DRAFT MO’s with TWG Comments

revised MOs dtd 4-7-00.doc Last Saved: 5/17/009:27AM Page 1

TWG Comments Responses

1. Overall: Address bin issues (including proposed fundamental change to

Principle 6), and all small group comments.

Concur.

2. Overall: Should Goals be limited to 2-3 resources? Principle 1 describes the “nested set” approach being used in the Plan.

3. Overall: Which Goals are for natural processes, which are for the benefit of

something else?

Goals 5 (water) and 6 (sediment) specifically address abiotic natural processes. Other

goals have MOs that address biotic natural processes (e.g., competition, predation,

disease, parasites).

4. Overall: MO’s that relate to GCD operations need to be identified. See Issue Paper #3

GCPA includes changes of dam operations and other MA’s under other existing

authorities.

Identification of responsibility probably at the MA/IN level.

5. Overall: We’re not limited by GCPA to dam operations. See Response 4.

6. Implicit assumptions may be stated, rather than expanding MO to cover all

resources (if we are taking care of one resource, our actions will take care of

others).

No Response Needed. (NRN)
Goal 1. Protect or improve the aquatic foodbase so that it will support viable populations of desired

species at higher trophic levels.

revised MOs dtd 4-7-00.doc Last Saved: 5/17/009:27AM Page 2

TWG Comments Responses

7. Goal 1: Add “desired” before the word “species” and substitute

“appropriate” for “higher” – there may be undesirable species or upper limit

of level.

Change made to read “desired species.” Higher trophic levels is the appropriate

usage. Trophic levels are the strata in a food pyramid that begins with producers at

the bottom and higher trophic levels (primary consumers, secondary consumers) at

the top.

8. Goal 1: All Goal 1 MOs are for Goal 2. Disagree. The foodbase is used not only by native fish, but by other consumers (e.g.,

birds, reptiles, amphibians).

9. Goal 1: Further discussion on trout fishery limited to above Paria River –

historically trout fishery is to Davis Dam.

See Issue Paper #2

10. Goal 1: Managing for trout below Paria - how does it conflict with native fish? See Issue Paper #2

Determining levels of competetion predation between native and non-native fish will

be considered for an IN.

11. Goal 1: Is it a conflict above the Paria? See Response 10.

12. Goal 1: Division at Paria related to endangered fish recovery - separation has

proven effective.

See Response 10.
Goal 1. Protect or improve the aquatic foodbase so that it will support viable populations of desired

species at higher trophic levels.

revised MOs dtd 4-7-00.doc Last Saved: 5/17/009:27AM Page 3 ID #

Perform some

action

On some

element

On some

attribute

At some

place

From the

current level

To the target

level (numbers

to be validated

by monitoring)

Comments

1 Maintain or attain Algae /

periphyton and

aquatic

macrophytes

Biomass Above the

Paria River to

GCD

Cobble: 17.5

g/m2 AFDW

Pools: 2.7 g/m2

AFDW

(seasonal

averages)

150 g/m2

AFDW,

measured as a

seasonal

average

Shannon et al. 1999
Goal 1. Protect or improve the aquatic foodbase so that it will support viable populations of desired

species at higher trophic levels.

revised MOs dtd 4-7-00.doc Last Saved: 5/17/009:27AM Page 4 ID #

Perform some

action

On some

element

On some

attribute

At some

place

From the

current level

To the target

level (numbers

to be validated

by monitoring)

Comments

2 Composition Above the

Paria River to

GCD

Lees Ferry:

Cladophora

49.60%

Chlorophyta

33.10%

Fontinalis

9.10%

Chromophyta

3.35%

Rhodophyta

2.40%

Cyanobacteria

2.50%

Elsewhere in

Reach

Chara: No

data(ND)

No data

available

Egeria – ND

No data

available

PotamogetonND

No data

available

x% algal

species that

support upright

diatoms – obtain

from literature
Goal 1. Protect or improve the aquatic foodbase so that it will support viable populations of desired

species at higher trophic levels.

revised MOs dtd 4-7-00.doc Last Saved: 5/17/009:27AM Page 5 ID #

Perform some

action

On some

element

On some

attribute

At some

place

From the

current level

To the target

level (numbers

to be validated

by monitoring)

Comments

3 Production (is

this a costeffective

measure?)

No available

data

x Cladophora

g/m2/time –

Information

Need

13. MO 1: Relationship of this to RNV in Principle 6. See Issue Paper #6.

The ad hoc believes that managing for natural pattern and process (an

allochthonous foodbase) is not appropriate in Grand Canyon. Consistent with

Principle 6, we believe that in this case, it is appropriate to experiment with other

approaches to achieving the goal.

14. MO 1-18: Verify Current and Target levels for all MOs in Goal 1. Concur.

15. MO 1-9 (?): Purpose may need to include hunting (ducks) - other than fish:

shoreline reptiles, insects, and everything else.

Concur. See Response 8.

16. MO 3: Is managing for Clacophora what we really want to do? See Response 13. We are measuring the dominant algae at this time which is

cladophora.

17. MO 3: Production is a critical measure of nutrients - ties in w/flow rates. Determining whether the increased information available through production

estimates is worth the increased costs will be considered for an IN.

18. MOs 1-3 and 7-10: Why aquatic macrophytes aren’t included with

algae/periphytons?

Macrophytes will be included in the next draft.

19. MOs 1-3 and 7-10: Are there species of algae for which we don’t want to

increase biomass, productivity and composition?

See Response 16.
Goal 1. Protect or improve the aquatic foodbase so that it will support viable populations of desired

species at higher trophic levels.

revised MOs dtd 4-7-00.doc Last Saved: 5/17/009:27AM Page 6 ID #

Perform some

action

On some

element

On some

attribute

At some

place

From the

current level

To the target

level (numbers

to be validated

by monitoring)

Comments

4 Biomass Cobblebar: 5.0

g/m2 AFDM;

Pool: 1.0 g/m2

AFDM

5000 g/m2

AFDW

5

Maintain or attain Benthic

Invertebrates

Composition

Above the

Paria River to

GCD

Cobblebar:

Worms 0.4%

Gammarus

3.6%

Oligochaetes

5.5%

Simulium 0.1%

Midges 28.8%

Misc. 3.8%

Gastropoda

57.7%

All 6937/m2

Pool:

Worms 1.0%

Gammarus

0.9%

Oligochaetes

35.7%

Simulium 0%

Midges 22.3%

Relative

percentages –

Information

Need

Shannon et al. 1999
Goal 1. Protect or improve the aquatic foodbase so that it will support viable populations of desired

species at higher trophic levels.

revised MOs dtd 4-7-00.doc Last Saved: 5/17/009:27AM Page 7 ID #

Perform some

action

On some

element

On some

attribute

At some

place

From the

current level

To the target

level (numbers

to be validated

by monitoring)

Comments

6 Production (is

this a

meaningful

and costeffective

measure?)

No data

available

Information

Need

7 Biomass

Mainstem

below the

Paria River

Cobblebar:

12.21 g/m2

AFDM

Pool: 0.35 g/m2

AFDM

50 g / m2 on

average

8

Algae /

Periphyton

macrophytes

Composition

Mainstem

below the

Paria River

Cobblebar:

12.21 g/m2

AFDM

Pool: 0.35 g/m2

AFDM

Cladophora

29.9%; MAMB

23.7%;

Oscillatoria

46.6%

Pools:

Cladophora

51.0%; MAMB

48.9%;

Oscillatoria

0.1%

relative % of

species – obtain

from literature
Goal 1. Protect or improve the aquatic foodbase so that it will support viable populations of desired

species at higher trophic levels.

revised MOs dtd 4-7-00.doc Last Saved: 5/17/009:27AM Page 8 ID #

Perform some

action

On some

element

On some

attribute

At some

place

From the

current level

To the target

level (numbers

to be validated

by monitoring)

Comments

9 Production (Is

this a costeffective

measure?)

No data

available

x g / m2 / time –

Information

Need
Goal 1. Protect or improve the aquatic foodbase so that it will support viable populations of desired

species at higher trophic levels.

revised MOs dtd 4-7-00.doc Last Saved: 5/17/009:27AM Page 9 ID #

Perform some

action

On some

element

On some

attribute

At some

place

From the

current level

To the target

level (numbers

to be validated

by monitoring)

Comments

10 Distribution Cobblebars at

Mi 2,

61,68,127,205

for Cladophore,

MAMB,

Oscillatoria:

49.3, 43.3, 7.4

%

22.4, 43.1, 34.5

%

8.7, 7.2, 84.1 %

5.6, 12.4, 82 %

63.7, 12.4, 23.9

%

Pools at Mi 2,

61,68,127,205

for Cladophore,

MAMB,

Oscillatoria:

60, 40, 0 %

28.6, 71.4, 0 %

80, 20, 0 %

15.2, 84.8, 0%

71.2, 28.5, 0.3%

15.2, 84.8, 0 %

71.2, 28.5, 0.3

%

Information

Need
Goal 1. Protect or improve the aquatic foodbase so that it will support viable populations of desired

species at higher trophic levels.

revised MOs dtd 4-7-00.doc Last Saved: 5/17/009:27AM Page 10 ID #

Perform some

action

On some

element

On some

attribute

At some

place

From the

current level

To the target

level (numbers

to be validated

by monitoring)

Comments

20. MO 4: Examine the numbers in Current and Target Levels Concur.

21. MO 4: Some of these comments apply to more than one MO. Concur.

22. Comment for all fish MOs: Purpose, as far as native/non-native above

Paria, should be integrated with GLCA fish management plan.

Concur with consistency with NPS on values for which the park units were

established with native fish and will consider the GLCA fish management plan.

23. MOs 7-10: add aquatic macrophytes to element? Concur.

11 Maintain or attain Benthic

Invertebrates

Biomass Mainstem Below

the Paria River

Cobblebars:

0.96 g/m2

AFDM

Pools:

0.054 g/m2

AFDM

x g / m2 on

average –

obtain from

literature
Goal 1. Protect or improve the aquatic foodbase so that it will support viable populations of desired

species at higher trophic levels.

revised MOs dtd 4-7-00.doc Last Saved: 5/17/009:27AM Page 11

12 Composition Cobblebars:

Worm

0.4%,

Gammarus

7.1%, Other

oligochaete

8.2%,

Simulium

4.3%,

Chironomid

55.4%,

Misc. 3.6%,

Gastropod

21.0%

Pools:

Worm

0.4%,

Gammarus

1.1%, Other

oligochaete

30.1%,

Simulium

14.3%,

Chironomid

48.9%,

Misc. 1.2%,

Gastropod

4.0%

relative % of

species – obtain

from literature

Shannon et al. 1999
Goal 1. Protect or improve the aquatic foodbase so that it will support viable populations of desired

species at higher trophic levels.

revised MOs dtd 4-7-00.doc Last Saved: 5/17/009:27AM Page 12

13 Production

(Meaningful

and costeffective

measure?)

No data

available

x g / m2 / time

Information

Need

14 Distribution Cobblebars/

m2, worms,

Gammarus,

oligochaete

s,Simulium,

midges,

misc., and

gastropod:

Mi. 2--

20,500,

120,10,215

0, 20,1580

Information

Need

24. MO’s 11-14: Benthic invertebrates downstream of the Paria River – is this

place description specific enough?

Further information may result in discrimination by reaches.

25. MO 15: Would we manage drift separately from algae and benthic

invertebrates, or is this a monitoring need?

The need to manage drift separately for algae and inverts will be considered for an

IN.

15 Abundance x g / m3

obtain from

literature

x g / m+

obtain from

literature

16

Maintain or attain Foodbase drift

Composition

Mainstem below

GCD

Obtain from

literature

Obtain from

literature

26. MO 15: Do MOs adequately depict the downstream increasing

heterotrophic nature of the river?

See Response 24.

27. MOs 15 and 16: Purpose: Maintain satisfactory CRE function for the

benefit of target resources.

Disagree. Purpose would restate the goal.

28. MOs 15 and 16: Need a distribution attribute for drift? See Response 24.
Goal 2. Maintain or attain viable populations of existing native fish and remove jeopardy from humpback

chub and razorback sucker.

revised MOs dtd 4-7-00.doc Last Saved 04/13/00 9:55 AM Page 13

TWG Comments Responses

29. Goals 5 and 6 relate to Goal 2 - these two goals should be objectives under

other goals.

We retained goals 5 and 6 because ecosystem processes are important

considerations not only at the species level, but also at the biotic community and

the ecosystem level.

ID #

Perform some

action

On some

element

On some

attribute

At some

place

From the

current level

To the target

level (numbers

to be validated

by monitoring)

Comments

15 Abundance Plants –

.024g/m3/s;

detritus - .056

g/m3/s;

Inverts --

.001g/m3/s

X g / m3

Obtain from

literature

16

Maintain or Attain Foodbase drift

Composition

Mainstem

below GCD

Plants – 29.2%

Detritus –

69.3%; CPO M

inverts 1.1%,

FPOM inverts

0.4%

Obtain from

literature

17 Maintain or attain Humpback chub

(>=150 mm)

Abundance LCR +/- 3

miles in

mainstem

4,346 in LCR,

3,750 in CR

Based on 91-96

popn estimate;

PVA; & Ne – IN

Douglas and Marsh 1996;

Valdez and Ryel 1997

30. MO 17: Place should be “LCR and +/- 3 miles.” Concur. Changes will be made throughout document.

31. MO 17: Use updated numbers as we can. Concur.

32. MO 17: If numbers to remove jeopardy are published (this summer), use

them.

See Issue Paper #8

33. MOs 17-25 and 28: Mos should be consistent with recovery plans for listed

fish.

See Issue Paper #8.
Goal 2. Maintain or attain viable populations of existing native fish and remove jeopardy from humpback

chub and razorback sucker.

revised MOs dtd 4-7-00.doc Last Saved 04/13/00 9:55 AM Page 14

34. MOs 17-20: Significance of size indications? HBC <50 mm are young-of-the-year. Fish between 50 and 150 mm are either

YOY or age 1. Fish below 150 mm are too small to PIT tag, so they represent the

size classes for which we do not have population estimates. Fish >150 mm are

PIT tagged fish (not necessarily mature fish), and represent the size class for

which population estimates exist. HBC do not usually become mature until they

are larger than 150 mm

18 Humpback chub

(>= 150 mm)

225

(1993 – 94 popn

estimate)

Based on:91-96

popn estimate;

PVA; & Ne – IN

19

Mainstem

other than

LCR +/- 3

miles 0-74 HBC

captured/trip

from 06-09/98

20

Maintain or attain

Humpback chub

(> 50 mm and <

150 mm)

Abundance

LCR +/- 3

miles in

mainstem

06/99 in LCR:

11 HBC in 4

sets of 8

minnow traps; 8

HBC in 4

trammel net

sets.

06/99 in CR at

LCR: 2 HBC in 5

electrofishing

runs; 8 HBC in 3

nights of

trammel

netting;11 HBC

in 29 hoopnet

sets; 0 HBC in

24 minnow trap

sets

TBD CPUE –

Information

Need

Note: CPUE is a surrogate for

abundance.

Gorman and Bramblett 1999

35. MOs 17-18: Put confidence intervals in population estimates - current level. Concur.
Goal 2. Maintain or attain viable populations of existing native fish and remove jeopardy from humpback

chub and razorback sucker.

revised MOs dtd 4-7-00.doc Last Saved 04/13/00 9:55 AM Page 15

36. MOs 18-20 and 22-25: For MOs re: humpback chub in mainstem, the

purpose is not for - add to purpose “Maintain or attain viable populations.”

Purpose is both viable populations and removal of jeopardy. Note, however, that

removal of jeopardy may entail more than attaining a certain population size.

37. MO 19: Should the action be “Maintain or increase,” like MOs 17-20? Concur.

38. MOs 19 and 20: Do these lead to removal of jeopardy? (see Purpose) Achieving these objectives should contribute, at least in part, to removal of jeopardy.

39. MOs 19 and 20: In the Purpose - indicate they are part of removal of

jeopardy.

We will delete purpose statements that restate the goal.

21 Establish Humpback chub Population CRE

downstream

of GCD

One selfsustaining popn

(LCR)

One additional

self-sustaining

population

Removal of jeopardy (other

MOs or MAs may follow from

review of the RPAs in the BO)

40. MO 21: This MO doesn’t relate to operation of GCD - may not be in AMP. We retain this objective because it is necessary to achieve the goal (see Principle 1).

The responsibility for accomplishing actions outside the AMP will eventually be noted

in the Strategic Plan.

41. MO 21: This MO does relate to the operation of GCD. See Response 40.

22 Condition LCR +/- 3

miles in

mainstem

Information

Need

Information

Need

To measure health of HBC

23

Attain Humpback chub

Health Mainstem Information

Need

Information

Need

To address disease and

parasite issues

42. MOs 22-23: Should these be for adults only or all life stages? Determining the value of a condition attribute at various stages will be considered for

an IN.

43. Can MOs 22 and 23 be combined? Determining value of separate estimates will be considered for an IN.

44. MOs 22 and 23 refer to different groups of fish so they should be kept

separate.

Determining value of separate estimates will be considered for an IN.

45. MOs 22 and 23: “Condition:” should we add an MO with “health” as an

attribute to address disease and parasite issues?

Concur. See revised MO.

46. These may be necessary but not sufficient to remove jeopardy. NRN.
Goal 2. Maintain or attain viable populations of existing native fish and remove jeopardy from humpback

chub and razorback sucker.

revised MOs dtd 4-7-00.doc Last Saved 04/13/00 9:55 AM Page 16

24 Maintain or attain Humpback chub Spawning LCR +/- 3

miles in

mainstem

08-09/98 56

YOY caught in

minnow traps

from LCRTanner

Information

Need (metric is

unknown)

Gorman and Bramblett 1999

47. MO 24: Why was spawning selected as the index as opposed to

reproduction or recruitment?

The appropriate attribute will be determined by the Long-Term Fish Monitoring

Group. Spawning is retained as a place holder.

48. MO 24: Is monitoring spawning a smart objective? May have a good

spawn only 1 in 5 years.

See Response 47.

25 Maintain or attain Humpback chub Spawning Mainstem 9 fry detected in

08-09/98

Information

Need

Gorman and Bramblett 1999

49. MOs 24-25: Attribute should be “recruiting.” See Response 47. ID #

Perform some

action

On some

element

On some

attribute

At some

place

From the

current level

To the target

level (numbers

to be validated

by monitoring)

Comments

26 Reduce Non-native fish Predation on

native fish

CRE

downstream

of GCD

1243 NN fish

(58% of total)

detected in CR,

06-09/98

Information

Need

Gorman and Bramblett 1999

50. MO 26: Predator removal strategy for upper basin may be help with IN. Concept of a predator removal strategy should be investigated. Will be considered

for an IN.

51. MO 26: Does this conflict with maintaining trout (MO 36)? See Issue Paper # 2.

52. MO 26: Should break out predators – may not be a conflict. Determining species-specific rates of predation will be considered for an IN.

27 Reduce Non-native fish Competition with

native fish

CRE

downstream

of GCD

No data

available

Information

Need

No available data

53. MOs 26 and 27: Should the place be below the Paria? May conflict with

MOs under Goal 4.

See Issue Paper #2.
Goal 2. Maintain or attain viable populations of existing native fish and remove jeopardy from humpback

chub and razorback sucker.

revised MOs dtd 4-7-00.doc Last Saved 04/13/00 9:55 AM Page 17

54. MOs 26 and 27: Action should be “determine.” We believe the hypothesis that non-native fish significantly impact native fish through

competition and predation is valid. Determining species-specific competition will be

considered for an IN.

55. MOs 26 and 27: The action should be “reduce,” not “determine.”

"Determine” is the IN.

See Response 54.

56. MOs 26 and 27: The action should be “minimize.” See Response 54.

57. MOs 26 and 27: For 4 endangered fish, recovery goals may conflict with

GLCA fish management plan. Resolution needed.

See Issue Paper #2.

58. MOs 26 and 27: Should MO be “reduce non-native population?” (combine

the two MOs)

We believe the MO is properly targeted. Whether or not reduction of non-native fish is

warranted depends on the rates of predation and competition.

59. MOs 26 and 27: Should MOs be split into separate non-native species? Determining abundance and distribution of non-natives as well as species-specific

rates of predation competition will be considered as INs.

28 Attain Razorback

Sucker

Populations CRE

downstream

of GCD

None Information

Need: To the

capability of the

habitat to

support the

species

Gorman and Bramblett 1999

60. MO 28: How is this related to dam operations? See Response 40.

61. MO 28: Needs clarification: is removal of jeopardy the correct purpose?

There are none in GC.

Removal of jeopardy is appropriate. See the Biological Opinion.

62. MO 28: Consider moving to Goal 3. We retain it here because of the removal of jeopardy clause in the goal.

29 Flannelmouth

sucker

Abundance Gorman and Bramblett 1999

30 Bluehead

sucker

Abundance Gorman and Bramblett 1999

31

Maintain or

increase

Speckled dace Abundance

CRE

downstream

of GCD

In CR in 06-

09/99: FMS--

113 (5.3%);

BHS--41 (1.9%);

SPD—391

(18.2%) of 2143

fish captured

Information

Need

Gorman and Bramblett 1999

63. MO 31: Use “Maintain” v. "Maintain or increase.” Concur.
Goal 2. Maintain or attain viable populations of existing native fish and remove jeopardy from humpback

chub and razorback sucker.

revised MOs dtd 4-7-00.doc Last Saved 04/13/00 9:55 AM Page 18

64. MO 31: Attribute should be “populations” instead of “abundance.” Abundance is the appropriate attribute.

65. MO 31: Whole reach? Yes. See Issue Paper #I2.
Goal 3. Restore populations of extirpated species as feasible.

revised MOs dtd 4-7-00.doc Last Saved 04/13/00 9:55 AM Page 19 ID #

Perform some

action

On some

element

On some

attribute

At some

place

From the

current level

To the target

level (numbers

to be validated

by monitoring)

Comments

32 Restore Colorado

pikeminnow

Abundance CRE

downstream

of GCD

None TBD: obtain

from literature

and Information

Need

To restore ecosystem patterns

as articulated in Principle 6.

Gorman and Bramblett 1999

66. MO 32: Concern about introduction of predator in trout fishery. See Issue Paper #2. Determining for feasibility will be considered for an IN.

33 Restore Bonytail Abundance CRE

downstream

of GCD

None TBD: obtain

from literature

and Information

Need

To restore ecosystem patterns

as articulated in Principle 6.

Gorman and Bramblett 1999

67. MOs 32 and 33: Should be consistent with recovery plan. See Issue Paper #8.

68. MO 33: Should be more narrow description of Place, probably below the

Paria.

SeeIssue Paper #2. Determining feasibility of reintroduction will be considered for an

IN.

69. MOs 32-34: Place should be downstream of the Paria. See Response 68.

70. MOs 32-34: Above the Paria includes native and non-native. See Response 68.

71. MO 33: Is there concern about hybrids between HBC and bonytail? Concern will be addressed in determining the feasibility.

34 Restore Roundtail Chub Abundance CRE

downstream

of GCD

None TBD: obtain

from literature

and Information

Need

To restore ecosystem patterns

as articulated in Principle 6.

Gorman and Bramblett 1999

72. MO 34: Concern with hybridization with HBC. See Response 71.
Goal 3. Restore populations of extirpated species as feasible.

revised MOs dtd 4-7-00.doc Last Saved 04/13/00 9:55 AM Page 20

35 Restore River otter Abundance CRE

downstream

of GCD

None TBD: obtain

from literature

and Information

Need

Reintroduce a top predator into

the CRE to re-establish

ecosystem patterns and

processes, as articulated in

Principle 6. Hoffmeister 1986

73. MOs 32 through 35: These MOs may be outside of the AMP. They are

outside of effects, impact, and influence of operations of GCD.

See Response 40

74. MOs 32 through 35: These MOs are outside of the Loveless guidance

document.

See Response 40.

75. MOs 32 through 35: It is outside of the ROD to restore species. See Response 40.

76. MOs 32-34 are within the scoping program and guidance document. See Response 40.

77. MO 35: Is this premature? Question as to whether they are as abundant as

they ever were.

Concern will be addressed in determining feasibility and will be considered for an IN.

78. MO 35: Species is now extinct. The word “restoring” is not correct if

extinct, would be restoring the function.

The feasibility should take into account questions regarding historic abundance in

Grand Canyon, the validity of the sub-species, and park service policy that the

“genetic type used in restoration most nearly approximates the extirpated genetic

type.”

79. MO 35: Should be an IN, not an MO. See Principle 6, and Response 66.
Goal 4. Maintain a wild reproducing population of rainbow trout above Lees Ferry, to the extent

practicable and consistent with the maintenance of viable populations of native fish.

revised MOs dtd 4-7-00.doc Last Saved 04/13/00 9:55 AM Page 21

80. Goal 4: Goal should read “above the Paria River” instead of “above Lees

Ferry.”

Goal will be changed to “above the Paria River.”

ID #

Perform some

action

On some

element

On some

attribute

At some

place

From the

current level

To the target

level (numbers

to be validated

by monitoring)

Comments

36 Abundance 262,000 Age II+

(1998); CPUE =

7.1 (catch/min.

elecroshocking)

in 09/97

100,000 Age II+

37 Growth Rate ~ 15” by Age III ~ 18” by Age III

38 Condition Wr = 0.82 Wr = 0.90

Sufficient to meet population

target of >= 100,000 Age II+

McKinney and Persons 1999

38A

Maintain or attain Rainbow trout

Health

Above the

Paria River

Referring to disease and

parasites

81. IN for MO 36: Evaluate the method by which Current Level and Target

Level are derived.

Concur.

82. MO 38: Should “health” be changed to “condition”? Health will be changed to condition.

83. MO 38: Change Attribute from “health” to “condition” to refer to disease

and parasites.

We will add an MO for trout health.—38A

84. MOs 36-38 could be one MO with multiple Attributes - Element, Place, and

Levels are the same.

Concur.

39 Maintain or attain Rainbow trout Spawning Above the

Paria River

Information

Need

Information

Need

85. MO 39: Change Attribute from “spawning” to “recruitment.” See Response 47.
Goal 5. Establish water temperature, quality, and flow dynamics to achieve GCDAMP ecosystem Goals.

revised MOs dtd 4-7-00.doc Last Saved 04/13/00 9:55 AM Page 22 ID #

Perform some

action

On some

element

On some

attribute

At some

place

From the current

level

To the target

level (numbers

to be validated

by monitoring)

Comments

40 Temperature

range

6.93-12.2oC nr

CDam to 8.44-18.56

oC at Mile 226

41

Attain Water

Seasonal

variability of

temperature

Mainstem

5.29 oC at Dam to

10.12 oC at Mile 226

Use decision

process

Korn and Vernieu 1998

86. Combine MO 40 with MO 41 - multiple Attributes. Concur.

87. MOs 40 and 41: Add an MO for water temperature in Lake Powell. See Issue Paper #1.

88. MO 41: Expand the language in the Purpose to reflect range and

variability.

Seasonal variability is in the attribute.

89. MO 41: Does this include spatial variability? Longitudinal variability will be considered as the targets are set.
Goal 5. Establish water temperature, quality, and flow dynamics to achieve GCDAMP ecosystem Goals.

revised MOs dtd 4-7-00.doc Last Saved 04/13/00 9:55 AM Page 23

42 Maintain Water Quality

(nutrients,

salinity, pH, DO,

nitrogen,

phosphorus,

microbiology,

perhaps others)

Mainstem As of Sept 1999 at

Lees Ferry:

Temp=11oC;

Turbidity=0.25 NTU;

Specific conduct.

=714uS/cm;

DO=7.4 mg/L;

pH=8.0;

Bicarb=160mg/L;

Dslv NH4<0.02;

Tot NH4=0.03;

NH4+OrgN=.21;

NO2+NO3=.28;

Tot P<0.05;

DslvOrt-P<.001;

DslvOrgC=3.1;

SuspOrgC<0.02;

Dslv Ca=59 mg/L;

Dslv Mg=20 mg/L;

Dslv Na=57 mg/L;

Dslv K=3.0 mg/L;

Dslv Cl=33 mg/L;

DslvSO4=165 mg/L;

Dslv S=1 mg/L;

Selenium=1 ug/L

Obtain from

literature and

use decision

process

USGS. NASQWAN data (2000)

90. MO 42: This MO contains a lot of Attributes – will the most important ones

be identified? Should there be an IN to ID those?

Significant attributes will be split out. Determining which attributes are significant

will be considered for an IN.

91. MO 42: Purpose is unclear. What does standard mean? Delete ? *
Goal 5. Establish water temperature, quality, and flow dynamics to achieve GCDAMP ecosystem Goals.

revised MOs dtd 4-7-00.doc Last Saved 04/13/00 9:55 AM Page 24

92. MO 42: We may not have any control over salinity or phosphorus. See Response 40.

93. MO 42: This should include Lake Powell or we need an additional MO. See Issue Paper #1.

94. MO 42: Add that the Navajo Nation uses water from the dam down to the

LCR for drinking water.

Purpose is no longer relevant. MO revised.

95. MO 42: Outside impacts will be pronounced and perhaps outside the AMP.

Will we look at watershed activities and impacts?

See Response 40.

96. MO 42: Others use drinking water from all of Colorado River. Purpose was deleted.

97. MO 42: May fall outside of AMP. See Response 40.

43 Power plant

operations

Remain within ROD Information

Need

U.S. Dept. Interior 1996

44 BHBF flows 45,000 cfs March to

April

Use decision

process

45

Maintain Flow dynamics

Habitat

maintenance

flows

Mainstem

ROD ROD

U.S. Dept. Interior 1996

98. MO 43: Purpose is for resource and ecosystem. We will strike the statement as it is redundant with the goal.

99. MO 43: The Element could be Water. In that case, Attribute would be

hydrology/power plant operations, hydrology/BHBF, etc.

Retain the element and attribute as written.

100. MO 43: The Element is Water, the Attribute is Flow Dynamics, and the

Target would be the different flows.

See Response 99.

101. MO 43: Flow dynamics is the Attribute. See Response 99.

102. MO 43: Keep it the way it is written. See Response 99.
Goal 5. Establish water temperature, quality, and flow dynamics to achieve GCDAMP ecosystem Goals.

revised MOs dtd 4-7-00.doc Last Saved 04/13/00 9:55 AM Page 25

46 Conduct Flow Dynamics Experimental

Flows

Mainstem Experimental

design

recommendations

to TWG/AMWG

Information

Need

GCMRC Staff 1998

103. MO 46: Attribute should be experimental flows, and Purpose should be not

just specifically for native fish but to move within the RNV.

Attribute will be changed to experimental flows and purpose will be deleted. Action

changed to Conduct. Will change current level to IN and move to goal 13.

104. MO 46: Purpose should be meeting conditions of the Biological Opinion. See Response 103

105. MO 46: Likes it the way it is written. See Response103.

106. MO 46: Drop this as an MO. You’re not maintaining it, you are conducting

it. It doesn’t meet the definition.

See Response103.

107. MOs 44 – 46: These are management actions. See Response 103.

108. MOs 44 – 46: Purpose - will this be defined more clearly – specific

resources with flows attached to those resources?

See Response 103.

109. MOs 43-46: All Flow Dynamics MOs could be one MO with purpose stated

in the goal.

Concur with MOs 43-45. See Response 103.
Goal 6: Maintain or attain levels of sediment within the main channel and along shorelines to achieve

GCDAMP ecosystem goals.

revised MOs dtd 4-7-00.doc Last Saved 04/13/00 9:55 AM Page 26

TWG Comments Responses

110. Goal 6: Goal doesn’t make sense: fine sediment storage is ephemeral in main

channel.

Goal will be rewritten to “Maintain or attain levels of sediment within the main

channel and along the shorelines to achieve GCDAMP ecosystem goals.”

111. Goal 6: Prefer “supply” to “storage.” Storage is for the sides; supply

indicates a constant source of sediment into the system.

See Response 110.

112. Goal 6: Fish habitat is created below the water within the eddies. NRN

113. Goal 6: Purpose of this goal is not related to ecosystem goals (including fish). We retained goals 5 and 6 because ecosystem processes are important considerations

not only at the species level, but also at the biotic community and the ecosystem level.

114. Goal 6: “Maintain a sustainable” is redundant. See Response 110.

115. Goal 6: Define sediment so it’s not just “fine.” There should be a goal on

coarse sediment or re-write this one. Coarse sediment is important for

ecosystem (Cladophora, fish)

See Response 110.

116. Goal 6: The small group felt coarse sediment wasn’t able to be manipulated

like fine sediment.

NRN.

117. Goal 6: The possibility of manipulating coarse sediment becomes easier with

higher flows.

NRN.

118. Goal 6: Coarse grain sediment is addressed with rapids MO. NRN.

119. Goal 6: Concern about conflict between coarse and find sediment because if

we manage for fine sediment, what isn’t fine will be coarse.

See Response 110.

120. Goal 6: Can add spawning MOs to the fish goals. Concur.
Goal 6: Maintain or attain levels of sediment within the main channel and along shorelines to achieve

GCDAMP ecosystem goals.

revised MOs dtd 4-7-00.doc Last Saved 04/13/00 9:55 AM Page 27 ID #

Perform some

action

On some

element

On some

attribute

At some

place

From the

current level

To the target

level (numbers

to be validated

by monitoring)

Comments

47 Abundance

(area and

volume)

No mass

balance data

presently

published.

On 990501

Upstrm fr/ LCR

(total at 14 sites)

=254,000 m3;

dnstrm fr/ LCR

(total at 21

sites)=75,000

m3. Area datra

pending.

x m2 and x m3

as a rolling

average – IN

48 Grain-size

characteristic

0.3-0.4 mm

system-wide,

but highly flow

and time

dependent

D50 <= x mm

(upper limit)

Information

Need based on

flooding levels

and transport

capabilities

49

Maintain or attain Sediment

Distribution

(area and

volume)

Main channel

below power

plant

capacity

See volume

data above

x m

2

 and x m3

average by

reach – IN

To support deposition on

channel margins.

Kaplinski et al. 2000;

Topping et al. 2000

121. MO 48: Fine sediment is that less than 2 mm Concur.

122. MO 49: How will it be measured? (Every year there are side-scan sonar

sweeps for sediment on the channel bed.)

Determining methods will be considered for an IN.

123. MOs 47-49: “Below power plant capacity” - storage starts at lower level of

power plant capacity – 8-13,000 cfs at sandbars and margins, 5-8,000 cfs at

mainstem and eddies.

NRN.
Goal 6: Maintain or attain levels of sediment within the main channel and along shorelines to achieve

GCDAMP ecosystem goals.

revised MOs dtd 4-7-00.doc Last Saved 04/13/00 9:55 AM Page 28 ID #

Perform some

action

On some

element

On some

attribute

At some

place

From the

current level

To the target

level (numbers

to be validated

by monitoring)

Comments

50 Abundance

(area and

volume)

No mass

balance data

presently

published.

Volume on

990501

Upstrm fr/ LCR

(total at 14 sites)

=173,400 m3;

dnstrm fr/ LCR

(total at 21

sites)=115,720

m3. Area datra

pending.

x m

2

 and x m3

Information

Need

51 Grain-size

characteristic

Ca. 0.15-0.18

mm

D50: x mm

Information

Need

52

Maintain or attain Sediment

Distribution

Eddies up to

power plant

capacity

See volume

data above

x m2 and x m3

average by

reach

Information

Need

For backwater development

and deposition on channel

margins.

Kaplinski et al. 2000;

Topping et al. 2000

124. MO 52: Why is abundance repeated? (typo - cross off “abundance and”) Concur. The attribute for MOs 47, 50 & 53 is abundance, and the metric is surface

area and volume by reach. The attribute for MOs 49, 52 & 55 is distribution, and

the metric is number of sandbars by reach.

125. MO 50-52: One MO, multiple attributes. Concur

126. MO 50-52: More specificity in purpose – more on linked effects (e.g., sediment

and flow)

Concur. Additional comments on linkages would be useful.

127. MO 50-52: Provide linkages - put # of MO that this links to. See Response 126.
Goal 6: Maintain or attain levels of sediment within the main channel and along shorelines to achieve

GCDAMP ecosystem goals.

revised MOs dtd 4-7-00.doc Last Saved 04/13/00 9:55 AM Page 29 ID #

Perform some

action

On some

element

On some

attribute

At some

place

From the

current level

To the target

level (numbers

to be validated

by monitoring)

Comments

53 Abundance

(area and

volume)

Mean relative

Bar Ht in Glen

Cyn=0.37m, in

Marble

Cyn=0.6m, in

Grand

Canyon=0.8m in

relation to a

MRBar Ht of ~

0.5m prior to the

1996 Test

Flood.

x m

2

 and x m3

Information

Need

Kaplinski et al. 2000

54 Grain-size

characteristic

D50 = 0.15-

0.18mm

D50: x mm

Information

Need

Topping et al. 2000

55

Maintain or attain Sediment

Distribution

Shorelines >

power plant

capacity or

up to

maximum

BHBF

See bar ht data

above

x m

2

 and x m3

average by

reach

Information

Need

Kaplinski et al. 2000

128. MO 53: Purpose is camping beaches, cultural sites, and riparian area

maintenance.

 We will not add because it is redundant with goal.

129. MO 53-55: Add “retention” as well as “storage” to the purpose. See Responses 110 and 128.

130. MOs 53-55: Retention is implied in “sustainable.” See Responses 110 and 128.
Goal 7: Maintain or attain viable populations of Kanab ambersnail.

revised MOs dtd 4-7-00.doc Last Saved 04/13/00 9:55 AM Page 30

TWG Comments Responses

131. Goal 7: The expert panel said it’s possible in a natural regime for a species to

“blank out.” The goal should be to prevent man-caused extinction, not prop

up a population that could go extinct anyway.

NRN.

ID #

Perform some

action

On some

element

On some

attribute

At some

place

From the

current level

To the target

level (numbers

to be validated

by monitoring)

Comments

56 Attain and Maintain Kanab

ambersnail

Population1Vasey’s

Paradise

Low Zone (<70k

cfs) in April,

May, July, and

late Sept./early

October in

1998--9500,

7000, 8000,

and16000 KAS;

in 1999--7100,

6400, 20000

and 35000

Viable

population level

as indicated by

the appropriate

model or

analytical

technique –

Information

Need

Meretsky 1999

132. MO 56: Don’t think the footnote is appropriate. First sentence - viability will

not be measured. It’s the things in 2nd sentence that will be measured.

We retained “population” as the attribute until the specific population viability

attributes are identified. Determining these attributes will be considered for an IN..

133. MO 56: There is a 98-99 draft report on the population estimates. NRN.

134. MO 56: Assumption in the Purpose column is debatable. We deleted the purpose.

135. MO 56: Spell out the Attributes as MOs. See Response 132.

 

1

 The specific attribute will depend on how population viability is determined. Possible indicators include over-wintering abundance, health, recruitment, size class, patch size,

etc.
Goal 7: Maintain or attain viable populations of Kanab ambersnail.

revised MOs dtd 4-7-00.doc Last Saved 04/13/00 9:55 AM Page 31

57 Attain and maintain Kanab

ambersnail

Population AZ (3 translocation sites

in GC)

300 KAS

released/site in

1998-1999:

Keyhole Spr—3

KAS relocated

in Sept 1999;

Elves Chasm—

21 KAS; Low

Deer Cr. Spr—0

KAS

One additional

Viable

Population –

Information

Need

To meet the existing BO until it

is revised. As indicated in

Principle 7, some actions may

be outside the AMP. AGFD

1999.

136. MO 57: Action should be “maintain.” We retained the action here, and changed the action in MO56 to “Attain and

Maintain.” The metric in both is some indicator of population viability. See

Response 132.

137. MO 57: BO doesn’t call for 3 populations – Place should be one site. Disagree. The target, not the place, is one viable population

138. MO 57: All 3 populations are protected if they survive – at least one would

survive is the hope. “At least one.”

NRN.

139. MO 57: In light of the panel, how will MOs change? How do we change an

MO if the panel recommends differently?

MOs will be revised as new information is received..

58 Maintain Kanab

ambersnail

Habitat

(composition

and area in m2)

Vasey’s

Paradise

Low zone (<70K

cfs) in 1998:

monkeyflower

82-99 m2;

watercress 36.6

m

2

Sustain viable

population –

Information

Need

Meretsky 1999

140. MO 58: There should be a MO on the -9 mile population (non-use) (different

subspecies) in case the taxon turns out to be unique.

Disagree. Maintaining –9 mile spring biotic community is covered under Goal 9.

141. MO 58: Should the goal be rewritten to specify the Vasey’s Paradise

population only?

See response 131

142. MO 58: Vasey’s Paradise is not listed. NRN.

143. MO 58: Panel thought taxonomy should be worked out before any major

changes were made in treatment of the species.

NRN.

144. MO 58: There is an process for these changes to occur (working out the

taxonomy) – will take time.

NRN.

145. MO 58: Use the term “oxyloma haydeni” instead of “Kanab ambersnail.” The MO will be rewritten when the taxonomy is clarified.
Goal 7: Maintain or attain viable populations of Kanab ambersnail.

revised MOs dtd 4-7-00.doc Last Saved 04/13/00 9:55 AM Page 32
Goal 8. Protect the presence of Southwestern willow flycatcher and its critical habitat in a manner

consistent with riparian ecosystem Goals.

revised MOs dtd 4-7-00.doc Last Saved 04/13/00 9:55 AM Page 33

TWG Comments Responses

146. Goal 8: These birds are migratory so their presence is not protected. We can’t

control their presence – they can leave any time. Protect/Increase the habitat

they would favor.

See 147

147. Goal 8: Amend the goal: “...flycatcher and its critical habitat in a manner...” Concur. See revised goal.

148. Goal 8: USFWS protects the bird and its habitat. NRN.

149. Goal 8: Protecting the habitat may conflict with current BHBF schedule. Habitat was historically compatible with spring floods, BHBF, magnitude ,timing, and

not limited to SWWF.

150. Goal 8: Protect habitat - are we shifting? Could say the same of number of

trout or HBC – they could leave, too. (Concern about potential change.)

Add MO on habitat

151. Goal 8: Make “habitat” an Attribute, the Action would be “protect.” See revised MO 59a.

152. Goal 8: USFWS has never protected one without the other. NRN

153. Goal 8: Migratory avians are a different consideration – they can be

exterminated by actions taken elsewhere.

NRN

154. Goal 8: Need to capture a tribal value for this bird? Response needed from the tribes. ID #

Perform some

action

On some

element

On some

attribute

At some

place

From the

current level

To the target

level (numbers

to be validated

by monitoring)

Comments

59 Increase SWWF habitat Nesting success CRE Marble Cyn 0;

Upper Lake

Mead in GC ND;

Total ND

Information

Need

SCORE 1999

59A Maintain SWWF Habitat CRE above

Separation

Canyon

No data

available

Information

Need/Process

No available data

155. MOs 59 - 61: MO 61 incorporates MOs 59 and 60 in it – 59 and 60 are finer

levels of detail.

NRN.
Goal 8. Protect the presence of Southwestern willow flycatcher and its critical habitat in a manner

consistent with riparian ecosystem Goals.

revised MOs dtd 4-7-00.doc Last Saved 04/13/00 9:55 AM Page 34

60 Reduce Brown-headed

Cowbird

Brood

parasitism

CRE 50% Information

Need

Brown 1994

156. MO 60: Don’t know what’s limiting the species – presumptuous for us to think

we can decrease bird parasitism, etc., by manipulating habitat (may be

something in Costa Rica, e.g.)

It is likely that brood parasitism is an important factor for SWWF in Grand Canyon.

157. MO 60: Definitions should include habitat to include nesting, feeding, and

rearing habitat.

Determining which habitats to monitor will be considered for an IN.

158. MO 60: In Goal 2, for the fish MOs, we targeted non-natives. Should the

Element here be the brown-headed cowbird?

We changed the element to Brown-headed cowbird.

159. MO 60: Is there evidence that brood parasitism is a greater problem than nest

predation?

It is likely that both are important factors for SWWF in Grand Canyon.

160. MO 60: Do dam operations impact on brood parasitism? Dam operations could affect habitat patches and this has been shown in other

systems.

61 Maintain or

increase

SWWF Population

(abundance,

distribution,

breeding pairs,

etc., fledging

success)

CRE below

GCD

Birds, pairs,

nests,

success in 1999

in Marble Cyn—

2,1,1,0;Upper

Lake Mead in

GC--

28,11,6,ND;

Total--30,12,7,

0-???

To the capability

of the habitat to

support the

species –

Information

Need

Paradzick et al. 2000

161. MO 61: Why is Place different? Should be CRE. There is no habitat above GCD.

162. MO 61: For Current Level, urge confidence intervals, not a point in time. (The

numbers change at different times.)

Concur.

163. MO 61: Maybe Target Level should be recovery goals (draft plan this spring). See Issue Paper #8.
Goal 9. Protect or improve the biotic riparian and spring communities.

revised MOs dtd 4-7-00.doc ast Saved 04/13/00 9:55 AM Page 35 ID #

Perform some

action

On some

element

On some

attribute

At some

place

From the

current level

To the target

level (numbers

to be validated

by monitoring)

Comments

62 Abundance

63 Distribution

64

Maintain Marsh, NHWZ,

OHWZ, and

sand beach

Communities

(emphasizing native

flora and fauna)

Composition

(diversity –

emphasizing

native species,

successional

stage, and age

class)

CRE below

GCD

254 (1991)-

1215(1998) wet

marsh patches;

7.3 (1991)-4.6

(1998) ha

Up to 80 plant

spp/RCC marsh;

4 assemblages

=cattail/reed,

horseweed/arro

w-weed,

tamarisk/arroww

eed/horsetail/will

ow; pooled to a

single polygon

type by Kearsley

et al. 1999

Information

Need and

Decision

Process

Habitat and food for species.

Intrinsic value of the

composition of the community

itself. Patch dynamics,

successional processes, and

habitat availability. Stevens et

al. 1995; SCORE 1999.

Habitat and food for species.

Intrinsic value of the

composition of the community

itself. Patch dynamics,

successional processes, and

habitat availability. Stevens et

al. 1995; Kearsley et al. 1999b.

164. MO 62-63: Why are springs not in Element for distribution? Or abundance? The location of the springhead is fixed.

165. MO 62-64: Need an MO to maintain OHWZ vegetation? Would take flows of

100,000 cfs to maintain.

Determining management actions for the OHWZ biotic community will be

considered for an IN.

166. MO 62-64: Can you protect marsh and OHWZ at same time? We agree there may be a conflict and if so, will consider for an IN.

167. MO 62-64: Can you protect NHWZ at same time as marsh and OHWZ? See Response 166.

168. MO 62-64: Time element could help - on a decadal scale, could protect all. See Response 166.

169. MO 62-64: Sand beach - conflict with recreational MOs. Determining the conflict will be considered for an IN.
Goal 9. Protect or improve the biotic riparian and spring communities.

revised MOs dtd 4-7-00.doc ast Saved 04/13/00 9:55 AM Page 36 ID #

Perform some

action

On some

element

On some

attribute

At some

place

From the

current level

To the target

level (numbers

to be validated

by monitoring)

Comments

65 Abundance

66

Maintain Culturally

important

species

Distribution

CRE below

GCD

Total = 157

plant spp

(30.4% for Hopi

and 41% for So.

Paiute in lower

riparian zone):

Hopi--141;

Hualapia—46;

Navajo—39;

Southern

Paiute—68 spp.

Ethno-herp, bird

and mammal

data not located

Information

Need

To enhance and preserve

traditional cultures.

Lomaomvaya et al. 1999;

SWCA, Inc. 2000.

170. MO 66: Can combine with 63. Attribute abundance and distribution. Disagree. MO’s 62-64 are directed at the spring biotic community. MOs 65 & 66

are for featured species that occur at spring biotic communities.

171. MO 66: The elements seem vague. Is this deliberate? What species? Determining which species are culturally important will be considered for an IN.

172. MO 66: Element should be culturally important native species. See Response 171.

173. MO 66: Element may be culturally important species that are non-native. See Response 171.

174. MOs 62, 63, 65, 66: Protecting the abundance and distribution of springs –

MOs 62 and 63 are inconsistent with 65 & 66 (see endnote2)

NRN.

 

2

 From Debra Bills: I just wanted to follow up on a point I was trying to make at the TWG meeting the other day. Under Goal #9, Protect or improve the biotic riparian and spring

communities, ID numbers 62 and 63 will maintain the abundance and distribution of marsh, NHWZ, OHWZ, and beach sand communities. ID #64 will maintain the composition

of marsh, NHWZ, OHWZ, sand beach AND springs. When I asked about this at the meeting, Barry said dam operations could not affect the abundance and distribution of the

springs, but could affect the composition. This makes sense... Then under ID #65 and 66, it states that we WILL maintain or increase the abundance and distribution of

culturally important species, and as the goal implies wherever they occur in riparian and SPRING communities.

So thinking more about this, I think the goal is to maintain or increase the abundance and distribution of culturally important species IN the spring communities and not

necessarily the springs themselves. If this is what was meant, then I have no recommended changes.
Goal 9. Protect or improve the biotic riparian and spring communities.

revised MOs dtd 4-7-00.doc ast Saved 04/13/00 9:55 AM Page 37

67 Abundance

68

Reduce Invasive Nonnative species DistributionCRE below

GCD

Plants >95 spp

(ca. 11%);

invertebrates

ND; 24 spp

(85.7%) of fish;

3 birds (ca. 1%).

Distributionthroughout the

river corridor

Information

Need

To enhance native species

within riparian biotic

communities. Stevens and

Ayers in press.

175. MO 67: Move parenthetical comment to definitions. Element should be

noxious or invasive non-native species.

We moved parenthetical comment to definition and changed the element to

“invasive non-native species.”

176. MO 67-68: Does “non-native species” apply to flora and fauna? Species refers to both flora and fauna.

177. MO 67-68: Is this outside AMP? Should be NPS (particularly flora). See Response 40.

178. MO 68: Combine attribute with 67. Concur.

179. MO 68: Should be a statement on tamarisk. See Issue Paper #4.

180. MO 68: Maybe there should be a full list of species. Identifying the invasive species will be considered for an IN. MAs would be directed

at specific species.

181. MO 68: In the goal, “biotic” means natural (native) or existing. NRN.
Goal 10: Maintain or improve the quality of unique recreational experiences for users of the Colorado

River ecosystem, within the framework of GCDAMP ecosystem goals.

revised MOs dtd 4-7-00.doc Last Saved 04/13/00 9:55 AM Page 38

TWG Comments Responses

182. Goal 10: Why add the word “unique?” Might be redundant – unique setting. We struck “unique” from the Goal. However, we should clarify in the text that

accompanies the Vision-Mission/Goals/MOs/IN&MAs that the experiences in

Grand Canyon are unique.

ID #

Perform some

action

On some

element

On some

attribute

At some

place

From the

current level

To the target

level (numbers

to be validated

by monitoring)

Comments

69 Maintain Visitor Physical Access

and Safety

Mainstem Ca. 27,648 in

1998

GLCA and

GRCA Management Plan levels

Myers et al. 1999

183. MO 69: Should be physical access. See revised MO.

184. MO 69: According to Behan, recreational goals should be set by NPS. Small

group tried to be consistent with NPS management plans, didn’t agree with all

aspects of it.

See Response 183.

185. MO 69: Disagree that the AMP should be same as NPS – rather, ecosystem

comes first. Target should be consistent with ecosystem goals (concern about

target).

See Responses183 and 184.

Park Service policy is consistent with the Goal statement that gives precedence to

ecosystem goals. Recreational use of wilderness must "...enable the areas to retain

their primeval character and influence; protect and preserve natural

conditions...and preserve wilderness in an unimpaired condition."

186. MO 69: In the Purpose, “sports people” should be more inclusive. Use

visitors or people.

Concur. We will use “visitors.”

187. MO 69: Purpose should be “safe access to river and attraction sites for

visitors.”

See Response183.

188. MO 69: Purpose should read “River management practices should maintain ...

(existing wording).”

See Response 183.

189. MO 69: Access addresses access during different flows, not managing the

number of recreational users.

NRN.

190. MO 69: Purpose specifies “safe access.” NRN.

191. MO 69: What is metric for “safe access?” (IN?) See Response 183.

192. MO 69: “Safe river access” is a small subset of exp. Confusing purpose. See Response 183.
Goal 10: Maintain or improve the quality of unique recreational experiences for users of the Colorado

River ecosystem, within the framework of GCDAMP ecosystem goals.

revised MOs dtd 4-7-00.doc Last Saved 04/13/00 9:55 AM Page 39

Other aspects of access should be addressed.

193. MO 69: Number of camping sites is an aspect of access. See Response 183.

194. MO 69: Should be clear that it’s access by land to and from river. See Response 183.

195. MO 69: This is outside the AMP. Dam operations won’t affect this. See Response 40.

196. MO 69: Revise targets so they relate to dam operations and not to NPS

management plans.

See Response 40.

70 Maintain or improve Recreational

spectrum

Quality and

Quantity

Glen Canyon Data not located

(NPS studies

underway

GLCA Management Plan levelsQuality hiking, camping,

hunting, fishing and boating, for

the full spectrum of appropriate

recreational experiences.

197. MO 69-70: Are Levels of referring to number of people? Needs to be clearer:

trails, boat launches, other access points should be not less than today.

Changed element to recreational spectrum, changed attribute to Quality and

Quantity, metrics will be developed as an IN, and levels will address the attributes.

198. MO 70: Why only Glen Canyon? MO 76 is GRCA. Can these be combined? We will keep separate because they are different.

199. MO 70: Target levels should be consistent with capability of the ecosystem. Concur.

200. MO 70: This is outside the AMP. Dam operations won’t affect this. See Response 40.

201. MO 70: Revise targets so they relate to dam operations and not to NPS

management plans.

See Response 40.
Goal 10: Maintain or improve the quality of unique recreational experiences for users of the Colorado

River ecosystem, within the framework of GCDAMP ecosystem goals.

revised MOs dtd 4-7-00.doc Last Saved 04/13/00 9:55 AM Page 40

71 Size

72 Quality

(vegetation,

sanitation,

shade)

73 Number

74

Maintain or

increase

Camping

beaches

Distribution

Mainstem Recent data not

available on size

or quality;

262 campsites

in 09/96;

37% of total in

critical reaches

Information

Need

To meet the goal for recreation

with a quality of camping

experience defined by the

studies of T. Hall, B. Stewart,

and C. Roberts. Kearsley et al.

1999a.

75 Maintain or improve Rapids Navigability Mainstem Despite the

1996 flood

studies of debris

fan shape, no

data are

available on

navigability

IN and Decision

Process –

threshold to be

developed from

NPS on-river

accident rates

See Myers et al. 1999 for a

discussion of navigability of

Grand Canyon rapids.

202. MO 72: May be in conflict with riparian vegetation - MOs 62-64. Determining conflict, will consider for an IN.

203. MO 71-74: Should Target Levels be IN? Concur. Target level will be an IN, not a decision process.

204. MO 72-74: Distribution of camping beaches – are we able to do anything

about this?

Determining whether we can manage the distribution of beaches will be considered

for an IN.

205. MO 75: How do we affect access in Lake Mead? Purpose deleted.

206. MO 75: How do we change navigability in the mainstem? See Comment 207.

207. MO 75: We change navigability in the mainstem through flows. NRN.
Goal 10: Maintain or improve the quality of unique recreational experiences for users of the Colorado

River ecosystem, within the framework of GCDAMP ecosystem goals.

revised MOs dtd 4-7-00.doc Last Saved 04/13/00 9:55 AM Page 41

76 Maintain or

enhance

Experience Wilderness Grand

Canyon

The Colorado

River in Grand

Canyon is

presently

managed as a

potential wilderness with preexisting

motorized boat

travel.

Information

Need

Including primitive character,

unconfined experience,

undeveloped natural and wild

character, opportunities for

solitude, sounds of nature and

scenic beauty, to ensure a

quality wild river experience for

visitors.

208. MO 76: Relation of 76 to 70 - distinction between GCPA and GCRA,

recreation & wild - should be combined.

Disagree. The attribute is wilderness, which only occurs in the Grand Canyon

section of the CRE.

209. MO 76: There is a distinction between GCPA and GLCA – recreation and

wilderness. MOs 76 and 70 should stay as they are.

Concur.

210. MO 76: What does non-visitor refer to? Non-use values addresed under Goal #13, MO84.

211. MO 76: This is outside the AMP. Dam operations won’t affect this. See Response 40.

212. MO 76: If you run flows at 8000 cfs, or 100,000 cfs, this will affect the

wilderness experience.

NRN.

213. MO 76: Revise targets so they relate to dam operations and not to NPS

management plans.

We will change current and target levels to IN and consider NPS plans to develop

the current and target levels.

77 Reduce Historic

properties and

cultural

resources

Impacts from

recreation,

science, and

tribes

Mainstem Data on 264

sites not

synthesized by

NPS

Zero impact To maintain integrity of sites

and cultural and spiritual values

to tribes and achieve NPS

section 110 responsibilities.

Leap et al. 2000

214. MO 77: Consider moving this MO to Goal 12. Concur this was included with MOs 79 and 80. This will be included in 79 and 80

anda management actions will be delveoped to accomplish this.

215. MO 77: What is zero impact? Zero impact refers to no loss of site integrity.

216. MO 77: In the past 5-6 years, greatest impact is from hikers, river runners, and

anglers. Zero impact could be achieved through education, or close areas if

necessary.

Determining need for education, site closures, or alterations in monitoring

protocols will be considered for an IN.

217. MO 77: Impacts not only due to recreational use – from monitoring, as well. See Response 216.
Goal 10: Maintain or improve the quality of unique recreational experiences for users of the Colorado

River ecosystem, within the framework of GCDAMP ecosystem goals.

revised MOs dtd 4-7-00.doc Last Saved 04/13/00 9:55 AM Page 42

218. MO 77: Is zero impact achievable? Determining if zero impact should be considered for an IN.

219. MO 77: Purpose should cite Section 110, not Section 100. Concur.

220. MO 77: This doesn’t fit under recreational values. Concur. See Response 214.

221. MO 77: Change Place to CRE, MO and MA - promote or enhance or

emphasize responsible recreational education on cultural sites and issues.

Within the framework of the operating criteria of the ROD and consistent with GCD

goals.
Goal 11: Maintain or increase power and energy generation within the framework of GCDAMP ecosystem

goals.

revised MOs dtd 4-7-00.doc Last Saved 04/13/00 9:55 AM Page 43

TWG Comments Responses

222. Goal 11: Goal should include socio-economic values, with power being one of

several MOs.

See Goal 13, MO 84, See Issue Paper #10

223. Goal 11: Group decided it isn’t a goal in and of itself. See Issue Paper #10.

224. Goal 11: Goal 11 is confusing – GCPA indicates power will be reduced, not

increased.

Reduction occurred with the implementation of the ROD.

225. Goal 11: Within the ROD, want to “maintain or increase.” See revised goal.

226. Goal 11: Should be a goal broader than power. Where will non-use values be? See Response 222. ID #

Perform some

action

On some

element

On some

attribute

At some

place

From the

current level

To the target

level (numbers

to be validated

by monitoring)

Comments

78 Maintain or

increase

Power generation

flexibility

GCD ROD and

current

operating

practices

Information

Need

ROD 1996, U.S. Bureau of

Reclamation 1999

227. MO 78: Attribute should be “flexibility to generate power.” Concur.

228. MO 78: Element should be “power,” Action should be “maintain or increase,”

and Attribute should be “flexibility.”

Concur.

229. MO 78: Could use money for metric (could do the same with recreation) Disagree. Will use IN to determine target and current levels for metric

230. MO 78: Power doesn’t have same value at all times – correct Element and

Levels?

See revised MO
Goal 12: Preserve, protect, manage, and treat cultural resources within the river corridor for the

inspiration and benefit of past, present and future generations.

revised MOs dtd 4-7-00.doc Last Saved 04/13/00 9:55 AM Page 44

TWG Comments Responses

231. Goal 12: “Treat” refers to a broad category of preservation actions, from

documentation to installing a check dam.

NRN.

232. Goal 12: The PEP will review MOs for changes NRN.

233. Goal 12 deals with law, and also addresses tribal concerns, which may be

different from federal law.

NRN.

234. Goal 12: Re: removing “within the river corridor”— concern about no limits. Disagree. See response 40.

235. Goal 12: Should strike “within the river corridor.” See Response 234.

236. Goal 12: MOs may be outside AMP and outside the influence of dam

operations.

See Response 40.

237. Goal 12: Add to the goal, “within the area of potential effects as defined in the

PA.”

See response 40.

238. Goal 12: Do not limit goal to “area of potential effect.” That is only for

National Register-eligible resources.

See Response 40.

ID #

Perform some

action

On some

element

On some

attribute

At some

place

From the

current level

To the target

level (numbers

to be validated

by monitoring)

Comments

79 Preserve Register-eligible

properties

National

Register

integrity

APE Data not

synthesized

100% of extant

historic

properties (as

defined in

NHPA)

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

1997; Leap et al. 2000

239. MO 79: Register-eligible property is that deemed appropriate through the

State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and Tribal Historic

Preservation Officer (THPO) to be on the National Register of Historic

Places – though these won’t be sent to the Keeper of the Register (there will

be no formal nomination).

NRN.

240. MO 79: Is Place the “area of potential effect?” Concur.
Goal 12: Preserve, protect, manage, and treat cultural resources within the river corridor for the

inspiration and benefit of past, present and future generations.

revised MOs dtd 4-7-00.doc Last Saved 04/13/00 9:55 AM Page 45 ID #

Perform some

action

On some

element

On some

attribute

At some

place

From the

current level

To the target

level (numbers

to be validated

by monitoring)

Comments

241. MO 79: Metric - how many sites in area of potential effect are eligible.

Current level – BOR may be re-evaluating eligibility and TCPs. Register

integrity is defined.

NRN.

80 Preserve Other cultural

resources

Cultural values CRE More specificity

needed to

address this

issue

Information

Need

Preserve traditional tribal

practices and beliefs

242. MO 80: “Other Cultural Resources:” other tribal concerns, aren’t

Register-eligible.

NRN.

243. MO 80: These could be the same as Traditional Cultural Resources. We will change Other cultural resources to Traditional Cultural Resources

244. MO 80: How do we know? Tribes may not be willing to divulge a list –

must keep tribes involved.

NRN.

245. MO 80: Definition of cultural values – how is this measured and quantified?

(Each tribe ascribes these to resources – requires participation by tribes.)

Determining metric will be considered for an IN.

246. MO 80: Some is related to operations, some may be outside of AMP. See Response 40.

247. MO 80: Purpose should be defined more clearly. We will add purpose to “preserve traditional tribal practices and beliefs.”

248. MO 80: Purpose is the same as in MO 82. See Comment 248.

81 Attain and maintain Management

action

Consultation CRE Programmatic

Agreement

100% of mgt.

actions

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

1997

249. MO 81: Doesn’t appear to be a “future resource condition.” Concur. It does not fit the definition very closely, but it makes more sense as an MO,

than as a large number of MAs under many MOs.

250. MO 81: Is it measurable? Determining the metric will be considered for an IN.
Goal 12: Preserve, protect, manage, and treat cultural resources within the river corridor for the

inspiration and benefit of past, present and future generations.

revised MOs dtd 4-7-00.doc Last Saved 04/13/00 9:55 AM Page 46

251. MO 81: Put it under goal 13? This MO could reasonably be placed in either goal 12 or 13, but retained it here

because of its close link to preserving cultural resources.

252. MO 81: If you are unable to preserve under MO 79, must consult as in MO

81 – that’s why it’s placed here.

See Response 251.

253. MO 81: Consultation may not be cultural. NRN.

254. MO 81: Make consult the action? This MO could reasonably be arranged in several ways that have equal clarity. We

retained the original wording.

82 Protect and

maintain

Traditional

cultural

resources

Physical Access CRE Programmatic

Agreement

Information

Need

Preserve traditional tribal

practices and beliefs; U.S.

Bureau of Reclamation 1997.

255. MO 82: Attribute should be “physical access.” Concur. The attribute will be changed to “physical access.”

256. MO 82: What is the metric? Determining the metric will be considered for an IN.

83 Integrate (meaning

archive, synthesize,

and summarize)

Information Cultural and

other resources

CRE Synthesis report

completed

Information

Need

Improve outreach, education,

and research efforts; SWCA,

Inc. 2000.

257. MOs 79-83: Incongruity in Place. Here it is CRE, but was Mainstem on Goal

5.

Disagree. The Desired Future Condition (DFC) for physical processes is (largely)

in the mainstem because these MOs are achieved through dam operations. The

DFC for cultural resources is throughout the CRE.

258. MO 83: This looks like an IN, not an MO. This MO does not fit the definition very closely, but it seems to make the most sense

as an MO.
Goal 13. Maintain a high-quality monitoring, research, and adaptive management program.

revised MOs dtd 4-7-00.doc Last Saved 04/13/00 9:55 AM Page 47 ID #

Perform some

action

On some

element

On some

attribute

At some

place

From the

current level

To the target

level (numbers

to be validated

by monitoring)

Comments

84 Maintain or attain Socio-economic

data

Hydropower

air quality

wilderness

recreation

non-use values

tribal & spiritual

values

Place is

specific to

the

information

need

KWhrs:

$$:

System

reliability:

N/A To ensure fully informed AMP

decisions. Information pending

BOR release of data.

259. MO 84: This should be a goal. See Issue Paper #10.

260. MO 84: Not comfortable with this – the language needs to be refined, the

Target should be full integration of these values into the AMP, and part of the

State of the Canyon report.

See revised MO.

85 Maintain and Attain Natural, cultural,

and recreational

resources of

GRCA and

GLCA

GCMRC

Strategic Plan

To determine the effects of the

Secretary's actions and provide

information to the Secretary

and the AMP

86 (Alternative to ID

#85)

Attain

Monitoring &

Research

Program

That is sufficient

to provide

quality scientific

information

CRE

To the Secretary and the AMP

for decision-making

261. MO 86: For Attribute, strike “scientific” in order to incorporate other values

(spiritual, etc.).

MO 86, the alternate language will be dropped in favor of MO 85.

262. MOs 85-86: Where does power come in? Add “Power” to the Attribute.

Should be monitored by GCMRC.

Power will be monitored under MO 78 and 84.

263. MOs 85-86: What are the metrics? Determining the metrics will be considered for an IN.

264. MOs 85-86: Action – add “and maintain.” Concur.

265. MOs 85-86: MO 85 is in line with the program, prefer it to MO 86. Concur.

266. MOs 85-86: Element should be “monitoring and research activities,” Current

Level should be “current level of understanding of the CRE,” Target Level

should be “level of responsible stewardship of CRE.”

See Response 263.
Goal 13. Maintain a high-quality monitoring, research, and adaptive management program.

revised MOs dtd 4-7-00.doc Last Saved 04/13/00 9:55 AM Page 48

87 Attain and Maintain AMP composed

of all

stakeholders

That

acknowledges

uncertainty and

uses

experimentation,

uses monitoring

& research

ROD Bases its recommendations for

resource management on

sound scientific information.

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

1996.

267. MO 87: Action – add “and maintain.” The action will be changed to “attain and maintain.”

268. MO 87: Action should be “attain and maintain.” Concur.

88 Attain and Maintain Full tribal

participation

Funding AMP Programmatic

Agreement and

ROD?

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

1996, 1997

269. MO 88: The proposed goal to enhance tribal participation should be included

with this as an MO.

It has been agreed to drop Goal 16 and retain MO 88 under Goal 13.

270. MO 88: Action should be “attain and maintain.” Concur.

271. MO 88: Define “full tribal participation.” Defining full tribal participation will be considered for an IN.

272. MO 88: Target is an IN, determined between each tribe and Reclamation. See Response 271.

273. MO 88: Purpose should be “GCPA requirement for consultation.” Remove

the word “intent” and add after AMP, “to fulfill the federal government’s trust

responsibility.”

Purpose will be deleted as these concepts are addressed in the Vision and Mission

Statement.

274. MO 88: Provides funding to be fully engaged. NRN.

275. MO 88: MO 81 also addresses consultation, may be consolidated with MO 88. MO 81 addresses consultation and MO 88 addresses funding.

276. MO 88: MO 81 addresses only cultural resources. See Response 275.

277. MO 88: For the Purpose – other Acts and Executive Orders address

consultation and should be acknowledged.

See Response 273.

278. MO 88: No need to cite all laws. See Response 273.

279. MO 88: Concerns about fish and overall ecosystem throughout CRE – must

deal with Executive Orders and Indian federal policy

See Response 273.

280. MO 88: Consultation and participation should be separate. See Response 275.

281. MO 88: GCPA requirement for consultation is not limited to the AMP. NRN.
Goal 14. Build a broad, effective outreach program.

revised MOs dtd 4-7-00.doc Last Saved 04/13/00 9:55 AM Page 49 ID #

Perform some

action

On some

element

On some

attribute

At some

place

From the

current level

To the target

level (numbers

to be validated

by monitoring)

Comments

89 Broaden funding

sources

AMP Public Support N/A GCMRC and

BOR web

pages; GCDam

Visitor Center

programs and

tours; AMWG

Outreach

Committee;

scientific

publications

(see SCORE

1999 report);

various

individual

AMWG member

activities.

Information

Need

To inform the public and build

support for the program and

educate and inform the public.

GCMRC 1999; e.g., Austin et

al. 2000.

Conduct Flow Dynamics Experimental

Flows

Mainstem Numerous

discussions ongoing

Information

Need

Webb et al. 1999;

Topping et al. 2000

282. MO 89: Attribute should be “inform the public;” Purpose, “to obtain broad

public support for the program.”

See revised MO.

283. MO 89: Purpose should be “to inform the public.” It’s their choice whether to

support or not.

See revised MO.

284. MO 89: Place could be very broad - world wide. See revised MO.

285. MO 89: Where is the ad hoc group on this? Ad Hoc group has met and is developing activities.

286. MO 89: The goal should be to educate and inform the public, and the MO to

build an outreach program.

See revised MO

287. MO 89: Is the program only for public, or also to interact with other adaptive

management programs?

See revised MO
Goal 15. Broaden the funding base to achieve GCDAMP Goals and Objectives.

revised MOs dtd 4-7-00.doc Last Saved 04/13/00 9:55 AM Page 50

TWG Comments Responses

288. Goal 15 MOs: MOs throughout should be defined that need outside funding

(what are we broadening the funding base for?)

See Response 40.

289. Goal 15: Might want change “base” to “sources.” Concur. ID #

Perform some

action

On some

element

On some

attribute

At some

place

From the

current level

To the target

level (numbers

to be validated

by monitoring)

Comments

90 Attain Foundation &

Corporate

Funding $0 Information

Need

To support the AMP

290. MO 90: Is this broad enough to include private non-profits? (for money or inkind services)

Yes. Non-profit funding comes mainly from foundation and corporate sources.

291. MO 90: Should Action be “attain?” Concur.

91 Appropriated Funding Data not located

92

Maintain or Attain

State Agency Funding $0

Information

Need

To support the AMP

292. MO 92: Current Level should be “obtain from literature.” Concur.

93 Maintain or Attain Participation Externallyfunded

investigators

Small and costshared projects

in NPS, AGFD,

etc.

Information

Need

On AMP issues

293. MO 93: Switch Element and Attribute. Concur.

94 Maintain or Attain Funding Power

Revenues

$6.22M

GCMRC;

$1.443M BOR;

Total $7.663M

Information

Need

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

data 2000 (courtesy of

R. Peterson)

294. MO 94: Element should be power and Attribute should be revenue. See revised MO

295. MO 94: Action should be “maintain or increase.” See revised MO

296. MO 94: Place is CRE, Attribute is AMP, and Purpose is to enhance

management of the CRE.

See revised MO
Goal 15. Broaden the funding base to achieve GCDAMP Goals and Objectives.

revised MOs dtd 4-7-00.doc Last Saved 04/13/00 9:55 AM Page 51
Last Saved 04/13/00 9:55 AM Page 52

Information Needs, Management Actions and Notes

All Goals

Information Needs

All MOs: Fill in any blanks.

All MOs: Validate target levels through monitoring.

Goal 1

Information Needs

MO 1-16: Native fish food requirements.

MO 1, 2, 4, 7, 11: Biomass estimate that will sustain native fish.

MO 6: IN regarding use of PVA or comparable approach or Ne to establish a target population

level.

Determine the adequacy of the foodbase in the LCR. (Not the responsibility of AMP.)

Is Glen Canyon the “bread basket” of the CRE?

MO11: IN to quantify other survivability issues (e.g., disease and parasites)

 IN to identify predation rates of non-native fish on native fish and competition effects.

MO12: IN to determine feasibility of restoration.

MO13: IN to determine feasibility of restoration.

Management Actions

MO11: MA to reduce predation of non-native fish on native fish and competition between nonnative and native fish.

Notes

MO 14: We think distribution might be important but we are not sure. This item is here as a

placeholder for now. We will look at the literature and make a decision on its inclusion.

Goal 2

Information Needs

MO 17: Regarding use of PVA or comparable approach or Ne to establish a target population

target.

MOs 26 and 27: Quantify other survivability issues for native fish (e.g., disease, and parasites).

MOs 26 and 27: Identify predation rates of non-native fish on native fish and competition effects.

Management Actions

MOs 26 and 27: Reduce predation of non-native fish on native fish and competition between nonnative and native fish.

MO 28: Determine feasibility of restoration of razorback sucker.

Goal 3

Information Needs

MO 32-34: Determine feasibility of restoration of Colorado pikeminnow, Bonytail, and Roundtail

chub.

MO 35: What is the feasibility of otter restoration?

MO 35: What is the cumulative/additive impact on the HBC from otter predation?

MO 35: What is evidence of historic abundance and distribution of otter in GC?

MO 35: Ascertain reintroduction of otter on predator-prey dynamics.

Goal 4

Information Needs

All MOs: What do trout need by way of physical habitat (spawning beds)?

All MOs: How would the TCD affect habitat in general?

All MOs: Can water releases (to impact water temperature and level) be seasonal in order to

sustain the trout fishery and not harm native fish?
Last Saved 04/13/00 9:55 AM Page 53

All MOs: Determine the interaction of native fish and trout and the implication of river level on

those interactions.

Goal 6

Information Need

MOs 53-55: Determine maximum flow for BHBFs.

Management Actions

Conduct habitat maintenance flows and BHBFs when resource and hydrologic criteria are met.

Conduct experimental flows.

Goal 7

Information Needs

Is the snail at Vasey's Paradise Kanab ambersnail or a unique taxon?

Determine if KAS is endemic to Vasey’s Paradise or part of a meta-population.

What is minimum habitat size needed to maintain a viable KAS population?

What is minimum KAS population size needed to maintain population viability?

Notes

Consider need to reconsult on Biological Opinion and Recovery Plan based on expert panel

report.

Goal 8

Information Needs

Site fidelity to inform appropriate target levels?

Understanding of habitat utilization as compared to habitat suitability and availability.

Examine potential conflict between SWWF MO and riparian vegetation MOs?

Quantify survivorship of SWWF.

Goal 9

Notes

Definitions: Riparian - Those communities affected by riverine processes. Includes the Old High

Water Zone (~ 100,000 cfs).

Spring - Those within the CRE.

Address linkages to physical resources

Grain size needs to include the full range of fine sediment, including silts and clays available from

tributary inputs.

Nutrients that may be trapped in Lake Powell need to be considered for availability to riparian

vegetation.

Above need to be considered within available ranges given existence of the dam.

Sediment needs to be understood as a substrate for vegetation and not just as a resource for

beaches and sandbars.

Goal 12

Information Needs

MO 80: Determine what are the “other cultural resources” we are preserving.

Management Actions

MO 79: Preserve Register-eligible properties’ integrity when possible using site preservation.

MO 79: Treat damage to Register-eligible properties, using treatments, when site preservation is

not possible.

MO 79: Recover register-eligible data, using data recovery, when neither preservation nor

treatments are possible.

Notes

Add an MO for floods to deposit sediment and buttress archeological sites?
Last Saved 04/13/00 9:55 AM Page 54

Goal 13

Information Needs

Power – change in benefits

Air quality – regional impacts/costs

Wilderness values

Recreation – change in benefits

Social values

Tribal and spiritual values

Management Actions

Develop a conceptual model of the Colorado River ecosystem.

Management Objective to be added.

Maintain outside peer review of research proposals, reports, and other products produced by

GCMRC and its contractors.

Maintain an objective experimental approach to adaptive management

Maintain an adequate level of high quality staff to accomplish adaptive management program

goals.

Ensure monitoring and research activities are conducted in such a way as to minimize impacts on

the aesthetic and spiritual values.

Build an effective Science Advisory Board.

Use the National Research Council to conduct a five-year review of the effectiveness of the

adaptive management program and processes.

Maintain independence of roles and parity among TWG, AMWG, and GCMRC (see NRC pg. 46-

47).

Annual SCORE report.

Goal 14

Management Action

Build a broad, effective outreach program by attaining and maintaining an AMP continuing

education process.
Last Saved 04/13/00 9:55 AM Page 55

Bin Items from Small Group Meetings

“Bin” items were those issues and questions that came up during the Small Group Meetings that

could not be addressed at that time. Small Group Meetings consisted of members of the TWG

who developed MOs for the various Goals. They were organized by topic.

Food and Fish (Goals 1, 2, 3 [fish], 4)

How hydrology affects drift, to be addressed by the Physical Resources group.

Want physical processes group to address linkage between cobbles and water clarity to diatoms

and foodbase.

Need to link foodbase and avifauna concerns.

What is the foodbase element of plankton?

What is the foodbase element of terrestrial invertebrates?

How do we consider age-class structure for HBC?

Review items listed in the BO for removal of jeopardy of HBC to see which elements should be

MOs, INs, or MAs (Debra Bills).

Physical group should address habitat issues for fish.

Riparian (Goal 3 [otter], 7-9)

Do we need a new definition of the riparian zone as the New High Water Zone (NHWZ) vs. the

Old High Water Zone (OHWZ) since parts of the flora and fauna in the OHWZ are being lost?

Alternative Principle 6: Provide conditions (biotic and abiotic, process and structure) that will

benefit the resources of concern. These may or may not be within the range of natural variability.

Physical Processes (Goals 5 and 6)

1. Once the desired ecosystem is defined, we’ll be more easily able to make change.

2. People are leery of change if the consequences are unknown.

The desired ecosystem should be defined to drive MO development.

Recreation (Goal 10)

Old MO1 sounds a lot like our goal. But it was intended to capture the Wilderness quality of the

river experience. So, we need an MO that does that. [Does our RMO5 do that?]

Need to find a reference for what a "wilderness" or "primitive" experience is.

Request that our concerns about shoreline vegetation be taken under advisement with the

riparian vegetation group, as it applies to recreational access to attraction sites.
Last Saved 04/13/00 9:55 AM Page 56

Abbreviations

AFDW ash-free dry weight

AMP adaptive management program

BHBF beach/habitat building flow

BO biological opinion

BRMO biological resources MO2

cfs cubic feet per second

CPUE catch per unit effort

CRE Colorado River ecosystem

CRMO cultural resources MO3

D50 median grain size

DO dissolved oxygen

EAMO ecosystem assessment MO2

GCD Glen Canyon Dam

GCMRC Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

GISMO geographic information system MO2

GLCA Glen Canyon National Recreation Area

GRCA Grand Canyon National Park

HBC Humpback chub

KAS Kanab ambersnail

LCR Little Colorado River

LPMO Lake Powell MO2

MA management action

MO management objective

Ne effective population size

NHPA National Historic Properties Act

NHWZ new high water zone

NPS National Park Service

OHWZ old high water zone

popn population

PVA population viability analysis

Register National Historic Register

RMO recreation MO2

RNV range of natural variability

ROD record of decision

RPA reasonable and prudent alternative

SEMO socio-economic MO2

SMO suggested MO4

SRMO sediment resources MO2

SWWF Southwestern willow flycatcher

TBD to be determined

Wr mean annual relative weight

WRMO water resources MO2

 

3

 From the document named DRAFT GLEN CANYON DAM MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES, June

10, 1998.

4

 From the document named “Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Work Group, Ad Hoc Committee on

Goals, Report to AMWG, September 1999.”