Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Meeting

February 2, 2012

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

Facilitator: Mary Orton, The Mary Orton Company, LLC

Committee Members/Alternates Present:

Jan Balsom, NPS/GRCA

Cliff Barrett, UAMPS

Charley Bulletts, Southern Paiute Consortium

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

Chris Harris, State of California

Amy Heuslein, BIA

Chris Hughes, NPS/GLCA

Robert King, State of Utah

Glen Knowles, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

Ted Kowalski, State of Colorado

Nikolai Lash, Grand Canyon Trust

Gerald Myers, Federation of Fly Fishers

Don Ostler, State of Wyoming

Clayton Palmer, WAPA

John Shields, State of Wyoming (partial, by phone)

Pam Sponholtz, USFWS

Larry Stevens, Grand Canyon Wildlands Council

Bill Stewart, AGFD

Jason Thiriot, State of Nevada

Michael Yeatts, Hopi Tribe

Committee Members Absent: 

Tony H. Joe, Jr., Navajo Nation

Interested Persons:

Mary Barger, USBR 

Perri Benemelis, State of Arizona

David Bennion, WAPA

Peter Bungart, Hualapai Tribe

Marianne Crawford, USBR

Kevin Dahl, Grand Canyon Trust

Craig Ellsworth, WAPA

Evelyn Erlandsen, State of Arizona

Helen Fairley, USGS/GCMRC

Lesley Fitzpatrick, USFWS

Dave Garrett, M3

Research/Science Advisors

John Halliday, DOI

Jayne Harkins, State of Nevada

Leslie James, CREDA

John Jordan, Federation of Fly Fishers

Vineetha Kartha, State of Arizona

Ted Melis, USGS/GCMRC

David Nimkin, GCT

Colby Pellegrino, SNWA

Bill Persons, USGS/GCMRC

Tim Ricks, SNWA

Jack Schmidt, USGS/GCMRC

Dave Slick, Salt River Project

Sam Spiller, USFWS

Scott Vanderkooi, USGS/GCMRC

Keith Waldron, USBR

Meeting Recorder: Linda Whetton

Welcome and Administrative. Shane Capron welcomed the members. He thanked GCMRC for all their 

hard work in presenting information at the Knowledge Assessment Workshop held the past two days.

1. Approval of the October 20, 2011, Meeting Minutes. Without objection, the minutes were approved.

2. Review of Action Items (Attachment 1). The following items were discussed in some detail:

Action Item 2010:03-15-16(4) Tribal Consultation Plan. John Halliday said the DOI Tribal Consultation Policy has 

been approved through the Office of the Secretary. Each of the bureaus and offices has 180 days from the signing 

of the Secretarial Order for to review their current tribal consultation policies and address any conflicts with the new

policy. In answer to a question about the draft AMP Tribal Consultation Plan developed by the Hualapai Tribe, John 

said it was his understanding that the CRAHG and the AMWG tribal members would provide input on potential 

changes. He said the charge from Secretary’s Designee Anne Castle was to review the Hualapai plan to ensure

there are no conflicts with the DOI tribal policy. Shane said it would be important to hear from Ms. Castle on the 

direction she wants the program to utilize in reviewing the related documents. Kurt said the Hualapai Tribal 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 2

Final Minutes of February 2, 2012, Meeting

Consultation Plan has gone through 14 iterations over the last 11-12 years and was never finalized. He feels it is

symptomatic of the program’s unwillingness to deal with the tribes in an equitable manner. 

ACTION ITEM: Shane will discuss the TWG’s concerns regarding the AMP Tribal Consultation Plan with 

Deputy Assistant Secretary Lori Caramanian and ask whether this issue should be addressed at the next 

DOI/AMP tribal pre-AMWG meeting.

Action Item 2011-10-20(2) Biological Opinion. While Reclamation thought there would be an opportunity for the 

TWG to review the BO before it was released, Glen said FWS and DOI felt there wasn’t enough time for that 

review. When Reclamation received the Final BO from the FWS on Dec. 23, 2011, (Attachment 2), they made it

available to the TWG and posted it on Reclamation’s website.

3. Old Business. The following ad hoc group updates were provided (Attachment 3a).

Cultural Resources AHG. The CRAHG met on January 23, 2012 in Flagstaff, and Kurt gave the following 

interim progress report, pending feedback from CRAHG members. He said they recognized that 

whatever recommendations are made, they will be significantly affected by the new DOI policy on tribal 

consultation Secretarial Order 3317 (Attachment 3b).

• The CRAHG expressed a desire that the TWG earnestly implement whatever 

they recommend. Many subgroups have brought back recommendations that 

affect policy and how this program operates, only to have them not be 

implemented. TWG and AMWG should have a process whereby each 

stakeholder could air their concerns, and could see a decision-making process of 

how those concerns were addressed. If that were the case, perhaps there would 

be less distrust around the table and less impetus to seek litigative resolution to 

some issues. 

• The CRAHG feels TWG and AMWG should focus more time on trying to achieve 

consensus among the stakeholders regarding issues. One solution might be to 

reduce the size of meeting agendas to allow for more in-depth discussions. 

• The federal agencies should be more transparent about why they are making 

certain decisions. They should provide their rationale to the stakeholders in 

general, and to tribes specifically, when federal perspectives are not being 

honored.

• There should be more respect for each stakeholder’s perspective and position, in 

order to foster increased respect among stakeholders, acknowledging that some 

stakeholders will not have respect but should still be willing to objectively listen. 

Sometimes communication is not very effective because people tend to talk past 

each other. 

• Stakeholder presentations at AMWG meetings have been very useful. These 

should be videotaped so that new members can be educated on the various 

stakeholder positions. 

• Regarding how tribal values should be monitored and tracked in the program, 

CRAHG members are hopeful the effort begun by GCMRC to integrate traditional 

ecological knowledge (TEK) into their science program would be effective. In 

addition, river trips with tribal representatives and holding meetings in different 

locations that relate to the program’s environmental concerns could be very 

beneficial.

Programmatic Agreement (PA). Glen said at the last AMWG meeting there was a consensus request 

from the AMWG as follows:
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 3

Final Minutes of February 2, 2012, Meeting

To address cultural resources issues #1 and 2, below, AMWG requests Reclamation 

develop a timeline and process for their resolution during the meeting already scheduled 

for September 6-8, 2011 to discuss Section 106 and PA issues. AMWG further requests 

that results of that meeting be shared at the next AMWG meeting. ...

• AMWG recommends that the Secretary of Interior consider a review of the 

GCDAMP programs related to archaeological site monitoring and compliance 

with NHPA section 106 and the GCPA, to clarify how DOI (and the GCDAMP) is 

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

specifically necessary to do so.

• AMWG recommends to the Secretary that Reclamation implement the process 

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

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

A meeting was held on Sept. 6-8, 2011, with the AMP tribes and the other signatories to the original 1994 

PA. The last day of that meeting was partially dedicated to talking about the status of the PA and 

Reclamation’s 106 compliance, which included dam operations. Essentially, everyone agreed it made 

sense to pursue a new programmatic agreement to be in place for 15+ years. They agreed to a process 

whereby a group would create an annotated bibliography of all the background documents. Reclamation 

is now in the process of reviewing those documents and identifying what work remains to be done in 

order to craft a new programmatic agreement. Keith Waldron and Mary Barger will be assisting with 

NHPA compliance issues. 

Memorandums of Agreement (MOAs). These are currently being prepared. 

LTEMP EIS. The scoping process ended on January 31. Many comments were received and Argonne is 

in the process of preparing a report that should be completed by early March. There are 13 cooperating 

agencies and 16 tribes involved in the process. The next cooperators’ meeting will be held on February 

24 in Tempe. 

Economist Update. GCMRC received a certification list about a month ago with six applications. The first 

interview is scheduled for next Monday, February 6. They hope to fill the position within this quarter. 

Desired Future Conditions Update. Two meetings were held and there will be a report provided to the 

AMWG at its next meeting. 

4. New Business. The next TWG Meetings will be held:

• (Mon-Tue) April 16-17, 2012 in Tempe, Arizona

• (Wed-Thu) June 20-21, 2012 in Phoenix, Arizona

Humpback Chub Five-Year Status Review. The following documents were distributed prior to the 

meeting: 

Attachment 4a: Humpback Chub 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation

Attachment 4b: Discussion Paper, Western Concerns with the Humpback Chub 5-Year Status Review 

Attachment 4c: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Response to Western’s concerns over the Humpback 

Chub 5-year Review

Pam Sponholtz gave a PPT presentation (Attachment 4d). She concluded by saying the program needs 

to look at what has been accomplished since the recovery goals came out in 2002. She said progress is 

being made and the five-year review is indicative of that. The review also provides a way to move 

forward in the next 10 years with the current BO and the LTEMP EIS. 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 4

Final Minutes of February 2, 2012, Meeting

Tom Czapla (Region 6, via phone) said that when FWS put the 2002 recovery goals together, they had 

very little information. In 2007, they intended to revise the recovery goals document within five years. 

While they continue to investigate other ways to look at populations, they were able to collect new 

information that indicates that the MVP calculated for pikeminnow is probably going to go up. FWS is 

committed to applying the best science available based on adaptive management. 

Tom said, with regard to Humpback Chub, that if you look only at the past several years, the population 

is increasing. However, the ASMR assessment from 1989 or 1990 shows the population is in a decline. 

This is the major difference between the FWS and Western’s assessment. He also felt the FWS was a bit 

naïve in the initial goals when they wrote the population must continually increase, because populations

vary, so they are considering a change to that language. 

A stakeholder noted that downlisting or de-listing of a species depends on the population status

throughout the basin, and asked how the FWS will address that issue if the population in Grand Canyon 

does well and the Upper Basin population does not. He felt there is pressure to spend money in the 

Grand Canyon and it was unreasonable. He asked if anything could be done. Pam said that the situation 

as described makes the Grand Canyon population all the more important. She said the FWS is 

conservative and highly protective of it because it is the strongest population. The Upper Basin needs 

more time to work on recovering their populations, but the reason for having recovery units in the Lower 

Basin and the Upper Basin is for redundancy. If the Upper Basin populations are doing so poorly, it is a 

positive that the population in Grand Canyon is doing so well, to protect against extinction on a basinwide scale. 

In response to a question about the FWS concept of generations within their criteria, Tom said that while 

the fish can live to be more than 30 years old, a generation was about eight years: the five-year period to 

downlist and the subsequent three-year period reflect this. He noted that humans, we can live to be 80-

100 years old, but we consider a generation approximately 20 years.

Stakeholders made comments that the Grand Canyon chub are doing well because the dam is protecting 

them, and that, unlike the upper basin chub, they have an assured water supply.

FY2013-14 Biennial Budget & Workplan Discussion, and EA/Biological Opinion Discussion. Shane 

referenced the GCDAMP Biennial Process that was approved by the AMWG on May 6, 2010 

(Attachment 5a). He reviewed the timeline for completing budget assignments (Attachment 5b). He 

encouraged people to read the Annual Reporting document from GCMRC as a basis for what work was 

done in FY11; he felt this was a good starting point for understanding what will happen in FY12.

Bureau of Reclamation Budget Development. Glen said the two EAs (Attachment 5c = executive 

summaries from each document) were finalized at the end of December. Reclamation received the 

Biological Opinion from the FWS on December 23, 2011. The BiOp defined the non-native fish control 

actions, and those actions will have an impact on the 2013 budget. There has not been a lot of sediment 

input so conducting an HFE in 2012, should the HFE Protocol be finalized with a FONSI, is unlikely. 

However, an HFE science plan exists that relies on existing monitoring programs to monitor HFEs. He 

provided excerpts from the BiOp (Attachment 5d) and said there are two zones in the river where they 

would remove live trout, in the reach from the Paria River to Badger Creek (PBR) and around the mouth 

of the Little Colorado River (LCR). The proposal is to initially do two trips in the PBR reach, pending a 

decision document (FONSI). Based on the outcome of those trips, Reclamation may pursue additional 

removal in the PBR. He noted these actions would be experimental, because no one knows how 

effective live removal in that reach would be. Removal in the LCR would occur only if the trigger, as 

defined in the Final BiOp, were met. 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 5

Final Minutes of February 2, 2012, Meeting

In response to a stakeholder concern about the impact to the budget from these two EAs, Shane noted 

that there could be $600,000 in the Experimental Flow Fund and carryover funding. TWG members could 

make a recommendation regarding what they want Reclamation to do with those funds. 

In answer to a question regarding whether Reclamation had considered a risk assessment to tease out 

the predation effect from temperature effect, Glen said Reclamation wanted this action to be as flexible 

as possible and useful in terms of adaptive management and learning more about the effect of nonnative fish on humpback chub. Reclamation feels that the triggering concept allows for this while being 

protective of the humpback chub. He noted that this is the start of this approach in terms of 

understanding the predation effects through adaptive management and although temperature is a 

variable that cannot be controlled, if we were to get colder water this year and in future years this may be 

a serendipitous experiment to also examine temperature effects contrasted against the warmer water of 

recent years.

GCMRC Budget Discussion. Jack Schmidt said he’s committed to developing the FY 2013-14 budget 

with an eye towards providing the best science support the Center can offer and identifying the items in 

the budget that are able to be tracked. In that regard, he and his staff want to work with the stakeholders 

in answering their questions so they can develop a common understanding of all the issues and related 

project costs. He gave a PPT presentation (Attachment 5e) that focused on the GCMRC’s expenses for 

FY11 and spending in the various program areas in FY12, and explained how their science plan would 

be linked to activities for the NNFC EA and the HFE EA. His conclusion was that 65% of the expected 

biology budget for FY12 is work accomplished for the EAs and BiOps, though some of that was costs of 

ongoing monitoring and experiments.

ACTION ITEM. The TWG will send comments on the FY2013-14 budget to Linda (lwhetton@usbr.gov) 

by COB February 8, 2012. These will be synthesized and sent to the BAHG on February 9 for further 

discussion during the February 14 BAHG conference call. 

A stakeholder noted that he wished more time could have been devoted to hear the stakeholders’ 

budgetary concerns, and that tribal members would prefer to speak over sending an email. By 

conducting business in this manner, their input is unintentionally marginalized. Shane said there would

be more time devoted to discuss budget issues in future meetings and he suggested possibly having 

other BAHG meetings for in-depth discussions. [Later, the process was changed to allow two rounds of 

comments, so TWG members could comment on others’ concerns; and to allow for phone calls to tribal 

members in case they would prefer to dictate their concerns to writing them in an email.]

SEAHG Report. Shane referred to the AMWG’s charge to the TWG from August 2010:

The AMWG supports implementation of studies to further our understanding of the 

socioeconomics of adaptive management decisions within the GCDAMP; this includes 

and is not limited to market, non-market, and non-use studies. Thus, the AMWG directs 

TWG to further develop an economics implementation plan to be provided to AMWG at 

its next meeting for possible implementation starting in FY 2012. That implementation 

plan will include the following components:

• Information needs associated with each study or analysis and the prioritization of 

those needs,

• Scope and costs associated with each project and potential funding sources,

• A description of how the information would be useful to the program, and 

• A more thorough review of the economics panel report.
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 6

Final Minutes of February 2, 2012, Meeting

Dave Garrett, chair of the Socioeconomics Ad Hoc Group (SEAHG), gave a PPT presentation 

(Attachment 6). He said the SEAHG is proposing a robust socioeconomic program, starting with marketrelated aspects of power, water, recreation, and cultural resources. The program then moves to nonmarket related aspects of all of those resources, and then non-use aspect. The recommendation 

includes the move into core monitoring and a decision tool, and it recommends workshops to focus on 

high-cost areas. He noted that the SEAHG had prioritization work to complete. He said similar work is 

being done by NPS, AGFD, and WAPA, so there are opportunities for partnering which may reduce costs 

to the AMP.

While there is more work to be done on the SEAHG Plan, Shane said he felt it is ready to be moved to 

the Secretary. He continued that it is important for the Secretary to give feedback on the purview of this 

program versus other programs, and provide direction on how much of the program will be accomplished

through the LTEMP EIS. He noted that round two would begin when the new GCMRC economist is on 

board and could help work through the details.

Comments made by stakeholders included:

• Funding for outyears is a concern, in light of the AMP being directed by two EAs and 

particularly incorporating a lot of GCMRC’s time and energy to understand sediment 

transport and distribution.

• We need the Department to indicate the importance of socioeconomics and how the 

information will be used.

• There is a need for the GCMRC economist and SEAHG to work closely together.

• TWG’s purview is to determine what is important in developing the budget.

• We need better understanding of the ecosystem using models. 

• We need to have good production functions or economics does not work very effectively.

• We need to sort through the non-use issues.

Motion: (Proposed by Cliff Barrett, seconded by Larry Stevens)

The TWG recommends that the AMWG recommend the Socioeconomic Ad Hoc 

Group report to the Secretary of the Interior for consideration.

TWG further recommends that, upon consideration by the Secretary and guidance 

from him regarding the role of the program in implementing socioeconomics 

studies, the AMWG directs TWG to work with GCMRC to develop a workplan for 

this program.

Further, the TWG recommends that the SEAHG continue to provide, develop, and 

recommend information to the TWG regarding implementation of the 

Socioeconomic Program, including costs and timing of the Program Elements; 

and work with AMP stakeholders who will be conducting socioeconomic analyses 

in other forums to enhance collaboration to fulfill Information Needs.

Hearing no objection, the motion was passed by consensus.

FY2013 Hydrograph. In discussing the process for developing a 2013 hydrograph, Glen referred to the 

FY2012 hydrograph that was passed by the AMWG at its last meeting (Attachment 7). Reclamation’s 

thinking is that there has not been an opportunity to fully assess the 2012 hydrograph because of 

equalization releases carried over from last year and the fact that we are still in the first quarter of the FY 

2012 hydrograph. However, the targeted approach of the FY 2012 hydrograph recommended by AMWG 

in August was based on a robust analysis by Reclamation and collaborating agencies, and so 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 7

Final Minutes of February 2, 2012, Meeting

Reclamation anticipates this would continue to be the recommended hydrograph for 2013 barring any 

new contradictory information. Dave Trueman will involve the TWG as he initiates the FY2013

hydrograph development process. 

FY 2013 Flow Considerations for FY2012 and Beyond. Craig Ellsworth said he has been working 

with endangered fish and is currently assigned to the WAPA office in Salt Lake City. He distributed

copies of “A Research and Monitoring Plan for Evaluating Trout Management Flows Below Glen Canyon 

Dam” and gave a PPT presentation (Attachment 8). He explained that the purpose of implementing trout 

management flows is to evaluate methods for using releases from GCD to reduce the production of large 

numbers of age-0 RBT, in order to improve the quality of the Lees Ferry trout fishery and conserve the 

endangered humpback chub and other native fishes in Grand Canyon. This science plan describes how 

to determine whether releases from GCD can be used to manipulate the age and size structure of the 

RBT fishery at Lees Ferry. The report identifies three objectives that need to be addressed to support 

management decision-making:

• Sustain a healthy Lees Ferry trout population with a balanced age and size 

structure;

• Reduce annual production rates of rainbow trout in the Lees Ferry reach; and

• Reduce emigration rates of RBT from Lees Ferry to downstream reaches 

occupied by HBC.

To determine the effect of a trout management flow on either the RBT population at Lees Ferry or the 

HBC population in the Grand Canyon, these experiments need to be applied for a duration that 

approaches or exceeds the generation time for the two fish populations of interest (3-5 years for RBT 

and 4-6 years for HBC). Alternatively, inferences regarding the impact of trout management flows could 

be made using data on how the treatments affect the growth and/or survival of younger life stages as 

long as any density dependent responses are taken into account. Regardless of which approach is taken 

to reduce uncertainty, variation in environmental factors can complicate interpretation of results. He said 

that the local fishing communities need to be involved, and tribal values needed to be incorporated. 

Shane said the BiOp asks the plan be developed in two years. He has talked with Glen and believes 

there is agreement to develop an ad hoc group, develop the plan, have it reviewed by the TWG and 

AMWG, and then be recommended to the Secretary. Glen said the NPS is already embarking on an 

effort to create a fisheries management plan and wants to be respectful of that effort. 

Presentation by Federation of Fly Fishers. John Jordan said he and Jerry Myers are the recreational 

interests on the TWG and AMWG. While they have been appointed by the Federation of Fly Fishers

(FFF) and work closely with them, they are equally close to Trout Unlimited and other fishing clubs and 

interests within the state. Along with other organizations, he said Trout Unlimited has evolved over the 

past 10 years and is interested in conservation measures that relate to native fish in all areas. Even 

though the FFF represents recreational fishing, they have a strong interest in both native and non-native 

issues. 

The FFF is pleased to see acknowledgement that the Lees Ferry fishery should be a blue ribbon fishery, 

and not solely a naturally reproducing recreational fishery. He also noted the acknowledgement that the 

cold clear water section of the river is suitable for trout and no longer suitable for native fish, while the 

balance of the river, including the tributaries, is suitable and designated for native fish. He said the 

angling community recognizes that native fish are in a precarious position and should have a strong, 

independent focus in this whole system. 

John said he was encouraged that the program is talking about trout management flows instead of trout 

suppression flows. He reminded the group that Marble Canyon is socioeconomically dependent upon 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 8

Final Minutes of February 2, 2012, Meeting

Lees Ferry fishing, including guides, lodges, and restaurants. The Navajo community also relies heavily 

on angling as a source of funding. 

As the fishery has declined, largely through neglect of its blue ribbon status, all the businesses suffered 

significant losses. Returning it to blue ribbon status would benefit the fish and the community. As the FFF 

began to develop a comprehensive fishery management plan to achieve this goal, they discovered that 

GRCA and GLNRA are preparing fisheries management plans. NPS is encouraging participation by the 

angling community and FFF will support their efforts. Their goal is to be a contributing participant to help 

bring the process together.

Chris Hughes said NPS has an aggressive schedule to complete a draft of their fisheries management 

plan by the end of 2012. Jan added that it is very important for the NPS to collaborate with other groups. 

They will initiate formal scoping in late March.

In determining the charge for a new ad hoc group, Shane read from the BiOp (page 108), “Reclamation 

has committed to develop, with the GCDAMP and stakeholder involvement, additional non-native fish 

control options during the first two years of the proposed action to reduce recruitment of non-native 

rainbow trout at, and emigration of those fish from, Lees Ferry.” He said it was reasonable for 

Reclamation to ask TWG to develop an ad hoc group to produce the options for Interior to consider. 

There was no objection to establishing an ad hoc group, but Shane said that would be accomplished at 

the April TWG meeting.

Public Comments: None

Management of TWG Meetings. Mary said she and Shane had discussed ways to improve the 

management of TWG meetings. They thought giving TWG members the opportunity for a brief meeting 

evaluation at the end of each meeting would help them improve future meetings. She suggested that 

everyone could share one thing they liked about the meeting and offer a suggestion for improving future 

meetings. The group indicated they were not interested in doing a meeting evaluation, and so it was not 

done.

Follow-up on GCMRC Role in the GCDAMP. Jack Schmidt said he wanted to provide more information 

on what he perceived was GCMRC’s role in the program. He thinks the job of GCMRC is not just to react 

to what the TWG tells them or requests of them, but also to be at least three steps ahead of the group 

and aware of the science that informs the group. As such, he has implemented the following at GCMRC:

• Applied River Research Group. This team of Ph.D. scientists (David Topping, 

Paul Grams, Ted Kennedy, etc.) will focus on publishing, innovation, and making 

sure they work in a peer-reviewed framework. Dr. Ted Melis will head this group 

with an eye towards productivity and innovation, breaking the dependence on the 

AMP for funding support, and thinking about work with other rivers. 

• Adaptive Management Team. This group (Helen Fairley, Scott Vanderkooi, Ted 

Melis, Jack Schmidt) will meet weekly to address the needs of the GCDAMP 

stakeholders and other agencies. They will serve as the point of contact for 

following up with the scientists and getting status updates on projects. Barbara 

Ralston will also assist the group as needed. 

He said he was doing everything he could to allow his staff as much time to do their work as possible, 

while still being able to respond to TWG requests. 

Adjourned: 2:55 p.m. 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 9

Final Minutes of February 2, 2012, Meeting

Attachment 9: Meeting Notes from Budget AHG Conference Call held Feb. 14, 2012.

Respectfully submitted,

Linda Whetton

Upper Colorado Region

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 10

Final Minutes of February 2, 2012, Meeting

General Key to Adaptive Management Program Acronyms

 ADWR – Arizona Dept. of Water Resources

AF – Acre Feet

AGFD – Arizona Game and Fish Department

AIF – Agenda Information Form

AMP – Adaptive Management Program

AMWG – Adaptive Management Work Group

AOP – Annual Operating Plan

BA – Biological Assessment

BAHG – Budget Ad Hoc Group

BCOM – Biological Conservation Measure

BE – Biological Evaluation

BHBF – Beach/Habitat-Building Flow

BHMF – Beach/Habitat Maintenance Flow

BHTF – Beach/Habitat Test Flow

BIA – Bureau of Indian Affairs

BO – Biological Opinion

BOR – Bureau of Reclamation

CAHG – Charter Ad Hoc Group

CAPA – Central Arizona Project Association

GCT – Grand Canyon Trust

CESU – Cooperative Ecosystems Studies Unit

cfs – cubic feet per second

CMINs – Core Monitoring Information Needs

CRBC – Colorado River Board of California

CRAHG – Cultural Resources Ad Hoc Group

CRCN – Colorado River Commission of Nevada

CRE – Colorado River Ecosystem

CREDA – Colorado River Energy Distributors Assn.

CRSP – Colorado River Storage Project

DAHG2 – Desired Future Conditions Ad Hoc Group

DASA – Data Acquisition, Storage and Analysis

CWCB – Colorado Water Conservation Board

DBMS – Data Base Management System

DOE – Department of Energy

DOI – Department of the Interior

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

GCT – Grand Canyon Trust

GCMRC – Grand Canyon Monitoring & Research Center

GCNP – Grand Canyon National Park

GCNRA – Glen Canyon National Recreation Area

GCPA – Grand Canyon Protection Act

GLCA – Glen Canyon National Recreation Area

GRCA – Grand Canyon National Park

GCRG – Grand Canyon River Guides

GCWC – Grand Canyon Wildlands Council

HBC – Humpback Chub (endangered native fish)

HMF – Habitat Maintenance Flow

HPP – Historic Preservation Plan

INs – Information Needs

KA – Knowledge Assessment (workshop)

KAS – Kanab ambersnail (endangered native snail)

LCR – Little Colorado River

LRRMCP – Lower Colorado River Multi-Species 

Conservation

 Program

LTEP – Long Term Experimental Plan

LTEMP – Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan

MAF – Million Acre Feet

MA – Management Action

MATA – Multi-Attribute Trade-Off Analysis

MLFF – Modified Low Fluctuating Flow

MO – Management Objective

MRP – Monitoring and Research Plan

NAU – Northern Arizona University (Flagstaff, AZ)

NEPA – National Environmental Policy Act

NHPA – National Historic Preservation Act

NPS – National Park Service

NRC – National Research Council

O&M – Operations & Maintenance (USBR funding)

PA – Programmatic Agreement

PEP – Protocol Evaluation Panel

POAHG – Public Outreach Ad Hoc Group

Powerplant Capacity = 31,000 cfs

R&D – Research and Development

RBT – Rainbow Trout

RFP – Request For Proposals

RINs – Research Information Needs

ROD Flows – Record of Decision Flows 

RPA – Reasonable and Prudent Alternative

SA – Science Advisors

Secretary – Secretary of the Interior

SCORE – State of the Colorado River Ecosystem 

SHPO – State Historic Preservation Office(r)

SOW – Scope of Work

SPAHG – Strategic Plan Ad Hoc Group

SPG – Science Planning Group

SSQs – Strategic Science Questions

SWCA – Steven W. Carothers Associates

TCD – Temperature Control Device

TCP – Traditional Cultural Property

TES – Threatened and Endangered Species

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 (a calendar year)

Updated: Sept. 1, 2011