Technical Work Group Meeting 

February 26, 2002 

Phoenix, Arizona 

Presiding: Kurt Dongoske, Chairman FINAL 

Committee Members Present: 

Perri Benemelis, ADWR 

Kerry Christensen, Hualapai Tribe 

Dave Cohen, Trout Unlimited 

Wayne Cook, UCRC 

William Davis, CREDA 

Brenda Drye, So. Paiute Consortium 

Lloyd Greiner, CREDA/UAMPS 

Norm Henderson, NPS/GLCA 

Rick Johnson, Southwest Rivers 

Robert King, UDWR 

Bill Persons, AGFD 

Randall Peterson, USBR 

Nikolai Ramsey, Grand Canyon Trust 

D. Randolph Seaholm, CWCB 

Robert Winfree, NPS/GRCA 

Michael Yeatts, The Hopi Tribe 

Committee Members Absent: 

Robert Begay, Navajo Nation Phillip Lehr, Colo. River Comm./NV 

Jonathan Damp, Pueblo of Zuni Don Metz, USFWS 

Christopher Harris, CRBC Clayton Palmer, WAPA 

Amy Heuslein, BIA John Shields, WY State Engineer’s Office 

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

Matt Kaplinski,. GCRG 

Alternates Present: For: 

Paul Barrett Don Metz, USFWS 

Wayne Cook John Shields, WY State Engineer’s Office 

Andre Potochnik Matt Kaplinski, GCRG 

Other Interested Parties: 

Jan Balsom, NPS/GRCA 

Nancy Coulam, USBR 

Jeffrey Cross, NPS/GRCA 

Dave Foster, Lees Ferry 

Steve Gloss, GCMRC 

Barry Gold, GCMRC 

Loretta Jackson, Hualapai Tribe 

Leslie James, CREDA 

Dennis Kubly, USBR 

Ruth Lambert, GCMRC 

Lisa Leap, NPS/GRCA 

Ted Melis, GCMRC 

Steve Mietz, GCMRC 

Tom Ryan, USBR 

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

February 26-27, 2002 

Page 2 

Convened: 9:30 a.m.

Meeting Opening and Administrative Items 

Kurt welcomed the TWG members, alternates, and general public. Attendance sheets (Attachment 1) 

were distributed. 

Kurt announced there would be a Native Fish Work Group meeting tonight at 7 p.m. 

Barry Gold announced he will be leaving the GCMRC effective May 4, 2002. He has accepted a job 

with the Packard Foundation in California to be a program officer in their conservation and science 

programs and to help them develop a new program in the area of sustainability. He wants to carry things 

forward through the April AMWG meeting and then will have one week remaining at the GCMRC. 

Today will be his last TWG meeting. 

Review of Action Items (Attachment 2).

1 – Completed. 

2 – Completed. 

3 - Competed. Barry said the INs were never discussed at the AMWG meeting but they are on 

tomorrow’s agenda. 

4 – Bill Persons said he wasn’t sure if Jeff had received any comments from the TWG or not or if he 

extended the deadline. He volunteered to take any comments from the TWG to Jeff. Dennis Kubly said 

Jeff had already sent out a document so there would be time to receive additional comments. 

5 – Bill completed the paper but because Reclamation didn’t have Internet/external e-mail capability, an 

e-mail poll was never done. Bill will do a presentation today. 

MOTION: Move to approve the September 6-7, 2001, Draft Meeting Minutes 

Motion seconded. 

Motion passed pending edits. 

MOTION: Move to approve the November 13-14, 2001, Draft meeting Minutes 

Motion seconded. 

Motion passed pending edits. 

Review of Motions from Jan. 17-18, 2002, AMWG Meeting (Attachment 3a)

Kurt asked for any comments on the motions. The following were made: 

• Page 2. Strategic Plan motion should note where the general changes were made as part of that 

motion. (Change reflected in Passed Motions List – Attachment 3b) 

• Page 4. Include text changes to introductory sentence on non-native fish control motion so the 

motion is complete. (Change reflected in Passed Motions List.) 

• Page 6. Clarify KAS motion by adding the following sentence under the motion: Clarification 

on motion: AMWG accepted the TWG Ad Hoc Group Report and the one page list of 

recommendations. (Change reflected in Passed Motions List.) 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Meeting 

February 26-27, 2002 

Page 3 

• Nikolai offered a clarification on Robert’s Rules of Order: You can’t pre-empt or foreclose out 

of a discussion that has taken place by calling for the question. What happens then is a vote is 

taken and it requires a 2/3 majority to stop discussion at that point. 

Legislative Updates. Randy said there hasn’t been much happening to the Energy Security Act bill, 

HR 4, except there was an amendment added in by Senator Hatch that talks about alternative fuels use 

and some tax rebates for fuel cell and hybrid vehicles. ANWR is still included so it will continue to be a 

very controversial bill. 

Assessment of System Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) GCD Gage: Bill Persons passed out 

copies of a paper he prepared on the GCD Gage (Attachment 4). He obtained the SCADA data from 

Kirk LaGory at Argonne and also pulled gage data off the USGS web site for comparison purposes. He 

said there was some missing SCADA data and asked Kirk about it. Kirk told him it wasn’t uncommon 

to not have all the information posted because the web site isn’t updated on a regular basis. When the 

SCADA data is posted, it is in a table format. It’s a bit cumbersome to convert into a data file that is 

easy to use compared to the USGS site so his evaluation is that the SCADA is not always available or at 

least it’s not available on the Internet or in a place where you can get to it easily. The USGS data is 

easily available. He feels the SCADA is unreliable, partly because it’s not posted and is missing data 

values. The USGS publishes their data so they go through a review process and it becomes officially 

released data. The USGS also uses a very consistent data format. His recommendation is the GCD 

Gage should be kept operating. 

Ted said the plan is to keep operating the gage through September 30, 2002. Randy Peterson asked if it 

made sense to try and get an answer from WAPA if they can post the data in a more timely manner. Bill 

said he would like to see the data updated every two weeks but even a month would be better than it is 

right now. 

Randy said he would like to hear from some of the researchers on how important the data is in real time

to them. Ted said the move to establish a record there wasn’t driven by a research need from the 

GCMRC but was primarily from a discussion among TWG members about the frequency of violations 

of the ROD and stage discharge relationships. They don’t have a particular research project they can 

point to. 

MOTION: Task WAPA and BOR to look into and resolve SCADA information and make a conscious 

decision between now and September on what to do with the gage. 

Motion seconded. 

Call for the question. 

Public Comments: None 

Voting results: Yes = 15 No = 0 Abstaining = 0 

Motion passed. 

Cultural Protocol Evaluation Panel (PEP) Report – Randy asked how many people had received 

Mary Barger’s report from the Cultural Resources PEP Ad Hoc Group. Only four members indicated 

they had received the report. Randy asked if the TWG would have enough time to review the document 

(6 pages) between now and tomorrow if Mary were to show up. Bob Winfree added that some

comments were not included in the report. In order to make sure the TWG had the most current version 

to review and allow for time to discuss the report, Kurt advised Mary’s presentation be re-scheduled for 

the May TWG meeting. 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Meeting 

February 26-27, 2002 

Page 4 

Ad Hoc Group Updates: 

Kurt passed out a listing of the current ad hoc groups (Attachment 5) and asked the members to review 

and update it accordingly. 

Experimental Flows – Randy Peterson reported that the Experimental Flows Ad Hoc Group hasn’t had 

any activity since December. They developed 6-8 different ideas for experimental flows, mostly around 

sediment, and then turned to the native fish issue and asked the Native Fish Work Group and specifically 

some of the NFWG researchers to come up with a “straw person” for the group to consider as they 

developed the overall program of experimental flows and they have yet to report back to the 

Experimental Flows AHG. They are waiting for their response and when that comes in, they will 

formulate all the considerations into an integrated program to address all the resources, including 

vegetation resources such as the OHWZ, recreational resources, and cultural resources. 

Sediment - Ted Melis said the Sediment Ad Hoc Group met several times and prepared a White Paper 

which was distributed to the TWG over the past few months and discussed by the AMWG at their 

meeting in January. The AMWG voted to adopt the findings and recommendations of the White Paper. 

One of the recommendations was to keep the ad hoc group together for continued discussions between 

the cooperating scientists, TWG members, and the GCMRC. Ted said John Shields abstained from 

voting on adoption of the white paper at the AMWG meeting because of the way the final version was 

prepared. He asked the TWG if they would like to see the GCMRC take that document, give it a 

standard format, and then make it available through the GCMRC web site along with the Rubin, et al 

memo. He said he would be willing to take on that task if directed by Barry and the TWG but feels the 

final responsibility probably lies with the chairman of the Sediment Ad Hoc Group (Matt Kaplinski). 

Randy said Reclamation has a writer-editor who could be tasked to do the work and asked if the paper 

should be edited even though the AMWG already approved. Wayne Cook (John’s alternate) said he 

would check with John and see what his feelings are and get back to the TWG. 

Ted said the group hasn’t had any meetings since last fall because the TWG hasn’t directed them to 

work on any particular issue. 

Budget Ad Hoc Group – Randy said the USGS appropriations request by the President did not include 

the dollars requested by the AMP. Congress has yet to take up the details of that budget so between now 

and September, the Budget Ad Hoc Group will be involved in the 2003 budget. He is going to try and 

get them to meet during the month of March to take up the 2003 budget from the standpoint of 

prioritizing 2003 work. 

Barry said the $250,000 that Denny had committed to stayed in but the $774,000 wasn’t in there. He 

said on the House side Joel Kaplan has been requesting a lot of information and feels Congress is going 

to try and support the USGS budget more strongly than the President proposed. Barry said if anyone 

wants to write Joel a letter indicating support for the AMP, he can provide Joel’s address. The Senate is 

not doing anything. 

TWG Small Group – Randy Peterson said this ad hoc group was formed with the purpose of gaining a 

common understanding of what was desired for the canyon. They took on some of the hardest issues – 

sediment, trout, native fish - and came up with some bullet items on goals and targets for those subjects. 

With approval of the Strategic Plan, Randy said he wasn’t sure there was any additional work required 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Meeting 

February 26-27, 2002 

Page 5 

of the group. Because there was a lot of time spent in resolving a number of issues, Randy Seaholm 

thought it might be important to develop a white paper identifying what the group accomplished and 

perhaps include it as an appendix to the Strategic Plan. 

ACTION: Randy Peterson will write a White Paper on the issues the TWG Small Ad Hoc Group 

fleshed out in preparing the Strategic Plan. This will be sent to the TWG prior to the May 16-17, 2002, 

meeting. 

Non-native Fish Control Work Group. Kurt said the AMWG charged the TWG to develop a 2002-

2006 research and monitoring work plan to meet MO 2.5 and 2.6 of the Strategic Plan. As such, he 

asked the TWG members who wanted to participate on the ad hoc group. The following volunteered: 

Paul Barrett, Kerry Christensen, Dave Cohen, Jeff Cross, Bill Davis, Dave Foster, Steve Gloss, Norm

Henderson, Rick Johnson (Chair), Dennis Kubly, Ted Melis, Bill Persons, Andre Potochnik, and 

Nikolai Ramsey. 

Aerial Photography. Steve Mietz gave a PowerPoint presentation (Attachment 6a) and passed out 

copies of the FY2002 Annual Overflight Description (Attachment 6b). The members raised the 

following concerns: 

• Selecting Friday before a long weekend. Lloyd Greiner will discuss with Clayton Palmer. 

• Are flights being driven by science or budget constraints? Answer: A little of both. 

• Need to inform the anglers and general public. 

 

ACTION: Bill Persons said he would inform some of the angler clubs in the Phoenix area of what the 

Non-native Fish Control Group is proposing to do. AGFD welcomes help from other agencies but does 

not want to be the lead agency. Andre Potochnik said something could also be published in the GCRG 

quarterly newsletter (deadline is May 1, 2002.) 

ACTION: The Bureau of Reclamation will send out a press release informing the public of Glen 

Canyon Dam releases surrounding the aerial photography scheduled for the Memorial Day weekend. 

Basin Hydrology. Tom Ryan presented several graphs on basin hydrology: 

Snow Conditions (Attachment 7a). Higher percentages in northern Utah and gets extremely dry toward 

the San Juan. 

Upper Colorado Precipitation. (Attachment 7b). In August 2001, had average precipitation. Late 

August it got very dry in the basin and then got a lot of snow around November. Second week of 

December through the present, it’s been very dry. Expect the numbers will be similar or the same for 

February. 

Lake Powell Unregulated Inflow WY 2002. (Attachment 7c) Coming into 02, considerably below 

average. 

Variability of Lake Powell Apr-Jul Inflow, Based on Feb 2002 Mid-Month Forecast. (Attachment 7d) 

Could have a dry spring with warm, dry winds. It’s looking like WY 2002 will not only be the third 

consecutive year of below average inflow but the inflow in 2002 will be less than what was observed in 

2000 and 2001. 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Meeting 

February 26-27, 2002 

Page 6 

Glen Canyon Releases, Based on Feb. 2002 Final Forecast (Attachment 7e). We’re in an 8.23 maf 

release year. If it gets drier, the 8.23 maf release pattern not will change. If it gets wetter, and the 

April through July inflow forecast increases beyond 5 maf, storage equalization will be made from Glen 

Canyon Dam in the summer of 2002, with total releases for the year then being somewhat higher than 

8.23 maf.

 

Lake Powell Elevations, Based on Feb 2002 Final Forecast (Attachment 7f). If there is not sufficient 

water in the upper basin, then equalization is turned off. We are not too far from that right now. Tom

said they are looking at a process for implementing specific interim criteria on 602(a) storage, but there 

is nothing in place right now. Reclamation has a proposal from the Basin States through the interim 

surplus criteria process. One of the provisions the Basin States agreed to is that equalization releases 

from Lake Powell will not be made if Lake Powell is projected to end the water year below elevation 

3630 feet. Reclamation has done some modeling to see how the system could change based on 

implementing that little piece. There is very little difference because you don’t change the 8.23 only the 

equalization. It only affects that small component of equalization. 

Experimental Flows – Steve Gloss passed out copies of his PowerPoint presentation (Attachment 8a). 

Based on the motion that was made at the AMWG meeting on Jan. 18, 2002, Steve said there is a fairly 

short time frame to respond. He passed out a memo dated Feb. 15, 2002, with two attachments, 

1) updated draft of recommended flow scenarios, and 2) document which captured questions & answers 

during the Feb. 8th conference call (Attachment 8b). 

Adjourned: 5:10 p.m. 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Meeting 

February 26-27, 2002 

Page 7 

Technical Work Group Meeting 

February 27, 2002 

Phoenix, Arizona 

Presiding: Kurt Dongoske, Chairman 

Committee Members Present: 

Robert Begay, Navajo Nation 

Perri Benemelis, ADWR 

Kerry Christensen, Hualapai Tribe 

Dave Cohen, Trout Unlimited 

Wayne Cook, UCRC 

William Davis, CREDA 

Brenda Drye, So. Paiute Consortium

Norm Henderson, NPS/GLCA 

Rick Johnson, Southwest Rivers 

Robert King, UDWR 

Bill Persons, AGFD 

Randall Peterson, USBR 

Nikolai Ramsey, Grand Canyon Trust 

D. Randolph Seaholm, CWCB 

Robert Winfree, NPS/GRCA 

Michael Yeatts, The Hopi Tribe 

Committee Members Absent: 

Jonathan Damp, Pueblo of Zuni Phillip Lehr, Colo. River Comm./NV 

Christopher Harris, CRBC Don Metz, USFWS 

Amy Heuslein, BIA Clayton Palmer, WAPA 

Nancy Hornewer, USGS John Shields, WY State Engineer’s Office 

Matt Kaplinski, GCRG John Whipple, NM Interstate Stream Comm. 

Alternates Present: For: 

Paul Barrett Don Metz, USFWS 

Wayne Cook John Shields, WY State Engineer’s Office 

Andre Potochnik Matt Kaplinski, GCRG 

Other Interested Parties: 

Nancy Coulam, USBR 

Jeffrey Cross, NPS/GRCA 

Dave Foster, Lees Ferry 

Steve Gloss, GCMRC 

Barry Gold, GCMRC 

Loretta Jackson, Hualapai Tribe 

Leslie James, CREDA 

Dennis Kubly, USBR 

Ruth Lambert, GCMRC 

Ted Melis, GCMRC 

Steve Mietz, GCMRC 

Mary Orton, The Mary Orton Company 

Tom Ryan, USBR 

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

February 26-27, 2002 

Page 8 

Convened: 8:18 a.m.

Meeting Opening and Administrative Items 

Kurt welcomed the TWG members, alternates, and general public. Attendance sheets were distributed. 

Experimental Flows (continued). Barry introduced several graphs that he and Tom Ryan worked on 

last night (Attachment 9a). Comments and Questions were recorded on Flip Charts (Attachment 9b). 

Barry reviewed the process for the AMWG mailing and gave a PowerPoint presentation on things to be 

addressed in Version 2.0 (Attachment 9c). 

Kurt questioned the TWG members about the proposal for flat flows. Bill Davis expressed reservation 

and wasn’t sure his AMWG member would agree. Wayne also had some reservations. 

AOP Dates: (probably held in Las Vegas) 

May 15 

June 13 

September 19 

Action Items/Assignment Dates: 

March 15, 2002 – GCMRC will mail out Preliminary Experimental Design to the TWG 

March 20, 2002 – The TWG will hold a conference call to address additional concerns and GCMRC 

will prepare a Final Report for inclusion in the AMWG meeting packet. 

March 22, 2002 – The meeting packets will be mailed to the AMWG. 

Report on Ad Hoc Committee for Strategic Planning (AHCSP) – Mary Orton presented the tasks 

the AMWG assigned to the AHCSP at their last meeting:

1. Development of a process and timeline for prioritization, in order to complete the Strategic 

Plan. 

2. Development of a process and timeline for completion of Information Needs and Management 

Actions, in order to complete the Strategic Plan.

3. Development of a process and timeline for identification of which MOs are in and which are 

out of the AMP, in order to complete the Strategic Plan. 

4. Consideration of the addition of a new MO 7.3, “maintain suitable water quality in GCD 

releases to meet downstream Management Objectives.” 

She referenced her memo to the TWG dated Feb. 20, 2002 (Attachment 10) and informed the TWG 

what the AHCSP was recommending under each task. The members had the following questions and 

concerns: 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Meeting 

February 26-27, 2002 

Page 9 

• Why 24 votes and 1 vote/goal? 

• Why sequence MOs rather than RINs and MAs? (CMINs have to occur and would be 

excluded)

• Some resources are implicitly important due to their non-renewal nature. 

• Define “in” and “out” of AMP-pay source?

• Should we sequence resources based on their status/condition or should we sequence questions 

about the resources?

• Should MOs be determined to be in or out of program (AMP) before sequencing?

• SP ad hoc to consider TWG comments. 

• Add motion to March 20 TWG phone call, agenda to readdress issue, pending additional SP 

and ad hoc discussion. 

ACTION: TWG should send comments to Mary Orton (mary@maryorton.com) by March 7, 2002. 

Non-native Fish Control – Rick Johnson said the group was charged with four things to do from the 

AMWG: 

1. Evaluate methods to remove non-native fish, except rainbow trout, from Bright Angel 

Creek in 2002 

2. Evaluate methods to remove non-native fish from the LCR in 2002 

3. Gather public input and conduct public education and environmental compliance on longterm removals in #1 and 2 above, 

4. Establish a TWG ad hoc committee to develop a 2002-2006 research monitoring and 

management work plan for meeting MO 2.5 and 2.6 of the August 17, 2001, Draft of the 

AMP Strategic Plan. The TWG will report back to the AMWG at the next meeting, 

They started with #2 because that was the cleanest having to do with the feasibility analysis for catfish 

and carp in the LCR. All the steps Bill wanted out, that he was in the process of doing, made sense for 

the feasibility of work this year so they went to the second one which was in Bright Angel. That one 

was a lot more difficult as there is less correspondence between what concerns were and what their 

guess was on available funding. They cut the scope back down to evaluating the weir and shocking in 

Bright Angel but probably not doing the survey work because they likely don’t have the funding to do 

that. They’re referring #3 back to the AMWG Public Outreach Ad Hoc Group to see if they can 

facilitate a multi-agency approach in doing the public relations work. They did not get to #4 because 

they ran out of time. They are going to try to get that together via e-mail or conference call starting

next week. They are not at the point of providing a recommendation at this point in time. 

Bill Persons added that the plan will be to try and catch catfish and carp in the LCR starting in April in 

conjunction with the HBC monitoring with the Fish and Wildlife Service. They’ll go back and bait the 

nets in June because they won’t be interfering with the other monitoring efforts. They will try and get 

a count, look at size composition, diet, and report back to the TWG four weeks after the field trip. The 

money is there – Reclamation will send to GCMRC and then he’ll work with them. 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Meeting 

February 26-27, 2002 

Page 10 

Jeffery Cross said that GCMRC and the NPS are going to look at how they might contract the work out 

as there have been a lot of groups who have expressed interest in doing the work. Once they get a 

contract out in the next several months, the contract will start the permanent process with the NPS to 

accomplish the work and testing the feasibility of the weir. 

Persons suggested three options of disposing of the fish: 1) if they don’t catch very many fish, they can 

be cut up and used for bait, 2) if they catch a few more, cut them up and throw them in the river, and 

3) put them in 5-gallon buckets with rock salt and sling them out. If they start taking tons of fish, then 

they’re going to have a problem. He’s hoping that since they’re only doing it for two weeks at a time

(before they get a chopper coming in), they will be able to sling load out if they need to. He said 

disposal is still kind of a touchy issue and feels that should be part of the evaluation as well. 

Randy asked what the group had decided and what they are going to tell AMWG so it can be put on 

the April AMWG agenda. Rick said the ad hoc group would prepare a report and present to the 

AMWG in April. The full report will be given to the TWG at the May meeting. 

ACTION: Rick Johnson will provide an update on the group’s proposed feasibility plan and other 

work at the next AMWG meeting to be held on April 24-25, 2002. He will provide a full report to the 

TWG at the May 16-17, 2002, meeting. 

FY 2004 Budget – Randy said he and Barry would present what was different from this budget and 

those presented in previous years (Attachment 11a) and take any comments, concerns, questions today 

and then meet with the Budget Ad Hoc Group over the next 2-4 weeks to discuss the budget. They 

would then work with GCRMC to address concerns raised today, revise the budget, and send it back 

out to the TWG in April. The TWG would then review the budget at the May meeting and approve it 

in preparation for the AMWG meeting in July. 

For his part, the funding has been continued as in the past for administration, tribal participation and 

consultation, compliance documents, contract administration. Rick Johnson asked why there were no 

dollars tied to the Temperature Control Device. Randy said no power revenue dollars will be spent on 

the TCD, either for analysis, compliance, or construction because it is funded out of appropriations. In 

the future, this line item will be dropped from the budget. 

Randy said there was a change in the Experimental Flow Fund. The GCMRC will be asking for 

$500K in USGS appropriations and the USBR is planning on using $500K from power revenues to 

fund that work.. This is a needs based budget and so we may not get the funding to do all the work. 

The Budget Ad Hoc Group will determine what needs to be deferred, prioritized, etc. They are looking 

at having $1 million in the fund in 2004. 

Nancy Coulam said that the Programmatic Agreement portion for 2004 is tracking right along where it 

should be according to the PEP and the approved recommendations from the PEP. There are three 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Meeting 

February 26-27, 2002 

Page 11 

items: 1) Reclamation administration, 2) the completion of the Historic Preservation Plan, and 3) 

treatment and monitoring implementation. She said the PA and the TWG Ad Hoc Group made a 

recommendation that a treatment plan be prepared and also that a separate monitoring plan be 

prepared. The PA and the TWG Ad Hoc Group thought that didn’t make sense and have 

recommended that those be combined into one treatment and monitoring plan. The completion part of 

the HPP has a number of little sub-plans that are within it but 2004 should bring completion of the 

plan. 

Kurt asked if the money identified for treatment and monitoring implementation could have a part go 

toward the contract to develop a treatment and monitoring plan, a part towards some type of resolution 

of adverse affects on sites that are being threatened in 2004, and a part could fund a base monitoring 

effort by the Park. Nancy said she had no definitive answers and wasn’t sure when the contract would 

get awarded. She said a lot of the work depends on the research design and how much of a direction it 

provides the contractor for the treatment and monitoring plan. 

Barry passed out a list of changes (Attachment 11b) and a revised budget (Attachment 11c) and 

proceeded to explain those changes:

• V.A.1. Monitoring & Inventory of Terrestrial Resources. An RFP was awarded in 2000 which 

will come to conclusion in 2003 and so a new RFP will be issued to start the next phase. They 

hope to refine the technique for the monitoring and inventory terrestrial resources in the first 

three years. The next RFP will be for five years for monitoring. 

• V.A.3. New Research in Terrestrial Ecosystems. This is intended that by 2004 to really start 

looking at the Old High Water Zone issues. This was approved in 2003 and they are asking for 

$100K of appropriations from the USGS. That commitment came from the USGS at the last 

AMWG meeting. 

• V.B.2. Monitoring Downstream Fish. The first RFP was awarded for three years and it comes to 

a close in 2004. There is a going to be a little bit of refinement of that work and a new RFP will 

be issued for five years of monitoring downstream fish. 

• V.B.4. Monitoring Lees Ferry Trout. The first two years of the initial proposal will be completed 

with Arizona Game and Fish Dept. They will be evaluating for any additional adjustments and a 

new RFP will be issued in 2004 for five years. 

• V.B.8. Captive Breeding Program Feasibility. As GCMRC has started to watch the HBC 

numbers decline and being responsive to the RPA on second populations, they felt it was time to 

look at what would be required if the program decided to do captive breeding, either from stock 

that might be used to establish a second population or a refugia is stocked. The idea would be to 

bring in some geneticists to help make some recommendations. 

• V.C.2.a., b, c, - They are proposing to fund all from appropriations. Ted Melis wants to look at 

suspended sediment transport and would like to install some automated pump samplers to get a 

better refinement on sediment budget, and then install some sensors on the Paria River that would 

give them advance warning that there would be some inputs coming down so if they wanted to 

move to some kind of flow, they would get a signal to begin something. 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Meeting 

February 26-27, 2002 

Page 12 

• V.C.7. LCR Integrated Studies. There are a whole range of hypotheses about what is happening 

with HBC and they should have by the end of the year the hydrologic record on the LCR 

digitized and available for some more detailed analysis. They would like to take an historical 

look at what has been happening with the hydrology in the LCR as groundwater depletions have 

been produced and the storage capacity in the watershed has increased, it may have changed the 

inflows. 

• V.D.7. Cultural Affiliation Study. Ruth Lambert said this is the one new project in the Cultural 

Resource area. The project is conceived to consist of tribal information, histories, and oral 

histories on their affiliation to the project area in the CRE. She views it as a companion project 

to the research design and a component of the HPP that was recommended through the PEP 

process. 

• VI.B.5. Decision Support System. This has been in two previous budget requests that were 

zeroed out but as they started to go through the AMWG planning process they realize that their 

data sources are becoming rich enough in terms of modeling capabilities and some of their 

refinements. It would really be efficient if they could create a decision support system to link the 

data sources together with models and thus have a more efficient tool in order to ask the 

appropriate questions. A lot of the GIS and remote sensing and GIS has helped give them the 

spatial character that they need along with a lot of the more detailed modeling in both the 

fisheries area by putting together with historic trends and doing some habitat based monitoring 

and the kind of increased refinement that Ted is getting with Steve Wiele’s work. They are 

proposing that as you get into more complicated experiments and perhaps ask some questions on 

shorter time frames, it might be a good time to really think about investing in this decision 

support system so we have a rigorous framework for asking these questions. 

• They will also be asking the USGS for $500K for the Experimental Flow Fund. 

Barry explained the budget breakdown and said the TWG may want to consider two things: 

1) Do they agree with the new studies that are proposed?

2) Do they agree with what funding is being sought out of appropriations?

The TWG provided the following comments: 

• Delete TCD line item since no AMP funds are used for this 

• Question about nature of monitoring and treatment implementation 

• PAÆ $400,000 to fund (potentially) planning document, treatment of adverse effect, and 

monitoring 

• Identify links to MOs 

ACTION: TWG members should provide any comments they have on the proposed FY 2004 Budget 

to Randy Peterson and Barry Gold by March 15, 2002. 

ACTION: The Budget Ad Hoc Group will meet later in March to discuss prioritizing the FY 2003 

work needs and review the proposed FY 2004 AMP Budget. TWG approval of the 2004 budget will 

occur in May and the AMWG will recommend the budget in July. 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Meeting 

February 26-27, 2002 

Page 13 

Information Needs (Attachment 12) – Barry said they went through a lot of effort to get the INs 

finalized and bring forward to the January AMWG meeting with hopes of getting them adopted and 

that additional issues would be addressed in the process of sequencing and developing the GCMRC 

Strategic Plan. When Mary raised the issue this morning, at that point there were three questions that 

arose and one was: Did the proposed new MOs make sense and were these three INs dealing with 

non-use values? He discussed with Randy and it was decided to get feedback from the TWG on which 

INs they had the most concerns about. GCMRC would then separate them out for further discussion, 

create a process for discussing the issues and concerns around those INs, bring them back to the TWG 

with whatever the proposed resolution is and then move forward. He would like to get guidance from 

the TWG on adopting the remainder of the INs. 

The TWG provided the following comments: 

• Comments at AMWG meeting should be considered/included 

• Need to revert back to adopted S.P. document for MO’s and IN’s Æ use approved MO #’s 

• Clean up size classs for HBC 

• Proof document 

• MO’s under goal 12 not acceptable 

• How we address sequencing of target levels 

• Targets should meet “picture” of ecosystem and “IN/OUT” of program

• Should be no INs under Goal 3 

• Need more discussion on MO 7.3 proposed for water quality 

Process

• Identify big concerns (RIN 12.1.1 – 4, RIN 3.1.1, MO 7.3, INs under Goal 10)

• AHCSP to meet to resolve big concerns - > issue papers

• Bring S.P. results to TWG meeting prior to sequencing

• Order to targets / define IN/OUT of AMP

• Need better definition of “marketable capacity,” “reserve group obligations” 

• Need more discussion on water quality goal before going on to 7.3

Barry wondered if something needed to be added to the sequencing step, to actually have a point where 

something is written about some of the INs, where they are not only sequenced but there are 

expectations that they will either be done by this program or not. He feels there’s been some

inconsistency because someone will want something out, someone will want something else in, and 

then you have to figure out who will fund the work. It isn’t a level playing field because opportunities 

come up to get information to make the program move forward, and they take advantage of those 

opportunities. 

Barry said if the big concerns could be identified, then the AHCSP could be tasked to review and bring 

a proposed resolution back to a future TWG meeting. He felt it was important to get that done before 

moving into the sequencing process that Mary described. He also suggested adding two elements to 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Meeting 

February 26-27, 2002 

Page 14 

the sequencing process: 1) identify some order of targets that we want developed, and 2) 

identify/clearly label which of the INs are the responsibility of this program and which of the INs we 

would expect to be done by others. He asked if the TWG wanted to lay out a timeline for doing that. 

ACTION: Comments on any “big issue” INs should be mailed to Mary Orton by March 15, 2002. 

The AHCSP will discuss and provide comments to the TWG on the March 20th conference call. 

ACTION: The TWG Members should prepare issue papers on the following if they have concerns: 

RIN 12.1.1-4, 3.1, MO 7.3, and the IN’s under Goal 10. 

Norm said before bringing the INs forward with comments, the philosophic distinction between what 

the program is and isn’t should be settled. He feels the TWG is not getting to the fundamental issue of 

whether this program is a broad umbrella and it doesn’t matter who funds it or is the AMP only what’s 

funded. He said that if the TWG could get that distinction made then those things fall out immediately. 

ACTION: Norm Henderson will write a White Paper on the question of whether the Adaptive 

Management Program is a broad umbrella program or a program that addresses only issues funded 

from AMP funds. 

Future Agenda Items: 

May TWG Meeting: 

- MO or IN 

- Aquatic PEP Report 

- Cultural Resources PEP Report 

- SCORE Report 

- Non-native Control recommendation 

- GCMRC Strategic Plan 

- 2001 Monitoring results 

- Exp. Flows update & discuss long-term exp. Flow program

- ad hoc updates (02-03 exp. Flow, budget) 

- 5-year Lake Powell Program

- Status of 2000 LSSF reports 

- Approval of 2004 budget draft work plan, recommendation to AMWG to adopt 

- S.P. Ad Hoc Committee Process for sequencing and the INs 

Adjourned: 3 p.m.

Next Meeting: Thursday, May 16, 2002 (9:30 a.m. – 5 p.m.) 

Friday, May 17, 2002 (8 a.m. – 3 p.m.) 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Meeting 

February 26-27, 2002 

Page 15 

Location: Bureau of Indian Affairs 

 2 Arizona Center 

 400 N. 5th Street 

 Conference Rooms A&B 

 Phoenix, Arizona 

Hotel Block: Holiday Inn Express & Suites 

 6th and Fillmore 

 Phoenix, Arizona 

 602-452-2020 

Rate: $79 + tax 

 BLOCK CLOSES: April 22, 2002 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Meeting 

February 26-27, 2002 

Page 16 

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 

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