Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

FINAL Meeting Minutes 

May 3, 2004 

Conducting: Dennis Kubly, Acting Chairman 

Committee Members Present: 

Mary Barger, WAPA 

Marklyn Chee, Navajo Nation 

Wayne Cook, UCRC 

William Davis, CREDA 

Lisa Force, Grand Canyon Trust 

Lloyd Greiner, UAMPS 

Christopher Harris, CRB/CA 

Amy Heuslein, BIA 

Matt Kaplinski, GCRG 

Robert King, UDWR 

Glen Knowles, USFWS 

Phillip Lehr, Colo. River Comm./NV 

Ken McMullen, NPS/GCNP 

Bill Persons, AGFD 

John Ritenour, NPS/GLCA 

Larry Stevens, Grand Canyon Wildlands Council 

Michael Yeatts, Hopi Tribe 

Committee Members Absent: 

Illa Bullets, So. Paiute Consortium 

Kerry Christensen, Hualapai Tribe 

Jonathan Damp, Pueblo of Zuni 

Norm Henderson, NPS 

D. Randolph Seaholm, CWCB 

Mark Steffen, Federation of Fly Fishers 

John Shields, WY State Engineers Office 

John Whipple, NM Interstate Stream Comm. 

Vacant, Arizona Dept. of Water Resources

Alternates Present: For: 

Jeff English Mark Steffen, Federation of Fly Fishers 

Wayne Cook John Shields, WY State Engineers Office 

Interested Persons: 

Gary Burton, WAPA 

Lew Coggins, USGS/GCMRC 

Kurt Dongoske, CREDA 

Helen Fairley, USGS/GCMRC 

Paul Li, Bob Lynch’s Office 

Mike Liszewski, USGS/GCMRC 

Jeff Lovich, USGS/GCMRC 

Mark McKinstry, USBR 

Ted Melis, USGS/GCMRC 

Anthony Miller, Colo. River Comm./NV 

Barbara Ralston, USGS/GCMRC 

Chris Updike, USGS/GCMRC 

Mike Yard, USGS/GCMRC 

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

Minutes of May 3-4, 2004, Meeting 

Page 2 

Convened: 9:35 a.m. 

Welcome and Administrative Items. Dennis Kubly welcomed the members, alternates, and 

general public. A quorum was established, introductions made, and attendance sheets 

(Attachment 1) distributed. 

Review of Action Items - Refer to Attachment 2. 

Glen Canyon Dam Maintenance Schedule - The TWG discussed the Glen Canyon Dam 

maintenance schedule in conjunction with future experimental flows. 

MOTION: The BOR maintenance schedule should incorporate enough flexibility to allow 

implementation of AMP experimental flows. 

Motion seconded. 

Discussion. 

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

Motion passed. 

Comments: Lloyd Greiner (voting no) – A motion isn’t needed. Direction was given at the last 

AMWG meeting. 

Arizona Game and Fish Dept. Proposal. Jeff Lovich said there was a presentation given 

during the recent river trip on the fish work being done on the LCR and at that time Bruce 

Taubert (AGFD) said his agency would be willing to provide money to get the feasibility report 

finished. The feasibility study would evaluate a proposal for creating grow-out ponds for HBC 

on terraces above the LCR. Mike Yard added the review would also look at temporary grow out 

areas where young fish are being supplemented, in channel approach or areas outside of the 

river system, in an effort to create predator free space and insure greater survivorship and 

reintroduction back into the system. 

The TWG felt it was important to get a statement from Bruce on what he had committed to on 

the river trip. 

ACTION ITEM: Bill Persons will contact Bruce Taubert regarding his commitment to complete 

the feasibility report and provide an update (or statement from Bruce) at the next TWG meeting. 

Approval of March 30-31, 2004, Draft Meeting minutes. Pending a few corrections, the 

minutes were approved. 

Discussion of Deferral Table - Referring to the “Projects Recommended by GCMRC for 

Deferral from FY04 to FY05” table presented at the last TWG Meeting (Attachment 3), Dennis 

asked if the TWG wanted to make those recommendations to the AMWG. 

Comments: 

• The GCMRC needs to start the core monitoring plan and now it can’t really do that until an AMWG 

phone conf call or the AMWG August meeting. (Kaplinski) 

• It’s a policy issue and AMWG needs to weigh in. (Cook) 

• The AMWG needs to look at the items. (Heuslein) 

Jeff Lovich said the GCMRC staff has already started working on the Strategic Plan and he 

needs to know how to redirect work assignments if needed. 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Minutes of May 3-4, 2004, Meeting 

Page 3 

Dennis advised that Reclamation will confer with Mike Gabaldon to see if there needs to be a 

conference call to convey the recommendations to the AMWG and, if so, GCMRC would make 

a similar presentation to the AMWG and determine if they concur. 

ACTION ITEM: Reclamation (Dennis Kubly) will confer with the Secretary’s Designee (Michael 

Gabaldon) on the projects TWG approved for deferral from FY04 to FY05 per GCMRC’s 

recommendations to see how they should be handled. 

New Business: 

Amy requested that Dennis provide an update of the DOI Adaptive Management Workshop he 

attended recently in West Virginia. Dennis said the workshop was convened by the USGS and 

focused on how adaptive management is currently being used and how it will be used in the 

future. There were a series of presentations which focused on: 1) defining adaptive 

management and describing how it works 2) the relationship between adaptive management 

and NEPA 3) challenges for adaptive management and 4) case studies. In addition, there were 

breakout sessions and out of those came a set of recommendations that will go to the Secretary 

with a response from her on how adaptive management would be incorporated. Dennis said the 

Glen Canyon Dam presentation included three areas: 1) accumulation of knowledge and 

reduction of uncertainty 2) change in resource status and trends, and 3) building of social 

capital. 

Long-term Experimental Plan 

Dennis reviewed the motion that was presented by Pam Hyde and Clayton Palmer and 

subsequently approved by the AMWG at their last meeting: 

AMWG charges the SAB, the GCMRC, and the TWG jointly to develop a longterm experimental program that responds to the AMP Strategic Plan and 

incorporates existing legal requirements to be completed and brought to the 

AMWG by January 2005. The SAB, the GCMRC, and the TWG will bring a draft 

of the program to the AMWG at a Fall 2004 meeting, and the AMWG will decide 

at that meeting whether additional recommendations to the Secretary for flows in 

WY05 are necessary. AMWG requests that compliance on a January 2005 longterm experimental flow program to be targeted for completion and the program 

implemented by July 2005. 

Jeff said that GCMRC prepared a new experimental design for the TWG’s consideration today 

and would like to use the modified version as a foundation for today’s discussion. He said Ted 

would introduce it as part of his presentation. 

Revisiting Experimental Flow Designs for Sediment and Fishery Resources WY 2005 and 

Beyond Ted Melis gave a PowerPoint presentation (Attachment 4a). 

Lew said the scope of the experiment is focused on treatments applied in the Colorado River 

mainstem to address two prevailing hypotheses regarded as possible causal mechanisms 

responsible for the recent decadal decline in the survivorship and recruitment of the humpback 

chub: (1) predation/competition is contributing to the decline of HBC, and (2) change in physical 

habitat (flows and temperature) is contributing to the decline of HBC. He suggested going from 

widely fluctuating flows to stable flows to see if there is a large response from the HBC. He 

provided more details in a handout (Attachment 4b). 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Minutes of May 3-4, 2004, Meeting 

Page 4 

Matt drew a diagram on the whiteboard of what he envisioned the typical flow regime would look 

like. 

Comments: 

• Would it be important to review the MATA workshop results or are people okay with leaving those 

behind? Should there be a discussion on boundaries? (Kubly) 

• We need to run the design through the MATA process before August. (Persons) 

• I like testing fluctuations against stability and wonder why it was stopped in stable years. (Knowles) 

• What is the ultimate purpose of the experiment? Is it to test the current modified low fluctuating flow 

(MLFF) or is it just to test specific resource responses to different flows and alternatives to replace 

MLFF? (Yeatts) 

Ted said they are still trying to establish whether or not there is an operational regime that can 

restore the system short of sediment augmentation and achieve some of the objectives of the 

EIS but what is not exclusively but perhaps dominate to try and maintain nursery habitats along 

the mainstem. However, that leads to a couple of questions: What is being done about the 

original hydrologic triggering criteria for 1997? and, When is the experiment finished? He 

thought that presumably the basic questions have been answered on how to agree on releasing 

spills - would it be a sediment trigger, a hydrologic trigger, or would it be something else? They 

are left with no action and doing 100% MLFF. 

Dennis asked how the flow scenarios address nearshore native fish habitat, creation, and 

rejuvenation. He said it was discussed earlier in the week on a conference call in which they 

talked about measuring the effects of increased temperatures if they occur and how dynamic 

those features are. 

Referring to Table 1, Ted said that powerplant operations would be done during the flow in 

which the fluctuations are occurring to try and lower the eddies. A high flow experiment would 

be done for two days in January and the fluctuating flows continued in order to modify the 

rejuvenated bar that was presumably built into some stable configuration for the fall and 

summer when the flows were at 8,000 cfs. By doing that, they would be using one operational 

regime in the designer flow concept that might actually be fairly effective at creating the 

nearshore nursery habitats but then following that almost immediately the next year with the 

opposite of those flows which presumably would be warm water under the thermal regime 

coming out of the low reservoir and with summer warming during passage down canyon. 

The TWG continued to discuss the different flows and made adjustments to Matt’s diagram to 

better understand the various options. 

Comments: 

• We have proven for 10 years that the MLFF doesn’t work and yet we want to keep hanging on to 

them. One of the very first things we ought to be checking on is whether we are accomplishing what 

we should be. If the flows are moving or transporting sediment, that’s a good reason to look at 

something different every other year or every year and block some of those, and also see if fish really 

survive. (Greiner) 

• By putting together this experimental flow package, we’re in fact changing MLFF to whatever the 

experiment is so that when we’re done with this block, we’ll have a more informed way of devising 

what the next experiment will be. (Kaplinski) 

• The preferred alternative is a policy. It’s a policy that came out of a NEPA judgment and some 

people are saying that they think we’re at a point almost to reject that policy. What additional 

evidence is needed to reject that policy and say we’re seeking something else as opposed to doing a 

set of experiments that might address a broader range of objectives? 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Minutes of May 3-4, 2004, Meeting 

Page 5 

• We have to figure out what operational strategy is going to work and if we have enough science to 

lead us there. (Cook) 

• This is a pretty controversial topic and whatever strategy or direction we choose, let’s make sure we 

have the science. (Stevens) 

• What’s the connection between this experiment and the MATA results? (Barger) 

Dennis asked what GCMRC’s next step would be. Jeff said that today’s discussion was 

providing the feedback that they really wanted. He said that GCMRC can provide clarification 

on hypotheses tested or any various other technical issues, but that ultimately the experiment 

needs to meet the program’s need for responding to the information about the effects of the 

various flows on the resources. 

Ted added that his sense was that people were asking whether to have an all or nothing 

experiment, all high fluctuating flows as indicated in the EIS or stable flows. He said when it 

says fluctuating, it means replacing all MLFF with HFF and then two years later there are no 

fluctuating flows. He said August seems to be a critical month in terms of the warming so it 

seems like that month needs to be turning point to maximize warming by having low flows and 

then counter that with not doing that and see what the effect is. He added that perhaps they’re 

just trying to continue MLFF to say ROD operations are still being done but there seems to be 

month-by-month and season-by-season basis some rationale for continuing the ROD in certain 

months and certain seasons for the benefit. It has not been a complete failure. Recreational 

boating and camping have benefited, but marshes haven’t done very well, and sandbars are 

getting smaller. He suggested developing some type of seasonal hybrid with designer flows 

and retaining MLFF in certain months for the future because there is a benefit for doing it. 

Dennis said the three critical months of May, June, and July are when small HBC are emerging 

from the LCR and under the present thermal regimes, they’re basically dying. There is no 

evidence that they survive but looking into the future with temperatures increasing and the 

potential bottleneck of MLFF going way, he questioned whether they could justify the tradeoffs. 

Because those are critical months for the power industry, he thought they might want to 

consider doing some type of stepdown or titration effect in that period of time. 

Ted said that perhaps they could use two-year blocks moving from the winter further into the 

spring and summer with HFF and that would prove to be a titration. Ted said he specifically 

asked Carl if that could legitimately be done and Carl said it could. 

Matt commented that replacing MLFF is assuming that it is being replaced with something better 

and he hasn’t seen any analysis that indicates high fluctuations vs. modified low fluctuating 

flows is going to be any better. He asked if Dave Topping had taken a certain month-long MLFF 

and done an unconstrained or load following compared to sediment transport from both of 

those. Ted said they hadn’t and that was they needed was a projected output of daily operation, 

hour by hour, for those kinds of things. 

Lloyd said his biggest concern with the MLFF during peak power months is the 8,000 daily 

deviation. If they want to run 5,000-45,000 cfs every day or whatever number they choose, the 

real issue is the 8,000 cfs constrained on the river. He explained that in a high volume month, 

you end up with 12,000–20,000 cfs but you’ve got a high average flow. You’re pushing sand 

down the river for four months. He asked if the deviation was going to be a problem. 

Dennis said that the TWG has between now and July 9 to prepare something for the AMWG to 

consider at their August 9-10 meeting. He asked if an ad hoc group should be created to 

address the concerns brought up at today’s meeting. He also felt it would be a good idea to 

have a conference call with the TWG for concurrence on what is to be presented to the AMWG. 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Minutes of May 3-4, 2004, Meeting 

Page 6 

Larry advised that he felt the resource matrix in the EIS would be a good starting point for those 

discussions. 

Matt said he thought the group should start with the management objectives and information 

needs that were developed as part of the Strategic Plan. 

ACTION ITEM: The TWG developed the following questions for GCMRC: 

• In the GCMRC plan during years of fluctuating flows, is sediment transport modeling needed 

to estimate the response of sediment to high fluctuating, MLFF, and steady flows? 

• In the GCMRC plan during years of fluctuating flows, what daily fluctuations would optimize 

hydropower production? 

• In the GCMRC plan during years of fluctuating flows, what are the impacts on recreation and 

safety of the fluctuating flows? 

• In the GCMRC plan during years of steady flows, what would the distribution of releases be 

if the monthly releases followed the pattern of the pre-dam hydrograph? 

• In the GCMRC plan during years of steady flows, what would the effect of those flows be on 

the Lees Ferry Drift? 

• In the GCMRC plan during years of steady flows, what would the effect be on the pattern of 

hydropower production? 

• In the GCMRC plan during years of steady flows, what would the effect of dropping flows 

from 14,000 cfs to 8,000 cfs have on the availability of rearing habitats? 

• In the GCMRC plan during years of mechanical removal, are there some metrics in addition 

to recruitment for assessing status and trends of HBC? 

• In the GCMRC plan for mechanical removal, will evaluations be made for methods to 

remove other non-native fish, particularly cool water and warm water species? 

Dennis asked what other questions were missing and whether there was data to help them 

estimate the effects on water quality. A fundamental concern he had was with the 

advantages and disadvantages of hitting the system with the extremes as opposed to moving 

incrementally in smaller changes away from MLFF. With the extremes of fluctuating and stable 

flows being chosen, they need to have some good answers when they inform the public of the 

changes. He asked if it was in GCMRC’s plan to evaluate methods for controlling cool water 

and warm water fish that are either in the system or could invade particularly as the TCD goes 

in. It’s one of those ancillary studies that would have to be done. He reminded the group that 

the science advisors’ recommendation on the TCD was made under the assumption that there 

was mitigation for those negatives that were out there. In doing the environmental compliance 

for the TCD, Reclamation is thinking about doing a bounded analysis so they would model the 

high temperatures and the low temperatures. The assessment would be done on those 

extremes but not on the actual scenarios because the scenarios are intended to be determined 

in the process of developing the long-term experimental plan. 

Ted said they can’t fully control in any meaningful way a temperature release pattern for the 

next 16 years so they assume Mother Nature will have a big influence. He saw it as a titration 

where you would start imposing control and it would be increased through time through some 

optimum full implementation. 

Ted said scenario 2 in the 2003-2004 experiment would occur in any year where the flow 

treatment would be fluctuating so the response to the inputs from the Paria would be the 

scenario 2 continued with powerplant-capacity spikes, and trying to move sand from the 

mainstem into the eddies. In any year that the schedule is a fluctuating flow year, that would be 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Minutes of May 3-4, 2004, Meeting 

Page 7 

the response and any year that a stable flow response was scheduled, they would be testing 

scenario 1 in the July-Dec period. In any year where the triggering criteria were reached 

between January and July, they would be testing scenario 3 which is the immediate response to 

45,000. The only differences between scenario 2 and 3 are the months in which they would 

occur and the magnitude of the spike that is used to try to manage the input. The difference 

between them in terms of discharge is 13,500 cfs. 

Dennis said that the way the EA is written, scenario 1 has to occur before scenario 2 and asked 

if the TWG would be advocating a change. His understanding was that only scenario 1 was 

locked in. Ted said if they get scenario 1 tested in the first year of stable flows and then get 

back to back another big Paria input the following year, they’re not really set up to do a test for 

scenario 2. He said it begs the question: When you get back to back inputs that are significant 

as those seen in 1997-2000, what should be done in the second stage of the year? It leads to 

another question: How does the system really work under no action? Ted said there were some 

years where the Paria didn’t do anything and other years where the Paria did a lot and the 

powerplant was typically trying to optimize on power revenues and just by coincidence nature 

loaded the eddies. 

Dennis questioned that if they didn’t get a sediment input for 5 years and they’re continuing to 

push sediment downstream, would everybody satisfied to sit and wait. However, if all the 

scenarios came through in 3 years, would there be enough flexibility to change the long-term 

experiment or are they locked in to what they are currently doing? Ted said they have to keep 

in mind that they can’t control the inputs but when the inputs do or don’t occur, they affect the 

treatment whether controlled or not and that is why there is turbidity is in the mainstem. 

Dennis said he didn’t know what the outcome of the sediment feasibility assessments would be 

or if there was an undertaking by the Park Service to do a separate mechanical removal effort in 

the tributaries and questioned to what extent that should be incorporated into the long term 

research plan. He asked the TWG to consider other HBC proposals. One plan that has been 

contemplated recently for a feasibility assessment is putting an inflatable dam in the reaches of 

the Little Colorado River to stimulate conditions of impounding from high flows in the past, 

something which can’t be done effectively with dam operations. He said it came out of the 

Science Advisors river trip. He asked if it made sense to just identify those things and then 

send them back to GCMRC with a comment that they didn’t know how much it would confound 

their experimental design. He also asked what level of detail needs to be provided to the 

AMWG in August. He said the TWG is supposed to present a draft plan but the plan isn’t simply 

more than just a matrix. He asked how much work is there to do between now and then. 

Dennis asked if it made sense to consider moving the tentative June 2-3 meeting back to June 

30-July 1 to allow an ad hoc group to meet and address the questions identified at today’s 

meeting. He felt a group of 7-8 people would be a good size. The following members 

volunteered to be on the Long Term Experimental Plan Ad Hoc Group (LTEP AHG): Mary 

Barger, Wayne Cook, Bill Davis, Norm Henderson, Matt Kaplinski, Glen Knowles, Bill Persons, 

Mark Steffen, Larry Stevens, and Michael Yeatts. Charge: Develop a draft long-term 

experimental plan with GCMRC and the Science Advisors. 

Adjourned: 4:50 p.m. 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Minutes of May 3-4, 2004, Meeting 

Page 8 

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

FINAL Meeting Minutes

May 4, 2004 

Conducting: Dennis Kubly, Acting Chairman 

Committee Members Present: 

Mary Barger, WAPA 

Marklyn Chee, Navajo Nation 

Wayne Cook, UCRC 

William Davis, CREDA 

Lisa Force, Grand Canyon Trust 

Lloyd Greiner, UAMPS 

Christopher Harris, CRB/CA 

Amy Heuslein, BIA 

Matt Kaplinski, GCRG 

Robert King, UDWR 

Glen Knowles, USFWS 

Phillip Lehr, Colo. River Comm./NV 

Ken McMullen, NPS/GCNP 

Bill Persons, AGFD 

John Ritenour, NPS/GLCA 

Larry Stevens, Grand Canyon Wildlands Council 

Michael Yeatts, Hopi Tribe 

Committee Members Absent: 

Illa Bullets, So. Paiute Consortium 

Kerry Christensen, Hualapai Tribe 

Jonathan Damp, Pueblo of Zuni 

Norm Henderson NPS 

D. Randolph Seaholm, CWCB 

Mark Steffen, Federation of Fly Fishers 

John Shields, WY State Engineers Office 

John Whipple, NM Interstate Stream Comm. 

Vacant, Arizona Dept. of Water Resources

Alternates Present: For: 

Jeff English Mark Steffen, Federation of Fly Fishers 

Wayne Cook John Shields, WY State Engineers Office 

Interested Persons: 

Gary Burton, WAPA 

Lew Coggins, USGS/GCMRC 

Kurt Dongoske, CREDA 

Helen Fairley, USGS/GCMRC 

Mike Liszewski, USGS/GCMRC 

Jeff Lovich, USGS/GCMRC 

Ted Melis, USGS/GCMRC 

Anthony Miller, Colo. River Comm./NV 

Chris Updike, USGS/GCMRC 

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

Minutes of May 3-4, 2004, Meeting 

Page 9 

Convened: 8:05 a.m. 

Welcome and Administrative Items. Dennis Kubly welcomed the members, alternates, and 

general public. A quorum was established, introductions made, and attendance sheets 

distributed. 

Core Monitoring Plan. Jeff presented an update on the Core Monitoring Plan (Attachment 

5a) and passed out copies of a memo dated April 21, 2004 from the CMAHG to the 

AMWG/TWG (Attachment 5b). Dennis said that in preparing a time line for completing the 

various reports, he asked Jeff what information he needs to prepare a core monitoring plan. 

John suggested that Jeff identify each manager’s priorities. Jeff said he would like to have the 

top three priorities from each stakeholder but beyond that, it would take too much time for 

GCMRC to address each manager’s priorities. Dennis said he thinks there may be a difference 

between managers and stakeholders because he feels managers have an obligation to address 

their individual responsibilities for specific resources. 

ACTION ITEM: TWG members will work with their AMWG members in identifying the AMP’s 

top 3 highest priorities for core monitoring (two pages max) and send to Jeff Lovich by May 12. 

Comments: 

• Need to start looking at the Information Needs and see if those attributes are captured. (Kubly) 

• I distinctly recalled that this body almost failed to monitor Willow flycatcher. (Stevens) 

• I think the other thing that we need to look at is maybe not what resources need monitoring but 

advocacies for those resources. (Yeatts) 

• It would be helpful to have some type of matrix to understand how the three plans fit together and 

also the TWG should review the MOs and INs again. (Heuslein)

ACTION ITEM: GCMRC and USBR will develop a visual matrix or flow chart that explains how 

the Long Term Experimental Plan, the Core Monitoring Plan, and the AMP Strategic Plan, etc., 

fit together and present at the next TWG Meeting. 

ACTION ITEM: Linda will post the current Strategic Plan and MOs/INs documents to the AMP 

web site and will send an e-mail message to the TWG once they are posted. 

Dennis asked Jeff if he saw deliberations on the core monitoring plan occurring in the TWG or 

through the Core Monitoring AHG. Jeff said he viewed the CMAHG as doing the deliberations 

and then the full TWG would discuss and seek agreement on the plan. Dennis then asked why 

he had moved the report delivery date from Sept. 30 to August 9. Jeff said the CMAHG felt it 

would behoove the process if they allowed AMWG to see a draft at their August 9-10 meeting 

but also said he would be willing to change that delivery date if needed. Dennis said that the 

deadline for a draft final to AMWG was for January 2005 with an interim draft to the AMWG at a 

tentative meeting in the fall, according to the AMWG motion at the March 2004 meeting. Dennis 

advocated that all three documents be submitted to the AMWG at one time. He asked Jeff if he 

had a core monitoring schedule and that he was specifically thinking of a schedule for the 

interactions on the Long Term Experimental Plan (LTEP) and the Core Monitoring (CM) Plan. 

Jeff said he didn’t have a schedule because it was his intent to get the draft done, obtain 

information from today’s meeting, and then go back and start writing the plan. By the middle of 

May, after having received the priorities from the stakeholders, the CMAHG could modify the 

plan, get a draft out by June 9 for the SA and TWG to review, receive comments back from the 

SA and TWG by June 23, and then mail out to the AMWG by July 9. 

Dennis reminded Jeff of the June 2-3 and June 30-July TWG meetings and asked if he had any 

milestones for the LTEP and CM plans for which the TWG could have some interaction. Dennis 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Minutes of May 3-4, 2004, Meeting 

Page 10 

asked about canceling the June 2-3 meeting and said that the TWG would need to come to 

some consensus on the two plans prior to September 15 in order to meet the mailout deadline 

for an AMWG meeting on about October 15. Jeff said he is committed to having the CM Plan 

finished by Sept. 30. Dennis suggested the CM Plan be sent to the TWG for review and then 

they could provide their comments to Dave Garrett at the June 30th TWG meeting. Based on 

the above deadlines, it was decided to cancel the June 2-3 TWG meeting. The TWG reviewed 

the schedule for completing the draft plans and agreed to advocate to AMWG that they accept 

it. 

Dates of interaction

• June 9: Draft plans mailed out to TWG and Science Advisors 

• June 23: Science Advisors meet 

• June 30 – July 1: TWG Meeting; TWG and SA review of progress on plans 

• July 9: Meeting packets sent out to AMWG members 

• August 9-10: AMWG Meeting 

Progress Updates 

• September 15: Well prepared draft of Core Monitoring Plan sent to the AMWG 

• October 15: “Tentative” AMWG Meeting 

(Drafts of all three plans presented to the AMWG) 

• December 15: Meeting packets sent to AMWG 

• January 2005: Delivery/Adoption of all 3 documents 

(Core Monitoring, Research Plan, and GCMRC Strategic Plan) 

Future TWG Agenda Items: 

1. TWG Effectiveness and Operating Procedures 

2. TWG Chair nominations 

3. Matrix/Flow Chart of LTEP, CM Plan, with SP 

4. Report from PA on Progress of HPP (USBR archaeologist) 

5. Hydrology Report from Tom Ryan 

6. Lees Ferry management objectives 

7. Ad hoc group updates – which groups are still active? 

8. TWG review of progress and SAB comments on GCMRC Strategic Plan, Long-term 

 Research Plan and Core Monitoring Plan 

Documents provided at meeting but not referenced in minutes: 

• Summary of Results from GCD AMP TWG Multi-Attribute Evaluation Workshop, 

Dated December 2003 (Attachment 6a) 

• Summary of Results from GCD AMP TWG Multi-Attribute Evaluation Workshop, 

Dated May 28, 2003 (Attachment 6a) 

• Review of Results and Recommendations from the GCMRC 2000-2003 Remote-sensing 

Initiative fro Monitoring Environmental Resources within the Colorado River Ecosystem 

(Attachment 6c) 

Adjourned: 10:25 a.m. 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Minutes of May 3-4, 2004, Meeting 

Page 11 

General Key to Adaptive Management Program Acronyms 

ADWR – Arizona Dept. of Water Resources 

AF – Acre Feet 

AGFD – Arizona Game and 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 – 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 

GUI – Graphical User Interface 

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 

IT – Information Technology (GCMRC program) 

KAS – Kanab ambersnail (endangered native 

snail) 

LCR – Little Colorado River 

LRRMCP – Lower Colorado River MultiSpecies Conservation Program 

MAF – Million Acre Feet 

MA – Management Action 

MO – Management Objective 

MRAP – Monitoring and Remedial Action Plan 

NAAO – Native American Affairs Office 

NAU – Northern Arizona University (Flagstaff, AZ) 

NEPA – National Environmental Policy Act 

NGS – National Geodetic Survey 

NHPA – National Historic 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 – U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

RBT – Rainbow Trout 

RFP - Request For Proposals 

RPA - Reasonable and Prudent Alternative 

SAB - Science Advisory Board 

Secretary(‘s) - Secretary of the Interior 

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)