Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Meeting 

June 28-29, 2011 

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

Facilitator: Mary Orton, The Mary Orton Company (June 28 only) 

Committee Members/Alternates Present: 

Jan Balsom, NPS/GRCA Glen Knowles, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

Cliff Barrett, UAMPS Ted Kowalski, CWCB 

Kerry Christensen, Hualapai Tribe Tricia McCraw, ADWR 

Jerry Lee Cox, Grand Canyon River Guides Gerald Myers, Federation of Fly Fishers 

Bill Davis, CREDA Don Ostler, UCRC (alternate for WY) 

Kurt Dongoske, Pueblo of Zuni Clayton Palmer, WAPA 

Paul Harms, NM Interstate Stream Commission LeAnn Skrzynski, Southern Paiute Consortium 

Norm Henderson, NPS Bill Stewart, AGFD 

Garry Cantley, BIA Jason Thiriot, Colo. River Commission/NV 

John Jordan, Federation of Fly Fishers Marc Wicke, USFWS 

Robert King, UDWR Michael Yeatts, Hopi Tribe 

Committee Members Absent: 

Charley Bulletts, Southern Paiute Consortium John Shields, Wyoming State Engineer’s Office 

Christopher Harris, Colorado River Board/CA Pam Sponholtz, USFWS 

Amy Heuslein, BIA Larry Stevens, Grand Canyon Wildlands Council 

Tony H. Joe, Jr., Navajo Nation 

Rick Johnson, Grand Canyon Trust 

Interested Persons: 

Perri Benemelis, ADWR Leslie James, CREDA 

David Bennion, WAPA John Jordan, Federation of Fly Fishers 

Todd Chaudhry, NPS/GRCA Ted Melis, USGS/GCMRC 

Mary Daugherty, USGS/GCMRC Jack Schmidt, Utah State University 

Helen Fairley, USGS/GCMRC Sam Spiller, USFWS 

Dave Garrett, M3Research/Science Advisors Dave Trueman, USBR 

Pam Garrett, M3Research Scott Vanderkooi, USGS/GCMRC 

John Halliday, DOI Randy Van Haverbeke, USFWS 

Chris Hughes, NPS/GLCA 

Meeting Recorder: Linda Whetton 

Welcome and Administrative. Shane said Lori Caramanian would be joining the meeting via telephone 

this morning to answer questions the TWG might have on policy issues to be elevated to the AMWG. 

Approval of the March 8-9, 2011, Meeting Minutes. Without objection, the minutes were approved 

pending the addition of Paul Harms as a member of the Core Monitoring Ad Hoc Group, not Paul Grams. 

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

Old Business. 

Ad Hoc Group Updates: Shane provide the following updates: 

 Budget AHG – The BAHG report was distributed in preparation for today’s budget discussion. 

 Cultural Resources AHG – This group hasn’t had any assignments for some time. 

 Species of Concern AHG – The AMP 3 Goal report will be presented at tomorrow’s meeting. 

 Core Monitoring AHG – Draft criteria were developed at the last meeting and the task is to rewrite 

Appendix B for inclusion in the Core Monitoring Plan. He has been waiting for the new GCMRC 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 2 

Final Minutes of June 28-29, 2011, Meeting 

chief to come on board because he feels it’s really important that the TWG work closely with 

GCMRC in developing the General Core Monitoring Plan. 

 Socioeconomic AHG – An update will be provided at tomorrow’s meeting. 

Reports/Assignments from AMWG. Shane said the only thing that came up was a question from Helen 

Fairley about whether the base case and change case analyses could be used to inform the LTEMP. If 

so, what would be TWG’s role in determining base case and change case analyses that would be 

evaluated in FY12. Shane said this would be folded into further discussion tomorrow. 

GMCRC Knowledge Assessment Workshops Schedule. Dr. Melis said the Aquatics Expert Workshop 

was held June 1-3 in Flagstaff. As a courtesy to the TWG, he provided copies of a disk that contains 

detailed notes, discussions, and PPT presentations with preliminary results. Upcoming workshops: 

 July 11-12 at GCMRC - Physical Resources, Sediment, and Water Quality Resource Issues 

 Week of August 29 – Hydropower and Economics Workshop in Flagstaff 

 Oct 24-28 or Oct 31-Nov 4 for the Knowledge Assessment (2-2.5 days) 

He has received comments from people about holding workshops at Saguaro Lake Ranch. He reminded 

the group the ADWR conference rooms are free of charge and asked if there were other locations people 

wanted to consider. 

Action Item: Linda will query the group on other options besides meeting at Saguaro Lake Ranch. 

New Business. 

Action Item: Linda will query the TWG for availability for the TWG October meeting. 

TWG Facilitation. Mary Orton left the room for this agenda item. Shane said Mary Orton has been 

providing facilitation assistance to the CMAHG and BAHG. To help Shane properly execute his TWG 

Chair duties and related assignments, Reclamation has agreed to allow the TWG Chair funds (which aer 

not being utilized by the TWG Chair) to be used for TWG facilitation needs. It would cost approximately 

$5,000 to have Mary facilitate four meetings and the BAHG process. Dr. Garrett said the SAs would 

support using Mary in order to allow Shane to accomplish what he needs to do with the TWG and 

concurred that Mary does an excellent job. 

Guidelines for Productive Group Interaction. Mary distributed and reviewed copies of a handout, 

“Guidelines for Productive Group Interaction” (Attachment 2) and said it would serve as a good reminder 

of how to make sure every voice has the ability to be heard and respected and for the group to truly 

benefit from working together as a group. 

FY 2012 Budget and Workplan. Mary reviewed the desired outcomes for today’s discussion. She 

referenced Ms. Castle’s March 31, 2011, memo (Attachment 3a) and said comparison of the original 

budget process table that was approved by AMWG last year and this year indicates USGS is working 

more closely with DOI in developing consensus before bringing anything to the TWG. She and Shane 

have worked on identifying the technical issues and said the TWG will decide what issues will be 

discussed by DOI and the AMWG will discuss broader policy issues. 

Dr. Melis said the FY12 part of the FY11-12 budget was officially recommended by the AMWG in August 

2010, and then was approved by the Secretary of the Interior. Based on direction from DOI, they have 

been looking at possible revisions. 

Shane said there is an approved FY11-12 budget with a review of the second year and the summary of 

proposed revisions to the FY2012 workplan and budget are identified in the memo from USGS and 

Reclamation to Ms. Castle dated May 3, 2011 (Attachment 3b). It includes a table with the changes and 

rationale for those changes (Attachment 3c). Shane said the BAHG discussed policy vs. technical 

issues at the June 13, 2011, meeting and those were captured in the BAHG meeting minutes. The BAHG 
 

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 3 

Final Minutes of June 28-29, 2011, Meeting 

developed a draft report (Attachment 3d) which included core policy issues and technical issues. Those 

issues were forwarded to Lori Caramanian who was directed by Ms. Castle at the last AMWG meeting to 

help the TWG differentiate between the two levels. He said some issues may get addressed and some 

may not, but the TWG won’t have another opportunity to review. He asked Mary to talk about the 

decision rules and then go to Lori’s response. 

Mary reviewed the desired outcomes for today’s meeting: 

	 Resolve TWG member’s technical differences with the proposed FY12 budget with Reclamation and 

GCMRC, as possible. 

	 Agree on unresolved concerns with the FY12 budget that will be addressed by DOI (technical issues). 

	 Agree on unresolved concerns with the FY12 budget that TWG will forward to AMWG (policy issues). 

	 Identify potential budget development process recommendations for future years. 

Shane said Lori would be joining the call in the next 40 minutes so it would be important to get through 

all the DOI responses to the BAHG first. He reviewed the technical issues: 

Technical Issues (page 3 of BAHG report). 

1. Economics (project 32): Cancel economist position, set aside $25K for SEAHG support, savings of about 

$73K. The BAHG felt it was too soon to hire a full-time economist and the SEAHG should complete its plan 

and then circle back and determine what resources are needed and then provide the $25K. In talking with 

Lori, Shane said DOI wants the economist first and feels the expertise is needed at GCMRC. 

2. Science Advisor budget (project 44): Add $67K back in plus another $30K for LTEMP participation. There 

were no objections. Shane said that DOI funding of $25K has been identified in the SA budget in FY11 with 

addition of another science advisor. GCMRC feels the SAs are fully funded. As far as the LTEMP process, 

there is lack of clarity. DOI is interested in having the SAs involved in the LTEMP but Lori wants to know 

what the expectations of the SAs will be, what reviews will be needed, and time frames. Glen said there is 

funding in the compliance line item for LTEMP work. 

Clayton said there is nothing in attachment one that says DOI will be commenting on BAHG 

recommendations. He felt it was unproductive to have the BAHG, consisting of six or seven members, 

develop comments on the budget that in the past were brought to the TWG. The TWG would then 

discuss the matters with DOI representatives in the room and changes would be made. For the record, 

he doesn’t feel it’s productive to have DOI respond to BAHG recommendations but should wait and 

respond to TWG recommendations on TWG technical issues. 

Policy Issues (page 1 of BAHG report). 

1. Sediment Monitoring. Shane said the impetus for this policy issue came out of the DFCs as one of the 

priorities provided by Ms. Castle and requested the AMP be reviewed in relation to those DFCs and new 

DOI priorities, and the projects be reconsidered based on those. It’s his understanding the review would 

occur in FY12 but isn’t sure people have thought through when the budget would be changed. He and Lori 

spent a lot of time talking about impacts to the FY12 budget and things that would be considered in the 

FY13 and FY14 work plans. Once the framework for the Core Monitoring Plan is approved then the major 

program areas will be developed. It makes sense to the CMAHG and DOI to make the sediment individual 

core monitoring plan be one of the first ones that come up for review in FY12. 

2. Terrestrial Monitoring. Shane said DOI is very sensitive to this issue and feel this recommendation is 

premature. John Halliday should be given time to work with the tribes in developing a proposal that DOI 

could consider. A preliminary report would go directly to the AMWG for their August meeting. 

3. Nonnative Fish Control. Shane said there isn’t anything specifically in the budget to do non-native fish 

control. It was changed and agreed to by GCMRC and BOR. It was one thing the program could do to 

mitigate that issue. Reclamation mailed letters today for determining eligibility and effect for historic 

properties and TCPs to the tribes and SHPOs. That starts the process of working with the tribes to get to 

resolution of effect on both the HFE Protocol EA and the Non-native Fish Control EA. They are also looking 

into utilizing an NHPA special facilitator to get that resolution of effect and will be working with the tribes to 

set up additional tribal consultation meetings and also put resolution of effect meetings later this summer. 
 

 

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 4 

Final Minutes of June 28-29, 2011, Meeting 

4. Archeological Site Monitoring. Glen said Reclamation has sent out letters of eligibility and effect for the EA 

undertakings. They intend to meet with the tribes to find resolution of effect for the two EA undertakings and 

possibly do a new PA and utilize an NHPA facilitator. The new regional archeologist will report for duty midAugust. 

Clarifying Questions. Shane said there would only be 15 minutes to talk with Lori. If there are any 

disagreements with DOI responses, he suggested the TWG focus on where they think movement 

might be with DOI or what they might need to know to be able to make the motion that needs to go to 

the AMWG. 

Clayton asked how Reclamation is going to complete its 106 compliance requirement on the operation 

of Glen Canyon Dam from 1995. Glen told him they have dealt with the two EAs and are approaching 

106 compliance separately, but there is overlap. They have identified historical properties and 

traditional cultural properties affected by the two undertakings which is also part of stipulation one 

under the old 1994 PA. They intend to have meetings with the tribes on mitigation and resolution of 

adverse effects and plan to set up meetings with the tribes and SHPOs to start talking about 

resolution of effect. They also want to do that in the context of the old PA and operations of the Dam 

and look at the potential for developing a new PA. 

Norm said the request was made by Kurt to reinstate the $200K for the treatment plan in year two of 

the budget. It was his understanding that in order to make changes in the second year workplan, there 

had to be sound, scientific reasoning for doing so. He sees the cultural resource monitoring 

development that GCMRC has been trying to establish for the last several years as having been 

unilaterally truncated. He feels it’s a big policy issue for the group. 

Cliff said he was concerned about the DFCs being integrated into the Core Monitoring Plan. As TWG 

Chair, Shane said he wanted a solid commitment from the DOI that they’re headed in the right 

direction and feels he got that from DOI, but suggested Cliff ask Lori directly about that. 

Shane said he wanted to complete the discussion on technical issues and then move to policy level 

issues. Mary brought up the BAHG report as the starting point for the discussion. 

Lori Caramanian joined the call at 10:30. 

The group discussed the hiring of an economist by GCMRC. Several concerns were expressed, 

including: 

 More discussion is needed. 

 How necessary it is to have clear understanding about the degree to which an economist is useful. 

 The kind of economist that is needed won’t be known until the socioeconomic report is completed and 

evaluates the requirements of the position. 

 Doesn’t seem to be in line with the priorities as outlined by the Secretary’s Designee.
 

Lori agreed that this needed more discussion, and explained that DOI wanted the economist on board to support 

the LTEMP. She also said that she felt the economist is needed in order to complete the socioeconomic report. 

She noted that while the Secretary’s Designee identified four priorities, she also made it clear that they would 

not preclude the program from addressing other issues and the program needs to have a deeper understanding 

of power economics and socioeconomics. She said she thought it was the right time to make this hire. 

The issue of cultural resources was also discussed and the role of the AMP in the cultural resources arena. Lori 

noted that this was an important issue and that Reclamation recently hired a regional archeologist. She asked 

Glen to respond in more detail. Glen said the Section 106 letters regarding the HFE Protocol EA and the Nonnative Fish Control EA were sent yesterday, and they laid out the process Reclamation would use to address the 

potential adverse effects of the two EAs. They are considering hiring an NHPA subject matter expert to assist 

with that task, and will set up meetings with the tribes and other participants later in the summer. Reclamation is 

also planning a similar process to determine how to address the 1994 PA. 
 

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 5 

Final Minutes of June 28-29, 2011, Meeting 

In response to a comment suggesting the sediment program should be reviewed in light of the Secretary 

Designee’s priorities, Lori said that it would be good to review the entire program in light of spending 

priorities and constraints. 

Lori said the BAHG did a great job going through the issues and credited Shane and Mary for keeping 

the process focused. She reminded people that Ms. Castle said this is a work in progress and DOI could 

disseminate information in a more timely manner. Before hanging up, she thanked everyone for their 

participation and said she’d be available this afternoon if there were additional questions. 

Shane said there were two things to be considered in crafting a motion: 1) a set of policy issues that may 

or may not go to AMWG, and 2) possibly additional technical issues for DOI’s consideration. He 

suggested going through the issues one more time. The following was noted from earlier meetings: 

Policy Issues – to be addressed at this meeting as necessary 

1. Sediment monitoring  moved to Resolved Issues. This is a high priority to be addressed in the Core 

Monitoring Plan process in FY12. Shane will follow up with the new GCMRC chief and Ted will affirm that 

the FY12 budget supports the fish, sediment, and core monitoring plan development. Per Clayton, add after 

FY12 on the first sentence, “as to its relevance to DFCs and DOI priorities.” 

2. Terrestrial monitoring  concerns remain 

3. Non-native Fish Control  concerns remain 

4. Archaeological Site Monitoring  concerns remain 

Technical Issues – sent to DOI from the BAHG 

	 Project #32 (economist position)  concerns remain. See discussion above. 

	 Project #44 (SA budget) concerns remain. 

In addition, cultural resources issues were expressed, specifically with regard to terrestrial monitoring, 

killing fish, marginalizing the views of the tribes, integration of tribal values into the program, and line item 

#27 regarding the treatment of sites. 

Shane asked those concerned to draft policy statements in the form of motions to be considered after 

lunch. He recapped what the TWG had decided: 1) not to move any technical issues to DOI, 2) frame the 

two issues as policy issues, 3) to remove the sediment policy to the “resolved” list. 

The following motions were made regarding the budget: 

Motion (proposed by Kurt Dongoske): The TWG recommends that adequate funding for the SAs 

be a high priority for the AMP. TWG further recommends that AMWG task the TWG with 

developing a recommendation for AMWG on the roles and expectations of the Science Advisors 

with regard to the Adaptive Management program and the related LTEMP. Based on the 

definition of the Science Advisors’ role that AMWG ultimately adopts, TWG recommends that 

budget priorities for FY13-14 then reflect support to accomplish these responsibilities of the 

Science Advisors. 

Passed by consensus. 

Motion (proposed by Kurt Dongoske): The TWG recommends that AMWG make a 

recommendation to the Secretary on the following questions: How should the program fairly treat 

conflicts of cultural values, specifically those involving Native American perspectives? How will 

tribal values be monitored and tracked in this program? 

Passed by consensus. 

Motion (proposed by Clayton Palmer): TWG recommends that AMWG recommend to the 

Secretary that Reclamation implement the process that has been identified in Reclamation’s 2007 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 6 

Final Minutes of June 28-29, 2011, Meeting 

Treatment Plan to comply with the requirements of NHPA Section 106 for the operation of Glen 

Canyon Dam. 

Passed by consensus. 

Motion (proposed by Kurt Dongoske): TWG recommends that AMWG recommend to the 

Secretary that Reclamation identify what it will do in FY12 to mitigate effects at the 53+ 

archaeological site identified in Reclamation’s 2007 Treatment Plan. 

Passed by consensus. 

After discussion, the motion was revised and a roll call vote was taken, as follows: 

Motion: TWG recommends that DOI restore full funding and the full scope of GCMRC’s cultural 

resources monitoring development (Project 25), taking the funding from the Treatment Plan line 

item, Project 27; or that credible scientific justification be provided to the AMWG for the change. 

Representative Stakeholder Entity Vote 

Bill Stewart / Andy Makinster Arizona Game and Fish Department A 

Tricia Crawford / Perri Benemelis Arizona Y 

Amy Heuslein / Garry Cantley Bureau of Indian Affairs A 

Glen Knowles / Marianne Crawford Bureau of Reclamation A 

Christopher Harris California absent 

Ted Kowalski / Jennifer Gimbel Colorado A 

Bill Davis / Leslie James CREDA Y 

Gerald Myers / John Jordan Federation of Fly Fishers Y 

Jerry Lee Cox / Sam Jansen Grand Canyon River Guides Y 

Rick Johnson / Nikolai Lash Grand Canyon Trust absent 

Larry Stevens Grand Canyon Wildlands Council absent 

Mike Yeatts Hopi Tribe Y 

Kerry Christensen / Loretta Jackson-Kelly Hualapai Tribe N 

Norm Henderson / Chris Kincaid National Park Service - GLCA A 

Jan Balsom / Todd Chaudhry National Park Service - GRCA N 

Tony Joe Navajo Nation absent 

McClain Peterson / Jason Thiriot Nevada Y 

Paul Harms / Don Ostler New Mexico Y 

Kurt Dongoske Pueblo of Zuni Y 

Charley Bulletts / LeAnn Skrzynski Southern Paiute Consortium Y 

Robert King Utah Y 

Pam Sponholtz / Sam Spiller U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service A 

Cliff Barrett UAMPS Y 

Clayton Palmer / David Bennion Western Area Power Administration A 

John Shields / Don Ostler Wyoming Y 

Total Yes 12 

Total No 2 

Total Abstain 7 

Total Voting 14 

Motion Passes 

Abstentions count toward the quorum, but not the vote. For example, if 20 TWG members are present then a 

quorum is present (quorum=16). If the vote is 3-0-17 (that is 3 yeas, 0 nays, and 17 abstentions), the motion 

passes because abstentions those abstaining have chosen not to vote. 

Motion (made by Kurt Dongoske): The TWG recommends that the AMWG recommend that the 

Secretary of Interior consider a review of the GCDAMP programs related to archaeological site 

monitoring and compliance with NHPA section 106 and the GCPA, to clarify how DOI (and the 
 

 

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 7 

Final Minutes of June 28-29, 2011, Meeting 

GCDAMP) is achieving compliance with both NHPA section 106 and the GCPA and what is 

specifically necessary to do so. 

Passed by consensus. 

Ted Kowalski said his small group discussed the concept of hiring an economist and felt it was important 

to complete the socio-economic program first. He read the following recommendation: 

The TWG recommends that the AMWG recommends that the Secretary direct the SEAHG to 

develop a proposal for an AMP Socio-Economic (SE) Program in FY 2012. AMP stakeholders and 

DOI agencies may provide members to serve on this committee, especially people who have 

expertise in economics of electrical power and recreational economics. The SEAHG should be 

chaired by someone who has expertise in one of these fields and who has experience with the 

GCDAMP. The work for the SEAHG should be administratively supported (i.e., preparation for 

meetings, collecting comments and revising documents) and facilitated. Since this task involves 

the development of a new program of value to the AMP stakeholders, and often involves the 

stakeholders advocating for their agencies or interests, the GCMRC (as the scientific agency 

supporting the AMP) should not oversee the development the SE Program. The SE Program 

should be provided to the Scientific Advisors (SA) for review. If an SA member has been involved 

in the development of the SE program, then that person should not participate in the SE review. 

The SE program should be initially focused on a robust and scientifically-based program dealing 

with power economics and market based recreational economics. 

After discussion, the members revised the language and voted by raising hands: 

Motion: The TWG recommends that the AMWG recommends that the Secretary direct GCMRC to 

consider hiring an economist only after the AMWG approve a Socio-Economic Implementation Plan; and 

provide a chair for the TWG Socioeconomic Ad Hoc Group who has expertise in economics from the 

Science Advisors; and the TWG further recommends that AMWG direct TWG to focus the socioeconomic program initially on a robust and scientifically-based program dealing with power economics 

and market based recreational economics. 

Hand Vote Results: Yes = 10 No = 5 Abstain = 3 

Motion Passes. 

Mary read the entire budget motion. Because there wasn’t consensus, a roll call vote was taken. 

Motion: The TWG recommends to AMWG the USGS and Reclamation FY12 Budget and Work 

Plan as approved by the Secretary of the Interior on September 22, 2010, with changes 

described in the May 3, 2011 memorandum from Ted Melis and Glen Knowles to Anne Castle, 

with the following policy recommendations: 

1. The TWG recommends that the AMWG recommend that the Secretary of Interior 

consider a review of the GCDAMP programs related to archaeological site monitoring 

and compliance with NHPA section 106 and the GCPA, to clarify how DOI (and the 

GCDAMP) is achieving compliance with both NHPA section 106 and the GCPA and what 

is specifically necessary to do so. 

2. The TWG recommends that adequate funding for the SAs be a high priority for the AMP. 

TWG further recommends that AMWG task the TWG with developing a recommendation 

for AMWG on the roles and expectations of the Science Advisors with regard to the 

Adaptive Management Program and the related LTEMP. Based on the definition of the 

Science Advisors’ role that AMWG ultimately adopts, TWG recommends that budget 

priorities for FY13-14 then reflect support to accomplish these responsibilities of the 

Science Advisors. 

3. The TWG recommends that AMWG make a recommendation to the Secretary on the 

following questions: How should the program fairly treat conflicts of cultural values, 

specifically those involving Native American perspectives? How will tribal values be 

monitored and tracked in this program? 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 8 

Final Minutes of June 28-29, 2011, Meeting 

4. TWG recommends that AMWG recommend to the Secretary that Reclamation implement 

the process that has been identified in Reclamation’s 2007 Treatment Plan to comply 

with the requirements of NHPA Section 106 for the operation of Glen Canyon Dam. 

5. TWG recommends that AMWG recommend to the Secretary that Reclamation identify 

what it will do in FY12 to mitigate adverse effects at the 53+ archaeological sites 

identified in Reclamation’s 2007 Treatment Plan. 

6. The TWG recommends that the AMWG recommends that the Secretary direct GCRMC to 

consider hiring an economist only after the AWMG approves a Socioeconomic 

Implementation Plan and provide a chair for the TWG Socioeconomic Ad Hoc Group 

who has expertise in economics from the Science Advisors; and TWG further 

recommends that AMWG direct TWG to focus the socioeconomic program initially on a 

robust and scientifically-based program dealing with power economics and market 

based recreational economics. 

Representative Stakeholder Entity Vote 

Bill Stewart / Andy Makinster Arizona Game and Fish Department absent 

Tricia Crawford / Perri Benemelis Arizona Y 

Amy Heuslein / Garry Cantley Bureau of Indian Affairs absent 

Glen Knowles / Marianne Crawford Bureau of Reclamation A 

Christopher Harris California absent 

Ted Kowalski / Jennifer Gimbel Colorado Y 

Bill Davis / Leslie James CREDA Y 

Gerald Myers / John Jordan Federation of Fly Fisters Y 

Jerry Lee Cox / Sam Jansen Grand Canyon River Guides N 

Rick Johnson / Nikolai Lash Grand Canyon Trust absent 

Larry Stevens Grand Canyon Wildlands Council absent 

Mike Yeatts Hopi Tribe Y 

Kerry Christensen / Loretta Jackson-Kelly Hualapai Tribe Y 

Norm Henderson / Chris Kincaid National Park Service - GLCA A 

Jan Balsom / Todd Chaudhry National Park Service - GRCA A 

Tony Joe Navajo Nation absent 

McClain Peterson / Jason Thiriot Nevada Y 

Paul Harms / Don Ostler New Mexico Y 

Kurt Dongoske Pueblo of Zuni Y 

Charley Bulletts / LeAnn Skrzynski Southern Paiute Consortium Y 

Robert King Utah Y 

Pam Sponholtz / Sam Spiller U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service A 

Cliff Barrett UAMPS Y 

Clayton Palmer / David Bennion Western Area Power Administration Y 

John Shields / Don Ostler Wyoming Y 

Total Yes 14 

Total No 1 

Total Abstain 4 

Total Voting 15 

Motion Passes 

Abstentions count toward the quorum, but not the vote. For example, if 20 TWG members are present then a 

quorum is present (quorum=16). If the vote is 3-0-17 (that is 3 yeas, 0 nays, and 17 abstentions), the motion 

passes because those abstaining have chosen not to vote. 

Adjourned: 4:55 p.m. 
 

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 9 

Final Minutes of June 28-29, 2011, Meeting 

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Meeting 

June 28-29, 2011 

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

Committee Members/Alternates Present: 

Jan Balsom, NPS/GRCA Glen Knowles, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

Cliff Barrett, UAMPS Ted Kowalski, CWCB 

Kerry Christensen, Hualapai Tribe Tricia McCraw, ADWR 

Jerry Lee Cox, Grand Canyon River Guides Gerald Myers, Federation of Fly Fishers 

Bill Davis, CREDA Don Ostler, UCRC (alternate for WY) 

Kurt Dongoske, Pueblo of Zuni Clayton Palmer, WAPA 

Paul Harms, NM Interstate Stream Commission LeAnn Skrzynski, Southern Paiute Consortium 

Norm Henderson, NPS Larry Stevens, Grand Canyon Wildlands Council 

Garry Cantley, BIA Bill Stewart, AGFD 

Rick Johnson, Grand Canyon Trust Jason Thiriot, Colo. River Commission/NV 

John Jordan, Federation of Fly Fishers Marc Wicke, USFWS 

Robert King, UDWR Michael Yeatts, Hopi Tribe 

Committee Members Absent: 

Charley Bulletts, So. Paiute Consortium John Shields, Wyoming State Engineer’s Office 

Christopher Harris, Colorado River Board/CA Pam Sponholtz, USFWS 

Amy Heuslein, BIA 

Tony H. Joe, Jr., Navajo Nation 

Interested Persons: 

Perri Benemelis, ADWR Leslie James, CREDA 

David Bennion, WAPA John Jordan, Federation of Fly Fishers 

Todd Chaudhry, NPS/GRCA Ted Melis, USGS/GCMRC 

Mary Daugherty, USGS/GCMRC Jack Schmidt, Utah State University 

Helen Fairley, USGS/GCMRC Sam Spiller, USFWS 

Dave Garrett, M3Research/Science Advisors Bill Swan, Irrigation District 

Pam Garrett, M3Research Dave Trueman, USBR 

John Halliday, DOI Scott Vanderkooi, USGS/GCMRC 

Chris Hughes, NPS/GLCA Randy Van Haverbeke, USFWS 

Meeting Recorder: Linda Whetton 

Welcome and Administrative. Shane asked for comments regarding yesterday’s process for passing 

the budget motion. The following comments were made: 

 DOI is taking the results of an Ad Hoc Group and responding to them, without waiting for TWG or AMWG to 

act. Some felt that it made the TWG and AMWG less relevant. 

 Those who voted no or abstained should be asked their reasoning.
 

 The process of technical and policy issues caused the group to do a lot of rewriting yesterday. 

Shane said he didn’t think there would be time on today’s agenda to review the project descriptions that 

Dr. Melis had prepared. As such, a WebEx would be scheduled for GCMRC to present and field 

questions from the TWG. 

Action Item: Linda will query the TWG for their availability to participate in a WebEx conference call to 

discuss the following projects (Attachment 4): 

1. BIO 2.Rxx: Mainstem juvenile humpback chub monitoring (including Marble Canyon sampling). 

New Cost (NFFCF); informs removal decisions near the Little Colorado River, and 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 10 

Final Minutes of June 28-29, 2011 Meeting 

2. BIO 2. E18, 11, 12: Formerly: Detection of rainbow trout movement from the upper reaches of the 

Colorado River below Glen Canyon Dam – Revised: as Natal Origins of Rainbow Trout in Marble 

Canyon/LCR Confluence Area 

Sediment Update. Dr. Paul Grams gave a PPT presentation (via phone), “Update on Sand Mass 

Balance with Modeling” (Attachment 5). He provided the following results: 

 The relatively high volume dam releases of winter-spring-summer 2011 (~ 17,000  24,000 cfs) do not 

permit sand retention 

 Measured sand export from January 1, 2011 to May 2, 2011: 

 ~0.7 million tons loss from upper Marble Canyon (RM 0 to 30) 

 ~0.15 million tons loss from lower Marble Canyon (RM 30 to 61) 

 ~1.05 million tons loss from eastern Grand Canyon (RM 61 to 87) 

 ~0.2 million tons loss from central and western Grand Canyon (RM 87 to 225) 

 Model-predicted sand export from May 2, 2011 to October 1, 2011: 

 ~1.0 million tons loss from upper Marble Canyon (RM 0 to 30) 

 ~0.6 million tons loss from lower Marble Canyon (RM 30 to 61) 

 ~0.6 million tons loss from eastern Grand Canyon (RM 61 to 87) 

 No model prediction for central and western Grand Canyon (RM 87 to 225) 

 Sand is moving out of upper Marble Canyon by deflation (the “new” pile of sand delivered by Paria in Fall 

2010, is shrinking and being transported through the downstream reaches in suspension, not moving 

downstream as a “wave” on the bed) 

In answer to questions, Paul said: 

	 No comparison of modeling to actual has yet been done. 

	 GCMRC did not look at alternative operations to minimize sediment transport. 

	 The total in the table above shows about 4 million metric tons of sediment moved through the system 

during this time. 

 Because it is impossible to predict the hydrology, GCMRC has not done long-term (20-year) predictive 

assessment of sand balance. 

2012 Hydrograph Development Status. Dave Trueman gave a PPT presentation (Attachment 6a) and 

provided copies of the “DOI and DOE Operating Hydrograph Recommendations for Glen Canyon Dam 

(2012 Water year)” dated June 6, 2011, (Attachment 6b). He said that as a result of DOI and DOE 

discussions, they adopted the targeted method over doing the original 2011 hydrograph in 2012: 

2011 Hydrograph Method Targeted Method 

• Monthly volume may vary +/- 100 kaf 

from average of remaining balance 

• 16,000 cfs limit up to 11.0 maf annual 

release 

• 22,000 cfs limit above 11.0 maf annual 

release 

• No limits if needed for equalization 

• ROD limits apply 

• August releases are limited using 

percentage method to conserve 

sediment inputs 

• Sept/Oct low-steady releases also 

conserve sediment 

• No limits on other months 

• No limits if needed for equalization 

• ROD limits apply 

In answer to questions, Dave said: 

 Reclamation is pressed to complete the flows, and so they are moving water through at powerplant 

capacity. 

 The latest 24-moth study shows continuing at powerplant capacity into the next calendar year for at least a 

couple of months and maybe into November and December. 

 While we’ve become accustomed to 8.23 maf releases, they are not normal. This is the driest 10-year 

period on record. This is a pretty massive input. 

Shane asked if there was anyone who would be voting against the motion. 
 

 

 

 

 

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 11 

Final Minutes of June 28-29, 2011 Meeting 

Proposed Motion: The TWG recommends to AMWG for their approval the DOI-DOE Proposed 

Hydrograph for Water Year 2012. 

After discussion, the group acted on the following motion: 

Motion (Proposed by Kerry Christensen, seconded by Robert King): The TWG 

recommends to AMWG for their approval the DOI-DOE Proposed Hydrograph for Water 

Year 2012 as described in the Proposed Operating Parameters of the June 6, 2011, 

document. 

Representative Stakeholder Entity Vote 

Bill Stewart / Andy Makinster Arizona Game and Fish Department A 

Tricia Crawford / Perri Benemelis Arizona Y 

Amy Heuslein / Garry Cantley Bureau of Indian Affairs Y 

Glen Knowles / Marianne Crawford Bureau of Reclamation Y 

Christopher Harris California absent 

Ted Kowalski / Jennifer Gimbel Colorado Y 

Bill Davis / Leslie James CREDA Y 

Gerald Myers / John Jordan Federation of Fly Fishers Y 

Jerry Lee Cox / Sam Jansen Grand Canyon River Guides A 

Rick Johnson / Nikolai Lash Grand Canyon Trust N 

Larry Stevens Grand Canyon Wildlands Council A 

Mike Yeatts Hopi Tribe A 

Kerry Christensen / Loretta Jackson-Kelly Hualapai Tribe Y 

Norm Henderson / Chris Kincaid National Park Service - GLCA A 

Jan Balsom / Todd Chaudhry National Park Service - GRCA A 

Tony Joe Navajo Nation absent 

McClain Peterson / Jason Thiriot Nevada Y 

Paul Harms / Don Ostler New Mexico Y 

Kurt Dongoske Pueblo of Zuni Y 

Charley Bulletts / LeAnn Skrzynski Southern Paiute Consortium Y 

Robert King Utah Y 

Pam Sponholtz / Marc Wicke U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service A 

Cliff Barrett UAMPS Y 

Clayton Palmer / David Bennion Western Area Power Administration Y 

John Shields / Don Ostler Wyoming Y 

Total Yes 15 

Total No 1 

Total Abstain 7 

Total Voting 16 

Motion Passes 

Abstentions count toward the quorum, but not the vote. For example, if 20 TWG members are present then a 

quorum is present (quorum=16). If the vote is 3-0-17 (that is 3 yeas, 0 nays, and 17 abstentions), the motion 

passes because those abstaining have chosen not to vote. 

BOR Updates on EAs. Glen provided copies of his PowerPoint presentation (Attachment 7) to the 

group. Reclamation is in the midst of a Cooperating Agency Review which ends today. They intend to 

revise the two EAs based on comments received and then have a 2-week public comment period for the 

HFE Protocol EA and a 3-week comment period for the Non-native Fish Control EA. Once that process is 

completed, the two EAs will be finalized. Another step was added to the process and that was to do 

NHPA 106 Compliance. Letters were sent to the SHPOs on eligibility and effect. They did determine sites 

that were eligible for consideration and determined there was an adverse effect to sites for both 

undertakings and are in the process of setting up meetings with the appropriate parties to conclude 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 12 

Final Minutes of June 28-29, 2011 Meeting 

Section 106 compliance with the goal of finding a resolution for adverse effect, especially with the five 

tribes, SHPO, and the Advisory Council. Assuming that can be done, they’ll complete ESA consultation 

with the FWS on the two undertakings and get a biological opinion on the two proposed actions. They 

could get to a decision notice this summer and if they can get to a FONSI on both EAs, they may be able 

to implement the HFE Protocol in time to consider an HFE in the fall provided there are sediment inputs. 

Dr. Melis said GCMRC intends to review the comments from the SAs in completing the science plans 

which will be included as appendices in the EAs. 

LTEMP EIS Update. Glen said a Notice of Intent was signed to begin the EIS process and it should be 

published in the Federal Register within the next two weeks. Scoping will get started and Reclamation 

will begin working with people to get the cooperating agencies and agreements in place with their co-lead 

agency, the National Park Service. 

Shane said the TWG has been asked to comment on is the potential role of the SAs in the LTEMP 

process. He asked Dr. Garrett how the SAs could help that process and when reviews of products could 

be done. Because the TWG wants to look at trade-off analysis and incorporating both biophysical and 

socioeconomic cultural impacts and trade-off assessments, Dr. Garrett said the SAs would be looking at 

those areas. Dr. Melis referenced page 236 in the FY11-12 workplan (Attachment 8) for work the SAs 

will be doing. Shane said it would be important for the TWG to provide input to DOI on how the SAs 

should be involved in the LTEMP process or DOI will make that decision. The following suggestions were 

captured: 

	 Two roles for the SAs: 1) be involved as plans are being put together so they understand what went into 

them, and 2) be independent evaluators or observers so that when they do an evaluation, they understand 

what was developed rather than just looking at it from what’s on the paper. 

	 The SAs could be useful by: 1) making some presumptions that there are DFCs to be met, constructing a 

set of alternatives all of which are targeted at meeting those DFCs while keeping within the law and 

keeping a proper balance among the resources, and 2) GCMRC as the science arm of the AMP would be 

involved in describing one alternative or another alternative actually has a likelihood to accomplish the 

DFCs while keeping the balance. The SAs would look at their evaluations of how and whether the 

alternatives would achieve this and whether the experimentation that is inevitable lead part of the LTEMP 

and the monitoring programs are robust enough to tell the decision-makers whether the implementation of 

some alternative is actually achieving the goals. 

 Need for sufficient DOI funding for the SAs involvement. 

 The Department needs to report back to the AMWG on the status of the DFCs. That work product from the 

AMWG is a critical element of the LTEMP. The 1995 EIS cost over $100 million. 

 Need for adequate representation on the SAs for peer review of how cultural resource issues and Native 

American issues are addressed. 

Core Monitoring Update. Shane said this item was covered in yesterday’s discussion. The next step is 

for him to work with Jack Schmidt to bring a revised draft to the next meeting and the CMAHG to 

complete Appendix B. 

Species of Concern Update. Larry Stevens distributed copies of the “GCWD Draft White Paper: Draft 

6/15/2011 AMP Goal 3 White Paper” (Attachment 9a) and his PPT presentation (Attachment 9b). The 

white paper is still in draft and comments are still welcome. The charge from the AMWG was to develop 

a list of which species had been lost in post-dam time and perhaps being able to assemble enough 

information to understand why they might be considered in this effort. He said there is no commitment for 

funding from the AMP to restore extirpated or declining species. 

Larry said that two administrative issues emerged from this analysis that haven’t been discussed by the 

AMWG. First, many taxa of management concern (TMC) were recognized from the CRE that may 

warrant management attention, if not by the AMWG, then by other managing agencies. A total of 47 (54 

percent) of the 85 TMC considered in here had potential restoration scores > 50 percent (Table 2; 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 13 

Final Minutes of June 28-29, 2011 Meeting 

Appendix A). Also, many species with scores <50 percent lacked critical information on distribution, 

habitat use, or population status. There appears to be considerable opportunity for improving the quality 

of basic information on TMC. 

Second, AMWG monitoring recommendations currently focus primarily on HBC, as well as flow and 

sediment transport, with minor attention to KAS. However, at least 5 species (1 plant, 1 lizard, and 3 nonlisted fish) scored higher than HBC in our analysis. Concern for the 3 non-listed CRE fish arose from the 

desire of the Committee to prevent those species from becoming federally endangered. The zebra-tailed 

lizard scored above HBC because it would be such an inexpensive and easily-accomplished restoration 

action. AMWG may choose to engage in further discussion of the restoration potential of these TMC, and 

we hope that the information provided here contributes to those discussions and to improved 

stewardship of the CRE. 

Motion (Proposed by Ted Kowalski, seconded by Mike Yeatts): TWG recommends that AMWG 

consider the report of the Species of Concern Ad Hoc Committee entitled, “Assessment of Taxa 

of Management Concern in the Colorado River Ecosystem, Glen and Grand Canyons, Arizona, 

USA: Habitat Needs, Availability, and Ecosystem Roles” dated 15 June 2011, which meets the 

criteria set forth in the AMWG motion of April 2009, calling for “a review of information about an 

assessment of the status of habitat needs and availability, and ecosystem roles” of native 

species of management concern. 

Passed by consensus. 

Socioeconomic Ad Hoc Group Update. Helen Fairley said the key piece of the report is the need for 

resolution on the information needs in a broad sense, not just hydropower. They’ve run into the issue of 

how that discussion should be guided and having the appropriate expertise on board. She noted that 

Anne Castle’s perspective is that there is no need or obligation that it be strictly the members who are 

the TWG representatives here to be part of the ad hoc committee, that there is room for expertise to be 

brought in from other parts of a given agency. For example, the Park Service has an economist that they 

could bring to be part of the discussion. Other organizations might have economists that aren’t sitting at 

the table but could be part of that committee to help refine those INs. Even though they don’t have the 

expertise, they have a work plan for this year that they’re trying to move forward at some level. They’ve 

had discussions among Park Service and WAPA in terms of how to make incremental progress. One 

piece they’re going to do in the context of the Knowledge Assessment is the GTMax review as described 

in the FY11 workplan. It’s serving a number of different purposes, but one of the more important ones 

from the TWG’s perspective is that it’s an opportunity for everyone that wants to know more about that 

model to get a much more in-depth understanding of it because that’s the model that WAPA is proposed 

as a main method for making assessments of effects under different operations. They also want outside 

expertise to help in the review. That will be done in the context of the workshop at the end of August and 

then move right into the actual Knowledge Assessment Workshop. 

The other piece is the Park Service undertaking the economic study. They are planning to move forward 

with doing economic analyses of different components of the recreational use in the Colorado River. As 

an interim measure to build on that work and expand it to incorporate more attention to this program, 

they proposed providing them with some additional funding from the small amount of money that was set 

aside for recreational fisheries work this year to supplement and expand upon what they’re proposing to 

do in FY11-12. The idea was to expand on the scope of the sample of fishermen that would be included 

in the survey. Originally they were proposing to look specifically at the people that are going upstream 

into the Lee’s Ferry Reach to fish from boats and using fishing guides. They suggested it might be 

valuable to incorporate more of the walk-in fisherman and people who aren’t necessarily boat supported, 

people that are coming in from the reservation side of things as well as just coming in at the ramp and 

walking downstream in order to get a bigger and more comprehensive picture of the people that are 

using that fishery. In combination with other TWG input, there may be additional questions in the context 

of that survey. 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 14 

Final Minutes of June 28-29, 2011 Meeting 

Some members indicated that they didn’t feel the GTMax model needed to be reviewed by GCMRC. 

Survey Instrument Ad Hoc Group Report. Dr. Garrett distributed copies of his report and PPT 

presentation (Attachment 10). He said it was great working with McClain and others who support the 

SIAHG’s work. He said the group didn’t review the survey instruments because it couldn’t be 

accomplished. However, they looked at the questions being asked in the Survey Instrument and added 

some information needs the TWG and other participants wanted to see in that document. Upon submittal 

of the report to Ms. Castle, he requested and received permission to make today’s presentation. He said 

Ms. Castle liked the report and is handling interactions with the Park Service. He said there were two 

issues that came up: (1) Are the INs for the SEAHG program fully developed, and can INs be added. 

There was a concern the INs that they were given were not fully developed. He said they agreed to allow 

the committee members to add INs and or questions if they saw that was needed. (2) They also felt a 

definition was needed to clarify how input from the ad hoc group related to future findings of the NPS 

survey and how that should be interpreted. They decided to use the SEAHG report as guidance in 

developing additional INs. 

The SIAHG only dealt with issues related to the Lee’s Ferry area of sports fishery and boating, and 

boating through the Grand Canyon. In addition to new questions they proposed, they felt strongly about 

making some statements about how the Park dealt with the unique characteristics of the Canyon and the 

fishing anglers and how they reference Lee’s Ferry against other sports fishery locations in the 

Southwest. They felt there were two areas that were really missed, the sports fishery at Lee’s Ferry and 

the walk-in anglers. They asked the Park to look into clarification of those. The group had a discussion 

that Native Americans utilize walk-in and specifically the walk-in the lower mile of that region. They may 

have been possibly impacted by changes in regulations and access. They posed a question on that. Also 

missing from the survey was the half-day float trips which they also added into the SIAHG report. Dave 

said Ms. Castle advised that he could talk with Bruce Peacock regarding recommendations from the 

SIAHG on the survey. 

Helen said the TWG may want to provide information on how recreational values may change under 

different flow regimes. 

Public Comments: 

John Jordan: It would be very helpful if there was an e-mail sent with the dates for upcoming meetings 

and workshops. 

Adjourned: 2:00 

Attachment 11: A Review of the GCMRC Report on an “Analysis of Biophysical and Socio-cultural 

Impacts of Four Experimental Options” 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 Linda Whetton 

 Upper Colorado Regional Office

 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 
 

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 15 

Final Minutes of June 28-29, 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