Page 1 of 7

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program

Technical Work Group Meeting

Aug 9, 2023

Webinar

Start Time: 2:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time (PDT) 

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

Meeting Recorder: Beccie Mendenhall, SeaJay Environmental LLC

Welcome and Administrative

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

Status Report for Developing a Plan to Amend the High-Flow Experiment Protocol

Presentation [Sinjin Eberle, American Rivers and FLAHG Chair]

This is the most recent version of the document coming into the meeting today. It represents all of the 

feedback and work done to date. In an effort to streamline closure, we have pulled out the areas of the 

document that still have open points to resolve. As he sees it there are just 4 things we need to deal with 

today, all of them are quite small. 

Page 7 Change the word infrastructure

Page 10 Review / change 2 sentences

Page 11 Several points to revisit on this page

Page 15 Address NEPA Compliance pathways

Q&A, discussion

Page 7 Change the word infrastructure

 “infrastructure” was changed to “critical Infrastructure”

Page 10 Change one sentence

[Sinjin Eberle, American Rivers] The sentence reads “This proposed revision does not mean that more 

than one Fall HFE should be implemented in the fall implementation window, more than one spring HFE in 

the spring implementation window, or more than one HFE should be implemented within a year.” We have 

all discussed the possibility of 2 HFE in a specific calendar year, but not within the same implementation 

window. We all understand that so can we just strike this part of the sentence? [Craig Ellsworth, WAPA]

Yes, I think you can strike that part of the sentence. 

 Language was removed

Page 10 Question about “Doing So”

[Sinjin Eberle, American Rivers]

A question was raised about the meaning of “Doing So” in this sentence. It means allowing roll over of 

sediment from one implementation window to the next. The roll over is covered elsewhere. This sentence 

is not necessary, we could just remove it. <Multiple entries in chat “OK to Remove> 
Page 2 of 7

[Sinjin Eberle, American Rivers] Paul Grams, you are involved in the sediment accounting, are you OK 

to remove? [Paul Grams, GCMRC] Yes [Sinjin Eberle, American Rivers] Bill Stewart representing

Reclamation, are you OK if we remove this sentence? [Bill Stewart, Reclamation] You can remove it.

 Sentence removed

Page 11 Point 1 

[Sinjin Eberle, American Rivers]

Now we are talking about the confluence of defining which HFE cannot be conducted within the same 

implementation window. I just want to make sure everyone is on board with this language “Spring HFE will 

not be tested in years where there has been an extended fall HFE earlier in the water year”. [Seth 

Shanahan, SNWA] That sentence is the existing sentence in the LTEMP ROD HFE protocol. Let’s hope 

people do not have issues with it. [David Rogowski, AZGFD] Is “tested” the correct word or should it be 

conducted? [Seth Shanahan, SNWA] You may be right, but that is the word in the LTEMP ROD. Let’s 

focus on the intent. 

 Agreed to leave as is, no changes

Page 11 Point 2 

[Sinjin Eberle, American Rivers]

The proposal here is to replace the entire strike through paragraph with the new one below. [David 

Rogowski, AZGFD] Do we really want to restrict this to Small Mouth Bass? May be other species we 

want to include in the future. [Sinjin Eberle, American Rivers] It is written this way because we assume 

Reclamation will take this work and morph this into the new LTEMP EIS which incorporates both SMB 

control options and HFE recommendations. [Seth Shanahan, SNWA] First, I made a quick formatting 

change to non-italicized text here. Italicized text is reserved for actual revisions to the protocol. Nonitalicized text is for context setting and explanations. The language says, “Should there be a spring HFE and 

a spike in SMB”, so the sentence is only meant to address that one specific situation, HFE and SMB spike. It 

also provides the context and brings awareness to the tradeoffs as you move into an EIS. Are you OK with 

that? [David Rogowski, AZGFD] I understand the reasoning, would like it to be broader but realize this is 

just a recommendation. [Colleen Cunningham, NMISC] Following the same line as David, I do not 

understand why we wouldn’t change this to “Non-Native Species Flow” action. Also why are we limiting 

it to Spring? [Bill Persons, FFI/TU] We are looking for more flexibility, rather than limiting to just SMB

action, maybe more flexible language “an alternative flow action such as SMB” [Craig Ellsworth, 

WAPA] Suggest striking Spring HFE [Ryan Mann, AZGFD] You can simplify further by removing the 

“Such As” [Emily Higuera, ADWR] Add SMB triggers, remove the word implementation [Kelly Burke, 

GCWC] Can we replace Reclamation analysis in the last sentence with NEPA process? [Leslie James, 

CREDA] I do not agree with this suggestion. We do not want to limit this analysis to a NEPA process. 

[Seth Shanahan, SNWA] What if the sentence just ends after tradeoffs? Does that work? [Kelly Burke, 

GCWC] That works for me, even more flexible and broad. <multiple agreements in chat>

[Sinjin Eberle, American Rivers] Emily, you worked on this paragraph originally, are you OK with the 

revisions? [Emily Higuera, ADWR] Yes, fine [Craig Ellsworth, WAPA] I have a few words to fix in the 

final language (edits made). [Seth Shanahan, SNWA] Ryan, you proposed the plural version, are you OK 

with removing it? [Ryan Mann, AZGFD] No, we want to make sure the multiple flows are maintained

(edits made).

[Sinjin Eberle, American Rivers] I just want to confirm, everyone is OK to remove the original paragraph 

and replace it with the new paragraph we just finished editing together? [Seth Shanahan, SNWA] Yes, we 

are all aligned on text below as replacement. 

 New Paragraph edits completed, old Paragraph removed
Page 3 of 7

Page 15 – NEPA Compliance Pathways

[Sinjin Eberle, American Rivers]

We were waiting for a memo from Wayne which has not yet been received. Seth suggested to just remove 

this section because Reclamation will be dealing with it later. Any thoughts? [Bill Stewart, Reclamation]

Yes, removing it is fine. The message has been relayed that we are moving this into an LTEMP EIS. 

[Kelly Burke, GCWC] I agree, it seems inappropriate for TWG to make statements on policies under the 

responsibility of AMWG [Rob Billerbeck, NPS-GLCA] NFS agrees with Bill. [Emily Higuera, ADWR] 

Arizona agrees.

 Section removed 

[Kelly Burke, GCWC] I would like clarification on the roll over section. I presume what we are 

recommending here will be what is analyzed in the NEPA that follows. Will this language preclude the 

ability to look at rollover sediment for a single year? And does this need to be part of the NEPA process?

[Seth Shanahan, SNWA] I want to make sure we understand what will happen at reclamation with this 

language. As written, there is no limitation in the number of roll over years, thus we are not narrowing 

down their analysis. Post analysis they might define a specific number of years, and that is what will go into 

the NEPA document. [Kelly Burke, GCWC] If we could just add the words to reference the NEPA 

document or NEPA process that this is feeding. [Seth Shanahan, SNWA] It does in the language “A future 

contemplative action” which would be the NEPA process. [Kelly Burke, GCWC] Can we just add a 

clarification? 

 NEPA reference added 

[Helen Fairley, GCMRC] I thought there was already an agreement to include roll over for one year with 

recommendation to extend beyond a single year. So why did we take out the specific one-year language? 

[Seth Shanahan, SNWA] Again, the hope was not to limit it to one year, we want to be more expansive. 

But one year is included by default. [Kelly Burke, GCWC] FLAHG did not identify whether to roll over 

sediment because more analysis was needed. But we should add language that we all agreed this was 

important to consider. [Paul Grams, GCMRC] It is confusing because what would trigger the roll over is 

dependent on the preceding process and analysis. Hence the reason we had to keep the language flexible. 

[Sinjin Eberle, American Rivers] The point of this rollover section is to do our best to always maintain a 

positive sediment mass balance. [Paul Grams, GCMRC] Yes, to enable ability to do an HFE in one year if 

it was not done in the prior year. [Christina Noftsker, NMISC] I just worry that we are not giving BOR 

enough specifics to propose the NEPA. <discussion continued with multiple edit proposals and scenarios 

for sediment> 

[Paul Grams, GCMRC] I suggest we leave it the way it is written. [Seth Shanahan, SNWA] I think this 

is why it’s not there, because there is no agreement yet on using extra sand if there was an HFE. Are you 

OK with this Christina? [Christina Noftsker, NMISC] Yes, fine. [Jessica Neuwerth, CRBC] We should 

not assume everyone is on board with one year of roll over. It is OK that for flexibility we removed the 

language about weather, but I want to make sure that Reclamation still includes weather in their analysis. 

[Seth Shanahan, SNWA] Good point, and thanks for confirming the current language allows for that

scenario. 

 Updated language for rollover section per agreed edits 

[Leslie James, CREDA] In the section where we are talking about more than 1 HFE in an implementation 

period. Is it possible to have 2 HFE and additional flow action? [Seth Shanahan, SNWA] yes, I think it 

can happen. The language is in a different section. [Leslie James, CREDA] This causes concern. Every 

HFE or flow action includes a bypass. So here we might be at 3 bypass actions in a single implementation 
Page 4 of 7

year. [Seth Shanahan, SNWA] Take another read of this language. It may support your position by 

NOT stating it. It directs Reclamation to do the analysis and then make a proposal that all members have 

opportunity to object. [Leslie James, CREDA] I disagree, this is outside the intent of LTEMP

[Ryan Mann, AZGFD] How does changing the accounting window change the LTEMP? [Seth 

Shanahan, SNWA] Correct, it is a stand-alone issue that comes into play as Reclamation considers a 

bypass action.

[David Rogowski, AZGFD] The bypass concern should not be addressed in this document. [Seth 

Shanahan, SNWA] Let’s add a sentence that calls out that some FHLAG members have concerns about 

this. [Leslie James, CREDA] I am Ok with that proposal. Craig, Shane, what do you think? [Craig 

Ellsworth, WAPA] Encouraging Reclamation to have this in their queue is important, I support the 

added language. [Laura Dye, CRCN] I do not agree or disagree about adding this new language, but 

there are points elsewhere in the text that cover this concern. Will these suffice or does it really need to 

be in both places? [Sinjin Eberle, American Rivers] What if we just add a point in the bullets 

“considerations for the NEPA LTEMP analysis” specific to bypass concerns? [Leslie James, CREDA] I 

agree with this placement in the bullets section. [Seth Shanahan, SNWA] Do we now delete the other 

general concern sentence? [Leslie James, CREDA] No, I still want to keep that sentence, make it clear 

this is not YES from everybody.

 Concerns about bypass were added in both sections

Action

Proposed motion language: 

The Technical Work Group accepts the proposal developed through the Flow Ad Hoc Group to amend the 

High-Flow Experiment Protocol and agrees to forward it to the Adaptive Management Work Group

(AMWG) to meet the directive given at the Feb 15, 2023, AMWG meeting.

[Seth Shanahan, SNWA] Let’s test the waters, are we ready for a motion? [Shana Rapoport, CRBC] 

Can we say “the plan developed through the Flow Ad Hoc Group AND proposals from the meeting 

today”? [Seth Shanahan, SNWA] The proposal is the proposal, don’t think adding that is required.

<more editing suggestions follow but no specific changes made> 

[Mel Fegler, State of Wyoming] I motion to accept the proposal. 

[Kurt Dongoske, Pueblo of Zuni] Can we replace “Agrees” with “Moves” [Colleen Cunningham, 

NMISC] I am wondering about the choice of the word Proposal. What we have is a recommendation for 

analysis. [Seth Shanahan, SNWA] The flag was tasked with developing a proposal, so that is the right 

term to use. What we have in the document are some proposed amendments. The biggest one is 

changing the sediment accounting window. But there is context about other things that are not 

determined yet, that require analysis. [Ryan Mann, AZGFD] “Proposal to amend” is in the name of the 

document. [Seth Shanahan, SNWA] Colleen, would you be OK with the language as is? [Colleen 

Cunningham, NMISC] Not really, we do not have agreement on all of the suggested “other things”. 

[Sinjin Eberle, American Rivers] There is a subtitle in the document that can be modified if that helps?

 Changed the subtitle of the document by adding “And Other Considerations”: 

Final motion language: 

The Technical Work Group accepts the proposal to amend the High-Flow Experiment Protocol and moves 

to forward it to the Adaptive Management Work Group (AMWG) to meet the directive given at the Feb 15, 

2023, AMWG meeting.
Page 5 of 7

[Seth Shanahan, SNWA] Mel, are these revisions OK? Do you still support the motion? 

[Mel Fegler, State of Wyoming] Yes.

[Ryan Mann, AZGFD] I second the motion.

[Seth Shanahan, SNWA] Any objections to pass by consensus? 

[Larry Stevens, GCWC] This proposal will couple the SMB EIS with Amendment of the HFE Protocol. 

I strongly recommend that we separate the two so the HFE Amendment can move forward quickly. [Bill 

Stewart, Reclamation] Even if we separate them, we will have to go through the NEPA process for the 

HFE Amendment. It will not be able to move forward any more quickly on its own. And by coupling 

them we only have a single NEPA action to manage.

[Seth Shanahan, SNWA] Any objections? <No Objections raised>

 Motion Passes by Consensus 

[Seth Shanahan, SNWA] Next step in the process – this will be brought forth to the AMWG next week. 

Members with concerns, such as Larry just presented, please voice them again at the AMWG meeting 

next week.

 ACTION: [Jeremy Hammen, Reclamation] Send the preliminary document with edits from this 

meeting to TWG members by noon 8/10

 ACTION: [Sinjin Eberle, American Rivers] Distribute the final cleaned up document to 

AMWG members prior to the meeting 8/16

Public Comment: None Received

Meeting adjourned at 4:12 PM PDT
Page 6 of 7

Participants

TWG Members, Alternates, and Leadership

Betsy Morgan (Utah DWR)

Bill Persons (FFI/TU)

Carrie Cannon (Hualapai Tribe)

Charlie Ferrantelli (State of Wyoming)

Christina Noftsker (State of New Mexico)

Cliff Barrett (UMPA)

Colleen Cunningham (NMISC)

Craig Ellsworth (WAPA)

Dan Leavitt (USFWS)

Daniel Bulletts (Southern Paiute 

Consortium)

David Brown (GCRG)

David Rogowski (AZGFD)

Emily Higuera (ADWR)

Emily Omana Smith (NPS-GRCA)

Erik Skeie (CWCB)

Erik Stanfield (Navajo Nation)

Jakob Maase (Hopi Tribe)

Jessica Neuwerth (CRBC)

Kelly Burke (GCWC)

Kurt Dongoske (Pueblo of Zuni)

Laura Dye (CRCN)

Leslie James (CREDA)

Martina Dawley (Hualapai Tribe)

Mel Fegler (State of Wyoming)

Michelle Garrison (CWCB)

Rob Billerbeck (NPS-GLCA)

Rudy Keedah (BIA)

Ryan Mann (AZGFD)

Scott McGettigan (State of Utah)

Seth Shanahan (SNWA)

Shana Rapoport (CRBC)

Shane Capron (WAPA)

Sinjin Eberle (American Rivers)

Ted Rampton (CREDA)

USGS 

Helen Fairley

Joel Sankey

Lucas Bair

Paul Grams

Scott VanderKooi

Ted Kennedy

Thomas Gushue 

Reclamation

Alex Walker

Bill Stewart

Daniel Picard

Heather Patno

Jeremy Hammen

Kathy Callister

Ryan Randol

Teo Melis

Other GCDAMP Members and Interested Persons

Beccie Mendenhall (SeaJay 

Environmental)

Christina Kalavritinos (DOI)

Gregory Mehojah (BIA)

Hannah Chambless (NPS)

Melissa Trammell (NPS)

Nicki Gibney (NPS)

Acronyms

o

C – degrees Celsius MOA – Memorandum of Understanding
Page 7 of 7

AMWG – Adaptive Management Work Group mm – millimeter 

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

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

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

BAHG – Budget Ad Hoc Group

BIA – Bureau of Indian Affairs

NPS-GLCA – Glen Canyon National Recreation 

Area

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

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

CREDA – Colorado River Energy Distributors 

Association P&I Team – Planning and Implementation Team

CRSP – Colorado River Storage Project Reclamation – Bureau of Reclamation

CWCB – Colorado Water Conservation Board ROD - Record of Decision

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

statement

DOI – Department of the Interior SMB – smallmouth bass

DWR – Department of Water Resources SNWA – Southern Nevada Water Authority

EA – environmental assessment TRGD – Trout Recruitment and Growth Dynamics

EIS – environmental impact statement TU – Trout Unlimited

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

FFI – Fly Fishers International UMPA – Utah Municipal Power Agency

FY – Fiscal Year USFWS – United States Fish & Wildlife 

GCDAMP – Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management 

Program USGS – United States Geological Survey

GCMRC – Grand Canyon Monitoring & Research Center USU – Utah State University

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

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

GCWC—Grand Canyon Wildlands Council

HFE – High Flow Experiment

LTEMP – Long-Term Experimental and Management 

Plan