Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Meeting 

October 20-21, 2015 

Conducting: Vineetha Kartha, TWG Chair 

Shane Capron, TWG Vice-Chair 

Committee Members/Alternates Present: 

Jan Balsom, NPS/GRCA
 

Cliff Barrett, UAMPS 

Charley Bulletts, Southern Paiute Consortium 

Chris Budwig, Int’l Federation of Fly Fishers/TU
 

Kerry Christensen, Hualapai Tribe
 

Jerry Lee Cox, Grand Canyon River Guides 

Marianne Crawford, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
 

Kevin Dahl, National Parks Conservation Assn.
 

Kurt Dongoske, Pueblo of Zuni
 

Craig Ellsworth, WAPA 

Paul Harms, State of New Mexico
 

Committee Members Absent: 

Bill Davis, CREDA 

Evelyn Erlandsen, State of Arizona
 

Chris Harris, State of California
 

Chip Lewis, Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Steve Wolff, State of Wyoming 

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center: 

Kyrie Fry, Communications Coordinator
 

Ted Kennedy, Aquatic Biologist (phone) 

Interested Persons 

Melinda Arviso-Ciocco, Navajo Nation 

Chuck Bradley, Salt River Project (phone) 

David Braun, Sound Science LLC (Science Advisors) 

Bill Chada, Bureau of Reclamation 

Chris Cantrell, Arizona Game & Fish Department 

Jennifer Crandall, State of Nevada 

Chrystal Dean, WAPA 

Lesley Fitzpatrick, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Ed Gerak, CREDA 

Katrina Grantz, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (phone) 

Jessica Gwinn, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

John Hamill, Int’l Federation of Fly Fishers/TU 

Brian Healy, NPS/GRCA 

Meeting Recorder: Linda Whetton 

Convened: 9:30 a.m. 

Leslie James, CREDA 

Robert King, State of Utah (phone) 

Ted Kowalski, State of Colorado 

Jessica Neuwerth, State of California 

Larry Stevens, Grand Canyon Wildlands Council 

Bill Stewart, Arizona Game and Fish Department 

Rosemary Sucec, NPS/GLNRA (phone) 

Don Ostler, State of Wyoming 

Michael Yeatts, Hopi Tribe 

Kirk Young, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

VACANT, Navajo Nation 

VACANT, State of Nevada 

VACANT, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

Scott VanderKooi, Center Director 

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

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

Sonja Kokos, Bureau of Reclamation 

Mike Martinez, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Lisa Meyer, WAPA 

Joe Miller, Int’l Federation of Fly Fishers/TU 

Jenika Raub, Salt River Project 

Dr. Sarah Rinkevich, DOI Tribal Liaison 

Seth Shanahan, SNWA 

Melissa Trammell, NPS 

Bob Unnasch, Sound Science LLC (Science Advisors) 

Brian Wooldridge, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

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. 

 Introduction to New Science Advisors – Ms. Crawford introduced Bob Unnasch and David Braun with 

Sound Science LLC. They’re developing a workplan and have submitted draft ideas to Marianne for internal 

discussion. They’ll be meeting with GCMRC staff later this week to review what science has been done. 

Mr. Capron suggested they could be involved in the next Fish PEP and assist with the Lees Ferry trout 

recommendations. 

 Approval of January 20-21, 2015, Meeting Minutes – Motion to approve by Mr. Christensen, seconded by 

Ms. Balsom. Pending one edit, the minutes were approved by consensus. 

 Approval of June 9, 2015, Meeting Minutes – Motion to approve by Mr. Christensen, seconded by Mr. 

Stewart. The minutes were approved by consensus. 

 Review of Action Items (Attachment 1). 
            

             

 

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group
 

Draft Minutes of October 20‐21, 2015, Meeting
 Page 2

	 Updates – 

o	 Programmatic Agreement – Mr. Chada. The PA Group is in the process of addressing comments 

they received on the second draft. 

o	 TWG Operating Procedures – Mr. Capron. No changes are required at this time. 

o	 Budget Timelines, Process Paper – Mr. Capron. In transitioning to a 3-year budget process, Table 

1 needs to be revised. Much of the detail was input by former GCRMC Chief Jack Schmidt and the 

right level of detail needs to be determined. The TWG should consider making a recommendation 

to the AMWG at their February 2016 meeting. He suggested a small group review and the following 

individuals volunteered to assist in that effort: Shane Capron, Marianne Crawford, Vineetha Kartha, 

and Scott VanderKooi. The TWG will begin discussions on the FY17 budget and in the fall of 2016, 

they’ll start working on the TWP for FY 2018-2020. Mary Orton can assist as needed. 

o	 USBR Group Chief Vacancy – Ms. Crawford. Glen Knowles accepted a position with the USFWS in 

Ventura, California. BOR staff will be rotating in “acting” capacities until that position is filled. Mr. 

Capron expressed his appreciation for Glen’s work in the program. 

o	 New GCRMC Chief – Mr. VanderKooi. Mr. VanderKooi was selected as the new GCMRC Chief 

and said he is looking forward to serving in the GCDAMP. Once the LTEMP EIS is completed, he 

wants to work with GCMRC and the TWG to reconcile past documents with knowledge learned. 

o	 Recognition of Daniel Sarr – Mr. VanderKooi. GCMRC suffered a tragic loss with the death of 

Daniel Sarr who died of heat stroke while on a vegetation survey trip in August. Daniel had over a 

decade of service with NPS, had done Klamath work, and been at GCMRC for about a year. He 

got his degree in biology in 1998, a Master’s in aquatic work during the next decade and went on to 

earn his doctorate. He was a very good scientist and an enthusiastic person. He leaves behind a 

wife and a 12-year-old son. The group observed a moment of silence to remember him. 

GCNRA Restoration Ponds (Attachment 2) – Dr. Stevens. Through some restoration activities being 

done in the GLNRA since 2000, they’ve been trying to recreate habitat for the Northern Leopard Frog at 

two sites – Hidden Slough (-6.5R) Leopard Frog Marsh (-9R). He presented slides on Leopard Frog 

Marsh upper pond construction 2014. In March 2015 they brought in a team of Prescott College students 

and constructed two more ponds – a middle pond with structures in it and within several months it got 

surrounded by very dense phragmites. There is a post-dam spring that emerges in landscape there 

bringing in rather warm but filtered water into the site and then that water gradually works itself into the 

river. Thus, the spring water is quite different as the sandstone really fiters a lot the ions out of the water. 

It comes in pretty fresh but also fairly warm and works its way down to the river. The ponds are 

intermediate in that water quality. Hidden Slough was more of an experimental site as Leopard Frogs 

probably weren’t ever really there in great number. These ponds are overtopped by HFEs but are 

surrounded by dense vegetation and this is a very low velocity eddy system so there isn’t much 

sedimentation that goes on from HFEs. The sites are monitored for a couple of years to help gage the 

flow of the spring. They’re also concerned about the Niobrara ambersnail at the Leopard Frog marsh site 

and have been monitoring its population and responses. The snail doesn’t occur in the dense 

phragmites. One thing that concerned them at the Hidden Slough site was that digging there they 

wouldn’t have fresh enough water coming through the soil, it would simply be the rising and failing of the 

river water table that would water that pond. The salinity and electrical conductivity of that water are 

really too high for frogs. The water temperatures warm pretty good there. The ponds maintain moderate 

level of salinity at Leopard Frog Marsh. With the ponds in place, the agencies can bring back the frogs if 

they choose to. Intervebrates are reproducing in the ponds but not in the river. 

	 What triggers when you relocate or translocate the frogs? 

o	 The FWS wanted to see two years of data on how well the habitat maintains itself, evidence that the 

ponds don’t fill in sediment every time we have an HFE and then the Park Service would make any of 

the final decisions. 

	 Where are frogs now? 

o	 In GLCNRA several springs that feed into the reservoir contain populations of Northern Leopard 

Frogs, but all populations of Leopard Frogs below the dam have been extirpated in post-dam time. 

	 If the HFEs flood these ponds out, is that going to be a problem after the frogs are introduced there and the 

species living there? Will that be a problem for HFEs? 

o	 The frogs are not endangered. It would be restoration of a non-endangered species – just bringing 

back a species that’s not listed. They’re certainly a concern to the states and the agencies and 
            

             

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group
 

Draft Minutes of October 20‐21, 2015, Meeting
 Page 3

from their reproductive behavior, they actually hop out of the ponds and go into the uplands to over 

winter so if we have HFEs in the wintertime, that probably won’t be an issue. Also, because the 

velocities of the ponds are so slow, even if the HFEs came at 45,000 cfs, the velocities of the 

ponds are essentially zero. There’s no sediment falling out from the HFEs into these ponds in that 

reach. 

	 What about long-term monitoring? 

o	 Funding concludes this year so if anyone is interested in taking up some monitoring, that would be 

great. Our job was to create the habitat and determine whether it is/isn’t suitable for Leopard frogs. 

 Are these ponds self-sustaining? 

o	 We only have 2 years of data on the ponds but with no sedimentation, all we did this last year to 

the helper pond was add a little more structure so there’s more places for the frogs to hop out. 

TWG Ad Hoc Group Review (Attachment 3) – Mr. Capron. The TWG Ad Hoc Group List was circulated 

for anyone interested in adding/deleting their names. The groups’ charges were reviewed: 

 Steering Committee (SCAHG) – Mr. Capron. This group develops agenda for TWG meetings and provides 

leadership for the TWG. Outside people can participate but a required decision must come from one 

member/one alternate. 

 Socioeconomics (SEAHG) – Ms. James. This group is always looking for new members and needs to fine 

tune its charge. Ms. James will work with Lucas Bair in arranging for a conference call. 

 Budget Ad Hoc Group (BAHG). Mr. Capron. This group will begin working on the FY17 budget in 

preparation for a TWG recommendation to the AMWG in August 2016. 

 Cultural Resources AHG (CRAHG) – Mr. Dongoske. This group convenes based on TWG assignments. 

 Administrative History Ad Hoc Group (AHAHG) – Ms. Kartha. With the passing of Jason Thiriot in June, the 

chair position has been vacant. The CRC staff will continue to provide technical support of the “wiki” 

website and Mr. Ellsworth will do the technical updates. Ms. Crawford has a contracting package focused 

on getting the oral histories but feels significant time has passed and would like the AHAHG to review the 

Scope of Work again. Anyone interested in being the chair should contact Ms. Kartha. 

	 Species of Management Concern (SMCAHG) – Mr. Stevens. The challenge with re-drafting the White 

Paper by the end of the year is that the list has been expanded to include non-natives as well. He doesn’t 

think they’ll get through the evaluation prioritiziation process which might warrant more attention for the 

non-natives. He added that the NPS has data on eagle migrations through Grand Canyon, not of GRNP 

population, but birds that are moving through the Park. Analysis indicates that bald eagle populations 

coming across the Canyon, which is one of the management concerned species for the overall CRE, have 

been pretty stable the last 19 years. The golden population, which is also protected under the Golden and 

Bald Eagle Act, seems to be crashing in the West. Mr. Stevens will e-mail the white paper to the TWG. 

	 Core Monitoring Ad Hoc Group (CMAHG) – Mr. Capron. Activity by this group has been tabled until 

completion of the LTEMP EIS. 

Upcoming Protocol Evaluation Panel (PEP) Reviews (Attachment 4) – Mr. VanderKooi. Update on 

the proposed PEPs: 

 Project Element 8.3. GCDAMP Fisheries Research, Monitoring, and Management Actions protocol 

Evaluation Panel. Given the size of the fisheries program and what’s been learned since the last PEP done 

in 2009, GCMRC felt it was time to do another review. Development of the panel will be provided by the 

cooperating agencies, AZGFD, USFWS, and NPS along with assistance from the Science Advisors. The 

panel will conduct a review of all aspects of the GCMRC fisheries program described in Projects 6, 7, 8, 

and 9 of the FY15-17 workplan. This will include HBC work done in the mainstem and in the Little Colorado 

River, population community dynamics in the mainstem and the LCR, focus on various experimental 

actions to increase the abundance and distribution of native fish. 

	 Project 11.5. Science Review Panel of Successes and Challenges in Non-native Vegetation Control in the 

Colorado River and Rio Grande Watersheds. This panel was convened in late June with heavy involvement 

from the Park Service. With Daniel Sarr’s passing, the work is on hold until GCMRC is able to decide what 

to do with Daniel’s position. Recommendations will be sought from this group on planning a scientificallybased riparian management control program applicable to the Colorado River ecosystem in Glen, Marble, 

and Grand Canyons. 

	 Project 1.2 – Reservoir Limnology/ecology and linkage Protocol Evaluation Panel – This is something Dr. 

Schmidt was very interested in and had discussed with Ann Gold prior to her retirement (Sep 2014). With 
            

             

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group
 

Draft Minutes of October 20‐21, 2015, Meeting
 Page 4

Bill Vernieu’s retirement in May, Reclamation has put the work on hold. Scott has exchanged e-mails with 

GRCA trying to get this work started again but that was in late August. 

Invasive Species Threats, Green Sunfish (Attachment 5a) Mr. VanderKooi. A timeline was presented 

for eradicating green sunfish (GSF). On October 27-29 a salvage operation is planned for common carp 

and flannelmouth suckers followed by treatments for Nov 4 and Nov 14. Mr. Healy (Attachment 5b) 

said the AZGFD and the NPS are co-leads in trying to eliminate GSF from the backwater sloughs. This is 

urgent due to the risk of negative interactions with native fish particularly the HBC if GSF disperse 

downstream in large numbers. Two subsequent removal trips using electrofishing, seining and trapping 

methods failed to deplete the population despite removing over 3,000 fish. Chemical treatments will most 

likely provide the greatest likelihood of success. Once NPS gets the NEPA process completed, AZGFD 

will seek a permit to use Rotenone. 

	 How long have the green sunfish been in the backwater? Have they been washed down with the HFEs or 

is this something that is new? 

o	 AZGFD has been monitoring the big slough for some time. The back slough hasn’t been evaluated 

and is pretty isolated. Potentially the sunfish could be coming through the dam. Temperatures are 

warmer in that area (20o). It could be a breeding ground. 

	 What’s the likelihood of GSF coming from the dam - from the turbines or the HFE bypasses? 

o	 It’s likely they came through the turbines last year. They’re pretty small but their ability to reproduce 

and proliferate are of concern. Some have also been found in Kanab Creek.
 

 Is there any way to prevent GSF from going through the penstocks? 

o	 The Corps of engineers has put in a lot of screens. It’s an expensive effort and are large complex 

structures with high price tags. More discussion may be needed. 

 How does turbidity relate to the curtain going across? 

o It is what it is. The turbility curtain can be at same location as the net. 

 Dead fish will be picked up so condors don’t eat them and people won’t see piles of dead fish. A news 

release should be distributed advising people of the GCDAMP’s supportive of this removal effort. 

	 As much as it would be appreciated to have volunteers assist in the effort, the actual application is pretty 

limited and people must wear protective equipment and fit tests are required for using Rotenone. 

Lees Ferry Fisheries Update 

	 Lees Ferry Recreational Trout Management Recommendations (Attachment 6a) – Mr. Hamill. 

The purpose for putting the recommendations together was to complement the work that NPS 

and AZGFD had done for the fish management plan. Currently, the Lees Ferry trout fishery is 

ecologically unstable due to an impaired aquatic food base and high levels of trout recruitment 

that results in a population that exceeds the carrying capacity of the river. Their highest priority 

recommendation is to puruse establishment of a more diverse aquatic food base by testing 

alternative flow regimes in conjunction with repatriating the Lees Ferry Reach with native aquatic 

invertebrates including may- caddis-, and stone-flies. Their goal is to establish, maintain and 

enhance a wild self-sustaining blue ribbon trout fishery at Lee’s Ferry that doesn’t affect the 

native aquatic community downstream. They tried to develop balanced recommendations to that 

support other values such as hydropower, conservation, archaeological site protection, building 

beaches, and to provide a dependable quality and stable fishery that sustains economic interests 

that depend on this fishery for their livelihood. There needs to be an action plan in place. 

	 Mr. Stewart said this has been an unprecedented effort by their agency in terms of the support 

they’ve received from the anglers and the collaboration of this management plan. He presented a 

table of the objectives and strategies if the objectives aren’t met (Attachment 6b) along with the 

angler recommendations: 

o	 Size structure indicative of a stable o Angler catch rate >0.1 fish/hr for RBT 

RBT population (YOY = 20-50% of ≥ 20” 

population) o A robust body condition (Kn ≥ 1.0 in 

o	 Angler catch rate >1 fish/hr for RBT ≥ summer months) 

14” o A diverse aquatic food base with 

10% abundance of EPT species 

The following recommendations were offered: 
            

             

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group
 

Draft Minutes of October 20‐21, 2015, Meeting
 Page 5

o	 Real time DO information from GCD 

o	 Development of a low DO action plan 

o	 Development of food base enchancement strategies 

o	 Creation of an ad hoc group to address strategies for reaching objectives 

o	 If sand budget allows, there is support for a Spring HFE 

 Whenever the group is talking about DO issues, the Power Office needs to be notified. Reclamation was 

having mechanical issues at Flaming Gorge in 2005 when there was a DO incident. 

 The water quality work was suspended when Bill Vernieu retired in May. Reclamation hasn’t determined 

how it will go forward with the program. 

 The Fisheries Management Plan, Colorado River-Lees Ferry 2015-2025 plan was approved on September 30, 

2015 (Attachment 6c). 

GCMRC Evaluation of Trout Management Recommendations (Attachment 6d) – Mr. VanderKooi 

distributed copies of his memo to the TWG Chair dated October 19, 2015, which offered responses 

to the Lees Ferry Recreational Trout Fishery Management Recommendations. He stressed that 

GCMRC was talking about “science” recommendations and not “management” recommendations. He 

went through the various sections but hasn’t looked into the stock assessment model because Josh 

Korman had responded there were already two stock assessment models and suggested this 

particular section be reworded to say that existing stock assessment models should be used to 

provide a more robust interpretation of the CPUE time series if that time series is to be continued. Mr. 

Hamill asked why GCMRC had only commented on five of the 14 recommendations. Scott told him 

that they reviewed the recommendations in terms of science and that some of them fell into policy 

areas, which GCMRC remains neutral on. 

o	 There are statements about equalization flows and opening Interim Guidelines and the State of 

Colorado is unwilling to open those discussions. 

o	 Nevada has already looked at things as part of the LTEMP process and with respect to 

equalization flows, there are a lot of laws on the books that wouldn’t allow those to be done. 

o	 With respect to equalization flows, the trout response in 2011 exceeded the 2008 spring high flows. 

You should also be concerned with trout response to equalization flows. 

o	 One way to proceed is to have a trout ad hoc group that would take the recommendations, take 

GCMRC’s review of that, consider LTEMP and the PEP, and put together a recommendation for 

the AMWG and get buyoff from the entire TWG. 

o	 These equalization flows are high flows provided by mother nature. They have to go somewhere 

and the Law of the River provides a way for them to be distributed. It’s actually less of a high flow 

than if we just sent it down river. High flows are in the system and they have to go down. 

o	 The AZGFD is one agency that holds wildlife for public trust and needs to make sure that if there 

are effects through dam operations through the revising of the LTEMP, that there’s legislative 

actions that have been approved through the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act and NEPA. If we 

see through data areas that are impacted through changes in operations, they need to be looked at 

in ways to mitigate them. Those recommendations provide really good alternatives to mitigate 

those areas and whether it’s not equalization flows or it’s another one of these other translocations 

of bugs or things like that, that we can put together to mitigate those things so that the operations 

don’t continue to fluctuate where we have fish kills and too many fish in the water. . 

The IFFF/TU are looking for follow-up on the AMWG motion and focusing on whether the 

recommendations are science-based and is a reasonable approach to management. The ad hoc 

group’s initial task would be to consider GCMRC’s review, whether it’s science-based, and make 

a recommendation to AMWG to accept or recognize it as a science-based recommendation that 

warrants further consideration by AMWG and the greater community without delving into policy 

level details. Mr. VanderKooi said he would perform another review and comment on all the 

recommendations in the report. 

Ms. Kartha introduced the following draft charge for the TWG’s consideration: 

Draft Charge: The Trout Ad Hoc Group (TAHG) will evaluate the GCMRC technical eview of the 

Lees Ferry Recreational Trout Fishery Management Recommendations per the AMWG motion on 
            

             

 

 

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group
 

Draft Minutes of October 20‐21, 2015, Meeting
 Page 6

8/27/15, and make a recommendation to the TWG at our January 2016 meeting, on whether the 

recommendations are science-based and represent a reasonable approach to management of 

the Lees Ferry trout fishery. The TWG will consider the recommendation and make a 

recommendation to the AMWG at its Feburary 2016 meeting. 

Concerns noted: 

	 It’s important to put stakeholder viewpoints into perspective. There is already a comprehensive 

fisheries management plan and an LTEMP EIS underway. These will present opportunities for how 

the recommendations can fit in. There are also management responsibilities that have nothing to 

do with the AMWG or the TWG that have to be considered. Be cautious of the charge and look at 

the biological and scientific merits of what the angler plan is. 

	 GCMRC is not a management agency so if it’s carried forward to a workplan situation, it might 

need to be part of the Park Service’s management plan. 

	 It’s unclear where the NPS CFMP and the management’s responsibilities the agency has in that 

reach. The AZGFD has a water body in the state of Arizona and what I see here are management 

goals that have been adopted by AZGFD and how those two processes reconcile. 

	 The motion talks about GCMRC conducting the technical review and the TWG evaluating it and 

reporting its findings to AMWG. We can find whatever we want and can find that some of these 

recommendations are inappropriate or we can find that some of them are not well timed in terms of 

LTEMP or because of the pending PEP review. We can make findings about whatever we want. It 

should be related to these recommendations and to their technical review, but I don’t think we’re 

bound by the same technical review. That was directed just to GCMRC. 

Revised Charge: The TAHG will evaluate the GCMRC technical review of the Lees Ferry 

Recreational Trout Fishery Management Recommendations per the AMWG motion on 

8/27/15, and make a recommendation to the TWG at our January 2016 meeting. The TWG 

will consider the recommendation and make findings to the AMWG at its Feburary 2016 

meeting. 

Chair: Bill Stewart Members: Mark Anderson, Chris Budwig/Joe Miller, Kerry Christensen, 

Kurt Dongoske, Craig Ellsworth, Paul Harms, Brian Healy, John Jordan, Vineetha Kartha, Jessica 

Neuwerth, Seth Shanahan 

Tribal Reports – 

 2015 Zebra-Tailed Lizard Monitoring Hualapai Reservation (Attachment 7a) – Mr. Christensen. 

The 1983-4 flood event on the Colorado River caused river raft operations to drive over the dunes 

for raft take out and launch. No more zebra-tailed lizards could be found at Diamond Creek and 

they were deemed as extirpated in Grand Canyon. In 2012, Reclamation funded a Hualapai 

project to implement a translocation and monitoring effort at the Diamond Creek dunes. Twelve 

lizards were translocated from Peach Springs Canyon to Diamond Creek. With such a small 

population there are no projects in the work plan. They’re looking at increasing the genetic 

diversity and add more males and females. 

 August 2015 River Trip-Navajo Historic Preservation Department – (Attachment 7b) – Ms. 

Arviso-Ciocco. The teachings from their oral and ceremonial histories comes with age and it’s felt 

that when a person has gray hair, they are able to speak indepth about their histories and way of 

life. She presented a map depicting their aboriginal land boundaries. Prior to starting the August 

2015 river trip, they did an offering and songs were sung. for safe journeys and safe passage. 

One needs to have specific passageway knowledge to be able to get through it and so it’s always 

very meaningful.. The bridges are used for traditional offerings and are made before crossing the 

bridges.. They observed in the hogan areas that a lot of the pot chards are gone since the last 

trip. 

 Southern Paiute Vegetation and Cultural Resource Monitoring Program (Attachment 7c) – Mr. 

Bulletts. He presented pictures indicating an increase in sediment as well as vegetation change 

and the effects of the tamarisk beetle from 2011-2015 at the Beach in South Canyon. Sand 

deposits above Kanab Creek show an increase in deposition between 2013 to 2015. 
            

             

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group
 

Draft Minutes of October 20‐21, 2015, Meeting
 Page 7
 

Public Comment: None 

Adjourned: 4:50 p.m. 
            

             

 

 

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group

Draft Minutes of October 20‐21, 2015, Meeting Page 8

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Meeting 

October 20-21, 2015 

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

Shane Capron, TWG Vice-Chair 

Committee Members/Alternates Present: 

Jan Balsom, NPS/GRCA Ted Kowalski, State of Colorado 

Cliff Barrett, UAMPS Jerry Myers, Federation of Fly Fishers 

Kerry Christensen, Hualapai Tribe Jessica Neuwerth, State of California 

Jerry Cox, Grand Canyon River Guides Larry Stevens, Grand Canyon Wildlands Council 

Kevin Dahl, National Parks Conservation Assn. Bill Stewart, Arizona Game and Fish Dept. 

Bill Davis, CREDA Rosemary Sucec, NPS/GLNRA 

Kurt Dongoske, Pueblo of Zuni Jason Thiriot, State of Nevada 

Evelyn Erlandsen, State of Arizona Steve Wolff, State of Wyoming 

Paul Harms, State of New Mexico Michael Yeatts, Hopi Tribe 

Robert King, State of Utah 

Glen Knowles, Bureau of Reclamation 

Committee Members Absent: 

Charley Bulletts, Southern Paiute Consortium Kirk Young, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Jerry Lee Cox, Grand Canyon River Guides VACANT, Navajo Nation 

Chris Harris, State of California 

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center: 

Helen Fairley, Social Scientist Chris Schill, Budget Analyst 

Dave Lytle, Director SBSC Scott VanderKooi, Center Chief 

Interested Persons 

Mary Barger, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Leslie James, CREDA 

Bill Chada, Bureau of Reclamation Joe Miller, Int’l Federation of Fly Fishers/TU 

Marianne Crawford, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Dr. Sarah Rinkevich, DOI Tribal Liaison 

Katrina Grantz, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Seth Shanahan, SNWA 

Beverley Heffernan, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation David Walters, U.S. Geological Survey 

Meeting Recorder: Linda Whetton 

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

made and a quorum determined. 

 River Trip Reports. The following comments were provided from those who participated on river 

trips this past year. 

o	 Shane Capron: I went on the second half of the HBC aggregation survey this past summer and 

also went last summer. We seem to be seeing a lot of HBC in the lower river, a lot of small fish. 

Appreciate going out with FWS and they did some backwater seining along the trip and it was 

amazing the number of native fish seen, had great discussions with Bill Pine about how well we’re 

doing on recovery and just a fantastic number and different age classes of HBC down there as well 

as other native fish. 

o	 Jessica Neuwerth: I went on half of the AMWG river trip in July and it was a very fun experience. It 

was my first time in the canyon and my first time seeing it since I was really small so it was an 

interesting experience being down there and seeing all these things in person that we talk about at 

these meeting. Got to see HBC which was pretty exciting and got to know a lot of the people in this 

room and at this table better. It was definitely a learning experience. 

o	 Vineetha Kartha: Want to thank Loretta and Sarah for putting the AMWG river trip together. I got to 

see Brian Healy’s skills and seeing some HBC captured. Larry Stevens was talking to us one night 

and just grabbed something from the air and he had a beetle in his hands. I would encourage 

people to go on a river trip especially with Larry, Brian, Shane, or Scott because it really is a life 
            

             

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group
 

Draft Minutes of October 20‐21, 2015, Meeting
 Page 9

changing experience. It was for me because I went on the Navajo Nation river trip last year. It 

provided me a lot of strength, both spiritually and emotionally, and also understanding the concepts 

a lot more strongly than I had before. If you go on tribal river trip, you develop a much better 

understanding of where the tribes are coming from. It helps strengthen relationships and I formed 

very strong bonds with everyone that was on the river. 

o	 Sarah Rinkevich: I want to give a shout-out to Larry Steven. While we were on the river trip, he 

would get on one of the boats and orate and I just want to say that Larry knows everything that’s in 

the canyon. 

o	 Beverley Heffernan: I want to second my thanks to Larry for his help on the river trip and his 

information and to Vineetha for leading us in stretching exercises every morning. 

o	 Larry Stevens: I do not know everything. These trips are so great because they allow people to 

understand different points of view, the Grand Canyon’s endless dimensions of processes, species 

and human interactions all going on in one place. The more you investigate those dimensions, the 

harder it is to push an agenda either for or against some policy. There are tradeoffs at every 

junction. It’s a fantastic opportunity and essential to this program to have people interact with the 

Canyon and its resources.. It allows those conversations to take place and have to meaning. 

Having spent a lot of money on HBC, , it’s hard to understand how passive and gorgeous that 

animal is. We’re all always on a journey and the journey is to take care of that place and that’s what 

we’re trying to do. 

If people are interesting in helping on an NPS monitoring trip, they should contact Brian 

Healy. 

Mercury and Selenium in the Colorado River (Attachment 8a) – Mr. Healy. The NPS has a large 

non-native fish control project in BAC and,in consultation with tribes, they provided trout to tribes for 

beneficial use. Mercury in fish is a concern where consumption is involved. The federal agencies are 

responsible to provide that information to the state and to work with the public. The two species that were 

being removed and provided for consumption are rainbow and brown trout, which are generally low in 

mercury relative to other fish species that are commonly caught and eaten by people. For example, RBT 

mean Hg = 0.11 ppm, BT = mean Hg ppm, contrasted with average can of albacore tuna that’s about 

0.35 PPM. Preliminary data indicate relatively low mercury levels from trout in BAC are lower than the 

national average. Additional fish will be collected in February from the BAC inflow reach. GCMRC has 

also collected some additional fish from the mainstem. 

Dr. Ted Kennedy (Attachment 8b) – Mercury and selenium concentrations were found in the mainstem 

Colorado River throughout GRCA and GLCA and were relatively high compared to other large rivers and 

to various EPA thresholds. Mercury and selenium were seen in organic matter, algae, invertebrates and 

fish exceeded various protective thresholds for fish, wildlife and in some cases humans. Although some 

fish exceeded human thresholds, there are fish that humans would actually target for consumption so the 

risk to human appears to be low. Mercury concentrations were low in RBT in GLCA, well below any 

human risk thresholds so human health risks associated with this sport fishery appear to be very low. 

Mercury concentrations were found in small trout from downstream locations where some of these areas 

have been targeted for trout removal which suggests that more work is needed to better assess human 

health risks. As Brian presented, the samples NPS has collected are relatively low. Managing explosure 

risks in GRCA will continue to be a challenge because sources of mercury and selenium are well beyond 

Park boundaries. The Colorado River in GRCA is a very remote ecosystem but it’s also heavily altered. 

One alteration that many of us are familiar with is changes in the physical template, specifically water 

clarity. Prior to closure of the dam, the river was extremely turbid. . After closure of the dam water in the 

Colorado River is now about 1,000 times clearer than it was before the dam. This has led to a 

proliferation of filamentous algae and increases in primary production. This change in the physical 

template has changed the structure of the food web by allowing algae to proliferate. Another change 

were the wide range of water temperature fluctuations going from 30o C to 0 on an annual basis prior to 

closure of the dam. After closure of the dam, it’s uniformly cold water temperatures and not very much 

seasonal variation. 
            

             

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group
 

Draft Minutes of October 20‐21, 2015, Meeting
 Page 10

Dr. David Walters – Data on contaminant exposure are generally lacking from the Grand Canyon 

segment owing to the difficulty of collecting samples from such a remote and inaccessible area. He 

offered the following key findings: 

 Mercury (Hg) and selenium (Se) concentrations are relatively high in the Colorado River food web 

throughout Grand Canyon. 

 Hg and Se in organic matter, algae, invertebrates, and fish exceed protective thresholds for fish, wildlife 

and humans. 

 Hg concentrations were low in rainbow trout in Glen Canyon, so human health risks associated with this 

popular sport fishery are low. 

 However, Hg in trout was higher downstream. Some of these areas are targeted for trout removal, which 

are provided for human consumption. 

 Managing exposure risks in Grand Canyon will be challenging because sources of Hg and Se are beyond 

Park boundaries. 

	 The data that we’re looking at is from 1991 from the selenium and mercury data but the fish data is more 

current at 2009? 

o	 The mercury data was associated with the Navajo Generating Station study and was collected in 

1991. The selenium data was collected in 1989-1999. Our data came from 2008. The 1991 study 

was an SO2 study. 

	 Could these high metal levels be part of the puzzle where we’re not seeing EPT below the dam? Are these 

levels comparable to other tailwaters that have high levels of those insects? 

o	 That 1991 study was not a mercury specific study, it was largely centered on SO2 for some 

visibility analysis. As part of the EIS work with Reclamation on the life extension of NGS, we’ll be 

looking at emissions and deposition of the surrounding area and will also be analyzing the effects 

of other local, regional and global desposition of mercury and selenium in the various watersheds 

surrounding the plant. That’s coupled with ecological risk and human health risk assessments as 

well. That information should be out by middle of next summer for review. The data was from 1991 

but published in 1999. If emissions from NGS are making their way against prevailing winds all the 

way down to Hopi Point, the NGS is a potential source of mercury which is another type of emittant 

to the food web. We fully acknowledge in the paper there is a large global pool but it seemed 

important to acknowledge there’s this point source that’s approximate to Grand Canyon that could 

be contributing. 

o	 There are very few types of these data from tailwaters in large western rivers to compare to so 

there’s some uncertainty there. Even at these levels, they would not be toxic to invertebrates and 

that the main changes in the invertebrate community are probably more associated with the gross 

changes in the river itself in terms of daily peaking, cold temperatures, etc., rather than toxic 

effects. The levels we’re seeing here don’t think can explain the absence of EPT. 

	 Your study is about mercury and selenium which are two of many possible contaminants in the system. Do 

we have a portrait of the array of contaminants that we should be concerned with including arsenic, 

uranium, and others that might be affecting our resources? 

o	 Mercury and selenium were targeted for this particular study. The 2007 paper came out before we 

initiated our research and showed that mercury and selenium were relatively high. We have not 

measured anywhere in the canyon on organic contaminants like pesticides or legacy contaminants 

like PCB. In 2012 we did a very preliminary study on trace metals in the Lower Colorado River and 

then in 2013 we followed that up with a larger look at trace metals at a few sites on the mainstem 

and focusing also on a few tributaries, in particular Mankoweap, Kanab and the LCR. We have 

trace metal data from those systems and we looked there at again organic matter, larval insects 

focusing on black flies as well as adult insects in those parts of the basin. 

	 We can’t draw a conclusion about the relative relationship between the naturally occurring mercury or 

atmospheric mercury from other parts of the world and the amount that’s deposited as a result from the 

powerplant operations in that area? 

o	 That’s correct. Mercury work is being done in Lake and believe that part of what they’re going to do 

is try to get at the source of issues. 

	 We have a selenium management plan in Colorado that we’re involved with in the context of the Gunnison 

PBO and the Upper Colorado River Recovery Fish Program and was wondering if you’re aware of either 

other management programs for selenium and/or mitigation activities associated with mercury? 
            

             

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group
 

Draft Minutes of October 20‐21, 2015, Meeting
 Page 11

o	 Not beyond what anyone has. There’s quite a bit of work being done in the Upper Colorado on 

selenium. I don’t know about the rest of the basin. In terms of mercury, the big is the EPA rule on 

reducing emission from coal-fired powerplants. 

	 In the early 1990s there were significant issues with selenium concentration in the irrigation systems in the 

Central Valley in California that resulted in embryonic issues especially among birds. One of the results of 

that issue was the development of a variation of cattail or tully that was used to sequester selenium so it 

could be harvested out of large irrigation systems. I will get references to you but there’s a been a lot of 

work done. 

Glen Canyon Dam Annual Operating Plan (Attachment 9a) – Ms. Grantz. The Colorado River Annual 

Operating Plan is a report of Colorado River hydrology and reservoir operations for past year and 

projections for the upcoming year. The purpose is to illustrate the range of possible reservoir operations 

that could be expected in the upcoming water year. It’s not just for Glen Canyon Dam but for all the major 

Colorado River reservoirs. The plan reflects all the operational rules, guidelines and decisions that have 

been put into place for the Colorado River reservoirs. The 2016 AOP is currentely being developed and 

will be submitted to the Secretary of the Interior in the upcoming weeks. 

Basin Hydrology – The snowpack for WY2015 peaked at 74% of average on 3/9/15, a month earlier 

than average. It was very wet in May 2015 and saw snow accumulations in the high elevations. The 

runoff from the snowpack was basically gone at a typical time. Currently Lake Powell is at 51% full and 

the other basin reservoirs are at higher full levels. Lake Powell can hold about 4 years of runoff and 

doesn’t fluctuate as the other reservoirs. All the precipitation in May helped turn things around with Lake 

Powell at 94% of average unregulated inflow. Looking ahead to Water Year 2016 the forecast is 

expected to be 78% of average inflow. At this point in the water year and with almost no snow 

accumulation, it’s a wide range of 57% of average to 148% of average. There is a 10% chance the 

inflows could be higher or lower. The forecast over the past two months has been decreasing because 

the forecast is very sensitive to additional conditions at this time of year and there isn’t a whole lot of 

information to use. The decrease over the past month was 840 kaf which is a pretty significant decrease 

for one month. 

The August 24-month study is very important because of its projection of January 1st elevations 

establishes the Lake Powell operating tier for the upcoming water year. If in the Upper Elevation 

Balancing Tier, April 24-month study projection of September 30th, storage could shift to Powell 

operations to balancing or equalization for the remainder of the water year. We are expecting to have an 

April adjustment to balancing releases with a total release from Lake Powell of 9.0 maf. With the 

maximum probable inflow forecast, we would expect an adjustment to equalization releases with a total 

release of 11.4 maf. If inflows are in the range of about 5 maf to 14 maf, an April adjustment is expected 

to balancing releases and a release of 9.0 maf. If things get really dry and inflows in April are projected to 

be less than 5 maf, an April release would not be done and a 8.23 maf release would occur. If it’s really 

wet and inflows are over 14 maf, an adjustment to equalization would be done and those releases would 

range from 11 maf or greater. Looking ahead to WY2017, it looks likely for an upper elevation balancing 

tier so possibly an April adjustment to equalization but this month we’re right on the threshold and under 

the minimum probable scenario of having a 7.48 maf release. 

Attachment 9b – Memo from Secretary Ken Salazar dated May 23, 2012, Subject: Directive on 

Implementation to Improve Conditions in the Colorado River in Grand Canyon National Park and Glen 

Canyon National Recreation Area. 

Attachment 9c – Memo from AS-WS Anne Castle dated July 18, 2012, Subject: DOI Glen Canyon 

Leadership Team for HFE and Non-native Fish Control. 

2015 HFE Discussion – Mr. Scott VanderKooi. The DOI Technical Team Report (Attachment 10a) was 

provided by PDAS Jennifer Gimbel announcing there would be no high flow experiment this year. 
            

             

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group

Draft Minutes of October 20‐21, 2015, Meeting Page 12

	 Biological Resource Updates (Attachment 10b) – Mr. Scott VanderKooi. The following HBC 

updates were provided: 

o	 2015 spring abundance estimate of 105-199 mm HBC = 921 (95% CL: 756 to 1086) 

o	 2015 spring estimates considerably lower than recent years. Potentially due to early run timing, 

skipped spawning, or population decline. 

o	 2015 run timing similar to 2014. Fewer detections could be due to skipped spawning or population 

decline. 

o	 Lower Condition observed in 3 of last 4 trips. Supports hypothesis of skipped spawning due to less 

energy available to devote to reproduction. 

For Rainbow Trout: 

o	 Considerable declines in abundance in all reaches over Sept 14 – Jan 15 interval. Jan & April 15 

estimates downstream of LCR below NNFC trigger. 

	 Overview of 2014 HFE (Attachment 10c) – Mr. Ron Griffiths. The following results were 

provided: 

o Overall Change in sand mass in the Colorado River between RM0 and RM225 (Lees Ferry to 

Diamond Creek) during 7/1/14-1/1/15 was: 

+0.59+9.92 million metric tons; sand deposited in lower Marble Canyon and East Grand 

Canyon, sand evacuated from western Grand Canyon and west Central Grand Canyon 

o	 Overall change in sand mass in the Colorado River below RM225 (below Diamond Creek) during 

7/1/14-1/1/15 was: 

+1.4+0.1 million metric tons 

 2015 Paria River Sand Inputs 

o	 Zero bias value for 2015 Paria sand inputs is approximately 1.1 million metric tons, almost an 

additional 400,000 metric tons in June. 

o	 Flood event on 8/12/15 is an example of “hyperconcentrated flow,” this flood input over 1⁄4 of the 

total 2015 Paria sand input. 

o	 All samples through 8/27/15 have been processed by the laboratory, most recent processed 

sample is from 9/17/15. 

o	 The processed samples represent 80% of the total number of Paria samples collected this year 

compared with 52% of the samples at this time last year. 

	 2015 Marble Canyon Mass Balance. Comparison of Marble Canyon zero bias sand mass balance 

with previous years 7/1 through 9/28 

o	 2015: +650,000 metric tons o 2012: +720,000 metric tons 

o	 2014: +1,200,000 metric tons o 2011: -580,000 metric tons – 

o	 2013: +1,900,000 metric tons equalization flows 

 Sand was evacuated from upper Marble Canyon during equalization flows – likely from retreating 

sandbars and June Paria inputs 

 Sand deposited in lower Marble Canyon – in storage underwater or below the 20k CFS flow level 

 The total change in sand mass balance for Marble Canyon from 7/1/15 to 9/28/15 is 650,000 metric 

tons plus a likely additional +300,000 metric tons input from the Paria River since 9/28 (next update 

will occur on 11/9). 

	 I would express some caution in attributing all of the incremental losses to balancing flows especially if you 

have Paria River flows. But even if there weren’t the Paria flows, there’s only a portion of those flows that 

occurred in July that were due to additional flow because of balancing. 

	 Given the projected operations into next spring, do you have an estimate of how much sand might be 

available for an HFE in the spring? 

o	 Not at this time. If we have approximately 1 million metric tons and we export 100,000 per month – 

the rate of sand being exported from Marble Canyon is dependent upon how much sand is actually 

in Marble Canyon. As the Paria enriches the system, we export more sand and as it winnows it 

down, the export rate decreases. It’s hard to predict. 

	 Given higher flows, whether they’re balancing or equalization, what’s the best way to conserve mass 

balance in these scenarios? 

o	 The HFEs are certainly building or maintaining most of the sandbars that we’re monitoring. There’s 

a non-linear relationship between sediment transport and flow and at these higher flows there is 
            

             

 

 

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group

Draft Minutes of October 20‐21, 2015, Meeting Page 13

more sediment transport. The highest volume months move the most sand. If you want to preserve 

that sand in some capacity, we have means of doing that through HFEs. 

o	 In terms of the water and redistribution among months, it’s a challenge because we need to stay 

within the annual volume. In a high release year, especially equalization releases, we don’t know 

that until we’re a good way through the water year and have lost a lot of the flexibility to move that 

water around. 

	 If we take a single grain of sand that’s up on one of the upper beaches and that little piece gets eroded, 

does it go all the way down to Lake Mead or does it stop somewhere along the way? 

o	 Once the sand is entrained, it doesn’t just shoot to Lake Mead. It might only move 10 feet. The 

sand is slowly moving downstream as more comes in from the Paria River. 

	 We’re now on the third HFE and haven’t seen any reports on the results. Is there a definitive report of the 

analysis done of the impact of the HFEs? 

o	 The HFE Workshop held in February 2015 served as the mechanism for reporting on the HFEs. 

Reclamation had a commitment to hold a workshop but not produce a written report. The Technical 

Team Report includes a review of all the resources. 

HFE Decision Process – Ms. Grantz. The Technical Team worked for the past several months evaluating 

existing data and the status of all resources in the canyon. By mid-September there was enough 

sediment in the system to conduct a 96-hour HFE. However, in assessing the status of the biological 

resources and the concern for potentially disbursing Green Sunfish downstream in the Colorado River, 

the Team felt an HFE shouldn’t be done. Two treatments would be needed to deal with the GSF and 

given all the logistics that go into scheduling an HFE, there wasn’t enough time. Ms. Heffernan added 

there is a commitment under the Memorandum of Agreement for the HFE Protocol to give a minimum of 

30 days notice to the Tribes and consult with them after that notification if desired. 

2015 November Dam Operations – Ms. Grantz. Reclamation is going to release 600kaf with fluctuations 

between 7,000 cfs and 13,000 cfs. They are coordinating efforts with NPS on the treatment and removal 

of GSF and AZGFD and WAPA have been collaborating on that. To assist in that treatment effort, steady 

flows of 9,000 cfs for 3 days will be done. Two treatments and associated flows will be about 10 days 

apart. The volume for November will remain the same. The overall fluctuations may adjust in order to 

keep the volume the same, but they’re keeping the flows steady because the fluctuations can cause a 

challenge for the turbidity curtain and also that somewhat flow of 9,000 cfs means there is less volume of 

water in that backwater slew to treat. Final dates haven’t been set yet but they’re targeting the first week 

of November for the treatment. There are less impacts to hydropower by doing them over weekends. 

Conceptual Ecological Models (Attachment 11) – Ms. Kokos. About six years ago she was hired to 

develop the adaptive management program for the MSCP. The AMP’s short term goals is to build an 

adaptive management framework and ensure research and monitoring projects can answer 

management’s questions and needs. Adaptive management is a process that clearly incorporates 

learning into the management process. It answers why a project succeeded so that it can be replicated, 

or why a project failed and what needs to be done to succeed in subsequent actions. They needed to 

define their goals in terms of how they were going to manage each one of their conservation areas for 

the 20 species for they have habitat creation goals for. It was a year-long process and they developed 

some management guidelines, essentially measureable attributes that they could measure out on the 

landscape that would inform them how they would manipulate habitat. There was an existing vegetation 

monitoring project that was going on and she interpolated the data for the Palo Verde Ecological 

Reserve outside Blythe, California. One of the disconnects between biologists and managers is how to 

actually communicate what’s important. They begin with a question, have a design in mind, determine 

what data will be collected, how data will be analyzed, have an idea of expected outcomes and then plan 

for a recommendation. The program developed some conceptual ecological models but can be used for 

research and monitoring. The LCR MSCP Species Conceptual Model follows the current best practices 

and incorporates information from databases, literature, and experts. 
            

             

 

 

 

 

 

 

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group

Draft Minutes of October 20‐21, 2015, Meeting Page 14

LTEMP (Attachment 12a) – Ms. Balsom. The Draft EIS was sent to the Cooperating Agencies on June 

29. The Draft Appendices were sent out on July 31, with the exception of the SDM Report (August 3) and 

the Wholesale Ratepower Analysis (August 7). 

Next Steps:
 

 Sept. 30, 2015 Cooperating Agency comment deadline 

 October 2015 Biological Assessment
 

 December 2015 Public DEIS 

 February 2016 Public Meetings 

 March 2016 Biological Opinion
 

 April/May 2016 FEIS and Record of Decision
 

Ms. James said that a couple of her members who are cooperating agencies, have reviewed the drafts 

and submitted comments but in terms of cooperating agency discussions on a preferred alternative, that 

hasn’t happened. Jan said she would mention on the next phone call. 

As a stakeholder, not a cooperating agency, Mr. Miller said he doesn’t think the recreational fishing group 

has been aware of the ability to have these meetings/phone calls. There were some over a year but as 

alternatives have narrowed down, they haven’t been involved and the process should be more visible. 

LTEMP Science Plan (Attachment 12b) – Mr. Vanderkooi. GCMRC was tasked with providing a science 

plan for the LTEMP. In discussions with Glen and others, it was made clear to them that if there was a 

preferred alternative, the science plan would be for that. They had hoped to not have to write a science 

plan over the eight alternatives when only one would be the accepted alternative. GCMRC can’t produce 

a science plan until they know what that alternative will be. He provided what components would 

comprise a science plan and the need to reconcile previous program documents with that. 

 For Zuni, the river itself is a living being and a cultural resource. 

 Hope GCMRC will be a definitive party to what the science plan consists of and its implementation. 

 With the LTEMP, this would be a good time to look at what is still being done in terms of monitoring and 

factor in what needs to be continued versus what we’ve perhaps already answered well enough. 

 Need to discuss the process for archiving information so its available to the program and future 

stakeholders. 

 We can do a better job of maintaining historical documents. 

 Perhaps the Annual Reporting meeting could be an avenue for providing information on the state of the 

resources. We should develop a summary of exisiting knowledge. 

	 A lot of good work went into the MRP and the Knowledge Assessment was never finalized. We don’t want 

to lose that information and should consider bridging what we’ve learned from past efforts into the science 

plan. 

 There is new technology that could really help in getting the administrative history done. 

 The models Argonne did for the LTEMP EIS need to be kept in the AMP. 

Adjourned: 12:45 p.m. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 Linda Whetton 

 Upper Colorado Region 

 Bureau of Reclamation 

Next Meeting: 

(Tue) January 26, 2016 9:30 a.m. – 5 p.m. 

(Wed) January 27, 2016 8:15 a.m. – 5 p.m. 

(Thu) January 28, 2016 8:15 a.m. – 3 p.m. 

 at Arizona Department of Water Resources
 
            

             

 

 

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group

Draft Minutes of October 20‐21, 2015, Meeting Page 15

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