Technical Work Group

January 9, 2001

Phoenix, Arizona

Presiding: Rick Johnson, Chairperson FINAL 

Committee Members Present:

Cliff Barrett, UAMPS Pamela Hyde, Southwest Rivers

Kerry Christensen, Hualapai Tribe Robert King, UDWR

Dave Cohen, Trout Unlimited Don Metz, USFWS

Wayne Cook, UCRC S. Clayton Palmer, WAPA

Jonathan Damp, Pueblo of Zuni Bill Persons, AGFD

William Davis, CREDA Randall Peterson, USBR

Kurt Dongoske, The Hopi Tribe Nikolai Ramsey, GCT

Brenda Drye, So. Paiute Consortium D. Randolph Seaholm, CWCB

Norm Henderson, NPS/GLCA Robert Winfree, NPS/GRCA

Amy Heuslein, BIA

Committee Members Absent:

Robert Begay, Navajo Nation Matt Kaplinski, GCRG

Perri Benemelis, ADWR Phillip S. Lehr, Colo. River Comm./NV

Christopher Harris, CRBC John Shields, WY State Engr. Office

Nancy Hornewer, USGS

Alternates Present: For:

Wayne Cook John Shields, WY State Engineer’s Office

Other Interested Persons Present:

Mary Barger, WAPA Dennis Kubly, USBR

Gary Burton, WAPA Lisa Leap, GRCA

Nancy Coulam, USBR Mike Liszewski, GCMRC

Barry Gold, GCMRC Mary Orton, Mary Orton Company

Linda James, Office of Bob Lynch for IEDA

Recorder: Linda Whetton, USBR
GCD Technical Work Group

Minutes of January 9-10, 2001 Meeting

Page 2

Meeting Opening and Administrative Items

Convened: 8:10 a.m.

WELCOME AND ADMINISTRATIVE: 

The Chairperson welcomed the TWG members, alternates, and guests. All introduced 

themselves. The Chairperson determined there was a quorum established. Attendance Sheets 

were distributed (Attachment 1). 

Action Items from Last Meeting

1. WAPA Rate Brochure - Done. Clayton said they didn’t prepare a brochure but rather a 

presentation which he e-mailed to the TWG. He will provide additional copies as requested.

2. Power Economics Presentation (Rewrite). Done. Refer to Nov. 8-9, 2000, Draft Minutes.

3. Amendment to Biological Opinion - Done. This was e-mailed as well as posted to the Bureau 

of Reclamation’s web site (www.uc.usbr.gov)

3. SWCA Report - Done. The report has been posted on the GCMRC web site.

4. TWG Vision Narrative Ad hoc Group - Cliff will provide an update later today.

5. Budget Process Ad Hoc Committee Update - Clayton said the purpose of this committee was 

to make a joint TWG recommendation on the FY 2002 GCMRC work plan. He hasn’t been able 

to convene the committee and since the plan was due Nov. 30, he doesn’t feel there is a need for the 

committee to meet. He proposed disbanding the committee. 

MOTION: Move to disband the Budget Process Ad Hoc Committee.

Motion seconded and carried.

6. Budget Ad hoc Committee Update. Cliff Barrett reported that nothing has happened since 

the last meeting, however, he has received more comments. He proposed that since Dennis Kubly 

is developing a communication process diagram, the committee wait for a few weeks until those 

charts are completed to see if they provide better understanding of the budget process. 

Another assignment the committee had was to look at ways for the AMWG to get more support for 

the AMP budget in the Congress. They considered: 1) forming a group to discuss, 2) have the 

TWG make a recommendation to AMWG to form a small ad hoc group to address, 3) have TWG 

members discuss with their AMWG representatives, and 4) have an AMWG member make a 

recommendation. Cliff cautioned that the Federal agencies may not want to be part of the 

discussions as they are prohibited from talking about their proposed upcoming fiscal year budgets 
GCD Technical Work Group

Minutes of January 9-10, 2001 Meeting

Page 3

until they’ve been announced by the President. It was agree that an AMWG member should 

present this issue for further discussion/action.

7. Experimental Flows Ad Hoc Group Update- Randy Peterson will give a full report at 

tomorrow’s meeting.

8. LSSF Study Conference - Clayton reported that WAPA is still in the planning stages for the 

conference. They will also ask modeling experts to provide peer review and then will take their 

comments and incorporate them into the final report. Clayton said he had a draft copy of the 

LSSF report if anyone wanted to read but advised that it was pretty rough. Randy and Barry 

requested a copy.

ACTION: Clayton will send a copy of the LSSF Draft Report to Barry Gold and Randy Peterson. 

Use of List Server for AMWG/TWG Documents - Mike Liszewski (GCMRC) talked about the 

possibility of using a list server to post AMWG/TWG documents. He proposed three options: 

1) a format that only TWG and perhaps AMWG could access, 2) a format whereby the public can 

look but not participate in the discussion nor make comments, and 3) be completely open and let 

everyone participate. Some concerns were expressed about posting information and limiting 

exchange of information in light of being a FACA committee. 

ACTION: Randy will check into FACA regulations.

After some discussion on who should have access to the list server, the members said it should be 

limited to AMWG and TWG members. Mike said that since the discussion forum is a web-based 

format and dialog takes place by posting messages on a web site, he asked if the members wanted 

a discussion format vs. a list server? If you’re distributing documents, then a list server may be a 

better option. There was some concern about responding on a list server because some people 

send their replies to everyone. It was also mentioned that documents could continue to be posted 

to GCMRC and USBR web sites. With Serena (GCMRC) and Linda (USBR) posting documents, 

there is more control in posting “official” documents. 

ACTION: Mike is going to try setting up a discussion forum whereby only AMWG and TWG 

members could access barring any FACA restrictions.

Review of November 8-9, Meeting Minutes. Edits were noted. Linda will make the changes. 

MOTION: Recommend approval of Nov. 8-9, 2000, meeting minute pending changes.

Motion seconded and carried.

Review of December 7-8, Meeting Minutes. Edits were noted. Linda will make the changes 

and include a revised draft with the materials for the next TWG meeting.
GCD Technical Work Group

Minutes of January 9-10, 2001 Meeting

Page 4

MOTION: Postpone approval of Dec. 7-8, 2000, meeting minutes until next meeting.

Motion seconded and carried.

Strategic Plan: Mary Orton said the discussion will focus on the Goals, Principles, and 

Qualitative Targets so TWG members will be able to brief their AMWG representatives in 

preparation for the AMWG meeting on Thursday. Time permitting, Mary said the group may 

also review the proposed changes the ad hoc committee made to goals 1-7. The documents to be 

used: 

1. TWG Comments on Strategic Plan Document received at Dec. 7-8, 2000, TWG meeting with 

responses from AHC (Attachment 2). As of today, the Ad Hoc Committee has reviewed and 

responded only to comments 1-57, which correspond to goals 1-7. 

2. Report to AMWG, January 2001, Strategic Plan Update (Attachment 3). This 37-page 

document has many of the changes that the Ad Hoc Committee has reviewed through today for 

goals 1-7.

3. The Report to AMWG, January 2001, Addendum Document (Attachment 4). The Ad Hoc 

Committee went back to the Strategic Planning document that the AMWG received at its last 

meeting and updated it with all the changes that the AHC is recommending today. The chart 

looks different because the current levels, target levels, and comments columns were deleted 

and replaced with the qualitative targets. They want the AMWG to focus on the qualitative 

targets for the MOs and to tell them if they are on the right track so they can move forward with 

refining the MOs and developing the INs. The redline-strikeout changes are from the last 

time the AMWG saw the document. 

4. A new copy of the schedule (Attachment 5). Mary advised the group they would be looking at 

goals 1-7 today, goals 8-12 at the February meeting, approving the MOs in the March meeting, 

and approving INs at the May meeting. 

Don Metz expressed some frustration with the number of changes to the documents and felt that 

the AHC should just forward to the AMWG. Bob replied that the AHC has received a lot of 

comments and worked to incorporate those into the documents. Randy said there were cuts made 

on riparian vegetation and native fish vs. non-native fish. The AHC wants the TWG to hear it first 

so they are prepared to discuss with their AMWG representatives .

The members reviewed the Addendum document and comments were captured on flip charts. 

(Attachment 6)

Clayton questioned why the razorback sucker has a different target than the HBC. Randy 

responded that the razorback sucker issue is a little different from the HBC in that we are expected 

to help establish a second population of the HBC and take other measures such as the TCD and 

flow regimes to help that. Under the sucker issue, it’s a question of habitat. We were directed in 
GCD Technical Work Group

Minutes of January 9-10, 2001 Meeting

Page 5

the Opinion to conduct a workshop and from the conclusions of that, the Service would make some 

additional comments and come to some conclusions on the basis of the workshop regarding 

populations of razorback in the canyon. In some ways it is still an open-ended question regarding 

what has to be done to remove jeopardy of razorback sucker in the canyon. 

There was a lengthy discussion on preserving the OHWZ. Bill Davis said he didn’t want to 

sacrifice the NHWZ and the marshes and sand beach areas to conserve part of the OHWZ. It’s a 

matter of philosophy. There are some who would say sacrifice all of those to return to the natural, 

native pre-dam OHWZ community. He doesn’t agree and thinks the wording is such that it says 

our priority is to preserve the OHWZ over the other three zones. He also took exception to using 

1984 as the reference base for the NHWZ vegetation because it gives a much lower level of 

NHWZ vegetation as the target than what we have today. He felt the whole section reads as 

though we want to get rid of the NHWZ and marshes. 

Bob Winfree said the ad hoc group and the small group were in agreement that the goal is to try and 

restore a dynamic ecosystem where some scouring does take place, where some of the 

communities increase temporarily at the expense of other communities, and that they try to 

maintain some level of all four communities. 

Randy explained how the ad hoc group viewed the goal. The second qualitative target that refers 

to 1984 described an intermittent large flood regime that presumably would have some positive 

impact on the OHWZ. It did not result in the elimination of all marshes in the canyon nor did it 

result in the elimination of the NHWZ. Those both re-established. That process was something 

that was valued in the canyon. They envisioned a series of periodic BHBFs according to the 

ROD, perhaps and most likely at a higher magnitude than we’ve seen so far (45,000), that would 

accomplish that cyclic effect on each of these four communities so the sand beaches would come 

and go, the NHWZ would be slightly affected and then re-established, the marshes would be 

hammered initially but come right back, and perhaps by taking this type of process approach, the 

OHWZ might be preserved. It’s not going to mean a static preservation of the current 

distribution of marshes and NHWZ.

Clayton said would like to see Randy’s comments incorporated into the document as well have 

Randy provide the same explanation to the AMWG. Mary said the document would not be 

modified again before the AMWG sees it on Thursday and suggested that Clayton and the other 

TWG members inform their AMWG members of today’s discussion.

Rick said that the ad hoc group met during the break and they would like to have the TWG 

review/comment on the remaining qualitative targets. Mary led the group in reviewing the 

remainder of the document.

Vision Narrative Presentation - Cliff referred the members to the TWG meeting held on Dec. 

7-8, 2000. He said certain issues kept coming up that had to do with natural system vs. 

naturalized system, OHWZ vs. all the other water zones, trout vs. native fish. At the end of the 
GCD Technical Work Group

Minutes of January 9-10, 2001 Meeting

Page 6

first day Barry Gold came up with the idea that perhaps the small group doing the quantitative 

targets were not bridging the gap between the broad vision statement written by the AMWG on the 

river trip and the reality of the management objectives and goals. They had difficulty filling out 

the tables and interpreting the very broad vision statement by AMWG, which was broken down by 

goals by the AMWG, and then trying to get them to this group to write specific and very difficult 

qualitative and quantitative targets. Barry thought that perhaps some type of bridging document 

would make it easier to develop management objectives and revise the goals, while at the same 

time try to impress some of the important and underlying issues. The narrative paper (Attachment 

7) is designed to try and bridge that gap. They formed an ad hoc group (Randy Peterson, Barry 

Gold, Norm Henderson, Rick Johnson, Andre Potochnik, Dennis Kubly, Nancy Coulam, and Cliff 

Barrett). Barry volunteered to be the scribe and everyone was invited to write up their desired 

narrative papers. Barry would then consolidate them in one document that would help us get 

from the Vision and Mission Goals Statement to something that can be used as guidance to the 

small groups in writing up targets.

Management Objectives: Mary directed the members to use the “Report to AMWG January 

2001" document as they would be reviewing the comments beginning on page 3. There was some 

discussion as to whether the members needed to go through the entire document. Randy said he 

wanted to highlight some critical issues the TWG needs to be aware in terms of the AHC’s 

decision on the comments. If they missed these, it would be make the AMWG discussions more 

difficult:

- MO#18, conclusion on the quantitative target for trout of 250,000 in terms of an upper limit. 

The AHC is not comfortable with this and suggested that in the past since 100,000 was used that 

we stay there until it is shown that the greater number won’t cause viability issues with native fish.

- MO#19, the AHC didn’t see this as conflicting with #18. You could have 100% natural 

recruitment at a lower target level.

- MO#25, target level issue and stage level at Vaseys, there was a disconnect between having a 

stage level “at some place” area vs. some 10-year running average as being part of the target level. 

Also affected were the potential areas outside Vaseys where KAS might exist, those three 

translocated populations. And while those translocated populations would not be figured into the

calculation, they would still be in need of being monitored. The cut on the stage level was pretty 

confusing and the AHC felt that a more straightforward approach might simply be a certain 

percentage of habitat occupied in 1996.

- #MO28 and 30, The discussion centered around “at some place.” The comment was 

calling attention to the reach of river below Separation to Lake Mead. The AHC changed it to the 

CRE. The scope of the AMP was part of that discussion as well as the outcome of recent 

litigation on the absence of discretion the Secretary has in operating Lake Mead to preserve 

SWWF habitat. 
GCD Technical Work Group

Minutes of January 9-10, 2001 Meeting

Page 7

- #Comment 41 (Bill D.) Flows of 123,000 cfs are within the operation and flexibility of the 

dam as defined in the glossary. Make sure we understand what operational flexibility refers to. 

ACTION: Bill Davis will provide a definition of operational flexibility

Bill said he wanted to raise the issue in regard to planning for the use of spillways to create flows. 

Since the dam is operated under a controlled environment, you don’t purposely raise the level of 

the reservoir up so you can operate the spillway to create a higher flow. That is done only as a 

stopgap measure and the spillways are used only as a last resort. He is hearing that there is an 

attempt to try to design or plan for that as a feature for water releases to be incorporated in the plans 

here so that we can create certain conditions downstream. He wants to know what Reclamation is 

going to do on this. Randy replied that Reclamation can take no action to artificially raise the 

reservoir up to be able to use the spillways because the annual releases that would affect this 

situation are controlled by statute, compact, and criteria. If the water were on the gate, within 50 

feet of being full, then the spillway gates could be raised just as outlet tubes could be opened to 

make releases through those. There is no difference in the use of those two facilities. One might 

perceive that the outlet tubes would be more robust and be able to be used over a longer period of 

time but Reclamation is confident that with the addition of the air slots, the spillways can be used 

safely without fear of the cavitation which occurred in 1983. 

Mary reviewed the AMP Schedule and referred to page 3. She pointed out that under the column 

labeled “MOs” for February 13-14, the review and comment on MOs will be for Goals 7-12. She 

said the AHC would like to take the Draft Detailed Outline of AMP Strategic Plan (Attachment 8) 

and get some volunteers to write portions of the Strategic Plan. During the TWG River Trip 

(March 24-31) the plan is to review/revise the drafts.

Amy questioned if there were any sections from the GCMRC’s Strategic Plan which could be used 

in writing the AMP SP. Barry said that you could look at Chapters 1-3, except that chapters 1-3 

have led to the big discussion about there needing to be an adaptive management plan because 

people didn’t like how they were written. Bob said his recollection was that the AMWG started 

the Strategic Planning Committee at that time and were to take chapters 1-3 and revise them for a 

Strategic Plan. Mary asked if there was anyone who wanted to look at those and start a review. 

Cliff suggested that the question be asked tomorrow so they had a chance to think
GCD Technical Work Group

Minutes of January 9-10, 2001 Meeting

Page 8

about it and review their schedules before responding. The deadline for getting the materials 

distributed would be March 9, 2001.

ACTION: TWG members will review the document this evening and be prepared to discuss at 

tomorrow’s meeting.

Adjourned: 4:45 p.m. 
GCD Technical Work Group

Minutes of January 9-10, 2001 Meeting

Page 9

Technical Work Group

January 10, 2001

Phoenix, Arizona

Presiding: Rick Johnson, Chairperson FINAL 

Committee Members Present:

Cliff Barrett, UAMPS Robert King, UDWR

Kerry Christensen, Hualapai Tribe Phillip S. Lehr, Colo. River Comm./NV

Dave Cohen, Trout Unlimited Don Metz, USFWS

Wayne Cook, UCRC S. Clayton Palmer, WAPA

Jonathan Damp, Pueblo of Zuni Bill Persons, AGFD

William Davis, CREDA Randall Peterson, USBR

Kurt Dongoske, The Hopi Tribe Nikolai Ramsey, GCT

Brenda Drye, So. Paiute Consortium D. Randolph Seaholm, CWCB

Norm Henderson, NPS/GLCA John Shields, WY State Engineers Office

Amy Heuslein, BIA Robert Winfree, NPS/GRCA

Pamela Hyde, Southwest Rivers

Committee Members Absent:

Robert Begay, Navajo Nation Nancy Hornewer, USGS

Perri Benemelis, ADWR Matt Kaplinski, GCRG

Christopher Harris, CRBC

Alternates Present: For:

Tim Begay Robert Begay, Navajo Nation

Andre Potochnik Matt Kaplinski, GCRG

Other Interested Persons Present:

Jan Balsom, NPS Dennis Kubly, USBR

Mary Barger, WAPA Ruth Lambert, GCMRC

Gary Burton, WAPA Mary Orton, Mary Orton Company

Nancy Coulam, USBR Barbara Ralston, GCMRC

Barry Gold, GCMRC

Linda James, Office of Bob Lynch for IEDA

Recorder: Linda Whetton, USBR
GCD Technical Work Group

Minutes of January 9-10, 2001 Meeting

Page 10

Meeting Opening and Administrative Items

Convened: Start time: 8:05 a.m.

Review of Agenda - Rick said the meeting would begin with a report from the Strategic Planing 

Ad Hoc Group that met last night.

Narrative Description. Mary Orton asked the members for comments on the draft narrative 

description prepared by Barry and Randy. Comments were recorded on flip charts (Attachment 

9).

There was some discussion on the length of the document. Bob stated it’s great to have a shared 

vision but if it is too long, it will be hard to see. His suggestion was one page, front-to-back. 

Others felt that one page was too limiting and not enough information could be provided. 

Mary asked what the process should be for completing the narrative. Does it end up as part of the 

Strategic Plan Document? How should it move through the process of approval? Wayne 

suggested the TWG complete and refer to the AMWG. Barry commented that there is some cross 

fertilization between AMWG and TWG and that the process needs to move forward. He also said 

there is only one person in the cultural area but none of the tribes were involved and suggested 

Kurt be involved in drafting the cultural portion but also include spiritual values.

Barry listed the sections that would need to be written: Introduction, aquatic, riparian, cultural, 

recreational, and water and power. It was decided that someone other that Barry should be the 

coordinator on the writing assignments. Gary Burton will be the new coordinator.

Report from Strategic Planning AHC Meeting. Rick reported on the meeting the AHC held 

last night and passed out a list of the proposed changes they received from the TWG (Attachment 

10). The AHC reviewed and if they concurred with the suggestion, then they will advise the 

AMWG of their concurrence. Randy mentioned goal 6.2 and stated that the qualitative targets for 

goal 6 were changed by the AHC and asked the members to review. Rick said the intent is for 

the TWG members to go to their AMWG representatives and make them aware of the changes.

MOTION: The TWG concurs with changes 1-7 on TWG comments to Strategic Plan 

Addendum Document. 

Motion seconded.

Motion passed unanimously.

Narrative Writing Assignments - Mary said the AHC offered the opportunity to TWG members 

to assist in drafting parts of the Strategic Plan. Those parts are in the Detailed Outline. The 

drafts will be reviewed and then brought on the TWG River Trip for more review and revision. 

The deadline is March 9. (Refer to Attachment 9 for additional suggestions.)
GCD Technical Work Group

Minutes of January 9-10, 2001 Meeting

Page 11

Barry stated that some roles and responsibilities don’t track with the EIS and he would like to see 

Randy or someone else review the EIS, make it current, and then bring it back to the TWG. Bob 

cautioned that you can reference the EIS and other things but also need to note if the current 

direction of the AMP is something different. Under a section, you could write “go to the 

following document in the appendix” which would still keep the document short. Bill also added 

that there are constraints, certain things that are going to control this program that this program has 

no control over. 

Rick said the outline will be given to the AMWG on an “FYI” basis. Mary will make the changes 

and new copies will be given to the AMWG tomorrow. The AHC will also meet briefly after 

today’s meeting and make a decision on what to bring to the AMWG tomorrow.

MOTION: Recommend to AMWG to approve the Detailed Outline as amended in today’s 

meeting.

Motion seconded.

Discussion of motion.

Voting Results: Yes = 14 No = 3 Abstentions: 0

Comments: 

Dave Cohen: Didn’t vote. We are blind-siding AMWG. If there were a process, send to TWG 

ad hoc and have them send to AMWG ad hoc. We refuse to deal with issues in a concise manner. 

That won’t resolve conflicts. How are we going to address priorities?

Randy Seaholm: Don’t feel it is necessary to revisit the issues as they have been discussed at some 

length.

Motion passed.

Communication Process - Dennis Kubly referred the members to page 8 of the December 7-8, 

2000, meeting minutes and also displayed a new diagram (Attachment 11). He asked if all the 

entities were represented in the boxes in terms of how information is communicated through the 

AMP. Does all information flow in both directions? Does a diagram like this have a place in the 

Strategic Plan? He would like to take one of the segments and identify an example or two where 

we’ve experienced information flow. Are there bottlenecks? Are there ways to make it better? 

Questions/Suggestions:

- Science Advisory Board be broadened. 

- Is there a filter between the Secretary DOI and the Secretary’s Designee?

- Can you do a decision diagram?

- What are the “official” lines of communication?

- Box of education: 1) compliance 2) cultural and compliance issues

- Internal budget process group

- How does the Sec. Lands & Minerals affect the process?

- Needs to be a series of diagrams - science, budget, management actions, etc. Try to show all 

arrows and boxes. Diagrams should be specific to decision.
GCD Technical Work Group

Minutes of January 9-10, 2001 Meeting

Page 12

- Series of overlays would be helpful.

- Potential for weakness is the Secretary’s Designee position- he’s the aorta. Nothing goes up and 

down if pinched.

- Amendment to Charter is a problem. Outreach ad hoc group never met. How do we satisfy 

ourselves that communication works both ways?

- What do we need with all these things? It’s great to understand but what do we do with it?

Action: Dennis Kubly will incorporate suggestions and bring another iteration to the TWG in 

February.

Hydrology Update - Randy Peterson reported that the basin conditions for the last month have 

been very dry with a very high pressure zone over the basin. As a result, the snowpack integrated 

average has deteriorated from 92% of normal last month at the beginning of the month to 82% 

right now. If you compared last month’s snow map to this month’s (Attachment 12), you would 

see that most of the basin has dried out. Much of the basin is in the 70's and 60's percent of 

normal, a few areas of 80. The way that corresponds into runoff, the National Weather Service 

uses the current snowpack conditions from today and assumes average precipitation and 

temperature for the remainder of the runoff season through the end of July. They run that through 

their models which produces a percent of normal runoff. The forecast is usually some type of 

middle ground between average for the rest of the year and the current snowpack. So if future 

preciptation is average, current snowpact is 82%, then the runoff is somewhere between the two. 

The inflow estimated for the entire water year right now is about 89% of normal. There is about 

70% of the snow accumulation season remaining through July so there is still a lot of time for this 

to change. 

A second handout (Attachment 13) depicted the estimated releases for the remainder of the year. 

The probability of a low 8.23 maf release year occurring is somewhere in the 25-30% range. The 

pattern of this being a 8.23 maf release year is very typical when one would see it coming. Last 

year if we were forced to release a 8.23 maf, since we saw higher releases in the fall, we would 

have seen much lower releases all the rest of the year. The message is that there are a lot of 

different ways for an 8.23 maf year to be released. The average release year is in the order of a 

10.5-11 maf. You can see the releases up through May are going to be following an 8.23 release 

schedule. We have a little bit of room in order to accommodate any future increases in the 

forecasted runoffs. That’s why the BHBF likelihood is rather low.

Experimental Flows Update - Randy passed out copies of the Experimental Flow Ad Hoc Group 

Draft Meeting Minutes dated Dec. 11, 2000 (Attachment 14). They had four charges: 

1. Prepare recommendations for B.O. Flows, BHBFs, and a HMF in 2001

2. Prepare program of experimental flows for BHBFs

3. Prepare program of experimental flows to comply with the Biological Opinion

4. Determine criteria for when 8.23 maf release years exist
GCD Technical Work Group

Minutes of January 9-10, 2001 Meeting

Page 13

The ad hoc has completed the first task.

MOTION #1: Recommend that if a BHBF is triggered in 2001, that a 45,000 cfs BHBF be 

released.

Motion seconded.

Discussion.

Voting: Yes = 16 No = 0 Abstained: 1 

Robert King: Don’t think it is necessary. We’re already there.

AMENDED MOTION #1: Recommend that if a BHBF is triggered in 2001, and the resource 

criteria are met, that a 45,000 cfs BHBF be released.

Voting: Yes= 16 No = 0 Abstained = 2

Wayne Cook: The record is clear. We shouldn’t waste an opportunity to test BHBFs greater than 

45,000 cfs.

Robert King: Same comment.

MOTION #2: Recommend that if sufficient tributary inputs occur this summer, a HMF be 

released.

Motion seconded.

Discussion.

AMENDED MOTION #2: Recommend that if sufficient tributary inputs occur this summer or 

fall and if a HMF can be scientifically evaluated, a HMF will be released in 2001.

Voting: Yes = 15 No = 0 Abstained = 4

Bob Winfree: Don’t think the additional wording is needed.

Wayne Cook: The program is to modify and control habitat, not fund science.

Robert King: Same comment 

Norm Henderson: Same thing

AMENDED MOTION #2: Recommend that if sufficient tributary inputs occur this summer or 

fall (before Sept. 16) and the HMF can be scientifically evaluated, a HMF will be released in 

2001.

Voting: Yes = 15 No = 0 Abstained = 4

Comments: Additional wording isn’t needed.

AMENDED MOTION #2: Recommend that if sufficient tributary inputs occur this summer or 

fall, (before Sept. 16) a HMF be released in 2001. 

Yes: 21

No: 0

Abstained: 0

FULL MOTION: Recommend that if sufficient tributary inputs occur this summer or fall and if 

HMF can be scientifically evaluated, a HMF will be released in 2001.
GCD Technical Work Group

Minutes of January 9-10, 2001 Meeting

Page 14

Voting: Yes = 17 No = 0 Abstained = 3

Comments: We made our point. You can always evaluate it.

Motion carried.

Randy said his third motion is a little different from the ad hoc group recommendation. It’s based 

on an inability to measure the impacts this summer. He asked the GCMRC what the potential was 

for being able to conduct a repeat of the type of research that went into last year’s test and the 

answer was they “cannot.” It is primarily a funding issue and he’s not sure how to come up with 

an extra $1M +/- to carry that out. Absent those types of assurances, he thinks it would be unwise 

to conduct it without being able to monitor it. 

MOTION # 3: If this year is a 8.23 release year, that we release according to ROD constraints.

Motion seconded.

Discussion.

AMENDED MOTION # 3: If Water year 2001 is an 8.23 maf release year, then [we release 

according to ROD constraints.] 

Discussion.

AMENDED MOTION # 3: If Water year 2001 is an 8.23 maf release year, then we release 

according to the ROD and we do not conduct an LSSF experiment.

AMENDED MOTION # 3: Recommend that if water year 2001 is an 8.23 maf release year, then 

releases be according to the ROD and an LSSF experiment will not be conducted.

Voting: Yes = 18 No = 0 Abstained = 1

Nikolai Ramsey: I don’t understand the issue well enough to vote.

Motion passed.

Power Presentation - Cliff Barrett

Cliff referred to the rewrite starting on page 5 of the Nov. 8-9, 2000, meeting minutes. 

Cliff said that WAPA and CREDA are at odds over whether CREDA is being given the proper 

credit for repayment of the Adaptive Management Program power revenue funds. The O&M 

funding includes all the reimbursable O&M costs plus WAPA is considering the AMP as an O&M 

expense. The AMP is considered an additional outflow. Over time and everything being equal, 

the basin fund goes down. CREDA had this issue with WAPA long before the 2000 dry year and 

the LSSF. Clayton added that expenditures of the AMP in a year like this helped create a liquidity 

problem. Cliff said that WAPA does not include AMP funding as an O&M cost in their rate 

setting process, that makes it rate neutral temporarily. Because CREDA does not agree with 

WAPA on how they are treating the crediting process, they still have that argument. CREDA 

reads the law that if you spend $7M in year 2000 on the AMP, power users repayment obligation 

for capital features should be reduced $7M in year 2000 as if that payment had been made. In the 
GCD Technical Work Group

Minutes of January 9-10, 2001 Meeting

Page 15

last meeting CREDA had with WAPA, they said they were doing that but CREDA asked to see the 

books. That was a month ago. He said that when they start the next rate process in spring, it will 

be a major issue for discussion. The basin fund issue is a cash flow problem. You will always 

have less money coming in than you have going out.

Cliff said he has received a lot of questions that relate to how the power system operates. He 

suggested the TWG visit WAPA’s Desert Southwest Office Control Center located in Phoenix. 

WAPA could have people available to answer questions and CREDA would also try to have and 

operator on hand to answer questions from a customer viewpoint. Cliff thought it could be done 

in an hour and a half. Rick advised Cliff to bring this up later when future agenda items are 

discussed.

GCMRC Bibliography - Barry said the GCMRC prepared a bibliography of all the reports 

received since the GCMRC was formed (Attachment 15). Barry asked the members to review the 

list and let him know via e-mail/phone which ones the GCMRC should make presentations on. 

Barry said the Lake Powell PEP will be presented at the TWG meeting in February so another 

presentation could be scheduled for the April TWG meeting. Barry also asked the members to let 

him know of any documents that weren’t on the list but which they felt should be included.

Bob Winfree provided copies of a handout (Attachment 16) regarding the Grand Canyon National 

Park Research Offices web page. They have three on-line bibliographies that can be searched 

plus all the papers that the National Park Service is aware of. The most comprehensive 

bibliography was done for the Grand Canyon Natural History Association and the NAU Cline 

Library has put that on line. It has a lot of unpublished data plus remote newspaper articles, etc. 

It’s called NRBib and actually provides a search for all published and unpublished reports that are 

in National Park Service libraries with the exception of a few sensitive ones. The third one that 

will be online in a week is the Investigator’s Annual Report.

LEGISLATIVE UPDATES:

1. Randy reported that the AMWG Charter was signed and filed today.

2. With respect to responses to letters regarding HR4733 (Authorization Bill which capped the 

power funding for the AMP), he talked to Assistant Secretary’s office on Monday and the letters 

still had not yet been signed. On behalf of the Dept., he apologized for the delay but stated that 

the Dept. of the Interior was well aware of the letters when it responded to H.R. 4733.

3. Randy said the AMWG re-nomination letters were prepared and up until last week were in the 

same routing package with the Charter. However, due to the urgency in getting the Charter 

signed, the package was divided. He is hopeful they will be signed within the next two weeks. 

The new members who will be attending the AMWG meeting tomorrow will be participating as 

alternates. 

WRAP UP
GCD Technical Work Group

Minutes of January 9-10, 2001 Meeting

Page 16

Future Agenda Items

- how PRS/rate setting works

- PEP (Lake Powell) in Feb. (IWQP) 

- WAPA - Desert Southwest Office Field Trip

- Sediment Ad Hoc Paper (Ted Melis)

- Remote sensing update

- Conceptual modeling workshop and science symposium (week of April 23)

- Having A TWG response to PEP to Expert Panel report 

- response to KAS Expert Panel Review

- stock assessment workshop report

- TCD Expert Panel Report

- Calendar

Upcoming TWG Meetings

February 13-14, 2001. 

March 14-15 (consensus on MOs)

March 24-31 - river trip

May 30-31

April 23 (week of) –> conceptual modeling

AMWG Meeting - April 10-11 (final concurrence on MOs)

TWG Meeting - April (day before/after depending on when AMWG schedules their meeting).

 - TCD Update

Meeting Review:

positive negative

civil nature of discussion on side conversations

difficult issues

ADJOURNED: 4:45 p.m.
GCD Technical Work Group

Minutes of January 9-10, 2001 Meeting

Page 17

General Key to Adaptive Management Program Acronyms

ADWR - Arizona Department of Water Resources

AF - Acre Feet

AGFD - Arizona Game & Fish Department

AGU - American Geophysical Union

AMP - Adaptive Management Program

AMWG - Adaptive Management Work Group

AOP - Annual Operating Plan

BA - Biological Assessment

BE - Biological Evaluation

BHBF - Beach/Habitat-Building Flow

BHMF - Beach/Habitat Maintenance Flow

BHTF - Beach/Habitat Test Flow

BIA - Bureau of Indian Affairs

BO - Biological Opinion

BOR - Bureau of Reclamation

CAPA - Central Arizona Project Assn.

cfs - cubic feet per second

CRBC - Colorado River Board of California

CRCN - Colorado River Commission of Nevada

CREDA - Colorado River Energy Distributors Assn.

CRSP - Colorado River Storage Project 

CWCB - Colorado Water Conservation Board

DBMS - Data Base Management System

DOI - Department of the Interior

EA -Environmental Assessment

EIS -Final 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

GCD - Glen Canyon Dam

GCMRC - Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research

Center

GCNP - Grand Canyon National Park

GCNRA - Glen Canyon National Recreation Area

GCPA - Grand Canyon Protection Act

HBC - Humpback Chub (endangered native fish)

HMF - Habitat Maintenance Flow

HPP - Historic Preservation Plan

IEDA - Irrigation and Electrical Districts 

Association of Arizona

IN - Information Need (stakeholder)

IT - Information Technology (GCMRC program)

KAS - Kanab ambersnail (endangered native snail)

KAWG - Kanab Ambersnail Work Group

LCR -Little Colorado River

LCRMCP: Lower Colorado River Multi-Species 

Conservation Program

MAF -Million Acre Feet

MA -Management Action

MO -Management Objective

NAAO - Native American Affairs Office

NAU - Northern Arizona University (Flagstaff, AZ)

NEPA - National Environmental Policy Act

NGS - National Geodetic Survey

NHPA - National Historical Preservation Act

NPS - National Park Service

NRC - National Research Council

NWS - National Weather Service

O&M - Operations & Maintenance (USBR funding)

PA - Programmatic Agreement

PEP - Protocol Evaluation Panel

Powerplant Capacity - 31,000 cfs

Reclamation - United States Bureau of Reclamation

RFP - Request For Proposals

RPA - Reasonable and Prudent Alternative

SAB -Science Advisory Board

Secretary(=s) -Secretary of theInterior

SWCA -Steven W. Carothers Associates

TCD -Temperature Control Device (for Glen

Canyon Dam water releases)
GCD Technical Work Group

Minutes of January 9-10, 2001 Meeting

Page 18

TCP -Traditional Cultural Property

TES -Threatened and Endangered Species

TWG - Glen Canyon Technical Work Group (a subcommittee of

the AMWG)

UCR - Upper Colorado Region (of the USBR)

UCRC - Upper Colorado River Commission

UDWR - Utah Division of Water Resources

USBR - United States Bureau of Reclamation

USFWS - United States Fish & Wildlife Service

USGS - United States Geological Survey

WAPA -Western Area Power Administration

WY -Water Year (a calendar year)