Minutes of 

 Technical Work Group 

 October 22, 1999 

 Phoenix, Arizona 

FINAL

Presiding: Rick Johnson, GCT (Chairperson) 

Committee Members Present: 

Clifford Barrett, CREDA Phil Lehr, CRCN 

Andres Cheama, Pueblo of Zuni Don Metz, USFWS 

Kerry Christensen, Hualapai Nation Clayton Palmer, WAPA 

Dave Cohen, Trout Unlimited Bill Persons, AGFD 

Wayne Cook, UCRC Randall Peterson, USBR 

Wm. Davis, EcoPlan Assoc./CREDA Andre Potochnik, GC River Guides 

Kurt Dongoske, The Hopi Tribe Randy Seaholm, CRCB 

Brenda Drye, So. Paiute Consortium John Shields, WY State Engineer’s Ofc. 

Norm Henderson, NPS/GCNRA Mindy Schlimgen-Wilson, Am. Rivers 

Amy Heuslein, BIA Robert Winfree, NPS/GCRA 

Rick Johnson, Grand Canyon Trust Fred Worthley, CRBC 

Matt Kaplinski, GCRG 

Committee Members Absent: 

Mark Anderson, USGS 

Alan Downer, Navajo Nation 

Christopher Harris, ADWR 

Alternates Present: Alternate for: 

Georgia Smith Alan Downer, Navajo Nation 

Nancy Hornewer Mark Anderson, USGS 

Other Interested Persons Present: 

Jan Balsom, NPS Loretta Jackson, Hualapai Cultural 

Mary Barger, WAPA Dennis Kubly, USBR 

Timothy Begay, NNHPD Arden Kucate, Pueblo of Zuni 

Shane Collins, WAPA Ruth Lambert, USBR 

Nancy Coulam, USBR Mike Lieszewski, GCMRC 

Marlis Douglas, ASU Ted Melis, GCMRC 

Michael Douglas, ASU Barbara Ralston, GCMRC 

Milton Friend, Salton Sea Science Subcmte. Tom Ryan, USBR 

Barry Gold, GCMRC David W. Wyaco, Sr., Pueblo of Zuni 

Recorder: Linda Whetton, USBR 
Minutes of Technical Work Group 

October 22, 1999 

Page 2 

MEETING OPENING AND ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS 

10/22/99: Convened: 8:10 a.m. Adjourned: 12:20 p.m. 

Welcome and Introductions

The Chairperson welcomed the TWG members, member alternates, and guests. All introduced 

themselves. The Chairperson reviewed the ground rules for the meeting and name plates were 

distributed. Linda Whetton will be taking minutes. 

Attendance: Attendance Sheets were distributed (Attachment 1 - List of Attendees) 

Review/Approval of Agenda: The Chairperson went over the agenda and asked if the two ad 

hoc groups (TWG Strategic Plan Ad Hoc and the TWG MO Ad Hoc Group) still wanted to meet 

this afternoon. Since the TWG doesn’t have a charge from the AMWG, it was felt that they 

should be canceled. Rick said some of the people on the AMWG Ad Hoc Group wanted to do 

another iteration of the goals to incorporate the comments they received from yesterday’s 

AMWG meeting and then they would come back to the TWG for another iteration of the goals 

and MOs. It was thought that the goals would be approved at the January AMWG. Rick 

suggested that the discussion continue after lunch and a determination made at that time. 

Randy said he thought the motion carried in the AMWG meeting was that the AMWG would 

form an ad hoc group to address the goals and objectives which flowed from the Vision 

Statement. There was a motion made to charge the TWG to move forward in developing 

definitions, goals, and objectives but was not seconded. After the first motion passed, the group 

was then named the Strategic Planning Ad Hoc Group. 

The TWG MO Ad Hoc Group is comprised of the following individuals: Barry Gold, Bill Davis, 

Bill Persons, Bob Winfree, Clayton Palmer, Cliff Barrett, Don Metz, Matt Kaplinski, Mindy 

Schlimgen-Wilson, Randy Peterson, Wayne Cook, Kurt Dongoske, Norm Henderson, and Rick 

Johnson. 

Review of Previous TWG Minutes - Randy said these are still in draft form and will be available 

for approval at the December meeting. In the future, minutes will be sent out two weeks after the 

meeting. 

Temperature Control Device Workshop Update - Dennis Kubly announced that as part of 

Reclamation’s commitment to re-issue the Draft EA on the Temperature Control Device, a 

workshop is being planned. The purpose will be two-fold: 1) provide an evaluation by a group of 

scientists and managers of the Draft Research and Monitoring Plan that Barbara Ralston and the 

GCMRC is producing, and 2) provide additional content for the EA from this group of 

individuals. The site of the workshop will be at Saguaro Ranch just outside of Mesa and the 
Minutes of Technical Work Group 

October 22, 1999 

Page 3 

dates are November 8-10. The first day and evening will be comprised of 12 different 

presentations, divided into reservoir and river categories and selected people who have expertise 

and experience with Flaming Gorge and Glen Canyon. A sister system was selected because it 

has already experienced temperature modification. There are people coming in who can provide 

us with the chronological assessment of changes that have occurred in the Flaming Gorge 

Reservoir and the downstream tailwater, both before and after temperature modifications. There 

will also be corollary presentations on Glen Canyon which will provide us a foundation to bring 

everybody in the group to a common understanding. 

The second part the workshop will be small group discussions with the intent to divide people 

across their areas of expertise. They will be divided into groups to have them develop 

recommendations for the draft research and monitoring plan. 

At mid-day on the second day, the people would be reconvened into a large group to hear what 

ideas the small groups generated. They would then go back and work within their individual 

groups for the remainder of the day. On the evening of the second day, Dr. Josh Korman will 

make a presentation on the conceptual model. 

On the third day the small groups will make presentations to the large group. From those, they 

will try to develop consensus recommendations. The draft science plan (Attachment 2) and a 

modeling effort done by Bob George (Reclamation’s Denver Office) will be posted on 

Reclamation’s web site this next week (Attachment 3) and there will be an e-mail sent out to 

everyone advising them of the availability of those two documents to serve as background for the 

workshop. 

Saguaro Lake Ranch was chosen in part because it is somewhat remote. It’s a place that affords 

greater concentration because there are no external distractions. When people are brought in, 

they are forced to focus on the issues at hand. One of limitations of this location is that it 

doesn’t hold as many people as other locations might. Right now there are about 52 participants 

and the lodging accommodations are almost maxed out, however, people can still come during 

the day and participate in the meetings. If any of the TWG members would be interested in 

doing that, Dennis would like to know. A summary of the workshop will be placed on 

Reclamation’s web site. For those individuals who can’t access the web site, Dennis said hard 

copies could be mailed or faxed. The web site is: www.uc.usbr.gov 

Bob Winfree asked at what point before we get into the approval of a TCD do we identify what 

actions would be taken if there were an increase in non-native fish or find they are migrating, 

what management actions would be taken. Dennis said that we haven’t tried to deal with that 

side of the decision making process but will certainly concentrate on the scientists’ perspective 

and how that information should be integrated into a decision making process. 

Kurt said the EA was previously designed to evaluate the construction of the TCD and not the 

operation. If he recalled correctly, there was some discomfort from the TWG about the rationale 
Minutes of Technical Work Group 

October 22, 1999 

Page 4 

of doing an EA to build something before you really assess the operational implications. He 

questioned if the Bureau is reassessing its approach to this and considering doing a complete EIS 

on the construction and operation all in one shot. Dennis said the action is in response to a 

biological opinion by the FWS and is directed to ensuring the future welfare of humpback chub. 

Reclamation is not trying to propose an action or construct something that would go beyond 

those boundaries. There will be an interdisciplinary team formed to give us feedback and advice 

in the development of the revised EA. A request was made to have an update on the TCD 

workshop placed on the Dec. TWG agenda. 

GCMRC Draft Monitoring and Research Plan - Barbara Ralston said the actual plan will be 

available next week on the web site. Her intention today was to give an outline of the plan, 

starting out with how this plan came to be, the objectives of the science plan as well as the 

components in it. Refer to Attachment 4 - Science Plan for TCD. 

Basin Hydrologic Conditions - Tom Ryan began by saying the elevation of Lake Powell is quite 

high. He did a database query and pulled out all the reservoir elevations for October 19th for the 

history when the dam went in, and this year was the third highest in all the years. The two years 

that were higher were 1983 and 1984. That has been as a result of the high inflows this past 

summer and fall. August inflow was 190% of average. We are trending more towards average 

inflows right now but are pushing a little more water out of Glen Canyon than we normally 

would in the fall months. Average releases are about 800,000 acre-foot months. This year, 

we’re releasing 1.05 maf during October and November. We will target a storage of 21.8 maf 

by the beginning of the calendar year. If you recall Randy’s analysis that looked at the risk of a 

BHBF, it is about 1 in 3 for this January 1 storage level. In terms of the kind of patterns we 

might expect in water year 2000, the Climate Prediction Center (CPC) of the National Weather 

Service are forecasting that water year 2000 will be a La Niña year. It’s hard to say specifically 

how that will manifest itself. There is a tendency toward wetter weather patterns in the northern 

part of the basin and dryer in the south. All these things are pretty theoretical and correlations 

are fairly week. The bottom line is that we’re planning on average hydrology. 

There is some maintenance work (breaker replacement) being done at Glen Canyon from now 

until May. There will be two units off-line which means that releases from the power plant will 

be limited to about 23,000 cfs. If a wet year starts taking shape, more water may need to be 

released as we get into calendar year 2000. 

Tom passed out a handout (Attachment 5) which shows how Reclamation operates under the 

three scenarios of wet, dry, and most probable. 

Barry requested that Tom bring another graph that shows how much we have to deviate away 

from the most probable towards the maximum probable in order to trigger a BHBF. Tom said he 

would not be at the next meeting but would provide a handout for Randy to bring. 

 

Preliminary Effects of Fall Monsoon Events - Ted Melis said it was an unusual monsoon season 
Minutes of Technical Work Group 

October 22, 1999 

Page 5 

this year. It started around July 5th and ended about 29 days ago. At the very end of that, it 

wasn’t actually monsoon but a remnant of the last hurricane in the eastern Pacific that had a 

northward migration and dissipation potential. It caused a lot of flooding in tributaries of the 

Verde River but didn’t really cause much in the Grand Canyon, including Diamond Creek. The 

event of the season occurred on Sept. 15, with a peak on the Paria River of about 3,700 cfs. 

They are still trying to work up the sediment estimate numbers from David Topping’s computer 

model. Their hope is to have presentations at the December TWG meeting by both Northern 

Arizona University on their current evaluation of the status of sandbars as well as information 

from the USGS on how many tons of sand vs. silt and clay may have come actually come into 

the system this summer. Based on conversations with David Topping, Ted thinks that we’re at 

or above average annual sediment inflow, so in terms of sediment supply, it’s characterized as a 

good season. 

Ted said they have also been trying to get much more intensive sediment sampling data on the 

mainstem during the period when all the inflows were occurring. They have had continuous 

sediment sampling at the two sites on the mainstem above the LCR confluence and in the Grand 

Canyon at Phantom Ranch. Two samples a day have been collected there almost continuously 

since August 12. The goal there is to see how much of the material is coming in, under this dam 

operation, may actually be retained between the upstream input point at the Paria River and mile 

87 at Grand Canyon. The working hypothesis at this time is that the majority of the sediment 

coming in is probably going to move through the critical reaches during the season. These 

measurements, once analyzed, will actually give us a handle on whether these flows have had 

any effect in conserving sediment in terms of channel agradation or not. They’re hoping that 

under this flow regime they’ll actually able to retain some fine sand material in the bed. Based 

on the research done by Dave Topping and Dave Reuben, they don’t believe that is occurring 

much at all, and if it is occurring, it’s probably only occurring for the coarsest size classes of 

sand. The problem with that is the coarsest size classes of sand are not very easily manipulated 

through floods to rebuild sandbars. Hopefully throughout the year and after this season, they 

will have more information on what happened this summer as well as what happened in 1998 

and 1997. He anticipates to provide more information in early December on the current status of 

the sediment resource. 

 

Clarification on two presentations for December 7-8 meeting: 

1) 30 minutes by NAU Geology Dept. on their current status of the time series for the 37 

sandbars that they measure. 

2) Dave Reuben of the USGS presenting for the Arizona District on their research and 

characterization of the sediment supply. 

Review of the Recent Papers on Flannelmouth Sucker and Humpback Chub - Bill Persons said 

that by way of introduction he received a call a couple of weeks ago requesting an update on the 

recent papers on the Flannelmouth sucker. Dr. Michael Douglas and his wife, Dr. Marlis 

Douglas, agreed to come and give a presentation on some of their research (Attachment 6). He 
Minutes of Technical Work Group 

October 22, 1999 

Page 6 

has been studying the fish in the canyon since the early 1990's. 

Dr. Michael Douglas said that he and his wife are doing work down in the mainstem on 

movements of native fishes. They were involved in the LCR during GCES Phase II and they’ve 

been publishing that data but have shifted to the mainstem because they have a pretty good 

handle on what’s going on in the LCR and want to look at other tributaries to see what native 

fishes are doing there. They were down in Havasu Creek in the fall and in the spring again for 

three weeks at each sampling period and found that in the fall they had a resident population of 

about 300 flannelmouth suckers that were in the inflow area. They documented that three weeks 

of sampling were required in order to generate any kind of a population estimate. They also 

documented that there was late season reproduction by suckers in the inflow area of Havasu 

Creek. Some of the larvae were identified as bluehead sucker and one identified as a possible 

razorback sucker. They argued in their 1998 paper that razorback sucker is not a constituent 

member of the Grand Canyon fish fauna but instead is a transient that used to move through the 

canyon going from habitat to habitat above and below the canyon, but some got caught in the 

canyon when the dam was built. There are echoes of that population at the LCR where there is a 

population of flannelmouth razorback hybrid, which number about 30, which are mostly males 

that mate with the flannelmouth there. They might also have the same thing at Havasu Creek 

with the possible larval razorback suckers. They marked fish there in the spring and 80% of the 

fish they caught there were unmarked which indicates that the tributaries are not being monitored 

well enough. They came back in May to see how many were marked and 90% of what they 

caught were unmarked. This gave them two hypotheses: 1) the flannelmouth sucker population 

is very mobile in Grand Canyon, or 2) it’s so large that we’re only sampling a small amount. 

They are also doing some genetic work in the canyon. They have been working with humpback 

chub and flannelmouth sucker genetics for the last several years. They collected fin clips from 

humpback chub in the LCR and looked at the mtDNA. They can track lineages from mtDNA 

but it’s always on the mother’s side. It means that you don’t need as many individuals to 

understand the variation in the population of mtDNA. They found that the humpback chub 

population in the LCR is not very variable with regard to mtDNA. In fact, it is surprisingly not 

very variable. With this data, they can determine effective population size for that population - 

how many individuals are reproducing, how many individuals it would take to encompass the 

variability you see down there if you wanted to have an idealized randomly mating population to 

represent the variability you see in the LCR and estimated a need for about 18,000 individuals. 

Update on Papers - Bill distributed and discussed three papers that came out recently: 

1. Flannelmouth Sucker in the Lee’s Ferry Tailwater, Colorado River, Arizona (Attachment 7) 

2. Ecology of spawning humpback chub, Gila cypha, in the Little Colorado River near Grand 

Canyon, Arizona (Attachment 8) 

3. Dispersal of Larval Fishes in a Regulated River Tributary (Attachment 9) 

Response to Comments on GCMRC Draft Plan - Barry Gold passed out the following 
Minutes of Technical Work Group 

October 22, 1999 

Page 7 

documents: 

1. Schedule for Reviewing GCMRC FY 2001 Work Plan 

2. Draft FY 2001 Work Plan 

3. Set of comments received on the PowerPoint presentation that the GCMRC gave at the last 

TWG meeting. 

(Inclusive as Attachment 10) 

Barry reminded the members that they agreed to a schedule and a set of steps at the last TWG 

meeting. Comments on the Draft Work Plan are due to the GCMRC by November 5, 1999. 

They committed to producing a response to comments document and mailing that back to the 

TWG by November 19, so that the discussion at the next TWG meeting on Dec. 7-8 would focus 

on the response to comments document with a notion that if they could get agreement on that, 

they could go back and modify the 2001 work plan. 

They have already tried to incorporate the comments on the PowerPoint presentation. He 

pointed out that the format was changed and asked Ted to explain more about it. Ted said that 

the first thing people will notice is that it doesn’t look like any of the previous work plans. 

Internally, they have attempted to produce a more highly integrated science program and 

specifically an integrated long-term monitoring program. There are not specific resource 

sections (physical resources or biology program) nor the individual categories which the program 

was segregated into when GCMRC was originally formed. Those are being phased out. The 

budgets in Chapter 3 are still broken down into physical, biological, socio-cultural categories 

because they didn’t want to change everything. However, in the final version of this workplan 

that chapter will look fundamentally different and there will probably be one line item that just 

says science activities@ and it will include the costs of not just individual awards that get made in 

2001 but the logistics support costs, the staff support costs, and all other costs involved in 

actually doing projects. They recount the importance of keeping these projects tied to the 

management objectives and information needs. He said that a big part of Chapter 1 that people 

should focus on is Current Knowledge@ and the importance of reviewing what has been learned 

prior to beginning new projects. The last chapter on budget and management gets into specific 

things, i.e., how will we deal with in-house research, ongoing needs for AMWG and TWG 

support, etc. Appendix 4 contains an outline for a contingency plan for a BHBF. 

The heart of the chapter 2 work plan is really found in Tables 2.1 and 2.2 and neither one of 

these is complete. In Table 2.1, there are some projects Ted wrote narratives on but don’t have 

MOs listed. This was worked on as a team but they didn’t have time to complete before coming 

to the AMWG meeting on Wednesday. This continues to be a work in progress. 

Even though the work plan looks really different, the goal is to make this look like and become a 

highly integrated science program in a way that costs can be tracked from beginning to end. 

Barry asked that comments be returned using the line numbers on the left-side of the pages so 

that when they develop the response to comments table, they will have clear reference back and 
Minutes of Technical Work Group 

October 22, 1999 

Page 8 

forth. 

Wrapup - Rick said there are five ad hoc groups that are current right now: Experimental Flows, 

MO, Strategic Plan, Budget, and the TWG Effectiveness. He questioned if they should be sunset 

today with the proviso that if they need them again, they can be quickly re-convened. 

MOTION: Sunset all but the following ad hoc groups: 

 Experimental Flows 

 MO 

 Strategic Plan 

Motion seconded and carried. Motion passed. 

Randy passed out a revised table of some of the areas of concern that were addressed in a 

brainstorming meeting in which they talked about ways to improve TWG effectiveness. The 

group had a conference call and prepared a list of ways they felt they could be more effective as 

a technical work group (Attachment 11). 

After some discussion, Bob Winfree suggested that the TWG look at its effectiveness by putting 

it as an agenda item for quarterly review. This might put more focus on it rather than keeping as 

an ad hoc group. 

Randy also mentioned that on the way home from that meeting, he found an article in the 

America West (August 1999) flight magazine on negotiating nicely. It’s the story of a sports 

agent who negotiates contracts in the $10-50 million range. He is very successful and found that 

the best way to get the best deal for his clients was to negotiate nicely, noting that building longterm relationships yield more benefits than targeting short-term benefits. 

Public Comment: 

Ted said he would like to get some input from the group that he thought would be really helpful 

for the GCMRC Program staff through a series to standing subcommittees, not ad hoc groups, 

that specifically focus detailed efforts on interpreting resource related technical information. For 

example, not everyone has the background or high level of interest to track every minute 

development in sediment transport, geomorphology, and hydrology, etc. A standing 

subcommittee to work with him on those would be of some use and then that group can convey 

their understanding of how the technical information applies to the management of the greater 

body. 

Matt Kaplinski said that as part of the NRC review, one of the serious omissions of the program 

was in recreational resources. To Barry’s credit, he funded Jeff Behan to review the recreational 

component of the GCMRC program. Jeff came out with a draft report (Attachment 12) which is 

posted on the GCMRC web site. The GCMRC plans to circulate it to the TWG for review and 

comment. Matt suggested that the TWG have Jeff come down in December and present his 
Minutes of Technical Work Group 

October 22, 1999 

Page 9 

findings. Matt will send a recommendation to Randy to put this on the agenda. 

Bill Persons announced that Barbara Ralston is putting together a tailwater trout workshop for 

April 25-29, 2000. 

Clayton said that in a previous meeting, we had asked that Bob talk about the proposed 

wilderness designation for the Grand Canyon and some of its effects on the GCMRC. Bob said 

he could brief the TWG on the comprehensive planning effort for the Colorado River and the 

undeveloped areas of Grand Canyon National Park. The Colorado River management planning 

process has been going on for some time. They released a draft wilderness plan over a year ago. 

Their wilderness coordinator has left the Park Service but the planning program continues. He 

could do a presentation on the basis for that plan and where they anticipate going at the 

December TWG meeting. 

Next meeting:

December 7, 1999 - 9:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. 

December 8, 1999 - 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. 

A Federal Register notice correcting a previous error on these dates and location will be mailed 

out. 

Adjourned at 12:20 p.m. 

Attachment 13: Memo from Barry Gold to Technical Work Group dated Nov. 22, 1999, Subject: 

Documents for Review at the Dec. 7, 1999, TWG Meeting 
General Key to Adaptive Management Program Acronyms

ADWR - Arizona Department of Water Resources 

AF - Acre Feet 

AGFD - Arizona Game & Fish Department 

AGU - American Geophysical Union 

AM - Adaptive Management 

AMP - Adaptive Management Program 

AMWG - Glen Canyon Adaptive Management Work 

Group (a FACA committee) 

AOP - Annual Operating Plan 

BA - Biological Assessment 

BE - Biological Evaluation 

BHBF - Beach/Habitat-Building Flow 

BHMF - Beach/Habitat Maintenance Flow 

BHTF - Beach/Habitat Test Flow 

BIA - Bureau of Indian Affairs 

BO - Biological Opinion 

BOR - Bureau of Reclamation 

CAPA - Central Arizona Project Assn. 

cfs - cubic feet per second 

CRBC - Colorado River Board of California 

CRCN - Colorado River Commission of Nevada 

CREDA - Colorado River Energy Distributors Assn. 

CRSP - Colorado River Storage Project 

CWCB - Colorado Water Conservation Board 

DBMS - Data Base Management System 

DOI - Department of the Interior 

EA - Environmental Assessment 

EIS - Final Environmental Impact Statement 

ESA - Endangered Species Act 

FACA - Federal Advisory Committee Act 

FEIS - Final Environmental Impact Statement 

FRN - Federal Register Notice 

FWS - United States Fish & Wildlife Service 

FY - Fiscal Year (Oct 1 to Sept 30 each year) 

GCD - Glen Canyon Dam 

GCMRC - Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research 

Center 

GCNP - Grand Canyon National Park 

GCNRA - Glen Canyon National Recreation Area 

GCPA - Grand Canyon Protection Act 

HBC - Humpback Chub (endangered native fish) 

HMF - Habitat Maintenance Flow 

HPP - Historic Preservation Plan 

IEDA - Irrigation and Electrical Districts 

Association of Arizona 

IN - Information Need (stakeholder) 

IT - Information Technology (GCMRC program) 

KAS - Kanab ambersnail (endangered native snail) 

KAWG - Kanab Ambersnail Work Group 

LCR - Little Colorado River 

LCRMCP: Little Colorado River Multi-Species 

Conservation Program 

MAF - Million Acre Feet 

MA - Management Action 

MO - Management Objective 

NAAO - Native American Affairs Office 

NAU - Northern Arizona University (Flagstaff, AZ) 

NEPA - National Environmental Policy Act 

NGS - National Geodetic Survey

NHPA - National Historical Preservation Act 

NPS - National Park Service 

NRC - National Research Council 

NWS - National Weather Service 

O&M - Operations & Maintenance (USBR funding) 

PA - Programmatic Agreement 

PEP - Protocol Evaluation Panel 

Powerplant Capacity - 31,000 cfs 

Reclamation - United States Bureau of Reclamation 

RFP - Request For Proposals 

RPA - Reasonable and Prudent Alternative 

SAB - Science Advisory Board 

Secretary(‘s) - Secretary of the Interior 

SWCA - Steven W. Carothers Associates 

TCD - Temperature Control Device (for Glen 

Canyon Dam water releases) 

TCP - Traditional Cultural Property 

TES - Threatened and Endangered Species 

TWG - Glen Canyon Technical Work Group (a 

subcommittee of the AMWG) 

UCR - Upper Colorado Region (of the USBR) 

UCRC - Upper Colorado River Commission 

UDWR - Utah Division of Water Resources 

USBR - United States Bureau of Reclamation 

USFWS - United States Fish & Wildlife Service 

USGS - United States Geological Survey 

WAPA - Western Area Power Administration 

WY - Water Year (a calendar year)