Technical Work Group Meeting

Phoenix, Arizona

September 6, 2001

Presiding: Randall Peterson, USBR F I N A L

Committee Members Present:

Robert Begay, Navajo Nation

Kerry Christensen, Hualapai Tribe

Wayne Cook, UCRC

Bill Davis, CREDA

Kurt Dongoske, The Hopi Tribe

Brenda Drye, So. Paiute Consortium

Lloyd Greiner, UAMPS

Norm Henderson, GLCA

Amy Heuslein, BIA

Nancy Hornewer, USGS

Pamela Hyde, Southwest Rivers

Matt Kaplinski, GCRG

Robert King, UDWR

Phillip S. Lehr, Colo. River Comm./NV

Don Metz, USFWS

S. Clayton Palmer, WAPA

Bill Persons, AGFD

D. Randolph Seaholm, CWCB

Robert Winfree, GRCA

Committee Members Absent:

Perri Benemelis, ADWR

Jonathan Damp, Pueblo of Zuni

Christopher Harris, CRBC

Nancy Hornewer, USGS

Rick Johnson, Southwest Rivers

Nikolai Ramsey, Grand Canyon Trust

John Shields, WY State Engineer’s Office

John Whipple, NM Interstate Stream Comm.

Alternates Present: For:

Wayne Cook John Whipple, NM Interstate Stream Comm.

Dennis Kubly Randall Peterson, USBR

Other Interested Parties:

Jan Balsom, GRCA

Mary Barger, WAPA

Linda Jalbert, GRCA

Kirk LaGory, USGS

Ruth Lambert, GCMRC

Mike Liszewski, GCMRC

Ted Melis, GCMRC

David Orr, Living Rivers

Barbara Ralston, GCMRC

Recorder: Linda Whetton, USBR
GCD AMP Technical Work Group 

Minutes of September 6-7, 2001, Meeting

Page 2

Meeting Opening and Administrative Items

Convened: 9:30 a.m.

Welcome and Administrative:

Randy Peterson announced he would act as chairperson at today’s meeting since Rick Johnson would

not be present. He welcomed the TWG members, alternates, and guests. All introduced themselves. 

A quorum was established and attendance sheets were distributed (Attachment 1). 

Barry Gold introduced Steve Gloss who will be the new Program Manager for Biological Resources at

the GCMRC.

Change to Agenda: Bob Winfree requested some time on the agenda to talk about the Grand Canyon

Learning Center proposal. It will be added as time allows.

Review of Action Items:

1. Matt will provide copies of the Sediment Report after lunch.

2. This action item was modified. The TWG decided to form an ad hoc group (chaired by Mary

Barger) to write down the status of the PEP and TWG’s recommendations which will be forwarded to

the AMWG. The ad hoc group will be meeting in Flagstaff on Oct. 2 where the issue paper from

Nancy Coulam and the TWG ad hoc will be finalized.

3. Randy said it was difficult to find a time for everyone to meet and said he would try and hold a

meeting later tonight after the FY 2003 AMP discussion today.

MOTION: Move to approve the August 7, 2001, Meeting Minutes.

Motion seconded.

Discussion: None

Minutes approved without exception.

Nomination of new TWG Chairperson. Randy asked if there were any members who wanted to

volunteer or propose a nomination for the new TWG Chairperson for the upcoming fiscal year (Oct. 1,

2001 - Sep. 30, 2002). Kurt Dongoske volunteered. 

MOTION: Move to appoint Kurt Dongoske as the new TWG Chairperson.

Motion seconded.

Discussion: None

Motion passed unanimously.
GCD AMP Technical Work Group 

Minutes of September 6-7, 2001, Meeting

Page 3

Legislative Updates: Randy said Congress has been in recess much of the last month but has just

recently returned. There are a couple of bills and two appropriations bills that will influence the AMP. 

The two bills are both the Senate and House versions of the Energy Development Act. The latest

version prior to the recess included language about the investigation of potential for increasing

hydropower generation at federal facilities. The previous versions had language which directed those

investigations to areas other than Glen Canyon Dam. That language doesn’t seem to be present in the

current version. The bill numbers are 2412 and 2436. 

The other legislative activities are the appropriations bills and there has been some talk Congress may

stay in session through late October-November to complete those. Thus far, only 5 of 13 have

passed. The Energy and Water bill passed both the House and Senate and is scheduled to go into

committee soon. The same applies for the Interior appropriations bill which governs the other Interior

agencies. Both bills will have an effect on this program. 

Bob Winfree asked about the status of other bills which were discussed a few months ago dealing with

hydropower increases and transmission lines. Randy said they were replaced by the Energy

Development Act bills.

Matt Kaplinski asked if the language about the hydropower facilities in the lower basin was dropped

from the bills. Randy said the last time he checked the language was not there which would open the

door for the investigation of additional generation at Glen Canyon or anywhere. The way it read at the

end of July was that it was directing the Secretary to investigate the potential and the effects of

increasing that generation so it would be something similar to a NEPA document. Randy said it was

Reclamation’s thinking they would give Congress a copy of the 1996 EIS which addresses the

expected effects of increased generation. 

Randy advised that if anyone wanted to find out more about the bills to go to the following web site:

http://thomas.loc.gov

Kanab Ambernsail Report - Bob Winfree referenced the report (Attachment 2) which was

distributed at the last TWG meeting. He said the ad hoc members reviewed the KAS Panel’s report

and also the KAWG’s earlier response to the panel’s report. They identified five questions they felt

needed to be addressed by the TWG and the AMWG and wanted to focus on those five questions

(pgs. 3-4) today. He also passed out a list of recommendations (Attachment 3) for the TWG to

consider.

Concerns raised:

- Status of taxonomy. Barry said they are still waiting for a final report but feels there may be a need

to do some additional taxonomy. He offered to report on the status at the next meeting.

- Legal and conservation concerns can’t be separated because of scientific questions. Until the
GCD AMP Technical Work Group 

Minutes of September 6-7, 2001, Meeting

Page 4

Biological Opinion and current recovery plans are revised or replaced, they still stand as valid

documents.

- Based on new information, the need for Reclamation to request Fish and Wildlife Service to

reconsult.

- Need to find out if KAS is a listed species.

- Suggestion that Vaseys Paradise is a rare taxon, perhaps a unique taxon. 

- Recovery Implementation Plan vs. Recovery Plan. The RIP would bridge the gap in getting some

things done under the existing recovery plan before developing a new recovery plan.

- Lump or split different populations. 

- Need for consultation with the tribes

- Funding for taxonomy. Barry said there is a proposal in the 2003 work plans for a project that

deals with starting to resolve the KAS and taxonomy. He provided other funding sources for

consideration: 1) Species at Risk Program under the USGS, 2) Smithsonian Institution, and 3) National

Science Foundation. 

MOTION: Accept Ad hoc group report and recommendations and forward them to AMWG for

approval.

Motion seconded

Public comments: None

Voting: Yes = 17 No = 1 Abstaining: 0

Comment: 

Norm Henderson: I feel like some of the discussion here and some of the recommendations leave a little

too much wiggle room with regard to what the expert panel said. I would like it a little more

straightforward on this. I think we’re going to get down the line and we’re going to get evaluating the

Biological Opinion again moving the snails up slow and will be going through the same thing, that it’s not

routine but will be an exceptional circumstance.

MOTION: Move that the TWG recommend Reclamation reconsult on the Kanab ambersnail with the

Fish and Wildlife Service based on new information.

Motion seconded.

Discussion: None

Public Comments: None

Voting: Yes = 15 No = 1 Abstaining: 2

Bob Winfree: I would put the energy into consulting on new program of flows rather than doing it right

now.

Dennis Kubly: If the recommendation were that the ad hoc committee accumulate and develop the

information to be forwarded to Reclamation that might be used in a reconsultation, if it’s justified, then I

would have a lot easier time dealing with the recommendation. I think that the committee struggled at

length with the panel’s recommendations and if you read the report, you’ll find a 50/50 agreement with

the expert panel by the committee. One could easily argue that the new information makes the picture
GCD AMP Technical Work Group 

Minutes of September 6-7, 2001, Meeting

Page 5

murkier than it was before and so reconsultation doesn’t have a firm foundation particularly with respect

to the effects of past actions.

Matt asked what the time frame was on reconsultation. Randy said there would first be a formal

recommendation made from the AMWG to the Secretary and secondly a recommendation to

Reclamation and they would have to decide if they were going to do it.

Information Needs Workshop Results - Barry Gold said he received comments on the draft

document (Attachment 4) from three sources: 1) NPS - Linda Jalbert dealing primarily with Goal 9,

2) comments from CREDA (Attachment 5), and 3) the Science Advisors (Attachment 6) report. 

He said the process was that GCMRC would produce a revised final draft based on the August

workshop, mail it out to everyone for comments, focus on those comments today, revise the document

one more time then use as a basis for a one-day workshop in October. The following issues were

raised in the written comments:

1. The definition of core monitoring

2. The use of Record of Decision vs. dam operations 

3. Goal 10 and the way goal 10 emerged in the revised document and some specific comments 

4. Science advisors report and propose it be addressed at the next TWG meeting.

5. Discuss the Comments Table.

Barry addressed the above items:

1. Barry read the definition of “core monitoring” (Attachment 7) provided by Gary Burton.

2. Barry referenced the August 7, 2001, TWG meeting minutes, page 3, for the use of ROD vs. dam

operations and include the following: 

GCD operations refers to the operation of the powerplant and other release structures such

as bypass structures, spillways, and potentially a temperature control device among others. 

Their uses conform to applicable law. The AMWG develops recommendations for all of the

dam’s structures to further the purposes of the GCPA, the EIS, and the ROD. This is done

within the limits of the ROD and/or through experimentation.

3. Barry asked Linda Jalbert to address Goal 9 and said there was substantial revision to the goal,

MOs, and the INs, and told the members to look at the CREDA document and particularly comment S

which deals with Goal 9. Linda said the goal is the same and is based on the workshop and the first set

of comments received from the science advisors. She did some reordering, re-editing, and combining

based on comments from the science advisors. 
GCD AMP Technical Work Group 

Minutes of September 6-7, 2001, Meeting

Page 6

Barry said he had a procedural concern about making changes to the MOs. Randy said he was

reluctant to change the MOs because they were approved by the AMWG but feels that as new

information is obtained, there should be a willingness to make changes and bring those to AMWG’s

attention. A copy of the Strategic Plan was included in the AMWG meeting packet but does not

include any of the proposed changes. It will be an ongoing process.

Kerry Christensen said he would like the following changes made: (MO 9.1 and 9.3) change to NPS

and Tribal Management Plans, and (MO 9.4) use CRE instead of GRNP 

Barry said he would like to send out another draft which would show the MOs in a redline/strikeout

format because they are different from what the AMWG is going to be approving and should be

identified as such. 

Lloyd Greiner questioned the use of “enhance” rather than maintain in MO 9.5. Linda said in order to

be consistent with MO 4, she would change to maintain or enhance.

MOTION: Accept Linda’s changes to Goal 9 with revisions made by Kerry Christensen and Lloyd

Greiner. 

Motion seconded.

Discussion: None

Public Comments: None

Motion passed.

Discussion of Core Monitoring (cont). Clayton said that when they were meeting at the INs

Workshop he labored under a false assumption that when somebody said “core monitoring” they were

talking about monitoring the ROD. He said Barry pointed out that GMCRC’s definition of core

monitoring means just a routine monitoring, monitoring at the same time and place. That issue

concerned him and he questioned whether the ROD is accomplishing its effects as perceived by the

EIS. If it’s not, then some experiments may need to be done to see what adjustments can be made to

try and hit those resource targets. One of the key things that monitoring ought to be doing is figuring out

if the ROD is accomplishing the EIS stated resource goals. He referenced Gary’s definition of core

monitoring and said the first paragraph agrees with GCMRC’s definition of core monitoring. The

second paragraph suggests that monitoring is being done against the ROD. If you agree with that, then

you have to go back through the INs and make sure that under each resource the key IN is to monitor

against the ROD. Monitoring can be for other things but certainly must be monitoring the ROD. He

said he wasn’t sure about the process for today and therefore didn’t put together language for every

resource. He said if the group agreed, then GCMRC could put the specific language into the

document.

Gary Burton added that he set up the ROD as the baseline which has to be established first then the
GCD AMP Technical Work Group 

Minutes of September 6-7, 2001, Meeting

Page 7

monitoring program monitors against that. He said there are three ways to do that: 1) establish the

ROD baseline ahead of time before instituting core monitoring, or 2) include an MO and INs

appropriate to establish that baseline under ROD (modified low fluctuating) flows under each goal, or

3) set up a separate goal with attendant MOs and INs to set up that ROD baseline.

Barry proposed that Gary illustrate on a couple of the MOs what the core monitoring INs might be so

people could understand them better and then GCMRC would send out a revised document. 

Refer to Flip Chart notes on INs Discussion - Attachment 8

ACTION: Send comments to Gary Burton.

In order to do another review of the document, Barry proposed the following schedule: 

Sept. 14, 2001 - GCMRC will mail the revised INs document to the TWG

October 5, 2001 - Comments due to the GCMRC

October 12, 2001 - GCMRC will mail out a Comments table 

October 22, 2001 - One-day INs meeting at Sky Harbor Airport 

Goal 10: Barry asked Bill Davis to lead the group through the changes. Bill said the goal speaks to

maintaining or increasing power production and the MO speaks to maintaining or increasing power or

energy production, but the original IN did the same thing. The change was noted and will be

incorporated in the next revision. 

FY 2003 AMP Budget (Attachment 9) - Randy said he would present on first portion of the budget

and Barry would present on the bottom portion. Randy directed the members to turn to page 2, IIIA,

line 4 (Monitoring costs) and said the principle that they’ve been operating under is that until the HPP is

complete, the monitoring program would stay as it is and the changes in the monitoring program would

be dictated by the HPP. When Nancy Coulam put together the budget, there was the assumption that

by 2003 all needed work would have been completed and we’d be down the track with having

GCRMC contract out the monitoring or RFP the monitoring program for the PA. The $40K of what

was left over from the studies needed to complete the HPP (the geomorphic study that contracted for

treatment plan, the public involvement plan, curation, archival, and NAGPRA plans). The HPP has got

to be done so we will have some guidance on how to proceed. We would propose changing the

monitoring costs (A4) back to $227,000, making the subtotal $685,000. The money would come from

the Experimental Flow Fund so the amount of $569,000 would be reduced to $382,000. 

Pam asked if there is $382,000 in the experimental flow fund in 2003 and if conditions are appropriate

for conducting an experiment, does the lack of sufficient funds prevent doing the experiment. Randy

said it was that same thing that prevented us from doing anything this year with an 8.23 maf release
GCD AMP Technical Work Group 

Minutes of September 6-7, 2001, Meeting

Page 8

year. Randy directed the members to look at page 3, at Available Funds. The CRSP power revenues

is the maximum allowed under law with the appropriations bill language. The $475,000 was included

from the tribal appropriations, and the USGS is asking for +/- one million dollar appropriation to

supplement scientific research. Within those dollars, that is how an experimental flow will be funded. If

it weren’t for the tribal appropriations, there would be no experimental flow fund. 

Kurt said that at the last TWG meeting he brought up that he didn’t see a line item dealing with

mitigating adverse effects for the 2003 budget and asked if that was included in the monitoring costs. 

Randy said it would depend on his definition of monitoring - as you monitor, you’re trying to salvage

archaeology, piecemeal treatment, etc. then it is part of that. He said he didn’t see it as being any large

item efforts for data recovery or data preservation. Kurt said he was concerned that it get done. 

Randy said that Bob Winfree may have a motion to make which would push this back to the PA to

handle. Kurt said he feels a little frustrated because while the PA signatories are a body that the Bureau

of Reclamation consults with about being in compliance with the PA, the ultimate responsibility lies with

the Bureau of Reclamation. The Bureau makes the final decision so he doesn’t understand why it

would be punted to the PA group when it clearly is Reclamation’s responsibility. Randy said he thought

it would be a good idea to have a discussion with the PA group. Kurt said he would like to see it

addressed either in parentheses next to monitoring costs (include treatment of adverse effects) or

another item (7) under the work plan activities which talks about mitigation of adverse effects.

Bob Winfree said he made two motions at the last TWG meeting but since there wasn’t a quorum

available at that time, they couldn’t be voted on so he proceeded to make the motions again:

MOTION: The cultural budget should be reviewed by the PA Signatories as a group to provide 

recommendations to Reclamation and the TWG.

It was decided that since there is already an understanding that the PA signatories review the cultural

budget, there was no need for a motion.

MOTION: Establish an ad hoc group for the Cultural PEP.

Motion seconded.

Voting: Yes = 16 No = 0 Abstaining = 1

Motion passed.

Members: Loretta Jackson, Mary Barger, Matt Kaplinski, Bob Winfree/alternate, Nancy Coulam, Ted

Melis

Scientific Activities - Barry thanked Barbara Ralston for the time she spent as the acting Program

Manager for the Biological Resources Program and said she has been instrumental in accomplishing a

number of things for the GCMRC.
GCD AMP Technical Work Group 

Minutes of September 6-7, 2001, Meeting

Page 9

Terrestrial Ecosystem Activities - Barbara referenced the “Terrestrial Ecosystem Activities” handout

(Attachment 10) and said there were only two projects associated with biological resources are the

KAS taxonomy project and a terrestrial mapping and inventory project. The purpose of the KAS

project is to resolve the taxonomic relationship of the snail at Vaseys Paradise relative to KAS and

other outgroups. She is proposing to fund a graduate student for four years and that student would

have to find additional funds to do the genetics or the travel associated with things outside of the

Colorado River Ecosystem. If there were a base of $20,000, then matching funds or cost sharing could

bring in more funds. This would also free up about $50,000 for terrestrial research which are undefined

projects (population model for KAS and augment for holocene or habitat mapping, leopard frog

monitoring for other terrestrial programs or information needs). She anticipates the project will be more

defined after the information needs are prioritized. The purpose of the terrestrial mapping and inventory

project is to develop vegetative coverage in a GIS format for the river corridor that delineates the

communities that the AMP has defined to provide a baseline for a larger community constituency than

what the current monitoring program addresses and it would probably be done in a 5-year time scale.

Tribal Participation - Ruth Lambert presented a handout (Attachment 11) and said she would address

cultural/tribal participation which deals with the cultural component of the terrestrial monitoring project

that is just underway for the first time in 2001. There are three tribes involved for 2001 and they are

the Hopi Tribe, Southern Paiute Consortium, and the Hualapai. They are proposing in 2003 to have all

five tribes involved. They had a meeting with the tribes when they first began talking about the project

and all five were interested in participating.

Ongoing, Monitoring Plan - Ruth said the PEP review called for a monitoring plan that would

coordinate all the monitoring efforts in the cultural arena and the funding for that was approved in 2002. 

The $50K is to implement that plan. She said some of the information is sketchy because the plan has

been done, the RFP has not gone out, and she is not sure what the plan will recommend. There has

been no funding or effort made to implement the monitoring plan and that also needs to be somewhere

in the cultural plan. 

Aquatic Ecosystem Activities - Barbara said the aquatic ecosystem activities are primarily monitoring. 

The program is undergoing a large change. They are just getting back the Aquatic PEP Report which

should be presented by Mike Bradford at the November TWG Meeting. An RFP should be put out

this year with the intent that 2003 would be a continuation of that work. One of the recommendations

that is coming out of that PEP is to integrate more the aquatic foodbase with water quality parameters

and make a decision about what water quality and food base should reflect. There may be better ways

to make linkages with the aquatic foodbase than doing sampling in the river , doing some more stable

isotope work in terms of how food items are assimilated into the aquatic system. 

Integrated Water Quality Program Lake Powell - Barbara said this is also undergoing changes and

asked Barry when the plan would be mailed. Barry said the revised plan with the comments table will
GCD AMP Technical Work Group 

Minutes of September 6-7, 2001, Meeting

Page 10

be annotated with footnotes so everyone can see how the comments were incorporated. The schedule

is to mail it out on October 12 with discussion at the next TWG meeting.

Integrated Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecosystem Activities - Ted Melis had a family emergency and had

to leave early but Barry said he would be happy to go through the documents Ted prepared or try to

have Ted connected via a conference call tomorrow so he could field any questions the members had. 

Barry passed out copies of a memo Ted, “Briefing on initial results of LISST-100 field testing in the

Colorado River ecosystem” (Attachment 12) and “Integrated Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecosystem

Monitoring and Research” (Attachment 13). Barry said he would check on setting up a conference

call with Ted and inform the TWG tomorrow morning.

Project C7 - Barry pointed out that Project C7 is the pilot test which was done pro bono by borrowing

a piece of equipment and doing a little add-on to a trip that they wanted to have before they proposed it

to the TWG. This is for tracking purposes only. 

Ruth provided comments on a couple of projects which had recreational components.

Refer to Flip Chart notes on Budget Discussion (Attachment 14)

Agenda Update: Presentation on Information Technology (Mike Liszewski) and the GRCA Learning

Center Proposal (Bob Winfree) will be placed on tomorrow’s agenda

Adjourned: 5:15 p.m.
GCD AMP Technical Work Group 

Minutes of September 6-7, 2001, Meeting

Page 11

Technical Work Group Meeting

Phoenix, Arizona

September 7, 2001

Presiding: Kurt Dongoske, Chairperson F I N A L 

Committee Members Present:

Robert Begay, Navajo Nation

Perri Benemelis, ADWR

Kerry Christensen, Hualapai Tribe

Wayne Cook, UCRC

Bill Davis, CREDA

Kurt Dongoske, The Hopi Tribe

Brenda Drye, So. Paiute Consortium

Lloyd Greiner, UAMPS

Norm Henderson, GLCA

Christopher Harris,s CRBC

Amy Heuslein, BIA

Nancy Hornewer, USGS

Rick Johnson, Southwest Rivers

Matt Kaplinski, GCRG

Robert King, UDWR

Phillip S. Lehr, Colo. River Comm./NV

Don Metz, USFWS

S. Clayton Palmer, WAPA

Bill Persons, AGFD

D. Randolph Seaholm, CWCB

Robert Winfree, GRCA

Committee Members Absent:

Jonathan Damp, Pueblo of Zuni

Nancy Hornewer, USGS

Rick Johnson, Southwest Rivers

Nikolai Ramsey, Grand Canyon Trust

John Shields, WY State Engineer’s Office

John Whipple, NM Interstate Stream Comm.

Alternates Present: For:

Wayne Cook John Whipple, NM Interstate Stream Comm.

Other Interested Parties:

Jan Balsom, GRCA

Mary Barger, WAPA

Pamela Hyde, Southwest Rivers

Dennis Kubly, USGS

Kirk LaGory, USGS

Ruth Lambert, GCMRC

Mike Liszewski, GCMRC

Recorder: Linda Whetton, USBR
GCD AMP Technical Work Group 

Minutes of September 6-7, 2001, Meeting

Page 12

Meeting Opening and Administrative Items

Convened: 9:30 a.m.

Welcome and Administrative:

Randy thanked Rick Johnson for all his hard work and willingness to serve as the TWG Chairperson

for the past two years and presented him with a plaque.

Information Techology Program - Mike Liszewski passed out handouts on the Project Descriptions

(Attachment 15), Project Costs (Attachment 16), and the ITP Portion of the FY 2002 Annual Plan

(Attachment 17) 

Clayton said he is quite supportive of the conceptual model and its use for the adaptive management

program but doesn’t know whether the decision support system has added benefit. Mike said that if all

the AMWG/TWG decision needs are met by the conceptual model, they will be identified in the needs

assessment however he anticipates there are going to be other needs. Barry said the conceptual model

is valuable up to a point but doesn’t help make decisions. They are trying to use the information that

exists so when decisions come up to the AMWG or TWG, the decision support system will be an aid in

making those decisions.

Grand Canyon Learning Center Proposal - Bob Winfree passed out a flyer (Attachment 18) and

said the Grand Canyon is seeking National Park Service and Foundation funding to develop

laboratories, lodging, office and classroom space for visiting scientists and educators at the Park. It

would be one of a network of 32 nationwide if the funding is approved. It would add to existing

facilities and services and would not duplicate or replace any ongoing programs. Scientists and

educators would be able to use the facilities through an advanced reservation system. Any fees

(lodging) would be kept as low as possible. The project would support the adaptive management

program and management objective 12.3a which specifically calls for us to maintain or attain the

participation of externally funded investigators. This would provide facilities for investigators who have

funding or who don’t to come and work in the parks. Several universities, research centers, and other

parks and grant organizations have indicated their support their support for this program through letters

sent to the park to be forwarded with our proposal. He is looking for a letter from the outgoing or new

TWG chairperson stating the TWG’s support of their proposal to the NPS and to private grant

organizations to seek funding for this program. Bob said the review proposal process has already

started. If a letter could be written before Sept. 15, it would be very appreciated.
GCD AMP Technical Work Group 

Minutes of September 6-7, 2001, Meeting

Page 13

MOTION: The TWG strongly supports the GRCA National Park’s Learning Center proposal. The

TWG encourages the AMWG to do the same.

Discussion: None

Motion passed unanimously.

Ad Hoc Group Reports

Experimental Flows - Randy said that in conjunction with the last TWG meeting, there was another

Experimental Flows meeting which also met with the Native Fish Work Group. They didn’t get down

to specifics but the idea of how to structure experiments was well discussed in terms of sequencing the

years, what a series of years might look like, and how they might interact with each other. The issue is

becoming more complex than what most people initially thought a year ago. Reclamation committed to

running the riverware model for 20-30 years in the future and bringing back to the group a number of

diverse traces of possibilities in the future of different patterns of year-to-year releases so that the group

could look at those patterns and see if they altered their thinking. If it was clear that 8.23 maf release

years would often occur back to back or if there would be long periods of high flows, low flows, or

whatever, these might significantly influence the experiment decision. They expect to have that work

done in the next couple of weeks and will convene another meeting of the NFWG/Exp. Flows in the

next 3-4 weeks to consider those things. They have already started the discussion of merging the

concepts of the high flow experiments with the low flow experiments as well. One of the potential tests

would be to have a BHBF test following a low steady 8.23 maf release year.

Sediment Ad Hoc - Matt Kaplinski passed out copies of the ad hoc report (Attachment 19). He said

at the TWG meeting held in May, a presentation was made on the results of the report. He received

some comments and made revisions to the report. The ad hoc group needs to meet again and

suggested they hold a conference call in order to prepare some recommendations based on recent

sediment findings. They will bring those recommendations forward at the next TWG meeting for a vote

to pass on to the AMWG.

Randy added that it might help to talk about the next steps. There is some new information that

perhaps the TWG hasn’t considered, particularly Jack Schmidt’s work on photographic analysis of

changes over the last few decades. He thinks the conclusions that the group came up with in response

to the three Rubin-Topping recommendations is probably still appropriate and adequate. The

document should be finalized from that point and the group to continue to analyze new information as it

becomes available.

Basin Hydrology - Chris Cutler provided copies of several graphs depicting the current basin

hydrology (Attachment 20):

UC River Basin Precipitation WY 2001. This was another below average year. The year started out
GCD AMP Technical Work Group 

Minutes of September 6-7, 2001, Meeting

Page 14

pretty wet, immediately went dry, and hasn’t recovered very well. There were a lot of dry warm winds

which evaporated a lot of moisture from the snowpack so there was a pretty ineffecient runoff season. 

September temperatures were supposed to be 5-10o above normal this year and looking at November,

it will be about 5o above normal so it will continue to be a little bit on the dry side. 

2001 Upper Colorado, Apr-Jul Inflow - There is a dry gradient in the north and a little bit wetter in the

south. It has been a drier Spring and Lake is at 56% inflow for April-July and for water year, it is

60%. 

Water Year 2001 Lake Powell Unregulated Inflow - We had an earlier than average peak with the

peak of the hydrograph dropping off earlier than expected. The purple line shows the average, the

blue line incidates this year’s inflow. Generally, the hydrograph drops off starting around July but this

year it started in June. The year started dry and hardly approached normal. 

Glen Canyon Releases - 2001-2001. Looking ahead to 2002, there is about a one in three chance of

having a 8.23 maf release year. The most probable inflow is pretty near normal so the magnitude of

inflows of all three scenarios is close to the upper-mid and lower-mid deciles. There is an 8% chance

in 2002 for a BHBF. 

Lake Powell Elevations - 2001-2002 - Chris said that in June some releases were transferred to

August in order to do some aerial photography. July and August power releases, Sept. end of the

budget so there was more opportunity for aerial photography.

Aerial Photography - Mike Liszewski said he wanted review the slides (Attachment 21) he

presented in Flagstaff with the addition of one more and then answer questions regarding the 2001

annual overflight. The overflight was done toward the end of June and they were able to get 3-3.5 days

of steady flows to do that overflight which was contingent upon a couple of caveats: 1) had perfect

weather, and 2) no equipment failures. A day after the steady flows were started from the dam, they

experienced a power supply failure and were prevented from collecting any additional data that day. 

On the next day (Sat.) they had some issues with the helicopter and speed and weren’t able to collect

as much data as they had hoped to. On Sunday, they had to return early due to bad weather. Refer to

attachment for more details on following flights. 

They have been in contact with the USGS to get another contractor in before the end of September to

re-fly the mission. They are currently soliciting bids for a number of combinations for data collection

and should have those by close of business next Tuesday and then make a decision as to whether or not

they are going to re-fly and collect the data. They are not requesting steady flows for that overflight. 

He has long conversations with contractors that use that data and how important steady flows are to

them. As a result of those conversations, they are going to attempt to do some type of evaluation next

Spring when they do the 2002 annual photography of the effects of non-steady flows on the monitoring
GCD AMP Technical Work Group 

Minutes of September 6-7, 2001, Meeting

Page 15

project that utilize that data.

Automatic General Control - Kirk LaGory said he is an ecologist working with Argonne

Laboratories. He has been working with Western Area Power Administration for over ten years. 

They prepared the Power Marking EIS for WAPA published in 1996. He had been working on upper

basin issues, serving on the recovery team for the endangered fish, and also on a team developing flow

recommendations for Flaming Gorge Dam. 

Before he started his presentation, he wanted to recognize the important role Gary Burton played in

pulling the information together, arranging to have the data collected, and coordinating operations of the

dam during some of the tests. 

He proceeded with a PowerPoint presentation (Attachment 22) 

Emergency Responses at Glen Canyon - Clayton Palmer said that on March 28, 2000,

Reclamation announced that it was going to conduct a LSSF and also sent a letter to the USFWS. 

There would be two things that would stop the experiment: if hydrology overwhelmed the ability or if

restriction of electricity (brownouts). WAPA read the letter and started to develop a criteria for use of

GCD to meet brownout situations. WAPA increased development of a process to use GCD. They

had to make sure they were talking about emergencies and that criteria used for GCD was basin

emergency. He passed out a short description of this (Attachment 23). We will not meet California

needs specifically, but will respond to any western connected utility. Providing power out of GCD to

avoid brownouts is not an emergency but when it becomes a life and death situation (a blackout

situation) when traffic lights go out, air conditioning, etc., they have to stick pretty close to the criteria

listed on page 2. 

Barry asked for the actual policy vs. the draft that Clayton is distributed.

Action: Clayton will provide a copy of that policy at the next TWG meeting.

Future agenda items:

- Wiele gage comparison report

- Melis - sediment inputs

- Mike Liszewski - CIR Evaluation

- GCMRC - SCORE Report

- Cultrual PEP ad hoc

- Aquatic PEP 

- Experimental flows ad hoc group

- budget ad hoc group

- sediment ad hoc group

- INs

- FY 03 Work Plan

- KAS Ad hoc

- Recovery Implementation Plan

- Native Fish Recovery Goals

- Reconsultation implications on KAS

- 2001 Monitoring Activities Report
GCD AMP Technical Work Group 

Minutes of September 6-7, 2001, Meeting

Page 16

- GCMRC products for LSSF Conference

- LIDAR v. other monitoring tradeoffs (all

remote sensing)

- GCMRC long-term monitoring plans

- Terrestrial PEP review by TWG

- Aquatic PEP review by TWG

- IWQP Long-term plan

- Legislative updates

- more process diagrams

- initial review of GCMRC Strategic Plan

September

24-25 - AMWG Meeting – > CANCELLED on 9/14/01

October

22 - INs Meeting

22 - (evening) Sediment/Exper Flow/NFWG 

23 - Budget Ad hoc group work plan

November

13-14 TWG Meetings s –> BIA location

2003 Work Plan

INs

January 2002

15-16 - tentative AMWG meeting

End of the Fiscal Year

- Exceptional year

- more meetings in Flagstaff

- staying better informed with what’s happening on the ground - make the TWG meetings 2 full days

and dedicate 1⁄2 day to GCMRC science updates

- Annual science symposiums

- Mary Orton’s facilitiation has been very useful

- Additional training on collaborative processes.

- engage adaptive management network to evaluate us

- educational tour to D.C.
GCD AMP Technical Work Group 

Minutes of September 6-7, 2001, Meeting

Page 17

Adjourned: 12:05 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Linda Whetton

Bureau of Reclamation
General Key to Adaptive Management Program Acronyms

ADWR - Arizona Department of Water Resources

AF - Acre Feet

AGFD - Arizona Game & Fish Department

AGU - American Geophysical Union

AMP - Adaptive Management Program

AMWG - Adaptive Management Work Group

AOP - Annual Operating Plan

BA - Biological Assessment

BE - Biological Evaluation

BHBF - Beach/Habitat-Building Flow

BHMF - Beach/Habitat Maintenance Flow

BHTF - Beach/Habitat Test Flow

BIA - Bureau of Indian Affairs

BO - Biological Opinion

BOR - Bureau of Reclamation

CAPA - Central Arizona Project Assn.

cfs - cubic feet per second

CRBC - Colorado River Board of California

CRCN - Colorado River Commission of Nevada

CREDA - Colorado River Energy Distributors Assn.

CRSP - Colorado River Storage Project 

CWCB - Colorado Water Conservation Board

DBMS - Data Base Management System

DOI - Department of the Interior

EA - Environmental Assessment

EIS - Final Environmental Impact Statement

ESA - Endangered Species Act

FACA - Federal Advisory Committee Act

FEIS - Final Environmental Impact Statement

FRN - Federal Register Notice

FWS - United States Fish & Wildlife Service

GCD - Glen Canyon Dam

GCMRC - Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research

Center

GCNP - Grand Canyon National Park

GCNRA - Glen Canyon National Recreation Area

GCPA - Grand Canyon Protection Act

HBC - Humpback Chub (endangered native fish)

HMF - Habitat Maintenance Flow

HPP - Historic Preservation Plan

IEDA - Irrigation and Electrical Districts 

Association of Arizona

IN - Information Need (stakeholder)

IT - Information Technology (GCMRC program)

KAS - Kanab ambersnail (endangered native snail)

KAWG - Kanab Ambersnail Work Group

LCR - Little Colorado River

LCRMCP: Lower Colorado River Multi-Species 

Conservation Program

MAF - Million Acre Feet

MA - Management Action

MO - Management Objective

NAAO - Native American Affairs Office

NAU - Northern Arizona University (Flagstaff, AZ)

NEPA - National Environmental Policy Act

NGS - National Geodetic Survey

NHPA - National Historical Preservation Act

NPS - National Park Service

NRC - National Research Council

NWS - National Weather Service

O&M - Operations & Maintenance (USBR funding)

PA - Programmatic Agreement

PEP - Protocol Evaluation Panel

Powerplant Capacity - 31,000 cfs

Reclamation - United States Bureau of Reclamation

RFP - Request For Proposals

RPA - Reasonable and Prudent Alternative

SAB - Science Advisory Board

Secretary(=s) - Secretary of the Interior

SWCA - Steven W. Carothers Associates

TCD - Temperature Control Device (for Glen

Canyon Dam water releases)

TCP - Traditional Cultural Property

TES - Threatened and Endangered Species

TWG - Glen Canyon Technical Work Group (a 

subcommittee of the AMWG)

UCR - Upper Colorado Region (of the USBR)

UCRC - Upper Colorado River Commission

UDWR - Utah Division of Water Resources

USBR - United States Bureau of Reclamation

USFWS - United States Fish & Wildlife Service

USGS - United States Geological Survey

WAPA - Western Area Power Administration

WY - Water Year (a calendar year)