Minutes of 

Technical Work Group Meeting 

September 7-8, 1999 Meeting 

Phoenix, Arizona 

FINAL 

Presiding: Bill Persons, AGFD 

Committee Members Present:

 

Clifford Barrett, CREDA Rick Johnson, GCT 

Andres Cheama, Pueblo of Zuni Robert King, UDWR 

Kerry Christensen, Hualapai Nation Phillip S. Lehr, Colo. River Comm./Nevada 

Dave Cohen, Trout Unlimited Don Metz, USFWS 

Wayne Cook, UCRC Randy Peterson, USBR 

William E. Davis, EcoPlan Assoc./CREDA Bill Persons, AGFD 

Kurt Dongoske, The Hopi Tribe Matt Kaplinski, GCRG 

Brenda Drye, So. Paiute Consortium John Shields, WY State Engineer=s Office 

Christopher Harris, ADWR Mindy Schlimgen-Wilson, American Rivers 

Norm Henderson, GCRA Robert Winfree, NPS 

Amy Heuslein, BIA 

Committee Members Absent:

Nancy Hornewer, USGS 

Alan Downer, Navajo Nation 

Randy Seaholm, CRCB 

Alternates Present: Alternate For:

Mary Barger, WAPA Clayton Palmer, WAPA 

Other Interested Persons Present:

Debra Bills, USFWS Ted Melis, GCMRC 

Steven Carothers, SWCA Anthony G. Morton, USBR 

Nancy Coulam, USBR Barbara Ralston, GCMRC 

Barry Gold, GCMRC Tom Ryan, USBR 

Ruth Lambert, GCMRC 

Recorder: Linda Whetton, USBR 
Minutes of Technical Work Group Meeting 

September 7-8, 1999 

Page 2 

MEETING OPENING AND ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS

9/7/99: Convened: 9:30A Adjourned: 4:30P (due to fire alarms) 

9/8/99: Convened: 8:00A Adjourned: 3:00P 

Welcome and Introductions: The Chairperson welcomed the TWG members, member 

alternates, and guests. All introduced themselves. The Chairperson reviewed the ground rules 

for the meeting and name plates were distributed. Linda Whetton will be taking minutes.

Attendance: Attendance sheets were distributed. (Attachment 1 - List of Attendees) 

Review/Approval of Agenda: The Chairperson went over the agenda for today=s meeting. 

Cliff Barrett asked how things are coordinated with issuing grants for work to be done in the 

canyon by the GCMRC. 

Review of Minutes: The Minutes for the July 20-22, 1999 are still being prepared. They should 

be ready for review by TWG members at the next meeting on October 22, 1999. 

SWCA Synthesis Report (Attachment 2) - Rich Valdez began his presentation by stating that 

there were two contracts awarded to the SWCA, one of them was for SWCA to develop a 

hydrograph for an experimental flow to benefit the humpback chub in the Grand Canyon. It=s 

related to the low steady summer flow RPA element of the Biological Opinion. The second 

contract was to develop a plan for establishing a second population of humpback chub 

downstream of Glen Canyon Dam in the Grand Canyon. SWCA is working on these two 

projects simultaneously because to some degree they are related. SWCA is also involved in 

developing recovery goals for the four endangered fish for Fish and Wildlife Service 

Region 6 for the entire Colorado River Basin so this is consistent with that work. 

Rich stated there is no report at this time but wanted to report on the progress thus far. The 

project was started in March 1999 and the completion date will be February 2000. The team met 

for two workshops - one in April and one in June. SWCA generated a draft report which 

GCMRC has recently reviewed. They received GCMRC=s comments on the preliminary draft 

and are in the process of incorporating those comments. The revised draft is due the end of this 

month. SWCA is going to produce a scientific review draft and a TWG draft which will be 

mailed about the first of October. They will conduct a scientific review on both those reports 

during the months of October and November, and in December they will be incorporating those 

comments. SWCA is also preparing an agency review draft as well just to make sure that all the 

agencies, but especially the Service and Reclamation, know what is being said in these 

documents. That will also take place as part of the scientific/TWG review process. SWCA is 

asking for formal review by the scientific review board but are not asking for a formal review by 

the TWG. The final report will be ready the end of February 2000. 

TWG members discussed where they should go from here. They recognized that the missing 
Minutes of Technical Work Group Meeting 

September 7-8, 1999 

Page 3 

component to all of this is the baseline monitoring issue. It was decided that if more discussion 

was required, members could meet with Randy or Debra after the meeting. The question was 

raised as to whether another ad hoc group needed to be formed to address all the issues but no 

motion was made. 

KAS Expert Panel Review of Goals and Questions (Attachment 3) - Bill Persons mentioned 

that Jeff Sorensen has been working to put together a Kanab ambersnail review panel. He 

distributed a handout which contained the questions that were put together with input from the 

TWG and noted that there is also a schedule of meetings on the last page. Bill said that there 

were some concerns made by ambersnail researchers about the nature of some of the questions 

and Jeff had wanted to send the questions around again to see if there were any specific concerns 

or issues from TWG members that Jeff Sorensen could answer. He apologized if this was the 

first time that members had seen the questions. Jeff said that if there were any questions or 

comments to e-mail those to him or Bill Persons. The review panel workshop will be held on 

December 1-2 at the Phoenix Zoo Stone House Group Pavilion in Phoenix, Arizona. More 

details are on the last page of the handout. 

FY 2000 BHBF Compliance - Randy Peterson stated three items were placed on the agenda to 

facilitate some group discussion on the issue of compliance, specifically on the idea of a planned 

effort to meeting our Section 7 responsibilities but also to address the issue of experimentation in 

the AMP. Experimentation facilitates research that is directed toward unknown things 

discovered through the monitoring program. In other words, if monitoring reveals gaps in 

information then research is done to increase understanding. Sometimes it is difficult to perform 

these experiments if they have to wait for specific triggering events, back-to-back treatments, or 

within the year treatments. He wanted to have a brief discussion on how things might be done 

differently with the goals of meeting the requirements under the Endangered Species Act and 

creating a more efficient learning process in terms of research and experimentation. 

Debra Bills said she has recommended to Reclamation in the past to formulate some sort of 

native fish team for this purpose. Such issues as the TCD, establishing the second population of 

chub, the low steady flows, and when to do a BHBF could be formulated into a 3-5 year plan on 

what you might want to see happen . Her reason for recommending this to Reclamation was 

based on the KAS (Kanab ambersnail group). That group is very focused, informed, and they=re 

up to speed on literature and monitoring and can recommend program direction for the next 3-5 

years. She believes that if there were a native fish group, perhaps some of the fishery issues 

could be prioritized and organized into some type of plan. 

Programmatic Compliance - Tony Morton questioned whether our expectations with the 

programmatic compliance approach are realistic. Tony said he wanted to emphasize again to the 

TWG that the programmatic compliance document does not provide compliance for specific 

actions but puts you another step toward that process. Individual compliance on specific actions 

is still required. 
Minutes of Technical Work Group Meeting 

September 7-8, 1999 

Page 4 

The group discussed the low flow test and the fact that they can=t be planned well in advance. 

Low release years of 8.23 MAF are governed by the ALaw of the River.@ Concern was expressed 

about having flexibility in implementing the experiment so that these things can be planned and 

also have sufficient time to design a specific experiment. The suggestion was made to develop a 

very specific program of research for the next three years to address what we really need to 

know, high priority actions that are justified, and then deal with the issue of flexibility and 

operating criteria. The suggestion was made to form a small group to meet with the GCMRC to 

make a first cut on an experimental flow regime. 

FY 2001 GCMRC Work Plan (Attachment 4)- Barry Gold began by noting that they are doing 

something different from what they did last year. Rather than sending a first written draft to 

comment on, a decision was reached to give a presentation with all the details, get input, draft a 

plan, and send it out for comments, and then plan for a discussion at the next meeting. The 

GCMRC is trying to act on one of the recommendations of the National Research Council to 

develop an integrated science plan. This plan was developed in GCMRC as a group rather than 

for individual program managers. Barry added that since they are not quite at the integration 

level, they are starting to move away from programs and talk about the characteristics of what=s 

going on in different research projects. 

They intend to continue with conceptual monitoring activities in 2001. The slides presented the 

rationale for the action and then described some of the activities expected in 2001. They wanted 

to do conceptual modeling initially because it would provide an ability to test scientific 

hypotheses. It is being used as a framework for understanding the ecosystem, an aid to them in 

selecting the parameters to be monitored, and as an hypothesis screening tool. They want to look 

at trend analysis in vegetation, water quality linkages, work to better define the geomorphic 

framework submodel, and the larval drift algorithm. Currently GCMRC is relying on Josh 

Korman and Carl Walters to accomplish these tasks through contract modifications. GCMRC 

wants to bring the capability in-house and get their staff trained to further develop the model. 

Ted Melis discussed the physical resource program. Panel members were selected in the 

summer of 1998 to convene the first PEP workshop for this program. They received an interim 

report from that group based on the presentations from the scientists under contract with 

GCMRC. The second part of the two-part review was held in Flagstaff last week. The first field 

trip last year was to look at Lees Ferry down to Badger Rapids to talk about the geomorphology 

of Marble Canyon. The second field trip this year was actually a tour of the dam and a float trip 

through Glen Canyon. The purpose for doing this was to show the panel members that there is 

not one continuous river geomorphology from the dam down to Lake Mead. There are actually 

different reaches, different geomorphologies that both influence the hydrology and sediment 

transport. They are expecting a formal report from the panel by the end of October 1999. That 

report, in conjunction with others, will be the basis for drafting a long-term monitoring plan this 

winter, specifically reflecting the needs for water and sediment resource monitoring long-term. 
Minutes of Technical Work Group Meeting 

September 7-8, 1999 

Page 5 

The long-term monitoring plan will be tied closely to research. Ted said he would give more 

details on the history of long-term monitoring and long-term monitoring design at tomorrow=s 

meeting. 

Barbara Ralston provided some highlights as to what has gone on in the last year in terms of 

monitoring and research. The Kanab ambersnail populations have been monitored since about 

1995 on a consistent basis. One of the things they know is that they vary in population size 

seasonally so does their habitat vary. Since interest in the Kanab ambersnail has increased, 

researchers have started surveying for new populations and are completing genetics work that 

will clarify the relationship between the Vasey=s Paradise population and those populations in the 

Kanab, Utah area. 

Southwest willow flycatcher monitoring has also taken place on a regular basis in the Grand 

Canyon. It appears that there are pairs mating in the Grand Canyon so habitat does not appear to 

be the limiting factor for survivorship or success of those birds. 

A Lake Powell assessment was completed, with the resulting conclusion that the reservoir and 

downstream water quality are linked. The location of the release withdrawal from the dam 

affects water quality as well as temperatures, and so operations affect both the reservoir and 

downstream water quality parameters. Likewise, dam operations have an effect on the aquatic 

food base as seen in the benefits associated with modified low fluctuating flows. A report from 

the Arizona Game and Fish Department indicates that trout have significantly benefitted since 

implementing interim flows as well as modified low fluctuating flows. 

Lastly, some genetics research was completed on the humpback chub. This work involved chub 

throughout the Colorado River Basin and indicates that there is intergression between the 

bonytail and humpback chubs. When trying to develop species level relationships of humpback 

chub at the populational level, it doesn=t appear that there are very distinct differences between 

those populations. 

Barbara went on to explain other parts of the biology program - terrestrial ecosystem monitoring, 

the aquatic monitoring segment, and finished up on some proposed research ideas. 

Research activities for FY 2000 are going to be completing research that was initiated during 

1999. For example, the RFP for humpback chub genetics should be funded this year and it is 

anticipated that it will be a two-year project. The pilot study for trophic linkages looking at 

vegetation structure, bird occurrence, and insect communities should be finished in 2001, and the 

food web dynamics would also be completed by 2001. She proposed initiating work on native 

and non-native competitive interactions and evaluating spawning substrates in Glen Canyon 

Reach, basically looking at the spawning beds. They should also be initiating a side-scan sonar 

pilot project, which data could be used to see if there are changes in spawning substrates from 

year to year. 
Minutes of Technical Work Group Meeting 

September 7-8, 1999 

Page 6 

For the cultural resource program, Ruth Lambert reported that all of the current project reports 

are still outstanding: 

- Data Synthesis Project Report which is in its second draft and is being amended and 

adjusted by the contractor and is due in November 1999. 

- Steve Willey is working on a flow and deposition model which is due November 1999. 

- The Geomorphic Erosional Report on Testing a Geomorphic Hypothesis by Richard 

Hereford is due in November 1999. 

- A report by Bill Stewart on recreational preferences focusing on camping beaches is due 

in December 1999. 

- There are also two tribal projects: the Hopi Tribe is an Ethnobotanical monitoring project 

and the Southern Paiute Consortium doing an education project. Those reports are due 

about December 1999. 

There was some discussion about the tribes= inability to access various models and information 

because they don=t have computers or Internet access. Ruth said that one of the things in the FY 

2000 plan is looking at the capabilities of tribal technologies. She thought there was $35,000 in 

the FY 2000 budget in cultural resources to look at what tribes have in terms of their 

technological capabilities. Barry suggested that this issue be discussed at a future TWG meeting. 

 He said that it is not the role of the GCMRC to provide technology to any of the stakeholder 

groups, whether it be the tribes or non-governmental organizations that do not have adequate 

technology. They recognize the need but also view the limits which have been put on this 

program which are specific to monitoring and research activities. Amy commented that since the 

GCMRC is proposing some programs to evaluate the needs then those needs should be brought 

forward to the TWG for discussions and on to the AMWG. A decision could then be made on 

the budget as to where to make those additions or changes. 

Action: Place tribal technology issue on the agenda for a future TWG meeting. 

Meeting adjourned at 4:30P (due to fire alarms) 
Minutes of Technical Work Group Meeting 

September 7-8, 1999 

Page 7 

September 8, 1999

Presiding: Bill Persons, AGFD 

Committee Members Present:

 

Clifford Barrett, CREDA Rick Johnson, GCT 

Andres Cheama, Pueblo of Zuni Robert King, UDWR 

Kerry Christensen, Hualapai Nation Phillip S. Lehr, Colo. River Comm./Nevada 

Dave Cohen, Trout Unlimited Don Metz, USFWS 

Wayne Cook, UCRC Randy Peterson, USBR 

William E. Davis, EcoPlan Assoc./CREDA Bill Persons, AGFD 

Kurt Dongoske, The Hopi Tribe Matt Kaplinski, GCRG 

Brenda Drye, So. Paiute Consortium John Shields, WY State Engineer=s Office 

Norm Henderson, GCRA Mindy Schlimgen-Wilson, American Rivers 

Amy Heuslein, BIA Robert Winfree, NPS 

Fred Worthley, CRBC 

Committee Members Absent:

Nancy Hornewer, USGS 

Alan Downer, Navajo Nation 

Randy Seaholm, CWCB 

Alternates Present: Alternate For:

Mary Barger, WAPA Clayton Palmer, WAPA 

Other Interested Persons Present:

Nancy Coulam, USBR Ted Melis, GCMRC 

Barry Gold, GCMRC Anthony G. Morton, USBR 

Dennis Kubly, GCMRC Tom Ryan, USBR 

Recorder: Linda Whetton, USBR 
Minutes of Technical Work Group Meeting 

September 7-8, 1999 

Page 8 

GCMRC-Information Technology Program - Mike Liszewski began his presentation by 

displaying is a conceptual diagram that outlines the Information Technology Program. The ITP 

has been divided into the following areas: Information Management activities, Data Collection 

activities, Data Analysis activities, and Data Dissemination activities. Under each of those 

activities are various functions of the ITP that ultimately provide information to not only the 

AMWG and TWG, but also to principal investigators and the public at large. (Refer to 

Attachment 4, pages 46-52). 

One step towards data dissemination is GCMRC=s new ftp server: Ftp to gcmrc.gov to access 

this data. 

Continuation of FY 2001 GCMRC Workplan - (Refer to Attachment 4, pages 53- 57) 

Bob Winfree asked if GCMRC was planning to include minimum requirement evaluations in the 

peer review process. Barry responded that the focus has always been on the scientific approach. 

 Barry said that Bob=s concern is that as the Park moves more to looking at managing the river as 

a potential wilderness, it poses some interesting questions to researchers and the approaches they 

take to answer research questions. They have not said in the FY 2000 RFP=s that a proposal that 

had an approach which passed minimum tool use requirements would be rated higher than a 

proposal that didn=t. Perhaps they need to coordinate with the Park Service and develop that for 

2001 because currently the proposals are rated only on technical merits. Bob said he felt there 

was a real disconnect in the process. 

Action: Put on agenda for a future TWG meeting: 

- Amy would like to have some discussions regarding the tribal lands that are not 

wilderness areas but are within the Canyon. It=s up to each of those tribes to determine 

whether or not they should be consulted regarding mechanized equipment or activities on 

those pieces of property. 

- Bob said that he could make a presentation on Wilderness Act policy and current 

management of the park. 

Review of the FY 2001 GCMRC Budget (pg. 57) - Barry Gold 

Barry answered questions from TWG members regarding the FY 2001 GCMRC Budget. Barry 

said he would like to get agreement on the process for completing the plan and moving to 

closure. 

Kurt said he was somewhat confused with the whole budget process. Back in June 8-9, 1999, 

there was a presentation on the 2001 budget and funding for the Programmatic Agreement (PA) 

and tribal support. To come to agreement for passing the bottom line of $7.85 million, the TWG 

recommended to the AMWG to accept the FY 2001 budget with an ad hoc committee of the 

TWG to draft budget line item details, with special consideration given to funding tribal 

participation and cultural compliance issues. In order to do that, the TWG was waiting for the 
Minutes of Technical Work Group Meeting 

September 7-8, 1999 

Page 9 

Bureau to provide some specification on what it would cost to remain in compliance with the 

PA. That information has not been forthcoming so the subgroup was never convened. At the 

AMWG meeting, there were also concerns, a lot by the tribes, regarding the bottom line of $7.85 

million. There was a vote, 10-9 in favor of passing the bottom line. If Kurt is correct in the 

AMWG protocols for operating procedures, it=s not a simple majority but a 2/3 majority to pass 

the recommendation. It seemed to him that even though Stephen Magnussen thought that the 

motion had passed, there may some question as to whether it really passed or not. Kurt 

appreciates the work the Center has done but until the TWG understands how much money is 

going to have to be allocated for the PA work, there is some question as to whether the programs 

that are being proposed for 2001 and their associated budgets are actually going to be viable. If 

there is going to be more money requested for the PA, perhaps some of the Center=s budget will 

have to go toward that compliance. Kurt expressed concern that no one has gone back to address 

those issues and yet the TWG is still moving forward with the 2001 budget. He expressed 

frustration with the whole budget process. 

Barry responded that the presentation they were asked to give was on the 2001 Annual Plan for 

the GCMRC. He said that the one thing that shows up which relates to Kurt=s issue is they 

moved $73,000 out of their operations and personnel account to restore PA funding to $973,000. 

 Barry stated that the way the budget process works, there has been an Aabove the line and below 

the line.@ He suggested that perhaps there is a better way of integrating the funding. 

Kurt said he would like to see more communication with the TWG on the budgeting process. He 

questioned if the Bureau has conformed with the $7.85 million as the bottom line for 2001 even 

though there was some disagreement. Randy responded saying that the Bureau had put this 

number in their budget documents that go to Congress. With respect to progress on the Aabove 

line costs,@ the Bureau has scheduled a PA meeting for Sept. 20-21 to discuss these issues and he 

is confident that we=ll be able to define the scope of compliance that is required for the PA as a 

result of that meeting. The Bureau has also followed up on the Mark Schaefer letter seeking 

appropriated funds for tribal participation. When we have received responses to that letter, the 

AMWG will have the data to make some decisions regarding the tribal participation issue. 

Kurt questioned whether or not the vote should be recognized as having support of the AMWG. 

 Randy said he would check on the answer to that question. Randy said he felt the process was 

still the right process to follow. It has taken some time to get all the parties together to have the 

PA meeting. Nancy Coulam tried diligently to do that and Sept. 20 was the first available date 

that everyone could meet. They will follow the process to conclusion by December. 

Action: Amy recommended that the ad hoc group that volunteered to be involved meet to 

resolve this issue. The PA group meets on Sept. 20-21. 

Amy asked if a process could be put in place where GCMRC would meet with the tribes three to 

four times a year recognizing that the information from those meetings with the tribes (in a 

government to government relationship) is brought back and shared with the TWG. GCMRC 

has a trust responsibility to the tribes. If there are impacts or questions that the tribes may have, 
Minutes of Technical Work Group Meeting 

September 7-8, 1999 

Page 10 

they then would have the opportunity to sit down with GCMRC to discuss it in a government-togovernment relationship before bringing back to the TWG. 

Barry reviewed the upcoming schedule for : 

Sept. 7-8 TWG Meeting 

Sept 22 Comments due to GCMRC 

Oct 22 Mail Draft Plan for TWG review 

Nov 5 Comments due back to GCMRC 

Nov. 19 GCMRC will mail a Response to the Comments 

Dec 7-8 TWG- Discuss Response to Comments 

Dec 20 Send final to the AMWG 

Barry said he would have the schedule typed up and sent out to everyone. 

Amy questioned if there would be an opportunity for the tribes to sit down with GCMRC 

personnel and discuss any concerns they might have. Barry said he couldn=t speak to 

everybody=s schedules but felt that they should be able to have that meeting. 

Barry mentioned there were two more items he wanted to bring to the TWG=s attention: 

1. There is a Temperature Control Device Symposium which was tentatively scheduled for 

Oct.14-16. However, there is a proposal to move it to November but the dates have not been 

decided upon. We=re working against a target of needing to get everything done on this, 

reviewing the monitoring and research plan, and re-evaluating the comments that came on 

the EA so it can be brought to the proposed April AMWG meeting. By slipping this from 

October to November, the feeling is that we can still meet the dates. As soon as those dates 

are set, we will notify the TWG. 

2. Desert Fishes Council meetings are October 16-21, 1999. 

3. Tailwater Trout Symposium scheduled for April 25-28, 2000 in Page, Arizona. 

AMP Strategic Plan - Randy said this was put on the agenda to have a purposeful discussion 

about the Strategic Plan. At the last AMWG meeting Rob Arnberger described a need for the 

TWG to continue work on the plan while the AMWG ad hoc group continued to work on goals 

and MO=s. By the end of this discussion some type of small ad hoc team could be formed to 

begin reviewing the December 8 draft of the Strategic Plan and revising and reworking those 

first three chapters so that by the time the AMWG ad hoc group completed its work that we 

would have a good start on the Strategic Plan as well. 

Barry reported that the AMWG Goals Ad Hoc group met on August 27 and drafted a set of goals 

that stepped down from the vision statement and have a conference call scheduled for Sept. 13. 

Barry said that the process has been delayed in order to gain consensus on the goals. He is 

concerned about getting closure in order to move forward. He reminded people that under the 
Minutes of Technical Work Group Meeting 

September 7-8, 1999 

Page 11 

old budgeting process, we were working under a protocol where in July they brought the bottom 

line budget number to the AMWG. The next due date would be July 2000. That means that we 

have a lot of work between January and July to get there. He is concerned that we have a new 

strategic plan in place by January or at the latest at the March meeting to allow this budgeting 

process to function properly. The GCMRC is going to move forward to develop a 2002 budget 

and get long-term monitoring on the ground. 

AMWG Ad Hoc Team - Wayne Cook reported that the AMWG ad hoc team had met. The 

members on the team were: Mary Orton, Ted Rampton, Rick Johnson for Geoffrey Barnard, 

Andre Potochnik, Don Bay for Clay Bravo, Jerry Zimmerman, and Wayne Cook. They 

developed and combined goals into riverine, riparian, social-cultural, and administrative resource 

categories. They talked about a wide range of goals - food base, native species, the concept of 

maintaining viable populations, river otter, self-sustaining populations, competition and 

predation between natives and non-natives, and how sediment affects other resources. In some 

cases, they started thinking about management objectives that might fit under those as a test to 

see whether or not they had the goals correctly framed. 

Their team comments on the draft goals will go to Mary Orton by September 10, a conference 

call will be held on September 13th, and they anticipate that between September 13 and 20 the 

goals will be mailed out in advance of the next AMWG meeting on October 21. The next step is 

to review and modify the Management Objectives under the goals. 

Barry recommended that two ad hoc groups be formed, one that is going to be small committee 

to start fleshing those elements in the Strategic Plan that don=t relate to MO=s and IN=s and the 

other would be focused on developing MO=s after the AMWG meeting on October 21. 

Motion: Form two ad hoc groups. The first one would be charged with development of 

reviewing and revising MO=s and the other with developing the Strategic Plan. Motion passed. 

MOs and INs Ad Hoc Group: 

a. review and revise existing MOs as necessary 

b. develop new MOs where necessary 

c. develop management action to meet objectives 

d. recommend process for prioritizing INs 

e. coordinate with Center on INs 

a, b, c due by January 1 --> presentation to AMWG at January 2000 meeting 

d, e, due Spring 2000 

Strategic Plan Ad Hoc Group: 

Look at Strategic Plan for the AMP, looking at the GCMRC=s Plan and using that as guidance. 
Minutes of Technical Work Group Meeting 

September 7-8, 1999 

Page 12 

A draft will need to be done by mid-December. 

Present something to the AMWG or mail draft plan by April 2000 meeting 

MOs and INs Ad Hoc Group Strategic Planning Ad Hoc Group

Matt Kaplinski Cliff Barrett 

Cliff Barrett Bill Davis 

Bill Davis Kurt Dongoske 

Kurt Dongoske Norm Henderson 

Rick Johnson Don Metz 

Mary Barger/Clayton Barry Wirth or GCMRC person 

Bob Winfrey Wayne Cook 

Don Metz Randy Peterson 

Mindy Schlimgen-Wilson 

Barry Wirth or GCMRC person 

Wayne Cook 

Bill Persons 

Randy Peterson 

Rick Johnson volunteered to get both groups started. 

Score Report - Due to time limitations, Barry suggested people go to the GCMRC website and 

read it. 

Report on Recent Sediment Inputs, Monitoring, and PEP Workshop - Ted gave an update on 

what=s been happening this summer in terms of tributary flows. It has been an exceptional 

summer of monsoons which has had a great impact on sediment inputs and mainstem sediment 

balance. Four separate events occurred during the past few months which produced Little 

Colorado River peak flows greater than 3,500 cfs in the Moenkopi Wash, and two of the four 

exceeded 5,000 cfs.

Ted gave an update on the PEP workshop held last week. This was the second workshop he has 

held, with the ultimate goal to get a final review report within the next two months to help 

construct a draft long-term monitoring plan. The PEP workshop panel will review that draft as 

well as the Technical Work Group, then after some revision and discussion, Ted will start 

constructing some RFPs with staff at GCMRC to focus on long-term monitoring components of 

the physical resource program. The goal is to implement this monitoring plan in FY 2001 as a 5-

year monitoring effort, at the end of which time, GCMRC will reconvene the Review Panel and 

reevaluate the program. 

The 1999 NRC report saw a lot of benefits to the conceptual modeling exercise during the last 

year and a half. The conceptual model gives us a good chance to look at things that change over 
Minutes of Technical Work Group Meeting 

September 7-8, 1999 

Page 13 

the course of decades to a century. 

Ted felt that the overall objectives of the physical program in terms of research and monitoring 

comes down to the sediment budget, specifically relative to dam operations. Sediment 

monitoring needs to be supported and provides key data for other resource areas and other 

scientists throughout the program. Within the concept of linking resource areas, we need to have 

the required key variables. He can come up with some of those but needs help from the 

biologists and social scientists to help him identify what those key variables that need to be 

recorded and to what degree of error can be measured and recorded and still be useful. This is 

always a big problem - the scale issue. Whatever is decided, monitoring needs to be done 

consistently and maintained for a long period of time or its value decreases. 

Report on the PEP Sediment Workshop - Ted Melis began by saying he had done a Glen Canyon 

field trip. Ernie Pemberton and others showed that after the dam was closed in 1963, there was a 

major scouring of the tailwater reach of about 2-3 meters based on the cross-sections that were 

tracked between 1956 and 1976. They have reason to believe that because of some unusual 

flooding events from ungauged tributaries since 1990, some of the pools in the Glen Canyon 

reach are actually filling up with sand again. The sand dredged up from the bottom appeared to 

be abundant and bright orange. It didn=t look like pre-dam sand which led them to believe that 

tentatively, subject to more synthesis work, there are fine sediment resources to manage in the 

Glen Canyon reach. 

Ted provided brief details on each workshop presentation. A report will be distributed to the 

TWG in November after he gets it from the panel. Ted will proceed with drafting a long-term 

monitoring and research plan in detail and share it with the TWG. 

Compensation for the TWG Chair - Randy proposed an agreement with the Grand Canyon Trust 

to not exceed $25,000 for compensation to Rick Johnson for next year=s work as TWG chair. 

This number is a little higher than in the past because they are proposing to involve him 

substantially more in assignments and activities. 

Glen Canyon Dam Operations - Tom Ryan addressed Glen Canyon Dam operations for 

September. Inflows to Lake Powell were above average in August, about 190% of average, so 

September releases will stay at levels similar to those in August, averaging about 19,000 cfs. 

There is going to be one notable exception to that on September 20-21. There is maintenance 

occurring at the Aspinall Unit in Colorado (Morrow Point, Blue Mesa, and Crystal Dams). Those 

powerplants will basically be off-line for power production or nearly so. There will also be a 

special low flow release occurring the same day. As a result, on September 20 and 21, WAPA 

will be short in terms of their ability to meet its firm load demand so Glen Canyon Dam releases 

will be increased to nearly 25,000 cfs, but the operating criteria of the ROD will not be violated. 

 The details are being finalized and a Press Release will be sent out and posted on the Internet. 

Experimental Flows Ad Hoc Group Progress Report (Attachment #5) - Bill Persons said they 
Minutes of Technical Work Group Meeting 

September 7-8, 1999 

Page 14 

had a meeting on July 20 to screen a list of 33 different experiments that the TWG came up with 

in a brainstorming session - see page 4. He did some preliminary screening, sent out an e-mail 

for comments and incorporated those into the report. The original task was to develop an array 

of flow experiments and draft proposed actions for future water years so that the programmatic 

compliance could be completed. He sought clarification from the TWG as to what this ad hoc 

group should do next. The feedback he received from the compliance group was this wasn=t 

specific enough. Bill made an attempt to prioritize them but received limited feedback. 

Action: Bill will take the list back to the ad hoc group and attempt to prioritize again. 

TWG Effectiveness -Ad Hoc Group - Due to time, this item was deleted from agenda. 

TWG River Trip - Rick Johnson 

 

In the last TWG meeting the idea of doing a TWG river trip was discussed. Some positive 

results could be the bringing of people together on issues and helping people understand the sites 

and issues on which researchers were working. Most felt it would be worthwhile, but several 

expressed concern over the cost and appropriateness of the trip. There was discussion on 

whether an alternative trip could be set up to achieve the same goals. Barry said he was holding 

a meeting in October with the PI=s to schedule the research trips and until that occurs, he isn=t 

prepared to look at the availability of boats and equipment to do the trip. Barry said that an 8-

day trip for group this size would cost approximately $15-20,000. 

Action: Barry will report back to the TWG on possible dates and anticipated costs. 

Amy said she sensed there were some concerns by members on doing a river trip. She suggested 

that members provide their pros and cons to Rick and be prepared to discuss at the next meeting. 

Action: Submit comments to Rick and he=ll provide feedback at next meeting. Rick=s e-mail is: 

johnson@flagstaff.az.us 

Public Comment and Wrapup - None 

Next meetings: 

AMWG Meeting, October 21 (9:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.) 

TWG Meeting, October 22 (8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.) 

Held at: Bureau of Indian Affairs Office 

12th Floor, 400 North 5th Street 

Conference Rooms A & B