I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

From: SERENA MANKILLER <smankill@flagmail.wr.usgs.gov> 

To: <amy_ heuslein@doi.gov>, <arp4@mail.infomagic.com>, <gcrg@infomagic.com>, 

<zepid@nm.net>, <EcoPian@aol.com>, <bpersons@gf.state.az.us>, <spaicons@xpressweb.com>, 

<csharris@adwr.state.az.us>, <cspalmer@wapa.gov>, <barrett@trilobyte.net>, 

<dave.cohen@ravenrods.com>, <don_metz@fws.gov>, <jshiel@missc.state.wy.us>, 

<cuszhman@yahoo.com>, <manders@usgs.gov>, <norm_ henderson@nps.gov>, 

<plehr@intermind.net>, <rpeterson@uc.usbr.gov>, <Randy.Seaholm@state.co.us>, 

<johnson@flagstaff.az.us>, <nrwres.rking@state.ut.us>, <Robert_ Winfree@nps.gov>, 

<wcook@uc.usbr .gov>, <Mswarsw@aol.com>, <Matt. Kaplinski@nau .edu> 

Date: 11/20/99 3:50PM 

Subject: GCMRC FY2001 M&R Plan Response to Comments 

Attached in .pdf format is GCMRC's Response to Comments document which 

addresses TWG comments and questions regarding the FY2001 Work Plan draft 

dated 1 0/22/99. 

This document was scheduled to be distributed to the TWG on 11/19/99 for 

discussion at the December 7-8 TWG meeting. There are three 

tables/attachments which are being finalized today and will be e-mailed on 

Monday, Nov. 22. Also on Monday, a hard copy of the complete document will 

be sent via Federal Express to official TWG members. We will request the 

deliveries to be made Tuesday morning. 

The document is entitled, "TWG Comments on October 22, 1999, Draft FY2001 

Monitoring and Research Plan {dated 11/19/99)- Response to Comments." It 

is also available in MS Word format at: http:/1130.118.161 .89/amwg_new -

on the home page under the category "Announcements & Recent Web Site 

Postings," under "Response to Comments." Please note that this document is 

available only in Word and Adobe Acrobat formats. 

CC: <bgold@flagmail.wr.usgs.gov>, <lwhetton@uc.usbr.gov> 

Page_!] 
1-

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

United States Department of the Interior 

GRAND CANYON MONITORING AND RESEARCH CENTER 

2255 N. Gemini Dr., Room 341 

Flagstaff, AZ 8600 1-163 7 

520 556-7094 Telephone 

520 556-7092 Fax 

www.gcmrc.gov 

GCMR-700 

PRJ 5.10 

November 22, 1999 

MEMORANDUM 

To: Technical Work Group 

From: Barry Gold, Acting Chief 

Subject: Documents for review at the December 7, 1999, TWG Meeting 

Attached to this memo please find the following documents: 

1. "Response to Comments" table. 

2. Attachment 1 - Revised Current Knowledge for Biological Resources 

3. Attachment 2- Revised Summary Budget from page 117 of the FY 2001 Work Plan 

4. Revised Table 2.1 

5. Revised Table 2.2 

6. New Figure 2.1 showing the schedule ofPEPs in FY 2000 and FY 2001 

These documents have been prepared to respond to the comments that you provided GCMRC on 

the DRAFT (10/22/99) GCMRC FY 2001 Monitoring and Research Work Plan. We are 

scheduled to review these documents at the TWG meeting on December 7, 1999, beginning at 

2:30p.m. 

We plan to go through the "Response to Comments" table one comment at a time focusing on 

those comments where one or more TWG members still have questions after reading the 

response. We will refer to the associated documents (items 2 - 6 above) as needed during this 

discussion. Once we have reviewed the responses, GCMRC will modify the DRAFT FY 2001 

Work Plan for mailing to the AMWG. 

We appreciate your comments and your help in improving the clarity and substance of the Work 

Plan. 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - 

- ---------------------------

TWG Comments on October 22, 1999 DRAFf FY2001 Monitoring and Re

(November 19, 1999) 

Line# or 

Page# 

GENERAL PLAN- RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 

Comments and/or Recommended Action GCMR

US BUREAU OF RECLAMATION (10/31/99): 

In general, the study plan is a great improvement li·0111 a resource integration perspecti ve and 

we appreciate GCMRC's efforts. Coordination between the broad tables and the specillc 

project descriptions could be improved. The specificity of cultural resource proposa ls within 

the context of broader projects should be in creased to allow the reader to understand exactly 

what is proposed but we understand the time constraints unda which the plan was modified 

and that it is a work in progress. 

GC TRUST (11/8/99): 

Congratulations to you and your stall on the new integrated format. I like the format very 

much, and I have sevei·al suggestions that I think will help strengthen the document. 

(CONCLUSION) 

The format of this plan is on the right track . I suggest tharthe GCMRC stan· and the ·r WG 

stakeholders work together between now and the FY2002 plan to agree on fonnat and content 

on future work plans. We should continue to strive to make this a professional product that 

rellects positively on the AMP, and is of maximum utility to the Center and the stakeholders. 

No response required 

No response required. 

GCMRC would weko

the GC Trust and the r

the format and the con

between now and the t

FY 2002 Work Plan. 
-

THE IIOPI TRIBE (11/15/99): 

The Hopi Tribe has reviewed the FY200 I Monitoring and Research Work Plan and has the 

following comments. The Hopi Tribe appreciates the Grand Canyon Monitonng and Research 

Center's efforts t. · ,,•ard integrating the various resource programs into a more holistic 

monitoring and research strategy. llowc;ver, a truly holistic ecosystem monitoring and 

strategy is not yet reflected in this draft work plan . The basis for the lack of this integration is 

probably two lold. One, we have not yet achi..:ved the level of sc ientific undt:rstanding of tlu.: 

interconnectedness of resources that comprise th..: Colorado I{ iver ..:cosystem to design an integrated and holistic monitoring and research program; and, two, there has not been 

sufficient effort, by both the GCMRC and th..: pdrticipating tribes, to identify tht: 

resources of traditional cultural concern and integrate these r..:source concerns across resource 

categories within the des1gn of a integrated monitoring and research program. 

Efforts have been initiat

using integrated perspec

continued and expanded

with the tribes on a regu

these meetings will prov

incorporate broader trib

GCMRC programs. 

-·· ----+------- --- - 

CREDA (11/5/99): REQUEST FOR AI>I>ITIONAL MONITORING 

For your information, CREOA will request AMWG to recommend to the Secr..:tary tlic 

GCMRC be directed to reprogram funds in ::WOO and 200 I to initiate the monitonng of llows a 

short distance downstream from the dam. This is critical to getting resolution to the of 

how much effect putting the plant on AGC during downramp hours has on !low in the 

Glen Canyon reach . There are funds programmed in both years for unsolicited proposa ls and 

TWG/AMWG requests sunici..:nt to begin this critical monitoring program. It would appear 

that the MO and IN discussion on stream !low monitoring on pg. 29 of the FY200 I plan would 

support this request. 

- - - - - - - - -

Issues of impacb to reso

were studied and discus

the EIS period. The resu

the basis for the preferre

was adopted as the Reco

Secretary of th..: liHcrior

Additional studies on ef

resources specifically lo

may be needed for issue

Before initiating new stu

and historical data shoul

sheds any light on the co

analysis of historical dat

designing an appropriate 

- - - 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - 

CREDA (cont'd) The first step in meeti

related to ramping rate

monitoring program th

impacts of changing h

monitoring, specific re

whether by proposers 

hypotheses arc clearly 

impacts of ramping ra

that depart hom the R

With respect to initi<Jt

Glen Canyon gage can 

in a short time for a co

The study design for a

ramping rates needs to 

GCMRC and its coope

recreation, native fishe

clearly state what the q

addressed, as well as t

decision making once 

available. 

WAPA (11/8/99): GENERAL 

Dam releases intended to comply with the 1500 cfs down ramp restriction, including system- See response to comm

dependent fluctuations around the 1500 cfs ramping rate target, have been a contentious issue GCMRC believes that 

for some stakeholders in the AMP. Minor exceedences of the down ramp restriction have been "Western in collaborat

reported. System fluctuations around the target are, also, reported as exceedences. As a result, to propose a study plan

automatic generation control operations are sometimes removed from Glen Canyon Dam collaboration with 

during down ramp periods. llowever, the effects of minor variances downstream have articulate the questions 

not been investigated. TI1e need for study is presented to determine the impacts of addressed through a stu

system-generated fluctuations on downstream resources (biological, physical, and cultural). and gain the support o

Western in collaboration with concerned stakeholders will propose a study plan to address this be a priority item. Wit

issue. The proposal will address MO I and IN 1.1, either as an unsolicited proposal or in would work to develop 

response to the proposed project guidance titled Long-term Monitoring of Streamflow and address the identified q

Fine-sediment in the Main Channel Colorado, Paria, and Little Colorado Rivers 

(page 77 of the draft Workplan). It may be beneficial to initiate this proposal (unsolicited) as 

part of the FY2000 Workplan. 
-

CHAPTER I GEOGRAPHIC AND INSTITUTIONAL SCOPE RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 

J>g. 4 Line 68 

Pg . . f 

Line 70 

Pg. 4 

Lines 75-84 

WAJ>A 11/5/99 

I clearly understand that the PA uses 256,000 cis as the flow impact limit on which to 

subsequent monitonng and research activities. I also understand this is 1. • , , factor under 

GCMRC's control. I will make the point anyway. 256,000 cis does not make sense for 

current day or future operation philosophy for the dam. It is conceivable that in futme 

the AMP may address regulatory clearance to intentionally release flows up to I 00,000 It 

is not conceivablt: that by intentional human decision we would ever release fl1>W even 

approaching 256,000 cfs for the purposes of this program. Any flow through dam facilitie s 

much above 100,000 cfs would only occur as human reaction 10 an act of nature (e .g. mid1980s flood). The burden imposed on the AMP by this unrealistic llow impact limit should be 

revised to reflect current-day operation philosophy. 

CREDA 11/5/99: 

What is basis for I 00,000 cb level? According to the sentence, this is the level of inundation 

impacts 10 physical, biological, recreational and other resources. 

CREDA 11/5/99: 

CREDA supports this statement of constraints on the GCMRC program. 

0- - - - - - - - -

Consistent with guidan

TWG/AMWG, GCMR

Geographic and Institu

FY 1997- 2002 Strateg

governs GCMRC activ

Consistent with guidan

TWG/AMWG, GCMR

Geographic and Institut

FY 1997 - 2002 Strateg

governs GCMRC activi

To make this statement 

GCMRC proposes to ad

83 after the statement " 

actions .. . " 

- - - 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Chapter I (cout'tl) KNOWLEDGE- RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 

Pgs. 5-20 GC TRUST (11/8/99): CURRENT h:NOWLEUGE 

I think this section should eventually bt.: a synthesis of our understanding of ecosystc111 

fimction . As such it will be utility to the stakeholders. This st.:ction 

the big picture of the between ecosysll:m pattt.:rns (abundance and distributilm) 

and ecosystem processes (physical and biological drivt.:rs of ecosystem pall ems), and 

dt.:monstrate the "ecosystem science approach" called for in the Center's stakln t.: nt 

(line 95). In addition, this section should diswss how each of the current research ;.111d/or 

monitoring projects has either validated or rt.:full:d tht.: CUITt.:nt paradigm. it also 

discuss how our understanding of patlL'I n and process is simibr or dissi 111 ilar with other ri ver 

ecosystems. The use of visuals such as diagrams' would be helpful, J s would a 

rigorous citing of pertinent references. I unde1 that this is a significmll challenge and 

beyond our reach this year, but we should strive to achieve it in the upcoming FY2002 plan . 

Tht.: format of the Current Knowledge sections should be consistent. I would like th e 

Biological <Jnd Cultural Resources sections in the FY2001 plan be revised so that they lidlmv 

the f(mnat of the Physical Resources section . A cle<Jn.:r explanation of how the 1"1 I' ac ti vities 

relate to each other and contribute to a whok is ulso needed . 

The state of knowledg

expanded. It contains 

specific contrat:ts curre

amended state of know

document. 

ITP are d

the technical support s

are also shown in fi gur

on the IT progra 111 can 

2004 strategic plan 

Tht! Socio-cullural res

formatted into Previou

sections to reflect the f

Resources section . 

Line 286: In v

Line 295 : Ongl)ing Inv

Line 328: Prt!vinus Inv

Line 335 : Ongning Inv

1 St.:e l·urd , A. 199<J . Modeling the environment: an introduction to dynamics lliOdels of cnvironlllt.:lltal systems. Island Press, Wushingto
Pg.S 

Pg. H 

Lines I HS & 222 

l'g. 9, Ill 

Beginning with 

line 230 

Line 232 

Lmc 25M 

Pg. 10 

Line 263-264 

ACFD (11/3/99): 

The section on St:diment and Wata Resources is good and provides a clear overview uf tho.: 

state of knowledge and current (FY99) projects. The Biological section would 

benefit from additional information regarding ongoing contrJcts. Several projects were 

excluded from this section (aquatic foodbase lphyto-benthic community), Lees Ferry trout 

fishery, and riparian vegetation) and should be summarized as was done for the sediment <uld 

water resources section. Throughout the Current Knowledge: sen ion I found few references to 

other program areas to indicate integration across resource prog1 

US BUREAU OF llECLAMATION 10/31/99: HIOLOCICAL HESOllllCES 

With respect to the lower threshold of main channel s..:diment storage accumulation, I g5 

and 222 should be consistent. 

US BUREAU OF llECLAMATION 10/31/99: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

The biological status of canyon resources should be expaJHkd to give the reader a sens.: of tho.: 

current state of these resources. This section is limited to endangered species and is 

very brief compared to the physical, cultural and IT resource areas. Topics such as the status 

of the trout fishery, food base, water quality, and vegetation should be covered. 

Replace "impending" with "potential". 

Replace "operations" with ''NEPA analysis". 

CC TRUST (11/8/99): UIOLOGICAL llESOURCES 

Change sentence to something like "Brood parasitism may also affect fledgling success" and 

cite appropriate refcrence(s). 

- - - - - - - - - -

The state of knowledge 

expanded. It contains in

specific contracts curren

amended state of knowle

document: 

The text in these two sen

achieve consistency, and each is actually estimate

basis of preliminary rese

The state of knowledge 

expanded. It contains in

specific contracts curren

amended state of knowle

document 

The recommended chan

content of the revised cu

This is addressed in the 

The intent of the phrasin

factors may be playing a 

besides cowbirds 11 

parasitism on flycatd1cr 

willn' " flycatcher succe

fledgling succe

- - - 
-

Pg. 10 

Line 264 

- - - - - - - - - - - - 

------ ----.--------

US FISH & WILDLIFE 11 / 12!1)9: BIOLOGICAL HESOlJHCES 

Not sure why the sentence reads: Parasitism on flycatcher eggs may also affect tlcdgling 

success. Cowbird parasitism on flycatchers in Grand Canyon has been well documented. 

The intent of thc phra

factors may be playing 

besides cowbirds. It w

parasitism on fl ycatch

willow fl ycatcher succ

affecting fledgli11 g suc

1---------+-----------

l'g. II 

Lines 275-277 

297-300 

Pg. 12 

I .incs 30M-3 I 0 

Pg. 13 

Lines 325-327 

GC TRUST (11/8/99): SOCIO-CliLTlJnAI. 

Is this I internally consistent? What docs it mean for such " dynamic to protect 

plants and animals in situ? 

Because erosion is a "natural process," the usc of .. natural processes" in sentence 

mean natural processes operating within the range of natural/historic variability'! !'his needs to 

be clarified here and throughout the cultural re sources section. 

------------. - - ---

US lllJREALJ OF 111/JI/99: 

The sentence at lines 308- 310 should be expanded hl include pre-dam processes''' 

understand how the frequency and magnitude of pre-dam floods preserved cultural sites. 

CC THllST (11/8/99): SOCIO-CLILTlJHAL- Hecreational Resources 

Clarify whether "main stem base levels" refers to a geomorphic surface, or to base flow . 

This goal prima

have fixed locations s

traditional resources s

physicallandlimllS etc

Line 297 -3 00 ha s bee

some surface cros10n 

are unrelated to dam o

erosional processes be

operations and mainst

cutting arroyos appear 

at specific local ions. " 

Line # 310 has been c

operations. These data 

available infom1ation 

affected cultural site p

Mainstem base levels 

_______ ____ 
Pg. 13 

Line 325-342 

Pg. 16 

Line 423 

-

-------·· 

--.- 

WAPA COMMENTS 11/5/99: SOCIO-ClJLTIJRAL 

Constant, heavy recreational use of campable beaches must also be a significant erosion fa ctor. 

I have yet to see a proposed project to evaluate this aspect of beach erosion, yet this is one 

erosive element we can control. Pre-dam recreational impacts to beaches were insignificant 

compared to the current level of use . Temporary increases in campsite number and size 

resulting from Oood flows may be the only operational mitigation for maintaining sediment 

deposits above norm..tl fluctuations, but regulating beach use could extend that temporary 

benefit. 

lJS BlJI{EAlJ OF RECLAMATION Hl/31/99: INFORMATIO"' TETIINOLOGIES 

Justification should be given for purchasing a multi-beam system rdther than contracting for 

the channel map of the entire study area. 

- - - - - - - -

With regard to the firs

that this is one aspect 

absent; the others incl

reworking of sand bar

recreational camping, 

motorized boilt wakes 

impacts on pre-dam te

reach. 

Line #340 Dn: Data on 

currently being collec

available in I· Y 200 I 

investigating human i

A hydrographic multib

equipment and method

purpose such as ocean

GCMRC has worked t

swift-water system (de

design, environmental

development). ln-hott:

nexibility to conduct c

monitoring or event dr

have short lead times. 

Our investigations to d

capability indicate tha

time required and subs

$425,000) for mapping 

contractor. In additioncapability for the type 

noted above. GCMRC 

effectiveness of in-hou

one time full channel b

- - - 
-

Pg. 18 

Line 488 

Pgs. 18-19 

-

I .incs 475,476, 

521-525 

- - - - - - - - - - - 

WAPA COMMENTS 11/8/99 

Whatc:ver is done for the remote sensing proJeCt , culturalnccds to be involveJ to thc I Line# 488 past 

remote sensing data that is acquireJ will be anJ not duplicative fSee Page 51 , l.ine 9li6]. 

CllEilA 11/5/99: INFOH.MATION TECIINOLOCIES PllOGilAM Given the slow start, will the entire $400,000 be required in FY2000 or 200 J'l 

Line # 986 applies the

proposed cultural projprogram manager wil

that it will be useful a

The remote sensing 

FY2000. We an: in th

remote sensing 

required to complete a

FY2001plan. Si111ilarl

be required tu comple

FY200 I . These funds 

strategic plan that guid

The remote-sensing 

several field studies h

include: LIDAR , 1-IYD

overflights, as wcll as 

photogrammetry, use 

photogrammetry, and 

multi-beam, and swath 

------+-----------------

Pg. 211 Map 

US BUREAU OF RECLAMATION 10/31 /99: Fig 1.2- GIS Sites Map 

The map is too small to be of valuc . E::ithcr Jelctc or print landscape and enlargeJ to alluw the 

reader to understand the GIS 

The map will be printe

be provided that is mo
Chapter 1 (cont'll) PROGRAM INTEGRA TJON- RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 

l'gs. 21, 22 and 

Figure 1.3. 

GC TRUST (1118/99): 

I would like to see some discussion on the strategy for addressing the multitude of INs that 

have been identified. Which ones arc the h1ghest priorities and why") How do you bundle 

several INs into an RFP? What is an ideal sequence of research projects') 

For me, Figure 1.3 does not add darity to the text. 

The prioritization proce

INs has been described 

strategic plan. As has be

meetings, our strategy c

monitoring programs th

subsequently be analyze

information need and to 

activities for this informaddressed through a spe

working with the priorit

concur that it does not a

prioritization always n:p

what needs to be kn own 

working with the TWG 

frameworl-. as we revise 

Chapter I (cout'd) MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES AND IN FORMA liON NEEDS- Rt."'SPONSE TO CO

Pg. 21 

Lines 5-tJ-544 

-

CIUWA 11/5/99: 

See 632-634 [Schedule and Budgt:t 1- According to the Lovt:less < iuiJance Docun1cnt , the 

AMWG makes recommendations regarding MOs and INs and dollars made available to 

GCMRC to achieve the MOs etc . and does not make decisions. 

- - - - - - - - -

This is true. The AMW

recommendations to the 

been rewritten to read:" 

management objectives 

needs recommended by 

and approved by the Sec

priorities for monitoring 

Colorado River ecosyste

- - - 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Chapter 1 (cout'd) PROTOCOL EJ 'ALUA TJON PROGRAM- RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 

r-----------------, --

21-23 <;C TIHIST (11/M/99): 

It would be useful to use a table or tlnll:lim: to show which PFI's have been completed, allll 

when upcoming ones are planneJ. Use associatc:J text to Jdine the process and justify the 

timetable. 

A figure showing the 

added to chapter 2 an

with this table (Fig 2

Chapter 1 (cout't/) CONTINGENCY PLANNING- TO COMMENTS 

23 

Line 5'.111 

l .inc 5'.12 

WAPA COMMENTS II/5N9 

Correct "Authority" to "Administration ." 

When the BIIIJF contingency is add1essed lin FY2001, contingency planning activities should 

include time to address compliance activities. 

Chapter 1 (cout'd) FUTURE CHALLENGES- RESPONSE TO COMMf..lVTS 

24 

Line 605 

US FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE (11/12/99): Under the topic of the temperature control device, it staks that the structure will not be in 

operation until 2002, which means that all of the pre-operational testing and survl!ys should be 

conducted during the implementation of this 200 I plan. Yet, later in the document beginning 

on line 1518 under New Research Associated with Experimental Flows tor Fish and Temperature Control Device, only preliminary projects are identified. Since the TCO 

workshop has not taken place, I suspect that both of these sections will need to be re-written to 

adequately prepare us for testing the TCD in 200 I. 

Corrected to read "W

Administration" 

Compliance activities 

contingency planning 

calls for having comp

the given year so that 

between January- Ju

hydrologic triggering 

The final draft for a s

TCD will be complet

studies associated wit

with the TWG and in

at this time, as appmp

There is a typographic

read January 200 I no
Pg.H 

Beginning on 

Line 616 

US FWS (cont'd): 

It states that we assume that a decision for implementing SASF will be made in January 2000 

for implementing in FY 200 I. Please clarify whether the SWCA contract which addresses this 

issue will have a report available in Janua1y to help make this decision. If the report is not 

available for deliberations in this decision nw"-ing, how will the document be used? 

Deferring the decision making on whether to conduct SASiuntil 200 I may not meet 

Reclamation's obligations under the ESA. Rcclamatinn is Ct>mmitted to conducting 

experimental low flows during the first !!.23 maf year If 200 I is a low water ycar, 

ReclamatiOn will be forced to make a decision about llows li>r native fish. 

Also, what are the odds fnr 2000 being a !!.23 year. If the ndds arc similar to the odds of ;1 

BIIBF, planning for the two events should be treated the same. 

-----

US BUREAU OF I{ECLAMATION (10/31 /99): 

Pg. 2-t, Line 607 I Revise "the construction" to ''potentially both the construction". 

Line MIN I Delete ··pussiblc" . 

Line 609 and I The term SASF was tied to a specific GC:DEIS alternative, while one of the Biological 

following Opinion RPA 's called for a test of low steady summer flows. As currently understood, the 

research addresses the latter and the terms should be rcplaced throughout the FY 200 I study 

plan. 

- - - - - - - - - -

FY 200 I. The SWCA fi

research flows should be 

2000. 

If this occurs, GCMRC 

completion of the SWCA 

to the TWG for their use 

concerning the impleme

Since this plan i: r. .r FY

are talking about are for 

stated that, ':The odds of 

ycar are approximately 2

occurring in 200 I are ap

Line 607 has been revise

"possible" has been dele

the phrase "endangered 

deleted from line 609 

- - - 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - 

.-------------------------------------------

Chapter J (cout'£1) SCIIEDULE AND BUDGET- RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 

Pgs. 2-t-25 

lines 616-629 

Pg. 25 

line 622 and 

following 

Pg. 25 

Lines 6JM-639 

CREDA (11/5/99): 

CREDA supports use of Sec. 8 funds for this program. 

US BUREAU OF RECLAMATION (10/31/99): 

The funding of research of low steady summer Oows does not come from Section S 

appropriated funds. As part of the 1956 Colorado River Storage Project Act, Section 8 funds 

are tied specifically to the construction of facilities to benefit recreation and fish and wildlife, 

such as the TCD. As was previously discussed in a TWG meeting, this research would be 

contingency funded as would Ulll3F n;search. Line 2779 and the budget table on page 117 correctly list the use of Section 8 funds. This should be corrected throughout the study plan, 

including page 37 of table 2.1. 

CREDA (11/5/99): 

What is the source of the $1416milmentioned here? Where does it appear in the Table on pg. 

117? Should it be the $1 068mil discussed at last AM WG meeting? 

No response needed. 

Line 626 will be revis

expect to S!Jpport this 

contingency funds. Tabk 2.1 (Atlachcd) h

While the tlows may b

need for preliminary d

flow cannot be overlo

and therefore an exper

collected prior to, duridetermine the effect o

questions associated w

flows are similar beca

objectives. Contingen

a steady flow event, b

address pre-treatment 

The $1,416 million fig

activities. These inclu

AMWG, TWG and SA

the AMP, and support 
CHAPTER2 SCIENTIFIC ACI'IVITIES - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 

AGFD (11/3/99): GENERAL 

I appreciate the efforts of the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Resc<Jrch Center (GCI\1Rl') to 

integrate projects across resource categories and realize that it is a difficult task and a major 

challenge for GCMRC. While the structure of Table 2.1 suggests that ther..: will be 

across resource areas, it is unclear both in the table and in the text of the Plan how that 

integration will be accomplished. In several sections of the Plan there are ilS 

"community chilnge data associated food or habitat will be extracted from 

phyto-benthic anrl sediment monitoring data" . llowev..:r; it is not clear how the extracti<lll will be done, or who wtll be responsible for the inlt.:gration . The sections on integration need 111ore 

detail. I expect the Center to take the lead in ensunng that both the sharing and of data take place . That has been a problem in the past that I know you arc working to resolw 

There needs to be integration of projects durmg the phase so that data are collecteJ 

concurrently (spatially and temporally) ti)f valid integration to take place. I saw no menti•lll of 

ensuring integration during the project design, only aficr the data were collected. This has not 

worked well in the past, and unless procedures are changed to integrate during the design •>f 

monitoring projects, integration likdy will not take place. 

GCMRC has intiall:J a n

developing an integrated 

monitoring the Colorado 

begin with the conccptu

in FY 1998 to develop an 

understanding the Color

development is ongoing 

each resource area. Prot

been initiated with the s

long-term monitoring pr

across resources. A prim

program managers is to 

conducting in a linked fa

are integrated across res

described in the FY200 I 

necessitate multiple IN '

project. lnfom1ation tec

development of a databa

Monitoring and research 

that allow and promote p

design highly integrated 

goals is to understand th

Colorado river ecosystem

developed for the FY99 

promote integration in b

analysis. 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - 
- - - - - - - - - -

GLEN CANYON NATIONAL (11/15/99): 

I. Multiple MOIINs for single projects - In most cases more than one IN is specified under a 

single project title (see Table 2.1 ). In fau , in one instance, 12 INs are specified for a single 

general project title. It is unclear how such broad project objectives can translate into 

monitoring/research programs that will answer specific IN questions. Granted, the projec ts as 

described will likely provide general trend information but IN requirements arc much more 

specific then that. 

2. Unclear project titles- In many cases project titles are an amalgam of several MOIINs. In 

certain cases the titles are so general that it is impossible for the reader to understand what 

infonnation will actually be gathered. 

3. Specifying methodology inappropriatc - fl is unclear why the plan specifies project 

methodologies when RFP bidders should specify them. Since scientific review panels will 

evaluate the credibility of each project methodology oflered, why is GCMRC specifying 

methodologies before proposals are received. 

4. IN selection process not specified- The priorities specified in the plan do not seem 

consistent with those set by the TWG/AMWG . The reasons for this apparent change in 

priorities should be explained. For example, under Native Fish MO 8, IN 8.2 and 8.3 are 

selected but have low priority while higher priority INs are ignored (IN 8.1, 8.5, 8.6 ). Under 

trout MO 2, IN 2.3 is selected while other higher priority INs are not included. 

5. Unclear relationship between project title and MOIINs- Certain projects lack clear 

relevance between their title and the MOIINs specified. for example, under the project 

entitled "Streamtlow and tine sediment transport" are MOs related to water quality. This MO 

and related INs would be more appropriately placed in the IWQP project area. 

6. Incomplete project information in Tabk 2.1 -Certain projects in table 2.1 lack rdevant 

MO/IN infom1ation as well as any description of methodology. 

- - - 

I. Monitoring and re

collect data which 

multiple IN s. 

2. The project titles i

revised and made 

addressed by each 

See revised -1 able 

3. Specific methodol

monitoring are app

establish consisten

collection . This is 

projects that are op

4. See revised Table 

5. See revised Table 

6. See revised Table 
-

GCNRA (cont'd) 

7. Tablt: 2.2 incomplete- Table 2.2 has numerous missing entries, i.e., TBD. It would seem 

appropriate that a final drali of a plan should be complete before TWG is asked to review it. 

8. Projects not in Table 2.1- Certain cullllral (pages 49 and 52) are described in the 

text but not listed in Table 2.1. 

9. 13asic research questions- There are scveral basic research questions that should bc 

answered through the FY -200 I plan related to the following: 

- Native fish use of and need for back water habitat. We keep discussing llows that 

will establish such habitat but do not know the relationship or need with native 

- Determine the primary food source of native lish . Are native fish now dependent on 

the river primary productivity for food (autochthonous) or are they opportunistic and use what 

ever is available? 

- Relative importance of marsh habitat in the river corridor. 

The first two questions are basic but control and justify our need for such management actions 

as BHBFs. It would seem in order to justify continued usc of such management actions that 

the research be there to back them up. 

- - - - - - - - -

7. We stated at the TW

handed out that Tab

reason for this was t

and accounting resu

integrate scientific a

revised Table 2.2 is 

8. See revised Table 2

9. Habitat relationshi

through cunent co

-

backwate1 l: es

and Larry Stevens. 

received, we will c

source relationship

the stable isotope a

NAU, once this r· . 

consider next steps

marsh habitat will 

vegetation synthes

relationships work 

begin to address th

- - 
- - - - - - - - - -

WAPA (1115/99): FORMAT 

For each "ongoing" project presented it would be informative to include in the project 

description a synopsis of current status. What has been accomplished in the previous year(s) 

of study. The reader then has a better iden of where the continued study is headed and if it is 

headed in the right direction. This is included to some degree in the Current Knowledge 

section on page 5, but would be more helpful if addressed within the specific project 

description . 

The organization of Table 2.1 is not clear. Call:gory titles (e.g. ''Terrestrial st.:m 

Projects" or "Physical Resources ProgrJm'') fill the listed proposed projects would help. Also 

the titles of the projects presented should he cnnsist.:nt with those in the narrati ve and 

presented in the same order for the convenience of the reJdcr. 

See the general comment for Line 6 70-16 7 4, regarding the level of in formation prov idcd to the 

reader for each project. 

The budget information presented for each project and for program areas needs a direct, 

trackable connection to the budget summary page on page 117. 

- - - 

These formattin g sugg

into tables 2.1 and 2.2, 

clarity for tracking the 

2.2, the project descrip

in Chapter 3. 

Additional categories 

been added to Table 2 

This was dQne to show 

surveying support from 

for each row refl ect on

logistics. The totals fo

contracted program co

agreement with the AM

group, on the final bud

other costs, as appropr

Additional activities li

budget under Cultural 

will be added to Table 

The titles in the tables 

project description, an

follow the order or the 

The project titles and t

both table 2. i and 2.2 

chapter 2. 
Pg.26 

Lines 657-661 

AGFD (11/3/99): 

The text in this section indicates that there will be a five-year stratt:gy of protocol 

remote-sensing technology dt:velopment and ongoing program development intended to 

produce an integrated long-term monitoring and research program. 

Were unclear in describing which programs wen.: "ongoing" , "in tq.!ra ted" and "new" projects. 

Can you clarify that section? Does "ongoing" mean transition monitoring (moving from the 

present data collection program to a long-term monitoring program) or does it mean that a 

long-term monitoring program will be in place? 

- - - - - -

This refers to the strateg

plan, the PEP prospectu

Evaluating Remote Sen

The text on lines 657-66 

"Each of these projec ts 

Ongoing - meaning a c

supported during FY's 

modification until PEP 

meaning 

1998-2000 will continu

in methods or focus bas

recommendations or inf

meaning that the projec

component oftL .)raft 

using current or new alt

designs. Because the ex

in a transitional phase a

integrated design, some 

activities will remain "o

modification," until suc

completed program-wid

used methods and desig

information needs, scien

efficiency, ongoing eff0

long-term monitoring. 

New projects described 

terrestrial and aquatic" 

Table 2. 1, represent init

the draft long-tem1 mon

in the FY 200 I Workpla

elements formerly descr

"Physical Resource" res

the GCES and FY's 199

plans, but are often r0m

"alternative" or modifie

designs that were identi

review process complete
- - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Chapter 2 (cont'll) TABLE 2.1 SUMMARY TABLE OF FY2001 PROJECT TITLI:.--.5 & ASSOCIATED MD

Pg.27 

Pg. 27 

AGFD (11/3/99): 

I had some difficult understanding this table and might offer a few general suggestions. In the 

"how accomplished" column it would be nice to see a reference to a specific project as was 

done in the State of Knowledge section on physical resources section. That way the reader can 

tell who is doing the work, if it is pan of an ongoing project or is a new project. Perhaps the 

project title column should indicate who the PI is for ongoing work? 

Fine grained sediment storage - ShOtild include MC l's for "phyto-benthic commttnity". The 

I.N. on "availability and quality of spawning substrate in Glen Canyon reach ... " could also be 

included in the "coarse sediment inputs" project if you consider gravel to be coarse sediment. 

Monitoring status and trends of Lees Ferry trout fishery - Will "how accomplished" 

depend on the results of the PEP? Suggest replace "SCUBA" with "SCUBA, snorkel or uthc.:r 

methods depending on resu Its of the FY2000 I'E P" . 

US BUREAU OF RECLAMATION (10/31/99): 

On table 2. I, the order of the studies should correspond in order to those more detai kd 

descriptions that follow . Titles of specific projects should correspond in both places. 

An excellent suggest

retlect these suggestio

that are being planned 

content. 

Table 2.1 i;; a synops

follow. In ·an effort to 

communication we us

to MO's and IN 's. Sp

added under the proje

We will add the MO'

community to this tab

The wording will rdk

The "how accomplish

to provide a brief sum

project description ha

avoid confusion and m

information can be fo

Tables 2.1 and 2.2 hav

comment. 
Pg. 27 

Line 669 

Pg. 27 

Line 669 

-

WAPA (11/5/99): 

• 

• • 

The Table is incomplete for severa l projects on pages 29. 30. And 39 . 

In reading the project proposa ls it appears that MO 2 (trout) and IN 2.4 (trout) under Finegrained sediment storage might be more approp11atcly addn:sscd under the Coursesediment inputs, storage, and impacts prujecl. 

Population genetics of IIBC should include literaturt: review under .. I low" to ensure the 

gent:tic work of the uppt:r basin projects and those genetic relationships are considered. 

WAPA (11/M/99): 

For Fine-grained sediment storage, cultural could also benefit fi·om studies on sediments 

helping reduce erosion on sites. 

- - - - - - - - -

Bullet # I, Table 2.1 has 

completed information. 

Bullet #2, We believe th

in both, since tine sedim

habitat. These monitori

other. Coverage of coa

dynamic inputs and tran

idea for monitoring her

monitoring or sand cov

gravels) some indicatio

condition of spawning h

MO and IN couplet is a

monitoring and research 

hence, it shows up in m

See revised Table 2.1. 

The population genetics 

requested that the popu

outgroups which would 

projects. The repo11 sh

literature including upp

genetics question was s

the LCR individuals to 

We have included cultu

The project will be desi

with Cultural MOl and 

the revised table 2.1. 

Regarding the last WAP

Table 2.1. 

- - - 
-

Pgs. 27-37 

Line 669 

Line 669 

- - - - - - - - -

CREDA (11/5/99): 

Table 2.1. Comparing proposed project titks (MOs ;md INs) to Appendix 2 and the priority 

assigned to INs, we see a lot of differences. Some explanation is needed as to why certain 

needs were identified as very high priority for work by the TWG yet fail to show up on the FY 

2001 Work Plan Table 2.1 Summary (e .g. , IN 14 .6 KAS monitoring, IN 6.2 11BC 2"<1 

population study, etc.). Also, other work was identified as being of very low priority but 

now listed for work in FY 2001 (e .g., IN 2.3 track ing changes in camping beaches, IN 3.1 

determining powercran navigability, etc .). A quick comparison of high (::- I 0 votes), medu11n 

(10-8), low (4-7) and other(<4 votes) priority Information Needs in Appendix 2 with Tabk 2. 

shows FY200 I work includes two high priority needs, 15 medium priority needs, 23 low 

priority and 12 other priorities. We slwuld_be fulfilling all the high priority needs and most of 

the medium priority needs. As for low and other needs, these could be postponed without 

jeopardizing resources. 

We remain concemed that the baseline data needed to detenuine dtl:cts of dam 

under the present operating criteria appear to not be the highest priority. Baseline data 

needed to establish cause and effects of the present !low regime established under the 1{01). 

The work plan could reso lve this by cross-rl.!fcrencing all those INs that provide baseline 

under a heading "Baseline Monitoring Eft(Jrts. " This would he especially useful in seeing 

where data gaps exist and what other 111onitoring and research is being proposed. Without 

these baseline data, experiments to change the tlow regime have no justification. 

- - - 

INs were prioritized w

resulting in different p

addition, as we have in

activities it has become 

be addressed before ot

reflect our effort to add

prioritizations. 

IN 11 . 1 Deline and sp

components, especially 

species; including evol

changes, natural range 

interdependencit:s, and 

which is primarily rela

research that is being p

We have reviewed tab

appropriately refert:nce

The notion that baselin

a falacy. Each of the p

to monitoring. Examp

Humpback chub that r

life history requiremen

This is a monitoring in

component of fish mon

Similarly, the populati

chub based on the wor

the paiod 1991 - I C)<JS 

the CPUE indexes bein

period they have moni

work of Walters ct al. 

of Humpback chub pop

is being compiled in ot

The results of the cont

1998 are only now bei

will contribute to the e
Pgs. 27-39 (;C TRUST (11/8/99): 

I did not review this section because it is incomplete. No response needed. 

2 (cont'tl) TERRES11UAL ECO.SY.STEJU ACTIVIl'IES 

Pg.40 Line 66-t 

Pgs. 40-99 

Pg.41 

Line 670 

The Hopi Tribe (11115/99): Title: Monitoring 

For example, the Monitoring of Avifauna program gives recognition of the cultural 

importance of birds to Native American tribes, but , i;;nilicant lack 

understanding of which birds are of cultural importance to whtcli tt tbes. The Hopi Tribe has 

specific concerns about the abundance and vitality of raptors, specifically (iolden Eagles, 

hawks, and falcons, within the Grand Canyon, but the recog11ition of this fact and its 

integration into this monitoring program is not presented in the narrntive. Moreover, the llopi 

Tribe would suggest that Ruth Lambert be identified as a key GCMHC personnel that is 

involved with the administration of this project. 

GC TIWST (11/8/99): SCIENTIFIC ACTIVITIES 

To me, these project descriptions arc extremely important and should demon strate a 

thoughtful, strategic approach to research and monitoring. The descriptions should clarify how 

we think the system functions, what is being measured (explanatory and response variables), 

why we choose those metrics, how the data will be analyzed, and what the results might tell us 

about whether or not we're achieving our goals. The text needs to be much more succinct, 

clear, thoughtful, and consistent. Perfunctory statements such as the lead sentence in many of 

the ''Integration" sections ("To achieve ecosystem-level understandings .. .. ") do not contribute 

to the document. The statements on MOs and INs should have some purpose other than 

referring the reader to Table 2.1. · 

US FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE (11112/99): Title: Monitoring Avifauna 

This is more of a general comment, but possibly most pertinent to avifauna monitoring, 

endan1 I species permits are required fc · working in and around endangered species habitat. 

Occasionally research plans are modified " ,o minimize negative impacts to breeding birds or 

habitat. 

- - - - - - -

Line 698 is revised to 

nesting avifauna, rapt

important birdswithin 

Line 709: to s

distribution for waterf

other culturally impor

Line : 739: l't:rsonnel 

These project's are de

are a part of the strate

from the TWG lollow

FY2000 workplan we

concise. Some details 

in our effort to respon

document. Consistent 

earlier comment, we s

sample project descrip

level of detail accepta

can then use this as a t

descriptions. 

Long-term monitoring 

preclude specific mon

endangered species. 

- - - 
- - - - - - - - - -

.-------------.--------------------------------------------------------------

l'g.41 

Line 670-1634 

Pg.41 

Lines 708-712 

WAPA (11/5/99): fGeneral comments about the entire section firstf 

Generally, the descriptions and detail provided in the "Terrestrial Ecosystem" and "'Aquatic 

Ecosystem" Activities sections an: not as comprehensive as those provided for "Integrated 

Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecosystem Activities." Reader understanding of project purpose, 

need, and method is enhanced in the "lntegratcJ" section. Projects in the first two sections 

would benelit from revisions in this regard. 

Also, all multi-year projects should have an annual progress reporting requirement in adJitiun 

to the final project report. In this way GCMRC and TWG can track the progress and 

usefulness of individual projects. Some projects do include this requirement, some dun ·t. 

CREDA ( 11/5/99): Title: Monitoring_ A v!fauna - Project Collis ""d Objectives 708-712. The 1998 prioritization effort placed this work in the low priority category. Annual 

monitoring of Jiet needs, encroachment of vegetation, etc. likely to change on less frequent 

time scales serves little purpose for this program. Vegetation in the new high water Lone 

changes little year to year and for purposes of this program reducing monitoring frequency 

would not unduly impinge on our ability to make management decisions. We suggest a 

monitoring frequency of every 2-3 years. 

- - - 

The detail in integrate

protocol review. The 

reviews are in proces

descriptions alter rev

these efforts. Providi

the level of detail that 

See response to comm

regarding our proposa

Jescription to serve a

descriptions. 

Yes, all projects have 

requirements, and som

submit quarterly and 

many FY 1998-2000 

It is the intent that all 

annual reports. Resea

require progress or an

contracting. All contr

The frequency of mon

will be included in de

program. Vegetation 

protocol review and th

determined prior to re

vegetation associated 

level that is different t

wildlife. These may r

monitoring, and will b

the RFP. 
-

Pg.41 

Lines 711 & 717 

Pg. 42 

Line 746 

-

WAP A (11/5/99): Title: Monitoring_ Av!fauna - J!roject Goal!> ami 

Is the evaluation of campable area in this project a duplication of effort with that proposed in 

Fine-grained sediment monitoring (page 75 line 1707)? Can some sav ings be found in placing 

this objective one place or the other? 

WAPA (11/8/99): Monitoring Tcn·cstrialllabi!at .!.._ 

Utilization 

There needs to be a more deve loped disc ussion of how ethnobotanica l wi ll be 

monitored and evaluated. Native American involvement would appear to be critical in order to 

get a true evaluation. Also, consultation is certainly to t:nsure monitoring does not 

occur in areas the tribes have identified lot no visitation. 

For Modeling of reach-averaged sandbar evolution, there needs to be a justilic<l tion for cultural 

participation in this project. 

- - - - - - - -

Line 711 references ve

campable area and the 

avifauna. 

Line 1707 refers to dep

areas. Howevt:r, t•e

iate data wi ll b

monitoring data. 

Methodology lor t:thnu

will be developed with 

participants as well as 

Consultation will occu

Native American stake

Line 806: be schedule

avifauna) monitoring (

and methodologies wil

American participants

The contribution from 

intended to support adinformation related to 

and mitigation through 

reaches such as Glen C

Granite Park. These si

those contracted by the 

the Furnace Flats reach 

There is also a very im

component to the mod

Socio- portion of the S

- - - 
- --- - - - - - - -

Page 42 

Une 846 

Pg.44 

Lines 789-793 

Pg. 44 

Line 791 

THE IIOPI TRIBE (11/15/99): Title: Monitoring Terrestrialllabitat & Evaluating 

Quality for Utilization 

Another example of the lack of specific integration of resource concerns is the Monitoring 

Terrestrial Habitat and Evaluating Its Quality for Utilization program. Here again , the 

importance of the terrestrial habitat as a traditional cultural resource to tribes is identified in a 

very general sense, but no specific information about which plant resources are of importance 

to which tribal groups is presented, or how this information will be integrated into this 

monitoring program. 

CI{EOA COMMENTS 11/5/99: & 

Quality for Utilization - Project Goals ami 

The 1998 prioritization effort placed this work in the low priority cakgory. Ann11<d 

monitoring of terrestrial habitats for composition and structure, encroachment, etc. likel y to 

change on less frequent time scales serves lillie purpose for this program. Vegetation in the 

new high water zone changes little year to year and ti1r purposes of this program reducing 

monitoring frequency would not unduly impinge on our ability to make management 

decisions. We suggest a monitoring frequency of every 2-3 years. 

WAPA (11/5/99): & £.va!uating 

Utilization - Project Goals and Objectives 

It is not clear how campable area considerations fit into this project. See comment above . 

There is nothing in the MOs or INs listed for this project that would indicate need to include 

campable area evaluation. 

- - - 

See above comment. 

l.ines 789-9'3 relate to 

ranked at a 9, very hig

Native components inc

flycatcher, and inter-re

structure and composi

Regarding the monitor

dependent on the relate

vegetation, like sedime

cultural resources. 

Including campable ar

associated with a beach 

habitat for wildlife and 

camping beaches are li

recognize that these re

monitoring is integrate

Line 791 refers to the p

ethnobotanical resourcareas and the potential 

resources. 

Line 791: Relates to th

ethnobotanical resourc

areas. 
Page 45 

Line 828 

Pg. 46 

Lines 864-865 

Pg . .t6 

Line 866 

-

THE HOPI TRIBE (i !/15/99): Tille: Monitoring Kanab Ambersnai! 

Paradise 

Yaseys Paradise is an important traditional cultural place for the llopi penpk and their 

association with Vaseys Paradise transcends three hundred (300) years. The Monitoring Kanab 

Ambersnail and Habitat At Vaseys Paradise project does not recognize the importance of this 

place to the Hopi Tribe, nor does it assess the impact of the proposed activities on those 

characteristics that make this place culturally important for the Hopi people in the integral iun 

section of this project's description. Moreover, the Hopi Tribe recommends that Ruth Lambert 

be identified as part of the GCMRC personnel involvement in this project. 

CREOA (11/5/99): Title: Monitoring Kanab Ambcrsnail Habitat at Vasc_ys ParadiseProject Gouls a11d Objectives 

Why must we monitor on-site if significant flow changes (e.g., >25k) are not expected 

(especially if abundance and distribution in the lower elevations area are a fun ction of tluws 

>25K)? There appear to be sufficient data to establish this relationship and we cou ld avoid 

species and habitat disturbance. 

WAPA (11/5/99): Title: Monitoring Kanab Ambersnail Habitat at Vasep ParadiseProject Goals a11d Objectives 

It appears this project should have a habitat monitoring objective. Suggestion: 

• Related to habitat composition, recovery (from flooding), and use by KAS (directed at 

habitat requirements). 

- - - - - - - - -

Line 833 : unique ecosy

concern by stakeholder

cultural resources to all 

Line 852: recreational v

is a sensitive cultural re

stakeholders. 

Line 875 : including pre

Project consultation wil

American stakeholdt:rs

Line 885: Personnel - 

and Kohl 

On site monitoring is re

have a hydrologic and r

place for Beach Habitat 

ofKAS habitat below 4

volumes above 25K. A

seasonal pattern, but are 

habitat that increases ov

the% of habitat suscept

GCMRC is exploring th

to determine area chang

the need to physically c

however, which is requi

This is intended as a mo

habitat monitoring as in

project 

- - - 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - 

WAPA (11/5/99): Title: Mon!_!oring_ Kanab Ambersnail Habitat at ParadisePg .. p Recomme11tled Approucii/Metlwds 

Line 875 It is not clear what is meant by or the benefit of including ··pre-dam river vegetated habital." Vegetation and snails 

water zone. ll1ese are

estimates for KAS mo

CREI>A (11/5/99): Title: on 

l'g. -t7 The title of this project implies that it is research. It is also labeled as rt:search in Tables 2 I This is a research proj

Unc 892 and 2.2. 2000. The purpose of 

informatioi1 for the m

Lines S<JS, 902, The wording indicatelsl that it is basically a monitoring eflorl. If this is true it would hdp if populations The desc

910,923 you titled it as a monitoring program. that it is a research pr

monitoring effot1s. 

NPS (11/16/99): of Cultural Resource Monitoring and Mitigation 

l'g. -t9 Strategies 

Line 9-tJ This will directly improve upon the preservation treatments that have been implemented See comment bduw r

(focusing on checkdam coustruction). Coincidentally, in the FY99 annual rcpot1 we have Approach. 

recommended quantifying the effectiveness of checkdams by measuring volumetric change . I 

would hope that we would be working rather closely with this project. At least supplying 

some detailed information on checkdam construction , elapsed time since original construction, 

maps, comments, etc . Should this be noted in the plan somewhere. 

Pgs. 49 & 50 CREDA (11/5/99): ): !itlc: . Evaluat!on of Cultural Resource Monitoring ant!_ Mitigatiu.!! 

Lines 943 & 972 Strategies 

Where is this project tound in Tables 2. 1 and 2.2? Is it geomorphic investigations on pg. ) ')? See revised Tables 2.

-------- ---- ------- --------- -
.------------,,------------------------------------------------------------------,,----------------

-

Pg.49 

Line 943 

-

WAPA ( 11/8/99): Title: Evaluation of Resource Monitoring and 

The section on (line 943) is a misnomc.:r. The focus is actually on applying remotc.: sensing 

technologies to evaluate geomorphic processes. This section has been rewrillen to read: 

General Project Description : Identification of geomorphic processes affecting cultural 

resources and evaluation of the significance of these processes to cultural monitoring and 

mitigation strategies at selected loc;Hions we include examples here?) along the Colorado 

River corridor through the use of remote sensing technologies. 

(WAPA cont'd) 

Rationale/Problem Statement: (I st paragraph stays the same) 

The evaluation of the processes that may affect the utility ur monitoring and 

mitigation strategies of cultural resources provides data needed by managers to : as sess thc.: 

status of the preservation of cultural resources, including biological :111d physica l traditional 

resources that are of management concern; :2) determine the effects of controlled floods 

believed to preserve and sustain cultural through the deposition of line sediment 

along channel margins; and 30 allow identilica tion and intc.:rpretation of linbges between dam 

operations and changes in socio-ulltural, physical, and biological resources. The use of 

remote senstng technologies can provide resource assessment methods that arc cost-effe ctive, 

less intrusive than traditional field methods, and may provide expanded spatial coverage than 

that gathered by field-based efforts. These .a reas of information support science-based 

evaluations of large-scale flow experiments (e.g. Secretary's acuons), and associated decision 

responses required for adaptive management to succeed. 

(WAPA cont'd) 

Integration: Cultural resource locations along the main channel include physical, 

biological, and recreational resources. Information on the processes that affect the utility uf 

monitoring and mitigation strategies to preserve cultural rc.:sources must be measured in ways 

that can be related to dam operations. 

- - - - - - - -

The General Project D

read as follows 

Lines 946-94g : Cienera

the effectiveness or cu

mitigation stratc.:gies a

Colorado River corrid

technologies. 

Locations will be sek c

NPS priorto proJec t i

The Rationakll'tublcm 

as follows: 

Line 955 : The evaluati

and mitigation 

Line 961 : cultural, phy

resources. The use of r

The Integration 

Line 968: biological, a

resources. lnfomJation 

Line 969: of monitorin

preserve cultural resou

- - - 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - 

(WAPA cont'd) 

MO's and IN 's to be Addressed: This project shall provide data related to 

management objectives and information needs as indicated in Table 2.1 . The 

shall provide infonnation on the effectiveness of monitoring and mitigation techniques used to 

preserve cultural resources and on the processes that may inlluence the effectiveness or these 

strategies. 

(WAPA cont'd) 

Project Goals and Objectives: The primary goa l is to use appropriate remote sensi11 g 

technologies to investigate geomorphic processes that affect cultural resources, includiu g 

traditional resources within the realms of physical and biological resources. 

Secondary goals relate to the application of remote sensing ll:chniques to detect changes iu 

cultural resources as a means of evaluating the effectiveness of monitoring and mitigation 

strategies. These dat a provid..: information needed to interpret changes in cultural resources 

relative to annual operations or Glen Canyon Dam. Specific objectives of the project includc: 

-Using existing and on-going studies, without doing addititlnal geomorphic studies, id..:utify 

geomorphic processes that in specific resource locations that influence resource 

preservation. 

- Monitor these proc..:sscs using r..:motc scnsing technologies 

- As appropriate, use remotely sensed data to evaluate PEP recommendations. 

(WAPA cont'd) 

Expected Results: (stays the same) 

This section is clarifie

Line 971: Mos i:t nd In

provides data related t

Line 972: managerm:n

needs as indicated in T

This section is clarifie

Line 976-977 : Proj..:ct 

primary goal is to eva 

monitoring and mitiga

resources, ... 

l.ine 980-981 : Second

identification of the fa

effectiveness of monit

at cultural resource lo

Line 984 : Using existi

identify geomorphic a

in specific 

This section is clarifie

Line: 989: Expected P

associated data bases p

effectiveness of the ex

efforts for cultural reso

2) infonnation on the p

resources. 
- -

APA cont'd) 

Recommended Approach/Methods: Geomorphic processes will be identified, quanti ti ed and 

documented at selertt· d cultural resource lm:ations that exemplify settings dominated by 

particular geomorphic processes. These in vestigations will be used to refine, clarify, and field 

test the predictive model generated by current studies evaluating tilL hy pothesis that dam 

operations, through lowered mainstem base leve ls, fo sters erosion in river-marginal deposits 

containing cultural materials. These will be investigated using remote 

applications (but how? This has been sa id 5 times, but never explained how. What type of 

remote sensing data? If you are using the aerial photos from the pre beach-bu ilding llow, you 

should state this. Then, it is clear what the hasdine data is and what needs to be replicated. 

Otherwise, they would be creating a baseline in FY2000 which would n:quire rep lication on a 

regular basis.) that will evaluate the effectiveness of the monitoring and mitigation strategies 

utilized to preserve cultural resources within specific geomorphic seuings. Strategies to be 

evaluated include on-site monitoring and mapping and construction uf check dams within 

arroyos and gullies. CI he only thing you can really look at here is the upstream migration of 

head cuts. It is extremely unlikely you could look at depth of arroyos, only length and width.) 

Remotely sensed data will be verified by tield visits (how will this be done? clarify this. I 

don't believe you can evaluate on-site monitoring and mapping except to say that if the 

monitoring form states that erosion is increasing, the remote data could confirm this. I don't 

think this is valuable information for future work. Remote sensing could be used to identify 

areas where erosion is increasing to prioritize sites liJr mitigation . This evaluation would be 

unrelated to monitoring, mapping or past mitigation). Remotely sensed data may also be used 

to evaluate the PEP recommendations for collecting monitoring data for cultural resources. 

con 

Schedule: (stays the same) 

This section is clarifie

Line 993-1003: Recom

Selected resource loca

evaluation. Locations 

monttot ing and mitiga

where resources appea

strategies to be evalua

and mapping and cons

arroyos and gullies. P

with existiog NPS data

assessed using remote 

photogrammetric appl

and other technologies 

through the GCMRC r

Geomorphic processes 

treatment eff011s will b

documented at selected 

exemplify settings dom

geomorphic processes. 

used to refine, clarify, 

model generated by cu

the hypothesis that dam 

mainstem base levels, 

deposits containing cu

sensing will help to id

increasing to prioritize 

sensed data may also b

recommendations for c

cultural resources. 

(WAPA cont'd) Cost Range: I don't believe 

for cost. 

for this. Provide a justification I Cost figure is derived b

geomorphic model app

of Isolated Occurrence

- - - - -

'

- - - - - - 
- - - - - - - - - -

(WAPA cont'd) 

Another geomorphic study that would be more effective, involves comparison of existing Jata 

to identify "critical zones" within sites where erosion is most likely to I) occur and 2) be 

destructive. Having those zones delineated, you can prioritize areas for mitigation. As 

examples, armor the banks with stones or brush to reduce lateral erosion or develop a data 

recovery strategy. This project would be done using the total station mapping data from si tes. 

This could use both remote sensing data and total station mapping to compare anti contrast the 

techniques to see which is most effective_ For TSM. it is possible to get precise quantifiable 

data. The TSM data could also proviue data for evaluating the cftect of dam operations on 

sites. 

Another study would be to determine how much precipitation it takes to cause water to run 

through the arroyos/gullies which cross sites_ What are the consequences of given 

on arroyo/gully characteristics (how much dues it erode laterally or vel1ically). What was the 

previous condition of arroyos/gullies e.g. just prior to run-off, presence of check Jams, 

presence of aeolian sanu? 

- - - 

It is anticipated that th

project, once the detai

using data that will so

ongoing studies. 

---+- -------

Pg. 511 

Line 986 Pg.SI 

Lines 993-994 

WAPA (11/8/99): Title: of Cultural Resource Monitoring and Mi!_!gatio!! 

Strategies- Project Goals & Objectil'es 

I believe all the remote sensing technologies should be shared by each of the program areas, or 

totally covered by remote sensing. Splitting them out makes no sense.· Line 48H I Page 18 of 

Plan]., whatever is done for the remote sensing project, cultural needs to be involveu to ensure 

the remote sensing data that is acquired will be useful and not duplicatiye. 

Western recommends combining the tribal and unsolicited proposals to ensure that the right 

blend of science is being done. All these projects should be considered on an t.:qual level. 

CREDA (11/5/99): Title: Evaluation of Cultural Resource Monitoring and Mitigation 

Strategies - Recommended Approach & Methods 

Looks like this is a description for the Geomorphic Investigations on pg. 29. Suggest you pick 

one name for this work and use it on pg. 943 and tables 2.1 and 2.2. 

Remote sensing evalu

and following . The ap

sensing technologies a

projects. 

A portion of the funds 

have been reprogramm

The remainder to of th

directed into the moni

project. This is to ensu

are integrated with oth

See the revised Tables 
-

Pg.52 

Line 1021 

Pg. 52 

Line 11121 

Pg.52 

Line 1021 -1051 

NPS (11/16/99): Title: Development of Contexts to Evaluate the Significance of 

Cultural Resource Data 

Again, this is a great project, should have been cumpkted right after or during the survey. 

Any\' .: 1 , historic contexts will detinitely provide information to aid in prioritizing sites for 

treatment. However, in addition to historic contexts, the geomorphological setting should be 

the other fuctor in prioritization of sites fur treatment. Our office goal is to have a list of 

archaeological fuctor:. and geomorphological factor!> to prioritize a site for treatment. 

A concern is how closely will this project be incorporate . d with the development of the III'P, 

This was brought out in the meeting ( ll-15-'J9) briefl y, but it should be a notewonhy concern. 

As I see it, this project should work in conjunction wllh the appropriate sections of the Ill' I' 

(whoever is doing tltat) and the PEP review- Once again, I would hope that PA 111volvcment 

plays a big role in supplying the relevant data to wmplell: the project. Should this be 

acknowledged in the plan? 

W AI' A ( 11/8/99): Title: l>cvclopment Evaluate the 

of Cultural Resource Data 

This project may come too late to provide input in the I-IPP. 

Rationale/Problem Statement: this section should also mention that historic contexts help 

determine what type of data recovery effo11s are appropri<Jte for each site type. 

Project Goals and Objectives: this may not he possible, but it is not feasible to undcr!> tand 

human occupation of the Colorado River wrridor without examination of the human 

occupation of the rim area. Some coordination with datil from the rim or side canyons would 

be invaluable. 

F ht' · . • .:d Product: for 2), it should be done based on site type. 

Recommended Approach/Methods: the SIIPO RP3 coillexts should be chet:ked tor 

applicability. 

CREDA (11/5/99): Title: Development of Historic Contexts to Evaluate the Significance of Cultural Resource Data 

Where is this project found on Table 2.1? 

- - - - - - - - -

Prioritization of geomo

cultural resourcl! site l

accomplished as a r e:.u

programmed for FY 20

purpose. 

This study will follow 

and provide additional 

prioritizing ,cultural re

treatments. The PA pa

project development. 

Line 1063 : Utilizing 

PA participants, evalu

resources for appropri

Given current schedul

the implementation of 

Appropriate treatlllcnt 

site types when the II i

Coordination of dat a f

National Park emphas

participants will play i

See revised Table 2.1. 

- - - 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - 

r-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C/wpter 2 (cout'l/) AQUA TIC ECOSYSTEM ACTIV/11ES 

Pg.SS 

Line 1106 

Page 56 Line 

1143 

Pg.57 

Line 1164 

AGFD (11/3/99): Title: Ongoing_ Monitoring Phyto-Bcnthic Community and 

its Quality for Utilization 

"The occupation and use or quality of these habitats by all organisms is dependent on their 

quality or availability". Unclear. Suggested change: "The occupation and use of these 

habitats is dependent on their quality, distribution, and availability" . 

AGFD (11/3/99): Title: Phyto-Bcnthic 

its Quality for Utilization - Expectetl Products 

Would like expected products to include an integrated project design as well as deli very and 

exchange of data for integration with fish monitoring and research projects. Thi:. includes the 

Lees Ferry trout fishery. Linkage between the benthic community and the fish community can 

be expanded beyond stable isotope analyses, especially in the Glen Canyon reach using trout 

where collecting diet information is feasible. However, to be effective, coordination of 

project designs is critical, not just data sharing after the fact. 

AGFD (11/3/99): Title: Ongoing Monitoring Phyto-Benthic Community and Evaluating 

its Quality for Utilization - Cost Range 

"Continuing agreement awarded through competitive RFP to Northern Arizona Uni versit y". 

Sounds like pre-selection to me. Please clarify. It also appears that the annual cost of the 

phyto-benthic community work has gone from $166,000 to $230,000 while most other projeds 

have remained fairly stable (5% increases). Has the scope of work expanded? 

The line will read ·'th

habitats or resources 

their quality, distribut

reflects cultural and b

Making linkages ac ro

of integrated monitori

community and mains

undergo protocol revi

term monitoring prog

The continuing agreem

selection than the curr

exists with the Lees F

the avifauna! work als

explained last year an

increase is associated 

tish contract that was 

directly to the group d

costs. The continuing 

the new Long-tenn m

initiated until FY2002

PEP was occurring is 

AGFD with regard to 

that was extended thro

contract would have b

manner if the P.l. had 
WAPA (11/5/99): Title: Monito!i!l.g Community and Evaluating 

Pg.57 its Quality for Utilization- GCMRC Involvement 

Line 1170 It is not clear why Lambert is listed here. This was a typographic 

and Yard . 

CREDA (11/5/99): Title: Ongoing the Status and Trends of 

Pg.Stl Fish Community- Project Goub; uml Objectit•es 

Une 1217 Even after several million dollars of study of a population relatively confined in distribution The word "abundance" 

and relatively easy to capture and tag, we stilllwve doubts as to the actua l abunda nce of "rellltive" 

humpback chub in the LCR. We think it to attcmpttll determine the ac tual 

abundance of native/nonnative fi h in the Colorado River ecosystem. However, rd.lli vc abundance between species may be suniciently depicted for our purposes with a go1)d 

sampling protocol. 

AGFD (11/3/99): Title: Ongoing Mo!_!i!!!!!!!g of the Status and Trends of llnwnstrcam 

Fish Community- Project Goa/.5 uud Objective.\· 

Pg.58 Suggest that you include a project objective to assess fish health and parasites, related to th e If fish health assessment 

Line 1220 management objectives to "achieve healthy self-sustaining populations of nati ve fish" (tvl08). associated with M08, th

recommendation . Proje

Many of the IN 's ;11 

traits, specifically ll.: pro

fish . 

CREDA (11/5/99): Title: the Status and Trends of the Lees 

Fishery - Rutiouule/Problem Stutemeut 

Pg.60 The problem statement ignores the large role of fishery managers (regulations, hatchcri..:s, etc .) If by fishery managers, y

l.ine 1259 in creating the present trout population status. We will forever fall short of acwrately Glen Canyon, then . this 

depicting the relative influences on the population if we do not include Arizona Game and Fish AGFD currently &un n&

Department actions in addition to dam operations. in Glen Canyon . The iss

GCMRC would like to h

this issue as part of a lon

- - - - - - - - - - - - - 
-

Page 60 

Line 1263 

Pg.61 

Line 1301 

l'g. 62 

Line 1329 

- - - - - - - - -

AG FD ( 1113/99): Title: of the Status and Trends of the Lees Ferry Trout 

Fishery - Rationale/Problem Statement 

Suggest delete catfish (a quick search of our monitoring database revea led 0.0 I% of catch was 

catfish [3 catfishn5,443 total fish)). 

AGFD (11/3/99): Title: Monitoring of the Status and Trends of the Lees Ferry Trou! 

Fishery - Expected Products 

Perhaps a way to tackle the integration issues is to make one of the products an integrated 

long-term monitoring design . Simple delivery of data and exchange will likely not lead to 

comprehensive integration. Sec my earlier comments on integration . 

GCNRA (11/15/99): Title: Integrated Water Quality Monitoring 

I. Relationship to MOIINs - Unclear how the "monitoring program" will adtlress spec ific 

INs. For example, how will the proposed program answer specific questions related to 

side channel influence? 

GCNRA (cont'd) 

2. Lake Powell conceptual model - Completion of the Lake Powe ll conceptual model 

be included within the FY -200 I plan . Further, the integration of higher trophic leve l 

linkages should be discussed and altemative funding sources specified. It would seem 

essential that the conceptual model be completed in order to understand the impact of the 

TCD and climatic variability on the downstream water quality. 

- - - 

We can delete this ref

still indicate that it rep

trout then with FMS w

ecosystem? 

We are intending this 

contract that has a lon

inherent in it. This is 

intended that the data 

and that other compon

GCMRC staff. The d

GCMRC and the methGCMRC with input fr

As stated previously, m

designed to provide da

address multiple INs. 

through this approach 

research activities. Th

($30,000 from O&M a

used in FY 200 I to ad

The IWQP Plan (6/24/

conceptual modeling 

with the existing conce

the Colorado River eco
- -

GCNRA (cont'd) 

3. Program description- The IWQP is relatively unique within GCMRC in that intemal 

will conduct it almost entirely. Because of this, additional specificity is needed on 

individual program elements. 'il ". ilically, I would like to sec more detail on the types of 

analyses to be made with the monitoring data tn an swer the specified INs. In particular, I 

would like to see lower trophic level biology Since such data has beeu 

conducted for several years now, I would expect that a about the compktitHI of 

analysis should be made. 

GCNRA (cont'd) 

4. Project goals and objectives - Monitoring objectives "related" to various paranlelt:l s ;u e 

very ... ushy and do not provide solid information regarding the questions tube answet ed 

with the data collected through the monitoring dliH1 . I suggest that if the monitoring data 

is not sufficient to answer specific questions that the program be modilied to 

ensure that high priority specific questitlns can he answered. 

GCNKA (cont'd) 

5. Expected products - Since the IWVP is uniquf.: an1ong <iCMI<C it wuuld seem 

appropriate that additional information be provided on the specific products to be 

produced during the work year. Specifically, I would like to see what types of analyses 

will be conducted to answer the specific INs identified in Table 2.1. 

GCNRA (cont'd) 

6. It is unclear why the long-term monitoring program will not become oflicially instituted 

until FY -2002. 

GCNRA (cont'd) 

7. Cost range - Why is there such a wide range in cost lor this project? It would sc:em that 

the investigators should, by now, have a solid understanding of what is needed and how 

much it costs to get it. By shovving such a wide cost range, it suggests that they do not 

have a good understanding of the proposed program specilics. Further, since the program 

will be run in-house, a detailed budget should be provided to justify the expenditun:s. 

- - - - - - - -

The program is describ

We would be happy to 

additional detail you've 

adequately addressed i

ofthe IWQP Plan. 

We believe high priorit 

addressed. Based on 

comments, perhaps it w

work with you in dralt

specilic concerns. 

Please see the IWQP l'

The long-term monitor

implemented until atler 

for Nov. 2000. 

As stated in the FY 200 

project includes salarie

costs for laboratory ana

tailwater samples as we

water quality samples i

the USGS. 

- - - 
- - - - - - - - - -

Pg.62 

Line 1329 

Lines 1367-1370 

Pg.65 

Line 1396 

CREDA (11/5/99): Title: Water Quality Monitoring 

There should be a breakdown of the sources of funding for this work along the 

black/gray/white lines approved by AMWG . As now depicted, all $350k is listed as 

earmarked for reservoir work. Where are the dollars and effort depicted for tailwater and 

downstream areas? Table 2.1 lntegrat.:d W<Jter Quality Program is all Lake Powell. Where in 

this table is the listing of routine work being done to collect water downstream? How much effort is this going to take? MO 2 under Water and IN 2.1 was rated as a high priority 

yd we see nothing in Table 2.1 specific to this effort. 

WAPA (11/5/99): Title: Integrate! WatcrQuality MonitoriniL: 

Objectives 

It is not cle<Jr how cultural resources (or recreational for that matter) could be affected by the 

chemical constituents being considered. Neither cultural not recreational resources arc listed 

in the MOs or INs for this project. 

WAPA (11/5/99): Title: Integrated Water Quality Monitoring- Cost Runge 

There should be specific explanation for the extreme range given here. 

- - - 

The money is earmark

Quality Plan that inclu

This includes the effor

station work and their 

Diamond Creek and L

Cultural resources, suc

mineral resources may 

constituents. For exam

plant abundance and th

important birds and an

recreational opportunit

rafting. 

Temperature (recreatio

that affect public health 

water quality constitue

cultural resources like 

We have added the MO

work. 

To make the budget for 

other projects presente

have been revised to re

the logistics costs, min

the monitoring project 

Project costs: $105,00

Logistics: $28,000

NPS cont_ract: $10,000 
US BUREAU OF RECLAMATION (10/31/99): Title: Integrated Water Quality 

Monitoring- Cost Runge 

Pg.65 The cost range cik.l here seems to indicate a difference in costs whether the work is conducted See Table 4 on the page 3

Line 1396 in-house or by contract. In reality the costs are likely similar or the same and a singular figure (6/24/99) and the above c

should be shown. 

CREDA (11/5/99): Title: Ongoing Research with Population Genetics of 

Humpback Chub in Colorado River Rationale/Problem Statement 

Pg.65 The goal of the EIS/ROD and Biological Opinion is to remove jeopardy and this is far This sentence will be rew

Lines 1416-1417 different than recovery. in place or are being deve

the Biological Opinion." 

W APA ( 1115/99): Title: Ongoing l{cscarch Associated with Population Genetics of 

Chub in Colorado River Ecosl'stem 

Pg.66 Population genetics of HBC should include literature review under "I low" to ensure the Line 1434 will read as fol

Lines 1434-1448 genetic work of the upper basin projects and those genetic relationships are considered. inter-population relations

management actions asso

AGFD (11/3/99): Title: New Research Associated Interactions Between Native and Nonnative Fish - Rationale/Problem Statement 

Pg.67 Statement that "non-native fish ... exist in great enough numbers in the mainstem to pose a Monitoring data indicate 

Line 1471 problem to native fish recruitment" seems like a conclusion that has not been venficd yet. To most abundant fish in the 

my knowledge we do not have population estimates or predation rate estimates for brown and brown trout are know

trout, rainbow trout, or channel catfish. Suggest you change to "may exist in great enough SWCA integration report, 

numbers" until this question is answered. pages include a table for e

native fish. As was broug

symposium, the degree to 

temperature affects recrui

needs to be resolved. 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - 
-

Page 68 

Line 1501 

Page 68 

Line 1501 

l'g. 

Line 1509 

- - - - - - - - -

AGFI) (11/3/99): Title: New Associated Interactions Between Native and Nonnative Fish Species - Recomme11ded Approach/Methods 

I don't think your suggested approach to use available published life history information on 

predators and prey to detem1ine time when feeding and movement is greatest will yield useful 

results. Suggest a preliminary effort to usc synthesized and compiled baseline data from 

Grand Canyon on species composition and distribution, species association indit:es, diet ;md 

habitat overlap, or another approach to tackle this issue first. There is also a need to estimate 

both population sizes of predators and rates of predation to assess the potential severity of this 

problem. Your FY2000 Plan (page 39) statt::d that "Research is needed to address historic 

data associated with native and non-1w{il•e interactions and baseline 

GCAIRC will initiate an effort to consolidate data and tv provide procedures for sharing data 

among researchers. Funds associat<!d with this ejjvrt are estimated at $JO.UOU" What is the 

status of this project? 

US FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE (11112/99): Title: New Research Associilled 

Interactions Between Native and Non-native Fish Species- Recommemled 

Approach/Methods 

Under the discussion for native and non-native fish species I thought there would be some 

experimental trapping of non-natives in the tield. Has this been removed or has a decision not 

yet been made on this issue? 

WAPA (11/5/99): Title: New Research Associated Interactions 

Non-native Fish SpeciesIs this total $ for two years of study? 

- - - 

The literature is a sou

laboratory design. It 

but as of this draft, th

There are simple proj

and feeding, or turbid

to have total populati

think the historic data 

on native fish , otherw

that would c

effort is meant to pro

field to test their appl

is not a lot of money 

the thought is that con

moved into a field sit

information than a str

Grand Canyon with m

Experimental trapping 

presented as a propos

Line 1509. This is a b

schedule for this work 

range is 30-90K/year. 

include a "/year". 
-

Pg.68 

Line 1509 

l'g.69 

Line 151M 

Pg.69 Line 153-' 

AGFI> (11 /3/99): T!!_!c: New Research Associated lntcraclions Hctween Nati\'e and Nonnative Fbh Species - Range 

From my experience doing lab studies, the.: money for this Project is inadequate if the.: 

suggested approach is taken. 

C HEOA (11/5/99): for 

Geuerl!!_ Project 

What is the cost and source of funding for this program? Is it black, white.:, or gray'l Also, a 

workshop to discuss the merit of such work is planned for next week . If the workshnp 

concludes such work as has be..:n identified here is not needed (e.g. , studying whirling Jiscas..:) 

we assume this would free money for fulfilling other information n..:cds. 

CIUWA (11/5/99): New with Flows for Fish and 

Temperature Control Oevice- Project Deluiptitm 

Why do we need to do basic research on whirling disease here whl!n so much been/is being 

done on this disease elsewhere especially as it relates to such a fundamental question as 

temperature effects on the disease? This is highly questionable. 

- - - - - - - - -

Facilities exist at Willo

movement studies. Th

year effort. The fundin

Subsequent years are d

Estimated cost range o

$180,000. Perhaps fund

adequate, or externally 

need to be developed f

30-90 was a per year fu

The source of funding 

Bureau of Reclamation 

that support TCD resea 

is funded by contingenc

workshop was to identi

associated with the TCD

The projects that arc lis

provide a range of issue

may be explored follow

- - - 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - 

CREI>A ( 11/5/99): New Research with Flows 

Tempen•!!•re Control Device- Generul Project Description 

Pg.69 Why .do we need to do basic research on the effect of temperature on primary anJ seconda ry The question aquatic 

Line 1536 productivity in order to make a decision rega rding the temperature control device'' If models functional groups that 

can tell us what temperatures to expect, then biologists experienced in primary anJ secondary under temperature cha

productivity should be able to tell us what to expect from the anticipated new temperature recognized and somew

regimen for our purposes without experimentation. This is a waste of lime . is if the food quality w

Its easy to be a critic . 

would be to provide s

with the TCD rather t

of time or is que

you've got idt:as. 

lJS HlJREAlJ OF ( 10/31/99): New 

Quality in Lake Powell 

l'g. 71 The collection of wind and solar raJiation data should be directly tied to specific l.ake Powell The work will likely b

Line 1579 modeling requirements. It is unclear whether this work will be contracted, but if it is expected load of the current GC

to use existing GCMRC staff, then the $50,000 figure seems high and there would be concerus Hueftle will likely be 

about a lack of intt:gration with existing Lake Powell water quality data collection trips to effort, beyond contrac

reduce these new data collection costs. 

Pg. 71 CREDA (11/5/99): New Research Associa!cd with Wa!cr Quality in 

Line 1579 Is this program funded from Sec .8? Yes, that is our propos

fWAPA (11/5/99): New Research Associated with Wa!er Quali!Y in Lake Po we!!-=: 

Pg. 71 Rlltimwle/Prob/em Stml 

Line 1592 Add "and rate of regeneration" after "quantity." We will add the sugge
-

l>g. 71 

Line I 596 

Chapter 2 

l'g. 77 

Line 176M 

l'gs. 78-79 

Lines 1779, 

PUIS, liH6-1818 

Pg.83 

Line 1922 

-

CREDA (11/5/99): _ with Water in Lake 

Ratiotwle/Problem Stmt 

We question the need for new research on I .ake Powell heat budget at $50k per year. Existing 

models should he good enough for purposes of determining impacts and heat availability and 

for making a decision to go or not to go on with the temperature control device . 

The research is a comp

approved by the I\' '(i 

sets aside $50k for res

water qual ity. The cur

are based on data from 

stat ion in Utah . The T

additional wind and so

would be helpful in de

INTEGRA 1'EIJ 1'EllRESTRIAL AND AQUA 11C ECOSYS1'EM ACTIVI11ES 

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 

WAPA COMMENTS (11/5/99): Title: Long-term Monitoring of Streamflow and FineSediment Transport !_!! Co!orado, and Little Colorado 

Could the streamflow component of this project also be used to track/verify compliance with 

discharge criteria for dam releases in the Lees Fcrry Reach? Page 6, line 132 indicates data on 

discharges is available in IS-minute unit values. 

WAPA COMMENTS ( 11/5/99): 

Sediment Transport i•! !!•e Colorado, Paria and Little 

Is the water quality component of this project duplicating IWQP efforts or can some efficiency 

be gained from incorporating the water quality needs of this project into the IWQP? 

WAPA (11/5/99): Title: Long-term Monitoring_ of Coarse-grained Sediment Inputs! 

Storage and Impacts to Physical Habitats- Rationale/Problem Statement 

In reading the project proposals it appears that MO 2 (trout) and IN2.4 (trout) under Finegrained sediment storage might be more appropriately addressed under the Course-sediment 

inputs, storage, and impacts project. 

- - - - - - - -

Y cs, the detailed tk scr

monitoring network fo

Canyon streamgage, an

fultill MO I and IN I. 

This is a component of 

intended to provide som

quality data described 

the Hiological budget, 

The MO and IN referre

now included in Table 

monitoring projects rel

- - - 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - 

WAPA (11/5/99): Development of a Onc-U!mcnsional Fine Sediment-Routing Model 

Along the Main Channel- GCMRC llll'lJlvement 

Pg.92 Can the river trips for this project and the Reach- averaged Modeling trip be combined into one It is possible that they 

Line 2193 at a savings of up to $18k? simply of field logist

needs. Certainly, if t

one research team, th

likelihood that the fie

coordinated. Basical

anticipated to have co

needs, so it is probab

will be re<dizcd by co

GCMRC policy, we lconsolidate field logi

W APA ( 11/5/99): Title: Advanced Model!ng of 

!nl!uts Related to Evolving Ph.}:'sical Habitats and Aguatic Processes- GCMHC 

Pg. 95 Involvement 

Line 2279 Is "Lambert" an intentional inclusion here? Yes, Lambert is inten

oversight team for thi

of geomorphic impac

inputs on evolution o

on cultural resources. 
,------------------- --------------- --- ------ ---------- 

Chapter 2 (cont'd) PROTOCOL EVALUA TJON ACTIVITIES 

Pg. 95 

Line 2283 

Pg. 96 

Line 2306 

Pg.96 Line 2320 

CREDA (11/5/99): 

We assume the costs of PEP activities are included in the cost estimates of tht: individual 

science activities in Chapter 2. Is this correct or is the funding on lines 2790 and 2794? 

AGFD (11/3/99): 

"The timeframe currently set for long-tenn monitoring predud.:s lt:st ing uf n.:w protocob prim 

to releasing ofRFPs for long-termmoniloring". This statement is troubling. What is tht: 

purpose of PEPs if they will have no effect on the long-term monitoring program? If the I'Ll's 

for fish and the phyto-benthic community monitoring suggests that the current sampling 

strategies att: inadequate to integration and Management Objectives, will you still 

award a five-year contrat:t that uses those methods? Integration nf a long-term monitoring 

program needs to take place in the stage of projects. It seems to me that if PEP's are not 

conducted concurrently, we are unlikely to achieve integratt:d monitoring designs and 

therefore unlikely to be able to integrate d<Jta across resources once the data are collectt:d . Sec 

my earlier comments on integration. 

NPS (11/16/99): Socio-Cultural rEP 

What does the sentence mean? Haven't we bc:en conducting long tc:rm monitoring since 1992? 

Instead of begin, maybe continue? Confusing. It is also very vague regarding the allocation of 

funds. I realize it is dependent on the review, however, shouldn't there be at least a minimum 

of $5,000 per PA tribe and NPS, or something like tit at to compensate lor follow up 

recommendations given by the PI.:J''l 

L___ -- - -

- - - - - - - - - -

ar.: being conduc

ecosystem . .This provid

year to evaluate protoc

the aquatic resources ex

anticipated until FY200of200 I. 

Line 2320: Recommen

will be incorporated int

anticipated to begin in F

The funds reli:r to !lloni

GCMRC. Additional fu

Reclamation, if appropr

- - - 
-

Chapter 2 

l'gs. I 00-103 

Lines 2399-2402 

Pgs. I 00-1 03 

- - - - - - - - - - - 

TABLE 2.2- SUMMARY BUDGET FOR SCIENTIFIC ACTIVITIES 

US BUREAU OF RECLAMATION (10/31/99): Table 2.2. Summary Table of Projected 

FV2001 Budget for Projects and by CCMUC Program Allocations 

With respect to table 2.2, there are inconsist..: ncit.:s bt.:twt.:t.:n this table and the individual 

descriptions preceding the table. Examples uf the descriptions vs. table 2.2 include : 

fine grained sediment monitoring 

Lees Ferry trout monitoring 

Terrestrial habitats 

Evaluation of cult. Res. monitoring 

$320,000 vs $340,000 

$120,000 vs $130,000 $90,000 vs. $165,000 $40,000 VS $65,000 

Perhaps as a result of these discrepancies, tht.: program total for Biological Rc sourct.:s dot.:s nut 

match that of the table on page I 17. 

On table 2.2, the $400,000 evaluation of rcnwte sensing technologies should be listed under 

the column "Remote Sensing" rather than " Information Technology". 

CC TRUST (11/8/99): Table 2.2. Summary Table of Projected FV2001 Budget for 

Projects and by CCMRC Program Allocations 

This table is very useful. Two minor comments arc to delt:te "N/ A" throughout for increased 

readability (maybe use a dash instead), and use a title instead of a surname for personnel. 

The figures for Table 

associated with the p

reflect these correctio

Fine grained sed imen

Lees Ferry Monitorin

Terrestrial habitat 

Evaluation of cultura

The values in the col

Resources," add up to 

category in the budge

value includes money 

resources beyond the 

biology. 

Yes, this has been cor

into Survey and GIS 

See revised Table 2 2 
CHAPTER3 

Clwpter 3 

Pg. 104 

Lines 2417-2425 

-

MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET 

UNSOLICITED PROPOSALS- RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 

WAPA (11/5/99): Tribal Proposals 

It is an important point unsoli cited proposals compete equal!) for unsolicited$ . In any 

given year it should he acceptable to find zero unsolicited projects that qualify for funding if 

the projects proposed do not contribute to the year specific goa ls of the AMI' llupcfull y, the$ 

could be carried forward to fund qualifying projects in the next budget cycle . 

- - - - - - - -

Equal consideration fo

unsolicited proposals a

one time . The nature o

unsolicited proposals i

evaluated throughout t

unsolicited proposals r

have a slighradvantag

Following the protor" 

Working Group and uH

strategic plan, ALL res

R FPs, unsolicited, and 

independent external p

recommendation from 

one 'of the following ca

With Modification, Do 

- - - 
- - - - - - - - - - - - 

3 IN-IIOUSE RESEARCH- RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 

104 I WAPA (11/S/99): 

Lines 2428-2435 How are the competitive and peer n:view applit.:d to these proposals? 

I 0-t-1 OS GC TRUST (11/8/99): 

I strongly support in-house research. I presume that the to award a projec t in-house 

depends mainly on whether the project: I) clearly helps a program manager stay current in 

their field ; 2) is directed to achieve a priority management objective or other AMP need; 3) is a 

priority given other program tasks; aud 4) can be conducted in-house in a cost-effe ctive 

manner. 

Following the protoco

Working Group and i

strategic plan, In-hou

competitively but it d

independent external 

and the recpmmendat

fall into one of the fol

Fund With Modificati

objectivity of the peer 

level removed from th 

an in-house research p

GCMRC science prog

this time to consist of 

activities. 

This is the rationale fo

in the strategic plan. 
-

Clwpter 3 

Pg. 105 

Linel443 

Chapter 3 

Pg. I 06 Pg. 106 

AMWG & TWG SUPPORT- RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 

liS BlJIWAlJ OF RECLAMATION (10/31/99): 

The carrying over of funds from year to year is appropriate, but then; should be a limit u11 how 

much of this carryover money is <t llocated for AMW(i/TWG otherwise lhis fund 

could grow to a very large pot of money that be used li11· other sc ie11Le areas. 

We agree that these 

from year to yea r to su

money grows very larg

should give us an estim

this pool of funds. It is 

determined, .if then: are 

carry-over from one ye

either be reprogrammed CiCMRC budget reques

amount in the subseque

TSS -INFORMATION TECI/NOLOGY PROGRAM - RESPONSJ:: TO COMMENTS 

US BlJREAlJ OF RECLAMATION (10/31 /99): Introduction 

Regarding WWW publishing, GCMRC should focus its publishing dlorts on sc ience prud11<.:1S, 

since Reclamation SLC will be posting all AM P management-related documents. If possible, 

GCMRC should make ava ilable on rhe WWW all historic science documents and n:porls. 

lJS Bl li'EAlJ OF RECLAMATION (10/31/99): Data Base Management System 

GCMRC should carefully investigate existing data bases (e .g. HOB, STORET) and their 

structure before creating their own in an effort to increase ease of access using e!.tablished 

computer programs. 

- - - - - - - - -

The focu s of the GC"'MR

scientific content. All n

delivered in electronic 

on the Web. GCMRC a

make historic science d

Web. There is currently 

ava ilable to address this 

However, it is GCMRC

scientific information a

time available basis. 

An evaluation of existin

ecological data bases is 

anticipated that this obj

FY2001. 

- - - 
-

Pg. 106 

Line 2491 

- - - - - - - - -

WAPA COMMENTS (11/5/99): Data Base Management System 

Do these procedures include data compatibility requirements for format, data transfer media, 

etc. If not, where will these requirements be applied? 

- - - 

Data format, transfer

been defined and inc

under the subheading 

requirements will be 

1-- ------lf-----------------------------------lf--------

Pg. 107 

US BUREAU OF RECLAMATION (10/31/99): Geographic Information System 

Considering the difficulty of establishing, training, and retaining significant GIS expertise, GCMRC should strongly consider contracting for spec ific GIS products and computer program 

interface development. Our Salt Lake office has taken this approach for similar reasons. Also, 

these products should be targeting specific MO's and IN's in order to ensure that this 

potentially expensive technology is cost effective. 

Specific, well defined

for contracted service

most cost m

infrastructure, organi

consistency in GIS pr

is to have an in-house 

1- 

Pg. 109 

Line 2558 

GCNRA ( 11/15/99): Remotely Sensed Data Collection 

Integration of remote sensing -The use of remote sensing technologies is good but the 

evaluation and use of the technology within this program area seems far removed from the 

specific resource MO/INs. The use of the is dependent on various factors related to 

needed spatial resolution, detection level, cost etc. A II of which are related to resource 

objectives. Therefore, if the program sets as an objective the evaluation of plant community 

change throughout the system a system-wide analysis using remote sensing technology would 

likely be appropriate. Such a system should be suggested by the RFP bidder answering 

specific IN questions posed. 

I believe that the Information Technologies program should evaluate suggested remote sensing 

proposals for validity but should not specify technology unless GCMRC is conducting such 

analyses in-house. 

The first step in strate

sensing initiative is to 

specify their monitori

accuracy for each res

and INs. These are th

feasible remote sensin

calls for field testing 

produced, prior to a f

for the incorporation 

GCMRC long-term m
Chapter 3 

Pg. 113 

Line 2663 

Chapter 3 

Pg. 115 

I .inc 2720 

Pg. 117 

Lines 2790-2791 Line 2794 

-

PUBLIC OUTREACH- RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 

NPS (11/16/99): 

This is a good idea. I hope the tribt:s take advantage of this. 

ADMJNISTRA 110N AND PERSONNEL- RLS PONSE TO COAIMENTS 

TI-lE HOPI TRIBE (11/15/99): Task The llopi Tribe believes that the Cultlllal Resources Task Gwup should not only operate to 

facilitate the articulation between the socio-cultural resource program and tht: programmatic 

agreement program, but this group slH>uiJ also the GCMRC in the deve lopment of a 

more and integrated program. 

CREDA COMMENTS (11/5/99): Program Schedule 

Where are thest: found in tables 2. 1 and 2.2 ? Where is an t:xplanation of "public outreach'"! Is 

this really an appropriate AMP/GCMRC program? 

Does this include the costs of SAB ? 

- - - - - - - -

A Cultural Resources 

the incorporation of cul

GCMRC program areas 

development of a more 

incorporates Nati ve Am

Group consists of the G

Program Manager and 

the stakeholders. 

Public outreach is desc

discussed in that sectio

was brought to the att

Deputy Secretary of th

established an Ad hoc 

this area. The spec ific 

FY 200 I are in support 

Tables 2. 1 and 2.2, hav

the individual activities 

Resources" budget line

The cost of the SAB is i

the Independent Review 

lines 2619-2661 . 

- - - 
I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

Attachment 1 

Current Knowledge- Biological Resources 

3 

-+ Terrestrial Biological Resources - Since 1998 work associated with terrestrial biological 

5 resources have represented data collection efforts in support of eventual long-term 

6 monitoring programs. As with sediment resources. the emphasis for biological projects 

7 was in moving toward long-term monitoring while transitioning from EIS related efforts 

8 associated with these resources. This transition has included attempts to maintain 

9 continuity among data sets that were collected prior to 1996. Little emphasis has been 

10 put on research associated with terrestrial biological resources. Current contracts are 

11 separated into vegetation (Kearsley. :-.rAu). a\·ifauna (Spence. GCRA), and Kanab 

12 ambersnail (Meretsky. SWCA). The following is information provided from these 

13 monitoring projects. 

14 

15 Monitoring vegetation change along the Colorado River mainstem - Dr. Michael Kearsley 

16 ofNorthern Arizona University has been involved in measuring vegetation change along 

17 the Colorado River corridor since 1993. Data collection efforts have changed from a 

18 focus on detailed compositional change that takes place on microhabitat scale (Stevens 

19 and Ayers 1996) to characterizing change at the community or plant associated level. His 

20 work over the last two years has been to evaluate and incorporate structural components 

21 of vegetation. in addition to identifying changes in the species composition of plant 

,..., communities. These structural components provide an index of vertical complexity, a 

23 \ ariable that etfects bird distribution and abundance. Measurements have also been done 

24 along shorelines to determine the relative availability of vegetated shoreline, a shoreline 

25 habitat utilized by young fish (Converse et al. 1998). Preliminary results of this research 

26 have identified factors affecting availabilty of shoreline habitat to include discharge, 

27 magnitude of fluctuations. and time of year. Other results of this monitoring effort 

28 indicate that some community constituents have changed very little (e.g., tamarisk) in 

29 their representation and extent. while others are increasing in abundance (arrowweed). 
30 These trends suggest that growth rates of arroweed may have implications associated with 

31 campable area over the long-term. 

32 

33 Monitoring avifauna abundance and distribution a10ng the Colorado River mainstem34 Dr. John Spence of the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area has been in charge of 

35 overseeing a project to monitor bird distribution and abundance along the Colorado River 

36 corridor. Included in this project is the monitoring of the endangered southwestern 

37 willSw flycatcher. The project has determined that abundance and diversity changes in 

38 the avifauna! community along the Colorado River corridor is associated with vegetation 

39 densities and distance from the dam. Structurally complex vegetation patches like those 

40 found from river mile 42 to Cardenas and in the western Grand Canyon support more 

41 birds and more species of birds. Glen Canyon is also an area of waterfowl diversity, 

-+2 likely associated with the relatively rich benthic community and lower velocity waters 

43 found in this reach. The next year will be spent synthesizing the bird data and evaluating 

44 it to provide recommendations for long-term monitoring that can be integrated with 

45 habitat data. 

46 

-+ 7 Monitoring of Kanab ambersnail populations and habitat at Vasevs Paradise- Dr. Vicky 

48 Meretsky through SWCA Inc .. has been the lead biologist involved with developing 

49 population estimates for the Kanab ambersnail (KAS) located at Vaseys Paradise in 

50 Grand Canyon. Both available habitat and snail numbers are determined for each trip 

51 throughout the year. Trips are conducted on a quarterly basis that coincide with the life 

52 history of the snail. Monitoring of the habitat indicate that primary habitat composed of 

53 Nasturtium is highly variable in terms of area covered. This plant species is an annual 

54 and its area cover is influenced by local climate effects. A warm winter may result in 

55 greater growth earlier in the season, while a summer storm event may result in scour of 

56 local patches. The variability in habitat is less likely to be observed with Mimulus 

57 (monkey flower) the other major plant species associated with KAS. This plant is a 

58 perennial species and the variability in area cover should be less than that ofl'fasturtium. 

59 Population estimates for KAS between years has not been sho·wn to be significantly 

2 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 
, 

1-

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

J ' 

60 different. However. the confidence intervals around these estimates are great. due to 

61 overwintering mortality that can result in high inter-annual variability. The life-history of 

62 KAS is characterized bv starting with a small number of over-wintering adults. 0 ~ ~ 

63 Population size increases throughout the season from recruitment. An associated KAS 

64 genetics project (Keirn. Northern Arizona University) has provided preliminary 

65 indications that the KAS at Vaseys paradise is genetically distinct from Utah populations 

66 also identified·as KAS. What this distinction means in taxonomic terms is yet 

67 undetermined. 

68 

69 Aquatic Biological Resources - Since 1998 work associated with aquatic biological 

70 resources have represented data collection efforts in support of eventual long-term 

71 monitoring programs. As with terrestrial biological resources. the emphasis for 

72 biological projects is moving toward long-term monitoring while transitioning from EIS 

73 related efforts associated with these resources. This transition has included attempts to 

74 maintain continuity among data sets that were collected prior to 1996. There has been a 

75 

76 

bit more emphasis put on research associated with aquatic resources when.compared to 

terrestrial resource efforts to develop information that will be used in developing the 

77 long-term monitoring program. Current contracts are separated into aquatic foodbase 

78 (Blinn. NAU). Lees Ferry Trout (Persons AGFD), and Native Fish Monitoring (Gorman 

79 US FWS). The following is information provided from these monitoring projects. 

80 

81 

82 

:vtonitoring the Aquatic Foodbase in the mainstem Colorado River and its tributariesDr. Dean Blinn of Northern Arizona University has been studying aquatic biology ofthe 

83 Colorado River since the 1980's. Efforts since 1998 have focused on monitoring the 

84 productivity in the mainstem as influenced by dam operations and understanding the 

85 relationship and influence of tributary productivity on the mainstem. Results of these 

86 data collection efforts indicate that reducing fluctuations benefits productivity. 

87 Productivity is increased because areas available to colonize are stabilized. What is not 

88 known is if combinations of stability and short-term disturbance optimize productivity. 

89 Productivity increased following the 1996 BHBF. the subsequent t1ows in the summer of 

.., 

.) 
90 1996 and in Spring/summer 1997 that were high and relatively steady compared to 

91 operations in previous years and may have been a contributing factor in the measured 

92 productivity. Tributary collections show that these streams are a source for benthic 

93 colonizers in the mainstem, but current mainstem conditions (constant cold temperatures) 

94 preclude their expansion into the mainstem. Some organisms found in tributaries need a 

95 range of temperatures as a gro'Wth cue. These cues are not available in the mainstem. 

96 Both of these pieces of information are important for managers trying to optimize 

97 mainstem productivity. Productivity might be limited by temperature (degree days) and 

98 other physical parameters, or by habitat instability (amount of fluctuations) or a 

99 combination of the two. 

100 

10 1 

102 

103 

\ lonitoring the Lees Ferrv Trout Fisherv- Mr. Bill Persons of the Arizona Game and 

Fish Department has been overseeing the contract responsible for determining the effects 

of dam operations on rainbow trout in the Glen Canyon Reach. This contract has 

104 included a the collation of stocking and catch data since the 19f\{)'-

1 05 the effects of minimum flows on trout pon11 1 ~· · 

106 fluctuations conducterl rl·· · 

-I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 
I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

SUMMARY BUDGET 

GCMRC Program and Operating Costs 

AMP Funding 

ATTACHMENT 2 

A. Bureau Suppon Services ............................................................. l25,000 

B. Operations. Personnel. Contract Services .............................. l ,969,000 1 

C. Physical Resources Science .......................... ...................... ..... ... 950.000 

D. Biological Resources Science 

i. Science Activities ............................................................. 1, 180,000 

ii. PEP ........ .. ~:: .......................................................................... 1 00,000 

E. Socio-cultural Resources Science 

i. Science Activities ................................................................ 275,000 

ii. PEP ......................................................................................... 55,000 

iii. Public Outreach ...................................................................... 35,000 

F. Information Technologies Program ... .............. ... ................. ....... 320.000 

G. Remote Monitoring Technology ....................... .............. .......... .400.000 

H. Independent Review Panels 

1. RFPs. unsolicited & in-house. and technical repons ............. 95,000 

ii. SAB ............ ............................... ............................................. 80,000 

I. Unsolicited Proposals 

i. General ................................................................................... 70.000 

ii. Tribal. ....... ................. .................. ..................................... ..... 50,0002 

J. AMWG/TWG Requests .............................................................. 60,0003 

K. In-House Research ........................................................................ 20,000 

I. Logistics 

1. River Logistics ..... .... ................ .. ............ ................. ... ... ...... .475.000 

11. Equipment. supplies. and maintenance ................................... 85.000 

11 1. Helicopter suppon & Emergency Evacuations ..... ................. 36,000 

tv. NPS Permining ...................................................................... 54,000 

TOTAL ..................................................... 6.434,000 

Other Funding Sources 

O&M --Integrated water quality program (IWQP) .......................... 300,000 

Sec. 8 -- TCD Related Activities ....... .......................................... .... . 3 10,000 

Revised page 117 (11122/99) 

1 Salaries for GCMRC staff working on !WQP activities in Lake Powell are being charged to the !WQPO&M account. 2 $50,000 in funds from the cultural resources program has been moved into this category specificaUy to 

support unsolicited tribal proposals. 3 S I 0.000 in funds from the cultural resources program have been added to the money set aside to address 

AMWG/TWG requests. 
! 

I 

I 

i 

I 

I 

I 

i 

I 

Table 2.1. Summary table or FY200 I Project titles and associated Management Objectives and Information Needs. 

PROJECT 

TITLE I 

Monitoring 

avifauna 

NEW RFP IN 

SUMMER 2000 

Monitoring Kanab I ambersnail and 

habitat at Vaseys 

Paradise 

NEWRFP IN 

SUMMER2000 

OR 

MAINTAINED 

INTERNALLY 

MANAGEMENT 0 r c TIVE I 

I INFORMATION NEED ! 

TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM ACTIVITIES 

TERR MO 11: Protect. restore. and enhance 

survival of native and special status species 

(federal. tribal. and state designations). Ensure 

that the required habitat for these species is 

preserved. 

A VI MO 13: Protect, restore. and enhance 

survival of native and special status avifauna. 

.AS MO 14: Sustain .mlations of Kanao 

n bersnail wherever they currently exist within 

the Colorado River ecosystem. 

I TERR IN I I .2 Determine species 

population characteristics to detect 

departures from natural range of 

vanation. 

TERR IN 11.3 Determine changes, 

declines in special status species and 

characterize ecosystem changes to 

benefit species. 

AVI IN 13 .2 Determine impacts of 

darn operations under approved 

operating criteria on avifauna food 

j chain assocmtions 

I KAS IN 14.1 Determine specific 

habitat characteristics required by the 

KAS. (T &C 3--p.41) 

KAS IN 14.2 Determine special flow 

impacts on Kanab arnbersnail to assure 

that the level of incidental take is not 

exceeded. (I. T. - p.40) 

KAS IN 14.3 Complete a census of 

the population and characterize the 

habitat. Once habitat requirements are 

determined. other potential habitat sites 

within the Grand Canyon corridor will 

be surveyed to determine species 

presence and recovery potential. 

r Conservation Recommendation 5--

p.43) 

KAS IN 14.4 Survey l(AS habitat 

before and after any flow greater than 

25,000 cfs to determine population and 

its species response tc Jisturbance and 

ability to recover. (T&C 4, p.42; and 

RPM) 

KAS IN 14.5 Determine Kanab 

Ambersnaillife history schedule for 

populations in the Colorado River 

ecosystem. (Conservation 

Recommendation 5) 

I 

-I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 
1-

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

Ongoing research 

on terrestrial 

1 trophic linkages 

I 

I I ONGOING 

i 

I 

I 

I 

! 

! 

I 

Evaluation of 

cultural resource 

monitoring and 

mitigation 

strategies 

i NEW RFP IN 

1 zooo 

I 

I 

I Development of 

I historic contexts to evaluate the 

significance of 

cultural resource 

data 

NEW RFP IN 

2000 

I 

I 

TERR MO 11: Protect. restore. and enhance 

survival of native and special status species 

(federal. tribal. and state designations). Ensure 

that the required habitat for these species is 

preserved 

A VI MO 13: Protect. restore. and enhance 

survival of native and special status avifauna. 

CULT MO 1: Conserve in situ all the 

downstream cultural resources and take into 

account Native American cultural resource 

concerns in the Colorado River ecosystem. 

CULT MO 2: If in siru conservation is not 

possible. design mitigative strategies that 

integrate the full consideration of the values of 

ali concerned tribes with a scientific approach 

CULT MO 4: Maintain and integrate all 

appropriate cultural data recovered from 

monitoring, remedial. and mitigative action and 

incorporate these data into the evolving research 

designs and mitigative strategies for 

understanding the human occupation and use of 

the Colorado River ecosystem. 

i 

! TERR IN I l . l Define and specify 

i eco logy of native faunal components. 1 especially threatened and endangered 

species: including evolutionary and 

environmental changes, natural range 

of variation. linkages, 

I interdependencies, and requirements 

I 

A VI IN 13 .1 Defme and evaluate 

food chain associations, 

interdependencies. requirements, etc. 

I 

I 

for native avifauna, including the 

Peregrine Falcon, Southwestern 

Willow Flycatcher, and other special 

status species (e.g., Yellow-billed 

Cuckoo). 

AV! N 13.2 Determine impacts of 

dam operations under approved 

operatmg criteria on avifauna food 

chain associations. 

CULT IN l. l Monitor cultural sites 

potentially impacted by Glen Canyon 

Dam operations to determine present 

condition and rate of change to assess: 

types of degradation. threats; rates of 

degradation; define immediacy of 

threats to resources: protection 

methodologies; protection, monitoring 

and research costs. 

CULT IN 2.1 Characterize through 

scientific study and data development 

all assumed historical and current 

values. including scientific values. of I resources to tribal nations and to the 

general public. 

I 

I 

CULT IN 4.1 Develop evolving 

research designs and/or other methods 

including synthesis of existing 

available data and GIS for 

understanding human occupation and 

use. 

! 
Ongoing 

monitoring phytobenthic 

community and 

evaluating its 

quality for 

utilization 

ONGOING 

WITH 

REVISIONS 

NAU (BLINN & 

SHANNON) 

Ongoing 

monitoring of 

status and trends 

of fish community 

ONGOING 

WITH 

REVISIONS 

AQUA TIC ECOSYSTEM ACTIVITIES 

AFB MO 1: Maintain and enhance the aquatic 

food base in the Colorado River ecosystem to 

support desired populations of native and nonnative fish. At a minimum. maintain 

continuously inundated areas for Cladophora 

and aquatic inverteorates at or above 5.000 cfs 

discharge levels from Glen Canyon Dam. 

HBC MO _.: Maintain or enhance levels of 

recruitment of HBC in the mainstem as indexed 

by size frequency distributions and presence and 

strength of year-classes. (Focused at young-ofyear and juveniie fish, and should include a fish 

health assessment.) 

FMS MO 8: Achieve healthy, self-sustaining 

populations of flannelmouth sucker, bluehead 

sucker. and speckled dace in the Colorado River 

ecosystem, with special emphasis on 

flannelmouth sucker in Glen Canyon based upon 

the capability of the habitat to support those 

fi_shes. 

AFB IN 1.1 Determine status and 

trends in aquatic food base species 

composition and population structure, 

density and distribution and the 

influence of ecologically significant 

processes. 

AFB IN 1.2 Determine the effects of 

past, present, and future dam 

operations under the approved 

operations criteria on the aquatic food 

base species composition, population 

structure, density, and distribution in 

the Colorado River ecosystem. 

AFB IN 1.3 Determine the aquatic 

food base species composition, 

population structure, density, and 

distribution required to maintain 

desired populations of native and nonnative fish in the Colorado River 

ecosystem. 

HBC IN 3/4.7 Determine origins of 

fish food resources, energy pathways. 

and nutrient sources important to their 

production. and the effects of Glen 

Canyon Dam operations on these 

resources. (RPM l.C.vi) Evaluate 

linkages between the aquatic food base 

and the health and sustainability of 

HBC populations. 

I HBC !N 3/4.1 Determine adult HBC 

I 

populations and evaluate life history 

schedules, population health. and 

reproductive success. (Fail 97 RPM I) 

HBC IN 3/4.2 Determine levels of 

recruitment of humpback chub in the 

mainstem and the LCR. 

FMS IN 8.2 Determine population 

dynamics, distribution, and other life 

history traits of native fish species. 

FMS IN 8.3 Determine historic and 

current character and structure of native 

fish populations. 

-I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 
1-

I 

I 

I 

• 

I 

Monitoring the 

status and trends 

of the Lees Ferry 

Trout Fishery 

NEW RFP IN 

SPRING 2000 

Integrated Water 

Quality 

Monitoring 

1 ONGOING 

1 WITH 

i REVISION AND 

COOPERATION 

BETWEEN 

GCMRCAND 

USGS 

(WRDAZ 

DISTRICT) 

TROUT MO 2: In the Colorado River 

downstream of Glen Canyon Dam to the 

confluence of the Paria river, sufficient 

ecological conditions (such as habitat. foodbase 

and temperature) should be maintained. which in 

conjunction with management by Arizona Game 

and Fish will produce a healthy self-sustaining 

population of at least 100.000 Age ll+ rainbow 

trout that achieve I 8 inches in length by Age III 

with a mean annual relative weight (Wr) of at 

least 0.90 . 

LP WQ MO I: Prevent impacts that adversely 

affect the water quality (physical. chemical, 

biological) of Lake Powell due to dam 

operations and ensure that fully informed 

AMWG decisions are possible both now and in 

the future. 

WATER MO 2: (water resources) Maintain 

water quality at levels appropriate to support 

physical. biotic. and human resource needs ... 

TROUT IN 2.2 Determine trends in 

rai nbow trout population size, 

character and structure in Glen Canyon. 

TROUT IN 2.3 Evaluate harvested and 

fi eld sampled rainbow trout to 

determine the contribution of naturally 

reproduced fish to the population in 

Glen Canyon. 

LP-UMNO IN 1.1 Determine the 

effect of current dam operations (under 

approved operating criteria) on 

reservoir water quality, including but 

not limited to the following: 

(a) Determine near dam hydrogen 

sulfide levels (and other hazardous 

chemical constituents) within the 

hypolimnion occurring under current 

dam operating criteria. 

(b) Determine the dynamics of lake 

stratification and advective flows and 

I their effects on chemical constituents 

(c) Determineiquantify the dynamics 

of major cations, anions, and nitrate/ 

phosphate ratios resulting from dam 

operations 

(d) Determine the effects of darn 

operations (under approved operating 

criteria) on the physicaVchemical 

dynamics of Lake Powell side channels 

and embayments 

LP-BIO IN 1.1 Determine the impacts 

of darn operations and resulting water 

quality on primary and secondary 

productivity of Lake Powell, including: 

• algae (phytoplankton, periphyton) 

• Macrophytes 

• Zooplankton 

II WATER IN 2.1 Monitor water quality. 

composition, temperature (a more 

l comprehensive list of the INs that are 

I addressed by the IWQP can be seen in 

I Table I of the IWQP plan (Vemieu and 

I Hueftle 1999) 
SED MO 4: Maintain system dynamics and 

disturbance by redistributing sand stored in the I j ...J: -- ...__ ----- -·· ..J _ .. _..J I,_. , 

i 

i SED IN 2.7 Quamifv the extent and 

'l

1 location of existing s~dbars, beaches 

and backwaters along the Colorado 

River corridor 

SED IN 4.1 Define character and 

structure of all beaches and backwaters 

-I 

I 

I 

I 

• 
Ongoing research

on terrestrial

trophic linkages

ONGOING

Evaluation of

cultural resource

monitoring and

mitigation

strategies

NEW RFP IN

2000

Development of

historic contexts

to evaluate the

significance of

cultural resource

data

NEW RFP IN

2000

TERR MO I l: Protecr. restore. and enhance

survival ofnative and special sratus species

(federal. nibal. and state designations). Ensure

that the required habitat tbr these species is

preserved

AVI MO 13: Protect. resrore. and enhance

survival of native and special sratus avifauna.

CULT MO l: Conserye in suu alI the

Ao*nsrream cultural resources and take into

account Native American cultural resource

concerns in the Colorado River ecosvstem.

CULT MO 2: If in situ conservarion is not

possible, design mitisative stratesies thar

integrate the full consideration of the values oi

all concerned nibes with a scientif,rc approach

CULT MO 4: Maintain and integrate all

appropriate cultural data recovered from

monitoring, remedial. and mitigative action and

incorporate these data into the evolving research

designs and mitigative snategies for

understandi¡g the human occupation and use of

the Colorado River ecosvstem.

TERR IN I l.l Define and specifu

ecology of native tàunal components.

especrally threatened and endangered

species: including evolutionary and

environmen[al changes, natural range

of variation, linkages,

interdependencies, and requirements

AVI IN 13. I Defure and evaluate

food chain associations.

interdependencies. requirements, etc.

for native avifaun4 including the

Peregrine Falcon, Southwestern

V/illow Flycatcher, and other special

status species (e.g., Yellow-billed

Cuckoo).

AVt N 13.2 Determine impacts of

dam operations under approved

operaring criteria on avifauna food

chain associations.

CULT IN l.l Monitor cultural sites

potentially impacted by Glen Canyon

Dam operations to determine present

condition and rate ofchange to assess:

types ofdegradation. threats; rates of

degradation; define immediacy of

threars to resources: protection

methodologies; protection. monitoring

and research cosrs.

CULT IN 2.1 Characterize through

scientific srudy and data development

all assumed historical and cunent

vaiues. including scientific values. of

resources to nibal nations and to the

general public.

CULT [N 4.1 Develop evolving

research designs and./or other methods

including synthesis of existing

available data and GIS for

undersanding human occupation and

use.
ì, ì

ì' -ii

lì

J .l

,L

I

''. .1

'.ì

Ongoing

monitoring phytobenthic

community and

evaluating its

quality for

utilization

ONGOING

WITH

REVISIONS

NAU (BLINN &

SHANNOTÐ

Ongoing

monitoring of

status and trends

of fish communiry

ONGOING

WITH

REVISIONS

AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM ACTIVITIES

AFB MO l: Maintain and enhance the aquatic

f""d base * the Colorado River ecosystem to

support desired populations ofnative and nonnative t-rsh. At a minimum. maintain

continuously inundated areas for Cladophora

and aquatic invertebrates at or above 5.000 cfs

discharge levels from Glen Canyon Dam.

HBC MO ¡: Maintain or enhance levels of

r.cruit"""t of HBC in the mainstem as indexed

by size tiequency distributions and presence and

strength of year-classes. (Focused at young-ofyear and juveniie f,rsh, and should incluoe a fish

health assessment.)

FMS MO 8: Achieve healthy, self-sustaining

poputaf,ons of flannelmouth sucker, bluehead

sucker, and speckled dace in the Colorado River

ecosystem, with special emphasis on

flannelmouth sucker in Glen Canyon based upon

the capabiliry of the habiat to support those

f¡shes.

AFB IN l.l Determine status and

trends in aquatic food base species

composition and population stmcture,

density and distribution and the

influence of ecologically significant

processes.

AFB IN 1.2 Determine the effects of

past, present, and future dam

operations under the approved

operations criteria on the aquatic food

base species composition, population

sEucnrre, densiry, and distribution in

the Colorado River ecosystem.

AFB IN 1.3 Determine the aquatic

food base species composition,

population structure, density, and

distribution required to maintain

desired populations ofnative and nonnative fish in ¡he Colorado River

ecosystem.

HBC IN 3/4.7 Determine origins of

fish food resources, energy pathways,

and nutrient sources important to their

production, and the effecs of Glen

Canyon Dam operations on these

resources. (RPM l.C.vi) Evaluate

tinkages berween the aquatic food base

and the health and sustainability of

HBC populations.

HBC IN 3/4.1 Determine adult HBC

populations and evaluate life history

schedules, population health, and

reproductive success. (Fall 97 RPM I)

HBC IN 314.2 Determine levels of

recruitment of humpback chub in the

mainstem and the LCR.

FMS IN 8.2 Determine PoPulation

dynamics, distribution. and other life

history traits of native fish species.

FMS IN 8.3 Determine historic and

current character and stnrcture ofnative

fìsh populations.
Monitoring the

starus and trends

ofthe Lees Ferry

Trout Fishery

NEW RFP IN

SPRING 2OOO

lntegrated Water

Quaiity

Monitoring

ONGOING

WITH

REVISION AND

COOPERATION

BETWEEN

GCMRC AND

USGS

(wRD AZ

DrsTRrcT)

TROUT MO 2: [n the Colorado River

do*nsÍeam otrclen Canvon Dam to the

confluence of the Paria river. sutficient

ecological conditions (such as habitat. foodbase

and temperature) should be maintained, which in

conjunction wíth management by Arizona Game

and Fish will produce a healthy self-sustaining

population of at least 100.000 Age II+ rainbow

trout that achieve l8 inches in iength by Age III

with a mean annual relative weight (Wr) of at

least 0.90.

LP WQ MO l; Prevent impacts that adversely

affect the water quaiity (physical, chemical,

biological) of Lake Powelldue to dam

operations and ensure that fully informed

AMWG decisions are possible both now and in

rhe furure.

WATER MO 2: (water resources) Maintain

water qualiry at levels appropriate to suppon

physical. bÍotic. and human resource needs...

TROUT [N 2.2 Determine rrends in

rainbow trout population size,

character and stn¡crure in Glen Canyon.

TROUT IN 2.3 Evaluate harvested and

tield sampled rainbow rrout to

determine the conrribution of naturally

reproduced fish to the population in

Glen Canvon.

LP-LIMNO [N l.l Determine the

effect ofcurrent dam operations (under

approved operating criteria) on

reservoi¡ water qualiry, including but

not limited to the tbllowing:

(a) Determine near dam hydrogen

sulfide levels (and other hazardous

chemical constituents) within the

hypolimnion occurrrng under currenr

dam operating criteria.

(b) Determine the dynamics of lake

stratification and advective t'lows and

their effecs on chemical constituents

(c) Determinelquantify the dynamics

of major cations, anions, and nitrate/

phosphate ratios resulting from dam

operations

(d) Determine the eifects of dam

operations (under approved operating

criteria) on the physicaVchemical

dynamics of Lake Powell side channels

and embavments

LP-BIO [N l.l Determine the impacts

of dam operations and resulting water

quality on primary and secondary

productiviry of Lake Powell, including:

algae (phytoplankton, periphyton)

Macroph¡es

Zooplankon

WATER IN 2.1 Monitor water qualitv,

composition. temperature (a more

comprehensive list of the INs that are

add¡essed by the IWQP can be seen in

Table I of the IWQP plan (Vernieu and

Hueftle I999)

a

a

a
!lli¡.; ii

Ongoing research

associated with

population

genetics of HBC

in Colorado River

ecosystem

Native fisVnon'

native competitive

interactions

NEW IN

SPRJNG 2OOO

Section ¡ funded

research

associated with

experimental

flows which

include

temperailre

control device

evaluation and

assessment.

NEW IN

SPRING 2OOO

HBC MO 6: Establish a second spawning

.ggr.C.tt" "f HBC downsrream of Glen

Canyon Dam (RPM 4).

N/NN FISH MO l0: Minimize, to the extent

possible, competitive and predatory interactions

between native and non-native fishes.

FMS ' lO 9: Anarn riverine conditions,

irrc.luoing appropriate habitat, that support all

life stages ofendangered and native fish species.

HBC MO 5: Remove_reopardy tbrthe HBC in

the Colorado River ecosvstem ( B.O. 1994).

HBC IN 6.1 Develop criteria for

defining self-sustaining populations of

HBC.

HBC I' 2 Assess feasibility of

establi: :g a second population of

HBC dorvnstream of Glen Canyon

Dam including other current

aggregatrons.

N/NN FISH IN l0.l Detìne areas and

conditions of existing and potential

interactions

N/NN FISH IN 10.4 Determine the

species composition, relative

abundance, and size class smrcture of

non-native fishes in the Colorado River

ecosystem and imponant tributaries

FMS IN 9.2 Quai. ry to the extent

possible the effects of spring high

steady flows and summer and fall low

steady tlows on endangered and native

fish (RPM l.a).

FMS IN Q.4 Assess biotic interactions

between native and non-native fishes,

particularly those that occur in

nearshore rearing habitats affected by

dam operations (RPM l.C.iv).

HBC IN 5.1 Determine a set of

possible temperature changes in the

mainstem Colorado River resulting

tiom implementing selective

withdrawal (RPM l.B.i).

HBC IN 5.2 Determrne the anticipated

effects on HBC and other native

popuiations which may result from

installing a selective withdrawal

strucÍure for thermal modification in the

mainstem of the Colorado River

downstream of Glen CanYon Dam.

Determine the range of temperatures for

successful larval hsh development and

recruiunent and the relationshiP

between larvaVjuvenile growth and

temperature (RPM l.B.ii).

l

I

'l

i'j

r ...1 iili

r. i

tt

I

l.

l

f

1..

i

Ì

l.

l

I

I .l
New research

associated with

water quality rn

Lake Powell

NEW SPRING

2000 As RFP(?)

Long-term

monitoring of

flure-grarned

sediment storage

throughout the

main channel

NEW RFP IN

SPRING 2OOO

; LP WQ MO l: Prevent impacts that adverselv

¡ affect the warer qualiry (physical. chemrcai.

¡ biologicai) of Lake Powelldue ro dam

j operatrons and ensure that tilly' infbrmed

AMWG decisions are possible borh now and in

I the future.

LP LIMNO-IN I . I (e) Quantifo/model

the heat budget tbr Lake Powell to

determine near-terrn and long-term

(monthlyiweekly and annual

summaries respectively) etfects of a

selective withdrawal system

INTEGRATED TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATTC ECOSYSTEM ACTIVTTIES

SED MO l: (stidiment resources) Maintain a

long-term baiance ofriver-stored sand to support

maintenance t'low. BHBF flow and unscheduled

flood flows...

SED MO 2: : As a minimum for each reach.

,naurtain ttre iumber and average size (area and

thickness) of sandba¡s and backwaters berween

the stages associated with flows of 8,000 and

45.000 cfs that existed during the 1990/91

research flows.

SED IN l.l Define historical and

current levels of river stored sediment.

SED IN 1.2 Define minimum levels of

river stored sediments necessary to

maintaln sandba¡s. backwaters and instream sediment deposits.

SED IN 1.3 Develop procedures to

monitor and predict impacts of

alternative operating criteria 1flow

regimes) on river stored sediment and

impacts in select reaches

SED IN 1.4 Measure and model

sediment connibutions tiom all

connibuting sources. including

tributary and high terace sources.

SED IN 1.5 (sediment) Evaluate the

geology/geomorphology w ithin G len

Canyon to: (l) determine historical

changes in size and extent ofbeaches.

sandbars and backwaters. (2) quantif,

sedimenr (size class and quantity) input

from side channels. (3) understand bed

morphology dynamics, (4) evaluate

high terrace erosion and connibution co

river sediment.

SED IN 2.4 Evaluation of flow regime

(under the approved operating criteria)

impacts on terrace and cultural

resources

SED IN 2.6 Determine impiications of

dam operating criteria on beach and

sandbar and backwater character and

structure. including suitabiliry of

camping beaches.
.1

SED MO 4: Maintarn system dynamics and

ãGtu-ruance uy redisnibuting sand stored in the

river channel and eddies to areas inundated by

river flows up to 45,000 cfs in as many years as

possible when BHBF hydrologic and resource

criteria are met.

REC MO 2: lvl¿intain flows (under approved

õperatin-g criteria) and sediment processes that

create an adequate quantit-v, distribution and

variety of beaches for camping, as long as such

flows are consistent with management of nafural

recreation and cultural resource values (other

natural resource values).

AFB MO l: Maintain and enhance the aquatic

t'oo¿ U^. * the Colorado River ecosystem to

support desired populations ofnative and nonnatrve rish. At a minimum. maintain

continuously inundated areas for Cladophora

and aquatic invertebrates at or above 5,000 cfs

discharge levels from Glen Canyon Dam.

TROUT MO 2: In the Colorado River

downsrream of Glen Canyon Dam to the

contluence ofthe Paria river. sufftcient

ecolosical conditions (such as habitat. tbod base

and temperature) should be maintained. rvhich in

conjunction with management by Arizona Game

and Fish will produce a healthy self-sustaining

population of at least 100,000 Age II+ rainbow

trout thil achieve t8 urches in length bv Age lll

with a mean annual reiative weight (Wr) olat

least 0.90.

HBC MO 4: Maintain or enhance levels of

r.cn rtment oî HBC in the mainstem as indexed

by size frequency distributions and presence and

strength of year-classes. (Focused at young-ofyear and juveniie fish, and should include a fish

health assessment.)

SED IN 2.7 Quanti$ the extent and

location of existing sandba¡s, beaches

and backwaters along the Colorado

River corridor

SED IN 4.1 Define character and

srructure of all beaches and backwaters

in system after 1996 test flows

REC IN 2.2 Evaluate impacts of

operating criteria on establishing and

maintaining adequate beaches and

distribution of other resources, quality,

character and strucnlre.

REC IN 2.3 Develop methodology to

evaluate distribution. quantiry and

qualiry changes in all campable

beaches through time

AFB IN 1.3 Determine the aquatic

food base species composition,

popuiation stnrcn¡re, density, and

disrribution required to maintain

desired populations ofnative and nonnative fish in the Colorado River

ecosystem.

TROUT [N 2.4 Determine the

availability and qualiry of spawning

substrates in the Glen Canyon reach,'

necessary to sustain the rainbow trout

fisherv.

HBC IN 3/4.5 Determine the effects of

mainstem hydrology on the number of

nearshore rearing habitats,

environmental conditions in these

habitaa. and their successful utilization

by HBC. (RPM l.C.iii)
CULT MO l: Conserve i¡¿ sira ail the

downstream cultural resources and take into

account Native American culfural resource

concerns in the_Colorado River ecosystem.

WATER MO l: ...Operate CCD in a manner

fully consistent with the ROD and subject to the

"Law of the River"...

HBC IN 3i4.8 Determine effects on

physical habitar used by young tìshes,

food base. and direct effect on larval.

juvenile. and adult narive and nonnative fishes of 1996 BHBF. Develop

methods to detect changes in numbers

of HBC or their habitat from 1996

BHBF. (t996 BHBF HBC RPM 3)

CULT IN 1.4 Preservation.

stabilization and/or documentation of

cultural resources as impacted by

sediment resources associated with

altemative operating criteria

CULT IN 1.5 Preservation.

stabilization of flood tenaces hotding

cultural resources

CULT IN 1.6 Evaluate flood terrace

stabiliry necessary to maintain cultural

resources and tenaces at pre-dam

conditions

WATER [N l.l Annually collect and

report GCD flow release information.

Long-term

Streamflow and

tine sediment

ransport in the

rnarn channel

Colorado, Paria

and Linle

Colorado Rivers

ONGOING

WITH

REVISION

THROUGH

SOLE SOURCE

TO USCS

(WRD AZ

DTSTRICT)

WATER MO 2: Maintain water qualiry at

levels appropriate to suppon physical. biotic,

and human resource needs ofvarious

ecosystems downstream of Glen Canyon Dam as

mandated by the Grand Canyon Protection'Act

and incorporated into the Record of Decision.

SED MO l: Mainta¡n a iong-term balance of

river-stored sand to support maintenance tlow

(in years of low reservoir storage),

beach/habitat-building flow (in years of high

reservoir storage), and unscheduled flood flows.

Maintain system dynamics and disturbance by

annually (in years which Lake Powell water

storage is low) redistributing sand stored in the

river channel and eddies ro areas inundated by

river flows between 20.000 cfs and maximum

power plant capaciqv.

WATER IN 2.1 Characterize

sandbavbackwater baselines and

character and structure in 1990/1991

WATER IN 2.2 Working with various

resource agencies and specialists. select

mosr appropriate tlow levelsiregimes

under the approved operating criteria

to determine baseline for comparisons

for all resou¡ces.

SED IN 1.2 Define minimal levels of

river stored sediments necessary to

maintain long term sandba¡, backwater.

instream sediment deposits

SED IN 1.3 Develop procedures to

monitor and predict impacts of

alternative operating criteria (fl ow

regimes) on river stored sediment, and

impacts in select reaches

SED IN L4 Measure and model

sediment contributions from all

contributing sources, including

tributary and high terrace sources
;r

q :,i

SED MO 4: Maintain system dynamics and

a-sturuance uy redisnibuting sand stored in the

river channel and eddies to areas inundated by

river flows up to 45.000 ct-s in as many years as

possible when BHBF hyorologic and resource

criteria are met

REC MO 4: Maintain flows (under approved

"p.ratrr C crtteria) and habitat suitable for

qualir.v cold water tìshery oppornrnities in Glen

Canyon.

SED IN 1.5 Evaluate the

geologyl geomorphology within Glen

-anyon ro: ( l) determine historical

changes in size and extent of.beaches.

sandbars and backwaters. (2) quantiff

sediment (size class and quantity) input

from side channels. (3) understand bed

morphology dynamics, (4) evaluate

high terrace erosion and contribution to

river sediment.

SED tN 4.2 Develop methodologies to

define future flow regimes under

approved operating criteria to

maximize benefìt to sediment and

backwater character and stn¡cture

SED IN 4.3 Develop an assessment of

dam operations under approved

operating criteria impacts on range of

variarion in sediment and other

resources within Colorado River

ecosystem and the ass'¡ciated processes

that created these ranges

R.EC IN 4.1 Determine flow regimes

(under approved operating criteria)

necessary to maintain frsh populations

of 100,000 adult Trout (age class Il

plus)

| ', 'ì

'-li

1.1 l

il

t.1ì.t i.i I.i

l'' ì

l,j

iiiLiil.i

flj.¡ ìt

!

i

t

Long-term

monitoring of

coa¡se-sediment

inputs. storage and

impacts to

physical habitats

NEW RFP IN

SPRING 2OOO

REC MO t: Provide qualiry recreation

experiences consistent with other resource

objectives.

SED MO l: Maintain a long-term balance of

,we.-stored sand to suppon maintenance tlow

(in years of low reservoir storage),

beach,/habitat-building flow (in years of high

reservoir storage), and unscheduled flood tlows.

Maintain system dynamics and disturbance by

annually (in years which Lake Powell water

storage is lowt redistnbuting sand stored in the

river channel and eddies to areas inundated by

river flows berween 20.000 cfs and maximum

power plant capaciry.

AFB MO l: Maintain and enhance the aquatic

food b"se rr the Colorado River ecosystem to

support desi¡ed populations ofnative and nonnative f,rsh. At a minimum, maintain

continuously inundated areas for Cladophora

and aquatic invertebrates at or above 5,000 cfs

discharge levels from Glen Canyon Dam.

REC IN l. I Determure criteria and

aspects that are imponant to or detrract

tiom recreational experience.

SED IN 1.4 Measure and model

sediment confiibutions from all

contributing sources. including

tributary and high telrace sources

AFB tN 1.3 Determine the aquatic

food base species comPosition,

population stn¡cture. densiry, and

disnibution required to maintain

desired populations ofnative and nonnative fish in the Colorado River

ecosystem.

t ...J

I

1i

i,i
l0

Modeling reachaveraged sandbar

evolution in

response to

discharge and

sediment

conditions

NEW RFP FOR

SPRING 2OOO

TROUT MO 2: In the Colorado River

¿o*nstrs¿rl of Clen Canvon Dam to the

contluence of the Paria river, sutfrcienr

ecological conditions (such as habitat, food base

and temperature) should be maintained, which in

conjunction with management by Arizona Game

and Fish will produce a healthy self-sustarning

population of at least 100,000 Age II+ rainbow

trout that achieve l8 inches in length by Age III

with a mean annuai relative weight (Wr) of at

least 0.90.

FMS MO 8: Achieve healthy, self-susraining

pop"lattons of flãnnelmouth sucker, blueheaJ

sucker, and speckled dace in the Colorado River

ecosystem, with special emphasis on

flannelmouth sucker in Glen Canyon based upon

the capabiliry of the habitat to supporr rhose

fishes.

TERR MO I l: Protect. resrore. and enhance

survrvar of natrve and special status species

(federal, tribal. and state designations). Ensure

that the required habitat tbr these species is

preserved.

VEG MO l6: Maintain. enhance or restore

vegetative communities made up of diverse

groups ofnative riparian and upland species

with special emphasis on preservation of unique

plant communities and special status species at

different stages ofsuccession and at different

elevations above the water line.

SED MO l: Maintain a long-term balance of

river-stored sand to suppon maintenance t-low

(in years oflow reservoir storage),

beach/habitat-building flow (in years of high

reservoir storage), and unscheduled flood flows.

Maintain system dynamics and disturbance bv

annually (in years which Lake Powell water

storage is low) redistributing sand stored in the

river channel and eddies to are¿¡s inundated by

river flows between 20,000 cfs and maximum

power plant capaciry.

TROUT [N 2.4 Determine the

availabilify and qualiry of spawning

substrates in the GIen Canyon reach.

necessary to sustain the rainbow trout

fishery.

FMS IN 8.4 Determine historic and

current ecosystem requirements

(habitat, spacing, food source,

interdependencies, etc.) of native fish

species.

TERR IN I1.4 ldentiff and

characterize riparian wildlife habitat

rypes along the river corridor

VEG IN l6.l Determinedistribution

and abundance ofnative and non-native

riparian and upland vegetation.

including federal-, state- and tiballisted sensitive species, old high water

zone, new high water zone, and

nearshore ma¡shes

SED IN 1.2 Def,ne minimal levels of

river stored sediments necessary to

maintain long term sandbar, backwater.

insrream sediment deposits

SED lN 1.3 Develop procedures to

monitor and predict impacts of

altemative operating criteria (flow

regimes) on river stored sediment, and

impacts in select reaches

SED IN 1.5 Evaluate the geology/

geomorphology within Glen Canyon to:

(l) determine historical changes in size

and extent ofbeaches. sandbars and

backwaters, (2) quantiff sediment (size

class and quantitv) input from side

channels. (3) understand bed

morphology dynamics, (4) evaluate

high terrace erosion and contribution to

river sediment.
il

Develc.ment of

one-di,- :nsional

hne seoiment

routlng model

along the main

channel

NE\il RFP FOR

SPRING 2OOO

SED MO 2: As a minimum for each reach.

m'".taln the number and average size (area and

thickness) ofsandbars and backwaters between

the stages associated with flows of 8.000 and

45,000 cfs that existed during the 1990/91

research tlows.

SED MO 4: Maintain system dynamics and

¿Gru-tuan." uy redistributing sand stored in the

river channel and eddies to areas inundated by

river tlows up to 45.000 cfs in as many years as

possible when BHBF hydrologic and resource

criteria are met*

SED MO l: Maintain a long-term balance of i

river-stored sand to suppon maintenance t'low

(in years of low reservoir storage), beach/

habitat-building t'low 1in years of high reservoir

storage), and unscheduled flood flows. Matntain

system dynamics and disturbance by annually

(in years which Lake Powell water storage is

low) redistributmg sand stored in the river

channel and eddies to areas inundated by river

flows berween 20.000 cfs and maximum power

plant capaciry.

SED IN 2.4 Evaluation of flow regime

(under the approved operattng criteria)

impacts on terrace and cultural

resources

SED IN 4.2 Develop methodologies to

define future flow regimes under

approved operating criteria to

maximize benefit to sediment and

backwater character and stnrcture

SED IN 4.3 Develop an assessment of

dam operations under approved

operating criteria impacs on range of

variation in sediment and other

resources within Colorado River

ecosystem and the associated processes

that created these ranges

SED IN L2 Define minimal levels of

river stored sediments necessary to

maintain long term sandbar, backwater,

insneam sediment deposits

SED IN 1.3 Develop procedures to

monitor and predict impacts of

alternative operating criteria (flow

regimes) on river stored sediment, and

impacts in select reaches

SED IN 1.5 Evaluatethe

geology/geomoçhology within Glen

Canyon to: (l) determine historical

changes in size and extent ofbeaches,

sandbars and backwaters. (2) quantifu

sediment (size class and quantþ) input

from side channels. (3) understand bed

morphology dynamics. (4) evaluate

high tenace erosion and contribution to

river sediment

is

l.ì

i,j

iliit.
tl

Advance

conceprual

modeling of

coarse-grarned

sediments related

to evolving

physical habitats

and aquatic

processes

ONGOING

WITH

REVISION

TTIROUGH

ECOMENTRIC

RESEARCTT

(KORTVIAN

ET.AL.)

Evaluating

ground-based and

ai¡bome remote

sensing

technologies

SED MO l: Maintain a long-term balance of

river-stored sand to suppon maintenance t'low

(in years oflow reservoir storage),

beach/trabitat-building flow (in years of high

reservoir storage), and unscheduled flood flows.

Maintain system dynamics and disturbance by

annually (in years which Lake Powell water

storage is low) redistributurg sand stored in the

river channel and eddies to areas inundated by

river flows between 20.000 cti and maximum

power plant capaciry.

SED MO 4: Maintaul system dynamics and

disturbance by redistributing sand stored in the

river channei and eddies to areas inundated by

river tlows up to 45.000 cfs in as many years as

possible when BHBF hydrologic and resource

criteria are met.

REC MO 2: Maintarn flows (under approved

õtffi#äeria) and sediment processes that

create an adequate quantify, distribution and

variety of beaches for camping, as long as such

t'lows are consistent wirh management of natural

recreation and culrural resource values (other

narural resource values).

GIS MO l: Creation of GIS base coverages in

support of integrated monitoring etïorts.

SED IN 1..1 Measure and model

sediment confributions from ail

contributing sources. including

tributary and high terrace sources.

SED IN 1.5 Evaluate the

geology/geomorphology within Glen

Canyon to: ( l) determure historical

changes in size and extent ofbeaches.

sandbars and backwaters, (2) quantifo

sediment (size class and quantity) input

from side channels, (3) understand bed

morphology dynamics, (4) evaluarc

high terrace erosion and contribution to

river sediment.

SED IN 4.3 Develop an assessment of

dam operations under approved

operadng crrteria impacts on range of

variation in sediment and other

resources within Colorado River

ecosystem and the associated processes

that created these ranges

REC IN 2.1 Determine adequate beach

quantit-v, qualiry, disnibution, character

and structure for camping throughout

system.

REC IN 2.2 Evaluate impacts of

operating criteria on establishing and

maintarning adequate beaches and

disnibution of other resources, qualiry,

character and structure.

GIS IN Ll Develop acomprehensive

GIS base map for topography, geology

and soils for the Colorado River

ecosystem

GIS IN l.l Develop a comprehensive

GIS base map for topography, geology

and soils for the Colorado River

ecosystem

IT/GIS I GIS MO l: Creation of GIS base coverages in

development I support of integrated monitoring efforts
Stt¡,tl,tny Buncnr ron Sctn¡vrIFIC Acuwrtns

"lable 2.2. Sumnrary ral-ile of'projected FY200 I budgct fìrr projects and by CCMIìC prograrn allocations.

Project title

Monitori¡

Avifauna

NEW IìFP IN

SUMMER 2OOO

Physical

Monitoring

terrestrial habital

and evaluating its

quality firr

utilization

NEW RFP IN

SUMMER 2OOO

Biological

90,000

Monitoring Kana

ambersnails and

habitat at Vaseys

Paradise

NEW RFP IN

SUMMER 2OOO

OR

MAINTAINET)

INTERNALI,Y

TER

C--ultrrral

_----

RESTRTAL ECOSYSTEM AC'TI VI'I'IES

90,000

UIS'

Support

75,000

0

Ongoing trophic

interact¡ons

fc¡ËatCh

ONGOING

Survey

supporl

t 0,000

0

l(erìì0te

sensing

Database

mgnìt

X

30,000

x-- lx--

Estintated

Logistics

32,000

X

GCMRC

Person¡rcl

- t0,000

Ralston

5%

l.anlbert

5%

0

lotal

(Progratu costs &

l,ogistics) ___

X

$ 122,000

0

Ralstr-ln

t0%

Lanrl¡ert

l0%

Mclis 3%

30,000

0

175,000

1.. , :

X

Ralston

l0Yo

Kohl 20%

La¡nbert

sYo

20,000 Ralston

l

5o/o

l"'''
Cultural Resource

Monitoring and

Mitigation

Strategies

NEW RFP IN

2000

Dcvelopment

historic contexts

to evalrrate the

significance of

cultural resource

NEW RFP IN

2000

Ongoing nronitoring

phyto-bcnthic

conrmuniy antl

evaluating its quality

for utilization

ONGOINC WIT'H

REVISIONS NAU

(Br,rNN 

&

SIIANNON)

monitoring of

status and trends

of fish community

lng

ONGOING

l.VtTH

REV¡SIONS

AQUATTC ECOSYSTEM ACT|VITTES

Lanrbert

t5%

Melis 3%

Ralston

5%

Gonzales/

Kohl l0%

Mietz SVo

O

Lambert

t5%

Melis 391,

Ralston

5%

X - I0,000

oX

Ralston

5%

Yard lïYo

Melis 3%

YU,UUU

$ 240,U00

Kalston

5%

Y ar<l20o/o

Melis 3%

,000
onitoring the

status and trends

ofthe Lees Ferry

Trout Fishery

NE\ry RFP IN

SPRING 2OOO

Quality

Monitoring

ONGOING

WITH

REVISION AND

COOPERATION

BETWEEN

GCMRC ANt'

uscs (wRD Az

DrsTRrcT)

ongoing researcii

associated with

population

genetics ol'tlBC

in Colorado River

ecosystem

Native fish/nonnative competitive

interactions

NEW IN

SPRING 2OOO

1-ì,.

liãiir-on

so/t

Yard 5Yo

Melis 3%

-opdõ8,000

lìa lston

5o/o

lluclìle

7 5o/o

Vernieu

80%

s I ls,ctoo-

$ 18,0001

iìal;iõn--

5V"

-$ 50,000

Ralstor¡

5%

Y ard 5",/o
Section

rcsearch

associated with

experimental

fìows which

include

l€nrpcrature

control device

evaluation and

assess¡nent.

NEW IN

SPRINC 2OOO

New ¡'esearc

associated with

water quality in

l.ake Powcll

NEW IN

SPRING 2OOO AS

RFP (?)

[-ong-tenn

nronitoring of

line-grained

sediment storage

throughout the

main channel

NEW RFP ¡N

SPRING 2OOO

TNTEGRATED TERRESTRTAL AND AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM ACTMTIES

X X

$-3oJõai'

$ 20.0005

ó(r,0(r0 Melis

l5%,

Ralston

3%,

Lambefl

3%,

Coninles

25%

400,000
Streamflow and

fine sedintent

transport in the

main channel

Colorado, Paria

and Linle

Colorado Rivers

efTn 400;

()NGO¡NG

WITH

REVISION

THROUGII

SOLE SOTJRCIì

TO USGS (WRD

AZ DIST¡IIC'T

Long-tenn

monitoring of

coarse-sedinrenl

inputs, storage and

¡rnpacts to

physical habitats

NEW RFP IN

SPRING 2OOO

-Mõ¿éline reach--

averaged sandbar

evolution in

response to

discharge and

sedinrent

conditions

NEW RFP IN

SPRING 2OOO

30,000

0

-X---

clis

109/o,

Ralston

5Vo,

':--=::t : ai-) f:_;

Mclis

;il

t0%,

Ralston

5%,

l.anrbclt

5%,

Gonzalcs

20%

Mèrät5%,

fìa lslon

5%.

l-an¡l¡c¡ 

t

5%,

Gon¿ales

20%

:=.i-:.ì :':-.1, ì
120 investigator responsible tbr native tìsh monitoring in the mainstem since i 998. Work in

ll I this project has inciuded mainstem data coliection and tributary data collection. The

ll2 emphasis has been on evaluating recruitment in the tributaries, pnmariiy the Little

123 Colorado River. and characterizing relative abundance of species in the mainstem. The

124 intensity of sampling in the mainstem may not have equaled historic levels. but gear125 types are comparable. Data from these monitoring trips indicate that rainbow trout is the

126 most common fish. i-ollowed by speckled dace and humpback chub in the mainstem. The

127 addition of mini-hoopnet to the sampling regime has resulted in the capture of an

i28 increased number of smaller humpback chub in the mainstem. This result suggests that

129 either gear types are biased against this size fish. that recruitment and survivorship has

130 increased in this size class. or that new habitats are being sampled that were previousiy

131 not sampled. The latter is not a likely explanation tbr this data. Inciuded in this contract

132 was research associated r.vith juvenile growth and temperature. Preliminary resuits

133 indicate that young tìsh provided unlimited food that are in 12'C water do not grow over

134 a 6 month time period and loose body mass over time. Fish in l8'C and 24'C tanks

li5 showed changes in growrh rates after the tìrst month with those tìsh in the warmest water

Ì 3 6 growing the greatest. These data have direct application t'or TCD operations. A question

137 that this study indicates needs to be addressed is if the small but now oider tish are moved

138 from the l2'C tanks to warmer tanks will they respond in a simiiar fashion to temperature

139 increases.

i.10

1-tl Natir,'e Fish Syntheses - Additional s¡-nthesis and modeling work on native tìsh has been

112 conducted by SWCA (data integration repon), Duncan Panen (compilation ot GCES

143 Phase II aquatic biology studies) and Walters et al. (modeling abundance trends in native

144 fish). Population estimates tbr Humpback chub in the LCR have been published by

145 Douglas for 1991 - 9i and additional estimates tbr 1993 - 95 are in press. In addition.

146 modeling work bv Walters et al.. in preparation. suggests that populations of humpback

147 chub in the LCR are stable or possibly declining slightly over the period 1991 - 96. The

I +8 work of SWCA highlights the importance of life history parameters on the survival of

I49 humpback chub and points to the potential of predator-prey interactions in addition to

l
150

151

t52

153

temperature as a key tàctor efïecting humpback chub abundance and distribution in the

mainstem. The reviews of GCES phase II humpback chub monitoring and research

activities by Brunkow (in Patten) will be useful in designing the long-term monitoring

program for native tìsh.

fli rt

rf- j

1l-l l-i t'i
one-dimensional

lìne sediment

routing model

along tlre ntain

channel

NEW IIÍ'P IN

SPRING 2OOO

velopment

conceptual

modeling of

coarse-grained

sedinrents related

lo evolving

physical l¡abitats

and aquatic

processes

ONCOING

WITH

REVISION

THROUCH

ECOMETRIC

RESEARCH

(KORMAN

ET.AL.)

rwQP PEP

Aquatic Foodbase

PEP

PEP ACTIVITIES

I Ralston

l0%

Yard l[Yo

Vernieu

Ralston
TÏÏTÏ-]

Evaluate Cultural I

ïîï_l

EviÍraäñg-l

ground-based and I

airborne retììote 

I

seDSIng I

teclrnologics __J

I'I7CIS I

.,:l"ïL-l

I 

ro,ooo' ----t:

5 5,(,00

0

l'f

Public Outreach

Acrivitiese

AMP IìIJNDS

O'I'I IIJR IìUNDS

TO'I'A¡-

PROGRAM

I'T-JNDS

llll)

JUI-lcl oL

X

95u,u00

':

t,280,000'0

950,000

Li'f RlrACll AC'f I V l'l'l

610,000

3ó5,000

t,890,000

$ 75,000

't'oTAt-s

365,000 475,000

$1,(,io,ooo

$ ó 10.000

$ 3,680,000
F ootnolcs

suppo¡1 fror¡¡ GCMRC. Entries noted with an "X" irtdicale sorne level of supporr is needed. Entries noted with an "O" indicate that support is believed to not be

needed.

2 fl&M lì¡¡rds arc r¡secl to support these lW()l'¿rctivities in l.ake l)orvcll. t AMP lì¡r¡ds are used tosupport these IWQP irctivitics in thc tailrvaters ol'(.ilen ('anyorr l)artr.

tjY 1998 to the USGS.

t O&M a¡rd/or AMP funds will bc used lo support this aclivity, as a¡rpro¡rliatc.

total expenditures for the Cultural Resources prograrìr.

ploposerJ research and or monitoring activities, as a¡lpropriate.
2000

are available on lhe GCMRC website.

products resulting lrom the deployment of those lechnologies'

CONDUCfED AS PÂR1

oNGOlt{G

2001

EVALUATIO}IS. PEP SCHEDULED

OF

tloï

THE

NOT

AGHEDULED

LEES FERNY TNOUT PEP

EGHEDULEO

FOR FY 2l¡O2