as we go along. Joel has made a great 

presentation here in telling us a lot that we never knew about Holocene archaeology in the canyon and that’s what 

we’re really after. That’s part of the plans process. I’ll follow Dennis’ comment on whether you can do science in a 

management context. Of course we can. All management actions are constrained by regulations and every regulation 

of which I’m aware calls it one way or another for the best available science to be used. We can do that in-house or we 

can outsource it. In this case we’ve outsourced it to USU. Management is still the primary consideration. (Berry)

C: I’m not questioning the science and Joel has done a good job but what I’m saying is that we had agreed over the 

last year and a half to incorporate this as a prioritization for the sites and try to choose the sites that are closer to the

river that are more at threat in terms of the ranking. That was all that we had asked for. There was an agreement at an 

AMWG meeting between Larry Walkoviak and Brad Warren to do this and then there was an agreement at the last 

TWG meeting and it is in the March meeting minutes. So now they’re proposing not to include that and I don’t 

understand why there would be a switch because I’m not proposing any change to the science. I’m just saying that 

should be used as a prioritization. I understood the TWG agreed to that and the budget was approved based on that. 

(Barger)

R: Just to clarify what Mary said. At first these sites in a given year that we’re going to study have been chosen in the 

first couple of years of a project by specifically following a 2007 treatment plan that was developed for all the sites. In 

that there are two obvious scientific criteria by which we were selecting which sites to work on first and one of them 

was how acute or damaging their erosional state was and that makes sense as we try to recover information before it’s 

lost. The second criteria was how archaeologically informative that given site might be. So if a site has the potential to 

tell us an incredible amount scientifically and it is acutely eroding, disappearing quickly, then those are the two tactile 

scientific criteria we’re using to do some work. From the science end of it, Western’s suggestion to also utilize flow 

lines is a difficult one for me because scientifically it’s not clear to me how that relates in the sense that erosion and 

information potential scientifically are easy to grasp and the problem with using the flow lines is that it hasn’t been 

clear. Of course, there is a long history of science in the adaptive management program getting at what is driving the 

erosion of archaeological sites and how does it relate to operations of the dam and discharges. The third criteria Mary 

is proposing is problematic because I don’t understand scientifically how it relates to include it in the decision process. 

(Pederson)

Q: Can you briefly overview how the geoarchaeology, these Holocene deposits, reflect on archaeology and vice 

versa? (Mietz)

A: Geology and geomorphology have been incorporated in archaeological studies a lot. In the case of Grand Canyon, 

one of the driving research questions is where there is human subsistence and how they utilize the river corridor 

potentially for agriculture for example. There has been previous work in Grand Canyon that has found evidence of 

cotton, wood, corn, pollen and early agricultural uses out of the river bottom corridor. The behavior of the river, in terms 

of flooding and the nature or landscape of that floodplain and how it’s changed through time as people would live there 

and why I’m using it as an example to how people would use that. So one of the things we’re getting at this longer, sort 

of environmental history of the river is how is that river flooding in the past. How did that floodplain look like in the 

past? Has it changed the Holocene in time? Would it change how people are adapting to that landscape and using it 

when they were doing agriculture and when they weren’t doing agriculture and things like that. (Pederson) 

Q: One question on now using flow lines to decide what you’re going to work on. It seems like it would be important to 

know which sites might be inundated by high flows from the dam and assess those as to whether they should be 

protected earlier, sooner rather than later. I don’t understand not going through that thought process of using the flow 

lines. (Ostler)

A: I’ve talked about flow lines a couple of times. First of all I’m not saying those data are not useful. In fact when it 

comes to interpreting sites and the integrity or context of the artifacts that we find, that’s one of the datasets that we’re 

using and saying where does this fall? I’m speaking from a longer scientific context here. My lab has done research in 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 7

Final Minutes of Sept. 29-30, 2009, Meeting

the last 5 years to deliver products to GCMRC and Mike also has mentioned that if you actually look at the population 

of cultural sites along the river corridor, the spatial and statistical correlation between acute erosion problems and 

those flow lines, is not a good one. In terms of the physics or mechanics of geomorphology, there’s not a clear 

connection there either. When it comes to understanding what places are the most acute problems that need to be 

taken care of, the science is unclear about the connection between the inundation and damage and in fact if you look 

spatially and statistically at the population of sites, those that have the biggest problems don’t necessarily have any 

significant correlation to a flow stage. (Pederson)

Shane asked if people could meet during lunch to find a resolution as he didn’t think there would be time in 

the meeting. 

Randy said the issue goes as much to cost and who pays so he feels joint funding is needed to do the work. 

He doesn’t have a problem with Joel’s approach, but it’s a problem with who pays and how much resource 

that takes away from the program to do other things.

Shane asked Mary if she had any suggestions to get to a resolution. He said the decision making process is 

outside the TWG and is a Reclamation decision. Mary said the agreement was that 2009 would be the last 

year. She reiterated that she doesn’t understand how someone can commit to something verbally in a 

meeting and then just say they don’t want to do it for whatever reason and then it doesn’t come back to the 

table. She said Mike and Joel were both aware that Western wanted that to happen and didn’t apply the 

criteria but Ted and Kim who met with Jen Dirker did it without knowing about the critieria. No one had told 

them that this is criteria. She said they were surprised at the meeting that they might be asked to do this. 

They offered to look at additional sites but as she understood it, the decision was not to change the sites at 

that time. She said Western would like to see Reclamation reconsider this because they haven’t written a 

work plan and haven’t proceeded any further than preliminary selection of sites. The tribes had some strong 

concerns yesterday about how to mitigate involving tribal perspectives so it sounded like there was more to 

it. She said a meeting might be in order but she couldn’t speak to how that would work if Reclamation is not 

willing to talk about it. Shane said the TWG could make their concerns known to Reclamation and if that 

doesn’t work, then another request should be made to the AMWG. Mike said there are two issues going on: 

1) who pays for it and, 2) who needs to be in compliance with NHPA. He said this program, as it is currently 

constituted, is in compliance with NHPA. This program controls the funding but this body doesn’t control the 

science. He said Reclamation has its own compliance responsibilities as the lead agency. Shane suggested 

they talk more about how to resolve this issues outside the TWG meeting.

New Alternate for CWCB. Randy Seaholm introduced his replacement on the TWG, Ted Kowalski. He said 

Ted has worked with him for several years on a number of Colorado River issues and said he would be a 

very able replacement for him. 

Study Plan: Fall Steady Flows. Shane said today’s task was to with GCMRC in making additional changes 

with the hope of a doing a review in late November in order to give to AMWG for their February 2010 

meeting. Matthew Andersen said that since the nearshore ecology program is so new, they asked Dr. Josh 

Korman to talk about it since he is one of the principle investigators. Matthew said he also wanted Dave 

Garrett to provide the science advisor comments and responses. 

Josh Korman said he is a fish biologist working out of Vancouver. He said the primary objective of the study 

is to understand how river flow, through its interaction with physical habitat structure, influences mainstem 

survival rates of juvenile native fish in the Grand Canyon. He gave a PPT presentation, “Nearshore Ecology 

of Juvenile Native Fish in Grand Canyon: Central Objectives and Key Challenges. (Attachment 10a). He 

concluded with the following summary points: 

1. Flow-dependent incubation losses of 25-50% in experimental flow years likely not large enough to reduce 

abundance of age-0 trout because of strong compensation.

2. Some age-0 trout migrate from low-to-high-angle shorelines. Use of high-angle shorelines is considerable, and 

may buffer impacts of low variation.
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 8

Final Minutes of Sept. 29-30, 2009, Meeting

3. Age-0 growth over the summer and fall was very similar across habitat types, reasonably similar across years, 

and showed little density-dependence.

4. Apparent age-0 mortality rates over summer and fall were similar between 2003-2007, but were much higher in 

2008. Density-dependent mortality displacement?

5. Apparent age-0 mortality was highest during periods when sudden changes in flow occurred (Aug-Sep, Nov. 

’04). Flow-dependent mortality or displacement?

6. More years of data are needed to better separate effects of flow, density, and natural variation on early survival 

rates.

Q: Geographically, do you perceive this in areas like 30-mile and nearshore ecology in regard to specifically in 

geographical 30-mile aggradation? (Spiller)

A: Currently this is focused from the LCR down to just above Lavachuca but there is no reason why some of these 

techniques couldn’t be applied elsewhere. We had to pick an area to see if this would even work. (Pederson)

Q: We have significant aggradations in that area so that area will be included in this type of study? (Spiller)

A: The other thing is all this micro chemistry that we’ll be able to sort out if there is any mainstem reproduction, 

recapture of juvenile. It sounds like it will be important whether that was borne in the mainstem or the LCR. That could 

speak to the 30-mile aggradation. (Pederson)

Q: You mentioned you’re going to be doing this determining of growth and survival by reach and yet you keep talking 

about various habitats. I’m trying to understand the detail that you’re trying to get into here. (Davis)

A: We have about 3 km sections below the LCR, 3 reaches and those we would estimate the abundance at survival 

among those three reaches. Within each of those reaches they are broken up at the 50 mm sections and in those they 

will estimate something more modest, presence or absence basically at each of those 50-meter sites based on the 

physical science program. And then we’ll have to relate presence and absence to occupancy. It would be nice to relate 

it to abundance but that gets difficult to estimate those. (Pederson)

Q: Regarding the geographic piece, you would be establishing these areas independent of whether you necessarily 

have seen fish in there. You’d be establishing these study sites or the backwaters that you’d be evaluating? 

(Henderson)

A: This 10 km zone was established beforehand and as basically this an area from all the mechanical effort and stuff 

and it’s sort of high native fish abundance, juvenile native fish abundance. So the notion is that if you’re going to do 

this kind of study, let’s work where we know there are some animals to work with. (Pederson) 

C: This is the 1996 Parker, et. al paper that establishes a 90% HBC population there. (Andersen)

Q: Help me with understanding the assumptions on survival. I think I understand the LCR and track the fish that are 

coming in but what about the emigration? How do you treat a fish that leaves that reach relative to survival? (Kubly)

A: The idea behind the three reaches and each of those is marked there. They’re all bordering each other. Each one is 

given a unique mark for each trip. So we’ll be able to evaluate movement and this potential loss of fish based on the 

proportion of marks from this reach either on this trip or the next trip. You will get a sense of the movement just by the 

different tags caught in different areas. Also, there is some radio telemetry work being done. (Pederson)

Q: So the LCR monsoonal floods completely impacted? (Kubly)

A: Yes. Basically a bunch of abundance comes in and all of a sudden you had a big immigration but that’s if we had a 

permit to sample. We could say we took 40 fish from that trip and 90% of them came out of the LCR two weeks ago. 

And the other we’re addressing is that a lot of marking is being done in the LCR and so we’ll be able to track the 

proportion of LCR marked fish caught in the mainstem. It’s going to be a confounding factor either way but we have a 

couple of plans to try to account for. The other way of getting survival is by just tracking tagged fish in the mainstem 

from one trip to the other so you don’t really care about the overall abundance. You just say you had 100 tags here in 

July and now I estimate there are 50 tags in August so survival is 50%. The reason we don’t want to just rely on that is 

because you don’t get that many recaptures across trips. (Pederson)

Q: My question is for Center: Because this work is being done at the confluence, I’d like to know what your record of 

consultation with the tribes has been regarding the fall steady flows study plan and for implementing activities like this 

that are directly taking place in the confluence. The Zuni’s concerns aren’t just limited to mechanical removal. It’s a 

sacred place. And why aren’t you consulting with all the tribes on these types of activities? (Dongoske)

A: What’s the top river mile? 61 I want to say. Kurt, my question for you is that is an area you would consider of 

concern to you, 61.5? (Andersen)

Q: What Josh was telling us was that it was from the confluence 10 kilometers downstream, correct? (Dongoske)

R: I wasn’t specific enough. I’m not exactly sure about the upstream location. It isn’t right at the confluence. It is 

downstream of the confluence. (Pederson)

R: The short answer to your question is that we have not conducted a specific consultation on this topic. (Andersen)

R: I would like you to do such. (Dongoske)
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 9

Final Minutes of Sept. 29-30, 2009, Meeting

C: We did meet with the tribes last February as a group and maybe this doesn’t constitute formal consultation by any 

means but we did meet with the tribes and we went through a description of the projects that were in our workplan 

specifically to solicit feedback from the tribes about issues they had. To my knowledge this project was not identified 

as a project for which there were issues. Clearly, the mechanical removal project was the one where there were 

concerns expressed and what we were going to do with the disposition of the remains of the fish and the general 

sacred nature of that area. I don’t want to give you the impression that we weren’t sensitive to the tribes’ concerns in 

this process. If you’re suggesting we need to have more formal consultation, I guess that’s something we can follow up 

on. (Hamill)

C: I am suggesting you need more formal consultation and also if I remember correctly because I was at that meeting 

and brought up a concern about mechanical removal at the LCR but also as I recall, it was recommended by the tribes 

that there be sensitivity training for GCMRC staff and I haven’t seen any effort toward that. I would like you to consider 

those aspects. (Dongoske)

Q: You recognize Kurt that we’re not, with limited exceptions, there are no taking of fish in this project? Is that your 

understanding? (Andersen)

Q: I’m going to interject a question here to get some clarification. For FY10, you don’t have a permit to collect HBC and 

you’re going to work with flannelmouth. Is that correct? (Capron)

A: This year we have a permit to take a small limited amount of flannelmouth to look at those fish and then it’s up to 

the Service and others to decide. (Korman)

Q: So you would have to apply for a permit? So there is the potential that you could work two years but that would be 

the most within your current permit. (Capron)

Q: I appreciate your rationale for working in the LCR reach but I think I heard from Steve that they were finding YOY 

HBC downstream of Shinumo Creek. Is there any other sampling that’s going on in the river that may be able to pick 

up YOY in backwaters or in the nearshore further down in the river? (Johnson)

A: In 2009, the Park and cooperators have sampled as you described. In 2010, if the PEP recommendations are 

supported and carried through with those, we’ll probably have a total of four mainstem trips that would sample through 

the river, electrofishing in the spring, one trammel net in the fall, one seining in the fall, so a total of those four trips that 

would go through the mainstem over different seasons in future years. I think that the fall seining trips will most likely to

capture young chub in backwater habitats. (Andersen)

Q: I assume from your choice of this reach that you believe that the results and conclusions that you can draw from 

this reach would be applicable to other reaches within the Grand Canyon? (Johnson)

A: We need to understand the efficacy of the methods and those were the two rationales as opposed to it being 

representative of areas further downstream. For example, areas that are warmer downstream might have a different 

response to steady flows. I hate to over extend but I think this is a great place to start and it’s pretty significant effort 

logistically. It doesn’t rule out sampling other areas in the future but it just seems like a great place to focus our initial 

attention to get things figured out and at the same time working on a really important aggregation and how much we 

can extrapolate. (Korman)

C: The biggest portion of the population is here. This is where we expect to learn the most. (Andersen)

Q: Would it help if you got data some more of what we just collected that you can get on an ad hoc basis as we’re on 

the river and other back waters and around other aggregations downstream? Would that help fit into your study? 

(Mietz)

A: I think it would be good even if we were doing more detail and more recapture type of analyses now. If you could 

use the same type of effort pattern for example in other backwaters, then we would have a way of calibrating your data 

with our data. (Korman)

C: This is an impressive amount of work. It’s also kind of scary how much uncertainty there is given we’re trying to do 

an experiment on an already pre-packaged management flow. What occurs to me is we’ve heard there is potential of 

equalization flows which would take us from an 8.23 maf to maybe a 10 maf year or even a 13 maf year. That has to 

be even more confounding, doesn’t it, in a 3-year study? (O’Brien)

R: When would those flows be released? It depends when the flows would come. If they came in the middle of the 

winter, our studies are focused on summer and fall so we can keep the discharges the same over last year so I would 

say it’s not a big deal. (Korman)

R: Right now under most probable hydrology, we would go into equalization and I think the annual release goes up to 

about 1025 to 6,000 maf and in the plan of operation it’s still conserved at 10,000 cfs flow in Sept-Oct time frame 

calendar year 2010. There would be obviously larger volumes throughout the year, roughly a maf in most times. 

(Ryan)

C: Your point is well taken that something not anticipated could spoil this plan. For example, the warming trend that 

has happened seems to be potentially a really important factor or the mechanical removal efforts. That was a wild card 

that came in and had a big effect and what you’re describing is another one of those and that’s the difficulty in 

conducting these large scale field experiments. (Korman)
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 10

Final Minutes of Sept. 29-30, 2009, Meeting

Science Advisor Comments and Responses. Dr. Dave Garrett distributed copies of the “Executive 

Summary: A Review of the ‘Grand Canyon Non-Native Fish Control Plan I: Short Term Monitoring and 

Research Actions’” (Attachment 10b). He said this was reviewed in mid-July and incapsulates about four or 

five studies: the temperature work, the HBC ASMR work, the RBT, nearshore ecology and foodbase. They 

were concerned about a system-based experimental design. This is a proposal for a biology program 

design. They were concerned within that biology program direction that there was integration and merging 

of experimental approaches in the five different components. He said in GCMRC’s defense, these 

programs have been staged over time so they couldn’t occur both in the same time and space. He 

encouraged the members to read the Science Advisors’ Review which follows the executive summary. The 

review concluded with proposed revisions for the GCMRC plan and stated “the proposed planning of 

resource requirements and budget needs for implementation of the program should address the transition 

required from science activity to management actions. It should clarify individual agency program authorities 

and budget responsibilities, and how to resolution of this issue would enhance program success.”

Q: Have the SAs taken a look at the revised plan based on your input and gotten feedback from them? (Henderson)

A: No, we have not. The SAs generally do one review. I think we had a phone call and a discussion of this particular 

one in which we suggested some changes be done. We do not do a second review of document, meaning a review or 

a revision unless there is agreement we should do so. (Garrett)

Fall Steady Flows Science Plan. Matthew Andersen distributed copies of his memo dated Sept. 18, 2009, 

along with the Fall Steady Flows Comment Table (Attachment 10c). He displayed a diagram and said Ted 

Kennedy had presented this at the last AMWG meeting showing how which linkages and resources are 

addressed. He didn’t feel the plan should go back for another SA review but that the group should try and 

resolve with the TWG. 

Shane said the objective of the discussion was to give recommendations to GCMRC for the next rewrite of 

the document. Matthew said if they accepted the comments already provided, GCMRC could probably send 

a revised document before Thanksgiving. Dennis said the number of respondents was low but the number 

of comments was high so he asked Shane if he was seeking new comments because he didn’t feel it is was 

a very broad representation of the TWG. Shane said there were a number of comments that were accepted 

by GCMRC and those will be integrated into the revision while some comments need further discussion and 

agreement among the members. He also said that some members didn’t provide comments and he would 

be willing to have those brought forward for discussion. 

The following comments were captured by John Hamill:

1. Sam Spiller wants clarification from Tribe about aspects of the Plan that need tribal consultation.

2. Steve Mietz:

 Concerned that meaningful conclusions about the effects of FSF can be drawn given all the 

confounding factors—plan overstates what can be concluded

 NPS wants to work with GCMRC to provide additional downstream backwater seining to supplement 

NSE work in the LCR reach

3. Norm Henderson:

 Tribal consultation needs to be part of the plan

 GCMRC did not respond to SA comments

 Needs another review by the SA

 Wants clear set of hypotheses that will be addressed by each study

4. Shane Capron

 Wants a more rigorous examination of how SSQs will be addressed/answered by a study—R. 

Seaholm agrees

a. Shane will provide an example—see foodbase section

5. Dennis Kubly stated it’s difficult to develop effective experimental design based on existing studies
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 11

Final Minutes of Sept. 29-30, 2009, Meeting

6. Bill Persons would like to see revised plan before making final judgments on the plan at this time.

7. Clayton Palmer:

 Transition flows – stranding not an issue in the BO, but maintains it is an issue with BOR and 

FWS and is part of ongoing S-7 consultation. As such it should be part of the FSF science plan

a. Dennis—stranding is an issue but its also experimental

b. GCMRC will discuss issue further with FWS and BOR and develop element if the work 

plan if appropriate

c. WAPA requests feedback on results of those discussions

December Workshop: Economics and CMP Planning Discussion. Helen Fairley passed out copies of the 

Workshop Prospectus (Attachment 11a) and gave a PPT, “Upcoming Workshops: General Core 

Monitoring and Socioeconomic Workshop” (Attachment 11b). Helen asked for any comments from the 

group.

o The prospectus looks good. A valuable outcome will be the discussion on economic tradeoffs associated with 

implementing management actions and future experiments as well. I appreciated seeing the direct resources that 

relate to this program. My main concern is we won’t come out looking at 10 years of developing tools for tradeoff 

analyses. It could go into a much broader direction than this program should be looking at in terms of direct 

resource impacts and concerned about the time table as well. The longer this effort, the more funding will be 

required. (James)

o Need to keep discussion to direct impacts and benefits to the power, fishing guides, without going all over the 

place. Have the sideboards in those discussions. On core monitoring discussion, I would like to see what kind of 

research needs to be done following status and trends. And how do we take the information and factor that into the 

comprehensive model? We need some linkage and not just reporting the data. (Seaholm)

o If we don’t include non-use benefits, then let’s save money and not do workshop. (Johnson)

Helen said she would like feedback from the TWG in terms of what has been proposed to do. She feels 

there definitely needs to be some economic data for the program because what they have right now is out 

of date. 

Q: You say that you think Phase I is going to take 3-5 years and wonder how you came up with that number. That 

seems like an extended period of time. (Mietz)

A: That’s something we can discuss in this workshop and identifying the funding to do studies so we already have a 

2010 and 2011 plan so then there’s the question of funding needs and what projects are the highest priorities, identify 

the funding for those projects, implement the project, and get the results. Perhaps there is one, two or more projects or 

perhaps phasing in projects. It’s a ballpark estimate. (Fairley)

C: The emphasis in Phase I is on direct benefits. Western supports the idea that if an experiment occurs, BHBF, it 

would be helpful in the decision making process to know what the local impact is on fishing guides and hotels in the 

Lees Ferry area in order to consider the decision and in order to consider possible mitigation measures. The question 

of what further investigations need to occur in Phase II will be the subject of the TWG feedback during that workshop 

and what questions related to decision making do TWG members represent in their interest groups think need to be 

developed. From that, there will be 5 years of figuring out how to develop a process to answer these questions for 

these stakeholders. (Palmer)

Q: I completely understand the points of view mentioned about the non-use values but if we kick that can 3-5 years 

down the road, I feel like we’re missing part of the point of doing this workshop right now. Is there any way to start 

Phase II before Phase I? It just seems a long way away. (Mietz)

A: There is no way to do some of these other things without having better foundational economic data so there is that 

consideration regardless of what priorities you may decide. The whole idea of this workshop is to articulate those kinds 

of priorities and try to work them out. It’s going to be challenging. (Fairley)

Q: Part of this workshop is going to be an update on what’s going on with current research and the cooperator work, 

etc., and just to bring that to people’s attention is the Park Service is engaged right now with an economic value study 

of the Colorado River in general, specifically the parks along the Colorado River. A key component of that study is 

going to be non-use values so we’re actively involved in that right now and we would certainly encourage how we 

might be able to cooperate to develop these things further for Grand Canyon. Our charge is to protect are basically 

non-use values for the American public so they’re very important resources to us. With regard to the CMP, is there 

going to be a discussion about providing information, analyses if you will, on a real-time basis for key resources? 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 12

Final Minutes of Sept. 29-30, 2009, Meeting

Modeling results, like sediment and potentially other resources that might have models that GCMRC has developed 

that we need real-time information on to make recommendations for management? (Henderson)

A: We can talk about that in a general sense. Some of the monitoring data are key inputs to models that we want to 

run in this program and are running in some cases. We’ll try to make that linkage and the necessity of those and 

interaction in the plan. (Fairley)

Q: Is there a statistics section anywhere in here? This covers the analyses and the modeling, but somewhere in the 

CMP there has to be a decision about costs, doesn’t there? There has to be a decision about whether the budget 

drives the size of the core monitoring program or information needs up to the full extent of the budget just as extremes. 

I don’t see anything in here where GCMRC is going through that kind of analysis to say that if we want this level of 

precision, this is what it’s going to cost. Theoretically you could have a high, medium, and low in every one of these, 

couldn’t you? I just wonder what your philosophy is and how you’re approaching that? (Kubly)

A: We don’t provide a low, medium, or high level of accuracy or reliability in terms of the costs. That is not in the plan. 

We’ve identified the CMINs, the SSQs that have been presented in the MRP, and how we’re proposing to address 

them with the funding that we have. (Fairley)

Shane said this is something he has thought about and how the TWG is going to deal with reacting to the CMP and 

integrating those types of questions. He’s not quite sure how the TWG tackles those questions in real-time with the 

development of the Core Monitoring Plan. 

John Hamill said the costs that are going to appear in the plan are largely based on the costs that are being expended 

on those programs to date or some projection of what they think those research and development costs will translate 

to in terms of a long-term monitoring program. In the case of HBC monitoring, there are pretty good cost estimates of 

what it costs to do a program based on the PEP recommendations where the Sediment Program is pretty well costed

out based on a plan the TWG has already seen. They have some projections on what a long-term foodbase program 

would be. Based on the assumption that what is paid to develop, there is going to be some reflection of what the TWG 

wants done in the longrun. He said the power analysis or precision analysis tradeoff is probably going to be done in the 

context of a much more detailed plan. He said they’re trying to give the TWG a big picture of what will be needed to do 

long-term core monitoring for the 12 goals based on what has been funded up to date. 

Public Comments: None

Adjourned: 4:55 p.m.
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 13

Final Minutes of Sept. 29-30, 2009, Meeting
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 14

Final Minutes of Sept. 29-30, 2009, Meeting

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Meeting

September 29-30, 2009

Conducting: Shane Capron, Chairperson September 30, 2009

Convened: 8:12 a.m.

Committee Members/Alternates Present:

Mary Barger, WAPA

Charley Bulletts, So. Paiute Consortium 

Chris Harris, Colo. River Board of Calif.

Kerry Christensen, Hualapai Tribe

William Davis, CREDA

Kurt Dongoske, Pueblo of Zuni

Jay Groseclose, NM Interstate Stream Comm. 

Norm Henderson, NPS/GCNRA

Leslie James, UAMPS (alternate)

Rick Johnson, Grand Canyon Trust

Dennis Kubly, USBR

Steve Mietz, NPS/GRNP

John O’Brien, Grand Canyon River Guides

Emily Omana, Grand Canyon Wildlands Council

Bill Persons, AGFD

D. Randolph Seaholm, CWCB

Sam Spiller, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (alternate)

Jason Thiriot, Colo. River Comm./NV

Bill Werner, ADWR

Michael Yeatts, the Hopi Tribe

Committee Members Absent:

Cliff Barrett, UAMPS

Charley Bulletts, Southern Paiute Consortium

Christopher Harris, Colo. River Board of Calif

Amy Heuslein, BIA

Robert King, UDWR

Glen Knowles

John Shields, WY State Engineer

Mark Steffen, Federation of Fly Fishers

Larry Stevens, GCRG

Interested Persons:

Matthew Andersen, GCRMC/USGS

Mike Berry, Bureau of Reclamation

Marianne Crawford, Bureau of Reclamation

Jerry Cox, Grand Canyon River Guides

Alan Downer, Navajo Nation

Helen Fairley, USGS/GCMRC

Dave Garrett, Science Advisors

Pamela Garrrett, M3

Research

John Hamill, USGS/GCMRC

Ted Kowalski, Colo. Water Conservation Board

Clayton Palmer, WAPA

Tom Ryan, Bureau of Reclamation

Curtis Yazzie, Navajo Nation

Meeting Recorder: Linda Whetton, USBR

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Welcome and Administrative. The Chairman welcomed the TWG members, alternates, and interested 

persons. Attendance sheets were distributed. 

Non-native Management Plan. Matthew said he would talk about the TWG comments and responses. The 

revised plan would be done in November. 

Science Advisor Comments. Dr. Garrett distributed copies of his PPT, “Review of the Grand Canyon Nonnative Fish Control Plan: Short Term Monitoring and Research Actions (1/09) (Attachment 12a). He said 

the review brought up several issues and concerns and also cited contributions of the plan, i.e.

o Plan strategy emphasizes science over management

o Two step planning process does not appears necessary

o Well development assessment of knowledge for cold water fishes

o Significant revision recommended
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 15

Final Minutes of Sept. 29-30, 2009, Meeting Minutes 

Randy agreed that managers should be more involved but the TWG doesn’t have a process about how to 

move from experimental/science actions to management. He asked Dave how that fit in with his comments. 

Dave said he agreed and said the reason the SAs are organized the way they are is because many of the 

SAs don’t have the benefit of attending all the meetings and the transitional approaches that occur so they 

don’t have the background knowledge. He said one of the problems the TWG has not addressed is how to

deal with programmatic direction on science planning that is now not just science planning but management 

science planning. It’s the same problem they’re having with management actions. With this particular plan, 

Dave said he thought there would’ve been a similar SPG TWG sub-group to represent managers and that 

group would’ve worked with GCMRC to develop the management side of this or at least give the 

management side of this to GCMRC so they would’ve had priorities and actions the TWG felt should have 

been addressed through a science programmatic direction. 

Bill Persons said he had hoped this plan would’ve given guidance on what the priorities should be. He can’t 

prioritize control until he has a risk assessment or understands where the biggest threats are going to come 

from. Dave said he agreed with Bill and said that what he thought happened was the managers did not do 

what they should’ve done. The science community should’ve been told that a risk assessment needed to be 

developed first before a plan is developed and then the SAs would help develop a strategy to incorporate 

the managers and the science perspective needs based on best available knowledge today. 

Larry asked Dave to outline a strategy for where they are now. Dave said the two fish biologists who did the 

review said there is enough knowledge as managers and scientists to implement selected strategy. He said 

if there isn’t enough knowledge right now on RBT issue, then there probably never will be. He said a risk 

assessment would’ve been the next step or they could’ve set two management actions and then completed 

the risk assessment and then added both species of concern and their locations in the river. He said those 

two things are very important in a control plan. There needs to be a determination on what they’re going to 

control and where they’re going to control. Dave said Dr. Kitchell advised that these kinds of groups and 

programs marginally increase their knowledge and management ability through time. He said that whatever 

they know should be implemented and moved forward in the transition. The last thing the SAs want the 

group to do is not to implement a control plan at this time.

Non-native Management Plan. Matthew Andersen said he summarized some of the comments from the 

science advisors and the TWG and their responses to them. He passed out copies of his memo with the 

Final Response Table Attachment 12b) and gave a PPT presentation, “Nonnative Fish Control Plan: 

Responses to Reviews” (Attachment 12c).

John Hamill said that when they first started this program in 2005, it called for the development of a nonnative fish plan and it was five years out when the plan would be available. He felt it was important to have 

a short-term plan that would create a bridge until the long-term plan was ready. Unfortunately the short-term 

plan took them almost three years to develop. One of the SA comments was that you have to stop the 

planning and get on with implementation and proceed adaptively. He said they recognized that a risk 

assessment is a critical element to the whole program, but it just wasn’t practical to develop that within the 

time frame of the short-term plan. This has now morphed into one plan that’s supposed to meet both the 

long and short-term needs of the program. Consequently, they are proceeding without the benefit of the

more detailed risk assessment that he saw as one of the major problems people had. 

Shane asked Matthew for more clarification on the next step for the risk assessment, additional background 

information, and what the approach will be. Matthew directed the TWG to Goal 12. There is an ecosystem 

modeling project in the FY2010-11 workplan for a modeling effort that Carl Walters will do. He said most of 

GCMRC’s biology program is involved in this along with their cooperators who are working on the aquatic 

foodbase project and the nearshore ecology project. Carl is leading the charge to try and answer as many 

questions as possible with a bioenergetics modeling approach. Carl wants to gather a lot of the scientists in 

an offsite meeting (February) and convene a panel with the TWG in March/April. 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 16

Final Minutes of Sept. 29-30, 2009, Meeting Minutes 

C: Some of the threats to fish and the tamarisk beetle are all elements that may change the dynamics of the system. 

This plan must include the changing dynamics and changing non-native composition that are non-fish as well. 

(Stevens). 

C: The original impetus for the plan was concern for drought conditions and warming was from GCD and the potential 

for invasion of other warm water non-native species. I thought this plan was focused on coming up with a plan for 

warm water non-native fish control. I’m afraid if we add too many things, it’s going to take another five years to develop 

the plan. (Persons)

Sam read the following statement: “The Fish and Wildlife Service will be asking Bureau of 

Reclamation, in coordination with other DOI AMP participants and through the AMP, to continue 

efforts to assist NPS and AMP in controlling cold and warm water nonnative in both the mainstem 

and tributaries. In regard to and consistent with the conservation measures for implementing 

nonnative control as necessary. In doing this, FWS wants to fully meet tribal consultation 

responsibilities as we know there are tribal concerns, as expressed by the Pueblo of Zuni. The 

involvement of the AZGFD is especially important in this nonnative fish control program due to their 

responsibilities.” He said the FWS sees the need for management that effectively carries out the 

conservation measures for non-native control in a manner that fully meets tribal concerns. 

Steve said he supported what Sam said. He still doesn’t see the integration of management agencies and 

that it has been built into this process. He’d like GCMRC to come up with something more concrete on how 

that’s going to be done. He also concurred with what Bill said but would add that the program needs to look 

at all emerging threats and not just warm water non-native fish. (Mietz) 

In response to a question regarding how the integration would be done and included in the next iteration of 

the plan, John Hamill said the biggest threat is from warm water fishes invading the system. He said that’s 

partially addressed in the plan but the notion is that GCMRC is going to have a non-native fish management 

plan that’s going to identify what the greatest species of risk are under a warm water scenario and then 

they’re going to actively manage those through mechanical removal or some genetics plan. The one thing 

that would allow them to control warm water non-native fish is their ability to regulate water temperatures 

from GCD. He said that’s going to be the driving variable for an invasion of warm water fishes. He said that 

issue is partially addressed in the plan, but he thinks it’s a lower priority item. The ability to regulate water 

temperatures is the one key variable they need to get a handle on and right now they don’t have a handle 

on it. He thinks the central issue that the program needs to start planning for is how to regulate water 

temperatures from GCD. 

C: If we were to have a TCD with both warm and cold water capability, I think we would still need to have the capability 

to control cold water and warm water non-native species in the event that we get into conditions where the TCD can’t 

carry it out. I request that GCMRC include the managing agencies especially those responsible for fish and wildlife 

resources into this management plan. (Spiller)

R: Our primary strategy for trying to integrate management and science in this program was through these annual 

review meetings and I think Matthew indicated that we’re going to put some more meat on that bone as to how that 

process would work. One of the key things missing here is it doesn’t adequately assign responsibilities for doing 

things. We don’t see that as being GCMRC’s job. In fact, it’s perilous for us to go down that route. I think that’s 

something the management agencies need to take on and figure out how to divide up the responsibilities inherent with 

implementation of this plan. We intend to provide a forum for that but it needs to be jointly chaired between science 

and management. I think science plays a role in that and managers need to step forward and lead the way in that 

process and we help inform them. We’re working with the DOI agencies to better define that process. We’re going to 

kick that off this year with a non-native fish planning meeting which will bring together management and science 

agencies to start looking at the data and figure out what that means for next year’s program. We see that as the 

primary strategy for bringing that integration together. (Hamill) 

C: Regarding John’s comment to controlling fish certainly flow fluctuations might be a way if we don’t have the 

temperatures. (Barger)

Shane said he wanted the group to talk about specific changes to be made to the document before they 

discuss other issues. 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 17

Final Minutes of Sept. 29-30, 2009, Meeting Minutes 

C: I would like to see this plan as specifically conceptual as possibly. We need to specify what we need to do for these 

resources. We need to project for 2010 what we’re going to do for cold water and we may need to split out warm water 

to various species of non-native fish species and address crayfish. We don’t have that specificity from the 

management agencies and we need that. I think the recommendations need to be at the end of the document. I would 

like 1⁄2 day or so to discuss and respond back to the science as what needs to be done in 2010 and AMP processes.

(Spiller)

C: From the perspective of the State of Arizona and other management agencies, the revised statutes must be taken 

into consideration. Some agencies wear several hats in this program and need to avoid the provisions of ARS17309, 

the prohibitions on take. That needs to be very clear. From a process standpoint, how much money we spend on 

monitoring and how much money parked for contingency. Obviously we had trouble maintaining the funding for those 

things. If we want this to get funded, we need to figure out how much we’re willing to dedicate to it and really do that. If 

the contingency fund is the first thing that we spend, then it gets drained. This is a broader question but is something 

we need to think about. One thing I was pondering when we were talking about an annual meeting is just when that 

would be relative to our budget development so we make sure the timing is appropriate and everything gets integrated. 

(Werner)

C:. Just so the SAs are clear on position. This is a control plan. The science agencies do not have authorities for 

control of resources so there are elements of this plan that the science community should not be writing. The 

associated actions cannot be mitigated and/or regulated by a science agency. They can be handled by the tribes and 

management agencies. It’s necessary in the strategy and the scope that management agencies play a major role in 

defining what that’s going to be. I liked your posture of a 3-year rolling thunder as it were to try our best to set up three 

years and see what we can do in a strategy and that has many alternatives but then it’s scaled down as Larry has 

identified and may or may not include other issues. We were clear in our review that even though we strong;y this 

annual activity, you want to give yourself enough time on both your management strategy and your science response

to be sure that you’re seeing what you’re seeing. You do not want to be turning this upside down every year, but 

maybe look at it for three years. On the TCD, the science community met three times over the past four years and 

every time we thoroughly reviewed the knowledge assessment in the work on the LTEP and the SPG. We were trying 

to look at what are our capabilities to control the variable that would most influence these non-native fish – flows, 

ATCD. We reported that if a TCD were to be implemented, it should be able to control both cold and warm water 

outflows. In one meeting the science community was pressed very hard to decide if is there an alternative to controlling 

that temperature where we could be positive we could control and regulate temperature in a way that we could do the 

things in non-native fish control. That was not supported. The only way we could do that was through a TCD that had 

warm and cold water capabilities. So the SAs in three reviews said you need to have this in the strategy because that’s 

the only way you can do this. (Garrett) 

C: For me non-native fish control is about science AND management. Fortunately because of the work GCMRC has 

done, we know a good bit about cold water trout fish control. With regard to non-native fish control, we’re going 

through the Dave Garrett growing pains – we’re trying now how to implement management. We need to be involved as 

parties and co-signers on your document if you want to talk about management. You need that in there so we could 

have that as the strength of having those management projections for the first three years for example and then the 

next 5 years constantly, scientifically criticize as we get new information each year and as we address other needs, 

such as the cultural concern. (Spiller)

C: I agree totally that the management agencies need to be folded into this plan completely and I might just suggest a 

way to do that as Sam suggested by being signatories on the plan. However, either in the plan or as a separate 

document we need to have the roles of the various management entities clearly defined. I think something similar to 

that for this process with the role of AGFD, FWS, NPS, in the implementation or management of these exotic fish is a 

suggestion I would make, either part of the plan or a separate document to implement the plan. Another comment I 

have is that while the plan recognizes the Lees Ferry fishery, there is no suggestion that one of the possibilities for 

control of cold water fish is different management strategies for the trout fishery in Lees Ferry. I’m not a fish biologist 

and I don’t know what those strategies might be, but there may be some alternatives there from our current goals and 

activities that would prevent us from not having to go down and mechanically remove these fish at the LCR. If it’s true 

these fish are primarily coming from Lee’s Ferry, that is if we can control that movement in some fashion, then we don’t 

have to mechanically control it. It gets to some of the tribal concerns. There are a lot of options so I think the plan 

should address those. (Henderson)

C: I think what’s really coming out here is the need for more interaction. This is not just a once a year interaction. This 

is a planning process involving a combination of management agencies and the research group. It could be very 

healthy for the program and it’s definitely related to what you’re doing on defining management actions. It can’t 

continue as a GCMRC charge with the occasional help from the managers. It’s really got to be evolved into a 

partnership. (Kubly)
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 18

Final Minutes of Sept. 29-30, 2009, Meeting Minutes 

C: We feel this plan should evaluate the live removal in both warm and cold water species to address the tribal 

concerns. (Christensen)

C: I think it would be important to have the tribal concerns expressed in this document. At least that way it will always 

be on the table and we won’t lose sight of it. As I read this plan, I didn’t find was a cogent summary of the scientific 

research and data that substantiated that the RBT were a predacious threat to the HBC populations and so I saw it 

completely lacking in the document. The document reads as though it was written for people with a different level of 

knowledge about the biology of the Colorado River than I had because some of these scientific assumptions were not 

laid out, but I think it sort of assumed that the reader understood the research behind what motivates the mechanical 

removal and that it’s shared by all the readers. That’s not true. I would like to see some type of summary of the 

research that suggests that the RBT, other than just being the most prolific non-native in the system, is really a threat 

to the HBC (Dongoske)

C: It looks like we’re going to put a lot of hope in these annual meetings to address problems. I’m not sure that last

year’s meeting was effective. If we’re going to try and prioritize projects, I’d like to see a better discussion of what 

those criteria might be. If it’s going to be a vote, I’d like to see a better description of the process. (Persons)

C: So once again we’re at loggerheads here, how we approach and incorporate management vision and what science 

can do with that. I agree with Kurt and disagree a little bit with Sam in that we know a lot about trout apparently in the 

LCR reach but I still haven’t see an explanation of why the trout were declining so strongly in the sampling period, in 

that initial 4 years of removal and maybe that’s something we need a little more attention to as well. If we understood 

what the fluctuations of the trout were about, we wouldn’t have to spend so much time killing them to answer those 

flow fluctuations. In a perfect world, we might have a czar here, a river czar, who had the goods and services and 

ecosystem integrity of this whole array of resources associated with the Dam, that should be the Secretary of the 

Interior, however we don’t have that so we’re struggling here with how to figure out how to take information and an 

approach that has been developed by the science representatives which we can’t interact directly with. We don’t really 

have meetings where we actually hammer out the details of species X should deserve what kind of treatment on these 

three years. We don’t get to those levels of detail in any of these meetings. It’s all being done through our scientists 

which we can’t directly interact with so if we don’t have a workshop clearly set up to address the issues of non-native 

species management in the system, do we need to set up a committee either in the AMWG to do that? We’ve got to 

have a clear understanding of the goals, objectives, approaches, and the opportunities for more ingenuous ways of 

approaching some of these problems than we’ve got. At some point we need to get our managing agencies here, to sit 

down and say we want these five things and here they are. We don’t have that mechanism right now. Maybe Dave 

can advise the right framework for that is. (Stevens)

Shane said he has participated in the Upper Basin annual meetings for several years and feel their process 

if pretty effective by allowing everyone to come together, to share their information, and really work through 

the issues of funding and doing the work.

C: A well articulated workshop to respond to a revision, if it could be revised, to actually walk through that revision and 

say here’s the manager’s response. I think it could be accomplished as you’ve laid it out. That would be our response. 

(Garrett)

R: Just a response to Larry, AGFD has had a couple of meetings with other management agencies to at least discuss 

planning for non-native in outyears in seeking funding for those efforts. It was pretty informal today but I’m sure all the 

management agencies have been invited to come and participate or be on a conference call and we’ve also invited 

GCMRC so we’re trying to move down that road, recognizing that we need some lead time to get funding because 

eventually we’re going to run up against that whole funding problem. (Persons)

C: I think it’s obvious that we’re trying to make that move from an activity that is not science. For science we go to 

GCMRC as we should. We’re talking management here so we’re going to have a workshop in January and the first 

part is going to give us an update on where we’re at, new information, others’ advice. When we get that management, 

we’re going to ask what Larry is talking about. We’re going to have our committee right there. To me, it’s a leap for this 

group. I think we should be planning to be effective. Let’s use that as an opportunity. That so-called panel of managers 

that is set up and Dave you’ve had a lot of overall involvement with this. You’ve made recommendations. I think it 

would be good to have Dave facilitate that management part because it gives us a marriage as we move into a new 

field into management from science. (Spiller)

Q: Shane, in the Upper Basin process, how far ahead are you at looking in your annual meeting, one year, multiple 

years because there are a couple of difficulties that we have to deal with at some level. One is being nimble enough to 

respond to emerging threats at the same time we’ve all been through the flavor of the month problem, you know 

whatever the crisis of the month is plagues the whole field of wildlife management, fish management. But the other is 

the time needed either to secure funding or to complete any needed compliance. A year is not a very long time. It 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 19

Final Minutes of Sept. 29-30, 2009, Meeting Minutes 

strikes me if you’re looking ahead a couple of years but still have the ability to change. I was just wondering what the 

approach was in the Upper Basin? (Werner)

A: I’m going to answer that because I’m the WAPA member on the Management Implementation Committee in the 

Upper Basin RIP. The Upper Basin RIP has an action plan and the action plan is for long-term. From that action plan, 

specific studies, research, and field work are done. The interesting thing about that that is different here is that the 

annual meeting the researchers come and actually present data from the field the previous season. So prior to the time 

it is published. Part of the time it’s even put together in the researcher’s analysis of the data. It’s imminently nimble in 

the regard that if it looks like this research is leading somewhere or not leading somewhere, the next field season is 

changed. That’s an interesting difference between that program and this program. (Palmer)

Shane asked John what he thought would happen next. John said what they tried to do was provide a 

strong, scientific, and technical basis for where they need to go recognizing that there’s lots of institutional 

and management issues that need to get addressed in the process. Clarifying roles and responsibilities and 

management authorities is a difficult task, one that GCMRC is probably best suited to do and it would 

significantly delay finalization of this plan. He said in clarifying those roles and responsibilities it is critically 

important but he liked Norm’s idea of having that clarified in an MOU or some agreement between the 

management agencies that says here is how we’re going to do business in this context. He said he was 

sympathetic to getting the plan done this year so they start implementation, both from a management and a 

science standpoint. He feels they need to move it forward and agree to work adaptively and collaboratively 

to address the broader issues. (Hamill)

C: We need to have the AMWG charge included in the purpose of the plan. We may be overstepping of what they 

want. (Persons)

C: One of the things in this document is the concept of non-native fish invasions from the tributaries. I just don’t know if 

that’s been dealt with very much in this plan as far as that being a potential threat and if it is, how we deal with it. 

Matthew, maybe you can show me where it is. (Henderson)

R: You probably won’t see a lot of examples of what the mechanical control would be or other strategies would be 

because that’s not terribly well known so the actions are more about pursuing the available information on what these 

sources are and bringing that together in a single document which turns out that AGFD has done one-half or 3⁄4 of that 

work already. There should be more than one mention of bringing together available data on what those sources are 

and again for consideration of the management agencies and how would they proceed with that, stocking programs, 

engineering solutions, removal programs, how would that be approached but this program has not worked extensively 

in the tributaries so we don’t have lots to report on. (Andersen)

C: It seems like this report should pull together that broad scale strategies of what else has been done, where in the 

world it’s worked, control, the same flows we’re getting from the tributaries and the mainstem. It should be part of the 

plan. There are variety of other tributaries and maybe it’s part of our risk assessment. (Mietz)

C: I’m going to recommend that you put in the document an acknowledgement that the implementation of some of 

these management actions, because of their location, could trigger a section 106 compliance responsibility for a 

federal agency. (Dongoske)

Shane said the revision should be sent out to the TWG by mid-November, same as the Fall Steady Flow 

Plan, and then he’s looking at holding a web conference call to consider a recommendation to AMWG. 

Following that, the TWG will need to consider the next steps.

Biennial Budget Process. Shane distributed copies of the AIF (Attachment 13) and said the assignment 

before the TWG is to develop a two-year rolling budget and also provide a written description of the process 

to the AMWG at their February 3-4, 2010, meeting. He put together a rough start based on the description 

of the budget process that was in the 2001 Strategic Plan and used that as a template. 

Dennis said this was a recommendation to the BAHG and therefore suggested Shane take the lead in 

preparing the document. John Hamill said he, Dennis, and Shane could probably develop a strawman

document for the TWG to review.

Norm expressed concern that it makes assumptions of the various roles on the AMWG. He wondered if 

some clarification from the Secretary’s Designee was needed or does the group just make assumptions on 

the various roles. He noted there have been discussions among the DOI agencies which could impact the 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 20

Final Minutes of Sept. 29-30, 2009, Meeting Minutes 

TWG budget. Rick suggested the BAHG take on this assignment and stated there hasn’t been a formal

budget process for the hydrograph.

Dennis said he would advocate John and Shane develop a budget process and bring it to the TWG for 

review. The BAHG could then review it and report back to the TWG. 

ACTION ITEM Shane Capron and John Hamill will prepare a document describing the 2-year budget 

process and how it will be done. They will report back to the TWG at the next meeting.

There was some uncertainty about which members were on the Budget AHG. Dennis said there was an 

original group but others have joined in at various times. Shane read the list of current BAHG members: 

Dennis Kubly (chair), Mary Barger, Cliff Barrett, Kerry Christensen, Norm Henderson, Rick Johnson, Bill 

Persons, Glen Knowles, Steve Mietz, Don Ostler, Larry Stevens, Bill Werner, and Mike Yeatts. 

ACTION ITEM: TWG members interested in serving on the Budget Ad Hoc Group should send their names 

to Linda or Dennis by November 2, 2009.

Fall Steady Flows Question. Norm said there is a section on supplemental water temperature monitoring 

in the FSF report. Matthew said they don’t have current funding for those at this time. Norm asked when the 

priorities would be set and asked if the temperature measurements vetted in some of the others would give 

them an overview at temperature differences between mainstem, backwater relationships, etc.. He said 

John indicated that in his presentation and so he doesn’t see the relationship between this and the other 

temperature measurements. Matthew said it was an omission from yesterday’s presentation. He said one of 

the projects is smaller and more affordable and all the projects take temperature measurements and gather 

data in a more consistent manner. Shane said this was on page 25 of the FSF Plan. The first Scope of 

Work was for $20K and the second one was $35K per flight plus some other times. Shane said the question 

came up on whether these should be funded and how should they be implemented through the budget 

process. Norm asked John Hamill if he would be asked the TWG to re-evaluate the budget funding or 

working outside the process to make that happen. John said that if the TWG agrees the project should be 

funded, then they would look for the $35K. John said permitting is more difficult. He can put it off until FY11 

so there is some flexibility on when it gets done.

ACTION ITEM: GCMRC will report back to the TWG on the feasibility of doing the flow monitoring work for 

the fall steady flows project, if funding can be secured, and if permitting will be available.

Status of TCD and Sediment Augmentation Projects and TWG Consideration for a recommendation 

to the AMWG. He reviewed the AMWG August 2009 motion in which they requested an update on the 

temperature control device and sediment augmentation. He said he wanted to deal with the temperature 

question first and then look for the history of concern over cold temperatures released from Glen Canyon 

Dam. Dennis Kubly gave a PPT, “Selective Withdrawal and Sediment Augmentation Update” (Attachment 

14).

Rick asked what Reclamation sees as the next steps. Dennis said that it should be considered part of the 

the LTEP process. It was in all the alternatives for LTEP so LTEP is on hold until compliance is finished

under the existing plan. Dennis said Reclamation hasn’t been talking about the next steps but assumes 

they will come in conjunction with any decision on whether or not to re-engage in LTEP which may not be 

until post 2012. There has been no additional feasibility investigation or follow-up on that proposal. He said 

the TCD investigations were precipitated by the SA’s risk assessment and the AMWG recommendation to 

move forward on the compliance. Dennis said it’s more prudent to look at two units at $100 million 

particularly since there is more fear about warm water. 

Rick expressed concern that both the TCD and the LTEP processes have been put on hold and he feels 

pretty anxious to get these two projects going for conservation and native fish. He said he wanted to hear 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 21

Final Minutes of Sept. 29-30, 2009, Meeting Minutes 

from Sam and some from the Park Services in terms of support for moving forward with this and the 

compliance activities that would be needed. 

Sam said that Reclamation is responsible for compliance. With regard to the TCD, he said the FWS 

continues to be very concerned that if we have a TCD and causes that expenditure of capital, they will use it 

or want to use it. They fear that they wouldn’t have enough cold water which would cause an abundance of 

catfish, smallmouth, green sun fish, to the extent there wouldn’t be enough cold water to really have a 

detrimental effect on those non-natives to move from the mainstem. He thinks Reclamation and GCMRC 

can develop the capability to model this going back to the year 2000 and for each of those years look at if 

they had a TCD with warm water and cold water capability. He questioned what the model might show if 

they had an explosion of warm water fish. With regard to sediment, he thinks they’re going to find out that 

it’s more important for chub because sediment was a factor in determining that aquatic ecosystem, the predam aquatic system of the canyon. They can’t target anything that would positively respond to benefitting 

HBC. 

Shane said there are two types of recommendations the TWG could make, one on the science side – what 

things are known or need to be synthesized or what things they don’t know yet and need to be made a 

higher priority related to TCD or sediment augmentation. The other side might be related to moving forward 

on further planning which might be a TCD or an in-depth risk assessment or something like that. He asked 

Rick where he thinks it needs to move forward. Rick said there are some legitimate concerns but perhaps 

there are other things they could do to test a TCD. If there’s no way the FWS is going to agree to do this, 

then it should be considered a bad idea and leave it. 

Clayton said he likes the idea of the TWG developing a recommendation for further planning. He said 

Western has had the position that they should move forward on planning for the TCD. He said a major 

reason for that is because warmer the water below GCD can happen through a TCD or through steadier 

flows. They don’t think steadier flows should be used if it’s possible that a TCD would work as a substitute. 

He supports Rick’s thoughts on moving forward with planning. 

Randy said look at some planning for the TCD is appropriate. With respect to sediment augmentation, he 

said he didn’t know how people in the Lower Basin would feel. He thinks it’s a crazy idea and questioned 

why a water provider would support the idea of putting additional sand down into a critical reservoir that 

takes care of the entire southwest. Furthermore, he feels Pat Mulroy would question putting additional sand 

down in a reservoir when she’s worried about her water supply and spending $1 billion to put an outlet in 

the bottom of the reservoir. He said the TWG should just make a recommendation to the AMWG that 

sediment augmentation is something that makes no sense and it shouldn’t be pursued. 

John said he thought there should be some expression of a need to deal with the DFCs and what they’re 

really trying to manage. One of the critical issues that remains unresolved is the role of the mainstem and 

HBC conservation and whether or not they’re trying to create just conditions that are going to promote 

survival and recruitment of fish that are spawned primarily or actually they’re trying to establish a selfsustaining population in the mainstem. If it’s the latter, he doesn’t see there a lot of options for establishing 

that second mainstem population without going to a TCD. (Hamill) 

Shane said that depending on the scope, the recovery goals are a good place to look. There could be more 

clarity in the goals where they’ve reached the demographics. This does get back to DFCs and recovery 

goals and questioned whether it’s enough to have a larger population sustained by more mainstem 

spawning. He said the TWG will have to rely on the FWS although the program could go beyond those 

requirements and look at options with larger populations that would reduce risk over the long-term and 

those are difficult questions for the program if they get to recovery or the demographic criteria from the FWS 

but he thinks the TCD is an important part of the whole discussion. He said an important part of this is 

having the AMWG develop the DFCs. 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 22

Final Minutes of Sept. 29-30, 2009, Meeting Minutes 

Dennis said Reclamation will be doing a Sufficient Progress letter by the end of the year so they will try and 

summarize once again what they’ve learned and what needs to come next. 

Steve Mietz said the Park is generally supportive of the ideas and recognizes the concerns the FWS has 

and feels the next step is probably doing a risk assessment on the projects.

MOTION proposed by Clayton Palmer, seconded by Rick Johnson: The TWG moves the AMWG 

recommend that Reclamation begin the planning for a temperature control device, one that would both 

support warm water releases and cold water releases. The TWG also moves that the AMWG recommend 

that Reclamation support further, more detailed investigation in the construction/operation of a sediment 

augmentation device. 

Shane reminded Clayton that the AMWG can’t tell Reclamation what to do. The Secretary of the Interior has 

that purview.

MOTION proposed by Clayton Palmer: The TWG moves the AMWG recommend that SOI Reclamation

begin the planning for a temperature control device, one that would both support warm water releases and 

cold water releases. The TWG also moves that the AMWG recommend that Reclamation support further, 

more detailed investigation in the construction/operation of a sediment augmentation device. 

Rick said he would prefer to see Reclamation develop a risk assessment for both a TCD and sediment 

augmentation using that as the next step and then deciding from there with a risk assessment whether the 

TWG wants to go further in the planning process. 

Bill Persons said he felt using “risk assessment” was a pretty broad term and that he would still argue for an 

EA.

Rick said he meant something along the lines as “to develop a risk assessment to begin planning for both a 

TCD and sediment augmentation” and then the rest would fall off. His concern is that sediment 

augmentation may well be a tool to deal with warm water non-native fish that might be stimulated by the 

TCD but he feared that people might say they don’t have the tools and need to control non-natives. Then 

they would have to go through the other process of sediment augmentation for turbidity purposes. He 

argued for putting the two together in a risk assessment. Using that information they could decide whether 

to go through more planning to adjust the TCD or put the TCD and sediment augmentation together. 

Clayton said he had no problem with overlapping a risk assessment that includes both of them. However, 

he did want to move forward on environmental planning with a TCD for sure. 

There were concerns expressed by separating Clayton’s motion into two separate motions. Bill Davis cited 

the Tim Randle report which goes into a lot of detail about what’s involved, where the stuff would come 

from, how to transport it, what the risks are in doing all of that, etc. He said he didn’t understand why they 

want to do what’s already been done and suggested people read the Randle report.

Rick said he saw the two as potential tools and needing to be together. He also said they needed to add the 

tool of turbidity to the river in order to deal with the potential for non-native explosions that might occur. He 

didn’t want to go through the process of planning for the TCD and getting to the end and having the people 

dealing with compliance feel uncomfortable with it because if there are increases of non-natives, then they 

don’t have tools to deal with it. That’s why he wanted the two together. 

Randy said he would vote against the motion and the inclusion of sediment augmentation. He thinks it’s one 

of those options that doesn’t have a chance of moving forward and is a tool that isn’t needed. He felt it was 

a waste of money that would be better spent on other endeavors. 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 23

Final Minutes of Sept. 29-30, 2009, Meeting Minutes 

Shane asked Clayton where he was in making a decision on whether part of the planning process might be 

a NEPA document or an EA and in the EA it might include the decisions he was talking about.

Clayton said it was his opinion that a risk assessment doesn’t have to be included in a NEPA document, 

that what his motion does is it says a risk assessment will be done so you’re going to move forward with the 

TCD and of course through the NEPA process you can choose not to do it based on the information from 

the risk assessment. The NEPA process itself will identify if it’s too risky to continue. Referencing Randy’s 

comment on cost, Clayton said he found it difficult to imagine the Department of the Interior would actually 

build it but he doesn’t see any problem with conducting a risk assessment that looks at the TCD and looks 

at sediment augmentation together to see how or whether they would interact. The reason he supports just 

that part of it because he understand that the FWS is worried about the risks of building a TCD and that is 

part of the reason why it’s not moving forward. His main purpose for putting forward a TCD is something 

that could be used to help control exotic species in the main channel and the alternative to a TCD has been 

and continues to be steady flows out of the Dam. He wants to see the planning move forward as 

aggressively as possible because it provides an alternative to the FWS requiring that they meet the needs 

of recovery of HBC through steadier flows of the Dam. 

Bill Davis said he talked with Carl Walters about the idea of using turbidity to protect the fish and Carl said 

there is no basis for saying fish can be helped out by creating turbid conditions. He felt the group needs to 

establish whether this could be done or if it has been done some place else and was it effective in reducing 

predation before they do what Clayton is recommending. 

Kurt said he didn’t object to this motion and thinks the TCD could effectively retard non-natives reproduction 

without having to kill them and felt the Pueblo of Zuni would support it. However, he said he was baffled 

because when they were asked to develop the DFCs by Randy Peterson and Dave Garrett convened the 

SPG, the group wrestled with DFCs for sediment and after long deliberation, put together a motion to 

AMWG that AMWG never saw. The Secretary’s Designee tabled the DFCs for sediment and HBC. He feels 

there is something the group is missing here by talking about sediment augmentation. He doesn’t 

understand why they’re asking for sediment augmentation as if they already have a defined future condition 

for sediment. 

Shane suggested that perhaps the group table the motion and talk amongst themselves over the next 

month or so. He’s going to hold a conference call in January and perhaps a motion could be crafted at that 

time for presentation to the AMWG at their February meeting. 

MOTION (Proposed by Clayton Palmer, seconded by Rick Johnson): The TWG moves the AMWG 

recommend that the SOI develop a risk assessment and Temperature Control Device and sediment 

augmentation, and if warranted, begin the planning for a Temperature Control Device, one that would 

support both warmer water releases and colder water releases.

Representative Stakeholder Entity Vote Representative Stakeholder Entity Vote

Bill Persons

Andy Makinster

Arizona Game & Fish Dept. A Rick Johnson Grand Canyon Trust Y

Amy Heuslein Bureau of Indian Affairs absent Larry Stevens Gr. Canyons Wildlands Council Y

Dennis Kubly Bureau of Reclamation A Mark Steffen Federation of Fly Fishers absent

Mike Yeatts Hopi Tribe Y John O’Brien Grand Canyon River Guides Y

Kerry Christensen Hualapai Tribe absent Bill Werner State of Arizona N

Steve Mietz NPS-GRCA A Christopher Harris State of California absent

Norm Henderson NPS-GLNRA A Randy Seaholm State of Colorado N

VACANT Navajo Nation Vacant Jason Thiriot State of Nevada N

Kurt Dongoske Pueblo of Zuni N Jay Groseclose State of New Mexico N

VACANT San Juan Southern Paiute Vacant Robert King State of Utah absent

Charley Bulletts Southern Paiute Consortium absent Don Ostler State of Wyoming absent

Sam Spiller U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service A Bill Davis CREDA N
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 24

Final Minutes of Sept. 29-30, 2009, Meeting Minutes 

Clayton Palmer Western Area Power Admin. Y Leslie James UAMPS N

NOTE: Abstentions count toward the quorum, but not the vote. For example, if 20 TWG 

members are present, then a quorum is present (quorum = 16). If the vote is 3-0-17 

(that is 3 yeas, 0 nays, and 17 abstentions), the motion passes because abstentions 

are non-votes for all purposes other than to establish a quorum. To explain further, the 

simple majority or two-thirds majority is based on all votes minus the abstentions.

Total Yes 5

Total No 7

Total Abstain 5

Total Voting 12

Motion Fails

Shane said the group is still left with making a response back to the AMWG as far as a recommendation. As 

such, he’ll add this as an agenda item for the conference call. 

Bill Persons said he would rather send a consensus recommendation to the AMWG rather than a split vote. 

Shane asked Tom if he had any guidance from the Department on the status of the DFCs. Tom said that 

they continue work on them and at some point will interface with the AMP.

Bill Werner said there were a lot of documents prepared in the past and many of them are on the UC 

website. He suggested people review those documents before the next conference call. He thought 

Reclamation could send out the links to those documents. Dennis said he wasn’t sure how large that group 

could be but said Reclamation could send out some links.

ACTION ITEM: Reclamation will send out links to the TWG regarding past TCD and sediment 

augmentation documents which have been prepared. 

Tamarisk Leaf Beetle. Larry Stevens said non-native species continue to plague the CRE and that a leaf 

beetle was introduced into the Grand Canyon to help control tamarisk. In 1999, after both NEPA and ESA 

compliance was completed, the beetles were released into cages in several locations across the Rocky 

Mountains and Great Plains; however, the beetle was not to be released within 200 miles of SWFL habitat. 

The beetle was introduced by private individuals and southern Utah counties, and is rapidly moving towards 

the Grand Canyon region. The beetle may eliminate a large portion of the riparian habitat in Grand Canyon. 

Larry gave the following PPT presentation, “Tamarisk Leaf Beetle Invasion into the Colorado River 

Ecosystem Downstream from Glen Canyon Dam” (Attachment 15). 

Teresa (From LC region, brought in by Bill Werner): We’re going to meet here in a couple of hours with a 

guy by the name of Michael Keene and he is doing some bird studies and the birds around some of the 

____ area. He’s doing some bird monitoring, some nest monitoring and I believe they’re also doing some 

vegetation monitoring in association with this so bird and non-restorative (?) areas to try get when the 

beetles come through how much of an effect in a non-restored area there is in comparing it to a restored 

area. The restored areas that they have up there are very sparse in effect so I don’t know how good a 

comparison that will be. I know that that Tom Dudley and a lot of his researchers are doing some other 

research up in that area and hopefully I can find out a little bit more information on that when I meet with 

Michael. As far as the Virgin River is concerned, the beetles have gotten through the Narrows and all the 

way down to Littlefield and below Littlefield. They’re approximately 5-6 miles north of a SWFL site that we 

have. That will be the first that we’ve done the lower part of the Virgin River and one of the SWFL sites that 

Reclamation is monitoring. From the Mesquite (?) site down to the Mormon Mesa site, that’s probably 

another 10-15 river miles before it gets to that site. Our Mesquite Flycatcher site only has about 15%, 20% 

tamarisk in it but our Mormon Mesa site is about 70-75% tamarisk. Once it gets there, it will really figure out 

what’s happening with the Flycatcher habitat. I am funding a study in St. George with their flycatcher habitat 

and that will begin this next summer. We were hoping to kick it off this summer but unfortunately the money 

was coming from stimulus funds and we couldn’t quite get the stimulus funding through all of our contracting 

processes before so that we could get I awarded in time to do the surveys this summer. That delayed our 

project by up to a year. 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 25

Final Minutes of Sept. 29-30, 2009, Meeting Minutes 

Steve said the GCNP has been working with the tamarisk coalition to do extensive monitoring of the 

Tamarisk leaf beetle throughout the river corridor. A river trip just got off two weeks ago and they’re doing 

half mile sites to RM 14 and then one mile sites after that when they’re sweeping for beetles at these sites. 

On this river trip they discovered there are beetles at RM 14 and also found some directly underneath the 

Navajo Bridge. So the beetles have arrived in Grand Canyon at this time. The Park Service is developing a 

restoration plan. They see it as more of an opportunity to work with their partners to actively restore the 

native riparian ecosystem in Grand Canyon and are working on that process right now and hopefully reach 

a conclusion by the end of this annual year. The Park Service is actively engaged with their partners and 

welcome any input from others. 

Randy said he was glad to hear the Park is working on this because he feels this has been a very frustrating 

issue to deal with. And now with the addition of the beetle, he thinks it’s even more critical the DFCs be 

established. 

Matthew said there was a proposed FY10-11 project that had to be deferred because of funding. It was for 

hydrospectral imaging and GCMRC felt it would be a good tool for doing remote sensing and would provide 

a lot of information for just this kind of purpose. 

Life Cycle Assessment. Clayton Palmer said WAPA markets hydroelectric power. In 1998 President Bill 

Clinton introduced an executive order requiring that federal agencies acquire 15% of their total electrical 

resources from renewable energy. He said WAPA has a program to facilitate federal agencies getting and 

transferring on their transmission lines some renewable energy in order for the federal agencies to meet 

that requirement. One of the parts of the EO indicated what renewable resources were considered 

renewable by the executive branch of the Government and they didn’t include hydropower on there. He said 

he was on detail in D.C. at the time and knows that the person at DOE who wrote the EO that President 

Clinton signed and he had his favorite renewable resources and then he had some he didn’t like. It became

obvious to him that with the issue of renewable energy resources or even environmentally preferential 

electrical resources, nobody was using science to address the question of whether an electrical generator 

was renewable or whether an electrical generator actually accomplished anything environmentally. WAPA 

looked around for someone who was engaged in the question of scientific impacts for electrical generating 

technologies including those that were classified as a renewable and they found a researcher who was 

engaged in this topic. He had a scientific method that was based on international standards and could be 

reproducible by anybody to look at any electrical generating device and assess it against a set of standards 

to see if it met conditions for green or renewable electrical energy. What they didn’t know was whether this 

method was applicable in the field and WAPA wanted to field test it. They sponsored some research on 

using a scientific method to make determinations and declarations of green power that would be 

reproducible scientifically. They sponsored the research to see if it would work in the field and what 

problems one might be encountered in the field. They chose several electrical generating devices as case 

studies, one of which was Glen Canyon Dam. This study is a companion study to a Canadian study in which 

the Canadians took five different electrical generating technologies in five different provinces and compared 

them using basically the same scientific method. WAPA is currently working with an American Standards 

Board to develop a standard by which state governments, policy makers, and the Federal Government 

could potentially evaluate electrical generators to see how they stack up using this method. This study was 

sponsored by WAPA but had funding from Tri-state Generation and Transmission Cooperative, the Bureau 

of Reclamation, and by the Electrical Power Research Institute. 

Clayton introduced Mr. Bill Carsell who previously worked for WAPA and had retired from Reclamation. He 

now works for the consulting firm which WAPA hired to research this question and was one of the authors of 

the report. Mr. Carsell passed out copies of the “Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) of Renewable 

Electrical Generation Technologies Compared to the WECC Baseline Report“ (Attachment 16). 

Adjourned: 3 p.m. 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 26

Final Minutes of Sept. 29-30, 2009, Meeting Minutes 

Documents distributed at the meeting but not formally presented:

Attachment 17: Memo from Clayton Palmer dated 9/25/09 submitting the final report for the “Annotated 

Bibliography for the Humpback Chub (Gila cypha) with Emphasis on the Grand Canyon Population” 

prepared by Argonne National Laboratory.

Respectfully submitted,

Linda Whetton

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

Upper Colorado Region
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 27

Final Minutes of Sept. 29-30, 2009, Meeting Minutes 

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Conference Call

January 5, 2010

Conducting: Shane Capron, Chairperson Convened: 9 a.m. (MT)

Committee Members/Alternates Present:

Mary Barger, WAPA

Cliff Barrett, UAMPS

Charley Bulletts, So. Paiute Consortium 

Kerry Christensen, Hualapai Tribe

William Davis, CREDA

Kurt Dongoske, Pueblo of Zuni

VACANT, NM Interstate Stream Comm. 

Christopher Harris, Colo. River Board of California

Norm Henderson, NPS/GCNRA

Amy Heuslein, BIA

Glen Knowles, USFWS

Dennis Kubly, USBR

Andy Makinster, AGFD

Steve Mietz, NPS/GRNP

Andre Potochnik, GCRG (alternate)

Larry Stevens, Grand Canyon Wildlands Council

Jason Thiriot, Colo. River Comm./NV (alternate)

Bill Werner, ADWR

Michael Yeatts, The Hopi Tribe

Committee Members Absent:

Robert King, UDWR John Shields, WY State Engineer

John O’Brien, Grand Canyon River Guides

Larry Stevens, GCRG

Other Participants:

Matthew Andersen, GCMRC

Deanna Archuleta, DOI

Dave Garrett, M3Research

John Hamill, GCMRC

Kara Hilwig, GCMRC

Leslie James, CREDA

Arden Kucate, Pueblo of Zuni

Bill Persons, GCMRC

Sam Spiller, USFWS

Pam Sponholtz, USFWS

Meeting Recorder: Linda Whetton, USBR

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Welcome and Administrative. Shane welcomed the TWG members and alternates. He said the today’s 

call would focus on GCMRC’s report, “Nonnative Fish Control Plan: Summary of Primary Revisions from 

TWG Review,” a related discussion on the technical issues of the plan, and a discussion on the Zuni Tribe’s 

concerns with reference to the e-mail message Kurt Dongoske sent this morning.

Kara Hilwig gave the following PPT, “Nonnative Fish Control Plan: Summary of Primary Revisions from 

TWG Review” (Attachment 18). The TWG were also given a copy of the GCMRC response to TWG 

comments dated Sept. 18, 2009 (Attachment 19).

Mary asked why they waited to do the risk assessment. Matthew said they recognized it was very important 

but they needed time and data. Kara has been working on this for over a year in between breaks of working 

on the plan. This is the final version. He said he realized it wouldn’t take just a month or two. He said a lot of 

the work will be accomplished at the Modeling Workshop and will include more information from the aquatic 

foodbase PEP. Mary asked for a description of the workshop. Matthew said it’s an attempt to use available 

biology information for use on nonnative fish and the risks they present. He said they have also been 

struggling with HBC increased numbers and feel that modeling will help them understand those increases. 

Warmer water temperatures and nonnative removal may have contributed to the increased numbers. He 

said the workshop will be held at Saguaro Lake April 13-15, 2010. 

In reference to slide #14, Kara said she would be happy to review the issues with the members. However, 

Shane said he wanted the members to have an opportunity to ask some clarification questions on some 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 28

Final Minutes of Sept. 29-30, 2009, Meeting

slides and then wanted to deal with the more technical issues. He said it was his hope to approve the plan 

today in order to make a recommendation to the AMWG at their February meeting. 

Clarification questions.

Q: How well do we know the fish in Lake Mead? How well is that being monitoried? (Stevens)

A: AGFD and Nevada FWL has a sport fish in place. Some of the captures that came across in the literature, small 

and large mouth bass, tilapia, channel catfish. As far as GCMRC’s monitoring program, it goes down of Separation 

Canyon. They have discovered and catfish in that reach. (Hilwig)

Q: Is your plan robust enough to be incorporated in your plan? (Stevens)

A: Yes. One of this year’s task was to get at the sources of some of these nonnative fish. One thing that might help 

you is looking at a figure within the document, page 11, figure 2, and you can see how the composition changes. The 

nonnative fish component definitely increases. (Hilwig)

Q: How often is that information updated? (Stevens)

A: Think about Fish PEP recommendations and we’ve been looking at fish captures and they thought it would be more 

valuable to shift our emphasis to the mainstem and look for more nonnatives. He said the information from the aquatic 

foodbase said there are food limitations and that all the fish down there are using fish productivity. The conditions of 

the system right now is not very good to attract nonnatives. (Andersen)

C: One of the recommendations was to improve monitoring – tributary inflows, things coming into the dam, getting a 

handle on upstream fish coming from Lake Mead. (Hilwig)

C: It would be nice to have a list included in the document. I heard Norway salmon fisherman talk about throwing a net 

around the eddies and think it might be creative a way of keeping the fish. It’s important to do fish work in the field. 

(Stevens)

C: One of the questions was to assess the vulnerability size of the fish and find out what is the most vulnerable size of 

the nonnative fish. There is work being done in the upper basin but the larval stage is the most vulnerable to predation.

Look at the vulnerability of native fish as well. (Davis)

R: We have broken those out and have articulated those. Right now we don’t know who is causing the most threats. 

Until better information is available, we can’t make an assessment. (Hilwig)

Q: When this is completed in 2010, is there an intent to incorporate what is posing the greatest threat? (Hendersen)

A: The most important part will be the risk assessment. (Andersen)

John Hamill said the report may require some revisions but they’re not sure it’s wise to put the plan on hold 

until they have all their information but rather just deal with it adaptively.

Discussion on the workshop.

John said they have been getting people involved and have a facilitated discussion with managers and 

scientists. They’re trying to develop a design for managers and scientists and then turn it over to the 

managers and say this is where we want to go. At this point they are trying to come up with a strong agenda 

and the role the facilitator will play in the function. There is a process in place for you to have input. They’re 

trying to get this done in the next week to 10 days.

Bill Werner read a motion about starting a workshop (Sept 2004) and an action item for TWG that GCMRC 

will develop a non-native fish control plan to be presented to the AMWG at their October 2004 meeting. He 

questioned whether this document has been responsive to the original motion and whether it’s ready to go 

to the AMWG. Shane said this activity was called out in the conservation measures and asked Sam to 

speak to it. (Sam’s response was very difficult to hear). Dr. Garrett said in reference to the motion, the SAs

felt that GCMRC was to take the lead and with TWG and the managers to develop a plan and that’s what 

the SAs included in their review. He said he interviewed the people and believes that was the charge.

Bill Davis said one of the areas in the HBC Comprehensive Plan had little to do with dam operations and 

AMP responsibilities and in the same way there are many areas that have nothing to do with dam 

operations so he thinks it’s important to recognize that with non-native fish. The other part that needs to be 

included is a look at the cost effectiveness of the methods and feels it’s very expensive to change the 

operation of the dam. As they look at methods, they may have to go to something more difficult but cheaper 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 29

Final Minutes of Sept. 29-30, 2009, Meeting

to do. He said it hasn’t been established that the GCDAMP has any control for non-native fish management. 

While it was GCMRC’s mandate to write the plan, he questioned whether implementation of it might fall to 

others. It’s an issue that needs to be addressed and should be included in the workshop discussion

because it’s not clearly presented in the Plan. John said it was their intent to lay out a plan but not identify 

who was going to do it. There were issues the In/Out AHG addressed and thinks that will be addressed in 

this case. They can add some text that would have to be addressed down the road. 

Dennis asked how GCMRC is going to segregate the concerns that have been expressed. John said this is 

reminiscent of the science plan in which they had a lot of policy and management questions and they were 

able to separate the concerns and referred them to the AMP Policy Group. Dennis said he sees this 

process going down the same route because they fall outside the purview of GCMRC and those should be 

identified to the AMWG. 

Cliff said he fundamentally agreed with the report and that it’s not intended to address the policy questions 

and who should be doing what. He suggested John write a disclaimer on it and then the TWG could include 

their concerns.

Shane reviewed the list of concerns: 

• Dam operations

• Cost effectiveness

• When do these become management actions?

• Coodination between entities (AMWG/TWG)

• Development of flow manipulations to suppress nonnative fish populations

• Tributaries that were used or not used. Need a discussion before the plan is finalized

Zuni Tribal Concerns

Kurt Dongoske sent an e-mail this morning (Attachment 20) stating that no one has come to the tribes to 

discuss this plan and questioned which DOI agency is going to present this to the tribes in Govt-to-Govt 

consultation requirements. Mike Berry said Reclamation has taken a lead on these consultations and if it’s 

going to be a 106 issue, then it’s their role to take the lead.

Deanna Archuleta said she and Kurt spoke about his and she also talked with Arden Kucate this morning. 

There is more work that needs to be done on the plan and she feels that after it is heard by the AMWG, 

those consultations will occur. She said a meeting is scheduled for January 13 on how that consultation 

should take place. A pretty comprehensive plan was laid out, but they need to talk about who is the primary 

agency to take the lead and how the other bureaus are will be involved in consultation. Today’s plan allows 

them the Department to move forward and halting it based on consultation won’t break the plan today. 

There is a meeting also scheduled for January 12th for all the tribes to talk with DOI. She hoped knowing 

that would allay some of Kurt’s concerns. She asked to hear from other tribal members.

Arden Kucate said it’s evident there are a lot of areas of concern that are very unclear as to what AMWG 

has done in management related and science issues. It’s very unclear to him how they’re being 

implemented. He said the Zuni Tribe is in the process of trying to complete their govt-to-govt consultation 

which was implemented last September and they would like to get a good understanding of the biological 

opinions on native and nonnative fish. Hopefully, they can come together on what has to be done. He said 

they will utilize the consultation measures to the fullest extent as per the Presidential Executive Orders. 

Mike Yeatts said he echoed Kurt’s concerns. Regarding more management aspects, he feels it’s premature 

to make decisions because they’re just beginning consultation. The Hopi tribe had concerns about the 

mechanical removal when it was started because they didn’t address the issue of humpback chub. They 

support the development of the plan but it needs to be a long-term plan. The biggest concerns are from 

research and monitoring to identifying where there are changes in population and then moving into 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 30

Final Minutes of Sept. 29-30, 2009, Meeting

management actions. This does get into bigger issues and the Hopi Tribe questions the AMWG’s role, 

either by funding or by agency. The mechanical removal issue is a big concern to the Hopi Tribe. It’s a big 

issue that the AMWG and DOI will have to wrestle with.

Amy Heuslein echoed her support for the tribes’ concerns and said the Department has started a good 

dialogue and would like to work through those issues so they have a voice in this communication. Hopefully 

the issues can be resolved and everyone can support the plan. 

From a technical perspective, Shane said he wasn’t sure how moving the plan forward at this time is the 

right thing to do. There are flows and other things to be considered. John said that in the workplan there is a 

project that talks about controlling fish below the Paria and other locations outside the LCR. There is a 

provision in the FY10 workplan, however, they’re not sure of what the scope is and how it would be 

accomplished with the other DOI agencies.

Kurt said the plan is iterative and will have revisions. It doesn’t sufficiently recognize the cultural conflicts 

that are inherent in the plan. This plan becomes a guiding document for working with nonnatives. It’s late 

and hasn’t addressed the tribal concerns before implementing action. 

Deanna said there that while the plan is being prepared, there is a lot of time to working with the managers, 

scientists, and action agencies. There is that time window and the group needs to find a way to clarify the 

language. She said if an amendment to the AMWG motion wasn’t enough then perhaps Kurt could provide 

some language that would give them the comfort they need to endorse the plan so it is more concretely 

implemented. Referring to page 37 where it references the SHPO and endangered species, she would be 

happy to change the language. 

Kurt said that language referred to tribal reservations and boundaries, but it doesn’t speak to the issue of 

taking life. It doesn’t address this conflict of tribal values.

Deanna suggested working on language that would address his concerns in the plan.

Loretta Jackson-Kelly said she believed that since the mechanical removal had its conception back in 2003, 

things have really changed out there. During TWG and AMWG meetings they’ve talked about the pros and 

cons of that activity. As time has moved along, things have changed so much that this isn’t the plan they 

hooked up with initially. She supported Kurt’s concerns and said they need full consultation with the DOI 

agencies and the tribal consultation is very important for a basis to move ahead with what this plan will look 

like. She said she looks at the words “adaptive” and “science” and feels there needs to be a greater effort 

to make it more adaptable. She expressed concerns for all traditional values and recognized that Hualapai’s 

neighbors on the east, west, north, and south of them have been left alone so those who need to eat the 

fish are able to do so. There are also tribes that extend further south that use the fish. As times change, the 

message is still very alien in how they see it. She strongly supports tribal consultation occurs first before the 

plan is voted on as there are a lot of elements that need to be reviewed. She didn’t see how it delaying 

progress on the plan can be hurt until the tribes can come to an agreement on the plan.

Mike said adding some language may be appropriate but feels that including the words “consultation will 

occur in the future” isn’t accurate because they often don’t take that first step toward consultation. They 

need to make sure they’re consulting on the plan or actions because mixing the two is where they get into 

difficult issues.

Kurt said he thought it would be wise to wait until after the meeting on Jan. 13 to see what happens. In the 

meantime, Kara said she could work with Kurt on making language changes to the plan. Kurt said he would 

like other tribes to work with him in the process as well.
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 31

Final Minutes of Sept. 29-30, 2009, Meeting

Shane said if there are any concerns to let him know. Due to the time constraint of the call he didn’t feel 

they could resolve all the issues surrounding the plan.

John Hamill said they could have those discussions. He reminded the TWG that the plan has been on the 

agenda for over 1 1⁄2 years and the TWG and AMWG have been told about the scope of the plan. It has 

morphed into what it is from comments received along the way. He’s still concerned about what information 

is going to be taken out. He feels GCMRC has kept the TWG informed and at this point in time doesn’t 

know what they should do. However, he feels a broader discussion with the TWG and AMWG will be helpful 

to reaching agreement on the plan.

Shane said the issues will be taken up again at the January 21 TWG meeting.

John provided a copy of the agenda for the Annual Reports Meeting (Attachment 21).

Concluded: 12:02 p.m.
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 32

Final Minutes of Sept. 29-30, 2009, Meeting

General Key to Adaptive Management Program Acronyms

ADWR – Arizona Dept. of Water Resources

AF – Acre Feet

AGFD – Arizona Game and Fish Department

AGU – American Geophysical Union

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

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

DASA - Data Acquisition, Storage and Analysis

CWCB – Colorado Water Conservation Board

DBMS – Data Base Management System

DFCAHG  Desired Future Conditions Ad Hoc Group

DOE  Department of Energy

DOI – Department of the Interior

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 Ctr.

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

GUI – Graphical User Interface

HBC – Humpback Chub (endangered native fish)

HMF – Habitat Maintenance Flow

HPP – Historic Preservation Plan

IEDA  Irrigation & Electrical Districts Assoc. of Arizona

INs – Information Needs

IT – Information Technology

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

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

NAAO – Native American Affairs Office

NAU – Northern Arizona University (Flagstaff, AZ)

NEPA – National Environmental Policy Act

NGS – National Geodetic Survey

NHPA – National Historic Preservation Act

NPS  National Park Service

NRC  National Research Council

NWS  National Weather Service

O&M  Operations & Maintenance (USBR funding)

PA  Programmatic Agreement

PEP  Protocol Evaluation Panel

POAHG  Public Outreach Ad Hoc Group

Powerplant Capacity = 31,000 cfs

PPT  PowerPoint (presentation)

R&D  Research and Development

Reclamation  United States Bureau of Reclamation

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

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)

Q/A/C/R = Question/Answer/Comment/Response
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 33

DRAFT Minutes of August 2-3, 2006, Meeting

Updated: 2/3/09