Developed in cooperation with the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive 

Management Program 

Monitoring and Research Plan to 

Support the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive 

Management Program, Fiscal Years 2009–

12 

Prepared by the USGS Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center 

TWG Review Draft⎯October 2008 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Geological Survey 
ii

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. 
iii

CONTENTS 

Chapter 1. Introduction, Purpose, and Organization ................... 1

Introduction ......................................................... 1

Science Planning Process..............................................2

Purpose .............................................................. 4

Organization ......................................................... 4

Core-Monitoring Activities ........................................... 5

Research and Development Activities .................................. 8

Long-Term Experimental Activities .................................... 8

Integrated and Interdisciplinary Science ............................ 13

Staffing and Organizational Capacity.................................13

Conceptual Ecosystem Model Enhancement...............................13

Sediment Dynamics....................................................14

Effects of Increased Water Temperatures on Priority AMP Resources ....14

Critical Monitoring and Research Needs Outside of the Colorado River 

Ecosystem ......................................................... 16

Threats to the Little Colorado River.................................16

Lake Powell Water Quality............................................16

Effects of Climate Change and Drought................................17

CHAPTER 2. Proposed FY2009–12 Monitoring and Research Plan Activities 18

GCDAMP Goal 1 .................................................... 27

GCDAMP Goal 2 .................................................... 30

GCDAMP Goal 3 .................................................... 37

GCDAMP Goal 4 .................................................... 38

GCDAMP Goal 5 .................................................... 40

GCDAMP Goal 6 .................................................... 42

GCDAMP Goal 7 .................................................... 45

GCDAMP Goal 8 .................................................... 50

GCDAMP Goal 9 .................................................... 56

GCDAMP Goal 10 ................................................... 63

GCDAMP Goal 11 ................................................... 65

GCDAMP Goal 12 ...................................................... 72

CHAPTER 3. Funding for Proposed FY2009–12 Monitoring and Research Plan

.................................................................... 80

References Cited .................................................... 81

APPENDIX A. AMWG Priorities and Associated Strategic Science Questions 

from the GCMRC Strategic Science Plan ............................... 83

APPENDIX B. Crosswalk between Research Information Needs identified in 

the GCDAMP Strategic Plan and Strategic Science Questions in the Fiscal 

year (FY) 2007–11 Monitoring and Research Plan. ..................... 87

APPENDIX C. Monitoring and Research Plan Acronym Glossary ......... 148 

Figures 
iv

Figure 1. Collaborative science planning and implementation process .. 3

Figure 2. Glen Canyon Dam released water temperatures 2002–2008 ..... 14

Figure 3. Flow chart showing the proposed experimental strategy for 

evaluating a flow-only operational strategy. ........................ 54

Tables 

Table 1.Strategic science questions from the GCMRC monitoring and 

research plan (MRP), related high flow science questions, and the 

experimental studies that would address in part or in whole individual 

questions. .......................................................... 10

Table 2. Description of experimental studies included in the HFE 

science plan ........................................................ 11

Table 3. Summary of core-monitoring, research and development, and 

experimental activities described in the Monitoring and Research Plan 

to Support Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal years 

2009–12. 18

Table 4. Total anticipated funding to support the GCMRC Monitoring and 

Research Plan in fiscal years 2009 through 2012 (tribal participation 

is not included in this table). ..................................... 78
1

Monitoring and Research Plan to 

Support the Glen Canyon Dam 

Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal 

Years 2009–12 

Prepared by the USGS Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center 

Chapter 1. Introduction, Purpose, and 

Organization 

Introduction 

The Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP) was established in 

early 1997 by the Secretary of the Interior to implement the Grand Canyon Protection Act of 

1992 (GCPA), the 1995 Operation of Glen Canyon Dam Final Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS), and the 1996 Record of Decision (ROD). Adaptive management in Grand Canyon was 

envisioned as a new paradigm to address environmental problems related to the operation of 

Glen Canyon Dam (GCD) through the dynamic interplay of ecosystem science, collaboration, 

and management. The GCDAMP consists of five components: the Adaptive Management Work 

Group (AMWG), the Secretary of the Interior’s Designee, the Technical Work Group (TWG), 

the U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center 

(GCMRC), and Independent Review Panels (IRPs). Each entity has a specific role: 

1. The Adaptive Management Work Group is a Federal Advisory Committee composed of 

25 members, who include representatives from Federal and State resource management 

agencies, the seven Colorado River Basin States, Native American tribes, environmental 

groups, recreation interests, and contractors of Federal power from Glen Canyon Dam. The 

AMWG reviews and develops alternative dam operations and conservation measures and 

provides recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior in order to fulfill the Department 

of the Interior’s (DOI) obligations under the GCPA. 

2. The Secretary of the Interior’s Designee serves as the chair of the AMWG and provides a 

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

3. The Technical Work Group translates AMWG policy and goals into information needs, 

provides questions that serve as the basis for long-term monitoring and research activities, 

conveys research results to AMWG members, and makes recommendations on budgets and 

work plans. 
2

4. The Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center provides credible, objective 

scientific information on the effects of GCD operation and related natural, cultural, and 

recreational resources along the Colorado River from GCD to Lake Mead. 

5. The Independent Review Panels assess program proposals and accomplishments to ensure 

scientific objectivity and credibility. A group of Science Advisors (SA), academic experts in 

fields germane to studies within the scope of the GCDAMP, serves as an IRP. 

Science Planning Process 

Beginning in 1997, a series of workshops to identify a hierarchy of goals, objectives, 

core-monitoring information needs (CMINs), and research information needs (RINs) were 

conducted by the AMP. Through this process, the AMWG also specified 12 GCDAMP goals to 

guide planning, monitoring, and research. However, the list of management objectives eventually 

grew to more than 40 and information needs to more than 160, complicating science planning 

and priority setting. 

Given this complexity, the AMWG identified the need for a different approach in 2004 

and identified 5 priority questions and 12 GCDAMP goals to focus science activities. In 2005, to 

further focus science planning, the GCMRC initiated two knowledge assessment workshops that 

identified areas of scientific uncertainty and strategic science questions (SSQs) related to the five 

priority questions. 

Science activities articulated in this document, the Monitoring and Research Plan to 

Support Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Years 2009–12 (hereafter 

MRP) are organized according to the 12 GCDAMP goals. Within each goal, monitoring and 

research activities are focused on AMWG priority questions and SSQs that grew out of the 

knowledge assessment workshops (appendix A). 

 The MRP was developed by the GCMRC in cooperation with the GCDAMP Science 

Planning Group (SPG) to specify monitoring and research programs consistent with both the 

GCDAMP Strategic Plan (AMPSP) and the GCMRC Strategic Science Plan (SSP). The AMPSP 

was drafted by GCDAMP and the GCMRC in August 2001 and refined in 2002-2003. The plan 

identifies the AMWG’s vision and mission, principles, goals, management objectives, 

information needs, and management actions. The SSP was developed by the GCMRC and 

GCDAMP and identifies strategies for providing science information that are consistent with the 

AMPSP and responsive to the goals, management objectives, and priority questions of 

GCDAMP participants. In addition, the MRP is responsive to the direction provided in the “Final 

Environmental Assessment: Experimental Releases from Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona, 2008 

through 2012” dated February 29, 2008, and the “Final Biological Opinion for the Operation of 

Glen Canyon Dam” dated February 27, 2008. Major elements of these compliance documents 

include a March 2008 high flow experiment, a 5-year September-October steady flow 

experiment beginning in September 2008, a humpback chub nearshore ecology study, humpback 

chub translocations in the Little Colorado River, and nonnative fish control. 

The MRP will be implemented through GCMRC’s annual/biennial work plans which will 

identify the scope, objectives, and budget for the general activities described in the MRP. 

Projects identified in the FY2009 annual workplan are summarized in the MRP. 

The MRP and the FY2009 annual work plan will be the foundation for the development 

of the FY2010–11 biennial work plan. In addition the following new information which is 

anticipated to become available in FY2009, will be used to inform the FY2010–11 biennial work 

plan, including (1) the general core-monitoring plan, (2) a science plan for evaluating the effects 
3

of 2 months of late summer-early fall steady flows on fish recruitment and other high priority 

resources, and (3) recommendations from the Senior Ecologist and the Science Advisors to 

improve integrated, interdisciplinary ecosystem science in the GCDAMP Science Program. 

The overall GCDAMP science planning and implementation process is depicted in Figure 

1. As part of this process several reports will be developed, including: 

• Annually, the GCMRC will report on accomplishments related to projects from the 

previous year’s annual/biennial work plan. These annual reports will be used to track 

progress and inform discussion related to the next year’s biennial work plan. 

• At 5-year intervals, the GCMRC will synthesize new scientific information in an updated 

State of the Colorado River Ecosystem in Grand Canyon (SCORE) report (Gloss and 

others, 2005), Knowledge Assessment Report (KAR) (Melis and others, 2006), and other 

reports, as appropriate. The next SCORE report and KAR will be completed in FY2012. 

• The MRP and SSP will be updated within one year following completion of the SCORE 

report and KAR (FY 2013). As part of the revision, priority information needs and 

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

program revisions are needed. 

As shown in Figure 1, the MRP incorporates information from other resource 

management agency plans and compliance documents such as the National Park Service (NPS) 

Colorado River Management Plan (CRMP), the 1993 Humpback Chub Comprehensive Plan, as 

amended and the February 2008 environmental assessment and biological opinion related to 

experimental releases from Glen Canyon Dam. The GCMRC will provide science information 

that is consistent with and supports these plans and compliance documents, as appropriate. 

 

 SSP 

 MRP 

 AWP 

Annual 

Work 

Activities 

Annual/Final 

Reports 

Annual 

Review 

5-year Analysis 

• SCORE Report 

• KA Report 

 AMPSP 

5-Year Analysis 

and Report 

Annual 

Analysis & 

Report 

Annual Analysis 

& Report 

Other Plans: 

• HBC Comp Plan 

• NPS CRMP 

• Colorado River AOP 

• NEPA documents and 

Biological Opinions. 
4

Figure 1. Collaborative science planning and implementation 

process. The Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program and the Department of the 

Interior have lead responsibility for the shaded boxes. The Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center has lead responsibility for the boxes that are not shaded. (Key to abbreviations 

in figure: AMPSP = Adaptive Management Program Strategic Plan; SSP = Strategic Science 

Plan; MRP = Monitoring and Research Plan; AWP = Annual Work Plan; SCORE = Status of the 

Colorado River Ecosystem; KA = Knowledge Assessment; HBC Comp Plan = Comprehensive 

Plan for Humpback Chub; NPS CRMP = Grand Canyon National Park’s Colorado River 

Management Plan; Colorado River AOP = Annual Operating Plan for the Colorado River; NEPA 

= National Environmental Policy Act.) GCMRC science planning will be done in coordination 

with and to help inform the GCDAMP’s strategic planning. Current science information will be 

made available to help inform management discussions resulted to priority goals/questions, 

desired future conditions, and management actions. Concurrent planning is essential to ensure 

that the science program is aligned with current management priorities. 

Purpose 

The purpose of the MRP is to describe the scope of a 5-year program of monitoring and 

research activities to address priority goals, questions, and information needs specified by the 

GCDAMP and DOI management agencies. The plan will identify specific science needs for 

FY2009; more general needs will be defined for FY2010–12. 

The MRP will implement and be consistent with the GCMRC SSP, which emphasizes 

four key components: 

• Improving interdisciplinary, integrated river science within the GCDAMP science 

program 

• Building bridges between science and management 

• Addressing priority AMWG goals/questions and associated SSQs as articulated in the 

KAR (appendix A) 

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

Organization 

Chapter 2 of the MRP describes the monitoring and research activities for FY2009–12 

related to the 12 goals in the GCDAMP Strategic Plan. Monitoring and research activities are 

organized into one of three categories: 

1. Core-monitoring activities are scientifically validated protocols to assess the condition and 

trend of priority GCDAMP resources (e.g., HBC, sediment, the food base, etc.). 

2. Research and development activities are projects aimed at (1) addressing hypotheses or 

information needs related to a priority GCDAMP resource or (2) developing/testing new 

technologies or monitoring procedures. 

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

management actions designed to improve the condition of target resources (e.g., HBC, 

cultural sites, sediment, etc.) and, through monitoring and research, allow for an 

understanding of the relationship between treatment/management actions and target 

resources. 
5

The five priority questions identified by the AMWG and the related SSQs (appendix A) 

were used to organize monitoring and research activities. The MRP is focused on these priority 

and science questions. Other GCDAMP goals and information needs will still be pursued, but 

with less intensity until priority issues of concern are resolved and funds can be reprogrammed 

or obtained through alternative sources. 

All monitoring and research activities described in chapter 2 will be designed and carried 

out in an interdisciplinary fashion as discussed later in the introduction. 

Core-Monitoring Activities 

The GCDAMP Strategic Plan defined core monitoring as follows: 

“Core Monitoring: Consistent, long-term, repeated measurements using scientifically 

accepted protocols to measure status and trends of key resources to answer specific 

questions. Core monitoring is implemented on a fixed schedule regardless of budget or other 

circumstances (e.g., water year, experimental flows, temperature control, stocking strategy, 

nonnative control, etc.) affecting target resources” (Bureau of Reclamation, 2001). 

The development of a long-term core-monitoring plan for the GCDAMP has been 

essential since the inception of the program in 1996. However, it has remained an elusive goal 

for a variety of reasons. First, the systematic development of monitoring programs generally 

involves a protocol evaluation panel (PEP) for each key resource area; several years of pilot 

testing of monitoring protocols; a period of analysis, synthesis, and reevaluation; and the 

implementation of long-term monitoring protocols. This process was initiated in 1998 and is in 

progress for many elements of the program today (e.g., terrestrial ecosystems, archaeological and 

tribal resources, the aquatic food base, recreation, and fisheries). Other factors have hindered 

rapid development of a core-monitoring plan, including: 

• Lack of agreement among GCDAMP stakeholders about scope, purpose, and objectives 

of core-monitoring projects under the GCDAMP 

• Lack of agreement among GCDAMP stakeholders and scientists about what defines core 

monitoring as opposed to other kinds of monitoring, such as monitoring the effectiveness 

of experimental or management actions 

• Lack of agreement about the required levels of precision and accuracy in monitoring data 

necessary to achieve program goals 

A Provisional Core Monitoring Plan (PCMP) (Fairley and others, 2005) was drafted by 

the GCMRC in cooperation with a GCDAMP core-monitoring team. However, the plan only 

addressed a few highly developed monitoring efforts (so-called “green” projects) and was not 

adopted by the TWG or the AMWG and therefore not finalized. Nevertheless, the PCMP 

represents the best guidance currently available for the development of core-monitoring projects 

for FY2009–12. 

Current monitoring projects associated with GCDAMP resources will be evaluated by the 

GCMRC and the TWG. Evaluation of the suitability of projects for core monitoring is critical 

because these activities have significant budget implications for the science program that could 

limit the flexibility of the GCMRC and the GCDAMP to respond to high-priority research needs. 
6

Accordingly, all projects will undergo the following technical evaluation process for determining 

core-monitoring status: 

1. General core-monitoring plan: In FY2009, the GCMRC will draft a core-monitoring 

proposal that identifies by resource area the goals, objectives, scope, schedule, and funding 

for each proposed core-monitoring project. The proposal will be based on AMWG priorities, 

identified information needs, the feasibility of developing monitoring protocols to meet those 

needs, and other relevant information. The proposal will be provided to the TWG for review. 

2. Information needs workshop: The GCMRC will conduct an annual TWG workshop to 

refine recommendations on management goals, information needs, and the scope of all 

monitoring projects that will be evaluated for core-monitoring status in a given fiscal year. 

The workshop will also identify questions that managers would like to have addressed in the 

follow-up PEP for each resource goal. 

3. Protocol Evaluation Panel review: For each resource goal, the GCMRC will convene a 

PEP to evaluate the results of the information needs workshop, review the results of past 

monitoring efforts and relevant research and development activities, and recommend 

monitoring protocols and other technical specifications for the monitoring project. 

4. Core-Monitoring Program reports: Based on the results of the workshop and the PEP 

evaluation, the GCMRC will prepare a report to the TWG for each project being evaluated 

for core-monitoring status. These reports will provide the TWG with sufficient information 

to evaluate individual projects. The reports will include the following information: 

• AMWG goal(s) addressed 

• Project title 

• Principal investigator(s) 

• Geographic scope 

• Justification for monitoring effort 

• Project goals, tasks, and schedule by task 

• Key science questions and managers’ information needs addressed 

• Linkage to other resources processes and models 

• Monitoring protocols, including sampling designs, level of data resolution, accuracy 

and precision assessment, etc. 

• Expected outcomes, including outputs by fiscal year, reports, guidelines, models, etc. 

• Costs of project by fiscal year 

Projects approved by the TWG for core-monitoring status will receive first consideration 

for funding each year and will not undergo the same annual competitive review as other projects. 

However, the projects will be reviewed during the development of the biennial work plan to 

incorporate new findings and monitoring techniques to improve their effectiveness. A more 

comprehensive review will be conducted at 5-year intervals. 

The focus of the evaluation process described above will be to evaluate for coremonitoring status projects that have undergone a PEP evaluation, have been piloted and the 
7

results peer reviewed, and have been implemented for one or more years using methods that are 

deemed to be adequate for long-term monitoring. Projects in this category and their anticipated 

review schedule include: 

• Downstream surface-water parameters (discharge, stage measurements) and water-quality 

parameters related to sediment (e.g., suspended-sediment transport measurements and 

modeling) (FY2007) 

• Status of Lees Ferry rainbow trout (RBT) (FY2009) 

• Status of HBC in the Little Colorado River (LCR) (to be reviewed by a PEP using data 

on the Colorado River population) (FY2009) 

 Because of the commonalities involved in managing for the different fish populations, 

GCMRC will convene a single PEP for the Grand Canyon fish community in early 2009. 

Because GCMRC recognizes that there are important differences involved in managing for these 

two populations, separate recommendations for each species will be sought from the reviewers. 

 In addition, several monitoring projects that have undergone a PEP review have 

subsequently undergone a period of research and development or pilot testing and are now ready 

for a second PEP review before being implemented as part of the long-term core-monitoring 

plan. Other projects, such as food base and cultural resource studies, , are in the initial phase of 

being developed and pilot tested through multiyear research and development projects. These 

projects will be brought forward for review over the course of the next 5 years with the goal of 

having a fully developed core-monitoring program in place by FY2011. The proposed schedule 

of projects for review is as follows: 

• Sand storage monitoring (FY2008) 

• Terrestrial ecosystem monitoring (TEM) (FY2009) 

• Status of HBC in the mainstem of the Colorado River (to be reviewed through PEP with 

LCR population) (FY2009) 

• Integrated quality-of-water (IQW) monitoring (Lake Powell and downstream parameters, 

including specific conductivity, dissolved oxygen, and temperature) (FY2010) 

• Kanab ambersnail (KAS) habitat and population monitoring (to be scheduled in 

coordination with USFWS) 

• Camping beach monitoring (FY2011) 

• Cultural site monitoring (archaeological, traditional cultural properties [TCPs]) (FY2011) 

• Aquatic food base monitoring (FY2010–11) 

The joint monitoring and management of a recreational fishery near the dam for a native 

fish community 45 miles (72 km) and more downstream is one of the challenges that GCMRC 

faces and GCDAMP. To help address this challenge GCMRC will conduct a protocol evaluation 

panel in FY 2009 directed at all of the fishes of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon. This will 

incorporate the various fish PEPs shown in the above list in a single PEP that solicits advice 

from a broad variety of fisheries scientists. 
8

Monitoring of TCPs and tribal values in the Colorado River ecosystem (CRE) is a 

component of the GCDAMP; however, the GCMRC has faced numerous challenges in 

integrating tribal perspectives into the core monitoring program. Many of the issues that have 

hindered integration of tribal perspectives are similar to those of the larger adaptive management 

program, as previously described. Other confounding issues relate specifically to tribal 

perceptions about the fundamental nature of ecosystem processes, including the role of 

supernatural forces in affecting ecosystems processes and “health”. 

In 2006, the tribes were funded by the GCDAMP to define their monitoring projects, 

methods, and metrics for evaluating the resources and places of tribal interest in the CRE. These 

proposed tribal monitoring projects were presented to the TWG for review and discussion in 

FY2007, and the AMWG subsequently recommended the allocation of funding for future tribal 

monitoring efforts in FY08 and FY09. Many of the fundamental conflicts between western 

scientific approaches to monitoring and tribal perspectives about monitoring remain unresolved, 

however, and it will require continuing dialog between the tribes, GCMRC and non-tribal 

GCDAMP stakeholders to identify appropriate venues for reviewing, vetting and disseminating 

the outcomes of the tribal monitoring efforts in the future. In the meantime, the Bureau of 

Reclamation has established multiyear contracts with four of the tribal stakeholders in the AMP 

(Hopi, Hualapai, Southern Paiute Consortium, and Zuni) to implement monitoring programs for 

tribally valued resources in the CRE in accordance with tribe-specific interests and protocols. 

Research and Development Activities 

Research and development activities include projects aimed at (1) addressing hypotheses 

or information needs related to a priority GCDAMP resource(s) and (2) developing and testing 

new technologies or monitoring procedures. Examples of research and development goals 

included in the MRP are as follows: 

1. Link whole-system carbon cycling to food webs in the Colorado River, which will provide 

the basis for the food base-monitoring program 

2. Investigate remote passive integrated transponder (PIT) tag-reading technology 

3. Develop integrated downstream flow, temperature, and suspended-sediment models 

4. Evaluate quality of historical remote-sensing imagery for change detection 

5. Conduct a near shore ecology study to relate river flow variables and ecological attributes of 

near shore habitats to better understand the relative importance of such habitats to juvenile 

native and nonnative fishes. 

Long-Term Experimental Activities 

Long-term experimental activities over the next 5 years will be based upon the direction 

provided in the “Final Environmental Assessment: Experimental Releases from Glen Canyon 

Dam, Arizona, 2008 through 2012” dated February 29, 2008, and the “Final Biological Opinion 

for the Operation of Glen Canyon Dam” dated February 27, 2008. The experimental activities, 

which will be coordinated with ongoing monitoring and research projects to maximize cost 

effectiveness include: 

• March 2008 High Flow – GCMRC will report the results of the High Flow Experiment 

(HFE) conducted in March 2008. The HFE is aimed at addressing a variety of strategic 

science questions (Table 1) and restoring sand bars and related backwater habitats in the 
9

Colorado River ecosystem; the experiment will all also address the affects of the high 

flow on other resources such as rainbow trout, camping beaches, aquatic food base, 

riparian vegetation, archaeological sites, and Lake Powell water quality. Table 2 

summarizes the studies associated with the March 2008 HFE. More detailed descriptions 

are included in Chapter 2. Additional HFE may be conducted in the 2009-2012 period 

subject to review by the AMWG and approval by the Secretary of the Interior. 

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

October (2008-2012) -- In coordination with the Nearshore Ecology Study (see above), 

GCMRC will develop and implement a September/October Steady Flow Science Plan for 

2008-2012. The science plan will primarily address whether MLFF in combination with 

the September-October steady flows are likely to improve the survival and recruitment of 

young humpback chub in the Colorado River ecosystem. The scope of the 

September/October Steady Flow Science Plan will be determined in coordination with 

BOR, FWS and the Technical Work Group 

• Nonnative Fish Control – To address the threat of nonnative fishes on native fish in the 

Colorado River ecosystem, a nonnative fish control effort will be implemented in FY 

2009-2012. GCMRC will prepare a nonnative fish control plan that addresses both cold 

and warm-water species to guide efforts in control of both cold- and warm-water 

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

tributaries. Assuming dam releases will be cool to cold during the period of the 

proposed action, control efforts will focus on nonnative trout in the vicinity of the Little 

Colorado River using mechanical removal and other methods. 
10

Table 1. Strategic science questions from the GCMRC monitoring 

and research plan (MRP), related HFE science questions, and 

related HFE experimental studies 

Question Experiment

al Studies 

(Table 2) 

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 highflow 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 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 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 

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 
11

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?

Table 1. Strategic science questions from the GCMRC monitoring and 

research plan (MRP), related high flow science questions, and the experimental studies 

that would address in part or in whole individual questions.—Continued. 

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 

Table 2. Description of experimental studies included in the 

HFE science plan 

Experimenta

l study 

Description 

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 

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. 

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 sandenriched high flow, (2) if new sand can offset gully erosion, and 

(3) if enlarged sandbars provide source material for the windborne 
12

transport of sand upslope into archaeological sites. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

Rainbow Trout 

4.A. Redds 

study 

Data will be collected to determine how high-flow experiments 

affect spawning and survival of early-life stages of rainbow 

trout in Lees Ferry 

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 

Lake Powell 

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

and changes in the hypolimnion 

Conservation measures 

6. Kanab 

ambersnail 

To minimize impacts to an endangered species, Kanab ambersnail 

habitat at Vaseys Paradise will be moved 

Knowledge syntehsis 

7. Synthesis 

of knowledge 

Data and knowledge gained as the result of the high-flows test 

will be synthesized in an attempt to address strategic science 

questions 

 

 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 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. 

 Another element of the experimental program for FY 2009- 2012 will involve annual 

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

undertaking periodic humpback chub translocations above Chute Falls as deemed necessary by 

the Fish and Wildlife Service. In addition, NPS and BOR are expected to translocate humpback 

chub from the Little Colorado River to several tributary streams in Grand Canyon including, 

Shinumo Creek, Havasu Creek, and Bright Angel Creek. Since theses efforts are not being 

funded through the GCDAMP they are not addressed in the MRP. 

 The final element of the experimental program for FY 2009- 2012 will involve annual 

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

undertaking periodic humpback chub translocations above Chute Falls as deemed necessary by 

the Fish and Wildlife Service. In addition, NPS and BOR are expected to translocate humpback 

chub from the Little Colorado River to several tributary streams in Grand Canyon including, 
13

Shinumo Creek, Havasu Creek, and Bright Angel Creek. Since theses efforts are not being 

funded through the GCDAMP they are not addressed in the MRP. 

 In 2003, the GCDAMP began depositing $500,000 per year into a fund managed by 

Reclamation to pay for experimental research projects so that they can be conducted without 

financially impacting other aspects of the science program. The entire fund has been committed 

through FY 09 to data collection, data analysis and reporting associated with the March 2008 

HFE. Each year, $500,000 will be set aside by the GCMRC into the Experimental Fund. 

Deposits to the Experimental Fund will cease when the balance reaches $2.5 million. 

Integrated and Interdisciplinary Science 

The GCMRC will emphasize an integrated, interdisciplinary science approach during the 

next 5 years. An interdisciplinary approach is the only practical way to link the physical, 

biological, and sociocultural components of the CRE. To provide a framework for integrating 

scientific activities, the MRP is structured around overarching SSQs (appendix A). The science 

approach will emphasize four areas, which are discussed in greater detail below. This approach 

will increase the likelihood of providing definitive answers to SSQs in the next 5 years. 

Staffing and Organizational Capacity 

In FY2008, the GCMRC recruited a part-time senior ecologist to work with GCMRC 

staff and cooperators to pursue integrated, interdisciplinary ecosystem-science strategies. 

Possible strategies include the application of the CRE conceptual model to science planning and 

project design, and the evaluation of decision-support tools to improve the application of science 

information in the GCDAMP process (see below). 

Conceptual Ecosystem Model Enhancement 

In 1998, Walters and others (2000) conducted a workshop to assist scientists and 

managers in developing a conceptual model of the CRE as affected by GCD operations. The 

model proved to be useful for understanding the relationship among ecosystem components, 

identifying knowledge gaps, and predicting the response of some ecosystem components to 

policy change. However, the model was unable to predict the effects of policy decisions on 

several key areas, such as long-term sediment storage, fisheries response to habitat restoration, 

and socioeconomic effects. Expanded design, development, and use of the conceptual ecosystem 

model (CEM) will be pursued to increase its utility in ecosystem science planning and 

management processes and to provide information that is relevant to each high-priority AMWG 

goal/question. A preliminary list of priority expansions of the CEM model include: 

• Expanding the fishery elements to address coldwater and warmwater fish predation on 

HBC young-of-year (YoY), HBC habitat use, etc. 

• Modeling outcomes of nonflow management activities (e.g., operation of a TCD, 

mechanical removal of nonnative fish, translocation efforts for HBC, tributary triggers 

for HFEs) 

• Linking Lake Powell and downstream temperature simulations to fine sediment, food 

web, and fisheries submodels 
14

• Expanding the model to provide a broader landscape perspective by incorporating Lake 

Powell, the Little Colorado and Paria Rivers, and terrestrial habitats in the CRE 

• Enhancing the use of climatic input data and simulations 

• Researching recreational use and campsite size, abundance, and distribution 

• Developing cultural site change and protection strategies (archaeological sites, TCPs) 

• Simulating financial impacts coupled to the flow/dam operations submodels 

Sediment Dynamics 

Sediment and sand supplies are critical ecosystem components important to the long-term 

maintenance of several priority GCDAMP resources. For example, high-elevation sandbars 

provide camping beaches, support riparian habitat and associated wildlife, and contribute aeolian 

sand that affords protection for some archaeological sites in close proximity to the river. 

Sandbars also provide backwater habitats that are warmer than main-channel habitats and may be 

important to the growth and survival of HBC and other native fishes. As part of the experimental 

program, the results of the HFE that was conducted in March 2008 will be analyzed and reported 

in FY 09 and FY 2010. Additional HFEs will be conducted subject to approval by the Secretary 

of the Interior. 

Effects of Increased Water Temperatures on Priority AMP 

Resources 

Since 2003, the Colorado River water temperatures below GCD have been increasing 

(figure 2) because of prolonged drought conditions and lower water levels in Lake Powell. The 

low water levels have resulted in warmer water passing through the dam than would have 

occurred under higher reservoir elevations. These warmer releases are correlated with a number 

of changes in the fisheries, including: 

1. Evidence of mainstem spawning of HBC, which is indicated by the presence of YoY HBC at 

river mile 30 on the Colorado River (Andersen and others, submitted) 

2. Increased numbers of juvenile HBC in comparison to recent years 

3. A decline in the RBT population in the Lees Ferry reach possibly owing to reductions in 

dissolved oxygen associated with the warmer GCD releases 

4. Increased observations of warmwater nonnative fishes that may prey upon or compete with 

native fishes 
15

 

Figure 2. Glen Canyon Dam released water temperatures 2002 

– 2008, compared with 1990-2002 average. The natural warming of the river 

occurred at least through water year 2008 and provides a unique opportunity to study the effects 

of warmer water on Colorado River ecosystem resources before the possible construction of a 

temperature control device. Water temperatures downstream of the dam gradually increase with 

distance from the dam. The GCMRC proposes the following studies and activities to evaluate the 

effects of natural river warming: 

1. Develop and test a water-temperature model to better predict the effects of GCD operations 

on downstream water temperature and associated shoreline habitats 

2. Synthesize water-quality data for Lake Powell and link Lake Powell to the Colorado River 

quality-of-water models 

3. Develop and test a nonnative fish management plan that will (1) assess the implications and 

expected response of both the native and nonnative fisheries communities to warmer water 

and (2) identify methods of control that will be tested/refined (FY2007–11) 

4. Continue to gather and evaluate baseline data on the effects of natural warming of river 

temperatures on the distribution, abundance, and reproductive success of native and 

nonnative fishes (FY2007–11) 

5. Work with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to finalize the HBC genetics 

management plan and a related plan for one or more refuges for HBC to avert the 

catastrophic decline of HBC populations associated with the proliferation of nonnative fishes 

 These studies and activities will also contribute to the evaluation of the efficacy of a 

Temperature Control Device (TCD) that would allow for regulation of the water temperatures 

and other water-quality parameters (e.g., dissolved oxygen). The primary goal of a TCD would 

be to create mainstem water-temperature conditions that promote natural reproduction and 
16

recruitment of HBC in the mainstem of the Colorado River. The primary risk associated with 

warmer water temperatures involves the proliferation of warmwater nonnative fishes that may 

compete with or prey upon native fishes. A TCD can also provide the capability to release cold 

water from GCD to control the spread of warm water non native fishes that may result from 

warmer water releases from GCD. 

Critical Monitoring and Research Needs Outside of the 

Colorado River Ecosystem 

The uses of GCDAMP funds are currently focused on addressing the impacts of dam 

operations on resources in the immediate Colorado River corridor downstream of GCD to Lake 

Mead. As a result, some potentially significant external threats to CRE resources that are relevant 

to the GCDAMP mission and goals are not being addressed. USGS will seek funding outside the 

GCDAMP to address three critical needs: (1) threats to the Little Colorado River (LCR), (2) 

Lake Powell water quality, and (3) effects of climate change and drought in the Colorado River 

Basin. 

Threats to the Little Colorado River 

The lower reach of the LCR located just above its confluence with the main Colorado 

River is critical spawning and rearing habitat for virtually the entire endangered HBC population 

in Grand Canyon. However, only the lower few miles of the LCR watershed are being addressed 

by the GCDAMP. Possible spills of hazardous materials and water-quality contamination in 

upstream areas of the LCR watershed have been identified by the USFWS as a significant threat 

to the endangered HBC. The USFWS has identified the need to develop a hazardous material 

spill response plan to help avert the catastrophic loss of the HBC population. 

The GCMRC proposes the following activities to support this need: 

• Enhance the existing stream gage in the lower LCR to include water-quality sampling 

consistent with the mainstem quality-of-water program, which would improve the 

capacity to detect changes in water quality resulting from contamination in the upper 

watershed, 

• Synthesize existing historical hydrology, sediment, water-quality, and land-use 

information in the LCR Basin in relation to habitat requirements of HBC in the lower 

reach of the LCR, and 

• Assess the risk of water contamination from various sources in the LCR. 

Lake Powell Water Quality 

A primary determinant of water quality in the Colorado River below GCD is the water 

released from Lake Powell. 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 or 

subjected to analysis and modeling to simulate both temperature and dissolved oxygen 

characteristics for GCD releases. Under this activity, historical Lake Powell data will be 

synthesized to identify trends in water quality. In addition, trends in dam operations, basin 

hydrology, and climate variability will be linked with biological data both in the reservoir and 

downstream of GCD (i.e., aquatic productivity and both nonnative and native fish trends). 

Information from this activity will support efforts to model both Lake Powell quality of water 
17

and downstream release characteristics. These assessments could significantly advance 

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

operation of the TCD. This study will be carried out in partnership with Reclamation. 

Effects of Climate Change and Drought 

Long-term drought and climate change have significant implications for decisions about 

future water management and hydropower production in the Colorado River Basin and the 

conservation of natural resources in Grand Canyon. Runoff in 2000–08 in the upper Colorado 

River Basin was the lowest in the period of record; Lake Powell is currently (2008) about 50% 

full. Water managers increasingly need predictive capability for climate change and related 

drought forecasting over annual-to-decadal time spans. However, the causal mechanisms of 

drought are not presently well enough understood to make accurate predictions to meet the needs 

of managers at even seasonal-to-annual scales. In addition, continued climate change and longterm drought will have potentially significant implications for several identified strategies for the 

operation of GCD to attain a variety of GCDAMP goals (e.g., preservation of native fishes, 

sediment, cultural resources, and recreation). 

Under this research initiative, basin-scale climate studies will be conducted on how new 

climate information could be used by water and other resource managers in the GCDAMP 

program. The focus will be on (1) how climate forecast information could be used in decisions 

related to the operation of GCD and other Colorado River Storage Project operations, and (2) the 

role of climate variability and hydrological variance (upper-basin runoff versus the flood 

frequency of major tributaries below the dam) in ecosystem responses and their relationship to 

operation of GCD. This study will be carried out in cooperation with other USGS offices, the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Reclamation. 
18

CHAPTER 2. Proposed FY2009–12 Monitoring and 

Research Plan Activities 

Proposed science activities for FY2009–12 are summarized in table 3. These activities 

are categorized as core monitoring, research and development, and long-term experiments. All 

proposed science activities are related to both GCDAMP goals and AMWG priorities. 

Chapter 2 summarizes the core-monitoring, long-term experimental, and research and 

development activities for GCDAMP goals 1–11 and describes general activities for goal 12. The 

chapter also discusses efforts to integrate monitoring and research activities across goals. 

SSQs and information needs specified in the SSP will be used to drive monitoring and 

research activities for the next 5 years. In addition, GCMRC developed a crosswalk table 

(appendix A) showing how the Research Information Needs (RIN) in the GCDAMP Strategic 

Plan relate to the SSQs in the SSP. Through a review of this table, GCMRC identified four 

additional SSQs to be added to the MRP. These include: 

• SSQ RIN 1: What habitats and habitat characteristics, if any, will enhance survival, 

growth, and reproduction of native Grand Canyon fishes, especially HBC, in the 

mainstem Colorado River? 

• SSQ RIN 2: What are the most effective strategies and control methods to limit 

nonnative fish predation on, and competition with, native fishes? 

• SSQ RIN 4: What are the effects of ramping rates on sediment transport and sandbar 

stability? 

• SSQ RIN 5: What is the rate of change in eddy storage (erosion) during time intervals 

between HFEs? 

In some cases, proposed research and monitoring activities concentrate on a single 

strategic science question. For example, most of the goal 8 research and monitoring activities are 

directed at answering this question: Is there a “flow-only” operation (i.e., a strategy for dam 

releases, including managing tributary inputs with HFEs, without sediment augmentation) that 

will restore and maintain sandbar habitats over decadal time scales? 

For other goals, multiple SSQs and information needs have been identified because of the 

complexity of the issues and the current state of knowledge about how to best achieve a goal. For 

example, seven SSQs, two core-monitoring information needs, and two RINs are identified for 

goal 2 (native fish/HBC). It is impractical to “answer” all of the questions and information needs 

within the scope of this 5-year MRP. Answering the stated SSQs and information needs will 

require research and modeling on several fronts over an extended period of time. Proceeding on 

multiple fronts will provide for a balanced, robust, and integrated research program. 
Table 3. Summary of core-monitoring, research and development, and experimental activities described in the Monitoring and Rese

Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Years 2009–12. Several long-term experimental activities currently under discusstable; additional experimental activities will be specified pending the finalization of the LTEP. Activities address Glen Canyon Dam Ad

Program (GCDAMP) goals 1–12 in relation to science questions and information needs. Priority and related strategic science questions 

Draft GCMRC SSP (appendix A). Information needs are paraphrased from the GCDAMP Strategic Plan. Abbreviations are as follows: 

question, CMIN=core-monitoring information need, RIN=research information need, and SA=GCDAMP Science Advisors summary q

19

Glen Canyon Dam 

Adaptive 

Management 

Program (GCDAMP) 

goal 

Adaptive Management Work Group (AMWG) priority 

science 

questions and information needs(questions from the 

Strategic Science Plan (SSP) and MRP in italics) 

Core-monitoring 

activities 

Experimental 

activities 

1. Food base AMWG Priority:1, 3, and 5 

SSQ 1-5: What are the important pathways that link lower trophic levels with fish and how will they link to dam operations? SSQ 1-6: Are fish populations, trends, or indicators from fish, such as growth, condition, and body composition, correlated with patterns in invertebrate flux?SSQ 5-2: Is invertebrate flux affected by water quality (e.g., temperature, nutrient concentrations, turbidity) and dam operations?

Fiscal year (FY) 2010: Review and evaluate aquatic food base monitoring program for core-monitoring status. FY2010–ongoing: Implement aquatic food base core monitoring. 

FY2009–12: Evaluate effects of fall steady flows on food web FY2009–10: Evaluate effects of the 2008 HFE on food web. FY2008-10:Evaluate the effects of various flow regimes on aquatic food base 

2. Humpback chub (HBC) and other native fishes (A.) 

AMWG Priority:1, 3, and 5 SSQ 1-1: 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? SSQ 1-4: Can long-term decreases in abundance of rainbow trout (RBT) be sustained with a reduced level of effort of mechanical removal or will 

recolonization from tributaries and from downstream and upstream of the removal reach require that mechanical removal be an ongoing management action? This question also applies to future removal programs targeting other nonnative species. 

CMIN 2.1.2: Determine and track abundance and distribution of all size classes of HBC in the Little Colorado River (LCR) and the mainstem. 

FY2009: Review and evaluate HBC monitoring program for coremonitoring status in protocol evaluation panel (PEP). FY2009–ongoing: Implement HBC core monitoring. 

FY2009–12: Evaluate effects of fall steady flows on humpback chub recruitment and FY2009–10: Evaluate effects of the 2008 HFE on backwater habitats. 
Table 3. Summary of core monitoring, research and development, and experimental activities describe

and Research Plan to Support Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Years 2009–12. Seveexperimental activities currently under discussion are not reflected in the table; additional experimwill be specified pending the finalization of the LTEP. Activities address Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive (GCDAMP) goals 1–12 in relation to science questions and information needs. Priority and related strquestions are paraphrased from the Draft GCMRC SSP (appendix A). Information needs are paraphrased fStrategic Plan. Abbreviations are as follows: SSQ=strategic science question, CMIN=core monitoring iRIN=research information need, and SA=GCDAMP Science Advisors summary questions.—Continued 

20

GCDAMP goal Priority science questions and information 

needs (questions from SSP and 

MRP in italics) 

Core-monitoring 

activities 

Experimental 

activities 

2. HBC and other native fishes (B.) 

AMWG Priority:1, 3, and 5 SSQ 1-2: Does a decrease in the abundance of RBT and other coldwater and warmwater nonnatives in Marble and eastern Grand Canyons result in an improvement in the recruitment rate of juvenile HBC to the adult population? SSQ 1-4: Can long-term decreases in abundance of RBT 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 removal reach require that mechanical removal be an ongoing management action? 

SSQ 5-6: 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? CMIN 2.4.1: Determine and track the abundance and distribution of 

nonnative predatory fish species in the Colorado River ecosystem (CRE) and 

their impacts on native fish. SSQ RIN 2: What are the most effective strategies and control methods to limit nonnative fish predation and competition on native fish? RIN 2.4.3: To what degree, which species, and where in the system are exotic fish a detriment to the existence of native fish through predation or 

 competition?

FY2009–12: Continue mainstem monitoring of fish community. 

2. HBC and other native fishes (C.) 

AMWG Priority:1, 3, and 5 

SSQ 1-1: 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 YoY and juvenile stages in the mainstem, or by changes in growth and maturation in the adult population as influenced by mainstem conditions? SSQ 1-7: Which tributary and mainstem habitats are most important to native fishes and how can these habitats best be made useable and maintained? SA 1: What are the most limiting factors to successful HBC adult recruitment 

 
Table 3. Summary of core monitoring, research and development, and experimental activities describe

and Research Plan to Support Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Years 2009–12. Seveexperimental activities currently under discussion are not reflected in the table; additional experimwill be specified pending the finalization of the LTEP. Activities address Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive (GCDAMP) goals 1–12 in relation to science questions and information needs. Priority and related strquestions are paraphrased from the Draft GCMRC SSP (appendix A). Information needs are paraphrased fStrategic Plan. Abbreviations are as follows: SSQ=strategic science question, CMIN=core monitoring iRIN=research information need, and SA=GCDAMP Science Advisors summary questions.—Continued 

21

in the mainstem: spawning success, predation on YoY and juveniles, habitat (water, temperature), pathogens, adult maturation, food availability, competition? 

GCDAMP goal Priority science questions and information 

needs (questions from SSP and 

MRP in italics) 

Core-monitoring 

activities 

Experimental 

activities 

2. HBC and other native fishes (D.) 

AMWG Priority:1, 3, and 5 SSQ 1-8: How can native and nonnative fishes best be monitored while 

minimizing impacts from capture and handling or sampling? SSQ RIN 1: What habitats and habitat characteristics, if any, will enhance survival, growth, and reproduction of native Grand Canyon fishes, especially 

HBC, in the mainstem Colorado River? 

3. Extirpated species No projects FY2009–11: Evaluate 

and plan temperature control device (TCD). 

4. RBT AMWG Priority: 3 

SSQ 3-6: What GCD operations (ramping rates, daily flow range, etc.) maximize trout fishing opportunities and catchability? CMIN 4.1.2: Determine annual proportional stock density of RBT in the Lees Ferry reach. CMIN 4.1.4: Determine annual standard condition (Kn) and relative weight 

of RBT in the Lees Ferry reach. 

FY2009–11: Monitor status and trends of Lees Ferry population. FY20079 Review and evaluate RBT monitoring for core-monitoring status. FY2009–11: Implement RBT core monitoring. 

FY2009: Evaluate effects of modified low fluctuating flow (MLFF) operations on RBT. 

5. Kanab ambersnail (KAS) 

AMWG Priority: 3 CMIN 5.1.1: Determine and track the abundance and distribution of KAS at Vaseys Paradise. 

FY2009: Monitor KAS habitat; evaluate for coremonitoring status in conjunction with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

FY2008–11: Evaluate effects of experimental flows, especially beach/habitat-building flows (BHBF), on KAS. 
Table 3. Summary of core monitoring, research and development, and experimental activities describe

and Research Plan to Support Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Years 2009–12. Seveexperimental activities currently under discussion are not reflected in the table; additional experimwill be specified pending the finalization of the LTEP. Activities address Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive (GCDAMP) goals 1–12 in relation to science questions and information needs. Priority and related strquestions are paraphrased from the Draft GCMRC SSP (appendix A). Information needs are paraphrased fStrategic Plan. Abbreviations are as follows: SSQ=strategic science question, CMIN=core monitoring iRIN=research information need, and SA=GCDAMP Science Advisors summary questions.—Continued 

22

CMIN 5.2.1: Determine and track the size and composition of the habitat 

used by KAS at Vaseys Paradise. 

(USFWS) species status review. 

GCDAMP goal Priority science questions and information 

needs (questions from SSP and 

MRP in italics) 

Core-monitoring 

activities 

Experimental 

activities 

6. Springs/riparian environments 

AMWG Priority: 4 SSQ 2-1: Do dam controlled flows affect (increase or decrease) rates of erosion and vegetation growth at archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties (TCP) sites, and if so, how? SSQ 3-2: 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? CMIN 6.1.1., 6.6.1., 6.2.1., 6.5.1: Determine and track the abundance, composition, distribution, and area of terrestrial native and nonnative vegetation species in the CRE. 

FY2009–11: Implement vegetation core monitoring. 

FY2009–11: Evaluate allochthonous contribution during experimental flows. 

7. Quality of water AMWG Priority:1, 3, and 5

SSQ 3-5: How is invertebrate flux affected by water quality (e.g., temperature, nutrient concentrations, turbidity) and dam operations? SSQ 5-1: How do dam release temperatures, flows (average and fluctuating component), meteorology, canyon orientation and geometry, and reach morphology interact to determine mainstem and nearshore water temperatures throughout the CRE? SSQ 5-3: To what extent do temperature and fluctuations in flow limit spawning and incubation success for native fish? SSQ RIN 4: What are the effects of ramping rates on sediment transport and sandbar stability?CMIN 7.3.1: What are the status and trends of water quality releases from GCD? 

FY2009: Monitor Lake Powell using existing protocols. FY2009: Convene PEP for Lake Powell monitoring. FY2009–11: Monitor downstream integrated quality of water (including suspended-sediment flux). FY2010–11: Implement Lake Powell core monitoring. 

FY2009–11: Collect water-quality and suspended-sediment data in support of experimental flow research. 
Table 3. Summary of core monitoring, research and development, and experimental activities describe

and Research Plan to Support Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Years 2009–12. Seveexperimental activities currently under discussion are not reflected in the table; additional experimwill be specified pending the finalization of the LTEP. Activities address Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive (GCDAMP) goals 1–12 in relation to science questions and information needs. Priority and related strquestions are paraphrased from the Draft GCMRC SSP (appendix A). Information needs are paraphrased fStrategic Plan. Abbreviations are as follows: SSQ=strategic science question, CMIN=core monitoring iRIN=research information need, and SA=GCDAMP Science Advisors summary questions.—Continued 

23

GCDAMP goal Priority science questions and information 

needs (questions from SSP and 

MRP in italics) 

Core-monitoring 

activities 

Experimental 

activities 

8. Sediment (sandbars and debris fans/rapids) 

AMWG Priority: 1,2,3, and 4 SSQ 4-1: 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 time scales? SSQ 4-3: What are the effects of ramping rates on sediment transport and sandbar stability? SSQ 4-4: What is the rate of change in eddy storage (erosion) during time 

intervals between BHBFs?

FY2007–11: Implement recommendations from the final sediment transport modeling review PEP, or SEDS-PEP (summer 2006). FY2007: Detect trends in sandbars through biennial measurements of sandstorage changes as reflected in campsite area monitoring (see goal 9, below). 

FY2008–11: Evaluate the effects of BHBFs and alternative ramping rates on sandbars and sediment. 
Table 3. Summary of core monitoring, research and development, and experimental activities describe

and Research Plan to Support Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Years 2009–12. Seveexperimental activities currently under discussion are not reflected in the table; additional experimwill be specified pending the finalization of the LTEP. Activities address Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive (GCDAMP) goals 1–12 in relation to science questions and information needs. Priority and related strquestions are paraphrased from the Draft GCMRC SSP (appendix A). Information needs are paraphrased fStrategic Plan. Abbreviations are as follows: SSQ=strategic science question, CMIN=core monitoring iRIN=research information need, and SA=GCDAMP Science Advisors summary questions.—Continued 

24

9. Recreation (A) AMWG Priority: 3 and 4 

SSQ 3-9: How do varying flows positively or negatively affect campsite attributes that are important to visitor experience? CMIN 9.3.1: Determine and track the size, quality, and distribution of camping beaches by reach and stage level in Glen and Grand Canyons. 

FY2007–11: Monitor change in sandbar campable area, topography, and volume (see above, project linked to sandbar monitoring). 

FY2008–11: Evaluate effects of experimental flows and ramping rates on campsites. 

GCDAMP goal Priority science questions and information 

needs (questions from SSP and 

MRP in italics) 

Core-monitoring 

activities 

Experimental 

activities 

9. Recreation (B) AMWG Priority: 3 

SSQ 3-7: 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? SSQ 3-8: What are the drivers for recreational experiences in the CRE, and how important are flows relative to other drivers in shaping recreational experience outcomes? SSQ 3-10: How can safety and navigability be reliably measured relative to flows? SSQ 3-11: How do varying flows positively or negatively affect visitor safety, 

 FY2008–11: Evaluate 

effects of experimental flows and ramping rates on visitor safety and health. 
Table 3. Summary of core monitoring, research and development, and experimental activities describe

and Research Plan to Support Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Years 2009–12. Seveexperimental activities currently under discussion are not reflected in the table; additional experimwill be specified pending the finalization of the LTEP. Activities address Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive (GCDAMP) goals 1–12 in relation to science questions and information needs. Priority and related strquestions are paraphrased from the Draft GCMRC SSP (appendix A). Information needs are paraphrased fStrategic Plan. Abbreviations are as follows: SSQ=strategic science question, CMIN=core monitoring iRIN=research information need, and SA=GCDAMP Science Advisors summary questions.—Continued 

25

health, and navigability of the rapids? SSQ 3-12: How do varying flows positively or negatively affect group encounter rates, campsite competition, and other social parameters that are known to be important variables of visitor experience? 

10. Hydropower AMWG Priority: 3 

SSQ 3-3: What are annual hydropower replacement costs of the MLFF since 

1996? SSQ 3-4: 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 of experimental design)? CMIN 10.1.1: Determine and track the marketable capacity and energy produced through dam operations in relation to the various release scenarios (daily fluctuation limit, upramp and downramp limits, maximum flow limit of 25,000 cfs minimum flow limit of 5,000 cfs). 

FY2007–11: Monitor power generation and market values under current and future dam operations. 

FY2008–11: Evaluate economic implications of experimental flows (with focus on hydropower and the Basin Fund). 

GCDAMP goal Priority science questions and information 

needs (questions from SSP and 

MRP in italics) 

Core-monitoring 

activities 

Experimental 

activities 

11. Cultural AMWG Priority: 2, 3, and 4 

SSQ 2-1: Do dam controlled flows affect (increase or decrease) rates of erosion and vegetation growth at archaeological sites and TCP sites in the 

CRE, and if so, how? SSQ 2-4: How effective are various treatments (e.g., check dams, vegetation management, etc.) in slowing rates of erosion at archaeological sites over the 

long term? SSQ 2-7: Are dam controlled flows affecting TCPs and other tribally-valued resources, and if so, in what respects? 

FY2011: Convene cultural PEP II. 

FY2008–11: Evaluate effects of experimental flows on sediment supply and deposition at archaeological sites and TCPs. 
Table 3. Summary of core monitoring, research and development, and experimental activities describe

and Research Plan to Support Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Years 2009–12. Seveexperimental activities currently under discussion are not reflected in the table; additional experimwill be specified pending the finalization of the LTEP. Activities address Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive (GCDAMP) goals 1–12 in relation to science questions and information needs. Priority and related strquestions are paraphrased from the Draft GCMRC SSP (appendix A). Information needs are paraphrased fStrategic Plan. Abbreviations are as follows: SSQ=strategic science question, CMIN=core monitoring iRIN=research information need, and SA=GCDAMP Science Advisors summary questions.—Continued 

26

CMIN 11.1.1: Determine the condition and integrity of archaeological sites and TCPs in the CRE through tracking rates of erosion, visitor impacts, and other relevant variables. (Science Planning Group [SPG] revised CMIN) CMIN 11:2.1: Determine the condition of traditionally important resources and locations using tribal perspectives and values. (SPG revised CMIN) 

12. High-quality monitoring, research, and adaptive management program (A.) Data acquisition, storage, and analysis (DASA) 

AMWG Priority:1,2, 3, 4, and 5 FY2007–11: Perform 

remote sensing activities related to the preparation, acquisition, and storage of 2009 terrestrial resource monitoring data. 

No projects 
27

GCDAMP Goal 1: Protect or improve the aquatic 

food base so that it will support viable 

populations of desired species at higher trophic 

levels 

Strategic Science Questions and Information Needs 

Food availability and quality are often important determinants of fish density and 

condition. For this reason, the MRP seeks to advance goal 1 by addressing discrete scientific 

questions, information needs, and objectives related to these conditions. Specifically, AMWG 

priority questions from the KAR were used to frame key SSQs for GCDAMP goal 1. The SSQs 

that emerged as the focus of monitoring and research activities for goal 1 are listed below: 

1. SSQ 1-5. What are the important pathways, and the rate of flux among them, that link lower 

trophic levels with fish? 

2. SSQ 1-6. Are trends in the abundance of fish populations, or indicators from fish such as 

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

invertebrate flux? 

3. SSQ 5-2. How is invertebrate flux affected by water quality (e.g., temperature, nutrient 

concentrations, turbidity) and dam operations? 

Monitoring and Research Activities 

Food base-monitoring and research activities for FY2009–12 carry forward two elements 

of the overall MRP: core monitoring, and research and development. Food base monitoring and 

research are discussed in terms of the objectives they are designed to achieve and the individual 

element of the plan they support. 

Core-Monitoring Activities 

Monitoring the Aquatic Food Base 

The aquatic PEP (Anders and others, 2001) recommended that “the food base program 

needs to be critically reviewed because the current level of understanding about the linkages 

between lower trophic levels and food availability of native fishes is not adequate to interpret 

food base data in relation to the management goal.” There are two main reasons for this 

uncertainty: (1) the feeding habits of many fishes have never been studied and (2) the relative 

contribution of algae and allochthonous carbon to invertebrate and, ultimately, fish production is 

unclear. In other words, we do not have a good understanding of what constitutes the food base 

for many fishes and aquatic invertebrates. The new food base research initiative is focused on 

understanding the linkages that connect lower trophic levels with fish (i.e., What are 

invertebrates eating? What are fish eating?), quantifying the availability of basal and invertebrate 

food resources, and documenting the feeding habits of fish throughout the system. Equipped with 

this knowledge, in FY2010, we intend to develop a monitoring program that is focused on the 

most important components and drivers of the food base. Activities in this category address SSQ 

1-5 and SSQ 5-2. 
28

FY2009–11. Evaluation and implementation of new protocols for 

monitoring the aquatic food base 

Insights from the new food base research initiative (see below) will form the basis for 

new food base-monitoring protocols that will be evaluated and implemented in FY2010–12. 

Research and Development Activities 

Trophic Linkages 

Resource managers for native and nonnative fishes need to understand the amounts and 

quality of aquatic food resources that are available to fishes to direct management actions. In 

particular, managers need to understand how different flow regimens affect the aquatic food 

base. Results from previous food base research provide some indication of the food items that are 

most often consumed by RBT and HBC, but there is very little data on the food base for other 

fish that are common in the CRE. Further, the relative contribution of allochthonous and 

autochthonous carbon to invertebrate and, ultimately, fish production remains unclear. This is 

problematic⎯an understanding of the carbon sources that contribute to invertebrate and fish 

production is critical to making informed management decisions, because these different types of 

carbon may be differentially affected by dam operations. Activities in this category address SSQ 

1-5, SSQ 1-6, and SSQ 5-2. 

FY2009–10. Aquatic Food Base (Project BIO 1.R1.07) 

This project was initiated in 2005 to identify energy pathways and quantify basal 

resources through multiple approaches. Field work on the project began in spring 2006. The 

project incorporates stable isotope and diet analysis of invertebrates and fish to identify trophic 

pathways. Flux along trophic pathways will be quantified by calculating invertebrate densities 

and estimating production and growth, and also estimating rates of food consumption by fish 

using bioenergetic approaches. Whole-stream metabolism, terrestrial litter inputs from the 

riparian corridor, and allocthonous inputs from tributary flooding events will be measured to 

assess basal resources. Lastly, these data will be incorporated into a bioenergetics model for the 

aquatic ecosystem. Although the focus of the project is on carbon cycling, flux of dissolved and 

particulate nitrogen and phosphorus is also being studied. Results from this work, scheduled to 

end in FY2010, will contribute to the development of a core-monitoring program for the Grand 

Canyon food base in the future. 

Long-Term Experimental Activities 

Current studies of the aquatic ecosystem food web are focused on understanding how 

energy is transferred among organisms, and which energy sources have limited availability. 

Some GCDAMP stakeholders are also interested in understanding how dam operations affect the 

amount of primary and secondary production (especially algae, diatoms, and invertebrates) that 

may be available to native and nonnative fishes as it drifts down the Colorado River in Grand 

Canyon. In FY2008 and continuing until FY2010 a study will be implemented to evaluate the 

impacts of various flow regimes on the aquatic foodbase.
29

Integration 

Physical Sciences 

Five of the seven study reaches in the whole-system carbon-cycling project are finegrained integrated sediment transport (FIST) and integrated water-quality monitoring sites, 

which will facilitate integration of the physical environment data with the standing mass, 

distribution, and production of basal resources and invertebrates. The temperature model that is 

being developed by the Physical Science and Modeling Program will be a valuable tool for 

estimating systemwide growth rates of algae and invertebrates (temperature is the most important 

determinant of invertebrate growth rates). Sampling of organic inputs during recent tributary 

flood events, including a moderate-sized Paria River flood, indicates that organic matter 

constitutes between 3–6% of the total transported material, with the remainder being sand, silt, 

and clay. If this relationship holds up, the food base project will be able to estimate organic 

inputs from tributary flood events based on estimates of sediment inputs obtained by the Physical 

Science and Modeling Program. 

Fisheries 

Ongoing fisheries monitoring data on the distribution and relative density of common 

native and nonnative fishes will be used to determine rates of energy flow to fishes in the system. 

Where possible, cooperating scientists will also rely on existing fisheries monitoring to obtain 

the fish stomachs and tissue samples required for gut content and stable isotope analysis, 

respectively. The analysis of trout diets and other data collected during mechanical removal will 

provide valuable information on the temporal variability of basal resources and food habits of 

fish that are outside the scope of the food base research initiative. Further, completing the 

stomach content analysis of samples taken during the mechanical removal project will help 

managers evaluate what RBT in the removal reach have been eating and how this may or may 

not impact HBC entering and exiting the LCR. 
30

GCDAMP Goal 2: Maintain or attain viable 

populations of existing native fish, remove 

jeopardy from humpback chub and razorback 

sucker, and prevent adverse modification to 

their critical habitat

Strategic Science Questions and Information Needs 

The MRP for FY2009–12 seeks to address discrete scientific questions, information 

needs, and objectives that support maintenance of viable populations of native fish. AMWG 

priority questions from the KAR were used to frame key SSQs for GCDAMP goal 2. The SSQs 

that emerged as the focus of monitoring and research activities for goal 2 are listed below. 

Relevant SPG-prioritized CMINs, RINs, and a summary question posed by the SA (SA 1) are 

also listed below. 

1. SSQ 1-1. 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 YoY and 

juvenile stages in the mainstem, or by changes in growth and maturation in the adult 

population as influenced by mainstem conditions? 

2. SSQ 1-2. Does a decrease in the abundance of RBT and other cold and warm water 

nonnatives in Marble and eastern Grand Canyons result in an improvement in the recruitment 

rate of juvenile HBC to the adult population? 

3. SSQ 1-4. Can long-term decreases in abundance of RBT 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 removal reach 

require that mechanical removal be an ongoing management action? This question also 

applies to future removal programs targeting other nonnative species. 

4. SSQ 1-7. Which tributary and mainstem habitats are most important to native fishes and how 

can these habitats best be made useable and maintained? 

5. SSQ 1-8. How can native and nonnative fishes best be monitored while minimizing impacts 

from capture and handling or sampling? 

6. SSQ 5-6. 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? 

7. SA 1. What are the most limiting factors to successful HBC adult recruitment in the 

mainstem: spawning success, predation on YoY and juveniles, habitat (water, temperature), 

pathogens, adult maturation, food availability, competition? 

8. CMIN 2.1.2. Determine and track recruitment (identify life stage), abundance, and 

distribution of HBC in the LCR. 

9. CMIN 2.4.1. Determine and track the abundance and distribution of nonnative predatory fish 

species in the Colorado River. 

10. RIN 2.4.3. To what degree, which species, and where in the system are exotic fish a 

detriment to the existence of native fish through predation or competition? 
31

11. SSQ RIN 1. What habitats and habitat characteristics, if any, will enhance survival, growth, 

and reproduction of native Grand Canyon fishes, especially HBC, in the mainstem Colorado 

River? 

12. SSQ RIN 2. What are the most effective strategies and control methods to limit nonnative 

fish predation and competition on native fish? 

Note: Razorback sucker (RBS) are not currently regularly observed in Grand Canyon. 

Ongoing monitoring for native and nonnative fishes may capture this species if it is present or 

returns to the system. 

Monitoring and Research Activities 

Activities to support goal 2 range from monitoring to provide decision makers with status 

and trends information on native and nonnative fishes, to research on the habitat preferences of 

HBC and the effects of modified low fluctuating flows (MLFF) on RBT. Individually, activities 

can generally be characterized as core monitoring, research and development, or experimental, in 

keeping with the structure of the MRP; however, when considered together, the activities 

described below are designed to complement one another and strategically address the myriad 

factors related to reaching goal 2. Many of the activities described below will be undertaken in 

partnership with GCDAMP stakeholders, especially the USFWS and the Arizona Game and Fish 

Department (AZGFD). 

Core-Monitoring Activities 

Monitoring of Native and Nonnative Fishes 

Monitoring the status and trends of the fish community of the Colorado River in Grand 

Canyon is integral to assessing the impacts of dam operations on these species and assessing 

progress towards meeting recovery goals. Monitoring of fishes is led by the GCMRC with 

GCDAMP partners, especially the USFWS and the AZGFD, to provide managers with 

information to support management decisions. Varying flow regimens and nonflow actions 

(especially the mechanical removal of nonnative fishes near the LCR inflow) have been 

implemented in recent years. Continued monitoring is needed to evaluate whether these actions 

have been beneficial or detrimental to native and nonnative fishes. Because of its Federal 

endangered status, the HBC is often the focus of Grand Canyon fish monitoring. HBC 

monitoring will be conducted in accordance with the standards specified in the HBC recovery 

plan ((USFWS, 2002). Current monitoring will be maintained in FY2007 and FY2008, building 

on the current long-term dataset for HBC and other fish species. Monitoring results will also be 

used to develop core monitoring for HBC, the subject of a PEP scheduled for FY2008. The 

recommendations from this PEP will be implemented in FY2009 and beyond. The primary 

questions and information needs addressed by these activities are SSQ 1-1, SSQ 1-2, and CMIN 

2.1.2. 

FY2009–12. Little Colorado River Humpback Chub Monitoring Lower 15 km 

(Project BIO 2.R1.07) 

This monitoring of the known spawning tributary of HBC in Grand Canyon will be led 

by the USFWS. Sampling is conducted with hoop nets during four annual trips, two in the spring 

and two in the fall, as a continuation of the LCR HBC stock assessment program initiated in fall 
32

2000. These trips will occur in March, April, September, and October, and provide spring and 

fall abundance estimates of HBC in the LCR. Tags deployed in fish during fall and spring LCR 

trips may be available for later recapture during mainstem activities. In addition to the short-term 

estimates that these sampling trips will support, the monitoring provides continued data 

collection to advance the age-structured mark recapture (ASMR) open population model for 

HBC. 

FY2009–12. Little Colorado River Humpback Chub Monitoring Lower 1,200 

m (Project BIO 2.R2.07) 

This monitoring maintains a dataset that has been conducted annually, with few 

exceptions, since the 1980s. HBC are monitored with hoop nets near the mouth of the LCR. The 

monitoring is led by the AZGFD. 

FY2009–12. Humpback Chub Monitoring Above Chute Falls (Project BIO 

2.R3.07) 

This project, led by the USFWS, monitors the population of HBC found above Chute 

Falls (river mile 9.1), a frequent if inconsistent barrier to upstream fish movement in the LCR. 

HBC were translocated above the falls in 2003, 2004, and 2005 and presented evidence of 

spawning (production of young fish) in 2005. Untagged adult fish were captured in 2006, 

indicating that limited movement above the falls is possible. 

FY2009–12. Monitoring Mainstem Fishes (includes below Diamond Creek) 

(Project BIO 2.R4.07) 

This project combines elements of multiple projects from previous years, including 

sampling of the fish community in the Colorado River mainstem between Lees Ferry and 

Diamond Creek and from Diamond Creek to Pearce Ferry. The timing coincides with three of the 

four lower 15 km LCR sampling events to achieve concurrent sampling, consistent with reviewer 

recommendations. While HBC sampling is the focus of this work, information on other native 

and nonnative fishes is also gathered. The full mainstem sampling events will be conducted once 

in spring and once in fall to provide biannual snapshots of the fish community. The mainstem 

monitoring will also detect changes in nonnative fish populations that will be used to inform 

future nonnative control efforts. 

FY2009–12. Nonnative Control Planning and Nonnative Control Pilot 

Testing (Project BIO 2.R5.07 and Project BIO 2.R6.07) 

One of the biotic factors thought to be limiting to native fishes is nonnative fish, which 

may compete with native fish for food and prey on young native fish. This threat was addressed 

during FY2003–06 with the mechanical removal of RBT and other nonnative fish using boat 

electrofishing. With warming of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon, the nonnative fish species 

posing the greatest threat to natives may change to species more adapted to warmer water. The 

threats from nonnative species will be addressed in a comprehensive nonnative control plan to be 

developed in FY2007−10. Pilot projects will be implemented, assessed, and refined. The 

DIDSON camera may be deployed with some gear types to evaluate its efficacy. Questions and 

information needs addressed by these projects are SSQ 1-4, SSQ 5-6, CMIN 2.4.1, SSQ RIN 2, 

and RIN 2.4.3. 
33

FY 2009-12. Mechanical control of nonnative fishes. 

 Participants in the April 2007 workshop convened by GCMRC to support the LTEP 

process (GCMRC 2008) concluded that control of nonnative fishes was an important action to 

take to help support the native fishes of Grand Canyon. The workshop participants further 

concluded that, although not as much learning would be accomplished, it was important to 

initiate nonnative control efforts as soon as possible, keeping nonnative species at low levels 

whenever possible. They also cited the economic efficiency of keeping nonnative species low as 

opposed to allowing them to rise to high levels before instituting control methods. Consistent 

with these recommendations, GCMRC proposes to remove nonnative fishes with 

electroshocking in the Little Colorado River reach of the mainstem Colorado River. This 

approach will also allow for a population estimation of rainbow trout in this reach to help supply 

hard data in support of management decision making. This project fulfills one of the 

requirements of the 2008 Biological Opinion. 

Modeling Populations 

As managers and scientists strive to conserve the natural resources of Grand Canyon, it is 

important to characterize the size and trend of the resident HBC population over time. The 

GCMRC has taken the lead in estimating population size and trend and will continue to lead this 

effort in the future. Population characterization and modeling is dependent on some of the other 

projects described above, especially ongoing monitoring. Associated projects include 

development of a bioenergetic model of the Grand Canyon fish community to predict changes in 

response to the changing environment, and development of abundance estimation procedures for 

nonnative fishes. Analysis of data collected in the field informs decisions on sampling design 

and gear selection. Questions and information needs addressed by these projects are SSQ 1-2, 

SSQ 1-4, SSQ 5-6, CMIN 2.4.1, and RIN 2.4.3. 

FY2009–11. Stock Assessment of Native Fish in Grand Canyon (model 

development) (Project BIO 2.R7.07) 

To provide the most current information on HBC status and trend information, the 

GCMRC ASMR database will be updated annually with the most recent data from routine 

monitoring. Following this update, the database will be reanalyzed using (where appropriate) 

both open and closed ASMR-based abundance estimators. We will rely on ASMR models and 

other appropriate models to determine trends in HBC abundance and recruitment. Finally, we 

will evaluate the applicability of similar techniques as described above to assessing stocks of 

flannelmouth sucker (FMS) and bluehead sucker (BS). This project fulfills one of the 

requirements of the 2008 Biological Opinion. 

FY2009–11. Abundance Estimation Procedures (Project BIO 2.R8.07) 

Currently, the traditional Zippin abundance estimator is used to estimate the abundance 

of nonnative fish (primarily RBT) in the mechanical removal reaches of the Colorado River. 

Though accepted and widely applied, this estimator makes the strict assumption that the 
34

vulnerability of fish among depletion passes is constant. Because large changes in turbidity are 

commonly observed within and among removal trips, this assumption is questionable. A more 

contemporary Bayesian estimation framework allows relaxation of this assumption if the 

relationship between a covariate (e.g., turbidity or sediment concentration) and vulnerability can 

be estimated. Additionally, this framework may allow more efficient use of the available data by 

allowing model-based aggregation of site-specific estimates. The Bayesian Inference using the 

Gibbs sampler program (BUGS) will be used to fit models to our removal data. 

FY2009–10. Bioenergetic Modeling (Project: BIO 2.R9.07) 

We will construct an ecopath model (http://www.ecopath.org/) using data available from 

previous studies conducted in Grand Canyon as well as the relevant scientific literature. Of 

particular importance will be the diet data collected during the mechanical removal project. 

Monitoring Technology Research 

The native fish population of Grand Canyon, especially HBC, is handled regularly as part 

of efforts to understand the population size status and trends and also during mechanical 

removal. Electroshocking and netting of fish to evaluate populations can cause stress and reduce 

the growth of these animals, especially when they are handled repeatedly (e.g., Paukert and 

others, 2005). Negative effects of capture, especially of endangered fishes, have led researchers 

to seek less invasive methods such as alternative gears and remote monitoring technologies. 

Tagging technologies that could reduce repeated handling of fishes need to be evaluated for their 

effectiveness in Grand Canyon. Acoustic imaging technologies show promise for describing 

distribution/habitat selection of native fishes. Research of some alternative monitoring 

technologies will be conducted beginning in FY2007. The question addressed by these projects is 

SSQ 1-8. 

FY2007–09. Trammel Net Effects (Project BIO 2.R12.07) 

Trammel nets have been used extensively to capture native fishes in the Colorado River, 

but have also been implicated in the injury of fish. This project provides partial support to a 

Northern Arizona University (NAU) graduate student to investigate the impacts of these nets on 

fish. The results of the student’s research will be used to evaluate this gear type for future studies 

of native fishes in Grand Canyon. 

FY2007–12. Remote PIT Tag Reading (Project BIO 2.R13.07) 

Fisheries researchers in Grand Canyon (and around the world) inject fish with a unique 

electronic identifying code in a PIT tag. The standard method for reading these tags is to check 

for the presence of a PIT tag upon capture of an individual fish, but remote PIT tag reading 

technologies are being developed. Experimentation with the use of remote antennae to read PIT 

tags will be conducted. The study area will focus, at least initially, on the LCR confluence with 

the Colorado River. 

FY2007–12. Test Sonic Tags (Project BIO 2.R14.07) 

Experimentation with sonic tags will be led by GCMRC and AZGFD personnel, working 

closely with the product’s manufacturer. Initial efforts will focus on capturing nonnative fish, 
35

implanting them with tags, and releasing them to see if the equipment is effective in the 

Colorado River. 

Research and Development Activities 

Habitat 

The published assumptions regarding which habitats are optimum and available for 

different life stages of HBC need to be tested, but they could serve to direct long-term 

monitoring, population modeling, and the selection of flow regimens. To the extent possible, the 

characteristics of habitats that are most important to native fishes (physical, water quality), 

particularly in the mainstem Colorado River, need to be identified. Habitat characteristics needed 

by YoY and juvenile HBC are most important to identify and protect because of the endangered 

status of this species. GCMRC will develop a project to use existing and new data to investigate 

habitat use by young HBC and other native fishes, especially in the mainstem Colorado River. 

GCMRC intends that SSQ RIN 1 will be addressed through modeling habitat usage, mining the 

available data for information on HBC captures, and developing one or more new collection 

efforts to help understand the habitat use by and fate of subadult HBC and other native fishes. 

The questions addressed by the project below are SSQ 1-1, SSQ 1-7, and SA 1. A PEP 

for RBT will be conducted in FY2008. The issues of RBT predation on HBC and other native 

fishes (SSQ RIN 3) will be discussed with the panelists with the specific aim of developing one 

or more projects that investigate the threat to native fishes from RBT piscivory and where Grand 

Canyon RBT are produced.

FY2009–10. Native Fishes Habitat Data Analysis (Project BIO 2.R11.07) 

The GCMRC will review existing data and available literature and information from the 

upper basin on HBC habitat usage and preferences to see if such habitats can be identified from 

available data. A multivariate statistical method for linking environmental variables to fish 

populations will be tested for its value in defining important habitat characteristics, including 

river flows, water-quality characteristics, and physical habitat. 

FY 2009-12. Near shore ecology 

 One of the fundamental questions for managers in Grand Canyon is determining what 

habitats in the mainstem are most important for HBC, especially sub-adult HBC. Sand-mediated 

backwater habitats have been extensively studied on the theory that they are very important for 

young HBC, but much more limited attention has been paid to other mainstem habitats. For this 

reason, GCMRC has been developing a project to investigate the relative importance of 

mainstem habitats, particularly for juvenile HBC. This project was supported by USFWS by 

being included in the 2008 Biological Opinion. 

Long-Term Experimental Activities 

Evaluating Effects of Experimental Flows on Fish 

The habitats used by native fishes have been the subject of substantial research, but the 

research remains scattered in many different references. One of the shortcomings of this research 

is a lack of quantification of existing habitat types and how those habitat types change over time. 
36

To address this information need, GCMRC staff and cooperators will try to detect changes in the 

abundance and distribution of different shoreline habitat types, especially sandbars and 

backwaters, in the Colorado River (Data Acquisition, Storage, and Analysis Program [DASA] 

12.D7.09). In terms of fish, knowledge of the distribution, abundance, and change potential of 

these habitats in the mainstem will help scientists evaluate the mainstem’s potential to support 

young HBC under various flow regimes. This project will build on the baseline dataset of 

shoreline habitat for six habitat types at the 8,000-cfs elevation developed from 2000 data. Three 

other remote-sensing datasets from 2002–05 data will be used to extend the time series for a 5-

year period. Using data taken in different years will extend the dataset to include higher elevation 

habitats up to 45,000 cfs. Higher elevation information will allow for better correlation of 

existing fish collection information with a variety of flows. 

Integration 

Food base research is closely associated with the fish community in Glen and Grand 

Canyons because most native and nonnative fish species depend on primary and secondary 

production for sustenance. The current food base study includes a component that integrates 

carbon flow through the system, including fishes. Monitoring of the native and nonnative fish 

populations will provide additional information for evaluating the results of the food base study; 

for example, flux in fish populations can be correlated with the flux of the food base to evaluate 

the importance of primary and secondary production for fishes. 

Monitoring and characterization of the fish community of Grand Canyon will be 

integrated with monitoring and modeling of physical habitat and water-quality parameters, 

especially in relation to various GCD release regimens. Additional details of integration 

strategies and products are provided above and in the FY2009 annual work plan. 
37

GCDAMP Goal 3: Restore populations of extirpated 

species, as feasible and advisable 

Goal 3 is not currently a GCDAMP priority goal; however, the goal is part of the NPS 

and USFWS long-term resource management objectives. If goal 3 becomes a higher priority for 

GCDAMP in the future, the feasibility of reintroducing the target extirpated species will be 

investigated first. 

The knowledge gained from GCMRC monitoring and research on key ecosystem 

drivers—the operation of the GCD, riparian zone health and function, and water quality—will be 

useful to assess the steps necessary to reintroduce specified extirpated native fish, mammals, and 

amphibians into the river ecosystem. As the CRE improves and changes, the NPS, USFWS, and 

the AZGFD will, in cooperation with the GCDAMP, prioritize any reintroduction efforts. 
38

GCDAMP Goal 4: Maintain a naturally reproducing 

population of rainbow trout above the Paria 

River, to the extent practicable and consistent 

with the maintenance of viable populations of 

native fish 

Strategic Science Questions and Information Needs 

Monitoring of the RBT population above the Paria River is an important activity for 

evaluating population status and trends to determine whether they are meeting goal 4. Therefore, 

monitoring of this population is to continue during FY2009–12. Monitoring data will be used to 

support a PEP scheduled for FY2009. The fate of trout eggs and very young fish in response to 

dam operations will be the subject of continuing research in FY2009. The primary SSQ, CMINs, 

and RIN addressed by both projects are as follows: 

1. SSQ 3-6. What GCD operations (ramping rates, daily flow range, etc.) maximize trout 

fishing opportunities and catchability? 

2. CMIN 4.1.2. Determine annual proportional stock density of RBT in the Lees Ferry reach. 

3. CMIN 4.1.4. Determine annual standard condition (Kn) and relative weight of RBT in the 

Lees Ferry reach. 

4. RIN 4.1.1. What is the target proportional stock density (i.e., tradeoff between numbers and 

size) for RBT in the Lees Ferry reach? 

Monitoring and Research 

Core-Monitoring Activities 

Monitoring of the RBT population above the Paria River will continue to document 

population changes and condition factors. Current monitoring results and those from previous 

years will be used to inform the FY2009 PEP, which, in turn, will be used as guidance for core 

monitoring of RBT population above the Paria River. 

FY2009. Status and Trends of Lees Ferry trout (Project BIO 4.M1.07) 

Electrofishing as a sampling technique to estimate the biological parameters used to 

assess fishery status and trends . Electrofishing provides information on size composition, 

relative abundance (catch per minute as a surrogate for population size), and condition (lengthweight relationships). Samples are collected for whirling disease examination. The project 

addresses SSQ 3-6, CMIN 4.1.2., and CMIN 4.1.4. 

FY2009. RBT Redds and Larvae (Project BIO 4.E1.07) 

Analysis of redd (nest) production, egg production, and larval survival will be continued 

in FY2009 to determine population responses to flows and to inform the PEP process. 

Information from this project and monitoring helps managers and peer reviewers to address RIN 

4.1.1, as well as SSQ 3-6, CMIN 4.1.2, and CMIN 4.1.4. 
39

Research and Development Activities 

The aquatic food base research project described under goal 1 will support efforts to 

determine the amount and quality of food available for trout. 

Long-Term Experimental Activities 

The aquatic food base project will monitor fish population and habitat responses to 

various experimental flow regimens. The results of monitoring will contribute to understanding 

what flow regimens best support and maintain the RBT present below GCD. 

Integration 

The aquatic food base research project described under goal 1 helps provide evaluation of 

the amount and quality of food available for trout. 
40

GCDAMP Goal 5: Maintain or attain viable 

populations of Kanab ambersnail 

Strategic Science Questions and Information Needs 

Managers and scientists continue to investigate the highly variable KAS population in 

Grand Canyon. Population size and habitat measurements reveal that both snail numbers and 

habitat availability can vary dramatically; therefore, the natural, acceptable population and 

habitat size variability remains undefined. What amount of variability is natural (the natural 

condition that managers are trying to achieve) will be one of the prime questions addressed by 

the USFWS as part of their status review of this species . The USFWS has not definitively 

scheduled the status review at the time of the writing of this document. Another important issue 

for USFWS to consider will be the taxonomic status of the Vaseys Paradise population. This 

population was included in other populations in a 2007 genetics study under contract with the 

GCMRC at the University of Arizona. The GCMRC will be closely involved in providing 

science support to the USFWS during their review. 

GCMRC in cooperation with partner agencies will continue to address the following 

CMINs for the KAS: 

1. CMIN 5.1.1. Determine and track the abundance and distribution of KAS at Vaseys Paradise 

in the lower zone (below 100,000 cfs) and the upper zone (above 100,000 cfs). 

2. CMIN 5.2.1. Determine and track the size and composition of the habitat used by KAS at 

Vaseys Paradise. 

Monitoring and Research Activities 

Core-Monitoring Activities 

Population and habitat monitoring methods for KAS continue to be refined. Working 

closely with AZGFD and NPS, GCMRC is providing logistics support and data analysis for 

ongoing monitoring. The species status review conducted by the USFWS will provide important 

guidance for determining what constitutes core monitoring for this species. This guidance will be 

subject to review by GCDAMP committees and the NPS when determining their coremonitoring needs. Monitoring activities address CMIN 5.1.1 and CMIN 5.2.1. 

FY2009–12. Monitoring Kanab Ambersnail (Project: BIO 5.R1.07) 

Habitat surveys at Vaseys Paradise include surveying the total area of the habitat and 

individual patches of vegetation within the habitat. Areas are determined using traditional landsurvey methods. Habitat surveys are conducted in the spring and fall of each year. Within each 

designated patch, the cover and heights of dominant plant species are recorded, as are variables 

associated with soil moisture. Snail densities are determined by randomly sampling areas within 

vegetation patches. Snail densities are extremely variable seasonally and among vegetation 

patches. Consequently, confidence intervals around subsequent population estimates are large 

and considered to be statistically unreliable, so more emphasis is needed with regard to sampling 

emphasis and approaches. The project addresses CMIN 5.1.1 and CMIN 5.2.1. 
41

Research and Development Activities 

Testing Alternative Methods 

Surveying in Vaseys Paradise to determine the extent of the habitat can be invasive. 

Remote technologies like oblique orthorectified imagery and land-based LiDAR might be used 

to determine area cover and plant height without the need to step into the habitat. Alternative 

methods will be tested in FY2009 to assess potential survey and monitoring approaches for 

incorporation into long-term monitoring. Depending on the results of these tests, conducted in 

conjunction with monitoring, additional projects could be identified in future fiscal years. 

Genetic Research 

Current genetics research of the Oxyloma species has been supported by GCDAMP funds 

through the GCMRC. Initial results, presented to cooperating agencies in 2007, suggested that 

the Kanab ambersnail may be more genetically similar than originally thought to other oxyloma 

species. Additional genetic research, using more diverse species for comparison, was conducted 

with financial support from GCMRC, among others. Results from the updated analysis are 

expected to be presented to USFWS and other cooperating agencies, including GCMRC, during 

FY 2009 and then considered by USFWS during their species status review. 

Long-Term Experimental Activities 

Experimental Flows Population Monitoring and Habitat Salvage 

In November 2004, before the 2004 experimental HFE, the GCMRC and the AZGFD 

temporarily removed habitat patches that were determined to be subject to scouring. These 

patches were moved above the inundation level and then returned to their original locations. The 

habitat survived the temporary removal and habitat loss was successful averted during the highelevation flow. Population response to this action suggests that removal and replacement of 

habitat patches can be conducted during the period of low flows before and following high-flow 

tests, respectively. To ensure confidence in this result, monitoring of this technique, and 

especially its safety for the KAS population, should accompany future HFEs. 

Integration 

The KAS monitoring trips are conducted in conjunction with river trips that sample 

backwater habitats for small-bodied fishes with seines. This arrangement allows researchers to 

monitor two very different species and habitats with a single river trip.
42

GCDAMP Goal 6: Protect or improve the biotic 

riparian and spring communities, including 

threatened and endangered species and their 

critical habitat

Strategic Science Questions and Information Needs 

The riparian and spring vegetation communities of Grand Canyon are components of 

many other resources, including vertebrate habitats, organic inputs into the river, sediment 

transport, recreation sites, and cultural resources. Understanding how dam operations and other 

factors, especially climate, affect the vegetation communities requires understanding the existing 

vegetation communities and how they change. The projects planned under this goal are designed 

to document and model the vegetation communities and how they change with the goal of 

developing remote monitoring and modeling capabilities to inform management needs. 

Monitoring and research activities related to goal 6 address the following SSQs and 

CMINs: 

1. SSQ 2-1. Do dam controlled flows affect (increase or decrease) rates of erosion and 

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

2. SSQ 4-2. How important are backwater 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 possible 

mortality of young HBC) associated with high flows? 

3. CMINs 6.1.1, 6.2.1., 6.5.1, and 6.6.1. Determine and track the abundance, composition, 

distribution, and area of terrestrial native and nonnative vegetation in the CRE. 

Monitoring and Research Activities 

Core-Monitoring Activities 

Riparian vegetation monitoring requires systemwide assessment of vegetation change at 

the broad scale (e.g., new high-water zone) as well as at the local scale (e.g., plot data at 25,000 

cfs). While knowing how much vegetation exists in the river corridor is useful, it is equally 

useful to know how the species that make up the vegetation may be changing. Changes in 

riparian vegetation are associated with dam operations (Stevens and others, 1995; Kearsley and 

others, 2006) and can include the propagation of exotic species like tamarisk (Porter, 2002). 

Yearly transects can detect changes among herbaceous species, including invasives, while 

remotely sensed data collected at 5-year intervals can assess changes in overstory wood species 

that change more slowly. Monitoring in this way provides data across temporal and spatial 

scales. This work is being developed as core monitoring. As part of this development, the project 

was subjected to a PEP in 2007. The PEP results have been used to direct the project in future 

years. These monitoring activities address SSQ 2-1, CMIN 6.1.1, CMIN 6.2.1, CMIN 6.5.1, and 

CMIN 6.6.1. 
43

FY2009–12. Vegetation Mapping (Project BIO 6.R1.07) 

FY2009–12. Vegetation Transects (Project BIO 6.R2.07) 

These two field-based projects are designed to complement one another. Annual 

monitoring that uses vegetation transects (Project BIO 6.R2.07) associated with specific stage 

elevations records species diversity, richness, and cover. The changes in vegetation parameters 

that this monitoring detects is relevant to perennial and annual herbaceous species like bunch 

grasses, marsh species, and invasive species that can change on an annual basis. Vegetation 

mapping (Project BIO 6.R1.07) utilizes overflight digital imagery (a product of the DASA 

Program) to quantify larger scale area changes (e.g., expansion of arrowweed patches, or extent 

and type of vegetated shoreline). Analysis of change detection in the vegetation mapping project 

would incorporate the annual transect survey results to help explain patterns of change occurring 

over a 5-year time frame. The two projects complement each other because they provide 

information about changes in riparian habitat at different ecological scales that may affect other 

riparian community constituents like invertebrate biomass and riparian bird abundance. 

Research and Development Activities 

Our understanding of how riparian vegetation changes as a result of dam operations is 

well developed for marsh species (see Stevens and others, 1995). The authors related decadal 

changes in operations, geomorphic reach, and distance from the dam to area cover and species 

composition. Our knowledge regarding this community was reaffirmed during the two 

knowledge assessment workshops, which are summarized in Melis and others (2006). However, 

as one moves upslope from the channel, our understanding of how operations influence 

vegetation change is less conclusive. As a result of the vegetation transects completed from 2000 

to 2004, we do know that dam operations affect vegetation cover, richness, and diversity up to 

the 35,000-cfs river stage elevation, while the local environment appears to affect vegetation 

above this elevation. We do not know how short-duration high flows (discharges greater than 

31,000 cfs), may change riparian vegetation. This topic will be considered within the scope of 

the vegetation synthesis. 

FY2009–12. Vegetation Synthesis (Project BIO 6.R3.07) 

The vegetation synthesis project will use mapping and monitoring results to test 

mechanisms that affect riparian vegetation establishment and expansion, including rates of 

change and potential colonization sites. The synthesis seeks to address knowledge gaps identified 

by the KAR. For example, the KAR revealed that there was some certainty about the relationship 

of marsh community development and flows for the CRE, but that this certainty decreased as one 

progressed upslope. Additionally, the KAR found a need for an understanding of the integrated 

role of riparian vegetation with other resources (e.g., aquatic and cultural resources). A synthesis 

is a step toward meeting these needs and will be implemented in two parts. Part I (FY2007–09) 

will address local processes and systemwide change, and Part II (FY2009–11) will integrate 

faunal and cultural components. This project addresses SSQ 1-5 and SSQ 3-2. 

Long-Term Experimental Activities 

Experiments associated with riparian vegetation will be curtailed until Part I of the 

vegetation synthesis is completed in FY2009. An experiment associated with riparian vegetation 
44

that could be subsequently implemented would be to remove vegetation that is subject to 

inundation during high flows, including low-growing limbs, to determine the effect of reduced 

vegetation on sediment transport and deposition, and to observe colonization rates in understory 

and open-beach areas. The colonization rates would examine how native versus introduced 

species compete and occupy newly available space. The results would be used to test hypotheses 

generated in the synthesis. In the interim, annual monitoring correlated with stage variation will 

provide a general picture of vegetation response to the changes in operations associated with 

long-term experimental planning from FY2009–12. 

Integration 

Riparian vegetation is a critical interface between aquatic and terrestrial environments 

around the world. In the CRE, the vegetation serves as a host for invertebrates, provides breeding 

and foraging habitat for birds and cover in the heat of the day, and may be harvested for cultural 

uses. Changes in the composition or structure of riparian vegetation like the expansion of an 

exotic species may alter these interactions. Riparian vegetation regulates nutrient exchange 

between the land and water. For example, leaf litter is a terrestrial carbon source that may 

influence in-stream invertebrate production. The relative importance of terrestrial carbon in the 

aquatic food web is being addressed in part through the food base initiative. The linkage could be 

further defined through studies that focus on terrestrial productivity and processes. Again, 

changes in abundance or kind of riparian carbon sources may influence aquatic productivity 

processes. In addition, a better understanding of the influence of vegetation on cultural resources 

is needed (which was noted in the KAR). Through a combination of monitoring, synthesis, and 

field research, the Biology Program will improve the understanding of the role riparian 

vegetation plays in influencing other resources. 
45

GCDAMP Goal 7: Establish water temperature, 

quality, and flow dynamics to achieve the GCDAMP 

ecosystem goals 

Strategic Science Questions and Information Needs 

Measures of water quality, including temperature, sediment concentration, and dissolved 

constituents, are closely related to many GCDAMP ecosystem goals. Water quality in the CRE 

downstream from GCD is affected by Lake Powell water quality, tributary inputs, and instream 

processes. It is, therefore, essential that the GCMRC water quality research and monitoring 

include efforts in Lake Powell and throughout the downstream river corridor. 

In 2004, the AMWG identified several priority questions, one of which relates directly to 

downstream quality of water, particularly water temperature below GCD: AMWG Priority 3: 

What is the best flow regime? 

During the 2005 knowledge assessment workshops, biological scientists also identified 

uncertainty about achieving fishery and food web objectives related to downstream water quality 

and temperature. As a result, the scientists formulated several key SSQs for GCDAMP goal 7 

around those uncertainties. The most critical SSQs that emerged as the focus of monitoring and 

research activities for goal 7 are as follows: 

1. SSQ 3-5. How is invertebrate flux affected by water quality (e.g., temperature, nutrient 

concentrations, turbidity) and dam operations? 

2. SSQ 5-1. How do dam release temperatures, flows (average and fluctuating component), 

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

mainstem and nearshore water temperatures throughout the CRE? 

3. SSQ 5-3. To what extent do temperature and fluctuations in flow limit spawning and 

incubation success for native fish? 

4. SSQ 4-1. Is there a “Flow-Only” operation (i.e., a strategy for dam releases, including 

managing tributary inputs with HFEs, without sediment augmentation) that will restore and 

maintain sandbar habitats over decadal time scales? 

5. SSQ 4-3. What are the effects of ramping rates on sediment transport and sandbar stability? 

As part of the GCDAMP strategic plan, several CMINs for measurements of downstream 

flow and water temperature, as well as the quality of water leaving GCD, were identified. The 

key CMINS related to goal 7 are as follows: 

1. CMIN 7.1.1. Determine the water-temperature dynamics in the mainstem, tributaries (as 

appropriate), backwaters, and nearshore areas throughout the CRE. 

2. CMIN 7.2.1. Determine the seasonal and yearly trends in turbidity, water temperature, 

conductivity, DO, and pH, changes in the mainstem throughout the CRE. 

3. CMIN 7.3.1. What are the status and trends of water quality releases from GCD? 

Monitoring of stage and discharge below GCD provides a means for determining when 

dam operations are in compliance with the 1996 ROD, as well as when departures occur under 

emergency criteria. Owing to the fact that suspended-sediment measurements are usually 

considered to be a component of the quality-of-water monitoring project, the CMINs associated 
46

with goal 8 for sediment are also tied to monitoring of downstream quality of water (see goal 8, 

this report). 

Monitoring and Research Activities 

 Monitoring and research activities related to goal 7 are carried out by (1) the Lake Powell 

and Glen Canyon Dam tailwater water quality project and (2) the downstream integrated quality 

of water project. All of the activities related to goal 7 carry forward one or more of the three 

elements of the MRP: core monitoring, research and development, and long-term 

experimentation. Individual monitoring and research activities are discussed in terms of the 

element of the plan they support. 

Core-Monitoring Activities 

Upstream Quality of Water Monitoring of Lake Powell and Glen Canyon 

Dam Tailwater 

Processes within Lake Powell, climate changes in the upper Colorado River Basin, the 

structure of GCD, and dam operations affect the quality of water released from GCD to the CRE 

in Grand Canyon. Temperature, dissolved oxygen concentrations, nutrient concentrations, 

biological composition, and other characteristics of GCD releases can have a profound effect on 

the aquatic ecosystem below the dam. Activities in this category are designed to address SSQ 3-

5, SSQ 5-1, and SSQ 5-3. 

FY2009–12. Quality-of-Water Monitoring of Lake Powell and 

the Glen Canyon Dam Tailwater (Project BIO 7.R1.09) 

Water quality in Lake Powell, including temperature, makes a fundamental contribution 

to the aquatic environment downstream of GCD. This monitoring project maintains a 40-year 

database of water-quality information that managers can use to understand the aquatic 

environment available to organisms downstream. These data are being combined with other data 

to support downstream thermal modeling. A data report that includes status and trends of 

parameters and identification of recurring patterns is currently in internal review. This report will 

inform further analysis in future years concerning reservoir processes, climatic versus 

operational effects, and suitability of the released water for downstream resources. The results of 

the ongoing monitoring will be a fundamental resource for an expert PEP anticipated in FY2010 

The PEP will look critically at the current protocols and recommend any necessary changes. 

Downstream Quality of Water Monitoring 

Suspended-sediment-transport data for both sand and finer particles are analyzed and 

used to update managers about the status of suspended-sediment flux between the two major 

tributaries (influx) and export to upper Lake Mead (efflux). Measurements and modeling 

estimates for tributary sand influx and main channel efflux are used to support experimental flow 

triggers related to HFEs and to evaluate other research flows, such as alternative fluctuating 

operations and stable flows. Temperature, flow, and stage data are also available for use by scientists 

in assessing habitat characteristics for aquatic organisms. This effort addresses SSQ 5-1. 
47

FY2009–12. Downstream Integrated Quality-of-Water 

Monitoring (below Glen Canyon Dam) (Project PHY 7.M1.09) 

The downstream IQW monitoring project focuses primarily on monitoring but also 

supports research on experimental flows, including HFEs. There are several general components 

to the monitoring strategy for goal 7 relating to the downstream IQW project: 

• Monitor and report real-time data of release pattern of GCD (stage and discharge, as 

measured at the Colorado River gage near Lees Ferry and key points downstream) 

• Monitor and report real-time quality-of-water data for downstream segments of the CRE 

that focus on manager needs and supports modeling below GCD (temperature, specific 

conductivity, and other characteristics in the main channel and selected tributaries) 

• Monitor and report estimates for (measurements and modeling) sand and silt/clay 

volumes (with grain sizes) delivered by major and lesser tributaries below GCD 

(ecosystem’s influx of fine sediments) 

• Monitor and report estimates for (measurements and modeling) sand and silt/clay 

volumes (and grain sizes) transported by the Colorado River downstream below GCD 

(ecosystem’s efflux of fine sediments) 

• Monitor to support experimental flows; as need arises, collect additional similar data in 

support of experimental flows released from GCD 

Research and Development Activities 

Advanced Development of Downstream Flow, Temperature, and Sediment 

Modeling 

FY2009–12. Integrated Flow, Temperature, and Sediment 

Modeling (Project PHY 7.R2.09) 

Modeling capability is needed to provide predictive capacity in linking dam operations 

with changes in the physical environment, including water flow, sediment conditions, and 

temperature. Better models for water flow are needed to predict the depth and velocity of flow 

for specified locations for specified dam operations. Models for sediment transport are needed to 

help determine the optimal magnitude and duration for HFEs and estimate the potential longterm impact of changes in dam operations or sediment supply conditions. Temperature models 

are needed to link dam operations with temperature dynamics in the downstream channel and, in 

particular, near-shore habitats. Thus, the goal of the modeling activities is to provide increased 

predictive capabilities in the form of simulations that can be used as planning tools for linking 

dam operations to changes in the physical environment. Models of the physical system are also 

needed to develop and expand interdisciplinary relationships with biological, cultural, economic, 

and recreational elements of GCDAMP. 

During the 2009 to 2012 period, GCMRC will continue and finalize existing modeling 

efforts including: 

• Ongoing development and verification of thermal and sediment-transport models below 

GCD as well as user interfaces and World Wide Web access to data 
48

• Applications of sediment and thermal-modeling simulations for science planning support 

• Development of multi-dimensional modeling tools to improve understanding and 

prediction capability concerning the interaction between main-channel and sediment flux 

and eddy sediment storage as well as relations between main-channel and nearshore 

water temperature 

• Investigation of sandbar stability under differing dam operation scenarios using 

numerical models and laboratory experimentation 

• Interdisciplinary cooperation between scientists modeling water quality and food web 

researchers working on the development of nutrient monitoring and mass balance 

• Evaluation of use of hydroacoustic instrumentation for continuous monitoring of organic 

drift in the Lees Ferry reach 

As these efforts are being finalized, GCMRC scientists and cooperators will work to 

identify future modeling needs. This process was initiated in September 2008 with a joint 

workshop that included sediment scientists and TWG representatives. The modeling program 

will continue with this dialog to ensure that modeling activities are aligned with stakeholder 

needs and interests. 

Long-Term Experimental Activities 

Experimental Flow Support 

As need arises, the IQW project will collect additional quality-of-water and suspendedsediment data in support of experimental flows released from GCD, including future HFE tests. 

Depending upon the suite of flow tests in the long-term experimental design, additional 

experimental studies, such as alternative fluctuating flows, might also be the focus of field 

measurements, flume experiments, and modeling simulations to address the above science 

questions related to fine sediment dynamics, conservation of sandbars, etc. 

An experimental plan was developed for the 2008 HFE, which consisted of 41,000 to 

45,000 cfs for approximately 2 1⁄2 days under sand-enriched conditions from the Paria and Little 

Colorado Rivers (see tables 1 and 2). Depending on specific circumstances and GCDAMP goals, 

a similar experimental plan would be used for possible future HFEs. 

 Because the IQW project consists of continuous monitoring of flow and sediment at the 

specified measurement locations, additional work is not required or proposed in association with 

the fall steady flow experiment. The effects of the planned steady flows on flow, suspended 

sediment concentrations, and mainstem water temperatures will be integrated within the IQW 

project. Water temperature in nearshore environments will be investigated in cooperation with 

the nearshore ecology study. 

Integration 

Interdisciplinary studies between the IQW project and other resource areas have great 

potential and have been highly productive, resulting in high-resolution data streams for 

temperature, conductivity, and suspended-sediment data throughout the CRE. Integration will be 

necessary to answer most of the SSQs associated with AMWG priority 5. For example, dissolved 
49

oxygen data measured in the tailwater below the dam and in Lake Powell are of special interest 

to fisheries biologists and managers in the Lees Ferry reach. Temperature and suspendedsediment data are particularly important to scientists working on problems of fishery habitat use 

and productivity above and below the Lees Ferry reach. River discharge and associated 

downstream stage data are important for understanding nutrient spiraling and habitat conditions 

throughout the main channel of the ecosystem. The evolving state of the fine-sediment mass 

balance throughout the ecosystem influences efforts to restore and maintain beaches of interest to 

managers and scientists for their roles in the aquatic and terrestrial environments. Continued in 

situ preservation of cultural resource sites depends upon nearshore beach habitats being 

sufficiently nourished by new tributary sand supplies (presumably through effective HFE 

implementation) to contribute to wind-transported sand into arroyos and other geomorphic 

settings where archaeological sites have eroded. 

During the monitoring and research period of FY2007–11, continued efforts will be made 

to link core monitoring within the downstream IQW project to food web, fishery, recreation, and 

archaeological science projects. Special emphasis will be placed on the collection of temperature 

data that supports improved modeling capabilities for predicting downstream water temperature 

in the main channel and nearshore habitats. These nearshore data will be collected within the 

context of seasonal field activities conducted within the fishery, food web research trips, and at 

sites where those science efforts are already being focused. 

The primary objective for promoting use of the IQW core-monitoring data to achieve 

greater integrated science will be not only to collect these data, but to make them readily 

accessible to other cooperating scientists and managers so that they can be integrated into 

focused research and development, as well as experimental research efforts. Historical 

temperature, flow, and sediment data will be used also in updating and advancing the Grand 

Canyon conceptual model developed in the late 1990s. Conceptual modeling workshops held 

during 2009–12 will have access to quality-of-water data from both Lake Powell and 

downstream IQW efforts. 

Sand bar mapping and change detection studies, scheduled for 2009 and beyond, will also 

have the advantage of using the continuous fine-sediment mass balance core-monitoring data to 

evaluate sandbar area, volume, and grain-size changes. These changes are being identified over 

the period 1999–2009, as airborne, remote-sensing missions capture imagery of ecosystem 

shorelines. With these core-monitoring data for fine-sediment flux, scientists and managers may 

better evaluate the relationship between dam operations (including HFE tests) and physical 

habitat responses associated with sandbars throughout the river corridor. 
50

GCDAMP Goal 8: Maintain or attain levels of 

sediment storage within the main channel and 

along shorelines to achieve the GCDAMP ecosystem 

goals 

Strategic Science Questions and Information Needs 

The research and monitoring plan for sediment storage is designed to address scientific 

questions and information needs relating to the identified long-term goal of achieving and 

maintaining sufficient sandbars and related habitats. In 2004, the AMWG identified several 

priority questions, including priority question 4, which relate directly to sediment: What is the 

impact of sediment loss, and what should we do about it? 

In addition, during the 2005 knowledge assessment workshops, sediment scientists also 

identified uncertainty about achieving sandbar conservation objectives and posed key SSQs for 

GCDAMP goal 8 around those uncertainties. The most critical strategic science questions that 

emerged as the focus of monitoring and research activities for goal 8 are 

• SSQ 4-1. 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 time scales? 

• SSQ 4-3. What are the effects of ramping rates on sediment transport and sandbar 

stability? 

• SSQ 4-4. What is the rate of change in eddy storage (erosion) during time intervals 

between BHBFs? 

Also identified as part of the GCDAMP Strategic Plan are several Core Monitoring 

Information Needs which are addressed in the goal 8 sediment monitoring program (CMINs), 

including: 

CMIN 8.1.1. Determine and track the biennial sandbar area and fine-sediment volume and 

grain-size changes within eddies below 5,000 cfs stage, by reach. (fourth-ranked goal 8 

CMIN).

CMIN 8.2.1. Track, as appropriate, the biennial or annual sandbar area, volume and grainsize changes within and outside of eddies between 5,000 and 25,000 cfs stage, by reach. 

(second-ranked goal 8 CMIN). 

CMIN 8.5.1. Track, as appropriate, the biennial sandbar area, volume, and grain-size 

changes above 25,000 cfs stage, by reach (fifth-ranked goal 8 CMIN). 

CMIN 8.6.1. Track, as appropriate, changes in coarse sediment (> 2 mm) abundance and 

distribution.

CMIN 9.3.1. Determine and track the size frequency, and distribution of camping beaches by 

reach and stage level in Glen and Grand Canyons (top-ranked goal 9 CMIN). 
51

Monitoring and Research Activities 

 Three monitoring and research activities are categorized below: core monitoring, research 

and development linked to monitoring and modeling, and long-term flow experimentation. In the 

case of goal 8, monitoring activities for detecting changes in sand storage throughout the river 

ecosystem were extensively reviewed through the SEDS-PEP review process during 1998–2006 

(final report available at www.gcmrc.gov). This resulted in the preparation by GCMRC of a 

sediment core monitoring plan (Draft Report to the Technical Work Group of the Glen Canyon 

Dam Adaptive Management Program: Recommended Protocols for Core Monitoring of 

Sediment within the Colorado River Ecosystem Below Glen Canyon Dam, Part IV – Developing 

a Scientifically Based Long-Term Monitoring Plan for the GCDAMP). The plan has been 

reviewed by the science advisors and is currently being reviewed by the TWG. The portion of 

that plan pertaining to goal 8 is the basis for the monitoring plan described herein.

Core-Monitoring Activities 

Research and monitoring efforts have guided the development of the current fine 

sediment core monitoring plan. Results from reach-based fine sediment monitoring that occurred 

between 2002 and 2005 demonstrated that 90% or more of the fine sediment is stored in the 

eddies and channel at elevations lower than the 8,000 ft3/s stage (Hazel and others, 2006). 

Additionally, this study demonstrated that change in that low-elevation sediment storage 

computed from repeat measurements over short reaches (~ 10 km) is not consistent with the 

change in storage over longer reaches (~50 km) computed based on the measurements of 

sediment transport (Topping and others, 2006). While the measurements of sediment transport 

that are made as part of the goal 7 IQW monitoring program will be used to detect changes in 

sediment storage in long reaches over short timescales (up to ~ 2 yr), accumulated uncertainty in 

these measurements will prevent the determination of longer-term (5 – 10 yr and longer) trends 

in sediment storage with adequate certainty. The transport monitoring is necessary to track the 

accumulation and fate of tributary inputs and provide information needed to plan high flow 

events. However, in order to determine whether sediment storage in the system as a whole is 

increasing, decreasing, or stable requires repeat measurements of sand storage throughout the 

entire system. For these reasons, goal 8 fine sediment monitoring includes system-wide 

measurements of channel and eddy sand storage in addition to monitoring related to highelevation sandbars, campsites, and backwaters. 

Low-elevation sand storage will be monitored by annual (excluding years with HFEs), 

measurements of the area and volume of fine sediment over long reaches (> 50 km) using 

multibeam bathymetric surveys, ground-based topographic surveys, underwater video transects, 

and limited underwater microscope data collection for bed grain size. This task is planned to be 

performed on a systemwide basis every 5–10 years in order to estimate fine sediment budgets 

over timescales for which the goal 7 mass balance sediment budgets likely become inconclusive. 

In addition to providing this key sediment budget information (i.e., the status of the fine sediment 

“bank account”), these data will provide information on the location and geometries of 

backwaters thought to be important habitat for native fish. Currently, it is logistically impossible 

to survey the bathymetry of the entire river in any given year. Therefore, a different reach of the 

river will be surveyed each year on a rotating basis. The reaches will correspond to the segments 

outlined in the goal 7 mass balance core-monitoring project, such that upon completion of a 

repeat survey for a given reach all components of the sediment budget (the sediment influx at the 

upstream gage, the sediment efflux at the downstream gage, and the change in storage between 
52

the gages) for that reach will have been measured directly. The reaches are as follows: Reach 1: 

RM 0 to RM 30 (upper Marble Canyon); Reach 2: RM 30 to RM 61 (lower Marble Canyon); 

Reach 3: RM 61 to RM 87 (eastern Grand Canyon); Reach 4: RM 87 to RM 166 (central Grand 

Canyon); Reach 5: RM 166 to RM 226 (western Grand Canyon). 

These surveys will occur in the late spring and will only be completed in years without 

HFEs; thus, in the absence of HFEs, each reach would be surveyed every 5 years, or, if HFEs 

occurred on average every other year, then each reach would be surveyed on average every 10 

years. The 5–10 year interval is considered by sediment scientists to be sufficient to detect longterm trends in the fine sediment budget based on changes in topography and bathymetry. 

Because reaches 4 and 5 are much longer than reaches 1-3, it is possible that portions of these 

reaches will not be surveyed. Existing side-scan sonar data may be used to identify the portions 

of these reaches that are most likely to store fine sediment. It is also possible that continued 

technological advancements and improvements in methods will allow for complete surveys of 

these reaches in the future. 

Monitoring High Elevation Sandbar Deposits and Campsites 

Sandbars and campsites will be monitored by infrequent remotely-sensed inventory and 

annual ground-based measurements. Approximately every 4 years (excluding years with HFEs), 

the system-wide area of fine sediment above the stage associated with a discharge of 8,000 cfs 

(i.e., approximately 10 percent of the fine sediment in the CRE) will be monitored using 

orthrectified hyperspectral aerial photography images collected during overflights (the volume of 

fine sediment may also be monitored if light detection and ranging (LIDAR) sensors are also 

deployed). These remote-sensing data are also used to help monitor the magnitude and trends in 

campsite area, backwater area and distribution, the availability of open dry sand on sandbars, as 

well as for other resource areas such as riparian vegetation monitoring. An overflight is 

scheduled to occur next in spring 2009. 

A subset of sandbars and campsites located throughout the CRE will be monitored 

annually using conventional ground-based surveying methods. This dataset is commonly referred 

to as the “NAU sandbar time series” and is the longest running dataset on the state of sandbars 

currently available (initiated in 1990). Previous studies have shown that this monitoring effort 

tracks significant trends in the area of sand above the 8,000 cfs stage (Schmidt and others, 2004). 

This task is conducted in coordination with goal 9 core monitoring and will take place in the fall 

of each year and will include measurements of the area and volume of fine sediment above the 

stage associated with 8,000 cfs. 

Monitoring Changes in Coarse-Grained Sediments and Impacts from 

Tributary Debris Flows 

Over 700 tributaries have the potential to contribute coarse-grained sediment to the CRE. 

The addition of coarse sediment is known to alter beaches and debris fans and can change the 

way that finer sediment is stored throughout the main channel. Such changes occur as a result of 

aggregation of main channel rapids, upper pools, and runs above rapids and through deposition 

of new gravel on existing debris fans and eddies. These geomorphic changes influence the 

ecosystem’s flow dynamics in and between rapids and effectively increase the abundance of 

gravel substrates spatially. Monitoring of changes resulting from continuing tributary inputs of 

gravel will be conducted as part of the repeat channel mapping, thus enabling detection of longterm trends in coarse sediment storage. Although debris fans will not be mapped during the 
53

channel mapping, changes in water surface elevation that result from debris flows will be 

detected. In the event of large tributary debris flows that significantly alter the navigational 

characteristics of the main channel, additional field activities may be needed on a contingency 

basis. 

Research and Development Activities 

 Research and Development in Support of Goal 8 Monitoring 

Research and development activities occur in goal 8 in association with the core 

monitoring activities, described above. These activities will include analysis of the channel 

mapping data to detect topographic and bathymetric change between surveys, and analysis of 

overflight imagery for changes in sand area. 

Long-Term Experimental Activities 

Generally, the experimental science support objective for goal 8 is tied to evaluation of 

flow-only options for sandbar restoration and maintenance through use of HFEs. For this reason, 

in support of the evaluation of experimental flows from GCD, GCMRC program staff will 

collect, as need arises, additional sand storage data throughout the main channel of the CRE. No 

additional sediment monitoring is planned to occur related to the fall steady flows. 

Two specific types of experimental sediment activities that are anticipated during the 

FY2009–12 period of monitoring and research are described below. 

High Flow Experiments Tests 

Sediment research results from the 2004 HFE test suggested that short-duration, 41,000–

45,000-cfs dam releases in the same season or year that significant sand is delivered to the 

Colorado River by larger tributaries can result in a net positive change in sandbar resources. 

Following this result, sediment scientists recommended that the sediment-enriched test be 

repeated during the winter or spring months to determine whether repeated releases following 

sediment inputs might be a sustainable means of restoration and maintenance of sandbars and 

related ecosystem habitats. The logic associated with such an experimental strategy for sandbar 

restoration is shown in figure 3. 

In the event that results from a repeat of the sediment test conducted in 2004 (similar with 

respect to sand enrichment regardless of seasonal timing) are not net positive, then future tests 

might need to occur when more highly constrained dam releases allow downstream tributary 

sand inputs to accumulate over time or when sand can be imported from upstream sources (or 

perhaps some combination of both). 

The strategy of attempting to replicate the net positive sand mass balance documented as 

the result of the 2004 HFE test is intended to answer the primary strategic science question for 

sediment (SSQ 4.1) listed above. If a future HFE test suggests that the flow-only operational 

strategy for sandbar restoration is sustainable through repeated implementation following 

tributary sand inputs, then additional monitoring and research (perhaps combined with flow and 

sediment modeling) might determine the optimal recurrence interval for HFEs that is required to 

achieve the desired sandbar resources throughout the ecosystem. The 2008 HFE was 

implemented as part of this approach and results will address these questions. 
54

 

Figure 3. Flow chart showing the proposed experimental strategy 

for evaluating a flow-only operational strategy. The experiment 

will evaluate if restoration and maintenance of sandbars below 

Glen Canyon Dam can be successful using repeated beach/habitatbuilding flows during years when tributaries produce average to 

above-average sand inputs to the Colorado River ecosystem.

Experimentally Evaluate Alternative Ramping Rates 

The stability of sandbars and their fate following HFEs under patterns of diurnal 

fluctuating releases is another important topic of concern for the GCDAMP. One of the critical 

elements of daily fluctuating operations linked with sandbar stability is the hourly rates at which 

flows are increased and decreased. This operational parameter relates to sandbar stability, 

particularly with regard to the downramp rate of dam releases that affect the rate at which 

perched water within sandbars is able to drain from beach sands as the river stage drops toward 

the daily low flow. Alternative ramping rates, particularly increased downramp rates, are 

therefore identified as a priority for further experimental flow research to determine if 

downramping at more than the currently allowed rate of 1,500 cfs/h significantly increases 

sandbar erosion rates between episodes of beach building and sandbar restoration. 

Data relating to alternative ramping rates (SSQ RIN 4) could be collected through 

experimental field measurements, modeling, and laboratory studies of alternative fluctuating 

flows during 2009–12. Data would also be collected before and after HFEs, using methods 

developed for sandbar monitoring during 2000–05. Sandbar measurements will focus on areas 

identified in recent synthesis research reports as representative for eddy and sandbar responses 

within Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons. New methods will also be used to refine information 
55

on how alternative ramping rates and daily stage ranges (relative to the ROD) influence sandbar 

stability and related habitats below the dam. Ongoing monitoring data on suspended-sediment 

transport will also be evaluated to determine how alternative fluctuating flow operations 

influence downstream sand transport (export). 

Integration 

Sand storage studies will continue to be integrated into monitoring and research on 

recreation camping sites, terrestrial vegetation, archaeological sites, and nearshore habitats and 

substrate distributions related to fish and food web dynamics in the aquatic ecosystem. Most 

importantly, the changes in sand storage that are measured through monitoring and mapping will 

be used to verify results of the fine-sediment mass flux element of the downstream IQW project, 

as well as to verify sand-transport- and sandbar-modeling results. 

An example of an integrated project related to sediment resources is the analysis of 

mapping shoreline habitat changes project that is currently nearing completion. This effort was 

undertaken as an experimental support activity associated with the collection of digital remotely 

sensed imagery from May 2005 (systemwide data were also collected in 2002 and 2004) and was 

directly related to conservation measures identified with the November 2004 HFE test. 
56

GCDAMP Goal 9: Maintain or improve the quality 

of recreational experiences for users of the 

Colorado River ecosystem, within the framework 

of the GCDAMP ecosystems goals 

Strategic Science Questions and Information Needs 

Maintaining or improving the quality of the recreational experience is a multifaceted and 

complex goal. For example, dam operations affect a myriad of physical and biological attributes 

that have direct or indirect effects on river-based recreation, and a specific flow regime may have 

both positive and negative effects on different attributes of the overall recreation experience. As 

a result, the MRP seeks to address discrete scientific questions, information needs, and objectives 

required to achieve goal 9. 

In 2004, the AMWG identified several priority questions. Priority 3 relates directly to 

goal 9: What is the best flow regime? 

In addition, a number of SSQs related to the effects of flows on recreation emerged from 

the knowledge assessment workshop conducted in July 2005. These SSQs are primarily targeted 

at improving our understanding of how flows affect biophysical conditions and social attributes 

that are important to the quality of recreation experiences in the CRE. The most critical SSQs 

that emerged as the focus of monitoring and research activities for goal 9 are the following: 

1. SSQ 3-6. What GCD operations (ramping rates, daily flow range, etc.) maximize trout 

fishing opportunities and catchability? 

2. SSQ 3-7. How do dam controlled flows affect visitors’ recreational experiences, and what 

are the optimal flows for maintaining a high quality recreational experience in the CRE? 

3. SSQ 3-8. What are the drivers for recreational experiences in the CRE, and how important 

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

4. SSQ 3-9. How do varying flows positively or negatively affect campsite attributes that are 

important to visitor experience? 

5. SSQ 3-10. How can safety and navigability be reliably measured relative to flows? 

6. SSQ 3-11. How do varying flows positively or negatively affect visitor safety, health, and 

navigability of the rapids? 

7. SSQ 3-12. 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? 

The GCDAMP identified several core-monitoring information needs under each of the 

five recreation management objectives. The SPG subsequently refined and prioritized the CMINs 

to define the most important monitoring needs of each goal in order to allocate future funding. 

The latter process resulted in the following ranking of CMINs for recreation: 

1. CMIN 9.3.1. Determine and track the size, quality, and distribution of camping beaches by 

reach and stage level in Glen and Grand Canyons. 
57

2. CMIN 9.1.1. Determine and track the changes attributable to dam operations in recreational 

quality, opportunities and use, impacts, serious incidents, and perceptions of users, including 

the level of satisfaction, in the CRE. 

3. CMIN 9.5.1. Determine and track the frequency and scheduling of research and monitoring 

activity in Glen and Grand Canyons. 

4. CMIN 9.1.2. Determine and track the frequency and scheduling of river-related use patterns. 

5. CMIN 9.2.2. Determine and track accident rates for visitors participating in river-related 

activities including causes and location (i.e., on-river or off-river), equipment type, operator 

experience, and other factors of these accidents in the CRE. 

Note: In June 2005, a PEP reviewed the entire GCDAMP recreation program and 

produced a final report (Loomis and others, 2005), which included numerous recommendations 

for improving GCMRC’s recreation monitoring and research program. The recreation PEP 

recognized that most of the recommended monitoring and research programs had the potential to 

benefit both the GCDAMP and the NPS CRMP. In addition to the SSQs, the recommendations 

provided in the PEP report form the foundation for the FY2009–12 recreation program described 

below. 

Monitoring and Research Activities 

Monitoring and research activities related to recreation for FY2009–12 encompass all 

three elements of the MRP: core monitoring, research and development, and experimental 

activities. 

Core-Monitoring Activities 

Status and Trends in Campsite Area 

A key concern of recreational rafters in Grand Canyon is the diminishing number and 

size of campsites along the Colorado River. In FY2009–12, the GCMRC will continue to 

monitor changes in campable area at the NAU sandbar study sites, while concurrently exploring 

alternative methods to evaluate changes throughout the CRE. 

FY2009–12. Sandbar and Campable Area Monitoring (Project REC.9.R1.07) 

In FY2009–12, the GCMRC will monitor campable area at the NAU sandbar study sites 

using conventional survey methods as in the past (Kaplinski and others, 2005), but with more 

emphasis on differentiating optimal campable area (level and flat sandy areas) from suboptimal 

campable area (sloping, lightly vegetated, and/or rockier terrain). A major thrust of the FY2009–

12 monitoring program will be to more closely integrate the campable area monitoring work with 

that of the NAU sandbar monitoring program so that the latter program can inform the former on 

the effects of changing sandbar area and morphology on campable area. 

Concurrently, in FY2009–10, the GCMRC will explore options for using remote-sensing 

data to evaluate changes in campable area through focused research and development. Previous 

research (see Project REC 9.R2.07 and Project REC 9.2.R3.07 below) have explored specific 

alternative means of measuring open sand area using remotely sense data and GIS analysis 

techniques. In 2009, GCMRC will conduct an overflight and gather 4-band digital imagery. 

This data will be used to assess changes in campable area due to vegetation encroachment 

throughout the river corridor. These results will be evaluated through comparing remotely 
58

sensed measurements with surveyed measurements obtained from a subset of campsites being 

monitored with repeat total station surveys. 

Status and Trends in Recreational Angling 

A key interest of recreational anglers in lower Glen Canyon is the quality of the RBT 

fishery (specifically size, number, and health of fish), which is directly related to the available 

food supply. In FY2009–12, the condition of the Lees Ferry trout fishery will be monitored 

through routine stock assessment procedures conducted by AZGFD (see goal 4, this report). In 

addition, the GCMRC proposes to work with AZGFD biologists to upgrade the quality and 

consistency of angler satisfaction data being collected through intermittent AZGFD-sponsored 

creel surveys. In addition to trout condition and numbers, anglers have previously expressed 

concern about fishing conditions (“fishability”) and boating access upstream from Lees Ferry, 

and they also have concerns about safety issues (primarily for waders and independent shoreline 

fishermen) because of fluctuating flows. All of these issues have direct relevance to the goal of 

maintaining a high-quality recreation experience. The role of fluctuating flows in affecting 

fishability and boater safety will be evaluated as part of the long-term experiment (see discussion 

under ramping rate and steady flow experiments), while a focused research effort will be 

conducted in FY2010–11 to improve our understanding of how flows affect other recreational 

attributes (see Project 9.R5.10 below). 

Research and Development Activities 

The 2005 recreation PEP recommended that the GCMRC initiate several foundational 

research studies to provide a baseline of information against which future experiments and 

management actions can be evaluated. Furthermore, they recommended that the GCMRC invest 

in studies to provide data that could be used to better predict the effects of experiments and 

management flows on recreation in lieu of investing in long-term visitor satisfaction monitoring 

programs. The following research programs will be implemented in FY2009–12 in response to 

the 2005 PEP recommendations. 

FY2007–09. Compile Campsite Inventory and Geographic Information 

Systems Atlas (Project REC 9.R3.07) 

The last comprehensive campsite inventory was completed more than 20 years ago after 

the 1983 uncontrolled release from GCD. Many of the camps identified during that survey have 

fallen into disuse or disappeared entirely because of sandbar changes and vegetation 

encroachment, while some new ones have emerged. A new inventory is needed to evaluate 

changes in the CRE during the past two decades and to provide an up-to-date baseline for 

designing future studies. Beginning in FY2007, and continuing through FY08-09, GCMRC has 

been working collaboratively with Grand Canyon National Park staff to compile an up-to-date 

inventory and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) atlas of all previously and currently 

available campsites in the CRE. When completed, the campsite atlas will include information on 

campsite attributes that are known to be important to visitors (e.g., physical size, estimated size 

of group that can be reasonably accommodated, frequency of use, amount of open sand versus 

vegetation, availability of shade, mooring attributes, etc.). This baseline inventory will define the 

population of campsites from which samples can be drawn to characterize systemwide changes, 
59

and it will serve as the basis for evaluating recreation impacts on other CRE resources of concern 

such as archaeological sites. 

FY2009. Evaluate Campable Area Monitoring Results Using Measured Field 

Data vs. Remotely Sensed Data (Project REC 9.R2.07) 

An initial comparison of campable area monitoring results derived through field 

measurements and GIS-based analysis of remotely sensed imagery and topography was initiated 

in FY2007. A pilot effort conducted in FY2005 demonstrated that estimates derived from 

remotely sensed data consistently overestimated campable area, compared with measurements 

derived from field surveys; therefore, one desired outcome of the proposed study was the 

development of an algorithm to allow comparisons of previously collected campable area data 

(derived from field surveys) with future data derived from remotely sensed imagery. Due to 

other priorities, including the initiation of the High Flow Experiment in spring 2008, a final 

report on this work was not completed. A written report will be prepared summarizing the 

results of this study in FY09, Depending on final results, it may be possible to transition the 

campable area monitoring program to one based largely, or exclusively, on remotely sensed 

imagery. 

FY2009. Compile and Analyze Existing Safety Data (Project REC 9.R4.09) 

Using graduate student labor, existing safety data maintained in various NPS databases 

and in published and unpublished reports will be compiled and evaluated as a prelude to 

conducting safety and navigability evaluations under experimental flows. This project is being 

funded for implementation in FY2009. 

FY2010–11. Evaluate the Relative Importance of and Tradeoffs to 

Recreation-Related Attributes Affected by Flows on Recreation 

Experience (Project: REC 9.R5.10) 

The quality of a recreation experience is determined by multiple interacting physical, 

biological, and social factors, many of which are affected by flows (e.g., the size, quality, and 

distribution of campsites; the size, navigability, and “thrill-factor” of the rapids; the rate of boat 

movement downriver with consequent implications for social encounters and crowding; and the 

size, abundance, and condition of RBT). Flows affect these recreational attributes in varying and 

sometimes conflicting ways. The purpose of this study is to determine the relative importance of 

the recreation-related physical, biological, and social attributes and conditions that are affected 

by flows, and to analyze the tradeoffs to recreational experience quality that are created by 

implementing various flow regimes. 

FY2011. 1973 Weeden Survey Revisited 

The 1973 Weeden survey was the first attempt to comprehensively inventory and 

document campsites in the CRE. This effort produced hundreds of photographs and aerial image 

maps of CRE campsites. The NPS is currently working on relocating the photo points used to 

obtain the images. In FY2007–08, using volunteer photographers, the NPS located and 

duplicated (with snap shot photographs) many of the 1973 Weeden survey photographs. This 

work will continue in FY2009, and these data will be integrated into the campsite atlas. In 

FY10-11, GCMRC proposes to duplicate the images using volunteer and professional 
60

photographers, and undertake a formal analysis of differences between the photographic images 

from the Weeden survey and identical images collected in 2010–11. This analysis will provide a 

diachronic perspective on campsites change in the CRE during the past 35+ years. 

FY2010. Quantify Vegetation Encroachment at Campsites 

Vegetation encroachment rates and their relative significance in diminishing campable 

area will be evaluated by using remotely sensed imagery to compare vegetated areas from a 

stratified sample of heavily used and infrequently used camps and analyzing these data in a GIS 

environment. 

FY2010–11. Update Regional Recreation Economic Studies 

By FY2010, existing economic baseline studies will be 20 to 25 years old, so in FY2010–

11, economic valuation studies for CRE-based recreation will be repeated. 

Long-Term Experimental Activities 

Several studies will be initiated in conjunction with the experimental flows of FY2009–

12 to evaluate the effects of various experimental flows on recreation. These studies will 

evaluate the effects of high flow, ramping rates, and steady flow experiments on beach 

morphology, size, and distribution (e.g., campable area), as well as post-HFE effects on the Lees 

Ferry trout fishery and angling experience. In addition, GCMRC will partner with NPS to 

evaluate effects of high, low, steady, and fluctuating flows on human health and safety. 

Evaluate Effects of HFEs on Campsites 

 Changes in campable area within the CRE are the result of a variety of flow-related 

factors, including changes in sediment deposits, modification of sandbar topography, and 

vegetation encroachment. This project will focus on evaluating the roles of different ramping 

rates and effects of HFEs on these three critical attributes. 

Evaluate Effects of HFEs, Steady Flows, and Fluctuating Flows on 

Navigability and Safety 

Safety issues associated with high and low flows and varying ramping rates were a 

primary concern of the public during the scoping phase of the GCD EIS process. This project 

will build upon previous studies undertaken during past experimental flows to assess how 

changes in flow volume and ramping rates affect the numbers and types of river-based incidents 

that could affect the safety of recreational anglers and whitewater boaters in the CRE. The 

proposed safety data compilation study (Project REC.9.R4.07) will provide a foundation for this 

experimental study. 

Evaluate Effects of Steady Flows vs. Fluctuating Flows on Visitor 

Health 

Issues associated with human health were identified by river guides in relation to the low 

summer steady flows (LSSF) experiment of 2000, when many boating parties in Grand Canyon 

were affected by a waterborne virus. Although possibly a coincidence, the Norwalk viral 

outbreak of summer 2000 raised the possibility that certain flow regimes might be more 

conducive to spreading human pathogens than others. This project will evaluate human health 
61

risks associated with different experimental flows. Specifically, the study will attempt to 

determine if steady flows or highly fluctuating flows have a measurable effect on sanitary 

conditions at heavily used camping beaches. This project will be implemented through a 

cooperative partnership with the NPS. 

Integration 

Physical Science Program 

Changes in campable area are largely, but not exclusively, caused by changes in sandbar 

area and volume. Other factors that may be contributing to campsite area decline in the CRE 

include changes in bar morphology (e.g., steeping of slopes under certain flow regimes). 

Evaluating the effect of sandbar morphology on campable area requires comparisons of 

topographic data derived from the sand storage monitoring program against prior campable area 

survey results. This program underwent a PEP review in FY2006 in part to define coremonitoring protocols for tracking sediment storage in the CRE. Although the protocols for sand 

storage monitoring have not yet been defined, campable area monitoring will continue to a large 

degree to rely on and be integrated with data derived from the Physical Science and Modeling 

Program. 

In addition, flow-stage modeling based on the improved sediment transport and river 

simulation (STARS) model will be useful for defining stage relations at camps for which survey 

data are not currently available. The analysis and storage of campsite data and the creation and 

maintenance of the GIS atlas will require direct involvement from GCMRC’s DASA Program. 

Biological Sciences 

Monitoring of trout condition is a critical proxy measurement for angler satisfaction in 

lower Glen Canyon. GCMRC and AZGFD will work together to define additional angler 

satisfaction measurements that can be collected through periodic AZGFD creel surveys. 

Although sand supply is a critical factor affecting campable area in the CRE, another 

significant process that may be contributing to campsite loss is vegetation encroachment. 

Evaluating the role of vegetation encroachment on campable area will require using remotely 

sensed vegetation data collected during the 2000, 2002, 2005, and 2009 missions and the results 

of the ongoing vegetation mapping effort (Project BIO 6.R1.07), in combination with the data 

developed for the GIS campsite atlas (Project REC 9.R3.07.) 

NPS Colorado River Management Plan 

As discussed in the PEP review of the GCDAMP recreation program, there is 

considerable overlap in information needs for the CRMP and the GCDAMP. However, while 

closely intertwined, the interests and emphases of these two programs are not identical: the 

CRMP is primarily focused on evaluating the effects of NPS visitor management decisions on 

river-based visitor experience qualities and associated physical and biological resource values, 

while the GCDAMP is concerned primarily with monitoring and researching effects of dam 

operations on CRE resources, including the visitor-use values associated with those resources. 

The GCDAMP recreation program has historically focused on the effects of dam operations 

(flows) on physical and biological attributes important to recreation (e.g., camping beaches, 

trout), although multiple GCDAMP reviews have identified the need for more emphasis to be 

placed on the social/experiential and economic effects of dam-controlled flows. Also, the 
62

geographic scope of the GCDAMP is considerably more restricted than that of the CRMP. The 

CRMP addresses issues associated with visitor use of side canyons and other attraction sites 

accessed from the river but located outside the mainstem river corridor, whereas the focus of the 

GCDAMP is on the CRE. 

The NPS has been allotted $500,000 per year for the next 5 years to design and 

implement monitoring and research programs relevant to the information needs of the CRMP. 

To the extent that these programs overlap with those of the GCDAMP, it will be 

beneficial for the GCMRC and the NPS to develop coordinated, integrated, and jointly funded 

projects to satisfy multiple needs simultaneously. However, since some CRMP-driven needs for 

information lie outside the scope of the GCDAMP, not all CRMP funding will apply to resources 

of mutual concern. Projects that are likely to be jointly funded and co-managed in the next 5 

years include the campsite inventory and GIS atlas, the safety data compilation, evaluation of 

ramping rates and steady flows on visitor health, and duplication of the Weeden survey 

photographs. 
63

GCDAMP Goal 10: Maintain power production 

capacity and energy generation, and increase 

where feasible and advisable, within the 

framework of the Adaptive Management ecosystem 

goals 

Strategic Science Questions and Information Needs 

In August 2004, the AMWG identified the third priority question: “What are the best 

flows?” This question has obvious implications for hydropower, because “the best flows” are 

evaluated both from the perspective of optimizing hydropower generation and also in terms of 

optimizing benefits to other resources, such as endangered fish and sediment. Power-production 

capacity and the related economic activities are tied to a range of variables. For this reason, the 

MRP focuses on discrete scientific questions, information needs, and objectives. 

The 2005 knowledge assessment workshops identified two key SSQs related to goal 10, 

which are as follows: 

1. SSQ 3-3. What are the hydropower replacements costs of the MLFF (annually, since 1996)? 

2. SSQ 3-4. What are the projected costs associated with the various alternative flow regimes 

being discussed for future experimental science (as defined in the next phase experimental 

design)? 

The GCDAMP SPG reviewed, revised, and prioritized the CMINs in the GCDAMP 

Strategic Plan. The SPG redefined the primary core-monitoring information need for goal 10 as 

follows: 

1. CMIN 10.1.1. Determine and track the marketable capacity and energy produced through 

dam operations in relation to the various release scenarios (daily fluctuation limit, upramp 

and downramp limits, maximum flow limit of 25,000 cfs, minimum flow limit of 5,000 cfs). 

Monitoring and Research Activities 

Core-Monitoring Activities 

Data on GCD hydropower generation and opportunity costs under MLFF operations have 

been identified as information needs by the GCDAMP. These parameters are routinely 

monitored by Reclamation and the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA), but the data 

are not readily accessible to most GCDAMP stakeholders. To meet the need for core-monitoring 

information related to power generation and replacement costs, WAPA will provide data on 

power generation and marketable capacity valuations. These data will be provided to the 

GCMRC on a daily or monthly basis depending on the parameter. The data will then be made 

available through the GCMRC Web site. 

FY2009–12 (New). Monitor Power Generation and Market Values under 

Current and Future Dam Operations (Project HYD 10.M1.07) 

Reclamation tracks hourly hydropower generation capacity, and WAPA and its 

customers track power source availability and market changes on an hourly basis in assessing the 
64

need, cost, and accessibility for additional power resources to meet contractual obligations or 

unanticipated demand. Market pricing, resulting cost of power purchases, and the impact on 

Basin Fund cash flow are recorded in the WAPA Energy Tracking Database (ISA) and reported 

monthly. In FY2008, GCMRC DASA staff developed and tested computer programs for 

organizing and serving tabular data sets through a web-based application. In FY2009, the 

GCMRC will work with Reclamation and WAPA to serve and archive existing hydropower and 

replacement-cost data through the GCMRC Web site in order to address this current program 

information need shortfall. 

Long-Term Experimental Activities 

Economic implications of various flow regimes, in terms of energy generation capacity 

and power replacement costs, are important variables to consider when selecting future flow 

regimes, yet with few exceptions (e.g., the LSSF experiment of 2000), independent, peerreviewed data and analyses on costs and revenues associated with various dam operations have 

not been readily available for the GCDAMP to factor into recommendations to the DOI. 

In preparation for conducting future experimental flows, an economic analysis of 

predicted hydropower opportunity costs under various alternative experimental scenarios was 

undertaken in FY2006. This study evaluated the economic implications of various experimental 

flows being considered by the GCDAMP in terms of energy generation capacity and replacement 

costs. WAPA and Colorado River Energy Distributors Association (CREDA) provided input on 

the models and assumptions used to generate the results and will provide hydropower production 

cost and power sales data to be factored into the analyses. In the future, independent studies are 

needed to evaluate the accuracy of these predicted costs and in necessary, refine the models for 

predicting costs of future experiments. 

FY2010–11. Evaluate Economic Implications of Experimental Flows 

Once the experiment is initiated, the GCMRC will track costs associated with the 

experiment using the monitoring program described above. The evaluation of economic 

implications will focus primarily on hydropower replacement costs and associated impacts to the 

Basin Fund. In FY2011–12, the GCMRC will conduct an independent analysis to determine 

whether the predictions were accurate or not, and to determine where and why they may have 

deviated from projected outcomes. 
65

GCDAMP Goal 11: Preserve, protect, manage, and 

treat cultural resources for the inspiration and 

benefit of past, present, and future generations 

Strategic Science Questions and Information Needs 

In August 2004, the AMWG identified the following questions as the second highest 

priority of the GCDAMP: “Which cultural resources, including TCPs, are within the Area of 

Potential Effect from dam operations, which should we treat, and how do we best protect them? 

What are the status and trends of cultural resources and what are the agents of deterioration?” 

Since that time, Reclamation and the NPS have agreed to develop a treatment plan for 161 

archaeological sites of the 323 sites potentially affected by dam operations in the CRE. The sites 

subject to treatment have been determined by NPS to be actively deteriorating through a variety 

of agents. With immediate treatment needs now being addressed by Reclamation and NPS, 

GCMRC monitoring and research activities will focus on assessing the overall status and trends 

of cultural resources in the CRE, the relative contributions of the agents of deterioration in 

affecting cultural resources, and the long-term effectiveness of the treatment measures. 

To focus monitoring and research activities for cultural resources even more, the MRP is 

placing its attention on five key SSQs, which are as follows: 

1. SSQ 2-1. Do dam controlled flows increase or decrease rates of erosion at archaeological 

sites and traditional cultural property (TCP) sites, and if so, how? 

2. SSQ 2-2. How do flows impact old high-water zone (OHWZ) terraces in the CRE, 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? 

3. SSQ 2-3. If flows contribute to archaeological site/TCP erosion, what are the optimal flows 

for minimizing impacts to these cultural resources? 

4. SSQ 2-4. How effective are various treatments (e.g., check dams, vegetation management, 

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

5. SSQ 2-7. 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? 

The GCDAMP also identified several CMINs under goal 11. The GCDAMP SPG 

subsequently refined and prioritized the CMINs for cultural resources to define the most 

important monitoring needs under each GCDAMP goal for the allocation of funding. The latter 

process resulted in the following ranking of CMINS for cultural resources: 

1. CMIN 11.1.1 (SPG revised). Determine the condition and integrity of prehistoric and 

historic sites in the CRE through tracking rates of erosion, visitor impacts, and other relevant 

variables. Determine the condition and integrity of TCPs in the CRE. 

2. CMIN 11.2.1 (SPG revised). Determine the condition of traditionally important resources 

and locations using tribal perspectives and values. 
66

Monitoring and Research Activities 

Core-Monitoring Activities 

Past research indicates that dam-controlled flows influence archaeological site condition 

in a variety of ways. Several hypotheses have been advanced to account for the role of dam 

operations in archaeological site degradation, but these hypotheses require further research, 

testing, and refinement. Understanding if and how cultural site condition is affected by damcontrolled flows is important to achieving the stated goals of the GCDAMP and Grand Canyon 

Protection Act. Because the condition of archaeological sites and other place-based cultural 

resources is inevitably a product of multiple interacting processes, determining the agents of 

degradation requires improving our understanding of the full suite of agents affecting cultural 

resource condition in the CRE (e.g., climate and weather events, human behavior, geomorphic 

and biotic processes), in addition to conducting research on direct, indirect, and interactive 

effects of flow regimes. To partially address this need, in FY2006 the GCMRC initiated a 

multiyear, multifaceted archaeological site-monitoring research and development project to 

continue during the first years of this MRP. This work included the compilation and analysis of 

existing archaeological site legacy data in September, 2007 (Kintigh and others, 2007 

At a minimum, a better understanding of how dam-controlled flows affect erosion rates at 

cultural sites is needed. This need can be met through implementing monitoring protocols that 

measure physical change at repetitive intervals and through integrating relevant data from other 

program areas, such as the physical sciences (e.g., flow-stage modeling, sandbar monitoring) and 

biological sciences (e.g., terrestrial vegetation monitoring) programs. 

To date, very little research has been focused on evaluating how dam operations affect 

TCPs or other cultural resources besides archaeological sites. In addition to site-specific cultural 

resources, the Native American tribes who participate in the GCDAMP are concerned about how 

dam operations may affect traditionally valued terrestrial plants and animals in the CRE. Like the 

place-based cultural resources, culturally important biological resources are affected by damcontrolled flows both directly and indirectly. Direct effects include periodic inundation and flowinduced scouring and disturbance that prune older plants, induce new growth, open up areas for 

colonization, impact the characteristics of habitats used by various fauna, and redistribute seeds 

and nutrients. Direct effects also include consequences related to the timing and frequency of 

inundation and flow-induced disturbance events. Indirect effects include changes to the sediment 

substrate from flows, changes to the water table and consequent effects to OHWZ vegetation 

(e.g., mesquite), and long-term changes in species composition and abundance because of the 

timing, frequency, and discharge level of dam-controlled flows. Presumably, monitoring and 

evaluating the effects of flows on culturally significant plants and animals can be most 

effectively achieved by integrating cultural resource monitoring with physical and biological 

elements of the science program. In FY2006, the tribes were funded to synthesize their existing 

monitoring data and define approaches to monitor culturally important resources in the CRE. In 

FY2008, the tribes received funding to begin (or continue) implementing their proposed 

monitoring programs on a pilot basis (Project CUL 11.R2.07). The results of these and other 

pilot cultural resource monitoring projects will subsequently be evaluated by a cultural resource 

PEP in FY2010. 

As noted above, core-monitoring programs are currently under development (see 

discussion under research and development activities section below). The current plan calls for 
67

implementation of revised core-monitoring protocols for cultural resources as part of a 3-year 

pilot program in FY2009–11, followed by a cultural PEP later in FY2011. 

FY2011 (New). Cultural Protocol Evaluation Panel Review 

Following completion of research and development for core monitoring and effects of 

monitoring and completion of a 3-year pilot monitoring program, a follow-up PEP review of the 

cultural program will be conducted to evaluate changes made since the 2000 cultural PEP and 

evaluate the results of research and development in FY2006–11. Based on the findings of the 

second PEP, or Cultural PEP II, a refined core-monitoring program will be implemented 

beginning in FY2012. 

Research and Development Activities 

In FY2009–11, the GCMRC will continue several research and development activities 

initiated in FY2006 to evaluate the most appropriate core-monitoring indicators and protocols for 

tracking archaeological site condition and the effectiveness of erosion-control treatments through 

time. Since erosion of archaeological sites is tied directly and indirectly to dam presence and 

dam operations, considerable effort will be devoted to refining methods for measuring and 

tracking erosion. However, erosion is only one of several factors affecting resource conditions, 

so the evaluation of other indicators, such as human disturbance indicators and weather 

parameters, will also be pursued. 

FY2006–07. Research and Development toward Core Monitoring (Project 

CUL.11.R1.07) 

The project involved the following three tasks (for more detail, see project description in 

the FY2007 and FY08 annual work plan): 

1. Task 1: Assessment of archaeological sites for future monitoring. Continue geomorphic 

and archaeological integrity assessments initiated in FY2006 at a subset of archaeological 

sites in the CRE to define the most appropriate protocols for future monitoring 

2. Task 2: Continue evaluations of existing legacy monitoring data. The emphasis will be on 

evaluating the accuracy, consistency, redundancy, and statistical value of existing monitoring 

data. In FY2007, we will also focus on defining appropriate applications for the existing data 

(e.g., attempt to utilize existing monitoring data to detect trends in site condition relative to 

dam operations) and evaluate the utility and limitations of other legacy data, particularly the 

extensive photographic record that has been compiled by the NPS over the past 15+ years 

3. Task 3: Continue to evaluate monitoring protocols for quantifying geomorphic change. 

This study component will compare and contrast alternative methods for measuring 

erosion/topographic change at a sample of sites. Specifically, we will evaluate the tradeoffs 

involved in using conventional survey methods versus ground-based and airborne LiDAR in 

terms of field and post-field processing time, efficiency, accuracy, precision, costs, 

equipment limitations, and short- and long-term resource impacts. Additional subtasks that 

will be included under this protocol evaluation task are 

• FY2007–08: Refine protocols for evaluating erosion control effectiveness. In addition to 

refining protocols for core monitoring, in FY2007–08 the GCMRC continued evaluating 
68

and refining methods for measuring and tracking erosion control effectiveness at a 

sample of treated sites. This evaluation process will build on a pilot study initiated by 

USU under the treatment planning effort in FY2006. 

• FY2007–08: Test and refine weather-monitoring protocols. This effort explored options 

for monitoring weather parameters using various technologies at a sample of intensively 

monitored archaeological sites distributed throughout the CRE to meet multiple needs for 

weather monitoring data related specifically to the cultural resource monitoring program. 

• FY2007–08: Test and refine human impact-monitoring protocols. The original plan (in 

2007) was to explore options for tracking and quantifying impacts of human visitation 

that result in measurable changes to archaeological site condition, and develop protocols 

for monitoring impacts in coordination with the NPS Colorado River Management Plan 

in order to meet multiple agency needs for human impact data in the CRE; however, the 

NPS subsequently elected to develop monitoring protocols for the CRMP independently 

of the GCMRC. In FY2009, CRMP monitoring protocols will be evaluated by GCMRC 

and incorporated, as appropriate, with protocols being developed to track physical 

changes at archaeological sites, and particularly for human impacts such a biological 

crust damage, soil compaction, and trailing that directly influence rates of erosion, 

vegetation parameters, and other site attributes potentially affected by dam operations and 

directly influencing site stability. 

FY2009–11. Pilot Integrated Archaeological Site Monitoring and Tribal 

Resources Monitoring Projects 

As noted above, the results of this initial research and development phase will be 

incorporated into a pilot version of an integrated cultural resource monitoring project that will be 

implemented in FY2009 on a trial basis for a 3-year period. The archaeological site monitoring 

program is being developed by the GCMRC in collaboration with Reclamation, NPS, Native 

American tribes, and other GCDAMP stakeholders to comply with Sections 106 and 110 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act (for both Reclamation and NPS) and the mandates of the 

Grand Canyon Protection Act. In FY2006, the tribes were funded to refine protocols for 

monitoring TCPs and other tribally valued resources. The tribal monitoring programs are being 

developed by the individual tribes who value these resources, but, in the future, the plan is to 

integrate tribal monitoring efforts with the archaeological site monitoring program where 

feasible and practical to reduce resource impacts, redundancy, and program costs. The GCMRC 

will confer with the Cultural Resources ad hoc Group (CRAHG, an ad hoc committee of the 

GCDAMP TWG) to develop criteria to guide the site selection process for the long-term 

monitoring program and the specific protocols to be piloted in FY2008–10. The details of the 

FY2009–11 pilot monitoring programs will be determined upon completion of the initial 

research and development phase, which is currently targeted for December 2008. This pilot 

monitoring effort constitutes the second phase of research and development towards core 

monitoring and will conclude with a PEP review at the end of FY2011. 

In FY2009 and beyond, additional research projects will be initiated to refine our 

understanding of how flows affect cultural resource sites in the CRE. Identified projects include 

the following: 
69

FY20010–11 (New). Expand Pilot Study to Evaluate Geomorphic Changes in 

the CRE using Remotely Sensed Imagery 

 This project was originally planned to be implemented in FY2007, but due to multiple 

technical hard and soft ware issues related to scanning and orthorectifying existing legacy 

imagery, it was not possible to implement the pilot study in FY2007 or FY2008 as originally 

planned. In FY2010, we will evaluate terrace changes using remotely sensed imagery in a pilot 

study, and if the pilot study proves successful, we will expand the effort in FY11. The GCMRC 

will initiate a pilot study in FY2010 to explore the utility of existing remotely sensed imagery for 

tracking geomorphic change at archaeological sites, and specifically, for evaluating rates of 

terrace retreat and arroyo erosion using digitized images of historical aerial imagery. In 2011, we 

will continue to explore the utility of using digitized historical aerial photographs to track and 

quantify geomorphic changes due to dam operations and interacting physical processes, using 

methods developed in the FY2010 pilot effort and applying them to other reaches of the CRE 

with high concentrations of culturally significant resources. As in the past, this project hinges 

on the completion of an ongoing internal GCMRC efforts to digitize and evaluate the accuracy of 

historical aerial photographs that are currently stored in hard-copy format at the GCMRC library 

FY2010–11 (New). Geomorphic Model of Archaeological Site Vulnerability 

Another important element of the research and development program for cultural 

resources involves the development of a geomorphic model to quantify future geomorphic 

change at archaeological sites under various flow and climatic regimes and evaluate future site 

vulnerability to erosion. This model will be integrated as a submodel of the broader CRE 

conceptual model that is proposed for development in FY2009–10. Development of the 

geomorphic model will build on some of the geomorphic and weather data that will be collected 

through the research and development program for core monitoring and experimental effects 

monitoring, as well as other data sources (e.g., the improved HEC-RAS model for depicting 

stage discharge relations in the CRE). 

Long-Term Experimental Activities 

Beginning in FY2008, the following studies have been or will be initiated in conjunction 

with experimental flows: 

FY2008–12. Evaluate Effects of HFE Sediment Deposition at 

Archaeological Sites and TCPs. 

This focused study will assess the effects of HFEs at a sample of historic properties in 

terms of subaerial sediment transport rates before and after the high flow event and the 

effects/rates of retention of flood deposits in arroyo mouths in relation to subsequent erosion at a 

sample of archaeological sites. This study will partially address SSQ 2-1, SSQ 2-3, and EIN 

11.1.1. 

FY2008–12. Evaluate Effects of Steady Flows and Fluctuating Flows 

(ramping rates) on Archaeological Site Sediment Supply 

This study will evaluate how critical sandbars that serve or have the potential to serve as 

key sediment source areas for archaeological sites change under experimental flows and how the 
70

sediment transport rates from these sandbars to the archaeological sites are affected by these 

changes. This study will partially address SSQ 2-1, SSQ 2-3, and EIN 11.1.1. 

FY2008–12. Test and Refine the Wiele Model 

A model recently developed by Wiele and Torrizo (2005) predicts the response of 

sandbars at several critical archaeological site areas under varying flow and sediment-supply 

conditions. This study will evaluate the accuracy of the model predictions by comparing 

predicted deposition at these cultural sites against actual measurements of post-flood deposits. 

This study will partially address SSQ 2-1, SSQ 2-3, and EIN 11.1.1. 

Integration 

Archaeological site condition is the product of multiple interacting agents, including dam 

presence, dam operations, human visitation, weather, and various other biological and physical 

processes. Thus, future monitoring of cultural resource conditions will necessarily rely on data 

from other GCMRC science programs. It may also require some focused interdisciplinary 

research for a limited period of time (2–5 years) in order to gather physical and biological data 

that are relevant to cultural concerns (e.g., tracking weather parameters in proximity to a sample 

of archaeological sites, measuring erosion rates at intervals that allow for analysis in relation to 

flow releases from GCD, and relating these data to impacts that are quantified at a sample of 

cultural sites). Some of these studies are already underway and others are proposed, but 

increased integration is needed across all program areas. 

Physical Sciences 

The Physical Science and Modeling Program will continue to track sediment supply and 

storage in the CRE using methods that will be formalized with respect to the physical sciences 

following the FY2006 PEP review. The interests of the cultural program remain focused on the 

creation and retention of sandbar deposits above the 25,000-cfs stage, the potential for 

backfilling of erosional gullies by HFEs, the quantification of sediment contributions from 

higher elevations in the CRE to the systemwide sediment budget, and the potential for 

redistribution of riverine sediments to higher elevation areas where archaeological sites, 

terrestrial resources, and TCPs are concentrated. The needs of the cultural program for data 

related to subaerial sedimentary deposits and processes in the CRE will be incorporated into the 

future sediment monitoring program. 

Biological Sciences 

Vegetation growth and cover are important variables affecting erosion rates in the CRE. 

Repeat mapping capabilities using remotely sensed data that are being developed to quantify 

vegetation change could also be applied to measuring vegetation change in and around 

archaeological sites. Once the techniques have been tested and refined, these methods will have 

utility as monitoring tools for tracking vegetation changes at cultural sites. 

The Native American tribes who participate in the GCDAMP are interested both in the 

implications of vegetation cover for mediating erosion rates at archaeological sites and in 

monitoring of vegetation and faunal resources of the CRE because of their traditional cultural 

values. The tribes was to define their needs for biological resources monitoring data in FY2006–

07; a PEP of the TEM program was convened in FY2007 to evaluate the tribal monitoring 
71

protocols in conjunction with the TEM protocols that were piloted in FY2002–05 by NAU and 

the University of New Mexico. The PEP was intended to design one or more monitoring 

approaches to serve the broad spectrum of interests for TEM data, including those of the Native 

American tribes. 

NPS Colorado River Management Plan 

In addition to increasing integration with other GCMRC science programs, close 

coordination is needed with relevant monitoring and research programs being developed by 

Grand Canyon National Park (GRCA) under the auspices of CRMP implementation. In FY2006, 

GRCA is initiating a multiyear research and development effort to improve understanding of the 

effects of recreational activities on the ecology and condition of natural and cultural resources in 

the CRE. While not directly focused on improving understanding of dam effects, these research 

and development programs can improve our understanding by evaluating how visitation could 

affect rates and types of deterioration at cultural resources. Previous research in GRCA and 

elsewhere shows that human visitation can adversely impact cryptobiotic crusts and vegetation 

cover and can lay the groundwork for future gully erosion through compacting soils and creating 

linear, compacted trails that channel runoff. Proximity to heavily used recreation sites (e.g., 

campsites) may be a significant variable in determining rates of archaeological site deterioration 

in the CRE—perhaps equal to or surpassing the effects of dam operations. However, unless and 

until recreation data can be compiled and analyzed in a systematic fashion, the relationship 

between recreation sites and archaeological site deterioration remains unknown. As noted 

previously under goal 9, the GCMRC proposes to closely coordinate future monitoring and 

research efforts with those of the NPS to reduce redundancy of effort while simultaneously 

enhancing our understanding of the interactive roles of recreation, dam operations, and weather 

in affecting cultural resource condition. 
72

GCDAMP Goal 12: Maintain a high-quality 

monitoring, research, and adaptive management 

program

Goal 12 includes a variety of activities aimed at maintaining a high-quality science and 

adaptive management program. These activities transcend GCDAMP goals 1–11 because they 

are fundamental to addressing priority AMWG questions and related science questions and 

information needs. The activities fall into the following seven categories: 

1. GCMRC staffing 

2. Reporting 

3. Independent science advice and review 

4. Bridging science and management 

5. Logistical support 

6. DASA 

7. Administrative and information technology support 

GCMRC Staffing 

The objective of this activity is to maintain a staff of quality GCMRC managers and 

scientists to effectively plan, manage, coordinate, and execute an interdisciplinary science 

program to meet GCDAMP needs and provide high-quality and timely science support to the 

GCDAMP work groups. 

The GCMRC will maintain a core staff of managers to effectively manage and administer 

GCMRC projects, supervise staff, oversee contracts and cooperative agreements, track budgets, 

and create a quality work environment. In addition, GCMRC staff will support the GCDAMP by 

providing timely scientific reports and information to the GCDAMP and assist the AMWG and 

TWG to develop and implement effective collaborative management planning and processes.. 

The GCMRC will include permanent and temporary science and technical staff to 

implement or coordinate monitoring and research projects. Contractors and cooperators will 

conduct a large amount of our field work activities and feed the data back to GCMRC scientists 

for analysis, synthesis, and publication. GCMRC scientists will be engaged in field monitoring 

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

use is cost effective. The GCMRC will hold its own proposals to the same level of rigorous 

external peer review as all others. 

Program Planning and Management (Project ADM 12.A2.07) 

GCMRC’s goal is to deliver a comprehensive ecosystem science program over the next 5 

years that is effective in responding to management needs articulated through the GCDAMP and 

by the DOI. Productive, well-qualified personnel are critical to meeting and achieving this goal. 

To provide strong leadership and a quality science program responsive to the needs of the 

GCDAMP, a core program management staff will direct GCMRC operations and oversee the 

five major program areas: Physical Sciences and Modeling; Biological Science; Cultural and 

Socioeconomic; Logistics; and DASA. In addition to their program management responsibilities, 
73

the Program Managers will also be experts in their respective fields. GCMRC Program Managers 

and scientific staff will maintain this expertise so they can provide high-quality technical 

assistance in the form of expert analysis, opinion, and advice to the Chief, TWG, and AMWG, as 

requested. The Cultural and Sociocultural Program Manager will also function as the Native 

American Coordinator. The Program Managers will supervise additional technical and support 

staff, and act as project leads with their cooperators. 

Reporting 

The objective of this activity is to provide timely reporting of GCMRC science project 

accomplishments and findings. The GCMRC will work with contractors and cooperators to 

publish major results and findings in peer-reviewed publications. Final reports and papers will be 

presented orally to the TWG and AMWG and posted on the GCMRC Web site for ready access 

by GCDAMP participants and other interested parties. In addition, preliminary findings that have 

significant management implications will be presented to the TWG or appropriate ad hoc work 

groups before they are published to facilitate timely use of the new scientific findings in the 

GCDAMP process. Significant findings will also be published as USGS fact sheets or 

informational products in accordance with USGS policy. The GCMRC will produce an annual 

accomplishment report in December of each year that will briefly summarize accomplishments 

or shortcomings for each project included in the biannual work plan. The annual accomplishment 

report will also include recommendations for project modifications, as needed. In FY2011 and 

FY2012, the GCMRC will update the KAR and SCORE reports to provide an updated synthesis 

of science information for use in planning the next phase of science and management activities. 

Project Note: Reporting requirements will be subsumed within each project conducted or 

funded by the GCMRC. 

Independent Science Advice and Reviews 

The objective of this activity is to ensure that the GCMRC science program is efficient, 

unbiased, objective, and scientifically sound. To achieve this objective, the Science Advisors will 

provide independent scientific oversight and technical advice. The SA will be used in both a 

review and advisory capacity to evaluate the efficacy of the science program. Using the SA in an 

advisory capacity will be closely monitored to ensure that it does not affect SA objectivity as an 

external independent review panel. 

The SA will be managed and operated in accordance with AMWG approved protocols 

adopted in October 2000. In FY2009 GCMRC will review and revise these protocols in 

coordination with the TWG and AMWG. Up to eight scientists will serve as SA and an 

executive secretary will administer, coordinate, and report on their activities. In cooperation with 

the Senior Ecologist, the SA will evaluate the best opportunities for implementing an integrated 

ecosystem science and modeling approach into the current science program and invoking greater 

interdisciplinary approaches in FY2009–12 science activities. Specifically, the SA will assist in 

evaluating opportunities for increased use of integrated ecosystem science paradigms within 

GCMRC monitoring, research, and experimental activities, including the refinement and use of 

conceptual and predictive ecosystem models and decision-support tools. The assessment will 

evaluate improvements in information required by managers on CRE resources, GCMRC 

staffing, and costs of implementing new ecosystem strategies. SA recommendations will be 

reviewed by the GCDAMP and implemented as appropriate in FY2009–12. 
74

FY2009–12. Independent Reviews (Project ADM 12.A4.07) 

To increase the efficiency and quality of the science being developed by the GCMRC and 

used by the AMWG and the Secretary of the Interior, the GCMRC will maintain the established 

peer-review process. All unsolicited, solicited, or in-house proposals and all draft reports 

received by the GCMRC will undergo independent, external peer review in accordance with the 

established GCMRC peer-review process and USGS Fundamental Science Practices. 

Bridging Science and Management 

The success of the GCDAMP in general and the effective use of scientific information in the 

adaptive management process in particular are confounded by the following factors: 

1. The ability of the GCMRC to design studies that will produce relevant scientific information 

depends on how well the GCDAMP managers clearly define and agree on resource goals and 

desired outcomes. This has been a challenge for the GCDAMP because of value-based 

conflicts and the varying levels of collaborative skills of GCDAMP stakeholders. 

2. To be successful, GCMRC scientists and GCDAMP managers must work together as 

partners—partners who recognize that they both have distinct but complementary roles. In 

some cases, the roles and responsibilities of the various groups and entities involved in the 

GCDAMP are not well defined, understood, or respected. In other cases, there is a perceived 

imbalance of power among stakeholders that limits their effectiveness influencing GCDAMP 

decisions and direction. 

3. The success of the GCDAMP is dependent not only on the ability of the GCMRC to produce 

scientific information that is relevant to management needs, but also upon the effective use of 

that information by managers in the decision-making process. The challenge for the GCMRC 

is to synthesize large amounts of diverse and often highly technical data into a form that is 

relevant to a decision with implications for multiple resources in different areas and time 

frames. The challenge for managers is to rely on synthesized information in the decisionmaking process. 

The GCMRC proposes a collaborative strategy among scientists and GCDAMP 

participants over the next 5 years to improve the effectiveness of the GCDAMP and the use of 

scientific information. A major element of this strategy will include using the SA review of the 

GCDAMP to develop an action plan for addressing priority issues, needs, or opportunities 

related to the effectiveness of the GCDAMP and the use of scientific information in the adaptive 

management process. Additionally, the feasibility of developing and using decision-support 

systems will be assessed following the SA evaluation to discover opportunities for improving 

interdisciplinary, integrated science in the GCDAMP. In FY2010–11, the GCMRC will enter 

into a contract/cooperative agreement to assess the feasibility of using decision-support systems 

and tools to facilitate the integration of scientific data and information in GCDAMP decisionmaking processes, including resource tradeoff analyses, risk assessments, and innovative 

organization and display of data. The feasibility assessment will result in a prioritized 

implementation plan, schedule, and budget. Recommendations will be implemented in FY2011–

12 in accordance with established budget priorities. 
75

FY2010. GCDAMP Effectiveness Workshop (Project PLAN 12.P2.07) 

In FY2010, GCMRC will facilitate a 2- to 3-day workshop to develop an action plan for 

addressing priority issues, needs, or opportunities related to the effectiveness of the GCDAMP 

and the use of scientific information in the GCDAMP process. The workshop will include 

GCDAMP participants and national experts in collaboration, partnerships, Native American 

involvement, and conflict resolution. The workshop will be designed and conducted in 

cooperation with Secretary’s Designee and GCDAMP participants. The GCMRC recommends 

the establishment of an ad hoc group made up of representatives of the TWG, AMWG, SA, and 

the Secretary’s Designee to serve as a steering committee for the workshop. The action plan 

developed through the workshop will be implemented and tested over the 2011–12 program 

period. 

FY2009–10. Enhancing the CEM to Identify Critical Ecosystem 

Interactions and Data Gaps (Project PLAN 12.P1.07). 

In FY2009-2010, the GCMRC will work with the senior ecologist (Dr. Carl Walters) and 

the SA to identify and incorporate more robust integrated ecosystem science approaches into the 

GCMRC program. The first step will be to evaluate redesign and expansion of the CRE CEM. 

Logistical Support 

Implementation of the GCMRC mission to provide scientific information to the 

GCDAMP begins with effective coordination of all technical and logistical support of research 

activities. The objective of this activity is to provide logistical support for field activities that 

emphasizes safety and cost effectiveness while complying with all permitting requirements with 

the NPS and all other Federal, State, and Tribal agencies. Research projects supported by the 

GCMRC must acquire required permits for project activities in compliance with Federal, State, 

Tribal, and local agencies. The program integrates both permitting and logistical operations. 

Research activities conducted within GRCA and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area 

require NPS Research and Collecting Permits and Access Permits for all river launches, 

backcountry use, overflights, and media (filming) production. All permits acquired for GCMRCsupported projects will be processed and submitted through the NPS Research Coordination and 

Support Program. 

The GCMRC will provide complete logistical support for 30–50 research, monitoring, 

and administrative river trips through Grand Canyon annually. These trips range in length from 7 

to 21 days and from 4 to 36 people in size. Trips will use a variety of motor- and oar-powered 

boats operated by contracted boat operators. Projects operating in the Glen Canyon reach of the 

Colorado River (GCD to Lees Ferry) will be supported by a variety of motor-powered boats 

operated by GCMRC researchers and contracted boat operators. Additionally, research activities 

on the LCR and at other locations outside of GRCA boundaries are supported by helicopter 

services provided by the Department of the Interior’s Office of Aircraft Services (OAS). Groundbased support for research activities outside of the river corridor are also accomplished with the 

use of vehicles leased by the GCMRC. 

FY2009–12. Logistics Base Costs (Project SUP 12.S1.07) 

The GCMRC will use government-owned boats and river logistical equipment in 

conjunction with a contracted vendor who supplies technical and logistical boat operators. Put-in 
76

and take-out transportation is provided through the use of Government Service Administration 

leased vehicles and contracted shuttle drivers. 

Effective communication with principal investigators and sensitivity to and awareness of 

the challenges they face in implementing their studies enable the GCMRC to offer more 

customized (and therefore more cost-effective and productive) logistical support than in the past. 

Retaining control over support of trips also facilitates compliance with NPS and other 

regulations and allows greater control over issues that are sensitive for the general public and the 

recreational river community. 

The logistics budget will be distributed to GCMRC projects based on a formula 

proportional to use of services. The formula takes into account contractor costs, trip size and 

length, and a percentage of operating expenses, including salaries, equipment replacement, and 

permitting costs. 

Data Acquisition, Storage, and Analysis 

The objective of the DASA Program is to provide timely support for the acquisition, 

archiving, retrieval, analysis, and modeling of all scientific datasets and reports. These activities 

support most of the scientific projects undertaken by the GCMRC, making them a critical 

support function for advancing the 12 GCDAMP goals. 

FY2009–12. Preparation for Monitoring Data Acquisition (remote 

sensing) (Project DASA 12.D1.09) 

This project provides multispectral digital images used for detecting macro-scale changes 

in habitat conditions throughout the Colorado River corridor below GCD. These data are 

fundamental inputs to many of the GCMRC scientific studies and models used for spatial 

analysis and change detection. Quadrennial overflights are proposed as a broad strategy for the 

long-term monitoring program because gathering data through overflights at 4-year intervals 

balances budget constraints with the need to detect longer term (decade-scale) resource trends. 

The next planned overflight is scheduled to occur in FY2009; the last overflight was conducted 

in May 2005. 

FY2009–12. Grand Canyon Integrated Oracle Database Management System 

(Project DASA 12.D2.09) 

This project establishes an electronic repository for project data and the tools necessary to 

analyze and interpret these data, providing a fundamental support service to GCMRC scientific 

investigations and decision-support processes. Working with data stewards from each scientific 

program at GCMRC, the integrated database will accommodate both newly collected and 

existing data. Developing an integrated database design also involves extensive review of 

existing datasets and current data-collection protocols. Tools, including Web-based interfaces, 

will be developed that enable users to extract related datasets and perform appropriate analyses. 

FY2009–12. Library Operations (Project DASA 12.D3.09) 

The GCMRC library acts as the physical repository for reports and data generated by 

GCMRC scientists and cooperators. The library also acquires and makes available resources 

related to the Colorado River, Grand Canyon, and adaptive management. To facilitate the use of 

library materials, a searchable catalogue of library holdings is available through the GCMRC 

Web site. The Web-based catalogue also provides links to downloadable versions of project 
77

reports and other materials. Library staff are available to assist with research needs and the 

acquisition of materials needed to support monitoring and research activities. The library is 

available to the general public. 

FY2009–12. Legacy Analog Data Conversion (analog-to-digital reports 

and imagery) (Project DASA 12.D4.09) 

Through this project GCMRC staff will convert all materials in the library to digital 

format and make them available from the GCMRC Web site. A major emphasis of this effort is 

the conversion of analog overflight images to digital images to extend the historical information 

available for targeted resources, including sandbars, backwaters, and vegetation. The objective of 

the project is to make the specialized materials maintained by the GCMRC library easily 

available to users outside of Flagstaff, Ariz., and to protect unique items from damage or loss. 

FY2009–12. GIS General Support for Integrated Analyses and Projects, 

GIS Lead (Project DASA 12.D5.09) 

The objective of this project is to support science program activities through spatial 

database development, programming, and analysis. Most GCMRC projects have a spatial 

component, and GIS provides a means by which data collected in the CRE can be catalogued 

within a consistent spatial reference system. At the most basic level, this allows for the 

overlaying and querying of datasets collected from any and all projects within the GCMRC. The 

project will also provide a higher level of support for specific GIS application development and 

analysis. Services provided by the project include the creation of maps suitable for publications; 

design and printing of maps and graphics for posters; creation of improved base maps for Lake 

Powell and Grand Canyon; instructional sessions for staff, cooperators, and contractors on GIS 

layer development, integration, and analysis; and advanced spatial analysis for monitoring 

projects. 

FY2009–12. Integrated Analysis and Modeling (Project DASA 12.D7.09) 

The main objective of the project is to study the shoreline environment along the 

Colorado River downstream of GCD. The project will analyze multiyear multispectral digital 

imagery. Baseline data sets of shoreline habitat currently exist for the years 2002 and 2005 as 

area classifications across computer-modeled flow lines. These classes include cliff, debris fan, 

cobble bar, talus, vegetation, and exposed sand. Additional remote-sensing data sets (2000 and 

2009) will be incorporated into the time series of the shoreline habitat project. Future work will 

be needed to better correlate shoreline habitat with fish data and recreation habitat data collected 

by GCMRC and its cooperators. Processes exist to automate shoreline irregularities that may 

provide slack water environments and thermal sink habitats which are indicative of backwaters. 

In addition to the classification effort, an automated suite of methods could be extended to 

facilitate shoreline change detection across a range of stages. 

FY2009–12. Survey Operations (Project SUP 12.S2.07) 

All spatial data collected under the direction of the GCMRC requires referencing to the 

primary geodetic control network established by the National Geodetic Survey (NGS) and the 

GCMRC. The geodetic control network is the framework for the GIS. The primary network has 

been expanded to secondary and tertiary levels of control within CRE river reaches. Consistent 

methods and protocols have been developed for spatial data collection and its integration into the 
78

GIS. Trained GCMRC survey staff support monitoring and research by collecting survey data 

with these protocols and delivering the data in formats consistent with data standards. 

FY2009–12. Control Network (Project SUP 12.S3.07) 

The objective of this project is to develop a high-precision control network throughout 

the CRE and at locations required for accurate positions and elevations of past, current, and 

future datasets. The goal of the project is the expansion of the control network into the necessary 

areas before collecting the spatial data required by GCMRC research and core-monitoring 

activities. Having stable control monuments and accurate coordinates completed before spatial 

data acquisition begins reduces the effort required in post processing and promotes conservation 

of both human and funding resources. Historical datasets are accurately rectified for integration 

into the database. 

Administrative and Information Technology Support 

The objective of this activity is to provide a smooth-running, transparent administrative 

operation that enables GCMRC scientists to focus on their research rather than on the 

administrative details. The Southwest Biological Science Center (SBSC) provides the oversight 

and management of facilities, burden, and overhead; personnel issues; expenditure tracking; 

processing and financial management of cooperative and interagency agreements; processing of 

contracts; timekeeping; bank card tracking and reconciliation; travel planning and voucher 

processing; and liaison activities among the USGS administrative groups (Western Region 

Budget and Fiscal Services and Contracting Offices, Headquarters in Reston, and the Biological 

Headquarters). This activity is closely involved with the USGS nationwide budget-tracking and 

reporting system known as BASIS+, which is used by the USGS Headquarters and Regional 

offices to make their annual reports to Congress and to respond to congressional inquiries with 

turnaround times as short as 12 h. In addition, the SBSC Information Technology Department 

supports technology needs for various GCMRC program areas. 

FY2009–12. Administrative Operations (Project ADM 12.A1.07) 

The goals of this project are to provide budgetary oversight and support to the Chief, 

Program Managers, and all employees of GCMRC so that they may conduct their responsibilities 

in the most ethical, professional, and efficient manner possible; to enable the employees to be 

unburdened, to the largest extent possible, by mundane administrative matters; and to support the 

USGS and the GCMRC missions of conducting unbiased scientific research. 

GCMRC Component of SBSC Systems Administration Support 

(Project ADM 12.A5.07) 

The SBSC through its Information Technology Department supports a variety of 

technology needs for the GCMRC, including computer security, systems administration, 

procurement of new servers and computers, and Web site development and maintenance. The 

goal of the IT Department is to ensure that the GCMRC is able to conduct scientific and 

administrative functions smoothly and with the least possible disruption in service. These 

support, development, and maintenance services are cost shared between the GCMRC and the 

SBSC. The IT Department also maintains the security of GCMRC and SBSC networks up to 

current Federal standards and ensures that all those who access the systems meet Federal security 
79

standards to protect personal information and scientific research that has not yet been released to 

the public. The IT Department also works in coordination with DASA to provide full and easy 

access to publicly released data via the GCMRC Web sites. 

FY2009–12. AMWG/TWG Participation (Project ADM 12.A3.07) 

The goal of this project is to create an account to hold and track funds for the travel 

expenses of employees who participate in AMWG and TWG meetings. 
80

CHAPTER 3. Funding for Proposed FY2009–12 

Monitoring and Research Plan 

Table 4 identifies the total anticipated funding to support GCMRC monitoring and 

research activities related to the GCDAMP, including anticipated power revenues, continued 

Reclamation funding for Lake Powell monitoring, and anticipated USGS appropriations to 

support the GCDAMP activities. In general, funding priorities will be established in cooperation 

with the GCDAMP based on the guidance included in the final GCMRC SSP and MRP. Funding 

emphasis will be given to address the SSQs associated with priority AMWG questions and 

information needs (appendix A). Specific funding priorities will be established through the 

biannual work plan planning process. 

To respond to expanding science needs, the GCMRC will work with the AMWG and the 

Secretary’s Designee to (1) develop greater support from the Secretary of the Interior and 

Congress to maintain existing budgets and to expand budgets to meet critical needs that cannot 

be addressed within current budget constraints, and (2) explore cooperative partnerships with 

GCDAMP agencies and others to address critical monitoring and research needs. In addition, 

GCMRC will work with USGS and the DOI leadership to secure additional base funding to 

address high-priority monitoring and research needs related to the GCDAMP.

Table 4. Total anticipated funding to support the GCMRC 

Monitoring and Research Plan in fiscal years 2009 through 2012 

(tribal participation is not included in this table). 

FUNDING SOURCES Fiscal year 

(FY) 2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 TOTALS 

Power revenues under 

cap⎯estimated USGS 

portion(1) 

$7,876,244 $8,112,531 $8,355,907 $8,606,584 $32,951,266

Power Revenues under cap 

held in Experimental Fund 

by Reclamation 

$500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $2,000,000

Reclamation Appropriated 

Funding for Near Shore 

Ecology 

$500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $2,000,000

USGS appropriations⎯

assistance with burden costs 

(cost share) 

$1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $4,000,000

USGS appropriations⎯ 

Administrative, Budget and 

IT support 

$380,000 $410,000 $435,000 $460,000 $1,685,000 

Reclamation operations and 

maintenance (Water Quality 

Lake Powell and Tailwaters 

Agreement)(1) 

$227,251 $234,068 $241,091 $248,324 $950,734 

TOTAL AVAILABLE 

FUNDS $10,483,495 $10,756,599 $11,031,998 $11,314,908 $43,587,000

(1) Fiscal year cost increases estimated at an average CPI increase of 3% per historical application used by 

the Bureau of Reclamation. 
81

References Cited 

Anders, P., Bradford, M., Higgins, P., Nislow, K.H., Rabeni, C., and Tate, C., 2001, Grand 

Canyon Monitoring and Research Center protocols evaluation program: Final report of the 

aquatic protocol evaluation panel, unpublished, 43 p. 

Bureau of Reclamation, 2001, Strategic Plan Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program 

(Final Draft. August 17, 2001): Salt Lake City, Utah, Upper Colorado River Region, 52 p. 

Fairley, H., Coggins, L., Fritzinger, C., Gonzales, M., Gushue, T., Hueftle, S., Kennedy, T., 

Liszewski, M., Melis, T., Ralston, B., Topping, D., Vernieu, W., and Wright, S., 2005. 

Provisional Core Monitoring Plan Final Draft. 

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. 

Goeking, S.A., Schmidt, J.C., and Webb, M.K., 2003, Spatial and temporal trends in the size and 

number of backwaters between 1935 and 2000, Marble and Grand Canyons, Arizona: 

Cooperative Agreement 0WRAG0059. 

Kaplinski, M., Behan, J., Hazel, J.E., Jr., Parnell, R.A., and Fairley, H.C., 2005, Recreational 

values and campsites in the Colorado River ecosystem, in Gloss, S.P., Lovich, J.E., and Melis, 

T.S., eds., The state of the Colorado River ecosystem in Grand Canyon: U.S. Geological 

Survey Circular 1282, p. 193–205. 

Kearsley, M.J.C., Cobb, N., Yard, H., Lightfoot, D., Brantley, S., Carpenter, G., and Frey, J., 

2006, Inventory and monitoring of terrestrial riparian resources in the Colorado River corridor 

of Grand Canyon: an integrative approach: 2004 draft report to the U.S. Geological Survey 

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, cooperative agreement no. 01-WRAG-0044 

and 01-WRAG-0034, 126 p. 

Kintigh, K., Altschul, J., Lipe, w. and Urquhart, N. S., 2007, Legacy Monitoring Data Review 

Panel Report to the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, November 29, 2007. 

Report on file, US Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, 

Sociocultural Program files, Flagstaff, Arizona. 

Loomis, J., Cole, D., Foti, P., Manning, R., Moisey, R.N., Ratcliffe, R., 2005. Final Report of the 

protocol evaluation panel (PEP) for the recreation monitoring program of the Grand Canyon 

Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC). dated September 28, 2005. On file, Grand 

Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, Flagstaff, Ariz. 

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

L.G. Jr., and Korman, J., 2006, 2005 Knowledge assessment of the effects of Glen Canyon 

Dam on the Colorado River ecosystem: an experimental planning support document, U.S. 

Geological Survey, Flagstaff, Ariz., 82 p. 

Paukert, C.P., Ward, D.L., Sponholtz, P., and Hilwig, K.D., 2005, Effects of repeated 

hoopnetting and handling on bonytail chub: Journal of Freshwater Ecology, v. 20, p. 649–653. 

Porter, M.E., 2002, Riparian vegetation responses to contrasting managed flows of the Colorado 

River in Grand Canyon, Arizona: Flagstaff, Northern Arizona University, M.S. thesis, 33 p. 
82

Stevens, L.E., Schmidt, J.C., Ayers, T.J., and Brown, B.T., 1995, Flow regulation, 

geomorphology, and Colorado River marsh development in the Grand Canyon, Arizona: 

Ecological Applications, v. 5, p. 1025–1039. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2002, Humpback chub (Gila cypha) recovery goals: amendment 

and supplement to the Humpback Chub Recovery Plan: Denver, Colo., U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Region 6. 

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/.

Wiele, S.M., and Torizzo, M., 2005, Modeling of sand deposition in archaeologically significant 

reaches of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon, USA, in Bates, P.D., Lane, S.N., and 

Ferguson, R.I., eds., Computational fluid dynamics: application in environmental hydraulics: 

Hobeken, N.J., Wiley, p. 357–394. 
83

APPENDIX A. AMWG Priorities and Associated 

Strategic Science Questions from the GCMRC 

Strategic Science Plan 

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? (GCDAMP Goal 2) 

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 main stem, survival of young-of-year (YoY) 

and juvenile stages in the main stem, or by changes in growth and maturation in the adult 

population as influenced by main stem conditions? [FY06 –FY11] 

2. Does a decrease in the abundance of rainbow trout and other cold and warm water nonnatives 

in Marble and eastern Grand Canyons result in an improvement in the recruitment rate of 

juvenile humpback chub to the adult population? [FY06–FY11] 

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? [FY07–FY11] 

4. Can long-term decreases in abundance rainbow trout in Marble and eastern Grand Canyons 

be sustained with a reduced level of effort of mechanical removal or will re-colonization 

from tributaries and from downstream and upstream of the removal reach require that 

mechanical removal be an ongoing management action? This question also applies to future 

removal programs targeting other nonnative species. [FY07–FY11] 

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

levels with fish and how will they link to dam operations? [FY06–FY09] 

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

condition, and body composition (e.g., lipids), correlated with patterns in invertebrate flux? 

[FY06–FY09]. 

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

habitats best be made useable and maintained? [FY 08–FY09]. 

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

capture and handling or sampling? [FY07–FY11]. 

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? 

(GCDAMP Goal 11). 
84

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? [FY07–FY11] 

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? [FY04–FY11] 

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? 

[FY09–FY11] 

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? [FY06–FY11]

5. What are the TCPs in the CRE, and where are they located? [FY06–FY11] 

6. How can tribal values/data/analyses be appropriately incorporated into a science driven 

 adaptive management process in order to evaluate the effects of flow operations and 

 management actions on TCPs? [FY06–FY08] 

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? [FY06–FY11] 

AMWG Priority 3: What is the best flow regime? (GCDAMP Goals 1-11) 

Key Strategic Science Questions

1. Is there a “Flow-Only” operation (i.e. a strategy for dam releases, including managing 

 tributary inputs with HFEs, without sediment augmentation) that will restore and maintain 

 sandbar habitats over decadal time scales? [FY08–FY11] 

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

or dam controlled high-flow releases? [FY07–FY08] 

3. What are the hydropower replacements costs of the Modified Low Fluctuating Flow (MLFF) 

 (annually, since 1996)? [FY07–FY08] 

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)? [FY06–FY07] 
85

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

 turbidity) and dam operations? [FY06–FY09] 

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

fishing opportunities and catchability? [FY07–FY08] 

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? [FY07–

FY08] 

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? [FY07–FY09] 

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

 visitor experience? [FY09–FY11] 

10. How can safety and navigability be reliably measured relative to flows? [FY07–FY08] 

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

of the rapids? [FY07–FY09] 

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? [FY07–FY09] 

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

(GCDAMP Goal 8) 

Key Strategic Science Questions

1. Is there a “Flow-Only” operation (i.e. a strategy for dam releases, including managing 

 tributary inputs with HFEs, without sediment augmentation) that will restore and maintain 

 sandbar habitats over decadal time scales? (FY 08–FY11) 

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 possibly mortality of young 

 humpback chub) associated with high flows? [FY07–FY11] 
86

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? (GCDAMP 

Goals 1–4 and 7–10) 

Strategic Science Questions

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

canyon orientation and geometry, and reach morphology interact to determine mainstem and 

near shore water temperatures throughout the CRE? [FY06–FY08] 

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

turbidity) and dam operations? [FY06–FY08] 

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

success for native fish? [FY03–FY08] 

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? [FY03–FY08] 

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? [FY03–FY08] 

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? [FY07–FY11] 

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

 [FY07–FY11] 
87

APPENDIX B. Crosswalk between Research Information Needs in the GCDAMP Strategic Plan and Strategic Science QuestiFiscal year (FY) 2007–11 Monitoring and Research Plan. 

No

. 

Adaptive 

Managemen

t Work 

Group 

(AMWG) 

Sequence 

Number 

and 

Category 

AMWG 

Priori

ty 

Research informat

ion 

needs (RIN) 

no. 

RIN text Strategic science questions 

(SSQs), relevant coremonitoring information needs 

(CMINs), and Science Advisor 

(SA) questions. Questions listed below are from the 

Monitoring and Research Plan 

(MRP). 

1 1, A 1 2.1.2 Quantify sources of mortality 

for humpback chub (HBC) <51 

mm in rearing habitats in the Little Colorado River (LCR) and mainstem, and determine how these sources of mortality are related to dam operations. 

New SSQ. What habitats and habitat characteristics, if any, will enhance survival, growth, and reproduction of native Grand Canyon fishes, especially HBC, in the mainstem Colorado River? 

The cumanagto inv(YoY) work FY20develoto the RIN. 

2 1.5, A 1 2.1.3 What is the relationship 

between size of HBC and mortality in the LCR and the mainstem? What are the sources of mortality (i.e., predation, cannibalism, other) in the LCR and the mainstem? 

New SSQ. What habitats and habitat characteristics, if any, will enhance survival, growth, and reproduction of native Grand Canyon fishes, especially HBC, in the mainstem Colorado River? 

The cumanagto invThe GReseainitiatFY20develothe M
88

No

. 

Adaptive 

Managemen

t Work 

Group 

(AMWG) 

Sequence 

Number 

and 

Category 

AMWG 

Priori

ty 

Research informat

ion 

needs (RIN) 

no. 

RIN text Strategic science questions 

(SSQs), relevant coremonitoring information needs 

(CMINs), and Science Advisor 

(SA) questions. Questions listed below are from the 

Monitoring and Research Plan 

(MRP). 

3 2, A 1 2.1.4 What habitats enhance 

recruitment of native fish in the LCR and mainstem? What are the physical and biological characteristics of those habitats? 

New SSQ. What habitats and habitat characteristics, if any, will enhance survival, growth, and reproduction of native Grand Canyon fishes, especially HBC, in the mainstem Colorado River? SSQ 1-1. 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 YoY and juvenile stages in the mainstem, or by changes in growth and maturation in the adult population as influenced by mainstem conditions? SSQ 1-7. Which tributary and mainstem habitats are most important to native fishes and how can these habitats best be made useable and maintained? SA 1. What are the most limiting factors to successful HBC adult recruitment in the mainstem: spawning success, predation on YoY and juveniles, habitat (water, temperature), pathogens, adult maturation, food availability, competition? 

GCMRthis R

4 2, A 1 2.1.5 Determine the timing and 

quantity of YoY HBC dispersal (passive and active) from the LCR. 

SSQ 1-1. 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 YoY and juvenile stages in the mainstem, or by changes in growth and maturation in the adult 

This iconsisyoung spates LCR. can be 
89

No

. 

Adaptive 

Managemen

t Work 

Group 

(AMWG) 

Sequence 

Number 

and 

Category 

AMWG 

Priori

ty 

Research informat

ion 

needs (RIN) 

no. 

RIN text Strategic science questions 

(SSQs), relevant coremonitoring information needs 

(CMINs), and Science Advisor 

(SA) questions. Questions listed below are from the 

Monitoring and Research Plan 

(MRP). 

population as influenced by mainstem conditions? 

relatinGCMRGCMRquesticontinabsolugood stagged likelihfish, bassum

5 2, C 1 2.2.3 What are the measurable 

criteria that need to be met in order to remove jeopardy for HBC in the Colorado River ecosystem (CRE)? 

None proposed. Policy 

existingoals, Servicmeasuwould necessGrand alreadtarget

6 2, A 1 2.2.5 What are the appropriate 

habitat conditions for HBC spawning? Where are these found? Can they be created in the mainstem? 

SSQ 1-1. 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 YoY and juvenile stages in the mainstem, or by changes in growth and maturation in the adult population as influenced by mainstem conditions? SSQ 1-7. Which tributary and mainstem habitats are most important to native fishes 

ExistireprodconditRecomsciencthe BuconsidEnviro(EIS). attemp
90

No

. 

Adaptive 

Managemen

t Work 

Group 

(AMWG) 

Sequence 

Number 

and 

Category 

AMWG 

Priori

ty 

Research informat

ion 

needs (RIN) 

no. 

RIN text Strategic science questions 

(SSQs), relevant coremonitoring information needs 

(CMINs), and Science Advisor 

(SA) questions. Questions listed below are from the 

Monitoring and Research Plan 

(MRP). 

and how can these habitats best be made useable and maintained? New SSQ. What habitats and habitat characteristics, if any, will enhance survival, growth, and reproduction of native Grand Canyon fishes, especially HBC, in the mainstem Colorado River? 

descricondittested 

7 2, A 1 2.2.8 What combination of dam 

release patterns and nonnative fish control facilitates successful spawning and recruitment of HBC in the CRE? 

SSQ 1-1. 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 YoY and juvenile stages in the mainstem, or by changes in growth and maturation in the adult population as influenced by mainstem conditions? SSQ 1-4. Can long-term decreases in abundance of rainbow trout (RBT) in Marble and eastern Grand Canyons be sustained with reduced level of effort of mechanical removal or will recolonization from tributaries and from downstream and upstream of the removal reach require that mechanical removal be an ongoing management action? SSQ 5-6. 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? New SSQ. What habitats and habitat characteristics, if any, will enhance survival, 

Limitito a timis reastempetempemay bthe twquestiApril forwaconsidThese among optimfor HBbeginn
91

No

. 

Adaptive 

Managemen

t Work 

Group 

(AMWG) 

Sequence 

Number 

and 

Category 

AMWG 

Priori

ty 

Research informat

ion 

needs (RIN) 

no. 

RIN text Strategic science questions 

(SSQs), relevant coremonitoring information needs 

(CMINs), and Science Advisor 

(SA) questions. Questions listed below are from the 

Monitoring and Research Plan 

(MRP). 

growth, and reproduction of native Grand Canyon fishes, especially HBC, in the mainstem Colorado River? 

8 2, A 1 2.2.9 What is the appropriate role of 

HBC augmentation as a management strategy to establish mainstem spawning aggregations? 

None proposed. Policy 

The Hwill adtechniquestibe takGCDAmanagArizon(AZG

9 2, A 5 2.3.2 How will warming mainstem 

temperatures affect the abundance and distribution of parasites/disease? 

SSQ 5-6. 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? SA 1. What are the most limiting factors to successful HBC adult recruitment in the mainstem: spawning success, predation on YoY and juveniles, habitat (water, temperature), pathogens, adult maturation, food availability, competition? 

A repoeffectexpecreport this R

10 2, A 1 2.4.1 What are the most effective 

strategies and control methods 

New SSQ. What are the most effective strategies and control methods to limit 

This Raddres
92

No

. 

Adaptive 

Managemen

t Work 

Group 

(AMWG) 

Sequence 

Number 

and 

Category 

AMWG 

Priori

ty 

Research informat

ion 

needs (RIN) 

no. 

RIN text Strategic science questions 

(SSQs), relevant coremonitoring information needs 

(CMINs), and Science Advisor 

(SA) questions. Questions listed below are from the 

Monitoring and Research Plan 

(MRP). 

to limit nonnative fish predation and competition on native fish? 

nonnative fish predation on, and competition with, native fishes? 

nonnamanagFY20

11 2, A 1 2.4.3 To what degree, which species, 

and where in the system are exotic fish a detriment to the existence of native fish through predation or competition? 

SA 1. What are the most limiting factors to successful HBC adult recruitment in the mainstem: spawning success, predation on YoY and juveniles, habitat (water, temperature), pathogens, adult maturation, food availability, competition? New SSQ. What life stage(s) of RBT pose the greatest threat to HBC and other native fishes? Are the RBT that threaten HBC resident fish, produced in the LCR reach of the Colorado River, or are these RBT immigrants that were spawned in the Lees Ferry reach? 

This RaddresnonnamanagFY20

12 2, A 1 2.6.1 What is a viable population? SSQ 1-5. What are the important pathways 

that link lower trophic levels with fish and how will they link to dam operations? 

M.O. sucker (BHS)Policy There questicarryigenetiCanyounderthe syprodubeing aquati

13 2, A 1 2.6.2 What are the significant threats 

to these species? 

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

This RHBC 
93

No

. 

Adaptive 

Managemen

t Work 

Group 

(AMWG) 

Sequence 

Number 

and 

Category 

AMWG 

Priori

ty 

Research informat

ion 

needs (RIN) 

no. 

RIN text Strategic science questions 

(SSQs), relevant coremonitoring information needs 

(CMINs), and Science Advisor 

(SA) questions. Questions listed below are from the 

Monitoring and Research Plan 

(MRP). 

young fish from tributaries, spawning and incubation in the mainstem, survival of YoY and juvenile stages in the mainstem, or by changes in growth and maturation in the adult population as influenced by mainstem conditions? 

14 2, A 1 4.2.6 To what extent are RBT below 

the Paria River predators of native fish, primarily HBC? At what size do they become predators of native fish, especially HBC, i.e., how do the trophic interactions between RBT and native fish change with size of fish? 

SSQ 1-4. Can long-term decreases in abundance of RBT 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 removal reach require that mechanical removal be an ongoing management action? 

The liaddresThe sehas to shift aextenswill bthis R

15 2, A 6+ 5.2.2 How does the size and quality 

of the habitat used by Kanab ambersnail (KAS) change in response to an experiment performed under the Record of Decision (ROD), unanticipated event, or other management action? 

None proposed. Annua

changwith C

16 2, A 3 12.9.2 What is the best combination 

of dam operations and other management actions to achieve the vision, mission, goals, and objectives of the GCDAMP? 

None proposed. Policy 

naturamany projecobjectthat ob

17 2, A 3 12.9.3 What are the relationships None proposed. Ongoi
94

No

. 

Adaptive 

Managemen

t Work 

Group 

(AMWG) 

Sequence 

Number 

and 

Category 

AMWG 

Priori

ty 

Research informat

ion 

needs (RIN) 

no. 

RIN text Strategic science questions 

(SSQs), relevant coremonitoring information needs 

(CMINs), and Science Advisor 

(SA) questions. Questions listed below are from the 

Monitoring and Research Plan 

(MRP). 

between dam operations and other management actions in their effects on resources addressed by GCDAMP management objectives? 

culturthe daRecomsciencReclamin the recomthingsbenefibeginn

18 2.5, Done 1 2.1.1 What is the minimum 

population size of HBC that should be sustained in the LCR, to ensure a viable spawning population of HBC in the LCR? 

SSQ 1-5. What are the important pathways that link lower trophic levels with fish and how will they link to dam operations? 

This Relemeto this system demogdeveloanswethe prhow fThe GcurrenbiologGrand answecontaiRecov

19 2.5, A 1 2.2.4 What is the relationship 

between the “aggregations” in the mainstem and LCR? Are mainstem aggregations “sinks” 

None proposed. The re

Paukethis Rto be s
95

No

. 

Adaptive 

Managemen

t Work 

Group 

(AMWG) 

Sequence 

Number 

and 

Category 

AMWG 

Priori

ty 

Research informat

ion 

needs (RIN) 

no. 

RIN text Strategic science questions 

(SSQs), relevant coremonitoring information needs 

(CMINs), and Science Advisor 

(SA) questions. Questions listed below are from the 

Monitoring and Research Plan 

(MRP). 

of the LCR? Are aggregations real or due to sampling bias? 

are nelevel oHBC, aggreg(addreaggregtime. 

20 2.5, A 1 2.4.2 Determine if suppression of 

nonnative predators and competitors increases native fish populations? 

SSQ 1-1. 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 YoY and juvenile stages in the mainstem, or by changes in growth and maturation in the adult population as influenced by mainstem conditions? SA 1. What are the most limiting factors to successful HBC adult recruitment in the mainstem: spawning success, predation on YoY and juveniles, habitat (water, temperature), pathogens, adult maturation, food availability, competition? 

This RaddresnonnamanagFY20by conmonit

21 2.5, A 1 2.4.6 What are the population 

dynamics of those nonnative fish that are the major predators and competitors of native fish? 

SSQ 5-6. 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? 

This RaddresnonnamanagFY20is carrCMIN

22 2.5, A 6+ 4.2.1 What is the rate of emigration New SSQ. What life stage(s) of RBT pose the An ad
96

No

. 

Adaptive 

Managemen

t Work 

Group 

(AMWG) 

Sequence 

Number 

and 

Category 

AMWG 

Priori

ty 

Research informat

ion 

needs (RIN) 

no. 

RIN text Strategic science questions 

(SSQs), relevant coremonitoring information needs 

(CMINs), and Science Advisor 

(SA) questions. Questions listed below are from the 

Monitoring and Research Plan 

(MRP). 

of RBT from the Lees Ferry reach? 

greatest threat to HBC and other native fishes? Are the RBT that threaten HBC resident fish, produced in the LCR reach of the Colorado River, or are these RBT immigrants that were spawned in the Lees Ferry reach? 

addreswill bmonitinvestof alteusing will pinform

23 2.5, A 6+ 4.2.2 What is the most effective 

method to detect emigration of RBT from the Lees Ferry reach? 

New SSQ. What life stage(s) of RBT pose the greatest threat to HBC and other native fishes? Are the RBT that threaten HBC resident fish produced in the LCR reach of the Colorado River, or are these RBT immigrants that were spawned in the Lees Ferry reach? 

This iFY20explorpossibmonitconsis

24 2.5, C 6+ 5.1.5 What is the taxonomic identity 

of the Oxyloma snails at Vaseys Paradise? Is a change to the existing taxonomic status warranted? 

(No additional SSQ because of relatively low AMWG priority.) 

GCDArecentUniveavailaappeachang

25 2.5, C 6+ 5.1.6 What is the range of 

occurrence of the ambersnail taxon found at Vaseys Paradise? (NOTE: Intended to address the issue of whether this is an endemic population or a relict population or part of a metapopulation.) 

(No additional SSQ because of relatively low AMWG priority.) 

Taxonof Arigeogr
97

No

. 

Adaptive 

Managemen

t Work 

Group 

(AMWG) 

Sequence 

Number 

and 

Category 

AMWG 

Priori

ty 

Research informat

ion 

needs (RIN) 

no. 

RIN text Strategic science questions 

(SSQs), relevant coremonitoring information needs 

(CMINs), and Science Advisor 

(SA) questions. Questions listed below are from the 

Monitoring and Research Plan 

(MRP). 

26 3, A 1 1.5.3 How has the value and 

availability of drift as a food source for HBC changed with the implementation of ROD operations? 

SA 1. What are the most limiting factors to successful HBC adult recruitment in the mainstem: spawning success, predation on YoY and juveniles, habitat (water, temperature), pathogens, adult maturation, food availability, competition? 

Currenavailaaspectaddresnot co

27 3, A 5 2.2.7 Determine if implementation 

and operation of the TCD and/or steady flows represent a technically feasible, ecologically sustainable, and practical option for establishing mainstem spawning. 

None proposed. Testin

constrGCMRtempetwo-umainsthat wwould flows; depenspawnthe Apwere ftheir cEIS. Tattempdescrimainsmay byear 2

28 3, A 1? 2.2.10 What techniques are available 

to determine natal stream of fishes in the CRE? 

None proposed. Isotop

hydropromi
98

No

. 

Adaptive 

Managemen

t Work 

Group 

(AMWG) 

Sequence 

Number 

and 

Category 

AMWG 

Priori

ty 

Research informat

ion 

needs (RIN) 

no. 

RIN text Strategic science questions 

(SSQs), relevant coremonitoring information needs 

(CMINs), and Science Advisor 

(SA) questions. Questions listed below are from the 

Monitoring and Research Plan 

(MRP). 

Carboof the GCMRfundinisotop

29 3, A 1 2.2.12 What are the impacts of 

research activities on mortality, recruitment, and the population size of HBC? 

SSQ 1-8: How can native and nonnative fishes best be monitored while minimizing impacts from capture and handling or sampling?

GCMRto evanets oGCMRaddreseffectpursue

30 3, A 1 2.3.1 How do parasite/disease loads 

affect population viability? 

SSQ 1-1. 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 YoY and juvenile stages in the mainstem, or by changes in growth and maturation in the adult population as influenced by mainstem conditions? SA 1. What are the most limiting factors to successful HBC adult recruitment in the mainstem: spawning success, predation on YoY and juveniles, habitat (water temperature) pathogens, adult maturation, food availability, competition? 

31 3, A 1 2.4.4 What are the target population 

levels, body size, and age structure for nonnative fish in the CRE that limit their levels to those commensurate with the 

None proposed. This R

addresnonnamanagFY20
99

No

. 

Adaptive 

Managemen

t Work 

Group 

(AMWG) 

Sequence 

Number 

and 

Category 

AMWG 

Priori

ty 

Research informat

ion 

needs (RIN) 

no. 

RIN text Strategic science questions 

(SSQs), relevant coremonitoring information needs 

(CMINs), and Science Advisor 

(SA) questions. Questions listed below are from the 

Monitoring and Research Plan 

(MRP). 

viability of native fish populations? 

modelinsigh

32 3, A 1 2.4.5 What are the sources (natal 

stream) of nonnative predators and competitors? 

None proposed. Nonna

(FY20relativquestimay gthe GC

33 3, A 6+ 5.1.9 How can incidental take for 

KAS at Vaseys Paradise be minimized? 

None proposed. The N

addresbasis; 

movinappeameasuflow e

34 3, A 5 7.1.3 What are the potential 

ecological effects of increasing mainstem water temperatures? 

SSQ 1-1. 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 YoY and juvenile stages in the mainstem, or by changes in growth and maturation in the adult population as influenced by mainstem conditions? SSQ 5-6. 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? 

This qaddresExper

35 3, A 3 7.4.4 How does flow rate and 

fluctuation affect habitat availability and utilization by 

SSQ 1-1. To what extent are adult populations of native fish controlled by production of young fish from tributaries, spawning and 

This qaddres
100

No

. 

Adaptive 

Managemen

t Work 

Group 

(AMWG) 

Sequence 

Number 

and 

Category 

AMWG 

Priori

ty 

Research informat

ion 

needs (RIN) 

no. 

RIN text Strategic science questions 

(SSQs), relevant coremonitoring information needs 

(CMINs), and Science Advisor 

(SA) questions. Questions listed below are from the 

Monitoring and Research Plan 

(MRP). 

fish and other organisms? incubation in the mainstem, survival of YoY 

and juvenile stages in the mainstem, or by changes in growth and maturation in the adult population as influenced by mainstem conditions? SSQ 1-7. Which tributary and mainstem habitats are most important to native fishes and how can these habitats best be made useable and maintained? SA 1. What are the most limiting factors to successful HBC adult recruitment in the mainstem: spawning success, predation on YoY and juveniles, habitat (water temperature) pathogens, adult maturation, food availability, competition? 

36 3, A 2 11.1.3 What are the thresholds 

triggering management actions? 

SSQ 2-1. Do dam controlled flows increase or decrease rates of erosion and vegetation growth at arch sites and traditional cultural properties (TCPs), and if so, how? SSQ 2-2. How do flows impact old highwater zone (OHWZ) terraces in the CRE, 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 terraces? SSQ 2-3. If flows contribute to arch site/TCP erosion, what are the optimal flows for minimizing impacts to these cultural resources? SSQ 2-4. How effective are various treatments (e.g., check dams, vegetation 

This Rmanagto desongoinbetwesedimcolleccan heRecomsciencReclamin the recomother of mainclud
101

No

. 

Adaptive 

Managemen

t Work 

Group 

(AMWG) 

Sequence 

Number 

and 

Category 

AMWG 

Priori

ty 

Research informat

ion 

needs (RIN) 

no. 

RIN text Strategic science questions 

(SSQs), relevant coremonitoring information needs 

(CMINs), and Science Advisor 

(SA) questions. Questions listed below are from the 

Monitoring and Research Plan 

(MRP). 

management, etc.) in slowing rates of erosion at archaeological sites over the long term? SSQ 2-7. 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? CMIN 11.1.1 (Science Planning Group [SPG] revised) Determine the condition and integrity of prehistoric and historic sites in the CRE through tracking rates of erosion, visitor impacts, and other relevant variables. Determine the condition and integrity of TCPs in the CRE. 

tested 

37 3, A * IN 

12.1 

Develop information that can be used by the Technical Work Group (TWG), in collaboration with GCMRC, to establish current and target levels for all resources within the GCDAMP as called for in the GCDAMP strategic plan. 

None proposed. Policy 

GCMRmanagconditattain. 

38 3, A 3 12.9.1 What is the impact on 

downstream resources of shortterm increases to maximum flow, daily fluctuations, and downramp limits? 

New SSQ. What are the effects of ramping rates on sediment transport and sandbar stability? New SSQ. What is the rate of change in eddy storage (erosion) during time intervals between beach habitat-building flows (BHBFs)? 

To be Seversince providquestistudieneedeassess
102

No

. 

Adaptive 

Managemen

t Work 

Group 

(AMWG) 

Sequence 

Number 

and 

Category 

AMWG 

Priori

ty 

Research informat

ion 

needs (RIN) 

no. 

RIN text Strategic science questions 

(SSQs), relevant coremonitoring information needs 

(CMINs), and Science Advisor 

(SA) questions. Questions listed below are from the 

Monitoring and Research Plan 

(MRP). 

researthrougmodelverific(GCDwere dKnow(KARone of of inte

39 3.5, Done 1 2.2.1 What is a viable population and 

what is the appropriate method to assess population viability of native fish in the CRE? What is an acceptable probability of extinction over what management time period for HBC throughout the CRE? 

None proposed. Policy 

Determand acis up tRecenstructumodel methosize/tr

40 3.5, A 1 2.3.3 How does nonnative fish 

control/affect disease/parasite loads? (Note: The concept is if there are fewer hosts, there will be a lower incidence of parasites.) 

SA 1. What are the most limiting factors to successful HBC adult recruitment in the mainstem: spawning success, predation on YoY and juveniles, habitat (water temperature) pathogens, adult maturation, food availability, competition? 

41 3.5, A 6+ 4.2.7 What dam release patterns 

most effectively maintain the Lees Ferry RBT trophy fishery while limiting RBT survival below the Paria River? 

SSQ 3-6. What GCD operations (ramping rates, daily flow range, etc.) maximize trout fishing opportunities and catchability? 

This qappropstudy. 
103

No

. 

Adaptive 

Managemen

t Work 

Group 

(AMWG) 

Sequence 

Number 

and 

Category 

AMWG 

Priori

ty 

Research informat

ion 

needs (RIN) 

no. 

RIN text Strategic science questions 

(SSQs), relevant coremonitoring information needs 

(CMINs), and Science Advisor 

(SA) questions. Questions listed below are from the 

Monitoring and Research Plan 

(MRP). 

42 3.5, A 2 11.1.2 What are the historic properties 

within the area of potential effects? 

SSQ 2-1. Do dam controlled flows increase or decrease rates of erosion and vegetation growth at arch sites and TCPs, and if so, how? SSQ 2-2. How do flows impact OHWZ terraces in the CRE, 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 terraces? SSQ 2-7. 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 those resources? CMIN 11.1.1 (SPG revised) Determine the condition and integrity of prehistoric and historic sites in the CRE through tracking rates of erosion, visitor impacts, and other relevant variables. Determine the condition and integrity of TCPs in the CRE. 

The Rthe 19sites. Tregardwhich operatinteraenvirothese uaddresFY20continnumbcommlead acomplcompl

43 3.5, A 2 11.1.2.a For each tribe and living 

community, what are the register eligible TCPs? 

SSQ 2-7. 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 those resources? 

This iunresoto addNation(NHPuncleamade answe

44 4, A 6+ 1.1 What are the fundamental 

trophic interactions in the 

SSQ 1-5. What are the important pathways that link lower trophic levels with fish and 
104

No

. 

Adaptive 

Managemen

t Work 

Group 

(AMWG) 

Sequence 

Number 

and 

Category 

AMWG 

Priori

ty 

Research informat

ion 

needs (RIN) 

no. 

RIN text Strategic science questions 

(SSQs), relevant coremonitoring information needs 

(CMINs), and Science Advisor 

(SA) questions. Questions listed below are from the 

Monitoring and Research Plan 

(MRP). 

aquatic ecosystem? how will they link to dam operations? 

45 4, A 6+ 1.4 What is the current carbon 

budget for the CRE? 

SSQ 1-5. What are the important pathways that link lower trophic levels with fish and how will they link to dam operations? 

46 4, A 1 2.2.2 Determine if a population 

dynamics model can effectively predict response of native fish under different flow regimes and environmental conditions. 

None proposed. No mo

availahowevgoal. CGrand native

47 4, A1 1 2.2.6 What are the criteria for 

establishment of spawning aggregations (i.e., how does one determine if it is “established”)? 

1 Normally, this RIN would be 

placed in Category C. However, pursuant to the 2001 Department of the Interior Appropriations Bill that established the power revenue cap, this RIN is placed in Category A. 

SSQ 1-1. 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 YoY and juvenile stages in the mainstem, or by changes in growth and maturation in the adult population as influenced by mainstem conditions? SSQ 1-7. Which tributary and mainstem habitats are most important to native fishes and how can these habitats best be made useable and maintained? SA 1. What are the most limiting factors to successful HBC adult recruitment in the mainstem: spawning success, predation on YoY and juveniles, habitat (water temperature) pathogens, adult maturation, food availability, competition? 

This idetermpopulconduquesti

48 4, A 6+ 2.6.5 How are movement patterns for 

FMS, BS, and SD in the CRE 

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

StudieBHS, 
105

No

. 

Adaptive 

Managemen

t Work 

Group 

(AMWG) 

Sequence 

Number 

and 

Category 

AMWG 

Priori

ty 

Research informat

ion 

needs (RIN) 

no. 

RIN text Strategic science questions 

(SSQs), relevant coremonitoring information needs 

(CMINs), and Science Advisor 

(SA) questions. Questions listed below are from the 

Monitoring and Research Plan 

(MRP). 

affected by age, natal stream, and dam operations? 

young fish from tributaries, spawning and incubation in the mainstem, survival of YoY and juvenile stages in the mainstem, or by changes in growth and maturation in the adult population as influenced by mainstem conditions? 

next 5 

49 4, A 6+ 2.6.6 How is the rate of mortality for 

FMS, BS, and SD in the CRE related to individual body size? What are the sources of mortality for FMS, BS, and SD in the CRE? 

SSQ 1-1. 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 YoY and juvenile stages in the mainstem, or by changes in growth and maturation in the adult population as influenced by mainstem conditions? 

StudieBHS, next 5 

50 4, A 6+ 5.1.4 Identify and evaluate 

alternative Management Actions to ensure viability of KAS at Vaseys Paradise where (1) the population dynamic model predicts loss of population viability, or (2) monitoring discovers substantial habitat or KAS population declines. 

(No additional SSQ because of relatively low AMWG priority.) 

The Ustatus help p

51 4, A 6+ 5.1.8 What are the measurable 

criteria that need to be met to remove jeopardy for KAS at 

(No additional SSQ because of relatively low AMWG priority.) 

The Ustatus help p
106

No

. 

Adaptive 

Managemen

t Work 

Group 

(AMWG) 

Sequence 

Number 

and 

Category 

AMWG 

Priori

ty 

Research informat

ion 

needs (RIN) 

no. 

RIN text Strategic science questions 

(SSQs), relevant coremonitoring information needs 

(CMINs), and Science Advisor 

(SA) questions. Questions listed below are from the 

Monitoring and Research Plan 

(MRP). 

Vaseys Paradise? 

52 4, A 6+ 6.4.1 How have the abundance, 

composition, and distribution of the sand beach community changed since dam closure (1963), high flows (1984), interim flows (1991), and the implementation of ROD operations (1996)? 

(No additional SSQ because of relatively low AMWG priority.) 

This wsyntheCurrenconsis

53 4, A 6+ 6.5.3 How has the abundance and 

distribution of nonnative species changed since dam closure (1963), high flows (1984), interim flows (1991) and the implementation of ROD operations (1996)? 

(No additional SSQ because of relatively low AMWG priority.) 

This wsyntheCurrenconsis

54 4, A 5 7.1.2 What are the most likely 

downstream temperature responses to a variety of scenarios involving a TCD on GCD? 

SSQ 5-1. How do dam release temperatures, flows (average and fluctuating component), meteorology, canyon orientation and geometry, and reach morphology interact to determine mainstem and nearshore water temperatures throughout the CRE? 

This imainsthrougconduanalysbeing accurahabita

55 4, A 6+ 7.2.3 Which metals should be 

measured? Where and how often? 

(No additional SSQ because of relatively low AMWG priority.) 

Please on qua

56 4, A 3 7.4.3 How do changes in flow SSQ 3-5. How is invertebrate flux affected by 
107

No

. 

Adaptive 

Managemen

t Work 

Group 

(AMWG) 

Sequence 

Number 

and 

Category 

AMWG 

Priori

ty 

Research informat

ion 

needs (RIN) 

no. 

RIN text Strategic science questions 

(SSQs), relevant coremonitoring information needs 

(CMINs), and Science Advisor 

(SA) questions. Questions listed below are from the 

Monitoring and Research Plan 

(MRP). 

volume and rate of change affect food base and energy productivity in the CRE? 

water quality (e.g., temperature, nutrient concentrations, turbidity) and dam operations? 

57 4, A 4 8.5.1 What elements of ROD 

operations (upramp, downramp, maximum and minimum flow, modified low fluctuating flow (MLFF), habitat maintenance flow (HMF), and BHBF) are most/least critical to conserving new fine-sediment inputs, and stabilizing sediment deposits above the 25,000 cfs stage? 

New SSQ. What are the effects of ramping rates on sediment transport and sandbar stability? New SSQ. What is the rate of change in eddy storage (erosion) during time intervals between BHBFs? 

Seversince providquestistudieneedeassessSSQs discusscient2006 Kis best flume then thGCD. addrestesting sand s

58 4, A 4 ** 

Supporting Information Need (SIN): 8.5.3 

What is the relationship between turbidity and biological processes? 

SSQ 3-5. How is invertebrate flux affected by water quality (e.g., temperature, nutrient concentrations, turbidity) and dam operations? 

59 4, A 4 ** SIN 

8.5.6 

What are the grain-size characteristics of sandbars associated with designated riparian vegetation zones? 

(No additional SSQ because of relatively low AMWG priority.) 

This Squestisupposize d
108

No

. 

Adaptive 

Managemen

t Work 

Group 

(AMWG) 

Sequence 

Number 

and 

Category 

AMWG 

Priori

ty 

Research informat

ion 

needs (RIN) 

no. 

RIN text Strategic science questions 

(SSQs), relevant coremonitoring information needs 

(CMINs), and Science Advisor 

(SA) questions. Questions listed below are from the 

Monitoring and Research Plan 

(MRP). 

envirothe fintranspinnovcamercommsievinbe furconjunvegetaquestiare no

60 4, A 2 11.1.1 What are the sources of 

impacts to historic properties? 

SSQ 2-1. Do dam controlled flows increase or decrease rates of erosion and vegetation growth at arch sites and TCPs, and if so, how? SSQ 2-2. How do flows impact OHWZ terraces in the CRE, 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 terraces? CMIN 11.1.1 (SPG revised). Determine the condition and integrity of prehistoric and historic sites in the CRE through tracking rates of erosion, visitor impacts, and other relevant variables. Determine the condition and integrity of TCPs in the CRE. 

61 4, A 2 11.1.3.b How should adverse effects to 

historic properties be mitigated? 

SSQ 2-3. If flows contribute to arch site/TCP erosion, what are the optimal flows for minimizing impacts to these cultural resources? 

The Rdecisialthoumonit
109

No

. 

Adaptive 

Managemen

t Work 

Group 

(AMWG) 

Sequence 

Number 

and 

Category 

AMWG 

Priori

ty 

Research informat

ion 

needs (RIN) 

no. 

RIN text Strategic science questions 

(SSQs), relevant coremonitoring information needs 

(CMINs), and Science Advisor 

(SA) questions. Questions listed below are from the 

Monitoring and Research Plan 

(MRP). 

SSQ 2-4. How effective are various treatments (e.g., check dams, vegetation management, etc.) in slowing rates of erosion at archaeological sites over the long term? CMIN 11.1.1 (SPG revised). Determine the condition and integrity of prehistoric and historic sites in the CRE through tracking rates of erosion, visitor impacts, and other relevant variables. Determine the condition and integrity of TCPs in the CRE. CMIN 11.2.1 (SPG revised). Determine the condition of traditionally important resources and locations using tribal perspectives and values. 

effectiprovidscientdecisi

62 4, A 2 11.2.3 Determine acceptable methods 

to preserve or treat traditionally important resources within the CRE. 

SSQ 2-3. If flows contribute to arch site/TCP erosion, what are the optimal flows for minimizing impacts to these cultural resources? SSQ 2-4. How effective are various treatments (e.g., check dams, vegetation management, etc.) in slowing rates of erosion at archaeological sites over the long term? CMIN 11.1.1 (SPG revised). Determine the condition and integrity of prehistoric and historic sites in the CRE through tracking rates of erosion, visitor impacts, and other relevant variables. Determine the condition and integrity of TCPs in the CRE. CMIN 11.2.1 (SPG revised). Determine the condition of traditionally important resources and locations using tribal perspectives and 

The ismanagReclamGCDAand redevelo(e.g., teffectihelpfumanag
110

No

. 

Adaptive 

Managemen

t Work 

Group 

(AMWG) 

Sequence 

Number 

and 

Category 

AMWG 

Priori

ty 

Research informat

ion 

needs (RIN) 

no. 

RIN text Strategic science questions 

(SSQs), relevant coremonitoring information needs 

(CMINs), and Science Advisor 

(SA) questions. Questions listed below are from the 

Monitoring and Research Plan 

(MRP). 

values. 

63 4.5, A 6+ 2.5.3 What characteristics define 

suitable habitat for razorback sucker (RBS)? Does suitable habitat for RBS occur in the CRE? 

(No additional SSQ because of relatively low AMWG priority.) 

Not a priorit

64 4.5, A 6+ 2.6.4 What is the age structure, 

including relationship between age and size of FMS, BS, and SD in the CRE? 

(No additional SSQ because of relatively low AMWG priority.) 

Not a priorit

65 4.5, A 1 4.1.3 To what extent is there overlap 

in the Lees Ferry reach of RBT habitat and native fish habitat? 

SSQ 1-1. 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 YoY and juvenile stages in the mainstem, or by changes in growth and maturation in the adult population as influenced by mainstem conditions? SSQ 1-7. Which tributary and mainstem habitats are most important to native fishes and how can these habitats best be made useable and maintained? SA 1. What are the most limiting factors to successful HBC adult recruitment in the mainstem: spawning success, predation on YoY and juveniles, habitat (water temperature) pathogens, adult maturation, food availability, competition? 

66 4.5, A 6+ 4.2.3 How is the rate of emigration SSQ 1-1. To what extent are adult populations Habita
111

No

. 

Adaptive 

Managemen

t Work 

Group 

(AMWG) 

Sequence 

Number 

and 

Category 

AMWG 

Priori

ty 

Research informat

ion 

needs (RIN) 

no. 

RIN text Strategic science questions 

(SSQs), relevant coremonitoring information needs 

(CMINs), and Science Advisor 

(SA) questions. Questions listed below are from the 

Monitoring and Research Plan 

(MRP). 

of RBT from the Lees Ferry reach to below the Paria River affected by abundance, hydrology, temperature, and other ecosystem processes? 

of native fish controlled by production of young fish from tributaries, spawning and incubation in the mainstem, survival of YoY and juvenile stages in the mainstem, or by changes in growth and maturation in the adult population as influenced by mainstem conditions? SSQ 1-7. Which tributary and mainstem habitats are most important to native fishes and how can these habitats best be made useable and maintained? SA 1. What are the most limiting factors to successful HBC adult recruitment in the mainstem: spawning success, predation on YoY and juveniles, habitat (water temperature) pathogens, adult maturation, food availability, competition? 

evaluaGCMRthis ne

67 4.5, A 4.2.5 To what extent is there overlap 

in the CRE below the Paria River of RBT habitat and native fish habitat? 

SSQ 1-1.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 YoY and juvenile stages in the mainstem, or by changes in growth and maturation in the adult population as influenced by mainstem conditions? SSQ 1-7. Which tributary and mainstem habitats are most important to native fishes and how can these habitats best be made useable and maintained? SA 1. What are the most limiting factors to successful HBC adult recruitment in the mainstem: spawning success, predation on YoY and juveniles, habitat (water temperature) pathogens, adult maturation, food 
112

No

. 

Adaptive 

Managemen

t Work 

Group 

(AMWG) 

Sequence 

Number 

and 

Category 

AMWG 

Priori

ty 

Research informat

ion 

needs (RIN) 

no. 

RIN text Strategic science questions 

(SSQs), relevant coremonitoring information needs 

(CMINs), and Science Advisor 

(SA) questions. Questions listed below are from the 

Monitoring and Research Plan 

(MRP). 

availability, competition? 

68 4.5, A 6+ 6.2.1 How has the patch number, 

patch distribution, composition, and area of the NHWZ community changed since dam closure (1963), high flows (1984), interim flows (1991) and the implementation of ROD operations (1996)? 

SSQ 2-1. Do dam controlled flows affect (increase or decrease) rates of erosion and vegetation growth at archaeological sites and TCP sites, and if so, how? CMIN 6.1.1., 6.6.1., 6.2.1, 6.5.1. Determine and track the abundance, composition, distribution, and area of terrestrial native and nonnative vegetation species in the CRE. 

VegetprojecaddresMonitconsisresour

69 4.5, A 6+ 6.5.1 Determine if nonnative species 

are expanding or contracting at a local scale (patch or reach). 

SSQ 2-1. Do dam controlled flows affect (increase or decrease) rates of erosion and vegetation growth at archaeological sites and TCP sites, and if so, how? 

VegetprojecaddresMonitconsisresour

70 4.5, A ** SIN 

7.2.2 

Which water quality variables influence food base and fisheries in the CRE? 

SSQ 5-2. Is invertebrate flux affected by water quality (e.g., temperature, nutrient concentrations, turbidity) and dam operations? SSQ 1-5. What are the important pathways that link lower trophic levels with fish and how will they link to dam operations? 

71 4.5, A 4 * IN 

8.1 

If sediment cannot be preserved in the system using available management actions, what is the feasibility (including technical, legal, economic, and policy issues) of sediment augmentation as a means of achieving this goal? 

None proposed. Partly 

FY20engineRandladditisuch tflows-resolv
113

No

. 

Adaptive 

Managemen

t Work 

Group 

(AMWG) 

Sequence 

Number 

and 

Category 

AMWG 

Priori

ty 

Research informat

ion 

needs (RIN) 

no. 

RIN text Strategic science questions 

(SSQs), relevant coremonitoring information needs 

(CMINs), and Science Advisor 

(SA) questions. Questions listed below are from the 

Monitoring and Research Plan 

(MRP). 

BHBF 

72 4.5, A 4 ** SIN 

8.5.4 

What is the role of turbidity and how can it be managed to achieve biological objectives? 

SSQ 3-5. How is invertebrate flux affected by water quality (e.g., temperature, nutrient concentrations, turbidity) and dam operations? 

Aside a relat

73 4.5, A 8.6.2 How do ongoing inputs of 

coarse-sediment from tributaries alter the distribution of main channel habitats needed by benthic organisms within pools, runs, and eddies throughout the CRE? 

SSQ 3-5. How is invertebrate flux affected by water quality (e.g., temperature, nutrient concentrations, turbidity) and dam operations? 

No adthis timAMWtopic. 

74 4.5, A 2 11.2.1 What are traditionally 

important resources and locations for each tribe and other groups? 

SSQ 2-7. 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 those resources? CMIN 11.1.1 (SPG revised). Determine the condition and integrity of prehistoric and historic sites in the CRE through tracking rates of erosion, visitor impacts, and other relevant variables. Determine the condition and integrity of TCPs in the CRE. CMIN 11.2.1 (SPG revised). Determine the condition of traditionally important resources and locations using tribal perspectives and values. 

As prethis inunresoto ansNHPA informindirecomplprotoc

75 4.5, A 2 11.2.2 What is the baseline measure None proposed. The R
114

No

. 

Adaptive 

Managemen

t Work 

Group 

(AMWG) 

Sequence 

Number 

and 

Category 

AMWG 

Priori

ty 

Research informat

ion 

needs (RIN) 

no. 

RIN text Strategic science questions 

(SSQs), relevant coremonitoring information needs 

(CMINs), and Science Advisor 

(SA) questions. Questions listed below are from the 

Monitoring and Research Plan 

(MRP). 

for resource integrity? triball

but thGCDABaseliestablGCDAdetermproces

76 4.5, A 12.3.1 As necessary, investigate the 

most effective methods to integrate and synthesize resource data. 

None proposed. This i

11 GC

77 4.5, A 12.5.5 Identify the desired level of 

information, education, and outreach provided for Glen and Grand Canyon river users and the general public. 

None proposed. A pos

Outre

78 4.5, A 12.11.1 What are the most effective 

methods to maintain or attain the participation of externallyfunded investigators? 

None proposed. A pos

79/80 

5, A 3 1.1.1/1.1.2 How are the composition and 

biomass of primary producers between GCD and the Paria River affected by flow and water quality (including nutrients, temperature, light regime, toxins, dissolved oxygen), waterborne diseases, 

SSQ 1-5. What are the important pathways that link lower trophic levels with fish and how will they link to dam operations? SSQ 1-6. Are fish populations, trends, or indicators from fish, such as growth, condition, and body composition, correlated with patterns in invertebrate flux? SSQ 5-2. Is invertebrate flux affected by 
115

No

. 

Adaptive 

Managemen

t Work 

Group 

(AMWG) 

Sequence 

Number 

and 

Category 

AMWG 

Priori

ty 

Research informat

ion 

needs (RIN) 

no. 

RIN text Strategic science questions 

(SSQs), relevant coremonitoring information needs 

(CMINs), and Science Advisor 

(SA) questions. Questions listed below are from the 

Monitoring and Research Plan 

(MRP). 

or other factors? water quality (e.g., temperature, nutrient 

concentrations, turbidity) and dam operations? 

81 5, A 3 1.1.4 What are the habitat 

characteristics between GCD and the Paria River that most affect primary productivity? How are these characteristics affected by GCD operations? 

SSQ 5-2. Is invertebrate flux affected by water quality (e.g., temperature, nutrient concentrations, turbidity) and dam operations? 

82 5, A 1.2 How are the production, 

composition, density, and biomass of the benthic invertebrate community affected by primary productivity vs. allochthonous inputs? 

SSQ 1-5. What are the important pathways that link lower trophic levels with fish and how will they link to dam operations? 

83 5, A 1.2.2 What is the estimated 

productivity of benthic invertebrates for the reach between GCD and the Paria River? (Note: If the cost of obtaining these data, relative to the benefit suggests the information is not worth the expense, this RIN will not be pursued.) 

SSQ 1-5. What are the important pathways that link lower trophic levels with fish and how will they link to dam operations? SSQ 1-6. Are fish populations, trends, or indicators from fish, such as growth, condition, and body composition, correlated with patterns in invertebrate flux? SSQ 5-2. Is invertebrate flux affected by water quality (e.g., temperature, nutrient concentrations, turbidity) and dam operations? 

84 5, A 1.3 What food base criteria do 

other agencies use to assess aquatic ecosystem health? 

GCMRpart oreport
116

No

. 

Adaptive 

Managemen

t Work 

Group 

(AMWG) 

Sequence 

Number 

and 

Category 

AMWG 

Priori

ty 

Research informat

ion 

needs (RIN) 

no. 

RIN text Strategic science questions 

(SSQs), relevant coremonitoring information needs 

(CMINs), and Science Advisor 

(SA) questions. Questions listed below are from the 

Monitoring and Research Plan 

(MRP). 

85 5, A 1.4.1 How are the composition and 

biomass of benthic invertebrates in the CRE below the Paria River affected by flow, water quality (including nutrients, temperature, light regime, toxins, dissolved oxygen), new invasive species, waterborne diseases, or other factors? (Note: If the cost of obtaining these data, relative to the benefit suggests the information is not worth the expense, this RIN will not be pursued.) 

SSQ 1-5. What are the important pathways that link lower trophic levels with fish and how will they link to dam operations? SSQ 1-6. Are fish populations, trends, or indicators from fish, such as growth, condition, and body composition, correlated with patterns in invertebrate flux? SSQ 5-2. Is invertebrate flux affected by water quality (e.g., temperature, nutrient concentrations, turbidity) and dam operations? 

86 5, A 1.5.2 How do top-down effects 

(grazing and predation) affect the abundance and composition of drift? 

SSQ 1-5. What are the important pathways that link lower trophic levels with fish and how will they link to dam operations? SSQ 1-6. Are fish populations, trends, or indicators from fish, such as growth, condition, and body composition, correlated with patterns in invertebrate flux? SSQ 5-2. Is invertebrate flux affected by water quality (e.g., temperature, nutrient concentrations, turbidity) and dam operations? 

87 5, A 5 2.6.7 How does temperature 

modification in the mainstem affect recruitment and mortality for FMS, BS, and SD originating from tributary spawning? 

SSQ 1-1. 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 YoY and juvenile stages in the mainstem, or by changes in growth and maturation in the adult population as influenced by mainstem conditions? 

May ba TCD 
117

No

. 

Adaptive 

Managemen

t Work 

Group 

(AMWG) 

Sequence 

Number 

and 

Category 

AMWG 

Priori

ty 

Research informat

ion 

needs (RIN) 

no. 

RIN text Strategic science questions 

(SSQs), relevant coremonitoring information needs 

(CMINs), and Science Advisor 

(SA) questions. Questions listed below are from the 

Monitoring and Research Plan 

(MRP). 

88 5, A 6+ 5.1.2 What parameters have the 

greatest influence on population viability of KAS at Vaseys Paradise (e.g., parasites, predation, discharges, habitat size, quality, and human use/visitation)? 

(No additional SSQ because of relatively low AMWG priority.) 

This iUSFW2006–

89 5, A 6+ 5.1.3 Develop a population dynamic 

model to predict KAS viability under different flows and environmental conditions. 

None proposed. No ad

relativ

90 5, A 6+ 5.2.1 How does the size, quality, and 

recovery time of KAS habitat change following natural scours or other events? 

(No additional SSQ because of relatively low AMWG priority.) 

Variabto addappropto be a

91 5, A 6+ 6.1.1 How has the abundance, 

composition, distribution, and area of the marsh community changed since dam closure (1963), high flows (1984), interim flows (1991) and the implementation of ROD operations (1996)? 

SSQ 2-1. Do dam controlled flows affect (increase or decrease) rates of erosion and vegetation growth at archaeological sites and TCP sites, and if so, how? 

Monitwith C

92 5, A or B 6+ 6.3.2 What dam operations 

(Category A), or other 

SSQ 2-1. Do dam controlled flows affect (increase or decrease) rates of erosion and 

Monitwith C
118

No

. 

Adaptive 

Managemen

t Work 

Group 

(AMWG) 

Sequence 

Number 

and 

Category 

AMWG 

Priori

ty 

Research informat

ion 

needs (RIN) 

no. 

RIN text Strategic science questions 

(SSQs), relevant coremonitoring information needs 

(CMINs), and Science Advisor 

(SA) questions. Questions listed below are from the 

Monitoring and Research Plan 

(MRP). 

management actions (Category B), have the potential to maintain the OHWZ community at the current stage elevation, or establish the community at a lower stage elevation? 

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

93 5, A * IN 

6.4 

How much allochthonous material (e.g., leaf litter) is exchanged between the terrestrial and aquatic systems? 

SSQ 1-5. What are the important pathways that link lower trophic levels with fish and how will they link to dam operations? 

94 5, A or B 6.5.2 What dam operations 

(Category A), or other management actions (Category B), have the potential to increase or decrease the distribution and abundance of nonnative species? 

SSQ 2-1. Do dam controlled flows affect (increase or decrease) rates of erosion and vegetation growth at archaeological sites and TCP sites, and if so, how? 

Monitwith C

95 5, A 6.6.2 Which seeps and springs are 

culturally important or occupied by rare and endemic species? 

SSQ 2-1. Do dam controlled flows affect (increase or decrease) rates of erosion and vegetation growth at archaeological sites and TCP sites, and if so, how? CMIN 6.1.1., 6.6.1., 6.2.1, 6.5.1. Determine and track the abundance, composition, distribution, and area of terrestrial native and nonnative vegetation species in the CRE. 

96 5, A 5 7.1.1 What are the desired ranges of SSQ 3-5. How is invertebrate flux affected by 
119

No

. 

Adaptive 

Managemen

t Work 

Group 

(AMWG) 

Sequence 

Number 

and 

Category 

AMWG 

Priori

ty 

Research informat

ion 

needs (RIN) 

no. 

RIN text Strategic science questions 

(SSQs), relevant coremonitoring information needs 

(CMINs), and Science Advisor 

(SA) questions. Questions listed below are from the 

Monitoring and Research Plan 

(MRP). 

spatial and temporal patterns of water temperatures for the CRE? 

water quality (e.g., temperature, nutrient concentrations, turbidity) and dam operations? SSQ 5-1. How do dam release temperatures, flows (average and fluctuating component), meteorology, canyon orientation and geometry, and reach morphology interact to determine mainstem and nearshore water temperatures throughout the CRE? SSQ 5-3. To what extent do temperature and fluctuations in flow limit spawning and incubation success for native fish? 

97 5, A 7.2.1 Which major ions should be 

measured? Where and how often? 

SSQ 3-5. How is invertebrate flux affected by water quality (e.g., temperature, nutrient concentrations, turbidity) and dam operations? SSQ 5-1. How do dam release temperatures, flows (average and fluctuating component), meteorology, canyon orientation and geometry, and reach morphology interact to determine mainstem and nearshore water temperatures throughout the CRE? SSQ 5-3. To what extent do temperature and fluctuations in flow limit spawning and incubation success for native fish? 

98 5, A ** SIN 

7.2.1 

How do the hydrodynamics and stratification of Lake Powell influence the food base or fisheries downstream? 

SSQ 3-5. How is invertebrate flux affected by water quality (e.g., temperature, nutrient concentrations, turbidity) and dam operations? SSQ 5-1. How do dam release temperatures, flows (average and fluctuating component), meteorology, canyon orientation and geometry, and reach morphology interact to 

These water PowelIntegrWater syntheas a n
120

No

. 

Adaptive 

Managemen

t Work 

Group 

(AMWG) 

Sequence 

Number 

and 

Category 

AMWG 

Priori

ty 

Research informat

ion 

needs (RIN) 

no. 

RIN text Strategic science questions 

(SSQs), relevant coremonitoring information needs 

(CMINs), and Science Advisor 

(SA) questions. Questions listed below are from the 

Monitoring and Research Plan 

(MRP). 

determine mainstem and nearshore water temperatures throughout the CRE? SSQ 5-3. To what extent do temperature and fluctuations in flow limit spawning and incubation success for native fish? SSQ 5.5. Will increased water temperatures increase the incidence of Asian tapeworm in HBC or the magnitude of infestation, and if so, [then] what is the impact on survival and 

growth rates? 

initiatdownsusing (Phase 

99 5, A 7.2.2 Which nutrients should be 

measured? Where and how often? 

SSQ 3-5. How is invertebrate flux affected by water quality (e.g., temperature, nutrient concentrations, turbidity) and dam operations? SSQ 5-1. How do dam release temperatures, flows (average and fluctuating component), meteorology, canyon orientation and geometry, and reach morphology interact to determine mainstem and nearshore water temperatures throughout the CRE? SSQ 5-3. To what extent do temperature and fluctuations in flow limit spawning and incubation success for native fish? 

Both tcombitopic. 

100 5, A 7.3.1 Develop simulation models for 

Lake Powell and the Colorado River to predict water quality conditions under various operating scenarios, supplant monitoring efforts, and elucidate understanding of the effects of dam operations, 

SSQ 5-1. How do dam release temperatures, flows (average and fluctuating component), meteorology, canyon orientation and geometry, and reach morphology interact to determine mainstem and nearshore water temperatures throughout the CRE? 

The teflow arefinecompoPhysicnot comodel 
121

No

. 

Adaptive 

Managemen

t Work 

Group 

(AMWG) 

Sequence 

Number 

and 

Category 

AMWG 

Priori

ty 

Research informat

ion 

needs (RIN) 

no. 

RIN text Strategic science questions 

(SSQs), relevant coremonitoring information needs 

(CMINs), and Science Advisor 

(SA) questions. Questions listed below are from the 

Monitoring and Research Plan 

(MRP). 

climate, and basin hydrology on Colorado River water quality. 

101 5, A 3 7.4.2 What is the desired pattern of 

seasonal and annual flow dynamics associated with powerplant operations, BHBFs, HMFs, or other flows to meet GCDAMP Goals and Objectives? 

All of the MRP SSQs Under Priority 3, 4 and 5. 

This icontaimore preced

102 5, A 4 8.1.1 What is the longitudinal 

variability of fine-sediment inputs, by reach? 

SSQ 4.1. 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 time scales? 

This ianswesystemThis ithe maknown regard 

103 5, A 4 8.1.2 What is the temporal variability 

of fine-sediment inputs, by reach? 

SSQ 4.1. 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 time scales? 

This ianswesystemThis ipublicseasonvariab

104 5, A 4 8.1.3 

8.2.1 8.3.1 8.4.1 8.5.6 

What fine sediment abundance and distribution, by reach, is desirable to support GCDAMP ecosystem goals? (Note: Definition of “desirable” will 

SSQ 4.1. 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 

ManasedimPhysicto use 
122

No

. 

Adaptive 

Managemen

t Work 

Group 

(AMWG) 

Sequence 

Number 

and 

Category 

AMWG 

Priori

ty 

Research informat

ion 

needs (RIN) 

no. 

RIN text Strategic science questions 

(SSQs), relevant coremonitoring information needs 

(CMINs), and Science Advisor 

(SA) questions. Questions listed below are from the 

Monitoring and Research Plan 

(MRP). 

be derived from targets for other resources and managers goals.) 

decadal time scales? SSQ 4.2. 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 possibly mortality of young HBC) associated with high flows? 

tempothan “RIN. 

108 5, A 4 ** SIN 

8.5.2 

What is the relationship between the fine-sediment budget and turbidity? 

SSQ 4.1e. Can we develop a relationship between suspended sediment concentration and turbidity to support fisheries research? 

This i4.1 as 

109 5, A 4 8.5.4 What is the significance of 

aeolian processes in terrestrial sandbar reworking? 

SSQ 4.1. 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 time scales? 

This qaddresDraut includ

110 5, A 4 ** SIN 

8.5.5 

How can the ongoing fine sediment supply be managed to achieve sustainable habitats? 

SSQ 4.1. 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 time scales? 

This iexistin2002; Toppi

112 5, A 9.3.1 What is the desired target level 

of camping beaches by reach? 

None proposed. Mana

campi
123

No

. 

Adaptive 

Managemen

t Work 

Group 

(AMWG) 

Sequence 

Number 

and 

Category 

AMWG 

Priori

ty 

Research informat

ion 

needs (RIN) 

no. 

RIN text Strategic science questions 

(SSQs), relevant coremonitoring information needs 

(CMINs), and Science Advisor 

(SA) questions. Questions listed below are from the 

Monitoring and Research Plan 

(MRP). 

GCDAInformprojecinformapprop

113 5, A 3 10.1.2 What would be the effects on 

the CRE and marketable capacity and energy of increasing the upramp and downramp limit? 

SSQ 3-4. What are the projected costs associated with the various alternative flow regimes being discussed for future experimental science (as defined in the next phase experimental design)? 

This ibe add

114 5, A 3 10.1.3 What would be the effects on 

the CRE and marketable capacity and energy of raising the maximum power plant flow limit above 25,000 cfs? 

SSQ 3-4. What are the projected costs associated with the various alternative flow regimes being discussed for future experimental science (as defined in the next phase experimental design)? 

This iin the 

115 5, A 10.3.1 What are the effects of 

providing financial exception criteria? 

SSQ 3-4. What are the projected costs associated with the various alternative flow regimes being discussed for future experimental science (as defined in the next phase experimental design)? 

This iin the 

116 5, A 2 11.1.1.a What and where are the 

geomorphic processes that link loss of site integrity with dam operations as opposed to dam existence or natural processes? 

SSQ 2-1. Do dam controlled flows increase or decrease rates of erosion and vegetation growth at arch sites and TCPs, and if so, how? SSQ 2-2. How do flows impact OHWZ terraces in the CRE, 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 terraces? 
124

No

. 

Adaptive 

Managemen

t Work 

Group 

(AMWG) 

Sequence 

Number 

and 

Category 

AMWG 

Priori

ty 

Research informat

ion 

needs (RIN) 

no. 

RIN text Strategic science questions 

(SSQs), relevant coremonitoring information needs 

(CMINs), and Science Advisor 

(SA) questions. Questions listed below are from the 

Monitoring and Research Plan 

(MRP). 

SSQ 2-3. If flows contribute to arch site/TCP erosion, what are the optimal flows for minimizing impacts to these cultural resources? SSQ 2-4. How effective are various treatments (e.g., check dams, vegetation management, etc.) in slowing rates of erosion at archaeological sites over the long term? SSQ 2-7. 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 those resources? CMIN 11.1.1 (SPG revised). Determine the condition and integrity of prehistoric and historic sites in the CRE through tracking rates of erosion, visitor impacts, and other relevant variables. Determine the condition and integrity of TCPs in the CRE. 

117 5, A 2 11.1.1.b What are the terrace formation 

processes and how do dam operations affect current terrace formations processes? 

SSQ 2-2. How do flows impact OHWZ terraces in the CRE, 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 terraces? 

118 5, A 2 11.1.1.c Determine if and where dam 

operations cause accelerated erosion to historic properties? 

SSQ 2-1. Do dam controlled flows increase or decrease rates of erosion and vegetation growth at arch sites and TCPs, and if so, how? SSQ 2-2. How do flows impact OHWZ 
125

No

. 

Adaptive 

Managemen

t Work 

Group 

(AMWG) 

Sequence 

Number 

and 

Category 

AMWG 

Priori

ty 

Research informat

ion 

needs (RIN) 

no. 

RIN text Strategic science questions 

(SSQs), relevant coremonitoring information needs 

(CMINs), and Science Advisor 

(SA) questions. Questions listed below are from the 

Monitoring and Research Plan 

(MRP). 

terraces in the CRE, and what kinds of important information about the historical ecology and human history of are being lost due to ongoing erosion of the Holocene terraces? SSQ 2-3. If flows contribute to arch site/TCP erosion, what are the optimal flows for minimizing impacts to these cultural resources? SSQ 2-7. Are dam controlled flows affecting TCPs and other tribally-valued resources inthe CRE, and if so, in what respects are they being affected, and are those effects considered positive or negative by the tribes who value those resources? 
126

No

. 

Adaptive 

Managemen

t Work 

Group 

(AMWG) 

Sequence 

Number 

and 

Category 

AMWG 

Priori

ty 

Research informat

ion 

needs (RIN) 

no. 

RIN text Strategic science questions 

(SSQs), relevant coremonitoring information needs 

(CMINs), and Science Advisor 

(SA) questions. Questions listed below are from the 

Monitoring and Research Plan 

(MRP). 

119 5, A 2 11.1.1.d What are the potential threats 

to historic properties relative to integrity and significance? 

SSQ 2-1. Do dam controlled flows increase or decrease rates of erosion and vegetation growth at arch sites and TCPs, and if so, how? SSQ 2-2. How do flows impact OHWZ terraces in the CRE, 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 terraces? SSQ 2-3. If flows contribute to arch site/TCP erosion, what are the optimal flows for minimizing impacts to these cultural resources? SSQ 2-4. How effective are various treatments (e.g., check dams, vegetation management, etc.) in slowing rates of erosion at archaeological sites over the long term? SSQ 2-7. 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 those resources? CMIN 11.1.1 (SPG revised). Determine the condition and integrity of prehistoric and historic sites in the CRE through tracking rates of erosion, visitor impacts, and other relevant variables. Determine the condition and integrity of TCPs in the CRE. 
127

No

. 

Adaptive 

Managemen

t Work 

Group 

(AMWG) 

Sequence 

Number 

and 

Category 

AMWG 

Priori

ty 

Research informat

ion 

needs (RIN) 

no. 

RIN text Strategic science questions 

(SSQs), relevant coremonitoring information needs 

(CMINs), and Science Advisor 

(SA) questions. Questions listed below are from the 

Monitoring and Research Plan 

(MRP). 

120 5, A 2 11.1.2.b How do specific sites meet 

National Register Criteria for Evaluation? 

This iscienc

121 5, A 2 11.1.2.c Identify GCDAMP activities 

that affect National Register eligible sites? 

CMIN 11.1.1 (SPG revised). Determine the condition and integrity of prehistoric and historic sites in the CRE through tracking rates of erosion, visitor impacts, and other relevant variables. Determine the condition and integrity of TCPs in the CRE. 

The Ndetermreview provid

122 5, A 2 11.1.3.a Determine the necessary 

information to assess resource 

CMIN 11.1.1 (SPG revised). Determine the condition and integrity of prehistoric and 

Reseafor co
128

No

. 

Adaptive 

Managemen

t Work 

Group 

(AMWG) 

Sequence 

Number 

and 

Category 

AMWG 

Priori

ty 

Research informat

ion 

needs (RIN) 

no. 

RIN text Strategic science questions 

(SSQs), relevant coremonitoring information needs 

(CMINs), and Science Advisor 

(SA) questions. Questions listed below are from the 

Monitoring and Research Plan 

(MRP). 

integrity. historic sites in the CRE through tracking 

rates of erosion, visitor impacts, and other relevant variables. Determine the condition and integrity of TCPs in the CRE. 

providdetermanswedifferemanagadequ

123 5, A 2 11.2.4 What changes are occurring in 

cultural resource sites, and what are the causes of those changes? 

SSQ 2-1. Do dam controlled flows increase or decrease rates of erosion and vegetation growth at arch sites and TCPs, and if so, how? SSQ 2-2. How do flows impact OHWZ terraces in the CRE, 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 terraces? SSQ 2-3. If flows contribute to arch site/TCP erosion, what are the optimal flows for minimizing impacts to these cultural resources? SSQ 2-4. How effective are various treatments (e.g., check dams, vegetation management, etc.) in slowing rates of erosion at archaeological sites over the long term? SSQ 2-7. 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 those resources? CMIN 11.1.1 (SPG revised). Determine the 
129

No

. 

Adaptive 

Managemen

t Work 

Group 

(AMWG) 

Sequence 

Number 

and 

Category 

AMWG 

Priori

ty 

Research informat

ion 

needs (RIN) 

no. 

RIN text Strategic science questions 

(SSQs), relevant coremonitoring information needs 

(CMINs), and Science Advisor 

(SA) questions. Questions listed below are from the 

Monitoring and Research Plan 

(MRP). 

condition and integrity of prehistoric and historic sites in the CRE through tracking rates of erosion, visitor impacts, and other relevant variables. Determine the condition and integrity of TCPs in the CRE. 

124 5, A 12.3.2 What are the differences 

between western science and tribal processes for design of studies and for gathering, analyzing, and interpreting data used in the adaptive management program? How well do research designs and work plans incorporate tribal perspectives and values into the standard western science paradigm? Is it more beneficial to keep the perspective separated? 

SSQ 2-7. 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 those resources? CMIN 11.2.1 (SPG revised). Determine the condition of traditionally important resources and locations using tribal perspectives and values. 

125 5, A 12.3.3 How effective is the GCDAMP 

in addressing the EIS statement “Long-term monitoring and research are ... implemented to measure how well the selected alternative meets resource management objectives”? 

None proposed. Partia

of the Grand AnnuaconduGCDAplanni

126 5, A 12.5.1 What are the most effective 

means to build GCDAMP 

None proposed. A pos
130

No

. 

Adaptive 

Managemen

t Work 

Group 

(AMWG) 

Sequence 

Number 

and 

Category 

AMWG 

Priori

ty 

Research informat

ion 

needs (RIN) 

no. 

RIN text Strategic science questions 

(SSQs), relevant coremonitoring information needs 

(CMINs), and Science Advisor 

(SA) questions. Questions listed below are from the 

Monitoring and Research Plan 

(MRP). 

public support through effective public outreach? 

127 5, A 12.5.2 What are the most effective means 

to attain and maintain effective communication and coordination with other resource management programs in the Colorado River basin to ensure consideration of their values and perspectives into the GCDAMP and vice versa? 

None proposed. The 2

be helrestoraColorthe FYworksinform

128 5, A 12.5.4 What is the most effective way 

to distribute information to our stakeholders and the public in a secure and accessible fashion? 

None proposed. A pos

recomfeasibtools tinformproceseffectiaddres

129 5, A 12.7.1 How effective are the current 

strategies to achieve tribal consultation? 

None proposed. Policy 

Resouand prdiscus

130 5, A 12.7.2 How well do the current 

strategies to achieve tribal consultation meet legal and GCDAMP protocols? 

None proposed. Policy 

to disc

131 5, A 12.8.1 How well does current tribal 

participation in the GCDAMP research and long-term monitoring programs meet tribal needs and desires? 

None proposed. FY200

worksinform
131

No

. 

Adaptive 

Managemen

t Work 

Group 

(AMWG) 

Sequence 

Number 

and 

Category 

AMWG 

Priori

ty 

Research informat

ion 

needs (RIN) 

no. 

RIN text Strategic science questions 

(SSQs), relevant coremonitoring information needs 

(CMINs), and Science Advisor 

(SA) questions. Questions listed below are from the 

Monitoring and Research Plan 

(MRP). 

132 5.5, A 1.2.4 What are the habitat 

characteristics between GCD and the Paria River that most affect benthic invertebrates? How are these characteristics affected by GCD operations? 

SSQ 1-5. What are the important pathways that link lower trophic levels with fish and how will they link to dam operations? SSQ 5-2. Is invertebrate flux affected by water quality (e.g., temperature, nutrient concentrations, turbidity) and dam operations? 

133 5.5, A 1.3.1 How are the composition and 

biomass of primary producers in 

the CRE below the Paria River affected by flow and water quality (including nutrients, temperature, light regime, toxins, dissolved oxygen), and waterborne diseases, or other factors? 

SSQ 1-5. What are the important pathways that link lower trophic levels with fish and how will they link to dam operations? SSQ 5-2. Is invertebrate flux affected by water quality (e.g., temperature, nutrient concentrations, turbidity) and dam operations? 

134 5.5, A 1.4.3 How do top-down effects 

(grazing and predation) affect the abundance and composition of benthic invertebrates? 

SSQ 1-6. Are fish populations, trends, or indicators from fish, such as growth, condition, and body composition, correlated with patterns in invertebrate flux? 

135 5.5, A 1.5.1 How are the composition and 

biomass of drift in the CRE affected by flow and water quality (including nutrients, temperature, light regime, toxins, dissolved oxygen), and waterborne diseases, or other factors? 

SSQ 1-5. What are the important pathways that link lower trophic levels with fish and how will they link to dam operations? SSQ 5-2. Is invertebrate flux affected by water quality (e.g., temperature, nutrient concentrations, turbidity) and dam operations? 

136 5.5, A 4.2.4 What is the target population 

size of RBT appropriate for the Lees Ferry reach that limits 

SSQ 3-6. What GCD operations (ramping rates, daily flow range, etc.) maximize trout fishing opportunities and catchability? 

This waddres
132

No

. 

Adaptive 

Managemen

t Work 

Group 

(AMWG) 

Sequence 

Number 

and 

Category 

AMWG 

Priori

ty 

Research informat

ion 

needs (RIN) 

no. 

RIN text Strategic science questions 

(SSQs), relevant coremonitoring information needs 

(CMINs), and Science Advisor 

(SA) questions. Questions listed below are from the 

Monitoring and Research Plan 

(MRP). 

downstream emigration? CMIN 4.1.2. Determine annual proportional 

stock density of RBT in the Lees Ferry reach. CMIN 4.1.4. Determine annual standard condition and relative weight of RBT in the Lees Ferry reach. 

137 5.5, A 6.3.1 How has the abundance, 

composition, and distribution of the OHWZ community changed since dam closure (1963), high flows (1984), interim flows (1991), and the implementation of ROD operations (1996)? 

SSQ 2-1. Do dam controlled flows affect (increase or decrease) rates of erosion and vegetation growth at archaeological sites and TCP sites, and if so, how? CMIN 6.1.1., 6.6.1., 6.2.1, 6.5.1. Determine and track the abundance, composition, distribution, and area of terrestrial native and nonnative vegetation species in the CRE. 

138 5.5, A 6.7.5 What is the need, feasibility, 

and priority of maintaining habitat suitability for southwestern willow flycatcher in the CRE? 

None proposed. The N

resourUSFWthis tim

139 5.5, A 8.5.2 What is the reach-scale 

variability of fine-sediment storage throughout the main channel? 

SSQ 4.1. (See above.) This i

reportSchmiand ot(in prereportmile 8

140 5.5, A 8.5.5 What are the historic and 

ongoing longitudinal trends of fine-sediment storage, above 

SSQ 4.1. (See above.) This i

reportSchmi
133

No

. 

Adaptive 

Managemen

t Work 

Group 

(AMWG) 

Sequence 

Number 

and 

Category 

AMWG 

Priori

ty 

Research informat

ion 

needs (RIN) 

no. 

RIN text Strategic science questions 

(SSQs), relevant coremonitoring information needs 

(CMINs), and Science Advisor 

(SA) questions. Questions listed below are from the 

Monitoring and Research Plan 

(MRP). 

25,000 cfs? and ot

(in prereportmile 8

141 5.5, A ** SIN 

8.5.7 

What are the limiting factors that regulate substrate availability and its distribution? 

SSQ 4.1. (See above.) The li

combisupplyand la

142 5.5, A 9.4.1 Identify the elements of 

wilderness experience specific to the CRE. 

SSQ 3-7. How do dam controlled flows affect visitor experiences, and what are the optimal flows for maintaining a high quality recreational experience in the CRE? SSQ 3-8. What are the drivers for recreational experience in the CRE, and how important are flows relative to other drivers in shaping recreational experience? SSQ 3-12. How do flow regimes positively or negatively affect group encounter rates, campsite competition, and other social parameters that are known to be important variables of visitor experience? 

The Nwilderwith pRiver Indireaddresstudy 

143 5.5, A 10.1.4 What would be the effects on 

the CRE and marketable capacity and energy of lowering the minimum flow limit below 5,000 cfs? 

None proposed. This i

by the 

144 5.5, A 11.1.2.d Identify NPS permitted None proposed. NPS a
134

No

. 

Adaptive 

Managemen

t Work 

Group 

(AMWG) 

Sequence 

Number 

and 

Category 

AMWG 

Priori

ty 

Research informat

ion 

needs (RIN) 

no. 

RIN text Strategic science questions 

(SSQs), relevant coremonitoring information needs 

(CMINs), and Science Advisor 

(SA) questions. Questions listed below are from the 

Monitoring and Research Plan 

(MRP). 

activities that affect National Register eligible sites. 

internproces

145 5.5, A 11.1.5 What are appropriate strategies 

to preserve resource integrity? 

SSQ 2-4. How effective are various treatments (e.g., check dams, vegetation management, etc.) in slowing rates of erosion at archaeological sites over the long term? 

Sciencpresermanagdefine 

146 6, A 1.1.3 How do top-down effects 

(grazing and predation) on primary producers affect food base productivity? 

SSQ 1-5. What are the important pathways that link lower trophic levels with fish and how will they link to dam operations? SSQ 5-2. Is invertebrate flux affected by water quality (e.g., temperature, nutrient concentrations, turbidity) and dam operations? 

147 6, A 1.2.3 How do top-down effects 

(grazing and predation) affect the abundance and composition of benthic invertebrates? 

SSQ 1-5. What are the important pathways that link lower trophic levels with fish and how will they link to dam operations? SSQ 5-2. Is invertebrate flux affected by water quality (e.g., temperature, nutrient concentrations, turbidity) and dam operations? 

148 6, A 1.3.3 How do top-down effects on 

primary producers (grazing and predation) affect food base productivity? 

SSQ 1-5. What are the important pathways that link lower trophic levels with fish and how will they link to dam operations? SSQ 5-2. Is invertebrate flux affected by water quality (e.g., temperature, nutrient concentrations, turbidity) and dam operations? 

149 6, A 1.3.4 What are the habitat 

characteristics in the CRE below the Paria River that most affect primary productivity? How are these characteristics 

SSQ 1-5. What are the important pathways that link lower trophic levels with fish and how will they link to dam operations? SSQ 5-2. Is invertebrate flux affected by water quality (e.g., temperature, nutrient 
135

No

. 

Adaptive 

Managemen

t Work 

Group 

(AMWG) 

Sequence 

Number 

and 

Category 

AMWG 

Priori

ty 

Research informat

ion 

needs (RIN) 

no. 

RIN text Strategic science questions 

(SSQs), relevant coremonitoring information needs 

(CMINs), and Science Advisor 

(SA) questions. Questions listed below are from the 

Monitoring and Research Plan 

(MRP). 

affected by GCD operations? concentrations, turbidity) and dam operations? 

150 6, A 1.4.4 What are the habitat 

characteristics in the CRE below the Paria River that most affect benthic invertebrates? How are these characteristics affected by GCD operations? 

SSQ 1-5. What are the important pathways that link lower trophic levels with fish and how will they link to dam operations? SSQ 5-2. Is invertebrate flux affected by water quality (e.g., temperature, nutrient concentrations, turbidity) and dam operations? 

151 6, A 2.2.11 What are the impacts of current 

recreational activities on mortality, recruitment and the population size of HBC? 

None proposed. The N

this totheir Cstatus issue wdiscus

152 6, A 2.6.3 What are the physical and 

biological characteristics of habitats that enhance recruitment of FMS, BS, and SD populations in the CRE? 

SSQ 1-1. 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 YoY and juvenile stages in the mainstem, or by changes in growth and maturation in the adult population as influenced by mainstem conditions? 

153 6, A *IN 

6.1 

Develop GIS coverages of natural communities in the CRE to use in identification of status and trends. 

SSQ 2-1. Do dam controlled flows affect (increase or decrease) rates of erosion and vegetation growth at archaeological sites and TCP sites, and if so, how? CMIN 6.1.1., 6.6.1., 6.2.1, 6.5.1. Determine and track the abundance, composition, distribution, and area of terrestrial native and nonnative vegetation species in the CRE. 

This iaddresmonitFY20be a fostudy. 

154 6, A *IN How is the abundance of SSQ 1-5. What are the important pathways 
136

No

. 

Adaptive 

Managemen

t Work 

Group 

(AMWG) 

Sequence 

Number 

and 

Category 

AMWG 

Priori

ty 

Research informat

ion 

needs (RIN) 

no. 

RIN text Strategic science questions 

(SSQs), relevant coremonitoring information needs 

(CMINs), and Science Advisor 

(SA) questions. Questions listed below are from the 

Monitoring and Research Plan 

(MRP). 

6.3 vertebrate consumers affected 

by seasonal shifts in food base abundance in the CRE? 

that link lower trophic levels with fish and how will they link to dam operations? SSQ 5-2. Is invertebrate flux affected by water quality (e.g., temperature, nutrient concentrations, turbidity) and dam operations? 

155 6, A ** SIN 

7.3.1 

Measure appropriate water quality parameters to determine the influence of these parameters on biological resources in the CRE. 

SSQ 3-5. How is invertebrate flux affected by water quality (e.g., temperature, nutrient concentrations, turbidity) and dam operations? SSQ 5-1. How do dam release temperatures, flows (average and fluctuating component), meteorology, canyon orientation and geometry, and reach morphology interact to determine mainstem and nearshore water temperatures throughout the CRE? 

156 6, A ** SIN 

8.5.8 

What is the total area of different aquatic habitat types (cobble, gravel, sand, talus, etc,) in the CRE? 

None proposed. This in

addresstudy other side-smicroFIST projec

157 6, A ** SIN 

8.5.9 

How are sandbar textures related to cultural site stability? 

None proposed. This S

questisuppo

158 6, A 10.1.1 What would be the effects on 

the CRE and marketable capacity and energy of increasing the daily fluctuation limit? 

SSQ 3-4. What are the projected costs associated with the various alternative flow regimes being discussed for future experimental science (as defined in the next phase experimental design)? 

This Rthe LT
137

No

. 

Adaptive 

Managemen

t Work 

Group 

(AMWG) 

Sequence 

Number 

and 

Category 

AMWG 

Priori

ty 

Research informat

ion 

needs (RIN) 

no. 

RIN text Strategic science questions 

(SSQs), relevant coremonitoring information needs 

(CMINs), and Science Advisor 

(SA) questions. Questions listed below are from the 

Monitoring and Research Plan 

(MRP). 

159 6, A 10.4.1 What are the effects on the 

CRE and marketable power and energy of increasing Automatic Generation Control at GCD? 

SSQ 3-4. What are the projected costs associated with the various alternative flow regimes being discussed for future experimental science (as defined in the next phase experimental design)? 

This Rthe LT

160 6, A 12.5.3 To what extent does the public 

understand and support the GCDAMP? 

None proposed. A pos

161 6.5, A 5.1.1 What constitutes population 

viability for KAS at Vaseys Paradise? 

None proposed. Mostl

questiquestithe mo

162 6.5, A 5.2.3 How can remote sensing 

technologies be used to less intrusively and more cost effectively characterize and monitor KAS habitat at Vaseys Paradise (vegetation type and distribution)? 

None proposed. Not a 

163 6.5, A *IN 

6.2 

Develop or adopt an existing ecological community classification system. The system should describe the composition and frequency of vascular plants, vertebrates, arthropods, and mollusks to an appropriate taxonomic level. 

SSQ 2-1. Do dam controlled flows affect (increase or decrease) rates of erosion and vegetation growth at archaeological sites and TCP sites, and if so, how? CMIN 6.1.1., 6.6.1., 6.2.1, 6.5.1. Determine and track the abundance, composition, distribution, and area of terrestrial native and nonnative vegetation species in the CRE. 

164 6.5, A 7.2.4 What are the waterborne 

pathogens that are a threat to human health? How should 

SSQ 3-7. How do dam controlled flows affect visitors’ recreational experiences, and what are the optimal flows for maintaining a high 
138

No

. 

Adaptive 

Managemen

t Work 

Group 

(AMWG) 

Sequence 

Number 

and 

Category 

AMWG 

Priori

ty 

Research informat

ion 

needs (RIN) 

no. 

RIN text Strategic science questions 

(SSQs), relevant coremonitoring information needs 

(CMINs), and Science Advisor 

(SA) questions. Questions listed below are from the 

Monitoring and Research Plan 

(MRP). 

they be monitored? Where and how often? 

quality recreational experience in the CRE? SSQ 3-11. How do varying flows positively or negatively affect visitor safety, health, and navigability of the rapids? CMIN 9.1.1. Determine and track the changes attributable to dam operations in recreational quality, opportunities and use, impacts, serious incidents, and perceptions of users, including the level of satisfaction, in the CRE. 

165 6.5, A 8.6.1 How do ongoing inputs of 

coarse-sediment from tributaries influence storage of fine sediment within pools, runs, and eddies throughout the CRE? 

None proposed. Work 

2001, providtopic (USGS additilow A

166 7, A 9.5.1 What effects do administrative 

trips, including research and monitoring activities have on recreational users? 

CMIN 9.5.1 Determine and track the frequency and scheduling of research and monitoring activity in Glen and Grand Canyons. 

CRMP may blevel. 

167 7, A * IN 

10.1 

Determine and track the impacts to power users from implementation of ROD dam operations and segregate those effects from other causes such as changes in the power market. 

SSQ 3-3. What are the hydropower replacement costs of the MLFF (annually, since 1996?) CMIN 10.1.1 Determine and track the marketable capacity and energy produced through dam operations in relation to various release scenarios. 
139

No

. 

Adaptive 

Managemen

t Work 

Group 

(AMWG) 

Sequence 

Number 

and 

Category 

AMWG 

Priori

ty 

Research informat

ion 

needs (RIN) 

no. 

RIN text Strategic science questions 

(SSQs), relevant coremonitoring information needs 

(CMINs), and Science Advisor 

(SA) questions. Questions listed below are from the 

Monitoring and Research Plan 

(MRP). 

168 7.5, A 7.3.1.a Determine the status and trends 

of chemical and biological components of water quality in Lake Powell as a function of regional hydrologic conditions and their relation to downstream releases. 

(No additional SSQ because of relatively low AMWG priority.) 

The anprograNeed qualitybiologLake Pidentiyet to and shdescrimajor projecas funwill b

169 7.5, A ** SIN 

8.5.10 

How are sandbar textures related to recreational site stability? 

 This S

questisuppo

170 8, A 1.3.2 What is the estimated primary 

productivity in the CRE below the Paria River? (Note: If the cost of obtaining these data, relative to the benefit of the information suggests the information is not worth the expense, this RIN will not be pursued.) 

SSQ 1-5. What are the important pathways that link lower trophic levels with fish and how will they link to dam operations? SSQ 3-5. How is invertebrate flux affected by water quality (e.g., temperature, nutrient concentrations, turbidity) and dam operations? SSQ 5-1. How do dam release temperatures, flows (average and fluctuating component), meteorology, canyon orientation and geometry, and reach morphology interact to 
140

No

. 

Adaptive 

Managemen

t Work 

Group 

(AMWG) 

Sequence 

Number 

and 

Category 

AMWG 

Priori

ty 

Research informat

ion 

needs (RIN) 

no. 

RIN text Strategic science questions 

(SSQs), relevant coremonitoring information needs 

(CMINs), and Science Advisor 

(SA) questions. Questions listed below are from the 

Monitoring and Research Plan 

(MRP). 

determine mainstem and nearshore water temperatures throughout the CRE? SSQ 5-2. Is invertebrate flux affected by water quality (e.g., temperature, nutrient concentrations, turbidity) and dam operations? 

171 8, A 1.4.2 What is the estimated 

productivity of benthic invertebrates in the CRE below the Paria River? (Note: If the cost of obtaining these data, relative to the benefit of the information suggests the information is not worth the expense, this RIN will not be pursued.) 

SSQ 1-5. What are the important pathways that link lower trophic levels with fish and how will they link to dam operations? SSQ 3-5. How is invertebrate flux affected by water quality (e.g., temperature, nutrient concentrations, turbidity) and dam operations? SSQ 5-1. How do dam release temperatures, flows (average and fluctuating component), meteorology, canyon orientation and geometry, and reach morphology interact to determine mainstem and nearshore water temperatures throughout the CRE? SSQ 5-2. Is invertebrate flux affected by water quality (e.g., temperature, nutrient concentrations, turbidity) and dam operations? 

172 8, A 2.5.4 What is the feasibility and 

advisability of augmenting RBS in the CRE to attain a viable population including technical/legal/policy constraints? 

None proposed. Not a 

173 8, A 6.7.1 What is the function of the 

CRE as a migratory corridor for southwestern willow flycatcher (SWWF)? 

None proposed. SWW

manag
141

No

. 

Adaptive 

Managemen

t Work 

Group 

(AMWG) 

Sequence 

Number 

and 

Category 

AMWG 

Priori

ty 

Research informat

ion 

needs (RIN) 

no. 

RIN text Strategic science questions 

(SSQs), relevant coremonitoring information needs 

(CMINs), and Science Advisor 

(SA) questions. Questions listed below are from the 

Monitoring and Research Plan 

(MRP). 

174 8, A 6.7.2 What is the food base that 

supports SWWF and other terrestrial vertebrates? 

None proposed. SWW

manag

175 8, Done 6.7.3 What constitutes suitable 

SWWF habitat? 

None proposed. This h

USFWdecisi

176 8.5, A 6.6.3 How has the composition, 

abundance and distribution of seep and spring communities changed since dam closure (1963), high flows (1984), interim flows (1991) and the implementation of ROD operations (1996)? 

SSQ 2-1. Do dam controlled flows affect (increase or decrease) rates of erosion and vegetation growth at archaeological sites and TCP sites, and if so, how? CMIN 6.1.1., 6.6.1., 6.2.1, 6.5.1. Determine and track the abundance, composition, distribution, and area of terrestrial native and nonnative vegetation species in the CRE. 

This isynthebeyon

177 9, A 1.1.2 What is the estimated 

productivity for the reach between GCD and the Paria River? (Note: If the cost of obtaining these data, relative to the benefit of the information suggests the information is not worth the expense, this RIN will not be pursued.) 

SSQ 1-5. What are the important pathways that link lower trophic levels with fish and how will they link to dam operations? SSQ 3-5. How is invertebrate flux affected by water quality (e.g., temperature, nutrient concentrations, turbidity) and dam operations? SSQ 5-1. How do dam release temperatures, flows (average and fluctuating component), meteorology, canyon orientation and geometry, and reach morphology interact to determine mainstem and nearshore water temperatures throughout the CRE? SSQ 5-2. Is invertebrate flux affected by water quality (e.g., temperature, nutrient concentrations, turbidity) and dam operations? 
142

No

. 

Adaptive 

Managemen

t Work 

Group 

(AMWG) 

Sequence 

Number 

and 

Category 

AMWG 

Priori

ty 

Research informat

ion 

needs (RIN) 

no. 

RIN text Strategic science questions 

(SSQs), relevant coremonitoring information needs 

(CMINs), and Science Advisor 

(SA) questions. Questions listed below are from the 

Monitoring and Research Plan 

(MRP). 

178 9, A 2.5.5 What are the genetic and 

ecological criteria for reintroducing RBS into the CRE? 

(No additional SSQ because of relatively low AMWG priority.) 

Not a GCDA

179 9, A 4.1.2 What is the minimum quantity 

and quality of spawning substrate necessary for maintaining a wild reproducing RBT population in the Lees Ferry reach? 

SSQ 3-6. What GCD operations (ramping rates, daily flow range, etc.) maximize trout fishing opportunities and catchability? 

Currenmost dKormconsisresour

180 9, C 5.1.7 What is the historic range of 

Oxyloma haydeni? Can this 

range be determined from subfossil or fossil evidence? (NOTE: This is intended to determine if this is a relict species and the initial work would be done at Vaseys Paradise, South Canyon and other probable sites within the CRE.) 

(No additional SSQ because of relatively low AMWG priority.) 

Compmay aCurrenCMIN

181 9, A 6.6.1 How is seep and spring habitat 

affected by variation in dam operations, variation in seep or spring flow, and variation in water quality? How do flow rates and water quality parameters at seeps and springs compare with historic measurements? 

SSQ 2-1. Do dam controlled flows affect (increase or decrease) rates of erosion and vegetation growth at archaeological sites and TCP sites, and if so, how? 

Currenspeciebut no of flow effectvegetaLTEPexperidetermconsis
143

No

. 

Adaptive 

Managemen

t Work 

Group 

(AMWG) 

Sequence 

Number 

and 

Category 

AMWG 

Priori

ty 

Research informat

ion 

needs (RIN) 

no. 

RIN text Strategic science questions 

(SSQs), relevant coremonitoring information needs 

(CMINs), and Science Advisor 

(SA) questions. Questions listed below are from the 

Monitoring and Research Plan 

(MRP). 

resour

182 9, A 6.6.4 What is the distribution, patch 

size, total area, and composition of seep and spring communities and the flow rate and water quality of all seeps and springs within the CRE? 

None proposed. Curren

speciebut no of flow of expwill bspecifyet bemonitfor thi

183 9, A 6.7.4 How has the abundance, 

distribution and reproductive success of SWWF changed since dam closure (1963), high flows (1984), interim flows (1991) and the implementation of ROD operations (1996)? 

None proposed. SWW

manag

184 9, A 7.3.3 How do dam operations affect 

reservoir limnology? 

(No additional SSQ because of relatively low AMWG priority.) 

This ithat poin the 

185 9, A ** SIN 

8.5.1 

How do sandbar textures influence biological processes? 

(No additional SSQ because of relatively low AMWG priority.) 

This Squestisuppo

186 9.5, C 3.1.1 What information (including 

technical, legal, economic, and policy issues) should be considered in determining the 

None proposed. Policy 

restorspeciecan pr
144

No

. 

Adaptive 

Managemen

t Work 

Group 

(AMWG) 

Sequence 

Number 

and 

Category 

AMWG 

Priori

ty 

Research informat

ion 

needs (RIN) 

no. 

RIN text Strategic science questions 

(SSQs), relevant coremonitoring information needs 

(CMINs), and Science Advisor 

(SA) questions. Questions listed below are from the 

Monitoring and Research Plan 

(MRP). 

feasibility and advisability of restoring pikeminnow, bonytail, roundtail chub, river otter, or other extirpated species? 

187 9.5, A 8.5.3 What is the pre- and postdam 

range of grain-size in finesediment deposits, by reach? 

None proposed. See se

informand D1990; Toppi2000b

188 10, A 4.1.1 What is the target proportional 

stock density (i.e., tradeoff between numbers and size) for RBT in the Lees Ferry reach? 

None proposed. To a l

managmonitsuppo

189 10, A 4.1.4 How does the genetics or 

“strain” of RBT in the Lees Ferry reach influence the average size of fish creeled by anglers? 

(No additional SSQ because of relatively low AMWG priority.) 

This icurren

190 11, A 2.5.1 If RBS were stocked into the CRE, 

what is the risk that hybridization with FMS would compromise the genetic integrity of either species? 

(No additional SSQ because of relatively low AMWG priority.) 

RBS apriorit

191 11, A 2.5.2 How do existing RBS and FMS 

affect the genetic integrity of either species? What are the factors contributing to this ongoing hybridization? 

None proposed. RBS a

prioritwell aButh asugge
145

No

. 

Adaptive 

Managemen

t Work 

Group 

(AMWG) 

Sequence 

Number 

and 

Category 

AMWG 

Priori

ty 

Research informat

ion 

needs (RIN) 

no. 

RIN text Strategic science questions 

(SSQs), relevant coremonitoring information needs 

(CMINs), and Science Advisor 

(SA) questions. Questions listed below are from the 

Monitoring and Research Plan 

(MRP). 

hybrideither 

192 11, C 2.5.6 What are the measurable 

criteria that would need to be met to remove jeopardy for RBS in the CRE? 

None proposed. Policy 

193 11, A 7.3.2 How accurately can modeling 

predict reservoir dynamics and operational scenarios? 

None proposed. Not a 

OutsidPowelBureadeveloreservpublisliteratansweunkno

194 11, A 9.1.1 What are the attributes of a 

quality river experience? (How do you define a quality river experience?) 

SSQ 3-7. How do dam controlled flows affect visitors’ recreational experiences, and what are the optimal flows for maintaining a high quality recreational experience in the CRE? SSQ 3-8. What are the drivers for recreational experiences in the CRE, and how important are flows relative to other drivers in shaping recreational experience outcomes? (See also SSQ 3-9, 3-10, 3-11, and 3-12.) 

This idecisiprovidconsidexperidetermthey a

195 11, A 9.1.2 Determine the appropriate 

carrying capacity for recreational activities within the CRE. 

None proposed. Appro

depenexperibeing crowd
146

No

. 

Adaptive 

Managemen

t Work 

Group 

(AMWG) 

Sequence 

Number 

and 

Category 

AMWG 

Priori

ty 

Research informat

ion 

needs (RIN) 

no. 

RIN text Strategic science questions 

(SSQs), relevant coremonitoring information needs 

(CMINs), and Science Advisor 

(SA) questions. Questions listed below are from the 

Monitoring and Research Plan 

(MRP). 

therefby NPwith tfor crohave bprovidchangcampatarget

196 11, A 9.1.3 How do ongoing inputs of 

coarse-sediment from tributaries diminish or enhance navigability of rapids throughout the CRE? 

SSQ 3-10. How can safety and navigability be reliably measured relative to flows? SSQ 3-11. How do varying flows positively or negatively affect visitor safety, health, and navigability of the rapids? 

This wcompopropodeferr

197 11, A 12.1.2 What are the use (e.g., 

hydropower, trout fishing, rafting) and nonuse (e.g., option, vicarious, quasi-option, bequest and existence) values of the CRE? 

None proposed. A que

PEP to 

198 11, A 12.1.3 How does use (e.g., 

hydropower, trout fishing, rafting) and nonuse (e.g., option, vicarious, quasi-option, bequest and existence) values change in response to an experiment performed under the ROD, unanticipated event, or other management action? 

SSQ 3-4. What are the projected costs associated with the various alternative flow regimes being discussed for future experimental science (as defined in the next phase experimental design)? 

199 11.5, A 7.3.1.b Determine stratification, None proposed. Some 
147

No

. 

Adaptive 

Managemen

t Work 

Group 

(AMWG) 

Sequence 

Number 

and 

Category 

AMWG 

Priori

ty 

Research informat

ion 

needs (RIN) 

no. 

RIN text Strategic science questions 

(SSQs), relevant coremonitoring information needs 

(CMINs), and Science Advisor 

(SA) questions. Questions listed below are from the 

Monitoring and Research Plan 

(MRP). 

convective mixing patterns, and behavior of advective currents in Lake Powell and their relation to GCD operations to predict seasonal patterns and trends in downstream releases. 

addresReclamof low 

200 11.5, A 7.4.1 What is the desired range of 

seasonal and annual flow dynamics associated with powerplant operations, BHBFs, and habitat maintenance flows, or other flows that meet GCDAMP goals and objectives? 

None proposed. This i

suppofocus 

201 11.5, A 10.1.5 How do power-marketing 

contract provisions affect GCD releases? 

None proposed. Not a 

202 11.5, A 12.1.1 What is the economic value of 

the recreational use of the CRE downstream from GCD? 

None proposed. Not a 

203 No Sequence 

Order, A 

 * IN 

12.2 

Determine what information is necessary and sufficient to make recommendations at an acceptable level of risk. 

None proposed. Ultim

decide willin
148

APPENDIX C. Monitoring and Research Plan 

Acronym Glossary 

AMPSP Final Draft GCDAMP Strategic 

Plan 

AMWG Adaptive Management Work 

Group 

ASMR Age-structured mark recapture

AZGFD Arizona Game and Fish 

Department 

BHBF Beach/habitat-building flows 

BHS Bluehead sucker 

CEM Conceptual ecosystem model 

CMINs Core monitoring information 

 needs 

CRAHG Cultural Resources ad hoc 

Group 

CRE Colorado River ecosystem 

CREDA Colorado River Energy 

Distributors Association 

CRMP Colorado River Management 

 Plan 

DASA Data Acquisition, Storage, and 

Analysis Program 

DOI Department of the Interior 

EIS Environmental impact statement 

FIST Fine-grained Integrated 

Sediment Team

FMS Flannelmouth sucker 

GCD Glen Canyon Dam 

GCDAMP Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive 

Management Program

GCMRC USGS Grand Canyon 

Monitoring and Research Center 

GCRA Grand Canyon National Park 

GIS Geographic Information 

 Systems 

HBC Humpback chub (Gila cypha) 

HMF Habitat maintenance flow 

IQW Integrated quality-of-water 

IRP Independent Review Panels

ISA Energy Tracking Database 

KAR Knowledge Assessment Report 

KAS Kanab ambersnail 

LCR Little Colorado River 

LSSF Low summer steady flows 

LTEP Long-Term Experimental Plan 

MLFF Modified low fluctuating flow 

MRP Monitoring and Research Plan 

NAU Northern Arizona University 

NGS National Geodetic Survey 

NHPA National Historic Preservation 

 Act 

NPS National Park Service 

OHWZ Old high water zone 

PCMP Provisional Core Monitoring 

 Plan 

PEP Protocols evaluation panel 

PIT Passive integrated transponder 

POAGH Public Outreach ad hoc Group 

RBS Razorback sucker 

RBT Rainbow trout 

RINs Research information needs 

ROD Record of Decision 

SA Science Advisors 

SBSC Southwest Biological Science 

Center 

SCORE Colorado River ecosystem in 

Grand Canyon 

SD Speckled dace 

SEDS Sediment transport modeling 

review

SIN Supporting Information Need

SPG Science Planning Group 

SSP Strategic Science Plan 

SSQs Strategic science questions 

STARS Sediment transport and river 

simulation

TCD Temperature control device 

TCPs Traditional cultural properties 

TEM Terrestrial ecosystem 

 monitoring 

TWG Technical Work Group 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

USU Utah State University 

WAPA Western Area Power 

Administration

YoY Young-of-year