Page 1 of 11

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program

Technical Work Group Meeting

Jan 25, 2024

Day 1: Thursday, January 25, 2024

Start Time: 9:06 AM MT

Conducting: Seth Shanahan, Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) and TWG Chair 

Designated Federal Official: Daniel Picard and Kathy Callister, Bureau of Reclamation

Meeting Recorder: Beccie Mendenhall, SeaJay Environmental LLC

Welcome and Administrative

• Introductions and Determination of Quorum (16 members): A Quorum was reached (19 

members present). 

Meeting Minute Procedures: Tara Ashby (BOR) Final meeting minutes must be posted to the 

web site within 90 days. First draft will go to all TWG members and alternates for review and

input. Minutes will be posted after all member input is received. This means there is no longer an 

agenda item for “adoption of minutes”, they will be considered “final” once posted.

• Next Meeting Date(s): April 10-11, 2024, in Tempe at the Embassy Suites. Also note, the plan is 

to host the June meeting at Navajo Nation. But Twin Arrows casino is not available for our 

original June dates, stay tuned for alternate dates in July.

• Ad Hoc Group Membership and Updates:

Larry Stevens (GCWC) There is interest in adding some administration history of the program

to the GCDAMP Wiki. Craig Ellsworth (WAPA) The Wiki is easy to understand, I am happy to 

teach people how to post. Larry Stevens (GCWC) Maybe we can put together a workshop to 

train people, something virtual, an hour long. Craig Ellsworth (WAPA) The Wiki is supported 

by CRC Nevada, request they engage for training and support requests. (Action Item created) 

Seth Shanahan (SNWA) Steering Committee Ad Hoc Group (SCAHG) continues to meet in 

advance of each TWG meeting. Larry Stevens (GCWC) Request that we post the dates for 

BAHG and SEAHG meetings somewhere. (Action Item created)

• Review Action Items, Motions, and Votes Form: Review completed, no additional comments.

• Update on Monitoring and Research Trips to Occur from Today Until Next Meeting:

January 30: Lees Ferry TRGD trip

February 14: Water quality, fine sediment

March 11th to 14th: TRGD trip

April 3rd to 17th: Mainstem nonnative electroshock

April 8th – 9

th: Lees Ferry TRGD trip

April 9th – 26th: Aquatic food monitoring (drift) 

Hydrology, Glen Canyon Dam Operations, and Water Quality Conditions in Lake 

Powell and Below Glen Canyon Dam: 

Heather Patno (BOR) Hydrology and Glen Canyon Dam Operations

The system is currently at 42% capacity. January precipitation has been low, unusually dry for an El Nino 

year. Historically, drought years are not unusual following a high precipitation year. Inflow forecast for 

Lake Powell is below 2023 levels. Anticipate 2024 will operate in the mid release tier per management

guidelines. But it is still very early in the year for forecasting. Spring weather can have a big impact on 

water inflow. Drought Response Operations Agreement (DROA) recovery should be achieved for all 
Page 2 of 11

basins within this Water Year. Projecting mid-tier release for Water Year 2025 as well. For Lake Mead, 

elevation projections have all three probability scenarios in the Level 1 shortage conditions for Water Year 

2025.

The operational modeling presented today is 24 months. A 5-year model is done annually in January. We 

expect that to be ready next week. Reference the slides for the power plant maintenance schedule, unit 

replacement schedule and impact on power operations. The daily release pattern from Glen Canyon Dam 

is also included. 

Robert Radtke (BOR) Water Quality Conditions

The reservoir is fixing itself from last year’s low DO and high temps. Above penstock is uniform in 

December, below is a little more variable. Temperature differential is 6 degrees Celsius from the surface 

to the bottom. Lake Powell forebay temperature shows a seasonal increase in temperature at the top and 

greater differential. Due to the high volume of water last year, sediment continued beyond the spring to 

the end of summer. Forecast for the coming season shows temperatures above spawning for SMB starting 

in Aug in the canyon. Reference slides for comparison of water temperature and DO from Dec 2019 to 

current. 

Q&A and discussion

Leslie James (CREDA) What is incremental recovery? Heather Patno (BOR) There are two ways to 

recover water in recovery actions. The first is to meet elevation targets, the second is to recover every 

month a specific volume. This second method is called incremental recovery. Leslie James (CREDA) It 

is good to remind people that in the Record of Decision (ROD) there is a specific clause that requires 

BOR and WAPA to work together on releases. Heather Patno (BOR) You are talking about the Glen 

Canyon monthly releases. At this point, we are not planning to implement any of these additional 

measures. But thank you for pointing out that we have those options should water levels drop further.

Leslie James (CREDA) On the maintenance schedule, where is the jet tube recoating project? Heather 

Patno (BOR) It is still in contracting, we expect to see it awarded in a few months. Start times will be 

available post award.

Craig Ellsworth (WAPA) Yesterday Bryce gave a presentation on the new model for temperature

projections. What you presented today is using the old model, is that correct? Robert Radtke (BOR) Yes 

Craig Ellsworth (WAPA) When will you switch over to the new model? Robert Radtke (BOR) When 

Bryce is comfortable, maybe 2 months. Clarence Fullard (BOR) We just started vetting the model with 

Bryce. Model comparisons need to be done. I am hesitant to provide a specific date when it will be in use.

Craig Ellsworth (WAPA) Is it in use anywhere yet? Bryce Mihalevich (USGS) The new model was 

used in the near-term analysis and the SEIS.

Larry Stevens (GCWC) Can you explain the variation in weekend flows? Heather Patno (BOR) WAPA 

coordinates those schedules, generally there is less demand on the weekends, so you see lower releases.

Ben Reeder (GCRG) Can you point me to monthly outflows for April to September 2024? Heather 

Patno (BOR) The 24-month study will contain that information. The maintenance graphs in this 

presentation also have all the releases.

Betsy Morgan (State of Utah) In the water quality analysis, there was something odd with the January

Max which I don’t believe was shown today. Is there any information on that discrepancy? Robert 

Radtke (BOR) No, there has not been any resolution to this problem. The Max broke in October despite 

using the same data. 
Page 3 of 11

Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan (LTEMP) Biological Opinion 

Conservation Measures Update:

Matt O'Neill (BOR) Per the LTEMP, actions are required to conserve Humpback Chub, Razorback 

sucker, Native aquatic fish and two species of birds. There are two levels of actions:

Tier 1 – conservation actions when population declines

Tier 2 – predator removal if Tier 1 actions are unsuccessful.

Population metrics determine which tier of response is required. For Humpback Chub, all population 

metrics are above threshold, so no action is triggered. In 2023, 600 larval fish were moved to SNARRC 

hatchery. These will be available for translocation next year. Razorback Sucker monitoring found no 

young or larvae. For Willow Flycatchers, there were 6 possible detections, an increase over zero in 

previous years. Native Aquatic Species will be discussed at 11:15 presentation. In the forebay, August 

2023 netting found a high volume of bluegill and green sunfish next to the dam down to 22 meters.

Q&A and discussion

Larry Stevens (GCWC) It is puzzling that fish are down 60 meters, any thoughts? Matt O'Neill (BOR) 

Those appeared to be young blue gill and sunfish. The dam is a protective structure. Maybe they are 

feeding. Larry Stevens (GCWC) It would be good to understand what they are doing. Jeremy Hammen 

(BOR) They seem to be literally stacked up against the canyon walls and not in the open water. Bill 

Stewart (BOR) Barrett reported on this earlier in the week, reference his presentation.

Larry Stevens (GCWC) Why is the program no longer looking at bald eagles? Bud Fazio (NPS) NPS 

does count bald and golden eagles throughout the length of Grand Canyon Park, that data is published. 

Greg Holme (NPS) No bald eagles have been seen nesting in the Grand Canyon. They migrate through in 

January to March timeframe.

Seth Shanahan (SNWA) What is the going hypothesis why we are no longer catching Razorback 

Suckers? Matt O'Neill (BOR) Maybe there is not much habitat upstream. Bill Stewart (BOR) They are 

also rare, harder to detect. Emily Omana Smith (NPS) They found larvae in 2018 but have seen zero 

since then. The hypothesis is that Peirce Ferry is acting as a block to these fish coming upstream to 

spawn.

Informational Updates 

• LTEMP Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS): 

Bill Stewart (BOR) We initiated scoping for the SEIS to evaluate options to disrupt SMB 

population and modify the HFE protocol. Two webinars were held in October 2023 to share 

initial draft resulting in 34 letters of comment. A summary report on the letters received is 

available online. We have engaged a contractor to incorporate the feedback into a public draft 

with release targeted for February 9

th, 2024. There will be a 45-day comment period after 

publication as well as three webinars planned in Feb to facilitate public review. Our end goal is to 

have the SEIS in place by summer 2024. There will be a webinar next Wednesday hosted by 

GCMRC on the modeling used in the SEIS. You will be receiving an email from GCMRC with 

details. Kathy Callister (BOR) This is an amazing process to get a SEIS completed in 6 months!

It usually takes several years. We appreciate everyone’s input and support for this 

accomplishment. Seth Shanahan (SNWA) Do you anticipate the LTEMP SEIS and Record of 

Decision (ROD) will be released together? Kathy Callister (BOR) NEPA Regulations require we 

wait 30 days before proceeding with a ROD. Leslie James (CREDA) Can you talk a little more 

about the GCMRC webinar? Bill Stewart (BOR) We asked GCMRC to use their expertise for 

modeling resources in the SEIS. The webinar next week is a report on their modeling, a preview 
Page 4 of 11

of the data that will be released to the public in February. Kurt Dongoske (Pueblo of Zuni) I 

want to express my concern that the speed with which this document is being handled means 

ZUNI concerns will not be addressed. This SEIS failed to incorporate the Zuni input. There has 

been no one within Reclamation with the expertise to evaluate the impact on Zuni peoples and 

values. This includes the contractor that was chosen to incorporate the NEPA compliance. I would 

like to see Reclamation come out to the Zuni and speak about how they have dealt with the ZUNI 

concerns and issues that have been submitted. (There were nods in the room from Reclamation 

representatives acknowledging they heard this point.)

• Brown Trout Incentivized Harvest Program:

Jeff Arnold (NPS) Reference slides for details on quantity and size of fish captured each year of

the program. Note that 50% of the trout in this 3-year program were harvested in 2023. They 

received $200K in funding to continue the program for another 2 to 3 years. There is $33K left 

from original project funding which they want to donate for tribal fishing trips. Larry Stevens 

(GCWC) Any thoughts to extend program to other invasive species? Bud Fazio (NPS) So far, no 

other species but that is under discussion. Mel Fegler (State of Wyoming) What other data is 

there to show impact of the incentivized harvest program outside the straight capture numbers 

presented? Bud Fazio (NPS) The program was not designed for this. Jeff Arnold (NPS) I am not 

clear on the question. Ryan Mann (AZGFD) We have the ability in surveys to ask specific 

questions of the anglers. That is a potential source for additional insights into the program.

• WaterSmart and Other Funding Opportunities for GCDAMP Projects: 

Katherine Tucker (BOR) Water grants have been around for 20 years and are available to all 

parties outside the federal government. We encourage everyone to apply for grants! They can also 

be done on BLM land, so don’t rule that out. They have assigned $300K per year for the next 3 

years to WaterSmart. Note that aquatic ecosystems projects have a co-funding requirement, given 

as a % of the total grant. Justin Record (BOR) IRA Drought Mitigation Projects are available to 

public entities and Indian Tribes. This is an upper basin program but there is another one that 

exists for the lower basin. Money can be spent on water conservation and ecosystem projects. 

There is roughly $450M which must be spent by the end of FY26. It is possible for a private 

entity to be involved if they are adopted by a state or tribe as a partnership. Seth Shanahan 

(SNWA) We would appreciate support from both of you in coming BAHG calls.

Update on Action Items Related to the Non-Native Strategic Plan to Prevent 

Invasive Fish Establishment (e.g., Slough Modification, Thermal Curtain, Bypass 

Tube Generation, Tucker Trawl)

Bud Fazio (NPS) Slough Modification

Last meeting, we agreed to talk to Reclamation about proposed modifications to the Slough. The proposal 

involves a three-phase plan; drain upper slough, excavate between the upper and lower and then fill the 

lower slough. We had multiple conference calls followed by a site visit on January 18th attended by the 

National Park Service (NPS) and the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) leadership as well as construction 

and environmental experts. We are coming to consensus on a way forward with the project.

A few key points:

- There is no direct NPS funding for this project, but BOR has helped identify options.

- To satisfy NEPA requirements we need to do a Supplemental Impact Report (SIR) or 

Environmental Assessment (EA), which will take time.

- Wetlands assessment is an important aspect, planning to engage Army Corp for assistance.

- Based on NPS assessment, it will be winter 2025 before this project can be implemented. 

- Given the 2025 estimate, we probably still need a chemical treatment in July or August 2024.

This is a big, complex project. We want to make sure if we undertake this effort that we are successful. 
Page 5 of 11

Q&A and Discussion

Larry Stevens (GCWC) The slough is not a natural feature, please do not present it as such. Bud Fazio 

(NPS) There is controversy on that point of a natural feature. NPS believes there was a rock fall there 

before the dam was constructed. 

Larry Stevens (GCWC) One other issue I have is engagement with Army Corp. Involving them to 

evaluate wetland status in this project will be time consuming and potentially expand to overhead for the 

greater GCAMP Program. Matt O'Neill (BOR) Reclamation Wetland folks are coming in Feb and will 

engage the Army Corp as well. We need a permit for this project so there is no option, Army Corp must be 

included. We do not anticipate this will expand to something more complicated.

Deb Williams (USFWS) You referenced a GO/NO GO decision by the NPS Superintendent. When will 

this call be made? And can it be done before the February AMWG meeting? Bud Fazio (NPS) Cost 

estimates should be done in 2 months, but there are other factors as well. I do not expect it to be done 

before the February meeting. Bill Stewart (BOR) The barge is the biggest unknown cost from the site 

visit. Maybe at a minimum we can have these costs by the AMWG meeting.

Craig Ellsworth (WAPA) Given the timeline, are there other temporary measures that can be put into 

place to keep fish from migrating into the lower slough? Bud Fazio (NPS) Jeff Arnold is very active 

trying to create that separation with netting or screens.

Deb Williams (USFWS) Can you provide clarity on the project timeline? Is that Dec 2025 or Jan 2025?

Bud Fazio (NPS) Jan 2025. Deb Williams (USFWS) Thanks, have you started the permitting process for 

chemical treatment for this year? Bud Fazio (NPS) Yes, already received. Erik Stanfield (Navajo 

Nation) We are supportive of the chemical treatments on a short-term basis but as they continue to repeat, 

we are going to have more comment against it. Can we just do more direct observations? We would like 

to see a strong effort to avoid chemical treatments. Bud Fazio (NPS) I understand and agree with the 

concern. We have acquired a water drone that may help in observation.

Kurt Dongoske (Pueblo of Zuni) This action may be viewed as an adverse effect to the Colorado River, 

a Register-eligible traditional cultural property. The National Historic Preservation Act requires agencies 

to recognize and accept the knowledge sovereignty of the tribes. A recent White House memo came out 

requesting that agencies treat knowledge from tribes at the same level as western knowledge. Bud Fazio 

(NPS) We understand these requirements. Zuni leaders, including council and religious leaders, visited 

with us at the slough last fall and opened the dialogue. We will continue to engage with the Zuni as we 

proceed.

Bill Stewart (BOR) Thermal Curtain / Exclusion Net

The goal here is to pursue means of preventing passage of invasive fish below the dam. There was a 

report in September of 2022 that explored fish escapement options. This report is available on the web. A

panel analyzed all options and made recommendations on where to focus efforts. We investigated other 

places that implemented these options. Most of the examples we see of exclusion nets are not for a 

canyon release as we have here. Thermal curtains are based on reducing temperature below spawning 

levels. They are designed to block the warm surface water. These are the two alternatives recommended 

by the report. Reference slides for details on Baker Lake exclusion net and Whiskeytown Reservoir 

thermal curtain. Some design considerations in the Glen Canyon dam forebay, the area for an exclusion 

net would be 1000 ft wide with a depth from 50 to 200 ft depending on water levels. You cannot have a 

net right against the dam, there needs to be some space, which means it cannot be 100% effective. The
Page 6 of 11

adjustable height is a big challenge in attaching to a canyon wall. We also have fish near the canyon walls

to consider. And there may be biofouling that impacts effectiveness. Preliminary cost estimates are $22 -

$23 Million. Reference slides for the next steps target for completion this year.

Jeremy Hammen (BOR) Hydroacoustic Monitoring

We plan to put transducers on the trash racks of the penstocks to identify what organisms are going 

through the penstocks. These devices will monitor 24x7x365, measuring number and size but not species.

To address the species question, we contracted with the USGS Western Fisheries Research Center that 

deals with entrainment at other facilities. They are going to deploy Tucker Trawl Nets next week as a pilot 

in the tail waters right behind the outflow. This would provide sampling of actual species coming through.

Q&A and Discussion

Craig Ellsworth (WAPA) When you put the trawl net close to the tail waters you might be impacting 

efficiencies. Jeremy Hammen (BOR) We already talked with dam operations about that. The original 

idea to put the net snug was vetoed. We will keep them engaged as we find out what works. Colleen 

Cunningham (NMISC) Is the flow strength enough at that location to prevent fish from avoiding the 

net? Jeremy Hammen (BOR) Yes. Deb Williams (USFWS) What is the smallest size transducers can 

pick up? Jeremy Hammen (BOR) 150 – 200 mm Emily Omana Smith (NPS) What timeline do you 

expect to start? Jeremy Hammen (BOR) We are tied to funding from Congress. We would like to be live 

this summer for the nets. The transducers require a longer timeline to avoid impact to dam operations.

Budget and Socioeconomic Ad Hoc Groups Update:

Erik Skeie (CWCB) and Budget Ad Hoc Group (BAHG) Chair

We are working on the Triennial Work Plan Budget with weekly meetings starting next week. The initial 

draft is targeted for March 31st, second draft May 6th, third draft June 7th. The final recommendation will 

go to the Secretary of Interior. If you want to be added to the process, reach out to Erik or Jeremy.

Ben Reeder (GCRG) and Socioeconomic Ad Hoc Group (SEAHG) Chair

Thank you to everyone who has joined, participation has been great. Our key topic has been hydropower 

metrics and modeling. Modeling for hydropower is extremely complex. The current gold standard for 

modeling is GTMAX not the GCMRC model of impacts to hydropower. February 1

st at 11 am we will be 

diving into the metrics from WAPA and GCMRC. Our goal is to facilitate conversation between the two

organizations and compare results for the two different models they use. Leslie James (CREDA) - To 

facilitate collaboration and bring some efficiency to the project, CREDA is recommending the money for 

modeling impacts to hydropower using GTMAX go to the Reclamation side of the budget. GTMAX is 

the model that Reclamation traditionally uses for all of its NEPA processes.

Mel Fegler (State of Wyoming) Those of us in SEAHG think it might be beneficial for the TWG to see 

the two models presented side by side by their experts. Leslie James (CREDA) I support the idea of a 

side-by-side presentation to everyone. It is not efficient to have dualling models. Seth Shanahan 

(SNWA) We may need to expand the current charge to SEAHG to include this model comparison. The 

current scope is only to address Project N. (Action Item Created)

Seth Shanahan (SNWA) The other thing I want to address is the potential for standing up the

Smallmouth Bass Ad Hoc Group (SBAHG) again. In the strategic plan there is a requirement for an

annual review on Smallmouth Bass (SMB). I would like to see that included in the Non-Native fish 

discussion coming up in February. Rather than spin up another Ad Hoc Group for this short timeline, it 

may be more efficient to have the BAHG address this directly.
Page 7 of 11

[Dan Leavitt, USFWS] In the Monitoring and Effectives section of the Strategic Plan there are 7 key 

items identified for off ramping actions related to SMB. We need to make sure these 7 items are included

in the annual review. Leslie James (CREDA) It seems of all the Ad Hoc groups, SBAHG should be the 

most important one. It should be informing all the other activities. Seth Shanahan (SNWA) I assume that

communication is already happening between groups. If not then yes, we have a key activity that is 

missing.

Discussion Followed

Seth Shanahan (SNWA) It does seem there is opportunity for coordination. I am going to ask the leaders 

of the two recurring federal meetings that take place as part of the Invasive Species Strategic Plan MOU 

(Memorandum of Understanding) to work on this. (Action Item Created)

Breakout Group Discussion:

TWG Members

The purpose of this agenda item is for TWG Members to breakout into four to five smaller but assigned 

groups to have a group-interest-directed discussion about the following. Considering what you learned 

during day 1 and 2 of the Annual Reporting meeting and/or additional knowledge that you have: 

1) what are your perspectives on the health of the Colorado River Ecosystem (CRE) and/or whether the 

LTEMP FEIS goals and objectives are being met.

2) what input can you provide to the developers of the next triennial workplan and budget that will help 

support a healthy CRE and/or meet the goals and objectives of the LTEMP FEIS. 

Report Out from Breakout Groups: 

TWG Members

The purpose of this agenda item is for the spokespeople of the breakout groups to describe the outcomes 

of their discussion to the full group. 25 minutes = 5 minutes per group

Zachary Nelson (BOR) Group 4 

Direction to Work Plan

• Set aside resources and funding to study emergent problems.

• Remove the word “rapid” from Rapid Response. Need to be planning 3 years in advance.

• Recognize the importance of the tributaries – this is where the natives have and continue to live, 

need to keep these healthy as well.

Health / Goal / Achievement

• We think the ecosystem is doing well.

• Worry is what will come in the next wave – forward thinking.

Colleen Cunningham (NMISC) While we said 3-year plan, we also acknowledged we need to look even 

further forward, add climate change. Create a more resilient system, include more of the tribal input.

Erik Skeie (CWCB) Group 2

Direction to Work Plan

• What are the federal priorities as they relate to the projects, that will help us advise the projects.

• Time to do a third-party review, it has not been done since the mid-nineties.

• Research needs to be tied to management actions. We also need open, facilitated discussion 

between GCMRC and stakeholders to help mitigate conflict.

• Refocus some GCMRC resources from things we know well to know less, like tribal needs.
Page 8 of 11

Health / Goal / Achievement

• Other native fish

• Non-native invasives – monster of the week scenario – what will it be moving forward.

Bill Stewart (BOR) Good point about the third-party review. It is supposed to happen in 2027 per the 

agreement, likely towards the end of this new triennial workplan.

Sinjin Eberle, (American Rivers) Group 5

Direction to Work Plan

• How does post 2026 impact the Triennial workplan? Overlaps with mid-term view.

• Metrics need to be included in the plan, including hydropower, how changes will be detected.

• What will the Secretary of the Interior want to be advised on, how do we prepare for that.

• Look at aquatic food, maybe a specific effort around gammarus.

• Keep tracking of action and impact for SMB.

• Impact of flows and Lake Mead elevations on western Grand Canyon.

• Are there redundant projects between the different orgs – GCMRC, NPS, BOR?

Health / Goal / Achievement

• From a hydrology perspective we had a reprieve.

• Concerns were raised about the health of rainbow trout.

• High flows all summer long caused some problems.

• Rafting people had a great summer, lots of beaches, cleaner.

• Discussion about transition of power, impacts of Argonne study, moving to a clean energy future.

• Given the cost and logistics of the HFE, diminished impact with high flows that followed.

• Concern about integrity of cultural resources, also some sites being exposed in Lake Powell

• Concerned we are not getting enough input on fish removal.

Ryan Mann (AZGFD) Group 1

Direction to Work Plan

• Desire to make proactive rather than reactive decisions, understand that it is hard for this program 

to be proactive. Whether due to speed of decisions or funding concerns.

• To improve that, suggestion to refine the decision-making process.

• Look at how we identify and respond to emerging issues.

• Issues noted about funding uncertainty.

• Look at microbial communities, smaller scale ecosystems that may have impact on the other parts 

of the system. Request for risk assessment modeling on this, including impact to humans.

• Concern about liquidity of funds, ability to spend and use for the purposes they were intended.

• Making sure the program is keeping tabs on Invasives, new issues (green sunfish)

Health / Goal / Achievement

• Concern with uncertainty in hydrology conditions, sustainability of the program.

• Native fish are doing well but there is high potential for risk.

• Acknowledge the resources that are not doing as well – rainbow trout and hydrology.

• Difficult to assess health of resources that appear to be doing well based on today’s measures.

Erik Stanfield (Navajo Nation) Group 3

Direction to Work Plan

Health / Goal / Achievement

• Tribal values – we have not much progress on the cultural sensitivity trainings, difficulty 

collaborating to develop metrics, impacts at cultural sites, communicating to recreational 

community about consideration for this special space.
Page 9 of 11

• Tie between response and monitoring is delayed, how can we make the connections more 

efficient.

• Hydropower study is underfunded, could use more resources. The problem of competing models 

was noted and need to communicate well.

• Rainbow trout, better anticipation of environmental changes in the future.

• Recreation goal some difficulties, sand has improved but missed or add opportunities to study 

impact to surrounding communities.

• Using surveys to collect tribal / community input – add studies for this to program.

• Natural Processes – considering seasonal / astronomical cycles / lunar cycles, see how this can be 

incorporated into our metrics.

• Success: Science monitoring and reporting contributed to changing the HFE protocol process.

Can we follow this model for improvement in other elements of the program?

• More directly tying research to the (11) LTEMP goals.

• How can we communicate complex topics so it can be interpreted by the diverse background of 

people that are in this group or in the public domain?

• How can we proportion the budget to align with the goals?

Andrew Schultz (GCMRC) Goals can change over time. We need to be nimble enough to catch that 

change and move resources to align. Larry Stevens (GCWC) Program review in 2027 is a good time to 

look at the goals again and clarify them.

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

Consideration for Implementation Before Next TWG Meeting, and Request for 

Agenda Items for Next Meeting

Craig Ellsworth (WAPA) WAPA would like to present a hydropower update at the April meeting.

Bill Persons (FFI/TU) I would like to see a presentation on how GCMRC models work and have them 

dive deeper into some of the fish models.

Larry Stevens (GCWC) Adding to that point, I would like to evaluate what we do and don’t know about 

modeling life histories of the fish. Explore what we should include in the next workplan for this research.

Another topic would be an update from Fish and Wildlife on restoration activities at Paria beach.

David Ward (USFWS) Fish and Wildlife would like to update the group on the potential reintroduction 

of Colorado pikeminnow in the Western Grand Canyon.

Public Comment: None Noted

Meeting adjourned at 4:23 PM PDT.

Participants

TWG Members, Alternates, and Leadership

Ben Reeder (GCRG) Hannah Chambless (NPS-GRCA)

Betsy Morgan (State of Utah) J Paya (Hualapai Tribe)

Bill Persons (FFI/TU) Jakob Maase (Hopi Tribe)

Brent Powers (Navajo Nation) Jeremy Hammen (BOR)

Brian Hines (BOR) Kelly Burke (GCWC)

Bud Fazio (NPS-GLCA) Kurt Dongoske (Pueblo of Zuni)

Carrie Cannon (Hualapai Tribe) Larry Stevens (GCWC)

Christina Noftsker (State of New Mexico) Leslie James (CREDA)
Page 10 of 11

Cliff Barrett (UMPA) Mel Fegler (State of Wyoming)

Colleen Cunningham (NMISC) Michelle Garrison (CWCB)

Craig Ellsworth (WAPA) Rob Billerbeck (NPS-GLCA)

Dan Leavitt (USFWS) Rudy Keedah (BIA)

Dani Greene (SNWA) Ryan Mann (AZGFD)

David Rogowski (AZGFD) Scott McGettigan (State of Utah)

David Ward (USFWS) Seth Shanahan (SNWA)

Deb Williams (USFWS) Shana Rapoport (CRBC)

Emily Young (ADWR) Shane Capron (WAPA)

Emily Omana Smith (NPS-GRCA) Sinjin Eberle (American Rivers)

Erik Skeie (CWCB) Ted Rampton (CREDA)

Erik Stanfield (Navajo Nation)

Other GCDAMP Members and Interested Persons

Andrew Schultz (USGS) Zachary Nelson (BOR)

Brian Healy (USGS) Amanda Podmore (Grand Canyon Trust)

Bryce Mihalevich (BOR) Amy Schott (NPS)

Charles Yackulic (USGS) Beccie Mendenhall (SeaJay Environmental)

Drew Eppehimer (USGS) Bill Pine

Emily Palmquist (USGS) Brittnee Shows (USFWS)

Helen Fairley (USGS) Cassandra Reed (NPS)

Joel Sankey (USGS) Chip Lewis (BIA)

Kim Dibble (USGS) Christina Kalavritinos (DOI)

Lauren Tango (USGS) Conor Clancy NPS-GLCA

Lucas Bair (USGS) Craig McGinnis

Maria Dzul (USGS) Dan Galvin (BIA)

Mark Anderson (USGS) Dave Worthington (Grand Canyon Conservancy)

Mark Grippo (USGS) David Braun (Sound Science)

Paul Grams (USGS) David Rheinheimer (CRBC)

Shannon Sartain (USGS) Elyssa Shalla (NPS)

Alex Walker (BOR) Emily Zmak (CWCB)

Amee Andreason (BOR) Eric Balken (Glen Canyon Conservancy)

Bill Stewart (BOR) Greg Holme (NPS)

Clarence Fullard (BOR) Jeff Arnold (NPS)

Daniel Picard (BOR) Jess Gwinn (USFWS)

Dave Speas (BOR) Jess Newton (USFWS)

Heather Patno (BOR) John Dillon

Jamescita Peshlakai (BOR) John Jordan (FFI/TU)

Justin Record (BOR) Josh Korman (Ecometric Research)

Katherine Tucker (BOR) Katharine Dahm (DOI)

Kathy Callister (BOR) Melissa Trammell (NPS)

Kerri Pedersen (BOR) Michael Pillow (USFWS)

Margaret DiGiorno (BOR) Michelle Kerns (NPS)

Matt O'Neill (BOR) Peggy Roefer (CRCNV)
Page 11 of 11

Matthew Alinsod (BOR) Pilar Wolters-Rinker (USFWS)

Melynda Roberts (BOR) Richard M Begay (Navajo Nation)

Robert Radtke (BOR) Warren Turkett (CRCNV)

Tara Ashby (BOR)

Acronyms

oC – degrees Celsius MOA – Memorandum of Understanding

AMWG – Adaptive Management Work Group mm – millimeter 

ADWR – Arizona Department of Water Resources NEPA – National Environmental Policy Act

AHAHG – Administrative History Ad Hoc Group NMISC – NM Interstate Stream Commission

AZGFD – Arizona Game and Fish Department NPS – National Park Service

BAHG – Budget Ad Hoc Group

BOR – Bureau of Reclamation

NPS-GLCA – Glen Canyon National 

Recreation Area

CFS – Cubic Feet per Second

CRBC – Colorado River Board of California NPS-GRCA – Grand Canyon National Park

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

CREDA – Colorado River Energy Distributors 

Association

P&I Team – Planning and Implementation 

Team

CRSP – Colorado River Storage Project Reclamation – Bureau of Reclamation

CWCB – Colorado Water Conservation Board ROD - Record of Decision

SEAHG – Socioeconomic Ad Hoc Group

D.O. – dissolved oxygen SEIS – supplemental environmental impact 

statement

DOI – Department of the Interior

DROA – Drought Response Operations Agreement SMB – smallmouth bass

DWR – Department of Water Resources

SNWA – Southern Nevada Water Authority

SNARRC – Southwestern Native Aquatic 

Resources and Recovery Center

EA – environmental assessment TRGD – Trout Recruitment and Growth 

Dynamics

EIS – environmental impact statement TU – Trout Unlimited

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

FFI – Fly Fishers International UCRC – Upper Colorado River Commission

UMPA – Utah Municipal Power Agency

FY – Fiscal Year USFWS – United States Fish & Wildlife 

GCDAMP – Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive 

Management Program USGS – United States Geological Survey

GCMRC – Grand Canyon Monitoring & Research 

Center USU – Utah State University

GCPA – Grand Canyon Protection Act YoY – Young-of-Year

GCRG – Grand Canyon River Guides WAPA – Western Area Power Administration

GCWC—Grand Canyon Wildlands Council

HFE – High Flow Experiment

LTEMP – Long-Term Experimental and 

Management Plan