Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group WebEx Meeting 

June 26, 2013

Conducting: John Jordan, Chairperson Convened: 10 a.m. (MDT) 

Facilitator: Robert Wheeler with Triangle Associates, Inc. 

Committee Members/Alternates Present: 

Cliff Barrett, UAMPS 

Garry Cantley, BIA 

Shane Capron, WAPA 

Todd Chaudhry, NPS 

Kerry Christensen, Hualapai Tribe 

Jerry Lee Cox, Grand Canyon River Guides 

Kevin Dahl, Grand Canyon Trust 

Bill Davis, CREDA 

Paul Harms, State of New Mexico 

Vineetha Kartha, State of Arizona 

Robert King, State of Utah 

Glen Knowles, Bureau of Reclamation 

Ted Kowalski, State of Colorado 

Gerald Myers, Federation of Fly Fishers 

Don Ostler, State of Wyoming 

Larry Stevens, GCWC 

Bill Stewart, AGFD 

Jason Thiriot, State of Nevada 

Kirk Young, USFWS 

Tony Joe, Jr., Navajo Nation 

Committee Members Absent: 

Jan Balsom, NPS/GRCA 

Kurt Dongoske, Pueblo of Zuni 

Chris Hughes, NPS/GLCA 

Nikolai Lash, Grand Canyon Trust 

McClain Peterson, State of Nevada 

John Shields, State of Wyoming 

Mike Yeatts, Hopi Tribe 

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center: 

Phil Davis 

Chris Schill, Budget Analyst

Scott Vanderkooi, Acting Deputy Chief 

Interested Persons: 

Marianne Crawford, Bureau of Reclamation 

Todd Dillard, Robert Lynch & Associates 

Lesley Fitzpatrick, USFWS 

Alan Foster, Triangle Associates 

John Hamill, Federation of Fly Fishers 

Brian Healy, NPS 

Leslie James, CREDA 

Lisa Meyer, WAPA 

Clayton Palmer, WAPA 

Ted Rampton, UAMPS 

Sarah Rinkevich, FWS/Federal Tribal Liaison 

Mike Runge, USGS 

Seth Shananan, SNWA 

Bob Wheeler, Triangle Associates 

Meeting Recorder: Linda Whetton 

1. Welcome and Administrative. Mr. Jordan welcomed the members and the public. 

2. Approval of April 3, 2013, Meeting Minutes. Pending minor edits, the minutes were approved by 

consensus. 

3. Report on May 8, 2013, AMWG Meeting. Mr. Jordan reported the AMWG accepted the TWG 

Operating Procedures without any substantive changes, the AMWG Charter was approved for 

renewal, and the timeline for working on the FY 2015-16 budget was moved back (winter/spring) to 

allow GCMRC more time to complete its science work. 

4. Review of Action Items. (Attachment 1). 

5. LTEMP EIS Update. Mr. Knowles reported the group is still in the process of finalizing performance 

metrics and the first round of modeling on the eight alternatives has begun. That work should be 

completed before the August 5-7 LTEMP EIS workshop in Flagstaff, Arizona. Details on the 

workshop and public meetings will be sent out soon. 

TWG Operating Procedures (Attachment 2a = AIF). Mr. Capron distributed copies of the revised 

operating procedures (Attachment 2c) and asked for comments. 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Meeting 

Draft Minutes of June 26, 2013, WebEx Meeting Page 2 

 Question: Can DOI members propose and second motions since they are non-voting members? 

“Ex-officio” DOI participants in other basin and state programs are allowed to make and second motions, 

therefore the TWG should also allow DOI members the same opportunities in both the AMWG and 

TWG. The concern is that DOI members need to express their points of view prior to voting on any 

motions. The solution to the question was that Mr. Wheeler would encourage participation as part of the 

facilitation function at both AMWG and TWG meetings. 

Motion proposed by Cliff Barrett, seconded by Don Ostler: TWG approves the Draft TWG Operating 

Procedures, as revised June 26, 2013, and recommends that the TWG Chair approve and sign the 

operating procedures. Passed by consensus. 

Pending inclusion of the above and minor edits, the TWG Operating Procedures were revised 

(Attachment 2c) and submitted to John Jordan for his signature. 

TWG Election of Chair and Vice-Chair. Mr. Glen Knowles thanked Mr. Jordan for doing such a good 

job as TWG Chair for FY13. Glen opened the floor for nominations. Mr. Jason Thiriot nominated Mr. John 

Jordan to serve a second term. No other nominations were offered. Hearing no objections, Mr. Jordan 

was elected as TWG Chair for FY14. Ms. Vineetha Kartha nominated Mr. Shane Capron to continue 

serving as the TWG Vice-Chair. Hearing no objections, Shane was nominated as the TWG Vice-Chair for 

FY14. 

FY 2013-14 Budget and Work Plan (Attachment 3a). ) Mr. Glen Knowles. As requested by the BAHG 

on June 17, two budgets were presented (Attachment 3b (Attachment 3c), one not including 

sequestration cuts and the other one including them. Sequestration requires a 5.1% cut to the FY13 

Budget which is $532,939 and may require an 8% cut in FY 14 which would be $861,063 from the 

Budget. Cost savings due to travel restrictions and the following potential changes to the budget are 

proposed to cover sequestration: 

 Facilitation budget for FY13 = $41,747 and for FY14 = $43,000 (old) 

FY13 = $82,942 and FY14 = $85,430 (new) 

o The increase to facilitation is primarily a result of the three individuals from Triangle 

attending the Annual Reporting meeting in January 2013 as requested and additions of 

tasks not included in their scope of work. 

o Cost saving as a result of having TWG webinars rather than meetings can be reallocated 

to cover facilitation. 

 Native Fish Conservation Carryover Fund for FY13 = $782,660 and FY14 = $1,321,139 

o Triggers for trout removal haven’t been met for several years and consequently this fund 

hasn’t been used. The 5.1% cut from sequestration ($532,939) when applied to this fund 

leaves $249,721 which insures that other projects are fully funded. If sequester is applied 

in FY14 at 8% ($861K) it could again come from nonnative fish carryover, leaving 

$418,658 in FY14. Reclamation won’t know if sequestration will continue in FY 14 until the 

next fiscal year begins on October 1. 

 Tribal Participation in LTEMP EIS Process. Funding in the Reclamation Cultural Program has 

been reallocated to fund tribes for tribal perspectives on the LTEMP EIS process. 

Concerns: 

 Budget implications to GCMRC. 

o Due to sequestration, and a resultant hiring freeze GCMRC salary costs were reduced. 

Those savings were used to retain some staff and increase foodbase sampling. GCMRC 

is working with professional river guides to collect data and have expanded other data 

collection through private citizen groups. 

 Confusion in submitting two budgets to AMWG. 

o If a “sequestration” budget is submitted, the Department might conclude that the program 

can continue on a reduced budget. With the likelihood that the sequestration will continue 

through FY14, it would be proactive to present that information to AMWG. 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Meeting 

Draft Minutes of June 26, 2013, WebEx Meeting Page 3 

Motion proposed by Cliff Barrett, seconded by Jason Thiriot: TWG recommends the changes to the 

Federal Fiscal Year 2013-14 Budget and Work Plan, as described in the attached Glen Canyon Dam 

Adaptive Management Program FY 2013-14 Bureau of Reclamation Budget without 2014 Sequestration, 

and that it be forwarded to AMWG for their consideration in recommending to the Secretary. TWG further 

forwards to AMWG for their consideration information on a budget which anticipates sequestration in 

2014. Noting one abstention, but not blocking consensus (Larry Stevens), the motion was passed by 

consensus. 

Basin Hydrology and GCD Operations Report (Attachment 4). Ms. Katrina Grantz. The snowpack 

peaked at 81% of average in late April but the snow was gone by mid-June. The most probable forecast 

for April-July Lake Powell unregulated inflow issued on June 1 was 3.0 maf or 42% of average for the 

spring runoff season with a range of about 2.48 to 3.48 maf. The mid-month indicates a decreasing trend 

and projections are about 40% of average inflow. The official forecast for July is anticipated early next 

week. Currently we’re locked into an 8.23 maf release year for the remainder of WY 2013. In WY 2014 

there are two possibilities, an 8.23 maf release (55% probablye) or a 7.48 maf release (45%) probable. 

The elevation at Lake Powell on June 18 was 3601.2 feet and is declining. Based on the June 24-month 

study, the projected elevation for the end of the WY is about 3588.7 feet. The projected January 1st

elevation will be 3577.0 feet which is two feet above the threshold trigger for being the mid-elevation 

release tier. Given the current conditions of Lake Mead, it is possible that WY-14 will be the midelevation release tier with a release of 7.48 maf. The August 24-month study will determine what the 

operating tier will be in WY 2014. 

GCD Maintenance Schedule. Ms. Katrina Grantz. There are eight hydropower units at Glen Canyon Dam 

and currently it is a low release year. If there is sufficient sediment in November to trigger an HFE, it 

would be possible to get approximately 33,000 cfs, based on the current maintenance schedule. Steady 

flows of 8,000 cfs were released for the GCMRC airborne data collection overflights. In June the releases 

were 800 kaf with fluctuations between 9,000 and 17,000 cfs daily. In July they will be about 847 kaf with 

projected fluctuations between 10,000 and 18,000 cfs. In August, releases will be very similar to the 800 

kaf pattern. There will not be steady flows in September-October as in the past, releases will be about 

600 kaf. 

Glen Canyon Dam FY2014 Hydrograph (Attachment 5). Mr. Dave Trueman. Development of the FY 

2014 hydrograph begins with the 2012/13 hydrograph. This year, 2013, was unusual because the 

reservoir is low and the operational tiers, both at 7.48 and 8.23 maf releases are relatively fixed. There is 

a small chance of equalization next year if it reaches the 7.48 tier and is lower than the 10% probability 

normally reported on. Reclamation is trying to conserve August-October inputs for a potential November 

HFE. The graph shows that there wasn’t a lot of export of sand in the 500-600 range but as you get up to 

900 kaf, there is a fair amount of export. The goal is to slide down at strategic moments in the year into 

lower volumes. In working through the DOI/DOE hydrograph development, the FWS asked Reclamation 

if releases could be lowered in June to create warmer water temperatures downstream for native fish. 

Under the 2013 hydrograph water was moved out of August and into June. Higher June releases had a 

cooling effect on the temperatures at the mouth of the Little Colorado River. An attempt will be made to 

avoid releasing water in June by moving it to another part of the year. Hopefully it can be moved to a 

time period that will be of equal value to WAPA and result in a win-win situation. The warming of the 

water mostly occurs as it slowly meanders its way down to the LCR. The result is temperatures above 14 

degrees at the LCR which is desirable. The DOI/DOE hydrograph recommends a continuation of lower 

releases for August through October in order to retain late summer and fall sediment inputs, avoid 

shifting extra water to June that cools the temperatures at the mouth of the LCR and to move water from 

August to other equal value months if possible. Mr. Trueman presented the DOI/DOE 2014 hydrograph 

(refer to slide #9) and the group made adjustments. 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Meeting 

Draft Minutes of June 26, 2013, WebEx Meeting Page 4 

Motion proposed by Cliff Barrett, seconded by Bill Davis: TWG recommends to AMWG to recommend 

to the Secretary of the Interior, approval of the DOI-DOE Proposed Hydrograph for Water Year 2014 as 

defined in the attached Water Year 2014 Hydrograph. (see below) 

• Annual Release Volumes will be determined in compliance with the 2007 Interim Guidelines (in 

consultation with the Basin States as appropriate). 

 

• Monthly release Volumes are anticipated to shift depending upon: (1) the Annual Release 

Volume, and (2) the magnitude of a potential High Flow Experiment. 

• Monthly Release Volumes may vary within the targets identified below. Any remaining monthly 

operational flexibility will be used for existing power production operations under the Modified Low 

Fluctuating Flow (MLFF) alternative selected by the 1996 ROD and contained in the 1995 FEIS 

and in compliance with all applicable NEPA compliance documents (HFE EA, NNFC EA, 2007 

IG). 

 

• Release objective for June is 600 kaf to 650 kaf . 

• Release objective for August is 800 kaf. 

 

• Release objective for September and October is 600 kaf to 630 kaf. 

 

• Monthly Release Volumes will generally strive to maintain 600 kaf levels in the spring/fall 

timeframe and 800 kaf in December/January and July/August timeframe. 

 

• Additionally, the Bureau of Reclamation will continue to apply best professional judgment in 

conducting actual operations and in response to changing conditions throughout the water year. 

Such efforts will continue to be undertaken in coordination with the DOI/DOE agencies, and after 

consultation with the Basin States as appropriate, to consider changing conditions and adjust 

projected operations in a manner consistent with the objectives of these parameters as stated 

above and pursuant to the Law of the River. 

Motion passed by consensus. 

Ad Hoc Group Updates (Attachment 6). Mr. Jason Thiriot provided updates on the AMP “wiki” website 

which now includes a calendar function, tribal monitoring reports, TWG bios, TEK information, and an 

audio clip that was recently uploaded by Larry Stevens. He’s encouraged by the amount of information 

that has been added to the site and urges others to get involved with it. The next step is to get familiar 

with the “dashboard” concept, which is like a bird’s eye view of operations, from which you can swoop 

down into the particular details. 

Science Update 

GCMRC Economist. Mr.Scott Vanderkooi. GCMRC has hired Mr. Lucas Bair who will start in August. 

2013 Overflight Wrapup (Attachment 7a). Dr. Phil Davis. The 2013 image collection was a 

success. Totally cloud-free imagery for the entire corridor was collected in 6 days. Certain lines required 

reflights due to turbulence which produces image smears. Turbulence was the only delaying factor, 

especially in flight block G, because it is perpendicular to the prevailing high winds. The total cost of the 

overflight was $525K. 

Sediment and Fisheries Update (Attachment 7b). Mr. Scott VanderKooi. Sediment conditions before 

and after the November 2012 High Flow Experiment (HFE) were projected. Sites included Cathedral 

Wash RM 2.5 L, 22-Mile RM 22 R, Sand Pile RM 30R, Carbon RM 65.1 R, and Emerald Camp RM 104 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Meeting 

Draft Minutes of June 26, 2013, WebEx Meeting Page 5 

R. Following the HFE, 90% of age-0 RBT were recaptured within 0.25 mile of the release location from 

October-December 2012. This data suggests that most RBT move very little. The Natal Origins project 

has produced similar results from each of its five sampling reaches. Juvenile chub monitoring indicates 

that 2013 humpback chub catches in the mainstem just downstream of the Little Colorado River 

confluence are lower than those observed in 2012, but are similar to those observed during the 2009-

2011 NSE project. It should be noted that the abundance of young fish for many species, including 

humpback chub, can be highly variable seasonally and annually. This same project has seen an increase 

in catches of brown trout in 2013. Catches ranged from 2-4 fish per sampling trip in 2012, but have 

ranged from 14-18 per sampling trip in 2013. Brown trout catches in 2013 have been dominated by 

smaller fish (< 300 mm). The Tailwater Synthesis project is nearing completion of the data collection 

phase with fish population data from 57 tailwaters and a promise for data from 15 more. Duration of data 

sets range from 1-45 years with 34 systems having 1-10 years of data, 15 systems with 11-20 years of 

data, and 8 with 21 or more years of data. Invertebrate data is available from half of the systems, but 

the information is generally poor. Discharge data is available from all systems, but only a few have water 

temperature data. 

Public Comment: None 

Wrap-Up. John thanked everyone for being in attendance and looks forward to seeing many people at 

the August AMWG meeting: 

Next TWG Meeting 

To Be Determined. 

 

Adjourned: 1:40 p.m. (MDT) 

Respectfully submitted, 

 

Linda Whetton 

Upper Colorado Regional Office 

Bureau of Reclamation 

 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Meeting 

Draft Minutes of June 26, 2013, WebEx Meeting Page 6 

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 

BHTF – Beach/Habitat Test 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 

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 

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 

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 

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 

SNARRC - Southwest Native Aquatic Resources and 

Recovery Center 

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 

TWG – Technical Work Group 

UCRC – Upper Colorado River Commission 

UDWR – Utah Division of Water Resources 

USBR – United States Bureau of Reclamation 

USFWS – United States Fish & Wildlife Service 

USGS – United States Geological Survey 

WAPA – Western Area Power Administration 

WY – Water Year 

(Updated: 2/5/2013)