Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Meeting 

January 26, 2017 

Summary of Actions Taken 

1. Draft Minutes for October 18-19, 2016, meeting were approved by consensus. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

Date: January 26, 2017 Start Time: 8:15 a.m. 

Conducting: Seth Shanahan, TWG Chair 

Vineetha Kartha, TWG Vice-Chair 

Attendees 

Meeting Recorder: Linda Whetton 

Welcome and Administrative: Mr. Shanahan welcomed the members and the public. 

	 Introductions were made and a quorum determined. 

	 Approval of June October 18-19, 2016, Meeting Minutes. Motion approved by consensus. 

	 Review of Action Items. 

	 Introduction of New Deputy Chief for GCMRC. Mr. Michael Moran started working for GCMRC in 

November 2016 as the deputy chief. He previously worked at the USGS Nevada Water Science Center for 

10 years and prior to that was in South Dakota with the USGS National Water Quality Assessments 

Program. 

 Next Meeting Date: April 20-21, 2017. Location will be ADWR in downtown Phoenix. 

 Ad Hoc Group List Updates. The following were provided: 

o	 Trout AHG (TAHG) – Mr. Budwig. The FFF/TU group met with GCMRC’s scientists to discuss what’s been 

accomplished and ensure their priorities are in sync. They produced a document which was sent to the 

TAHG for comments. Consensus on that hasn’t been reached so a conference call will be scheduled. 

o	 Socioeconomics AHG (SEAHG) – Mr. Reeder. The SEAHG doesn’t have consensus on working through the 

priorities based in Table 1 and will hold a conference call in early February to discuss further. 

o	 Cultural Resources AHG (CRAHG) – Mr. Dongoske. A list of ten potential projects focusing on Native 

American concerns was generated and sent to the CRAHG for comments. Very few responses were 

received, a list of projects was provided to Mr. Shanahan. 

o Administrative History AHG (AHAHG) – Mr. Stevens. Dr. Paul Hirt (ASU) is developing a plan for conducting 

interviews and interacting with past AMP members and will report at the next AMWG meeting. 

	 Science Advisors Program Update. Dr. David Braun. The Fisheries PEP was wrapped up and they’re 

working with GCMRC to shepherd the final report to completion. In supporting the Knowledge Assessment 

work, there are clear needs for attention to many things including how antecedent conditions affect 

outcomes of management actions, how external drivers affect resource conditions and outcomes of 

management actions, etc. He reviewed tasks for the remainder of FY17. 

	 Update on Plan for Controlling High Risk Aquatic Invasive Fish Species – Mr. Ken Hyde. A very successful 

ammonia treatment was conducted last October resulting in capturing nearly 5,000 to 6000 fish through 

electrofishing in the upper slough. There were very few GSF in the lower slough so no treatment occurred 

there. There was reproduction occurring in the upper slough because the remaining fish were less than 

two inches in length. A series of photos of the slough were taken during the November, 2016 HFE. The 

HFE scoured the upper slough. Research and field trips have been conducted to monitor the slough and to 

develop options for dealing with GSF. NPS will be proposing a much more extensive monitoring system for 

non-natives, especially in the low backwater areas in the Lees Ferry Reach. This will include the 

electrofishing that AZGFD conducts. The new plan will also include best management practices that 

weren’t fully fleshed out in the current CFMP. A research trial will be done this spring to install a couple of 

exclusionary screens in an attempt to keep GSF from getting to the upper slough. AZGFD is considering 

releasing triploid (sterile) rainbow trout to augment the population. 

	 Update on High Flow Experiment Reporting – Ms. Katrina Grantz. Reclamation is preparing a report that 

will include the reporting requirements from past HFE events. 
            

              

 

 

 

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group
 

Final Minutes of January 26, 2017, Meeting
 Page 2

Review of the 2017 Annual Reporting Meeting (ARM) and Discussion of Knowledge Assessment – Mr. 

Seth Shanahan. The TWG was asked to share comments and concerns from the past 2-day ARM. The 

following were captured: 

	 The Yard/Korman paper stating that rather than electrofishing (CPUE) which provides imprecise indices of recruitment 

and abundance, utilize mark-recapture by tagging fish. Trout and bug flows will need results quickly to determine an 

impact on chub, trout, and the whole ecosystem. How do we get to the point where that methodology is changed? 

Who has that discussion? Where do we go from here? 

o	 Mr. Shanahan – There’s time lag in getting the information. When we see work products come out, we need 

to try to identify if changes are needed. 

o	 Mr. VanderKooi – We are thinking in terms of the TWP and the LTEMP. We’ve had debates on a number of 

things and how best to go forward. We need to look at what the information needs are that support LTEMP 

and put forth proposals that are the best approaches based on all these pieces of information and data we’ve 

had in the past, published papers, etc. We’re going to have some challenging discussions. 

 People wanting to be involved in the budget process should sign up to work on the BAHG. Members are 

encouraged to consider how their issues relate to the Information Needs. 

 Data collection is very important but let’s make sure we don’t lose the value of past data collected. Need to see 

more emphasis on how dam operations affect data and canyon work in general. 

	 The Zuni religious leaders believe the taking of life in the canyon is having a negative effect at Zuni by the loss of 

life by Zunis. Zunis are dying. Zuni concerns haven’t been addressed directly. In doing mechanical removal, you 

are disproportionately affecting a community of people. This program has an ethical responsibility to address the 

Zuni concerns. 

	 How do we get the nutrients dynamics model of the system that actually serves the purposes of informing us to 

pay more attention and be able to make predictions? There is a lot of information about reservoir productivity but 

not so much about the connection between reservoirs and downstream rivers. Springtime HFEs are controversial. 

This is a 3-year budget cycle, but it would be important to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of spring 

HFEs and consider them in the third year of the budget. 

Discussion of Knowledge Assessment – Mr. Seth Shanahan. The Knowledge Assessment, was prepared 

using the Park Service’s NRCA (Natural Resource Condition Assessments) method. A western science 

knowledge assessment component as well as a tribal knowledge assessment component were originally 

intended. The tribes will discuss and provide input on what is the most appropriate way to consider tribal 

knowledge. The western science component is ongoing and the topics being evaluated were presented. 

This should help future budget discussions by determining where the gaps are and by establishing 

priorities. 

Dr. David Braun explained the symbols being used are to enable a quick understanding of the current 

status of resources conditions and trends. The January 11 deadline was a very aggressive schedule and 

couldn’t be met, the new deadline is February 15. The goal is to have a final work product by mid-March 

so that the process can move forward and aid in BAHG formulations. 

Update on the LTEMP ROD – Ms. Katrina Grantz. The LTEMP ROD was signed on Dec. 15, 2016 and 

the Preferred Alternative identified in the LTEMP EIS was selected without modification. In terms of 

environmental commitments, the document states that the GCDAMP, GCMRC, AMWG, TWG, and the 

SA are going to continue. The goals and objectives of the LTEMP are the objectives of the GCDAMP and 

will fold in as they work on the TWP. The priorities identified in the ROD include experimental and 

management actions, mitigation, environmental commitments, and research and monitoring. It further 

states that the GCDAMP activities eligible for funding from power revenues are those actions related to 

dam operations or the mitigation of dam operations within the Colorado River Ecosystem (CRE). 

Beginning January 1, 2017, interim operations shall implement the LTEMP general monthly release 

volume pattern. The LTEMP ramp rates and daily fluctuations shall be phased in no later than October 1, 

2017, Spring HFEs shall be implemented when conditions warrant, as described in the FEIS beginning 

September 30, 2019. Research and monitoring projects already approved in the 2015-2017 triennial 

work plan and budget shall continue until September 30, 2017 (Spring 2020). 
            

              

 

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group
 

Final Minutes of January 26, 2017, Meeting
 Page 3

Basin Hydrology, Operations and 2018 Hydrograph – Mr. Paul Davidson. As of today, the snow water 

equivalent is 167% of median with 97% of average total season accumulation. Basin reservoir storage 

totals range from 47% full at Lake Powell to 83% full at Flaming Gorge. The April to July forecasted 

inflow for Lake Powell ranges from 6,500 KAF (91% of average) to 9,000 KAF (126%). The Lake Powell 

operating tier was set in August 2016 at a 8.23 maf annual release and using the April 24-monthy study 

projections there may be an April adjustment to balancing releases of 9.0 maf. All three forecasts 

scenarios project a 9.0 maf release from Lake Powell in water year 2017. Monthly release volumes under 

LTEMP will be adjusted according to the annual GCD operations and the projected annual release 

volume (the annual release does not change as a result of LTEMP). There will be only five hydropower 

units available in February and March which affects WAPA’s capacity to market power. It will also affect 

(reduce slightly) some monthly releases. Within water year 2017 and ending calendar year 2017, the 

projections show Lake Powell within the upper elevation balancing tier ranging from 3,577 to 3,638 feet. 

For WY 2018 there will be three hydropower units out for maintenance reasons in Dec-Feb. During the 

possible HFE window in early November 2017 it is anticipated that seven units will be available. 

However, later in November, units 5 and 6 will be out, leaving only 6 hydropower units available. Based 

on current Maximum probable, most probable and minimum probable inflow forecasts, the maximum 

annual release for water year 2018 is projected to be 12.1 maf (with an April adjustment to equalization), 

the most is 9.0 maf and the minimum is 8.8 maf release. 

As Requested by AMWG, Review the FY17 Budget ... – Mr. Seth Shanahan. The AMWG passed the 

following motion in August 2016: “. . . AMWG also requests TWG to review the FY17 budget after 

issuance of the LTEMP ROD, to determine if budget or work plan changes may be needed as a result of 

the ROD.” He provided a brief history of guiding factors; The Secretary has already made her opinions 

known on what advice she wanted from this group, but felt the TWG should discuss FY18 activities that 

might need to be considered within the context of FY17 in order to plan correctly. The following 

comments were captured. 

 Scouring impacts of HFEs. If there is intent to do a Nov 2017 HFE, then determine what scouring information is 

needed –and the recovery period of the foodbase? 

 Unexpended funds could assist with advance planning for potential HFE events. 

 One experiment that hasn’t been considered in the Fall is the extended duration HFE (up to 192 hours) which could 

occur this calendar year. Are there any pre-planning or additional monitoring considerations on how best to monitor 

this? Are we getting deposition for the entire time period and what does it look like? Consider having a slower down 

ramping rate in order to measure and study the results of a possibly lower sloping beach. Hualapai has suffered from 

HFEs in the past and would hope this is factored into the budget for mitigation of impacts. 

 Try to prevent the continuous inflow of GSF into the system. We may get larval grass carp in the system. 

Review of Funding Guidance and Other Guidance for the GCDAMP – Mr. Rod Smith. Understanding the 

funding for this program is a complicated process. If anyone seeks funding for a project, they need to be 

prepared to explain the desired project and articulate how the desired project is consistent with the 

funding authority. Those authorities include the Basin Fund, GCPA Sections 1804(e) and 1805, Public 

Law 106-377 and AMP-related documents. 

Discuss Upcoming Budget and Conduct Group Exercise – Mr. Seth Shanahan provided instructions for 

the group exercise with the goal of providing budget guidance to Reclamation and GCMRC. He reviewed 

the target dates for completing various tasks to ensure a budget recommendation at the June 2017 

meeting. The following budget sideboards would be used: 

 FY17 Budget: $10.92 (BOR: $2.11M, GCMRC: $8.80M) 

o FY17 CPI is 1.5% 

 CPI Assumptions: Assume 1% CPI for each year (2018, 2019, 2020) 

 Assume roughly 20% for BOR (program administration), 80% for GCRMC (research and monitoring) 

Following the 90-minute exercise, Mr. Shanahan shared the results. 
            

              

 

 

 

 

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group

Final Minutes of January 26, 2017, Meeting Page 4

Brown Trout Management Considerations: An Update – Mr. Brian Healy. Brown trout (BT) were stocked 

in Bright Angel Creek in the 1930’s and expanded in distribution post-dam. For more than 20 years 

they’ve been recognized as a threat to native fish. In 2003, the TWG formed a non-native control ad hoc 

group to determine feasible methods to control non-native species and protect humpback chub. A history 

of the management actions that have been utilized was provided. NPS is going to implement a pilot 

Sonic-Telemetry study to learn more about BT in Lees Ferry with a focus on determining their 

diurnal/nocturnal habitat use and will use tagged fish to find locations of spawning aggregations to target 

future mechanical removal. The work will begin February 1-3, 2017. 

Public Comment: Mr. Chris Watt. The GCD Visitor’s Center has been remodeled and a grand opening 

is scheduled in March. More information to follow. 

Adjourned: 3:20 p.m. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 Linda Whetton 

Upper Colorado Region 

Bureau of Reclamation 

Upcoming Meetings: 

DOIFF Feb 14, 2017 

AMWG Feb 15-16, 2017 

TWG Mtg Apr 20-21, 2017 

AMWG Webinar May 24, 2017 

TWG Mtg Jun 13-14, 2017 

DOIFF Aug 22, 2017 

AMWG Aug 23-24, 2017 
            

              

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group

Final Minutes of January 26, 2017, Meeting Page 5

Key to Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program Acronyms 

ADWR – Arizona Dept. of Water Resources 

AF – Acre Feet 

AGFD – Arizona Game and Fish Department 

AIF – Agenda Information Form 

AMP – Adaptive Management Program 

AMWG – Adaptive Management Work Group 

AOP – Annual Operating Plan 

ARM – Annual Reporting Meeting 

ASMR – Age-Structure Mark Recapture 

BA – Biological Assessment 

BAHG – Budget Ad Hoc Group 

BCOM – Biological Conservation Measure 

BE – Biological Evaluation 

BHBF – Beach/Habitat-Building Flow 

BHMF – Beach/Habitat Maintenance Flow 

BIA – Bureau of Indian Affairs 

BO – Biological Opinion 

BOR – Bureau of Reclamation 

BWP – Budget and Work Plan 

BT – Brown Trout 

CAHG – Charter Ad Hoc Group 

CAP – Central Arizona Project 

GCT – Grand Canyon Trust 

CESU – Cooperative Ecosystems Studies Unit 

cfs – cubic feet per second 

CFMP – Comprehensive Fisheries Management Plan 

CMINS – Core Monitoring Information Needs 

CMP – Core Monitoring Plan 

CPI – Consumer Price Index 

CRBC – Colorado River Board of California 

CRAHG – Cultural Resources Ad Hoc Group 

CRCN – Colorado River Commission of Nevada 

CRE – Colorado River Ecosystem 

CREDA – Colorado River Energy Distributors Assn. 

CRSP – Colorado River Storage Project 

CWCB – Colorado Water Conservation Board 

DAHG – Desired Future Conditions Ad Hoc Group 

DASA – Data Acquisition, Storage, and Analysis 

DBMS – Data Base Management System 

DOE – Department of Energy 

DOI – Department of the Interior 

DOIFF – Department of the Interior Federal Family 

EA – Environmental Assessment 

EIS – Environmental Impact Statement 

ESA – Endangered Species Act 

FACA – Federal Advisory Committee Act 

FEIS – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

FRN – Federal Register Notice 

FWS – United States Fish & Wildlife Service 

FY – Fiscal Year (October 1 – September 30) 

GCD – Glen Canyon Dam 

GCES – Glen Canyon Environmental Studies 

GCT – Grand Canyon Trust 

GCMRC – Grand Canyon Monitoring & Research Center 

GCNP – Grand Canyon National Park 

GCNRA – Glen Canyon Nat’l Recreation Area 

GCPA – Grand Canyon Protection Act 

GLCA – Glen Canyon Nat’l Recreation Area 

GRCA – Grand Canyon National Park 

GCRG – Grand Canyon River Guides 

GCWC – Grand Canyon Wildlands Council 

GSF – Green Sunfish 

HBC – Humpback Chub (endangered native fish) 

HFE – High Flow Experiment 

HMF – Habitat Maintenance Flow 

HPP – Historic Preservation Plan 

IG – Interim Guidelines 

INs – Information Needs 

KA – Knowledge Assessment (workshop) 

KAS – Kanab Ambersnail (endangered native snail) 

LCR – Little Colorado River 

LCRMCP – Lower Colorado River Multi-Species 

Conservation Program 

LTEMP – Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan 

LTEP – Long Term Experimental Plan 

MAF – Million Acre Feet 

MA – Management Action 

MATA – Multi-Attribute Trade-Off Analysis 

MLFF – Modified Low Fluctuating Flow 

MO – Management Objective 

MRP – Monitoring and Research Plan 

NAU – Northern Arizona University (Flagstaff, AZ) 

NEPA – National Environmental Policy Act 

NHPA – National Historic Preservation Act 

NNFC – Non-native Fish Control 

NOI – Notice of Intent 

NPCA – National Parks Conservation Association 

NPS – National Park Service 

NRC – National Research Council 

O&M – Operations & Maintenance (Reclamation Funding) 

PA – Programmatic Agreement 

PBR – Paria to Badger Creek Reach 

PEP – Protocol Evaluation Panel 

POAHG – Public Outreach Ad Hoc Group 

Powerplant Capacity = 31,000 cfs 

R&D – Research and Development 

RBT – Rainbow Trout 

RFP – Request for Proposal 

RINs – Research Information Needs 

ROD Flows – Record of Decision Flows 

RPA – Reasonable and Prudent Alternative 

SA – Science Advisors 

SAEC – Science Adivsors – Executive Coordinator 

Secretary – Secretary of the Interior 

SCORE – State of the Colorado River Ecosystem 

SHPO – State Historic Preservation Office 

SOW – Statement of Work 

SPAHG – Strategic Plan Ad Hoc Group 

SPG – Science Planning Group 

SSQs – Strategic Science Questions 

SWCA – Steven W. Carothers Associates 

TCD – Temperature Control Device 

TCP – Traditional Cultural Property 

TEK – Traditional Ecological Knowledge 

TES – Threatened and Endangered Species 

TMC – Taxa of Management Concern 

TMF – Trout Management Flows 

TWG – Technical Work Group 

UCRC – Upper Colorado River Commission 

UDWR – Utah Division of Water Resources 

USBR – United States Bureau of Reclamation 

USFWS – United States Fish & Wildlife Service 

USGS – United States Geological Survey 

WAPA – Western Area Power Administration 

WY – Water Year