Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Work Group Meeting 

January 17 –18, 2002 

(revised 3/12/02) 

MOTIONS

MOTION: Approve the April 12-13, 2001, Meeting Minutes. 

Motion seconded. 

Discussion: None 

Public Comments: None. 

Voting Results: Yes = 22 No = 0 Abstained = 0 

MOTION PASSED. 

MOTION: Approve the revised AMWG Operating Procedures. 

Motion seconded. 

Discussion: None 

Public Comments: None 

Call for Question. 

Voting Results: Yes = 24 No = 0 Abstained = 0 

MOTION PASSED. 

MOTION: Move to table the discussion. 

Motion seconded. 

Discussion: The members continued to discuss the proposed language. 

MOTION WITHDRAWN 

MOTION: Move to accept the following language: “Evaluate how well the selected 

alternative meets the resource management objectives of the EIS, ROD, and the GCPA.”

Motion seconded. 

Discussion: The members continued to discuss the proposed language. 

AMENDED MOTION: Evaluate how well the selected alternative meets the resource 

management objectives of the EIS in response to the GCPA and other authorities under the 

law. 

AMENDED MOTION: Evaluate how well the preferred alternative of the EIS ROD and 

other management actions meet the goals of the GCPA while protecting a mix of benefits 

defined in the EIS ROD.

AMENDED MOTION: Evaluate how well the preferred alternative of the EIS ROD and other 

management actions meet the goals of the GCPA and a mix of benefits defined in the EIS ROD. 

Motion seconded. 

Discussion. The members continued to discuss the language. 

AMENDED MOTION: The AMP evaluates how well the preferred alternative of the EIS 

ROD and other management actions meet the goals of the GCPA and a mix of resource benefits 

defined in the EIS ROD. 

Public Comments: None 

Voting Results: Yes = 22 No =0 Abstained = 1 

MOTION PASSED. 

Rick Johnson proposed a REVISED MOTION: 

Evaluate how well the selected alternative and actions taken pursuant to other authorities meet 

the goals and objectives of the Adaptive Management Program. 

1
AMENDED REVISED MOTION: The AMP evaluates how well the preferred alternative of 

the EIS ROD and other management actions meet the goals of the GCPA and a mix of 

resource benefits defined in the EIS ROD. 

Rick suggested it be placed as the second bullet on page 2. 

Public Comments: None 

Voting Results: Yes = 22 No =0 Abstained = 1 

Robert Begay (abstaining): I’m unsure about what the Navajo Nation recognizes on this. 

MOTION: Recommend the Strategic Plan to the Secretary of the Interior as adopted and as 

amended with the language changes made today.

Motion seconded. 

Discussion: None 

Public Comments: Thank you Mr. Chairman. My name is David Orr. I’m with the 

Environmental and Social Justice Organization known as Living Rivers. We have offices here in 

Arizona and in also in Utah. I’ll be making a more detailed set of comments later but in response 

specifically to the Strategic Plan, I wanted to raise a couple of points that I hope you will take into 

consideration, both for today and also for the future. It’s one of the concerns that our 

organization has that it has been difficult for us to decide or to ascertain exactly where the 

decision point is for intervening in providing input to this body on the strategic planning process. 

We have not been involved in the adaptive management program organization but we have been 

attending some Technical Work Group meetings over the last six months or so. It’s our 

understanding that you’ve already voted on the Vision and Mission and the Principles and Goals 

and so we’re not asking you to revisit that today although the comments that we will be 

submitting will address concerns that we have with some of those points. I just wanted to raise a 

couple of general observations that I hope will help inform your thoughts. In general, we’re 

concerned that the statement of principles and goals appear to be or could be interpreted to be 

implicitly prioritizing and if that is not the case, we would ask that you so declare that. There is 

also no specific mention of whether any of the principles and goals are specifically worthy of 

funding priority. We do note there is a reference that some of these principles and goals do not 

fall under the responsibility of the adaptive management program but as a member of the public, I 

have no way of knowing which of those responsibilities do you believe are within the purview of 

this body so there are some essentially very vague statements that are being made in terms of how 

can the public know who to turn to to address specific problems that we would like to see taken 

care of. We also noticed there has been talk about a cap on funding, specifically for hydropower

revenues and that, in turn, implies to us that some prioritizing of the strategic plan goals and 

principles will be occurring accordingly so we would like to see some statement from this body 

that would address whether there is in fact a policy that you are going to limit the funding for this 

program or not. We would like to see you address this concern to the Secretary because we think 

there is a possibility that there will be efforts to continue whatever funding limitations there are 

today in the future. Let me address specifically Goal #4, maintain a naturally reproducing 

population of rainbow trout. We cannot find any legal authority for the adaptive management 

program to consider this a goal of the program. We would like to have some clarification 

especially given the apparent conflicts between goals for recovering native fish and the 

requirement that trout have for maintaining cold water temperatures year round. Finally,

maintain power production capacity and energy generation and increase where feasible and 

advisable in the framework of the ecosystem goals of the adaptive management program. It is 

our understanding that hydropower production should not be considered to be of equal priority to 

native ecosystem restoration goals and we have very serious concerns that we will talking about 

later that will point to a need for looking at providing for or allowing for reduction in hydropower 

production and we are concerned that the wording of this goal will make that more difficult so 

without further detail, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you.

2
Voting Results: Yes = 24 No = 0 Abstained = 1 

MOTION PASSED. 

Amy Heuslein (abstaining): The reason I abstained is that I don’t have a clear picture of the 

public process for the Strategic Plan. I recognize that we’ve gotten the opportunity for the public 

to attend our AMWG and TWG meetings, but I don’t know where the public process is for the 

decision making to include this in her decision on accepting the Strategic Plan or even if there is a 

public process. 

MOTION: In support of Goal 2, the AMWG recommends the following actions: 

1. Control brown trout in Bright Angel Creek during CY 2002-2006; 

2. Evaluate monitoring and control methods for channel catfish and carp in LCR during CY 

2002; 

3. Implement control efforts for channel catfish and carp in the LCR during CY 2003-2006; 

and 

4. Establish a TWG ad hoc committee to develop a 2002-2006 research, monitoring, and 

management work plan for meeting MO 2.5 and MO 2.6. This ad hoc group will report 

back to the AMWG at the next meeting. 

Motion seconded. 

Discussion. 

AMENDED MOTION: : In support of Goal 2, the AMWG recommends the following actions: 

1a. Evaluate brown trout in Bright Angel Creek during CY 2002;

1b. Control brown trout in Bright Angel Creek during 2003-2006, 

2. Evaluate methods to remove non-native fish from the LCR in 2002;

3. Gather public input and conduct public education and environmental compliance on 

long-term removals in #1 and #2 above; 

4. Establish a TWG ad hoc committee to develop a 2002-2006 research, monitoring, 

and management work plan for meeting MO 2.5 and MO 2.6 of the 17 August 2001 draft of the 

AMP Strategic Plan 

AMENDED MOTION (first line): In support of goal 2, the AMWG recommends the following 

actions subject to environmental compliance and the rest of the motion stays the same. 

AMENDED MOTION (first line): add “to include recreational use, ESA, and consultation with

the tribes.” 

Amended motions seconded. 

Public Comment: (Barry Gold) - As far as the group taking action in moving this motion that you 

recognize when you move a motion like that this will commit – because we just saw the 

presentation that Steve made that we’ve just gotten to the point where funds are available to 

provide a monitoring program that can actually protect the effects of what your actions are. To 

make this motion and it has implications that cannibalize to target the existing monitoring 

program, we’re going to lose the power to do that. Randy said this was funded for the first year 

but you need to recognize that there is going to be a need to be made to bring the funding to the 

table so we can do this work and not cannibalize existing programs. I just raise the caution. 

MOTION TABLED in order for Rick Johnson and Bruce Taubert to rewrite the motion and 

present at tomorrow’s meeting. 

January 18, 2002 – Rick Johnson presented an amended motion: 

AMENDED MOTION: In support of goal 2, the AMWG recommends the following actions

subject to environmental compliance to include assessing recreational use, ESA, and consultation 

with tribes: 

1. Evaluate methods to remove non-native fish from Bright Angel Creek in 2002 

2. Evaluate methods to remove non-native fish from the LCR in 2002

3
3. Gather public input and conduct public education and environmental compliance on 

long-term removals in #1 and 2 above, 

4. Establish a TWG ad hoc committee to develop a 2002-2006 research monitoring and 

management work plan for meeting MO 2.5 and 2.6 of the August 17, 2001, Draft of 

the AMP Strategic Plan. The TWG will report back to the AMWG at the next 

meeting, 

5. Using data from #1-4 above to make recommendations on future removal. 

AMENDED MOTION: Amend #1 above: “evaluate methods to remove non-native fish, 

except rainbow trout, from Bright Angel Creek in 2002.” 

Amended motion seconded.

Call for the question. 

Public Comments: (David Orr from Living Rivers)- It would be appreciated if we could have 

some clarification of point #5 using data from #1-4 above making recommendations on future 

removal. The concern that I’d like to express is that I think there is plenty of evidence that future 

removal needs to be done and I guess I’m just concerned with the open-ended nature of #5 and 

would like to see some sort of time limit or other sort of clarification on what the table would be 

for addressing non-native fish in the mainstem below the dam.

AMENDED MOTION (line 1): In support of goal 2, the AMWG recommends the following

actions subject to environmental compliance to include assessing recreational use, ESA, in 

consultation with the tribes and other affected state agencies.

Amended motion seconded.

Voting results: Yes = 18 No = 0 Abstained = 1 

Loretta Jackson (abstaining): I do support you but I still think that the whole river system should 

be looked at, that the removal should also have suggested that there would reintroduction of the 

native species of a type of protocol like that. 

MOTION PASSED. 

MOTION: The AMWG Concurs with the findings of the TWG White Paper on Sediment. 

Motion seconded. 

Discussion: 

Public Comments: (David Orr) - Living Rivers supports efforts to implement the adaptive 

management part of the Adaptive Management Program. We think it is important if this program

is to function the way it was designed to give the managers the flexibility to do the science driven 

management experiments that are indicated by the scientific researchers. To not do that seems to 

indicate a lack of willingness on the part of the body to comply with the intent and purpose, not 

only of the ROD and also the Grand Canyon Protection Act. 

Voting Results: Yes= 22 No = 1 Abstained: 0 

MOTION PASSED. 

MOTION: Reconsider the vote just taken based on John Shields’ observations. 

Motion seconded 

Discussion: There was a general feeling among the AMWG members that reports need to be 

more professional (no typos, have current revision dates, and include supporting documentation 

as attachments). 

Public Comments: None 

MOTION WITHDRAWN.

MOTION: In concert with RPA flows for native fish, during 2002-2003 request that the 

GCMRC, in consultation with the TWG, design an experimental flow sequence that tests 

hypotheses for conservation of sediment. Report to AMWG in April 2002 on the proposed flow 

sequence. 

4
Motion seconded. 

AMENDED MOTION: In concert with RPA flows for native fish flows, to be implemented in 

2002-2003 request that the GCMRC, in consultation with the TWG, design an experimental flow 

sequence that tests hypotheses for conservation of sediment. Report to AMWG in April 2002 on 

the proposed flow sequence. 

Public Comments: None 

Call for question. 

Voting Results: Yes = 8 No = 11 Abstaining = 1 

AMENDED MOTION FAILS. 

Voting Results on Original Motion: Yes = 20 No = 0 Abstaining = 1 

MOTION PASSED 

Amy Heuselin (abstaining) - I guess I’m just concerned with the issue regarding the 2002-2003, 

that is not clear to me as far as what that actually means, whether or not we’re able to do 

something come the fall because of the AOP issue or that’s a moot point. 

MOTION: Remand the Living Rivers letter to the AMWG Ad Hoc Committee on Strategic 

Planning for consideration. 

Motion seconded. 

Public Comments: None 

Voting results: Yes = 3 No = 14 Abstaining = 2 

MOTION FAILS. 

Joe Alston (abstaining) - I haven’t had a chance to read the letter so I don’t know what’s really in 

here and what it states. The letter seems to be two parts, one is kind of a list of concerns the 

group has about this group itself and that’s kind of on the Secretary. She can make her own 

decisions on that part of the letter and that’s the appropriate place for it to go. The second part 

has to do with the Strategic Plan. It seems like we’ve gone quite a ways down that process and 

I’m not sure it makes a lot of sense to revisit the Strategic Plan at this point. On the other hand, 

I’m not sure that we have just by this last conversation given adequate thought to what we should 

be presenting to the public and what public involvement should be. I don’t think this answers it. 

MOTION: Incorporate KAS recommendations from TWG as outlined in Presentation. 

 Paper. 

(Clarification on motion: AMWG accepted the TWGAd Hoc Group Report and the one page list 

of recommendations.) 

Motion seconded. 

Discussion. 

Public Comments: None 

Voting Results: Yes = 19 No = 0 Abstaining = 0 

MOTION PASSED. 

MOTION: Approve the FY 2003 Budget ($9,904,000) 

Motion seconded. 

Public Comments: None 

Voting Results: Yes = 19 No = 0 Abstaining = 0 

MOTION PASSED. 

5