Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group

FINAL Meeting Minutes 

January 7, 2004

Conducting:  Norm Henderson, Chairperson

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

Amy Heuslein, BIA

Robert King, UDWR 

Dennis Kubly, USBR 

Phillip Lehr, Colo. River Commission/NV

John Ritenour, NPS/GLCA 

D. Randolph Seaholm, CWCB 

John Shields, WY State Engineer’s Office

Mark Steffen, Federation of Fly Fishers 

Mike Yeatts, The Hopi Tribe

Committee Members Absent: 

Robert Begay, Navajo Nation

Illa Bulletts, So. Paiute Consortium

Cole Crocker­Bedford, NPS/GRCA 

Christopher Harris, CRB/CA

Matt Kaplinski, GCRG 

Bill Persons, AGFD 

Larry Stevens, Grand Canyon Wildlands Council

John Whipple, NM Interstate Stream Comm.  Glen Knowles, USFWS

Alternates Present: For: 

Jan Balsom Cole Crocker Bedford, NPS/GRCA

Marklyn Chee Robert Begay, Navajo Nation

Pamela Hyde Larry Stevens, Gr. Canyon Wildlands Council

Don Metz  Glen Knowles, USFWS

Andre Potochnik  Matt Kaplinski, GCRG

Interested Persons: 

Mark Anderson, USGS

Emma Benanati, NPS/GRCA

Gary Burton, WAPA

Helen Fairley, USGS/GCMRC

Dave & Pam Garrett (SAB)

Steve Gloss, USGS/GCMRC

Paul Li, Bob Lynch’s Office 

Mike Liszewski, USGS/GCMRC

Jeff Lovich, USGS/GCMRC

Ted Melis, USGS/GCMRC

Ken McMullen, NPS/GRCA 

Carol Young, ADWR

Meeting Recorder:  Linda Whetton
Convened:  9:30 a.m.

Welcome and Administrative Items:  Norm Henderson welcomed the members, alternates, and

general public.  A quorum (16 members) was established, introductions made, and attendance sheets 

(Attachment 1) were distributed.

Review of Action Items.  All pending items will be forwarded to the next TWG Meeting.  Norm

suggested the members review the tribal funding letter (Attachment 2) and discuss at tomorrow’s 

meeting.

Review and Approval of Nov. 12­13, 2003 Meeting Minutes.  These will be forwarded to the next TWG 

Meeting as the members didn’t have sufficient time to review prior to today’s meeting.

Review of Agenda.  Norm said he would like to make one modification by switching the 1:15 item with

responses to comments and questions on budget work plans with the information discussion.  The

Budget AHG has been working with the FY05 budget all morning and he proposed having the Budget 

AHG present where they are with the budget and then include the remainder of the TWG in the budget 

discussion. 

Status of Information Needs.   Pam Hyde would like the TWG to consider making a recommendation to

the AMWG to have the AMWG recommend approval of the Information Needs as part of the Strategic 

Plan to the Secretary of the Interior.  Norm said he spoke with Mary Orton (AMWG Facilitator) regarding

the approval process on Monday (Jan. 1/6/04) and also reviewed the minutes from the last AMWG 

Meeting.  Mary told him the AMWG decided it wasn’t appropriate to send those specific INs to the

Secretary and that the AMWG approved them internally as far as a working document but it was her

interpretation that the AMWG didn’t want to send anything to the Secretary at this time.  Norm said he

would add this item to the agenda as time allowed.

FY 05 Budget Discussion.  Norm said the TWG has been working with the 05 budget since November.  GCMRC has presented the FY05 budget and work plan and asked for comments.  The Budget Ad Hoc 

Group (BAHG) had a special BHAG meeting before and after the MATA Workshop in December and had

additional deliberations this morning.  At this point the BAHG would like to continue with the process they 

started this morning.  Following that, Norm said he would like the TWG to recommend approval of the

FY05 budget with any changes noted to the AMWG. The BAHG has reviewed individual budget items 

and indicated next to specific line items “yes” or “no” or “ok.”   For those with “no” or a “?” then at least 

one BAHG member had a strong enough concern and couldn’t agree with that budget item.  He asked

Dennis, as chair of the BAHG, to begin the discussion. 

Dennis referenced the FY05 budget spreadsheet  (Attachment 3).  The BAHG has been trying to

determine if they concur with what’s in the BAHG recommendation column.  The column assigned to

potential available funds is a column that carries dollars that the BAHG has advocated should not be

funded in that project for FY05.  If the full TWG agrees to those amounts, then at the end of the

deliberation, there would be a sum for re­programming money into other existing projects.  Dennis asked

the TWG if they would like to start where the BAHG left off from their morning meeting or start from the

beginning.  It was decided to begin where the BAHG left off and then go back to the beginning of the

spreadsheet and address any concerns. 

Dennis said the TWG should also refer to the “BAHG Recommendations” document (Attachment 4)

because it includes the comments generated from the BAHG meeting held at Saguaro Lake in early 

December. 

Helen Fairley also suggested the members use the document which contained the original questions. 

(Attachment 5)

The members continued to review the specific line items.
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group

Minutes of January 7­8, 2004, Meeting

Page 3

Line #  Description BAHG Status / Comments

102 Fine­grained Sediment Storage NO Accepted by TWG per explanation from T. Melis 

103 Streamflow & Fine –Sediment

Storage 

NO Accepted by TWG per explanation from T. Melis 

104 Coarse­grained Sediment Inputs  (OK) Accepted by TWG per explanation from T. Melis 

106 Control Network  (OK) Will take $500K ­ $1M to finish work over time. 112 Unsolicited Proposals  NO Need sideboards for what will be considered. – H. Fairley 

113 AMWG, TWG Requests  OK Consider re­programming dollars. Should be $60K in there 

but should research the amount. 118 1 st Yr. Geomorph. Model

Process Study 

(OK) Change to OK with the condition that a peer review be 

conducted.

128­131 Administrative and Technical

Support Services 

(OK) The $1,289,170 is consistent with what GCMRC has done 

in the past. The monies largely support his salary, the 

salary of the program managers, administration and

facilities costs, GSA vehicle rental, etc., associated with 

running the program. 132 Public Outreach  NO John Shields said he committed to putting something 

down on paper as a starting point. He couldn’t say if $50K

was an appropriate amount or not but felt the AMWG

wasn’t ready to start doing anything until everyone is in 

agreement with what needs to be done. Mike Yeatts said the Hopi Tribe saw 2 needs: (1)

traditional public relations and (2) the Hopi Tribe and

perhaps other tribes saw an “educational “need in response 

to cultural monitoring. The AMWG Public Outreach Ad Hoc Group (POAHG)

was re­established. Amy Heuslein and Pam Hyde will

serve as co­chairs. Other members: Marklyn Chee, Andre Potochnik, John Shields, Mark Steffen, and Mike 

Yeatts. First conference call: Jan. 21, 2004, 10­noon.

ACTION ITEM: The POAHG will provide a progress 

report at the next TWG and AMWG Meetings.

135 Geographic Information System NO

136 Data Base Management System NO

Ted gave a PowerPoint presentation on DASA

(Attachment 6). TWG should be able to deal with little changes.

AMWG should speak for itself. 137 Library  NO FY03 Digitize scanning project that ends in FY04. In FY05, wants to keep student ($20K) for more scanning work until

project ends in 4 more years. Low priority. Consider re­programming money.

138 Survey Operations  NO Covers salary for field work.

139 Systems Administration  NO Flat budget from years’ past. In FY03, it was reduced 15% 

to absorb USGS assessment and this reflects the cost of

the program from year to year. (computers, network,

software, licensing, etc.). Doesn’t include geonet. 140 Aerial Photography  NO GCMRC: change in direction on remote sensing. This will

be presented as an “informational item” on the Jan. 23 rd  AMWG conference call. 141 Web page and product

development

NO Increased need to comply with DOI security requirements 

(very costly) and more demands on web page presence. Need to contract out work and includes 1⁄2 year of web 

programmer’s time based on $80/hr and $15K to 

accommodate operating expenses & travel within that prog.

Could POAHG utilize for public outreach?

Consider re­programming dollars. 157 Genetics Refugium OK Timing of the development of genetics refugium plan needs 

to follow the development of a genetics management plan 

that is currently being done by USFWS Region 6. It will not

be done in time to begin the refugium plan in 04 and

funding would shift to 05. Haven’t moved the $40K. 161 Temperature Control Device  (OK) Defer and go back to it later. 162 Dam Operations Experiment (OK) This is really the MATA Workshop and the primary purpose
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group

Minutes of January 7­8, 2004, Meeting

Page 4

was to design operational scenarios and try to estimate the 

effects on resources of the scenarios. Consider reprogramming dollars. 164 Scientific, Recreation Impact

Assessment

OK The first phase is to look at the effects of the science on 

HBC and the second part is the recreational package. There were questions whether or not the $11K for 04 and 

$30K for 05 were really sufficient. Steve Gloss: Funds are probably okay for 04 and the 

effects handling study is underway and should be 

completed next spring. $30K was for recreational impacts 

on HBC in the LCR but no plan has been designed.

165 Bright Angel Non­native Fish 

Removal

OK Should be $167K over 3 years so it adds up to $500K. Norm Henderson: One funding source came in 03. There 

is no additional money in 04 or 05 as yet. 167 LCR Confluence NNF 

Mechanical Removal

OK This is being funded out of the AMP but is covered in the 

Aquatics section (line #66). Mark Steffen: Am extremely uncomfortable with the 

project. The Park seems to be exercising a carte blanche 

approach to all these tributary killings and don’t see that the 

AMWG has actually approved it. I want the opportunity to 

vote against this project. 168 Fish Monitoring below Diamond

Creek 

OK Assumption that $25K would come from MSCP but likely 

will not be available as the MSCP doesn’t exist. The only 

group with mandated responsibility is the AMP. The 

GCMRC has a requirement to monitor the CRE. Steve Gloss said it would cost $50K each year.

172 Concurrent LCR, Mainstem HBC

Pop Est. NO Steve Gloss said the Peer Review Panel did not recom­ mend doing concurrent estimates in the mainstem. Steve 

said he concurs with the Panel’s recommendations from a 

pure science and technical point of view. Gary Burton said he spoke with Bob Muth and Tom

Czapla (FWS) and asked them where they fall on the issue. Their intent is to make it known that they would still stick 

with what they’re asking for (mark and recapture) and if

they’re not against the newer and more advanced modeling 

methodology that they won’t be able to do – they don’t think 

they could use it in court until its verified against something 

that makes it a real number. Therefore, they would wish for 

the concurrent methodology. Potential of $400K –> carry over to FY05?

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

Minutes of January 7­8, 2004, Meeting

Page 5

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group

FINAL Meeting Minutes 

January 8, 2004

Conducting:  Norm Henderson, Chairperson

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

Amy Heuslein, BIA

P. Hyde/L. Stevens GC Wildlands Council

Robert King, UDWR 

Dennis Kubly, USBR 

Phillip Lehr, Colo. River Commission/NV

John Ritenour, NPS/GLCA 

D. Randolph Seaholm, CWCB 

John Shields, WY State Engineer’s Office

Mark Steffen, Federation of Fly Fishers 

Mike Yeatts, The Hopi Tribe

Committee Members Absent: 

Robert Begay, Navajo Nation

Illa Bulletts, So. Paiute Consortium

Colo Crocker­Bedford, NPS/GRCA 

Christopher Harris, CRB/CA

Matt Kaplinski, GCRG 

Bill Persons, AGFD 

Larry Stevens, Grand Canyon Wildlands Counil

John Whipple, NM Interstate Stream Comm.  Glen Knowles, USFWS

Alternates Present: For: 

Jan Balsom Cole Crocker Bedford, NPS/GRCA

Marklyn Chee Robert Begay, Navajo Nation

Wayne Cook  John Whipple, NM Interstate Stream Comm.l 

Don Metz  Glen Knowles, USFWS

Andre Potochnik  Matt Kaplinski, GCRG

Interested Persons: 

Mark Anderson, USGS

Emma Benanati, NPS/GRCA

Gary Burton, WAPA

Helen Fairley, USGS/GCMRC

Dave & Pam Garrett (SAB)

Steve Gloss, USGS/GCMRC

Leslie James, CREDA

Paul Li, Bob Lynch’s Office 

Mike Liszewski, USGS/GCMRC

Jeff Lovich, USGS/GCMRC

Ted Melis, USGS/GCMRC

Ken McMullen, NPS/GRCA 

Clayton Palmer, WAPA

Carol Young, ADWR

Meeting Recorder:  Linda Whetton, USBR

Convened:  8:20 a.m.

Welcome and Administrative Items:  Norm Henderson welcomed the members, alternates, and

general public.  A quorum (16 members) was established, introductions made, and attendance sheets 

(Attachment 1) were distributed.
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group

Minutes of January 7­8, 2004, Meeting

Page 6

Agenda Review: 

1.  Norm suggested the Strategic Plan discussion be rescheduled for another time.  Jeff Lovich said he

could give a 15­minute overview.  The WAPA Proposal would be moved up on the agenda. 

2.  Norm suggested a follow­up meeting to discuss the results from the MATA Workshop and proposed

the date of February 2.  He also said it would be good to combine that one­day meeting with another

day to do strategic planning with the GCMRC. 

3.  As follow up to yesterday’s discussion on fish removal in Bright Angel Creek, Mark Steffen passed

out copies of an e­mail message (Attachment 8) he sent regarding his opposition to the project.

FY05 Budget Discussion (cont.) The TWG resumed the budget review and changes were noted on

the revised budget spreadsheet (Attachment 9).

Line 163, Sediment, Turbidity Augmentation – Lisa said she understood that  this was a sediment 

augmentation study that included a feasibility study of moving sediment from behind the dam to in front 

of the dam and now she understands that it’s only about blinding site predators.  She thinks that the

funding needs to be restored for FY05 or even pull it out of the HBC area.  She is talking about a $10­ 50K feasibility study that could be primarily secondary research to actually provide some options about 

what it would take, cost­wise, time­wise, to start moving sediment from behind the dam in front of it, if 

they find that they need to do that.  Lisa said she thought the turbidity study would start and end in 2004

and doesn’t want to see the turbidity study dropped either.  She thinks the AMP needs a study to look 

at the options at what it would take to move sediment from behind the dam to in front of the dam.

Comments:

· A decision was made to try some experiments to use input from the Paria, etc., and those were done, but the

inputs haven’t come in to run the experiments so there is still zero data to know if they’re working. Some of

the best climatologists are saying that there some potential that we’re at the front end of a 4­year drought.

(Hyde) · This was part of the HBC discussion and there was a specific item for turbidity augmentation. Will not support

but also doesn’t want to see the turbidity part dropped. (Davis) · How long should the group wait to before starting to looking at other options? Wait until we’re completely in a

drought? Continue on a negative sediment budget and then start looking at what’s feasible? It might make

sense to start the feasibility study in FY05 and don’t make any decisions on potential actions until FY06.

(Hyde) · The sediment augmentation is way down the road and the State of Colorado is not support of a study of the

options. (Seaholm)

Status:  The item was put in Category C after line 109 for further discussion. 

Dennis said the next thing would be to go back and try and reach a conclusion on concurrent sampling

for Humpback Chub.  It currently exists with $200K in FY04 and $200K available in FY05.  There is a

“no” from the BAHG indicating there wasn’t agreement. He would like to entertain proposals on exactly 

what would be done.

Comments:

· The obvious concern amongst the states is that if concurrent accounting doesn’t occur, then initiation of the

process to begin recovery for that species in the upper basin, along with the other upper basin species 

doesn’t occur, that’s unacceptable. They have taken a hardened position with the Department that FWS has 

to make this call and the bottom line is that the number has to be produced which begins the clock to tick.

The risk, if this is taken out, then it means the FWS does in fact produce a recovery team, then the FWS 

would have to finance this which is probably the right thing to do. The question is whether or not, they will do
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group

Minutes of January 7­8, 2004, Meeting

Page 7

the right thing. The FWS should put together a recovery team and decide whether or not they are going to

accept a count number based on an estimation process rather than a count process. If they refuse to do,

then we have to hope that the FWS will come forward with their appropriated dollars to finance that

concurrent counting and develop a number that will initiate the clock counting for recovery of these species.

(Cook) · Perhaps dollars should go into bringing some consensus within the upper basin and lower basin researchers 

about methodologies and try to create some support for the scientific backing for whatever is the right way to

approach coming up with the numbers. (Hyde) · A presentation could be developed addressing the pros and cons but if there was an opportunity that the

dollars wouldn’t be used, then they would be considered to be re­programmed but with the knowledge that the

decision by the AMWG might be to keep them in. (Kubly) · Would like to advocate for keeping them in. We’re doing a lot of things in here with respect to the HBC that

are really outside the scope of this program and really need a recovery program to benefit these fish. This is 

fundamental to those activities and would like to keep the dollars there and moving this piece along much as 

we’re moving along with other activities for the benefit of the HBC. (Seaholm) · Depending on what AMWG says, we should have a contingency plan to fall back on. (Henderson) · The AMWG should exert some leverage in having biologists from the upper and lower basins to address the

above concerns. There are a lot of working biologists in the field who feel that the methods should be

integrated to get the best numbers. (Gloss) · There is no scientifically defensible reason to conduct concurrent sampling of the HBC. The panel that was 

convened was not a biased panel. GCMRC’s recommendation is not to do that. (Lovich) · There are two scientists who have disagreed with that position. (Davis)

Status:  The funds will be considered for reallocation.

USGS appropriations Update.  Jeff Lovich said that when the USGS budget was submitted, they put 

in an expectation of $500K and that is not correct.  They expect either $1 million or no dollars.  When

they went through the budget planning process, Jeff put in $500K as a placeholder.  When they got the

passback on the FY05 budget from the President’s Office of Management and Budget, the director of 

the USGS had put in a request to get an additional $500K worth of appropriations to support research

in the Grand Canyon that would come to GCMRC and they would then contribute that to the AMP.  OMB took that out and for reasons unknown to him, USGS Director Groat chose not to appeal that 

decision.  However, Dir. Groat did give GCMRC $1 million in FY 04 and it’s their expectation that he will

give them $1 million in FY05 and perhaps beyond.  Jeff is hoping Dir. Groat will come to the March

AMWG Meeting and speak on this topic.

Line 161, Temperature Control Device.  Dennis said Reclamation has identified $200K available in 

both FY04 and FY05 for TCD related studies and compliance.  The other $150K in FY05 is shown 

under a separate project (line #57).  Reclamation is going to attempt to complete the compliance for the

TCD in the form of a programmatic EA by the end of April. There will be a presentation to the AMWG at 

its summer meeting requesting a recommendation to move forward to construction.  The problem is 

Reclamation doesn’t have the funding.  Consequently Reclamation will produce a capability statement 

identifying a feasibility design has been done, environmental compliance has been completed, and they 

are read to begin construction.  However, they would need dollars which would open up opportunities 

for individuals to lobby for those funds.  It’s likely construction wouldn’t start before FY07. The proposal 

will likely be to modify two penstocks and test for a period of 4 years before any decision is made on

additional modifications.  If that is the case, then the ability to modify the temperature through warm

water releases is constrained as only 8,000 cfs can be released with warm water.  The likelihood of the

warm water scenario where you have warm water fishes reacting in a strong manner is likely reduced. 

The primary effect that Reclamation perceives with the two devices is on a reduction of the impact of 

cold water for fish at the mouth of the Little Colorado River.  It’s a big question as to whether it can

actually affect reproduction.  They propose early research be directed at further identification of the

movement of small fish out of the LCR and the conditions that they experience in rearing habitats in the

mainstem.  The Aquatic PEP recommended an analysis be done on all the data that has been collected
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group

Minutes of January 7­8, 2004, Meeting

Page 8

on those rearing habitats.  Reclamation recently hired two people: Amy Cutler as an environmental 

modeler and Mark McKinstry as a biostatistician.  Some of their time will be spent doing that work. 

Dennis has also talked with Bill Persons about convening a meeting of the fish researchers that are

actually working in Grand Canyon to formulate a proposal concentrating largely on the effects near the

confluence of the LCR and early life stages that are emerging from the LCR.  This bring up the $50K on

dam operations.  He advocates looking at short­term experiments in FY04 and FY05 in which they 

would modify dam operations but he doesn’t think they can get there in FY04.

Comments:

· We have an opportunity right now to test whether or not warm water releases out of the dam are going to

achieve the same thing. Are we prepared to provide a robust study this year? Will we get enough data this 

year? Do we need to have some work plans? (Davis) · GCMRC has in place a pretty respectable downstream temperature monitoring program in association with

downstream water quality. There are sensors at a dozen sites from the dam all the way down to Diamond

Creek that provide continuous information on temperature. The area where they are lacking a more

comprehensive program is in the elusive issue of the backwater habitats and how we both measure habitat

quality there in terms of temperature and other factors as well as measure any biological impacts that occur in

those habitats. There is $200K for that purpose in the experimental management actions in the event there is 

a sediment input. So far that would be unexpended in 2004. It’s a difficult issue. With respect to

temperature, they don’t have a practical way to monitor the near shore habitats because they are constantly 

changing with fluctuating flows. They have developed some proposals to do that if they got low steady flows 

in the fall which would produce a more stable environment that would be easier to sample but that hasn’t

occurred yet. The only thing they are currently doing from a biological perspective is allocating one native fish

downstream trip to sampling back waters with seining and that has not proven very effective. It’s extremely 

variable. They might occasionally catch 50­60­70 young HBC in one back water out of 100 that are sampled. He thinks there is money in terms of TCD work and in terms of the experimental flow work to try and develop

a better program. There is also an effort underway that Craig Paukurt was leading before he departed for 

Kansas and there should be some forthcoming information. (Gloss) · There is a lot more creativity that can be put into experimental design about TCD and temperature effects on

backwaters and on the biota than hasn’t been applied yet. Putting together a team of people who are very 

knowledgeable about those topics and come up with some good, creative experimental approaches in the

field could be quite valuable. (Stevens)

· We may not even have to build the TCD and spend $100 million if we can do 2 years of study and determine

this thing is not going to work. We have the opportunity to do it and are not prepared to do it. (Davis)

Dennis directed the TWG back to the beginning of the spreadsheet.  He said the BAHG didn’t have any 

further problems with the administrative or tribal dollars and asked if there were any questions on the

first page.

Line 45, NN & GLCA Treatment Plan & Implementation.  John said they have money in FY04 for

the Navajo Nation Archeology Dept. to do a treatment plan in the Glen Canyon Reach.  They have not 

completed the Scope of Work for the cooperative agreement for that project because there have been

concerns regarding what the treatment plan would do, what funding was needed, what policy decisions 

need to be addressed, etc.  In the last couple of months, he, Jeff, and Randy have worked with those

issues.  On Tuesday they had a conference call and drafted an umbrella document to guide in the

development of the treatment plans.  It talks about the treatment plans within the CRE, in the APE, and

about all the sites.  The treatment plan would discuss every site and not make a determination of cause

on the effects or what’s occurring on those sites.  They created a way for the PA signatories to be a

participant in this process by either bringing in­kind support, being involved in consultation, and working

with contractors to ensure that when the treatment plan is done, the PA issues would have been

addressed.   Within the money for the Glen Canyon reach, John said he suspects the treatment plan

will not take all of the funds so at some point there will be a treatment plan done and it will come in for

prioritization of actual treatment plans.  They have also discussed site­to­site responsibilities and feel 

an archaeologist could determine what needs to take place.  When it’s time to do the treatment for
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group

Minutes of January 7­8, 2004, Meeting

Page 9

those sites that are close to the river, they should be fairly easy to address collectively but as they get 

to sites where there is a question of what causes the effects, whether it was the recreation it impacts or

causes impacts to some other activity, there will then need to be a discussion of what funding source

should be used.  The idea is to use GLCA Reach as a prototype for designing a treatment plan.

Line #46, Whole Canyon Treatment Plan & Implementation.  John said that in FY05 there is $250K

for the PA Signatories to begin the treatment planning process for the Grand Canyon itself.  It will

include all of the sites.  They will develop treatment plans for the sites but not determine the cause or

the effects of those sites.  Recognizing that when the treatment plans are over, some sites will have full

data recovery and no longer be a site which would reduce monitoring in those areas.  Some of the

treatment plans will be addressed and may require longer term monitoring for those sites.  For some of 

the sites, it might mean stabilization which will call for some monitoring.  When the treatment plans are

done and implemented, it doesn’t mean monitoring goes away.  The figures in line item #43 and #44 in

FY05 reflect current being done today in the Grand Canyon because the treatment plan won’t be

completed by FY05.  The $28,840 in GLCA is because they have a year’s jump on this and may be at a

point where they’re actually implementing the GLCA Reach treatment plan, therefore reducing the

larger dollars in FY05 but they can’t guarantee that.

Comments.

· On lines 45 and 46, add “and begin implementation.” (Heuslein) · We thought the Zuni participation in developing the checkdams would be important. There are over  100

checkdams in place that require maintenance. We relied on the Zuni Preservation Team to work with us in

doing that and is our long­term preservation method to preclude any need for excavation. The hope was that

through a low cost, low intensity effort and that they needed maintaining, and return to the expertise of Zuni to

maintain that. We thought it was pretty important. The review done last year by Joel Pedersen showed that

some of the checks were better than others and he is recommending not using the stone­line checks but

rather the brush checks and that those were effective. They want to see that continued so they can keep

those sites from eroding any further. (Balsom) · If we’re going to a treatment plan and implementation, it’s really a comprehensive package. With the

computer evaluation, hopefully some pointed questions will be asked about how this will relate to the

archeological sites. The feedback is really needed. (Damp)

· Joel had some caveats in his report. He only looked at one season and only part of the canyon that didn’t get

a lot of rainfall and probably a longer study was needed. Perhaps the PA Group could discuss it in more

detail. (Fairley)

Line #48, TCP GIS Documentation.   Dennis said this was a reduction to the originally requested

$150K.  Nancy Coulam put in $150K with the assumption that it cost $30K for each of the tribes.  The

recommendation here is that the Zuni is ready to go ahead with a pilot study and then the output from

that pilot study would be used as an input to decisions on funding in FY06 and beyond. 

Zuni Pilot Project.  Jonathan said they have a traditional cultural property study which was the study of 

the non­archeological sites that have cultural significance to the Zuni Tribe.  They will do digital 

photography and GPS to get the locations down and put the information into an Access database.  It 

will include one river trip, with the river trip funds that were provided to Zuni, and the rest of the funding

will be used in the office to produce that database.  The skeleton of that information could be used by 

other tribes or land management officials in order to determine if any undertaking might have an impact 

upon TCPs or other sensitive areas to the tribes.

Lines 54­64. ­ No comments.

Line 65, Food Base Impacts on Fluctuating Flows.  Mark Steffen questioned why there was no

money assigned to the project.  Ted said in FY05 the fluctuating flow component in the experiment
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group

Minutes of January 7­8, 2004, Meeting

Page 10

doesn’t occur in years 3 and 4, it appears in years 1 and 2.  FY05 is year 3 and there are no fluctuating

flows in the winter season.

Line 66, Mechanical Removal of Non­native Fish.  Dennis said that the BAHG expressed concern

that there were no dollars in line items 67 and 68 and left them as question marks for more discussion

by the TWG.  Mark asked how many trout stomachs were analyzed.  Steve said he didn’t know but said 

the initial collections will be processed for predation on native fish and a subset of those will be

processed for complete diet analysis.  He wasn’t sure what Mike (Yard) and Lew (Coggins) have

decided to do under the reduced scope of work.  He thinks Mike needs to bring that information to the

AMWG as part of the 6­month update on experimental flow outcomes at the March AMWG meeting.  The intent is to fully process the 2003 samples as originally proposed.  Mark said he just wants to make

sure that the stomachs are examined for HBC because that was the intent of the experiment.

Status:  Consider reallocating some funds back to these line items.

Lines 69­74.  No comments

Line 75. Add “Tribal Monitoring” and funding.

Line 80, Terrestrial Ecosystem Activities.  Dennis said there was advocacy that dollars be added to

ensure that there was monitoring for Southwest Willow flycatcher.  In the second line, the “no” had to do

with whether or not the tribal funds should be shown independently.  At this point, they are being

included in the $250K. 

Status:  Consider adding dollars.

Line 82, Kanab Ambersnail Monitoring. Dennis said there was some discussion about whether or

not access could be gained other than from the river and whether the logical costs could be reduced. 

In the end the BAHG agreed to the $79K.  GCMRC is also going to look at opportunities to pair trips.

Lines 83­85 No comments.

Line 86, Cultural Data Base Plan.  Helen said this item is misplaced on the spreadsheet.  This was 

the effort to develop a plan for managing cultural data.  There was a plan proposed by the TWG and

Ruth to come up with protocols and a written understanding of how the cultural data in this program

would be managed in terms of who would have access, what restrictions there would be, etc.  When

the FY04 budget was being planned, this is one of the things taken out with the goal of doing it with

GCMRC’s existing database management activities.  There are concerns about confidentiality and

access privileges. 

Status:  Move to right location on the spreadsheet.

Line 87, KAS Taxonomy (AMP).  Dennis said this was looked upon as a recovery activity and not a

programmatic responsibility so the dollars are advocated to be moved out. The question to the FWS is 

whether or not this was a responsibility for them.  Jeff said they could count it on their sheet as being

available although the money is going to be paid for out of a different fund than appropriations as listed

in the budget.  This was something Denny Fenn agreed to do with money that was off to the side of 

their contribution to the AMP.  The money was carried over from FY02 into FY03, and in FY03 to FY04.  The money is going to be obligated in 04 but for purposes of accounting, it gives them $88K more

flexibility.  It should not show in FY05.

Line 88.  No comment
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group

Minutes of January 7­8, 2004, Meeting

Page 11

Line 92, Monitoring Aquatic Foodbase. This has now been changed to “Aquatic Foodbase Initiative” because it is more of a research initiative.  Mary proposed this be put on the AMWG agenda so the

AMWG is also notified of the switch.

Line 93, Status & Trends of Downstream Fish.  The comments had to do with joining the dollars that 

are in the HBC portion of the budget with those that are here and that’s being done as one study.

Line 94, Status & Trends of Lee’s Ferry Trout.  The questions had to do with whether there’s been a

change in monitoring methods in the metrics that are being applied and whether those match the

objectives for the program.

Line 95, IWQP – Downstream.  There was concern whether the nutrient portion that would be part of 

the aquatic foodbase studies was being considered as part of downstream water quality or whether

there needed to be more dollars added. 

Status:  May need to find more dollars in FY05.

Lines 96­98. No comments.

Line 97, Captive Breeding Program.  Same project as #159 (Feasiblity of HBC Augmentation).

Total dollars to be reprogrammed:  $ 373,000

Dennis said the protocol is to reach consensus.  If consensus can’t be obtained, then the group should 

vote on the individual line items.  He asked the members to address specific projects where there

wanted dollars added.  The TWG reprogrammed the following projects and amounts:

Line Description  Reprogram Funds

67 RBT Diet Analysis  25,000

68 Predation of Native Fishes  25,000

80 Terrestrial Ecosystem Monitoring 25,000

95 IWQP – Downstream 50,000

112 Unsolicited Proposals  50,000

113 AMWG, TWG Requests  73,000

163 Sediment, Turbidity Augmentation 25,000

168 Fish Monitoring below Diamond Creek  25,000

NEW PROJECTS: 

Mass Balance

Tribal Monitoring for Experimental Flows  25,000

Sediment Augmentation Feas. Study  50,000

TOTAL  373,000

Larry suggested that funds rolled over from FY04 to FY05 be reserved for future discussions.
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group

Minutes of January 7­8, 2004, Meeting

Page 12

Norm asked the members to vote on the following projects:

Line Description  Comments TWG Voting Results

140 Aerial Photography  Will negotiate on timing (WAPA & NPS)

safety issues. Based on results from AMWG 

Conference Call on 1/23/04 1/29/04

165 Bright Angel Creek 

Fish Removal 

Steffen:  Salmonid genocide Yes = 13

No = 1

Abstaining = 4

Sediment 

Augmentation

Feasibility Study

Yes = 9

No = 7

Abstaining = 1

Sediment Turbidity 

Augmentation

Yes = 14

No = 4

Abstaining = 0

The bottom line for the FY05 budget:  $10,056,610

The chairman asked the TWG to vote on recommending the whole budget to the AMWG.

Voting Results:  Yes =  17 No = 0 Abstaining = 1

WAPA Flow Proposal – Clayton Palmer passed out copies of GCMRC’s response to WAPA’s flow 

proposal (Attachment 10a) and an Excel spreadsheet (Attachment 10b).  The spreadsheet reflected

the actual operation of the CRSP system occurring on Monday, January 5. 

In preparation for the day ahead the plan is to make purchases and some of those purchases were

made in a a “forward market” which are made 1­3 months ahead of time.  Some purchases are left to

what is called the “real­time market,” which is they buy an hour before they are needed.  WAPA tries 

not to make purchases on the real­time market.  In making purchases 3 or 4 or 5 early morning hours 

has cost a lot more than anticipated and people have questioned why that wasn’t expected.  The

answer is that WAPA didn’t anticipate it.  The details as to how the experiment was going to be run was 

completed on Dec. 1, 2002, and then they gave that information to their operations group who started

buying power to supplement that.  On or about Dec. 15, 2002, they notified WAPA that they couldn’t 

buy the morning power because it was unavailable.  Later on, they said it could be supplied but at very 

high prices.  They have been going for 25 years in a condition where the market is an electrical surplus 

and have been able to buy power on the real­time market for variable costs or fairly cheap.  They 

should’ve been able to see it but didn’t.  They now understand it occurs and are making different kinds 

of purchasing plans based on a different market.

Since the experiment has now started, WAPA knows what real­time market prices are and they are

high.  They anticipated spending $80/megawatt hour for the morning hours.  The typical price is $40­45.  Clayton said the prices went up to $120/megawatt hour.  They did not buy it at that price because they 

bought it earlier enough in the morning.  The highest price they paid was $85 on Monday, June 5.  Given those prices, if they were to project that through the 3­month period, they would expect that the

change in the WAPA proposal would save $2.5 million a month, if the proposal were in place today and

it was run through January.  He said that might be a slight over estimate because the first week of 

January was colder and prices were probably higher in the first week in January than they will be for the

rest of the winter.  He said the added expense of the experiment is about the same as the entire budget 

of GCMRC for the year.  They consider it to be a significant expenditure of funds and that is why they 

have been talking about a proposed change.  They care about the long­term and want to be able to

have an experiment which can be implemented in the long­term and does what it is intended to do and

at the same time, it doesn’t affect power in a way which wasn’t also in the ROD.
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group

Minutes of January 7­8, 2004, Meeting

Page 13

On Monday, Jan. 5, 2004, Clayton submitted a request to Reclamation to modify the operations of 

Flaming Gorge Dam in order to increase releases at FGD for a few hours a day on days in which prices 

are high.   They submitted a new request to Reclamation for 75 megawatts of additional power out of 

FGD.  It’s a sensitive issue because there are endangered fish below Flaming Gorge, a wild brown trout 

population, and elevation of Flaming Gorge is relatively low. 

With respect to fishability, he has had some discussions with Jeff English and Mark Steffen.  WAPA’s 

proposal is modifiable with respect to Sunday flows.  Clayton has talked to his operations staff and they 

prefer 2 hours at the front of the day based on their anticipated schedule from their customers.  If that 

were to change or to be different, they would be happy to modify and 2 days ahead of time would notify 

the fishing community about when the rampup would actually occur. 

Clayton referenced the table attached to GCMRC’s memo and said there was one minor change.  In

order for his spreadsheet to conform to the table, he put in what WAPA was going to do in March

instead of what they started off doing in January.  The actual ramp up starts at hour ending 10:00 rather

than hour ending 9:00.  They propose to modify their 2­hour modification and will be ramped up for hour

ending 8:00.  The first two columns need to be changed. 

Clayton said it would be tougher to draw conclusions about the mechanistic means of producing trout 

impacts if you did a non­native fish suppression flow for two years and then for the next 2 years 

switched to the ROD flows but that 16­year design was not approved by the AMWG.  In fact, he thinks 

flow experiments should have fewer treatments and be of longer duration.  He said based on their

experience with Flaming Gorge and at Glen Canyon Dam, hydrological conditions may dominate over

changes in operations so one needs to have treatments which endure over longer periods of time in

order to capture the changes in the hydrological events.  He believes their conclusions on sediment 

transport under the ROD are conclusions that they could’ve only drawn over some years’ time had they 

done the ROD for 2 years and then tried to conclude something about transport, he doesn’t think it 

would be a very robust conclusion.  If the non­native fish suppression flows are modified in year 2 and

that’s the last year, he is quite sympathetic about the scientific argument.  However, if the non­native

fish suppression flows are modified in year 2 of a 5­year experiment, there is less of a scientific 

concern. 

Jeff said that GCMRC has no official position as to whether they approve or disapprove the proposal. 

They had a formal request made to them from the TWG through WAPA to provide our best scientific 

judgment on the effects of their proposed flow modification and we did it from a 2­pronged approach, 

(1) the potential effect on the resources of interest to this group and also, (3) looking at the possible

impact of it at a programmatic level on experimental design.  Their best guess as scientists is that the

flow modification won’t have an adverse effect on the non­native fish suppression flows.  It will probably 

have the same level of impact.  He said that Clayton didn’t mention was that with the low flows on

Sunday, their biologists estimate there could be an increase in trout stranding so that is an issue the

group should consider.  From the standpoint of sediment, the models predict that there would be a 3% 

increase in sand export under the proposed flows per week but again the level of uncertainty with their

prediction is about 15% so they don’t have the statistical ability to identify that there will be an actual 

loss of sand as result of the change in flows but they do estimate a possibility of 3%.  With respect to

the program level impact, GCMRC has a 2­year experimental design and the subtle effects of modifying

the flows are akin to changing the temperature in a laboratory during an experiment.  It’s going to be

very difficult to remove the effects of confounding air, like a change in the flows.  They can’t predict if 

there is going to be an effect or not, or whether the hydrological variation will just swamp whatever

effect they might see as a result of the modified flows.  They do have a concern from the standpoint of 

science because once you embark on a major investment of funding using an experimental design, you

want to control those conditions through the course of the experiment to make sure that you control 

from the variance and are able to accurately make estimates of the effects of the treatments that are
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group

Minutes of January 7­8, 2004, Meeting

Page 14

being tested.  If you manipulate an experiment in the middle of the experiment, you run the risk of 

having confounded effects that you can’t statistically detect from actual treatment effects.

Comments:

· On October 1, 2004, CRSP will start delivering power to each of the tribes represented in the AMP and about

45 other tribes. WAPA had to go back and reduce their allocations because of these conditions. (James) · It’s important to accept this modification to the experiment. This is really a bank account that funds what we

do here as well as in the upper basin program, the San Juan program, all of which are funded out of these

revenues. It’s important to keep that account full not only for these programs but for all the projects that are

financed out of this program as well as the upper basin. I vote yes on the proposal. (Seaholm) · There was a lot of consternation when Clayton came to us and told us the deficit the basin fund was getting

into but we’re supportive of the proposal to make the amendments along these lines as well. Granted, there

is always tradeoffs and in this case it comes down to being willing to accept risks and we think that the

benefits outweigh the risks in this particular case. (Shields) · Hualapai Tribe supports the WAPA flow proposal. (Christensen) · It’s good for the fish in that it stirs up food for the fish. (Steffen) · This is the second time we’re faced with having a very large and very important experiment altered in mid­  course. From a science standpoint, you carry out an experiment as you had planned, bring the results 

together, present them, and hopefully publish. I’m very tired of having fisheries based studies where this 

body and the AMWG is forced to make decisions without published data. Our conclusions need to be

trustworthy to the public. I don’t think this is the right time to do the experiment. (Stevens) · I don’t know if the power customers got a good chance to see this schedule in advance. You can clearly see

they missed the power curve. (Greiner) · We’ve already comprised the experiment by and removing more trout in a larger area. (Davis)

MOTION:  Move to accept the WAPA flow modification proposal (as sent via e­mail from Clayton

Palmer on Dec. 10, 2003) and forward that to the AMWG.  Motion seconded

Voting Results:  Yes = 11 No = 3 Abstaining = 1

Motion passed.

Strategic Plan – Jeff Lovich says the Strategic Plan has to be a 3­step process:  (1)  need a strategic 

plan, (2) need a core monitoring plan, which he thinks should be a separate document, and (3) a very 

detailed study plan.  He proposed giving GCMRC a 6­month period to develop a strategic plan, a core

monitoring plan, and then you would accept his commitment to provide you in FY06 with detailed study 

plans for any new studies they initiate, he thinks the TWG would get to a point where they would have

enough information to evaluate them and feel more comfortable with their research.  He gave a

PowerPoint presentation (Attachment 11).

Comments:

· GCMRC should consider using the Science Advisory Board and Strategic Planning Ad Hoc Group to help

develop their Strategic Plan. (Potochnik) · The SAB has encouraged both the AMWG and TWG to give GCMRC this basic need and think it’s paramount

to the program. (Dave Garrett)
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group

Minutes of January 7­8, 2004, Meeting

Page 15

Misc. Handouts provided at the meeting:

Attachment 12 ­ Outyear Budget process (developed by Randy Peterson) with comments from Helen

Fairley & Jeff Lovich

Attachment 13 ­ Recommendations on a new direction for foodbase monitoring

Attachment 14 ­ Humpback Chub Methods Review

Adjourned:  3:15 p.m.

NEXT TWG MEETING: 

February 2, 2004 – Results from the MATA Workshop

February 3, 2004 – Provide input to help GCMRC develop their strategic plan.
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group

Minutes of January 7­8, 2004, Meeting

Page 16

General Key to Adaptive Management Program Acronyms

ADWR ­ Arizona Department of Water 

Resources 

AF ­ Acre Feet

AGFD ­ Arizona Game & Fish Department

AGU ­ American Geophysical Union

AMP ­ Adaptive Management Program 

AMWG ­ Adaptive Management Work 

GroupAOP ­ Annual Operating Plan

BA ­ Biological Assessment

BE ­ Biological Evaluation

BHBF ­ Beach/Habitat­Building 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 Multi­Species 

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

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)