FINAL DRAFT INFORMATION NEEDS 

for 

Adaptive Management Work Group 

and 

Technical Work Group 

December 14, 2001 

Introduction

The Information Needs (INs) provided in this document represent data needed to meet 

management objectives and programmatic goals. The Information Needs are nested 

within Management Objectives and are categorized as: core monitoring information 

needs (CMIN), effects monitoring information needs (EIN), or research information 

needs (RIN), defined below. In an effort to reflect integration across resource programs, 

some Information Needs are supporting information needs for other resources (SIN). 

Information Needs that do not fit under any particular management objective, but are 

necessary to achieve the goal are placed above the Management Objectives for that goal. 

The process for developing these INs is described in Appendix 1.

Definitions

Management Objectives (MOs): Management Objectives define desired future resource 

conditions. They should be: 1) Specific; 2) Measurable; 3) Achievable; 4) Resultsoriented; 5) Time-specific, and within the legal and policy framework of the Adaptive 

Management Program. 

Information Needs (INs): Information Needs define the specific knowledge or 

understanding (i.e., information) one needs for accomplishing a management objective. 

They define what one needs to know. The information may be needed to: 

 

a) quantify or define a management objective (i.e., help determine a target level); 

b) assess whether or not a management objective is being achieved (i.e., help 

determine why the system is not responding as predicted); 

c) develop basic understanding about cause and effect relationships; 

d) meet the legal/policy requirements of consultation; and 

e) test more effective ways to achieve desired resource conditions. 

1
Information Needs are categorized as follows: 

• Core Monitoring Information Need (CMIN): Core monitoring is consistent, longterm, repeated measurements using set protocols, and is designed to establish 

status and trends in meeting specific management objectives. Core monitoring is 

implemented on a fixed schedule regardless of variable factors or circumstances 

(e.g., water year, experimental flows, temperature control, stocking strategy, nonnative control, etc.) affecting target resources. 

• Effects Monitoring Information Need (EIN): Effects monitoring is the collection 

of data associated with an experiment performed under the Record of Decision, 

unanticipated event, or other management action. Changes in resource conditions 

measured by effects monitoring generally will be short-term responses. The 

purpose of effects monitoring is to supplement the fixed schedule and variables 

collected under core monitoring. This will both increase the understanding of the 

resource status and trends and provide a research opportunity to discover the 

effect of the experiment or management action.

• Research Information Need (RIN): Research can be descriptive or experimental. 

When descriptive it describes relationships in the Colorado River ecosystem (e.g., 

describe trophic interactions in the aquatic ecosystem). When experimental it 

tests specific hypotheses for determining and understanding cause and effects 

relationships between dam operations, or other driving variables, and resource 

responses (e.g., how is the abundance and composition of benthic invertebrates 

affected by grazers, predators and dam operations?). Research requires a 

purposeful design with established statistical criteria, including allowable errors 

for accepting and rejecting null hypotheses. Research may also result in the 

collection of data that can be used to help determine or refine Core Monitoring 

Information Needs.

• Supporting Information Need (SIN): A SIN contributes to understanding the 

basis for a resource response and its link to other resource management goals.

• Status and Trends: Status refers to the condition of a resource at a given time or 

place. Trends refer to a statistically based temporal or spatial series for a given 

resource, during the periods and at the locations where data were collected. 

• Cause and Effect: Cause and effect assigns a resource response to a particular 

event(s) or driving variable(s). 

• Viable Population – A population is considered viable when a sufficient number 

of individuals, demographic structure, and genetic diversity exists to provide a 

high chance of persistence of the population over along timeframe without 

demographic or genetic augmentation. Population viability is not the same as 

“recovery” or “removal of jeopardy” for a species. However, the concept of 

population viability is an important consideration in determining recovery and 

2
removal of jeopardy. [NOTE: This definition was revised to make it consistent

with that adopted in the AMP strategic plan.] 

• Removal of Jeopardy – Removal of jeopardy refers to demonstrated compliance 

with terms and conditions for removing or mitigating perceived threats to the 

continued existence of a threatened or endangered species as put forth in a final 

biological opinion from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and as accepted by the 

action agency. Removing (or avoiding) jeopardy is intended to be accomplished 

through the implementation of reasonable and prudent alternatives. As defined in 

50 CFR 402, to jeopardize the continued existence means “to engage in an action 

that reasonable would be expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably 

the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild by 

reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of that species.” [NOTE: 

This definition was revised to make it consistent with that adopted in the AMP 

strategic plan.] 

• Glen Canyon Dam Operations: Glen Canyon Dam operations refers to the 

operation of the power plant and other release structures, such as bypass 

structures, spillways, and potentially a temperature control device among others. 

Their uses conform to applicable law. The AMWG develops recommendations 

for all of the dam’s structures to further the purposes of the GCPA and meet the 

environmental commitments in the EIS/Record of Decision on the operations of 

Glen Canyon Dam. This is done within the limits of the Record of Decision 

and/or through experimentation. 

• Record of Decision Operations: Record of Decision operations are defined as the 

modified low fluctuating flow alternative described in the Record of Decision 

including restrictions on upramp and downramp rates, the allowable range of 

daily fluctuations and the allowable minimum and maximum daily flows. In 

addition operations include beach/habitat-building flows (up to 45,000 cfs) habitat 

maintenance flows (up to power plant capacity) and any flows defined as 

experiments within the environmental commitments of the Record of Decision. 

NOTE: The MOs presented in this document represent language that has been extracted 

and paraphrased from the original MOs table. It is included here to provide a context for 

reviewing the INs without having to embed them in the original Goals and MOs table. 

For the exact wording please reference the original Goals and MOs table.

3
Goal 1. Protect or improve the aquatic foodbase so that it will support viable 

populations of desired species at higher trophic levels. 

Research INs

RIN 1.1 What are the fundamental trophic interactions in the aquatic 

ecosystem? 

RIN 1.2 How is the production, composition, density and biomass of the 

benthic invertebrate community affected by primary productivity vs. 

allochthonous inputs?

RIN 1.3 What foodbase criteria do other agencies use to assess aquatic 

ecosystem health? 

RIN 1.4 What is the current carbon budget for the Colorado River 

ecosystem? 

M.O. 1.1 Maintain or attain primary producers (algae, macrophytes) biomass and 

community composition in the Glen Canyon Reach. 

Core Monitoring INs

CMIN 1.1.1 Determine and track the composition and biomass of primary 

producers between Glen Canyon Dam and the Paria River in conjunction 

with measurements of flow, nutrients, water temperature, and light regime. 

Research INs

RIN 1.1.1 How are the composition and biomass of primary producers 

between Glen Canyon Dam and the Paria River affected by flow and water 

quality (including nutrients, temperature, light regime, toxins, dissolved 

oxygen), and water borne diseases, or other factors. 

RIN 1.1.2 What is the estimated productivity for the reach between Glen 

Canyon Dam and the Paria River? [Note: If the cost of obtaining this data, 

relative to the benefit of the information suggests the information is not 

worth the expense, this RIN will not be pursued.]

RIN 1.1.3 How do top-down effects (grazing and predation) on primary 

producers affect food base productivity? 

RIN 1.1.4 What are the habitat characteristics between Glen Canyon Dam 

and the Paria River that most affect primary productivity? How are these 

characteristics affected by Glen Canyon Dam operations?

Effects INs

EIN 1.1.1 How does primary productivity for the reach between Glen 

Canyon Dam and the Paria River change in response to an experiment 

4
performed under the Record of Decision, unanticipated event, or other 

management action? 

M.O. 1.2 Maintain or attain benthic invertebrates biomass and community 

composition in the Glen Canyon Reach.

Core Monitoring INs

CMIN 1.2.1 Determine and track the composition and biomass of benthic 

invertebrates in the reach between Glen Canyon Dam and the Paria River 

in conjunction with measurements of flow, nutrients, water temperature, 

and light regime. 

Research INs

RIN 1.2.1 How are the composition and biomass of benthic invertebrates 

between Glen Canyon Dam and the Paria River affected by flow and water 

quality (including nutrients, temperature, light regime, toxins, dissolved 

oxygen), and water borne diseases, or other factors?

RIN 1.2.2 What is the estimated productivity of benthic invertebrates for 

the reach between Glen Canyon Dam and the Paria River? [Note: If the 

cost of obtaining this data, relative to the benefit of the information 

suggests the information is not worth the expense, this RIN will not be 

pursued.] 

RIN 1.2.3 How do top-down effects (grazing and predation) affect the 

abundance and composition of benthic invertebrates?

RIN 1.2.4 What are the habitat characteristics between Glen Canyon Dam 

and the Paria River that most affect benthic invertebrates? How are these 

characteristics affected by Glen Canyon Dam operations?

Effects INs

EIN 1.2.1 How do benthic invertebrates in the reach between Glen 

Canyon Dam and the Paria River change in response to an experiment 

performed under the Record of Decision, unanticipated event, or other 

management action? 

M.O. 1.3 Maintain or attain adequate levels of energy sources (algae, 

macrophytes) in the Colorado River ecosystem (to the extent primary producers in 

the tributaries are influenced by dam operations) below the Paria River. 

Core Monitoring INs

CMIN 1.3.1 Determine and track the composition and biomass of primary 

producers in the Colorado River ecosystem below the Paria River.

5
Research INs

RIN 1.3.1 How are the composition and biomass of primary producers in 

the Colorado River ecosystem below the Paria River affected by flow and 

water quality (including nutrients, temperature, light regime, toxins, 

dissolved oxygen), and water borne diseases, or other factors.

RIN 1.3.2 What is the estimated primary productivity in the Colorado 

River ecosystem below the Paria River? [Note: If the cost of obtaining 

this data, relative to the benefit of the information suggests the information 

is not worth the expense, this RIN will not be pursued.] 

RIN 1.3.3 Do top-down effects (grazing and predation) on primary 

producers affect food base productivity?

RIN 1.3.4 What are the habitat characteristics in the Colorado River 

ecosystem below the Paria River that most affect primary productivity? 

How are these characteristics affected by Glen Canyon Dam operations?

Effects INs

EIN 1.3.1 How does primary productivity in the Colorado River 

ecosystem below the Paria River change in response to an experiment 

performed under the Record of Decision, unanticipated event, or other 

management action? 

M.O. 1.4 Maintain or attain benthic invertebrates biomass and community 

composition in the Colorado River ecosystem (to the extent benthic invertebrates 

in the tributaries are influenced by dam operations) below the Paria River. 

Core Monitoring INs

CMIN 1.4.1 Determine and track the composition and biomass of benthic 

invertebrates in the Colorado River ecosystem below the Paria River in 

conjunction with measurements of flow, nutrients, water temperature, and 

light regime. 

Research INs

RIN 1.4.1 How are the composition and biomass of benthic invertebrates 

in the Colorado River ecosystem below the Paria River affected by flow 

and water quality (including nutrients, temperature, light regime, toxins, 

dissolved oxygen), and water borne diseases, or other factors? [Note: If 

the cost of obtaining this data, relative to the benefit of the information 

suggests the information is not worth the expense, this RIN will not be 

pursued.] 

RIN 1.4.2 What is the estimated productivity of benthic invertebrates in 

the Colorado River ecosystem below the Paria River? [Note: If the cost 

6
of obtaining this data, relative to the benefit of the information suggests 

the information is not worth the expense, this RIN will not be pursued.]

RIN 1.4.3 How do top-down effects (grazing and predation) affect the 

abundance and composition of benthic invertebrates?

RIN 1.4.4 What are the habitat characteristics in the Colorado River 

ecosystem below the Paria River that most affect benthic invertebrates? 

How are these characteristics affected by Glen Canyon Dam operations?

Effects INs

EIN 1.4.1 How do benthic invertebrates in the Colorado River ecosystem

below the Paria River change in response to an experiment performed 

under the Record of Decision, unanticipated event, or other management 

action?

M.O. 1.5 Maintain or attain drift (Diptera, CPOM, FPOM, DOC) in the mainstem

and tributaries (to the extent drift in the tributaries is influenced by dam

operations). 

Core Monitoring INs

CMIN 1.5.1 Determine and track the composition and biomass of drift in 

the Colorado River ecosystem.

Research INs

RIN 1.5.1 How are the composition and biomass of drift in the Colorado 

River ecosystem affected by flow and water quality (including nutrients, 

temperature, light regime, toxins, dissolved oxygen), and water borne 

diseases, or other factors?

RIN 1.5.2 How do top-down effects (grazing and predation) affect the 

abundance and composition of drift? 

RIN 1.5.3 How has the value and availability of drift as a food source for 

Humpback chub changed with the implementation of Record of Decision 

operations?

Effects INs

EIN 1.5.1 How does drift in the Colorado River ecosystem change in 

response to an experiment performed under the Record of Decision, 

unanticipated event, or other management action?

7
Goal 2. Maintain or attain viable populations of existing native fish, remove 

jeopardy for humpback chub and razorback sucker, and prevent adverse 

modification to their critical habitats.

M.O. 2.1 Maintain or attain humpback chub (< 51 to >200 mm) abundance and 

year-class strength in the LCR and other aggregations at appropriate target levels 

for viable populations and to remove jeopardy. 

Core Monitoring INs

CMIN 2.1.1 Determine and track year class strength of HBC between 51 

– 150 mm in the LCR and the mainstem. 

CMIN 2.1.1 Determine and track abundance and distribution of all size 

classes of HBC in the LCR and the mainstem. 

Research INs

RIN 2.1.1 What is the minimum population size of HBC that should be 

sustained in the LCR, to ensure a viable spawning population of HBC in 

the LCR?

RIN 2.1.2 What are the sources of mortality for humpback chub < 51 mm 

in rearing habitats in the LCR and mainstem and how are they related to 

dam operations?

RIN 2.1.3 What is the relationship between size of HBC and mortality in 

the LCR and the mainstem? What are the sources of mortality (i.e., 

predation, cannibalism, other) in the LCR and the mainstem?

RIN 2.1.4 What habitats enhance recruitment of native fish in the LCR 

and mainstem? What are the physical and biological characteristics of 

those habitats?

Effects INs

EIN 2.1.1 How does the abundance and distribution of all size classes of 

HBC in the LCR and mainstem change in response to an experiment 

performed under the Record of Decision, unanticipated event, or other 

management action? 

EIN 2.1.2 How does the year class strength of HBC (51 – 150 mm) in the 

LCR and mainstem change in response to an experiment performed under 

the Record of Decision, unanticipated event, or other management action?

EIN 2.1.3 How does the abundance and distribution of recruiting HBC in 

the LCR and mainstem change in response to an experiment performed 

under the Record of Decision, unanticipated event, or other management 

action?

8
M.O. 2.2 Sustain or establish viable HBC spawning aggregations outside of the 

LCR in the Colorado River ecosystem below Glen Canyon Dam to remove 

jeopardy.

Research INs

RIN 2.2.1 What is a viable population and what is the appropriate method 

to assess population viability of native fish in the Colorado River 

ecosystem? What is an acceptable probability of extinction over what 

management time period for humpback chub throughout the Colorado 

River ecosystem?

RIN 2.2.2 Can a population dynamics model be developed to predict 

viability of native fish under different flow regimes and environmental 

conditions?

RIN 2.2.3 What are the measurable criteria that need to be met in order to 

remove jeopardy for humpback chub in the Colorado River ecosystem?

RIN 2.2.4 What is the relationship between the “aggregations” in the 

mainstem and LCR? Are mainstem aggregations “sinks” of the LCR? Are 

aggregations real or due to sampling bias?

RIN 2.2.5 What are the appropriate habitat conditions for HBC spawning? 

Where are these found? Can they be created in the mainstem?

RIN 2.2.6 What are the criteria for establishment of spawning 

aggregations (i.e., how does one determine its “established”)? 

RIN 2.2.7 Is implementation and operation of a TCD and/or steady flows 

a technically feasible, ecologically sustainable, and practical option for 

establishing mainstem spawning?

RIN 2.2.8 What combination of dam release patterns and non-native fish 

control facilitates successful spawning and recruitment of humpback chub 

in the Colorado River ecosystem?

RIN 2.2.9 Is humpback chub augmentation a viable and advisable 

management strategy to establish mainstem spawning aggregations?

RIN 2.2.10 What techniques are available to determine natal stream of 

native fish in the Colorado River ecosystem? 

RIN 2.2.11 What are the impacts of current recreational activities on 

mortality, recruitment and the population size of humpback chub?

 

9
M.O. 2.3 Monitor HBC and other native fish condition and disease/parasite 

numbers in LCR and other aggregations at an appropriate target level for viable 

populations and to remove jeopardy.

Core Monitoring INs

CMIN 2.3.1 Determine and track the parasite loads on HBC and other 

native fish found in the LCR and in the Colorado River ecosystem. 

CMIN 2.3.2 Determine and track status and trends in the condition (Kn or 

Wr) of HBC and other native fish found in the LCR and in the Colorado 

River ecosystem? 

Research INs

RIN 2.3.1 How do parasite/disease loads affect population viability?

RIN 2.3.2 How will warming mainstem temperatures affect the abundance 

and distribution of parasites/disease? 

RIN 2.3.3 Does non-native fish control affect disease/parasite loads?

[Note: The concept is if there are fewer hosts, there will be a lower 

incidence of parasites.] 

Effects Monitoring INs

EIN 2.3.1 How do disease/parasite loads on HBC and other native fish 

found in the LCR and in the Colorado River ecosystem change in response 

to an experiment performed under the Record of Decision, unanticipated 

event, or other management action?

M.O. 2.4 Reduce native fish mortality due to non-native fish 

predation/competition as a percentage of overall mortality in the LCR and 

mainstem to increase native fish recruitment.

Core Monitoring INs

CMIN 2.4.1 Determine and track the abundance and distribution of nonnative predatory fish species in the Colorado River ecosystem and their 

impacts on native fish. 

Research INs

RIN 2.4.1 What are the most effective strategies and control methods to 

limit non-native fish predation and competition on native fish? 

RIN 2.4.2 Determine if suppression of non-native predators and 

competitors increases native fish populations?

10
RIN 2.4.3 To what degree, which species, and where in the system are 

exotic fish a detriment to the existence of native fish through predation or 

competition?

RIN 2.4.4 What are the target population levels, body size and age 

structure for non-native fish in the Colorado River ecosystem that limit 

their levels to those commensurate with the viability of native fish 

populations? 

RIN 2.4.5 What are the sources (natal stream) of nonnative predators and 

competitors? 

RIN 2.4.6 What are the population dynamics of those non-native fish that 

are the major predators and competitors of native fish? 

Effects Monitoring INs

EIN 2.4.1 How does the abundance and distribution of non-native

predatory fish species and their impacts on native fish species in the 

Colorado River ecosystem change in response to an experiment performed 

under the Record of Decision, unanticipated event, or other management 

action?

M.O. 2.5 Attain Razorback sucker abundance and critical habitat condition 

sufficient to remove jeopardy as feasible and advisable in the Colorado River 

ecosystem below Glen Canyon Dam. 

Research INs

RIN 2.5.1 Would the introduction of razorback suckers into the Colorado 

River ecosystem compromise the genetic integrity of flannelmouth suckers 

due to hybridization? 

RIN 2.5.2 Is the existing hybridization between razorback sucker and 

flannelmouth sucker a source of concern for the genetic integrity of either 

species? What are the factors contributing to this ongoing hybridization?

RIN 2.5.3 What characteristics define suitable habitat for razorback 

sucker? Does suitable habitat for razorback sucker occur in the Colorado

River ecosystem? 

RIN 2.5.4 What is the feasibility and advisability of augmenting razorback 

sucker in the Colorado River ecosystem to attain a viable population 

including technical/legal/policy constraints? 

RIN 2.5.5 What are the genetic and ecological criteria for reintroducing 

razorback sucker into the Colorado River ecosystem?

11
RIN 2.5.6 What are the measurable criteria that would need to be met to 

remove jeopardy for razorback sucker in the Colorado River ecosystem?

M.O. 2.6 Maintain (flannelmouth sucker, bluehead sucker and speckled dace) 

abundance and distribution in the Colorado River ecosystem below Glen Canyon 

Dam for viable populations. 

Core Monitoring INs

CMIN 2.6.1 Determine and track the abundance and distribution of 

flannel-mouth sucker, blue-head sucker and speckled dace populations in 

the Colorado River ecosystem. 

Research INs

RIN 2.6.1 What is a viable population? What is the probability of 

extinction over what management time period for species of concern? 

What is the appropriate method to assess viability?

RIN 2.6.2 What are the physical and biological characteristics of habitats 

that enhance recruitment of flannel-mouth sucker, blue-head sucker and 

speckled dace populations in the Colorado River ecosystem?

RIN 2.6.3 What is the age structure, including relationship between age 

and size of flannel-mouth sucker, blue-head sucker and speckled dace in 

the Colorado River ecosystem?

RIN 2.6.4 How are movement patterns for flannel-mouth sucker, bluehead sucker and speckled dace in the Colorado River ecosystem affected 

by age, natal stream and dam operations?

 

RIN 2.6.5 How is the rate of mortality for flannel-mouth sucker, bluehead sucker and speckled dace in the Colorado River ecosystem related to 

individual body size? What are the sources of mortality for flannel-mouth 

sucker, blue-head sucker and speckled dace in the Colorado River 

ecosystem?

RIN 2.6.6 How does temperature modification in the mainstem affect 

recruitment and mortality for flannel-mouth sucker, blue-head sucker and 

speckled dace originating from tributary spawning efforts?

Effects Monitoring INs

EIN 2.6.1 How does the abundance, distribution, recruitment and 

mortality of flannel-mouth sucker, blue-head sucker and speckled dace 

populations in the Colorado River ecosystem change in response to an 

experiment performed under the Record of Decision, unanticipated event, 

or other management action?

12
Goal 3. Restore populations of extirpated species, as feasible and advisable.

 

M.O. 3.1 Restore Colorado pikeminnow, bonytail, and roundtail chub and river 

otter abundances in the Colorado River ecosystem as feasible and advisable. 

Research INs

RIN 3.1.1 What information (including technical, legal, economic, and 

policy issues) should be considered in determining the feasibility and 

advisability of restoring pikeminnow, bonytail, roundtail chub, river otter, 

or other extirpated species?

Goal 4. Maintain a wild reproducing population of rainbow trout above the Paria 

River, to the extent practicable and consistent with the maintenance of viable 

populations of native fish. 

M.O. 4.1 Maintain or attain RBT abundance, proportional stock density, length at age, 

condition, spawning habitat, natural recruitment and prevent or control whirling disease 

and other parasitic infections. 

Core Monitoring INs

CMIN 4.1.1 Determine annual population estimates for age II+ rainbow 

trout in the Lee’s Ferry reach. 

CMIN 4.1.2 Determine annual proportional stock density of rainbow trout 

in the Lee’s Ferry reach.

CMIN 4.1.3 Determine annual rainbow trout growth rate in the Lee’s 

Ferry reach. 

CMIN 4.1.4 Determine annual standard condition (Kn) and Relative 

weight of rainbow trout in the Lees Ferry reach. 

CMIN 4.1.5 Determine if whirling disease is present in the Lees Ferry 

reach. Determine annual incidence and relative infestation of trout 

nematodes in rainbow trout in the Lees Ferry reach. 

CMIN 4.1.6 Determine quantity and quality of spawning habitat for 

rainbow trout in the Lees Ferry reach as measured at 5-year intervals. 

CMIN 4.1.7 Determine annual percentage of naturally recruited rainbow 

trout in the Lees Ferry reach. 

Research INs

RIN 4.1.1 What is the target proportional stock density (i.e., trade-off 

between numbers and size) for rainbow trout in the Lees Ferry reach? 

13
RIN 4.1.2 What is the minimum quantity and quality of spawning 

substrate necessary for maintaining a wild reproducing rainbow trout 

population in the Lees Ferry reach?

RIN 4.1.3 To what extent is there overlap in the Lees Ferry reach of RBT 

habitat and native fish habitat? 

RIN 4.1.4 Has there been a change in the genetics or “strain” of rainbow 

trout in the Lees Ferry reach that might account for the decrease in 

average size of fish creeled by anglers?

Effects Monitoring INs

EIN 4.1.1 How does RBT abundance, proportional stock density, length at 

age, condition, spawning habitat, natural recruitment, whirling disease and 

other parasitic infections change in response to an experiment performed 

under the Record of Decision, unanticipated event, or other management 

action?

M.O. 4.2 Limit Lees Ferry RBT distribution below the Paria River of the 

Colorado River ecosystem to reduce competition or predation on downstream

native fish. 

Research INs

RIN 4.2.1 What is the rate of emigration of rainbow trout from the Lees 

Ferry reach?

RIN 4.2.2 What is the most effective method to detect emigration of 

rainbow trout from the Lees Ferry reach?

RIN 4.2.3 How is the rate of emigration of RBT from the Lees Ferry reach 

to below the Paria River affected by abundance, hydrology, temperature, 

and other ecosystem processes?

RIN 4.2.4 What is the target population size of RBT appropriate for the 

Lees Ferry reach that limits downstream emigration? 

RIN 4.2.5 To what extent is there overlap in the Colorado River 

ecosystem below the Paria River of RBT habitat and native fish habitat? 

RIN 4.2.6 To what extent are RBT below the Paria River predators of 

native fish, primarily HBC? At what size do they become predators of 

native fish, especially HBC, i.e. how do the trophic interactions between 

RBT and native fish change with size of fish?

14
RIN 4.2.7 What dam release patterns most effectively maintain the LEES 

Ferry RBT trophy fishery wile limiting RBT survival below the Paria 

River?

Goal 5. Maintain or attain viable populations of Kanab ambersnail.

MO 5.1 Attain and maintain Kanab ambersnail population at Vasey’s Paradise 

from the current level to the target level.

Core Monitoring INs

CMIN 5.1.1 Determine and track the abundance and distribution of Kanab 

ambersnail at Vasey’s Paradise in the lower zone (below 100,000 cfs) and 

the upper zone (above 100,000 cfs). 

Research INs

RIN 5.1.1 What constitutes population viability for Kanab ambersnail at 

Vasey’s Paradise?

RIN 5.1.2 What parameters have the greatest influence on population 

viability of Kanab ambersnail at Vasey’s Paradise (e.g., parasites, 

predation, discharges, habitat size, quality, and human use/visitation)?

RIN 5.1.3 Develop a population dynamic model to predict Kanab 

ambersnail viability under different flows and environmental conditions. 

RIN 5.1.4 Identify and evaluate alternative Management Actions to ensure 

viability of Kanab ambersnail at Vasey’s Paradise where (1) the 

population dynamic model predicts loss of population viability, or (2) 

monitoring discovers substantial habitat or Kanab ambersnail population 

declines. 

RIN 5.1.5 What is the taxonomic identity of the Oxyloma snails at 

Vasey’s Paradise? Is a change to the existing taxonomic status 

warranted? 

RIN 5.1.6 Does the Vasey's Paradise taxon occur outside of Vasey’s 

Paradise? [NOTE: Intended to address the issue of whether this is 

an endemic population or a relict population or part of a 

metapopulation.] 

RIN 5.1.7 What is the historic range of Oxyloma haydeni? Can this range 

be determined from subfossil or fossil evidence? [NOTE: This is 

intended to determine if this is a relict species and the initial work 

would be done at Vasey’s Paradise, South Canyon and other 

probable sites within the Colorado River ecosystem.] 

15
RIN 5.1.8 What are the measurable criteria that need to be met to remove 

jeopardy for Kanab ambersnail at Vasey’s Paradise?

RIN 5.1.9 How can incidental take for Kanab ambersnail at Vasey’s 

Paradise be minimized? 

Effects Monitoring INs

EIN 5.1.1 How does Kanab ambersnail population abundance and 

recovery change in response to an experiment performed under the Record 

of Decision, unanticipated event, or other management action?

MO 5.2 Maintain Kanab ambersnail habitat at Vasey’s Paradise from the current 

level to the target level.

Core Monitoring INs

CMIN 5.2.1 Determine and track the size and composition of the habitat 

used by Kanab ambersnail at Vasey’s Paradise. 

Research INs

RIN 5.2.1 How does the size, quality, and recovery time of Kanab 

ambersnail habitat change following natural scours, or other events? 

RIN 5.2.2 How does the size and quality of the habitat used by Kanab 

ambersnail change in response to an experiment performed under the 

Record of Decision, unanticipated event, or other management action?

RIN 5.2.3 Can remote sensing technologies be used to less intrusively and 

more cost effectively characterize and monitor Kanab ambersnail habitat 

at Vasey’s Paradise (vegetation type and distribution)?

Effects INs

EIN 5.2.1 How does Kanab ambersnail habitat at Vasey’s Paradise change 

in response to an experiment performed under the Record of Decision, 

unanticipated event, or other management action?

Goal 6. Protect or improve the biotic riparian and spring communities within the 

Colorado River ecosystem, including threatened and endangered species and their 

critical habitat. 

IN 6.1 Develop GIS coverages of natural communities in the Colorado 

River ecosystem to use in identification of status and trends. 

 

IN 6.2 Develop or adopt an existing ecological community classification 

system. The system should describe the composition and frequency of 

16
vascular plants, vertebrates, arthropods, and mollusks to an appropriate 

taxonomic level. 

IN 6.3 How is the abundance of vertebrate consumers affected by seasonal 

shifts in food base abundance in the Colorado River ecosystem?

IN 6.4 How do ecosystem processes shape community dynamics?

IN 6.5 How much allochthonous material is exchanged between the 

terrestrial and aquatic systems? 

M.O. 6.1 Maintain marsh community abundance, composition and area in the 

Colorado River ecosystem in such a manner that native species are not lost. 

Core Monitoring INs

CMIN 6.1.1 Determine and track the abundance, composition, 

distribution, and area of the marsh community as measured at 5-year or 

other appropriate intervals based on life cycles of the species and rates of 

change for the community.

Research INs

RIN 6.1.1 How has the abundance, composition, distribution, and area of 

the marsh community changed since dam closure (1963), high flows 

(1984), interim flows (1991) and the implementation of Record of 

Decision operations (1996)?

Effects INs

EIN 6.1.1 How does marsh community abundance, composition,

distribution, and area change in response to an experiment performed 

under the Record of Decision, unanticipated event, or other management 

action?

M.O. 6.2 Maintain NHWZ community patch number and distribution, 

composition and area to be no lower than values estimated for 1984.

Core Monitoring INs

CMIN 6.2.1 Determine and track the patch number, patch distribution, 

composition and area of the NHWZ community as measured at 5-year or 

other appropriate intervals based on life cycles of the species and rates of 

change for the community. 

Research INs

RIN 6.2.1 How has the patch number, patch distribution, composition and

area of the NHWZ community changed since dam closure (1963), high 

flows (1984), interim flows (1991) and the implementation of Record of 

Decision operations (1996)?

17
Effects INs

EIN 6.2.1 How does the patch number, patch distribution, composition 

and area of the NHWZ community change in response to an experiment 

performed under the Record of Decision, unanticipated event, or other 

management action? 

M.O. 6.3 Maintain OHWZ community abundance, composition and distribution 

in the Colorado River ecosystem.

Core Monitoring INs

CMIN 6.3.1 Determine and track the abundance, composition and 

distribution of the OHWZ community as measured at 5-year or other 

appropriate intervals based on life cycles of the species and rates of 

change for the community. 

Research INs

RIN 6.3.1 How has the abundance, composition, and distribution of the 

OHWZ community changed since dam closure (1963), high flows (1984), 

interim flows (1991) and the implementation of Record of Decision 

operations (1996)?

RIN 6.3.2 What management actions have the potential to maintain the

OHWZ community at the current stage elevation, or establish the 

community at a lower stage elevation? 

Effects INs

EIN 6.3.1 How does the abundance, composition, and distribution of the 

OHWZ community change in response to an experiment performed under 

the Record of Decision, unanticipated event, or other management action?

M.O. 6.4 Maintain sand beach community abundance, composition and 

distribution in the Colorado River ecosystem at the target level.

Core Monitoring INs

CMIN 6.4.1 Determine and track composition, abundance, and 

distribution of the sand beach community as measured at 5-year or other 

appropriate intervals based on life cycles of the species and rates of 

change for the community. 

Research INs

RIN 6.4.1 How has the abundance, composition, and distribution of the 

sand beach community changed since dam closure (1963), high flows 

(1984), interim flows (1991) and the implementation of Record of 

Decision operations (1996)?

18
Effects INs

EIN 6.4.1 How does the abundance, composition, and distribution of the 

sand beach community change in response to an experiment performed 

under the Record of Decision, unanticipated event, or other management 

action?

M.O. 6.5 Reduce invasive non-native species abundance and distribution.

Core Monitoring INs

CMIN 6.5.1 Determine and track the distribution and abundance of nonnative species in the Colorado River ecosystem as measured at 5-year or 

other appropriate intervals based on life cycles of the species and rates of 

change for the community. 

Research INs

RIN 6.5.1 Are non-native species expanding or contracting at a local scale 

(patch or reach)? 

RIN 6.5.2 What management actions have the potential to increase or 

decrease the distribution and abundance of non-native species? 

RIN 6.5.3 How has the abundance and distribution of non-native species 

changed since dam closure (1963), high flows (1984), interim flows 

(1991) and the implementation of Record of Decision operations (1996)?

RIN 6.5.4 How can remote sensing assist in the development of a map of 

non-native species distributions in the Colorado River ecosystem

including characterization of the types of habitat that supports non-native 

species? 

Effects INs

EIN 6.5.1 How does the abundance and distribution of non-native species 

change in response to an experiment performed under the Record of 

Decision, unanticipated event, or other management action?

M.O. 6.6 Maintain seep and spring habitat in the Colorado River ecosystem.

Core Monitoring INs

CMIN 6.6.1 Determine and track the composition, abundance, and 

distribution of seep and spring communities as measured at 5-year or other 

appropriate intervals based on life cycles of the species and rates of 

change for the community. 

Research INs

RIN 6.6.1 How is seep and spring habitat affected by variation in dam

operations, variation in seep or spring flow, and variation in water quality? 

19
How do flow rates and water quality parameters at seeps and springs 

compare with historic measurements?

RIN 6.6.2 Which seeps and springs are culturally important or occupied 

by rare and endemic species?

RIN 6.6.3 How has the composition, abundance and distribution of seep 

and spring communities changed since dam closure (1963), high flows 

(1984), interim flows (1991) and the implementation of Record of 

Decision operations (1996)?

RIN 6.6.4 What is the distribution, patch size, total area, and composition 

of seep and spring communities and the flow rate and water quality of all 

seeps and springs within the Colorado River ecosystem? 

Effects INs

EIN 6.6.1 How does the composition, abundance and distribution of seep 

and spring communities change in response to an experiment performed 

under the Record of Decision, unanticipated event, or other management 

action?

M.O. 6.7 Maintain riparian habitat in the Colorado River ecosystem capable of 

supporting Southwest willow flycatcher.

Core Monitoring INs 

CMIN 6.7.1 Determine and track the abundance, distribution, and 

reproductive success of southwestern willow flycatcher in the Colorado 

River ecosystem? 

Research INs

RIN 6.7.1 What is the function of the Colorado River ecosystem as a 

migratory corridor for southwestern willow flycatcher? 

RIN 6.7.2 What is the foodbase that supports southwestern willow 

flycatcher and other terrestrial vertebrates?

RIN 6.7.3 What constitutes suitable southwestern willow flycatcher

habitat?

RIN 6.7.4 How has the abundance, distribution and reproductive success 

of southwestern willow flycatcher changed since dam closure (1963), high 

flows (1984), interim flows (1991) and the implementation of Record of 

Decision operations (1996)?

20
RIN 6.7.5 What is the need, feasibility, and priority of maintaining 

habitat suitability for southwestern willow flycatcher in the Colorado 

River ecosystem? 

Effects INs

EIN 6.7.1 How does the abundance, distribution and reproductive success 

of southwestern willow flycatcher change in response to an experiment 

performed under the Record of Decision, unanticipated event, or other 

management action? 

Goal 7. Establish water temperature, quality and flow dynamics to achieve 

GCDAMP ecosystem goals. 

M.O. 7.1 Attain water temperature ranges and seasonal variability in the 

mainstem necessary to maintain or attain desired levels of desirable biological 

resources (e.g., native fish, foodbase and trout).

Core Monitoring INs

CMIN 7.1.1 Determine the water temperature dynamics in the mainstem, 

tributaries (as appropriate), backwaters, and near-shore areas throughout 

the Colorado River ecosystem. 

CMIN 7.1.2 Determine and track LCR discharge near mouth (below 

springs). 

Research INs

RIN 7.1.1 What are the desired ranges of spatial and temporal patterns of 

water temperatures for the Colorado River ecosystem? 

RIN 7.1.2 What are the most likely downstream temperature responses to 

a variety of scenarios involving a TCD on Glen Canyon Dam?

RIN 7.1.3 What are the potential ecological effects of increasing 

mainstem water temperatures? 

Effects INs

EIN 7.1.1 How does water temperature change in response to an 

experiment performed under the Record of Decision, unanticipated event, 

or other management action?

M.O. 7.2 Maintain water quality in the mainstem of the Colorado River 

ecosystem.

21
Core Monitoring INs

CMIN 7.2.1 Determine the seasonal and yearly trends in turbidity, water

temperature, conductivity, DO, and pH, (decide below whether selenium 

is important) changes in the mainstem throughout the Colorado River 

ecosystem? 

Research INs

RIN 7.2.1 Which major ions should be measured? Where and how often?

RIN 7.2.2 Which nutrients should be measured? Where and how often? 

RIN 7.2.3 Which metals should be measured? Where and how often?

RIN 7.2.4 What are the water-borne pathogens that are a threat to human 

health? How should they be monitored? Where and how often?

Support INs

SIN 7.2.1 Do the hydrodynamics and stratification of Lake Powell 

influence the food base or fisheries downstream?

SIN 7.2.2 Which water quality variables influence food base and fisheries 

in the Colorado River ecosystem?

Proposed New M.O. 7.3 Maintain suitable quality of water in Glen Canyon Dam

releases to meet downstream management objectives.

Core Monitoring INs

 CMIN 7.3.1 What are the status and trends of water quality releases from

Glen Canyon Dam?

 

Research INs

RIN 7.3.1 Develop simulation models for Lake Powell and the Colorado 

River to predict water quality conditions under various operating scenarios, 

supplant monitoring efforts, and elucidate understanding of the effects of 

dam operations, climate, and basin hydrology on Colorado River water 

quality. 

7.3.1.a Determine the status and trends of chemical and biological 

components of water quality in Lake Powell as a function of 

regional hydrologic conditions and their relation to downstream 

releases. 

 7.3.1.b Determine stratification, convective mixing patterns, and 

behavior of advective currents in Lake Powell and their relation to 

Glen Canyon Dam operations to predict seasonal patterns and 

trends in downstream releases. 

22
RIN 7.3.2 How accurately can modeling predict reservoir dynamics and 

operational scenarios?

RIN 7.3.3 How do dam operations affect reservoir limnology?

Support INs

SIN 7.3.1 Measure appropriate water quality parameters to determine the 

influence of these parameters on biological resources in the Colorado River 

ecosystem.

Effects INs

EIN 7.3.1 How does the water quality of releases from Glen Canyon Dam 

change in response to an experiment performed under the Record of 

Decision, unanticipated event, or other management action?

M.O. 7.4 Maintain flow dynamics associated with power plant operations, BHBF 

and habitat maintenance flows.

Core Monitoring INs

CMIN 7.4.1 Determine and track releases from Glen Canyon Dam under 

all operating conditions. 

CMIN 7.4.2 Determine and track flow releases from Glen Canyon Dam,

particularly related to flow duration, upramp, and downramp conditions. 

 Research INs

RIN 7.4.1 What is the desired range of seasonal and annual flow dynamics 

associated with powerplant operations, BHBFs, and habitat maintenance 

flows, or other flows that meet AMP goals and objectives?

RIN 7.4.2 What is the desired pattern of seasonal and annual flow 

dynamics associated with powerplant operations, BHBFs, HMFs, or other 

flows to meet AMP Goals and Objectives? 

RIN 7.4.3 How do changes in flow volume and rate of change affect food 

base and energy productivity in the Colorado River ecosystem?

RIN 7.4.4 How does flow rate and fluctuation affect habitat availability 

and utilization by fish and other organisms?

Goal 8: Maintain or attain levels of sediment storage within the main channel and 

along shorelines to achieve GCDAMP ecosystem goals. 

IN 8.1 If sediment cannot be preserved in the system using available 

management actions, what is the feasibility (including technical, legal, 

23
economic, and policy issues) of sediment augmentation as a means of 

achieving this goal? 

M.O. 8.1 Maintain or attain fine sediment abundance, grain-size, distribution in 

the main channel below 5,000 cfs 

Core Monitoring INs 

CMIN 8.1.1 Determine and track the biennial fine-sediment, volume and 

grain-size changes below 5,000 cfs stage, by reach. 

CMIN 8.1.2 What are the monthly sand and silt/clay -export volumes and 

grain-size characteristics, by reach, as measured at Lees Ferry, Lower 

Marble Canyon, Grand Canyon and Diamond Creek Stations?

CMIN 8.1.3 Track, as appropriate, the monthly sand and silt/clay -input 

volumes and grain-size characteristics, by reach, as measured or estimated 

at the Paria and Little Colorado River stations, other major tributaries like 

Kanab and Havasu creeks, and “lesser” tributaries?

Research INs 

RIN 8.1.1 What is the longitudinal variability of fine-sediment inputs, by 

reach? 

RIN 8.1.2 What is the temporal variability of fine-sediment inputs, by 

reach? 

RIN 8.1.3 What fine sediment abundance and distribution, by reach, is 

desirable to support GCDAMP ecosystem goals? [Note: Definition of 

“desirable” will be derived from targets for other resources and managers 

goals.] 

Effects INs

EIN 8.1.1 How does fine sediment abundance, grain-size, and distribution

in the main channel below 5,000 cfs change in response to an experiment 

performed under the Record of Decision, unanticipated event, or other 

management action? 

M.O. 8.2 Maintain or attain fine sediment abundance, grain-size, and distribution 

within channel margins (not eddies) from 5,000 to 25,000 cfs

Core Monitoring IN 

CMIN 8.2.1 Track, as appropriate, the biennial sandbar area, volume and 

grain-size changes outside of eddies between 5,000 and 25,000 cfs stage, 

by reach? 

24
Research IN

RIN 8.2.1 What fine sediment abundance and distribution, by reach, is 

desirable to support GCDAMP ecosystem goals? [Note: Definition of 

“desirable” will be derived from targets for other resources and managers 

goals.] 

Effects INs

EIN 8.2.1 How does fine sediment abundance, grain-size, and distribution 

within channel margins (not eddies) from 5,000 to 25,000 cfs change in 

response to an experiment performed under the Record of Decision, 

unanticipated event, or other management action?

M.O. 8.3 Maintain or attain fine sediment abundance, grain-size, and distribution, 

within eddies below 5,000 cfs

Core Monitoring INs 

CMIN 8.3.1 Track, as appropriate, the biennial sandbar area, volume and 

grain-size changes within eddies below 5,000 cfs stage, by reach?

Research IN

RIN 8.3.1 What fine sediment abundance and distribution, by reach, is 

desirable to support GCDAMP ecosystem goals? [Note: Definition of 

“desirable” will be derived from targets for other resources and managers 

goals.] 

Effects INs

EIN 8.3.1 How does fine sediment abundance, grain-size, and distribution, 

within eddies below 5,000 cfs change in response to an experiment 

performed under the Record of Decision, unanticipated event, or other 

management action? 

M.O. 8.4 Maintain or attain fine sediment abundance, grain-size, and distribution 

within eddies between 5,000 to 25,000 cfs

Core Monitoring IN

CMIN 8.4.1 Track, as appropriate, the annual sandbar area, volume and 

grain-size changes within eddies between 5,000 and 25,000 cfs stage, by 

reach? 

Research INs

RIN 8.4.1 What fine sediment abundance and distribution, by reach, is 

desirable to support GCDAMP ecosystem goals? [Note: Definition of 

“desirable” will be derived from targets for other resources and managers 

goals.] 

25
Effects INs

EIN 8.4.1 How does fine sediment abundance, grain-size, and distribution, 

within eddies between 5,000 to 25,000 cfs change in response to an 

experiment performed under the Record of Decision, unanticipated event, 

or other management action?

M.O. 8.5 Maintain or attain fine sediment abundance, grain-size, and distribution 

on shorelines between 25,000 cfs and the uppermost effects of maximum dam

releases.

Core Monitoring INs 

CMIN 8.5.1 Track, as appropriate, the biennial sandbar area, volume and 

grain-size changes above 25,000 cfs stage, by reach?

Research INs

RIN 8.5.1 What elements of Record of Decision operations (upramp, 

downramp, maximum and minimum flow, MLFF, HMF, and BHBF) are 

most/least critical to conserving new fine-sediment inputs, and stabilizing 

sediment deposits above the 25,000 cfs stage?

RIN 8.5.2 What is the reach-scale variability of fine-sediment storage 

throughout the main channel?

RIN 8.5.3 What is the pre- and post-dam range of grain-size in finesediment deposits, by reach?

RIN 8.5.4 What is the significance of aeolian processes in terrestrial 

sandbar reworking?

RIN 8.5.5 What are the historic and ongoing longitudinal trends of finesediment storage, above 25,000 cfs?

RIN 8.5.6 What fine sediment abundance and distribution, by reach, is 

desirable to support GCDAMP ecosystem goals? [Note: Definition of 

“desirable” will be derived from targets for other resources and managers 

goals.] 

Effects Monitoring INs

EIN 8.5.1 How does fine sediment abundance, grain-size, and distribution 

on shorelines between 25,000 cfs and the uppermost effects of maximum 

dam releases change in response to an experiment performed under the 

Record of Decision, unanticipated event, or other management action?

Supporting INs

SIN 8.5.1 Do sandbar textures influence biological processes, if so, then 

how?

26
SIN 8.5.2 What is the relationship between the fine-sediment budget and 

turbidity? 

SIN 8.5.3 What is the relationship between turbidity and biological 

processes?

SIN 8.5.4 Can turbidity be managed to achieve biological objectives?

SIN 8.5.5 Can the ongoing fine-sediment supply be managed to achieve 

sustainable habitats?

SIN 8.5.6 What are the grain-size characteristics of sand bars associated 

with designated riparian vegetation zones?

SIN 8.5.7 What are the limiting factors that regulate substrate availability 

and its distribution?

SIN 8.5.8 What is the total area of different aquatic habitat types (cobble, 

gravel, sand, talus, etc,) in the Colorado River ecosystem? 

SIN 8.5.9 Are sandbar textures related to cultural site stability, if so, then 

how?

SIN 8.5.10 Are sandbar textures related to recreational site stability, if so, 

then how?

Proposed NEW M.O. 8.6 Maintain or attain coarse sediment (greater than 2mm)

abundance, grain-size and distribution throughout the Colorado River Ecosystem

needed to achieve GCDAMP ecosystem goals.

Core Monitoring INs

CMIN 8.6.1 Determine and track the change in coarse sediment 

abundance and distribution.

Research Monitoring INs

RIN 8.6.1 Do ongoing inputs of coarse-sediment from tributaries 

influence storage of fine sediment within pools, runs and eddies 

throughout the Colorado River ecosystem?

RIN 8.6.2 Do ongoing inputs of coarse-sediment from tributaries alter the 

distribution of main channel habitats needed by benthic organisms within 

pools, runs and eddies throughout the Colorado River ecosystem?

27
Effects INs

EIN 8.6.1 How does coarse sediment (greater than 2mm) abundance, 

grain-size and distribution change in response to an experiment performed 

under the Record of Decision, unanticipated event, or other management 

action?

GOAL 9: Maintain or improve the quality of recreational experiences for users of 

the Colorado River ecosystem, within the framework of GCDAMP ecosystem goals. 

MO 9.1 Maintain or improve the quality and range of recreational opportunities in Glen 

and Grand Canyons within the capacity of the Colorado River ecosystem to absorb visitor 

impacts consistent with the NPS and tribal river corridor Management Plans.

Core Monitoring INs

CMIN 9.1.1 Determine and track the change in recreational quality, opportunities 

and use, impacts, and perceptions of users in the Colorado River Ecosystem. 

CMIN 9.1.2 Determine and track the frequency and scheduling of river-related 

use patterns. 

CMIN 9.1.3 Determine and track the level of satisfaction for river-related

recreational opportunities in the Colorado River ecosystem.

CMIN 9.1.4 Determine and track the economic benefits of river related 

recreational opportunities. 

Research INs

RIN 9.1.1 What are the attributes of a quality river experience? (How do you 

define a quality river experience?) 

RIN 9.1.2 Are the visitor capacities for recreational activities consistent with NPS 

management plans? Are NPS management plans consistent with Colorado River 

ecosystem capacities to absorb visitor impacts?

RIN 9.1.3 Do ongoing inputs of coarse-sediment from tributaries diminish or 

enhance navigability of rapids throughout the Colorado River ecosystem?

Effects INs

EIN 9.1.1 How do recreational use trends, impacts, and perceptions change in 

response to an experiment performed under the Record of Decision, unanticipated 

event, or other management action?

MO 9.2 Maintain or improve the quality and range of opportunities in Glen and Grand 

Canyons in consideration of visitor safety, and the inherent risk of river-related 

recreational activities. 

28
Core Monitoring INs

CMIN 9.2.1 Determine and track the change in quality and range of opportunities 

in consideration of visitor safety, and the inherent risk of river-related recreational 

activities. 

CMIN 9.2.2 Determine and track accident rates for visitors participating in riverrelated activities including causes and location (i.e. on-river or off-river), 

equipment type, operator experience, and other factors of these accidents in the 

Colorado River ecosystem. 

M.O. 9.3 Increase the size, quality and distribution of camping beaches in critical and 

non-critical reaches in the mainstem within the capacity of the Colorado River Ecosystem

to absorb visitor impacts consistent with NPS and tribal river corridor Management 

Plans.

Core Monitoring INs

CMIN 9.3.1 Determine and track the size, quality and distribution of camping 

beaches by reach and stage level in Glen and Grand Canyons. 

CMIN 9.3.2 Determine and track the effects Record of Decision operations on the 

size, quality, and distribution of camping beaches in the Colorado River 

ecosystem.

Research INs

RIN 9.3.1 What is the desired target level of camping beaches by reach?

Effects INs

EIN 9.3.1 How does the size, quality, and distribution of camping beaches change 

in response to an experiment performed under the Record of Decision, 

unanticipated event, or other management action?

M.O. 9.4 Maintain or enhance the wilderness experience in the Colorado River 

ecosystem in consideration of existing management plans.

Core Monitoring INs

CMIN 9.4.1 Determine and track the effects of Record of Decision operations on 

elements of wilderness experience specific to the Colorado River ecosystem. 

Research INs

RIN 9.4.1 Identify the elements of wilderness experience specific to the Colorado 

River ecosystem. 

M.O. 9.5 Maintain or enhance visitor experiences as a result of GCDAMP research and 

monitoring activities. 

Core Monitoring INs

CMIN 9.5.1 Determine and track the frequency and scheduling of research and 

monitoring activity in Glen and Grand Canyons. 

29
Research INs

 RIN 9.5.1 What effects do administrative trips, including research and monitoring 

activities have on recreational users?

Goal 10: Maintain power production capacity and energy generation, and increase

where feasible and advisable, within the framework of GCDAMP ecosystem goals.

IN 10.1 Determine and track the impacts to power users from implementation of 

Record of Decision dam operations and segregate those effects from other causes 

such as changes in the power market. 

M.O. 10.1 Maintain or increase power with respect to marketable capacity and energy at 

Glen Canyon Dam.

Core Monitoring INs

CMIN 10.1.1 Determine and track the effects on marketable capacity and energy 

of implementation of Record of Decision components (daily fluctuation limit, 

upramp and downramp limits, list components, maximum flow limit of 25,000 

cfs, minimum flow limit of 5,000 cfs). 

Research IN’s

RIN 10.1.1. What would be the effects on the Colorado River ecosystem and 

marketable capacity and energy of increasing the daily fluctuation limit? 

RIN 10.1.2. What would be the effects on the Colorado River ecosystem and 

marketable capacity and energy of increasing the upramp and downramp limit?

RIN 10.1.3 What would be the effects on the Colorado River ecosystem and 

marketable capacity and energy of raising the maximum power plant flow limit 

above 25,000 cfs?

RIN 10.1.4 What would be the effects on the Colorado River ecosystem and 

marketable capacity and energy of lowering the minimum flow limit below 5,000 

cfs? 

RIN 10.1.5 How do power-marketing contract provisions affect Glen Canyon 

Dam releases? 

M.O. 10.2 Maintain or increase power within the existing emergency criteria for Western 

Area Power Administration systems.

Core Monitoring IN’s

CMIN 10.2.1 Determine the effects of reserve group obligations on power. 

30
M.O. 10.3 Maintain or increase power within the existing emergency criteria for the 

western interconnected electrical system.

Core Monitoring IN’s

CMIN 10.3.1 Determine the full range of effects of Glen Canyon Dam responses 

to western interconnected electrical system emergencies. 

Research IN’s

RIN 10.3.1 What are the effects of providing financial exception criteria?

M.O. 10.4 Maintain or increase power regulation at Glen Canyon Dam.

Core Monitoring IN’s

CMIN 10.4.1 Determine and track the effects on the Colorado River ecosystem

and marketable power and energy of maintaining Automatic Generation Control 

at Glen Canyon Dam.

Research IN’s

RIN 10.4.1 What are the effects on the Colorado River ecosystem and marketable 

power and energy of increasing Automatic Generation Control at Glen Canyon 

Dam?

Goal 11: Preserve, protect, manage and treat cultural resources for the inspiration 

and benefit of past, present and future generations. 

M.O. 11.1 Preserve historic properties in the area of potential effect via 

protection, management, and/or treatment (e.g., data recovery) for the purpose of 

federal agency compliance with NHPA, and AMP and AMWG compliance with 

GCPA.

Core Monitoring INs

CMIN 11.1.1 Determine the status of historic properties under Record of 

Decision operations.

11.1.1a Determine periodically whether the essential physical 

features are visible enough to convey their significance or retain 

their information potential. 

CMIN 11.1.2 Determine the efficacy of treatments for mitigation of 

adverse effects to historic properties. 

CMIN 11.1.3 What are the thresholds for impacts that threaten their

integrity and eligibility of historic properties? 

11.1.3a Are the current monitoring programs collecting the 

necessary information to assess resource integrity? 

31
CMIN 11.1.4 How effective is monitoring, what are the appropriate 

strategies to capture change at an archaeological site - qualitative, 

quantitative?

Research INs

RIN 11.1.1 What are the sources of impacts to historic properties? 

11.1.1.a What and where are the geomorphic processes that link 

loss of site integrity with dam operations as opposed to dam

existence or natural processes?

11.1.1.b What are the terrace formation processes and how do dam

operations affect current terrace formations processes?

 11.1.1.c Determine if and where dam operations cause accelerated 

erosion to historic properties? 

 11.1.1.d What are the potential threats to historic properties 

relative to integrity and significance?

RIN 11.1.2 What are the historic properties within the area of potential 

effects? 

11.1.2a For each tribe and living community, what are the register 

eligible traditional cultural properties?

11.1.2b How do specific sites meet National Register Criteria for 

Evaluation? 

11.1.2c Identify AMP activities that affect National Register 

eligible sites?

11.1.2d Identify NPS permitted activities that affect National 

Register eligible sites. 

RIN 11.1.3 What are the thresholds triggering management actions? 

1.1.3a Determine the necessary information to assess resource

integrity. 

11.1.3b How should adverse effects to historic properties be 

mitigated? 

RIN 11.1.5 What are appropriate strategies to preserve resource integrity?

Effects Monitoring INs

EIN 11.1.1 Determine the effects of experimental flows on historic 

properties. 

M.O. 11.2 Preserve resource integrity and cultural values of traditionally

important resources within the Colorado River Ecosystem.

Core Monitoring INs

CMIN 11.2.1 Are the traditionally important resources and locations for 

each tribe and other groups being affected? 

32
Research INs

RIN 11.2.1 What are traditionally important resources and locations for 

each tribe and other groups? 

RIN 11.2.2 What is the baseline measure for resource integrity?

RIN 11.2.3 Determine acceptable methods to preserve or treat 

traditionally important resources within the Colorado River ecosystem.

RIN 11.2.4 If there is resource change, what are the sources?

M.O.11.3 Protect and maintain physical access to traditional cultural resources 

through meaningful consultation on AMP activities that might restrict or block 

physical access by Native American religious and traditional practitioners.

Effects INs 

EIN 11.3.1 Determine if and how experimental flows and other AMP 

actions restrict tribal access. 

EIN 11.3.2 Determine reasonable management actions that should be 

taken to facilitate tribal access.

Goal 12: Maintain a high quality monitoring, research, and adaptive management 

program. 

IN 12.1 Develop information that can be used by the TWG, in collaboration with 

GCMRC, to establish current and target levels for all resources within the AMP as 

called for in the AMP strategic plan. 

M.O. 12. 1 Maintain or attain socio-economic data for adequate decision-making.

Research Monitoring INs: 

RIN 12.1.1 What is the necessary quantity and quality of cultural and 

socioeconomic information for adequate decision-making?

RIN 12.1.2 What is the economic value of the recreational use of the 

Colorado River ecosystem downstream from Glen Canyon Dam?

RIN 12.1.3 What are the use (e.g., hydropower, trout fishing, rafting) and 

non-use (e.g., option, vicarious, quasi-option, bequest and existence) 

values of the Colorado River ecosystem

RIN 12.1.4 How does use (e.g., hydropower, trout fishing, rafting) and 

non-use (e.g., option, vicarious, quasi-option, bequest and existence) 

33
values change in response to an experiment performed under the Record 

of Decision, unanticipated event, or other management action?

M.O. 12.2: Attain or improve monitoring and research programs to achieve the 

appropriate scale and sampling design needed to support science-based adaptive 

management recommendations.

Research INs

RIN 12.2.1 What is the most appropriate field sampling method(s) (e.g., 

sampling size, spatial and temporal distribution, analysis, explicit 

assumptions, limitations and uncertainties) and statistical analysis to 

monitor the status and trends of resources targeted by management 

objectives?

RIN 12.2.2 What remote sensing technologies are available to less 

intrusively and more cost effectively monitor, characterize and map: (a) 

the aquatic food base, (b) fish, (c) fish habitat features, (d) Kanab 

ambersnail habitat, (e) water quality parameters, (f) bathymetry and 

associated substrates and (g) cultural sites?

RIN 12.2.3 What digital, or other, technologies exist and should be used 

to record field observations and spatially reference these data to facilitate 

their integration into GCMRC databases and use by PI’s and stakeholders?

RIN 12.2.4 What historic data sets currently exist for all resources 

targeted by management objectives in the GCDAMP?

RIN 12.2.5 What remote sensing data are available or can be obtained that 

will support the production of a system-wide resource map? 

RIN 12.2.6 What are the acceptable detection levels for change in 

Colorado River ecosystem resources? How should those levels most 

appropriately be determined and who should make the determinations? 

RIN 12.2.7 Can habitat designation using a GIS application be utilized as 

an effective method to adjust site-specific population estimates (e.g., 

mark-recapture or depletion methods) to system-wide extrapolations by 

using catch-per-unit-effort values that are scaled relative to the proportion 

of different habitat types available in Glen Canyon?

RIN12.2.8 Determine accurate, reliable, and standardized methods for 

measuring erosion at historic sites.

M.O. 12.3 Attain or maintain an integrated and synthesized “ecosystemscience”- based adaptive management program.

34
Research INs

RIN 12.3.1 What are the most effective method(s) to integrate and 

synthesize resource data to increase our understanding of the past and for 

ongoing interactions of humans with the Colorado River ecosystem.

RIN 12.3.2 What are the differences between western science and tribal 

processes for design of studies and for gathering, analyzing, and 

interpreting data used in the adaptive management program?

RIN 12.3.3 What are the best scientific methods to determine cause and 

effect relationships in experiments and other management actions 

conducted under the GCDAMP?

RIN 12.3.4 How well do research designs and workplans do in 

incorporating Tribal perspectives and values into the standard western 

science paradigm? Is it more beneficial to keep the perspective separated?

RIN 12.3.5 How effective is the AMP in addressing the EIS statement 

“Long-term monitoring and research are ... implemented to measure how 

well the selected alternative meets resource management objectives.”?

M.O. 12.4 Attain or maintain an integrated and synthesized “ecosystemscience”-based adaptive management program.

Research INs

RIN 12.4.1 What are the most effective methods to maintain or attain the 

participation of externally-funded investigators?

M.O. 12.5 Foster effective two-way communication between scientists, external 

reviewers, managers, decision-makers and the public.

Core Monitoring INs

CMIN 12.5.1 Determine whether effective two-way communication 

between AMP participants and individuals outside the program is 

occurring on a regular basis. 

Research INs

RIN 12.5.1 What are the most effective means to build AMP public 

support through effective public outreach?

RIN 12.5.2 What are the most effective means to attain and maintain 

effective communication and coordination with other resource 

management programs in the Colorado River basin to ensure consideration

of their values and perspectives into the AMP and vice versa? 

35
RIN 12.5.3 To what extent does the public understand and support the 

GCDAMP?

 RIN 12.5.4 What is the most effective way to distribute information to our 

stakeholders and the public in a secure and accessible fashion?

RIN 12.5.5 Identify the desired level of information, education, and 

outreach provided for Glen and Grand Canyon river users and the general 

public?

M.O. 12.6 Attain and maintain an effective adaptive management program, 

composed of informed stakeholders.

M.O. 12.6a Maintain or attain funding from multiple sources.

M.O. 12.7 Attain and maintain effective tribal consultation to ensure inclusion of 

tribal values and perspectives into the AMP.

Research INs: 

RIN 12.7.1 Are the current strategies to achieve tribal consultation 

effective? 

RIN 12.7.2 Do these strategies meet legal and AMP protocols?

M.O. 12.8 Attain and maintain tribal participation in the AMP research and longterm monitoring activities.

Research INs

RIN 12.7.1 Is tribal participation in the AMP research and long-term

monitoring programs sufficiently meeting tribal needs and desires?

M.O. 12.9 Recommend experiments of dam operations and other management 

actions to gain critical understanding of ecosystem function under different dam

operations scenarios and other management actions.

Research INs

RIN 12.9.1 What is the impact on downstream resources of short-term

increases to maximum flow, daily fluctuations and downramp limits?

RIN 12.9.2 What is the best combination of dam operations and other 

management actions to achieve the vision, mission, goals, and objectives 

of the GCDAMP?

RIN 12.9.3 What are the relationships between dam operations and other 

management actions in their effects on resources addressed by GCDAMP 

management objectives? 

36
M.O. 12.10 Maintain or attain adequate funding from power revenues, 

foundations and corporations, appropriations, and State agencies to meet AMP 

goals.

M.O. 12.11 Maintain or attain participation from externally funded investigators 

that can help address the information needs and meet AMP goals.

37
Appendix 1

Process for Developing the Information Needs

The INs have been developed thorough a collaborative process led by the Grand Canyon 

Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC). This process was initiated with GCMRC 

developing a draft set of INs for review and comment at a meeting of the Technical Work 

Group (TWG) and principal investigators held at the Phoenix Airport on April 3, 2001. 

A second meeting to discuss cultural INs was held in Flagstaff on May 8, 2001. 

Following these meetings, GCMRC revised the INs and discussed them at the May TWG 

meeting. Following this meeting the INs were put in a table and electronically mailed to 

the TWG for additional comment. Very few comments were provided by the TWG. At 

this point, the INs and the process for developing the INs was discussed in a number of 

conference calls and it was agreed that the INs would be reformatted into the nested 

outline form used in the current document. It was also agreed that the reformatted INs 

would be mailed to the TWG for review and comment and that a second workshop for 

reviewing and revising the INs would be held at GCMRC on August 8-9, 2001. 

This current document results from the work conducted at the August 8-9, 2001 INs 

workshop and the subsequent review at the September 6 TWG meeting. On the first day 

of the August 8-9 INs workshop the TWG, PIs, and GCMRC staff divided into 4 

concurrent breakout groups and reviewed the draft INs. Each group addressed the 

following questions during their review: 

1) Do the INs for a given MO provide the information that is needed to address that 

MO? If not, please indicate how they should be revised and what should be added 

or deleted.

2) Are the INs written at the appropriate level of detail and correctly categorized 

with respect to the categories of "core monitoring", "effects monitoring", and 

"research"?

3) Taken together as a set do the INs and MOs represent the information needed to 

address a given goal?

On the second day of the August 8-9 INs workshop, a representative of each breakout 

group presented their proposed changes to the group as a whole. In response to these 

comments, the INs were either modified or the comments were captured in a table for 

subsequent consideration. The revised draft and the comments table were e-mailed to the 

TWG on August 20 for review prior to the September 6-7, TWG meeting. The National 

Park Service, Colorado River Energy Distributors Association, and Western Area Power 

Administration provided written comments on the INs. The INs were subsequently 

reviewed and revised at the September 6, 2001 TWG meeting. 

A revised Draft INs document was e-mailed by GCMRC to the TWG on Friday 

September 14, 2001. Recommendations for deleting INs, for specific language changes 

to the existing INs, or specific language for adding new INs were provided by TWG 

members to GCMRC by October 5, 2001. These were collated into a comments table, 

38
organized sequentially beginning with comments on the first IN, and sent back to the 

TWG on October 12 for review prior to an October 22-23 ad-hoc TWG workshop to 

revise the INs. At the October 22-23 TWG workshop, the first day was spent discussing 

overarching concerns relating to the scope of the AMP as expressed in the Goals and 

Management Objectives and concerns over the definitions used in the document. Only 

the INs for Goal 11, Cultural Resources were addressed. It was also agreed that a small 

group would work on revising the definitions and would send them to GCMRC. The 

definitions agreed to by the small group are included in this document. On the second

day, INs for Goals 7, 8, 9, and 10 were addressed. 

GCMRC has taken all of the comments included in the October 12th table and added 

changes agreed to at the October 22nd meeting to forge a November 2nd Draft of the 

Information Needs. The November 2nd Draft was sent to the TWG for review at the 

November 13-14 TWG meeting. Limited detailed review occurred at the November 13-

14 meeting with the majority of the time being spent on over arching issues. As a result, 

TWG members were asked to submit their comments to GCMRC by close of business 

November 16th. Another draft, dated November 26th that included those comments as 

red-line and strike-out changes to the November 2nd draft was mailed to the TWG for 

review on November 26th. The TWG was asked to provide GCMRC with their final 

comments by December 7th. This FINAL DRAFT incorporates comments received by

GCMRC as of December 7th. 

39