Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Meeting 

January 28, 2016 

Conducting: Vineetha Kartha, TWG Chair Convened: 8:15 a.m. 

Shane Capron, TWG Vice-Chair 

Committee Members/Alternates Present: 

Melinda Arviso-Ciocco, Navajo Nation Paul Harms, State of New Mexico
 

Jan Balsom, NPS/GRCA Robert King, State of Utah (phone) 

Cliff Barrett, UAMPS (phone) Ted Kowalski, State of Colorado
 

Charley Bulletts, Southern Paiute Consortium Joe Miller, Int’l Federation of Fly Fishers/TU 

Chris Budwig, Int’l Federation of Fly Fishers/TU Jessica Neuwerth, State of California
 

Kerry Christensen, Hualapai Tribe Ben Reeder, Grand Canyon River Guides
 

Jennifer Crandell, State of Nevada Larry Stevens, Grand Canyon Wildlands Council
 

Marianne Crawford, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Bill Stewart, Arizona Game and Fish Department
 

Kevin Dahl, National Parks Conservation Assn. Rosemary Sucec, NPS/GLNRA (phone)
 

Bill Davis, CREDA Don Ostler, State of Wyoming
 

Kurt Dongoske, Pueblo of Zuni Michael Yeatts, Hopi Tribe 

Craig Ellsworth, WAPA Kirk Young, U.S. Fish and Wildllife Service 

Katrina Grantz, Bureau of Reclamation
 

Committee Members Absent: 

Evelyn Erlandsen, State of Arizona Chip Lewis, Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Chris Harris, State of California Steve Wolff, State of Wyoming 

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center: 

Helen Fairley, Program Manager Paul Grams, Program Manager (phone) 

Kyrie Fry, Communications Coordinator Scott VanderKooi, Center Director
 

Interested Persons 

Mark Anderson, NPS/GLNRA Leslie James, CREDA 

Mike Anderson, AZGFD John Jordan, Int’l Federation of Fly Fishers/TU 

Rob Billerbeck, NPS Lisa Meyer, WAPA (phone) 

David Braun, Sound Science LLC (Science Advisors) Peggy Roefer, UCRC/Nevada 

Kathleen Callister, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Seth Shanahan, SNWA 

Bill Chada, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Melissa Trammell, NPS (phone) 

Jerry Lee Cox, Grand Canyon River Guides Bob Unnasch, Sound Science LLC (Science Advisors) 

Tom Czapla, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Rich Valdez, SWCA (phone) 

Brian Healy, NPS/GRCA Randy VanHaverbeke, FWS 

Beverley Heffernan, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (phone) Felicia Monair (WAPA) 

Dawn Hubbs, Hualapai Tribe 

Meeting Recorder: Linda Whetton 

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

made and a quorum determined. Guidelines for participating in the webinar were reviewed. 

 Approval of October 20-21, 2015, Meeting Minutes. Motion to approve by Larry Stevens, seconded by 

Kevin Dahl. Pending two edits, the minutes were approved by consensus. 

 Review of Action Items. Due to time constraints, this will be discussed at April meeting along with an 

update on the Tribal Consultation Plan. 

 Programmatic Agreement Update. Mr. Chada said they met with the tribes and the Arizona SHPO to 

discuss the PA. A meeting will be scheduled as soon as possible. 

 Reclamation Adaptive Management Group Chief. Ms. Katrina Grantz was selected for this position. 

 GCMRC Deputy Chief Position. Mr. VanderKooi received a Certification List earlier this year and have been 

reviewing the resumes. Phone interviews will begin tomorrow. From that group, in-person interviews and 

webinar presentations wil be scheduled in mid-February. If is interested in participating in those interviews, 

contact Scott (svanderkooi@usgs.gov) 

	 LTEMP EIS. The Draft LTEMP EIS was published on January 8 with comments due April 7, 2016. There 

are two webinars (Feb 16 and March 1) and two public meetings (Feb 22 in Flagstaff, Feb 25 in Tempe) 

currently scheduled. In response to a question from cooperators to extend the comment review period by 
            

             

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group

Final Minutes of January 28, 2016, Meeting Page 2

an additional 60 days, Mr. Billerbeck said DOI is still considering the request but are more than willing to 

hold meetings but want to get targeted milestones built into the schedule. 

	 2016 Spring HFE. Currently there isn’t sufficient sediment to run an HFE this year, but they have until midMarch to accumulate the sediment in order to have the time for planning an HFE. If there were to be one 

this spring, it would likely occur in the beginning of April. Even without more sediment, the sand budget 

model looks at normal dam operations witihout an HFE and also at sediment that comes into to make sure 

the sand mass balance is not negative. It’s already -200 kilotons and would need that much more plus the 

amount required for a minimum HFE, around the range of 400 kilotons. Trout numbers are lower than they 

have been in the last 10 years which also must be factored into a spring HFE. 

Annual Reporting Update. Mr. Shane Capron. He complimented GCMRC and others who provided 

information at the Annual Reporting meeting the past two days. The April meeting will focus on what 

modifications need to be considered for the FY17 workplan. 

 Mr. VanderKooi thanked everyone who participated in yesterday’s meeting and the poster session. He was 

very pleased with all the presentations and the good interactions with his staff, cooperators, and the TWG. 

The FY2015 GCMRC Annual Report (Attachment 1a) was distributed. and if there are any questions or 

feedback, send those to Scott. CREDA submitted some detailed questions and GCMRC provided its 

response (Attachment 1b). 

	 As follow-up to the AR meeting, Ms. James suggested people re-read the Desired Future Conditions memo 

(Attachment 1c) from Anne Castle to the AMWG on 8/19/11. It addresses many of the questions raised on 

the first day of the AR meeting. 

	 Ms. Kartha asked the TWG for thoughts of holding a workshop as a precursor to the PEP panel. 

o	 Excellent Idea. Having a TWG webinar or meeting with the PEP panel might keep ideas fresh. 

o	 The old M&R plan recognized the need for a workshop to pose questions to the panel. 

o	 Include a day in the field with the panel. Guides could assist with transportation. 

o	 This is an opportunity for deep immersion into the fishery program. 

o	 It helps to have an interactive approach to presentations and the workshop is a good idea. 

Humpback Chub Recovery Team Update. (Attachment 2) ̶ Dr. Rich Valdez. In an effort to identify 

activities necessary for species conservation, a new Humpback Chub Recovery Team was appointed by 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service last November. The Team consists of a Team Leader (Rich Valdez), 

Agency Lead (Tom Czapla), a Science Subgroup, an Implementation Subgroup, and a Writing Subgroup, 

for a total of 22 Team members. The Team is expected to meet five times and the meetings will be open 

to the public. A comprehensive recovery plan is expected to be delivered to the Regional Director for 

signature by July 2017. The Recovery Team has responsibility for producing three reports: 1) Species 

Status Assessment, 2) Recovery Plan, and 3) Implementation Plan. The intent of the Team is to 

acknowledge the biological reality of the species and put forward management actions that will reduce 

and minimize the threat to the species and establish a demographic and recovery criterium. 

Q&A, Comments: 

 Where will the issue of distinct population segments be raised in this process? 

o	 The distinct population segment is a FWS policy that enables a recovery team to consider 

separating different groups of populations of the same species to be considered fundamentally as 

different recovery entities. That consideration will be undertaken during the deliberations. 

	 The implementation subgroup has Councilman Phillip Vicenti identified as a member. You may want to 

check with the tribal council about his continued participation. Also, is there any consideration for tribal 

values or objection to some adverse actions that you might recommend? . The Pueblo of Zuni would like to 

be able to comment on any recommended actions that they might find culturally offensive or at least 

compromising their cultural sensibilities. 

o	 Hoping to have input from non-tribal values through the the Implementation Subgroup. They will 

involve individuals who represent those interests in the team itself. During the review stage there 

will hopefully be ample opportunity for comments on values. Recent findings of many small chub in 

the lower portion of Grand Canyon, but not finding adults there – that lack of knowledge might 

influence the decision-making here. Encourage you to remember what we don’t know about chub 

as well as what we do know in this process. 

	 Need to think what GCDAMP roles will be with outcome of this process. 
            

             

 

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group

Final Minutes of January 28, 2016, Meeting Page 3

o	 The FWS want recovery plans to be guidance documents, not prescriptive documents which allows 

latitude for the different programs to implement those actions that the FWS feel are necessary to 

conserve the species. 

Dam Operations During Equalization (Attachment 3) – Ms. Katrina Grantz. There are four operating 

tiers in Lake Powell and the equalization tier is, Lake Powell at its fullest state, and is projected to be 

higher by the end of the water year. Equalization occurs when Lake Powell’s elevation is projected to be 

at or above the equalization level. If projected above, more than 8.23 maf will be released. The amount 

released depends on what the hydrology is and what the reservoir elevations are. Releases must be 

monitored and the releases are adjusted throughout the whole water year until one of the four conditions 

occurs: 1) Powell storage equals Mead storage, or 2) mead elevation equals 1,105 feet, or 3) Powell 

elevation equals equalization level minus 20 feet, or (4) Powell elevation is equal to the equalization 

level. If Lake Powell is high and Lake Mead is low, water will be released to bring their levels closer but 

with constraints. With each passing year, the reservoir has to be “more full” to trigger equalization. 

Currently, 9 maf is expected to be released but if things get really dry, then we might not end up 

triggering that April adjustment to equalization or to balancing. However, if things are wetter than the 

maximum probable inflow scenario, the April adjustment would be to equalization releases. Lake Powell 

isn’t as high as its been in past years so if Lake Powell were at a greater elevation to start out the water 

year, the amount to trigger equalization would be lower. The amount of water than can physically fit 

through the dam depends on maintenance and how many units are actually online at any given time. 

Currently there are seven units available and about 20,000 cfs could be released or about 1.3 maf. 

Each month assessments are made to determine whether equalization will be triggered in April after all 

the snow has fallen. In January 2011, they thought there would be equalization so releases were 

increased. By March there was a 97% chance that equalization would be triggered, so the releases were 

bumped it quite a bit in January and February. There was maintenance in March so they couldn’t release 

as much and couldn’t fluctuate as much because the ability to move water and fluctuate throughout the 

day was also impacted by maintenance. Typically under equalization, normal fluctuations will be done 

early in the year but if they’re in a super wedp situation, there’s a chance they may have to not be able to 

fluctuate as much as they would otherwise. In 2011 as much water was released couldgo through the 

powerplant. It maxed out through mid-December until they achieved equalization and then retruned to 

normal fluctuations. Historical hydrologies were reviewed from 1906 into the future through 2060, the 

probability of having releases greater than 8.23 maf is between 70-80%. The probability of having 

releases greater than 9.0 maf is in the 30-40% range. The probability of having releases greater than 10 

maf is in the 10-20% range in any given year. 

Q&A, Comments: 

 Could we change the water year from Oct-Oct to April-April and spread out equalization over 12 months 

instead of 3-5 months? 

o	 The water year is well established in science and is set up for the irrigation season as well. There 

are a lot of laws and regulations that would have to be changed to change the water year. To 

change dam operations would be even more challenging. 

	 You talked about moving part of the equalization flow into December and the implication was that you were 

continuing equalization flows into the next water year. I thought that was forbidden. 

o	 In that year we were equalizing as best we could given what was available. We maximized to the 

extent we could until we were done. 

 The Upper Colorado River Basin Compact is tied to our compact compliance obligations and in the 2007 

Interim Guidelines the languages recognizes getting the water delivered within the water year. 

	 Is there a way to to run such flows that does not damage the sediment mass balance that we’re working so 

hard to achieve in this program? 

HFE Protocol Sediment Trigger (Attachment 4a) – Mr. Scott VanderKooi. As plans were being 

discussed to have a potential HFE last fall, they encountered the Green Sunfish (GSF) problem and 

couldn’t proceed even though conditions were suitable for an HFE. 
            

             

 

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group

Final Minutes of January 28, 2016, Meeting Page 4

	 Sediment Input Update. Dr. Paul Grams said two things factored into implementing the 2008 HFE 

EA Protocol: 1) the sediment flux monitoring program, and 2) the shifting rating curve sand 

routing model. The HFEs follow historical timing of Paria and Little Colorado River Floods in Fall 

and Spring. The Fall inputs are much larger than the Spring inputs but Spring inputs on the Paria 

can happen. The implementation window is March and April. These accounting periods are 

treated entirely independently as an operational not a scientific based decision. Historical, flows 

have been highest in May and June. Since the the first HFE, accorcing to the Protocol there has 

been enough sand to trigger one per year. The Protocol anticipated there could 4-8 Fall HFEs in 

a 10-year period and 3-6 HFEs Spring HFEs in a 10-year period. In the LTEMP analysis, there 

could be17-25 HFEs in 20 years with a maximum of 40 and 77% of those in the Fall. From 2012-

2014 HFE’s were triggered with accumulations of 600,000 to 2,000,000 metric tons. Mr. 

Vanderkooi said the logic of re-zeroing on the accounting periods was to avoid going into a deficit 

to the point that an HFE couldn’t be run. 

	 Introduction of Motion for Springtime HFEs (Attachment 4b) – Dr. Larry Stevens. Science is 

about reason, using logic to make intelligent decisions while politics is about reasons sometimes 

contrary to scientific reason. The GCDAMP is designed to preserve the sandbars of the Grand 

Canyon for fish, recreation, archaeological resources, etc. There are about ten reasons why 

Springtime HFEs are more advantageous to this program than Fall HFEs. Those ten reasons 

include; the effects of an HFE on the sediment resources diminish within about six months, 

having one before the recreational, growing, and wind seasons makes sense in terms of 

preserving resources, etc. Springtime HFEs might pose risks in terms of promoting trout 

recruitment, but as scientists, having one example of a Springtime HFE and it happened in 

relation to the equalization flows in 2011, it’s difficult to understand whether there is cause and 

effect between Springtime HFEs and trout population expansion. The TWG should consider a 

motion to test Springtime HFEs and not implement them as a management program but simply to 

learn whether or not to include them as a continuing experiment. The following motion language 

was offered for consideration: 

Therefore, the TWG requests that AMWG recommend the Secretary clarify the HFEP to allow for 

springtime HFEs by: 1) including consideration of unused sediment supplies following autumn 

HFEs, or 2) in the case in which an autumn HFE is not conducted and sufficient sand exists on 

the channel bed, that the accounting period for sediment supplies be relaxed to permit a 

springtime HFE to be conducted. AMWG recognizes that existing legal authorizations, caveats, 

uncertainties, and trade-offs exist regarding springtime HFEs. These issues should be 

considered, experimentally tested, and evaluated before springtime HFEs are accepted as a 

management practice. Clarification of the HFEP is in keeping with the intent of the Grand Canyon 

Protection Act (1992) and the mission and vision of the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management 

Program.” 

Q&A, Comments: 

	 The most appropriate venue for consideration of HFEs is within the LTEMP EIS alternatives. 

	 Reluctant to open HFE Protocol EA for environmental compliance, let’s handle through LTEMP EIS 

	 The springtime HFE in 2008 seemed to stimulate trout, but am reluctant to support a motion that might 

trigger trout suppression flows which would result in taking of young life and stranding them. Zuni religious 

leader are against a management action produced by humans that conflicts with their tribal values. 

	 The 10-year HFE Protocol is in place until it’s subsumed into the LTEMP ROD. 

	 We need to put some support behind re-evaluating the concept of sound accounting within the LTEMP EIS. 

Concerned we rely on the hope that out of the public comment process, the issue will be addressed. 

	 We don’t have the information today to know the impacts of what we’re considering. 

	 This is more of a policy issue that the AMWG should consider. 

Non-native Invasive Species Update (Attachment 5a) – Ms. Rosemary Sucec recognized the people 

involved who responded so quickly to removing GSF and said that interagency and tribal collaboration is 

now a national model for other agenices to follow. 
            

             

 

 

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group

Final Minutes of January 28, 2016, Meeting Page 5

	 Green Sunfish Removal (Attachment 5b). Mr. Mike Anderson provided a timeline for the 

activities involved beginning with the AZGFD capturing 43 GSF on July 6 and ending with 

removal on November 12-13. They only used 11 liters of Rotenone. In order to open up the area 

again to the public, they had to monitor water quality and get it back to baseline levels or allow 

the public re-entry at less than 90 parts per billion (ppb). Treatment was at 100-150 parts ppb. For 

drinking water, it’s less than 40 ppb. It’s strongly suspected the fish came through GCD. 

Prior to the treatment, Mr. Mark Anderson said they gathered as many non-targeted fish from the 

area and supplied them to the Zuni Aviary. The use of Rotenone limits the fish from being used 

for food or feed and fish exposed to Rotenone were frozen for future research efforts. It is 

suspected that the GSF came through Glen Canyon Dam. As Lake Powell elevation levels 

decline, the incidence of escapement is likely to increase. To avoid doing treatments every year, 

other options are being considered including opening the upper end of the side channel to make 

it flow through Impacts to recreation and other resources will be considered. Ms. Trammell added 

that some GSF may have gotten through before they could block or treat the slough, but right 

now that habitat is pretty barren of GSF. 

	 Glen Canyon National Recreation Area (Attachment 5c) – Mr. Brian Healy. A reproducing 

population of GSF was detected in a warmwater slough within GCNRA in early July 2015 by 

AZGFD. The slough is located on river left, approximately 12 miles upstream of Lees Ferry. 

Fisheries biologists and managers were concerned that the species would disperse from the 

slough and colonize warmwater areas that are critical habitat for native fish species, including 

endangered HBC. Following two unsuccessful eradiction efforts using mechanical methods, it 

was determined that the installation of a barrier may help to contain the species while additional 

eradication methods were evaluated. 

Q&A, Comments: 

 We need to make some adjustments in our monitoring program, either to what’s coming out of the dam or 

when the fish come through the system. 

 Need to get ahead of the monitoring and not lose sight of an early indication of a systemwide change as a 

result of the warm waters that have been present in the last decade. 

 In the fisheries management plan, NPS developed a list of species that were considered high risk predators 

and BT was definitely one of them. They inserted a rapid response protocol into the fish plan that tiered off 

of the GSF treatment. The response is based on seeing either existing an high risk predator, a new one, or 

an increase in abundance. If there is an expanding population establishing in Lees Ferry, this could be a 

game changer for potential piscivory on chub. 

 It’s difficult for agencies to administratively handle crises. All who participated in the GSF crisis had to drop 

everything else to ensure action was immediately take for the preservation effort. The Indian tribes 

provided lots of ideas to help them and one thing they emphasized is the need for long-term planning to 

address the change in the system and potential for more invasives. 

 The GSF crisis was a real surprise and the system often sees a ‘surprise’ every year or two. There was one 

week of real work done while two months of associated paperwork. The paperwork version could easily 

overwhelm us in these situations. 

Brown Trout Update Lees Ferry (Attachment 6) – Mr. Bill Stewart. Differences in the life history of 

Brown Trout and Rainbow Trout include spawning times, the distances they move and BT’s susceptibility 

to whirling disease. Typically BT are not often caught in Lees Ferry. Since early to mid-1990s, BT 

numbers have gone up even though their monitoring effort has remained relatively the same. In the last 

two years, more BT have been caught than in the past. The natal origins work corroborates that BT are 

increasing. The AZGFD is not managing for BT in the system and have no limits on the take of BT or 

other non-native or warm water species. 1) Why have BT populations remained low? and, 2) Why is 

there an increase in BT at Lees Ferry. Questions: temperature effects, the numbers of RBT competing 

with potentially juvenile BT for the same resource, and do fall HFEs create spawning habitat for BT. One 

of the benefits of the monitoring program is changes can be detected. 
            

             

 

 

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group

Final Minutes of January 28, 2016, Meeting Page 6

Trout Ad Hoc Group (TAHG) Report (Attachment 7a, and PPT) – Mr. Bill Stewart. There were 15 

recommendations presented in the Lees Ferry Recreational Trout Fishery Management 

Recommendations report (Attachment 7b) at the AMWG meeting in August 2015. From that, GCMRC 

conducted a technical review of the report and presented six of those recommendations for the TWG’s 

consideration on the technical merits. The TAHG was established in October 2015 with the charge to 

evaluate the GCMRC review and report back to the TWG. The TAHG held several meetings and had 

more discussion with GCMRC which led to GCMRC issuing a final memo to the TWG on Dec. 9, 2015 

(Attachment 7c). The TAHG offered the following conclusions: 

1. The GCMRC review is generally comprehensive although it could be expanded in some areas. 

2. Additional discussion/ clarification is needed by the TWG and GCMRC on the scientific basis of 

the minimum flow recommendation and the need for stocking in the event of a catastrophic failure 

of Lees Ferry trout fishery. 

3. The TWG should identify outstanding research questions that should be addressed to better 

inform any implementation of the Recommendation. 

The TAHG offered the following motion for the TWG’s consideration: 

The TAHG recommends that the TWG recommend that the AMWG accept the GCMRC technical review 

of the Lees Ferry Trout Fishery Management Recommendations based on the TAHG evaluating the 

GCMRC technical review of the Recommendations and finding the review to be comprehensive and the 

review to be supportive, neutral or noncommittal on the individual recommendations with two exceptions. 

One exception being the Minimum Flow recommendation with agreement that research should continue 

to evaluate the effects of lower flows and to develop scientifically based minimum flows. The other 

exception being Stocking In the Event of a Catastrophic Failure and the impact on the dependent 

economic community be included in the determination for stocking and with the understanding that 

stocking is substantially determined by the provisions of the Park Service Comprehensive Fishery 

Management Plan and the Arizona Game and Fish Department’s Fisheries Management Plan Colorado 

River – Lees Ferry (2015-2025). 

In addition the TWG requests that the AMWG, with the acceptance of the Lees Ferry Recommendations, 

instruct the TWG to consider the requirements for any implementation of the Recommendations including 

additional research that should be included in the work plan. 

Ms. Kartha said there was a lot of confusion when the TAHG reviewed of the GCMRC technical review 

because they weren’t sure what the TWG was supposed to evaluate. There were a lot of opinions that 

the TWG shouldn’t question the science so that was captured as a sideboard. When the TAHG reviewed 

the GCMRC’s technical review, they were looking at what was missing. All the stakeholders were in 

agreement on most of the recommendations except the minimum flows and whether the technical review 

was comprehensive and whether more science review was needed on those exceptions. 

Q&A, Comments: 

	 The angling community respected the sideboards and looked at how they might fit in the overall scheme of 

the AMP and the anticipated LTEMP EIS. The objective is to see a healthier, more robust, stable system 

with a good, healthy world class fishery on the level of a Blue Ribbon fishery as it was in the past. 

	 GCMRC conducted a technical and scientific review to determine if there was technical and scientific 

support behind the recommendations, but had to remain neutral on management recommendations. 

 There are two places in motion that the word “support” is used. Suggest it be replaced with “GCMRC 

recognizes the scientific merit in conducting experimental bug flows ...” 

 Don’t see a description of what TWG’s recommendation is based on the TAHG review and TWG’s charge 

from AMWG. 

	 The word “accept” was used instead of “review and consider” at that level. Because what we were 

discussing was the acceptance of the review, not the acceptance of the recommendations. 

The TWG continued to revise the motion, resulting in the following: 
            

             

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group

Final Minutes of January 28, 2016, Meeting Page 7

Motion (Proposed by Kevin Dahl, seconded by Ted Kowalski): The TWG has reviewed the Dec. 9, 

2015, GCMRC Technical Memo (Memo) of the Lees Ferry Trout Fishery Reommendations 

(Recommendations) and finds it to be comprehensive. The TWG recommends that the AMWG 

accept the Memo subject to the following: 

1. Any actions resulting from the recommednations must be fully consistent with the “Law of 

the River” and DOI policy considerations. 

2. Recommendations that fall under the purview of water and natural resource management 

agencies such as the Bureau of Reclamatoin, National Park Service, United States Fish 

and Wildlife Service, and Arizona Game and Fish Department, and appropriate Tribes will 

recquire additional evaluation with these management agencies for further consideration. 

3. Recommendations that address dam operations are expected to be considered and 

evaluated in light of the ongoing Long Term Experimental and Management Plan 

Environmental Impact Statement. 

In addition, the TWG requests that the AMWG direct the TWG to consider these recommendations 

and the Memo as future work plans are developed. 

Science Advisors Workplan (Attachment 8a and PPT) – Dr. David Braun. The Bureau of Reclamation 

has contracted with Sound Science LLC for Dr. Braun to serve as the executive coordinator for the 

Science Advisors Program for the GCDAMP. Sound Science has reviewed past Science Advisor 

Executive Coordinator (SA-EC) annual work plans and program procedures to ensure program 

continuity. From this, they envision accomplishing four things: 1) address “open” action items requested 

by the AMWG and TWG in previous fiscal years; 2) address additional needs identified by AMWG, TWG, 

and GCMRC for independent science reviews based on prioritization of such requests; 3) address 

additional needs for independent science reviews recommended by the SA-EC, subject to prioritization 

and approval; and 4) establish guidelines for preparing the work plan for the next subsequent fiscal year. 

However, Sound Science has determined that the FY16 SA work plan must depart from this typical 

situation because it hasn’t been involved in development of the FY16 work plan nor been able to consult 

with the AMWG, TWG, and GCMRC. Sound Science proposes that the SA-EC work plan for the 

remainder of FY16 focus on: 

1. Reviewing the mission of the SA-EC program, its operating procedures, and is functional 

relationships with GCMRC and TWG and proposing recommendations to Reclamation and the 

AMWG. 

2. Reviewing GCDAMP archives and engaging with the AMWG to identify both short-term priorities 

for FY17 and long-term needs and expectations for the SA-EC program. 

The SA-EC will also assist GCMRC in implementing the Fisheries Research, Monitoring, and 

Management Actions Protocol Evaluation Panel. 

Q&A, Comments: 

 Do you have any vision or ideas of the SA, in working with other scientists, might be able to help move this 

program forward? 

o	 My thoughts are evolving daily. When Bob Unnasch and I met with GCMRC in October we felt it 

necessary to emphasize to GCMRC that the SA program is not a watchdog program. It’s not there 

to look over the researcher’s shoulders and say you’re not doing that. It’s something that is 

supposed to enhance the power of the AMP. External review is a way not to just verify to you that 

yes the scientific teams are doing their jobs well, but it is to bring in an outside and a larger 

perspective on ways that the program could be strengthened. 

	 You were going to assist with rewriting the SA Charter. What do you need from the TWG? 

o	 I need a counterpart ad hoc group within TWG with which I can work to draft. 

o	 Vineetha – should we created a charter group or do you think the steering committee will stand well 

as the point of contact? 

o	 Shane – great idea and if anyone wants to join the SCAHG, let Vineetha know. 

	 The SCAHG is typically for the purpose of putting TWG meetings together. If we’re going to include as an 

element, then we probably need to have meetings that aren’t so focused on that. 
            

             

 

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group

Final Minutes of January 28, 2016, Meeting Page 8

Public Comment: None 

Ms. Kartha thanked everyone for their attendance and participation. She mentioned the following: 

 If you want to participate in the Steering Ad Hoc Group (SCAHG), let Vineetha or Linda know. 

 If you’re interested in serving as the FY17 TWG Chair, let Vineetha or Shane know. 

 Proposed dates for FY17 TWG meetings are: 

o January 25-26, 2017 

o April 18-19, 2017 

o June 20-21, 2017 

o October 24-25, 2017 

Adjourned: 2:50 p.m. 

Future TWG Meeting(s): 

(Tue-Wed) April 19-20, 2016 

Arizona Dept of Water Resources 

3550 N. Central Avenue 

Phoenix AZ 85012 

(Tue-Wed) June 14-15, 2016 

Bureau of Reclamation 

125 S. State Street, Room 8102 

Salt Lake City UT 84138 

AR/TWG Meeting 

TWG Meeting 

TWG Meeting 

TWG (webinar?) meeting 

Respectfully submitted, 

 Linda Whetton 

 Upper Colorado Region 

 Bureau of Reclamation 
            

             

 

 

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group

Final Minutes of January 28, 2016, Meeting Page 9

Key to Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program Acronyms 

ADWR – Arizona Dept. of Water Resources 

AF – Acre Feet 

AGFD – Arizona Game and Fish Department 

AIF – Agenda Information Form 

AMP – Adaptive Management Program 

AMWG – Adaptive Management Work Group 

AOP – Annual Operating Plan 

ASMR – Age-Structure Mark Recapture 

BA – Biological Assessment 

BAHG – Budget Ad Hoc Group 

BCOM – Biological Conservation Measure 

BE – Biological Evaluation 

BHBF – Beach/Habitat-Building Flow 

BHMF – Beach/Habitat Maintenance Flow 

BIA – Bureau of Indian Affairs 

BO – Biological Opinion 

BOR – Bureau of Reclamation 

BWP – Budget and Work Plan 

CAHG – Charter Ad Hoc Group 

CAP – Central Arizona Project 

GCT – Grand Canyon Trust 

CESU – Cooperative Ecosystems Studies Unit 

cfs – cubic feet per second 

CFMP – Comprehensive Fisheries Management Plan 

CMINS – Core Monitoring Information Needs 

CMP – Core Monitoring Plan 

CPI – Consumer Price Index 

CRBC – Colorado River Board of California 

CRAHG – Cultural Resources Ad Hoc Group 

CRCN – Colorado River Commission of Nevada 

CRE – Colorado River Ecosystem 

CREDA – Colorado River Energy Distributors Assn. 

CRSP – Colorado River Storage Project 

CWCB – Colorado Water Conservation Board 

DAHG – Desired Future Conditions Ad Hoc Group 

DASA – Data Acquisition, Storage, and Analysis 

DBMS – Data Base Management System 

DOE – Department of Energy 

DOI – Department of the Interior 

DOIFF – Department of the Interior Federal Family 

EA – Environmental Assessment 

EIS – Environmental Impact Statement 

ESA – Endangered Species Act 

FACA – Federal Advisory Committee Act 

FEIS – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

FRN – Federal Register Notice 

FWS – United States Fish & Wildlife Service 

FY – Fiscal Year (October 1 – September 30) 

GCD – Glen Canyon Dam 

GCES – Glen Canyon Environmental Studies 

GCT – Grand Canyon Trust 

GCMRC – Grand Canyon Monitoring & Research Center 

GCNP – Grand Canyon National Park 

GCNRA – Glen Canyon Nat’l Recreation Area 

GCPA – Grand Canyon Protection Act 

GIS – Geographic Information System 

GLCA – Glen Canyon Nat’l Recreation Area 

GRCA – Grand Canyon National Park 

GCRG – Grand Canyon River Guides 

GCWC – Grand Canyon Wildlands Council 

HBC – Humpback Chub (endangered native fish) 

HFE – High Flow Experiment 

HMF – Habitat Maintenance Flow 

HPP – Historic Preservation Plan 

IG – Interim Guidelines 

INs – Information Needs 

KA – Knowledge Assessment (workshop) 

KAS – Kanab Ambersnail (endangered native snail) 

LCR – Little Colorado River 

LCRMCP – Lower Colorado River Multi-Species 

Conservation

 Program 

LTEMP – Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan 

LTEP – Long Term Experimental Plan 

MAF – Million Acre Feet 

MA – Management Action 

MATA – Multi-Attribute Trade-Off Analysis 

MLFF – Modified Low Fluctuating Flow 

MO – Management Objective 

MRP – Monitoring and Research Plan 

NAU – Northern Arizona University (Flagstaff, AZ) 

NEPA – National Environmental Policy Act 

NHPA – National Historic Preservation Act 

NNFC – Non-native Fish Control 

NOI – Notice of Intent 

NPCA – National Parks Conservation Association 

NPS – National Park Service 

NRC – National Research Council 

O&M – Operations & Maintenance (USBR Funding) 

PA – Programmatic Agreement 

PBR – Paria to Badger Creek Reach 

PEP – Protocol Evaluation Panel 

POAHG – Public Outreach Ad Hoc Group 

Powerplant Capacity = 31,000 cfs 

R&D – Research and Development 

RBT – Rainbow Trout 

RFP – Request for Proposal 

RINs – Research Information Needs 

ROD Flows – Record of Decision Flows 

RPA – Reasonable and Prudent Alternative 

SA – Science Advisors 

Secretary – Secretary of the Interior 

SCORE – State of the Colorado River Ecosystem 

SHPO – State Historic Preservation Office 

SOW – Statement of Work 

SPAHG – Strategic Plan Ad Hoc Group 

SPG – Science Planning Group 

SSQs – Strategic Science Questions 

SWCA – Steven W. Carothers Associates 

TCD – Temperature Control Device 

TCP – Traditional Cultural Property 

TEK – Traditional Ecological Knowledge 

TES – Threatened and Endangered Species 

TMC – Taxa of Management Concern 

TMF – Trout Management Flows 

TWG – Technical Work Group 

UCRC – Upper Colorado River Commission 

UDWR – Utah Division of Water Resources 

USBR – United States Bureau of Reclamation 

USFWS – United States Fish & Wildlife Service 

USGS – United States Geological Survey 

WAPA – Western Area Power Administration