ACHIO memo to TWG i 

4701 East Valley View Drive 

Phoenix, AZ 85044-5752 

602.426-9866 voice 

602.426-9867 facsimile 

602.432-2469 cellular 

mary@maryorton.com 

www.maryorton.com

Memo

To: Members of the GCDAMP Technical Work Group 

From: Mary Orton 

CC: Alternates and interested persons 

Date: April 30, 2003 

Re: Attached recommendations from the Ad Hoc Committee on What’s In and Out 

of the Strategic Plan (AHCIO) for your consideration at your next TWG 

meeting 

Attached please find a document that should look familiar to you: the Final Draft 

Information Needs. The following changes have been made since the last time you saw 

it: 

1. All the changes to the Information Needs that were approved by AMWG on January 

28, 2003, have been incorporated. These were the deletion of the INs under MO 

12.2, the deletion of RIN 6.5.4, and adding the narrative found under MO 12.2. 

These changes are not redlined. Note that the AMWG specifically did not approve 

the INs at that meeting. They wanted to wait until the work of the Ad Hoc Committee 

on What’s In and Out of the Strategic Plan (AHCIO) was complete before 

considering approval of the INs. 

2. Also incorporated in the attached document are the results of the work of the 

AHCIO, as directed by the AMWG at its January 2003 meeting. These proposed 

changes are redlined, and include a recommended new principle (on the page 

immediately following this memo), several recommended changes in wording of INs, 

and recommended categories for all but two INs. The categories, as approved by 

AMWG in January, are explained on pp. 3-4. 

Per direction of the AMWG, these recommendations are coming to you for you to 

consider for a recommendation to the AMWG. The TWG and the Ad Hoc Committee 
ACHIO memo to TWG ii 

may have two separate recommendations for the AMWG, or you may be able to agree 

to common language at your meeting in May. 

Please note that there is no category specified for RINs 2.6.1 or 2.6.2. The committee 

made much progress but was unable to agree whether these Information Needs should 

be classified as Category A or Category B. The reasons to support each choice are 

below. 

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

abundance and distribution in the Colorado River ecosystem below Glen Canyon 

Dam for viable populations. 

RIN 2.6.1 What is a viable population? 

Reasons to support Category A for RIN 2.6.1 (by Pam Hyde): 

The AMP has an interest in keeping native fish species in Grand Canyon off the 

endangered species list. And in fact, we wish to do more than that – we wish to 

maintain viable populations of these native species. 

Since these species are not listed, it is not the exclusive responsibility and 

jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to recover these species, and, in 

the process, set recovery goals based on a determination of what constitutes a 

viable population. Other agencies can do their own work and set their own levels 

for what they think constitutes viable populations of these native species. 

Arizona Game and Fish Department and the National Park Service each have 

management responsibility for wildlife within Grand Canyon National Park, so 

they would be the most logical agencies to make a determination of viable 

populations. However, neither agency has yet done so, and both are members 

of the AMWG, so by default it would be appropriate for GCMRC to do the work to 

determine what a viable population of each of these native fish species would be, 

so that we can monitor and manage the fish to maintain those viable populations. 

If AGFD and/or NPS choose to determine viable populations on their own, 

presumably the AMP would consider those determinations carefully in developing 

or reviewing its own determinations, just as we have indicated in the Strategic 

Plan that we will consider NPS plans in determining recreation targets. 

We can reasonably assume that all fish species that use the mainstem are 

affected by operations of the dam, even if we have difficulty precisely quantifying 

what those effects are. There does not appear to be any disagreement on this 

point. Clearly there are other factors that affect the species, but we can’t 

separate dam operations and other factors out as we address this RIN. When 

the ad hoc committee has come across this situation with other INs, we have 

gone by the unspoken rule that if dam operations are a factor, then it is 

appropriate to answer the IN through funding from power revenues, and placed 

the IN in Category A. Since we have the same case here, this RIN is appropriate

for funding by power revenues, and should be placed into Category A. (Whether 
ACHIO memo to TWG iii 

power revenues are used for specific monitoring and/or research projects that 

address this RIN can be determined as part of the GCMRC workplan review.) 

There may be some concern that determining population viability will be difficult 

and costly to do. However, this has no bearing on what category this RIN should 

be placed in, but should be addressed at the stage at which GCMRC is 

developing workplans. When we place RINs into categories, we are determining 

whether or not they are appropriate to be addressed by GCMRC and whether 

they are appropriate for funding by power revenues. We are not addressing the 

scope of answering the RIN, nor are we deciding to spend unlimited funds to 

answer it. 

Reasons to support Category B or C for RIN 2.6.2 (by Randy Seaholm):

In RIN 2.6.1, concerning what is a viable population, we are okay with the AMP, 

through the monitoring program, collecting certain data for use in helping to make 

an estimate of what a viable population is. However, once the information is 

collected, we are of the opinion that it is then the responsibility of the Arizona 

Fish and Game or the National Park Service if appropriate, to determine what the 

viable population value is. There are a number of ways to establish what a viable 

population is, again, we believe it is the responsibility of either Arizona Fish and 

Game or the National Park Service to describe the methodology that they believe 

is sufficient for determining what a viable population of any native fish species 

which is not endangered is. We are opposed to doing a full "Population Viability 

Analysis" absent a fully justified and demonstratable need for such. We 

understand that the AMP needs a value to use when it comes to setting targets, 

but it is not the responsibility of AMP to establish this value. Therefore, this is at 

least a Category B and likely a Category C task.

RIN 2.6.2 What are the significant threats to these species? 

Reasons to support Category B or C for RIN 2.6.2 (by Randy Seaholm):

With respect to the question of what is the probability of any native species 

becoming extirpated from the CRE, I believe Pam and I agreed that it was better 

to simply identify what the significant threats, if any, to these species were. That 

identification would be useful to help describe what the monitoring programs 

need to look like. Such an investigation would be appropriate as a Category A. 

If that analysis goes further into investigating the threat of particular events 

occurring, which are not dam related, then those investigations go into Category 

B or C. 

Reasons to support Category A for RIN 2.6.2:

The AMP has an interest in keeping native fish species in Grand Canyon off the 

endangered species list. And in fact, we wish to do more than that – we wish to 

maintain viable populations of these native species. 

Deleted: What is the probability of 

extinction over what management 

time period for species of 

concern? What is the appropriate 

method to assess viability?
ACHIO memo to TWG iv

If we are going to maintain viable populations of these native fish species, we 

need to be aware of and monitor the significant threats to the species, which may 

include dam operations as well as other factors. When we get to the point of 

monitoring the threats, we may have the ability to separate funding sources so 

that we monitor the impact of dam operations on these species using power 

revenues, and monitor the impact of other factors on the species using 

appropriated funds. But to actually do the research to determine what the 

significant threats to these species are, we should apply the same standard that 

we have applied to other RINs that deal with both dam operations and other 

factors, and categorize this RIN as one that is appropriate for funding by power 

revenues. Thus it should be placed in Category A. 

There does not seem to be any dispute that this RIN is appropriate to be 

addressed by GCMRC. It is not a question that is the exclusive responsibility 

and jurisdiction of any single agency to address, and therefore it is open for 

GCMRC to address as a key to meeting MO 2.6. One might argue that since 

Arizona Game and Fish Department and the National Park Service each have 

management responsibility for wildlife within Grand Canyon National Park, they 

would be the most logical agencies to determine significant threats. However, 

this is actually just a straightforward scientific question that helps focus 

monitoring and management efforts, and doesn’t have regulatory implications. It 

would be equally, if not more, logical to have experts on these individual species 

weigh in on this question, whether they were employees of AGFD/NPS or not. 

There may be some concern that determining significant threats will be difficult 

and costly to do. However, this has no bearing on what category this RIN should 

be placed in, but should be addressed at the stage at which GCMRC is 

developing workplans. When we place RINs into categories, we are determining 

whether or not they are appropriate to be addressed by GCMRC and whether 

they are appropriate for funding by power revenues. We are not addressing the 

scope of answering the RIN, nor are we deciding to spend unlimited funds to 

answer it. 

Please feel free to contact any member of the AHCIO or me if you have any questions. 

The members of the Committee are as follows: 

Randy Seaholm, Chair 

Robert Begay Wayne Cook Kurt Dongoske Lloyd Greiner 

Norm Henderson Pam Hyde Phil Lehr Don Metz 

Clayton Palmer Bill Persons Randy Peterson John Shields 
ACHIO memo to TWG v

Proposed new principle to replace “RIN 12.3.3 What are the best scientific 

methods to determine cause and effect relationships in experiments and other 

management actions conducted under the GCDAMP?” 

PRINCIPLES 

The nine principles of the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program are: 

1. The goals represent a set of desired outcomes that together will accomplish our vision and 

achieve the purpose of the Grand Canyon Protection Act. Some of the objectives and 

actions that fall under these goals may not be the responsibility of the Adaptive 

Management Program, and may be funded by other sources, but are included here for 

completeness. 

2. The construction of Glen Canyon Dam and the introduction of non-native species have 

irreversibly changed the Colorado River ecosystem. 

3. Much remains unknown about the Colorado River ecosystem below Glen Canyon Dam and 

how to achieve the Adaptive Management Program goals. 

4. The Colorado River ecosystem is a managed ecosystem. An ecosystem management 

approach, in lieu of an issues, species, or resources approach, will guide our efforts. 

Management efforts will prevent any further human-induced extirpation or extinction of 

native species. 

5. An adaptive management approach will be used to achieve Adaptive Management Program 

goals, through experimentation and monitoring, to meet the intent of the Grand Canyon 

Protection Act, Glen Canyon Dam Environmental Impact Statement, and the Record of 

Decision. 

6. Understanding cause and effect relationships is essential for managing the Colorado River 

ecosystem. The adaptive management approach will be geared toward gaining an 

improved understanding of the cause and effect relationships that occur within the Colorado 

River ecosystem, and their connection, if any, to dam operations, while also documenting 

resource status and trends.

7. Dam operations and management actions will be tried that attempt to return ecosystem 

patterns and processes to their range of natural variability. When this is not appropriate, 

experiments will be conducted to test other approaches. 

8. Because management actions to achieve a goal may benefit one resource or value and 

adversely affect another, those action alternatives that benefit all resources and values will 

be pursued first. When this is not possible, actions that have a neutral impact, or as a last 

resort, actions that minimize negative impacts on other resources, will be pursued consistent 

with the Glen Canyon Dam Environmental Impact Statement and the Record of Decision. 

9. If the target of a management objective proves to be inappropriate, unrealistic, or 

unattainable, the Adaptive Management Program will reevaluate that target and the 

methods used to attain it.

10. Recognizing the diverse perspectives and spiritual values of the stakeholders, the unique 

aesthetic value of the Grand Canyon will be respected and enhanced. 

Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
ACHIO memo to TWG Page 1 

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program 

FINAL DRAFT INFORMATION NEEDS 

November 7, 2002

Updated March 31, 2003 With Recommendations from the 

Ad Hoc Committee on What’s In and Out of the Strategic Plan (AHCIO)

NOTE from November 7, 2002: This version of the draft Information Needs reflects 

recommended sequence order and changes developed by the TWG at their November 

7, 2002 meeting. When approved by AMWG for recommendation to the Secretary of 

the Interior, the Information Needs and other information included in this document will 

be incorporated into the next version of the Strategic Plan. 

Core Monitoring INs are not sequenced because the core monitoring function is 

ongoing. EINs are not sequenced, with the exception of the two EINs that do not have 

a corresponding RIN: 11.3.1 and 11.3.2.

NOTE from January 28, 2003: This version of the Information Needs includes 

changes approved by AMWG at its January 2003 meeting. These were the deletion of 

all INs under MO 12.2, the deletion of RIN 6.5.4, and adding the narrative now found 

under MO 12.2. These changes are not redlined.

NOTE from March 31, 2003: This version of the Information Needs includes

recommended changes from the Ad Hoc Committee on What’s In and Out of the 

Strategic Plan (AHCIO). These include the addition of categories for each Information 

Need, per direction from AMWG at its January 2003 meeting, as well as some 

recommended changes to Information Needs. The recommended changes come in 

part from the application of the criteria for what should be included in the Strategic Plan, 

per direction from the AMWG from its January 2003 meeting. They also include 

amendments to the language under MO 12.2, and the moving of that language to 

immediately after Goal 12. These changes are redlined.

Introduction

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

management objectives and programmatic goals. The Information Needs are nested 

within Management Objectives and are categorized as: core monitoring information 

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

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

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

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

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

goal. 

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

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted
ACHIO memo to TWG Page 2 

Glossary 

NOTE: Glossary entries that are already included in the Strategic Plan have been 

deleted. The glossary entries below should be added to the next version of the 

Strategic Plan. 

Management Objectives (MOs): Management Objectives define desired future 

resource conditions. They should be: 1) Specific; 2) Measurable; 3) Achievable; 4) 

Results-oriented; 5) Time-specific, and 6) within the legal and policy framework of the 

Adaptive Management Program. 

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

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

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

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

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

determine why the system is not responding as predicted); 

c) develop basic understanding about cause and effect relationships; 

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

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

Information Needs are categorized as follows: 

• Core Monitoring Information Need (CMIN): Core monitoring consists of 

consistent, long-term, repeated measurements using set protocols, and is 

designed to establish status and trends in meeting specific management 

objectives. Core monitoring is implemented on a fixed schedule regardless of 

variable factors or circumstances (e.g., water year, experimental flows, 

temperature control, stocking strategy, non-native control, etc.) affecting target 

resources. 

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

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

unanticipated event, or other management action. Changes in resource 

conditions measured by effects monitoring generally will be short-term 

responses. The purpose of effects monitoring is to supplement the fixed 

schedule and variables collected under core monitoring. This will both increase 

the understanding of the resource status and trends and provide a research 

opportunity to discover the effect of the experiment or management action. 

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

When descriptive it describes relationships in the Colorado River ecosystem 

(e.g., describe trophic interactions in the aquatic ecosystem). When 

experimental it tests specific hypotheses for determining and understanding 
ACHIO memo to TWG Page 3 

cause and effects relationships between dam operations, or other driving 

variables, and resource responses (e.g., how is the abundance and composition 

of benthic invertebrates affected by grazers, predators and dam operations?). 

Research requires a purposeful design with established statistical criteria, 

including allowable errors for accepting and rejecting null hypotheses. Research 

may also result in the collection of data that can be used to help determine or 

refine Core Monitoring Information Needs. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

event(s) or driving variable(s). 

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

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

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

Their uses conform to applicable law. The AMWG develops recommendations 

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

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

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

and/or through experimentation. 

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

the modified low fluctuating flow alternative described in the Record of Decision 

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

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

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

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

experiments within the environmental commitments of the Record of Decision. 

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

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

context for reviewing the INs without having to embed them in the original Goals and 

MOs table. In the next version of the Strategic Plan, approved Information Needs and 

their sequence order will be incorporated into the MOs table.

Key to Categories, as approved by AMWG January 2003:

Category A: Information Needs that are appropriate for funding by power revenues 

and for accomplishment by the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center 

(GCMRC).

Formatted

Formatted
ACHIO memo to TWG Page 4 

Category B: Information Needs that may be addressed by the GCMRC but are not 

appropriate for funding by power revenues.

Category C: Information Needs that are funded and accomplished under the authority 

of an entity other than the GCMRC.

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted
ACHIO memo to TWG Page 5 

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

viable populations of desired species at higher trophic levels. 

 

Sequence 

Order Category Research INs

4 A RIN 1.1 What are the fundamental trophic interactions in the 

aquatic ecosystem? 

5 A RIN 1.2 How are the production, composition, density, and 

biomass of the benthic invertebrate community affected by 

primary productivity vs. allochthonous inputs? 

5 A RIN 1.3 What foodbase criteria do other agencies use to 

assess aquatic ecosystem health? 

4 A RIN 1.4 What is the current carbon budget for the Colorado 

River ecosystem? 

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

community composition in the Glen Canyon Reach. 

Category Core Monitoring INs

A CMIN 1.1.1 Determine and track the composition and biomass 

of primary producers between Glen Canyon Dam and the Paria 

River in conjunction with measurements of flow, nutrients, water 

temperature, and light regime. 

Sequence 

Order Category Research INs

5 A RIN 1.1.1 How are the composition and biomass of primary 

producers between Glen Canyon Dam and the Paria River 

affected by flow and water quality (including nutrients, 

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

borne diseases, or other factors. 

9 A RIN 1.1.2 What is the estimated productivity for the reach 

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

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

information suggests the information is not worth the expense, 

this RIN will not be pursued.]

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

primary producers affect food base productivity? 

5 A RIN 1.1.4 What are the habitat characteristics between Glen 

Canyon Dam and the Paria River that most affect primary 

productivity? How are these characteristics affected by Glen 

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted
ACHIO memo to TWG Page 6 

Canyon Dam operations? 

Catetgor

y Effects INs

A EIN 1.1.1 How does primary productivity for the reach between 

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

experiment performed under the Record of Decision, 

unanticipated event, or other management action? 

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

in the Glen Canyon Reach.

Category Core Monitoring INs

A CMIN 1.2.1 Determine and track the composition and biomass 

of benthic invertebrates in the reach between Glen Canyon 

Dam and the Paria River in conjunction with measurements of 

flow, nutrients, water temperature, and light regime. 

Sequence 

Order Category Research INs

5 A RIN 1.2.1 How are the composition and biomass of benthic 

invertebrates between Glen Canyon Dam and the Paria River 

affected by flow, water quality (including nutrients, temperature, 

light regime, toxins, dissolved oxygen), new invasive species, 

and water borne diseases, or other factors? 

5 A RIN 1.2.2 What is the estimated productivity of benthic 

invertebrates for the reach between Glen Canyon Dam and the 

Paria River? [Note: If the cost of obtaining this data, relative to 

the benefit of the information suggests the information is not 

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

6 A RIN 1.2.3 How do top-down effects (grazing and predation) 

affect the abundance and composition of benthic invertebrates? 

5.5 A RIN 1.2.4 What are the habitat characteristics between Glen 

Canyon Dam and the Paria River that most affect benthic 

invertebrates? How are these characteristics affected by Glen 

Canyon Dam operations? 

Category Effects INs

A EIN 1.2.1 How do benthic invertebrates in the reach between 

Glen Canyon Dam and the Paria River change in response to 

an experiment performed under the Record of Decision, 

unanticipated event, or other management action? 

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted
ACHIO memo to TWG Page 7 

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

the Colorado River ecosystem (to the extent primary producers in the tributaries are 

influenced by dam operations) below the Paria River. 

Category Core Monitoring INs

A CMIN 1.3.1 Determine and track the composition and biomass 

of primary producers in the Colorado River ecosystem below 

the Paria River.

Sequence 

Order Category Research INs

5.5 A RIN 1.3.1 How are the composition and biomass of primary 

producers in the Colorado River ecosystem below the Paria 

River affected by flow and water quality (including nutrients, 

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

borne diseases, or other factors.

8 A RIN 1.3.2 What is the estimated primary productivity in the 

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

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

information suggests the information is not worth the expense, 

this RIN will not be pursued.] 

6 A RIN 1.3.3 How do top-down effects on primary producers 

(grazing and predation) affect food base productivity? 

6 A RIN 1.3.4 What are the habitat characteristics in the Colorado 

River ecosystem below the Paria River that most affect primary 

productivity? How are these characteristics affected by Glen 

Canyon Dam operations? 

Category Effects INs

A EIN 1.3.1 How does primary productivity in the Colorado River 

ecosystem below the Paria River change in response to an 

experiment performed under the Record of Decision, 

unanticipated event, or other management action? 

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

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

are influenced by dam operations) below the Paria River. 

Category Core Monitoring INs

A CMIN 1.4.1 Determine and track the composition and biomass 

of benthic invertebrates in the Colorado River ecosystem below 

the Paria River in conjunction with measurements of flow, 

nutrients, water temperature, and light regime. 

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted
ACHIO memo to TWG Page 8 

Sequence 

Order Category Research INs

5 A RIN 1.4.1 How are the composition and biomass of benthic 

invertebrates in the Colorado River ecosystem below the Paria 

River affected by flow, water quality (including nutrients, 

temperature, light regime, toxins, dissolved oxygen), new 

invasive species, and water borne diseases, or other factors? 

[Note: If the cost of obtaining this data, relative to the benefit of 

the information suggests the information is not worth the 

expense, this RIN will not be pursued.] 

8 A RIN 1.4.2 What is the estimated productivity of benthic 

invertebrates in the Colorado River ecosystem below the Paria 

River? [Note: If the cost of obtaining this data, relative to the 

benefit of the information suggests the information is not worth 

the expense, this RIN will not be pursued.] 

5.5 A RIN 1.4.3 How do top-down effects (grazing and predation) 

affect the abundance and composition of benthic invertebrates? 

6 A RIN 1.4.4 What are the habitat characteristics in the Colorado 

River ecosystem below the Paria River that most affect benthic 

invertebrates? How are these characteristics affected by Glen 

Canyon Dam operations? 

Category Effects INs

A EIN 1.4.1 How do benthic invertebrates in the Colorado River 

ecosystem below the Paria River change in response to an 

experiment performed under the Record of Decision, 

unanticipated event, or other management action? 

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

tributaries (to the extent drift in the tributaries is influenced by dam operations). 

Category Core Monitoring INs

A CMIN 1.5.1 Determine and track the composition and biomass 

of drift in the Colorado River ecosystem.

Sequence 

Order Category Research INs

5.5 A RIN 1.5.1 How are the composition and biomass of drift in the 

Colorado River ecosystem affected by flow and water quality 

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

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

5 A RIN 1.5.2 How do top-down effects (grazing and predation) 

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted
ACHIO memo to TWG Page 9 

affect the abundance and composition of drift? 

3 A RIN 1.5.3 How has the value and availability of drift as a food 

source for Humpback chub changed with the implementation of 

Record of Decision operations?

Category Effects INs

A EIN 1.5.1 How does drift in the Colorado River ecosystem 

change in response to an experiment performed under the 

Record of Decision, unanticipated event, or other management 

action?

Formatted

Formatted
ACHIO memo to TWG Page 10 

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

remove jeopardy for humpback chub and razorback sucker, and 

prevent adverse modification to their critical habitats. 

M.O. 2.1 Maintain or attain humpback chub abundance and year-class strength in the 

LCR and other aggregations at appropriate target levels for viable populations and to 

remove jeopardy. 

 

Category Core Monitoring INs

A CMIN 2.1.1 Determine and track year class strength of HBC 

between 51 – 150 mm in the LCR and the mainstem. 

A CMIN 2.1.2 Determine and track abundance and distribution 

of all size classes of HBC in the LCR and the mainstem. 

Sequence 

Order Category Research INs

2.5 Accomplished

RIN 2.1.1 What is the minimum population size of HBC that 

should be sustained in the LCR, to ensure a viable spawning 

population of HBC in the LCR?

1 A RIN 2.1.2 Quantify sources of mortality for humpback chub < 

51 mm in rearing habitats in the LCR and mainstem and how 

these sources of mortality are related to dam operations. 

1.5 A RIN 2.1.3 What is the relationship between size of HBC and 

mortality in the LCR and the mainstem? What are the sources 

of mortality (i.e., predation, cannibalism, other) in the LCR and 

the mainstem? 

2 A RIN 2.1.4 What habitats enhance recruitment of native fish in 

the LCR and mainstem? What are the physical and biological 

characteristics of those habitats? 

2 A RIN 2.1.5 Determine the timing and quantity of young-of-year 

humpback chub dispersal (passive and active) from the LCR. 

Category Effects INs

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

classes of HBC in the LCR and mainstem change in response 

to an experiment performed under the Record of Decision, 

unanticipated event, or other management action? 

A EIN 2.1.2 How does the year class strength of HBC (51 – 150 

mm) in the LCR and mainstem change in response to an 

experiment performed under the Record of Decision, 

unanticipated event, or other management action? 

A EIN 2.1.3 How does the abundance and distribution of 

recruiting HBC in the LCR and mainstem change in response 

to an experiment performed under the Record of Decision, 

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted
ACHIO memo to TWG Page 11 

unanticipated event, or other management action? 

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

the Colorado River ecosystem below Glen Canyon Dam to remove jeopardy.

Sequence 

Order Category Research INs

3.5 Accomplished

RIN 2.2.1 What is a viable population and what is the 

appropriate method to assess population viability of native fish 

in the Colorado River ecosystem? What is an acceptable 

probability of extinction over what management time period for 

humpback chub throughout the Colorado River ecosystem?

4 A RIN 2.2.2 Determine if a population dynamics model can 

effectively predict response of native fish under different flow 

regimes and environmental conditions.

2 C RIN 2.2.3 What are the measurable criteria that need to be 

met in order to remove jeopardy for humpback chub in the 

Colorado River ecosystem?

2.5 A RIN 2.2.4 What is the relationship between the “aggregations” 

in the mainstem and LCR? Are mainstem aggregations 

“sinks” of the LCR? Are aggregations real or due to sampling 

bias? 

2 A RIN 2.2.5 What are the appropriate habitat conditions for HBC 

spawning? Where are these found? Can they be created in 

the mainstem? 

4 A1 RIN 2.2.6 What are the criteria for establishment of spawning 

aggregations (i.e., how does one determine if it is 

“established”)? 

3 A RIN 2.2.7 Determine if implementation and operation of the 

TCD and/or steady flows represent a technically feasible, 

ecologically sustainable, and practical option for establishing 

mainstem spawning. 

2 A RIN 2.2.8 What combination of dam release patterns and nonnative fish control facilitates successful spawning and 

recruitment of humpback chub in the Colorado River 

ecosystem?

2 A RIN 2.2.9 What is the appropriate role of humpback chub 

augmentation as a management strategy to establish 

mainstem spawning aggregations?

 

1

 Normally, this RIN would be placed in Category C. However, pursuant to the 2001 

Department of the Interior Appropriations Bill that established the power revenue cap, 

this RIN is placed in Category A. 

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Deleted: viability 

Deleted: its 
ACHIO memo to TWG Page 12 

3 A RIN 2.2.10 What techniques are available to determine natal 

stream of fishes in the Colorado River ecosystem? 

6 A RIN 2.2.11 What are the impacts of current recreational 

activities on mortality, recruitment and the population size of 

humpback chub? 

3 A RIN 2.2.12 What are the impacts of research activities on 

mortality, recruitment and the population size of humpback 

chub?

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

LCR and other aggregations at an appropriate target level for viable populations and to 

remove jeopardy.

Category Core Monitoring INs

A 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. 

A CMIN 2.3.2 Determine and track status and trends in the 

condition (Kn or Wr) of HBC and other native fish found in the 

LCR and in the Colorado River ecosystem? 

Sequence 

Order Category Research INs

3 A RIN 2.3.1 How do parasite/disease loads affect population 

viability?

2 A RIN 2.3.2 How will warming mainstem temperatures affect the 

abundance and distribution of parasites/disease? 

3.5 A RIN 2.3.3 How does non-native fish control affect 

disease/parasite loads? [Note: The concept is if there are 

fewer hosts, there will be a lower incidence of parasites.] 

Category Effects Monitoring INs

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

native fish found in the LCR and in the Colorado River 

ecosystem change in response to an experiment performed 

under the Record of Decision, unanticipated event, or other 

management action? 

M.O. 2.4 Reduce native fish mortality due to non-native fish predation/competition as a 

percentage of overall mortality in the LCR and mainstem to increase native fish 

recruitment.

Category Core Monitoring INs

A CMIN 2.4.1 Determine and track the abundance and 

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted
ACHIO memo to TWG Page 13 

distribution of non-native predatory fish species in the Colorado 

River ecosystem and their impacts on native fish. 

Sequence 

Order Category Research INs

2 A RIN 2.4.1 What are the most effective strategies and control 

methods to limit non-native fish predation and competition on 

native fish? 

2.5 A RIN 2.4.2 Determine if suppression of non-native predators and 

competitors increases native fish populations?

2 A RIN 2.4.3 To what degree, which species, and where in the 

system are exotic fish a detriment to the existence of native fish 

through predation or competition? 

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

age structure for non-native fish in the Colorado River 

ecosystem that limit their levels to those commensurate with 

the viability of native fish populations? 

3 A RIN 2.4.5 What are the sources (natal stream) of nonnative 

predators and competitors? 

2.5 A RIN 2.4.6 What are the population dynamics of those nonnative fish that are the major predators and competitors of 

native fish? 

Category Effects Monitoring INs

A EIN 2.4.1 How does the abundance and distribution of nonnative predatory fish species and their impacts on native fish 

species in the Colorado River ecosystem change in response 

to an experiment performed under the Record of Decision, 

unanticipated event, or other management action? 

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

remove jeopardy as feasible and advisable in the Colorado River ecosystem below Glen 

Canyon Dam. 

Sequence 

Order Category Research INs

11 A RIN 2.5.1 If razorback suckers were stocked into the Colorado 

River ecosystem, what is the risk that hybridization with 

flannelmouth suckers would compromise the genetic integrity of 

either species? 

11 A RIN 2.5.2 How does existing hybridization between razorback 

suckers and flannelmouth suckers affect the genetic integrity of 

either species? What are the factors contributing to this 

ongoing hybridization? 

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted
ACHIO memo to TWG Page 14 

4.5 A RIN 2.5.3 What characteristics define suitable habitat for 

razorback sucker? Does suitable habitat for razorback sucker 

occur in the Colorado River ecosystem? 

8 A RIN 2.5.4 What is the feasibility and advisability of augmenting 

razorback sucker in the Colorado River ecosystem to attain a 

viable population including technical/legal/policy constraints? 

9 A RIN 2.5.5 What are the genetic and ecological criteria for 

reintroducing razorback sucker into the Colorado River 

ecosystem? 

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

be met to remove jeopardy for razorback sucker in the 

Colorado River ecosystem? 

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted
ACHIO memo to TWG Page 15 

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

abundance and distribution in the Colorado River ecosystem below Glen Canyon Dam 

for viable populations. 

Category Core Monitoring INs

A CMIN 2.6.1 Determine and track the abundance and 

distribution of flannel-mouth sucker, blue-head sucker, and 

speckled dace populations in the Colorado River ecosystem. 

Sequence 

Order Category Research INs

2 RIN 2.6.1 What is a viable population? 

2 RIN 2.6.2 What are the significant threats to these species? 

6 A RIN 2.6.3 What are the physical and biological characteristics 

of habitats that enhance recruitment of flannel-mouth sucker, 

blue-head sucker, and speckled dace populations in the 

Colorado River ecosystem?

4.5 A RIN 2.6.4 What is the age structure, including relationship 

between age and size of flannel-mouth sucker, blue-head 

sucker, and speckled dace in the Colorado River ecosystem?

4 A RIN 2.6.5 How are movement patterns for flannel-mouth 

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

River ecosystem affected by age, natal stream, and dam 

operations? 

4 A RIN 2.6.6 How is the rate of mortality for flannel-mouth sucker, 

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

ecosystem related to individual body size? What are the 

sources of mortality for flannel-mouth sucker, blue-head sucker, 

and speckled dace in the Colorado River ecosystem?

5 A RIN 2.6.7 How does temperature modification in the mainstem 

affect recruitment and mortality for flannel-mouth sucker, bluehead sucker, and speckled dace originating from tributary 

spawning efforts? 

Category Effects Monitoring INs

A EIN 2.6.1 How does the abundance, distribution, recruitment 

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

speckled dace populations in the Colorado River ecosystem 

change in response to an experiment performed under the 

Record of Decision, unanticipated event, or other management 

action? 

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Deleted: What is the probability of 

extinction over what management 

time period for species of concern? 

What is the appropriate method to 

assess viability?

Deleted: 2

Deleted: 3

Deleted: 4

Deleted: 5

Deleted: 6
ACHIO memo to TWG Page 16 
ACHIO memo to TWG Page 17 

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

advisable. 

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

abundances in the Colorado River ecosystem as feasible and advisable. 

Sequence 

Order Category Research INs

9.5 C RIN 3.1.1 What information (including technical, legal, 

economic, and policy issues) should be considered in 

determining the feasibility and advisability of restoring 

pikeminnow, bonytail, roundtail chub, river otter, or other 

extirpated species? 

Formatted

Formatted
ACHIO memo to TWG Page 18 

Goal 4. Maintain a wild reproducing population of rainbow trout 

above the Paria River, to the extent practicable and consistent with 

the maintenance of viable populations of native fish. 

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

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

and other parasitic infections. 

 

Category Core Monitoring INs

A CMIN 4.1.1 Determine annual population estimates for age II+ 

rainbow trout in the Lees Ferry reach. 

A CMIN 4.1.2 Determine annual proportional stock density of 

rainbow trout in the Lees Ferry reach. 

A CMIN 4.1.3 Determine annual rainbow trout growth rate in the 

Lees Ferry reach. 

A CMIN 4.1.4 Determine annual standard condition (Kn) and 

Relative weight of rainbow trout in the Lees Ferry reach. 

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

Ferry reach. Determine annual incidence and relative 

infestation of trout nematodes in rainbow trout in the Lees Ferry 

reach. 

A CMIN 4.1.6 Determine quantity and quality of spawning habitat 

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

intervals. 

A CMIN 4.1.7 Determine annual percentage of naturally recruited 

rainbow trout in the Lees Ferry reach. 

Sequence 

Order Category Research INs

10 A RIN 4.1.1 What is the target proportional stock density (i.e., 

trade-off between numbers and size) for rainbow trout in the 

Lees Ferry reach? 

9 A RIN 4.1.2 What is the minimum quantity and quality of 

spawning substrate necessary for maintaining a wild 

reproducing rainbow trout population in the Lees Ferry reach? 

4.5 A RIN 4.1.3 To what extent is there overlap in the Lees Ferry 

reach of RBT habitat and native fish habitat? 

10 A RIN 4.1.4 How does the genetics or “strain” of rainbow trout in 

the Lees Ferry reach influence the average size of fish creeled 

by anglers?

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted
ACHIO memo to TWG Page 19 

Category Effects Monitoring INs

A EIN 4.1.1 How does RBT abundance, proportional stock 

density, length at age, condition, spawning habitat, natural 

recruitment, whirling disease and other parasitic infections 

change in response to an experiment performed under the 

Record of Decision, unanticipated event, or other management 

action? 

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

ecosystem to reduce competition or predation on downstream native fish. 

Sequence 

Order Category Research INs

2.5 A RIN 4.2.1 What is the rate of emigration of rainbow trout from 

the Lees Ferry reach?

2.5 A RIN 4.2.2 What is the most effective method to detect 

emigration of rainbow trout from the Lees Ferry reach?

4.5 A RIN 4.2.3 How is the rate of emigration of RBT from the Lees 

Ferry reach to below the Paria River affected by abundance, 

hydrology, temperature, and other ecosystem processes? 

5.5 A RIN 4.2.4 What is the target population size of RBT appropriate 

for the Lees Ferry reach that limits downstream emigration? 

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

ecosystem below the Paria River of RBT habitat and native fish 

habitat? 

2 A RIN 4.2.6 To what extent are RBT below the Paria River 

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

become predators of native fish, especially HBC, i.e. how do 

the trophic interactions between RBT and native fish change 

with size of fish?

3.5 A RIN 4.2.7 What dam release patterns most effectively maintain 

the LEES Ferry RBT trophy fishery wile limiting RBT survival 

below the Paria River? 

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted
ACHIO memo to TWG Page 20 

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

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

current level to the target level.

 

Category Core Monitoring INs

A 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). 

Sequence 

Order

Category

Research INs

6.5 A RIN 5.1.1 What constitutes population viability for Kanab 

ambersnail at Vasey’s Paradise? 

5 A RIN 5.1.2 What parameters have the greatest influence on 

population viability of Kanab ambersnail at Vasey’s Paradise 

(e.g., parasites, predation, discharges, habitat size, quality, and 

human use/visitation)? 

5 A RIN 5.1.3 Develop a population dynamic model to predict 

Kanab ambersnail viability under different flows and 

environmental conditions. 

4 A RIN 5.1.4 Identify and evaluate alternative Management 

Actions to ensure viability of Kanab ambersnail at Vasey’s 

Paradise where (1) the population dynamic model predicts loss 

of population viability, or (2) monitoring discovers substantial 

habitat or Kanab ambersnail population declines. 

2.5 C RIN 5.1.5 What is the taxonomic identity of the Oxyloma snails 

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

status warranted? 

2.5 C RIN 5.1.6 What is the range of occurrence of the ambersnail 

taxon found at Vasey’s Paradise? [NOTE: Intended to address 

the issue of whether this is an endemic population or a relict 

population or part of a metapopulation.] 

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

this range be determined from subfossil or fossil evidence? 

[NOTE: This is intended to determine if this is a relict species 

and the initial work would be done at Vasey’s Paradise, South 

Canyon and other probable sites within the Colorado River 

ecosystem.] 

4 A RIN 5.1.8 What are the measurable criteria that need to be met 

to remove jeopardy for Kanab ambersnail at Vasey’s Paradise? 

3 A RIN 5.1.9 How can incidental take for Kanab ambersnail at 

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted
ACHIO memo to TWG Page 21 

Vasey’s Paradise be minimized? 

Category Effects Monitoring INs

A EIN 5.1.1 How does Kanab ambersnail population abundance 

and recovery change in response to an experiment performed 

under the Record of Decision, unanticipated event, or other 

management action?

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

the target level.

 

Category Core Monitoring INs

A CMIN 5.2.1 Determine and track the size and composition of 

the habitat used by Kanab ambersnail at Vasey’s Paradise. 

Sequence 

Order

Category

Research INs

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

Kanab ambersnail habitat change following natural scours, or 

other events? 

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

Kanab ambersnail change in response to an experiment 

performed under the Record of Decision, unanticipated event, 

or other management action? 

6.5 A RIN 5.2.3 How can remote sensing technologies be used to 

less intrusively and more cost effectively characterize and 

monitor Kanab ambersnail habitat at Vasey’s Paradise 

(vegetation type and distribution)? 

Category Effects INs

A EIN 5.2.1 How does Kanab ambersnail habitat at Vasey’s 

Paradise change in response to an experiment performed 

under the Record of Decision, unanticipated event, or other 

management action?

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted
ACHIO memo to TWG Page 22 

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

within the Colorado River ecosystem, including threatened and 

endangered species and their critical habitat. 

Sequence 

Order Category Information Needs 

6 A IN 6.1 Develop GIS coverages of natural communities in the 

Colorado River ecosystem to use in identification of status and 

trends. 

6.5 A IN 6.2 Develop or adopt an existing ecological community 

classification system. The system should describe the 

composition and frequency of vascular plants, vertebrates, 

arthropods, and mollusks to an appropriate taxonomic level. 

6 A IN 6.3 How is the abundance of vertebrate consumers affected 

by seasonal shifts in food base abundance in the Colorado 

River ecosystem? 

5 A IN 6.4 How much allochthonous material (e.g., leaf litter) is 

exchanged between the terrestrial and aquatic systems? 

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

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

Category Core Monitoring INs

A 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.

Sequence 

Order Category Research INs

5 A RIN 6.1.1 How has the abundance, composition, distribution, 

and area of the marsh community changed since dam closure 

(1963), high flows (1984), interim flows (1991) and the 

implementation of Record of Decision operations (1996)? 

Category Effects INs

A EIN 6.1.1 How do marsh community abundance, composition,

distribution, and area change in response to an experiment 

performed under the Record of Decision, unanticipated event, 

or other management action?

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted
ACHIO memo to TWG Page 23 

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

area to be no lower than values estimated for 1984.

Category Core Monitoring INs

A CMIN 6.2.1 Determine and track the patch number, patch 

distribution, composition and area of the NHWZ community as 

measured at 5-year or other appropriate intervals based on life 

cycles of the species and rates of change for the community. 

Sequence 

Order

Category

Research INs

4.5 A RIN 6.2.1 How has the patch number, patch distribution, 

composition and area of the NHWZ community changed since 

dam closure (1963), high flows (1984), interim flows (1991) and 

the implementation of Record of Decision operations (1996)? 

Category Effects INs

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

composition and area of the NHWZ community change in 

response to an experiment performed under the Record of 

Decision, unanticipated event, or other management action? 

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

Colorado River ecosystem.

Category Core Monitoring INs

A CMIN 6.3.1 Determine and track the abundance, composition 

and distribution of the OHWZ community as measured at 5-

year or other appropriate intervals based on life cycles of the 

species and rates of change for the community. 

Sequence 

Order Category Research INs

5.5 A RIN 6.3.1 How has the abundance, composition, and 

distribution of the OHWZ community changed since dam 

closure (1963), high flows (1984), interim flows (1991), and the 

implementation of Record of Decision operations (1996)? 

5 A or B RIN 6.3.2 What dam operations (Category A), or other 

management actions (Category B), have the potential to 

maintain the OHWZ community at the current stage elevation, 

or establish the community at a lower stage elevation? 

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted
ACHIO memo to TWG Page 24 

Category Effects INs

A EIN 6.3.1 How do the abundance, composition, and distribution 

of the OHWZ community change in response to an experiment 

performed under the Record of Decision, unanticipated event, or 

other management action? 

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

the Colorado River ecosystem at the target level. 

Category Core Monitoring INs

A CMIN 6.4.1 Determine and track composition, abundance, and 

distribution of the sand beach community as measured at 5-

year or other appropriate intervals based on life cycles of the 

species and rates of change for the community. 

Sequence 

Order Category Research INs

4 A RIN 6.4.1 How has the abundance, composition, and 

distribution of the sand beach community changed since dam 

closure (1963), high flows (1984), interim flows (1991), and the 

implementation of Record of Decision operations (1996)? 

Category Effects INs

A EIN 6.4.1 How does the abundance, composition, and 

distribution of the sand beach community change in response 

to an experiment performed under the Record of Decision, 

unanticipated event, or other management action? 

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

Category Core Monitoring INs

A 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. 

Sequence 

Order Category Research INs

4.5 A RIN 6.5.1 Determine if non-native species are expanding or 

contracting at a local scale (patch or reach). 

5 A or B RIN 6.5.2 What dam operations (Category A), or other 

management actions (Category B), have the potential to 

increase or decrease the distribution and abundance of nonnative species? 

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted
ACHIO memo to TWG Page 25 

4 A RIN 6.5.3 How has the abundance and distribution of nonnative species changed since dam closure (1963), high flows 

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

of Decision operations (1996)?

Category Effects INs

A EIN 6.5.1 How does the abundance and distribution of nonnative species change in response to an experiment performed 

under the Record of Decision, unanticipated event, or other 

management action? 

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

Category Core Monitoring INs

A 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. 

Sequence 

Order Category Research INs

9 A RIN 6.6.1 How is seep and spring habitat affected by variation 

in dam operations, variation in seep or spring flow, and 

variation in water quality? How do flow rates and water quality 

parameters at seeps and springs compare with historic 

measurements?

5 A RIN 6.6.2 Which seeps and springs are culturally important or 

occupied by rare and endemic species?

8.5 A RIN 6.6.3 How has the composition, abundance and 

distribution of seep and spring communities changed since dam 

closure (1963), high flows (1984), interim flows (1991) and the 

implementation of Record of Decision operations (1996)? 

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

composition of seep and spring communities and the flow rate 

and water quality of all seeps and springs within the Colorado 

River ecosystem? 

Category Effects INs

A EIN 6.6.1 How do the composition, abundance, and distribution 

of seep and spring communities change in response to an 

experiment performed under the Record of Decision, 

unanticipated event, or other management action? 

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted
ACHIO memo to TWG Page 26 

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

supporting Southwest willow flycatcher.

Categor

y

Core Monitoring INs 

A CMIN 6.7.1 Determine and track the abundance, distribution, 

and reproductive success of southwestern willow flycatcher in 

the Colorado River ecosystem? 

Sequenc

e Order

Categor

y Research INs

8 A RIN 6.7.1 What is the function of the Colorado River ecosystem 

as a migratory corridor for southwestern willow flycatcher? 

8 A RIN 6.7.2 What is the foodbase that supports southwestern 

willow flycatcher and other terrestrial vertebrates?

8 Accomp

-lished

RIN 6.7.3 What constitutes suitable southwestern willow 

flycatcher habitat? 

9 A RIN 6.7.4 How has the abundance, distribution and reproductive 

success of southwestern willow flycatcher changed since dam 

closure (1963), high flows (1984), interim flows (1991) and the 

implementation of Record of Decision operations (1996)? 

5.5 A RIN 6.7.5 What is the need, feasibility, and priority of 

maintaining habitat suitability for southwestern willow flycatcher 

in the Colorado River ecosystem? 

Categor

y

Effects INs

A EIN 6.7.1 How do the abundance, distribution and reproductive 

success of southwestern willow flycatcher change in response to 

an experiment performed under the Record of Decision, 

unanticipated event, or other management action? 

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted
ACHIO memo to TWG Page 27 

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

achieve GCDAMP ecosystem goals. 

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

necessary to maintain or attain desired levels of desirable biological resources (e.g., 

native fish, foodbase and trout).

Category Core Monitoring INs

A CMIN 7.1.1 Determine the water temperature dynamics in the 

mainstem, tributaries (as appropriate), backwaters, and nearshore areas throughout the Colorado River ecosystem. 

A CMIN 7.1.2 Determine and track LCR discharge near mouth 

(below springs). 

Sequence 

Order Category Research INs

5 A RIN 7.1.1 What are the desired ranges of spatial and temporal 

patterns of water temperatures for the Colorado River 

ecosystem? 

4 A RIN 7.1.2 What are the most likely downstream temperature 

responses to a variety of scenarios involving a TCD on Glen 

Canyon Dam? 

3 A RIN 7.1.3 What are the potential ecological effects of increasing 

mainstem water temperatures? 

Category Effects INs

A EIN 7.1.1 How does water temperature change in response to 

an experiment performed under the Record of Decision, 

unanticipated event, or other management action? 

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

Category Core Monitoring INs

A CMIN 7.2.1 Determine the seasonal and yearly trends in 

turbidity, water temperature, conductivity, DO, and pH, (decide 

below whether selenium is important) changes in the mainstem 

throughout the Colorado River ecosystem? 

Sequence 

Order Category Research INs

5 A RIN 7.2.1 Which major ions should be measured? Where and 

how often? 

5 A RIN 7.2.2 Which nutrients should be measured? Where and 

how often? 

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted
ACHIO memo to TWG Page 28 

4 A RIN 7.2.3 Which metals should be measured? Where and how 

often?

6.5 A RIN 7.2.4 What are the water-borne pathogens that are a threat 

to human health? How should they be monitored? Where and 

how often? 

Sequence 

Order Category Supporting INs

5 A SIN 7.2.1 How do the hydrodynamics and stratification of Lake 

Powell influence the food base or fisheries downstream? 

4.5 A SIN 7.2.2 Which water quality variables influence food base 

and fisheries in the Colorado River ecosystem? 

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

releases to meet downstream management objectives.

 

Category Core Monitoring INs

A CMIN 7.3.1 What are the status and trends of water quality 

releases from Glen Canyon Dam? 

Sequence 

Order Category Research INs

5 A RIN 7.3.1 Develop simulation models for Lake Powell and the 

Colorado River to predict water quality conditions under various 

operating scenarios, supplant monitoring efforts, and elucidate 

understanding of the effects of dam operations, climate, and 

basin hydrology on Colorado River water quality. 

7.5 A 7.3.1.a Determine the status and trends of chemical and 

biological components of water quality in Lake Powell as a 

function of regional hydrologic conditions and their relation to 

downstream releases. 

11.5 A 7.3.1.b Determine stratification, convective mixing patterns, and 

behavior of advective currents in Lake Powell and their relation 

to Glen Canyon Dam operations to predict seasonal patterns 

and trends in downstream releases. 

11 A RIN 7.3.2 How accurately can modeling predict reservoir 

dynamics and operational scenarios? 

9 A RIN 7.3.3 How do dam operations affect reservoir limnology? 

Sequence 

Order Category Supporting INs

6 A SIN 7.3.1 Measure appropriate water quality parameters to 

determine the influence of these parameters on biological 

resources in the Colorado River ecosystem.

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted
ACHIO memo to TWG Page 29 

Category Effects INs

A EIN 7.3.1 How does the water quality of releases from Glen 

Canyon Dam change in response to an experiment performed 

under the Record of Decision, unanticipated event, or other 

management action? 

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

habitat maintenance flows.

Category Core Monitoring INs

A CMIN 7.4.1 Determine and track releases from Glen Canyon 

Dam under all operating conditions. 

A CMIN 7.4.2 Determine and track flow releases from Glen 

Canyon Dam, particularly related to flow duration, upramp, and 

downramp conditions. 

Sequence 

Order Category Research INs

11.5 A RIN 7.4.1 What is the desired range of seasonal and annual 

flow dynamics associated with powerplant operations, BHBFs, 

and habitat maintenance flows, or other flows that meet AMP 

goals and objectives? 

5 A RIN 7.4.2 What is the desired pattern of seasonal and annual 

flow dynamics associated with powerplant operations, BHBFs, 

HMFs, or other flows to meet AMP Goals and Objectives? 

4 A RIN 7.4.3 How do changes in flow volume and rate of change 

affect food base and energy productivity in the Colorado River 

ecosystem? 

3 A RIN 7.4.4 How does flow rate and fluctuation affect habitat 

availability and utilization by fish and other organisms?

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted
ACHIO memo to TWG Page 30 

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

channel and along shorelines to achieve GCDAMP ecosystem goals. 

Sequence

Order Category Information Needs 

4.5 A IN 8.1 If sediment cannot be preserved in the system using 

available management actions, what is the feasibility (including 

technical, legal, economic, and policy issues) of sediment 

augmentation as a means of achieving this goal? 

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

channel below 5,000 cfs 

Category Core Monitoring INs 

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

volume, and grain-size changes below 5,000 cfs stage, by 

reach. 

A 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? 

A 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?

Sequence 

Order Category Research INs 

5 A RIN 8.1.1 What is the longitudinal variability of fine-sediment 

inputs, by reach? 

5 A RIN 8.1.2 What is the temporal variability of fine-sediment 

inputs, by reach? 

5 A RIN 8.1.3 What fine sediment abundance and distribution, by 

reach, is desirable to support GCDAMP ecosystem goals? 

[Note: Definition of “desirable” will be derived from targets for 

other resources and managers goals.] 

Category Effects INs

A EIN 8.1.1 How do fine sediment abundance, grain-size, and 

distribution in the main channel below 5,000 cfs change in 

response to an experiment performed under the Record of 

Decision, unanticipated event, or other management action? 

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted
ACHIO memo to TWG Page 31 

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

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

Category Core Monitoring IN 

A CMIN 8.2.1 Track, as appropriate, the biennial sandbar area, 

volume and grain-size changes outside of eddies between 

5,000 and 25,000 cfs stage, by reach? 

Sequence 

Order Category Research IN

5 A RIN 8.2.1 What fine sediment abundance and distribution, by 

reach, is desirable to support GCDAMP ecosystem goals? 

[Note: Definition of “desirable” will be derived from targets for 

other resources and managers goals.] 

Category Effects INs

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

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

25,000 cfs change in response to an experiment performed 

under the Record of Decision, unanticipated event, or other 

management action? 

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

eddies below 5,000 cfs

Category Core Monitoring INs 

A CMIN 8.3.1 Track, as appropriate, the biennial sandbar area, 

volume and grain-size changes within eddies below 5,000 cfs 

stage, by reach? 

Sequence 

Order Category Research IN

5 A RIN 8.3.1 What fine sediment abundance and distribution, by 

reach, is desirable to support GCDAMP ecosystem goals? 

[Note: Definition of “desirable” will be derived from targets for 

other resources and managers goals.] 

Category Effects INs

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

distribution, within eddies below 5,000 cfs change in response 

to an experiment performed under the Record of Decision, 

unanticipated event, or other management action? 

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted
ACHIO memo to TWG Page 32 

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

eddies between 5,000 to 25,000 cfs 

Category Core Monitoring IN

A CMIN 8.4.1 Track, as appropriate, the annual sandbar area, 

volume and grain-size changes within eddies between 5,000

and 25,000 cfs stage, by reach? 

Sequence 

Order Category Research INs

5 A RIN 8.4.1 What fine sediment abundance and distribution, by 

reach, is desirable to support GCDAMP ecosystem goals? 

[Note: Definition of “desirable” will be derived from targets for 

other resources and managers goals.] 

Category Effects INs

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

distribution, within eddies between 5,000 to 25,000 cfs change 

in response to an experiment performed under the Record of 

Decision, unanticipated event, or other management action? 

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

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

Category Core Monitoring INs 

A CMIN 8.5.1 Track, as appropriate, the biennial sandbar area, 

volume and grain-size changes above 25,000 cfs stage, by 

reach? 

Sequence 

Order Category Research INs

4 A RIN 8.5.1 What elements of Record of Decision operations 

(upramp, downramp, maximum and minimum flow, MLFF, 

HMF, and BHBF) are most/least critical to conserving new finesediment inputs, and stabilizing sediment deposits above the 

25,000 cfs stage? 

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

storage throughout the main channel?

9.5 A RIN 8.5.3 What is the pre- and post-dam range of grain-size in 

fine-sediment deposits, by reach? 

5 A RIN 8.5.4 What is the significance of aeolian processes in 

terrestrial sandbar reworking? 

5.5 A RIN 8.5.5 What are the historic and ongoing longitudinal trends 

of fine-sediment storage, above 25,000 cfs? 

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted
ACHIO memo to TWG Page 33 

5 A RIN 8.5.6 What fine sediment abundance and distribution, by 

reach, is desirable to support GCDAMP ecosystem goals? 

[Note: Definition of “desirable” will be derived from targets for 

other resources and managers goals.] 

Category Effects Monitoring INs

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

distribution on shorelines between 25,000 cfs and the 

uppermost effects of maximum dam releases change in 

response to an experiment performed under the Record of 

Decision, unanticipated event, or other management action? 

Sequence 

Order Category Supporting INs

9 A SIN 8.5.1 How do sandbar textures influence biological 

processes? 

5 A SIN 8.5.2 What is the relationship between the fine-sediment 

budget and turbidity? 

4 A SIN 8.5.3 What is the relationship between turbidity and 

biological processes? 

4.5 A SIN 8.5.4 What is the role of turbidity and how can it be 

managed to achieve biological objectives? 

5 A SIN 8.5.5 How can the ongoing fine sediment supply be 

managed to achieve sustainable habitats? 

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

associated with designated riparian vegetation zones? 

5.5 A SIN 8.5.7 What are the limiting factors that regulate substrate 

availability and its distribution? 

6 A SIN 8.5.8 What is the total area of different aquatic habitat 

types (cobble, gravel, sand, talus, etc,) in the Colorado River 

ecosystem? 

6 A SIN 8.5.9 How are sandbar textures related to cultural site 

stability? 

7.5 A SIN 8.5.10 How are sandbar textures related to recreational 

site stability? 

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

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

needed to achieve GCDAMP ecosystem goals.

Category Core Monitoring INs

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted
ACHIO memo to TWG Page 34 

A CMIN 8.6.1 Determine and track the change in coarse sediment 

abundance and distribution.

Formatted
ACHIO memo to TWG Page 35 

Sequence 

Order Category Research INs

6.5 A RIN 8.6.1 How do ongoing inputs of coarse-sediment from 

tributaries influence storage of fine sediment within pools, runs 

and eddies throughout the Colorado River ecosystem? 

4.5 A RIN 8.6.2 How do ongoing inputs of coarse-sediment from 

tributaries alter the distribution of main channel habitats needed 

by benthic organisms within pools, runs, and eddies throughout 

the Colorado River ecosystem? 

Category Effects INs

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

abundance, grain-size and distribution change in response to 

an experiment performed under the Record of Decision, 

unanticipated event, or other management action? 

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted
ACHIO memo to TWG Page 36 

GOAL 9: Maintain or improve the quality of recreational experiences 

for users of the Colorado River ecosystem, within the framework of 

GCDAMP ecosystem goals. 

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

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

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

Category Core Monitoring INs

A CMIN 9.1.1 Determine and track the change in recreational 

quality, opportunities and use, impacts, and perceptions of 

users in the Colorado River Ecosystem. 

A CMIN 9.1.2 Determine and track the frequency and scheduling 

of river-related use patterns. 

A CMIN 9.1.3 Determine and track the level of satisfaction for 

river-related recreational opportunities in the Colorado River 

ecosystem. 

A CMIN 9.1.4 Determine and track the economic benefits of river 

related recreational opportunities. 

Sequence 

Order Category Research INs

11 A RIN 9.1.1 What are the attributes of a quality river experience? 

(How do you define a quality river experience?) 

11 A RIN 9.1.2 Determine the appropriate carrying capacity for 

recreational activities within the Colorado River ecosystem. 

11 A RIN 9.1.3 How do ongoing inputs of coarse-sediment from 

tributaries diminish or enhance navigability of rapids throughout 

the Colorado River ecosystem?

Category Effects INs

A EIN 9.1.1 How do recreational use trends, impacts, and 

perceptions change in response to an experiment performed 

under the Record of Decision, unanticipated event, or other 

management action?

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

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

recreational activities. 

 

Category Core Monitoring INs

A CMIN 9.2.1 Determine and track the change in quality and 

range of opportunities in consideration of visitor safety, and the 

inherent risk of river-related recreational activities. 

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted
ACHIO memo to TWG Page 37 

A 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. 

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

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

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

Management Plans.

 

Category Core Monitoring INs

A 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. 

A CMIN 9.3.2 Determine and track the effects Record of Decision 

operations on the size, quality, and distribution of camping 

beaches in the Colorado River ecosystem.

Sequence 

Order Category Research INs

5 A RIN 9.3.1 What is the desired target level of camping beaches 

by reach?

Category Effects INs

A EIN 9.3.1 How do the size, quality, and distribution of camping 

beaches change in response to an experiment performed under 

the Record of Decision, unanticipated event, or other 

management action? 

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

ecosystem in consideration of existing management plans.

Category Core Monitoring INs

A CMIN 9.4.1 Determine and track the effects of Record of 

Decision operations on elements of wilderness experience 

specific to the Colorado River ecosystem. 

Sequence 

Order Category Research INs

5.5 A RIN 9.4.1 Identify the elements of wilderness experience specific 

to the Colorado River ecosystem. 

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

and monitoring activities. 

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted
ACHIO memo to TWG Page 38 

Category Core Monitoring INs

A CMIN 9.5.1 Determine and track the frequency and scheduling 

of research and monitoring activity in Glen and Grand Canyons. 

Formatted

Formatted
ACHIO memo to TWG Page 39 

Sequence 

Order Category Research INs

7 A RIN 9.5.1 What effects do administrative trips, including 

research and monitoring activities have on recreational users?

Formatted

Formatted
ACHIO memo to TWG Page 40 

Goal 10: Maintain power production capacity and energy generation, 

and increase where feasible and advisable, within the framework of 

GCDAMP ecosystem goals.

Sequence

Order Category Information Needs 

7 A IN 10.1 Determine and track the impacts to power users from 

implementation of Record of Decision dam operations and 

segregate those effects from other causes such as changes in 

the power market. 

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

Glen Canyon Dam.

Category Core Monitoring INs

A CMIN 10.1.1 Determine and track the effects on marketable 

capacity and energy of implementation of Record of Decision 

components (daily fluctuation limit, upramp and downramp 

limits, list components, maximum flow limit of 25,000 cfs, 

minimum flow limit of 5,000 cfs). 

Sequence 

Order Category Research INs

6 A RIN 10.1.1. What would be the effects on the Colorado River 

ecosystem and marketable capacity and energy of increasing 

the daily fluctuation limit? 

5 A RIN 10.1.2. What would be the effects on the Colorado River 

ecosystem and marketable capacity and energy of increasing 

the upramp and downramp limit? 

5 A RIN 10.1.3 What would be the effects on the Colorado River 

ecosystem and marketable capacity and energy of raising the 

maximum power plant flow limit above 25,000 cfs? 

5.5 A RIN 10.1.4 What would be the effects on the Colorado River 

ecosystem and marketable capacity and energy of lowering the 

minimum flow limit below 5,000 cfs? 

11.5 A RIN 10.1.5 How do power-marketing contract provisions affect 

Glen Canyon Dam releases? 

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

Area Power Administration systems.

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted
ACHIO memo to TWG Page 41 

Category Core Monitoring INs

A CMIN 10.2.1 Determine the effects of reserve group obligations 

on power. 

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

western interconnected electrical system.

Category Core Monitoring INs

A CMIN 10.3.1 Determine the full range of effects of Glen Canyon 

Dam responses to western interconnected electrical system 

emergencies. 

Sequence 

Order Category Research INs

5 A RIN 10.3.1 What are the effects of providing financial exception 

criteria? 

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

Category Core Monitoring INs

A CMIN 10.4.1 Determine and track the effects on the Colorado 

River ecosystem and marketable power and energy of 

maintaining Automatic Generation Control at Glen Canyon Dam. 

Sequence 

Order Category Research INs

6 A RIN 10.4.1 What are the effects on the Colorado River 

ecosystem and marketable power and energy of increasing 

Automatic Generation Control at Glen Canyon Dam? 

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted
ACHIO memo to TWG Page 42 

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

the inspiration and benefit of past, present and future generations. 

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

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

compliance with NHPA, and AMP compliance with GCPA.

Category Core Monitoring INs

A CMIN 11.1.1 Determine the status of historic properties under 

Record of Decision operations.

A 11.1.1a Determine periodically whether the essential physical 

features are visible enough to convey their significance or retain 

their information potential. 

A CMIN 11.1.2 Determine the efficacy of treatments for mitigation 

of adverse effects to historic properties. 

A CMIN 11.1.3 What are the thresholds for impacts that threaten 

their integrity and eligibility of historic properties? 

A 11.1.3a Are the current monitoring programs collecting the 

necessary information to assess resource integrity? 

A CMIN 11.1.4 How effective is monitoring, what are the 

appropriate strategies to capture change at an archaeological 

site - qualitative, quantitative?

Sequence 

Order Category Research INs

4 A RIN 11.1.1 What are the sources of impacts to historic 

properties? 

5 A 11.1.1.a What and where are the geomorphic processes that 

link loss of site integrity with dam operations as opposed to dam 

existence or natural processes? 

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

dam operations affect current terrace formations processes? 

5 A 11.1.1.c Determine if and where dam operations cause 

accelerated erosion to historic properties? 

5 A 11.1.1.d What are the potential threats to historic properties 

relative to integrity and significance?

3.5 A RIN 11.1.2 What are the historic properties within the area of 

potential effects? 

3.5 A 11.1.2.a For each tribe and living community, what are the 

register eligible traditional cultural properties? 

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted
ACHIO memo to TWG Page 43 

5 A 11.1.2.b How do specific sites meet National Register Criteria 

for Evaluation? 

5 A 11.1.2.c Identify AMP activities that affect National Register 

eligible sites? 

5.5 A 11.1.2.d Identify NPS permitted activities that affect National 

Register eligible sites. 

3 A RIN 11.1.3 What are the thresholds triggering management 

actions? 

5 A 11.1.3.a Determine the necessary information to assess 

resource integrity. 

4 A 11.1.3.b How should adverse effects to historic properties be 

mitigated? 

5.5 A RIN 11.1.5 What are appropriate strategies to preserve resource 

integrity? 

Category Effects Monitoring INs

A EIN 11.1.1 Determine the effects of experimental flows on 

historic properties. 

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

resources within the Colorado River Ecosystem.

Category Core Monitoring INs

A CMIN 11.2.1 Are the traditionally important resources and 

locations for each tribe and other groups being affected? 

Sequence 

Order Category Research INs

4.5 A RIN 11.2.1 What are traditionally important resources and 

locations for each tribe and other groups? 

4.5 A RIN 11.2.2 What is the baseline measure for resource integrity? 

4 A RIN 11.2.3 Determine acceptable methods to preserve or treat 

traditionally important resources within the Colorado River 

ecosystem. 

5 A RIN 11.2.4 What changes are occurring in cultural resource 

sites, and what are the causes of those changes? 

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

meaningful consultation on AMP activities that might restrict or block physical access by 

Native American religious and traditional practitioners.

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted
ACHIO memo to TWG Page 44 

Sequence 

Order Category Effects INs 

9 A EIN 11.3.1 Determine if and how experimental flows and other 

AMP actions restrict tribal access. 

9 A EIN 11.3.2 Determine reasonable management actions that 

should be taken to facilitate tribal access. 

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted
ACHIO memo to TWG Page 45 

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

management program.

Research and monitoring techniques should be continuously improved to provide the 

AMP with the best-available science. However, exploration of new techniques and 

methods may not result in an RFP and should not come at the expense of long term 

monitoring and resource protection. 

There is an ongoing need to consider new information regarding the most costeffective and least intrusive techniques and methods available for monitoring and 

conducting research on the resources of the CRE. GCMRC seeks this information as 

part of its normal operations. 

Any research into methodology will occur only as recommended by GCMRC, TWG, 

PEPs, or Science Advisors and approved by AMWG.

Sequence 

Order Category Information Needs

3 A IN 12.1 Develop information that can be used by the TWG, in 

collaboration with GCMRC, to establish current and target levels 

for all resources within the AMP as called for in the AMP 

strategic plan. 

A IN 12.2 Determine what information is necessary and sufficient 

to make recommendations at an acceptable level of risk. 

M.O. 12.1 Maintain or attain socio-economic data for adequate decision-making.

Sequence 

Order Category Research INs: 

11.5 A RIN 12.1.1 What is the economic value of the recreational use 

of the Colorado River ecosystem downstream from Glen 

Canyon Dam? 

11 A RIN 12.1.2 What are the use (e.g., hydropower, trout fishing, 

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

bequest and existence) values of the Colorado River ecosystem 

11 A RIN 12.1.3 How does use (e.g., hydropower, trout fishing, 

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

bequest and existence) values change in response to an 

experiment performed under the Record of Decision, 

unanticipated event, or other management action? 

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Deleted: 4.5

Deleted: RIN 12.1.1 What is the 

necessary quantity and quality of 

cultural and socioeconomic 

information for adequate decisionmaking? 

Deleted: 2

Deleted: 3

Deleted: 4
ACHIO memo to TWG Page 46 

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

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

management recommendations.

M.O. 12.3 Attain or maintain an integrated and synthesized “ecosystem-science”- based 

adaptive management program.

 

Sequence 

Order Category Research INs

4.5 A RIN 12.3.1 As necessary, investigate the most effective 

methods to integrate and synthesize resource data. 

5 A RIN 12.3.2 What are the differences between western science 

and tribal processes for design of studies and for gathering, 

analyzing, and interpreting data used in the adaptive 

management program?How well do research designs and 

workplans incorporate Tribal perspectives and values into the 

standard western science paradigm? Is it more beneficial to 

keep the perspective separated? 

5 A RIN 12.3.3 How effective is the AMP in addressing the EIS 

statement “Long-term monitoring and research are ... 

implemented to measure how well the selected alternative 

meets resource management objectives.”? 

M.O. 12.4 Attain or maintain an integrated and synthesized “ecosystem-science”-based 

adaptive management program.

Sequence 

Order Research INs

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

reviewers, managers, decision-makers, and the public.

 

Category Core Monitoring INs

A CMIN 12.5.1 Determine whether effective two-way 

communication between AMP participants and individuals 

outside the program is occurring on a regular basis. 

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Deleted: This MO is intended to 

encourage continuous improvement 

in research and monitoring 

techniques to provide the AMP with 

the best available science. However, 

exploration of new techniques and 

methods should not come at the 

expense of long-term monitoring and 

resource protection. ¶

 ¶

Unlike the other Management 

Objectives, this MO reflects an 

ongoing need to consider new 

information regarding the most costeffective and least intrusive 

techniques and methods available for 

monitoring and conducting research 

on the resources of the CRE. 

GCMRC seeks this information as 

part of its normal operations, using 

Protocol Evaluation Panels and other 

means.

Deleted: What are the most effective 

method(s) to integrate and synthesize 

resource data to increase our 

understanding of the past and for 

ongoing interactions of humans with 

the Colorado River ecosystem.

Deleted: 6

Deleted: RIN 12.3.2 What are the 

differences between western science 

and tribal processes for design of 

studies and for gathering, analyzing, 

and interpreting data used in the 

adaptive management program?

Deleted: 1

Deleted: RIN 12.3.3 What are the 

best scientific methods to determine 

cause and effect relationships in 

experiments and other management 

actions conducted under the 

GCDAMP?

Deleted: 4

Deleted: do in incorporating

Deleted: 5

Deleted: 4.5

Deleted: RIN 12.4.1 What are the 

most effective methods to maintain or 

attain the participation of externallyfunded investigators?
ACHIO memo to TWG Page 47 

Sequence 

Order Category Research INs

5 A RIN 12.5.1 What are the most effective means to build AMP 

public support through effective public outreach? 

5 A RIN 12.5.2 What are the most effective means to attain and 

maintain effective communication and coordination with other 

resource management programs in the Colorado River basin to 

ensure consideration of their values and perspectives into the 

AMP and vice versa? 

6 A RIN 12.5.3 To what extent does the public understand and 

support the GCDAMP?

5 A RIN 12.5.4 What is the most effective way to distribute 

information to our stakeholders and the public in a secure and 

accessible fashion? 

4.5 A RIN 12.5.5 Identify the desired level of information, education, 

and outreach provided for Glen and Grand Canyon river users 

and the general public? 

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

of informed stakeholders.

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

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted
ACHIO memo to TWG Page 48 

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

values and perspectives into the AMP.

Sequence 

Order Category Research INs: 

5 A RIN 12.7.1 How effective are the current strategies to achieve 

tribal consultation? 

5 A RIN 12.7.2 How well do the current strategies to achieve tribal 

consultation meet legal and AMP protocols? 

M.O. 12.8 Attain and maintain tribal participation in the AMP research and long-term 

monitoring activities.

Sequence 

Order Category Research INs

5 B RIN 12.8.1 How well does current tribal participation in the AMP 

research and long-term monitoring programs meet tribal needs 

and desires?

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

to gain critical understanding of ecosystem function under different dam operations 

scenarios and other management actions.

Sequence 

Order Category Research INs

3 A RIN 12.9.1 What is the impact on downstream resources of 

short-term increases to maximum flow, daily fluctuations, and 

downramp limits? 

2 A RIN 12.9.2 What is the best combination of dam operations and 

other management actions to achieve the vision, mission, goals, 

and objectives of the GCDAMP? 

2 A RIN 12.9.3 What are the relationships between dam operations 

and other management actions in their effects on resources 

addressed by GCDAMP management objectives? 

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

corporations, appropriations, and State agencies to meet AMP goals.

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted
ACHIO memo to TWG Page 49 

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

help address the information needs and meet AMP goals.

Sequenc

e

Order

Categor

y Research IN

4.5 A RIN 12.11.1 What are the most effective methods to maintain or 

attain the participation of externally-funded investigators?

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted
ACHIO memo to TWG Page 50 

Appendix 1 

Process for Developing the Information Needs

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

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

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

Technical Work Group (TWG) and principal investigators held at the Phoenix Airport on 

April 3, 2001. A second meeting to discuss cultural INs was held in Flagstaff on May 8, 

2001. Following these meetings, GCMRC revised the INs and discussed them at the 

May TWG meeting. Following this meeting the INs were put in a table and electronically 

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

TWG. At this point, the INs and the process for developing the INs was discussed in a 

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

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

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

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

2001. 

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

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

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

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

following questions during their review: 

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

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

added or deleted. 

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

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

"research"? 

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

address a given goal? 

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

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

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

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

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

National Park Service, Colorado River Energy Distributors Association, and Western 

Area Power Administration provided written comments on the INs. The INs were 

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

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

September 14, 2001. Recommendations for deleting INs, for specific language 
ACHIO memo to TWG Page 51 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GCMRC as of December 7th.