1

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program

Adaptive Management Work Group Meeting

August 16-17, 2023

Wednesday, August 16, 2023

Start Time: 9:30 AM Pacific Standard Time (PST)

Conducting: Wayne Pullan, Acting Secretary’s Designee to the Adaptive Management Work Group 

(AMWG) and AMWG Chair.

Recorder: David McIntyre, SeaJay Environmental, LLC.

Facilitator: Terra Alpaugh, Kearns & West, Inc.

Welcome and Administrative Updates

• 25:40 Introductions and Determination of Quorum [Terra Alpaugh, Kearns & West] Quorum 

was reached with 24 members represented.

• Approval of May 17, 2023, Meeting Minutes [Terra Alpaugh, Kearns & West] Minor edits 

were received from California, New Mexico, and Western Area Power Authority (WAPA). Made 

addition of page numbers, corrected names, changed typos, and acknowledged that Annalise 

Blum, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Water and Power was introduced. On Page 15 corrected 

inaccuracy in the way black starts were described. Annalise Blum noted that she is the Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for Water and Science as opposed to Water and Power. May minutes 

approval moved by: Jessica Neuwerth, CRBC. Seconded by: Charlie Farantelli, Wyoming State 

Engineers Office. The May minutes were approved by consensus. 

• Review of May Meeting Evaluation [Terra Alpaugh, Kearns & West] Fair amount of positive 

feedback received on the agenda items, one item that needs to improve is the timeliness of the 

release of draft meeting minutes. 

• Opening Remarks [Wayne Pullan, AMWG Chair] Provided opening remarks. 

o The Acting Secretary’s Designee to the AMWG introduced Daniel Picard, Deputy 

Regional Director of the Upper Colorado Region of Reclamation (Reclamation) and the 

acting Designated Federal Officer to the AMWG, Annalise Blum, Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Water and Science, Christina Kalavritinos, Senior Advisor to the Assistant 

Secretary for Water and Science, and Michael Brain, Principal Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Water and Science. Noted that Daniel Picard and Kathy Callister are 

representing Reclamation. 

o [Michael Brain, DOI] Discussed Reclamation’s nomination of the Grand Canyon Tribal 

Monitoring Program for the Environmental Achievement Award and that the nomination 

was selected Monday to receive this Award. Reclamation also submitted the Program for 

the Presidential Award for Advancing Environmental Justice. [Kathy Callister, 

Reclamation] Noted that the Zuni were also included in the Tribal Monitoring award and 

nomination for the Presidential award.

o [Wayne Pullan, AMWG Chair] Wayne asked Ed Keeble to discuss the Grand Canyon 

National Monument. [Ed Keeble, GCNP] President Biden signed proclamation 

establishing the Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon National Monument last week. 

This is an effort that many tribal leaders have been promoting for decades and some 

federal employees as well. The President declared nearly a million acres of BLM and US 
2

Forest Service land as the National Monument which limits future mining activities in 

those boundaries. The designation honors tribal nations and indigenous people by 

protecting sacred ancestral places and their history and the scientifically important 

features within. The president signed the proclamation on the Kaibab National Forest 

with Red Butte in the background. Ed spent 20 minutes with the President and discussed 

the work of the AMWG. Discussed water allocation, aridification, and the President was 

keenly interested in the Colorado River Basin issues. 

o [Wayne Pullan, AMWG Chair] Went over the many accomplishments of the AMWG –

“it’s an impressive list.” This year AMWG has adopted a Non-Native Fish Strategic Plan

to respond to invasive fish establishment below the Glen Canyon Dam. A Department of 

the Interior (DOI) smallmouth bass rapid response charge was finalized and has been 

signed and rapid response actions are in progress. The Flow Ad Hoc Group (FLAHG) has 

been tasked with addressing the High Flow Experiment (HFE) protocol. Several National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) actions are in progress: the Interim Guidelines 

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS), the Post 2026 EIS and the SEIS 

for the Long Term Experimental and Management Plan (LTEMP). Discussed the 

cavitation problems in the bypass tubes. This wrinkle may cause us some concerns as we 

work on the LTEMP SEIS. The outlet works continue to be available for water releases 

as needed. Priorities over next two days are approval of a budget and workplan for FY

2024 and recommend the adoption of the proposal regarding revisions to the HFE 

protocol. Speaking of our mission at large, it’s important for this group to strike a 

resource balance that considers how we can best manage Glen Canyon Dam for the 

downstream ecosystem within the constraints of annual deliveries from the Upper Basin 

to the Lower Basin. Since the last meeting some expressed concerns that hydropower 

impacts not be dismissed. Want to reiterate that Hydropower resource considerations are

an essential part of our work. As part of the resource balance, it is vital that we 

incorporate tribal perspectives and traditional knowledge into our understanding.

• AMWG Charter [Bill Stewart, Reclamation] AMWG charter must be renewed every two years 

and signed by DOI. Current charter expires in September 2023. Currently being vetted and on 

schedule to be signed by then. 

• Nominations and Appointments [Bill Stewart, Reclamation] AMWG appointment and 

reappointment letters signed. 11 new AMWG members and alternates, 11 old members and 

alternates. 5 new Technical Work Group (TWG) members and alternates. 

• Action Item Tracking Report [Bill Stewart, Reclamation]: Provided updates on the following:

o Monitoring metrics: DOI agencies met last year to review draft report which is still in 

progress. Report has description of metrics, working on refining and consolidating. Plan

for metric reporting another round of regrouping and reporting to TWG. Metrics that are 

ready for prime time will be discussed at future AMWG meetings.

o Prioritization of Triannual work plan: Request to review Fiscal Year (FY) 21 through 23 

Work Plan. Last year DOI reviewed high priority actions supporting Grand Canyon 

Protection Action. This information will be used for next triannual work plan for FY 24 

through 27. 

o Updates on the five actions identified at last August’s AMWG meeting; 1) Evaluation of 

HFE under low elevations discussed at 2023 annual reporting meeting and helped 

develop the need for the HFE protocol revision; 2) Evaluation of downstream resource 

impacts under low elevation and flows, this is being considered under the Interim 

Guidelines SEIS; 3) Non-Native Fish Strategic Plan completed and adopted by AMWG 
3

at February meeting; 4) NEPA compliance for operational flexibilities to address 

nonnative fish, initiated in 2022 as part of an environmental assessment (EA), being 

moved into SEIS LTEMP; and 5) Planning to evaluate exclusion projects. Will hear 

update on this later today.

Q&A and Discussion

[Jim Strogen, FFI/TU] Why does low head during release through the bypass tubes cause increased 

potential for cavitation? [Wayne Pullan, AMWG Chair] Will be discussed during presentation. 

[Larry Stevens, GCWC] Suggest new AMWG members review mission of the program. [Bill Stewart, 

Reclamation] New members can reach out to Bill or any members of his staff if they have questions. 

[Wayne Pullan, AMWG Chair] Introduced Rod Smith from the Office of the Solicitor. Also introduced 

Andrew Schultz, new chief of USGS Science Center who introduced other USGS staff.

[Wayne Pullan, AMWG Chair] Due to issues with audio went to break. 

1:20:00 Break

Basin Hydrology, Water Quality, and Operations 

[Heather Patno, Reclamation] PRESENTATION. Provided the status of the Upper Colorado River 

Drainage Basin storage as of August 10, 2023. Currently in the decreasing storage base flow period. Will 

continue to decrease till spring 2024 runoff in April. Most reservoirs are full or near full. Lake Powell 

increased in elevation almost 65 feet this year from minimum to maximum (March to July). This was a 

significant increase. Upper Colorado Snow Water Equivalent peaked April 7th so did have above average 

snowpack this year. Drought Response Operations Agreement (DROA) has come into play. Significant 

decrease in elevation and storage at Lake Powell. Currently in DROA year 2023. Anticipate full recovery 

of Flaming Gorge by April 30. Blue Mesa anticipates full recovery by December 2023. There is a 

scheduled steady release planned for August 25th of 10,500 CFS for 72 hours. Will allow NPS to do 

chemical treatments similar to last year. [Robert Radke, Reclamation] PRESENTATION. June 20, 

2023, was the last full reservoir sampling event. Outflow around 14 degrees Celsius (0C) and uniform 

from the dam till the upper end of the reservoir. Comparable situation with Dissolved Oxygen (DO). In 

June about 6 milligrams per liter (mg/liter) DO. Reservoir was fairly well oxygenated. Turbidity is 

represented by sediment at the inflow regions and is suspended and pushed down through the reservoir. 

Total Dissolved Solids (Salinity) was plotted and correlates with the turbidity plume. Last year had a 

hypoxic plume (DO) just above the penstock elevation. In June there was a similar hypoxic plume above 

the penstock elevation. These are fairly short lived (approximately 3 months duration). Turbidity in June 

is closer to the dam, July was biggest value of turbidity and now it’s starting to drop off as sediment falls 

out. Total Dissolved Solids plotted and can see freshwater getting down to the dam in June, July, and 

August spring inflow. The model errors are warmer at surface, cooler at penstock and just right at bottom. 

Appears to be issues with boundary conditions and huge inflows that were not in the original base setup 

on the model. 

Q&A and discussion

[Jim Strogen, FFI/TU, Sara Price, CRCN]: What is the latest on DO mitigation strategies for times 

when poor conditions are anticipated in the river below the dam due to plumes approaching the penstock?

Robert Radke, Reclamation]. Have been looking at options. Back in 2005 had a low plume going 

through penstock. Tried to run the turbines in a rough zone to cause oxygen entrainment in the water. 
4

Looking at other options run at other reservoirs to alleviate this by various methods of entraining 

atmospheric air into the water. Staff at Glen Canyon Dam are willing to work with Reclamation to 

increase DO levels. Running normally see a 0.5 mg/liter increase but would like to get DO to 2mg/liter. 

Effects of Low DO and High Temperature on the Trout Fishery

[Bridget Diemer, GCMRC] PRESENTATION. Reservoir elevation really affects temperature of 

releases. Had the highest temperatures last year since the dam was put in. Big inflow gives us pretty warm 

temperatures for the height of the reservoir. Last year had 85 days of low DO, this year predict an even 

higher number of days of low DO. The age of reservoir and the minimum elevation before spring inflow 

are the dominant control of DO. Bigger spring inflow means less DO. In general, the pattern is that daily 

average DO is 1 mg/liter higher at Lees Ferry than at the dam. This is due largely to photosynthesis.

Currently conditions in Glen Canyon are below the median toxicity level. Bypass release also elevates 

DO but there are issues with cavitation.

[Josh Korman, Ecometric Research Inc] PRESENTATION Growth rates of rainbow trout have big 

impacts on population abundance. Temperature and DO are big determinants of this. Fish are smaller and 

less abundant. Fewer eggs are deposited. April 2019 tagged rainbow trout. July 2019 recaptured and 

measured the same individuals. Established the growth rate (300-gram fish) to be about 7 grams/month. 

Sept/Nov (lower temperatures and DO) saw fish lose 10 grams/month. Fish density is the number one 

determinant of growth. 2023 fish are in good shape going into a low DO year. Currently the population is 

low, in good condition and dominated by larger fish which are more sensitive to temperature increase. 

[David Rogowski, AZGFD] PRESENTATION 130C optimum temperature for rainbow trout growth. 8-

200C is where they grow. 240C has a chronic effect. 260C and higher they die. 5-6 mg/liter optimum DO, 

less than 4.9 mg/liter reduced growth and <2.5 mg/liter will suffer mortality. Starting to see a switch to a 

warm water fishery. Back in 1992 almost 100% rainbow trout caught in sampling trips. Around 2015 saw

increase in brown trout. Last year started seeing increase in brown trout, smallmouth bass, black crappie, 

and sunfish. Now about 54% sampled are rainbow trout. Previously these other fish had come through 

dam and had not spawned. They are now that the water temperature is increasing. Abundance of trout is 

pretty low level for 2023. Currently hope to have 1 fish per hour but less than that right now. Same for 

last year. Fish being caught are bigger and in good condition. 

[Ryan Mann, AZGFD] PRESENTATION Rainbow trout fishery is very important to local populations. 

The biggest issues are acute (direct mortality) and chronic threats. Need to sustain rainbow trout while 

disadvantaging high-risk, warm water non-natives. Management options highlighted in the forthcoming 

state of practice report are hypolimnetic aeration (bringing up higher DO water from deeper) and turbine 

aeration (running rough or direct injection of air into the turbines). Other options are aerating weir

downstream and Speece cone (might be hard to scale up). All have drawbacks. The use of bypass has not

been fully explored. Could address low DO and elevated temperatures. Cost and impact to hydropower 

resources not addressed yet. We are not meeting the LTEMP goal for trout fishery. 

[Terra Alpaugh, Kearns & West] Are you looking for specific feedback from AMWG members on this. 

[Ryan Mann, AZGFD] Yes. 

Q&A and discussion

[Sara Price, CRCN] On this low DO, is it mostly trout affected? What about smallmouth bass or the 

native fish?
5

3:02:12 [David Rogowski, AZGFD] Low DO affects all organisms, but trout are more affected since 

they are cold water fish. Carp, green sunfish, and smallmouth bass can tolerate lower levels of DO and 

higher temperatures. [Ryan Mann, AZGFD] That’s important as we discuss smallmouth bass. 

[Ed Keeble, NPS] Do we have a sense if DO on the upstream side of the dam is driving fish away and 

reducing the risk of invasion. [David Rogowski, AZGFD] We have a student at USU looking at how fish 

are using the forebay area. Gut feeling is there isn’t any avoidance. He’s looking at how they use different 

layers of water. [Ed Keeble, NPS] Where are we with oxygenating water at turbines I’m curious how 

evolved the thinking is there. [Clarence Fullard, Reclamation] The student is not looking at whether 

DO in the forebay is a deterrent. It might be worth looking at. The location of fish in relation to penstock

intakes is more dependent on depth. The fish are usually in the upper part of the waters. The lower DO 

interaction could be interesting, but we haven’t explored that. The concept of using air injection has been 

used at other Reclamation facilities. It brings a loss of plant efficiency and is kind of experimental and 

theoretical. Can do math on the available air to inject to see if it improves DO level. Unknown what the 

cost is to hydropower is. Unclear is what does a 1 mg/liter DO increase do? Would be a tradeoff on that 

technology.

[Ed Keeble, NPS] System may be getting complex enough that we need a matrix to show what actions 

affect what species. We have been focused on smallmouth bass and humpback chub, however there are 

other fish to consider, and we need to know what the impacts are. [Nick Williams, Reclamation] At Glen 

Canyon Dam we are looking at what we can add across the turbine during generation and what options 

that might lead to. Air injection options are limited. [Wayne Pullan, AMWG Chair] What’s our 

experience with rough zone operations. [Nick Williams, Reclamation] In normal operations each 

generator operates in rough zone, a period of increased vibration. We ramp through that quickly to get to 

optimal zones. In the past rough zone operations could be mitigated with increased air injections. We’ve

replaced the turbines in the last 20 years, so we don’t know what the characteristics look like now. The 

volume of air we can inject is driven by compressors. We have large ones to operate power plant. We 

don’t have compressors to inject air into the Colorado River. 

[Jessica Neuwerth, CRBC] What is the timeline for digging into the technological feasibility and 

economic impacts of these solutions. [Wayne Pullan, Reclamation] Looking for recommendations for 

that. [Jessica Neuwerth, CRBC] Who’s taking next steps? WAPA? TWG? [Wayne Pullan, AMWG 

Chair] In reviewing last presentation, I wasn’t certain what the future looks like and how bad it could get

but we may need to have experts take a look at this and how critical it is and how it fits in with our other 

goals and priorities and then recommend a path forward. [Jessica Neuwerth, CRBC] I like Ed’s idea of a 

matrix for the different fish species. What I heard is that DO is a problem if you have warm temperatures 

and a high volume of fish in an area. I think it would be helpful to do a risk analysis.

[Jessica Neuwerth, CRBC] It sounds like rainbow trout population is in good condition. Why aren’t we 

seeing a recruitment event. [David Rogowski, AZGFD] Unknown. Brown trout are eating juvenile

rainbow trout. Higher temperatures and low DO are stressing them out. Their weight for their size is good 

but recruitment has been poor. [Josh Korman, Ecometric] Growing conditions for young fish are also 

important. There are eggs going into the gravel, why are they not hatching. Brown trout is an issue but the 

conditions for survival are not great. Maybe the increased water will help. 2008 Spring HFE and 2011 

equalization flows did increase baby trout. Saw both of these actions this summer, we’ll know more later 

this year. If you ask any fisheries biologist, they would be concerned about low DO levels. 

[Martina Dawley, Hualapai Tribe] Curious about particulates in turbidity. Are there pollutants in those 

plumes? [Bridget Diemer, GCMRC] Have not looked at what makes up turbidity in that plume. It’s 
6

likely the sediments that are in the inflow to Lake Powell. Contaminants could come in from the San Juan 

arm from the Gold King mine spill. [Ryan Mann, AZGFD] Request for understanding effects to other 

fish species and the matrix is a good idea. Impacts on other fish species are well established. Providing 

cold water downstream of dam is our best method to control warm water fish species. 

3:20:45 LUNCH.

4:42:00 Invasive Species Below Glen Canyon Dam Monitoring

[Jeff Arnold, NPS] PRESENTATION Most of last summer at 160C. Hit that temperature last month. 

Where sloughs meet has been above 160C since beginning of June. Electrofishing done twice this 

summer. Most smallmouth bass caught last year from October to December were in the upper reaches. 

Electrofishing post HFE (May 1 to 5) only sampled segment A and B. No smallmouth bass in segment A 

but some in segment B. One night of electrofishing May 31 in segments A and B. Early July 

electrofishing effort and discovered smallmouth bass young of the year, want to catch them before they 

migrate towards the main channel. Two weeks ago, collected more smallmouth bass. Likely there have 

been two successful smallmouth bass spawns there this summer. Grand Canyon National Park 

electrofishing two weeks ago. Seems like some smallmouth bass heading to main channel. Last night 

sampled two reaches below the dam above the slough. Unclear if the smallmouth bass caught were from 

the dam or from the slough. All collected fish preserved for beneficial use. Been catching lot of 

flannelmouth suckers in lower slough. 

[Kerri Pederson, Reclamation] PRESENTATION Goal of the project is to modify slough to prevent 

warmwater non-native fish establishment. Three phase approach: during Phase 1 the upper slough would 

be partially drained by excavating a 2-ft wide channel. This would reduce the acreage of the upper slough 

from 0.3 to 0.1 acres. During Phase 2, a side channel would be excavated to connect both sloughs to the 

river so that the sloughs would be connected to the river at 8,000 cubic feet per second (CFS) instead of 

20,000 CFS. This would allow temperatures in the slough to approximate the main channel. In Phase 3, 

the lower slough would be narrowed to a width of 80 feet. This would increase the velocity in the slough 

and reduce shoreline habitat. Could be implemented by phase or all at once. This would be more 

sustainable than removing non-native fish annually. The habitat modifications are expected to be selfsustaining and require little, if any, maintenance.

[Clarence Fullard, Reclamation] PRESENTATION Been looking at nets and thermal curtains for the 

last 1.5 years. Contracted with Reclamation Technical Services Center to help develop subject matter 

expert panel. Selection criteria: Demonstrated effectiveness and deployment time. There are net barriers 

in the basin already (Highland Lake spillway). Net barrier would need to be in the forebay and need to be 

1,000 long and 100 feet deep. Most fish along the sides and that’s where the engineering is most 

challenging. Thermal curtains have been employed previously by Reclamation. Controls temperature and 

fish. Stops the epilimnetic water from getting entrained and also blocks fish. Requires some O&M. 

Expect a draft appraisal design on net barrier by end of August. Will include a cost estimate. 

Q&A and discussion

[Dan Leavitt USFWS] Will the postage stamp nets be placed randomly or in front of the penstocks or 

somewhere else? [Clarence Fullard, Reclamation] There will be a number of them. Experimental 

design will inform where they go. Will vary in depth and location. 

[Taylor McKinnon, Center for Biological Diversity] When will this be built to prevent entrainment of 

nonnative fish into the Colorado River through Grand Canyon? [Clarence Fullard, Reclamation]

Doesn’t want to put a date on this. Have to follow Reclamation engineering process which takes time.
7

[Matt Rice, American Rivers] Will this net require NEPA? [Clarence Fullard, Reclamation] 100%.

[Brian Sadler, WAPA] Kerri was showing operations in 1987 with fluctuations pre–Grand Canyon 

Protection Act. Operations last summer showed the different flows on weekend and what that did to 

temperatures. Those steady flows on the weekends corresponds to bug flows performed last summer and 

how that increased temperatures in the slough and other backwaters. Was that your point? [Kerri

Pederson, Reclamation] Trying to highlight that in the past we had temperatures of 90C and now we’re 

at 160C. High temperatures may have had some impact on the bug flows, last year the elevation was 

lower. Higher temperatures are more conducive to non-native fish becoming established. [Brian Sadler,

WAPA] WAPA would support all three phases of the slough project. What’s the possibility of 

smallmouth bass spawning outside slough in main stem this year? [Jeff Arnold, NPS] Good possibility. 

[Charlie Ferrantelli, Wyoming State Engineer’s Office] Are costs something you can provide? What is 

the timeline? [Wayne Pullan, AMWG Chair] What we’ve done is present the engineering side of 

solutions. Engineering problems are easy, it’s the social, cultural, political, financial issues that make

these issues complex. [Michelle Kearns, NPS] NPS received this report Thursday. Have not reviewed. 

Will have to go through NEPA. Are there other tools that would contribute to this? It’s concerning that 

main channel is over 160C and we are finding evidence of spawning. 

[Jacob Maase, Hopi Tribe] We’ve worked on green sunfish slough project since 2017. Glad to see the 

Phase III project. The Colorado River doesn’t begin at the Glen Canyon dam. What will it take to stop 

stocking certain fish within Lake Powell? That’s the problem. 

[Erik Stanfield, Navajo Nation] With the slough modifications and exclusion curtain it seems they are 

being considered together. Can they be viewed as short and long-term solutions. Short term would 

indicate that something is reversible. The two trenches could be reversed. Knows NPS has concerns over 

effects. If they are reversible would that minimize the environmental effect. 

[Jessica Neuwerth, CRBC] Can you expand on temperature control effect of the curtain? Is it elevation 

dependent? [Clarence, Reclamation] Reservoir stratifies in summer. Warm upper layer and cold lower 

layer. If you put the thermal curtain out, it’ll draw the cold lower layer.

[Jessica Neuwerth CRBC] Last winter did a bunch of electrofishing through that entire downstream 

between Lees Ferry and the dam. Doing sampling and electrofishing now. How does that compare to what 

we did in past? Are we planning on a larger effort? [Jeff Arnold, NPS] Did electrofishing in June/July.

Struggling to get the boatmen. Have funding and are trying to get out every two weeks. Not as intensive 

as last fall. Trying to get all segments sampled over a 3-month period. 

5:42:42 [Julie Carter, AZGFD] AZGFD haven’t stocked Lake Powell since 1980s. Stocked rainbow 

trout in the 1960s and 70s. Unsure about Utah Department of Water Resources. 

[Leslie James, CREDA] When working on the strategic plan we always thought there would be a 

staggered/phased approach to non-native control issue. What are the next steps to have a better 

understanding of what the NPS needs to do or identify in terms of NEPA? Can the non-native fish EA 

allow you to shortcut that? What support can AMWG give? Do we report back to TWG? Now that the 

slough is more urgent, what does AMWG need to do? Do we need an action? [Ed Keeble, NPS] Got the 

report last week and we are currently reviewing. Intent is to create an interagency interdisciplinary team

to explore this. We are quickly taking this report into consideration so we can act. 

[Wayne Pullan, AMWG Chair] Last summer we released warm water close to the intakes and knew we 

might entrain smallmouth bass and now we’ve done that. Before last summer didn’t think we had active 
8

spawning. Thought we didn’t need to worry about them spawning for another couple of years. Now we 

have adults spawning in the river. If entrainment was the principal source of smallmouth bass in the river 

and we didn’t need to worry about them spawning in the river, then the thermal curtain and net would be

highly critical. However, we need to act since we have spawning in the river. If those actions are effective 

the curtain is not as important, and we can handle some entrainment. We’re in the appraisal stage for the 

curtain and the net. That’s 5 years if we go as fast as we can. The slough is not as complex but needs to be 

reviewed. It’s an option if needed. 

[Ed Keeble, NPS] We need to look at the suite of options. The SEIS process is underway and hopefully 

will be complete and we can use that to act next year. Doing things now like rapid response that is 

variably successful. It’s not a long-term strategy. Will continue that but need to implement other things 

like cooling the river. This is more a medium term strategy. Need to implement all the options as quickly 

as we can at the same time. The curtain is a long term solution and the slough short term. The slough 

won’t solve complex actions. Need a multi-faceted stool. 

[Wayne Pullan, AMWG Chair] We thought the young of the year would give us an extra year. We 

thought we could wait for a Record of Decision (ROD) from the smallmouth bass SEIS until spring 2025, 

however, we need to be ready to do something next year. Need to get to a ROD in spring 2024. That’s our 

reality. That NEPA effort will be a very heavy lift. 

[Heather Whitlaw, USFWS] Can’t wait till spring 2025. The urgency is the result of what we’ve learned 

in the Upper Basin with humpback chub and smallmouth bass. We know that if smallmouth bass establish

in Grand Canyon, it’s a huge threat to humpback chub. USFWS will commit to consult so we can get to 

ROD by Spring 2024. 

[Matt Rice, American Rivers] The stakes are so high (no less than the potential future for species).

Three years ago didn’t find smallmouth bass in main stem. Last year we found a handful. Just in one 

sampling this year we found hundreds. Will there be tens of thousands next year if we fail to act? 

[Heather Whitlaw, USFWS] We don’t know for sure on the numbers. There is invasive species science 

for invasive fish in rivers. We can tap into this and model a range of outcomes. We do know when these 

species escape their rate of growth is exponential. Don’t know the specifics but it will happen. 

[Charles Yackulic, GCMRC] Last year we didn’t know the number of fish till September. We’ll know 

how much is happening outside slough in a month or two. Next year likely will be 15 to 20 % chance 

there will be an increase. If it’s dryer it’ll be worse. Can still have something in slough in a marginal 

condition. Will start next year in a better place in terms of elevation but it can get bad quickly.

[Jim Strogen, FFI/TU] Question related to public awareness and transparency. My understanding is 

there are a lot of dead carp in slough. Is that from the chemical treatments or from the nets? [Jeff Arnold, 

NPS] Last couple weeks of July and first week of August don’t remember seeing dead carp. Had little 

mortality from nets. [Jim Strogen, FFI/TU] We need to be transparent about what we’re doing and why. 

As we look at different options, we don’t want to spring this on public. Need to keep them informed of

the need for the actions and the options we are considering so there is less opposition. 

[Brian Sadler WAPA] Reemphasize that the slough will be an issue even if we cool temperatures in the 

main stem. Slough will be above 160C even if the main stem is cooler. If we have a spring deadline, then 

slough has to be part of it or this will continue no matter what we do in the main stem.

[Kelly Burke, GCWC] Concerned on near-terms actions because of how the smallmouth bass invasion 

started in the Yampa and didn’t seem to be an issue based on numbers of fish and then they blew up. 
9

We’re focusing on the Glen Canyon reach and slough. Last year temperatures got higher sooner than 

expected along with this plume that affected the DO and other things. It’s been a year and we’re still 

hearing from NPS they don’t have what they need for rapid response. Need to start looking at main stem 

to see where smallmouth bass that have left the slough are spawning. [Ed Keeble, NPS] We have 

purchased equipment and we’ve had some glitches as we implemented rapid response, but we are 

implementing rapid response in Grand Canyon. Have not found fish in the Grand Canyon. Thus, focusing 

on the Glen Canyon area. 

GCDAMP Tribal Liaison Update

6:10:34 [Zach Nelson, Reclamation]. Reclamation nominated the Grand Canyon Monitoring Team for 

the DOI Environmental Achievement Award. This award is for exemplary actions in conserving and 

helping the environment and cultural resources. Tribes and agencies have been monitoring the Grand 

Canyon for 25 years. Have developed an amazing database of how resources are used and protected. 

Much of this is specific to unique tribal resources and the Grand Canyon Protection Act. Also nominated 

for the Presidential Advancing Environmental Justice Award. This award is still pending. Award is more 

about the recognition of the effort to understand the resources and continue to keep the Grand Canyon a 

special place for everyone. Working on Programmatic Agreement (PA) stipulations, particularly with the 

Zuni, on a path forward helping fish on the reservation in exchange for some of our actions on the 

Colorado River. Also proceeding with cultural sensitivity training (CST) and making great strides.

Break

Q&A and Discussions

FY 2024 Budget and Work Plan Recommendations

[Erik Skeie, State of Colorado, TWG Budget Ad Hoc Group (BAHG) Chair] PRESENTATION.

Triannual work plan is a 3-year process. In February decided to do an interim year process due to the 

smallmouth bass and the SEIS for short term operations at Lakes Powell and Mead. Since there was not 

time to do this in February at the AMWG meeting we decided to do an interim year type of process and 

take 2023 and copy it to 2024 with limited changes. April 2023 TWG meeting received the go ahead to do 

this. The BAHG convened in May 2023. Two important dates associated with this process: June is when 

BAHG had to provide recommendations to TWG, TWG adopts and includes any changes plus giving 

BAHG any additional homework to do. August is when AMWG decides to move forward on TWG 

recommendations or provide our own input. 

[Seth Shanahan, SNWA, TWG Chair] Seth introduced the budget motion to the AMWG. TWG 

recommends the AMWG recommend for approval to the Secretary of the Interior (SOI), the FY 2024 

budget as shown on the budget worksheets presented to the TWG on June 15, 2023, with the following 

additional guidance: 

TWG recommends that any lethal management activity performed under the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive 

Management Program (GCAMP) work plan complies with the 2017 PA for the LTEMP and the NPS 2019 

Expanded Non-Native Aquatic Species Management Plan PA. TWG recommends that the GCMRC and 

Reclamation coordinate on Project N elements for FY 24 with the TWG before the August AMWG

meeting.

If funds become available, the TWG recommends those funds are used to fund the work items listed below 

in order of priority:
10

Priority 1: Short Term Rapid Response Under the Invasive Species Strategic Plan- Invasive Fish 

Species Below Glen Canyon Dam 

Priority 2: Continue Project Element G.6 Juvenile Chub Monitoring West

Priority 3: Continue sampling on two sub-reaches for Project Element H.2 Experimental Flow 

Assessment of Trout Recruitment

Priority 4: Continue project elect C.3, Riparian Vegetation Predictive models and synthesis

Priority 5: Other additional requests identified in the GCMRC FY 24 Table.

[Bill Stewart, Reclamation] Bill reviewed the budget for FY 24. Total annual budget FY 24 is $11.36M, 

80% to GCMRC, 20% to Reclamation for the AMWG, TWG, Program Management, Endangered 

Species Act (ESA) Compliance, Management Actions, and cultural resources.

6:46:51 [Andrew Schultz, GCMRC]. GCMRC 2024 budget derived from 2023. Total $9.1M. Currently 

about $159,000 short for FY 24. Project N will be zeroed out. Will be talked about and reworked so that 

will reduce the shortfall about $30,000. Unspent funds at close of FY 23 likely $750,000 to $1M. Stems 

from overhead difference and leftover from prior fiscal years. If these funds become available will look at 

BAHG recommended projects such as Cooperative Agreement cost increases and additional GCMRC 

requests not covered by prior adjustments.

Q&A and discussion

[Jessica Neuwerth, CRBC] Are we are on appropriations this year, will that continue? [Kathy Callister, 

Reclamation] We are on appropriations, looks like we’ll be on appropriations for FY24. Were on 

appropriations for FY 23 as well. [Jessica Neuwerth, CRBC] I remember hearing when we first 

switched to appropriations that funding source doesn’t provide for inflation. In the past we had 3% 

inflation. Is that not occurring with appropriations? Is that a problem? [Kathy Callister, Reclamation]

Have not received an increase in 4 years. Been steady at $11.36M. We do work in requests for additional 

money. Not guaranteed we’ll get increases. Challenge is we’re on a three-year planning budget cycle. 

Currently looking at FY 26 starting this fall and don’t know what inflation will be.

[Erik Stanfield, Navajo Nation] I saw a line item of $217,000 for socioeconomics research. [Lucas

Bair, GCMRC] That is a socioeconomic monitoring and research project that includes brown trout 

monitoring in cooperation with NPS and AZGFD and includes modeling and some other aspects. 

[Stewart Koyiyumptewa, Hopi Tribe] How are remote sensing overflights done. [Joel Sankey, 

GCMRC] Back in May 2021 we contracted remote sensing overflight for high spatial resolution 

hyperspectral imagery for the whole river corridor from the Dam to Lake Mead. Now looking at that 

imagery to see changes in land cover and riparian vegetation, the river channel and river sediment 

deposits. [Stewart Koyiyumptewa, Hopi Tribe] Who is that data available to? [Joel Sankey, GCMRC]

The datasets from this overflight will be made publicly available by USGS and previous overflight data 

has already been published. 

7:00:01 [Terra Alpaugh, Kearns & West] Pulled up the proposed motion and read through it. It tracks 

closely with what TWG approved. The text in red was added yesterday and distributed. Terra asked for 

suggested edits. [Larry Stevens, GCWC] Provided edits. 

[Heather Whitlaw, USFWS] Regarding the paragraph added in red which said, “be moved into the 

priorities listed below”. Which priorities are we talking about? [Leslie James, CREDA] Reviewed the 
11

next sentence below the red text, TWG didn’t want to be prescriptive about where this would go but 

decision makers would decide where in these priorities it would go.

[Martina Dawley, Hualapai] What number priority would that be in the list below? [Terra Alpaugh, 

Kearns & West] Are you referring to where Project N funds would go? I think Leslie said it would go 

wherever it’s deemed necessary. [Sara Price, CRCN] I thought everything went to Priority 1. If there is 

excess money, and Priority 1 could not take it all, it could it go to Priority 2 or how is it decided how this 

is divided up? [Bill Stewart, Reclamation] The challenge with pinpointing a specific priority is that if 

you look at Priority 1 that’s rapid response which can mean a lot of different things. That might not be the 

best spot. Thus, Priority 2 might be better. [Sara Price, CRCN] Who has decision making authority?

[Bill Stewart, Reclamation] That’s a conversation for GCMRC and their staff. [Sara Price, CRCN] If 

we approve the motion how would it be implemented? Like the idea of being able to spread it over 

different priorities. Want assurances it’ll do what we want it to do. [Bill Stewart, Reclamation] Given 

this might not be the only amount of money we get, there may be additional cost savings that come up in 

FY 24. [Andrew Schultz, GCMRC] There could be wording to make this better. We want Project N 

money to go into the priority list but I’m not sure I’m the best person to divide it up. Don’t have a cost yet 

for rapid response do we or the timing? [Bill Stewart, Reclamation] Correct, don’t have that or the 

elements. Don’t know exactly where this funding would fit in.

[Ed Keeble, NPS] Suggested to amend language to say “in priority order to the maximum extent 

practicable. At future AMWG meetings Andrew will report back to AMWG how these funds are being 

allocated.”

[Wayne Pullan, AMWG Chair] Project N funds were defined as funds that have become available. 

Wayne wants to see a small group rewrite those two paragraphs to clarify prioritization and resolve this 

issue. Mentions that Project N funds are one source of funds and are intended to be disbursed in the same 

way. [Leslie James, CREDA] The intent was that if any funds become available anywhere then here is a 

priority list. Suggest we say, “The AMWG recommends that GCMRC Project N funds ($29,574) become 

available funds.” Then say in the next line that “If funds become available.” so that if any funds become 

available, they go down in this order. Would that work? [Sara Price, CRCN] I think so. If this really is a 

guidance document and we’re saying if we have excess funds apply them in this order, then maybe we 

have BAHG or Andrew report back. 

[Wayne Pullan, AMWG Chair] Do people feel there is a need for more clarity? [Sara Price, CRCN] 

With Leslie’s change I like it. [Kristen Johnson, ADWR] Seth’s language in chat is helpful. [Seth 

Shanahan, SNWA, from chat ] Replace "be moved into" with "be available to fund the priorities:

[Kristen Johnson, ADWR] Liked where Terra was going with the funds available clause, very clean. 

Now it’s clear but it wasn’t clear before. [Leslie James, CREDA] We were trying not to add too many 

words, but I think now with the revisions it’s what we intended. [Wayne Pullan, AMWG Chair] Do we 

need to put the amount in? [Ed Keeble, NPS] Don’t need to put the amount in if you have reporting out 

which accounts for the funds and provides transparency. [Wayne Pullan, AMWG Chair] Delete the 

piece in red? [Leslie James, CREDA] Take the dollars in parentheses out. 

[Seth Shanahan, SNWA] Would naturally be reported on as part of the budget process. [Sara Price, 

CRCN] Yield to Seth. Don’t need to make it more cumbersome. Appreciate the clarity. [Wayne Pullan, 

AMWG Chair] Are we good? [Stewart Koyiyumptewa, Hopi Tribe] Feels like Priority 1 and 2 get all 

the funding while Priority 4 will get none. [Wayne Pullan, AMWG Chair] Do you think we need to 

change the language to reflect that. [Stewart Koyiyumptewa, Hopi Tribe] Yes.
12

[Terra Alpaugh, Kearns & West] Thoughts from others. Think Stewart would move Priority 4 to a 

higher level or an equal distribution of money. [Stewart Koyiyumptewa, Hopi Tribe] It’s listed in order 

so Priority 4 will always be towards the bottom and not get any attention. [Wayne Pullan, AMWG 

Chair] Stewart is not wrong. Important to remember this is a one year motion. Doesn’t affect future 

years. Any additional funds will be spent on smallmouth bass rapid response. Recommends that if Stewart

feels that strongly about 4th priority, we look at increasing funding in priority for that in the Triannual

Work Plan for FY25-27. [Stewart Koyiyumptewa, Hopi Tribe] That is adequate. 

[Edward Wemytewa, Zuni Tribe] Will there be midterm equitable distribution depending on funding?

[Wayne Pullan, AMWG Chair] We could do that. Maybe divide any additional funding on pro rated

basis based on what’s in the FY 24 budget for those items. [Andrew Schultz, GCMRC] Scopes for these 

are different. Not sure equitable fully applies to scope of the project. 

[Kathy Callister, Reclamation] So that I’m clear, these are projects already funded in triannual 

workplan for FY 21 to FY 23. Since we are adopting FY 23 budget for FY 24 and making some changes 

to those priorities, I’d like to know who prioritized these. 

[Seth Shanahan, SNWA] The TWG prioritized these. Took a lot of discussion, it was a struggle for 

TWG as it is for AMWG. TWG representatives came to consensus on this. Priority 1 is the first priority.

Given that concern it’s the most important thing. Divvying up things in an equitable way might be 

challenging. Everyone thought these were the top priority items. 

[Kelly Burke, GCWC] We’ve had language like this in previous budget motions.

[Shana Rapoport, CRBC] Are we all of understanding that vegetation work is funded through other 

portions of the budget and Priority 4 is an additional proposed project?

[Andrew Schultz, GCMRC] Had a question on whether Priority 4 is new work or an expansion of 

existing work. It’s to fund additional fieldwork cut from the previous budget. It’s not a new project. Its 

new work related to what is already being done.

[Charles Yackulic, GCMRC] Priorities 2 -4 were in the workplan in FY 21 and FY 22. When we 

thought we had this big overhead it was cut from FY 23 and then that overhead didn’t happen. Those 

priorities did happen this year since they were the same priorities put forth by the BAHG last year with 

extra funds since overhead was lower.

[Terra Alpaugh, Kearns & West] This language structure has been used before. It sounds like Priority 1 

is large enough that even if there is additional money it could swallow any additional funds. Thus 

priorities 2 to 5 would not get any extra money. There will be another triannual work plan process starting 

and you could advocate for increased funding for these priorities for FY 25. Question is can you live with 

that structure for this or are you advocating for an equitable adjustment? So, priority approach or an 

equitable split approach? [Edward Wemytewa, Zuni Tribe] If we build houses do we want one 

complete house or 4-5 partial houses? [Stewart Koyiyumptewa, Hopi Tribe] I’m comfortable with this.

[Erik Stanfield, Navajo Nation] Generally agree with sentiment Stewart is expressing. Just looks like it 

prioritizes the fish work at the bottom. For the record might like to see a shift in FY 25 and in the future.

[Kelly Burke, GCWC] The scale of the projects is different. If we could agree an evaluation of how 

much money is available and what difference it would make to the projects. Might be only able to make 

one small house which doesn’t do much. We should add one line discussing this.

[Wayne Pullan, AMWG Chair] Are we getting close? [Jessica Neuwerth, CRBC] There is some 

disagreement in priorities, but there is value in having this clarity. Gives guidance to GCMRC and 
13

Reclamation. Seems like there will be some flexibility with this. I’m comfortable with language as it 

currently stands. 

7:35:45: Budget motion to approve by Kristen Johnson, ADWR with the caveat that we need to put the 

missing “The” in front of Department of the Interior in Priority 1. Seconded by: Sara Price, CRCN.

There were no objections. Approved by consensus. See Attachment A.

[Terra Alpaugh, Kearns & West] Note to note taker to record an explicit ACTION item to review the 

priorities in the Triannual Work Plan process, specifically Priority 4. 

NEPA updates (LTEMP SEIS, Interim Guidelines SEIS, Post 2026), 

[Rod Smith, DOI Solicitor’s Office] PRESENTATION Last fall concerned about reaching critical 

elevations with Lake Powell and Lake Mead. Kicked off process to revise guidelines within the 2026 

timeframe. Did scoping and issued the Draft EIS. The hydrology improved and the lower division states 

developed a conservation-based proposal and the upper division states recommended it be evaluated. 

Reclamation pulled the Draft EIS. Working on new analysis. You will see a Revised Supplemental Draft 

EIS this fall with full comment meetings. Hope to have a Final EIS and ROD in early 2024 to get us

through 2026. 

[Russ Callejo, Reclamation] Public scoping period finished yesterday. Received over 20K comments. 

Mostly form letters. Received hundreds of individual letters. After scoping summary report will transition 

to alternative development phase. After March 2024 will start the Draft EIS. Hope to publish Draft EIS in 

December 2024. Want to develop new guidelines to take us beyond 2026. Need a Final EIS and ROD by 

August 2026 for operations in 2027. With respect to alternatives development have established an Integral 

Technical Education workshop. Our next meeting on this is Sept 20th. Last week Reclamation’s 

Commissioner hosted the initial post 2026 Tribal State Group meeting which is designed to discuss post 

2026 topics throughout the development of the next guidelines. 

[Kathy Callister, Reclamation] The first two EISs are looking at annual releases. The LTEMP SEIS will 

be focusing on sub annual (daily, hourly, monthly) releases. In August of last year had SOI designee 

undertake the smallmouth bass EA. We were not comfortable we could get to a FONSI so in February 

2023 SOI designee recommended we transition to an EIS to address those flows. At the last few AMWGs 

heard concerns with sediment accounting window. If we’re doing an EIS for smallmouth bass, then we 

should also look at the sediment accounting window. Got a directive from the FLAHG to make

recommendation on sediment accounting window. We are officially moving forward with the review of 

the LTEMP SEIS. Bringing a contractor on board to assist with the SEIS. The LTEMP SEIS will focus on 

two concerns. 1) Flows to disadvantage smallmouth bass and other non-native warm water fish and 2) 

sediment accounting window for HFE protocols. Priorities are to get the contractor and working on the 

NOI. Once scoping comments are received will start the Draft SEIS. Targeting late spring / early summer 

2024 for the ROD. This is an extremely expedited process. Want a ROD so we can take action in time.

[David Brown, GCRG] What issues/concerns led the decision makers to believe the smallmouth bass

EA could not achieve a FONSI? [Rod Smith, DOI Solicitor’s Office] Lot of public interest in the 

smallmouth bass. There were a number of comments about the range of alternatives and what should we 

do about Issues with power customers. That made us think this was better off as an EIS.

[Leslie James, CREDA] Heard the word flows a couple of times. Is this SEIS going to address control of 

smallmouth bass or flows? [Kathy Callister, Reclamation] Will be similar to what we proposed with 

smallmouth bass EA. [Leslie James, CREDA] Aren’t we ignoring other tools that could be used to 

smallmouth bass under this NEPA effort? [Rod Smith, DOI Solicitor’s Office] Great point, that is the 
14

kind of input we want. How does what we are doing now fit into that short-term, long-term middle-term 

paradigm? Don’t know that we have a perfect answer but that’s a question we need to consider. We know 

more now than we did in 2026 about all things LTEMP. However, do want to keep this targeted, once 

guidelines are in place in 2026, we’ll have time to discuss this more. 

[Leslie James, CREDA] Does additional NEPA need to be done for Rotenone treatment? [Ed Keeble, 

NPS] All covered.

[Sara Price, CRCN] Curious on the environmental compliance companion pieces to the SEIS, familiar 

with where we are in Lower Basin but where are we in Upper Basin with the Draft Biological Assessment

and is it in tandem with the Lower Basin? [Heather Whitlaw, USFWS] In the hiatus time after the 

withdrawal of the draft document have been coordinating with upper and lower basins on both MSCP and 

adaptive management program. On track to get both Biological Assessments at the same time. Working to 

ensure Biological Assessments cover both. [Rod Smith, DOI Solicitor’s Office] Similar concept for post 

2026 with Biological Assessments. They need to travel in parallel but envision a similar approach.

[Jacob Maase, Hopi Tribe] Request a 30-day review for tribes. 15 days is not adequate. 

[Nick Williams, Reclamation] Cavitation is formation of water vapor cavities or bubbles that collapse 

back to a liquid phase. That implosion of the small bubbles is damaging to surfaces. Occurs when the 

static pressure of the liquid falls below the vapor pressure of the liquid. Occurs whenever water is moving 

fast. That happens with pumps or ship/boat propellers. At Glen Canyon, static pressure is determined by 

reservoir elevation. At a high enough water elevation water moves at 75 feet/second. Water in homes 

moves a few feet per second. Water in penstocks is at 20 feet/second. As that water moves that fast the 

pressure decreases, and the static pressure falls below the vapor pressure. Water vapor cavities formed in 

the April HFE at bends in the pipes. The water enters the outlet works horizontally, goes 50 to 60 ft, 

drops at 45 degrees, and then bends back to horizontal. That is where we observe the cavitation. At a 

lower water reservoir elevation, you can form these, and it occurs at bends in pipes. Bends create a 

localized difference in velocity and pressure. The 1965 report addressed this. Potential for this was 

known. Either need more pressure from higher elevation or need to lower velocity at the outlet works. 

This keeps the pressure higher.

Q&A and Discussions

[Jessica Neuwerth, CRBC] Timeline for recoating tubes? [Nick Williams, Reclamation] Solicitation is 

out but will take several months to procure and two months per outlet works. Eight months total. Don’t 

know for sure. [Jessica Neuwerth, CRBC] Will that limit future cavitation? [Nick Williams, 

Reclamation] Coating doesn’t prevent cavitation. It protects metal from corrosion. Always have two 

outlets ready to release water.

[Sara Price, CRCN] Recognizing this is reservoir elevation dependent. How different was the 1960 

elevation than our elevation during the HFE?

[Nick Williams, Reclamation] 1960 report was about 30 feet lower. Back then they were releasing water

to get power plant online. Lake Powell held constant to refill Lake Mead.

[Sara Price, CRCN] How soon did they discover cavitation in the 60s? [Nick Williams, Reclamation] 

Not sure how long it took. Damage we had was minor and we could use it now. But did observe pitting 

and removed some of the coating. Over time that’s an issue. [Sara Price, CRCN] What was HFE 

elevation? [Becky Bryant, Reclamation] 3,525 or so.
15

[Jessica Neuwerth, CRBC] You said that one solution is to dial down the release. Goal of an HFE is to 

release as much as possible. Any idea how much? [Nick Williams, Reclamation] Don’t know right now. 

Have done lower HFEs in the 1990s and 2021 but this is first one we’ve done at this low of an elevation. 

All the others were at elevations where cavitation was not a concern.

[Heather Whitlaw, USFWS] What about the logistics of recoating four tubes at two months apiece when 

we want to use outlet works in June of next year? Don’t want to trip over each other. [Nick Williams, 

Reclamation] Will review schedule with operational requirement or needs. Will do one at a time. Will 

pause as needed for operational approval. 

Public Comments

[John Weisheit] Four outlet tubes are 100 feet below penstocks. Depth of penstocks only 30 feet. Sounds 

like it would harm penstocks more than outlet. What’s the condition of the penstocks at the curve? [Nick 

Williams, Reclamation] Velocity through penstocks is much lower than velocity through outlet works. 

The drop in pressure occurring doesn’t lead to cavitation in penstocks. 

From Teo Melis in the chat: 

https://www.usbr.gov/tsc/techreferences/hydraulics_lab/pubs/manuals_monographs.html . See Falvey 

1990 - Engineering Monograph 42 "Cavitation in Chutes and Spillways". The frontispiece of the Falvey 

report shows a great example of cavitational erosion in 1983 at GCD.
16

Thursday, August 17, 20232

Start Time: 8:30 AM PST

Conducting: Wayne Pullan, AMWG Chair.

Recorder: David McIntyre, SeaJay Environmental, LLC.

Facilitator: Terra Alpaugh, Kearns & West, Inc.

40:28 Welcome and Administrative

[Wayne Pullan, AMWG Chair] Welcomed everyone back. 

Introductions and Determination of Quorum [Terra Alpaugh, Kearns & West] Roll call taken 

and a quorum reached with 20 members represented. 

GCMRC update on Spring 2023 HFE and other Activities

[Paul Grams, GCMRC] PRESENTATION Planned HFE was 72 hours at 39,500 CFS. Observed 

discharge at Lees Ferry was 66 hours at 39,000 to 40,000 CFS. Lots of inflows from tributaries so by time 

it was at Diamond Creek it was up to 45,000 at River Mile 165. Didn’t use straight LTEMP accounting 

window. Special circumstances. HFE design based on sediment accumulated in previous year. Sediment 

accumulation beginning July 2022. Preliminary HFE results were higher sand concentrations in mid 

Marble Canyon with slightly coarser sand. Sand concentration is higher in the central Grand Canyon. 

Larger than normal Pariah River floods starting next week which increases the likelihood of a fall HFE 

trigger.

[Joel Sankey, GCMRC] PRESENTATION Total number of Type 1 cultural sites has decreased since 

1973. Archaeological sites within aeolian dune field downstream from a river sand bar that gets sand from 

the sand bar is the ideal preservation scenario. Three ways to increase aeolian supply of river sourced 

sand. Two ways have to do with experimental flow releases; one has to do with HFEs and the other has to 

do with lowering dam releases. The third is minimizing vegetation on sandbars that blocks aeolian sand. 

Question is whether removal of riparian vegetation barriers allows for an increase in aeolian sand and 

preservation in place (LTEMP goal). 

Q&A and Discussion

[Stewart Koyiyumptewa, Hopi Tribe] This experiment is for protection of cultural sites. Like to see 

those on your slides so we can really see if it’s working. [Joel Sankey, GCMRC] Can’t disclose 

locations of sites as per direction of NPS who manage the sites. Can show site specific examples at annual 

meeting. [Ed Keeble, NPS] If tribal members have an interest NPS can share directly. 

[Larry Stevens, GCWG] What is the best time for HFE? [Joel Sankey, GCMRC] Spring is windiest, 

summer is next windiest. Ideal time is as early as possible in spring.

[Martina Dawley, Hualapai] Stated that you learned at a conference you are the only ones doing this 

experiment. You should not disregard indigenous methods and experimentation and this type of 

preservation. People have been living in the Grand Canyon for a long time. There has to be evidence the 

people living there were working with the environment to maintain preservation. That would help since 

we are stakeholders as well. Like to see you not discount indigenous methods. 

[Stewart Koyiyumptewa, Hopi Tribe] Don’t understand the science behind the method. Taking plants 

and vegetation away is opposite of what I’m used to. If you are just taking away invasives that is okay. If 
17

there are other plants tribes used in these areas, we should look at this again. Like you to work with tribes

on this so we are not clearing everything out. [Joel Sankey, GCMRC] Like to engage with you on this. 

There are opportunities to make changes to this experiment to not only keep the sites buried but to also 

retain desired vegetation communities.

[Larry Stevens, GCWC] You mentioned grain size increased because you waited for spring HFE. Did

the grain size increase matter much? Did we lose anything by waiting? [Paul Grams, GCMRC] Not that 

we can tell. Will do another survey in October. That will be after they’ve eroded a bit. Doubt it will make 

a lot of difference. [Larry Stevens, GCWC] So didn’t lose too much by waiting except that grain size is

slightly coarser.

1:22:23 Recommendation from the Technical Work Group regarding revisions to the 

HFE protocol 

[Wayne Pullan, AMWG Chair] Not that long ago we requested this work be done. Thanks to all 

engaged in this. Discussed in meetings prior to August. Held a special TWG meeting last week to update 

the protocol. Passed a consensus motion earlier in August. 

[Seth Shanahan, SNWA] Given this directive back in February 2023, TWG established a FLAHG to 

form a proposal. Submitted outline to AMWG in May 2023. Had a special TWG meeting to review HFE 

protocol. Were successful in August to pass a consensus motion. Reviewed the motion: “The TWG 

accepts the proposal to amend the HFE Protocol and Other Considerations and moves to forward it to the 

AMWG to meet the directive given at the Feb 15, 2023 Meeting”. This document identifies some HFE 

protocols that were acceptable to the TWG. 

[Paul Grams, GCMRC] PRESENTATION on the background of this proposal. HFEs were missed in 

2015, 2021 and 2022 due to non-native fish and low Lake Powell elevations. HFE triggers increase in 

sand bars during periods of frequent HFEs. Sandbars decreased during 2021 and 2022. Need to rethink 

triggering mechanism. Three things required for successful HFEs 1) need sand in system 2) need right 

grain size and 3) HFE magnitude, duration and frequency are great enough to move sand. HFE magnitude 

controls how high you can build a sandbar. HFE duration maximizes the period of those elevated sand 

concentrations. Frequency is needed to rebuild the deposits that erode between HFEs. Sediment 

accounting period based on the Pariah River. Inputs are from July to December. Fall HFE window is 

ideally designed to take advantage of these. Spring HFE window considers other inputs. This is most 

important when we have high winter releases. Lower releases require us to accumulate sediment all 

winter. Then we have one accounting period with two implementation windows. 

[Charlie Ferrantelli, Wyoming State Engineers Office] Was there a purpose in the LTEMP for having 

two different periods? [Paul Grams, GCMRC] When you have high winter releases which is typical. 

When the reservoir is fuller than it was you tend to have higher operations in the winter. Less 

advantageous to do an HFE in the spring. When the protocol was built high winter releases were the 

norm. [Charlie Ferrantelli, Wyoming State Engineers Office] How is zeroing it out advantageous?

[Paul Grams, GCMRC] There wasn’t a motivation to make it possible to do it in the spring. In 2008 it 

was observed the spring HFE had some benefits to the trout fishery at Lees Ferry. Concern it would cause 

the trout population to increase, move downstream and interact with chub. Good sediment and low desire 

to do spring HFE pushed everyone to doing a fall HFE. Was not easy to do in the spring. [Rod Smith, 

DOI] With windows resetting it’s a conservative way to ensure you’re not eroding the sand that is there. 

Always have a positive sand balance. [Charlie Ferrantelli, Wyoming State Engineers Office] If we do 
18

go and do an SEIS and there is some reason to zero it out, is there an intent? [Paul Grams, GCMRC] 

Intention is to do HFEs as soon after inputs as possible. What is your priority? Fall implementation is best 

for best sand conditions but there are other considerations. 

[Paul Grams, GCMRC] Looking at the reach from the Pariah River to River Mile 61. Measure sand 

inputs from the Pariah and make estimates for tributaries. Have a gauge at 61 that is analyzing samples of 

sand concentrations every 15 minutes calibrated against physical samples. The inputs minus outputs is 

what is left on the river bottom. That’s what is used for HFE planning. Accounting period is the time 

period over the mass balance. Could calculate the mass balance for any period they want. 

[Stewart Koyiyumptewa, Hopi Tribe] Where does the Marble Canyon end on your map and the Grand 

Canyon start? [Paul Grams, GCMRC] At the Little Colorado River Confluence.

[Paul Grams, GCMRC] PRESENTATION Here’s what we triggered if we triggered in November. 

Using this 1-year accounting window approach what duration HFE can we run in November and what 

duration HFE can we run in Spring? Planning and Implementation (P&I) Team will look at this 

information in Sept/October and decide if we are implementing HFE in November or April. We could do 

this in November and April. The difference is the exports that happen over the winter. Conditions are 

typically better in November, but you can still do it in the spring. Might get inputs over winter. If so, you 

can rerun the models in March and may be able to do a better HFE in Spring. LTEMP analysis expected

Fall HFE is 77%. Actual observed from 2012 to 2022 was 73%. Implemented were 5 of the 11 HFEs so 

45%. For Spring HFE, LTEMP expected 5 of 20 years, reality was none triggered. Winter inputs have 

turned out to be less than historical and less than predicted in LTEMP analysis. We have not done the 

exact same analysis that LTEMP did, that will be done in SEIS. We have done a post hoc analysis of 

2012 to the present. Would have the same 8 out of 11 years that were actually triggered with the fall 

accounting. So, every year we had a trigger following the LTEMP accounting we have a trigger following 

the one year sediment accounting. In those we could do either fall or spring. This proposed change would 

allow us to do fall and spring but it’s up to P&I Team. Only 3 of 11 years would have enough sediment 

where you could do both. If you decide to do spring, you cannot do fall. 

[Larry Stevens, GCWC] Hydrologists rely on this for floods, ecologists recognize that timing matters a 

lot. Bringing our process up to speed with eco and hydro considerations of the timing, magnitude, and 

frequency of flooding is us stepping forward. We’ve made a major step forward beyond our internal 

biases. Springtime floods are the right kind of floods for the Colorado River Ecosystem. 

[Brian Sadler, WAPA]. Did you discuss how the tech team would work in making these decisions in fall 

versus spring? In past years Fall HFE we released a lot more water so we’re working with Reclamation to 

pull that water volume from early spring. So, spring HFEs where that water comes from is very 

important. [Paul Grams, GCMRC] That’s a good reason to go this route. You can do a lot more 

planning and decide when you want to implement it. [Sinjin Eberle, American Rivers] We did discuss 

it. 

[David Brown, GCRG] Heard a lot of discussion on inputs and high winter flows are something we 

(WAPA) controls. Can Brian explain decisions behind high winter flows and what may have changed 

recently in terms of the winter flow regime and outputs from the dam. [Brian Sadler, WAPA] Need 

more data to give you a complete answer. During DROA period Reclamation has made decisions through 

that process to reduce volumes early in the water year which has reduced winter volumes. Historically in 
19

determining monthly winter volumes in the LTEMP process, it wasn’t part of the LTEMP process but 

these higher demands in winter and summer relate to the value of energy in those months. 

[Wayne Pullan, AMWG Chair] On the rollover, is sediment that has been in the system for a year as 

available for transport as more recent sediment? [Paul Grams, GCMRC] It’ll be coarser grained. Not as 

ideal but that might be a reason to see how long of a rollover makes sense. In 2008, sediment accumulated 

over a couple of year period went into that HFE. It was successful. 

[Wayne Pullan, AMWG Chair] We discussed the concern in 2015 about trout. What’s the state of our 

understanding of that now? [Charles Yackulic, GCMRC] In 2015 issue was green sunfish, they are 

everywhere in the Grand Canyon now in low numbers, but they have been increasing last 5 to 7 years. 

Not enough abundance to be affecting humpback chub yet. Pretty bad on AZ streams and rivers on native 

fish. Taken off with warmer temperatures. Colorado rivers might not be so bad. Spring 2008 had good 

rainbow trout response. We’ll know soon this fall if later spring HFE is good or bad. Concerns in past 

about late HFE effects on rainbow trout. 1996 spring HFE was good for rainbow trout. Early spring HFE 

is better than later. 

2:02:06 [Sinjin Eberle, American Rivers] PRESENTATION Discussed how proposal was developed. 

FLAHG was charged with working with GCMRC to draft an outline and full proposal for amending the 

HFE protocol and consider the information developed by GCMRC. Reviewed the activities to get to this 

point. An outline was presented at the April TWG. An update was provided in June. Reviewed the 

proposed changes.

[Seth Shanahan, SNWA] One element that was requested but that isn’t there is the compliance element. 

Could not reach any consensus and also it seems like Reclamation is already addressing that. 

[Heather Whitlaw, USFWS] Where is discussion for rollover in the document? [Sinjin Eberle, 

American Rivers] Section 5 page 11. 

[Leslie James, CREDA] You’re correct there is not a suggested change to the P&I Team as outlined in 

LTEMP. There is a concern about timing of decision making. That is not specifically addressed in 

LTEMP. For everyone on the P&I Team this proposal provides flexibility, it doesn’t provide flexibility to

decide to do an HFE in a week. Very important P&I Team makes decisions timely. 

[Wayne Pullan, AMWG Chair] With respect to Leslie’s comment, how does this extend the runway for 

decision making? This proposal seems to have the potential for us to decide earlier. [Rod Billerbeck, 

NPS] Right now with a fall HFE you start looking at the numbers and things can change weekly. If lucky 

then you get three weeks. If we had a longer window, we would not be so compressed into a short time 

period. [Seth Shanahan, SNWA] An element of the decision framework is what date works? Come fall 

you can potentially recommend not to do a fall HFE because you’re going to do a spring HFE, and you 

can do months of planning. Lots of opportunities for flexibility. 

[Sinjin Eberle, American Rivers] Paul’s chart show’s you’ll have a good chunk of sand. [Wayne 

Pullan, AMWG Chair] By being able to consider spring we’ll know what water year we’ll have. [Sinjin 

Eberle, American Rivers] This year was a good example as we got a huge late snow. So, we had the 

opportunity and the sand from the last two years. The maintenance window enabled this also. [Seth 
20

Shanahan, SNWA] Lot of concern this past fall due to so many unknowns. We were not certain where 

we’d be for critical elevations. Kept us from recommending a fall HFE. This allows for a better decision.

[Erik Stanfield, Navajo Nation] Will recommendation process remain the same? Thinking about 

consultation and tribal participation. [Sinjin Eberle, American Rivers] No changes. [Kathy, Callister, 

Reclamation] Also addressed in the LTEMP PA in coordination and consultation on experiments.

[Kevin Garlick, UMPA] If you have the longer term to view this it seems like Reclamation can look at 

its maintenance and have more time to ensure that all generators are available which would increase the 

HFE size. [Sinjin Eberle, American Rivers] Adds a lot more flexibility.

[Martina, Dawley, Hualapai] Where does the experiment affect Diamond Down? How does that fit into 

the HFE? These all look like predictions. Where does that fall? [Paul Grams, GCMRC] The dynamics 

of sand in that reach are being studied. Should not be a change from fall to spring. [Martina Dawley, 

Hualapai Tribe] Seems like there is a lack of research in that area. Is the focus from Lees ferry to 

Diamond Down? [Paul Grams, GCMRC] Correct that is where the focus has been, but we do know it 

builds sand bars on Diamond Down. [Martina Dawley, Hualapai Tribe] When I talk to our natural 

resources, game and fish and our corporation they want to know where Diamond Down fits since it seems 

to be always left out. [Paul Grams, GCMRC] We have a study there but no results yet. Started in 2021 

looking at reach near Columbine Falls once they get the data analyzed.

[Sara Price, CRCN] I think I understand purpose of broadening the accounting window. What was 

original intent of separating them? [Paul Grams, GCMRC] It was a combination of concerns with doing 

them in Spring that followed the 2008 HFE. Back in 2012 fall made more sense. Started optimizing for 

the fall. Two window methods currently optimize for doing them in the fall. Original intent of LTEMP 

was to do them in spring when we had later winter/early spring sediment inputs. Did not have them the 

first 11 years. Have started to see different conditions now. [Sara Price, CRCN] So reason for favoring 

fall HFE was to take advantage before the spring runoffs so that you’re doing HFE at end of the season 

and you have the lowest inflow. [Paul Grams, GCMRC] In terms of hydrology, that was not a factor in 

this at all. [Sara Price, CRCN] Why does sand erode in winter? [Paul Grams, GCMRC] Typical 

LTEMP pattern was high fluctuating flows over winter. That was the norm before changing conditions in 

the last few years.

[Brian Sadler, WAPA] It’s the high monthly volumes that are the bigger factor in eroding sand. 

[Charles Yackulic, GCMRC] Important context to remember was we were coming off 2008 spring HFE 

and there were a lot of rainbow trout. Concern about the impacts of rainbow trout on humpback chub and 

non-native EA and concerns about removal. Since then, learned that rainbow trout are not doing well and 

not affecting humpback chub. That was part of context not to have spring HFEs. [Paul Grams, 

GCMRC] Fall HFE was relatively simple to implement. Didn’t want P&I Team to have to decide

something complicated. Don’t want them to decide between fall and spring. Now it’s worth it. That 

flexibility was not desired back then.

[David Brown, GCRG] Now realizing LTEMP forecast not panning out. Spring HFE was never going to 

occur. Now we’ve had a spring HFE. This is a clear demonstration of adaptive management. We’re 

recognizing through science that we need to be changing things to improve the decision-making criteria. I 

think there was a lot of concern about Diamond Down and navigation in the river from Diamond Down. 

If there were more spring HFEs it might be able to create a more navigable channel from Diamond Down. 
21

[Larry Stevens, GCWC] If we step back, we are passing through phases of perception about the system. 

Perceptions of how high flows can benefit native and non-native species. Everything we do is all a best 

guest. This is active adaptive management and probably the best adaptive management program in the 

world. Realizing we have bias in the system, and we are correcting them. 

[Leslie James, CREDA] The group had a lot of discussion as one change is to extend to June. Without a 

lot of analysis which needs to be done, from an initial gut feel we have concerns about June. We all know 

June is hot. Why extend into June? [Sinjin Eberle, American Rivers] Fish and invertebrate life benefit 

the most in June. We had a season of water from spring runoff and now we know how much water is 

going to be there to do this. The last thing is it extends the aeolian season to benefit cultural preservation.

[Paul Grams, GCMRC] If those go forward then can combine and have an HFE bypass in April and a 

smallmouth bass bypass in June then do one in June. If smallmouth bass goes away, then P&I Team will 

be looking at tradeoffs and having that flexibility makes sense. [Leslie James, CREDA] What we always 

look at from a hydropower standpoint is not just when you perform HFE but months you are pulling 

water from. [Sinjin Eberle, American Rivers] Another one is that going into the summer recreation 

season in May and June would provide fresh new beaches. The June issue and the rollover issue were the 

things we discussed the most. [Ed Keeble, NPS] June is when reservoir is highest and that is when 

natural flooding occurs.

[Terra Alpaugh, Kearns & West] Pulled up what is definitely being recommended and what is being 

recommended for analysis. This will be further analyzed in the SEIS. Document is very clear about 

wanting these tradeoffs analyzed. Motion language needs massaging. Are you comfortable making 

motion to the SOI or do we need more discussion?

[Martina Dawley, Hualapai Tribe] Want to emphasize it doesn’t specifically state it leads directly to 

Diamond. Down. Like to have Diamond Down included in future research. [Terra Alpaugh, Kearns & 

West] How can we address that particular request in the context of motion. [Seth Shanahan, SNWA]

Need to acknowledge in the EIS that impacts of that area are considered. Then we’d know what the 

impacts are. [Martina Dawley, Hualapai Tribe] Just wanted to confirm that is what’s happening. We 

support that.

[Charlie Ferrantelli, Wyoming State Engineers Office] Regarding impacts to rainbow trout. Curious if 

GCMRC or anyone else feels comfortable looking at that as some sort of impact due to this different 

accounting period so that the SEIS is not more vulnerable? Want to keep it as condensed as possible. 

[Charles Yackulic, GCMRC] We can look at that. Need to talk to some others about the rainbow trout 

fishery. Think we have a decent understanding of what might go on. The actual HFE disturbs eggs that 

have been laid and then there is a couple week period with no food and then the food base is rejuvenated. 

March HFEs are good for rainbow trout since you are not disturbing eggs. Concerns with June HFE are 

that we are disturbing older fish. 

[Leslie James, CREDA] We’re right on a topic that will be part of a SEIS along with smallmouth bass. 

In the context of the HFE protocol I’ve had concerns that given the short time folks had to pull together 

smallmouth bass we would like to suggest time to get the fisheries biology people to look at alternatives

for smallmouth bass. Trout and smallmouth bass biologists need to talk about this. [Charles Yackulic, 

GCMRC] Part of the reasoning is you have smallmouth bass or brown trout which are limiting 

recruitment of rainbows. Lots of things happening are not good for rainbow trout. Open to discussing 
22

smallmouth bass again but did spend five months last year on a smallmouth bass task force and had 

multiple agencies involved. Model used is developed from Green River smallmouth bass populations. 

[Leslie James, CREDA] Moving to an EIS from an EA so we need a robust range of alternatives for 

SEIS. Moving into a much different framework. [Rod Smith, SOI] Whether it’s warm or cold water fish 

or Diamond Down, all that comes into play in the SEIS process. If this goes live and we’re doing it and 

planning HFE there is another relook at all the site specific conditions. Any new issues will be considered 

in the NEPA document and during implementation.

[Sara Price, CRCN] My understanding is we are looking at this proposal and we’ve discussed how to 

analyze this whether in a NEPA document or on its own. This particular motion is to move the protocol 

forward for consideration and analysis. Assume there would be a separate decision on how this occurs.

Does it come back to us, or do we need to have that conversation here first?

[Wayne Pullan, AMWG Chair] If AMWG approves and it goes forward to SOI, it will be important for 

this to be included in the LTEMP SEIS. [Sara Price, CRCN] Is it a given that if moved forward then it 

does get included in the smallmouth bass SEIS? [Wayne Pullan, AMWG Chair] It will be included, 

might have some changes when it becomes an alternative. It will have the approval of AMWG behind it.

[Sara Price, CRCN] It sounds like it might be worth having a discussion on that process, what the 

complications are, and what the concerns might be. [Wayne Pullan, AMWG Chair] We can discuss the 

NEPA process. [Sara Price, CRCN] I don’t know if I have a strong feeling as to whether the accounting 

protocol and smallmouth bass need to be together or separate. I am concerned about seeing the 

smallmouth bass piece move forward. Less concerned if it’s together or apart. Heard various concerns 

about whether they stay together or separate. [Wayne Pullan, AMWG Chair] We’ve discussed this 

among the federal agencies. Due to the urgency of the smallmouth bass effort, Kathy and Bill say they 

can keep these together and meet the schedule. Intent is to keep them together.

[David Brown, GCRG] Agree it seems premature to say how this would be taken into a NEPA context. 

Concerned about the Purpose and Need and Range of Alternatives getting very big. Smallmouth bass

needs to happen as well as HFE protocol. Seems like a different discussion. This is a consideration but 

maybe not an approval. Approval is a federal thing that needs to be analyzed in NEPA. 

2:57:43 Break

3:19:25 [Wayne Pullan, AMWG Chair] Become clear that we need to reconsider triggers for HFEs. We 

asked in February for an analysis of how we might change things. This is what we asked for from the 

FLAHG and TWG. They prepared recommendations that incorporate affected resources and things to be 

considered if implemented. Does AMWG want to give this to the SOI to consider? These 

recommendations are things to be considered if they are to be implemented. Would be part of smallmouth 

bass and changes to HFE NEPA document. Will be an opportunity for input from everyone.

[Terra Alpaugh, Kearns & West] Reviewed the AMWG Motion Language. See attachment B

[Terra Alpaugh, Kearns & West] Further edits? (There were none). Final language is below:

The Adaptive Management Work Group (AMWG) accepts the Proposal to Amend the High-Flow 

Experiment Protocol and Other Considerations to meet the Directive given at the February 15, 

2023, AMWG meeting, and recommends it to the Secretary for inclusion in the LTEMP SEIS 

process. Kristen Johnson, ADWR: Moves to forward recommendation to SOI for inclusion in the 
23

LTEMP SEIS with precise language on screen. Matt Rice, American Rivers: Seconds. No one opposed. 

Motion approved.

Basin Fund Presentation

[Rodney Bailey, WAPA] PRESENTATION WAPA is one of four federal power marketing 

administrations under the DOE. WAPA has 57 powerplants in their purview. Operated by Reclamation, 

the USACE, or the IBWC. They generate power and WAPA markets it. Responsible for 17,000 miles of 

transmission line. The CRSP is one of five regions within WAPA. CRSP is responsible for water storage 

projects along the Colorado River or its tributaries. Glen Canyon Dam is their biggest resource (75% of 

generation). Revenues received go to both WAPA and Reclamation. CRSP maintains 2,300 miles of 

transmission line. WAPA provides dispatchable energy. There are approximately 38 balancing authorities 

throughout the west. WAPA operates four of them. When we have to replace the generation that is lost 

it’s often with a fossil fuel product. When WAPA loses generation it has a huge impact on the electric 

grid through increased prices, blackouts and rolling brownouts. CRSP transmission was built as a wheel 

and spoke. Basin Fund important to maintain this transmission system. 1956 CRSP Act established the 

Basin Fund. The Basin Fund doesn’t receive appropriations. It’s funded by power revenues.

[Brian Sadler, WAPA] PRESENTATION Basin Fund unique within WAPA. The Basin Fund is 

separate from normal appropriations. The Desert Southwest Region is different from CRSP. Have to 

maintain a balance in fund to operate. WAPA was created in 1977 when the DOE was created. Formerly 

part of Reclamation. Replacements are capital expenditures, e.g., transformers at bottom of Glen Canyon 

Dam. Money is given to Reclamation to do the actual work. This cost goes into their rate and is collected 

back from customers over many years. Have to pay Treasury back for initial loan. Non reimbursable 

program has been a great solution for many years. Used to have $30M of interest due annually. Return 

requirements are significantly lower now. Purpose of the Basin Fund is to operate and maintain CRSP. 

Returns occur when available funds are in excess of operating needs. Have not had any funds in excess of 

operating needs for a while now. Some critical Basin Fund requirements: Reclamation and WAPA O&M 

expenses are $117M in 2023. Aging infrastructure requires $99M capital expenditures planned in FY 24 -

26. Can we reimagine the Experimental Fund and Budget? Are there alternative funding sources? Want a 

solution to smallmouth bass issue but concerns about flow actions previously proposed as it would 

significantly affect the Basin Fund and our ability to continue to administer the Colorado River Storage 

Project. Want to look at all the tools to address smallmouth bass. The slough? Want to help but WAPA 

has legal requirements they must fulfill.

Q&A and Discussion

[Matt Rice, American Rivers] Is the Basin Fund statutorily prohibited from receiving appropriations?

[Brian Sadler, WAPA] Under the CRSP Act, we shall operate without further appropriations. However,

Congress can do whatever they want. They did authorize some funds to be used under the BIL, but those 

funds must be returned. The time frame is not clear but understood we will need to return funds after the 

drought. 

[David Brown, GCRG] WAPA is in a tough spot, but others are too. Two questions: I didn’t quite 

follow the gas station analogy (3 gas stations in town and 2 go down so only one left to provide gas). Can 

WAPA take on NEPA actions to change some underlying operational requirements and commitments?

Seems like very dire circumstances for WAPA in next decade. [Rodney Bailey, WAPA] There are a lot 

of generators right now, but a lot of fossil fuel generators are now offline and more fossil fuels are 

dropping off and being replaced by renewables. New generation is not coming soon enough to replace 

them. [David Brown, GCRG] So there is less supply of dispatchable power as fossil fuel and 

hydropower is retired? There are lots of challenges in CA but battery storage and other technologies 
24

should be helping. Our energy portfolio is transforming. Hydropower is unique and there are less of those 

types available. 

[Larry Stevens, GCWC] Question about figure that showed a concentration of energy users was along 

Wasatch Front in UT. Is the Wasatch front regulating energy flow through the system? Are there other 

customers besides your firm customers drawing on your resources? [Rodney Bailey, WAPA] Those red 

dots are municipalities, but they are only part of the customer base. Look at all the colored polygons on 

the map to see all our customers - co-ops, tribes, among others. 

[Stewart Koyiyumptewa, Hopi Tribe] Navajo Generating Station is closed and has no revenue. When 

Hopi started monitoring in the 90s, the outlook was good, but our monitoring budget has not changed. 

Trying to raise funding to participate in this program. Hoping you will end on a good note with more 

money coming in so you can provide more funds for monitoring programs, but it looks like we’ll be in the 

same rut. [Rodney Bailey, WAPA] Not opposed to funding some studies that need to go on but need to 

discuss how much money that is and how we do that. We cannot fully fund everything that is going on

with this program.

[Greg Mehojah, BIA] Given discussion of fossil fuel coming offline, is WAPA looking at diversification 

of any kind with renewables? [Rodney Bailey, WAPA] One issue that we have is we don’t have 

authority to build. We can contract long term PPAs for our customers. Working with customers to see if

they are interested in WAPA going out and making a long term purchase. Did send RFI out to see who 

wants to sell energy. Got 25 responses. Most are solar and most take 3-4 years for construction. [Greg 

Mehojah, BIA] Presume you could go to Congress to get permission to expand what you are allowed to

build and operate? Seems like there is enough uncertainty to do this. [Rodney Bailey, WAPA] WAPA 

cannot do it themselves. Someone else has to do it. Another challenge is that WAPA has fixed costs that 

are recovered on a per unit basis. The less generated the more it costs. Trying to keep costs low and sell as 

much as possible to keep rates down. Costs will likely increase due to inflation. If rates get too high, then 

out of business.

[Christina Noftsker, NMISC] Does WAPA have authority to build additional transmission lines? 

[Rodney Bailey, WAPA] We do but we don’t have a requirement. We don’t have load growth 

responsibilities. We have enough transmission for the generation we have.

[Sheri Farag, CREDA] Can you talk about WAPA contractual obligations and the role of those contracts 

and your rate and how that fits with the Basin Fund? [Rodney Bailey, WAPA] WAPA has 30-year 

contracts that end next year. The next set will go through 2057. They establish contractual obligations. 

Under the current rate we have some flexibility. It’s based on what it can generate. Rates are cost based 

including interest and repayment. Includes repayment of irrigation projects and ability of irrigators to

repay. 

4:32:13: LUNCH

5:33:33 [Terra Alpaugh, Kearns & West] Terra reviewed the agenda for the afternoon. 

Federal Agency Updates

• USGS: Andrew Schultz GCMRC fieldwork below Glen Canyon Dam is ongoing and will wrap 

up after mid-summer lull. Terrestrial vegetation monitoring is going on now and riparian 

vegetation monitoring starting right after. Water quality and sediment monitoring now with sand 
25

bar monitoring in October. September to November we have five humpback chub and three trout 

monitoring efforts. Doing modeling support for NEPA with Reclamation. Staffing ongoing.

• USFWS: Heather Whitlaw Introduced Deb Williams who is the special assistant to the 

Assistant Regional Director for the Colorado River. She is a liaison between Reclamation and 

USFWS. Ramping up Colorado River program and hiring folks. The humpback chub recovery 

team is working steadily. USFWS published a proposal to delist Apache trout due to recovery 

efforts. Well on our way to recovery. Lots of cooperation with White Mountain Apache Tribe. 

Lots of success with humpback chub population numbers. We can delist species due to recovery.

• Reclamation: Kathy Callister Staffing update. Lots of NEPA updates are going on. Adaptive 

management program hired three biologists including a deputy project manager (Jeremy 

Hammen) which was held by Clarence Fullard. Clarence has moved to the water quality and 

salinity group.

• NPS: Ed Keeble NPS working with several cooperating agencies will do chemical treatment to 

control invasive fish in Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. Section 106 consultation and 

planning completed for emergency actions. Included 2019 Expanded Non Native Aquatics 

Species management plan EA and FONSI. Tribal consultation occurred. Site visit to Slough with

Zuni October 4. The Zuni are pressing for preventative solutions. Reclamation issued report on 

Grand Canyon slough and NPS is reviewing and assembling an IDT to look at this. Did six

electrofishing trips last fall and identified 345 smallmouth bass in Glen Canyon National 

Recreation Area. This year both parks have been assembling personnel and equipment to continue 

this. Have $500,000 this year for that. Spring 2023 initiated efforts to eradicate these fish. 

USFWS provided staff and NPS provided money. Found 589 smallmouth bass in Grand Canyon

and none detected in Grand Canyon proper. 

• BIA: Greg Mehojah His letter was signed today.

• WAPA: Pass

• DOI Solicitor’s Office, Rod Smith: Quick update on LTEMP litigation. In 2019 three NGOs 

sued the DOI saying the LTEMP was wrong in respect to climate change. They want an SEIS 

even if climate change had been done directly. Ultimately prevailed in District court and it was 

appealed to 9th Circuit. Federal brief filed last month. Appellate brief to be filed Sept 22. Might be 

couple more AMWG meetings before we know anything. 

[Wayne Pullan, AMWG Chair] Asked Michelle to update everyone on the slough. 

[Michelle Kearns, NPS] NPS team has been tasked with looking at opportunities in places they could 

exploit. Since 2021 NPS has been working with USACE to address infrastructure. Have a commitment 

from them, a Regional General Permit 6, they have done a lot of work under. Given the extensive analysis 

Reclamation did with their proposed modifications and others the application process under NWP 27 or 

an individual permit could be initiated immediately and USACE would be receptive to whatever path 

NPS would like to pursue. As they are establishing this interdivisional tiger team, they will be working 

that at Glen Canyon. 

[Larry Stevens, GCWC] That’s great news the USACE is willing to move forward. Strongly encourages

the NPS to move as swiftly as possible. Has been three plus years to address this while the work could be 

done in weeks. Sorry it takes so long to solve a simple problem.

[Wayne Pullan, AMWG Chair] Important to remember that any construction on the Colorado River will 

be controversial. Slough will take some time. Have had conversations among DOI agencies about NEPA 

work for the slough and does it need to be combined with LTEMP. Don’t think it will expedite things. 
26

Doing them separately has independent value. Since we are taking on triannual workplan like to simplify

that effort so as to spend as few resources as possible and still generate a good product. Need to keep 

making progress in non-fish areas. Cannot afford to lose ground. Congress passed the Infrastructure 

Reinvestment Act. Upper Basin allocated $500M. Reclamation expended about $17M for short term 

conservation projects (Bucket 1). Bucket 2 is for longer term conservation projects involving 

infrastructure work. Looking at Bucket 3. Think about projects that might be eligible for Bucket 3 

funding. In the preliminary stages of putting programs together but we will know more in the fall. 

[Kristen Johnson ADWR] Are Buckets 1 and 2 Lower Basin only? [Wayne Pullan, AMWG Chair]

Buckets 1 and 2 are both Upper and Lower Basin and Bucket 3 will be as well. [Kristen Johnson 

ADWR] So the Lower Colorado System Efficiency and Conservation Program? [Wayne Pullan, 

AMWG Chair] They were allocated a bigger chunk than the Upper Basin was. [Kristen Johnson 

ADWR] Is there a call for proposals out for these buckets? [Wayne Pullan, AMWG Chair] Bucket 1 

was out, and we funded projects in advance of the irrigation season. It wasn’t Lower Basin amounts of 

water. Evaluating Bucket 1 to see if we extend it for a year but focus is Bucket 2. 

6:04:00 Stakeholder Updates

States: 

[Kristen Johnson, ADWR] A seven state letter was submitted in response to the scoping notice on 

Tuesday. Will share with anyone. Arizona also signed onto the Lower Basin letter with California and 

Nevada. Also, ADWR submitted its own Lower Basin letter speaking for the state. Implementation of an

ICS framework should be considered and renegotiated, and Reclamation should implement a review 

under the 417 process for beneficial use in both the Upper and Lower basins. 

[Julie Carter, AZGFD] No update.

[Jessica Neuwerth, CRBC] Finalized several scoping letters. Primary point of the seven states letter was 

that the states are committed to producing a basin states alternative for the EIS. Bucket 2 is wrapping up. 

Lots of folks in California are interested in Bucket 2 funding and are also seeking funds under Bucket 1. 

California on track to create 400,000 AF in wet water. Committed to doing this for next four years. 

[Michelle Garrison, CWCB] Ditto on Kristen’s comments. There was an Upper Division States’ letter 

through the UCRC and letter from Colorado commenting on SEIS. UCRC put together a pilot program 

for 2023 using those funds we just discussed. UCRC received 80 applications and are moving forward. 

System conservation occurring in Upper Basin and lessons learned from UCRC is coming in December.

[Christina Noftsker, NMISC] Participated in Upper Basin states UCRC comment letter and the seven 

states letter for the Post 2026 EIS and submitted a New Mexico only letter. On the system conservation 

pilot program, we contracted with Navajo Agricultural Products Industry for 39 different fields for a total 

of 2,641 acres of fallowing. Total conserved water use is approximately 4,000 AF. Will stay in Navajo 

reservoir. Working with The Nature Conservancy (TNC) to place 20,000 AF of Jicarilla Apache water 

that is stored in the New Mexico strategic water reserve. As part of San Juan Implementation and 

Recovery Program interested in improving habitat for Colorado pike minnow and razorback sucker in the 

San Juan Basin. In coordination with Reclamation leased water was released this spring (June 13-15) with 

15,000 AF released and 5,000 AF remaining to test monitoring equipment.

[Sara Price, CRCN] Submitted letters on the Post 2026 EIS and submitted letters under CRCN 

letterhead targeting concerns and interests on hydropower generation and the desire/interest/need for full 
27

impact analysis on hydropower generation. This is Laura Dye’s last AMWG meeting as she is moving to 

USGS. 

[Betsy Morgan, Colorado River Authority of Utah] Will be represented at the AMWG in future by 

Amy Haas. Laura will be the alternate. Utah did submit its own letter. In July Senators Romney and 

Hickenlooper sponsored the Reauthorization Bill for the Upper Colorado River and San Juan Recovery 

Program to extend the authorizations for the programs for seven years. Also, in July Senator Bennet 

introduced amendments to the Salinity Control Act to reduce reimbursable cost share requirements due to 

funding imbalance caused by reduced hydro power production. Senator Romney co-sponsored this 

legislation as well. With the SCPP Utah had pretty robust participation even with slow start. Utah projects 

represented 40% of total anticipated conserved consumptive use of all Upper Basin projects. Agreements 

being verified. Second round occurring this week.

[Mel Fegler, Wyoming] Wyoming submitted its own letter. Working with other six basin states and 

upper basin to lay groundwork for Post 2026 guidelines as well as the other upper basin states to develop 

projects and plans to use the BIL allocation funds. Welcoming the Colorado River Advisory Committee

that begins meeting in September. Participating in SCPP projects. 

[Wayne Pullan, AMWG Chair] Congress didn’t authorize Bucket 1 till December. Upper Basin states 

did a great job getting people signed up. 

6:16:00 Tribes: 

[Stewart Koyiyumptewa, Hopi Tribe] Not present.

[Martina Dawley, Hualapai Tribe] Nothing

[Erik Stanfield, Navajo Nation] Also submitted letter on scoping and thanks to Reclamation for 

submitting tribal monitoring nomination.

[Edward Wemytewa, Zuni Tribe] Had our river trip August 4 with NPS and had classroom 

conversation that brought a lot of things to forefront. Need to renew planning and conversations and how 

they move forward. In that conversation we realized we need to have internal conversations and how we 

deal with the Zuni cultural enterprise that oversees the river trip. Will improve our commitment to how 

we deal with the educational processes for our children and how we plan our river trips and be inclusive 

of tribal members. In our work with AMWG we are talking to Reclamation and NPS about how we can 

settle our concerns with fish in Colorado River so that we can see benefits on the New Mexico side. 

Would like to talk to NPS and Reclamation about ideas for addressing lethal fish removal. Earlier this 

year I was lead in conversation to support the nomination of Grand Canyon to be part of National 

Monument. Governor and Lt Governor took lead in last month. When Secretary Haaland came and when 

President Biden came Zuni were represented as well. Feel like we have a strong foot in Arizona.

[Daniel Bullets, Southern Paiute Consortium]. Thanks for nomination, no other updates.

NGOs: 

[Larry Stevens, GCWC] GCWC has worked across scale last 25 years. Provided comments on scoping.

Hope they are well received as protection of Grand Canyon is an internationally important issue. 

Colorado River passes through one of the most iconic national parks in the world. Recently sent picture of 

riparian restoration efforts with Grand Canyon National Park and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. 

The collaborative project with the NPS has taken a landscape of dead and dying tamarisk and it is 

gradually becoming a healthy, native riparian forest. We recommend restoring native riparian habitat
28

from Glen Canyon Dam downstream to Paria Beach. GCWC also played a fairly substantial role in the 

recent monument designation to create a buffer around the Grand Canyon. 

[Sinjin Eberle, American Rivers] American Rivers submitted their own letter as well. Participating with 

Reclamation on Integrated Technical and Educational Work Group. Getting more media since listed 

Colorado River through the Grand Canyons as the most endangered river. In National Geographic, 

Outside Magazine, Washington Post and spots on CNN. 

[Grand Canyon River Guides] Not present.

[Jim Strogen, FFI/TU] It was the foresight of the White Mountain Apache Tribe years ago to engage in 

protection actions that were critical to delisting of the Apache trout. In addition to USFWS it was hard 

work by AZGFD and Julie Carter. Also, contributions by TU.

Federal Power Purchasers:

[Leslie James, CREDA. Ditto on letters. Because we represent power customers in both basins, we walk 

a fine line. One common thing is the link between hydro power and water. Submitted supportive brief on 

environmental litigation in 9th Circuit. Submitted comments on foundational documents since we are 

partners in the Upper Colorado Endangered Fish Recovery Program. Involved in the legislation on that. In 

midst of a WAPA rate case. CRSP Firm Electric Rate Case. Working with Reclamation and WAPA to 

keep rates at lowest possible costs. Many WAPA customers are in most impoverished areas of country. 

[Kevin Garlick, UMPA] Thank you. Nothing further.

Technical Work Group Chair Report

6:29:50 [Seth Shanahan, TWG Chair] If you’re surprised by anything from TWG then you need to 

meet with your TWG member to ensure you are briefed. Seth and Michelle Garrison were reelected chair 

and vice chair; Jeremy Hammen is Reclamation vice chair. One topic not discussed today that was 

discussed at TWG is what was purpose of the Bug Flows Experiment. Bug Flows had an increase in EPT 

%. Trying to create a risk community of practice. Want to share information with the community. There is 

no formal warning system in the Grand Canyon to communicate risks. Another project of interest is water 

falls in reservoirs which is related to tracking the development of nickpoints in the sediments of declining 

reservoirs. TWG tracks most closely the Pearce Ferry rapid nickpoint. Also, the one at Paiute Falls in the 

San Juan River. TWG received an update on willow flycatcher and clapper rail surveys. Did not detect 

Southwestern willow flycatcher. Reviewed next TWG meeting agenda items. 

Q&A and Discussion

[Brian Sadler, WAPA] Can TWG take on Bucket 3? [Wayne Pullan, AMWG Chair] October meeting 

will coincide with information on Bucket 3.

[Larry Stevens, GCWC] Considering the slough and its current configuration, it would be good to look 

at slough prior to 1965. Prior to that time the slough may just have been a sandbar. If NPS is trying to 

manage natural conditions, it might want to see what that natural condition actually was. [Kathy

Callister, Reclamation] Thank you.

Public Comment

[Lynn Hamilton, Executive Director of Grand Canyon River Guides in Flagstaff] Some of you may 

have heard John Dillon make previous comments before. He is the executive director of GCROA. They 

represent the 16 river concessionaires. They take 20,000 people down annually. Provides jobs and tens of 
29

millions of dollars to local economy. Really support HFE. Only tool to rejuvenate sand bars in the Grand 

Canyon. Timing this year was perfect. Plenty of people right now enjoying the Colorado River. Very 

important to move LTEMP forward. The smallmouth bass crisis is evolving but at a certain point it holds 

the fate of the humpback chub. Could be very serious ramifications for smallmouth bass in Grand 

Canyon. Encourage anyone with concerns to provide mitigation measures.

[Alicyn Gitlin, Sierra Club Grand Canyon Chapter] Very encouraged to hear we are treating this 

holistically and not as a series of segments. Hope that it’s more than language. Like to see good work 

come out of this and like to hear urgency coming out of Colorado River Ecosystem. Like to protect all the 

values. Don’t want to see just urgency behind smallmouth bass and LTEMP SEIS. Want to see it behind 

the slough and the thermal curtain. 

Wrap Up

[Wayne Pullan, AMWG Chair] Thanks to Terra for her hard work. What a remarkable thing that our 

experience, our loyalties and our capabilities and expertise have brought us together. We are responsible 

for condition of Grand Canyon and the Colorado River. Thank you. 

6:59:17 Meeting adjourned at 2:50 PM PST
30

AMWG Members, Alternates, and Leadership

Wayne Pullan, BOR, Acting Secretary’s Designee Kristen Johnson, ADWR, Alternate

Daniel Picard, BOR, Designated Federal Officer Jessica Neuwerth, CRBC

Kathy Callister, Reclamation, Alternate Shana Rapoport, CRBC, Alternate

Christina Kalavritinos, DOI David Brown, GCRG

Annalise Blum, DOI Michelle Garrison, CWCB, 

Ed Keeble, NPS Emily Zmak, CWCB, Alternate

Michelle Kearns, NPS, Alternate Sara Price, CRCN

Julie Carter, AZGFD Laura Dye, CRNC, Alternate

Brian Sadler, WAPA Leslie James, CREDA

Shane Capron, WAPA, Alternative Sheri Farag, CREDA/SRP, Alternate

Greg Mehojah, BIA Christina Noftsker, NMISC

Jacob Maase, Hopi Tribe Betsy Morgan, CO River Authority of UT, Alternate

Stewart Koyiyumptewa, Hopi Tribe, Alternate Amy Haas, CO River Authority of Utah

Martina Dawley, Hualapai Tribe Charlie Ferrantelli, WY State Engineers Office

Carrie Cannon, Hualapai Tribe, Alternate Mel Fegler, WY State Engineers Office, Alternate

Richard Begay, Navajo Nation Larry Stevens, GCWC

Erik Stanfield, Navajo Nation, Alternate Kelly Burke, GCWC, Alternate

Daniel Bulletts, Southern Paiute Consortium Matt Rice, American Rivers

Edward Wemytewa, Zuni Tribe Sinjin Eberle, American Rivers, Alternate

Arden Kucate, Zuni Tribe, Alternate Kevin Garlick, UMPA

Jim Strogen, FFI/TU Cliff Barrett, UMPA, Alternate

Rod Buchanan, DOI Heather Whitlaw, USFWS

Federal Staff

Tara Ashby, Reclamation Alex Pivarnik, Reclamation

Heather Patno, Reclamation Brian Hines, Reclamation

Robert Radke, Reclamation Teo Melis, Reclamation

Bill Stewart, Reclamation Zach Nelson, Reclamation

Jeremy Hammen, Reclamation Nick Williams, Reclamation

Matt O’Neill, Reclamation Becky Bryant, Reclamation

Margaret Digiorno, Reclamation Matthew Alinsod, Reclamation

Melynda Roberts, Reclamation Kerri Pedersen, Reclamation

Russ Callejo, Reclamation Rudy Keedah, BIA Navajo Region

Scott Vanderkooi, GCMRC Kate Behr, GCMRC

Ted Kennedy, GCMRC Lindsay Hansen, GCMRC

Helen Fairley, GCMRC Eric Reichard, GCMRC

Andrew Schultz, GCMRC Thomas Gushue, GCMRC

Joel Sankey, GCMRC Charles Yackulic, GCMRC

Paul Grams, GCMRC Lucas Bair, GCMRC

Maria Dent, GCMRC Lauren Tango, GCMRC

Drew Eppehimer, GCMRC Erica Byerley, GCMRC

Bryce Mihalevich, GCMRC Bridget Deemer, GCMRC

Deb Williams, USFWS Melissa Trammell, NPS

Dan Leavitt, USFWS Bud Fazio, NPS

Jess Newton, USFWS Emily Omana Smith, NPS

David Ward, USFWS
31

Other GCDAMP Members and Interested Parties

Seth Shanahan, SNWA Lori Taitano, CREDA/SRP

David Brown, GCRG Colleen Cunningham, NMISC

Annalise Porter, SNWA Dave Foyken, AZGFD

Josh Korman, Ecometric Alicyn Giffin, Sierra Club

Bill Persons, FFI/TU Eric Balken, Glen Canyon Institute

Ted Rampton, CREDA Jen Pelz, Grand Canyon Trust

Terra Alpaugh, Kearns and West Emily Halvorsen, CO Attorney General's Office

David McIntyre, SeaJay Environmental Hunter Kennedy, University of Chicago

Annalise Porter, SNWA Joshua Randall, CAP

Erik Skeie, Colorado Sara Larsen, UCRC

Alyx Richards, UCRC Bill Persons, FFI/TU

Lynn Hamilton, GCRG Rodney Baily, WAPA

Craig Ellsworth, WAPA Emily Higuera, ADWR

Ryan Mann, AZGFD Eric Skie, CWCB

David Rogowski, AZGFD Morgan Ross, Environmental Defense Fund

John Fennell, AZGFD Taylor McKinnon, Center for Biological Diversity

Kurt Dongoske, Pueblo of Zuni
32

Acronyms and Abbreviations 

0C – degrees Celsius LCR – Lower Colorado River 

ADWR – Arizona Department of Water Resources LTEMP – Long-term Experimental and 

Management Plan

af – acre-feet maf -million-acre-feet 

AMWG – Adaptive Management Work Group m/s – meters per second 

AZGFD – Arizona Game and Fish Department mg/liter – milligrams per liter

BAHG – Budget Ad Hoc Group MOA- memorandum of agreement 

BIA – Bureau of Indian Affairs NEPA – National Environmental Policy Act 

CFS – cubic feet per second NGOs – non-governmental organizations 

CRBC – Colorado River Board of California NMISC – NM Interstate Stream Commission 

CRCN – Colorado River Commission of Nevada NOI – Notice of Intent 

CREDA – Colorado River Energy Distributors 

Association

NPS – National Park Service 

CWBC – Colorado Water Board of Colorado O&M – operations & maintenance 

CRMMS – Colorado River Mid-term Modeling 

System

PA – Programmatic Agreement 

CST – cultural sensitivity training P&I – Planning and Implementation 

CWCB – Colorado Water Conservation Board PBR – Paria to Badger Rapid 

D.O. – dissolved oxygen PST – Pacific Standard Time 

DOI – (U.S.) Department of the Interior Reclamation – Bureau of Reclamation 

DROA - Drought Response Operations Agreement ROD – Record of Decision 

EA – environmental assessment SEIS – supplemental EIS 

EIS – environmental impact statement TNC – The Nature Conservancy 

ESA – Endangered Species Act TU – Trout Unlimited 

FFI – Fly Fishers International TWG – (GCDAMP) Technical Work Group 

FLAHG – Flow Ad Hoc Group TWP – Triennial Work Plan 

FY – Fiscal Year UCR – Upper Colorado River 

GCDAMP – Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive 

Management Program

UDWR – Utah Division of Water Resources 

GCMRC – Grand Canyon Monitoring & Research 

Center

UMPA – Utah Municipal Power Agency 

GCRG – Grand Canyon River Guides USFWS – U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 

GCWC – Grand Canyon Wildlands Council USGS – United States Geological Survey 

HFE – High Flow Experiment WAPA – Western Area Power Administration 
33

Attachment A: Budget and Work Plan Motion

The Adaptive Management Work Group (AMWG) recommends for approval to the Secretary of 

the Interior, the Fiscal Year 2024 budget as shown on the budget worksheets presented to the 

AMWG on August 16, 2023, with the following additional guidance: 

The AMWG recommends that any lethal management activity performed under the Glen Canyon 

Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP) Work Plan complies with the 2017 

Programmatic Agreement for Long Term Experimental Management Plan and the National Park 

Service 2019 Expanded Non Native Aquatic Species Management Plan Programmatic 

Agreement prior to implementation of that action. 

The AMWG recommends that GCMRC Project N funds become available funds as described 

below. 

If funds become available, which will include Project N funds, the AWMG recommends those 

funds are used to fund the work items listed below in order of priority: 

Priority 1 -Short Term Rapid Response Under the Invasive Species Strategic Plan – Invasive 

Fish Species Below Glen Canyon Dam: A Strategic Plan to Prevent, Detect and Respond was 

adopted by the AMWG on February 16th, 2023. Should short term response be necessary in 

FY24 under this Strategic Plan, the Department of the Interior should prioritize available funds 

outside of the GCDAMP. If other funding sources have been exhausted, the Department of the 

Interior may consider use of the Reclamation C.5 Experimental Management Fund and the C.6 

Native Fish Conservation Contingency Fund. Such actions that may require use of these funds 

must be coordinated with the AMWG as proposed in the Strategic Plan and Budget Ad Hoc 

Group process. 

Priority 2 – Continue Project Element G.6, Juvenile Chub Monitoring-West 

Priority 3 – Continue sampling at two sub-reaches for Project Element H.2, Experimental Flow 

Assessment of Trout Recruitment. 

Priority 4 – Continue Project Element C.3, Riparian Vegetation Predictive models and synthesis 

Priority 5 – Other Additional Requests identified in the GCMRC FY24 Table.
34

Attachment B: HFE revision protocol motion

The Adaptive Management Work Group (AMWG) accepts the Proposal to Amend the HighFlow Experiment Protocol and Other Considerations to meet the Directive given at the February 

15, 2023, AMWG meeting, and recommends it to the Secretary for inclusion in the LTEMP

SEIS process.