DRAFT – Strategic Science Plan – 05/05/06 - DRAFT 

1 

DRAFT 

GRAND CANYON MONITORING AND RESEARCH CENTER 

STRATEGIC SCIENCE PLAN 

TO SUPPORT 

THE GLEN CANYON DAM ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 

by 

GRAND CANYON MONITORING AND 

RESEARCH CENTER 

in cooperation with the 

GLEN CANYON DAM ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 

May 5, 2006 
DRAFT – Strategic Science Plan – 05/05/06 - DRAFT 

2 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND ........................................................................3

AMP PRIORTIES AND THE SCIENCE PLANNING PROCESS..........................8

SCIENCE STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS PRIORITY AMP NEEDS....................12

GCMRC ADMINISTRATION AND BUDGET .....................................................19

LITERATURE CITED .........................................................................................22
DRAFT – Strategic Science Plan – 05/05/06 - DRAFT 

3 

GRAND CANYON MONITORING AND RESEARCH CENTER 

STRATEGIC SCIENCE PLAN TO SUPPORT THE GLEN CANYON DAM 

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 

PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND 

Purpose 

The mission of Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC) is to provide 

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

Program (AMP) on (a) the effects of the operation of Glen Canyon Dam (GCD) and 

other related factors on resources of the Colorado River Ecosystem (CRE) using an 

ecosystem approach, and (b) the flow and non-flow measures to mitigate adverse effects. 

The purpose of this Strategic Science Plan (SSP) is to identify strategies that will be 

pursued by GCMRC over the next 5 years to achieve this mission in cooperation with 

participants in the AMP. 

 

Background 

Section 1802 of the Grand Canyon Protection Act directed the Secretary of the Interior to 

establish and implement long-term monitoring programs and activities to ensure the 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, including, but not limited to natural and 

cultural resources and visitor use." The AMP was established in 1996 by the Secretary of 

the Interior to implement the 1992 Grand Canyon Protection Act, the 1995 Glen Canyon 

Dam Environmental Impact Statement, and the 1996 Record of Decision. The AMP 

consists of five major components (Figure 1): 

• An Adaptive Management Work Group (AMWG). The AMWG is a 25-

member Federal Advisory Committee Act committee that was established to 

oversee/guide implementation of the AMP. It reviews/develops alternative dam 

operations and related conservation measures and provides recommendations to 

the Secretary of the Interior. 

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

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

• A Technical Work Group (TWG) translates AMWG policy and goals into 

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

monitoring and research activities, and conveys research results to the their 

AMWG member. 
DRAFT – Strategic Science Plan – 05/05/06 - DRAFT 

4 

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

Structure of the GCDAMP

Secretary of

the Interior

Adaptive Management 

Work Group

GCMRC Technical 

Work Group

Independent 

Review Panel

Designee
DRAFT – Strategic Science Plan – 05/05/06 - DRAFT 

5 

• The USGS Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC) 

provides credible, objective scientific information on the effects of the operation 

of Glen Canyon Dam and their related factors on natural and cultural resources 

along the Colorado River from Glen Canyon Dam to Lake Mead. Specific 

roles/responsibilities of GCMRC are outlined in Table 1.

• Independent Review Panels (IRP) provide independent assessments of program 

proposals and accomplishments to ensure scientific objectivity and credibility. 

Included in the IRP is a Science Advisory Board consisting of academic experts 

in fields germane to studies within the scope of the AMP. 

 

The AMP is based on an Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management (AEAM) 

approach to natural resources management that was developed in the 1970s (Holling 

1978, Walters 1986). The approach is based on the assumption that managed natural 

resources will always change and our understanding of ecosystems is constantly 

improving, therefore, managers must be able to adapt to changing situations. AEAM was 

also developed to bring together the strengths of different scientific disciplines to bear on 

solving resource issues and to bring together scientists and managers rather than separate 

them. 

AEAM has two related parts-- adaptive assessment and adaptive management. The 

assessment phase identifies different concepts of how ecological systems work and 

evaluates possible alternative actions that managers can implement. The management 

phase involves learning by doing/testing which may include monitoring of system 

responses to natural changes (passive adaptive management), or by deliberate 

manipulation of key processes (active adaptive management). Adaptive management 

acknowledges that policies must satisfy social objectives, but also be flexible to adapt as 

both understanding and the managed systems change. Managers who are actively 

involved in AEAM learn more about how the system works and how their actions change 

the system and thus, will be better able to manage in a complex and uncertain 

environment. 

The SSP is based on a specific AEAM approach that has been articulated by the AMP in 

its draft strategic plan, which includes the following elements: 

1. Models are developed to reveal the potential effects of policies, activities, or practices 

that are being considered for implementation; 

2. Questions are formulated as testable hypotheses regarding the expected responses or 

linkages of the Colorado River ecosystem to dam operations and other management 

actions; 

3. Experiments are conducted to test hypotheses and answer questions; 
DRAFT – Strategic Science Plan – 05/05/06 - DRAFT 

6 

4. Management activities reveal, through monitoring and evaluation of results, the 

accuracy or completeness of the earlier predictions; and 

5. New knowledge and information produced through experimentation are incorporated 

into management discussions and recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior. 
DRAFT – Strategic Science Plan – 05/05/06 - DRAFT 

7 

Table 1. Roles and responsibilities of GCMRC. 

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

management decision process. 

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’s designee and the Adaptive Management Work Group 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 the monitoring and research program with independent review 

panel(s). 

6. Coordinate, prepare, and distribute technical reports and documentation for review 

and as final products. 

7. Provide regular reports to the AMWG/TWG on new scientific findings and their 

application to the AMP. Prepare and forward technical management 

recommendations and annual reports to the TWG. 

8. Manage all data collected as part of the AMP. Serve as a repository for 

data/information about the effects of operating GCD 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. 
DRAFT – Strategic Science Plan – 05/05/06 - DRAFT 

8 

AMP PRIORTIES AND THE SCIENCE PLANNING PROCESS 

AMP Management Goals and Priorities 

The Final Draft AMP Strategic Plan identifies 12 goals for the program (Table 2). In 

August 2004, the AMWG reviewed these goals and identified priority questions to help 

guide the AMP Science program. The top five priority questions were: 

• AMWG Priority 1: Why are the humpback chub (HBC) not thriving, and what 

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

doing? 

• AMWG Priority 2: Which cultural resources, including Traditional Cultural 

Properties (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? 

• AMWG Priority 3: What is the best flow regime? 

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

about it? 

• AMWG Priority 5: What will happen when a Temperature Control Device 

(TCD) is tested or implemented? How should it be operated? Are safeguards 

needed for management? 

GCMRC will use these questions as the primary (but not exclusive) basis for designing 

the science program for the next 5 years. Other sources of information that will be 

considered include: 

• AMWG Management Objective and associated Information Needs (including 

CMIN ranking by the Science Planning Group), 

• Protocol Evaluation Panel (PEP) recommendations, 

• Knowledge Assessment report findings and recommendations, and 

Table 2. AMP program goals as identified in the Draft AMP Strategic Plan 

1. Protect or improve the aquatic food base so that it will support viable populations 

of desired species at higher trophic levels. 
DRAFT – Strategic Science Plan – 05/05/06 - DRAFT 

9 

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 AMP 

ecosystem goals. 

8. Maintain or attain levels of sediment storage within the main channel and along 

shorelines to achieve the AMP ecosystem goals. 

9. Maintain or improve the quality of recreational experiences for users of the 

Colorado River ecosystem, within the framework of the AMP ecosystem goals. 

10. Maintain power production capacity and energy generation, and increase where 

feasible and advisable, within the framework of the AMP 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. 
DRAFT – Strategic Science Plan – 05/05/06 - DRAFT 

10 

• Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) biological opinion requirements related to the 

operation of GCD 

• Section 106 and 110 programs of National Park Service (NPS) and US Bureau of 

Reclamation (USBR) 

In addition, GCMRC will propose at least one science project for each AMP goal (Table 

2). This will promote a more balanced AMP and ensure that all key resources are 

addressed by the science program. 

Science Planning Documents and Process 

The GCMRC will design and implement the AMP science program in coordination and 

cooperation with the various AMP groups. Interaction between GCMRC and the AMP 

shall occur primarily in the context of four key documents: 

1. The Final Draft AMP Strategic Plan (AMPSP): A long term plan drafted by 

AMP participants in cooperation with GCMRC in August 2001 that identifies the 

AMWG’s vision and mission statement, principles, goals, management 

objectives, information needs and management actions 

(http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/strategic_plan.html). 

2. The GCMRC Strategic Science Plan: (SSP): Developed by GCMRC in 

cooperation with AMP participants to identify 5-year strategies for providing 

science information to respond to goals, management objectives and priority 

questions of the AMP participants, consistent with the AMPSP (this plan). 

3. The GCMRC Monitoring and Research Plan: (MRP): Developed by GCMRC 

in cooperation with the AMP to specify 5-year research and monitoring programs 

consistent with the strategies and priorities in the SSP. The MRP will identify the 

objectives associated with each strategic science question and related monitoring, 

experimental research, and research and development projects. 

4. The GCMRC Biennial Work Plan: (BAWP): Developed by GCMRC in 

cooperation with the AMP Science Planning Group, to identify the scope, 

objectives and budget for the 2-year monitoring and research projects consistent 

with the MRP. 

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

process. Annually, GCMRC will report on accomplishments related to projects included 

in the biennial work plan and evaluate how science has advanced knowledge relative to 

AMP goals and management objectives. At 5-year intervals, GCMRC shall formally 

synthesize new scientific information and knowledge in the form of an updated State of 

the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon (SCORE) report (Gloss and others, 2005) 

Knowledge Assessment Report (Melis and others, 2006) and/or other reports, as 

appropriate. Priority information needs and science questions will be evaluated by 
DRAFT – Strategic Science Plan – 05/05/06 - DRAFT 

11 

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

DOI have lead responsibility for the shaded boxes. GCMRC has lead responsibility for 

the unshaded boxes. 

 SSP 

 MRP 

 BAWP

Annual 

Work 

Activities

Annual/Final 

Reports 

Annual 

Review 

5-year Analysis 

• SCORE Report 

• KA Report 

 AMPSP 

5-Year 

Analysis 

and Report 

Annual 

Analysis & 

Report 
DRAFT – Strategic Science Plan – 05/05/06 - DRAFT 

12 

scientists and managers to determine what program revisions are needed. This includes 

development of revised SSP and MRP documents. 

The GCMRC science planning will be most effective if it is done in conjunction with a 

periodic review of the AMP Strategic Plan including priority goals, information needs, 

management objectives and management actions/treatments. Completing concurrent 

reviews will help ensure the science program is properly aligned with current 

management objectives and priorities. 

SCIENCE STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS PRIORITY AMP NEEDS 

This Strategic Science Plan is based on the adaptive management paradigm, wherein new 

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

monitored by scientists and managers for effectiveness. This adaptive management 

process requires highly focused applied science projects which address specific 

management information needs. Consistent with the adaptive management paradigm, 

GCMRC’s science strategy will emphasize the following elements: 

• Interdisciplinary integrated river science 

• Building bridges between science and management 

• Strategic science questions to address priority AMWG goals/questions 

• Critical research and monitoring needs outside the scope of the AMP 

Interdisciplinary Integrated River Science 

“The hydrologic cycle, in concert with human activities and geological, 

biological, chemical, and climatic processes, controls most of the commonly 

recognized features of rivers, such as river form, seasonal variations in flow, 

chemical quality, and the type of living resources in rivers.” (USGS 2004) 

 

The GCMRC will increase its emphasis on employing an interdisciplinary integrated 

science approach over the next 5 years. An interdisciplinary integrated approach can 

better support AMWG’s goals for how to best manage and sustain competing resource 

values to benefit both humans and the natural ecosystems to which humans belong. This 

means that single resources (and their research programs) will not be studied in isolation 

from other resources or from the socio-cultural context. Interdisciplinary integrated river 

science will be aimed at understanding and ultimately predicting how the resources 

respond to human activities, outside forces, and internal natural ecosystem drivers e.g., 

floods, drought, plankton blooms, etc. Understanding will come through and 

Experimental Research (ER), Core Monitoring (CM), and Research and Development 

(R&D). Prediction will come from a synthesis of findings in a quantitative modeling 

framework. 
DRAFT – Strategic Science Plan – 05/05/06 - DRAFT 

13 

In 1998, Walters and others conducted an Adaptive Environmental Assessment and 

Management Workshop to assist Grand Canyon scientists and managers in development 

of a conceptual model of the CRE affected by GCD operations. The model proved to be 

useful at identifying knowledge gaps and predicting the response of some ecosystem 

components to policy change. However, the unavailability of data limited its 

effectiveness in several key areas such as long-term sediment storage, fisheries responses 

to habitat restoration, and socio-economic effects. Several improvements to the model to 

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

make it more user friendly to scientists and managers, to provide information that is 

relevant to each high priority AMWG goal/question, and to incorporate advanced 

statistical and mathematical methods. 

The GCMRC advocates that the AMP Science Advisors be tasked in FY 2007 with the 

identification and evaluation of opportunities for incorporating an interdisciplinary/ 

integrated ecosystem science and modeling approach into the current science program, 

including the refinement and use of conceptual and predictive ecosystem models and 

decision support tools. The feasibility of various approaches should be assessed based on 

the information needs of CRE managers, its utility in designing an integrated 

interdisciplinary science program for the AMP, and implementation costs. 

Building Bridges between Science and Management 

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

depends on how well the AMP managers clearly define and agree on resource goals, 

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

AMP managers must work together as partners— partners that recognize each have 

distinct but complementary roles. These individual roles and responsibilities, outlined 

generally below, should be completed in a collaborative manner between the AMP 

managers and GCMRC. A more complete discussion of roles and responsibilities of 

various AMP entities and GCMRC are contained in the Ad Hoc Committee Roles Report 

(2006). 

 

Lead Roles of GCMRC Lead Roles of AMP 

Managers/Stakeholders

• Develop and revise the GCMRC 

SSP, MRP, and BAWP

• Develop, revise, and finalize the 

AMP Strategic Plan involving AMP 

goals and information needs, 

establish priorities, and 

management objectives 

• Develop and update Knowledge 

Assessment and State of the 

Colorado River Ecosystem 

(SCORE) reports

• Develop and revise operations 

protocol to improve the 

effectiveness of the AMP 
DRAFT – Strategic Science Plan – 05/05/06 - DRAFT 

14 

• Advise TWG/AMWG on technical 

program needs, experimental 

options, treatments

• Review and comment on the 

proposed science programs and 

budgets and provide 

recommendations to the Secretary 

• Develop research designs and 

proposals and treatment options; 

Implement and manage the science 

program

• Provide clear and timely 

management direction 

• Evaluate the scientific basis of 

proposed management 

actions/treatment programs 

• Identify and implement 

management actions/treatments 

programs 

 

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

scientific information that is relevant to management needs, but also upon effective and 

timely utilization of that information by managers in the decision making 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 (such as how to operate GCD) that 

has implications for multiple resources in different areas and timeframes. 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 AMP participants to 

develop and facilitate an independent assessment of how to better integrate the use of 

scientific information into the AMP process. The assessment will address (a) the 

feasibility of developing/utilizing decision support tools to facilitate integration of 

scientific information in the science planning and AMP recommendation processes 

including resource tradeoff assessments, and (b) strategies/approaches for more 

effectively addressing the value based conflicts reflected by the diverse interests in the 

AMP. Pilot approaches developed through this process will be implemented and tested 

over the 2007-2011 program period. 

Strategic Science Questions to Address Priority AMWG Goals/Questions 

The GCMRC science program will be driven primarily by AMWG Priority Questions 

and the associated key Strategic Science Questions as identified through the “Knowledge 

Assessment of the Effects of GCD on the Colorado River Ecosystem” (Melis and others, 

2006). Addressing the key Strategic Science Questions presented below will result in 

information directly related to AMWG priorities and reduce the uncertainties associated 

with various flow and non-flow treatments being considered by the AMP. 

The Strategic Science Questions will be addressed through core monitoring, experimental 

research, and research and development programs using an interdisciplinary/integrate 

science approach where appropriate. Specific monitoring and research projects will be 
DRAFT – Strategic Science Plan – 05/05/06 - DRAFT 

15 

defined in the MRP and BAWP, based on the Knowledge Assessment, the Core 

Monitoring Information Needs (CMIN), Research Information Needs (RIN), and other 

relevant information. The MRP/BAWP will identify the project scope, objectives, 

methods, outcomes, and costs by fiscal year. 

GCMRC will coordinate/collaborate with other relevant research activities being 

conducted by agencies and institutions to ensure a more coordinated and/or cost effective 

ecosystem approach. 

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? (AMP Goal 2) 

Key Strategic Science Questions

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

fish from tributaries, spawning and incubation in the main stem, survival of young-ofyear (YoY) and juvenile stages in the main stem, or by changes in growth and 

maturation in the adult population as influenced by main stem conditions? [FY06-11] 

2. Does a decrease in the abundance of rainbow trout and other cold and warm water 

non-natives in Marble and eastern Grand Canyons result in an improvement in the 

recruitment rate of juvenile humpback chub to the adult population? [FY06-11] 

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

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

population in Marble and eastern Grand Canyons? [FY07-11] 

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

Canyons be sustained with a reduced level of effort of mechanical removal or will 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 non-native species. 

[FY07-11] 

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] 

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

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

invertebrate flux? [FY06-09]. 

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

can these habitats best be made useable and maintained? [FY 08-09]. 
DRAFT – Strategic Science Plan – 05/05/06 - DRAFT 

16 

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

from capture and handling or sampling? [FY07-11]. 

AMWG Priority 2: Which cultural resources, including Traditional Cultural Properties 

(TCP), are within the Area of Potential Effect, which should we treat, and how do we 

best protect them? What is the status and trends of cultural resources and what are the 

agents of deterioration? (AMP Goal 11). 

Key Strategic Science Questions

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

growth at archeological sites and TCP sites, and if so, how? [FY07-11] 

2. How do flows impact Old High Water Zone terraces in the CRE (where the majority 

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

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

erosion of the Holocene sedimentary deposits? [FY04-11] 

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

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

properties? [FY09-11] 

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

in slowing rates of erosion at archaeological sites over the long term? [FY06-11] 

5. What are the TCPs in the CRE, and where are they located? [FY06-11] 

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

operations and management actions on TCPs? [FY06-08] 

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? [FY06-11] 

AMWG Priority 3: What is the best flow regime? (AMP Goals 1-11) 

Key Strategic Science Questions

1. Is there a “Flow-Only” operation (i.e. a strategy for dam releases, including managing 

tributary inputs with BHBFs, without sediment augmentation) that will restore and 

maintain sandbar habitats over decadal time scales? [FY08-11] 

2. To what extent could predation impacts by non-native fish be mitigated by higher 

turbidities or dam controlled high flow releases? [FY07-08] 
DRAFT – Strategic Science Plan – 05/05/06 - DRAFT 

17 

3. What are the hydropower replacements costs of the Modified Low Fluctuating Flow 

(MLFF) (annually, since 1996)? [FY07-08] 

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)? [FY06-07] 

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

concentrations, turbidity) and dam operations? [FY06-08] 

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

opportunities and catchability? [FY07-08] 

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? 

[FY07-08] 

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? [FY07-

09] 

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

important to visitor experience? [FY09-11] 

10. How can safety and navigability be reliably measured relative to flows? [FY07-08] 

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

navigability of the rapids? [FY07-09] 

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? [FY07-09] 

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

it? (AMP Goal 8) 

Key Strategic Science Questions

1. Is there a “Flow-Only” operation (i.e. a strategy for dam releases, including managing 

tributary inputs with BHBFs, without sediment augmentation) that will restore and 

maintain sandbar habitats over decadal time scales? (FY 08-11) 

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 
DRAFT – Strategic Science Plan – 05/05/06 - DRAFT 

18 

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

possibly mortality of young humpback chub) associated with high flows? [FY07-11] 

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

Control Device (TCD)? How should it be operated? Are safeguards needed for 

management? (AMP Goals 1-4 and 7-10) 

Strategic Science Questions

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

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

determine mainstem and near shore water temperatures throughout the CRE? [FY06-

08] 

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

concentrations, turbidity) and dam operations? [FY06-08] 

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

success for native fish? [FY03-08] 

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

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

[FY03-08] 

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

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

survival and growth rates? [FY03-08] 

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

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

increases in non-native fish abundance? [FY07-11] 

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

vegetation? [FY07-11] 

Critical research and monitoring needs outside the scope of the AMP 

This element focuses on a critical need in the AMP to address issues outside the CRE that 

impact the AMP mission and goals. Scientists and managers are currently constrained 

from evaluating some potentially significant external threats to CRE resources. For 

example, the largest aggregation of HBC in the CRE is directly dependent on water 

quality from the Little Colorado River (LCR). However, 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 LCR water quality and 
DRAFT – Strategic Science Plan – 05/05/06 - DRAFT 

19 

quantity resulting from upstream diversions, pollution and/or catastrophic hazardous 

material spill. Second, the primary determinant of water quality in the CRE is the water 

released from Lake Powell. The water quality characteristics and dynamics of Lake 

Powell have major implications for the design and operation of Reclamation’s proposed 

Selective Withdrawal Structure (SWS) that will allow for regulating the temperature and 

other water quality characteristics of releases from Glen Canyon Dam. While extensive 

physical and biological data on Lake Powell water quality have been collected for over 

two decades, the data have not been synthesized or subjected to extensive analysis or 

advanced modeling. A synthesis of historical Lake Powell data is needed to identify 

trends in water quality and its relationship to link 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 and operation of 

the SWS. 

To be successful, the AMP needs to ensure that key external factors that could affect the 

attainment of AMP goals are addressed. The GCMRC proposes to (a) work closely with 

the AMWG and Department of the Interior to help develop an endangered fish recovery 

program for the lower basin/Grand Canyon, (b) evaluate and report on the above key 

external issues that could affect attainment of AMP goals, and (c) work with AMP and 

other relevant parties to secure funding to initiate science programs to address key issues 

that pose the highest risk or opportunity. 

GCMRC ADMINISTRATION AND BUDGET 

GCMRC Administration and Staffing 

The GCMRC’s goal is to deliver a comprehensive ecosystem science program over the 

next 5 years that is effective in responding to management needs. Effectiveness will be 

measured by science and management accomplishments that enhance CRE resource 

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

operations and resource conditions. The importance of gaining improvements in science 

administration increases as flat budgets are provide to meet growing needs for a broader, 

more comprehensive ecosystem science program. 

Strategies for improved administration require significant accomplishment in several 

areas including more effective science planning, effective personnel structure, focused 

goals and objectives, extensive collaboration and partnerships, and cost effective research 

designs focused on priority information needs. 

Productive, well qualified personnel are critical to meeting this strategy. Efforts have 

been extended to restructure personnel responsibilities at GCMRC to maximize 

application of existing management and science skills. Contractors and cooperators will 

be utilized to conduct a large measure of the field work and work collaboratively with 

GCMRC on data analysis, synthesis, and publication. GCMRC scientists will be engaged 
DRAFT – Strategic Science Plan – 05/05/06 - DRAFT 

20 

in the implementation of field research and monitoring when in-house staff with the 

appropriate expertise is available and their use is cost effective. In every case the USGS 

will hold its own proposals to the same level of rigorous outside peer review as all others. 

The core GCMRC staff includes the following key positions: 

• Center Chief: Establishes Center science policies and strategic direction and 

provides accountability for the GCMRC budget. Assures that science managers, 

contract and budget officers, logistics specialists, external and resident scientists, 

etc., plan and implement timely science programs that respond to managers’ 

priority information needs. Interfaces with USGS management, Secretary’s AMP 

Designee, and AMP managers to assure that quality science is provided in a 

timely manner on priority issues identified by the AMP leadership. 

• Deputy Chief: Responsible for day-to-day management and supervision of the 

Science Program and assuring that integrated ecosystem science methods and 

procedures are utilized in science design and analysis. Monitors, through 

accepted review procedures, peer review processes, science project performance 

and reporting to assure timely responses to managers’ information needs. 

• Program Managers: Responsible for the timely execution of the science program 

within their program area; interaction with other program areas to ensure 

integrated ecosystem approaches, quality control of products and contractors/ 

cooperators; contract/agreement management; management of budget within their 

program area, and providing reports to AMP work groups as needed. GCMRC 

activities now encompass five major program areas: 

o The Physical Science and Modeling Program conducts research and 

monitoring activities on physical elements of the Colorado River Ecosystem 

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

integrated downstream water quality monitoring and research. The Program 

has been responsible for conducting several experimental high flow releases 

from GCD to conserve sediment resources for building beaches and 

improving habitat for native aquatic species in the Colorado River. More 

recent tasks have included refinement of a downstream temperature model for 

the ecosystem 

o The Data Acquisition, Storage, and Analysis Program that provides GIS, 

data quality control and data management support to all Program areas 

o The Biological Program that provides scientific information that supports the 

conservation of native species in the Grand Canyon and the Lees Ferry trout 

fishery. Elements of the program include the assessing the effects of GCD on 

fishery resources, characterizing the aquatic food base, improving fish 

community monitoring, developing and testing of techniques to control non-
DRAFT – Strategic Science Plan – 05/05/06 - DRAFT 

21 

native fishes, and water quality monitoring and modeling in Lake Powell and 

the Colorado River below GCD 

o The Cultural and Socio-Economic Program that focuses on cultural 

resources and recreation activities based in the Grand Canyon. The current 

focus is on development of comprehensive monitoring programs to assess the 

condition of the archeological sites affected by the operation of GCD 

o The Logistics Program that supports up to 40 river trips per year and 

coordinates research permit management for the Center. The Logistics 

Program also provides survey support to various program and activities 

The GCMRC will rely on the Southwest Biological Science Center (SBSC), the parent 

organization of GCMRC, for administrative/budget/contracting, information/ technology, 

and policy support. The GCMRC will also work with SBSC to reduce shared costs and 

overhead burden assessed by USGS on AMP funds. 

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

will collaborate with the Department of the Interior, Department of Energy, and the 

AMWG/TWG to: 

Assure that AMP Strategic Plan direction is kept current to include most recent revisions 

of on priority goals, information needs, and desired future resource conditions; 

Design a partnership plan and program to transition major science treatments into 

management actions with appropriate responsibilities, authorities, and funding; 

• Develop greater interaction among the Upper Colorado River Recovery 

Implementation Program, and Lower Colorado River Multi-species Conservation 

Plan to share science findings, methods, management actions, etc.; and 

• Create approaches to resolve budget limitations of the AMP regarding increasing 

science and management needs 

GCMRC Budget 

A general assessment of the GCMRC’s budget needs over the period FY 2007-2011 

indicates that the planned science programs could be accomplished with moderate 

increases in budget allocations. To do so will require effective management of priorities, 

termination of selected programs, and extend implementation over time of lower priority 

goals and information needs. Implementation of experimental research programs will 

require careful planning to avoid major disruptions to planned and ongoing activities. 

The following selected budget management strategies will be pursued by GCMRC to 

obviate the impacts of unpredictable events to the program over the next 5-10 year 

period: 
DRAFT – Strategic Science Plan – 05/05/06 - DRAFT 

22 

• Develop and approve annually detailed 2-year AMP budgets and projects 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 AMP, but currently outside the AMP budget 

process; and 

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

testing/operation of a Selective Withdraw Structure and other large capital 

projects and (b) external factors or issues outside the scope of the AMP that 

impact AMP goals. 

LITERATURE CITED 

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 1991-2004: 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., Fairley, H., Kennedy, T., Coggins, L., and 

Korman, J., authors, 2006. Knowledge Assessment of the Effects of Glen Canyon Dam 

on the Colorado River Ecosystem, 77 p. 

Walters, C.J., 1986, Adaptive Management of Renewable Resources: New York: 

Macmillan, 374 p.