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

April 6, 2012

Memorandum

To: Technical Work Group (TWG)

From: John (Jack) C. Schmidt, Chie!

Subject: Preliminary Draft Budget and Summary of Work Plan for Fiscal Years 2013 and 2014

Attached are the preliminary budgets for FY 2013 and 2014 for your consideration. Attachment

1 is a spreadsheet listing the project titles, primary investigators and primary collaborators, total

budget amount, as well as the estimated costs for some of the primary budget categories. For

each project, we state the status of the project (either on-going or new), whether the project has

been significantly expanded in scope, and the purpose of the project. The primary scientific

projects also have been assigned a letter, and this letter refers to Attachment 2, where summaries

of each major scientific project are provided. Attachment 3 is a simple chart depicting the

relative amounts assigned to each project. The budget and the project summaries do not include

activities in cultural resource monitoring, nor do they include staffing of an economist.

This budget and the project summaries have been reviewed in a preliminary sense by our sister

agencies of the Department of the Interior. Based on this preliminary review, we are confident

that the proposed work in the natural sciences (projects A-I) is consistent with the missions and

management responsibilities of the various Dol agencies, including Grand Canyon National Park.

In the case of cultural resources monitoring, the GCMRC and Grand Canyon National Park have

agreed to review each other's proposed monitoring and research activities for FYI3/14, to revise

those programs so as to develop a complementary program that meets the needs of the Park

Service and of the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP), and to

subsequently propose an integrated, joint program. It is anticipated that development of this

integrated program revision in cultural resources will be completed soon after the April TWG

meeting and will be available for review prior to the May Adaptive Management Work Group

(AMWG) meeting.

Excluding the program in cultural resources monitoring and excluding the funding of a staff

economist, the preliminary budget for FY13 is $9.4 million. At this point, GCMRC expects that

our available funds in FY13 will be approximately $8.5 million from GCDAMP funds and

approximately $0.4 million from Reclamation funds that directly fund the Lake Powell
monitoring program and support GCMRC work in monitoring the efficacy of brown trout

removal in Upper Granite Gorge. Thus, the preliminary budget of GCMRC is approximately $0.5

million greater than is needed to support the entire proposed work plan, and this shortfall does

not include any funding for the pending program in cultural resources monitoring, nor support for

a staff economist.

Nevertheless, I am optimistic of the potential to find funds to support the work described here.

Reclamation has indicated that supplemental funds might be made available to support the new

research efforts described in Project E as well as the laboratory studies proposed in Project G.

Approximately 31%, 42%, and 5% of the preliminary FY13 budget addresses monitoring and

research needs in the physical sciences (Projects A, B, and C), aquatic and fisheries sciences

(Projects D, E, F, G, and H), and riparian ecology (Project I), respectively. These proportions are

approximately the same as in the FY11/12 budget period. Approximately 19% of the preliminary

budget concerns administration of the GCMRC. The budget for independent reviews, including

the budget for the Science Advisors, has been decreased to $170,000 (2% of the total budget).

Most of the projects are collaborative efforts of GCMRC staff and staff in sister agencies of

federal and state government, universities, and private consulting firms. We also identify

collaborations with other units of the U.S. Geological Survey. In terms of major budget

categories, 39% of the total budget is allocated to salaries of GCMRC staff, 19% is allocated to

the work of non-USGS cooperators, and 8% allocated to the work of other USGS offices. The

budget for the logistical effort of supporting river trips is approximately $1 million (11% of the

preliminary budget). In contrast to past years, there is no distinct budget for remote sensing and

GIS activities. Instead, these costs are absorbed into the work of each scientific project; we

estimate that the total work in remote sensing and GIS services is approximately $487,000

(5% of the budget).

The budget and program of work described here were developed based on guidance provided in

the Strategic Science Plan published in March 2007 and amended in April 2009, the Monitoring

and Research Plan published in August 2007 and amended in 2009, the draft General Core

Monitoring Plan of February 2011, and the various Knowledge Assessment Workshops

conducted in 2011 and 2012. This program of work was also developed in response to the

Desired Future Conditions Ad Hoc Group report that was presented to the AMWG in February

2012. Lastly, this program of work is responsive to the science plans for the Environmental

Assessment for the Development and Implementation of a Protocol for High-Flow Experimental

Releases, the Environmental Assessment for Non-native Fish Control, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service's December 2011 Biological Opinions related to those EAs, and the recent Memoranda

of Agreement developed by Reclamation and the Tribes.
My charge to the GCMRC staff was to develop integrative projects that are responsive to the

major issues in natural and socio-economic science that are confronted by the GCDAMP. As

such, this preliminary program of study is organized into 10 major projects (including the

pending program in cultural resources monitoring). Additionally, there are three other programs:

independent review, USGS and GCMRC administration, and an annual allocation to fund the

quadrennial acquisition of aerial photos and other remotely sensed data. The 10 major projects

are focused on the primary areas of concern to the GCDAMP:

• geomorphology of fine-grained sediment (Project A);

• measurement of stream flow quantity and quality and sediment transport (Project B);

• measurement of Lake Powell water quality (Project C)

• monitoring and research concerning mainstem and tributary humpback chub

(Projects D, E, F);

• monitoring and research concerning tailwater recreational rainbow trout (Project H);

• monitoring and research concerning the interactions between trout and humpback chub

(Project H);

• monitoring and research concerning riparian vegetation and its interactions with

geomorphic processes; and,

• cultural resources monitoring.

Approximately 50% of the preliminary budget is related to fulfilling data collection and data

analysis needs associated with environmental compliance issues of the two EAs and the

Biological Opinion. Approximately 13% of the preliminary FY13 budget is associated with

research activities needed to resolve critical management uncertainties, especially in the

biological sciences. Approximately 18% of the preliminary budget constitutes new projects not

previously undertaken.

The GCMRC staff especially appreciated the thoughts and perspectives of the Budget Ad Hoc

Group (BAHG) and the compiled comments received in February 2012. GCMRC chose not to

initiate some of the research projects suggested by the BAHG, largely due to budget

considerations. Thus, we did not initiate a new study to evaluate opportunities to reintroduce

humpback chub near the Paria River, nor do we propose to study the potential to reintroduce

extirpated species. Our effort to expand the riparian vegetation studies in this budget is explicitly

responsive to BAHG suggestions. At this time, we are not proposing to initiate a new ecosystem

modeling study, although we recognize the potential utility of such an effort. We are uncertain

how to fund the GCMRC staff economist at this time, and we are exploring various options.

We look forward to the April 12th discussion with the BAHG in which the relation of this budget

to other BAHG suggestions can be discussed.
1

Attachment 2

Summaries of GCMRC’s FY 13-14 Proposals 

A. Project Title: Sandbars and sediment storage dynamics: Long-term monitoring and 

research at the site, reach, and ecosystem scales 

Collaborators: Paul Grams and Keith Kohl (Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research 

Center); David Rubin (U.S. Geological Survey); Joseph E. Hazel, Jr. and Matt Kaplinski 

(Northern Arizona University); Rod Parnell (Northern Arizona University)

This ongoing project includes a set of integrated studies conducted at multiple spatial and 

temporal scales that are designed to track the results of individual high flow experiments 

(HFEs), monitor the cumulative effect of multiple high flows and intervening operations, 

and advance our understanding of sediment and eddy sandbar dynamics to improve 

capacity for predicting the effects of future dam operations. The key uncertainty about 

management of sandbars below glen canyon dam articulated in the recently completed 

Environmental Assessment for Development and Implementation of a Protocol for HighFlow Experimental Releases from Glen Canyon Dam, 2011 through 2020 is the question, 

"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 will only be answered through continued monitoring of sand resources over a 

multi-year timeframe of repeated controlled flood experimentation. 

Monitoring will include daily and annual observations of long-term sandbar monitoring 

sites by remote camera and conventional topographic survey, respectively. These 

observations contribute to the existing long-term dataset and will be available following 

each high flow as a preliminary partial assessment of resource condition that could be 

used to adjust the high-flow implementation strategy, if necessary. Because these 

monitoring sites represent only a small proportion of the total number of sandbars in 

Grand Canyon, the project also includes the use of systemwide airborne remote sensing 

to monitor a much larger set of sandbars every four years to assess sandbar size and 

abundance. While the sandbar monitoring studies provide needed information on 

resource condition, they do not provide any measure of how much sand is in storage, and 

the continued success of high flows to rebuild sandbars depends on maintaining an 

adequate supply of sand storage. If there is a decline in sand storage, future high flows 

are likely to be less effective at building sandbars. To provide this information and 

evaluate whether dam operations, including high flows, are likely to result in sandbar 

maintenance or eventual decline, sediment storage will be monitored by repeat channelwide surveys of selected river segments approximately every three to ten years. 

Additional components of this project are designed to integrate findings across the spatial 
2

and temporal scales, investigate how specific changes in sandbar morphology affects 

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 our understanding of the variability of sandbar response 

to dam operations thereby contributing to improved capacity to predict the effects of 

future high flows in the context of intervening daily operations.

B. Project Title: Streamflow, water quality, and sediment transport in the Colorado 

River Ecosystem 

Collaborators: David Topping (Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center); 

Arizona Water Science Center; Utah Water Science Center; Scott Wright (U.S. 

Geological Survey); and the Center for Integrated Data Analytics.

This project funds the ongoing measurement of stage, discharge, water quality (water 

temperature, specific conductance, turbidity, dissolved oxygen), and suspended sediment 

at gaging stations. 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 Colorado 

River ecosystem (CRe). This project also funds interpretation of these basic data, 

specifically examining how stream flow and its related attributes affect resources of the 

CRe.  

Much of the proposed work in this project consists of high-resolution (typically 15-

minute) measurements of the following parameters: 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. One of the major products of this project has been the massbalance sand budgets used to trigger artificial 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 Integrated Data Analytics). 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 these tools should be extremely useful in the planning of artificial floods 

under the HFE protocol EA in the upcoming LTEMP EIS. Much of the proposed 
3

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. 

C. Project Title: Water-quality monitoring of Lake Powell and Glen Canyon Dam 

releases

Collaborators: William Vernieu (Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center);

Reclamation; National Park Service; LP Cooperators Group; and Dale Robertson (U.S. 

Geological Survey) 

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 of the reservoir to the inflow areas. 

It also includes continuous monitoring of dam releases. 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. 

D. Project Title: Mainstem Humpback Chub Aggregation Studies and Metapopulation 

Dynamics 

Collaborators: William Persons, Theodore Kennedy, and David Ward (Grand Canyon 

Monitoring and Research Center); D.R. Van Haverbeke (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service); 

Brian Healy and Emily Omana (National Park Service); Karen Limburg and Todd 

Hayden (State University of New York); Scott Bonar (University of Arizona); and Scott 

Wright (U.S. Geological Survey)
4

Standardized monitoring of mainstem humpback chub aggregations has been conducted 

during the fall 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 not abundance estimates, so 

inferences that can be drawn from these data regarding chub response to ongoing 

management actions are extremely limited; continued monitoring of aggregations is 

required as part of the non-native control Environmental Assessment and associated 

Biological Opinion. This project, conducted in collaboration with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Grand Canyon National Park , and the University of Arizona, will 

increase aggregation sampling during FY13-14, including the addition of a second 

aggregation sampling trip in late spring/early summer, to improve monitoring techniques 

and provide estimates of humpback chub abundance at all mainstem aggregations. This 

additional sampling will also improve our understanding of the role ongoing juvenile 

humpback chub translocations play in the metapopulation dynamics of this species. 

Although recent catch rate information indicates aggregations might be growing, absolute 

numbers of humpback chub at aggregations remains low. Therefore, we propose a suite 

of research activities to better understand the factors limiting the abundance of 

aggregations. We propose research on otolith microchemistry of juvenile humpback 

chub at aggregations to assess whether these aggregations are supported by emigration of 

juvenile fish from the Little Colorado River or local spawning and recruitment. Recent 

foodbase research efforts indicate fish production throughout Glen, Marble, and Grand 

Canyon is limited by the availability of high quality prey, particularly midges and black 

flies; although food availability was quantified across 5 sites in Grand Canyon including 

at least one aggregation (Middle Granite Gorge, river mile ~127), the feeding habits and 

energy intake by humpback chub were only quantified at the Little Colorado River 

confluence area. We therefore propose estimating the growth potential of humpback 

chub at aggregations by quantifying food resource availability (i.e., invertebrate drift), , 

measurement of chub feeding habits, and integration of these data using models of net 

energy intake potential that account for prey detection and the energetic costs of 

swimming by fish, among other things. These data will be compared with similar data 

collected near the Little Colorado River, which are described in a different project. 

Reproductive potential of humpback chub will be determined using condition indices 

(i.e., lipids) and manipulative experiments. 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. 

 
5

E. Project Title: Humpback chub (Gila cypha) early life history in and around the 

Little Colorado River 

Collaborators: Charles Yackulic, Theodore Kennedy, and David Ward (Grand Canyon 

Monitoring and Research Center); Colden Baxter (Idaho State University); Bill Pine 

(University of Florida); D.R. Van Haverbeke (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service); and Scott 

Wright (U.S. Geological Survey) 

The Nearshore Ecology Project (NSE) validated Visual Implant Elastomer (VIE) tags and 

otolith microchemistry as useful tools for understanding juvenile humpback chub 

movements, growth, and survival. Prior to NSE, our ability to quantify variation in 

cohort strength was limited to back-calculations from two-year old fish (Coggins and 

Walters 2009). These tools provide information that is critical for evaluating ongoing 

adaptive management experimentation because population dynamics of many fish species 

are driven by changes in survival at early life stages (i.e., <1 year; Walters and Martell 

2004). A better understanding of juvenile humpback chub early life history was 

identified as a critical information need at recent Knowledge Assessment Workshops 

(GCMRC and Cooperator presentations, 2011-2012). Recent foodbase research efforts 

indicate fish production throughout Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyon is limited by the 

availability of high quality prey, particularly midges and black flies; however, food web 

structure and the potential for food limitation of humpback chub in the Little Colorado 

River itself have not been studied. Because foodbase and NSE sampling was/is limited to 

the mainstem and current LCR monitoring is limited to the spring and fall, these projects 

do not allow us to understand the relative importance of LCR hydrology, food availability 

and food web structure in the LCR itself, and inter- and intraspecific interactions in 

determining young-of-year survival and outmigration. A better understanding of the 

drivers of among year variation in juvenile humpback chub survival and outmigration 

from the LCR, combined with ongoing NSE survival estimates from the mainstem, would 

allow us to evaluate the relative importance of the LCR versus the mainstem in 

humpback chub population dynamics. 

Our proposal calls for: a) estimating growth, survival and dispersal of juvenile humpback 

chub in the Little Colorado River by marking young-of-year humpback chub in the Little 

Colorado River in July of each year, b) determining food availability and food web 

structure in the Little Colorado River confluence including describing the feeding habits 

of juvenile chub in both the LCR and mainstem, c) systematic collection of otoliths from 

young-of-year in both the LCR and mainstem across seasons to better resolve movement 

and dispersal, d) laboratory studies on chemical imprinting to determine whether the 

timing of juvenile outmigration ultimately affects spawning site fidelity for chub, and e) 

data analysis and modeling to determine both the relative roles of hydrology and 
6

intraspecific interactions in LCR juvenile dynamics and the relative importance of the 

LCR versus the mainstem in humpback chub population dynamics. 

F. Project Title: Long-term monitoring of native and nonnative fishes in the mainstem 

Colorado River and the Little Colorado River 

Collaborators: William Persons, Luke Avery, Charles Yackulic, and Mike Yard (Grand 

Canyon Monitoring and Research Center); Aaron Bunch and Brian Clark (Arizona Game 

and Fish Department); D.R. Van Haverbeke, Dennis Stone, and Mike Pillow (U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service); Brian Healy and Emily Omana (Grand Canyon National Park); 

Josh Korman (Ecometric Research); and Dana Winkelman and Kristen Pearson 

(Colorado State University) 

Native and nonnative 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, 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 and 

nonnative fishes 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. 

G. Project Title: Interactions between native fish and nonnative trout 

Collaborators: David Ward (Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center); Aaron 

Bunch and Mike Anderson (Arizona Game and Fish Department); D.R. Van Haverbeke 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service); Brian Healy and Emily Omana (Grand Canyon National 

Park)

We propose to evaluate impacts of rainbow and brown trout on humpback chub 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 
7

tests will then be used in conjunction with data from long-term monitoring to model 

population level impacts of trout on humpback chub. A field study conducted in 

collaboration with Grand Canyon National Park will remove brown trout using 

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 and 

quantify how predation and competition by trout are impacting humpback chub at a 

population level, and will allow managers to better plan and implement management 

actions designed to conserve Colorado River native fishes. 

H. Project Title: Identifying the main driver(s) of rainbow trout growth, population 

size, demographics and distribution in Glen and Marble Canyon 

Collaborators: Mike Yard, David Ward, Theodore Kennedy, and Charles Yackulic 

(Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center); Aaron Bunch and Mike Anderson 

(Arizona Game and Fish Department); Robert Hall (University of Wyoming); Scott 

Wright (U.S. Geological Survey); and Josh Korman (Ecometric Research) 

Over the last few decades the rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss; hereafter RBT) 

fishery in Lees Ferry has been characterized by three undesirable properties: 1) an 

absence of the large RBT that are highly valued by the angling community (Schmidt and 

others 1998), 2) increasing potential for negative interactions between RBT and native 

fishes as RBT populations expanded downstream (Yard and others 2011), and 3) decadal 

scale cycles in RBT population abundance (Makinster and others 2011). The causes of 

the long term population cycles (3) are fairly well understood (Korman et al., in press), 

and the Natal Origins project was specifically designed to address uncertainties 

surrounding the downstream migration of RBT (2). Here, we propose a suite of activities, 

many of which build on the Natal Origins platform, to better understand the factors 

limiting the growth of large RBT (1). Research efforts have repeatedly identified the 

limited prey base in Glen Canyon as a likely cause of some of these undesirable 

properties (Stevens and others 1997, McKinney and Speas 2001, Cross and others 2011) 

so our proposal emphasizes continued research on fish-food linkages. 

Our proposal calls for: a) a simple laboratory experiment to determine if the strain of 

rainbow trout in Lees Ferry is actually capable of growing to large size, b) measurement 

of algae primary production, invertebrate drift, and rainbow trout diets to quantify prey 

abundance, and c) modeling that combines hydrodynamics, invertebrate drift, and fish 

bioenergetics to estimate net energy intake and growth potential for rainbow trout, and d) 

a synthesis of data from tailwaters throughout the nation to better understand the link 

between salmonid population dynamics and flow and temperature regimes, which will 
8

help identify alternative flow regimes that could be considered for implementation on 

Glen Canyon Dam. In addition, we present a contingency plan for a potential fall High 

Flow Experiment (HFE). Although we have a good understanding of food web response 

to the spring HFEs conducted in 1996 and 2008, our understanding of food web response 

to the fall HFE in 2004 is more limited. Thus, we are also poised to take advantage of the 

learning opportunity presented by any HFEs that occur during FY13-14. 

I. Project Title: Integrated riparian vegetation studies 

Collaborators: Barbara Ralston, Phil Davis, and Paul Grams (Grand Canyon Monitoring 

and Research Center); Dustin Perkins (Northern Plateau I&M Program); Grand Canyon 

National Park; Northern Arizona University 

Riparian vegetation affects physical process as well as ecological and cultural 

interactions along the river corridor. Reduced local precipitation, altered basin hydrology, 

and the introduction of the tamarisk leaf-beetle into the river corridor in 2008 are 

conditions that collectively may significantly alter the composition of the riparian 

community and indirectly affect efforts to manage and conserve sediment along the 

corridor. The presence and expansion of vegetation promotes bank stability which is the 

antithesis of the historic Colorado River sediment dynamics. The effect of riparian 

vegetation’s presence and the uncertain direction that compositional changes may take 

has garnered the attention of stakeholders within the Adaptive Management Program for 

Glen Canyon Dam (GCDAMP), and resource managers along other stretch of the 

Colorado Rivers. The stakeholders for the GCDAMP requested a greater emphasis be put 

on quantifying and understanding riparian vegetation dynamics. Better understanding of 

the response of riparian vegetation to Glen Canyon Dam and the effect of riparian 

vegetation on other resources can be gained by improving the monitoring efforts within 

the river corridor downstream of Glen Canyon Dam, and by expanding opportunities to 

compare and integrate riparian monitoring data and research across the Colorado River 

Basin. This proposal includes three study elements that are intended to initiate a 

monitoring approach that is collaborative with the National Park Service’s Northern 

Colorado Plateau’s Inventory and Monitoring Program and Grand Canyon National Park, 

and research efforts intended to be integrative with the physical sciences and trophic 

interactions. 

This proposed work includes three complimentary elements: 1) Remote and groundbased riparian vegetation monitoring; 2) Investigating Eddy Sandbar Variability: 

Interactions among Flow, Vegetation, and Geomorphology; 3) Riparian vegetation 

dynamics and trophic level linkages. Vegetation monitoring data should inform resource 

managers about the status of vegetation as it relates to biotic, physical and cultural 

resources within a geomorphic framework that allows comparison of vegetation response 
9

across the river corridor (Element 1 goal). Monitoring the response of vegetation may 

provide feedback information to geomorphology research concerned about responsive or 

unresponsive bars either within or between river reaches (Element 2 goal). Data collected 

for vegetation monitoring can also compliment research focused on understanding trophic 

linkages between aquatic and terrestrial systems and how dam operations and other 

agents of change (e.g., tamarisk beetle) may affect these linkages (Element 3 goal). The 

Adaptive Management Program has identified specific monitoring information needs 

associated with Goal 6 that identify species composition distribution and area cover as 

basic data the program needs to understand plant response to dam operations. Consistent 

data collection of species presence and cover that is nested within a geomorphic 

framework can assist resource managers in answering the following questions which are 

drawn from the stated information needs: 

1. Which species (native and nonnative species) and what is the percent cover of 

species that occupy and form habitat within the depositional environments of 

debris-fan eddy complexes and the channel margins associated with the 

hydrologic features of pools, eddys, and runs? (Element 1 goal) 

2. How do patterns of species composition and cover vary by stage and by river 

reach? 

3. Do species common to all reaches of river within Grand Canyon respond similarly 

to changes in operations of Glen Canyon Dam? (Element 1 goal). 

4. How does woody riparian vegetation expansion below power plant capacity limit 

sediment conservation associated with experimental high flows? (Element 2 goal). 

5. How does woody riparian vegetation expansion below power plant capacity affect 

shoreline complexity for juvenile fish? (Element 2 goal). 

6. How will the decline in tamarisk cover affect riparian breeding bird habitat, 

reptile abundance along the river corridor and (or) available terrestrial food 

resources (e.g., ground-dwelling arthropods)? (Element 3 goal). 

Answering these questions requires data collection and analysis at multiple spatial scales 

using ground-based sampling, periodic collection of remotely sensed imagery and 

modeling that is integrated with physical resources. By answering these questions 

through monitoring and research, opportunities to experiment with release volumes and 

patterns of release from Glen Canyon Dam may allow resource managers to move toward 

reaching their resource goal of supporting native vegetation in some portions of the river 

if not the majority of the Colorado River downstream from Glen Canyon Dam. 
Preliminary FY13 GCMRC budget

(does not include cultural resources)

Sandbars and sediment storage dynamics 

Stream flow, water quality, and sediment transport

Lake Powell water quality monitoring 

Mainstem humpback chub aggregation studies 

Humpback chub early life history near LCR 

Long-term monitoring native and nonnative mainstem

Native fish and nonnative trout interactions

Identifying main drivers rainbow trout growth, etc

Integrated riparian vegetation studies 

Independent Review 

USGS Administration 

Other Allocations 
investigators

GCMRC

salaries logistics

GIS / RS /

electronics support

(includes burden)

cooperators

(non‐USGS)

USGS

cooperators tot

Total (does not include Cultural Resources monitoring) $3,669,000 $1,047,000 $487,000 $1,808,000 $757,000 $9,37

A Sandbars and sediment storage dynamics ($1,391,000)

on‐going

GCDAMP monitoring,

including environmental

compliance

1. Sandbar and camping beach monitoring ... Grams et al $106,000 $27,000 77,000 $98,000 $344

on‐going

GCDAMP monitoring,

including environmental

compliance / research

2. Sediment storage monitoring and research Grams et al $259,000 $74,000 $81,000 $164,000 $14,000 $691

new research 3. Bed sediment influences on suspended sediment Rubin et al $43,000 $37,000 $22,000 $65,000 $83,000 $267

new research 4. Geochemical signatures of mined pre‐dam sediment Takesue et al $6,000 $46,000 $53,

on‐going 5. General survey support Kohl et al $22,000 $6,000 $36,

on‐going

GCDAMP monitoring,

including environmental

compliance

B Stream flow, water quality, and sediment transport ($1,258,000) Topping $524,000 $60,000 $55,000 $480,000 $1,25

on‐going GCDAMP monitoring C Lake Powell water quality monitoring ($236,000) Vernieu $166,000 $22,000 $236

D Mainstem humpback chub aggregation studies (504,000)

on‐going expanded

GCDAMP monitoring,

including environmental

compliance

1. Aggregation sampling Ward et al $22,000 $100,000 $15,000 $80,000 $250

on‐going expanded

GCDAMP monitoring,

including environmental

compliance

2. Aggregation ecology Kennedy et al. $51,000 $15,000 $15,000 $27,000 $124

new research 3a. Adult condition and reproductive potential (ovaprim studies) Ward et al. $7,000 $15,000 $27,

new research 3b. Adult condition and reproductive potential (ultrasonic imaging) Ward et al. $7,000 $15,000 $36,

new research 3c. Adult condition and reproductive potential (diet nutritional studies) Ward et al. $7,000 $15,000 $29,

new research 4. Humpback chub natal origins Persons et al. $10,000 $20,000 $38,

E Humpback chub early life history near LCR ($358,000)

new research 1. July LCR marking Yackulic et al. $65,000 $10,000 $93,

new research 2. Describing trophic ecology humpback chub in LCR Kennedy et al $69,000 $20,000 $119

new research 3. Otolith sampling NSE reach in fall $11,000 $32,

new research 4. Laboaratory study imprinting of humpback chub (FY 14 project) Ward et al. 

new research 5. Linkages / modeling Yackulic et al. $84,000 $10,000 $114

F Long‐term monitoring native nonnative fishes mainstem Colorado River and LCR ($1,988,000)

on‐going

GCDAMP monitoring,

including environmental

compliance

1. Mainstem spring native/nonnative fish monitoring Persons et al. $23,000 $55,000 $103,000 $206

on‐going

GCDAMP monitoring,

including environmental

compliance

1c.1. Rainbow trout monitoring Persons et al. $23,000 $42,000 $132,000 $216

on‐going

GCDAMP monitoring,

including environmental

compliance

1c.2. Rainbow trout early life studies Avery et al. $46,000 $42,000 $109

on‐going

GCDAMP monitoring,

including environmental

compliance

1d. Mainstem monitoring native/nonnative fish near LCR confluences Yard et al. $13,000 $206,000 $177,000 $432

on‐going

GCDAMP monitoring,

including environmental

compliance

2a. Annual spring/fall HBC abundance estimates lower 13.6km ofLCR Persons et al. $18,000 $86,000 $364,000 $511

on‐going

GCDAMP monitoring,

including environmental

compliance

2b. Monitoring native/nonative in lower 1,200m LCR Persons et al. $17,000 $12,000 $50,000 $88,

FY 13

Attachment 1
investigators

GCMRC

salaries logistics

GIS / RS /

electronics support

(includes burden)

cooperators

(non‐USGS)

USGS

cooperators tot

FY 13

on‐going

GCDAMP monitoring,

including environmental

compliance

2c. Translocation and monitoring above Chute Falls Persons et al. $17,000 $37,000 $67,000 $132

on‐going GCDAMP monitoring / research 2d. PIT tag antenna monitoring Persons et al. $23,000 $6,000 $40,000 $80,

on‐going

GCDAMP monitoring,

including environmental

compliance

3. Stock assessment and structured mark recapture model humpback chub abundance

estimates Yackulic et al. $19,000 $22,

on‐going

GCDAMP monitoring,

including environmental

compliance

4. Detection of rainbow trout movement from upper Colorado River below GCD Korman $35,000 $28,000 $67,000 $192

G Interactions between native fish and nonnative trout ($277,000)

new research 1. Laboratory studies... Ward $52,000 $83,

new

GCDAMP monitoring /

research 2. Efficacy ecological impacts brown trout Ward et al. $71,000 $89,000 $194

H Identifying main drivers rainbow trout growth, population size, demographics, distribution ($814,000)

on‐going expanded GCDAMP monitoring / research 1. Establishing current conditions Yard et al $59,000 $113

new research 2. Laboratory feeding studies Ward $15,000 $36,

on‐going expanded GCDAMP monitoring / research 3. Monitoring modeling food base Kennedy et al. $254,000 $20,000 $327

new

GCDAMP monitoring /

research 4. Integration modeling factors limiting large rainbow trout growth Yackulic et al. $98,000 $111

new research 5. Tailwater synthesis Yackulic et al. $93,000 $118

new

GCDAMP monitoring,

including environmental

compliance / research

6. Rainbow trout population management Yard et al $45,000 $23,000 $109

I Integrated riparian vegetation studies ($509,000)

on‐going expanded GCDAMP monitoring 1. Integrated vegetation monitoring Ralston $69,000 $30,000 $137,000 $25,000 $276

new research 2. Vegetation‐sediment modeling Ralston $113,000 $35,000 $189

new research 3. Riparian vegetation dynamics ‐ trophic linkages Ralston $26,000 $5,000 $44,

Cultural Resources monitoring

on‐going expanded

GCDAMP monitoring,

including environmental

compliance

Glen Canyon NRA and Grand Canyon NP Cultural Resource Pilot Monitoring Project;

Grand Canyon NP remote sensing analysis(GCMRC and NPS project proposals are

under review)

Fairley et al. 

on‐going reduced Independent Reviewers $21,000 $24,on‐going reduced Science Advisors $142,000 $146

Budget analyst, communications support, library, discretionary awards $253,000 $71,000 $426

vehicles $134leadership personnel $584,000 $699

AMWG/TWG travel $32,

SBSC IT overhead $134,000 $153

Logistics base costs $244,000 $335

Annual contribution of Overflight Fund $85,000 $85,

Independent Review ($170,000)

USGS Administration ($1,780,000)

Other Allocations ($85,000)