Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Meeting 

October 18-19, 2016 

Summary of Actions Taken 

1. Draft Minutes approved by consensus. 

2. Motion (proposed by Kevin Dahl, seconded by Vineetha Kartha): The TWG has reviewed the 

Triennial Budget and Work Plan Process as required by the Assistant Secretary for Water and 

Science (May 7, 2014), and recommends that the AMWG approve the document, as revised at 

the October 18, 2016, TWG meeting as the GCDAMP budget guidance. 

Action Item: TWG members need to submit any topics they want considered for the Annual Reporting 

Meeting (Jan 24-25, 2017) to Scott VanderKooi by Friday, November 4, 2016. 

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

Date: October 18, 2016 

Conducting: Seth Shanahan, TWG Chair 

Vineetha Kartha, TWG Vice-Chair 

Committee Members/Alternates Present: 

Melinda Arviso-Ciocco, Navajo Nation
 

Carlee Brown, State of Colorado
 

Charley Bulletts, Southern Paiute Consortium 

Chris Budwig, Int’l Federation of Fly Fishers/TU
 

Shane Capron, WAPA 

Kerry Christensen, Hualapai Tribe
 

Kevin Dahl, National Parks Conservation Assn. 

Bill Davis, CREDA 

Kurt Dongoske, Pueblo of Zuni
 

Craig Ellsworth, WAPA 

Katrina Grantz, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

Committee Members Absent: 

Jan Balsom, NPS/GRCA
 

Cliff Barrett, USAMPS (phone) 

Chip Lewis, Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center: 

Helen Fairley, Program Manager 

Kyrie Fry, Communication 

Interested Persons 

Mark Anderson, NPS/GLNRA (phone) 

Cliff Barrett, UAMPS (phone) 

David Braun, Sound Science LLC 

Winkie Crook, Hualapai Tribe 

Jennifer Crandell, State of Nevada 

Marianne Crawford, Bureau of Reclamation (phone) 

Jessica Gwinn, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Craig Ellsworth, WAPA 

Chris Harris, State of California (phone) 

Meeting Recorder: Linda Whetton 

 Start Time: 9:30 a.m. 

Paul Harms, State of New Mexico 

Brian Healy, NPS/GRCA 

Ken Hyde, NPS/GLNRA 

Jeffrey Inwood, State of Arizona 

Robert King, State of Utah (phone) 

Jessica Neuwerth, State of California 

Ben Reeder, Grand Canyon River Guides 

Peggy Roefer, UCRC/Nevada 

Michael Yeatts, Hopi Tribe 

Kirk Young, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Larry Stevens, Grand Canyon Wildlands Council 

Steve Wolff, State of Wyoming 

Scott VanderKooi, Center Director 

Joseph Holway, member of the public 

Dawn Hubbs, Hualapai Tribe 

Leslie James, CREDA (phone) 

Ryan Mann, Arizona Game & Fish Department 

Theresa Pasqual, DOI Federal Tribal Liaison 

Randy Seaholm, State of Colorado 

Perry Shirley, Navajo Nation 

Rosemary Sucec, NPS/GLNRA (phone) 

Gloria Tom, Navajo Nation 

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

1.	 Introductions were made and a quorum determined. 

2. Approval of June 14-15, 2016, Meeting Minutes. Motion to approve proposed by Ben Reeder, seconded by Kerry 
            

             

 

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group
 

Final Minutes of October 18‐19, 2016, Meeting
 Page 2

Christensen. Pending one edit, the minutes were approved by consensus. 

3. Review of Action Items (Attachment 1). 

4. Status on Deputy Chief GCMRC Position. Mr. VanderKooi announced that Dr. Michael Moran has been selected 

and will report in late November. He comes from the USGS Nevada Water Science Center where he was a 

supervisory hydrologist and has led their desert studies work and prior to that worked with USGS in the national 

water quality assessment program in South Dakota. He’s somewhat familiar with Colorado River issues and has 

over 20 years USGS experience. 

5. Annual Reporting Meeting. The meeting will be held January 24-25, 2017, at Arizona Department of Water 

Resources in Phoenix. More information to follow. 

6. Next Meeting Date: January 26, 2017, at ADWR in Phoenix. Ms. Grantz requested that if anyone knows of good 

venues to hold meetings, they should provide those to Linda. 

7. TWG Ad Hoc group Updates (Attachment 2) – Mr. Shanahan. 

	 Admin History AHG – Ms. Crawford announced that a contract was awarded to Dr. Paul Hirt with ASU 

and will be starting work on that shortly. Ms. Kartha reminded people that Larry Stevens and Craig 

Ellsworth serve as co-chairs and that should be reflected on the TWG AHG List. 

	 TWG Operating Procedures AHG – Mr. Shanahan will serve as the new chair. 

	 Socioeconomics AHG – This is currently chaired by Leslie James. She has conveyed her desire to stop 

down from the chair position. Mr. Shanahan thanked her for her service. Mr. Capron proposed that 

Clayton Palmer (WAPA) assume the chair role. Mr. Reeder indicated he would like to serve as the chair 

but needs some direction. Mr. Reeder will serve as the new SEAHG chair. 

 Steering Committee AHG – As the new TWG Chair, Mr. Shanahan will chair this group. 

 Trout AHG – Chris Budwig is the new chair of this group. 

8. Science Advisor Program Update - Dr. Braun. 

 Regarding the FY17 budget, they have a task order to support the state of knowledge work. 

 At some point they’ll re-engage on the SA Program Protocols. The SA review is currently tabled pending 

results of negotiations between Reclamation and the tribes. 

 Dr. Braun will be working with the TWG to make sure to fill in the rest of the archives of the SA Program 

on the wiki site. 

Wiki Update (Attachment 3) – Mr. Ellsworth. He is feeling more comfortable editing the GCDAMP wiki 

site (gcdamp.com) and has been making the wiki site more user friendly. He demonstrated how to 

navigate through the website and recommended an historian be assigned to keep the site current. It was 

suggested that each TWG ad hoc group have its own web page. Administrative rights can be assigned to 

the individual ad hoc group chairs which will allow them to post photos, meeting agendas, proposed 

motions, and individual assignments. Mr. Shanahan encouraged everyone to consider other ways in 

which the wiki site can be more fully utilized. 

Linkages Between Lake Powell Reservoir and the Colorado River Below GCD (Attachment 4) – Mr. 

Anderson. It’s a huge process to run the limnological monitoring program because Lake Powell is so 

long, deep and presents significant monitoring challenges. Beginning in 1964 through the present, 

sampling sites have increased to now include inflow and tailwater monitoring. Currently some oxygen is 

being taken from the inflow that removes the oxygen from the water, scoots across the lake, and then 

right out the penstocks. In each case there was concern that the RBT were wiped out down there and 

may need to take some kind of action to get them back. There’s uncertainty with the work going forward 

due to Bill Vernieu’s retirement, the contract moving the work from GCMRC back to Reclamation, and 

replacement of the Uniflight boat which sank last year. Reclamation is looking into replacing the boats 

but that doesn’t help them with current monitoring needs. GCMRC is doing monthly forebay monitoring 

while Reclamation is doing quarterly lake-wide monitoring. There’s a lot of uncertainty moving forward 

and people need to think as a group to ensure that adaptive management program needs are being met 

and secure the future of monitoring at Lake Powell. He reviewed the linkages of concern: 

 Dissolved Oxygen - Drawing from mid-column, GCD can pass water from which oxygen has been depleted. Low 

oxygen levels can kill aquatic organisms, especially trout. Low oxygen that can pass through the dam is created at the 

inflow. Steps can be taken to mitigate the effects on the river – aeration (in forebay or at turbines), cavitation, or other. 
            

             

 

 

 

 

 

 

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group
 

Final Minutes of October 18‐19, 2016, Meeting
 Page 3

	 Fish – Dams are imperfect barriers to downstream fish movement. Many species that could be problematic exist 

above the dam. (GSF, SMB, Walleye and Northern Pike). Fish populations of Lake Powell are fairly well understood, 

but the specific information needed to address issues in the river is not included. What fish use the dam area? What 

fish survival occurs through the dam? How do HFEs effect fish passage through the dam? What is the fate of 

surviving fish? 

	 Sediment – The big issue that will only get bigger is monitoring at Hite, San Juan Marina, and Waterfalls. Generally 

trapped by the lake, most sediment is near inflows. There are contaminants locked up or released based on flows, 

oxygen demand and turbidity. 

	 Mercury – There was a Lake Powell Striped Bass Consumption Advisory from Dangling Rope Marina south to the 

dam. Cautions were put in place how much children and women could eat. 

	 Since Guagga mussels were found in Lake Powell, other things are being affected which connect downstream: water 

clarity, Phytoplankton/Zooplankton, fishery, waterfowl, aquatic vegetation, harmful algal blooms, dissolve oxygen and 

Dreissena polymorpha 

Looking to the future, GLCA issues are more esoteric, especially when making a distinction between 

dam existence and dam operation. Understanding of the river will be poor without looking at the source; 

holistically considering the lake and the river may provide management opportunities beyond the current 

approach. 

Ms. Roefer expressed concern about the data gap in the amount of monitoring data that’s been collected 

on Lake Powell. In her 30 years working for SNWA, her group was responsible for the monitoring on 

Lake Mead and they were out there every week. She doesn’t think monitoring once a quarter is provides 

enough information to detect changes. It took considerable monitoring to detect the effects in Lake Mead 

with the presence of Quagga mussels. She asked if the science panel could be tasked to look at the 

monitoring in Lake Powell and determine the best course of action for that monitoring. 

Mr. Shanahan reminded the TWG that there’s a project one element in the sampling of Lake Powell. The 

sampling work that Reclamation has committed to do is not funded by the GCDAMP but through salinity 

control funds that were sent down to GCMRC and are now staying in the UC region. With that transition, 

he has talked with Mr. VanderKooi about doing a scaled-down PEP similar to the Fish PEP to look at 

whether the monitoring procedures are adequate, the analyses are the right and a number of other 

things for approximately $20K. He opened the floor for discussion. 

Q&A, Comments: 

	 Are there things that could be done to dam operation changes that will actually make a difference? The monitoring 

piece is an important thing to see if what happens in the lake comes through the dam and what’s downstream of the 

dam, but would like to see extensive focus on changes to dam operations that actually could help minimize the 

problem. 

o	 From Reclamation’s standpoint, it would be very informative to determine whether monitoring be quarterly as 

Peggy pointed out, if quarterly sampling is meeting the needs, or if something/someone needs to be done to 

bridge that gap. 

	 Regarding the Gold King Mine river spill and you mentioned a couple of scenarios being possible, one of them was 

any contaminated sediments would flow into Lake Powell and then be trapped within the sediments there in the lake. 

Another scenario was other activities could cause turbulent and disruption of the sediments contained within the river 

itself beginning from the point that it enters into the Animas and then further downstream to the San Juan River. 

Related to your inflow monitoring activities that you’re doing with respect to the San Juan River, can you elaborate on 

what it is that you’re doing as far as monitoring the inflow and then if there’s any collaboration between the Park 

Service or perhaps EPA or any other agency that you’re currently working on? 

o	 The work is very different in Lake Powell and needs to be done where typically the agencies involved with 

that aren’t so capable of doing that. UDWR is organizing that work and serving as the clearinghouse for 

information. 
            

             

 

 

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group
 

Final Minutes of October 18‐19, 2016, Meeting
 Page 4

Hualapai Tribe’s Native Fish Rearing Facility (Attachment 5) – Ms. Theresa Pasqual introduced Mr. 

Winky Crook who is the manager of the Hualapai Department of Natural Fisheries and Parks and has 

worked for the Hualapai for nine years and at the facility for six years. The facility addresses the 

immediate need for rearing Razorback suckers, HBC, and other endangered and/or native species. They 

design and implement plans to recover native species in Grand Canyon and other areas. Based on a 

Reclamation-funded feasibility study for construction of such a facility, the Hualapai have received 

approximately $860,000 from other federal agencies and the Hualapai Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks 

Office to build and maintain it. He provided the following results: 

FISH DATA (Non-intensive Rearing of Fish) 

► 2000 Received ~2,000 3” – 5” and distributed equally to two ponds. 

► 6/2003 Sampled one pond. Fish lengths average 310mm and average weight 280. 

► 2/2006 Received ~5,000 juvenile razorbacks ranging between 3”-6”. Distributed equally to 

ponds #3 and #4. 

► 10/2008 Removed more than 500 razorbacks from pond #8 and taken to Bubbling Pond 

for conditioning and study. Fish average length was 320 mm. 

► 2/2012 USFWS Parker office removed remaining to stock into back waters of Lake Havasu Lake. 

Average fish length 450 mm. 

Based on data collected and validated information the facility is capable of rearing 2,500 fish annually 

with a growth rate of 30-50 mm a year. It costs $45,000/year for one full-time employee and $20,000 for 

pond maintenance. Mr. Crook is actively trying to obtain other fish and fully utilize the facility. 

Update on Fisheries Protocol Evaluation Panel – Mr. VanderKooi. A draft of the panel’s report was 

requested from the PEP Chair (Jim Peterson) but hasn’t been received as yet. Mr. VanderKooi and Dr. 

Braun were able to get a few details and are preparing a short summary which they will distribute to the 

TWG along with any concerns. They will also be checking to determine if the charges given were met or 

if further clarification is needed. 

Programmatic Agreement Update – Ms. Kathy Callister. Meetings have been held with the LTEMP PA 

group and progress is being made. She addressed specific discussion areas: 

 Inclusion of a Preamble. This will focus on the importance of the Colorado River corridor in Glen, Marble, and Grand 

canyons to the tribes. This will appear in the version of the PA and possibly ready later this week. 

 Area of Potential Effect. The “whereas clause” was modified to recognize the National Register of Traditional Cultural 

Properties in response to tribal concerns. 

 National Historic Properties. Because Reclamation is the lead federal agency, it’s their responsibility to make any 

determination of adverse effects caused by the actions that are selected in the LTEMP ROD. That determination is 

done through consultation with all the parties. Reclamation’s first course of action will always be avoidance and will 

only consider if avoidance is not a workable solution. 

 National Park Service is responsible for Section 110 within the GCNP and need to work closely with NPS so that 

Reclamation is not overlapping with their Section 110 responsibilities. 

The PA is just the first step in a 20-year process to ensure compliance with Section 106. The PA 

signatories will meet on an annual basis to make certain that stipulations under the PA are being 

developed, implemented, and if necessary, add amendments to the PA. They’re targeting an in-person 

meeting with all the consulting parties in early November and hope to have the PA signed by the end of 

the year. 

Mr. Seaholm expressed concern about funding any actions that occur within the area defined by the 

LTEMP and asked if Reclamation will fund all actions in the PA. Ms. Callister told him the PA group 

hasn’t gotten to the point of planning any actions and will consult with all parties involved in the LTEMP. 

Even if the states aren’t a part of the PA process, she assured him that Section 106 requires consultation 

with any interested parties. 
            

             

 

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group
 

Final Minutes of October 18‐19, 2016, Meeting
 Page 5

Fall 2016 High Flow Experiment and Status of Green Sunfish (Attachment 6a) – Ms. Grantz. 

Because there isn’t an LTEMP ROD in place, HFE planning for this year will be under the HFE EA 

Protocol. She reviewed the structure of getting to a decision point to conduct an HFE and said there are 

only two time frames when they can be done – in the spring or in the fall. Sediment inputs from July 1 – 

Oct 30 are considered for possibly contributing to a potential HFE. If sufficient sediment inputs into the 

Grand Canyon, an HFE would be done during the October-November timeframe. It makes sense to do 

an HFE in November versus October because of the planning and logistics involved. The HFE Protocol 

extends through 2020 but with an LTEMP ROD, it would be extended further. HFE durations run from 

one hour up to 96 hours, or 1.5 days or up to 6.5 days depending on ramp rates. There are currently two 

hydropower units out for regular maintenance and therefore releases can’t exceed 45,000 cfs. There’s 

compliance to go up to that range but may not be able to do that in any given year. The threshold for 

having enough sediment coming was passed on September 20, which kicked off the HFE planning 

process. There have been several other storms resulting in over 900,000 metric tons of sand in the 

system and that’s enough to support a 96-hour HFE. The modeling results showed that an HFE in 

November would move sand downstream and bring the sand mass balance down for a 96-hour HFE and 

there would still be a positive sand mass balance of about 150,000 metric tons. 

The Technical Team has evaluated all the other resources and a recommendation will be made to the 

Leadership Team on Thursday but based on sediment inputs, they would propose moving forward with 

an HFE starting on November 7. The provisional pattern the Technical Team is considering is to begin 

ramping up on November at 7 a.m. up at 4,000 per hour until the bypass are opened and then there 

would be full capacity on November 7 at 1 p.m. That would be a maximum release of 36,000 cfs because 

six of the eight hydropower units would be available at Glen Canyon Dam. The ramping down would be 

at 1500 cfs per hour. Taking into consideration the trout fishery and concerns about fluctuations pre- and 

post-HFE and how low those flows could or should go as well as hydropower considerations, they 

worked out that it makes sense to fluctuate between 6,500 cfs up to 9,000 cfs. The 2014 HFE cost was 

about $2.9 million and this year’s HFE could be around $1.4 million. Notification letters were sent to the 

tribes, AMWG, and other stakeholders. 

	 Sandbars and Campsites: 2012-2015 – Mr. VanderKooi. The last three HFEs (2012, 2013, 2014) yielded 

good results with overall sandbars larger now than at the start of the HFE Protocol. There were a lot of 

changes in non-critical reaches but did see increases from 2012 to 2014 in critical reaches. The first three 

years of the HFE Protocol were periods in which there were relatively low annual release volumes and 

very good tributary sand supply. 

o	 Some of the key resources looked at related to the Non-native Fish Control EA were the status and trends of 

HBC populations as well as conditions in the river including temperature and trout abundance. Non-native 

fish control triggers haven’t been met with less than 7,000 adult HBC, RBT numbers at 760, and it’s unknown 

if BT exceeded above 50. As a result, they’re nowhere near reaching any of the levels that require nonnative fish control. There were questions around the effects of HFEs on the foodbase. In 2008 there was a 

big response in the aquatic foodbase and a decline in New Zealand mudsnails and some increases in 

midges and blackflies. But in HFEs done in 2012 and 2013, there hasn’t been much of a response. 

o	 Rainbow Trout in Glen Canyon results: (1) Fall growth in HFE intervals slightly negative in 2012 and 2014 

and slightly positive in 2013. Growth positive in fall interval with no HFE in 2015. Suggests temporary weak 

negative effect on trout growth during HFE intervals, and (2) Any HFE effect is temporary, growth increases 

starting December or January. Late winter/spring growth increase was at similar levels in 2015 (post 2014 

HFE) and 2016 (no 2015 HFE). 

	 Green Sunfish Update. A timeline provided information as to when the GSF were detected and the 

treatment to eradicate them from the river. The GSF will never be completely removed but plans are 

moving forward to apply ammonia as an experimental piscicide. Some of the GSF will go the tribal aviaries 

for beneficial use. 
            

             

 

 

 

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group
 

Final Minutes of October 18‐19, 2016, Meeting
 Page 6

Q&A, Comments: 

 Mr. Budwig said a letter (Attachment 6b) was sent from John Jordan to Katrina Grantz on Oct. 13, 2016, opposing 

the HFE. The Federation isn’t convinced that the fall HFEs are causing the problem, but their constituents are. They 

want the Technical Team to fully consider that the Lee’s Ferry trout fishery continues to struggle with poor angle catch 

rates which are impacting local businesses and angler satisfaction. The letter listed several areas of concern 

supporting their belief that it’s premature to conduct another HFE until those uncertainties and unresolved issues are 

addressed. 

 Mr. VanderKooi: GCMRC has provided updates on a regular basis to the GCDAMP on progress in resources, two 

papers were published on sediment on initial responses from HFEs, and overall they’re seeing positive signs in beach 

response. He’s attended some fishery meetings and knows the frustrations from fishermen and business owners. 

There are signs of recovery with recruitment up in the last few years and they’ve seen large numbers of young trout in 

the system. They are seeing recovery in the system. 

 Maybe we should be handling beach slope as well so the beaches made are actually usable. What’s deposition of 

post-ammonia treatment? 

o GCMRC will collect and dispose of the fish as they can’t be put to beneficial use. 

 There is a lot of human contamination for people camping at the same beach every night and HFEs actually help 

cleanse the canyon. 

	 What’s going to happen when we continue to do HFEs when we haven’t resolved what’s going on with regard to 

non-native coming through the system? We have a lot of questions about the biological resources that are not 

available to us right now and yet we’re trying to make a decision to do HFEs. 

	 One additional resource that should be reported, and it’s in the LTEMP, is air emissions and needs to be included 

in all HFEs. 

 If fluctuations kill foodbase and HFEs are major fluctuations, we need to figure out the effects. 

 How many are too many non-natives to not do an HFE because the risk is too high? 

 Regarding cultural resources: (1) Zuni wants access to not just archaeological sites but to the entire canyon, 

shrines, springs, and collection areas, (2) Reclamation should COME to the tribe and not wait for the tribe to 

request consultation regarding the effects of the HFEs, (3) The treatment for GSF is one of reactionary rather than 

a proactive attempt to manage and the reactionary methods of dealing with the GSF are involving management 

actions that are offensive to Zuni sensibility because they involve the actual taking of life. 

LTEMP FEIS – Ms. Grantz, Mr. Billerbeck. The Final LTEMP EIS was published on October 7 and 

Reclamation is preparing the Record of Decision. She doesn’t feel anyone will be surprised with what’s in 

the ROD and anticipates it will be signed in mid-December. 

LTEMP Science Plan (Attachment 7) – Mr. VanderKooi. The science plan was structured around the 

different operations that were proposed. The flow actions identified in the Preferred Alternative are: (1) 

Fall and spring HFEs, (2) Proactive spring HFEs, (3) Extended-duration HFEs and (3) Trout 

management flows. The LTEMP is broken into two 10-year periods with a stopping point in the middle, 

both on the physical resources and the biological resources after a decade. If things aren’t working out 

as expected, it goes into another series of decisions to change things. 

	 The remote camera sites provide valuable technical data to managers and stakeholders in near real time to 

facilitate management decisions. 

	 Remote sensing will also be important moving forward in doing aerial surveys, lidar satellite imagery, and some 

just supports data collection efforts and looking at big scale change detection in backwater and near-shore 

habitats. 

	 Current monitoring related to HFEs is a lot less than was done in some of the early HFEs (1996, 2004, 2008). 

Moving into the LTEMP there are two different types of HFEs and they don’t necessary understand they’ll work 

which will require more intensive work previously. 

	 Some of the actions that have been proposed in the Preferred Alternative include trout control, macroinvertebrate 

production flows, low summer flows and non-flow vegetation treatments. There is a two-tiered approach to 

addressing this issue, the first step is if there some decline in HBC, there would be efforts to benefit chub and 

then if conditions didn’t improve, then there would be mechanical removal. 

	 Nonnative/Invasive fish monitoring is becoming a larger issue. Both BT and GSF are more prevalent in Glen 
            

             

 

 

 

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group
 

Final Minutes of October 18‐19, 2016, Meeting
 Page 7

Canyon is a great concern to the scientists and the managers. Need to look to emerging technology to help 

improve with monitoring methods. 

	 With respect to riparian vegetation, NPS will help lead on removal and restoration activities. There are bigger 

scale changes with tamarisk and tamarisk beetles in the system and continued vegetation expansion onto 

sandbars. 

	 Project Element 4.2 will deal with geomorphic processes and the future of archaeological sites. 

Q&A Comments: 

 If the science plan has TMF it in and they don’t work, do you stop doing? 

o	 It’s an adaptive management program and if we find out something isn’t working, then we stop doing it. 

It’s perceived as a mid to high level document that outlines areas where to focus the work. Getting into 

the details will be in the 3-year work plans. 

 There is no mention of what aquatic resource monitoring is related to an HFE and that should be an element in 

the HFE monitoring program. 

 The science can determine what the impacts are, but it’s more of a policy level recommendation at the AMWG 

level as to what is unacceptable. The only exception would be those identified in the BO. 

	 Mike Yard talked to me about the change in the aquatic plant life particularly with cladophora and said that could 

affect the invertebrate total mass and distribution. Mike thought that this may have something to do with the shift 

to the blackfly being the dominate food source for the trout versus the midges. I didn’t see any discussion on 

aquatic plant life and is there any plan to do work on the plant life and diatoms and the basic food sources for the 

invertebrates. 

 Need to have a discussion on integrating the science plan with chapter two of the workplan. 

 Attaching the science plan to the ROD seems like it would become a static science plan. We need to be able to
 

make adjustments to the science plan and having it connected to chapter two is a good bridge. 

 The core monitoring ad hoc group needs to be-reactivated immediately. 

 Concerned that the science plan and the EIS contains elements that will disproportionately negatively impact one 

group of people and that’s being adequately considered or dealt with. . 

 It will be interesting to see how bug flows will affect the foodbase.
 

 Need to include combine past and new information and get the monitoring done on a consistent basis. 

Integrating LTEMP into GCDAMP Process (Attachment 8) – Mr. Shanahan. With publication of the 

FEIS and pending signage of the ROD, this agenda item was added to begin dialogue on what the 

TWG’s role will be moving forward. Recognizing past assignments (Strategic Plan, MRP, Knowledge 

Assessment, etc.), he wants to engage the TWG on their future roles and responsibilities moving forward 

and offered what he perceived what those would be in two categories: 

Explicit Potential ?? 

DOI to seek TWG consensus on annual 

hydrograph (§ 2.2.4.1) 

Advice on implementing the conditiondependent adaptive design 

DOI to host annual reporting meeting (ARM) for 

stakeholders (§ 2.2.4.4) 

Advice on annual implementation 

considerations 

DOI to meet with TWG to discuss contemplated Advice on long term off-ramp conditions 

annual experimental actions (§ 2.2.4.4) Advice on work planning and budgeting 

Mr. Shanahan asked if the ARM could serve other purposes and received the following responses: 

	 A key component of the workplan guidance document is the ARM and what was captured in that vision was the ARM 

and the cycle of the first year where you’re developing the TWP serves the addition of not only looking at an annual 

basis of what we researched but what we’re going to do, what did we learn, and what does that mean for the next 

year’s budget but also the additional knowledge assessment of synthesizing longer term body of science to better 

understand larger guidance for developing the TWP. The vision in that budget process is that every 3 years we do 

more of a knowledge assessment synthesis and then the off years, the second and third years, it would be more of an 

ARM. One thing to keep in mind is the most critical things that were encapsulated into the need for the ARM was so 

that everybody would be offering from the same playing field with knowledge, that everyone would have the same 
            

             

 

 

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group
 

Final Minutes of October 18‐19, 2016, Meeting
 Page 8

information to work with and that’s a really critical component of that ARM. 

	 You could include all those and then we start out with the resource and then under the resource identify the workplan 

projects, goals, and DFCs that apply to each of the resources. Each of those are very critical. 

	 If we all sit and watch presentations from Ted Kennedy, we’ll all get something different based on our educational 

backgrounds. 

	 I don’t know if there’s a need to see what the LTEMP is putting in place to what we’re currently operating under. In the 

past we had the SCORE report, but is there some way to measure if we are moving forward 

	 Sometimes the resource perspective is missing when we’re just talking about science and not pulling together 

stakeholder viewpoints especially when talking to the AMWG. 

	 We gone to great lengths to make each stakeholder happy and have comprised to come up with the FEIS. Maybe it’s 

up to each of us on what our preferred goals are so we’ve got something to work for and have a number to hit that’s 

still balances resource needs. 

	 There’s inadequate time to report on all the resources. It would be easy if the presentations are clear and the 

scientists make a concerted effort to not blow through the scientific part of their presentations and make them easy to 

understand. 

	 Maybe there’s a role for a modified ARM saying in year 1 or year 2 of the 3-year workplan to discuss some of the 

philosophical issues. 

Moving into a discussion of annual experiments, Mr. Shanahan asked the following questions: Should 

this occur in January? Does the TWG want additional check-ins? Should we be talking about the 

outcomes? The following responses were captured: 

	 It would help if we knew which projects are ongoing, which projects will be completed, and when a report will be 

available. 

	 Appreciate the opportunity to look at the proposals and be involved, and like the idea of having a visible response by 

giving a thumbs up or down when hypotheses are presented. 

	 From a practical standpoint, we’ll also be able to look at the experiments we perceive coming and be able to time with 

the TWP process. 

	 I don’t know what Interior is thinking but with regard how much we can put from this body on experiments. Are you 

thinking of a model of “Interior gets together, decides what experiments will be done, and then do you want to come to 

TWG to get input or are we talking more of an adaptive management process. Maybe we have a standing agenda 

item on every meeting where we talk about adaptive management and experimentation because it’s going to be 

constantly changing. We might really want to get input I would think early on because some of us like to think that next 

year might be a great year to bug flows and other folks might be thinking that next year would be the worst year. I 

think there’s a lot of information and expertise in this group working with Interior through this process and talking early 

and often about these things rather than just one meeting in January or I would propose that Interior thinking of and 

then bringing it to us for input, maybe at the last minute, maybe not. I propose it something we do at every meeting, 

maybe every January is a major check-in with the knowledge assessment and then we’ll have a standing agenda item 

to talk about what are the outcome of the experiments that are possible. What are some key inputs we want you to 

think about? What are some key concerns we might have with one of these experiments that might be on the table 

and have that be an evolving conversation? 

o	 Ms. Grantz: This first year will be a “learning as we go along adaptive management.” We’re also doing 

adaptive Management as a process and figuring out what process works best. There’s a balance between 

wanting to make sure you get enough appropriate input as well as making sure there’s an efficient process. 

	 Mr. Seaholm: The first thing you need is a set of targets that you want to try to achieve. That was the purpose behind 

trying to do goals initially and getting to the DFCs and so we have all these resource conditions that each one of us 

would like to see, but you’ve got to have some range of goals/DFCs that you’re trying to achieve. Once you have that, 

then you start taking what I call a “judgement” model and say okay if I give you 50 pages, what’s that going to cost me 

in terms of acres of vegetation. You start looking at some of the tradeoffs and discuss when an experiment can be 

done and then review the set of conditions that you have on the river. The hydrology for that year and the releases 

allow you to do those experiments successfully or not. Then you take all that into your knowledge assessment, get 

everybody working on the same plan and make adjustments for the coming year. Some of those experiments may fall 

out or you see that you can’t do this one without coming up with confounding events with this experiment or I can 

move this one and say this isn’t going to work or give you the desired result. You start forming things around the DFCs 
            

             

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group
 

Final Minutes of October 18‐19, 2016, Meeting
 Page 9

and see if you can get some definition to those DFCs. Everybody is going to have a different idea of what is not 

acceptable, but at least you can come up with a range and you can say that I can design an experiment that will bring 

me some results within that range. But at some point you’re going to have to start looking at what you can actually do 

because you can’t have the beaches you want and still have enough acres of native vegetation. You need to get to a 

point where you have this conceptual model that allows you to see what some of those tradeoffs are. 

Mr. Dahl displayed a children’s book, “Phoebe and the Chub” (2005) and suggested it be purchased for 

everyone to enjoy (though he didn’t offer up who should pay for it). 

Public Comment: None 

Adjourned: 5 p.m. 
            

             

 

 

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group

Final Minutes of October 18‐19, 2016, Meeting Page 10

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Meeting 

October 19, 2016 

Conducting: Seth Shanahan, TWG Chair 

Vineetha Kartha, TWG Vice-Chair 

Committee Members/Alternates Present: 

Melinda Arviso-Ciocco, Navajo Nation 

Carlee Brown, State of Colorado 

Chris Budwig, Federation of Fly Fishers/TU 

Charley Bulletts, Southern Paiute Consortium 

Shane Capron, WAPA 

Kerry Christensen, Hualapai Tribe 

Kevin Dahl, National Parks Conservation Assn. Bill 

Davis, CREDA 

Kurt Dongoske, Pueblo of Zuni 

Craig Ellsworth, WAPA 

Katrina Grantz, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

Committee Members Absent: 

Jan Balsom, NPS/GRCA 

Cliff Barrett, USAMPS (phone) 

Robert King, State of Utah 

Chip Lewis, Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center: 

Helen Fairley, Program Manager 

Kyrie Fry, Communication 

Interested Persons 

Mark Anderson, NPS/GLNRA (phone) 

Cliff Barrett, UAMPS (phone) 

David Braun, Sound Science LLC 

Winkie Crook, Hualapai Tribe 

Jennifer Crandell, State of Nevada 

Marianne Crawford, Bureau of Reclamation (phone) 

Ed Gerak, CREDA 

Jessica Gwinn, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Craig Ellsworth, WAPA 

Chris Harris, State of California (phone) 

Meeting Recorder: Linda Whetton 

Start Time: 8:38 a.m. 

Paul Harms, State of New Mexico 

Brian Healy, NPS/GRCA 

Ken Hyde, NPS/GLNRA 

Jeffrey Inwood, State of Arizona 

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

Robert King, State of Utah 

Jessica Neuwerth, State of California 

Ben Reeder, Grand Canyon River Guides 

Peggy Roefer, State of Nevada 

Michael Yeatts, Hopi Tribe 

Kirk Young, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Larry Stevens, Grand Canyon Wildlands Council 

Steve Wolff, State of Wyoming 

Scott VanderKooi, Center Director 

Paul Hirt, Arizona State University 

Joseph Holway, member of the public 

Dawn Hubbs, Hualapai Tribe 

Leslie James, CREDA (phone) 

Ryan Mann, Arizona Game & Fish Department 

Theresa Pasqual, DOI Federal Tribal Liaison 

Randy Seaholm, State of Colorado 

Perry Shirley, Navajo Nation 

Rosemary Sucec, NPS/GLNRA (phone) 

Gloria Tom, Navajo Nation 

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

	 AHAHG Update - Ms. Grantz introduced Dr. Paul Hirt from Arizona State University who will be leading the 

Administrative History Project. Dr. Hirt is a historian specializing in the American West, global environmental history, 

environmental policy and sustainability studies at Arizona State University. His background is mostly in environmental 

policy and natural resources management. He specialized in water, energy and natural resources. He received a 

grant from the National Endowment for Humanities to develop a project a few years back called “Nature, Culture, and 

History of the Grand Canyon.” He is under a CESU contract and is authorized for 5 years to do 30 oral histories since 

the beginning of the program and is hoping to talk with Bruce Babbitt (signed first AMWG Charter on 1/15/1997). He 

also intends to develop a website which will include the GCDAMP historical records which will be a supplement to the 
            

               

 

 

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group

Final Minutes of October 18‐19, 2016, Meeting Page 11

“wiki” site. 

	 HFE Update - Ms. Grantz. This morning the HFE Technical Team met and discussed the final recommendation that 

we plan to go forward to the Leadership Team and supports moving forward with an HFE this fall on the condition that 

reports from the field through Friday confirmed that the GSF has been resolved and on the condition that DOI 

commits to prioritizing the development and implementation of non-native species monitoring and mitigation be in 

place within the next year. The report is being finalized and will be sent to the Leadership Team later today for their 

discussion tomorrow morning. A final decision will be forthcoming and she believes it will be verbal conditional 

approval with conditions and feedback from the field on Friday with a final decision on Monday at which time there will 

be a memo coming out from the Leadership Team that will go to AMWG members as well as members of the public. 

The Technical Team report will also be included. She heard that recreational anglers would like a formal response to 

their concerns and once the Leadership Team decision has been made, she’ll respond to that request. She has also 

heard from Mr. Dongoske that if DOI moves forward with the HFE, he would make a formal request for follow-up with 

the Pueblo of Zuni to discuss the HFE. Overall, one of the obligations is to meet with MOA signatories after an HFE 

and she will reach out to the AMWG signatories it makes sense to do that later after there is enough information and 

data. In past years, they’ve met either in January or April. 

o	 Mr. Jordan said he heard the HFE is scheduled for around November 7 and one of the things he had asked 

be done is there are commitments for river use for that period of time when the HFE is going on. Many of 

those commitments have been made weeks or months in advance and involve travel and other costs. He 

asked that she look at different structuring of the decision mechanism, that the mechanism doesn’t remain 

dormant until there is a determination that there’s enough sediment. Everything is all decided ahead of time, 

assuming the GSF is under control, and then the only determinant becomes if there is enough sediment or 

not. The sediment determination came several weeks ago so that he asked that they administratively think 

about and it would be a go only on one issue and there can be some advanced notice on it. Ms. Grantz felt a 

better job could be done in honing down the dates ahead of time. 

Triennial Budget and Workplan Process (Attachment 9a) – Mr. Capron. He informed the group to 

work on the latest version of the document which includes Colorado’s concerns and consensus from the 

BAHG on the previous version. The TWG reviewed each section and the changes were noted. 

Section 1.0 

	 Need to identify the funding source. They’re not opposed to funding but want this identification on the table and up for 

discussion. 

Section 2.1 

	 Add language: “and dealing with long-term monitoring” ... 

	 In the interest of going through and reading all those documents, it would be helpful to say “dam operations” and not 

get bogged down with that continuing discussion. 

	 Reluctant paraphrasing legal documents in budget documents and just refer people to the actual law. Rod Smith 

joined by phone and concurred. Mr. Capron suggested that since Reclamation and Mr. Seaholm are pretty solid in 

their stances, he suggested moving the language. Mr. VanderKooi stated that GCMRC will follow SOL directions in all 

legal matters. 

	 It would be helpful to know what the sideboards are. 

	 LTEMP has activities that aren’t dam operations and so having this wording “anything that isn’t related to dam 

operations” wouldn’t fall under the purview of this group. Another issue: Referencing that section of the GCPA seems 

to be able to stand alone but Section 1804 is specific to the old EIS and the GCPA and how is that going to apply 

moving forward? What portion is still relevant once LTEMP is in place? 

	 Rod Smith – My primary concern is that there are many sensitivities and gray areas. I don’t think we’re going to give 

you anything that isn’t going to be high level and you’ll be able to use. 

	 Add “as currently implemented through the 2007 Interim Guidelines.” 

	 Mr. Seaholm said that Colorado would like to put a period (.) after GCPA and delete the balance after that. 

	 Ms. Grantz said she was comfortable with the revision but she also heard that the issue of funding and where that 

funding is coming from is very important as well as it pertains to some GCPA sections. In discussions with Rod Smith, 

there will be further discussion of the funding at budget questions at the January TWG meeting and that decisions will 

come down to a project-by-project evaluation. 

Section 2.3 

Word change: add in the first sentence meeting “targeted” to 

Section 2.4 
            

               

 

 

 

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group

Final Minutes of October 18‐19, 2016, Meeting Page 12

No changes. 

Section 2.4 

No changes. 

Section 2.5 

No changes. 

Section 2.6 

Add “its” as an editorial change 

Section 2.7 

 New initiatives: New initiatives may be brought up for discussion by members during BAHG or TWG budget 

discussions (see Table 1) for consideration by Reclamation and GCMRC. These new initiatives may need to be 

considered by the GCDAMP Program Manager prior to requesting either GCMRC or Reclamation to develop a 

proposal for mid-work plan consideration. If DOI determines it is beyond the scope of a mid-work plan change, then 

the initiative could be considered during the development of the next work plan. Given that the budget will likely be 

fully accounted for, direction on funding source within the current budget will be required for discussion with the 

GCDAMP Program Manager. Revisions must comply with the Budget Principles (see Section 2.1). 

	 Under the February box – What’s the intent of GCMRC meeting with the tribes? 

o	 Mr. VanderKooi said a criticism has been that projects aren’t fully fleshed out when they meet with the tribes. 

Mr. Capron advised that as projects are being considered, the members should decide which ones 

they’re interested in and be prepared to provide input on those at the January 2017 TWG Meeting. That 

information will be provided to BOR and GCMRC with much of the work being done in support of the 

TWP budget process will be in the February-April time frame. 

Motion (proposed by Kevin Dahl, seconded by Vineetha Kartha): The TWG has reviewed the 

Triennial Budget and Work Plan Process as required by the Assistant Secretary for Water and 

Science (May 7, 2014), and recommends that the AMWG approve the document, as revised at the 

October 18, 2016, TWG meeting as the GCDAMP budget guidance. Passed by consensus. 

Attachment 9b - GCDAMP Triennial Budget and Work Plan Process Updated October 19, 2016. 

Socioeconomics Research and Monitoring Update (Attachment 10) – Mr. Bair. Project 13.1 was 

completed at the end of FY16 and this is a good time to present the results as the TWG prepares for the 

upcoming ARM and entering into budget and work plan discussions. He wanted to provide an update on 

the Project 13.1 (Recreation) because it was completed at the end of FY16 and he thinks it’s a good time 

to talk about what would be a good time to start thinking about the subsequent work plans and what 

needs to be done. In 2005 Helen Fairley headed the Recreation PEP and suggested people revisit those 

findings. 

 Creel data was used to look at angler preferences and demand at Lee’s Ferry by season. They entered existing 

information into a statistical model to estimate demand for angling by season. The results from guided and non-guided 

trips above and below the River in spring revealed that trip costs increase for those living further away from the 

resource. There are also seasonal economic benefits. 

	 Scenario Analysis provided results on distribution of angler benefits by season indicating that spring and fall have 

higher values. 

	 Flows are a little complicated with whitewater trips (rapids, change in size, and difficulty) but flows also influence the 

amount of time that you can spend in side canyons and dictate how long you can spend on the river. They asked for 

their preferences on flows and how under average flows their trips would change (better, same, worse) indicating that 

in the current study with flows at 5,000 cfs their experiences were 95% worse; at 13,000 cfs about 75% the same; at 

22,000 cfs about 66% the same; and at 40,000 cfs about 64% worse. Regional expenditures indicate they pay an 

average of $1,634 to take a trip and about $969 is spent locally with higher costs associated with boat rental, meals, 

and lodging. 

	 Angler results based on an average of flow of 10,800 cfs indicate that experiences at 3,000 cfs were 68% worse; at 

10,000 cfs were better at 57%; at 25,000 cfs at about 71% worse; and at 40,000 cfs were 92% worse. 

He thanked staff from Navajo Nation, the Park Service, and Arizona Game and Fish Department for 

assistance through the collection of all the information, permits, and sharing data. 
            

               

 

 

 

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group

Final Minutes of October 18‐19, 2016, Meeting Page 13

Introduction of Christine Lehnertz, Supt., GRCA – Mr. Healy. Ms. Chris Lehnertz apologized that she 

couldn’t be here today. She has an environmental background and has used the term “fish squeezer” in 

talking with staff which made them very happy. He will check with her on whether she can attend the 

Annual Reporting Meeting in January. Her bio is as follows: Texas born and Colorado raised, Ms. 

Lehnertz obtained her degree as an environmental biologist from the University of Colorado at Boulder. 

She started her conservation career in the Rocky Mountains where she worked as a seasonal wildlife 

and biological technician for the Colorado Division of Wildlife, the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. She spent 16 years with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency before she 

joined the National Park Service. In 2007, she entered the National Park Service as deputy 

superintendent at Yellowstone National Park, and then served from 2010 to 2015 as regional director for 

the NPS’ Pacific West Region. She has been superintendent at Golden Gate National Recreation Area 

since May 2015. She assumed her new post as superintendent of Grand Canyon National Park in 

August 2016. 

Annual Reporting Meeting Preparation (Attachment 11) Mr. Shanahan. The intent for discussion is to 

prepare for the ARM. Dr. Braun explained that knowledge assessments have been done over the years 

and by many organizations with standard processes. With a science driven program, it’s important to 

figure out what the priorities are and reduce the uncertainties. 

Q&A, Comments:
 

 Scorecards can be used to track progress with lots of high and low level peer review.
 

 Tribal values can be applied to all areas, but the methods use in one area may not be the same in another area.
 

 How should the ARM be organized? Typically the ARM is scheduled around status and trend(s) of the resource, 

important findings from work plan activities, and recommendations for future monitoring and research. 

 The whole system is a natural process and is regulated by dams. From Zuni perspective, if you interfere with nature’s 

processes you get into trouble. 

 The list is very characterized and doesn’t sit well with Navajo Nation. Archaeological and cultural resources 

encompasses the whole list. 

 Consider preparing a table/worksheet that answers the questions on the resource. 

 Rather than looking at the system from a scientific approach and breaking into categories consider approaching it 

from a system model and what roles do each of them play in the system. 

	 Everything done in the canyon affects the Zuni people. Even though there is beneficial use from trout out of BAC, we 

believe it’s still a negative affect at Zuni and the Zuni are dying earlier. The canyon is a fundamental part of their 

identity and federal agencies tend to segregate or ignore tribal relationships to the resources. If you treat water 

inappropriately, it will have negative consequences. 

	 Need a more holistic approach and a framework to work from. There might have to be some anthropological 

approach to getting some kind of assessment done through ethics and if there is an ethical framework we can work 

through. 

	 Need to make sure we don’t have scientists talking for the tribes and not sure how to bridge this divide but want to 

discuss this more and make sure we don’t speak for others and their viewpoints. 

 Also struggling with the scope of this meeting. GCMRC is open to suggestions. 

 We try to get a one-size that fits all and it’s the area of the overlap that we need to find. We need to have a means to 

equally value each of the resources. 

 In terms of methods, it would take work but having a parallel review would be good. 

 Are people supportive of having a Knowledge Assessment Summary Sheet (refer to PPT slide) 

 Suggest people look at the DFCs again to see the interrelationships. 

ACTION ITEM: TWG members need to submit any topics they want considered for the Annual Reporting 

Meeting (Jan 24-25, 2017) to Scott VanderKooi by Friday, November 4, 2016. 

Public Comment: None 

Adjourned: 3:05 p.m. 
            

               

 

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group

Final Minutes of October 18‐19, 2016, Meeting Page 14

 Respectfully submitted, 

 Linda Whetton 

Upper Colorado Region 

Bureau of Reclamation 

Upcoming Meetings: 

AR Mtg Jan 24-25, 2017 

TWG Mtg Jan 26, 2017 

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 October 18‐19, 2016, Meeting Page 15

Key to Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program Acronyms 

ADWR – Arizona Dept. of Water Resources 

AF – Acre Feet 

AZGFD – Arizona Game and Fish Department 

AIF – Agenda Information Form 

AMP – Adaptive Management Program 

ARM – Annual Reporting Meeting 

AMWG – Adaptive Management Work Group 

AOP – Annual Operating Plan 

ASMR – Age-Structure Mark Recapture 

BA – Biological Assessment 

BAHG – Budget Ad Hoc Group 

BCOM – Biological Conservation Measure 

BE – Biological Evaluation 

BHBF – Beach/Habitat-Building Flow 

BHMF – Beach/Habitat Maintenance Flow 

BIA – Bureau of Indian Affairs 

BO – Biological Opinion 

BOR – Bureau of Reclamation 

BWP – Budget and Work Plan 

CAHG – Charter Ad Hoc Group 

CAP – Central Arizona Project 

GCT – Grand Canyon Trust 

CESU – Cooperative Ecosystems Studies Unit 

cfs – cubic feet per second 

CFMP – Comprehensive Fisheries Management Plan 

CMINS – Core Monitoring Information Needs 

CMP – Core Monitoring Plan 

CPI – Consumer Price Index 

CRBC – Colorado River Board of California 

CRAHG – Cultural Resources Ad Hoc Group 

CRCN – Colorado River Commission of Nevada 

CRE – Colorado River Ecosystem 

CREDA – Colorado River Energy Distributors Assn. 

CRSP – Colorado River Storage Project 

CWCB – Colorado Water Conservation Board 

DAHG – Desired Future Conditions Ad Hoc Group 

DASA – Data Acquisition, Storage, and Analysis 

DBMS – Data Base Management System 

DOE – Department of Energy 

DOI – Department of the Interior 

DOIFF – Department of the Interior Federal Family 

EA – Environmental Assessment 

EIS – Environmental Impact Statement 

ESA – Endangered Species Act 

FACA – Federal Advisory Committee Act 

FEIS – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

FRN – Federal Register Notice 

FWS – United States Fish & Wildlife Service 

FY – Fiscal Year (October 1 – September 30) 

GCD – Glen Canyon Dam 

GCES – Glen Canyon Environmental Studies 

GCT – Grand Canyon Trust 

GCMRC – Grand Canyon Monitoring & Research Ctr 

GCNP – Grand Canyon National Park 

GCNRA – Glen Canyon Nat’l Recreation Area 

GCPA – Grand Canyon Protection Act 

GIS – Geographic Information System 

GLCA – Glen Canyon Nat’l Recreation Area 

GRCA – Grand Canyon National Park 

GCRG – Grand Canyon River Guides 

GCWC – Grand Canyon Wildlands Council 

HBC – Humpback Chub (endangered native fish) 

HFE – High Flow Experiment 

HMF – Habitat Maintenance Flow 

HPP – Historic Preservation Plan 

IG – Interim Guidelines 

INs – Information Needs 

KA – Knowledge Assessment (workshop) 

KAS – Kanab Ambersnail (endangered native snail) 

LCR – Little Colorado River 

LCRMCP – Lower Colorado River Multi-Species 

Conservation Program 

LTEMP – Long-Term Experimental & Management Plan 

LTEP – Long Term Experimental Plan 

MAF – Million Acre Feet 

MA – Management Action 

MATA – Multi-Attribute Trade-Off Analysis 

MLFF – Modified Low Fluctuating Flow 

MO – Management Objective 

MRP – Monitoring and Research Plan 

NAU – Northern Arizona University (Flagstaff, AZ) 

NEPA – National Environmental Policy Act 

NHPA – National Historic Preservation Act 

NNFC – Non-native Fish Control 

NOI – Notice of Intent 

NPCA – National Parks Conservation Association 

NPS – National Park Service 

NRC – National Research Council 

O&M – Operations & Maintenance (USBR Funding) 

PA – Programmatic Agreement 

PBR – Paria to Badger Creek Reach 

PEP – Protocol Evaluation Panel 

POAHG – Public Outreach Ad Hoc Group 

Powerplant Capacity = 31,000 cfs 

R&D – Research and Development 

RBT – Rainbow Trout 

RFP – Request for Proposal 

RINs – Research Information Needs 

ROD Flows – Record of Decision Flows 

RPA – Reasonable and Prudent Alternative 

SAP – Science Advisors Program 

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 

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