Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Meeting Conference Call 

July 27, 2010 

Conducting: Shane Capron, Chairperson Convened: 9 a.m. (MDT)

Committee Members/Alternates Present: 

Jan Balsom, GCNP (alternate) 

Cliff Barrett, UAMPS 

Perri Benemelis, ADWR (alternate) 

Jerry Lee Cox, Grand Canyon River Guides 

William Davis, CREDA 

Christopher Harris, Colorado River Board/CA 

Rick Johnson, Grand Canyon Trust 

Robert King, UDWR 

Glen Knowles, USBR 

Ted Kowalski, CWCB (alternate) 

Emily Omana, GCWC (alternate) 

Don Ostler, UCRC (alternate for NM) 

Clayton Palmer, WAPA 

John Shields, Wyoming State Engineer’s Office 

Sam Spiller, USFWS (alternate) 

Bill Stewart, AGFD 

Jason Thiriot, Colo. River Comm./NV (alternate) 

Michael Yeatts, the Hopi Tribe 

Committee Members Absent: 

Charley Bulletts, Southern Paiute Consortium 

Kerry Christensen, Hualapai Tribe 

Kurt Dongoske, Pueblo of Zuni 

Paul Harms, NM Interstate Stream Commission 

Norm Henderson, NPS/GCNRA 

Amy Heuslein, BIA 

Tony H. Joe, Jr., Navajo Nation 

John Jordan, Federation of Fly Fishers 

Larry Stevens, Grand Canyon Wildlands Council

InterestedPersons: 

Patti Aaron, DOI 

Deanna Archuleta, DOI 

Mary Barger, WAPA 

Lori Caramanian, DOI 

George Caan, Colorado River Comm./NV 

Marianne Crawford, USBR 

Helen Fairley, USGS/GCMRC 

Dave Garrett, Science Advisors 

Paul Grams, USGS/GCMRC 

Martha Hahn, GCNP 

John Hamill, USGS/GCMRC 

Leslie James, CREDA 

Mary Killeen, GCNP 

Dennis Kubly, USBR 

Steve Martin, GCNP 

Tricia McCraw, ADWR 

Barbara McKenzie, USGS/GCMRC 

Ted Melis, USGS/GCMRC 

Gopaul Noojibail, GCNP 

McClain Peterson, Colorado River Comm./NV 

Larry Riley, AGFD 

Pam Sponholtz, USFWS 

Larry Voyles, AGFD 

Palma Wilson, GCNP

Meeting Recorder: Linda Whetton 

Administrative: Shane welcomed the members and said the conference call would focus on three 

issues: 1) the Socioeconomics AHG Report and a possible motion, 2) the General Core Monitoring Plan 

AHG Report and a possible motion, and 3) a recommendation of a hydrograph for the AMWG to 

consider. He reviewed the attachments that were sent out in an e-mail yesterday. Due to the subject 

matter and the time allotted to discuss the individual topics, he cautioned that some discussions may be 

limited. 

Socioeconomic AHG Report (Attachment A). Shane said the report has been worked on by the TWG 

over the past four meetings. The group came up with a proposal but not everyone agreed with it. He said 

Norm Henderson decided at the last minute that he couldn’t support it. Even though it’s not a perfect 

document, Shane said it was a good compromise. He reviewed the following changes: 

In general, the ad hoc supports a phased approach as described below: 

a) In FY 2011 and 2012 implement the most expedient action items including the Base Case, and Change 

Case for electrical power, and Recreation Expenditure analyses. These have been identified as the most 

expedient items, can likely be implemented without substantial costs to the program in these years, and 

represents “low hanging” fruit to get the process moving. 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 2 

DRAFT Minutes of July 27, 2010, Conference Call 

b) In FY 2011 and 2012, begin the work of educating the program about market and non-market recreation

economics, and utilize experts as needed to scope out the appropriate non-market (e.g., willingness to pay) 

economic work to be done and how specifically to do that in order to implement the workshop 

recommendations while tailoring those to the needs of the GCDAMP. This would include the “economics 

101” course for TWG and AMWG, as well as GCMRC working with other appropriate experts to develop a 

non-market economics study plan for the program. 

c) In FY 2012, or as soon as the non-market recreation planning is completed and satisfactory to the 

GCDAMP, begin implementation of the non-market recreational portion of these recommendations.

Shane said the other studies the AHG would like to do were listed at the bottom of the second page. He 

asked the AHG members if they wanted to make any comments. Helen said she thought the “recreation 

surveys of Glen Canyon anglers and day-use rafters” was already being covered by what was said 

earlier in the document. Shane said he kept it in to ensure people understood that it was something they 

wanted to have implemented. He said that under “c” it may or may not happen within the next budget 

cycle by FY12 so he wanted it carried over for further consideration. He feels it’s something the TWG will 

be working on for awhile and doesn’t want it dropped. 

There was discussion about the study plan GCMRC was to develop that would incorporate both market 

and non-market activities over the next two years. Helen said she hadn’t received clear direction on 

doing anything non-market wise until the market work has been done. Shane clarified there are three 

things to be done: 1) base case analysis, 2) power market analysis, and the change case power 

modeling analysis. He also said the recreation expenditures analysis would need to be done. Don said 

he recalled a commitment that there would be an analysis done of the 1996 ROD power conditions. 

Shane said that would be done under the change case analysis. 

John Hamill asked that if the TWG were to adopt the recommendation as a motion, which basically 

directs a whole new economics initiative beyond what’s currently outlined in the FY11-12 budget, then 

are they reprioritizing the FY11-12 budget to accomplish the tasks that are outlined. Shane said it was 

his understanding the TWG would not. He said that when this was started, Anne Castle asked that the 

socioeconomics recommendation be on a separate track to be considered in August and that AMWG 

would consider how to implement those recommendations financially into the program. The TWG’s job 

was to make recommendations based on what type of activities were thought to be beneficial from the 

recommendations. He sees them somewhat based on Anne’s request. John said it didn’t make sense to 

him in that the AMWG wouldn’t have sufficient time to discuss and be able to reprioritize the budget. 

Clayton said the AHG had long discussions about whether they should engage in a budgetary discussion 

and from time to time they talked about whether there was money available/not available. He said there 

was a budget related comment on page two in which it talks about doing the recreation expenditure and 

it says the project described would replace project 9.04.11-12. He said he understood John’s point and 

thinks that TWG could discuss further. He said there was agreement that what they were trying to pass 

on was what they recommended from the report. He said that there are years attached to it and was a 

compromise because some members of the AHG wanted to make sure the work got done. John said that 

the TWG’s recommendation was to get the work done in FY10-11 and the motion implies that. As such, 

he thought there needs to be some recommendations for how they would fund the work. Clayton said the 

AHG is recommending a power based case and a power change case analysis to be done by Western at 

no cost to GCMRC except for the development of the task and the peer review work. He said that may 

have a budgetary impact. He said there is a recreational expenditure analysis in which GCMRC project 

9.04.11-12 is dropped and this one put in its place. There is a question as to whether that project has 

adequate funding to accomplish the task. The economics 101 is proposed but Helen said earlier that she 

was hopeful there might be some DOE and DOI recreational economists and others that would help put 

the workshop together at no cost to GCMRC. He said the only real budgetary problem is the 

development of the non-market recreational study. John said there is also no money in the FY11 or FY12 

budget for the market-based studies. Clayton said the power economics market studies the GCMRC 

budgetary implications are for the development for the task and the peer review process but not for the 

modeling itself which would be done by Western at no cost to GCMRC. He added that for the 

recreational analysis the AHG recommended having that analysis done in place of project 9.04.11-12. 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 3 

DRAFT Minutes of July 27, 2010, Conference Call 

Shane said he didn’t have the minutes from the last AMWG meeting when the request was made but that 

the TWG had discussed the issue at the March meeting and these two items were to be on two separate 

tracks, the budget and the socioeconomics recommendation. It was his understanding from the 

beginning that the TWG wasn’t suppose to consider reprioritizing things or dovetailing it into the budget, 

that they were asked to do this on a separate approach which was to determine what would be feasible, 

pros and cons, and what they would recommend implementing and then let AMWG discuss whether they 

wanted these reprioritized in the budget to do the work. He said that he thought a lot of the work was 

done at no cost to fit it in but said there are some things that will have associated costs and that the TWG 

needs to wait and hear from the AMWG to see whether they support this and if the budget needs to 

reprioritized to fund the items. 

Shane asked if the TWG wanted to consider the following motion: 

Proposed Motion: The TWG has received the report entitled "Final Report of the GCMRC 

Socioeconomic Research Review Panel" dated February 26, 2010. The TWG has discussed the 

workshop recommendations related to electrical power production and recreation surveys. The TWG 

intends to more fully consider the workshop report and all the recommendations after the August AMWG 

meeting, but acknowledges the need to make immediate recommendations now for the FY 2011 and 

2012 BWPH. 

Discussion. 

In getting to John’s concern, Ted suggested that rather than saying “the ad hoc” or “the TWG” support 

the phased approached as described below just add the words “as the budget allows” or something to 

that effect to recognize that this doesn’t deal with all the budgetary constraints and that has to be brought 

out during the budget conversation as well. Perri said she agreed and wondered if for those items that 

they believe there is sufficient funding in the budget to cover, it may be appropriate to keep the fiscal 

year information in there but perhaps for those other items, like “b” and “c” there should be some 

substitute language, pulling out the dates, and just say something more general about moving forward 

expeditiously while the TWG tries to develop more information about the budget implications of those 

items. Shane said he appreciated the comments and noted that the AHG worked very hard to craft the 

motion. He said the reason the years are even in the report is to assure some members that some of 

these issues won’t get dropped off the table for 3, 4, or 5 years. He said the main reason to have it is to 

describe the process for how the TWG would recommend that things get implemented over time. In 

hoping to hold the coalition together, Shane said that perhaps they add a sentence to deal with the 

budget issue in the first paragraph instead. He offered something like “The TWG acknowledges that we 

have not considered fully the budgetary implications of implementing of this plan.” Ted and Cliff said the 

language sounded reasonable to them. John said that Helen pointed out to him that what is proposed 

under item “a” is different than what’s in the current work plan for the power economics portion. He said 

what they had planned for FY11 was an evaluation of the model of GTMax. He said there was a 

workshop planned in FY11 but the actual modeling would not be done until FY12. He said the motion 

seems to add everything up to the FY11 timeframe and he felt GCMRC would need to restructure the 

current work plan to accommodate it and there might be additional resources to accomplish that as well. 

Clayton said by adding the sentence Shane suggested about the budgetary implications would satisfy 

John’s concerns. Shane said that in the paragraph under the FY2012 biennial work plan and hydrograph 

section, the following sentence could be added, “TWG acknowledges that we have not fully considered 

the budgetary implications of implementing this plan.” Glen expressed concern that the TWG was 

“punting” a decision to the TWG and felt it was the TWG’s responsibility is to make changes but also 

provide information about how that affects the budget. Shane said he made that case to the AMWG at 

the February meeting. His recollection was they were not allowed to dovetail this into the budget and that 

they were to be done on separate tracks and leave that discussion about implementation to a later date 

or to the AMWG. 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 4 

DRAFT Minutes of July 27, 2010, Conference Call 

The following comments were extracted from AMWG Feb. 3-4, 2010, Meeting: Ms. Castle said the 

AMWG would need to see a more complete description of what the socioeconomic Phase I would look 

like and what would be proposed for funding and any potential tradeoffs that might be done with the 

same money. She didn’t feel the program was ready for a policy decision on a particular budget line item 

for this coming year and that more refinement was needed in terms of the report from the workshop, 

evaluation by the TWG for a particular program going forward, and then further discussion by the 

AMWG. Ms. Castle said she would talk to Shane offline about direction for the TWG after the report was 

completed. 

Shane said at this point in time the AMWG is expecting a motion with a recommendation on how to 

implement the work. He said that if they wanted to make budget changes, then the call would need to be 

terminated so they work on it more and then come back for final resolution. Ted said that in addressing 

his and Perri’s concerns, saying that “recognizing that this doesn’t account for budgetary constraints or 

that additional budgetary movement would have to occur to effectuate all these,” he was sensitive that 

Shane had a definitive coalition coming forward with the proposal. He said that if the TWG is having to 

make a recommendation to the AMWG, then it’s a reality that they have to recognize that there are only 

a couple of things that can be done with the current budget that they’re recommending and the 

remainder of items to be done as the budget allows in the future. Shane said there wasn’t time to tinker 

with the budget and another meeting would need to be scheduled. Shane re-read the sentence he 

added, however, Ted felt it should be revised to read “accomplish the things below as the budget allows 

for” and then specifically with regard to “b” and “c,” take out the dates and just say as “expeditiously as 

possible” or something to that effect. Perri said she was also concerned because John brought up “a” 

and that there are some fatal flaws on what’s being proposed. Cliff said that before the TWG attempts to 

make budgetary changes, the AMWG should be asked if they want any of the work done and then 

proceed with making budget recommendations. Glen suggested going through the AMWG minutes and 

figure out what the direction was from Ms. Castle and adding a little more to his sentence indicating that 

if they want to do the work in FY11, it would take some budget recommendations from the AMWG. He 

said additional language could be included per Ms. Castle’s instruction. 

Shane read the revised addition to the motion: The TWG acknowledges that we have not fully 

considered the budgetary implications of implementing this plan. If AMWG approves implementing this 

plan, additional funds would be needed in FY11-12. This may require reprioritization of current funds. 

John reminded the group there is already $2 million in deferred projects and this work would also go into 

that list. Glen said part of Anne Castle’s charge to the TWG at the AMWG meeting was to discuss 

funding, tradeoffs in terms of funding, and advise the TWG to look at the report in light of the budget 

discussion in April. He didn’t want to derail the work the ad hoc group had done and said the sentence 

Shane provided addresses that but emphasized the AMWG expects the TWG to consider this in light of 

the budget. He said the recommendation was pretty well crafted for what could be done in FY11 and 

they’re not far away from implementing the work in FY11. When the budget is reviewed at the end of 

FY11 for FY12, Shane said the TWG might need to tweak the budget in FY12 to do the remaining work. 

He said it would be important to get the policy buy-in from the AMWG before going too much further. 

Motion (Proposed by Cliff Barrett, seconded by Perri Benemelis): The TWG has received the 

report entitled "Final Report of the GCMRC Socioeconomic Research Review Panel" dated February 

26, 2010. The TWG has discussed the workshop recommendations related to electrical power 

production and recreation surveys. The TWG intends to more fully consider the workshop report and all 

the recommendations after the August AMWG meeting, but acknowledges the need to make 

immediate recommendations now for the FY 2011 and 2012 BWPH. The TWG acknowledges that we 

have not fully considered the budgetary implications of implementing this plan. If AMWG approves 

implementing this plan, additional funds would be needed in 2011 and 2012, this may require reprioritization of current funds. 

In general, the TWG supports a phased approach as described below: 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 5 

DRAFT Minutes of July 27, 2010, Conference Call 

d) In FY 2011 and 2012 implement the most expedient action items including the Base Case, and 

Change Case for electrical power, and Recreation Expenditure analyses. These have been 

identified as the most expedient items, can likely be implemented without substantial costs to 

the program in these years, and represents “low hanging” fruit to get the process moving. 

e) In FY 2011 and 2012, begin the work of educating the program about market and non-market 

recreation economics, and utilize experts as needed to scope out the appropriate non-market 

(e.g., willingness to pay) economic work to be done and how specifically to do that in order to 

implement the workshop recommendations while tailoring those to the needs of the GCDAMP. 

This would include the “economics 101” course for TWG and AMWG, as well as GCMRC 

working with other appropriate experts to develop a non-market economics study plan for the 

program. 

f) In FY 2012, or as soon as the non-market recreation planning is completed and satisfactory to 

the GCDAMP, begin implementation of the non-market recreational portion of these 

recommendations. 

The TWG has developed the following recommendations. Additional expertise (and funding) may be 

needed at GCRMC to implement the following tasks: 

Base Case analysis: Implement the report recommendation to complete base and change case 

studies for hydroelectric operations in FY 2010. The detailed description of the base case study will be 

prepared by GCMRC,with input from WAPA and appropriate experts, based on the description in the 

Socioeconomic Panel's report and any additional specifications by the TWG/AMWG. This base case 

study will include an analysis of "spill over" with the WECC. The base case and spill over analysis will 

be completed by WAPA and a report prepared at no cost to the AMP. The report will be submitted by 

WAPA to GCMRC for peer review. GCMRC will oversee the peer review process and use the Science 

Advisors (i.e., Dave Garrett or other expert) as needed. WAPA will incorporate changes into the report 

based on comments received from the peer review process. 

 

Include the funding and the need as a line item in the 2011/12 budget, workplan and hydrograph. 

Change Case analysis (power modeling): will be done by WAPA based on tasks provided by 

GCMRC, developed by GCMRC with input from WAPA and appropriate experts , based on the 

description in the Socioeconomic Panel's report and any additional specifications by the TWG/AMWG. 

Recreation Expenditure analysis (market): We recommend that an analysis of data related to the 

regional economic effects of GCD experiments and other DOI actions be undertaken. This analysis 

would be devoted to the impact on the regional economy as a result of changes in expenditures 

resulting from these actions. 

The groups of interest for this study would be Glen Canyon day use rafters and anglers and Grand 

Canyon Whitewater rafting of commercial and private boaters from Lees Ferry to Diamond Creek or 

Lake Mead and the Hualapai white water recreational enterprise that services Diamond Creek to Lake 

Mead. 

This expenditure data can be used in the IMPLAN regional input-output model to estimate the positive 

economic impacts to the surrounding counties and Indian Reservations in terms of direct and indirect 

personal income and employment generated. Indirect effects would capture the multiplier effects from 

subsequent rounds of spending in the surrounding region. Separate interviews with the guides and the 

tribes will be needed to obtain their expenditures associated with the guiding, access fees, food, and 

other costs. We recommend that the economic impact analysis use two impact areas. For consistency 

with past research, it would be appropriate to use the counties surrounding the Grand Canyon. 

However, since many outfitters have their base of operation in Nevada or Salt Lake City, it would be 

appropriate to show results using a broader multi-state economic impact area (Report page 16). This 

project would replace GCMRC Project 9.04.11-12. 

Provide training to AMP stakeholders on use and non-use values: (implement in FY 2011 or 

2012), economics 101 as described in the report. To be organized and hosted by GCRMC with 

financial support from WAPA. 

Other studies including non-market recreation studies which will be considered further during 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 6 

DRAFT Minutes of July 27, 2010, Conference Call 

the ad hocs review of the report and implemented under the time frame described above: 

a) Implement non-market recreation surveys of Glen Canyon anglers and day-use rafters

b) Identify tribes and consider specific surveys of preferences and attitudes 

c) Conduct power flow studies that show the financial and economic consequences of Glen 

Canyon management alternatives on WAPA, WAPA customers, and the Upper Basin Fund

d) Conduct focus groups and piloting of non-use value survey (initiate OMB clearance)

Stakeholder Vote Stakeholder Vote

Arizona Game and Fish Dept. (Stewart) A Grand Canyon Wildlands Council (Omana) N 

Bureau of Indian Affairs absent Federation of Fly Fishers (Jordan) absent 

Bureau of Reclamation (Knowles) N Grand Canyon River Guides (Cox) Y 

Hopi Tribe (Yeatts) N Arizona (Benemelis) N 

Hualapai Tribe absent California (Harris) N 

National Park Service – GRCA absent Colorado (Kowalski) N 

National Park Service – GLNRA absent Nevada (Thiriot) Y 

Navajo Nation absent New Mexico (Ostler) Y 

Pueblo of Zuni absent Utah (King) Y 

Southern Paiute Consortium absent Wyoming (Shields) Y 

Fish and Wildlife Service (Spiller) A CREDA (James) Y 

WAPA (Palmer) Y UAMPS (Barrett) Y 

Grand Canyon Trust (Johnson) N 

Voting Results: Yes = 8 No = 7 Abstaining =2 

Motion Passes 

Abstentions count toward the quorum, but not the vote. For example, if 20 TWG members are present then a 

quorum is present (quorum=16). If the vote is 3-0-17 (that is 3 yeas, 0 nays, and 17 abstentions), the motion 

passes because abstentions are non-votes for all purposes other than to establish a quorum. To explain further, 

the simple majority or two-thirds majority is based on all votes minus the abstentions. 

Shane asked those who voted “no” on the motion whether it was because of technical, financial, or other 

reasons. 

Glen Knowles: I didn’t think the AMWG really asked us to weigh in on the FY11 budget. I’m just concerned that it 

will create a much more difficult budget discussion and impair our ability to actually get to a budget motion that we 

can pass at AMWG. 

Rick Johnson: I actually support doing the work, but I don’t support having WAPA writing help. 

Ted Kowalski: I would support it if the dates were taken out explicitly. 

Mike Yeatts: I have the same feeling. In FY11 we’ve already seen so many budget changes that I’d need to know 

what’s being traded off to do the work. I support the studies and there are a couple of economic studies in there so 

I’m not even sure how the ones in there are going to relate or change based on these recommendations. There are 

a number of issues that need to be better clarified. 

Perri Benemelis: I agree with those comments and with Ted’s comment. 

Emily Omana: That was my feeling also. The studies are great, but I just don’t want it to become a deferred project. 

Shane advised the TWG members to inform their AMWG members in preparation for further discussion 

at the August meeting. He thanked the ad hoc group for all their hard work and the time devoted to 

working on this report. 

Dr. Garrett said the Science Advisors feel that a program of this size without a socioeconomics program 

is failing. He said the SAs also expressed appreciation for Shane’s efforts with the ad hoc group to 

shepherd this recommendation into a vote and try to move it forward. 

General Core Monitoring Plan (Attachment B). Shane said the charge was to review the Core 

Monitoring Plan and bring back a recommendation for TWG to consider. He said the ad hoc group 

reviewed the revised GCMP provided by GCMRC. He said the second paragraph states the ad hoc 

group felt that GCMRC was very responsive to including recommended changes in chapters 1-3, 

Appendix A, specifically to new concepts like criteria in developing programs prior to setting, confidence 

and adequacy to answer critical questions, tradeoff analyses, risk assessment, and those types of things 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 7 

DRAFT Minutes of July 27, 2010, Conference Call 

that were included in chapter 3. He said the ad hoc group felt that although they made some good 

direction on those things, there were some major policy differences of opinion between GCMRC, some 

TWG members and some ad hoc group members. Shane said the ad hoc group felt there were issues 

that needed to be raised to the AMWG policy level. He read a potential motion for the TWG’s 

consideration: 

Potential Motion. TWG recommends that AMWG consider the following changes to be requested in the 

draft General Core Monitoring Plan: 

1. Remove Chapter 4 which includes descriptions of the individual plans to be funded based on full 

implementation of the CMINs without priority setting. These individual plans will be developed in 

coordination with TWG. Also delete sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.4 which identify staffing needs and 

costs based on the plans in Chapter 4. 

2. Comments were provided by TWG of past discussions which envisioned a core monitoring 

program in the realm of 40-60% of the science budget; these recommendations were declined by 

GCMRC. TWG would like to develop a core monitoring program that uses trade-off analyses and 

risk assessment to develop a less-costly program than GCMRC has developed. This approach 

should be described in Chapter 1 (history) and implemented in Chapter 3 (planning). The general 

concept is to prioritize projects and implement a program that doesn’t include all the “ornaments” 

on the tree that is generally described by responding to all of the CMINs. Some of the work may 

be titled “core monitoring” and receive priority funding while other work may need to be funded as 

monitoring work which would be subject to biennial review based on availability of funds. 

3. GCMRC should work with TWG to more fully develop the management process described in 

Chapter 3, and as was described in the revision, to embrace a collaborative process to develop 

the core monitoring plans without bias in the outcomes of what will be funded and to what extent 

they will be funded. In other words, despite the fact that GCMRC and the GCDAMP have worked 

to develop broad programs, TWG believes that we now need to go back and re-evaluate needs, 

criteria, precision, frequency, and priorities for a core monitoring program. 

Helen said the original charge for the ad hoc group was to develop an appendix for the TWG to review 

which described a process for making recommendations to AMWG on the individual core monitoring 

plans that GCMRC developed. She didn’t think the ad hoc group had done that. Shane said they did 

more of the second part which was to review the revised draft plan from GCMRC and develop 

recommendations. He said the ad hoc group felt that a lot of the things were responsive, but they were at 

a loggerhead over some of the policy issues and before they could really move forward, they needed to 

elevate those to the AMWG. Helen said it sounded like he wanted to revise chapter 3 and incorporate it. 

It was her understanding that the ad hoc group was going to develop their own process for how they 

were going to take information and then make an actual decision about the plans. Shane said they didn’t 

get to that. Shane asked the other ad hoc members (Mary Barger, Norm Henderson, Glen Knowles, and 

Clayton Palmer) if they wanted to make any comments. 

Glen agreed with how Shane described ad hoc group‘s work. He said the group understood that part of 

their charge was to develop an appendix that would describe the process for how the TWG would act on 

individual core monitoring plans. In doing that they had to look at the entire plan and found that a lot of 

the existing program was already core monitoring. They felt it would be better to delete those sections 

which implied that some of the decisions had already been made. He thought it would be better to modify 

this to purely provide a process to do that instead of indicating that a lot of the work had already been 

done. 

John said the purpose of the core monitoring plan was to lay out programmatically where they were 

relative to monitoring for the program. It was to assist in long-term budget planning for the AMP 

recognizing that core monitoring is a major component of this program and it tends to consume a lot of 

the program’s budget. Laying out programmatically what the likely cost is based on what is currently 

known and what they’re currently doing would be useful so that the program could consider what the total 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 8 

DRAFT Minutes of July 27, 2010, Conference Call 

costs of implementing this program would be for doing things like socioeconomic work, decision support, 

high flow experimentation protocols, and management actions. To him laying out what the cost of 

monitoring would likely be based on 10 years of development work that has gone on and seemed like a 

very reasonable thing to support. He said it befuddled him that the ad hoc group would want to cut out 

the substantive parts of the core monitoring program. The core monitoring designation doesn’t occur until 

step 4 of the process. He said all this lays out is the information needs, the R&D that was funded, a 

general description of the programs as they are currently being implemented, and the likely cost for 

continuing to go down that road recognizing that step 4 of the process allows the TWG to refine those 

individual core monitoring plans to meet expectations and budget constraints. He said this was their 

current estimate and is a starting point. The idea was that the GCMP would be updated on a periodic 

basis, perhaps every 5 years, based on new information and as new needs like BFCs come forward. It’s 

not locked in concrete; it’s a dynamic plan that will adapt as the needs of this program adapt. He said it’s 

remarkable to him that they’ve been working on monitoring for almost 15 years and yet they don’t have a 

guiding plan for what they are doing. He feels it is a major step back if the descriptions of the plans as 

they currently exist are going to be cut out of what the long-term budget implications are. He said that’s 

going in the wrong direction and defeats the entire purpose of having the plan. He strongly disagreed 

with the direction that was laid out. 

Shane said that’s exactly why they’re at the point they are because they have a philosophical difference 

of opinion. He said there’s no sense in arguing it because they won’t be able to convince each other that 

either person is right. He said they really need to focus on getting to the decision-making process to 

accept the individual plans. He said he looks at it from the opposite perspective which is taking a step 

forward and not predetermining what the conclusions will be when walking through each of the 

processes but really focusing on a decision-making process so there can be core monitoring and that it 

allows the program the policy leeway of deciding how much the program wants to spend on core 

monitoring. He thinks the program is at the edge of accepting the core monitoring programs and what 

goes along which is that full consideration is given to things to be done and making sure that X amount 

of money is spent on programs and either full or partial implementation of the CMINs based on priorities 

determined by the program. He asked the TWG for their comments. 

Shane said it’s about 10:26 and the hydrograph discussion was scheduled for 10:30. He asked the TWG 

if they wanted to entertain the motion or have further discussion at the next TWG meeting. He said that 

currently this issue isn’t on the AMWG agenda and he didn’t know if there would be an opportunity to get 

on the agenda even if the TWG did make a recommendation. 

• There needs to be a way to recognize that you are spending a lot of money on a monitoring program right now. 

And maybe this plan should be restated to be a strategy to revise the monitoring plan to a core monitoring plan 

but somehow you have to start with what you’ve got. (Garrett) 

• Paragraph #3 on page 2 is in the form of a motion or at least could be fashioned as a motion that Dave Garrett 

has described and admonishes GCMRC to work with the TWG to more fully develop the management process 

described in chapter 3 and continue to work on the monitoring program.(Palmer) 

• The thing I was unwilling to do was arbitrarily reduce the scope of these programs without a thoughtful process 

to arrive at what a reasonable reduction would be. I think that needs to be done deliberatively. I think it needs to 

be done in the context of step 4 on each of these. Step 4 is where the TWG can weigh in and reduce the scope 

or the scale of any programs. (Hamill) 

Shane said he wanted to hear from more TWG members on the issue. 

• The details of this draft report by the ad hoc group are potentially disputable and John has some good ideas, 

but I do believe the policy issues that are inherent and the conversation between the TWG ad hoc group and 

GCMRC are policy issues that need to be taken to the AMWG. (Palmer) 

• With that in mind, Shane, I know that you probably know how much time is or is not available but the AMWG 

meeting indicated there isn’t much or any, but if you could get 15 minutes for you and John to be able to brief 

AMWG and have 5 minutes of discussion for some guidance that might help us as we proceed into working 

further on this in the next four months. (Spiller) 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 9 

DRAFT Minutes of July 27, 2010, Conference Call 

• I think it’s probably good that it’s not on the AMWG agenda because I would like to see this actually become 

something that we could address at the next actual TWG meeting rather than over the phone. I would certainly 

like to give it a little more thought before trying to vote on a motion, especially since it isn’t an agenda item on 

the AMWG meeting at this point. (Yeatts) 

Shane said further discussion/action could be moved to the next TWG meeting. Now that the ad hoc 

group has made the policy statement to the TWG, they can move to considering more of the stuff for a 

process and more of that first sentence in the charge of how TWG would help implement and make 

recommendations to AMWG on individual core monitoring plans. The ad hoc group could work more on 

that and have a full discussion at the next TWG meeting. There could also be more discussion with 

GCMRC staff and others about this and work out some of the issues. He said that at some point some of 

the issues will need to be elevated to the AMWG to get some policy direction on them, whether chapter 4 

is left in or not. He asked if anyone was opposed to the process of having the ad hoc continue working 

on the TWG process of approving the core monitoring plans as stated in the first sentence of the charge 

and perhaps having more interaction between the ad hoc group and GCMRC and then having a full 

discussion at the next TWG meeting. 

Perri said she felt that was a very reasonable approach. Shane asked if anyone was opposed to that. 

Dave said the science advisors would support the approach and added that he feels there is some 

friction between GCMRC and the TWG and that also needs to be worked out. He said the science 

advisors have certainly asked the managers to become strongly engaged and look at many approaches. 

He said the science advisors would like to be involved with GCMRC and the TWG on working on these 

issues. John said he would support having Dave involved in the ad hoc group as an advisor. Hearing 

those comments, Shane said the ad hoc group would continue to work on the report, work out some of 

the policy issues, work out the TWG role in the process, and come back to the TWG when things are 

more ironed out. 

Helen said she wanted to make a plea that people actually take the time to review the revised plan 

because it’s not always clear to her that everyone has done their homework and it would really facilitate a 

future discussion. 

John said they received 250 comments and he would send out the comments to response table to the 

TWG. 

Shane said that inherent in the process is a couple of policy issues and if they can find a way to 

implement those and come to an agreement. He said they may not be too far apart in agreeing on the 

policy issues if they can just figure out how to implement them and agree on the document. 

FY 2011 Proposed Hydrographs. Shane said there is a proposal from the DOI-DOE dated July 23, a 

document from Grand Canyon Trust for provisional recommendations for WY2011 hydrograph, and a 

figure showing the comparison of WY09 and the TWG proposal. He said that since Rick provided his 

recommendations awhile back and made notice of those in the last TWG meeting, he wanted Rick 

discuss his motion first and then move to the DOI-DOE proposal, and then ask for any other proposals. 

GCT Proposed Motion (Attachment C = Provisional Recommendation and E-mail Message dated July 

30, 2010). Rick said the first part is a rationale in an attempt to address the requirements of the GCPA to 

protect Park resources. When he first did this, he was looking at two possibilities for annual volumes of 

8.23 maf and a much higher year. He directed people to read the two bottom paragraphs for an 11.5 maf 

that is currently being projected. The GCT would recommend year-round steady flows because they are 

the only ones that would result in a positive mass balance of sediment in the Marble Canyon Eastern 

Grand Canyon based on the modeling work that was recently done by Scott Wright. He said if the 

forecast changes and there is an April adjustment, then the water would be prorated in order to maintain 

a stable pattern as much as possible. In addition to that, there would be high flow experiments that would 

be run if there is a sediment input and defer the criteria for triggering an HFE, either it would come from 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 10 

DRAFT Minutes of July 27, 2010, Conference Call 

the Protocol EA decision or if that’s not available, recommendations by GCMRC. He said it seems like 

recent evidence is suggesting that trout may do very well under steady flows and if that’s the case, then 

a control of non-native predators would go along with that but that would have to be deferred to GCMRC 

for their best judgment. He said the rationale for doing this is to align with Park values. From what he can 

tell, year-round steady flows and the pattern of monthly volumes would result in a positive mass balance. 

All the others would be negative. He said it would also align with the recommendation from the LTEP 

workshop on flows that are most likely to benefit HBC. Following additional discussion, Rick said he 

would make a motion using parts of the provisional hydrograph. 

DOI-DOE Operating Hydrograph Recommendation for Glen Canyon Dam. (Attachment D) Ms. 

Archuleta said she wanted to provide some clear background instructions for everyone to understand 

how DOI and DOE established a hydrograph recommendation. She provided the following information: 

The annual release volume established pursuant to the 2007 Interim Guideline. The annual hydrograph 

for 2011 provides a projection of operation given all applicable consideration and the variability in 

hydrograph, etc. Previously approved 2011 water year implementation of ongoing fall steady flow 

experiments unchanged supplies to October 2010 and September 2011. Operations within the remaining 

10-month period in 2011 water year. That would be November 2010 through August 2011 to be 

implemented consistent with the MLFF alternative selected within the 1996 GCD Record of Decision. 

Ongoing efforts to develop a high flow protocol as previously discussed with the AMWG, any 

modifications to the 2011 hydrograph for high flow tests will be based on completed high flow protocol 

which is in progress. They will continue to work within the Glen Canyon Dam AMP to identify actions and 

ongoing operations to mitigate adverse impacts to downstream resources in Grand Canyon National 

Park and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area during 2011 within Reclamation’s existing operation 

and environmental compliance framework. Allowing TWG members the opportunity to review and 

provide input to their AMWG representatives which allows AMWG members the opportunity to again 

review and potentially provide recommendations to DOI at the upcoming August 2010 meeting in 

Phoenix. She said the approach to the 2011 operation - its basic premise is scheduling releases to be 

within the concepts of the operating hydrograph recommendation. The monthly release volumes are to 

vary within the range of +/- 100 kaf, an average monthly release volume. To begin the initial projection 

annual release is based on the August 24-month study and will be reviewed and modified based on each 

24-month study. October and September is steady flows and are pre-set based on the annual projected 

release. To determine the monthly release volume one calculates the average monthly release by taking 

the projected annual release minimum, the October steady flow release minus the volumes released in 

all other previous months divided by the number of remaining months. The range of potential releases is 

determined by subtracting for the lower bound of range and adding for the upper bound of range, 100 kaf 

from or to the remaining average month’s release. For each month within the water year of 2011, a 

release value within the range of potential release is selected. In WY 2011 they’re shifting to a lower 

annual release which has significant probability. The annual operating approach is conservative leading 

Reclamation to select values at the bottom of the anticipated operational range. This approach reduces 

risk over releasing water early in the water year which, if the year turned dry, would result in an 

excessively low release for the remaining year and therefore disproportionately disadvantaging some 

DOI interests. She asked Malcolm Wilson (Chief, Water Resources Group in the UC Region) to provide 

additional information and/or answer questions. 

Q: What if the forecast is adjusted up during the course of the year? What if we have equalization releases that are 

implemented based on an evaluation in April of the year? (Benemelis) 

A: The concept here is to stay within the concepts of this operating hydrograph recommendation. In either case, 

what we were walking through was essentially the 2011 current forecast with a projected release of 11.5 maf. 

Whether things become drier later in the year or wetter, we would start the year basically very conservatively and 

walk through this process as again you have the annual forecast based on what we do today, the guideline, the 24-

month study for August. As Deanna explained, the range is established by taking out October and September 

releases. They are set already so you take the volume you’re going to release to take out October and September 

releases and then to establish that range, you say okay we’ve got this much left to release for the remainder of the 

year, divide it by the number of remaining months. In November you would have 11.5 maf less what is released or 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 11 

DRAFT Minutes of July 27, 2010, Conference Call 

in September divided by 10 remaining months and that would be your average and then you do the +/- 100,000 

acre floods to establish the range. Getting back to your point Perri, we would certainly be conservative in response 

to operating under these recommendations and under our current operation as well. We would be conservative 

probably through January or February because we don’t know prior to that really what we might get for runoff 

snowpack. The first few months would not change much in either an 11.5 maf which they are expecting today or 

11.5 maf and dry to trigger down to 3 in April, 4 and 11 flag going higher. You would see much change in the 

hydrograph or the graph in front of you. Certainly if in January, February, and into March for sure if we had 

projections of a higher year that were to occur, we would operate under the same calculations that Deanna laid out 

in the paper establishing that range of the +/- 100,000 and working within that. I would suggest that if it became a 

wetter year, we would have to look towards the latter part of April, May, Jun, July, and August and raise releases to 

make sure we could move the flow amounts way up to 13 and stay within that range. Note that because of the 

calculation what you have released in previous months affects the average you have to release for the remaining 

month. As you step through each month where you’re going from 11 to something higher, your range actually rises 

as well similar to what you see depicted on the graph before you. It would rise in a year that goes 11.5 or 13 more 

dramatically. (Wilson) 

Q: How do the proposed operating parameters change what you would’ve done anyways? (Johnson) 

A: I can give you some rough numbers of what we might’ve done or might do under current guidance, but 

recognize that anything we talk about here and the direction is certainly going to change based on hydrology 

forecasts and resulting projections for the year. If you started off the year on your best, look at the red bars here, 

492 kaf would be roughly where we start and that’s where the red bar is. We would probably hold back a bit more 

than the recommendations and the calculation of this range so in November we would probably be more on the 

order of 800. Then moving into December-January traditionally we do respond to power demand in the releases 

probably on the order of 950 for December and January. Again, going Feb-Mar-Apr they have lower power 

demands so Feb-Mar would be stepped back. (Wilson) 

Q: Can you provide a most probable release pattern for 2011 under ROD constraints and these proposed 

parameters? What would you project to do at the beginning of the year understanding things could change but give 

us the most probable for an 11.5 maf release year? (Johnson) 

A: If you do look at the band, I would suggest that it would rise in April and then may be closer to the upper end of 

that gray band, Jun-Jul, on the order of maybe 12 or 7 and drop off. To give you a rough feel for how it might look 

and again it would be sort of a double hump in the year which is consistent with how we’ve operated in the past. 

(Wilson) 

Q: So can you get me those specific numbers then? (Johnson) 

A: I think we might be able to do that. Again, anything provided is a very rough projection. (Wilson) 

C: The point of having that, of course, is to make any supportable claims about the expected resource result 

depends on what you would’ve done without implementing ___. (Johnson) 

R: Just looking conceptually, again, if you look at the band there, you have a fairly even band rising and what you 

would see in an operation under current guidance would be a rise to the bottom of that band, Dec-Jan, and 

dropping below that band Feb-Mar and then rising well into the band Apr-May-Jun-Jul and then dropping back 

down in August. (Wilson) 

Q: This question is probably for Rick or for Deanna. Within the AMWG program the stakeholders are there to 

represent particular interests and to recommend operations that balance the resources. When I look through DOI’s 

and GCT’s recommendation, I don’t see that balance of resources. Instead I see sediment being proposed as the 

foremost resource and all other considerations seem to be secondary and are not mentioned at all in either of these 

proposals. Perhaps that’s not called out but I’d like to hear about your perspectives with regard to looking at 

balancing these resources. (Benemelis) 

R: Sediment is kind of lead here as is HBC because those are two of the major ones because we have very good 

information showing that sediment is negatively impacted by MLFF, particularly at the high annual following 

releases. I did not put in a hydropower specifically because I put a lot of value in what the GCPA tells us which is to 

protect Park resources. If you read the legislative history and a lot of other documents that surround that, including 

the early ROD, it’s to do that and have the minimum impact possible on hydropower and other values. So the way I 

look at it is right now it’s not a balance, not that hydropower is equal for sediment. Congress told us pretty 

specifically that we are supposed to protect Park values and we’re not doing that right now. So what I’m doing is 

proposing a hydrograph that will protect Park values and if there is a way to protect Park values that has a lower 

impact to hydropower value, then I think that’s what should be out on the table, but always from my perspective is 

protecting Park resources and values. You made a comment at the beginning that we’re all there to represent a 

particular interest and I would disagree with that. I think we’re all there to advise the Secretary on how best to 

implement the GCPA regardless of what our area of expertise or our particular interests are. I don’t think we should 

be there with different opinions or different agendas. We should have the same agenda which is to advise the 

Secretary on how best to implement the Act. (Johnson) 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 12 

DRAFT Minutes of July 27, 2010, Conference Call 

Q: Perri, there are couple of things I would ask you to look at when you get a chance. I think the introduction of the 

federal family position really gives you a good evaluation of how we worked on this. I want you to keep in mind that 

this proposal fits within the MLFF and the 1996 ROD. And Jan you might want to engage in some of the discussion 

about what things were put on the table and considered. (Archuleta) 

A: We look at the sediment resources and gain a substrate for everything else but it’s what we can do in terms of 

meeting the intent of the GCPA, recognizing the resources of values and also the processes that are so inherent to 

that system. We tried to explain it as looking at it conceptually as how can we look at the hydrograph and flows 

from the dam to meet multiple objectives but first and foremost is the GCPA. We tried to include in here a short 

paper that looks at what the fundamental challenge is in looking at flows that would benefit the system as a whole 

to ecological processes and functions for native flora and fauna, archaeological and cultural resources, recreation, 

and other values and some of those values are a little tangential but it is that naturalness of the system. As we look 

at what we could do with a hydrograph, we tried to incorporate all of those. The thing that is most easily measured 

and most readily apparent is the sediment transport because it forms the substrate for almost everything else. I 

don’t know if that helps but that’s how we were trying to address it. (Balsom) 

R: I understand the perspective and I do have a different take on the GCPA in that it is subject to a lot of other laws 

and portions of the Law of the River and adds additional criteria but doesn’t necessarily give primacy to those. 

(Benemelis) 

C: Perri, I just want to reassure you that we don’t have a separate read on that. This is not an attempt to change the 

2007 ROD or the interim guidelines. We have no interest in doing that and there is absolutely no plan to do so. 

Again, this fits within the MLFF and the 1996 ROD. I hope that gives folks a little more comfort and understanding 

of how we looked at this and evaluated all the considerations. (Archuleta) 

C: I don’t see how that jives with bullet #4 under proposed operating procedures for 8.23-9 maf. Anything greater 

than 16,000 yes, that’s less than the limits in the ROD but that’s a new restriction in the ROD. I’m curious as to how 

you justify that. (King) 

R: We actually worked quite a bit with Reclamation in terms of if we had an 8.23 maf year and what it would be and 

how would the flows normally peak out. This is pretty much within what it would’ve been without our operating 

parameters but the concept in all of this is to try and retain as much sediment as we can within the system for all of 

the various resources that are dependent upon it within the constraints of the ROD flows. (Balsom) 

C: I agree what’s in the ROD flows but putting it on paper and constraining so that it can only go at 16,000 is a 

modification of the 1996 ROD. (King) 

R: I appreciate that. This is a recommendation we’re putting forward and is based on the modeling that came from 

Reclamation. This is probably what they would’ve done anyway. Maybe having it written down changes something. 

I don’t know if that does from where I’m sitting with a Park Service hat on and a DOI hat and I’d actually bounce 

that back to Deanna and Lori. (Balsom) 

R: If that’s the case, what do you need that bullet in there at all? Just let them operate under MLFF. (King) 

Q: I would agree with Robert. If this is no significant change from the status quo, what’s the point? Is it just window 

dressing? (Johnson) 

A: We do not view this as a modification of the ROD or the Interim Guidelines or any of the other laws and 

authorities applicable to operation of the river or GCD. I don’t think this proposal is just window dressing. Jan can 

weigh in on that some more. We view this as being MLFF. We laid it out in what was circulated and I think that 

speaks for itself. (Caramanian) 

R: I would argue that what I put forward isn’t a violation of any of the law and policies that surrounds operation of 

the dam either. There’s a suggestion that it is and if that’s the case, I would like to see people make that point. 

MLFF provides outer criteria or outer limits of operation. The Secretary has a whole lot of flexibility to operate 

anywhere within those criteria so I don’t see a 16,000 cap as being a violation of the ROD. The whole point to me is 

that if you’re going to put out these parameters and assert they further protect resources, I’d like to see where that’s 

actually happening. I don’t see how you do that if you don’t have a pattern of monthly volumes that you would’ve 

operated under anyway. How can you make the statements that you’ve made in the document about the expected 

resource results when there is no comparison made? (Johnson) 

A: I think what you’re saying is taking it to heart. We tried to look at it conceptually and based on the 20+ years of 

information on all of these flows, we’re trying to do something that will help improve conditions. We were looking at 

a conceptual program to help get us to an improving condition, not a degrading position. (Balsom) 

Q: Are you arguing that the pattern of monthly volumes is going to result in a positive mass balance of sediment? 

(Johnson) 

A: I’m not sure I can go that far. I’m going to ask my other DOI colleagues to weigh in on this as well. What we were 

looking at was really trying not to have any greater losses. We know we’re going to be in a year that’s probably 

going to be more than 8.23 so how can we kind of minimize some of those losses to look at what we can do to 

improve conditions. (Balsom) 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 13 

DRAFT Minutes of July 27, 2010, Conference Call 

R: I think the modeling work by Scott Wright showed you how you could do that. I’m not taking it out on you Jan, but 

this is really frustrating to me that DOI would forward a proposal that is likely to result in a loss of sediment in the 

system. I just can’t understand how you can say that in good faith and say that you’re following the intent of the 

GCPA. (Johnson) 

C: Under the DOI-DOE hydrograph proposal on table 8 are three hydrological scenarios. They are for the minimum 

probable, most probable, and maximum probable. To take the example of the most probable which releases over 

the course of the year 11.5 maf -- In the historical past, if there was that amount of volume to be released in the 

course of the year, then volumes in Jun-Jul-Aug-Sep be bumped up since those are considered power months. 

April and March would be lower volumes than what is shown here. Instead the Bureau has not just in its proposal 

for 2011 but in several previous years spread the summer volume out over a larger set of months than they have 

done for sediment conservation previously. In the past we would’ve expected to see April at 900,000; May at 

900,000; and June, July, August, and September at 1.2 or 1.3 MAF. Not just this proposal for 2011 but in the past 3 

or 4 years the Bureau of Reclamation has spread the summer volume out over a larger period of months. (Palmer) 

Q: My comments and questions are necessarily constrained by the ongoing litigation so I’m going to limit some 

comments to some technical questions. Since Clayton was just speaking, the DOE-DOI proposal does not include 

any analysis of power impacts so I would ask that energy and capacity impacts be provided for each of the three 

scenarios. Basically the science basis under expected resource results, I would like to see a little more robust 

description of the expected outcomes, hypotheses, and what do you anticipate are the resource benefits so that 

there can be some discussion by the AMWG of tradeoffs? (James) 

R: We have a chub population that has shown some improvement recently and we’re talking about modifying 

operations that’s very different at this point then I think that warrants a lot more thoughtful discussion. (Benemelis) 

R: I’m not sure which one of us is going to address it but I think we tried to identify in the paper what we were trying 

to do. We certainly considered all of the resources that we’re managing for from the Park’s perspective, from the 

fish perspective. I know that Western has been involved as well as Reclamation so we tried to look at all of these in 

terms of what we could do to really meet some of the criteria that we have to meet. We certainly didn’t include the 

discussion of HBC. It was first and foremost because there are endangered species responsibilities. Maybe 

somebody else will want to weigh in on that. (Balsom) 

R: That’s right Perri. HBC was a major component, also other aquatic resources pursuant to the GCPA’s 

identification of biological and cultural resources but the chub was a major, major concern and we feel this 

recommendation is appropriate. (Benemelis) 

Q: I would ask then, Sam, when you were developing this, were you looking comparatively at a change of sorts 

given the improvement in the population? I think it’s somewhat speculative. We don’t really know what the impacts 

of this may be until we get into implementation. I would again say that we’ve seen some improvement in that 

population under our current operation. I would like to hear a little bit more about how comparatively we ... and 

what the justification is for a departure from that at this time. (Benemelis) 

A: I would like to concur with Leslie and Perri that the expected resource results are not supportable. Part of the 

reason it’s not supportable because you don’t have an equal action alternative to compare it to so you’re making 

these assertions and there is no basis for doing it as far as I can tell. Although you may feel that given your best 

guess, that may be the case, you haven’t really provided the information. (Johnson) 

C: There is no documentation. (King) 

R: There is quite a bit of supporting research and I think that what we have based it on is supported by year's worth 

of research and there is a supporting research publication list that goes along with that. (Balsom) 

C: But it’s not documented in the report. (King) 

R: This is a short recommendation and we didn’t feel that it was necessary to go through all the literature for all that 

which is why have the supporting publications list. (Balsom) 

R: Jan, in one section you say “under this scenario, loss of recreational camping this would be reduced to the 

extent possible by minimizing sediment transport.” You cite Wright and Grams. But that can’t possibly be true. 

Minimizing sediment transport would only occur under equalized monthly volumes. (Johnson) 

R: I think we’re looking at to the extent possible and these may be baby steps, but we’re looking at things that we 

can do within all the constraints that we’re working under. Is it a perfect scenario? No. Do we have a perfect 

scenario? I don’t think we do. I think what we’re looking at is where can we go to try to improve conditions given 

what we know about how the system operates. (Balsom) 

R: Right and I guess what I’m saying is that it’s not clear to me that this is improving conditions. It’s not clear to me 

that this is resulting in any change whatsoever. What are the monthly volumes? If you weren’t running under these 

parameters, ___ you are, and then take advantage of things like the mass balance bobble that was just published 

and ask yourself what are we getting for this. Are we actually getting improved sediment conservation in the system 

or not? (Johnson) 

C: Rick is asking the same question that the power customers are asking themselves as we’ve discussed this 

whole thing. This looks like the federal family got together and you all agreed on this , but we don’t know where 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 14 

DRAFT Minutes of July 27, 2010, Conference Call 

you’re coming from and aren’t sure you know where you’re going. We would like to see some scientific support that 

says this plan will improve sediment and will help the chub and it will also cost so much and let’s have some 

balance of how much we’re gaining and is it worth what it is costing. (Barrett) 

C: And again from my perspective I think the chub is one of my primary concerns in the canyon. I think we would 

need to hear a very sound justification from a departure from our current operations based on sound science that 

says we can expect even greater improvements under this modified operating criteria. (Benemelis) 

R: I have to agree with what Perri is saying and Sam and others, I recognize that maybe you had conversations or 

discussions specifically about the chub or the endangered species or the effects of these modifications to have on 

those but it’s really not reflected in this document at all. As we move forward, we’re going to want to understand 

better how the proposal would affect or could affect or is expected to effect the chub populations. (Kowalski) 

C: Also included in the document are additional high flows which based on the Saguaro Lake discussions, add 

further to the concern about the chub and the ability to effectively control RBT if we do all of this together at the 

same time. (Ostler) 

C: The proposal from the federal family does not, at this point, include high flows. We’re developing the HFE EA but 

the process hasn’t gotten there yet. In response to the repeated statements that this is a departure, this is still 

within MLFF. We do not view this as a significant departure from previous operations. (Caramanian) 

R: This IS a departure. (King) 

R: It’s a departure but it’s within MLFF. (Caramanian) 

Q: Why is it there? I understand that. (Benemelis) 

C: Well, it’s not even within MLFF if you include the caps on releases. (Barrett) 

C: If it’s within MLFF, why do you have to specify a prescriptive maximum release? You could say that it’s 

anticipated that the releases under this would not exceed 16,000 but then that would be prescriptive because what 

you’re doing is taking a subset of the MLFF flows. Take that out and say it’s within MLFF and if that’s what it turns 

out to be, but it’s not prescriptive. It’s anticipated, but the way it’s written it’s prescriptive. You will not exceed 

16,000 cfs and that’s where I have problem. (King) 

R: Robert is entirely right. (Shields) 

C: I think any changes have to be very carefully considered in the context of ongoing litigation. (Kowalski) 

R: I can tell you that these changes were carefully considered and this is the federal family proposal. We view it as 

being within all existing legal requirements. (Caramanian) 

Q: What is the specific answer to Robert’s statement relative to the fourth bullet item where it says the daily peaks 

will be no greater than 16,000 cfs. What’s in the ROD at the current time? How is that found to be consistent with 

it? If that’s a limitation that’s being written into this document, that’s not found in the 1996 ROD. (Shields) 

A: I don’t think I want to get into a legal debate about what the ROD says and doesn’t say. If you have technical 

questions about the hydrograph – (Caramanian) 

R: It’s not a technical question. It’s a matter of there being a characterization of this being consistent with the ROD. 

Robert has pointed out that it is not. That’s the issue that’s on the table is consistency with the terms of the 1996 

ROD. (Shields) 

C: I can only repeat that we view it as being consistent. (Caramanian) 

R: If it’s consistent, why does it have to be in there? (King) 

C: I will just repeat that I’m not going to get into a legal debate here. It’s been pointed out more than once that this 

is a subject of ongoing litigation. We can answer your technical questions about this hydrograph. Malcolm is on the 

phone to do that. We’re happy to discuss those questions but we’re not going to get into a debate about what the 

ROD says or doesn’t say. (Caramanian) 

R: Well, you already have ma’am from the standpoint of making the statement time and time again that it’s 

consistent with this when, in fact, inconsistency in a very important parameter relative to the daily amount of flow 

release is inconsistent with it. The statements that are made here is that consistency with the 1996 ROD that you 

have made repeatedly have been found to be in error. (Shields) 

R: The actual wording of the 4th bullet says there will be no greater than 16,000 cfs with all other flow parameters of 

the current MLFF in place. This tells me this is outside the other parameters. You said it’s not within MLFF. (Barrett) 

R: The federal family proposal says what it says. (Caramanian) 

Q: On table 8 on the maximum probably volume, given the situation with Unit 6 and I believe another unit is going 

to be up for turbine runner replacement, can those volumes be met without requiring any bypass? (James) 

A: We do believe that is possible but I will check on that for you Leslie. (Wilson) 

Shane said there was 25 minutes left on the call and the goal was to get a recommendation on the 

hydrograph. He asked if anyone wanted to make a different proposal. Hearing none, Rick proposed the 

following: 

Motion (Proposed by Rick Johnson, seconded by Jerry Cox): If the annual volume forecast in the 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 15 

DRAFT Minutes of July 27, 2010, Conference Call 

2011 AOP is greater than 9.25 maf, then test Year-Round Steady Flows as it is described in the 1995 

EIS on Glen Canyon Dam operations. If the forecast changes and the annual volume needs to be 

adjusted, then pro-rate monthly volumes to maintain the same pattern of monthly volumes. 

• Regardless of the annual volume, implement a HFE under enriched sediment conditions as 

frequently as those coitions may recur. 

• Specifics of any needed non-native control effort will be recommended by GCMRC. 

Stakeholder Vote Stakeholder Vote

Arizona Game and Fish Dept. (Stewart) A Grand Canyon Wildlands Council (Omana) A 

Bureau of Indian Affairs absent Federation of Fly Fishers (Jordan) absent 

Bureau of Reclamation (Knowles) N Grand Canyon River Guides (Cox) Y 

Hopi Tribe (Yeatts) A Arizona (Benemelis) N 

Hualapai Tribe absent California (Harris) N 

National Park Service – GRCA (Balsom) A Colorado (Kowalski) N 

National Park Service – GLNRA absent Nevada (Thiriot) N 

Navajo Nation absent New Mexico (Ostler) N 

Pueblo of Zuni absent Utah (King) N 

Southern Paiute Consortium absent Wyoming (Shields) N 

Fish and Wildlife Service (Spiller) N CREDA (James) N 

WAPA (Palmer) N UAMPS (Barrett) N 

Grand Canyon Trust (Johnson) Y 

Voting Results: Yes = 2 No = 12 Abstaining = 4 

Motion Fails 

Abstentions count toward the quorum, but not the vote. For example, if 20 TWG members are present then a 

quorum is present (quorum=16). If the vote is 3-0-17 (that is 3 yeas, 0 nays, and 17 abstentions), the motion 

passes because abstentions are non-votes for all purposes other than to establish a quorum. To explain further, 

the simple majority or two-thirds majority is based on all votes minus the abstentions. 

Shane asked if anyone wanted to propose the DOI-DOE motion. Hearing none, he presented language 

he had crafted because there wasn’t a specific motion in the hydrograph: The TWG recommends to 

AMWG the hydrograph as proposed by the Federal agencies in the July 23, 2010 hydrograph 

recommendation for WY2011. Deanna said she felt the language was fine. 

Motion (Proposed by Rick Johnson, seconded by Sam Spiller): The TWG recommends to AMWG the 

hydrograph as proposed by the Federal agencies in the July 23, 2010, hydrograph recommendation for 

WY2011. 

C: We reviewed the DOI hydrograph and participated in its development. Hence, it has the DOI-DOE stamp. We 

agree with some of the comments and some of the scientific ties should be reviewed and revised. Although we 

haven’t completed our modeling, we don’t see an impact on power production of any consequence. (Palmer) 

Q: I requested energy and capacity impacts for each of the three proposals so do you know when that information 

may be available? (James) 

A: Normally our modeling is quick and easy. We’ve had some trouble with the two tier hydrograph. I will tell you that 

we will have impacts of what we consider of a modest consequence in the minimum probable scenario. We believe 

we will not show any impacts at all in the most probable scenario. We believe there may be some impacts to power 

in the maximum probable scenario, but we’re still working on that. We’re happy to complete our analysis through 

our modeling processes and provide to the TWG and AMWG before its discussion and I would say we’d be done – 

it shouldn’t take more than a few hours but I’m just going to say we’ll make them available to the TWG within a 

week.(Palmer) 

Q: What are you using for your no action monthly volumes? (Johnson) 

A: We’re doing what DOI just did which was to look at other years of similar volumetric release. In the example that 

DOI sent out yesterday, they were looking at 1999 which was a volume that is similar to the volume in most 

probable for 2010. I don’t know if that’s the right year to look at so that’s one of the reasons we don’t have our 

modeling done. We do, however, want to respond clearly to Leslie James. She’s right. We’ve done some 

spreadsheet analysis but haven’t completed our modeling. We’ll do that and I’ll just say we’ll have it out within a 

week. (Palmer) 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 16 

DRAFT Minutes of July 27, 2010, Conference Call 

Q: So in 1999 the forecast changed several times so the monthly volumes there would not be anywhere close to 

what they forecast at the beginning of the year? (Johnson) 

A: That’s the trouble with going back and trying to compare equal years. You can only make equal years if the 

forecast changes the same way in one year as it does another. (Palmer) 

R: Adding to Clayton’s caution, we note in the 1999 example and the graphs that were provided to you the biggest 

difference is that in Oct-Sep we didn’t have steady flows as we have today. (Wilson) 

Q: But you also have a huge jump in monthly volume from April to May that’s due to that change in forecast, 

correct? (Johnson) 

A: I believe that was the case. (Wilson) 

C: I think it is very difficult for TWG to recommend to the AMWG to adopt this hydrograph without the information 

that has already been requested during this call. We’ve got information related to energy and capacity. We have 

information related to a more detailed science assessment so we understand what’s going with respect to expected 

results and we also have a very significant question with respect to utilizing the bypass which has more than just 

power impacts. It has the Law of the River and other impacts. There are three basic questions and probably more 

that have been articulated during this call that make it very difficult to forward this recommendation by TWG without 

getting that. The suggestion I would have is this recommendation be forwarded to AMWG for consideration but also 

ask for the following information provided to AMWG so there could be a full discussion over the hydrograph. (Caan) 

Shane said there are two options in George’s comment: 1) don’t change the motion, vote on it and if you 

disagree with the motion, then you would be compelled to vote no and convey to AMWG why the TWG 

voted no. Alternatively the makers of the motion could amend this motion to include some of those issues 

described by George. 

Deanna said she was comfortable with George’s proposal. 

Shane asked if the makers of the motion are okay and would accept a friendly motion. Rick said he 

wanted to withdraw his motion. Sam said he was friendly with the 3-part proposal by George. 

Motion (Proposed by Jason Thiriot, seconded by Sam Spiller): The TWG recommends to AMWG the 

hydrograph be considered as proposed by the Federal agencies on the July 23, 2010 hydrograph 

recommendation for WY2011. This consideration should include a more detailed explanation of the 

expected science results, proposed impacts on energy and capacity for each of the three scenarios, and 

any operational concerns related to any of the three scenarios. 

Since this was a DOI federal family recommendation, she asked if the DOI representatives were 

comfortable with the motion language. Sam concurred with the language. Jan said she wanted to change 

“science” results to “resource” results. George concurred with the change. John said he wasn’t sure what 

the implications were for GCMRC in terms of additional work that may be asking for but he was fine with 

the language. 

Q: Would the expected resource results include the no action monthly volumes and also the mass balance model 

runs of the various scenarios? (Johnson) 

A: I think to a certain degree. We had GCMRC and Ted and John weigh in on all those to see how we came to 

where we came to so I don’t know how detailed we want to get in this. I think that’s one of the things we would want 

to look at. (Balsom) 

C: We would like to see enough detail to weigh the advantages. How much sediment do you gain? How much 

HBC? What happens to them? Weigh all things along with the power impacts. Some details are going to be 

required. (Barrett) 

Q: Malcolm, Ann, or Glen, are you comfortable? (Archuleta) 

A: Yes, we’re comfortable with that. Jan, are you referring to some past model runs that Scott Wright may have 

done for the TWG? I’m not sure what modeling you’re referring to. (Knowles) 

R: I actually wasn’t. When we were putting together this proposal and Glen since you were in transition at that 

point, GCMRC, John, and Ted weighed on sort of the concepts they were looking at. (Balsom) 

C: Before we get into too much detail, I think we can have that conversation offline because we need to get to the 

specific language of the request and then we can put together a proposal and we can send that out the TWG and 

AMWG and see if there is anything else they’d like that they don’t feel is getting covered in this request. I’d like to 

ask Clayton if they’re comfortable with this as well. (Archuleta) 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 17 

DRAFT Minutes of July 27, 2010, Conference Call 

R: I think the language basically requires that Western complete its modeling of both capacity and energy and the 

question of volumes through the dam given the maintenance schedule. Yes, I agree and am comfortable with the 

George’s language. (Palmer) 

Q: I think Robert King has a pretty good point and obviously feels strongly about the issue. We need to address that 

issue for the AMWG. Robert, what would you rather do – make a motion? (Barrett) 

A: If I were going to make a motion, I’d just drop that one bullet point. I can support in concept what’s there except 

for that restriction because if it’s within MLFF, then that restriction doesn’t need to be there. If it has to be explicitly 

there, then it’s captured and that tells me that it is in conflict with MLFF. The hydrograph right now with the 

explanation is acceptance of those restrictions. I just can’t vote for that. (King) 

Q: Robert, I don’t think that was intended at all. (Balsom) 

A: I can say it’s “anticipated,” but the way it’s prescripted and written, it will not exceed. If was an explanation of 

more of what is anticipated that releases will not exceed, 16,000 maf operations, that’s an explanation but the way 

it’s written, it is cap. (King) 

R: Everything we put in here we think is well within the boundaries of MLFF. I don’t know where else to go with that 

other than recognizing your concern. (Balsom) 

Shane asked George if he wanted to make a motion. Since George was not a TWG member, Jason 

offered the following: 

Motion (Proposed by Jason Thiriot, seconded by Sam Spiller): The TWG recommends to AMWG the 

hydrograph be considered as proposed by the Federal agencies on the July 23, 2010 hydrograph 

recommendation for WY2011. This consideration should include a more detailed explanation of the 

expected resource results, the proposed impacts of energy and capacity for each of the three 

scenarios, and operational concerns, if any, of the three scenarios. 

Stakeholder Vote Stakeholder Vote

Arizona Game and Fish Dept. (Stewart) Y Grand Canyon Wildlands Council (Omana) N 

Bureau of Indian Affairs absent Federation of Fly Fishers (Jordan) absent 

Bureau of Reclamation (Knowles) Y Grand Canyon River Guides (Cox) A 

Hopi Tribe (Yeatts) A Arizona (Benemelis) Y 

Hualapai Tribe absent California (Harris) Y 

National Park Service – GRCA (Balsom) Y Colorado (Kowalski) Y 

National Park Service – GLNRA absent Nevada (Thiriot) Y 

Navajo Nation absent New Mexico (Ostler) Y 

Pueblo of Zuni absent Utah (King) N 

Southern Paiute Consortium absent Wyoming (Shields) Y 

Fish and Wildlife Service (Spiller) Y CREDA (James) Y 

WAPA (Palmer) Y UAMPS (Barrett) Y 

Grand Canyon Trust (Johnson) N 

Voting Results: Yes = 12 No = 3 Abstaining = 2 

Motion Passes 

Abstentions count toward the quorum, but not the vote. For example, if 20 TWG members are present then a 

quorum is present (quorum=16). If the vote is 3-0-17 (that is 3 yeas, 0 nays, and 17 abstentions), the motion 

passes because abstentions are non-votes for all purposes other than to establish a quorum. To explain further, 

the simple majority or two-thirds majority is based on all votes minus the abstentions. 

Shane said a fall TWG meeting hadn’t been scheduled yet. He thanked everyone for their participation. 

Adjourned: 12:12 p.m. 
draft Socio-economics ad hoc group report to TWG 

for the July 27th conference call

(updated July 26)

TWG charge to ad hoc: 

Review the final report of the GCMRC Socioeconomic Research Review Panel (dated February 

26, 2010) and develop a recommendation for TWG or an update on progress for TWG review at 

its June 2010 meeting. Consider the technical feasibility and pros and cons of implementing the 

panel’s recommendations. Also consider how to better utilize current resources in responding to 

the panel’s recommendations. 

The TWG Socio-economic Ad Hoc recommends to the TWG the following: 

The TWG has received the report entitled "Final Report of the GCMRC Socioeconomic Research Review 

Panel" dated February 26, 2010. The ad hoc has discussed the workshop recommendations related to 

electrical power production and recreation surveys. The ad hoc intends to more fully consider the 

workshop report and all the recommendations after the August AMWG meeting, but acknowledges the 

need to make immediate recommendations now for the FY 2011 and 2012 BWPH. 

In general, the ad hoc supports a phased approach as described below: 

a) In FY 2011 and 2012 implement the highest priority most expedient action items including the 

Base Case,and Change Case for electrical power, and Recreation Expenditure analyses. These 

have been identified as the highest priority most expedient items, can likely be implemented 

without substantial costs to the program in these years, and represents “low hanging” fruit to get 

the process moving. 

b) In FY 2011 and 2012, begin the work of educating the program about market and non-market 

recreation economics, and utilize experts as needed to scope out the appropriate non-market (e.g., 

willingness to pay) economic work to be done and how specifically to do that in order to 

implement the workshop recommendations while tailoring those to the needs of the GCDAMP. 

This would include the “economics 101” course for TWG and AMWG, as well as planning 

sessions with GCMRC and working with other appropriate experts to develop a plan for 

implementing non-marketuse economics study plan forin the program. 

c) In FY 2012, or as soon as the non-market recreation planning is completed and satisfactory to the 

GCDAMP, begin implementation of the non-market recreational portion of these 

recommendations. 

The ad hoc has developed the following recommendations. Additional, expertise (and funding) may be 

needed at GCRMC to implement the following tasks: 

Base Case analysis: Implement the report recommendation to complete base and change case studies for 

hydroelectric operations in FY 2010. The detailed description of the base case study will be prepared by 

GCMRC, in collaborationcooperation with input from WAPA and appropriate experts, based on the 

description in the Socioeconomic Panel's report and any additional specifications by the TWG/AMWG. 

This base case study will include an analysis of "spill over" with the WECC. The base case and spill over 

analysis will be completed by WAPA and a report prepared at no cost to the AMP. The report will be 

submitted by WAPA to GCMRC for peer review. GCMRC will oversee the peer review process and use 

the Science Advisors (i.e., Dave Garrett or other expert) as needed. WAPA will incorporate changes into 

the report based on comments received from the peer review process. 

 

Formatted: Font: Not Bold, Italic

Attachment A
Include the funding and the need as a line item in the 2011/12 budget, workplan and hydrograph. 

Change Case analysis (power modeling): will be done by WAPA based on tasks provided by GCMRC, 

developed by GCMRC with input collaboration cooperation withfrom WAPA and appropriate experts , 

based on the description in the Socioeconomic Panel's report and any additional specifications by the 

TWG/AMWG. 

Recreation Expenditure analysis (market): We recommend that an analysis of data related to the 

regional economic effects of GCD experiments and other DOI actions be undertaken. This analysis would 

be devoted to the impact on the regional economy as a result of changes in expenditures resulting from 

these actions. 

The groups of interest for this study would be Glen Canyon , day use rafters , and anglers and Grand 

Canyon. Whitewater rafting of commercial and private boaters from Lees Ferry to Diamond Creek or 

Lake Meadday use and white water outfitters and the well as the the Hualapai white water recreational 

enterprise that services Diamond Creek to Lake Mead. 

This expenditure data can be used in the IMPLAN regional input-output model to estimate the positive 

economic impacts to the surrounding counties and Indian Reservations in terms of direct and indirect 

personal income and employment generated. Indirect effects would capture the multiplier effects from 

subsequent rounds of spending in the surrounding region. Separate interviews with the guides and the 

tribes will be needed to obtain their expenditures associated with the guiding, access fees, food, and other 

costs. We recommend that the economic impact analysis use two impact areas. For consistency with past 

research, it would be appropriate to use the counties surrounding the Grand Canyon. However, since 

many outfitters have their base of operation in Nevada or Salt Lake City, it would be appropriate to show 

results using a broader multi-state economic impact area (Report page 16). This project would replace 

GCMRC Project 9.04.11-12. 

Provide training to AMP stakeholders on use and non-use values: (implement in FY 2011 or 2012), 

economics 101 as described in the report. To be organized and hostedcoordinated by GCRMC with 

financial supporthelp from WAPA. 

Other studies including non-market recreation studies which will be considered further during the 

ad hocs review of the report and implemented under the time frame described above: 

a) Implement non-market recreation surveys of Glen Canyon anglers and day-use rafters

b)Identify tribes and consider specific surveys of preferences and attitudes 

c)Provide training to AMP stakeholders on non-use values

b)

d)c)Conduct power flow studies that show the financial and economic consequences of Glen Canyon 

management alternatives on WAPA, WAPA customers, and the Upper Basin Fund

e)d)Conduct focus groups and piloting of non-use value survey (initiate OMB clearance)

Formatted: Bullets and Numbering

Formatted: Font: Bold

Attachment A
1

Draft report to TWG from the GCMP ad hoc group 

July 14, 2010 

The charge (established March 15, 2010): 

Develop, for TWG review at its June 2010 meeting, an appendix for the General Core Monitoring 

Plan (Plan) which describes a TWG process for making recommendations to AMWG on the 

individual core monitoring plans developed by GCMRC. Review the revised draft Plan from 

GCMRC this spring and develop a recommendation for TWG at its June 2010 meeting. 

The ad hoc group waited until a revised draft GCMP was provided by GCMRC at the June TWG meeting 

before beginning their work. Additional guidance was given to the ad hoc to review the draft revision of 

the plan and provide a recommendation to TWG at its next meeting. Generally, the ad hoc was to review 

the changes made by GCMRC and determine if they were responsive to the comments and suggestions 

made by TWG. 

In general, GCMRC was responsive in including recommended changes to the document which improved 

organization and clarity regarding chapters 1-3, and Appendix A. GCMRC also included new concepts 

proposed by TWG such as the use of criteria in developing programs (e.g., priority setting, confidence in 

program success, adequacy to answer critical questions), and the use of trade-off analyses and risk 

assessment. The use of these collaborative processes between TWG and GCMRC is envisioned by 

GCMRC to occur during “step 4” of the process. 

Although these changes were made, it is the view of the ad hoc that GCMRC selectively declined to make 

changes in programmatic areas which would substantially change the development process. For example, 

Chapter 4 retains all of the funding needs and program plans which were in the first draft and which seem 

to codify current programs before going through the process to determine current needs for core 

monitoring .GCMRC argues that they have implemented the CMINs and GCDAMP priorities as they 

exist but also acknowledge they may be out of date. Although they have asked for further guidance on 

how to implement these guidelines, they have selectively declined those types of comments provided in 

comment form and in the revision provided by TWG. There are a series of critical needs identified by the 

ad hoc (and TWG comments on the first draft), that have been declined by GCMRC for incorporation into 

the document. Thus, the ad hoc proposes the following draft motion to AMWG for consideration by 

TWG: 

TWG recommends that AMWG consider the following changes to be requested in the draft General Core 

Monitoring Plan: 

1. Remove Chapter 4 which includes descriptions of the individual plans to be funded based on full 

implementation of the CMINs without priority setting. These individual plans will be developed ,

and leave these descriptions for when the plans are developed in coordination with TWG. Also 

delete sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.4 which identify staffing needs and costs based on the plans in 

Chapter 4. 

2. Comments were provided by TWG of past discussions which envisioned a core monitoring 

program in the realm of 40-60% of the science budget; these recommendations were declined by 

GCMRC. TWG would like to develop a core monitoring program that uses trade-off analyses and 

risk assessment to develop a less-costly program than GCMRC has developed. This approach 

should be described in Chapter 1 (history) and implemented in Chapter 3 (planning). The general 

concept is to prioritize projects and implement a program that doesn’t include all the “ornaments” 

on the tree that is generally described by responding to all of the CMINs. Some of the work may 

Comment [d1]: Do you mean to say, in a 

separate sentence, “Rather, these descriptions will be 

included in the core monitoring plans when they are 

developed in coordination with the TWG.” 

Attachment B
2

be titled “core monitoring” and receive priority funding while other work may need to be funded 

as monitoring work which would be subject to biennial review based on availability of funds. 

3. GCMRC should work with TWG to more fully develop the management process described in 

Chapter 3, and as was described in the revision, to embrace a collaborative process to develop the 

core monitoring plans without bias in the outcomes of what will be funded and to what extent 

they will be funded. In other words, just because we have worked to develop broad programs, 

TWG expects that now we will go back and re-evaluate needs, criteria, precision, frequency, and 

priorities for the monitoring program.GCMRC should work with TWG to more fully develop the 

management process described in Chapter 3, and as was described in the revision, to embrace a 

collaborative process to develop the core monitoring plans without bias in the outcomes of what 

will be funded and to what extent they will be funded. In other words, despite the fact that 

GCMRC and the GCDAMP have worked to develop broad programs, TWG believes that we now 

need to go back and re-evaluate needs, criteria, precision, frequency, and priorities for a core 

monitoring program.

Attachment B
Provisional Recommendations for WY2011 hydrograph: 

Grand Canyon Trust 

The purpose of these recommendations is to advise the Secretary of the Interior on how best to 

meet the intent of the Grand Canyon Protection Act. The Act states that the Secretary is to 

operate the dam, and implement other actions, to protect, mitigate adverse impacts to, and 

improve park values. 

Sediment, per se, is one of the many park values addressed by the GCPA. Current 

implementation of MLFF results in the long-term erosion of sediment and does not meet the 

GCPA’s intent to protect, mitigate adverse impacts to, and improve park values. Under the 11 

maf annual volume currently forecast for WY 2011, modeling suggests that implementation of 

MLFF would result in the loss of approximately 575,000 metric tons of sediment in Marble 

Canyon and Eastern Grand Canyon. 

The intent of these WY2011 proposed hydrographs is to experiment with an alternative flow 

regime to achieve a neutral or positive mass balance of sediment in the Colorado River 

Ecosystem and improve, or at least not harm, other park values. 

Monthly volumes and daily fluctuations 

Mass balance sediment modeling by GCMRC suggests that with 8.23 maf release years, and 

average sediment inputs, all six of the modeled operating scenarios will result in a positive mass 

balance in Marble Canyon and Eastern Grand Canyon. We recommend testing SASF because it 

not only retains sediment, but it is the only scenario that mimics the natural hydrograph, another 

park value addressed by the GCPA. We recommend that: 

If the annual release volume for WY 2011 is forecast to be between 8.23 and 9.25 maf in the 

2011 AOP, then test SASF as it is described in the 1995 EIS on Glen Canyon Dam operations. If 

the forecast changes and the annual volume needs to be adjusted, then pro-rate monthly volumes 

to maintain the same pattern of monthly volumes. 

Mass balance sediment modeling by GCMRC suggests that with 11.0 maf release years, only 

Year-Round Steady Flows will result in a positive mass balance of sediment in Marble Canyon 

and Eastern Grand Canyon. We recommend that: 

If the annual volume forecast in the 2011 AOP is greater than 9.25 maf, then test Year-Round 

Steady Flows as it is described in the 1995 EIS on Glen Canyon Dam operations. If the forecast 

changes and the annual volume needs to be adjusted, then pro-rate monthly volumes to maintain 

the same pattern of monthly volumes. 

High Flow Experiment 

The criteria for triggering a HFE, and the timing, magnitude, and duration of the flow will be 

determined by the HFE protocol EA decision. If that is not available, then utilize either the 

criteria used to trigger the 2008 HFE, or revised criteria recommended by GCMRC. We 

recommend that: 

Regardless of the annual volume, implement a HFE under enriched sediment conditions as 

Attachment C
frequently as those conditions may recur. 

Other actions 

It may be necessary to control non-native predators and competitors that may benefit from a 

HFE. Specifics of the needed control effort are yet to be determined. 

It is anticipated that GCMRC, NPS and other agency scientists will review this and any other 

proposed hydrographs for WY 2011 to determine their effect on park resources. We also 

anticipate that GCMRC will provide leadership in developing the specific science questions, and 

making any needed modifications to the hydrographs to improve the scientific merits and/or 

increase the potential benefits to park values. 

Attachment C
1

Whetton, Linda A

From: Rick Johnson [richard.johnson@npgcable.com]

Sent: Friday, July 30, 2010 1:19 PM

To: Rick Johnson

Cc: Whetton, Linda A; Balsom, Jan; Barger, Mary; Barrett, Clifford; Bills, Debra; Bulletts, Charley; 

Capron, Shane; Caramanian, Lori; Christensen, Kerry; Cox, Jerry; Crawford, Marianne; 

Davis, William E.; Dongoske, Kurt; Harris, Christopher S.; Henderson, Norm; Heuslein, Amy; 

Jordan, John; King, Robert; Knowles, Glen W; Kowalski, Ted; Kubly, Dennis M; Noojibail, 

Gopaul; Orton, Mary; Persons, William R; Peterson, McClain; Shields, John W.; Spiller, Sam; 

Sponholtz, Pam; Stevens, Larry; Stewart, Bill; Wegner, David; Yazzie, Curtis; Yeatts, Michael; 

Benemelis, Perri; Cantley, Garry; Jackson-Kelly, Loretta; James, Leslie; Jansen, Sam; Lash, 

Nikola; Makinster, Andy; Omama, Emily; Ostler, Don; Palmer, S. Clayton; Thiriot, James; 

pwicker9@msn.com; Andersen, Matthew E; Bennett, Glenn E; Daugherty, Mary M; Fairley, 

Helen; Grams, Paul E; Hamill, John F; Kitchell, Kate; Mankiller, Serena; Melis, Ted; Sogge, 

Mark K

Subject: Re: TWG call July 27 9-12 MDT

Attachments: 2011 monthly volumes.xls; ATT00001.txt

Importance: High

Greetings,

I've attached a simple Excel spreadsheet with monthly volumes for three alternative

hydrographs: 1) the monthly volumes supplied in the 11 June 2010 budget and workplan; 2) the

most probable inflow scenario from the 23 July 2010 DOI/DOE hydrograph recommendations; and

3) the GCT 2011 hydrograph proposal. Note that #1 may need to be adjusted because it assumes

a 11.15 maf year, while the other two assume a 11.5 maf year.   

Daily fluctuations for #1 above are provided in the budget and workplan workplan (see page

10). Daily fluctuations for #2 presumably would follow bullet #4 in the 23 July 2010 DOI/DOE

hydrograph recommendations. And daily fluctuations for #3 are steady.

As I requested previously, I believe that for AMWG to make an informed recommendation to the

Secretary, they need at least the following resource analysis (with documentation) for at

least the three hydrographs listed above:

1. Sediment mass balance.

2. Hydropower impacts.

3. Impacts to temperature, humpback chub, and other native fish.

Regards,

Rick

  

Attachment C
11 J 10 11-Jun-10 11 Jun 10 DOI T bl 8 DOI Table 8 GCT

October 490 492 500

November 800 927 1027

December 950 938 1027

January 950 951 1027

F beruary 900 965 1027

March 900 982 1027

April 1000 1001 1027

May 1100 1027 1027

June 1100 1060 1027

J luy 1150 1209 1027

August 1100 1210 1027

St bepemer 710 738 730

11150 11500 11500

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

11-Jun-10 DOI Table 8 GCT

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

11-Jun-10 DOI Table 8 GCT

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

11-Jun-10 DOI Table 8 GCT

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

11-Jun-10 DOI Table 8 GCT

Attachment C
1 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

OPERATING HYDROGRAPH RECOMMENDATIONS

FOR GLEN CANYON DAM

July 23, 2010

Introduction: The Federal agencies involved in the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive 

Management program have jointly drafted this recommendation for the projected 

operation of Glen Canyon Dam in 2011. This recommendation is consistent with the 

Law of the River and the Grand Canyon Protection Act, which states that the Secretary of 

Interior will operate Glen Canyon Dam “in such a manner as to protect, mitigate adverse 

impacts to, and improve the values for which Grand Canyon National Park and Glen 

Canyon National Recreation Area were established, including, but not limited to natural 

and cultural resources and visitor use.” This recommendation is designed to enhance 

protection of downstream resources. It can be implemented consistent with existing 

environmental and operational limitations applicable to Glen Canyon Dam, the annual 

release requirements of the 2007 Interim Guidelines, applicable operating limitations for 

Glen Canyon Dam, and the 1996 Glen Canyon Dam Record of Decision (ROD). This 

approach to operations does not modify the Interim Guidelines, operating criteria or ROD 

and is an adaptive management-based experimental approach to 2011 operations that falls 

within the parameters of the Modified Low Fluctuating Flow alternative adopted in the 

ROD. 

The National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service provided the initial draft of 

the operational concepts included in the recommendation to enhance protection of 

downstream resources. The Bureau of Reclamation provided technical support, 

clarifications, and refinements to assure these operational concepts would be consistent 

with the annual release requirements of the Interim Guidelines and applicable operational 

limitations for Glen Canyon Dam. The Bureau of Indian Affairs has had the opportunity 

to participate in the development of this recommendation and has reviewed the drafts. 

The USGS Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center has reviewed this 

recommendation and added its comments. Western Area Power Administration has 

evaluated the recommendation, participated in discussions concerning its operational 

impacts, and supports it. 

It is Interior’s intention to share this proposed recommendation with stakeholders in the 

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Work Group prior to the beginning of the 2011 

water year, so as to provide an opportunity for input from the participating AMWG 

stakeholders. It is also Interior’s intention to include a projected operation for Glen 

Canyon Dam during the 2011 water year in a Draft 2011 Annual Operating Plan for 

Colorado River Reservoirs at the earliest appropriate opportunity. In addition, language 

will be added to the 2011 Annual Operating Plan to reference the ongoing NEPA process 

Attachment D
2 

to develop an Experimental Protocol for High-Flow Releases from Glen Canyon Dam, 

and such language will note that pending completion of the ongoing NEPA process, if a 

high-flow release is undertaken in Water Year 2011, projected operations of Glen 

Canyon Dam will be modified consistent with the final experimental protocol. A draft of 

the information proposed to be added to the Draft 2011 AOP is attached as Attachment 1 

to this summary.

Purpose: To develop recommendations for operational 2011 hydrographs based on 

anticipated possible annual release volumes for Water Year 2011 from Glen Canyon Dam 

consistent with Section 1802 of the Grand Canyon Protection Act. The operational 

hydrographs are within the framework of the 1996 Record of Decision and Modified Low 

Fluctuating Flow (MLFF) operation, consistent with balancing other resources, including 

power production, and recognize the variability of possible annual release volumes from 

Glen Canyon Dam under the 2007 Interim Guidelines. 

The concept is to apply sound science principles within the framework of adaptive 

management to adjust the timing of water deliveries to protect and restore flowdependent resource conditions. The fundamental principle is conservation of the sand 

resource in order to minimize sand export to Lake Mead and degradation of sandbar 

resources within the Colorado River ecosystem (CRE). (Note: Recently, a new sand 

routing model was developed for the CRE [Wright and others, 2010] that evaluates a 

variety of operational hydrographs from Glen Canyon Dam [including typical MLFF 

releases] using average annual sand production from both the Paria and Little Colorado 

Rivers.) 

Two scenarios are presented below based upon the range of probable 2011 water year 

releases from Glen Canyon Dam. It is anticipated that the annual release volumes would 

likely fall within two sets of annual operations as described below. The agencies expect 

that the projected releases will be modified as the year progresses to address changing 

conditions in the same manner as typically occurs. Proposed parameters for such 

ongoing operational modifications are also provided. 

Water Year Scenario #1: 8.23 – 9.0 million acre feet (maf) - Balancing 

Objective: To implement reasonable measures to minimize export of tributary sand inputs 

delivered to the main channel so as to benefit the lower elevation ecosystem of Grand 

Canyon National Park, including the ecological processes and functions that affect native 

flora and fauna, archeological and cultural resources, recreation uses, and other values for 

which Grand Canyon National Park was established. 

Science Principles: For any given annual volume of water released from the dam, sand 

export is known to be minimized by reducing daily/monthly/seasonal variations in dam 

Attachment D
3 

releases. (Rubin and others, 2002; Wright and others, 2005; Wright and others, 2008; 

ASCE, 1975; USDOI, 1995; Topping and others, 2006). 

Proposed Operating Parameters: 

• Monthly Release Volumes will be adjusted each month based on the most current 

forecast of the annual release required by the 2007 Interim Guidelines. 

• Monthly Release Volumes will vary within a range of +/- 100,000 acre-feet from 

the Average Monthly Release Volume over the water year (defined in the next 

bullet). This 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. 

Modifications of monthly release volumes will be made in consultation with 

Western Area Power Administration.

• Average Monthly Release Volumes will be the amount of remaining water to 

release for the water year divided by the remaining months in the water year 

(excluding the September/October steady flows). 

• Daily peaks will be no greater than 16,000 cubic feet per second (cfs), with all 

other flow parameters of the current MLFF in place.

• Steady flows in September and October per the 2008 HFE Environmental 

Assessment (EA), with monthly volumes of approximately 500,000 to 600,000 

acre feet (about 8,000 to 10,000 cfs). 

Expected Resource Results: Under this scenario, at the lower release volume of 8.23 maf, 

accumulation of some portion of new tributary sand inputs would likely occur in both 

Marble and Grand Canyons (Wright and Grams, 2010), but it is less certain that any new 

sand inputs would accumulate at the higher 9.0 maf volume. Recreational camping 

beaches would be expected to continue to degrade at previously reported rates associated 

with MLFF, with perhaps lower erosion rates of camps in summer and winter months 

(Kaplinski and others, 2005). It is not expected that there would be an increase in size 

and distribution of camping beaches throughout the river corridor; recreational rafting 

safety would be unaffected. Terrestrial and river edge aquatic riparian habitats, 

archaeological sites and historic properties would show no improvement. With lower 

summer peaks associated with this scenario there may be some vegetation encroachment 

on sand bars and camping beaches. 

Water Year Scenario #2: Above 9.0 million acre feet (maf) - Equalization

Objectives: To implement reasonable measures to minimize erosion of sandbar deposits 

for purposes of reducing degradation to the lower elevation ecosystem of Grand Canyon 

National Park, including the ecological processes and functions that affect native flora 

and fauna, archeological and cultural resources, recreation uses, and other values for 

which Grand Canyon National Park was established. 

Attachment D
4 

Science Principle: For any given annual volume release of water, sandbar erosion and 

sediment transport is minimized by reducing both daily/monthly/seasonal variations in 

volume releases, and by minimizing subsequent daily variations in discharges. (Rubin 

and others, 2002; Wright and others, 2005; Wright and others, 2008; ASCE, 1975; 

USDOI, 1995; Topping and others, 2006). 

Proposed Operating Parameters: 

• Monthly Release Volumes will be adjusted each month based on the most current 

forecast of the annual release required by the 2007 Interim Guidelines. 

• Monthly Release Volumes will vary within a range of +/- 100,000 acre-feet from 

the Average Monthly Release Volume over the water year (defined in the next 

bullet). This 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. Modifications of monthly 

release volumes will be made in consultation with Western Area Power 

Administration.

• Average Monthly Release Volumes will be the amount of remaining water to 

release for the water year divided by the remaining months in the water year 

(excluding the September/October steady flows). 

• Daily peaks will be no greater than 22,000 cfs, with all other flow parameters of 

the current MLFF in place (including daily range in fluctuating flows up to 8,000 

cfs), including the fall steady flows required in the 2008 High Flow Experiment 

Environmental Assessment (2008 HFE EA).

• Steady flows in September and October per the 2008 HFE Environmental 

Assessment (EA). 

Expected Resource Results: Under this scenario, loss of recreational camping beaches 

would be reduced to the extent possible by minimizing sediment transport (Wright and 

Grams, 2010). Recreational rafting values may benefit from the more limited 

fluctuations. Terrestrial and aquatic river edge riparian habitats and archaeological sites 

may continue to degrade, but the amount of loss may be reduced under this recommended 

flow regime. 

Attachment D
5 

Supporting Research Publications 

ASCE, 1975, Sedimentation Engineering, Vanoni, V.A. ed.: ASCE Manuals and Reports 

on Engineering Practice, no. 54, 745 p. 

Gloss, Steven P., Jeffrey E. Lovich, and Theodore S. Melis, 2005. The State of the 

Colorado River Ecosystem in Grand Canyon: A Report of the Grand Canyon Monitoring 

and Research Center 1991–2004, USGS Circular 1282 

Grams and others, 2010, 2008 High-Flow Experiment at Glen Canyon Dam: 

Morphologic Response of Eddy-Deposited Sandbars and Associated Aquatic Backwater 

Habitats along the Colorado River in Grand Canyon, Paul E. Grams, John C. Schmidt, 

Matthew E. Andersen [currently available at www.gcmrc.gov and 

http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod/pubs.html as U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 

2010-1032], 

Hazel and others, 2010, Sandbar Response Following the 2008 High-Flow Experiment on 

the Colorado River in Marble and Grand Canyons, Arizona, Joe E. Hazel Jr., Paul E. 

Grams, John C. Schmidt and Matt Kaplinski [currently available at: www.gcmrc.gov and 

http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod/pubs.html as U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Research 

Investigations Report 2010-5015]Kaplinski, M., 2005, State of the Colorado River 

Ecosystem, in eds. Gloss and others, U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1282, Chapter 12, 

pp. 193-206 

Melis, T.S., and several other authors, 2010, 2008 High-Flow Experiment at Glen 

Canyon Dam Benefits Colorado River Resources in Grand Canyon National Park, U.S. 

Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2010-3009, 4 p. 

Melis, T.S., Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., Wright, S.A. 

2007 Research furthers conservation of Grand Canyon sandbars: U.S. Geological 

Survey Fact Sheet 2007-3020, 4 p. 

Rubin, D.M., Topping, D.J., Schmidt, J.C., Hazel, J., Kaplinski, M., and Melis, T.S. 

2002 Recent sediment studies refute Glen Canyon Dam hypothesis: Eos, Transactions, 

American Geophysical Union, Vol. 83, No. 25, 18 June 2002, Pages 273, 277-278 

Attachment D
6 

Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., Schmidt, J.C., Hazel, J.E., Jr., Melis, T.S., Wright, S.A., 

Kaplinski, M., Draut, A.E., and Breedlove, M.J. 2006 Comparison of sediment-transport 

and bar-response results from the 1996 and 2004 controlled-flood experiments on the 

Colorado River in Grand Canyon: CD-ROM Proceedings of the 8th Federal InterAgency Sedimentation Conference, Reno, Nevada, April 2-6, 2006, ISBN 0-9779007-1-1. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, 1995 Final Environmental Impact Statement on the 

Operation of Glen Canyon Dam. Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Government Printing 

Office, Denver. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Experimental releases from Glen Canyon Dam, 

2008 Coconino County, Arizona, 2008 through 2012. Bureau of Reclamation. 

Wright, S.A., Melis, T.S., Topping, D.M. and Rubin, D.M., 2005, State of the Colorado 

River Ecosystem, in eds. Gloss and others, U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1282, 

Chapter 1, pp. 1-16 

Wright, S.A., Schmidt, J.C., Melis, T.S., Topping, D.J., and Rubin, D.M. Is there enough 

2008Sand? Evaluating the fate of Grand Canyon sandbars. In GSA Today, v. 18, no. 8, 

doi: 0.1130/GSATG12A.11 

Wright, S.A. and Grams, P.E., in press, Evaluation of glen Canyon Dam flow release 

scenarios on downstream sand storage along the Colorado River, Water Year 2011, U.S. 

Geological Survey Open File Report 2010-xxxx, ?p. 

Wright, S.A., Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M. and Melis, T.S., 2010, An approach for 

modeling sediment budgets in supply-limited rivers, Water Resources Research, 

[available: http://www.agu.org/journals/wr/papersinpress.shtml#id2009WR008600] 

Attachment D
7 

Attachment 1 – Information Proposed for inclusion in the Draft 2011 Annual Operating 

Plan (note: Table 9 metric conversion will be compiled) 

Table 8. Range of Projected Monthly Releases from Lake Powell Under

Water Year 2011 Inflow Scenarios (English Units)1

Month Minimum Probable

Inflow Scenario

Projected Monthly 

Release Volume

11.5 maf dropping 

to 9 maf in March

Most Probable 

Inflow Scenario 

Projected Monthly

Release Volume at

Remaining at 

11.5 maf

Maximum Probable 

Inflow Scenario 

Projected Monthly

Release Volume

11.5 maf increasing 

to 13 maf/yr in 

Feb/March

October 2010 492 492 492

November 2010 927 927 927 

December 2010 938 938 938

January 2011 951 951 951 

February 2011 965 965 965

March 2011 982 982 1065

April 2011 554 1001 1266

May 2011 579 1027 1390

June 2011 612 1060 1391

July 2011 724 1209 1391

August 2011 800 1210 1391

September 2011 476 738 833

Water Year 2011 9 maf 11.5 maf 13 maf

Units are in 1,000 af/month. 

 

Most and Max Probable will likely be adjusted somewhat in August 24 Month Study based on that 

month’s forecast. These numbers should be fairly representative of the range of possibilities.

Attachment D
8 

New Text proposed to be added to June 1, 2010 Draft AOP on page 30, at ln. 4: 

On December 10, 2009, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar announced that the 

Department of the Interior would initiate development of a High-Flow Experimental 

Protocol (Protocol) for releases from Glen Canyon Dam as part of the ongoing 

implementation of the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (AMP). Highflow experimental releases have been undertaken in the past and will be further analyzed 

and implemented pursuant to the direction of the Secretary to assess the ability of such 

releases to protect, mitigate adverse impacts to, and improve the values for which Grand 

Canyon National Park and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area were established. As 

part of the AMP, the Department’s effort to develop the Protocol is a component of its 

ongoing responsibility to comply with the requirements and obligations established by 

the Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992 (Pub. L. 102–575) (GCPA). Further 

information on the Protocol may be found at 74 Fed. Reg. 69361 (Dec. 31, 2009). 

The High-Flow Experimental Protocol is currently the subject of an ongoing analysis, 

including analysis pursuant to NEPA. The Department anticipates that the Protocol is 

likely to be completed during Water Year 2011. Pending completion of the ongoing 

NEPA process, if a high-flow release is undertaken in Water Year 2011, projected 

operations of Glen Canyon Dam will be modified consistent with the final experimental 

protocol. Implementation of an experimental high-flow release will modify the projected 

releases for Water Year 2011 displayed in Tables 8 and 9. 

Attachment D