Technical Work Group

September 20, 2000

Phoenix, Arizona

Presiding: Rick Johnson, Chairperson FINAL 

Committee Members Present:

Clifford Barrett, CREDA Rick Johnson, GCT

Andres Cheama, Pueblo of Zuni Robert King, UDWR

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

Dave Cohen, Trout Unlimited Don Metz, USFWS

Wayne Cook, UCRC S. Clayton Palmer, WAPA

Wm. Davis, EcoPlan Assoc./CREDA Bill Persons, AGFD

Kurt Dongoske, The Hopi Tribe Randall Peterson, USBR

Christopher Harris, CRBC Andre Potochnik, GCRG

Norm Henderson, NPS/GCNRA John Shields, WY State Engineer’s Ofc.

Amy Heuslein, BIA

Nancy Hornewer, USGS

Pamela Hyde, Southwest Rivers

Committee Members Absent:

Robert Begay, Navajo Nation Randy Seaholm, CWCB

Brenda Drye, So. Paiute Consortium Robert Winfree, NPS/GCRA

Matt Kaplinski, GCRG

Alternates Present: Alternate for:

Jan Balsom Robert Winfree, NPS/GCRA

Timothy Begay Robert Begay, Navajo Nation

Wayne Cook Randy Seaholm, CWCB

Andre Potochnik Matt Kaplinski, GCRG

Other Interested Persons Present:

Mary Barger, WAPA Dennis Kubly, USBR

Gary Burton, WAPA Ruth Lambert, GCMRC

Jeffrey Cross, NPS/GRCA Mike Liszewski, GCMRC

David Culver, Ohio State Univ. Mary Orton, Mary Orton Company

Barry Gold, GCMRC Barbara Ralston, GCMRC

Bill Jackson, NPS-Water Res. David Speas, AGFD

Linda James, JEDA, et al

Recorder: Linda Whetton, USBR
GCD Technical Work Group

Minutes of Sept. 20-21, 2000 Meeting

Page 2

Meeting Opening and Administrative Items

Sept. 20, 2000: Convened: 9:40 a.m.

Welcome and Introductions

The Chairperson welcomed the TWG members, alternates, and guests. All introduced themselves. The

Chairperson determined there was a quorum established. 

The Chairperson noted there were a few changes to the agenda: 

1) Nancy Coulam’s presentation on the PA Response to the Cultural PEP will be rescheduled for the

TWG Meeting in November.

2) The Kanab ambersnail presentation by Debra Bills will be given at tomorrow’s meeting.

3) Cliff Barrett requested an update on Glen Canyon operations as the schedule allows.

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

Action Items from Last Meeting:

1. KAWG response to expert panel report and report to TWG - to be handled as part of Debra Bills’

presentation tomorrow.

2. Barry will send out an e-mail advising which river trips dates are available.

Approval of TWG May 10-11, 2000 Meeting Minutes.

Motion: Approve May 10-11, 2000, meeting minutes. With changes noted, the minutes were

approved without objection.

Ground Rules. Refer to Attachment 2.

TWG Operating Procedures - Randy Peterson informed the members that the AMWG Charter was

discussed with the AMWG members in a conference call on August 31, 2000. The revised Charter

(Attachment 3) will be sent to Washington around mid-October so it’s renewed on time. One revision

included clarification on reimbursing AMWG and AMWG sub-group members for travel expenses. It

was decided that AMWG members and AMWG sub-group members should be reimbursed for

attending regularly scheduled meetings, participating in protocol evaluation panel (PEP) reviews, and

working in ad hoc groups. Thus far, AMP travel expenses have been fairly minimal. He asked the

members if they felt the TWG Operating Procedures needed to be amended. After some discussion, it

was decided that since the TWG operates under the AMWG Charter, no additional changes were

needed. 
GCD Technical Work Group

Minutes of Sept. 20-21, 2000 Meeting

Page 3

ACTION: E-mail the revised AMWG Charter to the TWG members.

Nominations for TWG Chair for FY 2001. Randy asked for nominations to elect a new TWG

Chairperson for the upcoming fiscal year (Sept. 30, 2000 to October 1, 2001). The following persons

were nominated: Rick Johnson and Gary Burton. Randy advised that a formal vote will take place at

tomorrow’s meeting. Rick said his contract with the Grand Canyon Trust terminates at the end of the

month, however, he will continue to be a member of the TWG but will be representing Southwest

Rivers. Pamela Hyde will be the alternate from Southwest Rivers. The GCT hasn’t decided who their

TWG representative will be.

Randy announced that Secretary Babbitt appointed Pam Hyde and Rick Gold to the Adaptive

Management Work Group effective Sept. 13, 2000. Pam will represent Southwest Rivers and Rick

will represent the Bureau of Reclamation, replacing Charles Calhoun. 

MOTION: Change the TWG Chair term in the Operating Procedures to October 1 - Sept. 30. The

current TWG Chair will serve until the new Chair takes office.

Motion passed unanimously.

Transfer of GCMRC to USGS - Randy said that the Bureau still hasn’t received official concurrence

from the Senate Interior Appropriations Subcommittee for the transfer. A draft MOU and an

Interagency Agency (IA) are being prepared to effect a smooth transition as well as allow a process

whereby the USBR can transfer power revenue funds to the USGS. Barry Gold said the USGS is

working to have all personnel transferred to the USGS by October 1. 

Status of FY 2001 Appropriations - Randy said that in early August a copy of HR 4733 (Attachment

4) was sent to the AMWG members. At this point in time, the bill is moving to conference between the

House and Senate. Section 203 of the bill addresses GCD AMP funding from power revenues and has

three sections: 1) capping of power revenue funding of activities to meet the requirements of the Grand

Canyon Protection Act, 2) the inclusion of the activities of the Programmatic Agreement and

requirements of the Biological Opinion in the AMP, and 3) allows appropriations to be sought if needed

using Section 8 of the 1956 CRSP Act. The Department is concerned about several provisions of the

bill, but doesn’t oppose limiting power revenue funding if there is the ability to seek additional

appropriations. Chris Harris asked the membership if they had seen the letter sent from Duane L.

Shroufe of the AGFD dated August 7, 2000 (Attachment 5) in which Mr. Shroufe raised concerns

about HR 4733. 

Dave Cohen expressed concern that the other DOI agencies haven’t provided funding to the Adaptive

Management Program and questioned why that wasn’t included in the bill. Randy responded that the

proposed bill stated additional appropriated funds would come under Section 8 authority in

Reclamation’s budget. Dave said he hasn’t seen any amendment language. The Dept. will be

responding to the bill language and is only offering explanatory comments at this time. 

A lengthy discussion followed surrounding the capping of power revenues at $7.85 million and what
GCD Technical Work Group

Minutes of Sept. 20-21, 2000 Meeting

Page 4

impact that would have on the Adaptive Management Program. There was concern because the

legislation hadn’t been discussed nor endorsed by the AMWG, but rather some stakeholders had

apparently gone outside the AMP process. They also asked why the other DOI agencies (FWS,

USGS, BIA, and NPS ) have still not fulfilled their commitment to provide appropriated

funding to the AMP for tribal funding. Initially, each agency was suppose to provide $75K, then it

dropped to $50K, and finally $15K in support of the AMP. Why wasn’t language included in the bill

or even an amendment drafted to make the agencies accountable for that funding? The members were

concerned about “privileged communication” and wondered if there was a better way to stay in touch

with the Congressional Appropriations staff. A suggestion was made to include “legislative updates” as

a regular agenda item to keep members informed of possible bills or laws going to Congress, to receive

updates from the Dept. during active legislative sessions, and to provide and receive feedback on

critical budget matters. Many stakeholders felt a certain degree of distrust and would like to see

something put in place to avoid this from happening again. 

Randy suggested that the bill language may have resulted from a lack of communication and

understanding among AMP stakeholders. If the TWG can’t get consensus on an issue, then perhaps

more discussion is needed. Clayton stated that the TWG Operating Procedures (page 4, paragraph 8),

talks about consensus:

“ . . . All reasonable efforts will be made to bring the group to a consensus decision or

recommendation. If consensus cannot be achieved, a vote will be taken on motions and

recommendations to be forwarded to the AMWG. . . . Ad hoc groups consisting of

dissenting members maybe formed as needed to prepare minority opinions. Each appointed

TWG representative is expected to explain and/or clarify issues to their respective AMWG

member.”

The members discussed the above and the important role of ad hoc groups. The following motion was

made to change the TWG Operating Procedures to read (page 4, paragraph 8):

MOTION: “ . . . All reasonable efforts will be made to bring the group to a consensus decision or

recommendation, including, for example, formation of ad hoc groups. If consensus cannot be

achieved, a vote will be taken on motions and recommendations to be forwarded to the AMWG. . . .”

Motion seconded.

Voting Results:

Yes = 19

No = 1

Cliff suggested that the TWG form an ad hoc TWG group to look at the whole budget process. 

MOTION: Formation of an ad hoc group to review the budget process and bring recommendations

back to the TWG. 

Motion seconded
GCD Technical Work Group

Minutes of Sept. 20-21, 2000 Meeting

Page 5

Discussion. (Budget timing, prioritization process, organizing lobbying efforts, etc.)

Voting Results:

Yes = 20

No = 0

Abstentions: 2. No comments offered.

Budget Process Ad Hoc Group Membership:

Cliff Barrett* Wayne Cook

Clayton Palmer Robert Begay

Randy Peterson Bill Persons

Barry Gold Rick Johnson

* Will serve as the chair and make the necessary arrangements.

A suggestion was made to have legislative updates provided at each TWG meeting as part of “new

business.”

ACTION: Legislative updates will be included as a regular agenda item under “New Business” for

future TWG meetings. In addition, future notices published in the Federal Register will be crafted in

such a manner to include other topics which could be covered under new business as well.

Trout PEP Presentation. David Culver is a limnologist working at Ohio State University. He works

primarily on juvenile fish ecology and was invited along with a number of other people to review the

Trout PEP Program. He said it was a good experience and they found some challenging problems to

work on. He passed out copies of his overhead presentation (Attachment 6) and also copies of the

final report (Attachment 7). 

He said the panel recommends that GCRMC develop an explicit set of ecologically-based Study

Objectives, based on desires of stakeholders, that will drive all activities, including design of requests

for proposals, and that the AGFD take an active role in communicating this process to stakeholders. 

The panel found that a more integrated research program would benefit the adaptive management of the

Glen Canyon and Grand Canyon resources, and that the GCMRC should work to achieve this goal.

TWG River Trip - Barry Gold said he was asked to develop a calendar for a river trip. He proposed

a motorized trip which could be done in 7 days or a row trip which could be done in 11 days. 

Assuming there are no unexpected flow experiments, he suggested March or April 2001. The costs

will be dependent on whether they can get “volunteers” to row some of the boats and use some staff as

opposed to having to hire boatmen. A row trip would require four additional days of food packets

($18 per person/per food pack) so if all 27 members go, that’s $500 per day or an additional $2000. 

There would be no additional equipment costs because GCMRC has the equipment. 
GCD Technical Work Group

Minutes of Sept. 20-21, 2000 Meeting

Page 6

The consensus of the group was to go forward with a motorized trip. Barry suggested they go from a

Saturday to Saturday, which means that people would need to arrive in Flagstaff on aFriday, they

would launch on Saturday, and then take out the following Saturday at Diamond Creek. People could

travel back either Saturday or Sunday afternoon. Barry offered the dates of March 24-31, 2001 and

asked if there were any conflicts. There was only one conflict noted. Barry will schedule the trip for

that time frame.

PEP Integration - Randy distributed copies of the “Proposed Process” (Attachment 8) for

incorporating PEP Reviews and Monitoring and Research Results into the AMP. This was brought up

about six months ago and included monitoring protocols, resource evaluations, and adjustments in

operations. Part of the feedback from that discussion was that there isn’t a well understood or clarified

process. 

There was some discussion on PEP review reports, specifically which ad hoc groups would be asked

to review these reports. Randy said some groups might have management or policy expertise,

addressing a PEP report that is largely technical in nature so the fit might not be very well. Part of the

PEP reports in the past have been policy in nature that might go beyond the scope of monitoring and

research activities. 

ACTION: TWG Members to send comments to Rick Johnson and Randy Peterson. 

ACTION: Rick and Randy will review and present a detailed proposal at the next TWG meeting

FY 2002 GCMRC Work Plan. (Attachment 9) Barry said the intent for mailing the work plan slides

to the TWG in advance of this meeting was to get comments and answer questions so that the GCMRC

could provide a detailed work plan. This would include a response to comments table so the TWG

could see how GCMRC responded to their comments. At the Nov. 7-8 TWG meeting, time would be

set aside to review the final draft work plan, get final comments from the TWG, then GCMRC would

incorporate those comments into a final work plan that would be mailed to the AMWG on Dec. 8, in

advance of their January 2001 meeting. Attachment 10 was included to display the specific project and

the activities related to the MO’s and prioritized INs. In terms of detailed budget information,

GCMRC divided the budget information into project and contract costs, and total costs which includes

staff time, logistics support, surveying, GIS, etc. in order to make the effort complete.

Terrestrial Ecosystem - Barbara Ralston said she could review six projects, two of them were ongoing

monitoring programs that would start in 2001: 1) Terrestrial Mapping and Inventory and, 2) Mapping

Holocene Terrace Deposits. As per the Terrestrial PEP, GCMRC would be combining avifauna with

vegetation monitoring. They are also beginning inventories for vertebrates and invertebrates at these

sites. The monitoring project will be looking at abundance and distribution and changes in faunal

constituents, determining vegetation composition and structure associated with habitats, and then also

making linkages with the ethnobotanical resources. The anticipated costs are the same as 2001 with

funding coming from the biological and cultural program budgets.
GCD Technical Work Group

Minutes of Sept. 20-21, 2000 Meeting

Page 7

Bill asked about the status of the SCORE Report. Barbara said it didn’t get done last year but will be

done this year and should be coming out in December.

Barry recorded the comments (Attachment 11) and indicated they would be addressed in the draft

work plan to be mailed out before the next meeting. Prior to his leaving to catch a flight, he provided

some dates when he would be available in September and October to have a special meeting if more

discussion of the work plan was required. 

Summary - Sociocultural Activities. Ruth Lambert reported that a Socio-cultural subgroup met at the

end of August to talk about coordinating efforts within the PA and the GCMRC’s cultural program,

recommendations of the PEP, and work plan activities for implementing those recommendations over

the next couple of work years. She said the slides shown today were a result of that meeting. She also

presented two additional slides (Attachment 12) which weren’t included in the GCMRC mail out.

Integrated Terrestrial Ecosystem Monitoring. Barry presented two sets of slides, one on monitoring

and the other on modeling. He said the intent of the modeling work is to improve GCMRC’s ability to

predict the effects of BHBF and other dam operations as well as to improve GCMRC’s ability to

predict, on a reach scale, how bars will change over time in response to dam operations. The goal is to

get the models developed, predict how the sediment resource will respond to changes in dam

operations, and then use the models to forecast how sediment storage will change over time so that the

actual level of empirical monitoring can be reduced. He indicated you still need to validate the models

with a lower scale of monitoring activities. 

Aquatic Ecosytem Monitoring Activities. Barbara said they will have a protocol evaluation for the

aquatic food base and fish monitoring programs this Spring with the intent that long-term monitoring for

both of those components would begin in 2002. She indicated that the objectives of the program

would likely remain collecting data associated with benthic and aquatic communities that support the

aquatic ecosystem. She doesn’t know if the scale they are currently collecting data will decrease,

increase, or remain the same. The monitoring for the aquatic food base will likely be more integrated

with fisheries work than it has been in the past. 

She reviewed the objectives for monitoring fish below Lees Ferry. Norm expressed concern that the

RFP going out next week would focus on trout and that the monitoring of native fish above Lees Ferry

are going to lose out because of the trout. Barbara said that was taken into consideration when they

looked at how to do sampling in the Lees Ferry Reach. 

Information Technology - Mike Liszewski presented his portion of the GCMRC work plan. 

Agenda Update. Rick suggested that the items listed for 12:30 today be rescheduled for tomorrow and

extend tomorrow’s meeting to conclude at 1:00.

Rick said there was a comment to form some small groups to look at each program area in more detail

and asked the members what they wanted to do. The TWG needed more detailed budget information
GCD Technical Work Group

Minutes of Sept. 20-21, 2000 Meeting

Page 8

and recommended the formation of a Budget Ad Hoc Group to work with the

GCMRC to go through an FY 2002 budget and have the GCMRC staff meet with interested TWG

members to discuss the scopes of work with the individual program managers. The dates proposed

were Sept. 28, and Oct. 2-3, 2000. 
GCD Technical Work Group

Minutes of Sept. 20-21, 2000 Meeting

Page 9

Rick reviewed the following schedule:

1. Project synopsis - from GCMRC (by Sept. 29)

2. Informal meeting on project details (Oct. 3)

3. GCMRC provides detailed budget on Oct. 27

4. Budget Ad Hoc Group review between Oct. 27 - Nov. 8

MOTION: Form a Budget Ad Hoc Group to review GCMRC and BOR’s budget for FY 2002 and

report to the TWG on November 8, 2000.

Motion seconded.

Voting results:

Yes = 15

Abstained: 1

Budget Ad Hoc Group Membership:

Cliff Barrett Randy Peterson

Dave Cohen Rick Johnson/Pamela Hyde

Wayne Cook Bob Winfree

Clayton Palmer *

* Will serve as the chair and make the necessary arrangements.

Adjourned: 5 p.m.

Public Comments: None
Technical Work Group

September 21, 2000

Phoenix, Arizona

Presiding: Rick Johnson, Chairperson FINAL 

Committee Members Present:

Clifford Barrett, CREDA Pamela Hyde, Southwest Rivers

Andres Cheama, Pueblo of Zuni Rick Johnson, GCT

Kerry Christensen, Hualapai Tribe Robert King, UDWR

Dave Cohen, Trout Unlimited Phillip Lehr, Colo. River Comm./Nevada

Wayne Cook, UCRC Don Metz, USFWS

Wm. Davis, EcoPlan Assoc./CREDA S. Clayton Palmer, WAPA

Kurt Dongoske, The Hopi Tribe Bill Persons, AGFD

Christopher Harris, CRBC Randall Peterson, USBR

Norm Henderson, NPS/GCNRA Andre Potochnik, GCRG

Amy Heuslein, BIA John Shields, WY State Engineer’s Office

Committee Members Absent:

Robert Begay, Navajo Nation Randy Seaholm, CWCB

Brenda Drye, So. Paiute Consortium Robert Winfree, NPS/GCRA

Matt Kaplinski, GCRG

Alternates Present: Alternate for:

Jan Balsom Robert Winfree, NPS/GCRA

Timothy Begay Robert Begay, Navajo Nation

Wayne Cook Randy Seaholm, CWCB

Andre Potochnik Matt Kaplinski, GCRG

Other Interested Persons Present:

Mary Barger, WAPA Dennis Kubly, USBR

Debra Bills, USFWS Lisa Leap, NPS/GRCA

Gary Burton, WAPA Mike Liszewski, GCMRC

Jeffrey Cross, NPS/GRCA Mary Orton, Mary Orton Company

David Culver, Ohio State Univ Barbara Ralston, GCMRC

Bill Jackson, NPS-Water Res. Tom Ryan, USBR

Linda James, JEDA, et al. David Speas, AGFD

Recorder: Linda Whetton, USBR
GCD Technical Work Group

Minutes of Sept. 20-21, 2000 Meeting

Page 11

Meeting Opening and Administrative Items

Sept. 20, 2000: Convened: 8:10 a.m.

Welcome and Introductions

The Chairperson welcomed the TWG members, alternates, and guests. All introduced themselves. The

Chairperson determined there was a quorum established. 

Nominations for TWG Chair

Randy asked for any comments from the members before voting. Rick Johnson and Gary Burton were

asked to leave the room. Clayton said that WAPA’s view is that Rick is functioning adequately as a

chair and is currently involved in a number of activities that are being carried over from this fiscal year to

the next and they would like to see that continuity continue. After discussing the matter, WAPA has

decided to withdraw Gary’s name.

Motion: Retain Rick Johnson as chair for another term by acclamation.

Motion passed.

Discussion: Dave Cohen raised the question if it was a matter of money for Gary’s salary. Clayton said

it wasn’t as they were already paying his salary but Gary is a good technical resource for WAPA and

he would prefer to let Gary get up to speed on more issues. If Gary were nominated again at some

point in the future, WAPA would endorse him.

Voting results:

In Favor: Unanimous

Management Objectives - Mary Orton suggested that the majority of time at the TWG Meeting be

devoted to working on the Qualitative Targets and referred to the “Development of Qualitative Targets

for Management Objectives” (Attachment 13) which were mailed out with the MOs.

She distributed copies of the “Draft Detailed Outline of AMP Strategic Plan” (Attachment 14) and

“Draft Schedule for Developing AMP Strategic Plan, Quantitative MOs and INs” (Attachment 15). 

The core of the Strategic Plan (Attachment 16) is the goals, objectives, and action plans. The process

to develop the plan is often very important because the process itself can help position the group to

actually achieve the strategic plan. She said the ad hoc group wanted input from the TWG on these

documents.

Mary passed out a list of the chairs of the small groups (Attachment 17) and asked TWG members to

sign up to be involved in the small groups. The small groups will be putting together a draft of the

numerical targets which will then come back to the TWG for review and then eventually go to the

AMWG for approval. 
GCD Technical Work Group

Minutes of Sept. 20-21, 2000 Meeting

Page 12
GCD Technical Work Group

Minutes of Sept. 20-21, 2000 Meeting

Page 13

Mary directed the members’ attention to the Draft Detailed Outline of the Strategic Plan, page 2, (list of

guiding and relevant documents) and it was her understanding that Chris Harris had electronic versions

of those documents. Chris said he had all the information scanned and put on a CD. Mary suggested

that it be included in the final Strategic Plan. 

ACTION: Chris Harris will send Randy a CD containing the guidance documents. Randy will have

copies of the CD made for distribution to all TWG members.

The members continued to review all the MOs and provided comments which were recorded on flip

charts (Attachment 18). The Ad Hoc Committee on Strategic Planning will review those and consider

changes.

Update on LSSF Monitoring. Mike Liszewski gave a presentation on the remote sensing activities

associated with the LSSF. As a result of LSSF, but also in conjunction with the remote sensing

initiative, they flew approximately eight overflights since March. The first overflight in late March was

associated with the LIDAR data collection and color infrared orthophotography. In addition, they flew

the regular annual aerial photography in early July, multi-spectral imagery in July, and a series of

overflights surrounding the spike that occurred in September (Attachment 19)

Bill Persons reported that they had seen some generally stable habitat during Jun-Jul-Aug. The two

groups doing fish work on the river right now (SWCA and AGFD), were charged with trying to

determine population estimates on rainbow, brown trout, and native fish. Preliminary observations

were that there weren’t an explosion of small body exotics. This was one of the primary concerns

during the test that the fathead minnows and red shiners would take over the backwaters. They didn’t

see that happen and aren’t sure why. They also didn’t see flannelmouth suckers or humpback chub in

backwaters below the LCR until July. 

Hydrologic Predictions. Tom said WY 2000 was a dry year. It started out being forecasted in

January as being very dry but with higher precipitation in January-March, the forecast went up. Inflow

in April through July was 56% of average, WY inflow was probably about 62% of average, and inflow

in July and August was extremely low. August was only 27% of average. With average precipitation in

August (Attachment 20), the water didn’t go into the river, but into the ground. This helped increase

the soil moisture, which becomes very important as the stage is set for what is going to happen next

year. In terms of reservoir storage, as WY 2001 begins, Lake Powell is 2.1 maf lower than a year

ago. 

In October 2000 there seems to be a slight trend towards it being drier and warmer but for October

through December, there is no indication of climate being wetter or drier than normal. For the 24-

month operations study that is prepared for next year’s operation, we have assumed 94% of average

for WY 2001. That is primarily due to fall and early winter months being below average. The inflow

forecasts for Sep-Oct-Nov are all about half of average. If there is another dry fall like last year, there

is probably some basis that we may have less than average inflow through next July. Tom said the

analysis he did puts us at a 15% chance of a BHBF in WY 2001 because of the WY 2000 dry year. 
GCD Technical Work Group

Minutes of Sept. 20-21, 2000 Meeting

Page 14

In terms of a probability of a 8.23 maf release year, there is about a 38-40% chance for next year but it

depends on the outcome of the surplus discussions. If there is a surplus declared for the lower basin, it

actually decreases the likelihood of having an 8.23 maf release next year because equalization may

require additional releases.

Tom said that we are predicting an average flow of 9800 cfs for October (Attachment 21) and the

current plan is that the LSSF test flows end on September 30. On October 1st, releases will return to

the MLFF constraints of the GCDEIS Record of Decision. He showed a final slide of the most

probable elevation at Lake Powell (Attachment 22).

Power Contracts and Rates. Due to time constraints, it was decided to postpone this presentation

until November.

Kanab Ambersnail - Development of the Recovery Implementation Plan. Debra Bills reported

that the plan is going to be done. They don’t have any concrete plans at the present but there is an

anticipated contract going from Reclamation to AGFD to lead that effort. She thinks it will be a oneyear contract.

Follow up on GCMRC Budget Presentation. Barry would like specific concerns or questions

regarding the FY 2002 work plans that can be answered at the October 3 meeting to be e-mailed to

him so that his program managers can prepare for the meeting. If there are any specific ideas the

members have about how GCMRC can change their budget presentations be clearer to the TWG,

send those comments to both Barry and Randy. 

ACTION: TWG members should send comments/questions to Barry and Randy regarding the

GCMRC presentation in preparation for the October 3rd meeting in Flagstaff.

2) Dennis Kubly suggested that we explore some “box and arrow” diagrams so it becomes very clear

how processes work within the Adaptive Management Program. For example:

1) how AMWG recommendations go to the Secretary and come back, 

2) how the budget process works in terms of RFPs, contracts, reports, etc., 

3) how scientific recommendations are folded back into changes in operations or experimental flows,

etc. 

ACTION: If TWG members have any suggestions/comments, send those to Barry and Randy.

Budget Process Ad Hoc Group. Cliff said that as the chairman of the newly formed ad hoc group

yesterday, he is going to send some e-mail messages to the members on how he thinks that group

should function. If any of the members have any questions/comments, send him an e-mail message. 

(barrett@trilobyte.net)

Other Business: 
GCD Technical Work Group

Minutes of Sept. 20-21, 2000 Meeting

Page 15

1. Dave Cohen questioned why there has been no mention of the SAB in this meeting. Andre said he

talked with Ted Melis about the SAB and Ted is pretty close to having it put together. Ted has

received some tentative commitments and just getting those commitments confirmed. 

2. Dave also questioned whether members attending the GCMRC Budget meeting on October 3

could receive travel reimbursement. Randy said that they would be reimbursed.

Future Agenda Items

- SAB update

- Experimental Flows 

- Report by the Budget Ad Hoc group

- Power revenues presentation

- Process discussion

- LSSF Update

- Quantitative Targets

- 2002 work plan

- Legislative update

- Research & Monitoring updates

Meeting Review

Randy said he appreciated the discussion yesterday morning. Even though it was a difficult topic and

some statements were made about lack of trust, he feels that this group has made great progress over

the past year in interacting together where differing points of views and opinions can be expressed but

in a respectful, civil way. 

Adjourned at 12:30 p.m.
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

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

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: Little 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)