Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program 

Technical Work Group 

Conference Call 

December 20, 2002 

Conducting: Kurt Dongoske, Chairperson FINAL 

Members Present: 

Kerry Christensen, Hualapai Tribe 

Wayne Cook, UCRC 

Cole Crocker-Bedford, GRCA 

Bill Davis, CREDA 

Lloyd Greiner, UAMPS 

Norm Henderson, GLCA 

Pamela Hyde, Southwest Rivers 

Matt Kaplinski, GCRG 

Robert King, UDWR 

Phillip Lehr, Colo River Comm./NV 

Clayton Palmer, WAPA 

Bill Persons, AGFD 

Randall Peterson, USBR 

Nikolai Ramsey, Grand Canyon Trust 

John Shields, WY State Engineer’s Office 

Committee Members Absent: 

Robert Begay, Navajo Nation 

Perri Benemelis, ADWR 

Dave Cohen, Trout Unlimited 

Jonathan Damp, Pueblo of Zuni 

Brenda Drye, So. Paiute Consortium 

Christopher Harris, CRB/CA 

Amy Heuslein, BIA 

Nancy Hornewer, USGS 

Randy Seaholm, CWCB 

Interested Persons: 

Mary Barger, WAPA 

Gary Burton, WAPA 

Denny Fenn, GCMRC 

Steve Gloss, GCMRC 

Dennis Kubly, USBR 

Recorder: Linda Whetton 

In preparation for the conference call, Randy Peterson e-mailed the following documents to the 

TWG on Dec. 2, 2002: 

• Memo to the TWG from Randy (Attachment 1) 

• Table 1 – Original budget proposed at the July 17-18, 2001, AMWG meeting 

(Attachment 2) 

• Table 2 – Revised budget recommended by GCMRC and the TWG Budget Ad Hoc 

Group (Attachment 3) 

• Table 3 – Differences between Table 1 and Table 2 (Attachment 4) 

• Table 4 – Comments and Response Table prepared by GCMRC in response to 

questions by the TWG and the Budget Ad Hoc Group (Attachment 5) 

• Narrative of the Difference contained in Table 3 (Attachment 6) 

Conference Call started at 8 a.m. 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Minutes of December 20, 2002, Conference Call 

Page 2 

Revised FY 2003 and FY 2004 Budgets. The Chairperson asked the members if they had any 

questions regarding the FY 2004 line item budget. The following concerns were noted: 

1. Lloyd Greiner said he had asked that a footnote be added (Attachment 5, pg. 4) to describe 

the experimental flow budget to be recognized as a cost to power. The footnote written says 

“cost or benefit” and CREDA would like to see “or benefit” deleted. If, in fact, there is a financial 

benefit, it will come back as a negative cost. Lloyd went on to explain that there could be power 

benefits but not financial benefits and CREDA was talking strictly cost. Randy said he thought 

they were talking financial only but questioned if there could be an experimental flow regime 

devised that could produce additional revenues for the basin fund. He thought the answer 

would be yes. If so, then that could be called a benefit from the power standpoint. Lloyd said 

he hasn’t seen one yet but their thought was if there is a revenue flow to the basin fund, it would 

be a negative expense. It would show up in the footnote but instead of a cost, it would be 

recognized as a flow into the basin fund, if it were to occur. Randy suggested that since the 

wording in the footnote isn’t going to affect the vote on the line item details, he asked Lloyd to 

provide some suggested language and GCMRC and Reclamation would discuss it further. 

Matt questioned the wording of the “study costs/benefits” column in the hydropower section of 

the EA as an example of what Lloyd was talking about. Randy said one way to handle this 

might be to talk about it in terms of financial impacts, positive or negative, to the basin fund. 

Lloyd said that would be more accurate and definitive. 

2. Clayton wanted to know whether the 2004 budget is still applicable given modifications to the 

2003 budget to fund the experiment and whether that has cut some of the ongoing work that will 

affect the 2004 budget. Denny said GCMRC made the reductions in the 03 budget to fund the 

experimental flows in 03 by delaying some things - some of the overflights, remote sensing stuff, 

etc. None of the ongoing 04 projects will be affected by the cuts made in 03. The budget is still 

valid as it stands. 

3. Clayton asked Mary Barger to address another concern. Mary said she was looking at two 

documents that were passed out at the TWG Meeting on Nov. 8: the revised budget and the 

experimental flows budget summary and said the numbers for FY04 don’t match up. She 

doesn’t see the same line items and asked if someone could explain the 04 experimental flow 

budget summary without sediment inputs as opposed to the 04 line item. She questioned the 

FIST line item, that it’s not a line item but it shows up on the experimental flows budget. Mary 

also asked if it’s known what the $790,000 plus the $1.6M would actually fund. 

Pam said she recalled at the last TWG meeting there was some discussion around this and that 

basically there hadn’t been a final determination of which studies were going to be conducted 

under the experimental flows partly because they didn’t know which part of the flows were going 

to go. Steve said the various scenarios with sediment and without sediment were presented to 

the TWG and they haven’t changed since then. Denny said the 03 budget was band-aided 

together from a variety of sources, including the funding from three other agencies that the Asst. 

Secretary has directed money to be put into. For FY04 they’re counting on the President’s 

budget showing some money for science support in the USGS budget, $1M which is earmarked 

for this experimental flows effort so GCMRC thinks FY04 is covered in terms of funding. 

4. John Shields said the handout on Nov. 7 showed the total 04 expenditures in terms of the 

total funding requested as $1,703,000. It indicated that there was going to be $800,000 to be 

used from other funds. Denny said they hope to cover the largest needs out of the $1M 

Congress will appropriate. However, John said the current handout shows $1.685M as being 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Minutes of December 20, 2002, Conference Call 

Page 3 

the appropriations request whereas what was handed out on Nov. 8 at the last TWG meeting 

reflected $1.703M and questioned the discrepancy. Randy said the way they came to the 

$1.685 was they took the bottom line budget that the AMWG approved in July of $11,014,000 

which included an appropriations request and then subtracted all the projects that were part of 

the long-term program that needed to be conducted with or without an experimental flow and 

ended up with a block of money that fit under an appropriations request. That was almost 

entirely allocated with the exception of tribal participation and consultation under the 

experimental flows portion of the budget. John suggested that because the Dec. 2 handout was 

different from what was handed out at the TWG meeting on Nov. 8, he felt the TWG should 

amend today’s recommendation to include an updated version of the experimental flows budget 

summary without sediment inputs and attach it to the recommendation so the AMP will have 

that information in hand and the TWG will also have some confirmation of that the $1.685M is 

the amount they are recommending. Randy said there is still some uncertainty about how much 

money would be spent in 03 and 04 for experimental flows depending on whether inputs occur. 

John expressed difficulty with not providing Congress with a total budget recommendation 

because what is being recommended on experimental flows isn’t specific to flows, with or 

without sediment inputs. Cole said it was his understanding that if there wasn’t a sediment flow 

at the time anticipated that the appropriated money would then be carried over to the next fiscal 

year until there was adequate sediment to do that portion of the experiment. John countered 

that that information wasn’t indicated on the Nov. 8 handout. 

Randy concurred with Cole. Reclamation is going to ask for more appropriations than will be 

needed and will carry money not used in 03 over into 04. They are asking the Department for 

$1M per year for 2 years. Randy said the request has already gone to the White House and the 

AMWG has already approved the total budget of $11.014M. Randy said he believes the budget 

sent out on Dec. 2 does a good job of identifying the projects that should be funded by power 

revenues and are required as part of the long-term monitoring and research program and then 

allocate the rest of the money for the required experimental flow work. 

John said he was concerned that no information is being provided or recommendation vis-à-vis 

the experimental flow budget. He thinks Mary raised a good question and added that if the 

AMWG is going to send forward a recommendation, it should include information about the 

experimental flows other than one number in one table in the end. Randy said that while John’s 

comment is valid, that is not the way budgets are sent to Congress - it is one number and one 

table. John said he felt the experimental flows budget summary sheets should be attached to 

the current version of the recommended budget when forwarded to the AMWG. Matt said he 

didn’t think that should be done since the TWG hasn’t seen a Science Plan. The budget 

summary table is all that’s been seen for the experimental flows in 04. He doesn’t think it’s 

ready to go forward as a recommendation other than as a bottom line number. Pam also 

agreed with Matt and rather than putting it in as part of the budget recommendation, she said 

GCMRC should be prepared to provide a final science plan with the associated costs. Randy 

asked Denny if that could be accomplished and Denny said it could. GCMRC has a larger 

science plan prepared but would have to cut half of it out because of funding limitations but it’s 

just a matter of doing it in concert with the final funding availability. Denny said they would have 

it done in time to present with the final budget to the AMWG in January. 

MOTION: Move we accept the 04 budget and recommend it to the AMWG as it was distributed 

on Dec. 2, 2002. 

Motion seconded. 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Minutes of December 20, 2002, Conference Call 

Page 4 

MOTION: Move $50,000 out of the 04 budget to the 03 budget for evaluation of the captive 

breeding program. 

Kerry asked what would happen if the evaluation says that we need to move forward 

immediately in 04 with the captive breeding program. Are we assuming the Fish and Wildlife 

Service is going to fund that? Steve said GCMRC moved the $50,000 in 04 to the experimental 

flow fund and re-programmed. Randy said they’ve talked about that issue with the FWS and the 

Albuquerque FWS has been receptive to placing that type of activity in their budget. However, 

they were talking 05 because it’s getting a bit late to program anything in 04 but if what Kerry 

says is true and something needs to be started within the next year or so, then the AMP is going 

to have to re-think prioritization of the line items as well as look for more funding from 

appropriations within the Department. 

Matt said that when the recommendation goes forward, it should be clarified that we’re not 

necessarily sending forward what we need, we’re sending forward what we can get from the 

core monitoring to support a gutted experimental flow fund. The budget is insufficient for what 

the program needs to have but it’s a recommendation for a budget of what we can do. 

Gary Burton asked if the budget cuts were made by the Budget AHC. Dennis said the cuts 

were made by the GCMRC. Randy added that while the revised budget wasn’t brought before 

the full TWG, any reductions in the science plan were discussed with the Budget AHC. The 

Budget AHC did not enforce or recommend any cuts, but rather participated in an open 

discussion with GCMRC about whether projects were of high, medium, or low importance; 

whether it could be deferred; and whether if there was or was not sediment how that would 

affect the proposed project. GCMRC took that information and came up with the current 

budget. 

Call for the question. 

Matt asked if we were losing $95,000 in appropriations (under C2 in the original budget) for 

streamflow and fine-sediment transport. Denny said he couldn’t respond but would talk with 

Ted and e-mail a response back to Matt and the other TWG members later today. 

Update: Denny responded to Matt’s question in an e-mail sent to Linda on 12/20/02, which she 

forwarded to the TWG (Attachment 7). It read: 

The $95K in question was to purchase improved, near-time sediment monitoring stations for the 

Paria River and other important spots on the Colorado River within the study area. This effort 

was moved to the experimental flows budget and the equipment has been purchased and 

installed under that effort. The network is up and operating at this time. Hence, nothing was 

lost by this cut in the FY03 GCMRC regular operating budget. It was simply a bookkeeping 

decision to purchase this equipment under experimental flows but it will also serve the regular 

monitoring and research program of GCMRC. 

Kurt suggested that unless there are no major objections, the budget should be approved by 

consensus. There was no objection. Motion passed. 

Move Programmatic Agreement Activities to GCMRC. Kurt said another recommendation 

presented at the last TWG meeting was that all monitoring and research funded under the AMP 

would have to go through the competitive peer review process. He asked Randy to talk about 

that. 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Minutes of December 20, 2002, Conference Call 

Page 5 

Randy said that was the first part and the second part was specifically that we would move the 

monitoring and research shown under the Programmatic Agreement line item to the science 

plan under GCMRC as a way of implementing the first statement. That wasn’t shown in what 

was sent out and the numbers won’t change but it could be shown simply as a line item under 

whatever category is appropriate under GCMRC as monitoring and research of cultural 

resources for example. Reclamation’s administrative costs would be separated out but any 

monitoring and research that’s recommended by the PA would be placed under the GCMRC for 

their administration. 

Denny said he talked extensively with Ruth Lambert about making that change and she told him 

it sets a bad precedent because the Programmatic Agreement is a much more management 

activity and the responsibility falls on the NPS to execute in the Park rather than a science 

activity. While GCMRC could provide peer review and other services, she feels it’s not 

appropriate to add to the scientific activities of the GCMRC because it mixes up management 

and science too closely. Randy asked if the issue should be remanded to the Budget AHG for 

further discussion. Denny concurred and felt it deserves more dialogue rather than making a 

quick decision. Kurt suggested that perhaps the Budget AHG, NPS and GCMRC could provide 

a discussion paper on the pros and cons of that sort of a move. Cole advised that Lisa Leap 

also needs to be involved in those discussions and Kerry feels the tribes should also be 

consulted. Norm said he would also like to be involved in that process. 

ACTION ITEM: The Budget AHG along with personnel from NPS and GCMRC will develop a 

discussion paper on the pros and cons of moving the Programmatic Agreement budget from 

Reclamation to the GCMRC. 

Non-native Fish Control Report. Kurt asked Bill Persons to give a brief update on the 

Non-native Fish Control Report (Attachment 8). Bill asked the members if they had any 

questions or were ready to recommend the report to the AMWG. He said the Grand Canyon 

Trust expressed a few concerns in that they were looking at a more comprehensive plan that 

would address both MO 2.5 and 2.6 as well as temperature control, increased turbidity, and 

sediment augmentation. Bill said the ad hoc group worked on the plan but felt it was beyond 

their ability to put such a comprehensive plan together so they focused their efforts on nonnative fish control. 

Nikolai Ramsey said the way he read the motion approved at the AMWG meeting in January, 

the AMWG was asking the TWG to develop a work plan for MO 2.5 and 2.6 but it’s clear to him 

that developing a work plan for any time period, 5 years, 10 years, for bringing the HBC to a 

viable population is a daunting task. He feels the ad hoc group addressed a piece of the 

problem because it was somewhat manageable but it doesn’t help with regards to getting the 

HBC out of their desperate condition. He reported that Lew Coggins estimates there are about 

1100 adults or less at the 200 mm size. Nikolai feels the ad hoc group has taken a beginning 

step but feels a more sequential process is needed. 

John Shields said that the AMWG motion doesn’t direct the AHC to do anymore. This led to a 

discussion on what the intent of the motion was. It was decided that the TWG would forward 

the report to the AMWG but would also ask for clarification on the motion as to what additional 

steps need to be taken to improve conditions for the HBC. 

Bill Davis said that one of the difficulties the group had was that the management objectives 

referenced in the motion no longer exist. The MOs actually adopted by the AMWG are quite 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Minutes of December 20, 2002, Conference Call 

Page 6 

different from the ones that originally referenced the motion. One of the difficulties they had was 

deciding which MOs to accept - the MOs referenced in the AMWG motion or the ones they 

actually adopted. 

Randy said he had some questions on the report and referenced pages 13-14 where there are a 

number of recommendations to evaluate non-native fish control. He thought the premise behind 

the EA was that non-native fish were competing and predating on the HBC and that was the top 

issue to address. He asked the AHC why they felt a substantial period of evaluation was 

needed rather than getting started with non-native control. He also asked why the tributaries 

were left out of their discussion, other than Bright Angel Creek. 

Bill Person said the concept of evaluation comes from two things: (1) just from the AMWG 

framework – they weren’t sure the actions would do any good for HBC in light of the cold clear 

water which is also limiting HBC and so they felt testing various hypotheses with management 

actions should be undertaken. (2) As far as the other tributaries within Grand Canyon, it was 

his understanding that that would not happen until there was a period of public outreach and 

public information. They felt that Bright Angel was done as an evaluation. If it turns out to be an 

effective management activity, then it’s his assumption they will have to do an environmental 

assessment and get public input and at that point would propose looking at other tributaries. 

Cole said he could fill in the budget amount for FY 2003-2006 on page 15 of the report. He said 

NPS has $562,000 (from visitor entrance fees) available for implementation if the feasibility 

study is proof positive and if approval occurs through the National Environmental Policy Act. 

Bill Davis said he wanted to clarify #8 on the bottom of page 14. He said the group struggled 

with how to determine what GCMRC should be doing and what the AMP should be doing. In 

other words, through these other recommendations, evaluations, and methods we come up with 

something that is going to work, then those should be implemented by the management 

agencies. It’s not a GCMRC or AMP job to go out and actually do the management action. 

The NPS has taken the right approach in actually spending money to do the action as a follow 

up to the AMP’s recommendation. 

Matt said efforts should be made to ensure that the information being gathered at Bright Angel 

by NPS is integrated back into GCMRC so that it can come back to the TWG and back through 

reports. Randy agreed because it points out the strength of the adaptive management program. 

Gary asked if there were any pictures of the weir that could be shown to AMWG. Cole said 

there were some taken during the first week of operation and he would e-mail to Linda Whetton 

so she forward to the TWG (Attachment 9). Cole also said that they would like to send more 

up to date pictures prior to the AMWG meeting. 

ACTION ITEM: Cole will send the pictures to Linda for forwarding to the TWG and will also 

provide updated pictures prior to the AMWG meeting. 

Matt said he wanted to emphasize the need for more public outreach, awareness, and 

education. 

Dennis added that he wasn’t sure if everybody understands that what the ad hoc group is 

asking is that the AMWG reconsider it’s exclusion of RBT from control activities in Bright Angel 

Creek and the thought there was that it doesn’t make very much sense to have all the emphasis 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Minutes of December 20, 2002, Conference Call 

Page 7 

on mechanical removal and control in the mainstem and then exclude the same species from 

control in tributaries. 

Bill Davis said the group also discussed that the Park Service, independent of the AMP, could 

go ahead and remove RBT regardless of what the AMP wants. If they make a decision that 

RBT and brown trout are problematic for them in Bright Angel Creek, as a management agency 

they could take appropriate action. Cole concurred that they have the regulations to do so. 

Randy asked how much coordination the ad hoc group had with the upper basin recovery 

program, non-native control effort. Bill said it was a fair amount and that the recovery program 

had put out several reports and the group looked at those. Also, since Bill Davis and Gary 

Burton are members of the recovery program, they were able to obtain input from other 

members as well. 

Bill asked if there were any other revisions to make to the report. He made note of them and 

will revise. 

Randy asked if anyone wanted to craft a motion for recommending the report to the AMWG. It 

was decided he would draft something and e-mail to the members. Most members indicated 

they would be okay with the motion based on today’s discussion. Randy asked that if anyone 

had any objections, they should address them in the conference call scheduled immediately 

following this one. 

MOTION:

TWG recommends that the AMWG approve the TWG Non-native Fish Control Ad Hoc Group 

Plan and recommends further that the AMWG: 

• develop a comprehensive strategy for ensuring the viability of native fish populations, 

with emphasis on listed species, 

• control non-native fish in additional tributaries, after public input through appropriate 

agencies, 

• increase focus on management actions rather than just evaluations, and 

• clarify the AMWG directive to the TWG to consider actions to improve conditions for the 

HBC, i.e., for “. . . meeting MO 2.5 and 2.6 of the 17 August 2001 draft of the AMP 

Strategic Plan.” 

Grand Canyon Trust - John asked if the Grand Canyon Trust was going to formally notify each 

of the AMWG members of their recent Notice of Intent letter. Nikolai said he will e-mail the NOI 

letter and the press release to Linda so she can forward to the AMWG and TWG. He also 

mentioned the documents can be found on their web site: http://www.grandcanyontrust.org

 

ACTION ITEM: Nikolai will send the documents to Linda for forwarding to the AMWG & TWG. 

Science Symposium – Kurt said that Denny wanted to change the dates for the Science 

Symposium and asked the members to check their schedules. It was decided Denny would 

send an e-mail out to the members on suggested dates and have the members respond to him 

individually. 

Call concluded: 9:55 a.m.
. 

General Key to Adaptive Management Program Acronyms 

ADWR – Arizona Department 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 

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)