United States Department of the Interior 

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

SOUTHWEST BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE CENTER

GRAND CANYON MONITORING AND RESEARCH CENTER

2255 NORTH GEMINI DRIVE, MS-9394 

FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA 86001

928 556-7094 Telephone

928 556-7092 Fax

October 9, 2008 

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

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

Subject: Updates to GCMRC’s Strategic Science Plan and Monitoring and Research Plan 

In May 2008, the Adaptive Management Work Group (AMWG) passed a motion that directed the 

Technical Work Group (TWG) to work with Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC) 

to update GCMRC’s Monitoring and Research Plan (MRP) to reflect new program direction associated 

with the “Final Environmental Assessment: Experimental Releases from Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona, 

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

Glen Canyon Dam” dated February 27, 2008, and recommend MRP revisions for review/approval at the 

fall/winter 2008 AMWG meeting. I also made similar updates to the GCMRC’s Strategic Science Plan 

(SSP) which provides the foundation for the MRP. 

Attached for your review are the SSP and MRP with updates related to the new direction provided in the 

Environmental Assessment (EA) and Biological Opinion (BO), noted above. In addition, the plans were 

updated to address: 

• New developments related to tribal monitoring efforts, 

• Updated direction and schedules consistent with the approved FY2008 and FY2009 Annual Work 

Plans, 

• A de-emphasis on Temperature Control Device planning and evaluation, which was not included 

as an element of the approved experimental program for the next 5 years. 

Also note that the dates of the SSP and MRP now cover FY2009 through FY2012 to correspond to the 5-

year experimental program outlined in the EA and BO. 

To facilitate your review, sections that were revised substantially are highlighted in yellow. 

An hour has been set aside on the TWG agenda to discuss this SSP and MRP update. In addition, we 

would welcome written comments from the TWG until October 31, 2008, using the standard TWG 

comment-response form. Comments should focus on sections of the MRP and SSP that underwent 

substantial revision. 

Attachments (2) 

Major changes to the MRP and SSP 
Developed in cooperation with the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive 

Management Program 

Strategic Science Plan to Support the 

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management 

Program, Fiscal Years 2009–12 

Prepared by the USGS Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center 

TWG Review Draft⎯October 2008 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Geological Survey 
 ii

U.S. Department of the Interior 

DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Mark D. Myers, Director 

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia 2007 

For product and ordering information: 

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

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS 

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

Earth, 

its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment: 

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

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS 

Suggested citation: 

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

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program: Flagstaff, Ariz., U.S. 

Geological Survey, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center, 149 p. 

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

and does not imply 

endorsement by the U.S. Government. 

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured 

from the individual 

copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted material contained within this 

report. 
 1

Preface 

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

Program, Fiscal Years 2009–12” is one element of an overall science-planning 

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

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

Management Program. We designed the plan to be responsive to the goals and the 

priority information needs identified by the Adaptive Management Work Group The 

Adaptive Management Work Group is a Federal Advisory Committee that makes 

recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior on the operation of Glen Canyon 

Dam and other management actions intended to meet the U.S. Department of the 

Interior’s obligations under the Grand Canyon Protection Act. The strategies 

presented here will be used to guide the development and implementation of 

monitoring and research activities for fiscal years (FY) 2009–12. 

Copies of this plan are available at 

http://www.gcmrc.gov/. 

Introduction and Background 

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

(USGS) Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC) to provide credible, objective scientific 

information to the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP) during the next 4 years. The 

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

area known as the Colorado River ecosystem (CRE). The GCMRC’s mission is to develop scientific 

information regarding (1) the effects of the operation of Glen Canyon Dam and other factors on CRE 

resources, using an ecosystem approach, and (2) flow and nonflow measures to mitigate adverse effects on 

CRE resources caused by dam operations. This SSP will be carried out by the GCMRC in cooperation with 

participants of the GCDAMP. 

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

Protection Act of 1992, the 1995 Operation of Glen Canyon Dam Final Environmental Impact Statement, and 

the 1996 Record of Decision. Adaptive management—the dynamic interplay of stakeholder collaboration, 

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

environmental problems related to the operation of Glen Canyon Dam. The GCDAMP consists of five 

components (fig. 1): 

1. The Adaptive Management Work Group (AMWG) is a Federal Advisory Committee that facilitates the 

implementation of the GCDAMP. The AMWG is made up of 25 stakeholders and the Secretary of the 

Interior’s Designee. The AMWG makes recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior on how dam 

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

Interior’s obligations under the Grand Canyon Protection Act. 

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

the AMWG and the Secretary of the Interior. 

3. The Technical Work Group (TWG) translates AMWG policies and goals into information needs, 

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

conveys research results to AMWG members. 

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

information on the effects of Glen Canyon Dam and related factors on natural, cultural, and recreational 

resources along the Colorado River from Glen Canyon Dam to Lake Mead (see table 1 for GCMRC 

responsibilities). 
5. Independent review panels assess proposals and research products to ensure scientific objectivity and 

credibility. The science advisors, a formal group of academic experts in fields germane to the 

GCDAMP, are an example of an independent review panel. 

Figure 1. Major components of the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program

Adaptive Management 

The GCDAMP is based on an adaptive environmental assessment and management (AEAM) 

approach to natural resources management (Holling, 1978; Walters, 1986), now commonly called “adaptive 

management.” The approach assumes that managed natural resources will always change, that scientific 

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

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

the information needs of resource managers. It encourages scientists and managers to work collaboratively 

to use scientific information in the management process. 

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

involves investigating how ecological systems work and possible alternative actions that managers can implement to 

achieve desired goals. Adaptive management involves learning by doing and testing, which may include monitoring 

system responses to natural changes (passive adaptive management) or deliberate manipulation of key 

processes (active adaptive management). 

Adaptive management acknowledges that policies must satisfy social objectives, but policies also 

need to adapt to both changes in understanding and changes in managed systems. Managers using an 

AEAM approach learn how a natural system works and how their actions affect the system; this 

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

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

activities: 

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

 2. Formulation of questions as testable hypotheses regarding the expected responses or linkages of the Colorado River 

 ecosystem to dam operations and management actions 

 3. Execution of experiments to test hypotheses and answer questions 

 4. Implementation of management actions to reveal the accuracy or completeness of earlier predictions through monitoring and 

 evaluation of results 

 5. Incorporation of new information produced through experimentation into management discussions and recommendations to 

 the Secretary of the Interior 

Table 1. Roles and responsibilities of the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center 

(GCMRC)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

1. Advocate quality, objective science and the use of that science in the adaptive management decision process 

 2
 3

2. Provide scientific information for all resources of concern identified in the Operation of Glen Canyon Dam Final Environmental 

Impact Statement 

3. Support the Secretary of the Interior’s Designee and the Adaptive Management Work Group (AMWG) in a technical advisory role 

4. Develop research designs and proposals for implementing monitoring and research activities in support of information needs 

identified by the AMWG 

5. Coordinate review of monitoring and research activities with independent review panels 

6. Coordinate, prepare, and distribute technical reports and documentation for review and publication as final products 

7. Provide regular reports to the AMWG and Technical Work Group (TWG) on new scientific findings and their application to the Glen 

Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP); prepare and forward technical management recommendations and 

annual reports to the TWG 

8. Manage all data collected as part of the GCDAMP and serve as a repository for data and information about the effects of Glen

Canyon Dam operations and other related factors on the downstream resources of the Colorado River ecosystem 

9. Administer research proposals through a competitive contract process, as appropriate 

10. Manage GCMRC finances and personnel efficiently and effectively

Science Planning Process 

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

responsive to AMWG goals and priority needs. The AMWG specified 12 goals that provide general guidance 

for planning, monitoring, and research efforts (table 2). In August 2004, the AMWG reviewed these goals and 

identified four priority questions to help further guide the GCDAMP science program: 

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

 they doing? 

2. Which cultural resources, including traditional cultural properties, are within the area of potential effect, which should we treat, 

 and how do we best protect them? What is the status and trends of cultural resources and what are the agents of deterioration? 

3. What is the best flow regime? 

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

 The GCMRC will use these four priority questions as the primary, but not exclusive, basis for designing the science program 

to be implemented during the next 4 years. Other sources of information that will be considered include the following: 

• AMWG management objectives and associated information needs, including core monitoring information 

needs; 

• Protocol evaluation panel recommendations; 

• Knowledge assessment report findings and recommendations; 

• National Historic Preservation Act requirements; and 

• NEPA documents and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biological opinion requirements related to the operation of 

Glen Canyon Dam. For example, the Environmental Assessment: Experimental Releases from Glen Canyon 

Dam, Arizona, 2008 through 2012 dated February 29, 2008, and its related Endangered Species Act Biological 

Opinion will be used to provide direction for several research, monitoring, and experimental activities that will be 

carried out in FY2008–12, including a March 2008 High Flow Experiment, a 5-year September-October Steady 

Flow Experiment, a humpback chub nearshore ecology study, and nonnative fish control efforts. 

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

addressed by the science program, GCMRC will, as a general rule, propose at least one science activity for 

each GCDAMP goal (table 2) in its work plan. 

Science Planning Documents 

 The GCMRC will design and implement the GCDAMP science program in cooperation with GCDAMP 

stakeholders. Interaction between the GCMRC and GCDAMP participants shall occur primarily through the 

development and revision of four interrelated planning documents: 

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

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

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

2. The GCMRC SSP (this document) identifies general strategies for the next 5 years to provide science information 

responsive to the goals, management objectives, and priority questions as described in the AMPSP and other planning 

direction approved by the AMWG. 
 4

3. The GCMRC monitoring and research plan (MRP) identifies the goal, objective, and scope of specific(1) core monitoring 

activities, (2) research and development activities, and (3) long-term experimental activities consistent with the strategies and 

priorities established in this SSP 

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

planned for a 2-year period. When completed, the biennial work plan will be consistent with the MRP. A transitional annual 

work plan (AWP) was developed for FY2009. The first BWP is planned for FY2010. 

Figure 2 depicts the flow of information in the science planning and implementation process. The GCMRC 

will report annually on completed projects presented in the biennial work plan and evaluate whether scientific 

research has contributed to fulfilling GCDAMP goals and management objectives. At 5-year intervals, the 

GCMRC will consolidate new scientific knowledge in updated versions of “The State of the Colorado River 

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

and others, 2006), and elsewhere, as appropriate. Priority information needs and science questions will be 

evaluated by scientists and managers to determine whether program revisions are needed. Planning documents, 

including the SSP and the MRP, will be revised to reflect program updates. 

GCMRC science planning will be most effective if it is conducted in conjunction with a periodic review of 

the GCDAMP strategic plan, including priority management goals, objectives, information needs, and 

management actions or treatments. Completing concurrent reviews is essential to ensure that the science 

program is properly aligned with current management objectives and priorities. 

Table 2. Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP) goals as identified in the 

draft strategic plan. 

1. Protect or improve the aquatic food base so that it will support viable populations of desired species at higher trophic levels 

2. Maintain or attain viable populations of existing native fish, remove jeopardy from humpback chub and razorback sucker, and 

prevent adverse modification to their critical habitats 

3. Restore populations of extirpated species, as feasible and advisable 

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 

5. Maintain or attain viable populations of Kanab ambersnail 

6. Protect or improve the biotic riparian and spring communities, including threatened and endangered species and their critical 

habitat 

7. Establish water temperature, quality, and flow dynamics to achieve the GCDAMP ecosystem goals 

8. Maintain or attain levels of sediment storage within the main channel and along shorelines to achieve the GCDAMP ecosystem 

goals 

9. Maintain or improve the quality of recreational experiences for users of the Colorado River ecosystem, within the framework of the 

GCDAMP ecosystem goals 

10. Maintain power production capacity and energy generation, and increase where feasible and advisable, within the framework of the 

GCDAMP ecosystem goals 

11. Preserve, protect, manage, and treat cultural resources for the inspiration and benefit of past, present, and future generations 

12. Maintain a high-quality monitoring, research, and adaptive management program

Science Strategies 

This SSP is based on the adaptive management paradigm discussed above wherein new science 

information is continually cycled into application by managers, and outcomes are monitored by scientists and 

managers for effectiveness. This process requires highly focused applied science projects that address 

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

science strategy will emphasize four elements: 

• Performing interdisciplinary, integrated river science 

• Building bridges between science and management 

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

• Addressing critical research and monitoring needs outside the scope of the GCDAMP 
Interdisciplinary, Integrated River Science 

 The GCMRC will increase its emphasis on an interdisciplinary, integrated science approach over the next 5 

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

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

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

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

outside forces, and internal natural ecosystem drivers (e.g., floods, drought, plankton blooms, etc.). 

Understanding will come through core monitoring, research and development, and long-term experimental 

activities. Prediction will be developed from a synthesis of findings in a quantitative modeling framework. 

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

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

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

Canyon Model that resulted proved to be useful at identifying knowledge gaps and predicting the response 

of some ecosystem components to policy change. However, a lack of data for some resource responses 

limited the effectiveness of the model to produce predictions in several key areas, including long-term sediment 

storage, fisheries responses to habitat restoration, and socioeconomic effects. Several improvements to the 

model have been suggested to increase its utility in science planning and management processes. 

Suggested improvements include making the model more user-friendly, ensuring that the model provides 

information that is relevant to each high-priority AMWG goal and question, and incorporating advanced 

statistical and mathematical methods. 

 The GCMRC will continue to work with the science advisors to identify and evaluate strategies for 

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

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

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

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

program for the GCDAMP; and implementation costs. 

 SSP 

 MRP 

 AWP 

Annual 

Work 

Activities 

Annual/Final 

Reports 

Annual 

Review 

5-year Analysis 

• SCORE Report 

• KA Report 

 AMPSP 

5-Year 

Analysis and 

Report 

Ann

An

Rep

ual 

alysis & 

ort 

Annual 

Analysis & 

Report 

Other Plans: 

• HBC Comp Plan 

• NPS CRMP 

• Colorado River AOP 

• NEPA documents and 

Biological Opinions. 

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

Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program and the Department of the Interior have 

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

Research Center has lead responsibility for the boxes that are not shaded.

 5
 6

Building Bridges between Science and Management 

The GCMRC’s ability to design studies that will produce relevant scientific information depends on how 

well the GCDAMP participants define and agree on resource goals, management objectives, and desired 

outcomes. To be successful, GCMRC scientists and GCDAMP participants must work together as partners—

partners with distinct but complementary roles. These individual roles and responsibilities are outlined in table 3. 

A more complete discussion of roles and responsibilities of various GCDAMP entities and the GCMRC are 

presented in the report of the Roles Ad Hoc Group of the GCDAMP (2006). 

Table 3. The complementary lead roles of the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center 

(GCMRC) and the participants and resource managers of the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive 

Management Program (GCDAMP).

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Lead Roles of the GCMRC Lead Roles of GCDAMP

Develop and revise the GCMRC Strategic Science Plan, Monitoring and 

Research Plan, and Biennial Work Plan 

Develop, revise, and finalize the GCDAMP Strategic Plan, which 

specifies program goals, information needs, priorities, and management 

objectives 

Develop and update knowledge assessment and The State of the 

Colorado River Ecosystem in Grand Canyon (SCORE) reports 

 

Develop and revise operations protocols to improve the effectiveness of 

the GCDAMP 

Advise the Technical Work Group and Adaptive Management Work 

Group on technical program needs, experimental options, and 

management treatments 

Review and comment on proposed science activities and budgets; 

provide recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior 

Develop research designs, proposals, and treatment options; implement 

and manage the science program 

Provide clear and timely management direction 

Evaluate the scientific basis of proposed management actions and 

treatment programs 

Identify and implement management actions and treatments programs

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

information that is relevant to management needs but also upon the effective and timely use of that information 

by managers in the decisionmaking process. The challenge for scientists is to synthesize large amounts of 

diverse and often highly technical data into a form that is relevant to a decision that has implications for multiple 

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

Glen Canyon Dam. Over the past decade, there have been great advances in the development and application 

of a suite of decision-support tools to assist scientists and managers in understanding the interrelationships, data 

uncertainty, and relative influence of scientific knowledge on resource management decisions. 

The GCMRC proposes a collaborative strategy among scientists and GCDAMP participants to assess how to 

better integrate scientific information into the GCDAMP process. The assessment will address (1) the feasibility 

of using decision-support tools to integrate scientific information into science planning and AMP 

recommendation processes, including resource tradeoff assessments, and (2) strategies to address the valuebased conflicts of diverse interests in the GCDAMP. Pilot approaches will be tested during the FY2009–12 

program period. 

Addressing Priority Goals and Questions 

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

evaluate treatments or management actions (e.g., changes in dam operation, nonnative fish control, 

beach/habitat-building flows, etc.) to restore or protect downstream resources. The science program will 

address AMWG priority questions and key strategic science questions, presented in the following section, that 

were identified through a series of knowledge assessment workshops (Melis and others, 2006). Providing 

answers to these key questions will provide the information needed to reduce the uncertainties associated with 

various flow and nonflow treatments or management actions and improve management of priority CRE 

resources. 

The strategic science questions will be addressed through the following general categories of activities: 

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

trend of priority GCDAMP resources (humpback chub, sediment, food base, etc.). 

2. Research and development activities include research projects aimed at (1) addressing hypotheses or information needs related to 

priority GCDAMP resources or (2) developing and testing new technologies or monitoring procedures. 
 7

3. Long-term experimental activities include a suite of flow and non-flow treatments and/or management actions (1) to improve the 

condition of target resources (humpback chub, cultural sites, sediment, etc.) and (2) to understand the relationship between 

treatments and management actions and target resources. 

 Specific activities within each of the categories will be defined based on the knowledge assessment report, core 

monitoring information needs, research information needs, NEPA and ESA compliance requirements, and other relevant 

information. The MRP and BWP will identify each activity’s objectives, methods, outcomes, and costs by fiscal year. An 

interdisciplinary, integrated science approach as described above will be used, where appropriate. 

The GCMRC will coordinate its research activities with other institutions conducting research in the 

CRE to ensure a cost-effective ecosystem approach. All GCMRC work plans and reports will be subjected to 

independent peer review consistent with the USGS Fundamental Science Practices, a set of guidelines and 

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

planned research or scientific work by panels of independent scientists. 

AMWG Priority Questions and Related Strategic Science Questions 

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

guidance for planning, monitoring, and research efforts (table 2). The strategic science questions that appear 

below each of the five AMWG priorities were identified through two knowledge assessment workshops and 

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

science question indicate the time anticipated to complete monitoring and research activities required to 

address the question. 

AMWG Priority 1: Why are the humpback chub not thriving, and what can we do about 

it? How many humpback chub are there and how are they doing? 

Key Strategic Science Questions 

1. To what extent are adult populations of native fish controlled by production of young fish from tributaries, 

spawning and incubation in the mainstem, survival of young-of-year (YoY) and juvenile stages in the 

mainstem, or by changes in growth and maturation in the adult population as influenced by mainstem 

conditions? [FY2006–12] 

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

Marble and eastern Grand Canyons result in an improvement in the recruitment rate of juvenile humpback 

chub to the adult population? [FY2006–12] 

3. Can long-term decreases in the abundance of rainbow trout in Marble and eastern Grand Canyons be 

sustained with a reduced level of effort of mechanical removal or will recolonization from tributaries and 

from downstream and upstream of the removal reach require that mechanical removal be an ongoing 

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

species. [FY2007–12] 

4. 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? [FY2006–10] 

5. Are trends in the abundance of fish populations, or indicators from fish such as growth, condition, and body 

composition (e.g., lipids), correlated with patterns in invertebrate flux? [FY2006–10] 

6. Which tributary and mainstem habitats are most important to native fishes and how can these habitats best 

be made usable and maintained? [FY2008–12] 

7. How can native and nonnative fishes best be monitored while minimizing impacts from capture and 

handling or sampling? [FY2007–12] 

AMWG Priority 2: Which cultural resources, including traditional cultural 

properties (TCP), are within the area of potential effect, which should we treat, 

and how do we best protect them? What is the status and trends of cultural resources 

and what are the agents of deterioration? 

Key Strategic Science Questions 

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

archaeological sites and TCP sites, and if so, how? [FY2007–12] 
 8

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

occur), and what kinds of important information about the historical ecology and human history of the CRE 

are being lost due to ongoing erosion of the Holocene sedimentary deposits? [FY2004–11] 

3. If dam-controlled flows are contributing to (influencing rates of) archaeological site/TCP erosion, what are 

the optimal flows for minimizing future impacts to historic properties? [FY2009–12] 

4. How effective are various treatments (e.g., check dams, vegetation management, etc.) in slowing rates 

of erosion at archaeological sites over the long term? [FY2006–11] 

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

6. How can tribal values/data/analyses be appropriately incorporated into a science-driven adaptive 

management process in order to evaluate the effects of flow operations and management actions on 

TCPs? [FY2006–08] 

7. Are dam-controlled flows affecting TCPs and other tribally valued resources in the CRE, and, if so, in what 

respects are they being affected, and are those effects considered positive or negative by the tribes who 

value these resources? [FY2006–11] 

AMWG Priority 3: What is the best flow regime? 

Key Strategic Science Questions 

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

BHBFs, without sediment augmentation) that will restore and maintain sandbar habitats over decadal time 

scales? [FY2008–11] 

2. To what extent could predation impacts by nonnative fish be mitigated by higher turbidity or dam-controlled 

high-flow releases? [FY2007–08] 

3. What are the hydropower replacement costs of the modified low fluctuating flow (annually, since 1996)? 

[FY2007–08] 

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

discussed for future experimental science (as defined in the next phase experimental design)? [FY2006–

07] 

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

dam operations? [FY2006–09] 

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

opportunities and catchability? [FY2007–08] 

7. How do dam-controlled flows affect visitors’ recreational experiences, and what is/are the optimal flows for 

maintaining a high-quality recreational experience in the CRE? [FY2007–08] 

8. What are the drivers for recreational experiences in the CRE, and how important are flows relative to other 

drivers in shaping recreational experience outcomes? [FY2007–09] 

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

experience? [FY2009–11] 

10. How can safety and navigability be reliably measured relative to flows? [FY2007–08] 

11. How do varying flows positively or negatively affect visitor safety, health, and navigability of the rapids? 

[FY2007–09] 

12. How do varying flows regimes positively or negatively affect group encounter rates, campsite competition, 

and other social parameters that are known to be important variables of visitor experience? [FY2007–09] 

AMWG Priority 4: What is the impact of sediment loss and what should we do about 

it? 

Key Strategic Science Questions 

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

BHBFs, without sediment augmentation) that will restore and maintain sandbar habitats over decadal 

timescales? [FY2008–11] 

2. How important are backwaters and vegetated shoreline habitats to the overall growth and survival of YoY 

and juvenile native fish? Does the long-term benefit of increasing these habitats outweigh short-term 

potential costs (displacement and possibly mortality of young humpback chub) associated with high flows? 

[FY2007–11] 
 9

 (NOTE: The SSQ was omitted because a TCD is a component of the experimental program) 

Other Critical Research and Monitoring Needs 

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

mission and goals. The GCMRC is currently constrained from using GCDAMP funds to evaluate some potentially 

significant external threats to CRE resources. For example, the largest aggregation of humpback chub in the 

CRE is dependent on the quality of water leaving the Little Colorado River. However, Little Colorado River water 

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

River. No science activity currently exists to identify changes in Little Colorado River water quality and quantity 

resulting from upstream diversions, pollution, or catastrophic hazardous material spills. 

The primary determinant of water quality in the CRE is the quality of the water released from Lake Powell. 

While extensive physical and biological data on Lake Powell water quality have been collected for more than two 

decades, the data have not been synthesized, extensively analyzed, or modeled. A synthesis of historical Lake 

Powell data is needed to identify trends in water quality and their relationship to dam operations, basin hydrology, 

and climate variability. These assessments could significantly advance knowledge of potential future water 

quality in Lake Powell and the appropriate design for the proposed temperature control device. 

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

attainment of GCDAMP goals are addressed. To this end, the GCMRC proposes to (1) work closely with the 

AMWG and the Department of the Interior to develop an endangered fish recovery program for the lower basin 

(Grand Canyon), (2) evaluate and report on the key external issues identified above that could affect attainment 

of GCDAMP goals, and (3) work with GCDAMP participants and others to secure funding for research on the 

issues that pose the highest risk or opportunity. 

Administration and Budget 

Staffing 

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

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

accomplishments that enhance CRE resource conditions and create a better understanding of the cause-andeffect relationship between dam operations and resource conditions. Improving science administration is 

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

environment. Improving science administration will require significant accomplishment in several areas, 

including science planning, personnel structure, goal and objective setting, collaboration and partnerships, 

and research design focused on priority information needs and cost effectiveness. 

Productive, well-qualified personnel are critical to creating an effective ecosystem science program. In 

recognition of this fact, efforts have been made to restructure personnel responsibilities at the GCMRC to 

maximize existing management and science skills. Contractors and cooperators will be used to conduct a large 

amount of the field work, and they will work collaboratively with GCMRC scientists to analyze and synthesize 

data and publish findings. GCMRC personnel will implement field research and monitoring when in-house staff 

members with the appropriate expertise are available and their use is cost effective. In every case, the GCMRC 

will hold its own work to the same level of rigorous outside peer review as all others. The core GCMRC staff 

includes the following key positions: 

Chief 

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

accountability. The Chief ensures that science managers, contract and budget officers, logistics specialists, 

external and resident scientists, and other personnel plan and implement timely science activities that respond 

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

the Interior’s Designee, and GCDAMP participants to ensure that quality science is provided in a timely manner 

on priority issues identified by the GCDAMP leadership. 
 10

Deputy Chief 

The Deputy Chief supervises the science program, ensuring that integrated ecosystem procedures are 

used in science design and analysis. This position also has responsibility for monitoring peer-review processes 

using accepted procedures, tracking science project performance, and reporting program outcomes to ensure 

timely responses to GCDAMP information needs. 

Program Managers 

Program Managers are responsible for the timely execution of GCMRC science activities within their 

program area and interaction with other program areas to develop integrated ecosystem approaches to science 

products. Program Managers are therefore responsible for ensuring the quality of products produced by GCMRC 

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

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

areas: 

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

Colorado River ecosystem, including studies of sediment storage and transport in the regulated river, and 

integrated downstream water-quality monitoring and research. The program has conducted several 

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

sediment resources for building beaches and improving habitat for native aquatic species in the Colorado 

River. More recently, the program developed a downstream temperature model for the ecosystem. 

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

management, and library services to all program areas. 

3. The Biological Program provides scientific information that supports the maintenance of the Lees Ferry 

trout fishery and the conservation of native species in Grand Canyon. Elements of the program include 

assessing the effects of Glen Canyon Dam operations on fishery resources, characterizing the aquatic food 

base, evaluating terrestrial contributions to the aquatic food base, improving fish community monitoring, 

developing and testing of techniques to control nonnative fishes, evaluating terrestrial vegetation changes 

as a result of dam operations, and water-quality monitoring and modeling in Lake Powell and the Colorado 

River below Glen Canyon Dam. 

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

activities based in Grand Canyon. Currently, the program is working on the development of comprehensive 

monitoring programs to assess the condition of the culturally significant sites affected by the operation of 

Glen Canyon Dam. 

5. The Logistics Program supports up to 40 river trips per year and coordinates research permit management 

for the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center. The Logistics Program also provides survey 

support to various programs and activities. 

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

GCMRC within the USGS, for administrative, budget, and contracting services; information technology; and 

policy support. The GCMRC will also work with the Southwest Biological Science Center to reduce shared 

costs and overhead burden assessed by the USGS on GCDAMP funds. 

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

the Department of the Interior, U.S. Department of Energy, and the AMWG and TWG to (1) ensure that the 

direction of the GCDAMP strategic plan is kept current and reflects the revision of priority goals, information 

needs, and desired future resource conditions; (2) develop approaches for resolving GCDAMP budget 

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

plan and program to transition major science treatments into management actions with appropriate 

responsibilities, authorities, and funding; and (4) develop greater interaction among the Upper Colorado River 

Recovery Implementation Program and the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Plan to share 

science findings, methods, and management actions. 

Budget 

A general assessment of the GCMRC’s budget needs during the next 4 years, FY2009–12, indicates 

that the planned science activities could be accomplished with moderate increases in current budget 

allocations. To advance a comprehensive science program with moderate budget increases will require the 

effective management of priorities, the termination of selected programs, and the extension of proposed 
 11

timeframes for activities related to lower priority goals and information needs. Additionally, the implementation 

of experimental research projects will require careful planning to avoid major disruptions to planned and 

ongoing activities. 

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

will pursue the following selected budget management strategies: 

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

• Develop protocols for establishing a contingency fund sufficient to support anticipated future 

experimental projects 

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

or shortfalls occur in specific areas 

• Develop protocols for guiding external budget development by the GCMRC to respond to issues 

affecting the GCDAMP, but currently outside the GCDAMP budget process 

• Seek additional congressional funding to support research to address external factors or issues 

outside the scope of the GCDAMP that impact GCDAMP goals 

References Cited 

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

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

Gloss, S.P., Lovich, J.E., and Melis, T.S., eds., 2005, The state of the Colorado River ecosystem in Grand Canyon: U.S. 

Geological Survey Circular 1282, 220 p. 

Holling, C.S., 1978, Adaptive environmental assessment and management: Chichester, New York, Wiley, 785 p. 

Melis, T.S., Wright, S.A., Ralston, B.E., Fairley, H.C., Kennedy, T.A., Andersen, M.E., Coggins, L.G., and Korman, J., 

2006, Knowledge assessment of the effects of Glen Canyon Dam on the Colorado River ecosystem: U.S. Geological 

Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, 88 p. 

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

secretary’s designee: Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program. 

Walters, C.J., 1986, Adaptive management of renewable resources: New York, Macmillan, 374 p. 

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

policies in the Grand Canyon: Journal of Conservation Ecology, v. 4, no. 2, http://www.consecol.org/vol4/iss2/art1, 

accessed October 25, 2006.