. 

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Meeting Minutes 

February 2, 2004 

Conducting: Norm Henderson, TWG Chairman FINAL

Committee Members Present: 

Mary Barger, WAPA 

Kerry Christensen, Hualapai Tribe 

Wayne Cook, UCRC 

William Davis, CREDA 

Lisa Force, Grand Canyon Trust 

Lloyd Greiner, UAMPS 

Christopher Harris, CRB/CA 

Matt Kaplinski, GCRG 

Robert King, UDWR 

Glen Knowles, USFWS 

Dennis Kubly, USBR 

Bill Persons, AGFD 

John Ritenour, NPS/GLCA 

Mark Steffen, Federation of Fly Fishers 

Mike Yeatts, The Hopi Tribe 

Committee Members Absent: 

Robert Begay, Navajo Nation 

Perri Benemelis, ADWR 

Illa Bulletts, So. Paiute Consortium 

Jonathan Damp, Pueblo of Zuni 

Amy Heuslein, BIA 

Phil Lehr, Colo. River Commission/NV 

D. Randolph Seaholm, CWCB 

John Shields, WY State Engineer’s Office 

Larry Stevens, Grand Canyon Wildlands Council 

John Whipple, NM Interstate Stream Commission 

Alternates Present: For: 

Jan Balsom Ken McMullen, NPS/GRCA 

Marklyn Chee Robert Begay, Navajo Nation 

Heidi Kloeppel Larry Stevens, GC Wildlands Council 

Wayne Cook John Whipple, NM Interstate Stream Comm. 

Wayne Cook John Shields, WY State Engineers Office 

Interested Persons: 

Gary Burton, WAPA 

Kurt Dongoske, CREDA 

Lee Failing, Ecometric 

Helen Fairley, USGS/GCMRC 

Dave & Pam Garrett, M3Research 

Steve Gloss, USGS/GCMRC 

Josh Korman, Ecometric 

Mike Liszewski, USGS/GCMRC 

Ted Melis, USGS/GCMRC 

Carl Walters, Ecometric 

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

Minutes of February 2-3, 2004, Meeting 

Page 2

Convened: 9:30 a.m. 

Welcome and Administrative Items. The chairman welcomed the members, alternates, and 

general public. A quorum was not established, however, introductions were made and attendance 

sheets (Attachment 1) distributed. 

Review of Action Items. Dennis 

 #1 – The item was clarified by Ted Melis: The TWG needs to provide GCMRC with direction on 

how to proceed preparing the contracts (RFPs), who should do the work – outside contractor or 

GCMRC staff, etc. It was decided to address at tomorrow’s meeting during part of the budget 

discussion. 

 #2 – Dennis said there are questions regarding the new charter language - ethics, conflict of 

interest, and procurement. He advised the TWG members to provide input to their AMWG member 

because this topic will be on the agenda for the AMWG March meeting. 

 #3 – Pending. Change “disconnect” to “relationship.” Bill Persons will prepare a presentation (30 

minutes) for a future meeting. Steve Gloss added that this should be a joint presentation between 

AGFD and GCMRC because the work being done is under contract to GCMRC. 

Dennis asked if the TWG will revisit the management objectives and identify the quantification of 

those objectives. He asked if it is the right time to go back to the MOs, if they are still the MOs that 

the TWG is recommending, and whether or not the monitoring and metrics are in place to identify 

whether the objectives are being met. He advised that information will become very important when 

Reclamation prepares their report to Congress on the progress of the AMP. Norm said this could be 

discussed at the next TWG meeting. 

Review of Jan. 7-8, 2004 Minutes. Corrections were noted by the recorder. 

Review of Nov. 12-13, 2003 Minutes. Corrections were noted by the recorder. 

The recorder advised that Pam Hyde provided comments on the above meeting minutes via an e-mail 

message (Attachment 2). Those changes will be incorporated with the above and corrections will be 

made. 

ACTION ITEM: The TWG will review the TWG Operating Procedures and provide any comments or 

suggested changes to the TWG Chairman. A complete review of the Operating Procedures will be 

addressed at a future TWG meeting. 

Approval of Meeting Minutes. A quorum was established and the meeting minutes for both 

meetings were approved pending the corrections noted. 

MATA Workshop – The chairman said he would like Ecometrics personnel to continue with the 

discussion from the MATA Workshop and following that the TWG would need to determine how to use 

the information to incorporate into a new experimental flow proposal to the AMWG. Dennis added the 

TWG will need to determine whether or not MATA is the process by which to provide an 2005 

recommendation to the AMWG or whether or not there is some other process. He said the line was 

drawn at 2005 and advocated that the TWG needs to get the MATA presentation and AMWG’s 

support as a process for developing something that they could come back in July with for 2006 and 

beyond. 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Minutes of February 2-3, 2004, Meeting 

Page 3

Lee Failing said the purpose of today’s discussion would be to evaluate the experimental options and 

build on the results from the MATA Workshop held in December (Attachment 3a). It was her intent to 

talk about the options so that the TWG could think through the pros and cons. She gave a 

PowerPoint presentation (Attachment 3b). 

Carl Walters commented that the policy options that most of the TWG members favored would involve 

a radical change in flow operations and would involve much more fall flow fluctuations than had been 

done in recent years. He said the river would look very different under any of the options that were 

favored by the TWG. The summer fall steady flows would come up in the experimental design 

discussions as one of the most expensive policy choices that could be started next year. There are 

two aims in the steady flows, one is to conserve sediment by not pumping sand, and the other is to 

see if humpback chub juveniles could survive in the mainstem under the thermal heating that would 

occur on the river edges under that policy. There are two juvenile HBC migrations into the mainstem, 

one of fry in June and the second is under yearly dispersal in the flood events. There are hints of over 

litter survival in the mainstem of juveniles that are flushed into the mainstem but they have not grown 

and they have to grow in order to survive. The test from a HBC standpoint is whether or not warmer 

water in the fall would allow the juveniles to not only survive but to grow enough to be able to move 

back into the LCR. 

Lee continued that if one is going to have a defensible rationale for experimentation, the following are 

needed: (1) a plausible hypothesis to expect some kind of beneficial results, (2) be able to 

demonstrate that the experiment is going to have the capacity to resolve the uncertainties, and (3) 

some demonstration that the tradeoffs implied in the treatments being tested are plausible. She said 

there are tradeoffs and implications for trout in terms of smaller numbers of bigger fish, implications 

for boating, and if they go with BHBF flows there are implications for the Kanab ambersnail. Those 

tradeoffs need to be considered before one embarks on testing for those things. 

FY 2005 Budget Update. Norm said a copy of the FY05 Budget was distributed (Attachment 4). He 

advised the members to review the budget and be prepared to discuss tomorrow so it can be 

presented to the AMWG in March. 

Experimental Design Options. Carl Walters said the following exercise would look at some 

experimental designs and help the TWG think about (1) what are the experimental options, and (2) 

and what are the arrangements that could be planned for. He presented several options from the 

MATA workshop and came up with four main treatments that were widely favored: (1) Power 

Treatment – it’s a move in some months of the year towards allowing the power companies a lot more 

flexibility to run the flows up and down, 3-30 with negotiation on ramping rates; (2) Mechanical 

Removal of Non-native Fish in the LCR and Bright Angel Creek; (3) Summer/Fall Steady Flows which 

are designed to accomplish two things, provide warm edges along the river for native fish and to 

conserve sand; and (4) build a temperature control device. He said the fall steady flows would be 

accompanied with an option to do beach habitat building flows. 

Mark Steffen said he was concerned with the impact on the aquatic food base. The fish, regardless of 

HBC or trout, need the same amount of food in the summer as they do in the winter. The HBC needs 

to eat all winter long in preparation for spawning in the spring. He said that any damage done to the 

food base in the winter has serious potential harm. Carl said the floods aren’t going to destroy the 

foodbase but that the power treatment would cause the most harm. 

Dennis said that whatever decision is made, a background document needs to be developed that 

would substantiate what everyone knows. The recovery program for the big river fish has flow 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Minutes of February 2-3, 2004, Meeting 

Page 4

recommendations for Navajo and for Flaming Gorge and they’re about to be developed for Aspinall. 

Every one of those flow recommendations assumes that a natural hydrograph is the desirable 

hydrograph for the fish and assumes that conditions are close to normal for the fish. In Glen Canyon, 

that’s not the way it is being operated. The document would also need to address that particular issue 

because there is a movement to incorporate what’s going on in Grand Canyon into a recovery 

program for humpback chub. 

Carl said from a statistical experimental design point of view, there are two strategic choices: (1) a 

progressive experiment or titration experiment, or (2) something that mixes up treatments, turning 

them on and off so they can be cross compared under different conditions. He referred to one of 

Susan Hueftle’s pictures of a temperature below the dam against lake elevation so as the reservoir 

was filling, the water going into the intakes was warm water (surface water), the dam gets filled up but 

only cold water makes it down to the inlets. The lake level has fallen over the last several years and 

is likely to continue to fall. Susan’s prediction is the water will start warming and very possible cold be 

warmed up to 15-16° this summer. 

Carl said there are a range of alternatives and that range is defined by two things: progressive 

treatment or trying to cross compare treatments so turning off mechanical removal from a scientific 

point of view is intended to help determine whether the effects seen were due to temperatures and 

warm water or to the mechanical removal. He said the next step would be to look at what the 

treatment sequences possibly are and the options and see if anything stands out as being the 

preferred choice by the TWG. 

Lee said that power is only on for 2005-2008 but in 2009-2013, Carl has it on for part of the year but is 

offsetting it with the fall steady flows. Bill Persons said he needed a better definition of what the 

options are. Lee agreed and said they need to start by defining what they mean by power and how 

things are going to work and what options are available. 

Carl said the biggest source of confusion and lack of consensus is not knowing about the power 

option. There are two very different definitions. He thought they were talking about 12 months of load 

following with some restrictions on minimum and maximum flows and ramping. There has been two 

years of something approaching that, 3 months of load following early in the year and then MLFF 

through the remainder of the year. Carl said the power option would remove most of the restrictions. 

Lee said what they were originally trying to do with the two tables was to present two different 

designs, a titration one and a factorial one. The next step is to determine which design makes the 

most sense. 

Carl said the big difference is that the titration design saves money by stopping the adding of costs to 

mitigation at the earliest possible time but it only works if there are weird long-term flow changes, etc. 

Choosing between the two types of designs is a matter of deciding on whether the risk of getting the 

results confused with climate change is an acceptable risk. If it is, then the titration design is better. 

He said another alternative is to throw everything in and then start subtracting treatments. 

Dave Garrett (SAB) asked if they could get sufficient scientific data given the variance in the system 

to realistically assess impacts and whether a specific impact could be separated out and assigned a 

realistic statistical assessment so a cause could be identified. Carl said that from the standpoint of 

the Endangered Species Act, in order that the HBC population will be concluded as being recovered, 

the adult recruitment has to about double from what it is today. He said the methods being used can 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Minutes of February 2-3, 2004, Meeting 

Page 5

detect the doubling and also if recovery has occurred. He said whether they can separate the effects 

of different factors depends on how the treatments are arranged. 

Referring to the titration design (below), Carl said that assuming the water gets warmer by the amount 

in mid-summer that the TCD is likely to be able to generate, then the mechanical removal design in 

already in place. There is a question as to whether or not to move the power operation towards more 

months of fluctuating flows. An obvious thing to do would be to start an experiment with the 

summer/fall steady flows. Carl said if the plan was to shut down mechanical removal for at least a 

couple of years, they would have a declining effect but they would have at least one chance to 

observe the effect of the fall steady flows with probably no mechanical removal. 

Month Disadvantage Boatman Rec. Boating Kill Trout 

Jan 3 to 30 3 to 30 5 to 20 

Feb 3 to 30 3 to 30 5 to 20 

Mar 3 to 30 3 to 30 5 to 20 

Apr 3 to 30 3 to 30 MLFF 

May 3 to 30 MLFF MLFF 

Jun 3 to 30 MLFF MLFF 

Jul 3 to 30 MLFF MLFF 

Aug 3 to 30 MLLF MLFF 

Sep 3 to 30 3 to 30 MLFF 

Oct 3 to 30 3 to 30 MLFF 

Nov 3 to 30 3 to 30 MLFF 

Dec 3 to 30 3 to 30 MLFF 

Dennis recommended the TWG concentrate on 04 and 05 because the AMWG meets in March and if 

they’re going to recommend any changes in the near term, it would have to be at that meeting. He 

fears that by the end of the day the TWG won’t have developed a recommendation to give to the 

AMWG. 

Josh said that if fluctuating flows provide more positive resource conditions for native fish, for 

sediment, and probably for riparian and marsh vegetation, as well as disadvantage non-native fish, 

then they are a positive attribute of the system. The fact that they may also produce hydroelectric 

benefit is almost secondary to the other resources. 

Ted said that power was their attempt to use data provided by Clark Burbidge (WAPA) to estimate the 

cost vs. the benefit from what they call power max, which approximates how the diurnal operation is 

released from the dam. 

Lee suggested the TWG look at how to redefine it constructively. It is a fluctuating flow regime that 

will have benefit for some of the ecological resources. There are probably several ways to define it 

and that any of them are going to have benefits for power relative to a really super constrained one. 

The focus should be to think about it from the standpoint of resources. 

Dennis said he wants to make sure there is a commitment to document the information in writing. He 

referred to the Upper Basin Recovery Program where hydroelectric facilities are being constrained 

just as they are in Glen Canyon under the assumption that there is a benefit to native fish, the same 

native fish by and large as are in Grand Canyon. 

The chairman said an issue before the TWG is going to be what their recommendation to the AMWG 

is going to be with regard to the 04 and 05 experimental program. He asked the group what they 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Minutes of February 2-3, 2004, Meeting 

Page 6

thought they could recommend to the AMWG given that there may be higher water temperatures in 04 

and 05. He asked if the TWG should continue with the existing experimental design that is in place 

for 04 or suggest to the AMWG that for 05 they continue with what GCMRC had already proposed in 

their 16-year plan. He asked GCMRC what they would recommend doing in 04 and 05. Ted said that 

because they had identified that the sediment paradigm of the EIS doesn’t work the way it was hoped 

for, and the AMWG directed them initially to look at this as a sediment experiment, and the fact that 

they had major inputs from the Paria in 1997-99, and 2000, and were ineffective at either studying 

them experimentally or managing those inputs, their feeling is that if they get an input in 2004 that 

there has to be a follow through with trying to manage it in the January time frame to rebuild bar 

habitats. Throwing out the option of having a low fall flow in 04 doesn’t seem to be a defendable 

option from his perspective. If they were allowed to choose a scenario whereby they get 2 million tons 

of sediment in September from the Paria and decided in advance to forego experimentally trying to 

manage those inputs, that would be hard to justify to anyone. They would have a BHBF component 

for testing in 04 and probably in 05 if it doesn’t occur in 04, but they are not making a formal 

recommendation until they better understand what the TWG wants from today’s meeting. 

Ted said that based on the discussions he has heard, it seemed like a relaxation of the constraints for 

diurnal operations in other months besides just January thru March might warrant further discussion 

and maybe a formal recommendation. Ted said there was clear consensus from some meetings that 

5-20 was sort of a good attempt. The original proposal for the fish for January thru March was 

actually 5-25 and then that was curtailed back to 5-20. Some people are saying now that for sediment 

transport in the months of Jun-Jul-Aug, it would be better doing 3 to 30 even though it sounds kind of 

crazy to limit export than sticking with the ROD constraints where they can never go below 10,000 cfs 

for 3 months. 

Comments: 

• The sediment part hasn’t taken place so what we have done is two good years. (Davis) 

• If we think about 04 and what’s left to do in 04, we’ve already gotten agreement that if we get a sediment 

input, we are going to low steady fall flows with steady 8,000 and 6,500-9,000 fluctuations. The easiest way 

to deal with this is to decide whether that’s all you want to do for 04 or is there an alternative to invoke those 

low steady flows and evaluate sediment transport and potential effects of temperature and the low flows on 

backwater habitats this fall, irrespective of whether we get enough sediment input to trigger the flows. 

We’ve just barely begun the second year of the mechanical removal of non-native fish control effort and it 

was our position in the beginning when we proposed doing that for 4 years was we really didn’t know how 

intensive that effort would have to be in order to reduce the presumed predator level down to a level where 

they would no longer be having a detrimental effect on HBC. I don’t think that we know the answer to that 

and it would be premature to cut off the mechanical removal effort even though I don’t disagree with Carl 

said that there is going to be a couple of years after it is stopped before those levels come back. I don’t 

think right now we know whether we’ve achieved a steady state or whether we’re going to have to continue 

to be able to reduce that predator population over the course of 2 years, 3 years, 4 years. If it’s the case 

after 2 years and we know we can’t seemingly reduce to a lower level, then that in effect becomes the 

mechanical removal treatment then albeit that stays the way it is and we can make decisions there but don’t 

think we shouldn’t make those decisions at this point in time. The first thing to decide is whether anyone 

wants to change next fall to a steady flow regime in light of the possible warmer water and test those other 

things or if they just want to leave it the same and do what we did last year. (Gloss) 

• My thinking is in line with what Steve was saying that 04 would remain the same with the one question being 

since we do have warmer temperatures coming, that it would be very interesting to have the comparison in 

the autumn of flat flows versus 6,500-9,000 which is something we’ve already agreed with if we get the 

sediment trigger. A consideration would be whether to do it anyway but to concentrate on the response of 

native fish rather than on sediment. The second thing is what would we advocate in 05 for the winter flows 

and I would advocate that since we’ve already made a transition this year, we would stay with the same 

winter fluctuations (Jan-Mar) that we have this year in 05. (Kubly) 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Minutes of February 2-3, 2004, Meeting 

Page 7

• There is the issue of treatment consistency vs. meeting the objective of the Jan-Mar time frame. If it was to 

reduce the trout and we figured out a better way to do that, should we mess up our nice experiment and 

keep it the way it was even though we know it’s an inefficient way to get there or should we try to change it 

because our real objective of this lever we’re pulling now is to reduce trout to save native fish? If we find a 

better way to do it, let’s do it. (Korman) 

Dennis asked what the estimate of the number of trout, age 2+ in the Lees Ferry Reach. Josh said it 

was probably 80,000 – 140,000. Dennis then asked what the management objective was. Josh said 

it was 100,000. Dennis said we may there and asked if the objective was to continue to drive the trout 

population down or to meet the management objective and stay there. He asked if they were ready to 

start stocking if the numbers continue to drop and whether NPS and the FWS would support. 

• Dave said that anytime you have a long-term science program, you have to stay true to a monitoring or 

science effort that needs multiple years. The science advisors recommended it then and because of some 

of the things that Susan has found that possibly several levers could be pulled to see if in 2 or 3 years you 

can get that impact. (Garrett) 

• The TWG just went through a lengthy discussion to extend the treatment by 2 hours and even contemplated 

going to a whole other month. It seems to me that we should stay with we have right now because of all the 

problems with compliance issues. (Davis) 

• The difficulty with what Carl is proposing in the recreation boating column (below) is that the MLFF in July 

and August will be the two highest volume months of the year. Water will have to be taken out of Sep-Dec 

to get the flat flows, backed up in July and August, and are going to be constrained by MLFF and that is 

going to be the highest sediment transport months of the whole year which violates the very thing the 

sediment people are saying not to do in the highest months of the year. (Cook) 

Carl added the last column. 

Month Disadvantage 

Boatman 

Rec. Boating Kill Trout Screw Carl 

Jan 3 to 30 3 to 30 5 to 20 8 steady 

Feb 3 to 30 3 to 30 5 to 20 8 steady 

Mar 3 to 30 3 to 30 5 to 20 8 steady 

Apr 3 to 30 3 to 30 MLFF 8 steady 

May 3 to 30 3 to 30 MLFF 8 steady 

Jun 3 to 30 MLFF MLFF 8 steady 

Jul 3 to 30 MLFF MLFF 8 steady 

Aug 3 to 30 MLFF MLFF 8 steady 

Sep 3 to 30 3 to 30 MLFF 8 steady 

Oct 3 to 30 3 to 30 MLFF 8 steady 

Nov 3 to 30 3 to 30 MLFF 8 steady 

Dec 3 to 30 3 to 30 MLFF 8 steady 

• One of the biggest concerns in terms of this whole adaptive management frame is that it keeps adjusting 

and switching from year to year. The chub are still declining. What would be gained by switching the 

experiment mid-way? (Kloeppel) 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Minutes of February 2-3, 2004, Meeting 

Page 8

Lee said that since people are coming around to another option, essentially reverse tritration which is 

to do everything at once, then they should take advantage of the temperature opportunity that is 

coming, and think about removing or slightly modifying the treatments. 

• It’s sort of absent a formal MATA process although to some extent I think this group had already gotten 

there in December. What you have is an opportunity to make a decision about next fall for 04. What Carl 

has put on the table is basically the next factorial design for what could be the following two years in 05 and 

06 to do the fluctuating flows during the first three-quarters of the year with low steady flows in the fall that 

would accommodate testing some of the temperature hypotheses and whether to continue with mechanical 

removal. I think the decision about that can probably await this year’s data coming in. One of the things we 

said about mechanical removal at the onset was that no matter what else we did, it was possible that the 

effects of the predation by salmonids around the LCR might preclude our ability to detect any effect on 

native fish so it may be the case that mechanical removal could be part of the standard operating procedure 

for this program even while we test some of these other factorial elements. Carl has laid out a very 

plausible and defensible alternative to go the fluctuating flows for the first eight months of the year, followed 

by flat flows in the fall. (Gloss) 

• If you remember our discussions when we identified how we were going to treat the budget and work plans, 

we said we know we can’t come up with something big and new in 05 and 06 is really our jump off year. I 

would advocate that we largely stay the course through 05 and stick with that in 06 and beyond as when we 

can move into a long-term plan. I think as far as process goes, I’d recommend the TWG constitute a motion 

and then look at the calendar.. (Kubly)

Carl presented another design, a reverse titration factorial design - it’s a factorial design that starts 

with combining mechanical removal of the fall steady flows and hopefully some warm water from the 

outside for the next 2-3 years. It would then stop mechanical removal and try to use a thermal regime 

management which may work just as well as mechanical removal. The TCD might come on line by 

that time and interrupt the design. It would also deliberately leave out mechanical removal for a short 

period of time. This could be a test combination to determine if you could get rid of the most 

expensive part of the treatment and try a low flow steady in that period. 

• Flat flows right now with the edges on the dam, 8000 cfs is good for about 320 megawatts, about 40 

megawatts for 1000 cfs. If you can drop it to 6,000 cfs at night, you drop 320 down to 240 so that’s 80 

megawatts of “extra” power that you don’t need at night. You move some of that back into the daytime so 

that the 320 goes up to 360. You’re shifting the generation of that much. (Greiner) 

• I’m against steady flows no matter what. I think the fish will have more food to eat under the 6000-9000 

than they will have under 8,000 cfs. I don’t want to see steady 8,000 cfs for any period of time. Although if 

it’s necessary for maybe Sept to help the HBC, it would just be a small detriment and might be worth it. 

(Steffen) 

• I would like to see the actions by month. (Kubly) 

 

 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Minutes of February 2-3, 2004, Meeting 

Page 9

 

Carl created another table: 

Month Disadvantage 

Boatman 

Rec. Boating Kill Trout Screw Carl 

Jan 3 to 30 5 to 20 5 to 20 8 steady 

Feb 3 to 30 5 to 20 5 to 20 8 steady 

Mar 3 to 30 5 to 20 5 to 20 8 steady 

Apr 3 to 30 5 to 20 MLFF 8 steady 

May 3 to 30 MLFF MLFF 8 steady 

Jun 3 to 30 MLFF MLFF 8 steady 

Jul 3 to 30 MLFF MLFF 8 steady 

Aug 3 to 30 MLFF MLFF 8 steady 

Sep FSF FSF MLFF 8 steady 

Oct FSF FSF MLFF 8 steady 

Nov FSF MFSF MLFF 8 steady 

Dec FSF MFSF MLFF 8 steady 

• How can we support MLFF in July and August? I cannot support that and I don’t think the sand heads can 

either. I want to see 5-25. (Cook) 

Month Disadvantage 

Boatman 

Rec. Boating Kill Trout Screw Carl 

Jan 5 to 20 5 to 20 5 to 20 8 steady 

Feb 5 to 20 5 to 20 5 to 20 8 steady 

Mar 5 to 20 5 to 20 5 to 20 8 steady 

Apr 5 to 20 5 to 20 MLFF 8 steady 

May 5 to 20 MLFF MLFF 8 steady 

Jun 5 to 20 MLFF MLFF 8 steady 

Jul 5 to 20 5 to 20 MLFF 8 steady 

Aug 5 to 20 5 to 20 MLFF 8 steady 

Sep FSF FSF MLFF 8 steady 

Oct FSF FSF MLFF 8 steady 

Nov FSF MFSF MLFF 8 steady 

Dec FSF MFSF MLFF 8 steady 

• The GCRG can’t support unrestricted load following fluctuations outside the Record of Decision. If you do 

go to these high fluctuations during the summer months, I think it’s a prime opportunity to crank up the 

engine on the public outreach program because there is going to be a backlash of outcry that after all the 

years of this program, we’re going right back to where we started to high fluctuating flows. There is going to 

have to be some public outreach to explain very carefully the reasons why we’re going back to these things. 

(Kaplinski) 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Minutes of February 2-3, 2004, Meeting 

Page 10

• Aren’t we in the middle of a 4-year experiment? I’m unsure as to why we’re talking about doing something 

different than what we have up there right now. (Knowles) 

The chairman said there are possibly two motions to consider, one is to stay the course with the 

existing experiment or to make some modifications. He asked how many members would support 

modifying the experiment. 

• Are we going to decide on those changes today? I would like some input from GCMRC. I have their Plan 

A. I haven’t seen their Plan B. They gave me a 16-year science plan two years ago and we’re 2 years into 

that experiment and I feel a little bit rushed. I thought I was here at a MATA workshop and now I realize that 

maybe I’m making a recommendation to the AMWG for the next 16 years. (Persons) 

• We could of course continue the existing Jan –Mar fluctuations including what we just agreed to without any 

additional compliance. We could have the fall fluctuating and steady flows back to back which we would 

have under a sediment trigger without any additional compliance. There are some things here that can be 

done that we’ve already covered. If we go beyond those parameters, then we’re talking about additional 

compliance. (Kubly) 

• I could paraphrase a motion that somebody could make. If you were to just change the last month of FY04 

water year to go to flat 8,000 and 6,500-9,000, irrespective of sediment then just deal with water year 05 

and say that you’re going to do flat flows for the first 4 months irrespective of sediment inputs and then do 

fluctuating flows the other 8 months. You would be there. It seems to me if there is an argument that the 

recreational boaters want to make, they’re quickly going to find themselves as the primary advocate for 

sediment conservation arguing that they would rather have flows of convenience than flows that we know 

will sustain the sediment resource better than fluctuating flows. If they want to be there, then let them be 

there. (Gloss) 

Dennis said he thought Steve was arguing for a bigger deviation than what was just said. He said 

people may have trouble following what was said without being able to see it a calendar and 

identifying what will happen. Steve made changes on the table. 

Josh cautioned that there is going be opposition because like the EIS concluded this is a big 

departure and the TWG hasn’t seen the first report from the first experiment yet. 

Dennis said he was very uncomfortable with making major modifications to 05 because they already 

have a budget and a set of work plans that are going to be presented to the AMWG in March. He 

cautioned that there is no recommendation for 05 so there is nothing to change. The AMWG didn’t 

agree to more than 2 years. 

• The question you have to ask yourself is it the right thing to do. If it’s the right thing to do, then spend that 

$80,000. If it’s not the right thing to do, then don’t do it. Everyone seems to agree that we need to be doing 

this. (Garrett) 

The chairman said they tried to summarize the existing design in the first two columns: mechanical 

control and the flow proposed without sediment and the flow with sediment for the existing 

experiment. He referenced Steve’s suggested changes - changing from fluctuating flows to steady 

flows in the Oct-Nov-Dec range and then fluctuating flows through the Aug-Sep or April through 

August. He said another proposal was from Dennis to basically go with the existing experiment only 

institute a low flow with or without the sediment trigger. This would be a minor change from the 

existing one and this would be a little more radical as far as the changes go. 

Steve said the only other caveat he would throw in is that he doesn’t think there is enough water in 05 

to meet an 8.23 maf year so there isn’t enough water to sustain the 5-25 range for 8 months so there 

would have to be some negotiation. He went on to say that absent any new information, it’s the best 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Minutes of February 2-3, 2004, Meeting 

Page 11

possible flow scenario to retain sediment absent going to a steady flow below 10,000 cfs year round. 

It’s the absolute best flow scenario to retain the sediment in the system. It has potential but 

undemonstrated positive impacts on HBC and that’s based on the fact that HBC were in better 

condition when they left this kind of flow regime back in the 70s and 80s than they have been in the 

90s since starting modifying low fluctuating flows. The same pertains to the trout fishery. The trout 

fishery was a blue ribbon, world class fishery in the late 70’s and 80s and maybe the early 90s but 

has not been as good in recent years. He thinks the riparian vegetation with fluctuating flows is likely 

to see less erosion in the beach areas and things like that. He feels, irrespective of power generation, 

this would be the most positive scenario that could be created now for all the resources. 

• We need to do the science to answer that question once and for all. (Cook) 

• I understand that we’re doing it so we can have warmer water in the back waters this September in 

particular. (Steffen) 

• If going to fluctuating flows is a good idea, how come we’re waiting until next year and not implementing it in 

April? Continuing in April? (Christensen) 

• I didn’t expect to come here and make a recommendation to the AMWG today on something like this. Could 

we get a report or something? Can we postpone this and get an analysis of this? I’m just not comfortable. 

(Knowles) 

• I’ve tried to stay with the existing design as much as I can. I’ve tried to address Bill’s questions about 

increasing temperatures which theoretically could be instituted in September not October of 04, warmer 

temperatures, additional studies, monitoring and research, to address what are the effects on target 

resources during that period of time in both 04 and 05. If you set the trigger off in 04 and not 05, you would 

have Sep-Oct of both years. I’ve tried to keep the impact on hydropower and minimize in the autumn by 

only going to the 6500-9000 and 8000 switch during Sept and Oct and not all 4 months unless you get the 

sediment trigger which is already agreed to. I appreciate Matt’s comments on perception. I think they’re 

very real and my last one is I don’t know what I would write for 5-25 because I don’t think we have 

convinced the world that large fluctuations during the summer time, which was a primary concern of the 

FWS and the EIS, have a beneficial impact on native fish, particularly on HBC. (Kubly) 

The chairman advised that if a recommendation isn’t made, they would have to until July to be able to 

put together a proposal on what to do for the 04 and 05 so it doesn’t leave a whole lot of time to make 

any changes. He said the TWG could reconvene sometime between now and the June mailout to 

revise the proposal again or try to get something to them by March setting the stage for what is being 

planned for 04 and 05. 

• As uncomfortable as this is, I think what we argue for is the relevance of the TWG if we don’t have a flow 

recommendation or an experimental recommendation for March along with its budget and work plans. 

(Kubly) 

• I think one of the most important things that we can do, the change in here, is take advantage of the low 

flows/high temperatures in the fall. It’s important to be able to assess those temperatures. I would support 

going ahead with these minor changes and moving ahead with the recommendation. (Kaplinski) 

• If you want us to make recommendations to the AMWG, put it on the agenda. I’m not happy coming to 

these meetings and passing recommendations up to the AMWG without at least maybe having a package to 

look at, having some time to think about it. (Persons) 

• We might think about that a little bit different. Our purpose is to come here and talk about experimental 

flows and to sort our way through that experimental flow activity. Having to go through that and obviously 

focusing on the next 2 years because we didn’t have one. I don’t think it’s out of character for us to say we 

spent time at the MATA Workshop, have had discussions, and this is where we are. (Cook) 

• I think what you would be recommending to the AMWG in March is this concept in principle and I think there 

are a lot of issues that would have to be developed in the context of the experimental plan that would 

probably be subject to final approval in July and then subject to compliance after that. I see this as resulting 

potentially in an AMWG motion much like the one that was passed in January 2001 directing GCMRC and 

TWG to come forward with fleshed out experimental plan to conserve sediment for FY05 (Gloss)
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Minutes of February 2-3, 2004, Meeting 

Page 12

The TWG used the following table to propose a motion: 

05 FLOW SCENARIOS CONSIDERED BY THE TWG 

Calendar / 

Fiscal Year 

GCMRC 

16 -Year 

Conceptual Plan 

Proposal 1 Proposal 2 Mech 

Removal EHF 

Oct 04 / WY 05 MLFF/FSFa FSF(begin Sep 04) FSF (begin Sep 04) 

Nov MLFF/FSF FSF/FF MLFF/FSF 

Dec MLFF FF MLFF/FSF 

Jan MLFF FF PNNF Yes Yes 

Feb MLFF FF PNNF Yes 

Mar MLFF FF PNFF Yes 

Apr MLFF FF MLFF 

May MLFF FF MLFF 

Jun MLFF FF MLFF 

Jul MLFF FF MLFF Yes 

Aug MLFF FF MLFF Yes 

Sep MLFF/FSF FSF FSF Yes 

Vote No Vote Yes = 10, No = 8, ab = 1 Yes = 6, No= 9, ab = 1 

 MLFF (see EIS; actual flow varies but never fluctuates more than 8k daily) 

 

 FSF = Fall steady flow of alternating 8 kcfs for two weeks and 6-9 kcfs for two weeks 

 FF = Fluctuating daily for of 5-25 kcfs sufficient to release monthly volume 

 PNNF = Power and Non-native Flows = 5-20,000 cfs as in FY04 

 EHF = Experimental High Flow of 42-45,000 cfs that would occur in all scenarios if autumn sediment trigger occurs. 

 Mech Rem = Mechanical removal that would take place under all alternatives 

a

MLFF if no sed trigger, FSF if sed trigger 

MOTION: Move to accept Proposal 1 and be prepared to report that to AMWG as to where 

we’re at in the MATA process and get their blessing to continue to move forward to flesh that 

out and get final approval. 

Motion seconded. 

Discussion. 

Call for the question. 

Voting Results: Yes = 10 No = 8 Abstaining = 1 

MOTION. Move to adopt Proposal #2 as a recommendation to AMWG for 04 and 05, endorse 

the concept. 

Motion seconded. 

Discussion. 

Call for the question. 

Voting results: Yes = 6 No = 9 Abstaining = 1 

The chairman asked if anyone wanted to make a motion for staying with the existing program. Bill 

Persons said he would. However, there wasn’t a quorum so it was decided to continue the discussion 

at tomorrow’s meeting. 

Adjourned: 5:20 p.m. 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Minutes of February 2-3, 2004, Meeting 

Page 13

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Meeting Minutes 

February 3, 2004 

Conducting Norm Henderson, Chairman 

Committee Members Present: 

Mary Barger, WAPA 

Perri Benemelis, ADWR 

Kerry Christensen, Hualapai Tribe 

Wayne Cook, UCRC 

Jonathan Damp, Pueblo of Zuni 

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 

Dennis Kubly, USBR 

Bill Persons, AGFD 

John Ritenour, NPS/GLCA 

Mark Steffen, Federation of Fly Fishers 

Mike Yeatts, The Hopi Tribe 

Committee Members Absent: 

Robert Begay, Navajo Nation 

Perri Benemelis, ADWR 

Illa Bulletts, So. Paiute Consortium 

Jonathan Damp, Pueblo of Zuni 

Phil Lehr, Colo. River Commission/NV 

D. Randolph Seaholm, CWCB 

John Shields, WY State Engineer’s Office 

Larry Stevens, Grand Canyon Wildlands Council 

John Whipple, NM Interstate Stream Commission 

Alternates Present: For: 

Jan Balsom Ken McMullen, NPS/GRCA 

Marklyn Chee Robert Begay, Navajo Nation 

Heidi Kloeppel/Max Oelschlaeger Larry Stevens, GC Wildlands Council 

Wayne Cook John Shields, WY State Engineer’s Office 

Wayne Cook John Whipple, NM Interstate Stream Comm. 

Interested Persons: 

Gary Burton, WAPA 

Kurt Dongoske, CREDA 

Helen Fairley, USGS/GCMRC 

Dave and Pam Garrett, M3Research 

Steve Gloss, USGS/GCMRC 

Lisa Leap, NPS/GRCA 

Mike Liszewski, USGS/GCMRC 

Jeff Lovich, USGS/GMCRC 

Ron Maldonado, NNHPD 

Ted Melis, USGS/GCMRC 

Meeting Recorder: Linda Whetton 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Minutes of February 2-3, 2004, Meeting 

Page 14

Convened: 8:15 a.m. 

Welcome and Administrative Items. The chairman welcomed the members, alternates, and 

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

(Attachment 1) distributed. 

Status of the FY05 Budget. The chairman asked if any of the members had comments on the FY 05 

Budget. He noted that the TWG recommended Column G, the okays in there were to signify that 

there was consensus on that particular budget item. If there was a footnote or a superscript and it’s 

superscript 5, that was to indicate that there wasn’t consensus on that particular budget item and that 

a vote was taken. Apparently that didn’t get reflected in that superscript 5 on the last page and the 

chairman said he thought there were only 3 or 4 items that were like that but that all of them did pass 

and were recommended but were not by consensus. 

Public Outreach Ad Hoc Group (POAHG) Update – Amy Heuslein reported that at the last TWG 

meeting, the POAHG was formed and tasked with developing some options for planning and 

implementing a public outreach strategy in the adaptive management program. She and Pam Hyde 

were designated as co-chairs along with the following members: Marklyn Chee, Andre Potochnik, 

John Shields, Mark Steffen, and Mike Yeatts. The group held their first meeting via a conference call 

on January 21, 2004, with the goal of determining the target audiences for public outreach, the 

message that needed to be conveyed, possible tools to be used, and who should develop and/or 

implement the outreach plan. She distributed copies of their report (Attachment 5). 

Comments: 

• Some AMWG members may not like some of the work farmed out to an outside public relations firm. There 

is enough in-house expertise to do the work. My AMWG representative felt that public outreach was an 

AMWG function, not a TWG task. (Persons) 

• Consider using the Trinity River AMP pamphlet as a guide for describing the GCD AMP. (Kaplinski) 

• The fastest way to get the AMWG to react is to produce something. Not sure about a PR firm but identify to 

the AMWG a proposal for a brochure. (Kubly) 

• Need something that is a real short historic view of the program and then expand the effort. (Steffen) 

MOTION: Move the TWG accept the recommendations of the POAHG and forward their 

recommendations to the AMWG. 

Motion seconded. 

Discussion. 

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

Motion passes. 

Humpback Chub Comprehensive Plan – Dennis said that following the AMWG meeting in August in 

which they passed the HBC Comprehensive Plan as a working document, they also identified the 

need to solicit additional input from the TWG and other parties. They didn’t specifically say to finalize 

that document but they interpreted it that way. He talked to Sam Spiller about that and over the 

Christmas holidays there were two new proposals that were drafted, one on non-native stocking and 

the other on monitoring of parasites along with some revisions on some of the other projects. The 

thought was to finalize the document more in the form of a recovery document, submit it to the 

AMWG, and ask them whether they would be willing to move it as a recommended document up to 

the Secretary and over to the FWS to serve as a foundation for a recovery program for HBC in the 

Grand Canyon. In March, Sam Spiller would make a presentation to the AMWG seeking their 

concurrence that this is the appropriate thing to do and then by mid-April, there would be revised 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Minutes of February 2-3, 2004, Meeting 

Page 15

document that would then be reviewed by the HBC AHG first and by the TWG second, before it would 

be resubmitted to the AMWG by mid-June for their mid-July meeting. He said there has been a 

discussion that the cover letter would make very clear to the Secretary and the FWS that the AMP 

does not take responsibility nor does it have the authority to address all the projects and that those 

decisions would be made within the AMWG through the budget process and in discussions between 

the AMP members and FWS as such time that document was actually incorporated into a recovery 

program. 

Continuation of Experimental Flow Discussion. The chairman asked if the TWG had completed 

their discussion on the experimental flow proposals from yesterday or whether they wanted to discuss 

further. As a result of the motions passed yesterday, he said there wasn’t a clear recommendation 

from the TWG on what to do. If nothing is done as far as the existing experiment is concerned, then 

they basically fall back to the remainder of what had been approved by the AMWG for the current 

experiment. In 04, they would continue with the experiment because that’s the second year, but in 05 

they would discontinue the mechanical removal and move back to meeting low fluctuating flows but 

would still have the potential for a sediment trigger. He said they could go to the AMWG and clarify 

whether it was their intent to adopt the whole 16-year program or to stop everything after 2 years if no 

approval is given. He asked if there any members who would like to pursue a continuation of the 

existing experiment within the 16-year program. 

• My understanding of the way it was set up was the AMWG approved 2 years of a treatment because they 

wanted to find out how well that treatment worked, get the science back from it, and then make a 

recommendation for the next 2 years. I think we have some timing problems with that and don’t have the 

preliminary results from the first year and we need to make a recommendation for years 3 and 4 of the 

adaptive management experiment. I’m not sure that we’ve gotten all the science back in yet and I suspect 

we’ll hear from the AMWG. Obviously they have to do something or we have to do something. I thought 

yesterday we had sort of agreed to endorse some concepts and continue to explore some alternative flow 

regimes to carry forward this as an adaptive management treatment and I’m not sure where that leaves us. 

My impression is that there are two concurrent parts that you’re talking about, one was the fluctuating flows 

and that that 2-year portion is basically done and the other part was the sediment part and we haven’t had 

that so that 2 year part has yet to be done so those two parts were approved and we’ve done part of it but 

we haven’t done the other part of it, the mechanical removal stuff. It seems those have already been 

approved. (Persons) 

• Can we make a recommendation that the TWG make recommendations to continue the program of 

experimental flows in 04, and then recommend some of these individual elements, and also recommend 

continuation of the mechanical removal. We could probably get consensus on that. One thing we talked 

about yesterday that I think at the time there was consensus was that in 04 we have an opportunity to learn 

a lot about higher temperature outputs from the dam and there was a proposal to go into the fall with sort of 

a new experiment of fall steady flows to exacerbate or maximize the warming from those high temperature 

outputs from the dam so that would be another aspect of a recommendation to recommend mechanical 

removal be continued and that the fall steady flow be implemented to look at the temperature effects. I 

guess we can keep going until we run into something that we can’t agree on. (Kaplinski) 

• I thought the temperature was time limited. There was some discussion whether or not that would extend 

beyond September, some disagreement. (Greiner)

 

The chairman recorded the following concerns: 

Continue with experiment in FY05 

Continue with mechanical removal 

FSF (to take advantage of temperature) in Sep/Oct (continue down ______ (?) 

and the current sediment experiment for a hydrologic trigger. 

FFs/MLFF (A-S) 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Minutes of February 2-3, 2004, Meeting 

Page 16

• I thought I heard Carl say that the mechanical removal might be effective if we just do it for 2 years and then 

just because of the way it works we may not have to do it for 3 years or 4 years to see a 4-year effect. I 

would like some feedback from GCMRC on whether that sounds like a good approach. It was new to me 

yesterday. I would like to hear what the science has to say about that before we say keep on the course or 

discontinue. (Persons) 

Ted said when they first put together the so-called factorial or blocked strategy 2 years ago, they put 

forward the 4 years as their recommendation. In evaluating their plan, Carl said there were some 

momentum effects that he hadn’t considered when they first met with him. So if you propose it for 4 

consecutive years, you can’t really get to the benefit of doing the factorial until year 7 at the earliest 

and probably years 8 for basically the full effects of that treatment is off. If you do it for 2 years in a 

row but not 4, Carl thinks in year 5 you’re basically beyond that treatment so there’s this lag or 

momentum because of the life history of the fish. Ted said the question for the TWG to consider is 

whether they want to forego having the ability to look at the controlled strategy for basically almost a 

decade or start getting at that question as early as year 5. 

Dennis asked what the relative risks of overshooting or undershooting were - of having a greater 

impact on predators that are impacting HBC or having a lesser effect by truncating the experiment 

earlier. Ted said in the case of the fluctuating flow treatment which is being done simultaneously, they 

only proposed 2 consecutive years and then basically backed off. The idea was to back off on the 

fluctuating flow treatment and continue the mechanical removal, but that it would be 8 years before 

they could determine whether the fluctuating flow or the mechanical removal had any impact at all or 

which treatment was more effective. 

The chairman asked for the Center’s recommendation. Jeff said their recommendation is to continue 

with the 16-year experimental design. If the AMP wants a good, strong signal, they’re going to have 

to invest the effort into doing long-term studies. 

The chairman asked if there was a strong objection for continuing the mechanical removal in 05? 

Steve said his recollection was that after the first 3 months last year, they achieved about an 88% 

reduction in the numbers in the control reach. When they went back in the summer, the numbers had 

come back to about 50% of the original population estimate. The last two trips in the fall were not 

very successful because they had highly turbid conditions so they had achieved something less than 

the original reduction and the expanded experimental reach by the end of the last fall. It was his 

understanding that the trip that just came off the water about a week ago, the first trip in 04, they had 

encountered trout densities in the control reach that were about half of the densities they found in the 

first year so they’re back up so there is some movement, some re-colonization. How successful 

they’ll be at controlling that and when or if they reach a steady stage and situation where additional 

control efforts don’t seem to be reducing the population anymore is still an open question in his mind. 

He thinks Carl made a good point as far as this is either momentum or lag effort but you just can’t turn 

this off like a light switch, it takes some time for the salmonid population to come back to its original 

density so that you can say that that treatment is no longer an effect but they don’t yet know whether 

this treatment is effective at all in terms of the target for HBC. They know that it has been effective so 

some extent in reducing trout numbers but there has always been a question about how much do you 

have to reduce the number of trout to get them down to a level where they are not effective through 

predation and possible competition survival for the HBC and they don’t know the answer to that – 10% 

of the fish that are left in there might be real happy, big trout that are eating as many chubs as 

anybody was before. 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Minutes of February 2-3, 2004, Meeting 

Page 17

Dennis said he has talked with Jeff about having a meeting the last week in February to discuss what 

it is they need to do for the temperature rise, what studies are planned for, and what money is 

invested in those studies. Jeff added that GCMRC would like to flesh out those needs and make sure 

they’re responding to the information that is wanted. They are collecting water temperatures now 

through the downstream integrated water quality program but whether or not they’re going to do it in 

the backwaters is one of those questions they’re asking. Dennis said that any TWG members who 

wanted to participate in that meeting would be welcome. 

The chairman asked if there was any objection to recommending a change to the current experiment 

to implement FSF to take advantage of the temperature in Sep-Oct that is expected out of the dam - 2 

weeks of steady 8,000, 2 weeks of 6,500-9,000 cfs, and that might be further modified if there is a 

sediment trigger. Is there any strong objection to recommending to the AMWG this change be made 

in the current experiment for 05? There were no objections noted. 

The chairman asked if they want to continue with the current sediment experiment and if there is a 

trigger, then the flows would be dropped and they would do a BHBF at the appropriate time. 

• Shouldn’t we try to figure whether we can move non-sediment up on the beach and all the costs that that 

incurs? If we devoid the sediment out of the system by the way we’ve operated through all the time and 

science has been telling us and we’re unwilling to embrace, what does it takes to stop that? Why should 

some of us support testing whether or not we can move non-sediment up on the beach? (Cook) 

• One of the main points from the memo science from the sediment scientists was that the only way that you 

can conserve sediment in the long-term is to take advantage of these inputs and temporarily deposit those 

up high out of the water. (Kaplinski) 

The chairman asked if the members could reach consensus on whether to continue with the current 

sediment experiment: If there is a hydrologic trigger in the late summer-fall, would they continue with 

that piece of it in 05? He asked for any objections. Three members raised their hands so the 

Chairman said the issue would be put to a vote. He asked if anyone wanted to present a motion. He 

added there might be a procedural problem because they have already approved this and if they were 

going to change, they would have to go back and change the whole budget. It was decided to leave 

this issue alone and move on to the other proposal whether to recommend a change here to 

implement fluctuating flows in these months, 5-25 vs. MLFF. 

Dennis asked Ted to explain what the effect of adding the 5,000 on top of the 20,000 would be. 

Ted said the component the TWG was talking about is not included in their original plan for year 3. 

They just do MLFF so that’s a departure from the continued experiment as proposed. Going to 

25,000 has the potential of exacerbating the export of beyond the 5-20 but 5-25 was originally 

considered by their team as the preferred fluctuating flow treatment for fish and said this was a bit 

confusing to explain. They advocated in year 3 not doing an experimental fluctuating flow treatment 

for fish as part of the blocked strategy, continuing mechanical removal, backed off to just MLFF in all 

months except if there is a sediment trigger. This is a proposal that transcends their current 

recommendation from 2 years ago in their plan. The basic message is if you want to limit export, 

keep the flows as low as possible as much of the time as possible. The more time you spend higher in 

any month or any day, the more you’re going to exacerbate transport. 

Ted added there was some very preliminary evidence from Josh Korman’s work that you were trying 

to make life miserable on salmonids and their reproductive cycle, that having this extend through April 

and May probably would achieve that more effectively than just Jan-Mar. He said the whole 

experiment was designed around trying to disadvantage salmondis in their recruitment and not around 

any sediment transport issue, 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Minutes of February 2-3, 2004, Meeting 

Page 18

• We’ve already agreed to change the September flows, right, fall steady flows beginning in September of 04 

so there is one small change in the experimental design and I’m sensitive to that too but in the spirit of 

compromise, I can see continuing with the flows we’ve agreed on and even just modified in this 

supplemental EA and FONSI that is now released and will start tomorrow morning and to try to address 

Bill’s concerns by having these FSF which would occur in a period of time that was already agreed upon if 

there was a sediment trigger but doing that with or without. All I’m trying to portray to you is my mindset in 

trying to come to a compromise that had a small modification of the experimental design and then the other 

proposal is a greater departure. (Kubly) 

• Why should we try to figure out how we move sediment on the beach? If we devoid the sediment out of the 

system, and the scientists have said, why should some of us support that? Huge costs have been incurred 

by the public. We’ve taken energy out of December. The question is: Do we continue? (Cook) 

The members continued to discuss the experimental action proposals. 

The chairman said the concerns were with the fluctuating flows vs. the MLFF for the April-Sep 

timeframe vs. the other two concepts. He asked what the sense of the group was. 

• I originally voted against that new experiment, Proposal 1, because I wasn’t quite sure what the purpose 

was for it and fundamentally changing the experiment in year 3 or 4. The more I thought about it, I think 

what we’re actually doing here is not trying to develop a flow experiment per se but what we’ve recognized 

is that the monitoring leading up to and including parts of the experiment is showing us that MLFF isn’t the 

best way at least for sediment conservation to operate when we’re not doing some kind of a treatment. It’s 

almost easier to fundamentally decouple the specific treatment that at least in this 16-year plan were initially 

targeted to FIST resources and then what we go to when we’re not doing one of those treatments. If you 

look at them across up there, the treatments are pretty much the same. It’s what we go when we’re not 

doing a treatment and so potentially maybe what we need to do is outside of those treatments is go to 

AMWG with a recommendation ultimately to go to the Secretary that MLFF isn’t the best way to operate for 

the base conditions and do that is one recommendation, that concept of higher fluctuations may be better 

for the long-term sediment preservation and then deal with the specifics of the fish flows in the winter and 

things like that and that is the overlap on top of the different base line. I’m still uncomfortable designing 

those flows in the course of one meeting without the science center looking at the ramifications of a longterm experimental design and I think the MATA workshop showed that we need to think out that long-term 

experiment but what to me is the issue is what we’re going to back when we’re not doing some treatment 

within the experiment and that’s come out of the long-term monitoring. (Yeatts) 

• I’d like to look at both years at the same time. I don’t want to make a radical change in 05 and then go back 

and look at the 16-year plan and say whoops, we shouldn’t have done that in 05. It doesn’t fit within our 

monitoring plan. (Persons) 

• One of the things that Mike said that really catches my attention is that we need some formal statement that 

MLFF is not working. That statement doesn’t exist as a formal statement from the TWG nor does the 

document that would justify that statement exist. If we feel strongly that that’s the case, maybe there is a 

good argument for getting on with it. (Kubly) 

• The other thing is the latest SCORE report doesn’t exist yet and I’d like to get one out this year. That’s my 

intent but the information is still there. We presented it to you at the science symposium, Ted’s given you 

his best judgments on what’s going to happen of you increase the flow rates, so it’s not like there is going to 

be some mystery that’s going to be revealed in the score report. It’s just going to gather together the state 

of knowledge that we have but I think you have the information you need to make the judgment. The issue 

is that science is a very deliberate process and it requires a long-term commitment to a rigid experimental 

design to really get at the issues that you think are important. Opportunity is not deliberate, things like the 

lower lake levels, the increase of water temperature, now that provides with an opportunity. So that’s where 

the attention is here in this group but I would still say that we have a plan before you that is a good well 

designed experiment and we would advocate continuing along those lines but if you want to change, then 

you have to decide. If you’re going to have your science in little bits and pieces without the long enough 

duration to have adequate sample size or adequate replication in the experimental design, or whatever, it’s 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Minutes of February 2-3, 2004, Meeting 

Page 19

a choice you folks have to make. We’d be forced to bite off science in little chunks for you. We’re trying to 

answer some big questions of this experiment and it’s been compromised by the WAPA flows proposal, it 

could be potentially compromised by a new direction for 05, and talking about 06 and beyond, it would be 

compromised again so at what point are you willing to say, look we need to protect the science, park it off 

the side, wait for the results, and then we’ll make the big changes. (Lovich)

The chairman asked if the group wanted to move on to getting the current sediment experiment 

trigger aspect of the experiment resolved within the TWG. He asked if there were any strong 

objections? 

• I said it before and I’ll say it again that I think the states have a very great concern that we continue to incur 

the costs and the difficulties preparing for those experiments. (Cook) 

The chairman said he was mistaken on yesterday’s voting and that the vote on Proposal 1 (Yes-11, 

No=8, and Abstaining=1) was a majority recommendation. He thought a quorum vote (16 members) 

was required on a yes vote but that is not the case. So in essence, the TWG already made a 

recommendation to the AMWG. 

• Can I get a re-read of the language that was used for that vote. I think I asked for some clarification. I 

thought we were voting on endorsing a concept, not that we’re going to recommend this monthly pattern of 

flows. I’m confused. (Persons) 

• We all agreed it was a concept that we were proposing. It wasn’t that we want to do this. (Barger) 

• I would like to make this request that we get the MLFF report from the GCMRC. It will be a really important 

component in the compliance that will have to be done on these flows. (Kubly)

MOTION: Propose GCMRC produce an evaluation of the effects of the MLFF operation since it 

was instituted for the same resources that were considered in the EIS. 

Motion seconded. 

Without objection, the motion passed. 

Dennis reminded the members that they need to make a recommendation on whether MATA will be 

the process used to achieve development of the experimental actions that they’re going to build into 

this long-term plan or go back and build an experimental flow ad hoc group. The chairman asked the 

group what they wanted to do. It was decided to reconstitute the Experimental Flow Ad Hoc Group for 

that purpose. Dennis said there is a difference in having the full TWG engaged in a process vs. 

having it go to an ad hoc group. The chairman said it was a resolution that the TWG would 

recommend to the AMWG that we pursue and experimental action plan with GCMRC for 06 and 

beyond utilizing the MATA process. 

Dennis said that was not the original intent. The group will have to look at the fall steady flows and 

ask whether there is money to measure them. He said the dam operations experiment is one of the 

projects that was funded and its intent was not originally to fund MATA. They did that because they 

didn’t have fall steady flows. He said there’s enough money to cover that from somewhere else but 

he doesn’t feel comfortable agreeing up front that MATA is used to replace that experiment. 

The chairman asked if the TWG should meet again prior to the March 3-4 AMWG Meeting. Dennis 

advised that Reclamation can’t schedule any more meetings without having them published in the 

Federal Register 15 days prior to each meeting and that it takes approximately 30 days to get that 

accomplished. 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Minutes of February 2-3, 2004, Meeting 

Page 20

Strategic Plan – Jeff Lovich said he is going to move forward very quickly to develop a strategic plan. 

He talked about the various documents that would be produced (Attachment 6a) and proposed a 

timeline (Attachment 6b) for how the work will be completed. 

• I have a concern with your statement regarding the public outreach and in your comment that we’re going to 

go forward whether it’s with the AMP or not. The Center was created based on this AMP program and you 

work with the AMWG and TWG regarding this issue so I caution you to jump out ahead on public outreach 

without getting that issue resolved and agreed to by the AMWG and the TWG membership. (Heuslein) 

• I’m representing Grand Canyon Wildlands Council. I share that concern. I think there are some issues 

here. I think GCMRC has incredible responsibilities and it’s crucially important to the adaptive management 

program. I’m not sure that we’re not entering problems of fuzzy sets here as to what the role and scope of 

the GCMRC ought to be. Just to underscore the point that Amy made, it says here in the Final EIS that 

GCMRC is supposed to support the designee and the AMWG and all the language is developing, 

monitoring, and research plans, managing all adaptive management research programs, managing all data 

collections. I’m not sure what you’ve laid out is entirely consistent with that. (Oelschlaeger) 

Core Monitoring – Jeff continued with a PowerPoint presentation on core monitoring (Attachment 

7a) and also how he would implement the Study Plan requirement for GCMRC (Attachment 7b). 

• We’ve had various ad hoc groups deal with specific subject areas - fish, foodbase, etc., in terms of 

developing the information needs. You may have some difficulty in terms of trying to develop core 

monitoring. In other words, what should we be doing here and there for sediment vs. fish vs. riparian, from 

a small ad hoc group. You may not have the background to be able to do that. You may have to wind up 

with different groups so maybe the ad hoc just changes flavor from time to time. You may have trouble 

having 6-7 people representing all of those disciplines. (Davis) 

• You talked about the emphasis on core monitoring and you have other monitoring going on outside of the 

core monitoring which would then take another part of that 40-60% of our budget. Other kind of monitoring 

vs. research if you will, the breakdown between those issues is important to some of us. (Cook) 

• Core monitoring is essential but I’m concerned about the lessons of other agencies that have practiced core 

monitoring and disaster has fallen upon them. I’m concerned that we don’t see that here and we may be 

monitoring at this smaller scale when larger scale issues need to be taken into consideration as well. I’m 

also concerned and you don’t directly address this but there seems to be an assumption of linearity here 

and some sort of inherent meanfulness and I’m wondering if this system is not profoundly chaotic in that 

there is much to be learned in terms of our monitoring by taking catastrophe theory, chaos theory, and the 

like into consideration as we set up our monitoring protocols. And the third comment I want to make is one 

sense this is techno-speak which is fine but it seems to me that you need to take into consideration also in 

this core monitoring program the communicative issues that are raised, communicating this information not 

only to managers but to publics who ultimately who are funding the entire enterprise so to speak. I realize 

the power companies but there are public communication issues here that I think need to be addressed in 

this as well. (Oelschlaeger) 

• Maybe a secondary way of addressing some of this information. I’m reminded that BLM came to us a few 

months ago and they had sediment conservation project in a tributary to the Paria River and they came in 

front of certain program members and were told we can’t support that because we’re trying to see as much 

sediment make it into Grand Canyon as possible. And when I heard that, I went no way, that’s not a 

position the Bureau of Reclamation will take. So there are other sources of information coming from other 

activities and they don’t necessarily have to be generated in the program but I do think we tend to treat as a 

linear system because of those funding constraints and then not look outside for other sources. (Kubly) 

• I have to give you a little bit of concern I’m having. When we first started out with GCMRC, it was basically a 

contracting entity with coordinated research done by others. It now seems to be in a transition wherein a lot 

of the research is going to be done by your own scientists and I have some difficulty with that. From the 

standpoint of you proposing work plans, study plans, budgets, etc. which are supposed to be objective and 

all of that to meet goals, and how you can actually do that when you’re promoting your own scientists to do 

the work. There is a little bit of a conflict there and I’m just trying to get through that. (Davis) 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Minutes of February 2-3, 2004, Meeting 

Page 21

• Why is there a need for a separate review study plan process for GCMRC employees in addition to the one 

that is already there for any other contractor, cooperator, why isn’t there one? Why do we need another one 

now on top of what’s already there? (Kaplinski) 

• Do you have any idea what the calendar would be like? You’re talking about the time AMWG decides on a 

budget then you would start your plan, right? How long would it take to write this? If the decision is made 

to contract, can you get it done in that fiscal year? (Kubly) 

• One of the things that keeps sort of complicating things for us at Grand Canyon is that give and take 

between the proposal and then what happens in the field, and the reviews that come back. There needs to 

be some sort of that cross polinization so we can get to a proposal that meets with the Park’s requirements 

as well. There needs to be within the study plan a review process letting the Park’s review process come 

into the peer review and also the peer review get back to the park personnel who are reviewing it. (Balsom) 

• You might want to include a park representative as one of the peer reviewers and also have several cultural 

people from outside reviewing the study plan. I’m also concerned about how this impacts the budgeting 

process. I think this is great for a post-budget kind of process where you’re doing peer review and giving us 

more information but it seems like the difficulty with the budgeting process was with not having enough 

detail on the proposed studies in advance and not having it early enough. (Force) 

• I was wondering about having on the signature line for Helen Fairley whether to determine if the National 

Historic Preservation Act requirements are being linked to the study plan. The permitting by the Park is 

different because they’re technically the lead federal agency by law. If they set up the project and it’s their 

project, they should do the NHPA and the park would then ask that they do it. (Barger)

ACTION ITEM: Linda will post Jeff’s PowerPoint presentations to the AMP web site. The TWG 

should send their comments to Jeff. 

Dennis said there is a lot of work that needs to be done by next January: working out the details on 

the proposed experimental action, the TCD science plan, the SCORE Report, etc. and wondered how 

everything is going to get done. Amy suggested that Jeff, Dennis, Norm, and Dave (and possibly 

bring in Mike Gabaldon) work together in preparing a timeline for when products are needed and the 

provide a calendar to the rest of the TWG. 

ACTION ITEM: Jeff, Dennis, Norm, and Dave will discuss timeline issues and report back to the 

TWG via an e-mail message from the TWG Chairman. 

Dennis reiterated that people have consistently assumed that the core monitoring plan is the thing to 

do. He would like to elevate the discussion to a combination of research and monitoring in general be 

it effects monitoring. It’s very important for the USBR to identify establish cause and effect 

relationships in addition to monitoring the status and trends of key resources. There has to be a 

component here that is guaranteed that addresses cause and effects, vis a vis and core monitoring 

doesn’t get you there. There have been two strategic plans developed by GCMRC, this is not black 

and white situation. Not that I advocate for this but people can make this argument that there are 

existing documents in place. We can struggle along. This doesn’t have to be the highest priority. 

inconsistent. The strategic plan drives those issues logically. 

The TWG developed a new ad hoc group to assist the GCMRC in developing their core monitoring 

program. 

Title: Core Monitoring AHG (CMAHG)

Charge: To work with GCMRC on development of the core monitoring plan 

Membership: All TWG Members

Interim Lead: Jeff Lovich. He will set up the first meeting. A chair will be selected. 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Minutes of February 2-3, 2004, Meeting 

Page 22

Reminder to TWG members: Fax notices (and copies of e-mail messages) to Amy Heuslein since 

she is still without e-mail/Internet access. 

Next TWG Meeting: March 30-31. 

Location: ADWR Conference Room A 

Possible Agenda Items: 

• Assist GCMRC in planning assignments 

• Budget outyear process 

• Experimental flows – several issues/updates 

• Review of draft core monitoring plan 

Adjourned: 3:10 p.m. 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Minutes of February 2-3, 2004, Meeting 

Page 23

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 Multi-Species 

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 - United States 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)