United States Department of the Interior 

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

SOUTHWEST BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE CENTER

GRAND CANYON MONITORING AND RESEARCH CENTER

2255 NORTH GEMINI DRIVE, MS-9394 

FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA 86001

928 556-7094 Telephone

928 556-7092 Fax

March 6, 2009 

MEMORANDUM 

To: Technical Work Group, Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program 

From: John Hamill, Chief, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center 

Subject: Amendment to GCMRC’s Strategic Science Plan and the Monitoring and 

 Research Plan 

In May 2008, the AMWG passed a motion that authorized the TWG to work with 

GCMRC to update the Monitoring and Research Plan (MRP) to reflect the new priorities 

and provisions of the 2007 Biological Opinion concerning the shortage guidelines and 

coordinated operations of Lakes Powell and Mead, the 2008 Biological Opinion for the 

Operation of Glen Canyon Dam, and the associated Environmental Assessment (EA); and 

to report recommended MRP changes to the AMWG for review and approval by its 

Fall/Winter 2008 meeting. While not referenced in the AMWG motion, I felt it was 

important to also update the Strategic Science Plan (SSP) which provides the foundation 

for the MRP. 

A revised draft of the SSP and MRP was shared with the TWG in September 2008 and 

discussed at the October 2008 TWG meeting. TWG members were asked to provide 

comments on the revised SSP and MRP. With respect to the SSP, about 25 comments 

were received (attached). No changes were made to the SSP in response to these 

comments since, in my view, all the comments were all outside the scope of the intended 

revision. Proposed revisions to the SSP (attached) are highlighted in yellow. The 

September 2008 draft of the SSP proposed extending the timeframe of the SSP to 2012 to 

correspond to the timeframe of the experimental plan outlined in the EA. Given the 

broader issues that were raised by commenter’s about the SSP, I decided to maintain the 

2007-2011 timeframe for the SSP. 

Over 350 comments were provided from 17 reviewers on the MRP. In reviewing the 

comments, it became clear that most of the comments were outside the scope of the 

planned revision; a comprehensive revision of the MRP would be required to address all 

the comments that were received. Such a major revision was outside the scope of the 

motion passed by the AMWG. Therefore, I made a decision to leave the current approved 
MRP intact and prepare a stand alone amendment (attached) that identifies GCMRC 

science activities that will be carried out to address key provisions of the EA and 

biological opinions. Relevant reviewer comments were considered in the development of 

the attached amendment. Copies of the comments and our response to some of the 

comments are available upon request. 

In keeping with the AMWG motion, I am seeking a recommendation from the TWG on 

the proposed SSP revisions and the MRP amendment. I would also welcome comments 

that would make the revision/amendment more acceptable to the TWG. I intend to 

present the revised SSP and MRP amendment to the AMWG for review and approval at 

their April 2009 meeting. A copy of the comment response form is provided for your use 

in providing written comments on the SSP or MRP revision. 

Thanks for your consideration. I look forward to discussing this further at the upcoming 

TWG meeting 

Attachment (4) 

1. Comments on the September 2008 TWG Review draft of the Strategic Science Plan 

2. Strategic Science Plan 

3. Monitoring and Research Plan (MRP) Amendment 

4. Comment Sheet 
Attachment 1. Comments on the September 2008 TWG Review draft of the Strategic Science Plan 

Document Title Strategic Science Plan for FY 2009-12

Document Date: October 2008

Comment 

Number 

Page Line Reviewer 

Name 

Affiliation Reviewer 

Comments (Be specific 

Identify Action Requested 

Response Requested 

General Henderson NPS/GLCA The revised draft SSP included additions 

only. Significant deletions occurred that affect overall priority and direction of the science program, i.e., TCD. 

Release a revised draft with both additions and deletions. 

1 Preface Henderson NPS/GLCA Clarify that the SSP is responsive to NPS 

managers at GRCA/GLCA as well as the AMP. 

1 Intro/ 

background 

Henderson NPS/GLCA Discussion in this section should include 

more than the AMP. As above, the SSP should recognize the resource priorities and ongoing RM/monitoring activities conducted by the NPS. Also, the NPS role in protecting and managing GRCA/GLCA resources should be mentioned. The SSP should describe how GCMRC research and monitoring will intersect with these NPS programs within the CRE. 

1 6 Sam Spiller FWS After “... identified by the Adaptive 

Management Work Group [add] and the stewardship responsibilities of DOI managing agencies for the Public.” 

Requested addition that would replace existing wording. 

Yes 

1 29-42 Sam Spiller FWS I would use the exact same wording as used 

for the MRP (or vice versa). Since I started reviewing the MRP first, I have made comments. My recommendation is to address my requested comment changes and then, once wording is addressed for 

Requested addition that would replace existing wording. 

Yes 
Comment 

Number 

Page Line Reviewer 

Name 

Affiliation Reviewer 

Comments (Be specific 

Identify Action Requested 

Response Requested 

items 1-5 in the MRP, use that wording for items 1-5 in the SSP. 

2 8 Henderson NPS/GLCA The term natural resources should be replaced 

with one that is more expansive and includes all the resources specified in the GCPA (natural, cultural, recreational, economic etc.) 

No 

2 Adaptive 

Management & Table 1 

Henderson NPS/GLCA This section should clearly specify how 

GCMRC interacts with NPS to implement the proposed science program. Ultimately, it is the needs of the NPS and other DOI agencies that must be met (with input and recommendations from the AMWG). 

2 Adaptive 

Management 

Henderson NPS/GLCA By reading this section, the reader is left with 

the impression that the adaptive management program manages the resources in Grand Canyon National Park and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. This section should specifically mention that the GCMRC science program provides data and analyses to support the formal five-year review of the GCD operating criteria and the annual plan of operations for GCD and report to congress. 

2 Figure 1 Sam Spiller FWS Recommend adding Bureau of 

Reclamation, National Park Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and Fish and Wildlife Service within the portion of the Figure depicting our Secretary of the Interior due to the collective, magnitude of importance that the stewardship and associated management responsibilities of these DOI bureaus. Further, recommend one sentence descriptors that identify the responsibilities of these agencies in an additional paragraph that follows the 1st

paragraph on page 1, to support the 

Requested addition that would replace existing wording. 

Yes 
Comment 

Number 

Page Line Reviewer 

Name 

Affiliation Reviewer 

Comments (Be specific 

Identify Action Requested 

Response Requested 

stewardship responsibilities of the Secretary of the Interior and importance of the GCMRC work. 

2 5 Sam Spiller FWS Include reference to our Secretary of the 

Interior Adaptive Management guidance document in this first sentence. 

Requested addition that would replace existing wording. 

Yes 

3 19-20 Henderson NPS/GLCA The GCDAMP must also be responsive to the 

dfcs specified by the NPS. 

5 Integrated 

River Science 

Henderson NPS/GLCA The importance of economics should be 

discussed in terms of all resources (including hydropower). Economic cost/benefits are routinely used to justify resource decisions and should be used in the AMP program. 

5 8 Henderson NPS/GLCA Change 5 years to 4 years No 6 Lead roles 

Of GCMRC 

Henderson NPS/GLCA A key role of GCMRC is to advise the DOI 

agencies charged with management of GRCA/GLCA resources. 

6 Lead roles of 

GCDAMP 

Henderson NPS/GLCA 1. The AMP does not provide “management 

direction.” That is the responsibility of DOI agencies. The AMP reviews and makes recommendations on proposed management direction. 2. The GCDAMP does not “implement” management actions and treatment programs. The AMP recommends agencies like the NPS take actions and treatment programs. 

6 14 Henderson NPS/GLCA The 2006 Roles Ad Hoc group report was 

updated this year. Shouldn’t the latest version be referenced? 

8 Davis CREDA The list of key strategic science questions 

under the question “What is the best flow regime?” show many projected dates that have already past even though the monitoring and research to answer the questions has not 

Please provide information on the status of these projects or when these 

Y 
Comment 

Number 

Page Line Reviewer 

Name 

Affiliation Reviewer 

Comments (Be specific 

Identify Action Requested 

Response Requested 

been completed. Of the 12 questions, 6 were projected to be done by now and another 4 were to be done by FY09. What is the status of efforts to incorporate monitoring and research into the GCMRC budget to answer these questions? 

projects are scheduled to be conducted. 

9 AMWG 

priority 3 

Henderson NPS/GLCA Add a question about economic cost/benefit 

of the best flow regime. 

9 AMWG 

priority 4 

Henderson NPS/GLCA Add a question about total economic 

costs/benefits of sediment loss 

9 35 Henderson NPS/GLCA Clarify this note. It appears that a reference is 

being made to the LTEP which has been suspended 

9 Other 

critical research and monitoring needs 

Henderson NPS/GLCA The need for comprehensive economic value 

determinations should be stressed in this section. The program can no longer just evaluate the economic impacts to hydropower. 

Entirety 

of SSP 

Sam Spiller FWS I believe additional reference is needed 

throughout the document to acknowledge the stewardship roles of the DOI agencies as reasoning and/or justification for GCMRC monitoring and research work ; this should be supportive to further the importance of GCMRC’s science work. 

Requested addition that would replace existing wording. 

Yes 
Attachment 2 

TWG Review Draft—March 6, 2009 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

Developed in cooperation with the Glen Canyon Dam 

Adaptive Management Program 

Strategic Science Plan to Support 

the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive 

Management Program, Fiscal Years 

2007-2011 

Prepared by the USGS Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center 

Final 

March 22, 2007 

22 Amended 

23 April 2009 

24 

25 

26 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Geological Survey 
TWG Review Draft—March 6, 2009 

ii

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Mark D. Myers, Director 

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia 2007 

For product and ordering information: 

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod 

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS 

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science 

about the Earth, 

its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the 

environment: 

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov 

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS 

Suggested citation: 

U.S. Geological Survey, 2007, Monitoring and research plan in 

support of the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program: 

Flagstaff, Ariz., U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Geological 

Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, 149 p. 

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive 

purposes only and does not imply 

endorsement by the U.S. Government. 

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must 

be secured from the individual 

copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted material 

contained within this report. 
TWG Review Draft—March 6, 2009 

Preface 

3

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

This “Strategic Science Plan to Support the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management 

Program, Fiscal Years 2007-2011” is one element of an overall science-planning process 

used by the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC) to provide 

independent, objective science support to the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management 

Program. We designed the plan to be responsive to the goals and the priority information 

needs identified by the Adaptive Management Work Group The Adaptive Management 

Work Group is a Federal Advisory Committee that makes recommendations to the 

Secretary of the Interior on the operation of Glen Canyon Dam and other management 

actions intended to meet the U.S. Department of the Interior’s obligations under the 

Grand Canyon Protection Act. The strategies presented here will be used to guide the 

development and implementation of monitoring and research activities for fiscal years 

(FY) 2007–11. The Plan was updated in April 2009 to reflect provisions of several 13 

NEPA documents and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biological opinions related to the 14 

operation of Glen Canyon Dam. 15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

Copies of this plan are available at 

http://www.gcmrc.gov/. 

Introduction and Background 

This strategic science plan (SSP) identifies strategies to be pursued by the U.S. 

Geological Survey’s (USGS) Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC) 

to provide credible, objective scientific information to the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive 

Management Program (GCDAMP) during the next 5 years. The study area of interest to 

the GCDAMP is the Colorado River corridor from Glen Canyon Dam to Lake Mead, an 

area known as the Colorado River ecosystem (CRE). For the study area, the GCMRC will 

develop scientific information regarding (1) the effects of the operation of Glen Canyon 

Dam and other factors on CRE resources, using an ecosystem approach, and (2) flow and 

nonflow measures to mitigate adverse effects on CRE resources caused by dam 

operations. This SSP will be carried out by the GCMRC in cooperation with participants 

of the GCDAMP. 

The GCDAMP was established in 1996 by the Secretary of the Interior to 

implement the Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992, the 1995 Operation of Glen 

Canyon Dam Final Environmental Impact Statement, and the 1996 Record of Decision. 

Adaptive management—the dynamic interplay of stakeholder collaboration, resources 

management, and scientific research—was envisioned as a new paradigm to address the 

complex environmental problems related to the operation of Glen Canyon Dam. The 

GCDAMP consists of five components (fig. 1): 

• The Adaptive Management Work Group (AMWG) is a Federal Advisory 

Committee that facilitates the implementation of the GCDAMP. The AMWG is 

made up of 25 stakeholders and the Secretary of the Interior’s Designee. The 

AMWG makes recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior on how dam 
TWG Review Draft—March 6, 2009 

1 

2 

4 

6 

7 

8 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

operations can be modified or other management actions taken to fulfill the U.S. 

Department of the Interior’s obligations under the Grand Canyon Protection Act. 

• The Secretary of the Interior’s Designee serves as the chair of the AMWG and as a 3 

direct link between the AMWG and the Secretary of the Interior. 

• The Technical Work Group (TWG) translates AMWG policies and goals into 5 

information needs, provides questions that serve as the basis for long-term 

monitoring and research activities, and conveys research results to AMWG 

members. 

• The USGS Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center provides credible, 9 

objective scientific information on the effects of Glen Canyon Dam and related 

factors on natural, cultural, and recreational resources along the Colorado River 

from Glen Canyon Dam to Lake Mead (see table 1 for GCMRC responsibilities). 

• Independent review panels assesses proposals and research products to ensure 

scientific objectivity and credibility. The science advisors, a formal group of 

academic experts in fields germane to the GCDAMP, are an example of an 

independent review panel. 

Adaptive Management 

The GCDAMP is based on an adaptive environmental assessment and 

management (AEAM) approach to natural resources management (Holling, 1978; 

Walters, 1986), now commonly called “adaptive management.” The approach assumes 

that managed natural resources will always change, that scientific understanding of 

ecosystems is constantly improving, and that natural resource managers need the best 

available information to make decisions. AEAM unites the strengths of different 

scientific disciplines to meet the information needs of resource managers. It encourages 

scientists and managers to work collaboratively to use scientific information in the 

management process. 

AEAM consists of two parts—adaptive assessment and adaptive management. 

Assessment investigates how ecological systems work and evaluates management 

alternatives to achieve goals. Management involves learning by doing and testing, 

which may include monitoring system responses to natural changes (passive adaptive 

management) or deliberate manipulation of key processes (active adaptive 

management). 

Adaptive management acknowledges that policies must satisfy social 

objectives, but policies also need to adapt to both changes in understanding and 

changes in managed systems. Managers using an AEAM approach learn how a 

natural system works and how their actions affect the system; this knowledge helps 

them to perform better in complex and uncertain environments. This SSP is based on 

an AEAM approach articulated in the draft GCDAMP strategic plan (2000), which 

includes the following activities: 

1. Development of models on the effects of policies, activities, or practices being 

considered for implementation 

4
TWG Review Draft—March 6, 2009 

2 

3 

6 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

2. Formulation of questions as testable hypotheses regarding the expected 1 

responses or linkages of the Colorado River ecosystem to dam operations and 

management actions 

3. Execution of experiments to test hypotheses and answer questions 4 

4.Implementation of management actions to reveal the accuracy or completeness of 5 

earlier predictions through monitoring and evaluation of results 

5.Incorporation of new information produced through experimentation into 7 

management discussions and recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior 

Science Planning Process 

The GCDAMP science planning process aims to develop a credible, objective 

science program that is responsive to AMWG goals and priority needs. The AMWG 

specified 12 goals that provide general guidance for planning, monitoring, and research 

efforts (table 2). In August 2004, the AMWG reviewed these goals and identified five 

priority questions to help guide the GCDAMP science program: 

1. Why are the humpback chub not thriving, and what can we do about it? How many 

humpback chub are there and how are they doing? 

2. Which cultural resources, including traditional cultural properties, are within the 

area of potential effect, which should we treat, and how do we best protect them? 

What is the status and trends of cultural resources and what are the agents of 

deterioration? 

3. What is the best flow regime? 

4. What is the impact of sediment loss and what should we do about it? 

5. What will happen when a temperature control device is tested or implemented? 

How should it be operated? Are safeguards needed for management? 

The GCMRC will use these five priority questions as the primary, but not 

exclusive, basis for designing the science program to be implemented during the next 5 

years. Other sources of information that will be considered include the following: 

• AMWG management objectives and associated information needs, 

including core-monitoring information needs 

• Protocol evaluation panel recommendations 

• Knowledge assessment report findings and recommendations 

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biological opinion requirements related to 

the operation of Glen Canyon Dam 

• National Historic Preservation Act requirements 

35  NEPA documents and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biological opinion 

36 requirements related to the operation of Glen Canyon Dam. For example, 

37 the Environmental Assessment: Experimental Releases from Glen Canyon 

38 Dam, Arizona, 2008 through 2012 dated February 29, 2008, the Final 

39 Biological Opinion for the Bureau of Reclamation’s Operation of Glen 

40 Canyon Dam, February 27, 2008, and the Final Biological Opinion for 

5
TWG Review Draft—March 6, 2009 

1 the Bureau of Reclamation’s Proposed Adoption of Colorado River 

2 Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and Coordinated 

3 Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead, December 12, 2008 will be 

4 used to provide direction for several research, monitoring, and 

5 experimental activities that will be carried out in FY2008-20212 

6 including a March 2008 High Flow Experiment and a 5-year Nearshore 

7 Ecology-Steady Flow Experiment. 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

The science program will also incorporate the findings of an environmental 

impact statement (EIS) on a long-term experimental plan (LTEP) for the operation of 

Glen Canyon Dam and associated management activities. The EIS process was begun by 

the Bureau of Reclamation in late 2006; however, the process was temporarily suspended 

in 2008 to allow the agency to focus on Endangered Species Act and National 

Environmental Policy Act compliance required for a 5-year plan of experimental flows 

from Glen Canyon Dam. The experimental flow plan includes the high-flow release 

conducted in early March 2008. The eventual results of the EIS will be incorporated into 

the SSP and other GCMRC planning documents noted below when a Record of Decision 

is issued. 

To create a balanced adaptive management program and to ensure that all key 

resources are addressed by the science program, this science plan also anticipate that 

generally the GCMRC will propose at least one science activity for each GCDAMP goal 

(table 2) in its work plan. 

Science Planning Documents 

The GCMRC will design and implement the GCDAMP science program in 

cooperation with GCDAMP stakeholders through collaboration on four stepdown planning 

documents: 

1. The GCDAMP strategic plan (AMPSP) is a long-term plan drafted in August 2001 

by GCDAMP and GCMRC participants that identifies the AMWG’s vision, 

mission, principles, goals, management objectives, information needs, and 

management actions (Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, 2001). 

2.The GCMRC SSP (this document) identifies general strategies for the next 5 

years to provide science information responsive to the goals, management 

objectives, and priority questions as described in the AMPSP and other 

planning direction approved by the AMWG. 

3. The GCMRC monitoring and research plan (MRP) specifies (1) core monitoring 

activities, (2) research and development activities, and (3) long-term experimental 

activities consistent with the strategies and priorities established in this SSP to be 

conducted over the next 5 years to address some of the strategic science questions 

associated with AMWG priority questions. (Other strategic science questions will 

be addressed through the LTEP EIS.) 

4. The GCMRC biennial work plan (BWP) identifies the scope, objectives, and budget 

for monitoring and research activities planned for a 2-year period. When completed, 

the biennial work plan will be consistent with the MRP. A transitional annual work 

6
TWG Review Draft—March 6, 2009 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

plan (AWP) was developed for fiscal years 2007 and 2008. The first BWP is 

currently in progress. 

Figure 2 depicts the flow of information in the stepdown science planning and 

implementation process. 

Figure 2. Collaborative science planning and implementation process. The Glen Canyon 

Dam Adaptive Management Program and the U.S. Department of the Interior have lead 

responsibility for the shaded boxes. The Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center 

haslead responsibility for the boxes that are not shaded. 

 SSP 

 MRP 

 AWP 

Annual 

Work 

Activities

Annual/Final 

Reports 

Annual 

Review 

5-year Analysis 

• SCORE Report 

• KA Report 

 AMPSP 

5-Year 

Analysis and 

Report 

Ann

A

Rep

ual 

nalysis & 

ort 

Annual 

Analysis & 

Report 

Other Plans: 

• HBC Comp Plan 

• NPS CRMP 

• Colorado River AOP 

• NEPA documents and 

Biological Opinions. 

The GCMRC will report annually on completed projects presented in the biennial 

work plan and evaluate whether scientific research has contributed to fulfilling GCDAMP 

goals and management objectives. At 5-year intervals, the GCMRC will consolidate new 

scientific knowledge in updated versions of “The State of the Colorado River Ecosystem in 

Grand Canyon” (SCORE) report (Gloss and others, 2005), knowledge assessment report 

(Melis and others, 2006), and elsewhere, as appropriate. Priority information needs and 

science questions will be evaluated by scientists and managers to determine whether 

program revisions are needed. Planning documents, including the SSP and the MRP, will 

also be revised to reflect program updates. 

GCMRC science planning will be most effective if it is conducted in conjunction 

with a periodic review of the GCDAMP strategic plan, including priority goals, 

information needs, management objectives, and management treatments and actions. 

Completing concurrent reviews will help ensure the science program is properly aligned 

with current management objectives and priorities. 

7
TWG Review Draft—March 6, 2009 

Science Strategies 

8

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

11 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

This SSP is based on the adaptive management paradigm discussed above 

wherein new science information is continually cycled into application by managers, and 

outcomes are monitored by scientists and managers for effectiveness. This process 

requires highly focused applied science projects that address specific management 

information needs. Consistent with the adaptive management paradigm, the GCMRC’s 

science strategy will emphasize four elements: 

8  Performing interdisciplinary, integrated river science 

9  Building bridges between science and management 

10  Formulating strategic science questions to address the AMWG’s priority goals and 

questions 

12  Addressing critical research and monitoring needs outside the scope of the GCDAMP 

Interdisciplinary, Integrated River Science 

The GCMRC will increase its emphasis on an interdisciplinary, integrated science approach over the 

next 5 years. This approach supports AMWG goals to manage competing resource values to benefit both 

human beings and the natural ecosystems that are important to them. This means that single resources (and 

research related to them) will not be studied in isolation from other resources or from the sociocultural 

context. Interdisciplinary, integrated river science will seek to understand how resources respond to human 

activities, outside forces, and internal natural ecosystem drivers (e.g., floods, drought, plankton 

blooms, etc.). Understanding will come through core monitoring, research and development, and longterm experimental activities. Prediction will be developed from a synthesis of findings in a quantitative 

modeling framework. 

 In 1998, Walters and others conducted an adaptive environmental assessment and management 

workshop to assist Grand Canyon scientists and managers to develop a conceptual model of the 

Colorado River ecosystem affected by Glen Canyon Dam operations (see Walters and others, 2000). 

The Grand Canyon Model that resulted proved to be useful at identifying knowledge gaps and 

predicting the response of some ecosystem components to policy change. However, a lack of data for 

some resource responses limited the effectiveness of the model to produce predictions in several key areas, 

including long-term sediment storage, fisheries responses to habitat restoration, and socioeconomic 

effects. Several improvements to the model have been suggested to increase its utility in science 

planning and management processes. Suggested improvements include making the model more userfriendly, ensuring that the model provides information that is relevant to each high-priority AMWG goal 

and question, and incorporating advanced statistical and mathematical methods. 

 In 2007, the GCMRC will work with the science advisors to identify and evaluate opportunities for 

incorporating an interdisciplinary, integrated ecosystem science and modeling approach into the current 

science program, including the refinement and use of conceptual and predictive ecosystem models and 

decision-support tools. The feasibility of various approaches will be assessed based on their ability to 

satisfy the information needs of resource managers; usefulness for designing an integrated, interdisciplinary 

science program for the GCDAMP; and implementation costs. 

Building Bridges between Science and Management 

The GCMRC’s ability to design studies that will produce relevant scientific 

information depends on how well the GCDAMP participants define and agree on resource 

goals, management objectives, and desired outcomes. To be successful, GCMRC scientists 

and GCDAMP participants must work together as partners—partners with distinct but 

complementary roles. These individual roles and responsibilities are outlined in table 3. A 
TWG Review Draft—March 6, 2009 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

more complete discussion of roles and responsibilities of various GCDAMP entities and 

the GCMRC is presented in the report of the Roles Ad Hoc Group of the GCDAMP 

(2006). 

The success of the GCDAMP is dependent not only on the GCMRC’s ability to 

produce scientific information that is relevant to management needs but also upon the 

effective and timely use of that information by managers in the decisionmaking process. 

The challenge for scientists is to synthesize large amounts of diverse and often highly 

technical data into a form that is relevant to a decision that has implications for multiple 

resources in different areas and timeframes. A clear example of this challenge is the issue 

of how to operate Glen Canyon Dam. Over the past decade, there have been great advances 

in the development and application of a suite of decision-support tools to assist scientists 

and managers in understanding the interrelationships, data uncertainty, and relative 

influence of scientific knowledge on resource management decisions. 

The GCMRC proposes a collaborative strategy among scientists and GCDAMP 

participants to assess how to better integrate scientific information into the GCDAMP 

process. The assessment will address (1) the feasibility of using decision-support tools to 

integrate scientific information into science planning and AMP recommendation 

processes, including resource tradeoff assessments, and (2) strategies to address the 

value-based conflicts of diverse interests in the GCDAMP. Pilot approaches will be 

tested during the FY2007–11 program period. 

Addressing Priority Goals and Questions 

In general, the GCMRC science program will monitor the status and trends of 

CRE resources and evaluate treatments or management actions (e.g., changes in dam 

operation, nonnative fish control, beach/habitat-building flows, etc. ) to restore or protect 

downstream resources. The science program will address AMWG priority questions and 

key strategic science questions, presented in the following section, that were identified in 

the knowledge assessment report (Melis and others, 2006). Providing answers to these 

key questions will provide the information needed by managers to improve management 

of priority CRE resources and reduce the uncertainties associated with various flow and 

nonflow treatments or management actions being considered by the GCDAMP. 

The strategic science questions will be addressed through the following general 

categories of activities: 

1.Core-monitoring activities are scientifically validated protocols or methods to 

assess the condition and trend of priority GCDAMP resources (humpback chub, 

sediment, food base, etc.). 

2.Research and development activities include research projects aimed at (1) 

addressing hypotheses or information needs related to a priority GCDAMP 

resources or (1) developing and testing new technologies or monitoring 

procedures. 

3. Long-term experimental activities include a suite of flow and nonflow treatments, 

monitoring and research, and management actions (1) to improve the condition of 

target resources (humpback chub, cultural sites, sediment, etc.) and (2) to 

9
TWG Review Draft—March 6, 2009 

1 

2 

3 

4 

understand the relationship between treatments and management actions and 

target resources. 

Activities will be defined in the MRP and BWP and will be based on the 

knowledge assessment report, core-monitoring information needs, research information 

needs, NEPA and ESA compliance requirements, and other relevant information. The 

MRP and BWP will identify each activity’s objectives, methods, outcomes, and costs by 

fiscal year. An interdisciplinary, integrated science approach as described above will be 

used, where appropriate. 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

The GCMRC will coordinate its research activities with other institutions 

conducting research in the CRE to ensure a cost-effective ecosystem approach. All 

GCMRC work plans and reports will be subjected to independent peer review consistent 

with the USGS Fundamental Science Practices, a set of guidelines and policies to ensure 

the world-class quality of USGS science products, and periodic comprehensive reviews 

of planned research or scientific work by panels of independent scientists. 

AMWG Priority Questions and Related Strategic Science 

Questions 

In 2004, the AMWG identified five priority questions related to the 12 goals that 

provide general guidance for planning, monitoring, and research efforts (table 2). The 

strategic science questions that appear below each of the five AMWG priorities were 

identified through two knowledge assessment workshops and presented in a summary 

report (Melis and others, 2006). The bracketed dates associated with each strategic 

science question indicate the time anticipated to complete monitoring and research 

activities required to address the question. 

AMWG Priority 1: Why are the humpback chub not thriving, and what 

can we do about it? How many humpback chub are there and how are 

they doing? 

Key Strategic Science Questions 

1. To what extent are adult populations of native fish controlled by production of 

young fish from tributaries, spawning and incubation in the mainstem, survival of 

young-of-year (YoY) and juvenile stages in the mainstem, or by changes in 

growth and maturation in the adult population as influenced by mainstem 

conditions? [FY2006–11] 

2. Does a decrease in the abundance of rainbow trout and other coldwater and 

warmwater nonnatives in Marble and eastern Grand Canyons result in an 

improvement in the recruitment rate of juvenile humpback chub to the adult 

population? [FY2006–11] 

3. Do rainbow trout immigrate from Glen to Marble and eastern Grand Canyons, and, 

if so, during what life stages? To what extent do Glen Canyon immigrants support 

the population in Marble and eastern Grand Canyons? [FY2007–11] 

4.Can long-term decreases in the abundance of rainbow trout in Marble and eastern 

Grand Canyons be sustained with a reduced level of effort of mechanical removal 

or will recolonization from tributaries and from downstream and upstream of the 

10
TWG Review Draft—March 6, 2009 

1 

2 

3 

5 

7 

8 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

removal reach require that mechanical removal be an ongoing management 

action? This question also applies to future removal programs targeting other 

nonnative species. [FY2007–11] 

5. What are the important pathways, and the rate of flux among them, that link lower 4 

trophic levels with fish and how will they link to dam operations? [FY2006–09] 

6. Are trends in the abundance of fish populations, or indicators from fish such as 6 

growth, condition, and body composition (e.g., lipids), correlated with patterns in 

invertebrate flux? [FY2006–09] 

7. Which tributary and mainstem habitats are most important to native fishes and how 9 

can these habitats best be made usable and maintained? [FY2008–09] 

8. How can native and nonnative fishes best be monitored while minimizing impacts 

from capture and handling or sampling? [FY2007–11] 

AMWG Priority 2: Which cultural resources, including traditional 

cultural properties (TCP), are within the area of potential 

effect, which should we treat, and how do we best protect them? 

What is the status and trends of cultural resources and what are 

the agents of deterioration? 

Key Strategic Science Questions 

1. Do dam-controlled flows affect (increase or decrease) rates of erosion and 

vegetation growth at archaeological sites and TCP sites, and if so, how? 

[FY2007–11] 

2. How do flows impact old high water zone terraces in the CRE (where the majority 

of archaeological sites occur), and what kinds of important information about the 

historical ecology and human history of the CRE are being lost due to ongoing 

erosion of the Holocene sedimentary deposits? [FY2004–11] 

3.If dam-controlled flows are contributing to (influencing rates of) archaeological 

site/TCP erosion, what are the optimal flows for minimizing future impacts to 

historic properties? [FY2009–11] 

4. How effective are various treatments (e.g., check dams, vegetation management, 

etc.) in slowing rates of erosion at archaeological sites over the long term? 

[FY2006–11] 

5. What are the TCPs in the CRE, and where are they located? [FY2006–11] 

6. How can tribal values/data/analyses be appropriately incorporated into a sciencedriven adaptive management process in order to evaluate the effects of flow 

operations and management actions on TCPs? [FY2006–08] 

7. Are dam-controlled flows affecting TCPs and other tribally valued resources in the 

CRE, and, if so, in what respects are they being affected, and are those effects 

considered positive or negative by the tribes who value these resources? 

[FY2006–11] 

11
TWG Review Draft—March 6, 2009 

1 

2 

4 

5 

7 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

AMWG Priority 3: What is the best flow regime? 

Key Strategic Science Questions 

1.Is there a “flow-only” operation (i.e., a strategy for dam releases, including 3 

managing tributary inputs with BHBFs, without sediment augmentation) that will 

restore and maintain sandbar habitats over decadal time scales? [FY2008–11] 

2. To what extent could predation impacts by nonnative fish be mitigated by higher 6 

turbidity or dam-controlled high-flow releases? [FY2007–08] 

3. What are the hydropower replacement costs of the modified low fluctuating flow 8 

(annually, since 1996)? [FY2007–08] 

4. What are the projected hydropower costs associated with the various alternative 

flow regimes being discussed for future experimental science (as defined in the 

next phase experimental design)? [FY2006–07] 

5. How is invertebrate flux affected by water quality (e.g., temperature, nutrient 

concentrations, turbidity) and dam operations? [FY2006–09] 

6. What Glen Canyon Dam operations (ramping rates, daily flow range, etc.) 

maximize trout fishing opportunities and catchability? [FY2007–08] 

7. How do dam-controlled flows affect visitors’ recreational experiences, and what 

is/are the optimal flows for maintaining a high-quality recreational experience in 

the CRE? [FY2007–08] 

8. What are the drivers for recreational experiences in the CRE, and how important 

are flows relative to other drivers in shaping recreational experience outcomes? 

[FY2007–09] 

9. How do varying flows positively or negatively affect campsite attributes that are 

important to visitor experience? [FY2009–11] 

10. How can safety and navigability be reliably measured relative to flows? 

[FY2007–08] 

11. How do varying flows positively or negatively affect visitor safety, health, and 

navigability of the rapids? [FY2007–09] 

12. How do varying flows regimes positively or negatively affect group encounter 

rates, campsite competition, and other social parameters that are known to be 

important variables of visitor experience? [FY2007–09] 

AMWG Priority 4: What is the impact of sediment loss and what 

should we do about it? 

Key Strategic Science Questions 

1.Is there a “flow-only” operation (i.e., a strategy for dam releases, including 

managing tributary inputs with BHBFs, without sediment augmentation) that will 

restore and maintain sandbar habitats over decadal timescales? [FY2008–11] 

2. How important are backwaters and vegetated shoreline habitats to the overall 

growth and survival of YoY and juvenile native fish? Does the long-term benefit 

of increasing these habitats outweigh short-term potential costs (displacement and 

12
TWG Review Draft—March 6, 2009 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

possibly mortality of young humpback chub) associated with high flows? 

[FY2007–11] 

AMWG Priority 5: What will happen when we test or implement the 

temperature control device (TCD)? How should it be operated? Are 

safeguards needed for management? 

Key Strategic Science Questions 

1. How do dam release temperatures, flows (average and fluctuating component), 7 

meteorology, canyon orientation and geometry, and reach morphology interact to 

determine mainstem and nearshore water temperatures throughout the CRE? 

[FY2006–08] 

2. How is invertebrate flux affected by water quality (e.g., temperature, nutrient 

concentrations, turbidity) and dam operations? [FY2006–08] 

3. To what extent do temperature and fluctuations in flow limit spawning and 

incubation success for native fish? [FY2003–08] 

4. What is the relative importance of increased water temperature, shoreline stability, 

and food availability on the survival and growth of YoY and juvenile native fish? 

[FY2003–08] 

5. Will increased water temperatures increase the incidence of Asian tapeworm in 

humpback chub or the magnitude of infestation, and if so, what is the impact on 

survival and growth rates? [FY2003–08] 

6. Do the potential benefits of improved rearing habitat (warmer, more stable, more 

backwater and vegetated shorelines, more food) outweigh negative impacts due to 

increases in nonnative fish abundance? [FY2007–11] 

7. How do warmer releases affect viability and productivity of native/nonnative 

vegetation? [FY2007–11] 

Other Critical Research and Monitoring Needs 

This section focuses on the critical need to address issues outside the CRE that 

impact the GCDAMP mission and goals. The GCMRC is currently constrained from using 

GCDAMP funds to evaluate some potentially significant external threats to CRE resources. 

For example, the largest aggregation of humpback chub in the CRE is dependent on the 

quality of water leaving the Little Colorado River. However, Little Colorado River water 

quality is evaluated on an infrequent basis and then only in the first few miles of its 

confluence with the Colorado River. No science activity currently exists to identify changes 

in Little Colorado River water quality and quantity resulting from upstream diversions, 

pollution, or catastrophic hazardous material spills. 

The primary determinant of water quality in the CRE is the quality of the water 

released from Lake Powell. As a result, the water quality and dynamics of Lake Powell 

have major implications for the design of a device to regulate the temperature and other 

characteristics of releases from Glen Canyon Dam. While extensive physical and biological 

data on Lake Powell water quality have been collected for more than two decades, the data 

have not been synthesized, extensively analyzed, or modeled. A synthesis of historical 

13
TWG Review Draft—March 6, 2009 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

Lake Powell data is needed to identify trends in water quality and their relationship to dam 

operations, basin hydrology, and climate variability. These assessments could significantly 

advance knowledge of potential future water quality in Lake Powell and the appropriate 

design for the proposed temperature control device. 

Clearly, to be successful, the GCDAMP needs to ensure that key external factors 

that could affect the attainment of GCDAMP goals are addressed. To this end, the GCMRC 

proposes to (1) work closely with the AMWG and the Department of the Interior to 

develop an endangered fish recovery program for the lower basin (Grand Canyon), (2) 

evaluate and report on the key external issues identified above that could affect attainment 

of GCDAMP goals, and (3) work with GCDAMP participants and others to secure funding 

for research on the issues that pose the highest risk or opportunity. 

Administration and Budget 

Staffing 

The GCMRC’s goal is to deliver in the next 5 years a comprehensive ecosystem 

science program that responds to management needs. Effectiveness will be measured by 

science and management accomplishments that enhance CRE resource conditions and 

create a better understanding of the cause-and-effect relationship between dam 

operations and resource conditions. Improving science administration is essential to 

meeting the need for a more comprehensive ecosystem science program in a flat budget 

environment. Improving science administration will require significant accomplishment 

in several areas, including science planning, personnel structure, goal and objective 

setting, collaboration and partnerships, and research design focused on priority 

information needs and cost effectiveness. 

Productive, well-qualified personnel are critical to creating an effective ecosystem 

science program. In recognition of this fact, efforts have been made to restructure 

personnel responsibilities at the GCMRC to maximize existing management and science 

skills. Contractors and cooperators will be used to conduct a large amount of the field 

work, and they will work collaboratively with GCMRC scientists to analyze and 

synthesize data and publish findings. GCMRC personnel will implement field research 

and monitoring when in-house staff members with the appropriate expertise are available 

and their use is cost effective. In every case, the GCMRC will hold its own work to the 

same level of rigorous outside peer review as all others. The core GCMRC staff includes 

the following key positions: 

Chief 

The Chief establishes GCMRC’s science policies and strategic direction and 

provides budget accountability. The Chief ensures that science managers, contract and 

budget officers, logistics specialists, external and resident scientists, and other personnel 

plan and implement timely science activities that respond to GCDAMP priority 

information needs. The Chief also interfaces with USGS management, the Secretary of 

the Interior’s Designee, and GCDAMP participants to ensure that quality science is 

provided in a timely manner on priority issues identified by the GCDAMP leadership. 

14
TWG Review Draft—March 6, 2009 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

Deputy Chief 

The Deputy Chief supervises the science program, ensuring that integrated 

ecosystem procedures are used in science design and analysis. This position also has 

responsibility for monitoring peer-review processes using accepted procedures, tracking 

science project performance, and reporting program outcomes to ensure timely responses to 

GCDAMP information needs. 

Program Managers 

Program Managers are responsible for the timely execution of GCMRC science 

activities within their program area and interaction with other program areas to develop 

integrated ecosystem approaches to science products. Program Managers are therefore 

responsible for ensuring the quality of products produced by GCMRC staff, contractors and 

cooperators; overseeing contracts, agreements, and budgets for their program area; and 

providing reports to GCDAMP work groups as needed. GCMRC activities now encompass 

five major program areas: 

1. The Physical Science and Modeling Program conducts research and monitoring of 

physical elements of the Colorado River ecosystem, including studies of sediment 

storage and transport in the regulated river, and integrated downstream waterquality monitoring and research. The program has conducted several experiments 

to determine if high-flow releases from Glen Canyon Dam have the ability to 

conserve sediment resources for building beaches and improving habitat for 

native aquatic species in the Colorado River. More recently, the program 

developed a downstream temperature model for the ecosystem. 

2. The Data Acquisition, Storage, and Analysis Program provides GIS, data quality 

control, data management, and library services to all program areas. In addition, 

this program oversees the GCMRC peer-review process. 

3. The Biological Program provides scientific information that supports the 

maintenance of the Lees Ferry trout fishery and the conservation of native species 

in Grand Canyon. Elements of the program include assessing the effects of Glen 

Canyon Dam operations 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 Glen Canyon Dam. 

4. The Cultural and Socioeconomic Program focuses on culturally significant sites and 

artifacts and recreation activities based in Grand Canyon. Currently, the program is 

working on the development of comprehensive monitoring programs to assess the 

condition of the culturally significant sites affected by the operation of Glen 

Canyon Dam. 

5. 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 programs 

and activities. 

15
TWG Review Draft—March 6, 2009 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

The GCMRC will rely on the USGS Southwest Biological Science Center, the 

parent organization of the GCMRC within the USGS, for administrative, budget, and 

contracting services; information technology; and policy support. The GCMRC will also 

work with the Southwest Biological Science Center to reduce shared costs and overhead 

burden assessed by the USGS on GCDAMP funds. 

As part of the strategy to improve science administration effectiveness, the Chief 

will collaborate with the Department of the Interior, U.S. Department of Energy, and the 

AMWG and TWG to (1) ensure that the direction of the GCDAMP strategic plan is kept 

current and reflects the revision of priority goals, information needs, and desired future 

resource conditions; (2) develop approaches for resolving GCDAMP budget limitations 

in the face of increasing science and management needs; (3) facilitate the design of a 

partnership plan and program to transition major science treatments into management 

actions with appropriate responsibilities, authorities, and funding; and (4) develop greater 

interaction among the Upper Colorado River Recovery Implementation Program and the 

Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Plan to share science findings, 

methods, and management actions. 

Budget 

A general assessment of the GCMRC’s budget needs during the next 5 years, 

FY2007–11, indicates that the planned science activities could be accomplished with 

moderate increases in current budget allocations. To advance a comprehensive science 

program with moderate budget increases will require the effective management of 

priorities, the termination of selected programs, and the extension of proposed 

timeframes for activities related to lower priority goals and information needs. 

Additionally, the implementation of experimental research projects will require careful 

planning to avoid major disruptions to planned and ongoing activities. 

To obviate the impacts of unpredictable events to the program over the next 5–10 

years, the GCMRC will pursue the following selected budget management strategies: 

• Develop and approve detailed project descriptions and budgets in the biennial 

work plan 

• Develop protocols for establishing a contingency fund sufficient to support 

anticipated future experimental projects 

• Conserve a percentage of overall funds for reallocating at the discretion of the 

Chief when savings or shortfalls occur in specific areas 

• Develop protocols for guiding external budget development by the GCMRC 

to respond to issues affecting the GCDAMP, but currently outside the 

GCDAMP budget process 

• Seek additional congressional funding to support research to address (1) 

testing and possible operation of a temperature control device and other large 

capital projects and (2) external factors or issues outside the scope of the 

GCDAMP that impact GCDAMP goals 

16
TWG Review Draft—March 6, 2009 

17

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

References Cited 

Gloss, S.P., Lovich, J.E., and Melis, T.S., eds., 2005, The state of the Colorado River 

ecosystem in Grand Canyon: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1282, 220 p. 

Holling, C.S., 1978, Adaptive environmental assessment and management: Chichester, 

New York, Wiley, 785 p. 

Melis, T.S., Wright, S.A., Ralston, B.E., Fairley, H.C., Kennedy, T.A., Andersen, M.E., 

Coggins, L.G., and Korman, J., 2006, Knowledge assessment of the effects of Glen 

Canyon Dam on the Colorado River ecosystem: U.S. Geological Survey, Grand 

Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, 88 p. 

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, 2001, Strategic plan—Glen 

Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, 

http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/strategic_plan.html, accessed June 6, 2008. 

Roles Ad Hoc Group of the Adaptive Management Work Group, 2006, Report and 

recommendations to the secretary’s designee: Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive 

Management Program. 

Walters, C., Korman, J., Stevens, L.E., and Gold, B., 2000, Ecosystem modeling for 

evaluation of adaptive management policies in the Grand Canyon: Journal of 

Conservation Ecology, v. 4, no. 2, http://www.consecol.org/vol4/iss2/art1, accessed 

October 25, 2006. 

Walters, C.J., 1986, Adaptive management of renewable resources: New York, 

Macmillan, 374 p. 

 
1 DRAFT 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

Amendment 

Monitoring and Research Plan to Support the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management 

Program, Fiscal Years 2007–11 

August 2007 

March 6, 2009 

The Monitoring and Research Plan to Support the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management 

Program, Fiscal Years 2007–11, August 2007 (hereafter referred to as the MRP), was approved 

by the Secretary of the Interior on the condition that it would be updated to reflect the provisions 

of the Long Term Experimental Plan Environmental Impact Statement (LTEP EIS) for Glen 

Canyon Dam once that EIS was finalized. In lieu of the LTEP EIS, the Bureau of Reclamation 

(Reclamation) completed a Final Environmental Assessment: Experimental Releases from Glen 

Canyon Dam, Arizona, 2008 through 2012 on February 29, 2008, (hereafter referred to as the 

EA). The purpose of this amendment is to address provisions of the EA and conservation 

measures from two U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Biological Opinions including: 

 The Final Biological Opinion for the Bureau of Reclamation’s Operation of Glen Canyon 

Dam, February 27, 2008 

 The Final Biological Opinion for the Bureau of Reclamation’s Proposed Adoption of 

Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and Coordinated 

Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead, December 12, 2008 

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC) science activities that will be 

conducted in support of the EA and the two Biological Opinions noted above are described 

below. A summary of those activities is provided in Table 1. More detailed description of these 

activities will be provided in the Annual/Biennial Work Plans. 

 

Note: Descriptions of the elements of the EA and the Biological Opinion Conservation Measures 

below were derived directly from documents prepared by the Bureau of Reclamation and U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Final Environmental Assessment: Experimental Releases from Glen Canyon Dam, 

Arizona, 2008 through 2012, February 29 2008. 

http://www.usbr.gov/uc/envdocs/ea/gc/2008hfe/GCDexprelEA.pdf. and related Findings Of 

No Significant Impact. 

35 

http://www.usbr.gov/uc/envdocs/ea/gc/2008hfe/FONSI.pdf. The 

proposal consists of two types of experimental flows to be implemented beginning in 2008 and 

concluding in 2012: 1) an experimental high flow test of approximately 41,500 cfs for a 

maximum duration of 60 hours beginning March 4, 2008, and 2) steady flows in September and 

October of each year, 2008 through 2012. The overall concept of the experiment is to determine 

the effectiveness of sandbar building and backwater formation using a high flow test during 

highly enriched sediment conditions, and the subsequent impact on humpback chub in those 

backwaters during fluctuating flows in the spring and summer and steady flows in the fall. The 

timing of fall steady flows follows young-of-year emergence of humpback chub from the Little 

Colorado River into the mainstem. Intense monitoring and research conducted throughout this 

period will identify resultant effects on these geomorphic features and aquatic species. This 

proposed experiment neither mandates nor precludes future experimentation. Rather, this 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

1
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

proposed experiment was developed consistent with the principles of adaptive management to 

require full scientific and public analysis of the effects of the experiment and integration of such 

results into future decision making. 

GCMRC Science Activities:

6 • March 2008 High Flow – GCMRC will develop and implement a comprehensive science 

plan to evaluate the affects of the March 2008 high flow. The High flow Experiment 

(HFE) will address a variety of strategic science questions (Table 2) related to the 

effects of the high flow on sand bars and related backwater habitats, rainbow trout, 

camping beaches, aquatic food base, riparian vegetation, archaeological sites, and Lake 

Powell water quality. Table 3 summarizes the studies associated with the March 2008 

HFE. 

GCMRC will report the results of the March 2008 HFE in FY2009 and 2010, and 

synthesize of the results of the 1996, 2004, and 2008 high flow in FY2010. As part of the 

reporting process, GCMRC will work with the Adaptive Management Work Group 

(AMWG) and Department of Interior (DOI) agencies to provide recommendations for 

future high flows and related research and monitoring. 

• Modified Low Fluctuating Flow (MLFF) operations with Steady Flows in September 

and October (2008-2012). GCMRC is developing and implementing a science plan to 

investigate the nearshore ecology of humpback chub and other fishes along with the 

impacts to aquatic biota, including fishes, from the experimental fall steady flows. This 

plan is intended to investigate what impacts steady and MLFF flows have on these 

resources, including growth, survival, and recruitment of fishes, habitat use, and primary 

productivity. The nearshore ecology study plan will be expanded to specify recommended 

late summer-fall flow regimes that should be provided to maximize learning related to the 

impacts steady and MLFF flows on native and nonnative fishes. The scope of the scope of 

the studies will be determined in coordination with Reclamation, FWS, National Park 

Service (NPS), and the Technical Work Group (TWG). The near shore ecology-fall steady 

flow science plan will be completed by July 2009. 

Conservation measures from the Final Biological Opinion for the Bureau of Reclamation’s 

Operation of Glen Canyon Dam, February 27, 2008 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/Biol_Opin/930167_R1_GCD_BO.pdf

Humpback Chub Consultation Trigger – Pursuant to 50 CFR § 402.16 (c), reinitiation of 

formal consultation is required and shall be requested by the Federal agency or by the FWS, 

where discretionary Federal involvement or control over the action has been retained or is 

authorized by law and if new information reveals effects of the action that may affect listed 

species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not previously considered. Reclamation and 

FWS agree to specifically define this reinitiation trigger relative to humpback chub, in part, as 

being exceeded if the population of adult humpback chub (≥200 mm [7.87 in] TL) in Grand 

Canyon declines significantly, or, if in any single year, based on the age-structured mark 

recapture model (ASMR; Coggins, 2007), the population drops below 3,500 adult fish within the 

95 percent confidence interval. FWS and Reclamation have agreed on this trigger based on the 

2
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

current estimated population size and past population trend, genetic considerations, and the 

capabilities of the ASMR model to estimate population size. This number was derived as a 

conservative approach to preventing the population from declining to the minimum viable 

population size for humpback chub, estimated to be 2,100 adult fish (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 2002), with consideration for a buffer and acknowledging the variance inherent in the 

ASMR resulting from age estimation based on recent results from this model (Coggins, 2007). 

This trigger provides additional protection against possible adverse affects to humpback chub 

from the proposed action. If the population of humpback chub declines to this level, Reclamation 

and FWS will consider appropriate actions through reinitiated section 7 consultation, for 

example, extending the period of steady releases to include July and August. Conversely, if the 

population of humpback chub expands significantly, FWS and Reclamation will consider the 

potential for reinitiation of consultation to determine if steady flows continue to be necessary. 

GCMRC Science Activities: 

In cooperation with FWS and the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD), GCMRC 

will monitor humpback chub populations in the Little Colorado River. The humpback chub 

monitoring effort will be subjected to external peer review in a protocol evaluation panel in 

May 2009. In addition, GCMRC will conduct an annual assessment of the population of 

adult humpback chub (≥200 mm [TL) using the age-structured mark recapture model 

(ASMR; Coggins, 2007). This information will be provided to the Bureau of Reclamation and 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for use in evaluating the potential for reinitiation of 

Endangered Species Act consultation to determine if the September-October steady flows 

should be continued, discontinued, or expanded. 

Comprehensive Plan for the Management and Conservation of Humpback Chub in Grand 

Canyon – Reclamation has been a primary contributor to the development of the Adaptive 

Management Program’s (AMP) Comprehensive Plan for the Management and Conservation of 

Humpback Chub in Grand Canyon. Reclamation will continue to work with AMP cooperators to 

develop a comprehensive approach to management of humpback chub. Reclamation has 

committed to specific conservation measures in this biological opinion, but will also consider 

funding and implementing other actions not identified here to implement the plan. 

GCMRC Science Activities: 

GCMRC senior biology program staff will participate in the review of the humpback chub 

comprehensive plan. Some of the projects identified within the plan can be wholly or 

partially implemented by GCMRC under the auspices of the AMP work plan. 

Humpback Chub Translocation – In coordination with other DOI AMP participants and 

through the AMP, Reclamation will assist NPS and the AMP in funding and implementation of 

translocation of humpback chub into tributaries of the Colorado River in Marble and Grand 

Canyons. Nonnative control in these tributaries will be an essential precursor to translocation, so 

Reclamation will help fund control of both cold and warm-water nonnative fish in tributaries, as 

well as efforts to translocate humpback chub into these tributaries. Havasu, Shinumo, and Bright 

Angel Creeks will initially be targeted for translocation, although other tributaries may be 

considered. Reclamation will work with FWS, NPS, and other cooperators to develop 

translocation plans for each of these streams, utilizing existing information available such as 

3
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

SWCA and Grand Canyon Wildlands (2007) and Valdez et al. (2000). These plans will consider 

and utilize genetic assessments (Douglas and Douglas, 2007; Keeler-Foster, in prep), identify 

legal requirements and jurisdictional issues, methods, and assess needs for nonnative control, 

monitoring and other logistics, as well as an implementation schedule, funding sources, and 

permitting. Reclamation and the AMP will also fund and implement translocation of up to 500 

young humpback chub from the lower Little Colorado River to above Chute Falls in 2008 if 

FWS determines that a translocation is warranted. Reclamation and the AMP will continue to 

monitor humpback chub in the reach of the Little Colorado River above Chute Falls for the 5-

year period of the proposed action, and will undertake additional translocations above Chute 

Falls as deemed necessary by FWS. 

GCMRC Science Activities: 

In cooperation with the FWS, GCMRC currently plans to conduct annual monitoring of 

humpback chub in the reach of the Little Colorado River above Chute Falls, and undertake 

periodic humpback chub translocations above Chute Falls as deemed necessary by the FWS. 

This work will be subjected to external peer review in a protocol evaluation panel in May 

2009. In addition, NPS and Reclamation are expected to translocate humpback chub from 

the Little Colorado River to Shinumo Creek in 2009 and potentially Havasu and Bright Angel 

Creeks in future years. Separate funding for translocation into these additional tributaries is 

being sought. GCMRC may be involved, especially in monitoring humpback chub that leave 

tributaries and enter the mainstem. NPS, Reclamation, and other tributary translocation 

cooperators are reviewing the need for nonnative control in advance of translocations 

(Shinumo Creek in 2009) and will implement such actions if determined to be needed by the 

group. 

Nonnative Fish Control – As first presented in the biological opinion on the Shortage 

Guidelines, Reclamation will, in coordination with other DOI AMP participants and through the 

AMP, continue efforts to assist NPS and the AMP in control of both cold- and warm-water 

nonnative fish species in both the mainstem of Marble and Grand Canyons and in their 

tributaries, including determining and implementing levels of nonnative fish control as 

necessary. Because Reclamation predicts that dam releases will be cool to cold during the period 

of the proposed action, control of nonnative trout may be particularly important. Control of these 

species will utilize mechanical removal, similar to recent efforts by the AMP, and may utilize 

other methods, to help to reduce this threat. GCMRC is preparing a nonnative fish control plan 

through the AMP process that addresses both cold and warm-water species that will further guide 

implementation of this conservation measure. 

GCMRC Science Activities: 

GCMRC will prepare a nonnative fish control plan that addresses both cold and warm-water 

species to guide research and experimental efforts for control of both cold- and warm-water 

nonnative fish species in both the mainstem of Marble and Grand Canyons and in their 

tributaries. The primary research need in tributaries is to further the understanding of 

nonnative fish distributions; other agencies, including NPS, Reclamation, and FWS, have 

been pursuing nonnative control efforts in tributaries, especially Shinumo and Bright Angel 

Creeks. Part 1 of the nonnative control plan, detailing current information, available 

methods, and annual planning, will be completed in FY2009 and part 2, including a threats 

4
assessment, is scheduled for delivery in September 2010. As noted in the quote from the 

Biological Opinion above, cool water releases from Glen Canyon Dam are predicted 

between 2008 and 2012, suggesting that control of nonnative trout species in the Little 

Colorado River reach of the mainstem will be the highest priority conservation measure, 

although all nonnatives encountered will be removed during the control effort. The 

preliminary goal will be to maintain rainbow trout numbers at 10 percent of the 2003 

rainbow trout population estimate for the reach of the Colorado River downstream of the 

confluence with the Little Colorado River. Control methods for rainbow and brown trout in 

the mainstem were previously developed during an experimental period conducted by 

GCMRC and cooperators in 2003-2006. To facilitate this conservation measure, GCMRC 

will conduct mainstem nonnative control, together with cooperators in 2009 and proposes to 

transfer funding responsibility and lead for mainstem cold water nonnative control efforts to 

an appropriate management agency in FY2010 and later years. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

As noted above, NPS, Reclamation, and other tributary translocation cooperators are 

reviewing the need for nonnative control efforts in advance of translocations. If such efforts 

are needed, these groups will pursue control and associated monitoring in tributaries. 

As additional research and experimental questions related to nonnative control are identified 

GCMRC will develop work plans and budgets to address these questions and associated 

information needs. For example, GCMRC has been cooperating with AZGFD to improve 

catch methods for channel catfish FY2007-2009. 

Humpback Chub Nearshore Ecology Study – In coordination with other DOI AMP 

participants and through the AMP, Reclamation will implement a nearshore ecology study that 

will relate river flow variables to ecological attributes of nearshore habitats (velocity, depth, 

temperature, productivity, etc.) and the relative importance of such habitat conditions to 

important life stages of native and nonnative fishes. This study will incorporate planned science 

activities for evaluating the high flow test on nearshore habitats as well as the 5-year period of 

steady flow releases in September and October. A research plan will be developed with FWS via 

the AMP for this study by August 1, 2008, and a 5-year review report will be completed by 

2013. The plan will include monitoring of sufficient intensity to ensure significant relationships 

can be established, as acceptable to the FWS. This conservation measure is consistent with the 

Sediment Research conservation measure in the Shortage Guidelines biological opinion (see 

below). This study will help clarify the relationship between flows and mainstem habitat 

characteristics and availability for young-of-year and juvenile humpback chub, other native fish, 

and competitive or predaceous nonnative fish, and support continued management to sustain 

mainstem aggregations. The feasibility and effectiveness of marking small humpback chub 

(<150 and <100 mm TL [5.91 and 3.93 in]) will also be evaluated as part of the study, and if 

effective, marking young fish will be utilized in the study. Marking young humpback chub, if 

feasible and effective, could greatly aid in developing information on the early life history, 

growth, and survival of young humpback chub. 

GCMRC Science Activities: 

5
GCMRC will conduct a nearshore ecology study in FY2008-FY 2012 to relate varying river 

flows to ecological attributes of nearshore habitats to better understand the relative 

importance of such habitats to juvenile native and nonnative fishes. The nearshore ecology 

project will investigate the impacts of different flow regimes (MLFF, fall steady flows) on the 

growth and survival of juvenile humpback chub. Ecological characteristics include physical 

and biological parameters such as temperature, turbidity, primary productivity, and 

occupancy by other fish species. Together with an external cooperator identified through a 

competitive process, GCMRC will also investigate what habitats are occupied by juvenile 

humpback chub and how different habitats may affect growth, survival, and recruitment into 

the adult population.

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

Monthly Flow Transition Study – Transitions between monthly flow volumes can often result 

in drastic changes to nearshore habitats. For example, past transitions from August to September 

in some years have consisted of a transition from a lower limit of 10,000 cfs in August to an 

upper limit of 10,000 cfs in September. Such a transition results in a river stage level that is 

below the varial zone of the previous month’s flow, and may be detrimental to fishes and food 

base for fish. Reclamation has committed to adjusting daily flows between months to attempt to 

attenuate these transitions such that they are more gradual, and to studying the biological effects 

of these transitions, in particular to humpback chub. If possible, Reclamation will work to adjust 

September and October monthly flow volumes to achieve improved conditions for young-ofyear, juvenile, and adult humpback chub, as acceptable to the FWS. 

GCMRC Science Activities: 

Because the nearshore ecology project will be conducted at the time of year when flows 

transition from MLFF to the experimental steady flows, this study will also permit some 

evaluation of how juvenile humpback chub and other fishes respond to the flow transition. 

GCMRC intends to augment the work conducted by the nearshore ecology project with 

additional food base investigations, particularly evaluation of how various flows and the 

changes in flows may impact the content and/or volume of drifting organic material. 

Humpback Chub Refuge – Once appropriate planning documents are in place, and refuge 

populations of humpback chub are created (as a conservation measure of the Shortage Guidelines 

biological opinion), Reclamation will assist FWS in maintenance of a humpback chub refuge 

population at a Federal hatchery or other appropriate facility by providing funding to assist in 

annual maintenance. In case of a catastrophic loss of the Grand Canyon population of humpback 

chub, a humpback chub refuge will provide a permanent source of sufficient numbers of 

genetically representative stock for repatriating the species. This action would also be an 

important step toward attaining recovery. 

GCMRC Science Activities: 

GCMRC senior biology program staff will participate in the review of refuge plans.

Little Colorado River Watershed Planning – Reclamation will continue its efforts to help 

other stakeholders in the Little Colorado River watershed develop watershed planning efforts, 

with consideration for watershed level effects to the humpback chub in Grand Canyon. 

GCMRC Science Activities: 

6
GCMRC will provide any data that have been collected in the AMP program regarding 

biological and water resources in the Little Colorado River. GCMRC will advise the Little 

Colorado River watershed planning effort on the potential impact that watershed 

development activities may have on humpback chub in the Little Colorado River. GCMRC 

and other fish cooperators, primarily FWS and AZGFD, have identified the risk from 

nonnatives in the LCR to humpback chub as a concern. The fish cooperators propose to 

document nonnative source populations in future years as funding permits. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Kanab Ambersnail Habitat Protection – Reclamation will, through the AMP, temporarily 

remove and safeguard all Kanab ambersnails found in the zone that would be inundated during 

the high flow test, as well as approximately 15 percent (17 m2 [180 ft2]) of the Kanab 

ambersnail habitat that would be flooded by the experimental high flow test. The Kanab 

ambersnails would be released above the inundation zone, and habitat would be held locally 

above the level of inundation until the high flow test has ended (approximately 60 hours). 

Habitat will be replaced in a manner that will facilitate regrowth of vegetation. Subsequent 

monitoring of this conservation measure will be coordinated with GCMRC. 

GCMRC Science Activities: 

Temporary removal of Kanab ambersnail habitat found in the zone that would be inundated 

during the high flow test is an element of the HFE science plan (Table 3). This conservation 

actions was conducted in March 2008. Surveys in September 2008 indicated that vegetation 

(Kanab ambersnail habitat) moved in anticipation of the HFE had re-established following 

the HFE. 

Conservation measures from the Final Biological Opinion for the Bureau of Reclamation’s 

Proposed Adoption of Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and 

Coordinated Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead, December 12, 2008 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/Biol_Opin/06224_final_shortage.pdf

Nonnative Fish Control – In coordination with other DOI AMP participants and through the 

AMP, Reclamation will continue efforts to control both cold- and warm-water nonnative fish 

species in the mainstem of Marble and Grand Canyons, including determining and implementing 

levels of nonnative fish control as necessary. Control of these species using mechanical removal 

and other methods will help to reduce this threat. 

GCMRC Science Activities: 

See Nonnative Fish Control, above 

Humpback Chub Refuge – Reclamation will assist FWS in development and funding of a 

broodstock management plan and creation and maintenance of a humpback chub refuge 

population at a Federal hatchery or other appropriate facility by providing expedited 

advancement of $200,000 in funding to the FWS during CY2008; this amount shall be funded 

from, and within, the amount identified in the MSCP BO (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2005; 

page 26). Creation of a humpback chub refuge will reduce or eliminate the potential for a 

7
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

catastrophic loss of the Grand Canyon population of humpback chub by providing a permanent 

source of genetically representative stock for repatriating the species. 

GCMRC Science Activities: 

See Humpback Chub Refuge, above 

Genetic Biocontrol Symposium – Reclamation will transfer up to $20,000 in FY2008 to FWS 

to help fund an international symposium on the use and development of genetic biocontrol of 

nonnative invasive aquatic species which is tentatively scheduled for October 2009. Although 

only in its infancy, genetic biocontrol of nonnative species is attracting worldwide attention as a 

potential method of controlling aquatic invasive species. Helping fund an effort to bring 

researchers together will create further awareness of this potential method of control and help 

mobilize efforts for its research and development. 

GCMRC Science Activities: 

None 

Sediment Research – In coordination with other DOI AMP participants and through the AMP, 

Reclamation will monitor the effect of sediment transport on humpback chub habitat and will 

work with the GCMRC to develop and implement a scientific monitoring plan acceptable to 

FWS. Although the effects of dam operation-related changes in sediment transport on humpback 

chub habitat are not well understood, humpback chub are known to utilize backwaters and other 

habitat features that require fine sediment for their formation and maintenance. Additional 

research will help clarify this relationship. 

GCMRC Science Activities: 

The March 2008 High Flow Experiment Science Plan (see above), the nearshore ecology 

study (see above), and ongoing sediment and fish monitoring will all contribute to a better 

understanding of the effect of sand enriched high flows combined with normal MLFF dam 

operations on suspended-sediment transport, geomorphic processes tied to sandbars/ 

backwater formation and fate of sand derived, nearshore humpback chub habitat. 

Parasite Monitoring – In coordination with other DOI AMP participants and through the AMP, 

Reclamation will continue to support research on the effects of Asian tapeworm 

(Bothriocephalus acheilognathi) on humpback chub and potential methods to control this 

parasite. Continuing research will help better understand the degree of this threat and the 

potential for management actions to minimize it. 

GCMRC Science Activities: 

An intensive study of this issue (Linder and others, 2008) funded by the AMP concluded that 

parasite loads in humpback chub were variable, i.e., high in some locations, low in others. 

They also concluded that there was no statistically significant correlation between parasite 

load and fish size, suggesting that parasites had limited impact on fish growth. The report 

recommends a parasite monitoring frequency of once every 5-6 years. In keeping with this 

recommendation GCMRC will propose another survey to assess parasite loads in Grand 

Canyon fishes be conducted in 2012. 

8
9

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Kanab Ambersnail Monitoring and Research – Through the AMP, Reclamation will continue 

to monitor Kanab ambersnail and its habitat in Grand Canyon and the effect of dam releases on 

the species, and Reclamation will also continue to assist FWS in funding morphometric and 

genetic research to better determine the taxonomic status of the subspecies. 

GCMRC Science Activities: 

GCMRC has supported genetic research of this species by conducting the external peer 

review of the morphometric and molecular taxonomic study. This study is in draft form and is 

expected to be complete in 2009. 

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Monitoring and Research – Through the AMP, 

Reclamation will continue to monitor southwestern willow flycatcher and its habitat and the 

effect of dam releases on the species throughout Grand Canyon and report findings to FWS, and 

will work with the NPS and other AMP participants to identify actions to conserve the 

flycatcher. 

GCMRC Science Activities: 

The support that GCMRC provides for the study of birds in Grand Canyon includes the 

ongoing studies of the riparian habitat. GCMRC produced a vegetation community map of 

the entire river corridor, using 2002 data, in a report published in 2008 (Ralston and others, 

2008). GCMRC initiated development of a Terrestrial Ecosystem Monitoring program that 

was temporarily put on hold but which has been proposed for re-initiation in 2010. The 

initial focus of renewed terrestrial monitoring, to accompany continuing vegetation 

monitoring, is monitoring of the arthropods of the riparian corridor because they are an 

important prey base for many terrestrial vertebrates, including amphibians, reptiles, and 

birds. Ongoing mapping and change detection for riparian vegetation is supported by 

overflight data from previous years and by the planned 2009 overflight. 
Table 1. Summarized elements of the EA and Biological Opinion Conservation Measures within GCMR

Research Plan throughout the Colorado River ecosystem (CRE) to Support the GCDAMP, Fiscal Years 20

EA Elements and Biological Opinion Conservation Measures Monitoring 

Research and Development Experimental Research & 

EA Elements  High Flow Experiment (highly 

sand enriched conditions) 

Suspended-sediment transport and sand storage changes tied to habitats, plus quality of water in Lake Powell and CRE 

Integrated flow, sediment and temperature model development 

Implement the March 2008 experiment (HFE) science pstudies of sandbar fate and transport modeling through 

 September-October steady flows 

Native and nonnative fish monitoring, along with ongoing sediment transport, temperature and specific conductivity 

Implement near shore ecology (NSE) Fall steady flow study 

Develop and implement NSstudy 

Biological Opinion Conservation 

Measures 

 Humpback Chub Parasite 

Monitoring 

Monitored on 5 year cycle 

 Humpback Chub Sediment 

Research/ Humpback Chub Near Shore Ecology Study 

Implement NSE study 

--Evaluate backwater habituse as part of March 2008 H--Fall steady flow experime

 Nonnative Fish Control 

Monitoring nonnative fish populations (LCR and mainstem) 

Nonnative fish planning and testing 

Nonnative removal in FY20transfer in FY2010 and beyagency 

 Humpback Chub Consultation 

Trigger 

Annual humpback chub stock assessment 

10
Table 1. Summary of the elements of the EA and Biological Opinion Conservation Measures addressed in G

Monitoring and Research Plan to Support the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Ye Comprehensive Plan for the 

Management of Humpback Chub in Grand Canyon 

Provide science support as appropriate 

Nonnative fish planning and testing 

Nonnative removal in FY20transfer in FY2010 and beyagency 

 Humpback Chub Translocation 

- Chute Falls fish monitoring - LCR and mainstem fish monitoring 

Chute Falls translocation 

 Monthly Flow Transition Study 

Downstream Integrated QW monitoring, including suspendedsediment transport 

Near Shore Ecology study 

NSE/ Fall Steady flow scie

 Little Colorado River Watershed 

Planning Monitor LCR flows 

 Kanab Ambersnail Monitoring and 

Research 

Monitor population status at Vasey’s Paradise 

 Kanab Ambersnail Habitat 

Protection 

KAS habitat protection dur

 Southwestern Willow Flycatcher 

Monitoring and Research 

Monitoring Vegetation change in CRE 

11
Table 2. Strategic science questions from the GCMRC monitoring and research plan (MRP), related HF

and related HFE experimental studies. 

Question Experi

(

Sediment and related resources 

MRP strategic science question: Is there a “flow-only” operation that will rebuild and maintain sandbar habitats over decadal timescales? 

High flow science question: How do conditions of suspended sediment concentration and grain 

size evolve and vary through time and by reach below Glen Canyon Dam during replication of the 2004 hydrograph under more highly enriched sand supply conditions; and how do these data compare with similar data collected at similar locations during the 1996 and 2004 high-flow experiments? Is the net mass balance of sand following the high flow net positive, negative, or neutral? 

1.A 

High flow science question: What is the minimum duration for high-flow experiments needed to 

build and maintain sandbars under sand-enriched conditions? 

1B 

High flow science question: Can the next high flow increase campable areas at sandbars on a sustainable basis? 

1.C 

High flow science question: Following a high flow, how do Record of Decision (ROD) operations under 8.23 million acre-feet annual release volumes affect the persistence of sandbars and related backwaters compared to non-ROD operations that followed the 2004 high flow? 

1.D 

Humpback chub 

MRP strategic science question: How important are backwaters and vegetated shoreline habitats to the overall growth and survival of young-of-year and juvenile native fish? Does the long-term benefit of an HFE outweigh short-term potential costs? 

High flow science question: Do high-flow experiments result in creation of backwater habitats that may benefit humpback chub and other native fishes? To what extent are backwater habitats created 

by a high flow used by humpback chub and other native fishes? 

1.D 

12
Table 2. Strategic science questions from the GCMRC monitoring and research plan (MRP), related HFE 

questions, and related HFE experimental studies. Cont’d 

Cultural resources 

MRP strategic science question: How effective are various treatments in slowing rates of erosion at archaeological sites over the long term? 

High flow science question: Do sandbars deposited by high-flow experiments contribute to preservation of archaeological sites in the river corridor? 

1.C 

High flow science question: Do high-flow experiments contribute to added stability or erosion of archaeological sites located in close proximity to the river? 

1.C 

Strategic science questions: What Glen Canyon Dam operations maximize trout fishing opportunities and catchability? Do rainbow trout immigrate from Glen to Marble and eastern Grand Canyons, and if so, during what life stages? 

High flow science question: How will a high flow affect spawning, survival of early life history 

stages of rainbow trout (BBT) in the Lees Ferry reach? Will a high flow stimulate downstream migration of age-1 RBT? 

4.A, 4.B 

Strategic science questions: How is invertebrate flux affected by water quality and dam operations?

High flow science question: How will a future high flow affect food production and availability 

for rainbow trout in the Lees Ferry reach? What are the effects of high-flow experiments on aquatic food production? How do these effects impact native fishes? 

3 

Strategic science questions: How is invertebrate flux affected by water quality and dam operations?

High flow science question: Will the next high flow result in higher nutrient releases and shrinking of the hypolimnion? Will the operation of the river outlet works and the penstocks at capacity measurably alter Lake Powell hydrodynamics or stratification, or alter release water quality? 5 

Strategic science questions: Do dam controlled flows affect rates of erosion and vegetation growth at archaeological sites and TCP sites, and if so, how?

High flow science question: Are open patches more susceptible to exotic species colonization and establishment than sites with existing vegetation following a disturbance? 

2 

13
Table 3. Description of experimental studies included in the HFE science plan and the associated report

Study Description Draft Report Final Re

Sediment, archaeological sites, and backwaters 

1.A. Sand budgeting 

Data will be collected to determine the amount of sediment available in the system and its availability for restoring sandbars and camping beaches, patterns of erosion and deposition, and changes in sediment grain size 

June 2009 Six months after submit

December 2009 

1B. Eddysandbar studies Data will be collected on the evolution of specific eddy sandbars before, during, and after a high flow. 

These data may be used to improve the predictive capabilities of the existing sediment model and determine the optimal peak flows of future high-flow experiments. 

May 2009 (bathymetric mapping), Dec 2009 (velocity and sediment transport dynamics) 

January 2010 

1.C. Response of sandbars and select cultural site 

Data will be gathered to determine (1) if sandbars throughout the Colorado River ecosystem gain or lose sand as the result of a sand-enriched high flow, (2) if new sand can offset gully erosion, and (3) if enlarged sandbars provide source material for the windborne transport of sand upslope into archaeological sites. 

August 2009 January 2010 

1.D. Backwater habitats 

Measure backwater habitats and sample them for fish in spring and fall to evaluate how (a) backwaters formed by a high flow change over time and (b) how fish, particularly humpback chub, use backwaters. 

August 2009 December 2009 

14
15

Table 3. Description of experimental studies included in the HFE science plan and the associated reporting 

Riparian vegetation 

2. Riparian vegetation studies 

Study will document changes in riparian vegetation (native versus nonnative) following a high flow to determine if disturbances influence the success rate of nonnative species. 

August 2009 January 2010 

Aquatic food base 

3. Food availability 

Data will be collected to determine how high-flow experiments affect the quantity and quality of food 

available to invertebrates and, ultimately, fish. 

August 2009 January 2010 

Rainbow Trout 

4.A. Redds study 

Data will be collected to determine how high-flow experiments affect spawning and survival of earlylife stages of rainbow trout in Lees Ferry 

December 2009 

January 2010 

4.B. Movement study 

Study will collect data to determine if high-flow experiments displace rainbow trout from Lees Ferry and if displacement varies by fish length 

December 2008 

March 2009 

5. Lake Powell Data to determine if a high flow results in higher 

nutrient releases and changes in the hypolimnion 

December 2008 

March 2009 

Conservation measures 

6. Kanab ambersnail 

To minimize impacts to an endangered species, Kanab ambersnail habitat at Vaseys Paradise will be moved 

January 2009 June 2009 

Knowledge synthesis 

7. Synthesis of knowledge 

Data and knowledge gained as the result of the 1996, 2004 and 2008 high-flows tests will be synthesized in an attempt to address strategic science questions 

September 2010 – 

December 2010– possibCircular 
Reference Citations 

Coggins, L.G., Jr., 2007, Abundance trends and status of the Little Colorado River population of 

humpback chub: an update considering 1989–2006 data: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 2007–1402, 53 p. 

Douglas, M.R., and M.E. Douglas. 2007. Genetic structure of humpback chub Gila cypha and 

roundtail chub G. robusta in the Colorado River ecosystem. Final Report to Grand Canyon 

Monitoring and Research Center, Flagstaff, Arizona. 

Linder, C., Hoffnagle, T., Persons, B., Choudhury, A., and Cole, R., 2008, Distribution and prevalence of 

parasites of fishes in the Colorado River and selected tributaries in Grand Canyon, Arizona: Flagstaff, 

Arizona, Final Report submitted to USGS Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, Cooperative 

Agreement 05WRAG0052. 

 Ralston, B.E., Davis, P.A., Weber, R.M., and Rundall, J.M., 2008, A vegetation database for the 

Colorado River ecosystem from Glen Canyon Dam to the western boundary of Grand Canyon National 

Park, Open-file Report 2008-1216, U.S. Geological Survey. 

SWCA, Inc. and Grand Canyon Wildlands Council. 2007. A proposal to translocate humpback 

chub into Shinumo Creek, Grand Canyon. Draft Report to National Park Service, Grand 

Canyon, Arizona. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2002, Humpback chub (Gila cypha) Recovery Goals: 

amendment and supplement to the Humpback Chub Recovery Plan, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Mountain-Prairie Region (6), Denver, Colorado. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Biological and conference opinion on the lower Colorado 

River multi-species conservation program, Arizona, California, and Nevada (02-21-04-F0161). U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Phoenix, Arizona. 

Valdez, R.A., Carothers, S.W., Douglas, M.E., Douglas, M., Ryel, R.J., Bestgen, K.R., and 

Wegner, D.L., 2000, Research and implementation plan for establishing a second population of 

humpback chub in Grand Canyon: Final Report to the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research 

Center, 80 p. 

16
Document Title 

Document Date: 

Comment 

Number 

Page Line Reviewer Name Affiliation Reviewer 

Comments (Be specific 

Identify Action Requested 

Response Requested