Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

FINAL Meeting Minutes 

June 30, 2004 

Conducting: Norm Henderson, Chairman 

Committee Members Present: 

Mary Barger, WAPA 

Jonathan Damp, Pueblo of Zuni 

William Davis, CREDA 

Lisa Force, Grand Canyon Trust 

Lloyd Greiner, UAMPS 

Christopher Harris, CRB/CA 

Amy Heuslein, BIA 

Matt Kaplinski, GCRG 

Robert King, UDWR 

Dennis Kubly, USBR 

Glen Knowles, USFWS 

Phillip S. Lehr, Colo. River Comm./NV 

Ken McMullen, NPS/GCNP 

Don Ostler, UCRC 

Bill Persons, AGFD 

D. Randolph Seaholm, CWCB 

Mark Steffen, Federation of Fly Fishers 

Larry Stevens, Gr. Canyon Wildlands Council 

Bill Werner, ADWR 

Michael Yeatts, The Hopi Tribe 

Committee Members Absent: 

Kerry Christensen, Hualapai Tribe 

Marklyn Chee, Navajo Nation 

Illa Bullets, So. Paiute Consortium 

John Shields, WY State Engineers Office 

Alternates Present: For: 

Chris Kincaid John Ritenour (retired), NPS/GLCA 

Don Ostler John Whipple, NM Interstate Stream Comm. 

Interested Persons: 

Jan Balsom, NPS/GRCA 

Mike Berry, USBR 

Gary Burton, WAPA 

Kurt Dongoske, CREDA 

Helen Fairley, USGS/GCMRC 

Dave Garrett, Science Advisor 

Lance Gunderson, Science Advisor 

Lisa Leap, NPS/GRCA 

Mike Liszewski, USGS/GCMRC 

Jeff Lovich, USGS/GCMRC 

Ted Melis, USGS/GCMRC 

Mary Orton, The Mary Orton Company 

R. Scott Rogers, AGFD 

David Ward, AGFD 

Scott Wright, USGS/GCMRC 

Meeting Recorder: Norm Henderson 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Convened: 8 a.m. 

Welcome and Administrative Items. The chairman welcomed the members, alternates, and general 

public. A quorum was established, introductions made, and attendance sheets (Attachment 1) 

distributed. The Chairman reminded the TWG that selection of the new TWG Chairman will occur at the 

next TWG Meeting. 

Review of Action Items. See attachment (Attachment 2) 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Final Minutes of June 30-July 1, 2004, Meeting 

Page 2 

Review and Approval of May 3-4, 2004, Meeting Minutes. Without objection, the minutes were 

approved as distributed. 

Report on AMWG Retreat. The chairman reported that the AMWG held a retreat on June 28-29, 2004. 

They looked at the overall functioning of the AMP and specifically at five different aspects: AMWG, 

TWG, GCMRC, SAs, and the budget process. Each of the members brought a list of questions they 

were interested in discussing at the beginning of the retreat. Norm said he had copies of the questions 

along with the results from the small group work. It boiled down to a perceived or real dysfunctionality 

between the AMWG and the various groups. They felt better communication and interaction was needed. 

They perceived the TWG might be too aggressive about what it does without specific direction from 

AMWG which causes confusion about leadership and product development. The major outcome was 

that the AMWG needs to be clear about setting priorities for the program so that other parts of the 

program have clear direction. An additional day was added to the upcoming AMWG meeting for further 

discussion on the AMP’s priorities. As such, this creates a dilemma for the planning documents which 

will be delayed another 4-5 weeks. AMWG agreed to spend a couple of hours at each AMWG meeting 

to address the remainder of the issues that were identified. 

Dennis added that one discussion centered on the schedule of products from GCMRC. He said that 

Reclamation was sent documents by the cooperating scientist and asked to put them on the AMP 

website. This was done but with a disclaimer that they were preliminary and not to be released or 

referenced in any reports. Ted said there was a peer review protocol established when the GCMRC was 

first formed when they were still under Reclamation. They said at that time they would not present to 

AMWG or distribute reports until they had been peer reviewed and considered final. However, they did 

do preliminary presentations to the TWG. He said that over time that policy changed into something in 

which they have difficulty in tracking products. In 2002 they presented preliminary HBC data and it was 

their first departure from the protocol. Ted said they always assumed TWG members would brief their 

AMWG members. He questioned whether that protocol needs to be changed. As for posting documents 

on their web site, Ted said he told the cooperators they could share reports with anyone who made a 

request but it was not a practice sanctioned by the USGS. Scientists could disseminate their work, but 

GCMRC could not. Dennis feels there needs to be protocol in place. Jeff Lovich said that the USGS has 

developed a new peer review process. It has received final approval by the Chief and is now at the 

regional level awaiting approval. Denny Fenn is responsible for giving that approval. The new policy will 

apply to everything GCMRC produces. It is still evolving and the protocols are still being written. Jeff 

said he would provide an update when it is finalized which could be another six to nine months, years, 

etc. It varies by district, division, and discipline so it is not a unified effort. Mike Liszewski said this issue 

has also created a certain amount of difficulty for the GCMRC librarian because it has been their policy 

not to publish without final approval even though some reports are posted on the AMP website. Dennis 

said the TWG could ask AMWG to address the issue of distributing preliminary reports. 

ACTION ITEM: Jeff Lovich will visit with persons drafting the protocol to see if he can influence the 

direction of the protocol. 

Jeff will keep the TWG apprised. This is to make sure that the science is beyond reproach. Norm said 

he could make a report to the AMWG on this subject. Bill expressed concern that when reports are 

tendered to GCMRC, they are in final form and the TWG should weigh in on the recommendations made 

in the reports. He feels the TWG needs to make a distinction between what is science and what is 

policy. He expressed concern for seeing documents posted to the web site which haven’t been reviewed 

by the TWG. 

 

ACTION ITEM: TWG members should give Norm feedback on this issue. He will make it part of the 

report to the AMWG. 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Final Minutes of June 30-July 1, 2004, Meeting 

Page 3 

GCMRC Strategic Plan Progress Report. Jeff said a draft Strategic Plan has been developed for 

GCMRC. It is not a science plan but more of a business operating plan. It was needed because every 

organization needs to have one to provide employees with a clear understanding of its vision, mission, 

and goals. He said that much of the material they needed was already articulated in the Adaptive 

Management Strategic Plan. He went on to say that it will be an internal document to be approved by 

GCMRC. The Science Advisors reviewed it and provided comments to him yesterday. Jeff would still 

like to receive comments from the TWG and will try to have final draft ready for the October meeting. 

Activity Schedule Review. The chairman referenced the Activity Schedule (Attachment 3) and said he 

would keep it current. This will be reviewed and updated at every meeting. 

Core Monitoring Plan Progress Report. Jeff said the Core Monitoring Plan is a collaborative effort with 

14 or more TWG members and GCMRC staff involved. The Core Monitoring Ad Hoc Group was 

established in April 2004. Their first task focused on how to develop the plan and identifying the 

resources of concern. They talked about attributes and developed a set of questions: What do the 

managers need to know? Where? How often? Level of accuracy needed? They called for decision 

points periodically. The decision points became position statements which articulated what was agreed 

upon for each issue discussed. The writing assignments were completed and incorporated into the 

document. At the second meeting, they developed a straw dog document to comment on. A rough draft 

was sent to Science Advisors and Dave Garrett provided their comments to Jeff yesterday. The CMAHG 

will review the comments and incorporate into a revised Core Monitoring Plan. In August, Jeff will give 

an update to the AMWG and then in October a draft should be ready for their review. 

 

Dennis asked that if it was a collaborative effort then why did the science advisors review it only to 

GCMRC. Dave said the science advisors had some concerns about their own decision-making process. 

He devoted considerable time to building the protocols. They won’t breach that process which is to come 

up with ideas, technical direction, give direction to the Center, and build the program. The SAs are the 

peer review body for the Center and advise them accordingly. Dave said the review process needs to be 

quick and effective. 

ACTION ITEM: Jeff Lovich will read through the documents and send out a timeline for next meeting of 

Core Monitoring Ad Hoc Group. 

Long Term Experimental/Research Plan Progress Report. Dennis reported that the LTEP AHG will 

work with the Science Advisors to develop a risk assessment on the two LTEP concepts to develop a 

proposal or set of proposals to TWG with an ultimate recommendation to AMWG. 

 

Humpback Chub Comprehensive Plan Progress Report. Dennis said an additional meeting or a 

conference call with the HBC AHG would be needed to review the latest draft plan (before July 9th). He 

advised that tribal consultation would occur through the AMWG Meeting. 

Science Advisors’ Report. Dave Garrett reported that GCMRC needs both a strategic science plan 

and a strategic science business plan. What they are getting now is only a business plan. In laying out a 

strategic science plan, GCMRC needs to determine how each of the planning docs (LTEP, HBC 

Comprehensive Plan, etc.,) interrelate. They also need funding strategy to implement the plans. Bill 

Davis commented that in dealing with endangered species, they may never know all the answers and 

may incur some flack for advocating doing good in deference to science. Lloyd Greiner advised that 

while they are implementing, they need to use different ways to devise a long-term experimental plan 

and not just a block or reverse titration. 

Dave went on to say that the best program in the world has to have a programmatic direction. The 

problem they see is strict adherence to an ineffective process. He questioned how the group moves 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Final Minutes of June 30-July 1, 2004, Meeting 

Page 4 

through a mature organization like the GCDAMP. The science advisors are charged with evaluating 

planning direction. He said a problem with certain planning/science documents not being reviewed by 

GCMRC, i.e., HBC Comprehensive Plan, a long-term experimental plan outside GCMRC will be sent to 

the AMWG and breach this protocol. Try to work any science proposal to go through GCMRC. Could 

merge the two LTEP approaches. Both approaches have risk because of inconclusive information. HBC 

enhancement should be on the front burner. Why were the HBC and LTEP plans not coordinated? The 

biggest problem is with process. Merging should be a requirement. Place treatment that you know the 

most about and would be positive should be implemented first. 

Basin Hydrology. Dennis distributed copies of the current basin hydrology (Attachment 4) as prepared 

by Tom Ryan. 

ACTION ITEM: USBR, NPS, and GCMRC to work out GIS data layer issues and report back to TWG at 

the next meeting. 

Monitoring of Cultural Sites. Reclamation passes baton of long-term monitoring of cultural sites in 

GRCA and GLCA to GCMRC in 2006. 

Geomorphology Symposium Update. Helen Fairley presented information on the upcoming 

geomorphology symposium (Attachment 5). Matt Kaplinski proposed the TWG accept the 

recommendation by GCMRC to organize and hold a geomorphology workshop. Due to limited time, 

further discussion was deferred to the end of the day. 

Discussion: 

Seaholm – Not convinced that geomorphology symposium gets us closer to the rest of the APE. 

Kaplinski– Symposium may not get us to a specific determination of APE but it will be the start of the 

process to get us to resolution to that issue. 

Fairley – Look at different models and talk about the strengths and weaknesses of the various models. 

Seaholm – Potential agreement between the BOR and NPS regarding the APE. 

Barger – Three party agreement is stalled not sure why. 

Kincaid – Within agreement the agencies will determine site by site a determination of effect. Every site 

will have a treatment plan independent of effect. 

Seaholm – Feel better if an agreement was in place to lead the way on how to do each part of 106. 

Kincaid – Made good progress on treatment in CRE with issuance of NAD agreement 

Leap – All sites would be looked at for effects of dam ops not just those in APE. Treatment plan would 

identify the specific sites 

Seaholm – Was an agreement to assign effect now it is nebulous 

Stevens– Symposium is different than the process of developing treatment plan. Need review of 

research design by TWG 

Fairley – A symposium proceedings would be developed to document the results of the workshop. 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Final Minutes of June 30-July 1, 2004, Meeting 

Page 5 

Seaholm – The NPS/BOR agreement needs to be settled first 

Kaplinski – How much will it cost? 

Fairley - Will be important to get knowledge to move forward. Only $20K to develop workshop. 

Lovich – We should move forward with workshop without getting all details before we recommend it to 

AMWG 

Seaholm – Wants the agreement in place before we move forward with symposium. 

Stevens - Recommend that a timeline be developed for PA products 

Dongoske – Worried that after symposium we won’t be any further along on determination of effect. 

Want to get more details on symposium before CREDA would agree 

Lovich – We should move forward with symposium its good for science 

Damp – Won’t come away with any answers. Need to be careful with presenters at symposium. 

Shouldn’t use just geologists. Different conclusions from same presentation 

Stevens – Should we have a separate symposium for geologists? 

Barger – Symposium may not answer the questions about effects/APE 

 

Synthesis of Historical Flow and Sediment Transport Data for the Colorado River at Lees Ferry 

and Grand Canyon Stations. David Topping gave a PowerPoint presentation (Attachment 6) 

The Degraded Reach: Rate and Pattern of Bed and Bank Adjustment in the First 25 km 

Downstream from Glen Canyon Dam. Paul Gramms gave a PowerPoint presentation (Attachment 7) 

Sand bar simulations for MLFF and Alternative Fluctuating Flow Release Patterns. Steve Wiele 

gave a PowerPoint presentation. (Attachment 8) 

Adjourned: 5:15 p.m. 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Final Minutes of June 30-July 1, 2004, Meeting 

Page 6 

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

FINAL Meeting Minutes 

July 1, 2004 

Conducting: Norm Henderson, Chairman 

Committee Members Present: 

Mary Barger, WAPA 

Jonathan Damp, Pueblo of Zuni 

William Davis, CREDA 

Lisa Force, Grand Canyon Trust 

Amy Heuslein, BIA 

Matt Kaplinski, GCRG 

Robert King, UDWR 

Dennis Kubly, USBR 

Glen Knowles, USFWS 

Ken McMullen, NPS/GCNP 

Don Ostler, UCRC 

Bill Persons, AGFD 

D. Randolph Seaholm, CWCB 

Mark Steffen, Federation of Fly Fishers 

Larry Stevens, Gr. Canyon Wildlands Council 

Michael Yeatts, The Hopi Tribe 

Committee Members Absent: 

Kerry Christensen, Hualapai Tribe 

Marklyn Chee, Navajo Nation 

Illa Bullets, So. Paiute Consortium 

Lloyd Greiner, UAMPS 

Christopher Harris, CRB/CA 

Phillip S. Lehr, Colo. River Comm./NV 

John Shields, WY State Engineers Office

Alternates Present: For: 

Chris Kincaid John Ritenour (retired), NPS/GLCA 

Don Ostler John Whipple, NM Interstate Stream Comm. 

Interested Persons: 

Jan Balsom, NPS/GRCA 

Mike Berry, USBR 

Gary Burton, WAPA 

Kurt Dongoske, CREDA 

Helen Fairley, USGS/GCMRC 

Lisa Leap, NPS/GRCA 

Paul Li, IEDA 

Mike Liszewski, USGS/GCMRC 

Jeff Lovich, USGS/GCMRC 

Ted Melis, USGS/GCMRC 

Robert Snow, DOI 

Chris Updike, NAU 

Carl Walters, Presenter 

Scott Wright, USGS/GCMRC 

Meeting Recorder: Norm Henderson 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Final Minutes of June 30-July 1, 2004, Meeting 

Page 7 

Convened: 8 a.m. 

Welcome and Administrative Items. The chairman welcomed the members, alternates, and general 

public. A quorum was established, introductions made, and attendance sheets distributed. 

The Chairman said that several TWG members met after yesterday’s meeting and wanted to offer the 

following motions for consideration: 

MOTION: The TWG recommends to the AMWG that GCMRC proceed with planning and 

convening a geomorphic symposium in conjunction with the NPS and BOR. 

Voting Results: Yes = 8 No = 7 Abstaining = 2 

With modifications the no votes would have changed. ???? 

MOTION: TWG requests from BOR (in consultation with PA) a timeline and outline on the 

process for completion of the HPP and ongoing 106 compliance process. 

Voting Results: Yes = 15 No = 0 Abstaining = 2 

MOTION: TWG have the Cultural Resource Ad Hoc Group review the cultural resources research 

design and bring a report back to TWG regarding whether it meets the needs of the program. 

Voting Results: Yes = 14 No = 2 Abstaining = 1 

AMP Budget Process Development Progress Report. Dennis Kubly suggested the discussion be 

deferred in order to get more involved in the flow proposal for ’05. 

Lovich – The level of reporting in the budget process could be a problem depending on the level of detail. 

Kubly - Proposal would be that the conceptual framework of the budget would be sent forward to the 

AMWG. The details of the process would be worked out once the concept is approved by it. 

MOTION: TWG recommends that the budget process specified by the budget ad hoc group be 

considered by the AMWG for adoption at its august meeting and applied to the ’06 budget with 

details on reporting to be provided by GCMRC. 

The motion was passed by consensus. 

Multi-Attribute Trade-off Analysis (MATA) Presentation. Carl Walters distributed copies of his report, 

“Evidence for the Failure of the Modified Low Fluctuating Flow Alternative (MLFFA) to Benefit Most 

Ecological Resources in Grand Canyon” (Attachment 9). Carl identified several points from the report: 

• Update on stock assessment predictions conclude that there is little chance of extinction of 

humpback chub in the next 10 years. Will stabilize soon. 

• Unusually large abundance of juvenile HBC and fms in recent years. A good chance there 

will be a large recruitment of these fish over the next several years. 

• Five times stronger than in the ‘90s. 

 Decline will flatten out sooner than expected. 

 HBC above atomizer look real good. The calculations for contribution to the LCR population 

looks good. 

 Small aggregations of chub in mainstem downsteam of LCR. 

• Get a hint that these may be additional mainstem populations. Possibility that we may have more 

population structure in the CR than originally thought 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Final Minutes of June 30-July 1, 2004, Meeting 

Page 8 

Discussion:

 

Force – Concerned that if we proceed with MATA that we revisit many of the assumptions that were 

used. It seemed that we used MATA to propose some 

Walters - May have solved the native fish problem already 

McMullen - Why can’t the reverse titration process be used - 

Walters - Because you can’t get all the treatments in place in the near term. The only way to avoid false 

positives is to repeat treatments. How long to keep the treatments going? 

Burton – What did we do 2001/2002 that elicited good response? 

Walters - 2001 cohort is first symptom of successful mechanical removal. 2001 cohort felt great 

reduction of pressure from trout predation in 2002. 

Stevens - Climate signal is being seen in LCR with 2000 dry and 2001/2 relatively wetter 

Walters - Need to repeat treatments to get answers 

Walters/Melis - Should we go over experimental design we left off in February or should we go through 

in detail the MLFF report? 

Kubly - Concerned that we don’t have the scientific expertise in the room to go over expert design. We 

have scheduled a meeting with the scientists should we go over now without that input. 

Walters - We don’t need scientists at this point 

Walters – Problem lies with policy decisions. Rather than having options driven by stakeholder desires 

the alternatives are driven by experimental options. 

Kaplinski – Values used to rank alternatives are not important? 

Walters - Not that important. Numbers were surprising since many were no impact. Some had a huge 

range in predicted outcomes. Third bunch could be revised quantitatively but there were few. As a 

consequence you don’t need to spend a great deal of time refining values. 

Kubly - Sociological answer to consequence tables. There is a level of trust involved and therefore must 

be revisited. 

Force – Framework gives you a structured way to walk through the alternative development process. 

Does not eliminate all uncertainty. Getting more people involved will increase the credibility of the 

program and process. The world needs to see how the decision making process worked. 

Walters/Force - Another 2-3 workshop would get you where you want to go. Already have the 

understanding of the process so it should be cleaners. 

Kubly – First meeting using MATA had many members uncomfortable. Need to build trust in the process 

to get buy in by the AMWG. 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Final Minutes of June 30-July 1, 2004, Meeting 

Page 9 

Force - Who makes the final decision. There is no other way to evaluate the priorities without a process. 

This framework is really the only way to do this. AMWG will ultimately make the decision. 

Walters - Don’t have to use MATA name can use only the con 

 

Kubly – May need to adjust schedule. Brings up issue of water year ’05. 

Walters – Whether to implement low steady flow in ’05. Might get 

TWG Effectiveness – changes to operating protocols 

• Proxy voting 

• Agenda preparation 

• Meeting materials 

• Ground rules and meeting protocols 

• New business 

• TWG membership (USGS) 

• Requirements for TWG chair 

• Process for changing Ops 

• TWG roles and responsibilities clarified (direction from retreat) 

• Budget development defined in Ops 

05 Experimental Proposal: 

TWG will develop an ’05 flow today (7/1) to be recommended to AMWG at its August meeting. If more 

time is needed, the ad hoc will meet in the coming days to get a proposal to AMWG in August. 

Long Term Experimental Plan: 

1. By the end of July, the LTEP ad hoc and GCMRC will meet to organize a 2-3 day MATA 

workshop to be scheduled in the fall (to include all relevant subject matter experts). 

2. Convene a pre-meeting for the MATA (two weeks before MATA) to establish options with a small 

group. (To include all potential actions, e.g., flow options and attributes) 

3. TWG will update AMWG at its August meeting on LTEP progress (including September MATA 

meeting) along with a proposed timeline for completion. 

2005 Flow Proposal

August 1, 2005 – October 31, 2005 

Three options: 

1. Continue power operations (same fluctuations with no sediment input) 

2. Steady flows (any flow (below 9K for sed); monthly step ok) 

3. Steady flows (above) only if LCR floods (any flow above base) Fish scientists strongly recommended 

October 1, 2004 – July 31, 2005 

Continue with experimental design (mechanical removal plus flows of ‘03/’04) 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Final Minutes of June 30-July 1, 2004, Meeting 

Page 10 

 Additional Attachments provided at the meeting: 

Attachment 10 - Long-term Experimental Ad Hoc Meeting (5/26/04) Notes & Additional Notes 

Attachment 11 - Proposed Approach and Core Elements of Long-term Experiment in the Grand Canyon 

Attachment 12 - Effects of Fluctuating Flows from Glen Canyon Dam on the Early Life History Stages of 

Rainbow Trout in the Lee’s Ferry Reach of the Colorado River 

Attachment 13 - Modeling of sand bar response to fluctuating flows PPT presentation 

Attachment 14a - TWG Budget Recommendation Process 

Attachment 14b - Timeline for Budget and Workplan Development 

Attachment 15 - Multi-Attribute Evaluation of Management Options 

Attachment 16 - Draft Outline for SCORE Report 

Adjourned: 12 noon 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Final Minutes of June 30-July 1, 2004, Meeting 

Page 11 

General Key to Adaptive Management Program Acronyms 

ADWR – Arizona Dept. of Water Resources 

AF – Acre Feet 

AGFD – Arizona Game and 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 – 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 

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 

GUI – Graphical User Interface 

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 

IT – Information Technology (GCMRC program) 

KAS – Kanab ambersnail (endangered native snail) 

LCR – Little Colorado River 

LRRMCP – Lower 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 Historic 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 

RBT – Rainbow Trout 

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)