Page 1 of 19

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program

Technical Work Group Meeting

April 12-13, 2023

Wednesday, April 12, 2023

Day 1: April 12, 2023

Start Time: 9:53 AM Pacific Daylight Time (PDT)

Conducting: Seth Shanahan, Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) and Technical Work Group 

(TWG) Chair] and Daniel Picard, Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), Designated Federal Official

Meeting Recorder: Carliane Johnson, SeaJay Environmental LLC

Welcome and Administrative

• Introductions and Determination of Quorum: A quorum was reached.

• Adoption of Prior Meeting Minutes: The January 2023 meeting minutes were adopted. 

• Next Meeting Date(s): June 14-15, 2023: [Seth Shanahan, SNWA] This meeting is to be held 

in Phoenix but have heard interest in visiting the canyon such as at -12 Mile Slough and 

potentially meeting in Flagstaff.

• Ad Hoc Group Membership and Updates: [Seth Shanahan, SNWA] Members should review 

the list on the TWG website. Any changes should be sent to Clarence Fullard. Sinjin Eberle is 

the new Flow Ad Hoc (FLAHG) chair. The Steering Committee Ad Hoc Group (SCAHG) Is 

active and continues to meet. The Budget Ad Hoc Group (BAHG) will make progress when 

Reclamation provides information on how to address capacity concerns, which will be heard 

later on the agenda. [Craig Ellsworth, WAPA] The Administrative History Ad Hoc Group 

(AHAHG) Wiki is still active and is updated with meeting presentations. Contact Craig if 

anyone would like to learn about Wiki programming. [Seth Shanahan, SNWA] The AHAHG 

Wiki is the go-to place for much information.

• Review Action Items, Motions, and Votes Form: [Seth Shanahan, SNWA] Completed 

actions: a link to this document is now part of the agenda, Martina Dawley had requested a visit 

to the Southwest Native Aquatic Resource and Recovery Center (SNARRC), and another visit 

was requested from Reclamation to Zuni leadership. [Clarence Fullard, Reclamation] Martina 

Dawley, Hualapai Tribe, had coordinated with Kerry Pedersen, Reclamation, on the visit to 

SNARRC. [Daniel Picard, Reclamation] Wayne Pullan and Bill Stewart, Reclamation, visited 

the Zuni Tribe on March 15 to talk about the Colorado River. [Edward Wemytewa, Pueblo of 

Zuni] It was important for the tribal council to have a conversation with the Secretary’s 

Designee on how Zuni can support the TWG and the annual updates.

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

[Scott VanderKooi, GCMRC] The slide shows trips that have occurred or are planned from 

January 1 through November 2023. Anyone interested in volunteering for a trip should contact 

Andrew Schultz or Ann-Marie Bringhurst.

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

Lake Powell and Below Glen Canyon Dam. [Heather Patno, Reclamation] The forecast for April 

is 1.3 million acre-feet (maf) with a current release volume of 910,000 acre-feet (af). Should see an 

increase in elevations by the end of April. There are still some areas in the system that did not receive a 

lot of precipitation and are still dry as well as some areas that are now starting to dry. Precipitation was 

near normal, peaking on April 7 at 167% of medium, which is the new maximum that will go on the 

record. From March to April 1, there was a 3.3 maf increase into the system; however, also seeing some 
Page 2 of 19

variation in hydrology. Part of that is spring variability, but also not seeing as much runoff because of low 

soil moisture from the last three years. We need to continue to focus on minimum probable because of this 

uncertainty while Reclamation uses the most probable forecasts to operate the reservoirs. Reclamation is 

currently working on the April 24-month study. 

[Continued]

[Robert Radtke, Reclamation] showed the March model run. The maximum discharge temperature by 

September 30 was forecasted to be 16.5 degrees Celsius (oC). This dropped to 15 oC under the most 

probable hydrology. Maximum temperatures with higher flows of 9 maf are forecasted to be 20 oC at 

Diamond Creek, and 17 oC at the Little Colorado River. At the forebay with modeled discharge 

projections of 7.8 maf versus 9 maf, temperatures are forecast to be about 8.4 oC and 8.7 oC, respectively, 

on April 15. Dissolved Oxygen (D.O.) changes only a little in the reservoir. On the outflow of Glen 

Canyon, D.O. is projected around 5 to 8 milligram per liter (mg/l) with a low D.O. plume right at the base 

of the dam. Based on historical trends, we might expect this year to have similar temperatures as what 

occurred in 2005. Also expect to have more oxygen demand with high inflows and a lot of sediment 

resuspension. 

Q&A and Discussion

[Seth Shanahan, SNWA] A slide was included in prior presentations that correlated unregulated inflows 

to Lake Powell with its releases. What would that look like with the current forecasts? [Heather Patno, 

Reclamation] That graphic changes monthly because of elevation changes, the assumptions about water

supply and demand, and the upstream reservoirs having different operational compliance requirements at 

different hydrologies. The current estimate using the March assumptions shows that anything above 10.4 

maf (April through July), would be a 9.5 maf release. [Seth Shanahan, SNWA] On slide 17 of the

presentation, does September show some volume that exceeds power plant capacity? [Heather Patno, 

Reclamation] The blue diamond is white with a red outline because 9.5 maf flow is power plant capacity; 

however, annual maintenance on units 1 and 2 generally occurs in September. That has been changed so 

that all six units are now going to be available (refer to the table below the graph). [Bill Persons, Fly 

Fishers International (FFI)/Trout Unlimited (TU)] What plans are in place to try to mitigate the low 

D.O. problem? There should be some effort to develop a plan to deal with it. [Robert Radtke, 

Reclamation] Nothing is in place because Reclamation does not know exactly where low D.O. might 

occur in the reservoir. A low D.O. slug is expected with high inflows. But not much can be remediated to 

change that when it goes through the penstock. In 2005, there were problems with the equipment when 

Reclamation tried to aerate the system. There is a lot of potential dilution with higher D.O. water mixing 

with lower D.O. as it gets close to the dam. [Clarence Fullard, Reclamation] Recall that a D.O. State of 

Practice was developed. Nothing can be done that is not extremely expensive or technologically 

infeasible; however, Reclamation is still monitoring and trying to figure out if there are steps that can be 

taken. There was low D.O. last year and the trout fishery was monitored in Lees Ferry. Reclamation 

continues to discuss ideas about the low D.O. slug. [Charles Yackulic, GCMRC] How would higher 

release volumes affect temperatures if all inputs to the model are the same? The only difference is a 

change in reservoir elevations. Did something else change? [Robert Radke, Reclamation] The changes 

were both inflow and outflow volumes with changes in hydrology while everything else basically stayed 

the same with the two model runs. [Heather Patno, Reclamation] The 24-month study will be published

on April 17.
Page 3 of 19

Status Report for Resolving Potential Adverse Effects According to Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act

[Zachary Nelson, Reclamation] When a federal agency takes an action it needs to consider effects on 

“historic properties.” A Programmatic Agreement (PA) was developed to mitigate effects on historic 

properties under LTEMP. Some agency actions are ongoing, while others happen a single time.

Reclamation held its Annual Meeting on cultural resources last week. Some effects are related to the sheer

number of visitors while other effects are from gullies. Reclamation needs more time to develop its 

recommendations. A meeting will be held this fall meeting to include upcoming river trips. Rather than 

using a third-party negotiator for sensitivity training, Reclamation and GCMRC are going to help the 

tribes with individual presentations on their cultural values. Projects D6 to D12 in the Triennial Work Plan 

(TWP) were delayed due to COVID but they are now moving forward. Notifications about consultations 

on cultural resources will also go out earlier. 

Q&A and Discussion

[Erik Stanfield, Navajo Nation] Vast progress has been made and it was nice to pick up dropped 

projects over the past couple of years. There is now a schedule to move forward. 

Status Report for Developing a Plan to Amend the HFE Protocol 

[Sinjin Eberle, American Rivers] on the Flow Ad Hoc Group’s (FLAHG) development of an outline 

plan of action with a full proposal planned for June. Activities conducted to date include discussing the 

new ad hoc charge with Rod Smith, Solicitor with the Department of the Interior (DOI), and areas of 

compliance concern. There have been many discussions outside of these formal discussions that are

starting to fill in the gaps in the proposed plan of action. 

Q&A and Discussion

[Seth Shanahan, SNWA] There were two deliverables: to prepare an outline, which was shown in the 

presentation, and then prepare a more fleshed-out plan from this outline. Today’s discussion will help with

that second deliverable. (TWG members then word smithed the outline/proposed plan of action.) [Ben 

Reeder, GCRG] Made a motion to accept the six bulleted items as the TWG’s deliverable to AMWG. 

[Erik Stanfield, Navajo Nation] Seconded. [Seth Shanahan, SNWA] Motion passed with no objections. 

Monitoring Metrics

[Helen Fairley, GCMRC] provided an update on the revisions made in the draft performance metrics

report. First is to note that monitoring for surveillance and validation are not the same as monitoring for 

effectiveness (i.e., the performance metrics). LTEMP goals are not aspirational but focus on specific 

resources of concern to the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP). In the draft

monitoring metrics plan that is currently under DOI review, there are 41 metrics, 20 of which are related 

to fish, which seem too many. It would be better to have fewer, high-quality metrics. The TWG might 

want to consider how to define metrics for the tribal resource goals. None has been developed at this time

because it was too difficult to write metrics for a goal that is so broad such as “maintain integrity of 

sacred sites.” The final draft will be prepared for the June TWG meeting.

Q&A and Discussion

[Erik Stanfield, Navajo Nation] What would it look like to remove some of the metrics? [Helen Fairley, 

GCMRC] Don’t know. In some cases, they could be combined such as with sandbars. But have also 

received input to add more metrics. [Erik Stanfield, Navajo Nation] Maybe prioritize them such as for 

the 20 fish metrics. This might imply that everything other than fish is of secondary importance. Could 

there be a more balanced assessment? Maybe that is part of the tribal metric. Natural processes are 
Page 4 of 19

probably larger representations of whole ecosystem health. [Helen Fairley, GCMRC] There are four

fish-specific goals in LTEMP so that is why there are a lot of metrics on fish. [Laura Dye, CRC] Maybe 

the next TWG review can include ranking the top metrics or finding ways to combine metrics? [Helen 

Fairley, GCMRC] Will consider this. [Clarence Fullard, Reclamation] For next steps, the DOI bureaus 

will come to consensus on what has been developed. This is a big report with a lot of content so everyone 

should come prepared for that discussion at the next meeting. The metrics dashboard will provide a 

snapshot to quickly help members understand what is happening in the program. The dashboard will be 

placed on Reclamation’s LTEMP website. Reclamation will seek TWG input when that is ready. 

Informational Updates

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

National Park Service – Glen Canyon National Recreation Area (NPS-GLCA] NPS 

dewatered the upper slough twice last year. There were mechanical issues in April so went back 

in September to complete the dewatering, but it was very mucky. Was able to remove 150 green 

sunfish, which were quarantined and put in Lake Powell. The upper and lower slough was treated 

in September. Believe there has been complete removal. Fifty to eighty fish were caught in the 

first year of the Incentivized Harvest Program, then there was one angler last year who caught 

270 brown trout. At the time, the award system for that one month was $70,000 with this person 

collecting $30,000. Total fish caught in January, February, and March were over 600, 700, and 

800, respectively. NPS is rapidly running out of funding, so the reward system was changed to 

$33 per fish and $15 for each Passive Integrated Transponder (PIT) tag. It is hoped this will cover 

the program through the end of September.

Q&A and Discussion

[Craig Ellsworth, WAPA] Have you looked at brown trout modeling numbers to see if the Incentivized 

Harvest Program is having a population effect? [Jeff Arnold, NPS-GLCA] No, but Charles said there 

were 10,000 fish in the system last year and 2,000 to 4,000 have been removed in the past four months by

the program. 

[Jeff Arnold, NPS-GLCA] Lucas is going to look at the angler aspects and develop a questionnaire. 

After the award was lowered, the angler numbers decreased. [Scott VanderKooi, GCMRC] That was the 

intent of Margaret’s work to evaluate the program’s effectiveness. [David Ward, GCMRC] Mariah’s trip 

is currently on the water. AZGFD will have updated data on rainbow and brown trout numbers soon to

start evaluating that. 

• Paria Beach Restoration [Kelly Burke, Grand Canyon Wildlands Council (GCWC)] showed

before and after restoration images. Paria Beach is important to 11 indigenous tribes and the 

original stewards. Zuni traditional knowledge helped in placement of the burn debris parallel to 

water flow to increase sand deposition. Also found out from the state that there was not a water 

right to use that water for the plants. This was all dry land farming. Students from Paige High 

School were part of a learning lab that assisted in the planting and the spreading of native seeds. 

A second planting had to be done this year because of a delay in the timing of the burn so only 22 

of 145 plants survived that first planting because it was so dry and hot.

• Lees Ferry Herpetology Study [Jakob Maase, Hopi Tribe] The Hopi Tribe has been working 

on a draft of this study to survey (catch and release only) of herpetology populations at Lees 

Ferry and create a model for the rest of the canyon. Might also do some DNA sampling but 

awaiting feedback from Hopi elders on that. Once the draft is finished, and funding options are 

addressed, will present this at the December meeting and start first survey in summer 2024. 
Page 5 of 19

Q&A and Discussion

[Helen Fairley, GCMRC] Have you considered surveying these restored areas from 20 years ago that 

have mature vegetation to compare herp species in restored versus unrestored areas? [Jakob Maase, 

Hopi Tribe] Maybe that could be worked in. Also want to involve youth. [Kelly Burke, GCWC] GCWC 

can offer resources at these sites. Can also assist with the youth and high school connections.

• Possible Experimental and Management Actions in the Next 12 Months [Clarence Fullard, 

Reclamation] The P&I team does not have the same membership as TWG and AMWG. 

Reclamation has promised to provide a webinar during the P&I process on what the team is 

considering. Spring HFEs are not triggered by sediment but by releases from high volume. The

implementation window only lasts a few more weeks under the LTEMP protocol. The accounting 

window includes May and June, which must be included in the sand budget model. Sand inputs 

into the Paria were around 100,000 metric tons. Depending on the snow melt, another 200,000 to 

500,000 more metric tons of sediment is now anticipated. The PI Team looked at sediment inputs 

on an annual basis to determine if exceptional conditions exist for an HFE.

Q&A and Discussion

Did the P&I team not come to consensus? How does this impact a fall HFE? [Clarence Fullard, 

Reclamation] The majority recommended an HFE while a minority abstained because of concerns about 

setting precedent to consider experiments outside of LTEMP as well as the timing to consider the 

supplemental information. It did not sound as if the ones who abstained had concerns about the resources. 

This has no effect on a fall HFE because it is a different accounting period. The clock resets on July 1. 

[Seth Shanahan, SNWA] SNWA was one of the agencies that abstained because we were not satisfied 

with the explanations for justifying the potential action and needed more time to get to that point. About 

half of the P&I team had to abstain because of the time crunch for working through these difficult issues. 

[Ben Reeder, GCRG] What is the difference between the process of consensus versus abstaining? [Seth 

Shanahan, SNWA] It is how this group might function for anyone who might abstain because they are 

saying they are not going to stand in the way of the remaining members. [Ben Reeder, GCRG]

Clarence’s explanation for the difference between the accounting period and the implementation window 

helps clarify the process in the FLAHG. [Erik Stanfield, Navajo Nation] What were the vote numbers? 

The tribal governments are not represented. In absence of this, the tribes expect the states to vote in our 

interest or at least consult. [Seth Shanahan, SNWA] Eight voted for the spring HFE and seven voted to 

abstain. [Kathy Chandler, Reclamation] The P&I process as defined in LTEMP generally takes two to 

three months. Getting to a decision in a month is spectacular. It was a huge effort. 

[Craig Ellsworth, WAPA] WAPA requests that the P&I team, and the Leadership Team, reconsider 

making their votes more public. Would appreciate hearing their ideas. Not sharing that information seems 

disconnected in a program like this. [Clarence Fullard, Reclamation] Reclamation will bring this up for 

discussion next time the P&I team meets.

[Craig Ellsworth, WAPA] There are also concerns about so much sludge in the sloughs and whether the 

HFE will improve smallmouth bass and spawning habitat. Will anyone do surveys for that after the HFE? 

[Jeff Arnold, NPS-GLCA] NPS is probably not able to do that before the HFE. [Clarence Fullard, 

Reclamation] This was brought up in the P&I team. Smallmouth bass have probably already spawned. 

This would give them only marginal habitat. There are resource tradeoffs, and this might be one of them. 

[Craig Ellsworth, WAPA] WAPA has asked NPS and USGS to reconsider that especially when bypass 

was being discussed over the summer. Assessing what the HFE might do to smallmouth bass in the slough 

is an important factor. [Scott VanderKooi, GCMRC] GCMRC has thought about this. Spawning habitat 
Page 6 of 19

is not limited in the canyon. Scouring of the slough is not likely to change available habitat. GCMRC is 

well positioned to observe what is happening. [Rob Billerbeck, NPS-GLCA] NPS staff went out of their 

way to bring information forward on this effort. This HFE fits well with the intent of the Grand Canyon

Protection Act to protect downstream resources. It also fits with the intent of LTEMP to have frequent 

HFEs to rebuild beaches. A lot of conditions occurred in the last two years that were not expected, which 

made this harder. There may have also been operations that increased erosion this summer. NPS is 

comfortable with the risks. [Kelly Burke, GCWC] This proposal highlights what has been learned from 

the first equalization flow, which was devastating to the beaches. The unexpected circumstances that 

happened this year and how quick the response was reflect well on the adaptive management process. 

[David Ward, GCMRC] One of the limiting things when these areas are clogged with vegetation is the 

ability for biologists to see trout spawning and scouring could help that.

Bugs Pay for Days of Steady Reservoir Releases to Reduce Costs to Hydropower 

Customers and Sustain Funds to Maintain Infrastructure

[David Rosenberg, Utah State University (USU)] a study to determine how hydropower revenues 

would be affected by higher flows. This is an operational model to provoke discussion. There was a lot of 

stress from people who had their data challenged. To reduce this conflict, the idea was to move days of 

steady flows from summer months to the spring and fall months. Another idea is to create an ecosystem 

fund for ecologists to decide the best month to do bug flows and then pay hydropower to do this. The

model suggests lower lost hydropower revenue during the spring and fall months than during the summer 

months. Twelve different combinations were created. Next steps will include an update on the 2023 

energy prices particularly for Saturdays, and to validate with the GT-Max model, which considers several 

other factors that were not included in this study. For more information go to: https://rosenberg.usu.edu. 

Q&A and Discussion

[Shane Capron, WAPA] A number of statements need to be corrected such as “revenue,” which means 

hydropower value. This is important because it affects the cost of buying hydropower. Typical costs for a 

bug flow for five days are $1-3 million. It would help if bug flows were moved away from the peak 

months to the shoulder months. [David Rosenberg, USU] It was not possible to get into all the details of 

costs versus revenues. This model was looking at revenues being driven by market prices. [Shane

Capron, WAPA] Requests that revenue be changed to hydropower value to be more accurate. [Shana 

Rapoport, CRBC] Not seeing how the proposal would affect the scientific purpose of the experiment and 

how the bugs would be affected. Have you discussed this with Ted Kennedy? [David Rosenberg, USU] 

Yes, we did discuss it with him. There needs to be more discussion about the ecological benefits of 

moving the flows from summer to fall. A fund would allow the ecosystem managers to determine the best 

months to influence insect productivity. [Helen Fairley, GCMRC] Part of the reason to do these bug 

flows in summer was when they would be most productive and would affect the food base. It is important 

to understand the costs, but we also need to factor in the benefits. [Bill Persons, FFI)/(TU)] The whole 

purpose of bug flows was to enhance egg laying. That is the most important parameter in terms of timing. 

Was the timing part of the analysis? [Laura Dye, CRC] How would the ecosystem fund be funded? 

[David Rosenberg, USU] It would need to be funded by someone other than WAPA. The funds would 

not come from hydropower revenues. [Erik Stanfield, Navajo Nation] Was there any consideration of 

using the ecosystem services model to quantify some of the benefits? Natural capital accounting might be 

a way to fill out the model. [David Rosenburg, USU] Ted helped to describe the number of days of 

steady flows as a high-level metric of ecosystem function. This could be looked at further. [Kelly Burke, 

GCWC] Could there be a partnership to allow the funding to come to the agency from another source 

such as a conservancy or foundation? [David Rosenberg, USU] Getting more partnerships involved 
Page 7 of 19

would be a really good idea. [Craig Ellsworth, WAPA] WAPA has a system to develop a fund to pay for 

experiments. It puts the expense of the experiments back on the U.S. taxpayer. The Grand Canyon 

Protection Act specifically directs WAPA to do that to protect power customers so they are not held to the 

cost of these experiments. That has all worked because the Basin Fund has been relatively healthy. While 

WAPA has a joint stewardship with Reclamation, to make sure the Basin Fund stays healthy, it is what 

pays for the Colorado River Storage Project. There have been a lot of stressors on the Basin Fund the past 

few years, especially with big experiments such as the smallmouth bass bypass project. The Basin Fund 

has not been able to support that kind of impact. Historically, it has been able to absorb relatively small, 

$1-2 million projects and use the non-reimbursable ability to charge back to the Treasury so that taxpayers 

are not paying for it. 

Public Comment

None heard. 

Meeting adjourned at 4:43 PM PDT

Thursday, April 13, 2023

Start Time: 9:04 AM PDT 

Conducting: Seth Shanahan, SNWA, and Daniel Picard, Reclamation

Meeting Recorder: Carliane Johnson, SeaJay Environmental LLC

Welcome and Administrative 

• Introductions and Determination of Quorum: [Seth Shanahan, SNWA] A quorum was 

reached.

• Unresolved Issues from Yesterday’s Meeting: [Bill Stewart, Reclamation] presented on the 

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for Near-term Colorado River 

Operations, which was released on April 11 and was posted on the website. The Federal Register 

notice is expected to be published on April 14, which starts the 45-day comment period (through

May 30). Scoping meetings will be held on May 4, 8, 10 and 16. The Final SEIS and ROD are

expected this summer before the August 24-month study. Please provide comments. 

Evaluation and Discussion of 2022 Nonnative Fish Detections and Response Activities

[David Ward, GCMRC] presentation on smallmouth bass depletion efforts. Over the last 10-12 years, 

probably half a dozen smallmouth bass have been caught in the Grand Canyon. Generally, these have 

been large adults that have been found right up next to the dam except for a couple in other places. No 

small fish or reproduction had been found until last year, which was alarming (~22 fish). Lees Ferry is 

phenomenal habitat for smallmouth bass. The only thing that was keeping the population from exploding 

was the water temperature. Very small early life history bass (20 millimeters [mm] range) were caught. At 

this size they are very hard to find because they hide. How much reproduction was going on needed to be 

determined. This can be determined by depletion sampling, which is done in multiple passes to determine 

effectiveness and distribution. High smallmouth bass numbers were found near the dam then the numbers

decreased downstream. That could indicate either spawning is occurring right below the dam or there was

entrainment of fish that then moved downstream. The sampling was done over 15 miles of river 

consisting of six trips as well as other monitoring trips. Altogether, a total of 345 smallmouth bass were 

caught. A pattern in the numbers caught could be related to water temperature (not moving down so 

catchability will decrease) or to the depletion effort (e.g., if catch probability was 10% and five passes

were done, that would represent 50% of the population). Catchability was highly variable. The most 
Page 8 of 19

important piece was the size class. Other than two adults next to the dam, everything else was small 

(mean size 80 mm). Could not tell from the pattern if they came through the dam or were produced below 

the dam. Kate Vain, who works with Ted Kennedy, also did a diet analysis on a subset of the fish. The

juvenile smallmouth bass are mostly eating Gammarus, which is a highly nutritious item and will allow 

them to grow quickly. Large numbers of green sunfish are also being caught, all very tiny and ten times as 

many as smallmouth bass. Also caught large numbers of bluegill, a lake species that don’t spawn in rivers, 

which suggests entrainment. All these non-natives have impacts. There is also a large population of brown 

trout, which are highly piscivorous. The smallmouth bass at this size is a great snack for brown trout. That 

is probably keeping the population in check.

Q&A and Discussion

[Larry Stevens, GCWC] Was the sampling over the whole reach? [David Ward, GCMRC] No, only 

short sections were done. The idea is to only do passes when the fish are behaving normally. [Seth 

Shanahan, SNWA] How does catchability change with temperature? [David Ward, GCMRC] Don’t 

know that. The fish probably hunker down as the temperature decreases. Had set up an experiment with 

different temperatures and electrofishing, but the data were all over the board. The pattern is subtle and 

there were not enough replicates. The temperature effect is probably masked by a myriad of things. Also 

did a lab experiment using a small box, and in no case were all the fish caught. [Seth Shanahan, SNWA]

What do we know about growth rates in the literature to infer size? [David Ward, GCMRC] The first 

juvenile smallmouth bass was caught June 30. They typically spawn in the spring. Under ideal conditions 

there might be a fish of 80 mm in the first year, but some biologists don’t think this could happen. 

Temperatures were still suboptimal in May and June for 2021 and 2022. 

CONTINUED

[Skyler Hedden, AZGFD] showed data collected between the dam and Lees Ferry, which is the best area 

related to tailwater monitoring. It has been extensively monitored with a long history. Standardized 

sampling was done in March, July, and October, which shows the number of warmwater fish caught over 

time. In March 2022, there were only two warmwater nonnatives caught. The nonnatives started to 

increase in July closer to the dam, then there was an explosion of fish right near the dam in October. The 

data suggests entrainment. So far in 2023, very low numbers were captured at -12 Mile Slough. The 

long-term dataset goes back 30 years. Nonnatives still represent a relatively small number compared to 

natives, but it is very early in the invasion. Lees Ferry data is similar with most nonnatives near Pearce 

Ferry close to Lake Mead. In April 2023, no smallmouth bass were caught and only one green sunfish.

[Jeff Arnold, NPS-GLCA] A lot of carp, green sunfish, and flannelmouth suckers are caught in the lower 

slough. Discussed the chemical treatment in the upper and lower slough. Did one night of electrofishing 

before the treatment but no large fish were caught. The chemical treatment involved many agencies 

(Reclamation, NPS, USGS, AZGFD, WAPA, etc.) and treated with the maximum amount because there 

was a lot of organic matter, which absorbs a lot of the rotenone. Only caught one smallmouth bass in the 

lower slough. Results: 3,211 small carp and 1 adult carp, about 500 green sunfish, two bluegill, and 4 

rainbow trout. There was a low DO event before the treatment, which was causing a lot of fish to die. 

Some had probably been dead for several days before treatment. Some rainbow trout were caught outside 

of the slough. A turbidity curtain was installed to keep rotenone from moving out of the slough. However, 

the curtain failed after one treatment because of a drop in river elevation of about 2 inches. The curtain 

was reinstalled that night and then potassium manganate was applied to detox the river.

Q&A and Discussion
Page 9 of 19

Potential Glen Canyon Dam Operational Modifications to Address Smallmouth Bass

Establishment

[Wayne Pullan, Reclamation and Acting Secretary’s Designee] There had been questions about 

operations for the remainder of 2023 because this wet water year was not expected and that gives us 

flexibility. Because of this, Reclamation will need to do a balancing with the 24-month study. That will be 

announced on April 18. That will include the 7 maf already planned to be moved as well as deliveries that 

were held back early in the year that will be released later this year. There is an agreement to release 

480,000 af of lower basin water that was held in Lake Powell, that was part of the balancing amount; it 

will be combined but not in addition to the balancing. Can Reclamation deliver all the water that needs to 

be delivered this summer, plus a balancing amount of 500,000 af that was held back? It is believed to be 

possible without using the bypass tubes. As part of that release, Reclamation plans to do an HFE as a onetime combination spring HFE and a proactive-like HFE. The memo to operationalize the HFE is being 

reviewed now and will be released soon. 

Smallmouth Bass EA

[Wayne Pullan, Reclamation] Last August, Reclamation knew it would be difficult to get through the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in time to disadvantage smallmouth bass. Received 7,000 

public comments. With that level of controversy and the potential impacts of smallmouth bass flows, 

Reclamation was not able to issue a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). The other thing 

considered is that smallmouth bass in the river last year were all Young-of-the-year and were not going to 

be mature and reproducing until another 3-4 years. Taking actions to avoid propagation when that is not 

possible is not justified. Experts from GCMRC and elsewhere were asked whether there were smaller

actions that could be taken to reduce the smallmouth bass population, disadvantage them, or reveal other 

information for the future. None of the shorter, small-term efforts were deemed to be sufficient. 

Reclamation is unlikely to sign off on a FONSI under the smallmouth bass EA. Preference is to morph 

that into an EIS effort with the goal to have a ROD by May 2024. In the meantime, the plan is to continue 

with monitoring this summer and if there are changes to the population, could still take some action. 

Whatever may be done is likely to have a significant impact on hydropower revenues, which affects

Reclamation’s funding of operations and maintenance work. With the changing power conditions under 

lower water elevations and the potential to use bypass to disadvantage smallmouth bass means there 

needs to be a new approach to power. The power interests need robust alternatives to avoid impacts that

smallmouth bass may require. It would be good for Reclamation, WAPA, and CREDA to look at energy 

alternatives that have not been considered before. 

Q&A and Discussion

[Craig Ellsworth, WAPA] Would other alternatives beyond what was included in the EA be considered

in the EIS? [Wayne Pullan, Reclamation] This is the time to consider any alternatives to assess potential 

effects. [Seth Shanahan, SNWA] Include a net or other deterrent device in the list of potential actions.

[Laura Dye, CRC] Agrees with this, too. [Ben Reeder, GCRG] Would turbines in the bypass count as a 

deterrent? [Wayne Pullan, Reclamation] If energy could be generated from the bypass that could reduce 

the impacts on Lake Powell. Maybe a lower elevation intake to ensure release of colder water. 

Reclamation has looked at a range of options. The best one is also the costliest. Some options are 

concerning but would not cost nearly as much. That effort is moving ahead. [Seth Shanahan, SNWA]

Some of those ideas should consider lost power generation. Would those procedures to get to an answer 

be a much longer timeframe? [Wayne Pullan, Reclamation] Don’t want to presume the answers, but the 

whole Colorado River system relies on generating and marketing power. To change that is a huge lift. It 

may require Congressional support. 
Page 10 of 19

[Larry Stevens, GCWC] Wil there be a synopsis of the 7,000 comments and the timeframe? [Kathy 

Callister, Reclamation] That is being developed. Will see about making that available. Reclamation will 

have to do a Notice of Intent to prepare the EIS and would like to incorporate those comments into the 

scoping process, so people don’t have to resubmit them. [Seth Shanahan, SNWA] Maybe some of the 

assessments that could be considered might be shorter periods of bypass, different temperature triggers, 

different locations, and lengths? 

Discussion of 2023 Nonnative Fish Detections, Monitoring Activities, Potential Response 

Capacity Building Needs, and Other Nonnative Fish Planning Topics

[Clarence Fullard, Reclamation] Fish exclusion project update. Reclamation is looking at a forebay 

barrier. The process included a subject matter expert panel that had looked at all the options, The barrier 

makes the most sense. The panel and Reclamation engineering team will visit Glen Canyon Dam on April 

26. Still many issues to resolve such as how does this get mounted to canyon walls? What kind of 

biofouling might occur with quagga mussels. Reclamation will then work up a 30% design on a net and 

thermal curtain concept. This will allow for managing the cold water while reducing fish passage and 

entrainment. A thermal curtain also has less surface area than a net so it will reduce biofouling. 

Reclamation has also identified partners for Department of Energy funding that will help with the 

hydrodynamic modeling of the thermal curtain and what temperatures might be achieved. Still working 

on the funding aspect because the GCDAMP cannot support it.

Q&A and Discussion

[Shana Rapoport, CRBC] What is the installation timeline? [Clarence Fullard, Reclamation] Planning

for 2024 but there is no design in place yet. It is a big infrastructure project. It will take a lot of time to 

consider how to seal the edges, how to keep it buoyant, reduce biofouling, the dam safe aspects, etc. No 

timeline on the installation date, but everyone knows it is needed as soon as possible. Maybe 2025 is 

more realistic. [Shana Rapoport, CRBC] When the Smallmouth Bass Ad Hoc Group (SBAHG) was

looking into options, it came up with material to deploy to measure biofouling. Should that occur sooner

rather than later? [Clarence Fullard, Reclamation] That was discussed for this spring. Had hoped to get 

some leftover netting from a reservoir in Colorado. Had gotten permission to do a pilot study but was not 

able to get the material to put that in this spring. Reclamation is also consulting with its invasive mussels

lab in Denver. [Seth Shanahan, SNWA] If it is like Lake Mead, there is a lot of understanding about

other materials and colonization rates. This could be available for Lake Powell. [Ben Reeder, GCRG]

Are there other reservoirs that have these systems in place? [Clarence Fullard, Reclamation] Yes, there 

are. There is a large net in Northern Lake Michigan that manages the mussels by power washing the net 

each year. There is a lot that can be learned from to choose the best one. [David Ward, GCMRC] There 

had been an idea such as a pressure canyon to kill fish. Is that still being considered? [Clarence Fullard, 

Reclamation] The panel considered it but don’t recall the assessment. The panel moved passed it because 

of the timing and needing to have proven technology, which were two of the criteria they wanted to focus 

their energy. 

[Seth Shanahan, SNWA] What is the cost estimate for the installation? [Clarence Fullard, 

Reclamation] It is hard to say. Reclamation has a construction feasibility timeline and can’t really 

determine costs until the 30% design. The initial estimate is about $15-20 million. A lot of the cost is in 

ensuring a tight seal along the canyon wall. We know that 90% of the fish are along the walls. That is the 

hardest part and most expensive to engineer, but it is not insurmountable. [Seth Shanahan, SNWA] Does

the net need to be close or is there a combination of technologies that would work along the edges? 

[Clarence Fullard, Reclamation] It cannot just be a net along the wall. If the water elevation goes up, 

the net needs to do that, too. One idea is to scribe a rail system onto the wall from which the entire 
Page 11 of 19

assembly can rise and fall. One other thing has been uncertainty about where the fish are coming from –

entrainment or spawning down river. Management needs to know where these fish are coming from.

Reclamation is working on a study to determine that. Did a sensor fish deployment to measure pressures 

through the dam. Next steps include ideas on a study to: 1) monitor with acoustic cameras, and 2) place a 

sock at the end of the dam to filter out whatever comes through. [Seth Shanahan, SNWA] Are the socks

more permanent? [Clarence Fullard, Reclamation] The sock would not be permanent. This is more an 

idea of sampling. It has been done at Shasta, or maybe Blue Mesa, in the past. [Kelly Burke, GCWC] If 

the installation moves up and down would that impact quagga mussels? [Clarence Fullard, 

Reclamation] Probably. Anything that goes in the water is going to biofoul.

CONTINUED

[Barret Friesen, Utah State University (USU)] In 2022, sampling was only done outside the chains

where the public is limited at the dam. The 2023 sampling will be done inside the chains next to the dam 

where there is shallow habitat. This will include larval traps, minnow traps, and gill nets. In March 2023, 

caught green sunfish and bluegill but no smallmouth bass, which were not expected this time of year. A 

sensor fish that measures pressure and acceleration was also deployed 21 times to assess possible effects 

through the turbines. There is a dramatic drop in pressure and high acceleration as it exits the turbine 

lasting about one second. No evidence of turbine strikes.

Q&A and Discussion

[Mike Horn, Reclamation] If the reservoir level is deeper is that more likely to cause higher mortality? 

[Barrett Friesen, USU] That would be the main point with higher effects from higher water level. Could 

likely guarantee gas bladder rupture. [Seth Shanahan, SNWA] What is known about rupture values in 

smallmouth bass? Is there something in the literature? Is there a lab component to measure this? [Barrett 

Friesen, USU] There is 2 to 2.5 expansion in salmonid, and 4 times is the most liberal value found 

(maybe from bass). This is all preliminary. Still digging through the data and existing literature but there 

is not much other than from salmonids. [Clarence Fullard, Reclamation] Reclamation has facilities to 

measure this if there is interest in doing this in the future. Was there grey literature found on centrarchids? 

[Barret Friesen, USU] No, but there is a paper on smallmouth bass and angling effects, which is still 

relevant. Not much has been found. [Craig Ellsworth, WAPA] Is gas bladder rupture always fatal? 

[Barret Friesen, USU] Probably not, but there could be significant hemorrhaging if it explodes. [David 

Ward, GCMRC] A swim bladder is mostly an impermeable membrane, like a balloon. The same thing 

can happen in a fish. It can expand beyond normal, and the gas will seep out. Whether it ruptures or not, 

there could be damage, but the fish can recover if it is not too severe. Some tremendous pressure changes 

do not mean that they can’t be OK. Any angler knows striped bass at depth will die while other bass

species will be fine. Different species have different tolerances. [Scott VanderKooi, GCMRC] This will 

also affect behavior of fish through their buoyancy control. Exothelium means the eyes bug out. It might 

not kill the fish but might make it more difficult to survive. [David Ward, GCMRC] Several large, dead 

catfish were seen up there last fall that probably happened because of ruptured swim bladders. Size of the 

fish probably matters, too. [Barret Friesen, USU] Even if 100 fish survive, that could still be a problem. 

[Dan Leavitt, USFWS] At 84% mortality, that is still 16% entrainment. Can you describe the habitat near 

the dam to the penstock where those fish were caught? How would fish be prevented from going there? 

[Barret Friesen, USU] It is steeply sloping so there is not much warm water habitat, and it is quite close 

to the dam. If smallmouth bass are spawning where the bluegill and green sunfish are, it’s reasonable to 

assume the YOY and juveniles can become entrained. [Melissa Trammel, NPS] There is variable 

survivability but if an average of 25% fish means there is plenty of that will survive for the downstream 

population. [Scott VanderKooi, GCMRC] Have also observed a lot of new nonnatives coming through 
Page 12 of 19

with lower reservoir levels that had not been seen before. [David Ward, GCMRC] From the recent trip, 

Josh Korman said there was a largemouth bass caught right near the dam. Those fish are coming through.

[Skyler Hedden, AZGFD] Keep in mind that the dam is allowing 75% removal when electrofishing is 

not 50% of removal. [Seth Shanahan, SNWA] The findings suggest spawning is happening close to the 

dam walls. Could some habitat disturbance be done there? [Clarence Fullard, Reclamation] The thermal 

curtain is only going to block fish up to a point. At the shallow water habitat (the old cement plant), which 

is under water with higher lake elevations, the curtain will change thermal conditions to make it too cold 

to spawn. There has been talk about disturbing the habitat but there is not a lot of it. It is steep canyon 

walls except for that one area.

CONTINUED

[Mike Horn, Reclamation] a study that was designed to complement Barrett’s. This one looked at 

overall fish numbers and where they are in the water column. A transect typically zig-zags across the site 

with the acoustic monitoring device but it can’t go all the way down to the dam. Similar pattern is done at 

the confluence and at Wahweap. There were a lot of small (4-6-inch) individual fish seen in the forebay 

during last year’s sampling in March. In March this year, there was absolutely nothing in the water 

column except for one larger fish (12-15 inches) in the middle. It is not known whether this was from 

water temperature or hit the wrong week, or it was a bad year for fish. The same was seen at other 

sampling locations. When looking at individual fish seen in the 2022 survey, most of them were spread 

across the water column. This year, a few were spread across the water but almost all targets were along

the canyon walls. Fish densities were highest at the confluence in 2022 while they were overall very low 

at all three areas in 2023. Higher numbers occur in Wahweap primarily because it is a nursery area, which 

is good for small fish. In the confluence and the forebay, densities increase as fish get larger and because 

of seasonal movements. By August, start seeing water quality problems with lower D.O. and higher 

temperatures in the upper 10 feet of the water column, which may cause larger fish to start moving away. 

October water quality is better when they are probably starting to be detected again. 

[Andrew Shultz, GCMRC] Were releases similar during the two March periods? [Mike Horn, 

Reclamation] Don’t think so. Maybe it had to do with temperature differences. Shad don’t like cooler 

temperatures. [Barret Friesen, USU] It was cooler this year than last year. [Mike Horn, Reclamation] 

Shad also go through huge boom and bust cycles so this could have just been a bust year. 

CONTINUED

[Emily Omana-Smith, NPS-GRCA] Provided a table of detections reported in 2023 so far. All 

cooperators can now upload captures to a SharePoint site for nonnative detections. To date, all nonnatives 

have been in Glen Canyon because downstream monitoring is starting soon. The presentation shows early 

detection sampling done for high-risk invasive fishes in Grand Canyon National Park this year. Potential 

hotspots have been identified from the strategic plan and will also be sampling in backwaters and 

tributaries. A rapid response will happen if smallmouth bass are detected; however, funding is not 

currently available. Also added a sampling trip from Lees Ferry to Diamond Creek, which will occur in 

June, and will include backwaters and hotspots from the strategic plan. This has been funded by Grand 

Canyon Conservancy, which funded two sport boats that are fully outfitted for electrofishing and will be 

used for the first time during the HFE. Other monitoring trips based on the strategic plan will occur on 

Bright Angel and Havasu Creek to augment the surveillance sampling. NPS is getting prepared to meet its

compliance requirements if a rapid response is needed. Any fish removed will be put to beneficial use. 

NPS continues to seek funding and has also developed a flyer to commercial river operators. This is so 

important because 90% of the humpback chub are in the Grand Canyon.
Page 13 of 19

[Betsy Morgan, Utah Division of Water Resources (Utah DWR)] Are there any updates on grass carp? 

[Clarence Fullard, Reclamation] No information. Utah Department of Natural Resources manages that 

in Lake Powell. [Seth Shanahan, SNWA] Can the sport boats go all the way downstream? [Betsy

Morgan, Utah DWR] They were designed to do it all, similar to the GCMRC sport boats. [Larry 

Stevens, GCWC] In the sampling from the Paria River to Badger, is sampling also being done at the 

mouth of the Paria? It is unique habitat and will expand to a large pool during the HFE. [Emily Omana, 

NPS-GRCA] Yes, the plan is to sample there depending on safety. [Kelly Burke, GCWC] What is the 

status of the helicopter analysis for a rapid response? Is there an opportunity to put out another article for 

all river guides?

CONTINUED

[Jeff Arnold, NPS-GLCA] Presentation on the Glen Canyon 2023 monitoring and rapid response at Lees 

Ferry. This year, NPS has a boat and 10 technicians to do the work. First thing is a pre- and post-HFE 

electrofishing trip using two boats on each side of the river around Honey Draw to the dam where most 

smallmouth bass were found last year. Will be doing more intensive sampling every two weeks, dividing 

the river into five segments (each about 5.2 miles). NPS is coordinating all work with GCMRC and 

AZDFG to make sure there is no overlap. 

Q&A and Discussion

[Seth Shanahan, SNWA] Part of the Steering Committee Ad Hoc Group’s (SCAHG) role is to help 

facilitate information sharing. If something happens and a rapid response needs to be stood up, please rely 

on the SCAHG to get that information out. [Jeff Arnold, NPS-GLCA] Also talking with Emily about 

meeting every two weeks to get updates if anything is found. [Bud Fazio, NPS-GLCA] It is a large 

workload and NPS needs all the support it can get. Some portions of Emily’s and Jeff’s work have 

funding, but other portions do not. Once the charter is finalized, NPS will talk with Reclamation and 

others on how to be prepared for rapid response effort and how to address invasives into the summer. [Bill 

Persons, FFI/TU] What is the size of the gill netting proposed, and is that size sufficient to not get any 

trout? [Jeff Arnold, NPS-GLCA] Thinks the net is .75 inches up to 2 inches so it would catch trout. 

Would like to put these near the dam but have not given it much thought yet. Definitely don’t want to 

have trout by-catch. [Bill Persons, FFI/TU] How would mortality be avoided? Trout would not survive 

overnight. With AZGFD and NPS both doing electrofishing. How will this not create impacts on the trout 

population? If AZGFD and NPS are both sampling, it seems this would cover the entire river. This is an 

area of concern by the trout fishermen. [Jeff Arnold, NPS-GLCA] The intent is to mainly sample the 

hotspots but don’t know how extensive they are because they have not been visited yet. An entire reach 

would not be electrofished over an entire summer. [Craig Ellsworth, WAPA] In the modeling data, is 

there a layer on substrate to be able to home in on possible spawning areas? [Jeff Arnold, NPS-GLCA]

There is not. During the surveys, will get more information on these sites to see if there is suitable 

substrate for smallmouth bass. Can update the model if there is not. [Erik Stanfield, Navajo Nation]

Heard earlier that electrofishing is not always effective for eradication but now hearing a lot of

electrofising activities for this year. How is NPS balancing the costs, and the ethical and cultural 

concerns? It seems there is some conflict between what is known and what is happening. [Jeff Arnold, 

NPS-GLCA] There is no way to eradicate smallmouth bass. Electrofishing is one of the best tools to be 

able to remove (but not eradicate) smallmouth bass. Netting is not as effective but can capture the small 

smallmouth along the shoreline. NPS needs to know what is going on to be able to respond. [Skyler

Hedden, AZGFD] That is a concern for AZGFD, as well, but don’t really know what the term “rapid 

response” means. Everyone should understand what it is, and that quality data is collected to know what

is going on. [Seth Shanahan, SNWA] Wayne said that the smallmouth bass EA will not be an option this 
Page 14 of 19

year. Clarence has also talked about longer term plans with other devices that are not available this year. 

With the strategic plan, some of the better tools to use are probably not available right now. Maybe we 

need to look at the remaining tools as a timing response to get through this year to push back on the 

invasion curve. Maybe that is not satisfying, but it needs to be done in a smart way to learn as much as 

possible. [Josh Korman, Ecometric] There has been strong rainbow trout recruitment in the past with 

HFEs and equalization flows of 20,000 cubic feet per second (cfs). That is good for the fishery, which is 

below the target for angling catch rates. Have also seen these big water years lead to downstream 

dispersal. We seem to be ignoring this past data with rainbow trout. It looks as if the conditions this year 

might create a large cohort of trout through the canyon and into the Little Colorado River. [Seth 

Shanahan, SNWA] One correction is that this is either a balancing flow or an “equalization-type” flow. 

[Dan Leavitt, USFWS] Not hearing much talk today about humpback chub, which is surprising, because 

smallmouth bass and other warmwater nonnatives are the largest threat to this federally listed species in 

the Grand Canyon. This perspective is needed. Ninety percent occur within the Grand Canyon.

Humpback chub struggle to occur alongside predatory nonnative predators. They are struggling to survive 

in those conditions. If smallmouth bass become established, it may be impossible to eradicate them. If 

monitoring to determine smallmouth bass abundance and occurrence in the Grand Canyon is not done and 

we are poised for a response, then we are not doing our due diligence to address the problem. 

CONTINUED

[Skyler Hedden, AZGFD] Presentation to continue monitoring that has been going on for past 20 years. 

Will be able to track detections. What is the rapid response plan? AZGFD understands the risks and 

concerns, but it did not have a solid plan last year. The response plan needs to benefit humpback chub. 

[Craig Ellsworth, WAPA] Regarding the tools available this year, rotenone and electrofishing need to be 

assessed if they are effective and if there are other tools that could be used. The last time there was this 

situation was in 2011 when trout were impacting chub. That was when the trout management flows 

(TMF) were developed under LTEMP. Are there similar tools like TMF that might work for smallmouth 

bass? What have we learned in the past that can be applied now? Maybe habitat, like the slough, can be 

altered or removed? [Seth Shanahan, SNWA] Reclamation was looking at physical modification of the 

slough. Is there a follow up? [Clarence Fullard, Reclamation] Kerry Pedersen can update the group on 

this. There are some short-term options. Don’t know the status of this on the Glen Canyon National 

Recreational Area because it requires modifying their lands. [Bud Fazio, NPS-GLCA] That describes 

where GLCA is right now. There are other shallow waters near the dam that need to be better understood. 

NPS is interested in hearing recommendations about these areas and the slough. It is time to come 

together to determine what can be done in 2023. The sooner these tools can be identified and how they 

can be applied, the better.

[Seth Shanahan, SNWA] Is there a need for more frequent meetings among state and federal 

management agencies? That seems to be needed to help generate these ideas on a rapid response. [Emily 

Omana-Smith, NPS] Bimonthly calls were done in the past, but there had been a break. It might be 

necessary to meet more frequently. NPS is going to restart these bimonthly calls to share information. If 

you would like to be added to the call list, please contact Emily. [David Ward, GCMRC] These 

meetings would be held every two weeks, which will help. [Scott VanderKooi, GCMRC] GCMRC has 

evaluated the effects of trout and other factors like temperature and turbidity on humpback chub at the 

Little Colorado River confluence. This is the factsheet. The study looked at humpback chub abundance 

versus rainbow trout density and when it makes sense to do cost-effective removals. A lot of this work has 

been done and it is something that can be considered for other predators. The relationship will be different 

for smallmouth bass, but it can be developed to help make informed decisions. 
Page 15 of 19

Discussion of Budget and Work Plan Adjustments

[Bill Stewart, Reclamation] showed a table on the Reclamation Budget. During the AMWG meeting, the 

discussion was to move forward on budget workplan in Fiscal Year 2024 (FY24) by carrying over the 

funding amount from FY23. Many of the line items are management related and will seamlessly carry 

over for FY24. For Project D, cultural resources, Reclamation is planning to increase the Tribal 

Participation funds for FY24. By FY25, that project should have a steady amount of funding for that. 

Q&A and Discussion

[Shana Rapoport, CRBC] Is the BAHG going to be involved and what are the timelines? [Bill Stewart, 

Reclamation] Yes, the intent was to have Reclamation take the first stab and the BAHG will be more 

involved in the GCMRC side. [Seth Shanahan, SNWA] What will be the role of BAHG this year? It is 

currently waiting on further direction. [Bill Stewart, Reclamation] The federal agencies need more 

discussion on that. [Craig Ellsworth, WAPA] What is the final timeline for TWG to take that up? [Seth 

Shanahan, SNWA] The next meeting in June. [Bill Stewart, Reclamation] There might not be many 

changes for FY23, or they would be minor. [Shana Rapoport, CRBC] The BAHG just needs adequate 

time to review if it is being asked to weigh in on something. [Craig Ellsworth, WAPA] There might not 

be big changes in the budget, but there are big changes on the river with the HFE and then balancing 

flows. That could be a big change for GCDAMP. Are the projects in place and are they suitable to answer 

those questions? [Ben Reeder, GCRG] It might be worth scheduling a BAHG call right after the 

AMWG. [Seth Shanahan, SNWA] The realities on the river have changed and there are only two months 

to provide input. How can TWG be helpful to the agencies? [Craig Ellsworth, WAPA] The BAHG 

should also have a discussion about this. [Shana Rapoport, CRBC] This year is not expected to be a 

normal process and that things will work differently. The BAHG needs to understand what that will look 

like.

[Scott VanderKooi, GCMRC] showed a table with the plan to move forward in FY23, as it was 

proposed with some small tweaks. One is related to river trip activities if an HFE occurs, which would be 

requested from the Experimental Fund. That is moving forward. Other changes are more complicated. A 

potential new facility has been canceled, which had projected higher overhead rates. Those lease costs 

will now remain low into FY24. On the other side, logistics and salaries are more expensive. There was

also a recommendation about priority projects in FY23, if funds are available. (e.g., juvenile chub 

monitoring in Western Canyon, continue trout monitoring at full scale, riparian vegetation monitoring, 

and a couple other things). These probably need to be discussed to ensure the perspectives have not 

changed.

Q&A and Discussion

[Larry Stevens, GCWC] This is the first time since 2008 that the rate of decay of beaches can be 

assessed after an event, and it’s among the largest with this level of sediment. Many things need to be 

looked at including vegetation, fish movements, spawning runs, and other questions. The Adopt-A-Beach 

program trip is also just finishing. [Scott VanderKooi, GCMRC] There is monitoring in place to look at 

the progression of these events during high flows. On fish movement, there are many PIT-tagged fish with

many of the antennas having been replaced with newer systems. This is essentially a 4 -to 5-month-long

bug flow. GCMRC is in a much better position to monitor. We should discuss the need to prepare a 

synthesis report of this work. [Seth Shanahan, SNWA] How steady will the high flows be from May 

through September? [Shane Capron, WAPA] It would be maximum power plant production if the flow is 

9.5 maf, which means there won’t be fluctuations from regulations, and it will remain steady. If it is at 9 

maf or below, there would be a little room for fluctuations, but that is where we can discuss what to do for 
Page 16 of 19

summer flows that might fit in with hydropower value and with learning under an experiment of some 

kind. Either way, there won’t be much fluctuation. Might be able to consider modifications if the flows to 

learn from the flows and energy production. [Craig Ellsworth, WAPA] Those steady flows are what is 

released from the dam. They will fluctuate going down the canyon with additional flow from the 

tributaries. It might be 8,000 cfs in the Little Colorado River during monsoons. [Scott VanderKooi, 

GCMRC] Those influxes look quite different than hydropower operations. [Seth Shanahan, SNWA]

Does this mean that daily fluctuations might not be expected during the winter but there might be some 

spikes during the summer? [Scott VanderKooi, GCMRC] That can happen. It is not often there would be 

7,000 to 8,000 cfs in the Little Colorado River. [Josh Korman, Ecometric] There are two conflicting 

issues with respect to bug flows and trout recruitment. One is that it may be very difficult to decide which 

of the two flows (HFE and balancing) caused the effect. Secondly, because the water is higher in Lees 

Ferry, it will inundate dry areas that have grasses, and that will improve more bug production and trout

production. It may be difficult to separate out these effects this summer. [Seth Shanahan, SNWA] This 

group has high expectations, but it might be a tough year to figure out some of these things. 

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

[Ben Reeder, GCRG] It would be good to hear from David Topping or Paul Grams on a potential spring

HFE. [Larry Stevens, GCWC] There has not been a bridge from riparian zone to habitat, which is a 

fundamental question for management actions that might be affecting habitat. It might be useful to think

about that relationship. Another topic is flotsam. High flows have been linked to transporting 

invertebrates and floating wood is very rich in the eddies. It might be worth exploring how to model 

flotsam, which could be a citizen science program to track floating wood. [Scott VanderKooi, GCMRC]

What is the habitat for? [Larry Stevens, GCWC] Different things can use vegetation to create nesting 

structure and open space for shorebirds. It might involve taking the dominant guilds and understanding 

what their needs are. [Scott VanderKooi, GCMRC] A lot of work has been done in the Northwest about 

marking wood. [Jakob Maase, Hopi Tribe] Reclamation and the tribes have had cultural sensitivity 

training on the back burner for a while. What does Reclamation envision on that such as workshops or 

videos? [Larry Stevens, GCWC] Interested in hearing more about the Hopi vegetation monitoring and 

the status of amphibians. [Seth Shanahan, SNWA] Other items include D.O., smallmouth bass response, 

rainbow trout and brown trout response and status update, humpback chub recovery plan update, and 

budget items. [Dan Leavitt, USFWS] The humpback chub recovery team has only had three meetings so 

far so won’t have any updates other than the timeline. [Seth Shanahan, SNWA] The June 14-15 meeting

will be held in Flagstaff at the USGS facility and then there will be an optional third day (on Friday, June 

16) in Paige for some field-based activity. Thursday night would be on members’ own cost and would not 

be part of the TWG meeting. October would be a webinar only, which is why this is proposed for the June 

meeting. 

Public Comment

None heard. 

Meeting adjourned at 4:31 PM PDT
Page 17 of 19

TWG Members, Alternates, and Leadership

Cliff Barrett (UMPA) Emily Higuera (ADWR)

Rob Billerbeck (NPS-GLCA) Rudy Keedah (BIA)

Daniel Bulletts (Southern Paiute Consortium) Sara Larsen (Upper Colorado River Commission)

Kelly Burke (GCWC) Dan Leavitt (USFWS)

Shane Capron (WAPA) Jakob Maase (Hopi Tribe)

Colleen Cunningham (NMISC) Scott McGettigan (State of Utah)

William (Bill) Davis (CREDA) Betsy Morgan (Utah DWR)

Kurt Dongoske (Pueblo of Zuni) Christina Noftsker (State of New Mexico)

Laura Dye (CRCN) Emily Omana Smith (NPS-GRCA)

Sinjin Eberle (American Rivers) William "Bill" Persons (FFI/TU)

Craig Ellsworth (WAPA) Ted Rampton (CREDA)

Buddy Fazio (NPS) Shana Rapoport (CRBC)

Mel Fegler (State of Wyoming) Ben Reeder (GCRG)

Charlie Ferrantelli (State of Wyoming) Seth Shanahan (SNWA)

Clarence Fullard (Vice Chair and Reclamation) Erik Skeie (State of Colorado)

USGS

Lucas Bair Scott VanderKooi

Drew Eppehimer David Ward

Helen Fairley Charles Yackulic

Andrew Schultz Bryce Mihalevich

Reclamation

Tara Ashby Heather Patno

Amee Andreason Jamescita Peshlakai

Becki Bryant Daniel Picard

Kathy Callister Robert Radtke

Jenny Erickson Ernie Rheaume

Mike Horn Dave Speas

Dave Isleman Bill Stewart

Riley Martin Alex Walker

Zachary Nelson

Other GCDAMP Members and Interested Persons

Jeff Arnold (NPS) Gerry Nealon

Rob Billerbeck (NPS) Jess Newton (UWFWS)

Kevin Bulletts (Southern Paiute Consortium)

Daniel Picard (Acting Designated Federal Officer, 

Reclamation)

Julie Carter (AZGFD) Michael Pillow (USFWS)

Barrett Friesen (Utah State University) Sara Price (CRCN)

Fryer (WAPA) Wayne Pullan (Acting Secretary’s Designee, Reclamation)

Alicyn Gitlin (Sierra Club) Shana Rapoport (CRBC)

Emily Halvorsen (State of Colorado) Drheinheimer (CRBC) 
Page 18 of 19

Skyler Hedden (AZGFD) Peggy Roefer (CRCN)

Carliane Johnson (SeaJay Environmental) Dave Rosenberg (USU)

John Jordan (FFI/TU) Elyssa Shalla (NPS)

Christina Kalavritinos Jim Strogen (FFI/TU)

Hunter Kennedy (University of Chicago) Melissa Trammell (NPS)

Josh Korman (Ecometric Research) Arturo Vale (USFWS)

Kevin McAbee (USFWS) Edward Wemytewa (Pueblo of Zuni)

Scott McGettigan (State of Utah) Heather Whitlaw (USFWS)

Beccie Mendenhall (SeaJay Environmental) Pilar Wolters-Rinker (USFWS)

Acronyms

oC – degrees Celsius mg/l – milligrams per liter

af – acre-feet maf – million acre-feet

AMWG – Adaptive Management Work Group mm – millimeters

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 NPS-GLCA – Glen Canyon National Recreation 

Area

cfs – cubic feet per second NPS-GRCA – Grand Canyon National Park

CRBC – Colorado River Board of California PDT – Pacific Daylight Time

CRC – Colorado River Commission of Nevada P&I Team – Planning and Implementation Team

CREDA – Colorado River Energy Distributors 

Association PIT – Passive Integrated Transponder

CWCB – Colorado Water Conservation Board PA – Programmatic Agreement

D.O. – dissolved oxygen Reclamation – Bureau of Reclamation

DOI – Department of the Interior ROD - Record of Decision

DROA – Drought Response Operations Agreement SBAHG – Smallmouth Bass Ad Hoc Group

DWR – Department of Water Resources SCAHG – Steering Committee Ad Hoc Group

EA – environmental assessment SEIS – supplemental environmental impact 

statement 

FLAHG – Flow Ad Hoc Group SNARRC – Southwest Native Aquatic Resource 

and Recovery Center

FFI – Fly Fishers International SNWA – Southern Nevada Water Authority

FONSI – Finding of No Significant Impact TMF – Trout Management Flows

FY – Fiscal Year TU – Trout Unlimited

GCDAMP – Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management 

Program TWG – GCDAMP Technical Work Group

GCMRC – Grand Canyon Monitoring & Research Center TWP – Triennial Work Plan

GCRG – Grand Canyon River Guides USFWS – United States Fish & Wildlife Service

GCWC—Grand Canyon Wildlands Council USGS – United States Geological Survey

HFE – High Flow Experiment USU – Utah State University

LTEMP – Long-Term Experimental and Management 

Plan WAPA – Western Area Power Administration
Page 19 of 19