Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program 

Technical Work Group Meeting 

November 7-8, 2002 

Presiding: Kurt Dongoske, Chairman FINAL 

Committee Members Present: 

Robert Begay, Navajo Nation 

Kerry Christensen, Hualapai Tribe 

Wayne Cook, UCRC 

Cole Crocker-Bedford, NPS/GRCA 

Jonathan Damp, Pueblo of Zuni 

Bill Davis, CREDA 

Brenda Drye, So. Paiute Consortium 

Lloyd Greiner, UAMPS 

Norm Henderson, NPS/GLCA 

Matt Kaplinski, GCRG 

Robert King, UDWR 

Don Metz, USFWS 

Clayton Palmer, WAPA 

Bill Persons, AGFD 

Randy Peterson, USBR 

Randy Seaholm, CWCB 

John Shields, WY State Engineer’s Office 

Mike Yeatts, The Hopi Tribe 

Committee Members Absent: 

Perri Benemelis, ADWR 

Dave Cohen, Trout Unlimited 

Christopher Harris, CRB/CA 

Amy Heuslein, BIA 

Nancy Hornewer, USGS 

Pamela Hyde, Southwest Rivers 

Phillip Lehr, Colo. River Comm./NV 

Nikola Ramsey, Grand Canyon Trust 

John Whipple, NM Interstate Stream Comm.

Alternates Present: For: 

Garry Cantley Amy Heuslein, BIA 

Wayne Cook John Whipple, NM Interstate Stream Comm. 

Sylvie Johnson Pamela Hyde, Southwest Rivers 

Interested Parties: 

Jan Balsom, NPS/GRCA 

Mary Barger, WAPA 

Gary Burton, WAPA 

Nancy Coulam, USBR 

Chris Flaccus, GCMRC/USGS 

Steve Gloss, GCMRC/USGS 

Kristin Huisinga, The Hopi Tribe 

Loretta Jackson, Hualapai Tribe 

Dennis Kubly, USBR 

Ted Melis, GCMRC/USGS 

Mary Orton, The Mary Orton Company 

Dan Shein, citizen 

Jeremy Simons, USBR/Denver Office 

Jeff Sorensen, AGFD 

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

Minutes of November 7-8, 2002, Meeting 

Page 2 

Meeting Opening and Administrative Items 

Convened: 9:45 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 (Attachment 1). 

MOTION: Move to approve the August 15-16, 2002 Meeting minutes . 

Motion seconded. 

Pending corrections and without objection, the minutes were approved. 

TWG Minutes, May 15-16, 2002

Randy Seaholm requested a correction to the May 15-16, 2002, meeting minutes – page 3, remove the 

words “AMP funding” from #8. 

Without objection, the minutes were re-approved. 

Legislative Updates – Randy Peterson reported there has been no further action on the energy bill. If 

he sees anything relative to hydropower, he will send an e-mail to the TWG. 

Member Update – Randy reported that he, Dennis Kubly, and Norm Henderson visited with Dave Cohen 

last month. Dave continues to recuperate at a local rehabilitation center. Dave has been diagnosed with 

Diabetes and recently had his right foot and some toes on his left foot amputated. Dave’s spirits remain 

high and Randy said he would like to hear from the TWG members. Randy will provide the address and 

phone number of the Rehab Center at tomorrow’s meeting. 

Sequencing Order of 9 INs and 2 EINs – Mary referenced the memo dated October 8, 2002 

(Attachment 2a) from the TWG Chair and reminded the TWG that in April the AMWG directed the TWG 

to put the Information Needs in sequence order with a recommendation due back to them at the January 

2003 meeting. In May the TWG created a framework for sequencing the INs using a paired comparison 

exercise. Mary distributed copies of those results (Attachment 2b). Following that, the TWG put the 

remaining 189 INs into the framework and then addressed those which didn’t have concurrence. She 

passed out copies of their comments (Attachment 2c) which further identified some gaps. She said she 

wanted to make sure the members were comfortable with the new INs before moving on . She informed 

the TWG that she would take the three new INs and any additional ones established at today’s meeting 

and work with the TWG on sequencing those today (Attachment 2d). 

Randy Seaholm said he was not in agreement with some INs and asked if they could be discussed later 

in an effort to reach consensus on sequencing the first 11 INs. He said his fear was that if those 

considered outside the program are left in, the TWG won’t reach consensus on the document. He would 

like to have the INs that everyone is in agreement with voted on and said his INs fall into three 

categories: 1) INs that are addressed in recovery goals for the endangered fish, 2) INs under the 

responsibility of the FWS, and 3) other ones that are research on research that aren’t necessarily needed 

to be identified or contracted for but put into certain scopes of work. Randy said the Ad Hoc Committee 

on what is In and Out (ACHIO) of the AMP hasn’t met and his observation is that within that group there 

are divergent views and they may not be able to accomplish their task. 

Mary reminded the group of the TWG Operating Procedures and that they should attempt to reach 

consensus before going to a vote and advised they could develop a majority vote from a majority opinion. 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Minutes of November 7-8, 2002, Meeting 

Page 3 

It was decided to list the INs that Randy felt were of concern. The TWG continued to discuss and had 

the following concerns: 

• Concerned with not pulling information needs out of this document but rather send what’s been 

done to AMWG, along with a dissenting report from AHCIO on why some goals don’t belong in 

the program. Would recommend sending the full list. (Persons) 

• We don’t know what percentage of the TWG is identifying them as questionable. It will further 

delay progress. (Dongoske) 

• We started this process agreeing to describe the entire process and would have to parse out 

what is in and out of this program. The buck has to stop. Until that parsing takes place, some of 

us can’t recommend the list to the AMWG. (Cook) 

• I’ve asked and the stakeholders have asked to address this issue and have said to do it later. 

This is later. We can’t agree to go forward without addressing this issue. (Seaholm) 

• It’s incumbent upon us to provide AMWG with as much information as possible. It’s not the list 

that is critical but we need to send something up to them. (Burton) 

• We need to send something to AMWG. Have a vote and identify which ones are problems and 

which aren’t. (Metz) 

• We can report to the AMWG that the INs have been sequenced but there are some concerns. 

The AHC needs to develop the criteria. Would like to have them apply it or have the AMWG 

apply. (King) 

The members discussed language for a motion to forward the sequenced INs and In/Out concerns to the 

AMWG. 

MOTION: The Technical Work Group has sequenced the entire set of Information Needs as directed by 

the AMWG. The TWG is unable to recommend approval of the INs, absent the criteria for what is in and 

out of the program. Therefore, the TWG recommends that this list be approved by AMWG only after it 

has been subjected to AMWG-approved criteria for what is in and out of the AMP. 

Without objection the motion was passed. 

Mary will update the INs document and the TWG will forward it for inclusion in the AMWG meeting 

packets. 

Adjourned: 5:20 p.m. 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Minutes of November 7-8, 2002, Meeting 

Page 4 

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program 

Technical Work Group Meeting 

November 7-8, 2002 

Presiding: Kurt Dongoske, Chairman 

Committee Members Present: 

Robert Begay, Navajo Nation 

Kerry Christensen, Hualapai Tribe 

Wayne Cook, UCRC 

Cole Crocker-Bedford, NPS/GRCA 

Jonathan Damp, Pueblo of Zuni 

Bill Davis, CREDA 

Brenda Drye, So. Paiute Consortium 

Lloyd Greiner, UAMPS 

Norm Henderson, NPS/GLCA 

Pamela Hyde, Southwest Rivers 

Matt Kaplinski, GCRG 

Robert King, UDWR 

Don Metz, USFWS 

Clayton Palmer, WAPA 

Bill Persons, AGFD 

Randy Peterson, USBR 

Randy Seaholm, CWCB 

John Shields, WY State Engineer’s Office 

Mike Yeatts, The Hopi Tribe 

Committee Members Absent: 

Perri Benemelis, ADWR 

Dave Cohen, Trout Unlimited 

Christopher Harris, CRB/CA 

Amy Heuslein, BIA 

Nancy Hornewer, USGS 

Phillip Lehr, Colo. River Comm./NV 

Nikolai Ramsey, Grand Canyon Trust 

John Whipple, NM Interstate Stream Comm.

Alternates Present: For: 

Garry Cantley Amy Heuslein, BIA 

Wayne Cook John Whipple, NM Interstate Stream Comm. 

Interested Parties: 

Jan Balsom, NPS/GRCA 

Mary Barger, WAPA 

Gary Burton, WAPA 

Nancy Coulam, USBR 

Chris Cutler, USBR 

Chris Flaccus, GCMRC/USGS 

Steve Gloss, GCMRC/USGS 

Kristin Huisinga, The Hopi Tribe 

Loretta Jackson, Hualapai Tribe 

Sylvie Johnson, Southwest Rivers 

Dennis Kubly, USBR 

Ted Melis, GCMRC/USGS 

Mary Orton, The Mary Orton Company 

Dan Shein, citizen 

Jeremy Simons, USBR/Denver Office 

Jeff Sorensen, AGFD 

Recorder: Linda Whetton, USBR 
Meeting Opening and Administrative Items 

Convened: 8:15 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. 

Non-Native Fish Control Update

Bill Persons gave a PowerPoint presentation (Attachment 3a). The TWG discussed time 

frames needed in order to forward the report to the AMWG by its January 2003 meeting: 

November 22: E-mail Draft Report to TWG (Linda) 

December 10: TWG Comments due to Bill Persons 

December 16: Bill will mail revised report to the TWG and interested parties 

 and Linda will post report to Bureau of Reclamation web site 

December 20: TWG phone poll (conference call with motion from TWG) 

December 26: Meeting packets sent to AMWG (Linda) 

January 28-29, 2000: AMWG meeting 

ACTION ITEM: Bill Persons will send the Non-native Fish Control Report to the TWG by 

November 22, 2002. 

ACTION ITEM: TWG members should send comments on the Non-native Fish Control Report 

to Bill Persons by December 10, 2002. 

ACTION ITEM: The working members of the Non-native Fish Control AHG will review the TWG 

comments and consider revisions to the report prior to the TWG phone poll on Dec. 20, 2002. 

Bill Davis added that the ad hoc group is struggling with a couple of points: 1) If the experiments 

work, then how do they move into a management mode? Who does it? When do they do it? 

How is it paid for? If the experiments are going to be done under the experimental flows this 

year, followed by mechanical removal, who will be responsible for doing them in 5 years, 10 

years? 2) Mechanical removal was identified as a major method of controlling non-natives, 

however, because of current concerns that is no longer an option. Unless the mechanical 

removal concerns can be resolved, that particular method is off the table. 

Dennis Kubly also said that some of the group members thought the AMWG’s directive was too 

narrow, that perhaps it starts in the wrong place. There is no strategic plan for non-native 

removal, which is what they did in the upper basin so they are tiering down -- they develop a 

strategy, develop an implementation, an experiment that works, and move on. It’s an aggregate 

of methods that collectively will have the desired effect. He questioned whether we ever step 

back and ask systemwide can the species be effectively controlled by using this set of methods. 

He said there will probably be a recommendation back to the AMWG that they consider a 

broader perspective. 

Proposed Fishing Regulations - Bill Persons gave an update on the fishing regulations for 

Lees Ferry (Attachment 3b). The AGFD submitted a recommendation to the Arizona Game 

and Fish Commission to increase the bag and possession limit at Lees Ferry and change the 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Minutes of November 7-8, 2002, Meeting 

Page 6 

regulations at the head of the Paria River to allow bait fishing and also increase the bag limit. 

They are trying to increase the harvest of fish and encourage a new clientele to see if it’s 

successful. There were few concerns from the public but not much. The regulations should go 

into effect on January 1, 2003. 

Budget Ad Hoc Committee Report – Steve Gloss provided a report on the FY04 AMP Budget 

in response to the AMWG’s motion in which they approved a bottom line budget but weren’t 

comfortable with some of the line items. Steve distributed a handout, “FY-2004 GCMRC 

Research and Monitoring Work Plan Budget-AMP Funding: 11/7/02,”(Attachment 4a) and 

reviewed the following major line items: 

B8 – Captive Breeding Program. This was originally budgeted at $150,000 with $100K coming 

from Appropriations. It is still shown here because it was originally shown in the FY04 work plan 

but they are proposing to move it to Experimental Flows (second page of handout). 

F5 – Decision Support System. Funding for this was also to come from Appropriations and that 

is shown as 0 dollars. It is proposed that there will be no decision support work in FY04. 

Randy said the basic goal was to take the FY 2004 budget and evaluate the line items in 

response to the concerns expressed by the AMWG in July and the need to provide additional 

funds for experimental flows starting this year. It’s almost a circular logic -- What do you need 

for experimental flows? What can you get from the budget? How are the two tied together? It 

was a difficult task for the Budget AHC to do. He directed the members to look at the second 

page where changes were made to the budget proposed to the AMWG in July (shown in the 

middle part of the spreadsheet as bold italic numbers). Under D8 Experimental Flows, the total 

project cost is now $300,000. GCRMC reduced the projects above that line by $300,000 in 

order to move $300,000 into Experimental Flows. As they did that, it was primary that they not 

reduce the long-term monitoring program to injure the credibility of that long-term dataset. That 

was a primary consideration. He reviewed the following changes: 

A4-Mapping Holocene Deposits. This was eliminated in both 03 and 04. The prior cost on that 

was $113,000 in FY04. 

B8 – Captive Breeding Program. That money was $50,000 and has been moved from 2004 up 

into 2003 to get a jumpstart on that effort. 

C4 & C5 – Logisitics Costs associated with establishing the control network which is somewhat 

of a long-term, ongoing effort and the channel mapping. 

The cuts represent about $64,000 worth of reduction. 

D1 – Unsolicited Proposals. This is a reduction of about $110,000 each. 

D2 – AMWG/TWG Requests. These are shown at $16,000. These were previously $50,000. 

D4- Tribal Outreach. This was reduced from $30,000 to 15,000. 

The above reductions total $300,000. The second page of the 2004 handout is what the Budget 

Ad Hoc Group recommended to the TWG as a recommendation to the AMWG for 

implementation in FY04. 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Minutes of November 7-8, 2002, Meeting 

Page 7 

Randy said the FY03 budget was adjusted as well (Attachment 4b). He recalled at the end of 

the Budget AHC meeting, the deficit in FY03 was about $600,000 if there are no sediment 

inputs this year and about $1.2 million if there were. The deficit in FY04 is about $1 million 

without the sediment inputs, and with the sediment inputs about $1.7 million. The strategy is to 

go back to Washington during the first week of December and tell the Department that if they 

want to conduct the experimental flows that we need approximately a $1 million a year for the 

next 2 years to fund this program. If they can’t provide that money, the AMWG would 

recommend the flows not be done. 

Matt asked if there was a science plan for the experimental flows. Steve said there isn’t a 

document per se but it will basically be a document that is in the process of deleting projects in 

phases much like the exercise has been to reduce the budget to meet the available funding. 

The “Experimental Flow Budget Summary With and Without Sediment Inputs” pages 

(Attachment 4c) reflect what GCMRC recommended in terms of ways to trim the experimental 

flows budget. It was further revised by the Budget Ad Hoc Group on 11/6/02. This is the 

current proposed experimental flows budget. These are all the projects and budget activity that 

was listed in the full-blown science plan. GCMRC reduced that substantially in a lot of areas 

and eliminated some projects completely. Steve said there is still a shortfall of $500,000 to 

implement the plan in the present fiscal year and through FY04, that deficit increases by another 

$1 million so they’re at about $1.4 million in shortfall in order to carry this project to completion. 

The worse case scenario should be a combination of the FY04 shortfall with sediment which is 

$1.725 plus the shortfall without sediment for FY03, which was about $500,000. 

Randy felt it might be helpful to go through some of the line items noting some of the comments 

the Budget AHC discussed. The budget is very complicated and advised the members to think 

in terms of when the studies might be done in FY03 and FY04, and whether or not there is 

sediment. He directed the members to look at the following: 

2 – FIST. It shows $490,000 in FY03 and $140,000 in FY04. The $490K cost is to document 

the effects of fluctuating flows on beach deposits, even though a high flow test is not expected 

this year. In FY03, the cost was $750,000 and that’s the difference between those two is about 

what the high flow test monitoring would cost, about $260,000. If one were to think of a most 

probable scenario, we would probably say that we wouldn’t have a high flow test year but 

probably would have one next year. The frequency of those inputs in order to produce a half 

million tons of sand or a million tons by January 1 is about every other year. It’s likely more 

money will be needed for FIST next year. An overflight was done last June so they currently 

have a very good mapping of the entire canyon right now. If a high flow test were to occur right 

now, the canyon wouldn’t need to be re-mapped but it would need to be done immediately 

thereafter to be able to quantify the improvements or changes to the sandbars in the canyon. 

Another one would be needed later in the spring to document the effect of the fluctuating flow 

regime on those newly created deposits. One suggestion was to, in 04, to eliminate the 

December overflight and use the Namdor team to do their 35 beaches as a sample of the before 

case and then photographically measure after the high flow test to document change. 

13 – Monitoring of RBT Adult Stranding. This originally had a substantial amount of money in 

both years. The Budget AHC thought that if an experiment was implemented this year, they 

would go through and document the stranding in the first year but not the second. So the 

second year was zeroed out. 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Minutes of November 7-8, 2002, Meeting 

Page 8 

14 – Distribution of Spawning Redds for RBT. The same type of discussion went to that issue 

as well but the concern raised was that because of changes in the channel structure potentially 

because of a high flow test next year, it makes sense to keep the $100,000 in there to see if the 

trout spawn in different places. 

15 – Determination of the Mechanism Accounting for Reduced Recruitment. GCMRC is not 

sure this project can be done. They’re not sure even how to go about what causes the lack of 

recruitment. The Budget AHC feels this is a very important item. GCMRC is going to issue an 

RFP but it probably won’t be in place in time to conduct the first year’s work. 

19 – RBT Diet Analysis at the LCR Confluence. There was some discussion about eliminating 

this in the second year of the test but the group’s thinking was that because of the reduced 

population density in the LCR confluence reach, that it may be important to see if the trout’s diet 

changes, if they become more piscivorous depending on density effects. 

24 – Tribal Resource Studies – Tribal Monitoring. There is an error in line 24. The group’s 

sense was that the tribal resource monitoring studies would primarily be related to the high flows 

since the other flows in the non-sediment input scenario would be below river stage levels. If 

there is no sediment input in FY03, there probably would be a questionable reason to have 

additional tribal monitoring but there should be $200,000 in FY04 associated with the potential 

high flow test in that year. Randy clarified that neither the first sheet nor the second sheet 

represent the most likely scenario. He thinks the FY03 column on the first sheet and the FY04 

column of the second sheet is probably what will happen economically. Randy said he would 

send out his Budget Ad Hoc Group meeting notes, today’s handouts, and the original science 

plan budget table to the TWG to help them understand the changes. 

ACTION ITEM: Randy will send out his Budget Ad Hoc Group meeting notes along with today’s 

handouts and the original science plan budget table to the TWG. 

Pam Hyde expressed concern with the blurred budget lines just as she had a problem with 

commenting on the EA because of not knowing what the science plan was. She raised 

concerns that the Budget AHG is deciding what monitoring is and isn’t appropriate and feels that 

needs to be discussed. 

Randy said it was a bit of problem coming up with the FY04 budget and agreed it was a 

legitimate concern because there was no science plan. They looked at the budget, tried to find 

what money could be available to put into experimental flows, and then called it good for FY04. 

They then went back and reviewed the experimental flows budget again. GCMRC took the lead 

in that process. As they described what would be would cut, the Budget AHG raised concerns 

about how that might affect the resulting analysis of the effects. 

Randy asked GCMRC what their time frame was for the science plan and the processes they 

used to come up with the projects and costs associated with those. 

Steve said they have been through 9 months of chasing a moving target and it’s been 

impossible for them to consider developing a science plan as a useful investment of time in 

order to meet the budget deadlines. There are significant budget constraints and no apparent 

place to find a lot of this money. They have internally looked at their FY03 and FY04 budgets 

have made significant cuts in numerous areas in an effort to move money into experimental 

flows. Given that, they will still have a significant shortfall. There also hasn’t been an 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Minutes of November 7-8, 2002, Meeting 

Page 9 

opportunity for them to share a lot of information with stakeholders. It was not the intent of the 

Budget AHG to make the decisions but simply to bring forth some recommendations. Steve 

concurred with some of Pam’s concerns and said that when the USGS became a partner with 

the NPS and USBR in writing the EA, it took considerable staff time and distracted their ability to 

focus on the science plan and interaction with the stakeholders. 

Randy said the Budget AHG asked questions but in no way did they dictate what the budget 

was going to be. He went on to say that perhaps there is something missing from where they 

were in late summer versus where they are right now. That’s an explanation of how GCMRC 

took TWG input and came up with this budget. He asked if it would be helpful in the next 

mailout of the AHG’s meeting notes to include a statement from GCMRC as to how they made 

that jump. He said that in the initial deliberations on the FY04 budget, their intent was not to cut 

that below an important level and not to eliminate work essential to the program. That’s why 

they only cut $300,000 from the FY04 funding and moved it to experimental flows. There is a 

deficit and had they been politically smart, they probably would’ve shown it as zero deficit and 

made the program fit within the budget but that made no sense because they would be cutting 

the projects that GCMRC and others felt were essential and couldn’t go lower. The message to 

the Department is that we’re more than $2 million short and don’t feel the experiment is worth 

doing unless we have the $2 million. 

Randy asked for a recommendation from the TWG on the FY04 budget line item changes to 

send to the AMWG. Some members said they wanted more time to review the changes and 

asked if a recommendation could be delayed. It was decided to hold a conference call on 

December 20 with the purpose of passing a motion at that time. Randy also asked that any 

“fatal flaws” noted in the budget be sent to him as well as to Steve Gloss. 

ACTION ITEM: The TWG will hold a special conference call on December 20 to poll the 

members on two specific motions: 

 1) Recommend to the AMWG the specific line item details of the FY2004 Budget, and 

 2) Recommend to the AMWG the Non-native Fish Control Report prepared by the Nonnative Fish Control AHG. 

Randy added that when the TWG gets the document next week, it will show a shift in dollars 

from the PA program into the GCMRC’s cultural resources research and monitoring program. 

There will be a different number there than the table passed out today. 

Warm Water Science Plan - Steve Gloss said this issue arose in anticipation of the possibility 

of low elevation at Lake Powell and whether there might be a “natural” experiment with respect 

to increased water temperatures that would occur next summer if the reservoir remains at low 

levels and the warm waters in the surface zone of the reservoir begin to approach the pinstock. 

In addition, whether GCMRC had an adequate monitoring program in place to determine if there 

was any change. He proceeded with a PowerPoint presentation (Attachment 5a). 

Steve presented another PowerPoint presentation on “Biological Aspects of the Warm Water 

Science Plan” (Attachment 5b). 

Dennis added that if the majority of HBC are dying from thermal shock or from being eaten by 

cold water predators and the water is going to be warmed to reduce the predators, it’s possible 

a whole lot more HBC might make it into those habitats and survive to recruit. He wants the 

TWG to be aware how the environment could change and what the responses might be. 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Minutes of November 7-8, 2002, Meeting 

Page 10 

Cultural Monitoring Results

 1. Brenda Drye said they alternate between taking youth or adults down every year to the 

Colorado River to do cultural monitoring work. Under the Consortium they have two bands - the 

Paiute Indian Tribe and the Kaibab Paiute Tribe. This year the youth did some water quality, 

photo matching, and plant transects. She proceeded with a PowerPoint presentation 

(Attachment 6). 

 2. Loretta Jackson said they have been doing a lot of the cultural resource site identification 

as far as traditional cultural properties (TCPs) in the Grand Canyon since 1993. Just recently 

they started doing a monitoring program and they want to implement and continue to use the 

monitoring program as far as assessing the conditions of the TCPs. She proceeded with a 

PowerPoint presentation on “Evaluating Hualapai Cultural Resources Along the Colorado River, 

2001, Final Report and parts of 2002 Draft Report” (Attachment 7). 

 3. - Lisa Leap gave a PowerPoint Presentation on “NPS Archaeological Monitoring for FY 

2002” (Attachment 8). Kurt advised that funerary objects need to be reunited with human 

remains and suggested she work closely with the affiliated tribes and get NAGPRA work 

underway. Lisa concurred with his recommendation. She also displayed several slides of work 

proposed for FY 2003. 

Basin Hydrology – Chris Cutler (USBR) presented the following graphs (Attachment 9): 

Upper Colorado River Basin Precipitation Oct 2001 – Oct 2002. This has been a really low 

precipitation year, the third year in a row. From October 2001 through last month, there have 

been 9 months of below average precipitation. The only relief was last September when it was 

185% of normal and October was about 110%. That small relief helped a little bit on the 

drought and helped to reduce the soil moisture deficit which is going to improve the runoff 

efficiency next year. Even if there was an average snowpack, there would still be a below 

average runoff for next spring. 

Lake Powell Unregulated Inflow WY 2002. This year has been one of the driest years. We 

received 3.06 maf of unregulated inflow into Lake Powell, which is 25% of average. In 2001, we 

received 59%, and in 2000 we received 62%. It is just getting drier and drier. The previous low 

year was 1977 when we received 3.06 maf which was 33% of average. In September we 

received 58% of average unregulated inflow and in October received 56%. This month we’re 

averaging 7,500 cfs which is about 75% of average. It’s looking a little better. 

Projected 2003 Lake Powell Inflow. We are projecting about 84% most probable inflow with a 

range of possibilities of 28% up to 144%, and 10.1 maf release year. 

Glen Canyon Dam Monthly Releases (CFS). There are three possible scenarios that are 

possible: 1) experimental flows with sediment inputs, 2) experimental flows without sediment 

inputs, and 3) without the experimental flow. The decision to run the experimental flow will be 

made in early December. 

Lake Powell Projected Elevations – We’re currently at an elevation of 3624.4 and by the end of 

the year should be down to 3621. It would take 11.5 years to refill Lake Powell if there were 

average hydrology conditions. 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Minutes of November 7-8, 2002, Meeting 

Page 11 

Status of the EA – Randy Peterson reported there were 19 comments received on the 

Environmental Assessment. Reclamation has pulled off the substantive comments and will be 

sending them to the Park Service and USGS to address. The package will then be provided to 

the three joint lead agencies and the DOI staff for a decision meeting to take place during the 

first part of December. The time frame also matches up with the consultation work with the 

USGS and NPS and FWS for a biological opinion. There have been a number of conference 

calls with the FWS and Reclamation believes they will issue a Biological Opinion by the end of 

November. There are three options: (1) prepare an EIS, (2) drop the proposed action, and (3) 

prepare a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). If it’s the latter, Reclamation will include 

the Comments and Response document with the FONSI along with an Errata Sheet. 

Non-native Fish Disposal. Randy reported that a couple of the tribes expressed concern about 

the killing and disposal of the non-native fish in the canyon. GMCRC has taken the lead in that 

discussion and Randy asked Steve Gloss to provide an update. Steve said they have been 

working on an effort to examine alternative potential beneficial uses of non-native fishes that are 

removed from the LCR. It is still a work in progress. They have been seeking a beneficial use 

for the fish. They held a conference call with tribal representatives in the last month and have 

explored a variety of beneficial use options. They have narrowed the suite of possibilities down 

to: live removal and re-stocking to other waters, removal of non-native fishes in a fresh or 

frozen state for human consumption, removal of the biomass for direct land application, 

agricultural fertilizer, removal of material for fertilizer and hatchery ponds at the Hualapai 

Hatchery, removal of non-native biomass as a fish emulsion or horticultural fertilizer product, 

and removal of biomass to use as either pet food or animal food supplement. The original in 

situ disposal of non-native fish biomass to benefit the ecosystem by recycling the nutrients and 

energy, and finally the originally proposed action was a land-based disposal in a landfill. Steve 

proceeded with a PowerPoint presentation (Attachment 10).

Report on Salmonid Assessment Trip – Steve said the original mechanical removal proposal 

had two trips scheduled, one in August and one in September. GCMRC actually began 

implementing mechanical removal during the fall but then scaled back to a single trip which 

became a non-lethal salmonid assessment trip in the LCR Reach that was conducted between 

Sept 8-23, 2002. It ended up being a trip under unusual conditions because of the flash 

flooding and LCR input contributions. The trip launched on Sept. 8 and was actually working 

upstream of the LCR on Sept 9 and 10 and they got into the LCR Reach for 5 days right at the 

time the LCR produced pretty good flood at least in the dry year conditions. Steve gave a 

PowerPoint Presentation (Attachment 11). 

Trout Sampling and Estimates – Bill Persons said they just did an electrofishing sample in 

October and were surprised at the relative absence of small fish in the Lees Ferry Reach and 

raised some concerns that they expressed in their letter to Reclamation, in response to the EA. 

He was asked to give an update on that and also on the downstream sampling. He proceeded 

with a PowerPoint presentation (Attachment 12). 

Sediment Update – Ted Melis said he had a few slides that are intended to be the mid-year 

update for sediment resources. He wanted to give an update for the FIST for the first half of WY 

2002 and then would show a long time historical series prepared by David Topping for Paria 

River sand inputs, annual sand inputs, as well as the Little Colorado River sand inputs. He 

gave a brief PowerPoint presentation (Attachment 13). 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Minutes of November 7-8, 2002, Meeting 

Page 12 

Future Agenda Items: Kurt asked that any agenda items for the February TWG meeting be 

sent to him. He will wait on setting up the agenda until after the AMWG meeting in January. He 

reviewed the action items from the meeting: 

1) TWG should send comments on the Non-native Fish Report to Bill Persons by Dec. 10. 

2) TWG should send comments on the FY04 budget to Randy Peterson by Dec. 11. 

3) TWG members should send comments on the Science Plan associated with the FY04 

budget to Steve Gloss Denny Fenn (change made per e-mail from Steve on 11/25/02) by 

Dec. 11. 

4) A telephone conference call for the TWG will be set up for Dec. 20 regarding the budget and 

the non-native fish report. 

Adjourned: 3 p.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)