Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Meeting Minutes

May 28, 2003

Conducting: Kurt Dongoske, Chairperson F I N A L

Committee Members Present:

Mary Barger, WAPA

Robert Begay, Navajo Nation

Kerry Christensen, Hualapai Tribe

Jonathan Damp, Pueblo of Zuni

William Davis, CREDA

Brenda Drye, So. Paiute Consortium

Lloyd Greiner, UAMPS

Norm Henderson, NPS

Amy Heuslein, BIA

Pamela Hyde, Southwest Rivers

Matt Kaplinski, GCRG

Robert King, UDWR

Dennis Kubly, USBR

Phillip Lehr, Colo. River Commission/NV

Bill Persons, AGFD

D. Randolph Seaholm, CWCB

John Shields, WY State Engineer’s Ofc.

Mark Steffen, Federation of Flyfishers

Michael Yeatts, The Hopi Tribe

Committee Members Absent:

Perri Benemelis, ADWR

Christopher Harris, CRB/CA

Cole Crocker-Bedford, NPS/GRCA

Wayne Cook, UCRC

Don Metz, USFWS

Nikolai Ramsey, Grand Canyon Trust

John Whipple, NM Interstate Stream Comm.

Alternates Present: For:

Jan Balsom Cole Crocker-Bedford, NPS/GRCA

Rick Johnson Nikolai Ramsey, Grand Canyon Trust

Glen Knowles Don Metz, USFWS

Interested Persons:

Tim Begay, Navajo Nation

Gary Burton, WAPA

Nancy Coulam, USBR

Lee Failing, Ecometric

Helen Fairley, GCMRC/USGS

Denny Fenn, GCMRC/USGS

Steve Gloss, GCMRC/USGS

Chris Kincade, NPS/GLCA

Lisa Leap, NPS/GLCA

Mike Liszewski, GCMRC/USGS

Ted Melis, GCMRC/USGS

Fred Niles, private consultant

Mary Orton, The Mary Orton Company

Randy Peterson, USBR

Ted Rampton, UAMPS

Carl Walters, Ecometric

Recorder: Linda Whetton, USBR
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group

Minutes of May 28 & 30, 2003, Meeting

Page 2

Meeting Opening and Administrative Items

Convened: 1:05 p.m.

Welcome and Administrative Items: Kurt Dongoske welcomed the TWG members, alternates, and 

guests. All introduced themselves. A quorum was established and attendance sheets (Attachment 1) 

were distributed.

Review of Action Items from Feb. 26-27, 2003, meeting. Update to #3: No lawsuit has been filed 

following the 60-day notice.

Review of Minutes from Feb. 26-27, 2003, meeting. Pending some minor edits and without objection, 

the minutes were approved.

Gully Erosion of Cultural Sites – Joel Pederson (geomorphologist at Utah State University) began his 

presentation by saying that during the last couple of decades archeologists and geologists working in the 

Grand Canyon have noted and to some degree documented increases in erosion associated with gullies. 

Two years ago he received some funding from GCMRC to do a study of gully erosion. He proceeded 

with a PowerPoint presentation (Attachment 2a) and also distributed a handout (Attachment 2b). 

Synopsis of Target Setting Workshop – Ted Melis introduced Lee Failing (Ecometric) and said she 

would explain the process that was used at the workshop. 

Lee said the purpose of the workshop was to look at how to develop a multi-attribute evaluation 

framework and then to start one. Prior to the workshop, she worked with Josh Korman and Carl Walters 

in putting together a set of end points and attributes which were discussed at the February TWG 

meeting. She explained the end points are the resources actually being managed for and the attributes 

are the specific measurable, quantifiable metrics that would be used to assess the impacts of any 

management options on the end points. They created a preliminary set of estimates of what the impacts 

of those management options would be on each of the attributes and prepared a consequence table. 

She said the exercise is helpful in going through a large number of management options, focusing on 

which ones are losers and which ones have potential to be explored further, and identify where people 

are agreeing or disagreeing and why. She demonstrated with a PowerPoint Presentation. 

Ted related some of his perceptions for going through the process:

• It helps clarify stakeholder profiles in a semi-quantitative way relative to a range of operating 

regimes for options.

• It’s a multi-attribute approach so one doesn’t get stuck on one resource attribute. 

• It’s a framework for assessing and evaluating uncertainty associated with the consequence 

tables. 

• It provides for multiple revisions based on stakeholder values and perceptions through time.

• It provides a useful interactive venue for evaluating consequence and certainty with both the 

stakeholder groups as well the scientists.

• Assists in identifying risks and potential benefits for various management options.

TWG Comments

• Would like to see it done in a cooperative manner with all the stakeholders where the 

stakeholders develop the flow scenarios as well as the attributes that are used to evaluate the 

impacts/end points of what we want to see in the system. It’s also an opportunity to interact with 

the scientists to try and fill out the table on what we know about the range of what the TCD is 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group

Minutes of May 28 & 30, 2003, Meeting

Page 3

going to do to the humpback chub population at the LCR - actually get some people in there that 

are within the program and ask the questions. (Kaplinski)

• Think the process could be used to focus on management actions for the strategic plan. 

(Henderson)

• Found this very useful on a number of levels, one level where we could individually and 

collectively look at the range of values that we either know or don’t know that we’re assigning to 

the resources and to the particular attributes that help us look at the resources. It slices these 

problems so many different ways that it gives you a pretty complete picture of what we have all 

been looking at for so many years but in a really overt way. This has a lot of potential for getting 

us past some of the problems we’ve had and combining more tools for us to get to efficient 

management options. (Hyde)

• Supportive. It gives us a structured way to look at other stakeholder values and avoid a “free for 

all” between some of the competing interests. (Persons).

Ted said he would ask Lee, Josh, and Carl to summarize what they did during the workshop and send a 

briefing document to the TWG between now and July so the TWG could have something more tangible 

to understand the process.

Ted said he would like to give some direction to Ecometric as to what the TWG would like to have them 

do next. Steve Gloss suggested a decision should be postponed until tomorrow morning after the TWG 

has heard his presentation on long-range planning. 

 Further discussion postponed until after Steve’s presentation tomorrow morning. 

Humpback Chub Ad Hoc Group Interim Report – Steve Gloss said there were updates made to the 

HBC AHG Report (Attachment 3) and directed the members to Appendix B of the report. Dr. Carl 

Walters explained the background of the various population dynamics and quantitative results over the 

past couple of decades via a PowerPoint presentation. 

Recovery Implementation Plan (RIP) Concept – Gary Burton said he would lay out the concepts of a 

RIP program as used in the Upper Basin RIP (Attachment 4) as an example for explaining the RIP 

concept. He stated there are no institutional arrangements for a recovery program or any focus on 

recovery goals for doing things to benefit the humpback chub. He mentioned the 21 projects listed in the 

HBC AHG Report and said some are outside the AMP and feels the AMWG needs to make some 

recommendations to the DOI Secretary on how to implement things that are outside the scope of the 

AMP. He also wants the TWG to consider additional options. 

TWG Comments:

• Allow those entities who have responsibility to figure out what their management responsibilities 

are and work on those things specifically. (Seaholm)

• Why split off into a different program? Why establish another whole bureaucracy? (Henderson)

• HBC recovery is not a compliance issue. Where do we get recovery support? (Spiller).

• Need to think more broadly about individual contributions to HBC recovery. (Peterson)

Gary said the purpose for presenting the topic on today’s agenda was for the TWG members to speak 

with the AMWG representatives as the concept would be introduced to the AMWG tomorrow.

Tribal Consultation Plan (TCP) - Loretta Jackson introduced Dean Saugee as the author of the TCP

and said there was a lot of input from the tribal representatives who also participated in the 

Programmatic Agreement (PA) Group. Mr. Saugee said he is an attorney with a firm in Washington, 

D.C. and has been representing the Hualapai Tribe in this matter. He said the draft plan (Attachment 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group

Minutes of May 28 & 30, 2003, Meeting

Page 4

5a) has been worked on for over a year and six tribes have been engaged in its development - Hopi, 

Hualapai, Kaibab Paiute, Navajo Nation, Shivwits Paiute, and Zuni Pueblo. He distributed a handout of 

his PowerPoint presentation (Attachment 5b). 

Mr. Saugee said he and Loretta met with the PA Group this morning and will be getting comments from 

the PA signatories. They would like input from the TWG at the same time they receive comments from 

the PA Group and then would come back with another draft but don’t want to do two separate drafts. 

Loretta said the plan still requires input from the tribal entities, federal agencies, etc. in order to make it a 

well-rounded document. She doesn’t anticipate it would go to the AMWG until January 2004. 

Since the TCP will be incorporated into the Strategic Plan, it was suggested that it be forwarded to the 

Strategic Plan Ad Hoc Group (SPAHG) for a review as well. It was decided Pam Hyde would make the 

referral at tomorrow’s AMWG meeting. Loretta will forward any comments she receives to Nancy 

Coulam for distribution to the PA Group as well as to Mr. Saugee. 

ACTION: TWG Members should submit their comments on the Tribal Consultation Plan to 

Loretta Jackson by June 30, 2003. (lorjac@citlink.net)

GCMRC Survey PEP Report (Attachment 6a) - Mike Liszewski introduced Raad Saleh who did a 

review of their survey group and ancillary GIS and remote sensing activities that dealt with spatially 

positioning scientific data in the canyon. Raad passed out copies of his PowerPoint presentation 

(Attachment 6b). 

Adjourned: 5:05 p.m.
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group

Minutes of May 28 & 30, 2003, Meeting

Page 5

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Meeting Minutes

May 30, 2003

Conducting: Kurt Dongoske, Chairperson F I N A L

Committee Members Present:

Mary Barger, WAPA

Kerry Christensen, Hualapai Tribe

William Davis, CREDA

Brenda Drye, So. Paiute Consortium

Norm Henderson, NPS

Amy Heuslein, BIA

Pamela Hyde, Southwest Rivers

Matt Kaplinski, GCRG

Robert King, UDWR

Dennis Kubly, USBR

Phillip Lehr, Colo. River Commission/NV

Bill Persons, AGFD

D. Randolph Seaholm, CWCB

John Shields, WY State Engineer’s Ofc.

Mark Steffen, Federation of Flyfishers

Michael Yeatts, The Hopi Tribe

Committee Members Absent:

Robert Begay, Navajo Nation

Perri Benemelis, ADWR

Jonathan Damp, Pueblo of Zuni

Lloyd Greiner, UAMPS

Christopher Harris, CRB/CA

Cole Crocker-Bedford, NPS/GRCA

Wayne Cook, UCRC

Don Metz, USFWS

Nikolai Ramsey, Grand Canyon Trust

John Whipple, NM Interstate Stream Comm.

Alternates Present: For:

Jan Balsom Cole Crocker-Bedford, NPS/GRCA

Rick Johnson Nikolai Ramsey, Grand Canyon Trust

Interested Persons:

Gary Burton, WAPA

Nancy Coulam, USBR

Jeff English, public

Helen Fairley, GCMRC/USGS

Denny Fenn, GCMRC/USGS

Steve Gloss, GCMRC/USGS

Mike Kearsley, NAU

Lisa Leap, NPS/GRCA

Mike Liszewski, GCMRC/USGS

Ted Melis, GCMRC/USGS

Randy Peterson, USBR

Ted Rampton, UAMPS

Rich Valdez, public

Recorder: Linda Whetton, USBR
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group

Minutes of May 28 & 30, 2003, Meeting

Page 6

Meeting Opening and Administrative Items

Convened: 8:10 a.m.

Welcome and Administrative Items: Kurt Dongoske welcomed the TWG members, alternates, and 

guests. All introduced themselves. A quorum was established and attendance sheets were distributed.

Status of Paria River Early Alert Network – Ted Melis said that about 18 months ago when the AMWG 

made a motion to do a sediment experiment to answer questions about sustaining the remaining 10% of 

the sand below the dam primarily from the Paria and LCR, there were four different scenarios that 

could’ve happened last year and could occur this year as well as in the future. They are still trying to get 

through testing scenario one which is inputs coming in during the summer or fall and are immediately 

followed by a re-operation of the powerplant to low flows in an effort to try and retain those inputs until 

they get into January at which time there is a high flow experiment proposed that will take the new 

sediment and presumably put it up on the banks in a more efficient and effective way than what they saw 

happen in 1996. Another scenario is that the inputs would occur sometime between January and May 

and would be followed immediately with the high flow experiment. The other scenario that was proposed 

by Western Area Power Administration which they are planning to test is that individual inputs from the 

Paria that might come in July-October are immediately followed by not a spill flow but a peak powerplant 

type flow. The idea being that they are trying to take the new sand inputs and temporarily bank them as 

efficiently as possible into dozens or hundreds of eddies through Marble Canyon in anticipation of a 

January high flow in the range of 45,000 cfs. That scenario is a bit complicated and provides more 

challenge than they have dealt with before in terms of trying to coordinate operations from the dam with 

Mother Nature. The proposal they made for that scenario was to install another gage on the Paria River 

in southern Utah at the location of the Highway 89 bridge which would be more than a typical stream 

gage or sediment station. It would actually be an early or advanced alert system that would tell them 

when large floods are actually coming toward Lees Ferry, presumably some hours to a half-day in 

advance. They contacted Jeff Phillips with the Utah District and for the past two years have been trying 

to get the new station up and running. The proposal this year is to shake down the protocol on how it 

would be used to support the experimental scenario. The proposal isn’t to actually do it this summer as 

an experiment but demonstrate its utility as part of the experimental plan this summer. It is all contingent 

upon whether or not there are any flood flows from the Paria. 

Jeff Phillips said he started with the USGS in 1988 and managed the office in Tempe. In 1998, he took a 

3-year hiatus to Honduras to help with reconstruction efforts after Hurricane Mitch. He proceeded with a 

PowerPoint presentation (Attachment 7).

TWG Concerns:

• A high flow could cause upriver campers (in the Lees Ferry Reach) to lose lives, boats, and 

equipment. (Persons)

• Downriver campers need 2-3 days notice. (Steffen)

• Outreach is necessary. If the rafters know what to expect, they can factor in how to use the 

system and establish safe camps. (Hyde) 

Budget AHG Update - Dennis Kubly said that in January, Denny identified to the AMWG there would be 

a new 15% overhead on all transfers from other DOI agencies to the USGS with 11% going to 

Washington and 4% going to ecological cost systems. They are already charging 4% as a direct cost so 

the net effect of that overhead would’ve been an 11% charge on all transferred funds. In reaction to that, 

the Budget Ad Hoc Group looked at options to reduce that cost and cam up with the following: 

• Take no action. The program would simply have to suffer the cost,
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group

Minutes of May 28 & 30, 2003, Meeting

Page 7

• Transfer the contracting function back to the USBR or possibly to WAPA and pay non-USGS 

contracts directly out of the other agencies so there would not be the transfer of funds,

• Look at a pass-through exemption that might work whereby a 4% overhead would be assessed, 

2% of which would already occur as directs costs with a net overhead to the program on nonUSGS contracts of 2%,

• Look at the Cooperative Ecosystems Studies Unit (CESU), which is a cooperative agreement 

among federal agencies primarily with universities which does not have any transfer costs and 

has an agreement that the overhead rate from the receiving entity would be 15%. This option 

would save on the second level of overhead charge which is typically incurred by GCMRC with 

the contractor.

In looking at those four options, the Budget AHG selected the 2% pass-through as the best choice. In 

doing an internal assessment of transferring the contacting function from GCMRC to USBR, there would 

be a minimum cost of $100,000 to administer the contracts. The 2% transfer results in a non-USGS total 

amount of about $3M or $66,000 cost as opposed to the 11% of $330,000 for a savings of about 

$270,000. The Budget AHG recommended that option.

The second item the Budget AHG considered was an additional cost that might be incurred from 

humpback chub studies recommended in the comprehensive plan for 2004. Randy went over the 

timeline yesterday and identified some of those costs. Dennis said that since the AMWG hasn’t 

accepted the projects, it doesn’t make sense to go through them. However, he said the costs would be 

around $300-400K. 

The Budget AHG also discussed the cost of the experimental flows and the uncertainty of funds for the 

second year of the experiment. As a result, they are going to have to wait for additional information.

FY 2004 Budget – Denny said the Budget AHG has met three times since the AMWG meeting and has 

held two conference calls in an effort to make the appropriate revisions to the work plan. He gave a 

PowerPoint presentation (Attachment 8a). He referenced Table 2.3 (Attachment 8b) as being more 

specific and provides a better understanding of where monies are being allocated. He also distributed 

copies of a comparison table (Attachment 8c) and GCMRC Project Narratives (Attachment 8d). He 

said there are five different things putting pressure on the remaining $276,000:

1 – Experimental flows shortfall

2 – HBC plan needs

3 – Fund the next Information Need and start a new project

4 – Restore some of the cuts, and

5 - Some combination of the above

He talked about the experimental flows shortfall and referenced page 136 of the previous workplan 

(Attachment 8e). He recapped what has transpired on the fund. He said the Asst. Secretary had a 

conference call in late November to discuss the proposed environmental assessment and the funding 

pending a decision he wanted to make in terms of recommending to the Secretary whether to proceed 

with approving the EA and authorizing the implementation of the first two years that the EA covered. 

After a lengthy discussion of the technical aspects of the experimental flows and the EA, they turned to 

discussing the financial aspects of it. There was enough money from USGS carryover and USBR 

funding with carryover and new money to fund the $1 million for the first year. However, they were $1

million short for FY03 at that point in time so it didn’t make a lot of sense to approve the EA and the 

project if they weren’t going to have the money to implement the work. If it couldn’t be figured out how to 

fund the effort, then the EA wasn’t going to be approved. One of the proposals presented by the Asst. 

Secretary was that since USGS, USBR, FWS, and NPS were all engaged in the process, they should 

each transfer $250,000 to the GCMRC for FY03. After a few minutes of discussion, Denny (who had 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group

Minutes of May 28 & 30, 2003, Meeting

Page 8

previously been authorized by Director Groat) said the USGS would put in $500,000 because the USGS 

had the primary role in the effort. After further discussion, that was the option the Asst. Secretary 

approved. Therefore, FY03 was covered by taxing the USGS with $500,000 and $170,000 being elicited 

from the remaining three agencies. They returned to talking about the second year of the study (FY04). 

At that point in the time the USGS budget was before the Secretary and being prepared as part of the 

President’s budget. Director Groat had identified $1 million and had authorized Denny to commit to it if 

Congress appropriated $1 million and he would then apply it all to the GCMRC for all activities to cover 

the research in the future. The $1 million is in the President’s budget and is before Congress now. The 

risk is that just because it is in the President’s budget doesn’t necessarily mean that Congress will 

approve. Consequently, FY04 funding is still very uncertain. 

In reviewing page 136, Denny said that $2,538,000 is needed to fully implement the experiment. Denny 

said the USGS had assumed that the USBR’s $500,000 put into the FY03 account would also be 

available in FY04 but during the Budget AHG meeting last night, that was only wishful thinking. Randy 

added that that was the power revenues put in. Denny said it was his mistake in not communicating with 

Randy. They discovered that their $500K shortfall was really $1 million. If the other agencies don’t 

provide their portions, then they will be short by $2 million. Denny said he didn’t include the experimental 

flows portion in the FY04 work plan because there has been so much uncertainty. Implementing the 

experimental flows in FY04 is dependent on the $1 million that Congress will actually appropriate and the 

USGS being able to carry over a significant portion of this year’s money since there wasn’t a sediment 

input this year. It will be a few more weeks before they will start to have a clear indication of what the 

FY03 expenses have been and what will be carried over. As the year continues, they will be able to 

bring more accurate information back to the TWG.

Review of FY04 Projects - Steve Gloss said the $1.2M reduction is the right perspective rather than the 

net reduction of $922,000 which is for the overall budget but advised there is $276,000 remaining for the 

other purposes. He proceeded with a PowerPoint Presentation (part of Attachment 8a).

Comments/Concerns:

• Prefer to not start new habitat mapping until other projects are finished. (Christensen)

• Concern with eliminating the herps and insects. Recommend any of the funds being 

reprogrammed from the $276,000 go back into this area. (Yeatts)

• Concern with reductions hindering future ability in outyears to detect change. (Kaplinski)

• If we knew what core monitoring was going to be for each of the programs, it would be easier to 

understand and see that it is not affecting core monitoring. (Barger)

• Some vegetation sampling needs to continue from year to year. (Seaholm)

• Sampling can be reduced but 50% cut is steep. Contractors need travel and salary money. 

(Kearsley, public)

• Are there some projects that can be put on hold and not hurt overall objectives? (Davis)

Denny said the GCMRC would like a recommendation from the TWG for approval of the FY 04 budget so 

they can get approval from the AMWG in August and begin working on the Requests for Proposals. 

Ted Melis reviewed some of the reductions to the sediment budget.

Pam Hyde expressed dissatisfaction with the budget because it is incomplete and doesn’t feel the TWG 

can approve a partial budget. She wants the GCMRC to provide a list of projects that are being done inhouse as well as provide a salary review of GCMRC staff. 

Dennis said there are factors beyond the GCMRC’s control and he suggested that perhaps there needs 

to be another TWG meeting prior to an AMWG meeting to review the budget again.
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group

Minutes of May 28 & 30, 2003, Meeting

Page 9

Bill Persons asked if the GCMRC could start working on the RFPs so they are not going to be delayed. 

He feels the longer they are advertised, the more competitive the process and the better it is for the 

program. 

ACTION: GCMRC will revise the FY04 budget and send to the TWG for review.

The Chairman asked if they wanted to dedicate a certain amount of time in the next TWG Meeting to 

address the budget in more detail.

John Shields commented that he attended the Budget AHG meeting last night and feels the GCMRC has 

done the best they can do at this point in time. There are a lot of uncertainties and he feels it is 

unrealistic to think the TWG will be able to make a more informed recommendation a month from now.

Dennis reminded the TWG they could consider voting on whether to use the pass-through to address the 

USGS overhead.

MOTION: The TWG recommends to the AMWG that all future GCMRC overhead costs for non-USGS 

contracts and cooperative agreements be covered as pass-through funds assessed at a rate not to 

exceed 4%. 

Motion seconded.

Call for the question.

Voting Results: Yes = 16 No = 0

Motion passed.

MOTION: The GCMRC will make changes to the budget based on comments received and will present 

at next TWG Meeting. GCMRC will issue RFPs with the understanding that they may be modified based 

on budget changes.

Motion seconded.

Matt said that since the TWG hasn’t seen the entire presentation by the GCMRC or been able to 

comment on it, comments should be sent to GCMRC by next Wednesday. 

AMENDED MOTION: The GCMRC will make changes to the budget based on comments received at 

the meeting or by June 4, 2003, and will present at the next TWG Meeting. The GCMRC will issue 

RFPs with the understanding that they may be modified based on budget changes.

Steve Gloss said the practical effect of RFPs being included in the motion in the next 30-60 days is nil. 

The GCMRC will not issue any RFPs before they know the status of the budget. 

AMENDED MOTION: The GCMRC will make changes to the budget based on comments received at 

the meeting or by June 4, 2003, and will present at next TWG Meeting. The GCMRC will may issue 

RFPs with the understanding that they may be modified based on budget changes.

Dennis said that it is not just the GCMRC’s budget and that if the program is going to suffer major budget 

cuts, then the TWG should be looking at the whole budget. He said the Federal Government uses 

walkdown tables as a way to look at 5, 10, or 15% cuts. He feels it may be more work for GCMRC but it 

would give the TWG a better idea of the different levels of cuts. He also asked if the above needed to be 

a motion vs. an action item. 

Motion withdrawn.

Motion seconded withdrawn.
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group

Minutes of May 28 & 30, 2003, Meeting

Page 10

Long-Range Planning – Steve Gloss said his presentation was in response to the AMWG motion 

passed in April 2002 which included one of four elements: “GCMRC, in consultation with the TWG and 

science advisors to develop a long-term plan for experimentation.” GCMRC went through a planning 

process last year which has led to some of the current budget difficulties. He wants to advocate a 

process now to develop a long-term experimental plan and feels that the multi-attribute workshop that 

was held earlier in the week was a good mechanism for doing that. He would like to have GCMRC bring 

a list of potential experimental treatments to be considered to the TWG and then try to reduce those, not 

necessarily using the formal attribute process, but get agreement in terms of management options and 

policies. The GCMRC would then try and go back and develop a consequence table(s) for all of those 

and then at a subsequent meeting try and reduce those down to a workable group that they could focus 

on sequencing and timing. He feels they need to start something soon. 

Matt said he agreed with Steve but feels something else needs to be done to inform AMWG on how the 

process works. He suggested a short presentation be made to the AMWG at their next meeting with the 

intent of receiving direction on how to proceed further. 

Pam said that both TWG and AMWG need to be involved in the process. She feels that if only the TWG 

does it and then the AMWG tries to understand what the TWG did, they will lose some of the utility of it. 

She supports a multi-day workshop for the AMWG in the fall.

Steve asked if there would be time at the June 30 meeting for the TWG to do an initial cut on the list of 

management policy actions/treatments. Steve said what he thought they could do at the next meeting 

would be to agree on everything that ought to populate the potential management actions as well as how 

to describe the attributes that may be associated with those. It will be based on what some of the TWG 

saw earlier in the week in the existing attribute table and they would probably expand on that. 

AMP AHCIO Report – Mary Orton said at the January meeting the AMWG adopted criteria for whether 

information needs (INs) should not be included in the Strategic Plan, if: (1) it contributes nothing to the 

vision or mission, and (2) if it describes how an agency should develop information for the program as 

opposed to just saying here is the needed information. AMWG also approved three categories (page 3) 

of the recommended ACHIO Report (Attachment 9). She reviewed those for the TWG. The AMWG 

also directed the ACHIO to apply those criteria to the draft INs and then categorize all of the INs into 

categories A, B, or C. She said the documents in the packet show the results of the ACHIO work and all 

but two of the INs were categorized for the TWG’s approval and recommendation to the AMWG. Some 

edits were made to the INs based on the discussion of the ACHIO in applying the criteria and other 

clarifying edits. The ACHIO will be presenting their recommendations back to the AMWG but the AMWG 

wanted it to be presented to the TWG so the TWG could also send a recommendation to the AMWG. 

The ACHIO would like the TWG to recommend to the AMWG that the information needs, as edited in the 

report, be approved with the categories and sequence order as indicated. 

Randy Seaholm, ACHIO Chair, thanked Mary for helping to facilitate the process. He said the group 

came up with a new principle (#6, page v) that they would like to recommend to the AMWG. They found 

by adding the new principle it helped them resolve the conflicts they had with how to categorize many of 

the Research INs. They really wanted to look at cause and effect relationships and status and trends 

equally. Randy said he also wanted to highlight Goal 12 (page 44) and the added language to address

the “research on research” issue. They felt by putting that language there it allowed them to delete 

several of the resource INs and they made progress on many of the issues.

Mary asked the members if they had any questions, comments, or concerns about any of the changes or 

categories that are in the document. The ACHIO was not able to agree on what categories INs 2.6.1 and 

2.6.2 should be in and anticipated the TWG may want to make that decision. 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group

Minutes of May 28 & 30, 2003, Meeting

Page 11

Comments:

• Need to incorporate some of the INs and MAs from the HBC AHG Report into the ACHIO Report 

before forwarding it to the AMWG. (Davis)

• Re: MO 2.6 and RIN 2.6.1. Need to address viable population. Some tribes have jurisdictional 

boundaries and they need to be included (Hualapai and Navajo). (Heuslein)

• Need to consider putting the IN back in Principle #6. (Kubly)

Mary advised that since there wasn’t a quorum present, the TWG wouldn’t be able to make a 

recommendation to the AMWG today. She said the ACHIO could have one more meeting to complete 

work on 2.6.1 and 2.6.2 before the August meeting if the TWG so desired. The TWG agreed to consider 

the report at its August meeting.

NEXT MEETING: 

June 30 – ( 9:30 – 5:00)

July 1 – ( 8 a.m. – noon) 

LOCATION:

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

2 Arizona Center

400 N. 5th Street

12th Floor, Conference Rooms A&B

Phoenix, Arizona

Adjourned: 12:25 p.m.
.

General Key to Adaptive Management Program Acronyms

ADWR – Arizona Dept. of Water Resources

AF – Acre Feet

AGFD – Arizona Game and 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 – 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

GUI – Graphical User Interface

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

IT – Information Technology (GCMRC program)

KAS – Kanab ambersnail (endangered native 

snail)

LCR – Little Colorado River

LRRMCP – 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 Historic 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

RBT – Rainbow Trout

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)