Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Meeting

January 20, 2011

Conducting: Shane Capron, Chairperson Convened: 8:25 a.m.

Committee Members/Alternates Present:

Jan Balsom, NPS/GRCA

Cliff Barrett, UAMPS

Charley Bulletts, So. Paiute Consortium 

Kerry Christensen, Hualapai Tribe

Jerry Lee Cox, Grand Canyon River Guides

Bill Davis, CREDA

Kurt Dongoske, Pueblo of Zuni

Garry Cantley, BIA (alternate)

Paul Harms, NM Interstate Stream Commission

Christopher Harris, Colorado River Board/CA

Norm Henderson, NPS

Rick Johnson, Grand Canyon Trust

John Jordan, Federation of Fly Fishers

Robert King, UDWR

Glen Knowles, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

Ted Kowalski, CWCB (alternate)

Tricia McCraw, ADWR

Don Ostler, UCRC (alternate for WY)

S. Clayton Palmer, WAPA

Sam Spiller, USFWS (alternate)

Larry Stevens, Grand Canyon Wildlands Council

Bill Stewart, AGFD

Jason Thiriot, Colo. River Commission/NV

Michael Yeatts, Hopi Tribe

Committee Members Absent: 

Amy Heuslein, BIA

Pam Sponholtz, USFWS

Tony H. Joe, Jr., Navajo Nation

John Shields, Wyoming State Engineer’s Office

InterestedPersons:

Perri Benemelis, ADWR

Todd Chaudhry, NPS/GRCA

Marianne Crawford, USBR

Helen Fairley, USGS/GCMRC

Dave Garrett, M3

Research

Paul Grams, USGS/GCMRC

John Hamill, USGS/GCMRC

Leslie James, CREDA

Sam Jansen, Grand Canyon River Guides

Ted Melis, USGS/GCMRC

Colby Pellegrino, Southern Nevada Water Auth.

Barbara Ralston, USGS/GCMRC

Meeting Recorder: Linda Whetton

Administrative. The agenda was adjusted by switching the time blocks for the socioeconomics update 

and the core monitoring plan as Shane didn’t feel the CMP would require all the time allotted to it. 

Approval of the Nov. 15-16, 2010, Meeting Minutes. Approval of these meeting minutes will be moved 

to the next meeting. 

Review of Action Items. Since there were a number of related action items, Shane suggested talking 

about the tribal issues in general. The action items (Attachment 1) were updated.

Old Business. Shane reviewed the status of the current ad hoc groups. 

Budget Ad Hoc Group (BAHG). Shane said he would like to see a BAHG conference call scheduled 

when they go through the budget discussion today. 

Cultural Resources Ad Hoc Group (CRAHG). Shane said the CRAHG hasn’t met since last November 

and don’t have anything specifically on their charge now. If the TWG wants them to do any work, they 

need to give that assignment today. Shane said the CRAHG normally reviews budget items and make 

recommendations to the BAHG and so the TWG may want to ask them to do that along with other 

cultural issues as well. Helen said GCMRC is putting together a workshop in mid-February that will 

address cultural issues and would like CRAHG members to participate. Jan said that NPS and GCMRC 

had agreed to convene a small group of experts in the field of remote sensing and monitoring techniques 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 2

Final Minutes of January 20, 2011 Meeting

to evaluate the different ways in which GCMRC has been looking at developing the protocols and how 

effective they are in developing a long-term set of monitoring protocols. Shane encouraged Helen to talk 

with other people to see how the CRAHG should be involved and deal with that later today.

Species of Concern Ad Hoc Group (SCAHG). Larry said he is trying to set up a meeting with the group, 

but there has been quite a bit of turnover in the membership. He would like to have a conference call 

within the next 10 days. He will talk with the members at lunch on their availability. Sam Spiller indicated 

he would like to be an alternate on the group.

Socioeconomics Ad Hoc Group (SEAHG). Shane said the group has been working quite a bit and would 

provide an update later today. 

New Business. Shane said he converted all the PPTs into pdf files for each day of the Annual 

Reporting Meeting (Attachments 2a and 2b). They’re about 7MB each and he invited people to 

download them onto their flash drives if they wanted. Responding to a question from Norm about using 

documents that weren’t approved, Shane said the information could be used provisionally but not cited. 

John Hamill said the information would not be released until the report is finalized.

GCMRC Updates

HFE Synthesis. Ted Melis distributed copies of a briefing memo from John Hamill to Anne Castle dated 

January 12, 2011, subject: Summary of upcoming USGS circular on the results of three high-flow 

experiments released from Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona (Attachment 3a) and passed out copies of the 

corresponding fact sheet (Attachment 3b). He said USGS Circular 1366, “Effects of Three High-Flow 

Experiments on the Colorado River Ecosystem Downstream from Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona” 

(Attachment 3c) will be released on February 8, 2011, and is similar to the SCORE report. He relayed 

the five key sediment conclusions that have important implications for designing HFEs:

1. HFEs effectively build sandbars by transferring sand from riverbed to sandbars either by eroding existing 

low-elevation sandbars or by using tributary-supplied sand.

2. HFEs conducted soon after tributary flooding accompanied by sand enrichment are effective at increasing 

sandbar area and volume and less likely to result in the erosion of low-elevation parts of sandbars.

3. Sandbars are rebuilt relatively quickly (hours to a few days) under sand-enriched conditions but then also 

tend to erode quickly over days to months following an HFE.

4. Monitoring data show that sandbars erode more quickly as release volumes and daily fluctuations increase; 

the rate of erosion reduced when tributary sand production occurs following sandbar building.

5. From February 1996 and October 2008 many of the sandbars at long term study sites in Grand Canyon 

experienced slight increases in size (both area and volume) over that period despite ongoing erosion of the 

deposits. This increase occurred during a period of variable basin hydrology which included 6 years of 

above normal minimum releases and 7 years of minimum annual releases. 

He also reviewed the four biological conclusions which have important implications for designing future 

HFEs (refer to the briefing memo). He distributed copies of the USGS Fact Sheet, “The Effects of Glen 

Canyon Dam Operations on Early Life Stages of Rainbow Trout in the Colorado River” (Attachment 3d).

Clayton expressed two concerns: 1) if the HFE is a document intended for public consumption, will 

GCMRC hold a press conference like they did for the SCORE report, and 2) why didn’t the TWG and 

GCMRC work with Reclamation on the HFE Protocol EA. Shane there would be some time to discuss 

the HFE EA protocol later in the meeting.

Bureau of Reclamation Updates. Glen gave a PowerPoint presentation (Attachment 4a) that covered 

the following updates. 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 3

Final Minutes of January 20, 2011 Meeting

High Flow Experimental Protocol EA. Glen said the intent was to improve sand in downstream resources 

and improve on past results. He went through the steps that were involved to produce the HFE Protocol 

EA that was sent to the public on January 18. There is a 30-day review period that will end on February 

14, 2011. If there were additional questions on the EA, they should be directed to Dennis Kubly. 

Comments on the HFE EA can be e-mailed to protocol@usbr.gov. Should conditions be appropriate to 

be able to in a position to conduct an HFE the spring, Glen said it would likely be late April if it took place. 

Following up on a question from Sam Spiller at the AR meeting yesterday, Ted said they have all the predam information at Lee’s Ferry summarized in one figure (Attachment 4b) that addresses Sam’s 

question about HFE timing relative to the accrual and release strategy. The next slide addressed Larry’s 

concern about timing/magnitude of pre-dam Colorado River floods and is based on all the instantaneous

flow data they have from the Lee’s Ferry station for each month. It quantifies the timing of when floods 

occurred between about 1921 and 1963 and how many exceptional occurrence floods there were 

outside of a median range. The plot illustrated the strong snowmelt signal from April-July as well as the 

higher flows in the late summer and early fall.

Due to limited constraints, Shane asked if the TWG wanted to adjust the agenda to allow for more 

discussion or possibly have a webinar with Reclamation and GCMRC available to answer questions. He 

said one of the primary tasks of today’s meeting was to give a charge to the BAHG to consider changes 

to the budget and work plan. There was general agreement that the TWG wanted a webinar at a future 

date.

Non-native Fish Control EA. In an attempt to facilitate greater understanding and developing alternatives 

to test, Glen said Reclamation utilized structured decision making (SDM) workshops and invited the 

cooperating agencies to participate. The USGS prepared an open file report, “Non-Native Fish Control 

below Glen Canyon Dam—Report from a Structured Decision-Making Project” (Attachment 4c). This is 

a companion document to the HFE Protocol EA as there is strong effect that high flow experiments 

benefit rainbow trout.

Q: What’s the plan at the LCR as far as controlling trout in that area? (Jordan)

A: The proposal is to do up to six removal trips at the LCR and up to ten removal trips 10 removal trips at the Paria

River to Badger Reach. We want to have flexibility in terms of the number of trips we’re able to do through this EA 

and want to be able to do this adaptively so that as we learn, we can shift effort upstream if that proves effective. 

(Knowles)

Q: There was a lot of support and interest for a trigger of some kind down at the LCR that would be a factor 

measured against how many trips you’d do or what you’d do at the LCR, where are we at as far as a recovery goal 

or knowing what a recovery goal is in the area of the river below GCD? (Jordan)

A: We do have a 1200 trout trigger and we’ve used a lot of literature to come up with this. We’ve had this target 

number in the LCR as one mechanism that we look at for conducting removal and just a target for the overall effort. 

Your question about whether HBC are close to being recovered and do we need to undertake this action is a very 

good question. The FWS is the agency to answer that question. (Knowles)

C: Region 6 is the lead for big river fish including HBC and several years now they have been revising the recovery 

goals. I talked with them in early December and was told “as soon as possible.” (Spiller)

Q: How are costs be accommodated in this? (Garrett)

A: It has to be part of the process and we’ll be talking about that more today. The EA was more explicit about that. 

It’s clearly part of this EA as well and we have to look at what budgets we have available to conduct these actions 

as we go. Costs were also considered in the SDM process as well. One of the objectives was to try and minimize 

costs with alternatives so that factored into selection of the alternative. (Knowles)

Q: How will these two EAs fit together with the NN EA being behind an HFE EA? How will you be able to do a 

FONSI on the HFE EA if the NN EA is not yet final and wouldn’t part of that action? (Ostler) 

A: We’re trying to match these up as closely as we can. The decision documents point to one another so we expect 

those to happen about the same time. We want to get these in place to be able to conduct a HFE in that spring 

window. In terms of a decision document, I think the timing will come together. (Knowles)

Q: If you were able to pull the BT, RBT removal would not needed. In other words, the BT having such a significant 

effect at the LCR, we wouldn’t need to worry about the RBT. If that is the case and in terms of your purpose and 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 4

Final Minutes of January 20, 2011 Meeting

need and the alternative you come up, it seems to me that those need to be revised. Has anyone seen that 

information? (Davis)

A: It was a key part of the evaluation in the SDM process. It’s not part of our EA because the NPS is already doing 

it, but it is a key piece. The goal is to reduce the abundance of both RBT and BT in the LCR Reach. If NPS weren’t 

already engaged in Bright Angel Creek activities, it would likely be part of our action but they’ve already done it and 

they’ve done NEPA on it so we don’t have to deal with it. In terms of just doing BT removal, that was part of some 

alternatives in the SDM process and they didn’t perform that well. Using the models developed by Josh Korman 

and Lew Coggins, you couldn’t get there with BT removal alone. (Knowles) 

Q: What do you plan on doing to incorporate fish suppression flows? (Spiller)

A: We haven’t really defined that, but I want to get started as soon as possible with folks that are interested in that 

along with FWS and WAPA. A number of the cooperating agencies said they are really concerned that it’s not a 

concrete part of the EA. Our commitment is to explore that through adaptive management over the 10-year period. 

(Knowles)

C: There may be some things we could do in the current operations, based on the hydrology next year that we 

could consider for a recommendation this year to AMWG. (Capron)

Q: What would they look like? (Spiller)

A: In the SDM process, we came up with trying to test some concepts that Josh Korman came up with as a result of 

the fish suppression flows that we already did. There are two things you can do, try to desecrate redds and kill fish 

or you can try and strand small fish as juvenile trout in Lee’s Ferry. Both actions affect trout directly in Lee’s Ferry, 

increasing mortality and reducing recruitment. The idea is that you run at some higher flow to get fish acclimated to 

a higher flow and spawning at a higher flow and then you drop that flow out from underneath for a certain time to 

desecrate them or strand fish. (Knowles) 

Q: Yesterday morning we heard from Pine and Haden who suggested that the young HBC were doing pretty well in 

the reach they were studying which was the reach below the LCR and that the young HBC would go in and out of 

the LCR and into the mainstem. In the summary work sheet that was produced by GCMRC there is one by Carl 

Walters which is Grand Canyon ecosystem modeling to identify critical ecosystem interaction and data gaps. In one 

of their summary statements it said based on the 2010 modeling workshop, the modeling team recommended that 

stakeholders may consider. That would be hugely valuable for informing future policy, not to control RBT at the 

LCR between 2011-2012. It also suggests that an HFE before the summer of 2011 might be impair our ability to 

interpret survival estimates from the nearshore ecology projects and that’s it possible that negative effects of sand 

along rocky shorelines may lead to reduced carrying capacities, habitats for juvenile HBC. There seems to be a 

conflict here. Can you help me understand? Is there not a conflict? Are you moving forward with these actions even 

though knowing that it might impact ongoing scientific studies? I’m at a loss to understand the logic here. 

(Dongoske)

A: This action is to meet a conservation measure. It is driven by tribal concerns and trying to come up with an 

action that better addresses the serious concerns expressed by the tribes. Science in a vacuum is great and if we 

were fortunate enough to focus on science, that would be what the scientists said would be the best approach. We 

don’t live in a vacuum in terms of science and part of what we’re trying to do here is conserve HBC. This action is 

designed to do that. It may not be the best approach in terms of science, but we feel it’s the best approach in terms 

of science and management. (Knowles)

C: That answer isn’t sufficient for me. It seems to me that you may be impacting a science study that’s been going 

on for several years, the nearshore ecology project, and you may impact how they are able to understand what’s 

going on in the system because you’re punctuating that system with a high flow and mechanical removal so you’re 

not really understanding the cause and effect. (Dongoske)

R: And as I understand it, that’s not exactly accurate. My interpretation of our questions to Bill Pine about this 

yesterday were that he really can’t tell you anything about trout predation, not directly, and you’d really have to alter 

a study designed to do that. The study that he’s doing was to look at the effect of stable flows on native fish and 

non-native fish in those nearshore habitats. But the recommendation from scientists that given our monitoring 

programs overall, if you really want to test this, the best thing you could do is hit it with a big hammer, let all those 

trout go to town and see this big drop in HBC and there you go, right? Unfortunately we’re not in a position to do 

that. As managers, we have to look at a bigger picture. We can’t just run this program for science alone. (Knowles)

C: Encourage you to not fall prey to the single species or the single resource mindset but to keep the flexibility, 

support for science high and strong, and keep the creative thinking going. The windows of March-April and the 

background and bias there has been all about tamarisk; tamarisk survival in the Grand Canyon is the second 

biggest impact in that system next to the dam and this year we’ll see that. (Stevens) 

Q: Is the Department committed to getting the FONSI’s done on these before a HFE can be conducted? (Johnson)

A: We’re committed to getting decision documents in place before we’ll conduct an HFE. (Knowles)
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 5

Final Minutes of January 20, 2011 Meeting

C: There was a lot of sidebar discussion yesterday and the SA’s big concern is this seems to be a great window of 

opportunity with what the managers are doing, but also a big challenge for the costs involved. The SAs see it as a 

great opportunity but see it as being very expensive. (Garrett)

Q: Are the activities that are here, are they being analyzed for impacts – the science activities that would be 

evaluating the NN or the HFE? (Henderson)

A: No. (Knowles)

C: That’s done in a different process along with what other things are required, i.e., permitting, that would be done 

outside the EA process. (Capron)

C: It looks like we really are moving towards an adaptive management and all of this information will then feed into 

the LTEMP process. It just seems like at this point we have two smaller EAs to bridge that gap between what we’ve 

done in the past and where this group is moving. The only thing we haven’t done is the protocol for repeated high 

flows and again, all of that should be rolled into the LTEMP planning. (Balsom)

Shane said he thought there would need to be more follow up with the TWG, BOR, and GCMRC to get 

into the details. He advised the members to review the presentations and possibly bring in some of the 

cooperators to assist in future discussions. He said the AMWG will be discussing the issues at their 

February meeting. He also said that any budget and workplan changes would also need to be approved 

by the AMWG. 

Basin Hydrology. As a result of all the precipitation in the system, Glen said that as of January 13th

snowpack was 134% of average. Inflow into Lake Powell jumped from 6.6 maf to 9.5 maf. The midmonth Apr-Jul forecast was issued on Jan. 13th and was decreased to 9.3 maf. This small reduction does 

not change the projected operation for WY 2011. The probability of receiving sufficient inflow trigger 

equalization in WY 2011 increased from 48% in December to 76% in January. The determination of an 

equalization release will not be final until April and it is possible that the forecast could decrease between 

now and April enough to result in a release scenario that would not include equalization releases. It is 

approximately a 1 in 4 probability that this could happen and the annual release volume would likely be 

9.0 maf if this were to happen. 

ACTION ITEM: Glen will send the web link to John Jordan on the water forecasts. 

(Update: The URL for the 24-month study is http://www.usbr.gov/uc/water/crsp/studies/index.html and 

the URL for the Colorado River Operating Plans is http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g4000/aop/index.html).

Programmatic Agreement and Related Cultural Issues. Glen provided background information on the 

history of the PA, signatories, and responsibilities under Section 106. Because the parties could not 

agree on resolution of effect in 2010, Reclamation is currently completing Section 106 review for each 

individual undertaking that otherwise would be covered by an agreement document, in accordance with 

36 CFR 800.4 through 800.6 and the Advisory Council’s guidance. The next PA meeting is scheduled for 

January 31 to discuss whether to use the 1994 PA or put a new one in place. 

Revision of FY 2011-12 Budget and Workplan. Shane said the focus will be on the FY12 budget but 

there may be implications for FY11. He said the Biennial Budget Process Paper (Attachment 5a) was 

approved by the AMWG in May 2010. He referenced Section 3.9 about making revisions to the budget

and said it will be very important to engage the BAHG soon because it’s going to be a very involved 

process. He walked through the issues he captured at the AR Meeting along with his thoughts as to what 

he felt needed to happen. (Attachment 5b): 

1. Sediment sampling reaches (Goal 8; Grams): GCMRC is seeking input on which reach would be the best 

to repeat first? Need input from TWG plus they have some ideas on which reaches would be helpful in 

showing those calculations.

2. Campable area: (Garrett) is there a way to compare data between campable area and actual sand area? 

We are tracking both the sand area/volume and campable area and to some extent encroachment, but we 

need to further understand how these questions are being approached.
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 6

Final Minutes of January 20, 2011 Meeting

3. Nina Kilham: long term changes in sediment. Could and/or should these be repeated, and be a part of the 

longer term campaign? Should they be repeated whenever we have a low steady flow of 8k to continue this 

long term data set. It is unclear how this project fits into the sediment program.

4. Amy Draut: aeolian sand effects are very linked to direction of wind flow. So what are the implications to 

management, based on whether a site gets “modern” deposits or is based from “relict” deposits?

5. Western Grand Canyon sediment: Kanab and Havasu inputs are now being monitored. There could be 

multiple HFEs in the future, not enough funds currently for Glen Canyon sediment flux. Should we continue 

what is currently in place or add attention to Glen Canyon or Western Grand Canyon as we don’t monitor 

there, given more HFEs we may want to add these. Mead used to be at 240, but now down to 280 and 

beyond due to river dropping. Are there navigational issues below, important to Hualapai? Sam Spiller: 

changes in conditions in upper mead area may be creating higher turbidity conditions which might promote 

razorback suckers, and possibly have implications for nonnatives too. Are we adequately addressing these 

issues?

6. Korman (trout): trout early life stage survival. This year we will have higher flows which will result in higher 

elevation redd deposits. Those eggs could be more easy killed by low flows (higher redds are easier to 

dewater). Korman proposed taking advantage of this opportunity in 2011. Under the fall steady flow plan, 

survival rates should go up in the fall due to steady flows and softer transition flows. But, they saw no effect 

of increased survival rates. To use flows to affect age-0 trout while they are in low angle habitats then that 

should happen in the May/June time period, about 80% of the age-0 trout are in that habitat then. Korman 

hypothesized that it wouldn’t take that many redds in the LCR reach to produce a lot of locally produced 

trout there. Higher release volumes this year might be good for trout by increasing the wetted perimeter 

plus steady flows. Opportunity in 2011: we could drop the river down on Sundays to destroy redds, this 

recommendation could be made as part of the hydrograph -- which months?

7. Baxter (food base): fish production downstream, comparable to Lees Ferry. HBC and RBT have a high 

degree of diet overlap. Fish assemblage is consuming all of the available black fly biomass downstream. 

But for midges, fishes may be underutilizing this biomass in some places. RM 30 evidence for strong 

competition, but competition at rm 60 might be relatively low for years 07 and 08, but no data for 09 and 10 

when trout numbers have substantially increased. Question under increasing trout abundance: what is 

likelihood of competition under higher trout scenarios?

8. Korman (trout assessment model): is this adequately funded in 2011/12 under the modeling workplan 

element?

9. Kennedy (food base): FY10 scaled back. FY09 monthly (Lees Ferry and Diamond) and quarterly down river 

(LCR). In FY10 field work scaled back to complete write ups. FY11 monthly at Lees Ferry and Diamond 

creek, but the idea was to wait on river trips until the PEP was completed. Plan pep in FY12. After hunt for 

money, cut food base in 11 to quarterly at just at Lees Ferry and Diamond creek. Then because of HFE 

GCRMC added monthly sampling at Lees Ferry and Diamond but still no river trips. The additional 

sampling was not approved for FY 11 but was for FY 12. Thus, it was a quarterly sampling vs. monthly 

sampling issue. Food base is restored to monthly sampling in FY 12 but still no river trips to LCR reach.

10. Ralston (vegetation program): pit fall samplers worked for arthropods in pilot study, core monitoring plan for 

vegetation in development, in FY11 Barb will visit sites to determine 80 sites for use. What is the overlap 

between the NPS vegetation program and what we are developing for core monitoring, is this redundant?

11. Pine (nearshore ecology project, NSE):

a. Should we continue with current project in FY 11 (last year of field work) given that they detected 

no signal of the steady flows? Should the project be changed to reflect changes in research needs 

for nonnative fish or should the steady flow be altered to have more of an effect?

b. Key question on movement between LCR and mainstem, how does survival of juveniles affect the 

adult population? Do juveniles move between the mainstem and LCR in order to maximize growth 

rates and survival potential?

c. High survival rates in the NSE study reaches implies low predation on size classes and in location, 

how do trout affect juvenile humpack chub in smaller sizes and between movement from LCR to 

NSE study area?

d. Steady flows were confounded by storms in 2010; what does this mean to results? 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 7

Final Minutes of January 20, 2011 Meeting

e. How can NSE methods for juvenile survival rates be used for other experiments, should juvenile 

survival in mainstem and LCR be monitored as part of our ongoing fish program (Core?)?

f. What integration should occur between the food base work and NSE, changes in workplan or more 

money or time for synthesis?

12. VanHaverbeke (HBC translocations): removals in 2010 consisted of about 10% in age-0 fish, and 14% 

age-1 fish that were taken for translocations, this is above the 5% goal. Need to have a 

science/management plan developed with goals, what are the objectives of the Chute Falls translocation 

program? We should consider a mini-pep and then development of a science plan. Need to integrate NPS 

native fish plan, work with the NPS. 

13. VanHaverbeke (LCR HBC monitoring): small 2009 cohort. Fall estimates seem limited, but spring seems to 

keep increasing. Should we continue juvenile estimates using VIE marking? How will VIE marking be 

integrated into the workplan and for what reasons, objectives? One benefit is to Tag juveniles that may 

migrate out to mainstem to be picked up by the NSE study. Need a workplan that describes these activities, 

how will the data be used?

14. AGFD (Lees Ferry): will nonnative removals be continued in backwaters. How does the RTELSS data fit in 

to the workplan? Unsure of what sampling is continuing, redds, RTELSS, 3 trips? Just need some 

clarification on what is planned for 11 and 12.

15. AGFD (downstream monitoring): high numbers of trout in LCR reach similar to 2000-2002. Only 1 

successful trip in 2010 due to turbidity downstream of LCR, if only 1 then might miss quality data for that 

year. In 11 we have one mainstem planned and one aggregation trip. Only 300k in 12 for nonnative fish 

removal efforts, but might need to cut back to 1 mainstem trip for FY12 -- if we do removals in 12 then you 

get abundance information in the LCR reach, maybe you can get by with one trip instead of 2 trips in FY 

12. 

16. Persons (aggregation sampling): need to see results from 2010 aggregation sampling. Bill will follow up 

with that report and provide an update on results to BAHG.

17. Nonnative trigger (1200 trout in LCR reach): how will this be calculated when our mainstem trip provides 

CPUE data? This would need to be converted to a population estimate, Korman thinks this may be possible 

with the trip by trip population estimates from the 2003-2006 work. But, if it does work at all, it will have high 

uncertainty. If so, what does this mean for management?

18. Flood timing (Korman): May 15 for flood might not produce a lot of trout in that year, might get a big cohort 

the next year, but in the flood year would have high mortality for emerging trout (age-0 may be susceptible 

to the flood). Unclear if the flood affected pre-flood emerged trout survival rates.

John Hamill gave a PPT, “FY11-12 Budget Assessment” (Attachment 5c) on what he thought the big 

budget issues for FY11 and FY12 to help facilitate the discussion. He provided statistics on available 

funding, potential for unplanned expenditures, and potential funding shortfalls. In conclusion, he stated 

there will be many budget uncertainties and funding the new initiatives within the existing AMP budget 

will adversely impact research and monitoring efforts aimed at evaluating the status of resources and the 

effectiveness of proposed actions (HFE protocol and NN control).

Q: You said that in FY11 you could cover the two Paria to Badger River (PBR) trips and the four LCR trips with that 

$820K. Does that allow you to still do the study you’re proposing? (Henderson)

A: No. If the intent is to actually start doing removal in PBR this year, there is going to be sampling going on to do 

that. We would still want to tag a lot of fish and see how those fish show up in the PBR reach and how they move 

further downstream and when they show up in the LCR and in what numbers. If there is going to be aggressive 

removal in that reach, that would essentially replace what we had originally proposed which was to investigate fish 

size classes and movement without doing any removal. (Hamill) 

C: Given the uncertainty and that the science plans should be out in the next couple of weeks, the BAHG should 

get together as soon as possible with a focus on how the workplan will need to be adjusted and what tradeoffs will 

need to be made. (Capron)
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 8

Final Minutes of January 20, 2011 Meeting

Q: Wondering if we can look to John to help ferret out which studies are already ongoing and could be re-focused 

or tweaked to answer some of those ongoing questions. I’m not seeing as being a shortfall but that a lot of what 

we’re looking at right now is set up through the long-term program to answer those questions. (Balsom)

A: To fund some of the new initiatives like an EIS, extensive non-native fish control, that’s money that comes out of 

the current monitoring programs that we’re relying on to do these assessment. If the monitoring programs were to 

stay intact, then we’re in good shape. You’re talking of throwing $1-2 million of the current science budget and 

you’re only going to do that by impacting some of those existing, ongoing monitoring programs which are 

fundamental to assessing the effectiveness of these actions. (Hamill) 

C: After seeing the presentations this year, the SA would agree that we’ve seen some scientists moving close to 

some real decision points on some fairly profound questions that you’ve been struggling with. With the interaction 

on some of the sediment issues, the managers move like they did more rapidly that we thought they would to 

create almost an experimental capability that if paired correctly with science, and if there was more integration of 

the science, there seems to be a tremendous opportunity for both scientists and managers to go through the next 

five years and get some profound answers to some of the questions you’re struggling with. The SA would hope that 

you would think a little out of the box for the next five years. (Garrett)

Shane asked if there was any opposition to the list. After the EAs are published, he will work with Shane 

on forwarding the list to the BAHG along with the items added today:

- trout tagging

- experimentation with flows

- implications of HFE EA and NNF Control EA

- develop Initial Budget Concerns/Priorities

Hydrograph Development for FY 2012. Shane said they’re trying to have a more deliberative process 

this year for developing an FY 12 hydrograph recommendation. He reviewed the following schedule he 

would like to propose to the AMWG: 

TWG January Consider initial hydrograph proposals. We expect to hear from 

DOI/DOE and Grand Canyon Trust at a minimum and we will be 

prepared to describe those at the February AMWG.

AMWG February Presentation of hydrograph proposals, consideration of development 

process and comments. Other proposals may be offered.

TWG March Refinement of proposals, discussion of resource 

benefits/costs/effects.

March –

June

Resource analysis conducted, final proposals developed. Potential 

additional analyses by GCMRC and use of GCMRC expertise in 

developing resource effects from proposals.

TWG June Recommendation to AMWG on FY2012 hydrograph

AMWG August Recommendation to the Secretary on WY2012 hydrograph

DOI/DOE Hydrograph Proposal. Glen said that within Interior and Reclamation, they’re starting to look at 

the results of the FY11 hydrograph and using those to form the FY12 hydrograph. He said there should 

be a draft proposal for the TWG to consider at their March meeting. 

Grand Canyon Trust Proposal. Rick said he will work with Glen and Shane on developing a hydrograph 

for consideration. 

Other Proposals. Shane said he talked with Deanna and Anne about the submission process and stated 

that DOE will do their work ahead of time. He also felt there wouldn’t be much sympathy for proposals 

that come into the process late. The hydrographs should be refined at the March TWG meeting. 

Suggestions:
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 9

Final Minutes of January 20, 2011 Meeting

- This is a public process and individuals should be allowed to participate and provide comments on 

hydrograph proposals. If they’re aware of the schedule (posted to the web), they’ll know when to attend the 

meeting. (Stevens)

- If there is an HFE, need to evaluate the possibility of looking at stranding fluctuating flows to effect the fish 

just emerging and that be considered and evaluated as part of the mitigation of what has been identified as 

a cloud of baby trout after an HFE. We should start looking at it now so we’re prepared for it. (King)

- Assess what the hydrograph impacts will be on all the resources. Would like to see some analysis of the

impact assessment and GCMRC should do that. Need to watch for hydrograph to stay within terms of the 

ROD. (Barrett)

- The HBC population is increasing at this time but that could change at some point. We’ve not a non-native 

fish control that if it goes through unchanged, it’s going to have up to six removal trips down at the LCR, 

two within the PBR and now we’re discussing suppression flows for trout redds and trout eggs. You really 

need to think what could be potentially overkill in that area. Also, something that was discussed at Saguaro 

Lake Ranch workshop is that at some point you need to open up the possibility of opening a stocking 

program in the event that you’re more successful than you may intend to be with suppression flows. 

(Jordan)

General Core Monitoring Plan TWG Review. Shane said there weren’t a lot of changes made to the 

main part of the document and were playing to a low, medium, and high scenario for levels of 

implementation. He said Appendix B which describes the TWG decision-making process on how the 

information from the CMP goes into the structured decision-making process. It’s hopeful that the CMP 

could be approved at the March TWG meeting. 

Helen said they had a meeting in November and brought back a substantially revised draft that 

addressed approximately 240 comments. She gave a PPT, “Core Monitoring Plan: Final Steps” 

(Attachment 6a). She went through what changes were made in the chapters and said chapter 3 was 

fleshed out and more detail added. The first part is in the Introduction section (Attachment 6b). She said 

there were also changes to page 40, “3.3.4 Core Monitoring Program Costs” (Attachment 6c). She said 

that fundamentally they need to decide on what is high, medium, and low or be more specific. Shane 

said it might change between projects and goals, for example implementing more in fish than in 

vegetation. She said the new chapter 4 wording changes were made and added in the CMINs and hoped 

they addressed the bulk of concerns that were raised. She said that Norm raised the concern of there not 

being an economics component. She reminded people to keep in mind that the plan was created around 

the goals and some economic issues can apply to the goals. They were used in Hydropower and 

explicitly in goal 10. Shane said he thought the last time this was discussed and Norm was going to 

submit some text. Helen said she feels there is enough flexibility that the door isn’t closed on that issue. 

Shane said he thought that could be done at a later time.

Shane said he has comments from the SAs and wants to integrate that into Appendix B and really 

defining Appendix B and creating a process to make realistic work and have the funding to do the core 

monitoring. Helen said that if the rest of the work needs to happen there, then is the plan acceptable at 

this point. She would like to have closure on that part of the plan. 

Q: How do we interpret the Appendix in relationship to the body when there are contradictions? It’s the 40-60% of 

the GCMRC budget -- (Henderson)

A: That was talked about and GCMRC disagrees with that text in the main part, but I haven’t heard that GCMRC is 

going to veto anything. My feeling is that we can work it out and they’re relatively willing to let us put reasonable 

stuff in that appendix. (Capron)

Q: How do you go across the disciplines? You may find that one goal is considered to be a high priority item but it 

actually falls out below a goal for another goal if you compare one against the other. (Davis)

A: In reference to funding? That’s going to be hard. We had the prioritization in Appendix 1 which is the revised 

SPG prioritized CMINs. They’re ranked and so that’s one policy document that we have to make those decisions. If 

you feel that one goal should be scaled back, we’ll now the ability to say okay I choose the low option and these are 

the values I’m using to make that choice. (Capron)
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 10

Final Minutes of January 20, 2011 Meeting

C: Appendix A and B gives you a two-step process and to deal with that very issue. It allows you to go back. As we 

go through these and because they’re low priorities, we’re likely not to rank them and go to Appendix B. Anyone of 

them are bumped. That structured process will do a lot for you. (Garrett)

C: It looks like we could actually focus on the resource we’re trying to improve and the reports over the past couple 

of days have been really insightful in terms of showing that we may be able to move beyond some of the things as 

opposed to answering the same questions over and over again. I’m hoping that as we move forward that that 

information actually gets integrated and start looking at through the process you’re talking about. (Balsom)

C: My concern is that some parts of the plan do deserve to be core monitoring because we know enough about 

what those are and other elements are so far out there that we can’t get there. I’m not satisfied where we are in 

terms of understanding especially biological processes. (Stevens)

Shane said he needed to read all the changes and incorporate an economic placeholder. He said once 

the TWG can accept the changes in the appendix, the TWG should be able to approve the plan. 

Socioeconomics Ad Hoc Group Update. Shane said the SEAHG was tasked by the AMWG to develop 

an implementation plan based on the Socioeconomics Panel report from December 2009. He said the 

SEAHG has developed a series of two tables; the first table is a description of what they thought the 

Panel presented. They tried to be as close to what the panel wanted. They developed a TWG comments 

column for all the comments they received about each of those projects. It’s a tracking document for the 

TWG to see what was recommended and what the TWG comments were. Table 2 (Attachment 7a) in in 

the report and was part of Mary Orton’s report from the workshop and shows the socio-economic 

questions and their ranking by the participants and TWG members. The SEAHG worked on Table 3 

which is a description of basically the main components of the Implementation Plan and what they think 

should be implemented based on what came out of the panel and their version based on their 

recommendations. 

Helen passed out copies of a PPT, “Final Revision Accomplished” (Attachment 7b). She went through 

the changes on Table 3 (Attachment 7c). She said that the Economics 101 Training is currently 

scheduled for March 7, 2011 in Phoenix. It is an educational course and not intended to cover non-use 

economics in-depth as that will be covered during the non-use workshop scheduled for sometime in FY 

2012. Western may provide support for the Economics 101 workshop and to help GCRMC to identify 

presenters specifically to address power system economics. CREDA will also provide a professional 

opinion to GCRMC on potential power system experts. WAPA is offering a course on the GTMax Model. 

Dave said the SAs were assigned to review the GTMax Model and suggested the TWG decide what 

model they want. 

Mike Yeatts expressed concerns that the tribes have separate values. Shane said that was line 8 and 

said they were trying to figure out if it should be rolled into the non-use values. Helen said there was 

some debate about whether the tribes would be comfortable doing things like willingness to pay for 

things that they feel cannot be put into a dollars and cents value. 

Respectfully submitted,

Linda Whetton

Upper Colorado Region

Salt Lake City, Utah

Public Comment. None

Adjourned: 2:45 p.m.
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 11

Final Minutes of January 20, 2011 Meeting

General Key to Adaptive Management Program Acronyms

 ADWR – Arizona Dept. of Water Resources

AF – Acre Feet

AGFD – Arizona Game and Fish Department

AIF  Agenda Information Form

AMP – Adaptive Management Program

AMWG – Adaptive Management Work Group

AOP – Annual Operating Plan

BA – Biological Assessment

BAHG – Budget Ad Hoc Group

BCOM – Biological Conservation Measure

BE – Biological Evaluation

BHBF – Beach/Habitat-Building Flow

BHMF – Beach/Habitat Maintenance Flow

BHTF – Beach/Habitat Test Flow

BIA – Bureau of Indian Affairs

BO – Biological Opinion

BOR – Bureau of Reclamation

CAHG – Charter Ad Hoc Group

CAPA – Central Arizona Project Association

GCT  Grand Canyon Trust

CESU – Cooperative Ecosystems Studies Unit

cfs – cubic feet per second

CMINs  Core Monitoring Information Needs

CRBC – Colorado River Board of California

CRAHG - Cultural Resources Ad Hoc Group

CRCN – Colorado River Commission of Nevada

CRE  Colorado River Ecosystem

CREDA – Colorado River Energy Distributors Assn.

CRSP – Colorado River Storage Project

DAHG – Desired Future Conditions Ad Hoc Group

DASA - Data Acquisition, Storage and Analysis

CWCB – Colorado Water Conservation Board

DBMS – Data Base Management System

DOE  Department of Energy

DOI – Department of the Interior

EA – Environmental Assessment

EIS – Environmental Impact Statement

ESA – Endangered Species Act

FACA – Federal Advisory Committee Act

FEIS – Final Environmental Impact Statement

FRN – Federal Register Notice

FWS – United States Fish & Wildlife Service

FY – Fiscal Year (October 1 – September 30)

GCD – Glen Canyon Dam

GCT  Grand Canyon Trust

GCMRC – Grand Canyon Monitoring & Research Ctr.

GCNP – Grand Canyon National Park

GCNRA – Glen Canyon National Recreation Area

GCPA – Grand Canyon Protection Act

GLCA – Glen Canyon National Recreation Area

GRCA  Grand Canyon National Park

GCRG  Grand Canyon River Guides

GCWC  Grand Canyon Wildlands Council

HBC – Humpback Chub (endangered native fish)

HMF – Habitat Maintenance Flow

HPP – Historic Preservation Plan

INs – Information Needs

KA  Knowledge Assessment (workshop)

KAS – Kanab ambersnail (endangered native snail)

LCR – Little Colorado River

LRRMCP – Lower Colorado River Multi-Species 

Conservation Program

LTEP – Long Term Experimental Plan

MAF – Million Acre Feet

MA – Management Action

MATA – Multi-Attribute Trade-Off Analysis

MLFF  Modified Low Fluctuating Flow

MO – Management Objective

MRP  Monitoring and Research Plan

NAU – Northern Arizona University (Flagstaff, AZ)

NEPA – National Environmental Policy Act

NHPA – National Historic Preservation Act

NPS  National Park Service

NRC  National Research Council

O&M  Operations & Maintenance (USBR funding)

PA  Programmatic Agreement

PEP  Protocol Evaluation Panel

POAHG  Public Outreach Ad Hoc Group

Powerplant Capacity = 31,000 cfs

R&D  Research and Development

RBT – Rainbow Trout

RFP  Request For Proposals

RINs  Research Information Needs

ROD Flows  Record of Decision Flows 

RPA  Reasonable and Prudent Alternative

SA  Science Advisors

Secretary  Secretary of the Interior

SCORE  State of the Colorado River Ecosystem 

SHPO – State Historic Preservation Office(r)

SOW  Scope of Work

SPAHG – Strategic Plan Ad Hoc Group

SPG Science Planning Group

SSQs  Strategic Science Questions

SWCA  Steven W. Carothers Associates

TCD  Temperature Control Device

TCP  Traditional Cultural Property

TES  Threatened and Endangered Species

TWG  Technical Work Group 

UCRC  Upper Colorado River Commission

UDWR  Utah Division of Water Resources

USBR  United States Bureau of Reclamation

USFWS  United States Fish & Wildlife Service

USGS  United States Geological Survey

WAPA  Western Area Power Administration

WY – Water Year (a calendar year)

Q/A/C/R = Question/Answer/Comment/Response

Updated: May 12, 2010