February 2024 AMWG Meeting 

Erik Skeie, BAHG Chair 
 

 

What am I rambling on about today? 

1. TWP Timeline 

2. GCMRC FY2025-2027 Proposed Projects and BAHG Feedback 

3. AMWG Discussion 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BAHG Call - SA presentation TWP Initial Draft due to TWG (BAHG/SA 

Annual Report due to TWG 

1/15/2024 

TWG/AR Meeting BAHG Call BAHG Call 1/23/24 2/20/24 3/5/24 

BAHG Call BAHG Call AMWG Meeting 

too) 

3/31/24 

BAHG Call 

4/16/2024 

BAHG Call 

4/23/2024 

TWP Initial Draft (collection of abstracts) 1/30/2024 2/28/24 2/13/2024 due to DOI and Designee 

TWG Meeting BAHG Call BAHG Call BAHG Call 3/17/24 TWG Meeting 

11/7/23 12/11/2023 2/6/2024 2/26/24 4/10/24 

2023 Oct Nov Dec 2024 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug 

Today 

GCMRC to prepare 10/19/23 - 1/15/24 annual report 

People often on leave! 12/18/23 - 1/4/24 

GCMRC/Rec. to meet with tribes and Federal Family for input and prepare TWP Initial Draft 12/6/2023 - 3/17/2024 

DOI/Designee review/comment period 3/17/24 - 3/31/24 

TWG/BAHG/SA review/comment period 3/31/24 - 4/10/24 

5/22/24 

TWP 2nd Draft (full document) due to 

BAHG/SA/DOI/tribes 

5/6/24 TWP 3rd Draft due to TWG 

6/7/24 

TWP Final Draft due to 

BAHG Call AMWG 

8/7/24 5/28/2024 

AMWG AMWG Webinar Meeting 5/15/24 TWG Meeting 8/21/24 6/12/24 

2024 

GCMRC/Rec. to prepare TWP 2nd Draft 

SA review comment period 

BAHG reveiw comment period 

GCMRC/Rec. prepare TWP 3rd Draft 

4/10/24 - 5/6/24 

5/6/24 - 5/22/24 

5/6/2024 - 5/28/2024 

5/22/24 - 6/5/24 

TWG review comment period 6/5/2024 - 6/12/2024 

GCMRC/Rec. prepare Final Draft 6/12/24 - 8/7/24 

AMWG review/comment period 8/7/24 - 8/21/24 
 

GCMRC TWP FY 2025-2027 

 Projected FY25 Budget: $12.5M 

 80% GCMRC = $10M 

 20% BOR = $2.5M 

 General BAHG Feedback: 

 GCMRC to think of how these Projects relate into the larger picture of LTEMP

and the ecosystem as a whole. 

 GCMRC should clearly define how their Projects relate to LTEMP and 

management decisions. 

 The BAHG requests that Reclamation conduct a priority exercise with the

Projects in the Initial Draft of the TWP similar to previous work. 

 The BAHG will also undergo its own prioritization exercise after the Initial Draft

of the TWP is developed. 
Project A 

 A.1 – Stream Gaging 

 Stage 

 Discharge 

 A.2 – Water Quality 

 Water Temperature 

 Salinity (specific conductance) 

 Turbidity 

 Dissolved Oxygen 

 A.3 – Sediment transport and budgeting 

 Suspended- and bed-sediment data 

 Sediment loads (silt and clay loads and sand loads) 

 User-interactive sand budgets in 6 reaches from Lees Ferry to Lake Mead 

 A.4 – Database and Website support (has lacked funding in prior 

years) 
Project A continued 

 BAHG Feedback: 

 Move the Database and Website management into Project K in order to 

streamline the TWP. 

 Analyze duration and extent of clear water flow, and what consequences 

that may have on the ecosystem. 
Project B 

 B.1 – Sandbar Monitoring 

 Continue with traditional sandbar modeling from previous TWP 

 Maintain Remote cameras – Update with new system (NEW) 

 Investigate of impact of HFE hydrograph shape on sandbar morphology (NEW) 

 Continue to investigate the interactions between sandbars and vegetation (NEW) 

 B.2 Bathymetric and topographic mapping for monitoring long-term trends in sediment storage 

 Upper Marble Canyon will be remapped May 2024 

 Provide updated assessments for sandbar and sand storage response in Lower Marble Canyon and Eastern Grand

Canyon 

 Develop method for “synoptic” assessment of sand storage for all of Grand Canyon 

 Riverbed dynamics in Western Grand Canyon – Continue evaluation of riverbed respons 

 B.3 Control Network and Survey Support 

 B.4 Sediment and Sandbar Modeling 

 Predictions of turbidity and fine sediment storage for fish habitat and nutrient dynamics 

 Improve sandbar modeling to better predict sandbar erosion 

 Predictions of flow depth and velocity for fish habitat in Marble Canyon 

BAHG Feedback: There was no additional feedback from the BAHG. 
Project C 

 C.1 – Ground-based riparian vegetation monitoring 

 Annual data collection 

 Analysis of vegetation as wildlife habitat (NEW) 

 C.2 – Determine hydrological tolerances and management tools for 

plant species of interest 

 Greenhouse experiments on daily fluctuating flows 

 C.3 – Predictive models and synthesis 

 Flows that would push plant communities toward metric goals 

 Use existing data to explore changes in dominant species impacts on the 

rest of the community 

 Flow/vegetation/sediment modeling 

 C.4 – Vegetation management decision support 

 Consult on vegetation removals/plantings 

 Phragmites (NEW) 
Project C continued... 

 BAHG Feedback: 

 Supportive of moving towards a habitat based approach. 

 Suggestion to develop a wildlife habitat metric, and to look at wildlife 

habitat based on ecological functional groups. 
Project D 

 D.1 Dam operations, vegetation management, archaeological sites 

 Continue long-term monitoring of archaeological sites using lidar and site classification 

 Evaluate mechanisms responsible for observed changes in site classification (NEW) 

 Continue experimental vegetation management study with NPS (Move to Reclamation?) 

 Experiment with different vegetation removal strategies, plantings, and sediment capture 

(Move to Reclamation?) 

 Collaborate with Hopi Tribe, NPS, and others, to explore applicablitiy of traditional 

dryland farming knowledge and soil management practices (NEW to Reclamation?) 

 D.2 Monitoring landscape-scale ecosystem change with repeat photography 

 Continue compiling record of ecological changes affecting cultural landscape and 

archaeological site preservation using repeat photography 

 Evaluate rock art site condition using lidar and photogrammetry (NEW) 

 Pilot study to evaluate potential to extract cultural and ecological information 

from Colorado River deposits using eDNA (NEW) 

 Collaboration with NPS on formal analysis of archaeological site monitoring data 

(NEW) 
Project D continued... 

 BAHG Feedback: 

 Consider whether some of these items have gone from experimental to 

management actions, and who should ultimately take ownership of any 

management actions. 

 Concern expressed about Zuni being unable to connect with their ancestors if 

their sites are buried. 
Project E 

 E.1 – Phosphorus (P) Budgeting in the Colorado River (CR) 

 Further Develop Relationships between silt and clay concentrations and P 

 Determine sediment P concentrations throughout CR and LCR 

 Quantify sediment P uptake/release capacity & how changing chemical/physical conditions may affect sediment P reservoir 

 Construct a P budget for CR (NEW) 

 Use the P budget to estimate nutrient transport across other years and extend to

GPP modeling (NEW) 

 E.2 – Rates and composition of primary producers in the CR 

 Develop a mechanistic GPP model 

 Quantify the relative contribution of diatoms vs macrophytes to Glen Canyon GPP 

 Continue to document shifts in the vegetation community in Glen Canyon (NEW) 

 Canyon wide survey of diatoms and voucher taxa for the ecosystem (NEW) 

 E.3 – Fish Metabolism & Ecosystem Models 

 Measure standard and active metabolic rates of native fish (Bioenergetics Modeling) 

 Integrate data in ecosystem models for Glen Canyon (ongoing) and Grand Canyon (NEW) 
Project E continued... 

 BAHG Feedback: 

 Look into developing a controlled experimental area downstream of the 

dam. 

 Use bioenergetics in E.3 to determine how piscivorous warm water invasive 

fish species are, and better determine how much of a threat they pose to 

native fish species. 
Project F 

 F.1 – Aquatic invertebrate monitoring in Grand Canyon 

 Community Science 

 eDNA 

 F.2 – Aquatic invertebrate monitoring in Glen Canyon 

 Monthly sampling of drift, sticky traps, light traps 

 F.3 – Invertebrate monitoring in tributaries (NEW) 

 eDNA work only funded in FY21 

 F.4 – Fish Diet Studies 

 Fecal DNA sampling 

 BAHG Feedback: 

 Use the eDNA collected in this project to detect/determine cause of human 

pathogens. 

 The BAHG also asked if GCMRC foresaw any Bug Flow replicates occurring in the 

upcoming TWP, GCMRC stated the link between bug flows and humpback chub 

growth/survival has not been established, and further replicates may help determine 

if such a link exists. 
Project G 

 G.1 – Humpback Chub (HBC) population modeling 

 Close-kin mark-recapture of HBC (NEW) 

 G.2 – Annual spring/fall HBC abundance estimates in lower 13.6 km of the 

Little Colorado River (LCR) 

 Model vulnerability to climate change and drought (NEW) 

 G.3 – Juvenile HBC monitoring near the LCR confluence 

 G.4 – Remote Passive Integrated Transponders (PIT) tag array monitoring in 

the LCR 

 Expand PIT antenna detections throughout Grand Canyon (NEW) 

 G.5 – Monitoring HBC aggregation relative abundance and distribution 

 Estimate HBC abundance in Western Grand Canyon 

 G.6 – Juvenile HBC Monitoring – West 

 G.7 – Chute Falls HBC translocations 

 HBC exploration above Blue Springs (NEW) 
Project G continued... 

 BAHG Feedback: 

 Include a means to monitor HBC response to actions in the LTEMP SEIS. 

 Examine whether or not bioenergetics from Project E could be used to 

look at carrying capacity of HBC in lower Western Grand Canyon. 

 Consider investigating whether or not the Paria is suitable for HBC, and 

what would happen to the HBC populations in WGC should Lake Meade 

ever refill. 
(NEW) Project X: Other Native Fish 

 Analyze existing data – Bluehead Sucker, Flannelmouth Sucker, 

Razorback Sucker, and Speckled Dace 

 Data: size, distribution, capture, and PIT-tag antennas 

 Estimate native fish demographics 

 Improve predictive modeling 

 New Technology-pilot study: Acoustic tags with “predation sensors” 

 BAHG Feedback: There was no additional feedback from the BAHG. 
Project H 

 H.1 – Rainbow Trout monitoring in Glen Canyon 

 Electrofishing and Creel Survey/Citizen science 

 H.2 – Experimental Flow Assessment of trout Recruitment 

 Mark-recapture and reproductive status 

 Brown trout early life stage studies 

 H.4 Salmonid Modeling 

 Causal hypothesis 

 Incorporate incentive harvest into Brown Trout modeling 

 Trout population dynamics 

 Predictive capabilities for decision-making 

 BAHG Feedback: There was no additional feedback from the BAHG. 
Project I 

 I.1 – System-wide native fish and invasive species monitoring 

 Long-term monitoring 

 Parasite monitoring 

 I.2 – Invasion and colonization dynamics of warm-water fish 

 Nonnative fish surveillance 

 Evaluate risk of upstream pools in the Little Colorado River to Humpback Chub 

 Use eDNA as early detection tool for nonnative fish 
Project I continued: Smallmouth Bass 

(New) 

 Modelling population dynamics 

 Improving forecasting tools 

 Analyze data from multiple agencies for nonnative fish to determine efficacy of 

removal actions and/or flow management actions 

 Reproduction 

 Use kinship genetic analysis to estimate number of nests and the role of local 

reproduction vs. entrainment 

 Test efficacy of side scan sonar to locate nests 

 Determine hatch dates of larval fish 

 Lab Studies 

 Determine larval survival and growth under high turbidity conditions and varying 

temps. 

 Diet studies and food preference 
Project I continued: Warmwater Fish Projects 

(New) 

 Other Nonnative Fish 

 Mark-recapture of Green Sunfish to determine efficacy of removals and vital rates 

 PIT tag experiment in lab – shed/mortality rate of small fish 

 Literature review to inform development of walleye models 

 Metrics-develop pipeline to analyze fish data in an occupancy framework. 

 Mini antenna citizen science pilot to detect fish 

 Lake Powell – Entrainment 

 Determine the efficacy of nets using paired eDNA samples 

 Lake Powell eDNA study at depth to determine species that could be entrained 

 Emerging Threats 

 Monitor fish disease and parasites associated with warm water 

 Utilize tools like metabarcoding to monitor for new introductions of aquatic invasive species 
Project I continued 

 BAHG Feedback: 

 Include entrainment in the population dynamics model moving forward. 

 Add a Project Element to allow for GCMRC involvement in discussion and 

review of actions from the Strategic Plan developed by SBAHG 

 Ensure Project I is equipped to monitor/analyze data from any actions in the 

LTEMP SEIS. 

 Develop a reporting method that combines all findings from the various 

agencies on invasive species to keep the AMWG and TWG up to date on the 

statues of non-native fish detections in the system. 
Project J 

 J.1 – Recreation 

 Continue with monitoring and research related to Brown Trout Incentivized harvest 

program 

 Develop modeling capabilities for recreation metrics (NEW) 

 Regional economic impact of recreation spending under different future hydrology 

(NEW) 

 J.2 – Integrated modeling project 

 Continue to develop predictive screening model capabilities to integrate socio-economic, 

biological, and physical resource outcomes downstream 

 Focus on value of information (i.e., linking research to management) methods 

 J.3 – In collaboration with interested tribal partners design and implement a 

framework for monitoring integration of Tribal Knowledge of cultural benefits 

(NEW) 
Project J continued 

 BAHG Feedback: 

 Concern with inclusion of hydropower monitoring, analysis and metrics, 

particularly as the Socio-economic Ad Hoc Group recommended moving Project 

N to Reclamation. 

 There was BAHG supportive of the remaining proposed elements. 
Project K 

 K.1 – Geospatial Data & Analysis 

 Support to Science Projects 

Develop of maps, tools, GIS layers, Guidance on ArcGIS 

 Analysis and processing support (Use of Python, Training, Data Integration) 

 Access to Geospatial Content (Data services, Online Maps) 

 K.2 – Data Management / Data Science (Geospatial and Non-spatial) 

 Centralize the enterprise environment (NEW) 

 Fish Monitoring, Lake Powell Water Quality, Sandbar Monitoring, Riparian Vegetation 

 Project A: Sediment monitoring database and website (NEW) 

 K.3 – Data Telemetry / loT / Field Engineering 

 Support, Maintenance, Improvements (Glen Canyon Dam IoT Site, LCR loT site, Stream Gauging 

 Connect Sensors 

 Direct-to-Cell beta program (SpaceX; NEW) 

 BAHG Feedback: The BAHG suggested potentially expanding geospatial data collection to

support Tribal research efforts. 
Project L 

 L.1 – Overflight remote sensing 

 Map Colorado River ecosystem landcover changes 

 Use remote sensing imagery from previous workplan Project L 

 Measure system-wide changes in high-elevation sand deposits 

 Use previous Project L work and collaborate with projects A,B,C,D 

 Flow/vegetation/sediment modeling 

 Contribute landcover change observation for model calibration and 

validation 

 Collaborate with projects A,B,C,D 

 Overflight mission to acquire multispectral imagery (NEW) 

 Proposed only for 2026 and similar to 2021 efforts 

 Overflight mission to acquire airvorne lidar (NEW) 

 Proposed only for 2026 in conjunction with imagery overflight 
Project L continued 

 BAHG Feedback: 

 Concern about increased price if the flights include LiDAR and 

multispectral imagery 

 GCMRC was encouraged to look at ways to save money or cost share, 

specifically if there is opportunity to cost share with the USGS 3DEP 

Program. 
Project M 

 M.1 – Leadership, management, and support 

 M.2 – Logistics staff 

 Anticipating increase in Logistics area 

 M.3 – IT 

 BAHG Feedback: There was no additional feedback from the BAHG. 
Project N 

 N.1 – Hydropower monitoring and research – (SEAHG Recommendation Move 

to Reclamation side of budget using the Scope in the 2021-2023 TWP) 

 BAHG Feedback: The BAHG was supportive of the SEAHG recommendation, 

but will need additional information on what exactly this would mean in 

terms of budget and the project work. 
AMWG Discussion

 Are there any other nonnative species (fish, crayfish, vegetation, etc.) we need 

to focus on? 

 What research goals would you like to see more information gathered on? 

 Are there ways we could involve more citizen/community science projects? 

 Is there any additional feedback AMWG members would like to provide? 
The BAHG 2025-2027 TWP Future 

•Future BAHG Meetings: 

•3/5/24: Post-AMWG 

•Other Dates may be added as needed 

•4/16/24: Initial DRAFT Feedback #1 

•KEY DATES: 

•3/17/24: TWP Initial Draft due to DOI 

•3/31/24: TWP Initial Draft due to TWG 

•5/6/24: TWP 2nd Draft due to Science Advisors and TWG 

•6/7/24: TWP 3rd Draft due to TWG 

•6/12/24: BAHG Recommendation at TWG Meeting (might get 

pushed to July) 

•8/7/24: TWP Final Draft Due to AMWG