SP Comments 00sep21 Page 1 of 5

Comments on Strategic Plan from the Technical Work Group Meeting

September 21, 2000

TWG Suggestions for the Strategic Planning Process and Timeline

with Responses from the Ad Hoc Committee on Strategic Planning

Comments from TWG Members Responses from the Ad Hoc Committee

Budgetary reality #6 in the draft Outline of the Strategic Plan 

describes the Action Plan, which will be based on 

budgetary realities.

Long-term perspective This will be achieved via the target levels and 

throughout the process.

Develop a plan outline of what is in the Strategic 

Plan

This draft is completed and was distributed for 

comment at the TWG meeting.

Develop a schedule of completion This document is completed and was distributed 

for comment at the TWG meeting.

Responsibilities for various items in the Strategic 

Plan (both for writing and accomplishing)

Responsibility for writing the Plan is in the draft 

schedule, in March 2001. The specifics of who is 

responsible for accomplishing the plan will be laid 

out in the Action Plan, described in #6 of the draft 

Outline.

Tasks that need to be done to complete the 

outline

The Ad Hoc Committee asked for input on this 

from TWG members.

Items in plan outline listed in priority and sequence 

order

This will be done in the Action Plan, described in 

#6 of the draft Outline.

Use the web for publishing iterative versions of 

Strategic Plan

The Bureau will do this as attachments for the 

TWG meetings. 

Don’t reinvent the wheel – don’t revisit decisions 

that have already been made

The draft Outline, under #2, Background, will list 

all the documents, laws, and “sideboards” under 

which the program operates. 

Periodic review of decisions that have been made #7 of the draft Outline specifies that the plan will 

undergo periodic review of the goals, MAs, and 

the operating criteria, to ensure we are moving in 

the right direction.

Avoid thinking inside the box – is there a better, 

cheaper, faster way?

It will be up to all stakeholders to apply their 

creativity, particularly in the Action Plan step of

the planning process.

Avoid procrastination We will respond to this at a later date.

List INs only if you are unable to come up with 

reasonable first cut at a target.

This was included in the directions to the small 

groups.

Concur.
SP Comments 00sep21 Page 2 of 5

Comments from TWG Members Responses from the Ad Hoc Committee

Develop a firm schedule for completion of the 

Strategic Plan and stick to it.

Timeframe and cost to accomplish goals This will be done in the Action Plan, described in 

#6 of the Draft Outline.

The ad hoc committee was requested to send the 

Strategic Plan survey to:

TWG, AMWG, GCMRC, Denny Fenn

Chip Groat, GC Researchers

Steve Gloss (NRC), KAS panelists

Kathleen Wheeler, Duncan Patten

David Wegner, Dave Garrett

House and Senate committee staffers

Other funders, Mark Schaefer

Signa Larralde (ALB Office) 

Website, PA signatories

Navajo Nation - DC Office

PEP panel chairman and participants

Chairs of 2 NRC (Dick Marsoff and Bill Lewis)

Carl Walters, Kai Lee, THPO’s 

Science Advisory Board, NRC panelists

Senator McCain and George Miller

The survey was sent to most of the people listed.
SP Comments 00sep21 Page 3 of 5

TWG Comments on Management Objectives 

with Responses from the Ad Hoc Committee on Strategic Planning

Goal TWG Comment Ad Hoc Committee Response

Goal 

1

Consider using an index of biological integrity 

(IBI) for a qualitative target.

There may be an IBI that would work in 

Grand Canyon. The small group will consider 

this.

Use conceptual model for indicators. If the 

conceptual model is only based on dam 

operations, use other influences, too.

Just use foodbase measures as an indicator.

The small group will be directed to use fish as 

an indicator unless they determine it should 

be changed.

Goal 

2

The definition of “viable population” is very 

difficult. Start with Upper Basin ideas.

John Shields will give Upper Basin 

information and definition of “viable” to Pam 

for use in the small group.

Look at draft recovery criteria for HBC. Rick Johnson will get Douglas and Valdez 

studies on HBC recovery goals for the small 

group.

It will be difficult to achieve viability for RZB. See the comment for MO 14: “The target is 

the capability of the habitat to support the 

species.”

MO 13: is there actual predation on native 

fish?

This will be posed to the small group.

Propose to change “place” to “below Paria 

River” for Goal 2.

The AHC discussed this suggestion and 

agreed that the place would remain “CRE 

below GCD.”

Goal 

3

No comments. No response needed.

Goal 

4

No comments. No response needed.

Goal 

5

The small group will focus on temperature, 

water quality, and human health.

No response needed.

Why is SWWF targeted/associated with 

water quality?

Water quality degradation would affect the 

aquatic foodbase.

Goal 

6

Cultural –> “filling in arroyos” should be 

viewed as a placeholder – need more work. 

(From the “qualitative targets” document.)

There was some confusion among the AHC 

members as to the meaning of this suggestion. 

 There was also discussion of the 1996 flood 

that retarded erosion. The small group will 

review this.

Concerns about spawning habitat – should it 

be “above the Paria?”

The AHC agreed with this. However, 

spawning habitat is only one purpose of MO 

21.

No direction on priorities of resources

* –>ad hoc committee will address

MOs should be consistent with the Vision, 

Mission, Principles, and Goals and there 
SP Comments 00sep21 Page 4 of 5

Goal TWG Comment Ad Hoc Committee Response

should be no conflicts with those docs.

2

nd sentence from the qualitative targets 

document - “Given limited sediment inputs...” 

This sounds like a goal in itself. (BHBF & 

HMF)

2

nd sentence: add “any other tools to move 

sediment” in addition to HMF & BHBF.

Should conform to biological (esp. Native 

fish) goals.

Concern about implication that we can 

control supplies – focus on retaining and 

storage.

The AHC changed the qualitative targets 

document to read:

The target is enough sediment to achieve

biological, recreational, and cultural goals. 

Given limited sediment inputs, we need to 

retain enough sediment in the system to 

facilitate reworking by BHBFs and habitat 

maintenance flows achieve ecosystem 

patterns in Goals 1-4, 7-10, and 12. [The 

rest is unchanged.]

Goal 

7

Question about necessity/viability of 

translocated populations of KAS. 

- PEP report vs. Biological Opinion

- The BO has been changed as to the 

amount of take and the “AZ” 

requirement.

We will keep the document as it is pending 

evaluation of the PEP recommendations. 

(TWG has yet to review them.)

There may not be target levels for 

translocated populations.

The small group is expected to come up with 

a target.

This may be outside of AMP, but still 

important.

No response needed.

Goal 

8

MO 26 abundance: the target should be 

habitat.

The AHC considered this and decided to 

leave the target as it is.

Source of the current level? (12 breeding 

pairs)

The small group will vet this number.

MO 26 should be included under extirpated 

species.

SWWF exists in the Canyon.

Critical habit is 70 miles in upper canyon. 

The issue is “suitable, but not critical” habitat.

There is habitat that is occupied, though not 

critical.

“Suitable, but not critical,” habitat is 

influenced by Lake Mead. There are mostly 

tamarisks in this habitat.

If we create or protect the habitat and the 

birds do not come, we should figure out why. 

 If it is not in our control, we move on.

Rick will check with Debra Bills on occupied 

and critical habitat for SWWF.

Goal 8 numbers will be built on the habitat 

resulting from Goal 9. Habitat is what is 

developed under the Goal 9 regime.
SP Comments 00sep21 Page 5 of 5

Goal TWG Comment Ad Hoc Committee Response

Goal 

9

Question about how to maintain OWHZ.

Use language that avoids specific cfs levels 

for BHBFs –> other management actions –> 

put linkages to principles and issue papers.

Question about basing importance of 

retaining OHWZ just because it is hard to 

maintain.

Prioritize the four riparian communities.

All four communities are important for 

maintaining the diversity of wildlife. The Old 

High Water Zone is important a high priority

because of the difficulty of maintaining threat 

of losing it. We see One way of maintaining 

it is through BHBFs at greater than 45,000 

cfs high flows, which may have a negative 

effect on marshes and New High Water 

Zones. Be sure to cConsidering the legal and 

regulatory mandates of the NPS to protect 

natural landscapes and native species and 

communities (which does not include New 

High Water Zone), and regenerative 

capabilities, the other three zones are a lower 

priority. Also, recognize the dynamic and 

successional nature of these communities. 

Linkages: Riparian Vegetation Issue Paper, 

Principles 6 and 7.

Need to define “native” species. Rick Johnson will prepare a definition for the 

AHC to review.

“Naturalized” is proper term for carp, etc. No response needed.

Goal 

10

Concern about the legality of “absorbing” 

impacts. Is there a better word?

The goal specifies that the ecosystem is the 

priority.

Goal 

11

No comments. No response needed.

Goal 

12

What is the overlap between agency

responsibility and AMP actions?

The responsibility for each MO – inside or 

outside the AMP – will be defined at a later 

stage in the Strategic Planning process.

MO 41-42: what does “preserve” mean? “Preserve” holds the legal meaning under 

applicable laws. 

Goal 

13

Why no biological, etc., data in addition to 

socioeconomic data?

Biological data are noted in the other goals 

that address biological issues.

Tribal participation is not just a cultural issue. We agree.

Revise “externally funded investigators” 

(PI?).

“Externally-funded investigators” will be 

replaced with “Investigators funded outside 

the AMP.”