U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Glen Canyon Dam 

Adaptive 

Management 

Program Biennial 

Budget and Work 

Plan—Fiscal Years 

2013–14

Prepared by 

Bureau of Reclamation

Upper Colorado Regional Office

and

U.S. Geological Survey

Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center

Prepared in cooperation with the 

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive 

Management Program 

Planning Document
Cover: Little Colorado River, Jered Hansen, U.S. Geological Survey
Prepared in cooperation with the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive 

Management Program

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management 

Program Biennial Budget and Work 

Plan—Fiscal Years 2013/14

Prepared by

Bureau of Reclamation

Upper Colorado Regional Office

Salt Lake City, Utah

and

U.S. Geological Survey

Southwest Biological Science Center

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

Flagstaff, Arizona

Final—Approved by the Secretary of the Interior

August 30, 2012

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
ii

Contents Chapter 1. Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region, Biennial Budget and Work Plan—Fiscal Year 2013-14. 7

Introduction........................................................................................................................................................................ 7

A.1. Adaptive Management Work Group Costs............................................................................................................... 9

A.2. AMWG Member Travel Reimbursement................................................................................................................ 10

A.3. AMWG Reclamation Travel .................................................................................................................................... 11

A.4. AMWG Facilitation Contract................................................................................................................................... 12

A.5. Public Outreach........................................................................................................................................................ 13

A.6. Other......................................................................................................................................................................... 14

B.1. TWG Personnel Costs.............................................................................................................................................. 15

B.2. TWG Member Travel Reimbursement .................................................................................................................... 16

B.3. Reclamation Travel .................................................................................................................................................. 17

B.4. TWG Chair Reimbursement/Facilitation................................................................................................................. 18

B.5. Other......................................................................................................................................................................... 19

C.1. Compliance Documents........................................................................................................................................... 20

C.2. Administrative Support for NPS Permitting............................................................................................................ 21

C.3. Contract Administration........................................................................................................................................... 22

C.4. Experimental Carryover Funds................................................................................................................................. 23

C.5. Integrated Tribal Resources Monitoring................................................................................................................. 24

C.6. Native Fish Conservation Contingency Fund .......................................................................................................... 25

D.1. Cultural Resources Program Administrative Costs................................................................................................. 26

D.2. Cultural Resources Program Implementation......................................................................................................... 27

D.3. Appropriated Funding .............................................................................................................................................. 31

Tribal Participation in the GCDAMP: Sole-Source Reimbursable Contracts with Tribes......................................... 31

Appendix 1-A. FY 2013-14 Preliminary Draft Budget for the Bureau of Reclamation.................................................. 32

Chapter 2. U.S. Geological Survey, Southwest Biological Science Center, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research 

Center Biennial Budget and Work Plan—Fiscal Years 2013-14................................................................................... 34

Introduction...................................................................................................................................................................... 34

Purpose ............................................................................................................................................................................ 34

Overview of the FY13/14 GCMRC Monitoring and Research Program......................................................................... 34

Overview of the FY13/14 Projects.................................................................................................................................. 35

Geomorphology, sediment transport, and water quality projects............................................................................. 35

Projects in Fish Ecology .............................................................................................................................................. 36

Project in Riparian Ecology......................................................................................................................................... 38

Cultural Resources Monitoring and Research Project............................................................................................... 38

Other Project Components.......................................................................................................................................... 39

GCMRC Project Administration .................................................................................................................................. 39

Allocation of the FY13/14 Budget.............................................................................................................................. 45

References....................................................................................................................................................................... 47

Project A. ............................................................................................................................................................................. 48

Sandbars and Sediment Storage Dynamics: Long-term Monitoring and Research at the Site, Reach, and Ecosystem 

Scales................................................................................................................................................................................... 48

1. Investigators.......................................................................................................................................................... 48

2. Project Summary.................................................................................................................................................... 48

3. Background ............................................................................................................................................................ 49

3.1. Scientific Background .......................................................................................................................................... 51

3.2. Management Background.................................................................................................................................... 54
iii

3.2. Key Monitoring and Research Questions Addressed in this project ................................................................. 56

4. Proposed Work....................................................................................................................................................... 57

4.1. Project Elements.................................................................................................................................................. 57

4.2 Personnel and Collaborations............................................................................................................................... 72

4.3 Deliverables .......................................................................................................................................................... 72

5. Productivity from Past Work.................................................................................................................................. 74

5.1. Data Products....................................................................................................................................................... 74

5.2. Completed Publications....................................................................................................................................... 74

5.3. Publications in progress....................................................................................................................................... 74

5.4. Presentations at GCDAMP meetings.................................................................................................................. 75

5.5. Presentations at professional meetings............................................................................................................. 75

5.6. Productivity prior to 2011..................................................................................................................................... 76

6. References............................................................................................................................................................. 81

7. Budget.................................................................................................................................................................... 85

Project B............................................................................................................................................................................... 87

Streamflow, Water Quality, and Sediment Transport in the Colorado River Ecosystem................................................. 87

1. Investigator............................................................................................................................................................ 87

2. Project Summary.................................................................................................................................................... 87

3. Background ............................................................................................................................................................ 87

3.1. Scientific Background .......................................................................................................................................... 87

3.2. Key Monitoring and Research Questions Addressed in this project ................................................................. 88

3.3. Management Background.................................................................................................................................... 89

4. Proposed work....................................................................................................................................................... 91

4.1. Project Element ($1,279,000)............................................................................................................................... 91

4.2. Personnel and Collaborations.............................................................................................................................. 92

4.3 Deliverables .......................................................................................................................................................... 93

5. Productivity from Past Work.................................................................................................................................. 93

5.1. Data Products....................................................................................................................................................... 94

5.2. Publications in progress....................................................................................................................................... 94

5.3. Presentations at professional meetings............................................................................................................. 95

5.4. Productivity prior to 2011..................................................................................................................................... 96

6. References........................................................................................................................................................... 101

7. Budget.................................................................................................................................................................. 103

Project C............................................................................................................................................................................. 105

Water-Quality Monitoring of Lake Powell and Glen Canyon Dam Releases.................................................................. 105

1. Investigator.......................................................................................................................................................... 105

2. Project Summary.................................................................................................................................................. 105

3. Background .......................................................................................................................................................... 105

3.1. Scientific Background ........................................................................................................................................ 107

3.2. Monitoring Background ..................................................................................................................................... 107

3.3. Reservoir Conditions.......................................................................................................................................... 109

4. Proposed Work..................................................................................................................................................... 110

4.1. Project Elements ($252,100).............................................................................................................................. 110

4.2 Personnel and Collaborations............................................................................................................................. 111

4.3 Deliverables ........................................................................................................................................................ 112

5. Productivity from Past Work..................................................................................................................................... 112

5.1. Completed Publications..................................................................................................................................... 113

6. References................................................................................................................................................................. 113
iv

7. Budget........................................................................................................................................................................ 115

Project D. ........................................................................................................................................................................... 116

Mainstem Humpback Chub Aggregation Studies and Metapopulation Dynamics........................................................ 116

1. Introduction.......................................................................................................................................................... 116

2. Project Summary....................................................................................................................................................... 116

3. Background................................................................................................................................................................ 117

3.1 Scientific Background ......................................................................................................................................... 117

3.2. Key Monitoring and Research Questions Addressed in this project ............................................................... 119

3.3 Key management goals and objectives addressed in this project.................................................................... 120

4. Proposed Work.......................................................................................................................................................... 120

4.1. Project Elements................................................................................................................................................ 120

5. Productivity from Past Work..................................................................................................................................... 126

6. References........................................................................................................................................................... 126

7. Budget........................................................................................................................................................................ 129

Project E............................................................................................................................................................................. 131

Humpback Chub Early Life History in and Around the Little Colorado River................................................................... 131

1. Investigators........................................................................................................................................................ 131

2. Project Summary.................................................................................................................................................. 131

3. Background .......................................................................................................................................................... 133

3.1. Scientific Background ........................................................................................................................................ 134

4. Proposed Work..................................................................................................................................................... 136

4.1. Project Elements................................................................................................................................................ 136

5. References........................................................................................................................................................... 143

6. Budget.................................................................................................................................................................. 146

Project F. ........................................................................................................................................................................ 148

Monitoring of Native and Nonnative Fishes in the Mainstem Colorado River and the lower Little Colorado River 148

1. Investigators........................................................................................................................................................ 148

2. Summary.............................................................................................................................................................. 148

3. Background .......................................................................................................................................................... 149

3.1. Scientific Background ........................................................................................................................................ 150

3.2. Management Background.................................................................................................................................. 151

3.3. Strategic Science Questions ............................................................................................................................. 151

4. Proposed Work..................................................................................................................................................... 153

4.1. Project Elements................................................................................................................................................ 153

5. References................................................................................................................................................................. 162

6. Budget.................................................................................................................................................................. 165

Project G. ........................................................................................................................................................................... 167

Interactions between Native Fish and Nonnative Trout.................................................................................................. 167

1. Investigators........................................................................................................................................................ 167

2. Project Summary.................................................................................................................................................. 167

3. Background .......................................................................................................................................................... 167

3.1. Scientific Background ........................................................................................................................................ 168

3.2. Key Monitoring and Research Questions Addressed in this project ............................................................... 169

4. Proposed Work..................................................................................................................................................... 170

4.1. Project Elements................................................................................................................................................ 170

5. Publications.......................................................................................................................................................... 172

5.1. Publications in progress..................................................................................................................................... 172

5.2. Past Productivity................................................................................................................................................. 173
v

6. References........................................................................................................................................................... 173

7. Budget.................................................................................................................................................................. 175

Project H. ........................................................................................................................................................................... 176

Understanding the Factors Limiting the Growth of Rainbow Trout in Glen and Marble Canyons................................. 176

1. Investigators........................................................................................................................................................ 176

2. Project Summary.................................................................................................................................................. 176

3. Background .......................................................................................................................................................... 177

3.1. Scientific Background ........................................................................................................................................ 178

3.2. Key Monitoring and Research Questions Addressed in this Project........................................................ 180

4. Proposed Work..................................................................................................................................................... 181

4.1. Project Elements................................................................................................................................................ 181

5. References........................................................................................................................................................... 188

6. Budget.................................................................................................................................................................. 191

Project I.............................................................................................................................................................................. 193

Riparian Vegetation Studies: Response Guilds as a Monitoring and Modeling Approach with Landscape Scale 

Vegetation Mapping for Change Detection...................................................................................................................... 193

1. Investigators.............................................................................................................................................................. 193

2. Project Summary....................................................................................................................................................... 193

3. Background................................................................................................................................................................ 194

3.1. Scientific Background ........................................................................................................................................ 195

3.2. Core Monitoring and Research Questions Addressed in this project.............................................................. 196

3.3. Management Background.................................................................................................................................. 196

4. Proposed Work.......................................................................................................................................................... 197

4.1. Project Elements................................................................................................................................................ 197

4.2. Collaborations.................................................................................................................................................... 206

4.3. Deliverables....................................................................................................................................................... 206

5. Productivity from Past Work..................................................................................................................................... 207

5.2. Completed Publications..................................................................................................................................... 208

5.2. Unpublished Reports.......................................................................................................................................... 208

6. References................................................................................................................................................................. 208

7. Budget.................................................................................................................................................................. 216

Project J............................................................................................................................................................................. 218

Monitoring Cultural Resources at a Small Scale and Defining the Large-Scale Geomorphic Context of the Processes 

affecting Cultural Resources............................................................................................................................................. 218

1. Principal Investigators......................................................................................................................................... 218

2. Project Summary.................................................................................................................................................. 218

3. Background .......................................................................................................................................................... 218

3.1. Scientific Background ........................................................................................................................................ 221

3.2. Key Monitoring and Research Questions Addressed in this Project ............................................................... 225

4. Proposed Work..................................................................................................................................................... 228

4.1. Project Elements................................................................................................................................................ 231

4.2 Personnel and Collaboration .............................................................................................................................. 253

4.3 Logistics............................................................................................................................................................... 253

4.4 Deliverables ........................................................................................................................................................ 254

5. Productivity from Past Work................................................................................................................................ 254

5.1. Data Products..................................................................................................................................................... 255

5.2. Published Reports and Papers........................................................................................................................... 255

5.3. Publications in Progress..................................................................................................................................... 256
vi

5.4. Presentations at Professional Meetings........................................................................................................... 256

5.5. Unpublished, Peer-reviewed Final Reports....................................................................................................... 257

6. References........................................................................................................................................................... 257

7. Budget.................................................................................................................................................................. 265

Project K......................................................................................................................................................................... 267

GCMRC Economist and Support ................................................................................................................................... 267

Project L. ........................................................................................................................................................................ 268

Independent Reviews and Science Advisors............................................................................................................... 268

Project M. ...................................................................................................................................................................... 270

USGS Administration .................................................................................................................................................... 270

Project N. ....................................................................................................................................................................... 272

Incremental Allocations in Support of Quadrennial Overflights.................................................................................. 272

Appendices.................................................................................................................................................................... 273

Appendix 2-A. Fiscal Year 2013 Budget....................................................................................................................... 274

Appendix 2-B. Fiscal Year 2013 Funding Source.......................................................................................................... 276

Appendix 2-C. Fiscal Year 2014 Funding Source.......................................................................................................... 281

Appendix 2-D Logistics of River Trips........................................................................................................................... 292

 
7

Chapter 1. Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region, Biennial Budget 

and Work Plan—Fiscal Year 2013/14 

Introduction 

The Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP) is a science-based 

process for continually improving management practices related to the operation of Glen Canyon 

Dam (GCD) by emphasizing learning through monitoring, research, and experimentation. The 

Bureau of Reclamation’s (Reclamation) Upper Colorado Region (BRUC) is responsible for 

administering funds for the GCDAMP and providing those funds for monitoring, research, and 

stakeholder involvement. The majority of program funding is derived from hydropower 

revenues; however, supplemental funding is provided by various Department of the Interior 

(DoI) agencies that receive appropriations. These agencies include Reclamation, the U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS), the National Park Service (NPS), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS), and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA).

The budget and work plan for fiscal years 2013 and 2014 (FY13/14) was developed 

based on previous budgets and work plans, the GCDAMP Biennial Budget and Work Process 

approved by the AMWG on May 6, 2010, the Streamlined GCMRC Biennial Work Planning 

Process, version April 3, 2011, and GCDAMP priorities identified in a memo from Secretary’s 

Designee Anne Castle on Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC) science 

planning. Additional consideration was given to meeting the commitments outlined in the 

following compliance documents(1) the 2007 USFWS Biological Opinion for the Proposed 

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

Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead (2007 Opinion); (2) the 2011 Reclamation 

Environmental Assessment (EA) and 2012 Finding of No Significant Impact (FoNSI) for 

Development and Implementation of a Protocol for High-Flow Experimental Releases from Glen 

Canyon Dam, Arizona, 2011 through 2020 (HFE Protocol); (3) the 2011 Reclamation EA and 

2012 FoNSI for Non-native Fish Control Downstream from Glen Canyon Dam (NNFC EA and 

FoNSI); and the 2011 USFWS Final Biological Opinion on the Operation of Glen Canyon Dam 

including High Flow Experiments and Non-Native Fish Control (2011 Opinion).

The process used to arrive at the FY 13/14 budget and work plan was adopted by the 

AMWG in 2004 and revised in 2010 and 2011 to a 2-year fixed budget. In summary, the Budget 

Ad Hoc Group (BAHG) of the Technical Work Group (TWG), with input from the Cultural 

Resources Ad Hoc Group (CRAHG), works with the BRUC and the GCMRC to develop a 

proposal for the TWG. The TWG then reviews the proposed budget and work plan and develops 

a recommendation to the AMWG (this document).

The FY 13/14 budget and work plan was also prepared in consideration of the projected 

hydrograph for Lake Powell release for water year (WY) 2013, which is based on forecasted 

inflows to Lake Powell reservoir and GCD releases determined by the 1996 Record of Decision 

on the operation of Glen Canyon Dam, the 2007 Record of Decision on interim guidelines for 

coordinated operation of Lake Mead and Lake Powell, and the 2008 FoNSI on the EA of 

experimental releases for the period 2008–12, and with the consideration of the FY12 BWP

approved by the Secretary of the Interior on December 7, 2011. It also observes commitments 

made in the 2007 and 2011 biological opinions. The projected hydrograph is based on best 
8

estimates available from Reclamation’s 24-month study released in May 2010; however, the 

forecast is subject to change as further data become available.

This document consists of two chapters: Chapter 1, the BRUC budget and work plan, and 

Chapter 2, the GCMRC budget and work plan. The FY13/14 BWP is organized differently from 

the BWPs of past years. The FY13/14 BWP includes fewer projects, and each project is 

organized around larger monitoring and research themes. For example, there were 12 projects 

concerning fish and other aquatic resources in the FY11/12 BWP, and there are 5 projects in the 

FY13/14 BWP. The monitoring and research themes identified in the FY13/14 BWP are those 

common to (1) the 5 priority questions and the 12 program goals developed by the AMWG in 

2004, (2) the monitoring and research plan prepared by GCMRC, approved by AMWG in 

August 2007 and amended and approved in April 2009 (U.S. Geological Survey, 2007a), (3) the 

strategic science plan prepared by GCMRC in March 2007 and amended in April 2009 (U. S. 

Geological Survey, 2007b), (4) the draft Core Monitoring Plan (U. S. Geological Survey, 2011), 

(5) the General Science Plan appended to the Environmental Assessment for the Development 

and Implementation of a Protocol for High-flow Experimental Releases from Glen Canyon Dam 

(Bureau of Reclamation, 2011a, appendix B), (6) the Research and Monitoring Plan for the 

Environmental Assessment for Non-Native Fish Control Downstream from Glen Canyon Dam 

(Bureau of Reclamation, 2011b, appendix B), (7) the March 31, 2011 memorandum from 

Secretary’s Designee Anne Castle on GCMRC Science Planning; and (8) the 2011 report of the 

Desired Future Conditions Ad Hoc Group of the AMWG.

A comprehensive budget spreadsheet is provided in Appendix A-1.
9

A.1. Adaptive Management Work Group Costs 

This budget represents Reclamation staff costs to perform the daily activities required to support 

the Adaptive Management Work Group (AMWG), the GCDAMP Federal Advisory Committee Act 

(FACA) committee. The work includes completing assignments resulting from AMWG meetings, 

consulting with stakeholders on a variety of GCDAMP issues relating to the operation of GCD, 

disseminating pertinent information to the AMWG, preparing and tracking budget expenses, and updating 

Reclamation’s Web page. Reclamation also responds to regular requests from the General Services 

Administration (GSA) to complete FACA reports and incorporate meeting and member information into 

the FACA database. Reclamation is now required to complete all stakeholder travel, activities that range 

from preparing travel authorizations to completing travel vouchers. Additionally, BRUC staff must 

provide documentation related to litigation involving the Department of the Interior’s operation of Glen 

Canyon Dam to various solicitors; these efforts often require many hours of work not programmed into 

the fiscal year budget(s). 

The primary goal is to perform all work associated with the AMWG in a timely and efficient 

manner, while using the funds available as prudently as possible. Secondary goals include increasing each 

stakeholder’s awareness of significant budget and legislative issues related to the GCDAMP, improving 

working relationships with the AMWG members/alternates, finding constructive ways to resolve 

differences, and addressing individual concerns in an open and accepting forum of discussion. 

Reclamation will work to ensure that personnel costs will not exceed what has been proposed in 

the budget unless Federal employee salaries are increased above the consumer price index (CPI). 

Reclamation staff will provide budget information to the AMWG on a regular basis. Completed work 

products will be of high quality and promptly distributed to AMWG members/alternates and interested 

parties. Budget reports will be presented in a format conducive to AMWG needs.

 

Budget

FY13 = $190,391

FY14 = $196,103

Reclamation Project - Personnel Costs—Funding History

Activity 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Outside Reclamation 

science/labor — — — — — — —

Logistics field support — — — — — — —

Project-related 

travel/training — — — — — — —

Operations/supplies — — — — — — —

Reclamation salaries 123,223 132,892 131,165 134,443 136,846 141,030 145,261

Subtotal 123,223 132,892 131,165 134,443 136,846 141,030 145,261

DOI Overhead (35%) 35,735 43,855 43,284 44,367 47,923 49,361 50,842

Project total 158,958 176,747 174,449 178,810 184,846 190,391 196,103

Total outsourced (%)
10

A.2. AMWG Member Travel Reimbursement 

This budget covers the costs to reimburse AMWG members or alternates to attend regularly 

scheduled AMWG meetings. 

Reimbursing AMWG members or alternates for travel expenses is done to encourage their 

attendance at all meetings. Many members live outside of Phoenix, Arizona, where meetings are typically

held. As a result, many members must incur travel costs. By providing such reimbursement to AMWG 

members or alternates for air travel or mileage for the use of private vehicles, as well as other related 

travel costs such as hotel, per diem, and rental car, Reclamation can increase opportunities for members to 

participate in a variety of AMWG assignments. Because Reclamation can purchase airline tickets at the 

Federal Government rate, there are additional cost savings to the program.

The GCDAMP benefits from having all AMWG members participating in regularly scheduled 

meetings. As a collective body, they address and resolve concerns associated with the operation of GCD 

and make recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior for continued science efforts performed below 

the GCD. 

Budget

FY13 = $15,199

FY14 = $15,655

Reclamation Project - AMWG Travel Reimbursement—Funding History

Activity 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Outside Reclamation 

science/labor — — — — — — —

Logistics field support — — — — — — —

Project-related 

travel/training 16,651 17,467 17,240 17,671 14,756 15,199 15,655

Operations/supplies — — — — — — —

Reclamation salaries — — — — — — —

Subtotal 16,651 17,467 17,240 17,671 14,756 15,199 15,655

DOI Overhead (35%) — — — — — — —

Project total 16,651 17,467 17,240 17,671 14,756 15,199 15,655

Total outsourced (%) — — — — — — —
11

A.3. AMWG Reclamation Travel 

This budget supports travel expenses Reclamation staff incur to attend AMWG and ad hoc group 

meetings. In order to work on AMWG/ad hoc assignments, the meetings are typically held in Phoenix, 

Arizona. As such, Reclamation staff must make additional trips throughout the year in completion of 

those assignments. 

The primary goal is for Reclamation staff to be able to travel to meetings and participate in 

completing AMWG/TWG assignments. By doing so, the program benefits from greater interaction among 

its members as well as continued improvement and commitment to operating GCD in the best manner 

possible and obtaining the results from science being conducted in the study area.

Reclamation staff will be involved with AMWG/TWG members in completing work assignments 

and resolving issues that affect the GCDAMP. They will develop better working relationships with all 

involved and work toward consensus on a variety of sensitive issues. 

Budget

FY13 = $15,595

FY14 = $16,062

Reclamation Project - Reclamation Travel—Funding History 

Activity 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Outside Reclamation 

science/labor — — — — — — —

Logistics field support — — — — — — —

Project-related 

travel/training 13,765 14,439 13,994 14,344 15,140 15,595 16,062

Operations/supplies — — — — — — —

Reclamation salaries — — — — — — —

Subtotal 13,765 14,178 13,994 14,344 15,140 15,595 16,062

DOI Overhead (35%) — — — — — — —

Project total 13,765 14,178 13,994 14,344 15,140 15,595 16,062

Total outsourced (%) — — — — — — —
12

A.4. AMWG Facilitation Contract 

This budget supports a facilitator who is under contract to Reclamation to provide facilitation 

services for AMWG meetings. This person may also assist AMWG ad hoc groups in completing 

assignments. 

The facilitator’s primary responsibility is to keep the AMWG meetings organized and help the 

members reach consensus on important issues. The facilitator creates a setting that allows all members 

and the public to express their views. 

Budget

FY13 = $41,747

FY14 = $43,000

Reclamation Project - Facilitation Contract—Funding History

Activity 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Outside Reclamation 

science/labor — — — — — — —

Logistics field support — — — — — — —

Project-related travel/training 25,700 26,959 26,609 27,274 40,531 41,747 43,000

Operations/supplies — — — — — — —

Reclamation salaries — — — — — — —

Subtotal 25,700 26,959 26,609 27,274 40,531 41,747 43,000

DOI Overhead (35%) — — — — — — —

Project total 25,700 26,959 26,609 27,274 40,531 41,747 43,000

Total outsourced (%) — — — — — — —
13

A.5. Public Outreach 

This budget covers the expenses for Reclamation staff and the Public Outreach Ad Hoc Group 

(POAHG) to develop materials for the GCDAMP public outreach efforts.

Reclamation public affairs staff and the POAHG will work jointly in developing materials to 

inform and educate the public on the goals and administration of the GCDAMP. They will keep other 

GCDAMP members advised of progress and expenditures. 

Products will include fact sheets, Web site information, tribal outreach materials, video B-roll, 

special events, conference participation, and other pertinent means of advising the public and program 

members on the achievements of the GCDAMP. The POAHG will maintain accurate records of payments 

made against the contracts and will keep Reclamation staff informed of discrepancies or concerns. 

Budget

FY13 = $59,305

FY14 = $61,084

Reclamation Project - Public Outreach—Funding History

Activity 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Outside Reclamation science/labor — — — — — — —

Logistics field support — — — — — — —

Project-related travel/training 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000

Operations/supplies — — 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500

Reclamation salaries 41,040 38,846 36,714 37,744 39,430 45,247 46,605

Subtotal 41,040 40,846 41,214 2,244 43,930 45,247 46,605

DOI Overhead (35%) 11,902 13,684 13,600 13,940 15,375 15,837 16,312

Project total 52,942 55,536 54,814 56,184 59,305 61,084 62,917

Total outsourced (%) — — — — —
14

A.6. Other 

This budget represents some of the other “miscellaneous” expenses incurred in operation of the 

AMWG, including the following expenses:

• Overnight mailings of AMWG meeting packets

• Copying of reports

• Purchasing meeting materials (cassette tapes, markers, paper, software upgrades for GCDAMP 

Web site posting, etc.)

• Purchasing equipment (audio recording/transcribing machines)

In addition to the expenses noted above, training courses are often required for staff to keep current 

on environmental issues, FACA changes, computer technology improvements, etc. Also included in this 

category are monetary awards given to Reclamation staff who have contributed significantly to the 

success of the GCDAMP. 

The primary goal is to limit spending on “other” items as much as possible. By doing so, more money 

can be applied to science and research. 

Other expenses will be kept to a minimum in an effort to reduce the administrative portion of the 

GCDAMP budget. 

Budget

FY13 = $8,765

FY14 = $9,028

Reclamation Project - Other—Funding History

Activity 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Outside Reclamation 

science/labor — — — — — — —

Logistics field support — — — — — — —

Project-related travel/training 5,597 5,969 5,865 6,062 6,509 6,765 7,028

Operations/supplies 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000

Reclamation salaries — — — — — — —

Subtotal 7,597 7,969 7,865 8,062 8,509 8,765 9,028

DOI Overhead (35%) — — — — — — —

Project total 7,597 7,969 7,865 8,062 8,509 8,765 9,028

Total outsourced (%) — — — — — — —
15

B.1. TWG Personnel Costs 

This budget represents Reclamation staff costs to perform the daily activities required to support 

the TWG, a subgroup of the AMWG. The work includes completing assignments resulting from TWG 

meetings, consulting with stakeholders on a variety of GCDAMP issues relating to the operation of GCD, 

disseminating pertinent information to TWG members, preparing and tracking budget expenses, and 

updating the Web pages Reclamation maintains for the program. Reclamation also completes all 

stakeholder travel activities, which range from preparing travel authorizations to completing travel 

vouchers. 

Personnel costs will not exceed what has been proposed in the budget unless Federal employee 

salaries are increased above the CPI. Reclamation staff will provide budget information to the TWG on a 

regular basis. Completed work products will be promptly distributed to TWG members/alternates and 

interested parties. 

Budget

FY13 = $92,045

FY14 = $97,651

Reclamation Project - Personnel Costs—Funding History

Activity 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2011 2012

Outside Reclamation science/labor — — — — — — —

Logistics field support — — — — — — —

Project-related travel/training — — — — — — —

Operations/supplies — — — — — — —

Reclamation salaries 56,306 64,808 63,965 65,565 68,181 70,227 72,334

Subtotal 56,306 64,808 63,965 65,565 68,181 70,227 72,334

DOI Overhead (35%) 16,329 21,387 21,109 21,636 23,864 24,579 25,317

Project total 72,635 86,195 85,074 87,201 92,045 94,806 97,651

Total outsourced (%) — — — — — — —
16

B.2. TWG Member Travel Reimbursement 

This budget provides funds to reimburse TWG members or alternates for expenses incurred to 

attend regularly scheduled TWG meetings. 

Reimbursing TWG members or alternates for travel expenses is done to encourage their 

attendance at all meetings. Many members live outside of Phoenix, Arizona, where meetings are typically

held. As a result, many members must incur travel costs. Having Reclamation provide reimbursement to 

TWG members or alternates for air travel or mileage for the use of private vehicles, as well as other 

related travel costs such as hotel, per diem, and rental car increases opportunities for members to 

participate in a variety of TWG assignments. Because Reclamation can purchase airline tickets at the 

Federal Government rate, there are additional cost savings to the program.

The GCDAMP will benefit from having all the TWG members participate in regularly scheduled 

meetings. As a collective body, TWG members address and resolve concerns associated with the 

operation of GCD and make recommendations to the AMWG for continued research. 

Budget

FY13 = $22,331

FY14 = $23,001

Reclamation Project - TWG Member Travel Reimbursement—Funding History

Activity 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Outside Reclamation 

science/labor — — — — — — —

Logistics field support — — — — — — —

Project-related travel/training 22,833 23,952 23,641 24,232 21,861 22,331 23,001

Operations/supplies — — — — — — —

Reclamation salaries — — — — — — —

Subtotal 22,833 23,952 23,641 24,232 21,861 22,331 23,001

DOI Overhead (35%) — — — — — — —

Project total 22,833 23,952 23,641 24,232 21,861 22,331 23,001

Total outsourced (%) — — — — — — —

 
17

B.3. Reclamation Travel 

This budget covers travel expenses that Reclamation staff will incur to prepare for and attend 

TWG meetings and ad hoc group meetings resulting from AMWG/TWG assignments. Meetings needed 

to advance AMWG/TWG efforts are typically held in Phoenix, Arizona, because it is centrally located to 

those entities/States represented on the AMWG/TWG. As a result, Reclamation staff members who are 

not located in Phoenix are required to make additional trips throughout the year in completion of 

AMWG/TWG assignments. 

The primary goal is for Reclamation staff to be able to travel to meetings and participate in 

completing AMWG/TWG assignments. By doing so the program benefits from greater interaction among 

its members as well as continued improvement and commitment to operating GCD in the best manner 

possible and for obtaining the necessary results from science being conducted in the study area.

Reclamation staff will continue to be involved in meeting with AMWG/TWG members to 

complete work assignments and resolve issues that affect the operation of GCD. They will develop better 

working relationships with all involved and work toward consensus on a variety of GCDAMP issues.

Budget

FY13 = $15,407

FY14 = $15,869

Reclamation Project - Reclamation Travel—Funding History

Activity 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Outside Reclamation 

science/labor — — — — — — —

Logistics field support — — — — — — —

Project-related 

travel/training 16,834 17,658 17,428 17,864 14,958 15,407 15,869

Operations/supplies — — — — — — —

Reclamation salaries — — — — — — —

Subtotal 16,834 17,658 17,428 17,864 14,958 15,407 15,869

DOI Overhead (35%) — — — — — — —

Project total 16,834 17,658 17,428 17,864 14,958 15,407 15,869

Total outsourced (%) — — — — — — —
18

B.4. TWG Chair Reimbursement/Facilitation 

This budget supports a person who is under contract to Reclamation to serve as the chairperson of 

the TWG. This person may also assist AMWG/TWG ad hoc groups in completing assignments. In the 

event that the TWG chair salary is covered through funding outside the GCDAMP, these funds can be 

used by Reclamation for administrative purposes or to cover professional facilitation of TWG issues.

The chairperson’s primary responsibility is to conduct regularly scheduled TWG meetings. The 

chairperson also participates in ad hoc group assignments and works closely with Reclamation and 

GCMRC staff in setting meeting agendas. The chairperson follows up on TWG and ad hoc group 

assignments and ensures that information is shared with the members and alternates in a timely manner. 

The chairperson creates an atmosphere in which the members and other participants at TWG 

meetings feel comfortable expressing their individual viewpoints. The chairperson will bring the TWG 

members to consensus on sensitive issues with the ultimate goal of making recommendations to the 

AMWG that incorporate the best scientific information available to the GCDAMP. The chairperson will 

follow up on action items and make assignments as necessary to accomplish TWG objectives.

Budget

FY13 = $31,049

FY14 = $31,980

Reclamation Project - TWG Chair Reimbursement—Funding History

Activity 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Outside Reclamation 

science/labor — — — — — — —

Logistics field support — — — — — — —

Project-related 

travel/training 23,474 24,625 24,305 24,913 30,145 31,049 31,980

Operations/supplies — — — — — — —

Reclamation salaries — — — — — — —

Subtotal 23,474 24,625 24,305 24,913 30,145 31,049 31,980

DOI Overhead (35%) — — — — — — —

Project total 23,474 24,625 24,305 24,913 30,145 31,049 31,980

Total outsourced (%) — — — — — — —
19

B.5. Other 

This budget represents some of the other “miscellaneous” expenses incurred in support of the TWG, 

including the following expenses:

• Overnight mailings of TWG meeting packets

• Copying of reports

• Purchasing meeting materials (cassette tapes, markers, paper, etc.)

• Purchasing equipment (audio recording/transcribing machines)

The primary goal is to limit spending on “other” items as much as possible. By doing so, more money 

can be spent on science and research. 

Other expenses will be kept to a minimum in an effort to keep within the GCDAMP budget. 

Budget

FY13 = $2,504

FY14 = $2,579

Reclamation Project - Other—Funding History

Activity 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Outside Reclamation 

science/labor — — — — — — —

Logistics field support — — — — — — —

Project-related travel/training 2,171 2,277 2,247 2,303 2,431 2,504 2,579

Operations/supplies — — — — — — —

Reclamation salaries — — — — — — —

Subtotal 2,171 2,277 2,247 2,303 2,431 2,504 2,579

DOI Overhead (35%) — — — — — — —

Project total 2,171 2,277 2,247 2,303 2,431 2,504 2,579

Total outsourced (%) — — — — — — —

 
20

C.1. Compliance Documents 

This budget covers the costs for preparing documents for GCDAMP-proposed actions required to 

comply with the Endangered Species Act (ESA), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and 

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Reclamation staff will keep informed on changes to the ESA, 

NEPA, and NHPA and will consult with AMWG stakeholders to ensure appropriate compliance is 

undertaken for actions taken in support of the GCDAMP. Reclamation staff will be involved in all 

compliance issues related to the GCDAMP, using travel expenses to meet with the GCDAMP 

stakeholders to resolve any differences. 

Because the primary compliance need for FY2013-14 will be the Long-Term Experimental and 

Management Plan (LTEMP) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), and all personnel costs associated 

with the LTEMP will be paid through Reclamation appropriations, no funding is programmed for this 

project in FY13/14.

Budget

FY13 = $0

FY14 = $0

Reclamation Project - Compliance Documents—Funding History

Activity 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Outside Reclamation 

science/labor — — — — — — —

Logistics field support — — — — — — —

Project-related 

travel/training — — — — — — —

Operations/supplies — — — — — — —

Reclamation salaries 210,080 37,594 37,105 300,701 195,300

Subtotal 60,923 37,594 37,105 300,701 195,300

DOI Overhead (35%) 12,406 12,245 99,232 64,450

Project total 271,003 50,000 49,350 399,933 259,750 0 0

Total outsourced (%) — — — — — — —
21

C.2. Administrative Support for NPS Permitting 

This budget provides funding to support the Grand Canyon National Park permitting of research 

and monitoring projects conducted under the GCDAMP. Grand Canyon National Park employs a 

permitting specialist and staff who review all proposals for projects to be completed in the park under the 

auspices of the GCDAMP. The program provides these funds to offset the park’s administrative burden in 

providing these services.

The primary goal is to ensure that projects conducted under the GCDAMP are reviewed and 

permitted by the NPS. 

Projects conducted under the GCDAMP will receive permits from the NPS in a timely manner.

Budget

FY13 = $126,242

FY14 = $130,029

Reclamation Project - Administrative Support for NPS Permitting—Funding History

Activity 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Outside Reclamation 

science/labor — — — — — — —

Logistics field support — — — — — — —

Project-related travel/training — — — — — — —

Operations/supplies — — — — — — —

Reclamation salaries — — — — — — —

Subtotal 113,300 118,852 117,307 120,240 121,882 126,242 130,029

DOI Overhead (35%) — — — — — — —

Project total 113,300 118,852 117,307 120,240 121,882 126,242 130,029

Total outsourced (%) — — — — — — —
22

C.3. Contract Administration 

This budget covers the expenses for Reclamation staff to prepare and monitor contracts 

associated with the GCDAMP. These contracts include AMWG facilitation and TWG chairperson 

reimbursement.

Reclamation contract specialists will accurately apply funds spent on individual contracts to 

ensure costs do not exceed contract limits. They will keep other Reclamation staff informed as to those 

charges so accurate reporting can be made to both AMWG and TWG members. 

Contract specialists will ensure that individual contractors are fulfilling the requirements of their 

contracts. They will maintain accurate records of payments made against the contracts and will keep 

Reclamation staff informed of discrepancies or concerns. Work will be completed on time and within the 

limits of the contract. 

Budget

FY13 = $43,945

FY14 = $45,264

Reclamation Project - Contract Administration—Funding History

Activity 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Outside Reclamation 

science/labor — — — — — — —

Logistics field support — — — — — — —

Project-related 

travel/training — — — — — — —

Operations/supplies — — — — — — —

Reclamation salaries 25,830 30,040 29,650 30,391 31,604 32,552 33,529

Subtotal 25,830 30,040 29,650 30,391 31,604 32,552 33,529

DOI Overhead (35%) 7,491 9,913 9,784 10,029 11,061 11,393 11,735

Project total 33,321 39,953 39,434 40,420 42,665 43,945 45,264

Total outsourced (%) — — — — — — —

 
23

C.4. Experimental Carryover Funds 

This budget item reserves funds for conducting experiments under the GCDAMP. The funds will 

be available to conduct experiments when conditions are appropriate. If the funds are not needed in a 

given year, they will be transferred to the Native Fish Conservation Carryover Fund.

Budget

FY13 = $515,000

FY14 = $515,000

Reclamation Project - Experimental Carryover Funds—Funding History

Activity 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Outside Reclamation 

science/labor — — — — —

Logistics field support — — — — — — —

Project-related 

travel/training — — — — — — —

Operations/supplies — — — — — — —

Reclamation salaries — — — — — — —

Subtotal 500,000 500,000 493,500 505,838 521,013 515,000 515,000

DOI Overhead (35%) — — — — — —

Project total 500,000 500,000 493,500 505,838 521,013 515,000 515,000

Total outsourced (%) — — — — — — —
24

C.5. Integrated Tribal Resources Monitoring 

This budget item provides funds to identify traditional cultural properties (TCPs) and implement 

Native American monitoring protocols that were developed in FY07 and recommended by the TWG as 

part of efforts to develop a core-monitoring program. 

In addition, the five GCDAMP Tribes (Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Tribe, Kaibab-Paiute Tribe, Pueblo 

of Zuni, and Navajo Nation) will work with Reclamation and the NPS to implement monitoring of 

historic properties in Glen and Grand Canyons. This will be accomplished by adding an additional 3 days 

to the annual GCDAMP monitoring trips.

The primary goal of this activity is to evaluate the effects of dam operations and other actions 

under the authority of the Secretary of the Interior on resources of value to Native American Tribes. A 

secondary goal is to conduct condition monitoring of historic properties to assist Reclamation in 

compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

Annual reports will be prepared detailing activities, findings, and monitoring data that result from 

implementing core-monitoring protocols for historic properties. Condition monitoring data will be 

provided to Reclamation to assist in prioritization of historic properties for treatment in subsequent years. 

In addition, monitoring data will be used to update NPS databases.

Budget

FY13 = $157,160

FY14 = $161,875

Reclamation Project - Integrated Tribal Resources Monitoring—Funding History

Activity 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Outside Reclamation 

science/labor — — — — — — —

Logistics field support — — — — — — —

Project-related 

travel/training — — — — — — —

Operations/supplies — — — — — — —

Reclamation salaries — — — — — — —

Subtotal (power 

revenues) 136,210 142,884 141,027 144,553 148,889 157,160 161,875

DOI Overhead (35%) — — — — — — —

Appropriated Funds — — 75,000 75,000 — — —

Project total 136,210 142,884 216,027 219,553 148,889 157,160 161,875

Total outsourced (%) — — — — — — —
25

C.6. Native Fish Conservation Contingency Fund 

This budget item establishes a native fish conservation fund. This is a fund consisting of 

GCDAMP carryover funds from prior years, and serves to ensure that funds are available for the control 

of nonnative fish should the need arise. This includes implementation of non-native fish control actions as 

defined in the 2007 and 2011 Opinions, and the NNFC EA and F0NSI. Efforts to control nonnative fish, 

particularly warm water species that reproduce rapidly, may also be required to protect native fish 

populations more expeditiously than can be accommodated by the standard biennial budget process. 

Should excess funds become available beyond those needed for non-native fish control, these funds could 

be expended on other research, monitoring, and management actions that help conserve native fish. This 

fund will be incrementally increased with future carryover dollars when available. 

Budget

FY13 = $782,660

FY14 = $1,321,139

Reclamation Project – Native Fish Conservation Contingency Fund—Funding History

Activity 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Outside Reclamation science/labor — — — — — — —

Logistics field support — — — — — — —

Project-related travel/training — — — — — — —

Operations/supplies — — — — — — —

Reclamation salaries — — — — — — —

Subtotal — 48,483 47,853 49,049 50,521 782,660 1,321,139

DOI Overhead (35%) — — — — — — —

Project total — 48,483 47,853 49,049 50,521 782,660 1,321,139

Total outsourced (%) — — — — — — —
26

D.1. Cultural Resources Program Administrative Costs 

This budget funds the salary and travel expenses of Reclamation staff to administer the NHPA 

compliance for the GCDAMP. This includes the 1994 PA for Glen Canyon Dam Operations, the 2012 

Memoranda of Agreement (MOA) documents for Non-native Fish Control and the HFE Protocol, and 

general needs of tribal consultation for the GCDAMP. This also includes Reclamation staff 

administration costs associated with maintaining the grants for tribal participation in the GCDAMP and 

five tribal sole source contracts from power revenues to implement Native American monitoring 

protocols.

Project Goals and Objectives:

• Management of five tribal sole source contracts from appropriated funds for participation in the 

GCDAMP and management of five tribal sole source contracts from power revenues to implement 

Native American monitoring protocols.

• Management of the monitoring and data recovery of at-risk historic properties and other related 

projects associated with implementation of NHPA compliance agreements for the operation of Glen 

Canyon Dam.

• Attending TWG and AMWG meetings, Cultural Ad Hoc Group meetings, and conducting meetings 

required by the 1994 PA and 2012 MOAs.

Compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106 is the primary outcome of this 

project, which also ensures accountability for the tribal grants and contracts and appropriate use of both 

appropriated dollars and power revenues. 

Budget

FY13 = $127,839

FY14 = $131,310

Reclamation Project - Cultural Resources Program Administrative Costs—Funding History

Activity 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Outside Reclamation science/labor — — — — — — —

Logistics field support — — — — — — —

Project-related travel/training — 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 9,000 9,000

Operations/supplies — — — — — — —

Reclamation salaries 57,354 42,236 41,633 42,302 44,575 85,696 88,267

Subtotal 57,354 45,236 44,633 45,302 47,575 94,696 97,267

DOI Overhead (35%) — 14,928 14,729 14,950 16,651 33,143 34,043

Project total 57,354 60,164 59,362 60,252 64,226 127,839 131,310

Total outsourced (%) — — — — — — —
27

D.2. Cultural Resources Program Implementation 

Introduction 

The 1994 Programmatic Agreement (PA) has resulted in determinations of eligibility and 

18 years of monitoring data, but given new efforts currently underway, it is appropriate to revisit 

and review our approach to a number of cultural resource issues. This project will provide for 

mitigation, treatment, and changes to monitoring of resources through the 1994 PA or the newly 

executed HFE Protocol and NNFC MOAs. 

As the LTEMP EIS moves forward, Reclamation and NPS will be evaluating the 

necessary steps for compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act and 36 CFR 800 with 

respect to any undertaking or undertakings adopted as part of that new Federal action. 

Reclamation will be evaluating whether to amend and update the 1994 PA or to follow 36 CFR 

800 for any undertakings identified in the EIS. This project will also provide a placeholder for 

potential planning and implementation actions that may be needed for LTEMP EIS NHPA 

compliance.

Reclamation’s intent is to involve the American Indian tribes who participate in the 

GCDAMP during the development of the FY13/14 budget. Reclamation will seek tribal input 

through tribal consultation in addition to tribal input received in the GCDAMP biennial budget 

process.

The following is Reclamation’s FY13/14 work plan prepared to be consistent with these 

NHPA compliance needs.

1. Implementation of HFE Protocol MOA. Consultation on the National Historic 

Preservation Act for the HFE Protocol resulted in a signed MOA in compliance with the 

NHPA and 36 CFR 800.6. The undertaking was considered to have an adverse effect on 

19 historic properties, because the undertaking (multiple HFEs) might diminish the 

integrity of the property’s setting, materials, feeling, or association. Reclamation and 

NPS consulted with the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office and the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation for these 19 sites. Stipulations to resolve the adverse 

effect included monitoring for multiple HFEs, and according to Stipulation I of the MOA, 

within 120 days after execution of the MOA, Reclamation must consult with the parties 

to the MOA to develop a program to resolve adverse effects of HFEs. Reclamation will 

have this meeting during FY12 to discuss potential monitoring, treatment and mitigation 

efforts related to the HFE Protocol (this will be funded with FY12 power revenues). 

In preparation for this meeting, Reclamation analyzed the 19 sites and has determined 

that four prehistoric sites within the Area of Potential Effect have not been mitigated and 

could be adversely affected by multiple HFEs. These sites are: AZ C:2:35, AZ C:2:75, 

AZ C:2:77, and AZ C:13:9. The first three sites are in Glen Canyon National Recreation 

Area, and the last site is in Grand Canyon National Park. Site C:2:75 was tested by the 

NPS in 1999 and NPS recommended no further work; however, a site condition

assessment by Navajo Nation Archeology Department (NNAD) in 2007 recommended 

additional work. Likewise, C:2:77 was tested by NPS in 2000 and no further work was 

recommended, but the NNAD site condition assessment in 2007 recommended additional 
28

excavation to retrieve information important in prehistory (National Register Criterion d). 

During the FY12 meeting, Reclamation will consult with all MOA signatories to seek 

agreement on mitigation of adverse effects of the undertaking on all or some of these four

sites based on agreed upon field assessments and information provided by monitoring as 

well as tribal input. Proposed mitigation would include mitigation for loss of tribal 

associative values under National Register Criteria a and b (including consideration of 

traditional ecological knowledge (TEK), if applicable). If consultation results in 

agreement on resolution of effects, an MOA would be prepared and a contract would be 

awarded in FY13 for the first three sites, and FY14 for the fourth site to implement a 

treatment plan. The FY12 meeting may result in the identification of other resources 

requiring monitoring, treatment or mitigation. The proposed scope and budget (below) 

can be modified after the FY12 meeting to accommodate any changes.

Proposed budget: FY13 $66,000, FY14 implementation of treatment plan for one site in Grand 

Canyon $50,000.

2. Documentation of Associative Values. In FY13, Reclamation will consult with the tribes 

to see if they agree that there should be additional documentation. If so, Reclamation will 

convene a workshop to develop and implement a strategy for documenting associative 

values. Such a strategy might include developing a scope of work with the tribes for a 

contract for an ethnographer or ethnohistorian to document tribal associations with their 

eligible historic properties; i.e., the five historic properties determined eligible in the HFE 

Protocol and NNFC MOAs. The resulting documentation could include information that 

can be shared for purposes of educating tribal children on their heritage and association 

with the canyons. The documentation would also serve to mitigate for loss of associative 

values or integrity under the NPS’s policies (see National Register Bulletin 15). If 

consultation during FY13 results in agreement among Reclamation and the tribes, then 

the contract would be awarded by the end of FY13. 

Proposed budget: FY13 $100,000; FY14 $30,000.

3. Non-native Fish Control Consultation. Under the non-native fish control MOA, there are 

stipulations for consultation with tribes before and after any proposed removal actions 

and also stipulations for tribes to participate in non-native fish control efforts. This 

funding will facilitate tribal participation. During consultation, Reclamation will discuss 

any potential to include TEK into this project.

Proposed budget: FY13 $10,000; FY14 $10,000. 

4. GCMRC monitoring support. GCMRC is developing a proposal to better understand 

aeolian transport and gully incision that will help identify dam operation effects on 

archaeological sites. This will fund most of GCMRC’s Project Element J.3. As this 

project is developed, tribes will be consulted.

Proposed budget: FY13 $161,929; FY14 $156,129.
29

5. At the last TWG meeting, GCMRC presented information on TEK as it has been used for 

other projects. Using some of this data as the base, this line item would support the 

development of a pilot TEK project with the tribes for monitoring and/or treatment in the 

canyons. This will be a project that is developed with the tribes and may involve an 

existing monitoring or treatment program.

Proposed budget: FY13 develop this project with the tribes $15,000; FY14 implement the pilot 

project $50,000. 

6. LTEMP Planning and Implementation. At this time, we can expect some 

recommendations to come out of LTEMP for the cultural resources program. This is a 

place holder.

Proposed budget: FY13 $10,000; FY14 implement any recommendations $40,000.

Reclamation Cultural Program Budget Table, FY13-14.

Fiscal 

Year

Treatment Associative 

Values

NNMOA

Consult 

GCMRC 

Support

Tribal 

TEK 

Project

LTEMP 

Planning/

Implementation

Total

FY13 $ 66,000 $ 100,000 $10,000 $161,129 $15,000 $10,000 $362,129

FY14 $50,000 $30,000 $10,000 $156,129 $50,000 $40,000 $336,129

Budget

FY13 = $440,620

FY14 = $406,419

Reclamation Project – Cultural Resources Program Implementation—Funding History

Activity 2008 2009 2010* 2011 2012 2013 2014

Outside Reclamation 

science/labor — — — — — — —

Logistics field support — — — — — — —

Project-related travel/training — — — — — — —

Operations/supplies — — — — — — —

Reclamation salaries — — — — — — —

Subtotal 300,000 500,000 493,500 205,838 519,500

Subtotal (less GCMRC Sup.) 207,030 185,400

DOI Overhead (35%) — — — — — 72,461 64,890

GCMRC Support 161,129 156,129

Project total 300,000 500,000 493,500 205,838 519,500 440,620 406,419

Total outsourced (%) — 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
30

*Note that CPI and DOI Overhead are not applied to the funds for GCMRC Support because 

these figures include CPI and GCMRC Overhead.
31

D.3. Appropriated Funding 

Tribal Participation in the GCDAMP: Sole-Source Reimbursable Contracts with Tribes 

As a result of this project, participation in GCDAMP meetings, resource monitoring, and 

government-to-government consultation will be accomplished in concert with the five GCDAMP 

Tribes (Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Tribe, Kaibab Paiute Tribe, Pueblo of Zuni, Navajo Nation) and 

five DOI agencies (U.S. Geological Survey, National Park Service, Reclamation, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Indian Affairs), with Reclamation serving as lead agency. 

The purpose of funding of tribal contracts is to ensure tribal viewpoints are integrated 

into continuing GCDAMP dialogs, votes, and in the final recommendations made to the 

Secretary of the Interior. 

The most important product is the incorporation of tribal perspectives into the 

recommendations forwarded to the Secretary. In addition, the Tribes prepare annual reports on 

activities funded under these contracts. Continued funding of government-to-government 

consultation through the agreements ensures enhanced communication and understanding of the 

GCDAMP issues and concerns. 

Budget

FY13 = $475,000

FY14 = $475,000

Reclamation Project E. Tribal Participation in the GCDAMP: Sole-Source Reimbursable Contracts 

with Tribes—Funding History

Activity 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Outside Reclamation 

science/labor

— — — — — — —

Logistics field support — — — — — — —

Project-related travel/training — — — — — — —

Operations/supplies — — — — — — —

Reclamation salaries — — — — — — —

Subtotal 475,000 475,000 475,000 475,000 475,000 475,000 475,000

DOI Overhead (35%)

Project total 475,000 475,000 475,000 475,000 475,000 475,000 475,000

Total outsourced (%) 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Appendix 1-A. FY 2013-14 Preliminary Draft Budget for the Bureau of Reclamation 

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management 

Program

FY 2013-14 Preliminary Draft Budget for the 

Bureau of Reclamation

Updated: 

5/24/12

Description

FY12 

w/3.9% 

CPI

FY13 

w/3.0% 

CPI

FY14 

w/3.0%

CPI

AMWG

Personnel Costs - Labor & Burden 184,846 190,391 196,103

AMWG Member Travel Reimb 14,756 15,199 15,655

AMWG Reclamation Travel 

Reimb. 15,140 15,595 16,062

Facilitation Contract 40,531 41,747 43,000

POAHG Expenses - Labor, Burden, 

& Travel 59,305 61,084 62,917

Other 8,509 8,765 9,028

Subtotal $323,087 $332,781 $342,765

TWG

Personnel Costs - Labor 92,045 94,806 97,651

TWG Member Travel Reimb. 21,681 22,331 23,001

Reclamation Travel 14,958 15,407 15,869

TWG Chair / Facilitation 30,145 31,049 31,980

Other 2,431 2,504 2,579

Subtotal $161,260 $166,097 $171,080

OTHER

Compliance Documents 259,750 0 0

Admin Support NPS Permitting 121,882 126,242 130,029

Contract Administration - Labor, 

Burden, Travel 42,665 43,945 45,264

Experimental Funds 507,679 515,000 515,000

Integrated Tribal Resource 

Monitoring 152,583 157,160 161,875

Native Fish Conservation 

Carryover Fund 0 782,660 1,321,139

Subtotal $1,084,559 $1,625,007 $2,173,308

CULTURAL PROGRAM

Cultural Resources Program 

Administrative Costs 64,226 127,839 131,310

Cultural Resources Program 

Implementation 519,500 440,620 406,419

Subtotal $583,726 $568,459 $537,729

Reclamation Power Revenue 

Costs Total $2,152,632 $2,692,344 $3,224,882
33

 

Reclamation Power Revenue 

Costs w/o Carryover $2,152,632 $1,909,684 $1,903,742

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management 

Program

FY 2013-14 Preliminary Draft Budget for the Bureau of 

Reclamation

Updated: 

5/24/12

Description FY12 

w/3.9% CPI

FY13 

w/3.0% CPI

FY14 

w/3.0% CPI

OTHER APPROPRIATED FUNDS

NPS Cultural Resources

Monitoring FY12 91,000

TRIBAL CONTRACTS (Appropriated 

Funds)

Hopi Tribe 95,000

Hualapai Tribe 95,000

Navajo Nation 95,000

Pueblo of Zuni 95,000

Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians 95,000

DOI Agency Appropriated Funds 

Total $91,000 $475,000

Total $91,000 $475,00

0 $2,152,632 $2,705,038 $3,270,290

Total w/o Carryover $2,152,632 $1,909,684 $1,903,742
34

Chapter 2. U.S. Geological Survey, Southwest Biological Science Center, 

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center Biennial Budget and Work 

Plan—Fiscal Years 2013/14 

Introduction 

The Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP) is an advisory

process wherein protection and management of Colorado River resources downstream from Glen 

Canyon Dam are considered in planning dam operations. The Grand Canyon Protection Act of 

1992 directed the Secretary of the Interior to establish and implement long-term monitoring 

programs to ensure that Glen Canyon Dam is operated “... in such a manner as to protect, 

mitigate adverse impacts to, and improve the values for which Grand Canyon National Park and 

Glen Canyon National Recreation Area were established....” The Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) for Operation of Glen Canyon Dam (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1995) 

recommended creation of a federal advisory committee to advise the Secretary on 

implementation of an adaptive management program for operations of the dam. The Record of 

Decision for the EIS that was signed in October 1996 created this federal advisory committee, 

and the charter of the Adaptive Management Work Group (AMWG) that implements the 

GCDAMP was signed in January 1997.

The GCDAMP budget is administered by the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). One 

part of the GCDAMP budget supports Reclamation’s project administration and staff travel, 

provides reimbursements to AMWG members and members of other GCDAMP committees and 

subcommittees, provides meeting facilitation and public outreach, and supports compliance 

activities. Reclamation funding, with supplemental support from 4 other agencies of the 

Department of the Interior, also supports Native American tribal participation in many aspects of

the program. These aspects of the program are described in Chapter 1. 

A large proportion of the GCDAMP annual budget supports the monitoring and research 

work of the USGS Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC). The GCMRC is 

the primary science provider for the GCDAMP and undertakes monitoring activities about the 

status and trends of natural, cultural, and recreational resources of the Colorado River between 

Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Mead reservoir, as well as additional measurements of water quality 

in Lake Powell reservoir. The GCMRC also undertakes research activities to resolve critical 

uncertainties about how dam operations affect downstream river resources.

Purpose 

This Biennial Work Plan (BWP) describes the monitoring and research activities that will 

be undertaken by GCMRC and its cooperators in fiscal years 2013 and 2014 (FY13/14). These 

fiscal years occur between October 1, 2013, and September 30, 2014.

Overview of the FY13/14 GCMRC Monitoring and Research Program 

The FY13/14 BWP is organized differently from the BWPs of past years. The FY13/14 

BWP includes fewer projects, and each project is organized around larger monitoring and 

research themes. For example, there were 12 projects concerning fish and other aquatic resources 
35

in the FY11/12 BWP, and there are 5 projects in the FY13/14 BWP. The monitoring and 

research themes identified in the FY13/14 BWP are those common to 

(1) the 5 priority questions and the 12 program goals developed by the AMWG in 2004; 

(2) the monitoring and research plan prepared by GCMRC, approved by AMWG in 

August 2007 and amended and approved in April 2009 (U.S. Geological Survey, 2007a); 

(3) the strategic science plan prepared by GCMRC in March 2007 and amended in April 

2009 (U. S. Geological Survey, 2007b); 

(4) the draft Core Monitoring Plan (U. S. Geological Survey, 2011);

(5) Assistant Secretary Castle’s March 31, 2011, memo establishing priorities in GCMRC 

science planning; 

(6) the General Science Plan appended to the Environmental Assessment for the 

Development and Implementation of a Protocol for High-flow Experimental Releases 

from Glen Canyon Dam (Bureau of Reclamation, 2011a, appendix B);

(7) the Research and Monitoring Plan for the Environmental Assessment for Non-Native 

Fish Control Downstream from Glen Canyon Dam (Bureau of Reclamation, 2011b, 

appendix B); and,

(8) the 2011 report of the Desired Future Conditions Ad Hoc Group of the AMWG.

The monitoring and research themes described in the various GCDAMP documents and 

agreements written during the past decade concern (1) maintenance of the predam physical 

template, especially regarding fine sediment, upon which the native ecosystem developed; (2) 

recovery of the endangered humpback chub (Gila cypha) and maintenance of populations of 

other native fish; (3) maintenance of the food base on which the native fish community depends; 

(4) maintenance of the native riparian vegetation community; and, (5) maintenance of culturally 

important sites, including those that are of archaeological and historical significance. The various 

goals, questions, information needs, and desired future conditions developed by the various 

GCDAMP committees also recognize the importance of the nonnative rainbow trout

(Oncorhynchus mykiss) fish population in Glen Canyon and the role played by nonnative riparian 

vegetation in providing habitat for some desired fauna. In addition to these resource 

considerations, delivery of water in accordance with the Law of the River and generation of 

renewable hydroelectricity are essential to the economic well-being of the Southwest. Thus, 

economic analysis of the various recommendations of the GCDAMP is another critical part of 

the GCDAMP.

Overview of the FY13/14 Projects 

In response to the monitoring and research themes described above, the FY13/14 work

plan is organized into ten major projects. Three of these projects are in the fields of 

geomorphology, sediment transport, stream flow measurement, and water quality monitoring. 

Five projects are in the field of fish ecology, and one project is focused in riparian ecology. An 

additional project is focused in the field of cultural resources and includes project elements 

concerning small-scale monitoring of landscape change at archaeological sites and a project 

element concerning the larger scale geomorphic processes that affect archaeological sites.

Geomorphology, sediment transport, and water quality projects 

Three projects are in the physical sciences. Project A concerns the geomorphology of fine 

sediment deposits in and near the Colorado River. Fine sediment is sand (0.0625 – 2 mm) and 
36

mud; in turn, mud is silt (0.0039-0.0625 mm) and clay (<0.0039 mm). These deposits are the 

substrate of the campsite resource, substrate in which the riparian ecosystem has developed, the 

architecture of native fish habitat including backwater nursery habitat for humpback chub, and is 

the substrate in and on which archaeological sites occur. The existence of Glen Canyon Dam and 

Lake Powell causes the deposition of all of the fine sediment supplied from the Upper Colorado 

River basin in the reservoir. Releases of reservoir water at the dam are free of sediment, and 

there is no significant fine sediment supply to Glen Canyon. The Paria River enters the Colorado 

River at Lees Ferry and delivers approximately 3.3 x 106 tons/yr of fine sediment (Topping et al., 

2000), although the amount supplied from year to year varies greatly. The postdam fine sediment 

supply to the upstream end of Marble Canyon has been decreased by 95%, in relation to the 

predam fine sediment supply rate of 62.8 x 106 tons/yr that was supplied from the Upper 

Colorado River basin (Topping et al., 2000). Thus, the postdam Colorado River has excess 

mechanical energy available to transport fine sediment, and large amounts of fine sediment on 

the river bed and in eddies has been eroded and transported downstream towards Lake Mead.

The remaining fine sediment deposits that are of greatest interest to river managers are 

primarily composed of sand and occur in eddies. Eddies typically occur downstream from the 

rapids that make Marble and Grand Canyons a famous recreational whitewater river. Since the 

1970s, river scientists have struggled to understand the dynamics of the postdam Colorado River 

and its adjustment to a greatly reduced fine sediment supply (Laursen and others, 1976, Howard 

and Dolan, 1981, Schmidt and Grams, 2011). It is inevitable that postdam fine sediment deposits 

will be smaller and more sparsely distributed than predam deposits, and significant river 

management questions concerning the Colorado River downstream from Glen Canyon Dam are:

What is the largest, sustainable amount of fine sediment that can occur along the banks of the 

Colorado River, especially as eddy sandbars? What flow regime, in relation to the natural 

supply of fine sediment from the Paria and Little Colorado Rivers, results in the most 

widespread distribution of fine sediment along the channel banks and in eddies?

Project B describes continued monitoring of the rate and quantity of the Colorado River’s 

stream flow, as well as the inflow that occurs from tributaries. Additionally, Project B concerns 

measurement of the fine sediment that enters the Colorado River from tributaries and 

measurement of the quality of the Colorado River’s water. Project C concerns continued 

monitoring of the quality of Lake Powell, because that water determines the quality of water in 

the Colorado River downstream. 

Projects A and B are essential components to implementation of the Protocol for Highflow Experimental Releases, because the protocol calls for high flow releases from Glen Canyon 

Dam whenever a specified minimum amount of fine sediment delivered from the Paria River is 

exceeded. Project B is this measurement program, as well as the measurements that describe the 

fate of that fine sediment once it enters the Colorado River. Project A supports the direct 

measurements of the volume of fine sediment, especially sand, that is stored on the bed of the 

Colorado River, in its eddies, or at higher elevation along the river’s banks. For the first time, the 

program for measurement of campsites is integrated with this fine sediment measurement 

program.

Projects in Fish Ecology 

Projects D, E, F, G, and H concern the fishes of the Colorado River, its tributaries, and 

the food base on which those fish depend. Project F includes all of the long-term monitoring 

projects funded by the GCDAMP during the past few years. Projects D and E are research 
37

projects intended to resolve critical uncertainties about humpback chub, their distribution in the 

Colorado River ecosystem (CRe), and their life history in the Little Colorado River and 

elsewhere. Project H concerns the rainbow trout fishery of Glen Canyon, and Project G concerns 

understanding the competitive and predatory relationships between trout and native fish.

The goals in developing the aquatic ecology and fisheries portions of the FY13/14 BWP 

were to maintain long-term monitoring programs of key aquatic resources in the CRe while also 

addressing persistent scientific uncertainties that have plagued management of the aquatic 

ecosystem. Because nonnative rainbow and brown trout (Salmo trutta) compete and prey on 

native fish, including humpback chub, significant management questions focus on

What management strategies should to be employed to maintain a high quality rainbow trout 

fishery in Glen Canyon while protecting, and potentially recovering, the endangered 

humpback fish community in Marble and Grand Canyons?

New or expanded research projects are intended to provide information in areas where 

the greatest uncertainty remains. Most of the monitoring needs in the FY13/14 BWP were 

identified in the Environmental Assessment for Non-Native Fish Control Downstream from Glen 

Canyon Dam and its associated Biological Opinion. These documents also identified areas of 

uncertainty where more research was needed. These uncertainties, as well as others identified 

during several workshops held as part of GCMRC’s second Knowledge Assessment, formed the 

foundation of the projects for new and expanded research presented in the BWP. Consideration 

was also given to past recommendations and guidance that were part of the development of 

Strategic Science Questions, Research Information Needs, Core Monitoring Information Needs, 

and Desired Future Conditions. 

The emphasis of research proposed in these projects is primarily on native fish, especially 

the humpback chub. Although much has been learned about the distribution, habitat use, life 

history, population dynamics, and other aspects of the biology and ecology of this species, key 

uncertainties remain. Two areas of uncertainty believed to be among the most critical include the 

dynamics and ecology of the mainstem population aggregations of humpback chub known as 

(Project D) and the variability in survival, growth, and emigration rates of early life history 

stages of humpback chub in the Little Colorado River. Additionally, little is known about 

biological drivers of this variation (Project E). Interactions between native and nonnative fish, 

particularly between humpback chub and trout, are still an area of concern given several 

remaining uncertainties. A research approach that includes laboratory experimentation and field 

study is needed to better understand the predation and competition effects of nonnative fish on 

native species and to determine to what extent these interactions are affected by environmental 

conditions (Project G).

Maintaining the rainbow trout fishery in Glen Canyon has been a longstanding 

management priority. While our understanding of some of the drivers of this population has 

improved, a number of unknowns remain. A combination of laboratory and field studies, 

modeling, and comparison to similar systems will help clarify the drivers of rainbow trout 

population status and trends, size composition, and downstream migration (Project H), thus

allowing for more effective management of this important fishery.

Monitoring of key aquatic resources in the CRe remains a critical component of the 

FY13/14 BWP (Project F). In fact, the majority of work proposed for this biennium is 

monitoring to be conducted by GCMRC and its cooperators. These projects generate data that 
38

can be used to provide a baseline for observing status and trends in resources of interest, to 

assess the effectiveness of various management actions, and to inform managers as to the need to 

conduct management actions or the attainment of identified goals. Surveys of humpback chub 

and other fishes are proposed to continue in the Little Colorado River. This will include both 

physical captures of fish in the spring and fall and continuous electronic monitoring to detect 

individuals previously tagged with passive integrated transponders. Mainstem surveys will also 

continue annually in the fall as part of Project D and quarterly near the mouth of the Little 

Colorado River. These surveys provide critical information on the relative abundance of 

humpback chub populations and also provide data used in generating survival estimates as well 

as abundance estimates with the Age-Structured Mark Recapture model. Annual surveys of other 

native fish as well as nonnative species will also continue in Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons. 

This work includes monitoring of trout spawning, early life stages, and adult populations in Glen 

Canyon, trout abundance and emigration in Marble Canyon, and the distributions and relative 

abundance of all native and nonnative fishes in Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons. These efforts 

will help keep scientists and managers informed on the status and trends of fish throughout the 

CRe and will provide a mechanism of surveillance and early detection of invasive fish species. 

Although study of the aquatic food base has been integrated into several research proposals, 

monitoring of this important resource will also continue or be expanded. Information to be 

collected includes production of algae and invertebrates, organic matter biomass, and drift of 

invertebrates and organic matter. Understanding the aquatic food base and its dynamics are 

essential to understanding the distribution, condition, and abundance of fish populations in the 

CRe.

Project in Riparian Ecology 

Results of on-going monitoring, and presentations made at the second Knowledge 

Assessment Workshop demonstrated that riparian vegetation is increasing greatly in the CRe, has 

significant impact on campsite availability, and has significant implications to the aquatic and 

terrestrial ecosystem. The expansion in the distribution of the tamarisk beetle (Diorhabda spp.) 

significantly affects the riparian ecosystem, and potentially provides the opportunity to river 

managers to create a new distribution of native and nonnative vegetation downstream from the 

dam, because the distribution of tamarisk (Tamarix spp.) is likely to greatly decrease. Project I is 

a revision and expansion of the present monitoring program for riparian vegetation. The 

revisions have been made to make the CRe work complementary to that underway in the Upper 

Colorado River basin, as conducted by the National Park Service’s Northern Colorado Plateau 

Information and Monitoring Network. The effort here is to develop data sets that can be 

compared across larger spatial scale in different geomorphic settings and different dam operation 

scenarios. The field monitoring in riparian ecology is complemented by remote sensing work and 

an applied research project focused on assessing the implications of tamarisk beetle expansion.

Cultural Resources Monitoring and Research Project 

In relation to past BWPs, the monitoring and research program in cultural resources is 

substantially revised. The project work in FY13/14 is divided into a monitoring phase and a 

research phase. The monitoring phase will partly take place in Glen Canyon where new airborne 

lidar protocols will be evaluated. In Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons, existing ground-based 

lidar protocols will be applied at a range of sites dominated by different styles of geomorphic 

processes. A new applied research program will be initiated in FY13/14 that focuses on placing 
39

the various site-scale measurements into a larger context. The focus of this project element is to 

understand (1) the geographic extent of the influence of Glen Canyon Dam on those geomorphic 

processes that affect archaeological resources, (2) evaluate whether gully erosion is progressive 

in the CRe and the conditions under which windblown sand reverses gullying, and (3) how

changes in sand bar area result in significant changes in erosional processes that threaten 

archaeological resources. This large-scale overview of geomorphic processes in the Colorado 

River valley will provide a critical context for the small-scale measurements made at monitoring 

sites.

Other Project Components 

The FY13/14 program also supports the work of a yet-to-be-hired economist at GCMRC. 

Funding includes support for project work as well as the salary and benefits for this individual. 

The program of study that will be undertaken by this individual has not yet been 

comprehensively described. The program of the economist will involve consultation with the 

AMWG, the Technical Work Group (TWG), and ad hoc committees that are focused on 

economic issues.

Independent review of the work of the GCMRC, the work of GCMRC’s associated 

scientists in sister agencies, consulting firms, and universities, and the decisions and programs of 

the AMWG and TWG are critical aspects of the GCDAMP. In FY13/14, the budgets allocated 

for specific independent reviews and for the work of the Science Advisors have been reduced, 

consistent with reduced expectations about the number of papers and proposals that are expected 

to require review. Nevertheless, funding supports the full suite of activities critical to the mission 

of the GCDAMP, especially by the Science Advisors.

GCMRC Project Administration 

Administration of the GCMRCs work is funded in two ways – as direct costs associated 

with the salaries and travel expenses of key leadership and administrative personnel and as 

indirect costs (called “burden” in the USGS) that support the USGS Southwest Biological 

Science Center (SBSC). Part of the indirect costs are assessed at a 14% burden rate on all work 

conducted by GCMRC staff and partly by a direct $1 million allocation by the USGS to the 

SBSC. 

Relation between FY13/14 Biennial Work Plan and Administrative 

Guidance 

The FY13/14 BWP simplified and consolidated into larger projects focused on significant 

natural and socio-economic resource questions and resource conditions. There are ten projects 

(Project A – Project J) in the fields of physical and biological sciences. One of those projects 

addresses issues relevant to cultural resources. Funds are reserved for the hiring of a GCMRC 

staff economist. Other funds support independent reviews, administration of the GCMRC, and 

funds necessary to conduct a remote sensing overflight in 2013.

In developing the BWP, GCMRC explicitly considered the recently adopted Desired 

Future Conditions report and the direction on science priorities provided by Assistant Secretary 

Castle in her memo of March 31, 2011. Additionally, the BWP addresses commitments 

associated with GCMRC’s role in implementing two recent Environmental Assessments. Most 
40

importantly, the GCMRC BWP is consistent with the various GCDAMP science planning 

documents. Each BWP Project describes how work in FY13/14 addresses strategic science 

questions and information needs previously addressed by the GCDAMP.

Desired Future Conditions 

Desired Future Conditions (DFCs) for the Colorado River ecosystem were proposed by 

the Desired Future Conditions Ad Hoc Committee of the Adaptive Management Work Group 

(AMWG), and their report was presented to the AMWG in February 2012. By consensus, the 

AMWG commended to the Secretary of the Interior this report. On April 30, 2012, the Secretary 

of the Interior directed “the AMWG to utilize these DFCs to inform and guide the AMWG’s 

future considerations, including advice and recommendations ... concerning operations of Glen 

Canyon Dam and other related actions.” Thus, these desired future conditions are an essential 

foundation for decision-making in the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program. The 

DFCs are divided into four categories: the Colorado River ecosystem (CRe), power, cultural 

resources, and recreation.

As described in a following section, Assistant Secretary Castle had provided guidance 

about science planning in March 2011 that anticipated that these DFCs would be adopted. At 

that time, Assistant Secretary Castle directed GCMRC to focus most of its attention of those 

DFCs that concern sediment and fish, and the FY13/14 BWP follows that guidance. Here, the 

relation of the BWP to all DFCs is discussed. 

Colorado River ecosystem 

The CRe DFCs “address the natural resource values for which Grand Canyon National 

Park and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area were established. As such, the CRe DFCs 

recognize that native and nonnative species are to be managed in accord with Federal 

regulations, policies, and guidelines. There are four attributes of the CRe specifically addressed 

by the DFCs: sediment-related resources, water quality, the aquatic domain, and the riparian 

domain. 

The FY13/14 Biennial Work Plan (BWP) is organized to directly link with the 

organization of the CRe DFCs. Project A addresses monitoring and research topics related to the 

sediment-related resources of the CRe DFCs – primarily the characteristics of nearshore habitats 

for native fish, the substrate characteristics and landforms associated with marsh and riparian 

habitat for fish, and camping beaches. Project J addresses the linkage between fine-sediment 

deposits and cultural resource preservation.

Project B addresses the issues raised by the Water Quality CRe DFC, that calls for 

measurement of dissolved oxygen, nutrient concentrations and cycling, turbidity, temperature, 

and hydro-physical conditions such as discharge and sediment transport. Project C focuses on 

measurement of water quality attributes of Lake Powell reservoir.

The CRe DFC for the aquatic domain focuses on desired attributes of native species, 

rainbow trout, extirpated species, and nonfish biotic communities. Projects D, E, and F are 

focused on native fish species, especially the humpback chub, a federally-listed endangered 

species. Monitoring and research activities in Projects D and F address scientific issues 

associated with the desired recovery of humpback chub throughout its former range in the CRe. 

Project E is focused on scientific issues associated with the largest aggregation of humpback 

chub that occurs in and near the Little Colorado River. 
41

Project H is focused on rainbow trout in Glen and Marble Canyons, and Project G is 

focused on the interactions between trout and native fish throughout the CRe. 

There are no proposed projects that focus on the re-establishment of extirpated fish 

species in the CRe, despite the stated DFC on this topic. There are also no proposed projects 

focused on nonnative non-fish species such as the Northern Leopard Frog, although Projects F 

and H do include characterization of the invertebrate community that is a key part of the food 

base for native and nonnative fish.

Project I is focused on the CRe riparian domain. This project is primarily a vegetation 

monitoring project, because the distribution of vegetation communities, characterized as 

vegetation response guilds, and the distribution of fine-sediment substrates constitutes the 

various riparian habitats that are of interest in the DFCs.

The CRe DFCs explicitly propose four metrics by which achievement of the DFCs can be 

measured:

Percentage of critical habitat lost or gained

Condition of species variability

Carrying capacity thresholds

Population estimates

The FY13/14 BWP explicitly ensures that population estimates for humpback chub and 

rainbow trout are provided to the GCDAMP, and status and trend monitoring of other native and 

nonnative species are also determined. Additionally, the longitudinal distribution of humpback 

chub and trout are determined by studies of humpback chub aggregations and the distribution of 

rainbow trout throughout Marble Canyon. Other aspects Project F provide estimates of the 

distribution of other native and nonnative fish species. Changes in critical habitat are provided 

for the area and abundance of backwater habitat (Project A) and by mapping of riparian 

vegetation (Project I).

Power 

The FY13/14 BWP does not include any specific projects focused on the DFCs for 

power, although these topics might be addressed once a GCMRC staff economist is hired.

Cultural Resources 

Cultural resources in the CRe include prehistoric archaeological sites, historic sites, and 

Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs). The DFC for prehistoric archaeological sites and for 

historic sites is “to the extent feasible, maintain significance and integrity through preservation in 

place.” The focus of the DFCs for TCPs is that the attributes and integrity of TCPs is maintained. 

Thus, the DFC for cultural resources recognizes that many natural processes and attributes of the 

CRe affect cultural resources. These processes include those related to stream flow, sediment 

transport, geomorphology, and riparian vegetation. Cultural resources are also affected by 

recreation activity. The DFC specifically proposes that achievement of the goals for cultural 

resources be measured by:

Erosion or deposition rates of substrates in which cultural sites occur

Impacts at sites that affect eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places
42

The FY13/14 BWP is responsive to these DFCs and their proposed metrics. Project I 

involves a system-wide monitoring of riparian vegetation. Project J.3 initiates a system-wide, 

comprehensive study of geomorphic processes and geomorphic attributes that affect prehistoric 

and historic sites. Such a project has never been previously undertaken as part of the GCDAMPfunded GCMRC program. The goal of this project is to establish the linkage between the area 

and abundance of river sand bars (Project A) that are directly affected by dam operations and the 

redistribution of fine sediment upslope to areas that contain prehistoric and historic sites. 

Additionally, Project J.3 evaluates the degree to which gullies in the CRe grow or are eliminated 

by changing geomorphic conditions in the river channel itself. Project elements J.1 and J.3 

explore detailed measurement protocols in Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons that might be used 

to precisely measure topographic changes at the local scale. The challenge of Project J is to 

provide scientific guidance as to how large-scale and local-scale measurements and observations 

can be linked.

The cultural resource DFCs also propose metrics for assessing the condition of resources 

not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Because “only members of that culture 

can assess the status or health of the resources” important to each Native American Tribe, this 

monitoring activities are not part of the GCMRC program. Tribes are funded directly for their 

monitoring efforts, as described in Chapter 1.

Recreation 

There are four categories for the recreation DFCs: 

River recreation in Grand Canyon National Park (GCNP)

River recreation in Glen Canyon National Recreation Area (GCNRA)

Blue ribbon trout fishery in Glen Canyon National Recreation Area

River corridor stewardship

There are a number of specific conditions listed for each category of DFC, and there are a 

number of metrics by which achievement of these DFCs can be evaluated:

Socio-economic value of river recreation in GCNP

Socio-economic value of river corridor visitation in GCNP

Socio-economic value of “the Grand Canyon itself”

Economic effects of Grand Canyon tourism

Factors that make up the wilderness character of the CRe

Number and size of campable beaches

Socio-economic value of river recreation in GCNRA

Socio-economic value of the river corridor of GCNRA

Socio-economic value of the fishery of GCNRA

Effect of trout on the CRe in GCNP and the costs of mitigation undesirable 

populations of trout there

Characteristics most valued in the GCNRA fishery

River running visitation metrics

Water quality variables

River running safety
43

Many of these metrics are the subject of on-going discussion among the Socio-economic Ad Hoc 

Group of the TWG and the leadership of the on-going LTEMP EIS.

The FY13/14 BWP will provide monitoring data concerning the distribution and size of 

campable beaches (Project A). Additionally, Project G will provide research and monitoring data 

concerning the interactions between trout and native fish and Project H will directly inform 

management of the Glen Canyon fishery. A creel survey (Project F.2.3) will also provide data 

concerning angler success and experience in GCNRA.

A few of the economic aspects of the recreation DFC may be pursued by the yet-to-behired GCMRC economist. Other metrics are likely to be measured by the LTEMP process.

Science Planning to Implement the Environmental Assessment for a Protocol for High-Flow Experimental 

Releases 

This Environmental Assessment (EA) was released by Reclamation on December 30, 

2011, and this EA includes a General Science Plan that describes scientific activities needed to 

implement the High-Flow Experiment Protocol. 

This Science Plan describes eight tasks that would be undertaken by GCMRC. The 

primary work activity is Task 1: Monitoring within-channel and high-elevation sediment storage, 

and these same activities are described in more detail in Project A.1 and A.2 of this BWP. Task 2 

of the Science Plan is described as Project B of this BWP. Task 3 concerns monitoring 

archaeological site conditions, and these activities are described in Project J of the BWP. The 

work described in Project J represents advancements in thinking about how to monitoring and 

understand changes at archaeological sites, and thus differs in detail from what is briefly 

described in the Science Plan. Task 4 concerns monitoring the aquatic food base and this work is 

described in Project F.7 and Project H.2.2. Riparian vegetation monitoring that is described in 

Task 5 of the Science Plan is described in a more comprehensive way in Project I of the FY13/14 

BWP. Task 6 concerns monitoring of the Kanab ambersnail. GCMRC does not propose to 

conduct any monitoring of these populations in FY13/14 because new information needs were 

not identified and delisting of the Grand Canyon populations are anticipated. Task 7 of the 

Science Plan concerns water quality monitoring in Lake Powell and in Glen Canyon and these 

measurements will be undertaken as parts of Projects B and C of the BWP. Task 8 concerns the 

evaluation of the effects on hydropower production, and this work will not be conducted as part 

of the GCMRC BWP.

Science Planning to Implement the Environmental Assessment for Non-Native Fish Control 

This Environmental Assessment (EA) and an associated Biological Opinion were released by 

Reclamation on December 30, 2011. The EA includes a General Science Plan that describes 

scientific activities needed to implement non-native fish control downstream from Glen Canyon 

Dam. The Biological Opinion also identifies research and monitoring activities needed for 

implementation of this EA.

The science plan in support of this EA identifies five objectives to be addressed by GCMRC. 

The first objective is to understand the relative roles of the Little Colorado River (LCR) and the 

mainstem Colorado River in juvenile humpback chub survival rates and recruitment into the 

adult humpback chub population which will be addressed by activities described in Projects D, 

E, F.3, F.4.1. F.4.2, F4.4, and F.5. To address objective two, determine the linkage between 

nonnative fish abundance and juvenile humpback chub abundance and survival rates in the LCR 
44

reach and elsewhere in Grand Canyon, we will undertake the tasks described in Projects F.3, F.6, 

and G. Determine the natal origins of rainbow trout found in Marble Canyon (river miles 8 to 56) 

and the LCR reach is the third objective and will be resolved by research and monitoring 

conducted as part of Projects F.1 and F.6. Objective four is to assess the efficacy of nonnative 

fish removal in the Paria Riffle-Badger Rapid reach for rainbow trout and Upper Granite Gorge 

for brown trout which will be addressed by activities described for Projects F.1, F.6, and G.2. 

The final objective, assess the efficacy of flow manipulations to manage trout populations in the 

mainstem Colorado River from Lees Ferry to the LCR reach, will be monitored through tasks 

described for Projects F.1, F.2.1, F.2.2, F.2.3, F.3, F.4, F.6, and H.5. 

The Biological opinion mandates monitoring the status and trends of adult humpback chub in 

the LCR (see Projects F.4.1, F.4.2, and F.5), in the mainstem Colorado River (see Projects D.1 

and F.1), and at areas where humpback chub have been translocated (see Projects D.1, F.1, and 

F.4.3). The Biological Opinion also defines triggers to determine when nonnative fish control 

will take place near the LCR. Triggers are related to the abundance of adult and juvenile 

humpback chub which are addressed in Projects D, F.3, F.4.1. F.4.2, F4.4, and F.5, survival rates 

of juvenile humpback chub as determined in Projects E, F.3, and F.4.3, abundance of rainbow 

trout and brown trout as determined in Projects F.1, F.3, F.6, and G.2, and river temperature 

monitored as part of Project B.

Research and Monitoring Priorities Provided by Assistant Secretary Castle 

On March 31, 2011, Assistant Secretary Anne Castle provided direction to GCMRC 

regarding science planning; this direction was provided in the form of a memo to Kate Kitchell, 

Mark Sogge, and Ted Melis. Assistant Secretary Castle directed GCMRC to primarily focus on 

the DFCs that were, at the time, still in draft form. Within that context, the Assistant Secretary 

urged that GCMRC more narrowly focus its interest on a few of the DFCs, “because the DFCs 

are very comprehensive” and it was assumed that insufficient funds existed to focus on every 

DFC. The priorities provided in this memo are that GCMRC should “concentrate its resources” 

on

“... compliance with the Endangered Species Act, which means focus on the native 

fish and particularly the humpback chub”;

“... focus on sediment, which was an instigating factor for the Grand Canyon 

Protection Act and continues to be an issue with resources downstream of the 

dam. That includes being able to respond if the high flow protocol goes forward”; 

and,

“... science on both non-native fish control and the recreational trout fishery.”

Assistant Secretary Castle also observed that “while cultural resources remain a very high 

priority, it is not clear that there are significant science questions involving those resources, or 

the [Temperature Control Device], that require attention at this time.” Castle also indicated that 

core monitoring activities in other resource areas should continue. The overall objective of her 

guidance was “to enable GCMRC to better direct its limited resources and resist the Christmas 

tree approach to science planning.”

GCMRC’s FY13/14 BWP primarily focuses on the key priorities established by the 

Assistant Secretary, namely humpback chub (Projects D and E), native and nonnative fish 
45

(Project F), recreational trout (Project H), and the interactions between trout and native fish 

(Project G). Projects A and B monitor the flux and distribution of fine sediment, which is also a 

priority described in the memo. Project B is also fundamental to implementation of the High 

Flow Experiment Protocol, and Project A is fundamental to evaluating the effectiveness of the 

Protocol. Projects I and J address monitoring and research needs in vegetation and cultural 

resources that are not explicitly described in the memo, but that have widespread stakeholder 

interest.

General Core Monitoring Plan 

A final draft plan was prepared by GCMRC on February 18, 2011, and was submitted to 

the TWG. This plan is organized around the eleven GCDAMP Program Goals that concern 

natural resources. Previous BWP documents of the GCMRC were also organized around these 

Program Goals. However, in the reorganization of the BWP represented in the FY13/14 

document, the various goals associated with the aquatic domain (Goals 1, 2, 3, and 4) were 

reorganized into Projects D, E, F, G, and H. Program Goal 5 concerns the Kanab ambersnail, and 

there are no activities proposed in FY13/14 on this topic. Program Goal 6 is the focus of Project I 

in the FY13/14 BWP. Goal 7 is the focus of Projects B and C, and Goal 8 is the focus of Project 

A. Goals 9 and 10 and not explicitly evaluated in the BWP, except as concerning camping 

beaches. Project J represents an expanded focus on Goal 11.

The monitoring methods described in the FY13/14 BWP represent a substantial scientific 

advancement in developing formalized protocols for regular measurement of key river resources. 

In the case of protocols for measuring sand bars (Project A), sediment transport and water quality 

(Project B), humpback chub and rainbow trout populations and status and trends of other fish 

species (Projects D, E, F, H), and monitoring vegetation communities, GCMRC has worked with 

sister agencies and collaborators to develop efficient protocols that take advantage of large 

bodies of historical data, address issues of how to extrapolate site scale measurements to the 

entire CRe, and how to estimate temporal trends in key resources.

The next step in the formalization of monitoring protocols will be to take the 

advancements described in the BWP and incorporate these into a revised General Core 

Monitoring Plan.

Monitoring and Research Plan 

The most recent plan was amended and approved in April 2009. This plan describes various 

Strategic Science Questions (SSQs). Subsequent planning documents have identified Core 

Monitoring Information Needs (CMINs) and Research Information Needs (RINs). Each of the 

GCMRC projects of the FY13/14 BWP describes the administrative and management context for 

each specific proposal and describes the relevant SSQs, CMINs, and RINs. Each project 

description also discusses the current status of knowledge on the various scientific topics and the 

role of work in FY13/14 in answering key questions of the GCDAMP.

Allocation of the FY13/14 Budget 

The total proposed budget of GCMRC in FY2013 is $10,440,500 of which $8,632,700 is 

from GCDAMP funds. An additional $825,900 is from FY12 GCMRC carryover funds, 

$413,500 from other regular Reclamation funding, and $568,400 from Reclamation carryover 
46

funds. The Reclamation carryover funds have a two-year duration and will fund specific applied 

research projects in fish ecology for the FY13/14 BWP. 

Of the projected $10.4 million budget, 39% is to be allocated to monitoring and research 

work in fish ecology and 29% is to be allocated to the projects in geomorphology, stream flow 

monitoring, sediment transport, and water quality (Fig. 1). Direct administrative costs are 15% of 

the budget. The combined work in riparian ecology, cultural resources, economics, and 

independent reviews is a small part of the proposed work. The budget for the GCMRC part of the 

FY13/14 BWP is described at the end of each project description, and is summarized in various 

appendices at the end of this document.

Figure 1. Allocations for the proposed FY13 GCMRC budget, including some projects for which funding has not yet been 

identified.

The proposed budget for FY14 is $10,518,400, of which $8,914,900 would be from 

GCDAMP funds, $421,100 from other Reclamation funding sources, $573,100 from 

Reclamation carryover sources, and $609,400 is from FY12 GCMRC carryover funds. 
47

References 

Bureau of Reclamation, 2011a, Environmental assessment--development and implementation of 

a protocol for high-flow experimental releases from Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona, 2011 

through 2020: Salt Lake City, Utah, Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region, 176 p. 

+ appendices, accessed on March 21, 2012, 

at http://www.usbr.gov/uc/envdocs/ea/gc/HFEProtocol/HFE-EA.pdf.

Bureau of Reclamation, 2011b, Environmental assessment--non-native fish control downstream 

from Glen Canyon Dam: Salt Lake City, Utah, Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado 

Region, 102 p. + appendices, accessed on March 21, 2012, 

at http://www.usbr.gov/uc/envdocs/ea/gc/nnfc/NNFC-EA.pdf.

Howard, A.D., and Dolan, R., 1981, Geomorphology of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon: 

Journal of Geology, v. 89, no. 3, doi: 10.1086/628592, p. 269-298, accessed on February 18, 

2010, at http://www.jstor.org/pss/30078299.

Laursen, E.M., Ince, S., and Pollack, J., 1976, On sediment transport through the Grand Canyon, 

in Federal Interagency Sedimentation Conference, 3d, Denver, Colo., March 22-25, 1976, 

Proceedings: p. 4-76 to 74-87.

Schmidt, J.C., and Grams, P.E., 2011, Understanding physical processes of the Colorado River, 

in Melis, T.S., ed., Effects of three high-flow experiments on the Colorado River ecosystem 

downstream from Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1366, 17-51 

p., accessed on June 28, 2011, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1366/.

Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., Nelson, J.M., and Kinzel, P.J., 2000, Colorado River sediment 

transport 2--systematic bed-elevation and grain-size effects of sand supply limitation: Water 

Resources Research, v. 36, no. 2, doi: 10.1029/1999WR900286, p. 543-570, accessed on 

November 9, 2010, at http://www.agu.org/journals/wr/v036/i002/1999WR900286/.

U.S. Department of the Interior, 1995, Operation of Glen Canyon Dam--final environmental 

impact statement, Colorado River storage project, Coconino County, Arizona: Salt Lake 

City, Utah, USA, Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Regional Office, 337 p., accessed 

on November 18, 2010, at http://www.usbr.gov/uc/library/envdocs/eis/gc/pdfs/Cov-con/covcon.pdf

U.S. Geological Survey, 2011, General core monitoring plan for the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive 

Management Program: Flagstaff, Ariz., U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring 

and Research Center, 134p.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2007a, Monitoring and research plain in support of the Glen Canyon 

Dam Adaptive Management Program: Flagstaff, Ariz., U.S. Geological Survey, Grand 

Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, 149 p.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2007b, Monitoring and research plan in support of the Glen Canyon 

Dam Adaptive Management Program: Flagstaff, Ariz., U.S. Geological Survey, Grand 

Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, 149 p.
48

Project A. 

Sandbars and Sediment Storage Dynamics: Long-term 

Monitoring and Research at the Site, Reach, and 

Ecosystem Scales 

1. Investigators 

Paul Grams, Research Hydrologist, USGS, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

Phil Davis, Research Geologist, USGS, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

Barbara Ralston, Biologist, USGS, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center 

David Rubin, Research Geologist, USGS, Coastal and Marine Geology 

Joseph E. Hazel, Jr. and Matt Kaplinski, Research Associates, Northern Arizona University

School of Earth Science and Environmental Sustainability

Keith Kohl, Surveyor, USGS, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

2. Project Summary 

This ongoing project consists of a set of integrated monitoring and research studies 

conducted at different spatial and temporal scales. Collectively, these studies are designed to 

track the results of individual High-Flow Experiments (HFEs) and to monitor the cumulative 

effect of these HFEs and of intervening operations. Additionally, the goal of this work is to 

advance understanding of sediment transport and eddy sandbar dynamics to improve capacity for 

predicting the effects of future dam operations. 

One of the primary management goals for the Colorado River downstream from Glen 

Canyon Dam (GCD) is to maintain an abundant distribution of large eddy sandbars using only 

the limited supply of fine sediment (defined as sand and mud) delivered by the Paria River and 

other tributaries. This goal, and related goals, objectives, and information needs are described in 

section 3.2.

The key uncertainty about management of sandbars downstream from GCD articulated in 

the recently completed Environmental Assessment for Development and Implementation of a 

Protocol for High-Flow Experimental Releases from Glen Canyon Dam (HFE EA), is, "Can 

sandbar building during HFEs exceed sandbar erosion during periods between HFEs, such that 

sandbar size can be increased and maintained over several years?" This question can be 

answered through continued monitoring of sand deposits over a multi-year timeframe of repeated 

controlled flood experiments.

Management of GCD is not solely focused on achieving fine sediment goals, however, 

and achieving other goals that concern the aquatic or riparian ecosystem, or achieving water 

supply or hydropower objectives, sometimes requires reservoir releases that are not optimum for 

achieving fine sediment management goals. Thus, it is critical to develop and enhance modeling 

tools with which future fine sediment conditions can be predicted, because it is inevitable that 

reservoir operating rules that balance multiple resource objectives will be considered in the 

future. It is also critical that efficient and robust monitoring protocols be implemented to 
49

evaluate eddy sand bar conditions. Lastly, it is critical to evaluate fine sediment storage

conditions that trigger implementation of the HFE protocol. 

Monitoring conducted in Project A includes daily and annual observations of long-term 

sandbar monitoring sites by remote camera and conventional topographic survey, respectively. 

These observations add to an existing long-term dataset and will be available following each 

HFE as an initial assessment of resource condition that could be used to adjust the HFE 

implementation strategy on a semi-annual basis, if necessary. Because detailed monitoring sites 

represent only a small proportion of the total number of sandbars in Marble and Grand Canyons, 

Project A also includes the analysis of system-wide airborne remote-sensing data to monitor a 

much larger set of sandbars every four years to assess sandbar size and abundance in the entire 

Colorado River ecosystem (CRe). 

The continued success of HFEs in maintaining an abundant distribution of large sandbars 

depends on maintaining an adequate supply of sand in and near the Colorado River. If there is a 

decline in sand storage, it is unlikely that HFEs alone can maintain sandbars. While the sandbar 

monitoring studies provide needed information on resource condition, they do not provide any 

measure of the total amount of sand in storage in and near the river, because a very small fraction 

of the sand in storage is in the monitoring sites. To provide the critical information about sand 

storage and to evaluate whether dam operations, including HFEs, are likely to result in sandbar 

maintenance or eventual decline, fine sediment storage will be monitored by repeat channel-wide 

surveys of river segments on a rotating basis of approximately every 3 to 10 years. Other 

components of this project are designed to integrate findings across longer spatial and temporal 

scales, investigate how specific changes in sandbar morphology affect campsite quality, link 

sandbar deposition dynamics with the distribution of riparian vegetation along shorelines, 

provide habitat and riverbed substrate information to biological studies, and improve 

understanding of the variability of sandbar response to dam operations. Collectively, these 

studies contribute to improved capacity to predict the effects of future controlled floods.

3. Background 

One of the goals of the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP) 

is to “maintain or attain levels of sediment storage within the main channel and along shorelines” 

(U.S. Geological Survey, 2006). This overarching goal encompasses many linkages between 

sediment storage and ecosystem goals including: maintenance of sandbars used by recreationists, 

creation of sandbar-associated backwater habitats used by native fish, and maintenance of 

exposed bare sand surfaces that are available for redistribution to upland areas by wind. Research 

and monitoring work that supports these objectives also provides knowledge of the relative 

proportions and spatial distributions of fine and coarse sediment on the bed of the river, because 

those characteristics control transport of suspended fine sediment and affect primary production 

and aquatic habitat. Because many of these objectives concern sandbars, the focus of this project 

is on sand. We use the term “sediment” to refer to alluvium of all sizes, “fine sediment” to refer 

to sand, silt, and clay (all sediment < 2 mm), and “sand” to refer to sand-sized sediment only 

(0.0625 – 2 mm). Mud refers to silt and clay. This project addresses management objectives 

through monitoring components designed to track the trends in sandbars and fine sediment 

storage and research components designed to improve understanding of processes that affect 

fine-sediment related resources.
50

Conditions of fine sediment deficit and changes in flow regime brought about by 

completion of GCD have resulted in a decline in the number and size of sandbars in Grand 

Canyon National Park (Schmidt and others, 2004; Wright and others, 2005). Sandbars are used 

as camping beaches, form aquatic habitat, and are a source of eolian sand for the upland 

ecosystem (see Project J). Schmidt and others (2004) estimated that there has been about a 25%

decrease in the area of exposed sandbars in Marble Canyon and eastern Grand Canyon based on 

comparison of pre-dam and post-dam aerial photographs. Monitoring of sandbars between 1990 

and 2011 has shown that controlled floods cause widespread increases in the size of sandbars 

exposed at typical base flows and that these bars decrease in size between controlled floods 

(Schmidt and others, 1999; Hazel and others, 1999; Topping and others, 2006; Hazel and others, 

2010; Schmidt and Grams, 2011). These findings demonstrate that fine sediment supplied by 

tributaries can be effectively redistributed from the bed of the river to higher elevations along the 

channel margins by high flows. Although we currently have very limited knowledge of the 

absolute amount of fine sediment stored on the bed of the river, we do know that there is a 

delicate balance between the amount of fine sediment exported from Marble Canyon and that

supplied by the Paria River and small tributaries. Under some flow regimes and flood conditions 

on the Paria, fine sediment accumulates in Marble Canyon. Under other conditions, more fine 

sediment is exported than is supplied to Marble Canyon (D.J. Topping, US Geological Survey, 

unpublished data). Thus, the net long-term effect of dam operations, including controlled floods,

remains unknown. The long term management goal is to achieve a stable fine-sediment budget 

and avoid prolonged periods when fine sediment is mined from storage (Fig. 1). If a quasi-stable 

sediment budget can be achieved, then controlled floods will continue to be an effective tool for 

building sandbars. However, a downward trending sediment budget would indicate a decreasing 

capacity to rebuild sandbars using clear-water floods alone (Rubin and others, 2002; Wright and 

others, 2008; Schmidt and Grams, 2011).

Figure 1. Conceptual diagram illustrating the dependency of net sandbar size on potential variations in the amount of deposition 

that occurs during a High-Flow Experiment (HFE), the frequency of HFEs, and the rate of post-HFE erosion (figured adapted 

from Schmidt and Grams, 2011). The case shown in 1 shows a hypothetical amount of HFE deposition followed by an equal 

amount of erosion. Cases two and three result in net increases in sandbar size by increasing the amount of deposition during 

HFEs and increasing the frequency of HFEs, respectively. In case 4, the rate of erosion following HFEs is greater than the HFE 

deposit such that there are net decreases in sandbar size. 
51

The recently completed HFE EA outlines a program for conducting many controlled 

floods during the next 10 years. The sandbar and sediment storage monitoring and research 

described in Project A consists of a set of integrated studies designed to track the response of 

sand bars and sediment storage to HFEs. The time frames of interest to Project A include both 

individual HFEs and the cumulative effect of multiple HFEs and intervening operations. Project

A also includes studies to advance understanding of sediment and eddy sandbar dynamics so as 

to increase the efficiency of specific HFEs in creating large and abundant sandbars.

3.1. Scientific Background 

Closure of Glen Canyon Dam caused at least a 90% reduction in fine sediment supply to 

the Colorado River in Marble and Grand Canyons (Topping and others, 2000). In response to 

this reduction in sand supply and the alteration of the natural hydrograph by dam operations, 

sandbars in Marble Canyon and the upstream part of Grand Canyon have substantially decreased 

in size (Schmidt and others, 2004). Although there have been temporary increases during floods, 

bars erode during normal power plant operations (Wright and others, 2005; Schmidt and Grams, 

2011). The long term effects of three HFEs have been mixed. In upper Marble Canyon and 

eastern Grand Canyon (Fig. 2), only about one-third of the long-term monitoring sites were 

larger in October 2008, 6 months after the most recent controlled flood, than they were 

immediately before the first controlled flood in 1996 (Schmidt and Grams, 2011). In all other 

reaches, 80% or more of the sandbars at monitoring sites increased in size.

Figure 2. Map showing the Colorado River between Glen Canyon Dam and Diamond Creek. The stations for suspended 

sediment transport monitoring (Project B) are shown by the red circles. The short reaches where sediment storage was mapped in 

2000 to 2005 are shown by the green ovals. The current sediment storage monitoring plan calls for mapping 50 to 80% of the 

channel in the segments between the sediment monitoring stations. In 2009 and 2012, most of the long sediment budgeting reach

between RM 30 and RM 61 was mapped. In 2011, most of the sediment budgeting reach between RM 61 and RM 87 was 

mapped. 

Findings about the effects of HFEs depend on a robust sandbar monitoring program. 

Growing concern about the effects of the operations of Glen Canyon Dam led to the initiation of 

systematic measurements of sandbars in the 1970s (Dolan and others, 1974; Howard, 1975; 

Howard and Dolan, 1981). This sandbar-monitoring program was reestablished in the 1980s 
52

(Schmidt and Graf, 1990; Beus and others, 1992) and led to the sandbar-monitoring program 

now conducted by Northern Arizona University (NAU) (Hazel and others, 1999; Schmidt and 

others, 2004). A synthesis of these studies (Schmidt and others, 2004) indicated that the 

observations of change made at a small number of sandbar monitoring sites were not necessarily 

representative of changes in fine-sediment mass balance over the much longer sediment 

budgeting reaches1 defined by sediment transport measurement stations (Project B). Survey

programs have traditionally caused only a relatively small proportion of the total number and 

area of sandbars, and the variability of response among sites is typically large. 

A parallel monitoring effort designed to document trends in fine-sediment storage on the 

channel bed involved repeat measurements at numerous channel cross-sections between 1992 

and 1997 (Flynn and Hornewer, 2003). These data indicated bed degradation in some locations, 

but also showed high variability from place to place. This indication of sediment depletion 

coupled with the inability to detect significant trends owing to variability led to the recognition 

that there was a need for a more comprehensive and systematic measurement program. These 

findings resulted in the initiation in 1999 of (1) a suspended sediment sampling program to 

enable the calculation of sand budgets for long sediment budgeting reaches (Project B) and (2) a 

sediment storage monitoring program based on making repeat measurements over short reaches, 

3 to 5 km in length. Here, we focus on the findings resulting from the pilot sediment storage 

monitoring that was conducted between 2000 and 2004. We refer to this effort as the “shortreach” monitoring program.

These monitoring programs were based around the concept of a sediment mass balance or 

sediment budget. The sediment budget is simply the accounting by mass, or volume, of all 

sediment entering and exiting a specified river segment. The budget may be expressed in 

mathematical terms as

I − O = ∆S, (1)

which states that the sum of all sediment inputs, I, minus the sum of all outputs, O, is equal to the 

net change in sediment storage, ∆S, within the designated segment. In the case that inputs exceed 

outputs, ∆S is positive and indicates sediment accumulation. To provide greater resolution and 

the opportunity to monitor different mechanisms and resources, sand storage can be divided into 

sand stored at lower elevations that are typically underwater and sand stored at high elevations 

that are only inundated occasionally,

∆S = ∆Slow + ∆Shigh. (2)

We use “low” to refer to sediment below the typical baseflow stage of 8,000 ft3/s and 

“high” to refer to sediment above the 8,000 ft3

/s stage. The low-elevation sediment is underwater 

except during the trough of some flow fluctuations. The high-elevation fine sediment is 

alternately inundated and exposed, depending on the flow regime. The high-elevation sediment is 

most relevant to camping beaches, riparian vegetation, and other upland resources and the lowelevation sediment is relevant to aquatic habitat and, in the case of sandbars in eddies, is the 

foundation for the high-elevation sediment. The purpose of the measurements of suspended 

sediment initiated in 1999 (Project B) was to measure sediment inputs and outputs for each 

segment between measurement stations, i.e. the sediment budgeting reaches. This ongoing 

 1 In this proposal, we refer to observations and study areas that span a variety of spatial scales. We use 

“monitoring site” to refer to monitoring locations that are at the scale of individual sandbars, 100’s of meters in 

length. We use “short reach” to refer to study reaches that include many sites and are on the order of 2 to 5 km in 

length. We use “long reach” or “sediment budgeting reach” to refer to segments of the river that encompass the 

entire channel between fine-sediment monitoring gages; these reaches are 50 to 130 km in length. 
53

measurement program tracks the accumulation and fate of tributary inputs and provides the 

information needed to plan high flow events. The purpose of the short-reach monitoring program 

was to measure changes in sediment storage and the locations where those changes in storage 

occurred.

The short-reach monitoring program, conducted from 2000 to 2004, was accomplished 

by repeat measurements of the river bed using sonar and repeat measurements of exposed 

deposits by airborne lidar, aerial photogrammetry, and conventional topographic survey. Eleven 

short reaches were selected, although repeat measurements were only made at seven of these 

reaches between RM 0 and RM 87 (Fig. 2). The methods are described by Hazel and others 

(2008) and Kaplinski and others (2009). This monitoring program was a substantial advancement 

beyond earlier monitoring programs, because nearly all of the channel in each short reach was 

mapped, in contrast to previous efforts which made measurements at widely-spaced crosssections or isolated sandbars.

Results from this monitoring program demonstrated that 90% or more of the fine 

sediment in the post-dam river is stored below the elevation of typical base flows in lowelevation locations (Hazel and others, 2006). Thus, the fine sediment that is generally of greatest 

management interest is stored at higher elevation and comprises only about 10% of the fine

sediment in the system. Research also demonstrated that change in low-elevation sediment 

storage computed from repeat measurements of erosion and deposition in short reaches is not 

consistent with the change in storage computed from the difference in sediment transport over 

longer sediment budgeting reaches (Topping and others, 2006; Grams and others, 2011). In other 

words, the measurement of ∆S over short reaches and extrapolation of the results to the longer 

reaches does not yield the same answer as the computation of ∆S from equation (1). This 

discrepancy does not result from an inability to measure changes with sufficient precision but 

from the inaccuracy of extrapolating measurements from the short reaches to longer reaches. 

Extrapolation is made difficult for at least two major reasons: changes in storage are 

highly localized and changes in storage are variable from place to place. Schmidt and others 

(2004) showed that large changes in sediment storage are concentrated in eddies and in main 

channel pools. Adjacent eddy/channel storage locations in the same short reach do not 

necessarily behave consistently—scour in one eddy may be offset by an equal or larger 

magnitude of deposition immediately downstream. The magnitude of change in storage at each 

site can be large relative to the net change over a long reach. The net ∆S over a long reach is the 

sum of many individual ∆S terms, some positive, some negative, and nearly all of them large 

relative to the total sum. Thus, without better knowledge of the distribution, size, and behavior of 

these storage locations, it is not currently possible to extrapolate measurements from short 

reaches to longer segments (Grams and others, 2011). These findings indicate that in order to 

determine whether sediment storage as a whole–at low and high elevations and in the channel 

and eddy storage sites–is increasing, decreasing, or stable requires repeat measurements of sand 

storage throughout the long sediment budgeting reaches. Fortunately, advances in monitoring 

techniques now allow measurement of changes in topography at the scale of the sediment 

budgeting reaches. The proposed fine-sediment monitoring includes measurements of channel 

and eddy sand storage at the scale of the long river segments.

The variability observed in the short-reach monitoring program and the variability 

observed in the monitoring of individual sandbars are related. Grams and others (2011) showed 

how the volume of sand at many of the individual monitoring sites is correlated with the flow of 

the river during the preceding month. This means that, for a given flow regime and sediment 
54

supply condition, some sites tend to accumulate large sandbars while other sites tend to lose 

sand, and these differences depend on the flow regime. This insight was made possible, because 

we now have a long monitoring record at more than 30 individual sandbars that can be compared 

with discharge measurements made in Project B. Although we have identified that sandbar 

response is highly variable (Hazel and others, 1999; Schmidt and others, 1999; Schmidt and 

others, 2004; Hazel and others, 2010; Grams and others, 2011), we have yet to discover how to 

categorize eddies such that we can predict sandbar variability outside of the long-term 

monitoring sites where these relations are now determined empirically. It is likely that specific 

site characteristics, such as channel geometry, control the flow patterns in eddies and affect 

sandbar response. If the specific characteristics that determine patterns of erosion and deposition 

can be discovered, it would be possible to predict sandbar response at many other sites than the 

limited number where we have empirical observations. 

Better understanding of the physical controls on eddy dynamics will also contribute to 

improved predictive capability through modeling. Documented and well-verified models have 

been developed to predict mainstem streamflow throughout Marble and Grand Canyons (Randle 

and Pemberton, 1987; Wiele and Smith, 1996; Wiele and Griffin, 1997; Magirl and others, 2008) 

and sediment flux at approximately 50-km increments between RM 0 and RM 87 (Wright and 

others, 2010). These models can be used to predict sediment availability for planning reservoir 

releases (Wright and Grams, 2010) but do not allow prediction of sandbar response. Wiele and 

others (2007) made an effort to couple canyon-scale flow models with detailed eddy models in 

order to provide better predictions of bar building response. This approach assumed all eddies 

behave similarly, with the magnitude of erosion and deposition scaled by eddy size. As described 

above, we now know that a predictive canyon-scale model for eddy response will have to 

incorporate the observed site-to-site variability in erosion and deposition. In FY13/14, we will 

conduct an empirical study that investigates the causes of this variability in our effort towards 

improving capacity to predict individual sandbar response.

Another one of the challenges that is faced in developing physically-based predictive 

models for sediment transport and eddy sandbar deposition is the linkage between the size and 

distribution of the fine sediment on the bed and the fine sediment in transport. The strong 

correlation between bed sediment grain size and the rate and grain size of fine sediment in 

transport was demonstrated for the Colorado River by Topping and others (1999). Grams and 

Wilcock (2007) used laboratory experiments to establish a relation between the areal extent of 

sand cover and sand entrainment rate. Both of these relations were used by Topping and others 

(2010) to infer bed composition and coverage from suspended sediment measures for the three 

controlled floods. This is a potentially useful monitoring technique, because it would allow the 

use of the continuous record of suspended sediment concentration to track the amount of sand on 

the bed. However, implementation will require a better understanding of the spatial scale at 

which the correlation between bed condition and suspended sediment concentration can be 

demonstrated.

3.2. Management Background 

This project is organized around seven research questions (see section 3.2, below) that 

have evolved from the goals, strategic science questions, information needs, and desired future 

conditions developed in cooperation with stakeholders of the GCDAMP. The primary GCDAMP 

goal addressed is “Goal 8: Maintain or attain levels of sediment storage within the main channel 

and along shorelines to achieve Adaptive Management ecosystem goals.” The articulation of this 
55

goal is somewhat refined in the strategic science questions: “Is there a “flow only” operation 

(that is, a strategy for dam releases, including releases responding to large tributary inputs, 

without sediment augmentation) that will rebuild and maintain sandbar habitats over decadal 

timescales?” and “What is the rate of change in eddy storage (erosion) during time intervals 

between high flows?” To address these questions, the 2007 Monitoring and Research Plan 

identified a series of core monitoring information needs which specify the need to monitor fine 

sediment in the channel and eddies at both low and high elevations.

Further guidance on monitoring needs is provided by the HFE EA. The overarching 

sandbar-related question identified in the HFE EA is, "Can sandbar building during HFEs exceed 

sandbar erosion during periods between HFEs, such that sandbar size can be increased and 

maintained over several years?" This document also contains specific science questions related 

to sandbars and camping beaches: (1) Will multiple high flows conducted over a period of 10 

years result in net increases in sandbar area and volume?; (2) With the available sand supply (i.e. 

tributary inputs), is the approach of using repeated floods to build sandbars sustainable?; and, (3) 

Will multiple high flows conducted over a period of 10 years result in net increases in campable 

area along the Colorado River?

The proposed project directly supports achievement of other GCDAMP goals, as well:

• Goal 9: Maintain or improve the quality of recreational experiences for users of the 

Colorado River ecosystem within the framework of GCDAMP ecosystem goals. The 

monitoring provides information on the size and abundance of sandbars, which are 

resources that affect the recreational experiences of Colorado River users.

• Goal 11: Preserve, protect, manage, and treat cultural resources for the inspiration and 

benefit of past, present, and future generations. The project includes monitoring 

sandbars that provide a source of sediment, through aeolian transport, to highelevation sand deposits that contain archaeological resources.

Because sediment monitoring addresses the physical framework of the ecosystem, which 

underlies many biological resource objectives, Project A also indirectly supports achievement:

• Goal 1: Protect or improve the aquatic food base so that it will support viable 

populations of desired species at higher trophic levels. The proposed monitoring 

supports this goal by providing information on the size and distribution of channel 

substrate.

• Goal 2: Maintain or attain a viable population of existing native fish, remove jeopardy 

for humpback chub and razorback sucker, and prevent adverse modification to their 

critical habitats. The proposed sandbar and sediment storage monitoring supports this 

goal by providing information on sandbars which create backwaters, a habitat used by 

native fish.

• Goal 6: Protect or improve the biotic riparian and spring communities within the 

Colorado River ecosystem, including threatened and endangered species and their 

critical habitat. The sediment storage and sandbar monitoring tracks the status of the 

fine sediment deposits which provide the substrate for riparian vegetation and marsh 

communities.
56

The 2003 GCDAMP Strategic Plan identified Core Monitoring Information Needs 

(CMINs) related to sediment storage. The CMINs that are addressed in Project A are listed 

below. For each, the prioritization ranking applied by the GCDAMP Science Planning Group 

(SPG) in 2006 is also included. In addition, several Strategic Science Questions (SSQs) were 

identified by scientists and managers during the knowledge assessment workshop conducted in 

summer 2005 (Melis and others, 2006). 

• 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. 

Addressed in project A.2.

• CMIN 8.2.1. Track, as appropriate, the biennial or annual sandbar area, volume. and 

grain-size changes within and outside of eddies between 5,000 and 25,000 ft3/s stage, 

by reach. Addressed in projects A.1 and A.2.

• CMIN 8.5.1. Track, as appropriate, the biennial sandbar area, volume, and grain-size 

changes above 25,000 ft3

/s stage, by reach. Addressed in projects A.1 and A.2.

• CMIN 8.6.1. Track, as appropriate, changes in coarse sediment (> 2 mm) abundance 

and distribution. Addressed in project A.2.

• 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. Addressed in project 

A.1.

• SSQ 4-1. Is there a “flow only” operation (that is, a strategy for dam releases, 

including managing tributary inputs with BHBFs, without sediment augmentation) 

that will rebuild and maintain sandbar habitats over decadal timescales? Addressed in 

all project components.

3.2. Key Monitoring and Research Questions Addressed in this project 

The goals, science questions, and information needs discussed above are incorporated in 

the following list of specific questions addressed in this project:

1. What is the long-term net effect of dam operations, including high flows, on changes in 

high-elevation sandbar area and sand storage (i.e. the sand above the 8,000 ft3/s stage)?

These changes are relevant to camping beaches, riparian vegetation, backwater habitat, 

and control the supply of bare sand that is redistributed by wind.

2. What is the long-term net effect of dam operations, including high flows, on changes in 

low-elevation sand storage and bed sediment texture (the sand below the 8,000 ft3/s 

stage)? These changes are relevant to backwaters and other aquatic habitat, the 

foundation of eddy sandbars, and as the source of fine sediment that fuels transport and 

determines whether the use of high flows is sustainable.

3. What are the relative proportions of pre-dam fine sediment (sediment that entered the 

Colorado River before dam completion) and post-dam fine sediment (sediment from 

tributaries that has entered the Colorado River following dam completion) present in 

deposits formed by dam operations, including HFEs? Do the proportions of pre- and postdam fine sediment indicate depletion of non-renewable pre-dam fine sediment from 

storage or accumulation of tributary-derived post-dam fine sediment? This question is 

relevant to determining whether the use of HFEs is sustainable.
57

4. What are the causes of variability in sandbar response to controlled floods and other dam 

operations (i.e. why do sandbars respond differently from place to place to the same flow 

and sediment supply conditions?), and how does vegetation affect sandbar response? This 

builds on sandbar monitoring (Question 1) to support prediction of sandbar response.

5. What is the spatial distribution of bed sediment texture, and how does it affect primary 

production, fish habitat, and sediment transport modeling? This builds on low elevation 

sand monitoring (Question 2) to support fine sediment transport and biological 

prediction.

6. Can we relate changes in the spatial distribution of bed sediment texture to observed 

changes in suspended sand concentration and grain size? This would enable use of the 

continuous record of suspended sediment to infer changes in bed sediment composition 

for use in modeling of sediment transport and primary production.

7. How have changes in sandbar size, sandbar characteristics (e.g., slope, roughness), and 

vegetation cover affected the Marble and Grand Canyon camping beach resource? This 

builds on sandbar monitoring (Question 1) to address the recreation resource.

4. Proposed Work 

4.1. Project Elements 

This project is divided into five major monitoring and research elements and one 

additional support element. The first two project elements are monitoring projects, each with 

some research aspects. The last three elements are research projects that contribute to improving 

the monitoring program and improving predictive capacity. Research element A.3 will 

investigate the relations among flow, vegetation, and geomorphology to determine the physical 

controls on sandbar deposition. This information will contribute to improved sampling design 

and the capacity to predict high flow response for specific locations. Element A.4 is an attempt to 

quantify relations among three bed sediment properties (grain size, total areal coverage with 

sand, and shear stress of the sites covered by sand). It is important to understand these effects, 

both to understand the data collected at the sediment gaging stations, and also so that we can 

ultimately use suspended sediment to understand distribution of bed sediment (which would give 

higher-frequency data at lower cost). Element A.4 is an attempt to use sediment geochemistry to 

distinguish mainstem Colorado River sediment (i.e., predam sediment) from Paria River 

sediment (post-dam sediment). If successful, this work will tell us whether sediment that is 

building new bars comes from a sustainable source (Paria River) or comes from a source that 

cannot be replaced (pre-dam sediment). The control network and survey project element support

the other project elements, as well as other FY13/14 projects. 

The ultimate measure of whether or not fine sediment is conserved in and near the 

Colorado River is the increase or decrease in volume and area of fine sediment deposits. Thus, 

monitoring elements involve repeat measurements of topography such that changes in the 

volume of sand deposits can be calculated. Because the management focus is on fine sediment, it 

is necessary to discriminate sand and finer sediment from gravel, cobbles, and boulders. In order 

to more effectively detect change in different resources of importance, it is necessary to monitor 

change in sand storage at both high and low elevations. This requires a mix of direct field 

measurement, remote sensing, and extrapolation throughout the 255 miles of the Colorado River 

between Glen Canyon Dam and River Mile 240, which is the upstream end of Lake Mead 

reservoir.
58

Data collection efforts occur across a wide range of spatial and temporal scales (Table 1) 

in order to detect change in a very large system in which significant change is often local and 

episodic. At a select set of long-term monitoring sites, sandbar monitoring is conducted at a daily 

(using remote cameras) and annual (by conventional survey) interval in order to track local 

response to individual events in the context of a long-term record. A larger collection of sandbars 

are also monitored every four years using remote sensing, in order to provide a synoptic view of 

the entire Colorado River 

Table 1. Summary of sandbar and sediment storage monitoring efforts.

Project 

Element

Spatial Focus Method Measurement 

Frequency

Information 

Needs Met

A.1 Selected highelevation sandbars 

(~50)

Conventional 

topographic surveys

(volume and area)

Yearly Annual status 

check on sandbar 

and camping 

beach condition

A.1 Selected highelevation sandbars 

(~30)

Remotely deployed 

digital camera 

(approximate size)

Daily Status check on 

sandbar 

condition at ~6-

month intervals

A.1 High-elevation 

sandbars 

systemwide 

(>1000 sites)

Remote sensing (area) Every 4 years Long-term trend 

of sandbar 

condition

A.2 Low-elevation fine 

sediment storage 

in 30 to 80-mile 

segments.

Combined 

bathymetric and 

topographic surveys

(area and volume)

Every 3 to 10 

years, depending 

on reach.

Long-term trend 

in fine sediment 

storage

Monitoring of fine sediment deposits is also conducted at multiple scales using a variety 

of methods. Fine sediment inputs and outputs (the I and O terms in equation 1) are monitored at 

a daily scale in 30-mile or longer sediment budgeting reaches (Project B). In this project, we 

monitor changes in sediment storage directly (the ∆S term in equation 1) at approximately 3- to 

10-year time intervals and with high precision. These monitoring strategies are complementary. 

The mass balance measurements of high temporal resolution can be used to track tributary inputs 

and to schedule high flows. Fine sediment storage monitoring provides a direct measurement of 

changes in storage for all storage environments over the entire monitoring period, whether a few 

years or several decades. The geochemical signature project element provides an additional 

indirect method to evaluate the fine sediment budget that is based on estimating the age of the 

sand deposits.

Project Element A.1. Sandbar and Camping Beach Monitoring ($261,900) 

The main purpose of the sandbar monitoring element of the project is to track trends in 

the status of sandbars that are emergent above the water surface at 8,000 ft3

/s throughout Marble 
59

and Grand Canyons. This work is to be accomplished by a continuation of established 

monitoring activities and research. Monitoring is to be conducted at multiple spatial and 

temporal scales, in order to track detailed changes at a subset of monitoring sites and general 

changes at a larger number of sites. Work at the two scales is justified, because we would lack 

understanding of the causes of sandbar changes without higher frequency measures made at 

fewer sites, but, we would lack the ability to track sandbars beyond the area of the long-term 

monitoring sites without system-wide data.

Project Element A.1.1. Monitoring sandbars using topographic surveys and remote cameras 

Joseph Hazel and Matt Kaplinski, Research Associates, Northern Arizona University

Bob Tusso, Hydrologist, USGS/GCMRC

A subset of sandbars and campsites located throughout the Colorado River will be 

monitored annually using conventional ground-based surveying methods. This dataset is 

commonly referred to as the “long term sandbar time series” and is the most temporally rich 

dataset describing the state of sandbars currently available. The monitoring program was 

initiated in 1990. These surveys of approximately 50 sites include measurements of sandbar area 

and sandbar volume above the stage associated with 8,000 ft3/s. In addition, campable area is 

measured at 37 of these sites. Methods for these surveys are described by Hazel and others 

(2008, 2010), and Kaplinski and others (2009). These annual surveys are supplemented by daily 

photographs of about 30 sites using remote digital cameras. These images make it possible to 

record the effects of changes in flow regime that cannot be resolved by the annual measurements.

The number of sites monitored by digital camera will be increased by adding 2 to 5 cameras each 

year.

The sites monitored in this project were selected because of their lengthy historical 

record. Although the sites were not selected randomly, preliminary analyses have indicated that 

the sites adequately represent the behavior of bars above 8,000 ft3

/s stage in Marble Canyon. We 

will continue to investigate the degree to which the long-term monitoring sites represent sandbar 

response system-wide in the remote sensing project A.1.2, described below.

This project will result in an annual report on the status of sandbars based on monitoring 

from the previous year. The sandbar monitoring surveys and photographs will also be made 

available on the GCMRC website.

Project Element A.1.2. Monitoring sandbars by remote sensing 

Phil Davis, Research Geologist, USGS/GCMRC

Rob Ross, Hydrologist, USGS/GCMRC

Paul Grams, Research Hydrologist, USGS/GCMRC

Because only a subset of sandbars are surveyed in the field, we will use remote sensing to 

track the area of exposed sand above the elevation of the 8,000 ft3/s stage (high-elevation sand) 

of more than 1000 large eddies along the Colorado River every 4 years. The canyon-wide remote 

sensing data that will be used in this effort consists of (1) four-band, orthorectified digital 

imagery (blue, green, red, and near-infrared bands) acquired in 2002, 2005, and 2009, and will 

be in acquired in 2013; (2) Digital Surface (elevation) Models (DSM) derived from the 4-band 

imagery mentioned above; (3) Color-InfraRed (CIR), stereo imagery acquired in 1988; and (4) 

DSM that will be derived from the 1988 stereo imagery. The annual ground surveys and 

quadrennial remote-sensing data are complementary. The ground-survey data, which provide 
60

detailed topographic and land-cover information for specific sites will be used to calibrate the 

DSM data and to “train” canyon-wide image analysis. These products will, in turn, be used to 

improve understanding of the degree to which changes observed based on long-term monitoring 

of sites in the field are representative of the entire system. Changes in area and volume observed 

from periodic remote-sensing data will be compared to the changes observed in the ground 

survey data to determine the degree to which and the scale at which the ground sites correspond 

to changes at larger scales.

The remote sensing effort will involve a landscape delineation of four units: water, 

vegetation, sand, and other bare ground (e.g. pre-dam alluvial deposits, talus, and bedrock). This 

landscape database is currently being produced for image data sets collected in 2002, 2005, and 

2009. In the course of this project, new image data will be collected in 2013 and analyzed in 

2014, which will allow an 11-year, quantitative examination of the changes in sand and 

vegetation surface area and how these changes compare to dam operations. For each image set, 

the water surface is mapped using interactive computer algorithms. Vegetation is mapped using 

the Spectral Angle Mapper (SAM) technique that determines the n-dimensional vector angle 

between the wavelength-band values of an image pixel and a user-supplied vegetation spectrum 

(Kruse and others, 1993). The smaller the vector angle for a particular image pixel, the more 

likely the pixel represents vegetation. A maximum SAM angle for vegetation is determined by 

visual comparison of the SAM image with its corresponding 4-band or CIR image on a regional 

basis and that maximum value is used to produce a thematic image of vegetation.

Following the classification of water and vegetation, areas of sand will be mapped at 

more than 1000 eddies. These sites are not the entire population of sand deposits, but comprise a 

very large sample that includes nearly every eddy that has ever contained a sandbar larger than 

about 250 m2 and nearly every location that has had a camping beach in any campsite inventory 

since 1975. Sand surfaces are characterized by a set of relative spectral properties and a very low 

surface texture or roughness. Water and vegetated areas within each Area of Interest (AoI) will 

be removed from the image data, and a textural (roughness) analysis will be performed on the 

remaining image data. The surface texture analysis will be designed to (1) minimize confusion 

along roughness or cliff-shadow transition borders, (2) include damp or shadowed, lower 

reflectance sand areas, and (3) exclude bedrock with similar spectral and texture properties. The 

application of the sand-surface mapping will proceed similar to that for vegetation, in that the 

spectral and textural image properties of sand surfaces will be visually examined at a river-length

interval to apply the optimum spectral and textural ranges to accurately map sand surfaces. In 

addition, surface slope (a factor for camping beaches) and sandbar volume change will also be 

examined using the digital surface models from the 2002, 2009, and 2013 data sets. The 

landscape maps for 2002, 2005, and 2009 will be completed before October 2012; the landscape 

maps for 2013 will be completed by September 2014 following collection and calibration of the 

2013 image data.

Once the accuracy of the 2002-2009 databases are acceptable, the same landscape 

analysis will be performed on “historic” aerial photographic data. The 1988 photographs are the

best images that approximately coincide with the beginning of sandbar monitoring by 

topographic survey and with the implementation of the Interim Operating Critera that limited the 

daily range of flow fluctuations in 1991. Before such analysis, the photographs that cover the 

AoI’s will be orthorectified, which will first be attempted using one of our more recent DSM 

data sets, using fiducial points within the 2002 and 2009 image data as horizontal control points 

and their corresponding DSM values as vertical control points. Fiducial points are identifiable 
61

points whose location and elevation have not changed among different periods of observation. If 

an AoI does not have sufficient fiducial points for rectification or the DSM rectification does not 

produce accurate image results for an AoI (due to changes in an AoI’s perimeter topography), 

then a DSM will be produced for the AoI using the 1988 CIR stereo images that cover the AoI, 

but this will require the acquisition of more accurate fiducial ground control by survey crew.

Regardless, DSM data will be generated for sandbars within selected reaches in order to 

determine subaerial sandbar volume and to exam changes in volume, as well as area, throughout 

the time series. Stereo photogrammetry (which derives topography from stereo, point-perspective 

images) is time consuming and expensive and, therefore, “historic” volume change will only be 

estimated for a few reaches (see Project 1d). 

This project will result in maps that depict the location and size of sandbars present in the 

2013 images (for all of Marble and Grand Canyons) and the 1988 images (for selected reaches). 

The methods and findings will be documented in at least one U.S. Geological Survey 

interpretative report or peer-reviewed journal article.

Project Element A.1.3. Geomorphic attributes of camping beaches 

Paul Grams, Research Hydrologist, USGS/GCMRC

Graduate Student

Among the difficulties that have been encountered when interpreting the sandbar and 

campsite data is the imprecise relation between the monitoring metrics and the attributes of bars 

most relevant to camping. Current monitoring emphasizes sandbar area and volume (e.g. Hazel 

and others, 2010) as the primary metrics of sandbar change. The other metric currently in use is 

“campable area,” which has been monitored since 1998 (Kaplinski and others, 2010). While this 

measure provides some indication of camping beach size, the metric lumps together important 

attributes, such as the extent and density of vegetation, slope, surface roughness, and others, thus 

providing an incomplete assessment of trends in camping beach characteristics. This currently 

results in an inability to specify the causes for change in “campable area” over time. Many 

factors such as the spatial distribution of sand and other geomorphic units, the slope of the 

sandbar, and the distribution and density of vegetation affect the degree to which a sandbar is 

desirable as a camping beach. 

Many of the above factors can be examined by performing analyses on currently 

available data. Topographic characteristics of the camping beaches will be extracted from the 

dataset of sandbar surveys. The distribution of vegetation, substrate type, and other site 

characteristics will be interpreted from aerial photographs, the catalog of site photographs

collected by remote cameras, and the site photographs. We will analyze these and other datasets 

to develop new metrics that can be used to track trends in specific camping beach attributes over 

time and in response to changes in flow regime. These new analytical tools will help managers 

understand whether or not management actions, such as controlled floods, are having the desired 

outcome of enhancing the camping beach resource in addition to causing sandbar deposition. 

A second component of this project will be an analysis of the data collected by the Grand 

Canyon River Guides “Adopt-a-Beach” (AAB) program since 1996. These data, which include 

annual observations and photographs for approximately 40 of the most popular recreational 

camping beaches between Lees Ferry and Diamond Creek, are not currently utilized in 

assessments of sandbar or camping beach condition that are reported to the GCDAMP. Although 

the AAB observations do not provide absolute measures of sandbar size (area and/or volume), 

the data have the potential to provide valuable insight about camping beach condition from a 
62

river user perspective. We will work with the Grand Canyon River Guides in an analysis of the 

dataset either as an independent assessment of camping beach condition or as complementary 

observations to the sandbar monitoring conducted in project A.1.1. Funding to continue to 

support the Grand Canyon River Guides for collection of the AAB photographs and observations 

and involvement of in the analysis and interpretation of the data is included in this project.

The results from project A.1.3 will be described in at least one U.S. Geological Survey 

interpretative report or peer-reviewed journal article.

Project Element A.1.4. Analysis of historical images at selected monitoring sites 

Joe Hazel, Research Associate, NAU

Phil Davis, Research Geologist, USGS/GCMRC

Tom Gushue, Information Technology Specialist, USGS/GCMRC

Our understanding of the trends in sandbar size and abundance is limited by the extent of 

the monitoring period. Many perceptions regarding the current condition of sandbars is based on 

limited observations of sandbars following the floods of 1983-86 (Schmidt and Grams, 2011).

However, those observations are based largely on imprecise photo comparisons and are not 

quantitatively tied to the current sandbar monitoring program. The purpose of this research 

activity is to extend the length of the monitoring record back in time for the long-term sandbar 

monitoring sites (Project A.1.1.) by incorporating data from air photos taken before 1990. Pilot 

studies (Blank, 2000; O’Brien and others, 2000) investigated the feasibility of applying digital 

photogrammetric methods to 1984 stereo photography to derive sandbar topography for 

comparison with modern surveys. Although these studies found that the photogrammetric 

surfaces did not agree perfectly with ground-based surveys, the elevations for sand areas were 

generally within 25 cm of surveyed elevations, which is sufficient for detecting significant 

change in sandbar elevation. Our proposed task will apply a similar, but more sophisticated,

approach to derive topography for selected sandbar study sites in order to extend the sandbar 

monitoring record back in time. This project will produce digital elevation models using digitally 

scanned 1984 stereo photographs. In FY13, representative sites will be selected and various 

techniques and approaches will be tested to determine the method that produces the best results. 

If acceptable results are obtained from the 2013 effort, additional sites will be incorporated in 

2014.

The results from this project will be described in at least one U.S. Geological Survey 

interpretative report or peer-reviewed journal article.

Project Element A.2. Sediment Storage Monitoring ($597,600) 

Project Element A.2.1. Bathymetric and topographic mapping 

Matt Kaplinski, Research Associate, NAU

Paul Grams, Research Hydrologist, USGS/GCMRC

The purpose of the fine sediment storage monitoring element of this project is to track 

long-term trends in sand storage to provide a robust measure of whether or not management 

objectives for fine sediment conservation are being met. In other words, this project provides the 

direct measure of ∆S in equation (1) over the time scale of the HFE EA. An additional purpose of 

this project is to track the location of changes in sand storage between the channel and eddies 

and between high- and low-elevation deposits (equation 2). The greatest challenge in developing 
63

an appropriate monitoring program is the scale of the area of management interest, which 

includes the entire CRe from Glen Canyon Dam to Lake Mead. As described above, previous 

efforts have demonstrated that measurements of fine sediment storage change made in short 

reaches cannot be extrapolated to determine sediment storage throughout the CRe. The large 

local variability in response requires sampling a large proportion of the river channel. 

Using the repeat maps made for the short reaches between 2000 and 2004, we 

investigated potential sampling strategies. This was accomplished by artificially subsampling the 

maps of topographic change that cover an entire 5-km short reach, using three different sampling 

strategies: (1) regularly spaced channel cross-sections; (2) randomly located channel crosssections; and, (3) subsampling of major eddy storage locations. This analysis indicates that all of 

these sampling strategies result in error that is greater than 50% of the actual change in storage 

unless sampling intervals are sufficiently small such that the level of effort is essentially 

equivalent to comprehensively mapping approximately 80% of the entire reach. To estimate 

storage change with an uncertainty of 50% of the observed value would require average crosssection spacing of 300 m or less, regardless of whether the spacing is regular or locations are 

selected randomly. To achieve a similar level of accuracy by sampling eddy storage locations 

would require sampling more than 75% of those locations. In response to these findings, and to 

reduce the need for extrapolation, the monitoring program in FY13/14 will consist of repeat 

mapping of most of the bed of the river. This strategy will result in the production of a highresolution map of 50 to 80% of the bed of the Colorado River in Marble and Grand Canyons.

Repeat maps will provide robust estimates of bed sediment storage change for each mass balance 

reach. 

Because we currently lack a map of the bed of the river and our understanding of the 

distribution of important sediment storage locations is very limited, we believe that the mapping 

approach described here is the only strategy that we can implement that will provide robust longterm estimates of sediment storage change. However, these maps will also be used to evaluate 

the spatial distribution of the largest and most dynamic fine sediment storage locations. We 

anticipate that with this information we will eventually be able to develop a sampling design that 

requires repeat mapping of a smaller proportion of the river channel. 

It is not logistically feasible to map the entire river corridor in every segment in each 

year. The goal of this work is, therefore, to map approximately 80% of each monitoring segment 

between the dam and RM 87 and approximately 50% of each segment between RM 87 and RM 

225. Although it is not possible to identify all the important sediment storage locations prior to 

mapping, the effort is expected to result in mapping more than 90% of the large eddy storage 

locations upstream from RM 87 and at least 75% of those storage locations downstream from 

RM 87. We place greater emphasis on monitoring the three upstream reaches, because the most 

upstream reaches have greater sediment deficit and are, therefore, at greater risk for long term 

sand depletion. We further expect that because these reaches have larger sediment deficit that 

storage changes are likely to be more variable, requiring monitoring a greater proportion of each 

monitoring segment. Each year, one of the five sediment monitoring segments that are between 

26 and 80 miles in length will be mapped such that each segment will be mapped twice in 10 

years. This monitoring strategy was first described in the draft sediment core monitoring plan 

(Topping and others, 2007). 
64

Table 2. Long sediment budgeting reaches for long-term monitoring of sediment storage.

Segment River 

Miles

Existing 

or planned 

surveys

Short 

reaches*

Crosssections**Estimated proportion 

of reach mapping will 

cover

Repeat 

Interval

1 -15 to 0 2012-

2014

1 20 80% ~ 10 yr

2 0 to 30 2013 2 41 80% 5 to 10 yr

3 30 to 61 2009, 

2012

3 17 80% 3 to 5 yr

4 61 to 87 2011 2 39 80% 3 to 5 yr

5 87 to 166 2015 1 20 50% ~ 10 yr

6 166 to 

225

2014 2 8 50% 5 to 10 yr

7 225 to 

240

2013 -- -- *** ~ 10 yr

* The number of short reaches 2 to 5 km in length that were mapped at least once between 2000 

and 2005 (Kaplinski and others, 2009).

** The number of cross-sections that were measured at least once between 1992 and 1999 (Flynn 

and Hornewer, 2003).

*** The method that will be used for mapping this reach has not been determined.

Because about 90% of the sand and finer sediment that is available for redistribution by 

dam operations is below the water surface (Hazel and others, 2006), the monitoring method must 

include measurements of the bed of the river in eddies and pools. Data collection will combine 

multibeam and singlebeam sonar coupled with conventional surveys for areas above the water 

surface. These methods have been described by Hazel and others (2008), Kaplinski and others 

(2009) and were used extensively in monitoring the 2008 HFE (Hazel and others, 2010). Similar 

methods are used to monitor channel changes on other large rivers, including the Missouri River 

(Jacobson and others, 2009). The data will result in a high resolution digital elevation model of 

the mapped segments for each mapping effort. Upon completion of a repeat map of a segment, 

the DEMs will be compared to compute the net change in the volume of sediment within the 

segment. These computations will distinguish between fine and coarse sediment (see project 

element A.3.), between sediment stored in the channel and eddies, and between sediment at highand low-elevation. The computations will also incorporate estimates of uncertainty (e.g. 

Wheaton and others, 2010). In addition to making comparisons between years for which the 

entire segments are mapped, comparisons will also be made to older data where available. This

will include comparisons to data collected in short reaches in 2000 to 2005 and data collected at 

monumented channel cross-sections (Table 2).

The current approach differs from that outlined in the draft sediment core monitoring 

plan (Topping and others, 2007) in two ways. First, the core monitoring plan suggested a simple 

rotation beginning with upstream segments and working downstream. Our revised plan is to map 

in a sequence based on scientific and management priorities, balancing the need to map all 

segments with the need to provide repeat maps and preliminary results. The long reach from RM 

30 to RM 61 was the first mapped in 2009. That segment is of high priority, because Marble 

Canyon has been identified as the segment most at risk for long-term erosion. Within Marble 
65

Canyon, the downstream half was selected, because it includes the largest area where data were 

collected from 2000 to 2004. The second long reach mapped was the reach from RM 61 to RM 

87 that was mapped in 2011. This long reach was chosen, because it contains areas that are of 

interest for habitat characterization. In spring 2012, we repeated the RM 30 to 61 long reach to 

evaluate the efficacy of demonstrating the methods described here and to show the sand storage 

response to the summer 2011 sustained high flows. Long reaches selected for data collection in 

2013 and 2014 will depend on circumstances, but we currently plan to map the long reach from 

RM 0 to RM 30 in 2013 and the long reach from RM 166 to RM 225 in 2014. The other 

difference between this and the original monitoring plan is that the draft monitoring plan 

recommended against collecting data in years with HFEs. The current plan includes data 

collection each year, regardless of operating regime or if HFE’s occur. We propose this change, 

because the current protocol for implementing future high flows involves a trigger that makes

planning for data collection difficult, and because we believe that the repeat channel mapping 

will be most informative if data are collected annually.

This project will result in digital elevation models of the segment mapped in each year of 

the project. Those data will be made available on the GCMRC website. The results describing 

changes in sediment storage based on the repeat mapping of the RM 30-61 reach mapped in 2012 

will be described in a U.S. Geological Survey interpretative report or peer-reviewed journal 

article.

Project Element A.2.2. Bed-material characterization 

Paul Grams, Research Hydrologist, USGS/GCMRC

Matt Kaplinski, Research Associate, Northern Arizona University

Bob Tusso, Research Hydrologist, USGS/GCMRC

Postdoc 

A necessary component of the effort to monitor fine sediment storage is the identification 

of the bed surface texture as well as the bed surface elevation. Currently, we rely on a 

categorization of the bed that does not do a good job of discriminating sand from gravel in those 

places where the bed topography has little relief. We propose to improve the method used to 

characterize bed texture using the backscattering data from the multibeam sonar surveys to 

identify and map bed material. The backscatter data collected by sonar will be calibrated and 

validated against observations of bed material characteristics made by underwater video camera, 

which are collected and processed using the methods of Rubin and others (2007) and Buscombe 

and others (2010). We expect that this technique will enable more robust discrimination among 

sand, gravel, cobbles, and boulders. This work will include testing of existing processing 

algorithms, comparing results for selected reaches to evaluate technology, and developing new 

algorithms, if necessary. 

More specifically, research will be conducted into developing computational algorithms 

which will classify substrates based on multibeam backscatter properties. Bed texture refers to 

both the sediment grain size (sand, cobble, boulder, etc) and the micro-topography (for example, 

silt, sand, and gravel can be rippled or support dunes, and bare bedrock is often not smooth but 

has an undulating rough surface). Raw acoustic backscatter varies not only with particle size 

distribution, but also with incidence angles, bed slope, and bedforms/micro-topography (related 

to the grazing angle of the acoustic signal, or the acoustic footprint), as well as water properties 

such as depth and concentration of suspended and dissolved material (related to acoustic 

attenuation losses which reduce signal-to-noise ratios). Therefore, the problem is not trivial. 
66

However, because the same area of bed is sensed by hundreds of individual acoustic beams, 

multibeam data have a wealth of information to exploit and research progress has been swift in 

the past decade (Brown and Blondel, 2009). Sediment classification from acoustic backscatter is 

a relatively new field, and in recent years, there have emerged two approaches to the problem, 

termed 'geoacoustic' and 'feature-based' approaches. 

Feature-based approaches use image processing techniques to characterize the texture of 

images of areas of gridded backscatter data. Image intensity is related to the amount of acoustic 

energy backscattered. Techniques used to date include methods based on basic and higher 

statistical moments, including histograms, fractal dimensions, and power spectra; and methods 

based on texture models, such as Gray-Level Co-occurrence Matrices (GLCMs). The aim of the 

latter is to produce textural descriptors or 'indices' which are a set of statistical measures of the 

GLCMs unique to a particular texture. For example, one index is 'entropy' which quantifies the 

lack of spatial organization and will be higher for relatively rough surfaces such as rocks and 

lower for relatively organized textural variations such as ripples. These techniques have been 

shown to work well for relatively broad discriminations between sediment and different rock 

types (e.g. Blondel and Gomez Sichi, 2009), however, it remains to be seen whether such an 

approach alone can distinguish among sediment types. There is no widely accepted agreement on 

the best method or combination of methods (Brown and others, 2011).

Geoacoustic approaches analyze the shape and statistical properties of the backscattered 

waveform (backscatter intensity versus grazing angle, also known as the 'angular response') and 

try to relate these properties to specific bed textures. The average angular response is compared 

to mathematical models (Jackson and others, 1986) that link acoustic backscatter observations to 

seafloor properties (Fonesca and others, 2009; Lamarche and others, 2011). Such geoacoustic 

approaches, unlike feature-based approaches, have the potential to uncover information on the 

subsurface as well as surface sediment type, but this could also be a limitation if these influences 

are not robustly theorized. 

In shallow water where the quality of the multibeam sonar data degrades due to low 

grazing angles, available backscatter data from sidescan sonar systems (which have higher 

along-track resolutions and lower-grazing angles than multibeam sonar data systems) will be 

merged and co-registered with the multibeam sonar data. It will be possible to validate/test these 

techniques using co-located data from towed video cameras and bed-sediment video microscopes 

(e.g. Rubin and others, 2007). Such data, collected over several years, are already being analysed 

for grain size and other attributes using the method of Buscombe and others (2010) and 

Buscombe and Rubin (2012). These techniques use advanced spectral analysis to derive grain 

size directly from the images of sediment by quantifying energy associated with grain-scale 

wavelengths of image intensity. Similar principles will be useful in the present problem, where 

the dominant wavelengths of intensity might be quickly estimated in images comprised of a 

mosaic of acoustic swaths.

Sediment classification techniques will have to be equally applicable to the full spectrum 

of scenarios from the relatively simple situation of uniform sediments, to more difficult scenarios 

such as where fine sediments are located among cobbles and boulders (i.e. in acoustic shadows); 

where fine sediments form shallow blankets over gravels and cobbles (where the challenge will 

be determining what particle size is surficial and what is subsurface); and, where the river 

bathymetry is very complicated. In addition, the techniques developed in this project will have to 

be applicable to multibeam data collected with different systems and at different spatial 

resolutions and precisions. It is anticipated that the techniques themselves will be sufficiently 
67

general to apply to other rivers and water bodies, thus of benefit to the wider scientific 

community.

Knowledge of bed texture is a specific requirement for modeling primary productivity, 

because algal growth varies depending on substrate type and affects benthic biomass, because 

invertebrate density varies by substrate type. Thus, improved maps of bed texture will help 

improve the estimates of reach-scale productivity that will be conducted in project H.2.1 

(Developing a Mechanistic Model of Primary Productivity) and will inform foodbase monitoring 

(project F.7.4 Benthic Algae and Invertebrate Biomass). Bed texture and changes in bed texture 

are also of specific interest to biologists studying native fish. Maps of bed material texture will 

help fisheries biologists understand the spatial abundance of specific habitat types, such as sand, 

cobble, bedrock, or talus, and the degree to which those habitats are stable or dynamic. 

The project will result in maps and other data formats of the bed texture/grain size for 

each segment of river mapped in each year of the project, and will be made available through the 

GCRMC website. The computational algorithms will be published in both a USGS interpretive 

report and a peer-reviewed journal article for review and use by the wider scientific community. 

The widespread geomorphological and ecological implications of such data will be disseminated 

at conferences and further peer-reviewed journal articles intended for a broad cross-disciplinary 

audience.

Project Element A.3. Investigating Eddy Sandbar Variability and the Interactions among Flow, Vegetation, and 

Geomorphology ($103,500) 

Paul Grams, Research Hydrologist, USGS/GCMRC

Barbara Ralston, Biologist, USGS/GCMRC

Postdoc and Researcher

The large body of work that has been conducted on sediment transport on the Colorado 

River, coupled with the monitoring of sandbar response to high flows, has resulted in the 

observation that even when there is a large supply of sand on the river bed, as was the case in 

2008, sandbar response is highly variable from place to place. The analysis of the long-term 

sandbar monitoring data by Grams and others (2011) showed that there are systematic 

differences in eddy behavior. Some eddies tend to accumulate sediment during relatively high 

flows (e.g. the high end of the range of powerplant operations and HFEs), while other eddies 

tend to accumulate fine sediment at relatively low flows (the low end of the range of powerplant 

operations). The purpose of this project is to systematically study the hydraulic characteristics of 

eddies that are representative of these different styles of behavior to discover what controls these 

differences. Improved understanding of eddy behavior will benefit monitoring efforts, because 

this study could provide a basis for developing a more targeted stratified sampling design. In 

addition, this knowledge could lead to better capacity to predict the sandbar-building response to 

HFEs and other dam operations to specific sites, or groups of similar sites.

There are many possible causes for variable sandbar-building response among eddies. In 

general, it is likely that the structure of the channel causes variability in time-scale hydraulics,

and, thereby, variability in patterns of deposition and erosion. However, it is unknown which

aspects of channel geometry are most important in controlling this variability. A related 

hypothesis is that the amount and spatial distribution of established vegetation affects patterns of 

deposition. Riparian vegetation affects sediment transport and deposition by stabilizing portions 

of eddy sandbars and by introducing added roughness that affects sediment deposition dynamics.
68

Thus, while vegetation may stabilize existing deposits, those stabilized areas may prevent or 

hinder the creation of new deposits.

We propose to investigate these dynamics with (1) an empirical analysis of existing data 

and (2) a numerical modeling study. In the empirical study, we will couple our large existing 

dataset of eddy sandbar behavior with metrics that describe site geometric and hydrodynamic 

characteristics. In other words, we will look for statistical relations between observed eddy 

behavior and site characteristics. We will use the analysis of Grams and others (2011) who

categorized eddies by flow regime response as an initial basis for metrics to anticipate eddy 

behavior. We will characterize physical attributes by extracting metrics of channel geometry 

from topographic/bathymetric maps for each site. An exhaustive list of potential site 

characteristics is not included here, but will involve the identification of metrics for spatial 

changes in flow strength, such as changes in relative channel width, flow depth, and roughness.

Other site characteristics, such as the extent, location, density, and maturity of vegetation will 

also be incorporated. 

The expected result of this analysis is the discovery of specific site characteristics and 

vegetation patterns that most strongly affect the amount and pattern of sandbar deposition. Once 

we are able to identify characteristics that influence response, we will apply the efforts to 

additional sites to test these hypotheses. If we are able to discover site characteristics that are 

truly correlated with depositional patterns, we will have a powerful tool for predicting sandbar 

response to given flow events. The research is expected to result in a simple categorization of 

eddy sandbars into predicted styles of response to different flow regimes. For example, we 

predict for a given flow regime, such as a 45,000 ft3

/s controlled flood, which sites would be 

predicted to have large sandbars, small sandbars, or no sandbars. 

For the modeling component of the study, we will select two sites that have very different 

behavior, as identified by Grams and others (2011). For each site, we will construct a 3-

dimensional numerical model. Models for sandbar deposition have not yet performed well 

without “tuning” (Logan and others, 2010). Therefore, we recognize that these models will 

require calibration by adjusting the input suspended sediment concentration to produce modeled 

sandbars that match observations. Thus, these models will not be truly predictive, but should be 

useful for testing how variation in site characteristics affects sandbar building response. Once 

calibrated models are developed for each of the two sites, such that they adequately portray 

observed sandbar behavior across a range of flows (with constant sediment supply), they will be 

used to investigate how changes in site characteristics affect deposition patterns. This will be 

done by incrementally changing model boundary conditions such as roughness and channel 

geometry, testing any hypotheses generated based on the empirical analysis.

The expected outcome of this effort is a much improved understanding of the physical 

controls on sandbar behavior. This understanding will contribute to improved sampling design 

and possibly flow recommendations that are more specifically targeted towards building 

sandbars in either specific locations or specific segments of the river. This research project will 

result in at least one U.S. Geological Survey interpretative report or peer-reviewed journal article 

that describes the methods and results of the study.

Project Element A.4. Quantifying the correlation between bed and transport grain size ($149,900) 

Dave Rubin, Research Geologist, USGS

A strong correlation between bed sediment grain size and the rate and grain size of 

sediment in transport has been demonstrated for the CRe. This correlation has been used to infer 
69

bed composition and coverage from suspended sediment measurements. This is a potentially 

useful monitoring technique, but implementation will require a better understanding of the 

spatial scale at which the correlation can be demonstrated. 

The influence of bed sediment on suspended sediment is complicated, because bed 

sediment influences suspended sediment concentration and grain size in at least three ways. First, 

finer sediment on the bed is hypothesized to cause higher suspended-sediment concentrations 

and finer suspended sediment (where other forcing and boundary conditions are constant), as 

modeled and observed by Rubin and Topping (2001). Second, greater areal coverage is 

hypothesized to produce higher concentrations, but no change in grain size, as observed in 

experiments (Grams and Wilcock, 2007). Finally, distribution of bed sediment in areas with 

greater than average shear stress is hypothesized to produce higher concentrations of suspended 

sediment, with coarser grain size (again, for constant water discharge, mean grain size on the 

bed, and areal coverage of sand). The aim of this work is to quantify these three effects and 

derive the mathematical relation among these three properties of bed sediment and the resulting 

concentration and grain size in suspension.

The proposed work will use both field measurements and modeling to partition these 

three effects, in order to provide a more reliable link between bed and transport grain size.

Modeling will use work of Grams and Wilcock (2007) to quantify the effect of areal sand 

coverage and the approach of Rubin and Topping to quantify the effects of local shear stress and 

grain size, which previously have been quantified at a reach average. We will use dense field 

measurements of bed topography and bed texture extending 2 to 4 km upstream from one or 

more gages. We don’t know for certain that this is the optimum measurement distance, but we 

suspect that reaches extending only hundreds of meters upstream from the gages will be 

insufficient to capture the important average bed properties (because grains settle too slowly), 

and that regions extending tens of km upstream are unnecessarily long (because pools within 

these long reaches will trap sediment) and logistically impossible or too expensive to survey.

These measurements will be repeated at approximately 2-month intervals for a 6-month period 

beginning in early 2013. The measurements will either be made in a reach that is accessible 

without requiring additional river trips (e.g. near Diamond Creek), or the measurements will be 

made in conjunction with other trips; no additional river trips dedicated to this project are 

proposed. Additional possible technological approaches include deploying a recording bed 

camera to measure a time series of grain size at a single point, or deploying rotating sonar to 

develop a time series of areal coverage of sand on the bed.

This work will improve our understanding of the linkages between suspended-sediment 

observations and bed-sediment texture, which will provide greater understanding of the upstream 

extent of river that determines concentration and grain size at sediment gaging stations. Findings 

from this work will be used to improve models for suspended sediment transport and may 

provide improved methods for tracking the abundance of sand on the river bed using the 

suspended sediment monitoring network. For example, Topping and others (2010) used the 

measurements of suspended sand concentration during the 1996, 2004, and 2008 HFEs to 

estimate the proportion of the bed covered by sand and the grain size of that sand. Those 

calculations suggested that, in some reaches, there was likely more sand on the bed in 1996 than 

in 1998, although of coarser grain size. Results from this project would improve our ability to 

use measurements of sand in suspension to infer the condition of the bed. 

The specific hypotheses that will be investigated by this component of the project are:
70

1. Observed variability in sand flux (as much as 1000-fold differences in flux for a given 

water discharge) is caused by—and can be mathematically described as a function of—

changes in bed sediment (grain size, areal coverage, and specific spatial distribution).

2. Observations of suspended-sediment concentration and grain size can be used to calculate 

these three properties of bed sediment.

3. Application of the relations between bed-sediment and flux and observations of bedsediment boundary conditions can be used to improve or optimize bar-building flows 

(greatest bar-building for a given amount of sediment and water used during artificial 

floods.

Better understanding of temporal changes in bed texture will also be used to improve our 

ability to model and predict aquatic primary productivity. Bed sediment texture, the spatial 

distribution of bed sediment, and bed topography all affect the rate of primary production. These 

characteristics affect the amount of light that reaches a given portion of the bed and the substrate 

that algae and invertebrates occupy. For example, coarse bed material, such as cobbles and 

boulders, is associated with different benthic species and population densities than sand and finer 

substrate. This project will be conducted in cooperation with studies of the aquatic foodbase

(Project H) to advance understanding of these issues and improve models for primary 

production.

This research project will result in at least one U.S. Geological Survey interpretative report or 

peer-reviewed journal article that describes the methods and results of the study.

Project Element A.5. Geochemical Signatures of Pre-Dam Sediment ($50,900) 

Renee Takesue, Geologist, USGS/Pacific Science Center

In the post-dam era, the Paria River is the dominant supplier of sand to the Colorado 

River in Marble Canyon between Lees Ferry and the Little Colorado River confluence. Prior to 

dam completion, the Paria provided less than 10% of the sand supplied to Marble Canyon. This 

dramatic shift in sediment source creates an opportunity to distinguish sand deposits based on 

chemical properties. Provided that sediment from the Paria and Colorado Rivers have distinct 

geochemical signatures, these end member signatures can be used to determine proportions of 

material from the two sources that comprise downstream sediment deposits. Such information 

would be particularly valuable for evaluating long-term trends and individual event-scale 

changes in sand bar composition arising from (HFEs). For example, this approach would allow 

testing of the following basic hypothesis: sand bar composition has changed from Colorado

River-sourced sand to Paria-sourced sand. The alternative hypothesis is that sand-bar 

composition is generally invariant over time, being predominantly composed of either Coloradosourced sand or alternatively Paria-sourced sand. In particular, some changes may indicate 

whether or not recent bar-building flows are sustainable. For example, if deposits of individual 

high-flows are composed entirely of Paria-sourced sand, bar-building may be sustainable. On the 

other hand, a shift in source from Paria River to pre-dam Colorado River sand during high flows, 

may suggest an unsustainable sediment supply exists.

Exploratory work during the past two years has shown that in the .25-0.0625 mm size 

fraction, which is representative of the material in suspension during HFEs, Paria and Colorado 

Rivers sediment can be distinguished based on their sodium (Na), potassium (K), and rubidium 

(Rb) contents. These elements are likely hosted in sand-sized alkali feldspars. We propose to 

begin applying this geochemical source-discrimination technique to new and archived material 

from HFEs. Hypotheses about temporal changes in sediment composition can be tested using 
71

archives of suspended sediment from past HFEs and/or new samples from a HFE in 2013 or 

2014. Budget requests include about two months of annual salary and benefits for R. Takesue, 

analysis costs of about 60 sediment samples, funds for field work if a HFE occurs during the 

funding period, and costs of information dissemination in a USGS report or scientific journal and 

at a scientific meeting.

If successful, this approach will give scientists and managers an additional measure to 

evaluate long-term trends of sediment abundance in Marble Canyon and the ability to detect 

mined pre-dam sediment in future high flows. This approach for investigating the sediment 

budget is independent from measurements of sediment inputs, outputs, and topographic change, 

and, unlike other methods, does not require subtraction of one number from another, such as in 

equation (1). Rather, the method relies on estimating the proportion of sediments within a deposit 

that pre- or post-date dam completion. This research addresses some of the most important 

questions regarding sediment in the ecosystem: Is pre-dam sand still being excavated and 

exported downriver under present operations of the dam? Is the rate constant, or has the amount 

of pre-dam sand changed during the past half century? If the rate is constant, is it because predam sand is stable and protected, or is it because most pre-dam sand has already been removed?

This research project will result in at least one U.S. Geological Survey interpretative 

report or peer-reviewed journal article that describes the methods and results of the study.

Project Element A.6. Control Network and Survey Support ($56,300) 

Keith Kohl, Surveyor, USGS/GCMRC

An accurate geodetic control network is required to support nearly every aspect of this 

project as well as other GCDAMP monitoring projects. The purpose of the control network is to 

ensure that spatial data acquired on all projects are collected with accurate and repeatable spatial 

reference. The control network is essential to enable comparison among data sets collected by 

different methods and ensure that spatially referenced observations are repeatable and that all 

data are archived appropriately. Projects that are directly dependent on the control network 

include this project, all other projects that use system-wide airborne remote sensing, 

archeological site monitoring, and vegetation monitoring. The remote sensing work is 

particularly dependent on accurate control operations, without which image data could not be 

compared accurately with ground-based measurements. 

The control network is the set of monumented and documented reference points 

(benchmarks) that exist along the river corridor and on the rim together with the collection of 

observations that determine the relative and absolute positions of those points. Those points 

serve as the basis for referencing all ground- and air-based monitoring observations. Currently, 

the control network includes more than 7,000 GPS observations and more than 2,000 optical 

observations that determine the precise location of 1,303 benchmarks in the river corridor and on 

the canyon rim. This project includes work in three broad categories: (1) building the control 

network, (2) direct support of research and monitoring activities, and (3) storage and archival of 

the control database.

Building the Control Network 

The primary task of building the control network involves making GPS observations at 

new and existing benchmarks. This effort is nearing completion, and most segments of the river 

corridor now have a sufficient number of control points to support monitoring activities. In 2013 

and 2014, field work will be required to complete this task in Glen Canyon (between the dam 
72

and Lees Ferry), RM 81 to RM 91, RM 98 to RM 119, RM 144 to RM 166, and RM 225 to 277. 

Building the control network also requires addressing the difference that exists between ellipsoid 

height, which is provided by the GPS observations that GCMRC makes, and orthometric 

elevation (i.e. NAVD88), which can be obtained only by gravity measurements or precise 

leveling. The deviation between ellipsoid height and orthometric height can be as large as 10 cm 

over a distance of 1 km. This problem exists everywhere and is a major focus of work by the 

National Geodetic Survey (NGS). The problem has not been resolved in Marble and Grand 

Canyons because of the remote location, low population, and difficult access. We are working on 

this problem by incorporating existing leveling measurements into the control network and 

encouraging the NGS to conduct a campaign of gravity measurements for the Grand Canyon 

region. 

Support of Research and Monitoring Projects 

The two major project elements that require survey support in 2013 and 2014 are 

concerning sandbars (A.1.) and sediment storage (A.2.). The sandbar and sediment storage 

project elements described here utilize the control network and the expertise of the survey staff 

in data collection efforts. Geodetic control work supports the remote sensing data collection 

effort by panel placement and recovery, collecting reference base station data for overflights, and

processing the data to publish GNSS results for the stations within the NGS database. Other 

projects that receive survey support include the Streamflow, Water Quality, and Sediment 

Transport project (Project B), and the Vegetation Monitoring project (Project I).

Storage, Archival, and Documentation of the Control Network Database 

The control network data are stored in a Microsoft Access database that is linked with the 

GCMRC GIS database. The survey staff works with GIS staff to maintain and update the 

database as needed. 

This project will result in updates to the National Geodetic Survey Integrated Database 

(NGSIDB) of all available Height Modernization and Benchmark stations. This project will also 

result in at least one U.S. Geological Survey report or peer-reviewed journal article on the 

accuracy and uncertainty in topographic change detection associated with measurement 

instrumentation, geodetic projections, or a related topic.

4.2 Personnel and Collaborations 

The project lead is Paul Grams. Phil Davis is the remote sensing expert. Keith Kohl is the 

control network specialist and surveyor. Support is provided by Rob Ross and Bob Tusso who 

are term hydrologists. One term post-doctoral fellow will be hired to work on the bed material 

characterization project (Project A.2.2.), a second post-doctoral research fellow will be hired to 

work on the eddy sandbar variability project (Element A.3.), and an MS level graduate student 

will work on the geomorphic attributes of camping beaches (Project A.1.3.). The GCMRC staff 

have management responsibility for the entire project and share responsibility for data collection, 

analysis, and reporting. David Rubin and Renee Takesue at the USGS, Costal and Marine 

Geology, Joseph E. Hazel, Jr, and Matt Kaplinski from Northern Arizona University.

4.3 Deliverables 

Products from this project will include annual reports to the GCDAMP, presentations at 

TWG and AMWG meetings, presentations at scientific meetings, and reports. All of the products 
73

listed as reports will be peer-reviewed USGS interpretive reports or peer-reviewed scientific 

journal articles. Updates of the status of sandbars based on annual surveys and the remote 

cameras will be made available at the January annual reporting meeting of each year to support 

the HFE EA science plan. Specific products are listed below:

Product Project 

Element*

Lead 

Responsibility

Time of 

Completion

Data from long-term sandbar monitoring sites A.1.1./HFE NAU Annual

Images from daily remote camera monitoring of 

sandbars

A.1.1./HFE GCMRC Annual

Map, showing extent of sandbars in selected 

reaches for 1988

A.1.2. GCMRC Year 1

Map, showing extent of sandbars throughout CRE 

in 2013

A.1.2./HFE GCMRC Year 2

Report on system-wide sandbar monitoring, 1988-

2013

A.1.2./HFE GCMRC Year 2

Report on the geomorphic attributes of camping 

beaches

A.1.3. GCMRC/NA

U

Year 2

Report on the extended sandbar monitoring time 

series (1984 to present) based on use of old air 

photos

A.1.4. NAU Year 2

Report on changes in sediment storage, RM 30 to 

RM 61

A.2.1./HFE GCMRC Year 1

Data from sediment storage monitoring, RM 30 to 

RM 61

A.2.1./HFE NAU Year 1

Data from sediment storage monitoring for long 

reach mapped in 2013

A.2.1./HFE NAU Year 2

Data from sediment storage monitoring for long 

reach mapped in 2014

A.2.1./HFE NAU After Year 2

Maps of bed texture for each of the long reaches 

mapped in the sediment storage monitoring project

A.2.2. GCMRC Year 2

Report on bed material characterization A.2.2. GCMRC Year 2

Report on eddy sandbar variability A.3. GCMRC Year 2

Report on interaction between bed sediment and 

suspended sediment

A.4. CMG Year 2

Report on geochemical signature of pre-dam 

sediment

A.5. CMG Year 2

* HFE indicates products that also support the HFE science plan.
74

5. Productivity from Past Work 

During FY11/12, the following products were either delivered to the GCDAMP prior to 

April 1, 2012, or are on track to be delivered by September 30, 2012.

5.1. Data Products 

Sandbar monitoring database. Digital elevation models of sandbar surveys 1990-2011 in ArcGIS 

geodatabase format. To be made available at http://www.gcmrc.gov pending website 

improvements. Currently available at ftp://ftpext.usgs.gov/pub/wr/az/flagstaff/physical/sandbar 

or by request.

Channel mapping database. Maps and digital elevation models of channel mapping surveys. To 

be made available at http://www.gcmrc.gov pending website improvements. Data currently 

available at ftp://ftpext.usgs.gov/pub/wr/az/flagstaff/physical/cm_data and maps available at 

ftp://ftpext.usgs.gov/pub/wr/az/flagstaff/physical/cm_maps or by request.

Survey control database. Microsoft Access database containing all geodetic control, over 1600 

reference marks, in Glen Canyon, Marble Canyon, and Grand Canyon. Available upon request.

Geomorphic change detection software. Software to compute changes in sediment storage 

between successive surveys. Developed in collaboration with Utah State University and ESSA 

Technologies. Software is available at http://gcd.joewheaton.org/

5.2. Completed Publications 

Alvarez, L. and Schmeeckle, M., 2012, Erosion of sandbars by diurnal stage fluctuations in the 

Colorado River in Marble and Grand Canyon--full-scale laboratory experiments: River 

Research and Applications, online 

at, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/rra.2576/abstract. 

Schmidt, J.C., and Grams, P.E., 2011a, The high flows--physical science results, in Melis, T.S., 

ed., Effects of three high-flow experiments on the Colorado River ecosystem downstream 

from Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1366, 53-91 p., accessed 

on June 28, 2011, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1366/.

Schmidt, J.C., and Grams, P.E., 2011b, Understanding physical processes of the Colorado River, 

in Melis, T.S., ed., Effects of three high-flow experiments on the Colorado River ecosystem 

downstream from Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1366, 17-51 

p., accessed on June 28, 2011, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1366/.

Melis, T.S., Grams, P.E., Kennedy, T.A., Ralston, B.E., Robinson, C.T., Schmidt, J.C., Schmit, 

L.M., Valdez, R.A., and Wright, S.A., 2011, Three experimental high-flow releases from 

Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona—Effects on the downstream Colorado River ecosystem: U.S. 

Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2011-3012, 4 p.

5.3. Publications in progress 

Polino, M., Grams, P.E., and Kennedy, T.A., in review, A General Classification of Bed Texture 

for Select Reaches of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon, Arizona, U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-file report, 20xx-xxxx, xx p.
75

Ross, R. and Grams, P.E., in revision, Near-shore Thermal Gradients of the Colorado River Near 

the Little Colorado River Confluence, Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona, U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-file report, 20xx-xxxx, xx p.

Grams, P.E., and others, in preparation, Linking Morphodynamic Response with Sediment Mass 

Balance: Issues of Scale, Geomorphic Setting, and Sampling Design, to be submitted for 

review to Sedimentary Geology by June 30, 2012.

Czarnomski, N., Wheaton, J.M., Grams, P.E., Hazel, J.E., Kaplinski, M.A., Schmidt, J.C., in 

preparation, Untangling Geomorphic Processes in the Grand Canyon with Topographic Time 

Series from Hybrid Surveys, to be submitted for review to journal by September 30, 2012.

Hazel, J.E., Jr., Kaplinski, M., Schott, N., Parnell, R., Grams, P., and Ross, R., in progress, Sand 

Storage Measured at Selected Sites in Colorado River in Marble and Grand Canyons, 

Arizona, 1990-2009: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report, to be 

submitted for review by June 30, 2012.

Kaplinski, M., Grams, P., Hazel, J.E., Gushue, T., Tusso, R., Kohl, K., Shott, N., in progress, 

Monitoring Fine-Sediment Volume in the Colorado River Ecosystem, Arizona: Construction 

and Analysis of Digital Elevation Models, U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations 

Report, to be submitted for review by June 30, 2012.

Wheaton and others, in preparation, Documentation and users guide for geomorphic change 

detection software, to be submitted for review by September 30, 2012.

Kohl, K., and others, in preparation, Establishing a Spatial Infrastructure for Long Term 

Monitoring in Grand Canyon, Arizona: Robust Geodetic Control in Support of Scientific 

Research and Resource Management, to be submitted for review by July 30, 2012.

5.4. Presentations at GCDAMP meetings 

1. Presentations at TWG and AMWG meetings. Presentations are available 

at http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/

2. Presentations at January 2011 GCMRC Annual Reporting Meeting.

3. Multiple presentations at July 2011 Knowledge Assessment workshop for physical 

sciences. 

4. Presentation at October 2011 Knowledge Assessment workshop.

5. Presentations at January 2012 Knowledge Assessment workshop and annual reporting 

meeting.

5.5. Presentations at professional meetings 

Grams, P.E., Topping, D.J., Schmidt, J.C., Kaplinski, M.A., Hazel, J.E., 2011, Linking 

Morphodynamic Response with Sediment Mass Balance: Issues of Scale, Geomorphic 

Setting, and Sampling Design, Abstract EP31F-04 presented at 2011 Fall Meeting, American 

Geophysical Union San Francisco, CA, 5-9 Dec.

Czarnomski, N., Wheaton, J.M., Grams, P.E., Hazel, J.E., Kaplinski, M.A., Schmidt, J.C., 2011, 

Untangling Geomorphic Processes in the Grand Canyon with Topographic Time Series from 

Hybrid Surveys, Abstract H51I-1322 presented at 2011 Fall Meeting, American Geophysical 

Union San Francisco, CA, 5-9 Dec.

Kilham, N.E., Schmidt, J.C., Wheaton, J.M., Grams, P.E., 2010, Evidence for the evacuation of 

fine sediment and fine gravel of the Colorado River below Glen Canyon Dam, Abstract 

EP51B-0558 presented at 2010 Fall Meeting, American Geophysical Union San Francisco, 

CA, 13-17 Dec.
76

Schmidt, J.C., Grams, P.E., Hazel, J.E., Kaplinski, M.A., 2010, Topographic Analyses of 

Reaches of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon Reveal Focused Locations of Fine-Sediment 

Accumulation and Evacuation, Abstract EP31C-0756 presented at 2010 Fall Meeting, 

American Geophysical Union San Francisco, CA, 13-17 Dec.

5.6. Productivity prior to 2011 

Akahori, R., Schmeeckle, M.W., Topping, D.J., and Melis, T.S., 2008, Erosion properties of 

cohesive sediments in the Colorado River in Grand Canyon: River Research and 

Applications, v. 24, no. 8, doi: 10.1002/rra.1122, p. 1160-1174, accessed on January 28, 

2010, at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/117949914/PDFSTART.

Buscombe, D., Rubin, D.M., and Warrick, J.A. (2010) Universal Approximation of Grain Size 

from Images ofNon-Cohesive Sediment. Journal of Geophysical Research - Earth Surface 

115, F02015.

Davis, P.A., and Melis, T.S., 2010, Mapping full-channel geometry in Grand Canyon by using 

airborne bathymetric lidar--The Lees Ferry test case, in Melis, T.S., Hamill, J.F., Bennett, 

G.E., Coggins, L.G., Jr., Grams, P.E., Kennedy, T.A., Kubly, D.M., and Ralston, B.E., eds., 

Proceedings of the Colorado River Basin Science and Resource Management Symposium, 

November 18-20, 2008, Scottsdale, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2010-5135, 363-372 p., accessed on July 15, 2010, 

at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5135/.

Draut, A.E., Hazel, J.E., Jr., Fairley, H.C., and Brown, C.R., 2010a, Aeolian reworking of 

sandbars from the March 2008 Glen Canyon Dam high-flow experiment in Grand Canyon, in 

Melis, T.S., Hamill, J.F., Bennett, G.E., Coggins, L.G., Jr., Grams, P.E., Kennedy, T.A., 

Kubly, D.M., and Ralston, B.E., eds., Proceedings of the Colorado River Basin Science and 

Resource Management Symposium, November 18-20, 2008, Scottsdale, Arizona: U.S. 

Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5135, 325-331 p., accessed on July 

15, 2010, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5135/.

Draut, A.E., and Rubin, D.M., 2007, The role of eolian sediment in the preservation of 

archeologic sites in the Colorado River corridor, Grand Canyon, Arizona--final report on 

research activities 2003-2006: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2007-1001, 144 p., 

accessed on February 10, 2010, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2007/1001/of2007-1001.pdf.

Draut, A.E., and Rubin, D.M., 2008a, The role of aeolian sediment in the preservation of 

archaeological sites, Colorado River corridor, Grand Canyon, Arizona, in van Riper, C., III, 

and Sogge, M.K., eds., The Colorado Plateau III--integrating research and resource 

management for more effective conservation: Tucson, University of Arizona Press, ISBN: 

0816527385, p. 331-350.

Draut, A.E., and Rubin, D.M., 2008b, The role of eolian sediment in the preservation of 

archeologic sites along the Colorado River corridor in Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona: 

U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1756, 71 p., accessed on January 12, 2010, 

at http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/1756/pp1756.pdf.

Draut, A.E., Rubin, D.M., Dierker, J.L., Fairley, H.C., Griffiths, R.E., Hazel, J.E., Jr., Hunter, 

R.E., Kohl, K., Leap, L.M., Nials, F.L., Topping, D.J., and Yeatts, M., 2008, Application of 

sedimentary-structure interpretation to geoarchaeological investigations in the Colorado 

River corridor, Grand Canyon, Arizona: Geomorphology, v. 101, no. 3, p. 497-

509, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2007.04.032.
77

Draut, A.E., Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., Wright, S.A., and Schmidt, J.C., 2010c, Grain-size 

evolution in suspended sediment and deposits from the 2004 and 2008 controlled-flood 

experiments in Marble and Grand Canyons, Arizona, in Hydrology and sedimentation for a 

changing future--existing and emerging issues (Joint Federal Interagency Conference 2010--

Federal Interagency Hydrologic Modeling, 4th, and Federal Interagency Sedimentation, 9th), 

Las Vegas, Nev., June 27- July 1, Proceedings: v. ISBN: 978-0-9779007-3-2, CD-ROM.

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

University, Ph.D. dissertation, 177 p.

Grams, P.E., Hazel, J.E., Schmidt, J.C., Kaplinski, M., Wright, S.A., Topping, D.J., and Melis, 

T.S., 2010a, Geomorphic response of sandbars to the March 2008 high-flow experiment on 

the Colorado River downstream from Glen Canyon Dam, in Hydrology and sedimentation 

for a changing future; existing and emerging issues (Joint Federal Interagency Conference 

2010--Federal Interagency Hydrologic Modeling, 4th, and Federal Interagency 

Sedimentation, 9th), Las Vegas, Nev., June 27- July 1, Proceedings: v. ISBN: 978-0-

9779007-3-2, CD-ROM.

Grams, P.E., Schmidt, J.C., and Andersen, M.E., 2010b, 2008 High-flow experiment at Glen 

Canyon Dam--morphologic response of eddy-deposited sandbars and associated aquatic 

backwater habitats along the Colorado River in Grand Canyon National Park: Reston, Va., 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010-1032, 73 p., accessed on July 27, 2010, 

at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1032/.

Grams, P.E., Schmidt, J.C., and Topping, D.J., 2007, The rate and pattern of bed incision and 

bank adjustment on the Colorado River in Glen Canyon downstream from Glen Canyon 

Dam, 1956-2000: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 119, no. 5-6, doi: 

10.1130/B25969.1, p. 556-575, accessed on February 12, 2010, 

at http://gsabulletin.gsapubs.org/content/119/5-6/556.abstract.

Grams, P.E., Schmidt, J.C., and Topping, D.J., 2010c, Bed incision and channel adjustment of 

the Colorado River in Glen Canyon National Recreation Area downstream from Glen 

Canyon Dam, in Melis, T.S., Hamill, J.F., Bennett, G.E., Coggins, L.G., Jr., Grams, P.E., 

Kennedy, T.A., Kubly, D.M., and Ralston, B.E., eds., Proceedings of the Colorado River 

Basin Science and Resource Management Symposium, November 18-20, 2008, Scottsdale, 

Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5135, 167-176 p., 

accessed on July 15, 2010, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5135/.

Grams, P.E., and Wilcock, P.R., 2007, Equilibrium entrainment of fine sediment over a coarse 

immobile bed: Water Resources Research, v. 43, doi: 10.1029/2006WR005129, p. W10420, 

accessed on March 30, 2011, 

at http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006WR005129.shtml.

Grams, P.E., Wilcock, P.R., and Wiele, S.M., 2006, Entrainment and non-uniform transport of 

fine-sediment in coarse-bedded rivers, in Parker, G., and Garcia, M.H., eds., RCEM 2005--

River, costal and estuarine morphodynamics, v. 1: Leiden, Netherlands, Taylor & 

Francis/Balkema, ISBN: 0-415-39375-2, p. 1073-1081.

Hazel, J.E., Jr., Grams, P.E., Schmidt, J.C., and Kaplinski, M., 2010, Sandbar response in Marble 

and Grand Canyons, Arizona, following the 2008 high-flow experiment on the Colorado 

River: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5015, 52 p., accessed on 

July 27, 2010, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5015/.

Hazel, J.E., Jr., Kaplinski, M., Parnell, R., Kohl, K., and Topping, D.J., 2006a, Stage-discharge 

relations for the Colorado River in Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons, Arizona,1990-2005: 
78

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2006-1243, 7 p., accessed on January 11, 2010, 

at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1243/pdf/of06-1243_508.pdf.

Hazel, J.E., Jr., Kaplinski, M., Parnell, R.A., Kohl, K., and Schmidt, J.C., 2008a, Monitoring 

fine-grained sediment in the Colorado River ecosystem, Arizona--control network and 

conventional survey techniques: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2008-1276, 15 p., 

accessed on January 27, 2010, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1276/.

Hazel, J.E., Jr., Topping, D.J., Schmidt, J.C., and Kaplinski, M., 2006b, Influence of a dam on 

fine-sediment storage in a canyon river: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 111, no. 

F01025, doi: 10.1029/2004JF000193, p. 1-16, accessed on December 28, 2009, 

at http://www.agu.org/journals/jf/jf0601/2004JF000193/2004JF000193.pdf.

Hazel, J.E., Kaplinski, M., Parnell, R., A., and Fairley, H.C., 2008b, Aggradation and 

degradation of the Palisades gully network, 1996 to 2005, with emphasis on the November 

2004 high- flow experiment, Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 2008-1264, 14 p., accessed on August 23, 2010, 

at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1264/.

Kaplinski, M., Hazel, J.E., Jr., and Parnell, R., 2010, Colorado River campsite monitoring, 1998–

2006, Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona, in Melis, T.S., Hamill, J.F., Bennett, G.E., 

Coggins, L.G., Jr., Grams, P.E., Kennedy, T.A., Kubly, D.M., and Ralston, B.E., eds., 

Proceedings of the Colorado River Basin Science and Resource Management Symposium, 

November 18-20, 2008, Scottsdale, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2010-5135, 275-284 p., accessed on July 15, 2010, 

at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5135/.

Kaplinski, M., Hazel, J.E., Jr., Parnell, R., Breedlove, M.J., Kohl, K., and Gonzales, M.F., 2009, 

Monitoring fine-sediment volume in the Colorado River ecosystem, Arizona--bathymetric 

survey techniques: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2009-1207, 33 p., accessed on 

January 28, 2010, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1207/of2009-1207.pdf.

Kaplinski, M., Hazel, J.E., Jr., Parnell, R., Breedlove, M.J., and Schmidt, J.C., 2007, Integrating 

topographic, bathymetric, and Lidar surveys of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon to 

assess the effects of a flow experiment from Glen Canyon Dam on the Colorado River 

ecosystem, in Hydrographic Society of America, Norfolk, Va., May 14-17, 2007, 

Proceedings: p. 22.

Kaplinski, M.A., Hazel, J.E., Jr., Parnell, R., and Schott, N., 2008, High-resolution multibeam 

bathymetric and topographic surveys at two eddy sandbars before, during, and after the 2008 

high-flow experiment on the Colorado River in Grand Canyon [abstract #H43B-09890]: Eos 

Transactions, American Geophysical Union--Fall Meeting Supplement, v. 89, no. 53, p. ___.

Kinzel, P., Nelson, J., McDonald, R., and Logan, B., 2010, Topographic evolution of sandbarsflume experiment and computational modeling, in Hydrology and sedimentation for a 

changing future; existing and emerging issues (Joint Federal Interagency Conference 2010--

Federal Interagency Hydrologic Modeling, 4th, and Federal Interagency Sedimentation, 9th), 

Las Vegas, Nev., June 27- July 1, Proceedings: v. ISBN: 978-0-9779007-3-2, CD-ROM.

Logan, B., Nelson, J., McDonald, R., and Wright, S., 2010, Mechanics and modeling of flow 

sediment transport and morphologic change in riverine lateral separation zones, in Hydrology 

and sedimentation for a changing future; existing and emerging issues (Joint Federal 

Interagency Conference 2010--Federal Interagency Hydrologic Modeling, 4th, and Federal 

Interagency Sedimentation, 9th), Las Vegas, Nev., June 27- July 1, Proceedings: v. ISBN: 

978-0-9779007-3-2, CD-ROM.
79

Magirl, C. F.N., Webb, R., Griffiths, P., 2008, Modeling Water-Surface Elevations and Virtual 

Shorelines for the Colorado River in Grand Canyon, Arizona, U.S.Geological Survey 

Scientific Investigations Report 2008-5075, 32p.

Melis, T.S., ed., 2011, Effects of three high-flow experiments on the Colorado River ecosystem 

downstream from Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1366, 147 

p., accessed on June 28, 2011, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1366/.

Melis, T.S., Grams, P.E., Kennedy, T.A., Ralston, B.E., Robinson, C.T., Schmidt, J.C., Schmit, 

L.M., Valdez, R.A., and Wright, S.A., 2011, Three experimental high-flow releases from 

Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona--effects of the downstream Colorado River ecosystem: U.S. 

Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2011-3012, 4 p., accessed on June 28, 2011, 

at http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2011/3012/.

Melis, T.S., Hamill, J.F., Bennett, G.E., Coggins, L.G., Grams, P.E., Kennedy, T.A., Kubly, 

D.M., and Ralston, B.E., 2010a, Proceedings of the Colorado River Basin Science and 

Resource Management Symposium, November 18–20, 2008, Scottsdale, Arizona: U.S. 

Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5135, 372 p., accessed on August 

21, 2010, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5135.

Melis, T.S., Topping, D.J., Grams, P.E., Rubin, D.M., Wright, S.A., Draut, A.E., Hazel, J.E., Jr., 

Ralston, B.E., Kennedy, T.A., Rosi-Marshall, E., Korman, J., Hilwig, K.D., and Schmit, 

L.M., 2010b, 2008 High-flow experiment at Glen Canyon Dam benefits Colorado River 

resources in Grand Canyon National Park: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2010-3009, 4 

p., accessed on July 27, 2010, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2010/3009/.

Melis, T.S., Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., and Wright, S.A., 2007, Research furthers conservation 

of Grand Canyon sandbars: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2007-3020, 4 p., accessed on 

February 1, 2010, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2007/3020/.

Melis, T.S., Wright, S.A., Ralston, B.E., Fairley, H.C., Kennedy, T., 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, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, 82 p., accessed on July 7, 2011, 

at http://www.gcmrc.gov/files/1198/w-1198_2011-03-31-01-33-40-577_Attach_10b.pdf.

Rubin, D.M., 2006, Ripple effect--unforeseen applications of sand studies: EOS Transactions, 

American Geophysical Union, v. 87, no. 30, p. 293-297, accessed on March 15, 2010, 

at http://137.227.239.66/reports/reprints/Rubin_Eos_87.pdf.

Rubin, D.M., Chezar, H., Harney, J.N., Topping, D.J., Melis, T.S., and Sherwood, C.R., 2006a, 

Underwater microscope for measuring spatial and temporal changes in bed-sediment grain 

size: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2006-1360, 15 p., accessed on January 27, 

2010, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1360/.

Rubin, D.M., Chezar, H., Harney, J.N., Topping, D.J., Melis, T.S., and Sherwood, C.R., 2007, 

Underwater microscope for measuring spatial and temporal changes in bed-sediment grain 

size: Sedimentary Geology, v. 202, no. 3, p. 402-408. (Also available 

at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sedgeo.2007.03.020.)

Rubin, D.M., and Topping, D.J., 2008, Correction to "Quantifying the relative importance of 

flow regulation and grain-size regulation of suspended-sediment transport a, and tracking 

changes in bed-sediment grain size b": Water Resources Research, v. 44, no. W09701, doi: 

10.1029/2008wr006819, p. 133-146, accessed on August 31, 2010, 

at http://www.agu.org/journals/wr/wr0809/2008WR006819/2008WR006819.pdf.
80

Rubin, D.M., Topping, D.J., Chezar, H., Hazel, J.E., Schmidt, J.C., Breedlove, M., Melis, T.S., 

and Grams, P.E., 2010, 20,000 grain-size observations from the bed of the Colorado River 

and implications for sediment transport through Grand Canyon, in Hydrology and 

sedimentation for a changing future; existing and emerging issues (Joint Federal Interagency 

Conference 2010--Federal Interagency Hydrologic Modeling, 4th, and Federal Interagency 

Sedimentation, 9th), Las Vegas, Nev., June 27- July 1, Proceedings: v. ISBN: 978-0-

9779007-3-2, CD-ROM.

Rubin, D. M., D. J. Topping, J. C. Schmidt, J. Hazel, M. Kaplinski, and T. S. Melis (2002), 

Recent sediment studies refute Glen Canyon Dam hypothesis, Eos, Transactions, American 

Geophysical Union, 83(25), 273, 277-278.

Schmidt, J.C., Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., Hazel, J.E., Jr., Kaplinski, M., Wiele, S.M., and 

Goeking, S.A., 2007, Streamflow and sediment data collected to determine the effects of low 

summer steady flows and habitual maintenance flows in 2000 on the Colorado River between 

Lees Ferry and Bright Angel Creek, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

2007-1268, 79 p., accessed on March 17, 2010, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2007/1268/.

Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., Grams, P.E., Griffiths, R.E., Sabol, T.A., Voichick, N., Tusso, R.B., 

Vanaman, K.M., and McDonald, R.R., 2010a, Sediment transport during three controlledflood experiments on the Colorado River downstream from Glen Canyon Dam, with 

implications for eddy-sandbar deposition in Grand Canyon National Park: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 2010-1128, 111 p., accessed on July 25, 2010, 

at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1128/.

Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., and Melis, T.S., 2007a, Coupled changes in sand grain size and sand 

transport driven by changes in the upstream supply of sand in the Colorado River--relative 

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

202, no. 3, doi: 10.1016/j.sedgeo.2007.03.016, p. 538-561, accessed on August 10, 2010, 

at http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/amwg/mtgs/08sep09/Attach_06b.pdf; http://dx.doi.org/10.

1016/j.sedgeo.2007.03.016.

Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., and Schmidt, J.C., 2008, Update on regulation of sand transport in 

the Colorado River by changes in the surface grain size of eddy sandbars over multiyear 

timescales: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2008-5042, 24 p., 

accessed on March 22, 2010, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2008/5042/.

Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., Schmidt, J.C., Hazel, J.E., Jr., Melis, T.S., Wright, S.A., Kaplinski, 

M., Draut, A.E., and Breedlove, M.J., 2006a, Comparison of sediment-transport and barresponse results from the 1996 and 2004 controlled-flood experiments on the Colorado River 

in Grand Canyon, in Federal Interagency Sedimentation Conference, 8th, Reno, Nev., April 

2-6, 2006, Proceedings: p. 171-179 (CD-ROM).

Tusso, R., Rubin, D.M., Topping, D.J., Chezar, H., and Breedlove, M., 2010, Using changes in 

bed-surface grain size as a proxy for changes in bed sand storage Colorado River Grand 

Canyon, in Melis, T.S., Hamill, J.F., Bennett, G.E., Coggins, L.G., Jr., Grams, P.E., 

Kennedy, T.A., Kubly, D.M., and Ralston, B.E., eds., Proceedings of the Colorado River 

Basin Science and Resource Management Symposium, November 18-20, 2008, Scottsdale, 

Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5135, 347-355 p., 

accessed on July 15, 2010, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5135/.

Wiele, S.M., Wilcock, P.R., and Grams, P.E., 2007, Reach-averaged sediment routing model of a 

canyon river: Water Resources Research, v. 43, no. W02425, doi: 10.1029/2005WR004824, 
81

p. 1-16, accessed on February 1, 2010, 

at http://www.agu.org/journals/wr/wr0702/2005WR004824/.

Wright, S.A., and Grams, P.E., 2010, Evaluation of water year 2011 Glen Canyon Dam flow 

release scenarios on downstream sand storage along the Colorado River in Arizona: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010-1133, 19 p., accessed on July 27, 2010, 

at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1133/.

Wright, S.A., and Kaplinski, M., 2011, Flow structures and sandbar dynamics in a canyon river 

during a controlled flood, Colorado River, Arizona: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 116, 

no. F01019, doi: 10.1029/2009JF001442, p. 15, accessed on March 9, 2011, 

at http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2009JF001442.shtml.

Wright, S.A., Schmidt, J.C., Melis, T.S., Topping, D.J., and Rubin, D.M., 2008, Is there enough 

sand? Evaluating the fate of Grand Canyon sandbars: Geological Society of America Today, 

v. 18, no. 8, doi: 10.1130/GSATG12A.1, p. 4-10, accessed on May 26, 2010, 

at http://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/18/8/pdf/i1052-5173-18-8-4.pdf.

Wright, S.A., Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., and Melis, T.S., 2010a, An approach for modeling 

sediment budgets in supply-limited rivers: Water Resources Research, v. 46, no. W10538, 

doi: 10.1029/2009WR008600, p. 1-18, accessed on November 15, 2010, 

at http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009WR008600.shtml.

Wright, S.A., Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., and Melis, T.S., 2010b, Modeling long-term sediment 

budgets in supply-limited rivers, in Hydrology and sedimentation for a changing future; 

existing and emerging issues (Joint Federal Interagency Conference 2010--Federal 

Interagency Hydrologic Modeling, 4th, and Federal Interagency Sedimentation, 9th), Las 

Vegas, Nev., June 27- July 1, Proceedings: v. ISBN: 978-0-9779007-3-2, CD-ROM.

6. References 

Beus, S.S., David, J.N., Lojko, F.B., and Stevens, L.E., 1992 Colorado River investigations XI, 

Report submitted to Grand Canyon National Park, on file at USGS Grand Canyon 

Monitoring and Research Center, Flagstaff, AZ., 175 p.

Blondel, P., and Gomez Sichi, O., 2009, Textural analyses of multibeam sonar imagery from 

Stanton Banks, Northern Ireland continental shelf: Applied Acoustics, v. 70, p. 1288-1297.

Brown, C.J., and Blondel, P., 2009, Developments in the application of multibeam sonar 

backscatter for seafloor habitat mapping: Applied Acoustics, v. 70, p. 1242-1247.

Brown, C.J., Smith, S.J., Lawton, P., Anderson, J.T., 2011, Benthic habitat mapping: A review of 

progress towards improved understanding of the spatial ecology of the seafloor using 

acoustic techniques: Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, v. 92, p. 502-520.

Buscombe, D., and Rubin, D.M., 2012, Advances in the Simulation and Automated 

Measurement of Well Sorted Granular Material, Part 2: Direct Measures of Particle 

Properties: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 117, F02002.

Buscombe, D., Rubin, D.M., and Warrick, J.A. (2010) Universal Approximation of Grain Size 

from Images ofNon-Cohesive Sediment. Journal of Geophysical Research - Earth Surface 

115, F02015.

Dolan, R., Howard, A., and Gallenson, A., 1974, Man's impact on the Colorado River in the 

Grand Canyon: American Scientist, v. 62, p. 393-401.

Flynn, M.E., and Hornewer, N.J., 2003, Variations in sand storage measured at monumented 

cross sections in the Colorado River between Glen Canyon Dam and Lava Falls Rapid, 
82

Northern Arizona, 1992-99: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 

03-4104, 39 p.

Fonseca, L., Brown, C., Calder, B., Mayer, L., and Rzhanov, Y., 2009, Angular range analysis of 

acoustic themes from Stanton Banks, Ireland: a link between visual interpretation and 

multibeam echosounder angular signatures: Applied Acoustics, v. 70, p. 1298-1304.

Grams, P.E., and Wilcock, P.R., 2007, Equilibrium entrainment of fine sediment over a coarse 

immobile bed: Water Resources Research, v. 43, doi: 10.1029/2006WR005129, p. W10420, 

accessed on March 30, 2011, 

at http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006WR005129.shtml.

Hazel, J.E., Jr., Grams, P.E., Schmidt, J.C., and Kaplinski, M., 2010, Sandbar response in Marble 

and Grand Canyons, Arizona, following the 2008 high-flow experiment on the Colorado 

River: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5015, 52 p., accessed on 

July 27, 2010, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5015/.

Hazel, J.E., Jr., Kaplinski, M., Parnell, R.A., Kohl, K., and Schmidt, J.C., 2008a, Monitoring 

fine-grained sediment in the Colorado River ecosystem, Arizona--control network and 

conventional survey techniques: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2008-1276, 15 p., 

accessed on January 27, 2010, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1276/.

Hazel, J.E., Jr., Kaplinski, M., Parnell, R., Kohl, K., and Topping, D.J., 2006a, Stage-discharge 

relations for the Colorado River in Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons, Arizona,1990-2005: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2006-1243, 7 p., accessed on January 11, 2010, 

at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1243/pdf/of06-1243_508.pdf.

Hazel, J.E., Jr., Kaplinski, M., Parnell, R., Manone, M., and Dale, A., 1999, Topographic and 

bathymetric changes at thirty-three long-term study sites, in Webb, R.H., Schmidt, J.C., 

Marzolf, G.R., and Valdez, R.A., eds., The 1996 controlled flood in Grand Canyon: 

Washington, D.C., American Geophysical Union, Geophysical Monograph 110, p. 161 184.

Howard, A.D., 1975, Establishment of benchmark study sites along the Colorado River in Grand 

Canyon National Park for monitoring of beach erosion caused by natural forces and human 

impact, p. 14.

Howard, A., and Dolan, R., 1981, Geomorphology of the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon: 

Journal of Geology, v. 89, no. 3, p. 269-298.

Jacobson, Robert B.; Johnson, Harold E., III; Dietsch, Benjamin J., 2009, Hydrodynamic 

Simulations of Physical Aquatic Habitat Availability for Pallid Sturgeon in the Lower 

Missouri River, at Yankton, South Dakota, Kenslers Bend, Nebraska, Little Sioux, Iowa, and 

Miami, Missouri2006-07: US Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2009-5058.

Jackson, R., Winebrenner, D. P., and Ishimaru, A., 1986, Application of the composite roughness 

model to high-frequency bottom backscattering: Journal of the Acoustic Society of America,

v. 79, p. 1410-1422.

Kaplinski, M., Hazel, J.E., Jr., and Parnell, R., 2010, Colorado River campsite monitoring, 1998–

2006, Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona, in Melis, T.S., Hamill, J.F., Bennett, G.E., 

Coggins, L.G., Jr., Grams, P.E., Kennedy, T.A., Kubly, D.M., and Ralston, B.E., eds., 

Proceedings of the Colorado River Basin Science and Resource Management Symposium, 

November 18-20, 2008, Scottsdale, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2010-5135, 275-284 p., accessed on July 15, 2010, 

at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5135/.

Kaplinski, M., Hazel, J.E., Jr., Parnell, R., Breedlove, M.J., Kohl, K., and Gonzales, M.F., 2009, 

Monitoring fine-sediment volume in the Colorado River ecosystem, Arizona--bathymetric 
83

survey techniques: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2009-1207, 33 p., accessed on 

January 28, 2010, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1207/of2009-1207.pdf.

Kruse, F.A., Lefkoff, A.B., Boardman, J.B., Heidebrecht, K.B., Shapiro, A.T., Barloom, P.J., and 

Goetz, A.F.H., 1993, The Spectral Image Processing System (SIPS) – Interactive 

visualization and analysis of imaging spectrometer data: Remote Sensing of Environment, v. 

44, p. 145-163.

Lamarche, G., Lurton, X., Verdier, A.L., Augustin, J.M., 2011, Quantitative characterisation of 

seafloor substrate and bedforms using advanced processing of multibeam backscatter: 

Application to Cook Strait New Zealand: Continental Shelf Research, v. 31, p. S93–S109.

Logan, B., Nelson, J., McDonald, R., and Wright, S., 2010, Mechanics and modeling of flow 

sediment transport and morphologic change in riverine lateral separation zones, in Hydrology 

and sedimentation for a changing future; existing and emerging issues (Joint Federal 

Interagency Conference 2010--Federal Interagency Hydrologic Modeling, 4th, and Federal 

Interagency Sedimentation, 9th), Las Vegas, Nev., June 27- July 1, Proceedings: v. ISBN: 

978-0-9779007-3-2, CD-ROM.

Magirl, C. F.N., Webb, R., Griffiths, P., 2008, Modeling Water-Surface Elevations and Virtual 

Shorelines for the Colorado River in Grand Canyon, Arizona, U.S.Geological Survey 

Scientific Investigations Report 2008-5075, 32p.

Randle, T. J., and E. L. Pemberton (1987), Results and analysis of STARS modeling efforts of 

the Colorado River in Grand Canyon, NTIS PB88-183421/AS, Bur. of Reclamation U.S. 

Dept. of the Int., Washington, D. C.

Rubin, D.M., Chezar, H., Harney, J.N., Topping, D.J., Melis, T.S., and Sherwood, C.R., 2007, 

Underwater microscope for measuring spatial and temporal changes in bed-sediment grain 

size: Sedimentary Geology, v. 202, no. 3, p. 402-408. (Also available 

at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sedgeo.2007.03.020.)

Rubin, D. M., D. J. Topping, J. C. Schmidt, J. Hazel, M. Kaplinski, and T. S. Melis (2002), 

Recent sediment studies refute Glen Canyon Dam hypothesis, Eos, Transactions, American 

Geophysical Union, 83(25), 273, 277-278.

Rubin, D.M., and Topping, D.J., 2001, Quantifying the relative importance of flow regulation 

and grain size regulation of suspended sediment transport alpha and tracking changes in grain 

size of bed sediment beta: Water Resources Research, v. 37, no. 1, p. 133-146.

Schmidt, J.C., and Graf J.B., 1990, Aggradation and degradation of alluvial sand deposits, 1965 

to 1986, Colorado River, Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey 

Professional Paper 1493, 74 p.

Schmidt, J.C., Grams, P.E., and Leschin, M.F., 1999, Variation and magnitude of deposition and 

erosion in three long-term (8-12 km) reaches as determined by photographic analyses, in 

Webb, R.H., Schmidt, J.C., Marzolf, G.R., and Valdez, R.A., eds., The controlled flood in 

Grand Canyon: Washington, D.C., American Geophysical Union, Geophysical Monograph 

Series, v. 110, p. 185–204.

Schmidt, J.C., Topping, D.J., Grams, P.E., and Hazel, J.E., 2004. System-wide changes in the 

distribution of fine sediment in the Colorado River corridor between Glen Canyon Dam and 

Bright Angel Creek, Arizona. Final report to the USGS Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center, Flagstaff, Ariz. 

[http://www.gcmrc.gov/library/reports/physical/Fine_Sed/Schmidt2004.pdf]

Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., Grams, P.E., Griffiths, R.E., Sabol, T.A., Voichick, N., Tusso, R.B., 

Vanaman, K.M., and McDonald, R.R., 2010a, Sediment transport during three controlled-
84

flood experiments on the Colorado River downstream from Glen Canyon Dam, with 

implications for eddy-sandbar deposition in Grand Canyon National Park: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 2010-1128, 111 p., accessed on July 25, 2010, 

at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1128/.

Topping, D.J., Wright, S.A., Rubin, D.M., and Melis, T.S., 2007, 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, USGS Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, Flagstaff, Ariz., 34 p.

Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., Schmidt, J.C., Hazel, J.E., Jr., Melis, T.S., Wright, S.A., Kaplinski, 

M., Draut, A.E., and Breedlove, M.J., 2006a, Comparison of sediment-transport and barresponse results from the 1996 and 2004 controlled-flood experiments on the Colorado River 

in Grand Canyon, in Federal Interagency Sedimentation Conference, 8th, Reno, Nev., April 

2-6, 2006, Proceedings: p. 171-179 (CD-ROM).

Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., and Vierra, L.E., Jr., 2000, Colorado River sediment transport 1. 

Natural sediment supply limitation and the influence of Glen Canyon Dam: Water Resources 

Research, v. 36, p. 515−542.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2006, Strategic Science Plan to Support theGlen Canyon Dam Adaptive 

Management Program, Fiscal Years 2007–11, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research 

Center in cooperation with the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, 11 

p. www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/amwg/mtgs/06dec05/Attach_07b.pdf

Wiele, S.M., Wilcock, P.R., and Grams, P.E., 2007, Reach-averaged sediment routing model of a 

canyon river: Water Resources Research, v. 43, no. W02425, doi: 10.1029/2005WR004824, 

p. 1-16, accessed on February 1, 2010, 

at http://www.agu.org/journals/wr/wr0702/2005WR004824/.

Wiele, S. M., and E. R. Griffin (1997), Modifications to a one-dimensional model of unsteady 

flow in the Colorado River through the Grand Canyon, U.S. Geol. Surv. Water Resour. 

Invest., 97–4046.

Wiele, S. M., and J. D. Smith (1996), A reach-averaged model of diurnal discharge wave 

propagation down the Colorado River through the Grand Canyon, Water Resour. Res., 32, 

1375– 1386.

Wright, S.A., and Grams, P.E., 2010, Evaluation of water year 2011 Glen Canyon Dam flow 

release scenarios on downstream sand storage along the Colorado River in Arizona: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010-1133, 19 p., accessed on July 27, 2010, 

at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1133/.

Wright, S.A., Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., and Melis, T.S., 2010a, An approach for modeling 

sediment budgets in supply-limited rivers: Water Resources Research, v. 46, no. W10538, 

doi: 10.1029/2009WR008600, p. 1-18, accessed on November 15, 2010, 

at http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009WR008600.shtml.

Wright, S.A., Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., and Melis, T.S., 2010b, Modeling long-term sediment 

budgets in supply-limited rivers, in Hydrology and sedimentation for a changing future; 

existing and emerging issues (Joint Federal Interagency Conference 2010--Federal 

Interagency Hydrologic Modeling, 4th, and Federal Interagency Sedimentation, 9th), Las 

Vegas, Nev., June 27- July 1, Proceedings: v. ISBN: 978-0-9779007-3-2, CD-ROM.

Wright, S.A., Schmidt, J.C., Melis, T.S., Topping, D.J., and Rubin, D.M., 2008, Is there enough 

sand? Evaluating the fate of Grand Canyon sandbars: Geological Society of America Today, 
85

v. 18, no. 8, doi: 10.1130/GSATG12A.1, p. 4-10, accessed on May 26, 2010, 

at http://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/18/8/pdf/i1052-5173-18-8-4.pdf.

Wright, S.A., Melis, T.S., Topping, D.J., and Rubin, D.M., 2005, Influence of Glen Canyon Dam 

operations on downstream sand resources of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon, 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. 17−31.

7. Budget 

Project Element A.1. 

Sandbar and Camping 

beach monitoring 

Project Element A.2. 

Sediment storage 

monitoring

Project Element A.3. 

Investigating eddy sandbar 

variability and the 

interaction among flow, 

vegetation, and 

geomorphology

Salaries $103,100 Salaries $252,900 Salaries $86,800

Traveling and Training $2,300 Traveling and Training $2,700 Traveling and Training $1,900 

Operating Expenses $10,600 Operating Expenses $36,000 Operating Expenses $2,100 

Logistics $22,300 Logistics $68,200 Logistics $0

GIS/RS/Electronics 

support (includes burden) N/A* GIS/RS/Electronics support (includes burden) N/A* GIS/RS/Electronics support (includes burden) N/A*

Cooperators (non-USGS) $101,200 Cooperators (non-USGS) $168,700 Cooperators (non-USGS) $0

USGS cooperators 0 USGS cooperators $13,700 USGS cooperators $0

USGS Burden $22,400 USGS Burden $55,400 USGS Burden $12,700 

Total $261,900 Total $597,600 Total $103,500

Project Element 

A.4.Quantifying the 

correlation between bed 

and transport grain size

Project Element A.5. 

Geochemical signatures of 

pre-dam sediment

Project Element A.6. 

Control network and 

surveying support

Salaries $41,900 Salaries $6,300 Salaries $17,100

Traveling and Training $2,100 Traveling and Training $0 Traveling and Training $600 

Operating Expenses $1,000 Operating Expenses $0 Operating Expenses $3,200 

Logistics $9,500 Logistics $0 Logistics $28,500

GIS/RS/Electronics 

support (includes burden) N/A* GIS/RS/Electronics support (includes burden) N/A* GIS/RS/Electronics support (includes burden) N/A*

Cooperators (non-USGS) $67,500 Cooperators (non-USGS) $0 Cooperators (non-USGS) $0

USGS cooperators $18,200 USGS cooperators $43,700 USGS cooperators $0

USGS Burden $9,700 USGS Burden $900 USGS Burden $6,900 

Total $149,900 Total $50,900 Total $56,300

FY 2013 Project A. Gross Total: 

$1,400,700

* GIS support and image processing costs are shared among 

multiple individual projects. Only the gross portion shared by the 

sandbar and sediment storage project is shown here.

GIS/RS/Electronics Support (includes burden): $180,600

FY 2013
86

Project Element A.1. 

Sandbar and Camping 

beach monitoring 

Project Element A.2. 

Sediment storage 

monitoring

Project Element A.3. 

Investigating eddy 

sandbar variability and the 

interaction among flow, 

Salaries $107,900 Salaries $263,100 Salaries $91,100

Traveling and Training $2,300 Traveling and Training $2,700 Traveling and Training $1,900 

Operating Expenses $10,600 Operating Expenses $36,000 Operating Expenses $2,100 

Logistics $22,300 Logistics $71,500 Logistics $0

GIS/RS/Electronics 

support (includes burden) N/A* GIS/RS/Electronics support (includes burden) N/A* GIS/RS/Electronics support (includes burden) N/A*

Cooperators (non-USGS) $104,100 Cooperators (non-USGS) $173,600 Cooperators (non-USGS) $0

USGS cooperators $0 USGS cooperators $13,700 USGS cooperators $0

USGS Burden $23,200 USGS Burden $57,500 USGS Burden $13,300 

Total $270,400 Total $618,100 Total $108,400

Project Element 

A.4.Quantifying the 

correlation between bed 

and transport grain size

Project Element A.5. 

Geochemical signatures of 

pre-dam sediment

Project Element A.6. 

Control network and 

surveying support

Salaries $43,500 Salaries $6,500 Salaries $18,000

Traveling and Training $2,100 Traveling and Training $0 Traveling and Training $600 

Operating Expenses $1,100 Operating Expenses $0 Operating Expenses $3,200 

Logistics $9,500 Logistics $0 Logistics $28,500

GIS/RS/Electronics 

support (includes burden) N/A* GIS/RS/Electronics support (includes burden) N/A* GIS/RS/Electronics support (includes burden) N/A*

Cooperators (non-USGS) $69,400 Cooperators (non-USGS) $0 Cooperators (non-USGS) $0

USGS cooperators $76,600 USGS cooperators $47,400 USGS cooperators $0

USGS Burden $9,900 USGS Burden $900 USGS Burden $7,000 

Total $212,100 Total $54,800 Total $57,300

FY 2014 Project A. Gross Total: 

$1,510,700

* GIS support and image processing costs are shared among 

multiple individual projects. Only the gross portion shared by the 

sandbar and sediment storage project is shown here.

GIS/RS/Electronics Support (includes burden): $189,600

FY 2014
87

Project B. 

Streamflow, Water Quality, and Sediment Transport in 

the Colorado River Ecosystem 

1. Investigator 

David Topping, Research Hydrologist, USGS, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

2. Project Summary 

This proposal is to fund the ongoing measurement of stage, discharge, water quality 

(water temperature, specific conductance, turbidity, and dissolved oxygen), suspended sediment, 

and bed sediment at gaging stations in the Colorado River ecosystem (CRe) downstream from 

Glen Canyon Dam in Glen Canyon National Recreation Area and Grand Canyon National Park. 

The data collected by this project provide the fundamental stream flow, sediment transport, 

temperature, and water quality data that are used by other physical, ecological, and socio-cultural 

resource studies. Thus, this project directly links dam operations to the physical, biological, and 

sociocultural resources of the CRe. This project also funds interpretation of these data, 

specifically examining how stream flow and its related attributes affect resources of the CRe. 

3. Background 

3.1. Scientific Background 

The primary linkage between dam operations and the response of the physical, biological, 

and cultural resources in the CRe between Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Mead reservoir is 

through the stage, discharge, water quality, and sediment transport of the Colorado River (U.S. 

Department of the Interior, 1995; National Research Council, 1996). Releases from Glen Canyon 

Dam provide the principal control on these attributes of the Colorado River downstream from the 

dam. Only during periods of large tributary floods do tributaries exert any substantial control on 

stage, discharge, water quality, or sediment transport. 

Sediment on the bed and banks forms the physical template for the CRe (U.S. 

Department of the Interior, 1995; National Research Council, 1996). Suspended sediment is an 

important water quality parameter, because it regulates the eddy sandbars and channel-margin 

deposits that are important to many biological, cultural, and recreational resources (Rubin and 

others, 2002, Wright and others, 2005). Suspended sediment also controls turbidity and therefore 

influences the aquatic ecology of the river. The endangered and threatened native fishes evolved 

in a highly turbid river (Gloss and Coggins, 2005). Turbidity is predominantly determined by the 

concentration of suspended silt and clay and, to a lesser degree, suspended sand. Prior to the 

closure of Glen Canyon Dam, 60% of the upstream sediment supply to the Colorado River in 

Glen Canyon was silt and clay (Topping and others, 2000a). Closure of Glen Canyon Dam 

reduced the supply of sand, silt, and clay by about 95% at Lees Ferry, and the Paria River is now 

the major supplier of sediment to Marble Canyon (Topping and others, 2000). The post-dam 

Colorado River in Marble and Grand Canyons is much less turbid with clearer-water conditions 
88

than ever occurred naturally. Because the in-channel storage of sand, silt, and clay in the postdam Colorado River is greatly reduced from pre-dam conditions, the Colorado River in the study 

area is only now turbid during periods of tributary inflow. 

Systematic measurements of stream flow and the quality of water, including suspendedsediment concentration, in the CRe began with the installation of the Lees Ferry gaging station in 

May 1921 (Topping and others, 2003; Howard, 1947). During much of the 20th century, daily 

measurements of suspended-sediment concentration and temperature, and episodic 

measurements of other water-quality parameters, were made by the USGS at multiple sites. This 

intensive period of measurements ended in the early 1970s (Topping and others, 2000a). 

Concern over the effects of the operations of Glen Canyon Dam on the CRe resulted in a new 

scientific emphasis on measurements and modeling of water quality and sediment transport 

beginning in the early 1980s (National Research Council, 1996). The results of these studies 

have been published in numerous USGS reports and journal articles and ultimately resulted in 

the current form of this project. 

Recent research on the Colorado and other rivers has shown that, to be meaningful, 

measurements of stage, discharge, water quality, and suspended fine sediment must be made 

directly, and not through proxies at temporal resolutions higher than those over which these 

parameters vary. In the specific case of suspended fine sediment, substantial changes in 

suspended-sand concentration and suspended-silt-and-clay concentration are driven by changes 

in the upstream supply of sediment. These changes occur over timescales < 1 hour (Topping and 

others, 2000b). Furthermore, Rubin and Topping (2001, 2008) showed that, in the case of the 

dam-regulated Colorado River, suspended-sand transport is equally regulated by changes in 

discharge and changes in the size of sand available for transport that is driven by changes in the 

upstream supply of sand. The former control is largely determined by changes in dam operations,

and the latter control is largely determined by changes in tributary sediment supply interacting 

with changes in dam operations. The major flaw that invalidated key aspects of the 1995 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1995) was that, in the 

1995 EIS, suspended-sand transport was thought to be only regulated by changes in discharge 

(Rubin and others, 2002). Thus, this project is designed to provide measurements of stage, 

discharge, water quality, and suspended sediment at sufficiently high temporal resolutions 

(~15-minute) to allow accurate determination of suspended sediment loads, as well as other 

water quality parameters. To allow the construction of this comprehensive and cost-effective 

monitoring network, this project has conducted pioneering, cutting-edge research on using new 

laser-diffraction and acoustic technologies to measure water quality and sediment.

3.2. Key Monitoring and Research Questions Addressed in this project 

This project also directly addresses the following Strategic Science Questions (SSQs), Core 

Monitoring Information Needs (CMINs), and Research Information Needs (RINs) previously 

identified by the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP).

• SSQ 4-1. Is there a “Flow-Only” operation that will restore and maintain sandbar 

habitats over decadal timescales?

• 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?
89

• CMIN 7.4.2. Determine and track flow releases from Glen Canyon Dam, under all 

operating conditions, particularly related to flow duration, upramp, and downramp 

conditions.

• CMIN 7.1.2. Determine and track LCR discharge and temperature near the mouth.

• CMIN 7.1.1. Determine the water temperature dynamics in the mainstem, tributaries, 

backwaters, and near shore areas throughout the Colorado River ecosystem.

• CMIN 8.1.3. Track, as appropriate, the monthly sand and silt/clay volumes and grainsize characteristics, by reach, as measured or estimated at the Paria and LCR, other 

major tributaries like Kanab and Havasu Creeks, and “lesser” tributaries.

• CMIN 8.1.2. What are the monthly sand and silt/clay export volumes and grain-size 

characteristics, by reach, as measured or estimated at Lees Ferry, Lower Marble 

Canyon, Grand Canyon, and Diamond Creek Stations?

• RIN 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?

• RIN 7.3.1. Develop simulation models for Lake Powell and the Colorado River to 

predict water-quality conditions under various operating scenarios, supplants 

monitoring efforts, and elucidate understanding of the effects of dam operations, 

climate, and basin hydrology on Colorado River water quality.

• RIN 8.5.1. What elements of RoD operations are most/least critical to conserving 

new fine sediment inputs, and stabilizing sediment deposits above the 25,000 ft3/s

stage?

3.3. Management Background 

This project funds ongoing monitoring and research activities associated with the 

measurement of stream flow, sediment transport, and associated water quality attributes. This 

project began as fundamental research in the late 1990s and became a GCDAMP-approved coremonitoring project in 2007, designed to fully address the monitoring needs of GCDAMP Goal 7 

and partially address the monitoring needs of GCDAMP Goal 8. 

• Goal 7: Establish water temperature, quality, and flow dynamics to achieve 

GCDAMP ecosystem goals.

• Goal 8: Maintain or attain levels of sediment storage within the main channel and 

along shorelines to achieve GCDAMP ecosystem goals.

The primary objectives of this project are to measure water stage and discharge as well as 

the water-quality parameters of water temperature, specific conductance, turbidity, dissolved 

oxygen, suspended-sediment concentration, and suspended-sediment grain size. These data are 

basic to other physical science, biology, and sociocultural projects funded by the GCDAMP. In 

essence, the data collected by this project are those that directly link dam operations to most of 

the other resources of the CRe. Although the focus of this project is on monitoring, the project 

also supports research related to evaluation of alternative flow regimes, as well as 

implementation of the High-Flow Experiment protocol (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2011). 

Thus, data collected by this project constitute core monitoring, administrative support for agency 

actions such as the High-Flow Experiment protocol EA and fundamental support for 
90

understanding ecosystem processes. Additionally, these data are used to monitor compliance 

with the 1996 RoD, to support research about flow experiments and are critical to development 

of numerical models concerning river processes.

In addition to supporting GCDAMP Goals 7 and 8 (above), this project also supports 

Goals 1, 2, 4, 6, 9, and 11. 

• Goal 1: Protect or improve the aquatic foodbase so that it will support viable 

populations of desired species at higher trophic levels.

This project supports Goal 1 by providing information on flows, water temperature, 

turbidity, and dissolved oxygen that aids in foodbase studies, such as the assessment of primary 

productivity and allochthonous inputs. 

• Goal 2: Maintain or attain a viable population of existing native fish, remove 

jeopardy for humpback chub and razorback sucker, and prevent adverse modification 

to their critical habitats.

This project supports Goal 2 by providing water-temperature data for the assessment of 

fish growth rates, turbidity data that are used to adjust for catch efficiency in population models, 

flow and stage data that are important to understanding the effects of nearshore habitat disruption 

caused by fluctuating flows, and data on sandbars and resulting backwater habitats that are 

helpful in understanding the importance of sandbars for native fish.

• Goal 4: Maintain a wild reproducing population of rainbow trout above the Paria 

River to the extent practicable and consistent with the maintenance of viable 

populations of native fish.

This project supports Goal 4 through monitoring of dam releases, water temperature, 

specific conductance, turbidity, and dissolved oxygen levels in Glen Canyon.

• Goal 6: Protect or improve the biotic riparian and spring communities within the 

CRe, including threatened and endangered species and their critical habitat.

This project supports Goal 6 by monitoring the transport and fate of sand, silt, and clay, 

which provides the substrate for riparian vegetation and marsh communities.

• Goal 9: Maintain or improve the quality of recreational experiences for users of the 

CRe within the framework of GCDAMP ecosystem goals.

This project supports Goal 9 by collecting the monitoring data used in experimental and 

modeling research relating flow and sediment-transport dynamics to the size and abundance of 

sandbars used as campsites.

• Goal 11: Preserve, protect, manage, and treat cultural resources for the inspiration 

and benefit of past, present, and future generations.

This project supports Goal 11 by collecting the stage, flow, and sediment data used to 

assess effects of dam operations on cultural sites.

In August 2004, the GCDAMP Adaptive Management Work Group reviewed these goals 

and identified priority questions. The top five priority questions are as follows:

• Priority 1: Why are humpback chub not thriving, and what can we do about it? How 

many humpback chub are there and how are they doing? 

• Priority 2: Which cultural resources, including TCPs, are within the Area of 

Potential Effect (APE), 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?

• Priority 3: What is the best flow regime?

• Priority 4: What is the impact of sediment loss and what should we do about it?
91

• Priority 5: What will happen when a TCD is tested or implemented? How should it 

be operated? Are safeguards needed for management?

This project provides direct support to some of the priority questions, while indirectly 

supporting others. Monitoring of stage, flows, sediment transport, water temperature (and other 

water quality parameters) supports priority questions 3, 4, and 5 directly and indirectly supports 

priority questions 1 and 2 by providing information on the general physical framework of the 

river environment. 

4. Proposed work 

4.1. Project Element ($1,276,400) 

Much of the proposed work in this project consists of high-resolution (typically 15-

minute) measurements of: stage, discharge, water temperature, specific conductance, turbidity, 

dissolved oxygen, suspended-sediment concentration, and suspended-sediment grain-size 

distribution. In addition, episodic measurements of bed sediment are made. These parameters are 

measured at USGS stream-flow gaging stations located on the Colorado River in Marble and 

Grand Canyons at river miles 0, 30, 61, 87, 166, and 225. Selection of these gaging-station 

locations was largely based on the need to resolve longitudinal differences in sediment storage in 

key reaches of the CRe, to bracket major tributaries, to support other GCDAMP-funded projects, 

and to reoccupy former USGS stream-flow gaging stations. In addition, high-resolution stage, 

discharge, water temperature, suspended-sediment concentration, and suspended-sediment grainsize distribution are measured in all of the major tributaries to the Colorado River and in a 

representative subset of the smaller, and formerly ungaged, tributaries. Some of the gaging 

stations on the Colorado River and its tributaries receive substantial amounts of funding from 

non-GCDAMP sources, thus their locations are partially dictated by non-GCDAMP goals. All 

measurements of stage, discharge, water quality, and physical measurements of suspended- and 

bed sediment are made using standard, approved USGS techniques. The laser diffraction and 

acoustic measurements of suspended sediment are made using techniques described in Melis and 

others (2003), Topping and others (2004, 2006b, 2007b), and Wright and others (2010c). To 

augment the limited number of physical measurements of the bed-sediment grain-size 

distribution, the methods of Rubin and Topping (2001, 2008) are used to back-calculate changes 

in reach-averaged bed-sediment grain size from the suspended-sediment data. 

In addition to the collection of these basic stream-flow, water-quality, and sedimenttransport data, time is spent in this project interpreting the data and reporting on the results and 

interpretations in peer-reviewed articles in the areas of hydrology, water quality, and sediment 

transport. These papers are designed to answer key questions relevant to river management, 

especially to GCDAMP managers in the. The data collected in this project form the basis of the 

collaborations listed in the next section. All of the projects funded in the areas of physical 

science, biology, and socioeconomics require the data collected by this project.

One of the major products of this project has been the mass-balance sand budgets (e.g.,

Topping and others, 2010) used to trigger controlled floods and to evaluate the effects of all dam 

operations on the CRe. To make all of the data collected by this project—and especially these 

sediment budgets—more available to both GCDAMP stakeholders and the general public, a 

major emphasis is being placed on the development of user-interactive web tools for 

downloading and visualizing these data through collaboration with the USGS Center for 
92

Integrated Data Analytics (CIDA). CIDA is the leader within the USGS in database and web 

programming. Collaboration with the CIDA will therefore result in a major leap forward in 

serving data in a user friendly and interactive way, something that has proven problematic for 

GCMRC to do on its own in previous funding cycles. The tools developed in collaboration with 

CIDA will allow anyone to plot the data, construct mass-balance sediment budgets, and plot 

changes in reach-averaged bed-sediment grain size for any time period in any reach of the CRe 

on demand. In addition, these tools will allow different user-chosen methods for error 

propagation through these sediment budgets. Because sandbar response during artificial floods 

depends on both the amount and grain-size distribution of the sand stored in each reach (Topping 

and others, 2010), these tools will be essential in the planning of controlled floods under the HFE 

EA (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2011) and in the upcoming Long-Term Environmental 

Management Plant (LTEMP) EIS that is now being produced. Much of the proposed increase in 

the budget for this project above previous funding levels is for this effort to make the data 

collected by this project more available, more usable, and therefore more relevant, to the 

decision makers in the GCDAMP. 

It is also proposed to continue the development and application of a one-dimensional 

sand routing model (Wright and others, 2010a). One task for this modeling component will be to 

extend the existing model, whose downstream boundary is river mile 87, through the central and 

western part of Grand Canyon to river mile 225. Downstream extension of the model is 

dependent on discharge and sand concentration/flux data for the central and western parts of the 

canyon and major tributaries, because it is a simplified yet physically-based model that requires 

calibration with field data. Sufficient data from this monitoring program (for example, river mile 

166 station, Kanab and Havasu Creek gaging stations) is now available to make this model 

extension possible. Another task of the modeling component will be to make more comparisons 

between the model and the measurements, particularly with respect to suspended-sand 

concentration and grain size. Previous comparisons have focused primarily on the total sand flux 

at a gaging station, because this is of importance for sand mass balance accounting. However, 

further comparisons between the model and measurements are necessary to better understand 

where the model performs well and where the modeling assumptions cause deviation between 

predictions and measurements. The final project element will be to continue to update the model 

predictions through the present as new boundary condition data become available from the 

monitoring program.

4.2. Personnel and Collaborations 

The major collaborations funded through this project are with four cooperators in the 

U.S. Geological Survey: the Arizona Water Science Center, the Utah Water Science Center, the 

California Water Science Center, and the Center for Integrated Data Analytics. Together, these 

four cooperators will receive about 39% of the total project funding given to this project (as 

described below). Collaborations also exist between this project and other physical-sciences and 

biology projects at the GCMRC, mostly in a supporting role, and with researchers in academia. 

In previous years, academic collaborations have existed between this project and researchers at 

the University of Colorado, College of William and Mary, Arizona State University, Utah State 

University, and Northern Arizona University. Additional collaborations within the USGS during 

2013-14 are planned with research scientists in Western Coastal and Marine Geology and the 

National Research Program.
93

The staff of this project at the GCMRC consists of four full-time, permanent USGS 

employees, one full-time, term USGS employee, and one student laboratory technician. The 

leader of the project is David J. Topping, a Research Hydrologist at the USGS, whose research 

expertise is in the areas of sediment transport and sedimentology. Support staff on this project 

are: Nicholas Voichick (emphasis on non-sediment water quality), Thomas Sabol (emphasis on 

Colorado River stage, discharge, and suspended sediment), Ronald Griffiths (emphasis on CRe 

tributary sediment supply, modeling, and monitoring network maintenance), Karen Vanaman 

(laboratory manager and emphasis on CRe tributary stage and discharge), and Jason Fobair 

(student laboratory technician). Topping, Voichick, Sabol, and Griffiths regularly interface with 

cooperating USGS employees funded by this project in the Arizona, Utah, and California Water 

Science Centers and in the CIDA. Topping, Sabol, and Griffiths receive parts of their salaries 

from non-GCDAMP funds. Additional employees at the GCMRC that are partially funded by 

this project are Glenn Bennett (Oracle database support and collaborator with CIDA) and 

Timothy Andrews (electronics support). Karen Vanaman oversees work in the GCMRC 

sediment laboratory, where all sediment samples collected by all GCDAMP-funded projects are 

processed. The GCMRC sediment laboratory participates in the USGS Branch of Quality 

Systems Sediment Laboratory QA/QC Project, where it repeatedly performs as one of the best 

(most accurate) sediment laboratories in the country. This project conducts two river trips per 

year to perform maintenance on the monitoring network in the CRe and to collect suspendedsediment samples used to calibrate and/or verify the 15-minute resolution acoustic suspendedsediment data. 

4.3 Deliverables 

Products from this project are as follows:

1. 2-3 peer-reviewed journal articles or interpretative USGS reports per year during 

FY13/14;

2. Annual data reports for the 9 USGS stream-flow gaging stations funded by this project 

and operated by the Arizona and Utah Water Science Centers;

3. Real-time posting (updated every 1-4 hours) to the world-wide-web of the stage, 

discharge, and water-quality parameters measured at the 9 USGS stream-flow gaging 

stations operated by the Arizona and Utah Water Science Centers ;

4. Real-time to monthly posting to the world-wide web of the stage, discharge, waterquality parameters (temperature, specific conductance, turbidity, dissolved oxygen), 

suspended-sediment concentration, and suspended-sediment grain size distribution at the 

monitoring stations operated by the GCMRC, through cooperation with the Center for 

Integrated Data Analytics; and,

5. Monthly to bi-monthly updates of the mass-balance sediment budgets posted to the 

world-wide web for 5 reaches of the Colorado River in Marble and Grand Canyons,

through cooperation with the Center for Integrated Data Analytics.

5. Productivity from Past Work 

During FY11/12, the following products were either delivered to the GCDAMP prior to April 1, 

2012, or are still on track to be delivered to the GCDAMP by September 30, 2012.
94

5.1. Data Products 

1. 15-minute stage, discharge, and water temperature data (updated every 1-4 hours in 

realtime) and other QW data from the 9 gaging stations maintained by the USGS Arizona 

and Utah Water Science Centers under this project are available at 

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis and http://www.gcmrc.gov. 

2. 15-minute stage, discharge, water temperature, specific-conductance, turbidity, dissolvedoxygen, and suspended-sediment-concentration and grain-size data from the stations 

maintained by GCMRC under this project are available at http://www.gcmrc.gov. These 

data are updated as frequently as every month, depending on data-collection location.

3. Annual water-data reports for stage, discharge, and water quality data collected during 

2010 and 2011 were published by the Arizona and Utah Water Science Centers. These 

reports are at:

http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/wy2010/pdfs/09380000.2010.pdf

http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/wy2010/pdfs/09381800.2010.pdf

http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/wy2010/pdfs/09382000.2010.pdf

http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/wy2010/pdfs/09402000.2010.pdf

http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/wy2010/pdfs/09402300.2010.pdf

http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/wy2010/pdfs/09402500.2010.pdf

http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/wy2010/pdfs/09404200.2010.pdf

http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/wy2011/pdfs/09380000.2011.pdf

http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/wy2011/pdfs/09381800.2011.pdf

http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/wy2011/pdfs/09382000.2011.pdf

http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/wy2011/pdfs/09402000.2011.pdf

http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/wy2011/pdfs/09402300.2011.pdf

http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/wy2011/pdfs/09402500.2011.pdf

http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/wy2011/pdfs/09403850.2011.pdf

http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/wy2011/pdfs/09404115.2011.pdf

http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/wy2011/pdfs/09404200.2011.pdf

Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., Wright, S.A., and Melis, T.S., 2011, Field evaluation of the error 

arising from inadequate time averaging in the standard use of depth-integrating suspendedsediment samplers: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1774, 95 p. 

[http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/1774/]

5.2. Publications in progress 

Griffiths, R.E., Topping, D.J., Andrews, T., Bennett, G.E., Sabol T.A., and Melis, T.S., in press, 

Design and maintenance of a network for collecting high-resolution suspended-sediment data 

at remote locations on rivers, with examples from the Colorado River: U.S. Geological 

Survey Techniques and Methods 2–A__, __p.

Sabol, T.A., and Topping, D.J., in press, Evaluation of intake efficiencies and associated 

sediment-concentration errors in US D-77 bag-type and US D-96-type depth-integrating 

suspended-sediment samplers: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2012-

__, __p.
95

The following USGS Professional Paper by Topping, Wright, Rubin, and others entitled 

"Evaluation of using multi-frequency acoustics, laser diffraction, and automatic samplers to 

measure the concentration and grain-size distribution of suspended sediment at high temporal 

resolution over multi-year durations" is on track to be in USGS peer review before 

September 30, 2012.

5.3. Presentations at professional meetings 

Grams, P.E., Topping, D.J., Schmidt, J.C., Kaplinksi, M.A., and Hazel, J.E., 2011, Linking 

Morphodynamic Response with Sediment Mass Balance: Issues of Scale, Geomorphic 

Setting, and Sampling Design: Abstract EP31F-04 presented at 2011 Fall Meeting, AGU, 

San Francisco, Calif., 5-9 Dec.

Sabol, T.A., Topping, D.J., and Griffiths, R.E., 2011, Evaluation of intake efficiencies and 

associated sediment-concentration errors in US D-77 bag-type and US D-96-type depthintegrating suspended-sediment samplers: Abstract EP43B-0689 presented at 2011 Fall 

Meeting, AGU, San Francisco, Calif., 5-9 Dec.

Substantial progress was also made on completing the delivery of the historical periods of record 

for unit-value stage and discharge for USGS gaging stations with QW and sediment data 

relevant to the CRe. All historical data from these stations should be available online by 

2013. As of April 2012, the following historical periods of record have been processed and 

are available at http://www.gcmrc.gov.

09380000 Colorado River at Lees Ferry, AZ 1921-1986...Entire period of station record 

processed and online.

09381500 Paria River near Cannonville, UT 1951-1956...Entire period of station record 

processed and online.

09401000 Little Colorado River at Grand Falls 1926-1960, 1994-1995...Entire period of 

station record processed and online.

09401250 Moenkopi Wash near Moenkopi, AZ 1974-1976...Entire period of station record 

processed and online.

09401260 Moenkopi Wash at Moenkopi, AZ 1976-1988...Entire period of station record 

processed and online.

09401400 Moenkopi Wash near Tuba City, AZ 1949-1954, 1965-1977...Other years 

remaining to be processed.

09401500 Moenkopi Wash near Cameron, AZ 1954-1965...Entire period of station record 

processed and online.

09402000 Little Colorado River near Cameron, AZ 1947-1990...Entire period of station 

record processed and online.

09402500 Colorado River near Grand Canyon, AZ 1923-1986...Entire period of station 

record processed and online.

09403000 Bright Angel Creek near Grand Canyon, AZ 1933-1936, 1943-1974, 1991-

1993...Other years remaining to be processed. 

09403780 Kanab Creek near Fredonia, AZ 1964-1970, 1974-1977...Other years remaining to 

be processed. 

Sediment and QW updates for the CRe were provided to the GCDAMP Adaptive Management 

Work Group at 6-month intervals.
96

The annual report for FY11 was delivered to the GCDAMP on time (January 2012) and the 

annual report for FY12 will be delivered to the GCDAMP on time (January 2013).

Although progress was made on developing user-interactive web tools to make the collected by 

this project (including the mass-balance sediment budgets) more useful for stakeholders, 

managers, and the general public, it was determined that GCMRC and SBSC lacked the 

expertise to finish this work. Therefore collaboration with CIDA was initiated so that this 

work can be completed within FY13/14.

5.4. Productivity prior to 2011 

Akahori, R., Schmeeckle, M.W., Topping, D.J., and Melis, T.S., 2008, Erosion properties of 

cohesive sediments in the Colorado River in Grand Canyon: River Research and 

Applications, v. 24, p. 1160-1174, doi: 10.1002/rra.1122.

Barnhardt, W., Kayen, R., Rubin, D., and Minasian, D., 2001, The internal structure of sand bars 

on the Colorado River, Grand Canyon, as determined by ground-penetrating radar: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 01–425.

Draut, A.E., Rubin, D.M., Dierker, J.L., Fairley, H.C., Griffiths, R.E., Hazel, J.E., Jr., Hunter, 

R.E., Kohl, K., Leap, L.M., Nials, F.L., Topping, D.J., and Yeatts, M., 2005, 

Sedimentology and stratigraphy of the Palisades, Lower Comanche, and Arroyo Grande 

areas of the Colorado River corridor, Grand Canyon, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey 

Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5072, 68 p. 

Draut, A. E., Rubin, D. M., Dierker, J. L., Fairley, H. C., Griffiths, R. E., Hazel, J. E. Jr., Hunter, 

R. E., Kohl, K., Leap, L. M., Nials, F. L., Topping, D. J., and Yeatts, M., 2008, Application 

of sedimentary-structure interpretation to geoarchaeology in the Colorado River corridor, 

Grand Canyon, Arizona, USA: Geomorphology, v. 101, n. 3, p. 497-509, doi: 

10.1016/j.geomorph.2007.04.032.

Draut, A.E., Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., Wright, S.A., and Schmidt, J.C., 2010, Grain-size 

evolution in suspended sediment and deposits from the 2004 and 2008 controlled-flood 

experiments in Marble and Grand Canyons, Arizona: Proceedings of the Joint Federal 

Interagency Conference on Sedimentation and Hydrologic Modeling, June 27- July 1, 

2010, Riviera Hotel, Las Vegas, Nevada, 

http://acwi.gov/sos/pubs/2ndJFIC/Contents/P_DRAUT_GRANDCYN_FINAL.pdf. 

Flynn, M.E., and Hornewer, N.J., 2003, Variations in sand storage measured at monumented 

cross sections in the Colorado River between Glen Canyon Dam and Lava Falls Rapid, 

Northern Arizona, 1992–1999: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 03–4104, 39 p.

Grams, P.E., Schmidt, J.C., and Topping, D.J., 2007, The rate and pattern of bed incision and 

bank adjustment on the Colorado River in Glen Canyon downstream from Glen Canyon 

Dam: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 119, p. 556-575, doi: 10.1130/B25969.1, 

with additional supporting material in the Geological Society of America Data Repository. 

Grams, P.E., Hazel, J.E., Schmidt, J.C., Kaplinski, M., Wright, S.A., Topping, D.J., and Melis, 

T.S., 2010, Geomorphic response of sandbars to the March 2008 high-flow experiment on 

the Colorado River downstream from Glen Canyon Dam: Proceedings of the Joint Federal 

Interagency Conference on Sedimentation and Hydrologic Modeling, June 27- July 1, 

2010, Riviera Hotel, Las Vegas, Nevada, 

http://acwi.gov/sos/pubs/2ndJFIC/Contents/5D_Grams.pdf. 

Gray, J.R., Gooding, Melis, T.S., Topping, D.J., and Rasmussen, P.P., 2003, U.S. Geological 

Survey suspended-sediment surrogate research, Part II: Optic technologies: Proceedings of 

the Virginia Water Research Symposium 2003, Water Resource Management for the 

Commonwealth, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, October 

8-10, 2003, pp. 58-64. 
97

Gray, J.R., Melis, T.S, Patiño, Eduardo, Larsen, M.C., Topping, D.J., Rasmussen, P.P., and 

Figueroa-Alama, Carlos, 2003, U.S. Geological Survey research on surrogate 

measurements for suspended sediment, in Renard, K.G., McElroy, S.A., Gburek, W.J., 

Canfield, H.E., and Scott, R.L., eds., Proceedings of the 1st Interagency Conference on 

Research in Watersheds: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, 

October 27-30, 2003, Benson, Arizona, pp. 95-100. 

Gray, J.R., Patiño, Eduardo, Rasmussen, P.P., Larsen. M.C., Melis, T.S., Topping, D.J., and 

Alamo, C.F., 2003, Evaluation of sediment surrogate technologies for computation of 

suspended-sediment transport: Proceedings of the 1st International Yellow River Forum on 

River Basin Management, October 21-24, 2003: Zhengzhou, Henan Province, China, the 

Yellow River Conservancy Publishing House, Vol. III, pp. 314-323. 

Gray, J.R., Melis, T.S, Patiño, Eduardo, Gooding, D.J., Topping, D.J., Larsen, M.C., and 

Rasmussen, P.P., 2005, Proceedings of the Federal Interagency Sediment Monitoring 

Instrument and Analysis Workshop, September 9-11, 2003, Flagstaff, Arizona, J.R. Gray, 

ed.: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1276, 10 p. 

Griffiths, R.E., Topping, D.J., McDonald, R.R., and Sabol, T.A., 2010, The use of the multidimensional surface-water modeling system (MD_SWMS) in calculating discharge and 

sediment transport in remote ephemeral streams: Proceedings of the Joint Federal 

Interagency Conference on Sedimentation and Hydrologic Modeling, June 27- July 1, 

2010, Riviera Hotel, Las Vegas, Nevada, 

http://acwi.gov/sos/pubs/2ndJFIC/Contents/P40_Griffiths_paper.pdf. 

Hazel, J.E., Jr., Kaplinski, M., Parnell, R., Kohl, K., and Topping, D.J., 2007, Stage-discharge 

relations for the Colorado River in Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons, Arizona, 1990-2005: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2006-1243, 19 p. 

Hazel, J., Jr., Topping, D.J., Schmidt, J.C., and Kaplinski, M., 2006, Influence of a dam on finesediment storage in a canyon river: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 111, F01025, 16 p. 

Hornewer, N.J., and Wiele, S.M., 2007, Flow velocity and sediment data collected during 1990 

and 1991 at National Canyon, Colorado River, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Data 

Series 246, 11 p.

Melis, T.S., Topping, D.J., Grams, P.E., Rubin, D.M., Wright., S.A., Draut, A.E., Hazel, J.E., Jr., 

Ralston, B.E., Kennedy, T.A., Rosi-Marshall, E., Korman. J., Hilwig, K.D., and Schmit, 

L.M., 2010, 2008 High-Flow Experiment at Glen Canyon Dam Benefits Colorado River 

Resources in Grand Canyon National Park: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2010-3009, 

4 p. 

Melis, T.S., Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., Wright, S.A., 2007, Research furthers conservation of 

Grand Canyon sandbars: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2007-3020, 4 p. 

Melis, T.S., Topping, D.J., and Rubin D.M., 2003, Testing laser-based sensors for continuous in 

situ monitoring of suspended sediment in the Colorado River, Arizona, in Bogen, J., 

Fergus, T., and Walling, D.E., eds., Erosion and Sediment Transport Measurement in 

Rivers: Technological and Methodological Advances: Wallingford, Oxfordshire, United 

Kingdom, IAHS Press, IAHS Publication 283, p. 21-27. 

Melis, T.S., Topping, D.J., and Rubin, D.M., 2002, Testing laser-based sensors for continuous, 

in-situ monitoring of suspended sediment in the Colorado River, Grand Canyon, Arizona, 

in Appendix 2 of Gray, J.R., and Glysson, G.D., eds., Proceedings of the federal 

interagency workshop on turbidity and other sediment surrogates, April 30-May 2, 2002, 

Reno, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1250 

[http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2003/circ1250/pdf/circ1250.book_web.pdf and 

http://water.usgs.gov/osw/techniques/TSS/listofabstracts.pdf].
98

Rubin, D.M., Topping, D.J., Chezar, H., Hazel, J.E., Schmidt, J.C., Breedlove, M., Melis, T.S., 

and Grams, P.E., 2010, 20,000 grain-size observations from the bed of the Colorado River, 

and implications for sediment transport through Grand Canyon: Proceedings of the Joint 

Federal Interagency Conference on Sedimentation and Hydrologic Modeling, June 27- July 

1, 2010, Riviera Hotel, Las Vegas, Nevada, 

http://acwi.gov/sos/pubs/2ndJFIC/Contents/3C_Rubin_03_08_10.pdf. 

Rubin, D.M., and Topping, D.J., 2008, Correction to “Quantifying the relative importance of 

flow regulation and grain-size regulation of suspended-sediment transport α, and tracking 

changes in bed-sediment grain size β”: Water Resources Research, v. 44, W09701, 5 p., 

doi: 10.1029/2008WR006819. 

Rubin, D.M., Chezar, H., Topping, D.J., Melis, D.J., and Harney, J., 2007, Two new approaches 

for measuring spatial and temporal changes in bed-sediment grain size: Sedimentary 

Geology, 7 p., doi: 10.1016/j.sedgeo.2007.03.020. 

Rubin, D.M., Chezar, H., Harney, J.N., Topping, D.J., Melis, T.S., and Sherwood, C.R., 2006, 

Underwater microscope for measuring spatial and temporal changes in bed-sediment grain 

size: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2006-1360, 

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

Rubin, D.M., Chezar, H., Topping, D.J., Melis, D.J., and Harney, J., 2005, Two new approaches 

for measuring spatial and temporal changes in bed-sediment grain size, in Flemming, B.W., 

Hartmann, D., and Delafontaine, M.T., eds., From Particle Size to Sediment Dynamics 

International Workshop, Hanse Institute for Advanced Study, Delmenhorst (Germany), 

April 15-18, 2004: Research Centre Terramare Reports, No. 13, p. 135-138. 

Rubin, D.M., 2004, A simple autocorrelation algorithm for determining grain size from digital 

images of sediment: Journal of Sedimentary Research, v, 74, n. 1, p. 160-165.

Rubin, D.M., Topping, D.J., Schmidt, J.C., Hazel, J., Kaplinski, K., and Melis, T.S., 2002, 

Recent sediment studies refute Glen Canyon Dam hypothesis: EOS, Transactions, 

American Geophysical Union, v. 83, n. 25, p. 273, 277-278. 

Rubin, D.M., and Topping, D.J., 2001, Quantifying the relative importance of flow regulation 

and grain-size regulation of suspended-sediment transport ( ), and tracking ch

bed-sediment grain size ( Water Resources Research ): , v. 37, p. 133-146.

Rubin, D.M., and Topping, D.J., 2001, What regulates suspended-sediment transport in a given 

setting? Grain size of bed sediment or flow: Proceedings of the 7th Inter-Agency 

Sedimentation Conference, v. 1, p. I-199 through I-205. 

Rubin, D.M., Tate, G.M., Topping, D.J., and Anima, R.A., 2001, Use of rotating side-scan sonar 

to measure bedload: Proceedings of the 7th Inter-Agency Sedimentation Conference, v. 1, p.

III-139 through III-143. 

Sabol, T.A., Topping, D.J., and Griffiths, R.E., 2010, Field evaluation of sediment-concentration 

errors arising from non-isokinetic intake efficiency in depth-integrating suspendedsediment bag samplers: Proceedings of the Joint Federal Interagency Conference on 

Sedimentation and Hydrologic Modeling, June 27- July 1, 2010, Riviera Hotel, Las Vegas, 

Nevada., http://acwi.gov/sos/pubs/2ndJFIC/Contents/P23_SABOL_02_23_10.pdf. 

Schmidt, J.C., Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., Hazel, J.E., Jr., Kaplinski, M., Wiele, S.M., and 

Goeking, S.A., 2007, Streamflow and sediment data collected to determine the effects of 

Low Summer Steady Flows and Habitat Maintenance Flows in 2000 on the Colorado River 

between Lees Ferry and Bright Angel Creek, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 2007-1268, 79 p. 

Schmidt, J.C., Topping, D.J., Grams, P.E., and Hazel, J.E., Jr., 2004, System-wide changes in the 

distribution of fine sediment in the Colorado River corridor between Glen Canyon Dam 

and Bright Angel Creek, Arizona: Final report to the USGS Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center, Flagstaff, Arizona, 107 p.
99

Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., Wright, S.A., and Melis, T.S., 2011, Field evaluation of the error 

arising from inadequate time averaging in the standard use of depth-integrating suspendedsediment samplers: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1774, 95 p., 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/1774/.

Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., Grams, P.E., Griffiths, R.E., Sabol, T.A., Voichick, N., Tusso, R.B., 

Vanaman, K.M., and McDonald, R.R., 2010, Sediment transport during three controlledflood experiments on the Colorado River downstream from Glen Canyon Dam, with 

implications for eddy-sandbar deposition in Grand Canyon National Park: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 2010-1128, 111 p. 

Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., and Schmidt, J.C., 2008, Update on regulation of sand transport in 

the Colorado River by changes in the surface grain size of eddy sandbars over multiyear 

timescales: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2008–5042, 24 p.

Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., and Melis, T.S., 2007a, Coupled changes in sand grain size and sand 

transport driven by changes in the upstream supply of sand in the Colorado River: Relative 

importance of changes in bed-sand grain size and bed-sand area: Sedimentary Geology, 24 

p., doi: 10.1016/j.sedgeo.2007.03.016.

Topping, D.J., Wright, S.A., Melis, T.S., and Rubin, D.M., 2007b, High-resolution 

measurements of suspended-sediment concentration and grain size in the Colorado River in 

Grand Canyon using a multi-frequency acoustic system: Proceedings of the Tenth 

International Symposium on River Sedimentation, August 1-4, 2007, Moscow, Russia, v. 3, 

p. 330-339.

Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., Schmidt, J.C., Hazel, J.E., Jr., Melis, T.S., Wright, S.A., Kaplinski, 

M., Draut, A.E., and Breedlove, M.J., 2006a, Comparison of sediment-transport and barresponse results from the 1996 and 2004 controlled-flood experiments on the Colorado 

River in Grand Canyon: CD-ROM Proceedings of the 8th Federal Inter-Agency 

Sedimentation Conference, Reno, Nevada, April 2-6, 2006, ISBN 0-9779007-1-1.

Topping, D.J., Wright, S.A., Melis, T.S., and Rubin, D.M., 2006b, High-resolution monitoring of 

suspended-sediment concentration and grain size in the Colorado River using laserdiffraction instruments and a three-frequency acoustic system: CD-ROM Proceedings of 

the 8th Federal Inter-Agency Sedimentation Conference, Reno, Nevada, April 2-6, 2006, 

ISBN 0-9779007-1-1.

Topping, D., Rubin, D., and Melis, T., 2005, Coupled changes in sand grain size and sand 

transport driven by changes in the upstream supply of sand in the Colorado River, in

Flemming, B.W., Hartmann, D., and Delafontaine, M.T., eds., From Particle Size to 

Sediment Dynamics International Workshop, Hanse Institute for Advanced Study, 

Delmenhorst (Germany), April 15-18, 2004: Research Centre Terramare Reports, No. 13, 

p. 153-158.

Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., and Schmidt, J.C., 2005, Regulation of sand transport in the 

Colorado River by changes in the surface grain size of eddy sandbars over multi-year 

timescales: Sedimentology, v.52, p. 1133-1153.

Topping, D.J., Melis, T.S., Rubin, D.M., and Wright, S.A., 2004, High-resolution monitoring of 

suspended-sediment concentration and grain size in the Colorado River in Grand Canyon 

using a laser-acoustic system, in Hu, C., and Tan, Y, eds., Proceedings of the Ninth 

International Symposium on River Sedimentation, October 18-21, 2004, Yichang, China: 

People’s Republic of China, Tsinghua University Press, p. 2507-2514.

Topping, D.J., J.C. Schmidt, and L.E. Vierra, Jr., 2003, Computation and Analysis of the 

Instantaneous-Discharge Record for the Colorado River at Lees Ferry, Arizona—May 8, 

1921, through September 30, 2000: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1677, 118 

p.
100

Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., and Vierra, Jr., L.E., 2000a, Colorado River sediment transport 1. 

Natural sediment supply limitation and the influence of Glen Canyon Dam: Water 

Resources Research, v. 36, p.515-542. 

Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., Nelson, J.M., Kinzel, III, P.J., and Corson, I.C., 2000b, Colorado 

River sediment transport 2. Systematic bed-elevation and grain-size effects of sand supply 

limitation: Water Resources Research, v. 36, p. 543-570. 

Tusso, R., Rubin, D.M., Topping, D.J., Chezar, H., and Breedlove B., 2010, Using changes in 

bed-surface grain size as a proxy for changes in bed sand storage, Colorado River, Grand 

Canyon, in Melis, T.S., Hamill, J.F., Bennett, G.E., Coggins, L.G., Jr., Grams, P.E., 

Kennedy, T.A., Kubly, D.M., and Ralston, B.E., eds., Proceedings of the Colorado River 

Basin Science and Resource Management Symposium, November 18–20, 2008, Scottsdale, 

Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5135, p. 347-355. 

Voichick, N., and Topping, D.J., 2010, Use of specific conductance in estimating salinity and as 

a natural tracer of water parcels in the Colorado River between Glen Canyon Dam and 

Diamond Creek, northern Arizona, in Melis, T.S., Hamill, J.F., Bennett, G.E., Coggins, 

L.G., Jr., Grams, P.E., Kennedy, T.A., Kubly, D.M., and Ralston, B.E., eds., Proceedings 

of the Colorado River Basin Science and Resource Management Symposium, November 

18–20, 2008, Scottsdale, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report

2010–5135, p. 357-362. 

Voichick, N., and Topping, D.J., 2010, Comparison of turbidity to multi-frequency sideways 

looking acoustic-Doppler data and suspended-sediment data in the Colorado River in 

Grand Canyon: Proceedings of the Joint Federal Interagency Conference on Sedimentation 

and Hydrologic Modeling, June 27- July 1, 2010, Riviera Hotel, Las Vegas, Nevada, 

http://acwi.gov/sos/pubs/2ndJFIC/Contents/P34_Voichick_FISC_Paper.pdf. 

Voichick, N., 2008, Specific conductance in the Colorado River between Glen Canyon Dam and 

Diamond Creek, northern Arizona, 1988–2007: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 364, 

16 p.

Voichick, N., and Wright, S.A., 2007, Water-temperature data for the Colorado River and 

tributaries between Glen Canyon Dam and Spencer Canyon, northern Arizona, 1988–2005: 

U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 251, 24 p.

White, M.A., Schmidt, J.C., and Topping, D.J., 2005, Application of wavelet analysis for 

monitoring the hydrologic effects of dam operation: Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado 

River at Lees Ferry, Arizona: River Research and Applications, v.21, p. 551-565. 

Wright, S.A., Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., and Melis, T.S., 2010a, An approach for modeling 

sediment budgets in supply-limited rivers: Water Resources Research, v. 46, W10538, 18 

p., doi:10.1029/2009WR008600. 

Wright, S.A., Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., and Melis, T.S., 2010b, Modeling long-term sediment 

budgets in supply-limited rivers: Proceedings of the Joint Federal Interagency Conference 

on Sedimentation and Hydrologic Modeling, June 27- July 1, 2010, Riviera Hotel, Las 

Vegas, Nevada, 

http://acwi.gov/sos/pubs/2ndJFIC/Contents/3B_Wright_12_29_09_paper.pdf. 

Wright, S.A., Topping, D.J., and Williams, C.A., 2010c, Discriminating silt-and-clay from 

suspended-sand in rivers using sidelooking acoustic profilers: Proceedings of the Joint 

Federal Interagency Conference on Sedimentation and Hydrologic Modeling, June 27- July 

1, 2010, Riviera Hotel, Las Vegas, Nevada, 

http://acwi.gov/sos/pubs/2ndJFIC/Contents/2C_Wright_03_01_10_paper.pdf. 

Wright, S.A., Schmidt, J.C., Melis, T.S., Topping, D.J., and Rubin, D.M., 2008, Is there enough 

sand? Evaluating the fate of Grand Canyon sandbars: GSA Today, v. 18, no. 8, p. 4-10, doi: 

10.1130/GSATG12A.1. 

Wright, S.A., Anderson, C.R., and Voichick, N., 2009, A simplified water temperature model 

doe the Colorado River below Glen Canyon Dam: River Research and Applications: v. 25, 

p. 675-686, doi: 10.1002/rra.1179.
101

Wright, S.A., Melis, T.S., Topping, D.J., and Rubin, D.M., 2005, Influence of Glen Canyon Dam 

operations on downstream sand resources of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon, 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. 17-31. 

6. References 

Gloss, S.P., and Coggins, L.G., 2005, Fishes of Grand Canyon, 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. 33-68.

Howard, C.S., 1947, Suspended sediment in the Colorado River 1925-41: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Supply Paper 998, 165 p.

Melis, T.S., Topping, D.J., and Rubin D.M., 2003, Testing laser-based sensors for continuous in 

situ monitoring of suspended sediment in the Colorado River, Arizona, in Bogen, J., 

Fergus, T., and Walling, D.E., eds., Erosion and Sediment Transport Measurement in 

Rivers: Technological and Methodological Advances: Wallingford, Oxfordshire, United 

Kingdom, IAHS Press, IAHS Publication 283, p. 21-27. 

National Research Council, 1996, River Resource Management in the Grand Canyon: 

Washington, D.C., National Academy Press, 226 p.

Rubin, D.M., and Topping, D.J., 2008, Correction to “Quantifying the relative importance of 

flow regulation and grain-size regulation of suspended-sediment transport α, and tracking 

changes in bed-sediment grain size β”: Water Resources Research, v. 44, W09701, 5 p., 

doi: 10.1029/2008WR006819. 

Rubin, D.M., and Topping, D.J., 2001, Quantifying the relative importance of flow regulation 

and grain-size regulation of suspended-sediment transport ( ), and tracking ch

bed-sediment grain size ( Water Resources Research ): , v. 37, p. 133-146.

Rubin, D.M., Topping, D.J., Schmidt, J.C., Hazel, J., Kaplinski, K., and Melis, T.S., 2002, 

Recent sediment studies refute Glen Canyon Dam hypothesis: EOS, Transactions, 

American Geophysical Union, v. 83, n. 25, p. 273, 277-278. 

Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., Grams, P.E., Griffiths, R.E., Sabol, T.A., Voichick, N., Tusso, R.B., 

Vanaman, K.M., and McDonald, R.R., 2010, Sediment transport during three controlled- flood experiments on the Colorado River downstream from Glen Canyon Dam, with 

implications for eddy-sandbar deposition in Grand Canyon National Park: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 2010-1128, 111 p. 

Topping, D.J., Wright, S.A., Melis, T.S., and Rubin, D.M., 2007b, High-resolution 

measurements of suspended-sediment concentration and grain size in the Colorado River in 

Grand Canyon using a multi-frequency acoustic system: Proceedings of the Tenth 

International Symposium on River Sedimentation, August 1-4, 2007, Moscow, Russia, v. 3, 

p. 330-339.

Topping, D.J., Wright, S.A., Melis, T.S., and Rubin, D.M., 2006b, High-resolution monitoring of 

suspended-sediment concentration and grain size in the Colorado River using laserdiffraction instruments and a three-frequency acoustic system: CD-ROM Proceedings of 

the 8th Federal Inter-Agency Sedimentation Conference, Reno, Nevada, April 2-6, 2006, 

ISBN 0-9779007-1-1.

Topping, D.J., Melis, T.S., Rubin, D.M., and Wright, S.A., 2004, High-resolution monitoring of 

suspended-sediment concentration and grain size in the Colorado River in Grand Canyon 

using a laser-acoustic system, in Hu, C., and Tan, Y, eds., Proceedings of the Ninth 

International Symposium on River Sedimentation, October 18-21, 2004, Yichang, China: 

People’s Republic of China, Tsinghua University Press, p. 2507-2514.
102

Topping, D.J., J.C. Schmidt, and L.E. Vierra, Jr., 2003, Computation and Analysis of the 

Instantaneous-Discharge Record for the Colorado River at Lees Ferry, Arizona—May 8, 

1921, through September 30, 2000: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1677, 118 

p.

Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., and Vierra, Jr., L.E., 2000a, Colorado River sediment transport 1. 

Natural sediment supply limitation and the influence of Glen Canyon Dam: Water 

Resources Research, v. 36, p.515-542. 

Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., Nelson, J.M., Kinzel, III, P.J., and Corson, I.C., 2000b, Colorado 

River sediment transport 2. Systematic bed-elevation and grain-size effects of sand supply 

limitation: Water Resources Research, v. 36, p. 543-570. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, 1995, Operation of Glen Canyon Dam Final Environmental 

Impact Statement, Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region, Salt Lake City, 337 p. 

plus appendices. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, 2011, Environmental Assessment: Development and 

Implementation of a Protocol for High-Flow Experimental Releases from Glen Canyon 

Dam, Arizona, 2011 through 2020, Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region, Salt 

Lake City, 496 p.

Wright, S.A., Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., and Melis, T.S., 2010a, An approach for modeling 

sediment budgets in supply-limited rivers: Water Resources Research, v. 46, W10538, 18 

p., doi:10.1029/2009WR008600. 

Wright, S.A., Topping, D.J., and Williams, C.A., 2010c, Discriminating silt-and-clay from 

suspended-sand in rivers using sidelooking acoustic profilers: Proceedings of the Joint 

Federal Interagency Conference on Sedimentation and Hydrologic Modeling, June 27- July 

1, 2010, Riviera Hotel, Las Vegas, Nevada, 

http://acwi.gov/sos/pubs/2ndJFIC/Contents/2C_Wright_03_01_10_paper.pdf. 

Wright, S.A., Melis, T.S., Topping, D.J., and Rubin, D.M., 2005, Influence of Glen Canyon Dam 

operations on downstream sand resources of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon, 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. 17-31. 

 
103

7. Budget 

Project B: Streamflow, 

Water Quality, and 

Sediment Transport in the 

Colorado River Ecosystem

Salaries $524,000

Traveling and Training $0 

Operating Expenses $50,000 

Logistics $57,000

GIS/RS/Electronics support 

(includes burden) $55,000

Cooperators (non-USGS) $0

USGS cooperators $502,000

USGS Burden $88,400 

Total $1,276,400

(contingency) HFE gage 

maintenance and 

measurements 

Salaries $7,600

Logistics $42,800

USGS Cooperators $13,000

Burden $7,000

Total $70,400

FY 2013 Project B. Gross Total: 

$1,276,400

FY 2013

FY 2013 Project B. Gross Total (with 

HFE gage maintenance and 

measurements): $1,346,800
104

Project B: Streamflow, 

Water Quality, and 

Sediment Transport in the 

Colorado River Ecosystem

Salaries $539,700

Traveling and Training $0 

Operating Expenses $51,500 

Logistics $61,800

GIS/RS/Electronics support 

(includes burden) $56,700

Cooperators (non-USGS) $0

USGS cooperators $517,100

USGS Burden $90,600 

Total $1,317,400

FY 2014 Project B. Gross Total: 

$1,317,400

FY 2014
105

Project C. 

Water-Quality Monitoring of Lake Powell and Glen 

Canyon Dam Releases 

1. Investigator 

William S. Vernieu, Hydrologist, USGS, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

2. Project Summary 

The data collected by this project describe the current quality of Glen Canyon Dam 

releases to the downstream ecosystem, as well as describe the current water-quality conditions 

and hydrologic processes in Lake Powell, which can be used to predict the quality of future 

releases from the dam. The current long-term monitoring program will continue at the current 

level, with possible minor revisions to the number of sites monitored or parameters collected. In 

an effort to improve the predictive capabilities of the CE-QUAL-W2 simulation model, it is 

proposed that one or more inflow monitoring stations be reestablished to provide input data on 

inflow temperature and salinity. It is also proposed to establish one or more weather stations at 

remote pumpout stations in the upper part of the reservoir to improve inputs to the model. In 

addition to the ongoing monitoring program, efforts are currently being made to analyze sonar 

chart paper data to develop longitudinal profiles of the sediment deltas of the three major 

tributaries to evaluate rates and patterns of deposition under varying hydrologic regimes and 

reservoir levels. These profiles have been collected in conjunction with most quarterly reservoir 

surveys since 2001. This project conducts water-quality monitoring on Lake Powell and the Glen 

Canyon Dam tailwaters. The water-quality monitoring program consists of monthly surveys of 

the reservoir forebay and tailwater, as well as quarterly surveys of the entire reservoir, including 

the Colorado, San Juan, and Escalante arms. It also includes continuous monitoring of dam 

releases. The entire funding for this project is provided directly by the Bureau of Reclamation 

(Reclamation). No Adaptive Management Program funds are used for this project.

3. Background 

The Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC) will be continuing its 

long-term water-quality monitoring program of Lake Powell reservoir. This program has been in 

existence since 1965. USGS has conducted the monitoring program since 1996. The monitoring 

program measures water-quality conditions in the forebay of the reservoir on a monthly basis and 

throughout the reservoir on a quarterly basis. Water temperature, specific conductance, dissolved 

oxygen, pH, redox potential, and turbidity are measured throughout the water column at 30 sites 

(fig. 1), with samples for major ionic constituents, nutrients, dissolved organic carbon, 

chlorophyll, phytoplankton, and zooplankton being collected at selected sites. Physical and 

chemical information from this program was published as USGS Data Series Report DS-471 

(Vernieu, 2009). An updated revision to this report is currently in review. Biological data are 

contained in a separate data series report, also in review. All information from this program is 

stored in the WQDB database.
106

Data from this monitoring program describe current status and trends of water quality in 

the reservoir, the movement and fate of advective currents flowing through the reservoir, and the 

quality of releases from Glen Canyon Dam (GCD) to the Colorado River ecosystem (CRe) in 

Grand Canyon as they relate to various patterns of dam operation, hydrology, and climatologic 

patterns.

Figure 1. Lake Powell water-quality monitoring locations.

Reclamation initiated a water-quality monitoring program in 1965, consisting of 

sampling at 8 sites on Lake Powell for major ionic chemical constituents. This program was 

augmented in 1990 and conducted by Reclamation's Glen Canyon Environmental Studies office 

to include sampling at an increased number of sites with a more precise vertical resolution and 

the addition of nutrient, chlorophyll, and plankton samples. Further enhancements to the 

monitoring program design have been incorporated by GCMRC. The current program reflects a 

suite of sampling sites, monitoring frequencies, and methodologies to meet the scientific 

objectives of the program, listed in the following section, at a reasonable cost on a sustainable 

basis. Specific details of site selection, frequency, and methodology are listed in USGS Data 

Series Report DS-471 (Vernieu, 2009).

An assessment conducted in 1996 by GCMRC determined that various aspects of dam 

operations, such as daily fluctuations, high sustained releases, and operation of alternate 

withdrawal structures have a measureable effect on the quality of reservoir water and dam 

releases (Hueftle and Vernieu, 1998). Various concerns were raised by the Glen Canyon Dam 

Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP) stakeholders as to whether it was appropriate to 

fund studies conducted upstream from GCD even though the program measured the effects of the 

dam on water flowing into the CRe downstream from GCD. Reclamation agreed to fund the 

monitoring program directly from operating and maintenance funds. Therefore, while funding 

for the monitoring program was not provided by the GCDAMP, it was agreed that the program 

was an integral part of the GCDAMP, while meeting Reclamation's internal reservoir-monitoring 

needs.
107

A protocol evaluation panel was conducted in 2000 to evaluate the scientific basis for the 

monitoring program and provide comments for integration with other aspects of the GCDAMP 

(Jones and others, 2001). The panel recommended a gradual shift in emphasis from Lake Powell 

to downstream, the employment of water-quality/ecosystems models to link GCD operations 

with downstream responses, integration with other GCMRC programs, and the development of a 

long-range water-quality monitoring strategy to evaluate current and future management actions 

at GCD. Subsequent to the panel's report, downstream temperature monitoring has been moved 

to the GCMRC physical sciences program, and aquatic foodbase monitoring work has developed 

and conducts additional downstream monitoring. Additionally, Reclamation has employed and 

maintained the CE-Qual-W2 reservoir model to provide projections of release temperature and 

other parameters. A Seabird oceanographic profiler has been acquired that automates reservoir 

profiling procedures and includes the ability to obtain vertical profiles of chlorophyll 

concentration.

The program is currently funded as part of a three-year agreement with Reclamation, 

which will be evaluated for renewal in FY13. 

3.1. Scientific Background 

The objectives of this monitoring program have changed since 1965, reflecting changes 

in scientific interest as the reservoir filled, responsibilities of Reclamation for maintaining 

salinity levels in the Colorado River, and the monitoring status of Upper Colorado River basin 

reservoirs;. Objectives have also been responsive to more recent environmental concerns related 

to the Grand Canyon Protection Act, the GCD Environmental Impact Statement and subsequent 

Record of Decision, and the establishment of the GCDAMP.

Objectives of this long-term monitoring program include:

1. Determination of water-quality status and trends in Lake Powell and GCD releases;

2. Documentation of the historical record of Lake Powell water quality during various 

climatological and hydrological conditions;

3. Documentation of the effects of the structure and operation of GCD on the quality of 

water in Lake Powell and GCD releases;

4. Integration with GCDAMP information needs and downstream monitoring programs;

5. Documentation of the density structure of the water column in the GCD forebay and 

other locations in the reservoir to determine the quality of water available for release 

from GCD;

6. Assessment of the distribution and patterns of major ionic constituents;

7. Assessment of the distribution and patterns of nutrient constituents; and,

8. Assessment of the structure, status, and trends of the plankton community and its effect 

on primary and secondary production.

3.2. Monitoring Background 

Since 1965, Lake Powell’s water quality has been monitored in order to gather 

information describing water-quality conditions and to observe changes in water quality as the 

reservoir filled and matured. There have been four distinct phases of monitoring activity (table 

1). Phase 1, 1965-71, consisted of monthly forebay surveys and quarterly reservoir-wide surveys 

at 8 locations, the collection of major ion samples at 50-ft depth intervals, shipboard temperature 

measurements, and Winkler titrations for dissolved oxygen concentration in the samples 
108

collected. In Phase 2, 1972-81, monthly reservoir-wide surveys were conducted and 

electrometric determinations of temperature and dissolved oxygen concentrations were added. In 

Phase 3, 1982-90, a multi-parameter profiling device was employed which measured 

temperature, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen concentrations, pH, and oxidation-reduction 

potential at various depths in the water column. However, the frequency of monitoring was 

decreased through that period from quarterly to yearly reservoir-wide surveys, because of 

decreased needs of the Colorado River Salinity Control Program. At the beginning of Phase 4, 

1990-present, monitoring was conducted by Reclamation's Glen Canyon Environmental Studies 

office. At this time, the current schedule of monthly forebay surveys and quarterly reservoirwide surveys was initiated, sampling for nutrient concentrations was added, and the depth 

interval of sampling was changed to represent major strata within the reservoir, rather than 

sampling at 50-ft depth intervals. Quantitative sampling for chlorophyll, phytoplankton, and 

zooplankton began and continuous monitoring of the GCD tailwater, immediately downstream 

from the dam and at Lees Ferry, was initiated. Monitoring activities were transferred to GCMRC 

(USGS) in 1996. 

Phase 1

1965–71

Phase 2

1972–81

Phase 3

1982–90

Phase 4

1990–Present

Frequency:

forebay

reservoir

monthly

quarterly

monthly

monthly

quarterly to yearly

quarterly to yearly

monthly

quarterly

Number of stations 8 8 8–10 23–30

Physicochemical 

parameters

Temperature

DO (Winkler 

titration), occasional 

SC & pH

Temperature

DO 

(electrometric)

Multiparameter 

profiling (T, SC, 

DO, pH, ORP)

Multiparameter 

profiling with 

datalogger (T, SC, 

DO, pH, ORP, 

turbidity). Seabird 

CTD in use since 

2010.

Chemical Sampling Major Ions Major Ions Major Ions

(Field processing 

initiated)

Major Ions

Nutrients

Sampling interval 50 ft 50 ft 50 ft Variable, 

representative of 

stratification

Biological sampling none none Qualitative 

zooplankton 

sampling

chlorophyll

phytoplankton

zooplankton

Inflow monitoring none none selected sites 

depending on 

reservoir level

selected sites 

depending on 

reservoir level

Tailwater monitoring none none below dam

T, SC

below dam

Lees Ferry

T, SC, DO, pH

In September 2010, a Seabird SBE-19plusV2 oceanographic CTD profiler was purchased 

by Reclamation to replace the previously used Hydrolab H20/Surveyor 3 and profiling 
109

instrument. This instrument continuously collects data every 0.25 seconds while lowered and 

raised through the water column. It also provides for the collection of depth profiles at a more 

precise vertical resolution in a shorter time period.

Studies related to Lake Powell were conducted in the 1970s by university consortiums 

and Federal and State agencies on topics that include sedimentation, circulation patterns, traceelement chemistry, remote sensing, and public-health issues (Potter and Drake, 1989). Various 

agencies and institutions have conducted additional research and monitoring on water quality and 

sedimentation during Lake Powell’s recent history (Ferrari, 1988; Wurtsbaugh and others, 1992; 

Hart and Sherman, 1996; Marzolf, 1998; Hart and others, 2005; Majeski, 2009; Pratson and 

others, 2009; Wildman and others, 2011; Wildman and Hering, 2011).

3.3. Reservoir Conditions 

Based on existing data, the limnology of Lake Powell is dominated by penstock 

withdrawal from the reservoir at an elevation of 3,470 ft and advective inflow currents flowing 

through the reservoir at different depths throughout the year. During the summer months, inflow 

from snowmelt runoff in the upper Colorado River basin consists of warm dilute water of low 

density relative to the receiving waters of the reservoir. This inflow enters the reservoir as an 

overflow density current and flows along the surface of the reservoir, usually appearing near the 

dam in late summer/early fall. During winter months, inflows are colder, more saline, are usually 

denser than the receiving waters of the reservoir, and tend to flow along the bottom of the 

reservoir. Depending on the density of the water in the deepest portions of the reservoir, these 

inflows either (1) continue to flow along the bottom of the reservoir, or (2) encounter deeper 

water of higher density and flow through the reservoir at an intermediate depth. In the former 

case, the winter inflows appear near the dam in the months from April to May and displace the 

deep water upwards to be gradually entrained in dam releases. This refreshes the deeper portions 

of the reservoir with oxygenated water and serves to mix the reservoir from below. In the latter 

case, the inflows do not disturb this deep body of water and tend to contribute more directly into 

dam releases. In this case, the deeper portions of the reservoir stagnate and dissolved oxygen 

concentrations decrease over time.

In the winter months, convective cooling mixes the epilimnion, or surface layer, of the 

reservoir to increasingly greater depths. As convective mixing progresses, release temperatures 

gradually warm until the depth of mixing reaches that of the penstock withdrawal zone, usually 

between November and December. At this point, dam releases are being drawn from the mixed 

epilimnion, which contains the warmest water in the reservoir at that time, and release 

temperatures reach an annual maximum. As the epilimnion continues to cool, release 

temperatures drop correspondingly to reach an annual minimum temperature in February and 

March.

Through most of the past decade, the Colorado River basin has experienced drought 

conditions, which resulted in the drawdown of the reservoir to a minimum of 3,555 ft in 2005. 

This resulted in warmer surface layers being drawn down nearer to the penstock withdrawal 

elevation, and release temperatures increased to a maximum of 160C in October 2005, more than 

60C above normal for that period. Release temperatures were above normal from 2003 through 

2010 as the reservoir remained at elevations below 3,640 ft. In 2011, Lake Powell received 15.97 

maf (147% of average) of unregulated inflow, increasing reservoir levels to over 3,660 ft. This 

resulted in increased releases from GCD to meet equalization criteria for Lake Mead. These 

increased releases began in January and continued through 2011. The increased releases from the 
110

penstock withdrawal zone, situated below the thermocline of the reservoir, resulted in a large 

volume of cold water (8-90C) being released during the months of February through May 2011.

This depleted much of the cold water from the deeper portions of the reservoir near the penstock 

withdrawal zone, which was replaced with warmer water from surface layers and reservoir 

inflows, essentially lowering the thermocline much the same way that low reservoir levels in 

2005 brought warmer water nearer to the withdrawal zone.. Release temperatures began to 

increase sharply in June 2011 and the warmest release temperatures since 2005 occurred, 

reaching 15.20C on November 12, 2011, in spite of higher reservoir elevations.

Associated with the drought-induced reservoir drawdown, sediment deltas in the inflow 

tributaries became exposed and the continued head cutting of the tributaries through these 

sediments resulted in the re-suspension of large quantities of delta sediment, causing a severe 

oxygen demand to the reservoir inflows. This process resulted in reduced dissolved oxygen 

concentrations to a minimum of 3.3 mg/L in October 2005.

4. Proposed Work 

4.1. Project Elements ($251,600) 

Project Element C.1. Revisions to Existing Program 

Evaluations will be mad, of current chlorophyll preservations methods, involving 

preservation by desiccation, compared to conventional methods of freezing. In an effort to 

improve the predictive capabilities of the current simulation modeling, one or more inflow 

monitoring stations will be reestablished to provide input data on inflow temperature and 

salinity. One or more weather stations will be established at remote pumpout stations in the 

upper part of the reservoir. In addition to the ongoing monitoring program, efforts are currently 

being made to construct historical longitudinal profiles of the sediment deltas of the three major 

tributaries to evaluate rates and patterns of deposition under varying hydrologic regimes and 

reservoir levels. These profiles have been collected in conjunction with most quarterly reservoir 

surveys since 2001 and currently exist as sonar chart paper records. They will be compared to 

other work done by Ferrari (1988), Majeski (2009), and Pratson (2009) to provide a more precise 

temporal record of sedimentation in Lake Powell.

Project Element C.2. Details of Current Program 

The ongoing Lake Powell water-quality monitoring program consists of monthly surveys 

of the reservoir forebay and tailwater and quarterly surveys of the entire reservoir, including the 

Colorado, San Juan, and Escalante arms of the reservoir to the inflow areas. The GCD forebay 

station is located approximately 2.4 km upstream from GCD. Two tailwater sites are located 

immediately downstream from the dam and at Lees Ferry, approximately 25km downstream. 

Depending on reservoir elevation, 25-30 established sites, including the forebay and tailwater 

stations, are sampled on a quarterly basis and extend up the three major tributary arms 

(Colorado, San Juan, and Escalante) to the inflow areas.

At each site, initial surface observations (for example, bottom depth, Secchi depth, 

weather observations) are recorded, after which a depth profile of temperature, specific 

conductance, dissolved oxygen, pH, redox potential, turbidity, and chlorophyll florescence is 

collected, using the Seabird SBE19plusV2 instrument. These data are downloaded immediately 

after collection and viewed in the field to determine stratification patterns. Based on stratification 
111

patterns, chemical samples for major ionic constituents and nutrient concentrations are collected 

in the major strata at selected sites. Dissolved organic carbon samples are collected at the 

forebay, tailwater, and tributary inflow sites. Biological samples for chlorophyll concentration, 

phytoplankton, and zooplankton are also collected at selected sites. Samples are filtered and 

preserved in the field for subsequent laboratory analysis.

Analysis for major ionic constituent, nutrient, and chlorophyll concentrations are 

performed by Reclamation's Lower Colorado Regional Laboratory in Boulder City, NV. 

Phytoplankton and zooplankton samples are analyzed under contract by BSA Environmental, 

Inc.

Data processing of the Seabird profile data is performed in the office shortly after the 

field survey. All field and analytical data are entered into the WQDB database for statistical and 

graphical analysis and long-term storage.

Details of the monitoring program, a description of the WQDB database, and 

physicochemical data from 1965 to 2008 are available as a USGS Data Series report 

at http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/471/ (Vernieu, 2009). A revision of this report, including data through 

2011, is currently in review. Biological data from the monitoring program will be published in a 

separate data series report, currently in peer review with an expected publication date of 2013.

Project Element C.3. Reservoir Modeling 

Simulation modeling of Lake Powell water quality and hydrodynamic patterns is 

currently being conducted by Nick Williams of Reclamation's Upper Colorado Regional Office 

using the Army Corps of Engineers CE-QUAL-W2 model. The CE-QUAL-W2 model is a twodimensional (longitudinal and vertical), laterally averaged, finite-difference water-quality and 

hydrodynamic model for rivers, estuaries, lakes, reservoirs and river basin systems. The model 

was originally known as LARM (Laterally Averaged Reservoir Model), developed by Edinger 

and Buchak (1975). In its early stages, the LARM model was applied to Lakes Powell and Mead, 

(Edinger and Buchak, 1982; Edinger and others, 1984). Current model release enhancements 

have been developed under research contracts between the Army Corps of Engineers and 

Portland State University under supervision of Dr. Scott Wells (2000). Williams (2007) applied 

the CE-QUAL-W2 model to Lake Powell and developed an initial dissolved oxygen calibration 

for the model.

GCMRC has provided data and collaboration in the development of the model, its 

calibration, and its verification. The model has been calibrated and verified to simulate historical 

patterns of temperature and salinity in GCD releases. Dissolved oxygen is also being simulated; 

however, some additional effort is needed for final calibration and verification. This model can 

be used to synthesize data for periods in which regular monitoring was not conducted and to 

simulate the effects of various hypothetical operational, hydrological, and climatological 

scenarios on historical patterns. It is also used to provide predictions of future temperature and 

dissolved oxygen patterns in GCD releases. One major shortcoming of the model's predictive 

capabilities is the lack of adequate input data for inflow water quality and meteorological 

conditions in the upstream portion of the reservoir. The error in predictive capability decreases 

substantially with the input of data from reservoir monitoring in the early summer.

4.2 Personnel and Collaborations 

Funding for the Lake Powell water-quality monitoring program is provided directly by 

Reclamation; no Adaptive Management funds are used for this project. In addition to funding, 
112

Reclamation also provides field support staff for quarterly reservoir surveys, provides chemical 

sample analysis through its Lower Colorado Regional Laboratory and plankton analysis through 

contract, and recently purchased the Seabird SBE19plusV2 profiling instrument. The National 

Park Service provides a 0.5 FTE field technician, also funded by Reclamation. GCMRC 

participates in the Lake Powell Cooperators Group, a group of federal, state, and academic 

researchers, tribal representatives, concessionaires, recreational organizations, and members of 

the general public with interests in scientific activities conduction on Lake Powell. The National 

Park Service hosts annual meetings of the Lake Powell Cooperators Group to present and discuss 

current monitoring activities and findings, and coordinate future activities.

Dale Robertson, of the USGS Wisconsin Science Center, has been collaborating with the 

Lake Powell program to assist with data interpretation and modeling and develop an interpretive 

synthesis of the published data. This synthesis will describe the physical, chemical, and 

biological characteristics of Lake Powell and GCD releases, compared to climatological factors 

and various aspects of GCD operations. Available meteorological, hydrological, and 

limnological data will be used to improve, document, and verify the existing CE-QUAL-W2 

model for Lake Powell, in collaboration with Reclamation scientists. The model will then be 

used to better understand the changes that have occurred in Lake Powell, predict future changes 

in response to climate change, and verify interpretive hypotheses.

Efforts are underway by Dr. Robertson to feature a special Lake Powell symposium at the 

2013 meeting of the North American Lake Management Society in November 2013. In addition 

to serving as the annual meeting for the Lake Powell cooperators group, this symposium will 

also bring together researchers from academic, government, and private organizations with 

interest in Lake Powell, Lake Mead, and similar reservoirs. The proceedings of this symposium 

will be published in a special issue of Lake and Reservoir Management.

In recent years, GCMRC has worked closely with Richard A. Wildman, currently serving 

as postdoctoral fellow and Harvard University Center for the Environment. GCMRC has 

provided field assistance, data availability, and review for publications related to phosphorus 

release and sediment transport related to reservoir drawdown (Wildman and others, 2011; 

Wildman and Hering, 2011.)

4.3 Deliverables 

During the FY13/14 period, an interpretive data synthesis report will be developed to 

build on the monitoring data and provided insights into how climatological, meteorological, and 

hydrodynamic processes, as well as the operation of GCD, affect inflow routing and stratification 

in the reservoir and the quality of releases from GCD. A website will be developed during this 

period to provide current conditions and historical data to the public. Other reports will be 

developed in future years describing water-quality changes in response to climatological factors, 

model development and verification, and application of modeling results to downstream 

resources.

5. Productivity from Past Work 

Products from the Lake Powell monitoring program include published reports, listed in 

the following section, the WQDB database, available on-line, presentations at scientific 

meetings, presentations to the general public, and presentations or supporting data to the AMWG 
113

and TWG. Preliminary data from monitoring surveys are provided to Reclamation within one 

month of collection.

5.1. Completed Publications 

Vernieu, W.S., 2012, Biological data for water in Lake Powell and from Glen Canyon Dam 

releases, Utah-Arizona, 1991-2008: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series xxx (in 

development).

Vernieu, W.S., 2012, Water temperatures in select nearshore environments of the Colorado River 

in Grand Canyon, Arizona, during the low summer steady flow experiment of 2000. (Final 

review completed, in publication.)

Vernieu, W.S., 2010, Effects of the 2008 high-flow experiment on water quality in Lake Powell 

and Glen Canyon Dam releases, Utah-Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

2010–1159, 51 p. 

Vernieu, W.S., 2009, Physical and chemical data for water in Lake Powell and from Glen 

Canyon Dam releases, Utah-Arizona, 1964–2008: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 471, 

23 p. and database. (an updated revision of this report, presenting data collected through 

2011, is currently in review.)

Vernieu, W.S., Hueftle, S.J., and Gloss, S.P., 2005, Water quality in Lake Powell and the 

Colorado River, 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, 69-85 p.

6. References 

Edinger, J.E. and Buchak, E.M., 1975, A hydrodynamic and two-dimensional reservoir model: 

the computational basis. Contract No. DACW27-74-C-0200, U.S. Army Engineer Division, 

Ohio River. Cincinnati, Ohio.

Edinger, J.E. and Buchak, E.M., 1982, Development, verification, and use of methods to model 

chemical and thermal processes for Lakes Mead and Powell, Phase I. Prepared for U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation.

Edinger, J.E., Buchak, E.M., and Merritt, D.H., 1984, Longitudinal-vertical hydrodynamics and 

transport with chemical equilibria for Lake Powell and Lake Mead, pp. 213-222 in R.H. 

French (ed.), Salinity in Watercourses and Reservoirs. Proceedings of the 1983 International 

Symposium on State-of-the-Art Control of Salinity, July 13-15, 1983, Salt Lake City, Utah. 

Butterworth Publishers, Boston.

Ferrari, R.L., 1988, 1986 Lake Powell survey: Denver, Colo., Bureau of Reclamation, report no. 

REC-ERC-88-6, 67 p. [Available from National Technical Information Service, Springfield, 

Va. as NTIS Report PB89-178818.]

Hart, R.J., and Sherman, K.M., 1996, Physical and chemical characteristics of Lake Powell at the 

forebay and outflow of Glen Canyon Dam, northeastern Arizona, 1990-91: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 96-4016, 78 p.

Hart, R.J., Taylor, H.E., Antweiler, R.C., Fisk, G.G., Anderson, G.M., Roth, D.A., Flynn, M.E., 

Peart, D.B., Truini, M., and Barber, L.B., 2005, Physical and chemical characteristics of 

Knowles, Forgotten, and Moqui Canyons, and effects of recreational use on water quality, 

Lake Powell, Arizona and Utah: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 

2004-5120, 116 p., http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2004/5120/pdf/sir2004-5120.pdf.
114

Hueftle, S.J., and Vernieu, W.S., 1998, Assessment of impacts of Glen Canyon Dam operations 

on water quality resources in Lake Powell and the Colorado River in Grand Canyon--

unpublished draft report: Flagstaff, Ariz., U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring 

and Research Center, 77 p.

Jones, J., Kennedy, R.H., Nestler, J., Robertson, D., Ruane, R.J., and Schladow, S.G., 2001, 

Final report of the Protocol Evaluation Panel (PEP) for the Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center Integrated Water Quality Program (IWQP): Flagstaff, Ariz., 50 

p., http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/09mar16/Attach_11.pdf.

Majeski, A.L., 2009, Fluvial systems tied together through a common base level: The 

geomorphic response of the Dirty Devil River, North Wash Creek, and the Colorado River to 

the rapid base level drop of Lake Powell: Logan, Utah State University, M.S. thesis 191p. 

(Available athttp://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/291)

Marzolf, G.R., Hart, R.J., and Stephens, D.W., 1998, Depth profiles of temperature, specific 

conductance, and oxygen concentrations in Lake Powell, Arizona-Utah, 1992-1995: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 97-835, 124 p.

Potter, L.D., and Drake, C.L., 1989, Lake Powell-Virgin flow by dynamo, University of New 

Mexico Press, ISBN: 0826311237, 311 p.

Pratson, L., Hughes-Clarke, J., Anderson, M., Gerber, T., Twichell, D., Ferrari, R., Nittrouer, C., 

Beaudoin, J., Granet, J., and Crockett, J., 2008, Timing and patterns of basin infilling as 

documented in Lake Powell during a drought, Geology, vol. 36 no. 11, pp. 843-846. 

(Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1130/G24733A.1)

Vernieu, W.S., 2009, Physical and chemical data for water in Lake Powell and from Glen 

Canyon Dam releases, Utah-Arizona, 1964-2008: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 471, 

23 p., http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/471/.

Wells, S.A., 2000, Hydrodynamic and water quality river basin modeling using CE-QUAL-W2 

in Ibarra-Berastegic, G., Brebbia, C., and Zannetti, P., eds. Development and Application of 

Computer Techniques to Environmental Studies, WIT Press, Boston, 195-204.

Wildman, R.A., Pratson, L.F., DeLeon, M., and Hering, J.G., 2011, Physical, chemical, and 

mineralogical characteristics of a reservoir sediment delta (Lake Powell, USA) and 

implications for water quality during low water level: Journal of Environmental Quality, v. 

40, p. 575–586, http://dx.doi.org/10.2134/jeq2010.0323.

Wildman, R.A. and Hering, J.G., 2011, Potential for release of sediment phosphorus to Lake 

Powell (Utah and Arizona) due to sediment resuspension during low water level: Lake and 

Reservoir Management, v. 27, no. 4, p. 365-375, 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07438141.2011.632705.

Williams, N.T., 2007, Modeling dissolved oxygen in Lake Powell using CE-QUAL-W2: Provo, 

Brigham Young University, M.S. thesis, 120 p.

Wurtsbaugh, W. and 6 others, 1992, A trophic gradient analysis of Lake Powell during spring 

runoff 1992. Report to the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. 217 p.
115

7. Budget 

 

Project C: Lake Powell 

Salaries $179,700

Traveling and Training $7,200 

Operating Expenses $33,800 

Logistics $0

GIS/RS/Electronics 

support (includes burden) $0

Cooperators (non-USGS) $0

USGS cooperators $0

USGS Burden $30,900

Total $251,600

FY 2013 Project C. Grand Total: 

$251,600

FY 2013

Project C: Lake Powell 

Water Quality Monitoring 

Salaries $185,100

Traveling and Training $7,400 

Operating Expenses $34,800 

Logistics $0

GIS/RS/Electronics 

support (includes burden) $0

Cooperators (non-USGS) $0

USGS cooperators $0

USGS Burden $31,800

Total $259,100

FY 2014

FY 2014 Project C. Grand Total: $259,100
116

Project D. 

Mainstem Humpback Chub Aggregation Studies and 

Metapopulation Dynamics 

1. Introduction 

William Persons, Fishery Biologist, USGS, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

David L. Ward, Fishery Biologist, USGS, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

D.R. VanHaverbeke, Fishery Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services

Scott Bonar, Fishery Biologist, USGS, University of Arizona

Karin Limburg, Professor, State University of New York, College of Environmental Science and 

Forestry

2. Project Summary 

Sampling mainstem humpback chub (Gila cypha) aggregations has been conducted 

periodically over the last decade including in 2002 through 2004, 2006, 2010, and 2011. Fish 

were sampled by hoop and trammel nets at aggregations first described by Valdez and Ryel 

(1995). These monitoring efforts provide catch per unit effort indices, but abundance estimates 

were infrequently made. This project proposes to increase sampling during FY13/14, following 

on the results of a pilot study in FY12. The purpose of this work is to improve monitoring 

techniques and provide estimates of humpback chub abundance in several mainstem 

aggregations. Continued monitoring of aggregations is required as part of the Non-Native Fish 

Control Environmental Assessment and associated Biological Opinion. Additionally, this project 

will improve our understanding of the impact of translocation efforts in humpback chub 

metapopulation dynamics. Basic information on status and trends of humpback chub outside of 

the Little Colorado River (LCR) aggregation is also desired by managers to assess impacts of 

operations of Glen Canyon Dam and other management actions on mainstem Colorado River 

humpback chub aggregations.

Although recent catch rate information indicates aggregations might be growing, absolute 

numbers of humpback chub at aggregations remain low relative to the aggregation that occurs at 

the confluence with the Little Colorado River (hereafter referred to as the LCR aggregation). We 

will also evaluate the growth potential of humpback chub at aggregations by quantifying the 

availability of food resources and measuring feeding habits. These data will be compared with 

similar data collected near the LCR (Project E: Humpback Chub (Gila cypha) Early Life History 

in and around the Little Colorado River). Given the importance of understanding the status and 

trends of these population segments, we believe an experimental approach is needed to develop a 

more quantitative method for monitoring these fish. We also propose research on otolith 

microchemistry of juvenile humpback chub captured at aggregations or of areas such as during 

backwater seining to assess whether these aggregations are supported by emigration of juvenile 

fish from the LCR or local spawning and recruitment. Collectively, the proposed research will 

yield a more rigorous aggregation monitoring program and will increase our understanding of 

the ecology of aggregations, including whether downstream reaches in Grand Canyon are 

capable of supporting self-sustaining populations of humpback chub.
117

3. Background 

3.1 Scientific Background 

Currently, the only known reproducing and self-sustaining population of humpback chub 

within Grand Canyon is in the LCR and in the mainstem Colorado River near its confluence with 

the LCR (Valdez and Ryel, 1995; Gloss and Coggins, 2005; Coggins and others, 2006). Because 

these fish appear to rely exclusively on the LCR for reproduction, these fish are at increased risk 

of catastrophic loss (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2008; Bureau of Reclamation, 2011).

Eight other aggregations of humpback chub were described in the mainstem Colorado 

River (Valdez and Ryel, 1995), and closed population model abundance estimates were 

generated for six of those aggregations (table 1). An aggregation was defined as “a consistent 

and disjunct group of fish with no significant exchange of individuals with other aggregations, as 

indicated by recapture of Passive Integrated Transponder (PIT) tagged juveniles and adults and 

movement of radio-tagged adults” (Valdez and Ryel, 1995). Recent data collected at 

aggregations and throughout the Colorado River, suggest that there is substantial movement 

among some of the originally identified aggregations, and they may not all meet the original 

definition of an aggregation. 

Table 1. Locations of nine mainstem aggregations, adult (> 200 mm) humpback chub abundance 

(N) and 95% confidence interval (CI) estimated in 1993 by (Valdez and Ryel, 1995).

Aggregation River Miles N 95% CI

30-Mile 29.8 - 31.3 52 24-136

Little Colorado River Inflow 57.0 - 65.4 3,482 2,682-4,281

Lava Chuar to Hance1 65.7 - 76.3

Bright Angel Creek Inflow 83.8 - 92.2

Shinumo Creek Inflow 108.1 - 108.6 57 31-149

Stephen Aisle 114.9 - 120.1

Middle Granite Gorge 126.1 - 129.0 98 74-153

Havasu Creek Inflow 155.8 - 156.7 13 5-70

Pumpkin Spring 212.5 - 213.2 5 4-16

1

Recent examination of PIT tag recaptures indicated that humpback chub in the Lava Chuar to 

Hance aggregation mix with humpback chub in the LCR aggregation, and thus the two locations 

could be considered the same aggregation.
118

Only the LCR aggregation is known to successfully reproduce and recruit into the 

spawning population (Coggins and others, 2006). This aggregation has been sampled extensively 

with regular reporting of its status and trends (Coggins and others, 2006; Coggins and Walters, 

2009). The remaining eight aggregations were sampled during 1990-93, again in 2002-04, and in 

2006 (Valdez and Ryel, 1995; Ackerman, 2008). In 2010 and 2011, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service conducted surveys to assess their status and trends (VanHaverbeke and Persons, 2012, 

unpublished). The abundance of humpback chub at aggregations appears to be increasing, but 

current monitoring methods only provide catch rate indices that have a high degree of 

uncertainty. Recent synthesis of data suggests that capture probability estimates pooled over all 

aggregations may be used to derive a relatively unbiased estimate of overall (summed over 

aggregations) humpback chub abundance (C. Walters, pers. comm.)

Annual humpback chub mainstem aggregation monitoring was specified in the 2011 

Environmental Assessment for Non-native Fish Control Downstream from Glen Canyon Dam 

(Bureau of Reclamation, 2011) and was funded in FY10 and FY11/12 (Bureau of Reclamation 

and U.S. Geological Survey Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, 2010). However, a 

long-term monitoring program has not been developed for the project, and a thorough synthesis 

of existing aggregation data has not been completed or published. We will produce a long-term 

monitoring plan for sampling humpback chub aggregations by the end of FY14.

The metapopulation dynamics, including movement among aggregations, of chub in the 

LCR inflow aggregation and the rest of the mainstem Colorado River are poorly understood. 

Adult humpback chub generally have high site fidelity, i.e., PIT tagged adults are usually 

recaptured in the same aggregation where they were tagged (table 2), (Paukert and others, 2006; 

Coggins, 2007, 2008; Coggins and Walters, 2009). However, dispersal of juvenile and subadult 

(age 1-4) humpback chub is poorly understood. The natal origins of humpback chub at 

downstream aggregations are uncertain. Fish at aggregations may be dispersing from the LCR as 

juveniles or subadults (ages 1-3). Alternatively, humpback chub at aggregations may be derived 

from local spawning and recruitment. Humpback chub have been reported to initiate spawning at 

about 16° C (Hamman, 1982). Mainstem water temperatures vary depending on release 

temperature from Glen Canyon Dam, and water can warm to 16°C at River Mile 65 during some 

years (Wright and others, 2008). Understanding if the mainstem Colorado River can support selfsustaining populations of humpback chub will help inform future experimentation conducted as 

part of the adaptive management process. However, the ability of humpback chub females to 

produce viable gametes in the mainstem Colorado River at mainstem aggregations is unknown. 
119

Table 2. Nights of sampling, sampling location, and gear (T=trammel net, H=baited hoop net) at 

fixed sites (aggregations) and at stratified random sites (outside of aggregations), spring and fall, 

FY13 and FY14.

Spring Trip: 

Fixed site 

and stratified 

random 

CPUE 

sampling

Fall Trip: 

Fixed site 

markrecapture and 

CPUE 

sampling Total

Aggregation Gear FY13 FY14 FY13 FY14 FY13 FY14

Outside of aggregations T,H 14 14 4 4 18 18

30-Mile T,H 1 2 1 2 2

Little Colorado River 

Inflow H 1 1 2 2 3 3

Bright Angel Creek 

Inflow T,H 1 1 1 1 2 2

Shinumo Creek Inflow H 1 1 2 2 3 3

Stephen Aisle T,H 1 1 2 2 2

Middle Granite Gorge T,H 1 1 2 1 3 2

Havasu Creek Inflow T,H 1 1 2 2 3 3

Pumpkin Spring T,H 1 1 1 2 2 3

Total nights 21 21 17 17 38 38

3.2. Key Monitoring and Research Questions Addressed in this project 

This project directly addresses the following Strategic Science Questions (SSQs), Core 

Monitoring Information Needs (CMINs), and Research Information Needs (RINs) previously 

identified by the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP).

Primary SSQ addressed:

• 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 and juvenile stages in the mainstem, or by changes in growth and 

maturation in the adult population as influenced by mainstem conditions?

• SSQ 1-2. 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?

The GCDAMP Science Advisors articulated the following summary science questions addressed 

by this project:
120

• SA 1. What are the most limiting factors to successful humpback chub adult 

recruitment in the mainstem: spawning success, predation on young of year and 

juveniles, habitat (water, temperature), pathogens, adult maturation, food availability, 

competition?

• SA 2. What are the most probably positive and negative impacts of warming the 

Colorado River on humpback chub adults and juveniles?

Information Needs Addressed

• CMIN 2.1.2. Determine and track recruitment of all life stages, abundance, and 

distribution of humpback chub in the Colorado River.

• CMIN 2.4.1. Determine and track the abundance and distribution of nonnative 

predatory fish species in the Colorado River.

• CMIN 2.6.1. Determine and track the abundance and distribution of flannelmouth 

sucker, bluehead sucker, and speckled dace populations in the Colorado River 

ecosystem.

• RIN 2.4.2. Determine if suppression of nonnative predators and competitors increases 

native fish populations.

• 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?

• RIN 2.4.4. What are the target population levels, body size, and age structure for 

nonnative fish in the Colorado River ecosystem that limit their levels to those 

commensurate with the viability of native fish populations?

3.3 Key management goals and objectives addressed in this project 

• Goal 2: Maintain or attain a viable population of existing native fish, remove 

jeopardy for humpback chub and razorback sucker, and prevent adverse modification 

to their critical habitats.

In August 2004, the GCDAMP Adaptive Management Work Group reviewed these goals 

and identified priority questions. This project addresses the top priority question:

• Priority 1: Why are humpback chub not thriving, and what can we do about it? How 

many humpback chub are there and how are they doing? 

4. Proposed Work 

4.1. Project Elements 

Project Element D.1. Improve aggregation sampling to develop more rigorous approaches to monitor 

aggregations (includes ongoing monitoring) ($199,500) 

D.R. VanHaverbeke, Fishery Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

William Persons, Fishery Biologist, USGS/GCMRC

Brian Healy, Fishery Biologist, NPS, Grand Canyon National Park
121

We propose increasing our sampling effort at a subset of aggregations in both FY13 and 

FY14. This additional effort may be needed to estimate population sizes of humpback chub at 

several aggregations in order to estimate capture probability. A second sampling trip will be 

conducted in July to assess humpback chub relative abundance in areas of the river outside of the 

defined aggregations. Information from this study will allow us to evaluate the use of catch per 

unit effort indices as a tool to monitor relative abundance of fish in aggregations and to 

determine if humpback chub distribution has increased. Preliminary work synthesizing existing 

aggregation data as well as initial mark-recapture efforts at the aggregations is already underway 

and is funded in FY12. In addition, recent synthesis of data suggests that we may be able to pool 

capture probability estimates over all aggregations, and use the pooled capture probability to 

derive a relatively unbiased estimate of overall (summed over aggregations) humpback chub 

abundance.

We will investigate use of mark-recapture methods during FY12 at the Shinumo Inflow 

aggregation (table 1) and will include sampling at translocation tributary inflow aggregations 

Havasu and Shinumo Creeks during FY13/14 (table 3). Shinumo Inflow aggregation sampling 

will be conducted twice in September, 2012: the initial “marking” sampling event will be 

conducted by the National Park Service/Bureau of Reclamation during the September Shinumo 

Creek translocation monitoring trip with the potential for sampling over 3-5 nights (number of 

net sets to be determined), and the recapture sampling effort will be conducted during the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service/GCMRC aggregation monitoring trip. No trammel nets will be used 

during this effort to investigate whether baited hoop nets can be used to collect sufficient 

capture-recapture data to infer abundance and capture probabilities. In addition to improving 

abundance estimates, work at these sites will improve our understanding of the role of 

translocations in humpback chub metapopulation dynamics. For example, coordinated humpback 

chub sampling in the mainstem and in Shinumo Creek in the future may allow for improved 

estimates of survival of translocated fish, as well as PIT tag antenna detection efficiency 

estimates through a multistate capture-recapture model (Horton and others, 2011) if 

translocations of humpback chub into Shinumo Creek continue. 

During FY13 and FY14, three or four of the aggregations, exclusive of the LCR, will be 

sampled on two successive nights to attempt closed population estimates using mark-recapture 

methods; these efforts will also yield a more precise estimate of capture probabilities. The 

current approach to monitoring, which involves one or two nights of sampling at each 

aggregation, only provides catch rate indices (i.e., fish captured per hour). Because of the large 

uncertainty in capture probabilities (the probability of catching an individual fish), the inferences 

that can be drawn from the current monitoring program are very limited.

Because of concerns about potential impacts of increased sampling on aggregations, we 

propose sampling different aggregations in FY13 than in FY14. Thus, all aggregations will be 

sampled during the two year budget period. Sampling will be reduced in later years. With a 

better understanding of capture probabilities and associated variation at aggregations, long-term 

monitoring in later years should involve one or two nights of sampling at each aggregation to 

make absolute abundance estimates based on pooled capture probabilities. 

A stratified random sampling design will be used for the second sampling trips in FY13 

and FY14 to assess humpback chub relative abundance in other areas of the river (table 3). It is 

likely that as humpback chub abundance in the mainstem Colorado River increases, the species 

may not merely increase in abundance at specific locations, but may colonize new habitats in the 
122

river. Baited hoop nets and trammel nets will be fished in sections of the river not associated 

with known aggregations.

To address concerns about over handling humpback chub, trammel nets will be 

discontinued in areas where hoop nets can be fished effectively. Trammel nets will be checked 

every two hours, they will not be fished in water warmer than 16° C, and they will not be fished 

in the same location for more than one night in a row.

This project will result in the following products:

• FY13 and FY14: Capture probability estimates to allow inferences about abundance 

estimates to be drawn from a long-term monitoring program of catch-per-unit.

• FY13: Catch per unit effort estimates at four aggregations (30 mile, LCR, Shinumo 

Creek, and Havasu Creek).

• FY14: Catch per unit effort estimates at four aggregations (Shinumo Creek, Havasu 

Creek, Middle Granite Gorge, Pumpkin Springs)

• FY13 and FY14: Estimates of humpback chub abundance at mainstem aggregations 

exclusive of the LCR aggregation.

• FY14. Long-term monitoring plan and protocols to guide future, cost-effective 

monitoring program published in the peer reviewed literature.

• One Administrative report

• One article submitted to a peer review journal
123

Table 3. Tag and recapture location for humpback chub recaptured more than 13.9 days after 

tagging, LCR and mainstem Colorado River, 1991 – 2011. Numbers in bold and italic represent 

fish recaptured in the same reach as they were tagged in. Numbers above the diagonal indicate 

downstream movement whereas numbers below the diagonal indicate upstream movement. 

Numbers do not represent individual fish because some fish were recaptured more than once. 

Does not include fish translocated to Shinumo Creek. 30M = 30 Mile aggregation, LCR = Little 

Colorado River, LCR reach = Little Colorado River mainstem aggregation, LCH = Lava Chuar 

to Hance aggregation, BAC = Bright Angel Creek aggregation, SHI = Shinumo Creek 

aggregation, STE = Stephen Aisle aggregation, MGG = Middle Granite Gorge aggregation, 

HAV = Havasu Creek aggregation, PUM = Pumpkin Spring aggregation.

Location Recaptured (rkm)

Location Tagged 

(rkm)

74 -

77.3 

(30M) LCR

117.7 -

131.4 

(LCR 

reach)

131.4 -

151.5 

(LCH)

160.9 -

174.4 

(BAC)

199.5 -

203 

(SHI)

210.9 -

220.4 

(STE)

227.2 -

233.6 

(MGG)

276.7 -

279 

(HAV)

368 -

372.2 

(PUM) Total

74 - 77.3 (30M) 34 1 2 - - - - - - - 37 

LCR 2 28,730 1,659 60 2 1 - 4 2 - 30,460 

117.7 - 131.4 (LCR 

reach) 1 1,438 460 8 1 - - 1 2 - 1,911 

131.4 - 151.5 (LCH) - 39 10 8 - - - - - - 57 

160.9 - 174.4 (BAC) - 1 - - - - - - - - 1 

199.5 - 203 (SHI) - - - - - 9 1 2 - - 12 

210.9 - 220.4 (STE) - - 1 - - - 1 2 - - 4 

227.2 - 233.6 (MGG) - - 1 - - - 1 86 1 - 89 

276.7 - 279 (HAV) - 4 - - - - - - 6 - 10 

368 - 372.2 (PUM) - - - - - - - - - 2 2 

Total 37 30,213 2,133 76 3 10 3 95 11 2 32,583 

Project Element D.2. Natal origins of Humpback Chub, adult condition and reproductive potential ($167,400) 

We do not know if the mainstem Colorado River under current dam operations can 

support self-sustaining populations of humpback chub. This knowledge gap makes it very 

difficult to plan management actions and future dam operations aimed at conservation of 

humpback chub. The first step in determining if the mainstem Colorado River provides the 

necessary elements for humpback chub to complete their life cycle is to evaluate if existing 

mainstem water temperatures are warm enough for successful gamete development. Fish 

reproductive cycles are separated into the growth (gametogenesis) and maturation phase (oocyte 

maturation and spermiation), both of which are influenced by water temperature (Mylonas,

2010). Disruptions in male and female reproductive cycles because of cold water have been 
124

documented for other species (Rideout and others, 2000), and stenothermic environments that 

lack seasonal variation have been shown to interrupt egg production in some fish (Robinson and 

others, 2011). Mainstem water temperatures vary from year to year depending on release 

temperature from Glen Canyon Dam (Project C:Water-Quality Monitoring of Lake Powell and 

Glen Canyon Dam Releases), and water can warm to 16° C at River Mile 65 during some years 

(Wright and others, 2008). Humpback chub have been reported to initiate spawning at about 16° 

C (Hamman, 1982). However, the ability of humpback chub females to produce viable gametes 

in the mainstem Colorado River at mainstem aggregations is unknown. 

If water temperatures are adequate for female humpback chub to mature gametes yet no 

viable gametes are found, it would indicate other factors such as nutritional requirements are not 

being met (Toucher, 2010). If female humpback chub are meeting thermal and nutritional 

requirements to produce and mature gametes in the various mainstem aggregations, then the next 

step is to determine if those eggs hatch and if the larval humpback chub survive. By 

systematically examining each life stage of humpback chub development in the mainstem 

Colorado River, we can isolate factors that may be limiting mainstem survival and recruitment 

and focus management actions on those limiting life stages.

This study will require additional handling of humpback chub, but efforts will be made to 

minimize any harmful effects of handling. Hoop nets will be used instead of trammel nets 

whenever possible, and trammel nets will not be used if mainstem water temperatures are above 

16° C to minimize capture related mortality (Hunt and others, 2012). Procedures that require 

additional manipulation of captured fish will not be conducted at the same aggregation more than 

once per year, and captured fish will be maintained in oxygenated coolers at salinity of 3.0 ppt to 

minimize capture/handling related stress.

Project Element D.2.1. Natal origins of humpback chub at aggregations by otolith microchemistry 

Karin Limburg, Professor, State University of New York, College of Environmental Science and 

Forestry

William Persons, Fishery Biologist, USGS-GCMRC

D.R. Van Haverbeke, Fishery Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Brian Healy, Fishery Biologist, NPS, Grand Canyon National Park

Pilot work done by Limburg and Hayden in 2010 revealed that carbon stable isotopic 

ratios can be used to differentiate water samples from the mainstem Colorado River and many 

tributaries to the Colorado River. Sixteen humpback chub otoliths were also analyzed using 

Secondary Ion Mass Spectroscopy (SIMS) (K. Limburg, pers. comm). Results from this pilot 

work revealed that carbon and oxygen isotopic ratios in the otoliths can be used to discriminate 

where the fish were located at various life stages. Determining the natal origin of fish that inhabit 

the aggregations has important implications for management of humpback chub. Positively 

linking natal origin of fish to either the LCR, or the mainstem, or other Grand Canyon tributaries 

will help to inform management actions. If all of the fish in the downstream aggregations are 

from the LCR, then management actions aimed at increasing survival of downstream dispersing 

individuals may be beneficial to the humpback chub population in Grand Canyon. If certain age 

classes show signs of mainstem origin then we may be able to link dam operations and water 

temperatures to times when mainstem recruitment occurred.

We propose to capture 30-40 young-of-the-year humpback chub annually from up to 3 

downstream aggregations and from locations not associated with aggregations, as well as from 

the LCR and Havasu Creek and sacrifice them for otolith microchemistry evaluation. Surrogate 
125

species will be tested in FY12 to confirm that fish resident in Havasu Creek can be distinguished 

from LCR fish. Specimens will be preserved in the field and provided to a Cooperator for otolith 

extraction and analysis. A PhD. Student will be supported for two years with a Cooperative 

Agreement with SUNY.

This project will result in a final report and recommendation for use of techniques as part 

of long term monitoring of mainstem Colorado River humpback chub recruitment dynamics 

(FY14). A dissertation with a chapter as a peer review publication detailing use of techniques to 

identify natal origins of humpback chub from the mainstem Colorado River downstream of the 

LCR (FY14).

Project Element D.2.2. Egg maturation studies using Ultrasonic Imaging and Ovaprim® 

David L. Ward, Fishery Biologist, USGS-GCMRC

Scott Bonar, Fishery Biologist, USGS and University of Arizona (MS student project)

D.R. Van Haverbeke, Fishery Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Brian Healy, Fishery Biologist, NPS, Grand Canyon National Park

Ultrasonic images have been used in fisheries research to non-lethally determine sex and 

maturational status of many fishes (Evans and others, 2004). Use of ultrasonic imagery may help 

resolve questions about stage of maturity of adult humpback chub in mainstem aggregations. We 

will collect ultrasound images of captive reared fish at fish hatcheries to refine methods and 

techniques. Ultrasound images will then be collected from a small sample of adult fish from the 

LCR, and at mainstem aggregations to evaluate the ability of female humpback chub to produce 

viable gametes in mainstem aggregations. 

Following development and testing of ultrasonic methods at hatcheries and in the LCR, a 

small number of adult humpback chub (<30 fish) will be captured at up to three mainstem 

aggregations, exclusive of the LCR inflow, using hoopnets. Fish will be non-lethally scanned 

with ultrasound to evaluate the status of gamete development. If females with developed eggs are 

encountered, a subset of these individuals (<10 fish) will be injected with Ovaprim®, a synthetic 

hormone used to artificially induce spawning in fish. If the females have eggs that are close to 

being mature, Ovaprim® will allow those eggs to be manually extruded within 2 days. If females 

do not have eggs that are close to maturation, it will have no effect on the fish. Ultrasound and 

Ovaprim® methods will be developed and tested in the LCR in FY13, and if proven useful, will 

be used on humpback chub from mainstem aggregations in FY14. Fish will be held in the river in 

holding pens following hormone injection and subsequently released. In a survey of 40,000 fish 

of 25 different species (mostly cyprinids), mortality after handling and injection with Ovaprim® 

was 1.3% (Hill and others, 2009). These hormone injections on fish known to possess eggs using 

ultrasound will be conducted on less than 10 adult fish per year from 2-3 mainstem aggregations. 

If eggs are expelled from any females, they will be incubated in the laboratory to evaluate 

hatching success. Use of ultrasound combined with Ovaprim® injections at different times of 

year over the space of 2-3 years, will allow researchers to assesses if the mainstem Colorado 

River conditions are adequate for females to mature and ripen eggs. 

This project will produce a Final report/MS thesis chapter suitable for publication 

presenting results of Ultrasound and Ovaprim studies (FY14).
126

5. Productivity from Past Work 

Clark, B.C., Persons, W.R., and Ward, D.L., 2010, Little Colorado River lower 1,200-meter 

long-term fish monitoring, 1987–2008, in Melis, T.S., Hamill, J.F., Bennett, G.E., Coggins, 

L.G., Jr., Grams, P.E., Kennedy, T.A., Kubly, D.M., and Ralston, B.E., eds., Proceedings of 

the Colorado River Basin Science and Resource Management Symposium, November 18-20, 

2008, Scottsdale, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010-

5135, 256-260 p., accessed on July 15, 2010, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5135/.

Kondolf, G. M., S.S. Cook, H.R. Maddux and W.R. Persons. 1989. Spawning gravels of 

Rainbow Trout in Glen and Grand Canyons, Arizona. Journal of the Arizona-Nevada 

Academy of Science 23: 19-28. 

Linder, C.M., R.A. Cole, T.L. Hoffnagle, B. Persons, and A. Choudhury. 2012. Parasites of 

fishes in the Colorado River and selected tributaries in Grand Canyon, Arizona. Journal of 

Parasitology 98(1) pp 117-127.

Makinster, A.S., Persons, W.R., and Avery, L.A., 2011, Status and trends of the rainbow trout 

population in the Lees Ferry Reach of the Colorado River downstream from Glen Canyon 

Dam, Arizona, 1991–2009: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2011-

5015, 17 p., http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2011/5015/.

Makinster, A.S., Persons, W.R., Avery, L.A., and Bunch, A.J., 2010, Colorado River fish 

monitoring in Grand Canyon, Arizona--2000 to 2009 summary: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 2010-1246, 26 p., http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1246/.

McKinney, T., R. S. Rogers, and W.R. Persons. 1999. Effects of flow reductions on aquatic biota 

of the Colorado River below Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona. North American Journal of 

Fisheries Management 19: 984-991. 

McKinney, T., W.R. Persons and R.S. Rogers. 1999. Ecology of flannelmouth sucker in the 

Lee's Ferry tailwater, Colorado River, Arizona. Great Basin Naturalist. 59: 259-265. 

McKinney, T., R.S. Rogers, A.D. Ayers, and W.R. Persons. 1999. Lotic community responses in 

the Lees Ferry Reach. The Controlled Flood in Grand Canyon Geophysical Monograph 110: 

249-258. 

McKinney, T., D. W. Speas, R.S. Rogers and William R. Persons. 2001. Rainbow trout in a 

regulated river below Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona, following increased minimum flows and 

reduced discharge variability. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 21: 216-

222. 

Persons, W. R. and R. V. Bulkley. 1982. Feeding activity and spawning time of striped bass in 

the Colorado River Inlet, Lake Powell, Utah. North American Journal of Fisheries 

Management 4: 403-408. 

Ward, D.L., M.R. Childs and W.R. Persons. 2008. PIT tag retention and tag induced mortality in 

juvenile bonytail and Gila chub. Fishereies Management and Ecology. Vol 15(2) 159-161.

6. References 

Ackerman, M.W., 2008, 2006 native fish monitoring activities in the Colorado River, Grand 

Canyon: Flagstaff, Ariz., SWCA Environmental Consultants, report to Grand Canyon 

Monitoring and Research Center, cooperative agreement 04WRAG0011.
127

Bureau of Reclamation, 2011, Environmental assessment--non-native fish control downstream 

from Glen Canyon Dam: Salt Lake City, Utah, Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado 

Region, 102 p. + appendices, http://www.usbr.gov/uc/envdocs/ea/gc/nnfc/NNFC-EA.pdf.

Bureau of Reclamation, and U.S. Geological Survey Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research 

Center, 2010, Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program biennial budget and work 

plan--fiscal years 2011-12: Salt Lake City, Utah, Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado 

Regional Office, 250 p. + appendices.

Coggins, L.G., Jr., 2007, Abundance trends and status of the Little Colorado River population of 

humpback chub--an update considering data from 1989-2006: U.S. Geological Survey OpenFile Report 2007-1402, 28 p., http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2007/1402/.

Coggins, L.G., Jr., 2008, Active adaptive management for native fish conservation in the Grand 

Canyon--implementation and evaluation: Gainseville, University of Florida, Ph.D. 

dissertation, 173 p.

Coggins, L.G., Jr., Pine, W.E., III, Walters, C.J., Van Haverbeke, D.R., Ward, D., and Johnstone, 

H.C., 2006, Abundance trends and status of the Little Colorado River population of 

humpback chub: North American Journal of Fisheries Management, v. 26, no. 1, p. 233-245, 

http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/06may24/Attach_06f.pdf.

Coggins, L.G., Jr., and Walters, C.J., 2009, Abundance trends and status of the Little Colorado 

River population of humpback chub--an update considering data from 1989-2008: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 2009-1075, 18 p., http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1075/.

Evans, A.F., Fitzpatrick, M.S., and Siddens, L.K., 2004, Use of ultrasound imaging and steroid 

concentrations to identify maturational status in adult steelhead: North American Fisheries 

Management, v. 24, no. 3, p. 967-978, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1577/M03-

112.1.

Gloss, S.P., and Coggins, L.G., 2005, Fishes of the Grand Canyon, 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, 33-56 p., http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1282/.

Hamman, R.L., 1982, Spawning and culture of humpback chub: The Progressive Fish-Culturist, 

v. 44, no. 4, p. 213-216, http://afsjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1577/1548-

8659(1982)44%5B213:SACOHC%5D2.0.CO%3B2.

Hill, J.E., Kilgore, K.H., Pouder, D.B., Powell, J.F.F., Watson, C.A., and Yanong, R.P.E., 2009, 

Survey of Ovaprim use as a spawning aid in ornamental fishes in the United States as 

administered through the University of Florida tropical aquaculture laboratory: North 

American Journal of Aquaculture, v. 71, no. 3, p. 206-209, 

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1577/A08-020.1.

Horton, G.E., Letcher, B.H., and Kendall, W.L., 2011, A multistate capture-recapture modeling 

strategy to separate true survival from permanent emigration for a passive integrated 

transponder tagged population of stream fish: Transactions of the American Fisheries 

Society, v. 140, no. 2, p. 320-333, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00028487.2011.567861.

Hunt, T.A., Ward, D.L., Propper, C.R., and Gibb, A.C., 2012, Effects of capture by trammel net 

on Colorado River native fishes: Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management, v. 3, no. 1, p. 

(online), http://www.fwspubs.org/doi/abs/10.3996/122011-JFWM-070.

Mylonas, C.C., Foster, A., and Zanuy, S., 2010, Broodstock management and hormonal 

manipulations of fish reproduction: General and Comparitive Endocrinology, v. 165, no. 3, p. 

516-534, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ygcen.2009.03.007.
128

Paukert, C.P., Coggins, L.G., Jr., and Flaccus, C.E., 2006, Distribution and movement of 

humpback chub in the Colorado River, Grand Canyon, based on recaptures: Transactions of 

the American Fisheries Society, v. 135, no. 2, p. 539-544, 

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1577/T05-204.1.

Rideout, R.M., Burton, M.P.M., and Rose, G.A., 2000, Observations on mass atresia and skipped 

spawning in northern Atlantic cod, from Smith Sound, Newfoundland: Journal of Fish 

Biology, v. 57, no. 6, p. 1429-1440, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1095-

8649.2000.tb02222.x/abstract.

Robinson, D.M., Konkin-Garcia, T., Espinedo, C.M., Gabor, C.R., and Aspbury, A.S., 2011, 

Seasonal effects on female fecundity and male sperm availability in a thermally stable 

temperate population of sailfin mollies (Poecilia latipinna): The American Midland 

Naturalist, v. 166, no. 2, p. 394-403, http://dx.doi.org/10.1674/0003-0031-166.2.394.

Toucher, D.R., 2010, Fatty acid requirements in ontogeny of marine and freshwater fish: 

Aquaculture Research, v. 41, no. 5, p. 717-732, 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2109.2008.02150.x/abstract.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2008, Final biological opinion for the operation of Glen Canyon 

Dam: Phoenix, Ariz., submitted to Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region, 

AESO/SE 22410-1993-F-167R1, 88 p., http://www.usbr.gov/uc/envdocs/bo/FinalGCDBO2-

26-08.pdf.

Valdez, R.A., and Ryel, R.J., 1995, Life history and ecology of the humpback chub (Gila cypha) 

in the Colorado River, Grand Canyon, Arizona--final report: Logan, Utah, BIO/WEST, Inc., 

submitted to Bureau of Reclamation, contract no. 0-CS-40-09110, technical report no. TR250-08, 328 p.

Wright, S.A., Anderson, C.R., and Voichick, N., 2008, A simplified water temperature model for 

the Colorado River below Glen Canyon Dam: River Research and Applications, v. 25, no. 6, 

p. 675-686. (Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/rra.1179.)
129

7. Budget 

Project Element D.1. 

Aggregation Sampling

Project Element D.2. Natal 

Origins of Humpback Chub, 

adult condition, and 

reproductive potential

Salaries $21,900 Salaries $42,000

Traveling and Training $0 Traveling and Training $1,000 

Operating Expenses $6,000 Operating Expenses $13,500 

Logistics $74,800 Logistics $0

GIS/RS/Electronics support $0 GIS/RS/Electronics support $0

Cooperators (non-USGS) $80,000 Cooperators (non-USGS) $100,000

USGS cooperators $0 USGS cooperators $0

USGS Burden $16,800 USGS Burden $10,900 

Total $199,500 Total $167,400

FY 2013 Project D. Gross Total: 

$366,900

FY 2013
130

Project Element D.1. 

Aggregation Sampling

Project Element D.2. Natal 

Origins of Humpback Chub, 

adult condition, and 

reproductive potential

Salaries $22,500 Salaries $35,200

Traveling and Training $0 Traveling and Training $1,000 

Operating Expenses $6,200 Operating Expenses $6,900 

Logistics $77,000 Logistics $0

GIS/RS/Electronics support $0 GIS/RS/Electronics support $0

Cooperators (non-USGS) $82,400 Cooperators (non-USGS) $103,000

USGS cooperators $0 USGS cooperators $0

USGS Burden $17,800 USGS Burden $9,200 

Total $205,900 Total $155,300

FY 2014 Project D. Gross Total: 

$361,200

FY 2014
131

Project E. 

Humpback Chub Early Life History in and Around the Little 

Colorado River 

1. Investigators 

Charles Yackulic, Research Statistician, USGS, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

Theodore Kennedy, Research Aquatic Biologist, USGS, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center

Colden Baxter, Associate Professor, Idaho State University

Bill Pine, Associate Professor, University of Florida

Dennis Stone, Fishery Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Craig Stricker, Research Biologist, USGS—Fort Collins Science Center

Randy VanHaverbeke, Fishery Biologist, US Fish and Wildlife Service

David Walters, Research Ecologist, USGS—Fort Collins Science Center

Rich Wanty, Research Chemist, USGS—Fort Collins Science Center

Mike Yard, Fishery Biologist, USGS, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

2. Project Summary 

In FY13/14, we will: (a) estimate growth, survival, and movement of juvenile humpback 

chub in the Little Colorado River (LCR) by marking young-of-year humpback chub (Gila cypha) 

each year in the LCR in July, (b) describe food web structure and assess the potential for food 

limitation within the LCR, and (c) conduct data analysis and modeling that will integrate 

findings from the above efforts and ongoing standardized monitoring to determine the relative 

roles of LCR hydrology, intraspecific and interspecific interactions, and mainstem conditions in 

humpback chub juvenile life history and adult recruitment. These new research efforts will 

address a suite of questions that have arisen based on insights gained from standardized 

monitoring conducted since 2000 and new findings from the mainstem monitoring of native and 

nonnative fishes near the LCR confluence-Juvenile Chub Monitoring (Project Element F.3.):

1. To what extent do survival and growth in the LCR aggregation vary annually and 

spatially (i.e., mainstem vs. LCR downstream of Chute Falls vs. LCR upstream of Chute 

Falls)?

2. What are the drivers of observed variation in survival and growth? Specifically, to what 

extent are endogenous (e.g., intraspecific predation and competition for food) versus 

exogenous factors (e.g., interspecific competition and predation, mainstem conditions—

including dam operations—and variation in LCR hydrology, etc.) responsible for 

temporal and spatial variation in survival and growth?

3. To what extent does outmigration of humpback chub from the LCR vary over time? 

Prior to the Near Shore Ecology (NSE) project (2009-2011), our understanding of variation 

in humpback chub early life history was limited to back-calculations of cohort strength (# of fish 

surviving to adulthood from a given birth year) derived from abundance estimates of four year-
132

old fish (Coggins and others, 2006; Coggins and Walters, 2009). The life history parameters (i.e., 

direct estimates of survival and growth for juvenile humpback chub rearing in specific locations) 

provided by NSE-style sampling are more germane to evaluating ongoing adaptive management 

experimentation because population dynamics of many fish species are driven by changes in 

growth or survival at early life stages (Walters and Martell, 2004). Furthermore, direct estimates 

of survival and growth for juvenile humpback chub are more sensitive to yearly changes in, for 

example, dam operations or LCR hydrology, than the indirect estimates of survival and growth 

derived from back-calculations in the Age-Structured Mark Recapture (ASMR) model (Coggins 

and Walters, 2009). 

The survival rate estimates for juvenile humpback chub in the mainstem measured by the 

NSE project were higher than most scientists anticipated (Knowledge Assessment, 2011; 2012). 

However, the NSE project occurred during a period when water temperatures, rainbow trout 

(Oncorhynchus mykiss) abundances, and LCR conditions were all favorable to native fish and 

fairly consistent among years. Continuation of NSE sampling in FY12 and beyond will allow 

scientists to determine the impacts of increasing rainbow trout abundances and decreasing water 

temperature, which are anticipated in FY12, on juvenile humpback chub survival and growth in 

the mainstem. However, even these estimates of juvenile humpback chub survival and growth in 

the mainstem under a new set of conditions will be partially confounded by un-described 

variation in LCR conditions unless additional primary research studies in the LCR are initiated. 

The NSE project also found that growth rates for juvenile humpback chub were higher in the 

LCR relative to the mainstem during summer months. However, the opposite was true in the 

fall—growth rates were higher in the mainstem than in the LCR. This finding—that growth rates 

in the mainstem were at times higher than in the LCR—also came as a surprise to many 

scientists. Yet, interpretation of these differences in growth rates is not straightforward, because 

densities in one habitat—the LCR—may be dependent on conditions there (e.g., density of adult 

humpback chub and other native species, food availability, etc.), but juvenile abundance in the 

LCR might also be a function of conditions in the mainstem (i.e., warm water, low non-native 

abundances, etc.). 

Humpback chub translocations upstream of Chute Falls have also yielded insights about 

early life history parameters. Growth rates for juvenile humpback chub rearing upstream of 

Chute Falls are two times higher than growth rates of juvenile humpback chub rearing in the 

LCR downstream of Chute Falls. It is worth noting that these differences in juvenile humpback 

chub growth within the LCR (upstream vs. downstream of Chute Falls) are actually larger than 

the differences in juvenile humpback chub growth between the downstream part of the LCR and 

the mainstem (Knowledge Assessment, 2011; 2012). 

Standardized monitoring indicates that fall juvenile abundances in the LCR vary strongly 

among years (VanHaverbeke and others, 2012; Knowledge Assessment presentations, 2011; 

2012). During the NSE project, fall LCR juvenile abundances were consistently high, but there 

have been years in the recent past (i.e., 2002 and 2006) when LCR juvenile abundances in the 

fall were very low. These years—2002 and 2006—may correspond to either higher or lower 

juvenile abundances in the mainstem, depending on whether variation in juvenile survival in the 

LCR or outmigration from the LCR is the primary lever affecting fall LCR juvenile abundances. 

Put another way, low fall abundances in the LCR might be a leading indicator of a failed birth 

year because of poor juvenile survival in the LCR, or low fall abundances may simply reflect 

decreased use of the LCR by juveniles because of forced (LCR flooding) or purposeful migration 
133

into the mainstem Colorado River. Additional primary research studies in the LCR are needed to 

resolve these new questions and associated uncertainties. 

3. Background 

Population dynamics for many fish species are driven by changes in survival at early life 

stages (Walters and Martell, 2004); survival of adult fish is less affected by changes in 

environmental conditions than is the survival of small juveniles, because adult fish have larger 

energy reserves that can be used to survive occasional periods of unfavorable environmental 

conditions. Larger, adult fish are also less vulnerable to predation than juveniles. Differences in 

survival of juvenile humpback chub among years are likely responsible for long-term trends in 

adult humpback chub abundances, because adult survival rates over the last 20 years have been 

high and stable through time (Coggins and Walters, 2009). This is why previous and ongoing 

adaptive management experimentation has been directed towards improving the rearing 

environment for juveniles (i.e., mechanical removal of rainbow trout, fall steady flow 

experiments, high-flow experiments that create backwaters, etc.). Estimating humpback chub 

cohort strength and juvenile survival annually is critical to evaluation of ongoing adaptive 

management experimentation. 

Prior to the NSE study, our understanding of humpback chub early life history was 

limited to back-calculations of cohort strength and juvenile survival derived from the abundance 

of approximately four-year old fish (Coggins and others, 2006; Coggins and Walters, 2009). 

Humpback chub are considered adults, and therefore capable of reproduction, when they reach 

approximately 200 mm in total length (Kaeding and Zimmerman, 1983), and it takes humpback 

chub around four years to attain this size. By calculating the number of new adult (that is, 200 

mm long) humpback chub added to the population each year, scientists were able to backcalculate four years and estimate juvenile survival rates for specific birth years (i.e., survival for 

the 2002 birth year, based on the number of new adult fish in 2006). Estimates of survival and 

cohort strength for specific years were then analyzed in relation to environmental conditions in 

the mainstem (i.e., rainbow trout abundance, water temperatures, etc.) in an attempt to evaluate 

the effectiveness of ongoing adaptive management experimentation (Coggins and Walters 2009). 

Unfortunately, these back-calculated estimates of cohort strength and survival are imprecise,

because there are large differences in growth rates for juveniles rearing in the LCR versus the 

mainstem. Differences in growth rates (and hence length) among individuals that are the same 

age but using different habitats leads to inaccurate age assignments, and by extension, inaccurate 

estimates of back-calculated survival for specific birth years (e.g., the 2002 birth year started 

recruiting to the adult population in 2006, but slower growing individuals were not considered 

adults until 2007 or later and get assigned to subsequent birth years). Further, there are large 

differences in the timing and amount of juvenile humpback chub outmigration from the LCR, 

which may itself be a function of conditions in both the LCR and the mainstem. 

To overcome some of the limitations inherent in back-calculating juvenile survival, the 

NSE project (2009-2011) directly measured survival of juvenile humpback chub by batch 

marking small humpback chub using Visual Implant Elastomer (VIE) tags. Fish can be marked 

with VIE tags at a smaller size than the Passive Integrated Transponder (PIT) tags that are used 

to mark larger fish (>100 mm) as part of regular monitoring. Recaptures of these batch-marked 

humpback chub has substantially increased our understanding of juvenile humpback chub life 

history parameters, even though recaptures of batch-marked fish do not yield as much 
134

information as recaptures of PIT-tagged fish, which are an individual mark similar to a social 

security number. Specifically, the survival rate estimates for juvenile humpback chub in the 

mainstem were higher than most scientists anticipated. 

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) standardized sampling and translocations of 

juvenile humpback chub within the LCR have also yielded insights about early life history 

parameters (VanHaverbeke and others, 2012). Standardized sampling demonstrates that there is 

large year-to-year variation in the fall abundances of juvenile humpback chub in the LCR 

(VanHaverbeke and others, 2012). Large differences in fall abundances in the LCR among years 

could be a result of differences in juvenile survival among years. Alternatively, differences in fall 

abundance estimates in the LCR could be unrelated to survival per se and instead reflective of 

higher migration out of the LCR due to, for example, relatively favorable rearing conditions in 

the mainstem. Growth rates for juvenile humpback chub translocated and rearing upstream of 

Chute Falls are two times higher than growth rates for juvenile humpback chub rearing in the 

LCR downstream of Chute Falls. It is worth noting that the differences in juvenile humpback 

chub growth rates within the LCR (upstream vs. downstream of Chute Falls) are actually larger 

than the differences in growth rates between the downstream end of the LCR and the mainstem. 

In light of these new findings, three key uncertainties relevant to the early life history of 

humpback chub are: 

1. To what extent do survival and growth in the LCR aggregation vary temporally (i.e., 

among years) and spatially (i.e., mainstem vs. LCR upstream of Chute Falls vs. LCR 

downstream of Chute Falls)?

2. What are the drivers of observed variation in survival and growth? Specifically, to what 

extent are endogenous (e.g., intraspecific predation and competition for food) versus 

exogenous factors (e.g., interspecific competition and predation, dam operations, 

variation in LCR hydrology, etc.) responsible for temporal and spatial variation in 

juvenile survival and growth? 

3. To what extent does outmigration of humpback chub from the LCR vary from year to 

year? 

3.1. Scientific Background 

Standardized sampling in the LCR over the last decade has revealed substantial variation 

in fall juvenile abundances from year to year (VanHaverbeke and others, 2012). In particular, 

abundances in 2002 and 2006 were markedly lower than other years (Knowledge Assessment, 

2012) and occurred in the same years as the two lowest snowmelt runoff floods in the LCR over 

the same span, suggesting an important and unresolved link between LCR hydrology and 

humpback chub population dynamics. There are at least four hypotheses to explain this linkage, 

each of which has different implications for the significance of the observation—low juvenile 

fall abundance in the LCR—to humpback chub population dynamics and adult recruitment. 

These hypotheses also have different implications for the relative roles of conditions in the 

mainstem Colorado versus the LCR in determining adult humpback chub population dynamics 

and adult recruitment. Low juvenile abundance in the fall could be a leading indicator of a failed 

birth year caused by: (Hypothesis-(H1) poor egg survival in the LCR, (H2) poor juvenile 

survival in the LCR the preceding summer associated with low prey production, (H3) low 

juvenile survival in the LCR the preceding summer due to predation by conspecifics, or (H4) 

unrelated to juvenile survival and instead a result of outmigration from the LCR due to 
135

displacement from monsoon floods or relatively favorable rearing conditions in the mainstem 

Colorado River.

Under Hypothesis 1 (H1) Survival of humpback chub eggs in the LCR is limited in years 

when snowmelt flooding is negligible or small because of poor spawning substrate conditions. 

The rationale for this spawning limitation hypothesis is that the LCR is a travertine system, and 

marl deposition in the lower LCR is extremely rapid (Robinson and others, 1996). Without 

moderate/large snowmelt floods that deliver clean gravels, substrates in the downstream part of 

the LCR during the spawning season will likely be cemented together with marl and will lack the 

interstitial spaces necessary for egg survival. Under this hypothesis, we would expect lowered 

numbers of juveniles in both the LCR and in the mainstem near the LCR confluence during years 

without large LCR snowmelt floods. Further, if this hypothesis is true, it suggests that the 

continued success of the LCR population may be predicated on climatic conditions in the LCR 

basin and are best in years of moderate/large snowmelt floods.

Under Hypothesis 2 (H2) Large snowmelt floods in the LCR stimulate production of the 

prey base through improvements in both the quantity and quality of food resources consumed by 

humpback chub, which leads to high juvenile humpback chub survival and low outmigration. 

(H2) is somewhat related to H1 in that it also posits a link between LCR hydrology and juvenile 

abundance in the fall, but the mechanism underlying H2 is different. In years with small 

snowmelt floods, the foodbase in the LCR is depauperate and unproductive (see Fisher and 

others, 1982; Cross and others, 2011), which in turn leads to low survival and/or high outmigration of juvenile humpback chub. Under this hypothesis, the population of juvenile 

humpback chub (both yearlings and young-of-year) in the mainstem could remain the same, or 

even increase, if juveniles choose to outmigrate in response to low food densities in the LCR in 

years without substantial snowmelt flooding. If this hypothesis is true, and there is earlier and 

higher outmigration in response to negligible/small snowmelt floods in the LCR, it suggests that 

mainstem conditions may be especially important as a greater proportion of the juvenile 

population will be rearing in the mainstem.

Hypothesis 3 (H3) focuses on the role of intraspecific interactions, especially predation 

and cannibalism by yearlings on young-of-the-year, and can take two non-mutually exclusive 

forms. The first variety of this hypothesis (H3a) posits that in years without large LCR snowmelt 

floods, more yearlings remain in the system and there are higher levels of cannibalism and 

competition than in years with large LCR snowmelt floods. The second version (H3b) posits that, 

independent of the reason for decreases in fall abundances in 2002 and 2006, the lack of 

yearlings in the LCR in the following spawning season (2003 and 2007) led to especially large 

cohorts of young-of-year in those birth years because of reduced cannibalism and competition. 

It is also possible that snowmelt floods are not an important factor affecting humpback 

chub dynamics and, instead, the intensity of summer/fall monsoon floods is the primary driver of 

fall abundances of juvenile humpback chub; that is, low LCR fall abundances are not a leading 

indicator of a failed birth year. In both 2002 and 2006, LCR discharge during the snowmelt 

season was negligible, but there were relatively large monsoon floods in the fall. This 

observation leads to Hypothesis 4 (H4), which argues that outmigration rates of juvenile 

humpback chub from the LCR are directly linked to the intensity of monsoon flooding in the 

summer and fall. Under this hypothesis, we would expect increased migration from the LCR to 

the mainstem during years of large monsoon flooding in the LCR, and we would expect most 

migration to occur during the monsoon season—from July to September. VIE marking as part of 

both USFWS and NSE sampling between 2009 and 2011 has provided hints of movement 
136

between the LCR and the mainstem over these time scales; however, interpretation of these data 

has been hampered by the relatively low number of juveniles marked between the spawning 

season and before fall monsoons. Specifically, the last scheduled spring marking event in the 

LCR occurs in May, and young-of -year humpback chub are rarely large enough to mark with

VIE tags (>40 mm total length). The next scheduled marking occurs in September, and monsoon 

floods that displace young-of- year may have already occurred. 

Survival rates for juvenile fish are highly correlated with individual growth rates; a 

juvenile population that grows rapidly will generally experience higher survival relative to a 

population of juveniles that is growing slowly (Walters and Martell, 2004). Understanding the 

causes of variation in juvenile humpback chub growth rates among habitats will therefore aid 

interpretation of any estimates of juvenile survival among habitats. One hypothesis to explain the 

observed variation in humpback chub growth rates among locations and times is that growth 

rates are mainly driven by concomitant changes in water temperature (H5). This hypothesis has 

clear implications for dam operations. Another hypothesis (H6) states that humpback chub 

growth among locations and times is mainly driven by differences in the quantity and quality of 

prey available to juvenile humpback chub. This hypothesis also has implications for dam 

operations, but the types of operational changes that might be evaluated to mitigate low prey 

production in the mainstem are very different from the types of operations that might be 

evaluated to mitigate water temperature effects related to (H5). Lastly, interspecific and 

intraspecific competition for food resources is the main driver of humpback chub growth rates 

among locations and times (H7). These hypotheses (H5-H7) are obviously not mutually 

exclusive. H6 and H7, in particular, are linked because food limitation (H6) is a necessary 

condition for resource competition (H7). We feel the distinction is important, however, because 

LCR hydrology may have strong effects on resource availability (H6) independent of fish 

abundance (H7). Thus, there may be some years when one factor ultimately limits or constrains 

humpback chub growth, and other years when a different factor limits growth. 

It is improbable that a two-year study could fully resolve all of these hypotheses, in part 

because our ability to distinguish among certain hypotheses is dependent on LCR hydrology. 

However, irrespective of LCR hydrology, the new activities we will conduct in FY13/14 will 

allow us to evaluate the strength of evidence for at least some of the above hypotheses and 

address key uncertainties surrounding the population dynamics of humpback chub. This new 

research will be integrated with ongoing USFWS monitoring in the LCR and NSE-style 

sampling in the mainstem, which will help minimize handling of juvenile humpback chub. 

Integration of this new research effort into ongoing monitoring will also build upon these longterm efforts in a way that allows us to ask new questions. 

4. Proposed Work 

4.1. Project Elements 

Project Element E.1. July Little Colorado Marking ($129,400) 

Charles Yackulic, Research Statistician, USGS/GCMRC

Mike Yard, Fishery Biologist, USGS/GCMRC

The objective of this project element is to determine the extent of juvenile humpback 

chub outmigration and the role that summer monsoon floods play in augmented outmigration. 
137

We will use hoop net and seining at each of the 3 camps used by USFWS in July to capture 

juvenile humpback chub. Fish between 40-100 mm will be given VIE batch marks, and fish 

larger than 100 mm will be scanned for PIT tags. Recaptures of these marked individuals will 

occur as part of ongoing monitoring projects (i.e., USFWS sampling, NSE sampling). 

The additional marking trip in July is primarily motivated by a trend emerging from the 

NSE study. A proportion of the small number of fish marked in the LCR by NSE researchers 

during July are captured in the Colorado River in later sampling periods. However, relatively few 

of the fish marked by the USFWS in the fall are subsequently found in the Colorado River. This 

suggests that large numbers of juveniles may be moving out of the LCR between July and the 

fall, consistent with H3. 

Whether juveniles out-migrate or die is unimportant for determining the causes of yearto-year variation in LCR juvenile abundances, but crucially important for determining the longterm impacts of such variation on humpback chub population dynamics. Juvenile humpback 

chub survival has been higher than anticipated under the Colorado River conditions of the last 

few years. Nevertheless, given the novelty of this study, we do not know how these rates 

compare to rates under different environmental conditions (e.g., with different nonnative fish 

abundance or different dam operations, including changes in water temperature). Estimating 

juvenile humpback chub growth and survival under a new set of conditions in the Colorado 

River (i.e., higher nonnative abundance, colder water) than those observed during the NSE 

sampling era will hopefully provide the contrast needed to resolve whether water temperatures or

nonnative abundance are master variables affecting humpback chub population dynamics. 

Resolving this uncertainty will require both continued NSE sampling and LCR sampling, an 

additional LCR marking event in July, followed by statistical analyses and modeling to integrate 

these data. Lastly, if many juveniles are moving from the LCR between July and September, then 

VIE marking in July will allow us to more definitively link dynamics in the LCR to dynamics in 

other aggregations, particularly as sampling in these aggregations becomes more rigorous 

(Project D: Mainstem Humpback Chub Aggregation Studies and Metapopulation Dynamics). 

Project Element E.2. Describing food web structure and the potential for food limitation within the LCR 

($257,200) 

Theodore Kennedy, Research Biologist, USGS/GCMRC

Colden Baxter, Associate Professor, Idaho State University

David Walters , Research Ecologist, USGS - Fort Collins Science Center

Dennis Stone, Fishery Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-Flagstaff

Craig Stricker, Research Biologist, USGS-Fort Collins Science Center

Richard Wanty, Research Chemist, USGS- Crustal Geophysics and Geochemistry Science 

Center 

Randy VanHaverbeke Fishery Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-Flagstaff

The objective of this project is using quantitative food webs and trophic basis of 

production estimates to identify mechanisms underlying differences in juvenile humpback chub 

growth rates among sites and seasons. For this project, we will develop quantitative food webs 

for two segments of the LCR—the reach upstream of Chute Falls and the reach downstream of 

Chute Falls—using methods described in Cross and others (2011). Quantitative food webs 

developed for the mainstem Colorado River near the LCR confluence from 2006-2009 will also 

be updated. Quantitative food webs will be used to estimate both the flux of energy (that is, 
138

carbon) along food web pathways, and also the flux of contaminants (i.e., arsenic, lead, 

selenium, etc.) along these same food web pathways. In this way, trophic pathways that are 

important to fish growth or contribute to elevated contaminant burdens among sites can be 

identified. 

Spatial and temporal variation in the prey base may play an important role in determining 

patterns of juvenile humpback chub growth and survival (e.g., H2, H6). After habitat, food is the 

resource that most often limits animal populations (Krebs, 1994). To understand whether 

differences in the quantity or quality of food resources is an important driver underlying 

differences in humpback chub growth or movement among habitats, it is necessary to place 

estimates of juvenile humpback chub growth and survival in the context of the LCR and 

mainstem food webs as a whole. A food web context is critical because humpback chub are one 

of several species of fish (i.e., flannelmouth sucker [Catostomis latipinnis] and bluehead sucker 

[Catostomis discobolus]) that rely heavily on the LCR for spawning and rearing (VanHaverbeke 

and others, 2012; Walters and others, 2012). Indeed, the spawning season abundance estimates 

for bluehead sucker in the LCR from 2007-2009 ranged from 40,000-70,000, or nearly ten times 

higher than spawning season abundance estimates for humpback chub (VanHaverbeke and 

others, 2012). Although suckers and humpback chub have different feeding modes—suckers are 

bottom feeders whereas chub are drift feeders—the sheer numbers of bluehead suckers present in 

the LCR during spawning season in these years suggests interspecific competition for food could 

be an important factor affecting humpback chub juvenile growth at times. Recent foodbase 

research efforts indicate fish production in the mainstem near the LCR may even be limited by 

the availability of high quality invertebrate prey (Donner, 2011); however, food web structure 

and the potential for food limitation of humpback chub in the LCR itself have not been studied. 

During the 1990s, several investigators documented low invertebrate abundance and 

biomass in the LCR downstream of Chute Falls relative to both the mainstem Colorado River 

and also the reach upstream of Chute Falls (Robinson and others, 1996; Haden, unpublished 

data). Robinson and others (1996) went a step further and also translocated juvenile and yearling 

humpback chub and yearling bluehead sucker to the reach upstream of Chute Falls to assess 

whether water quality upstream of Chute Falls represented an acute stress for fish other than 

speckled dace—dace are common upstream of Chute Falls. These short-term cage experiments 

(3 days in duration) revealed significantly higher mortality rates for juvenile humpback chub 

near Blue Springs (at river kilometer 20) relative to other locations (river kilometers 17.5 and 15 

and a control reach downstream of Chute Falls at river kilometer 10; Chute Falls is at river 

kilometer 14.1). There was no difference in mortality rates for yearling humpback chub or 

bluehead sucker among locations. These authors concluded that food resources and water 

chemistry were not restricting the distribution of humpback chub and bluehead sucker within the 

LCR to the segment downstream of Chute Falls. They went on to suggest, “Translocations of 

fish to the reach [upstream] of Chute Falls, or breaching that barrier, may be feasible 

management actions to increase available habitat for the endangered humpback chub and other 

native fishes in the LCR” (Robinson and others, 1996). 

The USFWS began translocating juvenile humpback chub to the reach upstream of Chute 

Falls in 2003. Growth rates for these translocated fish are two times higher than juveniles rearing 

in the LCR downstream of Chute Falls (Knowledge Assessment, 2012). Since 2003, 1848 

juvenile humpback chub have been translocated upstream of Chute Falls, but total abundance in 

2011for the translocation segment was only 133. Thus, humpback chub are apparently moving 

downstream of Chute Falls even though conditions there are extremely favorable for growth. 
139

Patterns of juvenile humpback chub growth rates among habitats could be due to 

differences in either the quantity or quality of food resources, among other things. Algae biomass 

and production in the lower LCR segment is low and appears to be limited by rapid marl 

deposition and low water clarity (Robinson and others, 1996). Indeed, there is a negative 

feedback between algae growth and marl deposition in carbonate-rich systems like the LCR 

(Spiro and Pentecost, 1991). Algae uptake of CO2, which is required for photosynthesis, drives 

the dissolved inorganic carbon budget for travertine streams out of balance and actually causes 

precipitation of marl on spatial scales ranging from the microscopic scale (individual algae cells 

become smothered in marl) to the segment (i.e., lower LCR downstream of Chute Falls; 

Robinson and others, 1996). Floods that scour the LCR and remove marl may temporarily 

increase the production of high-quality algae biomass, which then fuels production of the fast 

growing invertebrate taxa that are the preferred prey items of humpback chub (see Fisher and 

others, 1982; Cross and others, 2011 for examples of floods stimulating production of fast 

growing invertebrate taxa). Algae are probably an important component of the LCR food web, 

but it may not be the only basal resource that fuels production of higher trophic levels. The LCR 

food web is almost certainly based in part on detritus inputs that are delivered with large floods, 

as has been observed in the mainstem (Wellard Kelly and others, in review; Donner, 2011). The 

environment for decomposition in the LCR appears favorable (warm temperatures, deep pools 

that will retain detritus), particularly in relation to mainstem conditions. Large snowmelt floods 

might deliver large amounts of detrital organic matter that then fuels production of fast growing 

invertebrate prey. 

The quality of food resources could also be affecting humpback chub growth in the LCR. 

Concentrations of metals and other toxins in food resources, in particular, could be an important 

determinant of resource quality for chub. High fluxes of selenium have been measured along a 

primary food web pathway in the mainstem for 4 different segments (river mile 62, 127, 165, and 

225) downstream of the LCR (suspended organic matterfilter feeding black flies fish; 

Walters and others, in prep). The elevated concentrations of selenium in rainbow trout and 

speckled dace downstream of the LCR are actually cause for concern because they exceeded the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) wildlife warning threshold of 3 μg Se per gram 

dry weight (EPA, 2004). If inputs of water, sediment, or detritus from the LCR are capable of 

driving selenium concentrations in the mainstem food web above wildlife warning thresholds, it 

begs the question of whether selenium or other metals are playing a major role in fish growth, 

condition, and survival within the LCR? Andrews and others (1995) documented elevated 

concentrations for a suite of toxic metals (arsenic, copper, mercury, lead, selenium, and zinc) in 

fish collected from segments of the LCR that are well upstream of the perennial reach in Grand 

Canyon. Ecotoxicology of the LCR food web clearly warrants further study. 

Developing quantitative food webs requires estimates of production (or supply) for each 

trophic level (i.e., algae production, detritus inputs during floods, invertebrate production, fish 

production), and also information on feeding habitats of higher trophic levels (that is, 

invertebrates and fish). Algae production will be estimated by constructing dissolved oxygen 

budgets, using the methods of Hall and others (2010). Detritus inputs will be estimated by 

sampling organic matter fluxes during LCR floods. Measurement of organic matter standing 

stock in both segments will be used to track the fate of new detritus inputs. These measurements 

of inputs and standing stock will be complemented by decomposition experiments in both 

locations and across seasons to assess the potential for detritus inputs to be incorporated into the 

food web. Benthic invertebrate production will be estimated using either the instantaneous 
140

growth method or size-frequency method, depending on taxa (Cross and others, 2011). 

Invertebrate drift rates will also be quantified as an independent estimate of food availability to 

humpback chub, which are generally considered drift feeders. We will sample the diets of all 

common species of fish in the LCR on a seasonal basis. Diets of humpback chub will be assessed 

using non-lethal gastric lavage (Baker and Fraser, 1976). Gastric lavage is not feasible with the 

native suckers (mortality is extremely high because suckers have a thin-walled digestive tract) or 

small-bodied fishes (speckled dace and fathead minnow) that are common in the LCR, so we will 

humanely euthanize up to 30 individuals of each species per site and season to assess feeding 

habits of other fish species. Estimates of population size for the entire fish assemblage from 

multiple years of monitoring will be coupled with information on age structure and size-ageweight relationships to estimate fish production using the instantaneous growth rate method 

(Hayes and others, 2007). 

There are two methods for calculating the trophic basis of production for fish—

quantitative gut content analysis (Benke and Wallace, 1980) and stable isotope analysis 

(McCutchan and Lewis, 2002). Trophic basis of production is the proportional contribution of 

each food resource to fish production. In the case of gut content analysis, assimilation 

efficiencies of each food resource are used to estimate the relative importance of each food 

resource in the diet of the fish, thereby accounting for differences in quality/digestibility among 

different food resources (Cummins, 1973). Algae production, detritus inputs/supply, and 

invertebrate production estimates are then incorporated to calculate flows from food resources to 

fish. These calculations yield a rate (g m-2

y-1), which represents the flow of carbon from food 

resources to consumers and is taxon and resource specific. We will extend these flux estimates to 

include contaminants by measuring contaminant concentrations in food web compartments. 

Evaluation of contaminants in fish requires muscle plugs, which can be taken from fish without 

sacrificing the animal, but collecting even a small muscle plug obviously represents a major 

stressor to individual fish. In FY13, we will assess contaminant levels in all food web 

compartments including common native fish other than humpback chub (i.e., suckers and 

speckled dace). If contaminant levels in these fish are elevated, we will submit an amendment to 

our USFWS permit and seek permission to take muscle plugs from humpback chub in FY14 to 

assess contaminant levels. 

Stable isotope analysis can also be used to estimate the trophic basis of production for 

fish (McCutchan and Lewis, 2002), so long as potential food sources are sufficiently separate in 

isotope space—that is, food resources have stable isotope signatures that are unique and can be 

distinguished. Isotope analysis of the food web in the mainstem Colorado River has documented 

high variability within specific food web compartments (e.g., the carbon isotope signature for 

algae varies spatially; Shannon and others, 2001) and a general lack of separation among 

potential carbon sources, making trophic basis of production estimates for fish using stable 

isotopes infeasible (Shannon and others, 2001; Rosi-Marshall, unpublished data). However, we 

believe stable isotopes may be a useful tool for trophic basis of production calculations within 

the LCR because of strong gradients in dissolved inorganic carbon within the LCR (Robinson 

and others 1996). As ground water discharged from springs in the LCR equilibrates with 

atmospheric conditions, the concentration of dissolved CO2 decreases (CO2 is a major 

component of dissolved inorganic carbon in all streams; Robinson and others, 1996). Algae 

production, by taking up dissolved CO2 from the water, also speeds the process of dissolved CO2

equilibration and decline. Likewise, geomorphic features like Chute Falls, which increase rates 

of air-water gas exchange (Hall and others, 2012), will also speed the process of CO2
141

equilibration. Strong and predictable downstream gradients in dissolved inorganic carbon will 

cause strong and predictable gradients in algal carbon stable isotope values (Finlay and Kendall, 

2007; Kennedy and others, 2005). Kennedy and others (2005) were able to capitalize on similar 

downstream gradients in algal carbon stable isotope values in a spring-fed stream in Nevada to 

resolve trophic pathways linking basal resources to two species of endangered fish. 

We will take fin clips from humpback chub and other fish in FY13/14, along with 

collections of food resources (i.e., algae, terrestrial detritus, and invertebrates) and analyze stable 

isotope ratios of carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur. We will follow the methods of McCutchan and 

Lewis (2002) to incorporate stable isotope information into our trophic-basis of production 

calculations. We will update the quantitative food webs developed for the mainstem during the 

foodbase project (2006-2009; project F:Monitoring of Native and Nonnative Fishes in the 

Mainstem Colorado River and Lower 13.6 km of the LCR, element F.7. Foodbase Monitoring) to 

describe conditions there; however, updating the mainstem food web will mainly involve new 

estimates of invertebrate production and invertebrate drift whereas the feeding habits of fishes in 

the mainstem will not be reassessed. Bioenergetics models will be used to integrate these data 

and assess the potential for food limitation in both the LCR and the mainstem. 

We will measure trace metals (e.g., Cu, Cd, Zn, etc.) as well as Hg and Se in water, 

organic matter, and organisms in the LCR food web. These data, in combination with the trophic 

basis of production data will allow us to 1) characterize the extent and magnitude of metal 

contamination in the LCR; 2) identify those metals posing the greatest risk to LCR fishes; 3)

calculate rates (μg m-2

y-1) of metal flux from food resources to consumers that are taxon and 

resource specific. This will allow us to quantify important pathways of metal exposure to species 

of concern like humpback chub. In addition, we will analyze samples for isotopic ratios of 

selected metals – Cu, Cd, and Zn. Based on previous studies (Cloquet et al., 2008) we expect to 

see significant fractionation of Zn isotopes between trophic levels, and by extension, perhaps 

greater fractionations in Cu isotopes, as Cu participates in fractionating redox reactions. Together 

with the other data gathered in this study, the isotopic fractionations and mass balances should 

yield insights into the mechanism of biological uptake and transfer among trophic levels.

This project will produce multiple peer-reviewed publications and a master’s thesis. 

Idaho State University is providing a graduate student stipend/salary in support of this 

Project Element.

Project Element E.3. Population modeling ($89,500) 

Charles Yackulic, Research Statistician, USGS/GCMRC

Theodore Kennedy, Research Aquatic Biologist, USGS/GCMRC

Bill Pine, Associate Professor, University of Florida

This project’s objectives are to develop integrated statistical models to estimate survival, 

growth and movement in the LCR and Colorado River portions of the LCR complex. This 

project will also develop models to test the roles of intraspecific interactions and hydrology in 

explaining observed juveniles abundance trends over the last decade.

We will use multistate mark-recapture models to estimate survival, growth, and 

movement within the LCR complex. Multistate mark-recapture models provide a flexible means 

for estimating transition rates between states which can be defined in many ways. In our model, 

states will be defined in terms of both location and size allowing us to estimate both movement 

and growth. Although multistate models are fairly standard in wildlife ecology (Williams and 

others, 2001), the model we will develop will require new developments to integrate batch (VIE 
142

marks) and individual marks (PIT tags) and share information across sampling events. Data 

collected through project element E.1. will be very important in allowing us to estimate juvenile 

movement between the LCR and the mainstem with an acceptable level of precision.

We will also develop deterministic models to evaluate the degree to which variation in 

juvenile abundances and sizes in the LCR can be attributed to LCR hydrology versus 

intraspecific or interspecific interactions. Our ability to evaluate hypotheses H1-H4 during 

FY13/14 will be somewhat dependent on LCR hydrology in 2012-2014, when better estimates of 

juvenile survival and movement between the LCR and NSE study area will be available; 

however, we will also be able to incorporate existing data into our analyses, particularly FWS 

and NSE data gathered in 2009-2011.

Prior to 2009, fish under 150 mm were not marked, limiting our ability to track 

individuals and make direct inferences about movement, growth, and survival. However, catch 

per unit effort data collected in the LCR over the last decade suggests that there is large variation 

in size distributions among seasons and years suggesting variable growth and survival and/or 

movement out of the LCR. Since 2009, fish between 100 mm and 150 mm have begun to be 

individually marked and fish between 40 mm and 100 mm have received batch marks. Batch 

marks were applied in all NSE trips and during fall FWS trips (at 1 of 3 camps in 2009 and all 3 

camps in following years). NSE trips in July and August also applied a limited number of VIE 

marks in the lower parts of the LCR in 2009-2011. Extension of marking efforts to smaller fish 

and increased effort in the mainstem now provides us with the opportunity to better understand 

variation in early life history and the role that variation in mainstem and LCR conditions plays in 

early life history variation. The multistate model developed as part of the project element will 

help us estimate variation in life history parameters more accurately than separate analyses of 

LCR and mainstem data, while the deterministic model will, at the very least, help to clarify 

which hypotheses are unlikely and what observations would be needed to distinguish likely 

hypotheses.

This project will produce at least 2 peer reviewed articles.
143

5. References 

Andrews, B.J., Kind, K.A., and Baker, D.L., 1995, Radionuclides and trace elements in fish and 

wildlife of the Puerco and Little Colorado Rivers, 

Arizona, http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/ECReports/RadionuclidesAZ.

pdf.

Baker, A.M., and Fraser, D.F., 1976, A method for securing the gut contents of small, live fish: 

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, v. 105, p. 520-522.

Benke, A.C., and Wallace, J.B., 1980, Trophic basis of production among net-spinning 

caddisflies in a southern Appalachian stream: Ecology, v. 61, no. 1, p. 108-

118, http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/119642567/PDFSTART.

Cloquet, C., Carignan, J., Lehmann, M.F., and Vanhaecke, R., 2008, Variation in the isotopic 

composition of zinc in the natural environment and the use of zinc in isotopes in the 

biogeosciences—a review: Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, v. 390, p. 451-463

Coggins, L.G., Jr., Pine, W.E., III, Walters, C.J., and Martell, S.J.D., 2006, Age-structured markrecapture analysis--a virtual population-analysis-based model for analyzing age-structured 

capture-recapture data: North American Journal of Fisheries Management, v. 26, no. 1, 

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1577/M05-133.1.

Coggins, L.G., Jr., and Walters, C.J., 2009, Abundance trends and status of the Little Colorado 

River population of humpback chub--an update considering data from 1989-2008: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 2009-1075, 18 p., http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1075/.

Cross, W.F., Baxter, C.V., Donner, K.C., Rosi-Marshall, E.J., Kennedy, T.A., Hall, R.O., Jr., 

Wellard-Kelly, H.A., and Rogers, R.S., 2011, Ecosystem ecology meets adaptive 

management--food web response to a controlled flood on the Colorado River, Glen Canyon: 

Ecological Applications, v. 21, no. 6, http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/10-1719.1.

Cummins, K.W. 1973. Trophic relations of aquatic insects. Annual Review of Entomology 

18:183-206. 

Donner, K.C., 2011, Trophic basis of production of fishes in the Colorado River, Grand Canyon-

-an assessment of potential competition for food: Pocatello, Id., Idaho State University, M.S. 

thesis.

Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. Draft aquatic life water quality criteria for 

Selenium, http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/aqlife/pollutants/seleniu

m/index.cfm.

Finlay, J.C., and Kendall, C., 2007, Stable isotope tracing of temporal and spatial variability in 

organic matter sources to freshwater ecosystems, in Michener, R., and Lajtha, K., eds., Stable 

isotopes in ecology and environmental science (2d ed.): Malden, Mass., Blackwell 

Publishing, p. 283-333, 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9780470691854.ch10/summary.

Fisher, S.G., Gray, L.J., Grimm, N.B., and Busch, D.E., 1982, Temporal succession in a desert 

stream ecosystem following flash flooding: Ecological Monographs, v. 52, no. 1, p. 93-110, 

http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/2937346.pdf.

Hall, R.O., Jr., Kennedy, T.A., Rosi Marshall, E.J., Cross, W.F., Wellard, H.A., and Baxter, C.F., 

2010, Aquatic production and carbon flow in the Colorado River, in Melis, T.S., Hamill, J.F., 

Bennett, G.E., Coggins, L.G., Jr., Grams, P.E., Kennedy, T.A., Kubly, D.M., and Ralston, 

B.E., eds., Proceedings of the Colorado River Basin Science and Resource Management 
144

Symposium, November 18-20, 2008, Scottsdale, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2010-5135, 105-112 p., http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5135/.

Hall, R.O., Jr., Kennedy, T.A., and Rosi-Marshall, E.J., 2012, Air-water oxygen exchange in a 

large whitewater river: Limnology and Oceanography--Fluids and Environments, v. 2 (2012), 

doi: 10.1215/21573689-1572535, p. 1-

11, http://hwmaint.lofe.dukejournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/2/0/1.

Hayes D.B., Bence, J.R., Kwak, T.J., and Thompson, B.E., 2007, Abundance, biomass, and 

production, in Guy C.S., Brown, M.L., eds., Analysis and interpretation of freshwater 

fisheries data: American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland, p. 327-374.

Kaeding, L.R., and Zimmerman, M.A., 1983, Life history and ecology of the humpback chub in 

the Little Colorado and Colorado Rivers of the Grand Canyon: Transactions of the American 

Fisheries Society, v. 112, no. 5, p. 577-

594, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1577/1548-

8659%281983%29112%3C577%3ALHAEOT%3E2.0.CO%3B2.

Kennedy, T.A., Finlay, J.C., and Hobbie, S.E., 2005, Eradication of invasive saltcedar (Tamarix 

ramosissima) along a desert springbrook increases native fish density: Ecological 

Applications v.15, p. 2072-2083.

Krebs, C.J., 2008, Ecology--the experimental analysis of distribution and abundance (6th ed.): 

Menlo Park, Calif., Benjamin Cummings, 688 p., http://elib.tudarmstadt.de/tocs/94263906.pdf.

McCutchan, J.H., and Lewis, W.M., Jr., 2002, Carbon sources for macroinvertebrates in a Rocky 

Mountain stream: Limnology and Oceanography v. 47, p. 742-752.

Robinson, A.T., Kubly, D.M., Clarkson, R.W., and Creef, E.D., 1996, Factors limiting the 

distribution of native fishes in the Little Colorado River, Grand Canyon, Arizona: The 

Southwestern Naturalist, v. 41, no. 4, p. 378-387, http://www.jstor.org/stable/30055194.

Shannon, J.P., Blinn, D.W., Haden, G.A., Benenati, E.P., and Wilson, K.P., 2001, Food web 

implications of δ13C and δ15N variability over 370 km of the regulated Colorado River, 

USA: Isotopes in Environmental and Health Studies, v. 37, no. 

3, http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a757118642.

Spiro, B., and Pentecost, A., 1991, One day in the life of a stream—a diurnal inorganic carbon 

mass balance for a travertine-depositing stream (waterfall beck, Yorkshire): 

Geomicrobiology Journal 9. 

Van Haverbeke, D.R., Stone, D.M., and Pillow, M.J., 2012, Mark-Recapture and Fish 

Monitoring Activities in the Little Colorado River in Grand Canyon during 2011: submitted 

to USGS Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, Flagstaff, Arizona, 70 p.

Walters, C.J., and Martell, S.J.D., 2004, Fisheries ecology and management: Princeton, N.J., 

Princeton University Press.

Walters, C.J., VanPoorten, B.T., and Coggins, L.G., 2012, Bioenergetics and population 

dynamics of flannelmouth sucker and bluehead sucker in Grand Canyon as evidenced by tag 

recapture observations: Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, v. 141, p. 158-173. 

Walters, D.M., Rosi-Marshall, E.J., Cross, W.F., Kennedy, T.A., and Baxter, C.V., in prep., A 

quantitative food web approach for estimating selenium flux in the Colorado River in Grand 

Canyon. 

Wellard Kelly, H.A., Rosi-Marshall, E.J., Kennedy, T.A., Hall, R.O., Cross, W.F., and Baxter, 

C.V., in review, Macroinvertebrate diets reflect longitudinal and seasonal changes in food 

availability downstream of a large dam. 
145

Williams, B.K., Nichols, J.D., and Conroy, M.J., 2002, Analysis and management of animal 

populations--modeling, estimation, and decision making: San Diego, Calif., Academic Press, 

ISBN: 0-12-754406-2, 817 p.
146

6. Budget 

Project Element E.1. July 

LCR marking

Project Element E.2. 

Describing the food web 

structure and the potential 

for food limitation within 

the Little Colorado River

Salaries $58,600 Salaries $103,300

Traveling and Training $0 Traveling and Training $1,900 

Operating Expenses $8,000 Operating Expenses $15,000 

Logistics $17,000 Logistics $17,000

GIS/RS/Electronics support $34,100 GIS/RS/Electronics support $0

Cooperators (non-USGS) $0 Cooperators (non-USGS) $25,000

USGS cooperators $0 USGS cooperators $75,000

USGS Burden $11,700 USGS Burden $20,000 

Total $129,400 Total $257,200

Project Element E.3. 

Population Modeling

Salaries $63,700

Traveling and Training $3,800 

Operating Expenses $2,000 

Logistics $0

GIS/RS/Electronics support 0

Cooperators (non-USGS) $10,000

USGS cooperators $0

USGS Burden $10,000 

Total $89,500

FY 2013 Project E. Gross Total: 

$476,100

FY 2013
147

Project Element E.1. July 

LCR marking

Project Element E.2. 

Describing the food web 

structure and the potential 

for food limitation within 

the Little Colorado River

Salaries $54,800 Salaries $106,400

Traveling and Training $0 Traveling and Training $2,000 

Operating Expenses $8,200 Operating Expenses $15,500 

Logistics $17,500 Logistics $17,600

GIS/RS/Electronics support $30,800 GIS/RS/Electronics support $0

Cooperators (non-USGS) $0 Cooperators (non-USGS) $25,800

USGS cooperators $0 USGS cooperators $77,200

USGS Burden $15,700 USGS Burden $23,000 

Total $127,000 Total $267,500

Project Element E.3. 

Population Modeling

Salaries $65,700

Traveling and Training $3,900 

Operating Expenses $2,100 

Logistics $0

GIS/RS/Electronics support 0

Cooperators (non-USGS) $10,300

USGS cooperators $0

USGS Burden $10,400 

Total $92,400

FY 2014

FY 2014 Project E. Gross Total: 

$486,900
148

Project F. 

Monitoring of Native and Nonnative Fishes in the Mainstem 

Colorado River and the lower Little Colorado River 

1. Investigators 

William Persons, Fishery Biologist, USGS, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

Charles Yackulic, Research Statistician, USGS, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

Aaron Bunch, Fishery Biologist, Arizona Game and Fish Department

Luke Avery, Fishery Biologist, USGS, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

Josh Korman, President, Ecometric Research, Inc.

Matt Kaplinski, Research Assistant, Northern Arizona University

David VanHaverbeke, Fishery Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Dana Winkelman, Professor, Colorado State University

Brian Healy, Fishery Biologist, Grand Canyon National Park

Steve Martell, Professor, University of British Columbia

2. Summary 

Native fish populations in Grand Canyon are key resources of concern influencing 

decisions on both the operation of Glen Canyon Dam and non-flow actions. To inform these 

decisions, it is imperative that accurate and timely information on the status of fish populations, 

particularly the endangered humpback chub (Gila cypha), be available to managers. A suite of 

adaptive experimental management actions are being contemplated to better understand the 

mechanisms controlling the population dynamics of native fish and to identify policies that are 

consistent with the attainment of management goals. The assessments generated from this project 

provide a baseline from which to assess the effects of implemented experimental actions. This 

information is therefore crucial to (1) inform the program as to attainment of identified goals, (2) 

provide baseline status and trend information to be used as a backdrop to further understand 

mechanisms controlling native and nonnative fish population dynamics, and (3) evaluate the 

efficacy of particular management policies in attaining program goals. The results of this project 

are potentially useful in assessing changes to the Federal Endangered Species Act listing status 

of humpback chub in Grand Canyon.

This project will continue long-term monitoring of fishes and the aquatic foodbase in 

Glen and Grand Canyons as well as in the lower Little Colorado River. It will provide updated 

information on 

• F1, status and trends of native and non-native fishes in Glen and Grand Canyon 

(Makinster and others, 2010), 

• F2.1, status and trends of the rainbow trout population in the Lees Ferry reach 

(Makinster and others, 2011) as well as targeted sampling for other nonnative fishes 

in the Lees Ferry reach (Anderson and others, 2012),

• F2.2, status and trends, and initial response of early life stages of rainbow trout in the 

Lees Ferry reach (Korman and others, 2011)
149

• F.2.3, status and trends of angler use, catch rates and total catch of rainbow trout 

captured in the Lees Ferry recreational fishery (Anderson and others, 2012),

• F.3, estimates of juvenile humpback chub survival rates in the mainstem Colorado 

River near the confluence with the LCR, 

• F.4.1, F.4.2, status and trends, and humpback chub abundance estimates in the LCR, 

(Coggins and others, 2006; Coggins and Walters, 2009; Clark and others, 2010; Van 

Haverbeke and others, 2011)

• F.4.3, status and trends of humpback chub abundance upstream of Chute Falls as well 

as information on humpback chub translocations within the LCR and other tributary 

streams (Van Haverbeke and others, 2012)

• F.6, information on downstream movement of rainbow trout from the Lees Ferry 

reach,

• F.7, status and trends of algae production, algae and organic matter biomass, 

invertebrate production, and invertebrate and organic drift.

3. Background 

Long-term monitoring of fishes and aquatic resources in Glen and Grand Canyon is of 

interest to the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP), a federally 

authorized initiative to protect and mitigate adverse impacts to the resources downstream from 

Glen Canyon Dam (GCD). The U.S. Geological Survey’s Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center (GCMRC) is responsible for long-term fish monitoring for the program, which 

is implemented in cooperation with the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD), U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and others. Long-term monitoring establishes a “baseline,” 

through which response of resources to changing management policies or experiments can be 

interpreted and evaluated (Walters and Holling, 1990). For example, since 1996, a series of 

experimental high flows have been released from GCD as part of a strategy intended to restore 

sandbars in Grand Canyon (Melis and others, 2011); several stable-flow tests and localized 

removal of nonnative fish have been conducted to benefit native fishes (Coggins and others, 

2011; Yard and others, 2011). In addition, drought induced warming of the Colorado River that 

occurred during 2004 and 2005 is thought to have benefitted native fishes (Coggins and others, 

2011). 

Two recent Environmental Assessments and an associated Biological Opinion, as well as 

the GCDAMP 2011-2012 Work plan and Budget (Bureau of Reclamation and U.S. Geological 

Survey Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, 2010; Bureau of Reclamation, 2011; 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2011), mandate monitoring the status and trends of adult 

humpback chub in the Little Colorado River (LCR) near the confluence, in the mainstem 

Colorado River (see Mainstem Humpback Chub Aggregation, Project D), and at areas where 

humpback chub have been translocated. The Biological Opinion defines triggers to determine 

when nonnative fish control will take place near the LCR. Triggers are related to the abundance 

of adult and juvenile humpback chub, survival rates of juvenile humpback chub, abundance of 

rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and brown trout (Salmo trutta), and river temperature. The 

following monitoring projects contribute data and information required by the Environmental 

Assessments and Biological Opinion to determine if elements and conditions of the trigger are 

met.
150

Long-term perspective is necessary when evaluating ecosystem change that results from 

management actions. Changes may take place over a period of years rather than abruptly, hence 

the critical importance of long-term baseline monitoring. The currently funded monitoring 

program (Bureau of Reclamation and U.S. Geological Survey Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center, 2010) includes two types of monitoring (Walters and others 2012). 

1. “Core” monitoring provides annual estimates of net recruitment rates to the adult 

population of native and nonnative fishes along with basic information on changes in 

water quality parameters such as temperature and suspended sediment, and biomasses of 

aquatic foodbase organisms. This “core” program provides information on net 

recuritment of native and nonnative fishes within about 2-3 years after treatments. Some 

treatments may affect juvenile life stages, and “core” monitoring does not consider 

density dependent or environmental conditions outside of the treatment that may affect 

recruitment.

2. “Initial response” monitoring programs provide short term (seasonal) information on 

immediate effects of treatments on abundance and survival rates of juvenile fishes. The 

“initial response” monitoring provides information with which to interpret data gathered 

later through “core” monitoring and may provide more information concerning cause and 

effect mechanisms that influence survival and recruitment.

3.1. Scientific Background 

Monitoring projects have been designed in anticipation of management actions such as 

high-flow experiments (HFEs), fall steady flows, and others. These plans are consistent with

science plans described in the Science Plans of the Environmental Assessments (EAs) for 

nonnative fish control and HFEs. Typically, management actions or experimental treatments are 

considered as annual treatments and it is difficult to discern effects of single flow perturbations 

like HFEs on biological resources such as adult fish populations. In cases where we are 

interested in the effect of an HFE on a particular life stage of fish, such as juvenile rainbow trout

in Glen Canyon, the Rainbow Trout Early Life Stage Study (RTELSS, F.2.2.) has sufficient 

resolution to estimate effects of such a high flow. In the case of RTELSS, extra field sampling 

can be conducted quickly around an HFE to assess short term impacts to juvenile rainbow trout. 

The Rainbow Trout Monitoring in Glen Canyon Project (Element F.2.1.) will also be able to 

assess impacts of an HFE to juvenile rainbow trout recruitment at an annual time scale.

Responses of juvenile humpback chub in the mainstem Colorado River immediately downstream 

of the LCR confluence will be assessed by quarterly sampling during FY13/14 as part of Project 

Element F.4.

The Detection of Rainbow Trout Movement from the Upper Reaches of the Colorado 

River below Glen Canyon Dam Project (Element F.6.) includes separate contingency plans for 

marking additional fish after a HFE if necessary. Other fish monitoring projects are assessing 

impacts on an annual or larger time step, and no additional field work is required. Foodbase 

Monitoring (Project Element F.7.) may need to add additional drift and benthos samples to 

bracket any HFE in an attempt to describe short term impacts of the experimental treatment on 

foodbase resources.
151

3.2. Management Background 

This project directly addresses the following Strategic Science Questions (SSQs), Core 

Monitoring Information Needs (CMINs), and Research Information Needs (RINs) previously 

identified by the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP). 

• Goal 2: Maintain or attain a viable population of existing native fish, remove 

jeopardy for humpback chub and razorback sucker, and prevent adverse modification 

to their critical habitats.

• 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.

In August 2004, the GCDAMP Adaptive Management Work Group reviewed these goals 

and identified priority questions. This project addresses the top priority question:

• Priority 1: Why are humpback chub not thriving, and what can we do about it? How 

many humpback chub are there and how are they doing? 

In March 2011, the Secretary’s Designee, Assistant Secretary for Water and Science, 

identified that the first priority was compliance with the Endangered Species Act, followed by 

sediment, with the third priority being science on both non-native control and the recreational 

trout fishery. These monitoring projects contribute to improved understanding of humpback 

chub, rainbow trout, and their interactions.

3.3. Strategic Science Questions 

Primary SSQ addressed:

• 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 and juvenile stages in the mainstem, or by changes in growth and 

maturation in the adult population as influenced by mainstem conditions?

• SSQ 1-2. 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?

• SSQ 3-6. What GCD operations (ramping rates, daily flow range, etc.) maximize 

trout fishing opportunities and catchability?

Additional SSQs addressed:

• SSQ 1-3. 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 Canyon?

• 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?
152

• SSQ 1-4. Can long-term decreases in abundance of rainbow trout in Marble and 

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

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

the removal reach require that mechanical removal be an ongoing management 

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

nonnative species.

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

impacts from capture and handling or sampling?

• SSQ 5-4. 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?

• 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?

The GCDAMP Science Advisors articulated the following summary science questions addressed 

by this project:

• SA 1. What are the most limiting factors to successful humpback chub adult 

recruitment in the mainstem: spawning success, predation on young of year and 

juveniles, habitat (water, temperature), pathogens, adult maturation, food availability, 

competition?

• SA 2. What are the most probably positive and negative impacts of warming the 

Colorado River on humpback chub adults and juveniles?

Information Needs Addressed

• CMIN 2.1.2. Determine and track recruitment of all life stages, abundance, and 

distribution of humpback chub in the LCR.

• CMIN 2.4.1. Determine and track the abundance and distribution of nonnative 

predatory fish species in the Colorado River.

• CMIN 2.6.1. Determine and track the abundance and distribution of flannelmouth 

sucker, bluehead sucker, and speckled dace populations in the Colorado River 

ecosystem.

• CMIN 4.1.1. Determine annual population estimates for age 2+ rainbow trout in the 

Lees Ferry reach

• CMIN 4.1.2. Determine annual proportional stock density of rainbow trout in the 

Lees Ferry reach.

• CMIN 4.1.4. Determine annual growth rate, standard condition (Kn), and relative 

weight of rainbow trout in the Lees Ferry reach.

• RIN 2.2.2. Determine if a population dynamics model can effectively predict 

response of native fish under different flow regimes and environmental conditions.

• RIN 2.2.8. What combination of dam release patterns and nonnative fish control 

facilitates successful spawning and recruitment of humpback chub in the Colorado 

River ecosystem?

• RIN 2.4.2. Determine if suppression of nonnative predators and competitors increases 

native fish populations.

• 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?
153

• RIN 2.4.4. What are the target population levels, body size, and age structure for 

nonnative fish in the Colorado River ecosystem that limit their levels to those 

commensurate with the viability of native fish populations?

• RIN 4.1.1. What is the target proportional stock density (that is, tradeoff between 

numbers and size) for rainbow trout in the Lees Ferry reach?

• RIN 4.2.1. What is the rate of emigration of rainbow trout from the Les Ferry reach?

• RIN 4.2.2. What is the most effective method to detect emigration of rainbow trout 

from the Lees Ferry reach?

• RIN 4.2.3. How is the rate of emigration of rainbow trout from the Lees Ferry reach 

to below the Paria River affected by abundance, hydrology, temperature, and other 

ecosystem processes?

• RIN 4.2.5 To what extent is there overlap in the Colorado River ecosystem below the 

Paria River of RBT habitat and native fish habitat?

• EIN 2.1.1 How does the abundance and distribution of all size classes of HBC in the 

LCR and mainstem change in response to an experiment performed under the Record 

of Decision, unanticipated event, or other management action?

• EIN 2.1.2 How does the year class strength of HBC (51–150 mm) in the LCR and 

mainstem change in response to an experiment performed under the Record of 

Decision, unanticipated event, or other management action?

• EIN 2.4.1 How does the abundance and distribution of nonnative predatory fish 

species and their impacts on native fish species in the Colorado River ecosystem 

change in response to an experiment performed under the Record of Decision, 

unanticipated event, or other management action?

• EIN 2.6.1 How does the abundance, distribution, recruitment and mortality of 

flannelmouth sucker, bluehead sucker and speckled dace populations in the Colorado 

River ecosystem change in response to an experiment performed under the Record of 

Decision, unanticipated event, or other management action?

4. Proposed Work 

The majority of the work proposed here has been described previously in documents 

already vetted by the GCDAMP. Rather than merely copy from these sources, we have instead 

provided brief summaries of ongoing projects and referenced the relevant sections of the original 

documents. For those projects where expanded or new work is being proposed, more detailed 

information in the form of background, rationale, and methods is provided as needed.

4.1. Project Elements 

Project Element F.1. System Wide Electrofishing ($216,900) 

Aaron Bunch, Fishery Biologist, Arizona Game and Fish Department

William Persons, Fishery Biologist, USGS/GCMRC

Annual monitoring of native and nonnative fish in the main stem Colorado River has 

been ongoing since 2000 (Makinster and others, 2010). These efforts rely upon boat-operated 

electrofishing to provide information on status and trends of native and nonnative fish between 

Lees Ferry and Lake Mead. Sampling consisted of two annual spring electrofishing trips during 
154

2002-2010, except during 2007 when a spring trip and a fall trip were conducted. During 2011 

and 2012 a single annual spring trip was conducted. Adult humpback chub are generally not 

vulnerable to electrofishing; therefore they are sampled in Project D. Two annual springs trips 

are planned for 2013-14. Data collected from this project are used to provide trout relative 

abundance estimates which, in turn, may be used as part of the suite of triggers identifying when 

to implement mechanical removal of nonnative fish to protect humpback chub (Bureau of 

Reclamation, 2011). The project also uses catch per unit effort indices to track relative status and 

trends of most common native and nonnative fish. This project includes sampling downstream 

from Diamond Creek annually. 

This project will produce trip and annual reports.

Project Element F.2. Glen Canyon Monitoring ($263,800) 

Project Element F.2.1. Rainbow Trout Monitoring in Glen Canyon 

Aaron Bunch, Fishery Biologist, Arizona Game and Fish Department

Mike Anderson, Arizona Game and Fish Department

William Persons, Fishery Biologist, USGS/GCMRC

The importance of the Lees Ferry rainbow trout fishery as a valuable recreational 

resource is recognized by the GCDAMP. Monitoring the trout fishery and evaluating responses 

of the rainbow trout population in Glen Canyon to GCD operations is also critical to the 

Adaptive Management Program (AMP). The fishery is regulated by biotic and abiotic 

mechanisms that may in turn be affected by the operations of GCD. The monitoring of basic fish 

population elements, including relative abundance, size composition, distribution, and 

recruitment of native and nonnative fish, provides the information necessary to assess the status 

of these resources and to inform the GCDAMP.

Electrofishing has been used to sample the fish community in Glen Canyon since the 

early 1980s (Maddux and others, 1987). Standardized monitoring using electrofishing was 

initiated in 1991 and has been used since that time to provide data to evaluate the response of the 

rainbow trout population to GCD dam operations (McKinney and others, 2001; Makinster and 

others, 2011). The sampling program underwent refinements following protocol evaluation 

panels (PEPs) in 2000 and 2009 that provided independent, external scientific reviews of 

monitoring protocols (Anders and others, 2001; Bradford and others, 2009). The project, as 

described in the FY11/12 Work Plan (BIO 4.M2.11, 12), will conduct three trips in FY12 that 

each sample 36 random sites stratified longitudinally by river mile and by shoreline type. This 

design is planned to continue in FY13/14.

The 2009 PEP recommended that the Lees Ferry rainbow trout monitoring project be 

expanded to include an invasive fish surveillance and detection program at sites where nonnative 

fish are most likely to be captured, including the slough at RM -12, warm spring inputs, and 

immediately downstream of the dam. This project was initiated in 2010, and 15 sites were 

surveyed for warm water nonnative fish in Glen Canyon. The objective is to provide an early 

detection system for warmwater nonnative fish species that may pass through the GCD turbines 

or be otherwise introduced into the area. 

During 2010 and 2011 surveys detected smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu), 

walleye (Sander vitreus), and bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus) (Bunch and others, 2012, 
155

Hilwig and Foster, 2010). Sampling will be conducted as part of the Rainbow Trout Monitoring 

in Glen Canyon Project to save costs.

This project will produce annual stock assessment reports showing status and trends of 

rainbow trout relative abundance, size distribution, and condition factor, in the Lees Ferry reach 

by size class. Information on angler use, harvest, and attitudes is included in this report, as well 

as information on invasive fish surveillance and detection sampling.

Project Element F.2.2. Rainbow Trout Early Life Stage Studies 

Luke Avery, Fishery Biologist, USGS/GCMRC

G.D. Foster, Logistic Support, USGS/GCMRC

Josh Korman, President, Ecometric Research, Inc.

Matt Kaplinski, Research Associate, NAU

This project was initiated to assess the response of early life stages of rainbow trout in the 

Lees Ferry tailwater to experimental nonnative fish suppression flows in years 2003-2005 

(Korman, 2009). Continued sampling using the same methods described in the Monitoring Lees 

Ferry Fish project’s (BIO 4.M2.11, 12) Early Life History Monitoring element in the FY11/12 

Work Plan, has provided information on the effects of other flow manipulations, such as the high 

flow event of 2008 and the steady equalization flows of 2011 (Korman and others, 2011). Winter 

and early spring redd surveys provide information on the magnitude of spawn and the effects of 

flows on incubation mortality. Electrofishing of nearshore habitat in the summer and fall 

provides information on recruitment, survival, and growth of juvenile fish. Whereas the Rainbow 

Trout Monitoring in Glen Canyon Project (Project Element F.2.1.) monitors relative abundance 

of young-of-the-year rainbow trout in the fall, this project provides “initial response” information 

about survival rates of age-0 rainbow trout, and provides insight into how early rainbow trout life 

stages are affected by their density.

This project will produce Reports presenting annual results in context of previous results, 

and relating early rainbow trout survival to dam operations.

Project Element F.2.3. Lees Ferry Angler Surveys 

Michael C. Anderson, Fishery Biologist, Arizona Game and Fish Department

Aaron Bunch, Fishery Biologist, Arizona Game and Fish Department

William Persons, Fishery Biologist, USGS/GCMRC

Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) were initially stocked in the Colorado River below 

Glen Canyon Dam (GCD) in 1964. Operation of Glen Canyon Dam affects the ecology of 

rainbow trout and the aquatic food base in the Lees Ferry reach (McKinney and others, 1999, 

2001). The Lees Ferry recreational fishery was recognized as a resource of concern in the 

Operation of Glen Canyon Dam Final Environmental Impact Statement (U.S. Department of the 

Interior (DOI), 1995), which concluded: “Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program 

(GCDAMP) goals for the trout fishery are to provide a recreational resource while maintaining 

and conserving native fish in Grand Canyon”.

Angler surveys have been collected consistently at the Lees Ferry boat ramp since 1991. 

Survey methods are described in Anderson and others, 2012. Individual angler effort and catch 

are used to estimate annual angler use, catch rates and total angler catch and harvest at Lees 
156

Ferry. A series of attitude questions will also be asked of anglers. This project will incorporate 

results into the annual report prepared as part of Project Element F2.1.

Project Element F.3. Mainstem Monitoring of Native and Nonnative Fishes Near the LCR Confluence; Juvenile 

Chub Monitoring ($464,000) 

Mike Yard, Fishery Biologist, USGS/GCMRC

Josh Korman, President, Ecometric Research, Inc.

D.R. VanHaverbeke, Fishery Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Aaron Bunch, Fishery Biologist, Arizona Game and Fish Department

This project will estimate juvenile humpback chub survival rates, and will estimate 

rainbow trout and brown trout abundance near the confluence of the mainstem Colorado River 

and the LCR. Obtaining rainbow and brown trout abundance estimates between RM 63–64.5 

were identified as necessary activities in the 2011 Environmental Assessment for Non-Native 

Fish Control Downstream from Glen Canyon Dam and associated Biological Opinion (Bureau of 

Reclamation, 2011). The metrics are included in the suite of triggers identifying when to 

implement mechanical removal of nonnative fish to protect humpback chub. Continued annual 

assessments of juvenile humpback chub survival rates and abundance in the mainstem using 

methods developed in the Near Shore Ecology Study (B. Pine, pers. Comm.; see also Bio 

2.R15.11, 12 in the FY11/12 Work Plan) will provide key metrics by which management actions 

such as rainbow trout removal will be evaluated.

This project will result in annual reports with juvenile humpback chub survival rates and 

recommendations for future sampling, and peer reviewed publication relating humpback chub 

survival rates and management activities.

Project Element F.4. Little Colorado River Monitoring ($811,200) 

LCR monitoring consists of three primary elements that provide information on status 

and trends of native and nonnative fishes in the LCR. All LCR monitoring projects provide data 

for use in the Age-Structured-Mark-Recapture Model (ASMR) as well as information required in 

the 2011 Biological Opinion. These projects also include monitoring external parasites on native 

and non-native fishes.

Project Element F.4.1 Annual Spring and Fall Humpback Chub Abundance Estimates in the Lower 13.6 km of 

the Little Colorado River 

D.R. Van Haverbeke, Fishery Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

William Persons, Fishery Biologist, USGS/GCMRC

Spring and fall closed population abundance estimates provide annual estimates of 

abundance of adult humpback chub (> 150 mm and > 200 mm total length(TL)), and during 

some years provides abundance estimates of other native fishes (Coggins and others, 2006; 

Coggins, 2007; Van Haverbeke, 2010). The project also marks juvenile humpback chub (< 100 

mm TL) with Visible Implant Elastomer tags in the fall to assist the Natal Origins Project 

(Project Element D.1.1) This is an ongoing project since 2000 (see BIO 2.m.1.11, 12 in FY11/12 

Work Plan) and the monitoring was identified as a necessary component in the 2011 

Environmental Assessment for Non-Native Fish Control Downstream from Glen Canyon Dam 

and associated Biological Opinion (Bureau of Reclamation, 2011). Sampling is conducted by 
157

nine biologists at three camps during four annual trips. Logistics costs include helicopter and 

food costs.

Reports expected from this project are annual reports provided to GCMRC with spring 

and fall abundance estimates of humpback chub in the lower 13.6 km of the LCR. In addition, a

draft translocation plan for Grand Canyon has been developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service and Grand Canyon National Park (Translocation and Refuge Framework for Humpback 

Chub (Gila cypha) in Grand Canyon). The report is being reviewed by the two agencies and by 

GCMRC prior to further external peer review. We expect the report to be finalized by mid-2013.

Project element F.4.2. Monitoring Native and Nonnative Fishes in the Lower 1.2 km of the Little Colorado 

River 

Aaron Bunch, Fishery Biologist, Arizona Game and Fish Department

William Persons, Fishery Biologist, USGS/GCMRC

This program, established by the Arizona Game and Fish Department in 1987, has 

operated continuously, except in 2000 and 2001 (Coggins and others, 2006); Arizona Game and 

Fish Department, unpub. data, 2011; see also BIO 2.M1.11, 12 in the FY11/12 Work Plan). The 

program produces annual assessments of the relative abundance (that is, catch-per-unit effort) of 

all size classes of humpback chub, flannelmouth suckers, bluehead suckers, speckled dace, and a 

host of nonnative fish in the lower 1,200 m of the LCR. Data are collected during a 30- to 40-day 

period in spring (April and May) using hoop nets set in standardized locations throughout the 

reach. Results of this monitoring provide independent comparisons to humpback chub abundance 

trends generated by the ASMR model and Project element 2.1. The statistical power of this 

portion of the monitoring program has not yet been assessed, but statistically significant 

differences in relative abundance are apparent in current data.

Reports to be expected from this project are annual reports with results of monitoring of 

the lower 1.2 km of the LCR.

Project Element F.4.3. Translocation and Monitoring above Chute Falls 

D.R. VanHaverbeke, Fishery Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Brian Healy, Fishery Biologist, Grand Canyon National Park

William Persons, Fishery Biologist, USGS/GCMRC

Efforts to translocate humpback chub upstream of Chute Falls on the Little Colorado 

River and to monitor their status have been ongoing annually since 2003 (see BIO 2.M3.11, 12 

in the FY11/12 Work Plan). Approximately 1,850 juvenile (80 – 130 mm TL) humpback chub 

have been translocated upstream of Chute Falls to date. Beginning in 2006, two-pass mark 

recapture population estimates of humpback chub were conducted upstream of Chute Falls and 

Lower Atomizer Falls at 13.57 km. Early results suggested rapid growth of translocated fish, 

although few adult humpback chub (> 200 mm) have been caught upstream of Chute Falls since

2009. The project is identified as a Conservation Measure in the 2011 Biological Opinion.

Translocations to Shinumo Creek and Havasu Creek and the continued maintenance of a refuge 

population of humpback chub at Dexter National Fish Hatchery and Technology Center are also 

prescribed in the Biological Opinion, but funding and work activities occur largely outside of 

GCMRC. There is a need to continue coordinating the various translocation efforts and to 

conduct an independent peer-review of results to guide future management activities.
158

A report describing results of translocation and monitoring activities is expected out of 

this project

Project Element F.4.4. PIT Tag antenna monitoring 

Dana Winkelman, Professor, Colorado State University

William Persons, Fishery Biologist, USGS/GCMRC

This has been an ongoing effort since 2009 (see BIO 2.R13.11, 12 in the FY11/12 Work 

Plan), with lapses and equipment failures during parts of 2010 and 2011. The project has 

installed a PIT tag antenna system in the LCR approximately 2 km upstream from the confluence 

with the mainstem Colorado River. The antenna system reads PIT tags from fish as they pass the 

tag station, and data can be used within ASMR and to provide information on timing of 

movement and survival of PIT tagged native fishes. Between January 1, 2012 and April 27, 

2012, 1,576 unique PIT tagged humpback chub were detected by the antenna. An agreement is in 

place with Dr. Dana Winkelman, Colorado State University, and a graduate student, Kristen 

Pearson, for FY12 and FY13 to:

1. Assemble all available capture, recapture, and remote PIT tag detections, and integrate 

them to estimate abundance, survival, and movement probabilities by life stage. 

2. Estimate abundance, survival, and movement probabilities by life stage, ignoring 

detection data from the PIT tag arrays, and compare precision with the integrated data.

3. Estimate survival and movement probabilities by life stage, using just initial capture data 

with remote detections of tagged fish from the PIT tag arrays (i.e., ignoring physical 

recaptures), and compare precision and estimability of parameters with the integrated 

analysis.

4. Use simulation, based on the parameter estimates from the previous analyses, as well as 

cost information for capturing fish, to identify an optimal allocation of capture effort 

combined with PIT tag array detections.

5. Empirically evaluate detection probabilities of PIT tags in the LCR.

Expected Products for this project is a Master’s thesis and at least one peer-reviewed 

publication.

Project Element F.5. Stock Assessment and Age Structured Mark Recapture Model humpback chub abundance 

estimates ($20,200) 

Charles Yackulic, Research Statistician, USGS/GCMRC

Steve Martell, Professor, University of British Colombia

This project will provide essential updates of population size composition and capture 

rates of humpback chub and other Grand Canyon fish to the GCDAMP and other managers. This 

work was previously described in the FY11/12 Work Plan as part of two projects: Stock 

Assessment of Grand Canyon Native Fish (BIO 2.R7.11, 12) and Biometrics and General 

Analysis (BIO 2.R19.11, 12). Reporting will include periodic updates on the status and trends of 

populations of humpback chub and other native fishes in Grand Canyon and retrospective time 

series of native fish populations to allow for comparison with previous years’ data. The 

assembled humpback chub data from the Grand Canyon fish monitoring projects will be 

incorporated into updates of the ASMR model approximately every 3 years. Providing ASMR 
159

estimates is called for in the Environmental Assessment for Non-Native Fish Control 

Downstream from Glen Canyon Dam and associated Biological Opinion.

Products that will come from this project are a report with estimates of humpback chub 

abundance and description of ASMR or revised length-based model.

Project Element F.6. Detection of Rainbow Trout Movement from the Upper Reaches of the Colorado River 

below Glen Canyon Dam/Natal Origins ($276,000) 

Josh Korman, President, Ecometric Research Inc.

Mike Yard, Fishery Biologist, USGS/GCMRC

Charles Yackulic, Research Statistician, USGS/GCMRC

Aaron Bunch, Fishery Biologist, Arizona Game and Fish Department

This project as described in the FY11/12 Work Plan (BIO 2.E18.11, 12), has been 

modified and expanded. This study is an experimental research project to determine if Glen 

Canyon is the natal source of trout emigrating into the downstream reaches of Marble and Grand 

Canyons (Korman and others, 2011). Information from this project will help resolve some of the 

uncertainties about prescribing nonnative fish control activities in locations that are 

geographically distant to the area of concern (Little Colorado River confluence area). This 

project is based on existing information (Coggins, 2008; Coggins and others, in review) that 

concludes that rainbow trout reared in the Lees Ferry reach of the Colorado River (Glen Canyon 

Dam to Lees Ferry) move out of that reach under some conditions. 

The central objectives of this research project are to (1) determine the natal origins of 

rainbow trout in the Marble Canyon/LCR confluence area via a large-scale mark and recovery 

effort, (2) to evaluate the linkage between trout populations in the Lees Ferry reach and Marble 

Canyon, and (3) assess the efficacy of Paria to Badger Reach removal efforts. Response of 

juvenile native fish to changes in trout density near the LCR area resulting from removal and 

experimental flow treatments will be studied.

This project also provides logistical and field support for Project H “Identifying the main 

drivers of rainbow trout growth, population size, demographics and distribution in Glen and 

Marble Canyon” (Study Elements: H.2., H.3., and H.5.), and project element F.3., Mainstem 

monitoring of native and nonnative fishes near the LCR confluence -Juvenile Chub Monitoring 

(as per Environmental Assessment 2011).

Reports expected from this project are annual and final reports and possible peerreviewed publications.

Project Element F.7. Foodbase Monitoring ($271,800) 

Monitoring of the aquatic foodbase in the Colorado River below Glen Canyon Dam is an 

ongoing project. The activities described in the FY11/12 Work Plan (BIO 1.M1.11, 12) and 

being conducted in FY12 include estimating algae production, algae and organic matter biomass, 

invertebrate production, and invertebrate and organic drift at two sites: Lees Ferry and Diamond 

Creek. This work will continue in FY13 and FY14 with the modifications and additions 

described below. 

Project Element F.7.1. Linking Invertebrate Drift with Fish Feeding Habits 

Theodore Kennedy, Research Aquatic Biologist, USGS/GCMRC

Adam Copp, Ecologist, USGS/GCMRC
160

The two focal fish species for the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program—

humpback chub and rainbow trout—are both drift feeders. Invertebrate drift measurements are 

easy to collect relative to benthic invertebrate samples, and these data are much less variable than 

benthic invertebrate data. A key component of long-term foodbase monitoring will therefore 

involve characterizing spatial and temporal variation in invertebrate drift. Invertebrate 

monitoring programs typically involve benthic sampling, but benthic sampling in the Colorado 

River is extremely challenging because of swift currents and hydropeaking. Thus, the proposed 

approach to monitoring overcomes these challenges by focusing on a foodbase metric—

invertebrate drift—that might actually be more meaningful to focal drift-feeding fish species 

relative to benthic invertebrate abundance. However, not all invertebrates that are drifting will be 

available to drift feeding fish. For example, turbidity combined with small overall invertebrate 

size may mean that only a small portion of the drift is available to humpback chub or rainbow 

trout. Understanding what spatial and temporal variation in drift rates means to food availability 

for fishes will therefore require simultaneous sampling of invertebrate drift and fish feeding 

habits (see Project H). Long-term monitoring of drift will occur at two accessible sites—Glen 

Canyon and Diamond Creek. Collections will occur in the thalweg. Drift nets will be vertically 

integrated throughout the water column for 5 minutes. Monitoring will include three midday drift 

collections and three collections after dark in order to characterize temporal variability in drift.

Six samples will be collected every six weeks from each location.

Project Element F.7.2. Citizen Science Monitoring of Emergent Aquatic Insects 

Theodore Kennedy, Research Aquatic Biologist, USGS/GCMRC

Adam Copp, Ecologist, USGS/GCMRC

Colden Baxter, Idaho State University

There is a consistent relation between the production of benthic insects in a river reach 

and the total flux of insects that emerge from a river reach (Statzner and Resh, 1993; Gratton and 

VanderZanden, 2009). Thus, tracking the flux of emergent insects might represent a useful 

surrogate for traditional benthic invertebrate monitoring programs. However, insect emergence is 

temporally variable and characterized by pronounced ‘hatches’. Given large spatial variation in 

water temperatures and resource quality across the 390 km of Colorado River, one might expect 

large temporal variation in the timing of these hatches. Further, midges and blackflies have 

multiple emergences per year. Spatial variation in emergence timing makes it unlikely that a 

single science river trip per year could adequately capture peak emergence among sites in Grand 

Canyon. We will overcome these challenges by using a previously untapped pool of citizen 

scientists—professional river guides. We will equip up to 10 guides with light traps to collect 

samples of flying insects from April through October. Light traps will catch both flying aquatic 

and terrestrial insects. Thus, light trap data might also be useful for long-term monitoring of 

terrestrial insect populations. Each guide will be equipped with two light traps. One will be 

deployed near the day’s high water line and the second trap will be deployed near the 45,000 cfs 

stage elevation. Light traps will be deployed within an hour after sunset and will stay on for one 

hour. Samples will be preserved in ethanol. Interpretive materials and handouts will be provided 

to guides to facilitate outreach with the public. Guides will collect light trap samples in Glen 

Canyon during the evening prior to their launch downstream. Emergent aquatic insects represent 

an important subsidy that sustains animals populations in riparian zones adjacent to rivers (Sabo 

and Powers 2002; (Sabo and others, 2002; Gratton and Vander Zanden, 2009). These data can 
161

also be used to better understand the potential importance of aquatic-terrestrial linkages in the 

Colorado River below Glen Canyon Dam.

We will also sample emergent insects in Glen Canyon and Diamond Creek in association 

with regular monitoring trips to these accessible sites. Emergence monitoring at these sites will 

involve additional gear types. Specifically, we will use sticky traps, similar to fly paper, to 

characterize insect abundance over longer-time scales than is possible with lights traps. 

Plexiglass sheets (0.1 m2) coated with Tangelfoot and suspended from a garden post temporarily 

placed along nearshore areas will be used to catch emergent insects. These traps will be deployed 

for up to a week. The timing of peak emergence is not known precisely, but conversations with 

river and fishing guides suggests that peak emergence occurs between March and June. Once we 

have a better idea of emergence timing, future emergence monitoring at Lees Ferry and Diamond 

Creek may be reduced and just focus on key months when emergence is high.

Samples of emergent insects are far easier and quicker to process than traditional benthic 

samples because there is little organic matter or debris on emergence samples and winged adults 

are easier to identify than aquatic larvae. This is an important consideration in the selection of 

monitoring metrics because a program that emphasizes samples that are quick and easy to 

process is more likely to provide timely information to decision makers relative to a program that 

emphasizes samples that are difficult and time-intensive to process. 

Project Element F.7.3. Primary Production Monitoring 

Theodore Kennedy, Research Aquatic Biologist, USGS/GCMRC

Adam Copp, Ecologist, USGS/GCMRC

Bob Hall, Biologist, University of Wyoming

Algae is the crank that turns the Colorado River food web in Glen Canyon and Grand 

Canyon. We will continuously monitor algae primary production at 5 locations (Glen Canyon, 

river mile 30, river mile 61, river mile 87, and river mile 225) using methods described in (Hall 

and others, 2010). Yard (2003) predicts large variation in algae growth among reaches, 

especially due to differences in canyon orientation, channel depth, and turbidity. Continuous 

estimates of primary production at these five sites will be used to evaluate the predictions of 

Yard (2003). These monitoring data will also be used to parameterize a mechanistic model of 

primary production that can be used to make predictions about algae growth response to dam 

operations.

Project Element F.7.4. Benthic Algae and Invertebrate Biomass 

Theodore Kennedy, Research Aquatic Biologist, USGS/GCMRC

Adam Copp, Ecologist, USGS/GCMRC

Traditional benthic sampling of invertebrates is another important part of our foodbase

monitoring strategy because it will provide information on the non-insect taxa that tend to 

dominate production budgets, but do not emerge or drift, and would therefore be missed using 

just drift and emergence measurements (Cross and others, 2011). However, directly sampling 

benthic habitats in the Colorado River is extremely difficult and time intensive, which limits the 

utility of benthic biomass as a monitoring metric. For example, hydropeaking constrains benthic 

sampling to a brief window of low water that varies in timing throughout the canyon (i.e., low 

water at river mile 30 is typically in the late morning while low water at river mile 61, near the 
162

LCR confluence, occurs in the middle of the night), which greatly limits the area of habitat that 

can be sampled in a day.

We will conduct traditional benthic sampling once per year. Further, we will conduct this 

annual synoptic monitoring at a time of year when discharge is low (i.e., spring) to maximize our 

ability to sample benthic habitats. One objective of annual benthic sampling is detecting new 

species of invertebrates that might become established in Grand Canyon in the future. As such, 

benthic habitats throughout Grand Canyon will be sampled using river trips. We will sample all 

habitat types, not just the most productive ones (i.e., cobble), in order to develop habitatweighted estimates of algae and invertebrate abundance, biomass, and composition that can be 

compared among years. These data will provide a comprehensive snapshot of the benthic 

environment in Grand Canyon that can be repeated annually and will allow for detection of 

major trends such as the arrival of new invertebrate taxa, or changes in the diversity or richness 

of the invertebrate assemblage. A detailed benthic sampling design that incorporates randomly 

selected sites will be developed in consultation with GCMRCs research statistician to ensure the 

scope of inference for these samples is canyon-wide.

5. References 

Anders, P., Bradford, M., Higgins, P.S., Nislow, K.H., Rabeni, C., and Tate, C., 2001, Final 

report of the Aquatic Protocol Evaluation Program Panel: U.S. Geological Survey, Grand 

Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, 43 p.

Bradford, M., Bevelhimer, M., Hansen, M., Mueller, G., Osmundson, D., Rice, J.A., and 

Winkelman, D., 2009, Report of the 2009 protocol evaluation panel for fish monitoring 

programs of the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center: [Unpublished report 

submitted to U.S. Geological Survey, September 2009.].

Bureau of Reclamation, 2011, Environmental assessment--non-native fish control downstream 

from Glen Canyon Dam: Salt Lake City, Utah, Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado 

Region, 102 p. + appendices, accessed on March 21, 2012, 

at http://www.usbr.gov/uc/envdocs/ea/gc/nnfc/NNFC-EA.pdf.

Bureau of Reclamation, and U.S. Geological Survey Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research 

Center, 2010, Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program biennial budget and work 

plan--fiscal years 2011-12: Salt Lake City, Utah, Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado 

Regional Office, 250 p. + appendices.

Clark, B.C., Persons, W.R., and Ward, D.L., 2010, Little Colorado River lower 1,200-meter 

long-term fish monitoring, 1987–2008, in Melis, T.S., Hamill, J.F., Bennett, G.E., Coggins, 

L.G., Jr., Grams, P.E., Kennedy, T.A., Kubly, D.M., and Ralston, B.E., eds., Proceedings of 

the Colorado River Basin Science and Resource Management Symposium, November 18-20, 

2008, Scottsdale, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010-

5135, 256-60 p., accessed on July 15, 2010, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5135/.

Coggins, L.G., Jr., 2007, Abundance trends and status of the Little Colorado River population of 

humpback chub--an update considering data from 1989-2006: U.S. Geological Survey OpenFile Report 2007-1402, 28 p., accessed on February 4, 2010, 

at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2007/1402/.

Coggins, L.G., Jr., Pine, W.E., III, Walters, C.J., Van Haverbeke, D.R., Ward, D., and Johnstone, 

H.C., 2006, Abundance trends and status of the Little Colorado River population of 

humpback chub: North American Journal of Fisheries Management, v. 26, no. 1, doi: 
163

10.1577M05-075.1, p. 233-245, accessed on July 19, 2011, 

at http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/06may24/Attach_06f.pdf.

Coggins, L.G., Jr., and Walters, C.J., 2009, Abundance trends and status of the Little Colorado 

River population of humpback chub--an update considering data from 1989-2008: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 2009-1075, 18 p., accessed on February 1, 2010, 

at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1075/.

Coggins, L.G., Yard, M.D., and Pine, W.E., 2011, Nonnative fish control in the Colorado River 

in Grand Canyon, Arizona--an effective program or serendipitous timing?: Transactions of 

the American Fisheries Society, v. 140, no. 2, doi: 10.1080/00028487.2011.572009, p. 456-

470, accessed on July 29, 2011, 

at http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00028487.2011.572009.

Cross, W.F., Baxter, C.V., Donner, K.C., Rosi-Marshall, E.J., Kennedy, T.A., Hall, R.O., Jr., 

Wellard-Kelly, H.A., and Rogers, R.S., 2011, Ecosystem ecology meets adaptive 

management--food web response to a controlled flood on the Colorado River, Glen Canyon: 

Ecological Applications, v. 21, no. 6, doi: 10.1890/10-1719.1, p. 2016-2033, accessed on 

June 28, 2011, at http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/10-1719.1.

Gratton, C., and Vander Zanden, M.J., 2009, Flux of aquatic insect productivity to land--

comparison of lentic and lotic ecosystems: Ecology, v. 90, no. 10, p. 2689-2699, accessed on 

January 5, 2012, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/08-1546.1.

Hall, R.O., Jr., Kennedy, T.A., Rosi Marshall, E.J., Cross, W.F., Wellard, H.A., and Baxter, C.F., 

2010, Aquatic production and carbon flow in the Colorado River, in Melis, T.S., Hamill, J.F., 

Bennett, G.E., Coggins, L.G., Jr., Grams, P.E., Kennedy, T.A., Kubly, D.M., and Ralston, 

B.E., eds., Proceedings of the Colorado River Basin Science and Resource Management 

Symposium, November 18-20, 2008, Scottsdale, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2010-5135, 105-12 p., accessed on July 15, 2010, 

at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5135/.

Korman, J., 2009, Early life history dynamics of rainbow trout in a large regulated river: 

Vancouver, University of British Columbia, Ph.D. thesis, 214 p.

Korman, J., Kaplinski, M., and Melis, T.S., 2011, Effects of fluctuating flows and a controlled 

flood on incubation success and early survival rates and growth of age-0 rainbow trout in a 

large regulated river: Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, v. 140, no. 2, doi: 

10.1080/00028487.2011.572015, p. 487-505, accessed on April 19, 2011, 

at http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00028487.2011.572015.

Maddux, H.R., Kubly, D.M., deVos, J.C., Jr., Persons, W.R., Staedicke, R., and Wright, R.L., 

1987, Effects of varied flow regimes on aquatic resources of Glen and Grand Canyons--final 

report: Phoenix, Arizona Game and Fish Department, submitted to Bureau of Reclamation, 

Glen Canyon Environmental Studies, contract no. 4-AG-40-01810, 291 p. [Available from 

National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va. as NTIS Report PB88-183439/AS.]

Makinster, A.S., Persons, W.R., and Avery, L.A., 2011, Status and trends of the rainbow trout 

population in the Lees Ferry Reach of the Colorado River downstream from Glen Canyon 

Dam, Arizona, 1991–2009: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2011-

5015, 17 p., accessed on June 13, 2011, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2011/5015/.

Makinster, A.S., Persons, W.R., Avery, L.A., and Bunch, A.J., 2010, Colorado River fish 

monitoring in Grand Canyon, Arizona--2000 to 2009 summary: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 2010-1246, 26 p., accessed on November 5, 2010, 

at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1246/.
164

McKinney, T., Speas, D.W., Rogers, R.S., and Persons, W.R., 2001, Rainbow trout in a 

regulated river below Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona, following increased minimum flows and 

reduced discharge variability: North American Journal of Fisheries Management, v. 21, no. 

1, p. 216-222, accessed on August 23, 2011, 

at http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1577/1548-

8675(2001)021%3C0216:RTIARR%3E2.0.CO;2.

Melis, T.S., Grams, P.E., Kennedy, T.A., Ralston, B.E., Robinson, C.T., Schmidt, J.C., Schmit, 

L.M., Valdez, R.A., and Wright, S.A., 2011, Three experimental high-flow releases from 

Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona--effects of the downstream Colorado River ecosystem: U.S. 

Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2011-3012, 4 p., accessed on June 28, 2011, 

at http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2011/3012/.

Sabo, J.L., Bastow, J.L., and Power, M.E., 2002, Length-mass relationships for adult aquatic and 

terrestrial invertebrates in a California watershed: Journal of the North American 

Benthological Society, v. 21, no. 2, p. 336-343, accessed on June 30, 2011, 

at http://www.jstor.org/stable/1468420.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2011, Final biological opinion on the operation of Glen Canyon 

Dam including high flow experiments and non-native fish control: Phoenix, Ariz., submitted 

to Bureau of Reclamation, Salt Lake City, Utah, AESO/SE 22410-2011-F-0100, 22410-

2011-F-0112, 150 p., accessed on April 5, 2012, 

at http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/Biol_Opin/110112_HFE_NNR.pdf.

Van Haverbeke, D.R., 2010, The humpback chub of Grand Canyon, in Melis, T.S., Hamill, J.F., 

Bennett, G.E., Coggins, L.G., Jr., Grams, P.E., Kennedy, T.A., Kubly, D.M., and Ralston, 

B.E., eds., Proceedings of the Colorado River Basin Science and Resource Management 

Symposium, November 18-20, 2008, Scottsdale, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2010-5135, 261-8 p., accessed on July 15, 2010, 

at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5135/.

Van Haverbeke, D.R., Stone, D.M., and Pillow, M.J., 2011, Mark-recapture and fish monitoring 

activities in the Little Colorado River in Grand Canyon during 2010: Flagstaff, Ariz., U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, submitted to U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring 

and Research Center, report no. USFWS-AZWCO-FL-11-02, 70 p.

Van Haverbeke, D.R., Stone, D.M., and Pillow, M.J., 2012, Mark-recapture and fish monitoring 

activities in the Little Colorado River in Grand Canyon during 2011--draft version for review 

only: Flagstaff, Ariz., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, submitted to U.S. Geological Survey,

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, report no. USFWS-AZWCO-FL-12-004, 64 

p.

Walters, C.J., and Holling, C.S., 1990, Large-scale management experiments and learning by 

doing: Ecology, v. 71, no. 6, p. 2060-2068, accessed on January 4, 2010, 

at http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/1938620.pdf.

Yard, M.D., Coggins, L.G., Baxter, C.V., Bennett, G.E., and Korman, J., 2011, Trout piscivory 

in the Colorado River, Grand Canyon--effects of turbidity, temperature, and fish prey 

availability: Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, v. 140, no. 2, doi: 

10.1080/00028487.2011.572011, p. 471-486, accessed on April 19, 2011, 

at http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00028487.2011.572011.
165

6. Budget 

Project Element F.1. 

Mainstem 

spring/nonnative fish 

monitoring

Project Element F.2. Glen 

Canyon monitoring

Project Element F.3. 

Mainstem monitoring of 

native and nonnative 

fishes near the LCR 

confluence

Salaries $7,800 Salaries $38,400 Salaries $49,900

Traveling and Training $1,900 Traveling and Training $3,400 Traveling and Training $0 

Operating Expenses $8,000 Operating Expenses $4,300 Operating Expenses $9,000 

Logistics $59,600 Logistics $23,500 Logistics $178,100

GIS/RS/Electronics support $22,700 GIS/RS/Electronics support $22,800 GIS/RS/Electronics support $11,400

Cooperators (non-USGS) $103,000 Cooperators (non-USGS) $157,000 Cooperators (non-USGS) $177,000

USGS cooperators $0 USGS cooperators $0 USGS cooperators $0

USGS Burden $13,900 USGS Burden $14,400 USGS Burden $38,600 

Total $216,900 Total $263,800 Total $464,000

Project Element F.4. LCR 

monitoring

Project Element F.5. Stock 

assessment and structured 

mark recapture model 

humpback chub 

abundance estimates

Project Element F.6. 

Detection of rainbow trout 

movement from upper 

Colorado

Salaries $45,200 Salaries $7,700 Salaries $25,100

Traveling and Training $0 Traveling and Training $0 Traveling and Training $0 

Operating Expenses $23,000 Operating Expenses $0 Operating Expenses $50,000 

Logistics $122,700 Logistics $0 Logistics $96,500

GIS/RS/Electronics support $56,900 GIS/RS/Electronics support $11,400 GIS/RS/Electronics support $11,400

Cooperators (non-USGS) $521,000 Cooperators (non-USGS) $0 Cooperators (non-USGS) $67,000

USGS cooperators USGS cooperators $0 USGS cooperators $0

USGS Burden $42,400 USGS Burden $1,100 USGS Burden $26,000 

Total $811,200 Total $20,200 Total $276,000

Project Element F.7. 

Foodbase monitoring

Salaries $159,900

Traveling and Training $3,400 

Operating Expenses $5,000 

Logistics $26,700

GIS/RS/Electronics support $11,400

Cooperators (non-USGS) $37,000

USGS cooperators $0

USGS Burden $28,400 

Total $271,800

FY 2013 Project F. Gross Total: 

$2,323,900

FY 2013
166

Project Element F.1. 

Mainstem 

spring/nonnative fish 

monitoring

Project Element F.2. Glen 

Canyon monitoring

Project Element F.3. 

Mainstem monitoring of 

native and nonnative 

fishes near the LCR 

confluence

Salaries $8,000 Salaries $39,600 Salaries $51,400

Traveling and Training $2,000 Traveling and Training $3,500 Traveling and Training $0 

Operating Expenses $8,200 Operating Expenses $4,400 Operating Expenses $9,300 

Logistics $61,400 Logistics $24,200 Logistics $183,400

GIS/RS/Electronics support $20,500 GIS/RS/Electronics support $20,600 GIS/RS/Electronics support $10,300

Cooperators (non-USGS) $106,100 Cooperators (non-USGS) $161,800 Cooperators (non-USGS) $182,300

USGS cooperators $0 USGS cooperators $0 USGS cooperators $0

USGS Burden $17,700 USGS Burden $18,000 USGS Burden $42,400 

Total $223,900 Total $272,100 Total $479,100

Project Element F.4. LCR 

monitoring

Project Element F.5. Stock 

assessment and structured 

mark recapture model 

humpback chub 

abundance estimates

Project Element F.6. 

Detection of rainbow trout 

movement from upper 

Colorado

Salaries $46,500 Salaries $8,000 Salaries $25,800

Traveling and Training $0 Traveling and Training $0 Traveling and Training $0 

Operating Expenses $23,700 Operating Expenses $0 Operating Expenses $51,500 

Logistics $126,500 Logistics $0 Logistics $99,500

GIS/RS/Electronics support $51,400 GIS/RS/Electronics support $10,300 GIS/RS/Electronics support $10,300

Cooperators (non-USGS) $495,400 Cooperators (non-USGS) $0 Cooperators (non-USGS) $69,000

USGS cooperators $0 USGS cooperators $0 USGS cooperators $0

USGS Burden $50,400 USGS Burden $2,500 USGS Burden $29,000 

Total $793,900 Total $20,800 Total $285,100

Project Element F.7. 

Foodbase monitoring

Salaries $164,700

Traveling and Training $3,500 

Operating Expenses $5,200 

Logistics $27,500

GIS/RS/Electronics support $10,300

Cooperators (non-USGS) $38,100

USGS cooperators $0

USGS Burden $30,900 

Total $280,200

FY 2014

FY 2014 Project F. Gross Total: 

$2,355,100
167

Project G. 

Interactions between Native Fish and Nonnative Trout 

1. Investigators 

David Ward, Fishery Biologist, USGS, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

Mike Yard, Fishery Biologist, USGS, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

Scott VanderKooi, Supervisory Biologist, USGS, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research 

Center

Brian Healy, Fishery Biologist, NPS, Grand Canyon National Park

Clay Nelson, Fishery Biologist, NPS, Grand Canyon National Park 

Emily Omana, Fishery Biologist, NPS, Grand Canyon National Park 

Melissa Trammel, Fishery Biologist, Intermountain Region

David Speas, Fishery Biologist, Bureau of Reclamation

2. Project Summary 

This project will evaluate impacts of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and brown 

trout (Salmo trutta) on humpback chub (Gila cypha) in both laboratory and field settings. 

Laboratory studies will be used to isolate confounding variables and quantify relative 

competition and predation impacts of rainbow and brown trout on humpback chub under varying 

environmental conditions. Results of laboratory tests will then be used in conjunction with data 

from long-term monitoring to model population level impacts of trout on humpback chub. The 

field study will remove brown trout by electrofishing in and around Bright Angel Creek and 

subsequently evaluate impacts of brown trout removal on native fish populations. Combining 

laboratory studies, field studies, monitoring efforts, and modeling will allow researchers to 

understand how predation and competition by rainbow and brown trout impact humpback chub 

at various life stages and at population level. This will allow managers to improve management 

actions designed to conserve Colorado River native fishes.

3. Background 

Continued decline of native fish populations in the southwestern United States is largely 

attributed to interactions with invasive aquatic species (Minckley and Marsh, 2009; Tyus and 

Saunders, 2000). Repeated studies demonstrate the inability of native fishes to persist in 

environments where nonnative fish have become established (Marsh and Pacey, 2005). Diet 

studies of rainbow and brown trout collected from the confluence of the Little Colorado and 

Colorado Rivers, indicate these species do consume native fish (Yard and others, 2011), but 

population level impacts are difficult to assess because predation vulnerability is known to 

change with turbidity (Yard and others, 2011), fish size, and water temperature (Ward and 

others, 2002; Ward and Bonar, 2003; 2011 GCMRC knowledge assessment workshop 

presentations). Competitive interactions with introduced trout can also impact native fishes 

(Robinson and others, 2003), but the extent to which these interactions affect humpback chub 

populations in the Grand Canyon is unknown. Understanding the effects of predation and 

competition by trout on endangered humpback chub is critical in evaluating management options 
168

aimed at preservation of native fishes in Grand Canyon and was identified as a critical 

information need at recent Knowledge Assessment Workshops (GCMRC and Cooperator 

presentations, 2011-2012).

Many key questions related to native southwestern fishes’ recruitment and survival 

remain unanswered because of the cost and difficulties of conducting field studies in remote 

environmental settings like Grand Canyon and in isolating confounding factors present in natural 

systems. This project introduces a new laboratory component to Grand Canyon fish research that 

augments existing Colorado River field based data collection capabilities. In this part of the 

project, researchers will conduct studies on stream dwelling organisms in a controlled laboratory 

setting. This new capability will allow researchers to quickly and cost-effectively quantify 

relative impacts of rainbow and brown trout competition and predation on humpback chub, 

which can then be extrapolated to population level responses using long-term monitoring data. 

The second part of the project is to evaluate the effects of brown trout on native fish in a 

field setting. Brown trout are known to suppress growth and movement of other fish species 

(McHugh and Budy, 2006) and are much more piscivorous on juvenile native fishes in Grand 

Canyon than rainbow trout (Yard and others, 2011). The highest catch rates of brown trout in 

Grand Canyon are found in the Colorado River near the confluence of Bright Angel Creek 

(Makinster and others, 2010), and in Bright Angel Creek itself, with densities as high as 30 fish 

per 100 meters (National Park Service data). Large numbers of juvenile chub and suckers are 

known to exit the LCR each spring (Robinson and others, 1998), yet relatively few juvenile 

humpback chub are captured in the mainstem Colorado River downstream of Bright Angel 

Creek. Dispersal of juvenile humpback chub into downstream areas of Grand Canyon may be 

limited by brown trout inhabiting the area around Bright Angel Creek. If this is the case, then 

management efforts targeted to reduce brown trout predation near Bright Angel Creek may have 

positive benefits for downstream dispersal and recruitment of juvenile humpback chub. 

Following consultation with the tribes, we will apply an experimental treatment and remove 

brown trout from the area in and around Bright Angel Creek to evaluate this hypothesis. If 

effective, mechanical removal of brown trout from Bright Angel Creek and from the mainstem 

Colorado River surrounding Bright Angel Creek could be applied as a long-term management 

action to increase habitat for native fishes and reduce predation on these species.

3.1. Scientific Background 

Endangered humpback chub, endemic to the Colorado River basin, have declined in both 

abundance and distribution due to the introduction of nonnative species and alternation of flow 

and temperature regimes (Minckley and Marsh, 2009). Introduced rainbow trout and brown trout 

are known to prey upon juvenile native fish in Grand Canyon (Yard and others, 2011) including 

humpback chub. Predation by these nonnative species may adversely impact native fish at a 

population level. To reduce potential predation on humpback chub, electrofishing was used to 

mechanically remove nonnative fish from the Colorado River, near the confluence with the LCR, 

from 2003-2006, and again in 2009 (Coggins and others, 2011). Humpback chub abundance 

increased following removal efforts, but system-wide decreases in rainbow trout and droughtinduced increases in water temperature occurred during the same time period making it difficult 

to determine which factors were responsible for increased native fish abundance (Coggins and 

others, 2011). The interaction between water temperature, fish size, and trout presence has been 

shown to affect predation vulnerability in flannelmouth suckers in laboratory studies and likely 
169

all play a role in predation vulnerability of native fish in Grand Canyon (Ward and others, 2002; 

Ward and Bonar, 2003).

Brown trout are of particular concern given their highly piscivorous nature (Yard and 

others, 2011). The highest densities of brown trout in Grand Canyon occur in or near Bright 

Angel Creek (Makinster and others, 2010; NPS data). Large numbers of brown trout in this area 

may be limiting native fish abundance, including humpback chub, locally as well as downstream. 

This idea is based on the hypothesis that most of the humpback chub inhabiting western Grand 

Canyon are produced within the LCR and disperse downstream. If the bottleneck to dispersal and 

recruitment of humpback chub or other native fish species in western Grand Canyon is occurring 

near the confluence of Bright Angel Creek because of brown trout predation, then removing 

brown trout from this area could increase the number of native fish that inhabit downstream 

reaches. 

3.2. Key Monitoring and Research Questions Addressed in this project 

This work, along with ongoing National Park Service (NPS) brown trout removal from 

Bright Angel Creek, has been identified as a conservation measure in the December 2011 

Biological Opinion for the Environmental Assessment for Non-Native Fish Control Downstream 

from Glen Canyon Dam. It also addresses AMWG priority Questions 1: Why are humpback 

chub not thriving; and Science Activity #1: What are the most limiting factors to successful 

humpback chub adult recruitment in the mainstem. 

This project also specifically addresses the following Key Strategic Science Questions

(SSQ's), Research Information Needs (RINs), and science advisors summary questions (SA) 

which were identified in the 2007 Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Plan: 

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

growth, and reproduction of native Grand Canyon fishes, especially humpback chub, 

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 3: What life stage(s) of rainbow trout pose the greatest threat to humpback 

chub and other native fishes in Grand Canyon?

• SA 1: What are the most limiting factors to successful humpback chub recruitment in 

the mainstem: spawning success, predation on young-of-year and juveniles, habitat 

(water temperature), pathoges, adult maturation, food availability, and competition?

This project will answer the follow key questions about impacts of nonnative fish on 

native fish within Grand Canyon:

1. What are the mechanisms by which nonnative trout impact humpback chub? 

2. What is the relative predation risk for humpback chub to rainbow trout and brown trout 

under varying temperature, flow, and turbidity conditions?

3. What is the efficacy and feasibility of using electrofishing to control brown trout 

populations through a coordinated mainstem and tributary removal effort in and around 

Bright Angel Creek? 

4. Does brown trout removal have a measurable positive effect on native fish abundance 

and distribution in the mainstem near Bright Angel Creek or within Bright Angel Creek?
170

4. Proposed Work 

4.1. Project Elements 

Project Element G.1. Laboratory Studies to Assess the Effects of Trout Predation and Competition on 

Humpback Chub ($93,400) 

David Ward, Fishery Biologist, USGS/GCMRC

The first objective for this project element is to determine to what extent water 

temperature and turbidity influences vulnerability of humpback chub to predation by rainbow 

and brown trout. Laboratory experiments will allow evaluation of these variables prior to any 

changes in dam operations or implementation of expensive management options. We will

evaluate the effects of water temperature food availability and turbidity on predation 

vulnerability of juvenile humpback chub, captive reared humpback chub larvae will be obtained 

from Dexter National Fish Hatchery and reared at the Rocky Mountain Research Station in 

Flagstaff, AZ, for six months until they are 50 to 100 mm total length (TL). Twelve replicate 

raceway tanks will be used to create artificial stream environments of varying temperature and 

turbidity from 0 to 500 Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU). Juvenile humpback chub 50 to100 

mm TL will be exposed to rainbow and brown trout predators at varying sizes, temperatures and 

turbidities during overnight trials to assess predation vulnerability as a function of temperature 

and turbidity.

The second objective is to determine if rainbow and brown trout present more or less of a 

predation threat to juvenile chub than predation by adult chub. This assessment of potential 

impacts of predation by adult chub on juvenile chub gives context with which to evaluate 

predation by nonnative fishes and allows for an assessment of the relative impacts of predation 

by introduced fish on the overall humpback chub population. We will do this by determining if 

rainbow and brown trout present more or less of a predation threat to juvenile chub than 

cannibalism by adult chub. For this experiment, non-listed roundtail chub (Gila robusta) will be 

used as a surrogate for humpback chub. Roundtail chub are a good surrogate for humpback chub 

because they are closely related genetically (Douglas and Douglas, 2007), morphologically, and 

in habitat use (Kaeding and others, 1990; Karp and Tyus, 1990). Using a surrogate for humpback 

chub will greatly expedite our ability to conduct this study, because adult captive-reared 

humpback chub are not available at this time for laboratory research. Captive reared roundtail 

chub 50 to 70 mm TL obtained from Bubbling Ponds Native Fish Conservation Facility will be 

exposed to adult rainbow trout from Lees Ferry and similar sized adult roundtail chub collected 

from Fossil Creek, AZ. Relative predation vulnerability will be assessed in 12 replicate artificial 

streams at 15 - 20°C during overnight trials using 4 predators and 12 prey fish per tank.

And the third objective is to evaluate the effects that rainbow and brown trout 

competition have on condition and growth of similar sized humpback chub, using roundtail chub

as a surrogate for humpback chub. Laboratory evaluations of competition require large numbers 

of adult humpback chub to be held in captivity. As stated above, these fish are not currently 

available which makes research using non-listed surrogates (roundtail chub) a good alternative. 

We will evaluate the effects that trout competition may have on condition and growth of 

humpback chub, we will use adult roundtail chub captured with hoop nets from Fossil Creek or 

the Verde River as surrogates for humpback chub. Rainbow trout and brown trout will be 

collected by electrofishing. Similar sized roundtail chub and rainbow and brown trout will be 
171

held jointly and separately at two densities in 12, 200-L artificial raceways at the Rocky 

Mountain Research Station in Flagstaff, AZ at 20°C. Fish will be fed a combination of 

amphipods and small fathead minnows every other day. Condition and growth of all fish will be 

monitored over a 6-month period. Remote video camera observations will be made to evaluate 

how competitive interactions alter chub behavior. 

This research will result in three peer reviewed publications with the following titles:

• Effects of temperature and turbidity on predation vulnerability of juvenile humpback 

chub to rainbow and brown trout

• Relative predation vulnerability of juvenile chub to adult conspecifics (cannibalism) 

and to rainbow and brown trout

• Effects of competition between rainbow and brown trout and roundtail chub (as a 

surrogate for humpback chub). 

Project Element G.2. Efficacy and Ecological Impacts of Brown Trout Removal at Bright Angel Creek 

($181,900) 

David Ward, Fishery Biologist, USGS/GCMRC

Mike Yard, Fishery Biologist, USGS/GCMRC

Scott VanderKooi, Supervisory Biologist, USGS/GCMRC

Brian Healy, Fishery Biologist, NPS, Grand Canyon National Park

Emily Omana, Fishery Biologist, NPS, Grand Canyon National Park

Melissa Trammel, Fishery Biologist, Intermountain Region

David Speas, Fishery Biologist, Bureau of Reclamation

The objective for this project is to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of brown trout 

removal in and around Bright Angel Creek using electrofishing, and assess the response of native 

fish to brown trout removal.

A multi-year, brown trout removal treatment using mechanical removal will be applied to 

both the mainstem Colorado River and Bright Angel Creek with the objective of significantly 

reducing brown trout abundance by 75–80%. Removal in the Colorado River mainstem will 

occur in a 8.45 km (5.25 mile) reach of Upper Granite Gorge (river miles 85 to 90) using 

electrofishing depletion methods similar to those used from 2003 to 2006 at the confluence of the 

LCR (Coggins and others, 2011). Electrofishing removals on the mainstem Colorado River will 

occur during the motor season in September and in April and will compliment ongoing NPS

operation of a weir within Bright Angel Creek from October to March. Researchers will conduct 

6 to 10-pass depletions with a single pass occurring over the entire study area in two nights 

(amount of effort based on calculated capture probabilities with a goal of 75% reduction in 

brown trout numbers). It has been estimated that each trip will consist of 10-20 nights of 

sampling. All electrofishing will be conducted at night using two 16’ sport boats outfitted for 

electrofishing with a Coffelt® or equivalent CPS unit with one netter per boat. Large numbers of 

brown trout (> 2,000 fish) are likely to be removed. The beneficial use for these fish will be 

identified through the NPS’s comprehensive fish management planning process and Section 106 

consultation with Native American tribes. We estimate that as many as 500 fish could be 

removed on the first depletion pass with numbers diminishing thereafter. This estimate is based 

on 2010 and 2011 catch per unit effort data from fish captured in the Bright Angel reach during 

spring nonnative fish monitoring conducted by the Arizona Game and Fish Department (Bunch 

and others, 2010; 2011). Mechanical removal efforts in the Bright Angel Reach will be 
172

conducted simultaneously with additional native fish hoop net monitoring in the same area to 

assess whether or not a decrease in abundance of brown trout in the Bright Angel Reach is 

correlated with increased presence and abundance of native fish.

This effort will be conducted in consultation with Native American tribes and in 

collaboration with the NPS’s ongoing removal efforts (fish weir and electrofishing) in Bright 

Angel Creek and with potential future efforts such as expanded electrofishing, chemical 

treatments, a rotary screw trap designed for capturing migrating juvenile fish, or other methods 

yet to be determined. To determine efficacy and ecological consequences of brown trout 

removal, capture probabilities for each study area will be estimated and used to develop a closed 

population model for estimating size-structured abundance of brown trout. Densities and 

conditions of native fishes in Bright Angel Creek and areas near its confluence will be 

monitored. Continued native fish monitoring, both within the removal area and in other areas 

downstream, are needed to assess if increased dispersal of native fish is occurring as a result of 

removal efforts (see Project D: Mainstem Humpback Chub Aggregation Studies and 

Metapopulation Dynamics and Project F: Monitoring of Native and Nonnative Fishes in the 

Mainstem Colorado River and Lower Little Colorado). In addition, primary productivity and 

invertebrate production will be monitored in Bright Angel Creek and the mainstem near its 

confluence to quantify any changes in availability of food for native fish. This project is 

proposed as an experimental research project to be conducted in FY13 with possible extension 

through FY16. 

This research project will result in annual NPS data series and/or USGS open-file reports 

throughout the duration of the study, as well as trip reports for each electrofishing effort. A peer 

reviewed publication will be produced (co-authored USGS, NPS, and Reclamation biologists) on 

the efficacy of brown trout removal using electrofishing in and around Bright Angel Creek and 

the ecological impacts of brown trout removal. This publication will inform managers on the 

effectiveness of mechanical removal of brown trout as a tool to aid in native fish conservation in 

Grand Canyon.

5. Publications 

5.1. Publications in progress 

Ward, D.L., and Figiel, C.R., Jr., in review, Behaviors of four southwestern native fishes 

in response to catfish predators: The southwestern Naturalist. 

Ward, D.L., Morton-Starner, R., and Hedwall, S., in review, An evaluation of liquid 

ammonia (Ammonim Hydroxide) as a candidate piscicide: Journal of Fish and 

Wildlife Management. 

Ward, D.L., 2012, in press, Salinity of the Little Colorado River in Grand Canyon confers 

antiparasitic properties for native fish: Western North American Naturalist. 

Hunt, T.A., Ward, D.L., Propper, C.R., and Gibb, A.C., in press, Effects of capture by 

trammel net on Colorado River native fishes: Journal of Fish and Wildlife 

Management. 
173

5.2. Past Productivity 

Ward, D.L., Childs, M.R., and Persons, W.R., 2008, PIT tag retention and tag induced mortality 

in juvenile bonytail and Gila chub: Fisheries Management and Ecology, v. 15, no. 2, 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2400.2008.00595.x/abstract.

Ward, D.L., 2007, Removal and Quantification of Asian tapeworm from bonytail chub using 

Praziquantel: North American Journal of Aquaculture, v. 69, p. 207-210. 

Ward, D.L., and Hunt, T.A., 2007, Dispersal of nonnative fishes and parasites in the intermittent 

Little Colorado River, Arizona: Southwestern Naturalist v. 52, no. 1, p. 132-138.

Ward, D.L., 2005, Selective Removal of nonnative fish using Supaverm®: Toxcicity screening 

for a candidate species-specific piscicide: Journal of Freshwater Ecology v. 20 no. 4, p. 787-

789.

Speas, D.W., Walters, C.J., Ward, D.L., and Rogers, R.S., 2004, Effects of intraspecific density 

and environmental variables on electrofishing catchability of brown and rainbow trout in the 

Colorado River, Arizona: North American Journal of Fisheries Management, v. 24, no. 2, p. 

586-596, http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a932063633.

Speas, D.W., Walters, C.J., Ward, D.L., and Rogers, R.S., 2004, Effects of intraspecific density 

and environmental variables on electrofishing catchability of brown and rainbow trout in the 

Colorado River, Arizona: North American Journal of Fisheries Management, v. 24, no. 2, p. 

586-596, http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a932063633.

Ward, D.L., Maughan, O.E., Bonar, S.A., and Matter, W.J., 2002, Effects of temperature, fish 

length, and exercise on swimming performance of age-0 flannelmouth sucker: Transactions 

of the American Fisheries Society, v. 131, no. 3, p. 492-497, 

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1577/1548-

8659(2002)131%3C0492:EOTFLA%3E2.0.CO;2.

6. References 

Bunch, A.J., Makinster, A.S., Avery, L.A., Stewart, W.T., and Persons, W.R., 2011, Colorado 

River fish monitoring in Grand Canyon, Arizona–2011 annual report: Submitted to the Grand 

Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, Flagstaff AZ, Cooperative agreement number 

G09AC0036.

Bunch, A.J., Makinster, A.S., Avery, L.A., Stewart, W.T., and Persons, W.R., 2010, Colorado 

River fish monitoring in Grand Canyon, Arizona–2010 annual report: Submitted to the Grand 

Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, Flagstaff AZ, Cooperative agreement number 

G09AC0036.

Coggins, L.G., Yard, M.D., and Pine, W.E., 2011, Nonnative fish control in the Colorado River 

in Grand Canyon, Arizona--an effective program or serendipitous timing?: Transactions of 

the American Fisheries Society, v. 140, no. 2, p. 456-470, 

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00028487.2011.572009.

Douglas, M.R., and Douglas, M.E., 2007, Genetic structure of humpback chub Gila cypha and 

roundtail chub G. robusta in the Colorado River ecosystem--final report: Fort Collins, 

Department of Fish, Wildlife and Conservation Biology, Colorado State University, 99 p., 

http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/07jun25/Attach_04.pdf.

Kaeding, L.R., Burdick, B.D., Schrader, P.A., and McAda, C.W., 1990, Temporal and spatial 

relations between the spawning of humpback chub and roundtail chub in the upper Colorado 

River: Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, v. 119, no. 1, p. 135-144, 
174

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1577/1548-

8659%281990%29119%3C0135%3ATASRBT%3E2.3.CO%3B2.

Karp, C.A., and Tyus, H.M., 1990, Humpback chub (Gila cypha) in the Yampa and Green 

Rivers, Dinosaur National Monument, with observations on roundtail chub (G. robusta) and 

other sympatric fishes: Great Basin Naturalist, v. 50, no. 3, p. 257-264, 

https://ojs.lib.byu.edu/ojs/index.php/wnan/article/view/202/1313.

Makinster, A.S., Persons, W.R., Avery, L.A., and Bunch, A.J., 2010, Colorado River fish 

monitoring in Grand Canyon, Arizona--2000 to 2009 summary: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 2010-1246, 26 p., http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1246/.

Marsh, P.C., and Pacey, C.A., 2005, Immiscibility of native and non-native fishes, in Brouder, 

M.J., Springer, C.L., and Leon, C.S., eds., Restoring natural function within a modified 

riverine environment--the lower Colorado River, Albuquerque, N.Mex., July 8-9, 1998 and 

in Restoring native fish to the lower Colorado River--interactions of native and non-native 

fishes, Las Vegas, Nev., July 13-14, 1999, Proceedings of two symposia: p. 59-63.

McHugh P., and Budy, P., 2006, Experimental effects of nonnative brown trout on the 

individual- and population-level performance of native Bonneville cutthroat trout: 

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society v. 135, p. 1441-1455.

Minckley, W.L., and Marsh, P.C., 2009 Inland fishes of the greater Southwest—chronicle of a 

vanishing biota: University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Robinson, A.T., Bryan, S.D., and Sweetser, M.G., 2003, Habitat use by nonnative rainbow trout, 

Oncorhynchus mykiss, and native Little Colorado River spinedace, lepidomeda vittata. 

Environmental Biology of Fishes, v. 68, no. 2, p. 205-214.

Robinson, A.T., Kubly, D.M., Clarkson, R.W., and Creef, E.D., 1996, Factors limiting the 

distribution of native fishes in the Little Colorado River, Grand Canyon, Arizona: The 

Southwestern Naturalist, v. 41, no. 4, p. 378-387, http://www.jstor.org/stable/30055194.

Tyus, H.M., and Saunders, J.F., III, 2000, Nonnative fish control and endangered fish recovery--

lessons from the Colorado River: Fisheries, v. 25, no. 9, doi: 10.1577/1548-

8446(2000)025<0017:NFCAEF>2.0.CO;2, p. 17-24, 

http://afsjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1577/1548-

8446%282000%29025%3C0017%3ANFCAEF%3E2.0.CO%3B2.

Ward, D.L., Maughan, O.E., Bonar, S.A., and Matter, W.J., 2002, Effects of temperature, fish 

length, and exercise on swimming performance of age-0 flannelmouth sucker: Transactions 

of the American Fisheries Society, v. 131, no. 3, p. 492-497, 

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1577/1548-

8659(2002)131%3C0492:EOTFLA%3E2.0.CO;2.

Ward, D.L., and Bonar, S.A., 2003, Effects of cold water on susceptibility of age-0 flannelmouth 

sucker to predation by rainbow trout: The Southwestern Naturalist, v. 48, no. 1, p. 43-46, 

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3672736.

Yard, M.D., Coggins, L.G., Baxter, C.V., Bennett, G.E., and Korman, J., 2011, Trout piscivory 

in the Colorado River, Grand Canyon--effects of turbidity, temperature, and fish prey 

availability: Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, v. 140, no. 2, p. 471-486, 

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00028487.2011.572011.
175

7. Budget 

Project Element G.1. 

Laboratory Studies

Project Element G.2. 

Efficacy Ecological Impacts 

of Brown Trout

Salaries $62,000 Salaries $77,900

Traveling and Training $1,900 Traveling and Training $1,900 

Operating Expenses $18,000 Operating Expenses $5,000 

Logistics $0 Logistics $74,800

GIS/RS/Electronics support $0 GIS/RS/Electronics support $0

Cooperators (non-USGS) $0 Cooperators (non-USGS) $0

USGS cooperators $0 USGS cooperators $0

USGS Burden $11,500 USGS Burden $22,300 

Total $93,400 Total $181,900

FY 2013 Project G. Gross Total: 

$275,300

FY 2013

Project Element G.1. 

Laboratory Studies

Project Element G.2. 

Efficacy Ecological Impacts 

of Brown Trout

Salaries $67,900 Salaries $84,300

Traveling and Training $2,000 Traveling and Training $2,000 

Operating Expenses $18,500 Operating Expenses $5,200 

Logistics $0 Logistics $77,000

GIS/RS/Electronics support $0 GIS/RS/Electronics support $0

Cooperators (non-USGS) $0 Cooperators (non-USGS) $0

USGS cooperators $0 USGS cooperators $0

USGS Burden $12,400 USGS Burden $24,200 

Total $100,800 Total $192,700

FY 2014

FY 2014 Project G. Gross Total: 

$293,500
176

Project H. 

Understanding the Factors Limiting the Growth of 

Rainbow Trout in Glen and Marble Canyons 

1. Investigators 

Theodore Kennedy, Research Aquatic Biologist, USGS, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center

Charles Yackulic, Research Statistician, USGS, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

Mike Yard, Fishery Biologist, USGS, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

Mike Anderson, Fishery Biologist, Arizona Game and Fish Department

Luke Avery, Biologist, USGS, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

Robert Hall, Biologist, University of Wyoming

Josh Korman, President, Ecometric Research Inc.

Scott Wright, Research Hydrologist, USGS, California Water Science Center

William Persons, Fishery Biologist, USGS, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

2. Project Summary 

This project will involve: (a) a simple laboratory experiment to determine if the strain of 

rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in Lees Ferry is capable of growing to large size; (b) data 

collection and model development to better understand factors controlling primary production 

and invertebrate drift; (c) collecting hydrodynamic and fish diet data, which will be used to 

develop a bioenergetics model of trout foraging; and (d) undertaking a synthesis of other 

tailwaters to better understand how dam operations affect the size distribution of salmonids in 

other settings. In addition, we present a contingency plan of work activities in case a fall highflow experiment (HFE) occurs in Fiscal Year 2013 or 2014. Although we have a good 

understanding of food web response to the spring high-flow experiments conducted in 1996 and 

2008, our understanding of food web response to the fall high-flow experiment in 2004 is more 

limited. Thus, we are poised to take advantage of learning opportunities presented by any highflow experiments that occur during FY13 or FY14.

Over the last few decades, the rainbow trout fishery in Lees Ferry has been characterized 

by three undesirable properties: (1) population fluctuations characterized by decadal scale cycles 

in rainbow trout abundances (Makinster and others, 2011); (2) increasing potential for negative 

interactions between rainbow trout and native fishes caused by expansion of rainbow trout 

populations downstream (Yard and others, 2011); and (3) an absence of the large-sized rainbow 

trout that are highly valued by the angling community (Schmidt and others 1998). The causes of 

the long term population cycles are fairly well understood (Korman and others, in press; Cross 

and others, 2011), and the Natal Origins project (Project Element D.2.) was specifically designed 

to address uncertainties surrounding the downstream migration of rainbow trout. In this project 

we propose a suite of research activities designed to better understand the factors limiting the 

growth of large rainbow trout. These efforts will also provide information that can be used to 
177

better the understand factors of population fluctuations and the potential for negative interactions 

between rainbow trout and native species.

3. Background 

The history of rainbow trout in the Colorado River can be thought of as having two eras. 

During the “stocking era,” which began in 1964, the fishery was sustained by annual stocking 

and recruitment was limited (McKinney and others, 2001). The size of stocked rainbow trout 

varied by year and ranged from 4 to 8 inches (10 to 20 cm). Adult rainbow trout routinely grew 

to 20 inches (50 cm), with occasional 30 inch plus fish (>75 cm), earning the fishery a reputation 

as blue ribbon (Schmidt and others, 1998). Rainbow trout were also found downstream in areas 

used by native fish (Valdez and Ryle, 1996). However, the extent of native and nonnative fish 

interactions during this period is not well understood, and is often presumed to have been limited 

in comparison to more recent years. Since 1991, the fishery has been increasingly sustained by 

natural recruitment and stocking was completely phased out by 1998 (McKinney and others, 

2001). While limited recruitment was occurring prior to 1991 (Maddux and others, 1987), this 

transition to a “recruitment era” is often attributed to implementation of modified low fluctuating 

flows (MLFF; DOI, 1996). Demography of rainbow trout during the recruitment era is closely 

linked not only to implementation of MLFFs, but also to HFEs. High-flow experiments in 1996 

and 2008 led to recruitment of large numbers of juvenile rainbow trout in the subsequent years

(Korman and others, in press). Research surrounding the 2008 flood suggests that this 

recruitment, driven by increased juvenile survival and growth, was mainly attributable to 

increased food availability in the drift. In turn, this was linked to higher production of key 

drifting species of insects upon which rainbow trout rely heavily (blackflies and midges; Cross 

and others, 2011). 

The rainbow trout fishery during the recruitment era has been characterized by three 

undesirable properties: 

1. instability in population size, in which there are decadal cycles of large and small 

numbers,

2. increasing potential for negative interactions between rainbow trout and native fishes, 

especially humpback chub (Gila cypha), primarily due to rainbow trout population 

expansion downstream (Yard and others, 2011), and 

3. an absence of the large rainbow trout that are highly valued by the angling community 

(Schmidt and others, 1998). 

The degree to which dam operations and associated factors (i.e., population cycles) 

interact to affect the growth of large rainbow trout is the largest uncertainty associated with 

adaptive management of the fishery (McKinney and others, 2001; McKinney and Speas, 2001; 

Cross and others, 2011). The existence of this uncertainty has led to a plethora of hypotheses 

regarding the ultimate cause of diminished growth in large rainbow trout, which would take 

decades of manipulation and observation to sift through if we relied solely on field monitoring in 

Glen Canyon. In other words, while ongoing monitoring in association with adaptive 

management experimentation is important for documenting trends in population size, size 

distribution, and rainbow trout distribution, monitoring alone is an extremely inefficient way to 

determine the factors limiting the growth of large rainbow trout. With regard to the first and 
178

second undesirable properties (cyclic changes in population size and downstream expansion), we 

have a good understanding of the dynamics and drivers over the last decade (Korman and others, 

in press), but we still lack a cause-and-effect understanding that would allow us to confidently 

predict the impacts of dam operations outside the set of observed operations that occurred during 

the same time span (2000-2011). 

To resolve these uncertainties, we propose complementing long-term rainbow trout 

monitoring with a suite of new research activities. We will pursue a multipronged approach to 

understanding these complex issues that involves:

1. laboratory studies of fish growth; 

2. algal colonization and growth experiments, including an assessment of nutrient limitation 

of algae growth and targeted field sampling of algae biomass and invertebrate drift, to 

support development of predictive models of both primary production and invertebrate 

drift; 

3. collection of hydrodynamic and rainbow trout diet data to help parameterize a 

bioenergetics model that explicitly incorporates information on water velocities 

(swimming costs) and drift delivery rates (concentrations and daily loads) in order to 

estimate net energy intake potential for rainbow trout; and, 

4. a national synthesis of tailwaters to understand how dam operations affect salmonid 

populations dynamics in other systems. 

Collectively, these studies will allow us to better understand the consequences of 

alternative dam operations on rainbow trout populations in both Glen and Marble Canyons. The 

proposed research activities will be integrated with the ongoing Foodbase Monitoring Program

(Project Element F.7.), as well Detection of Rainbow Trout Movement from the Upper Reaches 

of the Colorado River below Glen Canyon Dam (Project F.6.) and Rainbow Trout Early Life 

Stage Survival project (Project Element F.2.2.) The foodbase monitoring program currently 

monitors drift and primary production at fixed locations in the Glen Canyon, Marble Canyon 

(river mile 30), near the LCR confluence (river mile 61), Phantom Ranch (river mile 87), and 

Diamond Creek (river mile 225). The natal origins project addresses uncertainties surrounding 

the amount of downstream rainbow trout dispersal; the potential dependence of dispersal on both 

population (density-dependence) and individual (size) properties; questions relevant to 

understanding population dynamics; distribution dynamics; and spatial variation in growth. The 

Rainbow Trout Early Life Stage Survival project (Project Element F.2.2) is critical in helping us 

understand the dynamics of young rainbow trout, which are both integral to population dynamics 

and may also limit growth of larger rainbow trout (see Hypotheses, below).

3.1. Scientific Background 

The many hypotheses to explain the lack of trophy rainbow trout can be arranged by the 

degree to which these hypotheses attribute declining growth of large rainbow trout to changes in 

dam operations.

Hypothesis 1 (H1) The strain of rainbow trout present in Glen Canyon is incapable of 

growing to large sizes (i.e., >20 inches). H1 attributes the absence of large rainbow trout to a 

change in the strain of rainbow trout sometime after the 1970s. Thus, H1 does not consider that 

rainbow trout conditions are affected by dam operations. Although exact strains stocked during 

the 1970s are unknown, records of fish larger than 30 in (76 cm) were not uncommon in the creel 
179

from 1977–1984 (Persons and others, personal communication). Since the mid 1980’s, fish 

caught by angling or in electrofishing surveys have rarely been larger than 22 in (56 cm) 

(GCMRC and AGFD, unpublished data).

Hypothesis 2 (H2) The current prey base, composed chiefly of midges and black flies, 

can support the growth of smaller rainbow trout, but does provide enough energy to allow for 

growth in large rainbow trout. H2 argues that there have been shifts in the foodbase that now 

leave it incapable of supporting larger rainbow trout. While dam operations can shift the 

foodbase to favor the recruitment and growth of small rainbow trout (Cross and others, 2011), 

growth and survival of large rainbow trout appears largely unaffected by dam operations. 

Possible causes of this shift in the foodbase include declining nutrient inputs from Lake Powell 

as the reservoir has aged (Stockner and others, 2000), introduction of invasive species (i.e., New 

Zealand mudsnail; Cross and others, 2010), and changes in substrates as the Glen Canyon reach 

has degraded over time (Grams and others, 2007). Changes in invertebrate composition could 

lead to changes in both the seasonal availability of drifting invertebrates (there is currently ~100-

fold variation in drift rates among seasons; Kennedy unpublished data) and in the prevalence of 

high quality drift (i.e., large prey items such as Gammarus), both of which might strongly 

constrain growth of large rainbow trout while still allowing small rainbow trout to thrive. 

Support for this hypothesis comes from McKinney and Speas (2001), who observed size-related 

asymmetries in rainbow trout diet and energy intake that suggests larger sized trout are foodlimited more often than smaller fish. Although the total amount of prey available to support 

rainbow trout populations may have increased during this time period (Angradi and Kubly 1993; 

Blinn and others, 1995; Benenati and others, 1998), juvenile trout appear to be the primary 

beneficiaries of any such change (McKinney and Speas, 2001). More recent research on the Glen 

Canyon food web (Cross and others, 2011) supports these observations. 

A corollary to H2 is that some combination of rainbow trout dispersal patterns, food 

availability, and declining prey detectability explains the declining abundances of rainbow trout 

at distances further downstream from Lees Ferry (Carothers and Brown, 1991; Makinster and 

others, 2011). Turbidity increases downriver, and since rainbow trout are visual feeders, it is 

more challenging for them to see food. However, the importance of this effect relative to 

declining food availability and dispersal rates is unknown (Barrett and others, 1992; Stuart-Smith 

and others, 2004; Yard and Coggins, in review).

Hypothesis 3 (H3) The growth of large rainbow trout is limited by exploitative 

competition for limited prey items. The diet composition of large and small rainbow trout overlap 

(i.e., their production is primarily supported by midges, black flies, and Gammarus; McKinney 

and Speas, 2001; Cross and others, 2011); however, smaller rainbow trout may be able to subsist 

on smaller prey items, and this may in turn affect food availability for larger rainbow trout. Many 

of the smaller prey items (small Gammarus and 1st instar larvae of midges and black flies) 

consumed by small rainbow trout represent early life stages of species that large fish would be 

better able to exploit if these prey items continued to mature. Since recruitment of smaller 

rainbow trout is tied to dam operations, H3 posits an indirect and time lagged linkage to dam 

operations. While H2 and H1 predict no changes in large rainbow trout growth if small rainbow 

trout numbers are suppressed, H3 predicts an increase in the growth of large rainbow trout if 

small rainbow trout are suppressed. H3 can also be extended to argue that while high-flow 

experiments augment juvenile recruitment, the dynamics in the following years may be chiefly 

driven by intraspecific interactions between younger and older age-classes of trout, as opposed to 

physical factors (Schlosser 1985; Walters and Post, 1993).
180

Hypotheses 4 (H4) Operational constraints that occurred in 1990 limit the growth of large 

rainbow trout. H4 directly links the lack of large rainbow trout to changes in dam operations. H4

posits that the load-following dam operations that occurred during the stocking era created 

habitat that was more beneficial to large rainbow trout by favoring a fast-growing and highquality early successional algal assemblage, creating daily surges in invertebrate drift (Perry and 

Perry, 1986). This also favored larger invertebrate prey items, all of which sustained the growth 

of larger rainbow trout (Barrett and others, 1992; Graf, 1995; Stuart-Smith and others, 2004). 

Growth studies on young-of-year rainbow trout have demonstrated that daily flow variation has 

significant effects on growth for early life stages (Korman and Campana, 2009). However, we 

lack a similar understanding of how daily variation in discharge affects growth of larger rainbow 

trout. 

The motivation for this proposed research is to improve the recreational fishing 

experience for rainbow trout at Lees Ferry, while at the same time protecting and maintaining 

native fish populations downstream in Marble and Grand Canyons. Being able to distinguish 

among these four hypotheses will help inform the types of experiments the Adaptive 

Management Program might evaluate during the Long-Term Experimental and Management 

Plan (LTEMP) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to meet native and nonnative goals. If the 

research outlined below supports either H1 or H2, then changes in dam operations alone are 

unlikely to provide the conditions necessary to support the large rainbow trout that are sought by

anglers. If we find support for H1, this would suggest that the Adaptive Management Program 

might pursue stocking of alternative strains of rainbow trout, which are capable of growing to 

large size, into Glen Canyon. If the proposed research primarily supports H2, the Adaptive 

Management Program could consider introducing invertebrate species from other Colorado River

Basin tailwaters (i.e., San Juan, Flaming Gorge, etc.), particularly larger taxa, and/or consider 

habitat modification (e.g., flows, large woody debris additions, or a temperature control device). 

If the proposed research primarily supports H3 or H4, the Adaptive Management Program might 

consider alterations in dam operations. In recent years, dam operations designed to achieve goals 

for sediment and native fish (i.e., high-flow experiments and Low Summer Steady Flows) or 

meet equalization requirements (i.e, 2011), have created pulses of rainbow trout recruitment 

(Korman and others, in press). As a consequence, recreational catch rates in Glen Canyon have 

increased following these operations, yet the large rainbow trout that are sought by many anglers 

are absent. Further, these pulses of recruitment and subsequent downstream dispersal have led to 

costly and controversial rainbow trout removal efforts designed to reduce the threat that they 

pose to endangered humpback chub (Coggins and others, 2011). One specific management 

option available to the Adaptive Management Program is moving towards dam operations that 

will suppress juvenile recruitment. Suppressing juvenile rainbow trout recruitment could 

improve growth of larger rainbow trout either by lowering the degree of competition with 

smaller size classes (H3) or by creating more ideal habitat conditions (H4). 

3.2. Key Monitoring and Research Questions Addressed in this Project 

This project directly addresses the following Strategic Science Questions (SSQs), Core 

Monitoring Information Needs (CMINs), and Research Information Needs (RINs) previously 

identified by the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP). 

Primary SSQ addressed:
181

• SSQ 1-3. 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 Canyon?

• SSQ 3-5. How is invertebrate flux affected by water quality (for example, 

temperature, nutrient concentrations, turbidity) and dam operations?

• SSQ 3-6. What GCD operations (ramping rates, daily flow range, etc.) maximize 

trout fishing opportunities and catchability?

• 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?

Primary Core Monitoring Information Needs addressed:

• CMIN 1.1.1. Determine and track the composition and biomass of primary producers 

below Glen Canyon Dam in conjunction with measurements of flow, nutrients, water 

temperature, and light regime.

• CMIN 1.2.1. Determine and track the composition and biomass of benthic 

invertebrates below Glen Canyon Dam in conjunction with measurements of flow, 

nutrients, water temperature, and light regime.

• CMIN 1.5.1. Determine and track the composition and biomass of drift in the 

Colorado River in conjunction with measurements of flow, nutrients, water 

temperature, and light regime.

Key Strategic Science Questions

AMWG Priority 1

• 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? [FY06/09]

4. Proposed Work 

4.1. Project Elements 

Project Element H.1. Laboratory Feeding Studies ($37,700) 

Luke Avery, Fishery Biologist, USGS/GCMRC

The objective of this project element is to evaluate growth potential of Glen Canyon 

rainbow trout by rearing fish in captivity to address H1.

Adult Glen Canyon rainbow trout will be collected by angling, transported to a facility 

yet to be determined, and fed ad libitum with high quality trout food for two years. Fish will be 

measured and PIT tagged when stocked, and will be measured throughout the study to estimate 

growth and condition. Tissue samples will be taken, which can be used to compare Glen Canyon 

trout to trout in the National Fish Strain Registry, and growth rates will be compared with growth 

of rainbow trout in other tailwaters as well as with wild populations (see Project Element H.5.).

 
182

Project Element H.2. Understanding the Links among Dam Operations, Environmental Conditions, and the 

Foodbase ($244,000) 

Project Element H.2.1. Developing a Mechanistic Model of Primary Productivity 

Mike Yard, Fishery Biologist, USGS/GCMRC

Charles Yackulic, Research Statistician, USGS/GCMRC

Theodore Kennedy, Research Aquatic Biologist, USGS/GCMRC

Bob Hall, Biologist, University of Wyoming

The objective of this project element is to develop a mechanistic model of primary 

production that can be used to make predictions about the effects of dam operations and 

environmental conditions (i.e., turbidity, water quality from Lake Powell) on a key food web 

component—algae.

We will conduct small scale experiments of nutrient limitation and direct measurement of 

algae biomass at various depths using self-contained underwater breathing apparatus (SCUBA) 

to describe how algae growth is limited by nutrients and variation in light availability. Cliff 

habitats will be the focus of these measurements and experiments, because water velocities are 

often too high in other habitat types to safely SCUBA. Further, by doing this work at cliff 

habitats, we will be able to measure algae growth rates across a large range of depths and light 

availability. We will follow the methods of Tank and Dodds (2003) to assess nutrient limitation 

of algae growth. Nutrient diffusing substrates that include nitrogen, phosphorus, a combination 

of nitrogen and phosphorus, and a control will be deployed at multiple depths in several cliff 

habitats in Glen Canyon and near Diamond Creek. We will then develop a model that builds 

upon the work of Yard (2003) and Hall and others (2010) by linking our predictive 

understanding at small spatial scales to measurements at the reach-scale. Mechanistic models 

proposed here have a higher probability of making accurate predictions for conditions outside the 

set of observed conditions relative to more phenomenological models (Cale and others, 1989; 

Oreskes and others, 1994). New data collections will occur, and mechanistic models developed, 

in the Glen Canyon and Diamond Creek reaches because of the availability of long-term algae 

growth estimates (since 2008 and 2009, respectively). Reach scale estimates of algae growth will 

also continue at other reaches (i.e., RM 30, 61, and 87) but no additional data collections or 

mechanistic models are proposed for these reaches.

Algae is the crank that turns the Colorado River food web in Glen Canyon (Shannon and 

others, 1994; Angradi 1994; Cross and others, 2011) and in Marble and Grand Canyons (Stevens 

and others 1997; Cross and others in prep). Yard (2003) demonstrated how light, turbidity, and 

algae biomass interact to affect algae production using experiments in small chambers. Yard 

(2003) extrapolated from these small-scale measurements (meters) to demonstrate how algae 

growth at the scale of the reach (10s of river miles) would likely be affected by the interactive 

effects of turbidity and discharge, which affect river depth and therefore light availability at the 

scale of the reach. Yard (2003) predicted something that is somewhat counterintuitive—at 

downstream locations that are limited by light due to suspended sediment turbidity, reach-scale 

algae growth can actually decline as discharge increases. This is due to strong effects of light 

limitation on algae growth when river depth reaches a critical value that is dependent on reach 

geometry (width and depth) and turbidity. 

Hall and others (2010) estimated algae production at the scale of the reach (10s of river 

miles) by developing detailed dissolved oxygen budgets that incorporate information on incident 
183

light (Yard and others, 2005) and air-water gas exchange rates (Hall and others, 2012). Initially, 

as a proof-of-concept, dissolved oxygen was monitored for 1.5 days at regular intervals as part of 

foodbase research (once per month at Diamond Creek and Glen Canyon, and quarterly at 4 sites 

in Grand Canyon during river trips). In collaboration with the Streamflow, Water Quality, and 

Sediment Transport in the Colorado River Ecosystem monitoring project (project B), continuous 

dissolved oxygen monitoring has been occurring in Glen Canyon since 2008, Diamond Creek (at 

river mile 225) since 2009, and at river miles 30, 61, and 87 since summer 2011 (see Project

F.7.). Analysis of long-term algae production estimates from Glen Canyon reveals strong 

seasonal variation in primary production, and also links to operations. But as predicted by Yard 

(2003), the effect of operations on algae growth does not appear as pronounced as for 

downstream locations that are more limited by light availability caused by suspended sediment 

turbidity. Analysis of long-term algae production estimates from Diamond Creek reveals strong 

effects of turbidity and discharge on algae growth that are consistent with the predictions of Yard 

(2003), but there is also a strong interaction between turbidity and discharge (Hall and others, in 

prep). Interactions such as this complicate interpretation of main effects—turbidity and 

discharge. That is, because there is a strong interaction between the main effects, we are unable 

to completely disentangle the effects of turbidity from discharge and predict with confidence 

algae growth rates for dam operations that are outside of the set of observed conditions (i.e., 

Modified Low Fluctuating Flows). Further, we are unable to describe how the March 2008 HFE 

affected annual rates of algae growth in Glen Canyon near Diamond Creek, because continuous 

dissolved oxygen monitoring was initiated in Glen Canyon in February 2008, just weeks before 

the high-flow experiment occurred and at Diamond Creek in 2009. Algae biomass estimates 

from Glen Canyon that were also collected as part of foodbase research efforts indicate the 

March 2008 HFE scoured algae from habitats in Glen Canyon and that algae quickly regrew. 

However, these data cannot be used to make precise estimates of reach-scale effects over annual 

timescales because they were only collected from shallow nearshore habitats. 

Evaluating H2 and predicting algae response to environmental conditions will also 

require a better understanding of algae growth response to differing concentrations of dissolved 

nutrients. Nutrient loadings from Lake Powell are known to vary seasonally and in response to 

changing reservoir elevations (Vernieu and others, 2005). Further, large reservoirs such as Lake 

Powell undergo an aging process over timescales of decades, where nutrient concentrations of 

releases are initially high as a vast terrestrial landscape is flooded (Stockner and others, 2000). 

As nutrients from the inundated valley floor are leached and depleted, nutrient concentrations 

released to the downstream ecosystem progressively decline (Stockner and others, 2000). The 

nutritional quality of algae also declines over the scale of decades, which can ultimately affect 

the growth potential of downstream fish populations (Stockner and others, 2000). A small scale 

research project conducted in Glen Canyon as part of Foodbase monitoring (Project Element

F.7.) revealed algae growth is jointly limited by dissolved nitrogen and phosphorus. The 

nutritional quality of the algae itself likely varied too, but this was not measured. 

Predicting algae growth response to novel flow regimes that are outside of the set of 

observed conditions will be an important component of ongoing adaptive management 

experimentation. To address this need, we propose additional data collection and development of 

a mechanistic model of algae growth that can be used to predict algae response to dam operations 

and changing environmental conditions (i.e., turbidity and nutrient loading). 

This research will result in a mechanistic model that can be used to predict algae growth 

response to dam operations and environmental conditions, as well as multiple peer-reviewed 
184

journal articles describing (a) nutrient limitation experiments, (b) time-series analysis of reachscale primary production estimates, and (c) mechanistic model of algae growth. 

Project Element H.2.2. Characterizing Invertebrate Drift 

Theodore Kennedy, Research Aquatic Biologist, USGS/GCMRC

Charles Yackulic, Research Statistician, USGS/GCMRC

Mike Yard, Fishery Biologist, USGS/GCMRC

The objective of this project element is to characterize spatial and temporal variation in 

the quantity and size distribution of invertebrate drift throughout Glen and Marble Canyon.

We will undertake additional sampling during the Natal Origins of Humpback Chub at 

Aggregations by Otolith Microchemistry Project (Project Element D.2.1.) river trips to 

characterize spatial variation in drift throughout Glen and Marble Canyons. Invertebrate drift 

will be quantified on two consecutive days at each of the four fixed sampling sites during the 

daytime. Drift samples will be collected from multiple depths in the thalweg. More intensive 

drift measurements beyond what we propose here are not possible in the context of the natal 

origins project because of the large electrofishing effort. Characterizing smaller spatial scale 

variation in drift rates will therefore only occur in Glen Canyon. As part of regular monitoring 

trips, we will sample drift at additional sites that span the full range of habitat types present 

there. Data on spatial and temporal variation in drift from both long-term monitoring and the 

research proposed here will be analyzed using standard statistical techniques and results will 

inform H2 and H3. These drift data will also be used to parameterize a rainbow trout 

bioenergetics model (see Project Element H.3.). 

Invertebrate drift monitoring under the Foodbase Monitoring project (Project Element 

F.7.) focuses on describing temporal variation in drift rates at a single fixed location—USGS 

cableways—in both Glen Canyon and near Diamond Creek. These monitoring data revealed that 

drift rates for key taxa—midges and blackflies—at Glen Canyon increased in the months 

following the March 2008 HFE (Cross and others, 2011), and this foodbase sustained the high 

juvenile rainbow trout growth and recruitment that was subsequently observed (Korman and 

others, 2011). The sites where drift monitoring occurs are ideal for long-term monitoring, 

because the hydrodynamics of these sites are conducive to measurement of sediment and 

invertebrate flux, and access to both locations is relatively easy. But the distribution of large 

rainbow trout varies spatially, with larger fish generally found proximate to highly productive 

cobble bars (AZGFD, unpublished data) that also have high water velocities, both of which lead 

to higher food delivery rates relative to other habitat types (Hayes and others, 2007). Here, we 

propose collecting additional data on invertebrate drift rates among various habitat types in Glen 

Canyon, and also in association with the natal origins project, to estimate net energy intake 

potential for small versus large rainbow trout (see Project Element H.3.). 

Project Element H.3. Developing a Bioenergetics Model for Large Rainbow Trout ($138,300) 

Charles Yackulic, Research Statistician, USGS/GCMRC

Theodore Kennedy, Research Aquatic Biologist, USGS/GCMRC

Mike Yard, Fishery Biologist, USGS/GCMRC

Scott Wright, Research Hydrologist, USGS, California Water Science Center

Mike Anderson, Biologist, Arizona Game and Fish Department

Josh Korman, President, Ecometric Research Inc.
185

The objective to this project element is to develop a bioenergetics model that allows us to 

quantify the effects of prey size, water velocity, and intra-specific competition on growth 

potential for rainbow trout.

We will develop an integrated invertebrate drift and trout foraging model building on the 

work of Paukert and Peterson (2007), Hayes and others (2007), and Rosenfeld and Taylor 

(2009). This model depends on outputs from Project Element H.2., as well as additional data 

collection. Specifically, in this project element, we propose quantifying how rainbow trout 

energy intake varies between small and large rainbow trout by analyzing stomach contents 

seasonally at the four Natal Origins project sample sites (Project Element D.2.1.). We will also 

collect detailed hydrodynamic data from these reaches. Stomach contents of 120 rainbow trout 

on each Natal Origins trip will be collected by Mike Yard and analyzed by Ted Kennedy; for 

each of the four Natal Origins sites that will be sampled seasonally, the stomach contents for 15 

small (<15 cm) and 15 large (>15 cm) rainbow will be collected and analyzed. Scott Wright will 

use an acoustic Doppler current profiler to characterize water velocity profiles at multiple crosssections throughout Glen and Marble Canyons at different flow levels. Charles Yackulic, Mike 

Yard, Josh Korman, and Mike Anderson will estimate size-specific growth rates for rainbow 

trout in Glen and Marble Canyons using various long-term data sources (i.e., Rainbow Trout 

Early Life Stage Survival Project Element F.2.2., annual Lees Ferry rainbow trout monitoring 

project element F.2.1., and Natal Origins Project Element D.2.1.). The bioenergetics model will 

be developed jointly by Charles Yackulic, Ted Kennedy, Mike Yard, and Scott Wright and will 

be used to evaluate both H2 and H3 by allowing us to determine how energy gains and losses 

vary at different discharge and prey density levels, and the degree to which intra-specific 

competition (by lowering prey densities) lowers the growth potential of large rainbow trout.

Drift feeding fish like rainbow trout are known to feed across gradients in water velocity, 

from a holding position in slow-moderate velocities into faster surrounding waters that have 

higher prey delivery rates (Hayes and others, 2007, and references therein). This strategy confers 

the highest net energy intake for drift feeding fish, because it optimizes the tradeoff between the 

need to acquire food with the energetic costs of swimming that must be expended while 

capturing prey (Hayes and others, 2007). The daily energy intake requirements for fish increase 

as fish grow in size, such that small fish are able to meet these requirements in habitats that have 

low prey delivery rates (e.g., shallow, low velocity nearshore habitats), but as fish grow they 

must begin occupying habitats that have higher prey delivery rates. But even here, large fish can 

balance this tradeoff between energy intake and swimming costs by either selecting habitats that 

have lower swimming costs (deep pools) or faster velocity habitats that have higher prey delivery 

rates (Rosenfeld and Taylor, 2009). 

Benthic invertebrates are the ultimate source of the drifting invertebrates consumed by 

rainbow trout, and there are large differences in benthic invertebrate biomass across multiple 

spatial scales—from the reach scale (i.e., higher biomass in Glen Canyon and lower biomass at 

locations reaches; Stevens and others, 1997; Cross and others, 2011) to the patch scale (i.e., 

within a given reach, invertebrate biomass is highest on cobble bars relative to other habitat 

types; Stevens and others, 1997; Cross and others, 2011). Further, water velocities and 

geomorphology varies across these same spatial scales (Schmidt and Graf, 1990; Graf, 1995). 

Water velocities also vary strongly as a function of dam operations (Graf, 1995), and under the 

modified low fluctuating flow alternative, these differences in flow regimes tend to vary 

seasonally (large discharge volumes and high water velocities in summer and winter, lower 

discharge volumes and water velocities in spring and fall). Thus, invertebrate drift rates and 
186

hydrodynamic data across flow regimes, seasons, and from multiple spatial scales—from the 

reach to the patch—are needed to develop a cause-and-effect understanding of how net energy 

intake potential for rainbow trout populations in Glen and Marble Canyons vary in response to 

things such as HFEs (Cross and others, 2011), dam operations (i.e., 2011 equalization flows), 

and among segments (i.e., Glen Canyon versus Marble Canyon). Constraints on the net energy 

intake potential for large rainbow trout in Glen Canyon is a leading hypothesis explaining the 

absence of large rainbow trout from the Glen Canyon sport fishery (see H2). Differences in net 

energy intake potential among segments may also partially explain the recent finding that 

rainbow trout appear to migrate from Glen Canyon downstream late in their first year of life 

(Korman and others, in press). We propose addressing these uncertainties and testing H2 by 

developing a bioenergetics model for rainbow trout that includes information on invertebrate 

drift rates, water velocities, and water temperatures. Previous bioenergetic models developed for 

Grand Canyon fish populations have focused on evaluating growth potential for humpback chub 

and rainbow trout as a function of water temperature (Peterson and Paukert, 2005; Paukert and 

Peterson, 2007). Our model will also include water temperature because this has a strong effect 

on fish metabolism and swimming performance (Peterson and Paukert, 2005; Hayes and others, 

2007). We will also incorporate information on water velocities, because this information is 

critical for evaluating differences in net energy intake potential among segments (i.e., Glen 

Canyon versus Marble Canyon) and among seasons and flow regimes. 

Project Element H.4. Learning from other Tailwaters—a Synthesis of Tailwaters in the United States 

($146,500) 

Theodore Kennedy, Research Aquatic Biologist, USGS/GCMRC

Charles Yackulic, Research Statistician, USGS/GCMRC

Bill Persons, Fishery Biologist, USGS/GCMRC

Mike Yard, Fishery Biologist, USGS/GCMRC

Josh Korman, President, Ecometric Research Inc.

The objective to this project element is to develop a broader understanding of the links 

between dam operations and salmonid population dynamics, including novel flow regimes that 

might be evaluated on Glen Canyon Dam, by synthesizing data from tailwaters throughout the 

nation. 

While it is not possible to evaluate H4 without major changes in Glen Canyon Dam 

operations, it is possible to evaluate H4 by synthesizing data from other tailwaters that 

experience different flow regimes than Glen Canyon Dam. The tailwaters downstream from all 

the major Colorado River dams (e.g., Navajo Dam, Aspinall Units, Flaming Gorge) are 

intentionally managed for salmonid (i.e., rainbow trout brown trout [Salmo trutta]) populations, 

because the clear, cold-water conditions that exist are ideal for these species. Environmental 

flows, and in some cases temperature modification, have been implemented on many segments 

of the Colorado River in an attempt to restore ecosystem processes and benefit native fish 

species. For example, a program of environmental flows that includes artificial spring floods, 

summer minimum flows, and thermal modification using a selective withdrawal structure, has 

been implemented at Flaming Gorge Dam (Muth and others, 2000). Environmental flows have 

also been implemented for Glen Canyon Dam, but the focus has been on artificial floods only 

(Kennedy and Ralston, 2011; Schmidt and Grams, 2011). Thermal modification in Grand 

Canyon is not possible, because no selective withdrawal structure exists. However, the artificial 
187

flood conducted in 2008 strongly benefitted the population of rainbow trout in the dam’s 

tailwaters (Cross and others, 2011; Korman, Kaplinski, and Melis, 2011). This led to a large 

cohort of juvenile rainbow trout, but significant increases in the abundance of large rainbow trout 

were not seen. Countless other examples of environmental flows—both with and without thermal 

modification—exist for various dams in the Colorado River basin, all of which are intended to 

benefit native fish populations, while still maintaining salmonid sport fisheries in the tailwaters. 

There are numerous tailwaters outside of the Colorado River basin that are also managed for 

salmonids, and we will learn about the links among flow regimes, water temperature regimes, 

and salmonid populations dynamics by incorporating information from these systems into our 

synthesis. We will hire a post-doctoral researcher to synthesize available monitoring and 

research data from tailwaters throughout the United States, with an emphasis on tailwaters in the 

Colorado River basin. The post-doctoral researcher will be charged with making connections 

with the scientists from state, federal, and academic organizations throughout the United States 

needed to acquire relevant data from other tailwaters (i.e., information on the foodbase and fish 

catch data). The synthesis will culminate with a symposium that the post-doctoral researcher 

organizes. By comparing long-term trends in salmonid populations across a range of tailwaters, 

we will develop a broader understanding of the links between dam operations and salmonid 

populations than could be achieved with monitoring and research in Glen Canyon alone. 

Project Element H.5. Contingency Planning for High Experimental Flows and Subsequent Rainbow Trout 

Population Management ($44,500) 

Mike Yard, Fishery Biologist, USGS/GCMRC

Josh Korman, President, Ecometric Research, Inc.

The objective to this project element is to determine the effects of fall HFEs and other 

potential management actions on rainbow trout populations in Glen Canyon. Spring floods are 

known to have a large impact on age-0 rainbow trout mortality and movement. However, the 

effects of fall floods are less well understood. It is possible that fall HFEs may lead to further 

population fluctuations and dispersal downstream necessitating management response(s). A fall 

HFE may also directly impact juvenile and adult trout in the system. Therefore, we propose that 

in the event of an HFE, there should be an additional trip shortly after to monitor trout responses. 

The Natal Origins marking trip will occur before a potential HFE and the next sampling would 

not be scheduled until January, making it difficult to parse out direct impacts of fall flooding (i.e. 

increased dispersal) on life history parameters from indirect impacts (e.g., through the foodbase), 

so the contingent marking trip would require additional pit tagging. 

Any actions to manage rainbow trout populations in Glen Canyon would also require 

monitoring to determine their effectiveness. Potential actions may include flows or flow regimes 

that limit availability of suitable spawning or rearing habitat, reproduction, or survival of 

fertilized eggs, larvae, or juveniles. Ongoing monitoring projects including System Wide 

Electrofishing (Project F.1.), Rainbow Trout Monitoring in Glen Canyon (Project F.2.1.), 

Rainbow Trout Early Life Stage Studies (Project F.2.2.), and Natal Origins (Project F.6.) will 

provide information on the responses of rainbow trout in Glen Canyon to these actions. 

Additional monitoring, however, may also be necessary if, as described above for HFEs, the 

timing of management actions and planned monitoring activities makes it difficult to resolve the 

effects of any experimental actions. Supplemental monitoring may include electrofishing surveys 
188

to determine any changes in size composition, relative abundance or distribution of rainbow trout 

or additional tagging of fish to generate abundance estimates through mark-recapture.

5. References 

Angradi, T.R., and Kubly, D.M., 1993, Effects of atmospheric exposure on chlorophyll a, 

biomass and productivity of the epilithon of a tailwater river: Regulated Rivers--Research 

and Management, v. 8, no. 4, p. 345-358, http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgibin/fulltext/113394869/PDFSTART.

Barrett, J.C., Grossman, G.D., and Rosenfeld, J., 1992, Turbidity-induced changes in reactive 

distance of rainbow trout: Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, v. 121, no. 4, p. 

437-443, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1577/1548-

8659%281992%29121%3C0437%3ATICIRD%3E2.3.CO%3B2.

Benenati, P.L., Shannon, J.P., and Blinn, D.W., 1998, Dessication and recolonization of 

phytobenthos in regulated desert river--Colorado River at Lees Ferry, Arizona, USA: 

Regulated Rivers--Research and Management, v. 14, p. 519-

532, http://www.rmrs.nau.edu/awa/ripthreatbib/Benenati_etal_1998.pdf.

Blinn, D.W., Shannon, J.P., Stevens, L.E., and Carder, J.P., 1995, Consequences of fluctuating 

discharge for lotic communities: Journal of the North American Benthological Society, v. 14,

no. 2, p. 233-248, http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/1467776.pdf.

Carothers, S.W., and Brown, B.T., 1991, The Colorado River through Grand Canyon--natural 

history and human change: Tucson, University of Arizona Press, 235 p.

Coggins, L.G., Yard, M.D., and Pine, W.E., 2011, Nonnative fish control in the Colorado River 

in Grand Canyon, Arizona--an effective program or serendipitous timing?: Transactions of 

the American Fisheries Society, v. 140, no. 2, p. 456-470, 

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00028487.2011.572009.

Cross, W.F., Rosi-Marshall, E.J., Behn, K.E., Kennedy, T.A., Hall, R.O., Fuller, A.E., and 

Baxter, C.V., 2010, Invasion and production of New Zealand mud snails in the Colorado 

River, Glen Canyon: Biological Invasions, v. 12, no. 9, p. 3033-

3043, http://www.springerlink.com/content/bv834031865h2077/.

Cross, W.F., Baxter, C.V., Donner, K.C., Rosi-Marshall, E.J., Kennedy, T.A., Hall, R.O., Jr., 

Wellard-Kelly, H.A., and Rogers, R.S., 2011, Ecosystem ecology meets adaptive 

management--food web response to a controlled flood on the Colorado River, Glen Canyon: 

Ecological Applications, v. 21, no. 6, p. 2016-

2033, http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/10-1719.1.

Grams, P.E., Schmidt, J.C., and Topping, D.J., 2007, The rate and pattern of bed incision and 

bank adjustment on the Colorado River in Glen Canyon downstream from Glen Canyon 

Dam, 1956-2000: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 119, no. 5-6 p. 556-

575, http://gsabulletin.gsapubs.org/content/119/5-6/556.abstract.

Hall, R.O., Jr., Kennedy, T.A., Rosi Marshall, E.J., Cross, W.F., Wellard, H.A., and Baxter, C.F., 

2010, Aquatic production and carbon flow in the Colorado River, in Melis, T.S., Hamill, J.F., 

Bennett, G.E., Coggins, L.G., Jr., Grams, P.E., Kennedy, T.A., Kubly, D.M., and Ralston, 

B.E., eds., Proceedings of the Colorado River Basin Science and Resource Management 

Symposium, November 18-20, 2008, Scottsdale, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2010-5135, 105-112 p., http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5135/.
189

Hayes, J.W., Hughes, N.F., and Kelly, L.H., 2007, Process-based modeling of invertebrate drift 

transport, net energy intake and reach carrying capacity for drift-feeding salmonids: 

Ecological Modeling, v. 207, p. 171-188.

Kennedy, T.A., and Ralston, B.E., 2011, Biological responses to high-flow experiments at Glen 

Canyon Dam, in Melis, T.S., ed., Effects of three high-flow experiments on the Colorado 

River ecosystem downstream from Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey 

Circular 1366, 93-125 p., http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1366/.

Korman, J., and Campana, S.E., 2009, Effects of hydropeaking on nearshore habitat use and 

growth of age-0 rainbow trout in a large regulated river: Transactions of the American 

Fisheries Society, v. 138, no. 1, p. 76-87, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1577/T08-

026.1.

Korman, J., Kaplinski, M., and Melis, T.S., 2011, Effects of fluctuating flows and a controlled 

flood on incubation success and early survival rates and growth of age-0 rainbow trout in a 

large regulated river: Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, v. 140, no. 2, p. 487-

505, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00028487.2011.572015.

Maddux, H.R., Kubly, D.M., deVos, J.C., Jr., Persons, W.R., Staedicke, R., and Wright, R.L., 

1987, Effects of varied flow regimes on aquatic resources of Glen and Grand Canyons--final 

report: Phoenix, Arizona Game and Fish Department, submitted to Bureau of Reclamation, 

Glen Canyon Environmental Studies, contract no. 4-AG-40-01810, 291 p. [Available from 

National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va. as NTIS Report PB88-183439/AS.]

Makinster, A.S., Persons, W.R., and Avery, L.A., 2011, Status and trends of the rainbow trout 

population in the Lees Ferry reach of the Colorado River downstream from Glen Canyon 

Dam, Arizona, 1991–2009: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2011–

5015, 17 p.

McKinney, T., Speas, D.W., Rogers, R.S., and Persons, W.R., 2001, Rainbow trout in a 

regulated river below Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona, following increased minimum flows and 

reduced discharge variability: North American Journal of Fisheries Management, v. 21, no. 

1, p. 216-222, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1577/1548-

8675(2001)021%3C0216:RTIARR%3E2.0.CO;2.

McKinney, T., and Speas, D.W., 2001, Observations of size-related asymmetries in diet and 

energy intake of rainbow trout in a regulated river: Environmental Biology of Fishes, v. 61, 

no. 4, p. 435-444, http://www.springerlink.com/content/u177356554v07546/.

Muth, R.T., Crist, L.W., LaGory, K.E., Hayse, J.W., Bestgen, K.R., Ryan, T.P., Lyons, J.K., and 

Valdez, R.A., 2000, Flow and temperature recommendations for endangered fishes in the 

Green River downstream of Flaming Gorge Dam--final report: Denver, Colo., submitted to 

Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program, project FG-53, 343 p., 

http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/crrip/doc/flaminggorgeflowrecs.pdf.

Oreskes N., Shrader-Frechette, K., and Belitz, K.,1994, Verification, validation, and 

confirmation of numerical models in the earth sciences: Science, v. 263, p. 641-646.

Perry, S.A., and Perry, W.B., 1986, Effects of experimental flow regulation on invertebrate drift 

and stranding in the Flathead and Kootenai Rivers, Montana, USA: Hydrobiologia, v. 134, 

no. 2, p. 171-182, http://www.springerlink.com/content/wu08t083k8r41554/.

Persons, W,R., McCormack, K., and McCall, T., 1985, Fishery investigation of the Colorado 

River from Glen Canyon Dam to the confluence of the Paria River--Assessment of the 

impact of fluctuating flows on the Lee’s Ferry Fishery, Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration 
190

Dingell Johnson Project F-14-R-14, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 93 p. 

unpublished report available by contacting the Arizona Game and Fish Department.

Pine, W.E.I., Martell, S.J.D., Walters, C.J., and Kitchell, J.F., 2009, Counterintuitive responses 

of fish populations to management actions--some common causes and implications for 

predictions based on ecosystem modeling: Fisheries, v. 34, no. 4, p. 165-180, 

http://www.lssu.edu/faculty/gsteinhart/GBS-LSSU/BIOL432-

Fish_Management_files/Pine%20et%20al%202009.pdf.

Rosenfield, J.S., and Taylor, J., 2009, Prey abundance, channel structure and the allometry of 

growth rate potential for juvenile trout: Fisheries Management and Ecology, v. 16, p. 202-

218.

Schmidt, J.C., and Grams, P.E., 2011, The high flows--physical science results, in Melis, T.S., 

ed., Effects of three high-flow experiments on the Colorado River ecosystem downstream 

from Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1366, 53-91 p.,

http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1366/.

Schmidt, J.C., Webb, R.H., Valdez, R.A., Marzolf, G.R., and Stevens, L.E., 1998, Science and 

values in river restoration in the Grand Canyon: BioScience, v. 48, no. 9, p. 735-747, 

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1313336.

Shaver, M.L., Shannon, J.P., Wilson, K.P., Benenati, P.L., and Blinn, D.W., 1997, Effects of 

suspended sediment and desiccation on the benthic tailwater community in the Colorado 

River, USA: Hydrobiologia, v. 357, p. 63-72, 

http://www.springerlink.com/content/u7g71330387621w8/.

Stevens, L.E., Buck, K.A., Brown, B.T., and Kline, N.C., 1997a, Dam and geomorphological 

influences on Colorado River waterbird distribution, Grand Canyon, Arizona, USA: 

Regulated Rivers--Research and Management, v. 13, no. 2, p. 151-169,

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1646(199703)13:2%3C151::AIDRRR447%3E3.0.CO;2-U/abstract.

Stevens, L.E., Shannon, J.P., and Blinn, D.W., 1997b, Colorado River benthic ecology in Grand 

Canyon, Arizona, USA--dam, tributary, and geomorphological influences: Regulated Rivers-

-Research and Management, v. 13, no. 2, p. 129-149, at 

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/11832/PDFSTART.

Stockner, J.G., Rydin, E., and Hyenstrand, P., 2000, Cultural oligotrophication: causes and 

consequences for fisheries resources: Fisheries, v. 25, p. 7-14.

Tank, J.L. and Dodds, W.K., 2003, Nutrient limitation of epilithic and pqixlic biofilms in ten 

North American Streams: Freshwater Biology, v. 48., p. 1031-1049.

Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., and Vierra, L.E., Jr., 2000, Colorado River sediment transport 1--

natural sediment supply limitation and the influence of the Glen Canyon Dam: Water 

Resources Research, v. 36, no. 2, p. 515-

542, http://www.agu.org/journals/wr/v036/i002/1999WR900285/.

Valdez, R.A., and Ryel, R.J., 1995, Life history and ecology of the humpback chub (Gila cypha) 

in the Colorado River, Grand Canyon, Arizona--final report: Logan, Utah, BIO/WEST, Inc., 

submitted to Bureau of Reclamation, contract no. 0-CS-40-09110, technical report no. TR250-08, 328 p.

Yard, M.D., 2003, Light availability and aquatic primary production--Colorado River, Glen and 

Grand Canyons, AZ: Flagstaff, Northern Arizona University, Ph.D. dissertation, 205 p.

Yard, M.D., Coggins, L.G., Baxter, C.V., Bennett, G.E., and Korman, J., 2011, Trout piscivory 

in the Colorado River, Grand Canyon--effects of turbidity, temperature, and fish prey 
191

availability: Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, v. 140, no. 2, p. 471-486, 

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00028487.2011.572011.

6. Budget 

Project Element H.1. 

Laboratory feeding studies

Project Element H.2. 

Understanding the links 

among dam operations, 

environmental conditions, 

and the foodbase

Project Element H.3. 

Developing a bioenergetics 

model for large rainbow 

trout

Salaries $17,100 Salaries $116,100 Salaries $68,900

Traveling and Training $0 Traveling and Training $7,700 Traveling and Training $2,900 

Operating Expenses $16,000 Operating Expenses $20,500 Operating Expenses $1,500 

Logistics $0 Logistics $0 Logistics $0

GIS/RS/Electronics support $0 GIS/RS/Electronics support $79,500 GIS/RS/Electronics support $34,100

Cooperators (non-USGS) $0 Cooperators (non-USGS) $0 Cooperators (non-USGS) $20,000

USGS cooperators $0 USGS cooperators $0 USGS cooperators $0

USGS Burden $4,600 USGS Burden $20,200 USGS Burden $10,900 

Total $37,700 Total $244,000 Total $138,300

Project Element H.4. 

Learning from other 

tailwaters--a synthesis of 

tailwaters in the U.S. 

Project Element H.5. 

Contingency planning for 

High Flow Experiments and 

subsequent rainbow trout 

population management

Salaries $112,400 Salaries $6,600

Traveling and Training $14,100 Traveling and Training $0 

Operating Expenses $2,000 Operating Expenses $14,000 

Logistics $0 Logistics $18,400

GIS/RS/Electronics support $0 GIS/RS/Electronics support $0

Cooperators (non-USGS) $0 Cooperators (non-USGS) $0

USGS cooperators $0 USGS cooperators $0

USGS Burden $18,000 USGS Burden $5,500 

Total $146,500 Total $44,500

FY 2013 Project H. Gross Total: 

$611,000

FY 2013
192

Project Element H.1. 

Laboratory feeding studies

Project Element H.2. 

Understanding the links 

among dam operations, 

environmental conditions, 

and the foodbase

Project Element H.3. 

Developing a bioenergetics 

model for large rainbow 

trout

Salaries $17,600 Salaries $119,500 Salaries $70,900

Traveling and Training $0 Traveling and Training $7,800 Traveling and Training $2,900 

Operating Expenses $16,500 Operating Expenses $21,100 Operating Expenses $1,500 

Logistics $0 Logistics $0 Logistics $0

GIS/RS/Electronics support $0 GIS/RS/Electronics support $71,800 GIS/RS/Electronics support $30,800

Cooperators (non-USGS) $0 Cooperators (non-USGS) $0 Cooperators (non-USGS) $20,600

USGS cooperators $0 USGS cooperators $0 USGS cooperators $0

USGS Burden $4,800 USGS Burden $30,900 USGS Burden $15,500 

Total $38,900 Total $251,100 Total $142,200

Project Element H.4. 

Learning from other 

tailwaters--a synthesis of 

tailwaters in the U.S. 

Project Element H.5. 

Contingency planning for 

High Flow Experiments and 

subsequent rainbow trout 

population management

Salaries $115,800 Salaries $14,500

Traveling and Training $14,700 Traveling and Training $0 

Operating Expenses $2,100 Operating Expenses $14,400 

Logistics $0 Logistics $19,000

GIS/RS/Electronics support $0 GIS/RS/Electronics support $0

Cooperators (non-USGS) $0 Cooperators (non-USGS) $0

USGS cooperators $0 USGS cooperators $0

USGS Burden $18,700 USGS Burden $6,900 

Total $151,300 Total $54,800

FY 2014

FY 2014 Project H. Gross Total: 

$638,300
193

Project I. 

Riparian Vegetation Studies: Response Guilds as a 

Monitoring and Modeling Approach with Landscape Scale 

Vegetation Mapping for Change Detection 

1. Investigators 

Barbara Ralston, Biologist, USGS, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

Phil Davis, Research Geologist, USGS, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

Joel Sankey, Research Physical Scientist, USGS, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research 

Center

Todd Chaudhry, Restoration Ecologist, Grand Canyon National Park, NPS

Lori Makarick, Vegetation Program Manager, Grand Canyon National Park, NPS

Dustin W. Perkins, Program Manager, Northern Colorado Plateau Inventory and Monitoring 

Program, NPS 

Anthony M. Starfield, Modeling consultant, Dallas, Texas

2. Project Summary 

Riparian vegetation affects physical processes and biological interactions in the Colorado 

River ecosystem (CRe). The presence and expansion of riparian vegetation promotes bank 

stability and diminishes the magnitude of scour and fill during floods. Scour and fill is the 

process that maintains bare sandbars. This project is focused on monitoring riparian vegetation 

and its changes. Monitoring is centered on measure of response guilds, a relatively new concept 

in riparian ecology. Response guilds are groups of plant species not closely related, but respond 

similarly to flow variables. The presences of particular guilds are an indicator of the status of 

vegetation and other resources such as sandbar stability and campsite availability. 

The effect of riparian vegetation on associated resources and the uncertain direction of 

the riparian community’s response to dam operations and the tamarisk beetle (Diorhabda spp.)

have garnered the attention of stakeholders within the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management 

Program (GCDAMP). The stakeholders of the GCDAMP requested that a greater effort be made 

to understand riparian vegetation response to dam operations and the effect of riparian vegetation 

on other resources. This project will monitor vegetation using a response guild approach. 

Monitoring vegetation using response guilds is a strategy being applied across the Colorado 

River basin within the National Park system. Thus, the approach described here is 

complimentary to work elsewhere and permits comparison of vegetation response across the 

watershed and subject to different flow regimes. The sampling described here occurs within a 

hydro-geomorphic framework and allows interpretation of vegetation response as related to dam 

operations and geomorphic setting. The type of response guilds found downstream from Glen 

Canyon Dam can identify contracting or expanding areas of the river channel, as well as

simplification of the riparian community. 
194

3. Background 

Substrate properties, channel geomorphology (e.g., width, depth, bed and bank material, 

slope, floodplain functionality), and flow regime affect the abundance, structure, and location of 

riparian plant communities (Auble and Scott 1998; Mahoney and Rood 1998; Auble and others, 

2005; Naiman and others, 2005). Convergent adaptations by species that respond similarly to 

these geomorphic and hydrologic attributes create response guilds that cross genera and vary in 

habit and longevity (Grime, 1979; Lavorel and Garnie, 2002; Merritt and others, 2010). 

Alteration of the flow regime through dam regulation changes the disturbance regime for riparian 

species and leads to changes in the response guilds present within a riparian ecosystem. River 

regulation thus becomes a selective force on riparian community structure that has the potential 

to shift the dominant species and response guilds of the native ecosystem to an alternative state. 

River regulation in the semi-arid West creates conditions that support both nonnative and 

native riparian plant species (Stromberg, 1998; Rood and others, 2009). The reduced flood 

frequency and magnitude and the increased base flow of regulated rivers permit vegetation to 

persist along the historic annual flood line and migrate downslope and shoreward. The altered 

hydrograph can promote successful colonization of nonnative species, particularly tamarisk 

(Tamarix spp.), on newly exposed bare substrates (Sher and others, 2000; Birken and Cooper, 

2006; Mortenson and others, 2012). In the southwest, the riparian plant community is one in 

which nonnative tamarisk or Russian olive (Eleaganus angustifolia) dominate the landscape 

(Friedman and others, 2005). In Grand Canyon, tamarisk is a keystone species of the postdam 

riparian community, because the plant affects multiple biological interactions and processes. 

Tamarisk affects food availability and nesting preferences of birds, the composition of ground 

dwelling arthropods, plant diversity, litter quality and quantity, and other community interactions 

and functions (Bailey and others, 2001; Ellis and others, 2001; Sogge and others, 2003; Kennedy 

and Hobbie, 2004, Yard and others, 2004). 

Selective forces, such as river regulation, that creates alternative riparian community 

states that support nonnative species can create feedback loops with geomorphic processes. 

Shoreward migration of vegetation that includes tamarisk colonization can result in channel 

narrowing and channel simplification (Allred and Schmidt 1999; Dean and Schmidt, 2011). 

These changes can affect the riparian community by changing the width, structure, and 

composition of riparian vegetation including reductions in vegetation diversity (Auble 2005; 

Graf 2006). The expectation for large river channels in the southwestern U.S. is that continued 

channel narrowing will occur, particularly due to reduced stream flow (Seager and others, 2007; 

Sabo and others, 2010). To reverse this undesired condition, natural resource managers seek to 

improve natural resources downstream of dams by exploring alternative dam operations that may 

promote biodiversity and healthy ecosystems.

Society is increasingly interested in restoring and maintaining diverse riparian 

communities (National Research Council, 2002; Shafroth and others, 2008). Accordingly, the 

stakeholders of the GCDAMP identified a riparian habitat dominated by native species as 

the preferred desired future condition for the Colorado River downstream from the dam. 

In other words, stakeholders are interested in identifying those selective forces that will permit 

riparian vegetation to switch from the present state of a tamarisk-dominated habitat to one 

dominated by native riparian species. Approaches available to changing the composition of the 

riparian community include physical removal of nonnative species, introducing biocontrol agents 

(for example, the tamarisk beetle), and/or changing the pattern of annual water delivery. Changes 
195

in the flow regime might include periodic flood pulses, altering daily and monthly flow volumes, 

and altering the daily pattern of releases (Poff and Zimmerman, 2010; Wright and Kennedy, 

2011). 

Shifting the riparian ecosystem from the present tamarisk-dominated condition to a native 

species-dominated condition is a significant scientific challenge. Because tamarisk is a keystone 

species along the Colorado River, its reduction may profoundly affect the riparian community’s 

composition, structure, and general character, which merits monitoring and study. Further, 

because plants form guilds in response to hydrologic regimes (Merritt and others, 2010), and 

these guilds can affect channel response (Allred and Schmidt, 1999; Dean and Schmidt, 2011), it 

is necessary that vegetation data collection be set within a hydro-geomorphic framework. 

Without a hydro-geomorphic framework, the linked responses of channel morphology and the 

riparian community to drivers of change (e.g., altered hydrology, tamarisk beetle) will remain 

unknown. The result is that stakeholders will remain unable to understand how dam operations 

may or may not effectively shift the riparian community from the tamarisk-dominated state 

toward a native species-dominated state. 

3.1. Scientific Background 

The current hydrologic regime of Glen Canyon Dam promotes woody vegetation 

expansion (Stevens and others, 1995; Kennedy and Ralston, 2010), and it is unknown how the 

introduced tamarisk beetle, in combination with future flow regimes, will affect the riparian 

community downstream of the dam. Stakeholders of the GCDAMP recognized riparian 

communities as an important element of the Colorado River and developed a specific 

management goal [Goal 6: Protect or improve the biotic riparian and spring communities, 

including threatened and endangered species and their critical habitat]. Reduced flows in the 

summer can promote tamarisk recruitment if there is sufficient open substrate and persistent 

water for establishment (Porter, 2002; Birken and Cooper, 2006; Mortenson and others, 2012). 

Increased frequency of high flows of similar magnitude and duration in the spring or fall may 

reduce wetland and riparian plant diversity by selecting for a single type of response guild that is 

adapted to burial and that can expand through vegetative propagation (Ralston, 2010; Kennedy 

and Ralston, 2011). The effect of vegetation expansion can negatively affect the quality of other 

resources within the riparian zone. For example, available campable area can decline as 

vegetation expands (Kearsley and others, 1994). Additionally, though not well documented in 

Grand Canyon, increasing vegetation on sandbars likely confounds sediment conservation efforts 

by affecting sediment transport dynamics and eolian processes (Trimble 2004, Kean and Smith, 

2004; Dean and others, 2011; Draut and Rubin, 2008). Thus, the status of riparian vegetation 

and its relationship to other resources is a primary information need for the stakeholders 

to evaluate how dam operations are affecting downstream resources. 

This project is entirely focused on, (1) vegetation monitoring. There are three 

components of the monitoring (a) monitoring riparian vegetation response guilds to dam 

operations within a hydrogeomorphic framework, (b) developing a state and transition model for 

riparian vegetation change, and (c) periodic landscape scale vegetation mapping and change 

analysis using remotely sensed data. The work proposes:

1. To use ecological and life-history traits of riparian plant species found along the 

Colorado River downstream from Glen Canyon Dam to define flow response guilds 

(sensu Merritt and others, 2010.) These guilds will be the basis to monitor directional 
196

responses of the riparian community and the river channel to dam operations.

Directional responses revealed by monitoring might include a constricting or expanding 

riparian vegetation community, simplification of the riparian community, and narrowing 

of the river channel. 

2. To use traits of response guilds to identify ecological states for riparian vegetation and 

those conditions (flow scenarios) that cause states to switch. This approach recognizes a 

multi-state pathway and multiple steady states as a way to describe riparian vegetation 

dynamics. 

3. To use remotely sensed imagery to quantify landscape scale changes in vegetation type 

and amount and to conduct change detection analysis of vegetation since 2002. 

These project components will provide stakeholders necessary information about riparian 

vegetation response to dam operations, and information about how changes in vegetation, be it 

expanded area, or community structure, may affect other resources such as campsite availability 

and quality, terrestrial and aquatic food webs, and sediment dynamics related to sediment 

transport.

3.2. Core Monitoring and Research Questions Addressed in this project 

This project addresses the following Strategic Science Questions (SSQs), Core Monitoring 

Information Needs (CMINs), and Research Information Needs (RINs) previously identified by 

the GCDAMP.

Primary SSQs addressed are:

• 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?

• SSQ 5-7. How do warmer releases affect viability and productivity of 

native/nonnative vegetation?

The primary information needs addressed by these projects are CMINs 6.1.1., 6.2.1, 6.5.1, and 

6.6.1, which are summarized as the following:

• Determine and track the abundance, composition, distribution, and area of terrestrial 

native and nonnative vegetation species in the CRe

• Determine parameters and metrics to be measured, and the information needs that 

address each element

• Determine how the abundance, composition, and distribution of the OHWZ, NHWZ, 

and sand beach community have changed since dam closure (1963), high flows 

(1984), interim flows (1991), and the implementation of ROD operations (RIN 6.2.1, 

6.3.1, 6.4.1, 6.5.1, 6.5.2, 6.5.3)

3.3. Management Background 

This project funds monitoring and associated research activities relating to the 

measurement of riparian vegetation attributes in response to dam operations to inform multiple 

stakeholder needs. Project I incorporates information gained from previous monitoring pilot 

efforts (Stevens and Ayers 1995; Kearsley and Ayers 1995; Kearsley and others, 2006) and 
197

recommendations from protocol review panels (Urquhart and others, 2000; Cooper and others, 

2008). 

The primary objectives of this project are to measure variables of plant response (cover, 

species presence, and abundance) as related to the geomorphic setting, stage elevation, and dam 

operations. These variables inform stakeholders about the status of vegetation and support 

analysis of vegetation’s role in the physical and sociocultural responses to dam operations. The 

proposed methods in the Response Guild project also support research related to evaluation of 

alternative flow regimes, including implementation of the High-Flow Experiment protocol (U.S. 

Department of the Interior, 2011), because sampling is hydrologically and geomorphically based, 

and its annual sampling schedule in September generally brackets proposed high flow releases. 

The annual sampling at the end of each growing season provides an assessment of riparian 

vegetation. Thus, data collected by this project contribute to core monitoring, agency actions 

such as the High-Flow Experiment protocol or other dam operations, and fundamental support 

for understanding ecosystem processes within a regulated river. 

In addition to supporting GCDAMP Goal 6, this project also supports Goals 8, 9, and 11. 

• Goal 8: Maintain or attain levels of sediment storage within the main channel and 

along shorelines to achieve GCDAMP ecosystem goals.

This project supports Goal 8 by collecting vegetation response data associated with 

sandbars and other geomorphic features that physical scientists can use to further understand 

mechanisms affecting sediment storage and transport.

• Goal 9: Maintain or improve the quality of recreational experiences for users of the 

CRe within the framework of GCDAMP ecosystem goals.

This project supports Goal 9 by collecting vegetation response data that may inform 

researchers about how vegetation cover and abundance affects recreational experiences. 

• Goal 11: Preserve, protect, manage, and treat cultural resources for the inspiration 

and benefit of past, present, and future generations.

This project supports Goal 11 by collecting vegetation cover data and an overall species 

list that may be used to inform other researchers about how the quantity of vegetation affects 

sediment transport and cultural site preservation, or how the loss or gain of plant species affect 

interpretations of ecosystem status. 

4. Proposed Work 

4.1. Project Elements 

Project Element I.1.1. Monitor Vegetation and Channel Response using Response Guilds and Landscape Scale 

Vegetation Change Analysis ($376,500) 

Barbara Ralston, Biologist, USGS/GCMRC

Todd Chaudhry, Restoration Ecologist, Grand Canyon National Park, NPS

Lori Makarick, Vegetation Program Manager, Grand Canyon National Park, NPS

Dustin W. Perkins, Program Manager, Northern Colorado Plateau Inventory and Monitoring 

Program, NPS 

Post-doc, USGS/GCMRC

Technician, USGS/GCMRC

Response guild development involves identifying groups of species that share traits 

related to life history, reproductive strategy, adaptation to fluvial disturbance, and inundation 
198

duration response (i.e., water availability) within a particular river geomorphic setting. For each 

guild, a probabilistic response to a flow variable is determined and projected (Fig. 1). The guilds 

can be used to indicate a directional response of the riparian community and the river channel to 

an implemented flow regime. For example, on the Yampa River, the presence of active channel 

plant species measured in monitored plots are used as an indicator of the responsiveness of the 

channel (Scott and others, 2011) . The response guild approach, which is a relatively new 

approach to riparian vegetation management (Merritt and others, 2010) provides managers an 

opportunity to evaluate trade-offs and risks associated with flow management strategies. 

Sampling that uses guilds as a monitoring approach can validate projected responses. The guilds 

downstream from Glen Canyon Dam would be metrics that identify contracting or expanding 

areas of riparian vegetation, simplification of the riparian community, and simplification or 

narrowing of the river channel. Because guilds have a probabilistic response to flows, we can 

project their trajectory and model faunal species responses to riparian changes. 

Figure 1. Hypothetical graph of probability of occurrence curves for 4 plant guilds subject to a flow scenario and associated 

with a typical reattachment bar in Grand Canyon. In this scenario, Guilds 4 and 3 are more responsive to greater variation in 

the flow variable as seen by the height and width of the curves, while Guilds 1 and 2 have narrower ranges of response and 

may be found in more specific sites or under more specific flow scenarios (adapted from Merritt and others, 2010). 

Implementing a response guild approach for monitoring in Grand Canyon compliments 

riparian vegetation monitoring that is occurring in other National Parks bisected by the Colorado 

or Green Rivers (Scott and others, 2011). These monitoring efforts are occurring in association 

with the National Park Service’s Northern Plateau Inventory and Monitoring Program, also 

known as the Big River Protocol (BRP). The BRP is hypothesis driven, which allows for 

articulation of system response and focuses monitoring efforts that are crucial for understanding 

resource response and management options in a scientific context. Further, because experimental 

releases are part of the Glen Canyon Dam adaptive management strategy, comparisons between 

changes observed in riparian vegetation in Grand Canyon with those observed in the upstream 

reaches of the Colorado River basin would be possible. 
199

Measuring and reporting riparian vegetation changes in Grand Canyon has occurred for

more than 70 years, but the data stream is not continuous. The discontinuous nature of data 

collection hampers understanding long-term vegetation responses, particularly vegetation 

changes due to dam operations. Data includes periodic floristic surveys conducted in the 1930s, 

1970s, and 1980s (Clover and Jotter, 1944; Carothers and others, 1976; Phillips and others, 1977; 

Greene, 1980; Turner and Karpiscak, 1980). The use of repeat photography by Turner and 

Karpiscak (1980) documented the expansion of plants along the channel margins. Turner and 

Karpiscak (1980) noted the expansion of tamarisk within the river corridor. Clover and Jotter 

(1944) noted the presence of tamarisk along the river on their trip in 1938.

Event driven sampling of vegetation occurred in the mid-1980s and early 1990s in 

response to the large annual floods of 1983, 1984, 1985, and 1986. These years also had 

unusually large total runoff and only short periods of fluctuating flows. Research during this 

period was also associated with the Environmental Impact Statement for the operations of Glen 

Canyon Dam (Stevens and Waring, 1986; Stevens and others, 1995). Sampling measured the loss 

of vegetation following sustained flooding, and the expansion of woody vegetation following 

reductions in flows and changes in daily operations. 

These results parallel other work on riparian ecology in Europe and the western United 

States (Nilsson and others, 1989, 1997; Stromberg, 1993; Nilsson and Jansson, 1995) in 

regulated and unregulated river systems. Ancillary to these efforts, Webb (1996) conducted 

another repeat photography effort that compared the 1889 Stanton expedition photos with images 

from the river for the period of 1989–1993. The latter effort provided qualitative information 

about the state of vegetation prior to implementation of interim flows and modified low 

fluctuating flow operations. General conclusions from these studies were that 1) tamarisk 

colonization events occur following large-scale disturbance, or operations that expose bare 

substrate for colonization (Stevens and Waring, 1986; Mortenson and others, 2012); 2) that 

river regulation that reduces flood magnitude and frequency permits the development of 

marsh communities (Stevens and others, 1995); and, 3) that woody riparian vegetation, in 

general, would be expected to expand under Record of Decision (RoD) operations because 

of their greater drought tolerance compared with marsh vegetation that requires greater 

inundation duration (Stevens and others, 1995).

The Record of Decision for Glen Canyon Dam operations (U.S. Department of Interior, 

1996) included the establishment of the GCDAMP. Urquhart and others (2000) provided the first 

review of research and monitoring protocols for terrestrial ecosystems. The review was not 

limited to vegetation sampling and included recommendations for faunal elements (e.g., birds, 

arthropods, endangered snails). For riparian vegetation, the recommendation was to link 

sampling to the elevation of different characteristic discharges (e.g., stage) and to expand the 

number of sampling sites. An overall recommendation for terrestrial monitoring was to develop 

sampling approaches that integrated multiple biological resource responses to Glen Canyon Dam 

operations and to develop a vegetation map using remotely sensed data (Urquhart and others, 

2000).

A subsequent sampling approach included testing a sample design wherein vegetation 

plots were rotated during different sample periods and plots at different stage elevations were 

sampled (e.g., 8,000 ft3

/s , 15,000 ft3/s, etc. ; Kearsely and others, 2006). Total vegetated cover 

(%), species richness, and species diversity were determined from the 4 1-m

2 plots and were 

summed across 60 sampling sites for the river corridor for each stage. Indicator species analysis 

was conducted for each stage to determine if associated species changed significantly in cover 
200

from year to year. Indicator species analysis identifies species that are uniquely associated with a 

stage. The vegetation map that was created was based on 2002 imagery and identified 6 

vegetation classes and determined vegetated area for each vegetation class by geomorphic 

segment following the geomorphic scheme of Schmidt and Graf (1990) (Ralston and others, 

2008). Conclusions associated with these data collection efforts were that vegetation up to 

35,000 ft3/s is affected by annual operations of Glen Canyon Dam (Kearsley and others, 

2006). These results supported the work of Stevens and others (1995). Plant cover data 

collected in plots above power plant operations (>35,000 ft3

/s) provided information on 

plant response to the low dam releases that began in 2000.

Review of this approach (Cooper and others, 2008) suggested that sampling design 

should incorporate hydrologic and geomorphic units to distinguish plant responses among these 

environments along the river corridor. Nesting river stage within hydrologic units is 

complementary with recent riparian response modeling efforts that group riparian plants into 

flow-related response guilds (Merrit and others, 2010). Cooper and others (2008) recommended 

retaining the larger scale vegetation mapping effort that estimates area change of vegetation at a 

landscape scale. 

Long-term monitoring that incorporates these recommendations can inform stakeholders 

about how specific types of vegetation may respond in specific geomorphic settings. These 

geomorphic features are also associated with other resources of concern (e.g., sandbars that serve 

as camping beaches), and the information about vegetation response can contribute to the 

evaluation of these resource conditions. Analysis of total vegetated area monitors vegetation 

expansion across the river corridor and corroborates smaller scale change observed in groundbased monitoring. Incorporating compatible sampling strategies from other rivers (e.g., Green 

River, Colorado River in Utah; Scott and others, 2011) within the Colorado River basin provides 

comparable data and thus aids resource managers trying to determine if the responses in the 

Grand Canyon portion of the Colorado River are unique, or are typical of the entire basin. 

Though we cannot replicate the river as can be done in controlled experiments, we can use 

replicate response guilds to compare hydrologic treatments across the Colorado River basin.

The study area consists of four river segments whose limits are defined by the influence 

of tributaries and by floristic communities (Glen Canyon, Marble Canyon, eastern Grand 

Canyon, western Grand Canyon; fig. 2). The confluences of the Paria and Little Colorado Rivers 

and Kanab Creek with the Colorado River are points that divide the four segments. These river 

segment designations also overlap with suspended sediment sampling stations and work focused 

on sediment budgets that bracket Marble Canyon and eastern Grand Canyon (see Project B). 

Further, assessing response guilds within short river reaches can help stakeholders identify areas 

that may be more or less responsive to dam operations. Species lists obtained from plot sampling 

(described below) within these river segments can inform park management of areas where 

undesirable species occur in greater abundance and allow a more focused approach to controlling 

these species. 
201

Figure 2. Four landscape-scale reaches used for stratification (Glen Canyon, Marble Canyon, Eastern Grand Canyon, and 

Western Grand Canyon. The confluence of the Paria, the Little Colorado Rivers Kanab Creek with the Colorado River 

separates the four reaches).

Ground-based sampling using Flow Response Guilds 

Sampling in the BRP (Scott and others, 2011) includes fixed sites and randomly sampled 

plots that are matched to geomorphic features (e.g., reattachment bar, separation bar, debris fan, 

channel margins). Sampling downstream from Glen Canyon Dam will follow a similar approach. 

Fixed sites will be coincident with sandbar monitoring sites (Hazel and others, 2010) and 

channel mapping segments (USGS, 2011), see Project A. Random sites will be stratified and 

equal numbers of geomorphic features will be sampled within river segments. Response guild 

identification will be initiated in 2012 in collaboration with D. Merritt using species lists and 

data collected from 2001-2005 (Kearsley and others, 2006) and Stevens and others (1995) from 

1991-1993.

Fixed site sampling 

Sampling sites will be coincident with sandbar and channel monitoring sites. Among the 

potential sites that can be sampled (50 sandbars and the river channel data from RM 30 to 87), 

sandbar sites that are most and least responsive, as measured by changes in sand volume and area 

(Hazel and others, 2010; Schmidt and Grams, 2011) to high-flow events will be established as 

fixed sampling sites. Data from Hazel and others (2010) will be used to identify these sites.

Because the 50 sites in Project A are surveyed and sandbar area and volume calculated, the 

relationship between vegetation plot locations, associated plant response guild (derived from plot 

samples) and stage elevation can be determined. Monitoring vegetation response guilds at 

sandbars that are measured for responses to HFEs and other dam operations can help address 

physical resource questions about causes of variability in sandbars response. Specifically, this 

co-located data collection effort can support the monitoring and research question 4 presented in 

Project A with respect to the role of vegetation and the type of vegetation present on a sandbar 

affecting sandbar response to HFEs. 
202

Plots at fixed sites will consist of 1-m

2 quadrats that are stratified across geomorphic 

features within a debris-fan eddy complex (upper pool, debris fan, separation bar, reattachment 

bar). The number of quadrats sampled will be proportional to the area of each feature. For 

example, a reattachment bar may be half the size of a separation bar and would have 50% fewer 

plots sampled. Plots will be randomly placed within each geomorphic feature. Their location will 

be identified on aerial photos of the site. The 22-cm resolution of the 2009 imagery provides an 

ability to approximate plot location. Randomized plot points generated prior to sampling trips 

will ensure unbiased sampling. Because the sandbar sites are topographically surveyed annually 

(Project A), the topographic information can be used to determine river stage of the random 

plots. This reduces the time necessary to locate permanent plots and reduces the need to 

monument plots. The vegetation monitoring determines annual changes in response guilds to 

dam operations and informs managers about how these changes may affect geomorphic features. 

Data collected will include cover and species presence. Plot data will also provide species 

richness and diversity and distinguish between native and nonnative species (table 1). 

Table 1. Proposed data collected at fixed sites

Objective Data Inference Goal

Raw Summarized Trend Statistic(s) for 

status

Estimate temporal change in 

riparian and wetland plant 

communities

Herbaceous spp Y* x̅% cover/sp; 

p plots/sp

spp richness Y x̅richness

Total herbaceous Y x̅% cover

PI Y x̅index value

Woody spp Y* x̅% cover/sp; 

p plots/sp; x̅no./m2

Total woody Y x̅% cover; 

p plots; x̅no./m2

Exotic spp Y* x̅% cover/sp; 

p plots/sp

spp richness Y x̅richness

Total exotics Y x̅% cover; p plots

Litter Y x̅% cover

Bare ground Y x̅% cover

Random site sampling 

The objective of random site sampling is to assess the % of the channel in each river 

segment that has response guilds that may indicate a directional response within each river 

segment. Plot sampling here is limited the area affected by annual dam operations including 

HFEs. Sampling will also include an equal number of sandbars, debris fans, and channel margins 

within each river segment. One-meter square quadrats will be used, and data collected will be on 

the presence and absence of indicator species of identified guilds and total vegetative cover. 

Selection of random sites will occur prior to the sampling trip to ensure the sites are logistically 

feasible. Quadrats will be located along transects that are perpendicular to the channel. Because 

the locations will be determined prior to launch of the trip, the height above river level to the 

45,000 ft3

/s stage can be determined using established stage elevation relationships and flow 

routing models (Wiele and Griffin, 1998, Hazel and others, 2006). Having the known river 
203

discharge for a particular day and time of day can assist in determining distance upslope to reach 

the 45,000 ft3/s stage. Successive plots along the transect line will be sampled. These results will 

be compared with the fixed sampling site results for an assessment of the river segment and total 

river corridor. 

Data will be collected annually at the end of the growing season (September/October) to 

capture vegetation response to changes in annual flows that may include short-duration flood 

pulses. The timing for these sampling brackets any likely planned HFE (Wright and Kennedy, 

2011). These sampling approaches will also capture non-river related interactions (e.g., tamarisk 

leaf beetle) that affect changes in community composition. 

Project Element I.1.2. State and Transition Model Development for Response Guilds 

Barbara Ralston, Biologist, USGS/GCMRC

Anthony M. Starfield, Modeling Consultant, Dallas, Texas

Colorado River Riparian Ecologists (TBD)

As a part of implementing a response-guild approach for monitoring, the development of 

a conceptual model that uses the identified guilds and their anticipated vegetation response to 

operations may help identify limitations that dam operations have in altering vegetation 

trajectories. A model may also identify other hypotheses about vegetation and channel response 

beyond those already identified in this project (see above). Alternatively, a model may narrow 

the hypothesis of vegetation response to a one-sided hypothesis (e.g., with x annual operations 

response guild Y will expand), rather than an either/or statement (e.g., with x annual operations 

response guild Y will expand or contract). Uncertainty about operational scenarios and 

vegetation response may also be reduced. A model may be a tool that allows managers to 

respond to undesired outcomes, or avoid them altogether by eliminating operational scenarios 

that result in unwanted vegetation responses.

Models can be extremely detailed, and data rich (e.g., ASMR model for Humpback chub 

population estimates (Coggins and others, 2008) or very simple (e.g., figs. 1, 3) depending on 

their purpose. A modeling approach commonly used in grassland ecosystems and more recently 

applied to riparian systems is the state and transition approach (Stringham and others, 2003; 

Bestelmeyer and others, 2006; Zweig and Kitchens, 2009). This approach recognizes a multistate pathway and multiple steady states as a way to describe ecological dynamics. A state 

represents a persistent vegetative community and transitions between states are triggered by 

events that are natural or managed (Westoby and others, 1989). A hypothetical state and 

transition model for a reattachment bar is illustrated in figure 3 with five ecological states 

including an open sandbar with no vegetation. Dam operations would be those transitions that 

cause the open sandbar to switch to an alternative ecological state or response-guild. Current 

preliminary state and transition models exist for reattachment bars and separation bars (Ralston 

and Starfield, unpublished). These models would be refined following more formal responseguild identification. 

To validate the preliminary model and expand on its utility, a workshop that brings 

together riparian research scientists that have worked in the Colorado River downstream of Glen 

Canyon Dam or other river systems in the southwest is proposed for Fall 2012. A smaller 

working group from this workshop would work on model components, as needed. The modeling 

effort is likely to benefit the Long-Term Experiment Management Plan Environmental 
204

Management Plan process with respect to understanding riparian vegetation response to 

alternative flow scenarios. 

Figure 3. Hypothetical State and Transition Model for riparian vegetation found on a reattachment bar. The ecological states are 

potential response-guilds and arrows on the right side of the diagram, indicate directions that state can switch to depending on a 

suite of dam operations (operations causing transitions are not explicitly identified in this figure).

Project Element I.1.3. Periodic Landscape Scale Vegetation Mapping and Change Analysis using Remotely 

Sensed Data 

Phil Davis, Research Geologist, USGS/GCMRC

Joel Sankey, Research Physical Scientist, USGS/GCMRC

Barbara Ralston, Biologist, USGS/GCMRC

Landscape scale mapping of vegetation provides data that can inform stakeholders 

about the status of multiple resources of the CRe. Riparian vegetation affects camp site quality 

(Kearsley and others, 1994), eolian transport and archaeological site preservation (Draut and 

Rubin, 2008), and provides habitat to wildlife (Sogge and others, 1993). Knowing the area cover 

and the type of vegetation cover is one data source that contributes to the evaluation of the 

stakeholder’s goals for recreation, cultural resources, and riparian communities. Further, data 

from landscape-scale mapping and change detection of vegetation can supplement and 

corroborate results obtained from ground-based vegetation sampling. For example, if the area of 

tamarisk expands in a segment of river as observed in the mapping effort, then ground based 

sampling should corroborate this finding. The objectives of this portion of the study are to 

complete a total vegetation database and vegetation class database for the 2009 imagery, and to 

conduct change detection analysis of vegetation between 2002 and 2009. In May 2013, another 

overflight will be conducted, and it is anticipated that ground-truthing will take place during this 

time. Accuracy assessment of the 2009 database will be combined with this field effort.
205

Corridor-wide Riparian Vegetation Database 

This effort produces total vegetation and a vegetation class database with at least 6 

vegetation classes for the entire river corridor up to the top of the Old High-Water Zone (at the 

250,000 ft3/s flow stage) using image processing of remotely sensed data. The first such database 

was generated for the river corridor using the 2002 image data. The approach used Normalized 

Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) to determine total vegetation and then classified the result 

into vegetation classes. 

Although NDVI is a commonly used method to segregate total vegetation in multispectral 

data, a more robust and accurate method is the Spectral Angle Mapper (SAM), which is 

proposed for mapping using the 2009 imagery. The SAM technique provides the vector angle 

between the wavelength-band values of an image pixel and user-supplied vegetation spectra. The 

smaller the vector angle, the more similar the image pixel is to user-designated vegetation. Both 

sunlit and shadowed vegetation spectra will be used in the SAM analysis in order to map all 

vegetation, even within shadows. If image band data are consistent throughout the corridor, then 

the range of SAM values for vegetation should also be consistent, or at least vary systematically 

throughout the canyon, allowing the vegetation to be mapped quickly. The range of SAM values 

for vegetation will be determined interactively using the SAM image and its corresponding 

color-infrared image. Initially, SAM ranges will be determined every 8-km of the corridor; if the 

derived SAM ranges are consistent or vary systematically, then the observed SAM range relation 

will be used to map the total vegetation throughout the canyon. The results for each of the 126 

image tiles that cover the river corridor will be examined for accuracy and the SAM range 

adjusted when necessary. If the initial SAM ranges at 5-mile increments are random, then the 

SAM range for every image tile will be determined and applied interactively to provide an 

accurate total vegetation database. In order to segregate vegetation in the 2009 image data, the 

SAM ranges defined by the previous task will be used on the 2009 image data for all 126 imagemosaic tiles that cover the river corridor. 

Once total vegetation is segregated in the 2009 image data set (anticipated by fall 2012), 

a most likely vegetation species will be assigned to each image pixel based on reflectance angle. 

Even though final mapping will probably occur at the alliance or association level (categories of 

classification within the National Vegetation Classification Standard (FGDC, 2008)), the spectral 

band quality of the 2009 imagery are very different in terms of dynamic range, consistency, and 

accuracy and, therefore, the level of the final vegetation map for this database will not be known 

until the species classification is completed. We do know that the 2009 image data are much 

better in all respects than the 2002 digital image data sets. Species classification will be 

accomplished using the following information, in order of preference: (1) ground observations 

that occurred near the period of image acquisition in 2009; (2) ground-truth site observations that 

occurred during other image acquisitions (2002), where it is obvious by visual examination of 

the periodic images that certain vegetation is the same in the image data being analyzed; and (3) 

our previously collected ground-reflectance database for the common vegetation species within 

the canyon. Image classification will proceed in 8-km increments progressing downstream in the 

river corridor from Glen Canyon Dam, because vegetation composition and the spectral 

properties of species gradually change downstream. 

Image classification will be based mostly on the image-band signatures and canopy 

texture of representative vegetation species. The 2002 vegetation inventory was produced using 

an unsupervised (ISODATA) classifier, because we did not have an extensive ground-truth 

database at the time of analysis. Species classification using the 2009 image data will use a 
206

supervised classifier, such as Maximum Likelihood, SAM, or Neural Net. We will experiment 

with various classifiers to determine the classifier that is most robust and produces the highest 

map accuracies for most vegetation species. We will use the same canopy texture measures that 

were employed for the 2002 vegetation mapping, although the areal dimensions of the spatial 

tools may change due to the higher spatial resolutions of the 2009 image data compared to that of 

the 2002 image data.

Undoubtedly, there will be ambiguities in the final species classifications, because the 

spectral and textural characteristics of some species overlap. We will try to reduce the ambiguity 

using knowledge of dominant species within particular ecotones or river stages, although care 

will be exercised within the riparian zone not to exclude xeric species. The downslope migration 

of xeric species has been observed for several years. When the species classification process 

reaches the point of diminishing returns, a statistical accuracy assessment will be performed on 

the 2009 results, and a determination will be made as to the aggregation levels for their final 

vegetation databases. We will also incorporate approaches used in Grand Canyon National 

Park’s vegetation-mapping project to develop compatible layers and classes of vegetation.

Vegetation change will compare changes in area among vegetation classes and total area 

between 2002 and 2009. Changes in vegetation classes occurring with the debris fan-eddy 

complexes will be compared with the response guilds identified for the ground-based monitoring 

component to assess changes in response guilds between 2002 and 2009. Historic aerial 

photographs from 1984 that are orthorectified and coincide with long-term sandbar studies will 

be incorporated for change analysis on a longer time scale.

4.2. Collaborations 

Project collaborations include the Northern Colorado Plateau Inventory and Monitoring 

Network (D. Perkins), Grand Canyon National Park (L. Makarick, T. Chaudhry), and other 

riparian ecologists within the Colorado Plateau (e.g., riparian ecologists from USGS/Fort 

Collins, Colorado State, US Forest Service, Arizona State University) related to the modeling 

effort. These collaborations will ensure that data collection approaches implemented downstream 

from Glen Canyon Dam are compatible with those occurring on other river segments of the 

Colorado and Green Rivers in the Upper Basin. Data sharing across park management groups is 

anticipated to enable system-wide comparisons of vegetation response. Image processing, 

classification, and analysis will be done by researchers within GCMRC, including GIS technical 

support and a Ph.D. graduate student at the University of Arizona (T. Andrews (USGS), L. 

Cagney (USGS), P. Davis (USGS), B. Ralston (USGS), J. Sankey (USGS), and U. Nguyen (U of 

A). 

4.3. Deliverables 

FY13 Products from the Ground-based Riparian Monitoring and landscape scale 

vegetation mapping and change detection include:

• Manuscript describing the response guilds found within Grand Canyon (B. Ralston in 

collaboration with D. Merritt); 

• Manuscript of State and transition model for the riparian vegetation for Colorado 

River and workshop outcome (B. Ralston lead with multiple authors/participants 

TBD); 

• Total vegetated area extraction and quantification; quantification of vegetation within 

vegetation classes for 2009 imagery; manuscript of vegetation change analysis 
207

between 2002 and 2009 (lead – P. Davis and J. Sankey); May 2013, coincident with 

the planned overflight, a ground-truthing trip will take place using FY2009 imagery. 

The ground-truthing will verify the 2009 vegetation data base

• Field data from the September 2013 vegetation monitoring trip will be entered within 

30 days of the end of the trip and a trip report submitted to the NPS and Reclamation.

Data from 2012 and 2013 will be used to establish base-line vegetation monitoring 

data report in a U.S. Geological Survey interpretive report or data series report. 

For FY 14, products from the ground-based riparian monitoring will include: 

• A draft manuscript relating the % and locations of response guilds within river 

segments of the Colorado River downstream from Glen Canyon Dam (lead B. 

Ralston), and a species list of plants found within geomorphic features including 

native and nonnative species (Lead – TBD GS-7 technician). 

• For landscape scale vegetation mapping and change detection, products include a 

draft manuscript of Multi-scale and multi-temporal comparison of vegetation change 

along the Colorado River from 1984 to 2009 (co-authors P.Davis, J. Sankey, B. 

Ralston). 

5. Productivity from Past Work 

Kennedy, T.A. and Ralston, B.E., 2011. Biological responses to high-flow experiments at Glen 

Canyon Dam in Melis, T.S., ed., 2011, Effects of three high-flow experiments on the 

Colorado River ecosystem downstream from Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona: U.S. Geological 

Survey Circular 1366, pp 93-126.

Kennedy, T.A., and Ralston, B.E., 2010. Regulation leads to increases in riparian vegetation, but 

not direct allochthonous inputs, along the Colorado River in Grand Canyon, Arizona, River

Research and Applications. DOI:10.1002/rra.1431.

Mortenson, S.G., Weisberg, P.J., and Ralston, B.E. 2008. Do beaver promote the invasion of 

non-native Tamarix in the Grand Canyon riparian zone? WETLANDS, 28:666-675.

Porter ME, Kearsley M. 2001. The response of Tamarix to experimental flows in Grand Canyon. 

Hydrology and Water Resources in Arizona and the Southwest 31, 45-50.

Ralston, B.E., 2010, Riparian vegetation response to the March 2008 short-duration, high-flow 

experiment—implications of timing and frequency of flood disturbance on nonnative plant 

establishment along the Colorado River below Glen Canyon Dam: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 2010–1022, 30 p. 

Ralston, B.E., 2005. Riparian vegetation and associated wildlife. In Gloss, S. P., Lovich, J.E., 

and Melis. T. S. eds., 2005, The State of the Colorado River Ecosystem in Grand Canyon: a 

report of the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, U.S. Geological Survey 

Circular 1282, pp 103-121. 

Ralston, B.E., Davis, P.A., Weber, R.M., and Rundall, J.M., 2008. A vegetation database for the 

Colorado River ecosystem from Glen Canyon Dam to the Western Boundary of Grand 

Canyon National Park, Arizona. U.S. Geological Survey Open-file Report 2008-1216, 37 p.

Yard HK, van Riper Charles III, Brown BT, Kearsley MJ. 2004. Diets of insectivorous birds 

along the Colorado River in Grand Canyon, Arizona. Condor 106, 106-115.
208

5.2. Completed Publications 

Ralston, B.E., Cobb, N.S., Brantley, S.L. and Higgins, J. River regulation increases grounddwelling arthropod diversity along a semi-arid river. For submission to River Research and 

Applications.

Cobb, N.S., Ralston, B.E., Brantley, S.L. and Higgins, J. Inventory of ground dwelling 

arthropods found among three riparian habitats downstream from Glen Canyon Dam and 

evaluation for monitoring. For submission to Great Basin Naturalist.

5.2. Unpublished Reports 

Jackson, L., C. Mayo, and A. M. Phillips, III. 1997. Effects of 1997 Glen Canyon Dam water releases 

on historic Goodding willow at Granite Park, Colorado River Mile 209 L. Final Report submitted 

to Grand Canyon TCP Research Center, Flagstaff, AZ. 

Jackson, L., D. J. Kennedy, and A. M. Phillips, III. 2001. Evaluating Hualapai cultural resources 

along the Colorado River, 2001. Final Report submitted by Hualapai Department of Cultural 

Resources to U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Salt Lake City, UT. 

Jackson, L., A. M. Phillips, III, and K. Christensen. 2001. Evaluating Hualapai cultural resources 

along the Colorado River, 2000. Final Report submitted to U. S. Bureau of Reclamation, Salt 

Lake City, UT. 

Jackson, L., Tschopp, J., Wilder, S., D. J. Kennedy, and A. M. Phillips, III. 2005. Evaluating 

Hualapai cultural resources along the Colorado River, FY 2005. Final Report submitted by 

Hualapai Department of Cultural Resources to U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Salt Lake City, UT.

Jackson-Kelly, L. et. al., 2009. Evaluating Hualapai Cultural Resources Along the Colorado River, 

FY 2009 Report, prepared for Bureau of Reclamation Upper Colorado Regional Office, Salt Lake 

City, 2009 

Jackson-Kelly, L. et. al., 2010. Evaluating Hualapai Cultural Resources Along the Colorado River, 

FY 2010 Report, prepared for Bureau of Reclamation Upper Colorado Regional Office, Salt Lake 

City, 2010

Kearsley, M.J.C., Cobb, N.S., Yard, H.K., Lightfoot, D.C., Brantley, S.L., Carpenter, G.C., Frey 

J.K. 2006. Inventory and monitoring of terrestrial riparian resources in the Colorado River 

corridor of Grand Canyon--an integrative approach--final report. Cooperative agreement no. 

01-WRAG-0044 (NAU) and 01-WARG-0034 (HYC).

Ralston, B.E., 2011. Knowledge Assessment of the Riparian Vegetation Response to Glen 

Canyon Dam Operations in Grand Canyon, Ariz., U.S. Geological Survey, Southwest 

Biological Science Center, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, Flagstaff, AZ. 

28 p.

Johnson, M., Jamison, L., Ralston, B.E., Makarick, L. and Holmes, J., in prep, 2010-2011 2011 

Monitoring tamarisk foliage Removal by the introduced tamarisk leaf beetle (Diorhabda 

carinulata), and its effects on avian habitat parameters along the Colorado River in Grand 

Canyon National Park, Arizona. To be submitted as a USGS Open-file report.

6. References 

Allred, T.M., and Schmidt, J.C., 1999, Channel narrowing by vertical accretion along the Green 

River near Green River, Utah: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 111, no. 12, p. 

1757-1772.
209

Auble, G., and Scott, M., 1998, Fluvial disturbance patches and cottonwood recruitment along 

the upper Missouri River, Montana: Wetlands, v. 18, no. 4, doi: 10.1007/bf03161671, p. 

546-556, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF03161671.

Auble, G., Scott, M., and Friedman, J., 2005, Use of individualistic streamflow-vegetation 

relations along the Fremont River, Utah, USA to assess impacts of flow alteration on 

wetland and riparian areas: Wetlands, v. 25, no. 1, doi: 10.1672/0277-

5212(2005)025[0143:uoisra]2.0.co;2, p. 143-154.

Bailey, J.K., Schweitzer, J.A., and Whitham, T.G., 2001, Salt cedar negatively affects 

biodiversity of aquatic macroinvertebrates: Wetlands, v. 21, no. 3, doi: 10.1672/0277-

5212(2001)021[0442:SCNABO]2.0.CO;2, p. 442-447 

Bestelmeyer, B.T., Trujillo, D.A., Tugel, A.J., and Havstad, K.M., 2006, A multi-scale 

classification of vegetation dynamics in arid lands--what is the right scale for models,

monitoring, and restoration?: Journal of Arid Environments, v. 65, no. 2, doi: 

10.1016/j.jaridenv.2005.06.028, p. 296-318.

Birkin, A.S., and Cooper, D.J., 2006, Processes of Tamarix invasion and floodplain development 

along the Lower Green River, Utah: Ecological Applications, v. 16, no. 3, p. 1103-1120, 

accessed on March 8, 2011, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/1051-

0761(2006)016[1103:POTIAF]2.0.CO;2.

Brown, B.T., 1992, Nesting chronology, density and habitat use of black-chinned hummingbirds 

along the Colorado River, Arizona: Journal of Field Ornithology, v. 63, no. 4, p. 393-400, 

accessed on December 11, 2009, at http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/4513733.pdf.

Busch, D.E., and Smith, S.D., 1995, Mechanisms associated with decline of woody species in 

riparian ecosystems of the southwestern U.S.: Ecological Monographs, v. 65, no. 3, p. 347-

370, accessed on December 7, 2009, at http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/2937064.pdf.

Carothers, S.W., Aitchison, S.W., Karpiscak, M.M., Rufner, G.A., Sharber, N.J., Shoemaker, 

P.L., Stevens, L.E., Theroux, M.E., and Tomko, D.S., 1976, An ecological survey of the 

riparian zone of the Colorado River and its tributaries between Lees Ferry and the Grand 

Wash Cliffs--final report: Flagstaff, Museum of Northern Arizona, Department of Biology, 

submitted to U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Grand Canyon National 

Park, Colorado River Research Series, contribution no. 38, contract no. CX821500007, 

Colorado River Research technical report no.10, 251 p.

Clover, E.U., and Jotter, L., 1944, Floristic studies in the canyon of the Colorado and tributaries: 

American Midland Naturalist, v. 32, no. 3, p. 591-642, accessed on December 7, 2009, at 

http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/2421241.pdf.

Cooper, D.J., Battaglia, L., Batzer, D., Chong, G.K., Hudak, A., and Young, M., 2008, Review 

of terrestrial monitoring protocols for the Grand Canyon--report of the Protocol Evaluation 

Panel (PEP): submitted to U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research 

Center, 31 p.

Dean, D.J., and Schmidt, J.C., 2011, The role of feedback mechanisms in historic channel 

changes of the lower Rio Grande in the Big Bend region: Geomorphology, v. 126, no. 3–4, 

doi: 10.1016/j.geomorph.2010.03.009, p. 333-349, 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169555X10001157.

DeLoach, C.J., Lewis, P.A., Herr, J.C., Carruthers, R.I., Tracy, J.L., and Johnson, J., 2003, Host 

specificity of the leaf beetle, Diorhabda elongata deserticola (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) 

from Asia, a biological control agent for saltcedars (Tamarix: Tamaricaceae) in the Western 
210

United States: Biological Control, v. 27, no. 2, doi: 10.1016/s1049-9644(03)00003-3, p. 

117-147, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1049964403000033.

Draut, A.E., and Rubin, D.M., 2008, The role of aeolian sediment in the preservation of 

archaeological sites, Colorado River corridor, Grand Canyon, Arizona, in van Riper, C., III, 

and Sogge, M.K., eds., The Colorado Plateau III--integrating research and resource 

management for more effective conservation: Tucson, University of Arizona Press, ISBN: 

0816527385, p. 331-350.

Dudley, T.L., and Kazmer, D.J., 2005, Field assessment of the risk posed by Diorhabda elongata, 

a biocontrol agent for control of saltcedar (Tamarix spp.), to a nontarget plant, Frankenia 

salina: Biological Control, v. 35, no. 3, doi: 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2005.05.002, p. 265-275, 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1049964405001167.

Durst, S.L., Theimer, T.C., Paxton, E.H., and Sogge, M.K., 2008, Temporal variation in the 

arthropod community of desert riparian habitats with varying amounts of saltcedar (Tamarix 

ramosissima): Journal of Arid Environments, v. 72, no. 9, doi: 

10.1016/j.jaridenv.2008.04.003, p. 1644-

1653, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140196308000992.

Ellis LM, Molles MC, Jr., Crawford CS, Heinzelmann F. 2001. Surface-Active Arthropod 

Communities in Native and Exotic Riparian Vegetation in the Middle Rio Grande Valley, 

New Mexico. The Southwestern Naturalist 45, 456-471.

Friedman, J.M., Auble, G.T., Shafroth, P.B., Scott, M.L., Merigliano, M.F., Freehling, M.D., and 

Griffin, E.R., 2005, Dominance of non-native riparian trees in western USA: Biological 

Invasions, v. 7, no. 4, doi: 10.1007/s10530-004-5849-z, p. 747-751, 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10530-004-5849-z.

Fritz, R.S., Roche, B.M., and Brunsfeld, S.J., 1998, Genetic Variation in Resistance of Hybrid 

Willows to Herbivores: Oikos, v. 83, no. 1, p. 117-128, 

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3546552.

Gaskin, J., and Kazmer, D., 2009, Introgression between invasive saltcedars (<i>Tamarix 

chinensis</i> and <i>T. ramosissima</i>) in the USA: Biological 

Invasions, v. 11, no. 5, doi: 10.1007/s10530-008-9384-1, p. 1121-1130, 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10530-008-9384-1.

Gaskin, J.F., and Schaal, B.A., 2002, Hybrid Tamarix widespread in the U.S. invasion and 

undetected in native Asian range, in National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings: v. 99, p. 

11256-11259.

Graf, W.L., 2006, Downstream hydrologic and geomorphic effects of large dams on American 

rivers: Geomorphology, v. 79, no. 3–4, doi: 10.1016/j.geomorph.2006.06.022, p. 336-360, 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169555X06002571.

Grime, J.P., 1979, Plant Strategies and Vegetation Processes: John Wiley & Sons, Chichester. 

Hazel, J.E., Jr., Grams, P.E., Schmidt, J.C., and Kaplinski, M., 2010, Sandbar response in Marble 

and Grand Canyons, Arizona, following the 2008 high-flow experiment on the Colorado 

River: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5015, 52 p., accessed 

on July 27, 2010, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5015/.

Hazel, J.E., Jr., Kaplinski, M., Parnell, R., Kohl, K., and Topping, D.J., 2006, Stage-discharge 

relations for the Colorado River in Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons, Arizona,1990-2005: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2006-1243, 7 p., accessed on January 11, 2010, at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1243/pdf/of06-1243_508.pdf.
211

Hazel JE, Jr., Kaplinski M, Parnell R, Manone M, Dale A. 1999. Topographic and bathymetric 

changes at thirty-three long-term study sites. In The controlled flood in Grand Canyon, 

Webb RH, Schmidt JC, Marzolf GR, Valdez RA (eds). American Geophysical Union, 

Geophysical Monograph Series, v. 110, Washington, D.C.; 161-183.

Hultine, K.R., Belnap, J., van Riper, C., Ehleringer, J.R., Dennison, P.E., Lee, M.E., Nagler, 

P.L., Snyder, K.A., Uselman, S.M., and West, J.B., 2009, Tamarisk biocontrol in the 

western United States: ecological and societal implications: Frontiers in Ecology and the 

Environment, v. 8, no. 9, doi: 10.1890/090031, p. 467-474, accessed on 2012/05/16, 

at http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/090031.

Kean, JW, and Smith, JD, 2004. Flow and boundary shear stress in channels with woody bank 

vegetation. In Riparian vegetation and fluvial geomorphology, Bennett SJ, Simon A (eds). 

American Geophysical Union, Water Science and Application, v. 8, Washington, D.C.; 237-

252.

Kennedy, T.A., and Hobbie, S.E., 2004, Saltcedar (Tamarix ramosissima) invasion alters organic 

matter dynamics in a desert stream: Freshwater Biology, v. 49, no. 12, p. 65-76, accessed on 

December 2, 2009

Kearsley, L.H., Schmidt, J.C., and Warren, K.D., 1994, Effects of Glen Canyon Dam on 

Colorado River sand deposits used as campsites in Grand Canyon National Park, USA: 

Regulated Rivers--Research and Management, v. 9, no. 3, p. 137-149, accessed on 

December 30, 2009, at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgibin/fulltext/113512382/PDFSTART.

Kearsley, M.J.C., Cobb, N.S., Yard, H.K., Lightfoot, D.C., Brantley, S.L., Carpenter, G.C., and 

Frey, J.K., 2006, Inventory and monitoring of terrestrial riparian resources in the Colorado 

River corridor of Grand Canyon--an integrative approach--final report: Flagstaff, Northern 

Arizona University, submitted to U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center, cooperative agreement no. 01-WRAG-0044 (NAU) and 01-WARG-0034 

(HYC), 262 p.

Lavorel S., Garnier E., 2002, Predicting changes in community composition and ecosystem 

functioning from plant traits: revisiting the Holy Grail: Functional Ecology, v. 16, p. 545-

556. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2435.2002.00664.x.

Lite, S.J., Bagstad, K.J., and Stromberg, J.C., 2005, Riparian plant species richness along lateral 

and longitudinal gradients of water stress and flood disturbance, San Pedro River, Arizona, 

USA: Journal of Arid Environments, v. 63, no. 4, p. 785-813. (Available at 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2005.03.026.)

Mahoney J, Rood S. 1998. Streamflow requirements for cottonwood seedling recruitment—An 

integrative model. Wetlands 18, 634-645. DOI: 10.1007/bf03161678.

Merritt, D.M., Scott, M.L., Poff, N.L., Auble, G.T., and Lytle, D.A., 2010, Theory, methods and 

tools for determining environmental flows for riparian vegetation--riparian vegetation-flow 

response guilds: Freshwater Biology, v. 55, no. 1, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2427.2009.02206.x, 

p. 206-225, accessed on October 18, 2010, at 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2009.02206.x/full.

Mopper, S., and Simberloff, D., 1995, Differential Herbivory in an Oak Population: The Role of 

Plant Phenology and Insect Performance: Ecology, v. 76, no. 4, p. 1233-

1241, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1940930

Mortenson, S., Weisberg, P., and Stevens, L., 2012, The influence of floods and precipitation on 

Tamarix establishment in Grand Canyon, Arizona: consequences for flow regime 
212

restoration: Biological Invasions, v. 14, no. 5, doi: 10.1007/s10530-011-0139-z, p. 1061-

1076, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10530-011-0139-z.

Naiman, R.J., Decamps, H., and McClain, M.E., 2005, Riparia--ecology, conservation, and 

management of streamside communities: Oxford, Elsevier Academic Press, 430 p.

Nanson, G.C., and Croke, J.C., 1992, A genetic classification of floodplains: Geomorphology, v. 

4, no. 6, doi: 10.1016/0169-555x(92)90039-q, p. 459-486, 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0169555X9290039Q.

National Research Council (NRC), 2002, Riparian Areas: Functions and Strategies for 

Management, The National Academies Press, ISBN: 9780309082952, 

Nilsson, C., Grelsson, G., Johansson, M., and Sperens, U., 1989, Patterns of plant species 

richness along river banks: Ecology, v. 70, p. 77-84, accessed on April 27, 2010, at 

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1938414.

Nilsson, C., and Jansson, R., 1995, Floristic differences between riparian corridors of regulated 

and free-flowing boreal rivers: Regulated Rivers--Research and Management, v. 11, no. 1, 

p. 55-65. (Also available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/rrr.3450110106.)

Nilsson, C., Jansson, R., and Zinko, U., 1997, Long-term responses of river-margin vegetation to 

water-level regulation: Science, v. 276, no. 5313, p. 798-800, accessed on December 30, 

2009, at http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/2892345.pdf.

Phillips, B.G., Phillips, A.M., III, Theroux, M., and Downs, J., 1977, Riparian vegetation of 

Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona: submitted to National Park Service, Grand Canyon 

National Park, 200 p.

Phillips, B.G., Phillips, A.M., III, and Schmidt-Bernzott, M.A., 1987, Annotated checklist of 

vascular plants of Grand Canyon National Park--Grand Canyon natural history association 

monograph no. 7: Grand Canyon, Ariz. ISBN: 0938216309, 79 p.

Poff, N.L., and Zimmerman, J.K.H., 2010, Ecological responses to altered flow regimes--a 

literature review to inform environmental flows science and management: Freshwater 

Biology, v. 55, no. 1, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2427.2009.02272.x, p. 194-205, accessed on 

October 14, 2010, at 

http://rydberg.biology.colostate.edu/~poff/Public/poffpubs/Poff_Zimmerman_2010_FWB.p

df.

Porter, M.E., 2002, Riparian vegetation responses to contrasting managed flows of the Colorado 

River in Grand Canyon: Flagstaff, Northern Arizona University, M.S. thesis, 33 p.

Ralston, B.E., Davis, P.A., Weber, R.M., and Rundall, J.M., 2008, A vegetation database for the 

Colorado River ecosystem from Glen Canyon Dam to the western boundary of Grand 

Canyon National Park, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2008-1216, 37 

p., accessed on January 12, 2010, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1216/.

Rood, S.B., Braatne, J.H., and Goater, L.A., 2009, Responses of obligate versus facultative 

riparian shrubs following river damming: River Research and Applications, v. 26, no. 2, doi: 

10.1002/rra.1246, p. 102-117, accessed on June 6, 2011, at 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/rra.1246/abstract.

Sabo, J.L., Finlay, J.C., Kennedy, T., and Post, D.M., 2010, The role of discharge variation in 

scaling of drainage area and food chain length in rivers: Science Express website, v. 330, 

no. 6006, doi: 10.1126/science.1196005, p. 965-967, accessed on March 8, 2011, at 

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/science.1196005.

Seager, R., Ting, M., Held, I., Kushnir, Y., Lu, J., Vecchi, G., Huang, H.-P., Harnick, N., 

Leetmaa, A., Lua, N.-C., Li, C., Velez, J., and Naik, N., 2007, Model projections of an 
213

imminent transition to a more arid climate in southwestern North America: Science, v. 316, 

no. 5828, doi: 10.1126/science.1139601, p. 1181-1184, accessed on March 17, 2010, 

at http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/316/5828/1181.

Schmidt, J.C., and Grams, P.E., 2011, Understanding physical processes of the Colorado River, 

in Melis, T.S., ed., Effects of three high-flow experiments on the Colorado River ecosystem 

downstream from Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1366, 17-

51 p., accessed on June 28, 2011, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1366/.

Schmidt, J.C., and Graf, J.B., 1990, Aggradation and degradation of alluvial sand deposits, 1965-

1986, Colorado River, Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey 

Professional Paper 1493, 74 p., accessed on March 17, 2010, at 

http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/usgspubs/citfor/pp/pp1493.

Scott, M.L., Friedman, J.M., and Auble, G.T., 1996, Fluvial process and the establishment of 

bottomland trees: Geomorphology, v. 14, no. 4, doi: 10.1016/0169-555X(95)00046-8, p. 

327-339, accessed on June 6, 2011, at 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0169555X95000468.

Scott, M.L., Perkins, D, Wheaton, J.M., 2011, Big River Protocol Development – A Prototype 

Warranty Project: Final Report submitted to USGS Park Inventory and Monitoring Program. 

68 p.

Shafroth, P. B., J. R. Cleverly, T. L. Dudley, J. P. Taylor, C. Van Riper III, E. P. Weeks, and J. 

N. Stuart. 2005. Control of Tamarix in the western United States: Implications for water 

salvage, wildlife use, and riparian restoration. Environmental Management 35:231–246. 

Shafroth, P.B., and Briggs, M.K., 2008, Restoration ecology and invasive riparian plants--an 

introduction to the special section on Tamarix spp. in western North America: Restoration 

Ecology, v. 16, no. 1, doi: 10.1111/j.1526-100X.2007.00362.x, p. 94-96, accessed on July 

20, 2011, at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2007.00362.x/full.

Sher, A.A., Marshall, D.L., and Gilbert, S.A., 2000, Competition between native Populus 

deltoides and invasive Tamarix ramosissima and the implications for reestablishing flooding 

disturbance: Society of Conservation Biology, v. 14, no. 6, p. 1744-1754, accessed on 

January 12, 2010, at http://www.jstor.org/stable/2641526.

Sogge, M.K., Sferra, S.J., McCarthey, T.D., Williams, S.O., and Kus, B.E., 2003, Distribution 

and characteristics of southwestern willow flycatcher breeding sites and territories: 1993-

2001: Studies in Avian Biology, v. 26, p. 5-11 

Stevens, L.E., and Waring, G.L., 1986, Effects of post-dam flooding on riparian substrates, 

vegetation, and invertebrate populations in the Colorado River corridor in Grand Canyon, 

Arizona: Flagstaff, Ariz., Bureau of Reclamation, Glen Canyon Environmental Studies, 

contract no. IA4-AA-40-01930, GCES 19/87, 175 p. [Available from National Technical 

Information Service, Springfield, Va. as NTIS Report PB88-183488.]

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, no. 4, p. 1025-1039, accessed on December 10, 2009, at 

http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/2269352.pdf.

Stringham, T.K., Krueger, W.C., and Shaver, P.L., 2003, State and Transition Modeling: An 

Ecological Process Approach: Journal of Range Management, v. 56, no. 2, p. 106-113, 

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4003893.

Stromberg, J.C., 1993, Instream flow models for mixed deciduous riparian vegetation within a 

semiarid region: Regulated Rivers--Research and Management, v. 8, no. 3, doi: 
214

10.1002/rrr.3450080303, p. 225-235, accessed on October 18, 2010, at 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/rrr.3450080303/abstract.

Stromberg, J., 1998, Dynamics of Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii) and salt cedar 

(Tamarix chinensis) populations along the San Pedro River, Arizona: Journal of Arid 

Environments, v. 40, no. 2, p. 133-155, accessed on August 23, 2011, at 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jare.1998.0438.

Trimble, SW, 2004. Effects of riparian vegetation on stream channel stability and sediment 

budgets. In Riparian vegetation and fluvial geomorphology, Bennett SJ, Simon A (eds). 

American Geophysical Union, Water Science and Application, v. 8, Washington, D.C.; 153-

170. 

Turner, R.M., and Karpiscak, M.M., 1980, Recent vegetation changes along the Colorado River 

between Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Mead, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Professional 

Paper 1132, 125 p.

Urquhart, N.S., Auble, G.T., Blake, J.G., Bolger, D.T., Gerrodette, T., Leibowitz, S.G., 

Lightfoot, D.C., and Taylor, A.H., 2000, Report of a peer review panel on terrestrial aspects 

of the biological resources program of the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center: 

submitted to U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, 50 p.

U.S. Department of the Interior, 1996, Record of decision, operation of Glen Canyon Dam--final 

environmental impact statement: Washington, D.C., Office of the Secretary of the Interior, 

Bureau of Reclamation, 15 p., accessed on October 13, 2010, at 

http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/pdfs/sp_appndxG_ROD.pdf.

Van Riper, C., Paxton, K.L., O’Brien, C., Shafroth, P.B., and McGrath, L.J., 2008, Rethinking 

Avian Response to Tamarix on the Lower Colorado River: A Threshold Hypothesis: 

Restoration Ecology, v. 16, no. 1, doi: 10.1111/j.1526-100X.2007.00354.x, p. 155-

167, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2007.00354.x

Webb, R.H., 1996, Grand Canyon--a century of change--rephotography of the 1889-1890 

Stanton expedition: Tucson, University of Arizona Press, ISBN: 0-8165-1578-6, 290 p.

Westoby, M., Walker, B., and Noy-Meir, I., 1989, Opportunistic Management for Rangelands 

Not at Equilibrium: Journal of Range Management, v. 42, no. 4, p. 266-274, 

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3899492.

Whitney, Kenneth D., Randell, Rebecca A., and Rieseberg, Loren H., 2006, Adaptive 

Introgression of Herbivore Resistance Traits in the Weedy Sunflower Helianthus annuus: 

The American Naturalist, v. 167, no. 6, p. 794-

807, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/504606.

Wiele, S.M., and Griffin, E.R., 1998, Modifications to a one-dimensional model of unsteady 

flow in the Colorado River through Grand Canyon, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 97-4046, 17 p.

Wright, S.A., and Kennedy, T.A., 2011, Science-based strategies for future high-flow 

experiments at Glen Canyon Dam, in Melis, T.S., ed., Effects of three high-flow 

experiments on the Colorado River ecosystem downstream from Glen Canyon Dam, 

Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1366, 127-147 p., accessed on June 30, 2011, at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1366/.

Yard, H.K., van Riper Charles III, Brown, B.T., and Kearsley, M.J., 2004, Diets of insectivorous 

birds along the Colorado River in Grand Canyon, Arizona: Condor, v. 106, no. 1, p. 106-

115, accessed on December 28, 2009, at http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/1370520.pdf.
215

Zweig, C.L., and Kitchens, W.M., 2009, Multi-state succession in wetlands: a novel use of state 

and transition models: Ecology, v. 90, no. 7, doi: 10.1890/08-1392.1, p. 1900-1909, 

accessed on 2012/07/20, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/08-1392.1.

 
216

7. Budget 

Project Element I.1. 

Monitor Vegetation and 

Channel Response using 

Response Guilds and 

Landscape Scale 

Vegetation Change 

Analysis

Salaries $133,300

Traveling and Training $3,800 

Operating Expenses $4,000 

Logistics $43,700

GIS/RS/Electronics 

support (includes burden) $137,000

Cooperators (non-USGS) $28,000

USGS cooperators $0

USGS Burden $26,700 

Total $376,500

FY 2013 Project I. Gross Total: $376,500

FY 2013
217

Project Element I.1. 

Monitor Vegetation and 

Channel Response using 

Response Guilds and 

Landscape Scale 

Vegetation Change 

Analysis

Salaries $133,400

Traveling and Training $3,800 

Operating Expenses $4,000 

Logistics $28,500

GIS/RS/Electronics 

support (includes burden) $137,000

Cooperators (non-USGS) $28,000

USGS cooperators $0

USGS Burden $24,600 

Total $359,300

FY 2014

FY 2014 Project I Gross Total: $359,300
218

Project J. 

Monitoring Cultural Resources at a Small Scale and 

Defining the Large-Scale Geomorphic Context of the 

Processes affecting Cultural Resources 

1. Principal Investigators 

Helen Fairley, Archaeologist and Cultural Program Manager, USGS Grand Canyon Monitoring 

and Research Center

Amy Draut, Research Geologist, USGS Pacific Coastal and Marine Science Center

Brian Collins, Research Civil Engineer, Research Geologist, USGS Geology, Minerals, Energy 

and Geophysics Science Center

Skye Corbett, Geomorphologist, USGS Geology, Minerals, Energy and Geophysics Science 

Center

David Bedford, Research Geologist, USGS Geology, Minerals, Energy and Geophysics Science 

Center

Phil Davis and Joel Sankey, Research Physical Scientists, USGS Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center

2. Project Summary 

This proposal is composed of three integrated elements that collectively comprise a single 

research and monitoring project, with the monitoring and research conducted at different spatial 

scales. In FY13/14, GCMRC will continue monitoring cultural sites in Glen Canyon, continue

monitoring a few select sites in Marble and Grand Canyons, and begin a comprehensive 

Colorado River valley geomorphology research program that will inform current and future 

cultural site research and monitoring. The objective of the first two elements of this project are to 

implement a monitoring program to evaluate how our expectations for a suite of flow-related 

processes and responses at particular cultural resource sites in Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons 

compare with actual observed and measured responses under varying flow and local 

environmental conditions, including expected responses of different groups of sites to the new 

High Flow Experimental Protocol. The third element of this project initiates a large-scale 

evaluation of the geomorphic processes which have created and maintain the Holocene deposits 

in and on which many archaeological sites occur. This element seeks to determine the long-term 

stability and erosional vulnerability of those deposits and relies on a combination of field 

measurements, remote sensing, and geomorphic modeling. The integration of small scale, site 

specific monitoring approaches (Project Elements J.1. and J.2.) with large scale landscape-level 

assessment approaches (Project Element J.3.) will allow individual site-specific monitoring 

results to be evaluated in a broader geomorphic context. 

3. Background 

Cultural resources along the Colorado River downstream from Glen Canyon Dam consist 

of the physical evidence of past human activities dating back at least 8,000 years before present, 
219

as well as places and natural resources of traditional cultural importance to present day 

communities. Many of the remnants of past human activity, commonly referred to as 

“archaeological sites” or “historic properties”, are buried by, embedded within, or situated on top 

of fine-grained sediment derived from the Colorado River. These historically and culturally 

significant places are susceptible to damage over time due to natural weathering and erosion 

processes, inundation by the river, and by a variety of visitor use-related impacts. 

Grand Canyon is an iconic erosional landscape. Past geomorphic studies (Hereford and 

others, 1993, 1996; Lucchitta, 1991; Pederson and others, 2003, 2006; Draut and others, 2005; 

Collins and others, 2009) describe a dynamic landscape where erosion and deposition of 

boulders, gravel, sand, and mud frequently occur. Whereas some erosion of cultural resources is 

inevitable given the high intensity rainfall and seasonal winds of this region, past studies (e.g., 

Hereford and others, 1993) suggest that erosion of the Holocene-age sediment that forms the 

substrate of many cultural sites in the Colorado River ecosystem (CRe) may have increased 

during the past few decades. Several factors have been proposed to explain the apparent increase 

in erosion rates, including increased intensity and magnitude of rainfall during the late 1970s and 

early 1980s, reduction in the rate at which fine sediment is now supplied to the CRe, the ongoing

depletion of fine sediment in sandbars, and secondary effects related to increased visitation and 

cumulative impacts from recreational use of the river corridor (Hereford and others, 1993; 

Thompson and others, 2000; Fairley, 2005). 

During the past 15 years, two related hypotheses have been proposed to explain how dam 

operations affect cultural sites in the CRe. One hypothesis (Hereford and others, 1993) suggests 

that the system-wide decrease in fine sediment, especially at elevations typical of pre-dam 

floods, has caused gullies to incise and prograde upslope throughout their drainage networks. 

Hereford and others (1993) suggested that the mouths of most ephemeral tributaries in the predam era were graded to alluvial terrace surfaces high above the elevation of typical base flows. 

Where tributaries had eroded to enter the Colorado River at lower elevations typical of base 

flows, high magnitude floods with relatively high suspended-sediment concentrations would 

have backfilled these gully mouths. In the modern, sediment-depleted conditions of the postGlen Canyon Dam era, gully mouths are not regularly filled with flood alluvium, gullies have 

expanded in size, and erosion has propagated throughout the tributary watersheds. Although the 

hypothesized connection of gully evolution to changes in effective base level was in keeping 

with some gully evolution models (e.g., Schumm and others, 1984), the application of this 

hypothesis to management of archaeological sites in the river corridor was extensively criticized 

by Doelle (2000) in the Final Report of the Protocol Evaluation Panel that reviewed the Cultural 

Program of the GCMRC; nonetheless, Hereford and others’ (1993) conceptual model still 

significantly influences river corridor managers and is frequently referenced in administrative 

documents.

A second, closely-related hypothesis focuses on the role of wind-blown sand in affecting 

surface infiltration capacity and gully backfilling processes. This hypothesis posits that the 

reduction in numbers and area of high elevation sand bars (Hazel and others, 2010; Schmidt and 

others, 2004; Schmidt and Grams, 2011) has resulted in a reduction in the amount of sand 

transported inland towards archeological sites by wind, and this in turn, has changed the depth 

and surface characteristics of aeolian sand cover at many archaeological sites (Lucchitta, 1991; 

Thompson and others, 2000; Draut and Rubin, 2008; Draut, 2012). Because aeolian sand 

transport is able to counteract surface erosion to some degree by creating expanses of aeolian 

sand that can absorb rainfall and by filling in small gullies that form during rainfall-induced 
220

overland flow events, the post-dam decrease in large, unvegetated sandbars is hypothesized to 

have resulted in a consequent increase in the amount and intensity of surface erosion. Draut 

(2012) posits that this process is only significant in controlling gully erosion where there are 

large sand bars whose surfaces are available to be entrained by wind, and where those sand bars 

are appropriately positioned relative to the prevailing winds so that the sediment is transported 

from the bars towards upland areas. The proportion of Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons that has 

this favorable combination of factors is currently unknown, but this project (Project Element J.3) 

will begin to address this information gap. 

One objective of the recent Environmental Assessment for Development and 

Implementation of a Protocol for High-Flow Experimental Releases (HFEP EA) is to propose a 

protocol that results in redistribution of sand, silt, and clay to higher elevations and to increase 

the area of bare sand bars that provide potential sand sources for redistribution to higher 

elevations by wind. It is hypothesized that deposition of aeolian sand can bury and help to 

protect sites from future erosion. This process has been documented in at least one case by 

Collins and others (2009). The evaluation of the efficacy of this management technique partly 

depends on the ability to measure relatively small (<10 cm vertical) topographic changes 

associated with these processes of deposition or erosion at and near cultural sites, where effects 

are expected to be much smaller compared to changes in sand bar area and volume immediately 

adjacent to the river banks (Collins and others, 2009, 2012). 

The Grand Canyon Protection Act and the work of the GCDAMP depends on monitoring 

and research to track and decipher the effects of dam operations and experimental management 

actions on the CRe and its associated resources. Stated goals of the GCDAMP include the need 

to track the status and trends of cultural resource condition, evaluate the role that dam operations 

play in influencing resource condition, and determine how best to mitigate effects due to dam 

operations (GCDAMP, 2003). A standardized monitoring protocol that can systematically track 

changes in resource condition tied to dam operations is essential for improving understanding of 

how dam operations affect cultural sites and also for helping managers understand how and why 

resource condition degrades (e.g., Wildesen, 1982; Wood and Johnson, 1978). In addition, a 

robust monitoring program can help managers select the most appropriate methods for 

preserving sites and can also be useful for evaluating how well the selected erosion control 

methods perform at decadal time scales. In FY13, Reclamation will implement the new HFEP 

that is designed to benefit sediment-dependent resources, including cultural resources. Although 

the effects of high flows on sand bars can be measured with well understood precision and 

accuracy using established methods (Project A), the degree to which high flows mitigate and 

influence erosion rates through backfilling tributary mouths or the degree to which changes in 

sand bar size affect aeolian deposition rates at archaeological sites is poorly known. Thus, an 

expectation of Project J is the refinement of an accurate and precise monitoring program to track 

the amount and rate of physical change occurring at cultural sites in the CRe and to determine 

whether and to what degree dam operations are responsible for that change.

Scientists struggle to understand whether measurement of small changes in aeolian 

deposition is necessary to describe the effects of dam-controlled flows, and especially the HighFlow Experimental Protocol, at cultural sites, or if large-scale, coarse resolution measurements 

are sufficient to measure these effects. Similarly, scientists debate the amount of erosional 

change that needs to be detected at cultural sites. Some archaeologists have argued that 

measurements must be to a scale of 10-15cm, because changes larger than this have the potential 

to irreversibly damage, or in some cases, completely obliterate, archaeological deposits and 
221

cultural features. Other scientists hypothesize that coarse resolution measurements are sufficient 

to monitor site status over the large spatial scale of the CRe. Project J aims to tackle these 

difficult questions through collection and interpretation of high resolution topographic data at a 

suite of archeological sites in the CRe (Project Elements J.1 and J.2), and through subsequent 

analysis of those measurements in the context of landscape-scale mapping and geomorphic 

modeling (Project Elements J.3).

As noted above, a critical objective of this project is to place the small scale, detailed 

measurements proposed in Project Elements J.1 and J.2 in the context of CRe-scale processes. 

This effort to provide large-scale, geomorphic context will be accomplished by an integrated 

suite of field-based and model-based approaches (Project Element J.3). Modeling is an important 

tool with which to describe the field situation in a relatively simple suite of processes and 

parameters. These modeling approaches will be used to inform our understanding of how dam 

operations potentially affect landscape geomorphic and vegetation processes that in turn affect 

site stability and erosion rates. The ultimate aim of this modeling effort is to identify those sites 

that are most vulnerable to the effects of weather, human visitation, and other factors.

3.1. Scientific Background 

Native people have lived in and made use of the natural resources of the Glen, Marble,

and Grand Canyons for thousands of years. Western scientists first became aware of this fact 

when John Wesley Powell observed and commented on the presence of ancestral Puebloan ruins 

located at several places along the banks of the Colorado River and encountered actively tended 

native gardens in western Grand Canyon (Powell, 1875). After Grand Canyon became a National 

Park, and especially after river running became a popular recreational past time, many additional 

archaeological sites were documented (Adams, 1960; Adams and others, 1961; Euler 1969, 

1974; Fairley, 2003; Fairley and others, 1994). With the initiation of plans to build dams in 

Grand Canyon, the first professional efforts of archaeologists to inventory the river corridor were 

undertaken (Adams and others, 1961; Euler, 1967c; Taylor, 1958). This pioneering work, 

supplemented by subsequent studies by NPS archaeologists, eventually led to the documentation 

of over 130 prehistoric and historic archaeological sites in the river corridor (Fairley, 2003).

Early efforts to document archaeological evidence in Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons were not 

comprehensive in scope, nor did they consistently meet modern archaeological standards for 

documentation. Therefore, when the need for a thorough inventory of the river corridor was 

identified in the late 1980s, the Bureau of Reclamation sponsored a comprehensive 

archaeological survey as part of the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies, Phase II, program.

Between August 1990 and April 1991, a team of NPS archaeologists documented 475 

archaeological sites between Glen Canyon Dam and Separation Canyon, of which 336 were 

evaluated as having the potential to be directly or indirectly affected by future dam operations

(Fairley and others, 1994). These sites ranged in age from several thousand years before present 

to the mid-20th century and included structures, artifact scatters, petroglyphs, roasting pits, 

constructed trails, and a variety of other physical remains representing the activities and detritus 

of past human occupation along the Colorado River. The 336 sites that were evaluated as being 

directly or indirectly affected by dam operations were situated in or on Holocene deposits 

derived from the Colorado River, within the area potentially affected by maximum controlled 

releases from Glen Canyon Dam, or on sediment derived from pre-dam flood events (Fairley and 

others, 1994; USDI 1995).
222

As previously noted, the environmental processes and factors that contribute to the 

current condition of cultural resources in the CRe are complex. Because the vast majority of 

archaeological sites in the CRe are situated well above the elevation reached by 25,000 ft3

/s 

(hereafter referred to as “stage”) (Sondossi and Fairley, in revision), effects of dam operations on 

cultural sites are mainly indirect and manifest themselves through diffuse effects to the larger 

terrestrial ecosystem (Fairley and others, 1994; Fairley and Sondossi, 2010). The Glen Canyon 

segment of the Colorado River has no significant fine sediment supply (Topping and others, 

2003), and the Paria River contributes around 5-10% of the pre-dam sand supply to Marble 

Canyon. Downstream from the Little Colorado River, about 15% of the pre dam sediment supply 

is available (Topping and others, 2003). In addition to these effects that are related to the 

existence of the dam, the post-dam flow regime has effectively eliminated low flows that 

formerly would have allowed sediment to accumulate in the channel and also the very high flows 

that formerly redistributed sediment to higher elevations (Topping and others, 2003), while the 

higher average daily volume of water released through the dam transports fine sediment out of 

the system on an essentially continuous basis (Wright and others, 2008).

These conditions of fine sediment deficit and changes in flow regime have resulted in a 

decline in the number, size, and volume of sandbars in Marble and Grand Canyons (Topping and 

others, 2003; Schmidt and others, 2004; Schmidt and Grams, 2011). Along with the decrease in 

bar volumes, daily fluctuating flows, in conjunction with expanding riparian vegetation (see 

Project I) have had the effect of limiting the amount of open, dry sand area available for 

redistribution by wind, resulting in the deflation of formerly active sand areas that covered and 

partially protected many cultural sites in the CRe (Draut and others, 2005, 2006; Draut and 

Rubin, 2008; Thompson and others, 2000). 

The post-dam loss of high elevation sand has led to a situation where Marble and Grand 

Canyons have less active aeolian sand area than does the less regulated Cataract Canyon 

immediately upstream from Lake Powell reservoir (Draut, 2012). Thus, available evidence 

indicates that the existence of Glen Canyon Dam and its present flow regime have led to reduced 

aeolian sand supply and increased biological soil crust cover, which further reduces mobility of 

high-elevation sand deposits, with multiple interacting effects to surface erosion processes. 

However, rainfall-induced erosion is a natural process in Grand Canyon, and pre-dam floods 

inundated and eroded many cultural sites in the past. Thus, erosion of cultural sites is a natural 

and ongoing process that would be occurring whether or not Glen Canyon Dam existed 

(Hereford and others, 1993; Hereford and others, in review, Pederson and others, oral comm., 

2011). Therefore, a key research question that needs to be resolved is not whether cultural 

sites are eroding or otherwise changing but whether they are eroding or changing faster or in 

a significantly different manner than they would if the dam was operated differently than it 

has been.

Interest in the potential of dam operations to affect erosion rates at cultural resource sites 

in the CRe dates back to the early 1980s when NPS archaeologists first observed an increase in 

the amount and severity of gullying at archaeological sites (Hereford and others, 1991; Fairley,

2003). In 1989, a decision by the Department of Interior to undertake research on the 

downstream effects of Glen Canyon Dam initiated several studies focused on mapping the 

geomorphic context of archaeological resources and the geomorphic processes acting on those 

resources (Hereford and others, 1991, 1993, 1996; Lucchitta, 1991). This initial phase of 

research led to the publication of several detailed maps that emphasized the distribution of 

Holocene deposits in areas of high cultural resource density, plus several reports documenting 
223

changes in the post-dam environment (Hereford and others, 1993, 1996; Hereford, Burke and 

Thompson, 1998, 2000a, 2000b; Lucchitta, 1991).

One hypothesis that emerged from this initial research effort focused on the role that 

changes in the post-dam flood regime plays in affecting gully formation and erosion processes. 

Hereford and others (1993) hypothesized that, in the pre-dam era, archaeological sites were 

subject to the same fundamental geomorphic processes that they are today but that natural 

erosion processes were ameliorated to some degree by annual spring and monsoon-season floods 

of the Colorado River that periodically deposited a large volume of fine-grained sediment on 

terraces, in eddies, and along the channel margins. During large flood events, fluvial deposits 

backfilled the mouths of tributary drainages (McKee, 1938). Hereford and others (1993) 

hypothesized that these backfilling events had the effect of temporarily raising the effective base 

level of minor tributaries. Hereford and others (1993) observed that many tributary drainages are 

not integrated with the main stem of the Colorado but debouch onto alluvial terrace surfaces 

several meters above the level of the active river channel, forming small temporary ponds in the 

dune fields. Without periodic restorative floods, however, Hereford and others (1993) argued 

that many of these drainages eventually work their way out to the terrace edge and integrate with 

the mainstem Colorado River. Once this occurs, gullies rapidly erode headward, as the drainages 

re-grade their channels to the lower base level of the main channel. 

Lucchitta (1991) added an important nuance to Hereford and others’ (1993) hypothesis 

by focusing on the role of wind-blown sand in reducing the erosion potential of alluvial terraces 

and associated archaeological sites. Lucchitta (1991) hypothesized that in pre-dam times, barren 

sand bars and open sand areas were more prevalent, owing to both more frequent flood-related 

depositional events and more frequent low flows. Consequently, there was more sand available 

for redistribution by wind and more wind-blown sand covering the surfaces of terraces and 

archaeological sites. The aeolian sand cover helped to absorb rainfall and reduce the potential for 

rainfall-induced gullying. Furthermore, with more abundant sand available for redistribution by 

wind, the smaller gullies that did form on terrace surfaces were backfilled by sand prior to the 

next gullying event, thereby reducing the potential for gullies to erode further and become 

integrated with the mainstem.

Thompson and others (2000) built upon on this body of work and proposed a geomorphic 

model based on the familiar and widely-used Universal Soil Loss Equation. They measured gully 

catchment area, made imprecise slope measurements, and estimated vegetation cover and soil 

characteristics. They categorized approximately 100 sites in the CRe in terms of their 

susceptibility to future gully erosion. Although the model and study were subsequently criticized 

for failing to adequately account for the effects of hill slope processes (Doelle, 2000), this 

research made important contributions by exploring the influence of aeolian sand cover as a 

natural mitigation to erosion by comparing the condition of alluvial terraces and gully size in 

Cataract Canyon, where a less regulated river system still allows for high spring floods and 

associated high elevation sand deposition, to the condition of sites in Grand Canyon. Thompson 

and others (2000) also found that gullies were fewer and smaller in Cataract Canyon terrace 

deposits than in Grand Canyon. 

Draut and Rubin (2005, 2006, 2008) further explored the role of aeolian sediment in 

preserving archaeological sites. As part of this research, anemometers, rain gages, and sand traps 

were installed at several locations within the river corridor, and information was collected on 

wind speed and direction, rainfall, and sand-transport rates near selected archaeological sites 

(Draut and Rubin, 2006, 2008). These instruments established large-scale wind regimes, an 
224

essential component of understanding whether and where fine sediment from sandbars deposited 

by controlled floods is transported onshore by wind toward threatened archaeological sites. Data 

from these instruments were used to document effects of the 2004 controlled-flood experiment, 

and demonstrated differences in sand-transport rates in various locations.

Concurrently with these research efforts, the NPS began experimenting with various 

techniques for monitoring erosion and topographic change at archeological sites in Grand 

Canyon. NPS monitoring methods underwent considerable modification throughout the 1990s, 

beginning initially with qualitative observations, and then progressed to repeat oblique 

photography and total station surveys (Leap and others, 2000). Use of total station surveys was 

abandoned, however, because it soon became apparent that total station survey methods could 

not measure small-scale topographic changes over large areas with sufficient precision and 

accuracy without causing extensive surface disturbance. Other remote sensing methods, such as 

oblique, ground-based photogrammetry, did not detect topographic changes over large site areas 

at a satisfactory level of resolution. Pederson and others (2003) argued that in order to detect 

erosion (especially the progression of nick points in gully thalwegs) before gullies incised to the 

point of irreversibly damaging archaeological features and deposits, it was important to be able 

to detect vertical changes on the order of 10-20 cm. Pederson and others (2003, 2006) explored 

low altitude semi-automated aerial photogrammetry as an alternative monitoring method in an 

attempt to refine the amount of topographic change that could be reliably detected within gullies. 

Based on experiments using very low altitude, helicopter-based imaging technology, Pederson 

and others (2003, 2006) concluded that changes less than 20 cm could not be reliably measured 

using that approach. Therefore, they measured gully thalweg incision rates using repeat, 

conventional total station survey methods. 

Although measuring gully thalwegs using traditional total station survey methods is not 

without challenges (Pederson and others, 2003, 2006; Hazel and others, 2008), this method 

remains a reliable and efficient option for measuring rates of gully thalweg incision. However, if 

an objective of monitoring is to detect sediment deposition as well as erosion over entire site 

areas, then total station surveys are not the best or most appropriate tool.

Within the past decade, rapidly evolving lidar (light detection and ranging) technology 

has offered scientists an alternative option for obtaining precise measurements of topographic 

change over large areas. Collins and Kayen (2006) first demonstrated lidar’s potential utility for 

documenting topographic and vegetation change in the CRe. Elsewhere, lidar has been widely 

used by archaeologists as an architectural documentation tool (Barber and others, 2006; Hough 

and Brennan, 2007; D. Jones, 2007; Korumaz and others, 2010) and for mapping sites in advance 

of excavation. Lidar has also been used to monitor millimeter-scale erosion of stone surfaces 

exhibiting prehistoric rock art (Barnett and others, 2005). While the concept of using lidar as a 

monitoring tool has been in use for several years, actual application of lidar for detecting and 

quantifying rates of topographic change across entire site areas had not previously been 

demonstrated prior to the initiation of GCMRC’s cultural monitoring project in 2006. In recent 

years, however, the Bureau of Reclamation has initiated a monitoring project using airborne lidar 

as a primary tool for tracking erosion impacts at archaeological sites in the American Falls 

Archaeological District and is using terrestrial lidar to document baseline site conditions for long 

term monitoring of erosion and vandalism impacts at archaeological sites at the Cedar Bluff 

Reservoir in Kansas (Bureau of Reclamation, 2008.)

Project J is a direct outgrowth of the phased program of research and development that 

was undertaken in 2006-2010 towards implementation of a long-term core-monitoring program
225

(Fairley and others, 2007). The first phase of this project (Phase I) began in spring 2006 and 

initially focused on completing a comprehensive assessment of the geomorphic and 

archaeological attributes of 232 river corridor sites (O’Brien and Pederson, 2009a) to 

characterize the range of variability in the population of potentially affected archaeological sites 

and to aid in the selection of an appropriate sample for a future pilot monitoring program (Vance 

and Smiley, 2011). As described above, Phase I also involved testing a variety of survey 

techniques, in addition to terrestrial lidar, as potential tools for measuring change in resource 

condition (Collins and others, 2008). 

The applicability and utility of monitoring archaeological sites using terrestrial lidar was 

subsequently demonstrated at 11 sites in Grand Canyon (e.g., Collins and others, 2008, 2009, 

2012). Collins and others (2008) showed that terrestrial lidar technology could be used to collect 

data as accurate as or better than total station techniques for large areas while minimizing 

impacts to the sites being monitored. Collins and others (2009) showed that topographic changes 

greater than 8 cm in the vertical could be documented using a state-of-the-art terrestrial lidar

instrument at 6 of 9 monitored sites. Since these initial field studies, advances in the technology 

have resulted in laser scanning devices with greater accuracy and new software with improved 

potential to measure small-scale (centimeter-level) topographic change (Collins and others, 

2012). Incorporating these advances, Collins and others (2012) collected multiple comparable 

lidar data sets at 11 sites over a 5-year period. This effort demonstrated that (1) change could be 

reliably and accurately detected at less than 5 cm and (2) it is possible to link observed changes 

to specific geomorphic processes. Development of a network of solar-powered weather stations 

for monitoring local weather conditions throughout the river corridor was also a component of 

the initial research and monitoring effort (Fairley and others, 2007; Draut and others, 2009a, 

2009b, 2010a, 2010b). These weather data are currently informing researchers about the 

conditions that drive surficial changes at archeological sites, such as those detected by Collins 

and others (2009, 2012).

3.2. Key Monitoring and Research Questions Addressed in this Project 

Grand Canyon National Park (GCNP) archeologists began monitoring cultural sites in the 

river corridor during the late 1970s, and they continue to do so. Kintigh and others (2007) 

observed that the current NPS monitoring approach is designed to document the presence or 

absence of visitor use impacts and other types of threats and disturbances. These threats and 

disturbances include observation of the presence of gullies that potentially compromise the 

integrity of cultural sites. The NPS monitoring approach results in a general determination of site 

condition. Based on observed impacts, NPS archaeologists assign a rating of poor, fair, good, 

undisturbed, or destroyed to characterize overall site condition (See NPS Archaeological Site 

Information Management System Handbook and GCNP’s Colorado River Management Plan 

Cultural Resource Monitoring Protocols for more information). Kintigh and others (2007) noted 

that past and present GCNP monitoring programs are not designed to distinguish or track dam 

effects from other processes. 

The NPS monitoring approach relies on assigning sites by categorical monitoring criteria 

that are supplemented with repeat photographs of impacted areas. Maps are drawn to show 

locations of specific impacts. Monitoring is performed to meet the Park’s compliance obligations 

under Section 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and to demonstrate 

progress towards achieving federally-mandated goals for historic preservation under the 

Government Performance and Results Act. At the same time, the NPS monitoring program 
226

results in identification of sites that may require excavation or other forms of “treatment” to 

preserve their cultural, historic, and scientific values. The same approach is currently used by 

GCNP archaeologists to monitor impacts associated with implementing the Colorado River 

Management Plan and to monitor sites on the canyon rims (E. Brennan, oral communication, 

August 2011). 

In 2000, a cultural Protocol Evaluation Panel (PEP) recommended redesigning the 

Bureau of Reclamation (Relamaction)’s 1994–2000 Programmatic Agreement (PA) monitoring 

program to focus more specifically on monitoring the effects of dam operations and evaluating 

the efficacy of erosion control efforts (Doelle, 2000). Specifically, the PEP recommended that 

the monitoring activities of the NPS and GCMRC should be integrated and refocused to: (1) 

evaluate the effectiveness of long-term management strategies (including treatments designed to 

control/minimize erosion) and (2) evaluate effects of different flow regimes on archaeological 

sites and other cultural resources such as Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs). The PEP noted 

that “monitoring should be designed and organized to serve as the basis for periodic quantitative 

evaluations of the effect of dam operations, effectiveness of erosion control methods, and 

development of treatment plans.” 

Throughout the history of the GCDAMP, there has been ongoing discussion and 

considerable debate about the need for monitoring programs in general and what purpose(s) 

monitoring is supposed to serve. In general terms, monitoring can serve a broad variety of 

purposes (Hellawell, 1991):

• To assess the effectiveness of policy or legislation;

• To comply with regulatory requirements (performance or audit function); and,

• To detect incipient change (“early warning system”).

Noon (2003) proposed an additional reason: to “assess the value and temporal (or spatial) 

trend of those indicators that characterize the state of an ecological system.” In the GCDAMP 

generally, and in the cultural program arena specifically, all of these reasons have been cited as 

driving the need for monitoring (GCDAMP, 2003). Additionally, there is concern with meeting 

legal mandates, such as those identified in the Grand Canyon Protection Act (GCPA), which 

calls for “long term monitoring programs and activities that will ensure that Glen Canyon Dam is 

operated in a manner consistent with that of Section 1802.” Section 1802 requires that the dam 

be operated in such a manner as to “protect, mitigate adverse impacts to, and improve the values 

for which Grand Canyon National Park and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area were 

established including, but not limited to natural and cultural resources and visitor use.” In 

addition, there are legal obligations embedded within the National Historic Preservation Act 

(NHPA) that require federal agencies to consider effects of their actions on cultural resources 

(NHPA, Section 106) and also for the responsible land manager to identify, evaluate, and protect 

historic properties under their care (NHPA, Section 110). While monitoring is not specifically 

required for compliance with NHPA, monitoring is often implemented to assess effects or to 

evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation measures.

In the 2003 Strategic Plan (GCDAMP, 2003), GCDAMP stakeholders distinguished two 

monitoring categories: “Core Monitoring” and “Effects Monitoring”. The GCDAMP developed 

the following definition of core monitoring:
227

Core monitoring consists of consistent, long-term, repeated measurements using 

set protocols and is designed to establish status and trends in meeting specific 

management objectives. Core monitoring is implemented on a fixed schedule 

regardless of variable factors or circumstances (e.g., water year, experimental 

flows, temperature control, stocking strategy, non-native control, etc.) affecting 

target species.

Effects monitoring, on the other hand, was defined as: 

... the collection of data associated with an experiment performed under the 

Record of Decision, an unanticipated event, or other management action. 

Changes in resource conditions measured by effects monitoring generally will be 

short-term responses. The purpose of effects monitoring is to supplement the fixed 

schedule and variables collected under core monitoring. This will both increase 

the understanding of the resource status and trends and provide a research 

opportunity to discover the effect of the experiment or management action. 

The project described here will implement monitoring protocols to address both “core 

monitoring information needs” (CMINs) and “effects information needs” (EINs) for cultural 

sites in Glen and Grand Canyons. The highest priority CMIN for historic properties,as revised by 

the Cultural Resource Ad Hoc Group (CRAHG) and adopted by the Science Planning Group 

(SPG) of the GCDAMP in the fall of 2005, is: 

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.

In 2007, an expert panel reviewed the previous PA monitoring protocols and existing 

NPS monitoring data and developed recommendations for potentially incorporating these 

“legacy” monitoring data into future monitoring programs for the GCDAMP (Kintigh and others, 

2007). Among several recommendations, the panel recommended that the monitoring program 

be redesigned to “unpack” the concept of site condition and separate out the factors affecting site 

condition that are potentially dam related from those that are not (Wood and Johnson, 1978; 

Wildesen, 1982; Jones, 2007). In addition, the reviewers suggested exploring the use of lidar

technology as a tool for measuring and tracking surface changes at archaeological sites that are 

potentially influenced by dam operations. At the same time, the panel recommended developing 

a model reflecting current understanding of how dam operations affect archaeological site 

condition, and to use the monitoring program to evaluate whether model predictions conform to 

monitoring results. The current proposal incorporates these recommendations.

As noted previously, this project is aimed at addressing the highest priority CMIN for 

historic properties (as revised by the CRAHG and SPG in fall 2005): 

This project is also designed to address two primary Strategic Science Questions (SSQs)

identified in the 2007 Monitoring and Research Plan (GCMRC, 2007):
228

• 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., experimental flows, check dams, 

vegetation management, etc.) in slowing rates of erosion at archaeological sites over 

the long term?

A high-quality monitoring program is also essential for determining whether management 

actions designed to stabilize or improve site conditions are working as intended. Therefore, this 

project also directly addresses EIN 11.1 (formerly CMIN 11.1.2 of the GCDAMP Strategic Plan, 

subsequently re-designated by CRAHG/SPG as EIN 11.1):

• EIN 11.1. Determine the efficacy of treatments for mitigation of adverse effects to 

historic properties. 

Additionally, this project addresses a general GCDAMP research information need 

(formerly identified as CMIN 11.1.4 in the 2001 GCDAMP Strategic Plan):

How effective is monitoring, what are the appropriate strategies to capture change 

at an archaeological sitequalitative, quantitative?

More recently, AMP stakeholders have worked with DOI management agency personnel 

to craft descriptions of desired future conditions (DFCs) for resources in the CRe, which are 

intended to provide general targets for resource conditions to guide future monitoring and 

management projects, and the Department of Interior has accepted these DFCs as official 

program guidance (Salazar, 2012). The DFCs for archaeological sites identify preservation in 

place as the desired goal for archaeological sites and specify rates of erosion or deposition as one 

metric for assessing whether desired future conditions are being achieved. Other metrics for 

assessing cultural resource condition include the presence of other impacts that affect National 

Register eligibility of sites (such as evidence of artifact collecting and deliberate vandalism).

In summary, Project J has been designed to be responsive to the stated goals of the 

GCDAMP, the recommendations of the 2000 PEP (Doelle, 2000) and the 2007 Legacy 

Monitoring Data review panel (Kintigh and others, 2007), the needs of Reclamation and NPS 

related to compliance with Section 106 and Section 110 for assessing effects of normal dam 

operations and effectiveness of experimental management actions such as HFEs, as well as the 

effectiveness of other non-flow management actions that may be initiated in the future to achieve 

the management goals for in situ preservation of archaeological sites. The data collected by this 

project will also be relevant for addressing strategic science questions.

4. Proposed Work 

At its most basic level, monitoring provides a means to assess either stability or change. 

As the sophistication of monitoring increases, then there is increasing potential to determine 

causes for stability or change. Within the context of archaeological sites in the CRe, site-specific 

topographic monitoring allows an assessment of site stability. Similarly, as the sophistication of 

monitoring increases, we are able to assess potential causes for instability. Since it is important 

to the NPS, as land manager, to have monitoring techniques that are cost efficient, replicable,
229

and, most importantly, time sensitive to recognize the development of instabilities at 

archeological sites, any monitoring program must recognize and aim to address each of two 

fundamental goals: (1) to inform whether dam operations are, or are even capable of, affecting 

archeological sites, and (2) to identify when geomorphic changes (whether from dam operations 

or from other sources) are occurring at sites that might warrant future mitigation.

To achieve these goals, we must first determine what factors, be they climatic or 

anthropogenic have the potential to affect archeological site stability. This must then be coupled 

with a quantitative assessment of where these factors influence the landscape. Once quantified, 

we can then determine if the factors actually cause quantifiable change at the archeological sites 

that NPS manages. Generally speaking, research to date (e.g., Hereford and others, 1993; Leap 

and others, 2000; O’Brien and Pederson, 2009b; Collins and others, 2009, 2012; Draut, 2012) 

has identified the key factors potentially affecting archeological sites. What is needed is a follow 

up quantification of how these factors affect particular sites throughout the CRe. Then, concise, 

targeted monitoring can be proposed to assess if the expected processes are resulting in site 

change.

Project J is designed to make headway on each of these points. As such, we propose a 

quantitative assessment of geomorphic processes throughout the CRe, relying on the extensive 

work by O’Brien and Pederson (2009a) to guide both the determination of processes and their 

spatial distribution throughout the CRe. We propose to build on this effort by combining the GIS 

database of archeological sites in the CRe with the O’Brien and Pederson (2009a) database and 

with knowledge of regional prevailing wind patterns in the CRe so that we can extract and 

delineate process patterns by river segment. For example, identifying the number of

archeological sites located in dynamic, erodible substrates provides a measureable expectation 

for the monitoring and/or mitigation necessary for managing these sites. Similarly, if we can 

determine the % age of sites in the CRe that are potentially affected by HFE effects (e.g., sites 

located downwind from sand bars), then we will be able to evaluate the overall expected 

potential effects from such HFEs. By quantifying the number and proportion of sites that not 

only are influenced by aeolian sand (based on the O’Brien and Pederson, 2009a database) but 

also have the potential to receive new sand supply from HFE sandbars (based on prevailing wind 

patterns and the locations of HFE-enlarged sandbars), we will be able to address the longstanding question of what number and what proportion of river-corridor archaeological sites 

could benefit potentially from renewed aeolian sand supply after a sandbar-building HFE. This 

will assist in quantifying management expectations for such experiments.

As another component of this work, we propose a targeted terrestrial-lidar-based 

monitoring effort focused on sites that can potentially receive new windblown sand from HFE 

sandbars as well as sites that have no prospect of being restored by windblown HFE sand. This 

effort builds upon previous work aimed at quantifying topographic changes at archaeological 

sites (Collins and others, 2009, 2012). We know that this type of monitoring (terrestrial-lidar) is 

applicable for certain types of sites, but not all, and that it will inform particular research 

questions regarding the effects of dam operations on archeological site stability. At other sites, 

changes related to dam operations may not be expected at all and qualitative assessments or 

repeat photography may suffice for assessing site condition. Thus, suites of monitoring 

strategies are likely to be appropriate in the CRe for assessing site stability. However, the main 

effort of this current proposal is not structured around implementing a full suite of strategies, as 

this can only be done after the processes and their spatial distribution have been quantified. Our 

current proposal is formulated around the concept that targeted archeological site monitoring can 
230

be used to inform the expectations of how sites respond to certain stressors. For example, where 

erosion is measured, monitoring should provide a means to assess whether erosion is progressive 

or is intermittently offset by depositional processes. In addition, monitoring provides the inputs 

to test models for both reconstructing measured site changes and projecting expected site 

behaviors. Again, in the context of archaeological sites in the CRe, quantitative monitoring data 

will feed geomorphic models capable of examining various cause and effect scenarios driving 

gullying erosion.

In addition to the proposed work that will quantify the spatial distribution of various 

processes affecting archeological sites throughout the CRe, Project J outlines and evaluates a 

monitoring strategy consisting of extensive and precise topographic measurements accompanied 

by weather data collection at eight archaeological sites, four in Glen Canyon and another four in 

Grand Canyon. Through the monitoring program, we will track rates and amounts of erosion and 

deposition, as well as areas of surface stability at this sample of sites. Whereas this proposal 

focuses on the collection of pertinent data necessary to continue to quantitatively assess shortterm changes affecting site condition of archaeological sites in the CRe (and therefore 

complementing ongoing NPS efforts to monitor site condition using qualitative methods), the 

project work has also been structured to address several existing research questions of 

importance to site response from the potential effects of high flows and to longer-term 

expectations of site condition. The sites proposed for monitoring have been specifically selected 

on the basis that an understanding of their individual geomorphic and topographic behavior will 

provide either confirmation or contradiction to existing expected responses. Although specific 

sites are described here as the locations for our work, we will continue to consult with the NPS 

to identify other sites that may be appropriate to include in this initial monitoring effort, given 

the specific objectives of this project and the geomorphic criteria used to select these sites (see 

below). 

One of the goals of this proposal is aimed at establishing quantifiable data that segregates 

CRe archeological sites from one another based on the expected process regimes affecting their 

condition and location within the river corridor. This will assist in answering such remaining 

unanswered questions as:

“What number and proportion of archeological sites have the potential to benefit from 

new aeolian sand supply from future HFE building sand deposits?”

With this established by the work described in this project, we will be in a more informed 

position to assess the potential for various monitoring strategies to inform managers about dam 

effects. In some cases, as described in the next sections, we have expectations for how some sites 

should behave. However, we require carefully collected data to properly assess our expectations.

Monitoring has already shown that existing assumptions as to how the river system may behave 

under both natural and anthropogenic changes (i.e., HFEs) can be both confirmed or challenged 

based on what is recorded at the site- specific level. Thus, precise topographic measurements can 

help inform on both the individual and cumulative effects of small-scale incremental changes, as 

well as the effects from less frequent, but often more dramatically transformative, episodic 

events, such as exceptionally intense storms, high main stem flows, and tributary floods. The 

small-scale, site-specific measurements of Project Elements J.1 and J.2. will inform the largerscale, landscape-process investigations that will be conducted under Project Element J.3.
231

In summary, the objective of the first two elements of this monitoring and research 

project are to monitor the physical condition of a small sample of archaeological sites that 

represent the settings and types of sites most likely to reflect flow-related impacts and to further 

assess expectations for a suite of dam-controlled flow effects, including HFE-related processes 

and responses, at particular types of archaeological resources in Glen, Marble, and Grand 

Canyons. The third element of this project initiates a large-scale evaluation of the geomorphic 

processes that have created and maintain the Holocene deposits in and on which archaeological 

sites occur. This third project element seeks to determine the long-term stability and erosional 

vulnerability of those deposits and relies on a combination of field measurements, remote 

sensing, and geomorphic modeling. The integration of small-scale (J.1. and J.2.) and large-scale

(J.3.) approaches links the large-scale geomorphic context to the detailed measurements obtained 

from the sample of specific archaeological sites.

4.1. Project Elements 

J.1. Cultural Site Monitoring in Glen Canyon ($161,700) 

Helen Fairley, Archaeologist and Cultural Program manager, USGS/GCMRC

Brian Collins, Research Civil Engineer, USGS Geology, Minerals, Energy and Geophysics 

Science Center

Skye Corbett, Geomorphologist, USGS Geology, Minerals, Energy and Geophysics Science 

Center

As a starting point for determining whether current archeological site erosion rates exceed

pre-dam rates, it is necessary to quantify and understand the context of current rates of erosion

occurring at sites. For example, if, as hypothesized by Hereford and others (1993), tributary

drainages crossing alluvial terraces cut down and retreat faster once they become integrated with

the main drainage of the Colorado River, it is essential to have data documenting differences in

rates of erosion between terrace-based and river-based tributaries. Additionally, if, as 

hypothesized by several researchers (e.g., Lucchitta, 1991; Thompson, 2000; Draut and Rubin,

2008; Draut, 2012), a reduction in aeolian transport to sites leads to changes in the depth and 

characteristics of surface cover, then we should expect that sites located in river reaches with 

little to no sediment input (i.e., Glen Canyon) should erode more quickly than those with at least 

some sediment input (i.e., Marble and Grand Canyons).

To address these hypotheses, we propose monitoring and analysis programs in both Glen 

Canyon (this project element) and Marble and Grand Canyons (Project Element J.2). Monitoring 

can provide a perspective on the cumulative effects of diverse processes acting on cultural sites. 

Such a program can also provide a site-specific perspective on how dam-related processes and 

impacts, weather, and other environmental factors interact to affect the physical stability and 

rates and amounts of erosion occurring at cultural sites. Although the monitoring approach 

described here is primarily designed to track and quantify trends in the amount and rates of 

erosion and deposition, and thereby provide a measure of site stability and current resource 

condition, the resulting data have the potential to shed light on the cumulative effects of diverse 

and diffuse geomorphic processes acting over time as well. 

The project element described herein outlines and evaluates a monitoring strategy 

consisting of collection of precise topographic, site condition, and weather data at four 

archeological sites in Glen Canyon. In addition, the project proposes collection of high resolution 

topographic data over a large portion of Glen Canyon between Glen Canyon Dam and 
232

approximately 6 miles upstream from Lees Ferry. The purpose of the site-specific data collection 

is to quantify the existing state and rate of erosion at archeological sites and to use the data in 

geomorphic modeling analyses (see Project Element J.3). The collection of canyon-wide 

topographic data in Glen Canyon will also provide information on the state of erosion outside of 

archeological sites, in the upstream half of Glen Canyon. Thus, this project element is aimed at 

answering several key research questions including what the state of erosion is in and around 

archeological sites in Glen Canyon and whether erosion rates between terrace- and river-based 

tributaries differ. The sites selected for monitoring in Glen Canyon provide a variety of erosional

features in various states of development that allow comparison and contrast of erosion rates with

sites in Marble and Grand Canyons.

Proposed Monitoring and Site Locations 

In FY13/14, the monitoring program for Glen Canyon will measure surface changes, 

track trends in condition, and measure weather data at four sites (AZ C:2:0032, AZ C:2:0035, 

AZ C:2:0075 and AZ C:2:0077). In addition, we will collect and analyze topographic data in the reach 

between Glen Canyon Dam and approximately river mile -6.0 using airborne lidar methods in 

order to identify and quantify a large suite of geomorphic features such as gullies and rills that 

might influence erosion rates at the archeological sites. In FY13, we will collect the airborne 

lidar data and use these data to: (1) calibrate the accuracy of the airborne data via comparison 

with the terrestrial data and (2) detect any topographic changes that may have occurred that are 

above the accuracy threshold determined by the calibration. In FY14, we propose to resume sitespecific monitoring with terrestrial lidar; however, the decision to conduct monitoring in FY14 

will be based in part on an assessment of recent flow and weather conditions. If there is no 

possibility that changes could have occurred in the intervening months, we will forego additional 

monitoring in FY14 and continue to analyze the airborne data and integrate these data with the 

geomorphic models developed in Project Element J.3. 

Unlike the majority of sites in Glen Canyon, many of which are located on cliff faces 

unaffected by Glen Canyon Dam operations or on lands managed by the Navajo Nation, the four 

sites targeted for detailed monitoring in Glen Canyon are located on NPS lands within and on the 

surface of fine-grained alluvial terraces adjacent to the Colorado River. These sites are situated 

in the upstream half of Glen Canyon, where sediment inputs to the system are minimal, and 

where on-going erosion of cultural deposits is evident. The sites provide locations in which to 

measure erosion rates that might be expected to be at their maximum for the river corridor, 

thereby bracketing expectation at other sites further downriver. The four sites are clustered 

between River Miles (RM) -11.5 and -9.5 and are situated in and on interbedded mainstem 

alluvium and colluvium dating between 2000-8000 BP. The four buried sites are of

corresponding age; two of the sites also exhibit evidence of more recent use during the ancestral 

Puebloan occupation of Glen Canyon (ca. 1200-800 BP). These sites include some of the oldest 

archaeological materials documented in the river corridor, with one site producing a calibrated 2-

sigma C14 date on wood charcoal from a hearth of 7320–7070 BC (Anderson, 2006: Table 1).

All sites show signs of recent active erosion. In one place, the terrace cut bank shows 

evidence of recent slumping, where large blocks of fine sediment have dropped directly into or 

immediately adjacent to the Colorado River, threatening the integrity of two sites perched on the 

brink of these cut banks, and clearly indicating that processes other than gully incision may pose 

erosional threats to cultural sites. In another area farther upstream, the terraces and associated 

sites have been affected by post-dam floods. Previous work by Grams and others (2007) 
233

documented significant amounts of terrace erosion and cut-bank retreat in the vicinity of all four 

sites between 1956 and 2000 (see especially Figure 6 in Grams and others, 2007). The individual 

archaeological sites exhibit various forms and intensities of recent erosion, from relatively minor 

gullies incised into terrace scarps to large scale retreating terrace cut banks. At one site, an 

arroyo has cut down through >3 m of fine grained alluvium to Navajo sandstone bedrock, and 

the gully appears to be laterally expanding in multiple directions through cut bank and headcut 

retreat.

It is important to note that owing to their threatened and eroding condition, three of the 

four sites proposed for targeted monitoring in the Glen Canyon reach (AZ C:2:35, AZ C:2:75 

and AZ C:2:77) have recently been identified by Reclamation as potential candidates for data 

recovery (archeological excavation) (see Reclamation’s Cultural Resources Program 

Implementation Project, this volume). However, Reclamation’s plans for mitigating dam effects 

are still conceptual, and site-specific consultations with Native American tribes have not yet 

occurred; therefore, we propose to move forward with the plan to monitor these four sites and 

conduct terrestrial vs. airborne trade-off analysis while details about future mitigation actions are 

being worked out. If Reclamation and NPS decide to conduct full site excavations in FY13, 

monitoring would be redirected towards other sites in 2014. Alternatively, if future mitigation 

activities are restricted to only small-scale excavations or non-invasive treatment methods, then 

monitoring of these sites in future years would continue. In either case, the topographic data that 

will have been collected through lidar monitoring will allow us to evaluate the potential of using 

airborne lidar in lieu of terrestrial lidar for monitoring future changes in the CRe, and the 

existing topographic data will provide highly detailed and accurate base maps for documenting 

excavations or other treatments that may occur in the future.

Research Questions 

The primary goal of the Glen Canyon monitoring is to identify the current geomorphic 

state of the selected archeological sites and to establish whether these states are what should be 

expected given the historical weather patterns in this area. A secondary goal is to address 

whether the state of erosion in Glen Canyon is higher than river segments downstream from Lees 

Ferry in Marble and Grand Canyons where the availability of fine-grained sediment (the Paria 

River, Little Colorado River, and other tributaries) has the potential to influence site stability.

The precise measurements performed using terrestrial lidar, combined with site-specific 

modeling to be undertaken in Project Element J.3, will address the first goal, whereas the 

airborne data collection and analysis will partially address the second goal.

The topographic data provided by site-specific terrestrial lidar data collection in FY12 

will provide some of the required input to the geomorphic model to begin addressing the first

goal outlined above. In addition, we intend to analyze weather data available from Page, Arizona 

(Station: PAGE, available from National Climatic Data Center since 1957) to determine if the 

number of erosive events from precipitation is likely to account for all of the erosion measured at 

these sites. This question will be explored using site-specific models that project erosion rates 

under varying precipitation regimes and environmental constraints (see Project element J.3). 

Unlike the previous work of Grams and others (2007) that examined the issue of channel erosion 

and narrowing in Glen Canyon using large scale, course grained approaches (i.e., by measuring 

changes in channel cross-sections and comparing aerial photos), Project Element J.1 focuses on 

documenting the state of erosion of the alluvial terrace surfaces and associated archaeological 

sites. The analysis work will begin with analysis of the Page weather data to synthesize a record 
234

of all storms during the post-dam time period that are of sufficient magnitude to have caused 

gullying at the study areas. The model will use these as cumulative inputs to generate an end 

scenario representing the expected gullying morphology resulting from this time period. 

Additionally, the air photo analysis proposed in Element J.3 will be used to guide the model 

results (i.e., if particular precipitation events appear to have caused gullying, we will try to verify 

these events with temporally-proximate air photos, if available). These results will then be 

compared to the actual gullied topography provided by the terrestrial lidar surveys. If the 

modeled erosion is more than what is likely to have occurred since 1963, when the dam cut off 

the sediment supply to Glen Canyon, then this would indicate that the erosion at these sites is a 

pre-dam feature. Although this would not necessarily discount that dam influences might still be 

causing increased erosion, answering this question and quantifying the erosion is a first step to 

understanding the recent (post-dam) geomorphologic history of the sites. Overall, we intend this 

analysis to provide general conclusions on a site-specific basis – these results will then be tied 

into the system wide analysis conducted by Element J.3 in order to put the site specific 

conclusions into context. For example, if several of the site’s modeling results indicate that all 

gullying appears to have occurred in the post-dam time period, these will be compared to the 

likelihood that the aeolian character of these reaches might have changed during this time period.

The research second goal of Project Element J.1. focuses on answering the following 

research question:

Are archeological sites in Glen Canyon significantly more eroded (e.g. are gullies more 

incised) compared to those found downstream from Lee’s Ferry where the fine-grained 

sediment supply is larger?

Through topographic and geomorphic analysis of the airborne lidar data collected in Glen 

Canyon, we plan to obtain an overall quantitative assessment of the state of erosion in the upper 

half of the Glen Canyon reach. These airborne results will be compared to similar data collected 

from select reaches downstream in Marble and Grand Canyons (Davis and others, 2004), as well 

as to the known state of erosion at specific sites in Marble and Grand Canyons from previous 

research and monitoring efforts (e.g., Hereford and others,1993; O’Brien and Pederson, 2009a; 

Collins and others, 2009, 2012) to provide a quantitative evaluation of this question. If weather 

conditions are comparable, and if it is found that the degree of erosion is higher in Glen Canyon, 

this would be indicative that fine-grained sediment inputs to Marble and Grand Canyons are 

likely having some positive effects on archeological site stability. Although this does not 

necessarily provide a conclusive answer, it would support the hypothesis that archeological sites 

are affected by sediment sources potentially influenced by dam operations (i.e., by both 

controlled flow regimes and blockage of fluvial sediment). If no difference is found between 

stretches above and below Lees Ferry, this would indicate that erosion is mainly controlled by 

effects other than sediment input (i.e., variable precipitation patterns). As part of this work, we 

will compare precipitation data between Page and Phantom Ranch, Arizona (Station: 

PHANTOM RANCH, available from National Climatic Data Center since 1966) to assess 

historical precipitation variability as a potential cause for erosional differences between Glen 

Canyon and Grand Canyon. We note that these long-term weather data can only be used to paint 

broad-brush assessments of the climate in the two parts of the canyon and can not necessarily be 

used to inform on smaller site-scale processes discussed in element J.2.
235

Methods 

Topographic Data Methods 

Using methods developed during a preceding phase of this project (Collins and others, 

2008, 2009, 2012), we propose to collect topographic data in FY14 at the four sites where we 

collected data in FY12. In FY13, however, the main data collection effort in the Glen Canyon reach 

will be an airborne lidar survey covering the upper half of the segment, from Glen Canyon Dam to 

approximately river mile -6.0. This effort will capture not only the topography of the immediate 

site areas monitored by terrestrial methods in FY12, but also the topography of the terrain 

surrounding the sites. In addition to collecting information on the topographic context of each 

site, collection of airborne lidar in FY13 will serve as a basis for assessing the efficiency, costs, 

and data accuracy of both data collection methods. Further, the airborne dataset will provide a 

baseline topographic record for other sites not currently being monitored within the scanned area. 

We expect airborne lidar to produce slightly less accurate measurements of much larger areas at 

somewhat less cost per area. Airborne lidar will be collected and processed by an external 

contractor, then delivered to GCMRC for analysis. Data collection will also involve a ground 

survey effort (conducted by USGS personnel in conjunction with the external contractor) to 

establish control points for georeferencing the data. This will include total station and/or RTK 

GPS data collection.

Both terrestrial and airborne data will be edited and filtered to produce a “bare-earth” 

terrain model without reflections from vegetation canopy. Assuming that airborne and terrestrial 

lidar datasets are comparable surface maps of each site area from each time period will then be 

generated and compared with one another in order to document the amount, rate, and specific 

locations of erosion and deposition, as well as deterioration of built features (hearths, structures, 

etc.) that may become exposed at sites over time. Collins and others (2009, 2012) provide 

technical details of how surface change is calculated using terrestrial lidar measurements; nearly 

identical protocols are used to integrate airborne methods. An important focus will be the 

comparison of resolution and accuracy of the two lidar types, as well as the comparison of the 

relative capacity of terrain models produced from the lidar data types to quantify topographic 

variability with accuracy and precision sufficient to characterize and predict the relevant gullying 

and aeolian processes. The accuracy of the models is expected to be less than 2 cm in the case of 

terrestrial lidar and on the order of 10 cm in the case of airborne lidar. Precision at this scale 

allows identification of subtle topographic features that might allow prediction of future gully 

knick points, areas of aeolian dune growth or deflation, and rilling.

The resolution of the raw and filtered data is expected to differ for the two types of lidar 

collection, and this can initially be assessed by comparison of the point density between the two 

data types for the raw and filtered datasets. After filtering is performed to produce the bare-earth 

terrain models, the terrestrial lidar dataset can be compared to the airborne data set, and both 

lidar data types can be evaluated for elevation (vertical) and horizontal accuracy with a suite of 

methods and metrics previously developed and reported by Collins and others (e.g., Stewart and 

others, 2009; Stock and others, 2011; Zimmer and others, 2012). For example, to evaluate the 

elevation accuracy, the RMSE, bias, and dispersion of each lidar data type can be compared to 

ground points (e.g., control network or total station survey). The lidar data types can also be 

directly compared to one another using the same metrics. Relative horizontal accuracy of each 

lidar data type can be assessed by evaluating ability to characterize lateral dimensions of welldefined surfaces and erosional features. The horizontal accuracy assessment can be performed in 
236

reference to ground points from the total station control point survey as well as directly between 

the two lidar data types.

Analyses will include identifying gullies and other erosional features and measuring their 

geomorphic attributes (e.g., width, depth, length). This will be performed in a GIS environment.

Field verification will be necessary to ensure data calibration and accuracy; this can be 

performed in conjunction with the weather station monitoring trips also proposed in this research 

element (see below). Additional analyses will include relative comparisons to data sets already 

available from Marble and Grand Canyon to determine the overall degree of erosion between 

Glen Canyon and Marble and Grand Canyons.

Supplementary Site Condition Monitoring 

In addition to the collection of high-resolution topographic data, supplementary 

monitoring data will be collected at the same sites. Supplementary monitoring data will include 

repeat photography using automated digital cameras and observational data recorded during 

annual field visits. The automated repeat photography will record daily images of the sites to 

document physical changes with high temporal resolution. The supplementary observational data will 

provide data on characteristics that describe the cumulative state of erosion and on a short timestep

basis that is useful in separating the various erosive agents from one another. Observational 

monitoring will emphasize condition factors that cannot be detected remotely, such as soil crust 

cover changes and human impacts such as soil compaction from trampling, graffiti, vandalism, 

artifact piling, and structural modifications. These data will be integrated with data derived from 

existing NPS monitoring protocols so that a combined site condition monitoring approach that serves 

both the needs of NPS archeologists to track overall site condition and USGS geomorphologists to 

track potential dam effects can be developed. We expect that close collaboration with NPS staff will 

be necessary for this work.

Meteorological Monitoring 

Although previous studies have explored the relationship between weather and 

archaeological site condition to varying degrees (e.g., Hereford and others, 1993; Thompson and 

others, 2000; Draut and Rubin, 2008; Draut and others, 2010a, b; Hereford and others, in 

revision), the degree to which local weather variation affects archaeological site condition and 

erosion warrants further evaluation. Weather data are essential for evaluating the role of 

individual storm events in causing specific types and amount of overland flow and gullying and 

for evaluating the effectiveness of erosion control measures under varying weather conditions 

(Pederson and others, 2003; Draut and Rubin, 2008; Collins and others, 2012). Therefore, in 

addition to monitoring the condition of individual cultural sites and the overall historical patterns 

between two long-running weather stations (see previous discussion with respect to the Page and 

Phantom Ranch stations), two weather stations installed near the mouth of the Paria River and 

near the archaeological sites at approximately river mile -10.0 in FY12 will monitor a suite of 

weather parameters in FY13/14. These stations will allow us to better understand the range of 

local weather variability in this part of the river corridor. We will analyze these data and 

determine if the largest storm events are capable of causing erosion and/or deposition. This 

analysis will be tied closely to the modeling analyses proposed in Element J.3. Repeat surveys 

of the sites will then confirm whether the expected erosion and/or deposition actually occurred as 

a result. Our conclusions will aim to determine site-specific thresholds for geomorphic change 

to the sites. These data will also complement weather data proposed for collection downstream in 
237

Marble and Grand Canyons. The monitored parameters include temperature, rainfall intensity 

and amount, wind speed and direction, barometric pressure, and humidity. In addition to the two 

weather stations, a single, unobtrusive rain gage installed in FY12 in the vicinity of AZ 

C:02:0075 will collect supplementary data on local precipitation rates.

The data collected from these weather stations will be managed in accordance with 

protocols developed and implemented during the previous Cultural Resource Monitoring 

Research and Development project (e.g., Draut and others 2009a, 2009b, 2010a.) See project J.2 

methods section for additional description of the proposed management, analysis and use of 

these meteorological data. 

Logistical Support 

Logistical support for Project Element J.1 will require one low altitude (~100 m above 

ground surface) helicopter-based lidar data collection mission of 1-2 hrs duration in the winter of 

FY13, and a 5-day motorized boat-support mission to collect site specific data using terrestrial 

lidar in FY14. In both years, the main data collection mission will be supplemented with several 

single-day trips by motorized skiff to download and maintain the weather station at river mile -

10 mile and the rain gage near RM -11.5. These latter, 1-day trips may be carried out in 

conjunction with other ongoing monitoring efforts conducted by the GCMRC biology program.

In addition, two single-day motorized raft trips will be necessary prior to and immediately 

following the airborne overflight to install and remove GPS ground control instruments.

Research Expectations 

The monitoring strategy provided herein is intended to provide the necessary data to 

assess the current site condition with respect to expected geomorphic change. In addition, the 

data should be sufficient to establish conclusive baseline levels for future research efforts. In 

addition, the data will allow researchers to consider and understand the effects of archaeological 

site change in an area of the river in which the sediment supply has been completely shut off. 

This can help establish a “control” data set to compare with expected changes further downriver 

in which the sediment supply is slightly higher and may be cumulatively increased as a result of 

high-flow experiments (HFEs).

Project Element J.2. Monitoring of Select Cultural Sites in Grand Canyon ($191,100) 

Helen Fairley, Cultural Program Manager, USGS/GCMRC

Brian Collins, Research Geologist, USGS Geology, Minerals, Energy and Geophysics Science 

Center

Skye Corbett, Research Geologist, USGS Geology, Minerals, Energy and Geophysics Science 

Center

Proposed Monitoring and Site Locations 

Similar to the monitoring program for Glen Canyon, in FY13/14, monitoring in Grand 

Canyon will focus on measuring geomorphic processes and land surface change at four cultural 

sites: AZ C:05:0031, AZ C:13:0321, AZ B:10:0225, and AZ G:03:0072. Based on surface 

evidence, three of these sites date to the Puebloan era (1200-800 BP); the other is primarily 

protohistoric in age (<700BP). These sites are all situated in areas mantled with aeolian sand; 

subsurface materials are primarily debris fan colluvium, coarse gravels, and sandy alluvium.

Unlike the sites being monitored in Glen Canyon, all of which are primarily threatened 

by progressive erosion, the four sites in Grand Canyon have been selected for long-term 
238

monitoring based on their geomorphic settings, surface characteristics, and specific locations in 

the river corridor landscape which place them in positions that are potentially conducive for 

aeolian deposition. These sites are situated downwind from sand sources that will be potentially 

enlarged by future high flows. These sites are distributed throughout the river corridor, in both 

narrow and wide reaches of the CRe, and all are associated with active or semi-active aeolian 

areas. In addition, the topography of each of these sites has been measured at least twice 

previously between 2007-2010 by Collins and others (2008, 2009, 2012), providing a foundation 

for extending long-term trend data at these sites. Monitoring thus far has identified important 

aspects of site change with respect to archaeological site stability. These include extensive 

gullying and subsequent gully infilling at AZ:B:10:0225 during 2007-2010 and continued site 

erosion at AZ:C:13:0321 despite a positive buildup of an upwind river-sandbar-derived sediment 

source.

In addition to the formally structured monitoring work described above, we will further 

analyze the geomorphic data collected by O’Brien and Pederson (2009a, 2009b), segregating 

sites into geomorphic categories and analyzing their distribution in the river corridor using GIS.

We will use the qualitative geomorphic assessments of individual archaeological sites prepared 

by O’Brien and Pederson (2009a) to identify sites situated on sandy substrates, in coppice dunes, 

or in active aeolian areas that received an erosion ranking of 1 or 2 (stable or only slightly 

eroding), as well as sites situated in similar settings with erosion rankings of 4 or 5 (seriously or 

severely eroded), and select a non-random sample of these locations to investigate in the field. 

The purpose of these field visits will be to evaluate and discuss with colleagues the specific 

conditions that appear to contribute to site stability and severe erosion. These field visits will 

include the researchers involved in Project J and archaeological staff from GCNP. The data 

collected from these site visits will be incorporated into the interpretations of monitoring results 

for project element J.2 and syntheses of mapping and aerial image analysis (Project Element J.3).

Research Questions 

Monitoring the four selected sites in Grand Canyon will allow us to track rates of 

deposition and erosion at sites optimally situated to benefit from future HFEs and to test the 

hypothesis that over time, individual sites situated near sand sources that are situated 

predominantly downwind from these sources, will be less prone to gullying and ultimately more 

stable than sites located in areas where sediment resupply via aeolian deposition does not 

routinely occur. For example, at sites AZ:C:05:0031 and AZ:C:13:0321, previous HFEs have 

provided an upwind sediment source (Draut and Rubin, 2006, 2008). However, whereas a river 

sandbar formed upwind of these sites in the 2008 HFE and some aeolian sediment was 

transported either near or directly to these sites, we nevertheless recorded an overall erosion 

signal during a six-month interval several years later. This leads to the following question:

Is the magnitude of aeolian transport to and deposition at sites from river sand bars 

sufficient to offset erosion, and thereby protect archaeological resources?

This question will be addressed at the site-scale in Element J.2 and will be expanded into 

a larger, reach-scale assessment in Element J.3 below. Monitoring the four sites proposed here in 

Element J.2 will provide evidence either that erosion is progressive or that occasional deposition 

reverses the effects of erosion. Past monitoring data at two sites (AZ:B:10:0225 and 

AZ:G:03:0072; see Collins and others, 2012) has demonstrated that large gullies can and do form 
239

in active aeolian areas (see also Draut and Rubin, 2006). In addition, these data also indicate that 

the processes responsible for obliterating evidence of these gullies may be more complex and 

less benign than simple infilling by wind-blown sand. For example, at one site near Fossil 

Canyon, previous monitoring documented a fresh, deep, vertical-walled gully that had formed 

during an intense rainstorm during September 2007. Three years later, this gully had been 

modified from a steep-walled arroyo with a V-shaped cross section, to a broader and shallower 

gully with an open U-shaped cross section. Topographic monitoring showed that this 

transformation involved large scale deposition on the floor of the former arroyo, accompanied by 

bank slumping and horizontal expansion of the gully perimeter (Collins and others, 2012). Much 

of the infilling appeared to be due to slumping of the arroyo side walls rather than aeolian 

infilling, although there was evidence of some aeolian infilling as well. Thus, although three 

years later the gully was shallower and less sharply defined than in 2007, the overall effect was a 

lateral expansion of the gully area accompanied by more than 100 m3 of net erosion. Over time, 

it is likely that the gully will eventually disappear, but the ground surface on either side of the 

former gully will be considerably lower and will result in significant (more than 15 cm) surface 

deflation, directly impacting the integrity of adjacent cultural deposits. Thus, although evidence 

of erosion may not be visible in future years, the cultural site and its associated deposits will 

have experienced a net loss of sediment. The meaning of these observations can be framed 

within the following research question:

In areas with active aeolian deposition, do sites that are subjected to significant 

gullying (i.e., >30cm downcutting) undergo net topographic lowering such that the physical 

and informational integrity of archaeological resources are impacted?

The monitoring of this site over time will allow us to evaluate whether these predictions are born 

out over time, and if not, what processes intervened to change the trajectory of the site’s 

topographic evolution. 

Systematic, measurement-based monitoring at these sites, along with the geomorphic

modeling already initiated and expanded upon in Project Element J.3, below, will provide a 

means to quantitatively assess the relative components of site change.

Methods 

Topographic Surveys 

Topographic data will be collected using a combination of conventional total station 

mapping and RTK GPS for establishing survey controls and for pin-pointing knickpoint 

positions within gullies, along with ground-based lidar for capturing the topography of entire site 

areas and documenting surface changes through time. In addition, these data will be 

accompanied with automated digital photography (taken from the same position as the lidar

scanner.) These complementary data provide both a realistic visual and interpolated digital 

topographic image of the site.

Ground-based lidar provides a remotely-sensed solution for obtaining high resolution, 

highly precise topographic surveys. The ability to measure changes at the sub-decimeter scale is 

necessary to identify topographic subtleties, such as knickpoints and dune deflation, that often 

govern site erosion patterns. Collins and others (2008, 2009, 2012) provide details and 

descriptions for the use of this technology in Grand Canyon. 
240

Ground-based lidar surveys will be directed by either GCMRC personnel or cooperating 

USGS scientists following methods employed and refined in Phase I (Collins and others, 2008, 

2009, 2012). Lidar data will be manually edited and filtered to produce a “bare-earth” terrain 

model without reflections from vegetation canopy. The terrain models will then be compared to 

existing datasets from each of these sites previously collected between 2006 and 2010. This will 

provide a short-term understanding of archaeological site change that will inform the geomorphic 

modeling work and aerial photographic analysis proposed under Project Element J.3. 

 

Supplementary Site Condition Monitoring 

In addition to the collection of high-resolution topographic data, supplementary 

monitoring data will be collected at the same sites where topographic surveys are performed. 

Supplementary monitoring data will include repeat photography using automated digital cameras 

and observational data recorded during annual field visits. In Grand Canyon, the automated repeat 

photography will record daily images of the sand bars that are the aeolian source deposits for specific 

sites, as well as the sites themselves to track changes in their overall size and level of inundation under 

varying flows. The supplementary observational data will provide data on characteristics that describe 

the overall state of site erosion in a cumulative sense and on a basis that tries to separate the various 

erosive agents from one another. One purpose of this latter effort is to assess the differences in the 

quality of site assessment information gained by detailed lidar measurements and simple 

qualitative assessment techniques. Observational monitoring will emphasize condition factors 

that cannot be detected remotely, such as soil crust cover changes and ground-disturbing human 

impacts such as trailing. This aspect of the project will be undertaken in cooperation with GCNP.

Although not dam-related, human visitation impacts at archaeological sites can have 

profound effects on site condition. While some human impacts are intentional and deliberately 

destructive, in National Park settings most visitor impacts are inadvertent, incremental, and 

cumulative. However, even unintentional impacts can have profound impacts on archaeological 

site integrity over time. For example, foot paths created by visitors can evolve over time into 

erosion channels, as precipitation run-off concentrates and flows along the shallow linear 

depression created by visitors repeatedly walking to and from sites. Likewise, trampled zones 

created by visitors milling about on sites can create compacted soil areas where rainfall pools, 

then overflows down trails, creating a more concentrated flow and more severe erosion than 

would otherwise occur if the soil had not been compacted. Although the full extent of human 

impacts at cultural sites in the CRe has not been systematically analyzed, we know from the 

monitoring reports of Native American tribes that visitor impacts are observed at many triballyvalued cultural sites. For example, in the 2010 report of the Zuni tribe, Dongoske (2011) reported

that 34 of 61 monitored sites (56%) exhibited human impacts unrelated to Glen Canyon Dam. 

When human impacts are combined with system-wide decreases in sand bar areas and aeolian 

sediment replenishment, as is occurring downstream from Glen Canyon Dam effects to site 

condition may be more extreme than if human or dam effects were occurring separately. For this 

reason, human impacts to archaeological sites need to be monitored and considered along with 

potential effects of dam operations and climate factors in assessing changes to site condition in 

the CRe. We propose to do this using a combination of approaches, including documenting area 

of disturbed and undisturbed biological crust cover and tracking specific geomorphic changes 

and surface evidence linked to human activities. This work will be undertaken in cooperation 

with the staff of GCNP. Once quantified, we will use these data in a modeling framework to 
241

assess if human-induced site changes are expected to outpace natural causes such as aeolian or 

gully-induced erosion, thereby quantifying expected responses at a suite of sites.

Meteorological Monitoring 

In conjunction with the site-based topographic monitoring, three existing weather stations 

located adjacent to three of the four sites are proposed for continued monitoring of rainfall, wind,

and other weather characteristics. Detailed weather data has been collected from some of these 

stations since 2007, and continuing data collection at these sites will allowing a long term, high 

resolution weather record to be acquired for these sites that can be used to evaluate the role of 

climate and local weather events in affecting current site conditions. In addition, a new station is 

proposed to be installed near the fourth site (AZ B:10:0225) to constrain precipitation 

characteristics here that has previously led to high-intensity gully erosion events and to 

document when wind conditions conducive to aeolian transport and deposition occur. A 

distribution of stations throughout the river corridor will allow us to track the range of local 

weather variability and verify assumptions regarding the amount and intensity of rainfall and 

wind that drives gully erosion and infilling at sites. These data will directly drive modeling 

efforts proposed in Project Element J.3. The monitored parameters include temperature, rainfall 

intensity and amount, wind speed and direction, barometric pressure, and humidity. These data 

will complement similar weather data being collected in Glen Canyon and provide a generalized 

spatial understanding over a majority of the river corridor. 

These weather data will be managed in accordance with protocols developed and 

implemented during the previous Cultural Resource Monitoring Research and Development 

project (e.g., Draut and others 2009a, 2009b, 2010a.) Data will be downloaded at 3-4 month 

intervals and examined for evidence of significant storms, periods with high rates and volumes 

of precipitation, and high wind events that could cause significant erosion or deposition at nearby 

sites. The weather data will be compared with photographic data (see below) to document and 

contrain the timing of significant erosional or depositional episodes. In the previous project, 

annual reports summarizing each year’s weather data were produced, but in FY2013, as part of 

this project. we will develop a USGS data series report so that in the future, weather data can be 

served routinely via GCMRC’s website following previously established protocols.

 

Site Visits to Assess Local Factors Contributing to Site Stability 

In addition to the formally structured monitoring work described above, we propose to

visit additional site locations where previous monitoring and assessment work has indicated 

either little or no evidence of active erosion or severe erosion. We will use the qualitative 

geomorphic assessments of individual archaeological sites prepared by O’Brien and Pederson 

(2009a) to identify sites situated on sandy substrates, in coppice dunes, or in active aeolian areas 

that received an erosion ranking of 1 or 2 (stable or only slightly eroding) and 4 to 5 (serious to 

severe erosion). The purpose of these field visits will be to evaluate and discuss with colleagues 

the specific conditions that appear to contribute to site stability and significant erosion. These 

field visits will include the researchers involved in Project J and archaeological staff from

GCNP. 

In addition, in order to quantify erosion potential, including the ability to model erosion 

(see Project element J.3), we will collect infiltration capacity and shear strength measurements of 

representative areas with which to quantify the susceptibility to water and wind erosion.

Representative areas include talus slopes, eolian dunes (active and inactive), and terrace 
242

sands. Methods similar to those of O'Brien and Pederson (2009b) will be used. These methods 

are standard in soil hydrology field measurements and include use of automated mini-disk 

infiltrometers and vane-type shear strength tests. Mini-disk infiltrometers measure the rate of 

water infiltration into soil from a small (~3cm diameter) tube, which are often combined with 

data loggers to accurately determine the rate of water influx. Vane-type testers (e.g. Torvane) 

apply increasing shear to intact sediments until deformation occurs, which accurately determines 

the shear strength. Shear strength is an important characteristic, because it represents the amount 

of energy that must be applied to dislodge soil particles (i.e., to initiate erosion). These methods 

are time intensive but are minimally intrusive and give accurate measurements of soil properties.

We will also test "proxy" measurements that can be made with less time-consuming methods 

such as Li and others (2010).

Logistical Support 

A single river trip per year will collect the topographic data necessary for archaeological 

site change detection at the four sites. This trip will be coupled with the geomorphic data 

collection proposed in Project Element J.3. to both minimize costs and to ensure sufficient 

overlap between researchers working on different parts of this project. For example, it will be 

essential that relevant geomorphic information from Project Element J.3. be integrated with the 

observations made as a result of the monitoring and change detection proposed here. We 

proposed to utilize additional planned GCMRC river trips being conducted for other research 

purposes for data retrieval and maintenance of the weather stations. The effort to collect weather 

data is not expected to be a significant burden on any of these existing trips.

Research Expectations 

We expect that the monitoring and research proposed herein will make direct 

contributions to understanding changes in archaeological site condition on several fronts. First, 

we will be able to track decadal scale trends in topographic change in order to gain confidence in 

tracking the effects of geomorphic processes on site condition. Second, we will quantify the 

processes leading to site change.

Project Element J.3. Defining the Extent and Relative Importance of Gully Formation and Annealing Processes 

in the Geomorphic Context of the Colorado River Ecosystem ($187,100) 

Amy Draut, Research Geologist, USGS Santa Cruz

David Bedford, Research Geologist, USGS Menlo Park 

Joel Sankey, Research Physical Scientist, GCMRC

The balance of forces that cause gully incision in relation to those processes that cause 

gully annealing, or infilling, ultimately determines the eventual extent of erosion into Holocene 

sediment deposits and the archaeological sites associated with those deposits. Thus, a more 

thorough understanding of the interaction between gully incision and annealing processes as they 

operate today in Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons is essential for evaluating the extent to which 

dam operations have altered the physical and cultural resources there. Analyzing gully erosion 

processes and the effectiveness of gully amelioration in the modern river corridor is also 

important for evaluating the possible future progression of erosion in sediment deposits above 

the modern high water line and the archaeological sites within and on those deposits. The 

proposed work to be undertaken for Element J.3 is a large-scale, process-based geomorphic 

study that will provide a more complete context for the site-scale processes measured and
243

monitored by Elements J.1 and J.2. The reach-scale geomorphic study of Element J.3 is intended 

to evaluate to what extent the site-scale processes measured under J.1 and J.2, such as gully 

erosion and aeolian deposition or deflation, shape the overall landscape in upland aeolian dune 

fields containing cultural sites. The larger-scale evaluation of landscape processes in J.3 will 

inform GCDAMP managers as to what may be expected as aeolian landscapes continue to 

evolve in the future and may erode and expose archaeological sites that have not yet been 

exposed or documented, and so have never been subjected to site-based monitoring.

In addition to linking with measurements made in Elements J.1 and J.2, Element J.3 will 

build on related previous landscape investigations by researchers including Hereford and others 

(1993, 1996), Thompson and others (2000), Pederson and others (2006), Collins and others 

(2009, 2012), Draut and others (2008, 2010a), and Draut (2012). The work proposed in Element 

J.3 will be concentrated in segments encompassing approximately 100 river km in Glen, Marble,

and Grand Canyons, though reference will be made to other locations as necessary, based on 

investigators’ past experience working in other areas and on findings from the aerial 

photographic record. The investigators will seek to relate findings there to other areas of the 

Colorado River corridor that have either already been investigated or in which related work will 

be pursued under separate (non-GCDAMP) funding. The goal of this proposed work is to 

develop and refine quantitative and conceptual understanding of gully development and 

annealing in order to evaluate the effectiveness of management actions on a large scale (such as 

controlled flooding) and smaller scale (such as check dams and other site-scale erosion control 

measures) in reducing gully erosion of sediment deposits and associated archaeological sites.

Gully erosion of alluvial deposits occurs as a result of episodic rainfall forming overland 

flow runoff. Storms in Grand Canyon and the surrounding region occasionally produce 

sufficiently intense rainfall to exceed the infiltration capacity of terrace sand deposits, generating 

runoff that may have sufficient erosive power to form gullies. However, a more common 

occurrence in Marble and Grand Canyons is for rainfall runoff over nearly impermeable upland 

bedrock or talus surfaces to form overland flow that concentrates and localizes upslope of sand 

deposits and then incises into the sand deposits. Gullies that erode sand deposits in this way can 

terminate either at the Colorado River or on terrace surfaces at higher elevation than the river 

(Hereford and others, 1993). Factors contributing to the formation of gullies include the 

catchment or drainage-basin area, slope, permeability of the substrate in and upslope of the 

alluvial deposit, and rainfall intensity. As discussed above, natural processes counteracting gully 

incision would be infilling by large, sediment-rich floods, and windblown sand deposition. 

Infilling by deposition during large floods is consistent with long-standing field observations that 

spatially extensive unconsolidated, fine-sediment deposits in Grand Canyon are composed 

predominantly of flood-deposited material (for example, Lucchitta, 1991; Hereford and others, 

1996; Draut and others, 2005, 2008; Anderson and Neff, 2011), including those with some of the 

largest and best-studied gully systems (such as Palisades and Arroyo Grande, at RM 66 and 208, 

respectively). Using topography from a digital elevation model (DEM), Magirl and others (2008) 

used hydrologic models to demonstrate that a flood of 170,000 ft3

/s, a level last attained in spring 

1921, would be sufficient to submerge most of the area where alluvial and aeolian sediment 

occurs in the river corridor of Marble and Grand Canyons. A sediment-rich flood of this 

magnitude could fill areas that are presently gullied and would have deposited new sediment 

over widespread areas that have not received substantial fluvial or aeolian sediment supply since 

such a flood last occurred. According to a flood-frequency analysis by Topping and others 

(2003), a predam flood of such size (170,000 ft3

/s) would have had a recurrence interval of ~40 
244

years. Smaller floods on the order of 120,000 ft3/s occurred on ~8-year intervals (Topping and 

others, 2003), and such floods would also have backfilled many gullies and created highelevation sand deposits that would have been reworked and redistributed by wind. In a natural, 

unregulated river environment, during the decades-long intervals between the large floods, the 

flood-deposited sediment would have been reworked by wind to form aeolian dunes, would have 

been colonized by plants and biologic soil crust (see conceptual model by Draut, 2012), and 

would have been incised by gullies during rainfall runoff events.

In the absence of such large, sediment-rich floods in the postdam river, the only 

remaining natural process for gully annealing is infilling by aeolian sand deposition, with 

probably intermittent contribution by slopewash (if runoff events are depositional on occasion 

rather than erosional). Filling of gullies by windblown sand has been observed in localized 

occurrences in Marble and Grand Canyons (for example, Draut and Rubin, 2008; Collins and 

others, in review) and has been called “one of the strongest restorative forces operating at 

[eroding] archaeological sites” (Neal and others, 2000), but it remains unknown exactly how 

effective aeolian deposition is overall today in the Colorado River corridor at counteracting 

erosion of sediment deposits and associated cultural sites. Aeolian deposition may be thought of 

as a “band-aid” hindering gully development, though gully erosion could only be entirely 

stopped (temporarily) by a sediment-rich flood much larger than any postdam flows have been. It 

is presently not known whether the “band-aid” of aeolian sedimentation prevents one tenth of the 

gully erosion that otherwise would occur in Marble–Grand Canyon, or one half, or some other 

proportion, or whether it has no detectable effect on the extent of gully erosion today. 

Determining the large-scale effectiveness of aeolian sediment at counteracting gully 

incision in Grand Canyon National Park, as Element J.3 of this work aims to do, will provide 

critical information concerning the effectiveness of GCDAMP management actions that intend, 

in part, to increase the aeolian sand supply in the Colorado River corridor by releasing controlled 

floods from Glen Canyon Dam. Although surveys have documented local instances of flooddeposited sand being reworked by wind and forming aeolian dunes that migrate inland in the 

months following a controlled flood (Draut and others, 2010a), this proposed work will place 

such observations into a larger context by quantifying the effect, if any, that such locally 

observed processes have had on the present state of upland (above the 41,000 ft3

/s water line) 

landscapes in various parts of the river corridor. The results of Element J.3 work will inform 

GCDAMP managers as to whether the effectiveness of aeolian sand transport at limiting gullies 

is sufficient to warrant planning future controlled floods such that the timing of greatest sandbar 

extent is maximized during spring, so that the typically dry, windy weather in that season can 

move the most possible sand from fluvial sandbars into upland regions. Such timing of 

controlled flooding occurred in spring 2008 and has been suggested in previous high-flowexperiment planning documents. Another factor to be evaluated concerns defining the duration 

over which sand bars remain sufficiently large to constitute significant sources of sand available 

for wind transport. A fall flood, for example, might create large bars in winter, but such bars 

must still be large in spring if they are to benefit upslope distribution of sand by wind.

If it is found that aeolian sand activity has, overall, had only negligible effect on gully 

incision and landscape development in the modern river corridor, then the seasonal timing of 

future controlled floods could be determined based solely on other resource needs without 

consideration for upland sediment and cultural resources. If Element J.3 findings support this

latter situation, then this would imply that site-scale management actions such as checkdam 

construction or installing run-off diversion features, rather than increasing aeolian sand 
245

availability by controlled flooding to enlarge sandbars, may be the only means available to 

temporarily counteract erosion-driven loss of archaeological cultural material. 

The proposed work for Element J.3 will combine field-based investigations, analysis of 

historical aerial photographs, and geomorphic modeling to quantify the extent of aeolian 

sediment activity in the river corridor and its effectiveness at counteracting gully incision in 

upland sediment deposits. This work will link to studies conducted under Project A and Project I 

in some of the study localities where the locations and enlargement of sandbars (Project A) is 

known to affect sand supply into modern-fluvial-sourced dune fields, and the effectiveness of 

this process depends in part upon the amount of riparian vegetation bordering the sandbars 

(Project I). Increases in area, density, and biomass of riparian vegetation assemblages have been 

documented over the past several decades for the Colorado River in general from Glen Canyon 

Dam through Grand Canyon National Park (e.g., Webb and others, 2011). The analysis of legacy 

aerial photographs conducted under Project J.3, in particular, will assist evaluation of how the 

integrated system of fluvial sandbars, riparian vegetation, nearby aeolian sediment deposits, and 

associated cultural sites have changed through time. It is clear from examination of aerial 

imagery, for instance, that any sandbar deposition from HFEs in the Furnace Flats area near 

river-mile 71–72 will be unlikely to reach the large aeolian dune fields on river left in this region 

even though the wind direction blows from the river into those dunes, because a large amount of 

riparian vegetation has grown in that area in post-dam time (Draut and others, 2009b, 2010b). 

However, the investigations in Project J include many sites and large areas where, because of the 

lack of postdam floods, the aeolian landscapes and cultural sites within them are disconnected 

from modern river sandbars and riparian vegetation (Draut, 2012); the (desert) vegetation 

assemblage in aeolian dunes above the postdam high water line is distinctly different from the 

riparian vegetation assemblage and does not have an apparent connection to dam-controlled 

flows (see vegetation study by Draut, 2011). Long term increases in abundance and size of 

individuals of desert perennial species have also been documented for the past century (Webb et 

al., 2011), suggesting a trend of further impediment for the potential for aeolian transport of 

relict and fluvial sourced sands to archaeological sites. For example, in many upland sediment 

deposits and associated archaeological sites (those that are in relict-fluvial-sourced dune fields; 

Draut, 2012) the prevailing wind direction does not supply sand from modern, HFE-deposited 

fluvial sandbars (such as at Palisades, RM 66), but rather the source of sediment in the dune field 

and protecting the cultural sites was left by predam floods larger than any postdam flows have

been. Thus, some but not all of the sites and results investigated in Project J can link to results 

obtained under Projects A and I. 

Research Questions and Methods 

Part J.3 investigations will address the following three research problems in FY13/14:

Research Question 1: How does the relative abundance of active and inactive aeolian 

sediment vary in different regions of the Colorado River corridor?

Hypothesis: The proportion of active aeolian sand will be less in wide reaches of the river 

corridor and greater in narrower reaches of the river corridor.

As a first step in determining the effectiveness of aeolian sand transport at annealing 

gullies that erode sediment deposits and archaeological sites, it is necessary to identify the extent 

of active, mobile aeolian sand in the river corridor. It is likely that there is spatial variation in 
246

Marble and Grand Canyons in the role that aeolian sand plays in gully development and culturalsite erosion, but the spatial prevalence (or lack) of these process has never been thoroughly 

defined. “Active” aeolian deposits and landscapes are defined as those having evidence for 

contemporary sand transport: wind-rippled surfaces and, locally, dune slipfaces at the angle of 

repose (Lancaster, 1994). Previous work has shown that in the highly flow-regulated and 

sediment-supply limited environment downstream of Glen Canyon Dam, the proportion of 

active, mobile aeolian sand is substantially lower (by a factor of 5) than in the much less 

regulated river corridor upstream of the dam in Cataract Canyon, Utah (Draut, 2012). This 

difference is attributed to the greater availability of sand from sandbars to act as a windblown 

sand supply in Cataract Canyon (Thompson and others, 2000; Draut, 2012). This finding was 

based upon a study in lower Marble Canyon (Eminence–LCR, RM 44–61) chosen specifically 

for comparison with geometrically and geomorphically similar Cataract Canyon. Because the 

spatially extensive environment of Grand Canyon includes a diverse range of river-corridor 

morphology (controlled by bedrock lithology and faulting), it is likely that the proportion of 

active and inactive aeolian sand, and therefore the potential for aeolian sand to mitigate erosion 

at cultural sites, varies considerably in different regions of the canyon system. 

The hypothesis above was developed based on the possibility that modern aeolian sand 

activity may be, at least in part, a function of river-corridor width. Wide reaches commonly 

contain areally extensive predam fluvial sediment deposits that have not received new sediment 

supply in postdam time; aeolian dunes that depended on those predam flood deposits as a 

sediment source therefore also have not received substantial new sediment postdam. The last 

flood large enough to overtop and replenish sand deposits substantially in wide reaches of the 

river corridor occurred in 1921, as discussed above. Places of former (predam) sediment 

deposition that are sediment-starved in the modern, dammed era tend to develop extensive 

biologic soil crust cover and to have little aeolian sand transport, comprising sand deposits that 

are inactive with respect to wind transport of sediment. Therefore, the prevalence of ample 

accommodation space in wide reaches that formerly were loci of major predam flood deposition

now may have led to an especially high proportion of inactive aeolian sediment there. Identifying 

spatial variation in active vs. inactive aeolian landscapes is important because of the connection 

between aeolian sand activity and annealing of small gullies, and also because the concentration 

of archaeological sites is greatest in wide reaches of the river corridor (Fairley and others, 1994; 

Damp and others, 2007; O’Brien and Pederson, 2009a). If inactive aeolian landscapes are most 

common in reaches of the river corridor where the archaeological record is also densest, then this 

could mean that the ability of aeolian sand transport to fill gullies and reduce erosion risk is least 

effective in those regions of the river corridor where the cultural record could most benefit from 

gully annealing and is at the greatest risk of loss by gully erosion.

To address this hypothesis, we will map active and inactive aeolian sand area in targeted 

reaches of the Colorado River corridor and to analyze the relative proportions of active and 

inactive sand by delineating their boundaries using ArcGIS. The river corridor in the Eminence–

LCR reach, in which active and inactive aeolian sand have already been mapped, has a ratio of 

the river at predam flood stage vs. 8000 ft3/s of 2.1 to 2.3. The proportion of active aeolian sand 

in that reach is 13.0% (Draut, 2012); the archaeological site density in this Eminence–LCR reach 

is 1.2 sites per mile, which is slightly less than the river-corridor average of 1.9 per mile (Fairley 

and others, 1994). Doing similar aeolian-sand mapping in other reaches would likely yield 

different results and thus would be very informative for analyzing the availability of active 

aeolian sand that could counteract gully incision in various regions of the river corridor. We 
247

hypothesize that in a wide reach (such as Furnace Flats, RM 66–72, where the flood:nonflood 

width is as great as 6 and the archaeological site density is the highest of any region in the river 

corridor; Fairley and others, 1994), the proportion of active sand would be less than in the 

Eminence-LCR reach. It will be valuable also to analyze narrower reaches such as Upper Granite 

Gorge where the flood:nonflood river width is less, between 1 and 2 (RM 87–99), and a reach 

with width similar to Eminence-LCR (ratio of 2.1 to 2.3) but in the western canyon where there 

is more sediment (e.g., Stevens/Conquistador Aisles, RM 116–130, where archaeological site 

density is above the river-corridor average; Fairley and others, 1994). We also will map active 

and inactive aeolian sand area in the same part of Glen Canyon where Element J.1., studies will 

be conducted. It would also be valuable to map active and inactive sand area in Granite Park 

(RM 207–210), an additional wide reach (flood:nonflood width ratio approaching 6) in the 

western canyon, if permitted by NPS and the Hualapai Tribe. Although this reach-based 

approach covers slightly more than one third of the river-corridor length in Grand Canyon 

National Park and not its entirety, evaluating how aeolian sand activity varies with river-corridor 

width could lead to the ability to characterize other areas’ susceptibility to aeolian-sand influence 

on gully incision without the need to map at the same level of detail as in the study reaches. The 

proposed study reaches also focus on the areas of the canyon with the densest concentrations of 

archaeological sites (Fairley and others, 1994), in order to maximize the utility of the research 

results for application to cultural-resource preservation.

It is likely that valley width is not the only factor affecting active:inactive aeolian sand 

proportion in the river corridor, and that access to modern windblown sand supply having been 

blocked by recent growth of riparian vegetation (Projects A and I) is also a factor; this has been 

observed, for instance, at the Malgosa dune field in recent years (RM 57.9R, Draut and others, 

2010b). Supply limitation by riparian vegetation will be evaluated both in the field and through 

aerial photographic analysis under Question 2 below; however, as mentioned above, many of the 

canyon’s relict aeolian landscape processes now are unrelated to either sandbar formation, fluvial 

sandbar erosion, or riparian vegetation, because the wind direction is not conducive to bringing 

sand from modern sandbars into the relict dunes even if there were no riparian vegetation. For 

this reason, it is likely that the accommodation-space differences in a wide vs. a narrow river 

reach lead to differences in the ratio of active to inactive aeolian sand.

Mapping will be conducted by identifying in the field aeolian sand-deposit area in each of 

the proposed reaches and mapping active and inactive aeolian sand by drawing active sand 

boundaries on a set of printed aerial photographs using GCMRC’s high-resolution 2009 imagery. 

This involves making short stops at every place in each reach where aeolian sand is present. (It 

became clear during the 2011 field work that field checking is necessary and that aeolian sand 

activity cannot be determined merely by identifying the lightest-colored sand areas on aerial 

photographs without field verification; areas of light colored gravel commonly look identical to 

active aeolian sand deposits on aerial photographs.) After the field work is complete, areas of 

active and inactive sand identified on the photographs will be digitized as polygons in ArcGIS 

and their area and relative proportions analyzed. In all of these study reaches, the GIS coverages 

of archaeological site localities will be compared with the spatial occurrence of active and 

inactive aeolian sand, as a means to more thoroughly assess the potential for aeolian sand activity 

to directly affect each cultural site (building on previous work by O’Brien and Pederson, 2009a;

Collins and others, 2009, 2012). 
248

Research Question 2: How does the degree of gully incision differ in sediment deposits 

that are active vs. inactive (with respect to aeolian sand transport)?

Hypothesis: Gullies will be larger and longer-lived in inactive aeolian sand deposits than in 

active aeolian sand deposits. 

In the absence of large floods in postdam Marble and Grand Canyons, the geomorphic 

process most able to counteract the effects of gully incision and potentially reduce erosional 

damage to cultural sites is that of aeolian sand transport that can partially or entirely fill small 

gullies (on the order of tens of centimeters). This process has been observed in several instances 

in the modern river corridor, operating on time scales of months (e.g., Thompson and others, 

2000; Draut and Rubin, 2008). Aeolian inflation of the land surface at one archaeological site 

was measured by Collins and others (2009) over a time span of just less than a year. The 

individual, short-term occurrences of aeolian deposition counteracting erosion that these 

examples illustrated, however, have not yet been expanded into a landscape-scale evaluation of 

how prevalent gully-annealing aeolian processes are over longer recent time scales (years to 

decades) within Marble and Grand Canyons. 

Observations indicate that extensive evidence of gully incision is much more prevalent in 

sediment deposits with surfaces containing well developed biologic soil crust rather than active 

aeolian sand. Well-developed biologic crust and aeolian sand activity are essentially mutually 

exclusive, with evidence for contemporary sand transport (Lancaster, 1994) generally not 

observed on sand surfaces where biologic crust cover exceeds ~20% of the ground area (Draut, 

2012). It is also known that biologic soil crust not only limits aeolian sand activity (by armoring 

surface sediment; Belnap and Lange, 2003) but also that biologic crust can affect the potential 

for gullying because of its influence on soil infiltration capacity. Therefore, it is likely that the 

extent of gully incision differs in active and inactive sedimentary landscapes. However, no 

systematic survey has yet been made of gully extent in active vs. inactive sediment deposits. If it 

is found that gullies are larger, deeper, and longer-lived in areas without substantial aeolian sand 

activity, this would support the supposition made by previous researchers that aeolian sand 

transport is an effective process counteracting gully incision and cultural-site erosion in the 

postdam Colorado River ecosystem. It is also important to discover whether or not there are 

examples in the available temporal record of gully networks entirely annealing by windblown 

dune activity, which would indicate that there can be larger spatial scale or longer temporal-scale 

healing of gullies by aeolian sand, in addition to the lesser spatial and temporal scales on which 

these processes have already been documented in the field.

To address this second research question, we propose to map gully extent (position and 

depth) in the field, using the same targeted reaches identified under Question 1 above. Field 

mapping will be conducted using aerial photographs and supplemented by RTK GPS 

measurement to assure positional accuracy. Gully extent has already been mapped for much of 

the Furnace Flats reach and will be entered into ArcGIS in summer 2012. During the 2012

fieldwork, it was observed that no part of the several hundred meters of mapped gully length was 

incised into active aeolian sediment. With the exception of one gully segment ~5 m long that was 

partially filled by an active aeolian dune along one side of the gully, all of the gullies observed in 

Furnace Flats (RM 65–71) reach to date affected sediment deposits that were inactive with 

respect to aeolian sand transport. The remaining study reaches proposed here have not yet been 

assessed. We propose to conduct measurements in Glen Canyon concurrently with fieldwork 
249

occurring for Element J.1 above, and in Marble and Grand Canyon by the use of one river trip, in 

combination with the work described above for Element J.2. 

The above field-based approach targets spatial variation in gully extent in the modern 

river corridor. This research question will also be addressed by examination (led by Sankey) of 

temporal changes in gully extent using historical aerial photographs and other remote-sensing 

information from the GCMRC library archives. The goal of this effort is to examine links, if any, 

between the site-scale examples known of aeolian sand annealing gullies (those already 

measured by Collins and Pederson in previous studies, and those that may be measured during 

this study under Elements J.1 and J.2) and the impact that such processes may have on the larger 

landscape over annual to decadal time scales. The resolution and exposure of early photographs 

(particularly from the 1960s and earlier) might limit the quantitative information that can be 

gleaned regarding the condition of sediment deposits, so care must be taken regarding the 

potential for study bias. More-recent photographs have much greater resolution than earlier 

photographs (which allow the number and size of gullies to be identified more easily and in 

greater detail in later photographs), but older air photos may nevertheless provide some valuable 

temporal information about possible changes in gully extent over the past several decades. In 

addition to looking for direct evidence of the gully annealing processes, the image time series 

analysis will also permit the determination of rates of change (encroachment) of perennial 

vegetation. These change detection analyses are anticipated to provide evidence of the extent that 

increases in riparian or desert vegetation in the vicinity of historical gullies and associated 

aeolian sand sources might have posed impediments to the gully annealing processes.

Remote sensing methods such as aerial photography and topographic surface 

interpretation provide useful tools for quantifying changes in formation and development of 

gullies and interactions with other erosion and deposition processes (Vrieling, 2006; Marzolff 

and Poesen, 2009; Shruthi and others, 2011). For example, multispectral imagery has been used 

to identify important evidence of geomorphic change associated with interactions of aeolianfluvial processes in desert regions, such as the encroachment of aeolian dunes into gullies (Farraj 

and Harvey, 2004). Time series of digital imagery, often in conjunction with digital terrain 

models, are used to monitor gully erosion processes like head cutting, collapse of sidewalls, and 

erosion of the gully floor (Aber and others, 2010). DEMs derived from remotely sensed imagery 

and data sources are particularly useful for large-scale geomorphic change detection through the 

construction of DEMs of difference (Wheaton and others, 2010; James and others, 2012). A 

limitation to this DEM-based approach for geomorphic change detection in Marble and Grand 

Canyons is that the available GCMRC data archive currently consists of digital surface models 

for the time frame of 2000 to present, but not earlier. Moreover, remote sensing detection and 

measurement of many gullies is also likely limited by the photogrammetric accuracy of the data 

relative to gully features that often only vary in horizontal and vertical extent on the order of 10s 

of centimeters. Nonetheless, contemporary larger gullies in Marble and Grand Canyons with 

width and depth on the order of 1s to 10s of meters have been identified and mapped in the field 

(for example, Hereford and others, 1993, 1996; Thompson and others, 2000; Pederson and 

others, 2006; Collins and others, 2009 in addition to Draut, observations in Furnace Flats from 

2012 mentioned above). The presence of large gullies of this size can be visually identified in the 

range of historical image data types available from the GCMRC archives. The identification of 

gullies in the historical image data will initially require vegetation classification steps to segment 

the more protected, vegetated surfaces from erodible bare surfaces (Aber and others, 2010). 

Classification of vegetated surfaces for individual dates of imagery will permit the determination 
250

of rates of change in the density and extent of vegetation among the longer time series of 

imagery (Sankey and Germino, 2008). Methodology applicable to change detection for 

deciduous and non-deciduous perennial vegetation in dryland systems will be employed using 

the multispectral and black and white imagery and aerial photography (Sankey and Germino, 

2008; Sankey, 2009). 

We propose to identify large gullies in the historical imagery and then work progressively 

forward in time in the remote-sensing record to identify any evidence of sediment deposition or 

complete infill by aeolian processes. While the analysis will use a presence/absence approach to 

quantifying changes to gullies that are proximal to aeolian sediment sources over time, change 

analysis will also attempt to detect decreases in 2D area of gullies over time (Aber and others, 

2010). A benefit of this approach to historical image analysis (looking for decrease, rather than 

increase in gully presence and extent) is that it potentially alleviates a bias problem of better 

image quality of modern relative to historical data. Evidence, or lack thereof, of decrease in the 

presence of historically identifiable gullies, or decreases in gully 2D area, over the 127 river km 

of the proposed study reaches will directly address the question of whether there are places in 

Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons where aeolian sediment activity identifiably prevents or limits 

gully incision of river-corridor sediment deposits over larger spatial scales, and potentially 

longer temporal scales, than has already been observed in isolated cases in the field. Knowing 

whether such cases exist in the decadal-scale remote-sensing record will be highly informative in 

answering the question of whether the site-scale aeolian infilling processes already observed and 

measured in the field may extend over large enough spatial and temporal scales to provide 

substantial erosion prevention to cultural sites in the postdam river corridor. 

Research Question 3: To what extent does aeolian sediment transport counteract gully erosion 

in Marble and Grand Canyon?

Hypothesis: Aeolian sediment substantially limits gully incision of river-corridor sediment 

deposits in Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons such that the modeled extent of gully development 

will be greater than the actual extent.

This third research question is similar to the second but utilizes a modeling approach to 

evaluate potential vs. actual gully development in the proposed study reaches of the river 

corridor. Addressing this question will allow the entire research project to move from site-scale 

observations of gullies being annealed by aeolian sand (previous work and Elements J.2 of this 

proposal), through larger-scale field and remote-sensing observations of gully prevalence and 

annealing in active vs. inactive aeolian landscapes (Questions 1 and 2 of Element J.3), to a 

process-based evaluation of the effectiveness of aeolian sand at annealing gullies in the postdam 

environment of Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons. To refer back to the “band-aid” analogy 

given in the introduction to Element J.3, this modeling investigation will provide insight into 

how extensively aeolian sediment movement prevents gully incision that would otherwise 

additionally erode sediment deposits and archaeological sites.

A suite of physically-based erosion modeling approaches can be used to better understand 

processes driving archaeological site stability. We will use two complementary approaches to 

modeling to better understand gully dynamics. We intend to extend existing modeling work 

begun by David Bedford in FY12 to better understand generation of runoff and subsequent 

erosion. We also propose to implement a landscape evolution model to test some of the 

hypotheses of gully formation, expansion, and healing.
251

Detailed modeling already underway (FY12) is aimed at determining rainfall intensity 

thresholds and quantifying runoff and erosion generation for areas around specific cultural sites 

where high-resolution topography exists. This modeling, at a site-specific level, can also be 

generalized towards more simple assessments of the kinds of sites that are susceptible to erosion. 

It is anticipated that some of this modeling, at lower resolution, will likely be necessary in order 

to define criteria for assessing vulnerability to site erosion.

Landscape evolution models (LEMs) can be used to better understand processes that 

sculpt the land. In cases where much is known about landscape processes and either initial, 

transient, or resulting conditions can be determined, LEMs can make significant contributions to 

understanding landscape change (Tucker, 2009). One of the benefits of using a LEM is that they 

can inform on changes both in hypothetical landscapes and real landscapes, but also allow initial 

or input conditions to be changed to understand effects of different scenarios.

We intend on implementing a LEM to better understand gully dynamics in the postdam 

environment of Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons. We will likely implement one of three LEMs 

that have previously been used to model gully systems. The CHILD LEM (Tucker and others, 

2001) has a long history of use and has been used to model gully systems (Istanbulluoglu and 

others, 2005). Two other similar models, SIBERIA and CAESAR have been used in gully 

environments and over shorter time frames appropriate for changes to sites along the CRE 

(Hancock and others, 2000, 2010, 2011). While each of these models has the potential to inform 

on changes affecting sediment deposits and associated archaeological sites, only initial 

implementations of the models will make clear which is the most effective model. We intend to 

use the LEM to test the formation of gullies and the effects of geomorphic processes that may 

exacerbate or counteract gully expansion. We will do this by modifying landscape evolution 

trajectories under various hypothesized drivers of gully incision (e.g., Simon and Rinaldi, 2006). 

Under this method, we assume that gullies will form as long as there is readily mobile sediment 

under high-intensity rainfall. Using the 2002 digital elevation and digital surface models with 1-

m resolution (available from GCMRC), we will use these robust modeling capabilities to identify 

places within each of the proposed study reaches where gullies would be expected to form (and 

to what extent), and then will compare the model results with the current real state of those 

anticipated gullies. By comparing the predicted (modeled) state of gully development with the 

actual gully extent, we will then evaluate whether landscape processes evidently explain any 

differences between modeled and real conditions, i.e., are there places in the Colorado River 

corridor where robust models predict gully development, but where active aeolian dunes exist 

instead? If so, how extensive and how common are such examples? If modeling results are 

highly consistent with the actual sites and extent of gully presence today, and if thus no locations

can be identified where aeolian dunes occur in place of model-predicted gullies, then this would 

support the notion that aeolian sand activity has not substantially inhibited gully development in 

the study reaches over a large spatial scale and on the 90-year time scale over which these 

sediment deposits have gone without major sediment resupply, even though (from prior 

observations and to be explored further in Element J.2 of this proposed project) aeolian sand may 

temporarily anneal small gullies or portions of gullies on smaller spatial and temporal scales.

Further modeling applications include the ability to simulate trajectories where gullies are 

allowed to form in the LEM but are periodically backfilled by flood or aeolian sand. LEMs can 

also be used to test how well CRE incised systems (gullies) fit into traditional views of incising 

systems (e.g. Schumm and others, 1984). The widely accepted framework for incised sytems by 

Schumm and others (1984) consists of five stages of channel evolution: 1) stable, 2) incised 
252

(degraded), 3) widening through bank failures, 4) aggrading, and 5) quasi-equilibrium channel 

connected to stable floodplain. If it is determined that CRE gully systems operate in this manner 

(or a new sequence of stages is determined) a large suite of channels can be identified for their 

current status and the need for mitigation efforts can be determined. Finally, we can test the 

"base level" hypotheses of Hereford and others (1993) by simulating gully formation and 

propagation on terraces with raised base level (i.e., those that would be replenished by periodic 

large flooding in an unregulated flow regime) but driven by 20th century climate, and then 

simulate observed low base level, also with 20th century climate. Such modeling investigations 

could provide new insights on the role of flood sediment deposition on base level of channels, 

thus evaluating some of the concepts proposed by Hereford and others (1993). Ultimately these 

modeling exercises can be used to guide the adoption or elimination of gully development 

hypotheses, move toward a better understanding of the conditions driving gully formation, and 

help lead investigators to locations on the actual landscape that warrant further study.

Overall, the large-spatial-scale change-detection and modeling effort of Element J.3 will 

utilize the site-scale change detection and modeling from Elements J.1 and J.2 to place the rates 

and processes of change (such as gully erosion and aeolian infilling) measured at individual sites 

into a geomorphic context for the river corridor, and evaluate the relative effectiveness of gully 

incision and aeolian sediment movement at shaping the upland landscapes that exist today after

more than 90 years without a substantial flood. The expansion of landscape-process evaluation 

from site-scale to reach-scale also will provide NPS and other managers with information 

necessary to understand what possible future conditions to expect in upland sediment deposits—

such as the overall area subject to long-lived gully degradation or aeolian dune movement—

where archaeological sites likely exist but have not yet been discovered, and thus have never 

been monitored in detail.

We propose the above work as steps to be undertaken in FY13/14, from which further 

work could expand in subsequent years. Based upon the results obtained in the phases of work 

outlined above, additional work could expand upon these concepts for a further 2–5 years (or 

longer), to more fully analyze the question of whether sedimentary landscapes and associated 

archaeological sites are eroding more rapidly, and/or under different processes, in the modern 

postdam river corridor compared with a predam or unregulated environment (assuming 

comparable climatic conditions). Informative future work in subsequent phases of the study 

could include an investigation of short-term vs. long-term erosion rates, whereby short-term 

erosion rates quantified by Collins and others (2009, 2012, and proposed for additional study in 

Element J.2) would be compared to longer-term, decadal or centennial-scale erosion rates of 

sediment deposits in the river corridor. This might be conducted through the use of radionuclide 

or optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) studies in a vertical section of sediment exposed in a 

large gully or arroyo (e.g., building on work by Rittenour, 2008). It could also be possible to 

build on anticipated results of the modeling component outlined under Question 3 above, to 

identify places where gullies are predicted to occur but are currently absent. If such places were 

identified, it might be worthwhile to propose targeted trenching of sediment deposits to look for 

paleogullies that were infilled by sediment, and to examine any such areas for sedimentary 

structures consistent with aeolian deposition. Because such work would require more invasive 

techniques, such as disturbing sediment deposits and collecting samples for laboratory analysis 

that would need more involved permitting, we would propose such work only if the results of the 

currently proposed study indicated that such work could be especially informative to the research 

questions. 
253

4.2 Personnel and Collaboration 

This project builds upon several past research efforts, including the previous work of 

Draut and Rubin (2006, 2008), Draut and others (2005, 2009a, 2009b, 2010a, 2010b), Draut 

(2011, 2012), Pederson and others (2003, 2006) O’Brien and Pederson (2009a, 2009b), Damp 

and others (2007), Fairley and others (2007; Fairley and Sondossi 2010) and Collins and others, 

(2008, 2009, 2012). Specifically, it builds upon the work of Draut and others by extending the 

2003-2010 weather monitoring record and measurements of aeolian sand transport at selected 

locations in the CRe and examines the role that changes in aeolian sediment distribution may 

play in affecting stability of cultural sites over time. It also expands information on gully erosion 

rates initiated by Utah State University (USU) in FY01/02 and continued in FY06/07, and it 

expands on the geomorphic baseline data set collected for the 151 site treatment plan (Damp and 

others, 2007). In addition, it directly builds upon the Phase I work of the Cultural Monitoring 

Research and Development Project by applying the knowledge gained through that effort 

(Collins and others, 2008, 2009, 2012; Draut and others 2009a, 2009b, 2010a, 2010b; O’Brien 

and Pederson 2009a, 2009b) to track and quantify dam-related topographic changes (i.e., 

amounts and rates of erosion and deposition from fluvial sand sources) occurring at cultural sites 

throughout the CRe.

This study complements Grand Canyon National Park’s CRMP monitoring program. 

Monitoring protocols for assessing impacts of human visitation at archaeological sites are being 

developed independently by GRCA staff to serve the monitoring needs of the Park Service for 

evaluating effects of visitation at cultural sites. The quantitative approaches for monitoring 

change in archaeological site condition developed through the previous cultural monitoring R&D 

effort and proposed for implementation now as part of this project will supplement and enhance 

the qualitative, observational monitoring protocols and data being developed by NPS for CRMP 

compliance. 

Other ongoing GCMRC monitoring projects that have benefited or could potentially 

benefit from the work being undertaken by this project includes:

• Project A: Sandbars and Sediment Storage Dynamics: Long-term Monitoring and 

Research at the Site, Reach, and Ecosystem Scales: measured data on volumes of 

sediment moved during storm events of documented intensity; in some locations, studies 

of cultural sites and aeolian landscapes will link to modern dam-controlled sandbar 

occurrence and monitored sand bars.

• Project B: Streamflow, Water Quality, and Sediment Transport in the Colorado River 

Ecosystem: temperature data from the weather stations to inform water temperature 

monitoring and modeling.

• Project I: Riparian Studies: Response Guilds as a Monitoring Approach, and Describing 

the Effects of Tamarisk Defoliation on the Riparian Community Downstream of Glen 

Canyon Dam: the full suite of weather data could be useful for interpreting observed 

changes in vegetation; in some locations, studies of cultural sites and aeolian landscapes 

will link to riparian vegetation growth history.

4.3 Logistics 

One five-day motor-supported trip in FY12, plus several day-trips by motor boat will be 

needed to support Element J.1, during which related J.3 work in Glen Canyon will also be 
254

carried out. In addition, one low altitude helicopter mission of 1-2 hours duration will be 

required to collect airborne lidar data in FY13. One 14-day motor trip will be required each year 

to support Element J.2, and these trips will also support Element J.3 work in Grand Canyon. In 

addition, one or more researchers will accompany GCMRC trips permitted for other projects to 

maintain weather stations and collect additional field measurements.

4.4 Deliverables 

With the exception of trip reports, weather data, and other administrative or data-type 

reports, all publications proposed for this project are intended to be collaborative efforts 

linking the data and analysis results from all three project elements. The goal of the 

publication effort is to synthesize the site specific and system-wide scales of analysis into 

coherent documents that explain the geomorphic history and future expectations for 

archeological sites in the CRe under current river flow conditions.

• Trips reports will be prepared after each field episode to fulfill NPS permit requirements. 

• Weather data will be served annually via GCMRC’s website. A USGS Data Series 

Report describing the technical aspects of the weather monitoring project will be 

prepared in FY13. 

• An interim Open File report summarizing progress on development of a geomorphic

model will be published in FY13. A final Scientific Investigations report, USGS 

Professional Paper, or peer-reviewed journal article documenting the entire modeling 

effort will be prepared in FY15.

• A USGS Scientific Investigations Report will be completed in FY15, summarizing the 

results of the first two years of the monitoring work and the implications of these results 

for interpreting erosion rates and dam-related effects to cultural sites in different 

segments of the river corridor. This report will form the basis for a shorter, professional 

journal article in FY16. A comprehensive report analyzing the monitoring project results 

over a five year period will be prepared at the conclusion of the five year period (FY17).

• Additional journal articles will be prepared in FY15 covering one or more of the 

following components of this project: airborne lidar as a landscape scale change detection 

tool for assessing impacts to cultural sites; use of historical analog imagery for detecting 

changes in pre and post-dam gully erosion patterns; the results of the active vs. inactive 

mapping and site condition analysis.

• Results will be presented at TWG and AMWG meetings as appropriate, as well as at 

major national scientific meetings such as the American Geophysical Union, to ensure 

that the findings from this significant research endeavor are shared with the scientific 

research community and may inform other, related river- and environmental-management 

programs.

5. Productivity from Past Work 

Project J builds on research conducted and completed as part of the 2006-2011 Cultural 

Monitoring Research and Development Project (Fairley and others, 2007). Below is a summary 

of the products that resulted from this previous research and development initiative:
255

5.1. Data Products 

During FY11/12, the following data sets were compiled, checked for accuracy, and delivered to 

the GCMRC Data Base Manager for posting on the GCMRC website:

1. 4-minute data from 11 weather stations spanning calendar years 2007-2010 for 

precipitation rate, precipitation volume, wind speed, wind direction, temperature, 

humidity, and barometric pressure.

2. Sand transport data from 12 sand traps through calendar year 2010.

3. Compiled weather data from 32 regional weather stations spanning the period 1893-2008.

5.2. Published Reports and Papers 

Collins, B.D., Brown, K.B., and Fairley, H., 2008. Evaluation of Terrestrial LIDAR for 

Monitoring Geomorphic Change at Archaeological Sites in Grand Canyon National Park, 

Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey, Open File Report 2008-1384, 60 p. (Available 

at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1384/.)

Collins, B.D., Corbett, S.C., Fairley, H.C., Minasian, D., Kayen, R., Dealy, T.P., and Bedford, 

D.R., 2012, Topographic change detection at select archeological sites in Grand Canyon 

National Park, Arizona, 2007-2010: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 

2012-5133, 77 p. (Available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2012/5133/.)

Collins, B.D. and Kayen, R., 2006. Applicability of Terrestrial LIDAR Scanning for Scientific 

Studies in Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona, U.S. Geological Survey, Open File Report 

2006-1198, 27p, Menlo Park, California, (Available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1198/.)

Collins, B.D., Minasian, D., and Kayen, R., 2009. Topographic Change Detection at Select 

Archaeological Sites in Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona, 2006-2007: U.S. Geological 

Survey, Scientific Investigations Report 2009-5116, 97p. (Available 

at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2009/5116/ .)

Draut, A.E., 2011, Vegetation and substrate properties of aeolian dune fields in the Colorado 

River corridor, Grand Canyon, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2011-

1195, 16 p. and 28 tables, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2011/1195/.

Draut, A., 2012, Effects of river regulation on aeolian landscapes, Colorado River, southwestern 

USA: Journal of Geophysical Research – Earth Surface, v. 117, F2,

doi:10.1029/2011JF002329.

Draut, A.E., Andrews, T., Fairley, H.C., and Brown, C.R., 2009a, 2007 Weather and aeolian 

sand-transport data from the Colorado River corridor, Grand Canyon, Arizona: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 2009-1098, 110 p. (Available 

at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1098/ ). 

Draut, A.E., Sondossi, H.A., Hazel, J.E., Jr.,, Andrews, T., Fairley, H.C., Brown, C.R., and 

Vanaman, K.M., 2009b, 2008 Weather and aeolian sand-transport data from the Colorado 

River corridor, Grand Canyon, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2009-

1190, 98 p., accessed on August 23, 2010, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1190/. 

Draut, A.E., Hazel, J.E., Jr., Fairley, H.C., and Brown, C.R., 2010, Aeolian reworking of 

sandbars from the March 2008 Glen Canyon Dam high-flow experiment in Grand Canyon, in 

Melis, T.S., Hamill, J.F., Bennett, G.E., Coggins, L.G., Jr., Grams, P.E., Kennedy, T.A., 

Kubly, D.M., and Ralston, B.E., eds., Proceedings of the Colorado River Basin Science and 

Resource Management Symposium, November 18-20, 2008, Scottsdale, Arizona: U.S. 
256

Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5135, 325-331 p., accessed on July 

15, 2010, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5135/. 

Draut, A.E., Sondossi, H.A., Dealy, T.P., Hazel, J.E., Jr., Fairley, H.C., and Brown, C.R., 2010, 

2009 weather and aeolian sand-transport data from the Colorado River corridor, Grand 

Canyon, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010-1166, 98 

p. http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1166/. 

Fairley, H.C., and Sondossi, H., 2010, Applying an ecosystem framework to evaluate 

archaeological site condition along the Colorado River in Grand Canyon National Park, 

Arizona, in Melis, T.S., Hamill, J.F., Bennett, G.E., Coggins, L.G., Jr., Grams, P.E., 

Kennedy, T.A., Kubly, D.M., and Ralston, B.E., eds., Proceedings of the Colorado River 

Basin Science and Resource Management Symposium, November 18-20, 2008, Scottsdale, 

Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5135, 333-341 p., 

accessed on July 15, 2010, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5135/.

5.3. Publications in Progress 

Dealy, T., Draut, A and Fairley, H., in prep., 2010 Weather and aeolian sand-transport data from 

the Colorado River corridor, Grand Canyon, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 2012-XXXX, [http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2012/XXXX/]

Hereford, R., Bennett, G.E., and Fairley, H.C., in revision, Precipitation Variability of the Grand 

Canyon Region, 1893 to 2009, and Its Effects on Gullying of Holocene Terraces and 

Associated Archaeological Sites in Grand Canyon: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

Sondossi, H.A. and Fairley, H.C., in revision, An Analysis of Potential for Glen Canyon Dam 

Releases to Inundate 242 Cultural Sites in Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report.

5.4. Presentations at Professional Meetings 

Collins, B., Corbett, S., and Fairley, H, 2012, Measuring and modeling high-resolution 

topographic change at archaeological sites in Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona, U.S.A. 

Poster presented at European Geophysical Union General Assembly, Session GM2.1, High 

definition topography: data acquisition, modeling, interpretation. Vienna, Austria, April 27, 

2012.

Collins, B.D., 2008, Terrestrial Lidar Topographic Change Monitoring At Archaeological Sites 

Along The Colorado River Corridor Of Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona, 2008 

Colorado River Science Symposium, Phoenix, Arizona, November 2008.

Collins, B.D., 2008, Topographic Change Detection Monitoring Using Terrestrial Lidar at 

Archaeological Sites in the Colorado River Corridor of Grand Canyon National Park, 

Arizona, Eos Trans. AGU, 89(53), Fall Meet. Suppl., Ground-Based Geodetic Techniques 

and Science Applications I, Abstract No. G52A-04.

Corbett, S. and Collins, B.D., 2011. Evaluating the use of empirical error analysis on terrestrial 

lidar data for geomorphic change detection, presented at 2011 Fall Meeting, AGU, San 

Francisco, Calif., Abstract EP51E-07.

Draut, A.E., Collins, B.D., Fairley, H.C., and Rubin, D.M., 2009, Postdam evolution of aeolian 

landscapes in the Colorado River corridor through Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona, 

USA: EOS, Transactions of American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting Supp., EP21A-0571.
257

Fairley, H., Collins, B., and Draut, A., 2011, Use of Terrestrial Lidar for Monitoring 

Archaeological Sites in Grand Canyon, Arizona. Oral presentation at the 76th Annual 

Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Sacramento, California, April 3, 2011.

5.5. Unpublished, Peer-reviewed Final Reports 

Fairley, H.C., Collins, B, and Draut, A., 2009, FY07-FY11 Archaeological Site Monitoring 

Research and Development Project (revised proposal). NPS Research and Collecting Permit 

Proposal. 99pp.

O’Brien, G. and Pederson, J., 2009a, Geomorphic Attributes of 232 Cultural Sites Along The 

Colorado River In Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona. Final report dated July 20, 2009. 

Submitted by Department of Geology, Utah State University, Logan, to U.S. Geological 

Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, Flagstaff. 

O’Brien, G. and Pederson, J., 2009b, Gully Erosion Processes and Parameters at Six Cultural 

Sites Along the Colorado River in Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona. Final draft report 

dated July 20, 2009, submitted by Department of Geology, Utah State University, Logan, to 

U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, Flagstaff

Vance, M.M., and Smiley, F.E., 2011. Landforms, Inundation and Archaeological Sites: Data 

Exploration and Sample Selection for a Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center Pilot 

Monitoring Project in the Colorado River Corridor. Northern Arizona University 

Archaeological Report No. 1337, Flagstaff, Ariz. 26 p., with database.

6. References 

Aber, J.S., Marzolff, I., Ries, J.B., 2010, Small Format Aerial Photography: Principles, 

Techniques and Geoscience Applications: San Diego, California, Elsevier, 257 p.

Adams, W.Y., 1960, Ninety Years of Glen Canyon Archaeology, 1989-1959. Museum of 

Northern Arizona Bulletin No. 33: Flagstaff, Arizona, Museum of Northern Arizona.

Adams, W.Y., Lindsay, A.J., and Turner, C.G., 1961, Survey and Excavations in Lower Glen 

Canyon, 1952-1958. Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin No. 36: Flagstaff, Arizona, 

Museum of Northern Arizona.

Andersen, K., 2006, Geoarchaeological Investigations of 53 Sites between Glen Canyon Dam 

and Paria Riffle. Navajo Nation Archaeology Department Report No. 05-229. Ms. on file, 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region, Salt Lake City.

Anderson, K., and Neff, T. 2011, Geomorphic interpretation of Pueblo II to Early Pueblo III 

(A.D. 1050–1170) period settlement patterns along the Colorado River in Grand Canyon, 

Arizona, Catena, 85, 168–186.

Barber, D., Ross, M., Dallas, W.A., and Mills, J.P., 2006, Laser Scanning for Architectural 

Documentation. Journal of Architectural Conservation v. 12, no. 1, pp. 35-52.

Barnett, T., Chalmers, A, Diaz-Andreau, M., Ellis, G., Longhurst, P., Sharpe,K and Trinks,I., 

2005. 3D Laser Scanning for Recording and Monitoring Rock Art Erosion. International 

Newsletter on Rock Art, v. 41, 25-29 p.

Bedford, D.R., 2008, Effects of Vegetation-related Soil Heterogeneity on Runoff, Infiltration, 

and Redistribution in Semi-arid Shrubland and Grassland Landscapes: Boulder, University of 

Colorado, PhD Dissertation, 178 p.

Belnap, J., and O. L. Lange, eds. (2003), Biological soil crusts—structure, function, and 

management (Ecological Studies series, v. 150, Berlin, Germany, Springer-Verlag.
258

Bureau of Reclamation, 2008, Science and Technology Highlights, Oct-Dec 2008. 16 p. 

(accessed July 30, 2012 at http://www.usbr.gov/research/science-and-tech/highlights/pdfs/09-

1stQtrhigh.pdf.)

Collins, B.D., Brown, K.B., and Fairley, H., 2008. Evaluation of Terrestrial LIDAR for 

Monitoring Geomorphic Change at Archaeological Sites in Grand Canyon National Park, 

Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey, Open File Report 2008-1384, 60 p. 

[http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1384/]. 

Collins, B.D. and Kayen, R., 2006. Applicability of Terrestrial LIDAR Scanning for Scientific 

Studies in Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona, U.S. Geological Survey, Open File Report 

2006-1198, 27p, Menlo Park, California, [http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1198/]. 

Collins, B.D., Minasian, D., and Kayen, R., 2009. Topographic Change Detection at Select 

Archaeological Sites in Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona, 2006-2007: U.S. Geological 

Survey, Scientific Investigations Report 2009-5116, 97p. 

[http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2009/5116/]. 

Collins, B.D., Corbett, S.C., Fairley, H.C., Minasian, D., Kayen, R., Dealy, T.P., and Bedford, 

D.R., 2012, Topographic change detection at select archeological sites in Grand Canyon 

National Park, Arizona, 2007-2010: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 

2012-5133, 77 p. (Available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2012/5133/.)

Damp, J., Pederson, J., and O’Brien, G., 2007, Geoarchaeological Investigations and 

Archaeological Treatment Plan for 151 Sites in the Grand Canyon, Arizona. Unpublished 

report prepared for Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado River Region, Salt Lake City. 

502p.

Davis, P.A., 2004, Review of results and recommendations from the GCMRC 2000-2003 

remote-sensing initiative for monitoring environmental resources within the Colorado River 

ecosystem. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2004-1206, 73 p. (Also available at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2004/1206/of2004-1206.pdf)

Doelle, W. H., editor, 2000. Final Report: Cultural Resource Program Assessment. Ms. on file, 

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, Flagstaff, Ariz.

Dongoske, Kurt E., 2011, Pueblo of Zuni 2010 Cultural Resource Monitoring of the Colorado 

River Ecosystem through Grand Canyon. Unpublished administrative report prepared for the 

Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Regional Office, Salt Lake City, Utah in partial 

fulfillment of Contract R10PC40022. Report dated August, 2011, 

Draut, A.E., 2011, Vegetation and substrate properties of aeolian dune fields in the Colorado 

River corridor, Grand Canyon, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2011-

1195, 16 p. and 28 tables, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2011/1195/.

Draut, A., 2012, Effects of river regulation on aeolian landscapes, Colorado River, southwestern 

USA: Journal of Geophysical Research – Earth Surface, v. 117, F2,

doi:10.1029/2011JF002329.

Draut, A.E., Andrews, T., Fairley, H.C., and Brown, C.R., 2009a, 2007 Weather and aeolian 

sand-transport data from the Colorado River corridor, Grand Canyon, Arizona: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 2009-1098, 110 p. [http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1098/]. 

Draut, A.E., Hazel, J.E., Jr., Fairley, H.C., and Brown, C.R., 2010a, Aeolian reworking of 

sandbars from the March 2008 Glen Canyon Dam high-flow experiment in Grand Canyon, in 

Melis, T.S., Hamill, J.F., Bennett, G.E., Coggins, L.G., Jr., Grams, P.E., Kennedy, T.A., 

Kubly, D.M., and Ralston, B.E., eds., Proceedings of the Colorado River Basin Science and 

Resource Management Symposium, November 18-20, 2008, Scottsdale, Arizona: U.S. 
259

Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5135, p. 325-331 (Available

at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5135/.)

Draut, A.E., and Rubin, D.M., 2005, Measurements of wind, aeolian sand transport, and 

precipitation in the Colorado River corridor, Grand Canyon, Arizona—November 2003 to 

December 2004: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2005-1309.

Draut, A.E., and Rubin, D.M., 2006, Measurements of wind, aeolian sand transport, and 

precipitation in the Colorado River corridor, Grand Canyon, Arizona—January 2005 to 

January 2006: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2006-1188, 88 p. (Available 

at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1188/.)

Draut, Amy E., and Rubin, David M. 2008, The role of eolian sediment in the preservation of 

archeologic sites along the Colorado River corridor in Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona: 

U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1756, 71 p. [http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/1756].

Draut, A.E., Rubin, D.M., Dierker, J.L., Fairley, H.C., Griffiths, R.E., Hazel, J.E., Jr., Hunter, 

R.E., Kohl, K., Leap, L.M., Nials, F.L., Topping, D.J., and Yeatts, M., 2005, Sedimentology 

and stratigraphy of the Palisades, Lower Comanche, and Arroyo Grande areas of the 

Colorado River corridor, Grand Canyon, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2005-5072, 68 p. 

Draut, A. E., Rubin, D. M., Dierker, J. L., Fairley, H. C., Griffiths, R. E., Hazel, J. E. Jr., Hunter, 

R. E., Kohl, K., Leap, L. M., Nials, F. L., Topping, D. J., and Yeatts, M., 2008, Application 

of sedimentary-structure interpretation to geoarchaeology in the Colorado River corridor, 

Grand Canyon, Arizona, USA: Geomorphology, v. 101, n. 3, p. 497-509, doi: 

10.1016/j.geomorph.2007.04.032.

Draut, A.E., Sondossi, H.A., Hazel, J.E., Jr.,, Andrews, T., Fairley, H.C., Brown, C.R., and 

Vanaman, K.M., 2009b, 2008 Weather and aeolian sand-transport data from the Colorado 

River corridor, Grand Canyon, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2009-

1190, 98 p. (available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1190/.)

Draut, A.E., Sondossi, H.A., Dealy, T.P., Hazel, J.E., Jr., Fairley, H.C., and Brown, C.R., 2010b, 

2009 weather and aeolian sand-transport data from the Colorado River corridor, Grand 

Canyon, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010-1166, 98 p. (Available 

at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1166/.)

Euler, R.C., 1967a, The canyon dwellers. The American West, v. 4, no. 2, p. 22-27, 67-71.

Euler, R.C., 1967b, Helicopter archaeology. The American West Review v. 1, p. 24.

Euler, R.C., 1967c, Preliminary report on archaeological resources within the reservoir pools of 

the proposed marble Canyon and Hualapai (Bridge Canyon) dam sites. Memorandum to the 

Arizona Academy of Science, March 1, 1967. Ms. on file, Museum of Northern Arizona 

archives, Flagstaff, Arizona. 

Euler, R.C., 1969a, The archaeology of the canyon country. In Fowler, D.D., Euler, R.C. and 

Fowler, C.S., editors, John Wesley Powell and the Anthropology of the Canyon Country, p. 8-

20. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 670: Washington, DC.

Euler, R.C., 1969b, The canyon dwellers: four thousand years of human history in the Grand 

Canyon. In Watkins, T.H., editor, The Grand Colorado: The Story of the River and Its 

Canyons, p. 19-27: Palo Alto, California, American West.

Fairley, H.C., 2003, Changing river: time, culture, and the transformation of landscape in Grand 

Canyon: a regional research design for the study of cultural resources along the Colorado 

River in lower Glen Canyon and Grand Canyon, National Park, Arizona: Tucson, Ariz., 

Statistical Research, Inc., SRI Press, Technical Series 79.
260

Fairley, H.C., 2005, Cultural resources in the Colorado River corridor, 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.177–192.

Fairley, H.C., Bungart, P.W., Coder, C.M., Huffman, J., Samples, T.L., and Balsom, J.R., 1994, 

The Grand Canyon river corridor survey project: archaeological survey along the Colorado 

River between Glen Canyon Dam and Separation Rapid: Flagstaff, Ariz., Bureau of 

Reclamation Glen Canyon Environmental Studies Program, cooperative agreement no. 9AA40-07920.

Fairley, H.C., Collins, B, and Draut, A., 2007, FY07-FY11 Archaeological Site Monitoring 

Research and Development Project. NPS Research and Collecting Permit Proposal. 99pp.

Fairley, H.C., and Sondossi, H., 2010, Applying an ecosystem framework to evaluate 

archaeological site condition along the Colorado River in Grand Canyon National Park, 

Arizona, in Melis, T.S., Hamill, J.F., Bennett, G.E., Coggins, L.G., Jr., Grams, P.E., 

Kennedy, T.A., Kubly, D.M., and Ralston, B.E., eds., Proceedings of the Colorado River 

Basin Science and Resource Management Symposium, November 18-20, 2008, Scottsdale, 

Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5135, 333-341 p., 

(Available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5135/.)

Farraj, A.A., and Harvey, A.M., 2004. Late quaternary interactions between aeolian and fluvial 

processes: a case study in the northern UAE. Journal of Arid Environments 56, 235-248.

GCDAMP (Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program), 2003. Glen Canyon Dam 

Adaptive Management Program Strategic Plan. Unpublished ms. on file, Bureau of 

Reclamation, Upper Colorado River Region Office, Salt Lake City, Utah.

GCMRC (Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center), 2007, Grand Canyon Monitoring 

and Research Center Monitoring and Research Plan in support of the Glen Canyon Dam 

Adaptive Management Program, 2007-2011: Flagstaff, Arizona, U.S. Geological Survey, 

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, 149 p..

Grams, P.E., Schmidt, J.C., and Topping, D.J., 2007, The rate and pattern of bed incision and 

bank adjustment on the Colorado River in Glen Canyon downstream from Glen Canyon 

Dam: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 119, p. 556-575, doi: 10.1130/B25969.1, 

with additional supporting material in the Geological Society of America Data Repository.

Hancock, G.R., Coulthard, T.J., Martinez, C., and Kalma, J.D., 2011, An evaluation of landscape 

evolution models to simulate decadal and centennial scale soil erosion in grassland 

catchments: Journal of Hydrology, v. 398, no. 3–4, p. 171-183.

Hancock, G.R., Evans, K.G., Willgoose, G.R., Moliere, D.R., Saynor, M.J., and Loch, R.J., 

2000, Medium-term erosion simulation of an abandoned mine site using the SIBERIA 

landscape evolution model: Australian Journal of Soil Research, v. 38, no. 2, p. 249-263.

Hancock, G.R., Lowry, J.B.C., Coulthard, T.J., Evans, K.G., and Moliere, D.R., 2010, A 

catchment scale evaluation of the SIBERIA and CAESAR landscape evolution models: Earth 

Surface Processes and Landforms, v. 35, no. 8, p. 863-875.

Hazel, J.E., Jr., Grams, P.E., Schmidt, J.C., and Kaplinski, M., 2010, Sandbar response in Marble 

and Grand Canyons, Arizona, following the 2008 high-flow experiment on the Colorado 

River: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5015, 52 p., (Available

at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5015/.)

Hazel, J.E., Jr., Kaplinski, M., Parnell, R. A., and Fairley, H.C., 2008, Aggradation and 

degradation of the Palisades gully network, 1996 to 2005, with emphasis on the November 
261

2004 high-flow experiment, Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 2008-1264, 14 p.

Hereford, R., Burke, K.J., and Thompson, K.S. 1998. Quaternary Geology and Geomorphology 

of the Nankoweap Rapids Area, Marble Canyon, Arizona. U. S. Geological Survey 

Geological Investigations Series Map I-2608. 

Hereford, R., Burke, K.J., and Thompson, K.S. 2000a, Map Showing Quaternary Geology and 

Geomorphology of the Lees Ferry Area, Marble Canyon, Arizona. U. S. Geological Survey 

Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-2663, scale 1:2000, with discussion. 

Hereford, R., Burke, K.J., and Thompson, K.S. 2000b, Map Showing Quaternary Geology and 

Geomorphology of the Granite Park Area, Grand Canyon, Arizona. U. S. Geological Survey 

Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-2662, scale 1:2000. 

Hereford, R., Fairley, H.C., Thompson, K.S., and Balsom, J.R., 1991, The effects of regulated 

flows on erosion of archeologic sites at four areas in eastern Grand Canyon National Park, 

Arizona: a preliminary analysis. Unpublished report submitted to Bureau of Reclamation, 

Glen Canyon Environmental Studies Program Office, Flagstaff, Arizona. 

Hereford, R., Fairley, H.C., Thompson, K.S., and Balsom, J.R., 1993, Surficial geology, 

geomorphology and erosion of archeologic sites along the Colorado River, eastern Grand 

Canyon, Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona. Grand Canyon National Park in cooperation 

with the Bureau of Reclamation, Glen Canyon Environmental Studies, Flagstaff, Ariz.: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 93-517.

Hereford, R., Thompson, K.S., Burke, K.J., and Fairley, H.C., 1996, Tributary debris fans and 

Late Holocene alluvial chronology of the Colorado River, eastern Grand Canyon, AZ: GSA 

Bulletin, v. 108, no. 1, p. 3–19.

Hereford, R., Bennett, G.E., and Fairley, H.C., in revision, Precipitation Variability of the Grand 

Canyon Region, 1893 to 2009, and Its Effects on Gullying of Holocene Terraces and 

Associated Archaeological Sites in Grand Canyon: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report. 

Hough, I. and Brennan, E., 2008., Architectural documentation and preservation of Havasupai 

and Navajo Wooden Pole Structures in Grand Canyon in Berger, T.R., ed. Reflections of 

Grand Canyon Historians: Ideas, Arguments, and First-Person Accounts. Grand Canyon, 

Ariz.: Grand Canyon Association, pp. 81-88.

Istanbulluoglu, E., Bras, R.L., Flores-Cervantes, H., and Tucker, G.E., 2005, Implications of 

bank failures and fluvial erosion for gully development: Field observations and modeling: J. 

Geophys. Res., v. 110, no. F1, p. F01014.

James, L.A., Hodgson, M.E., Ghoshal, S., Latiolais, M.M., 2012. Geomorphic change detection 

using historic maps and DEM differencing: The temporal dimension of geospatial analysis. 

Geomorphology 137, 181-198.

Jones, D., editor, 2007, 3D Laser Scanning for Heritage: Advice and guidance to users on laser 

scanning in archaeology and architecture. English Heritage.

Jones, K., 2007, Caring for archaeological sites: practical guidelines for protecting and managing 

archaeological sites in New Zealand. Department of Conversation, Wellington, New Zealand.

Kintigh, K., Lipe, W., Altschul, J., and Urquhart, N.S., 2007, Legacy monitoring data review 

panel report to the grand canyon monitoring and research center. Unpublished report 

prepared for the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, November 29, 2007.

(Available at http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/07dec04/Attach_10.pdf )
262

Korumaz, A.G., Korumaz, M., Dulgerler, O.N., Karasaka, L., Yildiz, F. and Yakar, M., 2010, 

Evaluation of Laser Scanner Performance in documentation of Historical Architectural 

Ruins: A Case Study in Konya. International Archives of Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing, 

and Spatial Information Sciences, vol. XXXVIII, Part 5, p. 361-366.

Lancaster, N., 1994. Controls on aeolian activity: some new perspectives from the Kelso Dunes, 

Mojave Desert, California. Journal of Arid Environments v. 27, p. 113–125.

Leap, L.M., Kunde, J.L., Hubbard, D.C., Andrews, N., Downum, C.E., Miller, A., and Balsom, 

J.R., 2000, Grand Canyon monitoring project 1992–1999: synthesis and annual monitoring 

report FY99. Grand Canyon National Park River Corridor Monitoring Report No. 66: 

Submitted to Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Li, J., Okin, G.S., Herrick, J.E., Belnap, J., Munson, S.M., and Miller, M.E., 2010, A simple 

method to estimate threshold friction velocity of wind erosion in the field: Geophysical

Research Letters, v. 37, no. 10, p. L10402.

Lucchitta, I., 1991, Quaternary geology, geomorphology, and erosional processes, eastern Grand 

Canyon, Arizona. U.S. Geological Survey administrative report: Submitted to Bureau of 

Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Magirl, C. S., M. J. Breedlove, R. H. Webb, and P. G. Griffiths (2008), Modeling water-surface 

elevations and virtual shorelines for the Colorado River in Grand Canyon, Arizona, U.S. 

Geol. Surv. Sci. Inv. Rep. 2008-5075, 40 p.(Available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2008/5075/)

Marzolff, I, Poesen, J, 2009. The potential of 3D gully monitoring with GIS using highresolution aerial photography and a digital photogrammetry system. Geomorphology v. 111, 

p. 48-60.

McKee, E. D., 1938, Original structures in Colorado River flood deposits of Grand Canyon:

Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, vol. 8, no. 3, p. 77-83.

Neal, L.A., Gilpin, D., Jonas, L., and Ballagh, J.H., 2000, Cultural resources data synthesis 

within the Colorado River corridor, Grand Canyon National Park and Glen Canyon National 

Recreation Area, Arizona: SWCA, Inc., Cultural Resources Report 98-85.

Noon, B. R., 2003, Conceptual Issues in Monitoring Ecological Resources. Chapter 2 in Busch,

D.E. and Trexler, J.C., editors, Monitoring Ecosystems: Interdisciplinary Approaches for 

Evaluating Ecoregional Initiatives: Washington, D.C., Island Press, p. 27-71.

O’Brien, G. and Pederson, J., 2009a, Geomorphic Attributes of 232 Cultural Sites along the 

Colorado River in Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona. Final report dated July 20, 2009. 

Submitted by Department of Geology, Utah State University, Logan, to U.S. Geological 

Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, Flagstaff, Arizona. 

O’Brien, G. and Pederson, J., 2009b, Gully Erosion Processes and Parameters at Six Cultural 

Sites along the Colorado River in Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona. Final draft report 

dated July 20, 2009, submitted by Department of Geology, Utah State University, Logan, to 

U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, Flagstaff, Ariz.

Pederson, J.L., Petersen, P.A., MacFarlane, W.W., Gonzales, M.F., and Kohl, K., 2003, 

Mitigation, monitoring, and geomorphology related to gully erosion of cultural sites in Grand 

Canyon. Final report in fulfillment of CA-01-WRAG-0074: On file, Grand Canyon 

Monitoring and Research Center, Flagstaff, Ariz.

Pederson, J.L., Petersen, P. A., and Dierker, J.L., 2006, Gullying and erosion control at 

archaeological sites in Grand Canyon, Arizona: Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, v. 

31, p. 507-525, doi: 10.1002/esp.1286
263

Powell, J.W., 1875, Explorations of the Colorado River of the West and Its Tributaries, Explored 

in 1869, 1870, 1871, and 1872 under the Direction of the Secretary of the Smithsonian 

Institution: Washington, DC, Government Printing Office.

Rittenour, T., 2008, Luminescence dating of fluvial deposits: applications to geomorphic, 

palaeoseismic and archaeological research: Boreas, doi:10.1111/j.1502-3885.2008.00056.

Salazar, K, 2012, Memoradum to Anne J. Castle, Secretary’s Designee, Glen Canyon Dam 

Adaptive Management Program and Assitant Secretary for Water and Science from Secretary 

of Interior Ken Salazar, dated April 3, 2012.

Sankey, T.T., 2009, Regional assessment of aspen change and spatial variability at decadal time 

scales. Remote Sensing v. 1, p. 896-914.

Sankey, T., and M. Germino, 2008, Assessment of juniper encroachment with the use of satellite 

imagery and geospatial data. Rangeland Ecology and Management v. 61, p. 412-418.

Schmidt, J.C., Topping, D.J., Grams, P.E., and Hazel, J.E., 2004. System-wide changes in the 

distribution of fine sediment in the Colorado River corridor between Glen Canyon Dam and 

Bright Angel Creek, Arizona. Final report to the USGS Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center, Flagstaff, Ariz. (Available 

at http://www.gcmrc.gov/library/reports/physical/Fine_Sed/Schmidt2004.pdf )

Schmidt, J.C., and Grams, P.E., 2011, The high flows--physical science results, in Melis, T.S., 

ed., Effects of three high-flow experiments on the Colorado River ecosystem downstream 

from Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1366, 53-91 p(Available 

at http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1366/.)

Schumm, S.A., Harvey, M.D., and Watson, C.C., 1984, Incised channels: morphology, 

dynamics, and control: Littleton, Colorado, Water Resources Publications, 220 p. 

Simon, A., and Rinaldi, M., 2006, Disturbance, stream incision, and channel evolution: the roles 

of excess transport capacity and boundary materials in controlling channel response.

Geomorphology, v. 79, p. 361-383.

Shruthi, R.B.V., Kerle, N., Jetten, V., 2011, Object-based gully feature extraction using high 

spatial resolution imagery. Geomorphology v. 134, p. 260-268. 

Sondossi, H.A. and Fairley, H.C., in revision, An Analysis of Potential for Glen Canyon Dam 

Releases to Inundate 242 Cultural Sites in Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report.

Stewart, J.P., Hu, J., Kayen, R.E., Lembo, A.J., Collins, B.D., Davis, C.A., ORourke, T.D., 2009,

Use of airborne and terrestrial lidar to detect ground displacement hazards to water systems. 

Journal of Surveying Engineering v. 135, p. 113-124.

Stock, G.M., Martel, S.J., Collins, B.D., Harp, E.L., 2011, Progressive failure of sheeted rock 

slopes: the 2009-2010 Rhombus Wall rock falls in Yosemite Valley, California, USA. Earth 

Surface Processes and Landforms v. 37, p. 546-561.

Taylor, w.W., 1958, Two Archaeological Studies in Northern Arizona: The Pueblo Ecology 

Study: Hail and Farewell and a Brief Survey through the Grand Canyon of the Colorado 

River. Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin No. 30: Flagstaff, Arizona, Museum of 

Northern Arizona.

Thompson, K.S., Potochnik, A.R., Ryel, R., O’Brien, G., Neal, L.A., 2000, Development of a 

geomorphic model to predict erosion of pre-dam Colorado River terraces containing 

archaeological resources: SWCA, Environmental Consultants, Inc., submitted to Grand 

Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, Flagstaff, Ariz.
264

Wildesen, L.E., 1982, The study of impacts on archaeological sites. in Schiffer, M.E., editor, 

Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 5. New York: Academic Press, 51-59 p.

Topping, D.J., J.C. Schmidt, and L.E. Vierra, Jr., 2003, Computation and Analysis of the 

Instantaneous-Discharge Record for the Colorado River at Lees Ferry, Arizona—May 8, 

1921, through September 30, 2000: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1677, 118 p.

Tucker, G., Lancaster, S., Gasparini, N., and Bras, R., 2001, The Channel-Hillslope Integrated 

Landscape Development model (CHILD), in Harmon, R.S., and Doe, W.W., III, eds., 

Landscape Erosion and Evolution Modeling: New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum 

Publishers, p. 349-388.

Tucker, G.E., 2009, Natural experiments in landscape evolution: Earth Surface Processes and 

Landforms, v. 34, no. 10, p. 1450-1460.

Vance, M.M., and Smiley, F.E., 2011. Landforms, Inundation and Archaeological Sites: Data 

Exploration and Sample Selection for a Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center Pilot 

Monitoring Project in the Colorado River Corridor. Northern Arizona University 

Archaeological Report No. 1337, Flagstaff, Ariz. 26 p., with database.

Vrieling, A., 2006. Satellite remote sensing for water erosion assessment: A review, Catena, v. 

65, 2-18.

Webb, R.H., Belnap, J., Scott, M.L., Esque, T.C., 2011. Long-term change in perennial 

vegetation along the Colorado River in Grand Canyon National Park (1889-2010). Park 

Science 28, 73-77.

Wheaton JM, Brasington J, Darby SE, Sear D. 2010. Accounting for Uncertainty in DEMs from 

Repeat Topographic Surveys: Improved Sediment Budgets. Earth Surface Processes and 

Landforms 35, 136-156.

Wildesen, L., 1982, The study of impacts on archaeological sites. In Schiffer, M. ed., Advances 

in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 5: New York, Academic Press, 51-96 p.Wood, 

W.R. and Johnson, D.L., 1978. A survey of disturbance processes in archaeological site 

formation. In Schiffer, M.E., editor, Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 1. New 

York: Academic Press, 315-381 p.

Wright, S.A., Schmidt, J.C., Melis, T.S., Topping, D.J., and Rubin, D.M., 2008, Is there enough 

sand? Evaluating the fate of Grand Canyon sandbars: Geological Society of America 

Today, v. 18, no. 8, p. 4-10, doi: 10.1130/GSATG12a.1.

U.S. Department of the Interior, 1995, Operation of Glen Canyon Dam Final Environmental 

Impact Statement, Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region, Salt Lake City, 337 p. 

plus appendices. 

Zimmer, V.L., Collins B.D., Stock, G.M., Sitar, N., 2012, Rock fall dynamics and deposition: an 

integrated analysis of the 2009 Ahwiyah Point rock fall, Yosemite National Park, USA. 

Earth Surface processes and Landforms v. 37, p. 680-691. 
265

7. Budget

 

Project Element J.1. 

Cultural Site Monitoring in 

Glen Canyon 

Project Element J.2. 

Monitoring of Select 

Cultural Sites in Grand 

Canyon 

GCMRC Salaries $35,000 GCMRC Salaries $35,000

Traveling and Training $1,900 Traveling and Training $8,000 

Operating Expenses $5,000 Operating Expenses $5,000 

Logistics $1,900 Logistics $19,000

GIS/RS/Electronics support 

(includes burden) $22,500 GIS/RS/Electronics support (includes burden) $4,800

Contractors/Cooperators 

(non-USGS) $53,000 Contractors/Cooperators (non-USGS) $5,000

USGS cooperators $29,200 USGS cooperators $104,800

USGS Burden $13,200 USGS Burden $9,500 

Total $161,700 Total $191,100

Project Element J.3. 

Defining the Extent and 

Relative Importance of 

Gully Formation and 

Annealing Processes in the 

Geomorphic Context of 

the Colorado River 

Ecosystem 

GCMRC Salaries $8,400

Traveling and Training $13,200 

Operating Expenses $3,000 

Logistics $0

GIS/RS/Electronics support 

(includes burden) $31,200

Contractors/Cooperators 

(non-USGS) $0

USGS cooperators $127,900

USGS Burden $3,400 

Total $187,100

FY 2013

FY 2013 Project J. Gross Total: 

$539,900
266

Project Element J.1. 

Cultural Site Monitoring in 

Glen Canyon 

Project Element J.2. 

Monitoring of Select 

Cultural Sites in Grand 

Canyon 

Salaries $37,000 Salaries $37,000

Traveling and Training $9,500 Traveling and Training $2,900 

Operating Expenses $5,000 Operating Expenses $5,000 

Logistics $1,900 Logistics $19,000

GIS/RS/Electronics support 

(includes burden) $23,900 GIS/RS/Electronics support (includes burden) $4,600

Cooperators (non-USGS) $3,000 Cooperators (non-USGS) $5,000

USGS cooperators $92,000 USGS cooperators $97,000

USGS Burden $7,600 USGS Burden $9,100 

Total $179,900 Total $179,600

Project Element J.3. 

Defining the Extent and 

Relative Importance of 

Gully Formation and 

Annealing Processes in the 

Geomorphic Context of 

the Colorado River 

Ecosystem 

Salaries $9,000

Traveling and Training $12,400 

Operating Expenses $3,000 

Logistics $0

GIS/RS/Electronics support 

(includes burden) $33,100

Cooperators (non-USGS) $0

USGS cooperators $136,000

USGS Burden $3,400 

Total $196,900

FY 2014

FY 2014 Project J. Gross Total: 

$556,400
267

Project K. 

GCMRC Economist and Support The economist position within GCMRC is expected to be filled during FY12. Funding in 

FY13/14 will support the anticipated salary of this individual and associated travel and training. 

The work activities of this individual will be developed based on consultation with the AMWG, 

TWG, GCDAMP ad hoc committees, and guidance from agencies. 

 

GCMRC Economist and Support

Salaries $150,000 

Traveling and Training $23,700 

Operating Expenses $25,000 

Logistics $0 

GIS/RS/Electronics support (includes 

burden) $0 

Cooperators (non-USGS) $0 

USGS cooperators $0 

Total $198,700 

FY 2013 Gross Total: $198,700

FY 2014 Gross Total: $204,700
268

Project L. 

Independent Reviews and Science Advisors Independent reviews are an essential part of the GCDAMP. There are two items in the 

independent review part of the GCDAMP budget. One part concerns independent reviews 

commissioned by GCMRC. The primary activity is the convening of Protocol Evaluation Panels 

(PEP) to review the state-of-the-science in critical areas of science and management and to 

consider development of formal protocols for monitoring different aspects of the CRe. In 

FY13/14, there are no new PEPs scheduled, and the work involved in these reviews is expected 

to decrease. Thus, the proposed budget for this activity from $36,000 in FY12 to $27,700 in 

FY13.

Careful consideration was given to providing appropriate support for the work of the 

Science Advisors. The work of the Science Advisors is coordinated by L. D. Garrett of M3 

Research. Dr. Garrett was the first Chief of the GCMRC. Dr. Garrett provided a request to 

GCMRC describing proposed activities for FY13 in a memo dated May 3. After review of that 

request, the requested Science Advisor budget for report review and development was funded, 

the amount allocated to meeting attendance was significantly reduced, and LTEMP support was 

eliminated. Thus, the Science Advisors budget is proposed to be:

Reviews by 5 Science Advisors (total requested amount) $50,000

Review support by additional specialists (total requested amount) $8,500

New Cultural Resources Science Advisor $10,000

GCMRC reviews and review development by L. D. Garrett (total 

requested amount)

$24,000

LTEMP support (0% of requested amount) $0

Stipend and travel costs in service to GCDAMP meetings (31% 

of requested amount)

$19,000

Development of white papers and reports to Secretary’s Designee, 

AMWG, TWG (total requested amount)

$20,000

Participation in phone calls and webinars (50% of requested 

amount)

$6250

Project administration (total requested amount) $6,500

Total Science Advisors request $144,300

USGS burden $22,000

Total budget amount $164,500

 
269

 

Independent Reviews Science Advisors

Salaries $0 Salaries $0

Traveling and Training $0 Traveling and Training $0 

Operating Expenses $0 Operating Expenses $0 

Logistics $0 Logistics $0

GIS/RS/Electronics support 

(includes burden) $0 GIS/RS/Electronics support (includes burden) $0

Cooperators (non-USGS) 24,300 Cooperators (non-USGS) $144,300

USGS cooperators USGS cooperators $0

USGS Burden $3,400 USGS Burden $22,000 

Total $27,700 Total $164,500

FY 2013 Gross Total: $164,500

FY 2014 Gross Total: $28,500 FY 2014 Gross Total: $169,400

FY 2013 Gross Total: $27,700
270

Project M. 

USGS Administration 

The USGS Administration budget covers salaries for the communications coordinator, 

the librarian, and the budget analyst for GCMRC, in addition to monetary awards for all 

GCMRC personnel. The vehicle section covers GSA vehicle costs including monthly lease fee, 

mileage costs, and any costs for accidents and damage. DOI vehicles are also included in this 

section of the budget to pay for vehicle gas, maintenance, and replacements costs. Leadership 

personnel covers salary and some of the travel and training costs for the GCMRC Chief, Deputy 

Chief, and two program managers. AMWG/TWG travel covers the cost of GCMRC personnel to 

travel to the AMWG and TWG meetings. SBSC Information Technology (IT) overhead covers 

GCMRCs IT equipment costs. Logistics base costs covers salaries and travel/training. These base 

costs also include a $35,000 contribution to the equipment and vehicles working capital fund.
271

Budget Analyst, Communications Support, 

Library, Discretionary Awards Vehicles

Salaries $253,400 Salaries $0

Traveling and Training $5,600 Traveling and Training $0 

Operating Expenses $46,900 Operating Expenses $111,400 

Logistics $0 Logistics $0

GIS/RS/Electronics support (includes burden) $0 GIS/RS/Electronics support 

(includes burden) $0

Cooperators (non-USGS) $71,500 Cooperators (non-USGS) $0

USGS cooperators $0 USGS cooperators $0

USGS Burden $45,000 USGS Burden $15,600 

Total $422,400 Total $127,000

Leadership Personnel AMWG/TWG Travel

Salaries $434,400 Salaries $0

Traveling and Training $19,500 Traveling and Training $26,800 

Operating Expenses $0 Operating Expenses $0 

Logistics $0 Logistics $0

GIS/RS/Electronics support (includes burden) $0 GIS/RS/Electronics support 

(includes burden) $0

Cooperators (non-USGS) $0 Cooperators (non-USGS) $0

USGS cooperators $0 USGS cooperators $0

USGS Burden $63,600 USGS Burden $3,800 

Total $517,500 Total $30,600

SBSC IT Overhead Logistics Base Costs

Salaries $0 Salaries $244,000

Traveling and Training $0 Traveling and Training $14,300 

Operating Expenses $107,500 Operating Expenses $0 

Logistics $0 Logistics $0

GIS/RS/Electronics support (includes burden) $0 GIS/RS/Electronics support 

(includes burden) $0

Cooperators (non-USGS) $0 Cooperators (non-USGS) $0

USGS cooperators $5,000 USGS cooperators $0

USGS Burden $15,000 USGS Burden $36,100 

Total $127,500 Total $294,400

FY 2013 Gross Total: $1,606,000

FY 2014 Gross Total: $1,780,600
272

Project N. 

Incremental Allocations in Support of Quadrennial 

Overflights 

Overflights, during which digital aerial photographs and remotely-sensed data are 

acquired, occur every 4 years as part of the regular monitoring program of the GCDAMP. These 

data are used by most of the projects described in the BWP. $475,000 will be needed to conduct 

the FY13 overflight. Of this amount, $390,000 is carryover from FY12 GCMRC budget and 

$84,000 is funded from the FY13 GCDAMP budget. 
Appendices 

Appendix 2-A summarizes the categories for the FY13 budget. A budget summary for each project element is described. The category 

for “non-USGS cooperators” includes universities, consulting firms, sister agencies of the federal government, and agencies of state 

government. The category for “USGS cooperators” includes various science centers of the USGS located in Arizona, California, and 

Wisconsin. Investigators and their affiliations are described in each project description.

Appendix 2-B summarizes the source of funding for each project element. Project elements for which no funding source has presently 

been identified are listed.

Appendix 2-C lists the total project amount for each project element for FY14 and lists the anticipated source of that funding.

Appendix 2-D lists all schedules river trips

 
274

Appendix 2-A. Fiscal Year 2013 Budget 

Fiscal Year 2013

Project Description Salaries

Travel & 

Training

Operating 

Expenses Logistics

GIS / RS / 

electronics 

support 

(includes 

burden) Contractors

Cooperators 

(non-USGS)

USGS 

Cooperators

USGS 

Burden Total

Total Amount in Category $3,597,400 $177,500 $665,300 $1,002,000 $726,800 $218,600 $1,741,900 $932,500 $817,000 $10,440,600

A

Sandbars and sediment storage 

dynamics 

GIS and image processing costs for 

entire project (includes burden) $180,600 $180,600

A.1. Sandbar and camping beach 

monitoring $103,100 $2,300 $10,600 $22,300 $101,200 $22,400 $261,900

A.2. Sediment storage monitoring $252,900 $2,700 $36,000 $68,200 $168,700 $13,700 $55,400 $597,600

A.3. Investigating eddy sandbar 

variability and the interactions 

among flow, vegetation, and 

geomorphology

$86,800 $1,900 $2,100 $12,700 $103,500

A.4. Quantifying the correlation 

between bed and transport grain size $41,900 $2,100 $1,000 $9,500 $67,500 $18,200 $9,700 $149,800

A.5. Geochemical signatures of predam sediment $6,300 $43,700 $900 $50,900

A.6. Control network and surveying 

support $17,100 $600 $3,200 $28,500 $6,900 $56,300

B Stream flow, water quality, and 

sediment transport $524,000 $50,000 $57,000 $55,000 $502,000 $88,300 $1,276,400

(contingency) HFE gage maintenance 

and measurements $7,600 $42,800 $13,000 $7,000 $70,400

C Lake Powell water quality 

monitoring $179,700 $7,200 $33,800 $30,900 $251,600
275

Project Description Salaries

Travel & 

Training

Operating 

Expenses Logistics

GIS / RS / 

electronics 

support 

(includes 

burden) Contractors

Cooperators 

(non-USGS)

USGS 

Cooperators

USGS 

Burden Total

Total Amount in Category $3,597,400 $177,500 $665,300 $1,002,000 $726,800 $218,600 $1,741,900 $932,500 $817,000 $10,440,600

D

Mainstem humpback chub 

aggregation studies

D.1. Aggregation sampling $21,900 $6,000 $74,800 $80,000 $16,800 $199,500

D.2. Natal origins of humpback chub, 

adult condition, and reproductive 

potential

$42,000 $1,000 $13,500 $100,000 $10,900 $167,400

E Humpback chub early life history in 

and around the Little Colorado River

E.1. July LCR marking $58,600 $8,000 $17,000 $34,100 $11,700 $129,400

E.2. Describing the food web 

structure and the potential for food 

limitation within the Little Colorado 

River

$103,300 $1,900 $15,000 $17,000 $25,000 $75,000 $20,000 $257,200

E.3. Population modeling $63,700 $3,800 $2,000 $10,000 $10,000 $89,500

F

Monitoring of native and nonnative 

fishes in the mainstem Colorado 

River and the lower Little Colorado 

River

F.1. System wide electrofishing $7,800 $1,900 $8,000 $59,600 $22,700 $103,000 $13,900 $216,900

F.2.1 Glen Canyon monitoring $10,200 $3,000 $9,300 $11,400 $132,000 $7,100 $173,000

F.2.2. Rainbow trout early life stage 

studies $26,300 $3,400 $1,300 $14,200 $11,400 $6,300 $62,900

F.2.3. Lees Ferry creel survey $1,900 $25,000 $1,000 $27,900

F.3. Mainstem monitoring of native 

and nonnative fishes near the LCR 

confluence

$49,900 $9,000 $178,100 $11,400 $177,000 $38,600 $464,000

F.4.1. Annual spring and fall 

humpback chub abundance 

estimates in the downstream 13.6 km 

of the Little Colorado River

$15,500 $14,000 $66,600 $11,400 $364,000 $24,400 $495,900
276

Project Description Salaries

Travel & 

Training

Operating 

Expenses Logistics

GIS / RS / 

electronics 

support 

(includes 

burden) Contractors

Cooperators 

(non-USGS)

USGS 

Cooperators

USGS 

Burden Total

Total Amount in Category $3,597,400 $177,500 $665,300 $1,002,000 $726,800 $218,600 $1,741,900 $932,500 $817,000 $10,440,600

F.4.2 Monitoring native and 

nonnative fishes in the downstream 

1.2 km of the Little Colorado River

$7,800 $3,000 $8,600 $11,400 $50,000 $4,200 $85,000

F.4.3 Translocation and monitoring 

above Chute Falls $3,900 $1,000 $37,700 $11,400 $67,000 $8,000 $129,000

F.4.4 PIT tag antenna monitoring $18,000 $5,000 $9,800 $22,700 $40,000 $5,800 $101,300

F.5. Stock assessment and estimation 

of humback chub abundance using 

the age structured mark recapture 

model

$7,700 $11,400 $1,100 $20,200

F.6. Detection of rainbow trout 

movement from Glen Canyon to 

Marble Canyon

$25,100 $50,000 $96,500 $11,400 $67,000 $26,000 $276,000

F.7. Foodbase monitoring $159,900 $3,400 $5,000 $26,700 $11,400 $37,000 $28,400 $271,800

G Interactions between native fish and 

nonnative trout

G.1. Laboratory studies to assess the 

effects of trout predation and 

competition on humpback chub

$62,000 $1,900 $18,000 $11,500 $93,400

G.2. Efficacy and ecological impacts 

of brown trout removal at Bright 

Angel Creek

$77,900 $1,900 $5,000 $74,800 $22,300 $181,900
277

Project Description Salaries

Travel & 

Training

Operating 

Expenses Logistics

GIS / RS / 

electronics 

support 

(includes 

burden) Contractors

Cooperators 

(non-USGS)

USGS 

Cooperators

USGS 

Burden Total

Total Amount in Category $3,597,400 $177,500 $665,300 $1,002,000 $726,800 $218,600 $1,741,900 $932,500 $817,000 $10,440,600

H

Understanding the factors limiting 

the growth of rainbow trout in Glen 

and Marble Canyons 

H.1. Laboratory feeding studies $17,100 $16,000 $4,600 $37,700

H.2.1. Developing a mechanistic 

model of primary productivity $56,500 $4,800 $17,000 $34,100 $11,000 $123,400

H.2.2. Characterizing invertebrate 

drift $59,600 $2,900 $3,500 $45,400 $9,200 $120,600

H.3. Developing a bioenergetics 

model for large rainbow trout $68,900 $2,900 $1,500 $34,100 $20,000 $10,900 $138,300

H.4. Learning from other tailwaters -- 

a synthesis of tailwaters in the 

United States

$112,400 $14,100 $2,000 $18,000 $146,500

H.5. Contingency planning for High 

Flow Experiments and subsequent 

rainbow trout population 

management

$6,600 $14,000 $18,400 $5,500 $44,500

I

Integrated riparian vegetation 

studies 

I.1.Monitor vegetation and channel 

response using response guilds and 

landscape-scale vegetaiton change 

analysis

$133,300 $3,800 $4,000 $43,700 $137,000 $28,000 $26,700 $376,500
278

Project Description Salaries

Travel & 

Training

Operating 

Expenses Logistics

GIS / RS / 

electronics 

support 

(includes 

burden) Contractors

Cooperators 

(non-USGS)

USGS 

Cooperators

USGS 

Burden Total

Total Amount in Category $3,597,400 $177,500 $665,300 $1,002,000 $726,800 $218,600 $1,741,900 $932,500 $817,000 $10,440,600

J

Monitoring of cultural resources at a 

small scale and defining the largescale geomorphic context of those 

J.1. Monitoring the status of cultural 

resources in Glen Canyon National 

Recreation Area

$35,000 $1,900 $5,000 $1,900 $22,500 $50,000 $3,000 $29,200 $13,200 $161,700

J.2. Monitoring strategies for the 

status of cultural resources in Grand 

Canyon National Park

$35,000 $8,000 $5,000 $19,000 $4,800 $5,000 $104,800 $9,500 $191,100

J.3. Large-scale geomorphology of the 

Colorado River valley in Glen, 

Marble, and Grand Canyons

$8,400 $13,200 $3,000 $31,200 $127,900 $3,400 $187,100

K GCMRC economist and support $150,000 $23,700 $25,000 $198,700

L Independent Review 

Independent Reviewers $24,300 $3,400 $27,700

Science Advisors $144,300 $20,200 $164,500

M USGS Administration 

Budget analyst, communications 

support, library, discretionary awards

$253,400

$5,600 $46,900

$71,500 $45,000 $422,400

vehicles $111,400 $15,600 $127,000

leadership personnel $434,400 $19,500 $63,600 $517,500

AMWG/TWG travel $26,800 $3,800 $30,600

SBSC IT overhead $107,500 $5,000 $15,000 $127,500

Logistics base costs $244,000 $14,300 $36,100 $294,400

GIS/RS/electronics base costs $86,600
279

Project Description Salaries

Travel & 

Training

Operating 

Expenses Logistics

GIS / RS / 

electronics 

support 

(includes 

burden) Contractors

Cooperators 

(non-USGS)

USGS 

Cooperators

USGS 

Burden Total

Total Amount in Category $3,597,400 $177,500 $665,300 $1,002,000 $726,800 $218,600 $1,741,900 $932,500 $817,000 $10,440,600

N Quadrennial Overflight 

May 2013 flight $475,000

contribution to 2017 flight

* pending approval by Bureau of 

Reclamation
280

Appendix 2-B. Fiscal Year 2013 Funding Source 

 

Fiscal Year 2013 funding sources

Project Description

GCDAMP 

Funding

GCMRC FY12 

Carryover 

Funding *

Other BOR 

Funding

BOR Funding 

from AMP 

Carryover 

Funds

Total Amount in Category $8,632,700 $826,000 $413,500 $568,400

A

Sandbars and sediment storage 

dynamics 

GIS and image processing costs for 

entire project (includes burden) $180,600

A.1. Sandbar and camping beach 

monitoring $261,900

A.2. Sediment storage monitoring $597,600

A.3. Investigating eddy sandbar 

variability and the interactions 

among flow, vegetation, and 

geomorphology

$103,500

A.4. Quantifying the correlation 

between bed and transport grain size $149,900

A.5. Geochemical signatures of predam sediment $50,900

A.6. Control network and surveying 

support $56,300

B Stream flow, water quality, and 

sediment transport $1,276,400

(contingency) HFE gage maintenance 

and measurements $70,400

C Lake Powell water quality 

monitoring $251,600
281

 

Project Description

GCDAMP 

Funding

GCMRC FY12 

Carryover 

Funding *

Other BOR 

Funding

BOR Funding 

from AMP 

Carryover 

Funds

Total Amount in Category $8,632,700 $826,000 $413,500 $568,400

D

Mainstem humpback chub 

aggregation studies

D.1. Aggregation sampling $199,500

D.2. Natal origins of humpback chub, 

adult condition, and reproductive 

potential

$167,400

E Humpback chub early life history in 

and around the Little Colorado River

E.1. July LCR marking $129,400

E.2. Describing the food web 

structure and the potential for food 

limitation within the Little Colorado 

River

$257,200

E.3. Population modeling $89,500

F

Monitoring of native and nonnative 

fishes in the mainstem Colorado 

River and the lower Little Colorado 

River

F.1. System wide electrofishing $216,900

F.2.1 Glen Canyon monitoring $173,000

F.2.2. Rainbow trout early life stage 

studies $62,900

F.2.3. Lees Ferry creel survey $27,900

F.3. Mainstem monitoring of native 

and nonnative fishes near the LCR 

confluence

$464,000

F.4.1. Annual spring and fall 

humpback chub abundance 

estimates in the downstream 13.6 km 

of the Little Colorado River

$495,900
282

 

Project Description

GCDAMP 

Funding

GCMRC FY12 

Carryover 

Funding *

Other BOR 

Funding

BOR Funding 

from AMP 

Carryover 

Funds

Total Amount in Category $8,632,700 $826,000 $413,500 $568,400

F.4.2 Monitoring native and 

nonnative fishes in the downstream 

1.2 km of the Little Colorado River

$85,000

F.4.3 Translocation and monitoring 

above Chute Falls $129,000

F.4.4 PIT tag antenna monitoring $101,300

F.5. Stock assessment and estimation 

of humback chub abundance using 

the age structured mark recapture 

model

$20,200

F.6. Detection of rainbow trout 

movement from Glen Canyon to 

Marble Canyon

$276,000

F.7. Foodbase monitoring $271,800

G Interactions between native fish and 

nonnative trout

G.1. Laboratory studies to assess the 

effects of trout predation and 

competition on humpback chub

$93,400

G.2. Efficacy and ecological impacts 

of brown trout removal at Bright 

Angel Creek

$181,900
283

 

Project Description

GCDAMP 

Funding

GCMRC FY12 

Carryover 

Funding *

Other BOR 

Funding

BOR Funding 

from AMP 

Carryover 

Funds

Total Amount in Category $8,632,700 $826,000 $413,500 $568,400

H

Understanding the factors limiting 

the growth of rainbow trout in Glen 

and Marble Canyons 

H.1. Laboratory feeding studies $37,700

H.2.1. Developing a mechanistic 

model of primary productivity $123,400

H.2.2. Characterizing invertebrate 

drift $120,600

H.3. Developing a bioenergetics 

model for large rainbow trout $138,300

H.4. Learning from other tailwaters -- 

a synthesis of tailwaters in the 

United States

$146,500

H.5. Contingency planning for High 

Flow Experiments and subsequent 

rainbow trout population 

management

$44,500

I

Integrated riparian vegetation 

studies 

I.1.Monitor vegetation and channel 

response using response guilds and 

landscape-scale vegetaiton change 

analysis

$376,500
284

Project Description

GCDAMP 

Funding

GCMRC FY12 

Carryover 

Funding *

Other BOR 

Funding

BOR Funding 

from AMP 

Carryover 

Funds

Total Amount in Category $8,632,700 $826,000 $413,500 $568,400

J

Monitoring of cultural resources at a 

small scale and defining the largescale geomorphic context of those 

J.1. Monitoring the status of cultural 

resources in Glen Canyon National 

Recreation Area

$161,700

J.2. Monitoring strategies for the 

status of cultural resources in Grand 

Canyon National Park

$191,100

J.3. Large-scale geomorphology of the 

Colorado River valley in Glen, 

Marble, and Grand Canyons

$25,200 $161,900

K GCMRC economist and support $198,700

L Independent Review 

Independent Reviewers $27,700

Science Advisors $164,500

M USGS Administration 

Budget analyst, communications 

support, library, discretionary awards $422,400

vehicles $127,000

leadership personnel $517,500

AMWG/TWG travel $30,600

SBSC IT overhead $127,500

Logistics base costs $294,400

GIS/RS/electronics base costs $86,600
285

Project Description

GCDAMP 

Funding

GCMRC FY12 

Carryover 

Funding *

Other BOR 

Funding

BOR Funding 

from AMP 

Carryover 

Funds

Total Amount in Category $8,632,700 $826,000 $413,500 $568,400

N Quadrennial Overflight 

May 2013 flight $85,000 $390,000

contribution to 2017 flight

* pending approval by Bureau of 

Reclamation
286

Appendix 2-C. Fiscal Year 2014 Funding Source 

Fiscal Year 2014 funding sources

Project Description total request

GCDAMP 

Funding

Other BOR 

funding

BOR Funding 

from AMP 

Carryover Funds

GCMRC FY12 

Carryover 

Funding *

Total Amount in Category $10,518,400 $8,914,900 $421,000 $573,100 $609,400

A

Sandbars and sediment storage 

dynamics 

GIS and image processing costs for 

entire project (includes burden) $189,600 $189,600

A.1. Sandbar and camping beach 

monitoring $270,400 $270,400

A.2. Sediment storage monitoring $618,100 $618,100

A.3. Investigating eddy sandbar 

variability and the interactions 

among flow, vegetation, and 

geomorphology

$108,500 $108,500

A.4. Quantifying the correlation 

between bed and transport grain size $212,100 $212,100

A.5. Geochemical signatures of predam sediment $54,800 $54,800

A.6. Control network and surveying 

support $57,300 $57,300

B Stream flow, water quality, and 

sediment transport $1,314,700 $1,314,700

(contingency) HFE gage maintenance 

and measurements

C Lake Powell water quality 

monitoring $259,100 $259,100
287

Project Description total request

GCDAMP 

Funding

Other BOR 

funding

BOR Funding 

from AMP 

Carryover Funds

GCMRC FY12 

Carryover 

Funding *

Total Amount in Category $10,518,400 $8,914,900 $421,000 $573,100 $609,400

D

Mainstem humpback chub 

aggregation studies

D.1. Aggregation sampling $205,900 $205,900

D.2. Natal origins of humpback chub, 

adult condition, and reproductive 

potential

$155,200 $155,200

E Humpback chub early life history in 

and around the Little Colorado River

E.1. July LCR marking $127,100 $127,100

E.2. Describing the food web 

structure and the potential for food 

limitation within the Little Colorado 

River

$267,500 $267,500

E.3. Population modeling $92,400 $92,400

F

Monitoring of native and nonnative 

fishes in the mainstem Colorado 

River and the lower Little Colorado 

River

F.1. System wide electrofishing $223,900 $223,900

F.2.1 Glen Canyon monitoring $178,200 $178,200

F.2.2. Rainbow trout early life stage 

studies $65,000 $65,000

F.2.3. Lees Ferry creel survey $28,900 $28,900

F.3. Mainstem monitoring of native 

and nonnative fishes near the LCR 

confluence

$479,100 $479,100

F.4.1. Annual spring and fall 

humpback chub abundance 

estimates in the downstream 13.6 km 

of the Little Colorado River

$511,200 $511,200
288

Project Description total request

GCDAMP 

Funding

Other BOR 

funding

BOR Funding 

from AMP 

Carryover Funds

GCMRC FY12 

Carryover 

Funding *

Total Amount in Category $10,518,400 $8,914,900 $421,000 $573,100 $609,400

F.4.2 Monitoring native and 

nonnative fishes in the downstream 

1.2 km of the Little Colorado River

$87,600 $87,600

F.4.3 Translocation and monitoring 

above Chute Falls $133,100 $133,100

F.4.4 PIT tag antenna monitoring $62,000 $62,000

F.5. Stock assessment and estimation 

of humback chub abundance using 

the age structured mark recapture 

model

$20,800 $20,800

F.6. Detection of rainbow trout 

movement from Glen Canyon to 

Marble Canyon

$285,100 $285,100

F.7. Foodbase monitoring $280,100 $280,100

G Interactions between native fish and 

nonnative trout

G.1. Laboratory studies to assess the 

effects of trout predation and 

competition on humpback chub

$100,800 $100,800

G.2. Efficacy and ecological impacts 

of brown trout removal at Bright 

Angel Creek

$192,700 $192,700
289

Project Description total request

GCDAMP 

Funding

Other BOR 

funding

BOR Funding 

from AMP 

Carryover Funds

GCMRC FY12 

Carryover 

Funding *

Total Amount in Category $10,518,400 $8,914,900 $421,000 $573,100 $609,400

H

Understanding the factors limiting 

the growth of rainbow trout in Glen 

and Marble Canyons 

H.1. Laboratory feeding studies $38,900 $38,900

H.2.1. Developing a mechanistic 

model of primary productivity $126,900 $126,900

H.2.2. Characterizing invertebrate 

drift $124,200 $124,200

H.3. Developing a bioenergetics 

model for large rainbow trout $142,200 $142,200

H.4. Learning from other tailwaters -- 

a synthesis of tailwaters in the 

United States

$151,300 $151,300

H.5. Contingency planning for High 

Flow Experiments and subsequent 

rainbow trout population 

management

$54,800 $54,800

I

Integrated riparian vegetation 

studies 

I.1.Monitor vegetation and channel 

response using response guilds and 

landscape-scale vegetaiton change 

analysis

$359,300 $359,300
290

 

 

Project Description total request

GCDAMP 

Funding

Other BOR 

funding

BOR Funding 

from AMP 

Carryover Funds

GCMRC FY12 

Carryover 

Funding *

Total Amount in Category $10,518,400 $8,914,900 $421,000 $573,100 $609,400

J

Monitoring of cultural resources at a 

small scale and defining the largescale geomorphic context of those 

J.1. Monitoring the status of cultural 

resources in Glen Canyon National 

Recreation Area

$179,900 $179,900

J.2. Monitoring strategies for the 

status of cultural resources in Grand 

Canyon National Park

$179,600 $179,600

J.3. Large-scale geomorphology of the 

Colorado River valley in Glen, 

Marble, and Grand Canyons

$196,900 $35,000 $161,900

K GCMRC economist and support $204,700 $204,700

L Independent Review 

Independent Reviewers $28,500 $28,500

Science Advisors $169,400 $169,400

M USGS Administration 

Budget analyst, communications 

support, library, discretionary awards $432,800

$432,800

vehicles $130,800 $130,800

leadership personnel $715,800 $715,800

AMWG/TWG travel $31,500 $31,500

SBSC IT overhead $131,300 $131,300

Logistics base costs $304,400 $304,400

GIS/RS/electronics base costs $34,000 $34,000
291

 

Project Description total request

GCDAMP 

Funding

Other BOR 

funding

BOR Funding 

from AMP 

Carryover Funds

GCMRC FY12 

Carryover 

Funding *

Total Amount in Category $10,518,400 $8,914,900 $421,000 $573,100 $609,400

N Quadrennial Overflight 

May 2013 flight

contribution to 2017 flight $200,000 $200,000

* pending approval by Bureau of 

Reclamation
292

Appendix 2-D Logistics of River Trips 

Logistics Budget general logistics description logistics type annual # trips trip months boats #people #days

$ 27,200.00 one river trip anually to survey established 

longterm set of monitoring sites. Non 

motorized trip consisting of 6-18' row 

boats occurs in October

river trip

1 October 6 row 12 18

$ 74,300.00 one river trip anually, motor supported trip 

occurs April/May to map channel in 

rotating reaches of river. In 2013,RM 0-30 

will be surveyed.

river trip

1 May

2 support, 2-22' 

technical (multibeam and "eyeball"), 1-16' 

technical (single 

beam), 1-16' 

technical 20 19

one river trip, motor supported trip to 

launch at Diamond Creek to survey river 

channel between Diamond Creek and 

Pierce Ferry

river trip (Diamond 

Creek launch)

1 Feb/March

1 support, 1-16' 

technical 

(singlebeam) 8 5

$ 36,900.00 sampling at existing gages on scheduled 

river trips or accesible gages (Diamond 

creek), on bi-monthly basis beginning on 

SSM trip in April/May

Diamond Creek 

access 6 (initial 

sampling occurs 

on May SSM trip 

and continues 

on Diamond 

Creek access 

trips bi-monthly

May, July, 

September, 

November, 

January, March 1-22' (multibeam 6 4

$ 5,700.00 support included on existing trips, external 

helicopter support including 2013 

overflight support??

rim support, utilize 

scheduled river trips 
293

Logistics Budget general logistics description logistics type annual # trips trip months boats #people #days

$ 21,900.00 food packs provided for quarterly Lake 

Powell monitorng trips, 4-6 people, 7 days, 

includes limited boat/motor maintence 

support

Lake Powell trip

4

$ 100,000.00 two river trips anually, to support 

monitoring focused on identified HBC 

aggregations

river trip

2 July, September

2-support, 2-16' 

technical 10 18

$ 10,000.00 helicopter support for 3 LCR camps to 

monitor LCR HBC populations

helicopter support

1 July 6 (2/camp) 5

$ 55,000.00 two river trips anually, to electrofish 

sample entire river corridor, 

river trip

2 April, May

2-support, 2-16' 

technical 10 14

$ 42,000.00 3 Glen Canyon trips to monitor RBT 

population, includes additional day on July 

trip for non-native fish detection

Glen Canyon

3

April, July, 

October 2-16' technical 4

4days, 

July trip 5 

days
294

Logistics Budget general logistics description logistics type annual # trips trip months boats #people #days

$ 15,000.00 8 winter/spring one day trips to survey 

Glen Canyon reach for RBT redds, and 4 

sampling trips utilizing electrofishing and 

backpack shocking to monitor RBT early 

life stage

Glen Canyon

8 Redd, 4 

RTLESS

Redd: Dec, Jan, 

Feb, March, April 

RTELSS: July, Aug, 

Sept, Nov

Cofelt, 2-16' 

technical 2

Redd: one 

day trips, 

RTELSS: 2-

16' 

technical

$ 147,000.00 4 river trips anually to monitor Juvenile 

HBC survival in LCR confluence reach. 

(Logistics are combined with project F.3.)

river trip

4

May, July, 

September, 

January

2-support, 1-22' 

processing boat 

3-16' technical 18

14 (total 

trip length 

is 20 days)

$ 86,000.00 helicopter support for 3 LCR camps, 

April/May and September/October, 9 

people, 11 days per trip

helicopter support

4

April, May, 

September, 

October 9 11

$ 12,000.00 helicopter support, Boulders camp, 2 

people 30 days

helicopter support

1 April/May 2 30-40

$ 37,000.00 3 helicopter supported trips for HBC 

mark/recap and translocation/capture

helicopter support

3 April/May, July

$ 6,000.00 maintence of remote PIT tag array as 

needed

helicopter support

1 2 4

$ 87,000.00 Logistics are combined wit project F.3 

(first six days of river trip) to electrofish 

sample for tagged RBT between Glen 

Canyon Dam and LCR confluence.

river trip

4

May, July, 

September, 

January

2-support, 1-22' 

Processing boat 

3-16' technical 18 18

november Glen Canyon marking trip Glen Canyon

1 November

1-support, 1-22' 

processing boat, 

2-16' technical, 

cofelt 10 9

$ 20,000.00 included in F.3./F.6. plus Lees Ferry and 

Diamond Creek monitoring

river trip, Glen 

Canyon, Diamond 

Creek,Citizen 

science
295

Logistics Budget general logistics description logistics type annual # trips trip months boats #people #days

$ 89,000.00 new project to colaborate with NPS to 

remove Brown trout in Bright Angel Creek 

confluence. Logistics could be coupled 

with F.3/F.6 project run-out.

river trip/Phantom 

Ranch base camp? 

2 May, September

1-support, 2-16' 

technical 8 18

$ 1,200.00 Glen Canyon/Diamond Creek

2

$ 1,200.00 Glen Canyon/Diamond Creek (included in 

NO/JCM trips) 2

$ 23,000.00 1 additional RBT marking trip in Glen 

Canyon post HFE

Glen Canyon

2 Dec

1-support, 1-22' 

processing boat, 

2-16' technical, 

cofelt 10 9

$ 30,000.00 one river trip to monitor riparian 

vegetation

river trip

1 September 4 row 14 16

$ 6,000.00 this project is currently unfunded Glen Canyon

$ 2,000.00 panel deployment for overflight Glen Canyon

1 Nov/Dec cofelt 2 4

$ 19,000.00 one river trip to monitor designated sites 

and maintain weather stations, additional 

logistics for weater station maintenace 

will be covered on existing scheduled trips 

(GCY, FCS, NO/JCM)

river trip

1 May 1-support, 1-22' 10 13

$ 1,014,400.00