Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Work
Group Meeting
February 14-15, 2018
Wednesday, February 14, 2018
Start Time: 9:30 am
Conducting: Andrea Travnicek, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Water and Science,
Department of the Interior
Facilitator: Mary Orton, The Mary Orton Company, LLC
Recorder: Lauren Johnston, The Mary Orton Company, LLC

Summary Actions
 Reclamation confirmed that attachments to the notes will be publicly available and easy to
find on the AMWG website.
 Reclamation will look into making the meeting minutes searchable. (Note: The minutes posted
on the website are searchable. Sometimes the minutes included in the packets are not
searchable.)

Presentations and Discussion
Details of the presentations summarized below are included in PowerPoints available on the
AMWG website when noted.

Welcome and Administrative
Presenters and Affiliation: Andrea Travnicek, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interior for
Water and Science and Secretary’s Designee Alternate; Brent Rhees, Upper Colorado Regional
Director, Designated Federal Officer; Katrina Grantz, Chief, Adaptive Management Group; Mary
Orton, The Mary Orton Company.
Attendees introduced themselves. Andrea welcomed newly nominated AMWG and TWG
members Jim Strogen (recreational fly fishing, TWG), Richard Begay (Navajo Nation nominated
AMWG member), and Steve Johnson (WAPA nominated AMWG member) to their first meeting.
She noted that there were three stakeholders whose member and alternate status were awaiting
confirmation, and though they could not participate in voting on motions, they were welcome at
the table and in all discussions: State of Arizona, State of Colorado, and WAPA.
Announcements
There are no agenda item forms in this meeting’s packet, and the plan is that there will be
agenda item forms in the future only for agenda topics that seek action by the AMWG.
Attendees were invited to provide feedback on this plan on the evaluation forms. They were also
invited to provide input on the new minutes format.
Approval of September 20, 2017 Meeting Minutes
Approving the minutes was postponed until Grand Canyon River Guides, State of Colorado, and
CREDA could provide their respective requested edits to be incorporated into the notes. Motion
and vote to approve was delayed until the second day of the meeting on February 15, 2018.

Page 1

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program: AMWG Meeting, February 14-15, 2018

Budget and Work Plan Update
All changes requested at the September 20, 2017 meeting were incorporated into the FY 20182020 Triennial Budget and Work Plan. Some of these changes required an update to the Budget
Decision Document, which are in progress. Katrina is updating the Secretary’s annual report to
include the updates to the Triennial Budget and Work Plan.
Action Item Tracking Report
From last meeting, Action items 2006.Dec.02 and 2012.Aug.01 are now closed.
Katrina will work with Andrea to establish a process for developing monitoring metrics for
measuring LTEMP progress and a updating and streamlining GCDAMP guiding documents as
described in the LTEMP ROD under action item 2017.Sep.01.
Action items 2017.Sep.02, 2017.Sep.03, and 2017.Sep.04 were changes to the FY2018-20
Triennial Budget and Work Plan that were included in the final version of the Work Plan, and so
will be closed.
Action item 2017.Sep.05, to solicit expertise to consider hydropower in a broader context, is still
open. Andrea and Katrina are working together to determine the best way to approach this
subject. This will likely be a discussion point at the next in-person AMWG meeting.
Attachment 1: Action Item Tracking Report
Administration Update
Brenda Burman has been confirmed as the Commissioner for the Bureau of Reclamation. The
Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Water and Science and the Secretary’s Designee for the
GCDAMP AMWG is now Dr. Timothy R. Petty. Dr. Petty may attend some of the AMWG
meetings, schedule permitting; however, Andrea, who has been named Secretary’s Designee’s
Alternate, will attend all of the meetings.
The process for nominating and re-nominating representatives to the AMWG is not yet
complete. Andrea thanked members for their patience as this is finalized. An open call for
nominations will go out next week. If you have already submitted your nomination, you need to
do nothing further at this time. The AMWG chair and organizers will be working closely with the
stakeholders to determine the appropriate nominees. DOI hopes to issue an update on the
process soon.
The DOI administrative reorganization map is open for comment, with another draft of the map
forthcoming, updated per public feedback. DOI is attempting to streamline decision-making by
exploring the option of all bureaus and services within the Department of the Interior having the
same 13 regional boundaries.

Brown Trout Workshop and Report Results
Presenter & Affiliation: Dr. Michael Runge, Research Ecologist, USGS, Patuxent Wildlife
Research Center
Presentation Summary
The motion from the February 2017 AMWG meeting to address the rising population of Brown
Trout (BT) at Lees Ferry prompted the September 2017 BT Workshop (Workshop). The purpose
of the Workshop was to discuss scientific evidence for a perceived increase in the BT population
at Lees Ferry, potential hypotheses for the causes of the increase, and possible management
actions. A team of 10 GCMRC and GCDMAP partner experts worked together to evaluate the
available data and document findings and hypotheses in a forthcoming report. The report will be

Page 2

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program: AMWG Meeting, February 14-15, 2018

reviewed by outside experts coordinated by the Science Adviser. In short, there is a roughly 2/3
chance the BT population will increase to a new equilibrium level. If this occurs, this could
negatively affect the population of HBC in the Grand Canyon. Because this is a natural system
with many factors that cannot be experimentally controlled, there is a high degree of uncertainty
in the analyses. There is no way, with the given data, to definitively determine which of the
reports’ hypothesis, or combination of hypotheses, is causing the increase in BT.
The referenced presentation and the forthcoming white paper (expected April 2018) detail the
scientific analysis, hypotheses, and conclusions from the team of experts and the BT Workshop.
The report will include an economic assessment of available potential management actions to
address the BT population rise and its effects on other resources.
Discussion/Q & A
Points made during discussion included the following.
 The workshop report will include a section on monitoring and research considerations and the
potential consequences from gathering further information.
 Any proposed management action to control the BT population is only effective if the factor
/ in BT population.
the management action is designed to reverse is in fact causing the rise
 There is still potential that natural weather factors, such as heavy rains in May and June
causing turbidity in the waters, could also be having an effect on the BT population.
 There is inherent uncertainty in the report largely due to the small sample size. The most
powerful way to resolve uncertainty is to design experiments
with randomization and control.
/
This effort would work at identifying causation rather than just correlation. It’s hard to design
random, controlled experiments with so many resources and tradeoffs. In the absence of these
studies, the available course of action is to build up correlational evidence while addressing
uncertainty by studying key parameters of each hypothesis for what is causing the BT increase.
 Deciding which resources to weight above others is the job of resource managers, with
stakeholder input. A point to consider is that some management actions might cause
/
reversible changes to certain resources, while others might result in irreversible changes.
 The group has jumped to the conclusion that an increase in BT is a bad thing, due to the
/
impact the population increase has on the RBT fishery and HBC populations downstream. The
/ removal of BT is an unnecessary taking of life in the canyon.
Hopi Tribe is concerned that
There is not enough evidence to predict where the BT will go in the river system or if they will
establish a population in the LCR.
/ that an increase in BT population at Lees Ferry would increase
 There is the potential
migratory behavior of BT to the LCR, which could establish a population there. The question
of whether or not an increase in the population of BT is a bad thing is a value judgement that
science cannot address.
 The workshop paper used the LTEMP preferred alternative expectation of 20 HFEs over a 20year period, with some of these HFEs expected in the Spring.
 The workshop paper looked at the BT population in Lees Ferry as problematic. This narrow
research scope did not consider management actions in Marble Canyon. It’s the AMWG’s job
to determine if an increase in BT overall would be problematic, and to recommend a change to
GCMRC’s research objectives if needed. The workshop included data from Marble Canyon to
inform this research effort.
 Researchers are currently using sonic tags to track BT movements in the canyon.

/

/

Page 3

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program: AMWG Meeting, February 14-15, 2018

 The workshop report does not consider any alternative actions that required waiting for
additional data. Waiting for more data prior to action could result in irreversible changes in
the river system. The AMWG can consider implementing any number of available
management actions at different time points.
 The workshop report did not identify a combination of management actions that would
present the best possible solution.
Attachment 2: Brown Trout in Lees Ferry: Evaluation of Causal Hypotheses and Potential
Interventions PowerPoint Presentation

Basin Hydrology and Dam Operations
Presenter and Affiliation: Paul Davidson, Bureau of Reclamation
Presentation Summary
Reservoir storage is adequate, however hydrology in the Colorado River Basin is significantly
below average this year. Snow accumulation is at 44% of the 30-year median index as of
February 12. The current most probable spring runoff forecast is 55% of average. The minimum
and maximum probable hydrological forecasts are also below average. The Glen Canyon Dam
operating tier in 2018 is the Upper Elevation Balancing Tier. Under all probable inflow scenario
(minimum, maximum, and most), Glen Canyon Dam is scheduled to release 9.0 million acrefeet in water year 2018.
The projected water year release volumes for 2019, also in the Upper Elevation Balancing Tier,
are between 8.92 and 11.57 maf.
Maintenance requirements at the powerplant caused some adjustments to the LTEMP release
volume last year. In November 2018, all units will be available for a a potential High Flow
Experiment, pending any unforeseen maintenance.
Discussion/Q & A
 Maintenance is planned on a 5-year schedule. Unexpected maintenance cannot be predicted or
controlled. The AMWG chair will be discussing the option of planning a Spring HFE in 2020
and powerplant maintenance schedule will take into consideration the possibility of a Spring
HFE.
Attachment 3: Basin Hydrology, Water Years 2018-2019 Operations PowerPoint
Presentation

Rainbow Trout Stocking
Presenter and Affiliation: James deVos, Assistant Director, Wildlife Management Division,
AZGFD
Presentation Summary
The catch per unit effort (CPUE) of RBT decreased significantly in Lees Ferry from 2012 to
2016. This has caused a significant decrease in anglers using the fishery, resulting in economic
strain in the area. The AZGFD is planning to introduce 16,000 sterile RBT in Lees Ferry between
April 1 and October 15, 2018, when angler pressure is highest in the area. AZGFD has previously
stocked RBT to maintain the fishery. AZGFD is working with the USFWS on a one-year

Page 4

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program: AMWG Meeting, February 14-15, 2018

cooperative agreement to lead to a 20-year program with an agreed-upon stocking procedure
consistent with management in the upper basin. AZGFD seeks input from the AMWG on the
cooperative agreement. AZGFD has met with the TWG for input.
Discussion/Q & A
 Eric Bobelu read a letter from the Pueblo of Zuni Governor registering Zuni opposition to the
RBT stocking in Lees Ferry on the grounds that it would promote the unnecessary taking of
life in the Grand Canyon.
 There is a 100+ year history of stocking RBT in Lees Ferry. This latest proposed stocking has
been discussed several times at TWG meetings. AZGFD has reached out to Kurt Dongoske for
consultation. AZGFD is meeting with their policy department and the Attorney General to
discuss National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 concerns.
 AZGFD has a public meeting planned on March 5, 2018 for the stocking initiative. AZGFD
plans to return to the AMWG and TWG after this year to present its 20-year program
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for each committee’s input.
 USFWS has completed Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 compliance on its Federal
Action, the 20-year program MOU. USFWS will be assisting with the logistics and planning of
carrying out the stocking effort. As it stands, USFWS’s role in the process is not yet entirely
clear.
 While the NPS supports a healthy RBT fishery, GRCA does not believe the stocking effort is
consistent with the GRCA management plan and requests the application of a research permit
by AZGFD to further collaborate. GRCA does not feel the management requirements for
NHPA Section 106 consultation have been met.
 There is concern that the restocking shouldn’t be an ongoing effort. An increase in RBT could
result in an increase in BT eating RBT, further causing an increase in the BT population.
 AZGFD’s goal is to increase the number of catchable fish at Lees Ferry. The RBT population
decline that precipitated the stocking action was potentially caused by several factors. These
include low dissolved oxygen in the water, depressed food base, and a prior overpopulation.
The understanding is that the population of RBT got too high, there was not enough food, and
then low dissolved oxygen and changes in phosphorous levels resulted in a population crash.
 The current indication is that the RBT population is on the rise. This correlates with a rise in
phosphorous, which is the main driver of food base increase.
 There is concern that stocking RBT would introduce another confounding factor into
determining what’s causing a BT increase. While AZGFD does not anticipate that adding this
few fish would confound the data, the potential does exist.
 Members of the AMWG are concerned that federal and state powers are dictating actions to
the AMWG without properly seeking input. There is also a question of why the AZGFD is
stocking RBT when they could be stocking native species.
 The Southern Paiute Consortium does not approve of the political and monetary drivers of the
stocking initiative.
 AZGFD feels it has maintained tribal relationships with this and various other actions, and
that the department’s goal is a balanced system. AZGFD has a responsibility to the community
surrounding the Lees Ferry fishery, including anglers and fishing guides.
Attachment 4a: AMWG Desired Future Conditions PowerPoint Presentation

Page 5

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program: AMWG Meeting, February 14-15, 2018

Attachment 4b: Governor Val Panteah’s Statement on the Proposed Stocking of Rainbow Trout
at Lees Ferry by Arizona Game and Fish Department Presented to the Glen Canyon Dam
Adaptive Management Work Group, Phoenix, Arizona, February 14, 2018

Joint Tribal Liaison Report
Presenter & Affiliation: Theresa Pasqual, DOI/OWS; Sarah Rinkevich, DOI
Presentation Summary
The job of the Joint Tribal Liaison is to continue building the relationship between government
agencies and the tribes. Tribes strive to emphasize the human connection to management
actions, to participate in actions where impacts to tribes are involved, to expand tribal
knowledge of the river system, to continue to discuss matters important to the tribes, and to
identify common needs of all parties.
Reclamation is leading an effort to prepare a HPP for the LTEMP Programmatic Agreement;
participants include the NPS, Reclamation, SHPO, WAPA, CREDA, BIA, Grand Canyon
Wildlands Council, Grand Canyon River Guides, NPCA, the Navajo Nation, the Kaibab Tribe,
the Hualapai Tribe, and the Pueblo of Zuni. The goals of the HPP are to identify, preserve,
resolve effects, and foster awareness of historic properties. The writing group is meeting
regularly.
There has been considerable discussion within the writing group about the AZGFD stocking
proposal.
There is money in the budget for an integrated GCDAMP River Trip in 2019.
Attachment 5: GCDAMP Joint Tribal Liaison Report PowerPoint Presentation

Stakeholder’s Perspective – Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems
Presenter & Affiliation: Ted Rampton, Senior Political Policy Advisor, UAMPS
Presentation Summary
UAMPS provides a scale of size to members to meet energy needs and participate in the energy
markets in ways they couldn’t otherwise. UAMPS supports 17 energy projects, including wind
and solar projects.
UAMPS members have a significant interest in Glen Canyon Dam operations, as they affect
energy generation and pricing. The Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP) currently provides
30% of UAMPS member loads. Changes to the CRSP operation affects how UAMPS participates
with other power resources. Initially CRSP power was generally more expensive; it is valued for
its load-following properties. UAMPS’ goal in AMWG participation is to represent energy
stakeholder views on power production impacts due to changes in Glen Canyon Dam operations.
Discussion/Q & A
 UAMPS’ daily operations include managing power generation with resources and loads,
tracking revenue from each power project, transmission planning and resource development,
and federal and state agency communication.

Page 6

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program: AMWG Meeting, February 14-15, 2018

 UAMPS only works with nonprofits, i.e. cities, and not private companies. UAMPS seeks to
help nonprofit entities by providing resources they couldn’t otherwise get on their own.
 CREDA represents 90% of agencies involved with the CRSP. UAMPS and CREDA find
efficiencies by working together.
 Decisions made by the AMWG can cause UAMPS to have to find alternative energy sources
when GCD capacity is reduced. UAMPS is looking for reliable, renewable energy sources that
can meet load requirements. UAMPS strives to keep participating organizations informed
about what type of energy the association is purchasing.
Attachment 6: UAMPS Stakeholders Perspective PPT

2018 GCDAMP Annual Reporting Meeting Update
Presenter & Affiliation: Scott VanderKooi, Chief, and Mike Moran, Deputy Chief, GCMRC,
USGS
Presentation Summary
The Annual Reporting meeting did not take place due to the government shutdown in January.
The referenced presentation provides a preview of what will be discussed at the meeting, yet to
be scheduled.
Attachment 7: GCMRC 2018 Annual Reporting Meeting Preview PowerPoint Presentation

Public Comment
Sinjin Eberle with American Rivers thanked the AMWG for their work and notified the group
that a representative from American Rivers will be in attendance at future AMWG meetings.

Page 7

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program: AMWG Meeting, February 14-15, 2018

Thursday, February 15, 2018
Start Time: 8:30 am
Conducting: Andrea Travnicek, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Water and Science,
Department of the Interior
Facilitator: Mary Orton, The Mary Orton Company, LLC
Recorder: Lauren Johnston, The Mary Orton Company, LLC

Summary Actions
 The next AMWG meeting is a webinar scheduled for May 23, 2018.
 The next in-person AMWG meeting is scheduled for August 22-23, 2018, location TBD.

Presentations and Discussion
Details of the presentations summarized below are included in PowerPoints available on the
AMWG website when noted.

Welcome and Administrative
Presenters and Affiliation: Andrea Travnicek, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interior for
Water and Science, and Secretary’s Designee Alternate; Brent Rhees, Upper Colorado Regional
Director, Designated Federal Officer; Katrina Grantz, Chief, Adaptive Management Group; Mary
Orton, The Mary Orton Company, LLC
Approval of September 20, 2017 Meeting Minutes
Steve Wolff moved, and Larry Stevens seconded, to approve the minutes with the following
edits:
Page 2, under “Administration,” second line:
Change “Travenick” to “Travnicek.”
Page 4, under “FY 2018-2020 Triennial Budget and Work Plan,” first bullet, last sentence:
Colorado expressed concern regarding whether certain proposed projects adhered to wants a
clearer tie between Basin-Funded GCMRC actions and GCPA authorization for use of the Basin
Fund goals and shared wrote an explanatory memorandum to that effect (Attachment 4d).
Page 5, under “Discussion/Q&A,” third bullet:
Colorado’s requested language additions to project elements C4, D1, and F3 (approved in the
motion noted on page 1) were offered to address concerns that Basin Fund should be used for
projects that address matters related to dam operations or mitigation for dam operations
changes to the budget are meant as a guide to GCMRC for experimental design to stay within the
authorities of the GCPA.
Page 8, under “Interested Persons:”
Add Carlee Brown, Colorado Water Conservation Board.
Regarding attachments: In the future, please either include attachments in the digital version of
the minutes or indicate that they can be found on the website.

Page 8

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program: AMWG Meeting, February 14-15, 2018

Page 5, under “Discussion/Q&A,” fourth bullet:
Ms. James echoed Colorado’s comments that CREDA requested Basin Fund expenditures
revenues should be scrutinized so as to not be used for regular management actions, or actions
under the LTEMP that are not tied directly to dam operations (such as visitor use, section 106
outside or mitigations in the CRE).
Page 5, under “Discussion/Q&A,” add a bullet after the third bullet:
GCRG asked what specifically about those projects did Colorado feel was not related to dam
operations. Colorado reiterated its point, restating its opinion that the projects were not related
to dam operations and therefore were outside the authorities of the GCPA.
The meeting minutes were approved as edited by consensus. The final version of the minutes
can be found on the AMWG website.

DOI Invasive Species Initiative
Presenter(s) and Affiliation: Hilary Smith, Senior Advisor for Invasive Species, Department
of the Interior; Jolene Trujillo, Invasive Species/Integrated Pest Management Coordinator,
Bureau of Reclamation; John Wullschleger, Fish Program Lead, National Park Service; Diane
Waller, Research Fisheries Biologist, U.S. Geological Survey; and Sherri Pucherelli, Biologist,
Bureau of Reclamation
Presentation Summary
Quagga mussels have spread in the Great Lakes region via recreational watercraft. Negative
impacts from infestation include those to hydropower, irrigation, water delivery, fishing, and
threats to native species. The DOI is working with critical urgency to address the substantial
costs of invasive species. This includes an increase in funding of $1 million for FY 2017 and
proposed $4.5 million in FY 2018 for mussel-related activities.
Secretary Zinke suggested DOI play a leadership role in controlling invasive species to prevent
the Columbia River Basin and the waters of the West from becoming infested. The DOI is
focused on collaboration with tribal and state governments to address aquatic infrastructure,
inspection and decontamination, monitoring, research and innovation, education and outreach,
and policy and coordination in relation to controlling invasive species. The initiative meets
monthly to discuss progress and prepare a progress report. Members of the initiative provide
outreach to affected and interested groups as well.
A partnership of federal agencies published “Safeguarding the West from Invasive Species:
Actions to Strengthen Federal, State, and Tribal Coordination to Address Invasive Mussels” to
identify actions to strengthen federal, state, and tribal coordination to address invasive mussel
species. NPS has focused $2 million annually on watercraft inspection and decontamination.
The USGS is actively researching molecular tools for rapid response for controlling invasive
mussels. Reclamation is researching cleaning and operational methods, including UV light
treatments and changes in water temperature and turbulence at its facilities to help control
mussel infestation.

Page 9

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program: AMWG Meeting, February 14-15, 2018

Discussion/Q & A
 The 43 recommendations in the “Safeguarding the West from Invasive Species” report have
provided needed direction to agencies in the West.
 It’s not possible to predict where mussels will establish with 100% accuracy. There are several
places with good mussel habitat where they don’t establish. They don’t establish everywhere
that they initially appear and don’t move upstream. With continued inoculation from, for
example, contaminated equipment, it is more likely that mussels will establish. The best the
group can do is to plan. The initiative has developed site-specific vulnerability assessments to
identify locations most at risk for mussel infestation to help in this effort.
 The likely cost of a mussel infestation in the Columbia River Basin is $500 million per year.
 A component of the early detection and rapid response research by the USGS and partners is
to try to predict which species may become invasive in the future. This could allow more
proactive rather than reactive treatments.
 While the decontamination efforts are targeted at mussels, they can also help to prevent the
spread of other invasive species.
 AMWG requested additional information on quagga mussel effects on each specific resource
under AMWG consideration, as a helpful tool for weighing management options.
Attachment 8: U.S. Department of the Interior Invasive Mussels Initiative PowerPoint
Presentation

Report and Status Update on the NPS EA: “Expanded Non-native Aquatic
Species Management Plan in Glen Canyon National Recreation Area and
Grand Canyon National Park below Glen Canyon Dam”
Presenter & Affiliation: Rob Billerbeck, Colorado River Coordinator, National Park Service
Presentation Summary
The goal of the non-native aquatic species management EA is to identify additional tools NPS
can use to help control invasive species in an adaptive and effective way. A key component of the
purpose and need for the EA is to maintain the RBT fishery in Lees Ferry.
The EA team is developing a table of management tools the agency can use where specific
conditions and/or native species are found, as well as what may trigger certain actions and what
mitigations may be required after certain actions.
NPS is currently reviewing scoping comments and refining the suite of alternatives for the EA. A
cooperating agency meeting is forthcoming. An offer of consultation is open to all interested
tribes. NPS plans to meet with the Pueblo of Zuni for consultation.
Discussion/Q & A
 NPS will continue to consider the Lower Colorado River multi-species conservation program
papers as resources in the development of the EA.
 The AZGFD agrees to be a cooperating agency for this effort with the caveat that AZGFD is
interested in pursuing the following, per its January 14, 2018 letter to NPS:
o Bounty system for angler removal of invasive species
o Modifying the slough habitat

Page 10

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program: AMWG Meeting, February 14-15, 2018

o Shifting emphasis from Fall to Spring HFEs
o Opposing electrofishing and lethal trapping in Lees Ferry
o Opposing introduction of pikeminnow and HBC in Lees Ferry
o Researching introduction of pikeminnow and HBC in the West Grand Canyon
 CREDA and Trout Unlimited request NPS to post full scoping comments (not only summaries)
to the NPS website to help inform the next round of comments.
 Trout Unlimited requests NPS consider reopening scoping after the publication of the EA. This
would be a highly unusual action.
Attachment 9: Expanded Non-Native Aquatic Species Management Plan below Glen Canyon
Dam PowerPoint Presentation

Science Advisors’ 2018 Work Plan
Presenter & Affiliation: David Braun, Executive Coordinator for GCDAMP Science Advisors
Program (Sound Science, LLC)
Presentation Summary
The Science Advisors have recently conducted external, independent reviews of two brown trout
reports. In addition, the Science Advisors plan to reinstitute a five-person standing independent
review panel with non-staggered membership cycled on a three-year term. Suggestions from the
AMWG on which individuals should be included on the panel are welcome.
Discussion/Q & A
 There is no proposed overlap of review panel membership. The Science Advisors recommend
giving each member of the panel an equal amount of time and background to assess each
triennial workplan.
 The panel will ideally be made up of individuals with expertise in engineering, science, cultural
concerns, socio-economics, and socio-ecological systems.
 There were no standing review panels in FYs 15-17. There is no mechanism in place for a
continuing review panel. The charter from Reclamation for the Science Advisors is in the
process of being updated and formally revised. The changes this year were reflected in the
latest triennial work plan.
 USGS has its own external review panel system to audit particular parts of the GCMRC
research program. In addition, USGS goes through a formal peer review process.
 It’s not clear why the cultural review panel did not happen last year, nor how cultural
considerations will be brought into the Science Advisor panel’s review of the triennial work
plan.
 Reclamation is working to get specific monitoring metrics in place to help evaluate progress
toward the LTEMP goals. The AMWG can direct the science advisors to review specific goals
and the status towards reaching those goals. In the past the science advisors performed a
knowledge assessment to address any gaps in knowledge that needed to be addressed.
 There is no one set model for the science advisors and the independent review panels.
Recently, Reclamation utilized the science advisors in reviewing a final NPS contract report
related to conservation measures and fisheries management in Bright Angel Creek.
Attachment 10: Science Advisors Program Work Plan for FY2018 and Beyond PowerPoint
Presentation

Page 11

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program: AMWG Meeting, February 14-15, 2018

Technical Working Group Chair Report
Presenter & Affiliation: Seth Shanahan, TWG Chair
Presentation
As one of its standing responsibilities, TWG has been discussing how to identify appropriate
metrics for monitoring how well the LTEMP is doing at reaching its goals and objectives.
Appendix C of the LTEMP provides a basis for future conversation on this topic.
RECLAMATION is working with the new chair, Andera Travnicek, to discuss the best path
forward for developing metrics.
The cultural resources ad hoc group has been disbanded, per Kurt Dongoske’s and TWG’s
recommendation, as the work of the group can now be handled through the PA. Bill Chada will
provide future cultural updates through his role as lead for the PA.
The water quality science review panel study, which was designed to evaluate past water quality
work and provide recommendations on future modelling protocols and tools that could be better
utilized, is forthcoming.
The adult population of HBC is robust and, thus, did not trigger any tier one actions identified in
the LTEMP BO. No tier two actions to preserve HBC are triggered at this time either.
For its next meeting, the TWG requested to hear presentations on considerations of changes to
the triennial work plan, potential 2018 experiments, discussion about Spring HFE planning,
RBT stocking, amount of life taken in the canyon as a result of management and experiments,
status of temperature control device feasibility studies, how climate change affects inflows to
Lake Powell, and non-market value studies.
Discussion/Q & A
 GCMRC prepared a mussel risk assessment 10 years ago, which addresses several questions on
the quagga and zebra mussel invasive species risks. Several GCMRC studies are tracking
changes to mussel populations in the system, including nutrient dynamic studies.
 If AMWG wants TWG to spend more time on any topic, then AMWG needs to authorize more
time. If there are more specific data needs that go beyond what AMWG is already looking at,
then TWG can explore those and report back to AMWG.
Attachment 11: Technical Work Group Chair Report PowerPoint Presentation

Possible LTEMP Experiments in 2018
Presenter & Affiliation: Katrina Grantz, Chief, Adaptive Management Group, Upper
Colorado Region, Bureau of Reclamation, Scott VanderKooi, Chief, Grand Canyon Monitoring
and Research Center
Presentation Summary
There is guidance from the LTEMP as to which experiments can be initiated in any given year.
Consultation direction in the ROD involves looking at past scientific data and discussing
experiments with TWG, AMWG, and a technical team to recommend a course of action to DOI.
The Secretary of the Interior makes the final decision on which experiments are implemented.

Page 12

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program: AMWG Meeting, February 14-15, 2018

The possible experiments for this year include: no experiments, bug flows, trout management
flows, a Fall HFE, and an extended duration Fall HFE.
Big oscillations in fish populations (as we have seen in the RBT populations in Glen Canyon) are
not desirable. AMWG wants to manage those so they don’t result in a crash, or in
overpopulation that results in further colonization. A trout management flow (TMF) could be
used to manage trout population and to analyze fish behavior.
The goal of bug flows is to increase the aquatic food base by periodically creating ideal insect
egg-laying conditions, while minimizing impacts to hydropower. The bug flow design is steadylow weekend releases and normal fluctuating releases during the weekdays. Recent analysis
shows that bug flows may have different impacts as you move downstream; an ideal bug flow at
Lees Ferry is less ideal at Diamond Creek, as daily waves move downstream. slightly increasing
the steady weekend release could produce a more beneficial result of the bug flow across the
system.
Discussion/Q & A
 Appendix K of the EIS states that bug flow cost per experiment is $871,000 for energy value,
but an overall $2.49 million capacity benefit. There is then a net benefit of $1.62 million per
experiment. The energy costs for this year are lower due to a myriad of factors. There is an
increase in cost due to adding water on the weekend before a bug flow. The models of bug
flows and energy costs are sensitive to energy prices and can fluctuate with time of day,
temperature, etc. The current models for maximizing effect of bug flow and minimizing energy
cost use WAPA’s current energy prices.
 Financial effect of bug flows could result in cash out of the basin fund, which could result in a
rate bump for energy purchasers.
 Bug flows could be designed to mimic historic low flow events in the summer. Floating
microcosms for egg laying could also be added to the bug flow design, simply for the purpose
of experiment and to inform future bug flow experiments.
 It’s important to continue tribal, SHPO, and THPO consultation for complete trout
management flows and the proposed take in these management actions. These things were not
considered in development of the PA, and will need to be addressed with an MOA. Compliance
should be figured out before, not after, experiments.
 TMFs were designed to control RBT populations. Not much is known how these flows could
affect BT.
Attachment 12a: Possible LTEMP Experimental and Management Actions for 2018
PowerPoint Presentation

Considerations for Seasonal Scheduling of HFEs
Presenter & Affiliation: Katrina Grantz, Chief, Adaptive Management Group, Upper
Colorado Region, Bureau of Reclamation; and Scott VanderKooi, Chief, Grand Canyon
Monitoring and Research Center
Presentation Summary
Larry Stevens requested this item to open the dialogue about scheduling Spring HFEs and to
understand what triggers a Spring HFE.

Page 13

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program: AMWG Meeting, February 14-15, 2018

Anytime Reclamation considers an HFE, they must first plan the HFE, model what might
happen, and then consult with tribes, agencies, AMWG, and TWG prior to implementation.
There are two kinds of Spring HFEs in the LTEMP: sediment-triggered and proactive (to
mobilize and “park” sediment prior to high equalization releases). There is no consensus on
whether a proactive HFE will work. There are approximately 5.7 Spring HFEs projected in the
20-year LTEMP period. The sediment trigger for a Spring HFE is the same as for a Fall HFE,
just at a different time of year. The planning considerations for a Spring HFE include the need
for research and monitoring, which may require scientists to access the reserve experimental
fund.
Discussion/Q & A
 The rationale for the Spring HFE sediment accounting period is not universally agreed upon.
When HFE events are scheduled, the sediment accounting clock needs to be reset as to not run
into a sediment deficit. There is still debate over at which interval to reset the clock in order to
take advantage of sediment inputs. The Fall HFE accounting period starts July 1, which is the
typical official start of monsoon season. The Spring HFE season accounts for the other half of
the year. There is still debate over what the accounting periods should be. As it stands, a
trigger for the Spring HFE would occur less reliably.
 The accounting period does not seem flexible enough to adjust for changing conditions. More
flexibility needs to be built in. The potential for restarting sediment accounting could begin in
December. The winter months are high volume release months.
 There is always uncertainty with deciding on whether or not to do an HFE, as we cannot
predict sediment loads.
 Adaptive management should be adaptive, and AMWG should explore the possibility of a
Spring HFE. Spring HFEs appear to be important for fish behavior, and having an HFE in the
Spring is important to recreation.
 If a Spring HFE is triggered then the AMWG can do experiments to determine the impacts. It
appears to be important enough to explore. Running a Spring HFE without it being triggered
runs the risk of reducing the sand mass balance.
 It’s unclear how much flexibility is in the LTEMP ROD to allow for an untriggered Spring
HFE. Actions outside of the ROD could require additional NEPA compliance. Andrea
requested time to consider what is allowed with the assistance of the DOI Solicitor’s Office.
Attachment 12b: Considerations for Seasonal Scheduling of High Flow Experiments (HFEs)
PowerPoint Presentation

GCDAMP Administrative History Project Update:
Presenter & Affiliation: Paul Hirt, Professor, School of Historical, Philosophical and
Religious Studies, Arizona State University
Presentation Summary
Professor Hirt is preparing an administrative history of the AMWG through 30 video and oral
history interviews. The website for this project is being built and will be available soon.
Professor Hirt requests suggestions on persons to interview for the project and institutions from
which to gather maps and other data for the website.

Page 14

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program: AMWG Meeting, February 14-15, 2018

Attachment 13: GCD AMP Administrative History Project PowerPoint Presentation
Meeting Adjourned at 3:00 pm

Page 15

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program: AMWG Meeting, February 14-15, 2018

Meeting Attendees–Wednesday, February 14, 2018
AMWG Members and Alternates
Melinda Arviso-Cioccio, Navajo Nation
Jan Balsom, NPS-GRCA
Richard Begay Navajo Nation
Eric Bobelu, Pueblo of Zuni
David Brown, Grand Canyon River Guides
Charley Bullets, Southern Paiute Consortium
Kathleen Callister, Reclamation
Chris Cantrell, AZGFD
Kerry Christensen, Hualapai Tribe
Kevin Dahl, NPCA
James deVos, AZGFD
Ed Gerak, CREDA
John Hamill, IFFF/Trout Unlimited
Jayne Harkins, State of Nevada
Dawn Hubbs, Hualapai Tribe
Leslie James, CREDA
Steve Johnson, WAPA
John Jordan, IFFF/Trout Unlimited

USGS/GCMRC Staff
Helen Fairley
Michael Moran

Bureau of Reclamation Staff
Bill Chada
Marianne Crawford
Paul Davidson
Katrina Grantz

Interested Persons

Rob Billerbeck, NPS
David Braun, Science Advisors
Carlee Brown, State of Colorado
Jeanne Calhoun, NPS-GRCA
Shane Capron, WAPA
Bill Davis, CREDA
Sinjin Eberle, American Rivers
Jessica Gwinn, USFWS
Ken Hyde, NPS-GLCA

Webinar Attendees

Mark Anderson, NPS-GLCA
Lucas Bair, USGS/GCMRC
Eric Balken, Glen Canyon Institute
Clifford Barrett, UAMPS (AMWG Alternate)
Winkie Crook, Hualapai Tribe
Kurt Dongoske, Pueblo of Zuni
Craig Ellsworth, WAPA
Amy Haas, UCRC
Brian Healy, NPS
Ted Kennedy, USGS/GCMRC
Robert King, State of Utah (AMWG Alternate)

Vineetha Kartha, Arizona
Chris Lehnertz, NPS-GRCA
Chip Lewis, BIA
John McClow, Colorado
Eric Millis, State of Utah
Jessica Neuwerth, Colorado
David Nimkin, NPCA
Don Ostler, State of New Mexico
Daniel Picard, Reclamation
Ted Rampton, UAMPS
Brent Rhees, Reclamation
Peggy Roefer, State of Nevada
Brian Sadler, WAPA
Steve Spangle, USFWS
Larry Stevens, Grand Canyon Wildlands Council
Andrea Travnicek, DOI
Steve Wolff, State of Wyoming
Mike Yeatts, The Hopi Tribe
Michael Runge
Scott VanderKooi
Corinne Horner
Shana Tighi
Christopher Watt
Linda Whetton
Lauren Johnston, The Mary Orton Company
Ryan Mann, AZGFD
Joe Miller, Trout Unlimited
Mary Orton, The Mary Orton Company
Theresa Pasqual, DOI-OWS
Bill Persons, IFFF/Trout Unlimited
Sarah Rinkevich, DOI
William Shott NPS-GLCA
Rodney Smith, DOI Solicitor's Office
Josh Korman, Ecometric Research
Kirk LaGory, Argonne National Laboratories
Ted Melis, USGS
Clayton Palmer, WAPA
David Rogowski, AZGFD
Seth Shanahan, SNWA
Jim Strogen, Trout Unlimited
Melissa Trammell, NPS
Jeffrey Woner, KR Saline
Charles Yakulic, USGS/GCMRC
Kirk Young, USFWS (AMWG Alternate)

Page 16

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program: AMWG Meeting, September 20, 2017

Meeting Attendees, Thursday, February 15, 2018
AMWG Members and Alternates
Melinda Arviso-Cioccio, Navajo Nation
Jan Balsom, NPS-GRCA
Richard Begay Navajo Nation
Eric Bobelu, Pueblo of Zuni
David Brown, Grand Canyon River Guides
Charley Bullets, Southern Paiute Consortium
Kathleen Callister, Reclamation
Chris Cantrell, AZGFD
Kerry Christensen, Hualapai Tribe
Kevin Dahl, NPCA
Ed Gerak, CREDA
John Hamill, IFFF/Trout Unlimited
Jayne Harkins, State of Nevada
Dawn Hubbs, Hualapai Tribe
Leslie James, CREDA
Steve Johnson, WAPA
John Jordan, IFFF/Trout Unlimited
Vineetha Kartha, Arizona

USGS/GCMRC Staff
Helen Fairley
Michael Moran

Bureau of Reclamation Staff
Bill Chada
Marianne Crawford
Paul Davidson
Katrina Grantz
Corinne Horner

Chris Lehnertz, NPS-GRCA
Chip Lewis, BIA
John McClow, Colorado
Eric Millis, State of Utah
Jessica Neuwerth, Colorado
David Nimkin, NPCA
Don Ostler, State of New Mexico
Daniel Picard, Reclamation
Ted Rampton, UAMPS
Brent Rhees, Reclamation
Peggy Roefer, State of Nevada
Brian Sadler, WAPA
Steve Spangle, USFWS
Larry Stevens, Grand Canyon Wildlands Council
Andrea Travnicek, DOI
Steve Wolff, State of Wyoming
Mike Yeatts, The Hopi Tribe

Scott VanderKooi
Diane Waller
Shana Tighi
Jolene Trujillo
Christopher Watt
Linda Whetton

Interested Persons
Rob Billerbeck, NPS
David Braun, Science Advisors
Carlee Brown, State of Colorado
Jeanne Calhoun, NPS-GRCA
Shane Capron, WAPA
Bill Davis, CREDA
Sinjin Eberle, American Rivers
Bret Esslin AZ Department of Water Resources
Jessica Gwinn, USFWS
Ken Hyde, NPS-GLCA
Lauren Johnston, The Mary Orton Company

Webinar Attendees

Colleen Allen, NPS
Mark Anderson, NPS-GLCA
Clifford Barrett, UAMPS (AMWG Alternate)
Winkie Crook, Hualapai Tribe
Craig Ellsworth, WAPA
Paul Harms, State of New Mexico
Denise Hosler, Reclamation
Ted Kennedy, USGS/GCMRC

Ryan Mann, AZGFD
Joe Miller, Trout Unlimited
Mary Orton, The Mary Orton Company
Theresa Pasqual, DOI-OWS
Bill Persons, IFFF/Trout Unlimited
Sarah Rinkevich, DOI
Seth Shanahan, State of Nevada
William Shott NPS-GLCA
Rodney Smith, DOI Solicitor's Office
Jim Strogen, Trout Unlimitd

Robert King, State of Utah (AMWG Alternate)
Kirk LaGory, Argonne National Laboratories
Ted Melis, USGS/GCMRC
Jenny Rebenack, NPS
David Rogowski, AZGFD
Melissa Trammel, NPS
Kirk Young, USFWS (AMWG Alternate)

For a presentation on invasive species through the webinar and telephone: Hilary Smith, DOI; Robert Radtke,
Reclamation; Lisa Vehmas, Reclamation; John Wullschleger NPS; Diane Waller, USGS; and Sherri Pucherelli,
Reclamation.

Page 17

Abbreviations
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
ASWS – Assistant Secretary of Water and Science
(DOI)
AZGFD – Arizona Game and Fish Department
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
BT – Brown Trout
BWP – Budget and Work Plan
CAHG – Charter Ad Hoc Group
CAP – Central Arizona Project
CESU – Cooperative Ecosystems Studies Unit
CFMP – Comprehensive Fisheries Management Plan
cfs – cubic feet per second
CMINS – Core Monitoring Information Needs
CMP – Core Monitoring Plan
CPI – Consumer Price Index
CRAHG – Cultural Resources Ad Hoc Group
CRBC – Colorado River Board of California
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
DFO – Designated Federal Officer
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
FTE – Full Time Employee
FWS – United States Fish & Wildlife Service

FY – Fiscal Year (October 1 – September 30)
GCD – Glen Canyon Dam
GCDAMP - Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management
Program
GCES – Glen Canyon Environmental Studies
GCMRC – Grand Canyon Monitoring & Research
Center
GCNP – Grand Canyon National Park
GCNRA – Glen Canyon National Recreation Area
GCPA – Grand Canyon Protection Act
GCRG – Grand Canyon River Guides
GCWC – Grand Canyon Wildlands Council
GLCA – Glen Canyon National Recreation Area
GRCA – Grand Canyon National Park
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
IFFF – International Federation of Fly Fishers
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
MA – Management Action
MAF – Million Acre Feet
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

Page 16

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program: AMWG Meeting, February 14-15, 2018
Reclamation – United States Bureau of Reclamation
RFP – Request for Proposal
RINs – Research Information Needs
ROD Record of Decision
RPA – Reasonable and Prudent Alternative
SA – Science Advisors
SAEC – Science Advisors Executive Coordinator
Secretary – Secretary of the Interior
SCORE – State of the Colorado River Ecosystem
SHPO – State Historic Preservation Office
SOW – Statement of Work
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 – GCDAMP Technical Work Group
UAMPS – Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems
UCRC – Upper Colorado River Commission
UDWR – Utah Division of Water Resources
USFWS – United States Fish & Wildlife Service
USGS – United States Geological Survey
WAPA – Western Area Power Administration
WY – Water Year

/

/

/

/
/
/
/

/

Page 17