Technical Work Group

May 10, 2000

Phoenix, Arizona

Presiding: Rick Johnson, Chairperson FINAL 

Committee Members Present:

Clifford Barrett, CREDA Rick Johnson, GCT

Andres Cheama, Pueblo of Zuni Matt Kaplinski, GCRG

Dave Cohen, Trout Unlimited Robert King, UDWR

Wayne Cook, UCRC Phillip Lehr, Colo. River Comm./Nevada

Wm. Davis, Eco Plan Assoc/CREDA Don Metz, FWS

Kurt Dongoske, The Hopi Tribe S. Clayton Palmer, WAPA

Brenda Drye, So. Paiute Consortium Bill Persons, AGFD

Christopher Harris, ADWR Randall Peterson, USBR

Norm Henderson, NPS/GCNRA Randy Seaholm CWCB

Amy Heuslein, BIA Robert Winfree, NPS/GCNP

Committee Members Absent:

Robert Begay, Navajo Nation

Nancy Hornewer, USGS

Kerry Christensen, Hualapai Tribe

John Shields, WY State Engr. Office

Fred Worthley, CRBC

Alternates Present: Alternate for:

Wayne Cook John Shields, WY State Engr. Office

Loretta Jackson Kerry Christensen, Hualapai Tribe

Tim Begay Robert Begay, Navajo Nation

Pam Hyde Mindy Schlimgen-Wilson, Am. Rivers

Other Interested Persons Present:

Garry Cantley, BIA Ruth Lambert, GCMRC

Nancy Coulam, USBR Mike Liszewski, GCMRC

Barry Gold, GCMRC Mary Orton, Mary Orton Company

Dennis Kubly, USBR Barbara Ralston, GCMRC

Recorder: Linda Whetton, USBR
GCD Technical Work Group

Minutes of May 10-11, 2000 Meeting

Page 2

Meeting Opening and Administrative Items

May 10, 2000: Convened: 9:30 a.m.

Welcome and Introductions

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

Chairperson determined there was a quorum established. 

The Chairperson recognized Wayne Cook. Wayne requested the LSSF Science Plan discussion

scheduled for tomorrow=s meeting be moved to today=s meeting as he would not be present tomorrow. 

There were no objections and it was decided to switch it with the Tailwater Workshop presentation

scheduled for today=s meeting.

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

Motion: Approve March 2-3, 2000, meeting minutes (Attachment 2)

Matt Kaplinski clarified Action Item #2. During the course of the meeting, Dennis Kubly had talked

about the basinwide recovery plan. Matt said that he mentioned that he thought we should see a copy

of that plan or have a copy of it. Matt said the action item could be deleted from the minutes but he

doesn’t want it ignored. 

Without objection the minutes were approved pending the above change.

Review of Action Items

1. Discussion of payment of travel expenses for TWG members/alternates at next meeting -

Reclamation.

Randy Peterson said this would be rescheduled for a future TWG meeting.

2. Deleted. See comment under above motion.

3. Send MO BIN items to everyone - Mary Orton

Completed.

4. Re-draft language for MO=s 47, 48, and 49 and turn into ad hoc group - Bill Persons

Completed.
GCD Technical Work Group

Minutes of May 10-11, 2000 Meeting

Page 3

5. Upcoming TWG & AMWG meetings - Randy Peterson

Scheduled for discussion today.

6. Power economics presentation - Cliff Barrett

Cliff will present at next TWG meeting.

7. TWG River Trip - Barry Gold

This is an agenda item for tomorrow=s meeting.

Clayton said there was an action item from the January 20, 2000 TWG minutes relating to the Kanab

ambersnail expert panel report. That hasn=t been done and he would like to see that action item carried

over.

ACTION: KAWG response to expert panel report and report to TWG (refer to TWG Minutes,

January 19 & 21, 2000). 

Barry Gold said a process needs to be developed in order to move this forward to the AMWG. Randy

said that when the expert panel concluded their presentation, TWG discussed the next steps, including

reconsultation with FWS using the new information. The consultation would be delayed until the

KAWG had an opportunity to meet, review the report, and offer their response. At that time, the

TWG would take action. The TWG is still waiting for the KAWG report. It was stated in the

meeting that the KAWG solicited clarification from the expert panel on their report, but the expert panel

refused to respond to KAWG inquiry. This has been a factor holding up the KAWG analysis. Randy

commented that the TWG should consider the reports rather than having another review group in the

process. Once the TWG receives a report, it should be reviewed and/or debated, and then a

recommendation made directly to AMWG.

MOTION: The TWG consider KAS expert panel report and KAWG response at next TWG meeting

and make recommendation to AMWG.

Motion passed.

MOTION:

1. Expert reports and responses or recommendations by other receiving bodies are presented to the

TWG.

2. TWG considers recommendations.

3. TWG summarizes and forwards all recommendations, including their own, to AMWG.

Motion passed.
GCD Technical Work Group

Minutes of May 10-11, 2000 Meeting

Page 4

Ground Rules. Amy Heuslein reviewed the TWG Ground Rules (Attachment 3) for Meetings.

Presentation of future MO Process, Key Issue Papers, and Response to Comments

Rick directed the members to the MO document mailed to them on April 17, 2000 (Attachment 4a –

Principles & Goals, 4b – MO’s) and said today=s discussion would focus on the responses. Some of

the ad hoc group members were present and Rick invited them to respond as necessary. For

substantial comments, Rick asked the members to write them down and send to the ad hoc group

members (Cliff Barrett, Kerry Christensen, Wayne Cook, Barry Gold, Amy Heuslein, Rick Johnson,

Randy Peterson, Andre Potochnik, Robert Winfree, and Gerry Zimmerman) by May 24, 2000, for

further action. 

The Issue Papers (Attachment 5) which accompanied the MO=s were reviewed and members who had

substantial comments were asked to send their comments to the ad hoc group. Refer to flip charts

(Attachment 6).

Cultural Protocol Evaluation Panel Report - Ruth Lambert introduced Dr. William H. Doelle. Dr.

Doelle is an archaeologist and has a cultural resource contracting firm, Desert Archaeology, in Tucson. 

He has a Ph.D. from the University of Arizona and is well known throughout the Southwest. Dr.

Doelle compiled the PEP report and was here to present the panel=s preliminary findings and answer

questions. He reviewed the strengths of the program and provided a summary of panel

recommendations (Attachment 7). The report should be ready by early June.

GCMRC FY 2002 Budget - Barry Gold presented the GCMRC portion of the FY 2002 budget

(Attachment 8). The GCMRC developed their 2002 budget by looking at their monitoring and

research needs developed from recommendations contained in the draft PEP reports and experience

gained from planning the Low Steady Summer Flows and preliminary evaluation of the native fish

monitoring and research activities. This resulted in a total GCMRC funding request of $7,893,000. 

Consistent with the language in the Mark Schaefer memo, which transferred the GCMRC to the

USGS, the portion of the GCMRC 2002 budget request to be financed by power revenues will be

capped at FY 2000 levels adjusted by the Consumer Price Index (CPI), essentially the inflation factor. 

Additional GCMRC budget needs will be sought through appropriated funds. Barry indicated that

funding needs in excess of power revenues will be sought through a request to the USGS for

appropriated funds in 2002.

Clayton expressed concern about the money being proposed, specifically $250,000 for administrative

support by the USGS, when Reclamation=s program costs don=t change. He also had some concerns

about the total budget cost. Randy Peterson explained that the GCMRC line item for Bureau support
GCD Technical Work Group

Minutes of May 10-11, 2000 Meeting

Page 5

services was the amount officially billed to the GCMRC for Bureau personnel, computer support, and

contracting support for GCMRC contracts. This is a different charge than for program administration

shown in Reclamation’s part of the budget. Reclamation=s AMP administration will not change even

though the GCMRC is under a different organization. 

AMP FY 2002 Budget - (Attachment 9). Randy Peterson stated the salary costs for Reclamation’s

administration of the AMP were inflated by 2.2% but that Reclamation is trying to make a conscious

effort to reduce the administrative costs. Also included in this part of the budget is the PA funding of 

$973,000, which includes funding for tribal participation. With the conclusion of the Cultural PEP

review, that amount will be addressed in the next few months.

Motion: Recommend supporting the funding budget for

$6,576,000 power revenues

$ 307,000 O&M funding for Lake Powell water quality monitoring

$1,010,000 appropriated funds 

$7,893,000 for the GCMRC, and recommend 

$1,399,000 power revenues

$ 75,000 appropriated funds for tribal participation

$1,474,000 for USBR administration for FY 2002

Vote: 17 in favor

Abstained: 1 (Cliff Barrett because there is no backup to support the $1M for appropriated money for

the GCMRC. He can=t vote for it today.)

Runoff Forecast, LSSF Status - Randy Peterson said this presentation would be done in two parts:

1) hydrology update, and 2) LSSF science plan by Barry Gold. Randy displayed a snow map which

indicated that we have had almost three months of no precipitation in the fall, three months where it was

150-200% of normal in the winter, and now basically no rain since mid-March. The snowpack has

gone from 91% to 41% in the last month and there has been very little runoff to speak of in April. If not

for the high releases last fall, this would be close to an 8.23 maf year.

He passed out a revised flow schedule (Attachment 10) for the remainder of the year. After the

forecast drop of 1.25 maf in early May, a decision was made to reduce May releases from 19,000 cfs

for most of the month down to 17,000 cfs to conserve water. In keeping with the intent of the study

plan, it did not compromise the research. To support the LCR confluence ponding measurements, we

will release 19,000 cfs on May 23-27 and then 13,500 cfs from May 28-31.
GCD Technical Work Group

Minutes of May 10-11, 2000 Meeting

Page 6

Amy mentioned that some people aren=t on the Tom Ryan=s list server for receiving GC Dam updates,

so if they want to receive the monthly forecasts, they should give their names to Randy.

LSSF Science Plan - (Attachment 11). Barry Gold said in the January 2000 Adaptive Management

Work Group meeting, Randy raised the possibility of a test of low steady summer flows and got a sense

from the AMWG that if the hydrology presented itself, it made sense to undertake this. Around

February 4, Randy called the GCMRC and said the February forecasts looked like the remainder of

this year’s releases would be structured as a 8.23 maf release year and requested that the GCMRC

prepare the science plan for a LSSF. A meeting was scheduled at the GCMRC on Feb. 8 with all the

fisheries biologists to work on data consolidation with respect to native fish data, and on Feb. 9, they

held a meeting will all the fisheries biologists to discuss the science plan for a LSSF. They began with

eight assumptions that they felt underpinned the rationale the FWS had used in proposing seasonally

adjusted steady flows. They took those eight assumptions and broke them down into a set of about 20

hypotheses, things that could be tested this year if we released low steady flows. They held another

meeting on Feb. 16 where GCMRC opened it up to more of the scientists and stakeholders and

following that meeting, they sent those hypotheses out by e-mail to all of the scientists and asked them

to prioritize the hypotheses so we would end up with a very focused set of studies. The criteria they

were asked to use in prioritizing the hypotheses were: a) was it a meaningful hypothesis, was it

something that related to the assumptions and that we really needed to understand, and b) was it

testable, could we actually go in the field and get measurements that could be used to test that

hypothesis. With that criteria in mind, they rated the hypotheses and focused the broader set down to

the set that is in the science plan. 

They then went to the biologists and scientists and asked them to propose studies that relate to the

hypotheses. It was a rigorous and focused effort. In order to support the studies, GCMRC added 13

new trips and have rescheduled about 8 trips. The GCMRC reprogrammed some of their existing

monitoring and other activities to support the work, and had a few contracts which became deobligated. The final total was $3,450,038 with $932,000 from the GCRMC power revenue funded

program and $2,518,038 of additional power revenues requested from WAPA.

Randy pointed out that this has been an extraordinary process in a short amount of time for a lot of

scientists, the GCMRC staff, and Reclamation staff and the work effort is a great accomplishment in

itself.

Bill Davis questioned if this was a done deal and if the work was underway. Barry responded that

many of the studies have been started and that is why there are Acommitted@ funds in a lot of areas. 

Barry said initial approval was given by WAPA to spend $1.8M but they haven=t received a firm word
GCD Technical Work Group

Minutes of May 10-11, 2000 Meeting

Page 7

on the remaining funding requests. Bill suggested the AContributed Funds@ column be renamed to

Areprogrammed funds.@ Barry concurred. 

Clayton expressed concern over the socio-economic studies proposed for the test, but was willing to

support the monitoring and research activities in the GCMRC plan. As a prerequisite to approving the

additional contingency funding, he expects Reclamation to search for appropriated funds in their FY

2000 budget. He commended GCMRC for reprogramming approximately $900,000 for studying the

LSSF test.

Institutional Home of the GCMRC – (Attachment 12). Randy reported that Charley Calhoun

(BOR) and Denny Fenn (USGS) sent out a memo about a month ago requesting input from the

AMWG members and the transfer of the GCMRC to the USGS. This came in a response to the

House and Senate Subcommittees on Interior Appropriations for they sought comments and feedback

from the AMWG on this proposed transfer. As a result of those discussions, the Department of the

Interior is preparing a reprogramming letter for the subcommittees to enact the the transfer of the

GCMRC to the USGS. There may be a discussion at the upcoming AMWG meeting in July. There

were a number of important concerns raised by AMWG members. Those concerns were carefully

tabulated and analyzed, and will be factored into the processes to effect the transfer. The request letter

from Charley Calhoun and Denny Fenn indicated a summary would be transmitted to the subcommittee

and the AMWG. A copy of that summary will also be sent to the TWG.

Timing of TWG and AMWG Meetings. Rick said an ad hoc group was formed at the January

TWG meeting to look at different meeting options. The group met (Barry Gold, Rick Johnson, Clayton

Palmer, Bill Persons, Randy Peterson) and recommended the following:

S TWG meetings will be held when they are needed, rather than automatically held before or after

an AMWG meeting.

S However, they will be held sequentially with an AMWG meeting whenever possible to save on

time and money.

S Under special circumstances, a TWG meeting may be combined with an AMWG meeting. 

There was no opposition expressed. Having completed its assignment, the ad hoc group was

disbanded.

Public Comment

None.
GCD Technical Work Group

Minutes of May 10-11, 2000 Meeting

Page 8

Meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m.
GCD Technical Work Group

Minutes of May 10-11, 2000 Meeting

Page 9

Technical Work Group

May 11, 2000

Phoenix, Arizona

Presiding: Rick Johnson, Chairperson

Committee Members Present:

Andres Cheama, Pueblo of Zuni Robert King, UDWR

Dave Cohen, Trout Unlimited Phillip Lehr, Colo. River Comm./Nevada

Kurt Dongoske, The Hopi Tribe Don Metz, FWS

Brenda Drye, So. Paiute Consortium Bill Persons, AGFD

Christopher Harris, ADWR Randall Peterson, USBR

Norm Henderson, NPS/GCNRA Randy Seaholm, CWCB

Rick Johnson, GCT Robert Winfree, NPS/GCNP

Matt Kaplinski, GCRG

Committee Members Absent:

Cliff Barrett, CREDA Wm. Davis, EcoPlan Assoc./CREDA

Robert Begay, Navajo Nation John Shields, WY State Engr. Office

Kerry Christensen, Hualapai Tribe Fred Worthley, CRBC

Alternates Present: Alternate for:

Gary Burton Clayton Palmer, WAPA

Pam Hyde Mary Schlimgen-Wilson, Am. Rivers

Loretta Jackson Kerry Christensen, Hualapai Tribe

Other Interested Persons Present:

Nancy Coulam, USBR Ruth Lambert, GCMRC

Barry Gold, GCMRC Mike Liszewski, GCMRC

Dennis Kubly, USBR Barbara Ralston, GCMRC

Recorder: Linda Whetton, USBR
GCD Technical Work Group

Minutes of May 10-11, 2000 Meeting

Page 10

Meeting Opening and Administrative Items

May 11, 2000: Convened: 8:00 a.m.

Welcome and Introductions

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

Chairperson determined there was a quorum established. 

Tailwater Workshop Update: (Attachment 13). Bill Persons summarized the Tailwater Workshop he

attended on April 25-28, 2000. He thanked those individuals/agencies involved in funding the

workshop. He said out of 26 papers, there were 9 academics, 9 state agencies, 3 from GCMRC, 2

private consultants, and 2 from the Fed. Govt. He felt that it was probably a good cross-section of

people. They started out with case histories from a variety of tailwaters (Tennessee, Missouri,

Oklahoma, Utah, Arkansas, Arizona, and New Mexico), mostly big rivers. A lot of them have similar

problems with what we have but there are a lot of differences. Some of the similarities is that we=re all

dealing with regulated, highly altered systems. Many of them do not have control of their flows; they

are managed by whatever agency runs the facility. They are trying to meet with the agency that

manages the flows and in some cases are building and trying to manage flows using re-regulation dams. 

Another difference is that we=ve got native/non-native fish issues here, especially in the Colorado River

Basin. 

He has received abstracts from the meeting and will be putting together some proceedings. There was

some thought about sending the proceedings to a peer review journal. However, that might be difficult

to do because out of the 25-26 papers, only 4-5 might pass peer review. He will be working with

Barbara Ralston in the coming weeks to figure out how to publish the proceedings. 

Terrestrial PEP Review. Barbara Ralston introduced Scott Urquhart, Doug Bolger, and David

Lightfoot who were part of the Terrestrial Protocol Evaluation Panel. Scott was the chairman of the

panel. He reviewed the qualifications of the other panel members and distributed copies of the Draft

Report (Attachment 14).

The panel=s charge wasn=t very specific and after a discussion with Barbara and given the length of time

they had to interact, their charge evolved. Their focus was on the Grand Canyon, from Glen Canyon

Dam through Lake Mead, below the old high water mark, perhaps with some work in side canyons. It

appeared to them that there hasn=t been very much integration across disciplines, no mechanism in place

to ensure long-term comparability of monitoring data, some modeling of the terrestrial ecosystem, and
GCD Technical Work Group

Minutes of May 10-11, 2000 Meeting

Page 11

that the Kanab ambersnail receives too much effort. He said he would talk about those in more detail

and proceeded to review the findings in the report. 

Research & Monitoring Update - Barry said that in addition to the reports provided at yesterday=s

meeting and the Terrestrial PEP this morning, there are three more upcoming reviews: 1) the Trout

PEP review will be coming out later this month, 2) the Lake Powell PEP review is scheduled for

October 2000, and 3) the Native Fish and Aquatic Foodbase PEP review which was originally

scheduled for October will probably be delayed until March 2001 because all the fishery biologists are

engaged in the LSSF. 

On April 21, 2000 Ted Melis sent TWG members abstracts from 4-5 recent papers on sediment

research. These papers basically say that the current thinking about how sediment storage worked in

the system is changing. This relates to whether the system was or is sediment-limited, and whether

sediment inputs were accumulated in the system, and then every few years as those storage sites were

filled, a BHBF could occur. He said he wasn=t sure sending the technical report brings the information

forward in a way that there can be a meaningful discussion about it. Matt Kaplinski and his group are

updating a Fact Sheet which will be done in a couple of weeks. 

S The Bishop Report (recreation study) is now final. 

S Fish monitoring reports from Owen Gorman and others will be coming in soon.

Barry posed two questions: How do we do an effective job in making presentations? and What is

the framework for having dialogue around this? As the program continues and work is completed,

how should results be brought to the TWG? Barry questioned sending out five technical reports vs. an

integrated summary. It was determined that summaries would be sent out and that if members wanted

the full report, they could request it from the GCMRC. The GCMRC will also continue to post reports

on their website. It was also suggested that the GCMRC put out a publication list and people could

check off the reports they want and return it to the GCMRC. Rick also suggested that report

summaries be put out earlier at TWG meetings and that if individuals want the full report, they could

request from the GCMRC.

TWG River Trip Update - Barry presented the results of a possible TWG River trip originally

scheduled for Sept. 2-9, 2000. As of March 10, 16 members said they could go, 8 said no, and 1

maybe. He also received a couple of requests that if there were space, could they go. This trip was

discussed prior to conducting the LSSF and it now has become almost logistically impossible for the

GCMRC to schedule the trip. The GCMRC would use all the boats and river guides around the spike

so Rick asked him to propose some other dates. Barry proposed the following dates:

July 8-15, 2000
GCD Technical Work Group

Minutes of May 10-11, 2000 Meeting

Page 12

July 22-29, 2000

March 24-31, 2001. 

There is a real drawback to canyon temperatures in July. He said that advantage for scheduling the trip

in March 2001 would be the opportunity to do more observing (effects of the 8,000 and 31,000 cfs

spike) and provide a longer opportunity to plan. One of the original concepts behind the trip was to

work on the Strategic Plan and to become more informed about cultural resource issues in the canyon. 

Barry also pointed out that there are a number of trips going over the summer and fall and there are

opportunities for members to volunteer. 

Action: Barry will send out an e-mail message advising which river trip dates are available. 

Ad Hoc Reports - The only ad hoc group that is the Experimental Flows Ad Hoc Group and it was

decided the last time the issue was discussed, that the group would be idle until the Strategic Plan is

done. 

Upcoming Agenda Items:

1. KAS expert panel and work group recommendations

2. Dave Speas’ update on trout monitoring (Fall)

3. TWG develop comments on Cultural PEP review. TWG should wait until the PA group provides

an opinion to the TWG on the Cultural PEP. Trying to plan a meeting in July (Kurt). By Fall,

comments would be available.

4. Power revenues

5. USGS presentation on what to expect after the transfer of GCMRC to USGS

6. Terrestial PEP Review 

7. MO=s and IN=s that are going to the AMWG. 

8. AMP Strategic Plan - develop a process/direction

9. EIS on Surplus Criteria associated with the California plan. Get a presentation from Bureau of

Reclamation.

10. Follow up on 2002 budget? - Barry says people want more details on new initiatives. 

11. At next TWG meeting, get preliminary results on LSSF.

Meeting Review - Bill Persons

Positive Negative
GCD Technical Work Group

Minutes of May 10-11, 2000 Meeting

Page 13

agenda (format) meeting materials rushed on Mos & Ins

kept to agenda do your homework

liked the budget tables More lead time on budget

PEP presentations good More discussion on budget

Strange budget vote process

Mark agenda for decision items

Next TWG Meeting

August 2-3, 2000 (Wed-Thu)

Tentative TWG Meeting:

Sept. 20-21, 2000 (Wed-Thu) 

Action Items:

1. KAWG response to expert panel report and report to TWG 

(Carry over from January 2000 TWG Meeting)

2. Barry will send an e-mail message advising which river trips dates are available.

Meeting adjourned at 11:15 a.m.
GCD Technical Work Group

Minutes of May 10-11, 2000 Meeting

Page 14

General Key to Adaptive Management Program Acronyms

ADWR - Arizona Department of Water Resources

AF - Acre Feet

AGFD - Arizona Game & Fish Department

AGU - American Geophysical Union

AMP - Adaptive Management Program

AMWG - Adaptive Management Work Group

AOP - Annual Operating Plan

BA - Biological Assessment

BE - Biological Evaluation

BHBF - Beach/Habitat-Building Flow

BHMF - Beach/Habitat Maintenance Flow

BHTF - Beach/Habitat Test Flow

BIA - Bureau of Indian Affairs

BO - Biological Opinion

BOR - Bureau of Reclamation

CAPA - Central Arizona Project Assn.

cfs - cubic feet per second

CRBC - Colorado River Board of California

CRCN - Colorado River Commission of Nevada

CREDA - Colorado River Energy Distributors Assn.

CRSP - Colorado River Storage Project 

CWCB - Colorado Water Conservation Board

DBMS - Data Base Management System

DOI - Department of the Interior

EA - Environmental Assessment

EIS - Final Environmental Impact Statement

ESA - Endangered Species Act

FACA - Federal Advisory Committee Act

FEIS - Final Environmental Impact Statement

FRN - Federal Register Notice

FWS - United States Fish & Wildlife Service

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

GCD - Glen Canyon Dam

GCMRC - Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research

Center

GCNP - Grand Canyon National Park

GCNRA - Glen Canyon National Recreation Area

GCPA - Grand Canyon Protection Act

HBC - Humpback Chub (endangered native fish)

HMF - Habitat Maintenance Flow

HPP - Historic Preservation Plan

IEDA - Irrigation and Electrical Districts 

Association of Arizona

IN - Information Need (stakeholder)

IT - Information Technology (GCMRC program)

KAS - Kanab ambersnail (endangered native snail)

KAWG - Kanab Ambersnail Work Group

LCR - Little Colorado River

LCRMCP: Little Colorado River Multi-Species 

Conservation Program

MAF - Million Acre Feet

MA - Management Action

MO - Management Objective

NAAO - Native American Affairs Office

NAU - Northern Arizona University (Flagstaff, AZ)

NEPA - National Environmental Policy Act

NGS - National Geodetic Survey

NHPA - National Historical Preservation Act

NPS - National Park Service

NRC - National Research Council

NWS - National Weather Service

O&M - Operations & Maintenance (USBR funding)

PA - Programmatic Agreement

PEP - Protocol Evaluation Panel

Powerplant Capacity - 31,000 cfs

Reclamation - United States Bureau of Reclamation

RFP - Request For Proposals

RPA - Reasonable and Prudent Alternative

SAB - Science Advisory Board

Secretary(=s) - Secretary of the Interior

SWCA - Steven W. Carothers Associates

TCD - Temperature Control Device (for Glen

Canyon Dam water releases)

TCP - Traditional Cultural Property

TES - Threatened and Endangered Species

TWG - Glen Canyon Technical Work Group (a 

subcommittee of the AMWG)

UCR - Upper Colorado Region (of the USBR)

UCRC - Upper Colorado River Commission

UDWR - Utah Division of Water Resources

USBR - United States Bureau of Reclamation

USFWS - United States Fish & Wildlife Service

USGS - United States Geological Survey

WAPA - Western Area Power Administration

WY - Water Year (a calendar year)