Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Meeting 

March 8-9, 2011 

Conducting: Shane Capron, Chairperson Convened: 8:15 a.m.

Committee Members/Alternates Present: 

Jan Balsom, NPS/GRCA 

Cliff Barrett, UAMPS 

David Bennion, WAPA (alternate) 

Charley Bulletts, So. Paiute Consortium 

Kerry Christensen, Hualapai Tribe 

Jerry Lee Cox, Grand Canyon River Guides 

Bill Davis, CREDA 

Kurt Dongoske, Pueblo of Zuni 

Paul Harms, NM Interstate Stream Commission 

Norm Henderson, NPS 

Amy Heuslein, BIA 

Rick Johnson, Grand Canyon Trust 

John Jordan, Federation of Fly Fishers 

Robert King, UDWR 

Glen Knowles, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

Ted Kowalski, CWCB 

Tricia McCraw, ADWR 

Don Ostler, UCRC (alternate for WY) 

Pam Sponholtz, USFWS 

Larry Stevens, Grand Canyon Wildlands Council 

Bill Stewart, AGFD 

Jason Thiriot, Colo. River Commission/NV 

Michael Yeatts, Hopi Tribe 

Committee Members Absent: 

Christopher Harris, Colorado River Board/CA 

Tony H. Joe, Jr., Navajo Nation 

John Shields, Wyoming State Engineer’s Office 

Interested Persons: 

Perri Benemelis, ADWR 

Lori Caramanian, DOI 

Marianne Crawford, USBR 

Helen Fairley, USGS/GCMRC 

Dave Garrett, M3

Research 

Martha Hahn, NPS/GRCA 

John Halliday, DOI 

Leslie James, CREDA 

LaVerne Kyriss, WAPA 

Kelly McGill, NAU Graduate Student 

Ted Melis, USGS/GCMRC 

Gerald Myers, White Mountain Fly Fishing 

Colby Pellegrino, Southern Nevada Water Auth. 

Sam Spiller, USFWS 

Wade Wilson, USFWS

Meeting Recorder: Linda Whetton 

Welcome and Administrative. 

1. David Bennion was recognized as WAPA’s new TWG alternate. 

2. Anne Castle will be calling in at 9:30 to discuss budget and program priorities. 

3. Based on the Doodle poll results, the next TWG meeting will be held June 28-29, 2011. 

4. Shane said that while the TWG can have a casual voting process on budget issues (raising hands), 

recommendations to the AMWG need to be more general than they have been in the past. He will 

participate in pre- and post-TWG meetings with the AS-WS Office to better determine his role as TWG 

chair and gain a better understanding of agenda items and actions required. 

Approval of the Nov. 15-16, 2010, Meeting Minutes. Without objection, the minutes were approved. 

Approval of the January 20, 2011, Meeting Minutes. Glen said there was a subtle change to the 

discussion on the Programmatic Agreement. The minutes said the parties couldn’t reach resolution of 

effect in 2010 and that’s what led to Reclamation seeking individual 106 compliance for the two 

undertakings and two EAs. He said that wasn’t what drove that action but that Reclamation was looking 

to update the 1994 PA and hadn’t come to resolution on how to pay for it. Kurt said the minutes reflected 

exactly what Glen said and that Glen was going through the 106 process independent of the PA for the 

two EAs because the PA wasn’t effective or wasn’t working. Glen said he thought it was a nuance 

because also during that time they were looking to update the entire PA and said it was the same issue 

but wasn’t worded the same. Glen said the 1994 PA in and of itself is a resolution of effect, a process to 

get there and revising the PA is probably the bigger point for why Reclamation didn’t get there and had to 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 2 

Final Minutes of March 8-9, 2011, Meeting 

do individual 106 compliance. Kurt said he didn’t think there was a nuance and if Reclamation feels the 

PA is not meeting their compliance responsibilities, they should terminate it. Jan added that the 

terminology of resolution of effects and the issue wasn’t whether or not the revision of the PA was 

stopped or they couldn’t resolve the effects of the action, it was because they couldn’t resolve the 

changes in a new PA to bring it up to date. Pending edits from Glen and Jan, the minutes were 

approved. 

Review of Action Items. The action items (Attachment 1) were updated. 

Status of GCMRC Chief. Ted Melis reported that Kate Kitchell has been conducting interviews with the 

candidates. A selection should be made in April with the new chief reporting in May. 

Old Business. None. 

GCMRC Update. Ted provided information on the KA Workshop II (Attachment 2) and advised the TWG 

to review the 2006 Knowledge Assessment report in preparation for that workshop. GCMRC will sponsor 

a WebEx conference call for the purpose of reviewing the resource goals, experimental treatments, and 

questions which were revised after receiving comments from the SAs. 

ACTION ITEM: Linda will send out the 2006 Knowledge Assessment Report along with Ted’s PPT from 

today’s meeting in preparation for the GCMRC-sponsored WebEx. (Update: E-mail messages sent 3/10 

and 3/17 in conjunction with request for availability.) 

New Business. None. 

BOR Updates (Attachment 3) 

Nonnative Fish Control EA. Glen provided a brief history of the EA, the purpose and need, the results 

from the Structured Decision Making (SDM) workshop, and the Science Advisors’ review of the SDM. 

The EA is available online at http://www.usbr.gov/uc/envdocs/ea/gc/nnfc/index.html. Reclamation intends 

to provide the public with another draft of the EA for a two-week review in April. The process should be 

concluded by early summer 2011 with a decision notice. Comments are due by March 18, 2011. 

The members raised concerns about how Reclamation dealt with the fish suppression flow issue in the 

EA, having sufficient time to prepare and release the revised EAs, additional research needed for 

determining a trout trigger, and resolution with the Pueblo of Zuni on effects of mechanical removal in the 

Grand Canyon. 

High Flow Experimental Protocol EA. Glen said this EA was distributed on January 20, 2011. Based on 

comments received and additional discussions with agencies and stakeholders, changes are being made 

to this EA. He went through some of the substantive changes and said the Science Advisors also 

reviewed the plan. Reclamation intends to provide another draft EA to the public in April for a two-week 

review period. The process will conclude in early summer 2011 with a decision notice. If monitoring 

shows there are unacceptable impacts, such as a significant decline in humpback chub numbers, 

Reclamation will suspend implementation of the protocol and re-evaluate the protocol. The document 

can be found online at: http://www.usbr.gov/uc/envdocs/ea/gc/HFEProtocol/index.html

Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan (LTEMP) EIS. This plan was first announced by Asst. 

Secretary Anne Castle at the AMWG meeting in August 2010. Glen said that Reclamation and the Park 

Service will serve as co-lead agencies. He went through the purpose and need, proposed action, and the 

goals for 2011. A kick-off meeting was held with potential cooperating agencies on February 11, 2011. 

Reclamation is working with the Park Service on a Notice of Intent for publication in the Federal Register. 

Scoping meetings will likely be held in Phoenix and Salt Lake City. 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 3 

Final Minutes of March 8-9, 2011, Meeting 

Conference Call with AS-WS Anne Castle. Ms. Castle said she wanted to talk about the direction the 

Department provided to GCMRC in doing its initial budget formulation. Along with the retirement of John 

Hamill and 2011 being the last year of a 5-year science plan, she feels it’s a good opportunity to take 

stock in the direction given to GCMRC in how it prioritizes its thinking and planning. She said GCMRC 

was asked to think about the following in formulating the budget: 1) need to be focused on ESA 

compliance and also focus science on the native fish particularly the HBC, 2) sediment and its impact on 

resources, and 3 and 4) focused on non-native fish control and recreational fishing. There aren’t going to 

be increased budgets in the future and GCMRC needs the tools to avoid the Christmas tree approach 

when there are a lot of people with different interests. She wants to make sure the GCMRC process for 

setting priorities doesn’t avoid or negate the need for TWG input, direction, and feedback. She 

complimented Shane for putting so much time and effort into figuring out how to best utilize the TWG’s 

time and direct a productive process for addressing the budget and the science work plan. There is a lot 

of good science to be done and she stressed the importance of the TWG to remain focused when 

prioritizing the work. 

The following issues were discussed: 1) need to fully understand how the entire ecosystem works, 2) 

addressing cultural issues in relation to the four priorities given to GCMRC, 3) TWG involvement and 

preparation of budget recommendation to the AMWG, and 4) greater integration of science into the 

adaptive management process. 

Continuation of GCMRC Workshops. Ted said the Knowledge Assessment Workshop sets the stage for 

the next MRP which will be under development in 2012. It also gives the TWG, along with other DOI 

agencies, a chance to provide input on what the TWG still needs to know or move forward on 

implementing whatever conservation measure or management action is needed. He said deliberations 

on the FY12 budget are really critical because they set the course for the five-year (2012-2016) MRP 

effort. The next steps would be to convene a workshop to solicit “expert” opinions and follow up with a 

stakeholder/TWG workshop to review the “expert” input. GMCRC anticipates distributing the final report 

in late summer/fall 2012. 

Socioeconomics Implementation Plan. Shane said an update was provided to the AMWG on the 

progress of the SEAHG. Tables 1-3 were developed and Table 3 is the primary implementation plan 

(Attachment 4a). The SEAHG has been working with Bruce Peacock (NPS) on the NPS Colorado River 

Socioeconomics Research Plan. Shane feels the SEAHG and NPS are convinced they can collaborate in 

this effort and said his objective today was to update the TWG on the progress that’s been made. He 

said several NPS documents were posted to the website: Federal Register Notice dated Feb. 8, 2011 

(Attachment 4b) “Economic Values of National Park System Resources Along the Colorado River: A 

Proposal for Estimating Magnitude and Significance” (Attachment 4c), “White Paper: Economic Values 

of National Park System Resources Within the Colorado River Watershed” (Attachment 4d), and “Final 

Report: Economic Values of National Park System Resources Within the Colorado River Watershed: 

Phase II” (Attachment 4e). 

Helen reminded everyone that Table 3 is a summary of all the projects the SEAHG compiled into a 5-

year work plan. The first part focused on doing the basic economic impact assessment of revenues 

generated by visitation and going on to a non-market evaluation of recreation benefits in conjunction with 

doing a base case study of the hydropower economic elements of the program. She said all the elements 

are being addressed at some level by the study they’re proposing to do and that there is an opportunity 

for the GCDAMP to complement the work being done by the Park Service. 

Bruce Peacock joined by phone and introduced himself as an economist and also chief of the National 

Park Service Alliance Division. NPS has been working on this project for approximately five years in 

various stages of concept, design, and has also produced some products. NPS objectives for the study 

are to develop comprehensive economic values for NPS resources and to better understand direct and 

passive use values. Direct use values refer to the direct interaction with the resources, such as hiking, 

boating, fishing, etc., while passive use values reflect the appreciation people have for just knowing the 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 4 

Final Minutes of March 8-9, 2011, Meeting 

resource exists and is going to be preserved for the future. All those impacts were addressed in the 1995 

EIS and also considered in the ROD that followed in 1996. They want to be able to compare total NPS 

values to the total values of other water uses. Many of those water uses are complementary or 

compatible with NPS resources and uses and some may be competitive. Finally, they want to estimate 

marginal values as a function of lake level or river flow. The project has been organized in four phases 

and more information can be found in the above documents. As a result of that exercise, NPS identified 

data gaps they would like to be able to fill to be able to have valid, defensible, and current economic 

values for the three categories of interest. The study would involve actually collecting information from 

the public or visitors, including the two-lake river system of Lake Powell and Glen Canyon National 

Recreational Area, Grand Canyon, and Lake Mead. To the extent they can extrapolate those results to 

use outside of that immediate area, for example Curecanti, Upper Colorado, then they would also be 

looking to do that as well. That last effort would not involve original research but would be an 

extrapolation or extension of the original research conducted in the two lake river system outside of that 

immediate area. 

They’re currently in Phase III, the office management budget information collection review process. They 

published a Federal Register Notice and intend to collect information and solicit comments from the 

public. They will then submit the actual survey for information collection packages to DOI and SOI offices 

for review and then on to OMB for final review and approval. They want to integrate the economic values 

using hydrologic models in order to calculate marginal economic values for foot of elevation change in 

lakes or maybe even by flow levels in the Colorado. 

Bruce said he is very interested in pursuing collaborative efforts with other entities, but stressed the 

importance of getting that underway as soon as possible because he will be submitting the report to 

OMB within a couple of months. Once OMB receives the survey and start going through the review 

process, they don’t look favorably upon last minute changes. 

Shane said that part of the SEAHG is going to work on the information needs that are encapsulated in 

Table 3 while another group will be involved in more detailed discussions with Western, GCMRC, and 

others to determine where the individual components would mesh, complement, or add to the NPS plan. 

The TWG needs to decide how much input they want to provide and how much realistically the Park 

Service can incorporate. Helen said she could assist with the process but it would depend on how much 

she is asked to do. Shane said he will talk with Deanna Archuleta because he doesn’t really know what 

the AS-WS Office wants the TWG to do. With the AMWG not meeting until May and potentially directing 

the TWG to work with NPS staff, it doesn’t work with the Park Service’s schedule to get it completed and 

sent to OMB. 

The following concerns were expressed: 1) be careful when describing economic resources because 

water users may interpret “allocation of water” as “different allocation of water,” 2) time commitment 

involved to prepare and complete report, 3) AS-WS and AMWG direction to TWG, 4) need a meeting 

between Western and GCMRC for implementing the base case analysis, and 5) consider establishing a 

protocol whereby TWG has pre-approval from AMWG to participate in collaborative efforts. 

ACTION ITEM: Shane will follow up with Ms. Castle on the base case and policy. 

Hydrograph Development for 2012. Glen said that last year DOI and DOE prepared a proposal to 

modify how to implement MLFF to benefit downstream resources. That proposal was presented to the 

TWG and the AMWG voted to make that change, and Reclamation has been operating under that 

proposed hydrograph for 2011. For 2012 they want to start engaging the TWG on developing a 

hydrograph to include in the budget and work plan recommendation to AMWG in August. He said Dave 

Trueman has been working with DOI and DOE to look at what would be done differently than was done 

in 2011. 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 5 

Final Minutes of March 8-9, 2011, Meeting 

Dave Trueman gave a PPT presentation (Attachment 5a). He said one of the biggest challenges to 

Reclamation in operating Glen Canyon Dam is determining releases throughout the year. As such, they 

developed flexible constraints, ones that would move with the forecast. In 2011, they’re operating under 

a restriction of +/- 100 kaf per month on the remaining average of releases for the year. He said they 

could implement that type of process in scheduling around high flow events and dam maintenance. They 

observed that possibly lower winter releases would be a good strategy for retaining sediment in the 

system. The +/- constraint constrained them on the bottom of early releases as well as the top. If a HFE 

was considered, then the plan might be to conserve sand during the winter months. He provided the 

following details on comparison of Unrestricted vs. +/- 100 kaf: 

 The +/- 100 kaf scenario retained 170 ktons in Marble Canyon

 Historically HFEs have deposited about 600 ktons above 8,000 cfs level (somewhat dependent of sediment 

input)

 Starting with a higher bed load could be expected to help reduce the net loss of sediment from the system 

by an HFE

 Additional cost = $1.75 million

WY2012 Hydrograph: Grand Canyon Trust. Rick Johnson distributed copies of the Trust’s proposed 

hydrograph (Attachment 5b). To meet the intent of the Management Policies and the ROD, the Trust 

proposes an experimental hydrograph for WY 2012 be designed to achieve a neutral or positive mass 

balance of sediment while implementing high flow experiments under sediment-enriched conditions. The 

Trust also proposes that the hydrograph be designed to test the potential effects of flows on other Park 

values such as humpback chub. 

Shane said he was not prepared to accept any hydrograph motions at this time. His plan is for the TWG 

to analyze any proposals and prepare a recommendation at the June meeting. He hasn’t heard from 

Interior if they would be able to absorb other recommendations into the one that’s being developed for 

the TWG’s consideration. He also wasn’t sure if the GCT proposed hydrograph could be integrated into a 

proposal that is being worked on by DOI/DOE. 

The following concerns were noted: 1) whether the hydrograph presented by Reclamation would result in 

a positive mass balance, 2) consider doing additional modeling to evaluate if other hydrographs have 

greater sand retention, 3) should provide the confidence limit on sand estimates, 4) provide additional 

comparisons of model with past sand measurements in the system to evaluate accuracy of the model, 

and 5) consider other alternatives that are within the realm of adaptive management. 

Ms. Caramanian said she was confused by GCT’s proposal and said that if Rick was talking about yearround steady flows, then she didn’t think there was environmental compliance for that. She didn’t feel 

there was enough information to figure out a hydrograph for a positive sand balance. 

Shane said there would be a revised proposal for consideration by the TWG at its June meeting. 

Genetics Management Plan. A copy of the Genetics Management Plan (Attachment 6a) was 

distributed via e-mail to the members prior to the meeting. Wade Wilson gave a PPT presentation 

(Attachment 6b). He provided the following recommendations: 

- A genetic management and captive propagation committee should be developed to identify and mitigate 

new issues should they arise in the program, evaluate research proposals, determine fate of incidental 

spawns, and provide support and recommendations to the Regional Directorate regarding humpback chub 

assurance population maintenance and captive propagation. Incidental or unplanned spawns should be 

targeted for research or disposed of rather than committing space to rearing fish with no future as 

broodstock.

- A second assurance population should be developed.

- Young-of-year should be collected and 200+ individuals provided annually to each assurance population on 

alternate years for 10 years.
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 6 

Final Minutes of March 8-9, 2011, Meeting 

- Incidental spawns from captive stocks should be collected annually and used for purposes to be 

determined by the propagation committee.

- Any fish stocked, translocated, or used in a captive program should be PIT-tagged and genotyped.

- An active cryopreservation program should be developed to harvest the genetic reserves of the Little 

Colorado River. Use of cryopreserved sperm would only be initiated if numbers of humpback chub decline 

below 100 fish in the Little Colorado River and Grand Canyon.

- At most one facility using raceway culture should maintain a captive stock; the second assurance 

population should use netted outdoor ponds for rearing. Preferably both stocks would be reared in pond 

culture.

- Comparisons of genetic changes and allele loss should be ongoing for the duration of the captive program.

- All facilities involved with captive stocks of humpback chub should develop site-specific NATURES rearing 

practices, especially facilities involved in a raceway culture.

- Identify a closed basin system that can be used to maintain older broodstock once they have been 

intentionally spawned twice. This experimental population can serve many purposes as determined by the 

genetic management and captive propagation committee.

- A “studbook keeper” should be designated to maintain pedigree record information for all assurance 

populations and propagation events for humpback chub. This necessitates facilities becoming members of 

International Species Information System (ISIS), and training the individual in the Zoological Information 

Management System (ZIMS) record keeping system.

- The studbook keeper will provide onsite spawning assistance and designate preferred spawning pairs if 

propagation is initiated.

The following issues were discussed: 1) augmentation as a tool to develop management methods, 2) 

evaluate other species with similar life history strategies, 3) comfort level of FWS with tribes holding 

HBC, 4) taking tissue samples from a wild population gets to issue of take and perhaps handling fish too 

much, and 5) over population in hatcheries leads to fish not having enough room to grow. 

Goal 3. Extirpated Species Ad Hoc Group Report. Larry Stevens distributed copies of his PPT 

presentation (Attachment 7) and said the white paper is still in review. He reviewed the AMWG charge 

and identified four elements of the charge: 1) Develop a list of species of management concern, 2) 

Review integrity of information, 3) Determine habitats and ecological roles, and 4) Evaluate restoration 

potential approaches. He said the next steps will be to complete vetting of species with experts, further 

discussion of scoring and general approach, complete the draft white paper and present to the TWG, 

incorporate reviews and provide to the TWG, and present a final white paper to the AMWG at its August 

2011 meeting. 

ACTION ITEM: Larry Stevens will provide a draft of the Goal 3 Ad Hoc Committee’s white paper on 

extirpated species along with comments to the TWG before its next meeting. 

FY 2012 Budget and Workplan Modifications. Shane said there wasn’t a draft budget for review, but 

there would be a document for review at the AMWG meeting in May. He will work with Glen in setting up 

a Budget AHG meeting/conference call in preparation for discussion at the June TWG meeting. He said 

Glen would present information relative to changes in the FY11 work plan. 

The following concerns were raised: 1) Budget priorities presented by Ms. Castle but nothing on tribal 

values or conflict of cultural values which have been exposed over mechanical removal, 2) Definition of 

“meaningful” consultation with AMP tribes, 3) Don’t know how to deal with tribal issues because policy 

issues haven’t been dealt with, 4) Need to bridge gap between technical aspects and tribal values and 

work together, 5) Consider issues for the CRAHG to address. 

Shane suggested having the tribes report on their monitoring efforts at the next Annual Reports Meeting. 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 7 

Final Minutes of March 8-9, 2011, Meeting 

FY 2012 Budget and Workplan Modifications. Because he had provided updates on the two 

environmental assessments and where Reclamation is headed in terms of the budget, Glen said there 

would only be minor changes to the workplan. He said nearshore ecology field collection would end this 

year and they’re looking at ways to morph that study to get more data on juvenile chub abundance and 

habitat use relative to non-native fish control. He said there are concerns about federal budgets being 

reduced and how that would affect the program. Because the government has been operating under a 

Continuing Resolution, Reclamation has transferred only limited funds to GCMRC. 

GCMRC. Ted said he wanted the TWG to consider the information presented at the Annual Reports 

meeting held in January in their budget deliberations. He requested that if there are any suggestions for 

future AR meeting presentations, that they be directed to GCMRC so they can be included. 

Notes and Recommendations from AR Meeting. Shane presented notes and recommendations from the 

FY 2010 Annual Reporting Meeting (Attachment 8) and asked the members what they wanted to do 

with the notes. They added the following to the list: 

19. Dongoske (HFE): high flow might reduce habitat availability for HBC in NSE reach thereby reducing 

survival rates, this is from the GCRMC report, Walters ecosystem. 

20. Korman: tagging study for downstream drift could be added to the PBR removal program under the 

nonnative EA. About 15,000 tags would be needed to tag about 25% of the trout population at Lees 

Ferry. Presumably they would drift down and be captured in the PBR reach and estimates of 

emigration from Lees Ferry could be calculated. 

21. Balsom: relationship between water temperature and growth rates of humpback chub may be 

important. 

22. Norm: questions movement of small trout downstream, we may be able to catch those. 

23. Davis: are we complying with water quality standards in Grand Canyon? 

24. Consider the implications of the recommendations from the socioeconomics ad hoc group in 

consideration of changes to the FY 2012 workplan. 

a. In Table 3 we have nonuse values workshop for 2012, but unfunded and not in current 12 

workplan. 

Shane distributed a list of the following items to be considered when developing the revised FY 2012 

budget and workplan: 

1. Completion of the LSSF Report 

2. Fund and implement the science work for Non Native Fish and the High Flow EAs 

3. Fund for the LTEMP 

4. Expand the NSE work to include tracking of juvenile survival rates in the mainstem and include 

this in the LCR as well. Maintain/develop adequate sampling regimes to better understand 

movement between the LCR and mainstem to better understand limiting factors and effects on 

growth. 

5. Fund the Fall Steady Flows synthesis report due to TWG in January 2013. 

6. Foodbase – formalize the protocols for aquatic foodbase monitoring (carry out the PEP as 

planned) 

7. Reclamation needs to tell us how Reclamation intends to stay in compliance with PA in 2012. 

8. LTEMP Funding – need clarification of how next EIS will be funded and what portion will be 

funded from AMP program (power) funds and what portion will be covered by the agency funds. 

Need to identify the funding before the EIS is started. 

9. Arrival of tamarisk beetle has many potential implications – should look at an array of projects to 

assess ecosystem impacts, impacts to resources; how can current projects potentially pick up the 

effects. Consider what is already happening outside the program, is there adequate collaboration 

between NPS and USGS programs and other ongoing monitoring efforts. 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 8 

Final Minutes of March 8-9, 2011, Meeting 

10. Goal 3 – enormous number of unknowns - collaborative process involving NPS, Reclamation, 

NGOs to compile info focused on tax, habitats – not necessarily funded by this program. 

11. Furthering the translocation science – develop native fish translocation plan – and integrate with 

NPS native fish management. If NPS is already doing what this program needs, then no need to 

fund through the AMP. 

12. Science project to estimate the effected population size and Ne/N ratio in the wild HBC population 

($10,000?) 

13. Identify need to get NPS information back to this program and integrate NPS activities using less 

of an ad hoc approach. Do we need a formalized clearinghouse process whereby GCMRC 

reviews other agency reports to meet program needs and standards for peer reviewed science to 

inform AMP decision making? 

14. Be able to better track high elevation sediment after deposited by HFE above the 30,000 cfs 

water level. (Ted clarifies that sed between 8-45K cfs is tracked through channel mapping but is 

not incorporated into the existing sediment models.) 

15. Include adequate funding for fish monitoring trips. 

16. Continue to make process on creating geo-database website to linking various data sets with 

GIS-based maps. 

17. GLCA hidden slough (-6.5 mile) – use this site to evaluate how tamarisk effects our ability to 

interpret geomorphology since tamarisk has now been removed. 

18. Additional funding to investigate suppression flows and effects to HBC, maintain rainbow trout 

fishery, and integration of traditional ecological knowledge. 

19. Funding for socioeconomic program – nonuse value workshop, additional staff support for 

GCMRC? 

20. Nutrient dynamics – effects of dam in changing nutrient transport and dynamics (including loss of 

pre-dam sediments) and expected response of the system over time; brainstorm on nutrient 

dynamics conceptual model. 

21. Grand Canyon is a light limited system – need to do a GIS analysis of light availability/solar 

energy budget for resources in the riparian zone. 

22. What is the source of mercury contamination in and below the LCR? Perhaps look at large 

sample to determine extent of the problem, figure out next steps, native fish and human 

consumption issues. 

23. Evaluate how dam operations affect the above issues. 

24. Nothing in here is intended to replace what is already in the FY12 budget. 

Ted mentioned that the USGS will continue to bring in $1 million to allow GCMRC to buy down the DOI 

reduced burden rate on projects. However, GCMRC is going to incur additional costs because the 

buildings they currently reside in on the U.S. Geological survey’s Flagstaff Science Center campus are 

being replaced. As such, GCMRC isn’t sure whether the burden rate will go from 19% to 38% in FY12. 

Public Comment: None 

Adjourned: 5:02 p.m. 

 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 9 

Final Minutes of March 8-9, 2011, Meeting 

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Meeting 

March 8-9, 2011

Conducting: Shane Capron, Chairperson Convened: 8:15 a.m. 

Facilitator: Mary Orton

Committee Members/Alternates Present: 

Jan Balsom, NPS/GRCA 

Cliff Barrett, UAMPS 

David Bennion, WAPA (alternate) 

Charley Bulletts, So. Paiute Consortium 

Kerry Christensen, Hualapai Tribe 

Jerry Lee Cox, Grand Canyon River Guides 

Bill Davis, CREDA 

Kurt Dongoske, Pueblo of Zuni 

Paul Harms, NM Interstate Stream Commission 

Norm Henderson, NPS 

Amy Heuslein, BIA 

Rick Johnson, Grand Canyon Trust 

John Jordan, Federation of Fly Fishers 

Robert King, UDWR 

Glen Knowles, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

Ted Kowalski, CWCB 

Tricia McCraw, ADWR 

Don Ostler, UCRC (alternate for WY) 

Pam Sponholtz, USFWS 

Larry Stevens, Grand Canyon Wildlands Council 

Bill Stewart, AGFD 

Jason Thiriot, Colo. River Commission/NV 

Michael Yeatts, Hopi Tribe 

Committee Members Absent: 

Christopher Harris, Colorado River Board/CA 

Tony H. Joe, Jr., Navajo Nation 

John Shields, Wyoming State Engineer’s Office 

InterestedPersons: 

Marianne Crawford, USBR 

Helen Fairley, USGS/GCMRC 

Dave Garrett, M3

Research 

John Halliday, DOI 

Loretta Jackson-Kelly, Hualapai Tribe 

Leslie James, CREDA 

Lea Kearns, The Mary Orton Company 

Ted Melis, USGS/GCMRC 

Gerald Myers, White Mountain Fly Fishing 

Orton, The Mary Orton Company 

Colby Pellegrino, Southern Nevada Water Auth. 

Meeting Recorder: Linda Whetton 

Administrative. Shane welcomed the members and members of the public. He said Dave Garrett will 

present information on decision support processes and then we will move into the general core 

monitoring session, he’ll discuss goals for the session, and then it will be turned over to Mary Orton who 

will facilitate the core monitoring session. 

SA Annual Report and Decision Support 

Fiscal Year 2010 Science Advisor Project Report to GCDAMP. Dr. Garrett provided copies of the 

Science Advisors’ Fiscal Year 2010 Project Report along with copies of his PPT presentation 

(Attachment 9a). He said the SAs are going to do everything they can do to support the program. He 

provided the general SA recommendations: 

1. Provide risk assessment(s) especially as it relates to management actions on non-native fish, native 

fish, cultural resources, HBC translocations, HFE, etc. 

2. Implement more collaborative workshops of TWG and GCMRC to improve AM protocols, operational 

effectiveness, and management and science integration, 

3. Utilize assessments of knowledge, improved science synthesis, modeling and risk assessments to 

clarify best non-native fish and native fish management alternatives, management actions, and science for 

Colorado River Ecosystem. 

4. Increase interdisciplinary science program implementation and integrated science study and 

assessments, especially as relates to HFE, native, and non-native fish management. 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 10 

Final Minutes of March 8-9, 2011 Meeting 

Tradeoff and Decision Support Methods. Dr. Garrett passed out copies of his report and PPT, “A 

Prospectus to Evaluate Tradeoff and Decision Support Methods for the GCDAMP” (Attachment 9b). He 

said their goal is to distribute a report in the summer and perhaps bring a couple of science advisors to 

assist. He referenced the “Review of TWG Developed Appendix and Related Changes to the GCMRC 

Draft Core Monitoring Plan Report” (Attachment 9c). He said the SAs have never provided an 

accounting of how many reviews they’ve done, but it might be something the program should consider 

asking for in the future. The SAs may also provide a presentation on their accomplishments at the next 

Annual Reports meeting. 

Kurt felt the Pueblo of Zuni concerns were not adequately addressed in the SDM Project because of: 1) 

A misunderstanding how the workshop was being used by Reclamation, 2) Non-Zuni persons 

representing Zuni, and 3) Not enough time to vet decisions through the religious leaders and workshop 

may not have been the best context to present information to them. He asked if the SAs looked at 

different cultural values in the SDM process. Dave said they would’ve liked to have done that but John 

Hamill wanted a decision by the SAs. The review they did was constrained to outcomes and not process 

and so the values didn’t surface. Kurt asked how they would address that concern through this group 

and make sure that tribal values don’t get diluted. Dave said they could’ve done multi-criterion 

assessments and the outcome could’ve possibly been changed. Dave said it’s critical not to use 

processes that can inadvertently or deliberately delete a goal. 

Core Monitoring Plan Development. Shane referenced the General Core Monitoring Plan dated February 

18, 2011 (Attachment 10a) and gave a PPT presentation, “General Core Monitoring Plan Criteria 

Development” (Attachment 10b). He stressed importance of completing Appendix B (Attachment 10c) 

and then approving the entire CMP. He highlighted specific issues for dealing with Appendix B. He 

distributed copies of the handout, “General Core Monitoring – Structured Decision Making Process” 

(Attachment 10d) and reviewed the six steps involved in carrying out the SDM process. He asked if 

there were any questions. 

While this is a good way to build on yesterday’s discussion and focus on a set of goals developed in 

2004, Jan said there have been many years of work and questioned whether there was a status update 

on exactly where the program is at this point in time. Larry concurred and said it’s a huge step going from 

research to core monitoring goals especially with still so many unknowns in the system. Dave said there 

will be a range of objectives used to get to the best available science. 

Norm asked how the PEP process is being utilized. Shane said that’s part of the 4-step process and will 

be used in the final review. 

Consensus Building Workshop 

Introduction. Mary Orton said she’s not an expert on issues but an expert on process and has a master’s 

degree in conflict resolution. It’s been found that if people agree on the process, they will be able to 

make better decisions. She passed out copies of a handout, “Guidelines for Productive Group 

Interaction” (Attachment 11) and asked for the benefits of participating in groups: 

 Collective wisdom (education, ideas, 

experience) 

 Personal growth 

 Sustainable decisions 

 Better than alternatives 

 Accountability 

 Commitment to implement 

She said a lot of the ideas for working with groups came from the book, “The Skilled Facilitator” and 

offered the following guidelines for productive group interaction: 

1. Test assumptions and inferences 

2. Share relevant information 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 11 

Final Minutes of March 8-9, 2011 Meeting 

3. Use specific examples and agree on what important words mean 

4. Explain your reasoning and intent 

5. Combine advocacy and inquiry 

6. Jointly design next steps and ways to test disagreements 

7. Discuss un-discussable issues 

8. Use a decision-making rule that generates the level of commitment needed

If consensus is important to the group, Mary asked how they could get to agreement. She stated 

consensus is based on including everyone’s position and groups that can go between substantive and 

process issues will improve their decision-making process. If there are problems, she suggested 

everyone share their deep feelings or in other words “to get all their snakes on the table.” 

Kurt asked how to incorporate everyone’s interests if there are differing opinions. Mary said there is a 

term for that called “group think” and it’s conforming for the sake of the group. Mary used the Bay of Pigs

as an example and said that after it occurred, President Kennedy tried to figure out how it happened 

because he had the best people in his cabinet giving him advice. When he was faced with the Cuban 

Missile Crisis, President Kennedy asked two of his most trusted advisors in the White House to act as 

devil’s advocate to address the issues. Mary said if there is an impulse to “go along to get along,” then 

people need to step out and take a break. She feels the process will help inform the decisions. Only the 

individual can decide where the line is, but it requires everyone come to table to understand the issues 

really well in order to draw the line. People shouldn’t give up their interests for consensus sake. She 

advised people to ask themselves, “How can I get what I want and not thwart the process?” People 

shouldn’t frivolously get to consensus. Mary asked if the group had developed a definition for consensus. 

Bill Davis said it was “lack of opposition.” Norm said the budget is the most contentious issue the TWG 

deals with and when a recommendation passes, no one has a commitment to implement. 

When asked if the group wanted to operate by the guidelines today or had any concerns, the following 

comments were offered: 1) There are sub-units around the table, 2) Certain amount of apathy for having 

gone through similar processes, 3) Concerned with being involved in a lawsuit and sharing information 

with litigants seated at the table, 4) There isn’t a better alternative, 5) Time involved may not get the 

group where it wants to be at the end of the day, and 6) Tribal concerns may be obviated or diluted. 

Mary said there is a difference between criteria and objectives. If CMINs are being used, then the criteria 

for ranking is high, medium, and low. She demonstrated this through the example of buying a vehicle 

together, soliciting objectives and criteria from the group: 

IMPORTANCE (objectives) SPECIFIC NEEDS (criteria) 

High level of fuel efficiency At least 35 mpg 

Gun rack Has a gun rack for 2 guns 

Adequate seating Seats at least 7 

Safety Side and front air bags 

Price No more than X dollars 

Shane said the group is now ready for the next step which will involve making some tough “science 

based” decisions on criteria for evaluating core monitoring projects. He feels the criteria developed today 

will help them reach their core monitoring goals. Helen said the things they struggled with in the past 

were different variables to monitor and types of information to feed into the models. Dr. Garrett said the 

group needs to establish general criterion that will enable them to select among two or three alternatives. 

Mary asked the members to write what they thought general criteria were and told them their ideas would 

be put into a format they could all read and modify. Following the exercise, she asked what general 

criteria the TWG should use to evaluate individual core monitoring plans. 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 12 

Final Minutes of March 8-9, 2011 Meeting 

She broke them into groups of 5-6 people: 

Larry S 

Norm H 

Kurt D 

Jerry C 

Helen F 

Marianne C 

Dave B 

Cliff B 

Bill D 

Mike Y 

Gerald 

Myers 

Jan 

John Halliday 

Kerry 

Don 

Ted 

Dave G 

John J 

Loretta J-K 

Bill S 

Jason T 

Amy H 

Tricia McCraw 

Robert K 

Paul H 

Rick J 

Pam S 

Glen K 

Ted M 

Mary then asked them to put an asterisk (*) next to the most important things to each of them. The 

groups were then asked to discuss their ideas and write them up on half sheets, eliminating overlap while 

honoring diversity of perspective. She reminded them it was not a consensus building exercise but trying 

to get as many viewpoints as possible. 

The group noted some of their initial concerns: 

 Can Western science and non-scientific (tribal) work be meaningfully integrated? 

 Relevance to rigorous defensive practical model 

 Data are useful and timely 

 Contribute to management actions/decisions 

 Park values in the legal sense / Consistency of Park values and no impairment 

The group worked at combining the notes into clusters. Upon returning from lunch, Mary had put symbols 

on the clusters and told the members they would name the clusters with the criterion. 

Shane said the general idea of the exercise was to get all the ideas recorded and then once there are 

categories, they would record a description underneath. He wants to work with the Core Monitoring to 

decide what those descriptions will be. He said there will be multiple levels of review with the goal of 

getting to specific needs/wants for the program and instead of taking 5 years to make a decision about a 

resource, it might take 10 or 15 years. In making decisions, the power of the data is going to be really 

important which will relate back to how often and how much is sampled and the robustness of the 

sampling programs. 

Concerns: 

 Up until about year 2000, $100 million was spent on fish data acquisition, but there was no study 

design to answer questions. So we went for 20 years gathering high quality data but didn’t get to 

the step of having a study design that actually allowed us to understand the data we’d been 

collecting wasn’t adequate. (Stevens) 

 Everything we’re talking about doesn’t really address the usefulness - the utility to answer the 

questions. (Balsom) 

 The best science, technology, and TEK, could be data quality or it could be the use of it. 

(Johnson) 

 Are the DOI priorities pushing the old AMWG 2004 priorities off the table? (Capron) 

 I’ve listened to deliberations on these topics and members of the group had previously suggested 

a percentage of the gross budget that would be assigned to core monitoring, but I’m surprised no 

one has put up a 30%, 40% or 50%. (Melis) 

ACTION ITEM: Shane and the Core Monitoring AHG will rewrite Appendix B (integrating Science 

Advisor comments and include criteria) and bring a revised version back to the TWG at its June meeting. 

 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 13 

Final Minutes of March 8-9, 2011 Meeting 

Final Results of the Consensus Building Workshop: 

Compliance with law and policy 

Compliance (Fed/state/tribal) 

Compliance – ESA, NHPA, Law of River, EO13007 

Consistency with park values and no impairment 

Degree of linkage to dam operations 

Related to GC Dam Operations 

Meets mandates of GCPA 

Comply with laws and regulations 

Meets compliance needs (LOR, NEDA, etc...) 

Meets legal goals/objectives 

Related to “dam operations and other actions” 

(GCPA) 

Data Quality 

Geospatially and temporarily related datasets 

Objectivity and replication of methods, 

measurements, and assessments 

Appropriate scientific methods (controls, sample, 

bstudy decision) 

Use of best science/technology and TEK 

Data provides a measure of confidence/reliability 

Result in measurable outcomes 

Adequacy of existing knowledge 

Robust metric for determining effects 

Utility of Data 

Data are useful and timely 

Timeliness of information 

Risk analysis ... does it contribute? 

Ability to detect threats (contingency/risk 

assessment) 

Flexibility in periodicity of monitoring 

Relevance of measured indicators to dam operations 

Dual role of data and use in model generation 

Relevance to rigorous, defensible predictive model 

Adaptable/flexibility of timing and frequency 

Continuation of Legacy Data sets 

Ability to detect trends 

Continues long-term dataset 

Metrics and indicators appropriate to CMINs 

Minimize adverse impacts 

Impact to visitor experience 

Geographic and demographic extent of effects 

Potential impact on resource being monitored 

Minimal impacts to CRE 

Impacts to Tribal Trust resources 

Considers negative impacts on other resources 

Integration of Cultural and social values 

Considers environmental and cultural values 

Zuni is happy 

Considers economic values 

Sensitive to tribal concerns 

Stakeholder interest (i.e., AMG, TWG, public) 

Statisfies tribal and public trust responsibilities 

Considers social values 

Tribal monitoring results can be meaningfully 

integrated 

Culturally relevant and sensitive to cultural concerns 

Addresses goals and priorities 

Meets hierarchy of priorities 

Does it relate to AMP goal? 

AMP strategic plan 

Meets program priorities 

AMWG /sec of Interior priorities 

Does it lead to DFC? 

Addresses AMP goals 1-12 

Contribute to management actions/decisions 

Is there a defined goal 

Meets SOTI goals 

Appropriate to resource goals and CMINs 

Are data linked to ends/objectives 

DOI priorities vs. AMG priorities 

Information Management 

Adequacy of information management 

Larry’s Ecosystem Approach 

Is it directed to keystone resources 

Prioritized by trophic structure 

Tie-in to ecosystem model 

Integration into BIG picture (ecosystem) 

Provides for multiple needs 

Cost effectiveness and affordability 

Good benefit/cost 

Cost can be accommodated by program 

Affordability and budget implications (cost) 

Integration with other management programs 

No duplication of effort 

Cost/Benefit 

Collaborative funding sources 

Parking Lot 

SA Review of Plan(s) (Process) 

Next Steps 

o Complete Appendix B

o Integrate SA comments

o Include criteria

o CMP AHG

o Shane Capron, Jan Balsom, Bill Davis, Helen Fairley, Paul Harms, Norm Henderson, Pam 

Sponholtz, and Larry Stevens 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 14 

Final Minutes of March 8-9, 2011 Meeting 

o Process – SA review of plans – to be discussed

What are the benefits to working in a group? 

o Collective wisdom – education, ideas, experience – differences

o Personal growth

o Sustainable decisions

o Better than alternative

o Accountability

o Commitment to implement

Meeting Evaluation

The meeting concluded with Mary asking TWG members to write down one thing they liked about the 

meeting and one thing they would change for next time. The results are below. 

+ 

+ Great job on facilitation 

+ Complexity of program well reflected 

+ Encouraging to see the support for the 

integration and importance of tribal and cultural 

values in the core monitoring 

+ Clear statements of criteria 

+ I felt this was a good integration of “teaching” a 

more open way of communicating and crunching 

out some needed work on CMP 

+ I liked that everyone’s ideas were heard and 

discussed 

+ Good ability to reach end point, intended goal 

+ Good integration of stakeholders into small 

groups – not done enough 

+ Engaged the entire group/everyone was 

participating 

+ Inclusiveness of process 

+ We accomplished something with everyone’s 

input 

+ Small groups good approach for 

discussions/exercise 

+ You kept it interesting – no one went to sleep 

+ The formal step of categorizing how decision will 

be made is very helpful in understanding each 

others’ perspectives better 

+ Facilitator guided discussion and criteria setting 

+ Facilitator brought together many varied 

individuals through experience. 

+ Ensuring collaborative approach 

+ Review of guidelines for productive group 

interaction (wish we could do it before every 

meeting!) 

+ Mary shows excellent patience with team 

members who aren’t excited about participating. 

+ Good process to use group to get good cross 

 Linkages ignored or unclear. 

 Resolution and linkage not identified 

 Realistically this support for integration of tribal 

values has risen to the top in past TWG/AMWG 

exercises like this one, but it never gets the 

subsequent attention and work to integrate it in 

the program that it needs. 

 Drill down into specifics 

 No downside 

 A bit more time in the small groups would be 

helpful 

 At the point of breaking into small groups, work 

to produce integrated groups so there can be 

more cross fertilization of ideas. What was done 

was good and could be made even better! 

 Constraints of instrument due to law suits and 

representing agency rather than personal 

priorities 

 Maybe more reminders of the task to keep the 

group focused 

 Better overview of CMP status/process/history 

 Need to link the criteria rather than separate into 

categories 

 It took quite a long time to get into the heart of 

useful discussion – but have to be sure you have 

laid enough groundwork for a positive outcome 

 More time and maybe starting on a simpler 

“problem” to better see how the process works 

 Don’t clearly see the transition from cards on the 

wall to formal written criteria document 

 A little more time for process – 1-2 hours 

 Left Blank 

 Wasn’t sure why we had to pick 3 “clearest” 

criteria and then again. This seemed to take a 

long time. Easier for groups to just share criteria 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 15 

Final Minutes of March 8-9, 2011 Meeting 

+ 

section of ideas 

+ The method of accomplishing the task together 

one at a time...kind of a round robin approach? 

 Discussion of relationship between CMP and 

individual CMPs and what this step means to that 

process could have had more clear clarification 

 Less intro. Not needed with the sophistication of 

this group 

Public Comment: None 

Adjourned: 3:02 p.m. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Linda Whetton 

Upper Colorado Regional Office 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 16 

Final Minutes of March 8-9, 2011 Meeting 

General Key to Adaptive Management Program Acronyms 

 ADWR – Arizona Dept. of Water Resources 

AF – Acre Feet 

AGFD – Arizona Game and Fish Department 

AIF  Agenda Information Form 

AMP – Adaptive Management Program 

AMWG – Adaptive Management Work Group 

AOP – Annual Operating Plan 

BA – Biological Assessment 

BAHG – Budget Ad Hoc Group 

BCOM – Biological Conservation Measure 

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 

CAHG – Charter Ad Hoc Group 

CAPA – Central Arizona Project Association 

GCT  Grand Canyon Trust 

CESU – Cooperative Ecosystems Studies Unit 

cfs – cubic feet per second 

CMINs  Core Monitoring Information Needs 

CRBC – Colorado River Board of California 

CRAHG - Cultural Resources Ad Hoc Group 

CRCN – Colorado River Commission of Nevada 

CRE  Colorado River Ecosystem 

CREDA – Colorado River Energy Distributors Assn. 

CRSP – Colorado River Storage Project 

DAHG – Desired Future Conditions Ad Hoc Group 

DASA - Data Acquisition, Storage and Analysis

CWCB – Colorado Water Conservation Board 

DBMS – Data Base Management System 

DOE  Department of Energy 

DOI – Department of the Interior 

EA – Environmental Assessment 

EIS – 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 (October 1 – September 30) 

GCD – Glen Canyon Dam 

GCT  Grand Canyon Trust 

GCMRC – Grand Canyon Monitoring & Research Ctr. 

GCNP – Grand Canyon National Park 

GCNRA – Glen Canyon National Recreation Area 

GCPA – Grand Canyon Protection Act 

GLCA – Glen Canyon National Recreation Area 

GRCA  Grand Canyon National Park 

GCRG  Grand Canyon River Guides 

GCWC  Grand Canyon Wildlands Council 

HBC – Humpback Chub (endangered native fish) 

HMF – Habitat Maintenance Flow 

HPP – Historic Preservation Plan 

INs – Information Needs 

KA  Knowledge Assessment (workshop) 

KAS – Kanab ambersnail (endangered native snail) 

LCR – Little Colorado River 

LRRMCP – Lower Colorado River Multi-Species 

Conservation Program 

LTEP – Long Term Experimental Plan 

MAF – Million Acre Feet 

MA – Management Action 

MATA – Multi-Attribute Trade-Off Analysis 

MLFF  Modified Low Fluctuating Flow 

MO – Management Objective 

MRP  Monitoring and Research Plan 

NAU – Northern Arizona University (Flagstaff, AZ) 

NEPA – National Environmental Policy Act 

NHPA – National Historic Preservation Act 

NPS  National Park Service 

NRC  National Research Council 

O&M  Operations & Maintenance (USBR funding) 

PA  Programmatic Agreement 

PEP  Protocol Evaluation Panel 

POAHG  Public Outreach Ad Hoc Group 

Powerplant Capacity = 31,000 cfs 

R&D  Research and Development 

RBT – Rainbow Trout 

RFP  Request For Proposals 

RINs  Research Information Needs 

ROD Flows  Record of Decision Flows 

RPA  Reasonable and Prudent Alternative 

SA  Science Advisors 

Secretary  Secretary of the Interior 

SCORE  State of the Colorado River Ecosystem 

SHPO – State Historic Preservation Office(r) 

SOW  Scope of Work 

SPAHG – Strategic Plan Ad Hoc Group 

SPG Science Planning Group 

SSQs  Strategic Science Questions 

SWCA  Steven W. Carothers Associates 

TCD  Temperature Control Device 

TCP  Traditional Cultural Property 

TES  Threatened and Endangered Species 

TWG  Technical Work Group 

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) 

Q/A/C/R = Question/Answer/Comment/Response 

Updated: May 12, 2010