GCMRC's

FY 2010-11 BienniatWork ptan

for the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive

Management program

John Hamiil, Chiel GCMRC

Technical Work Group Meeting

June 22-23,2009

GCMRC FY 10-11 Focus Areas

> Science support for EA and conservation

measures

> lncreased emphasis on data analysis and

reporting

> Move several projects from R&D to Core

Monitoring

GCMRC FYlO-11

Anticipated Revenues & Sources

Hydropower capped Revsnues 

",i:::r ,r,#1,

Experlmental Funds 238,614 4A4,251

Nonnat¡ve Contingency Funds 9e,96g O

FY09 Carry Over 1,244,064 O

Ancillary Prolect Revenues

BOR - Lake Powelt ZTS,SOZ 2AA,,4Z

USGS nppmpriaflons

R6duæd Overhesd 1,000,000 I,OOO,0OO

Apprcprtaflons to Trib€s 95,000 g5,0OO

BORAoorcortailons.NcarShoreeætoov l6.igS 556.912

TOTALAntictpatedFunds $lO,9SO,O0O $10,333,947

Note: Assumes 0% Cpt ln Fy 2010; 3% Cpt tn Fy 2011

FY09 Anticipated Carry Over and

Sources

BIO 1.R1.09 Aquatic Food Base $ 2O,OOO

BIO 2.R15.09 Nearshore Ecotogy 536,641 BlOtbdNonnatjveFishContingencyFund 96,818

BIO 6.R2.09 Vegetation Trânsects 41,777

BIO 6.R3.09 Vegetation Synthesis 5,OOO

CUL 11.R1.09 Culturat R&Dtowards Core Monitoring 287,904

DASA 1 2.D1.09 Data Acqu¡sition (Remote Sens¡ng) 1 60,928

DASA 12.D5.09 GIS Support 32,860

PLAN 12.P3.0S LSSF Data & Rese6rch 18,067

ADM f 2.41.09(A) Admin¡strativôOperations 23,930

ADM 12.44.09 tndependent Reviews 8,663

AOM 12.45.09 GCMRC System Support (tÐ S,t5O

HFEProiectT SvnlhesisofKnowtedoð 66.326

TOTAL FY09 Anttctpatsd Carry Over Funds $1,2¿t4,064

1
FY 10-1 1 Budget Guidance

> Strategic Science Plan and Monitoring and

Research Plan, as amended

> Budget Ad Hoc Group Conference Calls

and TWG meeting

> AMWG budget motion

Schedule for PEP/ Core Monitoring plans

> Aquatic-Foodbase, Lake powell and Downstream Water Quality Monitoring

. PEPandCMPinFY20tl

> Native and Nonnative Fish Monitor¡ng

. Lees Ferry Trout CMp in Fy ZOIO

. LCR and Mainstsm CMp in Fy 2011

> Vegetation

. CMP in FY 2010

> Camping Beaches

. PEPandCMPinFY20lt

Major Analysis and Reporfs

FY 1O-11 BWP

> 2008 HFE projects 1 - 5 reporting

> HFE synthesis ofresults 1996, 2OO4 and 2OOg tests

> Camp site monitor¡ng data analysis and report¡ng

> Channel mapping data analysis and reporting

> Aquatic Food Web research findings

> Coordinated image analysis of terrestrial resources

> Ecosystem modeling and stakeholderworkshops

> lntegrated sediment, flow, and temp modeling

> Riparian vegetat¡on synthesis

> 2000 Low Summer Steady Flow synthesis

> Knowledge assessmentworkshops and SCORE ll

FY 10-11 Hydrograph Assumptions

> MLFF operations with steady flows in

September and October

> Possible High Flow Experiment (subject to

AMWG review and/or approval by DOI)

l.

i'

2
Biology Program Highlights

GCMRC FY 1O-11 BWP

Goal 1: Aquatic Food base

. Complete.R & D project in Fy 10 (analysis

and reporting)

. Transition from R&D phase into Core

Monitoring in FY 11

. Limited data collection in Fy 10-11

Biology Program Hightights

GCMRC FY 1O-11 BWP

> Goal 3: Extirpated Species

. Participate in TWG extirpated species ad hoc

group

. Partic¡pate in Lake Mead razorback sucker

assessment work group

> Goal 4: Rainbow trout

. Continue with adult monitoring (scaled back)

. Continue with larval and redd survey as part

of FSF science plan

Biology Program Hightights

GCMRC FY 1O-11 BWP

Goal 2: Native fish

. Fish Mon¡toring

. FY 10: similar to 2009 monitoring

. FY ll: Adjust program to incorporate pEp

recommendat¡ons

. HBC stock assessment (annual reporting: ASMR in Fy 1 i)

. Çlpan¿ mainstem mon¡toring to improve naflve and nonnãtive fsh detecüon

. lmplement maingtem nonnative removal as experimsntal action

. Utjlize experimsntal and NN contingency funds

. Provide scienc€ support for lmplementatíon of NN control plan

. lmplement Nearshore Eælogy/Fall Steady Flow science pian

. Expand remote plT tag read¡ng prcject

. Continue Chute Falls transloc€t¡on

Biology Program Highlights

GCMRC FY 10.11 BWP

> Goal 5: Kanab Amberna¡l:

. Continue annual monltoring (AZGFD); rsassess afler FWS ststus revtew

> Goal 6: Riparian and Springs

. Complele vegetaüon synthesis in Fy 10

. Analysis and reporllng of2OO9 imagary

. Vegetat¡on transects ¡n Fy2O1l

. Defened projôcts

. Arthropod moniloring

. Hyperspeclral imagery acquisition and analyslg
Physical Program Highlights

GCMRC FY 1O-11 BWP

> GoalT: Quality of Water

. Water quality monitoring

. Lake Powell

. Downstream

. lntegrated flow, temperature, sediment

modeling

. Phase 1 ends in FY 10; additional model

development subjecl to review of phase 1 results

. lncludes staff support for model maintenance and

updat¡ng beginning in FY 11

Physical Program Highlights

GCMRC FY 1O-1 l BWP

> Goal 8: Sediment

. "Provisional" Core Monitoring project

. Defer channel mapping in Fy 10; focus on

data analysis and reporting; resume field work

in FY 11

. Defer sandbar mapping in Fy 10; focus on

data analysis and reporting; resume on

biannual basis beginning in Fy 11

Socio-Cultural Program Highlights

GCMRC FY 1O-11BWP

Goal 9: Recreation

. Defercamp slte mapping in Fy iO; focus on data analysig and

r€port¡ng

. Maintaln/update campslte ailas; analyze data

. Final report: recreallon safety study ln Fy ll

Goal 10: Hydropower

. Serve hydropower data from WAPA; produce annual reporl

Socio-Cultural Program Highlights

GCMRC FY 1O-1 1 BWP

Goal 11: Cultural

. Reduce funding for effort (NpS funding and

cooperator involvement)

. Focus on integration with NpS CRMp

monitoring

. Pilot test monitoring protocols in Fy .10/11

. Assumes resolution of NpS permitting

concerns

4
DASA Program Hightights

GCMRC FY 1O-11 BWP

Goal12: DASA dots

. $200K contr¡bution to 2403 overflight tund in Fy 1O;

defer FY 11 contribution

. Establish integrated image analysis and change

detection project (Phil Davis)

. Made up of existing prolects and staff (legacy; integrated

analysls)

. Focus on analysis and processing of2OO9 imagery

. Biometr¡cs and analys¡s support (Lew Coggins)

. Library operations

. GIS suppof

. Database management

Other Goal 12 Hightights

GCMRC FY 1O-11 BWP

> Continue ecosystem ln¡tiative started ¡n Fy Og

. Senior eælogist (Cart WalteE) with Biology progÞm staff support

. Devolop or refine eæsystem models

. Conduct stakeholder workshops (Aprit 20i O)

> Annual Reporting meet¡ng - each January

> SA contract, independent review and pEp's

> scoRE Reportand KA¡n FY 2011

> Survey support and conlrol network

> Logist¡cs base support

> Program Plannlng and Management

> Administrative and lT support (SBSC)

> lmplemenumaintaln new GCMRC websitê

AMWG Motion issues

> 4 (a) Relationship of Cultural R&D project

to treatment plan and compliance

. R&D project is developing a monitoring

program that witt hetp meet 106 and GCpA

compliance requirements by providing

quantitative monitoring data on the effects of

dam operations and the effectiveness of

erosion control activities or other

management actions

5

"#;i"$.i"tFf."þ"ffi
t-ìi

AMWG Motion issues

> 4 (c) Necessity of the 970,000 for the NpS.

. GCltfRC Response: The $70k was cut to help

balance the FY 1 0-1 1 budgets; the cut was bäsed

on the assumption fhaf /VpS did not need AMp

funds to support the¡r ¡nvotvement in the cuttural

R&D project. Once the permitt¡ng I'ssues

s_urrounding the project have been resotved,

GCMRC will evaluate the fund¡ng needed to suppoft

NPS involvement. GCMRC does not suoport ' '

providing funding from the cultural R&D'óroiect or

from the science budget in generat lor Npd

com pli ance activìties.

AMWG Motion issues

> 5. gvaluate the pros and cons of the two (BWP) budget âpproaches

GCMRC supports th¡s recommendation. Before approving

the FY 1iIJ1 BWp, asreenenllnõiiaúe reátr{¿ oT"'

pu¡pose. of th.e bienn¡al budget process and how it w¡il

yf #r¡JÆ f:i try p u rposeé of'the b¡en n¡ at budset

. Streamline the AMP budgef p,'ocess

. Frge lp time for agencies and AMp to address other pnonty needs

. PfÆf,rrlyg:gt" AMp funding needs ¡nto agency

Dudge¡process

AMWG Motion issues

> 6 (a) The budget assumos that we wlll have movod

fonrard on core monltorlng for a number of Goals

under the AMP, Although thle ls r€asonab!€ to

conslder TìrVG bellevos lt ls promature

GCMRC Response: The designation of

projecE as "core monitoring" is based on the

anticioation that several projecE wi| be

approved for Core Monitoring status in Fy

2010-11 following TWG review and DOI

approval,

AMWG Motion issues

6 (b)'l4lc ls looklng for addtflonal clarltv on stafftno and tundtng hcludlng a current GCMRC

organlzatlonal chart-

'âXflÅ1f1fr8"ff""X':ñ'';!,fl:1!i,';"9{,?:;9":,:";!""r#Í

"úi"i:-öîl-"[if;:",fl få'!:iE8Ìiiåg\iH"?tr"2'i"],ji'

t ne Ewp prov¡ctes a summary of funding by project'

(GCMRC istaff, /ogrsftcs, equióment, coniraictl àlc.i.' provøng ntormat¡on on how GCMRC staff time is

?j!:?31!!-a!!gng proiects ¡s beyond the scope of what

we tn¡end to prov¡cle

> Dgta analysis and repoft¡ng ¡s a major focus of the Fy 2010-11 budget and'work-ptan. --

i''

6
AMWG Motion issues

> 6 (0: GoalS: GCMRC shoutd develop

an on-the-shelf HFE science plan for a

potential next HFE.

HFE OPTION #1

Develop€n "off thô shelr sclence plan in FYZOIO for a sinole HFE

that would bs lmplômented when riext sed¡ment figger ls ñel (if

approved by DOI).

PROS:

+ Allows mdnageE lo pußuo the on¡y ¡denllÍgd means of r€bulldlng ssndbf,rs

+ Allore for evaluallon ol whother or not ømutallve bu¡ldlno of sãndbâß ts oæuring under repeEted, sand-enrichod HFES

+ Allos oppoÉunlty to t6st slt€maüve duEüon for p€ak llow of HFg und€r

MLFF Fglmo

coNs:

. Depletss exp€rimsnlEl fund. llmlt¡ng futuF lest¡ng

- lmpscls schodute for HFE Synth€sls (FyiO) s¡d report¡ng/other p¡oj€cis,

such ãs SCORE ll

. Min¡m€l leamlng, s¡mply reæats what hss slready been tosled

- Doe-s n-ot ¡¡æ.Iporate tindlngs of HFE synlhgsls o¡¡nlegrated modoll¡g prcJec{ r

esearch Esuls.

HFE OPTION #2

Develop a mult¡ year HFE Sclence plan that âddresses triosers for the nen sand enriched HFEs in comb¡nalion w¡th experimãñtat Oaily

operatlons. on bås¡s of prevlous learn¡ng from all HFÈ reportt. Tla plan w_o_uld be developed ¡n FyZ01 l, añer HFE synthes¡b ls complete (Sept 2010);

PROS:

+ Conslstent with æmm¡tments in 2OOB EAIFONSI + Al¡ows moro t¡m€ for plannlng nexl HFE or series of HFES wh¡lo also

tncludtng ¡nputfom dêvelopm6nt of Dssired Futur€ Cond¡tions + Provldês mor€ tims to aæumulate oxperimsnlal funds tor futur8 HFE têst¡ng

+ M¡n¡miz€s ¡mpect to €x¡gting projecl schodulss and r€porting æmmttm6nts

CONS:

- For€goes.an oppoltun¡ly to ænduct an HFÉ that take8 âdvântagê of

s€d¡ment input ¡n FY 10 or I 1

7

KEY HFE ASSUMPTIONS:

Add¡tional (multiplo) ssnd-enriched hioh

mon¡toring w¡ll b6 needed to answer lhe

o) ssnd-enriched high flows and æntinued long-t€m

needed to answer lhe primary strateg¡c sciencã

€ a ?low only opefat¡ng strat€gy for rsbu¡ld¡ng and question.- 'ls theß a flow onty operat¡nE strateóv toiiã¡u¡iãiñôãn¿

mamtarnrng sandbars along the Colorado R¡v€r below GIen Caiyon

2. Substantial incrsases ¡n total eddy-sandbar area and voluma are onlv poss¡blê during h¡gh-flow relees8ó followino laroe t¡¡utañ flóoáÃ - 

'

wh¡ch onrich sand suppl¡Ês ¡n th8 ma¡n cha-nnelof the Colorado Éiver

3. A rsænt AMWG motion statês thet add¡t¡onal H¡oh Ftow

Experimentâtion w¡ll not be r€æmmended in Fy?O.tO ow¡no to thÊ

cnt¡æl nsed forfinal reporls on tho March 2009 €xperiment:

WHAT ARE THE MAIN OPTIONS?
AMWG Motion issues

an on-the-shelf HFE science plan for a

potential next HFE.

KEY HFE ASSUMPTIONS:

å'"XiTä.1'{,üüq'"")":"df 

.îJli!i1iifl 

3 lîH""il3,ff,!åiy33,å""?g'nffi l,;r''å"$rïïÊ:ilüÎ|'""ff f ,ltg.ff :l't"ßilSil.ðt*iil

2. ' Substantial incr€ases ¡n tolâl edd,

n,iËi[iftätFii[Ëì,"'""l;iffirJ""H {ïrää[""såH#i:l:

3. A r€c€nt AMWG molion slates that add¡t¡onâl H¡oh Ftôw

"ifgiT:8f ,i?Ìijil"iå".'Sf,fl yfi :ie, jãfJ"r,oollåîlîn"*"

WHAT ARE THE MAIN OPTIONS?

HFE OPTION #1

Developan "off the sher sclence plan ln Fy2O1O for a slnsle HFE that woutd be imptemented wh€n ríàñ iäá¡ñãii irläiàiü Hti iíi approved by DOI).

PROS:

+ Alloß ms¡ageß lo puEue tho onfy ld€¡tfÍed mesns ol rebulldlng ssndbEß

+ Allows for€vEtuaüon of whêthst

oæuring under r€p€ared, r""o."3iri3lå",iÊtf've bulld¡ns of sandbÊ. ls

+ Allors opporlunltyto lest allemaflvo durallon for pgak llow of HFE undsr MLFF roolme

CONSi

- Depletes €rp€rim€¡lal tund, llmltng futurc tesllng

- tmpdcls shedut6 tor HFE svnthesls (Fy.tO) and;po¡t¡ng/olher proJects, such as SCORE il

. M¡n¡mEl lesm¡ng, slmply ¡ep€sts whEt hss alreddy been têst€d

. 

.Dr%Xüfl¿tî,îil"^re 

t¡ndinss ot HFE synthu"rs oi lntesraiãJnø€ilns p¡ojeci r

HFE OPTION #2

Ëä{i"äË!"t"",'"Tï,?Êgä.ö,rFl",lt"xî1,"t?!î?îHgfl ijiJ:il,

i$FåiÈi3å3T5S¡Såî?î.,'Sî{l'åÊ"'t", 

jÊË[lit5s",s;;iåL

PROS:

+ Cons¡stBnt w¡th æmm¡tmsnts in zOOE E¡r'FONSl

'â'¿",,1å"'"iîiË,T,?ill'Jggl,l'Ëfl å"?tlt5"=.fl åå"Él1i,g85".o",oîlg"n* + Prov¡dss more time to aæumulete €xperimsntsllunds forfutuÞ HFE t6st¡ng

. gîiBir#ålly"o ro oxtst¡ns projêc,r schÊdutes ând roporrins

CONS:

- FoÍegoss an oDoorlun¡tv to conduct an HFE that fEkBB advantago of s€d¡m€nt input ih Fy ldolt 1

I
HFE OPTION #3

. R€pliet6 20042008 HFE when next ssdiment tdgg€r is met. Rely primârity

on €x¡st¡ng rÊsourcs monitor¡ng-projects to âssesðïtle ãràcË ói-tiíe.Éiärr

now pursus mu¡t¡ vear oten lopTlON 2) onæ HFE synthes¡s ¡s æmpläã ¡n fall 2010.

PROS:

+ allow€ manager to pureue lhs only ¡dent¡liêd msans of r€building sandbars

+ LittlB or no withdrawal from Expsrimental Fund + M¡n¡mal impactto ongo¡ng projecls and schsdulgs + Allows for Bvaluation of wh€ther or not cumulat¡ve buildino and maintenanco of sandbars ¡s oæufüng under r+éãtãd, !äi"¿:ónì¡cheA

HFEs

CONS:

- _D-9-9:j91i1T?-q?t€fndings of HFE synrh€s¡s or ¡ntegrarÊd modst¡ns proled regearch ßsults

- Countsr to æmmitmonts ¡n 2OOB EA/FONSI

Other lssues

> lmpact to the Experimental Fund (see

handout)

> lmpact to NN Contingency Fund

> Funding for Management and Compliance

Actions

> Deferred Science projects

HFE Conclusion

"esri!,ü_s.iï",f, :"S8eT"üii-ryrEäiå:iïiäfl i#g.:î."giliff i;, process.shoutd commenæ in Fy201 1 and shoutá bé còmttàià¿ ¡üËöö ilan

a year (OPT|ON #2).

GCMRCw-ould support ønduct¡ng a H¡gh Flow in Fy2O1O or 1l in

response to tnbutary sand €nñchment of ths ColoEdo Riv6r utilizino or¡st¡no

monrcnng prclects to evatuale ¡ts effec1s (OpTlON #3). Such En aðaotlvã -

managoment ßsponsê wiil ailow reportjng ana tóng iem HÊEpËn;ìni'i¿)- æntinue on scheduls

" P-"y91-o!.'¡-S-?-?fr th8 sh6lr .sci6næ ptsn prior to æmptetion of HFE rgporting

ano synuì€srs woutd d¡srupt on go¡ng projscls and reþoling æmmitmåns

> TWG/AUU|/-G/DOI should ln¡flatê d¡ssss¡ons retat€d to a rev¡sed sediment t¡isger, DF_C for ssd¡menr, and a more struCrurãlãpp:riãiñiõnËÉïääãiäg

and ømplianæ

8

Deferred/Scaled Back projects

> Arthropod Monitoring

> Hyperspecrtral image acquisition and analysis

> 1984 sand bar analysis

> Terrestrial ecosystem modeling

> Defened conhibution to overflight fund (Fy 1 f )

> Expanded economic analysis

> Archaeolog¡cal R&D project (NpS and Cooperator

involvement)

> Decision support tools/trade analyses

> Recreation study

> TCD design and implementation
Next Steps

> TWG Review; recommendations to

AMWG (June22-21)

> Draft BWP to AMWG (Juty 10)

> AMWG review; recommend final BWp to

SOI(August 13)

> GeneralCore Monitoring plan workshop

(September/October)

i

\'

I