Page 1 of 14

GLEN CANYON DAM ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

PROGRAM TECHNICAL WORK GROUP MEETING

January 26, 2023

January 26, 2023 

Start Time: 8:08 AM Mountain Standard Time (MST) 

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

(TWG) Chair. 

Meeting called to order by: Daniel Picard, Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) Upper Colorado Basin 

Assistant Regional Director and Designated Federal Official (DFO)

Meeting Recorder: David McIntyre, SeaJay Environmental LLC

Welcome and Administrative 

• Introductions and Determination of Quorum: Roll call wastaken, and a quorum reached.

• Adoption of Prior Meeting Minutesfrom the October 12-13, 2022 meeting with minor edits.

• Next Meeting Date(s): April 12-13, 2023: This meeting will be in-person at the Arizona 

Department of Water Resources (ADWR) in Phoenix. 

• Ad Hoc Group Membership and Updates: The list is on the TWG website. 

o [Seth Shanahan, SNWA] The Steering Committee Ad Hoc Group (SCAHG) continues to be 

active supporting the TWG. It is a good forum for developing a schedule reflective of TWG 

needs.

o [Erik Skeie, Budget Ad Hoc Group (BAHG) Chair and Colorado Water Conservation Board 

(CWCB)] A BAHG 101 course was held last week to discuss the Triennial Work Plan. 

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

action item document from the October meeting. Completed items are: 1) Budget 

prioritization procedures and the Native Fish Contingency Fund will be discussed during the 

BAHG presentation; 2) the Flow Ad Hoc Group (FLAHG) charge will be discussed with the 

Smallmouth Bass Ad Hoc Group (SBAHG) presentation; 3) The SBAHG heard from subject 

matter experts; 4) Reclamation will discuss the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and 

smallmouth bass; 5) Comments from TWG members were received on the draft Fish Strategic

Plan, which will be reviewed later today; 6) Heather has added generation to her slides; 6) 

The TWG and BAHG will need to discuss Project M and hydropower flows; 7) Comments from 

TWG members on the monitoring metrics were received by Helen Fairley, Grand Canyon 

Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC). 

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

Kennedy, GCMRC] Refer to the table of upcoming trips, which are organized and administered 

by GCMRC. 

• Other Items: [Bill Stewart, Reclamation] The smallmouth bass environmental 

assessment (EA) and the Glen Canyon Dam supplemental environmental impact statement 

(SEIS) are consuming lots of staff time. Reclamation and GCMRC has been discussing a 

continuation of the work plan to free up resources for some of these higher priority issues. 

Update on Hydrology, Glen Canyon Dam Operations, and Water Quality Conditions in 
Page 2 of 14

Lake Powell and Below Glen Canyon Dam and an Update on the Development of a 

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the 2007 Interim Guidelines 

[Heather Patno, Reclamation] [PRESENTATION] Basin storage is decreasing. Flaming Gorge is at a lower

elevation from what would be typically seen because of the Drought Response Operations Agreement 

(DROA) releases in the 2022 Plan. Month-to-Date precipitation and Water Year (WY) precipitation as of 

the end of December have been wetter than normal in the southern portion, which has not been seen 

over the last couple of years. Precipitation is looking positive right now and that does not include 

January. WY 2023 conditions are normal to above average. The slide from the Climate Prediction Center 

(CPC) Short-Term Precipitation Forecast is new. This shows more about where the precipitation is 

expected and the amount. Additional precipitation is expected into the second week of February for 

the Upper Colorado River area. Expecting to see additional snow accumulation and active patterns over 

the next couple of weeks. Observed runoff is also looking better than it has over the last couple of 

years. Last year was the new minimum record for snowpack during the January through March period. 

There is still a lot of potential this year for additional snow accumulation. The January 2023 forecast 

increased almost 2 million-acre-feet (maf) because of observed snow on the ground. With continued 

precipitation, Lake Powell is projected to receive 9.5 maf or 99% of average for the spring runoff 

period. Under the DROA actions, the adjustment of 523 kaf from winter to summer resulted in 

increases in Glen Canyon Dam of about 10 feet. Currently operating in WY 2023. For 2023 and 2024, 

there will be an initial annual release of 7 maf and an assumption of an April adjustment, if going above 

7 maf. Reclamation is seeking a balancing release in January of 7.4 maf. Release patterns and volumes 

are still being discussed. The month of January is when Reclamation releases and updates its 5-year 

percentages from the Colorado River Mid-term Modeling System (CRMMS) ensemble. The 5-year table 

with additional analysis will be out next week. With almost 2 maf of additional water in Lake Powell, 

the minimum probable is no longer showing the elevation going below minimum power pool. However, 

there is still significant uncertainty between now and spring, and soil moisture is still plenty low. Lake 

Mead will be in a Level 2 shortage in 2024, but it is close to the Level 3 threshold. 

Q&A and discussion

[Leslie James, Colorado River Energy Distributors Association (CREDA)]: What would the forecast for 

minimum power pool look like if no more snow happens this year? How long can that additional 2 maf

last? [Heather Patno, Reclamation] This is what happened last year. Without any additional 

operational adjustments or additional 2023 DROA water from the upper reservoirs, the elevation would 

be at 3,525 feet, but it would not reach minimum power pool even with no more snow for the rest of 

the year. This is because the snow is already significantly above where it was at the end of last year. Soil 

moisture deficits are being filled by high snow accumulations. [Larry Stevens, GCWC] How are Upper 

Basin flow extractions across the Rockies incorporated into this data? The presentation showed 

precipitation distribution across the landscape, with the Colorado Plateau lower in precipitation than 

the adjacent Rocky Mountains and the Wasatch front. Is there a rain shadow effect between those two 

ranges that affect the Colorado Plateau? [Heather Patno, Reclamation] The River Forecast Center 

models their own type of natural flow for the system that includes these depletions. This natural flow is 

then translated into Reclamation’s unregulated inflow that can be used in the CRMMS model. All that

information on potential demands, along with soil moisture and historic precipitation and temperature, 

is included in the Upper Basin forecast. As to the second question, there were trace amounts of 

precipitation in the forecast, which means this is an active system with continued precipitation in the 

higher elevations through the second week of February that will influence runoff. There is still the 

possibility for a high-pressure ridge to shut down the system but there is a lot of snow on the ground 
Page 3 of 14

that is filling the soil voids and creating the potential for increasing runoff efficiency. [Sinjin Eberle, 

American Rivers] Are there any more details on soil moisture across the basin? [Heather Patno, 

Reclamation] The River Forecast Center (RFS) uses soil moisture in their forecast, and the base is set 

during the first couple weeks in November as the ground freezes for the winter snow accumulation 

period. That is based on historical information. This period before snowpack runoff is when 

Reclamation does not have great soil moisture data. Will have to wait and see because there is a lot of 

uncertainty. That deficit still exists this year, which is why it is important to pay attention to the 

minimum probable runoff trace. 

[Heather Patno, Reclamation] Showed the unit outage schedule for 2023. Reclamation is still looking at 

the issue of coating the bypass tubes. The work will be adjusted depending on hydrology and needs.

[Leslie James, CREDA] Is the fourth transformer a new unit or an upgrade? [Heather Patno, 

Reclamation] It is a new one. All four transformers are onsite now. [Rob Billerbeck, National Park 

Service – Glen Canyon National Recreation Area (NPS-GLCA)] How would the maintenance schedule be 

affected if the smallmouth bass EA were to consider a flow spike for June/July? [Heather Patno, 

Reclamation] Don’t have an answer to that right now.

[Robert Radke, Reclamation] Quarterly sampling is done across the reservoir at Lake Powell. In 

December, the discharge was a little over 12 degrees Celsius (o

C) with higher dissolved oxygen

concentrations on the inflow end of the reservoir. A zone of 4 mg/liter zone exists because of the San 

Juan discharge into the main channel. Lowest temperatures for Lake Powell are predicted to occur 

around mid-March. Low oxygen levels typically occur around September when water temperature is 

the warmest. 

Q&A and discussion

[Larry Stevens, GCWC]: Is there a threshold for the system as specific conductance gets close to 1000? 

What is the relation between Glen Canyon and salinity control for the river downstream? [Robert 

Radke, Reclamation]: Specific conductance is measured by total dissolved solids (TDS) with the average

salinity value of concern at 0.62. Salinity levels are being measured below Hoover Dam, and at Davis 

and Imperial. There are standards at these three locations, but don’t recall what they are. Multiplying 

1000 milligrams per liter (mg/l) with 0.62 gives an average TDS of 600-650, which is below the standard. 

There is a concern at higher levels, but it is not over the standard yet. [Seth Shanahan, SNWA]:

Suggested others with the Salinity Control Forum can help Larry with answer.

Glen Canyon Dam Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 

[Kathy Callister, Reclamation] The SEIS notice of intent (NOI) was published on November 17, 2022, 

and public webinars were held on November 29 and December 2. The scoping period closed on 

December 20. About 1300 comments were received, which are being posted to the SEIS website. 

Planning to complete a summary comments memo by January 25, 2023. Hope to have consensus 

alternative from states, tribes, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) by January 30. Reclamation

is working on a Framework Alternative to consider the scoping comments received. The draft SEIS is 

anticipated to be released in April 2023 with the final SEIS to be released in July 2023. 

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

Conservation Measures Updates 
Page 4 of 14

[Kerri Pedersen, Reclamation] The number of adult humpback chub for the Tier 1 Action Initiation 

Trigger is based on an annual point estimate which was 15,000 in 2022, which was way over the 

trigger. There are two triggers for subadults in the LCR in the spring and fall that are based on a 3-year 

average. The subadults in the mainstem along the Juvenile Chub Monitoring (JCM) reach; however, are 

not doing great. Tier 1 triggers are meant to initiate conservation actions and provide an early warning 

and a buffer of time before Tier 2 actions happen. A [Trigger Response Report] was submitted to the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), which discusses potential reasons for decline and suggested 

actions. Also provided updates on all of the conservation measures and progress in 2022. 

Q&A and discussion 

[Craig Ellsworth, WAPA] Regarding the hypothesis for low numbers of juveniles in the LCR, the Annual 

Meeting included a presentation about how higher temperatures might be causing subadults to 

become adults faster. Is that a possibility for why we have fewer subadults? [Kerri Pedersen,

Reclamation] Yes, in the past it has taken several years to go from juveniles to subadults to adults. 

There is the potential that with warmer temperatures they are moving faster between age classes.

[Craig Ellsworth, WAPA] Thinks that Randy said they had population estimate for chub in the western 

Grand Canyon of 60,000 to 80,000. There are a lot of chub in the canyon and that population down 

there also needs to be considered [Kerri Pedersen, Reclamation]: Thinks the number was 30,000 to 

50,000, but either way, there are a lot of chub down there. It is exciting that the population is growing 

really fast, but under the current BO, that population does not count in the sense that there are no 

triggers because of how new that population is. If the barrier of Pearce Ferry Rapids should change, 

then that chub population could change quickly, too. [Craig Ellsworth, WAPA] The research and 

monitoring project in the TWP for western Grand Canyon was on the chopping block. Do we know what 

happens if that work is delayed? [Seth Shanahan, SNWA] Will delay that question until later. 

[Ben Reeder, Grand Canyon River Guides (GCRG)] Are there Passive Integrated Transponder (PIT) tag

transceivers below the dam to see if any of the marked smallmouth bass are coming through? [Kerri 

Pedersen, Reclamation] No, there are not, but it is possible they have only a limited chance of passing

through. [Ben Reeder, GCRG] Are razorback sucker ultrasonic receivers much lower? [Ryan Mann, 

Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD)] There are receivers in the upper section that were being 

maintained by Bob Shelly for brown trout. Would have to look at the technology to see if they are 

compatible. [Emily Omana-Smith, NPS-Grand Canyon National Park (GRCA)] NPS has them at Lees 

Ferry. 

[Larry Stevens, GCWC]: There must be a lot of information on chub recruitment related to LCR flows. 

Could the hydrograph be used to predict the annual production of young chub and look at why 2022 

was a non-productive year? Perhaps high flows trigger spawning. [Charles Yackulic, U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS)] Maria Dzul looked at whether recruitment varied in the LCR. Some of the more recent 

PIT tags are also more reliable. Is it possible to predict strong years versus weak years? One thing 

learned is that the timing of the survey matters because sometimes they come in early and sometimes, 

they come in later. This predictive capability is not available yet. 

[Martina Dawley, Hualapai Tribe] It is not appropriate to say that humpback chub do not count. Why is 

there a study on hybridization? [Kerri Pedersen, Reclamation] Agrees that chub are important. It was 

meant that there is not a trigger related to the those fish . The hybridization study is related to the 
Page 5 of 14

conservation measures to better understand the hybrid fish to preserve razorback sucker. [Martina

Dawley, Hualapai Tribe] There is concern about modifying the fish. [Kerri Pedersen, Reclamation] The 

hybridization is occurring naturally. According to Pilar Rinker’s study, there was more successful

hybridization with certain species being male and others female. The hybridization study is being done 

at the Southwest Native Aquatic Resource and Recovery Center (SNARRC) in Dexter, New Mexico. 

[Martina Dawley, Hualapai Tribe] Would like to visit SNARRC and learn more about this study. [Kerri 

Pedersen, Reclamation] Happy to put Martina in touch with them. [Ryan Mann, AZGFD] Those 

investigations were done by AZGFD in Flagstaff. The two species hybridize naturally, which has always 

occurred in the system, but the study is to see if hybridization is more likely to occur because of 

changes in the system, if there was a change in the timing of spawning, or if geographical isolation had 

increased rates of hybridization. This relates to looking at impacts to razorback sucker as an 

endangered species from hybridization. 

Status of the Glen Canyon Dam Operational Flexibilities in Response to Warmwater 

Invasives Environmental Assessment: 

[Bill Stewart, Reclamation] Reviewed the purpose and need of the smallmouth bass EA, which will 

consider alternatives of using the bypass tubes to cool the water. The idea is to pull cold water through 

the bypass tubes, which are ~100 feet below the penstocks. The alternatives include a No Action and 

the Proposed Action with four flow options. The smallmouth bass ideal temperature for spawning is 16 o

C. There are four flow options. There was an information session on December 1, 2022. Written input 

from stakeholders was due on December 15 with 11 comments received. The draft EA should be ready 

by early February with a 14-day public review, then early to mid-April 2023 for final EA. 

Q&A and discussion. 

[Dan Leavitt, USFWS] Will the smallmouth bass EA comments be posted to the web? [Kerri Pedersen,

Reclamation] Comments will be included in an appendix in the draft EA. [Leslie James, Colorado River 

Energy Distributors Association (CREDA)] All of the action alternatives include bypass. How would 

determine when to use bypass? From a resource planning standpoint, how will it be known when

generation has to be replaced? [Bill Stewart, Reclamation] The clarity of those projections will be 

clearer by April based on temperature projections. [Leslie James, CREDA] Will those operational 

decisions be made at a certain time, or will they happen in the summer? [Bill Stewart, Reclamation] It 

will be in real-time as much as possible given the number of notices that have to be given. That is still 

being sorted out. [Leslie James, CREDA] The power customers need to be noticed ahead of time. [Kerri 

Pedersen, Reclamation] These are evolving conversations. One thing discussed is to take the 24-month 

study then possibly project it out at least 30 days so that these commitments can be made in time and 

Reclamation can honor its obligations. [Rob Billerbeck, NPS-GLCA] The relationships between reservoir 

elevation and the passthrough temperatures are critical to what happens with smallmouth bass. This 

summer is going to be particularly important because it is early in the invasion. The higher the reservoir 

elevation, the lower the hydropower cost because less bypass is needed. 

[Kurt Dongoske, Pueblo of Zuni] Concerned about the 14-day public review period. It is hard for the 

Zuni to provide meaningful comments in that time. Zuni are concerned about the taking of life. How 

does Reclamation plan on consulting with Zuni? Reclamation should come to the Zuni to get feedback 
Page 6 of 14

and record what the Zunis are saying. [Bill Stewart, Reclamation] There has been some discussion 

around the non-native fish Memorandum of Agreement. The tight timeline is due to the action that 

needs to happen with temperatures increasing. Will do best to accommodate the Zuni. [Kurt Dongoske, 

Pueblo of Zuni] Zunis would criticize the Federal Government for not being more proactive sooner. The 

movement of non-natives from Lake Powell into the main river has been going on for at least seven 

years. It would be a failure to not recognize the Zuni’s concerns over the past 15 years.

[Sheri Farag, CREDA] Is there any indication that running these flows early and often would be better 

than the entire summer? The Southwest has grid reliability challenges in the summer, specifically in 

August and into September. Is it helpful to have these smallmouth bass flows earlier so it does not have 

to happen in the summer? [Bill Stewart, Reclamation] Anything helps. Even a little bit shortens the 

spawning period. It does not take much for them to establish if that opportunity exists. [Charles

Yackulic, USGS] It depends on which option. The Cool Mix option is to keep temperatures below 16 o

C.

The idea behind Cold Shock is that it would only be needed for 12 weeks starting with those higher 

temperatures. That should minimize effects to hydropower because it means less bypass, particularly at 

lower elevations. It is more experimental. The intent is to confuse them into not spawning. This might 

also affect other non-natives to keep them from reproducing. [Emily Omana Smith, NPS-GRCA] It is an 

important point that the intent is to prevent further harmful actions that might result in taking life, and 

to confuse them instead. [Dan Leavitt, USFWS] Regarding the effectiveness of monitoring these flows

and predicting their effects, it would be important to also hear about the aftereffects and how long this 

might go on. [Jakob Maase, Hopi Tribe] Hopi requests a 30-day review period. [Seth Shanahan, SNWA]

This topic will be discussed more. 

Report from the Smallmouth Bass Ad Hoc Group Including a Discussion about the 

Secretary’s Designee’s August 2022 Requests 

[Laura Dye, Colorado River Commission of Nevada (CRC) and SBAHG co-chair] An overview of the Fish 

Strategic Plan was provided and then edits made in real time so that a motion can be prepared.

[Emily Higuera, Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) and SBAHG co-chair]

Recommendation Addendum will be an attachment to the plan. It answers bigger questions from the 

group and addresses concerns regarding the budget. This is a consensus document with options 

required to prevent fish entrainment into Glen Canyon Dam. The plan is not tailored specific to the 

smallmouth bass but addresses non-natives. Rapid response actions could be mechanical or chemical. 

Comments and feedback received, and how they were addressed, will be included as an attachment. It 

was noted that the plan cannot capture all diverse cultural perspectives. 

Q&A and discussion 

[Larry Stevens, GCWC] Rapid response actions might be needed periodically over time. Were these 

reflected in the short-, mid- and long-term actions? [Emily Higuera, ADWR] It is noted that if an action 

is done over and over, then it is not really a short-term action. Rapid response is reactive to a new 

detection or locality. [Kelly Burke, GCWC] Is there any way to capture the possibility of being successful 

in the near term that prevents establishment but then being confronted with a pulse of invasion that 

needs to be responded to again. What if there is another wave? [Emily Higuera, ADWR] Rapid response 

can be used for new detections over a long period and is not limited. This is a broad strategy to prevent 

establishment. [Laura Dye, CRC] This is just one piece of the puzzle, e.g. NPS already has an EA for 
Page 7 of 14

compliance to handle detections over time. This is captured in the plan and is not overly limiting or 

prescriptive. It recognizes there are other plans in place. [Seth Shanahan, SNWA] This is a guide, and it

gives options and a process to be able to follow through to the right answer. 

[Emily Higuera, ADWR] Suggests sending the language to the TWG to review over lunch. [Seth

Shanahan, SNWA] Agrees to this approach. [Daniel Picard, Reclamation] Appreciates the effort put 

into this. It shows, overall, that the adaptive program works and that issues are addressed as they 

arrive. [Seth Shanahan, SNWA] A proposed motion will be prepared to work through after lunch that 

would be sent to the Adaptive Management Work Group (AMWG) to the Secretary’s designee.[Wayne 

Pullan, Reclamation] Thanks everyone involved in this effort. It has been a heavy lift over a short time.

Knows this plan will not satisfy everyone and it will not address everything. That is okay. There is power 

in consensus. Consensus brings weight to a document. There is concern whether this document will 

bind decision-making and implementation agencies. The AMWG is a means of institutionalizing input 

from a wide range of stakeholders, and ensuring that federal decisions are informed by a variety of 

perspectives. All of the agencies will be better informed as a result of this plan and endorsed by TWG 

and AMWG. 

Proposed Motion of the Nonnative Fish Strategic Plan 

The TWG provides the draft Nonnative Fish Strategic Plan, as developed through the Smallmouth Bass 

Ad Hoc Group, to the Adaptive Management Work Group for their consideration in response to the 

Acting Secretary’s Designee’s request from the August 2022 AMWG meeting.

Q&A, discussion, and action

[Larry Stevens, GCWC] Proposed to adopt the motion. [Craig Ellsworth, WAPA] Seconded the motion 

with edits reviewed and incorporated. 

[Seth Shanahan, SNWA] Are there any objections to adopting this motion? [Kurt Dongoske, Pueblo of 

Zuni]: Yes, as the Zuni Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO), a plan that contains lethal 

management options cannot be supported given the position the Zuni have maintained over the last 15 

years. If any of these options are implemented in the near future by a federal agency or by funding 

from this program, licensing, permitting or any other form of federal involvement, then that action has 

to comply with the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), the 2017 LTEMP Programmatic 

Agreement (PA) or with the 2019 PA for the Non-Native Aquatic Species Management Plan. All aquatic 

life is considered significant elements that contribute to the National Register eligibility of the Colorado

River and the Grand Canyon and are properties of traditional cultural and religious importance to the 

Pueblo Zuni. That is recognized in the NHPA. Adverse impacts have to be mitigated to the integrity of 

that National Register property and that has to be done from the perspective and informed decisions of 

the Zuni. Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to the Zuni Tribe have to be considered. Do not wait to 

consult with the Zuni. Make note that the Zuni have objected. 

[Seth Shanahan, SNWA] The TWG does not have consensus so a vote needs to be taken by the 

members. This is a standard operating procedure. [Jakob Maase, Hopi Tribe] This is not really an 

objection because there are mitigation plans in the document, but that is very different. This is a list of 

options and not a single option.

[Craig Ellsworth, WAPA] Had similar thoughts as Kurt. This motion is to pass this plan on to AMWG. Is 
Page 8 of 14

Reclamation going to be asking for stakeholder support in all elements of this plan? At what point do 

stakeholders express concern about certain elements that may be implemented? In WAPA’s case, it

may be there are issues with implementation of excessive amounts of bypass. 

[Daniel Picard, Reclamation] This motion is to get it out of the TWG and to the AMWG for a discussion 

there and a recommendation to the Secretary Designee for a final decision. Suggests taking a formal 

vote. It may not be a consensus that comes out of AMWG either. 

[Ben Reeder, GCRG] Acknowledges Zuni and Hopi concerns. By passing this through quickly, can get to 

the least impactful management actions to avoid taking actions that would harm the fish. 

[Seth Shanahan, SNWA] Motion passes with a majority vote. Unfortunately, consensus cannot be 

achieved on this issue but understands why. There are many problems on the horizon and the TWG 

needs to be creative. Final vote is on the Action Items, Motions, and Vote form on the TWG website.

Breakout Group Discussion 

[Seth Shanahan, SNWA] TWG members are to break out into groups. After the last couple of days in 

the Annual Reporting meeting, think about the following items: 1) What are the perspectives on the 

health of the Colorado River ecosystem and whether the LTEMP goals are being met, 2) What 

information can be provided to those developing the next TWP and budget that might support 

understanding a healthy Colorado River ecosystem and to meet the goals of LTEMP? This is to provide 

initial direction for those writing the TWP. At least one person should speak on behalf of the group on 

the outcome of their conversation. 

[Clarence Fullard, Reclamation and Vice Chair] The SEIS is a DOI priority. Extending the TWP into next 

year could help reduce that workload. Would likely follow the template of 2023 budget and TWP. The 

BAHG process would be copied and would be more like what was done last year.

[Leslie James, CREDA] One thing that might help inform the discussion is to start with using the 

prioritization process from BAHG last year. That is where the process ended, and was the group’s 

thinking at the time, rather than starting new. [Clarence Fullard, Reclamation and TWG vice-chair]

Reclamation can make that available. [Ryan Mann, AZGFD] Were those the priorities that were not 

available for funding or were they all priorities for the programs? This might be two different 

conversations because the third year of JCM-West was cut from the plan and then reinstated with 

surplus funds. Believes that was the number one priority. [Seth Shanahan, SNWA] Also knows there are 

federal priorities that might be shown at a different time. The breakout groups should be aware this is 

all happening in the background. 

Report Out from Breakout Groups 

Group 1 Breakout Summary

Problem: Current amount of recreation is high, which leads to overuse of river corridor and sometimes 

disrespectful behavior of river runners, both of which adversely affect the health of the Colorado River 

ecosystem. 

Evidence and indicators of these negative impacts on river health include: 

• food in river
Page 9 of 14

• trash in river (water bottles, basket balls, oil cans)

• trailing to archaeological and cultural sites (hematite mine, pictographs)

• drunkenness seems to be primary objective of some river trips, as evidenced by partying and waving 

whiskey bottles at Hualapai tribal monitoring trip that was comprised of elders and religious leaders as they 

passed by

• high abundance of humpback chub in western Grand Canyon where recreation load is potentially lighter and 

more dispersed. 

• scarcity of wildlife sightings during periods of peak river use 

Question: Will impacts of recreation on Colorado River health be amplified by climate change and 

aridification. I.e., will aridification of the Grand Canyon ecosystem make it less resistant, less resilient, 

and slower to recover from overuse and human disturbance? 

Implications/Suggestions for Management and Monitoring:

Reduce and monitor impacts of recreational users through:

• Reductions in number of user days (i.e., fewer people on river at any one time). 

• Garbage monitoring and pickup. Ie. have one or more river trips that are dedicated to monitoring and 

removing garbage. Update: TK will consider adding garbage monitoring and pickup as science project for 

2023 Partners in Science trips that we do in collaboration with Grand Canyon Youth and Ancestral Lands. 

There are three trips per year (early June through late July) so lots of opportunity to engage 20 high school 

aged youth per trip in repeat sampling and making a serious dent in garbage removal.

• Cultural competency training for river runners. Concept is a video that would help increase cultural 

competency of river runners so they would, for example, be more respectful of this sacred place and the 

people that have traditionally called it home. Video could raise this issue of not visiting archaeological sites 

and maintaining respect for the place by telling the story of tribal monitoring trips and the important role 

these trips play in maintaining connection between tribal members and this sacred place, describe how 

tribal monitoring informs river management, describe how you [joe or jane river runner] may want to adjust 

your behavior as you would upon entering any sacred place, and especially if you see a tribal monitoring trip 

in the neighborhood. Question for NPS: what kind of training is provided to river runners, is there value in 

new video or similar focused on increasing cultural competency of general public? 

• Maintain and, if possible, increase funding for management actions where the science is relatively settled, 

the action can have a large, positive impact on multiple LTEMP management objectives, and the action is in 

harmony with tribal views on the sacredness of life. 

o Examples of these type of broadly supported management actions include:

 Vegetation treatments appear to be highly effective and help support multiple LTEMP goals 

including Riparian Vegetation (Goal 11), Archaeological and Cultural Resources (Goal 1), 

Natural Processes (Goal 2), and Recreation Experience (Goal 6). 

Group 2 Breakout Summary

[Larry Stevens, GCWC] FY 2024 Planning Recommendations from Breakout Group 2

• Program review process for next year, due to the SEIS, Reclamation will move FY 2024 to 

continuation of the existing monitoring plan. 

Background Questions:
Page 10 of 14

• Prioritize funds available beyond basic resource monitoring – how much is there?

• What is the status of the Contingency Fund?

• Use 2024 to prioritize 2025-2027 Triennial Work Plan. 

• Provide GCMRC with support for SEIS workload.

• Include support for direct Tribal involvement in the SEIS preparation, especially for 

consideration of climate change and water management.

• Need to revisit and re-configure the GCMRC aquatic foodbase program, with more systematic 

incorporation of nutrient dynamics. 

Project Recommendations:

• Develop a scorecard for the AMP based on ARM results – how successful is the AMP in 

meeting LTEMP goals (an integrated questionnaire that includes metrics, and is designed for 

annual evaluation and long-term program assessment)

• Improve understanding of the Western Grand Canyon HBC population

• Engage the Hopi Tribe to coordinate an inter-tribal and inter-agency monitoring of CRE 

herpetofauna

• Update “Kanab ambersnail” population status, and improve understanding of riverside spring 

ecosystem conditions and responses

• Trailing in LCR – Navajo evaluation

• Enhance education of public about Tribal values

• Determine collateral damage to RBT with NN fish removal

• Recreational modeling and monitoring under low flows

• Fish health (e.g., parasites) in LF reach and LCR

• Move from vegetation monitoring to habitat analyses

Group 3 Breakout Summary

[Ryan Mann, AZGFD]: In terms of the status of the system some things are in better shape than before 

dam. Also potentially at the highest risk to some resources. Potential issues or observations many have 

seen relate to budget planning process or other consideration for the adaptive management process. 

Expressed concerning for funding for core monitoring programs. On the flip side there is a concern 

we’re doing lots of observing and not a lot of doing. Suggestions for the program to have an exercise to 

look back at priorities and successes and failures. Acknowledges lots of constraints on being adaptive. 

Maybe we should be thinking about the minimum probable occurrences; is that our future? Need to 

build options into the future. In the current workplan, Reclamation doesn’t have enough personnel but 

GCMRC scientists. Lot of asks, need to catch up. Acknowledgement of funding shortcomings.

Group 4 Breakout Summary

[Sinjin Eberle, American Rivers] The group started with the health of the Colorado River ecosystem and 

created a scorecard of the 11 elements from LTEMP. The three that rose to top in most jeopardy are: 

natural processes, hydropower and energy, and non-natives with sediment a close fourth. Some 

resources are in good shape like other native fish. Recreational experience is doing okay. Hydropower 

and energy are in less good health because of reduced lake levels and dealing with smallmouth bass 

issues. Non-natives scored low because they are doing well, such as green sunfish and carp. Natural 
Page 11 of 14

processes overall have challenges from broader concerns about temperature and food base and flows. 

Items that contribute to these issues are high flow experiments (HFE), increased temperatures, and 

high-risk nonnatives. Human factors came up in particular those related to archaeology and those 

potential impact. 

Group 5 Breakout Summary

[Erik Stanfield, Navajo Nation] This group also talked about cultural training, which should be 

prioritized. Also went through LTEMP goals as Group 4 and came up with similar answers. Connected to 

that is how is the budget responsive to what is found with the metrics program? In general, it seems 

that humpback chub and other native fish are doing well. How is the focus of this program going to be 

responsive whether or not they are seen as successful or stabilized? If there is a delay in the budgeting 

process, need to make sure it can focus on big important changes. The group thought that there is a 

good opportunity if that time can be used widely with what is learned from the monitoring program. 

There was also some discussion on a more holistic management that recognizes operational effects 

from behind dam (fish, water quality, cultural issues, etc.). Not looking for or monitoring some of the 

larger issues such as invasives coming from outside the system is difficult and may be because of 

perceived legal limitations. Maybe budgeting could allow a focus on other wildlife issues. The beaches, 

archaeology, and water quality all have problems and are not healthy. [Helen Fairley, USGS] Some of 

the real crisis issues are being driven by factors that the program has no direct control over until they 

are part of the Grand Canyon ecosystem. How to deal with that reality? There are the LTEMP goals but 

there are outside factors that are impinging on the program. [Ben Reeder, GCRG] In looking at the 

system wholistically, beaches are in their worst condition ever. If HFEs can occur, even with 

hydropower taking hit but doing the bypasses, the experiments might be less costly. There are ways to 

combine efforts to work on the beaches and also address biological concerns. Need to look at what 

needs to be put in place at the dam to address fish passage problems. 

Group 6 Breakout Summary

• We are working in a dynamic ecosystem in which the health of one resource depends heavily on the status 

of others. Due to this complexity, linear solutions may not always be possible.

• There is a tradeoff between quantifiable goals and meaningful engagement from all stakeholders

• Key issue: Determine metrics before target or target before metrics.

o Find a way to use “desired future conditions” report

• We must continue to circle back to WHY we are doing the actions, and ask: what are our values? But also, 

what are the priorities in the moment? What is most valuable and irreplaceable?

o May be helpful to take a survey of TWG and AMWG folks to gauge where we are at with these 

questions

• Bring back federal agencies into voting process a healthier decision-making environment

• We are inevitably failing some of our resources (e.g. sandbars)

o Critical piece to ecosystem and other resources in the Colorado River ecosystem

Discussion of Emerging Issues, Updates on Items of Interest That Are in Consideration 
Page 12 of 14

for Implementation Before Next TWG Meeting, and Request for Agenda Items for Next 

Meeting: 

[Seth Shanahan, SNWA] Are there any major issues that have not been talked about. Is anything going to 

happen before April that we don’t already know about? 

[Ben Reeder, GCRG] Did not hear anything about possibility of a spring HFE in Heather’s talk. [Seth

Shanahan, SNWA] From the sediment trigger point of view, the accounting window starts up, they 

track it, and it will go into consideration.[Martina Dawley, Hualapai Tribe] Hualapai have a new Tribal 

Chairman, Sherry Parker. 

[Larry Stevens, GCWC] GCWC will be doing revegetation in March at the Paria Beach site with the 

planting of 200 cottonwood and willow trees. 

[Leslie James, CREDA] Would the TWG be interested in a grid reliability presentation by the National 

Renewable Energy Lab (NREL)? Are there potential grid or resource adequacy concerns? Glen Canyon 

had to respond to a resource adequacy issue last September. It would be a good topic for this group to 

understand because Glen Canyon Dam is so integral to grid stability. [Laura Dye, Colorado River 

Commission of Nevada (CRC)] Adrian Marshall could do such a presentation. She works on Western 

grid reliability and hydropower. She is at the Colorado School of Mines.

Public Comment 

[Alicyn Gitlin, Sierra Club Grand Canyon Chapter] There is a clear legal and ethical requirement to 

protect the Grand Canyon. The Grand Canyon Protection Act language is clear and unambiguous to 

protect and mitigate cultural and natural values. The value of these is usually measured by some 

number. There is no clear and unambiguous requirement to subsidize the health of the Grand Canyon 

by providing power production. Natural flows are probably the best way to achieve multiple goals in 

what is most likely to be a culturally appropriate manner. A lot of flow actions have been postponed 

over the last few years to protect hydropower. There is a moral obligation to protect the Grand Canyon. 

It is important to not just hear the tribes, but to listen to them and to act. Communication needs to 

occur early and often. The Fish Strategic Plan does not capture diverse cultural perspectives, and the EA 

will only include a 14-day comment period. This raises questions as to why the tribes were not 

consulted early. It is not fair and does not seem to qualify with the intent of the law. 

Meeting adjourned at 3:50 PM PDT

TWG Members and Alternates

Cliff Barrett, UMPA Dan Leavitt, USFWS

Rob Billerbeck, NPS-GLCA Jakob Maase, Hopi Tribe

Daniel Bulletts, Southern Paiute Consortium Ryan Mann, AZGFD

Kelly Burke, GCWC Scott McGettigan, Utah DWR

Carrie Cannon, Hualapai Betsy Morgan, Utah DWR

Shane Capron, WAPA Christina Noftsker, State of New Mexico

Hannah Chambless, NPS-GRCA Emily Omana-Smith, NPS-GRCA

Colleen Cunningham, NMISC Kerri Pedersen, Reclamation

Kurt Dongoske, Pueblo of Zuni William "Bill" Persons, FFI/TU
Page 13 of 14

Laura Dye, CRC Shana Rapoport, CRBC

Sinjin Eberle, American Rivers Ben Reeder, GCRG

Craig Ellsworth, WAPA David Rogowski, AZGFD

Mel Fegler, State of Wyoming Seth Shanahan, SNWA and TWG vice-chair

Clarence Fullard, Reclamation and TWG vice-chair Erik Skeie, State of Colorado

Michelle Garrison, CRBC Erik Stanfield, Navajo Nation

Emily Higuera, ADWR Larry Stevens, GCWC

Leslie James, CREDA Gary Tallman (FFI/TU)

USGS/GCMRC Staff

Lucas Bair Ted Kennedy

Erica Byerley Keith Kohl

Bridget Deemer Bryce Mihalevich

Drew Eppehimer Emily Palmquist

Helen Fairley Joel Sankey

Mariah Giardina Shannon Sartan

Thomas Gushue Scott VanderKooi

Meredith Hartwell David Ward

Matt Kaplinski

Reclamation Staff

Tara Ashby Wayne Pullan

Kathy Callister Robert Radtke

Mark McKinstry David Speas

Zac Nelson Bill Stewart

Heather Patno Alex Walker

Jamescita Peshlakai Chris Watt

Daniel Picard (Acting Designated Federal Officer)

Interested Parties

Jan Balsom, NPS Andrew Morin, NPS

David Braun, Sound Science G Nealon

Kevin Bulletts, University of Arizona Jess Newton, USFWS

Julie Carter, AZGFD Ronda Newton, NPS

Martina Dawley, Hualapai Tribe Jen Pelz, Grand Canyon Trust

Sheri Farag, CREDA Bill Persons, FFI/TU

Bud Fazio, NPS-GLCA Amanda Podmore, Grand Canyon Trust

Derek Fryer, WAPA Zak Podmore, Salt Lake Tribune

Kevin Garlick, UMPA Ted Rampton, CREDA

Alicyn Gitlin, Sierra Club David Rheinheimer, CRB

Michelle Garrison, CWCB Peggy Roefer, CRCN

Christina Kalavritinos, DOI Morgan Ross, Environmental Defense Fund

Matt Kaplinski, NAU Andrew Schultz, USFWS

Michelle Kerns, NPS Elyssa Shalla, NPS-GRCA

JoJo Matson Jim Strogen, FFI/TU

Amy McCoy, Amp Insights Melissa Trammell, NPS

Craig McGinnis, Salt River Project Arturo Vale, USFWS

David McIntyre, SeaJay Environmental
Page 14 of 14

Acronyms and Abbreviations

o

C – degrees Celsius NEPA – National Environmental Policy Act

AMWG – Adaptive Management Work Group NGOs – non-governmental organizations

ADWR – Arizona Department of Water Resources NHPA – National Historic Preservation Act

AZGFD – Arizona Game and Fish Department NMISC – New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission

BAHG – Budget Ad Hoc Group NOI – Notice of Intent

BO – Biological Opinion NPS – National Park Service

CRBC – Colorado River Board of California NPS-GLCA – Glen Canyon National Recreation Area

CRC – Colorado River Commission of Nevada NPS-GRCA – Grand Canyon National Park

CREDA – Colorado River Energy Distributors Association NREL – National Renewable Energy Lab

CRMMS – Colorado River Mid-term Modeling System PA – Programmatic Agreement

CWCB – Colorado Water Conservation Board PST – Pacific Standard Time

DFO – Designated Federal Officer PIT – Passive Integrated Transponder

DOI – Department of the Interior Reclamation – Bureau of Reclamation

DROA – Drought Response Operations Agreement RFS – River Forecast Center 

EA – environmental assessment ROD - Record of Decision

FLAHG – Flow Ad Hoc Group SBAHG – Smallmouth Bass Ad Hoc Group

FFI – Fly Fishers International SCAHG – Steering Committee Ad Hoc Group

FY – Fiscal Year SEIS – supplemental environmental impact statement 

GCDAMP – Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management 

Program

SNARRC – Southwest Native Aquatic Resource and 

Recovery Center

GCMRC – Grand Canyon Monitoring & Research Center SNWA – Southern Nevada Water Authority

GCRG – Grand Canyon River Guides TDS – total dissolved solids

GCWC—Grand Canyon Wildlands Council THPO – Tribal Historic Preservation Officer

HFE – High Flow Experiment TU – Trout Unlimited

JCM-West – Juvenile Chub Monitoring-West TWG – GCDAMP Technical Work Group

LCR – Lower Colorado River TWP – Triennial Work Plan

LTEMP – Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan USFWS – United States Fish & Wildlife Service

LTEMP – Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan USGS – United States Geological Survey

mg/l – milligrams per liter WAPA – Western Area Power Administration

maf – million acre-feet

MST – Mountain Standard Time WY – Water Year