GRAND CANYON MONITORING AND RESEARCH

CENTER’S

FISCAL YEAR 2006 PROJECT REPORT FOR THE

GLEN CANYON DAM ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

PROGRAM

MARCH 22, 2007
ii

PREFACE

Following is the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center’s (GCMRC) Fiscal Year 2006

Annual Accomplishment Report. This is a new product to provide the Technical Work Group

(TWG) with a summary of accomplishments, shortcomings and recommendations related to

projects included in GCMRC’s FY 06 work plan for the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive

Management Program. The report is intended to inform the TWG’s decisions and

recommendations related to the development of the FY 08 work plan. Since this is a new

product that GCMRC intends to produce annually, comments on the usefulness of this report are

welcome.
iii

FISCAL YEAR 2006 PROJECT REPORT FOR THE GLEN CANYON DAM

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A. PHYSICAL SCIENCE, MODELING, AND DASA PROGRAM

Project A.1 Ongoing Provisional Monitoring – Lake Powell Quality-of-Water (note:

funded under agreement no. 05-AA-40-2385, Support of Integrated Water Quality

Program Studies for Lake Powell)...................................................................................1

Project A.2 Ongoing Provisional Monitoring – Downstream Quality-of-Water for

Physical, Biological and Chemical Sampling (includes peer review and follow-up R&D

(flow and sediment-transport modeling development)) (Report 1 of 2)............................ 4

Project A.2 Ongoing Provisional Monitoring – Downstream Quality-of-Water for

Physical, Biological and Chemical Sampling (includes R&D (modeling)) (Report 2 of 2)

...................................................................................................................................... 11

Project A.3 Completion of Research & Development in Support of Monitoring Changes

in Fine- Sediment Storage along the Main Channel & Shorelines of the CRE .............. 13

Project A.4 Ongoing Support of Provisional Monitoring Remote Sensing Data

Acquisition..................................................................................................................... 18

Project A.5a Science Support of All Data Storage within Grand Canyon Integrated

(Oracle) Database Management System (DASA)......................................................... 21

Project A.5b Ongoing Data Conversion & Library Operations (DASA)......................... 24

Project A.6 Ongoing Support GIS General Support for Integrated Analyses and

Projects (DASA) ............................................................................................................ 27

Project A.7 Completion of Channel-Mapping Project (DASA) ...................................... 30

B. BIOSCIENCES

Project B.1 Ongoing Provisional Monitoring – Terrestrial Activities (KAS and SWWF) 32

Project B.2 Continued Research and Development – Aquatic Productivity, Organic

Mass Balance, and Food Web Linkage Studies (Linking whole-system carbon cycling to

quantitative food webs in the Colorado River) 1 of 2..................................................... 34

Project B.2 Continued Research and Development – Aquatic Productivity, Organic

Mass Balance, and Food Web Linkage Studies (Elucidating Aquatic and Terrestrial
iv

Contributions of Organic Carbon to the Colorado River Ecosystem Using Stable

Hydrogen Isotopes) 2 of 2............................................................................................ 36

Project B.3 Ongoing Provisional Monitoring – Status And Trends Of Downstream Fish

Community.................................................................................................................... 38

Project B.4 Ongoing Provisional Monitoring – Status & Trends of Lees Ferry Trout ... 40

Project B.5 Completion of Habitat Map and Inventory in Support of Monitoring........... 42

Project B.6 Completion of Experimental Treatment - Spawning Redds and Suppression

Mechanisms .................................................................................................................. 44

Project B.7 Mechanical Removal of Nonnative Fish..................................................... 46

Project B.8 Ongoing Humpback Chub Action – Translocation of Humpback Chub...... 48

Project B.9 Warm Water Fish Monitoring Workshop (Previously Completion of

Humpback Chub Action – Dam Operations) ................................................................. 51

Project B.10 Completion of Humpback Chub Action - Monitoring Fish Disease and

Parasites in the Colorado River Ecosystem .................................................................. 53

Project B.11 Completion of Humpback Chub Action – Temperature Control Device

(Water Temperature Model Development (note: funded under agreement no. 02-aa-40-

6750, enivronmental resources and compliance).......................................................... 55

Project B.11 Completion of Humpback Chub Action – Temperature Control Device

(Organic and nvertebrate Drift Exchange between Mainstem and Backwaters; funded

under agreement no. 02-aa-40-6750, environmental resources and compliance) ........ 57

Project B.11 Completion of Humpback Chub Action – Temperature Control Device

(Compare Near-Shore Native Fish Habitats Under Steady/Fluctuating Flows; funded

under agreement no. 02-aa-40-6750, enivronmental resources and compliance) ........ 60

Project B.12 Ongoing Provisional Monitoring – Status and Trends of the Fish

Community From Below Diamond Creek...................................................................... 62

C. CULTURAL RESOURCES

Project C.1 Ongoing Provisional Monitoring of Integrated Archaeological Sites ......... 64

Project C.2 Synthesize Tribal Monitoring Programs Results (1995 – 2005)................. 67

Project C.3 Integrated Campsite Monitoring and Research (Pilot Study)..................... 69

D. LOGISTICS OR SUPPORT SERVICES PROGRAM
v

Project D.1 Ongoing Coordination and Support Program-Logistics Operations ........... 71

Project D.2 Ongoing Survey Operations ...................................................................... 74

Project D.3 Ongoing Development of Geodetic Control Network ................................. 77

E. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT

Project E.1 Information Technology Support................................................................. 80

F. ADMINISTRATIVE AND MANAGEMENT

Project F.1 Administrative Operations.......................................................................... 82

Project F.2 Program Planning and Management ......................................................... 85

Project F.3 AMWG/TWG Participation ......................................................................... 88

Project F.4 Independent Review Panels ...................................................................... 90

Project F.5 Support for Strategic Science Implementation Planning............................ 94

Project F.6 GCMRC’s FY 2006 Biennial Science Symposium..................................... 97

Project F.8 AMWG, TWG Requests During FY 2006................................................... 99
0
1

PROJECT A.1 ONGOING PROVISIONAL MONITORING – LAKE POWELL QUALITY-OF-WATER (NOTE: FUNDED

UNDER AGREEMENT NO. 05-AA-40-2385, SUPPORT OF INTEGRATED WATER QUALITY PROGRAM

STUDIES FOR LAKE POWELL)

FISCAL YEAR 2006 PROJECT REPORT FOR THE

GLEN CANYON DAM ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

PROGRAM

SUBMISSION

DATE: *02/20/2007

(1.) SUBMITTING AGENCY: USGS – SBSC - Grand Canyon Monitoring & Research Station

(2.) GCDAMP/GCMRC AWP

ID/OTHER NO.:

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Year

2006 Budget & Work Plan, A.1 (GCMRC No. BNE0A)

(3.) PROJECT TITLE: Lake Powell Quality-of-Water

(4.) PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR INFORMATION:

GCMRC Program

Manager / Principal

Investigator:

M.Andersen/B.Vernieu,

USGS Mailing Address: 2255 North Gemini Drive, Flagstaff

E-mail: mandersen@usgs.gov State: AZ Zip Code: 86001

Telephone: ( 928) 556-7379 Delivery Address: Same as above

FAX: ( 928) 556-7092 State: AZ Zip Code: 86001

(5.) STATEMENT OF PROBLEM:

Water quality refers to the physical, chemical, and biological

characteristics of water. The components affect higher-level

community composition, quality, and interactions and represent a

cornerstone resource upon which all other downstream aquatic and

terrestrial resources depend. The water quality parameters are

linked to upper basin inflows, reservoir dynamics, and operations of

Glen Canyon Dam, and downstream tributary inputs. The

relationship between operations of Glen Canyon Dam and water

quality variables affecting downstream resources is a management

concern. Of special concern is the current draw-down condition in

Lake Powell, resulting from several years of drought. Total storage

has been reduced 50%, resulting in warm releases, deltaic

sediment resuspension, and reduced dissolved oxygen

concentrations in reservoir releases.

(6.) OBJECTIVES:

- Determine status and trends of physical, chemical, and

biological components of water quality in the Lake Powell

reservoir as a function of regional hydrologic conditions and

their relation to downstream releases. These components

include temperature, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen,

pH, turbidity, major ions, nutrients, trace elements, chlorophyll,

plankton, and organic matter.

- Determine stratification, convective mixing patterns, and

behavior of advective currents in Lake Powell and their relation

to Glen Canyon Dam operations to predict seasonal patterns

and trends in downstream releases.

- Determine status and trends of physical, chemical, and

biological components of water quality in Glen Canyon Dam

releases.

- Evaluate quality and collection methods of existing data and

determine where monitoring activities should be implemented,

augmented, revised, decreased, or discontinued.

(7.) RELATIONSHIP TO MRP: Related to Goal 7.

(8.) METHODOLOGY:

The monitoring program for Goal 7 will characterize changes in the

quality of water in the Lake Powell reservoir potentially available for

release from Glen Canyon Dam, the quality of water in the Glen

Canyon Dam tailwater, and changes that occur to the quality of
2

water in its travel through Grand Canyon. The geographic scope of

Lake Powell water-quality monitoring is from Glen Canyon Dam

upstream to the inflow areas of its three major tributaries, the

Colorado River, the San Juan River, and the Escalante River. The

geographic scope of the tailwater is the reach below Glen Canyon

Dam to Lees Ferry. Water quality is monitored in Grand Canyon to

Spencer Creek, at River Mile 246.

Forebay monitoring in Lake Powell, in the area immediately

upstream from Glen Canyon Dam, is conducted on a monthly

basis. Monitoring of the entire Lake Powell reservoir is conducted

on a quarterly basis. Continuous measurements of water-quality

conditions are made within the Glen Canyon Dam power plant, in

its tailrace, and downstream at Lees Ferry. Chemical and

biological samples are collected from these sites on a monthly

basis.

Instantaneous measurements of water temperature, specific

conductance, dissolved oxygen concentration, pH, turbidity, and

redox potential are collected below Glen Canyon Dam, at Lees

Ferry, and throughout the water column at up to 30 sites on Lake

Powell. At selected reservoir sites and at both tailwater locations,

chemical samples are collected for the determination of major ionic

constituents and nutrient (total phosphorus, soluble reactive

phosphorus, total nitrogen, nitrite-nitrate nitrogen, and ammonia

nitrogen) concentrations. Biological samples for chlorophyll

concentration and plankton identification and enumeration are

collected at selected reservoir sites and both tailwater locations.

(9.) ANNUAL STATEMENT OF

WORK:

(Briefly summarize the annual SOW to

the extent that the project is identifiable.

Include specific tasks where appropriate

and helpful.)

Continuous monitoring of water quality in the Glen Canyon Dam

tailwater includes monthly download, calibration, and servicing of

YSI 6902 multiparameter sondes at three locations and the

maintenance of a real-time telemetry system in the Glen Canyon

Dam tailrace.

Water-quality monitoring surveys of the Glen Canyon Dam forebay

and tailwaters (2.4 river kilometers upstream of Glen Canyon Dam)

are conducted monthly, and include measurements of

physicochemical parameters throughout the water column and

collection of chemical and biological samples.

Water-quality monitoring surveys of the entire Lake Powell

reservoir are conducted quarterly and include measurements of

physicochemical parameters throughout the water column at up to

30 locations on Lake Powell and collection of chemical and

biological samples at selected locations.

Information from field surveys and laboratory analyses is

processed and incorporated into the long-term relational database

of Lake Powell water-quality conditions.

Information is disseminated by regular water-quality updates;

presentations to TWG, AMWG, the Lake Powell Cooperators

Group, and other interested parties; and periodic web page

updates and publications.

(10.) PROGRESS STATEMENT: Recent drought conditions at Lake Powell have resulted in lower
3

(Describe how each task identified in the

AWP was/was not met and summarize

initial findings and final results. Include a

description of any significant deviation

from the AWP Scope of Work.)

reservoir elevations, increased release temperatures, and

decreased dissolved concentrations in Glen Canyon Dam releases.

The telemetry system below Glen Canyon Dam has provided

valuable real-time information during this period.

The relational water quality database is complete and current. An

USGS data report is in development for publication in 2007,

describing the 42-year history of Lake Powell water-quality

monitoring.

(11.) REPORTS/PRODUCTS

COMPLETED:

(Include all deliverables identified in the

AWP that have been completed and

report on all products beyond those

deliverables identified. Include reports,

presentations, poster sessions, exhibits,

databases, workshops, maps, website

contributions, decision support systems,

newsletters, etc.)

Draft USGS Data Report of Lake Powell historical water-quality

information is in preparation. The relational water quality database

is complete and current. Short-term patterns in Glen Canyon Dam

releases are being tracked and reported through real-time

telemetry system. Presentations on Lake Powell water-quality

issues have been given to the TWG/AMWG and the Lake Powell

Cooperators Group. Coordination with model development by

Reclamation is ongoing.

(12.) REPORTS/PRODUCTS

PLANNED:

(See above, but report those items that

are in progress and include expected

delivery dates.)

Final USGS Data Report of Lake Powell historical water-quality

information is anticipated in 2007. A Biological Monitoring Plan is

in development to provide a preliminary analysis of existing

plankton data and a reduction in the current backlog of biological

samples. Boat repair and maintenance of the Uniflite vessel is

planned for 2007.

(13.) RECOMMENDATIONS:

(Describe recommendations for

continuation or modification of project,

other studies, or activities resulting from

findings of this project; recommendations

for MRP changes or future program

guidance, etc.)

The biological monitoring plan will provide useful information to

develop a budget and appropriate levels of analysis for the current

backlog of plankton samples. The analysis of these samples and

other existing data will provide an important baseline of plankton

community structure, on which to evaluate effects of a potential

selective withdrawal device or possible exotic species invasion.

Further evaluation of the 42-year historical data set could lead to a

restructuring of the existing sampling program to maximize

efficiency and cost-effectiveness.

(14.) FY2006 BUDGET REPORT FINANCIAL INFORMATION COLLECTION DATE: 09/30/2006

FY PLANNED GROSS BUDGET: $218,994 FISCAL YEAR NET AVAIL BAL: $188,376

FISCAL YEAR EXPENDITURES: $183,962

FISCAL YEAR OBLIGATIONS: $00

COMMENTS:

(Discuss

anomalies in the

budget; expected

changes;

anticipated

carryover; etc.)

Carryover funds will be used to

supplement the FY2007 agreement

where neither personnel costs nor

burden have been renegotiated to

their current rates.

END OF FISCAL YEAR

AVAILABLE BALANCE: $4,414

SIGNATURE:

(Must be signed

or submitted by

PI.)

/S/ Matthew E. Andersen TITLE: Biology Program

Manager DATE: 02/28/2007
4

PROJECT A.2 ONGOING PROVISIONAL MONITORING – DOWNSTREAM QUALITY-OF-WATER FOR PHYSICAL,

BIOLOGICAL AND CHEMICAL SAMPLING (INCLUDES PEER REVIEW AND FOLLOW-UP R&D (FLOW AND SEDIMENTTRANSPORT MODELING DEVELOPMENT)) (REPORT 1 OF 2)

FISCAL YEAR 2006 PROJECT REPORT FOR THE

GLEN CANYON DAM ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

PROGRAM

SUBMISSION

DATE: *02/20/2007

(1.) SUBMITTING AGENCY: USGS – SBSC – Grand Canyon Monitoring & Research Center

(2.) GCDAMP/GCMRC AWP

ID/OTHER NO.:

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Year

2006 Budget & Work Plan, A.2 (Report 1 of 2) (GCMRC No. BNE2A)

(3.) PROJECT TITLE:

Ongoing Provisional Monitoring – Downstream Quality-of-Water for

Physical, Biological and Chemical Sampling (includes R&D

(modeling))

(4.) PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR INFORMATION:

GCMRC Program

Manager / Principal

Investigator:

Theodore S. Melis /

David J. Topping,

Steve Wiele

Mailing Address: 2255 North Gemini Drive, Flagstaff

E-mail: tmelis@usgs.gov State: AZ Zip Code: 86001

Telephone: (928) 556-7282 Delivery Address: Same as above

FAX: (928) 556-7092 State: AZ Zip Code: 86001

(5.) STATEMENT OF PROBLEM:

Glen Canyon Dam has altered the character of the water that is

released downstream into the Colorado River. The supply of fine

sediment has been reduced to nearly zero, which has impacted fine

sediment deposits and turbidity in Glen, Marble, and Grand

Canyons. The thermal regime of the releases has changed from

seasonal variations that followed air temperatures to nearly

constant release temperatures throughout the year, which are

colder in the summer and warmer in the winter than pre-dam

temperatures. These changes, as well as changes in the

downstream delivery of minerals, nutrients, and carbon have altered

the ecosystem of the Colorado River downstream from Glen

Canyon Dam. The Lake Powell Project characterizes the water

quality of the lake and downstream releases. This project monitors

how the releases affect the downstream ecosystem and develops

tools to assist decision-makers in the management of Glen Canyon

Dam.

The primary linkage between dam operations and the response of

the physical, biological, and cultural resources in the Colorado River

ecosystem between Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Mead is through

the discharge and quality of water in the Colorado River. At the

2004 AMWG priority-setting workshop, questions relating

specifically to water discharge and quality were three of the top five

priorities of the AMP, and water discharge and quality issues

influence the outcomes of every AMP goal. Releases from Glen

Canyon Dam provide the principal control on the discharge of water

in the Colorado River between Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Mead.

This reach is hereafter referred to as the Colorado River ecosystem

(CRE). Only during periods of large tributary floods do tributaries

exert any substantial control on the discharge of the Colorado River

in the CRE. Quality of water, using standard definitions, consists of

temperature and the dissolved and suspended (inorganic and

organic) material in the water column. Water temperature,
5

dissolved salts, dissolved oxygen, suspended-sediment

concentration and grain size, and suspended organic material

therefore all contribute to water quality. Water quality in the CRE is

driven in decreasing order of importance by dam operations,

tributary activity, and mainstem biological activity (e.g., algal effects

on turbidity).

(6.) OBJECTIVES:

The downstream Integrated Quality of Water Program (IQWP)

characterizes the water discharge and water quality of the Colorado

River and key tributaries between Glen Canyon Dam and the upper

reaches of Lake Mead (River Miles –15 to 274). This project has

two major components. The first component is focused on

monitoring and modeling the mass-balance of fine sediment in the

CRE. The second component of the downstream IQWP is focused

on characterizing other water quality components of the ecosystem,

such as water temperature, oxygen, nutrients, and carbon. Each

component has monitoring and research elements as described

below.

Downstream Monitoring Components:

Fine sediment mass balance: Use of laser-acoustic system and

conventional suspended-sediment samples to monitor transport at

several locations along the mainstem Colorado River and on key

tributaries. Monitoring data are used to provide a continuous

accounting of the mass-balance (input minus export) of sand and

fine sediment in Marble and Grand Canyons and to assess the

impacts of experimental flows on the mass-balance.

Continuous water quality monitoring: Temperature, conductivity,

dissolved oxygen, and pH are monitored at several locations along

the mainstem Colorado River and key tributaries. Most sites are

coincident with the mass-balance monitoring locations.

Temperature monitoring in selected backwater habitat areas. Data

are used to characterize the thermal regime and longitudinal

gradient in mineral and oxygen content of the river, and to calibrate

and validate numerical models.

Research Components:

Numerical model development and application: Fine sediment

transport models are currently in use and under development.

Research includes flume studies and detailed flow measurements

of sediment transport dynamics. Water temperature model

development is underway. Research includes detailed

measurements of heat exchange between the river and the

atmosphere; water temperature dynamics in backwater habitat

areas.

Real-time two-way telemetry: A system is being developed to

provide two-way telemetry between the office and instrumentation in

the Canyon. The two-way communication not only provides realtime access to data, but also allows the user full control of the

instrument from the office. The system is being developed in a

generic fashion to allow use with any instrument that uses serial

communications.
6

(7.) RELATIONSHIP TO MRP: Project A.2 in the 2006 annual work plan

(8.) METHODOLOGY:

Surface water measurements (i.e. stage and discharge) are made

using standard USGS methods (described in Techniques of WaterResources Investigations of the U.S. Geological Survey, Book 3,

Section A) at the following sites: Colorado River at Lees Ferry,

Paria River at Lees Ferry, Little Colorado River near Cameron, Little

Colorado River near mouth, Colorado River at Grand Canyon, and

Colorado River near Diamond Creek. At all sites, 15-minute data is

available in approximate real-time (every 4 hours) through the

USGS National Water Information System (NWIS) database

(http://waterdata.usgs.gov/az/nwis/rt). The surface water gages are

maintained and operated by the USGS Water Resources Discipline

Arizona Water Science Center. Discharge-release data from Glen

Canyon Dam are also estimated by the Bureau of Reclamation

(http://www.wapa.gov/crsp/operatns/gcSCADAdata.htm). In

addition, stage and suspended-sediment concentration and grain

size are monitored every 15 minutes using laser-acoustic

technologies at the following sites: 30-mile, 61-mile, 87-mile, and

226-mile.

Water temperature and conductivity in the mainstem and major

tributaries are monitored using a combination of Onset Hobo Water

Temp Pro Loggers and YSI 6920 Multi-Parameter Loggers. Water

temperature is monitored at eight mainstem locations: below the

dam, Lees Ferry, 30-mile, 61-mile, 87-mile, 166-mile, 226-mile, and

246-mile. The Lees Ferry, 87-mile, and 226-mile sites correspond

to existing surface water gages. Water temperature is also

monitored on selected tributaries. The mainstem water temperature

data is currently being used to calibrate and test a one-dimensional

temperature model. Specific conductance is monitored below the

dam, at Lees Ferry, 30-mile, 61-mile, 87-mile, and 226-mile. Spikes

in specific conductance allow the downstream fate of more-saline

water introduced by tributaries during floods (and therefore

potentially the organic and washload components of the flux

introduced by these tributaries) to be tracked in the Colorado River.

Dissolved oxygen and pH are monitored continuously below the

dam and at Lees Ferry. Other water-quality parameters (including

full water chemistry) are measured four times annually at the

Colorado River Lees Ferry gaging station by the Arizona Water

Science Center as part of the Arizona Department of Environmental

Quality (AZDEQ) program, and seven times annually at the

Colorado River above Diamond Creek gaging station by the Arizona

Water Science Center as part of the National Stream Quality

Accounting Network program.

The tributary supply of sediment to the Colorado River is computed

using a combination of physically based models and

measurements. On a near real time basis, the concentration and

grain-size distribution of the sand and finer material supplied by the

major tributaries (Paria and Little Colorado Rivers) are computed

using a geomorphically coupled flow and sediment-transport model.

Sediment-transport measurements are collected on these on two
7

major tributaries by conventional and pump methodologies by the

USGS WRD-Arizona Water Science Center and provided to our

laboratory. As sediment-transport data become available from our

laboratory, the predictions from this model are verified (to within the

error in the measurements). Inputs of suspended sand (with grain

size) and suspended silt and clay from the lesser tributaries are

computed based on stage and sediment data collected in a network

we established beginning in 2000. This network now covers 55% of

the formerly ungaged tributary area between Glen Canyon Dam and

the Little Colorado River.

Sediment-transport data collected under the downstream integrated

quality-of-water (IQW) project are used to compute flux-based

“mass-balance” sediment budgets for the following reaches of the

CRE: river-miles –15 to 0 (Glen Canyon), river-miles 0 to 30 (upper

Marble Canyon), river-miles 30 to 62 (lower Marble Canyon), rivermiles 62 to 88 (upper or eastern Grand Canyon), river-miles 87 to

226 (lower or western Grand Canyon).

(9.) ANNUAL STATEMENT OF

WORK:

(Briefly summarize the annual SOW to the

extent that the project is identifiable.

Include specific tasks where appropriate

and helpful.)

Monitoring activities described above are ongoing and scheduled to

continue. Analysis of the November 2004 high-flow test data is

scheduled to continue into FY2006. Completion of the initial phase

of suspended-sediment transport model development is scheduled

to be completed in FY2005 with continued refinement and

submission of a journal article in FY2006. Water quality model

development to continue with scheduled completion of the water

temperature component in FY2006. During FY2006, compilation

and reporting on the 1990-1991 National Canyon suspendedsediment data will be completed. Several USGS data reports and

several peer-reviewed interpretive reports are to be completed

during FY2006.

(10.) PROGRESS STATEMENT:

(Describe how each task identified in the

AWP was/was not met and summarize

initial findings and final results. Include a

description of any significant deviation from

the AWP Scope of Work.)

During FY2006, all stage equipment and quality-of-water (QW)

probes operated normally. Sediment-transport data collected

during FY2006 on the tributaries to the CRE have been processed,

finalized, and delivered to the GCMRC. Sediment-transport data

collected during FY2006 on the mainstem Colorado River are now

in the final stages of being processed and will be delivered to the

GCMRC by March 2007. Other QW data collected during FY2006

are now in the final stages of being processed and will be delivered

to the GCMRC by March 2007. Much of the National Canyon data

were compiled and a draft report was written. The report was

completed in early FY2007 and will be made available on-line.

When available, the final report will be e-mailed to GCMRC.

Substantial progress has been made on (1) posting the real-time

sediment-transport data collected under this project to the WorldWide-Web, and (2) serving these data through Oracle; these two

tasks will be completed during mid-2007. The two-way satellite

telemetry system is now considered operational. Updates of the

mass-balance sediment budgets have been computed and

delivered to the GCMRC, TWG, and AMWG. The final reports from

the sediment-transport modeling component of this project have

been delivered to the GCMRC. During FY2006, results from the

downstream IQW project were presented at (1) the 2005 Fall

Meeting of the American Geophysical Union, San Francisco,

California, December 5-9, 2005; and (2) 8th Federal Inter-Agency

Sedimentation Conference, Reno, Nevada, April 2-6, 2006. The
8

basic 1D Colorado River sand-transport model was completed, and

a journal article submitted for publication in FY2006. Testing and

calibration of the model has continued. The model we developed fits

the model described in our proposal that was reviewed, selected,

and funded by the GCMRC. The model is a reach-averaged, eventdriven sand-transport model intended primarily to route sand inputs

from the main tributaries over weeks to a few months. The root

model in its uncalibrated state generally shows good agreement

with data in an application that is long (7 months) and covers a wide

range of flow and sand supply. Model predictions of cumulative

sand volume at Phantom Ranch are close to or within measurement

error estimated by the GCMRC. The uncalibrated model shows

excessive sensitivity to sand inputs from the Paria, however, which

affects transport rates and predicted grain sizes in transport.

Calibration by Scott Wright has improved the model predictions.

(11.) REPORTS/PRODUCTS

COMPLETED:

(Include all deliverables identified in the

AWP that have been completed and report

on all products beyond those deliverables

identified. Include reports, presentations,

poster sessions, exhibits, databases,

workshops, maps, website contributions,

decision support systems, newsletters,

etc.)

Presentations were made to the TWG on May-24-25, 2006, on the

results from the 2004 BHBF test and the results from the

development and evaluation of “High-Resolution Monitoring of

suspended-sediment concentration and grain size in the Colorado

River using laser-diffraction instruments and a three-frequency

acoustic system.” A presentation was made to the TWG on August

2-3, 2006, on the results of studies of sand transport during steady

and low-fluctuating flows. Topping gave an invited lecture on June

8, 2006, at the USGS-WRD Central Region Science Workshop,

Lakewood, Colorado, with a presentation entitled “Collection of

more accurate high-resolution sediment-transport data using laser

diffraction and multi-frequency acoustic instruments”

The following dissertation, five papers and two abstracts were either

published during FY2006 or are currently in press.

Fisk, G.G., Duet, N.R., McGuire, E.H., Roberts, N.K., Castillo, N.K.,

and Smith, C.F., 2006, Water resources data, Arizona,

water year 2005: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data

Report AZ-05-1, accessed January 8, 2007, at

http://pubs.usgs.gov/wdr/2005/wdr-az-05-1/

Grams, P.E., 2006, Sand transport over a coarse and immobile bed:

The Johns Hopkins University, unpublished Ph.D. thesis,

163 p.

Melis, T.S., Jain, S., Topping, D.J., Pulwarty, R.S., and Eischeid,

J.K., 2005, Critical climate controls and information needs

for the Glen Canyon Adaptive Management Program and

environmental assessment in the Grand Canyon region:

EOS, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, v. 86, n.,

52, p. F627.

Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., Schmidt, J.C., Hazel, J.E., Wright, S.A.,

Melis, T.S., and Kaplinski, M., 2005, Comparison of

sediment-transport and bar-response results from the 1996

and 2004 controlled-flood experiments on the Colorado

River in Grand Canyon: EOS, Transactions, American

Geophysical Union, v. 86, n., 52, p. F906.

Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., Schmidt, J.C., Hazel, J.E., Jr., Melis,

T.S., Wright, S.A., Kaplinski, M., Draut, A.E., and

Breedlove, M.J., 2006, Comparison of sediment-transport
9

and bar-response results from the 1996 and 2004

controlled-flood experiments on the Colorado River in

Grand Canyon: CD-ROM Proceedings of the 8th Federal

Inter-Agency Sedimentation Conference, Reno, Nevada,

April 2-6, 2006, ISBN 0-9779007-1-1.

Topping, D.J., Wright, S.A., Melis, T.S., and Rubin, D.M., 2006,

High-resolution monitoring of suspended-sediment

concentration and grain size in the Colorado River using

laser-diffraction instruments and a three-frequency acoustic

system: CD-ROM Proceedings of the 8th Federal InterAgency Sedimentation Conference, Reno, Nevada, April 2-

6, 2006, ISBN 0-9779007-1-1.

Topping, D., Rubin, D., and Melis, T., in press, Coupled changes in

sand grain size and sand transport driven by changes in the

upstream supply of sand in the Colorado River: Relative

importance of changes in bed-sand grain size and bedsand area: Sedimentary Geology.

Topping, D.J., Wright, S.A., Melis, T.S., and Rubin, D.M., in press,

High-resolution measurements of suspended-sediment

concentration and grain size in the Colorado River in Grand

Canyon using a multi-frequency acoustic system:

Proceedings of the Tenth International Symposium on River

Sedimentation, August 1-4, 2007, Moscow, Russia.

Wiele, S.M., Wilcock, P.R., and Grams, P.E., in press, Reachaveraged sediment routing of a canyon river: Water

Resources Research.

(12.) REPORTS/PRODUCTS

PLANNED:

(See above, but report those items that are

in progress and include expected delivery

dates.)

A manuscript by Grams and Wilcock entitled “Equilibrium transport

of fine sediment over a coarse immobile bed” was submitted to the

AGU journal Water Resources Research during 2006 and is

currently being revised. The annual water-year 2006 data report is

being finalized by the USGS-WRD Arizona Water Science Center

(AWSC) and will be available during spring 2007. A USGS OpenFile Report describing the 1991 suspended-sediment datacollection program on the Colorado River at National Canyon has

been authored by Hornewer and others. The citation for this report

is: Hornewer, N.J. and Wiele, S.M., 2007, Flow Velocity and

Sediment Data Collected During 1990 and 1991 at National

Canyon, Colorado River, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Data

Series Report XXX, xx p. [expected to be available in March or April

2007]. A USGS Data-Series Report describing the watertemperature data collected in the CRE by GCES and GCMRC

during the 1980s and 1990s has been authored by Voichick and

Wright. Both of these two USGS reports have been reviewed and

are to be published during spring 2007. A two-part article by

Topping and others entitled “Evaluation of conventional sampling,

laser diffraction, and acoustics for measuring suspended-sediment

concentration and grain size 1. Errors associated with conventional

depth-integrated sampling and Evaluation of conventional sampling,

laser diffraction, and acoustics for measuring suspended-sediment

concentration and grain size 2. Development and evaluation of a

laser-acoustic system” is to be submitted to the Journal of

Geophysical Research in summer 2007. Refinements have been

made to the 1D Colorado River sand-transport model this FY, and

testing and application is ongoing in collaboration with Scott Wright

and Peter Wilcock. Funding through this agreement (two pay
10

periods for Wiele) for modeling has been spent.

(13.) RECOMMENDATIONS: (Describe

recommendations for continuation or

modification of project, other studies, or

activities resulting from findings of this

project; recommendations for MRP

changes or future program guidance, etc.)

This project has been externally peer reviewed (SEDS-PEP, August

2006) and is being proposed as core monitoring in 2007 as part of

the recommendation report on long-term sediment monitoring to the

TWG. It will also be reviewed internally by the USGS Office of

Surface Water during spring/summer 2007.

(14.) FY2006 BUDGET REPORT FINANCIAL INFORMATION COLLECTION DATE: 09/30/2006

FY PLANNED GROSS BUDGET: $ 817,947 FISCAL YEAR NET AVAIL BAL: $764,562

FISCAL YEAR EXPENDITURES: $698,660

FISCAL YEAR OBLIGATIONS: $65,902

COMMENTS:

(Discuss anomalies

in the budget;

expected changes;

anticipated

carryover; etc.)

The following report’s budget is

also contained in this budget. END OF FISCAL YEAR

AVAILABLE BALANCE: $ 00

SIGNATURE:

(Must be signed or

submitted by PM /

PI.)

/S/ Theodore S. Melis TITLE: Physical Sciences

Program Manager DATE: 02/03/2007
11

PROJECT A.2 ONGOING PROVISIONAL MONITORING – DOWNSTREAM QUALITY-OF-WATER FOR PHYSICAL,

BIOLOGICAL AND CHEMICAL SAMPLING (INCLUDES R&D (MODELING)) (REPORT 2 OF 2)

FISCAL YEAR 2006 PROJECT REPORT FOR THE

GLEN CANYON DAM ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

PROGRAM

SUBMISSION

DATE: *02/20/2007

(1.) SUBMITTING AGENCY: USGS – SBSC – Grand Canyon Monitoring & Research Center

(2.) GCDAMP/GCMRC AWP

ID/OTHER NO.:

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Year

2006 Budget & Work Plan, A.2 (Report 2 of 2) (GCMRC

No. BNE2A)

(3.) PROJECT TITLE:

Ongoing Provisional Monitoring – Downstream Quality-of-Water

for Physical, Biological and Chemical Sampling (includes R&D

(modeling))

(4.) PRINCIPLE INVESTIGATOR INFORMATION:

Prin. Investigator:

Theodore S.

Melis / Steve

Wiele/Nancy

Hornewer-USGS

Mailing Address: 2255 North Gemini Drive, Flagstaff

E-mail: tmelis@usgs.gov State: AZ Zip Code: 86001

Telephone: ( 928) 556-7282 Delivery Address: Same as above

FAX: ( 928) 556-7092 State: AZ Zip Code: 86001

(5.) STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: See previous report.

(6.) OBJECTIVES: See previous report.

(7.) RELATIONSHIP TO MRP: Project A.2 in the 2006 annual work plan

(8.) METHODOLOGY: See previous report.

(9.) ANNUAL STATEMENT OF

WORK:

(Briefly summarize the annual SOW to

the extent that the project is identifiable.

Include specific tasks where appropriate

and helpful.)

 Monitoring streamflow on the Colorado River at Lees Ferry

and Grand Canyon, and on the Paria River and Little

Colorado River. Monitoring water temperature and specific

conductance at Lees Ferry. Collecting suspended-sediment

samples on the Paria River and Little Colorado River.

 Compile National Canyon data from 1990-1991 and complete

report.

 The 1D sand transport model was refined and a journal article

submitted.

(10.) PROGRESS STATEMENT:

(Describe how each task identified in the

AWP was/was not met and summarize

initial findings and final results. Include

a description of any significant deviation

from the AWP Scope of Work.)

 Stage equipment working fine on the mainstem and tributary

gages. Water-quality probe at Lees Ferry is also working fine.

Sediment samples were collected during storms and given to

GCMRC for processing.

 Much of the National Canyon data were compiled and a draft

report was written. The report was completed in early FY07

and will be made available on-line. When available, the final

report will be e-mailed to GCMRC.

 The basic 1D sand transport model, funded under a separate

agreement, was completed, and a journal article submitted for

publication in FY06. Testing and calibration of the model has

continued. The model we developed fits the model described

in our proposal that was reviewed, selected, and funded by

the GCMRC. The model is a reach-averaged, event-driven

sand-transport model intended primarily to route sand inputs

from the main tributaries over weeks to a few months. The

root model in its uncalibrated state generally shows good

agreement with data in an application that is long (7 months)

and covers a wide range of flow and sand supply. Model

predictions of cumulative sand volume at Phantom Ranch are
12

close to or within measurement error estimated by the

GCMRC. The uncalibrated model shows excessive sensitivity

to sand inputs from the Paria, however, which affects

transport rates and predicted grain sizes in transport.

Calibration by Scott Wright has improved the model

predictions.

(11.) REPORTS/PRODUCTS

COMPLETED:

(Include all deliverables identified in the

AWP that have been completed and

report on all products beyond those

deliverables identified. Include reports,

presentations, poster sessions, exhibits,

databases, workshops, maps, website

contributions, decision support systems,

newsletters, etc.)

Annual Data Report WY05 was published:

Fisk, G.G., Duet, N.R., McGuire, E.H., Roberts, N.K., Castillo,

N.K., and Smith, C.F., 2006, Water resources data, Arizona,

water year 2005: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data Report

AZ-05-1, accessed January 8, 2007, at

http://pubs.usgs.gov/wdr/2005/wdr-az-05-1/

Modeling - a paper titled:

Reach-averaged sediment routing model of a canyon river by

Wiele, S.M., P.R. Wilcock, and P.E. Grams that describes the

model and its application was submitted to Water Resources

Research in FY06. It has been published in FY07 by WRR. A

pdf copy was sent to the GCMRC.

(12.) REPORTS/PRODUCTS

PLANNED:

(See above, but report those items that

are in progress and include expected

delivery dates.)

*Annual Data Report WY06 – should be available by the end of

April 2007.

*National Canyon Report:

Hornewer, N.J. and Wiele, S.M., 2007, Flow Velocity and

Sediment Data Collected During 1990 and 1991 at National

Canyon, Colorado River, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey

Data Series Report XXX, xx p. [expected to be available in

March or April 2007]

*Modeling - Refinements have been made to the model this FY,

and testing and application is ongoing in collaboration with

Scott Wright and Peter Wilcock. Funding through this

agreement (two pay periods for Wiele) for modeling has been

spent.

(13.) RECOMMENDATIONS:

(Describe recommendations for

continuation or modification of project,

other studies, or activities resulting from

findings of this project;

recommendations for MRP changes or

future program guidance, etc.)

- Streamflow/Sediment – continue operation of gages and

collection of sediment samples.

- Modeling - Scott Wright, formerly the GCMRC Physical

Resources modeling program manager, now with the CA

WSC, and Peter Wilcock, Johns Hopkins University, have

been running the model to further test and calibrate it. Wright

and Wilcock have the necessary expertise and should

continue to be supported in applying the model.

(14.) FY2006 BUDGET REPORT FINANCIAL INFORMATION COLLECTION DATE: 09/30/2006

FY PLANNED GROSS BUDGET: NA FISCAL YEAR NET AVAIL BAL: NA

FISCAL YEAR EXPENDITURES: NA

FISCAL YEAR OBLIGATIONS: NA

COMMENTS:

(Discuss

anomalies in the

budget; expected

changes;

anticipated

carryover; etc.)

Refer to previous report for budget

information. END OF FISCAL YEAR

AVAILABLE BALANCE: NA

SIGNATURE:

(Must be signed

or submitted by

PI.)

/S/ Theodore S. Melis TITLE: Physical Sciences

Program Manager DATE: 02/28/2007
13

PROJECT A.3 COMPLETION OF RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT IN SUPPORT OF MONITORING CHANGES IN FINESEDIMENT STORAGE ALONG THE MAIN CHANNEL & SHORELINES OF THE CRE

FISCAL YEAR 2006 PROJECT REPORT FOR THE

GLEN CANYON DAM ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

PROGRAM

SUBMISSION

DATE: *02/20/2007

(1.) SUBMITTING AGENCY: USGS – SBSC – Grand Canyon Monitoring & Research Center

(2.) GCDAMP/GCMRC AWP

ID/OTHER NO.:

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Year

2006 Budget & Work Plan, A.3 (GCMRC No. BNE2D)

(3.) PROJECT TITLE:

Completion of Research & Development in Support of Monitoring

Changes in Fine-Sediment Storage along the Main Channel &

Shorelines of the CRE

(4.) PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR INFORMATION:

GCMRC Program

Manager / Principal

Investigator:

Theodore S.

Melis / David M.

Rubin

Mailing Address: 2255 North Gemini Drive, Flagstaff

E-mail: tmelis@usgs.gov State: AZ Zip Code: 86001

Telephone: (928) 556-7282 Delivery Address: Same as above

FAX: (928) 556-7092 State: AZ Zip Code: 86001

(5.) STATEMENT OF PROBLEM:

Sandbars and other sandy deposits in and along the Colorado

River in Grand Canyon National Park (GCNP) were an integral

part of the pre-dam riverscape, and are still important for habitat,

protecting archeological sites, and recreation. These deposits

have eroded substantially following the 1963 closure of Glen

Canyon Dam that reduced the supply of sand at the upstream

boundary of GCNP by about 94%; sandbars in Marble Canyon

have decreased in size by about 25% during the last 15 years.

Results from the geomorphic synthesis project have shown that

the deeper portions of eddies and the channel pools also contain

about 25% less sand, silt, and clay than they contained in the

early 1990s.

Relationships between Glen Canyon Dam operations, finesediments from tributaries below the dam, and interrelated

downstream biological, socio-cultural resources are of primary

management concern. This is true owing to the fact that sand

bars are the primary substrate along many shoreline areas of the

ecosystem. Monitoring data on fine-grained (sand and finer)

deposits, linkages with physical habitats, and relationships to nonphysical resources and processes offer insight on the

effectiveness of the Secretary’s 1996 Record-of-Decision (ROD),

relative to management objectives.

Annual-to-biennial monitoring of fine-grained sediment storage

provides information: (1) on the status of near-shore aquatic and

terrestrial habitats where vegetation and associated fauna, sociocultural resources are of management concern; (2) on the

availability of fine-grained sediment that can be periodically

manipulated through controlled floods to preserve and sustain

downstream resources dependent on fine sediment; (3) on

identification and interpretation of linkages between dam

operations and changes in physical habitats and related

ecosystem resources. All three areas of information support

science-based evaluations of large-scale flow experiments (e.g.,

the Secretary’s actions), and associated decision responses
14

required for adaptive management to succeed.

Fine-grained deposits (sand and finer) of the main channel

constitute a major storage component of the Colorado River

ecosystem’s sediment budget. Glen Canyon Dam operations

influence fine deposits in ways that affect aquatic and terrestrial

habitats over both short and long periods. The emphasis of this

long-term monitoring project is to document system-wide changes

in fine-grained deposits relative to dam operations and natural

inputs, with emphasis on key storage settings within critical

reaches. This project was initiated through release of a

competitive solicitation in October 2000. The first phase of this

project was scheduled for completion at the end of FY2005, but

has been extended through FY2006 owing to the additional field

data collection campaign around the November high-flow test, and

will be externally reviewed through the PEP process. In addition,

the project is also focused on researching the fate of campsite

areas on an annual basis, as well as the fate of sand bars

reworked by wind in the vicinity of archeological preservation sites.

Two other subcomponents of this project include monitoring

sediment deposition in arroyos near archaeological sites and

monitoring changes at campable beach areas owing to

experimental high flows. These projects are described in the TwoYear Science Plan for Experimental Flow Treatments and

Mechanical Removal Activities in WY’S 2002-2004.

(6.) OBJECTIVES:

The goals of this work are: (1) to monitor, quantify, and interpret

changes in sand storage in the Colorado River Ecosystem,

including changes in sand bar morphology, volume, area, and

grain-size in selected bars and reaches, (2) to relate observed

changes to dam releases and tributary sediment input, (3) to relate

changes in grain size of fine sediment on the bed to changes in

suspended sediment observed by the mass balance project, (4)

and to provide advice on timing, magnitude, duration, and ramping

rates for artificial floods.

(7.) RELATIONSHIP TO MRP: Project A.3 in the 2006 annual work plan

(8.) METHODOLOGY:

Overall Methodology—Determine the change in sediment

storage in selected study reaches, each approximately 3 to 5 km

long, in the Grand Canyon ecosystem using a wide range of

traditional and new methods to make measurements of changes in

the volume and characteristics of fine sediment stored on the bed,

in eddies, and in channel margins. A combination of ground-based

field surveys, hydrographic field surveys, photogrammetrically

derived topographic data, and topographic data determined from

LIDAR measurements will be used to detect topographic changes

within the study reaches.

Topographic Surveys—Spatial geo-referencing of control for

remotely sensed data and other instrumentation requires cm-scale

accuracy. The data collected during this effort will have a point

data accuracy on the order of + 0.1 m horizontally and + 0.05 m

vertically. Survey accuracy in the field will be maintained by

horizontal and vertical checks of positional error between known

reference points in the GCMRC control catalog utilizing the

Arizona State Plane Coordinate System.
15

Hydrographic Surveying Using Multibeam—Previous

investigations have demonstrated the utility of single beam

hydrographic surveying to detect bed elevation changes at the

pool scale (Andrews and others, 1999; Hazel and others, 1999).

Recent advances in hydrographic survey have made it possible to

implement a multibeam system in the relatively shallow-water,

logistically difficult environment of the Colorado River.

Airborne Remotely Sensed Data—This project cannot be

completed without accurate digital overflight imagery such as

LIDAR to accurately depict the terrestrial topography of the subreaches.

Change Detection Analysis—The combination of field based

surveys, multibeam data, and processed LIDAR derived

topographic points will be combined into one data set to detect

topographic changes within the selected sub-reaches.

Spatial Distribution of Fine Sediment—Project will evaluate the

advantages and disadvantages of side-scan sonar, multibeam

topography, multibeam backscattering, underwater video

transects, and underwater microscope for mapping distribution of

fine sediment on the riverbed.

Grain Size of Fine Sediment—This will be measured using

thousands of digital images collected by underwater microscope

(in the channel) and hand-held camera (on sand bars). Quality

control will be assured by collecting a smaller number of physical

samples for traditional lab analyses.

Eolian/archaeology work—final reports will be completed.

(9.) ANNUAL STATEMENT OF

WORK:

(Briefly summarize the annual SOW to

the extent that the project is identifiable.

Include specific tasks where appropriate

and helpful.)

- Develop an integrated spatial data base time series for FIST

analysis activities covering the time periods: August, 2000;

September, 2000; May, 2002; May, 2004; November, 2004;

December, 2004 and May, 2005.

- Acquire, develop, and test data-processing methodologies

and software packages for processing and analyzing data

acquired for this project. Develop data processing and

analysis techniques for underwater imagery surveys, LIDAR,

multibeam sonar, and aerial photography.

- Conduct spatial analyses.

- Write paper detailing the methodologies for creating the

composite surfaces and the composition of those surfaces.

- Compare 1996 and 2004 flood results with respect to

sediment transport and bar response to be submitted to JGREarth Surface or similar journal.

- Complete processing and interpretation of digital imagery

grain-size analysis.

- Compile results of work in a memo to managers.

- Complete final report on eolian/archaeology work.

(10.) PROGRESS STATEMENT:

(Describe how each task identified in the

AWP was/was not met and summarize

initial findings and final results. Include

a description of any significant deviation

from the AWP Scope of Work.)

Topographic, bathymetric, and remote-sensing data from reachbased fieldwork in 2002, 2004, and before and after the November

2004 BHBF test were processed, finalized, and delivered to

GCMRC-DASA. Aeolian sand-transport data collected during

2005 were delivered to the GCMRC; final report on this work was
16

completed. Sandbar topographic and campsite-area data from

fieldwork in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005 were also

delivered to the GCMRC. During FY2006 and early FY2007,

results from the FIST project were presented at (1) the 2005

Annual Meeting of the Geological Society of America, Salt Lake

City, Utah, October 16-19, 2005; (2) the 2005 Fall Meeting of the

American Geophysical Union, San Francisco, California,

December 5-9, 2005; (3) 8th Federal Inter-Agency Sedimentation

Conference, Reno, Nevada, April 2-6, 2006, and (4) the 2006 Fall

Meeting of the American Geophysical Union, San Francisco,

California, December 11-15, 2006. The project is now in its final

stages with articles being prepared for publication.

(11.) REPORTS/PRODUCTS

COMPLETED:

(Include all deliverables identified in the

AWP that have been completed and

report on all products beyond those

deliverables identified. Include reports,

presentations, poster sessions, exhibits,

databases, workshops, maps, website

contributions, decision support systems,

newsletters, etc.)

Presentations were made to the TWG on May 24-25, 2006, on the

results from the 2004 BHBF test and the results of the aeolian

sand-transport/archaeology component of this project.

The following four papers and five abstracts were published during

FY2006:

Breedlove, M.J., Hazel, J.E., Kaplinski, M.A., Schmidt, J.C.,

Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., Fuller, A.E., Tusso, R., and

Gonzales, F.M., 2005, Using an integrated, remotesensing methodology to evaluate the effects of dam

operations on fine-grained sediment storage and sand bar

restoration in Marble Canyon: EOS, Transactions,

American Geophysical Union, v. 86, n., 52, p. F614.

Draut, A.E., and Rubin, D.M, 2006, Measurements of Wind,

Aeolian Sand Transport, and Precipitation in the Colorado

River Corridor, Grand Canyon, Arizona -- January 2005 to

January 2006: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report

2006-1188, 88p, http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1188/

Draut, A. E. and Rubin, D. M. 2007. The role of aeolian sediment

in the preservation of archaeological sites in the Colorado

River corridor, Grand Canyon, Arizona-Final report on

research activities, 2003-2006: U.S. Geological Survey

Open-File Report 2007-1001, 141 pages,

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2007/1001/

Rubin, D.M., Chezar, H., Harney, J.N., Topping, D.J., Melis, T.S.,

and Sherwood, C.R., 2006, Underwater microscope for

measuring spatial and temporal changes in bed-sediment

grain size: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report

2006-1360, http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1360/

Rubin, D.M., Topping, D.J., Wright, S.A., and Melis, T.S., 2006,

Incorporating bed-sediment grain size in predictions of

suspended-sediment concentration: Three approaches

tested using 20,000 bed-sediment grain-size

measurements from the Colorado River in Grand Canyon:

EOS, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, v. 87,

n., 52, CD-ROM Fall Meeting Supplement, Abstract

OS31A-1631.
17

Schmidt, J.C., Topping, D.J., Grams, P.E., and Hazel, J.E., 2005,

System-wide changes in the distribution of fine sediment

in the Colorado River corridor of Grand Canyon National

Park: Geological Society of America Abstracts with

Programs, v. 37, n. 7, p. 331.

Schmidt, J.C., Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., Breedlove, M.J., Hazel,

J.E., Kaplinski, M.A., Wright, S.A., Fuller, A.E., and Melis,

T.S., 2005, High releases from Glen Canyon Dam cause

short-term eddy-bar aggradation if timed to coincide with

significant input of sediment from tributaries: EOS,

Transactions, American Geophysical Union, v. 86, n., 52,

p. F913.

Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., Schmidt, J.C., Hazel, J.E., Wright,

S.A., Melis, T.S., and Kaplinski, M., 2005, Comparison of

sediment-transport and bar-response results from the

1996 and 2004 controlled-flood experiments on the

Colorado River in Grand Canyon: EOS, Transactions,

American Geophysical Union, v. 86, n., 52, p. F906.

Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., Schmidt, J.C., Hazel, J.E., Jr., Melis,

T.S., Wright, S.A., Kaplinski, M., Draut, A.E., and

Breedlove, M.J., 2006, Comparison of sediment-transport

and bar-response results from the 1996 and 2004

controlled-flood experiments on the Colorado River in

Grand Canyon: CD-ROM Proceedings of the 8th Federal

Inter-Agency Sedimentation Conference, Reno, Nevada,

April 2-6, 2006, ISBN 0-9779007-1-1.

(12.) REPORTS/PRODUCTS

PLANNED:

(See above, but report those items that

are in progress and include expected

delivery dates.)

A multi-part USGS Open-File Report describing data and methods

is to be finalized during early 2007 (authors Hazel, Kaplinksi, and

Breedlove). Two to three interpretive journal articles will be

finalized during the spring-summer of 2007 (authors Rubin,

Schmidt, and Topping).

(13.) RECOMMENDATIONS:

(Describe recommendations for

continuation or modification of project,

other studies, or activities resulting from

findings of this project;

recommendations for MRP changes or

future program guidance, etc.)

Final presentations, with recommendations for future monitoring,

will be made to the TWG and AMWG during summer 2007.

Findings of the project will be included in the recommendations

report to the TWG in 2007 on long-term sediment monitoring.

(14.) FY2006 BUDGET REPORT FINANCIAL INFORMATION COLLECTION DATE: 09/30/2006

FY PLANNED GROSS BUDGET: $ 271,625 FISCAL YEAR NET AVAIL BAL: $257,348

FISCAL YEAR EXPENDITURES: $27,951

FISCAL YEAR OBLIGATIONS: $229,397

COMMENTS:

(Discuss

anomalies in the

budget; expected

changes;

anticipated

carryover; etc.)

None at this time.

END OF FISCAL YEAR

AVAILABLE BALANCE: $ 00

SIGNATURE:

(Must be signed

or submitted by

PM / PI.)

/S/ Theodore S. Melis TITLE: Physical Sciences

Program Manager DATE: 02/02/2007
18

PROJECT A.4 ONGOING SUPPORT OF PROVISIONAL MONITORING REMOTE SENSING DATA ACQUISITION

FISCAL YEAR 2006 PROJECT REPORT FOR THE

GLEN CANYON DAM ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

PROGRAM

SUBMISSION

DATE: *02/20/2007

(1.) SUBMITTING AGENCY: USGS – SBSC – Grand Canyon Monitoring & Research Center

(2.) GCDAMP/GCMRC AWP

ID/OTHER NO.:

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Year

2006 Budget & Work Plan, A.4 (GCMRC No. BNE4A)

(3.) PROJECT TITLE: Ongoing Support of Provisional Monitoring Remote Sensing Data

Acquisition

(4.) PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR INFORMATION:

GCMRC Program

Manager / Principal

Investigator:

Glenn E. Bennett Mailing Address: 2255 North Gemini Drive, Flagstaff

E-mail: gbennett@usgs.gov State: AZ Zip Code: 86001

Telephone: ( 928) 556-7378 Delivery Address: Same as above

FAX: ( 928) 556-7092 State: AZ Zip Code: 86001

(5.) STATEMENT OF PROBLEM:

Sediment and vegetation data are important at various scales to

numerous scientists and resource managers. Past monitoring

efforts have focused on expensive, large-scale, manual data

collection aimed at small areas of the CRE. These were

supplemented by collecting hard-copy aerial photography to help

in manual interpretation. In FY2004, further development was

made in automated processing of multi-spectral digital imagery to

accurately map the two-dimensional distribution of fine-grained

sediment deposits (sand) above 8,000 cfs on a canyon-wide

basis. These products were derived from the system-wide digital

overflight collected in May 2002, which offered a spatial resolution

of 44 cm for the red, green, and blue color bands, 22 cm for the

panchromatic band, and a horizontal accuracy (RMSE) of 30 cm.

Digital elevation data accompanying the imagery provided 1-meter

resolution with a vertical accuracy (RMSE) of approximately 40 cm

as measured against survey data. An FY 2005 airborne remotesensing mission to replicate these data on a system-wide scale

collection provides the necessary inputs to determine changes to

the resources in the CRE between May 2002 and May 2005.

Efforts in FY 2006 will focus on management of these digital data

and preparation for serving both the 2002 and 2005 imagery so

that change detection analyses can be accomplished in 2007

through 2008. The next system-wide overflight is proposed for FY

2009.

(6.) OBJECTIVES:

In accordance with the DASA program’s long-term monitoring

goals, an airborne mission to collect digital imagery for the entire

CRE from Glen Canyon Dam down to Lake Mead was

implemented in May 2005. Those data, along with the 2002

imagery fulfill the proposal currently offered by GCMRC to collect

system-wide aerial imagery approximately every 4 years as

outlined in the draft Core Monitoring Plan. The main objective is

to work with the providers of the digital overflight data to ensure

that proper delivery requirements are upheld, and to check data

delivered against GCMRC data standards. The May 2005 dataset

is similar to that collected in May 2002, using digital sensors

mounted in a fixed-wing aircraft to collect data for the red, green,

and blue (RGB) bands in the visible spectrum as well as near-
19

infrared data. A Digital Surface Model (DSM) with a 1-meter pixel

resolution will also be a part of the dataset from this mission.

(7.) RELATIONSHIP TO MRP: Goal 12

(8.) METHODOLOGY:

Data delivered by contractors must follow GCMRC guidelines as

outlined in the “Data Standards and Delivery Requirements”

document given to contractors of airborne remote sensing data.

Initially data checking involves basic components such as the

presence/absence, image formatting, file naming convention and

readability of delivered files. Then data are viewed in both GIS

(ESRI ArcMap) and remote sensing (ERDAS Imagine) software

packages and analyzed for adherence to spatial data

requirements such as proper image registration, spatial projection,

image resolution, data value ranges for each band, orthorectification issues, and sufficient image overlap presence.

Discrepancies and errors are documented and forwarded back to

the remote sensing contractor for reworking and correction.

Finally, an accuracy assessment of the final data delivery is

performed for both the horizontal and vertical positioning of the

remote sensing data using the GCMRC Geodetic Network Control

(see Project D.3 – Logistics).

(9.) ANNUAL STATEMENT OF

WORK:

(Briefly summarize the annual SOW to

the extent that the project is identifiable.

Include specific tasks where appropriate

and helpful.)

The system-wide remote sensing mission occurred in May 2005

(with another flight proposed for 2009) and products expected to

be delivered by the end of September 2005. During the first half of

FY 2006, a quality and accuracy period will immediately follow the

receipt of all deliverables and should take approximately 1-4

months, after which time existing automated procedures will be

adapted for the newly acquired data and used to perform a variety

of spatial analyses designed to determine changes to the resource

over time. During the remainder of FY2006, the DASA staff will

upgrade the various servers associated with the Oracle data base,

so as to prepare for management and serving of the 2005

imagery. Some limited analyses of the imagery, relating to the

November 2004 Experimental High-Flow Test, will also occur

during FY2006, within the context of final analysis and reporting by

the Fine-Grained Storage research project.

(10.) PROGRESS STATEMENT:

(Describe how each task identified in the

AWP was/was not met and summarize

initial findings and final results. Include

a description of any significant deviation

from the AWP Scope of Work.)

Due to unforeseeable and uncontrollable climatic events

(Hurricanes Katrina and Rita), the New Orleans-based contractors

(3001, Inc.) were severely disadvantaged to carry on normal

company operations and were unable to meet delivery deadlines

of the May 2005 remote sensing data sets. Every effort was given

on the part of GCMRC to accommodate those affected while

continuing to assist the contractor in seeing the project through to

the data delivery phase. By the close of FY2006, 18 months after

data collection, approximately 95% of data for the May 2005

overflight had been delivered to GCMRC. These data were

expected by the close of FY2005, and so the full assessment of

the remote sensing mission was impossible to complete prior to

the end of FY2006. An initial accuracy assessment was

performed in July 2006 for some of the available data; however,

due to the late delivery of the full data set, a final accuracy

assessment will now be completed in FY2007.

Several servers, including the Oracle database server, were

upgraded to allow for more data storage for GIS and remote

sensing work, including more storage space for the May 2005
20

imagery and elevation data sets.

(11.) REPORTS/PRODUCTS

COMPLETED:

(Include all deliverables identified in the

AWP that have been completed and

report on all products beyond those

deliverables identified. Include reports,

presentations, poster sessions, exhibits,

databases, workshops, maps, website

contributions, decision support systems,

newsletters, etc.)

Despite all the contractual delivery issues, the following datasets

are now available on GCMRC servers:

1. Canyon-wide, Color Infra-Red (CIR) digital imagery

(18cm)

2. Canyon-wide, Red-Green-Blue (RGB) digital imagery

(18cm)

3. Canyon-wide, digital surface model (DSM) at 1-meter

resolution.

Images that fall within FIST reaches were assigned top priority

and made available for analyses relating to the November 2004

Experimental High-Flow Test for the second half of FY2006.

Additionally, an initial accuracy assessment poster for the May

2005 data was presented at the 26th Annual ESRI International

User Conference, August, 2006, San Diego Convention Center,

San Diego, CA.

(12.) REPORTS/PRODUCTS

PLANNED:

(See above, but report those items that

are in progress and include expected

delivery dates.)

All final data from the May 2005 overflight and resultant metadata

will be stored in TIF format on a GCMRC server as well as loaded

into the Oracle database and made available via GCMRC’s

Internet Map Server (IMS). [See DASA Database and GIS

projects in FY2007 for more information].

A comprehensive accuracy assessment of the May 2005 remote

sensing data will completed in FY2007.

(13.) RECOMMENDATIONS:

(Describe recommendations for

continuation or modification of project,

other studies, or activities resulting from

findings of this project;

recommendations for MRP changes or

future program guidance, etc.)

It is recommended that future core monitoring remote sensing

activities include travel for GCMRC on-site visits of contractors

both before and after the data collection process to ensure that

data standards and delivery requirements are followed from the

onset through to completion of the contract. Additionally, 1 -2

GCMRC personnel should attend appropriate training relating to

the writing and handling of large remote sensing contracts. Postprocessing of raw data into GIS usable formats by GCMRC staff

may potentially provide products with higher accuracy standards

than those typically returned by contractors. A new term position

is recommended to process Remote Sensing Data.

(14.) FY2006 BUDGET REPORT FINANCIAL INFORMATION COLLECTION DATE: 09/30/2006

FY PLANNED GROSS BUDGET: $32,877 FISCAL YEAR NET AVAIL BAL: $84,396

FISCAL YEAR EXPENDITURES: $84,396

FISCAL YEAR OBLIGATIONS: $00

COMMENTS:

(Discuss

anomalies in the

budget; expected

changes;

anticipated

carryover; etc.)

GCMRC contributed a significant

portion of appropriated funding

toward this effort in FY 2006.

END OF FISCAL YEAR

AVAILABLE BALANCE: $ 00

SIGNATURE:

(Must be signed

or submitted by

PM / PI.)

/S/ Glenn E. Bennett TITLE: DASA Program

Manager

DATE: 02/02/2007
21

PROJECT A.5A SCIENCE SUPPORT OF ALL DATA STORAGE WITHIN GRAND CANYON INTEGRATED (ORACLE)

DATABASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (DASA)

FISCAL YEAR 2006 PROJECT REPORT FOR THE

GLEN CANYON DAM ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

PROGRAM

SUBMISSION

DATE: *02/20/2007

(1.) SUBMITTING AGENCY: USGS – SBSC – Grand Canyon Monitoring & Research Center

(2.) GCDAMP/GCMRC AWP

ID/OTHER NO.:

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Year

2006 Budget & Work Plan, A.5a (GCMRC No. BNE4C)

(3.) PROJECT TITLE: Science Support of All Data Storage within Grand Canyon

Integrated (Oracle) Database Management System (DASA)

(4.) PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR INFORMATION:

GCMRC Program

Manager / Principal

Investigator:

Glenn E. Bennett Mailing Address: 2255 North Gemini Drive, Flagstaff

E-mail: gbennett@usgs.gov State: AZ Zip Code: 86001

Telephone: ( 928) 556-7378 Delivery Address: Same as above

FAX: ( 928) 556-7092 State: AZ Zip Code: 86001

(5.) STATEMENT OF PROBLEM:

The need for a comprehensive database for maintaining this

information was recognized by the National Academy of Sciences

in their initial review of the GCES Program in 1987, and reinforced

during a second review in 1990. Extensive data and information

currently exists in the GCMRC collections relating to resource

conditions, quality, and relationships to other resources.

Potentially equal amounts of data and information exist within

museums, universities, agencies, etc. However, much of this

information has not been organized, managed, or integrated into

an analysis of the interrelationship among various resources and

dam operations.

(6.) OBJECTIVES:

The purpose of the GCMRC Database Management System

(DBMS) is to store and deliver all tabular and spatial data, via our

Spatial Data Engine (SDE), gathered as the result of GCMRC

investigations and legacy data. Developing the DBMS requires

inventorying, organizing, archiving, and developing delivery

systems for many years worth of environmental data collection

activities representing a vast array of disparate data including

physical, biological, cultural, socio-economic, and climatic

information.

(7.) RELATIONSHIP TO MRP: Goal 12

(8.) METHODOLOGY:

Management of the Oracle database for GCMRC follows industrystandard relational database methodologies for database design

and schema development, data entry, data storage, database

back-ups, and data access elements. This is achieved through

both manual and automated procedures, with new data

management routines and greater accessibility to the data being

implemented each year.

(9.) ANNUAL STATEMENT OF

WORK:

(Briefly summarize the annual SOW to

the extent that the project is identifiable.

Include specific tasks where appropriate

and helpful.)

Many datasets have been integrated into our DBMS with

additional datasets in working progress. The additional data yet to

be included in our DBMS are organized in Microsoft Excel files,

Microsoft Access databases, SAS, or other proprietary formats.

The DBMS program is currently working on bringing together

years of disparate historical data, collected by multiple entities

located in databases across the southwest, in an organized

fashion and then deliver it transparently to stakeholders and
22

researchers for decision making and modeling purposes.

Delivering data in an automated fashion is key to the success of

the DBMS. Accommodating such a task will be done utilizing

database driven web pages and ArcIMS, a web accessible tool to

allow access to our spatial data. These technologies can be

integrated to deliver tabular and spatial data referenced through

the Oracle relational database.

(10.) PROGRESS STATEMENT:

(Describe how each task identified in the

AWP was/was not met and summarize

initial findings and final results. Include

a description of any significant deviation

from the AWP Scope of Work.)

Access to the Oracle database has been greatly increased within

GCMRC during FY2006, allowing staff scientists to work more

closely with their data as it is stored in the database. A new

Aquatic Food Base schema was developed and hands-on training

was provided to GCMRC staff and associated contractors to

streamline data entry and analysis. Existing database tables were

updated in the sediment and water schemas, including a reload of

legacy data from sediment and LCR gages appended to the

database. The water access page was revamped in FY2006 and

is once again providing water data from several gages throughout

the Grand Canyon basin.

Additionally, a significant effort was made to eliminate errors from

existing databases and new field submissions, especially the

native and nonnative fish data, which in turn has improved upon

the response time for generating the Humpback Chub

Assessment. Historical tag linking was achieved that extended

the time line beyond any previous efforts; this allows an

unprecedented view into the life history of endangered fish.

(11.) REPORTS/PRODUCTS

COMPLETED:

(Include all deliverables identified in the

AWP that have been completed and

report on all products beyond those

deliverables identified. Include reports,

presentations, poster sessions, exhibits,

databases, workshops, maps, website

contributions, decision support systems,

newsletters, etc.)

 Aquatic Food Base schema developed

 Water Access page repaired and once again operational and

several hundred thousand new values added.

 Sediment database schema updated

 LCR gage information added to existing water schema

 Fish database errors resolved, historical tag linking

accomplished

(12.) REPORTS/PRODUCTS

PLANNED:

(See above, but report those items that

are in progress and include expected

delivery dates.)

Future products will include increased web access to GCMRC

database and new schemas to accommodate new datasets not

yet incorporated into the GCMRC Oracle database.

(13.) RECOMMENDATIONS:

(Describe recommendations for

continuation or modification of project,

other studies, or activities resulting from

findings of this project;

recommendations for MRP changes or

future program guidance, etc.)

The Grand Canyon Integrated Databases is currently understaffed

owing to the DBMS position being vacated in January 2007, This

position is necessary for basic database maintenance as well as

the development of new procedures that will allow increased

access to the database for scientists, resources managers, and

the public alike.

(14.) FY2006 BUDGET REPORT FINANCIAL INFORMATION COLLECTION DATE: 09/30/2006

FY PLANNED GROSS BUDGET: $157,105 FISCAL YEAR NET AVAIL BAL: $138,928

FISCAL YEAR EXPENDITURES: $128,457

FISCAL YEAR OBLIGATIONS: $10,471

COMMENTS:

(Discuss anomalies in

the budget; expected

changes; anticipated

carryover; etc.)

None at this time.

END OF FISCAL YEAR

AVAILABLE BALANCE: $ 00

SIGNATURE:

(Must be signed or /S/ Glenn E. Bennett TITLE: DASA Program

Manager DATE: 02/02/2007
23

submitted by PM /

PI.)
24

PROJECT A.5B ONGOING DATA CONVERSION & LIBRARY OPERATIONS (DASA)

FISCAL YEAR 2006 PROJECT REPORT FOR THE

GLEN CANYON DAM ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

PROGRAM

SUBMISSION

DATE: *02/20/2007

(1.) SUBMITTING AGENCY: USGS – Grand Canyon Monitoring & Research Station

(2.) GCDAMP/GCMRC AWP

ID/OTHER NO.:

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Year

2006 Budget & Work Plan, A.5b (GCMRC No. BNE4F)

(3.) PROJECT TITLE: Ongoing Data Conversion & Library Operations (DASA)

(4.) PRINCIPLE INVESTIGATOR INFORMATION:

GCMRC Program

Manager / Principal

Investigator:

Glenn Bennett /

Stephanie Wyse Mailing Address: 2255 North Gemini Drive, Flagstaff

E-mail: gbennett@usgs.gov State: AZ Zip Code: 86001

Telephone: ( 928) 556-7378 Delivery Address: Same as above

FAX: ( 928) 556-7092 State: AZ Zip Code: 86001

(5.) STATEMENT OF PROBLEM:

The scope and purpose of the library is to collect, archive, and

deliver materials that assist GCMRC in its efforts to administer

long-term monitoring and research. Many of these materials are

archival, meaning only one copy exists, and are at risk of loss or

damage. The library program also coordinates GCMRC’s peer

review process to ensure the high quality of the scientific

information it produces. The GCMRC library acts as the physical

repository for reports and data generated by GCMRC scientists as

well as materials related to the Colorado River, Grand Canyon,

and Adaptive Management.

(6.) OBJECTIVES:

Library operations facilitate monitoring and research by providing

a centralized repository for hard copy information such as books,

reports, maps, photography, and videos. The library has

undertaken a project to convert all materials in the library to digital

format and make them accessible and searchable on the GCMRC

website. Having materials available through the website will allow

multiple users to access data concurrently from remote locations

as well as protect unique items from damage or loss. Coordinate

independent scientific peer review at all levels of GCMRC

scientific activities -- proposals, ongoing programs, publications,

and other products -- providing a mechanism for ensuring the

quality, credibility, and objectivity of GCMRC’s scientific activities.

(7.) RELATIONSHIP TO MRP:

The library provides support to the GCMRC science programs and

the adaptive management program and addresses all MOs and

RINs.

(8.) METHODOLOGY:

The library catalogs all new materials that come from staff

scientists, contractors, and cooperators as well items related to

Grand Canyon, the Colorado River, and Adaptive Management.

Library staff provides support to cooperators, contractors, and staff

scientists by researching and obtaining current and legacy articles

and reports related to science projects. Staff coordinates the peer

review process for proposals and reports submitted to the

GCMRC, by soliciting reviewers, tracking materials and timelines

and ensuring confidentiality and lack of conflicts of interest.

The scanning conversion project involves:

- Scanning and converting paper reports into digital pdf files,

making the documents searchable by using Optical Character
25

Recognition (OCR) software, and then posting the files in the

library database on the GCMRC website.

- Scanning all analog aerial film and photos using the Vexcel

Ultrascan 5000. Digital results can then be used for 2D and

3D change detection.

- Digitizing flight line maps to provide a searchable mechanism

to locate individual scanned aerial photos.

- Converting VHS tapes to DVDs

- Scanning all legacy slides to create digital images using the

Nikon SuperCoolScan scanner

(9.) ANNUAL STATEMENT OF

WORK:

(Briefly summarize the annual SOW to

the extent that the project is identifiable.

Include specific tasks where appropriate

and helpful.)

The Library continues to maintain an on-line library catalog which

provides access to more than 8,000 publications, catalog records

of all materials, and provides monthly updates of new reports

received in the library. Additionally, assistance is made available

to cooperators, stakeholders, media contacts and the public by

providing access to reports, aerial photos, maps, slides and

photos in hardcopy and digital form. Library staff also uses

research skills in locating contemporary and legacy materials,

while the physical library location offers a research facility for

visiting scientists, GMCRC employees, cooperators and the

public.

(10.) PROGRESS STATEMENT:

(Describe how each task identified in the

AWP was/was not met and summarize

initial findings and final results. Include

a description of any significant deviation

from the AWP Scope of Work.)

Numerous new holdings have been added to the library in

FY2006, ranging from hard copy texts to digital versions of

research reports and peer-reviewed journal articles produced from

GCMRC science and the Adaptive Management process. The

GCMRC librarian also coordinates review activities for Protocol

Evaluation Panels (PEPs) and research proposals and reports

funded by the Center. In FY2006 this included 1PEP (sediment),

4 research proposals and 26 research reports. In the second half

of FY2006, DASA library staff responded to a BOR data call,

producing an inventory of all information collected in conjunction

with adaptive management process since 1995.

(11.) REPORTS/PRODUCTS

COMPLETED:

(Include all deliverables identified in the

AWP that have been completed and

report on all products beyond those

deliverables identified. Include reports,

presentations, poster sessions, exhibits,

databases, workshops, maps, website

contributions, decision support systems,

newsletters, etc.)

Access to 8,000 hardcopy reports, 8000 photos and slides, and

700 videos in broadcast and VHS format. In additional, once the

library scanning project is complete, this information will be

available in digital format from the library via digital media such as

DVD and on-line via the World Wide Web.

(12.) REPORTS/PRODUCTS

PLANNED:

(See above, but report those items that

are in progress and include expected

delivery dates.)

Continued effort towards providing entire holdings with web

access.

(13.) RECOMMENDATIONS:

(Describe recommendations for

continuation or modification of project,

other studies, or activities resulting from

findings of this project;

recommendations for MRP changes or

future program guidance, etc.)

In addition to coordinating GCMRC’s peer review process and

normal library operations, continue conversion of hardcopy reports

for web access, conversion of aerial photography for scientific

analysis and change detection.

(14.) FY2006 BUDGET REPORT FINANCIAL INFORMATION COLLECTION DATE: 09/30/2006

FY06 PLANNED GROSS BUDGET: $168,005 FISCAL YEAR NET AVAIL BAL: $168,038
26

FISCAL YEAR EXPENDITURES: $56,541

FISCAL YEAR OBLIGATIONS: $111,497

COMMENTS:

(Discuss

anomalies in the

budget; expected

changes;

anticipated

carryover; etc.)

Additional appropriated funds

contributed toward this effort. END OF FISCAL YEAR

AVAILABLE BALANCE: $ 00

SIGNATURE:

(Must be signed

or submitted by

PI.)

/S/ Glenn E. Bennett TITLE: DASA Program

Manager DATE: 02/02/2007
27

PROJECT A.6 ONGOING SUPPORT GIS GENERAL SUPPORT FOR INTEGRATED ANALYSES AND PROJECTS

(DASA)

FISCAL YEAR 2006 PROJECT REPORT FOR THE

GLEN CANYON DAM ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

PROGRAM

SUBMISSION

DATE: *02/20/2007

(1.) SUBMITTING AGENCY: USGS – SBSC – Grand Canyon Monitoring & Research Center

(2.) GCDAMP/GCMRC AWP

ID/OTHER NO.:

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Year

2006 Budget & Work Plan, A.6 (GCMRC No. BNE4E)

(3.) PROJECT TITLE: Ongoing Support GIS General Support for Integrated Analyses

and Projects (DASA)

(4.) PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR INFORMATION:

GCMRC Program

Manager / Principal

Investigator:

Glenn E Bennett /

Thomas Gushue Mailing Address: 2255 North Gemini Drive, Flagstaff

E-mail: gbennett@usgs.gov State: AZ Zip Code: 86001

Telephone: ( 928) 556-7378 Delivery Address: Same as above

FAX: ( 928) 556-7092 State: AZ Zip Code: 86001

(5.) STATEMENT OF PROBLEM:

The traditional role of the GIS Program is inherently serviceoriented, providing spatial database development, programming,

and analysis support to the science programs and their

cooperators on both a planned and an as-needed basis. To

continue functioning in this capacity, it is imperative to factor in

designated blocks of time to maintain and, in some cases, improve

the level of GIS support. There is also a need for a higher level of

support for more specific GIS application development and

analysis of available spatial data. Additionally, a need exists to

allow access for staff scientists, contractors, managers, and the

public to spatial data collected and stored as part of GCMRC’s

mission.

(6.) OBJECTIVES:

A main objective of GIS general support is to provide GCMRC

staff, contractors, and managers with reliable, accurate spatial

data that assists other GCMRC projects with their goals and

objectives. It includes the maintenance and support of GIS and

remote sensing software required to develop data sets, perform

analyses, and create useful outputs used by other projects.

General support also encompasses the access of spatial data via

the World Wide Web in the form of internet mapping services that

are developed for both focused scientific efforts and the public

alike.

(7.) RELATIONSHIP TO MRP: Goal 12

(8.) METHODOLOGY:

The collection of spatial data is achieved through a variety of

methods that include, but are not limited to, remote sensing data

collection missions, traditional survey and GPS operations, field

mapping using hardcopy map or pen tablet computers, on-screen

digitizing using previously collecting remote sensing data as

source information, and through other standard data entry

methods. Spatial data are generally stored in one of the standard

ESRI file types (shape file, coverage, geodatabase) as well as in

ASCII format. Methods used for spatial data processing and

analysis will vary depending on the questions that need to be

answered.

General support for geographic information systems (GIS) uses
28

industry-standard best practices for new GIS data development,

management, and storage of existing data, quality control of

spatial data, preparation of data for analysis, and exporting data in

various outputs including hard copy maps, river atlases for field

use, and digital cartographic products for inclusion into peerreviewed publications and professional presentations.

(9.) ANNUAL STATEMENT OF

WORK:

(Briefly summarize the annual SOW to

the extent that the project is identifiable.

Include specific tasks where appropriate

and helpful.)

Work performed by GIS personnel for physical, biological, and

cultural resource projects include but are not limited to the

following: Data entry and GIS database development, analysis of

new and existing spatial data, map and graphic generation for field

collection, presentation and publication purposes. This project

also manages GCMRC’s Internet Map Server (IMS) site, provides

support for operation of GIS and remote sensing software

applications, serves as a technical lead in the realm of spatial data

collection, analysis, preparation, and metadata development as

these concepts apply to other projects, and works closely with

other DASA projects to mold a cohesive data management team.

(10.) PROGRESS STATEMENT:

(Describe how each task identified in the

AWP was/was not met and summarize

initial findings and final results. Include

a description of any significant deviation

from the AWP Scope of Work.)

Great strides in the realm of field map development were achieved

in FY2006, allowing for the automation of customized river atlases

to support specific projects in the field. Examples of projects

benefiting from this improved support include the Aquatic Food

Base project and the Campsite Mapping project. This new

development is also applicable to any GCMRC project in need of

field maps for river trips.

Improvements in the IMS system were also made during FY2006,

including the development of a new research-based internet map

service for the Fine-grained Integrated Sediment Team (FIST).

This site was made available to FIST members and added

features previously not possible, such as the integration of text

documents, spreadsheets, and charts with the spatial data served

through the website. This allowed team members stationed at

different locations to view and query spatial and tabular data

related to the project simultaneously.

(11.) REPORTS/PRODUCTS

COMPLETED:

(Include all deliverables identified in the

AWP that have been completed and

report on all products beyond those

deliverables identified. Include reports,

presentations, poster sessions, exhibits,

databases, workshops, maps, website

contributions, decision support systems,

newsletters, etc.)

Numerous digital map outputs were created for peer-reviewed

publications (~15 maps), as well as several map products created

for professional presentations by GCMRC technical staff,

scientists, and managers.

New GIS data layers were created for several projects including

Aquatic Food Base, LCR HBC Monitoring, and Campsite

Monitoring. Also, a new customized application for creating river

trip maps was deployed in the July / August 2006 to improve on

the quality and efficiency of river atlas production.

(12.) REPORTS/PRODUCTS

PLANNED:

(See above, but report those items that

are in progress and include expected

delivery dates.)

Once all data and metadata from May 2005 remote sensing

mission has been received and thoroughly checked, these data

will then be included into the Oracle Spatial Database Engine and

made available via GIS (for GCMRC staff) and IMS (for outside

parties).

(13.) RECOMMENDATIONS:

(Describe recommendations for

continuation or modification of project,

other studies, or activities resulting from

findings of this project;

recommendations for MRP changes or

In FY2007, the GIS general support will work on upgrading the

GIS software to a new version (9.2) and begin testing the

applicability of a newly available module called ArcGIS Server.

This module is expected to greatly improve on GMCRC’s ability to

serve not only large spatial datasets, but also linked tabular data

from Oracle, spatial analyses developed by GCMRC staff and
29

future program guidance, etc.) various usable outputs including maps, charts and graphs related

to project-specific data in the Oracle database.

(14.) FY2006 BUDGET REPORT FINANCIAL INFORMATION COLLECTION DATE: 09/30/2007

FY PLANNED GROSS BUDGET: $186,017 FISCAL YEAR NET AVAIL BAL: $167,852

FISCAL YEAR EXPENDITURES: $125,932

FISCAL YEAR OBLIGATIONS: $41,920

COMMENTS:

(Discuss

anomalies in the

budget; expected

changes;

anticipated

carryover; etc.)

None at this time. END OF FISCAL YEAR

AVAILABLE BALANCE: $ 00

SIGNATURE:

(Must be signed

or submitted by

PM / PI.)

/S/ Glenn E. Bennett TITLE: DASA Program

Manager DATE: 02/02/2007
30

PROJECT A.7 COMPLETION OF CHANNEL-MAPPING PROJECT (DASA)

FISCAL YEAR 2006 PROJECT REPORT FOR THE

GLEN CANYON DAM ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

PROGRAM

SUBMISSION

DATE: *02/20/2007

(1.) SUBMITTING AGENCY: USGS – SBSC – Grand Canyon Monitoring & Research Center

(2.) GCDAMP/GCMRC AWP

ID/OTHER NO.:

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Year

2006 Budget & Work Plan, A.7 (GCMRC No. BNE4G)

(3.) PROJECT TITLE: Completion of Channel-Mapping Project (DASA)

(4.) PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR INFORMATION:

GCMRC Program

Manager / Principal

Investigator:

Glenn E. Bennett Mailing Address: 2255 North Gemini Drive, Flagstaff

E-mail: gbennett@usgs.gov State: AZ Zip Code: 86001

Telephone: ( 928) 556-7378 Delivery Address: Same as above

FAX: ( 928) 556-7092 State: AZ Zip Code: 86001

(5.) STATEMENT OF PROBLEM:

A need exists to complete the processing of multi-beam sonar

hydrographic data collected in 2001, including translating and

rotating of these data into GCMRC’s modern geodetic control and

preparation for inclusion into GIS / Oracle database.

(6.) OBJECTIVES:

This project is intended to provide full channel geometry map

coverage of the portions of the main channel between Glen

Canyon Dam and Phantom Ranch. The FY 2006 effort is intended

to complete the channel mapping work that was initially started in

FY 2001. The remaining work mostly consists of manipulating the

previously processed hydrographic data to fit the modern geodetic

control network and then using GIS procedures to combine the

terrestrial portion of the topographic data derived system-wide

from the May 2002 overflight with the multi-beam bathymetric

(aquatic) topographic data collected by the Remote-Sensing

Coordinator.

Once completed, these combined topographic channel models are

used to support flow and sediment model simulations aimed at

prediction of physical habitat conditions that evolve under differing

scenarios of dam releases and fine-sediment supply conditions.

These topographic models can also be used to determine

changes in sediment storage in the main channel when repeat

mapping is conducted for similar areas in the future (related to

either experimental research or long-term monitoring).

(7.) RELATIONSHIP TO MRP: Goal 12

(8.) METHODOLOGY:

Methods for completing this project involve finalizing the

processed hydrographic data and performing a standard

translation and rotation into the modern geodetic control for all

processed data. Additionally, metadata is to be developed for

each HyPack project (or pool) and exported to X, Y, Z text files.

Completed and adjusted text files can than be imported into GIS

(ESRI format) and incorporated into automated procedures

designed to combine topographic and hydrographic data sets into

one channel map surface.

(9.) ANNUAL STATEMENT OF

WORK:

(Briefly summarize the annual SOW to

the extent that the project is identifiable.

Include specific tasks where appropriate

Specific tasks include any final processing required for the

hydrographic data using HyPack software, translating and rotation

the X, Y, Z positional values from the older 2001 GCES survey

control into the modern geodetic control currently used by

GCMRC. Documentation of this work should occur at the same
31

and helpful.) time, and lead to the development of Federal Geographic Data

Committee (FGDC)-compliant metadata that sufficiently captures

the procedures involved in this portion of the project. The final

adjusted data is to then be exported at defined resolutions (2-

meter, 50 cm, 25 cm) into a GIS-friendly, ASCII text format. From

there data will be incorporated into existing GIS automated

procedures that combine the hydrographic data with existing

topographic data (May 2002) to form channel map surfaces.

(10.) PROGRESS STATEMENT:

(Describe how each task identified in the

AWP was/was not met and summarize

initial findings and final results. Include

a description of any significant deviation

from the AWP Scope of Work.)

These data have been processed and this project closed with

FY2006. All data developed from this project will be handled by

the GIS general support and Integrated Analysis and Modeling

projects in FY2007.

(11.) REPORTS/PRODUCTS

COMPLETED:

(Include all deliverables identified in the

AWP that have been completed and

report on all products beyond those

deliverables identified. Include reports,

presentations, poster sessions, exhibits,

databases, workshops, maps, website

contributions, decision support systems,

newsletters, etc.)

No reports have been generated in association with this project.

(12.) REPORTS/PRODUCTS

PLANNED:

(See above, but report those items that

are in progress and include expected

delivery dates.)

None planned.

(13.) RECOMMENDATIONS:

(Describe recommendations for

continuation or modification of project,

other studies, or activities resulting from

findings of this project;

recommendations for MRP changes or

future program guidance, etc.)

Single and Multi-beam sonar hydrographic data have proven

useful for Sediment and Flow modeling, and have a potential to

help Foodbase studies. If this project was funded and wrapped

into the recommended internal Overflight processing position, a

continuum of institutional processing knowledge could be created

in one staff position.

(14.) FY2006 BUDGET REPORT FINANCIAL INFORMATION COLLECTION DATE: 09/30/2007

FY PLANNED GROSS BUDGET: $32,877 FISCAL YEAR NET AVAIL BAL: $32,585

FISCAL YEAR EXPENDITURES: $11,174

FISCAL YEAR OBLIGATIONS: $21,411

COMMENTS:

(Discuss

anomalies in the

budget; expected

changes;

anticipated

carryover; etc.)

None at this time.

END OF FISCAL YEAR

AVAILABLE BALANCE: $ 00

SIGNATURE:

(Must be signed

or submitted by

PM / PI.)

/S/ Glenn E. Bennett TITLE: DASA Program

Manager DATE: 02/02/2007
32

PROJECT B.1 ONGOING PROVISIONAL MONITORING – TERRESTRIAL ACTIVITIES (KAS AND SWWF)

FISCAL YEAR 2006 PROJECT REPORT FOR THE

GLEN CANYON DAM ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

PROGRAM

SUBMISSION

DATE: *02/20/2007

(1.) SUBMITTING AGENCY: USGS – SBSC – Grand Canyon Monitoring & Research Center

(2.) GCDAMP/GCMRC AWP

ID/OTHER NO.:

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Year

2006 Budget & Work Plan, B.1 (GCMRC No. BNE1A)

(3.) PROJECT TITLE: Ongoing Provisional Monitoring – Terrestrial Activities (KAS and

SWWF)

(4.) PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR INFORMATION:

GCMRC Program

Manager / Principal

Investigator:

Matthew Andersen /

Dan Cox, AGFD

Project Coordinator

Mailing Address: 2255 North Gemini Drive, Flagstaff

E-mail: mandersen@usgs.gov State: AZ Zip Code: 86001

Telephone: (928) 556-7379 Delivery Address: Same as above

FAX: (928) 556-7092 State: AZ Zip Code: 86001

(5.) STATEMENT OF PROBLEM:

To address the AMWG needs associated with KAS requires site

visits to Vasey’s Paradise. Snails are associated with specific

types of vegetation and particular locations at the spring. Knowing

the extent of available habitat is necessary to determine snail

densities and for the development of a biological opinion in the

event of a high flow. Changes in snail numbers can be associated

with changes in vegetation. By monitoring the vegetation at

Vasey’s Paradise, the snails are indirectly monitored, because if

the preferred habitat is present then one might assume that snails

are present. Total habitat can be measured using remote

methods, but the composition of the habitat may still require onthe-ground sampling. Sampling at Vasey’s Paradise can also

provide spring data in support of Goal 6, which is related to the

protection and improvement of riparian and spring communities.

(6.) OBJECTIVES:

To determine extent and kind of vegetation that exists as habitat for

the Kanab ambersnail and to track the abundance and distribution

of KAS at Vasey’s Paradise.

(7.) RELATIONSHIP TO MRP: Related to Goal 5

(8.) METHODOLOGY:

The standardized methods of Stevens and others (1997) will be

used to conduct population and habitat surveys at the site during

biannual surveys. In addition, the Autumn survey will sample the

upper vegetation zone snail population above 100,000 cfs (2,833

cms) stage discharge height. Less-invasive sampling techniques

as proposed by Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

(GCMRC) and in Sorensen (2001) will be used as requested. Field

data will be entered into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet and/or

Access database, and adhere to GCMRC data standards.

(9.) ANNUAL STATEMENT OF

WORK:

(Briefly summarize the annual SOW to

the extent that the project is identifiable.

Include specific tasks where appropriate

and helpful.)

Sample vegetation plots at Vasey’s Paradise to determine patch

composition and extent (Spring and Fall of each year).

Sample for the presence of snails in plots.

Survey vegetated area using traditional survey methods.

Document area of habitat and individual patches (Spring and Fall

of each year).

Enter data and conduct quality control on data entry. Provide data

to GCMRC for vegetation analysis.

(10.) PROGRESS STATEMENT: Surveys of habitat were completed in spring and fall of 2006.
33

(Describe how each task identified in the

AWP was/was not met and summarize

initial findings and final results. Include a

description of any significant deviation

from the AWP Scope of Work.)

Survey data are being reduced and mapping of area is in progress.

Annual report pending completion of survey data. Attended Kanab

Ambersnail Working Group meeting in Spring 06.

(11.) REPORTS/PRODUCTS

COMPLETED:

(Include all deliverables identified in the

AWP that have been completed and

report on all products beyond those

deliverables identified. Include reports,

presentations, poster sessions, exhibits,

databases, workshops, maps, website

contributions, decision support systems,

newsletters, etc.)

Annual report in preparation. Presentation to Grand Canyon River

Guides annual meeting in March 2006

(12.) REPORTS/PRODUCTS

PLANNED:

(See above, but report those items that

are in progress and include expected

delivery dates.)

Final report expected to be completed March 30, 2007

(13.) RECOMMENDATIONS:

(Describe recommendations for

continuation or modification of project,

other studies, or activities resulting from

findings of this project; recommendations

for MRP changes or future program

guidance, etc.)

Maintain biannual monitoring of Kanab ambersnail in Grand

Canyon

(14.) FY2006 BUDGET REPORT FINANCIAL INFORMATION COLLECTION DATE: 09/30/2006

FY PLANNED GROSS BUDGET: $88,832 FISCAL YEAR NET AVAIL BAL: $79,163

FISCAL YEAR EXPENDITURES: $60,472

FISCAL YEAR OBLIGATIONS: $11,885

COMMENTS:

(Discuss

anomalies in the

budget; expected

changes;

anticipated

carryover; etc.)

The cooperative agreement came

in approximately $6,800 less than

was expected adding to the FY

2006 carryover balance.

END OF FISCAL YEAR

AVAILABLE BALANCE: $6,806

SIGNATURE:

(Must be signed

or submitted by

PM / PI.)

/S/ Matthew E. Andersen TITLE: Biology Program

Manager DATE: 02/05/2007
34

PROJECT B.2 CONTINUED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT – AQUATIC PRODUCTIVITY, ORGANIC MASS

BALANCE, AND FOOD WEB LINKAGE STUDIES (LINKING WHOLE-SYSTEM CARBON CYCLING TO QUANTITATIVE

FOOD WEBS IN THE COLORADO RIVER) 1 OF 2

FISCAL YEAR 2006 PROJECT REPORT FOR THE

GLEN CANYON DAM ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

PROGRAM

SUBMISSION

DATE: *02/20/2007

(1.) SUBMITTING AGENCY: USGS – SBSC – Grand Canyon Monitoring & Research Center

(2.) GCDAMP/GCMRC AWP

ID/OTHER NO.:

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Year

2006 Budget & Work Plan, B.2 (Report 1 of 2) (GCMRC No. BNE9A)

(3.) PROJECT TITLE:

Continued Research and Development – Aquatic Productivity,

Organic Mass Balance, and Food Web Linkage Studies (Linking

whole-system carbon cycling to quantitative food webs in the

Colorado River)

(4.) PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR INFORMATION:

GCMRC Program

Manager / Principal

Investigator:

Matthew E. Andersen

/ Kennedy, GCMRC

Hall, Univ of WY

Rosi-Marshall, Loyola

Univ., Baxter, Idaho

St.

Mailing

Address: 2255 North Gemini Drive, Flagstaff

E-mail: mandersen@usgs.gov State: AZ Zip Code: 86001

Telephone: (928)556-7379 Delivery

Address: Same as above

FAX: (928) 556-7092 State: AZ Zip Code: 86001

(5.) STATEMENT OF PROBLEM:

The carbon budget for the CRE and trophic linkages that connect

basal resources with invertebrates and fishes need to be resolved

before GCMRC can develop an effective and efficient food base

monitoring program.

(6.) OBJECTIVES:

Determine carbon budget and quantitative food webs for the CRE.

Quantitative food webs identify trophic linkages connecting basal

resources with top predators and also flux along these trophic

pathways.

(7.) RELATIONSHIP TO MRP: Related to Goal 1.

(8.) METHODOLOGY:

This project incorporates stable isotope and diet analysis of

invertebrates and fish to identify trophic pathways. Flux along

trophic pathways will be quantified by calculating invertebrate

densities and estimating production and growth, and also

estimating rates of food consumption by fish using bioenergetic

approaches. Whole stream metabolism, terrestrial litter inputs

from the riparian corridor, and allocthonous inputs from tributary

flooding events will be measured to assess the carbon budget for

the CRE. Lastly, these data will be incorporated into a

bioenergetics model for the aquatic ecosystem.

(9.) ANNUAL STATEMENT OF

WORK:

(Briefly summarize the annual SOW to

the extent that the project is identifiable.

Include specific tasks where appropriate

and helpful.)

Monthly sampling of algal and invertebrate biomass, benthic

organic matter, whole system metabolism, and transported

organic matter will be conducted at Glen Canyon and Diamond

Creek. Transported organic matter will be sampled on the Paria

River during episodic flooding events. Four times per year the

above samples will be collected at sites within the CRE during

river trips. Four times per year samples of basal resources,

invertebrates and fishes will be collected from all sites (Glen

Canyon, Diamond Creek, and sites in the Grand Canyon) and

analyzed for stable isotopes and gut contents to determine trophic
35

linkages. Invertebrate growth rates will be assessed seasonally at

Diamond Creek and Glen Canyon to facilitate calculation of

invertebrate production. All of these data will be used to develop

a bioenergetics model for the CRE.

(10.) PROGRESS STATEMENT:

(Describe how each task identified in the

AWP was/was not met and summarize

initial findings and final results. Include

a description of any significant deviation

from the AWP Scope of Work.)

Site selection and sampling methodology was finalized in April

2006. All of the field sampling tasks were completed as planned

in FY06. Initial findings are: 1) that open-system metabolism

measurements are feasible in the CRE and algae production is

always high in Glen Canyon and considerably lower along

downstream reaches, 2) tributary inputs of organic matter

dominate the carbon budget for downstream reaches, and 3)

invertebrate biomass and production is extremely high in Glen

Canyon and extremely low in downstream reaches.

(11.) REPORTS/PRODUCTS

COMPLETED:

(Include all deliverables identified in the

AWP that have been completed and

report on all products beyond those

deliverables identified. Include reports,

presentations, poster sessions, exhibits,

databases, workshops, maps, website

contributions, decision support systems,

newsletters, etc.)

None. Work on this project was started in February 2006.

(12.) REPORTS/PRODUCTS

PLANNED:

(See above, but report those items that

are in progress and include expected

delivery dates.)

Draft annual report will be completed by Feb. 28, 2007. A

presentation of results will be made at the winter meeting of the

American Society of Limnology and Oceanography in February.

At least five presentations of results will be made at the annual

meeting of the North American Benthological Society.

(13.) RECOMMENDATIONS:

(Describe recommendations for

continuation or modification of project,

other studies, or activities resulting from

findings of this project;

recommendations for MRP changes or

future program guidance, etc.)

Continue project. If hydrogen stable isotope analysis proves to be

a useful tracer of trophic linkages (see report for Coop Agreement

# 04HQAG0122), it is recommended that the budget for this

project be increased by $10,000 annually to cover the additional

cost of analyzing samples for hydrogen stable isotopes.

(14.) FY2006 BUDGET REPORT FINANCIAL INFORMATION COLLECTION DATE: 09/30/2006

FY PLANNED GROSS BUDGET: $403,898 FISCAL YEAR NET AVAIL BAL: $373,670

FISCAL YEAR EXPENDITURES: $159,293

FISCAL YEAR OBLIGATIONS: $69,625 COMMENTS:

(Discuss

anomalies in the

budget; expected

changes;

anticipated

carryover; etc.)

This budget is for both this report

and the following report for Project

B.2, Aquatic Food Base. Year end

funds are a result of partially

funding a cooperative agreement

with prior year funds resulting in a

savings for FY06.

END OF FISCAL YEAR

AVAILABLE BALANCE:

$144,752

SIGNATURE:

(Must be signed

or submitted by

PI.)

/S/ Matthew E. Andersen TITLE: Biology Program

Manager DATE: 02/02/2007
36

PROJECT B.2 CONTINUED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT – AQUATIC PRODUCTIVITY, ORGANIC MASS

BALANCE, AND FOOD WEB LINKAGE STUDIES (ELUCIDATING AQUATIC AND TERRESTRIAL CONTRIBUTIONS OF

ORGANIC CARBON TO THE COLORADO RIVER ECOSYSTEM USING STABLE HYDROGEN ISOTOPES) 2 OF 2

FISCAL YEAR 2006 PROJECT REPORT FOR THE

GLEN CANYON DAM ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

PROGRAM

SUBMISSION

DATE: *02/20/2007

(1.) SUBMITTING AGENCY: USGS – SBSC – Grand Canyon Monitoring & Research Center

(2.) GCDAMP/GCMRC AWP

ID/OTHER NO.:

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Year

2006 Budget & Work Plan, B.2 (Report 2 of 2) (GCMRC No. BNE9A)

(3.) PROJECT TITLE:

Continued Research and Development – Aquatic Productivity,

Organic Mass Balance, and Food Web Linkage Studies

(Elucidating Aquatic and Terrestrial Contributions of Organic

Carbon to the Colorado River Ecosystem Using Stable Hydrogen

Isotopes)

(4.) PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR INFORMATION:

GCMRC Program

Manager / Principal

Investigator:

Matthew E. Andersen

/ Kennedy, GCMRC

Sabo, ASU

Mailing

Address: 2255 North Gemini Drive, Flagstaff

E-mail: mandersen@usgs.gov State: AZ Zip Code: 86001

Telephone: (928) 556-7374 Delivery

Address: Same as above

FAX: (928) 556-7092 State: AZ Zip Code: 86001

(5.) STATEMENT OF PROBLEM:

Linkages connecting carbon sources (i.e., algae, leaf litter,

macrophytes, etc.) with higher trophic levels need to be resolved

in order to develop an effective and efficient food base monitoring

program. Stable isotopes of carbon and nitrogen are a tool that is

commonly used to resolve these trophic linkages, but if algae and

terrestrial carbon sources have similar isotopic signatures this

technique will not work. Stable isotopes of hydrogen might be a

useful tracer of trophic linkages because algae and terrestrial

carbon sources tend to have different hydrogen isotope

signatures.

(6.) OBJECTIVES: Validate utility of hydrogen stable isotopes as a tracer of trophic

linkages

(7.) RELATIONSHIP TO MRP:

If hydrogen stable isotopes prove to be a useful tracer of trophic

linkages, the larger food base project (Dr. Robert Hall, PI) will

incorporate use of this technique into their project.

(8.) METHODOLOGY:

Collect samples of basal resources, invertebrate consumers, and

top predators (fish) and process them for carbon, nitrogen, and

hydrogen stable isotope signatures and determine whether

hydrogen stable isotopes can be used to resolve trophic linkages

connecting carbon sources with invertebrate and fish consumers.

(9.) ANNUAL STATEMENT OF

WORK:

(Briefly summarize the annual SOW to

the extent that the project is identifiable.

Include specific tasks where appropriate

Collect samples of basal resources, invertebrate consumers, and

top predators from 10 sites throughout the canyon during clear

water conditions and again during turbid water conditions. During

clear water conditions algae is likely to be plentiful and may be an
37

and helpful.) important food resource for invertebrates and ultimately fishes.

During turbid water conditions terrestrial carbon is likely to be

plentiful and may be an important food resource for invertebrates

and ultimately fishes.

(10.) PROGRESS STATEMENT:

(Describe how each task identified in the

AWP was/was not met and summarize

initial findings and final results. Include

a description of any significant deviation

from the AWP Scope of Work.)

Samples of basal resources, invertebrate consumers, and top

predators were collected from 10 sites throughout the canyon in

June (clear water) and in September (turbid water). Samples

were collected on an already scheduled food base river trip to

minimize logistical costs of this project. Samples are currently

being processed and analyzed for stable isotope ratios.

(11.) REPORTS/PRODUCTS

COMPLETED:

(Include all deliverables identified in the

AWP that have been completed and

report on all products beyond those

deliverables identified. Include reports,

presentations, poster sessions, exhibits,

databases, workshops, maps, website

contributions, decision support systems,

newsletters, etc.)

None. Work was begun late in FY06.

(12.) REPORTS/PRODUCTS

PLANNED:

(See above, but report those items that

are in progress and include expected

delivery dates.)

A presentation of results will be made at the winter meeting of the

American Society of Limnology and Oceanography in February. A

draft final report is expected by September 30, 2007. At least two

peer-reviewed publications are expected to be produced as a

result of this research.

(13.) RECOMMENDATIONS:

(Describe recommendations for

continuation or modification of project,

other studies, or activities resulting from

findings of this project;

recommendations for MRP changes or

future program guidance, etc.)

This is a 1-year project. If hydrogen stable isotopes prove to be a

useful tracer of trophic linkages, it is recommended that the main

food base project (Dr. Robert Hall, PI) use this technique, in

addition to already planned use of carbon and nitrogen stable

isotopes and gut content analysis, to aid their research on trophic

linkages. Cost of adding hydrogen stable isotope analysis to main

food base project would be approximately $10,000 annually.

(14.) FY2007 BUDGET REPORT FINANCIAL INFORMATION COLLECTION DATE: 09/30/2006

FY PLANNED GROSS BUDGET: See above. FISCAL YEAR NET AVAIL BAL: NA

FISCAL YEAR EXPENDITURES: NA

FISCAL YEAR OBLIGATIONS: NA

COMMENTS:

(Discuss

anomalies in the

budget; expected

changes;

anticipated

carryover; etc.)

Refer to budget in previous report.

END OF FISCAL YEAR

AVAILABLE BALANCE: NA

SIGNATURE:

(Must be signed

or submitted by

PI.)

/S/ Matthew E. Andersen TITLE: Biology Program

Manager DATE: 02/02/2007
38

PROJECT B.3 ONGOING PROVISIONAL MONITORING – STATUS AND TRENDS OF DOWNSTREAM FISH COMMUNITY

FISCAL YEAR 2006 PROJECT REPORT FOR THE

GLEN CANYON DAM ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

PROGRAM

SUBMISSION

DATE: *02/20/2007

(1.) SUBMITTING AGENCY: USGS – SBSC – Grand Canyon Monitoring & Research Center

(Cooperating with USFWS, AGFD, and SWCA)

(2.) GCDAMP/GCMRC AWP

ID/OTHER NO.:

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Year 2006

Budget & Work Plan, B.3 (GCMRC No. BNE8A)

(3.) PROJECT TITLE: Ongoing Provisional Monitoring – Status And Trends Of Downstream

Fish Community

(4.) PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR INFORMATION:

GCMRC Program

Manager/ Principal

Investigator:

Matthew E. Andersen /

Coggins, USGS

Sponholtz, USFWS

Persons, AGFD

Lauretta, SWCA

Mailing Address: 2255 North Gemini Drive, Flagstaff

E-mail: mandersen@usgs.gov State: AZ Zip Code: 86001

Telephone: ( 928) 556-7379 Delivery Address: Same as above

FAX: ( 928) 556-7092 State: AZ Zip Code: 86001

(5.) STATEMENT OF PROBLEM:

The downstream fish community is an assemblage of native and

nonnative fish that occur in the Colorado River ecosystem. This

assemblage is exclusive of the trout fishery that is managed in Glen

Canyon by the Arizona Game and Fish Department. The constituents

include four native fish and introduced competitors/predators like

rainbow trout, brown trout, channel catfish, carp, and other nonnative

forms. The status and trends of the fishery are regulated by biotic and

abiotic mechanisms that may in turn be affected by the operations of

Glen Canyon Dam. Monitoring basic population statistics including

recruitment, abundance, and distribution of native and nonnative fishes

provide the fundamental information necessary to assess the status of

these resources and the attainment of program goals and objectives.

(6.) OBJECTIVES:

Provide a baseline of fish abundance indices that can be used for longterm, species, and community-based change detection.

Obtain mark-recapture information for humpback chub abundance

estimation.

(7.) RELATIONSHIP TO MRP: Related to Goal 2

(8.) METHODOLOGY:

Sampling in the mainstem Colorado River is conducted using

electrofishing, trammel netting, hoopnetting, and seining. Sampling in

the Little Colorado River is conducted using hoopnetting. Data are

utilized to compute abundance indices and presence/absence by

species and major geomorphic reach.

Mark-recapture data are used to compute humpback chub abundance

estimates according to methods summarized in Coggins and others,

2006.

(9.) ANNUAL STATEMENT OF

WORK:

(Briefly summarize the annual SOW to the

extent that the project is identifiable. Include

specific tasks where appropriate and

helpful.)

Five sampling trips in the mainstem Colorado River and four sampling

trips in the Little Colorado River to collect data on fish abundance

indices, species composition, length composition, and mark-recapture

information.
39

(10.) PROGRESS STATEMENT:

(Describe how each task identified in the

AWP was/was not met and summarize initial

findings and final results. Include a

description of any significant deviation from

the AWP Scope of Work.)

All sampling trips occurred as scheduled and data have been

incorporated into the GCMRC long-term fish monitoring database.

Results continue to suggest depressed relative abundance of rainbow

trout and increased abundance of flannelmouth sucker and bluehead

sucker relative to previous years.

(11.) REPORTS/PRODUCTS

COMPLETED:

(Include all deliverables identified in the

AWP that have been completed and report

on all products beyond those deliverables

identified. Include reports, presentations,

poster sessions, exhibits, databases,

workshops, maps, website contributions,

decision support systems, newsletters, etc.)

Trip reports have been submitted to GCMRC. Preliminary data from

2006 were incorporated into an update given by Rogers to the AMWG

in 2006.

(12.) REPORTS/PRODUCTS

PLANNED:

(See above, but report those items that are

in progress and include expected delivery

dates.)

Draft final report received from US Fish and Wildlife Service.

Remaining annual reports will be submitted in early 2007.

(13.) RECOMMENDATIONS: (Describe

recommendations for continuation or

modification of project, other studies, or

activities resulting from findings of this

project; recommendations for MRP changes

or future program guidance, etc.)

Downstream monitoring will be modified during 2007 to allow for

sampling in association with a concurrent abundance estimator of the

LCR population of humpback chub.

(14.) FY2006 BUDGET REPORT FINANCIAL INFORMATION COLLECTION DATE: 09/30/2006

FY PLANNED GROSS BUDGET: $917,884 FISCAL YEAR NET AVAIL BAL: $827,436

FISCAL YEAR EXPENDITURES: $125,008

FISCAL YEAR OBLIGATIONS: $702,428

COMMENTS:

(Discuss anomalies

in the budget;

expected changes;

anticipated

carryover; etc.)

None at this time. END OF FISCAL YEAR

AVAILABLE BALANCE: $ 00

SIGNATURE:

(Must be signed or

submitted by PI.)

/S/ Matthew E. Andersen TITLE: Biology Program Manager DATE: 02/02/2007
40

PROJECT B.4 ONGOING PROVISIONAL MONITORING – STATUS & TRENDS OF LEES FERRY TROUT

FISCAL YEAR 2006 PROJECT REPORT FOR THE

GLEN CANYON DAM ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

PROGRAM

SUBMISSION

DATE: *02/20/2007

(1.) SUBMITTING AGENCY: USGS – SBSC – Grand Canyon Monitoring & Research Center

with cooperation from Arizona Game and Fish Department

(2.) GCDAMP/GCMRC AWP

ID/OTHER NO.:

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Year

2006 Budget & Work Plan, B.4 (GCMRC No. BNE8B)

(3.) PROJECT TITLE: Ongoing Provisional Monitoring – Status & Trends of Lees Ferry

Trout

(4.) PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR INFORMATION:

GCMRC Program

Manager / Principal

Investigator:

Matthew E. Andersen /

W. Persons

Mailing

Address: 2255 North Gemini Drive, Flagstaff

E-mail: mandersen@usgs.gov State: AZ Zip Code: 86001

Telephone: (928) 556-7879 Delivery

Address:

Same as above

FAX: (928) 556-7092 State: AZ Zip Code: 86001

(5.) STATEMENT OF PROBLEM:

The Lees Ferry trout fishery refers to the tailwaters portion of the

Colorado River ecosystem managed by Arizona Game and Fish

Department. This fishery represents an important recreational and

economic resource. Flannelmouth suckers and carp coexist with

rainbow trout. Ecology of nonnative rainbow trout in the tailwater

is strongly influenced by operations of Glen Canyon Dam.

(6.) OBJECTIVES:

Direct and derived metrics for assessing status and trends of the

Lees Ferry rainbow trout fishery are estimated for the purpose of

long-term monitoring. These metrics include catch-rate, length

frequency, proportional stock density, and condition factor of fish.

(7.) RELATIONSHIP TO MRP: Related to Goal 4

(8.) METHODOLOGY:

Primary method uses electrofishing as the sampling method over

multiple nights, which occurs tri-annually. Electrofishing

equipment and trained operators are contracted personnel through

the GCMRC logistical contract. As of FY01 this monitoring project

has used a random stratified sampling approach based on

shoreline habitat characteristics for site selection. Randomly

selected sites (27) of this augmented, serially alternating sampling

design are intended to afford representative estimates of fishery

status, whereas fixed components (9) ensure continuity with trend

data from previous years.

(9.) ANNUAL STATEMENT OF

WORK:

(Briefly summarize the annual SOW to

the extent that the project is identifiable.

Include specific tasks where appropriate

and helpful.)

Conduct tri-annual trips to collect information on the relative

abundance, length frequency, proportional stock density, and

condition factor, diet, growth, and fish health of rainbow trout in the

Lees Ferry reach.

(10.) PROGRESS STATEMENT:

(Describe how each task identified in

the AWP was/was not met and

summarize initial findings and final

results. Include a description of any

significant deviation from the AWP

Scope of Work.)

All sampling trips occurred as scheduled and data have been

incorporated into the GCMRC long-term fish monitoring database.

Results continue to show depressed relative abundance of

rainbow trout and increased condition factor.

(11.) REPORTS/PRODUCTS

COMPLETED:
41

(Include all deliverables identified in the

AWP that have been completed and

report on all products beyond those

deliverables identified. Include reports,

presentations, poster sessions, exhibits,

databases, workshops, maps, website

contributions, decision support systems,

newsletters, etc.)

Trip reports have been submitted to GCMRC. Data have been

incorporated into the GCMRC long-term database.

(12.) REPORTS/PRODUCTS

PLANNED:

(See above, but report those items that

are in progress and include expected

delivery dates.)

Annual report will be submitted in early 2007.

(13.) RECOMMENDATIONS:

(Describe recommendations for

continuation or modification of project,

other studies, or activities resulting from

findings of this project;

recommendations for MRP changes or

future program guidance, etc.)

Continue long-term monitoring, conduct Protocol Evaluation Panel

in 2007.

(14.) FY2006 BUDGET REPORT FINANCIAL INFORMATION COLLECTION DATE: 09/30/2007

FY PLANNED GROSS BUDGET: $156,492 FISCAL YEAR NET AVAIL BAL: $142,712

FISCAL YEAR EXPENDITURES: $69,111

FISCAL YEAR OBLIGATIONS: $73,601

COMMENTS:

(Discuss

anomalies in the

budget; expected

changes;

anticipated

carryover; etc.)

None at this time.

END OF FISCAL YEAR

AVAILABLE BALANCE: $ 00

SIGNATURE:

(Must be signed

or submitted by

PI.)

/S/ Matthew E. Andersen TITLE: Biology Program

Manager DATE: 02/02/2007
42

PROJECT B.5 COMPLETION OF HABITAT MAP AND INVENTORY IN SUPPORT OF MONITORING

FISCAL YEAR 2006 PROJECT REPORT FOR THE

GLEN CANYON DAM ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

PROGRAM

SUBMISSION

DATE: *02/20/2007

(1.) SUBMITTING AGENCY: USGS – SBSC – Grand Canyon Monitoring & Research Center

(2.) GCDAMP/GCMRC AWP

ID/OTHER NO.:

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Year

2006 Budget & Work Plan, B.5 (GCMRC No. BNE8U)

(3.) PROJECT TITLE: Completion of Habitat Map and Inventory in Support of Monitoring

(4.) PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR INFORMATION:

GCMRC Program

Manager / Principal

Investigator:

Matthew E. Andersen /

Barbara Ralston,

Biologist

Mailing Address: 2255 North Gemini Drive, Flagstaff

E-mail: mandersen@usgs.gov State: AZ Zip Code: 86001

Telephone: (928) 556-7379 Delivery Address: Same as above

FAX: (928) 556-7092 State: AZ Zip Code: 86001

(5.) STATEMENT OF PROBLEM:

Because riparian vegetation contributes to aquatic productivity

and serves as a host to terrestrial invertebrates and vertebrates

(e.g., lizards, birds), knowing the distribution and cover of riparian

vegetation can help explain changes observed in vertebrate

abundance. Changes in riparian vegetation are associated with

dam operations and can include the propagation of exotic species

like tamarisk. Distribution of vegetation also affects the area

available for recreation.

(6.) OBJECTIVES:

Provide a baseline of vegetated and open terrestrial habitat that

can be used for long-term, community-based change detection.

Provide a vegetation map of the river corridor that uses a uniform

hierarchical vegetation classification system that is compatible

with NPS park units and AMP program purposes.

The vegetation data will be compared with historic aerial

photographs to detect and study changes.

(7.) RELATIONSHIP TO MRP: Related to Goal 6

(8.) METHODOLOGY:

Community identification will be done using releveplots in the

field that are used to record relative cover. Cover scales use a

Daubenmire scale. Data are recorded as categorical data, but

height of the dominant plant species is also recorded. Number of

samples for each plot is dependent on the abundance of the

vegetation type. A minimum of 20 samples will be taken for each

community (12 types identified in 2002). These data will be

analyzed using multivariate statistics (ordination techniques) to

identify the dominant communities along the river corridor.

Vegetation classification will use supervised classification routines

that are available in an image processing software package

(ENVI, 2005). Training areas will be selected from previous

ground-truthed sections of base map. Classes that will likely be

used for this effort include tamarisk, baccharis/salix,

marsh/wetlands, mesquite/acacia, arrowweed and bare ground.

User and producer accuracies will be determined and class

aggregation may be required to meet national vegetation mapping

standards.
43

Quantification of changes in riparian communities will be done

using a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) platform (ArcMap,

ESRI, Inc. 2002).

(9.) ANNUAL STATEMENT OF

WORK:

(Briefly summarize the annual SOW to

the extent that the project is identifiable.

Include specific tasks where appropriate

and helpful.)

Complete digital map and corresponding report explaining

methods and results

(10.) PROGRESS STATEMENT:

(Describe how each task identified in the

AWP was/was not met and summarize

initial findings and final results. Include

a description of any significant deviation

from the AWP Scope of Work.)

Digital map is complete except for metadata. Written report in

draft form waiting for co-author comments. Mapping effort

identified six vegetation classes for the river corridor. Total

vegetated area varies by reach. Tamarisk covered 494 ha.,

wetland covered 227 ha., and Baccharis/coyote willow covered 94

ha. Reach based effects appear to override patterns observed

previously, which showed distance from dam affected vegetated

area, at least with respect to marsh communities. The long-term

loss of sediment in the system may have reduced this previously

reported downstream pattern.

(11.) REPORTS/PRODUCTS

COMPLETED:

(Include all deliverables identified in the

AWP that have been completed and

report on all products beyond those

deliverables identified. Include reports,

presentations, poster sessions, exhibits,

databases, workshops, maps, website

contributions, decision support systems,

newsletters, etc.)

Draft final report in prep. Map used to estimate annual

allochthonous inputs to the Colorado River. Allochthonous inputs

results presented at International River Science Meeting in August

2006. Allochthonous inputs results developed into manuscript for

peer review publication, to be submitted in 2007. Final report

anticipated as Open File report and parts submitted for peer

review journal. Vegetation database forms a basemap of riparian

vegetation for river corridor. May be utilized by GRCA for park

vegetation mapping program.

(12.) REPORTS/PRODUCTS

PLANNED:

(See above, but report those items that

are in progress and include expected

delivery dates.)

Final report anticipated as Open File report in 2007. Portions of

report to be submitted for peer review journal. Vegetation

database forms a basemap of riparian vegetation for river corridor.

May be utilized by GRCA for part park vegetation mapping

program.

(13.) RECOMMENDATIONS:

(Describe recommendations for

continuation or modification of project,

other studies, or activities resulting from

findings of this project;

recommendations for MRP changes or

future program guidance, etc.)

Use 2005 imagery to determine feasibility of change detection as

a monitoring tool for woody riparian vegetation.

(14.) FY2006 BUDGET REPORT FINANCIAL INFORMATION COLLECTION DATE: 09/30/2006

FY PLANNED GROSS BUDGET: $16,632 FISCAL YEAR NET AVAIL BAL: $15,801

FISCAL YEAR EXPENDITURES: $15,800

FISCAL YEAR OBLIGATIONS: $00

COMMENTS:

(Discuss

anomalies in the

budget; expected

changes;

anticipated

carryover; etc.)

None at this time.

END OF FISCAL YEAR

AVAILABLE BALANCE: $ 01

SIGNATURE:

(Must be signed

or submitted by

PI.)

/S/ Matthew E. Andersen TITLE: Biology Program

Manager DATE: 02/02/2007
44

PROJECT B.6 COMPLETION OF EXPERIMENTAL TREATMENT - SPAWNING REDDS AND SUPPRESSION

MECHANISMS

FISCAL YEAR 2006 PROJECT REPORT FOR THE

GLEN CANYON DAM ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

PROGRAM

SUBMISSION

DATE: *02/20/2007

(1.) SUBMITTING AGENCY: USGS – SBSC – Grand Canyon Monitoring & Research Center in

cooperation with Ecometric Research

(2.) GCDAMP/GCMRC AWP

ID/OTHER NO.:

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Year

2006 Budget & Work Plan, B.6 (GCMRC No. BNE8V)

(3.) PROJECT TITLE: Completion of Experimental Treatment - Spawning Redds and

Suppression Mechanisms

(4.) PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR INFORMATION:

GCMRC Program

Manager / Principal

Investigator:

Matthew E. Andersen /

Josh Korman Mailing Address: 2255 North Gemini Drive, Flagstaff

E-mail: mandersen@usgs.gov State: AZ Zip Code: 86001

Telephone: (928) 556-7379 Delivery Address: Same as above

FAX: (928) 556-7092 State: AZ Zip Code: 86001

(5.) STATEMENT OF PROBLEM:

Experimental flows from 2003 – 2005 targeted survival rate of

young rainbow trout through increased daily fluctuations in flow

from January through March. A study was conducted during this

period to measure the impact of the flows on the early life stages of

rainbow trout below Glen Canyon Dam. The study measured

timing and distribution of redd excavation across elevations,

quantified spawning habitat preferences with depth, velocity, and

substrate relative to changes in discharge, estimated trends in trout

fry recruitment and survival in Glen Canyon, and lastly surveyed for

redd and fry in the mainstem below Lees Ferry to the Little

Colorado River confluence to evaluate natural reproduction in the

mainstem. The results and conclusions provide hypotheses about

the influence of fluctuating flows that will be tested during a return

to MLFF operations in 2006.

(6.) OBJECTIVES:

There are three main objectives of this project:

1) To estimate the additional incubation mortality that resulted

from the higher daily fluctuations of the 2003-2005 Jan.-

Mar. experimental flows relative to normal fluctuations over

those months under ROD; and

2) To document the growth, habitat use, movement, and

survival rates of age-0 rainbow trout in the Lees Ferry

reach, and to relate these dynamics to flow regulation from

Glen Canyon Dam;

3) To provide annual estimates of the number of egg

deposition and the size of the age-0 population in the Lees

Ferry reach. Over time, this time series will be very helpful

for interpreting changes in the adult population.

(7.) RELATIONSHIP TO MRP: Related to Goals 4 and 2

(8.) METHODOLOGY:

Methods detailed in Korman and others, 2005. Eleven redd

surveys were conducted in 2006 between Jan. 19th and June 8th.

Intergravel temperature measurements were collected at two sites

over the entire spawning and incubation season. Five age-0
45

surveys were conducted between July 9th and Nov. 6th. Daily age

estimates are being determined from a sample of 150 fish based

on otolith microstructure.

(9.) ANNUAL STATEMENT OF

WORK:

(Briefly summarize the annual SOW to

the extent that the project is identifiable.

Include specific tasks where appropriate

and helpful.)

Eleven redd surveys and five fry surveys were conducted in 2006.

Ageing estimates are currently being conducted.

(10.) PROGRESS STATEMENT:

(Describe how each task identified in the

AWP was/was not met and summarize

initial findings and final results. Include a

description of any significant deviation

from the AWP Scope of Work.)

All sampling trips were conducted as planned. Ageing estimates

were delayed because we investigated using another ageing lab.

Age estimates will be completed by Mar. 2007. Analysis of

available data is underway.

(11.) REPORTS/PRODUCTS

COMPLETED:

(Include all deliverables identified in the

AWP that have been completed and

report on all products beyond those

deliverables identified. Include reports,

presentations, poster sessions, exhibits,

databases, workshops, maps, website

contributions, decision support systems,

newsletters, etc.)

A summary of redd count and age-0 densities and spatial

distribution has been provided to GCMRC, presented to the TWG

during a summer meeting in 2006, and presented to GCMRC staff

at an integrated science planning meeting in fall of 2006.

(12.) REPORTS/PRODUCTS

PLANNED:

(See above, but report those items that

are in progress and include expected

delivery dates.)

A total of four manuscripts will be delivered to GCMRC by Dec. 31,

2007

(13.) RECOMMENDATIONS:

(Describe recommendations for

continuation or modification of project,

other studies, or activities resulting from

findings of this project; recommendations

for MRP changes or future program

guidance, etc.)

Recommend continuing this work in 2007.

(14.) FY2006 BUDGET REPORT FINANCIAL INFORMATION COLLECTION DATE: 09/30/2006

FY PLANNED GROSS BUDGET: $157,732 FISCAL YEAR NET AVAIL BAL: $144,214

FISCAL YEAR EXPENDITURES: $62,870

FISCAL YEAR OBLIGATIONS: $81,344

COMMENTS:

(Discuss

anomalies in the

budget; expected

changes;

anticipated

carryover; etc.)

None at this time. END OF FISCAL YEAR

AVAILABLE BALANCE: $ 00

SIGNATURE:

(Must be signed

or submitted by

PI.)

/S/ Matthew E. Andersen TITLE: Biology Program

Manager DATE: 02/02/2007
46

PROJECT B.7 MECHANICAL REMOVAL OF NONNATIVE FISH

FISCAL YEAR 2006 PROJECT REPORT FOR THE

GLEN CANYON DAM ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

PROGRAM

SUBMISSION

DATE: *02/20/2007

(1.) SUBMITTING AGENCY: USGS – SBSC – Grand Canyon Monitoring & Research Center

with cooperation from AZGFD

(2.) GCDAMP/GCMRC AWP

ID/OTHER NO.:

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Year

2006 Budget & Work Plan, B.7 (GCMRC No. BNE8D)

(3.) PROJECT TITLE: Mechanical Removal of Nonnative Fish

(4.) PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR INFORMATION:

GCMRC Program

Manager / Principal

Investigator:

Matthew E. Andersen /

L. Coggins Mailing Address: 2255 North Gemini Drive, Flagstaff

E-mail: mandersen@usgs.gov State: AZ Zip Code: 86001

Telephone: ( 928) 556-7879 Delivery Address: Same as above

FAX: ( 928) 556-7092 State: AZ Zip Code: 86001

(5.) STATEMENT OF PROBLEM:

Trends in the abundance and recruitment of the Little Colorado

River population of humpback chub suggest this population has

been in decline for over a decade. Factors contributing to this

decline are unknown but may include: interaction (predation and/or

competition) with nonnative fishes, infection by nonnative parasites,

sub-optimal mainstem water temperatures, hydrological conditions

in the mainstem Colorado and Little Colorado Rivers, and decline

of near-shore rearing habitat in the mainstem Colorado River.

Though it is unknown which factor(s) are most responsible for

humpback chub mortality, it is likely that interactions with nonnative

fish are a contributing element.

(6.) OBJECTIVES:

In conjunction with a blocked experimental design with treatments

including GCD operations, release temperatures, and nonnative

removal, evaluate the effect of nonnative fish on humpback chub

population dynamics

Evaluate the efficacy of nonnative control in the Colorado River

Evaluate the diet and piscivory of nonnative fishes in the removal

reaches of the Colorado River.

(7.) RELATIONSHIP TO MRP: Related to Goal 2

(8.) METHODOLOGY:

Sample near-shore habitats with standard electrofishing methods in

a depletion framework to estimate species composition, length

frequency, abundance, and capture probability. Euthanize all

captured nonnative fishes. Sample near-shore habitat using hoop

nets to estimate species composition, length-frequency, and

relative abundance.

(9.) ANNUAL STATEMENT OF

WORK:

(Briefly summarize the annual SOW to

the extent that the project is identifiable.

Include specific tasks where appropriate

and helpful.)

During 2006, conduct six trips to remove nonnative fish from

specific reaches of the Colorado River. Estimate species

composition, relative abundance, and length frequency distribution.

(10.) PROGRESS STATEMENT:

(Describe how each task identified in the

AWP was/was not met and summarize

initial findings and final results. Include a

description of any significant deviation

The mechanical removal project was an experimental effort

scheduled for implementation for 4 years in the mainstem Colorado

River above and below the mouth of the Little Colorado River. The

year 2006 was the 4

th year of the project. The project was initiated
47

from the AWP Scope of Work.) because rainbow trout in this reach were thought to pose a

significant threat to native fishes, especially humpback chub. While

all nonnative fishes captured during this project were removed, the

majority of fish captured and removed were rainbow trout. Hoop

nets were also deployed in the reach in order to monitor small

bodied fishes not usually captured by electrofishing, the primary

method employed. In 2006, the numbers of rainbow trout captured

dropped dramatically as compared to previous years. For example,

by August 2005, 2,171 rainbow trout had been captured and

removed by this project. A total of 2,422 rainbow trout were

removed in 2005. By comparison, by August 2006, only 945

rainbow trout had been captured and removed. Therefore, the

decision was made to not conduct electrofishing on the final trip of

the year in September 2006, although hoop nets were deployed to

continue the small bodied fish monitoring. The total number of

rainbow trout removed over the 4 years of the project was 20,636.

(11.) REPORTS/PRODUCTS

COMPLETED:

(Include all deliverables identified in the

AWP that have been completed and

report on all products beyond those

deliverables identified. Include reports,

presentations, poster sessions, exhibits,

databases, workshops, maps, website

contributions, decision support systems,

newsletters, etc.)

All data have been incorporated into the GCMRC data base.

Presentation of preliminary results made at the Upper Colorado

River Researchers Meeting.

(12.) REPORTS/PRODUCTS

PLANNED:

(See above, but report those items that

are in progress and include expected

delivery dates.)

Final report of all 4 years to be prepared in 2007.

Presentation of results to be made at national AFS meeting in

September.

Final results to be included in Coggins’ dissertation and associated

manuscripts.

(13.) RECOMMENDATIONS:

(Describe recommendations for

continuation or modification of project,

other studies, or activities resulting from

findings of this project; recommendations

for MRP changes or future program

guidance, etc.)

Continuation of project only as dictated by long-term experimental

planning.

(14.) FY2006 BUDGET REPORT FINANCIAL INFORMATION COLLECTION DATE: 09/30/2006

FY PLANNED GROSS BUDGET: $795,192 FISCAL YEAR NET AVAIL BAL: $669,963

FISCAL YEAR EXPENDITURES: $369,922

FISCAL YEAR OBLIGATIONS: $273,372

COMMENTS:

(Discuss

anomalies in the

budget; expected

changes;

anticipated

carryover; etc.)

None at this time.

END OF FISCAL YEAR

AVAILABLE BALANCE: $26,669

SIGNATURE:

(Must be signed

or submitted by

PI.)

/S/ Matthew E. Andersen TITLE: Biology Program

Manager DATE: 02/02/2007
48

PROJECT B.8 ONGOING HUMPBACK CHUB ACTION –TRANSLOCATION OF HUMPBACK CHUB

FISCAL YEAR 2006 PROJECT REPORT FOR THE

GLEN CANYON DAM ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

PROGRAM

SUBMISSION

DATE: *02/20/2007

(1.) SUBMITTING AGENCY: USGS – Grand Canyon Monitoring & Research Station

(2.) GCDAMP/GCMRC AWP

ID/OTHER NO.:

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Year

2006 Budget & Work Plan, B.8 (GCMRC No. BNE8F)

(3.) PROJECT TITLE: Ongoing Humpback Chub Action – Translocation of Humpback

Chub

(4.) PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR INFORMATION:

GCMRC Program

Manager / Principal

Investigator:

Matthew E. Andersen /

U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service

Mailing Address: 2255 North Gemini Drive,

Flagstaff

E-mail: mandersen@usgs.gov State: AZ Zip Code: 86001

Telephone: ( 928) 556-7379 Delivery Address: Same as above

FAX: ( 928) 556-7092 State: AZ Zip Code: 86001

(5.) STATEMENT OF PROBLEM:

As identified by the AMWG ad hoc committee on humpback chub

(HBC) and the December 2002 US Fish and Wildlife Service

(FWS) Biological Opinion, the first phase of this project is aimed at

increasing the survival and expanding the geographic range of

humpback chub in the Little Colorado River (LCR) by translocating

small fish above a natural barrier in the LCR. Following 3 years of

successful translocations of humpback chub, a mark recapture

experiment was initiated in FY2006 to estimate the population size

and incorporate these estimates into those for the lower part of the

LCR.

(6.) OBJECTIVES:

The primary objective of this study was to collect data to conduct

mark-recapture population estimates of humpback chub residing

above Lower Atomizer Falls; however, this study also offered an

opportunity to examine migration patterns, growth rates, and

spawning activity of humpback chub residing within this upper

LCR corridor.

(7.) RELATIONSHIP TO MRP: Related to Goal 2

(8.) METHODOLOGY:

Hoop nets (50-60 cm in diameter, 100 cm long, a single 10 cm

throat, and covered with 6 mm nylon mesh netting) were the sole

fishing gear used in this study, and were all baited near their cod

ends by attaching nylon mesh bags (30 x 30 cm, 6 mm mesh)

filled with ~160 g AquaMaxTM Grower 600 for Carnivorous Species

(Purina Mills Inc., Brentwood, MO) to maximize fish captures.

(9.) ANNUAL STATEMENT OF

WORK:

(Briefly summarize the annual SOW to

the extent that the project is identifiable.

Include specific tasks where appropriate

and helpful.)

In July of 2003, 2004, and 2005, small humpback chub (HBC)

(HBC, 50-100 mm TL) were captured near the Little Colorado

River confluence and translocated to the river corridor above

Chute Falls, near river kilometer 16.2. As a result of these

translocations, a total of 1,129 HBC have been moved above
49

Chute Falls. It was hoped that these translocations would increase

HBC recruitment to adulthood by allowing them an opportunity to

exploit the abundant food resources, warm water temperatures,

and reduced competition/predation by fewer large-bodied fishes

associated with this area. This project was a voluntary

conservation measure as a result of the mechanical “exotic fish”

removal activities and modified mainstem flows occurring in the

Colorado River. During subsequent monitoring of these

translocated HBC, we found that many of the 2003 translocated

individuals had grown to adult sizes (Stone and Sponholtz, 2004).

Hence, in addition to continuing yearly augmentations of this

population, a stock assessment of translocated adults is proposed.

If accomplished in 2006, a stock assessment of the HBC above

Chute Falls would result in valuable baseline data of this

population for long term monitoring purposes. In addition, the

resulting population estimates could be incorporated into ongoing

stock assessments occurring below Chute Falls to provide an

overall stock assessment of the entire LCR population.

(10.) PROGRESS STATEMENT:

(Describe how each task identified in the

AWP was/was not met and summarize

initial findings and final results. Include

a description of any significant deviation

from the AWP Scope of Work.)

The U.S. Geological Survey’s Grand Canyon Monitoring and

Research Center (GCMRC) contracted the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (USFWS) to conduct a May (May 23-26, 2006) and a June

(June 28–July 3, 2006) monitoring trip from above Lower Atomizer

Falls (13.57 river kilometers) to 18.1 rkm within the Little Colorado

River.

The two Chute Falls trips were primarily used to conduct markrecapture efforts to estimate the abundance of HBC ≥125 mm

between the top of Lower Atomizer Falls and the base of Chute

Falls (13.57 to 14.1 rkm), and from the top of Chute Falls to 18.1

rkm in the LCR, where sampling activities ended. The results of

the effort from Lower Atomizer Falls to Chute Falls (lower reach)

indicated that there were 707 (SE = 42) HBC ≥125 mm during the

late May to early July of 2006. Of these fish, it is estimated that

there were 328 (SE = 25) HBC ≥150 mm, and 206 (SE= 18) HBC

≥200 mm. The results of the effort from above Chute Falls (14.1

rkm) to 18.1 rkm (upper reach) indicated that there were 440 (SE

= 35) HBC ≥125 mm during the late May to early July of 2006. Of

these fish, it is estimated that there were 255 (SE = 11) HBC ≥

150 mm, and 125 (SE= 15) HBC ≥200 mm.

During both trips combined, a total of 299 hoop net sets were

deployed, yielding 6,993 hours of fishing effort. A total of 13,954

fish were captured, of which 1,430 were HBC, and 12,263 were

speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus). Catch per unit effort (CPE)

for HBC was 0.179 fish/net-hour. Nonnative fishes comprised

1.9% of the catch. Sixty-two ripe male HBC and one ripe female

HBC were captured. Three black bullhead had fish remains in

their stomachs (speckled dace or unidentifiable fish). Percent

occurrence of the external anchorworm (Lernaea cyprinacea) on

HBC was 0.5%.

The management plan for this area is now being drafted by Dexter

National Fish Hatchery and will be included in their genetics

management plan for HBC. This plan will help determine when

additional translocations are necessary.
50

(11.) REPORTS/PRODUCTS

COMPLETED:

(Include all deliverables identified in the

AWP that have been completed and

report on all products beyond those

deliverables identified. Include reports,

presentations, poster sessions, exhibits,

databases, workshops, maps, website

contributions, decision support systems,

newsletters, etc.)

A report titled "Monitoring of Humpback Chub (Gila cypha) and

other Fishes above Lower Atomizer Falls of the Little Colorado

River, Arizona" and data entered into an access database was

submitted to GCMRC in December 2006.

A final report titled " Stock Assessment and Fisheries Monitoring

Activities in the Little Colorado River within Grand Canyon during

2006" that includes the population estimates for this project was

submitted to GCMRC in January 2007.

(12.) REPORTS/PRODUCTS

PLANNED:

(See above, but report those items that

are in progress and include expected

delivery dates.)

N.A., all deliverables submitted for GCMRC review

(13.) RECOMMENDATIONS:

(Describe recommendations for

continuation or modification of project,

other studies, or activities resulting from

findings of this project;

recommendations for MRP changes or

future program guidance, etc.)

Continue with mark recapture efforts in spring to estimate

population size above Chute Falls. Perform additional

translocations when deemed necessary via the genetics

management planning effort underway by Dexter National Fish

Hatchery.

(14.) FY2006 BUDGET REPORT FINANCIAL INFORMATION COLLECTION DATE: 09/30/2006

FY PLANNED GROSS BUDGET: $53,550 FISCAL YEAR NET AVAIL BAL: $49,496

FISCAL YEAR EXPENDITURES: $36,977

FISCAL YEAR OBLIGATIONS: $12,519

COMMENTS:

(Discuss

anomalies in the

budget; expected

changes;

anticipated

carryover; etc.)

None at this time.

END OF FISCAL YEAR

AVAILABLE BALANCE: $ 00

SIGNATURE:

(Must be signed

or submitted by

PI.)

/S/ Matthew E. Andersen TITLE: Biology Program

Manager DATE: 02/02/2007
51

PROJECT B.9 WARM WATER FISH MONITORING WORKSHOP (PREVIOUSLY COMPLETION OF HUMPBACK CHUB

ACTION – DAM OPERATIONS)

FISCAL YEAR 2006 PROJECT REPORT FOR THE

GLEN CANYON DAM ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

PROGRAM

SUBMISSION

DATE: *02/20/2007

(1.) SUBMITTING AGENCY: USGS – SBSC - Grand Canyon Monitoring & Research Station

(2.) GCDAMP/GCMRC AWP

ID/OTHER NO.:

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Year

2006 Budget & Work Plan, B.9 (GCMRC No. BNE8C)

(3.) PROJECT TITLE: Warm Water Fish Monitoring Workshop (Previously Dam

Operations)

(4.) PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR INFORMATION:

GCMRC Program

Manager / Principal

Investigator:

Matthew E. Andersen/

Lew Coggins Mailing Address: 2255 North Gemini Drive, Flagstaff

E-mail: mandersen@usgs.gov State: AZ Zip Code: 86001

Telephone: (928) 556-7379 Delivery Address: Same as above

FAX: (928) 556-7092 State: AZ Zip Code: 86001

(5.) STATEMENT OF PROBLEM:

Due to regional drought, warmer than average water was being

released from Glen Canyon Dam 2000-2004, some of the warmest

temperatures observed since the closing of the dam in 1963. A

selective withdrawal structure is proposed for GCD to increase

water temperatures to benefit native fishes. In light of increased

water temperatures, the potential for risk from nonnative fishes has

increased, increasing the need to control nonnatives.

(6.) OBJECTIVES: Develop recommended management actions and research

program for warm water nonnative fishes.

(7.) RELATIONSHIP TO MRP: Associated with AMP Goal 2.

(8.) METHODOLOGY:

Conduct a workshop convening fisheries professionals from within

and from outside of the AMP to address existing and potential

issues associated with warm water nonnative fish species.

(9.) ANNUAL STATEMENT OF

WORK:

(Briefly summarize the annual SOW to

the extent that the project is identifiable.

Include specific tasks where appropriate

and helpful.)

Convene fisheries professionals from within and outside of the

AMP to gather recommendations for management actions and an

associated research program.

(10.) PROGRESS STATEMENT:

(Describe how each task identified in the

AWP was/was not met and summarize

initial findings and final results. Include a

description of any significant deviation

from the AWP Scope of Work.)

The workshop was conducted in December 2005 in Flagstaff, AZ.

(11.) REPORTS/PRODUCTS

COMPLETED:

(Include all deliverables identified in the

AWP that have been completed and

report on all products beyond those

deliverables identified. Include reports,

presentations, poster sessions, exhibits,

databases, workshops, maps, website

contributions, decision support systems,

newsletters, etc.)

Management actions and a draft research program were developed

following the recommendations of the workshop participants.

(12.) REPORTS/PRODUCTS Reports/products complete.
52

PLANNED:

(See above, but report those items that

are in progress and include expected

delivery dates.)

(13.) RECOMMENDATIONS:

(Describe recommendations for

continuation or modification of project,

other studies, or activities resulting from

findings of this project; recommendations

for MRP changes or future program

guidance, etc.)

Develop a research program and long-term nonnative control plan

to address threats from warm water nonnative aquatic species.

(14.) FY2006 BUDGET REPORT FINANCIAL INFORMATION COLLECTION DATE: 9/30/2007

FY PLANNED GROSS BUDGET: $27,600 FISCAL YEAR NET AVAIL BAL: $28,049

FISCAL YEAR EXPENDITURES: $10,590

FISCAL YEAR OBLIGATIONS: $17,459

COMMENTS:

(Discuss

anomalies in the

budget; expected

changes;

anticipated

carryover; etc.)

Additional appropriated funds were

contributed to this project. END OF FISCAL YEAR

AVAILABLE BALANCE: $ 00

SIGNATURE:

(Must be signed

or submitted by

PI.)

/S/ Matthew E. Andersen TITLE: Biology Program

Manager DATE: 02/02/2007
53

PROJECT B.10 COMPLETION OF HUMPBACK CHUB ACTION - MONITORING FISH DISEASE AND PARASITES IN THE

COLORADO RIVER ECOSYSTEM

FISCAL YEAR 2006 PROJECT REPORT FOR THE

GLEN CANYON DAM ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

PROGRAM

SUBMISSION

DATE: *02/20/2007

(1.) SUBMITTING AGENCY: USGS – SBSC - Grand Canyon Monitoring & Research Station

(2.) GCDAMP/GCMRC AWP

ID/OTHER NO.:

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Year

2006 Budget & Work Plan, B.10 (GCMRC No. BNE8I)

(3.) PROJECT TITLE: Completion of Humpback Chub Action - Monitoring Fish Disease

and Parasites in the Colorado River Ecosystem

(4.) PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR INFORMATION:

GCMRC Program

Manager / Principal

Investigator:

Matthew E. Andersen/

Cole, USGS

Persons, AZGFD

Mailing Address: 2255 North Gemini Drive, Flagstaff

E-mail: mandersen@usgs.gov State: AZ Zip Code: 86001

Telephone: (928) 556-7379 Delivery Address: Same as above

FAX: (928) 556-7092 State: AZ Zip Code: 86001

(5.) STATEMENT OF PROBLEM:

With the advent of increased river warming as reservoir water

levels fall, and particularly with the operation of a temperature

control device, increased fish disease and parasitism may occur.

As disease could represent a significant mortality threat to fishes

within the Colorado River ecosystem (CRE), it is important not only

to monitor the future incidence of parasitism and disease, but to

document a baseline condition before initiation of a temperature

control device (TCD).

(6.) OBJECTIVES:

1) Document distribution and prevalence of parasites of fish in the

Colorado River and selected tributaries.

2) Document distribution and prevalence of selected aquatic

invertebrates, which are an intermediate host of fish parasites,

in the Colorado River and selected tributaries.

3) Develop a plan for monitoring changes in parasite communities

as water temperatures increase.

(7.) RELATIONSHIP TO MRP: Related to Goal 2

(8.) METHODOLOGY:

A survey of the parasites of fish of the Colorado River and selected

tributaries was conducted in June-July 2006. Fish were collected

by AZGFD fish biologists using a combination of electroshocking

(boat and backpack), seining, minnow trapping, trammel netting

and hoop netting. Specimens were necropsied by parasitologists

from the National Wildlife Health Center (NWHC), Madison, WI, on

site. Parasite samples collected were preserved and transported

back to the NWHC for identification and enumeration. Aquatic

invertebrate samples were collected at each sample site to assess

the ability of intermediate hosts to spread into the mainstem as

water temperature increases.
54

(9.) ANNUAL STATEMENT OF

WORK:

(Briefly summarize the annual SOW to

the extent that the project is identifiable.

Include specific tasks where appropriate

and helpful.)

One sampling trip occurred in 2006. All specimen samples were

collected. Laboratory analysis, monitoring protocol development,

and report preparations are in progress.

(10.) PROGRESS STATEMENT:

(Describe how each task identified in the

AWP was/was not met and summarize

initial findings and final results. Include a

description of any significant deviation

from the AWP Scope of Work.)

Fish were collected and field necropsies conducted during the

June-July field trip. Laboratory work is underway to complete

sample processing.

(11.) REPORTS/PRODUCTS

COMPLETED:

(Include all deliverables identified in the

AWP that have been completed and

report on all products beyond those

deliverables identified. Include reports,

presentations, poster sessions, exhibits,

databases, workshops, maps, website

contributions, decision support systems,

newsletters, etc.)

No products have been received by GCMRC at this time.

(12.) REPORTS/PRODUCTS

PLANNED:

(See above, but report those items that

are in progress and include expected

delivery dates.)

A draft final report is due to GCMRC September 30, 2007.

(13.) RECOMMENDATIONS:

(Describe recommendations for

continuation or modification of project,

other studies, or activities resulting from

findings of this project; recommendations

for MRP changes or future program

guidance, etc.)

There are no recommendations at this time.

(14.) FY2006 BUDGET REPORT FINANCIAL INFORMATION COLLECTION DATE: 9/30/2007

FY PLANNED GROSS BUDGET: $23,400 FISCAL YEAR NET AVAIL BAL: $18,650

FISCAL YEAR EXPENDITURES: $15,858

FISCAL YEAR OBLIGATIONS: $2,792

COMMENTS:

(Discuss

anomalies in the

budget; expected

changes;

anticipated

carryover; etc.)

None at this time.

END OF FISCAL YEAR

AVAILABLE BALANCE: $ 00

SIGNATURE:

(Must be signed

or submitted by

PI.)

/S/ Matthew E. Andersen TITLE: Biology Program

Manager DATE: 02/02/2007
55

PROJECT B.11 COMPLETION OF HUMPBACK CHUB ACTION – TEMPERATURE CONTROL DEVICE (WATER

TEMPERATURE MODEL DEVELOPMENT (NOTE: FUNDED UNDER AGREEMENT NO. 02-AA-40-6750,

ENIVRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND COMPLIANCE)

FISCAL YEAR 2006 PROJECT REPORT FOR THE

GLEN CANYON DAM ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

PROGRAM

SUBMISSION

DATE: *02/20/2007

(1.) SUBMITTING AGENCY: USGS – SBSC - Grand Canyon Monitoring & Research Station

(2.) GCDAMP/GCMRC AWP

ID/OTHER NO.:

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Year

2006 Budget & Work Plan, B.11 (Task 1 of 3) (GCMRC No. BNEQ8)

(3.) PROJECT TITLE: Completion of Humpback Chub Action – Temperature Control

Device (Water Temperature Model Development)

(4.) PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR INFORMATION:

GCMRC Program

Manager / Principal

Investigator:

Matthew E. Andersen

/ S.A. Wright, USGS Mailing Address: 2255 North Gemini Drive, Flagstaff

E-mail: mandersen@usgs.gov State: AZ Zip Code: 86001

Telephone: (928) 556-7379 Delivery Address: Same as above

FAX: (928) 556-7092 State: AZ Zip Code: 86001

(5.) STATEMENT OF PROBLEM:

Glen Canyon Dam has altered the thermal regime of the Colorado

River downstream in Grand Canyon. Because water temperature

is an important variable in many biological processes, the altered

thermal regime has affected the aquatic ecosystem in Grand

Canyon. The ability to predict downstream temperatures is needed

in order to evaluate the effects of various dam operations and/or

dam modifications (e.g. temperature control device) in support of

the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program.

(6.) OBJECTIVES:

Develop and calibrate a one-dimensional model (hourly time step)

of water temperature for the Colorado downstream from Glen

Canyon dam (to Diamond Creek).

(7.) RELATIONSHIP TO MRP: Related to Goal 7

(8.) METHODOLOGY:

Use the existing one-dimensional unsteady flow model

(UNSTEADY) in combination with the USGS Branched-Lagrangian

Transport Model (BLTM) for water temperature dynamics;

calibration with existing mainstem water temperature data.

(9.) ANNUAL STATEMENT OF

WORK:

(Briefly summarize the annual SOW to

the extent that the project is identifiable.

Include specific tasks where appropriate

and helpful.)

Tasks:

- Write routines to reformat UNSTEADY output for BLTM

- Develop BLTM input files

- Calibrate and validate model using years 2000 and 2005

- Document the model calibration/validation in a publication

- Apply model to evaluate LTEP option (not in original work plan)

- Develop a model of monthly average mainstem temperatures

below the dam (not in original work plan)

(10.) PROGRESS STATEMENT:

(Describe how each task identified in the

AWP was/was not met and summarize

The first three tasks listed above were completed in FY06.

Documentation of the model was delayed by the experimental
56

initial findings and final results. Include a

description of any significant deviation

from the AWP Scope of Work.)

options analyses, which were extensive. The model was briefly

documented in the experimental options report. More extensive

documentation of the model is currently underway as a conference

paper for this years’ American Institute of Hydrology meeting. The

final task above was made possible by publication of the long-term

mainstem water temperature dataset as part of the Integrated

Quality-of-Water project.

(11.) REPORTS/PRODUCTS

COMPLETED:

(Include all deliverables identified in the

AWP that have been completed and

report on all products beyond those

deliverables identified. Include reports,

presentations, poster sessions, exhibits,

databases, workshops, maps, website

contributions, decision support systems,

newsletters, etc.)

- Completed one-dimensional (hourly) model of downstream

temperatures

- 1D model documentation nearly complete

- LTEP analyses, contributions to LTEP report

- Multiple presentations at August TWG meeting

- Monthly average temperature model completed; related

documentation in progress.

(12.) REPORTS/PRODUCTS

PLANNED:

(See above, but report those items that

are in progress and include expected

delivery dates.)

- 1D hourly model conference paper – April 2007

- Monthly average model journal article – Summer 2007

(13.) RECOMMENDATIONS:

(Describe recommendations for

continuation or modification of project,

other studies, or activities resulting from

findings of this project; recommendations

for MRP changes or future program

guidance, etc.)

- Continue work on development of a nearshore water

temperature model (ongoing in FY07)

(14.) FY2006 BUDGET REPORT FINANCIAL INFORMATION COLLECTION DATE: 09/30/2006

FY PLANNED GROSS BUDGET: NA CURRENT GROSS BAL: NA

FISCAL YEAR EXPENDITURES: NA

FISCAL YEAR OBLIGATIONS: NA

COMMENTS:

(Discuss

anomalies in the

budget; expected

changes;

anticipated

carryover; etc.)

Refer to Task 3 of 3 under Project

B.11, Completion of Humpback

Chub Action – Temperature Control

Device for Budget (Funded under

Agrmt #02-AA-40-6750)

END OF FISCAL YEAR

AVAILABLE BALANCE: NA

SIGNATURE:

(Must be signed

or submitted by

PI.)

/S/ Matthew E. Andersen TITLE: Biology Program

Manager DATE: 02/02/2007
57

PROJECT B.11 COMPLETION OF HUMPBACK CHUB ACTION – TEMPERATURE CONTROL DEVICE (ORGANIC AND

NVERTEBRATE DRIFT EXCHANGE BETWEEN MAINSTEM AND BACKWATERS; FUNDED UNDER AGREEMENT NO. 02-

AA-40-6750, ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND COMPLIANCE)

FISCAL YEAR 2006 PROJECT REPORT FOR THE

GLEN CANYON DAM ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

PROGRAM

SUBMISSION

DATE: *02/20/2007

(1.) SUBMITTING AGENCY: USGS – SBSC – Grand Canyon Monitoring & Research Center

(2.) GCDAMP/GCMRC AWP

ID/OTHER NO.:

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Year

2006 Budget & Work Plan, B.11 (Task 2 of 3) (GCMRC No. BNER8)

(3.) PROJECT TITLE:

Completion of Humpback Chub Action – Temperature Control

Device (Organic and Invertebrate Drift Exchange between Mainstem

and Backwaters)

(4.) PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR INFORMATION:

GCMRC Program

Manager / Principal

Investigator:

Matthew E. Andersen /

Kennedy, GCMRC

Wright, GCMRC

Mailing Address: 2255 North Gemini Drive, Flagstaff

E-mail: mandersen@usgs.gov State: AZ Zip Code: 86001

Telephone: (928)556-7379 Delivery Address: Same as above

FAX: (928) 556-7092 State: AZ Zip Code: 86001

(5.) STATEMENT OF PROBLEM:

Models of invertebrate production in backwaters must make various

simplifying assumptions about the exchange of organics and

invertebrates between the main channel and backwaters. For

example, a recent model developed for the Green River assumed

one-way transport of invertebrates out of backwaters, and did not

address the exchange of organic matter which may be used as food

by invertebrates. Further, the fraction of planktonic invertebrates, as

opposed to on the benthos, must be specified in order to compute

the export of invertebrates from the backwater.

If movement of water from the mainstem and into backwaters is

significant, then the mainstem might be a large source of organic

matter in backwaters. Estimating the supply of organic matter to

backwaters requires accurate estimates of organic matter

concentrations for the mainstem. It is logistically challenging to

make enough traditional sample collections (i.e., nets) to accurately

characterize organic matter concentrations in the mainstem. The

Physical Sciences program has developed a method for estimating

concentrations of suspended sediment using hydroacoustics; it is

possible that the same technology could be used to estimate

concentrations of suspended organic matter.

(6.) OBJECTIVES:

 Determine whether rates of exchange (water, organic

matter, etc.) between backwaters and the mainstem differ

under steady flows relative to low fluctuating flows

 Determine whether benthic invertebrate and organic matter

biomass differs under steady flows relative to low fluctuating

flows

 Determine whether the concentration and total load of

drifting organic matter in the mainstem differs under steady

flows relative to low fluctuating flows

 Test the feasibility of using hydroacoustics to continuously
58

monitor concentrations of drifting organic matter

(7.) RELATIONSHIP TO MRP: Goal 1

(8.) METHODOLOGY:

During each month, comprising two 2-week blocks of fluctuating and

steady flows, we investigated a single channel/backwater complex

through the use of multiple acoustic instruments for monitoring drift.

These instruments allowed for monitoring drift in the mainstem as

well as water and organic/invertebrate exchange with the backwater.

We calibrated the acoustic signal to organics and invertebrate drift

by collecting periodic physical samples in the main channel and

backwater inlet. After the first month, the instrumentation was moved

to a second backwater with significant contrast in size and geometry.

We quantified invertebrate biomass in three backwaters before and

after each operational change. Temperature monitors were also

deployed to provide calibration data for the water temperature

modeling effort.

(9.) ANNUAL STATEMENT OF

WORK:

(Briefly summarize the annual SOW to the

extent that the project is identifiable.

Include specific tasks where appropriate

and helpful.)

During each month, comprising two 2-week blocks of fluctuating and

steady flows, we investigated a single channel/backwater complex

through the use of multiple acoustic instruments for monitoring drift.

These instruments allowed for monitoring drift in the mainstem as

well as water and organic/invertebrate exchange with the backwater.

We calibrated the acoustic signal to organics and invertebrate drift

by collecting periodic physical samples in the main channel and

backwater inlet. After the first month, the instrumentation was moved

to a second backwater with significant contrast in size and geometry.

We quantified invertebrate biomass in three backwaters before and

after each operational change. Temperature monitors were also

deployed to provide calibration data for the water temperature

modeling effort.

(10.) PROGRESS STATEMENT:

(Describe how each task identified in

the AWP was/was not met and

summarize initial findings and final

results. Include a description of any

significant deviation from the AWP

Scope of Work.)

Most samples/data were collected and analyzed as planned.

Deviations from the proposed sampling include:

 A single backwater was instrumented with hydroacoustics

for the entire 2-month study. We had proposed

instrumenting a backwater for the 1st treatment block and

then moving the instruments to a different backwater for the

2

nd treatment block. We elected not to do this because we

could only find one backwater in Glen Canyon with geometry

that was suitable for an acoustic instrument.

 Only three backwaters were sampled, not the five we had

planned.

There are only three backwaters in Glen Canyon.

All samples have been processed for organic matter and

invertebrate density and biomass, as planned. Mainstem drift data

have been analyzed and we have found that there is a relationship

between acoustic backscatter and organic matter concentrations.

Analysis of benthic organic matter and invertebrate data from

backwaters is ongoing.

(11.) REPORTS/PRODUCTS

COMPLETED:

(Include all deliverables identified in the

Kennedy gave a presentation of research results to the TWG on

August 2, 2006.
59

AWP that have been completed and

report on all products beyond those

deliverables identified. Include reports,

presentations, poster sessions,

exhibits, databases, workshops, maps,

website contributions, decision support

systems, newsletters, etc.)

(12.) REPORTS/PRODUCTS

PLANNED:

(See above, but report those items that

are in progress and include expected

delivery dates.)

A report will be delivered to BOR by July 31, 2007.

(13.) RECOMMENDATIONS:

(Describe recommendations for

continuation or modification of project,

other studies, or activities resulting from

findings of this project;

recommendations for MRP changes or

future program guidance, etc.)

Using hydroacoustics to continuously monitor organic drift in the

Lees Ferry reach looks very promising. We recommend future

studies focus solely on calibrating the acoustic-organic relationship.

(14.) FY2006 BUDGET REPORT FINANCIAL INFORMATION COLLECTION DATE: 09/30/2006

FY PLANNED GROSS BUDGET: NA FISCAL YEAR NET AVAIL BAL: NA

FISCAL YEAR EXPENDITURES: NA

FISCAL YEAR OBLIGATIONS: NA

COMMENTS:

(Discuss

anomalies in the

budget; expected

changes;

anticipated

carryover; etc.)

Refer to Task 3 of 3 under Project

B.11, Completion of Humpback Chub

Action – Temperature Control Device

for Budget (Funded under Agrmt

#02-AA-40-6750)

END OF FISCAL YEAR

AVAILABLE BALANCE: NA

SIGNATURE:

(Must be signed

or submitted by

PI.)

/S/ Matthew E. Andersen TITLE: Biology Program

Manager DATE: 02/02/2007
60

PROJECT B.11 COMPLETION OF HUMPBACK CHUB ACTION – TEMPERATURE CONTROL DEVICE (COMPARE

NEAR-SHORE NATIVE FISH HABITATS UNDER STEADY/FLUCTUATING FLOWS; FUNDED UNDER AGREEMENT NO.

02-AA-40-6750, ENIVRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND COMPLIANCE)

FISCAL YEAR 2006 PROJECT REPORT FOR THE

GLEN CANYON DAM ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

PROGRAM

SUBMISSION

DATE: *02/20/2007

(1.) SUBMITTING AGENCY: USGS – SBSC – Grand Canyon Monitoring & Research Center in

cooperation with SWCA Environmental Consultants Inc.

(2.) GCDAMP/GCMRC AWP

ID/OTHER NO.:

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Year

2006 Budget & Work Plan, B.11 (Task 3 of 3) (GCMRC No. BNES8)

(3.) PROJECT TITLE:

Completion of Humpback Chub Action – Temperature Control

Device (Compare Near-Shore Native Fish Habitats Under

Steady/Fluctuating Flows)

(4.) PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR INFORMATION:

GCMRC Program

Manager / Principal

Investigator:

Matthew E. Andersen /

Barbara Ralston,

USGS

Mailing Address: 2255 North Gemini Drive,

Flagstaff

E-mail: mandersen@usgs.gov State: Arizona Zip Code: 86001

Telephone: (928) 556-7379 Delivery Address: Same as above

FAX: (928) 556-7092 State: AZ Zip Code: 86001

(5.) STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Determine how near shore habitats change under steady vs. low

fluctuating flow discharges.

(6.) OBJECTIVES:

Collect water quality, macroinvertebrate and fish data in

backwaters and near shorelines to determine if habitat parameters

change under different discharge patterns.

(7.) RELATIONSHIP TO MRP: Related to Goal 1 & 2

(8.) METHODOLOGY:

Using appropriate equipment for each element, collect data in

backwaters and along shorelines during fall steady flow and

fluctuating flow releases. Density and diversity were measured for

phytoplankton and macroinvertebrates, CPUE, and diversity were

measured for fishes. Data were compared using t-tests assuming

unequal variances.

(9.) ANNUAL STATEMENT OF

WORK:

(Briefly summarize the annual SOW to

the extent that the project is identifiable.

Include specific tasks where appropriate

and helpful.)

Using appropriate equipment for each element, collect water

quality, macroinvertebrate, and fish data in backwaters and near

shorelines to determine if habitat parameters change under

different discharge patterns. Collection to occur in Fall 2005.

(10.) PROGRESS STATEMENT:

(Describe how each task identified in the

AWP was/was not met and summarize

initial findings and final results. Include a

description of any significant deviation

Data were collected between September 3 and October 22, 2005.

Data and report were analyzed and written in 2006. Draft report

submitted to GCMRC for internal review in September 2006.

Results indicate that of the variables measured, there were no
61

from the AWP Scope of Work.) significant differences between the flows. But antecedent

conditions and inherent variability of organisms sampled and

system as whole results in recommendation that results are viewed

cautiously.

(11.) REPORTS/PRODUCTS

COMPLETED:

(Include all deliverables identified in the

AWP that have been completed and

report on all products beyond those

deliverables identified. Include reports,

presentations, poster sessions, exhibits,

databases, workshops, maps, website

contributions, decision support systems,

newsletters, etc.)

Revised final report in review. Results presented to Technical

Work Group meeting in September 2006.

(12.) REPORTS/PRODUCTS

PLANNED:

(See above, but report those items that

are in progress and include expected

delivery dates.)

Final report anticipated as Open File report in 2007.

(13.) RECOMMENDATIONS:

(Describe recommendations for

continuation or modification of project,

other studies, or activities resulting from

findings of this project; recommendations

for MRP changes or future program

guidance, etc.)

Recommend that laboratory studies be used to address these

types of questions in the future.

(14.) FY2006 BUDGET REPORT FINANCIAL INFORMATION COLLECTION DATE: 09/30/2006

FY PLANNED GROSS BUDGET: $119,271 FISCAL YEAR NET AVAIL BAL: $121,778

FISCAL YEAR EXPENDITURES: $57,400

FISCAL YEAR OBLIGATIONS: $00

COMMENTS:

(Discuss

anomalies in the

budget; expected

changes;

anticipated

carryover; etc.)

Carry forward balance applies to

Tasks 1, 2 and 3 and will be

expended toward the completion of

the research under this agreement

in FY2007.

END OF FISCAL YEAR

AVAILABLE BALANCE: $64,378

SIGNATURE:

(Must be signed

or submitted by

PI.)

/S/ Matthew E. Andersen TITLE: Biology Program

Manager DATE: 02/02/2007
62

PROJECT B.12 ONGOING PROVISIONAL MONITORING –STATUS AND TRENDS OF THE FISH COMMUNITY FROM

BELOW DIAMOND CREEK

FISCAL YEAR 2006 PROJECT REPORT FOR THE

GLEN CANYON DAM ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

PROGRAM

SUBMISSION

DATE: *02/20/2007

(1.) SUBMITTING AGENCY: USGS – SBSC - Grand Canyon Monitoring & Research Station

(2.) GCDAMP/GCMRC AWP

ID/OTHER NO.:

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Year

2006 Budget & Work Plan, B.12 (GCMRC No. BNE8H)

(3.) PROJECT TITLE: Ongoing Provisional Monitoring – Status and Trends of the Fish

Community From Below Diamond Creek

(4.) PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR INFORMATION:

GCMRC Program

Manager /

Principal

Investigator:

Matthew E.

Andersen / Lew

Coggins, USGS

Sponholtz, USFWS

Persons, AZGFD

Lauretta, SWCA

Mailing Address: 2255 North Gemini Drive, Flagstaff

E-mail: lcoggins@usgs.gov State: AZ Zip Code: 86001

Telephone: ( 928) 556-7379 Delivery Address: Same as above

FAX: ( 928) 556-7092 State: AZ Zip Code: 86001

(5.) STATEMENT OF PROBLEM:

The downstream fish community is an assemblage of native and

nonnative fish that occur in the Colorado River ecosystem. This

assemblage is exclusive of the trout fishery that is managed in

Glen Canyon by the Arizona Game and Fish Department. The

constituents include four native fish and introduced

competitors/predators like rainbow trout, brown trout, channel

catfish, carp, and other nonnative forms. The status and trends of

the fishery are regulated by biotic and abiotic mechanisms that

may in turn be affected by the operations of Glen Canyon Dam.

Monitoring basic population statistics including abundance and

distribution of native and nonnative fishes provide the fundamental

information necessary to assess the status of these resources and

the attainment of program goals and objectives.

(6.) OBJECTIVES: Provide a baseline of fish abundance indices that can be used for

long-term, species and community-based change detection.

(7.) RELATIONSHIP TO MRP: Related to Goal 2

(8.) METHODOLOGY:

Sampling in the mainstem Colorado River is conducted using

electrofishing, trammel netting, hoopnetting, and seining. Data are

utilized to compute abundance indices and presence/absence by

species and geomorphic reach.

(9.) ANNUAL STATEMENT OF

WORK:

(Briefly summarize the annual SOW to

the extent that the project is identifiable.

Include specific tasks where appropriate

and helpful.)

One sampling trip occurred in 2006. Data were collected on fish

species, length, and abundance in the mainstem Colorado River

below Diamond Creek and selected tributaries.

(10.) PROGRESS STATEMENT:

(Describe how each task identified in the

AWP was/was not met and summarize

initial findings and final results. Include

a description of any significant deviation

from the AWP Scope of Work.)

All sampling trips occurred as scheduled and data have been

incorporated into the GCMRC long-term fish monitoring database.

Preliminary results suggest an increased abundance for

flannelmouth sucker, common carp, channel catfish, and striped

bass relative to previous years.

(11.) REPORTS/PRODUCTS

COMPLETED: The 2006 trip report was submitted to GCMRC.
63

(Include all deliverables identified in the

AWP that have been completed and

report on all products beyond those

deliverables identified. Include reports,

presentations, poster sessions, exhibits,

databases, workshops, maps, website

contributions, decision support systems,

newsletters, etc.)

(12.) REPORTS/PRODUCTS

PLANNED:

(See above, but report those items that

are in progress and include expected

delivery dates.)

A draft of the 2006 annual report has been submitted and will be

reviewed by GCMRC staff in early 2007.

(13.) RECOMMENDATIONS:

(Describe recommendations for

continuation or modification of project,

other studies, or activities resulting from

findings of this project;

recommendations for MRP changes or

future program guidance, etc.)

In 2007, fish sampling from Diamond Creek to Lake Mead will

occur in late summer as opposed to spring in previous years. This

change in sampling protocol is being enacted to improve ability to

detect warm-water adapted nonnative fish.

(14.) FY2006 BUDGET REPORT FINANCIAL INFORMATION COLLECTION DATE: 09/30/2006

FY PLANNED GROSS BUDGET: $81,000 FISCAL YEAR NET AVAIL BAL: $64,570

FISCAL YEAR EXPENDITURES: $61,363

FISCAL YEAR OBLIGATIONS: $3,207

COMMENTS:

(Discuss

anomalies in the

budget; expected

changes;

anticipated

carryover; etc.)

None at this time.

END OF FISCAL YEAR

AVAILABLE BALANCE: $ 00

SIGNATURE:

(Must be signed

or submitted by

PI.)

/S/ Matthew E. Andersen TITLE:

Biology Program

Manager DATE: 02/02/2007
64

PROJECT C.1 ONGOING PROVISIONAL MONITORING OF INTEGRATED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES

FISCAL YEAR 2006 PROJECT REPORT FOR THE

GLEN CANYON DAM ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

PROGRAM

SUBMISSION

DATE: *02/20/2007

(1.) SUBMITTING AGENCY: USGS – SBSC- Grand Canyon Monitoring & Research Center

(2.) GCDAMP/GCMRC AWP

ID/OTHER NO.:

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Year

2006 Budget & Work Plan, C.1 (GCMRC No. BNE3K)

(3.) PROJECT TITLE: Ongoing Provisional Monitoring of Integrated Archaeological Sites

(4.) PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR INFORMATION:

GCMRC Program

Manager / Principal

Investigator:

Helen Fairley Mailing Address: 2255 N. Gemini Drive, Flagstaff

E-mail: hfairley@usgs.gov State: AZ Zip Code: 86001

Telephone: 928-556-7285 Delivery Address: Same as above

FAX: 928-556-7092 State: AZ Zip Code: 86001

(5.) STATEMENT OF PROBLEM:

Glen Canyon Dam and the manner in which it is operated have

altered the hydrological regime, sediment budget, and sediment

flux of the Colorado River downstream in Grand Canyon.

Because these factors directly and indirectly influence terrestrial

geomorphological processes, including rates of landscape

erosion, there are ongoing concerns about the effects of these

processes on the physical condition of archaeological sites

embedded within the river corridor landscape. To effectively

evaluate and address these concerns requires a robust,

ecosystem-based monitoring program to track and evaluate the

potential effects of dam operations and other factors, such as

climate and visitor use, that in combination have the potential to

affect the long-term integrity of cultural resources in the river

corridor. The ability to quantify various impacts and use these

monitoring data in future models to make well-founded predictions

about which sites are most likely to be impacted by ongoing

modification of the riverine landscape under different dam

operating scenarios, as well as effects of changing human use

levels and varying climatic conditions, will assist the Glen Canyon

Dam Adaptive Management Program and the National Park

Service to objectively evaluate and manage the effects of dam

operations on cultural sites in the Colorado River corridor.

(6.) OBJECTIVES:

Develop, test and evaluate methods for objectively monitoring and

quantifying factors contributing to archaeological site stability

and/or degradation and establish a suite of formal monitoring

protocols that can be implemented through a future pilot

monitoring project.

(7.) RELATIONSHIP TO MRP: See MRP discussion under Goal 11

(8.) METHODOLOGY:

Over a 2-year period, conduct research on appropriate

approaches and techniques for monitoring and quantifying

impacts to cultural sites using a variety of methods, including

archival research, direct observation, and documentation of
65

relevant site attributes, and field testing of various methods for

tracking and quantifying physical changes at archaeological sites.

(9.) ANNUAL STATEMENT OF

WORK:

(Briefly summarize the annual SOW to

the extent that the project is identifiable.

Include specific tasks where appropriate

and helpful.)

Tasks:

- Assess archaeological site values and geomorphic attributes

that are relevant to determining and quantifying changes in

site condition

- Test a variety of methods for tracking and quantifying rates

of erosion, weather parameters, and human use impacts at

archaeological sites in the river corridor

- Evaluate past methods used to monitor archaeological sites

in Grand Canyon and elsewhere in the Southwestern US

and evaluate utility of existing monitoring data for quantifying

rates of impacts.

- Establish and apply criteria for including or excluding sites

within the monitoring population and devise sampling

strategies, as appropriate, to select appropriate sites for

future monitoring.

(10.) PROGRESS STATEMENT:

(Describe how each task identified in the

AWP was/was not met and summarize

initial findings and final results. Include

a description of any significant deviation

from the AWP Scope of Work.)

FY06 was the first year of a multi-year research and development

project for core monitoring of archaeological resources.

Implementation of the first year’s work was delayed several

months due to disagreement among a subset of AMP

stakeholders about how to proceed with project implementation.

The project finally got under way in March, 2006 with the first of

three geo-archaeological assessment research river trips in FY06.

This work was conducted concurrently with treatment planning

efforts sponsored by BOR. In addition to conducting geoarchaeological assessments (as the first step towards grouping

sites for future monitoring), testing and evaluating total station vs.

LiDAR surveys to quantify rates of erosion was conducted at a

sample of sites during these trips. A draft report on the first

phase of archaeological assessment work (151 sites) was

completed by NPS in January, 2007; a separate report on the

geomorphic characterization of these same sites is due to be

completed by USU cooperators in spring, 2007. Both reports will

undergo review in spring, 2007. Processing of the total station

and LiDAR survey data has been completed, and an interim report

on the first year of work is in preparation. Preliminary analysis of

the existing site data in relation to modeled river stage (flow lines)

has been completed and was presented to the CRAHG in July,

2006; additional analyses of existing monitoring data are planned

for FY07.

(11.) REPORTS/PRODUCTS

COMPLETED:

(Include all deliverables identified in the

AWP that have been completed and

report on all products beyond those

deliverables identified. Include reports,

presentations, poster sessions, exhibits,

databases, workshops, maps, website

contributions, decision support systems,

- Draft report on archaeological assessment of 151 sites

(prepared by NPS; currently in review)

- GIS analysis of site data in relation to projected flows

(PowerPoint presented to CRAHG, July 2006)

- Progress report on comparison of survey techniques

- USGS fact sheet summarizing utility of LiDAR for ecological

and archaeological monitoring in Grand Canyon and

elsewhere in the western US
66

newsletters, etc.)

(12.) REPORTS/PRODUCTS

PLANNED:

(See above, but report those items that

are in progress and include expected

delivery dates.)

- Report on geomorphic assessment of 151 sites (draft report

to be completed in spring, 2007)

- Final report on comparison of total station vs. LiDAR for

monitoring archaeological site erosion

(13.) RECOMMENDATIONS:

(Describe recommendations for

continuation or modification of project,

other studies, or activities resulting from

findings of this project;

recommendations for MRP changes or

future program guidance, etc.)

Continue R&D project as planned (ongoing in FY07)

(14.) FY2007 BUDGET REPORT FINANCIAL INFORMATION COLLECTION DATE: 09/30/2006

FY PLANNED GROSS BUDGET: $374,201 FISCAL YEAR NET AVAIL BAL: $321,463

FISCAL YEAR EXPENDITURES: $54,712

FISCAL YEAR OBLIGATIONS: $266,751

COMMENTS:

(Discuss

anomalies in the

budget; expected

changes;

anticipated

carryover; etc.)

Trip logistics for this project were

combined with the treatment

planning project; resulting savings

were applied to a new coop

agreement with USU to complete

geomorphic site assessment work

in FY06 and FY07.

END OF FISCAL YEAR

AVAILABLE BALANCE: $ 00

SIGNATURE:

(Must be signed

or submitted by

PI.)

/S/ Helen Fairley TITLE: Sociocultural Program

Manager DATE: 02/06/2007
67

PROJECT C.2 SYNTHESIZE TRIBAL MONITORING PROGRAMS RESULTS (1995 – 2005)

FISCAL YEAR 2006 PROJECT REPORT FOR THE

GLEN CANYON DAM ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

PROGRAM

SUBMISSION

DATE: *02/20/2007

(1.) SUBMITTING AGENCY: USGS – SBSC – Grand Canyon Monitoring & Research Center

(2.) GCDAMP/GCMRC AWP

ID/OTHER NO.:

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Year

2006 Budget & Work Plan, C.2 (GCMRC No. BNE3L)

(3.) PROJECT TITLE: Synthesize Tribal Monitoring Programs Results (1995 – 2005)

(4.) PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR INFORMATION:

GCMRC Program

Manager / Principal

Investigator:

Helen Fairley Mailing Address: 2255 N. Gemini Drive, Flagstaff

E-mail: hfairley@usgs.gov State: AZ Zip Code: 86001

Telephone: 928-556-7285 Delivery Address: Same as above

FAX: 928-556-7092 State: AZ Zip Code: 86001

(5.) STATEMENT OF PROBLEM:

Glen Canyon Dam and the manner in which it is operated have

altered the hydrological regime, sediment budget, sediment flux,

vegetation patterns and associated terrestrial habitats of the

Colorado River downstream in Grand Canyon. There are ongoing

concerns about the effects of these ecosystem changes on

resources important to the Native American tribes who have longstanding traditional cultural ties to the Grand Canyon. To

effectively evaluate and address these concerns requires

development of a robust monitoring program to track and evaluate

changes in aspects of the terrestrial ecosystem important to the

tribes. This project was developed to provide the tribes

participating in the GCDAMP with supplementary funds to design

tribally-appropriate resource monitoring protocols; the budget also

included funding for a part time student employee to assist

GCMRC with managing the project. When AMWG approved the

project, they requested that BOR handle the individual contracts

with the tribes in FY06; funding allocated for the program assistant

remains with GCMRC. The project described below explains how

the funds originally programmed for the project assistant were

used by GCMRC to support the long-term goals of future (but as

yet undefined) tribal monitoring projects.

(6.) OBJECTIVES: Support goals of future tribal monitoring programs.

(7.) RELATIONSHIP TO MRP: Related to Goals 11 and 12

(8.) METHODOLOGY: N/A

(9.) ANNUAL STATEMENT OF

WORK:

(Briefly summarize the annual SOW to

the extent that the project is identifiable.

Include specific tasks where appropriate

and helpful.)

The GCMRC portion of the funding originally allocated for this

project was used to fund a part of the salary for one USU

cooperator to develop GIS layers that will be useful for future tribal

monitoring programs, specifically vegetation coverage,

archaeological site polygons, and projected river flow lines.

(10.) PROGRESS STATEMENT:
68

(Describe how each task identified in the

AWP was/was not met and summarize

initial findings and final results. Include

a description of any significant deviation

from the AWP Scope of Work.)

Preliminary results of GIS analysis of archaeological site

distributions in relation to projected flow lines were presented to

the CRAHG in July, 2006; processing of recently acquired

vegetation data (from 2005 overflight mission) is underway and

ongoing.

(11.) REPORTS/PRODUCTS

COMPLETED:

(Include all deliverables identified in the

AWP that have been completed and

report on all products beyond those

deliverables identified. Include reports,

presentations, poster sessions, exhibits,

databases, workshops, maps, website

contributions, decision support systems,

newsletters, etc.)

Preliminary results of GIS analysis of archaeological site

distributions in relation to projected flow lines was completed and

presented in a PowerPoint format to the CRAHG in July, 2006.

(12.) REPORTS/PRODUCTS

PLANNED:

(See above, but report those items that

are in progress and include expected

delivery dates.)

The funding covered only a portion of the cooperator’s salary and

was used to support the work described above. No additional

products or reports are planned at this time.

(13.) RECOMMENDATIONS:

(Describe recommendations for

continuation or modification of project,

other studies, or activities resulting from

findings of this project;

recommendations for MRP changes or

future program guidance, etc.)

The tribes did not receive FY06 funding until late in FY06;

consequently, they are still in the process of developing proposal

for future monitoring approaches. It is anticipated that these

projects will entail additional support requirements from GCMRC

in the form of GIS data requests, as well as data archiving and

peer review. Additional funding may be required to support these

programs, but until such time as the projects have been fully

defined and accepted by TWG, accurate predictions about

additional costs can not be accurately projected.

(14.) FY2007 BUDGET REPORT FINANCIAL INFORMATION COLLECTION DATE: 09/30/2006

FY PLANNED GROSS BUDGET: $29,250 FISCAL YEAR NET AVAIL BAL: $25,133

FISCAL YEAR EXPENDITURES: $3,437

FISCAL YEAR OBLIGATIONS: $21,696

COMMENTS:

(Discuss

anomalies in the

budget; expected

changes;

anticipated

carryover; etc.)

None at this time.

END OF FISCAL YEAR

AVAILABLE BALANCE: $ 00

SIGNATURE:

(Must be signed

or submitted by

PI.)

/S/ Helen Fairley TITLE: Sociocultural Program

Manager DATE: 02/06/2007
69

PROJECT C.3 INTEGRATED CAMPSITE MONITORING AND RESEARCH (PILOT STUDY)

FISCAL YEAR 2006 PROJECT REPORT FOR THE

GLEN CANYON DAM ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

PROGRAM

SUBMISSION

DATE: *02/20/2007

(1.) SUBMITTING AGENCY: USGS – SBSC – Grand Canyon Monitoring & Research Center

(2.) GCDAMP/GCMRC AWP

ID/OTHER NO.:

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Year

2006 Budget & Work Plan, C.3 (GCMRC No. BNE3M)

(3.) PROJECT TITLE: Integrated Campsite Monitoring and Research (Pilot Study)

(4.) PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR INFORMATION:

GCMRC Program

Manager / Principal

Investigator:

Helen Fairley /

Rod Parnell, NAU Mailing Address: 2255 North Gemini Drive, Flagstaff

E-mail: hfairley@usgs.gov State: AZ Zip Code: 86001

Telephone: 928-556-7285 Delivery Address: Same as above

FAX: 928-556-7092 State: AZ Zip Code: 86001

(5.) STATEMENT OF PROBLEM:

Glen Canyon Dam and the manner in which it is operated have

altered the hydrological regime, sediment budget, and sediment

flux of the Colorado River downstream in Grand Canyon.

Because these factors directly and indirectly influence terrestrial

and aquatic geomorphological processes, including rates of

sandbar deposition and erosion, there are ongoing concerns

about the effects of these processes on the physical condition and

size of sand bars and associated camping areas within the river

corridor. The size and distribution of campable sand bars in turn

affects visitor management issues that are important to the

National Park Service, such as visitor carrying capacity, camp site

competition, and crowding along the Colorado River. To

effectively evaluate and address these concerns requires a robust

monitoring program to track and evaluate changes in sand bars

and campable area. The project described below continues and

integrates of two monitoring projects that have been in place for

many years: surveying sand bar volume and area (since 1991)

and measuring changes in campable area (since 1998.)

(6.) OBJECTIVES:

Quantify changes in sand bar area and volume and in associated

campable area through repeat total station surveys at a sample of

long-term sand bar sites in the Colorado River corridor.

(7.) RELATIONSHIP TO MRP: Repeat intensive total station surveys at a sample of sand bar

sites. See Kaplinski and others 2005 for details.

(8.) METHODOLOGY: Repeat intensive total station surveys at a sample of sand bar

sites.

(9.) ANNUAL STATEMENT OF

WORK:

(Briefly summarize the annual SOW to

the extent that the project is identifiable.

Include specific tasks where appropriate

and helpful.)

Tasks:

- Conduct total station surveys to quantify area and volume

changes at 45 sand bars between Lees Ferry and Diamond

Creek

- Complete total station surveys of campable area at 37 of these

same sand bar sites (not all surveyed sand bars are campsites)
70

- Process survey data and compare with results from previous

years

- Prepare annual report

(10.) PROGRESS STATEMENT:

(Describe how each task identified in the

AWP was/was not met and summarize

initial findings and final results. Include

a description of any significant deviation

from the AWP Scope of Work.)

FY06 monitoring field work was conducted and completed in

October, 2006, at 45 sand bar sites; most of the data have been

processed and preparation of a report is currently (January, 2007)

underway.

(11.) REPORTS/PRODUCTS

COMPLETED:

(Include all deliverables identified in the

AWP that have been completed and

report on all products beyond those

deliverables identified. Include reports,

presentations, poster sessions, exhibits,

databases, workshops, maps, website

contributions, decision support systems,

newsletters, etc.)

- Report preparation is In progress.

(12.) REPORTS/PRODUCTS

PLANNED:

(See above, but report those items that

are in progress and include expected

delivery dates.)

Annual report on monitoring results is anticipated in March, 2007.

(13.) RECOMMENDATIONS:

(Describe recommendations for

continuation or modification of project,

other studies, or activities resulting from

findings of this project;

recommendations for MRP changes or

future program guidance, etc.)

No changes in monitoring protocols are recommended at this

time. We recommend continued tracking of changes in sand bar

area, volume and campable area using established protocols in

FY07 and FY08, or until such time as alternative sediment storage

monitoring protocols are developed. Note: the FY06 budget

included costs for collecting sand bar survey data in addition to

campable area measurements, but not for processing or analysis

of the sand bar survey data, pending final outcome and

recommendations of the FY06 sediment PEP. Subsequently, at

the request of the Physical Science program manager, these data

were processed and analyzed for inclusion in the 2004

Experimental summary and final Fine-grained Sediment Team

(FIST) report. Additional funding to cover the discrepancy

between planned and actual FY06 data analysis costs is therefore

needed.

(14.) FY2006 BUDGET REPORT FINANCIAL INFORMATION COLLECTION DATE: 09/30/2006

FY PLANNED GROSS BUDGET: $86,287 FISCAL YEAR NET AVAIL BAL: $77,657

FISCAL YEAR EXPENDITURES: $2,288

FISCAL YEAR OBLIGATIONS: $75,369

COMMENTS:

(Discuss

anomalies in the

budget; expected

changes;

anticipated

carryover; etc.)

None at this time.

END OF FISCAL YEAR

AVAILABLE BALANCE: $ 00

SIGNATURE:

(Must be signed

or submitted by

PI.)

/S/ Helen Fairley TITLE: Sociocultural Program

Manager DATE: 02/06/2007
71

PROJECT D.1 ONGOING COORDINATION AND SUPPORTPROGRAM-LOGISTICS OPERATIONS

FISCAL YEAR 2006 PROJECT REPORT FOR THE

GLEN CANYON DAM ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

PROGRAM

SUBMISSION

DATE: *02/20/2007

(1.) SUBMITTING AGENCY: USGS – SBSC – Grand Canyon Monitoring & Research Center

(2.) GCDAMP/GCMRC AWP

ID/OTHER NO.:

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Year

2006 Budget & Work Plan, D.1 (GCMRC No. BNE6A)

(3.) PROJECT TITLE: Ongoing Coordination and Support Program-Logistics Operations

(4.) PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR INFORMATION:

GCMRC Program

Manager / Principal

Investigator:

Carol Fritzinger Mailing Address: 2255 North Gemini Drive, Flagstaff

E-mail: cfritz@usgs.gov State: AZ Zip Code: 86001

Telephone: ( 928) 556-7207 Delivery Address: Same as above

FAX: ( 928) 556-7092 State: AZ Zip Code: 86001

(5.) STATEMENT OF PROBLEM:

Implementation of the GCMRC mission to provide credible,

objective scientific information to the GCD-AMP begins with

effective coordination of all technical and logistical support of

research activities. The Research Coordination and Support

Program staff functions as a team to facilitate collaboration with

the Integrated Science and Cultural Programs through effective

communication with program managers, principal investigators

(PI) and the Technical Support Services.

(6.) OBJECTIVES: To provide comprehensive logistical support to the GCMRC

research and monitoring activities in the Grand Canyon.

(7.) RELATIONSHIP TO MRP: Goal 12

(8.) METHODOLOGY:

The GCMRC provided complete logistical support for

approximately 30 research, monitoring, and administrative river

trips through the Grand Canyon. These trips range in length from

7 to 21 days and from 4 to 36 people in size. Trips are comprised

of a variety of motor and oar powered boats operated by

contracted boat operators. Projects operating in the Glen Canyon

reach of the Colorado River (Glen Canyon Dam to Lees Ferry)

were supported by a variety of motor powered boats operated by

GCMRC researchers and contracted boat operators. Additionally,

research activities on the Little Colorado River and at other

locations outside of the Grand Canyon National Park boundaries

were supported by helicopter services contracted with the Bureau

of Reclamation. Ground based support for other research activities

outside of the river corridor were also coordinated with the use of

GCMRC leased vehicles.

This logistical approach has evolved since the GCES phase to

allow a detailed overview of trip particulars that most influence

cost, efficiency, and safety ultimately giving the GCMRC control

over trip costs and productivity. Effective communication with PIs

and sensitivity to and awareness of the challenges they face in

implementing their studies enable the GCMRC to offer more

customized (and therefore more cost-effective and productive)

logistical support than other support strategies utilized previously.

Retaining control over the process of supporting trips also

facilitates compliance with NPS regulations and allows greater

control over issues sensitive to the general public and the
72

“recreational river community.

(9.) ANNUAL STATEMENT OF

WORK:

(Briefly summarize the annual SOW to

the extent that the project is identifiable.

Include specific tasks where appropriate

and helpful.)

See above

(10.) PROGRESS STATEMENT:

(Describe how each task identified in the

AWP was/was not met and summarize

initial findings and final results. Include

a description of any significant deviation

from the AWP Scope of Work.)

The GCMRC provided complete logistical support for

approximately 30 research and monitoring river trips through the

Grand Canyon in FY06. These trips range in length from 7 to 21

days and from 4 to 36 people in size. Trips were comprised of a

variety of motor and oar powered boats operated by contracted

boat operators. Projects operating in the Glen Canyon reach of

the Colorado River (Glen Canyon Dam to Lees Ferry) were

supported by a variety of motor powered boats operated by

GCMRC researchers and contracted boat operators.

Additionally, research activities on the Little Colorado River and

at other locations outside of the Grand Canyon National Park

boundaries were supported by helicopter services contracted

with the Bureau of Reclamation. Ground based support for other

research activities outside of the river corridor were also

coordinated with the use of GCMRC leased vehicles.

(11.) REPORTS/PRODUCTS

COMPLETED:

(Include all deliverables identified in the

AWP that have been completed and

report on all products beyond those

deliverables identified. Include reports,

presentations, poster sessions, exhibits,

databases, workshops, maps, website

contributions, decision support systems,

newsletters, etc.)

N/A

(12.) REPORTS/PRODUCTS

PLANNED:

(See above, but report those items that

are in progress and include expected

delivery dates.)

N/A

(13.) RECOMMENDATIONS:

(Describe recommendations for

continuation or modification of project,

other studies, or activities resulting from

findings of this project;

recommendations for MRP changes or

future program guidance, etc.)

Continue providing logistics support for field activities.

(14.) FY2006 BUDGET REPORT FINANCIAL INFORMATION COLLECTION DATE: 09/30/2006

FY PLANNED GROSS BUDGET: $ 122,616 FISCAL YEAR NET AVAIL BAL: $ 197,946

FISCAL YEAR EXPENDITURES: $ 156,281

FISCAL YEAR OBLIGATIONS: $ 41,665

COMMENTS:

(Discuss

anomalies in the

budget; expected

changes;

anticipated

carryover; etc.)

This portion represents only the

Logistics base costs. See the

following budget report for the

breakout of the project logistics

costs.

END OF FISCAL YEAR

AVAILABLE BALANCE: $ 00

FY PLANNED GROSS BUDGET:

$ 983,970

(est. need

gross)

FISCAL YEAR NET AVAIL BAL: $ 845,179
73

FISCAL YEAR EXPENDITURES: $ 833,719

FISCAL YEAR OBLIGATIONS: $ 11,460

COMMENTS:

(Discuss

anomalies in the

budget; expected

changes;

anticipated

carryover; etc.)

This portion includes only the

GCDAMP support projects that

were dispersed throughout the

budget and not included in the

Logistics base costs.

END OF FISCAL YEAR

AVAILABLE BALANCE: $ 00

SIGNATURE:

(Must be signed

or submitted by

PM/PI.)

/S/ Carol Fritzinger TITLE: Logistics Operations

Specialist DATE: 01/31/2007
74

PROJECT D.2 ONGOING SURVEY OPERATIONS

FISCAL YEAR 2006 PROJECT REPORT FOR THE

GLEN CANYON DAM ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

PROGRAM

SUBMISSION

DATE: *02/20/2007

(1.) SUBMITTING AGENCY: USGS – SBSC - Grand Canyon Monitoring & Research Station

(2.) GCDAMP/GCMRC AWP

ID/OTHER NO.:

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Year

2006 Budget & Work Plan, D.2 (GCMRC No. BNE6B)

(3.) PROJECT TITLE: Ongoing Survey Operations

(4.) PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR INFORMATION:

GCMRC Program

Manager / Principal

Investigator:

Carol Fritzinger

/ Kristin Brown Mailing Address: 2255 North Gemini Drive, Flagstaff

E-mail: cfritz@usgs.gov State: AZ Zip Code: 86001

Telephone: ( 928) 556-7207 Delivery Address: Same as above

FAX: ( 928) 556-7092 State: AZ Zip Code: 86001

(5.) STATEMENT OF PROBLEM:

Ensure accurate positioning of the spatial data required by

GCMRC programs that allow accurate change detection

computations including volumetric and surface area computations,

and facilitate direct integration into a GIS.

(6.) OBJECTIVES:

GCMRC’s survey department supports the research needs of the

scientists and includes acquiring topographic data, positioning

remotely sensed data, evaluating innovative mapping techniques

towards achieving research goals, validating accuracy of

topographic and spatial data, compiling historical data, as well as,

updating positions for historical topographic and spatial data for

inclusion into the GIS database.

(7.) RELATIONSHIP TO MRP:

The trained GCMRC survey staff supports monitoring and

research activities by collecting survey data following standard

protocols and by delivering data in the formats consistent with

data standards.

(8.) METHODOLOGY:

The survey department advises researchers on the appropriate

methods of collecting topographic or spatial data to meet the

requirements of a scientific study as well as evaluates advanced

mapping techniques to accomplish project objectives. The survey

department is also responsible for obtaining, maintaining, and

upgrading all survey equipment required to meet project goals.

Applies survey knowledge to address complexities of integration of

historical survey data into a GIS.

(9.) ANNUAL STATEMENT OF

WORK:

(Briefly summarize the annual SOW to

the extent that the project is identifiable.

Include specific tasks where appropriate

and helpful.)

 Supply GCMRC principal investigators (PI) with the necessary

equipment, supplies, and survey knowledge to perform the

spatial data collection required by their research.

 Publish updated control point coordinates, superseded

coordinates, and associated error estimates for all network

control. This will be done through the development of the
75

GCMRC control point database and made available to Grand

Canyon National Park and all CRE researchers.

 Publish control point maps and make them available for all

CRE field survey activities

 Publish and populate the descriptions in the Control Point

Database.

 Continue translating and rotating historical survey data sets to

updated network control coordinates

 Integrate the prioritized historical survey datasets into the

CRE database

 Educate principal investigators and researchers regarding the

limits of various mapping techniques.

 Evaluate innovative mapping techniques supporting research

goals

(10.) PROGRESS STATEMENT:

(Describe how each task identified in the

AWP was/was not met and summarize

initial findings and final results. Include

a description of any significant deviation

from the AWP Scope of Work.)

 Completed – Equipment, survey support, or establishing

control were provided to the following projects: IASM, KAS,

Campsite, NAU/FIST, Sediment Modeling, Control Network,

Fish (rangefinder), and foodbase (rod and level).

 Completed – Provide control point information or establish

control in support of data collection for cultural project

(Pederson, NPS/MNA Arch Excavation) and for the sediment

modeling project (Bright Angel Creek).

 Completed – Survey Department houses two control point

atlases available for check out. Additional control point maps

were mad for IASM/NPS Archaeology, KAS, Control Point

Database (GCY), foodbase, and Sediment Modeling.

 Collection of photos and descriptions to populate the control

point database is nearly complete. From a total of

approximately 850 control points, 299 points concentrated

between Lees Ferry and Phantom Ranch need site

descriptions (less than 10 points need site descriptions

between Phantom and Diamond Creek).

 Progress toward updating historical data for inclusion into a

GIS database continues. Updated control point coordinates

supplied to NPS facilitated the NPS-funded project to update

most of the legacy archaeology survey data. NPS shared a

copy of the dataset with GCMRC. The updated data requires

verification.

 The procedure for updating FIST historical data was

established.

 Several historical datasets are ready for analysis in a GIS

platform, but a formal structure for a survey database has yet

to be defined.

 Task is ongoing - survey expertise is provided to PIs for

georeferencing collected project data, as well as

best/appropriate technique for collecting survey data to best
76

meet research goals and project objectives.

 Complete and Ongoing – Evaluation of ground-based LiDAR

as a less intrusive mapping technology for monitoring cultural

sites is in progress; this includes a comparison between

survey techniques and ground-base LiDAR techniques as well

as, evaluation of ground based LiDAR as a monitoring tool.

 Evaluation of Oblique Photogrammetry is in the preliminary

stages.

(11.) REPORTS/PRODUCTS

COMPLETED:

(Include all deliverables identified in the

AWP that have been completed and

report on all products beyond those

deliverables identified. Include reports,

presentations, poster sessions, exhibits,

databases, workshops, maps, website

contributions, decision support systems,

newsletters, etc.)

Products Completed:

- Report by Brian Collins evaluating ground-based LiDAR during

the 2004 HFT

- Datasets from above field work (10.1) have been delivered to

researchers for analysis.

- Maps and Data provided to NPS

- Archeology survey data from NPS

Completed Training

- RTK Surveying

- GIS Fundamentals I

- GIS Lab

- GIS Principles: Exploring Spatial Data

Instruction of Motorboat Operator Certification Course to GCMRC

employees and contractors.

(12.) REPORTS/PRODUCTS

PLANNED:

(See above, but report those items that

are in progress and include expected

delivery dates.)

Planned Products:

- Comparison of Survey and Ground-base LiDAR report

- Oblique photogrammetry/ground-based LiDAR/survey

comparison (2004 HFT)

(13.) RECOMMENDATIONS:

(Describe recommendations for

continuation or modification of project,

other studies, or activities resulting from

findings of this project;

recommendations for MRP changes or

future program guidance, etc.)

Continue providing survey support as described above.

Explore the use, effectiveness, costliness of the following mapping

techniques: ground-based LiDAR, oblique photogrammetry, and

improved GPS systems.

Continue historical data integration to updated coordinates.

Define structure of a survey database.

(14.) FY2006 BUDGET REPORT FINANCIAL INFORMATION COLLECTION DATE: 09/30/2006

FY PLANNED GROSS BUDGET: $118,572 FISCAL YEAR NET AVAIL BAL: $106,326

FISCAL YEAR EXPENDITURES: $65,377

FISCAL YEAR OBLIGATIONS: $40,949

COMMENTS:

(Discuss

anomalies in the

budget; expected

changes;

anticipated

carryover; etc.)

None at this time.

END OF FISCAL YEAR

AVAILABLE BALANCE: $ 00

SIGNATURE:

(Must be signed

or submitted by

PI.)

/S/ Carol Fritzinger TITLE: Logistics Operations

Specialist DATE: 01/31/2007
77

PROJECT D.3 ONGOING DEVELOPMENT OF GEODETIC CONTROL NETWORK

FISCAL YEAR 2006 PROJECT REPORT FOR THE

GLEN CANYON DAM ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

PROGRAM

SUBMISSION

DATE: *02/20/2007

(1.) SUBMITTING AGENCY: USGS – SBSC – Grand Canyon Monitoring & Research Center

(2.) GCDAMP/GCMRC AWP

ID/OTHER NO.:

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Year

2006 Budget & Work Plan, D.3 (GCMRC No. BNE6C)

(3.) PROJECT TITLE: Ongoing Development of Geodetic Control Network

(4.) PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR INFORMATION:

GCMRC Program

Manager / Principal

Investigator:

Carol Fritzinger

/ Keith Kohl Mailing Address: 2255 North Gemini Drive, Flagstaff

E-mail: cfritz@usgs.gov State: Arizona Zip Code: 86001

Telephone: (928) 556-7207 Delivery Address: Same as above

FAX: (928) 556-7092 State: AZ Zip Code: 86001

(5.) STATEMENT OF PROBLEM:

The geodetic control network serves as the foundation for all

spatial measurements necessary for long term monitoring. The

referencing of spatial data must be consistent in order to perform

accurate change detection. As such, the positional accuracy must

be well defined locally (at a specific site or along a short river

reach) and regionally (throughout the length of the CRE). In

addition, the data must be correctly and consistently referenced to

the National Spatial Reference System (NSRS) for reliable use in

Geographical Information Systems (GIS). Defining all levels of this

hierarchy is particularly critical since diverse methods are used to

determine positions, (e.g. remotely sensed LiDAR and

photogrammetry, conventional ground-based optical methods, the

Global Positioning System (GPS), and hydrographic surveys).

Combining the results of these various methods to derive a

consistent set of coordinates requires a detailed knowledge of how

these coordinates are derived, as well as the accuracy of the

derivation. It is important to note that the efforts described here

are required by the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC).

(6.) OBJECTIVES:

The objectives of this project are to implement recommendations

made by the GCMRC Survey Protocol Evaluation Program (PEP),

to create and fully document a survey control network, and to

ensure spatial data products are compliant with FGDC regulations.

The PEP recommendations include rigorously tying the control

network to the NSRS (both horizontally and vertically) and meeting

FGDC requirements for data validation, accuracy assessment, and

documentation. The overarching goal is to develop a sound

process for establishing, maintaining, and verifying survey control

in support of long-term monitoring within the CRE. Toward this

end, GCMRC requires a control network and survey procedures

that will yield reliable and consistent results now, while allowing for

advances in theory and technology in the future. Importantly, the

procedures must withstand changes in personnel that will

inevitably occur over the life of the CRE monitoring programs.
78

(7.) RELATIONSHIP TO MRP: Goals 6, 7, 8, 11, and 12, MOs 6.4, 7.3, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, 8.5, 9.3,

11.1, 12.2, 12.3, and 12.9.

(8.) METHODOLOGY:

The primary control surveys are performed using GPS equipment

and adhere to guidelines in NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS

NGS-58, (1997) and NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NGS-59

(2005, currently in draft form) and are tied to at least three NGS

Continuously Operating Reference Stations. Within the primary

network, survey marks are occupied with conventional survey

equipment or GPS receivers and antennas, set on collapsible,

stable survey tripods. All measurements, GPS data, field records,

and documentation are examined to verify compliance with the

specifications for the intended accuracy of the survey. Results of

the minimally constrained, least squares adjustment of the survey

measurements are examined to ensure correct weighting of the

observations and freedom from blunders.

Local and network accuracy measures computed by random error

propagation determine the provisional accuracy. In contrast to a

constrained adjustment where coordinates are obtained by holding

fixed the datum values of the existing control network, accuracy

measures are computed by weighting datum values in accordance

with the network accuracies of the existing network control. The

survey accuracy is checked by comparing minimally constrained

adjustment results against established control. The result must be

at the 95% confidence interval.

(9.) ANNUAL STATEMENT OF

WORK:

(Briefly summarize the annual SOW to

the extent that the project is identifiable.

Include specific tasks where appropriate

and helpful.)

We continue to focus on adding vectors to the tertiary level of the

network. These optical measurements (totaling over 1,000 records

including occupied point, back sight point, foresight point, slope

distance, height of instrument, height of target, horizontal angle,

and zenith angle) are compiled in field notes collected in survey

books from 1990 to present. These notes will be digitally recorded,

adjusted for curvature and refraction, fixed to GPS results and

entered into a least-squares adjustment for coordinate calculations

and accuracy assessments.

(10.) PROGRESS STATEMENT:

(Describe how each task identified in the

AWP was/was not met and summarize

initial findings and final results. Include

a description of any significant deviation

from the AWP Scope of Work.)

As of December, 2006, the GPS network within Grand Canyon

has been expanded to include 159 traverse points referencing 39

GPS stations. Additionally, 217 Photo-identifiable hard points have

been referenced throughout 18 sites from RM0 to RM225. These

stations, combined with the 20 rim control stations, 25 primary

river stations, and 170 secondary river stations now total 374

survey monuments and 217 photo-identifiable stations that are

referenced to the National Spatial Reference System.

(11.) REPORTS/PRODUCTS

COMPLETED:

(Include all deliverables identified in the

AWP that have been completed and

report on all products beyond those

The results continue to be very promising. We have shown that

accurate geodetic positions can be achieved in the hostile GPS

environment within the steep confines of Grand Canyon. Primary

rim, primary river and secondary river network adjustment are
79

deliverables identified. Include reports,

presentations, poster sessions, exhibits,

databases, workshops, maps, website

contributions, decision support systems,

newsletters, etc.)

complete. The primary rim network includes 153 completely

independent vectors. The primary river network includes the

adjustment of 224 independent vectors. The secondary network

adjustment includes 1,633 vectors. Adjustment of more than 1,000

optical measurements taken from 1990 to present are currently

being added to the tertiary level of the network.

(12.) REPORTS/PRODUCTS

PLANNED:

(See above, but report those items that

are in progress and include expected

delivery dates.)

1. A network of survey control points established in specific

research areas and throughout the CRE, referenced to the

primary control network established by the GCMRC and the

National Geodetic Survey.

2. Coordinates and realistic positional and height accuracy

estimates for all network control stations will be available to the

NPS, the GCMRC, and all cooperating agencies.

3. Creation of a database for georeferencing of past datasets and

assessing accuracy of remotely sensed data.

4. A peer reviewed publication reporting collection and

processing methodologies, analysis and discussion of results,

accuracy validation per FGDC requirements, and

recommendations for future positioning needs.

(13.) RECOMMENDATIONS:

(Describe recommendations for

continuation or modification of project,

other studies, or activities resulting from

findings of this project;

recommendations for MRP changes or

future program guidance, etc.)

The final deliverable (2008) will be a comprehensive geodetic

control network report for the CRE. The report will include use and

analysis of many costly data sets collected between 1990 and

2006 that directly aid modeling and ecosystem change detection

capabilities. One major outcome of the report will be the

determination of realistic and achievable accuracies for supporting

GCDAMP scientific investigations.

(14.) FY2006 BUDGET REPORT FINANCIAL INFORMATION COLLECTION DATE: 09/30/2006

FY PLANNED GROSS BUDGET: $138,270 FISCAL YEAR NET AVAIL BAL: $117,528

FISCAL YEAR EXPENDITURES: $77,528

FISCAL YEAR OBLIGATIONS: $40,000

COMMENTS:

(Discuss

anomalies in the

budget; expected

changes;

anticipated

carryover; etc.)

None at this time. END OF FISCAL YEAR

AVAILABLE BALANCE: $ 00

SIGNATURE:

(Must be signed

or submitted by

PI.)

/S/ Carol Fritzinger TITLE: Logistics Operations

Specialist DATE: 01/31/2007
80

PROJECT E.1 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT

FISCAL YEAR 2006 PROJECT REPORT FOR THE

GLEN CANYON DAM ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

PROGRAM

SUBMISSION

DATE: *02/20/2007

(1.) SUBMITTING AGENCY: USGS – SBSC - Grand Canyon Monitoring & Research Station

(2.) GCDAMP/GCMRC AWP

ID/OTHER NO.:

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Year

2006 Budget & Work Plan, E.1 (GCMRC No. BNE5A)

(3.) PROJECT TITLE: GCMRC Component of SBSC Systems Administration Support

(4.) PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR INFORMATION:

GCMRC Program

Manager / Principal

Investigator:

John F. Hamill /

Mike Liszewski Mailing Address: 2255 North Gemini Drive, Flagstaff

E-mail: jhamill@usgs.gov State: AZ Zip Code: 86001

Telephone: ( 928) 556-7094 Delivery Address: Same as above

FAX: ( 928) 556-7092 State: AZ Zip Code: 86001

(5.) STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Provide computer, network, security, and website support for

GCMRC staff relative to its mission of supporting the science

goals of the AMP.

(6.) OBJECTIVES:

 Provide necessary computer hardware and software

required by the GCMRC

 Provide computer networking infrastructure

 Meet DOI/USGS security requirements

 Maintain and troubleshoot computer systems as necessary

 Provide website support

(7.) RELATIONSHIP TO MRP: All goals

(8.) METHODOLOGY: Utilizing IT helpdesk model

(9.) ANNUAL STATEMENT OF

WORK:

(Briefly summarize the annual SOW to

the extent that the project is identifiable.

Include specific tasks where appropriate

and helpful.)

The annual state of work is a continuation of the statement of

problem above.

(10.) PROGRESS STATEMENT:

(Describe how each task identified in the

AWP was/was not met and summarize

initial findings and final results. Include

a description of any significant deviation

from the AWP Scope of Work.)

There were no significant deviations from the AWP. Support

was provided in the following areas:

 Provided necessary computer hardware and software

required by the GCMRC

 Provide computer networking infrastructure

 Met DOI/USGS security requirements

 Maintained computer systems as necessary

 Provide website support

(11.) REPORTS/PRODUCTS

COMPLETED:

(Include all deliverables identified in the

AWP that have been completed and

report on all products beyond those

deliverables identified. Include reports,

presentations, poster sessions, exhibits,

databases, workshops, maps, website

contributions, decision support systems,

newsletters, etc.)

Required computer hardware and software, networking

infrastructure, security, and website support was provided and all

computer maintenance and troubleshooting was completed.
81

(12.) REPORTS/PRODUCTS

PLANNED:

(See above, but report those items that

are in progress and include expected

delivery dates.)

Updated computer hardware and software, networking

infrastructure, security, and website support will be provided as

necessary. Maintenance and troubleshooting will be provided as

needed.

(13.) RECOMMENDATIONS:

(Describe recommendations for

continuation or modification of project,

other studies, or activities resulting from

findings of this project;

recommendations for MRP changes or

future program guidance, etc.)

None

(14.) FY2006 BUDGET REPORT FINANCIAL INFORMATION COLLECTION DATE: 09/30/2006

FY PLANNED GROSS BUDGET: $354,510 FISCAL YEAR NET AVAIL BAL: $309,606

FISCAL YEAR

EXPENDITURES: $258,256

FISCAL YEAR OBLIGATIONS: $51,350

COMMENTS:

(Discuss

anomalies in the

budget; expected

changes;

anticipated

carryover; etc.)

None at this time.

END OF FISCAL YEAR

AVAILABLE BALANCE: $ 00

SIGNATURE:

(Must be signed

or submitted by

PI.)

/S/ John F. Hamill TITLE: Chief, GCMRC DATE: 02/02/2007
82

PROJECT F.1 ADMINISTRATIVE OPERATIONS

FISCAL YEAR 2006 PROJECT REPORT FOR THE

GLEN CANYON DAM ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

PROGRAM

SUBMISSION

DATE: *02/20/2007

(1.) SUBMITTING AGENCY: USGS – SBSC - Grand Canyon Monitoring & Research Station

(2.) GCDAMP/GCMRC AWP

ID/OTHER NO.:

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Year

2006 Budget & Work Plan, F.1 (GCMRC No. BNE7A)

(3.) PROJECT TITLE: Administrative Operations

(4.) PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR INFORMATION:

GCMRC Program

Manager / Principal

Investigator:

John F. Hamill Mailing Address: 2255 North Gemini Drive, Flagstaff

E-mail: jhamill@usgs.gov State: AZ Zip Code: 86001

Telephone: ( 928) 556-7364 Delivery Address: Same as above

FAX: ( 928) 556-7092 State: AZ Zip Code: 86001

(5.) STATEMENT OF PROBLEM:

Effective management of the GCMRC program and the ability of

its scientists and technicians to successfully fulfill their research

obligations rely on their ability to effectively and efficiently perform

their duties.

(6.) OBJECTIVES:

It is necessary to have smooth running, transparent administrative

operations that ensure the scientist’s focus can remain on their

research rather than on the administrative details involved with the

payment of rent and utilities, timekeeping concerns, filing, and

various other administrative topics.

(7.) RELATIONSHIP TO MRP: All goals

(8.) METHODOLOGY:

General methods include standard accounting procedures and

regulatory and legal standards as required by the USGS and other

Federal agencies with legal oversight. The GCMRC will follow

USGS guidelines as assigned for personnel, travel, and other

processes. Administrative personnel will focus on how to

accomplish requests within Federal laws and regulations. The

Administrative Officer for SBSC and the Budget Analyst for

GCMRC will report annually to the AMWG/TWG on year-end

projections and on the actual expenditures for the previous fiscal

year.

(9.) ANNUAL STATEMENT OF

WORK:

(Briefly summarize the annual SOW to

the extent that the project is identifiable.

Include specific tasks where appropriate

and helpful.)

Effective management of the GCMRC program and the ability of

its scientists and technicians to successfully fulfill their research

obligations rely on their ability to effectively and efficiently perform

their duties. It is necessary to have smooth running, transparent

administrative operations that ensure the scientist’s focus can

remain on their research rather than on the administrative details

involved with the payment of rent and utilities, timekeeping

concerns, filing, and various other administrative topics.

Administrative operations activities provide the oversight and

management of facilities, burden, and overhead; personnel issues;

expenditure tracking; processing of and financial management of

cooperative and interagency agreements; processing of contracts;

timekeeping; bank card tracking and reconciliation; travel plans

and voucher processing; and liaison activities between the USGS

administrative groups (Western Region Budget and Fiscal

Services and Contracting Offices, Headquarters in Reston, and

the Biological Headquarters). In addition, this project is innately

involved with the USGS nationwide budget tracking and reporting
83

system known as BASIS+, that is used by the USGS

Headquarters and Regional offices to make their annual reports to

Congress as well as to respond to Congressional inquiries with

turnaround times as short as 12 hours. (As part of the Glen

Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, GCMRC

administrators have been called upon to provide information of this

type from the system on many occasions.)

(10.) PROGRESS STATEMENT:

(Describe how each task identified in the

AWP was/was not met and summarize

initial findings and final results. Include

a description of any significant deviation

from the AWP Scope of Work.)

There were no significant deviations from the AWP.

Administrative activities involved oversight and management of

facilities, burden and overhead; addressing personnel

needs/issues; expenditure tracking; processing of and financial

management of cooperative and interagency agreements;

processing of contracts; timekeeping; bank card tracking and

reconciliation; travel plan and voucher processing; and liaison

activities between the USGS administrative groups.

(11.) REPORTS/PRODUCTS

COMPLETED:

(Include all deliverables identified in the

AWP that have been completed and

report on all products beyond those

deliverables identified. Include reports,

presentations, poster sessions, exhibits,

databases, workshops, maps, website

contributions, decision support systems,

newsletters, etc.)

Budgetary and other financial information provided to Program

Managers upon request. SCORE Report was published using

administrative funds; refer to AMWG/TWG Requests Project

Progress Report.

(12.) REPORTS/PRODUCTS

PLANNED:

(See above, but report those items that

are in progress and include expected

delivery dates.)

The Administrative Officer for SBSC and the Budget Analyst for

GCMRC will present a report in actual expenditures for the

previous fiscal year that will normally be presented at the

Spring/Summer AMWG meeting.

(13.) RECOMMENDATIONS:

(Describe recommendations for

continuation or modification of project,

other studies, or activities resulting from

findings of this project;

recommendations for MRP changes or

future program guidance, etc.)

GCMRC administrative personnel have met with BOR personnel

in FY 2007 and will be providing detailed billing information for

agreements. In addition, GCMRC and BOR worked together to

determine a perceived discrepancy of $1.7 million dollars under

the closed agreement (No. 01-AA-40-4640). When the books

were compared, the difference in the books came to

approximately $400 over the course of the 5-year agreement and

$36,296,000. GCMRC and BOR administrative personnel agreed

to meet on a consistent basis to maintain an open working

relationship and discuss and resolve issues before they become

problems.

(14.) FY2006 BUDGET REPORT FINANCIAL INFORMATION COLLECTION DATE: 09/30/2006

FY PLANNED GROSS BUDGET: $772,545 FISCAL YEAR NET AVAIL BAL: $743,899

FISCAL YEAR EXPENDITURES: $737,899

FISCAL YEAR OBLIGATIONS: $6,000

COMMENTS:

(Discuss

anomalies in the

budget; expected

changes;

anticipated

carryover; etc.)

See Recommendations.

END OF FISCAL YEAR

AVAILABLE BALANCE: $ 00

SIGNATURE:

(Must be signed

or submitted by

PI.)

/S/ John F. Hamill TITLE: Chief, GCMRC DATE: 02/13/2007
84
85

PROJECT F.2 PROGRAM PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT

FISCAL YEAR 2006 PROJECT REPORT FOR

THE GLEN CANYON DAM ADAPTIVE

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

SUBMISSION

DATE: *02/20/2007

(1.) SUBMITTING AGENCY: USGS – SBSC - Grand Canyon Monitoring & Research Station

(2.) GCDAMP/GCMRC AWP

ID/OTHER NO.:

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Year 2006

Budget & Work Plan, F.2 (GCMRC No. BNE7B)

(3.) PROJECT TITLE: Program Planning and Management

(4.) PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR INFORMATION:

GCMRC Program

Manager / Principal

Investigator:

John F. Hamill Mailing Address: 2255 North Gemini Drive, Flagstaff

E-mail: jhamill@usgs.gov State: AZ Zip Code: 86001

Telephone: ( 928) 556-7364 Delivery Address: Same as above

FAX: ( 928) 556-7092 State: AZ Zip Code: 86001

(5.) STATEMENT OF

PROBLEM:

Successful scientific research and reporting can be enhanced by strong and

effective leadership that provides close working relationships between

managers and employees. Good managers can apply knowledge as

management actions that can enhance scientific research and imagination. In

GCMRC, in addition to their program management responsibilities, the Program

Managers are also subject area experts in their respective fields. It is important

that GCMRC Program Managers and scientific staff maintain this expertise so

they can provide high quality technical assistance in the form of expert analysis,

opinion, and advice to the Chief, TWG, and AMWG, as requested.

(6.) OBJECTIVES:

The GCMRC’s goal is to deliver a comprehensive ecosystem science program

that is effective in responding to management needs articulated through the

GCDAMP and by DOI. Productive, well-qualified personnel are critical to

achieving this goal.

(7.) RELATIONSHIP TO

MRP: All goals.

(8.) METHODOLOGY:

In order to provide strong leadership that provides a quality science program

that is responsive to the needs of the GCDAMP, GCMRC will be administered

by a core program management staff that includes the following key positions:

Center Chief

Establishes Center science policies and strategic direction and provides

accountability for the GCMRC budget. Interfaces with USGS management,

Secretary’s GCDAMP Designee, and GCDAMP managers to assure that quality

science is provided in a timely manner on priority issues identified by the

GCDAMP leadership.

Program Managers

Responsible for the timely execution of the science program within their

program area; interaction with other program areas to ensure integrated

ecosystem approaches, quality control of products and contractors/ cooperators;

contract/agreement management; management of budget within their program

area, and providing reports to GCDAMP work groups as needed. In FY 2006,
86

GCMRC activities were organized into four major program areas:

1. The Physical Science and Modeling Program conducts research

and monitoring activities on physical elements of the Colorado River

ecosystem including studies of sediment storage and transport in

the regulated river, integrated downstream water quality monitoring

and research. The program has been responsible for conducting

several experimental high flow releases from Glen Canyon Dam

(GCD) to conserve sediment resources for building beaches and

improving habitat for native aquatic species in the Colorado River.

2. The Biological Program provides scientific information that

supports the conservation of native species in the Grand Canyon

and the Lees Ferry trout fishery. Elements of the program include

the assessing the effects of GCD on fishery resources,

characterizing the aquatic food base, evaluating terrestrial

contributions to the aquatic food base, improving fish community

monitoring, developing and testing of techniques to control

nonnative fishes, evaluating terrestrial vegetation changes as a

result of dam operations, and water quality monitoring and modeling

in Lake Powell and the Colorado River below GCD.

3. The Cultural and Socioeconomic Program focuses on culturally

significant sites and artifacts and recreation activities based in the

Grand Canyon. The current focus is on development of

comprehensive monitoring programs to assess the condition of the

culturally significant sites affected by the operation of GCD.

4. The Logistics Program supports up to 40 river trips per year and

coordinates research permit management for the Grand Canyon

Monitoring and Research Center. The Logistics Program also

provides survey support to various program and activities.

(9.) ANNUAL

STATEMENT OF

WORK:

(Briefly summarize the

annual SOW to the extent

that the project is

identifiable. Include specific

tasks where appropriate

and helpful.)

Beginning in FY06, in an effort to simplify distribution of program planning and

management salaries and travel, the Program Manager salaries were assigned

to this category exclusively. In addition to the five program managers, 50% of

the salary for the Southwest Biological Science Center’s Information

Technologies Director is also included in this line item to support the GCMRC’s

ongoing information and technology needs. Travel expenses in support of the

program, but separate from TWG and AMWG participation, are also included.

Salaries and travel costs for Program Managers, the Chief, and Deputy Chief

are included in program planning and management budget.

(10.) PROGRESS

STATEMENT:

(Describe how each task

identified in the AWP

was/was not met and

summarize initial findings

and final results. Include a

description of any

significant deviation from

the AWP Scope of Work.)

GCMRC program managers actively participated in and provided staff

support to AMWG, TWG, SPG, and CRAHG activities. Program

managers also coordinated/facilitated implementation of FY06 projects

and supervised GCMRC staff. All key GCMRC program manager positions

were filled in FY06 including a Chief and Biology Program Manager. A Deputy

Chief position was established to oversee internal operations and facilitate

integrated multidisciplinary science.

(11.)

REPORTS/PRODUCTS

COMPLETED:

(Include all deliverables

identified in the AWP that

Refer to individual projects.
87

have been completed and

report on all products

beyond those deliverables

identified. Include reports,

presentations, poster

sessions, exhibits,

databases, workshops,

maps, website

contributions, decision

support systems,

newsletters, etc.)

(12.)

REPORTS/PRODUCTS

PLANNED:

(See above, but report

those items that are in

progress and include

expected delivery dates.)

Refer to the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program Fiscal Year

2006 Budget & Work Plan as Recommended by the Adaptive Management

Work Group.

http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/amwg/mtgs/05aug30/documents/Attach_012.pdf

(13.)

RECOMMENDATIONS:

(Describe recommendations

for continuation or

modification of project,

other studies, or activities

resulting from findings of

this project;

recommendations for MRP

changes or future program

guidance, etc.)

Fill the recently vacated Physical Program Manager position.

(14.) FY2006 BUDGET

REPORT FINANCIAL INFORMATION COLLECTION DATE: 09/30/2006

FY PLANNED GROSS

BUDGET: $566,444 FISCAL YEAR NET AVAIL BAL: $486,175

FISCAL YEAR EXPENDITURES: $486,175

FISCAL YEAR OBLIGATIONS: $00

COMMENTS:

(Discuss

anomalies in

the budget;

expected

changes;

anticipated

carryover; etc.)

None at this time. END OF FISCAL YEAR AVAILABLE

BALANCE: $ 00

SIGNATURE:

(Must be

signed or

submitted by

PI.)

/S/ John F. Hamill TITLE: Chief, GCMRC DATE: 02/13/2007
88

PROJECT F.3 AMWG/TWG PARTICIPATION

FISCAL YEAR 2006 PROJECT REPORT FOR THE

GLEN CANYON DAM ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

PROGRAM

SUBMISSION

DATE: *02/20/2007

(1.) SUBMITTING AGENCY: USGS – SBSC - Grand Canyon Monitoring & Research Station

(2.) GCDAMP/GCMRC AWP

ID/OTHER NO.:

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Year

2006 Budget & Work Plan, F.3 (GCMRC No. BNE7C)

(3.) PROJECT TITLE: AMWG/TWG Participation

(4.) PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR INFORMATION:

GCMRC Program

Manager / Principal

Investigator:

John F. Hamill Mailing Address: 2255 North Gemini Drive, Flagstaff

E-mail: jhamill@usgs.gov State: AZ Zip Code: 86001

Telephone: ( 928) 556-7364 Delivery Address: Same as above

FAX: ( 928) 556-7092 State: AZ Zip Code: 86001

(5.) STATEMENT OF PROBLEM:

This project is an account to hold funds for travel expenses only of

USGS employees who are involved in or travel to AMWG and

TWG meetings.

(6.) OBJECTIVES: To fund travel costs for AMWG/TWG meetings.

(7.) RELATIONSHIP TO MRP: Goal 12

(8.) METHODOLOGY: Methods used are standard USGS travel authorizations and

vouchers.

(9.) ANNUAL STATEMENT OF

WORK:

(Briefly summarize the annual SOW to

the extent that the project is identifiable.

Include specific tasks where appropriate

and helpful.)

Fund all travel costs for GCMRC employees to travel to and from

AMWG and TWG meetings while project related travel is budgeted

within projects.

(10.) PROGRESS STATEMENT:

(Describe how each task identified in the

AWP was/was not met and summarize

initial findings and final results. Include

a description of any significant deviation

from the AWP Scope of Work.)

GCMRC managers and appropriate staff attended all AMWG and

TWG meetings in FY06.

(11.) REPORTS/PRODUCTS

COMPLETED:

(Include all deliverables identified in the

AWP that have been completed and

report on all products beyond those

deliverables identified. Include reports,

presentations, poster sessions, exhibits,

databases, workshops, maps, website

contributions, decision support systems,

newsletters, etc.)

Project progress report.

(12.) REPORTS/PRODUCTS

PLANNED:

(See above, but report those items that

are in progress and include expected

delivery dates.)

Actual expenditure report for the previous fiscal year that will

normally be presented at the Spring/Summer AMWG meeting.
89

(13.) RECOMMENDATIONS:

(Describe recommendations for

continuation or modification of project,

other studies, or activities resulting from

findings of this project;

recommendations for MRP changes or

future program guidance, etc.)

Recommend renaming this project to represent its actual purpose

which is to fund travel costs only to/from TWG/AMWG meetings

for USGS employees.

(14.) FY2006 BUDGET REPORT FINANCIAL INFORMATION COLLECTION DATE: 09/30/2006

FY PLANNED GROSS BUDGET: $17,550 FISCAL YEAR NET AVAIL BAL: $14,543

FISCAL YEAR EXPENDITURES: $14,543

FISCAL YEAR OBLIGATIONS: $00

COMMENTS:

(Discuss

anomalies in the

budget; expected

changes;

anticipated

carryover; etc.)

None at this time.

END OF FISCAL YEAR

AVAILABLE BALANCE: $ 00

SIGNATURE:

(Must be signed

or submitted by

PI.)

/S/ John F. Hamill TITLE: Chief, GCMRC DATE: 02/13/2007
90

PROJECT F.4 INDEPENDENT REVIEW PANELS

FISCAL YEAR 2006 PROJECT REPORT FOR THE

GLEN CANYON DAM ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

PROGRAM

SUBMISSION

DATE: *02/20/2007

(1.) SUBMITTING AGENCY: USGS – SBSC - Grand Canyon Monitoring & Research Station

(2.) GCDAMP/GCMRC AWP

ID/OTHER NO.:

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Year 2006

Budget & Work Plan, F.4 (GCMRC No. BNE7D)

(3.) PROJECT TITLE: Independent Review Panels

(4.) PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR INFORMATION:

GCMRC Program

Manager / Principal

Investigator:

John F. Hamill Mailing Address: 2255 North Gemini Drive, Flagstaff

E-mail: jhamill@usgs.gov State: AZ Zip Code: 86001

Telephone: ( 928) 556-7364 Delivery Address: Same as above

FAX: ( 928) 556-7092 State: AZ Zip Code: 86001

(5.) STATEMENT OF

PROBLEM:

Independent external review is at the heart of GCMRC’s approach to

program management and implementation. Together with the

competitive process, independent external peer review ensures the

quality and objectivity of GCMRC’s programs. Independent review

panels are utilized to evaluate GCMRC’s plans and activities. All

proposals, reports, programs, etc., are subject to independent peer

review according to GCMRC’s peer-review protocols.

(6.) OBJECTIVES:

To increase the efficiency and quality of the science being developed

by GCMRC and used by the AMWG and the Secretary, GCMRC will

establish a peer-review process to ensure that all unsolicited,

solicited, or in-house proposals and all draft reports received by

GCMRC undergo independent, external peer review. Additionally, the

Science Advisors Board will provide independent scientific oversight

and technical advice to ensure that GCMRC science programs are

efficient, unbiased, objective, and scientifically sound.

(7.) RELATIONSHIP TO MRP: All goals

(8.) METHODOLOGY:

Peer Review

All of GCMRC's scientific activities undergo an independent, external

peer review including all unsolicited, solicited, or in-house proposals.

Similarly, all draft reports received by GCMRC undergo independent,

external peer review. The peer-review protocols developed by

GCMRC meet or exceed the standards articulated by the Secretary

of the Interior for the Department of the Interior.

Peer review for proposals received by GCMRC in response to an

RFP is conducted through a panel process, while peer review for

unsolicited and in-house proposals, as well as project reports is

conducted through the mail. In all cases, the reviewers are offered

anonymity and the individual and panel reviews, where applicable,

are provided to the PIs along with comments from GCMRC. In

addition, GCMRC conducts PEPs to review and assess GCMRC’s

projects and methodologies. To date, PEPs have been held for

remote sensing, physical, survey control, terrestrial and aquatic,

cultural resources and the water quality program.

The GCMRC review process is handled by a report review

coordinator to ensure that the peer-review process is conducted one-
91

step removed from the GCMRC Program Managers to guard against

any conflicts of interest – real or perceived. Strict conflict-of-interest

guidelines are adhered to. GCMRC annually recruits new individuals

to join the ranks of its peer reviewers and maintains a database of

almost 500 potential reviewers, organized by area of expertise.

GCMRC peer reviewers come from academia, Federal, State and

Tribal government, non-governmental organizations, and the private

sector. Reviewers are selected on the basis of their record of

scientific accomplishment and expertise.

Science Advisors

The GCMRC works with a group of Science Advisors (SAs) as one of

its independent review panels. The SAs are advisory and not a

decision making body. It is an interdisciplinary group composed of

scientists who are qualified, based on their record of publication in

the peer-reviewed literature, or other demonstrable scientific

achievements. An Executive Secretary leads the SAs and serves as

the liaison officer to the AMWG and the GCMRC.

The SAs, together and individually, will be expected in FY06 to

review and comment to the AMWG and GCMRC on: (1) GCMRC's

annual work plan and budget proposal, (2) GCMRC's long-term

monitoring and research plan (MRP), (3) the results of GCMRC's

completed monitoring and research activities, (4) the results of any

synthesis and assessment activities initiated by the GCMRC, and (5)

any other activities (i.e., developing a monitoring plan, enhancing

opportunities for integrated science, and other program specific

scientific advice) it is asked to address by the GCMRC Chief or the

AMWG.

(9.) ANNUAL STATEMENT OF

WORK:

(Briefly summarize the annual

SOW to the extent that the

project is identifiable. Include

specific tasks where

appropriate and helpful.)

The GCMRC librarian coordinates review activities for Protocol

Evaluation Panels (PEPs) and research proposals and reports

funded by the Center. In FY2006 this included 1 PEP, 4 research

proposals, and 26 research reports.

The Scientific Advisors individually will be expected upon request,

among other things, to review and comment on:

1. Results of ongoing and completed monitoring and

research program activities, as well as any synthesis and

assessment activities initiated by GCMRC

2. The appropriateness of GCMRC’s RFPs, especially their

responsiveness to management objectives

3. The protocols used in GCMRC sponsored scientific

activities, including a 5-year review of GCMRC

monitoring and research protocols

4. GCMRC’s long-term monitoring plan

5. GCMRC’s annual monitoring and research plans

6. GCMRC’s annual budget proposals, to ensure that the

science program is efficiently and effectively responding
92

to AMWG goals (i.e., management objectives)

7. Any other program specific scientific and technical

advice it is asked to address by the AMWG, the

GCMRC, or the Secretary

(10.) PROGRESS STATEMENT:

(Describe how each task identified in

the AWP was/was not met and

summarize initial findings and final

results. Include a description of any

significant deviation from the AWP

Scope of Work.)

Two Science Advisors positions were open from 2005, and three SAs

resigned in 2006 at the end of their appointment period. A proposal

by GCMRC to AMWG to reduce the Science Advisor group from 10

to 8 was accepted, and three of the five open positions were refilled.

Dr. Harold Tyus, fish/aquatic ecologist from UC Boulder; Dr. Don

Fowler, anthropologist from UN Reno, and Dr. Ellen Wohl,

geomorphologist from CSU, were appointed by the GCMRC Chief as

Science Advisor replacements. All three specialists are currently

working with existing SAs on review projects.

Continuing SA Appointments are:

Jill Baron, Plant Ecologist, USGS/CSU

Virginia Dale, Systems Specialist, TVA

Lance Gunderson, Adaptive Management Specialist, Emory College

Jim Kitchell, Fish Ecologist, Univ of Wisconsin

Dale Robertson, Limnologist, USGS

The SAs produced the following reviews of documents in 2006:

 Knowledge Assessment Report (KAR)

 Section of SCORE Report

 Draft HBCC

 Strategic Science Plan (2)

 Monitoring and Research Plan (2)

 FY 2007 Annual Work Plan and Budget

 Hydropower Economic Statement of Work Review

 Biophysical/Socio-Cultural Statement of Work Review

Science Advisory Services of SAs:

The SAs, and specifically the SA Executive Secretary, agreed to

significantly increased contributions of advisory services to the AMP

in 2006 to ensure support to planning process needs in science and

management. This has involved contributions in the following areas.

 A Science Planning Group to develop AMP science plans;

i.e., SSP, MRP, AWP and Budget

 SPG to develop experimental options

 Review and advisory service to TWG and GCMRC

 Advisory service to Task Team for Experimental Options

Assessment Resource Requirements

(11.) REPORTS/PRODUCTS

COMPLETED:

(Include all deliverables identified in

the AWP that have been completed

and report on all products beyond

those deliverables identified. Include

reports, presentations, poster

sessions, exhibits, databases,

workshops, maps, website

contributions, decision support

Refer to the Annual Report: FY 2006 Science Advisor

Accomplishments and Proposed FY 2007/2008 Science Advisor

Review and Advisory Service Program prepared by L.D. Garrett, SA

Executive Secretary, for Dr. Kurt Dongoske, TWG Chair, on October

24, 2006.

http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/amwg/mtgs/06dec05/index.html

http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/amwg/mtgs/06dec05/AIF_SAsRpt.pdf
93

systems, newsletters, etc.)

(12.) REPORTS/PRODUCTS

PLANNED:

(See above, but report those items

that are in progress and include

expected delivery dates.)

Refer to the report links, above.

(13.) RECOMMENDATIONS:

(Describe recommendations for

continuation or modification of

project, other studies, or activities

resulting from findings of this project;

recommendations for MRP changes

or future program guidance, etc.)

Selected recommendations of the Science Advisors from various

reviews are as follows:

 Incorporate ecosystem paradigm into more elements of

research, monitoring, and management actions

 Focus on most critical management resource concerns

 Implement aggressive HBC program of research, monitoring,

and management actions

 Redirect aquatic food base program

 Focus new food base program toward key higher trophic

resources

 Direct science program with strategic and operational

science questions

 Determine how to integrate management actions into

ongoing science/monitoring programs



The FY 2007 and FY 2008 budget for Science Advisor programs

should be reduced to previous levels of between $170,000 and

$190,000.

(14.) FY2006 BUDGET REPORT FINANCIAL INFORMATION COLLECTION DATE: 09/30/2006

FY PLANNED GROSS

BUDGET: $380,250 FISCAL YEAR NET AVAIL BAL: $326,810

FISCAL YEAR EXPENDITURES: $181,284

FISCAL YEAR OBLIGATIONS: $145,526

COMMENTS:

(Discuss

anomalies in

the budget;

expected

changes;

anticipated

carryover; etc.)

None at this time.

END OF FISCAL YEAR

AVAILABLE BALANCE: $ 00

SIGNATURE:

(Must be signed

or submitted by

PI.)

/S/ John F. Hamill TITLE: Chief, GCMRC DATE: 02/13/2007
94

PROJECT F.5 SUPPORT FOR STRATEGIC SCIENCE IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING

FISCAL YEAR 2006 PROJECT REPORT FOR THE

GLEN CANYON DAM ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

PROGRAM

SUBMISSION

DATE: *02/20/2007

(1.) SUBMITTING

AGENCY: USGS – SBSC - Grand Canyon Monitoring & Research Station

(2.) GCDAMP/GCMRC

AWP

ID/OTHER NO.:

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Year 2006

Budget & Work Plan, F.5 (GCMRC No. BNE7E)

(3.) PROJECT TITLE: Support for Strategic Science Implementation Planning

(4.) PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR INFORMATION:

GCMRC Program

Manager / Principal

Investigator:

John F. Hamill Mailing Address: 2255 North Gemini Drive, Flagstaff

E-mail: jhamill@usgs.gov State: AZ Zip Code: 86001

Telephone: ( 928) 556-7364 Delivery Address: Same as above

FAX: ( 928) 556-7092 State: AZ Zip Code: 86001

(5.) STATEMENT OF PROBLEM:

The Science Planning Group (SPG) was authorized by the AMP

Secretary’s Designee and AMWG in 2005 at the request of

GCMRC and TWG. A 12-month focused effort of AMP managers

and scientists was approved.

(6.) OBJECTIVES: To develop the AMP 5-year experimental plans and associated

science programs plan.

(7.) RELATIONSHIP TO MRP: All goals.

(8.) METHODOLOGY:

The Science Advisors group was appointed to direct and facilitate

the process. The SPG, led by GCMRC and TWG members, was

an experimental adaptive management task group developed

specifically to assure involvement of all AMP programs and groups

in the planning process.

(9.) ANNUAL STATEMENT OF

WORK:

(Briefly summarize the annual SOW to

the extent that the project is

identifiable. Include specific tasks

where appropriate and helpful.)

No specific Statement of Work developed.

(10.) PROGRESS STATEMENT:

(Describe how each task identified in

the AWP was/was not met and

summarize initial findings and final

results. Include a description of any

significant deviation from the AWP

Scope of Work.)

The SPG has documented their process and performance in “A

Report on Activities and on Accomplishments of the GCD AMP

Science Planning Group: 2005-2006.” In brief, the SPG:

 Developed and followed a 12-month plan of specific

objectives, and proposed schedules, costs, and outcomes.

 Utilized an open process of all AMP parties’ involvement in

multiple workshop meetings to develop all plans.

 Produced and evaluated in 12 months and within budget:

 Three 5-year experimental plan alternatives

 A 5-year Strategic Science Plan (SSP)

 A 5-year Monitoring and Research Plan (MRP)

 A 2007 Annual Work Plan and Budget (AWP)

In conducting its activities, the SPG found the lack of full

development in several aspects of the GCD AMP structure and

processes that created weaknesses in the science planning

process, and will likely affect other future management and science

activities in a similar nature. These findings prompted a set of
95

recommendations from the SPG.

(11.) REPORTS/PRODUCTS

COMPLETED:

(Include all deliverables identified in

the AWP that have been completed

and report on all products beyond

those deliverables identified. Include

reports, presentations, poster

sessions, exhibits, databases,

workshops, maps, website

contributions, decision support

systems, newsletters, etc.)

The SPG has documented their process and performance in “A

Report on Activities and Accomplishments of the GCD AMP

Science Planning Group: 2005 – 2006.”

(12.) REPORTS/PRODUCTS

PLANNED:

(See above, but report those items that

are in progress and include expected

delivery dates.)

Strategic Science Plan to Support Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive

Management Program, Fiscal Years 2007–11, Draft for AMWG

Review, October 27, 2006;

Prepared by the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

Developed in cooperation with the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive

Management Program

http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/amwg/mtgs/06dec05/index.html

http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/amwg/mtgs/06dec05/AIF_Science_

Plans.pdf

(13.) RECOMMENDATIONS:

(Describe recommendations for

continuation or modification of project,

other studies, or activities resulting

from findings of this project;

recommendations for MRP changes or

future program guidance, etc.)

The SPG felt its size, composition, and task orientation contributed

strongly to its performance. However, it also determined that its

performance and the performance of future task groups could be

greatly improved if resolve could be gained in several critical

aspects of the structure and processes of the AMP. The SPG

identified 10 issues for continued efforts in FY 2007 and 2008. To

this end, the SPG recommends that the SPG be followed in 2007

by another similar task group that is charged in the 12-month period

to provide resolve to one or more of five critical issues.

 Develop improved methods and/or procedures for managers to

establish and articulate priorities for specific 3-5 year time

intervals.

 Develop improved methods for managers and scientists that

permit more effective tradeoff assessments.

 Develop more effective scientist/managers collaborative

working procedures.

 Implement methods to monitor and improve the adaptive

management process.

 Implement methods to define future conditions (DFCS) for the

Colorado River Ecosystem resources of concern.

(14.) FY2006 BUDGET REPORT FINANCIAL INFORMATION COLLECTION DATE: 09/30/2006

FY PLANNED GROSS BUDGET: $29,250 FISCAL YEAR NET AVAIL BAL: $24,596

FISCAL YEAR EXPENDITURES: $24,596

FISCAL YEAR OBLIGATIONS: $00

COMMENTS:

(Discuss

anomalies in

the budget;

expected

changes;

anticipated

carryover; etc.)

None at this time.

END OF FISCAL YEAR

AVAILABLE BALANCE: $ 00

SIGNATURE:

(Must be

signed or

submitted by

/S/ John F. Hamill TITLE: Chief, GCMRC DATE: 02/13/2007
96

PI.)
97

PROJECT F.6 GCMRC’S FY 2006 BIENNIAL SCIENCE SYMPOSIUM

FISCAL YEAR 2006 PROJECT REPORT FOR THE

GLEN CANYON DAM ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

PROGRAM

SUBMISSION

DATE: *02/20/2007

(1.) SUBMITTING

AGENCY: USGS – SBSC - Grand Canyon Monitoring & Research Station

(2.) GCDAMP/GCMRC

AWP

ID/OTHER NO.:

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Year 2006

Budget & Work Plan, F.6 (GCMRC No. BNE7I)

(3.) PROJECT TITLE: GCMRC’s FY 2006 Biennial Science Symposium

(4.) PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR INFORMATION:

GCMRC Program

Manager / Principal

Investigator:

John F. Hamill Mailing Address: 2255 North Gemini Drive, Flagstaff

E-mail: jhamill@usgs.gov State: AZ Zip Code: 86001

Telephone: ( 928) 556-7364 Delivery Address: Same as above

FAX: ( 928) 556-7092 State: AZ Zip Code: 86001

(5.) STATEMENT OF PROBLEM:

The symposium represents an exciting opportunity to learn and to

share recent activities. The symposium also coincides both with the

tenth anniversary of the environmental impact statement (EIS) that

set the stage for the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management

summary on the impacts of the operation of Glen Canyon Dam on

downstream natural, cultural, and recreational resources within

Glen Canyon National Recreation Area and Grand Canyon National

Park.

(6.) OBJECTIVES:

To facilitate critical information transfer and promote science and

management discussions as new information is derived from the

science and GCD-AMP efforts. In addition, the symposium should

engender discussion on how best to use scientific results from

research conducted in the Colorado River ecosystem to advance

the future monitoring and research efforts.

(7.) RELATIONSHIP TO MRP: All goals.

(8.) METHODOLOGY: To hold a symposium in a centrally located city where researchers

can share their findings with others.

(9.) ANNUAL STATEMENT OF

WORK:

(Briefly summarize the annual SOW to

the extent that the project is

identifiable. Include specific tasks

where appropriate and helpful.)

The report, The State of Colorado River Ecosystem in Grand

Canyon, SCORE, serves as a focal point for the first day of the

symposium. It is a significant milestone in the use of adaptive

ecosystem management (AEM) to support the Grand Canyon

Protection Act of 1992 (GCPA). Importantly, its analysis and results

can be a catalyst for education and interaction among the

scientific community.

The second day offers a preliminary update of the results of the

November 2004 Experimental High Flow and efforts to

mechanically remove nonnative fishes in the Colorado River within

Grand Canyon. During the afternoon of the second day, monitoring

and research activities in the realms of

aquatic biology, economics, planning and experimentation are

highlighted. The third day explores other important components of

the monitoring and research program, including spatial and

remotely sensed data, water quality, physical science, and primary

productivity. The symposium concludes with recent findings related

to the endangered humpback chub (Gila cypha) population in
98

Grand Canyon.

(10.) PROGRESS STATEMENT:

(Describe how each task identified in

the AWP was/was not met and

summarize initial findings and final

results. Include a description of any

significant deviation from the AWP

Scope of Work.)

Symposium completed; SCORE Report written and published; see

the following link for abstracts, etc.

http://www.gcmrc.gov/news_info/outreach/symposiums/2005/sym_

2005.htm

(11.) REPORTS/PRODUCTS

COMPLETED:

(Include all deliverables identified in

the AWP that have been completed

and report on all products beyond

those deliverables identified. Include

reports, presentations, poster

sessions, exhibits, databases,

workshops, maps, website

contributions, decision support

systems, newsletters, etc.)

Symposium completed; see the following link for abstracts, etc.

http://www.gcmrc.gov/news_info/outreach/symposiums/2005/sym_

2005.htm

and the following link for the complete SCORE report:

http://www.gcmrc.gov/products/score/2005/score.htm

(12.) REPORTS/PRODUCTS

PLANNED:

(See above, but report those items that

are in progress and include expected

delivery dates.)

See links, above.

(13.) RECOMMENDATIONS:

(Describe recommendations for

continuation or modification of project,

other studies, or activities resulting

from findings of this project;

recommendations for MRP changes or

future program guidance, etc.)

Conduct the next science symposium in FY08 in coordination with

the Upper Basin Recovery Implementation Program and the Lower

Basin Multi-species Conservation Plan.

(14.) FY2006 BUDGET REPORT FINANCIAL INFORMATION COLLECTION DATE: 09/30/2006

FY PLANNED GROSS BUDGET: $29,250 FISCAL YEAR NET AVAIL BAL: $24,596

FISCAL YEAR EXPENDITURES: $24,596

FISCAL YEAR OBLIGATIONS: $00

COMMENTS:

(Discuss

anomalies in the

budget;

expected

changes;

anticipated

carryover; etc.)

None at this time. END OF FISCAL YEAR

AVAILABLE BALANCE: $ 00

SIGNATURE:

(Must be signed

or submitted by

PI.)

/S/ John F. Hamill TITLE: Chief, GCMRC DATE: 02/13/2007
99

PROJECT F.8 AMWG, TWG REQUESTS DURING FY 2006

FISCAL YEAR 2006 PROJECT REPORT FOR THE

GLEN CANYON DAM ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

PROGRAM

SUBMISSION

DATE: *02/20/2007

(1.) SUBMITTING AGENCY: USGS – SBSC - Grand Canyon Monitoring & Research Station

(2.) GCDAMP/GCMRC AWP

ID/OTHER NO.:

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Year

2006 Budget & Work Plan, F.8 (GCMRC No. BNE7F)

(3.) PROJECT TITLE: AMWG, TWG Requests During FY 2006

(4.) PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR INFORMATION:

GCMRC Program

Manager / Principal

Investigator:

John F. Hamill Mailing Address: 2255 North Gemini Drive, Flagstaff

E-mail: jhamill@usgs.gov State: AZ Zip Code: 86001

Telephone: ( 928) 556-7364 Delivery Address: Same as above

FAX: ( 928) 556-7092 State: AZ Zip Code: 86001

(5.) STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: This funding is recommended as a placeholder in the event that

additional needs are identified during the course of FY2006.

(6.) OBJECTIVES: To fund unexpected projects or expenditures that may arise during

the course of the fiscal year.

(7.) RELATIONSHIP TO MRP: Dependent on need.

(8.) METHODOLOGY: Dependent on need.

(9.) ANNUAL STATEMENT OF

WORK:

(Briefly summarize the annual SOW to

the extent that the project is identifiable.

Include specific tasks where appropriate

and helpful.)

Dependent on need.

(10.) PROGRESS STATEMENT:

(Describe how each task identified in the

AWP was/was not met and summarize

initial findings and final results. Include

a description of any significant deviation

from the AWP Scope of Work.)

Minimal funds were used to help with the costs of publishing the

SCORE report.

(11.) REPORTS/PRODUCTS

COMPLETED:

(Include all deliverables identified in the

AWP that have been completed and

report on all products beyond those

deliverables identified. Include reports,

presentations, poster sessions, exhibits,

databases, workshops, maps, website

contributions, decision support systems,

newsletters, etc.)

The State of the Colorado River Ecosystem (SCORE) Report

publishing costs were partially funded from this account.

See the link, below, for the full report.

http://www.gcmrc.gov/products/score/score_reports.htm

(12.) REPORTS/PRODUCTS

PLANNED:

(See above, but report those items that

are in progress and include expected

delivery dates.)

None.

(13.) RECOMMENDATIONS:

(Describe recommendations for

continuation or modification of project,

other studies, or activities resulting from

findings of this project;

recommendations for MRP changes or

future program guidance, etc.)

None at this time.
100

(14.) FY2006 BUDGET REPORT FINANCIAL INFORMATION COLLECTION DATE: 09/30/2006

FY PLANNED GROSS BUDGET: $87,750 FISCAL YEAR NET AVAIL BAL: $80,408

FISCAL YEAR EXPENDITURES: $23,103

FISCAL YEAR OBLIGATIONS: $00

COMMENTS:

(Discuss

anomalies in the

budget; expected

changes;

anticipated

carryover; etc.)

None at this time.

END OF FISCAL YEAR

AVAILABLE BALANCE: $57,305

SIGNATURE:

(Must be signed

or submitted by

PI.)

/S/ John F. Hamill TITLE: Chief, GCMRC DATE: 02/13/2007

---------------END OF REPORT---------------