Page 1 of 16

GLEN CANYON DAM ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

TECHNICAL WORK GROUP MEETING

JANUARY 13, 2022 

FINAL MINUTES

Start Time: 8:33 AM Pacific Standard Time (PST) 

Conducting: Seth Shanahan, Technical Work Group (TWG) Chair 

Meeting Recorder: Carliane Johnson, SeaJay Environmental LLC 

Welcome and Administrative 

• Introductions and Determination of Quorum (22 members): [Seth Shanahan, Southern Nevada 

Water Authority (SNWA) and TWG Chair] Introductions were made, including to Jamescita 

Peshlakai who is the new Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) tribal liaison. 

• Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP) Vision Statement: [Larry Stevens, 

Grand Canyon Wildlands Council [GCWC)] Provided GCDAMP background and read the vision 

statement. 

• Adoption of Prior Meeting Minutes: [Ben Reeder, Grand Canyon River Guides] Requested a change 

to include his comment on the October minutes. With that change made, there were no objections 

to adopting the TWG meeting minutes from June 16-17 and October 13-14, 2021. 

• Next Meeting Date(s): April 12-13, 2022: [Seth Shanahan, SNWA and TWG Chair] Virtual.

• Ad Hoc Group Membership and Updates [Seth Shanahan, SNWA and TWG Chair] A few member 

changes were received. Refer to the updated document on the website. 

o [Craig Ellsworth, WAPA and Budget Ad Hoc Group (BAHG) Chair] Provided an update on 

the BAHG, which had a call December 8 about budget prioritization and the Triennial Work 

Plan (TWP). A strategy is being developed now to involve everyone in the next TWP. Erik 

Skeie, State of Colorado, is helping as the BAHG co-chair. 

[Seth Shanahan, SNWA and TWG Chair] As a reminder, mid-work plan adjustments will be considered 

at the April TWG. Next month, the BAHG, tribes, and other agencies will meet to discuss adjustments

and other changes to the third Fiscal Year (FY) of the TWP based on criteria adopted by the Adaptive 

Management Work Group (AMWG). As early as next month, the BAHG, federal and state agencies, the 

tribes, and others will start meeting to consider some of those work plan adjustments. The BAHG work 

should continue through March in preparation for the April TWG meeting. Then, at the June meeting, 

the TWG will recommend the TWP for FY2023. 

o [Seth Shanahan, SNWA and TWG Chair] Steering Committee Ad Hoc (SCAHG) group 

continues to meet in support of the TWG. There will be another meeting after this TWG. The 

SCAHG now also discusses emerging issues and rapid information exchange. The SCAHG has 

discussed information such as temperature trends in Lake Powell, releases at the dam, 

dissolved oxygen (D.O.) trends, and the detection last fall of a small mouth bass near River 

Mile (RM) 270. SCAHG concluded these did not require immediate action, and that TWG 

members would hear about these issues as part of the presentations during the Annual 

Reporting Meeting (ARM) and this TWG meeting. 

o [Larry Stevens, GCWC] What is the status of the Flow Ad Hoc (FLAHG) group? What about

reactivating them for a spring HFE? [Seth Shanahan, SNWA and TWG Chair] The FLAHG is 

currently inactive after completing their current charge related to the spring disturbance 

flow. A later agenda item will involve a discussion around some of the issues that need to be 
Page 2 of 16

addressed for spring and summer flow experiments. There is also a proposed motion for the 

AMWG to consider at the February meeting to charge the FLAHG to consider these topics.

o [Leslie James, CREDA] In some of the ARM presentations, particularly work by Lucas Bair

(Grand Canyon Monitoring & Research Center [GCMRC]), there is a nexus with the 

Socioeconomics Ad Hoc Group (SEAHG), but there has not been any discussion with them 

about that work. Recommends that the SEAHG meet with Lucas to discuss. [Ben Reeder, 

GCRG] Does the SEAHG need a charge? [Seth Shanahan, SNWA and TWG Chair] It is best 

practice to write a charge, which could be done quickly. 

• Update on Program Funding: [Lee Traynham, Reclamation] Reclamation is under a Continuing 

Resolution (CR), which complicates the GCDAMP funding. FY22 base funding is anticipated to be 

received as an appropriation, which is different than past years when the program was funded with 

hydropower revenues. The challenge is that the CR requires Reclamation to proceed the same as it 

did in the prior year until Congress gives it new funding direction. Because of the hydropower 

revenues received last year, and appropriations that are expected this year, this means there is 

currently no funding for FY22 for the GCDAMP or for the endangered fish recovery program. The 

current CR ends mid-February. It is hoped that the appropriation bill will be passed by March. 

Reclamation staff is in conversation with its partners especially as the field season starts. 

[Seth Shanahan, SNWA and TWG Chair] Is the appropriation request for both FY22 and FY23? [Lee

Traynham, Reclamation] This is for FY22 only. The FY23 budget is in draft, but details cannot be 

discussed until it is publicly available. An update on FY22 will be provided at the February AMWG 

meeting. 

 Update on Activities Impacted Due to COVID-19 Restrictions: [Michael Moran, GCMRC] GCMRC did 

not have any impacts in 2021 due to COVID. Office work remains at 25% capacity, but everything is 

getting done. [Scott VanderKooi, GCMRC] GCMRC had been on a plan to incrementally return to the 

office, but this has been postponed until at least the end of January. [Brian Healy, NPS] NPS is on 

the same track with telework, but it is not affecting work. A vegetation treatment trip is scheduled 

for January, an archeological site monitoring trip in March, and two more vegetation trips are 

scheduled in March and April. No issues seen at this time due to COVID. Brown trout monitoring is 

continuing for a few more weeks. There is no more funding for these trips. [Kirk Young, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (USFWS)] USFWS is coordinating closely with Navajo on permits to conduct 

work in Little Colorado River. Not expecting any changes but will not know until those permits are 

received. Planning for a full field schedule. [Ryan Mann, Arizona Game and Fish Department 

(AZGFD)] AZGFD has been able to continue its work with most staff still teleworking. [Erik Stanfield, 

Navajo Nation] Navajo Nation and some schools are having some targeted short-term shutdowns

but not seeing anything larger than that. [Jakob Maase, Hopi Tribe] Hopi is considering some 

shutdowns. The river trips are still slated for May. [Daniel Bullets, Southern Paiute Consortium] The 

Southern Paiute Consortium is still open and not impacted. 

• Update on Monitoring and Research Trips to Occur From Today Until Next Meeting: [Mike Moran, 

GCMRC] discussed upcoming trips through April. Will have quite a few of the Lees Ferry brown trout

monitoring trips. The first water quality and sediment monitoring trip will occur in mid-February. 

AZGFD will have its mainstem fish monitoring trip in April. Channel mapping in East Central Grand 

Canyon (Project B) trip is scheduled for this spring, which had been scheduled in late 2020 but was 

postponed due to COVID. 

Update on Hydrology, Glen Canyon Dam Operations, and Water Quality 

Conditions in Lake Powell and Below Glen Canyon Dam 
Page 3 of 16

[Heather Patno, Reclamation] [PRESENTATION] Current conditions in the reservoirs range from 27-77%

of storage. New historic lows are forecasted to continue at Lake Powell. October precipitation was

above average monsoonal moisture that increased soil moisture and decreased the deficit as compared

against 2020. November precipitation was among the lowest on record and then December had some of

the highest precipitation increasing snowpack 80% from minimum historic levels. Soil moisture

conditions are much better now across the basin compared to last year. Current stormwater equivalent

levels are tracking with the 2017 basin year, which was a wet year. Drier conditions with less snow are

being seen in the modeling through the season; however, there is a significant range in the predictions 

with uncertainty in the precipitation outlook. The January 24-month study will be released on January

14. The Drought Response Operations Agreement (DROA) continues through 2026 except for recovery 

of DROA water released. The Drought Response Operations Plan is to be finalized in April. 1:36:00 The

adjusted release pattern versus the standard Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan (LTEMP)

release pattern was also described that holds back 350 kaf of water during January through April and

shifts it to later in the year. This pattern change began on January 1, 2022. The summer monthly volume

release pattern is a placeholder while continued discussions occur regarding the best distribution later in 

the year. December most probable elevations show decreases below the critical elevation of 3,525 feet. 

The minimum probable December elevations drop below minimum power pool of 3,490 feet. The unit

maintenance schedule shows 6 units available through 2023 as the transformer replacements of all units

continue. The hourly release schedules for January through March incorporating the adjusted monthly

release patterns were discussed. 

[Jeremiah Drewel, Reclamation] 1:52:00 PRESENTATION showed the spring 2022 HFE modeling results.

It is important to note that the big negative numbers (-103 kton for the Glen Canyon Dam adjusted

LTEMP pattern, and the -143 kton for the Glen Canyon Dam standard LTEMP pattern) are the lowest 

sediment balances that will occur because it assumes zero input at this point. Temperatures in the

forebay are about equal with the penstock getting closer to the lake surface. Lake Powell release 

temperatures have been highly variable in the monthly modeling, so it is best to look at that as a range

of possibilities from 18-26 0C depending on the snowpack and lake elevation. The same is seen in the

canyon’s river temperatures. Dissolved oxygen levels out of the penstock are currently around 7 

milligrams/liter. 

Q&A and discussion

1:42:00 [Rob Billerbeck, NPS] Do these graphs include the Glen Canyon Dam adjustments and not the

Upper Basin DROA? [Heather Patno, Reclamation] The December 24-Month Study graphs do not

include the Glen Canyon adjustments because those were not implemented until January. These graphs

show the LTEMP pattern in December. The January 24-month study will include the Glen Canyon

adjustments and the previous December elevation graphs show the increase in elevation with the

adjustments for Powell and Mead as a sensitivity study.

[Jim Strogen, Fly Fishers International/Trout Unlimited (FFI/TU)] Do you see a concerning window for

D.O. this year? How much lead time do we need for mitigation opportunities? [Jeremiah Drewel, 

Reclamation] Yes, if there is a near-normal inflow with large sediment deltas around the lake, this

entrains sediment and biological material. Usually by the June trip, there is a good sense of where the

D.O. plume is at the penstock. From June to late September or October is the amount of time that would

be available to look at that.
Page 4 of 16

[Larry Stevens, GCWC] Have you calculated the percent of times the actual unregulated annual inflow 

(UAI) at different winter and springtime months has fallen below the predicted UAI? In other words,

how often have predicted UAI values over-estimated the actual UAI? It might be another way to

illustrate uncertainty in the UAI prediction. [Heather Patno, Reclamation] See VERIFICATION LINK. By

January, it is 26-27% when UAI can be seen. Reclamation can use the Colorado River Mid-term Modeling 

System (CRMMS) model projections to follow each inflow trace, which can be used to see the potential

range of operations given the full suite of forecast scenarios. Changes will happen month-to-month as

new information is received. 

[Larry Stevens, GCWC] With D.O. threats and the monthly updates, is it possible to install a sensor at the

upstream end of the forebay to quickly inform the TWG as to the D.O. urgencies? How quickly are the

monthly results reported? [Jerimiah Drewel, Reclamation] Monthly profiles are occurring now that

gives D.O. information throughout the whole depth. Installing one sensor would only capture D.O.

measurement at one specific depth in the lake. A sensor string could be deployed, which is what is in

front of the dam now but can access that data only irregularly. To get a string upstream from the

forebay would require a floating, transmitting station, which would have to be adjustable to lake

elevation changes to best understand what is seen in the data. The water is not moving that fast, so the

monthly visits are able to capture when that slug is coming. To get more information sooner, another

upstream profile would be needed, but do not think staffing levels are available to do this. The monthly

data is immediately accessible after the trips within a few days and the trips are reported out. The data

from the quarterly and monthly trips are reported at the Glen Canyon Dam operations meetings. [Seth

Shanahan, SNWA and TWG Chair] These are monthly discussions that Reclamation hosts to share this

information, which is what the SCAHG members would bring back to the TWG. The framework is in 

place and this is an item that the SCAHG needs to discuss with the TWG.

[Brian Healy, NPS] It is understood that 3,490 feet is a crucial level for turbine production, but is there

some elevation above that also creates an engineering risk? How is it decided to send discharge through

the bypass tubes? [Heather Patno, Reclamation] The minimum power pool of 3,490 feet had been

designated as the “safe elevation.” An analysis showed potential vortices could form and entrain air in 

the penstock. Reclamation is considering the elevation more closely because of this.

[Mike Moran, GCMRC] Is the D.O. thermistor string still near the dam face, and if so, are the data being 

downloaded continuously or monthly? [Bridget Deemer, GCMRC] This is usually done every six months,

but it has been as long as nine months. Those batteries are good for more than a year.

[Seth Shanahan, SNWA and TWG Chair] Regarding the slide on the Potential Lake Powell Monthly 

Release Volume Distribution, it is important to point out later discussions on spring and summer flow 

opportunities. There is a hydrological problem with a desire to keep Lake Powell elevations high by not

releasing water in the spring, but later in the summer. This contradicts a high release in the spring. The

space of opportunity is very narrow but understanding this is also changing.

[Peggy Roefer, Colorado River Commission of Nevada (CRCN)] The annual report referred to funding

for Lake Powell water quality monitoring (only one more year left) and that there is also uncertainty

about boat use. What does this mean? [Clarence Fullard, Reclamation] There is every indication that

the water quality monitoring work will continue so this likely relates to the contract cycle. [Jeremiah

Drewel, Reclamation] There have been issues using NPS boats and cannot always get the usual boat,
Page 5 of 16

which means dropping people from the team. It would be nice to have some consistency in a boat that

can sustain the group for several days.

[Cliff Barrett, Utah Municipal Power Agency (UMPA)] Regarding the water temperature slide, there is a 

decrease in temperature between the outlet tubes and penstock as the elevation goes down. How much

colder will it be at the river outlet? [Jeremiah Drewel, Reclamation] The bypass release is about 100

feet lower than the penstock elevation. If there is water discharged through the bypass, the water

temperature out of the dam will be a lot cooler. The slide in the presentation showed the temperature

differences during wintertime. It will be a lot more drastic in summertime. Eventually, as reservoir 

elevation goes below the penstock, the thermocline will follow the water elevation down and will get

warmer as the thermocline approaches the penstock. 

LTEMP Biological Opinion Conservation Measures Updates Including a 

Discussion About the Non-Native Fish Passage and Temperature Control 

Measures 

[Kerri Pedersen, Reclamation] PRESENTATION on Tier 1 and Tier 2 Incidental Take Action Triggers for 

humpback chub. The trigger was reached last year due to a decline of subadults. It is expected this will 

happen again this year. Responses were enacted because of the trigger and can expect to have response 

actions in 2022, which will be addressed after a larval assessment is completed this spring. The 5-YEAR 

TRIGGER REVIEW is complete and is available on the GCDAMP Wiki page. Updates on the Southwestern 

willow flycatcher (SWFL) surveys; temperature control devices; fish passage through the dam; and the 

October 2021 Lake Powell sampling trip, were also discussed in the presentation. 

[Leslie James, CREDA] Would the study be an appraisal-level study to refine cost estimates, or would it 

strive to include some value planning to better understand potential benefits? [Lee Traynham, 

Reclamation] That is still to be determined. If the study moves forward, the objectives would be to 

accomplish both the cost estimate and a value assessment to ensure that the options are considering 

the tradeoffs to benefit environmental and hydroelectric resources. At the August AMWG, Nick Williams 

provided information on this study with costs around $1 million and that it would take about nine 

months to complete. Refer to the DRAFT AUGUST AMWG MEETING MINUTES on page 11 to see Nick's 

remarks regarding bypass generation. 

[Craig Ellsworth, WAPA] Are the SWFL reports posted anywhere? [Brian Healy, NPS] Will check on the 

possibility of posting the report. Since they are an endangered species, there might be concerns about 

publishing their locations.

[Larry Stevens, GCWC] What was the catch rate of green sunfish and is electrofishing an adequate 

method? If no sunfish were detected in the forebay, how are they getting through the dam? [Kerri 

Pedersen, Reclamation] The amount of effort in each of the locations should be the same for all fish. In 

Antelope, it was 12 fish in 14 hours; forebay was 12 fish in 13 hours; and Wahweap was 39 fish in 40 

hours. [Clarence Fullard, Reclamation] The method to catch those fish in the forebay included gill 

netting; did not use electrofishing. Green sunfish are below the dam, but there is no evidence they have 

gone through the dam. That is what the project will be looking into as to how that is happening. Maybe 

there are fish in Lake Powell that are not being caught by this gear. The data are preliminary. [Larry 

Stevens, GCWC] The sampling design would be critical especially as the reservoir is at its lowest and fish 
Page 6 of 16

might be passing through. Is the sampling designed for this? What kind of monitoring is happening 

below the dam, and can that be improved to get a better understanding of what could be passing 

through? [Clarence Fullard, Reclamation] The next sampling trip will be in early March when reservoir 

levels will be as low as they get. The crew will go out quarterly at times they believe they can best 

capture those fish. There was a discussion at the October TWG meeting with Brian Healy about 

detections downstream. All that data is contained in a centralized GCMRC database, which is accessible 

to the Utah State University project team. Anyone who detects non-native fish in the Lees Ferry stretch 

should report it and provide those fish to the project team to collect otoliths or fin clips. [Charles 

Yakulic, GCMRC] Over the last decade, combined agency efforts usually caught ~2-3 walleye in Lees 

Ferry per year, ~1-2 striped bass, and ~1 smallmouth bass. There has not been any clear trend in the 

data or in the elevation. All walleye were caught within five miles of the dam while the others were in 

various locations. 

[Ben Reeder, GCRG] When was the last time the slough was monitored for green sunfish? [Jeff Arnold, 

NPS] The last time was in October 2020. NPS did not remove green sunfish in 2021 because there was 

no high flow event. The plan is to collect fish in February for a health analysis and do a removal in early 

May. [Pilar Wolters Rinker, USFWS] Game and Fish does yearly sampling looking for fish that go through 

the dam. [David Rogowski, AZGFD] AZGFD samples for non-natives in the lower slough each July and

end of September, below the dam to look for walleyes and smallmouth bass, and then samples in the 

lower slough as well as spring systems and back eddies. The sampling includes Lees Ferry. Non-natives 

are typically caught in the lower slough and at the dam. Will occasionally catch green sunfish in and 

around the slough. [Ryan Mann, AZGFD] Two green sunfish were caught in the lower slough during the 

fall monitoring. [Clarence Fullard, Reclamation] Reclamation is working with the Utah State research 

team to utilize pressure sensors at Glen Canyon Dam to assess the physical conditions fish would be 

subjected to as they pass through the dam and turbines (pressures, velocities, etc.). More information 

will be available about that and the likelihood of fish survival. 

[Laura Tennant, GCMRC] During brown trout monitoring last week, two green sunfish were caught by 

electrofishing around RM -12 and -13. [David Ward, GCMRC] A trap to catch green sunfish in the slough

is being designed and hope to have that in place this summer. 

[Seth Shanahan, SNWA and TWG Chair] What can the TWG do to be most helpful to Reclamation on

these conservation measures? [Brian Healy, NPS] Related to the smallmouth bass model, we might 

need to figure out how to respond to warmwater species below the dam. The proposed work is good, 

but there might need to be more urgency to have the tools available to respond. There is already a good 

monitoring program currently in place. We need to think about the actual logistics of responding to a 

particular scenario such as a green sunfish outbreak in a certain place. The SCAHG has also discussed 

smallmouth bass detection, how to report these quickly, and what that reporting system might look like.

Because of these discussions, language has been added to the NPS’s fish permits that says high-risk, 

non-natives should be reported within a few days of returning from a trip to help inform a rapid 

response. 

[Seth Shanahan, SNWA and TWG Chair] What does the group think about going through a tabletop 

exercise that would reflect all the stakeholders’ interest? [David Ward, GCMRC] Supports this. The 

current monitoring system is sufficient to detect non-native fish, but the problem is what to do if they 

do show up. Thinking through this could be helpful. [Kirk Dongoske, Pueblo of Zuni] Whatever route or 
Page 7 of 16

means through which non-native fish enter the system, it is important that this program be more 

proactive in identifying the origin and addressing those entry points. To continue with the past reactive 

actions that involve lethal management will continue to do violence to Zuni psychologically and 

emotionally. 

[Jim Strogen, FFI/TU] It is frustrating that the presentation noted that 1978 was the first time 

Reclamation started talking about temperature control devices to help with this problem. We need to 

find these strategies to make this work and move forward. [Larry Stevens, GCWC] One reason is that

there might not be consensus about what should be done. TWG can offer up those solutions.

Power Generating Units in the Glen Canyon Bypass Tubes

[Larry Stevens, GCWC] PRESENTATION on the history of the jet tubes in the Glen Canyon Dam. The jets 

could help with temperature control and power production. A draft motion to AMWG was also 

provided. The issues to be discussed include design, costs/benefits, the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) and other compliance, timing for testing, contingency issues, and any other issues. 

Q&A and Discussion 

[Michelle Garrison, CWCB] What would be the budget source for the $2 million? [Lee Traynham, 

Reclamation] The draft motion is meant to provide flexibility. Reclamation has requested funding to 

support this effort, but it would be good to have as many options as possible. 

[Michelle Garrison, CWCB] Preliminary estimates show that a hydro unit in the bypass would reduce 

capacity of those values from 15,000 to 7,000 cubic feet per second (CFS). Would there be some loss of 

capacity below 3,490 feet? [Lee Traynham, Reclamation] There is a valve on the existing tubes. If the 

flow were to be directed through the bypass tubes with generation installed, their capacity is reduced 

from 15,000 CFS to an estimated 7,000 CFS. The 15,000 CFS is required for dam safety. There could be

times during the year when that valve would need to be shut and construction of another valve would 

be needed to still allow that 15,000 CFS capacity, creating a bypass on the bypass. There is a visual to 

show this second set of outlet tubes just adjacent and slightly downstream of the current tubes. 

[Jim Strogen, FFI/TU] Agrees with the motion but D.O. needs to be included in the wording. [Larry 

Stevens, GCWC] Yes, that has been added as well as the increased flexibility of funding. 

[Seth Shanahan, SNWA and TWG Chair] What could come back to the TWG is a predictive effects-type 

of assessment, perhaps using tools such as Charles’ temperature modeling work to understand how that 

influences fish by having this option available. [Larry Stevens, GCWC] That assessment should also 

include the post implementation testing to test the effects, if it is constructed. 

[Seth Shanahan, SNWA and TWG Chair] Can GCMRC respond to how this might affect them? [Joel 

Sankey, GCMRC] A predictive effects assessment is not built into the TWP or current projects, but

Project O with the disturbance flows is an example of how to carve out the time to do this. The sooner 

GCMRC knows it will be asked to do this, the better. 

[Craig Ellsworth, WAPA] WAPA can also help with staff support. WAPA worked out some of the details 

with Reclamation about this idea and a lot of groundwork has been started. [Seth Shanahan, SNWA and 

TWG Chair] Was WAPA’s perspective part of the appraisal-level study and infrastructure, or on 

temperature conditions and its usefulness to resources? [Craig Ellsworth, WAPA] It was more focused 
Page 8 of 16

on whose responsibility and how it would get funded between Reclamation and power users. [Seth 

Shanahan, SNWA and TWG Chair] The reason for the distinction is because what comes back to the 

TWG may look more like monitoring while encouraging Reclamation to continue. 

[Kirk Young, USFWS] USFWS supports this. There are some limits as to how cool the water can be kept 

but thinks there is modeling on smallmouth bass that suggests it might not be needed 24/7. Maybe it is 

only needed overnight or at specific times of the year to disadvantage the non-natives and maintain 

refuge for salmonids. The long-term benefits are there. [Larry Stevens, GCWC] Recall that the benthic 

anoxia study grew Chara algae at different temperature and D.O. levels. Cooler temperatures and higher 

D.O. reduced growth rates of Chara. This could be another benefit.

[Joel Sankey, GCMRC] There is a research need to support the development of these models to provide 

the simulations for the different scenarios. [Seth Shanahan, SNWA and TWG Chair] This might be 

something to add to the TWP discussion, if changes need to be made. There is a lot to think about as to 

what the TWG can do to help. TWG relies on GCMRC and others for that expertise. Members should also 

consider how the TWG can be most useful as a forum for that process. 

Discussion About Possible Experimental and Management Actions That 

May be Implemented in the Next 12 Months and Any Budgeting Issues: 

[Lee Traynham, Reclamation] PRESENTATION on the approaches to and the process for the LTEMP 

experiments. There are a number of flow experiments being considered for 2022, which need to 

preserve lake levels and compliment the Drought Response Operations that will be occurring at Glen 

Canyon Dam (refer to last week’s PRESS RELEASE). There will also be consultation with the tribes on 

trout management flows (TMF), which will kick off in January, and Reclamation’s review of the LTEMP 

planning/implementation process, which will be part of the discussions at the February AMWG meeting. 

The sand budget is negative because of export under operations. Model results with and without DROA 

were shown. 

[Joel Sankey, GCMRC] PRESENTATION on potential spring HFEs for FY22. There were no significant sand 

inputs from the Paria River during the spring accounting period (starting December 1st). There was only 

one big event in December, but the cumulative sand load is only 29,959 metric tons (MT). Mass balance 

is in negative values for Upper Marble Canyon. Lower Marble Canyon is in positive zero bias value of 

22,000 MT. These inputs are not enough to trigger a spring HFE, but conditions could change. 

[Rob Billerbeck, NPS] LTEMP vegetation management work at Glen Canyon and Grand Canyon are good 

to go this year. Will be meeting with GCMRC and the tribes about specific sites and activities. Will also 

be updating the appendix to the vegetation plan in February or March to reflect work that was done last 

year and to show what is planned for this year. 

Q&A and Discussion 

[Seth Shanahan, SNWA and TWG Chair] When would the Planning & Implementation Team (PI Team) 

webinar occur to get that input related to spring decision-making? Can we put that date on our 

calendars? [Lee Traynham, Reclamation] It would likely occur a week or two following the February 

AMWG information session. As a reminder, the implementation window for a spring HFE is March and 

April. The process and decisions need to be made about four weeks in advance of this date. 
Page 9 of 16

[Jim Strogen, FFI/TU] Is the negative load reflective of a restart for the spring or does it account for a 

heavier load prior to that? [Lee Traynham, Reclamation] The counter for the sand budget model resets 

to zero under LTEMP on December 1. New inputs are after that point. GCMRC feels the system is still 

under a sediment enriched condition. [Joel Sankey, GCMRC] This is what the mass balance would look 

like if it kept running from July 1, 2021, to June 30, 2022. This was from Paul Grams’ ARM presentation 

on January 12. [Jim Strogen, FFI/TU] Even though we are not in a year for an HFE because of the 

negative balance; in reality, this suggests we are in a year with sufficient sediment inputs to consider it. 

[Joel Sankey, GCMRC] Yes, it is a sediment enriched condition, but with the accounting period and 

resetting the number, the spring accounting does not reflect that. [Larry Stevens, GCWC] This is another 

example in which the sediment accounting budget process is not supportive of the Grand Canyon 

Protection Act because of poorly framed criteria in the LTEMP for the triggers. GCWC has requested that 

the FLAHG be reauthorized to conduct a study of options for springtime flow events. Would like to 

propose that as a motion to the AMWG.

[Craig Ellsworth, WAPA] Are we focused on the most critical things and the time involved or missing 

what is most pressing? [Larry Stevens, GCWC] Doing correctly timed flows for ecosystem function is the 

most important thing. [Seth Shanahan, SNWA and TWG Chair] Not everyone agrees with that natural 

flow as the base flow. 

Opportunities for Spring and Summer Flow Experiments and a 

Discussion of the Bug Flow Synthesis and Workshop

[Ted Kennedy, GCMRC] PRESENTATION on why bug flows were done to mitigate impacts from 

hydropower flows to egg-laying aquatic insects and the findings. Also discussed the science advisor 

review of the experiment, which expressed that it was successful and offered some improvements. 

LTEMP experiments for spring and summer were also shown. 

Q&A and Discussion 

[Ben Reeder, GCRG] What are the steps that need to be taken and how do we move this conversation 

forward with the AMWG? There seems to be more momentum and the stakeholders seem to be more 

interested in a spring HFE. The accounting period has always been the biggest obstacle. [Seth Shanahan, 

SNWA and TWG Chair] Is there agreement that this is the fundamental problem that needs to be 

solved? [Kelly Burke, GCWC] The importance of spring HFEs is not only in the Grand Canyon Protection 

Act, but in the LTEMP itself. It emphasizes these flows early on in the accounting period. [Craig 

Ellsworth, WAPA] A heavy lift like this or looking at a bypass generator system takes a lot of time. As a 

program, the most important things need to be identified. [Rob Billerbeck, NPS] Agree, but the whole 

reason for the TWG is to address experiments that might take a long time or that might be difficult. This 

is the reason for the Grand Canyon Protection Act. It is a difficult time, but the priorities are specified in 

the act and the LTEMP Record of Decision. [Leslie James, WAPA]. It is the responsibility of the TWG to 

establish priorities, and not to debate our mandates, which are very broad. With respect to the bug flow 

report and the reviewer’s comments on hydropower impacts, there might have been a difference in 

interpretation about the impacts to customers, particularly the tribes. 

[Bill Persons, FFI/TU] How much flexibility do we have in the LTEMP and the opportunity to conduct 

experiments that are not specifically spelled out in the LTEMP? It seems to allow that. Refer to Table 4, 
Page 10 of 16

Page B-14, Footnote a, which says: Triggers will be modified as needed during the 20-year LTEMP period 

in an adaptive manner through processes including ESA consultation and based on the best available 

science utilizing the experimental framework for each alternative. Can we use this to help address the 

accounting period trigger and not have to go through the full NEPA process?

[Dave Lytle, Oregon State University] The types of models being used, and the types of analysis being 

conducted are very hungry for any data that might be available, particularly for any kind of flow event. 

One thing that is really lacking is data on invertebrate responses to spring HFEs. 

[Larry Stevens, GCWC] More important issues keep over-topping our capacity over time. Discussion of 

power generation in the jet tubes has been going on for 40 years. It is important to face these situations. 

The FLAHG should be reauthorized for both the practicalities and the policy issues related to the 

appropriate timing for floods. 

[Seth Shanahan, SNWA and TWG Chair] There seems to be tension between a need for experiments 

this spring and summer and next spring and summer. Even with the “magic language” that Bill pointed 

out in LTEMP table, the practicality of doing something big like changing the accounting window to 

trigger a spring HFE in just a couple of months is impractical. What are the opportunities now? [Ben 

Reeder, GCRG] This is why we brought this up in October because of how long it takes to do a spring 

HFE, to address the accounting period, or to charge the FLAHG. We are again missing the opportunity 

with no FLAHG charge and no way to address the accounting period. What can we do to move this 

forward? [Rob Billerbeck, NPS] There might be differences between short-term and long-term, but this 

is a unique year. There are opportunities to address some of the big problems with resources in the 

canyon this year. The biggest NPS concerns are non-natives getting through dam (and related 

temperature issues) and the condition of sediment resources. There is alignment and maybe the 

differences are with the process. It is also very important to continue this forum to talk about the 

science experiments, learning, and management. [Larry Stevens, GCWC] Regarding the language that 

Bill Person showed says that “triggers will be changed, as needed, during the LTEMP.” The proactive 

spring HFE is only based on years with high inflow. For this year, we are anticipating two years of low 

flow. With a spring HFE, even if only in short duration, it might be able to mobilize the abundant 

sediments and store them over the next years of low flow. Maybe the focus is on the triggers for a 

proactive springtime HFE. 

[Shane Capron, WAPA] Regarding the bug flow experiments, we do not always agree, but the point is to 

experiment and to learn things. From WAPA’s perspective, after a year off, there will likely be a 

significant bug flow this year. It is not too hard to implement, and we can learn more from it. We have 

been thinking about this and have ideas about it. The river is more productive with disturbances. WAPA 

is excited to engage in bug flows this year.

[Sinjin Eberle, American Rivers] From American Rivers’ perspective, the benefits of HFEs, supported by 

the science, are strong. Sediment programs, bug programs, and fish programs all rely on the input of 

sediment into the system and moving that sediment downstream. In late 2021, there was a huge input 

of sediment into the system, yet the HFE was denied due to political, economic, and public relations 

reasons. But the sediment budget in the canyon continues to degrade, and as scientist after scientist 

said over the past few days, disturbance flows work. We need to do whatever we can to implement one 

as soon as possible. The preservation of the ecosystem in the canyon is the most important thing we are 

responsible for managing.
Page 11 of 16

[Brian Healy, NPS] A priority for NPS leadership at Grand Canyon is how the tribes feel about these 

resource decisions. It is important to hear their perspectives and have that as part of the conversation. 

[Jakob Maase, Hopi Tribe] The only way to learn from bug flows is to do more of them. Science and data 

validation are based on repetition. [Erik Stanfield, Navajo Nation] Also supports spring HFEs. There are 

issues but there are also clear benefits and the possibility to mimic historical flows. 

[Seth Shanahan, SNWA and TWG Chair] Under the current LTEMP process, is it practical to separate 

some of the timing issues to be able to meet the goals? [Joel Sankey, GCMRC] As a reminder, the 

sediment trigger was met last fall for a fall HFE. Even though it is still a long way off to meet the trigger 

for a spring HFE, things could change, and we could meet that trigger, but there might not be the desire 

for an HFE due to policy issues or other hydrology concerns in the basin.

[Larry Stevens, GCWC] The likelihood of ever meeting the winter criteria is low and seems to be getting 

lower. There is the belief that a springtime HFE needs to be tested as soon as possible to better guide 

the LTEMP process and at its conclusion. This year is an ideal time to do that. 

[Seth Shanahan, SNWA and TWG Chair] The press release from Reclamation referred to planned lower 

monthly flows out of Lake Powell in January through April. What hydrology might be available in the 

spring? [Ben Reeder, GCRG] If water is being held back now under a 7.48 MAF release year, wouldn’t

this give us more flexibility for a higher flow in May or June when inflows of Lake Powell are going to be 

higher? [Seth Shanahan, SNWA and TWG Chair] That water has to be distributed at some point in the 

year. [Jim Strogen, FFI/TU] Another option is to reduce the flow as was done during the apron repair in 

the March-April timeframe, and then release that water after the extended dry out period, which would 

not cost the system much. [Joel Sankey, GCMRC] Can Reclamation recap whether there would be a 

window of time this spring or summer when all of the units would be online? Are there constraints on 

how large a flow could be? During last spring’s disturbance flow, the powerplant capacity and lower 

flows did not help rebuild the sandbars or move sand out. [Lee Traynham, Reclamation] Plan to have six 

units available for 2022, There might be a small opportunity in June or July for eight units, but it would 

be highly uncertain and should not be scheduled around. 

[Shana Rapoport, Colorado River Board of California (CRBC)] A lot of good feedback was received from 

the peer reviewers. Is there a process as to how to incorporate that in future experiments as well as if it 

is worthwhile to revise reporting in the current summary or future reports? [Ted Kennedy, GCMRC]

There were many good ideas to make the report better and more rigorous. Based on that, the report 

will be revised. Would also look to Reclamation as to their expectations. Not sure if the revisions will

make the decisions any easier. 

[Larry Stevens, GCWC] Strong resource impacts in Grand Canyon were not expected last year’s HFE, but 

the findings from yesterday’s presentations indicated there was a rejuvenation of the fisheries and the 

food base. Also learned quite a bit from the event about ecosystem processes. It was a successful 

experiment although perhaps not in terms of sediment movement. It did remove the sediment anoxia. 

Regarding bug flow issues, developing an experimental strategy might be a way to get at some of the 

answers the reviewers brought up. [Joel Sankey, GCMRC] The focus on the spring disturbance flow was 

on the high flows, but much was also learned from the low flows. For 2022, the higher pulses as well as 

the lower flows need to be part of this discussion.
Page 12 of 16

Annual FY21 Reporting on Expenditures

[Lee Traynham, Reclamation] PRESENTATION showed that FY21 expenditures were close to budget 

expectations. There was about $100,000 in savings mainly because of reduced travel for meetings. 

Project C (program administration) had some overage associated with contract work costs in C.5 for 

spring disturbance flows and additional processing of bug flow samples. Funds remaining in Project D 

were due to not having the archaeologist position and the cancelled trips. Other funds not used are 

already obligated. Refer to the “walk-up” table for the reallocation of funding. 

[Joel Sankey, GCMRC] [PRESENTATION] In the work plan, logistics is budgeted within each project and 

this presentation shows it separately, which has caused some confusion. Except for logistics support, 

GCMRC was under-budgeted on all projects. 

Q&A & Discussion

[Bill Persons, FFI/TU] What about the new building overhead estimates? [Joel Sankey, GCMRC] GCMRC 

had anticipated higher burden rates for the new building in FY22 and FY23. That whole project has been 

put on hold. The GCDAMP can now be thinking about use of these funds, too. 

Informational Updates

• Trout Management Flow White Paper: [Kerri Pedersen, Reclamation] This paper is currently being 

drafted. TMFs are one of the experiments in the LTEMP biological opinion to reduce recruitment of 

rainbow trout and prevent their movement downstream.The paper is not a decision-making 

document but to support the process. While the focus of the white paper is on rainbow trout brown 

trout are also included due to concerns with the increasing population. [Bill Davis, CREDA] Is TMF 

being considered for brown trout control? [Kerri Pedersen, Reclamation] Reclamation does not 

currently have compliance to conduct a TMF specifically for brown trout within the parameters of 

LTEMP since the timeframe would need to be adjusted. 

• Razorback Sucker Expert Panel: [Kerri Pedersen, Reclamation] A planning committee was tasked 

with assembling an expert science panel to review razorback suckers in Lake Mead and the Grand 

Canyon. An expert science panel was convened to address specific questions about razorback 

suckers and whether there is connectivity between the Lake Mead and Grand Canyon populations. 

Main topics were related to extent of hybridization and potential impacts on augmenting the 

populations, impacts of non-natives, sustainability of population in Lake Mead, and the connectivity 

between the two populations. The facilitators are currently working on a report that will include 

possible management actions. The final document should be available in about six months. The 

report is not meant to be a decision document and does not include impacts to other resources

from implementation. [Seth Shanahan, SNWA and TWG Chair] Was the consideration of 

augmentation a prior conservation measure from the Glen Canyon Dam biological opinion? [Kerri 

Pedersen, Reclamation] Yes, it was in the 2011 Biological Opinion, but was not specifically included 

in the 2016 Biological Opinion. 

• Green Sunfish Status and Incentivized Harvest Program Implementation: [Jeff Arnold, NPS] NPS 

did not do any removals in 2021 because there was no high flow event. Probably will do a removal 

between mid-April to mid-May. In March 2021 during the low flow (4,000 CFS) event, carp were 

moved to the upper slough. While there might be fewer green sunfish, the carp also spawned. Will 

find out more about what happened in the spring. The brown trout incentivized harvest program 
Page 13 of 16

started November 11, 2020. Had more than 640 brown trout harvested and a total of $30,000 in 

rewards to approximately 250 anglers. Three short videos were prepared with one of the anglers 

who had been the most successful. [Seth Shanahan, SNWA and TWG Chair] What was the strategy 

to introduce carp to prey on green sunfish? [Jeff Arnold, NPS] That was the idea, and was not too 

worried about them spawning because the young-of-the-year grow faster so they are larger and 

easier to remove. The problem with the pump down when the green sunfish are removed is that 

many of the smaller sunfish stay tucked up under the rocks. 

• Colorado Pikeminnow: [Kirk Young, USFWS] This was a conservation recovery project for the 

Colorado pikeminnow that was funded by USFWS (and NPS). There has been a lot of interest 

about this from the TWG. We took a phased and transparent approach. The first phase was the 

biological review to assess whether there is habitat in Grand Canyon that can provide for 

recovery. There was some habitat components present and some missing. The expert panel 

believes there is enough potential in GC to move into the second phase which is to assess and 

conduct research to answer some of these critical questions before consideration of phase 3, 

which would involve reintroductions into Grand Canyon (if warranted). No operational changes 

will occur as part of this process. The habitat is there in part because of operations in 

consideration of humpback chub. If those conditions are maintained, then we think Colorado 

pikeminnow would be fine. The third phase would be conducted so as not to require operational 

changes or require new program funding to manage pikeminnow. [Bill Davis, FFI/TU] Is the 

Colorado pikeminnow proposal strictly an experimental, nonessential effort? [Kirk Young, 

USFWS] That is one of the options. It is possible a 10(j) non-essential population could work, but 

the species is currently considered threatened when it occurs on park lands. This will need to be 

explored in Phase 3. [Larry Stevens, GCWC] GCWC strongly endorses this approach. It is 

important to bring back top predators. Did you learn lessons from the California condor 

reintroductions, which involved a lot of outside support and long-term monitoring? [Kirk Young, 

USFWS] That might be a lesson for a 10(j) approach especially with the level of stakeholders 

involved.[Shane Capron, WAPA] WAPA had commented on the draft document. WAPA is

supportive of recovery efforts and understands the reason for looking at Colorado pikeminnow

in Grand Canyon, but the hydropower resource will be directly affected by movement of 

pikeminnow into the canyon where there is marginal habitat. Operations might need to be 

modified to improve that habitat. Is there a way to do this that does not involve changing 

operations of the dam? The recovery plan for pikeminnow does not currently consider a Lower 

Basin population and moving fish into Grand Canyon. As this goes forward, would like to see 

more coordination with the Lower Basin and the recovery planning process. [Kirk Young, 

USFWS] This is why it is important to reiterate that the USFWS does not want to require any 

changes in operations if recovery activities go forward. There have been significant declines in 

the Upper Basin population, and there are concerns about this fish occurring in only three areas. 

This would allow an option for a backup population. [Ben Reeder, GCRG] Can you explain the 

attributes that are beneficial to the ecosystem and other elements that are lacking? [Kirk Young, 

USFWS] Some of the thermal characteristics that were initially thought would be hard to meet 

were decent for the Lower Grand Canyon. There is also published literature about whether the 

temperature units are adequate for growth. Experts were also impressed by the lack of nonnatives. A big thing that is missing is juvenile rearing areas because of hardly any backwaters in 

the Grand Canyon. [Kim Dibble, GCMRC] Osmundson’s** approach was used to analyze the 

annual thermal units (i.e., the amount of heat needed in a system for positive growth). It was 
Page 14 of 16

surprising to find that the thermal regime is currently suitable for the growth of this species, and 

it continues to improve as Lake Powell levels decline. Lack of backwater habitat could be an 

issue that could lead to lack of recruitment. This could also be assessed during experimentation. 

This document was never meant to be an action document and it will be revised accordingly. 

(**Osmundson, D. B. 2011. Thermal regime suitability: assessment of upstream range 

restoration potential for Colorado pikeminnow, a warmwater endangered fish. River Research 

and Applications 27:706–722) 

Discussion of Emerging Issues, Updates on Items of Interest That Are in 

Consideration for Implementation Before Next TWG Meeting, and 

Request for Agenda Items for Next Meetings 

[Ryan Mann, AZGFD] There is concern at AZGFD about low numbers of rainbow trout and discussions 

about possible management options. Nothing has been finalized yet, but these conversations are 

occurring. [Seth Shanahan, SNWA and TWG Chair] Is the number one issue stocking? [Ryan Mann, 

AZGFD] It will be one of the management actions considered. [Peggy Roefer, CRCN] One of the items 

approved by BAHG was to look at aquatic vegetation removal to help with the brown trout problem. 

That was number three on the list of things to be funded that could work. [Joel Sankey, GCMRC] It was 

discussed at GCMRC related to budgeting and planning. One thought was that the implementation plan

needed to be more fully developed before funds were found to support it. [Ryan Mann, AZDFG] Met 

with Ken Hyde in September to talk about options but then he retired. Have not made any progress 

since then, but it might be a good option. [Charles Yackulic, GCMRC] From the science monitoring side, 

this is not something that needs much money because the monitoring program is already robust. The 

funds would be needed for the removal. There are concerns about what to do with the vegetation that 

is removed that needs to be thought out. [Peggy Roefer, CRCN] How do we move this forward? [Charles 

Yackulic, GCMRC] There might also be compliance issues and will need Glen Canyon NPS managers 

involved in this. It is not an issue related to funding. 

[Shana Rapoport, CRBC] Is there a plan to have a management river trip this summer? [Clarence

Fullard, Reclamation] Reclamation is in the contracting and planning process for that. GCMRC has some 

tentative dates: July 13-22 and June 22-July 1. An update will be provided at the AMWG’s February 

meeting. 

PUBLIC COMMENT

None.

Meeting adjourned at 4:05 P.M. PDT 
Page 15 of 16

TWG Members and Alternates Cliff Barrett, UMPA Craig McGinnis, ADWR (Alternate)

Rob Billerbeck, NPS-GRNP (Alternate) Betsy Morgan, State of Utah (Alternate)

Kelly Burke, GCWC (Alternate) Christina Noftsker, State of New Mexico (Alternate)

Carrie Cannon, Hualapai Tribe Emily Omana Smith, NPS-GRCA (Alternate)

Shane Capron, WAPA Bill Persons, FFI/TU (Alternate)

William "Bill" Davis, CREDA Shana Rapoport, CRBC (Alternate)

Kurt Dongoske, Pueblo of Zuni Ben Reeder, GCRG

Craig Ellsworth, WAPA (Alternate) Peggy Roefer, CRCN (Alternate)

Michelle Garrison, CWCB (Vice-chair) David Rogowski, AZGFD (Alternate)

Brian Healy, NPS-GCNP Seth Shanahan, TWG Chair and SNWA

Leslie James, CREDA (Alternate) Erik Stanfield, Navajo Nation 

Jakob Maase, Hopi Tribe Larry Stevens, GCWC

Ryan Mann, AZGFD Jim Strogen, FFI/TU

Scott McGettigan, State of Utah Kirk Young, USFWS

USGS/GCMRC Staff 

Lucas Bair Jeff Muehlbauer

Bridget Deemer Michael Moran

Kim Dibble Emily Palmquist

Helen Fairley Joel Sankey

Mariah Giardina Laura Tennant

Paul Grams Scott VanderKooi

Lindsay Hansen (USGS contractor) David Ward

Ted Kennedy Charles Yackulic

Teo Melis

Reclamation Staff Tara Ashby Kerri Pedersen

Kathy Callister Jamescita Peshlakai

Jerimiah Drewel Daniel Picard

Clarence Fullard Ernie Rheaume

Zachary Nelson Dave Speas

Heather Patno Lee Traynham

Interested Persons Jeff Arnold, NPS-GLCA John Jordan, FFI/TU

Jan Balsom, NPS-GRCA Edward Keable, NPS

David Braun, Sound Science LLC Josh Korman, Ecometric

Daniel Bulletts, Southern Paiute Consortium Mark Lamb, USFWS

Kevin Bulletts, Southern Paiute Consortium Dave Lytle, Oregon State University

Julie Carter, AZGFD Kevin McAbee, USFWS
Page 16 of 16

Martina Dawley, Hualapai Dept of Cultural Resources Jessica Neuwerth, CRBC

Laura Dye, CRCN Michael Pillow, USFWS

Sinjin Eberle, American Rivers Taryn Preston, NPS-GLCA

Mel Fegler, State of Wyoming Sara Price, CRCN

Derek Fryer, WAPA Ted Rampton, CREDA

Alicyn Gitlin, Sierra Club Pilar Wolter Rinker, USFWS

Sarah Haas, NPS Eric Scholl

Emily Halvorsen, Colorado Attorney General's Office Gene Seagle, NPS

Sky Hedden, AZGFD Erik Skeie, State of Colorado

Carliane Johnson, SeaJay Environmental Gary Tallman, Northern Arizona University

Kristen Johnson, ADWR Melissa Trammel, NPS

Abbreviations ADWR - Arizona Department of Water Resources GRCA - Grand Canyon National Park

ARM - Annual Reporting Meeting HFE - High Flow Experiment

AZGFD - Arizona Game and Fish Department kton - 1,000 tons

AMWG - Adaptive Management Work Group

LTEMP - Long-Term Experimental and Management 

Plan

BAHG - Budget Ad Hoc Group MT - metric tons

CFS - cubic feet per second NPS - National Park Service

CR - Continuing Resolution PDT - Pacific Daylight Time

CRBC - Colorado River Board of California PI Team - Planning & Implementation Team 

CREDA - Colorado River Energy Distributors Association Reclamation - Bureau of Reclamation

CRCN - Colorado River Commission of Nevada RM - River Mile

CRMMS - Colorado River Mid-term Modeling System SCAHG - Steering Committee Ad Hoc Group

CRSP - Colorado River Storage Project SEAHG - Socioeconomics Ad Hoc Gropu

CWCB - Colorado Water Conservation Board SNWA - Southern Nevada Water Authority

D.O. - dissolved oxygen TMF - Trout Management Flows

DROA - Drought Response Operations Agreement TWP - Triennial Work Plan

FFI - Fly Fishers International TU - Trout Unlimited

FLAHG - Flow Ad Hoc Group TWG - GCDAMP Technical Work Group

FY - fiscal year UAI - unregulated annual inflow

GCDAMP - Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management 

Program UMPA - Utah Municipal Power Agency

GCMRC - Grand Canyon Monitoring & Research Center USFWS - United States Fish and Wildlife Service

GCRG - Grand Canyon River Guides USGS - United States Geological Survey

GCWC - Grand Canyon Wildlands Council WAPA - Western Area Power Administration

GLCA - Glen Canyon National Recreation Area