Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program: TWG Meeting (via webinar)

April 15-16, 2020

Page 1 of 25

Date: April 15, 2020 

Start Time: 9:00 AM Pacific Daylight Time

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

Meeting Recorder: Carliane Johnson, SeaJay Environmental

Meeting Attendees

TWG Members/Alternates Present

Jan Balsom, National Park Service (NPS), 

Grand Canyon National Park (GCNP) 

Clifford Barrett, Utah Municipal Power 

Agency (UMPA) 

Kelly Burke, Grand Canyons Wildlands 

Council (GCWC) (Alternate)

Shane Capron, Western Area Power 

Administration (WAPA) 

Kathy Callister, Reclamation

Kevin Dahl, National Parks Conservation 

Association (NPCA)

Bill Davis, Colorado River Energy 

Distributors Association (CREDA)

Kurt Dongoske, Pueblo of Zuni

Craig Ellsworth, WAPA (Alternate)

Michelle Garrison, Colorado Water 

Conservation Board (CWCB)

Jessica Gwinn, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) (Alternate)

Paul Harms, New Mexico Interstate Stream 

Commission

Brian Healy, NPS, GCNP (Alternate)

Ken Hyde, NPS, Glen Canyon National 

Recreational Area (GCNRA) 

Leslie James, CREDA

Vineetha Kartha, Arizona Department of 

Water Resources (ADWR) 

Jakob Maase, Hopi Tribe

Ryan Mann, Arizona Game and Fish 

Department (AZGFD) 

Craig McGinnis, ADWR (Alternate)

Jessica Neuwerth, Colorado River Board of 

California (CRBC) (Alternate)

Bill Persons, Fly Fishers International

(FFI)/Trout Unlimited (Alternate)

Ben Reeder, Grand Canyon River Guides 

(GCRG)

Peggy Roefer, Colorado River Commission

of Nevada (CRCN)

Dave Rogowski, AZGFD (Alternate)

Seth Shanahan, Southern Nevada Water 

Authority

Larry Stevens, GCWC

Jim Strogen, FFI/TU

Steve Wolff, State of Wyoming

Kirk Young, USFWS

United States Geological Survey (USGS)/Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center 

(GCMRC) 

Lucas Bair

Ann-Marie Bringhurst

Helen Fairley

Paul Grams

Ted Kennedy

Josh Korman, Ecometric Research 

Jeff Meuhlbauer

Mike Moran

Joel Sankey

Scott VanderKooi 

Charles Yackulic
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program: TWG Meeting (via webinar)

April 15-16, 2020

Page 2 of 25

Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation)

Clarence Fullard 

Heather Patno 

Lee Traynham

Interested Persons

Jeff Arnold, GCNRA

Peter Bungart, Hualapai Tribe

Richard Begay, Navajo Nation

Rob Billerbeck, NPS, GCNP

Martina Dali, Hualapai Tribe

Sinjin Eberle, American Rivers

Ed Gerak, CREDA

Alicyn Gitlin, Sierra Club

John Hamill, FFI/TU

Paul Hirt, Arizona State University

John Jordan, FFI/TU

Arden Kucate, Pueblo of Zuni

Sarah Larsen, Upper Colorado River 

Commission (UCRC) 

Kevin McAbee, USFWS

Scott McGettigan, State of Utah

Emily Omana Smith, NPS, GCNP

Municipal Power Systems

Theresa Pasqual, Joint Tribal Liaison

Noah Pleshet, Southern Paiute Consortium 

(representing Charley Bulletts)

Sara Price, Colorado River Commission of 

Nevada

Erik Skeie, State of Colorado

Melissa Trammel, NPS, GCNP 

Mike Yard, GCMRC 

Mary Ellen Walsh, Arizona State Historic 

Preservation Office

Welcome and Administration: Seth Shanahan, TWG Chair 

• Introduction and Determination of Quorum. A quorum was reached; altogether about 

70 people were on the call. 

• Next meeting dates: The June 23-24 meeting is likely to be via webinar followed by the 

October 14-15 meeting

• Ad Hoc Group Updates: [Peggy Roefer] The Flow Ad Hoc Group (FLAHG) charge was 

approved and objectives for spring capacity flows and monitoring have been developed. 

Next step will occur once GCMRC and WAPA have developed the hydrographs. 

• Update on the Implementation of Experiments and/or Management Actions: [Lee

Traynham] The tech team met about six times and considered a number of 

experiments. 1) On the spring high-flow experiment (HFE), there was neither sediment 

nor hydrologic conditions necessary, which resulted in no recommendation to conduct a 

spring HFE. 2) We will hear more on trout management flows (TMFs) later, but in 

general, more work needs to be done on the TMF design and other resource conditions 

need to be seen. 3) The bug flow experiment is moving forward for a third consecutive 

year; however, monitoring and other management actions will be constrained on this 

until at least May 21. [Scott VanderKooi] The main stem fish monitoring trip has been 
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program: TWG Meeting (via webinar)

April 15-16, 2020

Page 3 of 25

cancelled; it is hoped to be rescheduled for the end of May. An April trout monitoring

trip was also cancelled. A food base trip has been postponed for later in the season. A 

flight trip to Little Colorado River has been cancelled. Other trips that were planned to 

occur late in April will be postponed until the river opens up.

Questions/Discussion

[Jim Strogen] Do you have the ability to do work now that had been delayed? [Scott

VanderKooi] We have been able to establish protocols for laboratory staff, which just got 

started working again this week. It depends on the position. Field work is down to a minimum. 

Recent Results from the Bug Flow Experiment: Ted Kennedy, GCMRC 

[presentation] 

The bug flow experiment was tested twice in 2018 and 2019. Response was equivocal. There 

was a big increase in caddisfly in 2018 and then it was reduced in 2019. Nothing was consistent 

across both years. There were some intriguing clues that caddisflies and midges were emerging 

later in 2019. Timing of emergence is an indicator of the quality of the growing conditions. 

Sunlight, flows, nutrients, and mud are all established levers on the food base. The bug flow 

experiment is meant to improve that flow lever, but these other environmental conditions were 

found to be much different. For example, water temperature in 2019 was the second warmest 

on record. There was also a big reduction in gross primary production (algae). There is no 

apparent relationship between water temperature and insect growth. Sediment is a really good 

predictor and there was ten times more mud in the spring of 2019 compared to 2018. We now 

have a model to predict timing of emergence, which will help to design strategies to mitigate

the loss of citizen science. Right now, there are no river trips until May 22 because of Covid-19. 

Even if we lose those first weeks of the sampling season, the project would still have high 

statistical power because the peak emergences are expected to occur in June for midges and 

July for caddisfly. 

Questions/Discussion

[Larry Stevens] By pooling all caddisfly species together, is this the right way to approach the 

question in relation to sediment? [Ted Kennedy] Individual taxa were looked at. Found that 

2018 was a banner year and that suspended sediment is a good predictor across the groups.

[Ben Reeder] Is there a Plan B to get volunteers to hike in and get samples if the river trips 

don’t open? [Ted Kennedy] The park is closed, but that is something we are thinking about 

perhaps getting crews to hike in if the deadline gets extended. [Arden Kucate] Recommends 

waiting until May when things are safer. [Jan Balsom] The sampling is not our highest priority; 

safety is. The worst thing would be doing the wrong thing. We don’t need to push it. [Theresa 

Pasqual] Would there be a consideration to open the river and not the park? [Jan Balsom] A 

river trip is one of the best ways to spread the virus, which is not something we want to do. All 
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program: TWG Meeting (via webinar)

April 15-16, 2020

Page 4 of 25

the commercial and non-commercial users are being affected. The resources also need to be

considered in those decisions. 

The Trout Fishery – A Review of the Key Takeaways from the Annual 

Reporting Meeting and an Opportunity for Additional Discussions: Josh 

Korman, Ecometric and Mike Yard, GCMRC [presentation] 

[Mike Yard] This study was to assess both rainbow and brown trout. Started seeing recruitment 

beginning in 2015, which led to a slight increase in abundance, but only for the Lower Subreach 

1C - not for the entire Grand Canyon. In 2017, it was the highest recruitment year since 2011. 

Finding that high recruitment years are infrequent over time. There is an overall decline in 

invertebrate production rates (the prey source for trout) with an overall declining trend from 

2012 through 2017. Nutrient (particularly phosphorus) is likely the big driver. Three separate 

sub-reaches were established for rainbow trout abundance, which allows for replication 

although there is some variation. The relative condition of brown trout was much higher and 

their seasonal patterns are different than rainbow trout, which seemed to be more seasonally 

affected by food availability. Saw higher growth of rainbow trout in the spring than what was 

expected, while it was lower than expected for summer/fall. Still building up data on brown 

trout, but their growth rates are at or slightly less in spring, but their growth in late summer/fall

far exceeds rainbow trout. Still in the process of establishing abundance information for brown 

trout, but have found brown trout spawn earlier (November to January) even though they are 

not seeing small fish in the catch records until September, which does not seem to be due to 

misidentification. Brown trout also failed to recruit in 2017. Maybe there is some interspecific 

interaction. Maybe they are not as affected by flow management actions. Mike felt pretty 

strongly that prey is likely the driving force behind the rainbow trout decline. It is inconclusive 

whether HFEs are having an effect on their growth. Under more stable flow conditions (“bug 

flows”) the data are not what you would expect so there are likely other factors involved. We 

need to look at this from a bioenergetics perspective. In general, large recruitments are seen 

every decade or so and then there is a delay when they show up in the Lower Colorado River 

area. 

Questions/Discussion

[Larry Stevens] Were the changes in population dynamics over time in water years or calendar 

years? Did the drop off occur in the fall? [Mike Yard] Conditions and growth rates fall off in 

mid-summer to early fall for rainbow trout. Have not done any bioenergetics for brown trout.

[Brian Healy] Why are the conditions much higher at Glen Canyon? [Mike Yard] For rainbow

trout, the downstream environmental conditions are partly nutrient-based. Glen Canyon has 

higher water clarity, it is a recently colonized area, and there is good reproduction. 
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program: TWG Meeting (via webinar)

April 15-16, 2020

Page 5 of 25

[Ryan Mann] What happened in 2017 that led to high recruitment in rainbow trout and low 

recruitment in brown trout? [Josh Korman] Started seeing improved growth of rainbow trout in

2017, which meant more fish matured and devoted energy to reproduction. It is speculation as 

to what happened to poor recruitment of brown trout that year, but maybe there was some 

competitive interaction. 

[Jim Strogen] Where are brown trout in the young stages if they are not in shallow areas?

[Mike Yard] Maybe they are using habitat farther offshore. It might still be misidentification at 

the really small sizes although that is not thought to be likely. [Josh Korman] It is hard to 

believe that very young brown trout are not using the shorelines. In other systems, they have 

poor recruitment during big floods with limited swimming ability regardless of where they are 

located. Perhaps they are less vulnerable in deeper water. This should be determinable. There 

may be ways to control brown trout due to flow. It just might not be a stranding flow. Given 

their low population numbers, it remains difficult to find their fry so that is a sampling 

challenge.

[Ted Kennedy] Quagga mussels if there are indications they are affecting trout growth and 

invertebrate availability? [Mike Yard] While doing 2015-2016 benthic sampling, a considerable

amount of quagga was found in deep water usually attached to bryophytes, but the 

invertebrates being sampled were still in high densities similar to past sampling efforts since 

the 1990s. Literature would suggest some degree of competition. [Josh Korman] They are in

high abundance. Usually quagga are filtering the water and will out-compete the zooplankton. 

With a benthic food web, it’s not clear that they are out-competing anything. Best approach 

might be to see how invertebrate abundances compare pre- and post-quagga. Spring HFEs 

hammer macrophytes so having a spring HFE might be the best way to reduce quagga.

[Melissa Trammell] Any way to look at equalization flows and bring that information into your 

model? [Mike Yard] There was a large recruitment in 2011 that was believed to be because of 

nutrient-rich water. The flows were high and steady inundating terrestrial vegetation that

created a rich environment for rainbow trout. If we had an equalization that was steady, we 

could be confident that recruitment would be high unless trout conditions were very bad going 

into it. High flows released from equalizations could be an ideal time to try a TMF.

[John Hamill] Can we predict phosphorus levels? [Mike Yard] Don’t know, but others have 

been trying to get a better understanding of nutrient dynamics for Lake Powell. 

[Jim Strogen] If timing was just right, such as after brown trout spawn and before rainbow

spawn, would that have an impact on young-of-year? [Mike Yard] In some smaller systems, this 

could limit recruitment. In 2008, there was good rainbow trout recruitment, which may have 

been due to a nutrient effect rather than a high flow effect, or maybe it was a combination of 

both. The issue whether there was enough sediment to have a flood in March, which has been 

rare since high flow protocols have been in place. It would need to be a biologically-focused 
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program: TWG Meeting (via webinar)

April 15-16, 2020

Page 6 of 25

flood, which would be at a cost to sediment. [Larry Stevens] This would be an important 

experiment to have and we should be considering this for the next three-year budget process. 

Drivers Affecting Sediment Conditions in the Western Grand Canyon: 

Paul Grams, GCMRC [presentation] 

[Peter Bungart] While sediment has been accumulating along the Western Grand Canyon and

as Lake Mead has dropped, there have been enormous sediment banks that are clogging up the 

navigation channel. Boats have beached in the shallow water areas, which presents a safety 

issue as well as a potential for damage to equipment. We should look at this beyond the 

triennial workplan. It will likely be a problem for years.

[Paul Grams] This presentation has not resulted in any study, but it offers some suggestions.

Cumulative load has been increasing sand transport since 2002. When lake levels dropped, the 

river moved over and the Pearce Ferry Rapid formed, which controls sediment transport. The 

current river bed is somewhere between the tops of the banks and the original, pre-1935 river 

bed. Changes in the rapids affect flow and transport. There have been ongoing adjustments of 

the channel as Lake Mead drops. Potential next steps will be affected by certain drivers that will 

be difficult to control (study ideas were outlined in the presentation). Also, what the river bed 

does during high flow is a long-standing issue that can be difficult to predict without studying it. 

Questions/Discussion

[Craig Ellsworth] Can in-river sandbars be mitigated? [Paul Grams] It depends on what flow 

conditions are forming and whether there are patterns of operations to reduce them. One 

potential is if high flows reduced sediment and increased channel navigation. This might involve

timing a spring high flow closer to the summer boating season. 

[Bill Persons] Is the channel meandering in the reach? [Paul Grams] As it gets wider, some 

meandering might be likely in the high banks. [Peter Bungart] Anecdotally, at least immediately 

after a high flow, the channel opens up and then it gets more difficult to navigate as the 

channel fills up again. It also seems to meander. 

[Larry Stevens] The photographs point to the need to continue a photo documentary. How well 

do we understand debris flow events on these deltaic processes? [Paul Grams] We have not 

thought about this. 

[Seth Shanahan] Is the primary concern the effect that sediment has on the recreational 

experience? [Peter Bungart] This is probably the main driver, but it goes beyond that. Virtually 

everyone who is on the river such as for research, are affected by this. 
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program: TWG Meeting (via webinar)

April 15-16, 2020

Page 7 of 25

The Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP) 

Administrative History Project: Paul Hirt, Arizona State University 

[presentation] 

The new website (gcdamphistory.org) contains the recorded oral histories. Some interviews are 

still being processed, which need to be transcribed and annotated. Each one takes about 20 to 

30 hours of effort, which has been delayed since the pandemic. Dr. Hirt welcomes ideas on how 

to prioritize the current list of ten down to seven to complete them by September. The archive 

is a major deliverable on the new website. It is a robust and user friendly way of displaying and 

accessing the oral histories. Interview transcripts can be searched by key word. Can also 

download the recordings and transcriptions, which are cited. Arizona State University has a 

digital repository in which all the material will be stored in perpetuity. The material can be 

searched for titles, key words, collections, etc., and these links will remain permanent. 

Recommendations are requested on the content of the new member orientation packets. See 

“Key Readings” (under Archives) on the website that links to documents that the interviewees 

had said were most important toward understanding GCDAMP history. This is fully searchable 

through different filters. Please also send feedback or suggestions to: paul.hirt@asu.edu. 

Questions/Discussion

[Craig Ellsworth] Is there a way to continue to add information to the website? [Paul Hirt] It is 

being built on a Word Press platform. This means it will be easy to maintain and for others to 

continue to add documents. 

[Larry Stevens] It has been a long-term goal to have this information. Two suggestions: 1) it 

might be useful to bring the knowledge assessment documents into the new member 

orientation packet, and 2) when David Braun was science advisor, he prepared a bibliography, 

but don’t know where that information is now. [Paul Hirt] All of the knowledge assessment 

documents are in the Key Readings and would be easy to add to the orientation packet. David 

sent all his information to Dr. Hirt who will be going through it to determine what to put on the 

website. He can provide a copy of those documents to anyone who would like them. 

[Jan Balsom] This is fantastic. Are there gaps in the early history that would allow us to make 

better recommendations on the priority order of the last seven interviews? [Paul Hirt] For the 

ones done so far, the time frame covers the earliest research to the administrators of today. 

Gaps might not be temporal, but perhaps in perspective. For example, one high priority is to 

interview someone from AZGFD, which has not been done yet. Maybe look at the list of those 

already interviewed and consider gaps in perspective to see if we have covered all the major 

research and types of stakeholders.
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program: TWG Meeting (via webinar)

April 15-16, 2020

Page 8 of 25

Anticipated Funding Available for Triennial Workplan and Budget Fiscal 

Year (FY) 2021-2023 (TWP): Lee Traynham, Reclamation 

Each year, the budget needs to be consistent with the workplan. We typically frame this in 

terms of long-term and short-term funding uncertainties. For the Short-term, recall the 2019 

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) directive that WAPA would not send hydropower 

revenues to the program for environmental work. Congress then provided appropriated 

funding for GCDAMP. This was a one-year fix. Nothing rescinded the OMB directive so each 

year a Congressional action is needed on how these programs should be funded. There is 

general support in Congress for this Program. In 2020, Congress used the Appropriations bill to 

specify the transfer of hydropower revenues to the program, which was a one-year fix. This is 

going to continue to 2021, and likely to future years. The Appropriation bills are not always

signed by October 1. This can cause funding delays. Currently, there is $21.4 million to support 

the environmental programs, but have been hearing that this level of support is not sustainable 

with hydropower revenues, which is going to be reduced to $12.5 million. Programs with 

established workplans are not going to have the necessary funding in a few years. We have to 

figure out other sources of funding, create efficiencies, and to manage short-term and longterm funding uncertainties. 

Questions/Discussion

[Seth Shanahan] We have a process that we follow. Is that process not going to be enough? 

[Lee Traynham] First priority is to get the budget to within the current $11.3 million level. 

Would also like to see what we would do in 2023 when we are faced with reductions. The 

sooner we prepare for that, the better we will be in future years. Still need to think about the 

process for that.

[Vineetha Kartha] Do we need to anticipate a 50% reduction in 2023? Are you planning to 

offset this reduction? [Lee Traynham] We don’t know yet, but believe the reductions will take 

effect in 2023. If that happens, there is uncertainty how that funding would be distributed. The 

federal agencies are discussing that, too. All the agencies operate on a three-year cycle. 

Reclamation will request some appropriation dollars, but it will not be enough to make up the 

difference. We will be looking outside for the program funding especially for endangered fish. 

[Jim Strogen] Where will the funds be used with the shutdown of trips? [Lee Traynham] It 

seems people are doing their best to reschedule this work. For those trips that are cancelled, 

we will need to discuss at the end of the year carrying these funds into the future to help 

mitigate the reduction in out years. [Scott VanderKooi] We are tracking this and are 

maintaining close communication about those trips. Some costs would be saved, but a big 

chuck of that funding is in salaries that needs to be considered. He cautions how much can be 

saved from the cancelled trips. It is not a cure-all for the out years. 
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program: TWG Meeting (via webinar)

April 15-16, 2020

Page 9 of 25

TWP Initial Draft Summary and Discussion of Other Project Proposals: 

Lee Traynham, Reclamation, Scott VanderKooi, GCMRC, and TWG 

members [presentation 1] [presentation 2] 

[Lee Traynham] Presented the preliminary FY21-23 workplan. We are now in Year 1 of the 

process in which the TWG will present a final draft for the vote of the Adaptive Management 

Work Group (AMWG) in August. A lot of feedback has been received through a number of 

opportunities. The science advisor will provide comments on the second draft. We are all trying 

to strategize for uncertainty. Total budget being planned is $11.36 million with 80% going to 

GCMRC and 20% to Reclamation. For Reclamation’s FY21 budget, there was a question about a 

facilitator. Response ranged from not needing one to needing one. Reclamation will move 

forward on that contract. Many agreements with partners will have also come to term in FY22 

that will need renewal, which is why there is a bump on that line item. Reclamation will be 

soliciting for a new Science Advisor and welcome feedback on the funding level of $150,000 for 

that. A third-party review is critical and is outlined as a requirement in the long-term 

experimental and management plan (LTEMP) decision. For the temperature control and fish 

exclusion projects (C.9 and C.10), those are not anticipated to be zeroed out, but the work 

specifics are still being discussed. Work is being done elsewhere that will be used to leverage 

that, which should be included in the next draft. Cultural resources support (D.2) was for 

outside support to help with the historic preservation plan, which has since been completed. 

This is up for discussion. This would be a nice place to get an intern to help with that work. 

Tribal representatives are also interested in it. Element D.5 (associative values studies and 

mitigation) is a placeholder for project proposals that have been received. Elements D.6 and D.7 

(cultural sensitivity video and support) totals $150,000 for the three years. Element D.9 reflects 

$35,000 to each of the tribes for cultural resources monitoring. Tribal participation funding 

comes through federal agency appropriations and is not included in the total. 

[Scott VanderKooi] The focus when developing the workplan is based on LTEMP 

implementation. One thing that changed in FY21 was for the remote sensing overflights. 

Another big change between FY21 and the out years is due to overhead rate, which is because 

of a new building; however, the timing of that is now uncertain. Summary detail of each of the 

projects and their proposed budgets were shown in the presentation. There are more good 

ideas than dollars to fund them. Now is the time to work on a budget that fits our anticipated 

funding amounts. 

Questions/Discussion

[Peggy Roefer] We know nutrients are important and are driving response, but we are still not 

doing anything to augment the system during low flows. What is acceptable to do and make 

sure this does not go away? [Scott VanderKooi] There are things that can be done, but there 

are significant challenges to them. Nutrient additions in a river the size of the Grand Canyon is 

no small hurdle and that does not even address compliance concerns. We need to better 
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program: TWG Meeting (via webinar)

April 15-16, 2020

Page 10 of 25

understand sources. Maybe the biggest lever is Lake Powell and its operations. It is an 

interesting problem, but a big challenge. [Charles Yackulic] This work is being done in big rivers, 

particularly in the Pacific Northwest, but there are issues. We have talked a bit about a small 

pulse to understand some things. This could be done, but how long and where it should be 

done are unknown. These will be in the current workplan. WAPA is also going to be providing a 

literature review by the end of the year on existing research. 

[Jakob Maase] Why do we feel it’s important to enhance productivity in an unnatural way? 

Lake Powell water quality monitoring is to be expanded into the lake. What changed our 

thinking as to what we’ve been doing for the last 20 years? [Scott VanderKooi] We are 

proposing to continue the work with Reclamation outside of GCDAMP. It is not funded by the 

program, but it is important to the program. 

[Webinar chat question] What were the actual budget expenditures for the past year? [Seth

Shanahan] That presentation can be provided to the members. 

[Kurt Dongoske] When will Reclamation consult with Arizona State Historic Preservation Office 

(SHPO)? [Lee Traynham] There were discussions about meeting with the Arizona SHPO on the 

initial draft during our meetings that were scheduled for this week in Phoenix, but that did not 

happen because of the closures. It is planned that the second draft will be shared with the 

SHPO. 

[Kelly Burke] How does the boundary of the lake relate to whether it is in or out of the scope of 

the program? [Jan Balsom] The work being done is inside the park and within the program.

[Jim Strogen] What about actual Reclamation work in Elements C.9 and C.10? There is general 

agreement that mitigation for temperature and invasive pass-through need to happen as soon 

as possible. Is that in the next budget? Is there is a plan in place for mitigating low dissolved 

oxygen? [Lee Traynham] There are opportunities to evaluate new innovative technologies for 

site-specific application at Glen Canyon Dam. We need to be prepared to evaluate those 

alternatives that might be successful and feasible. There is still a lot of work that needs to be 

done. Regarding dissolved oxygen, this is an ongoing discussion, but to date it is an infrequent 

effect that is resolved below Lees Ferry.

[Ben Reeder] What about testing slower down ramp rate of HFEs that might erode less? Only 

one study has been done. If the positive effects can last longer, can we be more efficient with 

the HFEs? [Paul Grams] This had been in the last workplan, which could be resurrected, but 

then it would have to replace something else. Have not addressed whether changing the down 

ramp would change the beach slope. [Jan Balsom] That topic was evaluated and a lot has been 

done on this subject. 

[Craig Ellsworth] How can the TWG help prioritize the projects to trim the budget? [Scott

VanderKooi] We need to know your thoughts on what’s important, what the priorities are, and 

maybe what things need to be done, but not at the same level as in the past. [Lee Traynham]
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program: TWG Meeting (via webinar)

April 15-16, 2020

Page 11 of 25

There are so many good ideas and good proposals, that if anyone has a new or additional item, 

please carefully consider those trade-offs.

[Kelly Burke] Is there any other written document to review? [Lee Traynham] Only the draft 

workplan that was distributed April 2. 

[Jim Strogen] Project H on the predictive models for humpback chub talks about rainbow trout 

but not brown trout. Is this because there’s not enough data? Do you also anticipate including

brown trout in those studies? [Scott VanderKooi] The approach is to beef up modeling of 

brown trout. [Charles Yackulic] The plan is to look at what is driving out-migration of brown 

trout. 

[Erik Skeie] Describe again the large increase in burden between FY21 and FY22? [Scott

VanderKooi] GCMRC’s building is being leased by the City of Flagstaff and the city has 

determined the building has out-lived its useful life span. GCMRC has been looking for another 

location. The increase in overhead rates relate to the cost of that new building, which has been 

a drawn out process and still not sure when this will happen. Posting the increase in FY22 is 

conservative. We will probably have to revisit that. 

[Jim Strogen] It seems as if the wording on the F.5 project supports the need for spring HFE

being biologically good for the system, but the ability to study that is not likely in the near 

future. What is the plan? [Scott VanderKooi] A number of GCMRC staff participated in the 

FLAHG calls and were asked to think about what might be done in a spring release flow. It was 

GCMRC’s understanding that those flows could go as high as 25,000 cubic feet per second (CFS) 

and staff are skeptical that would be high enough to create enough of a disturbance that an 

effect could be seen with any certainty. Originally, it was thought that flows could go up to 

30,000 CFS, which might have been high enough to see effects of a routine spring HFE. Where 

we are now is that if the proposed maintenance flow drops to below 5,000 CFS for a week next 

spring, then this could be combined with a ramp up to 25,000 CFS. The combination might give 

enough information to show what a spring flow would look like and provide enough confidence 

to detect it. 

[Kelly Burke] Will the constraints last through the entire workplan? [Lee Traynham] The 25,000 

CFS constraint is the maximum under normal operations. That is tied to the LTEMP and the 

operating criteria that were developed for Glen Canyon Dam. Would need to seek approval for 

any operations or releases that are outside of normal operating conditions. [Scott VanderKooi]

From GCMRC’s perspective, there is a lot to be learned from a spring HFE. Have been able to do 

five fall HFEs under those protocols and have a good understanding of them. The last spring 

high flow was in 2008. It looks like conditions under which they would be triggered are

relatively rare so we are looking for potential ways to help that learning while not having to 

wait for those conditions to appear.
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program: TWG Meeting (via webinar)

April 15-16, 2020

Page 12 of 25

[Seth Shanahan] There is $11 million of proposed work, all of which is helpful to meet our 

goals, so it is going to be hard to think about how to cut $2 million or more in future years. 

Perhaps let’s not think about it in terms of “low priority” projects, but rather what is most 

important for the next three years while the rest can be delayed for future years? The actual 

process of adaptive management is a struggle while not having a formal way of knowing 

whether the objectives have been achieved or not. It is still important to consider the priorities 

even when the outcome is not clear such as on the modeling projects. Craig Ellsworth was also 

asked to put together a list of the points of disagreement or concerns from the BAHG. For Day 2 

of the TWG meeting, the focus will be on these most difficult ones where we lack consensus. 

Public Comment

None submitted. 

Meeting adjourned at 2:35 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program: TWG Meeting (via webinar)

April 15-16, 2020

Page 13 of 25

Date: April 16, 2020 

Start Time: 9:00 AM Pacific Daylight Time

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

Meeting Recorder: Carliane Johnson, SeaJay Environmental

Meeting Attendees

TWG Members/Alternates Present

Jan Balsom, NPS, GCNP

Clifford Barrett, UMPA

Kelly Burke, GCWC (Alternate)

Shane Capron, WAPA

Kevin Dahl, NPCA

Bill Davis, CREDA

Kurt Dongoske, Pueblo of Zuni

Craig Ellsworth, WAPA (Alternate)

Jessica Gwinn, USFWS (Alternate)

Paul Harms, New Mexico Interstate Stream 

Commission

Brian Healy, NPS, GCNP (Alternate)

Leslie James, CREDA

Vineetha Kartha, ADWR

Jakob Maase, Hopi Tribe

Ryan Mann, AZGFD

Jessica Neuwerth, CRBC (Alternate)

Bill Persons, FFI/Trout Unlimited (Alternate)

Ben Reeder, GCRG

Peggy Roefer, CRCN

Seth Shanahan, Southern Nevada Water 

Authority

Larry Stevens, GCWC

Jim Strogen, FFI/Trout Unlimited

Steve Wolff, State of Wyoming

USGS / GCMRC

Bridget Deemer

Helen Fairley

Ted Kennedy

Mike Moran

Jeff Meuhlbauer

Joel Sankey

David Topping

Scott VanderKooi

Reclamation

Heather Patno Lee Traynham

Interested Persons

Rob Billerbeck, NPS

Peter Bungart, Hualapai Tribe

Sinjin Eberle, American Rivers

Arden Kucate, Pueblo of Zuni

Sarah Larsen, UCRC

Scott McGettigan, State of Utah

Erik Skeie, State of Colorado

Randy VanHaverbeke, USFWS

Welcome and Administrative: Seth Shanahan, TWG Chair 

• Introduction and Determination of Quorum.
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program: TWG Meeting (via webinar)

April 15-16, 2020

Page 14 of 25

• Unresolved Issues from Yesterday. [Seth Shanahan] Are there any unresolved issues 

from yesterday? We worked through some high level comments and points of 

clarification. Today we will discuss the projects in detail. [Bill Davis] There was one 

conversation regarding oxygen mitigation below the dam. Has there been any change to 

that? [Seth Shanahan] The thought of using the dam to operate in a way that is not 

authorized is not being contemplated. [Lee Traynham] There are no plans to explore 

dam operations as a form of mitigation, but Reclamation supports continued discussion 

and water quality monitoring. 

• Update on hydrology, operations and reservoir/release conditions. [Heather Patno] 

Conditions have been pretty stable from the beginning of the year. Not showing any 

April adjustment for the water year. The release for Glen Canyon Dam is going to be 

8.23 million acre feet. In water year 2021, it will likely be operating in the upper 

elevation balancing tier. 

Report from the Budget Ad Hoc Group (BAHG) and Discussion of Next 

Steps: Craig Ellsworth, WAPA 

See the Wiki page for a lot of information on both BAHG and TWG including links to the 

webinars and notes. The first BAHG call starts on April 17. Want to discuss how long the studies 

are forecasted to last, which should help provide feedback on their prioritization. Knowing how 

long projects last informs us as to how intently we need to monitor. 

Questions/Discussion

[John Jordan] He requested that Lee resend the BAHG invitations for the calls. 

[Leslie James] Thinks the format for the BAHG calls is very helpful. If the federal agencies could 

provide information linking each project to compliance requirements, such as the Biological 

Opinion or Programmatic Agreement, that guidance from the action agencies would be very 

helpful. How long the study will last and how long to monitor are also very important. Really 

appreciates this slide and how to frame the comments. 

[Scott VanderKooi] That’s a good point. We also look to the USFWS on their feedback. As to 

prioritization, we need to be really clear about the science program. That’s the job of the 

stakeholders and federal agencies to prioritize. That is not the role of the science advisor. There 

needs to be a discussion on how much work is necessary and how often. [Craig Ellsworth] We 

need to know from the scientists how important their projects might be, such as the need to 

continue, because they are most familiar with the work. 

[Cliff Barrett] The issue of prioritization is very important. Everyone sees it differently. The 

bottom line is that the people responsible for this work are the agencies. We need to hear from 

them as to what they need to meet the biological opinion and the record of decision. [Lee

Traynham] We are trying to strike a balance. There is the guidance from Dr. Petty to stay the 
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program: TWG Meeting (via webinar)

April 15-16, 2020

Page 15 of 25

course and implement the LTEMP. We have general goals to better improve and understand 

the resources in the Record of Decision (ROD). At the same time, the federal agencies have to 

be in compliance with a number of requirements. Some of these are more prescriptive than 

others. This is the challenge of an adaptive management program. We like the flexibility, but 

when it comes to developing a budget and constraints, it’s hard not to have a prescription on

what to do. 

[Larry Stevens] Urges the group to think about the need for a revised ecosystem model in the 

context of where we want to get. 

[Rob Billerbeck] What we need to tease out is those things that might be a threat such as

brown trout. We also need to look really hard at the monitoring this year. What are the things 

where we can’t follow through on our commitments versus what would be nice to have? 

[Jess Gwinn] The biological opinion was designed in an adaptive framework so it would be 

flexible such as managing emerging threats, but we need to make sure we are not “overmeeting” our responsibilities. 

[Seth Shanahan] All comments have been captured in a Google document that was shared with 

the group. There seems to be a strong sense of where we lack consensus and the document 

orders those points. The document will be available for the full TWG to reference. 

[Shane Capron] Given that this workplan is $2 million over budget, how are we doing this? It’s a 

much harder task to reach consensus when we need to cut. [Seth Shanahan] The intention is 

that as points of disagreement are identified, we can hopefully work towards agreement on 

those items. [Craig Ellsworth] Have time on the BAHG calls to address the small problems, but 

the TWG needs to address the big problems. 

[Bill Davis] What is the date to submit comments? Will comments be provided to members? 

[Seth Shanahan] Written comments are due by April 22. They have always been shared, but 

how they can be provided, is not known. [Craig Ellsworth] He recommends not sharing 

comments because some would rather keep them private. [Lee Traynham] The comments 

received are attached to the projects and not ascribed to any one person. These comments are 

very helpful. Any additional ones we receive can be added to the Google document. 

[Randy VanHaverbeke] What might be missing is an overall view of prioritization of resource 

categories as a whole. Looking at each project element by itself gets to details, but the general 

resources would be important from a broader perspective. [Seth Shanahan] Reclamation has 

legal obligations in the LTEMP that need to be met. Monitoring humpback chub and cultural 

resources are always going to be at the top of the list. We do understand the priorities; the 

struggle is the magnitude of those actions. For example, can we reduce some monitoring that 

does not affect decision-making? The intention is to get into the details and use the TWG as a 

way to dial back some of that work. It is difficult and we’re trying to do our best. 
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program: TWG Meeting (via webinar)

April 15-16, 2020

Page 16 of 25

[Jess Gwinn] What is the particular order in which we have disagreement on? [Seth Shanahan]

The table of contents on the Google Doc reflects that order of discussion.

[Jim Strogen] What is the possibility of using the Native Fish Conservation Contingency Funds

(NFCCF)? What can that money be used for? [Lee Traynham] The contingency fund consists of

carryover funds from prior years such from the experimental budget. Currently it has a balance 

around $1.7 million. It was originally envisioned as an emergency insurance fund. That was the 

first priority. These funds are on the table for consideration and open for discussion. [Scott

VanderKooi] We have tapped into that fund in the past. The way it was justified is that it was 

for projects that benefited humpback chub, but there was always caution about using if for an 

emergency purpose and there was consensus. It might be better to think about using the 

experimental funds first. That’s usually from current year rather than the emergency fund. 

[Larry Stevens] Don’t really understand the extent of roll-over. Field work might be stopped for 

six months, which would save $2 million. We could decide to do two years of the bug flow work

and save that money. It would interrupt people’s lives, but given the current disruption, the 

amount of money that could be saved for next year might be an easy solution. [Lee Traynham]

Have discussed this and we understand the point, but there are some limitations on how 

flexible we can be. [Scott VanderKooi] There may be some savings, but having the authority to 

furlough employees has to come from high up in the administration and that may not be an 

option. We are looking at other options although maybe not to the degree of the shortfall in 

this first draft. [Seth Shanahan] It’s probably better to not hold out hope for lack of doing 

things this year due to Covid. We need to have the harder conversation of reducing the work 

effort with an eye to what we can add if funds are available in the future. 

[Ben Reeder] If we do webinars instead of meetings, can we save those travel expenses? What 

studies are needed for compliance versus the others? Can we reduce the amount across the 

board? [Larry Stevens] It is the easier way to approach, but maybe not satisfactory for certain 

individuals who need a certain amount to do their work. [Peter Bungart] Supports sharing the 

burden, but probably some projects that can be considered a lower priority than others. It 

would be good to get into the weeds and figure out which ones these are. [Rob Billerbeck] We 

still need to prioritize and have those hard conversations because we’ll get stuck with funding 

nice-to-haves, rather than the must-haves. [Kelly Burke] Maybe we can run the two parallels to

do the hard work of determining the priorities and also fill in with other projects if the savings 

are available later. [Ryan Mann] A straight cut across the board is not realistic. It has the 

potential to cripple all of the programs. [Seth Shanahan] We should have the hard 

conversations, but maybe keep in mind what a straight cut might mean to each program.

[Jim Strogen] Can we identify those that have requirements for compliance issues and decide if 

they are at the levels they need to be? [Seth Shanahan] Think we can get there in the order 

outlined in the Google Doc.
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program: TWG Meeting (via webinar)

April 15-16, 2020

Page 17 of 25

[Larry Stevens] This is a bold discussion that probably also needs to be discussed with the 

AMWG. It has been years since we developed the LTEMP goals. Maybe we need to revisit the 

ecosystem model. We also need to understand how to resolve the experiments such as how to 

conduct a springtime HFE. That might be a critical piece on how the ecosystem works. The 

other thing is mitigating equalization flows that will devastate our sediment budget, which 

we’ve worked so hard to manage. [Seth Shanahan] The goals of the program are set very 

clearly in the LTEMP so don’t think there is a need for additional conversation about the goals 

and objectives. The more difficult part is how to accomplish those goals and objectives. We 

need metrics. That is an obvious area that we need to make progress on and that fits in with 

the continuing difficulty of implementing adaptive management. We struggle with taking 

exceptional monitoring data, assessing it, making modeling predictions, and weighing tradeoffs. We need to dedicate in a line item, probably in Reclamation’s budget, that we should 

spend some money for someone to lead this issue. We have not achieved it as quickly in the 

three years that the LTEMP has been signed and this is what is hampering us. Not sure what 

that will look like. The science advisor is part of this. It needs to be a line item. 

[Scott VanderKooi] Not in favor of an across-the-board cut. There are lots of problems and will 

push back on that. Also not sure a solution is a line item to fix our issue with metrics. 

[Kelly Burke] She is inclined to look at each project to reduce it to make it more efficient. 

Discussions on Reclamation Budget 

1. Project D. Cultural Resources includes nice sub-elements such as staffing, various 

support activities for monitoring, associative values studies, mitigation, training, video 

preparation, contingency funds and tribal cultural resources monitoring

[Bill Persons] He supports the tribal activities, but we need to separate out which ones are 

required and which are not. That could help dictate the funding sources. [Lee Traynham] All of 

these line items are tied to the programmatic agreement and support compliance with the 

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). For the D.5 projects with tribal partners, they are 

waiting on agency comments, which will be reviewed for consistency with NHPA. 

[Peter Bungart] Tribes have been monitoring for quite a number of years. We continually learn 

and adjust these efforts. The new proposals enhance that knowledge and also tie into NHPA. 

[Kelly Burke] It would be very interesting to see how much debris has been removed to create 

garden spots. She supports that project.

[Sarah Larsen] If nothing was completed in last triennial workplan, does that money carry over?

How much was carried over under D.8? [Lee Traynham] In the current workplan, funds will be 

re-programmed if they are not spent. They would likely be moved to the NHPA contingency 

fund to honor a commitment to fund it at $200,000. 
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program: TWG Meeting (via webinar)

April 15-16, 2020

Page 18 of 25

[Craig Ellsworth] Is this the best format to get tribal input? Reading Kurt’s letter from last week, 

there are issues that the tribes have tried to relay to the program. How are those concerns 

being addressed by Reclamation? Seems to be one of the perennial problems of the program. 

[Seth Shanahan] Yes, there have been many comments already. 

[Helen Fairley] Is the contingency fund for when there was a need for mitigation? [Lee

Traynham] Believe that was consistent with the funds. We can refine under what conditions we 

will spend these funds. 

[Sarah Larsen] What is the difference between the contingency fund versus new funding

commitments? We are building up the contingency fund so how does that affect current 

obligations for monitoring and mitigation? How does D.9 differ from D.3? [Lee Traynham]

Monitoring is always going to be in the budget to support the programmatic agreement. We 

are trying to budget for mitigation to the extent possible, but if we were in need because of an 

unexpected and urgent action, then we could use the contingency fund. D.3 and D.4 are both 

monitoring and surveys that the NPS does. D.9 supports funding to the tribes to conduct river 

trips and to monitor during those trips. These are independent activities. 

2. Reclamation Project C includes administrative support, contract administration, river 

trips, science advisor, experimental fund, vegetation fund, native fish contingency

fund, fish passage prevention, and surveys for rails and flycatchers

[Peggy Roefer] Is the science advisor a yearly funding? Is there a plan for the vegetation 

treatment measures? Seems like the money for the flycatcher and rail surveys are not allocated 

correctly. Should there be money in FY22? [Lee Traynham] We need to think about how we use 

the science advisor’s time. Do we engage with the science advisor each year? For the rail and 

flycatcher survey, the total is correct, but the breakouts need to be corrected. [Rob Billerbeck]

There is a white paper on the vegetation work. It is tied to dam operations and working with 

the GCMRC. This is for monitoring and feedback to meet the ROD’s environmental 

commitments and the Tim Petty memo. 

[Jim Strogen] Would there be funds to deal with a fish kill in Lees Ferry? [Lee Traynham] That is 

something we need to consider. The emphasis has been on monitoring to anticipate the 

development of low DO plumes near the penstocks. We need to discuss how to determine in 

advance when these conditions are coming. [Larry Stevens] in the past, the water through the 

turbines was aerated which increased the dissolved oxygen in the release water. Might be good 

to look at those costs in an emergency and where those funds would come from. [Seth

Shanahan] The monitoring side is in the program already, but what we need to do if it happens 

is a different issue. Do we need to identify funds if that were to occur? [Ryan Mann] What has 

changed from the past? [Bill Persons] Who has the responsibility to prevent or mitigate such a 

fish kill in the future? [Lee Traynham] We tried an experimental aeration in 2005 that did 

provide some benefits. After the fact, we reviewed to assess how well it worked and any 
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program: TWG Meeting (via webinar)

April 15-16, 2020

Page 19 of 25

concerns. We determined that we do not have authority to operate the dam in a way that could 

be detrimental to the facility. That’s the problem with using the dam as mitigation. [Jim

Strogen] We need something to ensure that it does not happen. [Seth Shanahan] This is a line 

item that’s needed. 

[Seth Shanahan] An annual assessment is important and need a science advisor for that. 

Someone still needs to be in charge of connecting the dots. Either this is an additional line item 

or we expand the science advisor line item. [Larry Stevens] The need for a science advisor has 

been a need that is recognized from Day 1, but it takes years for someone to come up to speed. 

These contracts are only for three years. The duration of those contracts needs to be looked at. 

[Lee Traynham] These contracts are for five years. The challenge under the previous contract 

was that the contractor expended all of the budgeted funds before he could complete all the 

tasks. The funding level is the same as FY18-20. [Jakob Maase] From the administrative history, 

perhaps we can discuss the previous science advisors as to what went well and what did not to 

get the most out of this line item. 

[Sarah Larsen] Is no funding allocated for C.9 and C.10? [Lee Traynham] These are placeholders

for the evaluations of fish passage and temperature control methods that are in the biological 

opinion. We know we need to make progress on these items, but what to accomplish has yet to 

be determined. Would welcome feedback on these tasks. The Reclamation Technical Service 

Center is also exploring this from a broader agency-wide perspective. There is a white paper on 

temperature control and we expect more from them. There are number of things outside the 

program that we might be able to leverage. Still have some site-specific work to do. Hope to 

have those ideas by the second draft of the workplan. 

3. Other Projects Funded Outside of GCDAMP (razorback sucker monitoring, brown trout 

control, humpback chub, translocation work, Lake Powell water quality monitoring, 

temperature control methodology, etc.) 

[Peggy Roefer] Is Reclamation going to work with NPS on a dissolved oxygen string above Glen 

Canyon Dam? Would like to consider either a platform or dissolved oxygen string. [Bridget 

Deemer] There is a thermistor string, but currently no platform. [Jeff Arnold] Ken was trying to 

get funds for a platform maybe up near Bullfrog? 

[Bill Persons] Does the project include quagga mussel and glass carp monitoring? [Jeff Arnold]

We monitor for quagga throughout the reservoir, but not for glass carp. 

[Larry Stevens] GCWC has done two restoration projects and is about to engage in another one 

that are not well known. These might be informative for the vegetation work. GCWC has also 

been looking at the benthic and hypoxic issues that seem to be related to low flows. Those 

projects have not received much attention either, but the results are about to be published.

[Jim Strogen] Happy to see what was listed in Project J for incentivized harvest. In terms of 

additional money, it would be best to format that in the same way as other GCMRC programs. 
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program: TWG Meeting (via webinar)

April 15-16, 2020

Page 20 of 25

4. Reclamation Budget for Implementation of AMWG and TWG (travel, facilitation, 

support, contract administration, outreach, etc.)

[Seth Shanahan] As long as he is TWG chair, he will not use the travel reimbursement, which 

opens up $25,000 in the budget. 

Discussions on GCMRC Budget 

1. Project N. Economic Impact of Electrical Production at Glen Canyon Dam

[Leslie James] This project is significantly different from last year’s program. CREDA has strong 

concerns about this proposal and are in discussions with WAPA to look at the original intent. 

When those conversations have concluded there will be suggestions on a revised project N.

CREDA is willing to entertain comments from others. The original purpose was to represent one 

of the resources in LTEMP to encourage evaluation as to whether there was an opportunity to 

improve or mitigate. The current project is laudable, but in regards to current budget 

constraints, the project is not appropriate at this time. [Seth Shanahan] The budget is $90,000. 

What would be the level of effort after those conversations? [Leslie James] Don’t know how 

much the original budget was but think it was about $13,000. It was not to be burdened by this 

program or to take away funding from other projects. [Scott VanderKooi] Thought we had 

funds that were not used in Project J that were obligated to another cooperator. [Lucas Bair]

Leslie is correct about the original project. The majority of that money would be dedicated to 

his salary. [Seth Shanahan] Perhaps it would be best to discuss this in the BAHG. 

2. Project D. Effects of Dam Operation and Vegetation Management for Archaeological 

Sites

[Larry Stevens] The experiments done last year did not seem to be very successful. Many of 

these plants are clonal species. The rate of regrowth is very rapid and may not match the work. 

There seems to be a brief opportunity for sand to move in after the vegetation is removed. How 

much modification of the plans will take place given what we know about these species? [Joel

Sankey] This is recognized. The NPS is removing the vegetation on sandbars, which is viewed as 

keeping campsites open with continued maintenance. A trip was going to occur this spring. 

Another thing is that we are hoping to both remove vegetation and then ideally have an HFE 

shortly after to bring in more sand. [Bill Persons] The project on experimental vegetation 

removal seems to fit in the nice-to-know category. Perhaps this is something NPS should be 

doing. [Joel Sankey] Project D.1 is closely coordinated with the Reclamation budget for 

vegetation. We need to talk about both of them. NPS does the management and helps 

Reclamation design the experiment. [Rob Billerbeck] See section 6.4 of the LTEMP ROD to work 

together on experimental treatment and mitigation. It is an important commitment in the ROD 

based on many years of study of dam operations on vegetation. Also refer to Tim Petty’s memo 

on priorities of the GCDAMP where this vegetation work is highlighted. The whole reason why 

the GCDAMP exists is because of those resources below Glen Canyon Dam. This is just a small 
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program: TWG Meeting (via webinar)

April 15-16, 2020

Page 21 of 25

part of the program. For D.1, one of the five objectives could not be completed in the ROD 

without this information. It is key that we develop the right places and right methods to remove 

vegetation to protect cultural resources. It is critical to continue so if there is an HFE, we can 

determine effects on those sites. It would be a waste of previous efforts if we did not continue. 

[Joel Sankey] It makes more sense to see this through since we are a year into the experiment, 

rather than stopping and starting. It has taken a lot of cooperation and coordination to get it 

going. [Seth Shanahan] Maybe the challenge is how much is needed? Perhaps look at a 

reduction in scope. [Craig Ellsworth] What is the timeframe of this project? [Joel Sankey] Three 

years makes a lot of sense given that we are a year into it. We could also think about 

reassessing it after an HFE. [Peggy Roefer] Another point of confusion is that we are using 

existing projects to evaluate the vegetation experiment, but using methodologies and 

approaches that are tied into a longer compliance issue. It is trying to take advantage of an 

existing project and is relatively inexpensive because of this. [Peter Bungart] He supports 

comments that if we lose momentum, it will set us back. Once it goes away, it might be difficult 

to get it back into the program and it is a relatively inexpensive project. [Ben Reeder] Tribal 

consultations in regards to vegetation and archeological sites are very important, but when the 

project talks about camping beaches, there seems to be room for efficiencies. There are a lot of 

river guards that could be utilized and who are invested in those places that could be tapped 

into. [Larry Stevens] Each time down the river he documents new non-native vegetation, but 

there’s no one to report that to. [Rob Reeder] Send those comments to Lonnie. For Glen 

Canyon, direct them to John. 

[Seth Shanahan] Although D.2 (repeat photography) and D.4 (Holocene map of fluvial 

sediments) are important, maybe these can be delayed in a future budget cycle? [Helen Fairley]

This work was not in the last workplan and had used volunteers collect the photographs. A lot 

of information has been amassed with no funding. We would like to get it published so it can be 

accessible in future years. Twenty-five percent of this funding is for Helen’s salary, which may 

not change the final budget number if the project is removed. D.4 is in a similar situation in 

which information has been gathered and has not been organized. A portion of that is also part 

of Helen’s salary. There is no field work involved. 

[Seth Shanahan] There seems to be consensus to perhaps refocus work effort on D.1. [Bill

Persons] Would like to see a plan from the scientists on how that might be scaled back so we 

know what we are up against. [Craig Ellsworth] Always go back to the guidance documents that 

we have from Tim Petty and the LTEMP goals to make sure we are doing those things first.

There needs to be strong justification if the project is not tied to our current guidance.

3. Project A. Streamflow, water quality, and sediment transport

[Seth Shanahan] This is probably the largest project of $1.3 million. [Peggy Roefer] The project 

description says there are ungauged tributaries. How many are there and is that of value to 
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program: TWG Meeting (via webinar)

April 15-16, 2020

Page 22 of 25

continue to collect tin time of climate change? [David Topping] Those things are real cheap and 

we have the longest time series in the world for these types of ephemeral stream channels. We 

use them to inform HFE design and evaluation because they are clustered around Upper 

Marble Canyon. Each gauge is about $1,000 to 2,000 per year depending on how many samples 

are collected. Altogether they are less than $10,000. There seems to be some misunderstanding 

of which gauges are used and for what. Some are for biological purposes, which cost closer to 

$20,000 per year. Other gauges are half funded by the USGS toxics program for monitoring

uranium. GCDAMP only pays for half of those. At Lees Ferry, there is a well worked-out 

schedule for field work that depends on that gauge. Others are not paid for at all by the 

GCDAMP. [Bill Persons] Is USGS showing any interest in picking up these gauges? [David

Topping] They are probably not.

[Craig Ellsworth] Project A.1 is over a million dollars and the gauges only cost $10,000? [David

Topping] A lot of that work is interpretative and in maintaining the database. It is a lot of salary 

time and overhead. 

[Larry Stevens] He would like to see a strategy for how to minimize the impacts of equalization 

flows and the development of a contingency plan. This would be mostly a paperwork exercise. 

[David Topping] We can evaluate those flows, but what would be nice to do when we get to 

equalization would be to discuss what could be done and define that as an interpretive item in 

the budget. [Seth Shanahan] Have heard that these are all essential activities, which is 

important to know, particularly as this is a large budget item, but the magnitude of the work 

needs to be reduced. Maybe the challenge is to come back with a more detailed budget that 

identifies projects that won’t suffer the consequences. Some of us don’t know what that fine 

line is. [David Topping] This can’t be done. A lot of the budget is tied up in permanent salaries. 

The budget has been reduced already. There is not a lot of room to cut, especially 20%, which 

would mean cutting staff. The staffing levels were designed to collect the data that the program 

requires. The budget is already quite slim and that should be apparent when the workplan is 

submitted. [Scott VanderKooi] We need to work this out internally. [Seth Shanahan] It is the 

TWG’s task to at least identify opportunities recognizing that there are institutional limitations. 

4. Project B. Sandbar and sediment storage monitoring and research

[Bill Persons] Is the Aeolian transport part of this project? This could be done on a less frequent 

basis. Some years there are no HFEs. Does that work in the Western Canyon need to be done or 

can it be delayed? [Paul Grams] Aeolian is not in Project B. The management actions go on 

every year. We typically provide an assessment before each HFE and an evaluation afterwards. 

Only one HFE survey is collected each year. For the Western Canyon work, we need to know 

when people want to have that information. There are some concerns that have been 

expressed for 5-6 years. It has been a long-standing issue that is directly affected by dam 

operations. [Scott VanderKooi] There are several elements that are proposed to be funded 
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program: TWG Meeting (via webinar)

April 15-16, 2020

Page 23 of 25

through the experimental fund that would only occur if one of those experiments occur. [Seth

Shanahan] The Western Grand Canyon project was proposed by a stakeholder who had 

concerns about the impact on their boat operations along the river corridor. [Peter Bungart]

Paul summarized the situation really well, but where this area is in relation to the dam is not 

material. It is part of the system. It is based on navigability of the river corridor. This has been 

discussed. If some stakeholders are willing to push it off for several more years, we may never 

understand the situation in that part of the system. We are also finding a lot more native fish 

species in that part of the river that is only recently getting attention. [Seth Shanahan] This is 

an opportunity to work with a tribal partner. Do we want to pass on that? Are there 

opportunities to do less research along other parts of the river? [Larry Stevens] That reach is 

also a hotspot of endangered species and perhaps the biggest population of humpback chub 

and razorback suckers. [Paul Grams] Pushing some of that into the next workplan is possible, 

but it gets problematic to meet the 10-year LTEMP assessment. Those are the kinds of 

tradeoffs. If there is direction to prioritize that work in the Western Canyon over sediment 

storage, we can do that. 

[Peter Bungart] It seems as though in recent years we’ve learned that rainbow trout are not the 

villain predators on the chub that we used to think they were. Is there room to reduce some of 

that research if it boils down to a recreation issue? 

[Seth Shanahan] Next steps are to submit written comments by April 22. The BAHG meetings 

will be held April 18, 20 and 21. After this, the federal agency will submit a new document on 

May 18. From then to June 8, the TWG, BAHG and science advisors will be reviewing. Then 

more calls in June before the AMWG meeting on June 23. This will give us all more 

opportunities to provide input. 

Discuss any emerging issues and agenda items for next meeting 

[Larry Stevens] Are there sister agency communications that TWG or AMWG are not privy to?

For example, Department of Interior agencies get together to talk about their policies that 

might be relevant to TWG or AMWG discussions. [Seth Shanahan] Believe these occur before 

the AMWG meetings. Are there reports on these that can be provided? [Lee Traynham] These

are side meetings common among all agencies to coordinate internally. If there are items that 

are relevant to the group, these would be shared, but there is not information that is being kept 

secret.

[Bill Persons] Would like to see oxygen depletion and plans to mitigate that discussed at next 

meeting because it involves a mix of agencies. 

[Jim Strogen] Are we approaching a point at which we have met the desired goals with respect 

to data collection for humpback chub and trout? [Bill Persons] Perhaps this is the downlisting 

efforts for rainbow and humpback chub? [Seth Shanahan] This relates to being informed within 
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program: TWG Meeting (via webinar)

April 15-16, 2020

Page 24 of 25

an adaptive management format. If you can clearly say, and we all agree, that one goal is being 

met, then it seems natural to try to focus on other goals. That’s the tradeoff. That is a difficult 

question to answer and not sure we all agree, which is the conversation we need to have. 

[Larry Stevens] Would like to be more informed about other research projects outside of 

GCMRC such as NPS, WAPA and others. [Seth Shanahan] That’s on the agenda along with rail 

and flycatcher work. 

[Larry Stevens] Can we have a conversation with Zeke about the GCRG’s sandbar photography 

project and with Paul to see if that data are lining up with program expectations? The driftwood 

distribution could be part of that, too. [Paul Grams] Have been discussing this already and it is 

an element in Project B.1 (Adopt a Beach Program). 

[Bill Persons] Can we get an update about what happens if there is no access to the river to do 

the bug flows or whether they will be losing a couple of years’ worth of effort? [Larry Stevens]

We might be able to get around the data lost through modeling.

[Leslie James] What is the AMWG being asked to do if the redraft of the triennial workplan is 

May 18 and the AMWG meeting is May 20? [Seth Shanahan] The Triennial Workplan Guidance

says the draft will be provided to the TWG for review and comment. It does not direct the 

AMWG on what they should do at their May meeting. The idea is that they will receive a 

summary presentation of the items. [Lee Traynham] We try to get a lot in during the May 

webinar. Will likely request additional input through email and written comments. 

Public Comment 

None submitted. 

Meeting adjourned at 2:30 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program: TWG Meeting (via webinar)

April 15-16, 2020

Page 25 of 25

Abbreviations 

ADWR – Arizona Department of Water 

Resources

AMWG – Adaptive Management Work 

Group

AZGFD – Arizona Game and Fish 

Department

BAHG – Budget Ad Hoc Group

CFS – cubic feet per second

CRBC – Colorado River Board of California

CRCN – Colorado River Commission of 

Nevada

CREDA – Colorado River Energy Distributors 

Association

CWCB – Colorado Water Conservation 

Board

FFI – Fly Fishers International

FLAHG – Flow Ad Hoc Group

FY – Fiscal Year (October 1 – September 30)

GCDAMP - Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive 

Management Program

GCMRC – Grand Canyon Monitoring & 

Research Center

GCNP – Grand Canyon National Park

GCRG – Grand Canyon River Guides

GCWC – Grand Canyon Wildlands Council 

GRNCA – Glen Canyon National 

Recreational Area

HFE – High Flow Experiment

LTEMP – Long-Term Experimental and 

Management Plan

NFCCF – Native Fish Conservation 

Contingency Fund

NHPA – National Historic Preservation Act

NPS – National Park Service

OMB – Office of Management and Budget

Reclamation –Bureau of Reclamation

ROD – Record of Decision

SHPO – State Historic Preservation Office

TMF – Trout Management Flows

TWG – GCDAMP Technical Work Group

TWP – Triennial Workplan

UMPA – Utah Municipal Power Agency

UCRC – Upper Colorado River Commission

USFWS – United States Fish & Wildlife 

Service

USGS – United States Geological Survey

WAPA – Western Area Power 

Administration