Technical Work Group

February 13, 2001

Phoenix, Arizona

Presiding: Rick Johnson, Chairperson FINAL

Committee Members Present:

Cliff Barrett, UAMPS Pamela Hyde, Southwest Rivers

Robert Begay, Navajo Nation Matt Kaplinski, GCRG

Perri Benemelis, ADWR Robert King, UDWR

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

Dave Cohen, Trout Unlimited Don Metz, USFWS

Wayne Cook, UCRC Bill Persons, AGFD

Jonathan Damp, Pueblo of Zuni Randall Peterson, USBR

William Davis, CREDA Nikolai Ramsey, GCT

Kurt Dongoske, The Hopi Tribe D. Randolph Seaholm, CWCB

Brenda Drye, So. Paiute Consortium John Shields, WY State Engineers Ofc.

Amy Heuslein, BIA

Nancy Hornewer, USGS

Committee Members Absent:

Christopher Harris, CRBC S. Clayton Palmer, WAPA

Norm Henderson, GLCA Robert Winfree, GRCA

Alternates Present:

Gary Burton S. Clayton Palmer, WAPA

Janet Balsom Robert Winfree, GRCA

Other Interested Persons Present:

Mary Barger, WAPA Linda Jalbert, GRCA

Paul Barrett, USFWS Dennis Kubly, USBR

Nancy Coulam, USBR Lisa Leap, GRCA

Denny Fenn, USGS Tom Lincoln, USBR-Denver

Andrew Gilmore, USBR Mary Orton, The Mary Orton Company

Barry Gold, USGS Jim Ruane, REMI

Susan Hueftle, GCMRC Bill Vernieu, GCMRC

Loretta Jackson, Hualapai Tribe

Recorder: Linda Whetton, USBR
GCD Technical Work Group

Minutes of Feb. 13-14, 2001 Meeting

Page 2

Meeting Opening and Adminstrative Items

Convened: 9:40 a.m.

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. Clayton will send a copy of the Draft LSSF Report to Barry Gold and Randy Peterson - Not done.

2. Randy reported that since the TWG is not a FACA chartered group there isn’t a problem 

restricting access to the web discussion forum to just TWG members, which is the preference of the

TWG members. Given that, he suggested the GCMRC set up a discussion forum on a web site for

TWG members and alternates. Barry said a discussion forum web site has been set up and instructions

will be provided later today.

3. Bill Davis reported the definition for “operational flexibility” was provided to Randy Peterson. 

Randy said the SP Ad Hoc Committee revised the definition and could bring a copy to tomorrow’s

meeting.

4. Dennis Kubly reported that suggestions from last month’s meeting were incorporated into

communication diagram and will be presented later today.

MOTION: Move to approve the Dec. 7-8, 2000, Meeting Minutes

Motion seconded and carried.

MOTION: Move to approve the January 9-10, 2000, Meeting Minutes

Motion seconded.

Edits noted. Linda will make corrections.

Without objection, minutes were approved pending corrections.

Strategic Plan: (Attachment 2) Mary Orton informed the TWG that the revision they are reviewing

today is the same document that was used in December, which was before any small group

recommendations, comments, or input from the TWG, (in black). All the changes that the Ad Hoc

Committee made to the document based on the small groups’ input, TWG input, both at the December
GCD Technical Work Group

Minutes of Feb. 13-14, 2001 Meeting

Page 3

Meeting and at the last meeting and also any comments received from TWG members and alternates,

are shown in redline. There is also a third set of redline changes which are pointed out in the cover

memo. The AMWG changes that they actually voted on are not redlined as they had already been

approved. In January, they went through the MOs and the ones they were okay with are shaded. 

Today’s discussion will focus on Goal 6, Goals 8-12, proposed AMWG changes, and a discussion on

a revised riparian issue paper. 

Mary informed the TWG that at the next meeting in March, a clean document will be presented for the

TWG’s recommendation to the AMWG in April. 

Randy presented the revised riparian issue paper (Attachment 3). He said the issue paper resulted

from the discussion at the last TWG meeting regarding the nature of Goal 6 and how various riparian

resources were balanced against each other. After the last AMWG meeting, the AMWG provided

comments and direction on how they felt Goal 6 should be addressed, particularly with respect to all of

the riparian zones being important. He and Rick Johnson rewrote a brief narrative issue paper on how

they expected to approach the issue of riparian vegetation in the canyon. They sought comments from

the AHC but only received some editorial changes. He explained the thinking behind each paragraph

and asked for comments.

There was a suggestion to delete the word “the” before OHWZ and NHWZ and a discussion

surrounding the confusion in using the term “bare sand beach community” versus “sand beach

community.” Rick said that where bare sand beach is used, the intent was sand beach community as it

was used in the EIS. 

The Strategic Plan was then reviewed page by page and comments were recorded on flip charts

(Attachment 4) and will be incorporated in the next iteration. Additional comments and edits should be

sent to Mary. Her new web address is: mary@maryorton.com

River Trip Update: Barry passed out several documents related to the river trip: TWG River Trip

Activities (Attachment 5), TWG River Trip Gear List (Attachment 6), and a TWG River Trip Itinerary

(Attachment 7). He reviewed the time frames and would also like to involve the tribes in preparing the

agenda to identify any places they feel should be visited or other cultural issues which need to be

addressed. He said approximately 22 members/ alternates have committed to the trip. He has also

asked for participation from the Solicitor’s Office, from the Assistant Secretary’s office, from the

Commissioner’s Office of the Bureau of Reclamation, and from the GCMRC. The trip will require the

use of three boats. Barry asked the members to look at the handouts and e-mail him with any

comments. Barry said this is intended to be a “working trip” and they are trying to bring 2-3 facilitators

on the trip.
GCD Technical Work Group

Minutes of Feb. 13-14, 2001 Meeting

Page 4

ACTION: TWG members to mail questions/comments regarding the upcoming river trip to Barry.

Mary said the trip will focus on: 1) reviewing and revising the Strategic Plan, 2) preparing a final draft

version of the Vision Narrative, and 3) having additional technical discussions which will feed into the 

narrative primarily but potentially also into the Strategic Plan. In the evenings, the groups will present

what they did on the river to the whole group and attempt to get consensus with the entire group. The

areas of discussion are those accounted for on the draft itinerary and most of those stops are on the first

part of the trip (upper half) so the plan would be to work on the Strategic Plan first. 

Integrated Water Quality Program PEP Review. Barbara Ralston introduced Jim Ruane who was

the chairman of the Protocol Review Panel that reviewed the Water Quality Program. The review took

place the end of November and beginning of December 2000 and included a visit up on Lake Powell

as well as the dam, and then a trip down to Lees Ferry. Jim’s background is environmental

engineering. He used to work for the Tennessee Valley Authority so is very familiar with large reservoir

systems. He is also a modeler and is familiar with the CEQual modeling programs that are used to look

at reservoir dynamics. He is currently retired and works as a consultant. Some of the other members

included Bob Kennedy and John Nesler who were from the Corps of Engineers, Dale Robertson with

USGS, Jeff Schaldow who is at the University of California at Davis and Jack Jones who is at the

University of Missouri. 

Jim said there was a diverse group of people on the panel and reviewed the individual qualifications. 

He said there was an extensive paper trail and they were not able to review everything. Barbara and

the others at the GCMRC provided them with a lot of information and an overview of the program. 

Their report is based on what they did review. He proceeded with a PowerPoint presentation

(Attachment 8). 

ACTION: Barry will provide a copy of the IWQP Report to all TWG members and alternates.

AMP Process Diagrams. Dennis Kubly referred to the two diagrams included in the meeting packet

and a set of questions (Attachment 9) that were e-mailed to the members/alternates. He said he

wanted to provide a bit of background on the process. In several instances they have discovered that

they don’t really understand the lines of communication within the Adaptive Management Program and

some people think there are ways to improve it but first we have to understand how it operates. He

tried to put together what the network looks like but that is only step 1. Step 2 is to actually go through

and ask ourselves Do we have all the entities here? If not, what should be added? Where should

they be placed? And to what other entities should they be connected? The second question on the

communication diagram was Do all entities in each box communicate with all entities to which

they’re connected in other boxes and do they do so in the same manner? The third one was to

actually do a little diagnosis. Do we have examples of these communication linkages that we have
GCD Technical Work Group

Minutes of Feb. 13-14, 2001 Meeting

Page 5

experienced already? Are they working well? If not, what are ways we might improve them? His

first thought was that we would agree on the way it is and then we would move to the way we think it

should be changed to make it better. 

TWG comments/questions:

- some tribes may fit into the “other experts box.” (example: the Havasupai tribe) 

- are communication lines open between scientists ?

- communicating results of monitoring and research, is it filtered through GCMRC?

- process is a great mechanism for getting information to the public in an unfiltered form 

- need for regular technical presentations at TWG meetings

- consider expanding process to other programs

- improving TWG’s access to GCMRC specialists?

- need for feedback loop to PEP panel/chairperson 

- consider next diagram for consultation under ESA and NHPA

In reference to the PEP process diagram, Barry pointed out that the PEP process was adopted on the

basis of a previously established protocol. There is a prospectus that describes the protocol evaluation

process and it was on the basis of that document that an agreement was reached to use PEPs as the

means of reviewing the programs. He cautioned that before the TWG heads too far, it look at that

document so everyone is clear on what we had intended when we started this process. The way

GCMRC would proceed right now would be to have Barbara, Bill, and Susan take the IWQP PEP

recommendations and evaluate what changes should be made to their workplan and draft a new

workplan to respond to those recommendations. Does there need to be an intermediate step of the

TWG responding to the report in terms of what recommendations we should accept? Barry said he

would like to work with Dennis on the PEP diagram. 

ACTION: Barry will assist Dennis in another iteration of the PEP diagram using the IWQP PEP as an

example. They will present results at the next TWG meeting.

Stock Assessment Workshop - Barbara Ralston reported that a year ago the GCMRC stated they

were going to temporarily discontinue much of the native fish field work and look at all the data and

really assess what’s going on downstream so that we can get a good native fish monitoring program. 

Between that time and the present, we’ve had steady flows as well as some analysis of historic data. 

One of the elements associated with this was Carl Walters coming down and giving a workshop on

stock assessment techniques. The four-day workshop was held in Flagstaff in December 11-15, 2000,

with the purpose of familiarizing the fisheries workers with stock assessment techniques, the basic

principles behind it, looking at the historic data in a stock assessment context, and then looking at those

results in terms of what needed to be done for monitoring for fish. Barbara presented several
GCD Technical Work Group

Minutes of Feb. 13-14, 2001 Meeting

Page 6

overheads (Attachment 10) as part of her presentation.

The main index of fish population status derived from the stock assessment is recruitment rate. For

humpback chub, the index can be calculated approximately 2 years after initial marking of individuals,

or at about 3 years of age. Stock assessment will also be used for rainbow trout and, if feasible,

flannelmouth and bluehead sucker.

TWG-AMWG Discussion Forum. Barry passed out the instructions for using the discussion forum

(Attachment 11). He said there have already been some topics put on: Narrative Writing Group,

Strategic Planning Ad Hoc Group. The instructions should allow the members and alternates to log on. 

If there isn’t a topic for the group the member wants, the member can create that topic and start his/her

own discussion thread. It’s fairly self-explanatory. 

Conceptual Modeling / Science Symposium - Barry provided copies of the activities planned for the

AMP Science Week (Attachment 12) and reviewed the individual days. He asked for a count of those

members planning to attend and it is his intent to get computers for everyone so they can have a “hands

on” learning experience. Barry will also send an e-mail message confirming attendance.

Adjourn: 4:20 p.m.
GCD Technical Work Group

Minutes of Feb. 13-14, 2001 Meeting

Page 7

Technical Work Group

February 14, 2001

Phoenix, Arizona

Presiding: Rick Johnson, Chairperson FINAL 

Committee Members Present:

Cliff Barrett, UAMPS Pamela Hyde, Southwest Rivers

Robert Begay, Navajo Nation Matt Kaplinski, GCRG

Perri Benemelis, ADWR Robert King, UDWR

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

Dave Cohen, Trout Unlimited Don Metz, USFWS

Wayne Cook, UCRC Bill Persons, AGFD

Jonathan Damp, Pueblo of Zuni Randall Peterson, USBR

William Davis, CREDA Nikolai Ramsey, GCT

Kurt Dongoske, The Hopi Tribe D. Randolph Seaholm, CWCB

Brenda Drye, So. Paiute Consortium John Shields, WY State Engineers Ofc.

Amy Heuslein, BIA

Nancy Hornewer, USGS

Committee Members Absent:

Christopher Harris, CRBC S. Clayton Palmer, WAPA

Norm Henderson, GLCA Robert Winfree, GRCA

Alternates Present:

Gary Burton S. Clayton Palmer, WAPA

Janet Balsom Robert Winfree, GRCA

Other Interested Persons Present:

Mary Barger, WAPA Linda Jalbert, GRCA

Paul Barrett, USFWS Dennis Kubly, USBR

Nancy Coulam, USBR Lisa Leap, GRCA

Andrew Gilmore, USBR Tom Lincoln, USBR-Denver

Loretta Jackson, Hualapai Tribe Barbara Ralston, GCMRC
GCD Technical Work Group

Minutes of Feb. 13-14, 2001 Meeting

Page 8

Recorder: Linda Whetton, USBR
GCD Technical Work Group

Minutes of Feb. 13-14, 2001 Meeting

Page 9

Meeting Opening and Adminstrative Items

Convened: 8:05 a.m.

Agenda Items:

Gary Burton said he placed map directions to the WAPA Desert Southwest Office on the back table. 

No arrangements were made for vans and asked people to coordinate amongst themselves for a ride. 

Legislative Updates. 

AMWG Charter and Memberships. Randy reported that the AMWG Charter was signed on January

10, 2001. The AMWG memberships expired on Feb. 4, 2001. As part of the transition program of

the Bush administration, they are taking a look at everything including all existing committees and

FACA committees as well. Those membership renewals are on hold pending outcome of that review. 

The letters have been prepared and are awaiting the Secretary’s approval. Once they’re signed, Randy

will let the TWG know.

AMWG Recommendations. Randy said that after the last AMWG meeting, he drafted a letter on

behalf of the Secretary’s Designee to the Secretary transmitting the AMWG recommendations and the

recommendation from the Designee that the Secretary accept those recommendations. That letter is in

the process of being finalized and will most likely be sent out this week. A copy will be sent to all the

assistant secretaries, agency heads, and all the AMWG members. 

ACTION: Randy will provide a copy of the Secretary Designee’s letter to the Secretary of the Interior

with recommendations from the last AMWG meeting (Jan. 11-12, 2001) to the TWG at the next

meeting in March.

Tribal Funding. A letter has been drafted for the signature of the Assistant Secretary of Policy,

Management and Budget billing the other Interior agencies for their share of 2001 tribal consultation

funding. The letter has not been sent yet as PMB is still in discussions with each of the various agencies

regarding their willingess to participate in this revenue contribution. 

Sec. 105 - Use of Federal Facilities. (Attachment 13). This is not yet part of the official Congressional

record but Senator Murkowski (Chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee) is

seeking comments on this draft legislation. Reclamation wasn’t quite sure how far this language would

go in terms of potential changes in GCD operation but it is basically asking the Corps of Engineers,

Dept. of Energy, and Interior to take a look at existing Federal facilities to see how generation could be

increased at those facilities. 
GCD Technical Work Group

Minutes of Feb. 13-14, 2001 Meeting

Page 10

Experimental Flow Fund. Randy reported that there is an agreement between WAPA, CREDA, and

Reclamation regarding how power revenues in the CRSP Basin Fund are managed. The agreement is

several years old but basically covers the transfer of funds from the Basin Fund to WAPA and

Reclamation to operate the CRSP reservoir system. As a spinoff of that original agreement, a onepage protocol for the use of those funds was drafted (Attachment 14). Basically, it said that there is no

carry over of personnel funds, you’re expected to live within your budget, and if you don’t spend all the

money that you’ve been given this quarter of the year, next quarter your request will be reduced

accordingly. Reclamation has modified that agreement and established an experimental flow fund

(Attachment 15). This fund will be funded from power revenues within the power revenue cap for this

program and there is provision within this agreement and also in Reclamation’s 2003 budget to carry

over money in this fund, basically building up the fund to a point where experimental flow research

could be funded. By increasing the flexibility of using AMP revenue dollars and allowing money to be

transferred from personnel funds to contracting line items, and between GCMRC and Reclamation,

science activities could be also be increased. There is no backwards transfer from science work into

personnel. Randy said it was his intent to have this as an agenda item for the next AMWG meeting.

Basin Hydrology. Andrew Gilmore distributed copies of a graph depicting the Colorado River Basin

Precipitation (Attachment 16a). Currently in the basin it is about 85% of average for the water year

thus far. The snow map (Attachment 16b) indicates trends are very much from north to south, the

north part being drier. The Upper Green has only about 66-67% of average snowpack. The San Juan

is 100% of average. Currently we are at 80% of average on snowpack. The February 1st forecast

was for 6.8 maf, 83% of average April-July inflow. A chart was shown describing the minimum,

maximum, most probable operations at GCD (Attachment 16c). The most probable release is about

8.7 - 8.8 maf for the current water year, so we have about 500,000 acre-feet of release above an 8.23

maf release year. ROD flows are planned except for a space in early June where we’ll be doing some

aerial photography, 6.5 days at steady 12,800 cfs release.

This led to a discussion regarding doing aerial photography at 12,800 cfs. Randy said there was a need

for an extended period of aerial photography to try and make up for last year’s failed effort to collect

the LIDAR information. The results of the contract last year, while promising, turned out not to be

within the specifications. Errors were as much as 1-2 meters in the X-Y plane and as much as 1.5

meters in the vertical plane. GCMRC believes a new contractor can get it right this time, that’s why a

week of time is needed instead of the three to four days that are typically released as steady flows for

aerial photography. 

The power rates for that time period are expected to be about $400/megawatt hour on-peak which is

about 20 times the normal rate. In proposing a release of 12,800 cfs, we are trying to minimize the

economic impact. Concerns were expressed about not following our protocols which have either been
GCD Technical Work Group

Minutes of Feb. 13-14, 2001 Meeting

Page 11

8,000 steady or 15,000 steady. If it’s a low release year, we release 8,000 cfs. If it’s a medium to

high year, we release 15,000 cfs. This being a low release year, we would theoretically release 8,000

cfs, but that would cut the on-peak releases back substantially and require a lot of external purchases to

fill in that gap. TWG members listed a number of questions relating to the proposed photography

(Attachment 17).

Randy stated that the GCMRC has about 30 days before issuing the contract. He will contact Barry

and relay the questions to him, that there is a lot of discomfort about the 12,800 level, and ask him to

post answers to those questions on the TWG discussion forum and let members respond to that

explanation.

ACTION: Randy will provide the TWG list of questions surrounding the proposal to conduct LIDAR

aerial photography to the GCMRC. Mike Liszewski will post the questions to the TWG discussion

forum website so the TWG can discuss their concerns.

Interim Surplus Guidelines. Randy passed out five graphs from the Interim Surplus Criteria FEIS

(Attachment 18). This is the third presentation on this. Jayne Harkins gave a very thorough

presentation last fall on what the expected impacts would be prior to the release of the Final EIS. The

first graph is historic Lake Powell elevations to give a sense about how the other remaining future

projections relate to what we’ve seen in the past 25 years. The second graph shows projected Lake

Powell elevations into the future for the next 50 years. Of course, no one knows what the future holds

and so we make some statistical or probablistic statements about what we would expect. Those

statements are based on what we have measured and seen for the last 100 years. We used the concept

of traces into the future for different possibilities, different orderings of historic hydrology. All those

alternatives were examined as future projections were evaluated. With 90 different possible traces, you

can make statistical ranking at each time slice.

Probably the curve of most concern is the probable minimum curve, and it shows a downward declining

trend. The primary cause of this downward declining trend in Lake Powell elevation is that upper basin

depletions are expected to increase. Depletions have increased in the past and are projected to

continue to increase in the future. There are very few new federal water projects that are going to

contribute to that increase, most of it comes from population growth and increasing demand from

existing infrastructure. As a result of that, the inflow into Lake Powell is expected to decrease in the

future and a result of decreased inflow is lower lake levels since the requirements for lower basin

deliveries remain the same as present. One thing that happens in the Colorado is that despite these

significant droughts that severely draw down Lake Powell elevations, there is also just as often cyclic

high flow periods which restore the lake level.

The decision that Secretary Babbitt made on which alternative to select was based on an investigation
GCD Technical Work Group

Minutes of Feb. 13-14, 2001 Meeting

Page 12

of how these curves differ. Referring to the second page, for all the six alternatives the Dept. looked at,

they were all relatively close together. There was not an extreme amount of differences although there

were differences between the curves. In the more conservative surplus delivery strategies to California

and the lower basin, the reservoir would be slightly higher than in the more liberal surplus strategies. In

the future, now that the ROD has been signed and some of the additional California environmental

compliance efforts are underway, as soon as this is implemented, there will be specific guidelines or

criteria under which these surplus conditions will be determined for the Lower Basin.

The third page speaks to how much variability there is within each of these individual traces. These

three traces explain to some degree the concept of a reservoir staying relatively full and being drawn

down significantly. Trace 20, for example, shows how even year to year there can be tremendous

changes in Lake Powell elevation even when the general climate trend over many years is dry. 

Page 4 show the probabilities that BHBF’s would be triggered. The EIS segments the next 50 years

into two separate time periods, the period that the interim surplus guidelines are in effect the next 15

years and then the ensuing 35 years after that. As a result of the surplus guidelines, there is a decrease

in the near term from 15.9% to 14.8% of the probability that a BHBF would occur in any given year.

Page 5 shows the probability of 8.23 maf release years. There is some confusion here with respect to

what these numbers mean, especially in meeting the terms of the Fish and Wildlife Service Biological

Opinion. That is a correct conclusion. In the near term, because we’re starting with a full reservoir, the

likelihood of an 8.23 maf release year right now is about 38.2%. As we go through time over the next

50 years, the increased likelihood that Lake Powell will be drawn down will increase the probability of

these 8.23 maf release years occurring up to over 60%. So when taken in total for the next 50 years,

our prediction is about half the time is indeed correct. In the near term it won’t be as frequent, farther

out it will be more frequent than half the time.

John Shields referred to the presentation made yesterday by Jim Ruane and stated the information Mr.

Ruane had about the interim surplus operating criteria and the operations under them was in error. John

said he hopes that information is corrected before the report is finalized. Secondly, he feels everyone

should realize that the interim surplus operating criteria are absolutely essential from the standpoint of

their keeping peace on the river, truly an historic event in the history of the Colorado River. 

Randy stated that the Department, as it concluded this administration’s efforts, also opened discussions

to some extent on flows to the Delta as well. There has been a conceptual minute drafted with the

country of Mexico by the State Department which talks about working cooperatively together on the

Delta issue. 

TCD Expert Panel Workshop Report. Dennis Kubly reported that he TCD Workshop was held on
GCD Technical Work Group

Minutes of Feb. 13-14, 2001 Meeting

Page 13

January 22-24, 2001, at the Saguaro Lake Ranch in Mesa, Arizona. He presented some preliminary

information (Attachment 19) and said a more complete report will be given at the TWG meeting in

March. One of the agenda items of the workshop was to move forward with the development of a

research and monitoring plan to discuss the effects of the TCD if it was constructed and operated. 

They quickly realized that you can’t divorce hydrology and temperature. At some point if you’re

manipulating hydrology, you’re manipulating the volume of water that you’re delivering downstream

through the canyon, you’re also going to change the water temperature as the water progresses down

through the canyon. They divided the types of monitoring they were going to address into two

categories: 1) core monitoring, the purpose of which is to measure the status in terms of high priority

resources and is characterized by being highly standardized and has few changes once established; and

2) effects monitoring which is more of a before and after approach. This monitoring is more flexible, is

event driven, and is set up to accommodate particular actions. 

Kurt reminded Dennis that there are two Indian tribes who have land adjacent to the Colorado River

and that they should have been invited to the workshop. Dennis said he has tried very hard to not

restrict the group and will continue to follow up with the tribes as needed. 

AD HOC GROUP UDPATES

Narrative Ad Hoc Group. Gary Burton said he asked the small writing groups to send him their

rewrites. He has received several of them. He has tried to stay true to the mission as he made

revisions to the Vision Narrative document. It’s not yet at the point where the writing groups feel it is a

consensus document. There hasn’t been time to review what everybody put together and what he has

done with everyone’s comments. They are at the point of having a new version to come to the TWG

and will try to have that done two weeks before the March TWG meeting and then have a consensus

document to take on the river trip. They are also trying to reduce the length of each paper to 1-2

pages. 

Experimental Flows Ad Hoc Group. Randy reported that the Experimental Flows AHG met on

Monday for about four hours to talk about its remaining three assignments and briefly those are: 1)

develop a program of experimental flows for BHBF’s, 2) a program of experimental flows to comply

with the Biological Opinion, and 3) determine criteria for when an 8.23 maf release year would exist. 

They had a very good discussion and started out listing their assumptions. This group is going to

initially address the BHBF issue then turn to the Biological Opinion flows and in the process consider a

mix or impacts that one flow experiment might have on the other. Certainly antecedent and post event

conditions are going to effect how the experiment is both conducted and monitored and how long the

results will remain in place. They started off with the BHBF discussion and listed the assumptions on a

board of what they thought they knew about BHBF’s. The difficulty in doing this might be a reflection

on how much they’ve learned as part of the science discussions, how clear the TWG presentations are
GCD Technical Work Group

Minutes of Feb. 13-14, 2001 Meeting

Page 14

technically, or how clear summary documents are that might summarize scientific information. They

thought it would be a good idea to take the assumption list with respect to BHBF’s by resource and

make a matrix of what they thought knew and didn’t know, and how important each of the various

boxes in the matrix might be. The ambersnail and the native fish work groups might also be able to

contribute. Perhaps by doing this, they might build an entire matrix of the Grand Canyon, the processes

which might affect the various resources in the canyon. They will try and do that over the next couple

of weeks and give a draft to the GCMRC who would then feed back to us and help clarify the matrix. 

ACTION: Randy will have the TWG Experimental Flow Ad Hoc Group “assumptions and remaining

questions” posted to the TWG discussion forum. Comments and additional questions are requested

from the TWG members by February 23, 2001.

They then moved into a list of questions about BHBF’s (Attachment 20) that remain unanswered or

only partially answered. The questions were intended to address all resources and as they were

developed, the group kept in mind the biological opinion flows as well. There are expected/intended to

be integrated linkages as the group evaluates what questions remain unanswered regarding BHBF’s. 

They asked the TWG for comments and additional questions be provided to the ad hoc group. He

proposed posting the questions on the TWG discussion forum for the members to respond to or

provide other ideas or concepts they feel should be included. He would like to receive those comments

within the next two weeks because by April, the ad hoc group wants to complete its initial work on

developing the BHBF experimentation program.

By the May TWG meeting, the group will have an interim recommendation on BHBF tests to bring

before the TWG and likewise to the AMWG in July. He said interim because they also expect to begin

work on the Biological Opinion flows in April and that by late summer, expect to have concluded their

work on those. There is certainly going to be some interaction between the effects that a BHBF would

have and the previous year’s flows. If a previous year’s flows are high and there are no tributary

inputs, then the effects of the test will be very different than if the previous releases were low and a

Biological Opinion steady flow were run in the summer and there were tributary inputs. The antecedent

conditions would be quite different. By the end of the calendar year it is their intent to offer the

AMWG an integrated program of experimentation that will take these factors into account.

Finally, Randy encouraged the TWG to attend the Science Week in April because they expect that by

April they can have initial BHBF experiments designed and ready to test in the conceptual model.

Budget Process. Cliff Barrett said that in September 2000, the TWG was discussing the fallout from

the 2001 appropriations process. A number of issues were raised regarding the budget process,

comments were recorded on a flip chart, and an ad hoc group was formed to address the concerns. 

The members of the group included Cliff, Clayton Palmer, Randy Peterson, Wayne Cook, Robert
GCD Technical Work Group

Minutes of Feb. 13-14, 2001 Meeting

Page 15

Begay, Bill Persons, and Norm Henderson. The ad hoc group made a fundamental assumption that the

AMWG and the TWG want to be deeply involved in the GCMRC budget process from the beginning.

That basic assumption was questioned by one of the members of the work group with a valid point: 

Does AMWG really want the TWG to be that heavily involved in the budget process? Does AMWG

itself want to be that deeply involved in the budget process? With the assumption that the answer was

yes to both of those questions, the group wrote a paper (Attachment 21). Cliff reviewed the

recommendations and stated that if the TWG accepts the recommendation to form a permanent budget

group, then the budget process ad hoc group can be dissolved. However, he cautioned that the TWG

really needs to ask the AMWG how much they want the TWG to be involved in the budget process. If

they do want the TWG involved, then the “conflict of interest” issue needs to be addressed

immediately. Cliff also provided a timeline of the budget process (Attachment 22).

Kurt Dongoske felt it was a good idea to have a permanent budget as the tribes have recommended a

budget process for a number of years and moving toward integrating the PA process with the overall

AMP funding. He would like to see that incorporated to whatever ad hoc budget group is formed. 

Cliff said that throughout the document where it references talking with USBR and the GCMRC, it was

his intent to include PA budget activities in that process.

MOTION: Forward the Budget Ad Hoc Group’s recommendations to the AMWG for their approval.

Motion seconded.

Discussion concerns/questions:

- Is it appropriate to form a permanent budget group without first asking the AMWG how much they

want the TWG involved in budget issues?

- Need to address “conflict of interest” issue from the onset

- If budget group formed now, they could start process of asking Contracting Officers about the

conflict of interest concern

- By forwarding the budget ad hoc recommendations, is TWG approving the report?

- How deeply do we want to “micro manage” the budget? Are we operating with this report in total

disregard with what has already taken place in AMWG meetings?

- Level of budget detail requested by Bruce Taubert

- Consider postponing decision to form a permanent group until April and find out from AMWG

exactly how much they TWG involved in budget process

- If TWG not involved, still need regular budget updates

- Timing. Mid-April to the latter part of April is too late to actually implement for this year

- Lobbying. Inform people who are appropriating those dollars know that AMP funding has friends

or else that funding will find some other friend.

- Consider that it is going to be in the USGS budget request as opposed to the Bureau of

Reclamation’s request and USGS typically has a harder time on the Hill

- Sense of urgency as USBR and USGS are already sending their 2003 budgets to the Dept.
GCD Technical Work Group

Minutes of Feb. 13-14, 2001 Meeting

Page 16

Voting Results: 

Yes = 17

No = 1

Abstained = 3

Kurt Dongoske: I think it’s premature to recommend the adoption of this report to the AMWG without

a response to the first recommendation. At what level do they want the TWG involved in the budget

process?

Randy Seaholm: From where I sit, I’m not sure I disagree with these but I would certainly like to have

the opportunity to have some discussion with my AMWG member and some direction really from the

AMWG before instituting a number of these recommendations. I understand the urgency but I think

there are things we can continue to do now as we’ve done in past years and I guess I don’t see any

problem with doing that and putting this in place in the right order.

Amy Heuslein: I don’t necessarily disagree with the recommendations here either. I think they’re

positive steps. I just have a problem with forwarding a recommendation of approval of this package

and trying to get the nod from AMWG and going ahead and instituting something

John Shields: I’m a bit uncomfortable to the extent we haven’t heard from an official State of Arizona

position about this. I would feel much more comfortable if I heard from Arizona, specifically Bruce

Taubert, that this is something that they’re interested in doing. The second point I would make to you is

in the case of supporting funding for the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program. . . . It’s that

organization that doesn’t feel any compunction about not going and lobbying Congress and that is an

option for this organization as well. 

Rick asked for volunteers to be on the permanent budget ad hoc group. The following people

volunteered or were recommended by another member:

Cliff Barrett Norm Henderson

Robert Begay Rick Johnson

Perri Benemelis Clayton Palmer

Dave Cohen Bill Persons 

Wayne Cook Randy Peterson (chair)

Barry Gold

Strategic Plan. Randy reported there are 20-22 people who have agreed to write the Strategic Plan. 

He has received about 80% of the assignments and the rest should come in by early next week. When

those come in, he will incorporate those into the plan and e-mail out a new version by the end of next
GCD Technical Work Group

Minutes of Feb. 13-14, 2001 Meeting

Page 17

week. He wants alternative philosophic comments, not editorial changes. There will be a discussion at

the March TWG meeting to talk about the different points of view to be resolved on the river trip.

Sediment Ad Hoc Group Update. Matt reported that the Sediment Ad Hoc Group formed in

December is scheduled to meet later on this month. Ted Melis sent out an e-mail message so if any of

the members who were on that group didn’t receive, contact him or Ted. The meeting will be held next

Tuesday at the airport. 

Future Agenda Items

- budget ad hoc group report

- LSSF cost analysis (Clayton)

- Cliff’s recommendation NEPA, conflict of interest

- LIDAR discussion

- status of tribal funding

- vision narrative discussion

- TCD Workshop update

- Murkowski legislation

- Coordination with MSCP discussion

- compliance process diagram

- PEP diagram

- update on California power crisis

- recovery goals for endangered fish

- final count on river trip

Meeting review

positive

good discussions - all positive and very helpful. 

Feel a sense of improvement in working together

negative

need for smaller meeting room

no need for A/C in winter

Adjourned: 12:05 p.m.
GCD Technical Work Group

Minutes of Feb. 13-14, 2001 Meeting

Page 18

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

GCD - Glen Canyon Dam

GCMRC - Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research

Center

GCNP - Grand Canyon National Park

GCNRA - Glen Canyon National Recreation Area

GCPA - Grand Canyon Protection Act

HBC - Humpback Chub (endangered native fish)

HMF - Habitat Maintenance Flow

HPP - Historic Preservation Plan

IEDA - Irrigation and Electrical Districts 

Association of Arizona

IN - Information Need (stakeholder)

IT - Information Technology (GCMRC program)

KAS - Kanab ambersnail (endangered native snail)

KAWG - Kanab Ambersnail Work Group

LCR - Little Colorado River

LCRMCP: Lower Colorado River Multi-Species 

Conservation Program

MAF - Million Acre Feet

MA - Management Action

MO - Management Objective

NAAO - Native American Affairs Office

NAU - Northern Arizona University (Flagstaff, AZ)

NEPA - National Environmental Policy Act

NGS - National Geodetic Survey

NHPA - National Historical Preservation Act

NPS - National Park Service

NRC - National Research Council

NWS - National Weather Service

O&M - Operations & Maintenance (USBR funding)

PA - Programmatic Agreement

PEP - Protocol Evaluation Panel

Powerplant Capacity - 31,000 cfs

Reclamation - United States Bureau of Reclamation

RFP - Request For Proposals

RPA - Reasonable and Prudent Alternative

SAB - Science Advisory Board

Secretary(=s) - Secretary of the Interior

SWCA - Steven W. Carothers Associates

TCD - Temperature Control Device (for Glen

Canyon Dam water releases)

TCP - Traditional Cultural Property

TES - Threatened and Endangered Species

TWG - Glen Canyon Technical Work Group (a 

subcommittee of the AMWG)

UCR - Upper Colorado Region (of the USBR)

UCRC - Upper Colorado River Commission

UDWR - Utah Division of Water Resources

USBR - United States Bureau of Reclamation

USFWS - United States Fish & Wildlife Service

USGS - United States Geological Survey

WAPA - Western Area Power Administration

WY - Water Year (a calendar year)