Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Meeting

January 24, 2013

Conducting: John Jordan, Chairperson Convened: 8:20 a.m.

Facilitator: Chris Page with Triangle Associates, Inc.

Committee Members/Alternates Present:

Jan Balsom, NPS/GRCA

Cliff Barrett, UAMPS

Charley Bulletts, So. Paiute Consortium

Shane Capron, WAPA

Todd Chaudhry, NPS

Kerry Christensen, Hualapai Tribe

Jerry Lee Cox, Grand Canyon River Guides

Bill Davis, CREDA

Kurt Dongoske, Pueblo of Zuni

Paul Harms, State of New Mexico

Amy Heuslein, BIA

Chris Hughes, NPS/GLCA

Vineetha Kartha, State of Arizona

Robert King, State of Utah

Glen Knowles, Bureau of Reclamation

Marianne Crawford, Bureau of Reclamation

Ted Kowalski, Colo River Cons. Board

Nikolai Lash, Grand Canyon Trust

Gerald Myers, Federation of Fly Fishers

Larry Stevens, GCWC 

Bill Stewart, AGFD

Jason Thiriot, State of Nevada 

Michael Yeatts, Hopi Tribe

Tony Joe, Jr. Navajo Nation

Committee Members Absent: 

Chris Harris, State of California Don Ostler, Upper Colorado River Commission

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center:

Helen Fairley, USGS/GCMRC

Jack Schmidt, USGS/GCMRC

Scott Vanderkooi, USGS/GCMRC

Interested Persons:

Mike Anderson, AGFD

Mary Barger, Bureau of Reclamation 

Peter Bungart, Hualapai Tribe

Marianne Crawford, Bureau of Reclamation

Kevin Dahl, GCT

Craig Ellsworth, WAPA

Lesley Fitzpatrick, USFWS

Dave Garrett, M3

Research/Science Advisors

John Hamill, Federation of Fly Fishers

Loretta Jackson-Kelly

Leslie James, CREDA

Bill McDonald, Triangle Associates

Lisa Meyer, WAPA

Scott Miller, ADWR

Chris Page, Triangle Associates, Inc.

Sarah Rinkevich, FWS

Mark Van Vlade, CRB of California

Bob Wheeler, Triangle Associates

Jerry Wilhite

Kirk Young, FWS

Meeting Recorder: Linda Whetton 

Welcome and Administrative. Welcome by John Jordan. 

1. Approval of June 20-21, 2012, Meeting Minutes – Without objection, the minutes were approved.

2. Approval of October 24-25, 2012, Meeting Minutes – Pending one correction, the minutes were 

approved. 

3. Introduction of Triangle Associates. Chris Page introduced Bob Wheeler, President of Triangle 

Associates, who will be serving as the facilitator for AMWG meetings. Bob provided background 

information on himself and the company. He won’t be attending every TWG meeting but assured the 

group that he and Chris will work together in addressing AMWG/TWG issues. Bob introduced Bill 

McDonald. He has extensive experience in the Colorado Basin, in water resource management as 
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Work Group

Final Minutes of January 24, 2013, Meeting Page 2

director of the Colorado Water Conservation Board for 11 years (1980-1990) and as Colorado’s 

representative on the Compact and the Governor’s appointee on the Seven State Operational 

Committees. He has been involved in Colorado River issues since 1981. He has worked with the 

Colorado Water Conservation Board for the last two years writing a history of the Colorado Water 

Conservation Board. He doesn’t feel there is any conflict of interest between that role and serving as 

an advisor with Triangle Associates.

4. Review of TWG Ground Rules. Chris Page reviewed the ground rules and the TWG agreed to follow 

them. 

5. Review of Action Items (Attachment 1). 

Status of the core monitoring plan

o Dr. Schmidt said GCMRC has been tasked to work on this plan for the LTEMP EIS and the 

TWG need not continue to develop the plan until the LTEMP EIS is completed. 

o Reading from the August 2012 minutes, Glen Knowles said there is some latitude, the TWG 

can continue to work with and provide recommendations to GCMRC.

6. Old Business

Ad Hoc Group Updates (Attachment 2). 

o BAHG - Robert asked if the TWG should advise the AMWG to have a standing budget 

subcommittee. Shane said in conversations he has had with Anne and Lori, they believe 

reviewing the budget is a primary TWG task. 

o CRAHG – The group is waiting for further direction from the TWG. 

o Core Monitoring AHG – A revised charge will be developed during today’s discussion.

o SEAHG – An update will be included in today’s presentation.

o Operating Procedures AHG – An update will be included in today’s presentation.

o Administrative History – An update will be included in today’s presentation.

o Steering Committee AHG – Members interested in participating should contact Linda.

o Species of Management Concern AHG – A charge will be developed and a group established at 

the next TWG meeting.

Updates on the two EAs and LTEMP EIS

o LTEMP EIS - Glen said he and Rob Billerback (NPS) had a call in December to update DOI 

leadership on the EIS. The message from DOI was, a draft should be completed in calendar year 

2013. The co-lead agencies are working on a revised schedule. Preliminary modeling and 

assessments are being done to refine the list of draft alternatives. DOI is interested in involving 

the AMWG and TWG in the EIS process and will provide more information in the coming weeks.

The tribes are concerned with cultural and tribal values. A meeting is scheduled for tomorrow with 

them to get specific input from tribal perspectives on the resource criteria and metrics being used 

to preliminarily assess the performance of the alternatives. The co-leads have a meeting with the 

Basin States on February 8 to review the alternative the States provided.

o Cultural Program Update. Mary Barger reported that a PA was initially developed for the 1995 

EIS. That PA should be renewed or a new one written. Meetings were held between the federal 

preservation officers, BOR, and NPS and the advisory council to discuss this issue and it was

decided to develop a new PA. Reclamation will provide a draft that addresses generic actions for 

dam operations in the Grand Canyon. It won’t be ready for at least two months. 

BOR Hydrology. Glen reported that the April-July most probable forecast is for inflow of 4.4 maf. The 

minimum probable is 1.3 maf and the maximum probable is 7.7 maf. They all lead to the same 

release year of 8.23 maf even though there has been more snow in parts of the basin.

7. New Business

o NPS Fishery Management Plan Update- Jan Balsom reported that the USFWS is reviewing the 

BA and NPS will be revising it based on comments. A draft should be ready for public review in 

late Feb/early March.

o Refuge and hatchery planning for humpback chub (Attachment 3)- Kirk Young reported that the 

desired number of fish in the refuge population at Southwest Native Aquatic Resources and 
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Work Group

Final Minutes of January 24, 2013, Meeting Page 3

Recovery Center (SNARRC), formerly Dexter Fish Hatchery, has been achieved. There are 1,000

HBC in captivity. They are a refuge, not brood stock. There are an additional 500 in the system 

for future translocations. Depending on the outcome of the EA, the fish will continue to be 

translocated into Shinumo and Havasu. 

o Protection of Indian Sacred Sites MOU Update (Attachment 4). Mary reported that DOI is going 

to provide some guidance on how each of the agencies should respond to the memo. She 

suggested tabling this item until that time. 

o BOR Basin Study. A pre-production copy of the Executive Summary (Attachment 5) was 

distributed. Glen reported this document was released in December 

(www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/crbstudy/finalreport/index.html). By 2060, there could be an 

imbalance between supply and demand of about 3.2 maf. There are a number of ways to fix that 

problem before it hits and he encouraged everyone to read the report. Robert added that people 

need to review the scenarios that were developed. This report is an opportunity to have a public 

dialogue about what the future will be like and consider potential solutions. Carly Jerla will be 

making a presentation at the next AMWG meeting on future scenarios and necessary funding 

over a wide variety of conditions. Ted noted that it’s not a predictive study and in terms of how 

dire the situation is, and that 3.2 maf is available in the lower basin. The upper basin asserts that 

there is additional water to develop and it intends to develop it. Hydrology studies indicate that 

there is a potential in 2014 to see a 7.48 maf release. Jack said LTEMP is anticipated by many to 

determine the future, but actually it will be the Basin Study. ACTION ITEM: Linda will check into 

adding a link to the BOR Basin Study before the TWG meeting page.

o Next TWG Meeting: April 3-4, 2012 in Phoenix. UPDATE: This meeting will be a webinar as a 

result of budget cuts.

HFE Updates. Glen gave a PPT (Attachment 6a) on the lessons learned from the HFE. He described 

the HFE decision-making process, (1) planning and budgeting, (2) modeling, and (3) decision and

implementation. He reviewed the parameters involved in planning for an HFE. Although the model allows 

for flexibility, a memo from Anne Castle dated Nov. 7, 2012 stated “it would be inappropriate to adjust the 

model output in a way that would increase the amount of water to be released or increase power costs 

associated with an HFE release.” GCMRC recommended a slower downramp rate, resulting in a savings 

of about 29,000 acre-feet of water and about $164,000 of hydropower revenue. He said the following 

issues came up during the HFE planning process:

• Need to request input from stakeholders sooner

• The hydrograph should be modified based on the model output

• Examine the effect of the HFE on the spread of Whirling Disease

• Determine the impacts of the background operation of 5,000 to 8,000 cfs on:

o Foodbase and Lees Ferry rainbow trout fishery

o Whitewater rafting safety concerns

• Determine the extent and techniques of sandbar monitoring 

• Determine effects to archaeological sites

• Determine hydropower costs and impacts to ratepayers

Discussion resulted in the following concerns raised:

• It is difficult to assess the impacts on Lees Ferry trout and the foodbase; explore the potential of a 

partnership with NPS for monitoring impacts in future events

• Need an assessment of impacts to Hualapai Reservation

• Use of historical data as part of the decision-making process

• Consider postponing an HFE event in order to complete analysis work on the results of the 

previous HFE
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Work Group

Final Minutes of January 24, 2013, Meeting Page 4

Early HFE Results. Dr. Jack Schmidt presented a PPT (Attachment 6b): Background on HFE Releases 

and Assessment of Success. 

Concerns expressed:

• The HFE protocol potentially minimizes the time period between HFE events. Will more effort be 

needed for monitoring in order to capture the integrated impacts of multiple HFEs?

• Will the HFE effects be adequately conveyed to Zuni. 

o Reclamation will go to Zuni to consult, Glen will work with Kurt on setting a date this 

summer.

Will the sand model depicting a slower downramp be looked at as the “ah ha” moment? Jack 

responded that Topping and Wright are working on that now, though gaging the cumulative 

effects of multiple events would be an involved analysis. The program documents and science 

plans indicate that not every spike needs to be examined. There are many things to learn about 

floods, however consideration should be given to the stress the recent HFE put on GCMRC and 

Reclamation staff as well as others. The TWG should evaluate how much time to spend on “ah 

ha” moments relative to the benefit they provide to the system. 

• The HFE EA provided NEPA coverage for 10 years in order to allow for HFEs when resource 

conditions are optimal, however without having the results from the previous HFE it is difficult to 

determine effects of cumulative HFEs.

ACTION ITEM: Stakeholders interested in talking with Dr. Schmidt and/or his staff on any of the AR 

meeting presentations should contact him ASAP.

Nearshore Ecology Update and Recent Temperature Findings from LTEMP. Mr. Scott Vanderkooi -

The NSE project was designed to assess two key fundamental research questions related to knowledge 

of HBC population ecology: (1) Do steadier flows during late summer and early fall increase survival, 

abundance, and/or growth rates of juvenile native and non-native fish? (2) Do juvenile HBC select 

specific habitat types and if so, does this selection change under different river flow regimes? He 

distributed copies of a 3-page summary (Attachment 7a) prepared by Dr. Bill Pine and said more 

detailed information can be found in previous annual reports and in three University of Florida Master’s 

theses available at http://floridarivers.ifas.ufl.edu/NSE.htm.

Results of the NSE project showed that juvenile humpback chub apparent annual survival, habitat 

selection, and daily movements did not differ between fluctuating and steady flow treatments applied 

during summer and fall 2009-2011. An unexpected finding was that growth of these fish declined slightly 

during fall steady flows. It's unclear why this occurred, but differences in food availability (i.e., drifting 

insects) between flow regimes may be responsible. It is likely that more extreme flow treatments (higher 

or lower discharges, longer duration) are required before changes in these metrics would be observed. 

This data demonstrates the apparent flexibility of juvenile HBC to habitat selection regardless of flows

and provides new information on growth, survival, and persistence of juveniles in the mainstem Colorado 

River. This is a valuable addition to the body of knowledge for managing both the Colorado River and 

regulated rivers globally. GCMRC is currently preparing results for submission to peer reviewed journals 

in cooperation with agency partners.

Results of Early Temperature Analyses of the LTEMP EIS. Glen Knowles, PPT (Attachment 7b). Dr. 

Pine and others suggested an examination of native fish in relation to temperature as part of the LTEMP 

EIS work. Temperatures in the Colorado River at the LCR have been significantly warmer since 2003, 

than the previous 13 years. This may be a reason for the improvement in native fish, HBC recruitment, 

and an increase in HBC in the mainstem. The most consistent trend exceeds 12 degrees C in the 

mainstem at the Little Colorado River, and more specifically exceeds 12 degrees C in the months of July, 

August, and September when small fish are leaving the Little Colorado River and need conditions that 

support growth in the mainstem. Temperature requirements of HBC appear to be lower than the literature 

suggests. This may be a “sweet spot” providing critical conditions for HBC without providing benefits to 
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Work Group

Final Minutes of January 24, 2013, Meeting Page 5

warm water nonnative fishes. These data are part of an analysis of historical Colorado River water 

temperatures to determine the temperatures that have resulted in improvement of native fish populations

by Argonne for the LTEMP EIS. 

Comments:

• Suggestion to look at winter temperatures. HBC may be abandoning the tributaries and the 

backwaters in the mainstream during the winter months because the main route serves as a 

thermal refuge during the winter. 

• Consider evaluating a TCD as part of the LTEMP EIS.

• HBC do well when temperatures are 12 C or more in the mainstem, but temperatures may 

actually be higher where the fish are in the river if they are in more shallow water, 12 C may not 

be what the fish are actually experiencing.

• Consider relaxing work on trout removal in the future and re-focus on temperature issues.

Potential Budget Considerations from the Annual Reporting Meeting. The following documents 

were provided as background materials for today’s discussion:

• Attachment 8a. GCDAMP Biennial Budget and Work Plan – Fiscal Years 2013-14

• Attachment 8b. GCDAMP Biennial Budget Process Approved by the AMWG on May 6, 2010

• Attachment 8c. Memo from Secretary’s Designee Anne Castle to AMWG Dated May 4, 2011, 

Re: TWG and AMWG Suggested Roles 

• Attachment 8d. Streamlined GCMRC Biennial Work Planning Process dated March 20, 2011

Shane said the program is currently in year one of a biennial budget cycle. The next step is for the 

BAHG, in the month of May, to provide input on the USGS and BOR draft biennial workplan. In June the 

TWG will consider a recommendation and provide final input on the second year of the workplan. 

Technical issues go from the TWG to Interior and only policy issues are forwarded to the AMWG. Any 

potential second year budget changes will likely be discussed in detail at the TWG level and it is unlikely 

that there will be changes.

Jack - this is the first time this schedule has been implemented and there might still be some glitches to 

be worked out. The FY13-14 budget was a radical change from the previous workplan and completely 

changed the structure of the projects and how GCMRC would justify science to the TWG. GCMRC has 

no proposed changes at this time. 

Concerns:

• TWG should discuss how to run equalization flows that are more supportive of sand and other 

resources in the river system. This would be a policy issue for AMWG to send to SOI. 

• Discuss whether additional resources are needed to alleviate pressure on GCMRC staff reporting 

requirements.

• Set up a webinar for Ted Kennedy to complete foodbase presentation.

• Need concise list of concerns for BAHG to discuss

Shane presented the following list of questions related to the budget from the Annual Reporting meeting. 

The BIG ONES

1. Do we know what is driving humpback chub population dynamics (up/down)? Why are they trending 

up now?

2. Is the LCR reaching carrying capacity for humpback chub, are their opportunities in the mainstem to 

expand the population, are the aggregations at capacity?
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Work Group

Final Minutes of January 24, 2013, Meeting Page 6

3. If population trends for RBT and HBC are going up, what does that mean for the relationship of trout 

to humpback chub?

4. Why do Lees Ferry and Marble Canyon retain rainbow trout? This question related to the graph of 

Lees Ferry and Marble Canyon with inverse numbers of RBT at different ages – how to explain that?

5. Is there significant trout spawning below Lees Ferry that contribute to abundance?

6. Are there dam operations that would benefit the ecosystem, post-Tamarisk decline?

7. Will food base research help us better understand the relationship of steady/fluctuation flows vs. food 

availability for fish?

8. Long-term sand mass budget is affected by intervening operations, and that affects the HFEs. Are

there considerations or lessons learned going forward in future HFEs?

9. What is the trend of sand input from major tributaries?

10. Is Phragmites an important species to look at?

11. Implications of equalization flows on physical and biological resources?

Bill Davis - these are good, but are they questions to be addressed in the next year from for the science 

plan? Shane said he didn’t want to lose what the TWG had previously discussed so he brought them 

forward for the TWG to consider

Bill McDonald (Triangle) - the two year budget is unique and implies a commitment that the Department 

is going to continue funding beyond the FY14 budget cycle. In three weeks, when the President’s budget 

comes out, it may not comport with the AMP’s two-year budget. If there are issues for FY14, they will be 

within the sums shown in the two-year plan. If there are adjustments that the TWG recommends in FY14, 

it won’t be total dollars up or down, it will be a shift within the budget. TWG will need to work with 

GCMRC to think through all the practical problems of disrupting multi-year research, etc. These 

questions may be more pertinent to FY15. The Bureau executive leadership is in the process of 

contemplating what will be proposed and submitted to their respective assistant secretaries towards the 

end of May for the FY15 budget.

Jack said that in January 2013 (FY14) he will be working with his staff on the big questions, next 

questions, and new projects. By next fall he will be seeking comments from the TWG on which projects 

need to be tackled. In the meantime, he will only be making minor changes such as correcting numbers. 

ACTION ITEM: Linda will send a reminder to the TWG with the “Roundtable Questions.” TWG members 

should submit suggestions for the BAHG to consider for Year Two adjustments to the budget/workplan. 

They should provide issues and why it makes sense to reconsider. Due Date: Friday, Feb. 8, 2013.

Socioeconomics AHG Report (Attachment 9). Dr. Garrett reviewed the charge given to the SEAHG to 

work with TWG, AMWG, GCMRC, and DOI agencies to support timely development of improved 

socioeconomic values for CRE resources. They also need to identify information needs and research 

priorities that are not being addressed through the LTEMP process so that GCMRC can refine and 

develop a work plan. He reported that Dr. Dave Harpman (BOR) will be doing some market and nonmarket assessment activities. Their intent is to bring back some fairly concise delineation of what is being 

accomplished in the LTEMP process and therefore what information needs the TWG has specified and 
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Work Group

Final Minutes of January 24, 2013, Meeting Page 7

how to address those. There will also be involvement by other entities to do market and non-market 

assessments in the area of hydropower and water. 

Update on Economist Position. Jack and SBSC director Dave Lytle are in the process of reviewing the 

list of candidates and determining which individuals to interview. 

Administrative History AHG Update. Jason Thiriot showed new additions to the GCDAMP “wiki” 

website. He was asked how to add information to the website. His IT department provided an interface to

upload documents. The site has been set up for two years and the intent is to have it function as a 

collaborative product so other people can participate. If anyone adds to the site, he receives an e-mail 

letting him know. Larry Stevens noted that in order to obtain historical information, it might require 

additional funding considerations. It is important to get critical interviews with older people before we lose 

the ability to talk with them. 

ACTION ITEM: Linda will check into adding a link from AMWG and TWG meeting pages to the new 

GCDAMP “wiki” website.

Operating Procedures AHG Update (Attachment 10). Shane noted the following concerns from the 

group:

• The TWG Vice-Chair position was a big issue with the ad hoc group. Shane crafted language to 

the OP that is inclusive of the different options expressed by the group.

• The GCMRC role (and the tasks assigned to them in the OP) was questioned since it is also 

defined in the Strategic Plan. However, the SP is an old draft and may not be utilized by the 

program. Shane removed the GCMRC language from this version.

• Other sections need to be trimmed down. 

Shane would like to meet with the ad hoc group to finalize the issues. Glen wasn’t able to attend the last 

meeting and Reclamations’ input is critical. TWG members should provide comments on the draft OP to 

Shane, and a final draft should be available for the next TWG meeting. 

Comments:

• A TWG vice-chair could better facilitate TWG chair elections.

• The same objectives could be met without adding another layer to the structure.

• Item #13 - Need for further discussion on how to engage the public in attending TWG meetings.

Suggestions for April agenda.

• Lidar work in the canyon Species of Management Concern

• Effect of equalization flows on sediment resources

• Effects of guagga mussels in the Grand Canyon. (Refer also to Ted Kennedy report, “A 

Dreissena Risk Assessment for the Colorado River Ecosystem” (Attachment 11) or could ask 

Mark Anderson to make a presentation.)

ACTION ITEM: Linda will put AMWG & TWG meeting dates and details on the bottom of future meeting 

agendas.

Attachment 12: Final Products of the 2011 Hydropower Knowledge Assessment and GTMax Model 

Review Workshop Date January 14, 2012

Attachment 13: Analysis of the Potential Implementation of a Rapid Response High Flow Experiment 

Dated October 15, 2012 Prepared by Western Area Power Administration

Public Comment: None
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Work Group

Final Minutes of January 24, 2013, Meeting Page 8

Adjourned: 2:35P

Respectfully submitted,

Linda Whetton

Upper Colorado Regional Office

Bureau of Reclamation
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Work Group

Final Minutes of January 24, 2013, Meeting Page 9

Key to Glen Canyon Dam 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

ASMR – Age-Structure Mark Recapture

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

BWP – Budget and Work Plan

CAHG – Charter Ad Hoc Group

CAP – Central Arizona Project

GCT – Grand Canyon Trust

CESU – Cooperative Ecosystems Studies Unit

cfs – cubic feet per second

CMINS – Core Monitoring Information Needs

CMP – Core Monitoring Plan

CPI – Consumer Price Index

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

CWCB – Colorado Water Conservation Board

DAHG – Desired Future Conditions Ad Hoc Group

DASA – Data Acquisition, Storage, and Analysis

DBMS – Data Base Management System

DOE – Department of Energy

DOI – Department of the Interior

DOIFF – Department of the Interior Federal Family

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

GCES – Glen Canyon Environmental Studies

GCT – Grand Canyon Trust

GCMRC – Grand Canyon Monitoring & Research Center

GCNP – Grand Canyon National Park

GCNRA – Glen Canyon Nat’l Recreation Area

GCPA – Grand Canyon Protection Act

GLCA – Glen Canyon Nat’l Recreation Area

GRCA – Grand Canyon National Park

GCRG – Grand Canyon River Guides

GCWC – Grand Canyon Wildlands Council

HBC – Humpback Chub (endangered native fish)

HFE – High Flow Experiment

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

LCRMCP – Lower Colorado River Multi-Species 

Conservation 

 Program

LTEMP – Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan

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

NNFC – Non-native Fish Control

NOI – Notice of Intent

NPS – National Park Service

NRC – National Research Council

O&M – Operations & Maintenance (USBR Funding)

PA – Programmatic Agreement

PBR – Paria to Badger Creek Reach

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 Proposal

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

SNARRC - Southwest Native Aquatic Resources and 

Recovery Center

SOW – Statement 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

TEK – Traditional Ecological Knowledge

TES – Threatened and Endangered Species

TMC – Taxa of Management Concern

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
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Work Group

Final Minutes of January 24, 2013, Meeting Page 10

(Updated: 2/5/2013)