TECHNICAL WORK GROUP 

ACTION ITEMS 

NEW ASSIGNMENTS (Sept. 27-28, 2004): 

Date Assignment Status / Updates 

9/27 

Any comments on the Draft TWG Minutes from the June 30-

July 1, 2004, meeting, need to be provided to Linda by 

October 8, 2004. 

No comments received. 

9/27 

Based on the outcome of the PA Meeting to be held on 

9/29/04, Mike Berry will report back to the TWG on any 

resolution for getting GIS data layer information shared 

between USGS (GCMRC), USBR, and NPS. Ken McMullen 

may be able to resolve the NPS concerns. If the issue 

cannot be resolved, then the TWG will send a 

recommendation to the AMWG on how they it could be 

resolved. Norm will send an e-mail message to the TWG on 

any further action required. 

Mike continues to work with the individuals 

involved in resolving this issue. 

9/27 Minutes from the Cultural Resource/Research Design Ad 

Hoc group (CRDAHG) meeting will be sent to Linda Whetton 

so she can capture any additional action items. 

No comments received. 

9/27 

GMCRC will develop a process, a schedule, and a 

recommended budget for suppression and control of nonnative fish (warm water species) to be presented to AMWG 

at their October meeting. 

9/27 The TWG will review the MLFF White Paper and provide 

comments to Ted Melis by October 15, 2004. 

9/27 The TWG will provide comments on the Draft Core 

Monitoring Plan to Jeff Lovich by October 15, 2004. 

9/27 Dennis will send out an e-mail message tomorrow (9/28) and 

get the next LTEP AHG meeting scheduled. 

Done. An LTEP meeting was held on 12/7. 

9/27 Jeff Lovich will make a presentation to the AMWG in October 

on the projects TWG approved for deferral from FY04 to 

FY05. 

CONTINUING ASSIGNMENTS: 

Date Assignment Status 

6/30/04 Jeff Lovich will visit with persons drafting the protocol 

for dissemination of reports to see if he can influence 

the direction of the protocol. 

6/30/04 TWG members should give Norm feedback on this 

issue. He will make it part of the report to the AMWG 

6/30/04 Jeff Lovich will read through the documents and send 

out a timeline for next meeting of CMAHG. 

6/30/04 USBR, NPS, and GCMRC to work out GIS data layer 

issues and report back to TWG at the next meeting 

(9/27/04). 

Mike reported there is no data sharing 

between individuals. They have their own 97K 

line with data they know to be inaccurate at 

precise locations. Grand Canyon has been 

doing additional work but they don’t know 

what they’ve been doing. Helen said that as 

far as cultural data, they don’t have any at this 

time. Mike said that the lower level of 

squabbling, it needs to be kicked upstairs on 

data sharing. Helen said she has requested 

on a couple of occasions from Lisa Leap said 

she would provide site data information and 

yet haven’t received anything to date. Mike 

has recommended as a long-term solution to 

this problem is that they need a common 

server shared by GCMRC, BOR, and NPS so 

that when people update a record, everyone 

gets that information. Mike said it is a 

relatively easy IT problem but the problem 
doesn’t exist at the IT level but rather on the 

cooperation level and that has to get resolved 

or the program is going nowhere. Helen said 

she put in requests to get the monitoring data. 

Lisa said she would share site information on 

the polygons but she couldn’t provide it right 

away and far as monitoring, she wasn’t wiling 

to share that information. She was asking for 

the raw data. Based on the outcome of the PA 

Meeting to be held on 9/29/04, Mike Berry will 

report on any resolution for getting GIS data 

layer information shared between USGS 

(GCMRC), USBR, and NPS. Ken McMullen 

may be able to resolve the NPS concerns. If 

not, the issue will be forwarded to the AMWG 

for resolution at a higher level. Dennis said 

that the TWG needs to make 

recommendations to the AMWG on how we 

solve problems and not lay problems at their 

feet. He advocated that if anything is going to 

be forwarded to the AMWG that they be in the 

form of alternatives to resolution of the 

problem. Mike will report back to Norm and 

Dennis following the meeting.Norm will send 

an e-mail to the TWG on what action is to be 

taken. 

(Continuing) Bill Persons and GCMRC will provide an 

update on the metrics and management objectives for the 

Lee’s Ferry trout fishery at the June/July 2004 meeting and 

lead the TWG to looking at the bigger issue (updating

management objectives).

Done. Presentation made on 9/27/04. 

(Continuing) Mary Barger will provide updates on the HBC 

Genetics Management Plan at upcoming TWG meetings 

Update: Bob Muth says it’s a work in progress. It’s 

on their schedule but no time frame at this time – 

probably six months out. 

9/27/94: Norm said he spoke with Bob Muth and 

they are planning to get the report completed by the 

end of the calendar year. 

(Continuing) Glen Knowles will track the status of the 

Willow Beach Genetics Assessment and provide copies of 

that report upon completion. 

Update: Work continues. Will have something for 

the January 2005 meeting. 

9/27/04: Glen said this has been derailed slightly. 

He received an e-mail this morning and apparently 

the project is on hold until there is some funding or 

until a new lab person is in place. He needs to get 

with Manuel who is the hatchery manager and 

figure out a way to get some funding to them. 

Dennis asked Glen to refresh people’s mind on the 

importance of the plan. Glen said it will tell us what 

the fish in Willow Beach hatchery are. There are 

some 100-150 humpback chub on station and this 

analysis will tell us what those fish represent in 

terms of what we know about the genetics of the 

species and it should dove-tail very nicely in the 

work that Douglases are doing at Colorado State. 

The Douglases research is a genetics picture of the 

entire species in the upper and lower basin and this 

work is specifically to look at the genetic makeup of 

the fish that were on station at Willow Beach. It 

could potentially tell us in light of what the Douglas’ 

findings are is whether or not we already have a 

refugium population. It’s kind of small number. 

Generally 500 is a number people talk about in 

terms of creating a refugia but if they’re relatively 

homogenous as a species, perhaps we already 

have a refugia in place. 

(Continuing) GCMRC (Ted Melis) will endeavor to provide 

copies of the HBC Genetics report being done by Mike and 

Marlis Douglas. GMCRC will provide copies of the draft 

report by July 31, 2004, or sooner, in order to present to the 

AMWG at their August 9-10, 2004, meeting. 

Update: Ted is hopeful they will have a draft by 

July. They will send it out for review and then share 

it with the TWG. 

9/27/04: Barbara Ralston reported that the Douglas’ 

project is scheduled to be completed in December 
with a final report by January 2005. They are 

hesitant to provide some preliminary details 

because they’re dealing with an endangered 

species so they would just as soon wait until they 

have their final analysis finished before they provide 

any preliminary results. Ted said that typically their 

protocol for reporting before the final is that there is 

a preliminary presentation made to the TWG so he 

suggested that the Douglas’ should make a 

presentation at the next TWG meeting prior to 

finalization of the report in January. 

GMCRC (Ted Melis) will endeavor to provide copies of the 

Feasibility Assessment on Augmentation and Refugia and 

provide copies of the report to the TWG upon completion, 

and to the AMWG for their August 9-10, 2004, meeting. 

Update: 5/3/04: Bruce Taubert indicated on the Science 

Advisors’ river trip that he would be willing to provide money 

to conduct a feasibility assessment for growout ponds in 

terraces above the Little Colorado River. Bill Persons will 

get an official statement from Bruce on what he committed to 

do and report back at the next TWG meeting. 

Done. Sam Spiller gave PPT presentation on 

9/28/04. Update: 

Bill Persons provided a copy of an 

e-mail message from Bruce Taubert. In it, Bruce 

stated that he “agreed to conduct an evaluation of 

the hatcheries to determine which ones, if any, met 

the dictates that the Service set out in their 

document.” 

GCMRC and USBR will develop a visual matrix or flow chart 

that explains how the Long Term Experimental Plan, the 

Core Monitoring Plan, the AMP Strategic Plan, etc. fit 

together and present at the next TWG Meeting.

9/27/04: Dennis said the science advisors are 

going to be holding a meeting on integration of the 

plans but we would have it done prior to that 

meeting. He thinks the meeting will be held later 

this fall. 

Reclamation (Dennis Kubly) will confer with the Secretary’s 

Designee (Michael Gabaldon) on the projects TWG 

approved for deferral from FY04 to FY05 per GCMRC’s 

recommendations to see how they should be handled. 

Done. Dennis spoke with Mike Gabaldon. The vote 

on deferrals was unclear. Reading minutes, it was 

unclear there was not consensus on them. Mike 

wanted to know what the vote was. Mike asked that 

the TWG discuss. When the AMWG passes a 

budget, it is passed down to the implementers, so if 

there are deviations, they should come back from 

the implementers to the AMWG. 

NEW ACTION: Jeff will present at the next AMWG 

meeting (October 2004). 

9/27/04: Dennis said this issue wasn’t put on the 

next AMWG meeting agenda. Norm advised it 

should be prepared for the March 2005 AMWG 

meeting.