Page 1 of 19

GLEN CANYON DAM ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

TECHNICAL WORK GROUP MEETING

APRIL 13-14, 2021 

FINAL MEETING MINUTES

Start Time: 9:00 AM Pacific Daylight Time (PDT) 

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

Meeting Recorder: Carliane Johnson, SeaJay Environmental LLC

Welcome and Administrative 

• Introductions and Determination of Quorum (16 members) [Seth Shanahan, Southern Nevada 

Water Authority (SNWA) and SNWA/TWG Chair] Quorum was reached with at least 16 TWG 

members or their alternates in attendance.

• Adoption of Prior Meeting Minutes [Seth Shanahan, SNWA/TWG Chair] No revisions received on 

the January meeting minutes, which were adopted without objection. 

• Next Meeting Date(s): June 16-17, 2021 (webinar).

• Ad Hoc Group Membership and Updates [Seth Shanahan, SNWA/TWG Chair] No revisions received

on the Ad Hoc list; [Craig Ellsworth, Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) and Budget Ad 

Hoc Group (BAHG Chair)] The Administrative History Ad Hoc Group (AHAHG) will reconve soon to 

review work done by Paul Hirt.

• Review Action Items, Motions, and Votes Form [Seth Shanahan, SNWA/TWG Chair] The Action 

Items list was reviewed. [Brian Healy, National Park Service (NPS) – Grand Canyon National Park 

(GCNP)] Reported that green sunfish were present in the Colorado River pre-dam; see Woodbury, 

A.M.,1959, Ecological Studies of Flora and Fauna in Glen Canyon. [Mark Wimer, Grand Canyon 

Monitoring & Research Center (GCMRC)] Responses have been received on the Annual Report 

items, which will be sent out soon. 

• Update on Program Funding [Lee Traynham, Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation)] In the Energy 

and Water Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2021 (FY21), there is language to transfer

approximately $11 million of hydropower revenues to the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management 

Program (GCDAMP). The program received funds earlier this year from the Continuing Resolution, 

and more was received last week, which is going to GCDAMP partners now. No issues are

anticipated for full funding in FY21. Expect to be in a similar position in FY22 but the President’s 

budget has not been posted yet. A reduction in hydropower revenues, potentially half of current 

levels, is anticipated in FY23. [Seth Shanahan, SNWA/TWG Chair] What is the reason for FY23 

reduction? [Lee Traynham, Reclamation] GCDAMP funding from WAPA is non-reimbursable in their 

power rate; however, they can claim a credit with the U.S. Treasury against their repayment of debt 

from building the power facilities. Over time, this amount of debt has been shrinking and there is 

less credit to be claimed. The concern is that FY23 is when there may be challenges to sustain the

power revenues for GCDAMP. There are also new challenges to the Basin Fund related to 

reimbursable costs and whether WAPA can recover those costs. This is a separate issue. [Shane 

Capron, WAPA] WAPA believes $12.5 million is sustainable from these non-reimbursable sources 

over the next ten years starting in FY23. 

• NPS Vegetation Plan Update [DOWNLOAD] [Rob Billerbeck, National Park Service (NPS)] The NPS is 

currently addressing reviewer comments received on the vegetation plan for the Long-term and 
Page 2 of 19

Experimental Management Plan (LTEMP). NPS will be working with GCMRC to create this as a living 

document that will be updated each year.

• Update on Activities Impacted Due to COVID-19 Restrictions [Clarence Fullard, Reclamation]

Reclamation’s Salt Lake City office is still on maximum telework, which will continue. [Mark Wimer, 

GCMRC] GCMRC has not had to cancel any field trips so there are not any impacts to work getting 

done. Staff are not in the office except with special permission. [Brian Healy, NPS-GCNP] GCNP has 

gotten most of its field work done except for the Little Colorado River humpback chub monitoring 

and the spring Havasu trip. Most staff also continue to telework. [Ken Hyde, NPS-Glen Canyon 

National Recreation Area (GLCA) GLCA is working to get agreements with tribal youth crews. NPS is 

still limited on use of volunteers, but things are starting to ease a bit. [Peter Bungart, Hualapai Tribe 

(Hualapai)] The Hualapai are fully back to work with some restrictions in the community. Most staff 

are vaccinated and are still following COVID protocols. [Erik Stanfield, Navajo Nation (Navajo)] A lot 

of the government offices are open, but travel is still restricted. There are still some small clusters of 

infections. [Jakob Maase, Hopi Tribe (Hopi). The Hopi Reservation is in Phase I reopening. 

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

GCMRC] [DOWNLOAD] This table shows field trips that have occurred or are planned from January 1 

through June 2021. 

• Updates on Items of Interest That Are in Consideration for Implementation Before Next TWG 

Meeting [Clarence Fullard, Reclamation] A “sources sought” notice has been published. A contract 

is anticipated by the end of FY21 third quarter. 

TWG Vice-Chairperson Election Due to Mid-Year Vacancy and 

Announcement of Clarence Fullard as Reclamation Vice-Chairperson 

[Seth Shanahan, SNWA/TWG Chair] Announced that Clarence Fullard is Reclamation’s TWG Vice-chair. 

[Steve Wolff, State of Wyoming] Motion to elect Michelle Garrison, Colorado Water Conservation 

Board (CWCB), as TWG Vice-Chairperson by consensus. [Peggy Roefer, Colorado River Commission of 

Nevada (CRCN) and Flow Ad Hoc Group (FLAHG) Chair] Seconds that nomination. No objections; 

motion passes.

Fiscal Year 2 Budget Discussion and Consideration of Directing the BAHG

to Develop Budget Prioritization Criteria for the TWG

[Seth Shanahan, SNWA/TWG Chair] There is a requirement to start discussing budget procedures in 

April during which the BAHG and TWG will consider potential changes to Year 2 of the Triennial Budget 

and Work Plan (TWP) based on criteria listed in Section 2.7. One of the justifications to make changes is 

scientific. This is the first year of the budget with data that has been collected but not yet analyzed. 

There could also be Administrative justifications in which new information might be received about 

assumed costs to the budget. [Lee Traynham, Reclamation] [DOWNLOAD] Reclamation’s budget does 

not change much from year to year. Potential adjustments may involve shifting funds such that funds

not spent in FY21, might carry over into FY22. There are also emerging issues that may require revisions 

to the TWP and other items are flagged for awareness. Project C.8 (Vegetation Treatment) will have an 

increase in its budget, but this is part of the existing TWP, so no adjustment is needed. A lot of the 

cultural resources work goes to tribal partners and some savings might be found in D.1 and D.2 

elements because a Cultural Resources Officer has not been filled yet. “Unfunded and Partially Funded 

Proposals” are projects in FY22 that the TWG might consider if funding is available. 
Page 3 of 19

Q&A and discussion

[Ken Hyde, NPS-GLCA] With current projections at Lake Powell there may be warm water issues that will 

bring fish passage issues to the forefront. That could be a big factor next year. [Peter Bungart, Hualapai]

What is status of the Tribal Liaison? [Lee Traynham, Reclamation] It is on the regional list of vacant 

positions that will go out soon for advertisement and selection. [Peter Bungart, Hualapai] What about 

those unspent funds for the Tribal Liaison or Regional Archeologist position? [Lee Traynham, 

Reclamation] There is more flexibility with the archaeologist funds. If money is available, Reclamation 

will consider whether to use it for third-party support to implement the programmatic agreement. 

There is less flexibility with the Tribal Liaison position because that funding comes from appropriations 

via the five U.S. Department of Interior (DOI) agencies, which would require discussions with those 

agencies. 

[Mike Moran, GCMRC] [GCMRC FY22 Budget Overview] GCMRC’s FY22 request is $9.24 million. By 

comparison, FY21 request was $9.83 million and FY23 is $9.13 million. The Lake Powell Water Quality 

Project is funded through Reclamation but not through the GCDAMP. Still have one more year of budget

for that; however, this is the last year under the current five-year agreement. Overhead rates, which 

affect funding for science projects, will rise from 14% in FY21 to 22% in FY22, and up to 28% in FY23

because of the new building. Without the new building, the historic overhead rates were around 14% to 

16%. 

Q&A and discussion

[Peggy Roefer, CRCN and FLAHG Chair] Does Reclamation plan to extend the contract for Lake Powell 

water quality monitoring? [Lee Traynham, Reclamation] Yes, the Water Quality group has committed to 

those discussions with GCMRC and has every intent to continue. [Peggy Roefer, CRCN] When out on the 

river during the experimental flow, heard from many experts that the Juvenile Chub Monitoring-West 

was important. How do we get that funded again for the third year? [Scott VanderKooi, GCMRC] It is a 

priority. There was a TWG motion on the approved TWP that prioritized carryover funding to support 

Juvenile Chub Monitoring-West in FY23. The savings in the overhead rate might be used to support that 

work. [Brian Healy, NPS-GCNP] Charles’ presentation during the Annual Report Meeting suggested 

there might be efficiencies gained from the Lees Ferry monitoring that could be shifted to Juvenile Chub 

Monitoring-West. Is there any progress on that? [Scott VanderKooi, GCMRC] There are opportunities 

but have not made a lot of headway. [Kim Dibble, GCMRC] Have had two discussion with Arizona Game 

and Fish Department (AZGFD) but have not yet found a way to combine those two programs. [Ryan 

Mann, AZGFD] It is important to point out there are different objectives for those programs with 

different things being studied. [Seth Shanahan, SNWA/TWG Chair] Is the trade off to support Juvenile 

Chub Monitoring-West when combining projects? [Ryan Mann, AZGFD] Yes, the tradeoff would be 

shifting of the funds from one program to the other. [Seth Shanahan, SNWA/TWG Chair] What about 

the additional TRGD site? [Kim Dibble, GCMRC] GCMRC had discussions about getting a second TRGD

site in FY23. These were two separate topics. 

[Seth Shanahan, SNWA/TWG Chair] The second part of this topic is for BAHG to arrange a call to 

develop a recommendation for the TWG to consider. [Craig Ellsworth, WAPA/BAHG Chair] The BAHG is 

looking for input on how best to prioritize different elements in the TWP. [Seth Shanahan, SNWA/TWG 

Chair] There are two topics. One is to develop a recommendation on Year 2 of the budget. Second item 

relates to Craig’s comment about budget prioritization by the June TWG meeting in time to send a 
Page 4 of 19

recommendation for the Adaptive Management Work Group’s (AMWG’s) August meeting. [No 

objections to charging the BAHG to look at the Year 2 budget and make a recommendation at the June 

TWG meeting.]

[Seth Shanahan, SNWA/TWG Chair] The other, longer-term discussion is to address the potential for a 

50% reduction of funds in FY23. Now that the TWG is in between budget cycles, can the BAHG come up 

with priority criteria that the TWG can use for the next TWP? [No objections.] 

[Lee Traynham, Reclamation] Regarding prioritization, the federal agencies will also be looking at this 

from a risk assessment standpoint as to what Reclamation needs to do to stay in compliance with its 

obligations. This will feed into the BAHG process as to what is most effective. [Craig Ellsworth, 

WAPA/BAHG Chair] BAHG needs to work in tandem with Reclamation on this. 

Update on Hydrology, Operations, and Water Quality Conditions

[Heather Patno, Reclamation] [DOWNLOAD] Monthly- and seasonal-to-date precipitation have been 

very dry (50-70% of average). Same with the seasonal snow conditions. The Snow Water Equivalent 

peaked on March 30, which was about a week earlier than normal. This year’s cumulative runoff is 

similar to 2002, the driest year on record. The April 24-month study will be published on April 15. 

Reclamation has initiated its Drought Response Operations Agreement (DROA) with formal notifications 

in January 2021 with low reservoir conditions predicted in the 24-Month Study minimum probable 

continuing into February and March. These projections initiate enhanced monitoring and coordination 

with monthly meetings. The minimum and maximum probable model analysis will be run monthly as 

DROA occurs during the months when the minimum and maximum probable modeling runs are typically 

not provided. The Lake Powell end-of-year projected elevation of 3,550 feet would be the lowest seen 

since 1969 when the dam was filling. The most recent low occurred in 2005 when it was at 3555 feet. 

This would put Lake Mead in a Level 1 shortage condition in Water Year 2022, the first time it would be 

declared under the 2007 Interim Guidelines. The low flow event for the apron repair was successful. 

[Jeremiah Drewel, Reclamation] The modeled projections of temperatures in Lake Powell to the 

penstock show a fall temperature peak of 16.5o

 Celsius using initial conditions made in December. The 

model will be updated with March baseline data to better reflect fall temperatures. Kim Dibble’s river 

temperature model will be used from now on because it is more accurate for western Grand Canyon. 

[Kim Dibble, GCMRC] The model is based on and improves some of the inputs from the Wright model. It 

is more of an exponential decay function. [Charles Yackulic, GCMRC] The key to this new model is that it 

projects slightly less warming during later months. 

Q&A and discussion

[Mike Moran, GCMRC] Is there an explanation for the low dissolved oxygen in March? [Jeremiah

Drewel, Reclamation] It is always low below the dam and there was probably mixing. [Robert Radtke, 

Reclamation] The colder winter water will flow along the bottom and then it will push up the water 

when it gets closer to the dam. That hypoxic water should not get up to the Penstock. [Mike Moran, 

GCMRC] Does that mean there is not full mixing of water in the winter? [Robert Radtke, Reclamation] 

That is correct. It is deep enough, and the turnover does not happen. It has happened, but it is rare. [Jim 

Strogen, FFI/TU] Does the low dissolved oxygen happen during years of decreasing flow? Is this going to 

be an increasing concern? [Jeremiah Drewel, Reclamation] Above the dam, it happens during above 
Page 5 of 19

average flow that entrains the water; at the Penstock, it happens during low flow. [Robert Radtke, 

Reclamation] The probability of this happening increases with normal to high inflows. With 

resuspension of sediment, oxygen demand increases from the inflow of water, which creates that slug of 

hypoxic water. When the reservoir level drops and sediment is exposed, the potential is increased with 

any inflow that resuspends this sediment. [Jim Strogen, FFI/TU] Should there be an action plan for low 

dissolved oxygen events? [Jeremiah Drewel, Reclamation] Low dissolved oxygen coming out of the 

Penstock is a relatively short event. [Ryan Mann, AZGFD] The risk is a huge mortality event for trout 

even during short durations. [Kirk Young, United States Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS)] How far 

downstream does it take for oxygen to recover? [Charles Yackulic, GCMRC] Badger Rapid. [Ted 

Kennedy, GCMRC] The zone of red (less than 5 milligrams per liter (mg/l)) only lasts for a couple of miles

and then it is fully oxygenated once the water hits the rapids.

Progress on Evaluating Temperature Control Methods: Results from a 

Technology Search

[Connie Svoboda, Reclamation Technical Service Center (TSC)] [presentation available upon request] 

This presentation is focused on temperature control of reservoir release flows. New ideas for 

temperature control are needed to reduce costs and better meet objectives. The consulting firm, yet2, 

was hired to review all possible methods, and prioritize the more promising technologies, which were 

highlighted in the presentation. Next steps include having local staff consider technologies that make 

sense for their specific dams.

Q&A and discussion

[Ken Hyde, NPS-GLCA] Have to consider quagga mussels, which is already having an impact on the gates 

above the penstock. They will clog any pipe and attach to anything. [Connie Svoboda, TSC] That is why 

local staff need to provide input on what makes sense in a certain area. The slide deck from yet2 is 

available by email request. [Leslie James, CREDA] Did the search also include a cost element? [Connie

Svoboda, TSC] There was no cost element considered in the report – just ideas. [Peggy Roefer, 

CRCN/FLAHG CHAIR] Anything that mixes the water column in front of the Glen Canyon Dam will 

increase the salt dramatically. [Connie Svoboda, Reclamation] Destratification might be desired in 

certain areas, but it is not the goal for most of Reclamation’s large dams. [Ted Kennedy, GCMRC] Were 

there any use cases on aeration in tailraces below dams to fix an oxygen problem? [Connie Svoboda, 

Reclamation] Don’t know the answer to that. That sounds like a way to avoid some of the other 

problems. [Seth Shanahan, SNWA/TWG Chair] Is this the final work product for this fiscal year? [Connie

Svoboda, Reclamation] Yes, the contract is completed. It would be worth thinking about how these 

techniques might apply to Glen Canyon Dam but there is nothing further at this point. [Clarence Fullard, 

Reclamation] Staff had a call with operations to discuss the outcome of the technology search. Still 

considering what the next steps might be. [Lee Traynham, Reclamation] It is a big, expensive and 

challenging problem to resolve. To make the case for any of these technologies, the goals needs to be 

refined. The options also need to be considered in conjunction with the USFWS as part of the LTEMP 

requirements. A risk assessment might need to be updated with respect to temperature. [Kirk Young, 

USFWS] There have been mixed messages with LTEMP regarding both heating and cooling. Both 

humpback chub and razorback sucker have been resilient to cold temperatures although still harmful. 

There are benefits to warmer water, but it would be a problem if that brings in more non-native species. 
Page 6 of 19

There is a window of opportunity now with the infrastructure bill, which means figuring out the next 

steps now to develop a proposal. [Seth Shanahan, SNWA/TWG Chair] Recommends that the TWG 

continues to track this and get periodic updates from USFWS and Reclamation.

Distribution and Impacts of Benthic and Hyporheic Anoxia on the 

Colorado River Ecosystem Downstream From Glen Canyon Dam

[Courtney McDaniel, State University of New York College at Brockport (SUNY)] [DOWNLOAD] Benthic 

& Hyporheic Anoxia (BHA), occurs in the riverbed sediments that are potentially important habitats for 

invertebrates. It is not uncommon in stagnant waters such as swamps and bogs due to decomposition, 

but it had not been documented in flowing regions before this study. BHA soils were found to 

encompass about 30 river kilometers. The BHA was especially prevalent in the tailwaters reach from 

Glen Canyon Dam to Lees Ferry, and primarily in slow-moving waters where there was a lot of aquatic 

vegetation. Full details are in the presentation.

Q&A and discussion

[Peter Bungart, Hualapai] Have you considered a study in the Western Grand Canyon with warmer, 

shallower waters that are more turbid? [Courtney McDaniel, SUNY] This is of interest to Larry who may 

follow up on that. [Mike Horn, TSC] Was change in BHA due to aeration that increased circulation, which 

changes the microbial community? Is there a way to determine effects from oxygen levels versus the 

bubbler increasing circulation? [Courtney McDaniel, SUNY] Would bet it has to do with circulation 

assuming that extra water flow gets down to the benthic layer. It might not be due to the introduction 

of oxygen. [Pilar Wolters] Was the Chara alive in the study? If it were just harvested from the river, 

wouldn't it be decomposing during the experiment, using up the dissolved oxygen? [Courtney McDaniel, 

SUNY] This is something that was considered. Tried to remove it with the roots. There was 

decomposition and may have caused more of that. BHA might not have developed as quickly in a 

growing mat. [Ryan Mann, AZGFD] How prevalent is this in other tailrace systems? [Courtney McDaniel, 

SUNY] It has not been documented before below a dam. In other systems, there was scouring below the 

bedrock. This would be interesting to look into. [Bill Davis, CREDA] Prior to 1990, there used to be

Cladophora, but now it is Chara, and the flow has changed. Could this be affecting the BHA? [Courtney 

McDaniel, SUNY] The growth form might have an effect but if it is simply decomposition, then it would 

not change. It would be interesting to look at BHA development between Cladophora versus Chara. 

[Seth Shanahan, SNWA/TWG Chair] What is the magnitude of this problem as it relates to other limiting 

factors in the system? [Courtney McDaniel, SUNY] The only aspect is its effect on aquatic invertebrates.

The study also looked at amphipods, which were not negatively affected. The only data collected 

showed an effect on mayfly, which are not found in the mainstem of the Colorado River. [Craig 

Ellsworth, WAPA/BAHG Chair] It seems that all the macroinvertebrates in the system are tolerant to 

low dissolved oxygen. It unknown if BHA limits food base production. 

Consideration of Developing a Low Dissolved Oxygen Response Plan if 

Concentrations are Projected to Warrant Concern in 6-Months

[Seth Shanahan, SNWA/TWG Chair] There is a general concern about the species which might be 

affected by low dissolved oxygen and goals that need to be achieved. One possible approach to this 
Page 7 of 19

issue is to develop a threshold level that triggers a monitoring activity to determine over a certain 

timeframe what needs to be addressed in a response plan.

Q&A and discussion

[Craig Ellsworth, WAPA/BAHG Chair] A 6-month timeframe might be too short. [Ryan Mann, AZGFD]

Explain more what was meant about point source and water quality from the dam? Discharges must still 

meet water quality standards. [Seth Shanahan, SNWA/TWG Chair] The issue is not whether water 

quality standards could be exceeded. It is whether dams are point source discharges that are regulated 

so that if water passing through exceeds a standard, they would be responsible to achieve that standard.

Dams are not sources of a point source discharge; this is a flow-through process. [Peggy Roefer, 

CRCN/FLAHG CHAIR] For example, if there was a point source discharge standard for temperature, then 

there would be a mixing zone. A pipe is a point source, while dams are not. Below Hoover Dam, Lake 

Mojave is segmented because it is a cold-water fishery only to a certain point. [Jim Strogen, FFI/TU] Is 

there an opportunity to study this further, maybe with an Ad Hoc committee? [Seth Shanahan, 

SNWA/TWG Chair] The intent is to set up a trigger to conduct the planning six months before a

projected threshold value of concern is reached. There is still debate about how much of a problem it 

might be. [Kelly Burke, Grand Canyon Wildlands Council (GCWC)] Supports the development of a plan 

and to be more prepared to understand the actions that could be taken. [Clarence Fullard, 

Reclamation] Reclamation is currently working on an agreement with the TSC to conduct a “state of 

practice” investigation to synthesize what others are doing. Questions remain about how big of a risk 

this is. More information is needed before considering mitigation technologies. There is an unfunded 

budget line item on dissolved oxygen, but this is a timely issue to address. [Brian Healy, NPS-GCNP] Are 

there documented dissolved oxygen fish kills during those dips that were seen in the past? [Ryan Mann, 

AZGFD] Anglers have observed fish kills but it is difficult to monitor because these events can be rapid. A 

bigger concern is a slug of low dissolved oxygen that could cause larger mortality than has occurred on 

the past especially with dropping reservoir levels and increasing temperature. [Peggy Roefer, 

CRCN/FLAHG CHAIR] Can the fish leave? Lake Mead had a low dissolved oxygen event with 30 miles of 

anoxic waters in its upper reaches, but there was not a big fish kill. What happens during these events? 

[Mike Horn, TSC] TSC did work in Reclamation’s Canyon Ferry reservoir in Montana with historically low 

dissolved oxygen over the summers. It was found that the fish move 9-10 miles downstream until 

oxygen increased in the fall. [Ryan Mann, AZGFD] If there is a rapid decline in dissolved oxygen, that is a 

mechanism for high fish mortality. Would like to think they can avoid these conditions, but there is 

enough evidence from other kills that this can cause mortality below the dam. [Scott VanderKooi, 

GCMRC] Seen situations with rapid low dissolved oxygen that fish cannot seem to escape. The fish might 

not know where to go especially if conditions come on quickly. [Bill Davis, CREDA] Aquatic insects have 

tolerances around 5 mg/l, and can be affected too, if they are incubating eggs during a low dissolved 

oxygen event. [Ryan Mann, AZGFD] It might also change species composition with shifts in the aquatic 

food base. Brown trout are more tolerant and might be able to fill a niche that rainbow trout cannot. 

[Bill Persons, FFI/TU] Low dissolved oxygen fish kills were seen in the Lees Ferry Reach during 2005-

2006. Even with gauges in place now, it is still hard to document a fish kill if people are not there to 

observe them. It will show up in the fishery later. [Seth Shanahan, SNWA/TWG Chair] This topic is not 

to try to figure out what to do, but to define a trigger, such as “in the next six months, dissolved oxygen 

concentrations are projected to reach 5 mg/l or below,” which would lead to the start of a plan. 

Reclamation is already moving in this direction. [Jim Strogen, FFI/TU] Why wait to enact a plan? [Kelly 
Page 8 of 19

Burke, GCWC] Since Reclamation already has these plans underway, can we make a plan on how to get 

updates and review their information? Are there impacts to dam facilities from either mitigating from 

low oxygen or from these slugs of water directly? [Bill Persons, FFI/TU] Reclamation tried to run the 

turbines more slowly to entrain more oxygen, but that lead to a cavitating impact on the bearings. 

[Shana Rapoport, Colorado River Board of California (CRBC)] If a water body is listed as impaired, is 

there still a requirement that it needs to be addressed even if the dam is not listed as a source? [Seth

Shanahan, SNWA/TWG Chair] That is possible. Impairment is a state listing under Section 303(d) of the 

Clean Water Act. It is possible to have a water body listed as impaired for some water quality standard

(such as temperature or low dissolved oxygen) that does not implicate the dam as the source or requires 

it to do something to change that impairment. [Peggy Roefer, CRCN/FLAHG CHAIR] It is important that

the group understands this discussion on impairment is hypothetical and not fact. [Seth Shanahan, 

SNWA/TWG Chair] Based on the discussions, the action is for the TWG to be actively engaged in 

Reclamation’s process on this issue with the goal of TWG to develop a plan. 

Discussion About Possible Experimental and Management Actions That 

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

[Clarence Fullard, Reclamation] [DOWNLOAD] Refer to the list of flow actions for FY21. This includes the

apron repair that recently concluded and the remote sensing overflights that will start over Memorial 

Day weekend. The LTEMP experiments will be back soon during the fall accounting window. 

Reclamation is currently drafting a white paper on the state of the science for trout management flows, 

which is not being considered for this year. Bug flows are not recommended in FY21, but additional 

steps are planned. 

[Mike Moran, GCMRC] [DOWNLOAD] While still technically within the implementation window for a 

spring high flow experiment (HFE), probably need several hundred thousand metric tons of accumulated 

sand to do a spring HFE. Upper Marble Canyon is in a deficient condition. The deposition is better in 

Lower Marble Canyon, but still four times below what is desired for an HFE. A contract is in place for the 

upcoming Remote Sensing Overflight. 

Q&A and discussion

[Brian Healy, NPS-GCNP] The Leadership Team’s decision on the bugs flows was surprising. [Clarence

Fullard, Reclamation] The intent was to report on the status of the tech team calls. It did not end up in a 

recommendation. The Planning Team’s technical memo will go to the Leadership Team for the Secretary

to make a decision. [Lee Traynham, Reclamation] The Leadership Team has not met yet. [Brian Healy, 

NPS-GCNP] There would be more gained by doing it again this year either as a reduced experiment or a 

full experiment. [Mike Wimer, GCMRC] GCMRC also felt it was a worthwhile experiment to continue. 

[Ryan Mann, AZGFD] AZGFD supported the bug flow experiment, but had abstained from a vote due to 

costs and timing. [Brian Healy, NPS-GCNP] NPS was hoping there would be additional discussions on a 

scaled back experiment with basin funds. [Lee Traynham, Reclamation] The Planning Team needed to 

make its recommendation to meet the May 1 implementation deadline. There will be space for NPS and 

USGS to document those reasons in the memo. [Peter Bungart, Hualapai] Supports the bug flow 

experiment. [Kelly Burke, GCWC] What about the Science Advisor to look at this experiment, which was 

a line item in the budget? [Lee Traynham, Reclamation] There was no standard procedure on how to 

evaluate. The ideas were for 1) GCMRC to develop a synthesis report on information collected to date 
Page 9 of 19

and 2) for the Science Advisor panel to help interpret the results. This is a new process with respect to 

LTEMP experiments and how to respond to the results. [Peggy Roefer, CRCN/FLAHG CHAIR] Do both of 

those things have to happen before another bug flow is considered? [Lee Traynham, Reclamation] That 

is not a requirement, but it is a recommendation from the Planning Team to help the group be in a 

better position for next year. The Science Advisor could be tasked with this prior to those deliberations 

next spring. [Leslie James, CREDA] There has been a significant change in just the last few months. 

Hydrology has not improved, and market conditions are two to four times higher than when the bug 

flow experiment was first discussed. The estimated purchase power is now $50-60 million versus $12 

million previously. These circumstances are outside the control of GCDAMP, WAPA, and Reclamation.

[Craig Ellsworth, WAPA/BAHG Chair] WAPA continues to see an increase in the spread between peak 

and off-peak prices, which increases the cost of the experiments. WAPA will share its updated cost 

estimate with Lee to decide whether to include that in the report.

Panel Discussion – Are There Important Resource Outcomes That Might 

be Expected From a Potential 7.48 Million Acre-Feet Release Year in 

WY2022 and Are Current Plans Sufficient to Capitalize on This Potential 

Learning Opportunity?

[Craig Ellsworth, WAPA/BAHG Chair (panel organizer)] [presentation available by request] This 

presentation is a reflection of the last 7.48 MAF release that occurred in 2014, which included the crash 

of rainbow trout, expansion of brown trout, cancellation of the 2015 HFE, skip spawning, decline of 

razorback suckers, etc. From a biological standpoint, a high release year can negatively affect 

temperature and dissolved oxygen, which will affect the trout fishery and then recreation (angling). In a 

low release year, there are also concerns about water quality, low nutrients, and temperature. 

[Bill Persons, IFF/TU] What did the scientists say about good learning opportunities for monitoring 

during a low volume year? [Charles Yackulic, GCMRC] We should not expect similar responses from the

ecosystem as occurred in 2014 because this was coming out of a boom time when almost all fish 

populations were doing very well. A lower volume also contributed to phosphorus loading. When 

looking closer at a fine scale changes, warmer temperatures are seen during the years when there are

low elevations with high inflows. The concern is in the Western Grand Canyon. [Craig Ellsworth, 

WAPA/BAHG Chair] Recommends sharing the slides and keeping this as an agenda item at the next

meeting. [Peggy Roefer, CRCN/FLAHG CHAIR] The rapid at Pearce Ferry is not as extreme as it has been, 

which might cause trouble. [Ryan Mann, AZGFD] AZGFD will be monitoring there next week and can 

provide an update at the June TWG.

Public Comment on Day 1:

None.

Adjourned at 3:50 PM PDT 
Page 10 of 19

GLEN CANYON DAM ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

TECHNICAL WORK GROUP MEETING

APRIL 13-14, 2021 

Day 2: April 14, 2021 

Start Time: 9:03 AM PST

Conducting: Seth Shanahan, TWG Chair 

Meeting Recorder: Carliane Johnson, SeaJay Environmental LLC

Welcome and Administrative

• Introductions and Determination of Quorum [Seth Shanahan, SNWA/TWG Chair] Quorum 

reached. 

• Monitoring Metrics Status Update [Lee Traynham, Reclamation] The LTEMP Record of Decision 

(ROD) required DOI to develop monitoring metrics to track progress of the LTEMP goals. This effort 

is reflected in the current TWP and Reclamation funding for staff. The focus to date has been on 

defining “metrics” and determining the objectives. The intent is to develop a tool that will be used 

to describe past efforts and current actions toward LTEMP goals. Monitoring metrics are not 

quantified targets. This is likely a three-year effort. Criteria will also be established. There will be

opportunities for the TWG and AMWG to engage in the discussions once GCMRC has made more 

progress on the metrics. [Helen Fairley, GCMRC] [Defining Monitoring Metrics presentation] The 

LTEMP goals, which have been defined, are the “targets” and may have specific guidance, but some 

will need significant input from stakeholders. This effort is to define the LTEMP metrics for tracking 

“success.” Need to be cautious about long-term data streams (i.e., whether they are most effective 

for future monitoring) and any data gaps. Will seek TWG input at the June meeting and plan to have 

a review draft by fall 2021. 

Q&A and Discussion 

[Seth Shanahan, SNWA/TWG Chair] Is there an opportunity to review a list of metrics that are 

already being reported on while the more complete list is being developed? [Lee Traynham, 

Reclamation] There are some good indicators being discussed now that can be implemented as 

metrics. GCMRC is currently doing this with their inventory. Reclamation has recommended GCMRC 

pilot some of the metrics in the Annual Report. [Helen Fairley, GCMRC] It is anticipated that by fall 

2021, there will be a good list on what the scientists consider to be good metrics although there may 

be gaps. [Seth Shanahan, Reclamation] Requests this be an action item. Are you also reaching out 

to other experts? [Helen Fairley, GCMRC] GCMRC will be doing that, but it has not been done yet. 

[Seth Shanahan, Reclamation] The ROD directs that metrics be developed for the objectives, while 

the TWG has been looking at the goals. Are the objectives being considered? [Helen Fairley, 

GCMRC] A lot of those objectives are not of a scientific nature and that would need to be discussed. 

That might be more appropriately handled by Reclamation. An update will be provided at the June 

TWG meeting. [Kelly Burke, GCWC] Suggests that the Desired Future Conditions (DFCs) and their 

quantification could be used alongside the development of the metrics. [Lee Traynham, 

Reclamation] The quantification target will be a separate issue for the future. The DFCs will inform 
Page 11 of 19

that discussion once the metrics are in place. [Ben Reeder, Grand Canyon River Guides (GCRG)]

How do we quantify Cultural Resources? [Bill Davis, CREDA] What product is the TWG going to 

review in June? This is a difficult subject that the TWG has been dealing with for a long time. Would 

like to see the information before the TWG meeting in June. [Helen Fairley, GCMRC] Materials may 

not be ready before the meeting. The desire is to get feedback on the basic approach, the draft 

criteria, and whether there are additional criteria that need to be considered. [Lee Traynham, 

Reclamation] The June TWG meeting will be used to present the approach and criteria with time for 

TWG members to provide feedback. [Mark Wimer, GCMRC] This is going to be a multi-step process

and there will be additional opportunities for input over time. [Seth Shanahan, SNWA/TWG Chair]

TWG members can also attend and get more detail from the Steering Ad Hoc Committee, which is in 

discussion on this topic. The LTEMP put the DFCs aside for the goals, but there is historical value in 

using the DFCs to support development of the metrics. [Leslie James, CREDA] Aren’t the DFCs part 

of the LTEMP environmental impact statement (EIS)? There are differing viewpoints and the DFCs 

were accepted by the Secretary at the time. [Seth Shanahan, Reclamation] The DFCs were not a 

part of the EIS; they informed the EIS and were used to get to the goals.

• Incentivized Harvest Program Implementation Update [Ken Hyde, NPS-GLCA] Have now finished 

five months of the Incentivized Harvest Program (November 11 through March) with 200 fish turned 

in, averaging 20 anglers per month catching about 40 fish per month. Getting a lot of information 

about the anglers, where they are coming from, and what motivates them. A quarter of the fish 

caught (about 50) were in the 18-24-inch range so spawning brown trout are being removed. April 

will be a month-long brown trout bonanza with bonuses paid for every third fish (an extra $50). 

Three passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags were turned in during the first week of the bonanza 

with bonuses paid (an extra $50 for the PIT tags and $300 for the sonic tags). The angler who turns 

in the most fish will get a $500 bonus. The numbers are still low so these bonuses might help show 

which ones provide the biggest incentive. There might be another bonanza from mid-November 

through January during the spawning period. In March, the reward was $33 per fish, which will 

continue through this summer and fall. Another $100,000 was added to the existing funding. This 

will cover three years of the program and then will assess if additional measures are needed to go to 

a long-term Incentivized Harvest Program. 

Q&A and Discussion 

[Leslie James, CREDA] Was there a press release on the bonanza that can be distributed? [Ken

Hyde, NPS-GLCA] Yes, will send the flyers and the press release. [Kelly Burke, GCWC] There is a lot 

of interest in the bonanza, but how can we get the anglers interested in that area? [Ken Hyde, NPSGLCA] AZGFD posted information about the bonanza on April 1. Any angler that turns in pictures of 

brown trout and fishing video will also be rewarded. These will be used on social media to promote 

the program. 

• Trout Report from Lees Ferry [Ryan Mann, AZGFD] [Lees Ferry Spring Monitoring] This is data from 

the most recent Lees Ferry monitoring conducted in March. The reduced capture rate of rainbow 

trout (65.6%) was the lowest reported since 1990 when monitoring was standardized. The rate of 
Page 12 of 19

brown trout (32.7%) is more related to the reduced numbers of rainbow trout rather than an 

increase in brown trout numbers, but both numbers are of concern.

Q&A and Discussion

[Jim Strogen, IFF/TU] Will brown trout fill this void and what is the best way to manage this shift? 

[Ryan Mann, AZGFD] Hard to say. There may be other factors that are limiting to brown trout. There 

is optimism about the number of rainbow trout adults that are still in the system and there is hope 

that the 2020 spawning event is different. That will be monitored this summer. [Peggy Roefer, 

CRCN/FLAHG CHAIR] Why was spawning unsuccessful in 2019? [Ryan Mann, AZGFD] Can’t say it 

was unsuccessful because it is not tracked well. It might have been more an issue related to 

recruitment. [Charles Yackulic, GCMRC] Tools are being developed to assess spawning and fish 

condition, which suggest there was sufficient eggs. It should have been an average year based on 

the phosphorus model. The most likely factor was due to increased predation by brown trout. [Ryan

Mann, AZGFD] Triploids would be the ones stocked for the fishery, which would not contribute to 

spawning. A compensatory response to the increase in brown trout might be to ensure there are 

sufficient population numbers of rainbow trout. [Bill Persons, FFI/TU] Are rainbow trout being 

tested for presence of whirling disease? [Ryan Mann, AZGFD] Don’t think testing has occurred for 

years, but there has also not been a reason to be concerned. [Ryan Mann, AZGFD] Large adult 

brown trout survive at high rates and any removal would potentially help reduce spawning. [Brian 

Healy, NPS-GCNP] Probably the best thing to do in the short term is increase the number of anglers 

targeting brown trout. 

LTEMP Biological Opinion Conservation Measures – Triggered Activity 

Status and Review of the Triggers

[Kerri Pedersen, Reclamation] [DOWNLOAD] The Tier 1 Action Initiation Trigger has been hit for

subadult humpback chub in the mainstem Juvenile Chub Monitoring reach. Tier 2 actions will be 

triggered if Tier 1 actions are not successful. A meeting occurred in February to identify additional 

conservation action. The consensus was to focus on least invasive options; for example, moving fish 

above Chute Falls. 

Q&A and discussion

[Seth Shanahan, SNWA/TWG Chair] What are the numbers of translocations occurring now and the

likely first next step? [Kirk Young, USFWS] One translocation is done above Chute Fall each year that 

targets 300 young-of-year fish. There are various translocations outside the Little Colorado River. Also 

considering a translocation of Year 1 fish (an additional 600 or more) that would be done in May. Poor 

recruitment occurred from 2016-2018 that is likely the cause of the trigger. There was also an increase 

in recruitment during 2019 and 2020, but they have not moved out of the Little Colorado River. These 

are the ones that should be targeted to increase the numbers above Chute Falls. [Shana Rapoport, 

CRBC] Has there been any new knowledge since the biological opinion was finalized? [Kirk Young, 

USFWS] Yes; there is more understanding of the skip spawning dynamics in the Little Colorado River, 

and have also determined the net benefit of the Chute Falls translocations. [Charles Yackulic] Also 

understand now that adult survival and that some fish are harder to catch. However, recruitment has 

been lower than thought, which means that recovery may be less than expected. [Jim Strogen, FFI/TU in 
Page 13 of 19

chat] Will that review and possible adjustment of the triggers be a USFWS decision, or will that come 

through GCDAMP for a decision? [Lee Traynham, Reclamation] DOI will retain decision-making

responsibility, but information is being shared to elicit feedback from GCDAMP. [Jim Strogen, FFI/TU]

Will translocation success in other streams be a factor in changing the triggers or will it remain based on 

Little Colorado River numbers? [Kirk Young, USFWS] The Little Colorado River is still the center of 

humpback chub in the Grand Canyon, and the most resilient, long-term population. It will likely remain 

prominent in all future triggers. The other populations are a recent phenomenon and will need to be 

looked at. [Seth Shanahan, SNWA/TWG Chair] For supplementary information on brown trout, see the 

presentation that Charles Yackulic gave at the Annual Reporting meeting in January. 

The Colorado Pikeminnow Reintroduction Feasibility Study 

[Kirk Young, USFWS] [Conservation/Recovery of Colorado pikeminnow in Grand Canyon biological 

feasibility presentation] The Colorado pikeminnow is currently restricted to the upper basin, but they 

were historically throughout all the larger river systems of the Colorado River basin. A first phase draft 

report is planned for stakeholder review in spring 2021. [Kim Dibble, GCMRC] Phase II of the study will 

focus on assessing the feasibility of reintroduction into Grand Canyon. The system still has high hydropeaking flow regimes and other events such as the recent spring disturbance flow. Conditions were 

assessed as to their benefits and uncertainties to Colorado pikeminnow.

Q&A and discussion

[Bill Davis, CREDA] What might be the effects of Colorado pikeminnow reintroduction to other species 

such as razorback sucker and bonytail chub? [Kevin Bestgen, University of Colorado] Humpback chub, 

bonytail chub and Colorado pikeminnow have all co-evolved in the same habitat. Colorado pikeminnows 

are considered a low threat to humpback chub compared to non-native, invasive species. [Ben Reeder, 

GCRG] Could re-introduction of Colorado pikeminnow help curb growth of brown trout? [Kirk Young, 

USFWS] The expert panel felt that population level impacts to humpback chub and others was unlikely 

due to their co-evolution and it is/was not observed as an issue in the upper basin where they can cooccur at times. That needs to be explored further. [Kelly Burke, GCWC] How would modeling changes in 

habitat might also need to be considered compared to changes in climate? [Kim Dibble, GCMRC] The 

actual differences in temperature would only slightly change due to climate. The reaches are already 

warm. The sense of urgency is to investigate the trend of declining populations in the upper basin and 

impacts from non-native species. [Kirk Young, USFWS] The risk to Colorado pikeminnow would be the 

same if Grand Canyon warmed extensively. This warming trend might have less of an effect than the 

reservoir levels. [Bill Davis, CREDA] Are the factors affecting the decline of Colorado pikeminnow in the 

upper basin sufficiently lacking in the lower basin to support the idea that introduction would be 

successful? [Kevin Bestgen, University of Colorado] The largest problem in the upper basin is nonnative fish predators (smallmouth bass and walleye), which correlates with the decline of recruitment. 

The absence of these non-native predators in Grand Canyon is likely the largest reason such an 

introduction might be successful. [Seth Shanahan, Reclamation] What are the next steps for 

stakeholder review this fall? [Kim Dibble, GCMRC] First round of comments from the science panel and 

steering committee are being reviewed now. A second draft will be sent back to them in early May. Will 

probably have a report available around July for stakeholder review with a 30-day timeframe. ACTION: 

TWG members should contact Kim if they are interested in reviewing so she knows how many to expect. 

A final report will be available this winter. [Seth Shanahan, SNWA/TWG Chair] This study is within the 
Page 14 of 19

NPS comprehensive fish management plan action alternatives. Is this also an independent pursuit with 

the NPS? [Kirk Young, USFWS] This study is an overlay of the comprehensive management plan and 

some of the status changes that have occurred to look for redundancies in which USFWS can also 

participate in the recovery of this species. 

Spring Disturbance Flow – Initial Reports from the Field

[Daniel Evans, Arizona Water Science Center] This low flow event helped to verify the accuracy of the

Lees Ferry water gauge. Video will be available upon request once finalized. 

[Ted Kennedy, GCMRC] [Spring Disturbance Flow Initial Reports from the Field] This presentation is part 

of the Project O.1 work and the river trip in March. No sediment transport was seen by the second day 

of the low flow. This was also an opportunity to do benthic sampling that helped to qualify the light trap 

data. Did not see any evidence of widespread fish stranding. Low flow could also be an effective 

ecological tool in the drying of cobble habitat, which can get covered in blue green algae and clay. 

Q&A and discussion

[Peggy Roefer, CRCN/FLAHG CHAIR] It was amazing to see how much sand there was because the 

water was lower. Fish seemed to know to leave the backwater as the level was receding. Were the 

cleaned spots on the cobble bar spawning substrate? [Ted Kennedy, GCMRC] It may be appropriate 

substrate for humpback chub spawning. [Craig Ellsworth, WAPA/BAHG Chair] The substrates really did 

change in that section and it was really clear water. [Kirk Young, USFWS] How many humpback chub 

were encountered in the seining? [Peggy Roefer, CREDA] None. [Ted Kennedy, GCMRC] A trip report 

will be prepared. The benthic invertebrate data will take longer. [Pilar Wolters, USFWS] The time of year 

also makes a difference in how populated the backwaters are. Temperature data show the sloughs are a 

lot colder than the mainstem. This might be why the backwaters were not as populated. [Ted Kennedy, 

GCMRC] It was probably too cold for native fishes. [Jim Strogen, FFI/TU] What do you attribute to the 

abrupt substrate type changes at Parashant? [Ted Kennedy, GCMRC] Not sure that was happening. 

There were large caddis flies at River Mile 199 but don’t know if that was due to substrate change. [Bill 

Persons, FFI/TU] Did you see any evidence of stranded rainbow trout on cobble bars in the Lees Ferry 

reach? [Ken Hyde, NPS-GLCA] NPS did not see any stranding except scuds in the cobble bar all around 

the Lower Slough at River Mile -12. Only caught a few small carp and trout in the lower slough along 

with quite a few big carp, brown trout (10), and a few rainbow trout while electrofishing and netting.

Macroinvertebrate Oviposition Habitat Selectivity and Egg-Mass 

Desiccation Tolerances: Implications for Population Dynamics in Large 

Regulated Rivers

[Craig Ellsworth, WAPA/BAHG Chair] [DOWNLOAD] This is a presentation of a paper by Scott Miller 

from the Department of Watershed Sciences at Utah State University and co-authors. WAPA provided 

funding for the study and is involved in ensuring that the Flaming Gorge tailwater fishery remains in a 

good condition. Bugs showed a preference for large, emergent rocks. Three of the four taxa studied 

prefer edge habitat versus open water. This pattern holds true on artificial substates too. 

Q&A and discussion
Page 15 of 19

[Bill Davis, CREDA] Why is there such a difference in the large numbers of Hydropsyche seen in Flaming 

Gorge that are not in Grand Canyon. [Ted Kennedy, GCMRC] It might be that the average depth in 

Grand Canyon is much greater than at Flaming Gorge. There are other possibilities, such as temperature. 

Discussion of the Anticipated Scope of the Forthcoming Bug Flow 

Evaluation Document

[Ted Kennedy, GCMRC] [DOWNLOAD] This presentation shows key findings and caveats of bug flows. 

The costs of conducting the experiment increased over time largely because of the purchase power 

costs. The plan is to synthesize the information into a draft manuscript by January. 

Q&A and Discussion 

[Bill Davis, CREDA] Will there be any between-year comparisons with temperature to see whether that 

contributed to egg success? Has low oxygen impacted egg laying? [Ted Kennedy, GCMRC] Yes, will look 

at environmental drivers, some of which has been done. The stronger variable appears to be sediment 

load rather than water temperature or dissolved oxygen. Dissolved oxygen is generally not an issue, with 

that occurring in 2019, but it generally happens later in the fall after most egg laying has happened. 

[Peggy Roefer, CRCN/FLAHG CHAIR] Can turbidity and bug flows be teased apart? [Ted Kennedy, 

GCMRC] It may not be possible to disentangle that based on the data on hand. It could be both. [Seth

Shanahan, SNWA/TWG Chair] Are all the data going to be available to do that analysis by January? [Ted

Kennedy, GCMRC] Yes, this will also include the drift data, which will be completed by end of summer

and included in the January synthesis. However, data from 2021 may not be part of that synthesis. [Seth

Shanahan, SNWA/TWG Chair] There is value in looking at this year’s response when not having a bug 

flow experiment. What is needed to get that done? [Ted Kennedy, GCMRC] Jeff Muehlbauer is leaving 

this week and was the person who did much of the analysis. The drift river trip data is the top priority 

for the lab to complete, followed by the light trap data. The key pieces through 2021 should be part of 

that analysis. [Peggy Roefer, CRCN/FLAHG CHAIR] One of the suggestions from the Tech Team was to 

have the science advisor review this before there was another bug flow. Is that possible especially if 

there is a change to the months to implement bug flow? [Ted Kennedy, GCMRC] January was chosen to 

give time for the Science Advisor Panel to review by March, which would then allow time for the Tech 

Team to meet. [Clarence Fullard, Reclamation] It would be good to have that input from the science 

advisors, but it would not hold up the process to get the Tech Team’s involvement around February or 

March. [Seth Shanahan, SNWA/TWG Chair] The findings would be uncertain if the science advisor’s 

review is not done by next spring; however, information should be available by January to consider 

alternative months for the experiment. [Ted Kennedy, GCMRC] One approach would be to redesign the 

experiment around the potential for gross primary productivity (GPP) benefits. There is a strong 

humpback chub growth link to GPP. This would mean dropping turbid months (July and August) and 

adding clearer water months with high light availability (March/April and September/October). Another 

approach is the H lever that is seen between the weekend flow and the weekday minimum. [Shane 

Capron, WAPA] The focus was initially on increased production of midges and blackflies. Didn’t get 

these results as expected but are seeing other things that are leading to other interesting experiments. 

For example, if GPP is being assessed, that could be done in different months. The H lever probably 

does not matter because it was designed to assess effects on desiccation. If it is a different mechanism, 

these things might not matter. This is the reason for a pause in the experiment. There are now three 
Page 16 of 19

new variables that were not known before: sediment and turbidity, GPP, and whether low flows are a 

trigger for emergence, which impacts timing. It is important to now tease those out and be very specific 

about how this relates to the next experiment. [Brian Healy, NPS-GCNP] If there is a modified 

experiment this year, with bugs and GPP as the variables, the objectives are still consistent with the ROD 

and it would not be a completely new experiment. [Ted Kennedy, GCMRC] The overarching goal of bug 

flows was to increase the food base. Now seeing other connections that weren’t appreciated. If GPP is 

the focus, then it would be better to have a lower H lever (H1 or H -750) and that might change the 

design. [Shane Capron, WAPA] If the mechanisms that matter are designed into the experiment, then 

this can be optimized to reduce costs. [Brian Healy, NPS-GCNP] Is there sufficient time to process data 

for this year to include it in the synthesis to matter what the decision is on bug flows? [Ted Kennedy, 

GCMRC] Can probably have 2021 light traps, but the drift river trips take longer and will be a priority. 

[Jessica Neuwerth, CRBC] Will the science advisor panel hinge on the synthesis report? [Ted Kennedy, 

GCMRC] Yes, there will be a synthesis report and a presentation as part of that panel. Requests for

Clarence to have the science advisor take this on in November. [Josh Korman, Ecometric] Regarding the 

experimental design, there are multiple things that affect trout growth. It will take more than three

years of bug flows to tease out bug flow effects from the multiple factors that affect trout growth. It 

would be good to have this discussion with the science advisory panel about what is a realistic time to 

resolve this question. 

Discussion of Emerging Issues and Request for Agenda Items for Next 

Meeting 

[Seth Shanahan, SNWA/TWG Chair] Emerging items are as follows:

• Need to track dissolved oxygen triggers and exceedances. 

• The Colorado pikeminnow report. 

• The budget items will include the BAHG’s recommendation in June on the Year 2 budget and 

then there will be some urgency to start developing criteria for future years. 

• Provide a status update on Reclamation’s low dissolved oxygen response plan. 

• The monitoring metrics plan. 

• The presentation to discuss a 7.48 MAF release year at the June meeting. 

• The Chair and Vice Chair election will occur during the June meeting. 

• There is continuing interest in getting updates on the Pearce Ferry rapid as a fish barrier. There 

are concerns about brown trout and rainbow trout catch in the Lees Ferry area. 

• By June, the overflights will have been completed and an update could be provided. 

[Kelly Burke, GCWC] When would results be discussed on the apron repair work when the flow was 

increased to 20,000 CFS? [Ted Kennedy, GCMRC] The crew at Lees Ferry found lots of quagga mussels 

and New Zealand mud snails in the drift samples, which indicates that high flows served to export 

undesirable invertebrates. More will be shared at future meetings. [Clarence Fullard, Reclamation] To 

clarify, Reclamation is not planning to undertake a response plan for dissolved oxygen. It will be a 

synthesis and risk assessment. [Seth Shanahan, SNWA/TWG Chair] What was heard from the TWG 

members is that this approach is not enough. Will plan a call between TWG and Reclamation to discuss

this further. [Kelly Burke, GCWC] From an emerging issues concern, GCWC is interested in getting an 
Page 17 of 19

update on changes to the Bald Eagle Act. Also interested in having Kurt Dongoske present any additional 

thoughts regarding tribal perspective. 

Public Comment on Day 2:

None.

Adjourned at 2:39 PM PDT 

Attendees

TWG Members and Alternates 

Cliff Barrett, UMPA Leslie James, CREDA (Alternate)

Peter Bungart, Hualapai Tribe (Alternate) Jakob Maase, Hopi Tribe

Kelly Burke, GCWC (Alternate) Ryan Mann, AZGFD

Carrie Cannon, Hualapai Tribe Craig McGinnis, ADWR (Alternate)

Shane Capron, WAPA Jessica Neuwerth, CRBC

William "Bill" Davis, CREDA Bill Persons, FFI/TU

Craig Ellsworth, WAPA (Alternate) Ben Reeder, GCRG

Michelle Garrison, CWCB (Vice-chair) Peggy Roefer, CRCN (Alternate)

Jessica Gwinn, USFWS (Alternate) Seth Shanahan, TWG Chair and SNWA

Paul Harms, State of New Mexico Jim Strogen, FFI/TU

Brian Healy, NPS-GCNP (Alternate) Steve Wolff, State of Wyoming

Ken Hyde, NPS-GLCA Kirk Young, USFWS

USGS/GCMRC Staff 

Lucas Bair Teo Melis

Bridget Deemer Michael Moran

Kimberly Dibble Joel Sankey

Daniel Evans Kurt Schonauer

Helen Fairley Scott VanderKooi

Paul Grams Mark Wimer

Ted Kennedy David Ward

Amy Metcalf Charles Yackulic

Reclamation Staff 

Tara Ashby Kerri Pedersen

Jeremiah Drewel Robert Radtke

Clarence Fullard Dave Speas

Mark McKinstry Connie Svoboda

Heather Patno Lee Traynham

Interested Persons 

Kevin Bestgen, Colorado State University Scott McGettigan, State of Utah
Page 18 of 19

Richard Begay, Navajo Nation Betsy Morgan, State of Utah

Rob Billerbeck, NPS McKenna Murray, State of Utah

Daniel Bullets, Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians Amy Ostdiek, State of Colorado

Kevin Bulletts, University of Arizona Don Neff

Kevin Dahl, NPCA Bill Persons, FFI/Trout Unlimited

Martina Dawley, Hualapai Sara Price, CRCN

Daniel Evans, Arizona Water Science Center Shana Rapoport, CRBC

Courtney McDaniel, State University of New York College at 

Brockport (SUNY) Ted Rampton

Sinjin Eberle, American Rivers Brandon Senger, Nevada Department of 

Wildlife 

Alicyn Gitlin, Sierra Club Gene Seagle, NPS

Sky Hedden, AZGFD Erik Skeie, State of Colorado

Amanda Hilton, University of Arizona, School of 

Anthropology Emily Omana Smith, NPS-GRCA

Carliane Johnson, SeaJay Environmental Erik Stanfield, Navajo Nation 

Tildon Jones, USFWS Gary Tallman, Northern Arizona University

John Jordan, FFI/TU Melissa Trammel, NPS

Josh Korman, Ecometric Pilar Wolters, USFWS

Kevin McAbee, USFWS

Abbreviations 

ADWR - Arizona Department of Water Resources GCWC—Grand Canyon Wildlands Council

AZGFD – Arizona Game and Fish Department GLCA - Glen Canyon National Recreation 

Area

AMWG – Adaptive Management Work Group GPP - gross primary productivity

BAHG – Budget Ad Hoc Group HFE – High Flow Experiment

BHA - Benthic & Hyporheic Anoxia

LTEMP – Long-Term Experimental and 

Management Plan

CFS - cubic feet per second MAF – million acre-feet

CRBC - Colorado River Board of California mg/l - milligram per liter

CREDA – Colorado River Energy Distributors Association NPS – National Park Service

CWCB - Colorado Water Conservation Board PIT - passive integrated transponder 

CRCN – Colorado River Commission of Nevada PDT – Pacific Daylight Time

DFCs - Desired Future Conditions Reclamation – Bureau of Reclamation

DROA - Drought Response Operations Agreement ROD - Record of Decision

DOI – Department of the Interior SNWA – Southern Nevada Water Authority

EIS - Environmental Impact Statement TSC - Technical Service Center

FFI – Fly Fishers International TU - Trout Unlimited

FLAHG – Flow Ad Hoc Group TWP – Triennial Budget and Work Plan

FY – fiscal year TWG – GCDAMP Technical Work Group
Page 19 of 19

GCDAMP – Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management 

Program

UMPA – Utah Municipal Power Agency

GCMRC – Grand Canyon Monitoring & Research Center USFWS – United States Fish & Wildlife 

Service 

GCNP – Grand Canyon National Park USGS – United States Geological Survey

GCRG - Grand Canyon River Guides WAPA – Western Area Power 

Administration