. 

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program 

Technical Work Group Meeting 

May 16, 2002 

Presiding: Kurt Dongoske, Chairman FINAL

Committee Members Present:

Perri Benemelis, ADWR Robert King, UDWR 

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

Wayne Cook, UCRC Don Metz, USFWS 

Jonathan Damp, Pueblo of Zuni Bill Persons, AGFD 

William Davis, CREDA Randall Peterson, USBR 

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

Lloyd Greiner, UAMPS John Shields, WY State Engineer’s Office 

Norm Henderson, GLCA Robert Winfree, NPS/GRCA 

Amy Heuslein, BIA 

Committee Members Absent:

Robert Begay, Navajo Nation Matt Kaplinski, GCRG 

Dave Cohen, Trout Unlimited Clayton Palmer, WAPA 

Christopher Harris, CRBC Nikolai Ramsey, Grand Canyon Trust 

Nancy Hornewer, USGS John Whipple, NM Interstate Stream Comm. 

Pamela Hyde, Southwest Rivers Michael Yeatts, The Hopi Tribe 

Alternates Present: For:

John O’Brien Matt Kaplinski, GCRG 

Wayne Cook John Whipple, NM State Engineer’s Office 

Gary Burton Clayton Palmer, WAPA 

Other Interested Parties:

Jan Balsom, NPS/GRCA Ruth Lambert, GCMRC 

Mary Barger, WAPA Matt Mallory, BIA 

Dave Busch, GCMRC/USGS Ted Melis, GCMRC/ USGS 

Nancy Coulam, USBR Mary Orton, The Mary Orton Company 

Steve Gloss, GCMRC/USGS Tom Ryan, USBR 

Dennis Kubly, USBR 

 

Recorder: Linda Whetton, USBR 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Minutes of May 16-17, 2002, Meeting 

Page 2 

Meeting Opening and Administrative Items 

Convened: 9:40 a.m. 

Welcome and Admistrative Items:

Kurt Dongoske welcomed the TWG members, alternates, and guests. All introduced themselves. A 

quorum was established and attendance sheets were distributed (Attachment 1). 

Announcements: 

1. Rick Johnson has resigned from Southwest Rivers. 

2. Norm Henderson announced he was selected as the Colorado River Coordinator for the National 

Park Service. He will be headquartered in Salt Lake City and will be working with other Interior 

agencies. It’s unclear at this point in time how much he will be involved with the Adaptive 

Management Program. This is a one-year detail assignment. 

3. Amy said she received a call from a friend of Dave Cohen’s a few days ago. Dave is back in the 

hospital. Apparently he had a double aneurysm. If anyone is interested in contacting Dave, he’s at 

Valley Lutheran Hospital (480-981-2000, room 731). She asked his friend if he would let other Trout 

Unlimited persons know of Dave’s involvement in the AMP and whether anyone would be interested 

in serving as Dave’s alternate. 

4. Dave Busch introduced himself as the Acting Chief of GCMRC. He works for the USGS Western 

Region. He has been focused on forest and aquatic issues in the northwest. Prior to that he worked for 

the National Park Service with the development and implementation of the monitoring system in the 

Florida Everglades. Prior to that he worked for the Bureau of Reclamation in the Lower Colorado 

Region. He has considerable experience with design and implementation of monitoring systems and 

also riparian plant ecology. 

Review of Action Items from the Feb. 26-27, 2002, TWG Meeting:

1. Mary said she didn’t receive any comments on the “big issue INs. 

2. Linda mailed out the AMWG comments on the INs. 

3. All items under Experimental Flows were completed. 

4. Randy did receive comments on the FY 2004 Budget. The Budget Ad Hoc Group couldn’t meet 

until they had the detailed work plans which were recently mailed out. The Budget AHG will be 

meeting tonight to discuss further. 

5. Randy said he did not write a “white paper” and questioned if there are still issues that prevent the 

TWG from moving forward with the Strategic Plan. If so, then more discussions can be held and a 

white paper written if people feel it is necessary. Ted Melis said the GCMRC has been looking at what 

they perceive as an AMWG/TWG request for additional help around target level development for 

resources and have been discussing a process they might bring to the TWG as a proposed way of 

helping with that, if that is still something that is desired. They have a budget to support requests of 

that type and could initiate it this year. 

6. Since Rick Johnson has resigned from the AMP, Bill Persons said he would check with the 

members of the Non-native Fish Group and send out an update. 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Minutes of May 16-17, 2002, Meeting 

Page 3 

7. Bill said he talked with several groups about what is happening with non-native fish control 

(working on mechanical removal, weir at Bright Angel Creek, or changes in dam operations). There 

are some people who are a little bit uncomfortable about the experimental flow concepts. Steve Gloss 

said he and Bill talked about setting up a meeting with the guides and will try to do that. The guides 

have formed a group called Lees Ferry Conservancy and have hired a writer (Kirk Deeter out of 

Colorado) to represent them. John O’Brien said he wasn’t sure if anything was added to the GCRG 

quarterly newsletter. 

Action: Randy will check with Barry Wirth on preparing a press release for releases over Memorial 

Day weekend. 

8. Norm Henderson had agreed to write a white paper on what is “in” and “out” of the AMP, but he 

said at the last AMWG meeting, it was decided a small group would deal with the issue. There was a 

group formed with Randy Seaholm taking the lead. 

MOTION: Approve the Draft Minutes of the Feb 26-27, 2002, Meeting 

Motion seconded. 

Pending two minor edits, the minutes were adopted. 

Legislative Updates – Randy said Senate Bill 517 (Energy Policy Act) failed in terms of the ANWR 

drilling portion of the bill. There have been about 100 amendments to that bill thus far and it has now 

become very unwieldy. The Senate did pass a version of the bill which will go to conference but there 

are so many substantive differences with the House Bill H.R. 4 that it could take a long time to resolve 

them. The House bill is the only bill Randy is aware of that addresses hydropower generation; the 

Senate version is silent on that issue as far as he can tell. Kurt said there was a news story done on 

National Public Radio that talked about the energy bill and the notion of developing energy plans on 

tribal lands. They gave a little bit more positive indication that the bill had passed the Senate and gone 

into the Senate and House Conference Committee. 

Basin Hydrology – Tom Ryan presented various hydrologic graphs (Attachment 2) 

Aggregate Upper Colorado Region Precipitation WY 2002 – We’re in a drought right now with this 

year one of the worst in history. We had 62% of average inflow in 2000, 59% of average in 2001, and 

right now for the water year we’re projecting to have only 4 maf which is about 34-35% of average for 

the year with the April-July runoff forecasted to be 25% of average. There was a little bit of moisture 

that came into the basin around Thanksgiving that continued on into December and it looked like 

things could get off to a good start but since then it has been very, very dry. 

WY 2002 Lake Powell Unregulated Flow – This shows how far off average we continue to be. The 

base flows are significantly below the average line and the runoff has taken a drop in May. 

WY 2002 Lake Powell Inflow Compared to 1977 – In 1997 there was a little bit of runoff in June and a 

monsoon produced a little bit of runoff in the summer which helped things out quite a bit. There will 

be some runoff this year in the latter part of June but it isn’t going to be much. It will probably exceed 

the peak as indicated on the graph. 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Minutes of May 16-17, 2002, Meeting 

Page 4 

WY 2001 Lake Powell Unregulated Inflow –This gives an idea of what we had last year. The last 

couple of years were dry years but they weren’t severe in terms of historical exceedences. 

2002 Upper Colorado Apr – Jul Inflow – The current distribution of forecasted inflows are: 25% of 

average at Lake Powell, 51% at Flaming Gorge, 28% at Blue Mesa, and 14% at Navajo. It’s been dry 

all over but severely dry in the southern portions of the basin particularly in the San Juan. They are 

looking at inflows that are record lows there. 

Glen Canyon Dam Releases, Based on May 2002 Final Forecast – This year’s release from Glen 

Canyon Dam will be an 8.23 maf year, a minimum objective release year. Lake Powell will end up 

lower than Lake Mead so there won’t be equalization releases. Normally they look at three scenarios – 

the minimum probable, the most probable, and the maximum probable with the minimum and the 

maximum being deciles in terms of runoff extremes, end points you could reasonably expect could 

happen. Even under the reasonable max, no equalization releases would take place. The reasonable 

max, April-July forecast is 3.9 maf so almost under any reasonable range of circumstances, there will 

be 8.23 maf release this year. 

Tom showed a graph displaying monthly release volumes with and without experimental flows. The 

specifics of the experimental flow was presented to the Colorado River Management Work Group 

meeting yesterday that if the experimental flows proceed, there will be some shifting of water for the 

remainder of WY 2002 to keep the annual release volume the same but September drops to a 476,000 

AF month so that you can begin the low flow sequence assuming you have Paria inputs. The volumes 

go up a little bit in June and July, stay pretty much the same in August, and then go down in 

September. 

Lake Powell Elevations – This graph shows what Lake Powell is supposed to do in dry cycles. The 

reasonable max will be a runoff of 3.9 maf, most probable is April-July with 2.0 maf; and the Weather 

Service is using 1977 for the reasonable minimum. It’s likely we’ll be down 75-80 feet by the end of 

the calendar year but the next month or so the lake elevation will probably hold steady. 

Lake Powell Water Surface Elevations 1980 through Present – In 1988-1992 we went through a 5-year 

dry period. The third year of that dry cycle was 1990 and it’s going to be drier this year than it was in 

that year. It will take more water to refill the system than during that previous drought because Lake 

Mead didn’t drop as fast in that cycle as it has this year because there are greater demands on Lake 

Mead. There were also several runoff events in 1993 on the Gila River that reduced the need to make 

releases out of Lake Mead. It’s going to take quite a bit of water to refill the system. The reservoirs 

above Lake Powell have to be filled in addition to filling Lake Powell and Lake Mead. 

Experimental Flows Update – Randy Peterson said there are only 31⁄2 months remaining until they 

start the experiment and need to get started on the science planning, NEPA, and ESA compliance. He 

said he would like the members to discuss their concerns and be prepared to forward a TWG 

recommendation to AMWG on the nature of the fall dam releases. He displayed a hydrograph that was 

shown at the AOP meeting yesterday depicting the low flows for this fall and the early winter months 

in order to save water for the BHBF next Spring. If there is no sediment input, a portion of the January 

volume would be moved back into December, resulting in a more typical 8.23 maf release pattern. 

Randy proceeded with a PowerPoint presentation (Attachment 3). 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Minutes of May 16-17, 2002, Meeting 

Page 5 

Randy emphasized that this is an integrated ecosystem experiment. It may be perceived to some as a 

sediment experiment, but it has just as much to do with endangered humpback chub and native fish. 

It’s more than just reducing the number of trout to help the chub, he believes things can be learned 

about habitat conditions in the fall through the proposed Scenario 1 and parts of Scenario 2 

experiments. He said today’s discussion would focus on remaining concerns: whether to use stable or 

fluctuating flows, what level of fluctuations, the attenuation aspect, habitat response to the flows in the 

LCR Reach, effect of sediment transport as near to the dam as the Paria, and Paria inputs triggering 

volume. He asked Ted Melis to present information from the conference call/meeting held last week. 

Ted said a real topic of discussion centered around what to include in the treatment document in 

response to enrichment by Paria inputs and whether to go with low constant flows or with low 

fluctuating flows. He went back to the sediment scientists, specifically David Topping and Dave 

Rubin. Rubin is recommending that when enrichment occurs, that opportunity be used to actually 

directly compare the two flow treatments by alternating one, and then the other, over the course of a 

couple of months, perhaps for a week or two at a time, constant 8000 cfs and maybe 7-9,000 cfs that is 

equivalent in terms of average release volume and do intensive measurements from the cableways 

using standard procedures as well as some of the new technologies. After that enrichment has 

occurred, the scientists would look at the two datasets and make a call as to which seems better or 

worse in terms of sediment transport. 

TWG Questions/Comments/Concerns: 

• Do we know absolutely that the majority of the desired fractions of the sediment are retained 

during 8,000 cfs steady releases or do we need to do some experimentation? Historical data 

published by Topping, Rubin, and others state that 8,000 seems to be a significant threshold for 

sand transport. 

• Over the course of two months, can you really distinguish between the two treatments? Perhaps 

a commitment needs to be to alternate 3 or 4 times over a couple of months, maybe 3 months. 

• There may be some benefit for having fluctuating flows to stress the trout near the LCR. 

• What is going to be measured in terms of the chub? Primarily habitat measurements – 

turbidity, temperature, velocities, stability in habitat, presence/absence of YOY, presence/ 

absence of predators, etc. 

• If there are enrichment conditions with sizeable inputs Jul-Oct, and if a BHBF is going to be 

done against a normal operation in December with the normally scheduled December volume 

(8,500-14,000), then whatever is going to be tried should be kept substantially less aggressive if 

a BHBF is going to be done in January. 

• Need to review data from 1990 experiment. 

Action: Ted Melis will provide the raw data from the 1990 experimental flows to the TWG. 

• Can data results be turned around within two months when it has taken so long in the past? 

• Need to develop a science plan within the next two weeks and tie to specific projects in order to 

cover for the extra monitoring costs. 

• By doing the alternating cycles, are we going to be able to detect any biological differences? 

• As long as research is going to be done during the experiment, can you combine with other 

monitoring needs? 

• Was the December hydropower concern raised at the AOP? Yes. Randy asked for comments 

which will be forwarded to the Secretary with the AMWG recommendation. 

• Need for better “numbers” from Clayton on how Basin Fund would be replenished? 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Minutes of May 16-17, 2002, Meeting 

Page 6 

Randy asked if the members were comfortable making a recommendation to the AMWG at this time or 

if they wanted to wait until later today. He said he would craft some language and present it later 

today. Randy complimented the members on their good work and participating in the various 

discussions. 

Biological Opinion Sufficient Progress and TCD Update – Dennis Kubly passed out copies of a 

memo from Reclamation dated May 8, 2002, “Implementation Status of the Elements of the 

Reasonable and Prudent Alternative from the Dec. 21, 1994 Biological Opinion on the Operations of 

Glen Canyon Dam” (Attachment 4a). He then updated the members on the various elements 

(Attachment 4b). 

John Shields read the last sentence of the report (Results from this work could have significant effects 

on the selected approach to establishing a second spawning aggregation of humpback chub in Grand 

Canyon) and asked what Reclamation sees as being a timeline for making a decision about the 

approach or establishment of the second spawning aggregation would be and if hard pressed, what 

methodology would they use. Dennis said there are potential precursors to successful establishment of 

a second spawning aggregation identified in a report to GCMRC by Valdez and others (2000), one of 

which is a TCD. His expectation for a TCD construction schedule is 30 months so if in this evaluation 

they determine it’s necessary to have all things in place, they’re not talking about serious establishment 

of a second population for 3-4 years. Dennis said he didn’t think it was necessary to have all things 

done before having a discussion and the Valdez and others report provides a recommendation that 

should probably be considered formally. However, Dennis didn’t think a lot of people were aware of 

that recommendation and it is not for a tributary population but for a mainstem population, a meta 

population. John asked how the meta population would be established. Dennis said there are two 

ways to look at it – the chub are already there and are ready to do what they would do naturally if the 

appropriate environmental conditions and the load of predators are reduced and that would require no 

supplementation. The other is that you would actually have to move individuals, either from the 

existing LCR population to new locations or take them into a captive breeding population, make a 

production facility, and stock them in Grand Canyon. While action is advisable will depend in part on 

the yet to be completed genetics study contracted through GCMRC. 

Randy said there is a lot of work to be done before September 1, 2002: Dennis Kubly will be taking 

the lead on the NEPA and ESA compliance but is going to need assistance from GCMRC staff and 

technical stakeholders who have the data and can help prepare the NEPA document. He asked the 

members to give some thought as to whether they could help Dennis and be part of an interdisciplinary 

team. 

Sequencing of Information Needs – Mary Orton said that at the AMWG meeting in April, the 

AMWG members recommended a process by which the TWG could put the Information Needs in 

sequence order. The purpose of the sequencing exercise is to give the GCMRC some input on 

ultimately what AMWG wants to see them work on and in what order. Once they approve the list of 

INs (Attachment 5a) in sequence order, then GCMRC will know what AMWG feels should be 

accomplished first and have the direction to put together their Strategic Work Plan and Annual Work 

Plans. She reminded the TWG that they had not finalized the INs but had agreed to go ahead and put 

the ones they have in sequence order. If some of those are ultimately eliminated, they will be taken 

out. If there are new ones, they’ll be able to fit into the framework fairly easily. The AMWG directed 

the TWG to finish the work on the INs in time for a recommendation for final approval by the AMWG 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Minutes of May 16-17, 2002, Meeting 

Page 7 

at the January 2003 meeting. AMWG also agreed that the Core Monitoring Information Needs 

(CMINs) and the Effect Information Needs (EINs) were going to be put to the side for this process. 

Steve Gloss will make a presentation on Status and Trends of the Resources in the Grand Canyon 

(SCORE Report) so that the members would have some base information of where the resources are 

today. After that the exercise will begin. She explained that AMWG suggested they use a paired 

comparison exercise. She will be putting up two INs at a time which will form a statement that says 

“This IN should be addressed before or at the same time as this IN.” The members will then discuss 

and determine if the statement is true or not true and then she will call for a vote. She will use that 

information to organize the INs into the sequence order. After the meeting, Mary will send the 

members a questionnaire which will aid them in putting the remaining INs into the framework. Where 

they are in general agreement, that’s where she’ll put it in the document. Where they are not in 

agreement, it will be brought back and discussed further. 

Steve Gloss passed out a copy of version Table II-7 from the GCDEIS (Attachment 5b). It represents 

the output of the small group exercise last fall in which they looked at the state of resource conditions 

with respect to how the Preferred Alternative, Record of Decision, and operating flows were expected 

to behave. He came up with substantial differences (highlighted in yellow) from what was predicted in 

the EIS. He passed out copies of the preliminary draft SCORE Report (Attachment 5c) and said he 

would like to have some feedback on the format and content of the document so that GCMRC can 

develop in a more timely manner and have it be more useful to stakeholders.. He then proceeded with 

a PowerPoint presentation (Attachment 5d) 

Action: TWG to provide comments on the SCORE Report to Steve Gloss by June 15, 2002. 

Mary proceeded with the INs exercise and voting results were recorded (Attachment 5e) She said the 

next thing the members would see is a framework containing 11 steps. She will send them a form to 

place the remaining INs into that framework. 

Experimental Flows (cont) – Randy presented language for the TWG to consider in making a 

recommendation to the AMWG on the proposal experimental flows. 

TWG Recommendation on Experimental Flows

1 – The fall dam releases of Scenario 1 would consist of alternating periods of approximately 2 weeks 

of (1) steady 8,000 cfs dam releases and (2) dam releases fluctuating between 6,500 cfs and 9,000 cfs. 

These alternating periods would commence upon reaching the sediment input threshold identified in 

item 2 below, with a potential real-time decision on the nature of December dam releases based on data 

collected prior to December. Absent a recommendation by the researchers to alter December hourly 

dam releases, the alternating periods would continue through December. 

2 – The initiation of Scenario 1 after September 1 is based on cumulative Paria River sand inputs of at 

least 500,000 metric tons after July 1. Continuation of the Scenario 1 experiment past October 31 

would be dependent on cumulative total Paria sand inputs of at least 1 million metric tons. 

Implementation of a January beach habitat building flow would be dependent on the retention of at 

least 800,000 metric tons of sand in the reach above the Little Colorado River. 

3 – The adjustment of monthly volumes is being facilitated through the Annual Operating Plan 

process. Monthly volumes during September, October, and November would be reduced to 476,000, 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Minutes of May 16-17, 2002, Meeting 

Page 8 

492,000, and 476,000 AF respectively. The December monthly volume would be 492,000 AF if the 

sediment input criteria of item 2 is met and about 750,000 AF if it is not. January releases would be 

about 1,060,000 AF if Scenario 1 is implemented and about 800,000 AF if it is not. 

MOTION: Move to adopt the language on the board as a recommendation.. 

Motion seconded. 

Voting Results: Yes = 16 No = 2 Abstaining = 1 

Motion passes. 

Voting no (Bill Persons): I guess I would’ve liked to had the opportunity to take it back to my agency 

or my AMWG member to make sure he is comfortable with it. I’m a bit uncomfortable with mixing 

treatments. I think the treatments are getting very confounded. As a biologist, I’m not going to be able 

to tell the difference between those 2-week on and 2-week off flat flows or just ROD flows. I 

understand that it may answer sediment questions but from a biological standpoint, I don’t think I 

could do anything. 

(Voting no) (Randy Seaholm: I feel a need to discuss this with my AMWG representative before I 

vote. Personally, I think it makes sense but I want to make sure I’m comfortable with what my 

AMWG member thinks. 

Abstaining (Lloyd Greiner): The same reasons Randy stated. I would like to talk with the folks at 

UAMPS because I’m representing them here and I’m not sure I have enough information. 

 

Adjourned: 5:00 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Minutes of May 16-17, 2002, Meeting 

Page 9 

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program 

Technical Work Group Meeting 

May 17, 2002 

Presiding: Kurt Dongoske, Chairman 

Convened: 8:10 a.m. 

Committee Members Present:

Perri Benemelis, ADWR 

Kerry Christensen, Hualapai Tribe 

Wayne Cook, UCRC 

Jonathan Damp, Pueblo of Zuni 

William Davis, CREDA 

Brenda Drye, So. Paiute Consortium 

Lloyd Greiner, UAMPS 

Norm Henderson, GLCA 

Amy Heuslein, BIA 

Robert King, UDWR 

Phillip S. Lehr, Colo. River Comm./NV 

Bill Persons, AGFD 

Randall Peterson, USBR 

D. Randolph Seaholm CWCB 

John Shields, WY State Engineer’s Office 

Robert Winfree, NPS/GRCA 

Committee Members Absent:

Robert Begay, Navajo Nation Don Metz, USFWS 

Dave Cohen, Trout Unlimited Clayton Palmer, WAPA 

Christopher Harris, CRBC Nikolai Ramsey, Grand Canyon Trust 

Nancy Hornewer, USGS John Whipple, NM Interstate Stream Comm. 

Pamela Hyde, Southwest Rivers Michael Yeatts, The Hopi Tribe 

Matt Kaplinski, GCRG 

Alternates Present: For:

John O’Brien Matt Kaplinski, GCRG 

Wayne Cook John Whipple, NM State Engineer’s Office 

Gary Burton Clayton Palmer, WAPA 

Other Interested Parties:

Jan Balsom, NPS/GRCA 

Mary Barger, WAPA 

Dave Busch, GCMRC/USGS 

Nancy Coulam, USBR 

Steve Gloss, GCMRC/USGS 

Dennis Kubly, USBR 

Ruth Lambert, GCMRC/USGS 

Lisa Leap, GRCA 

Mike Liszewski, USBR 

Matt Mallory, BIA 

Ted Melis, CGMRC/USGS 

Tom Ryan, USBR 

Recorder: Linda Whetton, USBR 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Minutes of May 16-17, 2002, Meeting 

Page 10 

Welcome and Admistrative Items:

Kurt Dongoske welcomed the TWG members, alternates, and guests. All introduced themselves. A 

quorum was established and attendance sheets were distributed. 

Cultural PEP Report (Attachment 6a) Mary Barger said the Cultural Resources PEP was held in 

March 2000. It was a joint PEP that was sponsored by the Bureau of Reclamation and the GCMRC. 

The focus of the PEP was to look at GCMRC’s normal protocols as well as Section 106 compliance. 

The PEP Report was mailed to the AMWG and TWG in June 2000. In the meantime the 

Programmatic Agreement (PA) Group had two meetings to discuss the recommendations of the PEP. 

For the most part, the PA Group was on the river trip for the PEP. There was a presentation made by 

Dr. William Doelle (TWG, 5/10/00) who was the PEP leader. The AMWG approved a budget which 

incorporated the PEP recommendations as of January 11, 2001. Some of the PEP recommendations 

have been incorporated into the budget and approved by both the TWG and AMWG. In September 

2001, the TWG requested an ad hoc group be formed. Mary said there were two TWG members who 

were on that group, Matt Kaplinski and Robert Begay, and advised the TWG if they had any questions 

to contact either one of them. Mary reviewed the PEP’s eleven recommendations. Mary proceeded 

with an overhead presentation of key points from the report. 

TWG Questions/Comments/Concerns: 

• Why did the group not approve the TCP Plan? Response: It was felt that each tribe’s needs 

should be addressed on an individual basis. 

• Recommedation #9 should be rewritten so it doesn’t sound like we’re making a decision for 

GCMRC and GCMRC should consider hiring an intern or detailing a person from another 

agency to assist vs. creating another position. 

• Need to include comments from NPS, Andre Potochnik, and the ACHP. 

• Rec. #5. The PEP is continuing to look at geomorphology issues and how things can be folded 

into something that will work for more than one discipline. 

• Need to bring tribal perspectives or tribal thoughts about management of resources into 

GCMRC and need to educate scientists about tribal perspectives. 

• Need for TWG to understand tribal feelings for the canyon and not see all resources in terms of 

science issues and recognize the value of water in the canyon as not just another resource but 

one that gives and sustains life. 

• Some concerns weren’t addressed by the TWG PEP Ad Hoc in their report (monitoring 

protocols, specifics of what the protocol review was intended to be). 

• Concern about PEP’s recommendation about splitting responsibilities between NPS and BOR 

related to cultural sites and how will this be resolved. 

MOTION: The Technical Work Group accepts the report of the Cultural Resources Ad Hoc 

Committee on the Cultural Resources PEP Report. 

Motion seconded. 

Voting Results: Yes =18 No = 0 Abstaining = 1 

Abstaining (Jonathan Damp): I don’t know if we’re doing any good at all. I would’ve voted no but 

don’t want Mary mad at me. 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Minutes of May 16-17, 2002, Meeting 

Page 11 

MOTION: The TWG establish a standing Cultural Resources Ad Hoc Committee. 

Motion second: 

Voting Results: Yes = 17 No = 0 Abstaining = 0 

Motion passes. 

The TWG had a lengthy discussion on whether the Cultural Resources AHC PEP Report should be 

forwarded to the AMWG with TWG’s recommendation or if the TWG should modify the Ad Hoc 

Committee’s report and forward that to the AMWG. John Shields offered to incorporate the TWG 

recommendations into the Ad Hoc Committee’s report and change the heading so TWG could forward 

to the AMWG. The Committee’s report remains with the TWG as a “work in progress” document that 

the TWG standing ad hoc committee can work with. John provided copies of the revised report 

(Attachment 6) to the members. 

MOTION: The Technical Work Group recommends to the Adaptive Management Work Group the 

10 recommendations of the TWG Cultural Resources PEP Ad Hoc Committee, with the following 

revisions and actions: 

9) The PEP recommendation for Improving Coordination of a Complex Program was to create 

another federal position. To respond to this need, the TWG recommends GCMRC enhance 

their focus on cultural resources work achieving balance with the social, economic, and 

recreation resources and other monitoring programs and come to the TWG with options for this 

new focus. 

10) The TWG recommends that the responsible agencies resolve the issue of responsibility for the 

area of potential effect, in consultation with the Adaptive Management Program stakeholders. 

Motion seconded. 

Voting results: Yes = 16 No =0 Abstaining = 1 

Motion passes. 

Abstaining (Norm Henderson): Recommendation #10 needs a little more direction in getting that 

resolved within this quorum and sending a recommendation to the AMWG. 

Aquatic PEP Report – Dennis Kubly passed out copies of the GCRMC Draft Report of the Aquatic 

Protocol Evaluation Program Panel (Attachment 7a) and the TWG AHC Review of the Aquatic PEP 

Recommendations Report (Attachment 7b) and then proceeded with a PowerPoint presentation 

(Attachment 7c). Dennis asked for any comments or concerns the TWG had. 

TWG Questions/Concerns/Comments: 

• No discussion in report on water quality. Should that be included? 

• Address handling protocol of Humpback chub (obtaining stomach contents) 

• How do recovery goals fit in with the recommendations in the report? 

MOTION: The TWG accept the Aquatic PEP Report. 

Motion seconded. 

Call for the question 

Voting results: Yes = 17 No = 0 Abstaining = 0 

Motion passes. 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Minutes of May 16-17, 2002, Meeting 

Page 12 

Action: Steve Gloss will send a copy of Allan Haden’s unpublished manuscript (GCMRC’s Draft 

Report of the Aquatic Protocol Evaluation Program Panel, pg. 13) to John Shields. 

MOTION: The TWG recommends that the AMWG should accept the Aquatic PEP report and the 

TWG Ad Hoc report and recommends the AMWG direct GCMRC and the TWG to work together to 

integrate recommendations from those reports into annual and long-term work plans for the Glen 

Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program. 

Discussion. 

AMENDED LANGUAGE: add “to the extent that the recommendations do not conflict with 

anticipated recovery goals and the AMP funding paper for Lake Powell water quality.” 

Discussion. The members voted on whether to amend the original motion. 

Voting Results: Yes = 13 No = 2 Abstaining = 1 

Amendment passed. 

Voting no (Bill Persons) – I think the amendment may confuse some AMWG members who will 

interpret it to mean that there are recommendations that conflict with this paper’s other goals and the 

AMP funding. The way it is worded will cause some confusion. 

AMENDED MOTION: The TWG recommends that the AMWG should accept the Aquatic PEP 

report and the TWG Ad Hoc report and recommends the AMWG direct GCMRC and the TWG to 

work together to integrate recommendations from those reports into annual and long-term work plans 

for the GCD AMP to the extent that the recommendations do not conflict with anticipated recovery 

goals and the AMP funding paper for Lake Powell water quality. 

Motion seconded. 

Discussion. The members voted on the amended motion: 

Voting results: Yes = 19 No = 0 Abstaining = 0 

Motion passed. 

Agenda Update – Wayne requested the agenda item on the 2001 Monitoring Results be moved up to 

1:00 to accommodate people who need to leave early. Bob objected to making the change because the 

issue of having full TWG participation through the remainder of meetings was discussed at the last 

meeting and he didn’t feel the schedule should be changed to accommodate personal travel plans. It 

was decided to follow the agenda. 

FY 2004 Annual Work Plan Randy advised the members that this would be the last time they would 

be able to provide input into the plan (Attachment 8a) because the AMWG will take it up at the July 

meeting and will be making a recommendation to the Secretary of the Interior. This is the first year 

that the work plan will tie in better with the Department’s budget request. In terms of process, he 

hopes the TWG will make a recommendation to the AMWG to accept it. He passed out copies of the 

Budget Ad Hoc Group meeting notes (Attachment 8b) and asked the members for any additional 

comments. 

TWG Questions/Comments/Concerns: 

• P. 36 table 2.3 cultural affiliation study, summing error -> rounding? 

• P. 57-59 Cultural data base plan, unclear if this will develop data mgmt. Protocols 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Minutes of May 16-17, 2002, Meeting 

Page 13 

• P. 129. D4. whole concept is vague, re: tribal outreach, training -> unequal communication re: 

tribal views as opposed to western science 

• Cultural Resource synthesis and status report to be done in-house (GCMRC) Æ just part of 

GCRMC responsibility / funds are for workshops to help bring in new data for SCORE Report 

• P. 135, D7, Cultural Affiliation Study – is poorly conceived, tribes not involved in study design 

Æ should drop study. 

• Tribes and GCMRC should meet soon to talk about this proposal. 

• 50-60% of aquatic PEP recommendations already completed. 

• B7 project already complete 

• INs should be identified in table, cost to accomplish, time to complete 

• Need to figure out how to incorporate IN sequencing into work plan 

• Program needs to find financial flexibility to accomplish research requirements (reduce 

monitoring $ ?) 

• Need to reprogram $ to install Paria warning system 

• Experimental flows budget should be better defined (multi-year) 

• Need some evaluation of mudsnail w/respect to food base sampling 

Action: TWG Members to provide comments on the FY 2004 Budget and Work Plan to Steve Gloss 

by May 31, 2002.

2001 Monitoring Results – Steve presented a PowerPoint presentation (Attachment 9) 

and said he would incorporate the slides into the SCORE Report. A more formal report will be 

presented at the August TWG meeting. 

Ted gave a PowerPoint presentation entitled, “Summary of Sand bar Data (1990-2001)” (Attachment 

10a) and distributed copies of the NAU Fact Sheet, April 2002 (Attachment 10b). 

Lake Powell Monitoring Results – Steve distributed copies of the “Draft Integrated Water Quality 

Program Plan, FY 2002-2007” (Attachment 11a ) and proceeded with a PowerPoint presentation 

(Attachment 11b). 

Action: TWG members to provide comments on the “Draft Integrated Water Quality Program Plan, 

FY 2002-2007” to Steve Gloss by July 1, 2002. 

Non-Native Fish Control Update – Bill Persons said Rick Johnson sent out a draft outline but only 

got comments from two people. Bill has the outline and will send it again. There is no 

recommendation for the AMWG at this time. Kurt suggested the ad hoc group be reconvened, they 

select a new chairman, and continue with the recommendation process. 

Action: Bill will send an e-mail message to the members of the Non-native Fish Control Group for the 

purpose of 1) electing a new chairman of the group, and 2) continue working on the recommendation 

process. 

Upcoming Agenda Items

• INs – Fatal flaw analysis 

• Sediment input 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Minutes of May 16-17, 2002, Meeting 

Page 14 

• Science Plan for experimental flows 

• Resource target development process – GCMRC 

• IWQP Final Report 

• SCORE Report 

• Non-native fish AHG update 

• TCD Update 

Next TWG meeting: August 15-16, 2002 

Location: Bureau of Indian Affairs 

 2 Arizona Center 

 400 N. 5th Street 

 Phoenix, Arizona 

Hotel: Holiday Inn Express & Suites 

 6th and Fillmore 

 Phoenix, Arizona 

 602-452-2020 

 $59 + tax 

 BLOCK CLOSES: July 21, 2002
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Minutes of May 16-17, 2002, Meeting 

Page 15 

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 GroupAOP - 

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 

SWCA - Steven W. Carothers Associates 

TCD - Temperature Control Device (for Glen 

Canyon Dam water releases) 

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)