FINAL 

A REPORT ON ACTIVITIES AND 

ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE GCD AMP 

SCIENCE PLANNING GROUP: 2005-2006 

GCD AMP SCIENCE PLANNING GROUP 

AND 

L. D. GARRETT, 

 EXECUTIVE SECRETARY 

SCIENCE ADVISORS 

SEPTEMBER 2006 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

THE GCD AMP SCIENCE PLANNING GROUP (SPG): 

“A Report on Activities and Accomplishments of the GCD AMP Science Planning Group: 2005-

2006” 

Responding to an AMP Need: The Science Planning Group (SPG) was authorized by the AMP 

Secretary’s Designee and AMWG in 2005 at the request of GCMRC and TWG. A 12 month focused 

effort of AMP managers and scientists was approved to develop the AMP five year experimental plans 

and associated science programs plans. The Science Advisors group was appointed to direct and 

facilitate the process. The SPG, led by GCMRC and TWG members, was an experimental adaptive 

management task group developed specifically to assure involvement of all AMP programs and groups 

in the planning process. 

Evaluation of Effectiveness: Although effectiveness evaluations of the SPG as a AMP task 

group will come from other parties, the SPG has documented their process and performance in “A 

Report on Activities and Accomplishments of the GCD AMP Science Planning Group: 2005-2006”. In 

brief, the SPG: 

• Developed and followed a twelve month plan of specific objectives, proposed schedules, costs 

and outcomes. 

• Utilized an open process of AMP parties’ involvement in multiple workshop meetings over 12 

months to develop all plans. 

• Produced and evaluated in twelve months and within budget; 

o Three five year experimental plan alternatives 

o A five year Strategic Science Plan (SSP) 

o A five year Monitoring and Research Plan (MRP) 

o A 2007 Annual Work Plan and Budget (AWP) 

 In conducting its activities, the SPG found the lack of full development in several aspects of the 

GCD AMP structure and processes created weaknesses in the science planning process. The SPG 

concluded that these weaknesses will likely affect other future management and science activities in a 

similar nature. These findings prompted a set of recommendations from the SPG to the TWG, AMWG, 

and Secretary’s Designee. 

2
Recommendations of the SPG: The SPG felt its size, composition and task orientation 

contributed strongly to its performance. However, it also determined that its performance and the 

performance of future task groups could be improved if resolve could be gained in several critical 

aspects of the structure and processes of the AMP. 

The SPG also identified 10 issues for continued effort by committees or task groups in FY 2007 and 

2008. To this end the SPG recommends that the 

TWG consider charging another task group in 2007 to provide resolve to one or more of five critical 

issues. 

• Develop improved methods and/or procedures for managers to establish and articulate priorities 

for specific 3-5 year time intervals. 

• Develop improved methods for managers and scientists that permit more effective tradeoff 

assessments. 

• Develop more effective scientist/managers collaborative working procedures. 

• Implement methods to monitor and improve the adaptive management process. 

• Implement methods to define future conditions (dfcs) for the Colorado River Ecosystem 

resources of concern. 

3
A REPORT ON ACTIVITIES AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS 

OF THE GCD AMP SCIENCE PLANNING GROUP: 2005-2006 

By 

Science Planning Group (SPG)1

L. D. Garrett, Executive Secretary, 

Science Advisors2

INTRODUCTION 

 This report is not a formal requirement of the GCD AMP Science Planning Group (SPG). When 

formed by the Secretary’s Designee, a set of science plans was specified as required outputs. 

However, documenting the accomplishments of the SPG, including its collaborative workshops for 

developing the plans, and its identification of unresolved AMP needs, are ample justification for the 

SPG to develop this report. It is presented with the hope that procedures used in this process may apply 

to other areas of the AMP, and that issues identified by the SPG for additional work will be addressed by 

the AMP leadership. 

SPG FORMATION AND CHARGE 

Impetus for Developing the SPG 

 In 2005, the GCD AMP Technical Work Group (TWG) and the Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center (GCMRC) approached the Secretary’s Designee regarding concerns over completion of 

the Long Term Experimental Plan and other science planning documents. In response, the Secretary’s 

Designee specified a one year procedure be developed to assure completion of GCMRC science plans 

by scientists and managers of the GCD AMP. Both GCMRC and TWG felt that a collaborative effort of 

managers and scientists was needed to develop an effective long term experimental program direction. 

 The Secretary’s Designee formally requested support for the science planning process by 

correspondence to AMWG and at the AMWG 2005 summer meeting. The effort was approved, funded 

and assigned specific accomplishments for the period August 2005-September 2006 (Appendix A). 

 The Executive Secretary of the Science Advisors was requested to facilitate and direct the one 

year program of development, working with the Chief of GCMRC and TWG membership to fulfill the 

program requirements. A program prospectus was required of the Science Advisors Executive 

 

1

 The SPG was comprised of twenty one active GCD AMP representatives. AMP representatives who attended one or more 

meetings are listed in Appendix B. 

2

 Dr. L.D. Garrett, Executive Secretary of the GCD AMP Science Advisors, directed the SPG program activities for 

2005/2006, and assisted in documenting the activities for the SPG. 

4
Secretary, which characterizes the full program development process (Appendix A). Several key 

attributes were specified for the program as follows: 

• The science program development process would be driven by managers goals and 

information needs. 

• Scientists (GCMRC) and managers (TWG) would collaborate in the development process. 

• GCMRC staff would be the primary writers of the science plans with the program 

development process driven by managers’ information needs and strategic science questions. 

• The collaborative process would involve one year of multiple workshops, potentially on a 

monthly schedule. 

• The development process would terminate October 2006, with the completion of several 

outcomes, including strategic, operational and annual work plans, as well as associated 

budgets and a long term experimental plan. 

As noted, although a final written report of the SPG was not required as an outcome, the SPG 

membership felt it was important to document the effort. 

SPG Participants and Roles 

 Development of science plans for the AMP is primarily the responsibility of the GCMRC. 

However, SPG proposed in this effort that a collaborative process be developed among scientists and 

managers to structure the AMP science plans. The approach specified that the GCMRC, TWG and SAs 

develop a SPG, representing a broad cross section of membership of scientists and managers from 

various AMP technical groups and committees. 

 This proposal resulted in 15-21 individuals some with overlapping responsibilities, performing 

on the SPG as follows: 

• TWG Chair 

• GCMRC Chief 

• GCMRC Cultural Resources Program Manager 

• GCMRC Physical Resources Program Manager 

• GCMRC Biology Resource Program Manager 

• Budget Ad Hoc Group (BAHG) Chair 

• Humpback Chub Comprehensive Plan (HBCCP) Ad Hoc Group Chair 

• Core Monitoring Planning (CMP) Group Chair 

5
• Cultural Resource Ad Hoc Group (CRAHG) Chair 

• Long Term Experimental Plan (LTEP) Ad Hoc Group Chair 

• Nine (9) other members of TWG 

• Executive Secretary of Science Advisors, and Science Advisors 

In addition, three members of AMWG participated in five or more of the SPG meetings. A majority 

of the SPG agreed that the group should be open to input from individuals other than SPG members, 

but that when voting occurred, only SPG members would be eligible. 

The actual participants in the SPG process and their affiliation are provided in Appendix B. All 

of these persons attended 5 or more of the scheduled meetings for the SPG, including, as noted above, 

three AMWG members. In addition, members of the Science Advisors attended the initial meeting of 

the SPG, provided advice on alternate science direction and reviewed all planning documents. 

In the formation of the SPG, explicit roles were developed for the three participating technical 

groups as follows. 

1. SA Executive Secretary and SAs. The SA Executive Secretary was charged with the tasks of 

developing a prospectus for this project, and directing and facilitating the SPG to complete 

the GCDAMP Strategic Science Plan (SSP), CMP, Research Plan (RP), LTEP, and Biennial 

Work Plan (BEWP). The SAs were charged to provide advisory support to the process, 

primarily through document reviews. The SAs met with the SPG in the group’s initial 

meeting. 

2. The GCMRC, as the specified GCD AMP Research Center, has the primary role of taking all 

ongoing SPG input on science projects and experiments, and crafting them into workable 

science plans; utilize all SPG, SA and other multiple reviews to improve the science plans; 

evaluate alternative experimental options developed by the SPG and establish final science 

plans and experiments. Because of schedule lags, this also included development of a 

transitional FY 2007 Annual Work Plan and budget. 

3. TWG and various subcommittees and working groups, i.e. LTEP Ad Hoc Group, CRAHG, 

CMP Ad Hoc Group, HBCCP Ad Hoc Group, etc. have a very critical role of articulating the 

managers’ priority research information needs. This also includes collaborative efforts with 

the scientists to articulate science questions to be answered, and review of science programs, 

projects, and documents to assure research and monitoring outputs will respond to the 

managers’ needs. 

6
Secretary’s Designee Charge and SPG Response to Charge 

 The original charge to the SPG specified development of several primary documents as follows: 

1. Strategic Science Plan (SSP) 

2. Core Monitoring Plan (CMP) 

3. Biennial Work Plan and Budget (BWPB) 

4. Long-Term Experimental Plan 

The collaborative development process was to be directed by the SA Executive Secretary with 

leadership by GCMRC and a broad cross section of the TWG including subcommittee chairs. All plans 

were to be completed by October 1, 2006 with draft plans submitted to the full TWG for approval 

(Appendix A). 

ESTABLISHING GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND 

INCORPORATING ONGOING AMP PLANNING 

To accomplish SPG objectives, the members outlined explicit objectives for the 12 month program as 

follows (Appendix A): 

1. The science and development planning documents were developed in two phases. Phase I

occurred between May 2005-November 2005; sentence outline drafts of four plans (SSP, CMP, 

RP, BWPB) were to be produced but not completely specified. Phase II occurred between 

November 2005-September 2006, when the above four plans were to be completed, and become 

the scientific, technical and budget basis for the FY 2007 GCD AMP Programs and future 

programs. 

2. Direction, coordination and facilitation of the program was assigned to the SA Executive 

Secretary. The SAs were to provide review and guidance procedures for incorporating integrated 

ecosystem approaches into research and monitoring programs. 

3. A Science Planning Group (SPG) was to be formed with members from GCMRC, TWG, BAHG, 

LTEP, CMT, HBCPG, and SAs, and was to report progress to TWG and AMWG and at regular 

TWG and AMWG meetings 

4. Incorporation of outputs from other operating GCD AMP Groups was specified, such as 

information from GCMRCs’ knowledge assessment, HBCPC planning, BAHG programs, 

CMPG process, etc. 

7
5. Regular workshops of GCMRC and the SPG were to occur from June 2005 - October 2006, with 

aggressive monthly development of science alternatives by GCMRC, and review and revision by 

the SPG in the workshops. 

6. The planning and development process was to be merged with all other ongoing GCD AMP 

program and budget activities to assure they were supported and not impacted. 

In developing these objectives and the Secretary Designee’s charge, the SPG realized other 

diverse objectives had to be addressed at least in part for the project to be successful (Appendix C). 

These objectives were outlined by the group and progress monitored quarterly to assure that 

accomplishments 

occurred. Significant interactions were necessary with several TWG subgroups to obtain the level of 

planning outcomes desired by the SPG. 

Protocols for Operation of the SPG 

Although not specifically documented, and approved by the SPG, the following protocols were 

generally adhered to by the group. All disagreements were resolved through group interaction. In the 

12 months of operation no major conflicts occurred among members of the Science Planning Group 

regarding its operating procedures and protocols. 

• A prospectus on goals, project operation, time schedule, costs, expected outcomes, etc., was 

adopted and provided to all GCD AMP parties, before initiating the project. 

• All interested TWG members and ad hoc committee chairs were invited to attend meetings. 

Three interested AMWG members also participated in the process. The GCMRC Chief and 

project managers participated in all 11 meetings, as did the SAs Executive Secretary, and several 

TWG members. 

• All specific issues, proposals, reports, activities etc., were noticed in agendas for each meeting 

and the overall program direction noticed in the prospectus. 

• Objectives sought by SPG were monitored by the group quarterly. 

• Notes on actions taken were developed for meetings of the SPG. 

• All SPG members were provided full opportunity for input and participation. 

• All proposals, issues, agreements, and reports were presented, discussed and reviewed at 

multiple meetings before adoption. 

OVERVIEW OF MEETINGS, AGENDAS AND OUTCOMES 

8
Meetings were organized one to three months in advance. All meetings (11 total) except one, 

were held at the Bureau of Indian Affairs, APS Building Arizona Center, Phoenix, AZ, BIA Conference 

Room A, 12TH Floor. 

Generally, dates for meetings were established more than one month in advance. Longer term 

agendas and monthly meeting agendas were maintained to facilitate accomplishment requirements 

outlined in the prospectus. Although some variance in planned accomplishments did exist, the original 

schedule of accomplishments outlined in the prospectus was generally maintained. Examples of SPG 

agendas and meeting actions are provided in Appendix D. 

 The following sections relate the general focus of accomplishments that occurred through four 

time periods, with approximately 3 months in each period, i.e. 

 Period 1: July-October 2005 

 Period 2: November 2005-February 2006 

Period 3: March 2006-June 2006 

Period 4: July 2006-September 2006 

For each period we briefly describe the issues addressed by the SPG. 

July 2005 – October 2005 SPG Activities 

 The SPG focused on three principal activities in this period. 

• Defining goals and objectives 

• Resolving protocols and procedures 

• Completion of first draft outlines for the Strategic Science Plan (SSP), Core Monitoring 

Plan (CMP) and Research Plan (RP). 

Goals and Objectives as presented above were defined for the one year operation of the Science 

Planning Group as follows: 

Goal: Conduct an aggressive one year science planning effort involving TWG, AMP Ad Hoc 

groups, GCMRC and Science Advisors and complete the GCMRC SSP, CMP, RP, LTEP and Work 

Plan (BWP). 

Objectives: The overarching objectives were to develop sentence outlines for all plans by 

December 1, 2005 and complete all final planning documents, including review and approval by TWG, 

by October 1, 2006. 

As noted above, the formal prospectus with goals and objectives was completed by the Executive 

9
Secretary of the Science Advisors, and approved for implementation by the TWG Chair, GCMRC 

Acting Chief, Secretary Designee and GCD AMP (Appendix A). After organizing, the Science 

Planning Group (SPG) developed an extended set of objectives and tracked them through the planning 

process to assure that specific issues were addressed. 

Some of the objectives identified by the SPG and listed in Appendix C were only partially met in 

this planning effort. The SPG worked on these objectives only to the point necessary to complete the 

required science planning documents. Several of these objectives are discussed in the final section of 

this report as issues proposed to be addressed by the GCD AMP in FY 2007 or 2008. For example, 

objectives such as development of desired future resource conditions (dfcs), management procedures for 

clearly identifying program priorities, and criteria for specifying management actions, as well as others, 

should be resolved by the GCD AMP in the earliest possible time frame. 

Protocols and Procedures, as noted above, were incorporated in part in the operating 

prospectus for the planning effort (Appendix A), and adhered to as closely as possible throughout the 

planning process. Critical in the protocols and procedures was the requirement to form and operate the 

Science Planning Group (SPG). 

 The SPG was proposed as a new collaborative approach for development of GCMRC science 

plans. The approach permitted managers to be intimately involved in formulating all aspects of science 

plans, from science strategies to specification of sampling protocols and procedures. 

 The above defined level of science collaboration is not normally invoked by science bureaus, 

choosing instead to accept guidance from managers on information needs and priorities, but developing 

science plans as an independent science activity. In the SPG process, the GCMRC scientists become an 

active member of a larger body of managers and scientists in developing its science plans. 

 Completion of GCMRC science plans is the primary outcome for this planning exercise. The 

SPG, and the SPG process was in and of itself an experimental collaborative process. It did complete its 

charge within its twelve month allocated time. In that regard, it was successful. Opportunities to 

improve upon several objectives are outlined in the final section of this report. 

The science planning effort became more difficult than expected due to inability to define 

endpoints or solutions to several objectives such as specifying desired future resource conditions (dfcs). 

As noted above, many of these sub-objectives could not be completed adequately. This contributed to 

increased time requirements for some planning activities. It also contributed to more uncertainty in 

resolving several courses of action in the planning process. For example, issues and/or potential 

10
objectives such as lack of explicit definition by managers for current priorities, desired program focus, 

desired level of data resolution, etc. caused the science planning process to also lack focus at times and 

struggle with priorities. As a result, in several areas the science approach became too broad because 

clear priorities from managers were lacking. Several of these problems are given more definition in the 

final section of this report. 

In spite of the above difficulties, the SPG did complete outlines of the SSP, CMP, and RP in 

phase I. However, all of these outlines were revised in Phase II, and final plans were developed on the 

revised approaches. 

November 2005 – February 2006 SPG Activities 

This period involved significant starts and stops by the SPG in trying to move from outlines of 

the plans to completing actual draft write-ups of the documents. As noted above, several critical aspects 

of planning needs became obstacles to completion of plan specification. The following key activities 

occurred in this period 

• Improvement in specification of program priorities 

• Overall program priorities 

• Research and monitoring priorities 

• Specification of process to define future core monitoring projects/programs 

• Initiation of activities to specify desired future resource conditions 

• Characterizing critical science strategies 

• Specifying science questions 

• Drafting a strategic science plan 

• Revised outlines for CMP/RP: MRP 

• Specifying potential experimental options 

• Specifying potential research design approaches 

Specifying Program Priorities become critical early in the process due to the broad issues being 

addressed in the science program. The SPG felt a critical objective needed from managers was to 

establish science program priorities and attempted to revisit the original AMP goals and at least develop 

a priority listing of the AMP goals. Although research information needs had been sequenced earlier by 

TWG, monitoring projects were not sequenced. SPG developed an approach to address this objective. 

An effort was committed to establish a “ranking” of goals and monitoring information needs, so 

that the overall list of program information needs could be potentially reduced to fit available budgets. 

11
Although accomplishments were made it became apparent that more time would have to be committed 

to this objective at a later date. Selected results of this process are presented in Appendix E. 

Specification of future core monitoring project priorities also proved to be a difficult process. As 

noted above, attempts were made to prioritize the monitoring information needs with limited success. In 

FY 2004 all listed monitoring information needs were categorized by color into three groups; green, 

yellow and red. Adopting developed criteria and outcomes of the Core Monitoring Group, the green 

monitoring projects would be proposed for evaluation and implementation first as provisional core 

monitoring projects. However, they would have to be subjected to a review process and revision before 

being accepted as a core monitoring projects. The review and revision process would be accomplished 

by a combination of managers and scientists. 

A process and a set of criteria as specified for FY 2007-2011 to be used in evaluating all 

monitoring projects being considered for core monitoring status. The process and criteria provided in 

Appendix F is a revision of a process originally drafted by the Core Monitoring Group. The first 

projects to be evaluated using this process are scheduled for FY 2007. The SPG recommended 

additional workshops to refine this process. 

Characterizing critical science strategies in a Strategic Science Plan was one of the first steps in 

developing planning documents. Initially, GCMRC felt the SSP and related strategies should be 

developed and approved by the Center. A draft was created by GCMRC and reviewed by the Science 

Advisors, who felt a more collaborative effort to developing strategies might assist the process. 

GCMRC decided to develop a second approach in concert with the SPG. The resulting SSP, which lays 

out several collaborative approaches for improving science in the GCD AMP, received positive reviews 

from the Science Advisors. 

Characterizing critical science questions to guide GCD AMP science has been adopted by the 

SAs, GCMRC, SPG and TWG as a potentially improved method for driving the science planning and 

implementation process. For this planning effort, GCMRC commissioned a formal Knowledge 

Assessment to fully characterize areas of uncertainty (lack of complete knowledge). Where knowledge 

on an information need does not exist, science questions were structured to guide research in developing 

the needed information. 

The Science Advisors were asked to review the assessment and reported a favorable review. 

However, the SAs felt the number of questions was too large and too specific. Using the developed 

questions and the KA, a smaller set of more focused critical questions was recommended. Members of 

12
the SPG developed information sets and a table to document the linkage of the new science questions to 

the set of information needs previously used to guide research additional efforts will be needed to 

complete the table (Appendix G). 

 A developed word outline for the CMP/RP was continued at the start of this period. The most 

important change that occurred during the period was to depart development of a Core Monitoring Plan 

and a Research Plan as separate documents and merge the two efforts into one document, the 

Monitoring and Research Plan (MRP). This action was taken to improve the integration of monitoring 

and research activities and enhance the ecosystem science designs being developed for all GCMRC 

science. Initially this new approved outline for the MRP targeted a very detailed specification of 

individual projects. 

Specifying potential experimental options is the effort by the SPG to design a Long Term 

Experimental Plan (LTEP) that would best follow the past ten years of evaluation of the Secretary’s 

Modified Low Fluctuating Flows (MLFF). In 1996 the Secretary of Interior issued a Record of Decision 

(ROD) to implement and evaluate the MLFF flow regimes impacts on resources downstream of Glen 

Canyon Dam. The MLFF regime has been subjected to extensive research which culminated in a 2005 

USGS conference. 

The conference proceedings and related science have provided mixed support for the MLFF 

regime. Sufficient questions existed about its effectiveness, that the Secretary has requested evaluations 

of several alternative flow regimes. These include flow and non-flow elements, most specifically a 

Temperature Control Device (TCD)/Selective Withdrawal Structure (SWS) that could potentially be 

used to warm water in the CRE to improve HBC habitat. 

Efforts to develop a LTEP have been ongoing since 2004 by the TWG. An AMP LTEP 

Committee determined in 2004 a hybrid design that included both management actions and experimental 

actions would best support the AMP. In this science planning process the SPG first developed, 

evaluated and reviewed four differing experimental options that include both flow and non-flow 

elements. The four options were fully specified by the SPG and the flow regimes evaluated by GCMRC 

as to probable impacts on resources. A potential significant range in impacts was indicated, but subject 

to uncertainties as related in the KA. GCMRC did not evaluate selected non-flow activities as 

mitigative strategies that could influence the outcomes of the evaluation, due to general lack of 

knowledge of their potential impacts. 

13
Specifying an operable experimental research design is a significant science concern in the 

AMP. The CRE is a very difficult location to conduct experiments with statistical reliability. The 

associated variance in response variables is high, with limited options for reducing the variance. In this 

setting, longer term block designs with minimal variables evaluated often improve chances for statistical 

reliability. However, since flows through the system in any one time period are not fully controllable, 

questions exist as to the applicability of a specific design over a time frame of five years or longer. The 

SPG developed information sets on design alternatives and associated benefits and limitations. This 

information is presented in GCMRCs’ final assessment report on four developed options. 

March 2006 – June 2006 SPG Activities 

The March – June 2006 period was utilized to develop refinements on all previously developed 

proposals, and began to finalize drafts of documents. Activities occurred in all of the following areas. 

• Strategic Science Plan 

• Experimental Design 

• Monitoring and Research Plan 

• Biannual work Plan 

• Annual Work Plan 

• Long Term Experimental Plan 

The Strategic Science Plan was rewritten into a final new revised draft for SPG review in this 

period. The new revised SSP presents a strategy for engaging in a five year collaborative working 

relationship of TWG, GCMRC, the Science Advisors and other GCD AMP groups to address the 

following issues. 

• Improved working partnership of GCMRC and TWG 

• Developing funding capability to improve science program effectiveness, especially 

experimental tests, i.e., BHBF, TCD, etc. 

• Developing funding approaches for critical issues outside of the GCD AMP that effect CRE 

resources 

• Developing improved manager decision tools for establishing program priorities and tradeoff 

analysis 

• Assisting managers to develop desired future conditions (dfcs) for CRE Resources 

• Developing improved approaches for CRE interdisciplinary ecosystem science 

In this period, the SPG approved the new SSP and forwarded it to the TWG for adoption. 

14
 The Monitoring and Research Plan had been developed through outline and first draft stages 

in the first two planning periods. The concept used was that the MRP would, in significant detail, 

outline specific science and collaborative science/manager programs and approaches over five years to 

implement the strategic elements of the SSP and other necessary science approaches. The MRP would 

respond specifically to manager’s questions and science questions developed in the KA. The biennial 

work plan (AWP) would then be used annually to step the proposed programs/projects/approaches into a 

cost frame work (annual budget) annually. 

 During initial development on the Biennial Work Plan, approaches taken on the MRP were 

reevaluated and the SPG decided to revise its philosophy in structuring the MRP and AWP. It was 

decided to revise the MRP outline to document a more general specification of programs and projects 

over a five year period. The BWPB would then be used to provide more explicit specification of 

projects, objectives, designs, data collection and analysis etc. This change in approach required the SPG 

to specify a new outline for the MRP and BWPB and redraft the MRP. This change resulted in 

significant detail on program/project descriptions to be deleted from the MRP and transferred to the 

AWP for 2007. 

 The development of a BWPB for 2007/2008 was determined to not be appropriate until the 

TWG, AMWG and Secretary could be reached agreement on the LTEP. As such, for FY 2007, it was 

determined that a transition Annual Work Plan (AWP) and budget be developed. However, because of 

the effort put into out-year planning, it was decided that as appropriate, proposed FY 2007 activities 

would specify related out year (08-09) activities programming. 

 An Annual Work Plan was proposed for development in FY 2007 and a general outline drafted 

for the document. The science program was to be presented in three categories of programs/projects, 

research and development, monitoring and experiments. 

 The AWP projects and programs are specified in response to GCD AMP Goals and specifically 

in response to a combination of developed questions from AMWG and questions from the science 

community as specified in the knowledge assessment. Further, for each project, data are provided for 

over a dozen elements, clarifying methods, linkages to other projects, costs, etc. 

 The four Long Term Experimental Options developed in planning periods 1 and 2 were further 

refined in this period. It was assumed that the Secretary and the AMWG desired from SPG a single 

recommendation for the LTEP. As such, attempts were made to take the four proposed options and 

build consensus for one experimental option. Generally consensus could be reached on a few issues 

15
such as implementation of BHBF’s, TCD, ramping rate studies, selected HBC activities, etc. However, 

differences could not be resolved regarding flow regimes that favored higher fluctuating flows versus 

lower steady flows with equal monthly volumes. 

 The SPG attempted to use voting to resolve the differences, but from the original four options 

only the option that emulated the MLFF could clearly be excluded from the set. A more narrow vote 

defined differences in support for steady flow and fluctuating flow options. 

 The process of extensive evaluation of options revealed that one flow attribute, and one non-flow 

attribute, were significant sources of conflict in the group. The conflict over the flow attribute related to 

how best to mitigate yoy HBC impacts in the July-October period as they are forced into the mainstem 

by high LCR flows. Should it be accomplished with flow regimes, i.e. low steady flows or should it be 

accomplished with the TCD. The non-flow attribute of greatest conflict is augmentation of the HBC 

population with hatchery fish, i.e., stocking of pond reared HBC. 

 Toward the end of this planning period the Secretary provided guidance to the AMWG, TWG 

and SPG that it was not necessary to provide one recommendation. As a result, the SPG decided to 

provide detailed write-ups on the original four options and the three revised options. 

 Evaluations of the three revised options, (SPG A and B and C) were made. SPG A was 

structured around a fluctuating flow regime and variable monthly volumes (600K-900KAF) permitting 

more significant fluctuations (5-20 cfs) during peak summer (June-August) and winter (Dec.-Feb.) 

power demand, with steady flows in September and October. Other non-flow strategies are involved to 

mitigate resource impacts of high flows to HBC, sediment, etc, including; TCD, HBC translocation, 

HBC enhancement plans, non-native fish control etc. In general this option was a modification of option 

3 from the initial planning period. It was characterized by its proponents as a “kitchen sink” approach in 

which many actions were undertaken at once in an effort to benefit target resources. 

 SPG B was structured around a steady flow regime (approximately 8-12 cfs, emphasizing equal 

monthly volumes (600KAF) to benefit HBC habitat, sediment retention and other resource values. 

Other non-flow strategies are included, such as BHBF, non-native fish control, TCD, etc, but in a 

restricted format. This option was generally referred to as option 4b from the first planning period. 

 SPG C was structured around a slightly suppressed fluctuating flow regime 5-18 cfs (as 

contrasted with A), with a steady flow component (8-12 cfs) in Sept. and Oct, and variable monthly 

volumes (600-900 KAF). Non-flow strategies include; TCD, non-native fish control, HBC 

16
translocation, HBC enhancement plans, BHBF, etc. This option was a modification of what was 

originally characterized as option 2. 

 The original option 1 is similar to the MLFF approved in the ROD of 1996. 

Potential resource impact assessments of the three revised flow options were completed. It revealed 

differences between A and C, but much greater differences between each of these and option B. 

Resource impact information developed on these three options were provided to the TWG. 

The SPG attempted to finalize these three options during the planning period. No new options were 

developed. It was generally accepted that option 1 would not be proposed for continued testing. 

July – October, 2006 SPG Activities 

 This final planning period of the SPG was dedicated to refining and finalizing all SPG member 

input to the FY 2007 AWP and budget, revised MRP and the SPG proposed experimental options. 

Issues such as future program funding, appropriate specification and administration of management 

actions, program prioritization, tradeoff methods, desired future condition of resources, etc, resurfaced, 

but time did not permit providing any resolve to these issues. As noted above, was decided to identify 

these unresolved issues to TWG and propose TWG, AMWG or another SPG like group resolve the 

issues as soon as possible. 

 The FY 2007 AWP and Budget, as noted earlier, displaced the planned FY 2007/2008 BEWP 

due to a necessity for TWG to approve the FY 2007 AWP by July 2006. The first BEWP for GCD 

AMP was proposed to be moved to years FY 2008-2009. The FY 2008/2009 BEWP was determined by 

the SPG to not be a required output of its deliberations. Instead completion of the activity would be 

recommended to a FY 2007 successor to the SPG, the TWG or another GCD AMP group. The FY 2007 

AWP and Budget would normally be developed by the Budget Ad Hoc Group (BAHG). However, the 

SPG included the membership of the BAHG. As such, the BAHG decided to have the SPG conduct 

development of the FY 2007 program and budget, as an expanded BAHG. 

Several critical issues were addressed in the AWP, including: 

1. Implementation of needed research and development, monitoring and experimental activities to 

support new science, technology and monitoring approaches. 

2. Approve continuation of monitoring activities deemed critical until such time that GCMRC and 

TWG and/or another GCD AMP Group could complete the MRP process for specifying future 

core monitoring programs/projects. 

17
3. Implementation of needed strategic processes and/or programs to address critical GCD AMP 

issues including; improved manager/scientist working relations, core monitoring programs, 

funding programs external to CRE, procedures for establishing program priorities and defining 

desired future resource conditions, developing new interdisciplinary science approaches, etc. 

4. Resolving balanced funding needs for continuing programs, new starts, research staff and the 

adaptive management process. 

The Science Advisors reviewed the AWP and recommended it for approval by the SPG based on 

proposed revisions. The SAs proposed restructuring the text to illustrate linkages among programs, 

better focus in science questions, and identification of priorities. 

Final AWP projects for inclusion in the FY 2007 budget were developed, reviewed and approved by 

SPG. SPG identified a small set of projects for further review by TWG. The TWG review provided 

final AMWG recommendations on the SPG developed program and budget with minor revisions. 

 The AMWG review and approval process was developed in a September 6, 2006 conference call. 

Minor revisions were made to the SPG and TWG proposed programs. 

The FY 2007-2011 MRP and, its various components and drafts were developed and reviewed by 

the SPG from June through August. Elements of the core monitoring proposed direction had been 

evaluated previous to June. The direction for the core monitoring effort was initiated by the Core 

Monitoring Plan Group(CMPG) in a Provisional Core Monitoring Plan (PCMP). Selected elements 

were redrafted into the Monitoring and Research Plan (MRP) by adding sections in research, 

development and experimentation. 

 The Science Advisors reviewed the revised MRP and recommended it for adoption by the SPG 

based on proposed revisions. In an earlier review of the first draft MRP the SAs had proposed 

significant revision which had been accomplished. Proposed revisions in the second draft related to; 

developing better linkage of MRP programs, improved linkage of SSP, MRP and AWP with science 

questions, greater specification of processes for program implementation, improved prioritization 

methods. 

The final structure of the MRP follows closely the format of the SSP and AWP, in that the programs 

respond to manager goals and strategic questions. The structure of the MRP responds to the key science 

strategies drafted in the SSP, priority manager goals and questions and key strategic science questions 

from the KA. 

 The MRP calls for new processes and/or programs over the five year plan to address; 

18
• New modeling efforts for water quality and sediment resources, including TCD implementation 

• Extensive research efforts in food base, HBC habitat assessments, and HBC population, 

predation and competition evaluations 

• Cultural resource benchmark studies on site characteristics 

• Building bridges between scientists and managers 

• Core monitoring programs 

• Managers approaches to setting priorities and establishing tradeoffs 

• New ecosystem science approaches 

• Funding needed for programs outside the AMP 

The MRP was recommended for TWG approval, based on reviews and proposed revisions in the 

July SPG meeting. The GCMRC and SPG revised MRP was provided to TWG in October to be 

considered for approval in the November. 

The Long Term Experimental Plan Options were revised into their final form during this 

planning period. Additional issues of funding and resource impact assessments were also evaluated. 

The Office of the Secretary requested evaluations of all proposed options be expanded to include 

both flow and non-flow components, specifically the implications of a selective withdrawal structure 

(SWS/TCD). Also, because of high costs of the SWS/TCD, a longer planning period was proposed, i.e. 

10-20 years. 

To conduct these additional assessments and eliminate redundence in options evaluated to date, i.e. 

options 1, 2, 3, 4, and SPG A, B, C, it was decided to merge all the previous options to a reduced set. A 

baseline which would represent current ROD flows was chosen and three experimental alternatives, SPG 

A, B, and C. The only option to have significant revision in this process was option A, which removed 

the September/October steady flows. The SPG accepts the final option distributed by e-mail. 

 In the final month of the SPG tenure (September) it assigned a task team to complete its final 

task, two assessments of the three options. One assessment conducted by WAPA was to determine 

hydropower economic resource impacts of the four options. A second conducted by GCMRC was to 

determine Biophysical, Socio-Cultural resource impacts of the four options. The SAs were to provide 

final reviews of the assessments. 

 During the assessments two additional options were proposed. Because the SPG was to be 

terminated October 1, 2006 the TWG evaluated the two proposals and voted to include only one into the 

19
final assessments. Because it was an optimum power option and similar to option A it was identified as 

A variant (Av). 

 A brief description of the four final options, including in the baseline, is provided 

in Table 1. Generally, the baseline represents ROD flows (MLFF); A variant, optimum power flows; 

SPG A, high power flow fluctuations; SPG B, steady flows; SPG C slightly reduced fluctuating flows. 

All options include operation of the SWS/TCD as a non-flow alternative. 

 All final required plans, assessments, reviews, reports, etc. of the SPG process were provided to 

be Technical Work group for review and approval between June and October 2006. These included the 

following. 

1. Strategic Science Plan (SSP) 

2. Monitoring and Research Plan (MRP) 

3. FY 2007 annual Work Plan and Budget 

4. Documentation on four recommended experimental options 

5. Hydropower Economic Impact Assessment Report of Experimental Options and SA review 

Report 

6. Biophysical and Socio-Cultural Resource Impact Assessment of Four Experimental Options and 

SA review Report 

20
Table 1. Summary of flow and nonflow components of the four experimental 

options under consideration by the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management 

Program. BASE operations (modified low fluctuating flow regime) are provided 

for comparison. Each option is described as it would be implemented under an 

annual release of 8.23 million acre-feet. 

Flow/Nonflow 

Treatment 

BASE 

operations 

Option A Option A 

Variation 

Option B Option C 

Flow 

Increased daily 

flow 

fluctuations 

No Yes (increased by 

50% to 66% in 

winter months and 

by 25% in summer 

months) 

Yes (increased 

by 25% to 66% 

in all months 

except April 

and May) 

No Yes (increased by 

50% to 66% in 

winter months) 

Flow Stable flows 

No No No Yes, (tests of 

4, 8, and 12 

months) 

Yes, (September 

through October) 

Flow Beach/habitatbuilding flows 

Possible, 

but only 

under 

hydrologic 

triggers 

Yes, as tests under 

sediment input 

triggering 

Yes, as tests 

under sediment 

input triggering 

Yes, as tests 

under 

sediment input 

triggering 

Yes, as tests under 

sediment input 

triggering 

Flow Alternative 

ramping rates 

No Yes (hourly down 

ramping rate 

increased 100% in all 

months) 

Yes (hourly 

down ramping 

rate increased 

100% in Apr–

Oct and 167% 

in Nov–Mar ) 

No Yes (hourly down 

ramping rate 

increased by 

100% in Nov–Jul 

only) 

Nonflow Temperature 

control device 

No Yes Yes Yes Yes, 2 units 

assumed 

Nonflow Control of 

nonnative 

coldwater fish 

No Yes, as needed Yes, as needed Yes, as needed Yes 

Nonflow Control of 

nonnative 

warmwater 

Fish 

 

No Yes, as needed, with 

R&D starting in 

2007 

Yes, as needed, 

with R&D 

starting in 2007 

Yes, as 

needed, with 

R&D starting 

in 2007 

Yes, with R&D 

starting 2007 

Nonflow Humpback 

chub 

disease/parasite 

research 

No Yes Yes Yes Yes, with R&D 

starting 2008 

Nonflow HBC 

translocation No Yes Yes No 1

Yes

Nonflow Humpback 

chub refuge(s) 

No Yes Yes Possibly 1Yes

Nonflow HBC 

population 

augmentation 

planning 

No 

Yes, Planning efforts 

toward 

implementation, as 

needed 

Yes, Planning 

efforts toward 

implementation, 

as needed 

No 1

Yes, planning 

phase

Flow and 

Nonflow 

2

Mini 

experiments 

No Yes Yes Yes 1Yes

Experimental 

Design 

Not 

applicable 

Reverse Titration Reverse 

Titration 

Factorial Forward Titration 

NOTE: 1) For Option C: Ancillary projects not considered part of the main experiment; implementation decision includes consideration of 

confounding the main experiment. 2) Mini experiments are short-term field experiments that do not confound main experimental treatment 

21
OBSERVATIONS ON EFFECTIVENESS OF SPG AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE AMP PROCESS 

Although established by the Secretary’s Designee, and commissioned by the AMWG, the Science 

Planning Group submitted their recommendations to the TWG for approval and development of 

recommendations to AMWG. The SPG adopted this protocol at the request of the AMWG to send SPG 

recommendations to the TWG. The TWG and GCMRC are charged generally to provide technical and 

science program recommendations to the AMWG after concurrence. 

The activities charged for completion by the TWG and GCMRC were extensive science planning 

documents. Because the intensity and detail required in the planning activity was concluded to be 

inefficient for assignment to the entire TWG body, GCMRC and TWG established the Science Planning 

Group to conduct the planning. 

Effectiveness of SPG 

This experimental collaborative task group agreed to and implemented the following procedures for 

the project, which is felt to contribute to the project success. 

1. Agreement to a plan of action, and allegiance to the plan. 

2. Completion of assigned tasks/objectives within agreed upon schedules and budget. 

3. Ability for extensive interactive participation of stakeholders, scientists and managers in 

development of plans. 

4. Inclusion of stakeholder proposals and recommendations for change. 

Development of the project from an agreed upon plan was required by the Secretary’s Designee. 

Methods, schedules, costs and outcomes were specified in the project plan and adhered to throughout 

the planning period. 

Accomplishment of Objectives did occur, in that plans were completed, including four options for 

the Long Term Experimental Plan. Further, multiple assessment of these options and science plan drafts 

also was completed, including independent reviews during the development process. 

Compliance to schedule and budget constraints did occur. The SPG completed the assigned 

tasks on schedule. All proposed outputs were provided to TWG by October 2006. Further, additional 

tasks were performed by the SPG in the scheduled period. 

Extensive involvement and participation of diverse stakeholders in the process was one of the 

key elements of this experimental approach for developing the plans. Strong feelings existed in both 

scientists and managers that a more collaborative approach would produce a more robust planning 

22
effort. As noted above, the fact that the task group of 15-21 had extensive workshops over 12 months 

attests to the stakeholder level of involvement and participation. 

The SPG with its lead contributor GCMRC, feels it produced a successful science planning 

effort, especially when measured against the above criteria. Its success can also be measured by the 

objectives pursued beyond the scope of the original tasks assigned. In many of these objectives, the 

SPG revealed aspects of the AMP process that could and should be improved to advance the GCD AMP. 

Recommendations for Improvement 

Throughout the process of planning, the SPG felt constrained by not having more 

complete/robust information from managers. It was not so much that information requested of managers 

did not exist, although this was an issue in selected cases. Most often the information needed was 

incomplete, not specified adequately, not prioritize, or lacked the focus necessary to assist science 

planning. Issues also existed regarding the effectiveness of science processes. 

Based upon its twelve months of activity, and dependence on information from various 

sources, the SPG proposes several recommendations as follows. 

• The AMP, under AMWG direction, and utilizing the leadership of the TWG and GCMRC, 

should consider initiating a second task work group in FY 2007, with possibly similar 

structure and format to that used in the SPG process. The group should be chartered, as the 

SPG, for only one year. It should be assigned the task of developing approaches and/or resolves 

to several critical issues that currently impact the AMP organization. 

Following are a listing of 10 issues that were determined by the SPG to affect their ability to conduct 

effective science planning. Some of these issues have surfaced as areas of concern in other AMP 

programs by other groups. 

1. Develop improved methods and/or procedures for managers to establish and articulate 

priorities for specific 3-5 year time intervals. With constrained budgets, a need exists to 

define a process or processes to focus at least part of AMP’s resources on specific high priority 

programs that offer resolve to critical resource issues in 3-5 year planning periods. 

2. Develop improved methods for managers and scientists that permit more effective tradeoff 

assessments. To establish program priorities and select among programs competing for the 

same funding, AMP managers and scientists need efficient methods to conduct tradeoff analysis 

among programs. Procedures do exist that are objective, low cost, time efficient and repeatable. 

23
GCMRC has identified this need in their five year SSP as a collaborative program of GCMRC 

and TWG. 

3. Develop more effective scientist/manager collaborative working procedures. Managers and 

scientists of AMWG, TWG, GCMRC and the SAs have always interacted in meeting 

environments, workshops and on specific science projects. A higher level of interaction is 

needed in the next five years on collaborative work tasks. Many issues facing the AMP would 

benefit greatly from this effort, including resolving desired future conditions for resources, a core 

monitoring program, defining approved management actions, etc. Both GCMRC and AMWG 

have recognized this issue in their strategic plans. The GCMRC SSP proposes a process for FY 

2007 that will build bridges between scientists and managers for improved interaction. 

4. Implementing methods to monitor and improve the adaptive management process. The 

GCD AMP continues to be a progressive experiment in adaptive management. It has successes 

in science development, application of improved resource management practices, and improved 

adaptive management processes, among others. However, opportunities for additional 

improvements in adaptive management processes still exist in several areas of the AMP 

including; communication, improving program focus, setting priorities, scientist/manager 

working relations, evaluating program tradeoffs, implementing ecosystem science etc. Both 

GCMRC and AMWG have proposed programs for improving the adaptive management process, 

including a FY 2007 program in the GCMRC’s SSP. 

5. Defining manager’s desired future conditions (dfcs) for resources of the Colorado River 

Ecosystem has been identified in several AMP plans over the past decade, including both 

AMWG and GCMRC’s strategic plans. Lack of defined dfcs creates difficulties in both science 

and management planning and implementation. In 2006 the Grand Canyon National Park had to 

proceed with these definitions without explicit guidance from the AMP. To resolve this issue, a 

process should be developed and implemented in FY 2007 to develop dfcs. This process should 

be integrated into the revision of the GCD AMP Strategic Plan. 

6. Resolving a process for defining core monitoring projects and appropriate monitoring and 

research balance in the AMP science program. With complete knowledge of resource 

interactions, the AMP could focus its science efforts on monitoring for resource change or event 

monitoring. However, much is still uncertain, requiring a strong research effort. Processes are 

needed to resolve over this 5 year planning cycle, the capabilities of the AMP to move to specific 

24
levels of monitoring and its implications to overall program funding. Procedures are needed to 

define and implement final criteria for selecting core monitoring projects, and the flexibility of 

these programs for change. 

7. Implementing explicit interdisciplinary ecosystem science attributes. GCMRC has defined 

several key attributes of interdisciplinary science that are proposed for implementation. Actual 

implementation and integration of the attributes is often a difficult process, requiring more 

complex research designs, data collection methods, analysis procedures and modeling. 

Developing these approaches with manager involvement so as not to invalidate the adaptive 

management process requires effective documentation of the processes. 

8. Developing effective funding process to accommodate increasing science and management 

program needs. The current scope of management information needs specified for the AMP far 

exceeds current and anticipated funding levels. Even with more aggressive priority setting 

procedures, needs will likely overwhelm existing funding. And, the problem will be even greater 

as more management applications are developed. It is unclear, however, without a system of 

prioritization which of the science questions and information needs should be addressed 

overtime. Managers have repeatedly stressed the need to prioritize projects and budgets, but thus 

far a system for doing so has not been fully developed. 

9. Developing science and management approaches to understand and mitigate external 

impactors to CRE resources is an ongoing issue addressed in both AMWG and GCMRC 

strategic plans. Managers and scientists have tried to understand and mitigate this issue by such 

actions as funding and participating in management and science projects occurring in areas, 

especially watersheds, adjacent to the CRE. However, a more comprehensive assessment is 

needed of potential CRE resource risks to negative impacts from external sources. A risk 

assessment with mitigative strategies would be one possible approach. 

10. Defining criteria and processes for determining the transition of the GCD AMP from 

science efforts to management actions. Criteria and procedures for determining management 

actions are needed, as well as definition of changes in the funding and administrative oversight. 

The TWG and AMWG have agreed to a definition of a management action for use in developing 

the Long Term Experimental Plan. The definition is restrictive and requires that an action be 

known to have desired effects and implemented throughout the course of the plan. This is in 

contrast to treatments which would be turned on and off during course of implementation. The 

25
GCD AMP needs to develop a broader definition of management actions, complete with criteria 

and a process for applying those criteria so that deliberations can occur as to whether doing so 

would require any change in funding or administrative oversight. 

 

26
APPENDIX A

A PROSPECTUS FOR GCD AMP SCIENCE 

ADVISOR PROGRAM SUPPORT TO GCMRC 

AND THE GCD AMP FOR COMPLETION 

OF SCIENCE AND DEVELOPMENT PLANS 

27
 

United States Department of the Interior 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION 

PO Box 25007 

 Denver, Colorado 80225-0007 

D-2000 

PRJ-5.10 

July 11, 2005 

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL 

To: All on the Attached Mailing List 

 

Subject: Transmittal of “A Prospectus from Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program 

(GCDAMP) Science Advisor Program to the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center 

and GCDAMP for Completion of Science and Development Plan for Fiscal Years 2005-

2007” 

Enclosed is a prospectus for the Science Advisors to assist the Technical Work Group, the Grand 

Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, the Budget Ad Hoc Group, as well as other groups in 

preparing the following science planning documents: 

• Strategic Science Plan 

• Core Monitoring Plan 

• Long Term Experimental Plan 

• Humpback Chub Comprehensive Plan 

• Research Plan 

• Annual Work Plan and Budget 

Dr. David Garrett, executive director for the Science Advisors, will provide facilitation and coordination 

between the various groups involved in preparing the documents. More details on how the work will be 

accomplished along with schedules for completed products can be found in the prospectus. In addition, 

Dr. Garrett will provide an update on the process at the upcoming Adaptive Management Work Group 

meeting scheduled for August 30-31, 2005. 

 Sincerely, 

 Michael R. Gabaldon 

 Secretary’s Designee 

 Adaptive Management Work Group 

Enclosure 

28
SUPPORT TO GCMRC AND GCD AMP FOR COMPLETION OF 

SCIENCE AND DEVELOPMENT PLANS FY 2005-FY2007 

 

Introduction

The Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC) has launched an aggressive science 

planning effort with the Technical Work Group (TWG) and other Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive 

Management Program (GCDAMP) ad hoc groups. The effort is to formulate initial versions of several 

science planning and development documents during the period May to November, 2005. These initial 

planning documents are developed with the intent to use the FY 2006 annual program cycle (10/05-

7/06) to revise the plans for use in the FY 2007/2008 program period. Interim planning documents will 

be used for the FY 2006 program period. 

 

To assist in this effort, GCMRC, in collaboration with TWG and GCDAMP ad hoc groups, proposes 

that the Executive Director (Dr. David Garrett) for the GCDAMP Science Advisors (SAs) will provide 

facilitation and coordination for this effort, and also engage the SAs in an advisory capacity. The 

GCDAMP Science Advisors Program has authorities approved by the Adaptive Management Work 

Group (AMWG) to provide ongoing advisory support to the differing entities of the GCDAMP. 

Dr. Garrett and the SAs propose that procedures drafted in this prospectus be followed to accomplish the 

requested support. 

Proposed Science Advisor Procedures for Support to GCMRC in Developing GCDAMP Science 

Planning Documents

The period of commitment for Phase I of this effort is proposed to extend from May 2005 to November 

2005. Phase II will extend from November 2005 to July 2006. The length of the total development 

period is 15 months; May 2005-July 2006. Two major accomplishments are proposed for the period as 

follows: 

1. In Phase I, May-November, 2005, initial versions of at least four integrated planning documents 

will be drafted; a Strategic Science Plan, Core Monitoring Plan, Research Plan and the FY 

2007/2008 Annual Work Plan and Budget. The Research Plan will contain a Long Term 

Experimental Plan, elements from the Humpback Chub Comprehensive Plan (HBCCP) and other 

related research activities. Although these plans will contain agreed upon integration, programs, 

projects etc., for the overall science strategy and research and monitoring programs, all 

individual program elements, projects etc., will not be completely specified in Phase I. 

2. In Phase II, November 2005 to July 2006, the integrated plans will be fully specified, revised, 

and finalized to implement a two-year program cycle in FY 2007/2008, as well as out year 

programs. The FY 2007-2008 period has been proposed as the first iteration of a two year 

program and budget for the GCDAMP. This action was agreed to by AMWG in 2004. Ideally, 

this budget and work plan process would be outlined, at least conceptually, during the summer of 

FY 2005. If the GCDAMP is comfortable with progress related to the Phase I elements of the 

planning documents, details for the individual elements of the plans would then ensue during 

29
winter, spring and summer 2006, culminating with formal adoption of a two-year program and 

budget, FY 2007/2008, prior to the end of fiscal year 2006. 

Several procedural issues have been identified regarding this planning effort and are addressed in the 

following sections. Other procedural issues relating to this effort will be addressed as this prospectus is 

developed into a working plan by the SAs and GCDAMP parties. 

AMWG Briefing on the First Iteration of Two Year Program/Budget Cycle

A primary need in this planning direction will be information to design all plans toward a two year 

program and budget cycle. The involved GCDAMP parties will develop a “Prospectus for a Two Year 

GCDAMP Program/Budget Cycle” and present it at the FY 2005 summer AMWG meeting to fully 

inform AMWG of the two year program and budget strategy. The Budget Ad Hoc Group (BAHG), in 

collaboration with TWG and GCMRC, is best prepared to develop the prospectus for the FY 2007/2008 

program/budget cycle. All science and development plans should reflect this AMWG proposed 

direction. 

Maintaining the Independence of Science 

Adaptive management programs by their very nature force scientists and managers to work very closely 

together on many applied science efforts, including the development of science and technical planning 

approaches. In these efforts, the responsibility falls upon the science community to preserve the basic 

tenant of the scientific method, i.e., objective, unbiased science pursuits. In this effort, GCMRC must 

respond to managers needs with proposed objective science alternatives, with managers having the 

responsibility to weigh social issues of priorities and costs. 

The SAs have to date contributed reviews of GCMRC science documents after their development. In 

the effort proposed in this prospectus, the SAs will advise on alternative science approaches during the 

actual development of the plans. To ensure their objectivity and independence are not compromised by 

participating in document development after completion of the plans, the SAs will commission a 

separate group of scientists to review the documents for appropriate science methods. The SAs have 

employed external independent reviewers on three previous reviews. Dr. Garrett and the SAs will 

develop explicit procedures to maintain independence in providing facilitation and science advisory 

services to the GCDAMP. 

Implementation of a Collaborative Process

At least two quite different interactive approaches could be used to develop the required plans by the 

GCDAMP. 

1. Using existing stakeholder concerns,GCMRC could develop the plans independent of close 

interaction with AMWG/TWG/SAs. GCMRC could then obtain AMWG, SAs and TWG reviews 

and revise the plans so as to best meet the needs of managers, while maintaining scientific rigor. 

2. GCMRC could involve AMWG/TWG/SAs and ad hoc groups in a sustained interactive 

collaborative process, with stakeholders providing input on management information needs and 

GCMRC and the SAs providing technical input on the most effective and innovative science 

30
methods and experimental approaches. Through this ongoing process, the plans might become a set 

of documents that the entire GCDAMP would support. 

On the basis of eight years of experience working within the stakeholder process, the GCMRC, 

GCDAMP ad hoc members, and the TWG propose that a hybrid of the first and second approaches be 

utilized. In the hybrid approach, the first step in planning allows GCMRC to confer with the greater 

scientific community to evaluate its current level of knowledge on stakeholder issues. The second step 

is intended to create greater involvement of stakeholders in the science planning process to identify 

approaches to resolving information voids. GCMRC initiated this type of process for the CMP, but the 

process has occurred over such a protracted time period that it is not fully recognized to have occurred 

efficiently. To be effective, the hybrid approach must be conducted efficiently over a relatively 

compressed timeframe. The SAs would be involved to provide facilitation, coordination, and advice on 

integrated ecosystem science approaches, as well as other input. The need to involve cooperating 

scientists early in the hybrid approach comes with the knowledge that their expertise is invaluable in 

seeking new science approaches. 

Using this approach involves clear tradeoffs that must be recognized and managed from the outset. If 

they are not managed, the process will fail due to the short development period in the first phase, i.e., six 

months, May-November, 2005. The general tradeoffs and their potential resolution follow: 

1. Managers must contribute information on goals, objectives, information needs and questions to 

be resolved by science. A tradeoff is that they are to avoid explicit specification of science 

design and procedures. However, managers will have to make recommendations on allocation of 

budgets when designs and procedures are incorporated into work plans. 

2. GCMRC staff and cooperating scientists must provide timely and unbiased information on 

alternative science designs/methods to respond to stakeholders (managers) information needs and 

questions. As a tradeoff, they are to avoid qualitative value judgments (opinions) on any 

requested need of managers. One vital key to keeping scientist and manager interactions 

productive and efficient rests with the role of effective meeting facilitation support. 

3. Dr. Garrett is requested to provide specific support in facilitation and coordination of the 

development effort, and the Science Advisors are to provide specific input on differing science 

designs and procedures, especially as relates to science and management program integration, 

implementation of ecosystem science design, assessment of science alternatives, etc. As a 

tradeoff, they are to avoid leading the GCDAMP process in selection of specific 

designs/methods. 

4. All participating entities must adopt the protocols of collaboration, which excludes 

 aggressive personal confrontation with other parties. Participants who began to depart from 

 “the grounds rules” of collaboration will be reminded of appropriate process. If necessary, 

 participants having difficulty with the process should recuse themselves. 

5. All participating GCDAMP groups must agree to specific schedules of meetings and planned 

 accomplishments between May and November 2005, to permit development of the initial set 

 of plans. In the first two meetings for each plan, the meeting schedule and a general set of 

31
 accomplishments will be established. Time allocation will be discussed regarding differing 

 management needs and science approaches. However, opportunity for repeated “do loops” of 

 differing approaches will be limited. This is a critical tradeoff associated with the constrained 

 time schedule. Opportunities to revisit these assessments will exist in FY 2006. 

6. The level of completeness sought for each initial plan in Phase I will be decided in advance on 

 the basis of what will be needed for the two-year plan and budget process in the winter of 

 2006. It is anticipated that a required complete set of components, projects, programs, etc., be 

 formulated for each plan. However, complete specification of all elements, projects etc., will 

 not be possible within Phase I efforts, and is proposed to continue through FY 2006. This 

 tradeoff exists to accomplish an overall set of integrated plans with all critical components 

 in Phase I. A formal process will be structured and included in each plan for completion, review 

 and revision of each plan in FY 2006. 

7. One planning group, comprised of the AMWG/TWG/GCMRC/SA bodies should be formed 

 to develop the initial plan documents. Because this is a comprehensive effort, it is proposed 

 that can a cross-section of members from the existing planning ad-hoc groups, (CMT, HBCCPG, 

 LTEP) form this group, and it be named the “GCDAMP Science Planning Group.” Its 

 membership should include the following: 

• GCMRC and select cooperating scientists 

• TWG 

• BAHG 

• SAs 

• HBCCP GROUP 

• LTEP GROUP 

• Additional science, technical, or management experts as need dictates. 

Generally most of the required group is already in place as active members of the Core Monitoring 

Team, who also are members of the other ad hoc groups. To accelerate and jumpstart the science and 

technical output of the planning process to the Science Planning Group, SAs should convene a strategic 

science planning meeting with GCMRC staff and key cooperating scientists early in the process. 

A tradeoff for Phase I is that due to its size, it is impossible to have the entire TWG body conduct this 

planning effort. However, the TWG will review interim products in May, June, and July 2005, and 

review draft plans in October, November, 2005. The TWG will be directly involved in the FY 2006 

activities for final development and revision of all plans. 

General Science/Technical Procedure and Schedule

The explicit procedures for drafting the components for each science and management planning 

document must be left to the collaborative interaction of AMWG/TWG/GCMRC/SA specialists of the 

proposed GCDAMP Science Planning Group. However, general procedures, such as those noted above, 

and timelines can be proposed in this prospectus and refined by the Science Planning Group. 

Table 1 presents general draft task specification and schedules for the overall planning effort. The 

Strategic Science Plan is in draft form and will be revised in this process. A CMP Process has been 

32
drafted for use in developing the new CMP. Proposed efforts to merge elements of the Long Term 

Experimental Plan (LTEP), Humpback Chub Plan (HBP), and related research efforts into other 

planning documents such as a Research Plan, will require significant initial effort. 

The general procedure for developing the plans will include, but not be limited to, the following 

activities and schedules. 

April, 2005: 

The Secretary’s Designee approves the Science Advisors to assist (facilitate/coordinate/advise) the 

GCMRC/TWG focused effort to complete science/technical planning documents. GCMRC modifies the 

SAs FY 2005 contract. SA Executive Director develops a prospectus on the assignment. 

33
May, 2005: 

The SA Executive Director, working with GCMRC and the Science Planning Group establishes the 

following:

• A timeline for SAs to provide advisory service and external review, including initial meetings 

with GCMRC and cooperating scientists.

• A work plan for the overall planning activity including alignment of Science Plan with 

AMWG Strategic Plan. 

• A proposed collaborative procedure and schedule 

• Formal review of planning program by TWG 

• Initiation of development activities on all plans. Some activity is underway, i.e., CMP, SSP, 

LTEP, HBCP 

June/July, 2005: 

 

• Work plan final for development of all plans, including alignment with AMWG Strategic 

Plan and merging LTEP, HBCP and other research into other defined planning documents 

such as a Research Plan. 

• BAHG “Two Year GCD AMP Program Prospectus” reviewed by TWG. 

• Development of all plans in process. 

• Completion of concept ecosystem design and integration strategy. 

• Completion of draft Strategic Science Plan. 

• Knowledge assessment Workshops attended by managers and cooperating scientists, and 

facilitated by GCMRC and SAs, in support of experimental design planning. 

GENERAL DESCRIPTORS OF CURRENT AND PROPOSED ACTIONS 

FOR DEVELOPING GCD AMP SCIENCE/TECHNICAL PLANS 

Planning Document Current Status and 

Planning Group 

Proposed Planning 

Actions and Planning 

Group 

Phase I Development 

Status: 11/2005 

Phase II 

Development 

Status:7/2006 

Strategic Science 

Plan (SSP) 

Draft SSP by GCMRC, 

with input and assistance 

from the GCD AMP. 

GCMRC 

Revise current draft 

GCMRC Strategic 

Science Plan so as to 

ensure cross-walk with 

AMWG Science Plan, 

using input from Science 

Planning Group. SPG 

GCMRC;s Draft Final 

Ecosystem-Scale 

Strategic Science Plan 

with input from the 

GCD AMP/ 

Strategic Planning 

Group. GCMRC/SPG 

Final SSP for FY 

2007-2011. Ready for 

implementation in 

AMP approved 

Annual work Plan for 

FY 2007-08. 

Contains approved 

elements for CMP, 

LTEP, HBCCP and 

RP. GCMRC/SPG 

Core Monitoring 

Plan (CMP) 

Draft FY 2006 

Provisional CMP. Draft 

FY 2007 CMP Process. 

GCMRC/CM Ad Hoc 

TWG & AMWG adopt 

FY 2006 Provisional 

CMP. FY 2007/2008 

CMP developed with new 

process. SPG 

Draft text of science 

design and methods 

and all general plan 

elements; draft detailed 

outline of all ecosystem 

program areas and 

related budgets. One 

program area fully 

Final CMP and 

Budget, FY 

2007/2008. SPG 

34
Planning Document Current Status and 

Planning Group 

Proposed Planning 

Actions and Planning 

Group 

Phase I Development 

Status: 11/2005 

Phase II 

Development 

Status:7/2006 

specified. SPG. 

Long Term 

Experimental Plan 

(LTEP) 

Draft concept abstract. 

AMWG LTEP Ad Hoc 

Committee 

Integrate into Research 

Plan 

Humpback Chub 

Comprehensive Plan 

(HBCP) 

Draft HBCCP. AMWG’s 

HBCCP Ad Hoc 

Committee 

Finalize HBC 

Comprehensive Plan. 

TWG, HBCP Ad Hoc 

Finish HBC Plan. 

HBCCP Ad Hoc 

Allocate HBC 

projects among other 

plans. SPG 

Research Plan (RP) No current document or 

proposal. 

A Research Plan 

developed that contains 

all GCMRC research 

activities, LTEP, research 

programs and related 

management activities. 

SPG 

Detailed outline of all 

research elements, 

programs, projects, 

with example 

ecosystem program 

fully specified for one 

or more goals/ 

resources. SPG 

Final RP and Budget, 

FY 2007/2008. SPG 

Annual Work Plan 

and Budget (AWP) 

FY 2006 draft AWP & 

Budget by AMWG 

Budget Ad Hoc 

Committee/GCMRC 

A two year AWP (FY 

2007/2008) by GCD AMP 

SPG/GCMRC/BAHG 

Detailed sentence 

outline of all plan 

elements for each 

program area. 

Proposed FY 

2007/2008 budget. 

BAHG/GCMRC 

Final AWP and 

Budget, FY 

2007/2008 

August/-October, 2005: 

• GCMRC report to AMWG on GCDAMP SPG Progress 

• BAHG/GCMRC presentation to AMWG on key elements of two year pilot program/budget 

proposed for FY 2007/2008. 

• Completion of draft Research Plan 

• Completion of draft FY 2007 Annual Plan and Budget. 

• SA workshops on program/project specification for all plans. 

• Facilitated discussion panels focused on Long-term Monitoring and Experimental Design held 

immediately after technical session during the GCMRC’s October 2005, Biennial Science 

Symposia. Tempe, AZ. 

November, 2005: 

• Release of all draft plans and completion of Phase I. 

December, 2005-July 2006: 

• The Phase II program will be fully defined at completion of Phase I, and will include a complete 

review and specification of all plans by June 2006, and a Two Year Work Plan and Budget by 

July 2006. 

Science Advisor Planning Program Requirements

35
The primary increased requirements of this planning effort will fall on the GCMRC Program Managers 

and its Chief, the SA Executive Director, the BAHG Chair, and TWG Chair. 

The SAs workload will also significantly increase. And, additional meetings and conference calls will 

be required of the BAHG, TWG, GCMRC, SAs and all proposed members of the new GCD AMP 

Science Planning Group. 

Additional planning is required to specify all probable increased requirements. This will be 

accomplished in the initial meetings of the GCD AMP Science Planning Group. It will be captured in 

the work plan for this planning effort, to be completed in May. 

Dr. Garrett has projected additional SA contract costs at approximately $70,000 for the Phase I (MayOctober 2005) and $80,000 for Phase II (October 2005-July 2006). Although costs for Phase II will 

depend upon the level of detail developed in all the planning documents. 

Outcome

Initial drafts of four planning documents are to be produced between July and November, 2005 as 

follows: 

• Strategic Science Plan 

• Core Monitoring Plan 

• Research Plan 

• Work Plan and Budget; FY 2007/2008 

The Strategic Science Plan and the AMWG Strategic Plan are the documents that establish a strategy for 

ecosystem science and management in the Colorado River Ecosystem (CRE). An integration strategy 

will also be presented for both science and management programs, clarifying the requirements from 

each to understanding ecosystem integration and resource response. The integrated linkages of research 

and monitoring programs will also be specified. 

The Core Monitoring Plan will present the short and long term contributions of monitoring programs 

and metrics to resolving AMWG goals, objectives and information needs and understanding the CRE. 

Integration and linkages of specific monitoring and research outcomes will be specified. 

The Research Plan will comprise two primary sections, one on long term experimentation and a second 

committed to needed research and development. The experimental segment will focus on defining cause 

and effect relationships for development of longer term management strategies, i.e., regulated flow 

regimes, water quality management, etc. 

The research and development segment will focus on answering specific resource questions of concern, 

and increasing knowledge necessary to implement monitoring programs. Specific linkages will be 

established to define integrated monitoring and research efforts. 

The FY 2007/2008 work Plan and Budget will be drafted from the research and monitoring plans. It 

will provide emphasis to science activities required to support long term experimentation, as well as the 

redefined core monitoring program. 

36
APPENDIX B 

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS ON THE 

SCIENCE PLANNING GROUP 

37
TO: M3 Research Files 

FROM: LDG, SA Executive Secretary 

DATE: November 11, 2005 

SUBJECT: SPG Participants; One or more meetings 

• 1

SPG MEMBER LIST 

• Matthew Andersen - GCMRC mandersen@usgs.gov

• Mary Barger - WAPA Barger@wapa.gov

Jill Baron – Science Advisor jill@nrel.colostate.edu

Mike Berry - BOR mberry@uc.wbr.gov

• Gary Burton - WAPA burton@wapa.gov

Wayne Cook – WAPA 

Lew Coggins – GCMRC lcoggins@usgs.gov

• Kerry Christensen – Hualapai Tribe cuszhman@yahoo.com 

Virginia Dale – Science Advisor dalevh@ornl.gov

• Helen Fairley – GCMRC hfairley@usgs.gov

• Dave Garrett – Executive Director SA m3research@aol.com

• Llyod Greiner - UAMPS lgreinerl@mindspring.com

Lance Gunderson – Science Advisor lgunderson@emory.edu

• John Hamill – GCMRC Chief jhamill@usgs.gov

• Norm Henderson – NPS Norm_henderson@nps.gov

Alan Howard – Science Advisor ahop@virginia.edu 

Loretta Jackson - Hualapai Tribe lorjac@frontier.net 

• Rick Johnson – Grand Canyon Trust Rick.johnson@npgcable.com

Ted Kennedy – GCMRC tkennedy@usgs.gov 

• Chris Kincaid – NPS Chris_kincaid@nps.gov

Jim Kitchell – Science Advisor kitchell@wisc.edu

• Glen Knowles – FWS Glen_knowles@fws.gov

Josh Korman - ESRI jkorman@ecometric.com

• Dennis Kubly – BOR dkubly@uc.wbr.gov

Lisa Leap – NPS Lisa_leap@nps.gov

Mike Liszewski – GCMRC mliszewski@usgs.gov

• Mark McKinstry – BOR mmckinstry@uc.usbr.gov 

• Ken McMullen – NPS Ken_mcmullen@nps.gov 

• Ted Melis – GCMRC tmelis@usgs.gov

• Clayton Palmer – WAPA cspalmer@wapa.gov 

• Bill Persons – AZG&F bpersons@azgfd.gov

• Barbara Ralston – GCMRC bralston@usgs.gov 

Dale Robertson – Science Advisor dzrobert@usgs.gov

• Mark Steffens – Federation of Flyfishers steffenflyrod@lycos.com

Larry Stevens – Grand Canyon Wetlands Council farvana@aol.com

Bill Vernieu – GCMRC bvernieu@usgs.gov

• Mike Yeatts – Hopi Tribe Micheal.yeatts@nau.edu 

• Andre Potochnik – Grand Canyon River Guides arp4@infomagic.net

Kurt Dongoske – CREDA & TWG Chair kdongoske@cableone.net

• David Siebert – Student from Piute Tribe 

John O’Brien – Grand Canyon River Guides johnob@npgcable.com

 

1

 Members attending five or more meetings. 

38
APPENDIX C 

DEVELOPED OBJECTIVES 

FOR THE SPG PROCESS 

39
DRAFT 

PURSUING SPG OBJECTIVES 

OBJECTIVE ACTIVITY ON OBJECTIVES FOR 

PLANNING PERIOD MONTHS: FY 

2005/2006 

OUTCOME 

5-8/05 9-12/05 1-4/06 5-8/06 

1. Involve managers 

and scientists in science 

planning 

 X X X X Attempt to involve as broad of 

cross section of GCD AMP 

entities as possible 

2. Outline and follow 

objective process 

 X X X X Develop, approve and follow 

objective processes in planning 

3. Incorporate CMPT in 

SPG 

 X X X X Incorporate CMPT objectives 

and tasks into SPG. Complete by 

7/06 

4. Incorporate LTEP in 

SPG 

 X X X Incorporate LTEP objectives and 

tasks into SPG. Complete by 

7/06 

5. Gain input from 

HBCCP and utilize 

 X X X Gain input from HBCCP and 

include in final plans. 7/06 

6. Provide input to 

BAHG on AWP and 

budget 

 X X X Provide input to BAHG and 

GCMRC for AWP and Budget 

proposal. 7/06 

7. Gain input from 

CRAHG and utilize 

 X X X Gain input from CRAHG and 

incorporate in final MRP. 7/06 

8. Develop adaptive 

management ecosystem 

process 

 X X X X Develop and incorporate adaptive 

management and ecosystem 

science process in plans by 7/06. 

9. Develop Goal/In 

ranking process in 

planning 

 X Develop and implement goal and 

CMIN ranking process in 

specifying CMINS in FY 

2007/2008 MRP by 7/06. 

10. Develop a process 

for determining desired 

future conditions (DFC) 

of CRE resources 

 X X Develop a process for 

determining desired future 

conditions for resources in the 

CRE. Recommend to 

TWG/AMWG for adoption in FY 

2007/2008 plans. 

11. Knowledge 

assessment process 

 X X Complete knowledge assessment 

and identify knowledge gaps. 

Review by SAs/TWG 3/06. 

12. Develop science 

questions to respond to 

knowledge gaps 

 X X Develop and include science 

questions to address knowledge 

gaps. Review by SAs/TWG 

3/06. 

40
13. Link goals, INs 

science questions 

 X X X Provide linkage of goals, INs, 

science questions, and GCMRC 

projects in final MRP. 7/06 

14. Assessing core 

monitoring project 

options 

 X X X X Evaluate proposed core 

monitoring options and 

determine final FY 2007/2008 

core monitoring projects for 

MRP. 7/06 

15. Assessing research 

study options 

 X X X Evaluate research project options 

for final FY 2007/2008 research 

program in MRP. 7/06 

16.Assessing 

experimental plan 

options 

 X X X Evaluate all experimental designs 

and experimental options (flow 

and non-flow) for FY 2007/2008. 

3/06 

17. Evaluating statistical 

design issues 

 X X Evaluate and determine 

implications of statistical and 

experimental design on ability to 

learn from experiments. Clarify 

to SPG/TWG/AMWG. 3/06 

18. Developing SSP, 

MRP sentence outlines 

 X X Complete SSP, MRP sentence 

outlines; 11/05 

19. Specify project 

science approaches i.e., 

design, parameters, 

metrics, data resolution, 

etc. 

 X X Complete specification of 

science project operations for 

research and monitoring; i.e., 

sampling, parameters, metrics, 

resolution. 5/06 

20. Involving general 

science community in 

process 

 X X X X Obtain reviews of SSP, MRP, 

AWP by SAs, contract scientists, 

other scientists. 9/05; 11/05; 6/06 

21. Involving TWG in 

process 

 X X X X Obtain TWG review and present 

to TWG (SSP, MRP, AWP) 

22. Involving AMWG 

in process 

 X X X X Present SPG Plan and SSP, MRP 

and AWP for AMWG review and 

approval 8/05; 3/06; 8/06. 

23. Developing final 

draft SSP, MRP, AWP 

 X Complete draft SSP, MRP, AWP. 

5/06 

24. Developing Final 

SSP, MRP, AWP 

 X Complete final SSP, MRP, AWP. 

6/06 

25. Engaging 

independent reviews 

 X X X Complete SA and independent 

science reviews of SSP, MRP, 

AWP. 11/05; 3/06; 6/06 

41
APPENDIX D 

EXAMPLE MEETING 

SCHEDULES AGENDAS AND 

ACTIONS TAKEN 

42
M3 RESEARCH 

L. David & Pamela Garrett, Principals 

53716 Falcon Rd 

Olathe, CO 81425 

970-323-9511 (Ph) 

970-323-9512 (Fax) 

E-Mail: m3research@aol.com 

DRAFT 

 TO: GCD AMP Science Planning Group 

FROM: L.D. Garrett, Executive Director SAs 

DATE: November 28, 2005 

SUBJECT: Schedule for Continued Development of Science Planning Documents 

 As we continue our development of the science planning documents, we need to 

continually revise our schedule of meeting dates and targeted outcomes of each meeting. Our 

two critical dates were to have sentence outline documents by November 2005 and final plans by 

June 2006. Sentence outlines were presented in November for the SSP and MRP, but much 

work remains to be accomplished. 

 The new schedule retains our activities from September to date. It also includes 

presentations to and reviews by TWG in January and April, and presentations to AMWG in 3/06 

and 7/06. 

 We also added the following set of tasks, slightly revised from our original plan. 

• In the fall (Sept/Oct) ranked AMWG goals by defined criteria using approved objective 

 process 

• In fall (Oct/Nov) defined proposed “core” CMINS 

• In fall (Nov) defined parameters for core data needs 

• In winter (Jan/Feb) define selected parameters, metrics, and data specification 

(resolution, spatial/temporal need, accuracy, etc)for core information needs and specify 

core CMINS. 

 Following is the schedule approved at our September 21-23, 2005 meeting and revised 

November 9. All our meetings are planned for the BIA Building, Phoenix, unless otherwise 

noticed. 

SPG/GCMRC MEETING DATE PLANNED SPG/GCMRC OUTCOMES

September 21-23, 2005 SSP 

• None 

CMP 

• Present and discuss partial sentence 

outline 

• Review and approve AMWG goal 

ranking 

• Review and approve criteria for CMIN 

43
sequencing 

• Sequence CMINS 

• Define core CMIN criteria and core 

CMINS 

• Approve process for defining parameters, 

metrics, data specification 

RP 

• Knowledge assessment review 

• Review of critical questions 

• Review of experimental scenarios 

AWP 

• None 

October 5-6, 2005 SSP 

• None 

RP & CMP 

• Completion and approval of goal and 

CMIN ranking. Approval of proposed 

core monitoring data need 

• Discussion workshop on parameters 

proposed for core monitoring data need 

• Discussion of RP outline 

• Specification of one or more research 

projects required for development of 

monitoring procedures. Research 

projects necessary to move yellow or red 

monitoring projects to green at future 

date. 

• Specification of one or more research 

projects required for needed information 

for scientists or managers for required 

decisions and/or actions. 

• Specification of one or more 

experimental options required to evaluate 

management actions and/or treatments 

(flow and non-flow) over the period 

2007-2011. 

• Proposal for merged CMP/RP sentence 

outline 

AWP 

• None 

November 8-9, 2005 SSP & MRP 

• Presentation and approval of merged 

approach to RP and CMP documents. 

The documents will now be integrated to 

44
one document to develop improved 

ecosystem science planning. A sentence 

outline Monitoring & Research Plan 

(MRP) was proposed to support new 

direction. The document is reviewed and 

revised. 

• Presentation of core monitoring data 

information needs for FY 2007/2008 for 

MRP with selected parameters specified. 

• Presentation of selected 2007/2008 

research projects necessary to develop or 

validate effective and acceptable 

monitoring procedures for proposed 

future core monitoring data needs; i.e., 

monitoring data currently identified as 

red or yellow as defined by SPG. 

• Presentation of selected FY 2007/2008 

research projects required to resolve 

specific information needs of 

scientists/managers. 

• Presentation and review of revised FY 

2007/2011 experimental programs to 

evaluate flow and non-flow management 

actions and treatments. 

AWP 

• General discussion of overall budget 

requirement and potential split between 

research and monitoring. 

• Additional reviews of all documents 

requested by 1/06 SPG meeting. 

Joint SPG, TWG Meeting 

November 29-30, 2005 

• Presentation of GCMRC/SPG sentence 

outline science Plans (SSP, MRP)for 

review and recommended changes by 

TWG. TWG requested to approve the 

plans for continued development. 

January 9-10, 2006 SSP: Review draft SSP sentence outline and 

approve for development of complete text. 

MRP: SPG review of Experimental 

options and recommendations for change. 

Discussion of example parameters, 

metrics, data specification for one or two 

core monitoring projects. Review of 

example parameters, metrics, and data 

specification for one or two research 

projects. Discussion of GCMRC budget 

procedures for FY 2007.. 

45
January 25-26, 2005 Meeting of SPG with TWG to review SSP, MRP 

and budget documents to be discussed at 

AMWG meeting March 7-8, 2006 

February 21 (SA meeting) Science Advisors meet in Phoenix to review 

revised SSP, MRP plans and draft 

recommendations. 

February 22, 23, 2006 SAs meet with SPG on February 22, 2006 and 

interact with SPG to discuss any potential 

changes in plans. 

SSP: Approve SSP complete draft document 

with recommended revisions: 

MRP: Workshop to develop parameter, metric, 

data specification for monitoring and research 

projects for FY 2007. 

Proposed changes specified for FY2007 research 

and monitoring projects. 

AWP: Discuss draft FY 2007/2008 AWP 

sentence outline and budget. 

March 7, 8, 2006 SPG/AMWG 

Meeting 

Progress report to AMWG on all science 

planning documents. Request for recommended 

changes. 

April 19-20, 2006 SPG Meeting 

with TWG 

SSP: SPG approval for presentation to TWG. 

MRP: SPG revisions for presentation to TWG. 

SPG final approval of Experimental Options for 

presentation to TWG. 

AWP: SPG approval of final revisions on AWP 

for presentation to BAHG and TWG. 

May 1 - 10 Review of final plan drafts by SAs, selected 

science reviewers, TWG. 

May 24,25, SPG Meeting SSP: Complete SPG and others revisions for 

AMWG 

MRP: Complete SPG and others revisions for 

AMWG 

AWP: Complete SPG and others revisions for 

AMWG 

June 14, 15 SPG Meeting Final SPG changes and release of planning 

documents for AMWG approval on June 20, 

2006. 

46
M3 RESEARCH 

L. David & Pamela Garrett, Principals 

53716 Falcon Rd 

Olathe, CO 81425 

970-323-9511 (Ph) 

970-323-9512 (Fax) 

E-Mail: m3research@aol.com

DRAFT 

TO: SPG Sub-group on Experimental Options: Knowles, Kubly, Henderson, 

 Persons, Palmer, Steffen, Hamill, Stevens, Melis, Fairley, Anderson, 

 Johnson, Griener 

FROM: L.D. Garrett, SA Executive Director 

DATE: March 30, 2006 

SUBJECT: SPG Sub-group Meeting Changed to Friday April 7, 2006 

 I apologize to all the members for a second change in this meeting date. This 

final date, April 7, is the one we will keep. The draft agenda remains unchanged. 

DRAFT AGENDA 

SPG SUB-GROUP MEETING ON RESOLVING 

DIFFERENCIES IN EXPERIMENTAL OPTIONS 

USGS CAMPUS, FLAGSTAFF ARIZONA 

GCMRC CONFERENCE ROOM, BUILDING 3 

FRIDAY APRIL 7, 2006 

TIME DISCUSSION ITEM LEAD 

9:00 AM Review of March 22/23 SPG meeting outcomes 

on Experimental Options 

Garrett/Hamill 

9:30 AM Presentation and discussion of science 

information specified by SPG to resolve 

June/August fluctuating flows issue 

Hamill/GCMRC 

scientists 

11:00 AM Resolve resource impact differences from 

June/August fluctuating flows for options 2 and 

3 

Sub-group 

12:00 noon Working lunch 

12:30 PM Draft recommendation to SPG for merging 

Experimental Options 1, 2 and 3 

Sub-group 

1:30 PM Evaluate a potential trigger for steady flows in 

August and its implications to original or revised 

Experimental Options 1-4 

Sub-group 

3:00 PM Adjourn 

47
M3 RESEARCH 

L. David & Pamela Garrett, Principals 

53716 Falcon Rd 

Olathe, CO 81425 

970-323-9511 (Ph) 

970-323-9512 (Fax) 

E-Mail: m3research@aol.com

TO: GCMRC Management Team, Clayton Palmer, Rick Johnson 

FROM: L.D. Garrett, SA Executive Director 

DATE: February 3, 2006 

SUBJECT: GCMRC Meeting to Review Experimental Options for GCD AMP 

 Our meeting is still on for Friday February 17, 9:00 AM to 1:00 PM to discuss 

developed experimental options for the GCD AMP. The objectives for this meeting are 

as previously outlined. 

1. Evaluate SPG documents to determine if additional information is needed. 

2. Conduct discussions of developed data to determine if chosen format for SPG 

meeting provides clarity and balanced explanations for each option. 

3. Evaluate common elements of each proposal, areas of primary differences, and 

avenues for seeking compromise on February 21. 

Hopefully this pre meeting will make our February 21 SPG meeting more efficient and 

effective. 

 The following general agenda will be followed. 

9:00 AM Presentation of four alternatives by 

GCMRC 

Hamill/Melis 

9:30 AM Discussion of additional documentation 

to assist process and best approaches 

for presentation and discussions with 

SPG to obtain maximum understanding 

Garrett/Group 

11:00 AM Break 

11:15 AM Discussion of defined approaches, areas 

of common agreement and areas of 

significant differences. 

Defining approaches/avenues for 

reaching compromise in the SPG 

12:00 noon Adjourn for lunch 

48
GCD AMP SCIENCE PLANNING GROUP 

APRIL 20, 21, 2006 

BUREAU of INDIAN AFFAIRS 

[APS BUILDING] 

ARIZONA CENTER, PHOENIX, AZ 

BIA CONFERENCE ROOM A 

12TH FLOOR 

THURSDAY APRIL 20, 2006 

TIME TOPIC LEAD 

10:00 AM Objectives and Outcomes for Meeting Garrett 

10:10 AM New published science on HBC Andersen 

10:30 AM Reducing uncertainty regarding the HBC Korman 

11:00 AM Concerns regarding the modified 

experimental option 

Knowles 

11:30 AM Lunch 

12:30 PM Hydropower cost analysis Palmer 

1:00 PM Review modified option 3 and Kubly 

modification to add out years 

Hamill/Kubly/Group 

2:00 PM Clarify non-flow options and implications 

to flow options, compliance etc. 

Hamill/Palmer/Kubly/ 

Group 

2:30 PM Discuss potential August trigger and 

potential merging of modified option 3 

and option .0 and 4.b 

Garrett/McMullen/ 

Ramsey/Group 

3:30 PM Break 

3:45 PM Discuss implications of other hydrology 

issues in basin, i.e., equalization, 

drought, upper basin removals, etc. 

Group 

5:00 PM Adjourn 

FRIDAY APRIL 21, 2006 

TIME TOPIC LEAD 

8:00 AM Discussion of SSP Hamill/Group 

10:00 AM Break 

10:15 AM Discussion of MRP Hamil/Group 

12:00 Noon Lunch 

1:00 PM Continue MRP discussions Hamill/Group 

3:00 PM Adjourn 

49
DRAFT 

AGENDA 

GCD AMP SCIENCE PLANNING GROUP 

BUREAU of INDIAN AFFAIRS 

[APS BUILDING] 

ARIZONA CENTER, PHOENIX, AZ 

BIA CONFERENCE ROOM A 

12TH FLOOR 

TUESDAY MAY 23, 2006 

TIME TOPIC LEAD 

10:00 AM Review of meeting objectives and planned 

outcomes. 

• Experimental Options transfer to TWG 

• Schedule for completion of plans 

• SSP transfer to TWG 

• MRP review and proposed changes 

• BAWP review and proposed changes 

Garrett 

10:15 AM Review of developed TWG presentation of 

Experimental Options: SPG A and SPG B. 

Flow and non-flow components. 

Melis/Hamill 

10:45 AM Changes to TWG presentation on Experimental 

Options proposed by group. 

Garrett/Hamill/Group 

11:30 AM Presentation of schedules for completion of all 

science planning documents including FY 2007 

transition plan and budget. 

Garrett/Henderson/Hamill 

12:00 

Noon 

Lunch 

1:30 PM Presentation of SSP for approval by TWG Hamill 

2:00 PM SA review of MRP and BAWP. Garrett 

2:30 PM Presentation of draft MRP for SPG 

discussion and proposed changes. 

Hamill/Melis/Fairley/Andersen 

3:00 PM Break 

3:15 PM Finalize recommended MRP changes. Hamill/Melis/Fairley/Andereon/Group

4:00 PM Presentation and discussion of FY 2007/2008 

BAWP and budget proposal for changes. 

Hamill/Melis/Fairley/Andersen/Group 

5:00 PM Adjourn 

WEDNESDAY MAY 24, 2006 

8:00 AM Discussion of FY 2007/2008 BAWP and 

budget and proposals for change; complete 

review. 

Hamill/Melis/Fairley/Andersen/Group 

10:00 AM Presentation and discussion of AWP and 

budget for FY 2007 transition year 

Hamill/Group/Kubly 

11:45 AM Complete FY 2007 transition year AWP and 

budget proposed changes and June 

meeting topics. 

Hamill/Group/Garrett 

12:00 

noon 

Adjourn 

50
AGENDA 

SPG MEETING 

JANUARY 9-10, 2006 

BIA BUILDING 

ARIZONA CENTER, PHOENIX, AZ 

12TH FLOOR 

CONFERENCE ROOM A-B 

JANUARY 9, 2006 

TIME TOPIC LEAD 

10:00 AM Proposed agenda changes and objectives 

for meeting 

Garrett 

10:15 AM Presentation and discussion of potential 

experimental options for FY 2007-2011 

Hamill/Melis/ 

Andersen/Fairley/ 

SPG/Garrett 

12:00 Noon Lunch 

1:15 PM Continue discussion of experimental options GCMRC/SPG/Garrett 

3:00 PM Break 

3:15 PM Continue discussion of experimental options GCMRC/SPG/Garrett 

4:30PM ACTION ITEM: Selection of the 

recommended FY 2007-2011 experimental 

flows/non-flows program 

Garrett/SPG/GCMRC 

5:00 PM Adjourn 

JANUARY 10, 2006 

8:00 AM Presentation of SSP and discuss proposed 

changes to develop final SSP 

Garrett/GCMRC/SPG 

9:00 AM Presentation and discussion of example 

detail for individual project elements of the 

MRP 

Andersen/Garrett/SPG 

10:30 AM Break 

10:45 AM Discussion of proposed approaches for FY 

2007-2008 work plan and budget 

Hamill/KubleyBAGH/SPG 

12:00 Noon Lunch 

1:15 PM Discussion of Potential DFC approach McMullen/Garrett/SPG 

3:00 PM Break 

3:15 PM Establish February SPG agenda and 

adjourn 

SPG 

51
M3 RESEARCH 

L. David & Pamela Garrett, Principals 

53716 Falcon Rd 

Olathe, CO 81425 

970-323-9511 (Ph) 

970-323-9512 (Fax) 

E-Mail: m3research@aol.com

DRAFT 

TO: SPG Members 

FROM: L.D. Garrett, SA Executive Director 

DATE: March 27, 2006 

SUBJECT: Actions and Discussions of March 21-23, 2006 SPG Meeting 

 The SPG meeting for March 21-23, 2006 was held in Phoenix, AZ at the BIA 

Offices. In attendance were Dave & Pamela Garrett, Kerry Christensen, Gary Burton, 

Mike Berry, Mary Barger, Clayton Palmer, Dennis Kubly, Norm Henderson, Nickoli 

Ramsey, Andre Potochnik, Rick Johnson, Lloyd Griener, Bill Persons, John Hamill, 

Mark McKinstry, Scott White, David Topping. 

 Over the three days of meetings the following discussions were held and 

agreements were developed. 

Day 1 

• Garrett outlined planned outcomes for March 21, 22, 23; and procedures. Kubly 

 and Barger were introduced as facilitators for March 21 and 22. 

• The outcome for day 1was to evaluate the Knowledge Assessment (KA) for 

 potential management actions. 

• Kubly reviewed science planning since 2002, and the block design over 4, 8 and 

 12 years. Discussions were held on; management actions, need for advanced 

 experimental design, high variance of CRE. 

• Palmer expressed concerns over the KA and provided suggestions for 

 change in a written document. 

• Mark McKinstry went through a composite analysis of all the resources and 

how they rank as a whole regarding uncertainties presented in the KA. 

52
• Kubly discussed the four experimental options to try to determine if there is 

 consensus on what management activities are considered management 

 actions. 

• Kubly conducted a survey of the SPG to identify who of the SPG members would 

 identify management activities to be implemented as management actions or 

treatments. 

• Kubly summarized the results of the survey. It revealed 1 person views all 

 activities as management actions, 4 view all of them as treatments and 4 a 

 mix. Kubly recommended that the presentation and exercise be presented to 

 TWG and AMWG. He also, recommended that a section be added to the KA 

 written by managers, that addressed the issue of evaluating management 

 actions. 

Day 2 and 3 

• On March 22 the group discussed experimental options. This discussion 

 continued through March 23rd. 

• Garrett introduced the proposed outcomes for day 2, and 3, i.e. to develop a 

 compromise of 1, 2, 3, 4 experimental Options if possible. 

• Potochnik and Johnson presented the background that contributed to a new Option 

5 and what it was designed to accomplish. Its primary purpose was to 

 provide a bridge to Option 2 from Option 4. Garrett proposed that Option 5 be 

 considered as a variant on Option 4, i.e. Option 4.b, since insufficient time was 

 available to fully develop another option using GCMRCs’ assistance. 

• Barger outlined the goals for the day, which was to discuss the 7 listed 

 differences among the four options and try to develop a compromise among 1, 2 

 and 3 or 1, 2, 3 and 4. 

 Barger began the evaluation of differences with a discussion of ramping rates. 

The following discussions/agreements/actions were developed during the March 22 and 

23rd meetings. 

• SPG Agreement/Action on Ramping Rates: 

 Agree that longer term research is needed to determine the efficacy of using the 

 3000 cfs down ramping rate, that considers the effects on a variety resources 

53
 including sediment, HBC, trout (food, mud snails), stranding boats, etc. The 

 specific study design (e.g., alternating blocks, time of year, number/location of 

 sites) to be drafted by GCMRC for the Monitoring and Research Plan. The study 

 may look at sediment effects first, HBC second, then other resources. The 

 study should not compromise primary experimental design issues, and could 

 require the 2007-2011 period to complete. Does not resolve concerns from 

 Option 4. 

• SPG Agreement/Action on Steady Flows 

GCMRC will develop a proposal to test ecologically steady flows in September, 

 October, and possibly November to improve HBC. Tests would be targeted at 

 defining an ecologically steady flow, the level of steady flow, and the effect of a 

 short duration spike (e.g., 1 hr/5000 cfs) to benefit food base drift. Flow can not 

 drop below 7000 cfs. Combine Options 1, 2, 3 but not 4. Proposal supported by 

 eight yes votes and one abstention. Rationale: the initial test should consider

whether steady flows in September, October, and November will benefit HBC. 

 Steady flows in August are not considered because of adverse impacts to power 

 generation. Potential need for steady flows could cause Option 1 to not be 

• SPG Agreement on Sediment Trigger: Steady flows in August may be 

important to YoY HBC in the main stem and to minimize export of sand following 

tributary input. GCMRC would evaluate developing a trigger for putting steady 

flows into effect in the future. 

• SPG Agreement on BHBF: Agreed not to have full BHBF. GCMRC will 

develop a proposal for spring BHBF’s based on Rubin’s “new trigger” subject to 

reasonable decision guidelines (not rules): 

• Special steady flows are not required to retain sand until the trigger is 

 achieved 

• Funding is available to monitor effects 

• Adequate water is available (260 KAF) 

• BHBF’s do not result in unacceptable adverse impacts (e.g., tamarisk 

 reproduction, impact HBC, food base) 

• Flows promote ecological integrity 

54
Decision guidelines should be flexible enough to allow for BHBF’s on a frequent basis.

• SPG Agreement on Summer Fluctuating Flows: Deviation from ROD 

(Options 2 and 3) to allow for increased fluctuating flows in Jun, Jul, and Aug. 

FWS: No rationale for allowing for increased fluctuations over the ROD during 

summer months. WAPA: Impacts will be offset by other measures in the 

package. Increased fluctuations should not be looked at in isolation of other 

measures included in the package. Agreed to develop more information to gain 

a resolve. 

Proposal: Develop a trigger for initiating summer steady flows. Trigger would 

 only be implemented in Segment 3. Rationale: Other measures (TCD) may 

 alleviate the need to use the trigger, and thus avoid hydro power impacts 

Next Steps: 

1. WAPA will produce corrected hydrographs for Option 3 based on agreed 

upon changes in the steady flow component and a BHBF; 

2. WAPA will produce power cost analysis; 

3. GCMRC will produce corrected hydrographs for Option 2 based on agreed 

upon changes; 

4. GCMRC will compare sediment and biological impacts of alternative 2 and 3 

after WAPA supplies relevant data; 

5. Dave, Mark, Bill, Clayton, Larry, Glenn, Norm and/or Dennis and GCMRC will 

meet on April 3 in Flagstaff to review and attempt to reach an agreement on a 

unified flow regime. 

6. Rick and Andre will work with GCMRC to adjust monthly flows in Option 5 to 

account for inclusion of BHBF 

•SPG Agreement on HBC Augmentation Planning: Agreed to develop planning 

 for catastrophic event. This will be included as a planning element of segment 1 

 of the LTEP under options 1, 2 and 3. It is defined to include developing a 

 captive brood stock/refuge population, a genetics management plan, a stocking 

 plan, and identification of production/grow out facilities in preparation for possible 

 need for future augmentation (as determined by FWS). Rationale: needed as 

 a safe guard in case of catastrophic loss associated with possible negative 

55
 effects of the LTEP e.g., TCD, proliferation of warm and cool water nonnative 

 fish, other, etc. The relationship to the LTEP is that future augmentation may 

 have a confounding effect on other experiments and stocking may be used 

 for mitigation for the LTEP and/or other losses of HBC. Thresholds need to be 

 established in the genetics management plan for stocking. Issue: Should 

 augmentation planning be an element of the LTEP. 

• SPG Agreement on Power Costs: WAPA committed to provide estimated 

power costs and methods of calculation for each option and to submit to SA by 

April 3 for independent peer review prior to the SPG/TWG meeting. The cost 

analysis will include BHBF’s (assumed to occur in April) and Options 1-4, 

including 4.b. 

• SPG Agreement on TCD/SWS: The group endorses implementation of the TCD 

 by 2011 or sooner if possible. The goal of the TCD will be to maintain ecological 

 integrity in the CRE, coldwater trout fisheries in Lees Ferry reach, and improve 

 main stem habitat for HBC and other native fishes. Issue: How many units to 

 implement to achieve desired effects (are 2 units enough?). 

•SPG Agreement on Mechanical Removal: Scope: Will be based on the 

 GCMRC proposal/plan for developing, testing and implementing methods for 

 control of problematic non native fishes in main stem below Lees Ferry and 

 tributaries targeted for translocation/control. GCMRC plan will be coordinated 

 with NPS efforts. Issue: need to develop justification for continuing the effort to 

 gain for public support. 

•SPG Agreement on Experimental Design: All Options are forward titration in 

 first segment (based on implementation schedule realities) with review in 2011(or 

 when TCD becomes operational) to determine actions and design for second 

 segment. Actions and experimental design in the 3rd segment will be determined 

 by the response of HBC and sediment to the actions implemented in segment 1 

 and 2.

•SPG Agreement on DRAFT SSP: Presentation and discussion of SSP by SPG. 

 Recommendations for change provided to Hamill. SPG to provide additional 

56
 comments to Hamill by April 3, 2006. Hamill will provide revised SSP for 

 additional SPG comment and review and approval by TWG in April.

•SPG Agreement for Experimental Design over three time periods or 

 segments.

Proposal: a modified design that sequences actions over three time periods 4-5 

years each is to: 

• Implement the compromise hydrograph that merges aspects of the 

different proposals under consideration for segment 1; identify and 

implement humpback chub actions from the comprehensive plan as 

planning is completed, technology becomes available, and funding is 

provided. 

• Implement the TCD in segment 2, with construction complete by 2011 or 

sooner. Continue the compromise hydrograph in segment 1. Consider 

what other actions, such as warmwater nonnative fish control, would be 

added with the onset of TCD operations to offset potential negative effects 

and avoid confounding. 

• In segment 3 use the responses of the key resources, endangered fish 

and fine sediment, to determine what change in actions will be included in 

that segment; i.e. steady flows. Triggers for this determination will be 

developed in segment 1 

57
TO: Science Planning Group 

FROM: L.D. Garrett, SAs Executive Director 

DATE: July 10, 2006 

SUBJECT: Notes from July 5-7 SPG Meeting 

In attendance: Dave Garrett, Norm Henderson, Kerry Christensen, Rick Johnson, Lloyd Greiner, Mike 

Yeatts, Dennis Kubly, Larry Stevens, Ken McMullen, Dave Siebert, Robert King, Leslie James. Andre 

Potochnik, Mary Barger and Gary Burton. Kurt Dongoske Glen Knowles, John Hamill, Matt Andersen, 

Ted Melis, Chris Beard, Glenn Bennett, Helen Fairley 

DISCUSSION OF LIMBAUGH MEMO; ISSUES RAISED 

• Review Limbaugh letter to the AMWG, specifically suggestion for a longer science planning 

timeline, perhaps as long as 25 years; and SPG request to provide more information on long term 

program, TCD, and Experimental Options. 

• FY07 work plan and hydrograph to be reviewed and approved during one hour AMWG 

conference call in first week of September (tentative). 

• Bring to closure experimental plan/final option and MRP recommendation in October. The MRP 

should be started in FY08. 

• Where does AMWG have the opportunity to weigh in on policy issues, if not through the work 

plan and budget process? 

• This is the 7th year of 8.23 maf flows without implementing steady flows. 

 

REVIEW OF ANNUAL WORK PLAN; 2007 

• Hamill presents an overview of the MRP to assist the AWP review. This topic will be revisited 

on the last day of the meeting (Friday) 

• Questions exist as to why GCMRC is not stated as lead on core monitoring and experimental 

plan issues. And, why have original elements of the core monitoring plan and the experimental 

plan not been merged into the MRP. GCMRC agrees to revisit this issue. 

• GCMRC notes that reviews of the core monitoring projects will involve both managers and 

outside independent scientists. 

• GCMRC notes there will be a workshop(s) or some kind before the monitoring project reviews 

are undertaken to establish program priorities/set funding limit etc. 

• Is GCMRC planning to fund the refuges and other items on the HBC initiative list. This remains 

to be discussed and decided. 

58
• There is no apparent prioritization process established, either for core monitoring or research. 

There already are prioritized RINs and prioritized CMINs, but they are not referenced in the 

MRP. 

AWP GOAL 1 DISCUSSIONS 

• Members want number of trips per project identified upfront in project descriptions. NPS needs 

this information in order to decide whether or not to support a given project. 

• A Parking lot is established for unsolved issues. Submerged aquatics vegetation is placed in 

parking lot. 

AWP GOAL 2 DISCUSSIONS

• Three HBC monitoring trips will occur more or less concurrently in the spring (March-April) and 

early fall (Sept-Oct) to strengthen reliability of the results for modeling purposes. 

• Appropriateness of funding the chute falls work out of the AMP funds is questioned. 

• Potential need exists for marking technology for YOY fish, so that it is possible to track them 

more effectively. 

• More focus needed on removal of carp and other non-natives from the LCR specifically. 

• Project dates don’t match the FY07 fiscal year. 

• Decision to park discussions to remove mechanical removal. Time to move mechanical removal 

into the management action realm. 

• Consensus is to provide the briefing on the fall steady flow experiment at the next TWG 

meeting. 

• Also resolution on the definition of management actions to be on the next TWG agenda. 

AWP GOAL 3 

• No project identified for dfc. McMullen offers to write a paragraph on this subject for inclusion 

in the MRP.

AWP GOAL 4 

• RBT GCMRC salaries to be included in the project budget. 

 

AWP GOAL 5 

59
• Concern that no funding for tribal vegetation monitoring is explicitly identified in the AWP or 

the MRP. 

• A concern exists that significant funds have been spent without producing a single peer reviewed 

publication or any interpretable results about effects of flows and sediment on vegetation/riparian 

zone. 

• Field sampling project should be put on hold until after the PEP in sping of 07. NPS has 

interests in having input into the veg mapping/monitoring program also. GCMRC would like to 

rescope this project and come back with a new proposal. 

• Noted that strategic science questions don’t match what is in the MRP. 

MONITORING OF LAKE POWELL 

• Pulling of water from the upper levels of the Lake is important to continue to monitor. 

AWP GOAL 7 

• Goal 7 – No modeling in FY06. 

• Even though the water quality monitoring project is billed as core monitoring, this project could 

evolve and budget could go up or down. 

• Interest in seeing LCR gage upgraded to monitor sediment inputs. Require approx. $30K extra. 

• Emphasis should be placed on monitoring “pea gravel” since this is presumably the type of 

substrate that would benefit HBC for spawning purposes. 

• Backwater temp modeling will go on about as long as the food base program is underway. Is 

GCMRC getting sufficient guidance from the SPG/TWG on where this effort needs to go? 

AWP GOALS 9, 10, 11

• Need to evaluate how changes in vegetation in campsite affect quality of visitor experience. 

• How sand bars change under varying flows could be better understood through comparisons with 

bar changes occurring on a unregulated part of the river system, e.g. Cataract Canyon. 

• Tribes unhappy with lack of funding for tribal monitoring. 

• Request for break down of cultural R&D project costs by tasks. Pie chart provided. 

AWP GOAL 12

• No major issues. 

60
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION BUDGET 

• Request that 25K per tribe be taken out of experimental carry over fund to pay for tribal 

monitoring programs in FY07. 

 

• NPS request that 7K extra be provided to pay for additional permitting costs in FY 07. 

• Request that new research project be developed to evaluate marking techniques for very YOY 

fishes, so effects of TCD can be tracked and evaluated in less than 4 yrs. 

• Proposed that the HBC Ad Hoc team identify the questions that need answering related to 

fate of very YOY HBC and define a scope of work for GCMRC to implement fully in FY 

08, but GCMRC needs to start working on researching available technologies for 

marking/tracking very YOY starting in FY 07. 

• Vote on SAV project: To not do at all in FY 07 (5 votes in favor); To do part in FY07 and part in 

FY 08 (1 vote). To do all of project in FY 07 (4 votes). Three (3) people abstain all together. 

• Conclusion on Chute Falls translocation project. Wait until the PEP is concluded before 

proposing additional translocation. If necessary can probably come up with an additional 15K if 

after the process reaches its conclusion more translocation is necessary. 

• Trout removal – NPS has no funding, nor any intention of taking over this program if it is 

deemed to be a management action 

• Management Action Issue. Clearly a policy decision that needs to be resolved at a higher level 

about how management actions will be paid for in the future. 

MECHANICAL REMOVAL

• Recommend sticking with the original plan (turn it off) until a decision about the new plan is 

made officially, or RBT rebounds. Define a trigger for reinstituting RBT removal. 

• GCMRC update the TWG on the status of RBT in the LCR reach after each monitoring trip or 

every six months or so. 

REVIEW OF PARKING LOT ISSUES

• SAV – Ted Kennedy will present on this project at the next TWG. SPG will pass up to the TWG 

the results of the split vote and TWG can decide if will be in or out. GCMRC will present two 

budgets. Other projects to be funded with this money, if we decide not to include it. 

• KAS/SWWF monitoring GCMRC and USF&WS could work out the differences. Maintain the 

fall river trip component, but make the spring monitoring trip a hike-in trip only. 

61
• Economic analysis. SPG reviews approach in July conference call and makes sure that the right 

questions are asked of the contractors. 

• Mechanical Removal. The SPG recommends that the non-native fish mechanical removal 

program focused primarily on trout be discontinued in FY 2007, as originally designed, 

and efforts be redirected at other non-native 

species, provided that appropriate monitoring of native and non-native fish populations is 

conducted. Such monitoring information may be used to evaluate the need to reinitiate 

trout removal on schedule differing from the original experimental design. 

The SPG recommends that the AMP (TWG-AMWG-Secretary Designee) direct the SPG to 

proceed with long-term experimental design and planning using the most rigorous 

scientific logic and processes. 

• Tribal Funding up to 125K is proposed from experimental fund. The SPG recommends that 

funding up to 25K per tribe be made available in FY 07 from the experimental fund 

(and/or from the budget currently allocated for the SAV project, if the SAV project does 

not get approved for FY 07), PROVIDED that the tribes first complete their existing 

contractual obligations with BOR to refine and explicitly define their monitoring 

interests/needs and proposed monitoring protocols, and these monitoring programs and 

protocols are formally presented to the TWG for consideration as core monitoring 

projects. 

• 7k for NPS permitting – BOR and GCMRC will find the 7K to deal with this request. 

• 30K for LCR gage GCMRC will continue the guage and transfer money as needed to resolve 

funding. 

• Continuation of SPG. Proposed that whatever this group produces in the form of a report to the 

Secretary’s Designee and TWG, include explicit recommendations for the future role of this 

group (future needs for SPG services and associated budgets to meet those needs). The Sectary’s 

Designee can then decide and direct TWG as to the future need/role for the SPG. 

• Early marking of HBC – HBC Ad Hoc will review and discuss this issue and bring a 

recommendation forward to TWG. 

• One hour SPG conference call starting at 9 am AZ time on July 20th. GCMRC will 

provide a briefing on GCMRC-USFWS resolution about KAS project and on economic analysis. 

Mary will report on CRAHG meeting discussion re: FY 07 budget. 

DISCUSSION OF FY 2007 HYDROGRAPH

• SPG specifies all potential options with three being common, i.e. 

1) ROD flows (MLFF) 

2) Steady fall flows (Sept/Oct) Sept would be 6-9k, Oct steady 8K, otherwise ROD. 

3) Same as Option 2, but with winter fluctuations 

62
• 6 people vote for MLFF and 6 people vote for MLFF with fall steady flows. No vote taken on 

Option 3, since option 3 is based on there being initial support for fall steady flows and the vote 

splits over 1 and 2. 

• Proposed experimental components: 

1) March BHBF with no additional costs for studying effects beyond normal monitoring. (3 vote 

in favor, 7 are opposed) 2) If we do steady fall flows, should we do them with or without winter 

fluctuations? Winter fluctuations would be 5-20K Monday through Saturday December through 

February, with steady 8K on Sunday, with ramping rates of 5000 up and 4000 down. Purpose is 

not to suppress trout (though there might be some impacts) but to mitigate effects to power. 

• If TWG decides in favor of steady flows, 7 SPG members are in favor of including winter 

fluctuations as a mitigative action, 3 opposed. 

EXPERIMENTAL OPTIONS

• The SPG approves GCMRC proposal to restructure developed options 1, 2, 3, 4 and SPG A & B 

into options SPG A, B, C and a no action alternative. 

• WAPA is also willing to tweak the existing Option A, if the SPG is willing to consider additional 

tweaking at this time. 

• SPG will consider tweaking of GCMRC proposed options A, B and C only, but this needs to be 

done in a timely manner. GCMRC will define the deadline for end of tweaking the existing 

options and need a firm commitment from BOR and WAPA that one or the other will deliver 

hourly volumes and ramping rates to GCMRC by a specified date. 

• A diligent job of scientific analysis is requested including citable references for conclusions, etc. 

• Analysis to be done by August, so all data about the experiments must be provided within next 

10 days. 

• SPG does not want GCMRC to rely exclusively on the KA as the basis for evaluating effects of 

the experiment. BOR and WAPA will provide an overview of changes they are proposing to 

Options A and C. The environmental community and boaters will evaluate potential changes to 

option B. 

• GCMRC will sit down with principal proponent of each experimental design and define the 

details of each option for this analysis, including specifying which elements are truly 

experimental vs. management actions vs. mitigations. 

MRP REVIEW 

• Fly fishers and CREDA recommend revisions in writing, since they had to leave early. 

• NPS provides comments on the MRP on the laptop computer. 

63
• There may be some changes suggested based on CRAHG review. Notes on changes will be 

provided by Chair of CRAHG. 

• Need clear definition of what will be included as core monitoring 

• Concern about potential discrepancies between what MRP says and potential changes that may 

be necessitated based on what is included in the final experimental design. 

• Concern that MRP is not structured explicitly around the strategic science questions and is not 

clearly tied to established priorities. Same applies to research plan – what are the real priorities? 

The program ought to be focused around the key strategic question, with program laid out for 

getting to resolution of key questions. 

• MRP should lay the road map out for how we finally get to the integration of the individual 

goals/resources into an ecosystem context. 

• SAs recognized some of the same issues, but they also saw that most of the critical gaps in the 

program have been explicitly recognized and are being addressed in the MRP. They also 

recognized the need for more focus on critical science questions. 

• MRP should clearly define commitments to completing key elements of the plan in five years. 

• Cross walk between strategic science questions and AMWG priorities and prioritized CMINS 

• MRP is supported for recommendation to TWG with changes proposed. GCMRC agrees to give 

everyone one more week to submit comments, then we will make changes and forward to TWG 

for approval. 

64
DRAFT 

TO: SPG Members 

FROM: L.D. Garrett, SA Executive Director 

DATE: June 30, 2006 

SUBJECT: Discussions and Agreements from May SPG Meeting 

Following are notes from our May 23-24, 2006 SPG meeting which was held at the 

Phoenix BIA, 12th floor, conference room A. 

 

The meeting was convened at 10:10 a.m. In attendance were Dennis Kubly, Bill 

Persons, Kerry Christiansen, Mark Steffan, Kurt Dongoske, Leslie James, Lloyd Greiner, Norm 

Henderson, Rick Johnson, Dave Garrett, John Hamill, Ted Melis, Matt Andersen, Helen 

Fairley, Tara Conrad, Glen Knowles, Mary Barger, and Gary Burton. 

Two potential changes in the current SPG direction were proposed to provide improvements in 

decision processes on experimental options. They are precipitated by discussions with DOI 

leadership. 

1) AMWG/TWG might be to report to the Secretary information on all experimental options 

that we have been considering up to now, rather than attempting to agree on one 

option. 

2) AMWG/TWG may also want to consider how the SPG outcomes can be used to support 

the NEPA process. 

Discussions on 1) above led to a conclusion to forward SPG developed information on all 

Options to the TWG, i.e., 1, 2, 3, and 4 and Options A and B. Consistent information would be 

provided for all options as originally developed for Options 1-4. 

Discussions on 2) above, contributions of the SPG process to NEPA requirements, resulted 

in several resolves. 

• The NEPA process for experimental options (flow and non-flow elements) may require 

an EIS. 

• More clarification and improved specification is needed on flow and non-flow actions 

proposed for inclusion in each option. 

• The SPG also requested that Hamill and Garrett obtain clarification from the Assistant 

Secretary on what specifically is needed from the SPG and other AMP groups regarding 

experimental options and science plans, i.e., MRP, and report back to the SPG. 

• A list of 8 SPG questions, as follows, were developed to assist Hamill and Garrett in 

discussions with Gold and Limbaugh. 

General Questions: 

65
1. Does the Secretary want a recommendation on experimental options from the AMP? 

Or just the identification of the various options that should/could be considered by DOI? 

2. In addition to the 6 experimental option alternatives, is there desire to evaluate the “no 

action” alternative (ROD)? 

3. Should stakeholders continue to work towards consensus on trying to merge or revise 

experimental options? 

4. What type of information/analysis and level of detail should be provided on each 

experimental option? 

5. What will be the process for finalizing/approving the Strategic Science Plan, Monitoring 

and Research Plan and FY 07/08 Work plan and Budget (without experimental 

elements) by August? i.e. Can these documents be approved via conference call with 

the AMWG on or before August 31, 2006? 

6. What is the deadline for the AMP to finalize and recommend the experimental option(s) 

to the Secretary? 

7. Is there a need to develop a detailed experimental plan beyond the currently proposed 

5-7 years? 

8. What information from SPG (and at what level of specificity) is needed as input to the 

FY 2007-11 experimental program NEPA assessment 

A discussion of SPG proposed economic analysis of the experimental options 

was proposed to be terminated for current planning and revisited at a later date, potentially in 

the NEPA process. More explicit guidelines and protocols would be needed for the analysis if 

and when it is revisited. 

 

Discussions were opened on the MRP and BAWP. The SSP had been 

previously approved by the SPG for recommended to TWG. 

Discussions of the MRP preceded the BAWP. Hamill provided clarification on how 

monitoring projects would be screened for inclusion in core monitoring, i.e., first green projects 

then current R&D projects for monitoring. Specific approaches are in the MRP, but concerns 

over time frames are not specified. 

• Proposals were made for; including elements on timing of the analysis of green 

monitoring projects, hydropower costs; parasite projects; consistency of MRP and 

BAWP; and percentage budget allocations to core monitoring. 

• Integrated interdisciplinary science with guidance from SAs would involve review of 

conceptual model and refinement of interdisciplinary science approaches. Review and 

recommendations for a revised direction is to be provided by SAs in FY 2007. 

66
• Personnel changes to support MRP would include placement of a Deputy Chief for 

program integration from current staff, and an ecosystem scientist (part time) from 

outside GCMRC. 

• Monitoring and Research programs outside AMP are proposed including LCR threats, 

Lake Powell water quality, and climate change impacts. Programs would be supported 

through supplemental funding outside AMP. 

• The MRP table listing all proposal programs/projects was proposed to be reinstated. 

• Emphasis on diction efforts to have alternate assessment criteria for recruitment was 

proposed. 

• More specific linkage among programs/projects in SSP/MRP/BAWP is needed. 

• GCMRC notes that trout mechanical* removal will cease in FY 2007, but it is listed in 

MRP. 

• It is proposed that MRP be completed in July/August with options for revisions in 

October required by selected experimental option. 

• Continued work on MRP will be in the July 5-7 SPG meeting. It was proposed that the 

June SPG/TWG meeting be cancelled and have a July 5-7 SPG meeting and July or 

August TWG meeting. All SPG MRP reviews are to be to Hamill by June 9, with new 

draft to SPG by June 28. 

Review, discussions and decisions on the BAWP included: 

• SA review to be mailed to SPG supports adoption of the SSP, MRP, and BAWP with 

proposed changes. Selected proposed changes were presented including: more robust 

three step approach to building bridges; complete green monitoring project analysis in 

year, etc. The complete SA review is to be mailed to SPG. 

• GCMRC and some SPG members propose repeating ROD flows in FY 2007. Some 

SPG members propose steady flows of some extent in FY 2007. A discussion of the FY 

2007 hydrograph was delayed to July 5-7. 

A line by line review of all BAWP projects was proposed by SPG members, with the 

following outcomes accomplished. 

• CM (core monitoring) projects should be restricted to green projects that will be 

reviewed and presumably approved in Fy07 – all others should be in R&D. 

• Budget table should be reorganized to follow the order of projects presented in the 

BAWP (organized by Goal) 

• Modeling project includes salary for Scott Wright and Steve Wiele to continue working 

on eddy storage modeling. 

• Temperature modeling effort is being done by GCMRC and should be done by end of 

FY06, so no additional funding is proposed in FY07. 

• Add additional temperature monitoring at additional mainstem/backwater sites in the 

future to the experimental part of the Integrated WQ project in FY07 (07.7.3) as well as 

potentially to the long-term core monitoring project (07.7.1). (Parking lot). 

• Paria gage is not included in the core monitoring project, but food base researchers 

would like to see gage resurrected to track nutrient inputs when the Paria floods. 

67
• There is insufficient detail in the BAWP about the core monitoring methods of Project 

07.7.1. GCMRC commits to go back and add more information in the BAWP. 

• When and where will a document be developed that actually spells out the details of 

core monitoring, project analysis, i.e., what will be done, when, and who will do it. 

(Parking Lot) 

• Is campsite monitoring included in 07.8.1 project. GCMRC says yes. 

• 07.12.1 – In preparation for remote sensing mission in FY 09, $140K will be put in a 

working capital fund, approx. 1/3 in FY07, then another 1/3 in FY 08 and another in FY 

09. 

• 07.12. 6 – Should be either identified as part of vegetation monitoring, beach 

monitoring, etc. rather than as a stand-alone DASA project with no clear links to CM, 

R&D. (Parking lot). 

• Has GCMRC funded the appropriate level of resolution for remote sensing in FY09? 

(Parking lot). 

• 07.12.2 Database management – includes part of Glen Bennett’s salary and all of Chris 

Flaccus’s salary, plus a $20,000 contract for support of the Oracle database. 

• 07.12.3 – library support. 

• 07.12.4 – legacy analog data conversion. Take all airphotos and convert them to 

electronic digital formats. 

• Concern exits over the very significant increase in the DASA program funding 

• Potential disconnect between the PEP review process and the core monitoring 

evaluation process. 

• Where is the project/funding for reviewing the green projects? (Parking lot). 

• 07.1.1. Food base study – basically the same as in the past. Increase reflects hiring a 

biotech to assist Ted Kennedy and Wyatt. 

• Can we pick up with current monitoring the effects of oxygen depletion from future dam 

releases? 

• Submerged Aquatic Vegetation – potentially will become a core monitoring effort in the 

future. This is potentially one of the most important variables affecting trout fishery. 

Aquatic vegetation has been severely affected by recent flow regime and we need to 

understand how/why it has been affected. Is this being captured under Project 07.1.1? 

(Parking lot). 

• 07.1.22 – Complete diet/drift/predation study. Analysis and write-up should have been 

completed with the prior budget allocated to this project. The SPG wants more detail 

about how many samples are left to analyze, what is the status of the data base, what 

exactly would the analysis entail. 

• Identify its priority projects and/or priorities within projects. GCMRC should identify 

which projects are truly critical, important vs. less so or less immediate. 

 

68
M3 RESEARCH 

L. David & Pamela Garrett, Principals 

53716 Falcon Rd 

Olathe, CO 81425 

970-323-9511 (Ph) 

970-323-9512 (Fax) 

E-Mail: m3research@aol.com

DRAFT 

TO: Science Planning Group and Science Advisor Files 

FROM: L.D. Garrett, Executive Director, SAs 

DATE: November 20, 2005 

SUBJECT: Actions Taken at November 8-9, 2005 SPG Meeting 

 The November 8-9, 2005 SPG meeting was attended by the following representatives: 

Bill Persons, Barb Ralston, Helen Fairley, Ted Melis, Mary Barger, Gary Burton, Dave Garrett, 

Pamela Garrett, Chris Kincaid, Ken McMullen, Lisa Leap, Mike Yeatts, Mike Berry, Lloyd 

Greiner, Mark Steffens, Glen Knowles, Norm Henderson, Mark McKinstry, Dennis Kubly, 

Claton Palmer, Wayne Cook, Dave Siebert. 

 The goals of the meeting were to accomplish the following: 

 1. Revise and agree to a SPG schedule, general agenda and outcomes for the 

 period 11/05-7/06. 

 2. Discuss Experimental Options. Options were presented across a range of 

 alternatives by GCMRC and stakeholders. 

 3. Agree to revised set of objectives for SPG for the 11/05-7/06 period. 

 4. Review HBCCP projects and evaluate which research, monitoring and 

 management actions are to be evaluated in the GCD AMP for FY 2007/2011. 

 5. Review new merged monitoring and research plan format for adoption. 

 6. Review and propose changes to SSP. 

 7. Discuss and propose changes to MRP. 

 Actions taken by SPG at the meeting include the following. 

 1. Agreed to a revised SPG schedule to be developed by Garrett for next SPG 

 meeting. 

69
 2. Agreed to revised set of objectives for SPG. Garrett to draft proposed set of 

 outcomes for objectives for next SPG meeting (1/06). 

 3. The SPG objective to develop a process to determine DFCs for CRE 

 resources is led by K. McMullen. Ken will use a GCNP process for defining 

 DFCs and provide presentation at the January SPG meeting. 

4. Because of concerns over the need to merge disparate views on DFCs, Mark 

 McKinstry agreed to evaluate computer based models to assist the group in the 

 process, and present an assessment at a future SPG meeting. 

 5. The proposal to merge the Research Plan and Monitoring Plan is accepted by 

 the group with the caveat of continued review of MRP revisions at the January 

 and February meetings. A “Monitoring Research Plan” is the proposed title 

 (MRP). It is recommended that the document title demonstrate that is an 

 outcome of the GCD AMP. 

6. The review of the HBCCP revealed 9 listed project areas as potentially 

 requiring a research or monitoring effort by GCMRC in FY 2007/2008. The 

 HBCCP Group will develop potential costs for all proposed HBC projects and 

 provide to the SPG in January or February. 

7. Three primary Experimental Options were reviewed. Options one and two, as 

 presented at the meeting, include a combination of flow and non flow 

 activities. Two differs from one only in the addition of low a flow option in the 

 fall. Both one and two combine elements of factorial and forward titration 

 experimental processes. Option three includes the flow and non flow 

 elements of one and two, with additional emphasis on winter and summer trout 

 suppression/stranding flows. The option is presented as a reverse titration 

 design. GCMRC will provide evaluations of options 1, 2, and three at the 

 January SPG meeting. 

8. The GCMRC/SPG/SA review of the SSP resulted in significant 

 recommendations for change. The SPG was asked to provide to GCMRC any 

 additional recommendation for change by 12/20/05. GCMRC will revise SSP 

 for January or February presentations and discussions with SPG. 

70
9. The GCMRC/SPG/SA discussion of the MPR resulted in several proposals for 

 change. However, the document was presented at the meeting, and SPG 

 members had no opportunity for a review. The review period was extended to 

 12/20/05. 

SPG members were encouraged to attend the November TWG meeting for 

additional input on science planning. 

 

71
APPENDIX E 

EXAMPLE SPG PROCESS 

FOR RANKING GOALS 

72
ADDRESSING AMWG GOALS THROUGH 

STRUCTURED SCIENCE QUESTIONS 

LAKE POWELL RESOURCES

AMWG Goals: None specified; although INs are specified 

Potential Science Question 

• How would potential future climate changes for the Southwest impact resources of the Lake 

Powell Ecosystem and Colorado River Ecosystem of the GCD AMP?

• How would the CRE and Lake Powell ecosystems and resources respond to an

 extended drought?

THE CRE PHYSICAL RESOURCES 

AMWG Goals 

• Maintain or attain necessary levels of useable sediment storage in CRE for

desired CRE resource conditions and ecosystem function.

• Establish water temperature, quality and flow dynamics to achieve CRE

goals.

Potential Science Questions 

• How are sediment fines routed and stored through the CRE under differing 

 flow regimes? 

• What flow regime strategies best maintain fines in the CRE and maintain 

 beaches and cultural resources? 

• What are the physical relationships of flows and terrestrial vegetation? 

• How does the CRE respond to drought? 

• How will changes in water temperatures effect distributions and trophic 

 interactions of native and exotic fishes? 

• Will a flow only option restore and maintain sandbar habitats over decadal time 

scales? 

• What is the optimal BHBF and maintenance flow strategy to manage 

 tributary inputs on an annual to inter-annual time scale 

• What are the short-term responses of sandbars to BHBFs? 

• What are the changes in eddy storage during time intervals between 

 BHBFs? 

• How does the grain size distribution of the deposits effect sandbars 

 stability? 

• What are the effects or ramping rates on sediment transport and sandbar 

 stability? 

• Can we develop a relationship between suspended sediment concentration and turbidity 

 support fisheries research? 

• How does the CRE and Lake Powell respond to drought? 

• How will recent changes in water temperature effect distribution and trophic interactions of 

native and exotic fishes 

• Do we need predictive capabilities for dissolved oxygen in dam releases, 

 downstream? 

73
• Can BHBF maintain sand bars (beaches) without sand augmentation? 

• What BHBF strategy maximizes sand storage? 

• What are the long term rates of eddy erosion between BHBF? 

• What is the expected frequency of BHBFs without sediment augmentation? 

• During the intervening periods, to what characteristic size are eddy bars expected to shrink? 

• Would any change in dam operations have any measurable effect on the size of these bars? 

• Would the cost of these operational changes be acceptable in a local and regional sense? 

• What operational changes are necessary to increase the quality of fine sediment available for 

redistribution during a BHBF and to decrease the duration of time between BHBFs? 

• If sediment were added to the system and the frequency or rebuilding events increased, to 

what larger size would be the average eddy bar condition? Would the increased costs of 

sediment augmentation be offset by the potentially decreased emphasis on restrictions of 

flows during the intervening periods? 

• To what average bar condition do managers want the system to remain? 

THE CRE BIOTOC RESOURCES

AMWG Goals 

• Maintain or attain viable populations of existing native fish, remove jeopardy from 

humpback chub and razorback sucker, and prevent adverse modification to their critical 

habitat;

• Maintain a naturally reproducing population of rainbow trout above the Paria River 

consistent with maintenance of native fish below Paria

• Protect and improve the aquatic food base to support viable populations of desired species at 

higher trophic levels

• Restore, maintain or attain viable population of KAS and other TES as feasible and advisable

• Protect or improve the biotic riparian and spring communities, including TES and their 

critical habitat

Potential Science Questions 

• What is the limiting lifestage controlling population size of HBC, mainstem spawning and 

juvi production from LCR, adult mortality in LCR and mainstem?

• What are the main factors effecting HBC recruitment dynamics? 

• Given release temperatures and meteorological conditions along the river, can

we predict sub-daily variation in mainstem river temperatures throughout the CRE? 

• For a given mainstem temperature and meteorology, can we predict sub-daily nearshore 

temperatures (longitudinally, laterally and vertically) throughout the CRE?

• What is the effect of increased temperatures on recruitment to adult

population of HBC?

• Do higher temperatures promote successful HBC spawning in the mainstem?

• Do higher temperatures increase the survival rate of juveniles?

• What is the effect of daily fluctuations on recruitment to adult population of HBC?

• Do increased fluctuations (daily range, etc.) decrease the survival rate of spawning, YoY and 

juvenile survival?

• Do fluctuations have an effect on backwater survival when releases from GCD are warm? 

Does a reduction in the abundance of BNT and RBT increase HBC recruitment?

74
• How will HBC and RBT respond to varied flows, temperatures, and populations?

• How do CRE biotic resources such as HBC and RBT respond to changes in water quality?

• What are the food base requirements for HBC and RBT?

• How are riparian and spring communities and habitat affected by flow regimes?

• What are the physical and biotic relationships of flows and terrestrial vegetation?

• How does the occurrence and state of marsh and backwater communities associated with 

different flow regimes effect fish reproduction and survival?

• How is the encroachment of native and non-native vegetation on recreation sites related to 

flow regimes?

• What is the contribution of the terrestrial ecosystem to the river? 

• How do flows affect productivity and decomposition rates of riparian vegetation?

• How does vegetation composition change spatially (within zones and between beaches) and 

temporally (e.g., time since disturbance) with flows and sediment availability and grain size? 

• How do warmer releases affect viability and productivity of native/non-native 

vegetation? 

• To what extent and in what respects can BHBF’s (magnitude and frequency) 

achieve reduction of exotic species? 

• How could monthly volumes be changed to beneficially affect recreation, 

TCPs, and riparian habitat? 

• Is the diversity of riparian species found along the river corridor constrained 

phylogenetically or by environmental factors? 

• What are the rates of change for woody and perennial species and how are these rates 

affected by time since disturbance? 

THE CRE SOCIAL CULTURAL RESOURCES 

AMWG Goals 

• Maintain or improve the quality of recreational experiences for users of the Colorado River 

ecosystem, within the framework of the Adaptive Management Program ecosystem goals. 

• Maintain power production capacity and energy generation, and increase where feasible and 

advisable, within the framework of the Adaptive Management ecosystem goals. 

• Preserve, protect, manage, and treat cultural resources for the inspiration and benefit of past, 

present, and future generations. 

• Maintain a high quality monitoring, research, and adaptive management program. 

Potential Science Questions 

• Can recreational experience be quantified for single event opportunities vs. multi-opportunity 

experiences? 

• What are the drivers for recreational experience? 

• How important are flows relative to other drivers for recreational experience? 

• What is the minimum size, quantity, distribution and quality of campsites to meet NPS goals 

for visitor experience? 

• How are safety & navigability measured relative to flows? 

• How does flows increase or decrease the rates of erosion at arch sites? 

• To what extent and in what respects can BHBF’s achieve systemwide mitigation to arch site 

erosion? 

75
• What is the optimal return frequency for mitigation purposes? 

• What, where and why are TCPs important? This information is needed to evaluated effects 

of flows on them? 

• How can tribal data/analyses/values be incorporated into western science process to evaluate 

flow operations and management action effects on TCPs? 

• What comprehensive cultural resource strategy is most appropriate for FY 2005-2009? 

• How can flow impacted cultural resource loss be best mitigated in FY 2005-2009? 

• How are current human uses of the CRE impacted by flow regimes and how do these current 

uses impact other components of the CRE? 

76
APPENDIX F 

A PROCESS FOR SPECIFYING AND 

ADOPTING CORE MONITORING PROJECTS 

77
AMP Goal 1st CMIN for 

inclusion in CMP 

2nd CMIN for 

inclusion in 

CMP 

3rd CMIN for 

inclusion in 

CMP 

4th CMIN for 

inclusion in 

CMP 

5th CMIN for 

inclusion in CMP 

HBC 1) CMIN 2.1.2 Determine 

and track recruitment 

(identify life stage), 

abundance and distribution 

of HBC in the LCR. 

2) CMIN 2.1.2 

Determine and track 

recruitment (identify 

life stage), abundance 

and distribution of 

HBC in the mainstem. 

3) 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. 

4) CMIN 2.4.1 

Determine and track 

the abundance and 

distribution of nonnative predatory fish 

species in the 

Colorado River. 

5) CMIN 2.6.1 Determine 

and track the abundance 

and distribution of 

flannelmouth sucker, 

bluehead sucker, and 

speckled dace populations 

in the Colorado River 

ecosystem. 

Cultural 1) 11.1.1 Determine the 

condition and integrity of 

prehistoric and historic 

sites in the Colorado River 

ecosystem through 

tracking rates of erosion, 

visitor impacts, and other 

relevant variables. 2) 

11.2.1 Determine the 

condition and integrity of 

TCPs in the Colorado 

River ecosystem. 

3) 11.2.1 Determine 

the condition of 

traditionally important 

resources and locations 

using tribal 

perspectives and 

values. 

WQ 4) CMIN 7.4.2 Determine 

and track flow releases 

(gage data and SCADA 

data; time interval still 

TBD) from Glen Canyon 

Dam, under all operating 

conditions, particularly 

related to flow duration, 

upramp, and downramp 

conditions. (parameters are 

upramp and downramp 

rates, volume, daily 

minimum and max) 

1) CMIN 7.1.1 

Determine the water 

temperature dynamics 

in the mainstem, 

tributaries (as 

appropriate, 

temperature only in 

mainstem and LCR), 

backwaters, and nearshore areas throughout 

the Colorado River 

ecosystem. 

3) CMIN 7.2.1 

Determine the 

seasonal and yearly 

trends in turbidity, 

conductivity, DO, 

and pH, (decide 

below whether 

selenium is 

important) changes 

in the mainstem 

throughout the 

Colorado River 

ecosystem? 

2) CMIN 7.1.2 

Determine and track 

LCR discharge and 

temperature near 

mouth (below 

springs). 

78
Foodbase 1) CMIN 1.1.1 Determine 

and track the composition 

and biomass of primary 

producers below Glen 

Canyon Dam in 

conjunction with 

measurements of flow, 

nutrients, water 

temperature, and light 

regime. 2) CMIN 1.2.1 

Determine and track the 

composition and biomass 

of benthic invertebrates 

below Glen Canyon Dam 

in conjunction with 

measurements of flow, 

nutrients, water 

temperature, and light 

regime. 

3) CMIN 1.5.1 

Determine and track the 

composition and biomass of drift in the 

Colorado River in 

conjunction with 

measurements of flow, 

nutrients, water 

temperature, and light 

regime. 

Riparian 1) 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. 

4) 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. 

2) CMIN 6.2.1 

Determine and 

track the patch 

number, patch 

distribution, 

composition and 

area of the NHWZ, 

OHWZ, and sand 

beach communities 

as measured at 5-

year or other 

appropriate 

intervals based on 

life cycles of the 

species and rates of 

change for the 

community. 

3) 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. 

Sediment 3) 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? 

4) CMIN 8.2.1 Track, 

as appropriate, the 

biennial or annual 

sandbar area, volume 

and grain-size changes 

within and outside of 

eddies between 5,000 

and 25,000 cfs stage, 

by reach. 

2) CMIN 8.1.2 

What are the 

monthly sand and 

silt/clay –export 

volumes and grainsize characteristics, 

by reach, as 

measured at Lees 

Ferry, Lower 

Marble Canyon, 

Grand Canyon, and 

Diamond Creek 

Stations? 

1) CMIN 8.1.1 

Determine and track 

the biennial sand 

bar area and finesediment volume 

and grain-size 

changes within 

eddies below 5,000 

cfs stage, by reach. 

5) CMIN 8.5.1 Track, as 

appropriate, the biennial 

sandbar area, volume and 

grain-size changes above 

25,000 cfs stage, by 

reach. 

79
Recreation 4) 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. 

1) CMIN 9.1.1 

Determine and track the 

changes attributable to 

dam operations in 

recreational quality, 

opportunities and use, 

impacts, serious 

incidents, and 

perceptions of users, 

including the level of 

satisfaction, in the 

Colorado River 

Ecosystem. 

5) CMIN 9.5.1 

Determine and 

track the frequency 

and scheduling of 

research and 

monitoring activity 

in Glen and Grand 

Canyons. 

2) CMIN 9.1.2 

Determine and track 

the frequency and 

scheduling of riverrelated use patterns. 

3) CMIN 9.2.2 Determine 

and track accident rates 

for visitors participating 

in river-related 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. 

KAS 1) 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). 

2) CMIN 5.2.1 

Determine and track the 

size and composition of 

the habitat used by 

Kanab ambersnail at 

Vasey’s Paradise. 

Power 1) CMIN 10.1.1 

Determine and track the 

marketable capacity and 

energy produced through 

dam operations in relation 

to the various release 

scenarios(daily fluctuation 

limit, upramp and 

downramp limits, list 

components, maximum 

flow limit of 25,000 cfs, 

minimum flow limit of 

5,000 cfs). 

AMP None identified 

Trout 1) CMIN 4.1.1 Determine 

annual population 

estimates for age II+ 

rainbow trout in the Lees 

Ferry reach. 

3) CMIN 4.1.4 

Determine annual 

growth rate, standard 

condition (Kn), and 

relative weight of 

rainbow trout in the 

Lees Ferry reach. 

2) CMIN 4.1.2 

Determine annual 

proportional stock 

density of rainbow 

trout in the Lees 

Ferry reach. 

Extirpated 

Species 

None identified 

80
APPENDIX G 

LINKING AMP SCIENCE QUESTIONS 

AND INFORMATION NEEDS 

81
 Appendix X. Crosswalk between science questions and AMP research and core monitoring 

information needs. 

AMP Goal 

(in 

priority 

order) 

Overarching and 

refined science 

questions 

Relevant 

CMINs (as 

redefined by 

SPG) and 

RINs 

CMINs (as redefined and 

prioritized by SPG) 

a. Environmental affects on 

recruitment dynamics. What 

is the limiting life stage 

controlling recruitment of the 

HBC? 

HBC (and RIN 

other 

native 

fishes) 

b. Environmental affects 

on recruitment dynamics. 

What are the dominant factors 

controlling recruitment of 

HBC? 

RIN 

1) CMIN 2.1.2 Determine and track 

recruitment (identify life stage), abundance 

and distribution of HBC in the LCR. 

2) CMIN 2.1.2 Determine and track 

recruitment (identify life stage), abundance 

and distribution of HBC in the mainstem. 

3) 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. 

4) CMIN 2.4.1 Determine and track the 

abundance and distribution of non-native 

predatory fish species in the Colorado 

River. 

5) CMIN 2.6.1 Determine and track the 

abundance and distribution of flannelmouth 

sucker, bluehead sucker, and speckled dace 

populations in the Colorado River 

ecosystem. 

Cultural a. How do flows, climate, and 

human use interact to impact 

historic properties in the CRE, 

and more specifically, do 

flows affect (increase or 

decrease) rates of erosion of 

the higher Holocene deposits 

where most archaeological 

sites occur? Subquestions (of 

Question a): 

• To what extent do flows 

affect archaeological site 

stability/integrity in the 

CRE? 

• If dam controlled flows 

are contributing to 

(influencing rates of) 

archaeological site/TCP 

degradation, what are the 

optimal flows for 

minimizing future impacts 

to these historic 

properties? 

• To what extent and in 

what respects can BHBFs 

be used to achieve 

systemwide mitigation of 

CMINS 11.1.1 and 

11.1.2. RINS 11.1.1, 

11.1.2 , 11.1.2a, EIN 

11.1.1 

1) 11.1.1 Determine the condition and 

integrity of prehistoric and historic sites in 

the Colorado River ecosystem through 

tracking rates of erosion, visitor impacts, 

and other relevant variables. 

 2) 11.1.2 Determine the condition and 

integrity of TCPs in the Colorado River 

ecosystem. 

3) 11.2.1 Determine the condition of 

traditionally important resources and 

locations using tribal perspectives and 

values.

82
archaeological site 

erosion? 

• If flows or BHBFs can 

not be applied to benefit 

cultural resources, can 

other sustainable 

treatment options be 

applied for preserving 

threatened heritage 

resources in the Colorado 

River corridor, and what 

are the best (most 

effective and least 

intrusive) options for in 

situ preservation of 

cultural resources?

b. How do flows positively or 

negatively impact the 

culturally-valued flora and 

fauna in the CRE (especially 

the biological communities 

associated with TCPs)? 

CMIN 11.2.1 and RINS 

11.2.1, 11.2.2, 11.2.3, 

and 11.2.4 

c. What important historical/ 

legacy information about the 

CRE ecosystem and past 

human use of the CRE are 

embedded within the higher 

elevation Holocene deposits 

and will be lost due to the 

ongoing erosion of these older 

pre-dam deposits? 

CMIN 11.1.1. and RINS 

11.1.1a,b,c 

83
a. How do dam operations, 

reservoir conditions, 

tributaries, climate, canyon 

orientation/aspect, and the 

proposed temperature control 

device affect water 

temperature along the 

Colorado River in Grand 

Canyon, both in the main 

channel (1-dimensional) and 

in near-shore habitats (2 & 3-

dimensional elements that tie 

1-D responses to temperatures 

within backwaters)? 

WQ 

b. How does water 

temperature affect other water 

quality parameters and other 

resources such as the aquatic 

food base, fish, biological 

pathogens, recreation, etc? 

Question b. is determined via 

actual monitoring and research 

of other resources such as 

RBT, HBC, food base etc. 

However Question a. can be 

pursued under water quality, 

through several other subquestions of a., including; 

• What would release 

temperatures and downstream 

near-shore temperature be 

like under prolonged drought 

conditions? 

• How do backwater 

temperatures in the vicinity of 

the LCR differ under differing 

fluctuating versus steady flow 

alternative? 

• What temperature would 

the main channel achieve at a 

given location during a low 

steady flow during a typical 

summer with a TCD in place? 

1) CMIN 7.4.2 Determine and track flow 

releases (gage data and SCADA data; time 

interval still TBD) from Glen Canyon Dam, 

under all operating conditions, particularly 

related to flow duration, upramp, and 

downramp conditions. (parameters are 

upramp and downramp rates, volume, daily 

minimum and max) 

2) CMIN 7.1.1 Determine the water 

temperature dynamics in the mainstem, 

tributaries (as appropriate, temperature only 

in mainstem and LCR), backwaters, and 

near-shore areas throughout the Colorado 

River ecosystem. 

3) CMIN 7.2.1 Determine the seasonal and 

yearly trends in turbidity, conductivity, DO, 

and pH, (decide below whether selenium is 

important) changes in the mainstem 

throughout the Colorado River ecosystem? 

4) CMIN 7.1.2 Determine and track LCR 

discharge and temperature near mouth 

(below springs).

84
a. Basic understanding 

of food web linkages: 

What are the important 

pathways, and the rate of 

flux along them, that link 

lower trophic levels with 

fish? 

b. Relational 

understanding of 

productivity and 

operational affects: 

How is invertebrate flux 

affected by water quality 

and dam operations? 

Foodbase 

c. Linkage between 

food availability (local 

and drifting food) and 

fish abundances: Are 

trends in the abundance 

of fish populations or 

indicators associated with 

fish, correlated with 

patterns in food 

availability and/or 

quality? 

1) CMIN 1.1.1 Determine and track the 

composition and biomass of primary 

producers below Glen Canyon Dam in 

conjunction with measurements of flow, 

nutrients, water temperature, and light 

regime. 

2) CMIN 1.2.1 Determine and track the 

composition and biomass of benthic 

invertebrates below Glen Canyon Dam in 

conjunction with measurements of flow, 

nutrients, water temperature, and light 

regime. 

3) CMIN 1.5.1 Determine and track the 

composition and bio-mass of drift in the 

Colorado River in conjunction with 

measurements of flow, nutrients, water 

temperature, and light regime.

Riparian a. Temporal and spatial 

interactions within the 

riparian community. How do 

processes occurring at a 

variety of spatial scales (i.e., 

population level to community 

to landscape scales) interface 

to influence riparian habitat 

structure and composition? 

1) 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. 

2) 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. 

3) CMIN 6.2.1 Determine and track the 

patch number, patch distribution, 

85
b. Temporal and spatial 

interactions between 

ecosystem components. What 

is the nature and timing of 

terrestrial—aquatic linkages, 

and what is their influence on 

the recipient habitat? 

c. Temporal and spatial 

interactions between 

ecosystem components. How 

do terrestrial habitat and 

cultural resources interface? 

composition and area of the NHWZ, 

OHWZ, and sand beach communities as 

measured at 5-year or other appropriate 

intervals based on life cycles of the species 

and rates of change for the community. 

4) CMIN 6.5.1 Determine and track the 

distribution and abundance of non-native 

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. 

Sediment Is there a “flow-only” 

(meaning, without sediment 

augmentation) operating 

strategy for Glen Canyon Dam 

releases that will attain and 

maintain necessary levels of 

useable sediment storage in 

the Colorado River ecosystem 

(CRE) to achieve desired CRE 

resource conditions and 

ecosystem function? 

Assumption: artificial floods, 

termed Beach/HabitatBuilding Flows, are a required 

element of the flow-only 

management strategy. 

1) 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? 

2) CMIN 8.2.1 Track, as appropriate, the 

biennial or annual sandbar area, volume and 

grain-size changes within and outside of 

eddies between 5,000 and 25,000 cfs stage, 

by reach. 

3) 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? 

4) CMIN 8.1.1 Determine and track the 

biennial sand bar area and fine-sediment 

volume and grain-size changes within 

eddies below 5,000 cfs stage, by reach. 

5) CMIN 8.5.1 Track, as appropriate, the 

biennial sandbar area, volume and grainsize changes above 25,000 cfs stage, by 

reach. 

Recreation a. What are the principle 

drivers of recreational 

experience quality in the 

CRE, and how important are 

flows relative to the other 

drivers? 

CMIN 9.1.1.1 and RINS 

9.1.1, 9.1.2, 9.1.3, 9.3.1, 

9.4.1 

1) 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. 

2) CMIN 9.1.1 Determine and track the 

changes attributable to dam operations in 

recreational quality, opportunities and use, 

impacts, serious incidents, and perceptions 

of users, including the level of satisfaction, 

in the Colorado River Ecosystem. 

3) CMIN 9.5.1 Determine and track the 

86
b. How do dam-controlled 

flows and other management 

actions affect recreational 

experiences, and what is/are 

the optional flows for 

maintaining a high quality 

recreational experience in the 

CRE? 

CMINS 9.1.1, 9.2.2, 

9.3.1, 9.2.2 and 9.5.1, 

EINS 9.1.1 and 9.3.1, 

RIN 9.5.1 

frequency and scheduling of research and 

monitoring activity in Glen and Grand 

Canyons. 

4) CMIN 9.1.2 Determine and track the 

frequency and scheduling of river-related 

use patterns. 

5) CMIN 9.2.2 Determine and track 

accident rates for visitors participating in 

river-related 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. 

KAS See riparian question b. 1) 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). 

2) CMIN 5.2.1 Determine and track the size 

and composition of the habitat used by 

Kanab ambersnail at Vasey’s Paradise.

Power a. What flow regimes best 

mitigate cultural, sediment and 

recreation resource impacts, 

improve fishery resources, 

maintain or improve riparian 

habitat and insure acceptable 

power generation? 

1) CMIN 10.1.1 Determine and track the 

marketable capacity and energy produced 

through dam operations in relation to the 

various release scenarios(daily fluctuation 

limit, upramp and downramp limits, list 

components, maximum flow limit of 25,000 

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

a. Operational affects on 

recruitment dynamics and 

dispersal. What is the 

relationship between GCD 

flow regimes, and annual 

volumes, and population 

dynamics of rainbow trout in 

the Lees Ferry reach and 

downstream? 

Trout 

b. Operational affects on 

recruitment dynamics in 

Lees Ferry. What could be 

the water quality effects 

(temperature) on RBT/Brown 

trout in Lees Ferry? 

1) CMIN 4.1.1 Determine annual 

population estimates for age II+ rainbow 

trout in the Lees Ferry reach. 

2) CMIN 4.1.4 Determine annual growth 

rate, standard condition (Kn), and relative 

weight of rainbow trout in the Lees Ferry 

reach. 

3) CMIN 4.1.2 Determine annual 

proportional stock density of rainbow trout 

in the Lees Ferry reach.

AMP What is the status of existing 

GCMRC/AMP data related 

to key resources and 

ecosystem processes (such as 

water volume/release pattern, 

water temp/ qualities, 

sediment volume/flux, 

vegetation/habitats, terrestrial 

food resources, etc) with 

respect to the following: 1) 

None identified 

87
accuracy of existing data, 2) 

adequacy/precision necessary 

for modeling and status/trends 

assessments, and 3) current 

accessibility/utility of existing 

databases for analyses and 

future model development. 

Extirpated 

Species 

None identified 

88