Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Meeting 

April 21-22, 2015 

Conducting: Vineetha Kartha, TWG Chair Convened: 9:30 a.m.

 Shane Capron, TWG Vice-Chair 

Committee Members/Alternates Present: 

Jan Balsom, NPS/GRCA 

Cliff Barrett, UAMPS 

Charley Bulletts, Southern Paiute Consortium 

Kerry Christensen, Hualapai Tribe 

Kevin Dahl, National Parks Conservation Assn. 

Bill Davis, CREDA 

Kurt Dongoske, Pueblo of Zuni 

Craig Ellsworth, WAPA 

Evelyn Erlandsen, State of Arizona 

Paul Harms, State of New Mexico 

Glen Knowles, Bureau of Reclamation 

Ted Kowalski, Colo. Water Conservation Board 

Jerry Myers, Federation of Fly Fishers 

Jessica Neuwerth, State of California 

Don Ostler, State of Wyoming 

Larry Stevens, Grand Canyon Wildlands Council 

Bill Stewart, Arizona Game and Fish Dept. 

Jason Thiriot, State of Nevada 

Michael Yeatts, Hopi Tribe 

Kirk Young, FWS 

Committee Members Absent: 

Jerry Lee Cox, Grand Canyon River Guides 

Chris Harris, State of California 

Chip Lewis, Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Robert King, State of Utah 

Steve Wolff, State of Wyoming

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center: 

Helen Fairley, Social Scientist 

Kyrie Fry, Communications Coordinator 

Scott VanderKooi, Biology Program Manager 

 

Interested Persons

Brandon Albrecht, Bio-West 

Mark Anderson, NPS/GLNRA (phone) 

Mary Barger, Bureau of Reclamation 

Rob Billerbeck, NPS (phone) 

Howard Brandenberg, American Southwest 

 Ecological Research 

Peter Bungart, Hualapai Tribe 

Bill Chada, Bureau of Reclamation 

Terri Cook, freelance science writer 

Marianne Crawford, Bureau of Reclamation 

Brian Healy, NPS 

Beverley Heffernan, Bureau of Reclamation 

Leslie James, CREDA 

John Jordan, Federation of Fly Fishers/TU 

Ora Marek-Martinez, Navajo Nation Historic 

 Preservation Office 

Mark McKinstry, Bureau of Reclamation 

Lisa Meyer, WAPA (phone) 

Joe Miller, Trout Unlimited 

Jenika Raub, Salt River Project (phone) 

Dr. Sarah Rinkevich, DOI Tribal Liaison 

Seth Shanahan, SNWA 

Rosemary Sucec, NPS/GLNRA (phone) 

Todd Tietjen, SNWA

Meeting Recorder: Linda Whetton 

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

made and a quorum determined. 

1. Approval of January 20-21, 2015, Meeting Minutes – A request was made to include stakeholder 

comments. The minutes will be revised and approved at the next meeting. 

2. Review of Action Items (Attachment 1). 

3. Ad Hoc Group Updates. 

o Administrative History AHG (Attachment 2a) – Mr. Jason Thiriot. An RFP is in development for the 

purpose of gathering oral histories from current and former program members. Members are 

encouraged to take the training courses (http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=Training_Page) . 

o Species of Management Concern – Mr. Larry Stevens. Meeting notes from the last conference call 

were distributed (Attachment 2b). For the mid-May call each of major participating agencies (NPS, 

FWS, GCRMC, AZGFD) will provide a 5-minute overview of which species are being monitored, 

how, and at what schedule. The ad hoc members need to review the lists of native and non-native 

species of management concern and be prepared to either refine the existing prioritization process 

or develop a new process for ranking those species . 

4. New Ad Hoc Group to Discuss Native Fishes and Humpback Chub Mainstem Locations – Mr. Kirk Young. 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical  Work Group

Final Minutes of April 21‐22, 2015, Meeting Page 2

A meeting was held to discuss mainstem augmentation translocations and criteria were developed. The 

group will report to the TWG of their work for consideration in the FY18-20 work plan. A new ad hoc group 

will be formed when more information is available. 

5. Selection of new GCMRC Center Chief – Mr. Scott VanderKooi. The vacancy announcement is open 

through May 7. A new duty for this position will be leader of SBSC river research and restoration program 

No AMP funding will be used to fund this work. 

o Barbara Ralston has accepted a position with USGS as a bureau approving official for the western 

United States. She starts her new job in early May. 

6. Updates: 

o Tribal Consultation Plan – Ms. Sarah Rinkevich. The tribal representatives are reviewing the Plan. 

o Programmatic Agreement Update – Ms. Mary Barger. The PA should go out next week along with 

a “comment and response” document. 

o LTEMP EIS – Mr. Glen Knowles. The team is striving hard to have a draft out in the next few weeks 

with a 30-day comment period for the cooperating agencies. The socioeconomic analyses and 

work on other technical appendices won’t be completed in time for the draft. Several members 

requested the comment period be extended. 

o Whirling Disease – Mr. Bill Stewart. A positive detection occurred in 2007, nothing noted in 2008-

10, but a positive detection again in 2011. Testing for whirling disease will occur on a 3 to 5-year 

basis. There are no deformities or signs that whirling disease is in the trout populations. 

o NPS Bison Management Plan – Ms. Jan Balsom. There are still bison on the north rim and the 

population appears to be exponentially increasing. The NPS, AZGFD, and the Forest Service don’t 

have alternatives but hope to have something out this summer. Tom Sisk’s lab at NAU is working 

on ecological integrity and updating their databases. The EIS is being done through the NPS 

Washington Office and GRCA is providing technical support. 

7. New Business: The next TWG meeting will be held via WebEx on June 11, 2015, at 11 a.m. (MDT). There 

will be three agenda items: (1) Hydrograph for 2016, (2) FY16 budget, and (3) TWG Chair Election. 

Hydrology Update (Attachment 3) – Ms. Katrina Grantz. The April forecast for unregulated inflow into 

Lake Powell was 52% of average, and by mid-month it was 47%. Snowpack peaked in early March at 

74% and is currently about 56% of average. Basin conditions are very dry. 

 Lake Powell operations are in the upper elevation balancing tier at 8.23 maf. The hydrology is determined 

in the April-Month Study and projects the end of the water year storage and necessary adjustments. If 

releases continue at 8.23 maf, balancing Lakes Powell and Mead will be necessary with equalization 

releases. 

 If the forecast continues to decrease and projections in August indicate Lake Powell will go below 3,575 

feet, then the operating tier for WY 2015 would be the mid-elevation release tier and a 7.48 maf release 

scenario. Currently, there’s a 50/50 percent chance for next year being 7.48 maf or 9.0 maf. There is less 

variability at Lake Mead and that it is very close to the shortage conditions for calendar year 2016. 

 Dam Maintenance Schedule. There are eight hydropower units available at GCD. Maintenance that takes 

units offline is continual. Management attempts to keep the maximum number of units online in November 

for a potential HFE. 

2016 Hydrograph – Ms. Katrina Grantz. 

 The objective is to retain sand inputs high in the system in anticipation of a potential fall HFE. 

 August and September are typically the months of greatest sand inputs. 

 Water has been shifted the past 5 years from the standard pattern to lower August and September 

releases, in order to retain sand inputs high in the system for a potential HFE in November. Water would be 

moved from August to other equal value months for hydropower (Dec/Jan). 

 Decreasing releases in the 1,000kaf to 800af range can significantly decrease sand transport. Less 

difference is seen at low flow volumes. The operating tiers for 2016 range from a minimum probable of 7.48 

maf, a most probable at 9.0 maf, and a maximum probable at 9.0 maf. The following DOI-DOE is the 

proposed 2016 hydrograph: 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical  Work Group

Final Minutes of April 21‐22, 2015, Meeting Page 3

Annual Release Volume June August September 

Less than 9.0 maf 600 – 650 kaf 800 kaf 600 kaf 

9.0 maf – less than 9.5 maf 800 kaf 900 kaf (was 850) 700 kaf 

9.5 maf – less than 10 maf 900 kaf 900 kaf 700 kaf

10 maf and greater 900 kaf or more 900 kaf or more 800 kaf or more 

The joint agencies determined the overall improvement to hydropower and the improvement to the 

annual sediment transport was worth the adjustment to July and August volumes. There was minimal 

difference to temperature. If the volume is higher, and equalization is triggered there will be a 11.7 maf 

release. Flexibility is limited and a high volume release could decrease volumes in August and 

September. The next steps are to consider feedback from the TWG, continue working with the DOI-DOE 

agencies, and have the AMWG consider at the May meeting, a final recommendation to the Secretary in 

August. 

Razorback Sucker Monitoring and Research in Lower Grand Canyon and the Colorado River 

Inflow Area of Lake Mead (Attachment 4a) – Mr. Mark McKinstry. Razorback Suckers were listed as 

endangered species in 1991, critical habitat was designated in 1994, a recovery plan developed in 1998, 

and recovery goals set up in 2002. The recovery goals require two populations in the Upper Basin, the 

Green and Upper Colorado River or the San Juan River and two populations in the Lower Basin. It has 

not been defined where, but discussions with FWS and other program participants indicate one of those 

places will probably be designated as the Lake Mead and Lower GRCA population. In 1995 a 

Reclamation BiOp on operation of GCD required a workshop and development of a management plan 

for RBS in GRCA. The workshop was completed. In 2006 there was a BiOp to the Park Service with their 

CRMP to conduct surveys in Lower Gorge and Lake Mead interface for spawning RBS. Most of the work 

that is currently being done in Lake Mead would fulfill this conservation measure for Park Service. In 

2008 BOR had a BiOp on the shortages and coordinated reservoir operations to “examine the potential 

habitat in the Lower GRCA for RBS and institute an augmentation program.” There has been 18 years of 

study (1996-2014) which has resulted in 180 fish being sonic-tagged, 1300 total captures of fish in Lake 

Mead, 860 unique fish, and 492 individuals have been aged from 2-36 years which indicates that 

recruitment is occurring. This is the only known population of fish in the basin that’s recruited. 

Adult RBS Monitoring (Attachment 4b) – Mr. Brandon Albrecht. Based on past studies and recent 

movements of sonic-tagged Razorback Suckers from Lake Mead into the lower Grand Canyon (LGC) 

section of the Colorado River, questions regarding this population have spurred further interest into the 

presence of wild individuals and their relationship between the river and reservoir. For more than 20 

years, Razorback Suckers were thought to be extirpated within the Grand Canyon. This collaborative and 

holistic study included efforts to continue monitoring Razorback Sucker (all life stages) within the 

Colorado River inflow of Lake Mead with the inclusion of sonic telemetry, small-bodied fish community, 

and larval fish community sampling from Lava Falls downstream to Pearce Ferry, in the LGC (RM 180-

280). The specific objectives outlined for these efforts included; (1) conducting larval and small-bodied 

fish studies to quantitatively assess annual fish reproduction, spawning, and nursery areas in the LGC, 

(2) determining if Razorback Suckers were present in the study area and if they associated with habitat 

found within the LGC through telemetry and opportunistic adult sampling, and (3) identifying habitat 

associations, relative spawning and reproductive effort, and population trends of Razorback Sucker in 

the CRI. 

Conclusions: 

 RBS are present at the CRI (5th year) and immature RBS have been captured at CRI (age 3) 

 RBS were not captured during the LGC small-bodied sampling in 2014, but recently Age-0 juveniles were 

located in Iceberg Canyon 

 Telemetry identified movement between the river and lake and it is likely that movement is occurring above 

Lava Falls which is above the study area 

 GRTS sampling high native catch rates 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical  Work Group

Final Minutes of April 21‐22, 2015, Meeting Page 4

 Capture of other small sucker species indicates capturing small, wild RBS may happen in the future 

 Age-0 HBC are common from Lava Falls to Pearce Ferry (entire study reach) 

 It appears that the combination of both habitats cumulatively allow for natural RBS recruitment – dynamic! 

Larval Fish Monitoring – Mr. Howard Brandenberg (Attachment 4c). The results of the larval community 

sampling documented reproduction by Razorback Sucker and Humpback Chub during the 2014 survey 

of the lower Grand Canyon. Larval Razorback Sucker were captured four out of six months of the survey. 

The April survey had the highest density and it increased in the lower portion of the study area. Larval 

Razorback Sucker were distributed throughout the study area during the May and June survey including 

larval Razorback Sucker at the top of the study area, upstream of Lava Falls Rapid. Three Razorback 

Sucker larvae were captured in July. Larval Razorback Sucker captured represented all larval 

ontogenetic stages (protolarvae, mesolarvae, and metalarvae). Mesolarvae (flexion and postflexion) 

constituted 97.2% of the total Razorback Sucker catch. There have not been recently transformed 

juvenile in the 2014 captures. 

Conclusions: 

 Larval RBS are present throughout the study 

area from Lava Falls to Pearce Ferry 

 Spawning is occurring above Lava Falls 

 RBS are present at 32 of 50 sites 

 The April distribution is skewed to 

downstream 

 Spawning had occurred prior to the first 

(April) sampling effort 

 HBC are present throughout the study area 

from Lava Falls to upstream of Pearce Ferry 

 HBC were present at 27 of 50 sites 

 Distribution increased monthly 

 HBC are in samples throughout the study 

period 

Recommendations: 

 Continue small-bodied and larval fish sampling within the LGC. 

o Consider spatial (upstream) and temporal (earliler) expansion of larval study 

 Discuss options for determining the extent of spawning 

o Age larval fish using otoliths 

o Determine spawning dates 

o Correlate with flow and water temperature 

Budget – GCMRC and BOR for FY2016 

 Reclamation Overview (Attachment 5a) – Mr. Glen Knowles. The FY 2016 budget needs to be 

approved and a recommendation developed on the June 11 webinar. The FY 2016-17 budget: 

Fiscal Year Budget Reclamation Portion GCMRC Portion 

2016 $11,077,616 (3% CPI) $2,180,075 $8,897,541 

2017 $11,409,944 (3% CPI) $2,245,477 $9,164,467 

 GCMRC Budget (Attachment 5b) – Mr. Scott VanderKooi. The following was provided 

Fiscal Year Proposed Budget Anticipated AMP Funding USGS/SBSC/GCMRC 

Indirect Cost Rates 

2016 $9.9 million $9.1 million 21.3% 

2017 $9.8 million $9.3 million 27.4% 

o There are shortages in the budget. Monitoring and research activities are prioritized however some of 

projects are shortened, start times are delayed, and some are removed from GCDAMP funding. Money 

may be saved through the FY 16-17 workplan as a result of shortfalls in the outyears. 

o GSA renegotiated the GCMRC lease with the City of Flagstaff. The lease rates won’t go up until they move 

into the new building. The burden rate will remain around 13% for FY15-16. It’s unsure what the rate will be 

for FY17 because it will depend on when the move occurs, but is currently projected for 27%. There could 

be cost savings of approximately $150,000 for FY15 and $500,000 for FY16. 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical  Work Group

Final Minutes of April 21‐22, 2015, Meeting Page 5

GCMRC: Socioeconomics Studies (Attachment 6) – Mr. Scott VanderKooi. As part of the Triennial 

BWP, there are three separate elements focused on: 

 Project 13.1 - Economic values of recreational resources in GLCN and GRCA. Anytime the Federal 

Government proposes to survey the public for information, an OMB process is required. The Federal 

Register notice announcing the intent ended about a month ago. There have been questions and 

comments from stakeholders and Lucas Bair has responded to those. Lucas is currently gathering contact 

information for recreational users. 

 Project 13.2 - Tribal perspectives for values of resources downstream of GCD. Gathering information from 

tribes and tribal members is sensitive, more groundwork is necessary and the start date postponed. Lucas 

continues to work with the tribes. 

 Project 13.3 - Applied decision methods for the GCDAMP. Lucas is working with Dr. Charles Yackulic on 

development of a bioeconomic model to identify the economically preferred management strategy for 

established nonnative fish in relation to HBC survival. 

Lake Mead Water Quality (Attachment 7) – Dr. Todd Tietjen. The Southern Nevada Water Authority 

was founded as a cooperative agency in 1991. Water quality at Lake Mead is pretty good. However, last 

summer there were dissolved oxygen (DO) issues. In the past, the conditions in the Colorado River have 

replenished much of the oxygen during years without complete mixing. Oxygen is of interest to other 

stakeholders (LMNRA, NDOW, etc.) as there are water quality standards to be met, and the SNWA 

drinking water treatment process is optimized to treat oxygenated waters. In 2014 temperatures were 

much warmer which due to the density of the inflowing river water placement in the lake. The warmer 

water kept the Colorado River water at the surface for a longer period of time. By mid-May 2014 low 

oxygen conditions started occurring but the cold water from the river replenished the oxygen. By June 

the DO percent saturation was down in the low 20% and by the end of the month the first anoxic 

measurements were recorded. This continued for the next several months, it started to improve by 

September due to lake cooling but in October there was still an extensive reach with low DO 

concentrations. By December things improved except the Colorado River water was not moving to the 

bottom of the lake. This could compound the problem this year because starting at 40% rather than 60-

80%, makes it more likely to reach anoxic conditions. With warmer river temperatures, either through 

drought, regional warming and climate change or through experimental manipulation, this is likely to 

continue. 

Conclusions: 

 Upstream temperatures can have significant impacts on DO concentrations in Lake Mead 

 Cold river temperatures can alleviate or reduce low DO conditions 

 Higher river temperatures keep the Colorado River higher in the water column 

 Significant repeated anoxic conditions in upper Lake Mead have the potential to significantly alter 

phosphorous dynamics 

Proposed AMP Socioeconomics Program (Attachment 8) – Ms. Leslie James. In 2013 and 2014, four 

aspects of economic analysis moved forward through the LTEMP EIS process: 

 a regional impact analysis under Argonne National Laboratories (ANL) 

 an economic analysis of the net value of recreation led by Dr. David Harpman (USBR) 

 an economic analysis of hydropower at ANL 

 a non-use value survey led by Dr. Bruce Peacock (NPS) 

A socioeconomics program that includes recreation, tribal and decision analysis, led by Mr. Lucas Bair 

(GCMRC), has been is in the FY 2015-17 Triennial Work Plan. The SEAHG is currently evaluating and 

updating the current activities and status of Table 1 and 2. The TWG has reviewed the Information 

Needs and Program Elements of the AMP socioeconomic program as updated 2/6/15 and presented to 

AMWG on 2/26/15. The TWG recommends that the SEAHG and GCMRC: (a) continue to provide, 

develop and recommend information to the TWG on implementation of the AMP socioeconomic program, 

including status, costs and timing of the program elements, and (b) work with AMP stakeholders and who 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical  Work Group

Final Minutes of April 21‐22, 2015, Meeting Page 6

may be conducting socioeconomic analyses in other forums, to enhance collaboration on AMP 

socioeconomic program information. 

Traditional Ecological Knowledge – Ms. Sarah Rinkevich. Referring to the paper, “Problems with 

Integrating Traditional Ecological Knowledge into Contemporary Resource Management” (Attachment 

9a), the author points out the question should not be so much as “how” to integrate TEK into resource 

management but how to integrate the TEK “holders.” She suggested the TWG think about that concept. 

 Southern Paiute Vegetation and Cultural Resource Monitoring Program (Attachment 9b) – Mr. Charley 

Bulletts. Eighteen sites were monitored on separate trips. Monitoring includes the elders observations of 

the scenery, plants, nutrients and the surrounding area. Results from four consecutive monitoring trips in 

South Canyon show an increase in sediment as well as a vegetation change and the effects of the tamarisk 

beetle. 

 Using TEK and Historical/Repeat Photographs to Monitor Ecological Change along the River Corridor – Mr. 

Peter Bungart. The Hualapai monitoring trips involve checking on archaeological sites, providing 

opportunity for new participants to learn about the canyon, and visiting plant gathering places. Since the 

HFE Protocol was implemented, it also includes the HFEs effect. TEK has been passed through 

generations and it integrates the TEK holders in determining how they can actively participate in helping 

make management decisions and return to being stewards of the land. Photo matching has been done 

since the early 1970s and most recently includes HFE effects. 

 GCMRC Project 12 (Attachment 9c) ̶ Ms. Helen Fairley. Plants have cultural, biological and scientific 

values. Native Americans traditionally used (and still rely on) plants for food, medicine, ceremonies and 

ulitarian items. Plants contribute to the value of many Traditional Cultural Properties. Project 12 attempts to 

link TEK with western science through compiling a variety of existing information that documents changes 

in the abundance and distribution of culturally-valued riparian plants of mutual interest to tribes and 

scientists, then assesses how those changes affect TCPs and other cultural values. 

Public Comment: None 

Adjourned: 4 p.m.
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Meeting 

April 21-22, 2015 

Conducting: Vineetha Kartha, TWG Chair Convened: 8:10 a.m.

 Shane Capron, TWG Vice-Chair 

Committee Members/Alternates Present: 

Jan Balsom, NPS/GRCA 

Cliff Barrett, UAMPS 

Charley Bulletts, So. Paiute Consortium 

Kerry Christensen, Hualapai Tribe 

Kevin Dahl, National Parks Conservation Assn. 

Bill Davis, CREDA 

Kurt Dongoske, Pueblo of Zuni 

Craig Ellsworth, WAPA 

Evelyn Erlandsen, State of Arizona 

Paul Harms, State of New Mexico 

Loretta Jackson-Kelly, Hualapai Tribe 

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

Glen Knowles, Bureau of Reclamation 

Ted Kowalski, Colo. Water Conservation Board 

Jerry Myers, Federation of Fly Fishers 

Jessica Neuwerth, State of California 

Don Ostler, representing Wyoming & New Mexico 

Larry Stevens, Grand Canyon Wildlands Council 

Bill Stewart, Arizona Game and Fish Dept. 

Jason Thiriot, State of Nevada 

Michael Yeatts, Hopi Tribe 

Kirk Young, FWS 

Committee Members Absent: 

Kerry Christensen, Hualapai Tribe 

Jerry Lee Cox, Grand Canyon River Guides 

Chris Harris, State of California 

Chip Lewis, Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Robert King, State of Utah 

Steve Wolff, State of Wyoming

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center: 

Helen Fairley, Social Scientist 

Kyrie Fry, Communications Coordinator 

Scott VanderKooi, Biology Program Manager 

Interested Persons

Brandon Albrecht, Bio-West 

Mark Anderson, NPS (phone) 

Mary Barger, Bureau of Reclamation 

Rob Billerbeck, NPS (phone) 

Howard Brandenberg, 

Peter Bungart, Hualapai Tribe 

Bill Chada, Bureau of Reclamation 

Marianne Crawford, Bureau of Reclamation 

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

Brian Healy, NPS 

Beverley Heffernan, Bureau of Reclamation 

Leslie James, CREDA 

Ora Marek-Martinez, Navajo Nation 

Mark McKinstry, Bureau of Reclamation 

Lisa Meyer, WAPA (phone) 

Joe Miller, Trout Unlimited 

Clayton Palmer, WAPA (phone) 

Jenika Raub, Salt River Project (phone) 

Dr. Sarah Rinkevich, Joint Tribal Liaison 

Seth Shanahan, SNWA 

Carol Silva, Center for Energy, Security 

 & Society (phone) 

Hank Jenkins-Smith, Center for Energy, 

 Security & Society (phone) 

Rosemary Sucec, NPS (phone) 

Todd Tietjen, SNWA

Meeting Recorder: Linda Whetton 

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

made and a quorum determined. With three critical items for discussion at the next TWG meeting (2016 

budget, 2016 hydrograph, and TWG Chair election), it was decided to hold the meeting via a webinar on 

June 11. 

Hydropower Non Market Study (Attachment 10a) – Mr. Hank Jenkins-Smith. Hydropower is broadly 

perceived to be a stable, domestic, and renewable form of energy, yet studies of social preferences 

indicate there is a willingness to pay to reduce reliance on hydropower. GCD was proposed as a basis 

for evaluating assets on valuation of nonmarket effects with changes in GCD operations. A pilot study 

demonstrates the public willingness to pay for changes in dam operations is more complex than has 

been portrayed in earlier CV studies. Prior measures of non-market and non-use values for changes in 

the operation of the GCD may have substantially over-estimated public WTP for such changes. A 

broader implication is that the characterization and measurement of non-market values for hydropower 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical  Work Group

Final Minutes of April 21‐22, 2015, Meeting Page 8

operations, and for the operation of the systems of generators on dams in major U.S. rivers, will require 

an approach that recognizes that operations have institutional arrangements which communities and 

individuals have adapted to. Changes may disrupt communities, their ways of life, and may therefore 

engage societal non-market values in ways not captured in traditional studies. If policy makers are to 

take into account fairness and the social externalities associated with those communities that have 

adapted to existing institutional arrangements of management of modern rivers, a more balanced and 

inclusive approach of measurement of non-market values is required. 

Non Market Values Hydropower & Water ̶ Mr. Clayton Palmer. The SEAHG identified a need for 

information on market, non-market and non-use values associated with Glen Canyon electrical power. 

On August 12, 2012, LTEMP co-leads sent a letter that “... There are a few studies that the team 

envisions a role for . . . such as a non-use survey for hydropower. . .” Western tasked Dr. John Loomis to 

explore the economic theory of the basis for non-market values of hydropower and water including a 

literature search on research related to non-market values for hydropower and water. Western also 

tasked the University of Oklahoma and Sandia National Laboratory with: (1) The conceptual 

development of key concerns about the basis for understanding and measuring non-market values for 

hydropower, and (2) An analytical report based on OU Data that evaluates the implications of these key 

concerns and variations in non-market valuations of hydropower. Western provided a report 

(Attachment 10b) which was peer reviewed by GCMRC. Western is now engaged in further exploration 

and the implications of evaluating hydropower. A summary will be provided for the LTEMP EIS as well as 

additional work relative to the dollars obligated on a task as described to Sandia National Laboratories. A 

science plan will be developed for further study. 

ACTION ITEM: A SEAHG conference call will be arranged with Mr. Jenkins-Smith before the next 

AMWG meeting to field additional questions on his study. Time will also be set aside for a Project 13.3 

update from Lucas Bair and Charles Yackulic. 

Glen Canyon Tailwater Fishery – Integrating Fish and Channel Mapping Data (Attachment 11) – 

Dr. Ted Melis. 

 Channel topography collected during Nov 2014 HFE. Additional data are still being collected and 

merged with Project 3 to fill in “holes.” 

 Topography from a greater height in the 2009 overflight showed imagery after vegetation was 

removed. 

 Two data sets must be merged for a full channel topographic map (yet to be completed in 

2015)and the project should be completed in 2015. 

The multi-beam crew collected data in the “hidden slough” area. Approximately 95% of the channel has 

been imaged using the multi-beam system. Additional line-by-line editing of the data is required to get rid 

of artifacts and errors, but for the most part this data set is considered very clean and should be ready to 

work with in summer 2015. The data will be used to help design experimental hydrographs for LTEMP 

trout management flows. Side-sonar may be used to map bed textures in the tailwater fishery segment 

and aquatic vegetation in Glen Canyon. 

Conclusions: 

 Channel Mapping- fish & flow modelling is progressing toward answering integrated management 

questions 

 Lees Ferry tailwater fishery - trout abundance & condition is influenced by dam operations & downstream 

movements 

 Achieving sediment conservation objectives in Marble Canyon may be an effective strategy for mitigating 

trout below Lees Ferry by retaining new fine sediment and avoiding sand deficits. 

 Flows that promote sandbars and limit sand export during periods of higher average sand inputs & lower 

average annual dam releases (2013-14) appear to have limited larger rainbow trout success in Grand 

Canyon. 

 Warmer fall water temperatures, sandier channel bed areas, and more turbidity in fall/winter is associated 

with recent declining trout downstream 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical  Work Group

Final Minutes of April 21‐22, 2015, Meeting Page 9

Trout Individual Based Model (IBM) (Attachment 12) – Dr. Kirk LaGory. The IBM was developed by 

Steve Railsback of Humboldt Steve University and Bret Harvey with the USFS. It has been applied 

successfully to a number of fisheries-related problems within the Colorado Basin. The benefits of IBM 

models are: (1) they can identify critical uncertainties that affect model results, (2) help understand 

consequences of beliefs and assumptions, (3) aid in planning adaptive management experiments and 

foresee consequences, and (4) guide designing good management policies. The application of 

inSTREAM-SD was originally developed at Flaming Gorge Dam as a tool to address ongoing 

management issues such as the effects of fluctuations on trout, effects of winter double-peaking on trout, 

and how the effects vary with the hydrologic condition. Initial simulations prompted development of a 5-

year study plan to perform analysis of condition data from 1990-2014 to examine effects of flows on 

condition, test effects of fluctuation on drift abundance and foraging behavior and diet. The results of the 

study were used to change operations and update the model. The inSTREAM-SD could be used at GCD 

to evaluate a number of effects of equalization flows on trout production, effects of LSSF on trout 

production, effects of HFEs on trout production, and understanding factors leading to current population 

status. 

Next steps: 

 Determine level of interest in application at Glen Canyon 

 Can the model be modified for application at the Glen Canyon scale? 

 Identify reaches of interest within Glen Canyon 

 Assess availability of data 

 Identify important modeling questions to be addressed by the model 

GCMRC’s Online Mapping and GIS Resources (Attachment 13) – Mr. Tom Gushue, GIS Coordinator 

at GCMRC. The GIS team has been involved in fisheries work, geomorphology, sandbar monitoring, and 

photogrammetry of 1984 B&W aerial photolography. Cross-referencing fish data from 10-15 years ago 

has supported fish monitoring efforts. Additional information can be found at: 

ScienceBase Data Catalog (USGS) https://www.sciencebase.gov/catalog/item/55366b 

Links to custom, web-based applications that 

highlight GCMRC science 

http://www.gcmrc.gov/dasa/

Web accessible folder for downloading http://www.gcmrc.gov/geospatial/data/ 

Recent Trout Data from Lees Ferry (Attachment 14) – Mr. Bill Stewart. Last October the AZGFD 

received calls about dying fish at Lees Ferry. Long-term monitoring has been done since 1991 and the 

entire length of Lees Ferry is surveyed three times a year. Lake Powell turns over about the end of 

November and the dissolved oxygen levels start to ramp up. Warmer water temperatures occurred this 

past fall and the DO levels started to get low and contributed to the fish dying at Lees Ferry. 

Current Status: 

 Spring e-fishing CPUE declining since 2012, but still above mid-2000 levels 

 Spring fish condition lowest since 1991 

 Anger catch rates dropping, but still high for boat anglers, low for walk-in anglers 

Lees Ferry and Marble Canyon Rainbow Trout Update – Mr. Scott VanderKooi 

Preliminary Findings: 

 Rainbow Trout 

 Decline in abundance at all Natal Origins sampling reaches (Sept. 2014 – Jan. 2015) 

 Low redd counts to date, similar to 2010 

 >80 % decline in abundance in Glen Canyon since spring 2012 

o Initially due to declines in numbers of small fish, but recent changes due to fewer large fish 

 Initial observations from April trip 

 Continued declines in catches in most reaches; greatest change upstream, little change near LCR 

confluence 

 Apparent shift in size/age structure, now dominated by small/young fish 

 Condition of smaller fish appears to be good, need to review data to confirm 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical  Work Group

Final Minutes of April 21‐22, 2015, Meeting Page 10

Lees Ferry Recreational Trout Fishery (Attachment 15) – Mr. John Hamill. Two years ago 

recreational fishing interests involved in this program recognized the need for a Lees Ferry trout fishery 

plan. The NPS CFMP provided some goals recognizing the importance of the fishery and allowing for 

stocking under certain conditions but it didn’t include enhancement or maintainance of a quality trout 

fishery. There may have been jurisdictional issues among the federal agencies that prevented 

developing a plan, consequently the recreational fisheries decided something had to be done. In 

consultation with AZGFD, GCMRC, and the Lees Ferry guides, goals and a set of recommendations 

were developed. 

Conclusions: 

 Proactive effort to identify actions to maintain/enhance the trout fishery without impacting native fish 

downriver. 

 Recommendations effectively balance Colorado River resource values below Glen Canyon Dam 

 Tier off the NPS Fishery Plan and GCD AMP Desired Future Conditions 

 Plan will guide input to the EIS and Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report 

 A draft plan will be available for review by May 1, and finalized by June 15. 

The AZGFD will incorporate this plan into their management plan and take to the Arizona Game and Fish 

Commission. 

Concerns: 

 Be careful about considering equalization flows and spring HFEs in a future plan when recruitment can’t be 

controlled. 

 Document and systematically identify what the habitat needs are and determine if those conditions are 

available. Information isn’t in the literature. 

 Need to look at other methods than mechanical removal. 

 Jurisdiction with the NPS is there; the recommendations seem to be in conflict. 

 Two recommendations have management actions that go against Zuni values in the Canyon. Trout 

reproduction in Lees Ferry is encouraged, but how will they be kept there? 

 If the young fish are doing well how long do we wait to see if the population is coming back? 

Public Comment: None 

Adjourned: 2:20P 

Next Meeting: 

(Th) June 11, 2015 via webinar 

11AM MDT and 10AM AZ Time 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 Linda Whetton 

 Upper Colorado Region 

 Bureau of Reclamation 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical  Work Group

Final Minutes of April 21‐22, 2015, Meeting Page 11

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 

WY – Water Year