Technical Work Group 

 January 19, 2000 

 Phoenix, Arizona

Presiding: Rick Johnson, GCT (Chairperson) 

F I N A L 

Committee Members Present: 

Clifford Barrett, CREDA Robert King, UDWR 

Andres Cheama, Pueblo of Zuni Phillip Lehr, Colo. River Comm./Nevada 

Kerry Christensen, Hualapai Tribe Don Metz, FWS 

Wayne Cook, UCRC Bill Persons, AGFD 

Wm. Davis, EcoPlan Assoc/CREDA Randall Peterson, USBR 

Kurt Dongoske, The Hopi Tribe Mindy Schlimgen-Wilson, Am. Rivers 

Brenda Drye, So. Paiute Consortium John Shields, WY State Engr. Office 

Amy Heuslein, BIA Robert Winfree, NPS 

Rick Johnson, GCT Fred Worthley, CRBC 

Matt Kaplinski, GCRG 

Committee Members Absent:

Mark Anderson, USGS Norm Henderson, GCRA 

Dave Cohen, Trout Unlimited Randy Seaholm, CWCB 

Alan Downer, Navajo Nation 

Christopher Harris, ADWR 

Alternates Present: Alternate for:

Nancy Hornewer Mark Anderson, USGS 

Robert Begay Alan Downer, Navajo Nation 

Gary Burton Clayton Palmer, WAPA 

Other Interested Persons Present:

 

Mary Barger, WAPA Mike Liszewski, GCMRC 

Shane Collins, WAPA Robert S. Lynch, Attorney 

Nancy Coulam, USBR Clay Nelson, AGFD 

Barry Gold, GCMRC Ted Melis, GCMRC 

Peter Evans, CWCB Mary Orton 

Dennis Kubly, USBR Barbara Ralston, GCMRC 

Ruth Lambert, GCMRC Tom Ryan, USBR 

Jeff Sorensen, AGFD 

Recorder: Linda Whetton, USBR 
GCD Technical Work Group 

Minutes of January 19 & 21, 2000 Meeting 

Page 2 

Meeting Opening and Administrative Items

1/19/00: Convened: 1:00 p.m. Adjourned: 3:20 p.m. 

Welcome and Introductions

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

themselves. The Chairperson determined there was a quorum established. 

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

MOTION: Approve Dec. 7-8, 1999 meeting minutes. Linda Whetton will incorporate changes 

and finalize minutes. Motion seconded and passed. 

Hydrology/Spring Runoff Forecast - Randy Peterson stated that as a result of very low 

snowpack, there is now an opportunity to conduct a test of the low steady flow component of the 

Biological Opinion Reasonable and Prudent Alternative. Reclamation has the responsibility for 

complying with the opinion and is seeking comments or concerns in designing a test that would 

significantly benefit the native fish. 

Tom Ryan reported there are dry conditions in the basin and presented an overhead of the snow 

map as forecasted by the NWS as of Jan. 18, 2000. There is very little snowpack in the San Juan 

River basin. There is some potential for runoff in the Upper Green and Yampa and the 

headwaters of the Colorado River. At present, the integrated snow water equivalent average for 

the Colorado River Basin is 60%. The January 1 forecast by the NWS of the April-July runoff 

was 52% of average, 4 maf, and there has never been an April-July forecast issued in January 

that was that low. That=s remarkable in terms of the impact it has on Reclamation=s operation. 

The forecast received on Jan. 14 was increased to 4.5 maf which is 58% of average. Tom said a 

lot can happen between January and what you actually see in the April-July runoff. He cautioned 

not to look at the January forecasts as being indicative of what the year will be and presented an 

overhead which showed some deviations. 

Reclamation takes the NWS forecasts and inputs into their models and then determines how they 

are going to operate a facility. They run three alternate hydrologic scenarios in January 

(Attachment 2a). With the 4.5 maf mid-month January forecast, they come very close to an 8.23 

maf minimum objective release year at Glen Canyon (Attachment 2b). 

Tom presented another graph which showed some possible ways that the release volumes could 

be adjusted so that they could implement some kind of a test of low steady summer flows 

(Attachment 3). This is a strictly a hypothetical exercise at looking at how releases could be 

reorganized to perhaps meet some of the objectives of making sufficient progress toward the 

Reasonable and Prudent Alternative. 
GCD Technical Work Group 

Minutes of January 19 & 21, 2000 Meeting 

Page 3 

Compliance Issues During FY 2000

BHBF Biological Assessment - Dennis Kubly said that as the prospect of an 8.23 maf year 

increases, the likelihood of having the conditions necessary for a BHBF diminish. There is a 

draft Biological Assessment completed but it hasn=t been sent to the FWS yet. The compliance 

they have previously completed for the March-April period would cover those two months. The 

draft BA covers the period May-July with Feb. 1 a decision point. The information that Tom has 

been gathering is very important to them in assessing the likelihood of the two scenarios, one in 

which we would have the BHBF and the other in which we would be moving towards a program 

of experimental flows characterized by LSSF. 

Copies of the ANative Fish Group: An Approach to Removal of Jeopardy from Native Fishes in 

the Grand Canyon,@ (Attachment 4) were distributed. It has been over 20 years since the issuance 

of the first BO which had in it a jeopardy for native fishes and characterized that time period as 

being reactive than proactive, particularly on the part of Reclamation and FWS. They are 

seeking to move beyond that in the spirit of adaptive management to develop a native fish work 

group which will be a technical body having a core of primarily agency biologists but also 

supplemented by academicians and consultants having the expertise needed to put together a 

program of management actions to remove jeopardy from native fish in the Grand Canyon. 

Once there is concurrence between physical scientists, lower trophic level scientists, and the 

native fish work group, then the proposal would come up through the Technical Work Group as a 

review body. 

Native Fish Work Group - Barbara Ralston reviewed the schedule of the long term monitoring 

plan development group. There is a need to look at historical data to determine the value of that 

data in relationship to baseline information for native fish, as well as how that data is going to be 

incorporated into a long-term monitoring effort. They also need to consider how they will 

maintain monitoring within the mainstem that characterizes native fish parameters, such as 

recruitment, spawning, and habitat conditions. 

There was a lengthy discussion on whether the monitoring could be completed in the time frames 

presented, the difference between monitoring and testing, as well as the members= dissatisfaction 

of having not received a complete copy of the document (pages missing) in advance of the 

meeting so there was adequate time to review and advise their AMWG representative. 

Action: Barry will provide a new set of copies and it will be on the AMWG agenda (1/21/00) 

for discussion. 

Testing of Low Steady Summer Flows in FY 2000 - Dennis reviewed what was in the RPA 

with respect to the flows: The FWS has stated that Reclamation needs to develop a program of 

experimental flows that are characterized by at least two facets, one being high spring flows and 

the other being low summer flows. Barbara showed the hydrograph presented by Rich Valdez in 
GCD Technical Work Group 

Minutes of January 19 & 21, 2000 Meeting 

Page 4 

the TWG Sept. 1999 meeting. The hydrograph starts in March and goes through March so it 

crosses over water years. The graph is divided into three sections. The first section has a high 

discharge followed by low steady flows in sections 2 and 3. These sections are split up based on 

native fish life histories. The hypothesis is that the high spring runoff will have created shoreline 

habitats like backwaters and as the hydrograph is reduced, those habitats will become available to 

the young fish to utilize. Habitats such as backwaters might not necessarily be needed until later 

in the season (June-Sep.) when fish are moving from the tributaries into the mainstem. They are 

also proposing that the 8,000 cfs be maintained again through March as a way of providing stable 

shoreline habitat for the young fish as well as maintaining productivity through the wintertime as 

these fish grow from the larval stage. Barbara passed out copies of AThe Influence of Dam 

Discharge on Water Temperature@ (Attachment 5). 

Comments and Concerns Raised (Flip Chart): 

- Question about temperature and pooling effect at LCR for various flows 

- look at habitat up the LCR 

- if peak spring flows were up to 45,000 cfs, backwater effects would be greater additional 

benefits 

- concerns of low flows during monsoon season Jun-Sep might escalate head cutting from 

tributaries. Also, consider benefits of BHBF deposition. 

- displacement of non-natives w/high flows 

- monitoring of non-native species important 

- consider equalization impacts on fall spike 

- 45K BHBF is based on spill avoidance 

- low release annual volumes are set by law 

- is the baseline data there to do test? 

- will monitoring plan be in place? 

- will test count as 1 of the 5 years required (are 5 tests required?) 

- let GCMRC develop plan w/work groups then get TWG comment 

- good opportunity to test 8000 low flow, but consider conducting BHBF 

- is BO flow being considered starting May 1? 

what will test hydrograph look like given tradeoff between spring and lower summer 

flows, preference is to keep summer flow >8,000 cfs 

- is it necessary to test consecutive 3 years, or is it the first of several years? 

- plans and products are not yet in place. Use this year for data analysis/monitoring plan 

development 

- finite amount of time to decide 

Action: The above comments will be given to the Native Fish Work Group (NFWG) or the 

GCMRC to address. If there are more comments, get to Randy by the end of the week. 
GCD Technical Work Group 

Minutes of January 19 & 21, 2000 Meeting 

Page 5 

TWG and AMWG Ad Hoc Group Updates

TWG Experimental Flow Group - Rick Johnson said that he talked with a few people and they 

felt that they needed to wait until the MO development process continues on before they can 

really make much progress with that group. It is idling at this point in time. If there are any 

ideas on how to move forward with this, provide comments to him. 

AMWG Strategic Plan / Goals Group - Rick Johnson outlined the steps needed in order to get 

the MOs ready for presentation to the AMWG in April 2000 (Attachment 6). 

Comments and Concerns Raised (Flip Chart): 

- have TWG meeting to discuss draft MOs - sufficient lead time for review 

- review existing MOs and EIS table 2-7 

Rick said that the schedule should be determined and hopefully on Friday the dates can be set. 

Mary Orton said the ad hoc group would like to see an interim approval of the goals. 

Rick said the second thing the AMWG Ad Hoc Group recommended to the full AMWG is that 

the Downstream Ad Hoc Group address the socio-economic concerns that are in the downstream 

report. 

Kanab Ambersnail Panel Report - Jeff Sorensen presented results and recommendations from 

the KAS Workshop (Attachment 7). He reviewed how the review panel was formed, their 

objectives, information that was given to them, and the recommendations they provided. He has 

solicited comments from those involved and once the KAWG has met and reviewed them, he 

could make another presentation to the TWG, perhaps in March. 

Public Comment and Wrapup

Matt Kaplinski said he placed a Fact Sheet on the back table. If there are any comments on how 

the material is presented, give those to him, Ted Melis, or Barry Gold. 

Adjourned at 3:20P 
GCD Technical Work Group 

Minutes of January 19 & 21, 2000 Meeting 

Page 6 

 Technical Work Group 

 January 21, 2000 

 Phoenix, Arizona

Presiding: Rick Johnson, GCT (Chairperson) 

Committee Members Present: 

Clifford Barrett, CREDA Phillip Lehr, Colo. River Comm./Nevada 

Andres Cheama, Pueblo of Zuni Don Metz, FWS 

Wm. Davis, EcoPlan Assoc./CREDA S. Clayton Palmer, WAPA 

Kurt Dongoske, The Hopi Tribe Bill Persons, AGFD 

Brenda Drye, So. Paiute Consortium Randall Peterson, USBR 

Norm Henderson, GCRA Mindy Schlimgen-Wilson, Am. River 

Amy Heuslein, BIA John Shields, WY State Engr. Office 

Rick Johnson, GCT Robert Winfree, NPS 

Matt Kaplinski, GCRG Fred Worthley, CRBC 

Committee Members Absent:

Mark Anderson, USGS Alan Downer, Navajo Nation 

Dave Cohen, Trout Unlimited Christopher Harris, ADWR 

Kerry Christensen, Hualapai Tribe Robert King, UDWR 

Wayne Cook, UCRC Randy Seaholm, CWCB 

Alternates Present: Alternate for:

Nancy Hornewer Mark Anderson, USGS 

Other Interested Persons Present:

Jan Balsom, NPS Dennis Kubly, USBR 

Gary Burton, WAPA Mike Liszewski, GCMRC 

Shane Collins, WAPA Mary Orton 

Nancy Coulam, USBR Tom Ryan, USBR 

Barry Gold, GCMRC 

Recorder: Linda Whetton 
GCD Technical Work Group 

Minutes of January 19 & 21, 2000 Meeting 

Page 7 

Meeting Opening and Administrative Items

1/21/00: Convened: 1:00 p.m. Adjourned: 3:15 p.m. 

Welcome and Introductions

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

themselves. The Chairperson determined there was a quorum established. 

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

Followup on AMWG Assignments 

Rick said the major assignment was the completion of the MOs for the AMWG meeting on April 

5. He said the AMWG Ad Hoc Group prepared the following calendar: 

- produce first draft (Jan. 28) 

- obtain comments from TWG (month of Feb.) Taking goals and lumping into obvious groups 

and have AMWG Ad Hoc and other people get together in February. They will review the old 

MOs and produce a new set of MOs. 

- incorporate TWG comments 

- meet with TWG and make final revisions (March 2) 

- mail out documents to AMWG (March 20) 

- present MOs to AMWG at spring meeting (April 5) 

 

Comments and Concerns Raised (Flip Chart Notes): 

- KAWG response to expert panel report and report to TWG 

- completion of MOs by April 5 

- send out electronic version of MOs 

- send out action items out right after meeting (Linda) 

- display what was done with existing MOs 

- managing post dam environment 

- written input prior to Jan. 28 

- MOs should come from managing stakeholder 

- schedule Ad Hoc/ TWG MO meetings temporally adjacent to allow people to attend 

multiple meetings. 

- which group should address INs ? Ad hoc or GCMRC? 

- comments and response to comments format very good 

- CREDA will provide comments before January 28 

- plan to succeed rather than fail 
GCD Technical Work Group 

Minutes of January 19 & 21, 2000 Meeting 

Page 8 

The following small group were formed to assist the AMWG Ad Hoc Group in addressing 

specific goals: 

GROUP CHAIRPERSON GOALS MEMBERS 

Food & Fish Barry Gold 1, 2, 3 (part), 4 Gary Burton, Bill Davis, Don Metz, Debra Bills, 

Bill Persons, Bob Winfree, Kerry Christensen 

Physical 

Processes 

Randy Peterson 5, 6 Ted Melis, Matt Kaplinski, Bill Davis, Norm 

Henderson, Fred Worthley, John Shields, Bob 

Winfree, Nancy Hornewer, Kurt Dongoske, 

Mike Yeatts, Wayne Cook, Rick Johnson 

Riparian Barry Gold 7, 8, 9, and 3 (otter) Gary Burton, Bill Davis, Debra Bills, Amy 

Heuslein, Bob Winfree, Kurt Dongoske, Mike 

Yeatts, Kerry Christensen, Bob Winfree 

Cultural Rick Johnson 12, 16 Mary Barger, Brenda Drye, Andres Cheama, Jan 

Balsom, Kurt Dongoske, Mike Yeatts, Ruth 

Lambert, Nancy Coulam 

Recreation Andre Potochnik 10 Bill Davis, Norm Henderson, Bob Winfree, Kurt 

Dongoske, Mike Yeatts, Ruth Lambert, Nancy 

Coulam, Wayne Cook 

Economic Wayne Cook 11 & TBD Matt Kaplinski, Clayton Palmer, Cliff Barrett, 

Fred Worthley, Bob Winfree, Ruth Lambert 

Admin. Barry Gold 13, 14, 15 Cliff Barrett, John Shields, Bob Winfree, Rick 

Johnson 

NPS Cultural Resource Monitoring - Synthesis Report -Jan Balsom reported they have been 

working on a synthesis report as their annual summary report on activities related to 

archeological site monitoring along the river corridor. They went back to the initial survey 

information of the river corridor in 1990-91. There were 10,506 acres that were surveyed at that 

time. They recorded 475 archeological sites and 489 isolated occurrences. Of the archeological 

sites, 118 had been previously recorded and 357 were newly recorded. All of that information 

was used as the basis for the impact evaluation in the EIS and was also the basis for the 

Programmatic Agreement. 

Since 1992, 49 sites have shown rapid deterioration. Those sites represent sites with river based 

drainages which is consistent with geomorphology studies. Of the 118 sites that have no 

developed drainages, there are 14 in poor condition due to visitation. There is only one that may 

have something to do with depletion of a sediment supply. The NPS prepared a draft report in 

October and received extensive comments. A revision should be available in March. 
GCD Technical Work Group 

Minutes of January 19 & 21, 2000 Meeting 

Page 9 

TWG Meeting Management

Discussion on Improving TWG Interactions - Mary Orton said that in addition to the four 

items listed on her agenda (Attachment 8), she was asked by Rick to address one segment of the 

Operating Procedures on the order of priority of who gets to speak at TWG meetings. She 

reviewed parts of the document and addressed specific concerns: 

AAppropriate staff of Reclamation and GCMRC shall provide pertinent information relevant to 

discussion when appropriate.@ That means Reclamation staff and GCMRC staff are here for the 

members. The way it is interpreted is that any member of the TWG can call on them. 

AA member or an alternate may request a representative from their organization to respond to 

questions or make presentations, when approved by the group.@ If someone other than 

Reclamation or GCMRC around the table wants to have somebody from their staff speak on a 

specific issue, they should simply ascertain whether folks are comfortable with it and have that 

person speak. 

The last sentence reads, AThe public will be allowed to comment after discussion of each agenda 

item requiring a decision of the group and at the end of the TWG meeting or as provided in the 

agenda.@ The way this is interpreted is that it is before the actual vote is taken but after TWG 

discussion that the public is asked to speak. 

Mary suggested the members help Rick remember the above procedures. Rick said it would 

really help him if only the members were at the table. There was some discussion on how 

informal and formal the group needs to be run. Mary said that if the members aren=t comfortable 

with some of the procedures, then they need to amend them. Ultimately, the chairman has the 

primary responsibility for allowing people to speak. 

Mary said there was an ad hoc group on effectiveness that came up with a lot of good ideas on 

how to improve the effectiveness of the group. There were several things that came out of the 

committee: use flip charts, be clear on what the decision was, have clearly defined charges, keep 

track of tasks, and better tracking of assignments. At the end of each meeting action items will 

be reviewed to facilitate tracking those tasks. Randy Peterson will take the responsibility for 

capturing action items at each TWG meeting and they will be sent out (e-mailed or faxed to 

members) the following day after the meeting by the recorder (Linda Whetton). 

Potential Training on Use of Robert=s Rules - Mary Orton said the purpose for Robert=s Rules 

are to protect the minority while allowing an organization to accomplish its purpose with civility. 

 It can give you as much flexibility or as much structure as you want. There is nothing in 

Robert=s Rules that mandates you have to do everything by the book. Business is conducted in 

these types of organizations by the making and disposing of motions. There are six things that 

have to happen before a motion is official (see Attachment 9). 
GCD Technical Work Group 

Minutes of January 19 & 21, 2000 Meeting 

Page 10 

Mary distributed copies of ARobert=s Rules of Order: Brief Summary of Basic Procedures@

(Attachment 10) and reviewed it with the members. Rick asked her to address substitute motions 

because it isn=t in the above handout. A substitute is a special case of amendment. If you want to 

move to strike an entire paragraph or more in the motion and insert a new paragraph or more in 

the motion, that is called a substitute. You=re simply saying, AI move to delete a whole paragraph 

and I=m going to add something else in its place.@ One main difference between a motion to 

substitute and a motion to amend is that with a motion to substitute, the debate can go into the 

merits of the main motion. 

After Mary=s presentation, there was discussion about whether having a TWG meeting 

immediately before the AMWG meeting would give the TWG members enough time to 

adequately advise their AMWG representatives as to what is going to be on the AMWG agenda. 

Would it give the staff adequate time to respond to TWG issues and concerns? Should the halfday immediately prior to the AMWG be moved to a week prior to or another time? 

Comments and Concerns Raised (Flip Chart Notes): 

- issue isn=t the meeting but having materials in time 

- ok with meeting - need material early 

- prefer separate meeting - for clearer discussion 

- burnout on 3 days of meetings 

- materials - if meeting is earlier, they may be harder to get out 

- should be 2 weeks before 

- can=t mail on those last minute items 

- travel would be prohibitive 

- what is the problem to be addressed 

- burnout, time to screen material for AMWG 

- if material is 2 weeks before, meeting schedule is fine 

- discussion should still be allowed even if materials are not sent out 

- review Operating Procedures for mailing out materials/voting on in meetings 

- need relevant material for AMWG (can=t do one day before the meeting) 

Rick read from the Operating Procedures: In the event materials are not provided in advance of 

the meeting, action on this topic may be delayed at the Chairperson=s discretion. The previous 

page indicates that mailings should be 10 days. 

Action: The above issues will be addressed in a conference call and brought back to the TWG as 

a future action item. The following people will be involved in that discussion: Barry Gold, 

Clayton Palmer, Bill Persons, and Rick Johnson. 

Future TWG Discussion Items - Rick Johnson
GCD Technical Work Group 

Minutes of January 19 & 21, 2000 Meeting 

Page 11 

Bill Person asked if there would be Press Release issued on the LSSF. Randy said there would 

be. Reclamation will work with AGFD staff in preparing that release 

Public Comment and Wrapup 

None. 

ACTION ITEMS (from Flip Chart): 

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

2. Completion of MOs by April 5 

3. Send out electronic versions of MOs (Barry Gold) 

4. Send out action items right after meeting (Linda Whetton) 

5. Small group of TWG members to address pre-AMWG TWG mtg. 

(Barry Gold, Clayton Palmer, Rick Johnson, Bill Persons) 

Next TWG Meeting - March 2, 2000 

Adjourned: 3:15 p.m. 
General Key to Adaptive Management Program Acronyms

ADWR - Arizona Department of Water Resources 

AF - Acre Feet 

AGFD - Arizona Game & Fish Department 

AGU - American Geophysical Union 

AM - Adaptive Management 

AMP - Adaptive Management Program 

AMWG - Glen Canyon Adaptive Management Work 

Group (a FACA committee) 

AOP - Annual Operating Plan 

BA - Biological Assessment 

BE - Biological Evaluation 

BHBF - Beach/Habitat-Building Flow 

BHMF - Beach/Habitat Maintenance Flow 

BHTF - Beach/Habitat Test Flow 

BIA - Bureau of Indian Affairs 

BO - Biological Opinion 

BOR - Bureau of Reclamation 

CAPA - Central Arizona Project Assn. 

cfs - cubic feet per second 

CRBC - Colorado River Board of California 

CRCN - Colorado River Commission of Nevada 

CREDA - Colorado River Energy Distributors Assn. 

CRSP - Colorado River Storage Project 

CWCB - Colorado Water Conservation Board 

DBMS - Data Base Management System 

DOI - Department of the Interior 

EA - Environmental Assessment 

EIS - Final Environmental Impact Statement 

ESA - Endangered Species Act 

FACA - Federal Advisory Committee Act 

FEIS - Final Environmental Impact Statement 

FRN - Federal Register Notice 

FWS - United States Fish & Wildlife Service 

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

GCD - Glen Canyon Dam 

GCMRC - Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research 

Center 

GCNP - Grand Canyon National Park 

GCNRA - Glen Canyon National Recreation Area 

GCPA - Grand Canyon Protection Act 

HBC - Humpback Chub (endangered native fish) 

HMF - Habitat Maintenance Flow 

HPP - Historic Preservation Plan 

IEDA - Irrigation and Electrical Districts 

Association of Arizona 

IN - Information Need (stakeholder) 

IT - Information Technology (GCMRC program) 

KAS - Kanab ambersnail (endangered native snail) 

KAWG - Kanab Ambersnail Work Group 

LCR - Little Colorado River 

LCRMCP: Little Colorado River Multi-Species 

Conservation Program 

MAF - Million Acre Feet 

MA - Management Action 

MO - Management Objective 

NAAO - Native American Affairs Office 

NAU - Northern Arizona University (Flagstaff, AZ) 

NEPA - National Environmental Policy Act 

NGS - National Geodetic Survey 

NHPA - National Historical Preservation Act 

NPS - National Park Service 

NRC - National Research Council 

NWS - National Weather Service 

O&M - Operations & Maintenance (USBR funding) 

PA - Programmatic Agreement 

PEP - Protocol Evaluation Panel 

Powerplant Capacity - 31,000 cfs 

Reclamation - United States Bureau of Reclamation 

RFP - Request For Proposals 

RPA - Reasonable and Prudent Alternative 

SAB - Science Advisory Board 

Secretary(=s) - Secretary of the Interior 

SWCA - Steven W. Carothers Associates 

TCD - Temperature Control Device (for Glen 

Canyon Dam water releases) 

TCP - Traditional Cultural Property 

TES - Threatened and Endangered Species 

TWG - Glen Canyon Technical Work Group (a 

subcommittee of the AMWG) 

UCR - Upper Colorado Region (of the USBR) 

UCRC - Upper Colorado River Commission 

UDWR - Utah Division of Water Resources 

USBR - United States Bureau of Reclamation 

USFWS - United States Fish & Wildlife Service 

USGS - United States Geological Survey 

WAPA - Western Area Power Administration 

WY - Water Year (a calendar year)