Minutes of Technical Work Group Meeting FINAL

November 16-17, 1998

Presiding: Robert Winfree (Chairperson)

Committee Members Present:

Mark T. Anderson, USGS 

Clifford Barrett, CREDA

Kerry Christensen, Hualapai Nation

Dave Cohen, Trout Unlimited

Wayne Cook, UCRC

Wm. Davis, EcoPlan Assoc./CREDA

Kurt Dongoske, The Hopi Tribe

Christopher Harris, ADWR 

Norm Henderson, GCNRA

Amy Heuslein, BIA

Gene Jencsok, CWCB

Rick Johnson, Grand Canyon Trust

Robert King, UDWR

Tom Latousek, American Rivers 

Phillip S. Lehr, CRCN

Don Metz, US FWS

Bruce Moore, USBR

Clayton Palmer, WAPA

Bill Persons, AGFD

Andre Potochnik, Grand Canyon River Guides

Pueblo of Zuni (by Loren Panteah) 

So. Paiute Consortium (by Brenda Drye)

Fred Worthley, CRBC

Committee Members Absent:

Joe Dishta, Pueblo of Zuni 

Alan Downer, Navajo Nation

Carlos Mayo, Southern Paiute Consortium

John Shields, Wyoming State Engineer’s Ofc

Alternates Present:

Timothy Begay, Navajo Nation

Wayne Cook, UCRC

Brenda Drye, Southern Paiute Consortium

Loren Panteah, Pueblo of Zuni

Alternate For: 

Alan Downer, Navajo Nation

John Shields, Wyoming State Engineer’s Ofc

Southern Paiute Consortium

Pueblo of Zuni

Other Interested Persons Present:

Mary Barger,WAPA

Debra Bills, USFWS 

Gary Burton, WAPA

Shane Collins, WAPA-CRPS-CSC

Suzanne Fish, NRC

Barry Gold, GCMRC

Nancy Hornewer, USGS

Pamela Hyde, (general public)

Loretta Jackson, Hualapai Cultural Resources

Josh Korman, Ecometric Research

Ruth Lambert, GCMRC

Mike Liszewski, GCMRC

Alvin Marble, Santa Clara, UT

Ted Melis, GCMRC 

Wendell Minckley, Arizona State Univ.

Tom Moody, Grand Canyon Trust

Tony Morton, USBR

Fred Nials, Univ. of Nevada

Randy Peterson, USBR

Barbara Ralston, GCMRC 

Randy Seaholm, CWCB 

Larry Sibala, BIA-PHX

Jeff Sorensen, AGFD 

Larry Stevens, GCMRC

Bill Vernieu, GCMRC

Mike Yeatts, Hopi Tribe

Recorder: Serena Mankiller, GCMRC Secretary

11/16/98: Convened: 10:00 a.m. Adjourned: 5:04 p.m.

11/17/98: Convened: 8:00 a.m. Adjourned: 4:05 p.m.
Minutes of Technical Work Group Meeting

November 16-17, 1998

Page 2

MEETING OPENING AND ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS

Welcome: Robert Winfree, the Chairperson, convened the meeting and welcomed committee

members, member alternates, and guests. A quorum was present.

Review of Agenda: The Chairperson reviewed the final agenda which included revisions from the

draft agenda. All TWG had received the revised final agenda prior to this meeting. The Lake Powell

Ad Hoc Group presentation was deleted from the 11/16/98 agenda and added to 11/17/98 agenda. 

Addition made to 11/17/98 agenda for nominations of TWG Chairperson for next year.

Attendance Sheets: Distributed.

Review of Minutes: Minutes of July 23, 1998 (Attachment 1), and minutes of September 14-15, 1998

(Attachment 2) were available for review. The TWG will review and submit revisions to the GCMRC

Secretary. 

OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS

One date published in the Federal Register Notice for this TWG meeting was incorrect. It was

published as November 17-18, 1998. The correct dates are November 16-17, 1998. The November 16

meeting will be considered an ad hoc group meeting and any voting or decisions will be delayed to

November 17. If any members of the public show up for a meeting on November 18, they will be

notified of the error. 

Gene Jencsok announced that he is retiring. Randy Seaholm will be the new TWG representative for

the Colorado Water Conservation Board, beginning at the December 8, 1998 TWG meeting. An

official letter will be submitted to the TWG Chairperson. The Chairperson thanked Mr. Jencsok for his

outstanding contributions to the adaptive management process.

Tom Moody (GC Trust) announced that his last TWG meeting will be December 8, 1998. Rick

Johnson will continue to be GC Trust’s TWG representative. The Chairperson thanked Mr. Moody for

his outstanding contributions to the adaptive management process.

AMP BUDGET AND PROGRAMMING

GCMRC Draft FY2000 Annual Plan (dated 10/9/98): Barry Gold reported that two additional sets

of written comments have been received since the October 26, 1998, ad hoc group meeting. All

substantive comments have been addressed in the programmatic sections of the plan for presentation to

the TWG by the program managers. The overall second draft has not yet been finalized and will be

mailed to the TWG on November 20, 1998, for final comments at the December 8, 1998, TWG

meeting. More detail has been added to the plan as requested. Protocol evaluation items have been

identified as well as how they lead to implementation of the long term plan. Managers for each

program area presented their areas and answered questions from the TWG. Revisions were identified

and will be accepted from the TWG through December 8, 1998.
Minutes of Technical Work Group Meeting

November 16-17, 1998

Page 3

Recommendation: (same as Strategic Plan recommendation below).

GCMRC Draft FY2000-2004 Strategic Plan (dated 11/5/98): Barry Gold reported that the TWG’s

comments were incorporated into the first draft (dated 11/5/98) and distributed to the TWG on

November 5, 1998. Redline/strikeout revisions were not shown due to reorganization of the entire

document. Some members requested copies of the GCMRC staff’s handwritten notations about how

the TWG’s comments were addressed in the document. These copies will be provided as soon as

possible. Final comments will be discussed at the TWG meeting on December 8, 1998, and

incorporated into a final draft which is due for mailing to the AMWG on December 11, 1998. 

GCMRC felt the timeline to complete the final is very narrow.

Recommendation: Substantive comments will be discussed, and editorial comments will be submitted

at the December 8, 1998, TWG meeting. The TWG members will ask their AMWG members if the

mailing of the final draft may be delayed until December 18, 1998. The TWG members will contact

Barry Gold if there is a problem regarding this change in schedule. 

Budget: Barry Gold discussed at length the GCMRC five-year below-line budget with respect

to the recent Senate budget language. The budget does not include PA or AMP activities. It appears

that the program is increasing, but current figures reflect a base steady-state budget, accounting for

inflation, and does not show increases. Discussions included:

• The FY2000 bottom line figure of $6.2 million excludes funding for the integrated water quality

program because an alternative funding proposal is still pending recommendation. That program

may be primarily funded out of Reclamation’s O&M budget and the downstream portion takes $1.5

million of the Biological Resources Program. 

• 2001-2004 budgets include a 3% annual increase. 

• The FY2001 budget of $6.9 million includes percentage adjustments for inflation, programmatic

accounts, operations and personnel contract services. In current dollars the $6.9 million are the

same as the 1997 budget dollars. 

• FY2002 excludes additional activities which may occur as a result of implementing the TCD. 

• FY2003 excludes investments which may be recommended after evaluation of remote monitoring

technology has been completed.

• All monitoring and research activities that respond to information needs will not be completed

within five years.

• The GCMRC is working on a draft document which addresses costs and what work needs to be

done beyond the base program for running a FY99 BHBF. The document will address economies

which may be realized depending on which month a trigger may occur. 

• A general Strategic Plan which overall guidance within which work will be accomplished for the
Minutes of Technical Work Group Meeting

November 16-17, 1998

Page 4

next 5 years needs to be finalized and approved. 

• Details may be discussed in this group over the next year or so to develop a management document

which, instead of being a set of strategies or philosophies, should be a chart of

details/tasks/timeframes/costs taken from guidance established in the Strategic Plan.

• The AMWG may wish to see an all-inclusive budget, especially costs associated with a BHBF in

the event of a trigger.

Barry Gold summarized that GCMRC will accept TWG comments on the type of budget presentation it

desires, and following the December 8, 1998, TWG meeting, budget projections or guidelines will be

incorporated into the FY2000-2004 Strategic Plan. GCMRC will finalize the plan for forwarding to

the AMWG for approval at its January 1999 meeting. Following that, the TWG might expect to be

assigned a new task to work on a long term management chart.

FY99 Program Update (new/modified contracts): Barry Gold reported the status of the FY99

program: 

RFPs (Attachments 3a, 3b, 3c, 3d): GCMRC Program Managers provided status sheets for the

TWG. The FY99 program mainly consists of continued FY98 activities. No new activities have yet

been initiated. The new FY99 RFPs are: 

(1) Development of a plan for SASF’s. 

(2) Establishment of a second population of HBC. Proposals were submitted for the above research

activities and are in the process of external peer review. A peer review panel will be convened the

week of December 15, 1998, and it will provide a recommendation on which proposals to fund. Dr.

Gold will give another status report at the January 1999 TWG meeting on the successful proposals &

related activities. 

(3) Establishment/implementation of a SAB, and the two research activities. Ten slots are available for

the SAB and a total of ten proposals were received for only 3-4 of those ten slots. To overcome these

obstacles, Barry Gold plans to contact other federal agencies to determine if our remuneration is

sufficient in comparison to other SAB’s, and the GCMRC will actively solicit scientists to determine

their interest and clearly explain what we’re seeking. GCMRC will provide the TWG with a roster of

2-3 names per slot. A review process will be conducted to select participants. The TWG may also

submit names to the GCMRC for the solicitation process. The SAB section of the RFP is available on

the AMWG/TWG web site for downloading.

AMWG Budget Update (Attachments 4a, 4b): Bruce Moore distributed a revised Budget Protocols

document. On further investigation, he found that the budget that goes forward in May is for

appropriated dollars only, not revenue. This allows the TWG approximately six additional months to

resolve the next fiscal year budget (July rather than January). This streamlines the process for CREDA

and WAPA’s review in April, and allows time in May to prepare information for AMWG’s mid-year

meeting and recommendation to Reclamation. Budget estimates are submitted in September for the
Minutes of Technical Work Group Meeting

November 16-17, 1998

Page 5

major categories/elements. Although some flexibility to shift funds between major categories remains

at the beginning of the execution year, the bottom line remains the same. Barry Gold distributed a table

containing a schedule of budget activities for current year/budget year/budget year +1. 

PA Program Budget: The TWG had previously requested more involvement and detailed information

about NPS work plans and tribal participation in the PA budget. An additional meeting was scheduled

for December 7, 1998, to review the FY99 and FY2000 PA budget. It will be held at the Embassy

Suites, Turquoise Room, from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. Kurt Dongoske stated that plans to do programmatic

work for 2000 have not yet been completely formulated and Reclamation should contact the PA

Signatories. Reclamation will attempt to pull together some data and submit it prior to the meeting. If

this is not achieved, the 99 data will be presented. 

RESOURCE CONDITION AND HYDROLOGIC FORECASTS

Hydrologic Forecasts and GCD Planned Releases: (Attachment 5) Randy Peterson no significant

changes have occurred since the last report except that fall precipitation has been unusually heavy in

the southern end of the Basin. This is contrary to the NWS prediction that La Nina would bring above

normal precipitation in the north and drier than normal in the south. Reclamation will take a cautious

approach to upcoming releases. The most probable releases for this winter will be in the range of

16,500 cfs (lower than last winter’s releases), and in the range of 12,000 cfs to 17,000 cfs through the

spring. Fall inflows have been significant, and the reservoir is expected to be a little fuller on January

1, 1999. There is a 1:3 chance of a BHBF next water year. A link will be established on the

AMWG/TWG web site to the hydrologic reports.

Fall Maintenance Flows During Tributary Events: (Attachment 6) Randy Peterson distributed a

proposal for fall maintenance flows which was faxed to the ad hoc group members for comment on

September 22, 1998. Positive feedback was received from some members of the ad hoc group. The

scope was to augment sediment transport/retention/storage of fines for backwater areas. The TWG

identified some operational, seasonal, sediment retention and public notification issues. Advance

warning of a Paria event would be needed, probably in the form of a telemetered precipitation gage. 

The next step would be to conduct a rigorous analysis of the impacts of this proposal. When the

impacts have been analyzed, the information would be presented to the TWG for recommendation. 

Recommendation: Scientists to provide written comments to Randy Peterson at the January 13, 1999,

TWG meeting. They will be compiled and distributed for TWG’s review and discussion at the

February, 1999, TWG meeting. Randy Peterson will provide information on hydrology backup support

in defining the return period and flow magnitude, as well as David Topping’s work regarding sediment

input thresholds for flow magnitudes.

Flood Avoidance Ad Hoc Group: (Attachment 7) Randy Peterson distributed a meeting summary

from the Spill Avoidance Ad Hoc Group meeting held on September 16, 1998. It was an educational

presentation about how decisions are made on changes in monthly releases. A link will be established

on the AMWG/TWG web site to this information for future reference by the TWG. Direct any

questions to Randy Peterson.
Minutes of Technical Work Group Meeting

November 16-17, 1998

Page 6

BEACH/HABITAT-BUILDING FLOW PLANNING AND COMPLIANCE ACTIVITIES:

KAS Population Status/BO Requirements: (Attachment 8) Larry Stevens (GCMRC) stated that it is

important for the TWG to stay informed about the status of this species because it is a showstopper for

high flows. A new metapopulation was discovered in Kanab Canyon, Utah. Efforts at establishment

of a second population in Grand Canyon are occurring. The KAS refuge population proposal is

ongoing through the Phoenix Zoo. A genetic and morphological project is ongoing. Analysis of

propagation of KAS projects at NAU and GCD are ongoing. KAWG is meeting regularly. Analysis is

being conducted on stage discharge relationships between 45,000-60,000 cfs (the 60,000 cfs stage is

1.5 meters above the 45,000 cfs stage) and effects on populated habitat. Specific monitoring data: from

September 1998, 10.5% of KAS populated habit lies at or below the 45,000 cfs stage at Vaseys

Paradise. A flow of 60,000 cfs would take approximately 25% of the populated habitat. November

1998 monitoring has not yet occurred. Broad data available overall from researchers: a 45,000 cfs

takes about 7.5% of the overall snail population, and a flow of 60,000 cfs takes about 22%. Overall

population is approximately 43,443 snails this year. A 15% error factor is possible because the

assessment is done only at the end of the year/growing season, and population size is established on

mean densities found on patches of different habitat types. 

Populations at Vasey’s Paradise, Three Lakes and Kanab Canyon have been morphologically

identified as KAS. The Recovery Plan requires ten populations be discovered or created before

downlisting from endangered to threatened can be considered. Threatened species are fully protected

under the ESA. USFWS has discussed the possibility of revising the downlisting criteria (currently

there are no de-listing criteria). The populations at Indian Gardens and -6 River Mile are not currently

technically classified as KAS. The term, “population” means they are isolated from one another and

not effectively able to interbreed; “metapopulation” means no genetic variability and habitats relatively

close together. If they can actually interbreed they should be considered a metapopulation. In the past,

the locality where KAS populations had been known to exist in Kanab Canyon had become dewatered

and the species declared extinct. The new metapopulation (9 subpopulations of unknown size) recently

discovered by Vicky Meretsky in seeps at Kanab Canyon were identified by the University of Colorado

as the KAS species. It is not yet clear if all populations in Arizona and Utah are related or distinct. 

Jeff Sorenson presented current information on establishment of a second population efforts

(Attachment 9) by the AGFD. The first post-translocation monitoring activities were conductd October

1998. Average resighting was 3.1%. The low percentage may be due to small size of individuals, and

is similar to resighting percentage of 3.4% at Vasey’s Paradise after the 1996 BHBF. Overwintering

mortality is high (30-90% at Vasey’s Paradise) for this species. In 1999 four (seasonal) monitoring trips

are planned to determine survivorship, reproduction, dispersal outside of the release areas, competition,

density, habitat, and need for reaugmentation with additional individuals. 500 individuals per year for

two years may be taken from Vasey’s Paradise. This year, 450 were translocated and 50 moved to the

Phoenix Zoo. Mr. Sorenson discussed the zoo refugium population at length. At the January 1999

KAWG meeting, they will discuss a flow plan to be developed (depending spring sampling findings),

whether monitoring should continue at the same or more intensity, and the success or failure of the

populations. 

KAS Biology Expert Panel: Barry Gold stated that GCMRC plans to organize and convene a scientific
Minutes of Technical Work Group Meeting

November 16-17, 1998

Page 7

panel to discuss and review KAS issues after data are gathered (probably between March-July 1999). 

Before GCMRC begins this task, it needs a specific set of questions geared towards management. It

also needs input about the desired range of expertise to seek in the panel to enable the group to work

productively. A schedule, timeframe and funding needs to be determined. There is no provision for

this activity in the 1999 budget. 

Recommendation: Submit suggestions to Tony Morton, who will develop a list of suggested topics for

the Compliance Ad Hoc Group to review and discuss. The ad hoc group will bring the matter back to

the TWG at a future meeting.

Biological Assessment/Biological Opinion: (Attachment 10) Larry Stevens (GCMRC) discussed flow

issues related to Humpback chub, Southwestern Willow Flycatcher and KAS. There is currently only

one successful breeding pair in Grand Canyon. Nesting failure is attributed to brownheaded cowbird

parasitism and possibly windstorms. Some survivorship is occurring nearer to Lake Mead. Tony

Morton (USBR) distributed and reviewed a Compliance Report to TWG. He reviewed restrictions

contained in the current BO regarding Humpback chub overwintering mortality affected by OctoberFebruary BHBFs or BHMFs. At the recent Saguaro Lake scientist meeting, some scientists said that it

is not critical to understand overwintering mortality of HBC. That information will be included in a

revised BA and submitted to the USFWS. Current BO language restricts a January-February flow. 

One of GCMRC’s RFPs for FY99 is to develop a plan and approach for determining overwintering

mortality of HBC. Barry Gold stated that field work will be underway in January regarding young-ofyear HBC issues. Based on findings, the spring LCR monitoring will be expanded to the mainstem. 

There is also a FY99 RFP for SASFs. 

Compliance Ad Hoc Committee Report: Tony Morton requested input from the TWG about if it thinks

Reclamation should do an EA for a 1999 BHBF and a programmatic approach, if it thinks the adaptive

management process so effectively addresses all resource concerns that NEPA becomes redundant. 

Since NEPA is not legally required for GCD operations which stay within operations criteria, time,

effort and costs would be saved in suspending NEPA activities and focusing on ESA and NHPA

activities. Generally, the TWG felt that Reclamation should continue with the NEPA process.

Draft Biological Assessment and Resource Criteria Evaluation for 1999 BHBF: Larry Stevens

(GCMRC) reported that a draft BA has been released and will be distributed prior to the next TWG

meeting. Copies may be obtained from Tony Morton (USBR). 

Barbara Ralston (GCMRC) stated that the revised document will be available to review at the next

TWG meeting. The January-July FY99 example will be used for the review and evaluation of the

language and decision-tree. The Resource Criteria Evaluation will be accompany the BA.

Recommendation: Submit comments on the BA to Tony Morton (USBR) as soon as possible.

MONITORING AND RESEARCH PROGRAM UPDATES

Conceptual Modeling Workshop: Josh Korman (Ecometrics, Inc.) presented preliminary results

from the recent Conceptual Modeling Workshop. Mr. Korman has been working with the GCMRC
Minutes of Technical Work Group Meeting

November 16-17, 1998

Page 8

and several scientists to develop a conceptual model which will guide discussions of alternate

management processes for the park system. He presented a portion of the computer model of the

physical component which includes hydrology and sediment transport submodels, the foodbase model,

and some preliminary conclusions which came out of discussions on fish. Objectives of development,

anticipated benefits of the process, activities over the past year, and future direction was discussed. 

Objectives of the model was to develop a tool and process to assist in defining and prioritizing research

and to develop a reasonable experimental design. This will assist in predicting how the system will

respond to different flow regimes, and reduce the risk, potential negative impacts and costs associated

with actual experiments. He reviewed ranges of controls, management actions including no action,

spike flow magnitudes and duration, and historical pre-dam environment production. Cultural resource

component issues have been identified and modeling proposals will be included in an upcoming phase. 

The conceptual modeling project is completed, but may be extended on a smaller scale. A paper will

be coming out in approximately one month which describes generally what the model is, the process,

conclusions and implications for management, and will be available from the GCMRC. A link to the

GCMRC web site where the presentation is stored will be made available on the AMWG/TWG web

site. The model and Users Guide is already posted on the GCMRC web site, and updates will be

distributed by the GCMRC. The model is large and may take 45 minutes to download. If the TWG

has any problems with downloading, please contact GCMRC. Responsibility for the model will be

transferred to a specific individual on the GCMRC staff. 

SCORE Report: (Attachment 11) Larry Stevens stated that graphic presentations are currently being

completed and are planned to be available on the GCMRC web site soon. He reminded the group that

the purpose of the document is to provide information to the AMWG/TWG and other interested

persons on the status of resources of concern in the Colorado River ecosystem. Activities over the past

year have included compiling long-term records for as many resources as possible. There will be an

online text version including an Executive Summary, information on the overall Colorado River

ecosystem and its administration, a hyperlink to the Lake Powell report, resources of concern,

economics, hyperlinked to the Conceptual Model, to Information Management systems, and a

bibliography of most recent publications relevant to the Colorado River in Grand Canyon. 

A link to the GCMRC web site where the presentation is stored will be made available on the

AMWG/TWG web site. 

Operational Flow Issues Ad Hoc Group Report: Clayton Palmer stated that the draft report is not

yet available. He discussed data that WAPA uses to determine if an exceedence has occurred. The

change to the downramp of 1450 cfs has not been effective in improving exceedences (the maximum

downramp is 1500 cfs). Some downramps have occurred January-July, typically lasting an hour

between the hours of 10 p.m. and 1 a.m., that range from 2,000-4,000 cfs, but are typically

approximately 1500 cfs. The AMWG is supposed to be notified every time an exceedence occurs, and

the TWG does not feel the notifications have been made to their satisfaction. There appears to be a

difference in data that WAPA utilizes and other sources of data that some TWG members review. 

WAPA has met with Reclamation to determine why the dam appears to modify information that

WAPA has sent in its schedule. It has also met regarding the different methods of recording releases

from GCD. Regulation is currently occurring at Hoover Dam, and WAPA cannot sustain regulating its

system there. Problems and solutions remain to be resolved. The TWG wants WAPA to address the
Minutes of Technical Work Group Meeting

November 16-17, 1998

Page 9

data recording and availability issues. 

Recommendation: The report WAPA and Reclamation are jointly preparing will describe the data

sources. Robert Winfree asked Clayton Palmer, Dave Cohen, Bill Vernieu, and Ted Melis to work on

the data source/interpretation issues and report at the next TWG meeting. A link to WAPA’s web site

will be established on the AMWG/TWG web site. WAPA will review the environmental impact of

regulating at GCD, and develop a joint resolution to this issue. WAPA will update its emergency

notification fax list, and will specifically include Dave Cohen, USFWS, Grand Canyon River Guides,

and GCMRC.

GCD Power Replacement Report: (Attachment 12, “Replacement Resources Process” Executive

Summary dated 3/98) Clayton Palmer stated that in the 1992 GCPA, the Secretary of Energy was

charged with preparing a report which identifies economical and technical methods of replacing lost

power generation through the adoption of long-term operating criteria for GCD, investigate

modifications or additions to the transmission system that may be required, investigate the feasibility

of adjusting operations at Hoover Dam to replace all of part of the generation, and prepare a report to

congress within two years after the adoption of GCD long-term operating criteria. WAPA completed

its charge. It identifies least-cost methods of purchasing electrical power, including renewable

electrical power resource demand activities. When operations changed at GCD, WAPA renegotiated

its customers’ long-term electrical power contracts into: (1) electrical resources from eleven power

plants including GCD; (2) electrical resources that WAPA cannot provide from the power plants but

are purchased on behalf of the customers on their request. That contract change lessens WAPA’s

requirement to supplement electrical power, and now supplement lost power generation based on

customer request. WAPA has an option of supplementing power by a competitive process beginning in

the year 2000 if customers request a long term amount of power. Mr. Palmer discussed issues

including emergency exception criteria, which is different than what WAPA can market long-term

from the dam (which is based on the ROD parameters). The full report describes the process WAPA

uses to evaluate long-term power purchases. This report has no impact on how the adaptive

management program is run. 

OTHER REPORTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Temperature Control Device: Bruce Moore reported that the plan to send the EA for

construction/operation/maintenance out for public comment on December 31, 1998, is still on

schedule. Meetings with Reclamation’s design and construction representatives have occurred, and

schedules and construction plans are being made. Hoists will be utilized on each of the eight

penstocks. $7.5 million is in the FY2000 budget. The other $7.5 will be programmed for the FY2001

budget. The decision to go/no go will be made by Reclamation after the environmental work has been

completed. Reclamation will request comments and ideas from the TWG on the go/no go decision. 

Reclamation will develop a table of TWG comments and how they were addressed, and the reason why

if some were not addressed. Operations and maintenance will come under the AMP and so the TWG

will assist GCMRC in developing its monitoring and research proposal. Validity and parameters of the

conceptual model’s preliminary information on warming water was discussed. 

AMP/PA Integration (final): Kurt Dongoske stated that the purpose of the document was to provide
Minutes of Technical Work Group Meeting

November 16-17, 1998

Page 10

the TWG with clarification regarding the responsibilities of the PA Program and how it could

effectively integrate with the AMP and the GCMRC’s annual evaluation of the canyon resources,

including cultural resources. The schedule calls for annual work plans from the PA group in

September, but May would allow sufficient time for comment, review and revision of the work plans. 

There is a concern that this process may not be implemented as effectively with Reclamation’s full

takeover of the PA Program administration, and GCMRC’s RFP process is a viable option that should

be considered for the Non-National-Register-Eligible Properties. There is a schedule of how the PA

Program, in budgeting five years out, can work more effectively with the planning process of the AMP. 

A copy of the document will be posted on the AMWG/TWG web site as soon as possible.

Recommendation: On motion duly made, seconded and carried by a consensus vote, the TWG was

requested to adopt and approve this position paper for submittal to the AWMG.

Federal Partners River Trip Progress Report: Barry Gold stated that the summary of discussions is

not yet completed. He gave an update on the issue of a union between adaptive management and

environmental compliance with a special focus on KAS. Discussions have occurred with USFWS

about how to do environmental compliance more effectively. A Consultation Team of federal partners

was formed. An expert panel will be formed to review KAS issues. Dialog is continuing on these

goals. Another issue was the structure and function of the GCMRC staff. In an early chapter of the

EIS the roles and functions of each organization were enumerated, and clarification will begin with this

foundation document. A white paper may be generated. GCMRC staffing levels were an issue. Barry

Gold is in the process of developing a staffing plan which describes the roles and responsibilities of the

current staff. The document will be reviewed first by the GCMRC Management Team and

subsequently will go to the TWG for review. Another issue was the “institutional home” of the

GCMRC. Conference calls with the Management Team that GCMRC reports to about moving forward

on this issue will be scheduled. Another issue was raised about AMP administrative costs and if they

can be reduced. Information has been gathered and costs appear to be reasonable, but the TWG ad hoc

group plans to still gather more information. Another issue was about minimum tool use and

wilderness issues effects on the GCMRC program. Comments were submitted to NPS about costs

impacts in moving from motorized to non-motorized trips. There will be a fairly significant

logistics/costs impact. GCMRC is currently applying minimum tool use on all trips. In 1996, GCMRC

put 63 trips on the river, and is the largest trips-launched river outfitter. For 1999, GCMRC has

reduced the number of trips to 45 initially, but this may increase to 50-52 trips by the end of the year.

Meeting Evaluation: The TWG discussed at length results from the feedback of Bill Persons’ meeting

evaluation exercise. Suggested improvements were identified and include better advance preparation

and distribution of documents, advance review of documents, limiting discussion time, and attendance.

Recommendation: The feedback will be further discussed at the next TWG meeting.

Chairperson Nominations: The TWG discussed the time and effort involved with the position of

Chairperson of the TWG Committee. Discussions included Chairperson remuneration and advantages

and disadvantages of hiring a facilitator.

Recommendation: Submit nominations to Bruce Moore for the ballot. Reclamation will investigate
Minutes of Technical Work Group Meeting

November 16-17, 1998

Page 11

costs involved with using a facilitator.

Lake Powell Ad Hoc Group: (Attachment 13) Robert Winfree stated that the split proposal has been

updated. A typographical error was identified under the Gray Area (bullet #2 after “funded by the

Reclamation”) please add: “e.g., O&M budget, or other sources.” 

Recommendation: Submit comments or recommended changes via e-mail to Norm Henderson. The

TWG should be prepared to make a decision at the December 8, 1998, TWG meeting.

MEETING REVIEW AND WRAP UP

New Business: 

Dave Garrett Update: Barry Gold stated that the unresolved medical condition of Dave Garrett

(Chief, GCMRC) has caused him to formally retire from federal service effective November 16, 1998. 

Dr. Garrett may still work part-time, and is interested in making further contributions to the program

over the next year. Dr. Gold’s detail as Acting Chief of GCMRC was extended an additional 120 days,

and the position vacancy of GCMRC Chief will be advertised.

Barry Gold announced that Barbara Ralston (GCMRC) has been assigned to be Acting Program

Manager for the GCMRC Biological Resources Program while Barry Gold is serving as Acting Chief

of the GCMRC.

Amy Heuslein stated that the Department of Energy is doing a scoping meeting for an EIS for a power

line extending 177 miles from Calverde Nuclear Generating Station to Mexico. The meeting will be

held tonight from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. at the Embassy Suites.

Rick Johnson announced that Grand Canyon Trust has published some new information with a large

map of the Grand Canyon. Contact Mr. Johnson if you would like to have a map sent to you.

Adopt-A-Beach: Barry Gold presented an unsolicited proposal from Grand Canyon River Guides to

fund $4,000. They have been collecting photographic documentation of beaches over the past two

years that would allow them to allow the 1997 and 1998 photos and continue 1999 data collection. 

This is a cost-effective project, but GCMRC has not budgeted for unsolicited proposals.

Recommendation: The TWG recommended that GCMRC fund this proposal for $4,000, and

acknowledged that this may result in a cost overrun.

Upcoming Meetings: 

TWG Meetings: December 8, 1998: 10 a.m.-4 p.m. at the Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport Meeting

Room, Terminal 3, Level 2. Agenda: elect a TWG Chairperson; finalize the AMWG meeting

information package; discuss budget issues and finalize the budget.

January 13-14, 1999: 1/13: 3 p.m.-5 p.m. (Two hours following the AMWG meeting); 
Minutes of Technical Work Group Meeting

November 16-17, 1998

Page 12

1/14: 8 a.m.-12 p.m. (Subject to cancellation depending on business). Agenda: review AMWG

assignments and the SCORE Report. TWG members should plan flexibility into their return itineraries. 

The USBR will publish the FRN 15 days prior to the meeting.

Action Items: The Chairperson reviewed action items from this meeting. They are contained in the

text of each topic in these minutes.

Future Agenda Items: The Chairperson reviewed agenda items for future meetings (listed in the

current TWG meeting agenda). The updates will be included in the next agenda.

Ad Hoc Groups: The Consultation Team of the Compliance Ad Hoc Group will meet December 14,

1998, from 1:00 p.m. to 5 p.m. at the USFWS office in Phoenix, Arizona. 

Next AMWG Meeting: The next AMWG meeting will be held January 12, 1999, from 9:30 a.m. to 5

p.m., and on January 13, 1999, from 8:00 a.m. to 3 p.m., at the Embassy Suites Hotel in Phoenix,

Arizona.

Public Comment: The Chairperson requested comments from the public after each major topic. 

Comments made are contained in the text of these minutes.

Adjournment: There being no further business, the Chairperson adjourned the meeting at 4:05 p.m.

on November 17, 1998.

Respectfully submitted,

Serena Mankiller

GCMRC Secretary
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

AM - Adaptive Management

AMP - Adaptive Management Program

AMWG - Glen Canyon Adaptive Management Work

Group

AOP - Annual Operating Plan

BA - Biological Assessment

BE - Biological Evaluation

BHBF - Beach/Habitat-Building Flow

BHTF - Beach/Habitat Test Flow

BIA - Bureau of Indian Affairs

BO - Biological Opinion

BOR - Bureau of Reclamation

CAPA - Central Arizona Project Assn.

cfs - cubic feet per second

CRBC - Colorado River Board of California

CRCN - Colorado River Commission of Nevada

CREDA - Colorado River Energy Distributors Assn.

CRSP - Colorado River Storage Project 

CWCB - Colorado Water Conservation Board

DBMS - Data Base Management System

DOI - Department of the Interior

EA - Environmental Assessment

EIS - Final Environmental Impact Statement

ESA - Endangered Species Act

FACA - Federal Advisory Committee Act

FEIS - Final Environmental Impact Statement

FRN - Federal Register Notice

FWS - United States Fish & Wildlife Service

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

GCD - Glen Canyon Dam

GCMRC - Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research

Center

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 species list -

snail)

KAWG - Kanab Ambersnail Work Group

LCR - Little Colorado River

LCRMCP: Little Colorado River Multi-Species 

Conservation Program

MAF - Million Acre Feet

MA - Management Action

MO - Management Objective

NAU - Northern Arizona University (Flagstaff, AZ)

NEPA - National Environmental Policy Act 

NHPA - National Historical Preservation Act

NPS - National Park 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 

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)