Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Meeting 

July 16-17, 2008 

Conducting: Kurt Dongoske, Chairperson July 16, 2008 

 Convened: 9:30 a.m. 

Committee Members Present: 

Jan Balsom, NPS/GCNP 

Mary Barger, WAPA 

Charley Bulletts, Southern Paiute Consortium 

Kerry Christensen, Hualapai Tribe 

Jonathan Damp, Pueblo of Zuni 

William Davis, CREDA 

Jay Groseclose, NM Interstate Stream Comm. 

Norm Henderson, NPS/GCNRA 

Robert King, UDWR 

Glen Knowles, USFWS 

Dennis Kubly, USBR 

Anthony Miller, Colo. River Comm./NV 

John O’Brien, GCRG 

Don Ostler, UCRC 

Scott Rogers, AGFD 

John Shields, WY State Engineers Office 

Mark Steffen, Federation of Fly Fishers 

Bill Werner, ADWR 

Michael Yeatts, The Hopi Tribe 

Committee Members Absent: 

Cliff Barrett, UAMPS 

Steven Begay, Navajo Nation 

Christopher Harris, Colo. River Board of Calif. 

Amy Heuslein, BIA 

Rick Johnson, Grand Canyon Trust 

Bill Persons, AGFD 

D. Randolph Seaholm, CWCB 

Larry Stevens, Grand Canyon Wildlands Council 

Alternates Present: For: 

Garry Cantley Amy Heuslein, BIA 

Scott Rogers Bill Persons, AGFD 

Interested Persons: 

Matthew Andersen, GCRMC/USGS 

Glenn Bennett, GCMRC/USGS 

Shane Capron, WAPA 

Helen Fairley, GCRMC/USGS 

David & Pam Garrett, M3

Research 

Paul Grams, GCMRC/USGS 

William Halvorson, SWBC/USGS 

John Hamill, GCRMC/USGS 

Barbara McKenzie, GCMRC/USGS 

Ted Melis, GCMRC/USGS 

Tom Ryan, USBR 

Tim Steffen, Federation of Fly Fishers 

Meeting Recorder: Linda Whetton, USBR 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Welcome and Administrative. The Chairman welcomed the TWG members, alternates, and interested 

persons. Attendance sheets were distributed. 

Approval of Draft Minutes from December 4-5, 2007, Meeting. 

Motion (Proposed by Bill Davis, seconded by Bill Werner): The TWG should approve the Draft Minutes of 

the December 4-5, 2007. Pending two minor corrections the minutes were approved. 

Approval of Draft Minutes from April 8-9, 2008, Meeting. Kurt said the April 8-9, 2008, meeting minutes 

were distributed for review only and will be put on the agenda for approval at the next meeting. 

Review of Action Items. (Attachment 1) 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 2 

FINAL Minutes of July 16-17, 2008, Meeting 

Action Item 2007:06.25-26(4) John Hamill expressed concern about the process and how to get projects 

through the process that doesn’t involve the TWG. He feels there needs to be some resolution to the 

process. Dennis said that the full TWG looks like they’re not performing because the ad hoc groups aren’t 

completing their work or providing information to the TWG. He plans to make revisions to the MRP 

addressing issues from the biological opinion and proposals to the MRP. Mary Barger recommended 

GCMRC set up a meeting at GMCRC for TWG members who are interested to discuss the issues. She 

feels the comfort level would go up with those issues resolved or elevated. 

Kurt said that he John Hamill, John O’Brien, Dennis Kubly, and himself would meet sometime during this 

meeting to figure out how to get that issue resolved and report back to the TWG tomorrow. Kurt also said 

he and Dennis will talk about how to make ad hoc groups more effective. 

OLD BUSINESS: None. 

New Business: Nomination of TWG Chair. Dennis asked the members to think of people they’d like to see 

be nominated. They should provide names to Dennis or Linda. 

FY09 Budget and Work Plan & Updates. Kurt said at the last TWG meeting, a series of nine issues were 

identified and hopefully during the past BAHG conference calls those specific issues were identified and 

dealt with. It’s his plan the TWG will review those and then focus the discussion on new projects. 

Socio Cultural Program Update. Helen Fairley said the only new project is under Goal 9 (line 103), 

“Compile and Analyze Existing Safety Data.” A graduate student will be analyzing the data and develop an 

assessment of their knowledge of safety issues. In response to Dennis’ question as to whether a 

comparative study was done, Helen said a 1996 study was compiled by Larry Stevens as part of a 

published book. Helen also said she has information on the R&D program and left copies on the table 

(Attachment 2). 

Physical Science Update. Paul Grams, the new physical scientist manager at GCMRC, said he was going 

to focus on what they see as new initiatives in physical science and modeling. He said a lot of these were 

presented in great detail at the last TWG meeting especially with regards to the issue of modeling, but he 

wants people to really understand what projects are falling under Goals 7 and 8. He said projects fell into 

two different categories: 1) things directed to sediment accounting and the sediment bank account, the 

mass volume of sand they’re working with, movement downstream, export to Lake Mead, and the tracking 

of the resources, and 2) activities directed to sand and sediment monitoring and keeping track of things that 

people care about. 

He thought people were probably familiar with sand mass balance so he didn’t want to go into those details 

but stated there are real time measurements and sampling going on. The ideal is to measure the storage 

and measure it repeatedly. It’s not technically possible to map the entire bathymetry of the system and it’s 

not just mapping but making the changes from one measurement to another in a given segment of river. 

Next year from Lee’s Ferry to River Mile 30 they will have a measurement from storage between two points 

and putting together the whole sediment budgeting process. The sediment trend is the complete mapping 

from Lee’s Ferry to River Mile 30. They will be able to do comparisons between what was done last year 

and this year. This is really moving into a long-term monitoring issue. 

The other new initiative is directed toward modeling. While monitoring helps them to keep track of where 

they are, the modeling also helps them design the appropriate duration and exact timing and peak of flow 

events and compare them with the rest of the year and also look at different operation strategies. 

Vegetation Classification Update. Matthew Andersen updated the TWG on a report Barbara Ralston 

developed and said he brought a few copies of the open file report, “A Vegetation Database for the 

Colorado River Ecosystem from Glen Canyon Dam to the Western Boundary of Grand Canyon National 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 3 

FINAL Minutes of July 16-17, 2008, Meeting 

Park” (Attachment 3a) and said it’s under Goal 6 in the workplan. He then reviewed several posters 

(Attachment 3b) and identified what the program stored and what it meant in terms of looking at all the 

combined information. He encouraged people to look at the second poster as it depicts the best outcome of 

the computerized modeling. It looks at the 2002 overflight data that was used to produce the information 

and is broken up reach. 

Remote Sensing. Glenn Bennett said he wanted to talk about DASA which is line item D6. They did R&D 

building, the types of surface classification which gives coarseness or roughness all the way up to boulders. 

He said their basic full tool is to automate so it can be used over multiple years. There should be a method 

paper available by the end of the year. Glenn added that Reclamation is setting up a huge biological 

database and taking input from other agencies. The goal is to come up with a full dataset that goes across 

the agencies. It looks like a good start with BLM, BOR, NPS, FWS, etc., and he thinks GCMRC’s program 

will contribute to their database. 

LSSF Workshop Update Matthew Andersen said in August 2007 a synthesis workshop was held to discuss 

the 2000 flows which were also referred to as the LSSF. This is in Goal 12. This has been done in a couple 

of stages and brings together the original workplan and those that have been completed. In the meantime, it 

was proposed to have two different workshops. The first of the workshops is scheduled for August 12-14 

and the emphasis will be on the physical and biological sciences. 

ACTION ITEM: GMCRC will provide a list of documents the TWG should review in preparation for the LSSF 

Workshop. 

Rainbow Trout Diet/Predation Study. Mike Yard gave a PPT Presentation entitled, “Foraging Ecology of 

Nonnative Trout in the Colorado River, Grand Canyon Predation on Native Fishes and the Effects of 

Turbidity” (Attachment 4). He provided the following conclusions on rainbow and brown trout: 

Rainbow Trout Brown Trout 

Detect ability rather than food availability appear to explain 

differences in rainbow spatial distribution and condition 

factors. 

Highly piscivorous, but the least abundant trout 

Drift feeing appears to be an inadequate strategy for 

providing daily rations 

Brown trout distribution and condition are not 

correlated to increased turbidity 

High electivity for larger prey items Diet is not correlated with invertebrate drift 

availability 

Foraging strategy may shift from visual sight feeding to a 

more mobile, searching strategy under increased turbidity 

Incidence of piscivory is correlated with prey 

availability of native fish 

At high densities cumulative effects from piscivory may 

exceed brown trout 

Incidence of piscivory is not influenced by 

turbidity 

Brown trout use a mobile foraging strategy that 

includes epibenthic feeding and piscivory. 

Q: I was wondering in the analysis you’ve done, can you help us in making tradeoffs and Mark’s earlier question. 

There is a learning and research component. (Kubly) 

A: There are a number of information gaps that are not going to come out of this. It’s really the brown that is the 

piscivorous one. It doesn’t appear that they’re independently reproducing. (Yard) 

C: Their recommendation was to keep the RBT population low. When they get high, they can have a negative effect. 

We were getting many fewer fish in the samples we were pulling in. (Andersen) 

ACTION ITEM: Kurt said a presentation on the native origin of rainbow trout would be put on the next TWG 

agenda. 

Near Shore Ecology/Fall Steady Flows. Matthew Andersen said GCMRC and others have been concerned 

about nearshore ecology and fall steady flows and possibly combining the two studies. In working with the 

cooperator, they realized it would be difficult to start that study and have a completed draft to NPS for 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 4 

FINAL Minutes of July 16-17, 2008, Meeting 

permitting and to Carl Walters. The reviews have started to come back. Matthew said he would send the 

information to the TWG. Bill Davis expressed frustration in not seeing the report before it goes to the 

AMWG. John Hamill said the AMWG passed a motion and he was frustrated by Bill’s reaction. 

Matthew said he has received approval from the upper level Park Service. Jan said they have to be very 

careful whatever they report. Jan said Matthew may be surprised that he would get approval. There was a 

lot of discussion about the solicitation and what goes in the proposal. Matthew said it was their intention to 

submit a full proposal to use motors in a non-motorized season. Kurt said that this will continue to be 

discussed between Park Service and GCMRC. 

Pilot Study. Matthew went into more detail about the pilot study. He listed the various methods they plan to 

use in conducting the pilot study. 

New Agenda Item: National Park Service Management at Grand Canyon. Jan Balsom presented a PPT, 

“National Park Service Management at Grand Canyon National Park (Attachment 5). She provided an 

update on the lawsuit with the River Runners for Wilderness, et al. vs. the National Park Service. She said 

more information can be found at the following web site: http://www.rrfw.org. Matthew said he attended a 

meeting last week in which Steve Martin and Martha Hahn assured him they were ready to sign the permit 

to use motorized equipment in the non-motorized season. Jan said she would check with Steve and Martha 

on the permit. 

FY09 Budget and Workplan (Attachment 6a)

Bureau of Reclamation. Dennis said the Budget Ad Hoc Group held six conference calls. At the current 

time there is no recommendation from the BAHG. At the next TWG meeting he would like to discuss a more 

effective budget process and how the BAHG works. Some BAHG members would like to be involved in 

developing the spreadsheet which could also be discussed. The BAHG process is in place and has been 

agreed to by the AMWG. He thinks for the first time a 2-year budget should be done and, if so, they really 

need to get started. There were nine issues discussed. Dennis proceeded with a PPT presentation, 

(Attachment 6b). This budget doesn’t include translocation but they hope to have that resolved before the 

AMWG meeting. He said the LTEP is still on hold. 

ACTION ITEM: Develop a better budget process for the next TWG meeting and functions of the BAHG. 

Norm asked what happens to the unspent tribal dollars. Dennis said any funds left in Reclamation’s portion 

of the budget go into the Experimental Flow Fund.

Mary said that Navajo Nation still hasn’t submitted a proposal. Apparently they are trying to hire someone to 

put something together, but Mike Berry is also trying to get something done. The question came up that if 

Navajo can’t spend their monitoring money, is there a way for the other tribes to access the money rather 

than having it go into the Experimental Flow Fund. This is something that Mike is still awarding funds for 

FY08. Thus far, the tribes have not received their funding. Dennis asked how long contracting has been 

involved. Mike Yeatts said Hopi sent their proposal in January 2008. Mike Berry will do further checking and 

let Dennis know. 

CRAHG Report. Mary Barger said the CRAHG still hasn’t looked at the funds but are committed to doing 

mitigation. GCMRC’s budget is proposing to finish out a lot of projects. Helen wanted to do some synthesis 

for some projects. The CRAHG agreed finishing the projects was a good idea. There will probably be a 

workshop in 2009. They asked to review the monitoring protocols and there was some question when 

monitoring begins by GCMRC. 

ACTION ITEM: The tribal representatives will report back to Dennis if they would like to have their funds 

committed as individual entities rather than one lump sum. 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 5 

FINAL Minutes of July 16-17, 2008, Meeting 

Norm asked what happens to the carryover funds for the Experimental Flow Fund. Dennis explained that 

there are two sets of carryover. The AMWG sets aside $500K which stays in the basin fund and is carried 

on Reclamation’s portion of the budget. GCMRC notifies Reclamation what they intend to carry over and 

they discuss what to do with it. 

ACTION ITEM: Reclamation will look into the status of carryover funds on known year-to-year projects. 

GCMRC FY09 Budget Emphasis. John Hamill gave a PPT presentation, (Attachment 6c). He mentioned 

several items that had changes. He brought copies of the AMWG motions relative to the budget. Two items 

were discussed and the only other issue was the tribal liaison position. He said the Deputy Secretary sent 

out a response to that and said DOI will be handling this issue. The other issue was a discussion on the 

near shore ecology and fall steady flows. He distributed copies of a letter he sent to the AMWG dated April 

17, 2008 (Attachment 6d). They received only three responses on their budget comment form 

(Attachment 6e). GCMRC prepared responses to those comments and will share those with the group. He 

said it really helps to have the format so they are prepared for the budget discussion. 

Norm asked about the $1 million GCMRC receives from USGS for use by the AMP. John told him the 

amount is included and will be changed in the budget before the next iteration. He explained that DOI 

customers get a “corporate” rate but the money is not shown as a final line item. Mary said she wants to see 

the whole burden rate with the $1 million subtracted. She said she has requested this information every 

year for the past three years and won’t approve this year’s budget without seeing it. John said he didn’t see 

the value in providing that information as there are different burden rates applied to different projects. 

ACTION ITEM: Dennis will send out a form for the AMP stakeholders to provide information on their 

ancillary projects within the GCDAMP. 

Kurt asked Norm if he wants to go through each project that has a conservation measure within each 

component. Norm said he wants to see the total scope of the BCOM. Glen suggested Norm bring those to 

the table. Dennis asked if the group would agree in FY09 on the ancillary projects and determine if they’re 

part of the program. 

The group continued to review the nine issues. He said the lengthy discussion on the 2000 LSSF made him 

feel good about what GCRMC is doing and asked the TWG if that issue was resolved. Mary said she wasn’t 

sure they had enough money to do the work. Kurt asked if other people felt the same way. John Hamill 

reminded them that if they take money from one project, they have to put it in another. 

Mary said that Glenn and Ted had mentioned what can be done with the money for LiDAR so she was 

wondering what can be done “with more than less.” Glenn said it would be more because plant and species 

responses can be delineated but cautioned there is a limit. He is to trying to find out the costs and said a big 

part of the overflight costs are in the overprocessing. 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 6 

FINAL Minutes of July 16-17, 2008, Meeting 

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Meeting 

July 16-17, 2008 

Conducting: Kurt Dongoske, Chairperson July 17, 2008 

 Convened: 8:15 a.m. 

Committee Members Present: 

Jan Balsom, NPS/GCNP 

Mary Barger, WAPA 

Charley Bulletts, Southern Paiute Consortium 

Kerry Christensen, Hualapai Tribe 

Jonathan Damp, Pueblo of Zuni 

William Davis, CREDA 

Jay Groseclose, NM Interstate Stream Comm. 

Norm Henderson, NPS/GCNRA 

Amy Heuslein, BIA 

Robert King, UDWR 

Glen Knowles, USFWS 

Dennis Kubly, USBR 

Anthony Miller, Colo. River Comm./NV 

John O’Brien, GCRG 

Don Ostler, UCRC 

Scott Rogers, AGFD 

John Shields, WY State Engineers Office 

Mark Steffen, Federation of Fly Fishers 

Bill Werner, ADWR 

Michael Yeatts, The Hopi Tribe 

Committee Members Absent: 

Cliff Barrett, UAMPS 

Steven Begay, Navajo Nation 

Christopher Harris, Colo. River Board of Calif. 

Amy Heuslein, BIA 

Rick Johnson, Grand Canyon Trust 

Bill Persons, AGFD 

D. Randolph Seaholm, CWCB 

Larry Stevens, Grand Canyon Wildlands Council 

Alternates Present: For: 

Leslie James Cliff Barrett, UAMPS 

Scott Rogers Bill Persons, AGFD 

Interested Persons: 

Matthew Andersen, GCRMC/USGS 

Glenn Bennett, GCMRC/USGS 

Shane Capron, WAPA 

Helen Fairley, GCRMC/USGS 

David & Pam Garrett, M3

Research 

Paul Grams, GCMRC/USGS 

William Halvorson, SWBC/USGS 

John Hamill, GCRMC/USGS 

Barbara McKenzie, GCMRC/USGS 

Ted Melis, GCMRC/USGS 

Tom Ryan, USBR 

Tim Steffen, Federation of Fly Fishers 

Meeting Recorder: Linda Whetton, USBR 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Welcome and Administrative. The Chairman welcomed the TWG members, alternates, and interested 

persons. Attendance sheets were distributed. 

Action Item Updates: 1) Leslie James gave an update on the power economics presentation in response 

to a list of questions prepared by Rick Johnson. Leslie said that many of his questions can be answered 

if he goes to the AMP website and review the documents posted. If he has any additional questions, he 

should bring them forward to the group. 2) She reported a Life Cycle Study has been done and as soon 

as it has been peer reviewed, she thought the authors could make a presentation to the TWG. Mary 

added that a presentation will be made at the upcoming Science Symposium. There are also questions 

on Rick’s list that deal with current litigation and we’re not going to answer those questions. 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 7 

FINAL Minutes of July 16-17, 2008, Meeting 

FY09 Budget and Workplan. Kurt said the group dealt with issues on the LSSF, nearshore ecology, and 

fall steady flows. The issue of the tribal liaison position has been dealt with and is no longer an issue for 

the TWG. Even though the TWG supports having an AMP Effectiveness Workshop in FY09 that issue 

has been turned over to the Department for further direction/action. 

Kurt asked if the sediment transport study was still an issue and if further discussion with GCMRC is 

needed. Don said he thought the TWG talked about the questions the managers had and what the 

modelers are doing. Because the high flows are expensive and modeling is cheaper, he wants to make 

sure the questions are consistent with what the modelers are doing. John Hamill said he would arrange a 

meeting with the modelers and other people to make sure they’re doing the work that people want. Kurt 

said that issue for discussion dealt with conservation measures. He asked if his concerns were 

adequately addressed with what Dennis said yesterday. Norm said they were but that they need to be 

included in a workplan. He said there are other potential management actions and AMP activities being 

done. 

ACTION ITEM: John Hamill will set up a meeting with GCMRC modeling staff and interested TWG 

members to ensure the correct things are being modeled. 

Line 73, Mainstem Coldwater Fish Control – New Initiative. Kurt said the next several issues would be 

more difficult to deal with particularly the concern with removing rainbow trout from the LCR. Mark 

Steffen said he wrote a minority report (Attachment 7) because he’s very unhappy about how the 

program is killing non-native fish especially trout because it is a desirable sport fish. He said he wrote the 

report because he wants to be very clear in his opposition. He would like to have an individual vote on 

that line item. 

Amy asked if the Hualapai are still taking the trout remains and if the issue has been brought up in the 

POAHG. Matthew said he would check with Loretta to find out if the Hualapai are still interested in the 

fish. Mike said the issue has been brought up in the POAHG meetings. 

Line 15, TWG Chair Reimbursement. Kurt said the issue of the TWG using a facilitator has been brought 

up in lieu of the TWG chair not seeking reimbursement. The issue has a lot of ramifications for the TW 

and suggested they look at a way to accommodate both a TWG Chair and a facilitator, determine what 

the interaction would be, who would report actions to the AMWG, and finally look at the cost of having a 

facilitator. He wondered if the decision would be easier handled by an ad hoc group and asked if there 

was interest in forming one. 

Concerns: 

• We’re in a transition period. It’s a logical time to flesh out ideas as to how this committee operates. It should be 

done before the next AMWG meeting so a recommendation can be made. This doesn’t need to wait a whole 

year. (Hamill) 

• If we had a facilitator, it might be more attractive for someone to serve as a TWG Chair. (Barger) 

• Let’s not let this drag on. I propose having a vote for establishing an ad hoc group or a facilitator. (Heuslein) 

• I’m concerned about the overall overhead for the facilitator. (Ostler) 

• A facilitator would probably charge around $130/hour so the budget would be impacted. (Kubly) 

Kurt asked who would like to be part of an hoc group to discuss this further. The following members 

volunteered: Jan Balsom, Kerry Christensen, Bill Davis, and Bill Persons. 

The charge for the TWG/Facilitator AHG will be: To evaluate the benefits and costs of either maintaining 

the TWG chair or bringing in a facilitator, and if the facilitator is brought in, what are the costs, and how 

do you change the Operating Procedures? The ad hoc group is weighing the benefits, staying status quo 

or their analysis. 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 8 

FINAL Minutes of July 16-17, 2008, Meeting 

Since this line item has budget implications, the group will need to bring a recommendation back to the 

TWG for consideration before making a recommendation to the AMWG. 

Review of Issues presented at yesterday’s meeting. Kurt reviewed the following: 

Sediment

• Important for GCMRC to meet with TWG reps regarding questions asked of the sediment models. 

Action: The Center has dealt with

DASA

• Look at running HECRAZ model against archaeologist site locations. Action: Glenn Bennett is 

willing to look at that against the archaeological models. He will make some runs on that. 

Mary B said she’d like to go to 100,000. Glenn said he could do that. No budget impact to 

FY09

Near Shore Ecology Pilot Project – TWG review part of AMP? Action: John Hamill said GCMRC 

would share the scope of work on that project with the TWG. Matthew said he got the SAs review 

back and will respond to those and then distribute to the TWG. John said they also need to talk 

with the NPS for permitting on the pilot study. Mary said if there is going to be a problem, the 

TWG needs to be informed. 

BOR Budget

• Tribal Monitoring Funding – What happens to non-expended funds? Action: Mike Berry is heading 

up the effort between Reclamation and tribes and whether those funds can be redistributed to 

the tribes and if there is something leftover, determine how those fund can be distributed. 

Mike will report back to the TWG at a later date. 

• Tribal AMP Participation Funding expended listed by individual tribes. Action: The Tribes will 

respond to Mike Berry and information will be presented to the TWG. The four tribes attending 

today’s meeting concurred (Southern Paiute, Hopi, Hualapai, Zuni) with this action. 

GCMRC Budget

• HFE Research Projects that continue into 09 are not shown in the budget. Action: John Hamill will 

create an addendum on ongoing projects with the HFE for the TWG’s information. John said 

he would include a summary spreadsheet in FY09 and is out of the Experimental Flow Fund 

and can also include some language about linkages to other projects. 

Dennis said he couldn’t find the tie with the original AMWG assignment and that this project is intended 

to fulfill that directive but is losing its identity. 

• Show full overhead for each project (how USGS contribution is expended). There was a very 

lengthy discussion with Mary Barger requesting that each GCMRC project show the actual 

cost including burden and then having GCMRC subtract the $1 million they receive at the 

bottom of the spreadsheet. She has asked for this for the past several years and it never gets 

done. John said he didn’t see the utility in doing two different spreadsheets and asked the 

TWG to weigh in on what they feel should be done and then proposing that to the AMWG for a 

decision. 

Mary said she provided comments on a spreadsheet and didn’t know if the group would have time to 

discuss. There isn’t a lot of detail in the projects. Her reason for bringing up the issue again is that she is 

a very detail oriented person and feels it would better inform the TWG in their budget deliberations. 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 9 

FINAL Minutes of July 16-17, 2008, Meeting 

Kurt asked John how difficult it would be to respond to Mary’s request. John said he thought it might be 

good to do what Bill had suggested in putting together a narrative and see how it plays in the overall 

process and buy down the USGS overhead rate. He would need to talk with Barbara McKenzie because 

the USGS overhead rates are quite difficult to understand. He understands Mary’s concern but said it is a 

very laborious exercise. 

BO Conservation Measures identified in FY09 as ancillary projects and in FY10 vetted through the In/Out 

AHG and budget process. 

Bill Davis asked why it is going to take five years to develop a non-native control plan. Matthew referred 

to line 62 and said this is a short-term plan to be delivered broadly to the TWG within the next few weeks 

and that emphasis is on the species and techniques known today. GCMRC thinks that modeling will help 

them make some educated guesses on the greatest threat to the species. John said that it would also 

focus on testing specific species. Dave said the interpretation was there and will cover all current known 

capabilities, sample design, gear, etc. and that’s due in two weeks. Between now and 2011, new 

information will be developed on new techniques and then that improved plan will be delivered. 

Kurt suggested that if there are specific concerns with the plan, they need to talk with Matthew. 

Bill Davis said he is trying to understand the plan and by 2011 it will change considerably. He feels the 

plan should be updated annually rather than waiting to put a firm plan in place by 2011. He thinks a 

different approach would be better and stated the long-term monies should be used for a fixed plan. 

Concerns: 

• The level of detail is lacking for a lot of reasons and should be noted. (Balsom) 

• Do we need to see all the detail of the MRP in the budget every year? It doesn’t have all the detail the MRP 

does. (Werner) 

• We talked about having a hydrograph in the proposal and since it’s a requirement of the GCPA, it should be 

inserted in this document. (Henderson) 

2000 LSSF synthesis funding adequate. Action: This was discussed at length yesterday and Kurt 

said his sense was that the TWG is happy with GCMRC and how they’re doing it. 

MOTION (Proposed by: Bill Werner, seconded by Don Ostler): The Technical Work Group recommends 

the FY 2009 Annual Budget and Workplan to AMWG for approval at its September 2008 meeting. 

Representative Stakeholder Entity Vote Representative Stakeholder Entity Vote 

Bill Persons 

Scott Rogers 

Arizona Game & Fish Dept. Y Rick Johnson Grand Canyon Trust absent 

Amy Heuslein Bureau of Indian Affairs Y Larry Stevens Gr. Canyons Wildlands Council absent 

Dennis Kubly Bureau of Reclamation Y Mark Steffen Federation of Fly Fishers A 

Mike Yeatts Hopi Tribe Y John O’Brien Grand Canyon River Guides Y 

Kerry Christensen Hualapai Tribe Y Bill Werner State of Arizona Y 

Jan Balsom NPS-GRCA A Christopher Harris State of California absent 

Norm Henderson NPS-GLNRA A Randy Seaholm State of Colorado absent 

Steven Begay Navajo Nation absent Anthony Miller State of Nevada Y 

Jonathan Damp Pueblo of Zuni Y Jay Groseclose State of New Mexico Y 

VACANT San Juan Southern Paiute absent Robert King State of Utah Y 

Charley Bulletts Southern Paiute Consortium Y Don Ostler State of Wyoming Y 

Glen Knowles U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Y Bill Davis CREDA Y 

Mary Barger Western Area Power Admin. A Cliff Barrett UAMPS Y 

Total Yes 16 

Total No 0 

Total Abstain 4 

Total Voting 20 

Motion Passes 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 10 

FINAL Minutes of July 16-17, 2008, Meeting 

• Jan Balsom (Abstaining): There is not enough detail and whether projects would be in conflict with our policies. 

We do either a conditional approval and can’t approve with the minimum required. 

• Norm Henderson (Abstaining): No additional comments. 

• Mark Steffen (Abstaining): I’ve already distributed a minority report with my concerns. 

• Mary Barger (Abstaining): I concur with Jan that the level of detail is not there. We should be getting a higher 

level of detail. I depend on the ad hoc groups and individuals who are reviewing. The information is not there 

and don’t know what’s happening there. I’m really uncomfortable with that. That’s a concern of mine. I’m still 

concerned that the LSSF happens. We had talked about whether additional funding would come in. I’m also 

concerned that the MRP is being held up because of permitting problems. 

General Core Monitoring Plan for GCDAMP. John Hamill said they’ve been trying to finalize the plan. 

Helen worked with the Core Monitoring AHG some time ago. The GCMRC agreed to a core monitoring 

step process. John said it was becoming difficult to develop within their staff but were able to get help 

from Dr. Bill Halvorson. Dr. Halvorson has a degree in ecology from ASU. Dr. Halvorson presented a 

PPT entitled, “General Core Monitoring Plan for the GCD-AMP” (Attachment 8). 

General Core Monitoring Plan Table of Contents

Chapter 1 – Introduction and Background 

Chapter 2 – Conceptual Ecosystem Models 

Chapter 3 – Framework and Context of the Core Monitoring Program 

Chapter 4 – General Long-Term Core Monitoring Proposals 

Chapter 5 – Data Management 

Chapter 6 – Data Analysis and Reporting 

Chapter 7 – Administration & Implementation of Core Monitoring Program 

Chapter 8 – Budget and Schedule 

Chapter 9 – Literature Cited. 

John said they would have a draft ready for the TWG’s fall meeting. They would like to update the 

AMWG at their winter meeting and have a plan the program could endorse in spring 2009. John feels it 

would get everyone on the same page for monitoring. 

Ad Hoc Group Updates: 

Sediment AHG. John O’Brien said the Sediment AHG will try and bring a recommendation by the next 

TWG Meeting (possibly November) then TWG will review those. He said that if he doesn’t intend to 

submit a recommendation, then the TWG can discuss in October and make recommendations for 

GCMRC and AMWG. 

CRAHG/PA Update. Mary Barger said there was a PA meeting and a follow-up the second day. The first 

day they talked about the PA being rewritten for ACHP and SHPO and there was a lot of discussion on 

how the AMP fits into the 106 Compliance. They didn’t feel the AMP should be part of the PA and that 

the AMP should put together a MOA. The CRAHG will write that so they need advice or direction from 

TWG to write an MOA on how the AMP fits with the PA. 

Dennis asked if it was a change in budget. Jan told him the SHPO and ACHP don’t have any legal 

authority outside 106 compliance. They can’t be involved with anything other than 106; it’s a way to fund 

things. They don’t feel they can sign off on anything without NHPA. Dennis said they should bring it as a 

proposal to the TWG and then it goes up the line for further discussion. 

John Hamill stated this group has no authority to enter into an agreement with a FACA committee. 

GCMRC provided a lot of comments about their role in this process and he didn’t understand why that 

was taken out of the GCPA. Mary said the GCPA was taken out of the document. They said that 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 11 

FINAL Minutes of July 16-17, 2008, Meeting 

GCMRC has 106 responsibilities but their compliance is picked up by USBR and NPS and should have a 

signatory. Helen said she participated in that meeting and one of my concerns is that NPS and USBR are 

trying to set up a PA for operations of GCD without mentioning the AMP. 

Kurt suggested the CRAHG get with Mike Berry and develop a report identifying the concepts for an 

MOA and bring it to the TWG for review and discussion. 

Election of the New TWG Chair for FY09. Mark Steffen nominated Shane Capron. Shane accepted the 

nomination. 

Shane expressed two concerns: 1) the possibility of using a facilitator for TWG meetings. Since WAPA 

would be paying his salary, he felt that freed up the TWG Chair reimbursement funds, and 2) he would 

also like to be able to make substantive scientific comments on behalf of for WAPA when warranted in 

TWG meetings. 

Bill Davis expressed concern that the TWG chair remain neutral. Don Ostler said he has been associated 

with many other boards and they work fine. They all know that the chair has the right and ability to raise 

information for their advocacy. 

Dennis said the use of a facilitator would still need AMWG approval because it has changes in the 

budget as to what a line item is being used for. 

Without objection, Shane was nominated as the new TWG Chair. 

Adaptive Management Progression: Potential Transition from Experiments to Management Actions. 

Dennis Kubly presented five slides and said he would like to get feedback from the TWG on the 

difference between experiments and management actions. There will be aspects that will be technical 

and remanded to the AMWG such as the HFT science plan. 

John Hamill asked if there was a distinction between what is an experimental action or a management 

action. Dr. Garrett said the adaptive management process is based on a science based program. He 

said it’s important in adaptive management for having some basis for what the group does. They need a 

definition as to when the experimental action is fruitful and ask the following questions: Will this help the 

program? Will it help the resource? There is a need to have accountability because we’re using the 

social resources. When is it appropriate to take action? He said most adaptive management programs 

have limited funding so it might have some applications. The other is accountability to the public. It’s 

important when the program takes action. There is no bright line and monitoring is a continuum but the 

experimentation process provides you have sufficient knowledge to know what the outcome will be. 

Bill Werner commented that in the wake of the HFE and reading some of the newspaper articles, some 

people have concluded that we have to do them every year or every other year. Then he sees Ted’s 

presentation, the preliminary results and some of the bars created in 2004 are gone. He feels that until 

we have a good understanding where we’re going, it’s hard to know what to do. He’s also heard a lot 

about control of non-native fish and said maybe the money should be spent on doing it rather than 

researching it. 

Jan said one of the biggest concerns is watching things happen without doing something. The other part 

is they’ve done a lot of the inventory on sites and identified threats which are important things to consider 

and are responsible for those resources. They will never know anything for certain so judgment calls 

have to be based on the best available information. 

Dennis said there are some people who see a hard line between the two but wondered if there are 

shades of gray. Who pays and who does the work? It’s the responsibility of this technical group to make 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 12 

FINAL Minutes of July 16-17, 2008, Meeting 

the distinction and answer the questions. While the LTEP is currently on the shelf, it may be resurrected 

at a later time. 

Dennis said for the next steps, the group might entertain Carl Walters’ thoughts when he comes out 

again. He asked what would wait until 2021 and suggested that perhaps the AMWG or the Science 

Advisors must advise the TWG which issues to pursue. 

John Hamill said the TWG needs to do better annual planning and he stated some things that will be 

coming up: 

1. LSSF Synthesis 

2. MRP Update 

3. NSE/FSF Science plan 

4. Biennial work plan 

5. Science Symposium 

6. HFE Reporting 

7. Core Monitoring Plan 

8. Roles Report 

Dennis said there will be core monitoring and if people aren’t objective and technical, then what are the 

alternatives. Dave suggested the TWG take one resource and see if it could be piloted through the 

process. 

Jay said the program’s purpose is to avoid the damage to any resources, to determine the purpose of an 

experimental, and to have a controlled action before going to a management action. He views the MLFF 

as a restriction upon flows and other things that had been operated on 9 Mile and we couldn’t turn the 

old system off. 

Dennis said he saw a lot of editorials about the HFE and they were very critical. He questioned how 

receptive the public will be when the program does the 10th or 12th high flow. One of the biggest 

criticisms to adaptive management is that it’s good in theory but not in practice. Dennis asked John if 

Carl would have time to meet at our October meeting. John said he would talk about it and let the group 

know. 

Regarding the editorials, Amy said part of program’s problem is informing the public of what adaptive 

management is. The group and even the POAGH needs to do more than we’re currently doing. 

Adjourned: 2:55 p.m. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Linda Whetton 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

Upper Colorado Region 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 13 

FINAL Minutes of July 16-17, 2008, Meeting 

General Key to Adaptive Management Program Acronyms 

ADWR – Arizona Dept. of Water Resources 

AF – Acre Feet 

AGFD – Arizona Game and Fish Department 

AGU – American Geophysical Union 

AIF  Agenda Information Form 

AMP – Adaptive Management Program 

AMWG – Adaptive Management Work Group 

AOP – Annual Operating Plan 

BA – Biological Assessment 

BAHG – Budget Ad Hoc Group 

BCOM – Biological Conservation Measure 

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 Association 

GCT  Grand Canyon Trust 

CESU – Cooperative Ecosystems Studies Unit 

cfs – cubic feet per second 

CMINs  Core Monitoring Information Needs 

CRBC – Colorado River Board of California 

CRAHG - Cultural Resources Ad Hoc Group 

CRCN – Colorado River Commission of Nevada 

CRE  Colorado River Ecosystem 

CREDA – Colorado River Energy Distributors Assn. 

CRSP – Colorado River Storage Project 

DASA - Data Acquisition, Storage and Analysis

CWCB – Colorado Water Conservation Board 

DBMS – Data Base Management System 

DFCAHG  Desired Future Conditions Ad Hoc Group 

DOE  Department of Energy 

DOI – Department of the Interior 

EA – Environmental Assessment 

EIS – Environmental Impact Statement 

ESA – Endangered Species Act 

FACA – Federal Advisory Committee Act 

FEIS – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

FRN – Federal Register Notice 

FWS – United States Fish & Wildlife Service 

FY – Fiscal Year (October 1 – September 30) 

GCD – Glen Canyon Dam 

GCT  Grand Canyon Trust 

GCMRC – Grand Canyon Monitoring & Research Ctr. 

GCNP – Grand Canyon National Park 

GCNRA – Glen Canyon National Recreation Area 

GCPA – Grand Canyon Protection Act 

GLCA – Glen Canyon National Recreation Area 

GRCA  Grand Canyon National Park 

GCRG  Grand Canyon River Guides 

GCWC  Grand Canyon Wildlands Council 

GUI – Graphical User Interface 

HBC – Humpback Chub (endangered native fish) 

HMF – Habitat Maintenance Flow 

HPP – Historic Preservation Plan 

IEDA  Irrigation & Electrical Districts Assoc. of Arizona 

INs – Information Needs 

IT – Information Technology 

KA  Knowledge Assessment (workshop) 

KAS – Kanab ambersnail (endangered native snail) 

LCR – Little Colorado River 

LRRMCP – Lower Colorado River Multi-Species 

Conservation Program 

LTEP – Long Term Experimental Plan 

MAF – Million Acre Feet 

MA – Management Action 

MATA – Multi-Attribute Trade-Off Analysis 

MLFF  Modified Low Fluctuating Flow 

MO – Management Objective 

MRP  Monitoring and Research Plan 

NAAO – Native American Affairs Office 

NAU – Northern Arizona University (Flagstaff, AZ) 

NEPA – National Environmental Policy Act 

NGS – National Geodetic Survey 

NHPA – National Historic Preservation Act 

NPS  National Park Service 

NRC  National Research Council 

NWS  National Weather Service 

O&M  Operations & Maintenance (USBR funding) 

PA  Programmatic Agreement 

PEP  Protocol Evaluation Panel 

POAHG  Public Outreach Ad Hoc Group 

Powerplant Capacity = 31,000 cfs 

PPT  PowerPoint (presentation) 

R&D  Research and Development 

Reclamation  United States Bureau of Reclamation 

RBT – Rainbow Trout 

RFP  Request For Proposals 

RINs  Research Information Needs 

ROD Flows  Record of Decision Flows 

RPA  Reasonable and Prudent Alternative 

SA  Science Advisors 

Secretary  Secretary of the Interior 

SCORE  State of the Colorado River Ecosystem 

SHPO – State Historic Preservation Office(r) 

SOW  Scope of Work 

SPAHG – Strategic Plan Ad Hoc Group 

SPG Science Planning Group 

SSQs  Strategic Science Questions 

SWCA  Steven W. Carothers Associates 

TCD  Temperature Control Device 

TCP  Traditional Cultural Property 

TES  Threatened and Endangered Species 

TWG  Technical Work Group 

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) 

Q/A/C/R = Question/Answer/Comment/Response

Updated: 02/03/09