Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Meeting 

October 24-25, 2012 

October 24, 2012 

Conducting: Shane Capron, Chairperson Convened: 9:40 a.m.

Facilitator: Chris Page with Triangle Associates, Inc. 

Committee Members/Alternates Present: 

Jan Balsom, NPS/GRCA 

Cliff Barrett, UAMPS 

Kerry Christensen, Hualapai Tribe 

Jerry Lee Cox, Grand Canyon River Guides 

Kevin Dahl, Grand Canyon Trust 

Bill Davis, CREDA 

Craig Ellsworth, WAPA 

Amy Heuslein, BIA 

Chris Hughes, NPS/GLCA 

Vineetha Kartha, State of Arizona 

Glen Knowles, Bureau of Reclamation 

Marianne Crawford, Bureau of Reclamation 

Gerald Myers, Federation of Fly Fishers 

D. Randolph Seaholm, State of Colorado 

LeAnn Skrzynski, Southern Paiute Consortium 

Larry Stevens, GCWC 

Bill Stewart, AGFD 

Jason Thiriot, State of Nevada 

Michael Yeatts, Hopi Tribe 

Committee Members Absent: 

Charley Bulletts, Southern Paiute Consortium 

Kurt Dongoske, Pueblo of Zuni 

Paul Harms, State of New Mexico 

Chris Harris, State of California 

Tony H. Joe, Jr., Navajo Nation 

Robert King, State of Utah 

Ted Kowalski, State of Colorado 

Nikolai Lash, Grand Canyon Trust 

Don Ostler, Upper Colorado River Commission 

McClain Peterson, State of Nevada 

John Shields, State of Wyoming 

Randy Van Haverbeke, USFWS 

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center: 

Helen Fairley, USGS/GCMRC 

Jack Schmidt, USGS/GCMRC

Scott Vanderkooi, USGS/GCMRC 

Interested Persons: 

Mike Anderson, NPS/GLCA 

Mary Barger, USBR 

Peter Bungart, Hualapai Tribe 

Todd Chaudhry, NPS 

Dave Garrett, M3

Research/Science Advisors 

Loretta Jackson-Kelly 

Leslie James, CREDA 

John Jordan, Federation of Fly Fishers 

Mark McKinstry, Bureau of Reclamation 

Chris Page, Triangle Associates, Inc. 

Sarah Rinkevich, FWS 

Seth Shanahan, SNWA 

Rich Valdez, SWCA 

Mark Van Vlade, State of California 

Kirk Young, FWS

Meeting Recorder: Linda Whetton 

Welcome and Administrative. Welcome from Shane Capron, outgoing TWG chair. Shane will become 

the TWG representative for WAPA and Craig Ellsworth, the alternate. 

1. Approval of April 16-17, 2012, Meeting Minutes – Without objection, the minutes were approved. 

2. Approval of June 20-21, 2012, Meeting Minutes – Approval will be handled at the next TWG meeting. 

3. Review of Action Items (Attachment 1). There is some confusion on the status of the DOI 

Consultation Plan. An update will be provided at the next TWG meeting. 

4. Old Business 

 Ad Hoc Group Updates (Attachment 2): Shane 

o CRAHG - Any objection from TWG to having the CRAHG assist with integrating tribal 

presentations in the Annual Reporting meeting. Mary suggested this be handled by the Tribal 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Meeting 

Final Minutes of October 24-25, 2012, Meeting Page 2 

Liaison as it may not be appropriate as a CRAHG assignment. More discussion is needed 

with DOI staff. 

ACTION ITEM: Follow up with DOI personnel on role of tribes in planning and/or participating in 

the annual reporting meetings. 

o Core Monitoring AHG – A revised charge will be developed during tomorrow’s discussion. 

o SEAHG – Dr. Dave Garrett will continue to serve as the chair. It was Reclamation’s intent to 

have Dave Harpman serve as the co-chair, but Dave is now committed to working on the 

LTEMP EIS. 

o Operating Procedures AHG – Shane has been stepping in for Chris Harris for this group as 

well as for other ad hoc groups. In light of his term ending as TWG Chair, he will need to 

reassess his involvement in this and other TWG assignments. 

o Administrative History - An update will be provided at tomorrow’s meeting. 

 Two EAs, LTEMP EIS Updates. Glen Knowles 

o With completion of the EAs in May and subsequent FONSIs a secretarial directive 

implementing the two FONSIs was released. It established a leadership team of the five 

DOI agencies to implement the two actions of non-native fish control and the high flow 

experiment protocol. In July a memo from the Deputy Asst. Secretary provided more detail 

on how the implementation of the secretarial directive would work. 

- Non-native fish control and whirling disease - Reclamation modified the proposed 

action by cancelling two trips to remove rainbow trout from the Paria to Badger 

Creek Reach. This project was intended to be to provide researchers with 

information concerning trout control in that reach of the river and the effect of 

removal on downstream trout movement. Due to tribal concerns the project 

planned to remove the fish alive and stock them elsewhere. The trout were found 

to have whirling disease which prevents them from being relocated. In a letter to 

FWS on October 3, 2012, Reclamation described the situation and determined 

reinitiation of consultation was not necessary. The Service concurred. This project 

may be valuable to revisit to determine the effect on non-native fish movement 

downstream and the effect on native fish. The signatories to the NHPA MOA are 

working to resolve on the complications of whirling disease while meeting the spirit 

of the agreement and staying in compliance with NHPA. 

- The secretarial directive established an HFE leadership team and a technical 

team. The HFE Technical Team has weekly coordination calls and is developing a 

hydrograph. The leadership team will meet Monday (Oct. 29) to make a final 

decision on implementation of the fall HFE. If t occurs, the media event will be on 

Nov. 19. 

o LTEMP EIS. Reclamation and NPS are working toward development of alternatives and 

have been reaching out to others that submitted information prior to the July 2nd deadline,

i

ncluding the basin states and CREDA. Final draft alternatives should be available for the 

February 2013 AMWG meeting. LTEMP EIS updates will become a standing agenda item 

under old business for future TWG meetings. 

ACTION ITEM: Reclamation will keep the TWG informed of plans for a potential HFE in midNovember. 

5. New Business 

 Update on Recovery Plans – FWS is reconvening some of the recovery teams. First will be the 

Colorado River pikeminnow followed by the humpback chub. 

 Annual Reports Meeting will be held January 22-23, 2013 at ADWR. 

ACTION ITEM: The TWG Chair will follow up on discussions and/or presentations for the AR 

Meeting. 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Meeting 

Final Minutes of October 24-25, 2012, Meeting Page 3 

 TWG Meeting  January 24, 2013 at ADWR. A doodle poll will be sent out requesting 

availability for a 2-day early April meeting. Members were encouraged to utilize the “comments 

box” for any potential meeting conflicts. 

Update on TWG Facilitation. Mary Orton’s 5-year facilitation contract expired and Reclamation was 

required to advertise a new contract. It was awarded to Triangle Associates, Inc., out of Seattle Chris 

Page from Triangle was introduced and will facilitate some TWG meetings. Bob Wheeler, will facilitate 

AMWG meetings. 

Assessment of 1-Year Trial Period. In June 2011, the TWG decided to employ the facilitation services of 

The Mary Orton Company, LLC for the following year. An evaluation was conducted through an online 

questionnaire in August and September 2012. Shane distributed copies of the survey results 

(Attachment 3) and the following comments were captured: 

 Question of Mary’s neutrality on some issues. 

 Need to do better job of bringing divergent ideas out and getting comments from more members. 

 There’s a perception that “she” is on “their” side. The group needs to be prepared to be facilitated. 

 Like the idea of polling, but people need to be prepared and allow more time on the agenda. 

 Mary’s history with the program and being able to explain things and clarify questions was very helpful. 

 Liked breaking into small groups and using cards to arrive at consensus on issues. 

 Mary could bring us back to the basics of the program and explain how things fit with the operating 

procedures. She allowed us to remember and reduce the duplicative comments. 

 Having the continuity of working between TWG and AMWG meetings was a real bonus, but think Triangle 

can bring some new eyes to the process. 

 The best thing for a facilitator is to keep a log and not revisit things. 

 She helped the group work toward arriving at consensus. Would encourage Triangle to do that. 

Glen noted that if a non-federal employee gets elected as the next TWG chair, the funds budgeted for 

the position may not be available for having facilitation at every TWG meeting. There needs to be more 

discussion on how to strategically use facilitation at critical TWG decision-making meetings, particularly 

at budget ad hoc group meetings. 

Election of New TWG Chair. Glen Knowles said the TWG Operating Procedures identify a chair and a 

vice-chair but the operating procedures are being revised. Shane has done a great job over the past four 

years. The position is much different due to Shane’s willingness to take on more responsibilities. 

Request for TWG Chair nominations. 

Larry Stevens nominated John Jordan, Kerry seconded. 

John was unanimously appointed as the new TWG Chair. 

John Jordan looks forward to the new assignment. Shane proposed creating a steering committee to 

work with John on developing meeting agendas and facilitate a smooth transition. The following 

individuals volunteered to serve on the Steering Committee Ad Hoc Group: Shane Capron, Marianne 

Crawford, Craig Ellsworth, John Jordan, Vineetha Kartha, Larry Stevens, and Jason Thiriot. 

ACTION ITEM: TWG members who would like to serve on the Steering Committee Ad Hoc Group to 

help with the transition between TWG chair assignments should let John Jordan as soon as possible. 

Whirling Disease Update (Attachment 4a) Bill Stewart said that although whirling disease has been 

detected before at Lee’s Ferry, the incidence is currently higher. Extensive laws and regulations are in 

place to prevent or control the spread of invasive species. The State of Arizona passed the “Aquatic 

Invasive Species (AIS) Interdiction Act” in 2009 which reads “Except as authorized by the Arizona Game 

and Fish Department Commission, a person shall not: Possess, import, ship or transport into or within 

this state, or cause to be imported, shipped or transported into or within this state, an aquatic invasive 

species.” He reviewed the life cycle of whirling disease and provided the following information on the 

effects of invasive species on fish populations: 

 Trout species are highly susceptible to whirling disease, primarily rainbow and cutthroat. 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Meeting 

Final Minutes of October 24-25, 2012, Meeting Page 4 

 It’s not harmful to humans and the trout in infected waters are okay to eat. 

 It’s been detected in 25 of the 50 states and in some has had little to no impact on the trout 

population, while in others it has devastating impacts. 

 The Madison River in Montana and the Gunnison River in Colorado lost over 90% of the trout 

population. 

The AzGF Department has been sending annual samples since 1999 to check for the presence of 

whirling disease. In 2011 they sent in 18 batches of fish and four of those tested positive. One of the 

positive batches came from the upper third of the river. 

Dr. Vanderkooi provided a memo to Glen Knowles dated Oct. 22, 2012, (Attachment 4b), on the 

implications of the presence of whirling disease in Glen Canyon implications for proposed management 

actions in the Colorado River. Live removal and relocation of trout from the Colorado River represents by 

far the greatest risk of spreading the disease. Relocation of trout from an infected population without any 

risk of fish escapement or spread of myxospores is virtually impossible. There is a low risk of spreading 

whirling disease as a consequence of conducting experimental floods. The disease is already present 

downstream from Glen Canyon Dam and infected fish are already moving into Marble and Grand 

Canyons. It is likely that HFEs will result in a decrease in the prevalence and severity of the disease 

because it reduces the abundance of the intermediate host T.tubifex and its preferred habitat of fine 

sediment and organic matter. 

Concerns: 

 Endangered Apache and Gila trout are very susceptible to whirling disease which accentuates the 

importance of containing it. 

 The San Juan River is heavily infected, to tell the public to take protective measures to keep the disease 

out of other waters; have boats, gear, and other potential vectors sanitized. A method for diseased fish 

disposed needs to be developed primarily in the case the trigger for trout removal at the LCR is met. If live 

removal can’t be done, reconsultation will be necessary. This is a subject that needs immediate discussion. 

There is a need for a deliberate process to determine the frequency of occurrences in the Lee’s Ferry 

population. 

 

ACTION ITEM: Update at the next TWG meeting on progress of non-native fish removal; the method 

deemed appropriate for removal; the consultation that may be required; a synthesis of HFE results.

Status of Federation of Fly Fishers Representation on TWG. Jerry Myers will be the new TWG member 

replacing John Jordan who has been elected to TWG Chair. 

Science Plan and Sediment Update. Dr. Jack Schmidt said USGS doesn’t make policy 

recommendations. The decision to conduct a high flow experiment was based on the recommendations 

Reclamation forwarded to the HFE Technical Team as described in the “General Science Plan for 

Monitoring and Research of a High-Flow Experiment Protocol at Glen Canyon Dam” dated December 22, 

2011 (Attachment 5a). He gave a PPT presentation on “The Physical System” (Attachment 5b), noting 

the following: 

 Fine sediment enters the river from tributaries (primarily the Paria River), the sand and mud is 

initially deposited on the channel bottom and at low elevation. This sand and mud is quickly 

transported downstream. The mud is transported most quickly and the sand that remains on the 

bed becomes coarser. A comprehensive fine sediment measurement program is in place to track 

inputs and exports. It’s very rare to have a September that’s drier than August. It is a challenge to 

measure the Paria River and understand how to take advantage of the Paria River sediment 

contributions. The flow duration curve graph, describes the percent of time the river is at specific 

discharges. 

 15% of the time the flow of the Paria River is less than about 20 cfs. 

 1% of the time the flow is at or above 180 cfs. 

 0.1% of the time the flows are at 1,000 cfs. To understand this, one has to think in terms of .1% of 

a year which is 3.65 or about 4 days. 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Meeting 

Final Minutes of October 24-25, 2012, Meeting Page 5 

The program has not readily adopted the rapid response proposals of triggering based on input from the 

Paria River. It’s an enormous challenge to plan around fluctuations. Between July 1 to October 1, an 

estimated 533,000–680,000 metric tons came in from the Paria River. The largest amounts came in 

early August and late August. A lot of sediment entered the systemduring high transport from dam 

releases, that moved it through the system. When there was an opportunity to turn the “conveyor belt” off 

and retain the sediment in the system, essentially nothing came in. After September 1, flows stopped 

moving sediment through due to Fall Steady Flows. Reclamation will have to grapple with this in future 

years because the low flows were and ecological experiment. 

Sand was exported out of upper Marble Canyon through September 1 when it slowed down greatly. The 

last floods came in during late August. There was only a one week time period when enough sand and a 

high capacity of water to get rid of it overlapped and that was when the river was turned off for fall steady 

flows. The amount of sediment that accumulated in upper Marble Canyon is between 470,000 and 

690,000 tons. Little to no fine sediment accumulated in lower Marble Canyon. The mass balance prior to 

the 2004 HFE was less than what is thought to be available now. There were more favorable conditions 

before the 2004 flood and less before the 2008 flood. 

GCMRC scientists (Dave Topping, Paul Grams, Dave Rubin, Scott Wright, Ted Melis) discussed what 

would be the most advantageous flood design. They started with a general model that Nick Williams 

(Reclamation) had designed using an upramp rate which is the same as it was in 2004 and 2008; 21 

hours from powerplant capacity to peak, a very slow rate. There would be some advantage in repeating 

that experimental design. The group advocated a 10-hour period rise and peak flow held for 24 hours. 

The period of rise and the peak is very important in understanding what the concentration of sediment. 

There are measurements that compare the HFEs of 1996, 2004, and 2008. Learning drops off 

substantially after 24 hours and rather than go with the peak that was projected in the EA, the best 

professional judgment of the GCRMC sediment transport and geomorphology staff is to propose a slow 

rate of recession from peak to maximum powerplant capacity, not necessarily for advancing the science 

but because it will build more usable and better sandbars for the recreational community for the general 

ecosystem. 

High Flow Experiment Update. Glen Knowles gave a PPT presentation (Attachment 5c). In order to 

conserve sediment, dam operations will be 5,000-8,000 cfs before and after the hydrograph. The 

Leadership Team will meet on Monday to review the HFE Technical Team’s recommendation and a 

decision will be made that day. Ramping up would begin on Sunday, November 18 at 1500 cfs per hour. 

The jet tubes would be open at noon on Monday, November 19. There will be a ceremony with 

dignitaries, i.e., the Secretary of Interior and personnel from Reclamation, USGS, NPS and tribes. The 

tubes will be opened around noon and full capacity will be 42,300 cfs for 24 hours. The “slow down” ramp 

in comparison to previous HFEs should maximize sediment conservation benefits downstream. The 

downramp rate will start at 200 cfs per hour and decrease to 31,300 cfs, then drop to 1,000 cfs per hour 

until it reaches powerplant capacity (28,000 cfs). It will then be decreased1,500 cfs per hour. The event 

will be completely concluded around 8 p.m. on November 23, 2013, at 5,000 cfs. After the flood, 

between Nov. 23 and Dec. 1, the flows will continue to be 5,000 to 8,000 cfs. On December 1, the flows 

go back to fluctuating flows (MLFF). 

 There are no campsite monitoring trips scheduled after the flood recedes but preliminary data will 

be presented at the AR meeting in January. A number of cameras will capture images from 

sandbar monitoring sites. Crews will pull the digital chips from the cameras and Paul Grams will 

lead the effort in downloading and interpreting the data. 

 Ted Kennedy and his crew will be sampling before, during, and after the flood but only 

invertebrate drift during the flood. A couple of weeks after the flood there will be another trip to 

continue the 6 week monitoring routine. 

 Fish monitoring includes a number of trips that have been taken this fall and one on the water 

right now, the Natal Origins Marking Project. One trip has been added for the HFE and is a followup fish sampling trip in Glen Canyon during the first week of December, to recapture tagged fish 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Meeting 

Final Minutes of October 24-25, 2012, Meeting Page 6 

and to conduct a mark-recapture study to look at changes in population area. The next trip in 

January will monitor trout through Glen Canyon, Marble Canyon, and juvenile chub near the LCR 

confluence. 

Concerns: 

 Are volumes coming out of releases that would otherwise be released in February or March? 

o They will be taken from February. 

 Potential cost range of $580K- 1.9M depending on the duration and patterning. 

o The HFE Technical Team is preparing a memo to the Leadership Team with the information and it 

will become part of the administrative record. 

 It would be beneficial to have a presentation from WAPA on their analysis. 

o The HFE Technical Team is preparing a memo that will include the costs and analysis done. 

 What is GCRMC’s comfort level for determining HFE impact on the foodbase and native and non-native 

fish at three to nine months out from the HFE. 

o Most of the effort is targeted in the upper reach. GCMRC feels they have a robust sampling effort 

under regular work and will be adding an additional trip. 

Status on Ongoing Research of Razorback Suckers in Lake Powell, Western Grand Canyon, and 

Lake Mead. Dr. Mark McKinstry said over the last 15-18 years, Reclamation has had several biological 

opinions that directed work through the MSCP program on razorback sucker in Grand Canyon, Lake 

Mead, and the lower Colorado. Reclamation has initiated an investigation of potential habitat for 

razorback sucker in the lower Grand Canyon and may institute an augmentation program in that area, if 

appropriate. SWCA, Environmental Consultants, Dr. Rich Valdez has been retained by Reclamation to 

assist with the assimilation of information for this investigation and to recommend an augmentation 

strategy for the razorback sucker. 

Dr. Rich Valdez provided the following reports: Review and Summary of Razorback Sucker Habitat in the 

Colorado River System” (Attachment 6a), “The Potential of Habitat for the Razorback Sucker in the 

Lower Grand Canyon and Colorado River Inflow to Lake Mead” and accompanying PPT (Attachment 

6a), and “Strategy for Establishing the Razorback Sucker in the Lower Grand Canyon and Lake Mead 

Inflow,” (Attachment 6c). SWCA’s goal was to bring together the summary of information on the 

species, from throughout the basin and known distribution. 

Rich said the RBS is found in a variety of habitats and is probably the most diverse of the Colorado River 

fishes in the system. Of all the species that were that were present when Hoover Dam was constructed 

in the early 1930s, Glen Canyon Dam and Flaming Gorge in 1962, and the Aspinall Units, the RBS was 

the only native fish that could sustain itself in the reservoirs. This fish is seen in increasing numbers in 

the inflow areas of rivers that go into reservoirs, mainly the San Juan in the upper basin, the Colorado 

River, and now the Colorado River into Lake Mead. The RBS is a spring spawner and has variable 

temperature requirements and can spawn from about 12° to up to over 20°. They generally spawn in late 

winter and early spring and even into May and June. They have a terminal mouth and feed on plankton. 

The synchrony of these larvae with the zooplankton communities and flood plains is the key to this 

species and they either make it the first month of life or they don’t. It is so important to look at the full life 

history of the species, especially their connection with the flood plain. The absence of large floodplains 

reduces the likelihood of a self-sustaining population. Access to the lower Grand Canyon, and a it’s 

connection with Lake Mead inflow would be necessary to support all life stages. Possibly fish could 

spawn in the lower canyon and their young can drift to nursery habitat in the Lake Mead inflow. Bringing 

RBS into the Grand Canyon above Lava Falls would likely be unsuccessful because there isn’t nursery 

habitat above Lava Falls. In order to keep the young from starving, they need to be within a range of 

about 60-70 miles of nursery habitat. He concluded with the following recommendations to Reclamation: 

 Phase I: Determine the presence of and use by razorback suckers in the lower Grand Canyon; 

 Phase II: Assess and evaluate the viability of the Lake Mead RBS population and its linkage to 

the lower Grand Canyon; and 

 Phase III: Determine the appropriateness of an augmentation program for the RBS in the lower 

Grand Canyon. 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Meeting 

Final Minutes of October 24-25, 2012, Meeting Page 7 

Mark gave a PPT “Razorback Sucker in Lake Mead, Lake Powell, and Lower Grand Canyon – What’s 

New and What’s Next” (Attachment 6d). 

 Overview of the RBS timeline 

Reclamation is focused on the 2008 Biological Opinion with shortages and coordinated reservoir 

operations to examine the potential of habitat in the lower Grand Canyon and institute an 

augmentation program in collaboration with FWS, if appropriate. The lower Grand Canyon would 

be defined as from Lava Falls down to the Lake Mead inflow area and continue into the reservoir 

for 2-3 miles recognizing that the area in the reservoir is important. 

 Overview of RBS in Lake Mead since 1996. 

One of the working hypotheses is that turbid waters in Lake Mead are providing some cover for 

these fish and allowing them to recruit, spawn, and enter the population. They are not static and 

are moving throughout the lake. It’s been documented that fish have moved from both the Las 

Vegas and the Overton Arm areas, to the Colorado River inflow. That’s a distance of almost 80 

miles in some cases. 

 Lake Powell Study Area. 

Information derived from sampling in Lake Mead studies, motivated the San Juan Recovery 

Program to study Lake Powell. Most of the sampling was quite different because Lake Powell is 

primarily clear water. Key findings in Lake Powell revealed: 

(1) Large stocking program for RBS upstream in SJR but 36% captured without PIT tag, 

(2) Found one RBS larvae so reproduction is occurring, 

(3) The age of the fish is 4 to 19 years old, and 

 (4) RBS have been captured in the Lake portion of the inflow. 

A large number of adults were captured but not many small fish. It’s very difficult to capture fish 

that are less than 300 mm in length. More larvae were captured this year but have not yet been 

Identified and is being done in a lab in New Mexico. 

He provided the following recommendations: 

 Continue work on RBS at CRI and Lake Mead 

 Determine if augmentation is necessary 

 Use translocated wild fish (wild larvae from lake population) if augmentation is done 

 Integrate all information on fish and foodbase in LGC and CRI 

 Expand fish surveys in LGC, especially for RBS 

o Larval and small-bodied fish study 

 Potentially sonic-tag large adult RBS and release in Lower Grand Canyon 

o Look at habitat use, movements, and other fish 

Proposed future work in 2013 includes; 1) survey downstream of Lava Falls/Whitmore Wash to the CRI 

area including larval and small bodied fish sampling, 2) conduct a fish inventory, 3) look at the smallbodied fish community, 4) use sonic telemetry to see if captive fish can show what habitats being are 

used, 5) trammel net to monitor the CRI area as part of the Lake Mead work. By integrating this work 

with what’s being done in the MSCP program twice as much work will be done for half of the monetary 

investment. 

Comments/Concerns

 Would like Mark/Rich to make a presentation to Hualapai tribe on future work being proposed. 

 If we get imprinting on a tributary at the mouth of Spencer Creek or whatever, the fish could come back 

there, but how important is imprinting to the restoration of the species for the whole system? 

o A study done by Schultz in the late 1970s/early 80s said all three fish (HBC, pikeminnow, RBS) will 

imprint but you have to imprint them within the first month. Because there is water at Diamond and Salt, 

you might want to consider imprinting approach with eggs and then raise the fish in captivity and see 

what they do. 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Meeting 

Final Minutes of October 24-25, 2012, Meeting Page 8 

 There is some speculation that the flooded vegetation at the tributary and the inflow area provide some 

cover to give the fish protection from predation. 

o When the reservoir started to head down in Mead, the prediction was the population would also go 

down and that hasn’t happened. They’ve actually captured more fish and they’re seeing strong 

recruitment from two years ago which is when the lake was about the lowest it ever was. 

Updates: Goal 3, Tamarisk Beetle, and Riparian Work (Attachment 7a). Larry Stevens 

There are many species in the Colorado River ecosystem but primary concern is for the HBC and a few 

other key species. There are about 800 plant taxa in the river corridor, possibly 10,000 invertebrate taxa, 

350 verbebrate taxa overall. The last two years more than 90 taxa were identified in the river corridor that 

were either missing, at risk, or status unknown. In assessing which species warranted management 

attention, several species scored higher than HBC in various ranking systems. For example, the RBS 

and the Colorado pikeminnow ranked higher than the chub because the chub is in a quasi stable 

condition in Grand Canyon. Other species that scored higher than HBC include zebra-tailed lizard which 

is a low hanging fruit in terms of restorability, but it didn’t qualify because some of the committee 

members didn’t think it was an important species to keep on this reality checklist. He asked others to 

provide comments on the following: 

 Goodding’s Willow – There were 23 sites in pre-dam time when this tree occurred, but now 7 of 18 

post-dam sites have been extirpated from more than a third of them. Most remaining are in poor health 

and there is no reproduction in the system. 

 Tamarisk Leaf Beetle – This was an introduction into Utah but moved into the GRCA. The NPS has a 

fairly substantial program for monitoring the species. There are currently several restoration projects. 

NPS is doing a pilot project at Granite Camp which is RM 93. This November they will be removing 

selected tamarisk at the site and in February they will be replanting native species including 

Goodding’s Willow. The NPS and its partners have been monitoring the beetle in the corridor since 

2010 and trying to determine the best strategy for restoration in high priority areas (Lees Ferry, Hidden 

Slough, and Leopard Frog Marsh). 

 Kanab Ambersnail – Bill Stewart -some annual monitoring was done in September. Annual reports are 

not yet completed but will be provided. 

 Other Endangered Species – Good report on RBS. The other chubs were contra-indicated in their 

committee analysis because of the possibility of genetic contamination. There are no restoration plans 

for the bonytail and roundtail in GRCA in order to protect the HBC or the Colorado pikeminnowin Grand 

Canyon. 

 Zebra-tailed Lizard – In April, 5 male and 5 female Zebra lizards were captured from Peach Springs 

canyon and released into three different areas at the Diamond Creek dunes on the Hualapai 

reservation. Monthly monitoring has been conducted and it appears that most if not all have persisted 

however there is no evidence of reproduction yet. 

 Southwestern Willow Flycatcher – Occurrence of SWWF is contingent on the vegetation restoration. 

The Tamarisk Leaf Beetle has eliminated the primary habitat for the bird in the river corridor. The 

SWWF is an umbrella species for other neotropical birds in the system indicating they may also be 

missing. 

 California Condor – Condor is an ongoing management concern. Restoration efforts and monitoring 

continues impacts both inside and outside the park. Mitigation measures are being implememted. 

 Missing Mammals – There is no evidence that the Colorado River Otter is actually extinct. There 

haven’t been any recent sightings of either the badger or the otter. Muskrats are occasionally observed 

in the LCR. Over the last 25+ years there has been a large scale decline in cattails, which is the food 

source for muskrat. Cattail stands along the river have diminished, but in the past four months, there 

has been 12 documented sightings of muskrat in Glen Canyon. 

Periodic evaluation of the current status and the administrative implications of species of management concern 

is necessary, not only with native species but also non-natives. There is a need for an integrated process to 

keep the information coherent, address information gaps, talk about the redirection strategies, etc., including 

the funding responsibilities. Employing an ecosystem approach in the AMP requires understanding the status 

and changing distribution of all species. Some species might be important to the structure and 

function of the ecosystems; some species are important because of their endangered status or the 

administrative needs around them. There is a need to periodically evaluate the extent of knowledge 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Meeting 

Final Minutes of October 24-25, 2012, Meeting Page 9 

and the administrative implications of rare species of potential management concern, for both native 

and non-natives species. 

Larry proposed the following motion in relation to Goal 3: 

TWG recommends that AMWG establish a Species of Management Concern Ad Hoc Committee to 

integrate and regularly present information on native and non-native species that influence CRE 

structure, function, and management decision-making. 

Shane responded that TWG can establish its own ad hoc groups without asking AMWG. This is an issue 

the TWG has already been tasked with. 

Larry said the information isn’t integrated, but TWG’s doesn’t keep an integrated body of information. 

What are the new non-native species that are coming in, what are the species of management concern, 

what’s the status and distribution of species of management concern? 

Shane - The TWG could discuss further and pass along to the AMWG at regular intervals as part of the 

January annual reporting process and the AMWG meeting in February. As far as ad hoc group, Shane 

asked Larry if he would be willing to let the group talk more about this before having to do something 

right now. Larry said his intent was to provoke discussion. 

ACTION ITEM: Look into the potential for setting up an AMWG ad hoc group on species of management 

concern to regularly present information on native and non-native species that influence CRE structure, 

function, and management decision-making. 

Helen said she was excited to hear there’s new information on the zebra-tailed lizard but questions how it 

fits with the AMP or whether it’s external to the AMP. Larry said he presented the Goal 3 report a year 

ago in August and talked with Reclamation and because it was an inexpensive and easy project to 

implement, the decision was made to do the work and to complement the program. 

Havasu Report. The NPS publication, “Humpback Chub Translocation to Havasu Creek, Grand Canyon 

National Park Implementation and Monitoring Plan” (Attachment 7b) will be posted to the TWG meeting 

page. NPS has translocated about 550 HBC into Havasu Creek and have caught approximately 70 

untagged wild HBC. Havasu has higher growth rates in Havasu Creek than in Shinumo Creek and the 

LCR. 

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Updates (ASMR/LSMR, Kanab Ambersnail). Dr. Scott 

Vanderkooi said the Kanab Ambersnail genetics report by Dr. Melanie Culver is currently being edited at 

the USGS Science and Publishing Office. The report concludes that the KAS is a distinct population but 

not a unique species. 

ASMR/LSMR - Dr. Martell has taken a new position with the Pacific Halibut Commission in Seattle. Dr. 

Martell may make a presentation at the spring TWG meeting. Scott gave a PPT (Attachment 8) updating 

progress made with ASMR and LSMR models. In both model runs, the trends are the same. The LSMR 

model is more sensitive to increases in recruitment. The ASMR refers to 2-year-old fish; the LSMR is 

able to start tracking fish when they hit 50mm. 

 LSMR Preliminary Findings 

o Growth increment data suggest increases in growth rates since ~2001. 

o Trends in abundance between LSMR and ASMR are similar for fish >150mm 

o Estimated natural mortality rates are much higher in LSMR (0.21-0.27) vs. AMWR (0.08-0.13) 

o Greater uncertainty in abundance estimates (as expected) using a length-based model 

o Greater recruitment variability in length-based model. 

 Natal Origins/Juvenile Chub Monitoring - There is currently a large number of trout in Lees Ferry the 

numbers dramatically decreases near the confluence of the LCR. There is more invertebrate drift in Marble 

Canyon than in GLCA. 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Meeting 

Final Minutes of October 24-25, 2012, Meeting Page 10 

 Mainstem Juvenile Chub Monitoring – Downstream of the LCR confluence there are relatively large 

numbers of small fish but abundance drops off in April. This may be because in the spring the fish are in 

deeper water or they have moved into the LCR. 

 Whirling Disease and Implications 

o Only infects salmonids and Tubifex tubifex

o RBT highly susceptible; BT carry parasite, usually asymptomatic 

o Young, small fish most susceptible; resistance increases with age and growth as cartilage hardens 

o One infected fish can carry millions of myxospores 

o Triactinomyxon production highest at 10-15°C 

o Silt and clay best habitat for T. tubifex and triactinomyxon production 

o T.tubifex abundance associated with high levels of organic material 

o Scouring flows displace T. tubifex and habitat 

o Live removal and relocation of trout increases risk of spreading disease 

o High flow experiments present a very low risk of spreading disease 

Public Comment: None 

Adjourned: 5 p.m 

 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Meeting 

Final Minutes of October 24-25, 2012, Meeting Page 11 

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Meeting 

October 24-25, 2012 

October 25, 2012 

Conducting: Shane Capron, Chairperson Convened: 8:10 a.m.

Facilitator: Chris Page with Triangle Associates, Inc. 

Committee Members/Alternates Present: 

Jan Balsom, NPS/GRCA 

Cliff Barrett, UAMPS 

Kerry Christensen, Hualapai Tribe 

Jerry Lee Cox, Grand Canyon River Guides 

Kevin Dahl, Grand Canyon Trust 

Bill Davis, CREDA 

Craig Ellsworth, WAPA 

Amy Heuslein, BIA 

Chris Hughes, NPS/GLCA 

Vineetha Kartha, State of Arizona 

Glen Knowles, Bureau of Reclamation 

Marianne Crawford, Bureau of Reclamation 

Gerald Myers, Federation of Fly Fishers 

D. Randolph Seaholm, State of Colorado 

LeAnn Skrzynski, Southern Paiute Consortium 

Larry Stevens, GCWC 

Bill Stewart, AGFD 

Jason Thiriot, State of Nevada 

Michael Yeatts, Hopi Tribe 

Committee Members Absent: 

Charley Bulletts, Southern Paiute Consortium 

Kurt Dongoske, Pueblo of Zuni 

Paul Harms, State of New Mexico 

Chris Harris, State of California 

Leslie James, CREDA 

Tony H. Joe, Jr., Navajo Nation 

Robert King, State of Utah 

Ted Kowalski, State of Colorado 

Nikolai Lash, Grand Canyon Trust 

Don Ostler, Upper Colorado River Commission 

McClain Peterson, State of Nevada 

John Shields, State of Wyoming 

Randy Van Haverbeke, USFWS 

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center: 

Helen Fairley, USGS/GCMRC 

Jack Schmidt, USGS/GCMRC

Scott Vanderkooi, USGS/GCMRC 

Interested Persons: 

Mike Anderson, NPS/GLCA 

Mary Barger, USBR 

Peter Bungart, Hualapai Tribe 

Todd Chaudhry, NPS 

Evelyn Erlandsen, State of Arizona 

Dave Garrett, M3

Research/Science Advisors 

Loretta Jackson-Kelly 

John Jordan, Federation of Fly Fishers 

Mark McKinstry, Bureau of Reclamation 

Clayton Palmer, WAPA 

Chris Page, Triangle Associates, Inc. 

Sarah Rinkevich, FWS 

Seth Shanahan, SNWA 

Rich Valdez, SWCA 

Mark Van Vlade, State of California 

Kirk Young, FWS

Meeting Recorder: Linda Whetton 

Welcome and Administrative. Shane Capron 

High Flow Experiment Discussion. 

John asked how the 5,000-8,000 cfs number was established and what considerations went into it. Glen 

answered that these flows make it easier to move water later in the year. An HFE uses a lot of water, if a 

low flow is done before and after, less water is released and more sediment conserved. Conserving 

sediment before the HFE helps to build better beaches, stable flows after the HFE stabilizes and 

maintains the beaches. Less water will be released in November but water will be moved in February per 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Meeting 

Final Minutes of October 24-25, 2012, Meeting Page 12 

WAPA’s request. Reclamation did an assessments effect on biological resources. Foodbase and RBT 

monitoring will be undertaken to better assess the effect of the HFE and the associated balancing. 

Concerns: 

 HFEs have impacts on the services and lodges at Marble Canyon. 

 State of Colorado feels they were told one thing about flow last week and something new today. 

o Glen - there were some concerns that not enough technical information was provided at the meeting on 

Oct. 15 with the basin states so they’ve been pursuing a follow-up teleconference to provide that 

information. The intent of the EA consultation process wasn’t closely followed. 

o Jack - He met with his staff on Oct. 15 and asked for their best scientific advice. Katrina Grantz and 

Nick Williams agreed to run some additional scenarios. GCMRC couldn’t provide a definite response to 

Reclamation until Oct. 19. 

 Concern expressed that there is not short-term monitoring to see if tweaks being made by scientists in the 

hydrograph did any good and if the results can be quantified. 

o Jack said there is high reliability from daily cameras. Staff scientists will write short white papers 

explaining their approaches for making those observations and interpreting the measurements. 

o Ted Kennedy said the effects on foodbase should be relatively minimal. 

 The month of November in the end of 8,000 steady flows. It would be interesting to note when we’re back 

to the 8,000 level, how much accumulated sediment has been preserved, ie.is 8000 cfs accumulating 

sediment and fairly stable or is it rapidly eroding accumulated sediment? 

 Trout may be forced downstream to the LCR confluence where they will compete with the HBC . 

 Did Reclamation consider staying at 8,000 through this time period with the high flow in-between? 

o Glen- it never came up. Reclamation staff worked with Western to determine what would be best 

the best scenario for sediment. The hydrograph selected wasn’t much different and would provide 

some benefit to Western for generating hydropower. The HFE Technical Team held coordination 

calls over the past 6 weeks and there wasn’t a lot of focus on this issue. 

o Clayton- in talking with WAPA’s operations office in Montrose and the marketing office in SLC, he’s 

unaware whether 5,000 to 8,000 cfs is better for power than a flat 8,000 cfs. His own assessment is 

that 5-8,000 cfs doesn’t differ in power impacts from a straight 8,000 cfs depending, however, on 

whether that means adding additional water to November and taking it from other months. The 

impact, whether beneficial or adverse, would be a function of where the water came from. There 

are some months in which it would actually be a benefit to move from 5 to 8. 

 Reminder that the 5,000 cfs during nighttime hours was proposed because it would store extra water during 

a time when hydropower production demands were expected to be low and a drop to 5,000 during the night 

time hours wouldn’t dramatically effect food production in Lees Ferry and cooler temperatures at night, 

particularly in the shoulder months, low flows wouldn’t substantially affect the foodbase. In December and 

January however, temperatures can drop to freezing and the foodbase is wiped out. GCMRC needs to 

address some of these issues. 

 The protocol developed for the EA is an experiment and should have been followed. We are adding an 

experiment onto another experiment that hasn’t undergone the same level of analysis as the HFE impacts 

considered in the HFE EA. 

 Concern expressed that we’re operating on projections and hypothesis. If flows go down much lower than 

8000 cfs and if our ability to prognosticate has a couple of errors in it, we may collect more great data, but 

we’re risking the livelihood of a large number of people and their families who derive their income off of this 

river. 

 Private boaters have expressed concerns that they have less experience at the 5,000 level so consider 

flows to remain at 8,000 constant. 

The HFE Technical Team will provide recommendations to the Leadership Team, who would then submit a memo 

to the Secretary. Copies of those documents will be provided to the TWG. 

ACTION ITEM: Reclamation will share the TWG’s concerns about the HFE to the Technical Team and 

report back to the TWG. 

Administrative History. Jason Thiriot a PPT (Attachment 10). 

 A “wiki” website (short for Wikipedia, a user-friendly format aimed at using links) was developed for the 

GCDAMP program. The site was purchased by the Colorado River Commission of Nevada at a minimal 

expense and donated to the program. Many stakeholders are linked to the AMP website 

(http://www.gcdamp.com). This is an additional way to share current information with the stakeholders 

and inform the public on the program’s history. It is suggested that approval for using this site be 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Meeting 

Final Minutes of October 24-25, 2012, Meeting Page 13 

obtained from the AS-WS Office to ensure there is no conflict between this and Reclamation’s AMP 

website. 

Formation of the Administrative History Ad Hoc Group (AHAHG): The following individuals volunteered to 

serve: Jan Balsom, Shane Capron, Chris Hughes, Bill Stewart, Jason Thiriot (chair) and Mike Yeatts. 

The charge for the group will be to review the wiki site and determine what needd to be added/modified, 

and who should be responsible for updating the site, additional links to be established, etc.. 

Action Item: The new “wiki” AMP website information will be provided as part of TWG debriefing with 

Lori Caramanian to ensure there are no problems with using this site. 

Two Announcements: 

HFE Update. Glen Knowles 

As a result of this morning’s discussion on a proposed fall HFE, he’s been on the phone with a number of 

people this morning sharing the TWG’s concerns. This is the first time the Department has considered a 

high flow event under the new HFE Protocol so there is a learning curve. The Leadership Team meeting 

was scheduled to allow Western time to determine what they needed for November. Consequently, a 

HFE Technical Team meeting next Monday will be followed by a conference call with interested TWG 

members. A call has been set for the basin states on Tuesday at 2:00 MDT. The Leadership Team will 

hold a conference call on Thursday for further discussion and possibly prepare a recommendation to the 

Secretary. In preparation for the TWG call, GMCRC will provide Ted’s write-up on impacts to the 

foodbase and Jack’s PPT will be posted to the AMP website. A WAPA representative should participate 

and be prepared to give information on impacts to power. 

Operating Procedures Ad Hoc Group (OPAHG) Update. Shane Capron 

 The OPAHG worked through two major issues; the GCMRC section of the OP that describes GCMRC 

responsibilities and including a TWG elected vice-chair position. As set up in yesterday’s meeting, the 

Steering Committee Ad Hoc Group (SCAHG) will assist in the transition between the former and newlyelected TWG chair. 

Socioeconomics Ad Hoc Group (SEAHG) Update. Dave Garrett 

The SEAHG is in the process of changing their responsibilities as directed by the Secretary, to 

identification of those activities that the LTEMP and the EIS process are not covering but the AMP could 

do through recommending changes to GCMRC work plan. The group has reviewed water, hydropower, 

general and cultural resource information needs. The group will continue their work via e-mail and 

present their revised charge at the next TWG meeting. 

Core Monitoring Plan: This item was deleted from the agenda due to time constraints and will be 

addressed at a future meeting. 

Annual Reporting Meeting on January 22-23, 2013. Dr. Jack Schmidt 

Two sessions will be similar to last year’s Knowledge Assessment Workshops. Stakeholders who would 

like to present should let him know as soon as possible. The tribes will be involved l and will report on 

their monitoring trips. If there are requests for topics for GCMRC, notify Jack. 

Public Comment: None 

Adjourned: 3 p.m. 

Respectfully submitted, 

 

Linda Whetton 

Upper Colorado Regional Office 

Bureau of Reclamation 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Meeting 

Final Minutes of October 24-25, 2012, Meeting Page 14 

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 

DAHG2 – 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 

DOIFF – Department of the Interior Federal Family 

EA – Environmental Assessment 

EIS – Environmental Impact Statement 

ESA – Endangered Species Act 

FACA – Federal Advisory Committee Act 

FEIS – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

FRN – Federal Register Notice 

FWS – United States Fish & Wildlife Service 

FY – Fiscal Year (October 1 – September 30) 

GCD – Glen Canyon Dam 

GCT – Grand Canyon Trust 

GCMRC – Grand Canyon Monitoring & Research Center 

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 

LTEMP – Long-Term Experimental and Management 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 

TMC – Taxa of Management Concern 

TWG – Technical Work Group 

UCRC – Upper Colorado River Commission 

UDWR – Utah Division of Water Resources 

USBR – United States Bureau of Reclamation 

USFWS – United States Fish & Wildlife Service 

USGS – United States Geological Survey 

WAPA – Western Area Power Administration 

WY – Water Year (a calendar year) 

Updated: Sept. 1, 2011