Comments on the Strategic Plan Document from the AMWG

July 2000

AMWG comments on SP doc 2000-07 with responses edited 2000-10-24 Page 1 of 4

Flip Chart Comment Response

Principle #6 - How is “operational 

flexibility” defined? Does this include 

legal as well as physical constraints of the 

dam? 

Rick Johnson and Cliff Barrett will draft definitions for 

“operational flexibility” and “legal flexibility” for the glossary.

Some current and target levels seem 

unbelievable: for example, MO 2 goes 

from 5 gm/m2 to 5000 gm/m2

The numbers have not been fully vetted and will be looked at 

more closely by the small groups.

MO 1 and MO 4, et al.: how can target 

levels be obtained from literature?

In some cases, they can’t; however, literature will give us 

guidelines. In these cases, it should read “IN,” and targets will be 

justified in terms of where we are headed. In other cases, the 

research has been completed; thus, we will obtain from literature.

How do we address the broad issue of 

what is within and what is without AMP 

boundaries?

Issue Paper C addresses this issue. MOs are what are needed to 

achieve Goals. Some MOs and MAs may be within the AMP, 

others may not be. These will be distinguished at the MA level.

Goal 2 - Ensure “remove jeopardy 

doesn’t mean “recovery” (glossary). Rick 

Gold: recovery would mean more 

money, and it shouldn’t just be power 

revenues. The goal does address viable 

populations. Recovery is not possible in 

Grand Canyon.

The Ad Hoc Committee (AHC) will address John Shields’ issue 

on whether ESA issues are part of the AMP. Issue Paper E will 

be further fleshed out.

MO 15 - What does % mean for current 

level?

This refers to the % of total fish captured. 

Goal 3 - Discuss what “as feasible” 

means.

Feasibility includes biological, economic and technical factors.

MO 17 is inconsistent with MO 13. Issue Paper B addresses this issue. The emphasis is on trout 

above the Paria, and native fish in the entire reach with emphasis 

below Paria. 

Habitat needs of trout and native fish 

below Paria River should be 

differentiated.

Trout are not addressed at all below the Paria. Native habitat is 

addressed.

MO 17 – clarify as minimums the target 

levels for growth rate, abundance, and 

condition.

The AHC and small group will address this.

How can the target level be a “process” 

rather than specific objective? This is not 

measurable.

The definition of the Decision Process was distributed, discussed, 

and clarified. (see handout)
Comments on the Strategic Plan Document from the AMWG

July 2000

AMWG comments on SP doc 2000-07 with responses edited 2000-10-24 Page 2 of 4

Flip Chart Comment Response

MO 21 - what is 329,000 m3 @ 35 

sites) – what are we measuring?

These refer to standard study sites from a particular study.

The data may not be sufficient, but it is what we have available. 

The sediment small group will address this issue.

Goal 6 – The proposed change is from 

“Increase fine sediment storage” to 

“Maintain or attain levels of sediment...” 

 Maintain at what levels? Is this an 

Information Need?

The word “storage” will be added back into the goal.

“IN” could be set as a general 

description (philosophic) that would lead 

to specific numbers.

Qualitative targets will be prepared to guide the development of 

quantitative targets. 

Has the KAS genetic research been 

completed?

No, it’s not complete but most folks are confident it’s a unique 

taxon. The AHC will continue to use KAS until the research is 

complete.

The KAS expert panel should cause a 

revision of levels.

The AHC concurs with this statement.

How do INs tie into experimental flows? Experimental flows result from INs.

Does use of the phrase “within the 

framework of GCDAMP ecosystem 

goals” in a goal imply a hierarchy?

The reference in goal 8, “... in a manner consistent with riparian 

ecosystem goals,” and the references in goals 10 and 11, 

“...within the framework of GCDAMP ecosystem goals,” is 

intended to indicate a hierarchy or order of precedence. That is, 

the accomplishment of Goals 8, 10, and 11 should be undertaken 

in such a way that the likelihood of achieving the ecosystem goals 

is not impaired. 

MO 39: – “maintain or enhance 

wilderness” – which is it?

Enhance means make a positive contribution to the resource, 

don’t let it degrade. “Attain or maintain” means we think we 

aren’t yet where we should be. 

Goal 8 - Why does it say “consistent

with riparian ecosystem goals” when 

other goals say “consistent with 

GCDAMP ecosystem goals”?

Either way works. The riparian ecosystem goal referred to in 

Goal 8 is Goal 9. The riparian ecosystem goal (Goal 9) is more 

appropriate because it would be most relevant for SWWF, but 

either approach could be used.

Goal 10 & MO 39 are inconsistent 

(managing as wilderness without motors)

The word wilderness does not mean “Wilderness Act” 

wilderness; rather, a wilderness experience. These are not 

mutually exclusive. It was not the intent of the AHC to get 

involved in the motors discussion.

Goal 11 – The terms “power and 

energy” are unclear (should it be 

The AHC will replace “power and energy” with “capacity and 

energy generation.” Ted Rampton will provide definitions for the 
Comments on the Strategic Plan Document from the AMWG

July 2000

AMWG comments on SP doc 2000-07 with responses edited 2000-10-24 Page 3 of 4

Flip Chart Comment Response

“capacity and energy”?) Glossary.

How does “river corridor” fit within the 

charge for the AMP? (scope issue)

The scope already established, overall and for each MO.

Goal 12: “Past” generations - how do 

we inspire and benefit them?

This addresses the ancestral concerns of Native Americans. The 

small group will address this issue.

“APE” definition should be in the 

glossary

The small group to define this for Glossary.

How does MO 41 address the 

protection of canyon resources? 

(overlap between our charge and the 

APE)

Grand Canyon is a traditional cultural property. Our charge may 

be smaller. The small group will address this issue. 

MO 46 - maintain and attain? (MO 47–

49)

There are multiple attributes in MO 46. Some are one, some the 

other.

MO 46 - is N/A appropriate for “at 

some place”?

Yes, because we’re discussing data.

MO 46 – The tribal view is being 

segregated, and it shouldn’t be isolated.

No change is proposed but the values should be considered 

throughout.

MO 41 - preserve or treat? The small group will consider this.

MO 49 – The target level is more than a 

dollar figure. What does full tribal 

participation mean?

The Ad Hoc Committee decided to switch the element with the 

attribute. The cultural small group will address this issue.

MO 50 – any idea of what the IN might 

be?

The note in the Comments column is changed to read, “Target 

level is the experiments needed to gain critical understanding of 

ecosystem function under different dam operations.”

MO 50 - should include hydropower 

generation in the comments column.

The note in the Comments column is changed to read: “Target 

level is the experiments needed to gain critical understanding of 

ecosystem function under different dam operations.”

MO 51 - “APE” instead of “CRE”? The small group will address this issue.

MO 26 – Is 12 breeding pairs an 

accurate number?

These data represent a given point in time. The AHC needs to 

address confidence intervals and which point in time we’re going 

to use. Geographic scope is also an issue – are they LAME or 

CRE? This will be resolved through development of the 

quantitative targets.

Goal 2 - How do we remove jeopardy 

from razorback sucker if none exist in the 

Canyon?

Jeopardy is removed by the completion of the RPAs of the BO.
Comments on the Strategic Plan Document from the AMWG

July 2000

AMWG comments on SP doc 2000-07 with responses edited 2000-10-24 Page 4 of 4

Flip Chart Comment Response

Goal 1 - what are the desired species? There is no need to enumerate desired species, but fish are used 

as an indicator of ecosystem health. 

Keep MOs 52, 53, and 54 as part of 

Goal 14.

The AHC discussed this recommendation and decided to retain 

these MOs under Goal 13.

MO 10 - does the BO require one 

additional population of HBC?

Yes, an additional “spawning aggregation” is required.

Be consistent with recovery goals of 

FWS Region 6.

See Issue Paper E.

Other notes from the AMWG meeting:

ß Build in a feedback loop

ß Will all objectives be measurable?

ß Targets may change as we learn more.

ß Current and target levels may be a range.
Comments on the Strategic Plan Document from the AMWG

July 2000

AMWG comments on SP doc 2000-07 with responses edited 2000-10-24 redlinedAMWG comments on SP doc 2000-07 with responses edited 2000-10-24 redlined Page 1 of 

44

Flip Chart Comment ActionResponse

Principle #6 - How is “operational 

flexibility” defined? Does this include 

lLegal as well as physical constraints of 

the dam? 

Glossary Rick Johnson and Cliff Barrett will include draft 

definitions for “operational flexibility” and “legal flexibility.” for 

the glossary.

Some current and target levels seem 

unbelievable: for example, MO 2 goes 

from 5 gm/m2 –> to 5000 gm/m2

The numbers have not been fully vetted and will be looked at 

more closely by the small groups.

MO 1 and MO 4, et al.: –> how can 

target levels be obtained from literature?

In some cases, they can’t; however, – literature will give us 

guidelines. In these cases, it should read “IN,” and targets will be 

justified in terms of where we are headed. In other cases, the 

research has been completed; thus, we will obtain from literature.

How do we address the broad issue of 

what is within and what is without AMP 

boundaries?.

Issue Paper C addresses this issue. MOs are what are needed to 

achieve Goals. Some MOs and MAs may be within the AMP, 

others may not be. These will be distinguished at the MA level.

Goal 2 - Eensure “remove jeopardy 

doesn’t mean “recovery” (glossary). Rick 

Gold: recovery would mean more 

money, and it shouldn’t just be power 

revenues. The goal does address viable 

populations. Recovery is not possible in 

Grand Canyon.

Rick Gold - recovery would mean more $ - shouldn’t just be 

power revenues. Goal does address viable populations. 

Recovery not possible in Grand Canyon. The ad hoc committee 

will address John Shields’ issue on whether ESA issues are part 

of the AMP. Issue paper E will be further fleshed out.

MO 15 - Wwhat does % mean for 

current level?

This rRefers to the % of total fish captured. 

Goal 3 - Ddiscuss what “as feasible” 

means.

The ad hoc committee will revise this response.Feasibility 

includes biological, economic and technical factors.

MO 17 is inconsistent with MO 13. Issue Paper B addresses this issue. The emphasis is on trout 

above the Paria, and native fish in the entire reach with emphasis 

below Paria. Viable populations are not identified by species. 

Ad hoc committee will revise definition of “viable” and “native 

fish” in the glossary.

differentiation of hHabitat needs of trout 

and native fish below Paria River should

be differentiated.

Trout are not addressed at all below the Paria. Native habitat is 

addressed.

MO 17 – clarify as minimums the target 

levels for growth rate, abundance, and 

condition.

The aAd hoc committee will address this and small group will 

address this.
Comments on the Strategic Plan Document from the AMWG

July 2000

AMWG comments on SP doc 2000-07 with responses edited 2000-10-24 redlinedAMWG comments on SP doc 2000-07 with responses edited 2000-10-24 redlined Page 2 of 

44

Flip Chart Comment ActionResponse

How can the target level be a “process” 

rather than specific objective? This is 

nNot measurable.

The definition of the Decision Process definition was distributed, 

discussed, and clarified. (see handout)

MO 21 - what is 329,000 m3 @ 35

sites) – what are we measuring?

These refer to sStandard study sites from a particular study.

The data may not be sufficient, but it is what we have available. 

The sSediment small group will address this issue.

Goal 6 – The proposed change is from 

“Increase fine sediment storage” to 

“Maintain or attain levels of sediment...” 

 Maintain at what levels? Is this an 

Information Need?

The word “storage” will be added back into the goal.

“Information need” could be set as a 

general description (philosophic) that 

would lead to specific numbers.

Qualitative targets will be prepared to guide the development of 

quantitative targets. 

Has the KAS genetic research been 

completed?

No,. Iit’s not complete but most folks are confident it’s a unique 

taxon. The Ad hocAHC will continue to use KAS until the 

research is complete.

The KAS expert panel should cause a 

revision of levels.

YesThe AHC concurs with this statement.

How do IN’s tie into experimental flows? Experimental flows result from IN’s.

Does the phrase “within the framework 

of GCDAMP ecosystem goals” in a goal 

imply a hierarchy?

The reference in goal 8, “... in a manner consistent with riparian 

ecosystem goals,” and the references in goals 10 and 11, 

“...within the framework of GCDAMP ecosystem goals,” is 

intended to indicate a hierarchy or order of precedence. That is, 

the accomplishment of Goals 8, 10, and 11 should be undertaken 

in such a way that the likelihood of achieving the ecosystem goals 

is not impaired. 

MO 39: – “maintain or enhance 

wilderness” – which is it?

Enhance means make a positive contribution to the resource, 

don’t let it degrade. “Attain or maintain” means we think we 

aren’t yet where we should be. Consider putting definitions in the 

Glossary.

Goal 8 - Wwhy does it say “consistent 

with riparian ecosystem goals” when 

other goals say “consistent with 

GCDAMP ecosystem goals”?

Either way works. The riparian ecosystem goal referred to in 

Goal 8 is Goal 9. The riparian ecosystem goal (Goal 9) is more 

appropriate because it would be most relevant for SWWF, but 

either approach could be used.

Goal 10 & MO 39 are inconsistent The word wilderness does not mean “Wilderness Act” 
Comments on the Strategic Plan Document from the AMWG

July 2000

AMWG comments on SP doc 2000-07 with responses edited 2000-10-24 redlinedAMWG comments on SP doc 2000-07 with responses edited 2000-10-24 redlined Page 3 of 

44

Flip Chart Comment ActionResponse

(managing as wilderness with/out motors) wilderness; rather, a wilderness experience. These are not 

mutually exclusive. It was not the intent of the Ad Hoc 

Committee to get involved in the motors discussion.

Goal 11 -– The terms “power and 

energy” are unclear (should it be 

“capacity and energy”?)

The AHC wWill replace “power and energy” with “capacity and 

energy generation.” Small groupTed Rampton will provide 

definitions for the Glossary.

How does “river corridor” fit within the 

charge for the AMP? (scope issue)

ScThe scope already established ,- overall and for each MO.

Goal 12: “Past” generations - how do 

we inspire and benefit them?

This aAddresses the ancestral concerns of Native Americans. 

SThe small group will address this issue.

“APE” definition should be in the 

glossary

The sSmall group to define this for Glossary.

How does MO 41 address the 

protection of canyon resources? 

(overlap between our charge and the 

APE)

Grand Canyon as ais a traditional cultural property. Our charge 

may be smaller. Ad hoc committeeThe small group will address

this issue. 

MO 46 - maintain and attain? (MO 47–

49)

MThere are multiple attributes in MO 46. Some are one, some 

the another.

MO 46 - is N/A appropriate for “at 

some place”?

Yes, because we’re discussing data.

MO 46 -– The tribal view is being 

segregated, and it shouldn’t be isolated.

No change is proposed but the values should be considered 

throughout.

MO 41 - preserve or treat? The small group will consider this.

MO 49 -– The target level is more than $ 

a dollar figure. - wWhat does full tribal 

participation mean?

The Ad Hoc Committee decided to sSwitch the element with the 

and attribute. The cultural small group will address this issue.

MO 50 – any idea of what the 

information need might be?

The note in the Comments column is changed to read, “Target 

level is the experiments needed to gain critical understanding of 

ecosystem function under different dam operations.”

MO 50 - should include hydropower 

generation in the comments column.

The note in the Comments column is changed to read: “Target 

level is the experiments needed to gain critical under-standing of 

ecosystem function under different dam operations.”

MO 51 - “APE” instead of “CRE”? The sSmall group will address this issue.

MO 26 -– Is 12 breeding pairs an 

accurate number?

These dData represents a given point in time. The – AHC needs 

to address confidence intervals and which point in time we’re 

going to chooseuse. Geographic scope is also an issue – are they 
Comments on the Strategic Plan Document from the AMWG

July 2000

AMWG comments on SP doc 2000-07 with responses edited 2000-10-24 redlinedAMWG comments on SP doc 2000-07 with responses edited 2000-10-24 redlined Page 4 of 

44

Flip Chart Comment ActionResponse

going to chooseuse. Geographic scope is also an issue – are they 

LAME or CRE? This will be rResolved through development of 

the quantitative targets.

Goal 2 - Hhow do we remove jeopardy 

from razorback sucker if none exist in the 

Canyon?

Jeopardy is removed by the completion of the RPAs of the BO.

Goal 1 - what are the desired species? There is nNo need to enumerate desired species, but fish are 

used as an indicator of ecosystem health. 

Keep MOs 52, 53, and 54 as part of 

Goal 14.

The Ad Hoc Committee discussed this recommendation and 

decided to Rretained these MOs under Goal 13.

MO 10 - does the BO require 1 one 

add’l additional population of HBC?

Yes. , an additional “spawning aggregation” - comments section. 

USBR will check on BO language. is required.

Be consistent with recovery goals of 

FWS Region 6.

See Issue Paper E.

Other notes from the AMWG meeting:

ß Build in a feedback loop

ß Will all objectives be measurable?

ß Targets may change as we learn more.

ß Current and target levels may be a range.

R:\WEB\twg-00sep20\FC Changes.doc