Technical Work Group

December 7, 2000

Phoenix, Arizona

Presiding: Rick Johnson, Chairperson FINAL 

Committee Members Present:

Clifford Barrett, UAMPS Nancy Hornewer, USGS

Robert Begay, Navajo Nation Pamela Hyde, Southwest Rivers

Perri Benemelis, ADWR Matt Kaplinski, GCRG

Kerry Christensen, Hualapai Tribe Phillip Lehr, Colo. River Commission/Nevada

Dave Cohen, Trout Unlimited S. Clayton Palmer, WAPA

Wayne Cook, UCRC Don Metz, USFWS

William Davis, CREDA Bill Persons, AGFD

Kurt Dongoske, The Hopi Tribe Randall Peterson, USBR

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

Christopher Harris, CRBC Robert Winfree, NPS/GRCA

Norm Henderson, NPS/GLCA

Committee Members Absent:

Amy Heuslein, BIA Nikolai Ramsey, GCT

Robert King, UDWR John Shields, WY State Engineer’s Office

Jonathan Damp, Pueblo of Zuni

Alternates Present: For:

Andres Cheama Jonathan Damp, Pueblo of Zuni

Wayne Cook John Shields, WY State Engineer’s Office

Other Interested Persons Present:

Gary Burton, WAPA Mike Liszewski, GCMRC

Nancy Coulam, USBR Ted Melis, GCMRC

Barbara Gerhart, Aide for R. Lynch Mary Orton, Mary Orton Company

Barry Gold, GCMRC Andre Potochnik, GCRG

Dennis Kubly, USBR Barbara Ralston, GCMRC

Jen Kunde, NPS/GCNP Ted Rampton, UAMPS/CREDA

Ruth Lambert, GCMRC Jeff Sorensen, AGFD
Recorder: Linda Whetton, USBR
GCD Technical Work Group

Minutes of December 7-8, 2000 Meeting

Page 3

Meeting Opening and Administrative Items

Dec. 7, 2000: Convened: 8:10

WELCOME AND ADMINISTRATIVE:

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

Chairperson determined there was a quorum established. Attendance Sheets were distributed

(Attachment 1)

Action Items from Last Meeting:

1. PEP Integration - Randy Peterson said they are going to prepare some type of process diagram that

describes PEP Integration. Dennis Kubly will present a flow chart model of that process at tomorrow’s

meeting. If it works okay, the PEP Integration would be the second process diagram that we would

start. The goal is to clarify all the processes used in the AMP.

2. Distribution of “Law of the River” CD - Done. Randy passed out copies of the “Law of the River”

CD. His intent is to publish all the documents pertaining to the AMP as well, i.e., the Strategic Plan,

meeting notes, guidance document, etc. 

3. Budget Timeline - Cliff Barrett has received only one budget timeline (from BOR). He needs the

same from the other Federal agencies as soon as possible. 

4. WAPA Rate Brochure - Clayton Palmer said the pamphlet was completed but he didn’t bring any

copies with him. He will e-mail/fax to the TWG as well as bring copies to the next meeting. 

5. SWCA Report - Done. The report was sent to the Experimental Flows Ad Hoc Group members.

6. Tribal Executive Orders - Status unknown. 

7. Linda will send the AMWG Comments & Response Document to AMWG Members. This was not

done as previously reported. (The document was e-mailed to the AMWG members on Dec. 21,

2000.)

8. Linda will provide FWS web addresses/web location for Recovery Goals Document. Done.

Approval of TWG Sept. 20-21, 2000, Meeting Minutes. The following changes were noted:
GCD Technical Work Group

Minutes of December 7-8, 2000 Meeting

Page 4

S Page 4, first paragraph, change “this issue” to “the legislation”

S Page 8. Clayton Palmer is the chairperson for the Budget Ad Hoc Group. 

Without objection, the Sept. 20-21, 2000, minutes were approved pending the above changes.

Approval of TWG Nov, 8-9, 2000, Meeting Minutes. The following changes were noted:

Cliff would like to submit a rewrite of his power economics presentation. 

ACTION ITEM - Cliff will provide new language and a handout on his power economics presentation

prior to the next TWG meeting.

Approval of the Nov. 8-9, 2000, meeting minutes will be put on the agenda for the next TWG meeting.

Legislative/Executive Updates. Randy reported the following:

1. The Salinity Bill has passed and been signed which increases the spending for salinity control

measures in the basin. These cost-shared projects seek to reduce salinity in the Colorado River. Many

of them involve on-farm improvements which reduce water use, improve efficiency, and reduce return

flows which contain the contaminants that eventually get back into the River. This is a very proactive

attempt to reduce salinity. 

2. The Interim Surplus Criteria EIS should be released tomorrow. Copies have been sent to the EPA

and it will also be available on the Lower Colorado Region web site on Dec. 15, 2000.

(http://www.lc.usbr.gov) as well as linked from the Upper Colorado Region web site

(http://www.uc.usbr.gov). If a paper copy is needed, contact Jayne Harkins at 702-293-8190.

Agenda Update. Randy provided an update on the Strategic Plan (Attachment 3) and reviewed the

principles on page 2. In addition, the following handouts were provided as a basis for the members to

use in reviewing the MOs today: Attachment 4, Deviations; Attachment 5, Definitions; and Attachment

6, Conceptual Framework for Managing Ecosystem Resources. 

Mary Orton commented that the revised Strategic Plan document gives qualitative targets for each goal

and each MO. She reminded the members that at last meeting they were working with two documents,

one was the MOs document and the other was “development of qualitative targets for management

objectives.” Those documents were integrated into the curret document. She told the members that as

the targets are discussed today, they will be advising the Ad Hoc Committee on Strategic Planning on

what they want to see in the document. 

Rick said that in budgeting for the small group presentations, there will be 15 minutes allotted for 
GCD Technical Work Group

Minutes of December 7-8, 2000 Meeting

Page 5

each goal. He requested that comments be held until the afternoon.

Goals 1, 2, 4 (Barry Gold/Pamela Hyde)

Barry reported that the small group met on Nov. 2-3 and exchanged one e-mail message. He

reviewed the changes made. Refer to Goals 1, 2, and 4; (Attachment 7). He also mentioned that a

paper on “Aquatic Foodbase” (Attachment 8) was included with the goals as well as a paper with

“Additional Comments” from Bill Persons and Gary Burton (Attachment 9). 

Goals 7, 8, 9 (Bob Winfree)

Refer to Goals 7, 8, and 9 (Attachment 10). Bob passed out copies of: the revised Kanab Ambersnail

Management Objectives (Attachment 11), Southwest Willow Flycatcher Management Objectives

(Attachment 12), and revised Riparian Management Objectives (Attachment 13). He also mentioned

the documents provided by Dennis Kubly: Jeff Sorensen Comments dated 11/17/00; Responses to

KAS Review Panel Recommendations; and Position Statement by Jeff Sorensen, Clay Nelson, and

Michael Demlong (Attachment 14). In addition, the flip chart notes from a meeting held on 11/21/00

were also provided (Attachment 15).

Goal 9 , MO 33 (Kurt Dongoske)

Kurt referred to Goal 9, MO 33 and passed out copies of the Flip Chart Notes from the Cultural

Resources Meeting held on 10/19/00 (Attachment 16).

Goal 12

Kurt directed the members to look at the Comments section and what were penned as the qualitative

targets. 

Goal 10 (Andre Potochnik). Refer to Attachment 17.

Goal 6 (Andre Potochnik). Refer to Attachment 18. Note corrections to MO 22 and MO 23. Andre

also passed out a Summary of Comment Received (Attachment 19).

Goal 5 (Wayne Cook). Refer to Attachment 20.

Wayne said this would be discussed in the afternoon. 

Bill Vernieu’s “Water Quality Below Glen Canyon Dam - Water Year 2000" report (Attachment 21)

was provided as a handout at the meeting. 
GCD Technical Work Group

Minutes of December 7-8, 2000 Meeting

Page 6

Goal 11 (Ted Rampton). Refer to Attachment 22. Ted explained the current situation in California for

potential rolling blackouts. 

Goal 13 (Pam Hyde). Refer to Attachment 23. 

Mary asked the members to consider the presentations they heard and come to some resolution on

how the group can move forward. At the end of the day there should be a clear understanding on

where there is consensus and if not, then they will need to look at the various pros and cons. The

major discontinuities will need to be addressed at a later time. Her suggestion was to ask for the major

issues that cross several goals. Those will be captured and then the group will go through goal by goal

to try and resolve. She anticipates that the document will be in good shape for presentation to the

AMWG in January 2001. 

Comments on the individual goals were captured on flip charts. (Attachment 24).

Mary said there are some goals that are a means to an end. It is cleaner if the goals are ends rather

than means. Bob said it would be important to say what they are. He has some difficulty with

sediment storage in the river channel. He thinks we want sediment storage above water level. Our goal

is a healthy native fish population or a sandy beaches, etc. We need to be clear in our discussions. 

Randy said it would be good to keep those in mind as we go through them tomorrow.

Adjourned: 5:15 p.m.
GCD Technical Work Group

Minutes of December 7-8, 2000 Meeting

Page 7

Technical Work Group

December 8, 2000

Phoenix, Arizona

Presiding: Rick Johnson, Chairperson FINAL 

Committee Members Present:

Clifford Barrett, UAMPS Nancy Hornewer, USGS

Perri Benemelis, ADWR Pamela Hyde, Southwest Rivers

Andres Cheama, Pueblo of Zuni Matt Kaplinski, GCRG

Kerry Christensen, Hualapai Tribe Phillip Lehr, Colo. River Commission/Nevada

Dave Cohen, Trout Unlimited Don Metz, USFWS

Wayne Cook, UCRC S. Clayton Palmer, WAPA

William Davis, CREDA Bill Persons, AGFD

Kurt Dongoske, The Hopi Tribe Randall Peterson, USBR

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

Christopher Harris, CRBC Robert Winfree, NPS/GRCA

Norm Henderson, NPS/GLCA

Committee Members Absent:

Robert Begay, Navajo Nation Clayton Palmer, WAPA

Amy Heuslein, BIA Nikolai Ramsey, GCT

Robert King, UDWR John Shields, WY State Engineer’s Office

Alternates Present: For:

Gary Burton Clayton Palmer, WAPA

Wayne Cook John Shields, WY State Engineer’s Office

Other Interested Persons Present:

Nancy Coulam, USBR Ted Melis, GCMRC

Barry Gold, GCMRC Mary Orton, Mary Orton Company

Dennis Kubly, USBR Andre Potochnik, GCRG

Jen Kunde, NPS/GCNP Barbara Ralston, GCMRC

Ruth Lambert, GCMRC Ted Rampton, UAMPS/CREDA

Mike Liszewski, GCMRC
GCD Technical Work Group

Minutes of December 7-8, 2000 Meeting

Page 8

Recorder: Linda Whetton, USBR

Meeting Opening and Administrative Items

Dec. 8, 2000: Convened: 8:10

WELCOME AND ADMINISTRATIVE:

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

Chairperson determined there was a quorum established. Attendance Sheets were distributed

(Attachment 1)

The Chairperson said he would suspend the agenda and continue the discussion from yesterday.

Management Objectives. Mary commented that there were some great discussions yesterday and

reminded the TWG that they are providing input to the Ad Hoc Committee on Strategic Planning. She

said there was a group that worked late last night and would like to present something on the riparian

goals. 

Barry said the group talked about the MOs and the difficulty in filling out the tables. They thought it

would be useful to develop a context to look at the goals. He passed out a “Draft Narrative of Desired

Future Resource Conditions” (Attachment 25). He suggested that a small group be put together to

flesh this out and add to the package at a later date. 

People interested in participating in this process:

Randy Peterson

Barry Gold 

Norm Henderson

Rick Johnson

Cliff Barrett

Andre Potochnik

Dennis Kubly

Nancy Coulam

Mary said that the TWG must have something to send to the AMWG on Tuesday. If the sticking point

is the target, she suggested they agree on the wording of the MO and leave the target blank. She

advised going through the MOs quickly and identifying which ones need more discussion and that the

ones with just a concern on targets be left to the end. She suggested the following priorities: power,
GCD Technical Work Group

Minutes of December 7-8, 2000 Meeting

Page 9

riparian vegetation, and the remaining MOs.

Cliff said the power goal was rewritten and now includes six MOs; some they were doing under the

existing ROD and some new ones.

The members continued reviewing the MOs and identified some of the bigger issues requiring more

discussion. (Refer to Attachment 24). 

LSSF Presentation. Barry Gold cautioned that the information he will be presenting should be treated

as preliminary (Attachment 26). 

The GCMRC is in the process of preparing a bibliography of all the reports that have come in under the

GCMRC tenure. It should be completed within the next few weeks and mailed out. He would like to

start a series of technical presentations so people can get up to speed on the information.

Barry also reported that there has been a lot of interest in the SWCA Report on Endangered Fish

Flows which was used as the basis for designing the LSSF test. The report has undergone a peer

review with no substantive changes made. They need to get the contractor to move it from a Final

Draft to Final. He hopes to get that mailed as soon as possible.

B.O. Amendment for KAS in Arizona

Dennis Kubly asked how many people understood what incidental take is as determined by the Fish

and Wildlife Service. He read a portion of the law: “Incidental take is defined as take that is incidental

to and not the purpose of carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity. Under the terms of Section

7(b)(4) and 7(o)(2) taking that is incidental to and not intended as part of the agency action is not

considered to be prohibited under the Act provided that such taking is in compliance with the terms and

conditions of this incidental statement.” So the amount of incidental take is the estimate by the FWS of

that take that would be an incident of the proposed action. In the case of the Kanab ambersnail in

1996, the FWS estimated there would 10%. His understanding was that the 10% was not a biological

impact they were assessing, it was the amount of habitat that would be lost from the proposed action. 

The reasonable and prudent measures were the measures the Service assigned that needed to be

accomplished in order to minimize the take as they are required to do under the Endangered Species

Act. There is a whole lot more that is legal than biological in that determination. He thinks the Kanab

ambersnail expert panel really took it as a biological statement rather than a legal statement. In their

amendment to the 1995 biological opinion dated July 12, 2000, the Service acknowledges that the

10% level of incidental take given in the 1995 biological opinion could be revised. The flow of 45,000

cfs, one in every five years on average, as included in the Preferred Alternative would have likely

always taken more than 10% of the habitat. A better estimate would have been somewhere between
GCD Technical Work Group

Minutes of December 7-8, 2000 Meeting

Page 10

14%, the actual take, and 17% the estimated take. Those are just differences in what was actually

measured while people were down there and what was later estimated. For the flow of 45,000 cfs, the

25,000 cfs level is important because vegetation continues to encroach on down the side of the Vaseys

Paradise talus slope if flows don’t rise and remove it. Given that the 10% incidental take figures should

be reassessed to more accurately represent the stage discharge relationship with the beach habitat

building of the preferred alternative, the reasonable and prudent measures and associated terms and

conditions require that the 10% figures exceeded should also be reassessed. So there are two steps: 1)

revise the incidental take, the percentage of habitat expected to be taken under the Preferred

Alternative, and 2) change the associated reasonable and prudent measures. The table provided shows

you that the change in incidental take has been to raise it from 10% to 17%, the new estimate of

45,000, and that reasonable and prudent measure #2, which required establishing or finding a second

population before another beach habitat-building flow, has been deleted. In terms of effects, there was

no jeopardy that was called on the 45,000 at 10% and the Service would anticipate no change in that

determination in an ensuing event at the same level as 17%. Dennis said he would provide a copy of

the FWS memo dated July 12, 2000, Subject: Biological Opinion Amendment for Kanab ambersnail in

Arizona (Attachment 27) and requested that it be sent to the members as well as posted to the Bureau

of Reclamation web site. 

Action: Linda will send the memo to the TWG and also post on the Bureau of Reclamation web site.

Meeting Review:

Positive Negative

focus on technical issues tough to finish

people remained civil unrealistic expectations (agenda)

took time to understand handouts somewhat confusing

open discussion time management -> finish each item sequentially

philosophy discussion first

MO materials weren’t coordinated

outside help on scientific leadership

use conceptual model, w/narrative

frame issues on paper

Future Agenda Items:

1. Agenda items not presented at today’s meeting may be e-mailed/faxed to TWG members,

depending on need. Some items may be presented at the next TWG meeting. 

2. LSSF test results
GCD Technical Work Group

Minutes of December 7-8, 2000 Meeting

Page 11

Adjourned at: 12:15 p.m.
General Key to Adaptive Management Program Acronyms

ADWR - Arizona Department of Water Resources

AF - Acre Feet

AGFD - Arizona Game & Fish Department

AGU - American Geophysical Union

AMP - Adaptive Management Program

AMWG - Adaptive Management Work Group

AOP - Annual Operating Plan

BA - Biological Assessment

BE - Biological Evaluation

BHBF - Beach/Habitat-Building Flow

BHMF - Beach/Habitat Maintenance Flow

BHTF - Beach/Habitat Test Flow

BIA - Bureau of Indian Affairs

BO - Biological Opinion

BOR - Bureau of Reclamation

CAPA - Central Arizona Project Assn.

cfs - cubic feet per second

CRBC - Colorado River Board of California

CRCN - Colorado River Commission of Nevada

CREDA - Colorado River Energy Distributors Assn.

CRSP - Colorado River Storage Project 

CWCB - Colorado Water Conservation Board

DBMS - Data Base Management System

DOI - Department of the Interior

EA - Environmental Assessment

EIS - Final Environmental Impact Statement

ESA - Endangered Species Act

FACA - Federal Advisory Committee Act

FEIS - Final Environmental Impact Statement

FRN - Federal Register Notice

FWS - United States Fish & Wildlife Service

FY - Fiscal Year (Oct 1 to Sept 30 each year)

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: Little 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)