U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Glen Canyon Dam 

Adaptive Management 

Program Triennial 

Budget

and Work Plan— 

Fiscal Years 2015–2017

Prepared by 

Bureau of Reclamation

Upper Colorado Regional Office

and

U.S. Geological Survey

Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center

Prepared in cooperation with the 

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive 

Management Program 

Planning Document

Draft: August 1, 2014
Cover: View of Colorado River from Nankoweap Trail in Marble Canyon, Grand Canyon National Park, 

Scott VanderKooi, U.S. Geolgoical Survery.
Prepared in cooperation with the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management

Program

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management

Program Biennial Budget and Work Plan—

Fiscal Years 2015–2017

Prepared by 

Bureau of Reclamation 

Upper Colorado Regional Office 

Salt Lake City, Utah 

and 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Southwest Biological Science Center 

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center 

Flagstaff, Arizona 

Draft: August 1, 2014 

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
ii 

Table of Contents 

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................ 9 

A.1. Adaptive Management Work Group Costs ................................................................................................................. 11 

A.2. AMWG Member Travel Reimbursement ..................................................................................................................... 12 

A.3. AMWG Reclamation Travel ......................................................................................................................................... 13 

A.4. AMWG Facilitation Contract ....................................................................................................................................... 14 

A.5. Public Outreach ............................................................................................................................................................ 15 

A.6. AMWG Other ............................................................................................................................................................... 16 

B.1. TWG Costs .................................................................................................................................................................... 17 

B.2. TWG Member Travel Reimbursement ......................................................................................................................... 18 

B.3. TWG Reclamation Travel ............................................................................................................................................. 19 

B.4. TWG Chair Reimbursement/Facilitation ...................................................................................................................... 20 

B.5. TWG Other .................................................................................................................................................................... 21 

C.1. Administrative Support for NPS Permitting ................................................................................................................. 22 

C.2. Contract Administration ............................................................................................................................................... 23 

C.3. Science Advisor Contract ............................................................................................................................................. 24 

C.4. Experimental Fund ........................................................................................................................................................ 25 

C.5. Installation of Acoustic Flow Meters in Glen Canyon Dam Bypass Tubes ................................................................. 26 

C.6. Native Fish Conservation Contingency Fund ............................................................................................................... 28 

D.2. Cultural Resources Work Plan ..................................................................................................................................... 31 

Summary budget table for cultural resources work plan. .............................................................................................. 34 

D.3. Integrated Tribal Resources Monitoring ..................................................................................................................... 35 

D.4. Tribal Participation in the GCDAMP ............................................................................................................................ 36 

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

Research Center Triennial Budget and Work Plan—Fiscal Years 2015–2017 .................................................................. 40 

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................................... 40 

Purpose ............................................................................................................................................................................ 41 

Administrative Guidance that Informs the FY15–17 Triennial Work Plan ..................................................................... 41 

Overview of the FY 15–17 Triennial Work Plan .............................................................................................................. 50 

Allocation of the FY15–17 Budget .................................................................................................................................. 65 

References ....................................................................................................................................................................... 66 

Project 2. Stream Flow, Water Quality, and Sediment Transport in the Colorado River Ecosystem ................................ 68 

A. Investigators ................................................................................................................................................................ 68 

B. Project Summary .......................................................................................................................................................... 68 

C. Background .................................................................................................................................................................. 68 

C.1. Scientific Background ........................................................................................................................................... 68 

C.2. Management Background .................................................................................................................................... 72 

C.3. Monitoring and Research Questions Posed by Stakeholders that Are Addressed in This Project..................... 73 

C.4. Scientific Questions that have Emerged from Past Work and That Are Addressed in This Project .................. 74 

D. Proposed Work ............................................................................................................................................................ 74 

D.1. Project Elements ................................................................................................................................................... 74 

D.2 Personnel and Collaborations ............................................................................................................................... 76 

D.3 Deliverables ........................................................................................................................................................... 76 
iii 

E. Productivity from Past Work (during FY 13–14) ......................................................................................................... 76 

E.1. Data Products ........................................................................................................................................................ 76 

E.2. Completed Publications ........................................................................................................................................ 77 

E.3. Publications in progress ........................................................................................................................................ 78 

E.4. Presentations at GCDAMP meetings ................................................................................................................... 78 

E.5. Presentations at professional meetings ............................................................................................................... 78 

F. References ................................................................................................................................................................... 79 

G. Budget ......................................................................................................................................................................... 83 

Project 3. Sandbars and Sediment Storage Dynamics: Long-term Monitoring and Research at the Site, Reach, 

and Ecosystem Scales ......................................................................................................................................................... 84 

A. Investigators ................................................................................................................................................................ 84 

B. Project Summary .......................................................................................................................................................... 85 

C. Background .................................................................................................................................................................. 86 

C.1. Scientific Background ........................................................................................................................................... 88 

C.2. Management Background .................................................................................................................................... 97 

C.3. Key Monitoring and Research Questions Addressed in this project ................................................................... 99 

D. Proposed Work ............................................................................................................................................................ 99 

D.1 Outline of Monitoring Strategy ........................................................................................................................... 100 

D.2. Project Elements ................................................................................................................................................. 103 

D.3 Personnel and Collaborations ............................................................................................................................. 150 

D.4 Deliverables ......................................................................................................................................................... 150 

E. Productivity from Past Work (during FY 13–14) ....................................................................................................... 151 

E.1. Data Products ...................................................................................................................................................... 151 

E.2. Completed Publications ...................................................................................................................................... 151 

E.3. Publications in progress ...................................................................................................................................... 152 

E.4. Presentations at GCDAMP meetings ................................................................................................................. 153 

E.5. Presentations at professional meetings ............................................................................................................. 153 

F. References ................................................................................................................................................................. 154 

G. Budget ....................................................................................................................................................................... 162 

Project 4. Connectivity along the fluvial-aeolian-hillslope continuum: quantifying the relative importance of 

river-related factors that influence upland geomorphology and archaeological site stability ........................................ 165 

A. Investigators .............................................................................................................................................................. 165 

B. Project Summary ........................................................................................................................................................ 165 

C. Background ................................................................................................................................................................ 166 

C.1. Scientific Background ......................................................................................................................................... 166 

C.2. Management Background .................................................................................................................................. 173 

C.3. Key Monitoring and Research Questions Addressed in this project ................................................................. 177 

D. Proposed Work .......................................................................................................................................................... 179 

D.1. Project Elements ................................................................................................................................................. 179 

D.2. Personnel and Collaborations ............................................................................................................................ 189 

D.3. Deliverables ........................................................................................................................................................ 189 

E. Productivity from Past Work (during FY13–14) ......................................................................................................... 190 

E.1. Data Products ...................................................................................................................................................... 190 

E.2. Completed Publications ...................................................................................................................................... 190 
iv 

E.3. Publications in progress ...................................................................................................................................... 190 

E.4. Presentations at GCDAMP meetings ................................................................................................................. 190 

E.5. Presentations at professional meetings ............................................................................................................. 191 

F. References ................................................................................................................................................................. 191 

G. Budget ....................................................................................................................................................................... 197 

Project 5. Foodbase Monitoring and Research ................................................................................................................. 199 

A. Investigators .............................................................................................................................................................. 199 

B. Project Summary ........................................................................................................................................................ 199 

C. Background ................................................................................................................................................................ 200 

C.1. Scientific Background ......................................................................................................................................... 200 

C.2. Management Background .................................................................................................................................. 206 

C.3. Key Monitoring and Research Questions Addressed ........................................................................................ 208 

C.4. Hypotheses Explaining Aquatic Invertebrate Productivity and Diversity .......................................................... 208 

D. Proposed Work .......................................................................................................................................................... 214 

D.1. Project Elements ................................................................................................................................................. 214 

D.2. Personnel and Collaborations ............................................................................................................................ 222 

D.3. Deliverables ........................................................................................................................................................ 224 

E. Productivity from Past Work (during FY 13–14) ........................................................................................................ 225 

E.1. Data Products ...................................................................................................................................................... 225 

E.2. Completed Publications ...................................................................................................................................... 225 

E.3. Publications in progress ...................................................................................................................................... 226 

E.4. Presentations at GCDAMP meetings ................................................................................................................. 226 

E.5. Presentations at professional meetings ............................................................................................................. 226 

F. References ................................................................................................................................................................. 227 

G. Budget ....................................................................................................................................................................... 232 

Project 6. Mainstem Colorado River Humpback Chub Aggregations and Fish Community Dynamics ............................ 238 

A. Investigators .............................................................................................................................................................. 238 

B. Project Summary ........................................................................................................................................................ 238 

C. Background ................................................................................................................................................................ 241 

C.1 Scientific Background .......................................................................................................................................... 241 

C.2. Key Monitoring and Research Questions Addressed in this project ................................................................. 247 

C.3. Key management goals and objectives addressed in this project .................................................................... 249 

D. Proposed Work .......................................................................................................................................................... 249 

D.1. Project Elements ................................................................................................................................................. 249 

D.2 Personnel and Collaborations ............................................................................................................................. 255 

D.3 Deliverables ......................................................................................................................................................... 256 

E. Productivity from Past Work (during FY 13–14) ........................................................................................................ 256 

E.1. Data Products ...................................................................................................................................................... 256 

E.2. Publications in progress ...................................................................................................................................... 257 

E.3. Presentations at GCDAMP meetings ................................................................................................................. 257 

E.4. Presentations at professional meetings ............................................................................................................. 257 

F. References ................................................................................................................................................................. 258 

G. Budget ....................................................................................................................................................................... 263 

Project 7. Population Ecology of Humpback Chub in and around the Little Colorado River ............................................ 266 
v 

A. Investigators .............................................................................................................................................................. 266 

B. Project Summary ........................................................................................................................................................ 266 

C. Background ................................................................................................................................................................ 270 

C.1. Scientific Background ......................................................................................................................................... 270 

C.2. Management Background .................................................................................................................................. 272 

C.3. Key Monitoring and Research Questions Addressed in this project ................................................................. 272 

D. Proposed Work .......................................................................................................................................................... 274 

D.1. Project Elements ................................................................................................................................................. 274 

D.2 Personnel and Collaborations ............................................................................................................................. 281 

D.3 Deliverables ......................................................................................................................................................... 281 

E. Productivity from Past Work (during FY 13–14) ........................................................................................................ 282 

E.1. Data Products ...................................................................................................................................................... 282 

E.2. Completed Publications ...................................................................................................................................... 282 

E.3. Publications in progress ...................................................................................................................................... 282 

E.4. Presentations at GCDAMP meetings ................................................................................................................. 282 

E.5. Presentations at professional meetings ............................................................................................................. 283 

F. References ................................................................................................................................................................. 283 

G. Budget ....................................................................................................................................................................... 286 

Project 8. Experimental Actions to Increase Abundance and Distribution of Native Fishes in Grand Canyon ............... 289 

A. Investigators .............................................................................................................................................................. 289 

B. Project Summary ........................................................................................................................................................ 289 

C. Background ................................................................................................................................................................ 290 

C.1. Management Background .................................................................................................................................. 290 

C.2 Key Monitoring and Research Questions Addressed in this Project .................................................................. 291 

D. Proposed Work .......................................................................................................................................................... 292 

D.1. Project Elements ................................................................................................................................................. 292 

D.2 Personnel and Collaborations ............................................................................................................................. 296 

D.3 Deliverables ......................................................................................................................................................... 296 

E. Productivity from Past Work (during FY 13–14) ........................................................................................................ 297 

E.1. Data Products ...................................................................................................................................................... 297 

E.2. Publications in progress ...................................................................................................................................... 297 

E.3. Presentations at GCDAMP meetings ................................................................................................................. 297 

E.4. Presentations at professional meetings ............................................................................................................. 297 

F. References ................................................................................................................................................................. 298 

G. Budget ....................................................................................................................................................................... 300 

Project 9. Understanding the Factors Determining Recruitment, Population Size, Growth, and Movement of 

Rainbow Trout in Glen and Marble Canyons .................................................................................................................... 302 

A. Investigators .............................................................................................................................................................. 302 

B. Project Summary ........................................................................................................................................................ 302 

C. Background ................................................................................................................................................................ 305 

C.1. Scientific Background ......................................................................................................................................... 309 

C. 2. Key Monitoring and Research Questions Addressed in this Project ................................................................ 312 

D. Proposed Work- Monitoring and Research Projects ................................................................................................ 313 

D.1. Project Elements- Research ............................................................................................................................... 313 
vi 

D.2 Personnel and Collaborations ............................................................................................................................. 326 

D.3 Deliverables ......................................................................................................................................................... 326 

E. Productivity from Past Work (during FY 13–14) ........................................................................................................ 326 

E.1. Completed Publications ...................................................................................................................................... 326 

E.2. Publications in progress ...................................................................................................................................... 327 

E.3. Presentations at GCDAMP meetings ................................................................................................................. 327 

E.4. Presentations at professional meetings ............................................................................................................. 327 

F. References ................................................................................................................................................................. 328 

G. Budget ....................................................................................................................................................................... 335 

Project 10. Where does the Glen Canyon Dam rainbow trout tailwater fishery end? - Integrating Fish and 

Channel Mapping Data below Glen Canyon Dam ............................................................................................................ 341 

A. Investigators .............................................................................................................................................................. 341 

B. Project Summary ........................................................................................................................................................ 341 

C. Background ................................................................................................................................................................ 346 

C.1. Scientific Background ......................................................................................................................................... 347 

C.2. Management Background .................................................................................................................................. 359 

C.3. Key Monitoring and Research Questions Addressed in this project ................................................................. 360 

D. Proposed Work .......................................................................................................................................................... 362 

D.1. Project Elements ................................................................................................................................................. 362 

D.2 Personnel and Collaborations ............................................................................................................................. 377 

D.3 Deliverables ......................................................................................................................................................... 377 

E. Productivity from Past Work (during FY 13–14) ........................................................................................................ 377 

E.1. Data Products ...................................................................................................................................................... 377 

E.2. Completed Publications ...................................................................................................................................... 377 

E.3. Publications in progress ...................................................................................................................................... 377 

E.4. Presentations at GCDAMP meetings ................................................................................................................. 378 

E.5. Presentations at professional meetings ............................................................................................................. 378 

F. References ................................................................................................................................................................. 378 

G. Budget ....................................................................................................................................................................... 384 

Project 11. Riparian Vegetation Monitoring and Analysis of Riparian Vegetation, Landform Change and 

Aquatic-Terrestrial linkages to Faunal Communities ....................................................................................................... 385 

A. Investigators .............................................................................................................................................................. 385 

B. Project Summary ........................................................................................................................................................ 385 

C. Background ................................................................................................................................................................ 386 

C.1. Scientific Background ......................................................................................................................................... 390 

C.2. Management Background .................................................................................................................................. 391 

C.3. Key Monitoring and Research Questions Addressed in this project ................................................................. 392 

D. Proposed Work .......................................................................................................................................................... 393 

D.1. Project Elements ................................................................................................................................................. 393 

D.2. Personnel and Collaborations ............................................................................................................................ 413 

D.3. Deliverables ........................................................................................................................................................ 413 

E. Productivity from Past Work (during FY 13–14) ........................................................................................................ 413 

E.1. Data Products ...................................................................................................................................................... 413 

E.2. Completed Publications ...................................................................................................................................... 413 
vii 

E.3. Publications in progress ...................................................................................................................................... 413 

E.4. Presentations at GCDAMP meetings ................................................................................................................. 413 

E.5. Presentations at professional meetings ............................................................................................................. 414 

F. References ................................................................................................................................................................. 414 

G. Budget ....................................................................................................................................................................... 420 

Project 12. Changes in the Distribution and Abundance of Culturally-Important Plants in the Colorado River 

Ecosystem: A Pilot Study to Explore Relationships between Vegetation Change and Traditional Cultural 

Values ................................................................................................................................................................................ 423 

A. Investigators .............................................................................................................................................................. 423 

B. Project Summary ........................................................................................................................................................ 423 

C. Background ................................................................................................................................................................ 424 

C.1. Scientific Background ......................................................................................................................................... 424 

C.2. DFCs and Key Monitoring and Research Questions Addressed by this project................................................ 428 

D. Proposed Work .......................................................................................................................................................... 430 

D.1. Project Elements ................................................................................................................................................. 430 

D.2 Personnel and Collaborations ............................................................................................................................. 433 

D.3 Linkages to other projects ................................................................................................................................... 433 

D.4 Deliverables ......................................................................................................................................................... 434 

E. References ................................................................................................................................................................. 434 

F. Budget ........................................................................................................................................................................ 439 

Project 13. Socioeconomic Monitoring and Research ...................................................................................................... 441 

A. Investigators .............................................................................................................................................................. 441 

B. Project Summary ........................................................................................................................................................ 441 

C. Background ................................................................................................................................................................ 442 

C.1. Scientific Background ......................................................................................................................................... 444 

C.2. Key Monitoring and Research Questions Addressed in this project ................................................................. 446 

D. Proposed Work .......................................................................................................................................................... 447 

D.1. Project Elements ................................................................................................................................................. 447 

D.2 Personnel and Collaborations ............................................................................................................................. 452 

D.3. Deliverables ........................................................................................................................................................ 453 

E. References ................................................................................................................................................................. 454 

F. Budget ........................................................................................................................................................................ 457 

Project 14. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Services and Support ....................................................................... 459 

A. Investigators .............................................................................................................................................................. 459 

B. Project Summary ........................................................................................................................................................ 459 

C. Background ................................................................................................................................................................ 460 

C.1. Scientific Background ......................................................................................................................................... 460 

C.2. Management Background .................................................................................................................................. 462 

C.3. Key Monitoring and Research Questions Addressed in this project ................................................................. 462 

D. Proposed Work .......................................................................................................................................................... 463 

D.1. Project Elements ................................................................................................................................................. 463 

D.2 Personnel and Collaborations ............................................................................................................................. 467 

D.3 Deliverables ......................................................................................................................................................... 467 

E. Productivity from Past Work (during FY 13–14) ........................................................................................................ 467 
viii 

E.1. Data Products ...................................................................................................................................................... 467 

E.2. Presentations at GCDAMP meetings ................................................................................................................. 468 

E.5. Presentations at professional meetings ............................................................................................................. 469 

F. Budget ........................................................................................................................................................................ 470 

Table 1. A list of GIS planned support for FY15–17 Triennial Work Plan ................................................................... 471 

Project 15. Administration ................................................................................................................................................. 473 

Budget ............................................................................................................................................................................ 474 

Appendices ........................................................................................................................................................................ 475 

Appendix 1 Project 1 .......................................................................................................................................................... 476 

Project 1. Lake Powell and Glen Canyon Dam Release Water-Quality Monitoring ........................................................ 476 

A. Investigators .............................................................................................................................................................. 476 

B. Project Summary ........................................................................................................................................................ 476 

C. Background ................................................................................................................................................................ 479 

C.1. Scientific Background ......................................................................................................................................... 479 

C.2. Management Background .................................................................................................................................. 480 

C.3. Key Monitoring and Research Questions Addressed in this project ................................................................. 480 

D. Proposed Work .......................................................................................................................................................... 483 

D.1. Project Elements ................................................................................................................................................. 483 

D.2 Personnel and Collaborations ............................................................................................................................. 486 

D.3 Deliverables ......................................................................................................................................................... 487 

E. Productivity from Past Work .............................................................................................................................. 487 

E.1. Data Products ...................................................................................................................................................... 487 

E.2. Completed Publications ...................................................................................................................................... 487 

E.3. Publications in progress ...................................................................................................................................... 488 

E.4. Presentations at professional meetings ............................................................................................................. 488 

F. References ................................................................................................................................................................. 489 

G. Budget ....................................................................................................................................................................... 491 

Appendix 2-A. Fiscal Year 2015 Funding Recommendation ............................................................................................. 492 

Appendix 2-B. Fiscal Year 2015 Budget ............................................................................................................................ 502 

Appendix 2-C. Fiscal Year 2016 Budget ............................................................................................................................ 510 

Appendix 2-D. Fiscal Year 2017 Budget ............................................................................................................................ 522 

Appendix 3. Logistics and Schedules of River Trips and Field Work ............................................................................... 529 

Appendix 4. TWG Triennial Budget Input FY15–17 Consensus by full TWG on April 9, 2014 ........................................ 533 

   
9 

Chapter 1. Bureau of Reclamation, Glen Canyon Dam 

Adaptive Management Program, Triennial Budget and Work 

Plan—Fiscal Years 2015–17 

Introduction 

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

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

(GCD) by emphasizing learning through monitoring, research, and experimentation, in fulfillment 

of the consultation and research commitments of the Grand Canyon Protection Act (GCPA). The 

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

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

involvement. The majority of program funding is derived from hydropower revenues; however, 

supplemental funding is provided by various Department of the Interior (DOI) agencies that receive 

appropriations. These agencies include BOR, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the National 

Park Service (NPS), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the Bureau of Indian Affairs 

(BIA). 

The budget and work plan for fiscal years (FY) 2015–17 was developed on the basis of 

previous budgets and work plans, the GCDAMP Biennial Budget and Work Process approved by 

the AMWG on May 6, 2010, the Streamlined GCMRC Biennial Work Planning Process, version 

April 3, 2011, and the May 7, 2014 memorandum from Assistant Secretary and Secretary’s 

Designee Anne Castle on development of a tiennial GCDAMP Budget and Work Plan. Additional 

consideration was given to meeting the commitments outlined in the following compliance 

documents (1) the 2007 USFWS Biological Opinion for the Proposed Adoption of Colorado River 

Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and Coordinated Operations for Lake Powell and 

Lake Mead (2007 Opinion); (2) the 2011 Reclamation Environmental Assessment (EA) and 2012 

Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for Development and Implementation of a Protocol for 

High-Flow Experimental Releases from Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona, 2011 through 2020 (HFE 

Protocol); (3) the 2011 Reclamation EA and 2012 FONSI for Non-native Fish Control Downstream 

from Glen Canyon Dam (NNFC EA and FONSI); and the 2011 USFWS Final Biological Opinion 

on the Operation of Glen Canyon Dam including High Flow Experiments and Non-Native Fish 

Control (2011 Opinion). Additionally, this budget and work plan was developed in consideration of 

the Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan Environmental Impact Statement (LTEMP 

EIS). 

The process used to arrive at the FY15–17 budget and work plan was adopted by the AMWG in 

2004 and revised in 2010 to a 2-year fixed budget process, and subsequently revised to a triennial 

budget process by the GCDAMP Secretary’s Designee on May 7, 2014. The Budget Ad Hoc Group 

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

Group (CRAHG), worked with the BRUC and GCMRC to develop a proposal for the TWG. The 

TWG then reviews the proposed budget and work plan and develops a recommendation to the 

AMWG. 

The FY15–17 budget and work plan was also prepared in consideration of the projected 

hydrograph for Lake Powell release for water year (WY) 2015, which is based on forecasted 

inflows to Lake Powell and GCD releases determined by the 1996 Record of Decision on the 
10 

operation of Glen Canyon Dam and the 2007 Record of Decision on Interim Guidelines for 

Coordinated Operation of Lake Mead and Lake Powell. It also observes commitments made in the 

2007 and 2011 U.S. Fish and Wildlife biological opinions. The projected hydrograph is based on 

best estimates available from BOR’s 24-month study released in May 2014, however, the forecast 

is subject to change as further data becomes available. 

 
11 

A.1. Adaptive Management Work Group Costs 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

information into the FACA database. BOR is now required to complete all stakeholder travel, 

activities that range from preparing travel authorizations to completing travel vouchers. 

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

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

increasing each stakeholder’s awareness of significant budget and legislative issues related to the 

GCDAMP, improving working relationships with the AMWG members/alternates, finding 

constructive ways to resolve differences, and addressing individual concerns in an open and 

accepting forum of discussion. 

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

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

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

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

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

Budget FY15 = $196,530 FY16 = $202,425 FY17 = $208,498 

Reclamation Project - Personnel Costs—Funding History 

Activity 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Outside Reclamation 

science/labor — — — — — — —

Logistics field support — — — — — — —

Project-related 

travel/training — — — — — — —

Operations/supplies — — — — — — —

Reclamation salaries 134,443 136,846 141,030 141,337 145,578 149,944 154,443

Subtotal 134,443 136,846 141,030 141,337 145,578 149,944 154,443

DOI Overhead (35%) 44,367 47,923 49,361 49,468 50,952 52,481 54,055

Project total 178,810 184,846 190,391 190,805 196,530 202,425 208,498

Total outsourced (%) 

 
12 

A.2. AMWG Member Travel Reimbursement 

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

scheduled AMWG meetings. 

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

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

often held. As a result, many members must incur travel costs. Having BOR provide 

reimbursement to AMWG members or alternates for air travel or mileage for the use of private 

vehicles, as well as other related travel costs such as hotel, per diem, and rental car increases 

opportunities for members to participate in a variety of AMWG assignments. Because BOR can 

purchase airline tickets at the Federal Government rate, there are additional cost savings to the 

program. 

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

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

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

performed below the GCD. 

Budget FY15 = $15,689 FY16 = $16, 159 FY17 = $16,644 

Reclamation Project - AMWG Travel Reimbursement—Funding History 

Activity 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Outside Reclamation 

science/labor — — — — — — —

Logistics field support — — — — — — —

Project-related 

travel/training 17,671 14,756 15,199 15,232 15,689 16,159 16,644

Operations/supplies — — — — — — —

Reclamation salaries — — — — — — —

Subtotal 17,671 14,756 15,199 15,232 15,689 16,159 16,644

DOI Overhead (35%) — — — — — — —

Project total 17,671 14,756 15,199 15,232 15,689 16,159 16,644

Total outsourced (%) — — — —— — — —
13 

A.3. AMWG Reclamation Travel 

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

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

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

between BOR staff and GCDAMP members, and opportunities for BOR staff to obtain the latest 

results from monitoring and research being conducted by the GCDAMP. 

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

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

involved and work toward consensus with AMWG members on a variety of issues. 

Budget FY15 = $16,097 FY16 = $16,580 FY17 = $17,077 

Reclamation Project - Reclamation Travel—Funding History 

Activity 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Outside Reclamation 

science/labor — — — — — — —

Logistics field support — — — — — — —

Project-related 

travel/training 14,344 15,140 15,595 15,628 16,097 16,580 17,077

Operations/supplies — — — — — — —

Reclamation salaries — — — — — — —

Subtotal 14,344 15,140 15,595 15,628 16,097 16,580 17,077

DOI Overhead (35%) — — — — — — —

Project total 14,344 15,140 15,595 15,628 16,097 16,580 17,077

Total outsourced (%) — — — — — — —

 
14 

A.4. AMWG Facilitation Contract 

This budget supports a facilitator who is under contract to BOR to provide facilitations services 

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

assignments. 

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

members reach consensus on important issues. The facilitator will create an atmosphere in which 

the members and other participants at AMWG meetings feel comfortable expressing their 

individual viewpoints. 

Budget FY15 = $79,556 FY16 = $81,943 FY17 = $84,401 

Reclamation Project - Facilitation Contract—Funding History 

Activity 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Outside Reclamation 

science/labor — — — — — — —

Logistics field support — — — — — — —

Project-related travel/training 27,274 40,531 41,747 0 79,556 81,943 84,401

Operations/supplies — — — — — — —

Reclamation salaries — — — — — — —

Subtotal 27,274 40,531 41,747 0 79,556 81,943 84,401

DOI Overhead (35%) — — — — — — —

Project total 27,274 40,531 41,747 0 79,556 81,943 84,401

Total outsourced (%) — — — — — — —

 
15 

A.5. Public Outreach 

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

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

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

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

GCDAMP members advised of progress and expenditures. 

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

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

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

records of payments made against the contracts and will keep BOR staff informed of discrepancies 

or concerns. 

Since 2010, this line item has accumulated approximately $100,000 in carryover funding as a 

result of reduced activity. Part of the proposal for the FY15–17 triennial budget is to use $50,000 of 

these funds each in FY15 and FY16 to implement the Glen Canyon Dam Administrative History 

Pilot Project. This project would help accomplish the goals of the Public Outreach Ad Hoc Group 

by providing a better understanding of the history of the GCDAMP, its work, and participants. The 

pilot project will undertake the following: 

 Begin developing oral histories and interviews with AMP historical figures 

 Create an annotated bibliography for program related literature 

 Create a website and library database for information archival and retrieval 

 Create a chronological program overview including participants 

 Develop a new participant’s handbook for the AMP. 

Budget FY15 = $63,054 FY16 = $64,945 FY17 = $66,893

Admin. History (carryover) 

 FY15 = $50,000 FY16 = $50,000 FY17 = $0 

Reclamation Project - Public Outreach—Funding History 

Activity 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

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

Logistics field support — — — — — — —

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

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

Reclamation salaries 38,284 40,596 41,914 43,272 43,373 44,774 46,217

Subtotal 42,784 45,096 46,414 47,772 47,873 49,274 50,771

DOI Overhead (35%) 13,400 14,209 14,670 15,145 15,181 15,671 16,176

Project total 56,184 59,305 61,084 62,917 63,054 64,945 66,893

Total outsourced (%) — — — — — — —

 
16 

A.6. AMWG Other 

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

AMWG, including the following expenses: 

 Overnight mailings of AMWG meeting packets 

 Copying of reports 

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

GCDAMP Web site posting, etc.) 

 Purchasing equipment (audio recording/transcribing machines). 

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

current on environmental issues, FACA changes, computer technology improvements, etc. The 

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

can be applied to science and research. Other expenses will be kept to a minimum in an effort to 

reduce the administrative portion of the GCDAMP budget. 

Budget FY15 = $9,047 FY16 = $9,318 FY17 = $9,598 

Reclamation Project - Other—Funding History 

Activity 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Outside Reclamation 

science/labor — — — — — — —

Logistics field support — — — — — — —

Project-related travel/training 6,062 6,509 6,783 7,028 7,047 7,318 7,598

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

Reclamation salaries — — — — — — — 

Subtotal 8,062 8,509 8,783 9,028 9,047 9,318 9,598

DOI Overhead (35%) — — — — 

Project total 8,062 8,509 8,783 9,028 9,047 9,318 9,598

Total outsourced (%) — — — — — — — 

 
17 

B.1. TWG Costs 

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

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

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

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

expenses, and updating the Web pages BOR maintains for the program. BOR also completes all 

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

vouchers. 

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

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

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

and interested parties. 

Budget FY15 = $97,863 FY16 = $100,799 FY17 = $103,823 

Reclamation Project - Personnel Costs—Funding History 

Activity 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

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

Logistics field support — — — — — — —

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

Operations/supplies — — — — — — —

Reclamation salaries 64,593 68,181 70,227 70,380 72,491 74,666 76,906

Subtotal 64,593 68,181 70,227 70,380 72,491 74,666 76,906

DOI Overhead (35%) 22,608 23,864 24,579 24,633 25,372 26,133 26,917

Project total 87,201 92,045 94,806 95,013 97,863 100,799 103,823

Total outsourced (%) — — — — — — — 
18 

B.2. TWG Member Travel Reimbursement 

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

attend regularly scheduled TWG meetings. 

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

attendance at all meetings. By providing reimbursement to TWG members or alternates for air 

travel or mileage for the use of private vehicles, as well as other related travel costs such as hotel, 

per diem, and rental car increases opportunities for members to participate in a variety of TWG 

assignments. Because BOR can purchase airline tickets at the Federal Government rate, there are 

additional cost savings to the program. 

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

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

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

Budget FY15 = $23,051 FY16 = $23,743 FY17 = $24,455

Reclamation Project - TWG Member Travel Reimbursement—Funding History 

Activity 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Outside Reclamation 

science/labor — — — — — — —

Logistics field support — — — — — — —

Project-related travel/training 24,232 21,861 22,331 22,380 23,051 23,743 24,455

Operations/supplies — — — — — — —

Reclamation salaries — — — — — — —

Subtotal 24,232 21,861 22,331 22,380 23,051 23,743 24,455

DOI Overhead (35%) — — — — — — —

Project total 24,232 21,861 22,331 22,380 23,051 23,743 24,455

Total outsourced (%) — — — — — — —
19 

B.3. TWG Reclamation Travel 

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

meetings and ad hoc group meetings resulting from AMWG/TWG assignments. The primary goal 

is for BOR staff to be able to travel to meetings and participate in completing AMWG/TWG 

assignments. BOR staff will continue to be involved in meeting with AMWG/TWG members to 

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

better working relationships with all involved and work toward consensus on a variety of 

GCDAMP issues. 

Budget FY15 = $15,903 FY16 = $16,381 FY17 = $16,872

Reclamation Project - Reclamation Travel—Funding History 

Activity 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Outside Reclamation 

science/labor — — — — — — —

Logistics field support — — — — — — —

Project-related 

travel/training 17,864 14,958 15,407 15,440 15,903 16,381 16,872

Operations/supplies — — — — — — —

Reclamation salaries — — — — — — —

Subtotal 17,864 14,958 15,407 15,440 15,903 16,381 16,872

DOI Overhead (35%) — — — — — — —

Project total 17,864 14,958 15,407 15,440 15,903 16,381 16,872

Total outsourced (%) — — — — — — —
20 

B.4. TWG Chair Reimbursement/Facilitation 

This budget supports a person who is under contract to BOR to serve as the chairperson for the 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

manner. 

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

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

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

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

chairperson will follow up on action items and make assignments as necessary to accomplish TWG 

objectives. 

Part or all, of this budget may also be used to support a facilitator who is under contract to BOR 

to provide facilitations services for TWG meetings. This person may also assist TWG ad hoc 

groups in completing assignments. The facilitator will help keep the TWG meetings organized and 

help the members reach consensus on important issues. The facilitator will create an atmosphere in 

which the members and other participants at TWG meetings feel comfortable expressing their 

individual viewpoints. 

In 2013, a solicitor review of the legal authority to expend federal monies to fund the TWG 

Chair was initiated. Pending the results of this review this budget item may be modified or 

eliminated. 

Budget FY15 = $32,050 FY16 = $33,012 FY17 = $34,002

Reclamation Project - TWG Chair Reimbursement—Funding History 

Activity 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Outside Reclamation 

science/labor — — — — — — —

Logistics field support — — — — — — —

Project-related 

travel/training 24,913 30,145 31,049 31,117 32,050 33,012 34,002

Operations/supplies — — — — — — —

Reclamation salaries — — — — — — —

Subtotal 24,913 30,145 31,049 31,980 32,050 33,012 34,002

DOI Overhead (35%) — — — — — — —

Project total 24,913 30,145 31,049 31,980 32,050 33,012 34,002

Total outsourced (%) — — — — — — —

 
21 

B.5. TWG Other 

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

TWG, including the following expenses: 

 Overnight mailings of TWG meeting packets 

 Copying of reports 

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

 Purchasing equipment (audio recording/transcribing machines) 

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

money can be spent on science and research. Other expenses will be kept to a minimum in an effort 

to keep within the GCDAMP budget. 

Budget FY15 = $2,585 FY16 = $2,662 FY17 = $2,742

Reclamation Project - Other—Funding History 

Activity 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Outside Reclamation 

science/labor — — — — — — —

Logistics field support — — — — — — —

Project-related travel/training 2,303 2,431 2,504 2,509 2,585 2,662 2,742

Operations/supplies — — — — — — —

Reclamation salaries — — — — — — —

Subtotal 2,303 2,431 2,504 2,509 2,585 2,662 2,742

DOI Overhead (35%) — — — — — — —

Project total 2,303 2,431 2,504 2,509 2,585 2,662 2,742

Total outsourced (%) — — — — — — —

 
22 

C.1. Administrative Support for NPS Permitting 

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

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

employs a permitting specialist and staff who review all proposals for projects to be completed in 

the park. The program provides these funds under the auspices of the GCDAMP to offset the park’s 

administrative burden in providing permitting services. The primary goal is to ensure that projects 

conducted under the GCDAMP are reviewed and permitted by the NPS. Projects conducted under 

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

Budget FY15 = $137,319 FY16 = $140,046 FY17 = $144,166

Reclamation Project - Administrative Support for NPS Permitting—Funding History 

Activity 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Outside Reclamation 

science/labor — — — — — — —

Logistics field support — — — — — — —

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

Operations/supplies — — — — — — —

Reclamation salaries — — — — — — —

Subtotal 120,240 121,882 126,242 125,811 129,586 133,743 137,478

DOI Overhead (35%) — — — — — — —

Project total 120,240 121,882 126,242 147,318

* 137,319 140,046 144,166

Total outsourced (%) — — — — — — —

* 2014 includes $17,297 cost reimbursement from FY12 & 13. 
23 

C.2. Contract Administration 

This budget covers the expenses for BOR staff to prepare and monitor contracts associated with 

the GCDAMP. Specifically, these contracts are for AMWG facilitation, TWG chairperson 

reimbursement, Science Advisors, Tribal participation, Tribal resource monitoring, and 

programmatic agreement (PA) work. 

BOR contract specialists will accurately apply funds spent on individual contracts to ensure 

costs do not exceed contract limits. They will keep other BOR staff informed as to those charges so 

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

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

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

will keep BOR staff informed of discrepancies or concerns. Work will be completed on time and 

within the limits of the contract. 

Budget FY15 = $45,362 FY16 = $46,723 FY17 = $48,124

Reclamation Project - Contract Administration—Funding History 

Activity 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Outside Reclamation 

science/labor — — — — — — —

Logistics field support — — — — — — —

Project-related 

travel/training — — — — — — —

Operations/supplies — — — — — — —

Reclamation salaries 29,491 31,604 32,552 32,623 33,601 34,610 35,647

Subtotal 29,491 31,604 32,552 32,623 33,601 34,610 35,647

DOI Overhead (35%) 10,479 11,061 11,393 11,418 11,761 12,113 12,477

Project total 40,420 42,665 43,945 44,041 45,362 46,723 48,124

Total outsourced (%) — — — — — — —

 
24 

C.3. Science Advisor Contract 

This budget provides funding to support Science Advisors for technical reviews and advisory 

services to the GCDAMP. The program provides these funds under the auspices of the GCDAMP 

to obtain objective independent review of documents and work plans, and provide decision support 

to participating agencies and stakeholders. 

Budget FY15 = $75,000 FY16 = $77,250 FY17 = $79,568

Science Advisor Contract Oversight — Funding History 

Activity 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Outside Reclamation 

science/labor — — — — —

Logistics field support — — — — — — —

Project-related 

travel/training — — — — — — —

Operations/supplies — — — — — — —

Reclamation salaries — — — — — — —

Subtotal 75,000 77,250 79,568

DOI Overhead (35%) — — — — — — —

Project total — — — — 75,000 77,250 79,568

Total outsourced (%) — — — — — — —

 
25 

C.4. Experimental Fund 

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

will be available to conduct experiments when conditions are appropriate. If the funds are not 

needed in a given year, they will be transferred to the Native Fish Conservation Contingency Fund. 

In 2015, $250,000 of the fund would be used to install acoustic flow meters on the jet tubes at 

Glen Canyon Dam. The HFE Protocol is a GCDAMP experiment and better instrumentation is 

required to adequately monitor HFEs. The project is further defined below in C.5. Installation of 

Acoustic Flow Meters in Glen Canyon Dam Bypass Tubes.

Budget FY15 = $286,815 FY16 = $552,920 FY17 = $569,507

Reclamation Project - Experimental Carryover Funds—Funding History 

Activity 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Outside Reclamation 

science/labor — — — — —

Logistics field support — — — — — — —

Project-related 

travel/training — — — — — — —

Operations/supplies — — — — — — —

Reclamation salaries — — — — — — —

Subtotal 505,838 521,013 515,000 521,180 $286,815 552,920 569,507

DOI Overhead (35%) — — — — — — —

Project total 505,838 521,013 515,000 521,180 $286,815 552,920 569,507

Total outsourced (%) — — — — — — —

   
26 

C.5. Installation of Acoustic Flow Meters in Glen Canyon Dam Bypass Tubes 

Reclamation needs an accurate measurement of releases through the four bypass tubes at Glen 

Canyon Dam. Releases from the bypass tubes are currently estimated from rating curves that relate 

the hollow jet valve opening percentages and reservoir water surface elevation to a flow through 

each bypass tube. Independent flow measurements of the river and water surface elevation 

measurements during recent use of the bypass tubes during the November 2013 High Flow 

Experiment (HFE) indicate that these rating curves likely underestimated the total bypass flow by 

about 12% (about 2,000 cfs). This resulted in a total bypass release of approximately 17,000 cfs 

and an average release rate of approximately 4,250 cfs from each bypass tube. 

The error found in the rating curve estimate of the bypass tube release is a safety concern. The 

maximum safe release rate from each bypass tube is 3,750 cfs. This limit is based on limiting the 

velocity of water in the bypass tubes to prevent possible cavitation and resulting damage to the 

tubes. The water velocity when the bypass tubes are operated at the maximum recommended 

capacity is approximately 24 feet per second. During the November 2013 HFE, when outlet works 

releases were approximately 17,000 cfs, or 4,250 cfs for each bypass tube, the water velocity 

through the bypass tubes was approximately 27 feet per second, which potentially could have 

created cavitation damage within the bypass tubes, although there is no evidence damage has 

occurred from past use of the bypass tubes. 

Accurate release measurements are also needed for accounting purposes to measure the total 

water released from Glen Canyon Dam. The 2007 Interim Guidelines, which govern the annual 

operations of Glen Canyon Dam, outline the required annual release volumes based on reservoir 

elevations. For HFE releases to utilize bypass tubes and be accurately accounted for as part of the 

required annual volumes, accurate measurements are required. Accurate release measurements are 

also needed to monitor the effects of HFEs. The ability to analyze the effects of HFEs to 

downstream resources will benefit from more accurate and precise measurements of the HFE 

release. 

This project would install acoustic flow meters (AFMs) on each of the four bypass tubes to 

allow real time accurate measurement of the flow occurring through each bypass tube. The AFM 

instrumentation will also be installed on the outlet works in such a way as to be incorporated into 

the SCADA system like the AFMs already installed on each of the power penstocks. 

To address safety concerns, during future HFEs, if AFMs have not been installed on the outlet 

works, the flow through each bypass tubes will be manually limited to no more than 3,750 cfs 

using a correction factor based on the current estimation of the error in the rating curves. The 

uncertainty of the error could result in releases from each bypass tube that is from about 0 to 500 

cfs less than the safe capacity of 3,750 cfs. This potentially could reduce the peak release during 

HFEs by as much as 2,000 cfs from the intended peak. 

 
27 

Budget FY15 = $250,000 FY16 = $0 FY2017 = $0

Reclamation Project – Native Fish Conservation Contingency Fund—Funding History 

Activity 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 

Outside Reclamation 

science/labor 

— — — — $250,000 — — 

Logistics field support — — — — — — — 

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

Operations/supplies — — — — — — — 

Reclamation salaries — — — — — — — 

Subtotal — — — — $250,000 — — 

DOI Overhead (35%) — — — — — — — 

Project total — — — — — — — 

Total outsourced (%) — — — — $250,000 — — 
28 

C.6. Native Fish Conservation Contingency Fund 

This budget item establishes a native fish conservation contingency fund. The goal of this 

budget item is to ensure that funds are available for nonnative fish control in the event this 

conservation action is needed for endangered humpback chub. This is a fund consisting of 

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

control of nonnative fish should the need arise. This fund will implement nonnative fish control 

actions as defined in the 2007 and 2011 Opinions, and the NNFC EA and FONSI. Should excess 

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

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

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

In FY15 $364,052 will be used to fund several important fisheries research and monitoring 

projects that will benefit native fish species. Funding these projects will still allow for sufficient 

funds to conduct nonnative fish control should the need arise over the course of the FY15–17 

period. These projects are identified and described in the GCMRC FY15–17 Budget and Work 

Plan, and include the following: 

 6.2 Aggregation recruitment $83,750 

 6.3 Monitoring mainstem aggregations with PIT tag antennas (pilot) $18,444 

 6.6 Direct mainstem augmentation of humpback chub $9,790 

 7.3 July Little Colorado River juvenile humpback chub marking to estimate production and 

outmigration $112,172 

 7.6 Potential for gravel substrate limitation for humpback chub reproduction in the 

LCR $11,600 

 7.7 Evaluate CO2 as a limiting factor early life history stages of humpback chub in the 

Little Colorado River $86,420 

 7.9 Development of a non-lethal tool to assess the physiological condition of humpback 

chub in the Colorado and Little Colorado Rivers $41,876 

Budget FY15 = $824,079 FY16 = $1,110,894 FY2017 = $1,667,414

Reclamation Project – Native Fish Conservation Contingency Fund—Funding History 

Activity 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 

Outside Reclamation 

science/labor 

— — — — 

Logistics field support — — — — 

Project-related travel/training — — — — 

Operations/supplies — — — — 

Reclamation salaries — — — — 

Subtotal 49,049 50,521 782,660 667,947 824,079 1,110,894 1,667,414 
29 

DOI Overhead (35%) — — — — — — — 

Project total 49,049 50,521 782,660 667,947 824,079 1,110,894 1,667,414 

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

D.1. Cultural Resources Program Administrative Costs 

This budget funds the salary and travel expenses of BOR staff to administer the National 

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) compliance for the GCDAMP. This includes the 1994 PA for 

Glen Canyon Dam Operations, the 2012 Memoranda of Agreement (MOA) documents for Nonnative Fish Control and the HFE Protocol, and general needs of tribal consultation for the 

GCDAMP. This also includes BOR staff administration costs associated with maintaining the 

grants for tribal participation in the GCDAMP and tribal contracts to implement tribal monitoring 

protocols. 

Project Goals and Objectives 

 Management of five tribal grants from both appropriated funds for participation in the 

GCDAMP and power revenues to provide implementation of tribal monitoring protocols. 

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

related projects associated with implementation of NHPA compliance agreements for the 

operation of Glen Canyon Dam. 

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

meetings required by the 1994 PA and 2012 MOAs. 

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

this project, which also ensures accountability for the tribal grants and contracts and appropriate 

use of both appropriated dollars and power revenues. 

Budget FY15 = $135,249 FY16 = $139,307 FY17 = $143,486

Reclamation Project - Cultural Resources Program Administrative Costs—Funding History 

Activity 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

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

Logistics field support — — — — — — —

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

Operations/supplies — — — — — — —

Reclamation salaries 42,409 45,353 88,029 90,600 93,518 96,524 99,619

Subtotal 45,409 47,575 94,696 97,267 102,518 105,524 108,619

DOI Overhead (35%) 14,843 15,873 30,810 31,710 32,731 33,783 34,867

Project total 60,252 64,226 127,839 131,310 135,249 139,307 143,486

Total outsourced (%) — — — — — — —

 
31 

D.2. Cultural Resources Work Plan

1. Glen Canyon National Recreation Area Monitoring and Mitigation 

In FY15, Glen Canyon NRA proposes to conduct data collection and monitoring of cultural 

resources at sites potentially affected by operations of the Glen Canyon Dam. Results from these 

efforts will inform the timing and scope of remedial action treatments proposed in out years for 

sites in Glen Canyon NRA. The FY15 scope of work includes two components: 1) implement the 

long-term monitoring program; and 2) conduct consultation with the five tribes to develop a plan of 

action to obtain tribal values. By so doing, Glen Canyon NRA gathers the data needed to assess 

effects on the sites, landscape and Traditional Cultural Property of Glen Canyon Reach. This work 

will help inform and be integrated into the long-term monitoring program proposed under 

Component 1 below. 

Component 1: Implement the Long‐term Monitoring Program for Terrestrial and Submerged Cultural

Resources

Long-term monitoring of cultural resources in the Glen Canyon Reach is required under the 

Grand Canyon Protection Act. These activities were formally conducted annually from 1992 to 

1998 and again in 2003. Stipulations in the MOA for the Glen Canyon Dam High Flow 

Experiment Protocol identify the need for monitoring programs to determine potential adverse 

effects to previously unidentified sites and to include assurances that programs efficiently and 

effectively gather the data needed to assess effects on locations of cultural and religious importance 

to Tribes. Glen Canyon NRA recognizes the limitations of its section 110 activities to fulfill the 

BOR’s 106 obligations for the operations of Glen Canyon Dam. We therefore provide the 

following proposal for long-term monitoring activities to assist the BOR in meeting their 

compliance obligations. 

Implementation of the proposed long-term monitoring program will be conducted by NPS 

through Glen Canyon NRA and coordinated with other NPS entities, the BOR, Grand Canyon 

Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC), Tribes, and other stakeholders. Additional NPS 

entities involved will include Grand Canyon National Park, Submerged Resources Center (SRC), 

and Midwest Archeological Center. General monitoring methodologies will include periodic visual 

inspection, condition assessment, and evaluation via on-site monitoring and repeat photography. 

The format of monitoring data will be finalized following review and coordination with partners 

and stakeholders. Sites selected for monitoring will be chosen through a review of existing data on 

archeological sites that are potentially affected by Glen Canyon Dam operations and include a 

control group of sites for comparison. Timing for monitoring of all resources will coincide with a 

schedule appropriate for evaluating the potential effects of dam operations with an emphasis on 

effects resulting from the HFE Protocol. Summary reports will be completed and submitted 

annually. 

In addition to terrestrial monitoring, the NPS SRC will continue monitor the submerged 

Spencer Steamboat (AZ: C: 02:011, Feature 12) for baseline data collection in April of 2014. 

Monitoring will continue if the report completed by NPS SRC recommends continued monitoring 

or mitigation. 

In FY16 and FY17, Glen Canyon NRA proposes to continue data collection and monitoring of 

cultural resources at sites potentially affected by operations of the Glen Canyon Dam. Results from 

these efforts will inform the timing and scope of remedial action treatments proposed in out years 

for sites in Glen Canyon NRA. 
32 

Component 2: Address Tribal Values

Glen Canyon NRA will conduct consultation with the five tribes to determine the protocol by 

which tribal values will be gathered and used to inform monitoring and potentially mitigation of 

locations of cultural and religious importance. This information should contribute to long-term 

monitoring and/or mitigation through potential non-intrusive and/or intrusive excavation. 

Budget FY15 = $61,000 FY16 = $145,000 FY17 = $104,000 

2. Zuni Associative Values 

When historic properties are valued for their association with important historical events and 

important people, mitigation may be accomplished by documenting those associations. This 

project mitigates for losses of these values through the production of a DVD. Zuni religious 

leaders will be interviewed and asked to express their views and feelings about the importance of 

Grand Canyon, the Colorado River, the Little Colorado River, Ribbon Falls, and Zuni ancestral 

archaeological sites in Zuni culture, heritage, and the continuing sense of Zuni community. The 

DVD will be recorded on location within the Grand Canyon. Zuni heritage themes discussed in the 

DVD will be the emergence, the creation of medicine bundles, the migrations, and the continuing 

relational spiritual connection between the Pueblo of Zuni and the Grand Canyon. The final DVD 

is intended for use in the Zuni school systems, available for the Zuni general public through the 

Zuni libraries, and for use in educating GCDAMP stakeholders about the Zuni relationship to 

Grand Canyon. 

Budget FY15 = $100,000 FY16 = $30,000 FY17 = $0 

3. Support for GCMRC’s Project 4 

This project will examine deposition of aeolian sand from HFE-created sand bars on historic 

properties within the area of potential effect of future dam operations. The primary objectives of 

element 4.2. are to 1) draft and 2) implement a monitoring plan that meets requirements for 

monitoring effects of dam operations to cultural resources relative to the National Historic 

Preservation Act and Grand Canyon Protection Act. The plan will be designed to identify whether, 

and how much, HFE sand is transported by wind to a representative sample of archaeological sites, 

and to measure the effect that wind transported sand has on site surface condition and site stability 

(i.e., the degree to which this mitigates effects from precipitation induced gully erosion and other 

surface impacts). Year 1 of the project will focus on drafting, reviewing, revising, and pursuing 

approval for the monitoring plan. Years 2 and 3 of the project will focus on implementing the 

monitoring plan. The draft plan will make a recommendation of the sample of archaeological sites 

that should be monitored, but stakeholders (presumably including the BOR, NPS, SHPO, ACHP 

and tribes) will need to work very closely with GCMRC in year 1 of the project to come to 

agreement on the monitoring protocol and set of sites that is ultimately monitored. The monitoring 

plan will be designed in the context of the archaeological site classification developed and applied 

in 2013 and 2014 which provides useful, site-specific expectations of landscape response to dam 

operations and controlled floods. While recent monitoring efforts have focused on the use of lidar 

to measure topographic changes, in drafting the monitoring plan, GCMRC will also consider the 

use of other monitoring methods and tools. Funding in FY 2015 also includes funding for tribal 

consultation and review of the monitoring plan. 
33 

Budget FY15 = $180,000 FY16 = $150,000 FY17 = $236,450 

4. TEK Ecological Restoration Project 

Based on the proposed completion of a Determination of Eligibility for Grand Canyon as a 

Hualapai TCP, this project will be a mitigation measure for vegetation that can be contributing 

elements to the TCP, such as the Gooddings Willow at Granite Park. The project will comprise 

planning (choosing collection areas and restoration sites), especially during the first year, site 

preparation (e.g., tamarisk removal if necessary), and some limited planting of certain species in 

select locations as pilot plots. Other aspects of the project are envisioned as longer term efforts, in 

particular propagating and nurturing Gooddings willow, cottonwood, and possibly other tree 

species, as well as research and monitoring for associated changes in ecological conditions. 

Budget FY15 = $99,000 FY16 = $100,000 FY17 = $100,000

5. Tribal Synthesis 

This project will increase the understanding of the Native American perspective within the 

GCDAMP by utilizing Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK). The project will evaluate the 

management of other river systems and the involvement of Native Americans, increase tribal 

participation in the GCDAMP planning and management process and integrate tribal perspectives 

into the AMP science program. 

Budget FY15 = $0 FY16 = $50,000 FY17 = $70,000 

6. Annual Integrated River Trip: An Exchange of Values and World-Views 

The objective of this project is to provide an opportunity for tribal representatives and 

GCDAMP stakeholders to articulate their respective concerns and issues in a field situation. Each 

river trips will be agenda-driven and may also include restoration projects. 

Budget FY15 = $30,000 FY16 = $30,000 FY17 = $30,000 

7. Nonnative Fish Removal Consultation

This project provides funding to support ongoing tribal consultation-related expenses associated 

with implementation of the Nonnative Fish Control EA, FONSI, and NHPA MOA. Should 

mechanical removal of non-native fish be necessary, this funding would be used to support tribal 

consultation and tribal participation in nonnative fish control efforts. 

Budget FY15 = $10,000 FY16 = $10,000 FY17 = $10,000 

8. Tribal Preparation of Paperwork for DOE of Grand Canyon to National Register 

This project provides funding to support and assist tribes to prepare the paperwork to prepare 

determinations of eligibility (DOE) of the Grand Canyon and contributing elements to the National 

Register of Historic Places as a Traditional Cultural Property. This would be done under criteria a 

and b. 
34 

Budget FY15 = $20,000 FY16 = $0 FY17 = $0 

Summary budget table for cultural resources work plan. 

FY GLCA 

Treat/ 

Monitor 

Zuni 

Assoc. 

Values 

GCMRC 

Proj. 4 

Tribal 

TEK Veg. 

Tribal 

Synth. 

Tribal 

River Trip 

NN 

Removal 

Consult. 

Tribal 

NRHP 

Nom. 

Total 

15 $61,000 $100,000 $180,000 $99,000 $0 $30,000 $10,000 $20,000 $500,000 

16 $145,000 $30,000 $150,000 $100,000 $50,000 $30,000 $10,000 $0 $515,000 

17 $104,000 $0 $236,450 $100,000 $50,000 $30,000 $10,000 $0 $530,450 

 
35 

D.3. Integrated Tribal Resources Monitoring 

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

implement Native American monitoring protocols that were developed in FY 2007 and 

recommended by the TWG as part of efforts to develop a core-monitoring program. 

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

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

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

3 days to the annual GCDAMP monitoring trips. 

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

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

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

compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. 

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

from implementing core-monitoring protocols for historic properties. Condition monitoring data 

will be provided to BOR to assist in prioritization of historic properties for treatment in subsequent 

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

Budget FY15 = $162,227 FY16 = $167,094 FY17 = $172,107

Reclamation Project - Integrated Tribal Resources Monitoring—Funding History 

Activity 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Outside Reclamation 

science/labor — — — — — — —

Logistics field support — — — — — — —

Project-related 

travel/training — — — — — — —

Operations/supplies — — — — — — —

Reclamation salaries — — — — — — —

Subtotal (power 

revenues) 144,553 148,889 157,160 161,875 162,227 167,094 172,107

DOI Overhead (35%) — — — — — — —

Appropriated Funds 75,000 — — — — — —

Project total 219,553 148,889 157,160 161,875 162,227 167,094 172,107

Total outsourced (%) — — — — — — —

 
36 

D.4. Tribal Participation in the GCDAMP 

This budget item provides funding through agency appropriations (not power revenues) for the 

participation in GCDAMP meetings, resource monitoring, and government-to-government 

consultation of the five GCDAMP Tribes (Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Tribe, Kaibab Paiute Tribe, Pueblo 

of Zuni, Navajo Nation) and five DOI agencies (U.S. Geological Survey, National Park Service, 

BOR, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Indian Affairs), with BOR serving as lead 

agency. The purpose of the funding is to ensure tribal viewpoints are integrated into continuing 

GCDAMP dialogs, votes, and in the final recommendations made to the Secretary of the Interior. 

The five DOI agencies provide appropriated funding to support this budget item. 

Budget FY15 = $475,000 FY16 = $475,000 FY17 = $475,000

Reclamation Project E. Tribal Participation in the GCDAMP: Funding History 

Activity 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Outside Reclamation 

science/labor 

— — — — — — —

Logistics field support — — — — — — —

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

Operations/supplies — — — — — — —

Reclamation salaries — — — — — — —

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

DOI Overhead (35%) 

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

Total outsourced (%) 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
37 

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program

FY 2015-17 Preliminary Draft Budget for the Bureau of Reclamation 

 Description 

 FY15 with 

3.0% CPI 

FY16 

3.0% 

A. AMWG 

 Personnel Costs - Labor & Burden 196,530 20 AMWG Member Travel Reimbursement 15,689 1 AMWG Reclamation Travel Reimbursement 16,097 1 Facilitation Contract 79,556 8 POAHG Expenses - Labor, Burden, & Travel 63,054 6 Other 9,047  Subtotal 379,972 39

B. TWG 

 Personnel Costs - Labor 97,863 10 TWG Member Travel Reimbursement 23,051 2 Reclamation Travel 15,903 1 TWG Chair / Facilitation 32,050 3 Other 2,585  Subtotal 171,453 17
38 

C. OTHER 

Admin Support NPS Permitting 137,319 14

 Contract Administration - Labor, Burden, Travel 45,362 4 Science Advisor Contract 75,000 7 Experimental Fund 286,815 55

Installation of Acoustic Flow Meters in Glen Canyon Dam Jet Tubes 250,000 

 Native Fish Conservation Contingency Fund 824.079 1,11 Subtotal 1,983,623 2,54

D. CULTURAL PROGRAM 

 Reclamation Administration and Travel 135,249 13 Cultural Resources Work Plan 500,000 51

Integrated Tribal Resource Monitoring 162,227 16

 Subtotal 797,476 82

Reclamation Power Revenue Costs Total 3,017477 3,61Reclamation Power Revenue Costs w/o Carryover 2,143,398 2,20
39 

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program

FY 2015-17 Preliminary Draft Budget for the Bureau of Reclamation 

 Description FY15 FY1

OTHER APPROPRIATED FUNDS TRIBAL CONTRACTS (Appropriated Funds)  Hopi Tribe 95,000 95,000 95 Hualapai Tribe 95,000 95,000 95 Navajo Nation 95,000 95,000 95 Pueblo of Zuni 95,000 95,000 95 Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians 95,000 95,000 95

DOI Agency Appropriated Funds Total $475,000 $475,000 $475

 Total $475,000 $3,492,477 4,092

Total w/o Carryover $2,618,398 $2,681
40 

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

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center Triennial Budget and Work 

Plan—Fiscal Years 2015–2017 

Introduction 

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

wherein protection and management of Colorado River resources downstream from Glen 

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

1992 directs the Secretary of the Interior (the Secretary) to establish and implement long-term 

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

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

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

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

1995) recommended creation of a federal advisory committee to advise the Secretary on adaptive 

management of operations of the dam. The Record of Decision for the EIS that was signed in 

October 1996 created this federal advisory committee, and the charter of the Adaptive 

Management Work Group (AMWG) that implements the GCDAMP was signed in January 1997. 

Many stakeholders who are members of the AMWG also participate at a technical level in the 

Technical Work Group (TWG), and the TWG formulates recommendations about research and 

monitoring for consideration by the AMWG. 

The USGS Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC) provides the primary 

science support for the GCDAMP, and this responsibility is described in numerous 

administrative documents. The 2002 Strategic Plan for the GCDAMP (Glen Canyon Dam 

Adaptive Management Work Group, 2002, p. 5) states that the GCMRC “serves as the science 

center for the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program.” 

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

part of the GCDAMP budget supports Reclamation’s administrative and staff travel costs, 

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

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

activities. Reclamation funding, with equal support from four other agencies of the Department 

of the Interior, supports Native American tribal participation in many aspects of the program. 

These aspects of the program are described in Chapter 1. 

Approximately 80 percent of the GCDAMP annual budget supports the monitoring and 

research work of the GCMRC. The GCMRC is formally organized as a research station within 

the USGS Southwest Biological Science Center. The GCMRC was originally organized as a 

small contracting office, and the majority of scientific work – field data collection and related 

analysis – was undertaken by contractors and collaborators, including universities, sister 

agencies, and private companies (Roles Ad Hoc Group of the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive 

Management Work Group, 2008, p. 39-41.). With time, the proportion of monitoring and 

research work conducted by GCMRC staff has increased, and this trend of increasing science 

activity within GCMRC is also reflected in this work plan. 
41 

Purpose 

In fiscal years 2015, 2016, and 2017 (FY15–17), the GCMRC and its cooperators will 

undertake monitoring and research activities about the status and trends of natural, cultural, and 

recreational resources of the Colorado River between Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Mead 

reservoir; this segment of the Colorado River is administratively termed the Colorado River 

ecosystem (CRe). The CRe is defined as “the Colorado River mainstem corridor and interacting 

resources in associated riparian and terrace zones, located primarily from the forebay of Glen 

Canyon Dam to the western boundary of Grand Canyon National Park.” GCMRC will also 

continue to monitor the water quality of Lake Powell reservoir through a program that has been 

in place for approximately two decades. All activities to be conducted in the CRe are described 

in this Triennial Work Plan (TWP). 

Administrative Guidance that Informs the FY15–17 Triennial Work Plan 

Each project described in this TWP is organized around large monitoring and research 

themes. The monitoring and research themes identified in the FY15–17 TWP are those common 

to: 

1. Assistant Secretary Castle’s May 7, 2014, memo establishing the triennial budget process 

and clarifying priorities in GCMRC science planning; 

2. the January 23, 2012, report of the Desired Future Conditions Ad Hoc Group of the 

AMWG that was adopted by AMWG in February 2012, discussed in Assistant Secretary 

Castle’s February 29, 2012, memo to the AMWG, and accepted by Secretary Salazar in 

his April 30, 2012, memo; 

3. the General Science Plan, Appendix B, Environmental Assessment: Development and 

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

Dam, Arizona, 2011 through 2020 (Bureau of Reclamation, 2011a) (December 22, 2011); 

4. the Research and Monitoring Plan, Appendix B, Environmental Assessment Non-Native 

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

(December 22, 2011); 

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

science planning; 

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

7. the strategic science plan prepared by GCMRC in March 2007 and amended in April 

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

8. the monitoring and research plan prepared by GCMRC, approved by AMWG in August 

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

9. 5 priority questions and the 12 program goals developed by the AMWG in 2004. 

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

agreements written during the past decade concern (1) rehabilitation of the pre-dam physical 

template, especially regarding fine sediment; (2) maintenance of the food base on which the 

native fish community depends; (3) recovery of the endangered humpback chub (Gila cypha) 

and maintenance of populations of other native fish; (4) maintenance of the native riparian 

vegetation community; and, (5) maintenance of culturally important sites, including those that 

are of archaeological and historical significance. The various goals, questions, information 

needs, and desired future conditions developed by the various GCDAMP committees also 
42 

recognize the importance of the nonnative rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) fish population 

in Glen Canyon and the role played by nonnative riparian vegetation in providing habitat for 

some desired fauna. In addition to these resource considerations, delivery of water in accordance 

with the Law of the River and generation of renewable hydroelectricity are essential to the 

economic well-being of the Southwest. Thus, economic analysis of the various recommendations 

of the GCDAMP is another critical part of the GCDAMP. 

Recent Guidance: Assistant Secretary Castle’s May 7, 2014, Memo 

The most recent guidance regarding Work Plan development was provided by Assistant 

Secretary Castle in May 2014. In that guidance, the Assistant Secretary reiterated guidance that 

she had provided in March 2011 that there are three science priorities: “science relevant to 

compliance with the Endangered Species Act, particularly relative to native fish and humpback 

chub; science informing our compliance with the Grand Canyon Protection Act, especially the 

sediment resource; and, science on non-native fish control and the recreational trout fishery ... 

the need for this science continues.” Additionally, the Assistant Secretary recognized that other 

priority issues included “understanding ... how cultural and archaeological sites are linked to 

modern river processes and the role of Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) in contributing 

to scientific understanding and river operations.” Thus, the Assistant Secretary stated that, “I 

think these four issues (the three described in my 2011 memo and the evolving issue related to 

cultural/archaeological resources as linked to modern river processes) are the primary areas 

where GCMRC should concentrate its scientific resources.” 

The Assistant Secretary did not, however, preclude GCMRC from investigating other 

scientific topics in its monitoring and research work. She established, however, that such other 

investigations should focus on subjects and resources for which there is “widespread support and 

furthers the purposes of the Adaptive Management Program.” The Assistant Secretary also 

directed GCMRC to continue “long-term monitoring of core ecosystem components.” All 

activities must be conducted “within the relevant budget constraints.” 

Recent Guidance: Desired Future Conditions (January 2012 report; Adopted by AMWG February 2012; 

Reviewed and Accepted by the Secretary of the Interior April 30, 2012) 

The Desired Future Conditions (DFCs) are statements of qualitative goals and objectives for 

the CRe and for operations of Glen Canyon Dam. These DFCs were developed by the Desired 

Future Conditions Ad Hoc Group (DFCAHG), adopted by the AMWG as a draft in August 2011, 

and revised, reconsidered, and adopted by the AMWG in February 2012. The DFCs are partly 

derived from 12 goals of the GCDAMP that had been developed in 2003, and the DFCs 

represent a clarification and refinement of these previously stated goals. In an August 19, 2011, 

memo to the AMWG commenting on the draft, Assistant Secretary Castle stated that, “The 

formulation of Desired Future Conditions is possibly the most important task the AMWG has 

undertaken in the last ten years,” and the Assistant Secretary’s February 29, 2012, memo to 

AMWG was no less enthusiastic. On April 30, 2012, Secretary of the Interior Salazar directed 

“the AMWG to utilize these DFCs to inform and guide the AMWG’s future considerations, 

including advice and recommendations to me concerning the operations of Glen Canyon Dam 

and other related actions.” In her April 26, 2012, memo to the Secretary, Assistant Secretary 

Castle described some of these related actions to include “future experimentation, research and 

monitoring, and the proactive development of future experimental plans.” In response, GCMRC 

used these DFCs in the development of the FY15–17 Work Plan. 
43 

There are 9 DFCs that describe desired conditions in the CRe (Table 1). These DFCs “aim to 

maintain, enhance, and restore native species, natural habitats, and natural ecosystem processes” 

(Desired Future Conditions Ad Hoc Group, 2011). These DFCs concern the geophysical setting 

of the river, the quality of the Colorado River, the aquatic domain, and the riparian domain. One 

of the DFCs calls for re-establishment of “fishes extirpated from Grand Canyon.” 

Table 1. Desired Future Conditions for the Colorado River ecosystem 

Sediment-Related Resources 

High elevation open riparian sediment deposits along the Colorado River in sufficient volume, 

area, and distribution so as to provide habitat to sustain native biota and desired ecosystem 

processes. 

Water Quality 

Water quality with regards to dissolved oxygen, nutrient concentrations and cycling, turbidity, 

temperature, etc., is sufficient to support natural ecosystem functions, visitor safety, and visitor 

experience to the extent feasible and consistent with the life history requirements of focal aquatic 

species. 

Aquatic Domain 

The aquatic food base will sustainably support viable populations of desired species at all trophic 

levels. 

Assure that an adequate, diverse, productive aquatic foodbase exists for fish and other aquatic 

and terrestrial species that depend on those food resources. 

Native fish species and their habitats ... sustainably maintained throughout each species’ natural 

ranges in the CRe. (note: 6 supplementary criteria are articulated for humpback chub) 

A high quality trout fishery in GCNRA ... that does not adversely affect the native aquatic 

community in GCNP 

Re-establish fishes extirpated from Grand Canyon, where feasible and consistent with recovery 

goals for humpback chub and the recovery goals of those extirpated fishes. 

Native non-fish aquatic biota and their habitats are sustainably maintained with ecologically 

appropriate distributions. 

Riparian Domain 

Native riparian systems, in various stages of maturity, are diverse, healthy, productive, selfsustaining, and ecologically appropriate. 

Additional information in the form of metrics that might inform the GCDAMP regarding 

progress towards achieving these DFCs was also described by the DFCAHG. Four metrics 

related to the CRe were proposed: critical habitat, species condition, carrying capacity 

thresholds, and populations. The population of key fish species (TWP Projects 6, 7, 9) and 

abundance and distribution of invertebrates at different life stages (TWP Project 5) are measured 

or estimated in this TWP. New work is proposed to investigate characteristics of the terrestrial 

fauna (TWP Project 11.4); on-going work describes characteristics of the riparian vegetation 

communities (TWP Project 11). 

The FY15–17 TWP is responsive to most, but not all, of these DFCs. No studies are 

proposed related to introduction of extirpated species. Guidance to GCMRC from the AMWG, 

TWG, and sister agencies has not been sufficiently clear to allow GCMRC to confidently 

develop a research program that would inform introductions of extirpated species into the CRe. 

There is not yet consensus among stakeholders or agencies as to the species that might be 
44 

reintroduced, the magnitude of the effort that might support introduction, or the spatial scope of 

such introduction. Until such time as reintroduction plans are described in administrative 

guidance, GCMRC is not in a position to make decisions about budget allocations on this topic. 

Another category of DFCs concerns hydropower. The DFCs state that, “Glen Canyon Dam 

capacity and energy is maintained and increased, so as to produce the greatest practicable 

amount of power and energy ... Ensure continued delivery of ... hydropower to the existing 

customers ... [and] Maintain ... operational flexibility.” Other DFCs concern maximizing the 

“environmental benefits of hydropower generation” and minimizing “carbon emissions through 

hydropower generation.” Seven metrics were proposed by the DFCAHG that describe aspects of 

these DFCs. These DFCs and metrics are not explicitly addressed in this Work Plan. Many of 

these metrics are reported by the Western Area Power Administration, and the Long-Term 

Experiment and Management Plan (LTEMP) EIS program is calculating several of the metrics in 

evaluating the performance of various EIS alternatives. 

Two categories of DFCs related to cultural resources were defined by the DFCAHG. As 

concerns prehistoric archaeological and historic sites, the DFCAHG report stated that, “To the 

extent feasible, maintain significance and integrity [of these sites] through preservation in place.” 

The DFCAHG report established that the attributes of Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs) 

should be “maintained such that National Register eligibility is not compromised.” Additionally, 

“Culturally appropriate conditions of resources are maintained based on traditional ecological 

knowledge.” The role of traditional ecological knowledge was also emphasized in regards to 

resources of traditional cultural significance that are not NRHP [i.e., National Register of 

Historic Places] eligible – “Maintain culturally appropriate resource conditions based on 

traditional ecological knowledge, and integrate this desired condition into monitoring and 

management programs.” Field data and metrics regarding cultural resources were proposed, and 

these measurements are included as part of TWP Project 4. As regards TCPs, the DFCAHG 

stated that, “Because culture defines the roles that resources play in that culture, only members 

of that culture can assess the status or health of the resources.” In the course of developing draft 

proposals for the work described in this TWP, the GCMRC made several changes to specifically 

include workshops and tribal participation, especially for TWP Projects 4 and 12. 

Recreation DFCs “describe goals and objectives for human use” of the CRe; these DFCs 

were divided into 4 categories: river recreation in Grand Canyon National Park (GCNP), river 

recreation in Glen Canyon National Recreation Area (GCNRA), the blue ribbon trout fishery in 

GCNRA, and river corridor stewardship. Of note are DFCs specific to GCNP that state that 

“maximum opportunity to experience the wilderness character of the canyon [be provided] ... 

[the] river corridor landscape .. matches natural conditions as closely as possible, including 

extensive beaches and abundant driftwood ... including a biotic community dominated in most 

instances by native species ... a dynamic river ecosystem characterized by ecological patterns 

and processes within their range of natural variability ... numerous campable sand bars 

distributed throughout the canyon.” In the Glen Canyon segment of the CRe, the DFCs call for 

“camping beaches suitable for recreational use [and] a setting and ecosystem that is as close to 

natural conditions as possible.” The recreation DFCs also call for “a high-quality sustainable 

recreational trout fishery” in GCNRA and that Glen Canyon Dam should be operated “to achieve 

the greatest benefit to the trout fishery ... without causing excessive detriment to other 

resources.” 

Thirteen metrics were identified that are useful in measuring the performance of the 

GCDAMP as regards desired recreation experiences in the CRe. Some of these metrics are 
45 

measured in TWP Project 13.1, and other metrics are being investigated by the National Park 

Service as part of the LTEMP EIS process. However, no studies are proposed in this TWP 

concerning: (1) “socio-economic value of ... the Grand Canyon itself, as a whole,” and (2) 

“factors that make up the ‘wilderness character’ of the river corridor.” Two metrics identified by 

the Ad Hoc Group that concern fish – the effect of trout on the ecosystem and the characteristics 

most valued for the trout fishery – are the foci of TWP Projects 9 and 13.1. “Water quality 

variables that influence river recreation” are measured in TWP Projects 1 and 2. 

It is notable that one of the recreation DFCs states that “Recreational and wilderness 

experiences [are] minimally affected by research and management activities.” It is unavoidable 

that scientific activities have the potential to affect wilderness experiences, such as when motors 

are used during the non-motor boating season in GCNP and where cableways remain in place to 

facilitate stream-flow gaging. Recreational experiences are potentially affected by motor use, 

especially when research boats travel upstream or at night, or large, semi-permanent camps are 

established. All research activities in GCNRA and GCNP occur after review and issuing of 

permits by the National Park Service. GCMRC and its cooperators/collaborators work with the 

National Park Service to ensure that adverse impacts of its scientific activities are minimized. 

In its January 2012 report, the DFCAHG stated that the DFCs “are intended to be ... realistic and 

achievable through the operation of Glen Canyon Dam and related activities, subject to the Law 

of the River and other laws and authorities and consistent with the Grand Canyon Protection Act. 

These DFCs may not be entirely or collectively achievable – there will be tradeoffs and inherent 

limitations. This fact does not diminish their value.” Thus, the DFCs played a critical role in 

helping GCMRC focus its scientific attention. 

In many cases, the DFCs reflect contrasting visions of the CRe. It is not obvious how the 

river corridor can “match natural conditions ... including extensive beaches” when more than 

95% of the pre-dam fine sediment once supplied to the CRe is now deposited in Lake Powell. In 

other cases, DFCs are mutually complementary, such as achieving “river flows that continue to 

be within a range that is reasonably safe” by flood control and hydropower production at Glen 

Canyon Dam. The challenge of maintaining “a high-quality sustainable recreational trout 

fishery” in Glen Canyon “that does not adversely affect the native aquatic community” in Marble 

and Grand Canyons remains a fundamental fish management challenge, and fish management 

policy is grounded on the substantial monitoring and research program described in TWP 

Projects 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. Schmidt and others (1998) characterized a similar range of goals 

that were articulated by stakeholders in the 1990s as the incompatible challenge of maximizing 

resources that are relicts of the pre-dam river and those that are artifacts of a dam-regulated river. 

The challenge of managing the river corridor for such a wide range of resource values is one 

reason for the complexity of the monitoring and research proposed in FY15–17. The scientific 

activities that will be undertaken in FY15–17 seek to describe and quantify the complex 

interactions among pre-dam relict and post-dam artifact resources that are affected by different 

reservoir release regimes; to distinguish between short term fluctuations and long-term trends, 

and to identify critical thresholds that may cause essential ecosystem changes to become 

progressive, rather than self-regulating. Despite these challenges, the DFCs provide a clear range 

of resources that defined the scope of GCMRC’s proposed activities. 

Recent Guidance: General Science Plan for Monitoring and Research of a High-Flow Experiment (HFE) 

Protocol at Glen Canyon Dam (December 2011) 
46 

This general science plan describes activities that “will initially evaluate the effectiveness of 

high-flow releases under the HFE Protocol.” Wright and Kennedy (2011) provided scientific 

direction relevant to the primary focus of HFE Protocol science activities, that concern the longterm behavior of sand bars and changes in the populations and distribution of rainbow trout and 

of humpback chub:

A logical next step in the adaptive-management process of the GCDAMP is to evaluate the 

cumulative effects of multiple HFEs over longer periods of time. This would be helpful because it is 

still uncertain whether sandbar building during HFEs can offset or exceed the sandbar erosion that 

occurs during periods of typical dam operations between HFEs. Thus, it is important to consider the 

frequency of HFEs and the erosion of sandbars between HFEs for future HFE planning. The 

fundamental sandbar-related science question therefore is: 

 Can sandbar building during HFEs exceed sandbar erosion during periods between HFEs, 

such that sandbar size can be increased and maintained over several years? 

Based on studies that have been conducted to date, HFEs do not appear to be a tool that can be 

used to benefit humpback chub. Rainbow trout pose a threat to juvenile humpback chub rearing in the 

mainstem near the confluence with the Little Colorado River due to increased competition and 

predation. ... natural-resource managers might consider proceeding with caution when implementing 

any HFE strategies, particularly those involving frequent spring-time events, because currently (2010) 

the biological response to HFEs appears to be inconsistent with management goals for humpback 

chub. A logical next step in the HFE process is evaluating whether the seasonal timing of HFEs 

affects the rainbow trout recruitment response. If fall-timed HFEs do not lead to increases in rainbow 

trout populations near the confluence with the Little Colorado River (or it is later demonstrated that 

rainbow trout do not exert strong influence on humpback chub rearing), then managers might be able 

to balance goals for sandbars and native fish without the need for substantial rainbow trout mitigation 

or removal. The fundamental fish-related science question therefore is: 

 Does the seasonal timing of HFEs influence the rainbow trout response? 

An adaptive-management process for HFE decision-making would be flexible and incorporate 

relevant scientific information, such as near real-time information about sediment conditions 

downstream from the dam and information on adult population trends for rainbow trout and 

humpback chub, as well as other resources. Indeed, as more HFEs are conducted, strong links 

connecting other resources to dam operations may be identified and incorporated into subsequent 

HFE strategies. An integrated science-based strategy would allow for effective management of the 

available post-dam sand supply while considering the impacts of the strategy on other resources 

within an adaptive-management framework.

In addition to these science questions related to sediment resources and fish, other science 

monitoring work focuses on assessing the effects of HFEs on the aquatic food base, riparian 

vegetation and springs habitat, recreational camping beaches, and archaeological sites. 

Specific components of the general science plan that are fulfilled by the FY15–17 TWP include 

Lake Powell and Colorado River water quality monitoring (Project 1), monitoring suspended 

sediment flux (TWP Project 2), monitoring within-channel and high-elevation sediment storage 

(TWP Project 3), monitoring archaeological site condition and stability (TWP Project 4), 

monitoring the aquatic food base (TWP Project 5), and riparian vegetation monitoring (TWP 

Project 11). The general science plan describes monitoring of changes in Kanab ambersnail 
47 

(Oxyloma haydeni kanabense) habitat at Vaseys Paradise. This monitoring work is not proposed 

in FY15—17, because the US Fish and Wildlife Service noted in its 2011 Biological Opinion for 

the HFE Protocol EA that HFEs will not adversely affect Kanab ambersnail habitat. Thus, only 

periodic monitoring of the snail population is required, especially in light of the findings of 

Culver and others (2013) who concluded that Kanab ambersnail are not a unique species. If this 

finding is confirmed, downlisting or delisting of this snail population might result. The general 

science plan also describes evaluations of the effects to hydropower generation of HFEs; these 

data are developed by the Western Area Power Administration. 

Recent Guidance: Research and Monitoring Plan in Support of the Environmental Assessment Non-Native 

Fish Control Downstream from Glen Canyon Dam (December 2011) 

The proposed action described in the Non-Native Fish Control (NNFC) EA is to control 

nonnative fish as a means of conserving the humpback chub and other native fishes. This action 

is predicated on fundamental observations concerning the nature of interactions between 

humpback chub and trout. Several aspects of these interactions have large scientific uncertainty. 

Consequently, the proposed action of the NNFC EA will be pursued in an adaptive management 

framework such that management actions undertaken in later years will be informed by 

monitoring and research conducted during the first years of implementation. Thus, the context of 

the research and monitoring plan is the effort to reduce uncertainty of management actions and to 

revise these actions as knowledge is gained throughout the 10-year duration of the EA. The 

GCMRC and its science cooperators identified 5 objectives to be addressed by their science 

activities associated with this EA: 

Understand the relative roles of the LCR and the mainstem Colorado River in juvenile humpback 

chub survival rates and recruitment into the adult humpback chub population; 

Determine the linkage between nonnative fish abundance and juvenile humpback chub 

abundance and survival rates in the LCR reach and elsewhere in Grand Canyon; 

Determine the natal origins of rainbow trout found in Marble Canyon (river miles 8 to 56) and 

the LCR reach; 

Assess the efficacy of nonnative fish removal in the PBR reach for rainbow trout and Upper 

Granite Gorge for brown trout; and 

Assess the efficacy of flow manipulations to manage trout populations in the mainstem Colorado 

River from Lees Ferry to the LCR reach. 

Since adoption of the Record of Decision that followed this EA, there has been no trout 

removal near the Little Colorado River confluence or between Lees Ferry and Badger Creek 

Rapids. Brown trout (Salmo trutta) and rainbow trout removal in and near Bright Angel Creek by 

Grand Canyon National Park staff with assistance from GCMRC, however, has occurred 

following adoption of Grand Canyon National Park's Comprehensive Fisheries Management 

Plan (National Park Service 2013). Thus, the research and monitoring plan described in this EA 

has not been specifically implemented, but monitoring and research activities undertaken in 

FY13–14 and planned for FY15–17 in this TWP specifically address each of the 5 objectives of 

the NNFC EA. 

Recent Guidance: Assistant Secretary Castle’s March 31, 2011, memo to U.S. Geological Survey 

Assistant Secretary Castle provided guidance to GCMRC in a March 2011 memo addressed 

to USGS Southwest Biological Science Center Director Kitchell and others. The Assistant 
48 

Secretary recognized that “very limited budgets” necessitated that “we need to focus on 

priorities.” The DFCs, that were still being debated at the time of this memo, were “very 

comprehensive;” thus, the Assistant Secretary stated that “we also have to narrow the field.” The 

priorities that were articulated were (1) “compliance with the Endangered Species Act, which 

means focus on the native fish and particularly the humpback chub,” (2) “focus on sediment, 

which was an instigating factor for the Grand Canyon Protection Act and continues to be an issue 

with resources downstream of the dam,’ and (3) “science on both non-native fish control and the 

recreational trout fishery.” The Assistant Secretary argued that these priorities were very similar 

to those adopted by the AMWG in August 2004, and thus there was continuity in her 

recommendations to decisions by the AMWG in the past. As described above, the Assistant 

Secretary’s 2014 memo reiterated these priorities, but added a priority related to the science that 

is related to cultural resource management. In addition, the Assistant Secretary reaffirmed her 

commitment that core monitoring activities must be continued while research focused on the 

priority research questions is pursued. 

Recent Guidance: final draft General Core Monitoring Plan, February 18, 2011 

A final draft General Core Monitoring Plan was developed by GCMRC for TWG review in 

February 2011. Although only the first step of an anticipated 4-step process, the general Core 

Monitoring Plan (CMP) culminated a decade of science planning activities undertaken by the 

AMWG, TWG, and GCMRC and continues to play a significant role in monitoring and research 

planning. Subsequent prioritization of management and research questions by the Department of 

the Interior, development of the DFCs, department-level policy actions such as the HFE 

Protocol, and new policy initiatives such as the LTEMP EIS have necessitated modification of 

the CMP implementation plan described in February 2011. Nevertheless, this final draft CMP 

represented a significant achievement in establishing a framework for evaluating potential 

scientific activities required to support the work of the AMWG, and no subsequent guidance or 

action by the Department of the Interior, its agencies, or the AMWG has substantially invalidated 

the monitoring framework described in this plan. 

The concept of core monitoring and efforts to develop a core monitoring plan 

Core monitoring is “consistent, long-term, repeated measurements using scientifically 

accepted protocols to measure status and trends of key resources ... potentially affected by GCD 

operations.” Additionally, “monitoring is also necessary to ensure compliance with other 

environmental statutes, including the Endangered Species Act and the National Historic 

Preservation Act.” The scope of the CMP was based on Core Monitoring Information Needs 

(CMINs) defined by the AMWG in its 2003 Strategic Plan that were subsequently modified and 

prioritized by a 2005 Science Planning Group. The final draft CMP was responsive to most, but 

not all, of the higher priority CMINs; as such, the need for prioritization of information needs 

anticipated subsequent guidance memos provided by the Assistant Secretary in 2011 and 2014, 

as described above. At the time of publication of the CMP, TWG requested GCMRC to develop 

individual draft core monitoring plans responsive to each of the 12 Adaptive Management 

Program goals (GCDAMP, 2003), and each individual plan would include three monitoring 

options responsive to “high,” “medium,” and “low” funding availability. Such a tiered suite of 

options has not been developed for most resources, and the monitoring activities proposed in the 

FY15–17 TWP represent GCMRC’s best professional judgment concerning how to collect 
49 

critical data about resource condition and ecosystem processes for those resources that have been 

identified as of highest priority in the policy guidance documents described above. 

The earliest monitoring in the CRe was the measurement of stream flow at Lees Ferry that 

began in 1921 (Topping and others, 2003). Ecological inventories were initiated by the National 

Park Service in the early 1970s, and Reclamation’s Glen Canyon Environmental Studies (GCES) 

program began in 1983. The CMP provides an in-depth administrative history of monitoring 

programs since the inception of GCES and provides observations as to why development of a 

core monitoring program has been slow despite the universal recognition of the importance of 

such an effort. The factors slowing the development of a core monitoring program include 

disagreement about which resources ought to be monitored, disagreement about the acceptable 

levels of accuracy and precision of resource data needed to guide management, the absence of an 

ecosystem perspective in monitoring, and the absence of reliable predictive models to guide 

budget allocations for monitoring. The effort that culminated with the final draft CMP in 2011 

was initiated early in 2006 when GCMRC Chief Hamill initiated development of a series of 

science planning documents, the last of which was the CMP. 

Assessing GCDAMP monitoring needs 

Monitoring should be pursued within an ecosystem context. In that context, the CMP set the 

direction for subsequent development of DFCs and the present organization of the TWP. The 

CMP was organized around the 12 GCDAMP goals and distinguished between ecosystem 

resources and ecosystem drivers. Ecosystem resources were native fish, extirpated species, 

Kanab ambersnail, spring and riparian habitats, recreational resources, cultural resources, and 

hydropower. Ecosystem drivers were the aquatic and terrestrial food web, stream flow, water 

quality, sediment transport, and sediment supply. As discussed below, the FY 15–17 TWP builds 

on this organizing framework, because the DFCs that guide the TWP are modeled on the original 

12 GCDAMP goals. 

The CMP stated that, “The core monitoring program ... is intended to inform managers and 

stakeholders as to whether AMP goals and objectives ... are being met.” The CMP focused on the 

12 GCDAMP goals but anticipated that this organizational framework would be revised and 

potentially reorganized once DFCs were established. The CMP recognized that core monitoring 

is not only linked with management goals, but is also linked with research activities and the 

development of modeling tools. The CMP recognized that core monitoring should be linked with 

monitoring efforts elsewhere in the Colorado River watershed and other U.S. southwest rivers, 

and with the management objectives of sister federal agencies. 

Previous BWP documents of the GCMRC were also organized around the GCDAMP 

Program Goals. However, in the reorganization of the Work Plan represented in the FY13–14 

document and carried forward in the FY15–17 TWP, the various goals associated with the 

aquatic domain (Goals 1, 2, 3, and 4) were reorganized into TWP Projects 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. Program 

Goal 5 concerns the Kanab ambersnail, and there are no activities proposed in FY15–17 on this 

topic. Program Goal 6 is the focus of TWP Project 11 in the FY15–17 TWP. Goal 7 is the focus 

of TWP Projects 1 and 2, and Goal 8 is the focus of TWP Project 3. Goal 9 is, at least in part, the 

focus of TWP Projects 3 (camping beaches), 6 (creel surveys), and 13 (economic values of 

recreational resources). Goal 10 is not explicitly evaluated in the TWP. TWP Project 4 and 12 

represent an expanded focus on Goal 11. 

The monitoring methods described in the FY15–17 TWP represent a substantial scientific 

advancement in developing formalized protocols for regular measurement of key river resources. 
50 

In the case of protocols for measuring sand bars (TWP Project 3), sediment transport and water 

quality (TWP Project 2), humpback chub and rainbow trout populations and status and trends of 

other fish species (TWP Projects 6, 7, 8, 9), and monitoring vegetation communities (TWP 

Project 11), GCMRC has worked with sister agencies and collaborators to develop efficient 

protocols that take advantage of large bodies of historical data, address issues of how to 

extrapolate site scale measurements to the entire CRe, and how to estimate temporal trends in 

key resources. The next step in the formalization of monitoring protocols will be to take the 

advancements described in the TWP and incorporate these into a revised General Core 

Monitoring Plan. 

Overview of the FY 15–17 Triennial Work Plan 

The FY15–17 Triennial Work Plan follows the structure of the FY13–14 BWP which 

simplified and consolidated GCMRC’s research and monitoring activities into larger projects 

focused on significant natural and socioeconomic resource questions and resource conditions. 

There are twelve projects (TWP Project 1 – TWP Project 12) in the fields of physical, biological, 

and cultural resource sciences. TWP Project 13 focuses on socioeconomic monitoring and 

research. Other funds support independent reviews, GIS services and support, and administration 

of the GCMRC. 

The FY15–17 TWP undertakes monitoring and research. Two types of monitoring activities 

are undertaken: (1) monitoring of ecosystem resources and processes by which the GCDAMP 

can evaluate progress towards achieving the DFCs, and (2) monitoring that is essential for 

implementing the HFE Protocol or evaluating its success and monitoring the triggering criteria 

toed to the NNFC EA. There are three major categories of research activities: (1) research 

concerning technical and analytical innovation in monitoring, (2) research that will lead to 

improved predictive modeling capacity, and (3) research to resolve key scientific uncertainties. 

In some cases, research will address key uncertainties identified in the HFE Protocol and NNFC 

EAs. In some cases, research activities seek to resolve key uncertainties that have emerged in the 

past two years during preparation of the LTEMP EIS, especially in the development of better 

modeling tools with which to make predictions about resource response under different 

prevailing climate and reservoir release regimes. Three project elements support independent 

science oversight and review. Project 12 seeks to further integrate tribes into monitoring and 

research by specifically focusing on terrestrial resources upslope from the active channel. 

Because the DFCs are comprehensive and implementation of a monitoring and research plan 

to fully address every DFC with high accuracy, high precision, and low uncertainty is beyond the 

budget limits of the GCDAMP, GCMRC focused its attention on those DFCs that are related to 

the monitoring and research priorities identified by Assistant Secretary Castle in her 2014 memo. 

Additionally, because the HFE Protocol and NNFC are administrative policy actions that are 

presently in place and because GCMRC monitoring activities are essential for implementation of 

this policy, related science activities were considered of high priority. GCMRC also recognized 

that TWP Project 2 follows the Goal 7 Core Monitoring Program that was extensively discussed 

in 2007 and 2008 and has not been substantially changed since that time. 

Projects that specifically support implementation of monitoring, either as core activities, or in 

support of the HFE Protocol or NNFC, total approximately $4.2 million in FY15. Most of these 

projects continue in FY16 and FY17 (Table 2). Research projects, totaling approximately $3.3 

million in FY15 and are distinguished by purpose (See Appendix 2-A). Many research projects 
51 

are identified as 2-year projects, but would continue for 3 years if additional funding becomes 

available. 

Table 2. Monitoring activities to be conducted in Triennial Work Plan 

Project 

Identifier 

Project 

Element Funding1 

Desired future 

condition or policy 

implementation 

Monitoring protocols well established with peer-reviewed, scientifically accepted methods 

2 Stream Flow, Water Quality, and Sediment 

Transport in the Colorado River Ecosystem 

$1,343,000 (FY15) 

$1,457,000 (FY16) 

$1,540,000 (FY17) 

Water quality element 

of CRe DFC; HFE 

Protocol implementation 

Critical resource, monitoring protocol being developed 

Project 

Identifier 

Project 

Element 

Desired future 

condition or policy 

implementation 

-orFunding1 

3 Sandbars and Sediment Storage Dynamics 

Sediment element of 

CRe DFC; HFE 

Protocol evaluation 

3.1.1 Monitoring sandbars using topographic surveys and remote cameras 

$370,000 (FY15) 

$355,000 (FY16) 

$372,000 (FY17) 

3.1.2 Monitoring sand bars and shorelines above 8000 ft3/s by remote sensing 

$120,000 (FY15) 

$131,000 (FY16) 

$141,000 (FY17) 

3.2 Sediment storage monitoring $460,000 (FY15) 

$520,000 (FY16) 

3.5 Control network and survey support 

$109,000 (FY15) 

$147,000 (FY16) 

$156,000 (FY17) 

Project 

Identifier 

Project 

Element 

Desired future 

condition or policy 

implementation 

-orFunding1 

4 

Connectivity along the Fluvial-Aeolian-Hillslope Continuum: 

Quantifying the Relative Importance of River-Related Factors 

that Influence Upland Geomorphology and Archaeological Site 

Stability

Cultural resources DFC; 

HFE Protocol evaluation 

4.2 Monitoring of cultural sites in Grand and Glen Canyons 

$124,000 (FY15) 

$349,000 (FY16) 

$340,000 (FY17) 

Project 

Identifier 

Project 

Element 

Desired future 

condition or policy 

implementation 

-orFunding1 

5 Food Base Monitoring and Research Aquatic domain element 

of CRe DFC 

5.1.1 Insect emergence in Grand Canyon via citizen science $117,600 (FY15) 

$119,500 (FY16) 
52 

$138,200 (FY17) 

5.2.1 Continue characterizing and monitoring drift and insect emergence in 

Glen Canyon 

$51,900 (FY15) 

$66,900 (FY16) 

$88,40 (FY17) 

5.2.2 Continue natal origins drift monitoring in Glen, Marble, and Grand 

Canyons 

$87,100 (FY15) 

$115,600 (FY16) 

$157,30 (FY17) 

5.3.2 Monitoring dissolved oxygen in Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyon 

$15,300 (FY15) 

$16,700 (FY16) 

$18,300 (FY17) 

Project 

Identifier 

Project 

Element 

Desired future 

condition or policy 

implementation 

-orFunding1 

6 Mainstem Colorado River Humpback Chub Aggregations and 

Fish Community Dynamics 

Native species 

component of aquatic 

domain element of CRe 

DFC; HFE Protocol and 

NNFC evaluation 

6.1 Mainstem Colorado River Humpback Chub aggregation monitoring 

$217,700 (FY15) 

$241,600 (FY16) 

$249,40 (FY17) 

6.4 System Wide Electrofishing 

$273,100 (FY15) 

$279,700 (FY16) 

$316,400 (FY17) 

6.7 Rainbow Trout Early Life Stage Survey 

$76,800 (FY15) 

$79,100 (FY16) 

$90,100 (FY17) 

6.8 Lees Ferry Creel Survey 

Project 

Identifier 

Project 

Element 

Desired future 

condition or policy 

implementation 

-orFunding1 

7 Population Ecology of Humpback Chub in and around the 

Little Colorado River 

Native species 

component of aquatic 

domain element of CRe 

DFC; HFE Protocol and 

NNFC evaluation

7.1 Annual spring/fall humpback chub abundance estimates in the lower 13.6 

km of the Little Colorado River 

$530,800 (FY15) 

$542,800 (FY16) 

$554,50 (FY17) 

7.2 Juvenile chub monitoring in the mainstem near the Little Colorado River 

confluence 

$450,700 (FY15) 

$468,100 (FY16) 

$181,900 (FY17) 

7.4 Remote PIT tag array monitoring in the LCR 

$53,500 (FY15) 

$111,100 (FY16) 

$152,500 (FY17) 

7.8 Evaluate effects of Asian tapeworm infestation on Juvenile humpback 

chub 

$16,800 (FY15) 

$16,700 (FY16) 

$18,30 (FY17) 

7.10 Humpback chub population modelling $97,200 (FY15) 

$149,400 (FY16) 
53 

$209,400 (FY17) 

Project 

Identifier 

Project 

Element 

Desired future 

condition or policy 

implementation 

-orFunding1 

8 Experimental Actions to Increase Abundance and Distribution 

of Native Fishes in Grand Canyon 

Native species 

component of aquatic 

domain element of CRe 

DFC

8.2 Translocation and monitoring above Chute Falls 

$88,600 (FY15) 

$87,500 (FY16) 

$88,000 (FY17) 

8.4 Invasive Species Surveillance and Response $52,000 (FY17) 

Project 

Identifier 

Project 

Element 

Desired future 

condition or policy 

implementation 

-orFunding1 

9 

Understanding Factors Determining Recruitment, Population 

Size, Growth, and Movement of Rainbow Trout in Glen and 

Marble Canyons 

Rainbow trout 

component of aquatic 

domain element of CRe 

DFC; Blue ribbon trout 

fishery component of 

recreation element of 

DFC

9.1 Lees Ferry RBT; monitoring, analysis, and study design 

$180,900 (FY15) 

$212,700 (FY16) 

$76,900 (FY17) 

9.2 Detection of RBT movement from upper Colorado River below GCD (NO) 

$352,500 (FY15) 

$436,500 (FY16) 

$370,300 (FY17) 

9.9 Contingency Planning for High Experimental Flows and Subsequent 

Rainbow Trout Population Management 

$72,400 (FY15) 

$61,800 (FY16) 

$98,500 (FY17) 

Project 

Identifier 

Project 

Element 

Desired future 

condition or policy 

implementation 

-orFunding1 

11 

Riparian Vegetation Studies: Ground-based and Landscapescale Riparian Vegetation Monitoring and Plant ResponseGuild Research associated with Sandbar Evolution and 

Wildlife Habitat Analysis 

Riparian domain 

element of CRe DFC 

11.1 Ground-based vegetation monitoring 

$176,000 (FY15) 

$190,900 (FY16) 

$211,900 (FY17) 

11.2 Periodic landscape scale vegetation mapping and analysis using remotely 

sensed data 

$154,700 (FY15) 

$127,200 (FY16) 

$133,100 (FY17) 

1

Actual funding levels for all FY16 and FY17 projects will be reduced by 7% and 5%, respectively. 

Project element total costs listed in this table reflect estimated costs before these reductions. 
54 

How the Work Plan Was Developed 

Development of this TWP began in earnest in late January when the GCMRC convened a 

knowledge assessment and annual reporting meeting. This meeting was immediately followed by 

a TWG meeting during which the needs of stakeholders were assessed. The annual reporting 

meeting focused on topics that were identified jointly by GCMRC and its cooperators, TWG 

members, and sister agencies. In December 2013 and January 2014, ad hoc groups of the TWG 

and interagency/cooperator researcher meetings were held to solicit monitoring and research 

recommendations from stakeholders. For example, the Socio-Economic Ad Hoc Group 

(SEAHG) met in January 2014 and made recommendations for projects to be conducted in 

FY15–17; TWP Project 13 is responsive to those recommendations. 

Thereafter, the GCMRC received direct input from numerous stakeholders and met with the 

Budget Ad Hoc Group (BAHG) in mid-February. BAHG members provided direction and 

suggestions on 47 topics that concern nearly every project in the TWP. In some cases, 

suggestions were expansive and concerned the geographic scope of GCMRC’s investigations or 

the need to expand experimental work and develop an experimental facility near the Colorado 

River. Other suggestions were of small scale and of a detailed nature. In other cases, BAHG 

suggestions were directed at Reclamation’s part of the budget that is described in Chapter 1 of 

this TWP. It was not possible to directly address every suggestion made by the BAHG due to 

budget limitations, policy direction, or conflicting management objectives. Nevertheless, 

GCMRC considered all BAHG comments and suggestions and engaged in an open and 

transparent discussion with stakeholders in the course of developing the projects described here. 

The timely nature of the BAHG suggestions – prior to development of the first draft of the 

projects included in this TWP – ensured that the many BAHG suggestions were incorporated to 

the degree possible. 

Discussions among the GCMRC staff, stakeholders, agency staff, and cooperators continued 

in March and the TWG met in early April to formally make recommendations on how the TWP 

should be developed. Nine major topic areas were identified; in some cases, 2 suggestions were 

provided in a topic area and in other cases, 7-9 suggestions were made (Appendix 4). A high 

proportion of suggestions concerned fish monitoring and research. In most cases, the TWG 

supported the project ideas that were developed by the GCMRC staff and cooperators and asked 

for more detail in a variety of areas including proposed methods, sampling design, and study 

objectives. The GCMRC has been responsive to these requests by providing in this TWP 

thorough scientific backgrounds and justifications, hypotheses to be tested, and descriptions of 

each proposed study. The only explicit recommendation to decrease monitoring concerned 

potentially redundant sampling in the most downstream part of the Little Colorado River, and the 

sampling program proposed in this TWP reflects that suggestion. 

The GCMRC provided the TWG and Science Advisors a prospectus of the TWP in mid-May 

that included a webinar and a draft document that included the project summaries and 

preliminary budget allocation. On June 6, the GCMRC published the draft TWP, and 

Reclamation posted this document on their GCDAMP website. This draft was reviewed by the 

Science Advisors, who provided their review to the TWG at its June 24 meeting. The GCMRC 

staff revised the TWP in response to input from the TWG and Science Advisors received in late 

June; staff also developed a formal Response to Reviewer Comments that is a companion 

document to this TWP. 

Budget allocations 
55 

In most cases, GCMRC staff had lead responsibility to develop each project, and each lead 

investigator collaborated with staff of sister agencies, long-time university and private sector 

cooperators, and others to review the state of knowledge regarding monitoring protocols and to 

identify critical scientific uncertainties. Projects were organized around central themes that 

primarily followed the organization of the FY13–14 Work Plan. New projects were added in 

food base (TWP Project 5), habitat considerations in the Glen Canyon Dam tailwater (TWP 

Project 10), assessing cultural values in the terrestrial ecosystem (TWP Project 12), and 

socioeconomics (TWP Project 13). The fish ecology projects were reorganized from five to four 

projects. 

As the draft TWP emerged as a comprehensive document, it was clear that more potential 

monitoring and research projects were proposed than available funds could support. The full 

suite of projects that were proposed by GCMRC staff and collaborators were discussed with the 

TWG so that stakeholder and agency support and interest – or lack of support and interest – 

could be elicited. 

In the June 6 draft, the GCMRC presented a work plan that described activities that is generally 

consistent with anticipated funding availability, but a small proportion of unfunded projects had 

strong stakeholder support. In response, the GCMRC re-evaluated its proposed allocation of 

budget resources, and the description of projects and budget support is responsive to the TWG 

input received in June and in a July webinar. Final prioritization of project was based on the 

following criteria, beginning with the most important projects: 

1. Monitoring projects that implement the HFE Protocol and NNFC EAs; 

2. Monitoring projects that evaluate the effectiveness of the HFE Protocol and NNFC EAs; 

3. Other core monitoring activities; 

4. Creating independent science review panels on critical issues; 

5. Advancing the integration of tribal concerns into monitoring and research; 

6. Research that advances monitoring techniques and analytical methods; 

7. Research that advances predictive modeling capabilities; and, 

8. Research to resolve critical scientific uncertainties. 

Six projects related to native fish research will be funded in FY15 by reallocation of funds 

from Reclamation’s Native Fish Conservation Contingency Fund, as described in Chapter 1. 

Reclamation also allocated $150,000 to provide supplemental support to Project 4, as described 

in Chapter 1. Reclamation continued its independent funding of Project 1 concerning water 

quality in Lake Powell.

Budget allocations in FY16 and FY17 

In FY16, five projects related to native fish research are likely to be funded by the same 

Native Fish Conservation Contingency Fund that will support some projects in FY15. Three 

projects are not proposed for funding at this time due to inadequate budget support, and these 

projects are identified as “unfunded at this time.” All other projects will be funded at 93% of the 

full budget request that is described at the end of each Project Description and in the appendices. 

The GCMRC staff will work with their research teams and their collaborators to identify ways to 

achieve 7% reduction in expenditures, and the GCMRC is confident that all work items 

identified as “funded” in FY16 will be completed despite only be supported at this reduced level. 

In FY17, the GCMRC does not proposed allocations from the Native Fish Conservation 

Contingency Fund, because uncertainty about the need to implement non-native fish control in 

out years becomes too great and the need to ensure adequate funding exists if action is triggered. 

The GCMRC proposes to fund projects at 95% of the full budget requests, and the GCMRC 
56 

leadership will work with its staff and collaborators to identify ways to save the required 5% 

reduction in costs. Additionally, the GCMRC intends to aggressively seek supplemental funding 

to support continuation of research projects that are best continued for three years but for which 

only two years of funding are presently identified. 

Triennial Work Plan Summary 

The FY15–17 TWP is organized into 15 projects. Four projects are in the geophysical 

sciences: reservoir water quality monitoring (Project 1), sediment-transport/water-quality/streamflow measurement (TWP Project 2), geomorphology of the active channel (TWP Project 3), and 

geomorphic processes affecting cultural resources in the Colorado River valley above the active 

channel (TWP Project 4). Six projects are in the fields of aquatic and fish ecology. These 

projects focus on the ecology of the food base (TWP Project 5), monitoring and research related 

to main-stem native and nonnative fish populations (TWP Project 6), humpback chub 

populations in the Little Colorado River (TWP Project 7), management actions designed to 

benefit native fish (TWP Project 8), rainbow trout in Glen and Marble Canyons (TWP Project 9), 

and evolving channel characteristics that affect fish habitat of the Glen Canyon Dam tailwater 

(TWP Project 10). TWP Project 5 comprises both new elements and elements from several 

different projects from the FY13–14 BWP. TWP Project 10 is new. Although food base studies 

were part of the GCMRC program in FY13–14, emerging results concerning the lack of species 

diversity, food-limited nature of the fishery, strong stakeholder interest, and strong interest 

among some sister agencies inspired GCMRC to significantly expand its proposed body of work. 

TWP Project 10 was developed in response to stakeholder interest in understanding the 

relationship between reservoir releases and associated changes in substrate and other attributes of 

physical habitat that provide advantage, and disadvantage, to rainbow trout populations in Glen, 

Marble, and eastern Grand Canyons. Two projects focus on vegetation. TWP Project 11 is a 

broad monitoring and research project focused on riparian and upland vegetation as well as 

linkages between the aquatic ecosystem and terrestrial fauna, and TWP Project 12 is designed to 

specifically examine changes in the distribution of some riparian and upland plants that are of 

specific interest to tribes. Socioeconomic studies are proposed in TWP Project 13 – a new effort 

on the part of GCMRC. Geographic information science, services, and support are described in 

TWP Project 14, and administrative and support activities are described in TWP Project 15. 

Reservoir water quality, sediment-transport/water-quality/stream-flow measurement, 

geomorphology of the active channel, and geomorphology of the Colorado River valley above 

the active channel 

Project 1 (called Project C in the FY13–14 BWP) is funded directly by Reclamation’s Water 

Quality Program and received no funds from the GCDAMP in FY13–14. In FY15, GCMRC 

proposes to fund a Science Review Panel to evaluate past studies of reservoir physical limnology 

and ecology that have focused on Lakes Powell and Mead. This Panel will be asked to make 

recommendations to the GCDAMP, Reclamation, and to other relevant agencies on how 

reservoir limnology and ecology ought to be monitored in the future and to make 

recommendations about how existing and new modeling tools could be used to predict future 

conditions in Lake Powell. Water quality, including temperature, is a strong determinant of 

ecological processes in the CRe. Because GCMRC and Reclamation continue to discuss changes 

in the approach and data analysis needs of Project 1, and because that project is funded on a 
57 

calendar year cycle independent from the federal fiscal year cycle of the GCDAMP, a 

preliminary description of Project 1 is included as Appendix 1 of this TWP. 

TWP Project 2 (called Project B in the FY13–14 Work Plan) describes the monitoring 

program that measures the rate and quantity of the Colorado River’s stream flow, as well as the 

water inflow that occurs from tributaries. Additionally, TWP Project 2 describes the 

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

measurement of the quality of the Colorado River’s water. This project began as fundamental 

research in the late 1990s. In 2007, the TWG provided preliminary approval of this work as a 

GCDAMP core-monitoring project, designed to fully address the monitoring needs of GCDAMP 

Goal 7. This project has changed little since that time; two gages have been established on Kanab 

Creek and Havasu Creek that are partly funded by other USGS programs. The GCMRC 

considers TWP Project 2 to be a core-monitoring activity with a relatively small amount of 

associated data analysis and interpretation. In FY15–16 and as explained in the project proposal, 

the focus of this interpretative data analysis will be on the history of changing sediment delivery 

from the Paria and Little Colorado Rivers, because these two tributaries are the primary sources 

of fine sediment to the CRe. 

TWP Project 3 (called Project A in the FY13–14 Work Plan) concerns the geomorphology of 

fine sediment deposits in the active channel of the Colorado River. Fine sediment is sand (0.0625 

– 2 mm) and mud; in turn, mud is silt (0.0039-0.0625 mm) and clay (<0.0039 mm). These 

deposits are the substrate of the campsite resource, substrate in which the riparian ecosystem has 

developed, the architecture of shoreline aquatic habitat, and is the substrate in and on which 

archaeological sites occur. The existence of Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Powell causes the 

deposition of all of the fine sediment supplied from the Upper Colorado River basin in the 

reservoir. Releases of reservoir water at the dam are free of sediment, and there is only a small 

amount of fine sediment supply to Glen Canyon. The Paria River enters the Colorado River at 

Lees Ferry and delivers approximately 3.3 x 106

 tons/yr of fine sediment (Topping et al., 2000), 

although the amount supplied from year to year varies greatly. The post-dam fine sediment 

supply to the upstream end of Marble Canyon has been decreased by 95%, in relation to the predam fine sediment supply rate of 62.8 x 106

 tons/yr that was supplied from the Upper Colorado 

River basin (Topping et al., 2000). Thus, the post-dam Colorado River has excess mechanical 

energy available to transport fine sediment, and large amounts of fine sediment on the river bed 

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

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

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

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

1970s, river scientists have struggled to understand the dynamics of the post-dam Colorado River 

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

and Dolan, 1981, Schmidt and Grams, 2011). It is inevitable that post-dam fine sediment 

deposits will be smaller and more sparsely distributed than pre-dam deposits, and significant 

river management questions concerning the Colorado River downstream from Glen Canyon Dam 

are: 

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

banks of the Colorado River, especially as eddy sandbars? What flow regime, in 

relation to the natural supply of fine sediment from the Paria and Little Colorado 

Rivers, results in the most widespread distribution of fine sediment along the 

channel banks and in eddies? 
58 

Similar questions have been asked as Strategic Science Questions and as information needs 

in various GCMRC and GCDAMP planning documents that were written in the 2000s. 

TWP Projects 2 and 3 explicitly follow on monitoring strategies that were proposed as core 

monitoring in the 2000s for Goal 7 and Goal 8, respectively, and are described in the CMP. TWP 

Projects 2 and 3 are essential to implement the HFE Protocol, because the Protocol calls for high 

flow releases from Glen Canyon Dam whenever a specified minimum amount of fine sediment 

delivered from the Paria River is exceeded. TWP Projects 2 and 3 are also responsive to the 

Assistant Secretary’s directions provided in her 2011 and 2014 memos. TWP Project 2 is the 

measurement program needed to implement the HFE Protocol. TWP Project 3 supports the direct 

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

Colorado River, in its eddies, or at higher elevation along the river’s banks; these measurements 

allow assessment of the effectiveness of the Protocol. A significant accomplishment of these 

programs in FY13–14 was the development of web-based interfaces to serve sediment transport 

and water quality data, calculate fine sediment mass balances, and to serve photographs of 

approximately 50 sandbars. The latter data allow stakeholders to evaluate the effects of 

controlled floods implemented under the HFE Protocol. 

TWP Project 4 (called Project J in the FY13–14 Work Plan) is focused on monitoring and 

research concerning geomorphic and weather processes that affect cultural resources above the 

active channel of the Colorado River. This project is responsive to Assistant Secretary Castle’s 

guidance in her May 2014 memo and seeks to address longstanding issues associated with 

monitoring of landscape change near archaeological sites and other culturally significant 

properties. This project has been developed in collaboration with Reclamation in hopes that the 

proposed monitoring and research is responsive to agency needs. The project has also been 

reviewed by tribal representatives. Reclamation is providing supplemental budget support to this 

project. 

Each of these projects has direct linkage to the DFCs. Project 1 and TWP Project 2 address 

the issues raised by the sediment and water quality elements of the CRe DFC that calls for 

attainment of dissolved oxygen, nutrient concentrations and cycling, turbidity, temperature, and 

hydro-physical conditions that support critical ecosystem functions. TWP Project 1 focuses on 

measurement of water quality attributes of Lake Powell reservoir while TWP Project 2 pertains 

to water quality, discharge, and sediment transport in the Colorado River and selected tributaries 

downstream of Glen Canyon Dam. TWP Project 3 addresses monitoring and research topics 

related to the sediment-related goals of the CRe, recreation and cultural DFCs – primarily the 

characteristics of near-shore habitats for native fish, the substrate characteristics and landforms 

associated with marsh and riparian habitat for fish, archaeological sites and camping beaches. 

TWP Project 4 addresses the linkage between fine-sediment deposits and cultural resource 

preservation that are articulated in the cultural resources DFC. 

Projects in aquatic and fish ecology 

TWP Projects 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 concern the fishes of the Colorado River and its tributaries, 

the food base on which those fish depend, and the habitats in which the food base and fishes 

occur. TWP Project 5 is a new stand-alone effort designed to continue monitoring of the aquatic 

food base and to conduct research to resolve questions about the current condition of the aquatic 

invertebrate community in Glen Canyon. Many of the research and monitoring projects on native 

and nonnative fish in the mainstem Colorado River are included in TWP Project 6. TWP Project 
59 

7 is a research project intended to resolve critical uncertainties about humpback chub and their 

life history in the Little Colorado River and near its confluence with the mainstem Colorado 

River. Experimental management treatments focused on benefitting native and nonnative fish are 

included in TWP Project 8 as is a proposed review of the fisheries program by an external 

protocol evaluation panel (PEP). TWP Project 9 concerns the rainbow trout fishery of Glen 

Canyon as well as the factors influencing the distribution and movement of rainbow trout in 

Marble Canyon. TWP Project 10 focuses on improving understanding of the relationships 

between physical habitat in Glen Canyon and Marble Canyon and rainbow trout recruitment and 

distribution. 

The goals in developing the aquatic ecology and fisheries portions of the FY15–17 TWP 

were to continue long-term, core monitoring of key aquatic resources in the CRe while also 

looking to minimize redundancy and increase efficiency and to continue addressing persistent 

scientific uncertainties that have posed challenges to management of the aquatic ecosystem. 

Because nonnative rainbow and brown trout compete with and prey upon native fish, including 

humpback chub, the significant management question continues to focus on 

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

rainbow trout fishery in Glen Canyon while protecting, and potentially 

recovering, the endangered humpback chub and related native fish community in 

Marble and Grand Canyons? 

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

greatest uncertainty remains. Most of the monitoring needs in the FY15–17 TWP were identified 

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

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

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

interactions with stakeholders, informal meetings among scientists from cooperating agencies, 

and meetings organized as part of the development of the LTEMP EIS formed the foundation of 

the projects for new and expanded research presented in the TWP. 

Monitoring of the aquatic food base and research of the biology and ecology of the aquatic 

invertebrates that comprise this important resource will continue or be expanded. Information to 

be collected in Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons as part of TWP Project 5 includes production 

of algae and invertebrates, organic matter biomass, drift of invertebrates and organic matter, and 

the abundance, distribution, and timing of emergence of flying insects. New research to 

understand the lack of aquatic invertebrate diversity in Glen Canyon will also be conducted 

including laboratory experimentation and field observation of how insect reproduction, egg 

survival, and emergence is influenced by various temperature and flow conditions. Supplemental 

funding external to the GCDAMP is also being sought to support a comparative study of the CRe 

aquatic food base with other western U.S. tailwaters. Understanding the aquatic food base and 

how dam operations and other factors influence its dynamics are essential to understanding the 

distribution, condition, and abundance of fish populations in the CRe. 

The emphasis of research proposed in other projects is on native fish, especially humpback 

chub, and nonnative fish that potentially threaten the recovery of this endangered species. 

Although much has been learned about the distribution, habitat use, life history, population 

dynamics, and other aspects of the biology and ecology of this species, key uncertainties remain. 

Two areas of uncertainty believed to be among the most critical include the dynamics and 

ecology of the groups of humpback chub known as aggregations that live in discrete areas of the 

mainstem Colorado River (TWP Project 6) and the variability in survival, growth, and 
60 

emigration rates of early life history stages of humpback chub in the Little Colorado River. 

Additionally, little is known about the physical and biological drivers of this variation (TWP 

Project 7). Interactions between native and nonnative fish, particularly between humpback chub 

and trout, are still an area of concern. Continued laboratory experimentation and field study is 

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

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

conditions (TWP Project 7). 

Several management actions designed to increase survival of juvenile native fishes in the 

CRe will continue or begin during FY15–17. Mechanical removal of rainbow trout and brown 

trout near the confluence of Bright Angel Creek will continue in cooperation with the National 

Park Service in support of their efforts to restore native fish to this perennial tributary. 

Translocations of juvenile humpback chub from the Little Colorado River into unoccupied areas 

within this river will continue as will support of National Park Service translocation efforts into 

Havasu Creek and Shinumo Creek. New activities include an assessment of potentially harmful 

aquatic species within the Little Colorado River and genetic monitoring of humpback chub to 

confirm that ongoing management activities are not having negative effects. Finally, a review of 

the GCDAMP fisheries program will be conducted by an external review panel or PEP 

comprised of scientists with expertise relevant to ongoing research and monitoring activities. 

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

priority. While our understanding of some of the drivers of this population has improved, a 

number of unknowns remain including a full understanding of the effects of flow-related actions 

like the seasonal timing of HFEs and dam releases to achieve equalization of reservoir storage 

volumes. A combination of laboratory and field studies, modeling, and comparison to similar 

systems will help clarify the drivers of rainbow trout population status and trends, size 

composition, and downstream migration (TWP Project 9), thus allowing for more effective 

management of this important tailwater fishery that is an element of the recreation DFC. 

Monitoring of key aquatic resources in the CRe remains a critical component of the FY15–17 

TWP. These projects generate data that can be used to provide a baseline for observing status 

and trends in resources of interest, to assess the effectiveness of various management actions, 

and to inform managers as to the need to conduct management actions or the attainment of 

identified goals. Surveys of humpback chub and other fishes are proposed to continue in the 

Little Colorado River (TWP Project 7). This will include both physical captures of fish in the 

spring and fall and continuous electronic monitoring to detect individuals previously tagged with 

passive integrated transponders. Mainstem surveys of native and nonnative fish will also 

continue annually in the spring and fall as part of Project 6 and quarterly near the mouth of the 

Little Colorado River (TWP Projects 7 and 9) to gather information on young humpback chub 

and trout. These surveys provide critical information on triggers for potential management 

actions to control nonnative fish abundance identified in the Biological Opinion for the HFE and 

nonnative fish control EAs. Needed information includes survival rates of young humpback 

chub, the relative abundance of sub-adult and adult humpback chub, and trout abundance near 

the Little Colorado River confluence. Additional monitoring activities include surveys of trout 

spawning, early life stages, and adult populations in Glen Canyon, trout abundance and 

emigration in Marble Canyon, and the distributions and relative abundance of all native and 

nonnative fishes in Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons. These efforts will help keep scientists and 

managers informed on the status and trends of fish throughout the CRe and will provide a 

mechanism of surveillance and early detection of invasive fish species. 
61 

The CRe DFC for the aquatic domain focuses on desired attributes of native species, rainbow 

trout, extirpated species, and non-fish biotic communities. TWP Projects 6, 7, and 8 are focused 

on native fish species, especially the humpback chub, a federally-listed endangered species. 

Monitoring and research activities in TWP Projects 6 and 7 address scientific issues associated 

with the desired recovery of humpback chub throughout its former range in the CRe. TWP 

Project 7 is focused on scientific issues associated with the largest aggregation of humpback 

chub that occurs in and near the Little Colorado River. Project 8 entails management actions 

designed to benefit native fish. TWP Project 9 is focused on rainbow trout in Glen and Marble 

Canyons, and TWP Project 9.6 is focused on the interactions between trout and native fish 

throughout the CRe. There are no proposed projects that focus on the re-establishment of 

extirpated fish species in the CRe, despite the stated DFC element on this topic. There are also 

no proposed projects focused on nonnative non-fish species such as the Northern Leopard Frog, 

although TWP Project 5 does include characterization of the invertebrate community that is a 

key part of the food base for native and nonnative fish. 

Projects in riparian ecology 

TWP Project 11 (called Project I in the FY13–14 Work Plan) builds on the plant-response 

guild research and monitoring conducted in the FY13–14 Work Plan to further stakeholder 

understanding of the role of riparian vegetation in ecosystem processes in a regulated river 

ecosystem. The project includes a continuation of the ground-based and landscape scale 

monitoring approaches initiated in FY13. The ground-based sampling downstream of Glen 

Canyon Dam is complimentary to riparian monitoring data that are collected within other 

National Park Service units in the Upper Colorado River Basin by their Inventory and 

Monitoring Program. The landscape scale monitoring is moving from the total vegetation change 

analysis conducted in FY13–14 to the specific change analysis of vegetation classes and 

comparison of changes among river segments and different depositional environments (sandbars, 

debris fans, channel margins). Information gained in TWP Project 11 monitoring supports efforts 

in TWP Project 3 that endeavor to understand sediment dynamics over time and particularly with 

regard to sediment response and the HFE Protocol. 

With the increasing recognition of the role that both vegetation and river regulation have on 

fluvial geomorphology, studies evaluating the additive effects of these ecosystem drivers on 

shoreline and channel geomorphic landforms are increasingly relevant. Research elements in 

TWP Project 11 will utilize the plant-response guilds to probabilistically evaluate and assess 

wildlife habitat, and integrate the response guilds with a 22-year topographic survey record for 

retrospective analyses of topographic change of 20 sandbars. A retrospective analysis of sandbar 

evolution contributes to an understanding of how landforms along the channel change in 

response to annual hydrology, controlled floods, and the presence of vegetation. In this regard, 

TWP Project 11 is linked to the research priority for sediment identified by the Assistant 

Secretary in her 2011 and 2014 memos. Increasing our knowledge about plant responses to 

changing hydrology can also support resource managers’ concerns about management of 

nonnative plants that may or may not benefit from changes in future flow regimes or how flow 

regimes might be integrated into decisions regarding plant removal and restoration. TWP Project 

Element 11.5 is intended to begin to address these questions. 

Collectively, the monitoring and research proposed in TWP Project 11 supports the 

GCDAMP’s efforts to evaluate the HFE Protocol (Bureau of Reclamation, 2011a) and flow 

alternatives that will result from the on-going LTEMP EIS. The proposed research elements 
62 

fundamentally aid in furthering our understanding of the role of riparian vegetation in ecosystem 

processes of a regulated river. 

TWP Project 11 is focused on the CRe riparian domain. This project is primarily a vegetation 

monitoring project, because the distribution of vegetation communities, characterized as 

vegetation response guilds, and the distribution of fine-sediment substrates constitutes the 

various riparian habitats that are of interest in the DFCs. This project also includes an element to 

explore the linkages between the aquatic ecosystem and terrestrial fauna, especially insects and 

insectivores. 

Cultural resources monitoring and research project 

The cultural resources program continues to be a significant focus of GCMRC activity in 

FY15–17. TWP Project 4 explicitly focuses on providing scientific support for agency 

management responsibilities, especially regarding development of a new Programmatic 

Agreement and in relation to monitoring responsibilities associated with the HFE Protocol. 

Reclamation is independently providing $150,000 to support this work in FY15 and FY16 and 

slightly more support in FY17. This project involves a research component that follows on work 

completed by Amy Draut East, Brian Collins, Joel Sankey, and others in FY13–14. The other 

part of this project involves development of a formal archaeological site monitoring program that 

builds on work completed by Brian Collins, Helen Fairley, and others since 2009 and would be 

implemented in FY16. TWP Project 12 is a small and novel project to evaluate historical changes 

in the distribution of plants significant to tribes, and some tribes are formally cooperating in this 

effort. 

Cultural resources in the CRe include prehistoric archaeological sites, historic sites, and 

TCPs that are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) as well as 

culturally-valued plants, animals and landscapes that are not individually eligible for listing on 

the NRHP. The primary DFC objective for prehistoric archaeological sites and for historic sites 

is “to the extent feasible, maintain significance and integrity through preservation in place” while 

the primary objective for TCPs is that they are maintained such that National Register eligibility 

is not compromised. The DFC objectives for non-NRHP eligible cultural resources are similar in 

that they strive to “maintain culturally appropriate resource conditions based on traditional 

ecological knowledge and integrate this desired condition into monitoring and management 

programs.” Thus, the DFCs for cultural resources recognize that many natural processes and 

attributes of the CRe affect cultural resources. These processes include those related to stream 

flow, sediment transport, geomorphology, and riparian vegetation. Cultural resources are also 

affected by recreation activity. The DFC specifically proposes that achievement of the goals for 

cultural resources be measured by: 

Erosion or deposition rates of substrates in which cultural sites occur 

Impacts at sites that affect eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places 

The FY15–17 TWP is responsive to these DFCs and their proposed metrics. TWP Project 11 

involves a system-wide monitoring of riparian vegetation. TWP Project 4.1 continues a systemwide, comprehensive study of geomorphic processes and geomorphic attributes that affect 

prehistoric and historic sites. Such a project has never been previously undertaken as part of the 

GCDAMP-funded GCMRC program. The goal of this project is to establish the linkage between 

the area and abundance of river sandbars (TWP Project 3) that are directly affected by dam 

operations and the redistribution of fine sediment upslope to areas that contain prehistoric and 

historic sites. Additionally, Project 4 evaluates the degree to which gullies in the CRe grow or 
63 

are eliminated by changing geomorphic conditions in the river channel itself. This Project also 

applies detailed measurement protocols in Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons to precisely 

measure topographic changes at the local scale. The challenge of TWP Project 4 is to provide 

scientific guidance as to how large-scale and local-scale measurements and observations can be 

linked. 

The cultural resource DFCs also propose metrics for assessing the condition of resources 

other than archaeological and historic sites that are traditionally valued by Native American 

tribes and other communities. Because “only members of that culture can assess the status or 

health of the [TCP] resources” important to each Native American Tribe, TCP monitoring 

activities are not part of the GCMRC program. Tribes are funded directly for their monitoring 

efforts, as described in Chapter 1. However, in the FY15–17 TWP, a small and novel project is 

proposed to evaluate historical changes in the distribution of plants significant to tribes and 

through doing this evaluation, to elucidate the linkages between changes in vegetation and 

effects to traditional tribal cultural values associated with the riparian landscape. Some tribes are 

formally cooperating in this effort. Relevant vegetation data from TWP Project 11 will be 

incorporated into TWP Project 12. 

Socioeconomic project 

TWP Project 13 initiates socioeconomic monitoring and research at GCMRC. This project 

will identify recreational user and tribal preferences for, and values of, downstream resources 

and evaluate how they are influenced by operations at Glen Canyon Dam. In addition, the project 

will integrate economic information with data from long-term and ongoing physical and 

biological monitoring and research studies led by GCMRC to develop a decision support system 

that will improve the ability of the GCDAMP to evaluate and prioritize management actions, 

monitoring and research. Specifically, the project involves three related socioeconomic 

monitoring and research studies that include: (a) evaluation of the impact of Glen Canyon Dam 

operations on regional economic expenditures and economic values associated with angling in 

Glen Canyon National Recreation Area downstream from Glen Canyon Dam, and whitewater 

boating in Grand Canyon National Park that begins at Lees Ferry; (b) assessment of the impact 

of Glen Canyon Dam operations on tribal preference for, and value of, downstream resources; 

and (c) development of decision methods, using economic metrics, to evaluate management 

actions and prioritize monitoring and research on resources downstream of Glen Canyon Dam. 

The recreation economics research builds on work from the late 1980s, under the Glen Canyon 

Environmental Studies program, that established a relationship between dam operations and 

recreational economic values related to angling and whitewater boating. Carryover funding from 

FY13 has been allocated to initiate the recreation economics research in FY14. The recreation 

economics research will continue in FY15–16. The decision methods and tribal research, original 

research at GCMRC, will be initiated in FY15 and FY16, respectively, and continue into FY17. 

The overarching DFC goal and objective for power is that “Glen Canyon Dam capacity and 

energy generation is maintained and increased, so as to produce the greatest practicable amount 

of power and energy, consistent with the other DFCs.” Thus, the DFC for power identifies the 

importance of hydropower to the greater Western Electricity Coordinating Council, but 

recognizes the influence that hydropeaking power production at Glen Canyon Dam can have on 

other downstream resources. TWP Project 13 contributes to discussion about tradeoffs between 

natural and economic values by initiating development of a decision support system to inform 

the GCDAMP in the organization and evaluation of management actions, monitoring, and 
64 

research. The analytical methods, predictive models in the decision support system, will provide 

a platform to identify the least-cost approach (i.e., foregone hydropower) to meet other DFCs. 

The research in TWP Project 13 is consistent with the goal and objective of the power DFC and 

with the Record of Decision’s goal of not maximizing benefits but determining an operation at 

Glen Canyon Dam that limits impact to hydropower while meeting recovery and long-term 

sustainability of downstream resources. 

There are four categories for recreation DFCs: 1) river recreation in Grand Canyon National 

Park; 2) river recreation in Glen Canyon National Recreation Area; 3) blue ribbon trout fishery 

in Glen Canyon National Recreation Area; and 4) river corridor stewardship. Each category 

identifies specific resource conditions as goals and objectives. The metrics used to evaluate these 

goals and objectives include the condition of recreational resources, socioeconomic value 

associated with the recreation, and overall recreation visitation/expenditures. The FY15–17 TWP 

will provide monitoring and research concerning the socioeconomic value of river recreation and 

angling below Glen Canyon Dam (TWP Project 13). This research will also inform on the 

preference for resource quality and the regional economic effects of recreation based tourism in 

Glen Canyon National Recreation Area and Grand Canyon National Park. This information 

provides a subset of the metrics proposed to evaluate recreation DFCs. As described above, TWP 

Project 13 also initiates the development of a decision support system to inform the GCDAMP in 

the organization and evaluation of management actions, monitoring, and research. This will 

allow GCDAMP to better evaluate the tradeoffs, how the recreation metrics in the DFCs are 

impacted, among other resource DFCs when managing the operation of Glen Canyon Dam. 

The FY15–17 TWP will also provide monitoring data concerning other recreation DFCs and 

the metrics used to evaluate them. The distribution and size of campable beaches is an element of 

TWP Project 3. Additionally, TWP Project 7 will provide research and monitoring data 

concerning the interactions between trout and native fish and TWP Project 9 will directly inform 

management of the Glen Canyon tailwater fishery. A creel survey (TWP Project 6.8) will also 

provide data concerning angler success and experience in GCNRA. 

Geographic information systems (GIS), services, and support 

TWP Project 14 concerns the implementation of GIS support both in terms of direct 

involvement in proposed science work (TWP Projects 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10), and as a standalone effort that performs many functions within GCMRC and GCDAMP. These functions 

include the ability to serve as the focal point of geospatial knowledge and application, fulfill the 

role of geospatial data management, further develop GIS as a vehicle for data integration, and 

provide a gateway into GCMRC’s collection of geospatial data holdings. 

Independent review and science oversight 

In FY15 and FY16, GCMRC proposes to convene three science oversight and review panels. 

One of these panels will focus on reservoir limnology and ecology, because the characteristics of 

Lake Powell will determine the long-term characteristics of the CRe. At the downstream end of 

the ecosystem, the limnology of Lake Mead is occasionally determined by inflows from 

controlled floods. Navigation across the emergent delta of Lake Mead is strongly affected by the 

storage contents of the reservoir. GCMRC is committed to working with Reclamation to identify 

a robust monitoring and research program that can aid in making future decisions about water 

management of these two large reservoirs. 

Significant effort was expended in spring 2014 in developing the native fish and rainbow trout 

monitoring programs. These programs are implemented by a consortium of GCMRC, Arizona 
65 

Game and Fish Department, US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, and 

cooperators. Although progress was made in developing an efficient and cost-effective program, 

much remains to be done to hone this program to meet the science needs of the GCDAMP while 

also expending money efficiently. We believe that a panel of science experts on this topic could 

greatly assist the agencies in developing this program for the future. 

In early June, 2014, GCMRC was notified that riparian vegetation management was being 

proposed for the CRe. This work would be part of the LTEMP EIS program. Following 

conversation with sister agencies, GCMRC added an element to TWP Project 11 and will 

conduct a science panel to review methods of riparian vegetation management and monitoring in 

an effort to provide stakeholders and the National Park Service with a scientific basis to initiate 

this program. 

Table 3. Independent review and science oversight components of the FY15/16/17 TWP 

 

1.2 Reservoir limnology and ecology monitoring and research science review panel $21,000 (FY15) 

8.3 Fisheries Protocol Evaluation Panel $21,000 (FY16)

11.5 Science Review Panel of Successes and Challenges in Non-native Vegetation 

Control in the Colorado River and Rio Grande Watersheds 

$34,000 (FY15)

GCMRC project administration 

Administration of the GCMRCs work is funded in two ways – as direct costs associated with 

the salaries and travel expenses of key leadership and administrative personnel and as indirect 

costs (called “burden” in the USGS) that support the USGS Southwest Biological Science Center 

(SBSC). Part of the indirect costs are assessed at a 16% burden rate in FY15 on all work 

conducted by GCMRC staff and partly by a direct $1 million allocation by the USGS to the 

SBSC. The burden rate increases to 22% in FY16 and to 28% in FY17. 

Allocation of the FY15–17 Budget 

The total recommended budget of GCMRC in FY2015 is $9.5 million. Funding for this 

amount includes $8.7 million from GCDAMP funds and an additional $0.8 million from other 

Reclamation funding sources, including $0.4 million for native fish projects from the Native Fish 

Conservation Contingency Fund. 

Of the approximate $9.5 million recommended budget for FY15, 40% is to be allocated to 

monitoring and research work in aquatic ecology and fisheries and 31% is to be allocated to the 

projects in geomorphology, stream flow monitoring, sediment transport, and water quality. 

Direct GCMRC administrative costs are 14% of the budget. The combined work in riparian 

ecology, cultural resources, economics, and independent reviews is a small proportion of the 

proposed work. The budget for the GCMRC part of the FY15–17 TWP is described at the end of 

each project description, and is summarized in various appendices at the end of this document. 

The total recommended budget of GCMRC in FY2016 is $9.9 million. Funding for this amount 

includes $9.0 million from GCDAMP funds, $0.1 million from anticipated GCMRC carryover 

funds, and an additional $0.7 million from other Reclamation funding sources, including $0.3 

million for native fish projects from the Native Fish Conservation Contingency Fund. 
66 

The total recommended budget of GCMRC in FY2017 is $9.8 million. Funding for this amount 

includes $9.3 million from GCDAMP funds and an additional $0.5 million from other 

Reclamation funding sources. 

References 

Bureau of Reclamation, 2011a, Environmental assessment--development and implementation of 

a protocol for high-flow experimental releases from Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona, 2011 

through 2020: Salt Lake City, Utah, Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region, 176 p. 

+ appendices, accessed on March 21, 2012, at 

http://www.usbr.gov/uc/envdocs/ea/gc/HFEProtocol/HFE-EA.pdf. 

Bureau of Reclamation, 2011b, Environmental assessment--non-native fish control downstream 

from Glen Canyon Dam: Salt Lake City, Utah, Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado 

Region, 102 p. + appendices, accessed on March 21, 2012, at 

http://www.usbr.gov/uc/envdocs/ea/gc/nnfc/NNFC-EA.pdf. 

Culver, M., Herrmann, H., Miller, M., Roth, B., and Sorenson, J., 2013, Anatomical and genetic 

variation of western Oxyloma (Pulmonata: Succineidae) concerning the endangered Kanab 

ambersnail (Oxyloma haydeni kanabense) in Arizona and Utah: U.S. Geological Survey 

Scientific Investigations Report, 2013–5164, 66 p., http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2013/5164/. 

Desired Future Conditions Ad Hoc Group, 2011 

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Work Group, 2002, Strategic science plan 

Howard, A.D., and Dolan, R., 1981, Geomorphology of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon: 

Journal of Geology, v. 89, no. 3, p. 269-298., http://www.jstor.org/pss/30078299. 

Laursen, E.M., Ince, S., and Pollack, J., 1976, On sediment transport through the Grand Canyon, 

in Federal Interagency Sedimentation Conference, 3d, Denver, Colo., March 22-25, 1976, 

Proceedings: p. 4-76 to 74-87. 

National Park Service, 2013, Comprehensive fisheries management plan--Grand Canyon 

National Park and Glen Canyon National Recreation area: U.S. Department of the Interior, 

National Park Service. 

Roles Ad Hoc Group of the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Work Group, 2008, 

Report and Recommendations to the Secretary’s Designee 

Schmidt, J.C., Webb, R.H., Valdez, R.A., Marzolf, G.R., and Stevens, L.E., 1998, Science and 

values in river restoration in the Grand Canyon: BioScience, v. 48, no. 9, p. 735-747, 

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1313336. 

 Schmidt, J.C., and Grams, P.E., 2011, Understanding physical processes of the Colorado River, 

in Melis, T.S., ed., Effects of three high-flow experiments on the Colorado River ecosystem 

downstream from Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1366, 17-51 

p., http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1366/. 

Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., Nelson, J.M., and Kinzel, P.J., 2000, Colorado River sediment 

transport--2. Systematic bed-elevation and grain-size effects of sand supply limitation: Water 

Resources Research, v. 36, no. 2, p. 543-570, http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/1999WR900286. 

 U.S. Department of the Interior, 1995, Operation of Glen Canyon Dam--final environmental 

impact statement, Colorado River storage project, Coconino County, Arizona: Salt Lake 

City, Utah, USA, Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Regional Office, 337 p., accessed 

on November 18, 2010, at http://www.usbr.gov/uc/library/envdocs/eis/gc/pdfs/Cov-con/covcon.pdf
67 

U.S. Geological Survey, 2011, General core monitoring plan for the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive 

Management Program: Flagstaff, Ariz., U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring 

and Research Center, 134p. 

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

Dam Adaptive Management Program: Flagstaff, Ariz., U.S. Geological Survey, Grand 

Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, 149 p. 

U.S. Geological Survey, 2007b, Strategic science plan to support the Glen Canyon Dam 

Adaptive Management Program: Flagstaff, Ariz., U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon 

Monitoring and Research Center, 17 p. 

   
68 

Monitoring: Core activities 

Monitoring: Supports implementation and evaluation of HFE Protocol and Non-Native Fish Control 

Project 2. Stream Flow, Water Quality, and Sediment 

Transport in the Colorado River Ecosystem 

Initial Estimate: FY15: $1,340,300; FY16: $1,452,000; FY17: $1,534.900 

GCDAMP Funding: FY15: $1,343,300; FY16: $1,350,400; FY17: $1,458,200 

A. Investigators 

David J. Topping, Research Hydrologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring 

and Research Center 

Ronald E. Griffiths, Hydrologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center 

David J. Dean, Hydrologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research 

Center 

B. Project Summary 

 This project makes the basic measurements that link dam operations and reservoir releases 

to the physical, biological, and sociocultural resources of the Colorado River ecosystem (CRe) 

downstream from Glen Canyon Dam. This project conducts the monitoring of stage, discharge, 

water quality (water temperature, specific conductance, turbidity, dissolved oxygen), suspended 

sediment, and bed sediment. Measurements are made at gaging stations located in Glen Canyon 

National Recreation Area, Grand Canyon National Park, the Navajo Reservation, and the 

Hualapai Reservation and on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management. The data 

collected by this project provide the stream-flow, sediment-transport, sediment-mass-balance, 

water-temperature, and water-quality data that are required to link dam operations with the status 

of the CRe. In addition, the data collected by this project are used to implement and evaluate the 

High Flow Experiment (HFE) Protocol and in evaluations of alternatives being assessed by the 

Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan (LTEMP) EIS. The data collected by this 

project are also used in other physical, ecological, and socio-cultural projects described 

elsewhere in this Triennial Work Plan. Other project funds support interpretation of basic data. 

C. Background

C.1. Scientific Background 

The primary linkage between the release of Lake Powell reservoir water and the 

characteristics of the physical, biological, and cultural resources of the CRe is through the stage, 

discharge, water quality, and sediment transport of the Colorado River (Gloss and others, 2005). 

Reservoir releases are the principal determinant of the Colorado River’s flow regime, sediment 

supply, sediment-transport regime, and temperature regime, because tributary inflows only affect 

the Colorado River’s characteristics during rare, large tributary floods (Topping and others, 
69 

2000a, 2000b; Voichick and Wright, 2007; Voichick, 2008; Wright and others, 2009; Voichick 

and Topping, 2010a, 2014). 

Although there are short reaches of the river corridor where the bed and banks are bedrock, 

unconsolidated sediment on the bed and banks constitutes the physical template of most of the 

CRe, (Gloss and others, 2005; Melis, 2011). Although some parts of the river corridor are 

composed of coarse sediments derived from hillslope processes, most of the bed and banks of the 

Colorado River are composed of coarse and fine sediment occasionally or frequently transported 

by the Colorado River. Hereafter, these sediments are termed main-stem alluvial sediments. 

Most of the main-stem alluvial sediments transported by the Colorado River are fine grained, 

meaning that they are less than 2 mm in diameter -- sand, silt, and clay. Coarse, main-stem 

alluvial sediment—gravel, cobbles, and boulders—is occasionally transported by the Colorado 

River. 

Most of the fine sediment is transported in suspension, although small amounts are 

transported as bedload (Rubin and others, 2001). This project is primarily focused on the 

measurement of suspended, fine-grain-sediment transport. A small research project element that 

is part of Project 3 (Project element 3.4) concerns refining previous estimates (Rubin and others, 

2001) of the proportion of the total fine sediment flux that is transported as bedload. 

Suspended sediment is an important water quality parameter, because the accumulation or 

evacuation of fine sediment determines whether eddy sandbars and channel-margin deposits 

aggrade or are eroded; these types of topographic changes are important to many biological, 

cultural, and recreational resources (Rubin and others, 2002, Wright and others, 2005, 2008). 

Suspended sediment transport also controls turbidity, and therefore influences the aquatic and 

fish ecology of the river. The endemic fishes of the CRe evolved in a highly turbid river (Gloss 

and Coggins, 2005). 

Turbidity is predominantly determined by the concentration of suspended silt and clay 

(hereafter called mud) and, to a lesser degree, suspended sand (Voichick and Topping, 2014). 

Prior to closure of Glen Canyon Dam, 60% of the fine sediment supply to the upstream end of 

the CRe was mud (Topping and others, 2000a). Closure of Glen Canyon Dam reduced the supply 

of sand and mud by about 95% at Lees Ferry, and the Paria River is now the major supplier of 

fine sediment to Marble Canyon (Topping and others, 2000a, 2000b). The post-dam Colorado 

River in Marble and Grand Canyons is much less turbid than ever occurred naturally (Voichick 

and Topping, 2014). Because the in-channel storage of sand and mud in the post-dam Colorado 

River is greatly reduced from pre-dam conditions, the Colorado River in the CRe is only now 

turbid during periods of tributary flooding. 

Fine-sediment deposits that occur within the active channel of the Colorado River are 

primarily composed of sand. Sand fills some deep pools in the channel and occurs elsewhere as 

discrete patches (Anima and others, 1998; Schmidt and others, 2007; Grams and others, 2013). 

Mapping of the distribution of sand and mud on the channel bed occurs as part of Project 

Element 3.2. Eddy sandbars occur along the margins of the active channel, and channel-margin 

deposits occur as discrete patches of floodplain in wider parts of Glen, Marble, and Grand 

Canyons (Schmidt, 1990; Schmidt and Graf, 1990). Higher deposits of fine sediment that 

typically are composed of larger proportions of mud and very fine sand occur as alluvial terraces 

above the modern active channel. These pre-dam terraces were formed by floods that no longer 

occur. Even higher above the active channel are dunes and other fine-sediment wind deposits 

that are the subject of monitoring and research described in Project 4. 
70 

The long-term fate of all sand deposits in and near the Colorado River in the CRe is 

determined by the capacity of the main stem to transport those sediments downstream to Lake 

Mead reservoir in relation to the rate at which similar size sediment is supplied by the Paria 

River, Little Colorado River, and smaller tributaries. Measurements of suspended sediment 

transport and combined with stream-flow measurements are used to calculate the total mass of 

fine sediment entering or leaving segments of the Colorado River. The difference between the 

mass entering and leaving a river segment is termed “mass balance,” and calculations of mass 

balance are made by this project.Systematic measurements of stream flow and the quality of 

water, including suspended-sediment concentration, in the CRe began with installation of the 

Lees Ferry gaging station (USGS gaging station 09380000, Colorado River at Lees Ferry, AZ) in 

May 1921 (Howard, 1947; Topping and others, 2003). During much of the 20th century, daily 

measurements of suspended-sediment concentration and temperature, and episodic 

measurements of other water-quality parameters, were made by the USGS throughout the 

Colorado River basin. This intensive period of measurements ended in the early 1970s 

(Andrews, 1991; Topping and others, 2000a). Concern about the effects of operations of Glen 

Canyon Dam on the CRe resulted in a new emphasis on scientific measurements and modeling 

of water quality and sediment transport beginning in the early 1980s (National Research Council, 

1996). The results of these studies have been published in numerous USGS reports and journal 

articles, and ultimately resulted in the current form of the proposed project. 

Recent research on the Colorado and on other rivers has shown that, to be meaningful, 

measurements of stage, discharge, water quality, and suspended sediment must be made at 

temporal resolutions higher than those over which these parameters vary. In the specific case of 

suspended sediment, substantial changes in suspended-sand concentration and suspended-mud 

concentration are determined by changes in the upstream supply of those sediments. These 

changes typically occur over timescales less than 1 hour (Topping and others, 2000b; Wright and 

others, 2010a, 2010b). Furthermore, Rubin and Topping (2001a, 2001b, 2008) showed that, in 

the case of the dam-regulated Colorado River, suspended-sand transport is co-equally regulated 

by changes in discharge and changes in the grain-size of sand available for transport that in turn 

is determined by the upstream supply of sand. The former control is largely determined by 

changes in dam operations, and the latter control is largely determined by changes in tributary 

sand supply. Topping and others (2005a, 2007a, 2010) showed that sand transport is much more 

sensitive to sand-supply-driven changes in the grain-size distribution of the bed sediment than by 

changes in the amount of sand covering the bed. Topping and others (2005b, 2008) and Hazel 

and others (2006) built on the work of Rubin and Topping and concluded that eddy sandbars are 

the dominant river environment containing sand. Therefore, these deposits are the primary 

regulators of sand transport in the Colorado River. These findings invalidated key assumptions of 

the 1995 EIS (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1995) that assumed that suspended-sand transport 

was only regulated by changes in discharge (Rubin and others, 2002). 

This project is designed to provide measurements of stage, discharge, water quality, and 

suspended sediment at sufficiently high temporal resolutions (~15-minute) to allow accurate 

determination of suspended sediment loads, as well as other water quality parameters. 

Collection of such data at 15-minute intervals is the USGS standard. Collection of data at the 

15-minute temporal resolution is required to accurately describe the changes in stage, discharge, 

water quality, and sediment transport in the CRe that have been documented to occur at intervals 

<< 1 hour (for example, Topping and others, 2000b; Voichick, 2008; Voichick and Topping, 

2010a). Months to years of data collected at this resolution easily fit on standard dataloggers, 
71 

result in no additional processing time in the office, and result in no additional financial cost to 

the project. In addition, because random error is reduced as 1 n , where n = number of 

samples, data collection at >>15-minute intervals would not only hamper detection of systematic 

changes in stage, discharge, water quality, and sediment transport, but would substantially 

increase the error in the measurements provided by this project. 

To allow the construction of this comprehensive monitoring network, this project has 

conducted pioneering research on using laser-diffraction and acoustic technologies to measure 

water quality and sediment transport (Melis and others, 2003; Topping and others, 2004, 2006a, 

2007b; Wright and others, 2010c; Voichick and Topping, 2010b, 2014; Griffiths and others, 

2012). The acoustic technologies and methods developed by this project to measure sediment 

transport in the Colorado River are now being used in monitoring networks to inform river 

managers in and near Big Bend National Park, Dinosaur National Monument, and Canyonlands 

National Park. 

 The various continuous measurements, as well as episodic measurements of bed sediment, 

of the main-stem Colorado River are made at USGS stream-flow gaging stations located at river 

miles (RM) 0, 30, 61, 87, 166, and 225 (Griffiths and others, 2012). Selection of these gagingstation locations was largely based on the need to resolve longitudinal differences in sediment 

storage in key river segments that bracket major tributaries. Elsewhere, gage locations were 

established to support other GCDAMP-funded projects or to reoccupy former gaging stations. In 

addition, high-resolution stage, discharge, water temperature, suspended-sediment concentration, 

and suspended-sediment grain-size distribution are measured at sites in all of the major 

tributaries to the Colorado River and in a representative subset of the smaller, and formerly 

ungaged, tributaries (Griffiths and others, 2010, 2014). 

 All measurements of stage, discharge, water quality, and all physical measurements of 

suspended and bed sediment are made using standard, approved USGS techniques. Errors in 

conventional suspended-sediment measurements are calculated using the methods of Topping 

and others (2011) and Sabol and Topping (2013). The laser diffraction and acoustic 

measurements of suspended sediment are made using techniques described in Melis and others 

(2003), Topping and others (2004, 2006a, 2007b), and Wright and others (2010c). 

 The funding requested here only partially covers the costs of data collection at the USGS 

gaging stations, because operations of some of the gaging stations are supported by nonGCDAMP sources. Thus, gaging station locations are partially dictated by non-GCDAMP goals. 

For example, gage height and discharge data collected at the gaging stations on the Colorado 

River at Lees Ferry, AZ (station number 09380000), and above Diamond Creek near Peach 

Springs, AZ (09404200), are entirely funded from non-GCDAMP sources. In addition, gage 

height and discharge data collected at the gaging stations on the Paria River at Lees Ferry, AZ 

(09382000), the Little Colorado River near Cameron, AZ (09402000), and on the Colorado River 

near Grand Canyon, AZ (09402500), are significantly subsidized by non-GCDAMP sources. All 

of the personnel listed on this project receive parts of their salary from non-GCDAMP sources. 

 The most significant product from this project during FY 2013-14 was the development of 

the website on which we serve project data and serve user-interactive sediment budgets: 

http://www.gcmrc.gov/discharge_qw_sediment/. All database and website work has been made 

possible through collaboration with the USGS Center for Integrated Data Analytics (CIDA). The 

CIDA is the leader within the USGS in database and web programming. Collaboration with the 

CIDA has resulted in a major leap forward in serving data in a user friendly and interactive way, 

something that has proven problematic for GCMRC to do on its own in previous funding cycles. 
72 

The tools developed in collaboration with the CIDA are allowing 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 allow 

different user-chosen methods for error propagation through these sediment budgets. Because 

sandbar response during controlled floods depends on both the amount and grain-size 

distribution of the sand stored in each river segment (Topping and others, 2006b, 2010), these 

tools have proven to be extremely useful in the planning of controlled floods under the HFE 

Protocol (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2011) and will inform future monitoring efforts. 

C.2. Management Background 

This project began as fundamental research in the late 1990s. Based on the scientific results 

described above, the project was recognized by the GCDAMP as a core-monitoring project in 

2007. The project was designed to fully address the monitoring needs of GCDAMP Goal 7 

(Establish water temperature, quality, and flow dynamics to achieve GCDAMP ecosystem goals) 

and to partially address the monitoring needs of GCDAMP Goal 8 (Maintain or attain levels of 

sediment storage within the main channel and along shorelines to achieve GCDAMP ecosystem 

goals). The primary objective of this project is to collect the basic monitoring data that directly 

link dam operations and reservoir releases to the physical template of the CRe. 

In addition to supporting GCDAMP Goals 7 and 8, this project provides indirect support for 

Goals 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 a viable population of existing 

native fish, remove jeopardy for humpback chub and razorback sucker, and prevent adverse 

modification to their critical habitats), 4 (Maintain a wild reproducing population of rainbow 

trout above the Paria River to the extent practicable and consistent with the maintenance of 

viable populations of native fish), 6 (Protect or improve the biotic riparian and spring 

communities within the CRe, including threatened and endangered species and their critical 

habitat), 9 (Maintain or improve the quality of recreational experiences for users of the CRe 

within the framework of GCDAMP ecosystem goals), and 11 (Preserve, protect, manage, and 

treat cultural resources for the inspiration and benefit of past, present, and future generations). 

Indirect support is provided by providing the basic stream-flow and water quality data that 

other scientists and stakeholders use to link dam operations to resource condition. This project 

supports Goal 1 by providing information on flows, water temperature, turbidity, and dissolved 

oxygen that aids in food base studies, such as the assessment of primary productivity and 

allochthonous inputs. This project supports Goal 2 by providing water-temperature data for the 

assessment of fish growth rates, turbidity data that are used to adjust for catch efficiency in 

population models, flow and stage data that are important to understanding the effects of nearshore habitat changes caused by fluctuating flows, and data on sandbars and resulting backwater 

habitats that are helpful in understanding the importance of sandbars for native fish. This project 

supports Goal 4 through monitoring of discharge, water temperature, specific conductance, 

turbidity, and dissolved oxygen conditions in Glen Canyon. This project supports Goal 6 by 

monitoring the transport and fate of sand and mud, which provides the substrate for riparian 

vegetation and marsh communities. This project supports Goal 9 by collecting the monitoring 

data used in experimental and modeling research relating flow and sediment-transport dynamics 

to the size and abundance of sandbars used as campsites. This project supports Goal 11 by 

collecting the stage, flow, and sediment data used to assess effects of dam operations on cultural 

sites.
73 

The stream-flow and sediment-transport data collected by this project are required to trigger 

and evaluate the HFE Protocol (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2011). In addition, the stage, 

stream-flow, sediment-transport, sediment-budget, water-temperature, dissolved-oxygen, 

specific-conductance, and turbidity data collected by this project are used by other projects that 

seek to link the status of CRe resources with reservoir releases. The stream-flow, sediment 

transport, and water quality data are used to directly address several Desired Future Conditions 

(DFCs) (see Table 1, in Chapter 2 Introduction).The measurements made in this project are also 

indirectly used to interpret ecological patterns related to the aquatic foodbase, native fish, the 

Glen Canyon trout fishery, and the riparian zone. Data collected by this project not only 

constitute core monitoring but also supports other policy developments, such as the LTEMP EIS. 

Additionally, these data are used to monitor compliance with the 1996 Record of Decision that 

followed the 1995 EIS, supports research about flow experiments, and are critical to 

development of numerical models concerning river processes.

C.3. Monitoring and Research Questions Posed by Stakeholders that Are Addressed in This Project 

This project provides direct support to some of the priority questions identified by the 

GCDAMP Adaptive Management Work Group in August 2004. Monitoring of stage, discharge, 

sediment transport, water temperature, and other water quality parameters directly supports some 

priority questions and indirectly supports other questions by providing information on the 

general physical framework of the riverine environment. 

This project also directly addresses the following Strategic Science Questions (SSQs), Core 

Monitoring Information Needs (CMINs), and Research Information Needs (RINs) previously 

identified by the GCDAMP. 

 SSQ 4-1. Is there a “Flow-Only” operation (that is, a strategy for dam releases, including 

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

and maintain sandbar habitats over decadal timescales? 

 SSQ 5-1. How do dam release temperatures, flows (average and fluctuating component), 

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

determine main-stem and near-shore water temperatures throughout the CRe? 

 CMIN 7.4.2. Determine and track flow releases from Glen Canyon Dam, under all 

operating conditions, particularly related to flow duration, upramp, and downramp 

conditions. 

 CMIN 7.1.2. Determine and track Little Colorado River discharge and temperature near 

the mouth. 

 CMIN 7.1.1. Determine the water temperature dynamics in the main stem, tributaries 

backwaters, and near-shore areas throughout the CRe. 

 CMIN 8.1.3. Track, as appropriate, the monthly sand and mud volumes and grain-size 

characteristics, by reach, as measured or estimated at the Paria and LCR, other major 

tributaries like Kanab and Havasu Creeks, and “lesser” tributaries? 

 CMIN 8.1.2. What are the monthly sand and mud export volumes and grain-size 

characteristics, by reach, as measured or estimated at Lees Ferry, lower Marble Canyon, 

Grand Canyon, and Diamond Creek Stations? 

 RIN 7.4.1. What is the desired range of seasonal and annual flow dynamics associated 

with power-plant operations, BHBFs, and habitat maintenance flows, or other flows that 

meet GCDAMP goals and objectives? 
74 

 RIN 7.3.1. Develop simulation models for Lake Powell and the Colorado River to predict 

water-quality conditions under various operating scenarios, supplant monitoring efforts, 

and elucidate understanding of the effects of dam operations, climate, and basin 

hydrology on Colorado River water quality. 

 RIN 8.5.1. What elements of ROD operations (upramp, downramp, maximum and 

minimum flow, MLFF, high modified flow (HMF), and BHBF) are most/least critical to 

conserving new fine sediment inputs, and stabilizing sediment deposits above the 25,000 

ft3/s stage? 

C.4. Scientific Questions that have Emerged from Past Work and That Are Addressed in This Project 

 During the past few years, new scientific questions have emerged with regard to water 

quality and to sediment transport, storage, and erosion in the Colorado River and its tributaries. 

Moreover, some of these questions have arisen in regard to the linkages between sediment 

dynamics and endangered-fish habitat, for example, habitat loss from sediment deposition in the 

lowermost Little Colorado River (D.M. Stone, written comm., 2013). Specific scientific 

questions/topics that will be addressed in the peer-reviewed scientific literature during FY2015-

17 include: 

 A re-evaluation of the effects of dam operations on sand transport and storage in the six 

mass-balance reaches of the CRe using the high-quality 15-minute measurements of 

sediment transport available at all mainstem gages starting in 2008. 

 Has the implementation of more frequent HFEs starting in 2012 measurably influenced 

the dynamics of sand transport and storage in the CRe? 

 Does longer-term sand storage in the CRe generally increase in the downstream direction 

or does the geomorphology influence sand transport such that downstream reaches (for 

example, the reach between RM166 and RM225) lose sand while upstream reaches gain 

sand? 

 How does the implementation of more frequent HFEs affect water quality in the CRe on 

a reach-by-reach basis? 

 Do tributaries other than the Paria River and Little Colorado River substantially affect the 

sediment budget of the CRe? 

 Do long-term changes in the hydrologies of the Paria and Little Colorado Rivers exist 

and, if so, what are the implications of these changes for sediment management in the 

CRe? 

 What are the linkages among hydrologic change (both natural and human-enhanced), 

sediment transport and dynamics, and aquatic habitat in the Little Colorado River? 

 Have changes in the hydrologic and sediment-transport characteristics of the part of the 

Little Colorado River upstream from Blue Springs resulted in major changes to the 

geomorphology and aquatic habitat of the reach of the Little Colorado River downstream 

from Blue Springs? If so, how might continued changes affect the endangered-fish 

habitat in the lowermost reach of the Little Colorado River in the future? 

D. Proposed Work 

D.1. Project Elements 
75 

Data collection during FY15–17 will be conducted using the same methods, spatial 

resolution, and temporal resolution as during FY13–14. All measurements of stage, discharge, 

water quality, and physical measurements of suspended and bed sediment are made using 

standard, approved USGS techniques. The discharge, water-quality, and sediment monitoring 

networks on the Colorado River and its tributaries are described in Griffiths and others (2011, 

2014), Topping and others (2010), Voichick and Wright (2007), Voichick (2008), and Voichick 

and Topping (2014). Errors in conventional suspended-sediment measurements are calculated 

using the methods of Topping and others (2011) and Sabol and Topping (2013). Acoustic 

measurements of suspended sediment are made using techniques described by Topping and 

others (2004, 2006a, 2007b), Wright and others (2010c), and Topping and Wright (in prep.). 

Proposed funding for FY15–17 positions this project to do the required work to implement the 

DOI-approved HFE Protocol during FY15–17. 

During FY15–17, we propose to continue to serve project data and user-interactive sediment 

budgets through this website. In addition, work will continue to add additional data streams to 

this website and expand the user-interactive tools. Chief among the new tools to be developed 

are user-interactive duration curves. Duration curves are one of the most useful and powerful 

tools for conveying complicated hydrologic and water-quality datasets. We have successfully 

used duration curves to analyze changes in stage, discharge, and turbidity for various periods and 

reaches in the CRe (Topping and others, 2003; Voichick and Topping, 2014). Once the durationcurve tool is added to the website, the user will be able to plot the percentage of time any 

parameter served on our website is equaled or exceeded for any user-specified period. 

 In addition to the collection and serving of the basic stream-flow, water-quality, and 

sediment-transport data, time is spent in this project interpreting the data and reporting on the 

results and interpretations in peer-reviewed articles in the areas of hydrology, water quality, and 

sediment transport. The interpretive papers published by this project are designed to address key 

questions relevant to river management, especially to management in the GCDAMP (see 

proposed publication list below). The data collected in this project form the basis of the 

collaborations listed in the next section. All of the projects funded in the areas of physical 

science, biology, and socioeconomics require the data collected by this project. During FY15–17, 

several peer-reviewed journal articles and USGS reports will be published on the following 

topics: 

 Analysis of Paria River and Little Colorado River hydrology 1920s-present with 

implications for long-term sediment management in the CRe (lead author Topping, to be 

completed during FY15–16) 

 Geomorphology, hydraulic geometry, and sediment transport in the Paria River (lead 

author Topping, to be completed during FY17) 

 Analysis of a decade of measurements of sediment transport in the lesser tributaries: Do 

the lesser tributaries matter to CRe sediment mass balance? (lead author Griffiths, to be 

completed during FY15) 

 Multiple articles on the linkage among hydrology, sediment transport, and geomorphic 

change in the Little Colorado River, with implications for aquatic and riparian habitat in 

the lower Little Colorado River (lead author Dean, to be completed during FY16–17) 

 Evaluation of effects of 2008-2016 dam operations on sediment storage dynamics within 

the CRe (lead author Topping, to be completed during FY17) 

In addition to these major publications, additional data reports and interpretive reports will be 

published by project personnel and USGS cooperators. 
76 

D.2 Personnel and Collaborations 

 The USGS-GCMRC personnel on this project are: David Topping (Research Hydrologist 

and project chief), Ronald Griffiths (Hydrologist and deputy project chief), David Dean 

(Hydrologist), Nick Voichick (Hydrologist and Water Quality Specialist), Tom Sabol 

(Hydrologist), Joel Unema (Hydrologic Technician, part-time), Taylor Roe (Hydrologic 

Technician, laboratory worker), and Jason Fobair (Hydrologic Technician, student laboratory 

worker). 

 The measurements of this project are essential to the success of Project 3 (Sandbars and 

Sediment Storage Dynamics). The measurement data and the mass balance sediment budgets 

computed in Project 2 are compared with the morphometric sediment budgets calculated in 

Project 3. The major external collaborations funded through this project are with three USGS 

cooperators: the Arizona Water Science Center, the Utah Water Science Center, and the Center 

for Integrated Data Analytics. Collaborations also exist between this project and most other 

funded physical-sciences and biology projects of the Triennial Work Plan, mostly in a supporting 

role, and with researchers in academia. In previous years, academic collaborations have existed 

between this project and researchers at the University of Colorado, College of William and 

Mary, Arizona State University, Utah State University, and Northern Arizona University. 

D.3 Deliverables 

1. 15-minute stage, discharge, and water temperature data (updated every 1-4 hours in 

realtime) and other QW data from the 9 gaging stations maintained by the USGS Arizona 

and Utah Water Science Centers under this project are available at 

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis and http://www.gcmrc.gov/discharge_qw_sediment/. 

2. 15-minute stage, discharge, water temperature, specific-conductance, turbidity, dissolvedoxygen, and suspended-sediment-concentration and grain-size data from the stations 

maintained by GCMRC under this project are available at 

http://www.gcmrc.gov/discharge_qw_sediment/. These data are updated as frequently as 

every month, depending on data-collection location. 

3. Mass-balance sand budgets for the CRe constructed using 15-minute sediment-transport 

data are served at http://www.gcmrc.gov/discharge_qw_sediment/ and updated on a 

monthly basis. 

4. Advanced user-interactive data-analysis tools (including user-interactive duration curves) 

on the web at http://www.gcmrc.gov/discharge_qw_sediment/.

5. Annual water-data reports for stage, discharge, and water quality data collected by the 

Arizona and Utah Water Science Centers are published online. 

6. At least four interpretive journal articles and top-tier USGS reports on project-relevant 

topics on the Colorado River and its tributaries in the CRe (see proposed publication list 

above). 

7. At least three additional peer-reviewed data reports and interpretive reports identified 

during the course of this study. 

E. Productivity from Past Work (during FY 13–14) 

E.1. Data Products 
77 

1. 15-minute stage, discharge, and water temperature data (updated every 1-4 hours in 

realtime) and other QW data from the 9 gaging stations maintained by the USGS Arizona 

and Utah Water Science Centers under this project are available at 

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis and http://www.gcmrc.gov/discharge_qw_sediment/. 

2. 15-minute stage, discharge, water temperature, specific-conductance, turbidity, dissolvedoxygen, and suspended-sediment-concentration and grain-size data from the stations 

maintained by GCMRC under this project are available at 

http://www.gcmrc.gov/discharge_qw_sediment/. These data are updated as frequently as 

every month, depending on data-collection location. 

3. Mass-balance sand budgets for the CRe constructed using 15-minute sediment-transport 

data are served at http://www.gcmrc.gov/discharge_qw_sediment/ and updated on a 

monthly basis. 

4. Annual water-data reports for stage, discharge, and water quality data collected by the 

Arizona and Utah Water Science Centers are published online at: 

http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/wy2012/pdfs/09380000.2012.pdf

http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/wy2012/pdfs/09381800.2012.pdf

http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/wy2012/pdfs/09382000.2012.pdf

http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/wy2012/pdfs/09402000.2012.pdf

http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/wy2012/pdfs/09402300.2012.pdf

http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/wy2012/pdfs/09402500.2012.pdf

http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/wy2012/pdfs/09403850.2012.pdf

http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/wy2012/pdfs/09404115.2012.pdf

http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/wy2012/pdfs/09404200.2012.pdf

http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/wy2013/pdfs/09380000.2013.pdf

http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/wy2013/pdfs/09381800.2013.pdf

http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/wy2013/pdfs/09382000.2013.pdf

http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/wy2013/pdfs/09402000.2013.pdf

http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/wy2013/pdfs/09402300.2013.pdf

http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/wy2013/pdfs/09402500.2013.pdf

http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/wy2013/pdfs/09403850.2013.pdf

http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/wy2013/pdfs/09404115.2013.pdf

http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/wy2013/pdfs/09404200.2013.pdf

E.2. Completed Publications 

Grams, P.E., Topping, D.J., Schmidt, J.C., Hazel, J.E., Jr., and Kaplinski, M., 2013, Linking 

morphodynamic response with sediment mass balance on the Colorado River in Marble 

Canyon: Issues of scale, geomorphic setting, and sampling design: Journal of Geophysical 

Research: Earth Surface, v. 118, 18p., doi:10.1002/jgrf.20050, 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrf.20050/pdf. 

Griffiths, R.E., Topping D.J., Anderson R.S., Hancock, G.S., and Melis, T.S., 2014, Design of a 

sediment-monitoring gaging network on ephemeral tributaries of the Colorado River in Glen, 

Marble, and Grand Canyons, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 2014-1137, 

21 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20141137. 

Sabol, T.A., and Topping, D.J., 2013, Evaluation of intake efficiencies and associated sedimentconcentration errors in US D-77 bag-type and US D-96-type depth-integrating suspended-
78 

sediment samplers: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2012–5208, 88 

p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/sir20125208, http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/sir20125208

Sabol, T.A., and Springer, A.E., 2013, Transient simulation of groundwater levels within a 

sandbar of the Colorado River, Marble Canyon, Arizona, 2004: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 2013-1277, 22 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20131277 

Voichick, N., and Topping, D.J., 2014, Extending the turbidity record: Making additional use of 

continuous data from turbidity, acoustic-Doppler, and laser diffraction instruments, and 

suspended-sediment samples in the Colorado River in Grand Canyon: U.S. Geological 

Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2014-5097, 31 p., 

http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/sir20145097 

E.3. Publications in progress 

Topping, D.J., and Wright, S.A., to be submitted for review during FY2014, Accurate long-term, 

high-resolution acoustic measurements of suspended-silt-and-clay concentration, suspendedsand concentration, and suspended-sand grain size in rivers: Journal of Geophysical 

Research. 

Topping, D.J., Wright, S.A., Griffiths, R.E., Dean, D.J., and Rubin, D.M., to be submitted for 

review during FY2014, Acoustic, laser-diffraction, and pump methods for measuring the 

concentration and grain-size distribution of suspended sediment in rivers at high temporal 

resolution over multi-year timescales: Theory, calibration, and error: either a U.S. Geological 

Survey Professional Paper or an American Geophysical Union Monograph. 

E.4. Presentations at GCDAMP meetings 

Episodic updates made to TWG and AMWG on the state of sediment and QW in the CRE; more 

frequent updates on the trigger status provided leading up to the November 2012 and 2013 HFEs. 

E.5. Presentations at professional meetings 

Grams, P.E., Schmidt, J.C., Topping, D.J., and Yackulic, C.B., 2012, Error and Uncertainty in 

High-resolution Quantitative Sediment Budgets: EOS, Transactions, American Geophysical 

Union. 

Topping, D.J., Griffiths, R.E., Dean, D.J., Wright, S.A., Rubin, D.M., Garner, B.D., Sibley, 

D.M., and Reinke, T.A., 2013, Accurate sediment budgets in rivers require high-resolution 

discharge-independent measurements of suspended-sediment concentration: EOS, 

Transactions, American Geophysical Union.

Griffiths, R.E., and Topping, D.J, 2013, Measurements of sediments loads in small, ungaged, 

basins may be required to accurately close sediment budgets: An example from a monitoring 

network on the southern Colorado Plateau: EOS, Transactions, American Geophysical 

Union.

Grams, P.E., Buscombe, D., Hazel, J.E., Kaplinski, M.A., and Topping, D.J, 2013, 

Reconciliation of Flux-based and Morphologic-based Sediment Budgets: EOS, Transactions, 

American Geophysical Union.

Jain, S., Melis, T.S., Topping, D.J, Pulwarty, R.S., and Eischeid, J., 2013, Warm Season Storms, 

Floods, and Tributary Sand Inputs below Glen Canyon Dam: Investigating Salience to 

Adaptive Management in the Context of a 10-Year Long Controlled Flooding Experiment in 

Grand Canyon National Park, AZ, USA: EOS, Transactions, American Geophysical Union.
79 

F. References 

Andrews, E.D., 1991, Sediment transport in the Colorado River basin, in Committee to Review 

the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies, Water Science and Technology Board, Commission 

on Geosciences, Environment, and Resources eds., Colorado River Ecology and Dam 

Management: Washington, D.C., National Academy Press, p. 54-74. 

Anima, R.J., Marlow, M.S., Rubin, D.M., and Hogg, D.J., 1998. Comparison of sand 

distribution between April 1994 and Hune 1996 along six reaches of the Colorado River in 

Grand Canyon, Arizona. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 98-141. 

Gloss, S.P., and Coggins, L.G., 2005, Fishes of Grand Canyon, in Gloss, S.P., Lovich, J.E., and 

Melis, T.S., eds., The state of the Colorado River ecosystem in Grand Canyon: U.S. 

Geological Survey Circular 1282, p. 33-68. 

Grams, P.E., Topping, D.J., Schmidt, J.C., Hazel, J.E., Jr., and Kaplinski, M., 2013, Linking 

morphodynamic response with sediment mass balance on the Colorado River in Marble 

Canyon: Issues of scale, geomorphic setting, and sampling design: Journal of Geophysical 

Research: Earth Surface, v. 118, 18p., doi:10.1002/jgrf.20050, 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrf.20050/pdf. 

Griffiths, R.E., Topping, D.J., McDonald, R.R., and Sabol, T.A., 2010, The use of the multidimensional surface-water modeling system (MD_SWMS) in calculating discharge and 

sediment transport in remote ephemeral streams: Proceedings of the Joint Federal 

Interagency Conference on Sedimentation and Hydrologic Modeling, June 27- July 1, 2010, 

Riviera Hotel, Las Vegas, Nevada, 

http://acwi.gov/sos/pubs/2ndJFIC/Contents/P40_Griffiths_paper.pdf. 

Griffiths, R.E., Topping, D.J., Andrews, Timothy, Bennett, G.E., Sabol, T.A., and Melis, T.S., 

2012, Design and maintenance of a network for collecting high-resolution suspendedsediment data at remote locations on rivers, with examples from the Colorado River: U.S. 

Geological Survey Techniques and Methods, book 8, chapter C2, 44 p., 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/tm/tm8c2/. 

Griffiths, R.E., Topping D.J., Anderson R.S., Hancock, G.S., and Melis, T.S., 2014, Design of a 

sediment-monitoring gaging network on ephemeral tributaries of the Colorado River in Glen, 

Marble, and Grand Canyons, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 2014-1137, 

21 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20141137. 

Hazel, J., Jr., Topping, D.J., Schmidt, J.C., and Kaplinski, M., 2006, Influence of a dam on finesediment storage in a canyon river: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 111, F01025, 16 p. 

Howard, C.S., 1947, Suspended sediment in the Colorado River 1925-41: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Supply Paper 998, 165 p. 

Melis, T.S., ed., 2011, Effects of three high-flow experiments on the Colorado River ecosystem 

downstream from Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1366, 147 

p., http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1366/. 

Melis, T.S., Topping, D.J., and Rubin D.M., 2003, Testing laser-based sensors for continuous in 

situ monitoring of suspended sediment in the Colorado River, Arizona, in Bogen, J., Fergus, 

T., and Walling, D.E., eds., Erosion and Sediment Transport Measurement in Rivers: 

Technological and Methodological Advances: Wallingford, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom, 

IAHS Press, IAHS Publication 283, p. 21-27. 

National Research Council, 1996, River Resource Management in the Grand Canyon: 

Washington, D.C., National Academy Press, 226 p. 
80 

Rubin, D.M., and Topping, D.J., 2001a, Quantifying the relative importance of flow regulation 

and grain-size regulation of suspended-sediment transport (), and tracking changes in bedsediment grain size (): Water Resources Research, v. 37, p. 133-146. 

Rubin, D.M., and Topping, D.J., 2001b, What regulates suspended-sediment transport in a given 

setting? Grain size of bed sediment or flow: Proceedings of the 7th Inter-Agency 

Sedimentation Conference, v. 1, p. I-199 through I-205. 

Rubin, D.M., Tate, G.M., Topping, D.J., and Anima, R.A., 2001, Use of rotating side-scan sonar 

to measure bedload: Proceedings of the 7th Inter-Agency Sedimentation Conference, v. 1, 

p. III-139 through III-143. 

Rubin, D.M., Topping, D.J., Schmidt, J.C., Hazel, J., Kaplinski, K., and Melis, T.S., 2002, 

Recent sediment studies refute Glen Canyon Dam hypothesis: EOS, Transactions, American 

Geophysical Union, v. 83, n. 25, p. 273, 277-278. 

Rubin, D.M., and Topping, D.J., 2008, Correction to “Quantifying the relative importance of 

flow regulation and grain-size regulation of suspended-sediment transport α, and tracking 

changes in bed-sediment grain size β”: Water Resources Research, v. 44, W09701, 5 p., doi: 

10.1029/2008WR006819. 

Sabol, T.A., and Topping, D.J., 2013, Evaluation of intake efficiencies and associated sedimentconcentration errors in US D-77 bag-type and US D-96-type depth-integrating suspendedsediment samplers: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2012–5208, 88 

p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/sir20125208, http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/sir20125208. 

Schmidt, J.C., 1990, Recirculating flow and sedimentation in the Colorado River in Grand 

Canyon, Arizona: Journal of Geology, v. 98, p. 709-724. 

Schmidt, J.C., and Graf, J.B., 1990, Aggradation and degradation of alluvial sand deposits, 1965 

to 1986, Colorado River, Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey 

Professional Paper 1493, 74 p. 

Schmidt, J.C., Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., Hazel, J.E., Jr., Kaplinski, M., Wiele, S.M., and 

Goeking, S.A., 2007, Streamflow and sediment data collected to determine the effects of 

Low Summer Steady Flows and Habitat Maintenance Flows in 2000 on the Colorado River 

between Lees Ferry and Bright Angel Creek, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 2007-1268, 79 p. 

Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., and Vierra, Jr., L.E., 2000a, Colorado River sediment transport 1. 

Natural sediment supply limitation and the influence of Glen Canyon Dam: Water Resources 

Research, v. 36, p.515-542. 

Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., Nelson, J.M., Kinzel, III, P.J., and Corson, I.C., 2000b, Colorado 

River sediment transport 2. Systematic bed-elevation and grain-size effects of sand supply 

limitation: Water Resources Research, v. 36, p. 543-570. 

Topping, D.J., J.C. Schmidt, and L.E. Vierra, Jr., 2003, Computation and Analysis of the 

Instantaneous-Discharge Record for the Colorado River at Lees Ferry, Arizona—May 8, 

1921, through September 30, 2000: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1677, 118 p. 

Topping, D.J., Melis, T.S., Rubin, D.M., and Wright, S.A., 2004, High-resolution monitoring of 

suspended-sediment concentration and grain size in the Colorado River in Grand Canyon 

using a laser-acoustic system, in Hu, C., and Tan, Y, eds., Proceedings of the Ninth 

International Symposium on River Sedimentation, October 18-21, 2004, Yichang, China: 

People’s Republic of China, Tsinghua University Press, p. 2507-2514. 

Topping, D., Rubin, D., and Melis, T., 2005a, Coupled changes in sand grain size and sand 

transport driven by changes in the upstream supply of sand in the Colorado River, in
81 

Flemming, B.W., Hartmann, D., and Delafontaine, M.T., eds., From Particle Size to 

Sediment Dynamics International Workshop, Hanse Institute for Advanced Study, 

Delmenhorst (Germany), April 15-18, 2004: Research Centre Terramare Reports, No. 13, p. 

153-158. 

Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., and Schmidt, J.C., 2005b, Regulation of sand transport in the 

Colorado River by changes in the surface grain size of eddy sandbars over multi-year 

timescales: Sedimentology, v.52, p. 1133-1153. 

Topping, D.J., Wright, S.A., Melis, T.S., and Rubin, D.M., 2006a, High-resolution monitoring of 

suspended-sediment concentration and grain size in the Colorado River using laserdiffraction instruments and a three-frequency acoustic system: CD-ROM Proceedings of the 

8th Federal Inter-Agency Sedimentation Conference, Reno, Nevada, April 2-6, 2006, ISBN 0-

9779007-1-1. 

Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., Schmidt, J.C., Hazel, J.E., Jr., Melis, T.S., Wright, S.A., Kaplinski, 

M., Draut, A.E., and Breedlove, M.J., 2006b, Comparison of sediment-transport and barresponse results from the 1996 and 2004 controlled-flood experiments on the Colorado River 

in Grand Canyon: CD-ROM Proceedings of the 8th Federal Inter-Agency Sedimentation 

Conference, Reno, Nevada, April 2-6, 2006, ISBN 0-9779007-1-1. 

Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., and Melis, T.S., 2007a, Coupled changes in sand grain size and sand 

transport driven by changes in the upstream supply of sand in the Colorado River: Relative 

importance of changes in bed-sand grain size and bed-sand area: Sedimentary Geology, 24 p., 

doi: 10.1016/j.sedgeo.2007.03.016. 

Topping, D.J., Wright, S.A., Melis, T.S., and Rubin, D.M., 2007b, High-resolution 

measurements of suspended-sediment concentration and grain size in the Colorado River in 

Grand Canyon using a multi-frequency acoustic system: Proceedings of the Tenth 

International Symposium on River Sedimentation, August 1-4, 2007, Moscow, Russia, v. 3, 

p. 330-339. 

Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., and Schmidt, J.C., 2008, Update on regulation of sand transport in 

the Colorado River by changes in the surface grain size of eddy sandbars over multiyear 

timescales: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2008–5042, 24 p. 

Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., Grams, P.E., Griffiths, R.E., Sabol, T.A., Voichick, N., Tusso, R.B., 

Vanaman, K.M., and McDonald, R.R., 2010, Sediment transport during three controlledflood experiments on the Colorado River downstream from Glen Canyon Dam, with 

implications for eddy-sandbar deposition in Grand Canyon National Park: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 2010-1128, 111 p. 

Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., Wright, S.A., and Melis, T.S., 2011, Field evaluation of the error 

arising from inadequate time averaging in the standard use of depth-integrating suspendedsediment samplers: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1774, 95 p., 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/1774/. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, 1995, Operation of Glen Canyon Dam Final Environmental 

Impact Statement, Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region, Salt Lake City, 337 p. 

plus appendices. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, 2011, Environmental Assessment: Development and 

Implementation of a Protocol for High-Flow Experimental Releases from Glen Canyon Dam, 

Arizona, 2011 through 2020, Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region, Salt Lake 

City, 496 p. 
82 

Voichick, N., 2008, Specific conductance in the Colorado River between Glen Canyon Dam and 

Diamond Creek, northern Arizona, 1988–2007: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 364, 16 

p. 

Voichick, N., and Topping, D.J., 2010a, Use of specific conductance in estimating salinity and as 

a natural tracer of water parcels in the Colorado River between Glen Canyon Dam and 

Diamond Creek, northern Arizona, in Melis, T.S., Hamill, J.F., Bennett, G.E., Coggins, L.G., 

Jr., Grams, P.E., Kennedy, T.A., Kubly, D.M., and Ralston, B.E., eds., Proceedings of the 

Colorado River Basin Science and Resource Management Symposium, November 18–20, 

2008, Scottsdale, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010–

5135, p. 357-362. 

Voichick, N., and Topping, D.J., 2010b, Comparison of turbidity to multi-frequency sideways 

looking acoustic-Doppler data and suspended-sediment data in the Colorado River in Grand 

Canyon: Proceedings of the Joint Federal Interagency Conference on Sedimentation and 

Hydrologic Modeling, June 27- July 1, 2010, Riviera Hotel, Las Vegas, Nevada, 

http://acwi.gov/sos/pubs/2ndJFIC/Contents/P34_Voichick_FISC_Paper.pdf. 

Voichick, N., and Topping, D.J., 2014, Extending the turbidity record: Making additional use of 

continuous data from turbidity, acoustic-Doppler, and laser diffraction instruments, and 

suspended-sediment samples in the Colorado River in Grand Canyon: U.S. Geological 

Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2014-5097, 31 p., 

http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/sir20145097. 

Voichick, N., and Wright, S.A., 2007, Water-temperature data for the Colorado River and 

tributaries between Glen Canyon Dam and Spencer Canyon, northern Arizona, 1988–2005: 

U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 251, 24 p. 

Wright, S.A., Melis, T.S., Topping, D.J., and Rubin, D.M., 2005, Influence of Glen Canyon Dam 

operations on downstream sand resources of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon, in Gloss, 

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

Canyon: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1282, p. 17-31. 

Wright, S.A., Schmidt, J.C., Melis, T.S., Topping, D.J., and Rubin, D.M., 2008, Is there enough 

sand? Evaluating the fate of Grand Canyon sandbars: GSA Today, v. 18, no. 8, p. 4-10, doi: 

10.1130/GSATG12A.1 

Wright, S.A., Anderson, C.R., and Voichick, N., 2009, A simplified water temperature model 

doe the Colorado River below Glen Canyon Dam: River Research and Applications: v. 25, 

p. 675-686, doi: 10.1002/rra.1179. 

Wright, S.A., Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., and Melis, T.S., 2010a, An approach for modeling 

sediment budgets in supply-limited rivers: Water Resources Research, v. 46, W10538, 18 p., 

doi:10.1029/2009WR008600. 

Wright, S.A., Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., and Melis, T.S., 2010b, Modeling long-term sediment 

budgets in supply-limited rivers: Proceedings of the Joint Federal Interagency Conference 

on Sedimentation and Hydrologic Modeling, June 27- July 1, 2010, Riviera Hotel, Las 

Vegas, Nevada, 

http://acwi.gov/sos/pubs/2ndJFIC/Contents/3B_Wright_12_29_09_paper.pdf. 

Wright, S.A., Topping, D.J., and Williams, C.A., 2010c, Discriminating silt-and-clay from 

suspended-sand in rivers using sidelooking acoustic profilers: Proceedings of the Joint 

Federal Interagency Conference on Sedimentation and Hydrologic Modeling, June 27- July 

1, 2010, Riviera Hotel, Las Vegas, Nevada, 

http://acwi.gov/sos/pubs/2ndJFIC/Contents/2C_Wright_03_01_10_paper.pdf.
83 

G. Budget 

Core activities

Support implementation and

evaluation of HFE Protocol and

Non‐Native Fish Control

Technical and analytical

innovations in monitoring

Improving predictive modeling

capacity

Resolving scientific uncertainty

Independent science oversight

and review

Integrating tribes in monitoring

and research

Project Identifier Project Description Salaries Travel & Training Operating Expenses Logistics Coop‐ erators (non‐USGS) USGS Coop‐erat

X X 2

Stream Flow, Water

Quality, and Sediment

Transport in the Colorado

River Ecosystem

Topping et al. $619,000 $5,000 $50,000 $70,000 $0 $480

X X 2

Stream Flow, Water

Quality, and Sediment

Transport in the Colorado

River Ecosystem

Topping et al. $659,000 $5,000 $52,000 $72,000 $0 $496

X X 2

Stream Flow, Water

Quality, and Sediment

Transport in the Colorado

River Ecosystem

Topping et al. $671,000 $5,000 $53,000 $74,000 $0 $512

FY17FY16

Monitoring Research

FY15
84 

Monitorig: Core activities 

Monitoring: Supports implementation and evaluation of HFE Protocol and Non-Native Fish Control 

Research: Technical and analytical innovations in monitoring 

Research: Improving predictive modeling capacity 

Research: Resolving scientific uncertainty 

Project 3. Sandbars and Sediment Storage Dynamics: 

Long-term Monitoring and Research at the Site, Reach, 

and Ecosystem Scales 

Initial Estimate: FY15: $1,324,600; FY16: $1,362,800; FY17: $1,439,600 

GCDAMP Funding: FY15: $1,324,600; FY16: $1,267,400; FY17: $1,367,600 

A. Investigators 

Paul Grams, Research Hydrologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center 

Daniel Buscombe, Research Geologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center 

Erich Mueller, Research Hydrologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center 

Joel Sankey, Research Geologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center 

Joseph Wheaton, Assistant Professor, Utah State University 

Brandon McElroy, Assistant Professor, University of Wyoming 

Mark Schmeeckle, Associate Professor, Arizona State University 

Joseph E. Hazel, Jr., Research Associate, Northern Arizona University 

Matt Kaplinski, Research Associate, Northern Arizona University 

Keith Kohl, Surveyor, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center 

Robert Tusso, Hydrologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research 

Center 

Robert Ross, Hydrologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research 

Center 

Thomas M. Gushue, GIS Coordinator, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center 

David Rubin, Research Professor, University of California at Santa Cruz 

David Topping, Research Hydrologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center 

Ted Melis, Physical Scientist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research 

Center 

Mike Yard, Fishery Biologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research 

Center 

Robert Weber, Photogrammetrist, Pinnacle Mapping Technologies, Inc. 

David Varyu, Hydraulic Engineer, Bureau of Reclamation, Technical Service Center 
85 

B. Project Summary 

This project consists of a set of integrated studies that (a) track the effects of individual HighFlow Experiments (HFEs, or “controlled floods”) on sandbars and within-channel sediment 

storage, (b) monitor the cumulative effect of successive HFEs and intervening operations, and (c) 

advance general understanding of sediment transport and eddy sandbar dynamics. While the first 

two efforts are focused on monitoring, the latter effort is focused on improving capacity to 

predict the effects of dam operations, because management of the Colorado River downstream 

from Glen Canyon Dam requires that managers balance the objective to achieve fine-sediment 

conservation with other management objectives. Such balancing of objectives requires 

comparing predicted outcomes of different dam operation scenarios, such as has been pursued in 

the Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan (LTEMP) Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) process. 

The effort to achieve fine-sediment conservation in the Colorado River ecosystem in Marble 

and Grand Canyons (CRe) is greatly constrained by the limited annual supply of fine sediments 

to the Colorado River from ephemeral tributaries. The challenge of rehabilitating sandbars when 

most of the fine-sediment once supplied to the CRe is now stored in Lake Powell reservoir has 

been described in many scientific articles and management documents. More than a decade of 

monitoring and research has demonstrated that eddy sandbars accumulate sand, as well as small 

amounts of clay and silt (hereafter referred to as mud), during short periods of relatively high 

flow, but these same sandbars typically erode during flows that occur in the months to years 

between the high flows requisite for sandbar building. Adoption of the HFE Protocol in 2012 

established a formal procedure whereby seasonal sand and mud (together referred to as fine 

sediment) inflows are measured, and high flows are released from Glen Canyon Dam with the 

purpose of redistributing that sand and mud from the channel bed to eddies. The long-term effect 

of the HFE Protocol depends on the relative “gain” to eddy sandbars that occurs during the short 

controlled floods and the intervening “loss” that occurs during other times. The Environmental 

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

Releases from Glen Canyon Dam (hereafter referred to as the HFE Protocol EA) asked, "Can 

sandbar building during HFEs exceed sandbar erosion during periods between HFEs, such that 

sandbar size can be increased and maintained over several years?" In other words, does the 

volume of sand aggraded into eddies and onto sandbars during controlled floods exceed the 

volume eroded from sandbars during intervening dam operations? 

Thus, one of the most important objectives of this project is to monitor the changes in 

sandbars over many years, including a period that contains several controlled floods, in order to 

compile the information required to answer the fundamental question of the HFE Protocol EA. 

The monitoring program described here continues the program implemented in the FY13–14 

Biennial Work Plan and is based on annual measurements of sandbars, using conventional 

topographic surveys supplemented with daily measurements of sandbar change using ‘remote 

cameras’ that autonomously and repeatedly take photographs. Because these long-term 

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

Grand Canyons, this project also includes (1) the analysis of a much larger sample of sandbars, 

using airborne remote-sensing data of the entire CRe collected every 4 years, and (2) periodic 

measurements of nearly all sandbars within individual 50 to 130 km river segments. 

Another critical piece of information that will be needed to evaluate the outcome of the HFE 

Protocol and the LTEMP EIS will be the change in total sand storage in long river segments. 
86 

HFEs build sandbars by redistributing sand from the low-elevation portion of the channel to 

sandbars in eddies and on the banks. The sand available for bar building is the sand that is in 

storage within the channel, which is the sum of the sand contributed by the most recent tributary 

inputs, all the sand that has accumulated during the decades since Glen Canyon Dam was 

completed, and any sand that remains from the pre-dam era. The goal of the HFE protocol is to 

accomplish sandbar building by mobilizing only as much sand as is most recently contributed by 

the Paria River. Some of the mobilized sand is deposited in eddies where it maintains and builds 

eddy sandbars. Some of the sand is eventually transported downstream to Lake Mead reservoir. 

The most efficient floods for the purposes of sandbar building are those that maximize eddy 

sandbar aggradation yet minimize the amount of sand transported far downstream, thus 

minimizing losses to sand storage. Dam operations between HFEs also transport sand 

downstream, causing decreases in sand storage. If sand storage is maintained or increased, 

scientists expect the response to future HFEs to be similar to or better than that observed 

following recent HFEs. In contrast, depleted conditions of fine sediment in the active channel are 

potentially irreversible and threaten the long-term ability to rehabilitate eddy sandbars. Although 

the total amount of sand in the active channel is not known and may never be known, changes in 

the topography of the channel measured in this project reveal where fine sediment accumulates, 

where it becomes depleted, and whether or not older fine sediment deposits are being 

progressively eroded by HFEs and other parts of the flow regime. 

This project also includes five research and development components: (1) improving 

methods for making sandbar surveys rapidly and at low cost; (2) investigating bedload sand 

transport; (3) developing a method to estimate the thickness of submerged sand deposits, (4) 

developing a method to map submerged aquatic vegetation, and (5) developing of a new largescale sandbar deposition/erosion model. These projects are, respectively, designed to improve 

monitoring methods, improve estimates of sand transport, develop a new tool to estimate total 

sand storage, develop a new tool to map submerged aquatic vegetation and improve acoustic bed 

sediment classifications, and develop new tools for predicting how management actions 

including HFEs and daily dam operations affect resources. 

C. Background

The many sediment-related goals and objectives of the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive 

Management Program (GCDAMP) can be distilled into one question: “What actions will create 

and maintain the largest and most widely distributed fine-sediment deposits throughout the 

Colorado River ecosystem (CRe) in the context of a limited fine-sediment supply.” Currently, all 

“actions” are associated with dam operations, but future actions might include riparian 

vegetation management (see Project Element 11.5). Other potential actions include augmentation 

of the fine sediment supply, but the construction of sediment augmentation facilities is not 

currently under consideration. 

The effort to build fine-sediment deposits in the CRe is greatly constrained by the limited 

annual supply of fine sediment provided by the Paria River and other tributaries. The CRe was 

perturbed into a condition of fine sediment deficit following construction of Glen Canyon Dam, 

wherein the capacity of the Colorado River to transport fine sediment often exceeds the annual 

resupply rate. During the first 30 years after dam construction, a large amount of fine sediment 

was evacuated from the CRe (Topping and others, 2000; Grams and others, 2007). The 

evacuation of fine sediment from Glen, Marble, and eastern Grand Canyons resulted in a decline 
87 

in the number and size of sandbars in the eastern half of Grand Canyon National Park (Schmidt 

and others, 2004; Wright and others, 2005). 

 Achieving widespread and abundant distribution of eddy sandbars is desirable, because there 

are many linkages between the distribution and amount of fine sediment in the CRe and several 

ecosystem and management goals. Sandbars are used as camping beaches, form a major 

component of aquatic habitats, and are a source of aeolian sand for the upland ecosystem. 

Management and ecosystem goals include: maintenance of sandbars used by boaters and hikers, 

creation of sandbar-associated backwater habitats used by native fish, and maintenance of 

exposed bare sandbars that are available for redistribution by wind to upslope areas. 

Monitoring and research also focuses on the distribution of fine sediment elsewhere in the 

CRe. Recent research demonstrates that the distribution, abundance, and size of fine sediment on 

the bed of the active channel control the transport of fine sediment during HFEs. In turn, higher 

suspended sediment concentration during HFEs enhances the rate at which eddy sandbars are 

constructed during those controlled floods. Additionally, the distribution of fine sediment on the 

channel bed affects primary production and aquatic habitats. We use the term “sediment” to refer 

to alluvium of all sizes, “fine sediment” to refer to sand, silt, and clay (all sediment < 2 mm), and 

“sand” to refer to sand-sized sediment only (0.0625 – 2 mm). The focus of this project is on the 

sand-size component of fine sediment, because most fine sediment resources in the CRe are 

primarily composed of sand. 

Figure 1. Conceptual diagram illustrating possible trajectories of sandbar size in relation to the frequency of High Flow 

Experiments (HFEs), the amount of deposition caused by HFEs, and the amount of erosion that occurs between HFEs 

(figured adapted from Schmidt and Grams, 2011). The case shown in 1 shows a hypothetical situation where the amount of 

HFE deposition equals the amount of intervening erosion. Cases two and three are hypothetical situations where the total 

amount of HFE-induced deposition, which is the magnitude of HFE deposition multiplied by the frequency of HFEs, 

exceeds the magnitude of intervening erosion. In case 4, the hypothetical rate of erosion that occurs between HFEs exceeds 

the magnitude of HFE-induced deposition. The purpose of the monitoring activities described in Project 3 is to determine 

which of these hypothetical cases occurs during the period of implementation of the HFE Protocol. 
88 

More than a decade of monitoring and research demonstrates that eddy sandbars are dynamic 

topographic features that accumulate sand during short duration high flows when fine sediment 

previously supplied by tributaries is redistributed from the deepest parts of the channel to higher 

elevations in eddies and along the channel margins. These same sandbars and channel-margin 

deposits typically erode during periods of normal power-plant operations, especially during 

months when there is no inflow from tributaries (Schmidt and others, 1999; Hazel and others, 

1999; Topping and others, 2006; Hazel and others, 2010; Schmidt and Grams, 2011). The HFE 

Protocol established a formal procedure whereby seasonal inflows of sand are measured by 

Project 2, and high flows are released from Glen Canyon Dam with the purpose of redistributing 

that sand from the channel bed to eddies. The long-term effect of the HFE Protocol depends on 

the relative “gain” to eddy sandbars that occurs during short controlled floods and the 

intervening “loss” that occurs during other times. 

Previous monitoring activities associated with Projects 2 and 3 have demonstrated that, in 

some multi-year periods, fine-sediment is supplied to the CRe by the Paria River and other 

tributaries at a higher rate than the rate of export downstream to Lake Mead reservoir. This 

positive fine sediment mass balance typically occurs when there are many floods on tributary 

streams and relatively small total annual releases of water from Lake Powell (Grams and others, 

2013). In contrast, more fine sediment is evacuated from the CRe in those multi-year periods 

when there are only small floods in tributaries and there are large releases from Lake Powell. 

Monitoring in the CRe has not occurred for a sufficiently long period to determine if a decadalscale quasi-equilibrium in the amount of fine sediment in the CRe is achievable, nor if the HFE 

Protocol can significantly improve the chances for achievement of quasi-equilibrium (Fig. 1). 

The monitoring activities described here provide the fundamental evidence on which evaluation 

of the long-term fate of fine sediment deposits will be made. 

C.1. Scientific Background 

Completion of Glen Canyon Dam caused a 90-percent reduction in fine-sediment supply to 

the Colorado River in Marble and Grand Canyons (Topping and others, 2000), because all fine 

sediment produced in the upstream watershed is trapped in Lake Powell. Operations of Glen 

Canyon Dam, which control the rate of release of reservoir waters into the CRe, create a flow 

regime that is dramatically different from that produced by the annual melting of the Rocky 

Mountain snowpack and the late summer/early fall North American monsoon and thunderstorm 

season (Topping and others, 2002). These changes to the flow regime and sediment supply 

caused deep scour and armoring of the river bed between the dam and Lees Ferry, 25 km 

downstream from the dam (Pemberton, 1976; Williams and Wolman, 1984; Grams and others, 

2007). Scour was widespread in this segment, because the sand and fine gravel in the channel 

was easily eroded (Grams and others, 2007). Downstream from Lees Ferry in Marble and Grand 

Canyons, inputs of large cobbles and boulders from tributaries create rapids and change the 

nature of the river and the style of response to sediment deficit. The boulder deposits that form 

rapids have not been eroded and in some cases have aggraded (Magirl and others, 2005). In 

contrast, areas of the bed covered by fine sediment have been eroded. Thus, the water surface 

profile of the Colorado River in Marble and Grand Canyons has not significantly changed except 

at some rapids (Magirl and others, 2005), but a large amount of sand has been eroded from deep 

pools, and many eddy sandbars are much smaller than they once were (Schmidt and others, 

2004). Because systematic measurements of fine-sediment thickness have never been made, the 

total volume of fine sediment present (or eroded) is not known. 
89 

Many studies conducted since the 1970s have shown that (1) post-dam controlled floods 

cause increases in sandbar size throughout the CRe (Hazel and others, 2010; Schmidt and Grams, 

2011); (2) normal dam operations (i.e., hydro-peaking) cause sandbar erosion whose rates are 

greatest immediately following floods (Grams and others, 2010; Schmidt and Grams, 2011); and, 

(3) there is a large variability in the magnitude of sandbar response from place to place (Hazel 

and others, 1999, 2010; Schmidt and others, 1999). Topping and others (2000) showed that the 

supply of sand available to build sandbars is limited, and Schmidt (1999) showed that controlled 

floods that build some sandbars sometimes do so at the expense of erosion of sand from other, 

upstream eddy sandbars. 

The Role of Sediment Budgets in Fine Sediment Monitoring 

Sandbars are one component of the total sediment budget for the Colorado River. The 

sediment budget, or sediment mass balance, is simply the accounting by mass (or volume) of all 

sediment entering and exiting any segment of a river. This budget may be expressed as: 

ܫ െ ܱ ൌ 	 ∆ܵ, (1) 

where ܫ is the sum of all inputs, ܱ is the sum of all outputs, and ∆ܵ is the net change in the 

sediment deposits that occurs within that segment of river. When inputs exceed outputs, 

sediment accumulation occurs; when outputs exceed inputs, sediment evacuation occurs. To 

provide greater spatial resolution, equation (1) can be partitioned by the elevation zone in which 

∆ܵ occurs. Sand stored low in the active channel (∆ܵ௟௢௪) is always underwater and sand stored 

higher in the active channel (∆ܵ௛௜௚௛) is only be occasionally inundated. Thus, 

∆ܵ ൌ ∆ܵ௟௢௪ ൅ ∆ܵ௛௜௚௛. (2) 

These two storage components can be further subdivided based on other criteria such as whether 

the sediment deposits occur within eddies or in the main channel. 

We use “low” to refer to fine-sediment deposits below the stage associated with the 8,000 

ft3/s discharge and “high” to refer to fine-sediment deposits above the 8,000 ft3/s stage. The lowelevation deposits are always underwater except during the trough of some flow fluctuations; 

these deposits consist of the lower parts of eddy sandbars and patches of sand on the river bed. 

These low-elevation deposits are relevant to aquatic habitat and, in the case of sandbars in 

eddies, they underlie the sediment that occurs at higher elevation. The high-elevation finesediment deposits are alternately inundated and exposed, depending on the flow regime. These 

deposits are the high-elevation parts of sandbars and are used as camping beaches, support 

riparian vegetation, and support other upland resources. High-elevation deposits include both 

those deposits that are inundated by normal dam operations and controlled floods and those 

deposits that are no longer inundated. This project is concerned primarily with deposits at and 

below the elevation inundated by controlled floods. The higher-elevation pre-dam deposits are 

the focus of Project 4. 

Low- and high-elevation deposits are coupled through processes of erosion and deposition by 

streamflow, erosion and deposition by wind, and mass failure. This coupling means that changes 

in ∆ܵ will affect both low- and high-elevation sediment. Therefore, predictions about the longterm fate of sandbars must be based on understanding and, by extension, the ability to predict, 

the long-term trend in ∆ܵ. For these reasons, all sandbar research and monitoring is designed 

around this concept of the sediment budget. 

Measurements of suspended sediment were initiated in 1999 to measure sediment inputs and 

outputs for each segment of the Colorado River between the measurement stations; thus, each 
90 

segment of the Colorado River is a sediment budgeting reach1 (Fig. 2). The measurements of 

inputs and outputs (I and O in equation 1) made in Project 2 can be used to calculate ∆ܵ, and this 

approach tracks the large-scale accumulation and downstream redistribution of tributary inputs 

that is essential for implementation of the HFE Protocol. However, this calculation of ∆ܵ derived 

from gaging stations measurements and equation (1) does not distinguish between the changes 

that occur in ∆ܵ௟௢௪ or in ∆ܵ௛௜௚௛; thus, the calculation of ∆ܵ does not reveal whether equation (1) 

is of immediate significance to increasing sandbar size, campsite area, increasing the area of sand 

available for plant colonization, or other topographic changes of recreational or ecological 

significance. Additionally, this calculation of ∆ܵ does not reveal whether topographic changes in 

sand deposits were associated with changes in bed-sediment grain size, which is important for 

assessing the mobility of the sand during future HFEs. Further, calculation of equation (1) does 

not reveal changes at specific local locations. 

In response to the need to provide spatially explicit measurements that would demonstrate 

the implications of calculations based on equation (1), direct measurements of ∆ܵ based on 

repeated topographic measurements in short (2- to 5-km long) reaches were made between 2000 

and 2004. Measurements of channel bed bathymetry were made using sonar and the topography 

of exposed deposits was measured using airborne LiDAR, aerial photogrammetry, and 

conventional topographic surveys (Hazel and others, 2008; Kaplinski and others, 2009, 2014). 

Repeat measurements at different times were made at seven reaches between River Mile (RM) 0 

and RM 87 (Fig. 2). This monitoring program was a substantial advancement beyond earlier 

monitoring programs, because nearly all of the channel was mapped, in contrast to previous 

efforts that made measurements at widely-spaced cross-sections or isolated sandbars. 

                                                            

1

 In this proposal, we refer to observations and study areas that span a variety of spatial scales. We use “monitoring 

site” to refer to monitoring locations that are at the scale of individual sandbars, 100’s of meters in length. We use 

“short reach” to refer to study reaches that include many sites and are on the order of 2 to 5 km in length. We use 

“long reach” or “sediment budgeting reach” to refer to segments of the river that encompass the entire channel 

between fine-sediment monitoring gages; these reaches are 50 to 130 km in length. 
91 

Figure 2. Map showing the Colorado River between Glen Canyon Dam and Diamond Creek. The stations for suspended 

sediment transport monitoring (Project 2: Streamflow, Sediment Transport, and Water Quality) are shown by the red circles. 

The short reaches where sediment storage was mapped between 2000 and 2004 are shown by the green ovals. Based on 

analysis of these data, the current sediment storage monitoring plan calls for mapping 50 to 80 percent of the channel in the 

segments between the sediment monitoring stations. In 2009 and 2012, most of the long sediment budgeting reach between 

RM 30 and RM 61 was mapped. In 2011 and 2014, most of the sediment budgeting reach between RM 61 and RM 87 was 

mapped. In 2013, most of the sediment budgeting reach between RM 0 and RM 30 was mapped.

Results from this monitoring program demonstrated that 90 percent or more of the temporary 

fine sediment accumulation in the modern river occurs in the low-elevation parts of the active 

channel (Hazel and others, 2006). Ironically, the deposits that are generally of greatest 

management interest (high-elevation sandbars) comprise only about 10 percent of the fine 

sediment in the system. Perhaps the most challenging finding related to development of a robust 

fine sediment monitoring program was that ∆ܵ computed for each of the study reaches based on 

repeated measurements of topography yielded different values than ∆ܵ computed using equation 

(1) using the difference between fine sediment inflows measured at gaging stations (Topping and 

others, 2006; Grams and others, 2011, 2013). Although the study reaches were much shorter than 

the sediment budgeting reaches, Hazel and others (2006) and Grams and others (2011, 2013) 

expected that simple extrapolation of the computed ∆ܵ term for the measurement reaches would 

approximate the ∆ܵ term computed for the longer sediment budgeting reaches. However, this 

was not the case, and extrapolation of ∆ܵ measured in the short reaches yielded a very different 

value of ∆ܵ from that computed using equation (1) and the gaging station data collected in 

Project 2. 

Temporal and Spatial Variability of Fine-Sediment Deposits and Implications to Monitoring 
92 

Grams and others (2011, 2013) found that this discrepancy stems from the inability to 

correctly extrapolate measurements from the short reaches to larger spatial scales. Extrapolation 

failed for two major reasons: changes in bed topography are (1) highly localized and (2) spatially 

variable. Schmidt and others (2004) had earlier demonstrated a high degree of spatial variability 

in the behavior of sand deposits caused by the 1996 controlled flood. They showed that large 

changes in sediment storage had been concentrated in eddies and in pools in the channel units 

adjacent to eddies. Similar and nearby eddy sandbars did not necessarily change in the same 

ways—scour in one eddy was sometimes offset by an equal or larger magnitude of deposition in 

the next eddy. Grams and others (2011, 2013) also found that the magnitude of change in bed 

topography in some channel pools can be very large. Thus, Grams and others (2011, 2013) 

determined that the net ∆ܵ of a long sediment budgeting reach is the sum of many local ∆ܵ terms 

in individual channel units; ∆ܵ in some of these units is positive, but ∆ܵ is negative elsewhere. In 

many cases, ∆ܵ is larger at a local scale than at larger scales, and ∆ܵ at a large scale is the net 

difference among very large values that occur in relatively short parts of the channel. 

These findings make clear why it is nearly impossible to extrapolate the calculations of ∆ܵ

measured in short study reaches to longer sediment budgeting reaches. Without better knowledge 

of the spatial distribution and size of each channel unit where large changes in fine sediment 

storage can occur, and without knowing the physical reasons that determine the inherent 

variability in response to varying flows, it is not possible to extrapolate measurements from the 

short reaches to longer reaches (Grams and others, 2013). These findings demonstrate that in 

order to determine whether sediment storage in each storage environment – at low and high 

elevations and in the channel and eddy storage environments – is increasing, decreasing, or 

stable, requires repeat measurements of sand storage throughout the long sediment budgeting 

reaches. The proposed fine-sediment monitoring includes measurements of channel and eddy 

sand storage at the scale of the long sediment budgeting reaches. 

In response to these findings, a long-reach monitoring program (also known as the “channel 

mapping” project) was initiated in 2009 when lower Marble Canyon was mapped. Mapping of 

eastern Grand Canyon followed in 2011, and a repeat map of lower Marble Canyon was 

measured in 2012. The first mapping of upper Marble Canyon occurred in 2013, and a repeat 

map of eastern Grand Canyon was made in 2014 (Fig. 2). The river bed is mapped with multibeam and single-beam sonar, the topography of exposed sand deposits is mapped with 

conventional survey equipment, and bed-sand grain size is also measured. These data are 

combined and the final product for each sediment budget reach is a high-resolution (1-m2

 grid 

size) digital elevation model (DEM) of the mapped segment. 

Preliminary results from the repeat mapping of lower Marble Canyon in 2012 depict changes 

in sediment storage throughout this 50-km river segment. During the period between the initial 

and the repeat measurement(2009 – 2012), the sediment budget calculated from measurements of 

suspended sand transport (Project 2) made at gages at RM30 and RM 60 was significantly 

negative (Fig. 3). The repeat measurements of the channel bathymetry and topography also 

indicated net erosion during the same period, and these measurements showed where the ∆ܵ

actually occurred. Although the absolute value of the ∆ܵ term calculated from equation (1) was 

greater that the value calculated from the repeated mapping of the channel, but the agreement in 

large-scale ∆ܵ calculated by the two methods is well within the respective ranges of uncertainty 

(Fig. 3). Because both calculation methods have large uncertainty, the comparison shown in 

Figure 3 provides a valuable verification of both measurement techniques. For this 3-year time 
93 

period, both methods have similar uncertainty. While the uncertainty associated with the budget 

computed from measurements of sand transport increases with the length of time over which the 

Figure 3. Sand budget for May 1, 2009 to April 30, 2014 for lower Marble Canyon (upper plot) and discharge of the 

Colorado River at the downstream end of the segment for the same period (lower plot). The sand budget computed by the 

difference in sand transport at the upstream and downstream ends of the reach is shown by the solid line with the shaded 

region indicating the uncertainty. Each point on the line is the sand budget for the time period between the start date and the

date indicated on the horizontal axis. The uncertainty associated with each measurement contributes to the total uncertainty 

and increases quasi-linearly with time. The morphologic sand budget for the same reach computed by the measurements of 

deposits in the channel in 2009 and 2012 is shown by the filled circle with error bars, shown at the time at which the repeat 

measurements were made (May 2012). 

computations are made (Fig. 3), the uncertainty associated with the budget calculated from the 

repeat channel mapping would be approximately the same for any time period. Thus if one is 

interested in the net change in sediment storage for a ~20-year interval, the uncertainty 

associated with the budget computed from measurements of transport may span more than 4 

million metric tons (~8 years of Paria sand inputs), while the uncertainty associated with repeat 

topographic measurements will still be about 600,000 metric tons (~1 year of Paria River sand 

inputs). The budget computed from measurements of sediment flux provides the measurements 

of short-term sediment accumulation necessary to implement the HFE protocol. However, over 

the period of long-term management actions, only the repeat measurements of the channel will 

provide estimates of significant storage change (i.e. with an uncertainty that is less than the 

estimate of the magnitude of storage change). 
94 

Figure 4. Change in sediment storage between May 2009 and May 2012 for lower Marble Canyon computed by comparing 

the maps (DEMs) of the channel made in those two years. Each marker represents a surveyed pool. Note the different 

vertical scales. In this period with a net decrease in sediment storage (Fig. 4), the eddies exhibited a small net increase in 

storage while the bars and the channel both lost sediment. The largest changes occurred in the channel and were 

concentrated in relatively few pools. 

Grams and others (2011, 2013) illustrated the interpretive power of increased spatial 

resolution in depicting ∆ܵ that is derived from the channel mapping data (Fig. 4). During the 

period between May 2009 and May 2012, there was net erosion of the high elevation parts of 

eddy sandbars (∆ܵ௛௜௚௛). At lower elevation (∆ܵ௟௢௪), erosion of fine sediment deposits in the 

channel occurred but deposition occurred in eddies. Thus, even though the entire sediment 

budget reach of lower Marble Canyon evacuated fine sediment, the eddies were efficient traps 

for some of the fine sediment being transported downstream. If it were not for this deposition of 

fine sediment at low elevation in some eddies, a larger amount of fine sediment would have been 

evacuated from lower Marble Canyon during this period. 

Long-Term Change in Eddy Sandbars and Campsites 
95 

Sandbar monitoring in the FY13–14 work plan included annual monitoring of long-term 

monitoring sites and evaluation of sandbars throughout the CRe from remote sensing. Results 

from the annual sandbar monitoring (Project Element 3.1.1) show that while sandbars at the 

long-term monitoring sites were relatively small before the November 2012 HFE, sandbars at 

these sites were relatively large in October 2013, 10 months following the 2012 HFE (Fig. 5). 

Analysis of images collected from remote cameras at the same long-term monitoring sites show 

that the November 2013 HFE also resulted in net sandbar deposition. These data indicate that 

HFEs have resulted in net increases in sandbar size in Grand Canyon (downstream from river 

mile 62) since the period of initial monitoring in the early 1990s. In Marble Canyon, HFEs cause 

relatively short-term increases in sandbar size, and sandbars remain similar in size or smaller 

than in the early 1990s.

Figure 5. Sandbar size from 1990 to October 2013 (preliminary data provided by Joseph E. Hazel, Jr.). 

Evaluation of the aerial photographs (Ross and Grams, in preparation) provides a somewhat 

longer-term perspective (going back to 1984) on the effect of HFEs on sandbars in Marble 

Canyon (Project Element 3.1.2). These results show that the area of sandbars exposed above the 

8,000 ft3

/s stage in Marble Canyon was generally larger during the era of post-dam controlled 

floods (April 1996, May 2002, May 2005, and May 2009) compared with the post-dam period 

before controlled floods (June 1990 and March 1996). Hazel and others (in preparation) are 

developing a more detailed comparison of sandbar sizes following recent HFEs to those 

following the 1983 and 1984 floods (see Project 3.1.4 for summary of these results). 

One of the FY13–14 research projects involved the investigation of the relation between 

changes in campsite area and causal mechanisms. Preliminary results from this project indicate 

that while vegetation expansion can be a significant cause of campsite area change at some sites, 

sandbar erosion and deposition cause the majority of increases and decreases in campsite area 

since 1998 (Hadley and Grams, in preparation). This effort also included an assessment of 

uncertainty in the campsite monitoring methods that will be incorporated in future reports on 

campsite area. 

Canyon-Wide Remote Sensing of Sandbars and River Geomorphology 
96 

Remote sensing images from overflights are used to map the area of sand above the 8,000 

ft3

/s stage. The maps provide a synoptic assessment of high elevation sand area. Maps of sand 

area from 2002 and 2009 overflights will be completed by the end of 2014. Data from the 2005 

overflight are not being used to synoptically map sand area for the entire river corridor, because 

they have a large degree of spectral variability. The 2005 data have been used to map area of 

high elevation sand and other resources including riparian vegetation for shorter segments of the 

river (Ross and Grams, in prep.; Sankey and others, in review). Data from the most recent 

overflight in 2013 will be used to map high elevation sand area in this workplan. 

Sand area is mapped for 1300 large eddies along the river. These eddies are generically 

delineated to include the majority of sandbars and sandy shorelines on the river. However, these 

eddies include finer scale geomorphic variability that has not been exhaustively delineated. In 

order to better understand variability in the distribution of high elevation sand area, there is an 

immediate need for a geomorphic base map to segregate the synoptic maps of high elevation 

sand area by geomorphic setting. Previous studies have completed detailed geomorphic 

basemaps for short segments (e.g. Hereford, 1996; Hereford and others, 2000; Schmidt and 

others, 2004) or system-wide inventories of specific resources, such as eddies that contain 

backwaters (Grams and others, 2010). A geomorphic basemap will be completed in this 

workplan for the entire river, which will build on the previous mapping of shorter segments or 

specific resources. The map will have a relatively few, simple map units of: eddies; sand deposits 

within eddies; sand deposits along channel margins (not within eddies); debris fans; gravel bars; 

talus; and bedrock, that will enable variability of high elevation sand area to be examined by 

geomorphic setting. The basemap will similarly be useful for mapping of other resources, in 

particular riparian vegetation and aeolian sand, conducted in projects 11 and 4, respectively. 

Progress on Development of Numerical Models to predict Small-Scale and Large-Scale Changes 

in Fine-Sediment Storage 

Better understanding of the physical controls on eddy dynamics will contribute to improved 

predictive capability through modeling. Documented and well-verified models have been 

produced to predict main-stem stream flow throughout Marble and Grand Canyons (Randle and 

Pemberton, 1987; Wiele and Smith, 1996; Wiele and Griffin, 1997; Magirl and others, 2008) and 

sediment flux at approximately 50-km segments between RM 0 and RM 87 (Wright and others, 

2010). These models can be used to predict sediment availability for planning reservoir releases 

(Wright and Grams, 2010) but do not easily facilitate prediction of sandbar response. Wiele and 

others (2007) coupled the canyon-scale models with detailed eddy models in order to provide 

better predictions of bar building and erosion. This approach assumed all eddies behaved 

similarly, with the magnitude of erosion and deposition scaled by eddy size. We now know that 

these assumptions are too simplistic and that a predictive canyon-scale model for eddy response 

will have to incorporate the observed site-to-site variability in erosion and deposition. In the 

FY13–14 work plan, progress was made in identifying the sources of eddy sandbar variability 

(Grams and others, 2013) and towards developing a model that will be used, in the current work 

plan (see Project Element 3.3), to investigate the effects of channel geometry on flow and 

patterns of deposition and erosion in eddies (Alvarez and others, 2013; Alvarez and others, in 

preparation). This systematic investigation into the causes of eddy sandbar variability using a 

mechanistic model will facilitate development of an operational model for predicting sandbar 

response to flow and sediment supply (Project Element 3.3). 
97 

Understanding the Significance of Bedload Transport 

One uncertainty in estimates of sand flux (Project 2) and computation of sand budgets over 

long reaches that is not attributable to instrument error and which can be addressed through 

experimental design is the contribution of bedload sand flux to the total transport. Present 

acoustic sediment monitoring captures the suspended sand flux but not the flux of sand which 

moves as bedload. Instead, bedload sand flux is estimated using a constant proportionality with 

suspended sand flux at each gaging station (Topping and others, 2010). The purpose of Project 

3.4 is to better incorporate bedload flux into total sand flux estimates, in order to reduce the 

uncertainty in estimates of total sand flux and, by extension, sand mass balance. This will be 

achieved by measuring bedload flux and developing parameterizations for bedload flux based on 

routinely measured quantities such as discharge and suspended sediment load. 

C.2. Management Background 

The various goals, strategic science questions, information needs, and desired future 

conditions that have been developed by stakeholders of the GCDAMP can be distilled into one 

overarching question: “What actions will create and maintain the largest and most widely 

distributed fine-sediment deposits throughout the Colorado River ecosystem (CRe).” 

Sediment-related goals were most recently articulated in the August 2011 statement of 

Desired Future Conditions developed by Adaptive Management Work Group. In this document, 

the goals related to fine-sediment resources are to “maintain adequate sand bars (including 

camping beaches) for recreation in Glen Canyon National Recreation Area and Grand Canyon 

National Park and enhance as needed once maintained” and “maintain nearshore habitats for 

native fish and enhance as needed once maintained.” 

Further guidance on monitoring needs is provided by the HFE Protocol EA. The central 

sandbar-related question identified in the HFE Protocol EA is, "Can sandbar building during 

HFEs exceed sandbar erosion during periods between HFEs, such that sandbar size can be 

increased and maintained over several years?" The science plan for the EA includes the 

following specific science questions related to sandbars and camping beaches: (1) Will multiple 

high flows conducted over a period of 10 years result in net increases in sandbar area and 

volume?; (2) With the available sand supply (i.e. tributary inputs), is the approach of using 

repeated floods to build sandbars sustainable?; and, (3) Will multiple high flows conducted over 

a period of 10 years result in net increases in campsite area along the Colorado River? This 

Project 3 work plan includes monitoring to address each of these questions. 

Previous statements of GCDAMP goals addressed in this project include the following: 

 Goal 8: Maintain or attain levels of sediment storage within the main channel and along 

shorelines to achieve GCDAMP ecosystem goals. 

 Goal 9: Maintain or improve the quality of recreational experiences for users of the 

Colorado River ecosystem within the framework of GCDAMP ecosystem goals. The 

monitoring provides information on the size and abundance of sandbars, which are 

resources that affect the recreational experiences of Colorado River users. 

 Goal 11: Preserve, protect, manage, and treat cultural resources for the inspiration and 

benefit of past, present, and future generations. The project includes monitoring sandbars 

that provide a source of sediment, through aeolian transport, to high-elevation sand 

deposits that contain archaeological resources.
98 

Because sediment monitoring addresses the physical framework of the ecosystem, which 

underlies many biological resource objectives, Project 3 also indirectly supports achievement of 

the following GCDAMP goals: 

 Goal 1: Protect or improve the aquatic food base so that it will support viable populations 

of desired species at higher trophic levels. The proposed monitoring supports this goal by 

providing information on the size and distribution of channel substrate.

 Goal 2: Maintain or attain a viable population of existing native fish, remove jeopardy for 

humpback chub and razorback sucker, and prevent adverse modification to their critical 

habitats. The proposed sandbar and sediment storage monitoring supports this goal by 

providing information on sandbars which create backwaters, a habitat used by native 

fish.

 Goal 6: Protect or improve the biotic riparian and spring communities within the 

Colorado River ecosystem, including threatened and endangered species and their critical 

habitat. The sediment storage and sandbar monitoring tracks the status of the finesediment deposits which provides the substrate for riparian vegetation and marsh 

communities.

The 2003 GCDAMP Strategic Plan identified Core Monitoring Information Needs (CMINs) 

related to sediment storage (goal 8). The CMINS that are addressed in Project 3 are listed below. 

For each, the prioritization ranking applied by the GCDAMP Science Planning Group (SPG) in 

2006 is also included. In addition, several Strategic Science Questions (SSQs) were identified by 

scientists and managers during the knowledge assessment workshop conducted in the summer of 

2005 (Melis and others, 2006). 

 CMIN 8.1.1. Determine and track the biennial sandbar area and fine-sediment volume 

and grain-size changes within eddies below 5,000 cfs stage, by reach. (fourth-ranked goal 

8 CMIN). Addressed in project 3.2.

 CMIN 8.2.1. Track, as appropriate, the biennial or annual sandbar area, volume, and 

grain-size changes within and outside of eddies between 5,000 and 25,000 cfs stage, by 

reach. (second-ranked goal 8 CMIN). Addressed in projects 3.1.1, 3.1.2, and 3.2.

 CMIN 8.5.1. Track, as appropriate, the biennial sandbar area, volume, and grain-size 

changes above 25,000 cfs stage, by reach (fifth-ranked goal 8 CMIN). Addressed in 

projects 3.1.1, 3.1.2, and 3.2.

 CMIN 8.6.1. Track, as appropriate, changes in coarse sediment (> 2 mm) abundance and 

distribution (unranked goal 8 CMIN). Addressed in project 3.1.2 and 3.2.1.

 CMIN 9.3.1. Determine and track the size, quality, and distribution of camping beaches 

by reach and stage level in Glen and Grand Canyons (top-ranked goal 9 CMIN). 

Addressed in project 3.1.1.

 SSQ 4-1. Is there a “Flow Only” operation (that is, a strategy for dam releases, including 

managing tributary inputs with BHBFs, without sediment augmentation) that will rebuild 

and maintain sandbar habitats over decadal time scales? Addressed in all project 

components.

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

between BHBFs? Addressed in project 3.2.
99 

C.3. Key Monitoring and Research Questions Addressed in this project 

The goals, science questions, and information needs listed above are often overlapping and 

have various degrees of specificity. We have, therefore, translated them into the following set of 

monitoring and research questions addressed in Project 3: 

1. What is the long-term effect of dam operations, including controlled floods, on the 

distribution, abundance, and size of eddy sandbars above the 8,000 ft3/s stage and on total 

amount of fine sediment stored in the active channel at low and high elevation? How do 

these changes affect recreation and ecosystem resources such as camping beaches, 

substrate for riparian vegetation, in-channel backwater habitat, and areas of bare sand that 

are redistributed by wind to upslope locations? Addressed in Project Elements 3.1.1, 

3.1.2, and 3.2.

2. Do individual HFEs continue to build sandbars with the same effectiveness observed in 

response to previous HFEs (i.e. do floods of similar magnitude build a similar number of 

sandbars of similar size?)? Do individual sandbars respond significantly differently to 

different HFEs? How does sandbar size and shape prior to HFEs affect the bar-building 

response? Addressed in Project Elements 3.1.1 and 3.1.3.

3. What are the causes of variability in sandbar response to floods and intervening dam 

operations? Can we categorize this variability and incorporate this in a model for sandbar 

response? This builds on sandbar monitoring (Question 1) to support prediction of 

sandbar response. Addressed in Project Element 3.3, using data from elements 3.1.1, 

3.1.3, and 3.1.4.

4. What is the long-term net effect of dam operations, including high flows, on changes in 

low-elevation sand storage (the sand below the 8,000 ft3

/s stage) and bed-sediment grain 

size? These changes are relevant to backwaters and other aquatic habitat, the foundation 

of eddy sandbars, and the relative partitioning of transported sediment into eddies and 

downstream, which ultimately determines whether the use of experimental high flows is 

sustainable. Addressed in Project Element 3.2.

5. What is the relative abundance and spatial distribution of fine and coarse bed sediments 

and submerged aquatic vegetation, and how do these affect primary production, fish 

habitat, and modeled sediment fluxes? This builds on low elevation sand monitoring 

(Question 5) to support sediment transport and biological prediction. Addressed in 

Project Element 3.2.

6. Can we improve reach-scale estimates of sand flux and sediment mass balance by better 

quantifying the contribution of bedload transport? Can we use the geometry and 

sedimentology of bedforms as an indicator of 'bed state;' i.e. sand-enriched or sanddepleted bed conditions. Addressed in Project Element 3.4.

D. Proposed Work 

This project is divided into four monitoring and research elements and one support element. 

The first two project elements (3.1 and 3.2) are monitoring projects, each with minor research 

aspects to improve monitoring methods and protocols. Two other elements (3.3 and 3.4) are 

research projects that contribute to improving the monitoring program and improving predictive 

capacity in analyzing future dam operations and tributary fine-sediment supply rates. The control 
100 

network and survey project element (3.5) advances our capacity for making repeatable geospatial 

measurements and supports all other Project 3 elements, as well as other GCMRC projects. 

D.1 Outline of Monitoring Strategy 

Monitoring programs must address trade-offs between measurement precision, spatial 

coverage of measurements, measurement frequency, and cost. It is generally not possible to 

monitor a large number of sites, frequently and at high precision, without extremely high cost. 

These issues are addressed in this project with a tiered monitoring strategy that consists of 

multiple interconnected project elements. In section C.1, above, we described the concept of the 

sediment budget and many of the challenges associated with monitoring sediment storage in the 

CRe that contribute to the need for large (spatially extensive) sample sizes. We distinguished 

between sediment storage monitoring that is concerned with measurement of ∆ܵ in equation (1), 

and sandbar monitoring that is concerned only with the measurement of ∆ܵ௛௜௚௛. Monitoring of 

∆ܵ (total) is needed for long-term tracking of sediment storage; therefore, infrequent 

measurements (made every 3 to 10 years) of ∆ܵ are acceptable. It is still not entirely clear how 

changes in low elevation sand correlate to change in high elevation sand in each reach. During 

normal dam operations, some high elevation sand is entirely disconnected from the river, 

whereas low elevation sand is always responsive to normal flow fluctuations. The purpose of 

mapping reaches with a return-interval of a few years is to provide these linkages in order to 

assess the effects of individual and cumulative HFEs. Establishing base maps of parts of the 

canyon as yet unmapped – even without a specified return date or return interval - is also 

important because several decades from now, only through mapping long reaches of the channel 

will an assessment of the long-term fate of sand in the Grand Canyon be made. This is because, 

given the accumulation of huge uncertainties in flux-based mass balance estimates (Project 2) 

over time scales of more than a few years, only with accurate bathymetric and topographic maps 

can we quantify multi-decadal changes in ∆ܵ throughout the CRe (Project Element 3.2) in a 

meaningful way. 

More frequent monitoring of ∆ܵ௛௜௚௛ (exposed sandbars) is required to provide timely 

resource information to stakeholders and managers and evaluate the effect of management 

actions. The time-series of sandbar volume and area established in the 1990s by Northern 

Arizona University (NAU), commonly referred to as the “NAU sandbar time-series”, provides a 

long-term, historic context for the status and trends of a subset of sandbars. Because of the 

temporal richness of this data set, continued annual surveys of these sites will provide the only 

direct measurements of changes in sandbar size that can be compared to over two decades of 

measurements. Research and monitoring during FY13-14 that included repeat mapping of lower 

Marble Canyon suggests that the NAU sites provide a good representation of average sandbar 

condition for this reach (see also discussion below in project element 3.1.1). Yet measurements 

of the NAU sites alone do not represent a comprehensive monitoring strategy for sandbars, 

because these sites are most concentrated in lower Marble Canyon, and the degree to which 

observations at these sites can be extrapolated system-wide is still not fully understood. Thus, as 

part of the FY15-17 work plan, we intend to use repeat channel mapping (3.2) and remote 

sensing (3.1.2) to document system-wide trends in the sandbar population, develop methods for 

rapid sandbar surveys from camera images (3.1.3), and further our understanding of sandbar 

dynamics, towards a predictive capacity, using existing data (3.3). While a comprehensive 

sandbar monitoring plan has been an important goal of this project, a system as long and 

complex as Marble and Grand Canyons presents considerable challenges for developing a 
101 

representative subsampling scheme, both spatially and temporally. Results from repeat channel 

mapping suggest that erosion and deposition of fine sediment on the bed and in eddies can by 

highly localized (Grams and others, 2013), and errors could be quite large if key portions of the 

channel are not monitored (Project 3.2). Insight gained over the last several years demonstrates 

that a comprehensive – or canyon-wide – assessment of the entire sandbar population from 

remote sensing and, where available, channel mapping is necessary to be confident in any 

monitoring scheme. Results from the analyses in FY15-17 outlined below will provide the 

foundation for a comprehensive sandbar monitoring plan using a combination of direct surveys 

and indirect photogrammetric and remote sensing techniques. In the paragraphs below, we 

outline the overall strategy of the sandbar monitoring program in this workplan. The monitoring 

components are described in greater detail in the description of each project element. 

The established method for accurate and precise sandbar monitoring is conventional 

topographic survey (Hazel and others, 2010). While other methods have been evaluated (e.g. 

LiDAR and photogrammetry), they are equally (or more) expensive and, in the case of LiDAR, 

yield more resolution than is required. The topographic surveys are currently completed annually 

at 47 sites on a single non-motorized monitoring trip (element 3.1.1). This constitutes a relatively 

small sample of the more than 1300 large eddies in the CRe. This monitoring also includes 

measurements of campsite area at 37 sites. The monitoring program includes two elements 

designed to overcome this deficiency in spatial coverage. The remote sensing element (3.1.2) 

involves the analysis of aerial photographs collected at approximately 4-year intervals to provide 

an assessment of sandbar size in all large eddies in the CRe less frequently and at lower precision 

than the annual monitoring. The channel mapping project element (3.2) includes conventional 

topographic surveys at most large eddies in every river segment on a 3- to 10-year rotation (see 

Table 3). These two efforts each enhance the annual monitoring of NAU sites in different ways. 

The primary purpose of the remote sensing images is to provide an assessment of all 

sandbars in the entire CRe at a single moment in time. This is, therefore, the only means to 

characterize statistically the entire population of exposed sandbars in order to evaluate data from 

any sub-sample. Additionally, measurements of sandbar area derived from the remote sensing 

images can be compared with measurements of sandbar area made from older aerial photographs 

taken as early as the 1930’s. 

The topographic measurement made during channel mapping surveys provide measurements 

for a large sample of sandbars using the same methods as the annual monitoring (see Figure 4). 

This provides data that can be used to statistically characterize a large population of exposed 

sandbars, at repeat intervals, in order to both evaluate data from any sub-sample at an instant in 

time, and also the ability of the annual monitoring to capture the essential aspects of change over 

multi-year periods. This is achieved by rigorously comparing response and site characteristics 

between the established monitoring sites and a much larger sample of sandbars in the same river 

segment, and by comparing the reach-scale change in sandbar volume over the period between 

repeat channel mapping efforts with the equivalent metric from the annual data. (see element 

3.1.1, which includes an evaluation of the representativeness of sandbar monitoring sites in lower 

Marble Canyon). 

Monitoring sandbars annually is adequate for long-term monitoring and for the evaluation of 

the combined effects of all management actions that occur over the course of a year, but is 

inadequate to evaluate the specific effects of individual management actions. For example, 

assessment of the effects of a single controlled flood for comparison with the effects of other 

controlled floods requires observations immediately before and after each event. To avoid costly 
102 

repeat measurements around each controlled flood, we have been developing methods to monitor 

sandbars more frequently with remotely deployed cameras. This component of element 3.1.1 is 

expected to provide frequent (~monthly) measurements of sandbar size, albeit with less precision 

than provided by the annual monitoring. 

Together, the sandbar monitoring project components of project elements 3.1.1, 3.1.2, and 

3.2 (Table 1) provide (1) consistent monitoring of an established set of long-term monitoring 

sites on an annual basis, (2) less precise monthly monitoring for a subset of the long-term 

monitoring sites, (3) spatially robust assessments of sandbar size less frequently, (4) information 

on whether or not more (or fewer) sites are required to represent all sandbars in a given reach, 

and (5) information that will continually contribute to improved understanding of how the 

behavior of the established long-term monitoring sites represents changes outside that set of 

sites. Thus, we expect that each time we complete an analysis of either a remote sensing data set 

or a channel mapping data set, we will be better able to extrapolate from the limited number of 

sites monitored annually, at high precision and low cost but at low spatial coverage, to the state 

of sandbars in the entire CRe. During FY15-17 we will refine the remote sensing and 

photogrammetry techniques, and at the end of FY17, we will synthesize results of these different 

monitoring elements in a comprehensive analysis of sandbar changes across all the spatial and 

temporal scales for which data are available. 

Table 1. Summary of sandbar and sediment storage monitoring efforts. 

Project 

Element 

Spatial Focus Method Measurement 

Frequency 

Information 

Needs Met 

3.1.1† Selected highelevation sandbars 

(47 sites) 

Conventional 

topographic surveys 

(metric: volume and 

area) 

Yearly Annual status 

check on sandbar 

and camping 

beach condition 

3.1.1 Selected highelevation sandbars 

(42 sites) 

Remotely deployed 

digital camera 

(metric: area) 

Daily (metrics 

computed for 1 

image per 

month) 

Effects of 

individual 

management 

actions 

(controlled 

floods) 

3.1.2 High-elevation 

sandbars 

systemwide 

(>1000 sites) 

Remote sensing 

(metric: area) 

Every 4+ years* Long-term trend 

of sandbar size 

3.2 High-elevation 

sandbars in 30 to 

80-mile segments. 

Conventional 

topographic surveys 

(metric: volume and 

area) 

Every 3 to 10 

years, depending 

on reach. 

3.2 Low-elevation 

fine-sediment 

storage in 30 to 

80-mile segments. 

Combined 

bathymetric and 

topographic surveys 

(metric: volume) 

Every 3 to 10 

years, depending 

on reach. 

Long-term trend 

in fine-sediment 

storage 
103 

* Remote sensing images of the entire CRe were collected in 2002, 2005, 2009, and 

2013.Frequency of future remote sensing missions is anticipated to be every 4 to 10 years. 

†

Project Element 3.1.3 aims to develop methods to increase the spatial coverage at the same 

measurement frequency and with possibly less precision. 

D.2. Project Elements 

Project Element 3.1. Sandbar Monitoring 

Project Element 3.1.1. Monitoring sandbars using topographic surveys and remote cameras 

Paul Grams, Research Hydrologist, USGS, GCMRC 

Daniel Buscombe, Research Geologist, USGS, GCMRC 

Joseph Hazel and Matt Kaplinski, Research Associates, Northern Arizona University 

Keith Kohl, Surveyor, USGS, GCMRC 

Robert Tusso, Hydrologist, USGS, GCMRC 

Objectives 

1. Continue annual measurements of sandbars at long-term monitoring sites to track trends 

in sandbar area and volume for understanding sandbar dynamics. 

2. Track annual trends in total campsite area at long-term monitoring sites with data from 

annual surveys. 

3. Continue to document sandbar size on a daily timescale, by maintaining the network of 

autonomous remote-cameras. 

4. Track monthly changes in sandbar areas at long-term monitoring sites by measuring areas 

using ortho-rectified images from the remote-camera network. 

5. Complete the development of an interactive website to efficiently serve sandbar data and 

remote camera images with a user-friendly interface. 

Hypotheses/Questions 

1. What is the cumulative effect of HFEs and intervening dam operations on the size of 

sandbars in the CRe? (relates to Section C.3, Question 1)

2. What is the cumulative effect of HFEs and intervening dam operations on the size of 

campsites in the CRe? (relates to Section C.3, Question 1)

3. Do individual HFEs continue to build sandbars to a magnitude similar to that observed in 

response to previous HFEs? We hypothesize that the quantity of sand supplied by the 

Paria River and other tributaries is positively correlated with post-HFE bar volume 

(relates to Section C.3, Question 2)

4. How does sandbar size and shape prior to HFEs affect the bar-building response? (relates 

to Section C.3, Question 2)

Rationale/Justification 

A subset of all sandbars and campsites located throughout the CRe will continue to be 

monitored annually using conventional ground-based topographic surveys. These surveys will 

contribute to the long-term NAU sandbar time-series. This is the longest, most accurate, and 

complete dataset describing the state of sandbars in the CRe. The monitoring program, initiated 
104 

in 1990, includes surveys at 47 sites, which provides measurements of sandbar area and volume 

above the stage associated with a discharge of 8,000 ft3

/s. In addition, campsite area is measured 

at 37 of these sites. Methods for these surveys are described by Hazel and others (2008; 2010; in 

preparation) and Kaplinski and others (2009; in review). These annual surveys are supplemented 

by photographs of 42 sites, taken several times per day, using autonomous remote digital-camera 

systems (Bogle and others, 2012). These images make it possible to record the effects of changes 

in flow at a temporal precision that cannot be resolved by the annual topographic measurements. 

Representativeness of the NAU sandbar time-series

The sites monitored in this project were selected based on the lengthy historical record, rather 

than a random selection from among all sandbars in the CRe. A key component of any 

monitoring program must include an evaluation of whether the sites selected for monitoring 

appropriately track changes in the resource of interest, in this case, sandbars and camping 

beaches. One of the objectives of the FY13–14 work plan was to evaluate the degree to which 

the sample average determined from measurements of the long-term monitoring sites represents 

changes of the population of all sandbars. Preliminary results from this analysis indicate that 

mean change in sandbar thickness (volume normalized by area) between 2009 and 2012, based 

on the 18 long-term monitoring sites in lower Marble Canyon (-0.06 m ± 0.06 m standard error), 

is consistent with the mean change among a much larger sample of 84 sandbars mapped in 2009 

and 2012 by Project Element 3.2 (-0.06 m ± 0.04 m standard error) (Fig. 6). 

While the NAU sites capture the mean response, they do not necessarily reflect the full range 

of sandbar responses, in particular those sites with large gains or large losses in the period from 

2009 to 2012. Our analysis shows that the variance of thickness change between 2009 and 2012 

among all sandbars is approximately double the variance among the 18 monitoring sites, 

indicating that the monitoring sites may tend to have smaller-magnitude changes than the 

collection of all sandbars. This suggests that, for lower Marble Canyon at least, our long-term 

monitoring may adequately represent mean sandbar condition, but fails to capture the full extent 

of variability in sandbar condition. The analysis also indicates that a random sampling of fewer 

than the current number of monitoring sites would be unlikely to capture mean bar condition 

better than the current monitoring sites (Fig. 6). This presents a challenge to our monitoring 

design, because monitoring sites are more frequent in lower Marble Canyon (about 1 site every 

1.8 miles) than any other reach (1 site every 4 to 9 miles). Matching the monitoring site density 

in other reaches would require adding about 7 sites in upper Marble Canyon, 6 sites in eastern 

Grand Canyon, and more than 50 sites in east- and west-central Grand Canyon (RM 87-225). 
105 

Figure 6. Bootstrap simulation of expected standard error (m) for estimates of sandbar thickness change as a function of 

sample size. Measurements of thickness change for 84 sandbars in lower Marble Canyon (data from Project 3.2) were 

sampled randomly using increasing sample size (1 to 84). For each sample size, 100 random selections of sites (numbering 

between 1 and 84) were made from among the 84 sites, and the standard error calculated and plotted. The standard error 

decreases quickly with increasing sample size up until n ~ 20. Standard error decreases more gradually thereafter. The 

sample site density in lower Marble Canyon (LMC) achieves a reasonable uncertainty for the number of sites. More sites 

would be required in east central Grand Canyon (ECGC), west central Grand Canyon (WCGC), upper Marble Canyon 

(UMC), and eastern Grand Canyon (EGC). 

Improving the spatial resolution of the sandbar data set

Adding long-term monitoring sites would require additional and/or longer monitoring trips 

and an increase in the monitoring budget. Further, addressing the need for, and selecting the 

appropriate locations of, additional long-term monitoring sites will be greatly enhanced through 

project elements proposed in this workplan and through additional analysis of data from FY13–

14. For example, we now have repeat channel mapping data for eastern Grand Canyon, and 

repeat mapping of upper Marble Canyon is proposed for FY16. These data sets will allow us to 

compare the response of the entire sandbar population from Lees Ferry to Phantom Ranch, to the 

response of the subset of sites in the NAU time-series, over multi-year periods (as above). 

Remote sensing and geomorphic mapping in Project Element 3.1.2 will allow us to compare 

coarser-resolution, but canyon-scale metrics of the total number and area of sandbars and eddies 

throughout the CRe, and allow us to compare how these metrics vary downstream. This type of 

canyon-scale information on the spatial distribution and size of each eddy and sandbar are 

necessary for a full assessment of the appropriate number of long-term NAU monitoring sites 

versus other types of sandbar monitoring, and an assessment of how these sites fit into the tiered 

monitoring approach to assess overall sandbar condition (section D.1). 

There are also developing technologies that may allow us to increase the number of 

individual sandbars that can be surveyed, while adding relatively little effort to current field 

efforts. Thus, rather than adding additional long-term study sites to the NAU data set, we 

propose to evaluate alternative methods for surveying the topography of sandbars that have the 

potential to allow rapid and inexpensive measurement of a large number of sites (see Project 

Element 3.1.3). In addition, we propose to develop a sandbar model (see Project Element 3.3) 

that would predict the volume of sand in bars by incorporating information from the sandbar 

surveys, sandbars measured by remote sensing (Project Element 3.1.2), during channel mapping 
106 

(Project Element 3.2), and by rapid survey (if the method proves feasible) to estimate the status 

of the population of sandbars throughout Marble Canyon and eastern Grand Canyon. These 

efforts are focused on improving upon our annual estimate of sandbar size that is based on the 

topographic surveys conducted each fall, identifying shortcomings in the spatial distribution of 

NAU data set, and providing methods to assess sandbar condition across a range of scales. 

Improving the temporal resolution of the sandbar data set

An additional objective of this project element is to improve upon the methods we use to 

estimate sandbar size change during short time periods, such as before and after an HFE. 

Currently, remote digital cameras capture images of nearly all of the monitoring sites several 

times per day. These images were made available on the GCMRC website following the 2012 

and 2013 HFEs and have been used to make a rapid qualitative assessment of each sandbar 

response immediately after each HFE. It is also possible to use these images for more 

quantitative analyses; and we have made recent progress with the development of methods to 

measure sandbar area from these images, by ortho-rectifying each image using ground control 

points surveyed during monitoring trips. Ortho-rectification is the process of transforming an 

oblique image into an aerial photograph (rectification) which is geometrically corrected such that 

the photo has the same lack of distortion as a map (“ortho-”). We will continue to develop these 

methods with the goal of measuring sandbar response to each HFE and erosion rate following 

each HFE. Developing these methods involves: (1) measuring ground control points at all longterm monitoring sites that have cameras; (2) systematically evaluating the areal estimates from 

images using ground-based surveys carried out at the same time; and (3) developing 

unsupervised (fully automated) or partially supervised (minimal user input) methods to segment 

sandbars in ortho-rectified images, because manual segmentation of sandbars is slow and 

subjective. This will greatly improve upon our ability to compare the sandbar-building response 

to HFEs of different magnitude, duration, and sediment supply conditions. 

Website access to the sandbar database

In 2014, we initiated the development of a sandbar database with a web-browser based user 

interface. We also implemented a rudimentary web-browser based interface for viewing selected 

photographs of monitoring sites following the 2012 and 2013 high flows. We will continue the 

development of these tools to allow users to view and download all photographs for each of the 

monitoring sites, in addition to completing a web interface for downloading and interactively 

visualizing the sandbar data (initially, sandbar areas and volumes). 

Methods 

Sandbar and campsite surveys will be conducted each fall using methods described by Hazel 

and others (2010) and Kaplinski and others (2014). One of the primary motivations for the 

sandbar monitoring is because they are used as campsites by visitors. The monitoring metrics of 

sandbar volume and area are related to campsite area (Hazel and others, 2010), but are not a 

direct measurement of campsite size. Two supplementary monitoring efforts are, therefore, 

included in this project to track changes in campsite size that are related to changes in sandbar 

topography and/or change in the extent of vegetation cover. The first of these project 

components are annual measurements of campsite area at 32 of the 47 sandbar monitoring sites 

conducted on the annual sandbar monitoring trip. The second component is observations and 

photographs for a collection of approximately 40 of the most popular recreational camping 
107 

beaches between Lees Ferry and Diamond Creek. These observations are made by Grand 

Canyon River Guides through the “Adopt-a-Beach” (AAB) program. The methods for the 

proposed rapid surveys and modeling are described below under Project Elements 3.1.3 and 3.3, 

respectively. The novel methods that will be developed and used in this project element are those 

associated with the effort to quantify sandbar area and volume from the remote camera images. 

Essentially, the process of estimating sandbar area from oblique images consists of orthorectifying the images using surveyed ground control points, delineation of the sandbar on each 

ortho-image, and then simply calculating the area. The ortho-rectification is an automated 

process that creates a mapping between ground and image coordinates, and warps the image such 

that pixels are located in the correct positions for the final image to be planimetrically correct. 

Ground control points were collected at a number of sites during FY13–14 in anticipation of 

applying this technique. The technique has been demonstrated using time series of images from 

the sandbars at RM22 and RM30. The sandbars have been delineated manually and verified 

using ground-based surveys; this process has already added hundreds of sandbar-area estimates 

using images collected in the past 5 years (Buscombe and others, in prep.). Our goal is to make 

the process of sandbar delineation from images as automated as possible, because the process 

must be repeated many times at each of the monitoring sites. To this end, initial trials using a 

variety of image processing methods have been encouraging, and we are confident that accurate, 

automated delineation of sandbars from images is feasible. This technique has the potential to 

significantly augment data on subaerial sandbar areas at minimal extra cost. 

We have recently demonstrated that sandbar volumes can also be estimated from digital 

elevation models (DEMs) constructed directly from ortho-rectified digital imagery collected by 

autonomous cameras (Buscombe and others, in preparation). If the elevations of water lines in 

images are known, contour maps of sandbars can be constructed as the flow varies. The process 

consists of obtaining the horizontal coordinates of waterlines from the rectified image, and 

assigning the vertical coordinate from the estimated water stage. As the stage varies, a DEM can 

be constructed from several contour lines. The process works best if stage varies significantly 

over short periods, such as the upramp and downramp periods of controlled floods. Stage 

elevations are either measured using an instrumented record (such as a pressure transducer) or 

estimated using a stage-discharge relation that exist for all long-term monitoring sites (Hazel and 

others, 2006). The technique has been evaluated using imagery from the RM30 sandbar during 

the 2012 and 3013 HFEs. The DEM constructed using imagery from the 2012 HFE was 

validated using data collected at that site immediately afterwards using conventional groundbased surveys. We propose to apply the technique to more sites to obtain volumetric estimates of 

bars after HFEs, as a cost effective means with which to assess the effects of HFEs on sandbars. 

Annual Products 

 Update on sandbar area and volume and campsite area based on monitoring from the 

previous year. 

 Annual monitoring data made available on website within 6 months following data 

collection 

 Photographs showing effects of HFEs made available on website within 2 months 

following data collection. 

Outcomes and Products – FY15 

 Web browser interface for viewing remote camera photographs. 
108 

 Web browser interface for viewing sandbar data. 

 Journal article detailing and evaluating methods for measuring sandbar areas and 

volumes from remote camera images (lead author Buscombe). 

Outcomes and Products – FY16 

 Sandbar data and photographs updated on web interface. 

 Report/journal article on sandbar response to HFEs or short-term sandbar variability 

based on measurements of sandbar size derived from remote camera images (lead author 

Tusso).

Outcomes and Products – FY17 

 Report/journal article on long-term trends at the sandbar monitoring sites (joint product 

with 3.1.4 and 3.2) (lead author Hazel). 

 Report (written in conjunction with other listed project elements) evaluating the current 

monitoring scheme using the long-term high-resolution NAU time-series (3.1.1), more 

spatially robust channel mapping (3.2) and remote sensing (3.1.2), and new techniques 

incorporating remote camera ortho-rectification and structure from motion (3.1.3) (lead 

author Grams) 

Project Element 3.1.2. Monitoring sandbars and shorelines above 8,000 ft3/s by remote sensing 

Joel Sankey, Research Geologist, USGS/GCMRC 

Robert Ross, Hydrologist, USGS/GCMRC 

Paul Grams, Research Hydrologist, USGS/GCMRC 

Thomas Gushue, GIS Coordinator, USGS/GCMRC 

Ted Melis, Physical Scientist, USGS/GCMRC 

Objectives 

1. Objective 1 is to measure the area of exposed sand above the elevation of the 8,000 ft3/s 

stage (high-elevation sand) for more than 1300 large eddies (henceforth referred as the 

“large eddy dataset”) using imagery acquired from the remote sensing overflight in May 

2013. The objective is also to compare the results from mapping sand area on the 2013 

images to sand area measured on the May 2002 and May 2009 overflight images (Ross 

and others, in preparation). 

2. Objective 2 is to evaluate changes in sandbar topography (elevation and volume) between 

2002 and 2013 at the same set of more than 1300 eddies monitored for changes in sand 

area using digital surface models (DSMs) from automated photogrammetry that are 

acquired coincident with overflight imagery. 

3. Objective 3 is to use results from Objectives 1 and 2 to investigate the representativeness 

of the smaller set of the NAU sandbar time-series that are monitored with detailed 

topographic surveys (Project Element 3.1.1). Investigation of the representativeness of 

the NAU sandbar time-series is a key component of Project Element 3.1.1 and the 

collective set of sandbar monitoring efforts as a whole (described in Table 1). The results 

of Objectives 1 and 2 are synoptic censuses of the population of sandbars in the CRe that 

is independent and spatially robust relative to relative to the detailed surveys of the 

smaller set of NAU sandbar time-series. Objective 3 complements, for example, the 
109 

analysis (Fig. 6) that was based on a smaller set of sandbar surveys for one 30-mile river 

segment with an analysis using the remote sensing censuses of sandbars. Objective 3 is 

also useful for other projects, and specifically identifies the extent to which the periodic 

remote sensing overflight measurements of sandbar area and topography for a large 

portion of the Colorado River can be used to inform the groupings of sandbars by 

morphology and flood response proposed in modeling work of Project Element 3.3. 

4. Objective 4 is to complete a geomorphic base map for all of Grand Canyon. The 

geomorphic base map is necessary to this and other projects that require information 

about the canyon-wide distribution and characteristics of eddies and sandbars or other 

types of geomorphic units, such as debris fans and gravel bars that provide important 

shoreline habitats for aquatic organisms and riparian vegetation. Objective 4 provides 

geomorphic units to assess: i) variability observed in sandbar area and topography 

population data in Objectives 1 and 2, ii) representativeness of other monitoring efforts 

and sites investigated in Objective 3 and Project element 3.1.1, and iii) groupings of 

sandbars by morphology and flood response proposed in modeling work of Project 

Element 3.3

Hypotheses/Questions 

1. How much exposed sand is present in 2013 compared to 2002 and 2009 throughout 

Marble and Grand Canyons? (relates to Section C.3, Question 1)

2. How has sandbar topography changed from 2002 to 2013 throughout Marble and Grand 

Canyons? What is the accuracy and uncertainty of the aerial overflight-based 

measurements of sandbar topography when compared to measurements of topography 

from other monitoring efforts? (relates to Section C.3, Question 3) 

3. Can the more spatially extensive set of sandbar measurements derived from the aerial 

overflight data be used to i) better understand the ways in which the long-term 

monitoring sites are and are not representative of sandbars throughout the larger river 

corridor?, and ii) produce a larger data set of sandbar size and morphology useful for 

Project 3.3. In the latter case, the remotely-sensed data can be used to develop more 

robust groupings of sandbars by morphology (using metrics such as area, volume, slope, 

planform shape, and concavity) and as a validation data set for a generalized sandbar 

response model calibrated using the NAU sandbar time-series. (relates to Section C.3, 

Questions 1 and 3)

Rationale/Justification 

Sandbars in the CRe downstream from Glen Canyon Dam are formed in eddies that typically 

occur in the lee of boulder debris fans. Debris fans constrict the river channel and form the 

eddies that are slower velocity and act as “traps” at hundreds of locations for finer sediment 

transported as suspended load (Schmidt and Rubin, 1995). Existing digital imagery and 

topographic data collected from remote sensing overflights in 2002, 2009, and 2013 are used to 

inventory and document both large- and small-scale sandbar and shoreline changes within eddy 

areas during this period. Because only a subset of sandbars are surveyed using conventional 

methods (Project Elements 3.1.1 and 3.2), the purpose of analysis of these remote sensing data is 

to track the area of exposed sand above the elevation of the 8,000 ft3

/s stage (high-elevation 

sand) of 1300 large eddies along the Colorado River. The remote sensing images remain the only 
110 

way to produce a census of the condition of sandbars synoptically in Glen, Marble, and Grand 

Canyons. 

Prior to completing new analysis of remote sensing images, a geomorphic base map is 

required to provide context for this and other system-wide studies in the CRe. The map is of 

immediate need for ongoing system-wide studies of sandbars and riparian vegetation. The map 

will consist of just a few simple map units such as: eddies; sand deposits within eddies; sand 

deposits along channel margins (not within eddies); debris fans; gravel bars; talus; and bedrock. 

This will enable any system-wide analyses to be segregated by geomorphic setting. While 

previous studies have completed detailed maps including these features for short segments (e.g. 

Hereford, 1996; Hereford and others, 2000; Schmidt and others, 2004) or systemwide inventories 

of specific resources, such as eddies that contain backwaters (Grams and others, 2010), there 

does not exist a map that covers the entire CRe with a consistent set of map units and mapping 

criteria. 

In the FY13–14 work plan, regions historically containing exposed sand above the elevation 

of the 8,000 ft3/s stage (high-elevation sand) were delineated for more than 1300 large eddies 

along the Colorado River in imagery acquired in 2002 and 2009. The classification of the areas 

of sand exposed in these large eddies in the 2002 and 2009 imagery will be completed in FY14. 

In this project, we will extend the record of canyon-wide sand area assessment to include 

analysis of overflight imagery acquired in 2013. 

Imagery from 2002, 2005, and 2009 has also been incorporated in an analysis of sandbar area 

change within six reaches in which high-elevation sand was mapped from images taken in 1965, 

1973, 1984, 1990, March 1996, and April 1996 (Schmidt and others, 2004) (Fig. 7). These 
111 

Figure 7. Area of sand in square meters per km in eddy deposition zones for all reaches with historical data from 1935 to 

2009. 

estimates of sandbar area were reasonably accurate with respect to independent ground truth 

estimates derived from more detailed topographic surveys; the area estimates under- or overpredicted survey-derived estimates by 3-15 percent in the reaches analyzed. The results show 

that the area of sandbars exposed above the 8,000 ft3

/s stage in Marble Canyon was generally 

larger in images from the era of post-dam controlled floods (April 1996, May 2002, May 2005, 

and May 2009) than in images from the post-dam period before controlled floods (June 1990 and 

March 1996). From 2002 to 2009, sandbar areas, on average, were estimated to be lowest in 

2002, greatest in 2005, and intermediate in 2009. Sandbar areas appeared to potentially vary as a 

function of time since a controlled flood (HFE); the 2002 imagery were collected 6 years after an 

HFE, the 2005 imagery were collected 6 months after an HFE, and the 2009 imagery were 

acquired 1 year after an HFE. Results of this work will be delivered and summarized in a 

manuscript prepared by the end FY14 (Ross and Grams, in prep.). 

Recent analysis of digital topography from the 2002 and 2009 aerial overflights relative to 

ground truth of detailed topographic surveys demonstrates the feasibility and limitations of 

measuring topographic changes with data from overflights that are less accurate. Table 2 shows 

examples of the average error in estimates of sandbar elevations derived from overflights relative 

to survey data for cross-sections at 5 different sandbar monitoring sites. Changes measured 

between 2002 and 2009 with the overflight data had a root mean square error (RMSE) of 0.49 m 

when compared to the ground truth data of changes measured from topographic surveys. These 

results provide conservative estimates of the uncertainty associated with topographic change 
112 

detection conducted with the overflight data and the magnitude of change that might be reliably 

detected with the overflight data. On average, the correlations between elevations and changes in 

elevation measured from the overflight and survey data were moderate to strong. When 

compared with the magnitude of changes in elevation observed with the detailed topographic 

surveys (Fig. 8) the average error estimates (Table 2) indicate that the overflight data are most 

useful for detection of large topographic changes. Similar uncertainty analyses and error budgets 

for sand volume, area, and other morphological characteristics of bars will need to be performed 

in the course of the work proposed for this project. Nonetheless, the potential for synoptic 

measurements of sandbar topography within the level of uncertainty in elevation indicated in 

Table 2. Average error and correlation between elevation measurements from total station 

survey and DSMs acquired in 2002, 2009, and change detected with each method from 

2002 to 2009 at five sandbar study sites. 

Site Year RMSE (m) R2

44L 2002 0.20 0.87

2009 0.38 0.91

2002-2009 0.33 0.73

68R 2002 0.59 0.24

2009 0.90 0.73

2002-2009 0.67 0.03

93L 2002 0.53 0.70

2009 0.26 0.97

2002-2009 0.71 0.86

122L 2002 0.18 0.93

2009 0.39 0.92

2002-2009 0.43 0.74

194L 2002 0.22 0.99

2009 0.20 0.98

2002-2009 0.31 0.84

Average 2002 0.35 0.75

2009 0.43 0.90

2002-2009 0.49 0.64
113 

Figure 8. Box plots showing distribution of changes in elevation determined from total station surveys in 2002 and 2009 at 

five sandbar monitoring sites. 

Table 2 suggests that these remote sensing data have utility for better understanding the ways in 

which the long-term, sandbar survey monitoring sites are and are not representative of sandbars 

throughout the larger river corridor. Further, these data can be leveraged in Project Element 3.3. 

as both an additional data set to define sandbar groupings by morphology (using metrics such as 

area, volume, slope, planform shape, and concavity) and as a validation data set for a generalized 

sandbar response model. 

Methods 

Mapping sandbar area 

The new work proposed in this project will extend analyses conducted on the 2002 and 2009 

imagery to include measurements of sand area in imagery acquired in the 2013 overflight. The 

canyon-wide remote sensing data used in this effort consists of four-band, ortho-rectified digital 

imagery (blue, green, red, and near-infrared bands) acquired in late May 2013. The remote 

sensing effort will involve a landscape delineation of four units: water, vegetation, sand, and 

other bare (non-vegetated) terrestrial surfaces. This will be similar to the landscape databases in 

production for image data sets collected in 2002 and 2009. For each image set, the water surface 

and total vegetation are mapped using interactive image processing algorithms (Davis and others, 

2002; Ralston and others, 2008). This project will use water and total vegetation classifications 

produced for the 2013 imagery in riparian vegetation-related project work that is currently 

proposed for FY15 (see Project 11.2). Following the water and vegetation classification, areas of 

sand will be classified. Therefore, the sand area classification and measurements proposed here 

will commence in FY16 and proceed into FY17. We will report on the results of the mapping 

and change analyses will be reported on in FY17. 

 
114 

Measuring topographic changes and evaluating representativeness of long-term survey dataset 

Digital surface models (DSMs) were produced from airborne automated digital 

photogrammetry data acquired during the aerial overflights of 2002, 2009, and 2013 for the 450 

km length of Glen and Grand Canyon at steady Colorado River discharge of 8,000 ft3

/s (Davis, 

2012). The airborne automated digital photogrammetry DSM data acquired in 2002 and 2009 

have been evaluated during work recently completed in 2013 and 2014 by Phil Davis (personal 

communication). The DSM data have 1-m cell resolution with vertical ellipsoid heights reported 

to the nearest 10 cm (but only accurate to the nearest 30 cm – see following explanations and 

example of error assessment for the 2009 data), and are sectioned into U.S. Geological Survey 

map quadrangles. The data were not initially processed to remove effects of vegetation or other 

surface cover on topographic elevation values. However, work completed in 2013 and 2014 

developed a methodology to minimize these effects that was tested on the 2009 dataset, in which 

pixels that contained vegetation canopies identified in classification of the coincidentally 

collected and co-registered multispectral imagery were replaced with elevations interpolated 

from surrounding bare ground surfaces. 

Horizontal and vertical accuracy of the 2002 and 2009 DSM data were assessed by 

comparison with 125 ground control points distributed over the entire 450 km length of data 

collection (Davis, 2012; P. Davis, USGS, pers. comm., 2013). Errors for the 2009 dataset were 

normally distributed with an initial 38 cm vertical offset, but were adjusted resulting in a final 

dataset with relative vertical RMSE of 30 cm (59 cm at 95 percent confidence level with 1.96 

sigma) (P. Davis, USGS, pers. comm., 2013). The relative positional (horizontal) accuracy was 

determined to be 19 cm (47 cm at 95 percent confidence level with 2.45 bivariate sigma) (Davis, 

2012). 

For this work, we will conduct change detection using the digital topography (DSM) data 

from 2002, 2009, and 2013 images. The change detection will be completed for sandbars in the 

same set of more than 1300 eddies monitored for changes in sand area. The datasets will be 

differenced and vertical and volume changes will be estimated for the areas of sand mapped in 

the large eddies that are the focus of Objectives 1 and 2. Changes that are detected in these areas 

will be evaluated relative to ground truth, as available, from the subset of sandbars that are 

topographically surveyed (e.g., Table 2). 

The distribution of volumes and areas of sandbars for the 3 overflight dates as well as the 

distribution of changes between these dates will be compared to respective distributions of data 

derived from the smaller set of surveyed sandbars. The comparison of distributions will be 

instrumental in completing the third objective that aims to investigate the representativeness of 

the long-term NAU sandbar data set relative to the populations of sandbars that are located 

throughout larger segments of the river. For example, we may expect that the total number of 

eddy sandbars, as well as the area- or volume-based distribution of sandbars (e.g. Fig. 6), will 

vary among geomorphic reaches (e.g. Schmidt and Graf, 1990; Melis, 1997), among those 30-80 

mile segments in which high-elevation sandbars are monitored with conventional topographic 

surveys every 3 to 10 years (Table 1, and Element 3.2), and collectively within the greater river 

corridor between Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Mead. Additionally, the representativeness of the 

long-term NAU sandbar data set is vital to the sandbar modeling component of this work plan 

(Project Element 3.3) For example, are sandbar groupings and eddy characteristics derived from 

the NAU sites appropriate for understanding eddy sandbar behavior in the 1300 eddies measured 

in this project? Does an empirical model of sandbar response calibrated from the NAU sandbar 

data represent a viable approach for modeling sandbars system-wide? Practically, these questions 
115 

can only be answered on a scale as large as the Grand Canyon using data on sandbar 

characteristics and change derived from remote sensing, which provides us measures of the true 

(system-wide) sandbar population. 

Geomorphic base map 

The geomorphic base map will be constructed by identifying contacts between each of the 

map units and digitizing those lines on-screen in ArcGIS. The initial interpretation and mapping 

will be done in the office using recent (2009) aerial imagery as a base. The preliminary mapping 

will followed by field checking areas of uncertainty on the annual sandbar monitoring trip in Fall 

2015, requiring no additional logistic costs. Grams (unpublished data) has completed a 

preliminary base map for lower Marble Canyon (Fig. 9) for use in the channel mapping project 

(FY13–14 Project Element A.2). 

Figure 9. Example geomorphic base map for a segment of lower Marble Canyon showing channel segments (CH_*), eddies 

(ED), sandbars (RB, SB), and debris fans (DF). 

Outcomes and Products – FY15 

 Completed geomorphic base map documented in USGS report (Ross leads with 

collaboration from Sankey and Grams). 

Outcomes and Products – FY16 

 Completed high elevation sand area map from 2013 imagery 

 
116 

Outcomes and Products – FY17 

 Report or journal article on system wide variability and changes in sandbar area, sandbar 

elevation, and sandbar morphology from remote sensing, 2002–2013 (Ross leads with 

collaboration from Sankey and Grams)

 Report (written in conjunction with other listed project elements) evaluating the current 

monitoring scheme using the long-term high-resolution NAU time-series (3.1.1), more 

spatially robust channel mapping (3.2) and remote sensing (3.1.2), and new techniques 

incorporating remote camera ortho-rectification and structure from motion (3.1.3) 

Project Element 3.1.3. Surveying with a camera: Rapid topographic surveys with digital images using 

structure-from-motion (SFM) photogrammetry 

Joseph Wheaton, Assistant Professor, Utah State University 

Daniel Buscombe, Research Geologist, USGS, GCMRC 

Paul Grams, Research Hydrologist, USGS, GCMRC 

Graduate Student 

Objectives 

The objective of this work is to develop and evaluate a methodology which allows low-cost 

and rapid (in terms of data collection and processing) monitoring of sandbars with a camera, 

implemented to support monitoring and geomorphic change detection. To this end, the use of a 

photogrammetric technique called ‘Structure-from-Motion’ (SfM), which builds an accurate 

three-dimensional model of a scene from photographs taken from multiple viewpoints (James 

and Robson, 2012; Westoby and others, 2012; Fonstad and others, 2013), will be evaluated for 

the purposes of repeat mapping the topography of sandbars and cultural resource sites. This is a 

proven method; however, there are a number of considerations for generalized implementation at 

any site. We propose to thoroughly evaluate errors and uncertainties, as well as the logistical 

considerations for efficient field data collection and data processing, towards the intended 

outcome of a set of sampling and data-processing protocols for the creation of a DEM of any 

location within the river corridor from a set of photographs taken using any non-specialist 

camera. 

If the above objectives are completed, a further objective would be to develop 'citizen 

science' tools that would allow river guides or other members of the public to contribute to 

sandbar mapping efforts simply by taking a set of photographs following a prescribed protocol. 

The SfM technique would eventually be used to create DEMs of 100s of sandbars to augment 

and evaluate the representativeness of the 45-50 long-term NAU sandbar time-series (see 

hypotheses/questions below). 

Hypotheses/Questions 

1. Can accurate digital elevation models (DEMs) be obtained rapidly, with quantification of 

errors and uncertainties, and with minimal logistical support, using a consumer-grade 

handheld digital camera? If so, what are the limitations of this technique relative to 

traditional total station surveys and what is the accuracy of these image-derived DEMs 

compared to total-station-derived DEMs? We hypothesize this is possible using 

Structure-from-Motion (SfM) photogrammetry, with comparable resolution to traditional 

total-station derived surveys. (relates to Section C.3, Question 1)
117 

2. Can a simple protocol for photographing any sandbar be drawn for a non-specialist, 

which would result in a set of images sufficient to create a DEM of that sandbar using 

SfM? We hypothesize that experimental trials with the SfM technique using field and 

laboratory data should be sufficient to establish a set of guidelines on image collection for 

a non-specialist. (relates to Section C.3, Question 1)

Rationale/Justification 

This research will, generally, establish a viable method for rapid, accurate, and low-cost 

topographic mapping of any location within the river corridor, and specifically, augment the data 

from, and inform sampling strategies for, long-term sandbar monitoring. The long-term time 

series of sandbar areas and volumes at select sites throughout Grand Canyon is a vital resource 

for examining the long-term health of sandbars and the impacts of management strategies. Such 

time-series can be used to assess the effectiveness of individual management strategies such as 

controlled floods, develop data-driven models for sandbar behavior, and monitor campsite 

quality and area through time. 

The set of 47 sandbars measured annually by topographic survey is a small sample of the 

more than 1300 large eddies in the CRe, and is potentially biased towards larger, more stable, 

sites. Recent efforts to evaluate the representativeness of sand volumes derived from these bars 

have indicated that the established long-term monitoring sites may adequately represent mean 

sandbar volume in lower Marble Canyon for some time intervals, although the variance is 

inadequately represented by the set of long-term monitoring sites. Because of this, and because 

more monitoring sites are located in lower Marble Canyon than other reaches, it is likely that the 

frequency of monitoring sites in lower Marble Canyon is a minimum. Therefore, there remains a 

pressing need to develop a representative sandbar sampling design. Our analysis suggests that up 

to 60 additional sites could be required to achieve the same frequency of monitoring sites in all 

parts of the CRe (see Project Element 3.1.1). Thus, the primary motivation for this project is to 

develop methods for measuring sandbars that would enable an increase in the number of bars 

monitored without a corresponding increase in field effort and expense. In practical terms, this 

means testing whether it is possible to survey any given exposed sandbar in approximately 20-30 

minutes in the field, as opposed to 3 to 6 hours in the field per bar with traditional methods. An 

additional motivation for developing a rapid surveying method is to have a means to acquire data 

from a range of sites (and times) outside those monitored on an annual basis, in order to, for 

example, 1) investigate what (if any) metrics derived from a given sandbar DEMs or time-series 

of sandbar DEMS could be used as indicators for sandbar state (health) and persistence; and 2) to 

provide more data to aid statistical grouping of sandbars with similar dynamics, which would 

greatly help in the concurrent development of a predictive sandbar model (see Project Element 

3.3.). 

Having a means by which to rapidly map any sandbar, at any time during daylight, using 

non-specialist equipment (a consumer-grade camera) would be an extremely useful tool with 

which to augment current sandbar mapping activities with minimal cost. The use of remote 

cameras to estimate sandbar areas (Project Element 3.1.1) is limited in scope to the specific sites 

at which these cameras are installed, and the specific time at which the photograph is taken 

(which needs to be programmed into the camera system in advance). The use of the remotecamera imagery to construct a sandbar volume (above a given stage) also requires large 

fluctuations in flow. The SfM technique, in contrast, could conceivably be used at any site to 

map sandbar volume of the subaerial portion of the bar at that time. Monitoring certain sites with 
118 

greater frequency would find several applications at the event-scale, such as monitoring bar 

slumping processes, erosion due to boat wake, or during experimental high flows. For example, 

how does generalized sandbar morphology differ as a result of high flows with different 

hydrograph shapes (magnitudes, durations and asymmetries)? Specifically, how does downramp 

rate affect sandbar slope? Answering this question requires more frequent topographic data (i.e. 

multiple DEMs associated with different downramp rates) from sandbars at sites with a range of 

hydraulic and geological settings, hitherto unobtainable through conventional methods, which 

will be addressed with the SfM technique. 

The method we propose to evaluate is a photogrammetric technique commonly known as 

Structure-from-Motion (SfM). The SfM technique is a method for constructing a 3-dimensional 

surface (map) from a set of oblique photographs of the same area taken from different 

perspectives. The method is so-called, because the 3D position (structure) of features present in 

multiple images can be recovered from acquiring imagery by moving the camera relative to the 

scene (motion) so that multiple perspectives are achieved. The process is also able to render the 

images onto the DEM to create a DSM (Digital Surface Model, which in this case is a DEM 

overlain with the image pixels in the correct 3D location) which could be invaluable for mapping 

useful attributes other than elevation that are not obtainable using conventional surveying 

techniques, such as vegetation (from image color), and even grain-size estimates of the sediment 

surfaces (from image texture, using techniques similar to Black and others, 2013). The 

algorithms for processing the images exist and are available in commercial software: the purpose 

of this project would be to implement those existing techniques using that software, evaluate the 

products (DEMs) with conventional survey techniques (Wheaton and others, 2010), and develop 

a work flow to facilitate implementation of the technique to monitoring sandbars in the CRe. 

Methods 

The majority of the work will be carried out by a graduate student at Utah State University 

under the primary supervision of Joseph Wheaton, with co-advisement by Paul Grams and 

Daniel Buscombe of the USGS/GCMRC. The student will familiarize him/herself with powerful, 

and expansive (scriptable), commercial SfM software (e.g. Agisoft Photoscan) as well as opensource software implementations of SfM (e.g. VisualSfM); carry out a number of trials in 

controlled conditions in order to assess the accuracy and precision of digital surface models; and 

develop protocols for photo collection such as, but not limited to, (1) the number and angular 

spread of images; (2) the requirements for vantage and perspective; (3) the degree of overlap 

between images; (4) the minimum amount of ground control points required, and (5) the effects 

of light conditions and surface textures on the photogrammetric solution. Some of these issues 

have been discussed in a general sense by recent articles in the geomorphology literature (for 

example, James and Robson, 2012; Westoby and others, 2012; and Fonstad and others, 2013) but 

the specific requirements and sensitivities for landforms with the range of scales of sandbars 

would need to be addressed. 

The student will then systematically photograph sandbars in Grand Canyon during annual 

sandbar monitoring trips, during which time the same bars will be mapped using conventional 

total station surveys, which are highly accurate but low in spatial resolution (of the order 1 

measurement per several square meters). SfM provides point clouds at or near the spatial 

resolution of the photographs that, depending on factors such as the camera specifications, and 

the range to the objects in the scene, is of the order tens to thousands of measurements per 

several square meters. Therefore, SfM-derived DEMs need to be down-sampled in order to 
119 

compare with total-station-derived DEMs. To quantify the accuracy of SfM at its native 

resolution, a subset of bars will also be surveyed using ground-based LiDAR (up to millions of 

measurements per several square meters). These data will then be down-sampled to the average 

resolution of the SfM-derived DEMs. These data will be worked up into image-derived and 

conventional DEMs, and the accuracy of the SfM technique for sandbars will be assessed 

through extension of surface uncertainty estimation techniques in the GCD software. The 

precision of DEMs from the SfM technique will be assessed by comparing DEMs of the same 

sandbar(s) using different sets of photographs collected in the field. 

Photographs will be collected at a sufficient number of sites to represent a range of sandbar 

types and settings encountered in Grand Canyon. This will include sites in wide and narrow 

reaches, sites with dense and sparse vegetation, and sites with different sandbar morphology. We 

anticipate this will include analysis of at least 8-10, and possibly more, different sites. In 

addition, we will collect photographic data and produce SfM-derived DEMs for at least 1 or 2 

cultural resource sites. These data will be used by scientists in Project 4 for comparison with data 

collected by ground-based lidar. 

One potential challenge associated with photogrammetric mapping of sandbars in Grand 

Canyon is the effect of strong sunlight and shadows, which may limit the success of SfM at pixel 

matching in areas of low contrast. This will be tackled directly by collecting images of the same 

bar from the same locations at several times during the same day. Another problem will be 

obtaining sufficient vantage to photograph from, so each bar will be photographed from a 

number of different relative elevations and viewpoints. The sensitivities of the technique to 

factors such as the number of images and angular spread of camera positions (the collective noun 

for these factors we term, the scene geometry) will be assessed by creating a DEM for each 

permutation of photographs of a scene in a collection, then organizing DEM errors (relative to a 

benchmark data set obtained by total station and/or LiDAR) by each factor in the scene 

geometry. Each set of images will be worked up and their accuracy assessed reference to 

benchmark data (e.g. total station and ground-based LiDAR surveys). To address the potential 

issue of insufficient image texture over the smoothest surfaces, the texture of these surfaces will 

be enhanced using a number of standard camera settings and image processing algorithms 

designed to enhance image contrast. 

Outcomes and Products 

 Developoment of SfM sampling protocol 

 Development of SfM extensions to GCD and existing SfM software, as well as standalone software required to facilitate efficient post-processing of imagery and change 

detection analysis. 

 Report/journal article on application of the SfM method to measuring sandbar topography 

(lead author Graduate Student). 

 
120 

Project Element 3.1.4. Analysis of historical images at select monitoring sites 

Joseph E. Hazel, Jr., Research Associate, Northern Arizona University 

Thomas Gushue, GIS Coordinator, USGS, GCMRC 

Robert Weber, Photogrammetrist, Pinnacle Mapping Technologies, Inc. 

Objectives 

1. Extend sandbar area and volume long-term monitoring measurements to include data 

points from 1984 for a select set of sites. 

2. Interpret the sandbar area and volume measured from photogrammetrically-derived 

topography with regard to unplanned floods that occurred in 1980, 1983 and 1984, and in 

the context of sandbar response to HFEs since 1996. 

3. Incorporate completed 1984 sandbar data into sandbar database and interactive website 

(Project Element 3.1.1). 

Hypotheses/Questions 

1. To what extent were sandbars larger in area and volume following the largest magnitude 

and longest duration post-dam floods (the 1983-84 floods) than following recent HFEs? 

(relates to Section C.3, Question 2)

2. What can the 1984 post-HFE area and volume measurements for a select set of sites 

inform us about sandbar behavior? (relates to Section C.3, Question 3)

3. Can analysis of digital photogrammetry improve our understanding of sandbar change 

over time and improve analysis of the long-term monitoring record? (relates to Section 

C.3, Question 1)

Rationale/Justification 

Our understanding of the long-term trends in sandbar size and abundance is limited by the 

lack of detailed measurements made before the era of environmental management that began in 

the CRe in 1990. Our understanding of resource responses prior to the current sandbar 

monitoring efforts is based on limited observations of sandbars following the floods of 1983-86 

(Schmidt and Grams, 2011). However, those generalizations of sandbar behavior are based 

largely on imprecise photo comparisons and are not quantitatively tied to the current sandbar 

monitoring program. The purpose of this research activity is to extend the temporal monitoring 

record for the long-term sandbar monitoring sites (Project Element 3.1.1) by incorporating data 

from aerial photography taken before 1990. In FY13–14, we investigated the possibility of 

extending the long-term sandbar monitoring record (Project Element 3.1.1) by ortho-rectifying 

historical aerial images acquired in October 1984 for a selected set of sites. These images were 

used to create a three-dimensional topographic surface using digital photogrammetry 

technologies and software. 

The feasibility of using digital photogrammetry to ortho-rectify photographs and generate 

digital elevation models (DEMs) of sandbars in Grand Canyon was initially examined by Blank 

(2000) and O’Brien and others (2000). At the time, the computer-based software and 

technologies did not result in photogrammetric surfaces sufficient for detecting change in 

sandbar elevation of less than 25 cm. Recent advances in photogrammetry computer software 

and high accuracy digital scans made from the original negatives collected during the aerial 

overflights have made digital terrain extraction economically feasible and with uncertainties 
121 

more appropriate for change detection and comparison with historical sandbar surveys made 

during the 1990s and 2000s. Thus, this project element builds on the work of Blank (2000) and 

O’Brien and others (2000) and utilizes improved methods to derive topography for selected 

sandbar study sites in Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons. 

In FY13, digital terrain extraction and analysis of the results were made at 8 study sites. 

These results were presented at the Annual Reporting Meeting in January 2014. The DEMs 

generated from the 1984 images have a surface uncertainty of 25 cm or less. Thus, we can 

confidently use the DEMs to determine sandbar volume and area using similar methods for that 

of the NAU sandbar monitoring project. This has been accomplished at 7 of 8 study sites. Initial 

findings are that sandbar area and volume above the stage elevation of 8,000 ft3/s was greater in 

1984 than that measured in 2013 at 4 of the 7 sites. One sandbar (the Saddle Canyon site at RM 

47) was 70 percent greater in area and volume in 1984; the other sites were 10 to 50 percent 

greater in size. The remaining sites were smaller in 1984 than present. While the sample size is 

small, these results are encouraging for temporal extension of the sandbar monitoring time series 

to 1984, as well as other years of interest. These results only provide tentative support for the 

hypothesis that sandbars were larger in 1984 than present, as almost half of the bars analyzed 

were smaller compared to present. Analysis of additional monitoring sites is required to provide 

a more complete picture of sandbar size following the 1980s floods for comparison with sandbar 

size following recent HFEs. 

In order to determine the accuracy of the photogrammetrically-derived volumes, we are 

currently investigating a method that will allow us to better test the image-derived DEMs against 

actual ground surveys for four of the long-term monitoring sites previously processed in FY13. 

Because there have not been independent topographic surveys made with conventional methods 

at the same time as the collection of aerial photography, it is important that the same methods 

developed in FY13–14 be applied to photographs taken within a week or two of a total station 

sandbar survey. This would allow determination of the elevation and volumetric error associated 

with the techniques utilized in the study. We have identified two possible photography datasets 

with which to make this comparison: May 1994 and September 1996. Both data sets meet the 

requirements needed to be usable for comparative purposes as they were collected at scales 

similar to the October 1984 film (1:4800 vs. 1:3000), and during similar dam releases (226 m3

/s 

vs. fluctuating between 144 and 226 m3

/s). We anticipate that most or part of this accuracy 

assessment work can be completed in FY14. 

In this Project Element, we propose to continue this work by processing an additional 4 sites 

each fiscal year. In order to successfully process the 1984 photography, we plan to obtain the 

necessary ground control points for each proposed site. These data will be collected as part of 

other field efforts described in this project (Project Elements 3.1.1 and 3.2), and potentially as 

part of other collaborative field work efforts. Thus, this project does not have any stand-alone 

logistics expenses. 

By the end of FY17, we anticipate to have up to half of the long-term monitoring sites 

processed and analyzed for volumetric change using the October 1984 photographs. Continuing 

to extend the long-term sandbar monitoring time series back to the early 1980s will provide 

additional information needed to assess the condition of sandbars prior to ground survey data 

collection in Glen, Marble and Grand Canyons. The addition of derived topographic surfaces 

from the 1984 photographs, in conjunction with selected historical surveys will help better 

inform us on sandbar response to dam operations prior to the 1990s. 
122 

Outcomes and Products 

 For each completed site: 

o Spatial Data: Geodatabase feature class and shapefiles for ground control points 

and digital terrain model (point cloud), triangular irregular network (TIN) 3D 

surface derived from point cloud, 25-cm interpolated DEM, and a mosaicked, 

ortho-rectified image file of 1984 imagery. 

o Ancillary data: Photogrammetry block file and triangulation reports, digital 

terrain model extraction report, vertical and horizontal accuracy assessments of 

final data sets, volumetric and cross-sectional comparison graphs, and summary 

reports containing all the above information for each site. 

 Report/journal article on long-term trends at the sandbar monitoring sites (joint product 

with 3.1.1 and 3.2) (lead author Hazel). 

Project Element 3.2. Bathymetric and Topographic Mapping for Monitoring Long-term Trends in Sediment 

Storage 

Paul Grams, Research Hydrologist, USGS, GCMRC 

Daniel Buscombe, Research Geologist, USGS, GCMRC 

Matt Kaplinski and Joseph Hazel, Research Associates, Northern Arizona University 

Bob Tusso, Hydrologist, USGS, GCMRC 

Keith Kohl, Surveyor, USGS, GCMRC 

Michael Yard, Fishery Biologist, USGS, GCMRC 

Objectives 

1. Complete the first (baseline) high-resolution bathymetric map of Glen Canyon (RM -15 

to RM 0) in 2015. 

2. Complete a repeat bathymetric and topographic map of the sediment-budgeting reach 

from RM 0 to RM 30 in 2016, with a coverage matching that when the reach was first 

mapped in 2013. 

3. Complete the first (baseline) high-resolution bathymetric and topographic map of the 

long reach from RM 166 to RM 225 in 2017. 

4. Implement a recently developed acoustic bed-sediment classification method using Multi 

Beam Echo Sounder (MBES) data, by factoring in grain size in estimates for changes in 

sand storage, and in order to better constrain uncertainties in calculated sediment budgets. 

5. Report on changes in sand storage in the reach between RM 60 and RM 87, mapped in 

2011 and repeat mapped in May 2014. 

6. Report on changes in bed elevation in Glen Canyon, based on comparisons between 

cross-sections last surveyed in 2000 and data from mapping that is scheduled for 2015 

(Objective 1). 

7. Continue development of methods for classification of bed sediments using MBES 

backscatter data. In particular, develop means by which to classify bed sediments reliably 

in the presence of significant coverage of submerged vegetation, such as in Glen Canyon. 

8. Develop and implement methods to estimate sand thicknesses below the bed surface, 

non-intrusively (using acoustics) and which fit into existing channel mapping sampling 

protocols. 

 
123 

Hypotheses/Questions 

1. What are the effect of HFEs and intervening dam operations on sandbar size? (relates to 

Section C3, Questions 1 and 4). We hypothesize that HFEs and intervening dam 

operations result in a net increase in sandbar size at high elevation (above 8,000 ft3

/s 

stage) and no net change in sand storage at low elevation (below 8,000 ft3

/s stage) 

2. Is the riverbed in Glen Canyon lowering? We hypothesize that the bed of the river in 

riffles in Glen Canyon remained stable throughout the four HFEs that have occurred 

since 2000, but pools in Glen Canyon continued to evacuate sediment since 2000. This 

would imply that the entire riverbed is not lowering. (relates to Section C.3, Question 4)

3. What is the spatial distribution of submerged vegetation in Glen Canyon? Can we 

remotely sense the distribution of submerged aquatic vegetation using MBES backscatter 

and topography? If so, is it still possible to reliably distinguish between different 

sediment types (using the recently developed method of Buscombe and others, in review) 

in the presence of substantial vegetation? (relates to Section C.3, Question 5). We 

hypothesize that it is possible to remotely sense vegetation cover but not to the genus 

level. We further hypothesize that it is possible to modify the methods of Buscombe and 

others (in review) to account for the effects of vegetation in classifying sediment types. 

4. Is it possible to estimate submerged sand thicknesses using hydroacoustics, reliably and 

objectively, in order to better quantify absolute sand storage in the parts of the channel 

which are always submerged? (relates to Section C.3, Question 4). We hypothesize that a 

combination of MBES and chirp sonar would enable acoustic sediment imaging to 

several tens meters, and that sand thickness estimation would be possible if the acoustic 

signal is not occluded by layers of coarse substrates. 

Rationale/Justification 

In this section, we discuss the rationale for conducting comprehensive channel mapping to 

monitor sediment storage between Glen Canyon Dam and Diamond Creek. Because this project 

is designed as long-term monitoring, it is necessary to discuss planned monitoring activities in a 

long-term context, provided below. In summary, we propose to map one channel segment in 

each of the 3 years of the FY15–17 work plan. These segments are Glen Canyon (RM -15 to 0) 

in 2015; upper Marble Canyon (RM 0 to 32) in 2016; and west-central Grand Canyon (RM 166 

to 225) in 2017. The mapping of the segments in Marble Canyon and Grand Canyon will track 

long-term trends in sand storage with implications for maintaining and building sandbars in 

response to HFEs in those segments. As stated above, periodic comprehensive mapping of long 

reaches is necessary to constrain ∆ܵ within an acceptable level of uncertainty, because fluxbased sediment budgets become indeterminate at long (3-10 years) timescales. A repeat map of 

upper Marble Canyon will be used to evaluate changes in sediment storage in that reach between 

2013 and 2016, while also providing an important validation data set for Project 2. The rationales 

for mapping Glen Canyon and west-central Grand Canyon are somewhat different from the 

rationale for mapping the other segments and is discussed in separate sections below. 

Fine sediment storage 

Management objectives for fine sediment have focused on the condition of sandbars. Current 

management practice includes efforts to maintain and build sandbars using high flow releases 

that are timed to coincide with periods of fine-sediment supply from tributaries (HFE protocol 
124 

EA). As described above in section C.1, the success of this approach is predicated on the 

maintenance of a sufficient supply of sand within the channel for rebuilding sandbars. The 

purpose of this sediment storage monitoring element of Project 3 is to track long-term trends in 

sand storage and thereby provide a robust measure of whether or not the supply of sand available 

for building sandbars is increasing, decreasing, or remaining stable over time-scales of years to 

decades. In other words, this project provides the direct measure of ∆ܵ in equation (1) over the 

time scale of the HFE EA and the LTEMP EIS. Moreover, this project monitors those changes in 

sand storage by location, providing spatially explicit quantification of the changes in the channel 

and eddies (∆ܵ௟௢௪ in equation 2) and sandbars (∆ܵ௛௜௚௛ in equation 2). 

The greatest challenge in developing an appropriate monitoring program is the scale of the 

area of management interest, which is the entire CRe from Glen Canyon Dam to Lake Mead. As 

described above, previous efforts have demonstrated that measurements of sediment storage 

change made in short reaches cannot be extrapolated to determine sediment storage throughout 

the CRe. In spring 2012, we repeated the RM 30 to 61 long reach which was first mapped in 

spring 2009. A spatially explicit analysis of the differences in channel sediment storage once 

again demonstrated that the large local variability in bed response found almost everywhere 

necessitates sampling a large proportion of the river channel. 

The “long-reach” sampling design used in this project is based on analysis of previous 

channel bathymetry mapping efforts. Using the repeat maps made of short (< 5 km) reaches 

between 2000 and 2004, we investigated potential sampling strategies. This was accomplished 

by artificially subsampling the maps of topographic change that cover an entire 5 km short reach, 

using three different sampling strategies: (1) regularly spaced channel cross-sections; (2) 

randomly located channel cross-sections; and, (3) subsampling of major eddy storage locations. 

This analysis indicated that all of these sampling strategies result in error that is greater than 50 

percent of the actual change in storage, unless sampling intervals are sufficiently small such that 

the level of effort is equivalent to comprehensively mapping approximately 80 percent of the 

entire reach. Further, the analysis revealed that in order to estimate change in channel storage 

with an uncertainty of 50 percent of the observed value would require average cross-section 

spacing of 300 m or less, irrespective of whether the spacing is regular or locations are selected 

randomly. To achieve a similar level of accuracy by sampling eddy storage locations would 

require sampling more than 75 percent of those locations. Thus, to reduce the need for, and 

uncertainties associated with, extrapolation, the monitoring program consists of repeat mapping 

of most of the bed of the river for long segments. 

Although these comprehensive maps of the river bed provide the best measure of changes in 

sediment storage, mapping long river segments is a significant effort in terms of data collection 

and data processing. Within the scope of the current budget, it is possible to map and process 

approximately 30 river miles of channel per year. We have, therefore, developed a proposed 

schedule for mapping segments in rotation over the next 10 years that is based on the time 

frames of current and anticipated management actions. Because the segments in Marble Canyon 

and eastern Grand Canyon (Fig. 3.3) have the greatest risk of sediment deficit and because 

sandbar response has not been as strong in Marble Canyon as in downstream segments (Fig. 2), 

channel mapping efforts through 2014 have focused on these segments. The focus will continue 

to be on these segments for the next 7 years to provide monitoring needed to evaluate the HFE 

Protocol. By the conclusion of the first 10 years of the HFE protocol in 2021, each of these 

segments will have been mapped at least 3 times over the 10-year period. This will provide 

robust and spatially explicit quantification of the change in fine-sediment storage in each 
125 

segment and a robust measure of the change in all sandbars in each segment. Each of these 

segments is approximately 30 river miles in length and it is possible to map most of the river 

bed, excluding rapids and riffles, resulting in maps of 80 to 90 percent of the deposits. 

While an exclusive focus on the upstream 3 segments may be appropriate to address the 

monitoring needs of the HFE protocol, it does not fully address sediment-related AMP goals, 

which do not distinguish among river segments. There are very few measurements of the channel 

bed in the segments downstream from RM 87 and there are fewer long-term sandbar monitoring 

sites between RM 87 and RM 225 (Fig. 6). Without some direct measurements of changes in 

sediment storage and measurements at a larger set of sandbars than are monitored annually, it 

will be difficult to assess long-term trends in these segments. We, therefore, propose to collect 

baseline data within each of these segments within the next 5 years so that repeat maps may be 

made within the next 10 years. Because these segments are each 60 to 80 river miles in length, 

we anticipate mapping approximately 50 percent of each segment. Maps of these segments will 

be less comprehensive than the maps made for Marble Canyon and eastern Grand Canyon and 

there will be portions of these segments where changes in sediment storage will remain 

unknown. The maps will, nevertheless, provide a robust quantification of changes in sediment 

storage for the portions of the segments that are mapped providing much more information than 

provided by the sandbar monitoring alone. 

West-central Grand Canyon 

A map of west-central Grand Canyon will provide the first baseline map of a segment 

downstream from RM 87. Perhaps more fundamentally, the mapping of western Grand Canyon 

is also the key to making a long-term (decadal to centennial timescale) assessment of the fate of 

sand canyon-wide. Below we identify a number of major reasons to carry out a one-time 

mapping effort. First and foremost, establishing a basemap will allow calculations of changing 

sediment storage decades into the future, well beyond the time-scale of viable calculations of 

sediment storage changes through sediment flux calculations. Whereas channel mapping 

provides the information required to assess the impacts of individual and successive HFEs in 

upstream reaches (Marble Canyon and eastern Grand Canyon), in western Grand Canyon it 

becomes the means through which the long-term sediment mass-balance can be assessed canyonwide. The long-term trend in sediment mass balance in the west-central canyon - the sediment 

monitoring reach furthest from the dam and of greatest contrast with Marble Canyon in terms of 

sediment size and supply, total sediment storage, extent of riparian vegetation, and hydrology – 

may be positive, negative, or neutral, and has major implications for system-wide sediment 

management. Without a basemap of current sand storage conditions of both high and low 

elevation deposits, future inferences of long-term sediment mass balance in western Grand 

Canyon will be largely speculative. 

The second major motivation for this mapping effort is to collect topographic sandbar data 

from a large sample of bars, for the purposes of evaluating the annual sampling strategy in this 

part of the canyon. It is likely that this part of the canyon is greatly undersampled, based on 

statistical analyses of sandbar sampling in Marble Canyon (Figure 6). Third, baseline mapping of 

this reach could prove useful for understanding the distribution and abundance of Razorback 

sucker by, for example, providing maps of the distribution of submerged sediments. Fourth, 

mapping would also provide geomorphic context to monitoring and understanding riparian 

vegetation expansion, providing variables such as sandbar grain sizes that are not readily 

extracted from remote sensing imagery at the required resolution. Finally, application of 
126 

proposed methodological advances in sub-bottom profiling for the purposes of measuring sand 

thicknesses could be particularly insightful in this part of the canyon which is hypothesized to 

have greater total sediment storage than any upstream reach. 

Glen Canyon 

The needs for long-term monitoring of sediment storage are different in the Glen Canyon 

segment than in the downstream segments. Because Glen Canyon is upstream from the Paria 

River, the sediment deficit in this segment is more severe than in the downstream segments 

(Topping and others, 2003). A series of high flows (pulse flows) released from the dam in 1965 

caused rapid degradation of the channel in most of the reach (Randle and Pemberton, 1976; 

Grams and others, 2007). Grams and others (2007) demonstrated that the pattern of degradation 

was different for riffles than in pools between riffles. The distinction between pools and riffles is 

important because degradation of riffles represents incision of the channel – lowering of the 

entire river bed. In riffles, the magnitude of degradation decreased with distance downstream to 

the point of zero degradation at the Paria Riffle near Lees Ferry. In addition, the rate of 

degradation decreased with time causing Grams and others (2007) to hypothesize that this 

process was complete by 2000, with the possible exception of locations within 1-km of the dam. 

In contrast to the riffles, pools more than 20 km downstream from the dam scoured as much 

or more than pools within 5 km of the dam. Pools continued to exhibit significant changes (scour 

in some locations, fill in others, with no systematic spatial pattern) in the most recent monitoring 

interval (1991-2000). Because bed lowering decreases the elevation reached by flows of a given 

discharge, near the dam the elevation reached by a discharge of 5000 ft3

/s decreased by more 

than 2 meters between 1956 and 2000 (Grams and others, 2007). Such changes affect many 

aspects of the aquatic and riparian ecosystems. Scour of sediment from pools, however, is not 

necessarily associated with channel incision, but instead represents changes in sediment storage. 

While the channel in Glen Canyon has experienced both incision and changes in storage, 

segments downstream from Lees Ferry have only experienced changes in storage (Grams and 

others, 2007). 

These changes were documented by repeat topographic/bathymetric surveys of more than 20 

monumented cross-sections that were originally established in 1956 for use in designing the dam 

and power plant. A repeat survey was last made 14 years ago (Grams and others, 2007). The 

proposed mapping of the channel in 2015 will include a repeat survey of each of those channelcross sections. Given the legacy of data collection in Glen Canyon spanning several decades, a 

number of important scientific questions can be addressed using data from a single channel 

mapping campaign. These surveys will be used to evaluate two hypotheses. First, the 

measurements will be used to support (or refute) the hypothesis of Grams and others (2007) that 

the bed is stable in riffles. While it is believed that the channel is stable, continued scour is 

possible and would have important implications for aquatic habitat (see related biological 

projects, referenced below). Secondly, the measurements will be used to test the hypothesis of 

Grams and others (2007) that pools continue to evacuate sediment. These measurements will 

provide a valuable assessment of the stability of the channel bed and the status of sediment 

storage in pools early in the implementation of the HFE protocol. 

The mapping in Glen Canyon will also provide information required for several aquatic and 

fisheries related studies. A map of the Glen Canyon segment enables mapping of the relative 

inundation frequency of trout spawning habitat (see Project 10); establishing flow-habitat 
127 

relations necessary for studies of egg-laying and emergence behavior of aquatic insects (see 

Project 5); and parameterizing a model for primary production (see Project 9). 

Vegetation and subsurface mapping 

In addition to collecting the data to address the questions described above, we also propose 

work on advancement of methods in two areas. First, we propose to expand our methods for 

mapping bed composition to include submerged vegetation. It is necessary to be able to 

distinguish between sediments and submerged aquatic vegetation where coverage of the latter is 

significant. In addition, given the importance that submerged vegetation serves as habitat for fish 

and invertebrates (Riis and others, 2008), there is a need to quantitatively examine the spatial 

distribution, diversity, and abundance of the relatively diverse aquatic plant community found in 

Glen Canyon. We therefore need a reliable method with which to non-intrusively document the 

distribution of submerged vegetation with a large spatial coverage. Such a method needs to be 

able to: (1) remotely sense the water column and bed from a small boat; (2) distinguish 

vegetation from substrate; and (3) be spatially referenced to enable repeat mapping for the 

purposes of monitoring. Currently there are no standard methods with which to do this, however, 

we propose that the use of the MBES in the Glen Canyon channel mapping effort in 2015 is an 

ideal opportunity to overcome this technological shortfall, for the benefit of the long-term 

ecological goals of studies of primary production in Glen Canyon, and advancements in acoustic 

characterization of the composition of riverbeds in general for the purposes of habitat mapping as 

well as a number of physical goals. 

The second advancement we propose involves measuring the thickness, in addition to the 

surface elevation, of sand on the river bed. We are currently able to report the change in 

sediment storage (delta S) without knowing the total sediment storage (S) at either time. This has 

important implications because we therefore do not know how much of S, delta S represents. If 

delta S is massively negative in a given reach, we do not know how much more sediment would 

need to be evacuated to completely deplete that reach. Measuring total sediment storage is a 

daunting challenge because it requires measuring the depth of sediment to bedrock everywhere. 

However, in recent years seismic frequency acoustic instruments have become more 

sophisticated and available, opening the possibility of such measurements. Recent advances in 

bed surface sediment classification means that we can focus sampling efforts over known areas 

of sandy beds, making the problem of acoustic detection of sand thicknesses much more 

tractable. Information on sand thicknesses might also be a vital component in designing alternate 

sampling strategies for capturing the essential components of changes in sediment storage in a 

given reach. In other words, using sand thicknesses to estimate total sand volumes in a given 

reach might be critical in determining the return frequency to a given reach. It also provides 

much needed context for reported changes in sediment storage, by providing the means to begin 

to answer the question of what the proportion a reported sand storage change is of all sand stored 

in a given reach. 

Methods 

It is not logistically feasible to map the entire river corridor in every segment. The goal of 

this work is, therefore, to map approximately 80 percent of each segment between Glen Canyon 

dam and RM 87 and approximately 50 percent of each segment between RM 87 and RM 225. 

Although it is not possible to identify all the important sediment storage locations prior to 

mapping, the effort is expected to include mapping of more than 90 percent of the large eddy 
128 

storage locations upstream from RM 87 and at least 75 percent of those storage locations 

downstream from RM 87. We place greater emphasis on monitoring the three upstream reaches, 

because the most upstream reaches have greater sediment deficit and are, therefore, a greater risk 

for long term sand depletion. We further expect that, because these reaches have larger sediment 

deficit, storage changes are more likely to be spatially variable, requiring monitoring a greater 

proportion of each mass-balance reach. Each year, one of the five sediment budgeting reaches 

that are between 26 and 80 miles in length will be mapped such that each segment could be 

mapped twice in 10 years. 

Because about 90 percent of the sand and finer sediment that is available for redistribution by 

dam operations is submerged (Hazel and others, 2006), the monitoring method must include 

measurements of the bed of the river in eddies and pools. Data collection will combine 

multibeam and singlebeam sonars, coupled with conventional topographic surveys for areas 

above the water surface. These methods have been described by Hazel and others (2008) and 

Kaplinski and others (2009; 2014) and were used extensively in monitoring the 2008 HFE (Hazel 

and others, 2010). Similar methods are used to monitor channel changes on other large rivers, 

including the Missouri River (Jacobson and others, 2009). The data will result in a high 

resolution digital elevation model of the mapped segments for each mapping effort. 

Upon completion of a repeat map of a segment, the maps (DEMs) will be compared to 

compute the net change in the volume of sediment within the segment. These computations will 

distinguish between fine and coarse sediment using recently developed acoustic sediment 

classification algorithms (Buscombe and others, in review), between sediment stored in the 

channel and eddies, and between sediment at high- and low-elevation. The methods of 

Table 3. Long sediment budgeting segments for long-term monitoring of sediment storage. 

Segment River 

Miles 

Completed 

surveys 

Planned 

surveys 

Short 

reaches*

Crosssections**Estimated 

proportion of 

reach 

mapping will 

cover 

Repeat 

Interval 

1 -15 to 

0 

2000 (crosssections 

only) 

2015 1 20 80 percent ~ 10 yr 

2 0 to 

30 

2013 2016, 

2021 

2 41 80 percent 3 to 6 yr 

3 30 to 

61 

2009, 2012 2018, 

2023 

3 17 80 percent 3 to 6 yr 

4 61 to 

87 

2011, 2014 2020 2 39 80 percent 3 to 6 yr 

5 87 to 

166 

none 2019, 

2024 

1 20 50 percent 5 to 10yr 

6 166 to 

225 

none 2017, 

2022 

2 8 50 percent 5 to 10yr 

* The number of short reaches 2 to 5 km in length that were mapped at least once between 2000 

and 2005 (Kaplinski and others, 2009). 

** The number of cross-sections that were measured at least once between 1992 and 1999 (Flynn 

and Hornewer, 2003). 
129 

Buscombe and others (in review) uses MBES backscatter (echo strengths) to distinguish between 

homogeneous sand, mixed sand and gravel, and homogeneous gravel (Fig. 10). These data are 

collected in conjunction with soundings used to compute bathymetries; therefore no additional 

data collection is required. The resulting maps of bed sediment substrates are as highly resolved 

as the bathymetric maps. Methods for bed-texture classification will continue to be developed in 

order for us to reliably distinguish between different substrate types (such as the relative 

proportions of sand and gravel in small areas), in order to assess their relative mobility under a 

range of flows. 

One significant extension to the acoustic sediment classification methods of Buscombe and 

others (in review) is in being able to distinguish between sediment and submerged vegetation. 

We propose to use MBES backscatter data, collected as part of the Glen Canyon channel 

mapping effort in 2015, in conjunction with physical samples and underwater video surveys, to 

develop and test algorithms with which to reliably distinguish between sediments and vegetation. 

In so doing, we will have also developed a means by which to make a quantitative assessment of 

the spatial distribution and areal cover (m2

) of submerged macrophytes, bryophytes, and 

chlorophytes. Acoustics is, at least in theory, an ideal tool for mapping submerged aquatic 

vegetation because it is not limited by water clarity or deep water, and provides a much greater 

coverage, at higher resolution, in a fraction of the time compared with video surveys. 

Ongoing analysis between sediment stored in the channel and eddies, and between sediment 

at high- and low-elevation, will incorporate more sophisticated estimates of uncertainty (e.g. 

Wheaton and others, 2010; Kaplinski and others, 2014) for which estimates of bed sediment 

grain size will also be a crucial component. In addition to making comparisons between years for 

which the entire segments are mapped, comparisons will also be made to earlier data were 

available (Grams and others, 2013). This will include comparisons to data collected in short 

reaches in 2000 to 2005, and data collected at monumented channel cross-sections (Table 3). 
130 

Figure 10. Acoustic sediment classification at RM30, August 2013, using the methods of Buscombe and others (in review). 

The resolution of classification is 25 cm2

. 

In 2016 and 2017 we will evaluate the use of sub-bottom, broadband low frequency 

(modulated in sweeps ranging from a few hundred Hz to a few kilohertz) acoustic CHIRP 

profilers to scope the feasibility of determining sand thicknesses below the bed. This would 

involve testing low-broadband (known as ‘seismic’) frequency sonars, which penetrate the bed to 

a much greater depth than the high-frequency sonars (singlebeam and multibeam echosounders) 

used to map the elevation of the bed surface. The aim is to develop a reliable means with which 

to estimate sand thicknesses below the bed surface, in order to better quantify the total volume of 

sand stored in a reach. In recent years, our continuing experience and expertise in the use of 

sonar mapping techniques has coincided with ongoing technological advances in sonar 

technology and the increasing use of sonars for estimating the thicknesses of submerged 

sediment deposits Frequency-modulated (FM, or CHIRP) sonars (Schock and others, 1989) 

provide higher resolution (a few cm compared with tens of cm) sub-bottom acoustic profiles with 

less signal noise compared with traditional low-frequency sonars, have been used successfully to 

image subsurface stratigraphy within sedimentary deposits, typically up to 30m below the 

surface (e.g. Zeiler and others, 2000; Lafferty and others, 2006). Both the rate of attenuation of 

the echo strength with depth and the pattern of reflections revealed by concatenating subsequent 

profiles can be used to discriminate between sediment types. There are several established 

methods (e.g. LeBlanc and others, 1992; Kim and others, 2002; Schock, 2004; Rakotonarivo and 

others, 2011). A number of different systems are available for rent. These sonars provide much 
131 

greater resolution than previous generations of sub-bottom sonars, providing unparalleled detail 

on the sedimentary sequences down to several tens of meters. We propose to use these systems 

in areas of known sandy bed surfaces, and develop algorithms to detect sedimentary layers and 

acoustic attenuations with depth, towards an eventual goal of reliably estimating sand 

thicknesses. 

Relation to Previous Work Plan 

The approach in this work plan builds on the project from the FY13/14 work plan. The 

reaches proposed for mapping in 2013 and 2014 (Table 2) were completed successfully and 

those data are being processed according to schedule. The major reporting goal for the previous 

work plan was to report on changes in storage for the reach between RM 30 and RM 61. A 

preliminary report on this analysis was provided at the January 2014 reporting meeting and the 

final analysis and reporting is in preparation with submission for review expected by September 

2014. A major goal of the previous work plan was the development of automated methods for 

bed material classification (FY13–14 Project Element A.2.2). This was needed to determine the 

proportion of the river bed covered by sand and the proportion covered by other substrate, in 

addition to the utility to other projects for habitat characterization. That project will be 

successfully completed by the end of 2014 (Buscombe and others, in review) and is therefore not 

included in this work plan. The methods developed in that project will be used in this project and 

will continue to be refined and improved upon. 

Outcomes and Products – FY15 

 Report and maps for RM 0 to 30 (mapped in 2013) (lead author Kaplinski). 

 Report and maps for eastern Grand Canyon (RM 61 to 87, mapped in 2011 and 2014) 

(lead author Kaplinski). 

 Report/journal article on geomorphic changes in eastern Grand Canyon, 2011 to 2014 

(lead author Grams). 

 Report on bed-sediment grain-size measurements using the eyeball system, 2000 – 

present (lead author Tusso). 

Outcomes and Products – FY16 

 Report and maps for Glen Canyon (scheduled to be mapped in 2015) (lead author 

Kaplinski). 

 Report/journal article on geomorphic changes in Glen Canyon, 2000 to 2015 (lead author 

Grams). 

 Report/journal article on acoustic detection of submerged aquatic vegetation (lead author 

Buscombe). 

Outcomes and Products – FY17 

 Presentation at annual reporting meeting. 
132 

 Report and maps for upper Marble Canyon (scheduled to be repeat-mapped in 2016) 

(lead author Kaplinski). 

 Report/journal article on geomorphic changes in upper Marble Canyon, 2013 to 2016 

(lead author Grams). 

 Report/journal article on long-term trends at the sandbar monitoring sites (joint product 

with 3.1.1 and 3.1.4) (lead author Hazel). 

 Report/journal article on the use low frequency sonars to estimate sand thicknesses below 

the surface (lead author Buscombe). 

Project Element 3.3. Characterizing, and Predictive Modeling, of Sandbar Response at Local and Reach Scales 

Erich Mueller, Research Hydrologist, USGS, GCMRC

Mark Schmeeckle, Professor, Arizona State University

Daniel Buscombe, Research Geologist, USGS, GCMRC

Paul Grams, Research Hydrologist, USGS, GCMRC

Charles Yackulic, Research Statistician, USGS, GCMRC 

David Varyu, Hydraulic Engineer, Bureau of Reclamation 

Graduate Student

Objectives 

1. Develop groupings of sandbars based on existing measurements of sandbar response and 

the geometry of fan-eddy complexes. Grouping sandbars that function similarly will 

allow us to use these groupings to model generalized eddy hydraulics and 

morphodynamics (two-way feedbacks between morphology and flow) as part of 

Objective 2 and document statistically the physical factors most important to different 

sandbar behaviors for the empirical parametric model in Objective 3.

2. Continue the development and testing of a 3-dimensional large-eddy simulation (LES) 

model for coupled streamflow, sediment transport, and sandbar morphodynamics in 

eddies, and link the numerical LES modeling of eddies with large-scale statistical 

characterization of eddies. 

3. Develop a statistical model that links channel geometry with flow (driven by simple, 

measurable physical parameters) and predicts average behavior of individual, or 

groupings of, sandbars. 

Hypotheses/Questions 

1. What are the typical sandbar morphologies associated with specific fan, channel, and 

eddy geometries? Can we develop groupings of bars from a synthesis of existing data sets 

on sandbar form and dynamics? We hypothesize that different fan-channel-eddy 

geometries are a primary driver of the observed differences in sandbar behavior in 

response to different flows (section C.3., question 3). 

2. Are differences in sandbar response driven by the topographic boundary conditions of a 

given reach, or more strongly linked to flow and sediment supply boundary conditions? 

We hypothesize that topography is at least as important as sediment concentration in 

sandbar response to different flows. We will use a topographically flexible form of the 3-

dimensional LES model to assess the dominant controls among sites (section C.3., 

question 3). 
133 

3. How can we parameterize metrics of sandbar size and change statistically or semimechanistically to serve as the basis for a predictive model for average or aggregate 

sandbar responses to future flows? Can we predict the response of individual bars, or 

groupings of bars that behave similarly, using a comparable modeling approach? We 

hypothesize that statistical approaches can be used to model sandbar response to different 

flow scenarios with increasing sophistication given results from objectives 1 and 2 

(section C.3., questions 2 and 3). 

Rationale/Justification 

Characterizing and predicting sandbar response to varying flow and sediment inputs over 

long reaches or at individual sites, based on mechanistic or empirical models, has long been a 

desired research and management goal. Continued advances in computational efficiency 

combined with long-term data on sandbar and channel morphology collected as part of the 

monitoring program, allows us to advance our understanding of eddy sandbar dynamics beyond 

what has previously been achieved. The long-term monitoring data includes more than two 

decades of sandbar measurements (Project Element 3.1.1), topographic measurements of the full 

river channel for long reaches (Project Element 3.2), measurements of sandbar grain size (Project 

Element 3.2), remote camera images (Project Element 3.1.1), remotely-sensed data of sandbar 

distributions throughout the CRe (Project Element 3.1.2), and more than a decade of sediment 

flux monitoring (Project 2).The work proposed in this project element is motivated by several 

observations: (a) both immediate sandbar response to HFEs, and longer-term response to 

intervening dam operations, differ among eddies, sometimes over very short distances where 

discharge and sediment supply conditions are likely similar; (b) this difference in sandbar 

response must result from spatial differences in the coupled hydraulic and sediment transport 

processes that result in differing rates of erosion of, and/or deposition on, sandbars during 

different discharges and sediment supply conditions; and (c) understanding differences in 

sandbar responses may be made more tractable by generalizing responses into groupings of bars 

based on fan, channel, and eddy geometries. The latter of these provides a basis for 

understanding how much a change in river geometry influences sandbar depositional and 

erosional processes. In this proposal, we approach this problem spatially by comparing measured 

sandbar response to the characteristics of different fan-eddy complexes throughout the river 

corridor. 

Sandbars in Marble and Grand Canyon are formed primarily in zones of recirculating current 

(eddies) downstream from channel constrictions created by debris fans at the mouths of tributary 

drainages (Howard and Dolan, 1981; Schmidt, 1990; Schmidt and Graf; 1990; Melis, 1997). The 

interaction between stream flow and channel topography is the dominant control on flow 

hydraulics in rivers, and, in turn, the interaction of flow hydraulics with the bed sediment causes 

sediment transport and patterns of erosion and deposition. Thus, the location of, and 

morphodynamic changes to, eddy sandbars is strongly dictated by interactions of the river’s flow 

with coarse-grained debris fan deposits. There is a wide range in eddy sandbar response to 

different dam operations and to floods (Schmidt and Graf, 1990; Beus and others, 1992; Hazel 

and others, 1999; Hazel and others, 2010; Schmidt and Grams, 2011). This variability may 

reflect sampling design, differences in reach-scale sand supply, or a difference in hydraulic 

characteristics among eddies. Recently, Grams and others (2013) showed that local variability in 

sediment storage in short (2.7 – 4.7 km long) reaches is at least as large as the variability 

between reaches in Marble Canyon. They conclude that, because sediment supply conditions are 
134 

likely not changing appreciably over short reaches, local flow hydraulics are the dominant factor 

causing differences in response. For example at some sites, sand storage increases with 

discharge, and at others sand storage decreases with discharge (Fig. 11). There is no downstream 

trend favoring one type of site behavior, and sites very near each other may show the opposite 

correlation with discharge (Fig. 11). 

Figure 11. Left) Changes in observed total sand storage as a function of recent discharge for two of the long-term 

monitoring sites. Right) Downstream trends in the correlation coefficient, R, of the discharge-sediment storage relations. 

Positive (negative) values indicate increases (decreases) in sediment storage with discharge; closed (open) squares are 

locations where the regression is (is not) significant. 

The work of Grams and others (2013) and the results shown in Figure 11 suggest that local 

differences in flow hydraulics are likely to be a dominant factor influencing how site-scale fine 

sediment storage changes in response to changing discharge conditions, but do not link these 

differences among sites directly to feedbacks between fan-eddy geometry and channel 

hydraulics. Thus, the purpose of Objective 1 is to link the observed measurements of sandbar 

change to topographic, hydraulic, or geomorphic metrics of the larger fan-eddy complexes, 

which then can be used to develop groupings of eddy sandbars that are functionally similar. 

Previous researchers have described several metrics of fan, channel, and eddy characteristics 

(e.g. Schmidt, 1990; Schmidt and Graf, 1990; Melis, 1997; Hazel and others, 2010). For the 

channel, these include the constriction ratio, expansion ratio, recirculation zone length, 

constriction length or total length of the rapid, eddy size, stage change with discharge, 

divergence angle or jet angle (Fig. 12), water surface slope, and changes in depth between the 

constriction and expansion. Several other metrics describe the geometry of the fans impinging on 

the channel, including fan spacing, fan shape, and fan height (Schmidt and Graf, 1990; Melis and 

others, 1995; Melis, 1997). The size and occurrence of sandbars is also related to changes in 

canyon width caused by changes in river-level bedrock (Schmidt and Graf, 1990). These changes 

in canyon width often co-occur with changes in the characteristics and distribution of debris fans 

impinging the flow of the river (Melis, 1997), and provide a framework for aggregating 

individual site scale data (Schmidt and Grams, 2011). Preliminary results (P. Grams, unpublished 

data) show that there is no simple correlation between measured changes in sandbar volume and 

many of these parameters. Because previous attempts at grouping sandbar response have not 

worked adequately, more robust statistical methods or new metrics are needed to define possible 

empirical relationships that can be linked to river processes. 
135 

Metrics of fan, channel, and eddy geometry or other hydrologic parameters that relate to 

changes in sandbar size provide proxies for changes in flow hydraulics and sediment transport 

processes in fan-eddy complexes. In Objective 2, we propose to link differences in topographic 

boundary conditions to sandbar response using a large eddy simulation (LES) model; LES is a 

mathematical technique that allows large-scale turbulence to be directly computed in numerical 

hydrodynamic models. Work currently in progress (FY13–14 Project Element A.3) includes 

development of a new 3-dimensional LES model for flow and sediment transport in eddies of the 

Colorado River. The hydraulic (streamflow) component of the model has been validated 

(Alvarez and others, 2013; Alvarez and others, in prep.). More recently, components that allow 

for computation of sediment transport and bed morphodynamics have been added to the model. 

The LES approach has revealed the importance of using both a three-dimensional and timedependent model in lateral separation eddies. The model shows that the difference in direction of 

surface and near-bed flow vectors and low-frequency variation of the strength of the eddy 

recirculation current are key features necessary to model the import and export of sediment from 

sandbars. Work is in progress to use the validated flow model in a topographically-flexible form 

to evaluate the effect of differences in channel geometry on temporal and spatial patterns of 

sandbar deposition and erosion. From our empirical analysis relating sandbar form and change to 

fan-channel-eddy geometry (Objective 1), we intend to develop groupings of sites that can be 

modeled using the flexible form of the LES model. The LES modeling will therefore elucidate 

the flow hydraulics and sediment transport processes important to different sandbar behaviors. 

The last goal of this project is to develop a more generalized predictive model for average or 

aggregate sandbar responses to future flows (Objective 3). This is a challenging goal for a river 

corridor as long and varied as the Grand Canyon, thus progress is incremental, but would be of 

great use for resource management. Previous efforts to model individual or aggregate sandbar 

response have had mixed success. Models for streamflow and sediment transport for individual 

eddies have been used to successfully evaluate the rate of sandbar deposition during high flows 

(Wiele and others, 1999) or following tributary inputs (Wiele and others, 1996). More recently, 

Wiele and others (2007) constructed a reach-averaged model for streamflow, sediment transport, 

and sandbar response. This model used 1-dimensional flow and sediment transport relations to 

predict downstream changes in sediment mass balance to drive sandbar erosion and deposition. 

The processes of sandbar erosion and deposition were based on empirical relations with flow and 

eddy properties derived from 2-dimensional model outputs from a subset of eddies. The model 

results generally agreed with measurements of sand flux and suspended sediment grain size, but 

consistently under-predicted the magnitudes of sandbar response, evaluated against that 

measured at the long-term monitoring sites. An advantage of the approach used in the Wiele and 

others (2007) model is that it is physically based. A disadvantage is that it does not provide a 

means to predict the response of individual bars or groupings of bars that may be of interest to 

managers. Another modeling approach was developed for the analyses of the LTEMP EIS 

alternatives that is highly empirical and is parameterized with the observed sandbar volume data. 

This approach matches the overall trend in the sandbar volume data series, but suffers from a 

parameterization whose physical meaning is unclear, and seeks to model all sandbars as a single 

representative sandbar for all of Marble Canyon. 

While the approaches above address the problem from different perspectives, neither 

approach allows for a prediction of the behavior of individual bars, nor groupings of similar bars, 

to different flow and sediment supply scenarios. This simplification has been made because (1) 

we lacked the information necessary to address variability among the many different sandbars 
136 

and, (2) we lacked a reasonable means to extend modeling efforts to the many sandbars for 

which no monitoring information was available. For example, Wiele and others (2007) used data 

through 2004 in their model, and the availability of many new data sets in the subsequent decade 

will allow us to develop a more data-driven model of sandbar response for either individual bars, 

or groupings of similar bars. These data sets include suspended sediment monitoring 

(http://www.gcmrc.gov/discharge_qw_sediment/), the Wright and others (2010) shifting rating 

curve model of sand transport, bathymetric surveys of the channel bed (Kaplinski and others, 

2014), surveys of sandbar volumes (Hazel and others, 2008), an extensive time series of remote 

camera images of sandbar change (http://www.gcmrc.gov/gis/sandbartour2013/index.html), and 

remotely sensed data from the entire CRe (Project Element 3.1.2). Furthermore, results from our 

empirical analysis of sandbar groupings and from the three-dimension LES modeling will allow 

for a more robust characterization of the functional form of process-response relationships 

important to sandbar deposition and erosion. For example, can we use the long-term sandbar 

surveys to develop robust relationships between sandbar volume and area, which could be used 

to extend modeling efforts to sandbars that have only been characterized with aerial photos? Can 

we improve functional relations between discharge or eddy characteristics and magnitudes of 

sandbar erosion and deposition, building on the work of Wiele and others (1999, 2007)? 

While a collection of sites have been monitored for almost 25 years, these represent only a 

very limited subset of all sandbars which may not be representative of the dynamics of all bars 

(hence Project Elements 3.1.2 and 3.1.3). Thus, if a parametric (data-driven) model is based on 

the data from, but is designed to apply to more than these few sites, it must include some 

provision for extrapolating to a larger number of sandbars without being overly sensitive to the 

specifics of any given bar. What limits an ad hoc approach to this scaling is the diversity in 

sandbar responses to the same flow and sediment conditions, owing to complex relationships 

among sandbar morphology and streamflow, suspended sediment concentration, bed sediment 

grain size, fixed channel geometry, and existing sandbar morphology. Objective 2 allows us to 

address these different factors mechanistically using the LES model, while Objectives 1 and 3 

will allow us to develop more sophisticated approaches using our growing body of information 

to build a more generalized statistical or semi-mechanistic model of sandbar response to high 

flows and intervening flows over event- to decadal-timescales, building on the work of previous 

scientists. Objective 3 will include collaboration with Bureau of Reclamation staff that 

developed the empirical model for the LTEMP EIS. 

Methods 

Objective 1: 

In the first phase of our analysis, we will identify groupings of sandbars based on 

morphological properties and temporal response to different flow regimes using the long-term 

sandbar data set. As a first step, we will group those sandbars that exhibit similar discharge-tosandbar-volume relationships (Fig. 11); for example, those sites that show positive, neutral, or 

negative relationships would form the initial groupings. We will also use a statistical clustering 

(dimensionality reduction) approach on sandbar metrics such as volume, area, thickness, slope, 

planform shape metrics, concavity, and grain size, and/or the persistence and time-derivatives of 

these quantities to determine whether these metrics allow for additional groupings (or clusters) of 

bars. Once we have established different bar groupings, we will use a statistical Analysis of 

Variance (AnoVa) technique to determine which hydrologic or geomorphic metrics separate the 
137 

groups. Many of these metrics (listed above) have already been determined for many of the faneddy complexes that are part of the long-term sandbar data set (e.g. Schmidt and Graf, 1990; 

Hazel and others, 2010), and we will formalize a database with these metrics for each sandbar 

site. This will include defining these metrics where they do not exist, and developing new 

metrics for each site. Previous researchers had only limited data on the topographic form of the 

submerged portion of the channel bed, which must be an important control on flow hydraulics in 

the eddy recirculation zone, and is a primary input into the LES model of Objective 2. Thus, new 

metrics will include those developed from detailed measurements of the full river channel 

topography over long reaches collected over the last decade and continuing in Project Element 

3.2. For example, we can define metrics of topographic relief between pools and adjacent 

recirculation eddies (Fig. 3.12a). Once we have a complete database of sandbar and fan-channeleddy metrics, we can analyze the data set systematically for statistically significant relationships. 

For sites where the full reach channel mapping has been repeated, such as lower Marble 

Canyon, we can assess whether the groupings developed from the long-term NAU sandbar 

monitoring sites are appropriate for aggregating sandbar behavior in longer reaches. In addition, 

Project Element 3.1.2 will provide a comprehensive “large eddy dataset” of sand area and 

volume in 2002, 2009, and 2013 for 1300 eddies throughout the river corridor using remote 

sensing; a base map of geomorphic deposit types, including debris fans, eddies, and sandbars, 

will also be created. These data will initially be used to assess the representativeness of the NAU 

sandbar sites, in terms of sandbar area and volume or changes in these quantities, for different 

geomorphic reaches throughout the river corridor. Depending on the outcome of the sandbar 

grouping analysis at the NAU sites, these data may also be used to extrapolate or validate these 

groupings for long reaches based on fan, channel, or eddy characteristics and corresponding 

sandbar characteristics. 

The outcome of this objective will feed into the next objective, which is to investigate the 

generalized flow hydraulics and sediment transport processes associated with the different 

groupings of eddy sandbar types. We will relate differences in measured channel geometry 

among sites to the identified sandbar groupings. We will then incorporate several generic 

channel geometries into the LES model that are representative of the major sandbar groupings. 

This will allow us to link the topographic boundary conditions (as determined by channel 

geometry) to processes of erosion and deposition in eddies, and compare these results to the 

observed changes in sandbar size and shape. Together, the results from Objectives 1 and 2 will 

provide insight into the important physical processes and their functional forms for incorporation 

into Objective 3. 

Objective 2: 

The goal of this effort is a physically-based numerical model capable of predicting sandbar 

size (area and volume) and morphology (shape) given routinely measured or modeled 

streamflow characteristics, suspended sediment supply, and sandbar configuration. Because of 

the temporal and/or spatial resolution of the required inputs and high computational demands of 

this model, it is not expected to be a suitable operational model for all sandbars in Grand 

Canyon. Rather, it will be a tool to help understand the interactions amongst the suite of driving 

variables and processes of sandbar response at selected sites, and will allow ranking of these 

variables and processes by their relative importance. In order to generalize the model to 

characteristic sites, we will use the data compilation and analysis in Objective 1. This 
138 

information will then be used to refine a more generalized empirical or statistical model for 

sandbar response applicable to all sandbars in Grand Canyon (Objective 3). 

Large Eddy Simulation (LES) is a computationally intensive modeling technique in which 

turbulence larger than the scale of the grid is directly calculated by the equations of fluid motion. 

Current parallel algorithms employed on supercomputers are now able to perform simulations of 

turbulence and suspended sediment transport on grid spacing of a meter or less when applied to 

Grand Canyon fan-eddy complexes (Alvarez and Schmeeckle, 2013). The LES model developed 

for Grand Canyon eddies simultaneously solves for the turbulent flow field and the suspended 

sediment concentration field by solving the three-dimensional, time-dependent sediment 

concentration continuity equation. The flow and suspended sediment has very recently been 

coupled with a morphodynamic model based on the rate of erosion or deposition predicted by the 

model. The morphodynamic model also utilizes a bed mixing depth model to evolve the grain 

sizes available for transport from the bed. 

Figure 12. a) General topography of an eddy and b) geometric parameters influencing flow hydraulics. 

Figure 12a shows general topographic features of a lateral recirculation eddy. Figure 12b 

shows a subset of possible geometric parameters that may be found to be important in the 

groupings determined by Objective 1. A generic grid will be formed and the geometric 

parameters of each bar group from Objective 1 will be used to form a synthetic grid that 

corresponds to each bar group. The LES flow and suspended sediment model will be conducted 

on each bar group synthetic grid. We will focus attention on the key flow features for import and 

export of sediment from the lateral eddy zone to test our Hypothesis/Question 2 that different 

sandbar responses to similar sediment and water discharges are the result of specific topographic 

boundary conditions. 

 
139 

Objective 3: 

We will use existing field and remotely sensed data sets, which include coupled (concurrent 

and co-located) observations of sandbar response and hydrology, to develop a data-driven model 

of sandbar response to HFEs and other flow regimes. This model will predict the generalized 

response of a given sandbar (sandbar volume and/or area) and/or groups of similar bars 

(Objective 1) given inputs of routinely measured or modeled flow and sediment parameters, and 

measured or modeled (depending on availability at a given model time step) sandbar parameters. 

The model will be empirical (as opposed to the mechanistic model of Objective 2), and 

calibrated and validated with existing long-term sandbar monitoring data. The applicability of 

the model beyond the monitoring data on which it is built will be evaluated using data from the 

channel mapping projects (Project Element 3.2.), the remote sensing of sandbars (Project 

Element 3.1.2.), the remote camera element of the sandbar monitoring program (Project Element 

3.1.1), and the rapid survey project (3.1.3). 

Our modeling approach is to begin simply, and incorporate complexity as results from 

Objectives 1 and 2 allow us to refine our understanding of the key physical processes. First, we 

will use an empirical statistical approach to model sandbar response for individual bars and for 

groupings of bars (Objective 1). This work will proceed concurrently with Objective 1 in 

collaboration with David Varyu of the BOR, who developed a generalized empirical model for 

the average behavior of all sandbars in Marble Canyon for the LTEMP EIS. Our initial approach 

will use a simple parametric model of individual or grouped sandbar response. Examples include 

a multiple regression approach, a mixed-effects model, or a model based on statistical 

unsupervised learning methods that is trained on the existing data set. The latter approach finds 

parameters based on statistical principles such as minimizing variance, but which have 

defensible physical meaning. Using results from Objectives 1 and 2, we will attempt to develop a 

more sophisticated statistical model that is based on calibrated physical parameters derived from 

physical principles and understanding and empirically-derived response rates. This approach 

could include re-application of the Wiele and others (2007) approach using the new data sets 

collected in the last decade if practicable in light of results from the preceding approaches. For 

example, we can develop empirical relations between (1) eddy properties and rates of sandbar 

erosion or deposition for different discharge conditions (e.g. Wiele and others, 2007), (2) 

between sandbar volume or mass balance (erosion or deposition) and flow/sediment transport 

parameters (e.g. Fig. 11), or (3) between sandbar mass balance and the morphological 

characteristics of those bars in deficit, and those in surplus, over specific periods. 

For Objectives 1 and 3, we intend to focus initially on lower Marble Canyon, where there is a 

higher density of long-term monitoring sandbar sites, repeat bathymetric surveys from channel 

mapping campaigns in 2009 and 2012, and a complete geomorphic base map of channel 

characteristics and geomorphic units (P.E. Grams, unpublished data). We will then test the 

applicability of applying the data-driven empirical model to upper Marble Canyon and different 

segments of Grand Canyon. Field surveys in reaches outside of lower Marble Canyon, combined 

with Canyon-wide remote sensing data, will allow us to document the longitudinal occurrence of 

different eddy sandbar types, and provide a validation data set to test applicability of the model. 

We also expect that the spatially rich, remotely-sensed data will be important for providing 

insight into improving the approach described here for longer reaches or in other segments of the 

CRe. 

Outcomes and Products – FY15 
140 

 Development of the sandbar groupings and database of fan-channel-eddy metrics 

(Objective 1)

 Development and implementation of “flexible” version of LES model compared with 

measured sandbar response in different sandbar groupings (Objectives 1 and 2)

Outcomes and Products – FY16 

 Presentation at annual reporting meeting on results of linking the generalized sandbar 

groupings (Objective 1) with the topographically-flexible LES model (Objective 2) 

 Develop a simple statistical, parametric model of sandbar response to HFEs and 

intervening flows (Objective 3) 

 Report/journal article on generalized sandbar groupings from morphological 

characteristics of the channel and bars and/or results from the “flexible” LES model (lead 

author Mueller) 

Outcomes and Products – FY17 

 Presentation at annual reporting meeting integrating the statistical and LES modeling 

approaches to understand spatial and temporal variations in sandbar dynamics 

 Continue refining the parametric model (Objective 3), with the potential for developing a 

semi-mechanistic model incorporating results from Objectives 1 and 2 

 Report/journal article on statistical sandbar model to predict sandbar response using the 

monitoring data set (lead author Mueller) 

 Report/journal article on coupled flow and morphodynamic LES model of Grand Canyon 

sandbars (lead author Schmeeckle) 

Project Element 3.4. Connecting total sand transport, bed morphodynamics, and sand budgets in Grand 

Canyon 

Brandon McElroy, Assistant Professor, University of Wyoming 

Daniel Buscombe, Research Geologist, USGS, GCMRC 

Paul Grams, Research Hydrologist, USGS, GCMRC 

David Rubin, Professor, University of California at Santa Cruz 

David Topping, Research Hydrologist, USGS, GCMRC 

Graduate Student 

Objectives 

1. Carry out repeat high-resolution bathymetric and flow-field surveys over sand bedform 

fields in select reaches, over a range of discharges, including a controlled flood (Wright 

and Kaplinski, 2011) and flows associated with routine dam operations. 

2. Use these data to estimate bedload and bed sand fluxes associated with the deformation 

and migration of bedforms by applying, and modifying where necessary, existing 

numerical techniques and theory. 

3. Determine a bedload 'rating curve' which relates sand flux as bedload with routinely 

measured flow and sediment quantities (discharge, or suspended sand flux, or both). 

4. Use the rating curve in conjunction with a discharge model to estimate a total bedmaterial sand mass balance for Marble Canyon and eastern Grand Canyon (stations at 
141 

RM 30, RM 61, and RM 87), combining estimates of sand bedload flux with sand 

suspended flux to enable estimation of total sand transport, system-wide and nearly 

continuous in time. 

5. Develop a conceptual 'bed state indicator' model relating bedforms in a given reach 

classified by their morphology and sedimentology to the surplus or otherwise of sand in 

the bed, and therefore the propensity of the bed in that reach to contribute sand for 

sandbar building during controlled floods. 

6. Examine the two-way feedbacks between evolving bedform fields and spatial 

distributions of flow and sediment concentrations, in order to better understand the 

potential time-varying importance of bedload sand flux. This is necessary to estimate the 

representativeness of suspended sediment measurements for bed sand flux estimates at 

discrete locations. 

Questions / Hypotheses 

1. What is the contribution of bedload to time-integrated sand flux in the Colorado River in 

Grand Canyon? How does this vary with discharge, suspended sand load, hydraulic 

geometry, and bed sediment grain size? We hypothesize that the fraction of sand moving 

as bedload varies inversely with discharge above the suspension threshold (e.g. Maddock, 

1976), positively with bend radius and channel width, and positively with grain size. 

(relates to Section C.3, Question 6)

2. Does bedload flux scale with suspended sand flux? We hypothesize that (1) bedload sand 

flux varies non-linearly with suspended sand flux, because the presence of bedforms 

enhances local sediment suspension by adding form drag to total bed shear stress 

(Einstein, 1950); and (2) the importance of incorrectly estimating bedload sand flux 

increases at low discharges and transport stages. (relates to Section C.3, Question 6)

3. Can reach-scale estimates of sand flux and sediment mass balance improve with direct 

quantification of the contribution of bedload transport, using routinely measured 

quantities at gaging sites (discharge, suspended sediment concentration and grain size)? 

We hypothesize that more robust parameterization of bedload flux will enable partial if 

not complete accounting for discrepancies between morphologic and suspended sediment 

based estimates of sand mass balance. (relates to Section C.3, Question 6)

4. Can geometric and sedimentologic characters of bedforms be used as a 'bed state' 

indicator? What bedforms (if any) indicate sediment-starved beds, and what (if any) 

represent significant stores of sand that could be re-mobilized during controlled floods to 

build sandbars? We hypothesize that certain bedform shapes and grain sizes are 

indicative of thin veneers of sand, and others indicate thick sand bed deposits. The use of 

bedform classification (geometric characteristics and sedimentology) is common in field 

and experimental settings to indicate the presence or otherwise of a starved sand bed. For 

example, the existence of 'sand stripes' indicate relatively starved bed conditions (Grams 

and Wilcock, 2007), as do dunes with coarse underlying sediment exposed in the troughs. 

High amplitude dunes with more regular geometries indicate areas with a surplus of sandsized sediment. (relates to Section C.3, Questions 4 and 6)
142 

5. Do evolving bedform fields alter hydraulic conditions and suspended sediment 

concentrations? We hypothesize that, for a given flow field and upstream suspended 

sediment supply, an evolving bedform field alters the spatial distribution of total bed 

shear stress sufficiently, through form drag, to alter the concentration and spatial 

distribution of suspended sand. This is manifest as non-equilibrium responses in the 

distribution of sand flux between bedload suspended load, calculated using Einstein’s 

(1950) shear stress partitioning method with skin frictions estimated from known grain 

sizes. (relates to Section C.3, Question 6)

Rationale/Justification 

By measuring and parameterizing bedload sand flux (the rate of flow of the mass of sediment 

per unit area), this project will contribute to the sediment monitoring program as an important 

component of both flux-based and morphologic-based estimates of sand mass balance in Marble 

and Grand Canyons (Grams and others, 2013). This project has the potential to substantially 

improve estimates of mobile sand volumes that are available for sandbar construction during 

controlled floods within a specific reach. 

The method with the highest potential for spatially explicit estimates of bedload sand flux 

over large areas (100s to 1000s of square meters) is through the time-evolution of bed 

topography in entire pools (up to 1 km in length) captured at a time scale of hours to days. From 

the pioneering work of Bagnold (1941) and Simons and others (1965), fluxes of bed sediment 

have been directly tied to the migration of idealized triangular mobile bedforms. These early 

techniques have been modified to suit application in large rivers (e.g. Mississippi River, 

Nittrouer and others, 2008; Missouri River, Gaueman and Jacobson, 2007, and Abraham and 

others, 2010) where bedforms are not idealized shapes, and where bedforms deform as they 

migrate. McElroy and Morhig (2009) proposed an extension to these methods that captures all 

bed-sediment flux through analyzing the evolution of sand bedforms. This relatively new method 

has not yet been systematically tested on numerous river systems, but there is some support for it 

with existing data (McElroy and Abraham, 2010). The sediment monitoring and channel 

mapping programs combine to provide a unique opportunity to carry out a robust test of existing 

methods, by coupling spatially explicit measurements of bedform evolution with detailed 

measurements of suspended bed sand fluxes. We propose to capitalize on the following recent 

advances to connect suspended sand fluxes to bedload sand fluxes and, in combination, the sand 

budget in Grand Canyon. 

First, it is now possible to measure bathymetry using MBES with extremely high resolution 

(cm), high accuracy (cm), and high precision (cm). Second, recent advances have been made in 

estimating bed-sediment surface grain-size using MBES acoustic backscatter. Third, it is now 

possible to measure and record the acoustic scattering signature of sediments suspended in the 

water while mapping bathymetry (Hughes-Clarke, 2006), opening up the possibility of 

quantifying spatial heterogeneity in suspended sediment concentrations (Jones, 2003; Simmons 

and others, 2010). We are therefore close to being able to measure bathymetry, bed sediment 

grain size and suspended sediment concentration simultaneously with the same instrument, and 

with no additional field time. These advances will be applied to estimating bedload and bed load 

sand flux using repeat surveys over bedform fields. 

We know that not all sand in the Colorado River moves through Grand Canyon in 

suspension; some near-bed transport occurs below the detection of acoustic suspended sediment 

samplers. Current acoustic sediment monitoring (Project 2) captures the suspended sand flux but 
143 

not the flux of sand that moves as bedload. Instead, bedload sand flux is estimated as the same 

constant proportion of suspended sand flux at each gage station (Topping and others, 2010). The 

percentage used (typically 5 percent; Fig. 13a) is an estimate based on limited field observations. 

This practice is based on a study by Rubin and others (2001) who used measurements of bedform 

wavelength made by rotating side-scan sonar in eddies, estimates of bedform height, and point 

measurements of suspended sediment concentration to estimate that bedload was approximately 

5 percent and 0.3 percent of total sand flux at the 61-mile and Grand Canyon gages, respectively. 

This represents two point measurements over a 20-m circular section of channel bottom over 10-

20 hours during a discharge of about 20,000 ft3

/s. 

Based on those data, there are substantial uncertainties surrounding the present use of a 

constant proportion of suspended sand flux as an estimate for bedload flux. For example, what 

are the spatial variabilities of bedload flux? How do the controls and rates of bedload differ 

between the main channel (not measured by Rubin and others, 2001) and eddies, which are 

fundamentally different flow regimes? Is bedload flux always in phase with discharge and/or 

suspended flux, or is there some time-lag or hysteresis effect in place due to the deformation 

and/or migration of bedforms? What are the feedbacks between evolving bedform fields, and 

fields of flow velocity and suspended sediment concentrations? What is the effect of bed 

sediment grain size distribution on bedform movement and therefore bedload flux? Bedload sand 

flux is not likely to be larger than ~10 percent of the suspended sand flux. However, variations 

between ~1 percent and ~10 percent of the suspended flux are possible, both temporally and 

between gages. These variations could significantly affect computed sand budgets. For example, 

if bedload sand flux is ~1 percent at one station and ~10 percent at another station, this adds ~10 

percent possible bias to the sand budget for the intervening river segment if bedload fluxes are 

erroneously assumed to be equal at both stations. Using the sediment budget tool on the GCMRC 

website (Lower Marble Canyon, May 2009 to May 2012) this could mean the difference of a 

budget that is -800,000 metric tons with uncertainty range of -1,100,000 to -490,000 metric tons 

to a budget that is -800,000 metric tons with uncertainty range of -1,700,000 to +100,000 metric 

tons. The 10 percent potential bias in the bedload flux adds substantially to the uncertainty in the 

estimated sand budget. Thus, until we have a better understanding of these processes, the 

application of a universal linear relationship between suspended and bedload sand fluxes (Fig. 

13a) will continue to add potentially substantial uncertainties to total sand fluxes in Grand 

Canyon. We hypothesize that the proportion of total sand load moving as bedload varies with 

flow strength (discharge; Fig. 13b). 

 Figure 13. Schematic of how the relative proportions of bed material load (total load minus wash load) change with 

increasing flow strength. Two scenarios are presented: (a) represents the current assumption that bedload is a constant 

proportion of bed material load; and (b) depicts the new hypothesis to be tested in this study that the proportion of bed 

material load moving as bedload is a function of flow strength. 
144 

One of the goals that we propose is to significantly expand the dataset on which the 

conclusions of Rubin and others (2001) are based. Primarily this includes: (1) measuring 

bedform geometry (wavelengths and heights) more accurately (using MBES rather than sidescan 

sonar), over a larger area, and in both the main channel and eddies; (2) observing the evolution 

of that geometry over a greater range of flow conditions and at sites which are specifically tied 

into the existing suspended sediment monitoring program; (3) measuring the surface grain size of 

sand comprising the bedforms; and (4) using recent theoretical understanding and computational 

advances in estimating bedload flux from high-resolution bathymetries (McElroy and Mohrig, 

2009). 

We will integrate our field measurements with ongoing work to maximize the utility of the 

project. Primary connections will be made with two other projects, namely (1) suspended 

sediment monitoring, and (2) acoustic bed sediment classification. Underwater video has 

revealed the existence of gravel troughs between sand bedforms, as well as small dunes in mixed 

sand-gravel substrates. In addition, there is anecdotal evidence dunes composed entirely of 

gravel exist on the bed of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon. Using MBES acoustic 

backscatter, Buscombe and others (in review) have developed methods which will allow us to 

distinguish bedforms between different substrate types (homogeneous sand, mixed sand and 

gravel, and homogeneous gravel). 

Methods 

This study will be achieved primarily using repeat MBES and ADCP surveys. The MBES 

will provide bathymetric maps, as well as maps of surface bed sediment type at the same 

resolution, and full water column backscatter measurements for visualizing the 3D suspended 

sediment field. The ADCP will provide measurements of flow velocity fields. Repeat mapping of 

the riverbed using MBES has been shown to be able to capture the migration and deformation of 

sand dunes over short time scales (hours to days) during a controlled flood (Wright and 

Kaplinski, 2011; also Fig. 14). The MBES system currently in use allows better resolution of the 

bed morphology, therefore a smaller threshold of change detection. We anticipate that capturing 

the same degree of mobility under regular flows from normal dam operations would take several 

days to a week. 
145 

Figure 14. Evolution of the bed at Eminence during the 2008 HFE (data from Wright and Kaplinski, 2011) showing 

significant bed deformation and migration of bedforms over the timescale of hours to days. 

In year 1, we propose to conduct this work in the pool immediately upstream from the water 

and sediment gaging station at RM 61, upstream from the confluence with the Little Colorado 

River and within Natal Origins Reach 4. In order to maximize the efficiency of the fieldwork, 

and minimize costs, this work will be conducted in conjunction with a Natal Origins field trip. 

This site has been mapped using MBES-derived bathymetry in May 2009, May 2012, August 

2013, and May 2014. A well-developed bedform field is present (Fig. 15). We propose to map 

the same bedform fields repeatedly as many times as possible during a week, in conjunction with 

ADCP measurements along multiple transects, which have been shown to adequately 

characterize the near-bed velocity flow field responsible for mobilizing and transporting 

sediment as bedload under varying discharges. This intensive repeat mapping and sampling of an 

entire ~1 mile reach, near an existing long-term gaging site, and during multiple days with a 

range of flows, is the best strategy for compiling enough data to answer the suite of scientific 

questions posed above. Bedload fluxes will be estimated by applying to the MBES-derived data 

a suite of existing techniques, principally the migration of bedforms based on the Exner equation 

(Simons and others, 1965); cross-correlation of bedform crest locations (Engel and Lau, 1980; 

Duffy and Hughes-Clarke, 2005) and a hybrid method which purports to quantify both flux 

associated with bedform migration and bedform deformation (changes in shape) (McElroy and 

Mohrig, 2009). 
146 

Figure 15. Bathymetry (measured in May 2014) of the sediment gaging pool at RM61. Repeat surveys of this area (in May 

2009, May 2012, and August 2013) have revealed an active and consistently well-developed dune field. 

Bed sediment grain size will be estimated using the techniques of Buscombe and others (in 

review) using the MBES acoustic backscatter data (Fig. 10). The goal of connecting to this work 

is to allow for bedload fluxes to be determined as a function of bed sediment type. For example, 

distinguishing between sand and gravel dunes is important so migrating gravel dunes do not 

contribute to the sand mass balance. The relative proportions of mobile sand and lag coarse 

deposits in an entire dune field would be estimated by extrapolating from the areal proportion of 

those two sediment fractions at the surface, as measured using acoustic techniques. It will also 

provide insight into bed condition as a function of bed sediment transport. In addition, highresolution observations of bed sediment type are required to meet Objective 5 (bed state indicator 

model). Similarly, we will connect to ongoing efforts to monitor suspended sand loads (e.g. 

Topping and others, 2010). The major goal of this connection is to elucidate the extent to which 

sand is exchanged between bedload and suspended load volumes within and between individual 

flow events, within and between individual reaches, and at scales from individual bedforms to 

those relevant for calculating bed sand load. 

We also propose to collect full water-column imaging from MBES at discrete locations 

above dunes in conjunction with both physical samples of suspended sediment and the 15-minute 

acoustic suspended sediment time-series at the gauging station at RM 61. This creates the 

possibility of calibrating MBES acoustic backscatter for suspended sediment concentration, 

making possible the mapping, in 3D, of the time-integrated field (spatially static) of suspended 

sediment, using the methods detailed in Jones (2003) and Simmons and others, (2010). Such 

information is a requirement of Objective 6 and enables us to answer questions related to the 

interaction of an evolving bedform field with a spatially non-uniform flow and sediment field, 

and the representativeness of suspended sediment measurements at discrete locations. 

One of the outcomes of this project will be a test of the hypotheses described above. In doing 

so, we will generate a bedload sediment rating curve for the Colorado River in Grand Canyon 

based on routinely measured quantities (discharge and suspended sediment). This will lead to an 

informed methodology to account for bedload in sediment management operations and possibly 

to better understanding of the interaction between sandbars and bed load during low discharges. 
147 

We anticipate at least two major scientific products and at least one major management 

product. In addition, yearly reports and presentations at national-scale conferences will be 

produced. One scientific manuscript will deal exclusively with bed load fluxes through the Grand 

Canyon and its physical controlling factors. The second will focus on the relations between bed 

load and suspended load, and it will include a treatment of Grand Canyon sediment budgets 

including bedload. Finally, we will produce a document that makes recommendations for if and 

how to further incorporate bedload with sediment monitoring in the canyon. 

Outcomes and Products 

 Journal article on relation between bedload and suspended sediment load in the Colorado 

River (lead author Graduate Student). 

Project Element 3.5. Control Network and Survey Support 

Keith Kohl, Surveyor, USGS, GCMRC 

Objectives 

Ensure that all data collected in scientific investigations are correctly and consistently 

referenced to the National Spatial Reference System (NSRS) for reliable use in Geographical 

Information Systems (GIS). 

Rationale/Justification 

The overarching goal of this project element is to develop a sound process for establishing, 

maintaining, and verifying survey control in support of long-term monitoring within the CRE. 

Toward this end, GCMRC requires a control network and survey procedures that will yield 

reliable and consistent results now, while allowing for advances in theory and technology in the 

future. Importantly, the procedures must withstand changes in personnel that will inevitably 

occur over the life of the CRe monitoring programs. 

An accurate geodetic control network is required to support nearly every aspect of this 

project as well as most other GCMRC monitoring projects. The purpose of the control network is 

to ensure that spatial data acquired on all projects are collected with accurate and repeatable 

spatial reference. The control network is essential to enable comparison among data sets 

collected by different methods and ensure that spatially referenced observations are repeatable 

and that all data are documented and archived appropriately. Projects that are directly dependent 

on the control network include this project, all other projects that use system-wide airborne 

remote sensing, archeological site monitoring, and vegetation monitoring. The remote sensing 

work is particularly dependent on accurate control operations, without which image data could 

not be compared accurately with ground-based measurements. 

The control network is the set of monumented and documented reference points 

(benchmarks) that exist along the river corridor and on the rim together with the collection of 

observations that determine the relative and absolute positions of those points. Those points 

serve as the basis for referencing all ground- and air-based monitoring observations. Currently, 

the control network includes more than 7,000 GPS observations and more than 2,000 optical 

observations that determine the precise location of more than 1,300 benchmarks in the river 

corridor and on the canyon rim. This project includes work in three broad categories: (1) building 
148 

the control network, (2) direct support of research and monitoring activities, and (3) storage and 

archival of the control database. 

Combining conventional measurements (which reference gravity) with GPS measurements 

(which reference a geocentric ellipsoid) requires the reduction of field measurements to the 

ellipse. Variations of mass density will affect local gravity, deflection of the vertical, zenith 

angle measurements, and height determination. High-resolution geoid models set out to define 

these relationships. Identifying these interactionswithin the CRE is critical since diverse methods 

are used to determine positions, including remote sensing, conventional ground-based optical 

methods, Global Positioning System (GPS), and bathymetric surveys. 

Combining the results of these various methods to derive a consistent set of coordinates 

requires a detailed knowledge of how these coordinates are derived, as well as the accuracy of 

the derivation. Coordinates, datum descriptions, and accuracy results are provided in a format 

compatible with Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) delivery standards. 

Proposed Work: Control Network 

Primary tasks of building the control network include making GPS observations at new and 

existing benchmarks, and linking conventional traverses between the GPS monuments to 

determine positions and ellipsoid heights. Most segments of the river corridor now have a 

sufficient number of control points to support monitoring activities. 

Determining accurate elevations requires addressing the difference that exists between 

ellipsoid heights, which are determined by GPS observations, and orthometric elevations (i.e. 

NAVD88), which can be determined only by gravity measurements or precise leveling. The 

deviation between ellipsoid height and orthometric height is modeled in a hybrid geoid model 

(Geoid12a) which combines GPS observations, gravity and optical leveling. The deviation can 

be as large as 10 cm over a distance of 1 km and affects our ability to determine river slope and 

develop longitudinal profiles. This, in turn, affects the accuracy of streamflow models. The 

challenge of determining accurate elevations in rugged topography is a major focus of the 

National Geodetic Survey (NGS). We have been encouraging the NGS to conduct a campaign of 

gravity measurements for the region; however, due to the remote location, low population, and 

difficult access, the geoid model in Marble and Grand Canyons is improving much slower than 

in high–use, populated areas. 

We have made progress with these challenges by incorporating existing leveling 

measurements into the control network. In FY13–14 this involved the publication in the NGS 

database of 1046 newly adjusted NAVD 88 benchmarks throughout Grand Canyon 

www.ngs.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/ds_proj.prl, Survey Project ID: L27947). In FY15, these data will be 

analyzed to compare GPS observations with historical leveling observations to better define the 

relation between GPS heights and orthometric heights and enable more accurate measurements 

of elevation. 

Additional leveling information is available in Glen Canyon, including a published level line 

with NAVD88 orthometric heights determined from differential leveling done in 1923 and 

adjusted by the NGS in 1992. In FY16, we will perform an analysis of the leveling data and 

evaluate height differences between previous and current control networks in Glen Canyon. The 

data provides an excellent opportunity to test the performance of both the hybrid geoid 

(Geoid12a) and the gravimetric geoid (USGG2012) in a steep canyon environment. Information 

gleaned from this study will be used to estimate elevation accuracies throughout the CRE. 
149 

A longitudinal profile study of the Colorado River through Glen, Marble, and Grand 

Canyons is scheduled for FY17. The study will use all available data to define the Colorado 

River water surface with accurate geodetic positions and elevations. Conventional traverse 

measurements will be used to evaluate geoid performance. 

Proposed Work: Support of Research and Monitoring Projects 

The two major projects that require survey support in 2015–2017 are the sandbar (Project 

Element 3.1) and sediment storage (Project Element 3.2) project elements and Project 4. The 

sandbar and sediment storage project elements described here rely on the accurate positions of 

hundreds of monuments to link measurements and confirm proper equipment setup and 

calibration. The topographic and bathymetric surfaces share the same datum and are referenced 

to the same monuments and coordinates as the remotely sensed data. The control network also 

supports remote sensing by determining the positions of well-defined points from independent 

sources of higher accuracy. This allows scientists and managers means to assess positional 

accuracy of data, maps, and products. 

The scope of this survey support project element is to assist other GCMRC projects with 

survey knowledge, control infrastructure and equipment as need arises. The expertise of the 

survey staff is used in many data collection efforts including collecting, processing, and 

delivering reference base station data for overflight missions and supporting Streamflow, Water 

Quality, and Sediment Transport project (Project 2), and the Vegetation Monitoring project 

(Project 11). GNSS basestations are published (bluebooked) within the National Geodetic Survey 

Integrated Database (NGSIDB) (National Geodetic Survey, 2012). The budget for personnel 

time required for the collection of field data and processing for specific projects is incorporated 

in each individual project element. 

Storage, Archival, and Documentation of the Control Network Database 

The control network data are stored in a Microsoft Access database that is linked with the 

GCMRC GIS database. The survey staff works with GIS staff to maintain and update the 

database as needed.   

Outcomes and Products – FY2015 

 Control network adjustment for RM 0 to 30 (contributes to product in Project 3.2). 

 Control network adjustment for eastern Grand Canyon (contributes to product in Project 

3.2). 

 Updates to the National Geodetic Survey Integrated Database (NGSIDB) of all available 

Height Modernization and Benchmark stations 
150 

Outcomes and Products – FY2016 

 Control network adjustment for Glen Canyon (contributes to product in Project 3.2). 

 Report/journal article on combining GPS observations and historical leveling data for 

more accurate elevations and updated geoid models (lead author Kohl). 

Outcomes and Products – FY2017 

 Control network adjustment for upper Marble Canyon (contributes to product in Project 

3.2). 

 Report/journal article on heights, control networks and datum changes in Glen Canyon, 

1923 to 2015 (lead author Kohl). 

D.3 Personnel and Collaborations 

The project lead is Paul Grams. Daniel Buscombe is a post-doctoral fellow and Research 

Geologist with specialization in bed-texture characterization using underwater imaging and 

acoustics. Erich Mueller is a post-doctoral fellow and Research Hydrologist with specialization 

in geomorphology and sediment transport. Joel Sankey is a Research Geologist and remote 

sensing expert. Keith Kohl is the control network specialist and surveyor. Support is provided by 

Robert Ross and Robert Tusso who are term hydrologists, and Thomas Gushue who is the 

GCMRC GIS Coordinator. Ted Melis is a Physical Scientist with expertise in hillslope and 

debris flow process and linkages between physical science and ecology. David Topping is aa 

research hydrologist with GCMRC, and the Project 2 lead. Mike Yard is a Fishery Biologist with 

GCMRC. The GCMRC staff has management responsibility for the entire project and share 

responsibility for data collection, analysis, and reporting. Joseph E. Hazel, Jr, and Matt Kaplinski 

of Northern Arizona University are long-term collaborators on sandbar and sediment storage 

monitoring. David Rubin is a former USGS employee and long-time collaborator on sediment 

transport dynamics, currently serving as a Research Professor, University of California at Santa 

Cruz. Joe Wheaton is an Assistant Professor at Utah State University and an expert in collecting, 

processing, and analyzing digital elevation models. Brandon McElroy is an Assistant Professor at 

the University of Wyoming and an expert in bed form migration and bedload transport in sandbedded rivers. Mark Schmeeckle is an Associate Professor at Arizona State University and an 

expert in fluid mechanics and computational modeling. David Varyu is a hydraulic engineer at 

the BOR Technical Service Center with expertise in hydraulic and sediment transport modeling. 

Robert Weber is a photogrammetrist with Pinnacle Mapping Technologies, Inc. Graduate 

students will work on the Rapid Survey project (3.1.3.), modeling project (3.3), and bedload 

project (3.4). 

D.4 Deliverables 

See “Outcomes and Products” listed by project element, above. 
151 

E. Productivity from Past Work (during FY 13–14) 

E.1. Data Products 

Website showing repeat photographs showing effects of Fall 2012 HFE: 

http://www.gcmrc.gov/gis/sandbartour2012/index.html? 

Website showing repeat photographs showing effects of Fall 2013 HFE: 

http://www.gcmrc.gov/gis/sandbartour2013/index.html? 

Sandbar Monitoring Data: Sandbar topographic surveys and campsite surveys conducted fall 

2012 and 2013. Reported at Annual Reporting Meetings and provided to Reclamation for 

inclusion in LTEMP analysis. Website to serve data is in development. 

Sediment Storage Data (Channel Mapping): Data collected in 2013 for topographic/bathymetric 

map of RM 0 to 30: processing is nearly complete. 

E.2. Completed Publications 

Alvarez L.V, Schmeeckle M.W. 2013. “Erosion of River Sandbars by Diurnal Stage Fluctuations 

in the Colorado River in Marble and Grand canyons: Full-Scale Laboratory Experiments”. 

River Research and Applications, 29: 839-854. doi:10.1002/rra.2576. 

Buscombe, D., 2013, Transferable Wavelet Method for Grain Size-Distribution from Images of 

Sediment Surfaces and Thin Sections, and Other Natural Granular Patterns. Sedimentology, 

60: 1709–1732. 

Davis, P.A., 2013, Natural-color and color-infrared image mosaics of the Colorado River 

corridor in Arizona derived from the May 2009 airborne image collection, U.S. Geological 

Survey Data Series 780. 

Draut, A.E. and Rubin, D.R., 2013, Assessing grain-size correspondence between flow and 

deposits of controlled floods in the Colorado River, USA: Journal of Sedimentary Research 

83 (11), 962-973. 

Grams P. E., 2013, A sand budget for Marble Canyon, Arizona--implications for long-term 

monitoring of sand storage change, U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2013–3074, 4 p., 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2013/3074/. 

Grams P. E., D. J. Topping, J. C. Schmidt, J. E. Hazel Jr., and M. Kaplinski (2013), Linking 

morphodynamic response with sediment mass balance on the Colorado River in Marble 

Canyon: Issues of scale, geomorphic setting, and sampling design, J. Geophys. Res. Earth 

Surf., 118, 361–381, doi:10.1002/jgrf.20050. 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrf.20050/full

Grams, P. E., and P. R. Wilcock (2013), Transport of fine sediment over a coarse, immobile river 

bed, Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013JF002925/abstract. 

Kaplinski, M., Hazel, J.E., Jr., Grams, P.E., Davis, P.A., 2014, Monitoring fine-sediment volume 

in the Colorado River ecosystem, Arizona—Construction and analysis of digital elevation 

models: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2014–1052, 29 p., 

http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20141052. 

Kennedy, T. A., C. B. Yackulic, W. F. Cross, P. E. Grams, M. D. Yard, and A. J. Copp (2014), 

The relation between invertebrate drift and two primary controls, discharge and benthic 

densities, in a large regulated river, Freshwater Biology, 59(3), 557-572. 
152 

Mueller, E.R., Grams, P.E., Schmidt, J.C., Alexander, J.S., Hazel Jr., J.E., and Kaplinski, M., 

accepted with revisions, The influence of controlled floods on fine sediment storage in debris 

fan affected canyons of the Colorado River basin. Geomorphology. 

Ross, R., and Grams, P.E., 2013, Nearshore thermal gradients of the Colorado River near the 

Little Colorado River confluence, Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona, 2010: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 2013–1013, 65 p. (Available at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2013/1013/.) 

Ross, R.P., and Vernieu, W.S., 2013, Nearshore Temperature Findings for the Colorado River in 

Grand Canyon, Arizona—Possible Implications for Native Fish: U.S. Geological Survey Fact 

Sheet 2013-3104, 4 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/fs20133104. 

E.3. Publications in progress 

Alvarez L.V, Schmeeckle M.W., Grams P., in prep., The Mechanics of Turbulent Flow in 

Lateral Separation Zones: Field Scale Detached Eddy Simulation Model, Water Resources 

Research. 

Buscombe, D., Grams, P.E., Kaplinski, M.A., in review, Characterizing riverbed sediment using 

high-frequency acoustics 1: Spectral properties of scattering. Intended for Journal of 

Geophysical Research - Earth Surface. 

Buscombe, D., Grams, P.E., Kaplinski, M.A., in review, Characterizing riverbed sediment using 

high-frequency acoustics 2: Scattering properties of Colorado River bed sediment in Marble 

and Grand Canyons. Intended for Journal of Geophysical Research - Earth Surface. 

Buscombe, D., Rubin, D.M., Lacy, J.R., Storlazzi, C., Hatcher, G., Chezar, H., Wyland, R., and 

Sherwood, C., accepted for publication, Autonomous bed-sediment imaging-systems for 

revealing temporal variability of grain size. Limnology and Oceanography: Methods. 

Buscombe, D., and others, in prep., Mapping sandbar topography in Marble Canyon, AZ, using 

time-lapse imagery during controlled floods, Earth Surface Processes and Landforms. 

Davis, P.A., Kohl, K.A., and Gushue, T.M., in prep., Evaluation of Airborne ADS40 

Photogrammetric Digital Surface Models for Monitoring the Colorado River Corridor below 

Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona. 

Grams, P.E. and others, in prep., A comprehensive sand budget for the Colorado River in Marble 

Canyon, Arizona: 2009-2012, Earth Surface Processes and Landforms. 

Gushue, T., and others, in preparation, Photogrammetric methods for processing 1984 historical 

images. 

Hadley, D.R. and Grams, P.E., in prep., Geomorphology and vegetation change at sandbar 

campsites along the Colorado River, Marble and Grand Canyons, AZ: River Research and 

Applications. 

Hadley, D.R., Grams, P.E., and Parnell, R., in prep., Geomorphology and vegetation change at 

sandbar campsites along the Colorado River, Marble and Grand Canyons, AZ: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-file Report. 

Hazel, J.E., Jr., Kaplinski, M., Parnell, R., Grams, P., Ross, R., Hamill, D., and Kohl, K., in 

prep., Sandbar Monitoring at Selected Sites in Colorado River in Marble and Grand 

Canyons, Arizona, 1990-2013: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report. 

Hazel, J.E., and others, in preparation, Extending sandbar monitoring back in time using 

photogrammetry, digital terrain extraction and orthorectification of historical aerial imagery, 

Grand Canyon. 
153 

Kaplinski, M., Hazel, J.E., Jr., Parnell, R., Hadley, D., and Grams, P.E., in review, Colorado 

River Campsite Monitoring, 1998 – 2012, Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona: US. 

Geological Survey Open-file Report. 

Kaplinski and others, in prep., Monitoring fine-sediment volume in the Colorado River 

ecosystem, Arizona: Topographic and bathymetric maps of the Colorado River. 

Ross, R.P. and Grams, P.E., Changes in Sandbar Area from Remote Sensing: 2002-2009, in 

prep., U.S. Geological Survey Open-file Report. 

Rubin, Topping, Grams, Tusso, Schmidt, Buscombe, Melis, and Wright, in prep., What sediment 

grain size reveals about suspended-sediment transport in the Colorado River in Grand 

Canyon. 

Sankey, J.B., Ralston, B.E., Grams, P.E., Schmidt, J.C., Cagney, L.E., in review, Colorado River, 

vegetation, and climate: five decades of spatio-temporal dynamics in the Grand Canyon with 

river regulation. 

Tusso, R., and others, in prep., Bed-sediment grain size in selected monitoring reaches of the 

Colorado River in Grand Canyon: 2009-2012, U.S. Geological Survey Open-file Report. 

E.4. Presentations at GCDAMP meetings 

Buscombe, D. and others, Where is the sand? Using multibeam sonar to map sediment type in 

Marble Canyon: poster presentation at January 2014 Annual Reporting Meeting. 

Grams, P.E. and others, Sand in Marble, Glen, and Grand Canyons: status and trends, oral 

presentation at January 2014 Annual Reporting Meeting. 

Grams, P.E. and others, Sandbar Monitoring for November 2012 Controlled Flood: oral 

presentation at January 2013 Annual Reporting Meeting. 

Gushue, T. and others, Extending sandbar monitoring back in time using photogrammetry, 

digital terrain extraction and orthorectification of historical aerial imagery, Grand Canyon, 

AZ: poster presentation at January 2014 Annual Reporting Meeting. 

Hadley, D.R. and others, Geomorphologic and vegetation analysis at Colorado River campsites, 

Marble and Grand Canyons, AZ: poster presentation at January 2014 Annual Reporting 

Meeting. 

Kaplinski, M. and others, Constructing a Morphologic Sediment Budget, With Uncertainties, for 

a 50-km Segment of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon: poster presentation at January 

2014 Annual Reporting Meeting. 

Mueller, E.R. and others, The effect of controlled floods on decadal-scale changes in channel 

morphology and fine sediment storage in debris fan-affected river canyons: poster 

presentation at January 2014 Annual Reporting Meeting. 

Ross, R.P. and Grams, P.E., Using remote sensing to determine sandbar area from 1935-2009 

within select reaches, Marble and Grand Canyons, AZ: poster presentation at January 2014 

Annual Reporting Meeting. 

Tusso, R. and Mueller, E.R., Effects of High Flow Events on sandbars along the Colorado River, 

Grand Canyon: poster presentation at January 2014 Annual Reporting Meeting. 

E.5. Presentations at professional meetings 

Alvarez L.V, Schmeeckle M.W. 2013. "Numerical Model of Turbulence, Sediment Transport, 

and Sediment Cover in a Large Cayon-Bound River". Presentation Type: Oral Presentation. 

Abstract ID: 1813508.. Final Paper Number: EP24B-07. American Geophysical Union, 2013 

Fall Meeting, San Francisco, CA. 
154 

Alvarez L.V, Schmeeckle M.W. 2013. Numerical Model of Turbulence and Sediment Transport 

in Lateral Recirculation Zones Along the Colorado River in Grand Canyon. Presentation 

Type: Poster. 2013 CSDMS (Community Surface Dynamics Modeling System), Boulder, 

CO. 

Alvarez L.V, Schmeeckle M.W. 2012. “Laboratory and numerical modeling of sandbar bank 

erosion, application to diurnal stage variations in Grand Canyon”. Presentation Type: Oral 

Presentation. American Association of Geographers, 2012 Meeting, New York city, NY. 

Buscombe, D., Grams, P.E., Kaplinski, M.A. 2013 Acoustic Scattering by an Heterogeneous 

River Bed: Relationship to Bathymetry and Implications for Sediment Classification using 

Multibeam Echosounder Data. American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, San Francisco, 

Dec 2013 

Grams. P.E., Buscombe, D., Hazel, J.E., Kaplinski, M.A., and Topping, D.J. (2013) 

Reconciliation of Flux-based and Morphologic-based Sediment Budgets. American 

Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, San Francisco, Dec 2013. 

Kaplinski, M.A., Hazel, J.E., Grams. P.E., Buscombe, D., Hadley, D., and Kohl. K. (2013) 

Constructing a morphologic sediment budget, with uncertainties, for a 50-km segment of the 

Colorado River in Grand Canyon. American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, San 

Francisco, Dec 2013. 

Mueller, E.R., Grams, P.E., and Schmidt, J.C. (2013) The effect of controlled floods on decadalscale changes in channel morphology and fine sediment storage in a debris-fan affected river 

canyon. Abstract EP33C-0923 presented at 2013 Fall Meeting, AGU, San Francisco, CA, 9-

13 Dec. 

Rubin, Topping, Grams, Tusso, Schmidt, Buscombe, Melis, and Wright, 2014, What sediment 

grain size reveals about suspended-sediment transport in the Colorado River in Grand 

Canyon: International Conference on the Status and Future of the World‘s Large Rivers, in 

press. 

F. References 

Abraham D., Kuhnle, R., and Odgaard, A. J., 2011, Validation of bed load transport 

measurements with time sequenced bathymetric data: ASCE Journal of Hydraulic 

Engineering, v. 137, p. 723-728. 

Bagnold, R.A., 1941, The physics of blown sand and desert dunes (1973, 4th ed.): London, 

Methuen, 265 p. 

Beus, S.S., David, J.N., Lojko, F.B., and Stevens, L.E., 1992 Colorado River investigations XI, 

report submitted to Grand Canyon National Park: Northern Arizona University and National 

Park Service, available from U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center, Flagstaff, AZ., 175 p. 

Beus, S.S., Avery, C.C., Stevens, L., Cluer, B., Kaplinski, M., Anderson, P., Bennett, J., Brod, 

C., Hazel, J., Gonzales, M., Hayes, H., Protiva, F., and Courson, J., 1992, The influence of 

variable discharge regimes on Colorado River sand bars below Glen Canyon Dam (chap. 6), 

in Beus, S.S., and Avery, C.C., Principal investigators, 1992, The influence of variable 

discharge regimes on Colorado River sand bars below Glen Canyon Dam—final report: 

Bureau of Reclamation, Glen Canyon Environmental Studies, National Park Service, 

cooperative agreement no. CA 8006-8-0002 with Northern Arizona University, 62 p. 

Blondel, P., and Gomez Sichi, O., 2009, Textural analyses of multibeam sonar imagery from 

Stanton Banks, Northern Ireland continental shelf: Applied Acoustics, v. 70, p. 1288-1297. 
155 

Black, M., Carbonneau, P., Church, M., and Warburton, J., 2013, Mapping sub-pixel fluvial 

grain sizes with hyperspatial imagery: Sedimentology, v. 61, p. 691-711. 

Blank, B.L., 2000, Application of digital photogrammetry to monitoring sand bar change in 

Marble Canyon, AZ: Utah State University, Honors Thesis. 

Bogle, R., Velasco, M., and Vogel, J., 2012, An automated digital imaging system for 

environmental monitoring applications: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2012-

1271, 18 p. 

Brown, C.J., and Blondel, P., 2009, Developments in the application of multibeam sonar 

backscatter for seafloor habitat mapping: Applied Acoustics, v. 70, p. 1242-1247. 

Brown, C.J., Smith, S.J., Lawton, P., and Anderson, J.T., 2011, Benthic habitat mapping--a 

review of progress towards improved understanding of the spatial ecology of the seafloor 

using acoustic techniques: Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, v. 92, p. 502-520. 

Buscombe, D., and Rubin, D.M., 2012, Advances in the simulation and automated measurement 

of well-sorted granular material, part 2--Direct measures of particle properties: Journal of 

Geophysical Research, v. 117, F02002. 

Buscombe, D., Rubin, D.M., and Warrick, J.A., 2010, Universal approximation of grain size 

from images of non-cohesive sediment: Journal of Geophysical Research --Earth Surface 

115, F02015. 

Cooley, M.E., Aldridge, B.N., and Euler, R.C., 1977, Effects of the catastrophic flood in 

December 1966, North rim area, eastern Grand Canyon, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey 

Professional Paper 980, p. 43. 

Davis, P.A, Staid, M.I, Plescia, J.B., and Johnson, J.R., 2002, Evaluation of airborne image data 

for mapping riparian vegetation within the Grand Canyon: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 02-470, 65 p. 

Davis, P.A., 2012, Airborne digital-image data for monitoring the Colorado River corridor below 

Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona, 2009 – Image-mosaic production and comparison with 2002 

and 2005 image mosaics: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2012-1139, 82 p. 

Dolan, R., Howard, A., and Gallenson, A., 1974, Man's impact on the Colorado River in the 

Grand Canyon: American Scientist, v. 62, p. 393-401. 

Duffy, G.P., and Hughes-Clarke, J.E., 2005, Application of spatial cross correlation to detection 

of migration of submarine sand dunes: Journal of Geophysical Research, v.110, F04S12. 

Einstein, H.A., 1950, The bedload function for sediment transportation in open channels: 

Technical Bulletin 1026, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 

Washington, D.C. 

Engel, P., and Lau, Y.L., 1980, Computation of bedload using bathymetric data: Journal of the 

Hydraulics Division, v. 106, 369-380. 

Flynn, M.E., and Hornewer, N.J., 2003, Variations in sand storage measured at monumented 

cross sections in the Colorado River between Glen Canyon Dam and Lava Falls Rapid, 

Northern Arizona, 1992-99: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 

03-4104, 39 p. 

Fonseca, L., Brown, C., Calder, B., Mayer, L., and Rzhanov, Y., 2009, Angular range analysis of 

acoustic themes from Stanton Banks, Ireland--a link between visual interpretation and 

multibeam echosounder angular signatures: Applied Acoustics, v. 70, p. 1298-1304. 

Fonstad, M.A., Dietrich, J.T., Courville, B.C., Jensen, J.L. and Carbonneau, P.E., 2013, 

Topographic structure from motion--a new development in photogrammetric measurement: 

Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, v. 38, p.421-430. 
156 

Gaueman, D., and Jacobson, R., 2007. Field assessment of alternative bed-load transport 

estimators: Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, v. 133, p. 1319-1328. 

Grams, P.E., Hazel, J.E., Schmidt, J.C., Kaplinski, M., Wright, S.A., Topping, D.J., and Melis, 

T.S., 2010, Geomorphic response of sandbars to the March 2008 high-flow experiment on 

the Colorado River downstream from Glen Canyon Dam, in Hydrology and sedimentation 

for a changing future; existing and emerging issues (Joint Federal Interagency Conference 

2010--Federal Interagency Hydrologic Modeling, 4th, and Federal Interagency 

Sedimentation, 9th), Las Vegas, Nev., June 27- July 1, 2010, Proceedings: Proceedings of the 

Federal Interagency Sedimentation Conferences, U.S. Subcommittee on Sedimentation, CDROM. 

Grams, P.E., and Wilcock, P.R., 2007, Equilibrium entrainment of fine sediment over a coarse 

immobile bed: Water Resources Research, v. 43, p. W10420, 

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006WR005129.shtml. 

Grams P.E., 2013, A sand budget for Marble Canyon, Arizona--implications for long-term 

monitoring of sand storage change, U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2013–3074, 4 p., 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2013/3074/. 

Griffiths, P.G., Webb, R.H., and Melis, T.S., 2004, Frequency and initiation of debris flows in 

Grand Canyon, Arizona: Journal of Geophysical Research, v.109, F04002. 

Hazel, J.E., Jr., Grams, P.E., Schmidt, J.C., and Kaplinski, M., 2010, Sandbar response in Marble 

and Grand Canyons, Arizona, following the 2008 high-flow experiment on the Colorado 

River: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5015, 52 p., 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5015/. 

Hazel, J.E., Jr., Kaplinski, M., Parnell, R.A., Kohl, K., and Schmidt, J.C., 2008, Monitoring finegrained sediment in the Colorado River ecosystem, Arizona--control network and 

conventional survey techniques: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2008-1276, 15 p., 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1276/. 

Hazel, J.E., Jr., Kaplinski, M., Parnell, R., Kohl, K., and Topping, D.J., 2006, Stage-discharge 

relations for the Colorado River in Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons, Arizona, 1990-2005: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2006-1243, 7 p., 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1243/pdf/of06-1243_508.pdf. 

Hazel, J.E., Jr., Kaplinski, M., Parnell, R., Manone, M., and Dale, A., 1999, Topographic and 

bathymetric changes at thirty-three long-term study sites, in Webb, R.H., Schmidt, J.C., 

Marzolf, G.R., and Valdez, R.A., eds., The 1996 controlled flood in Grand Canyon: 

Washington, D.C., American Geophysical Union, Geophysical Monograph 110, p. 161-184. 

Hazel, J.E., Jr., Kaplinski, M., Parnell, R., Grams, P., Ross, R., Hamill, D., and Kohl, K., in 

preparation, Sandbar monitoring at selected sites in Colorado River in Marble and Grand 

Canyons, Arizona, 1990-2013: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report. 

Hereford, R., 1996, Map showing surficial geology and geomorphology of the Palisades Creek 

area, Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous 

Investigations Map I-2499, scale 1:2,000, 26 p. 

Hereford, R., Burke, K.J., and Thompson, K.S., 2000, Map showing Quaternary geology and 

geomorphology of the Granite Park area, Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona: U.S. 

Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Map I-2662, scale 1:2,000. 

Howard, A.D., 1975, Establishment of benchmark study sites along the Colorado River in Grand 

Canyon National Park for monitoring of beach erosion caused by natural forces and human 

impact, p. 14. 
157 

Howard, A., and Dolan, R., 1981, Geomorphology of the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon: 

Journal of Geology, v. 89, no. 3, p. 269-298. 

Jacobson, R.B., Johnson, H.E., III, and Dietsch, B.J., 2009, Hydrodynamic simulations of 

physical aquatic habitat availability for pallid sturgeon in the lower Missouri River, at 

Yankton, South Dakota, Kenslers Bend, Nebraska, Little Sioux, Iowa, and Miami, Missouri, 

2006-07: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2009-5058, 67 p. 

Jackson, R., Winebrenner, D.P., and Ishimaru, A., 1986, Application of the composite roughness 

model to high-frequency bottom backscattering: Journal of the Acoustic Society of America, 

v. 79, p. 1410-1422. 

James, M.R., and Robson, S., 2012, Straightforward reconstruction of 3D surfaces and 

topography with a camera--accuracy and geoscience application: Journal of Geophysical 

Research, v. 117, F03017. 

Jones, C.D., 2003, Water-column measurements of hydrothermal vent flow and particulate 

concentration using multibeam sonar: Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, v. 114, 

p. 2300-2301. 

Kaplinski, M., Hazel, J.E., Jr., and Parnell, R., 2010, Colorado River campsite monitoring, 1998-

2006, Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona, in Melis, T.S., Hamill, J.F., Bennett, G.E., 

Coggins, L.G., Jr., Grams, P.E., Kennedy, T.A., Kubly, D.M., and Ralston, B.E., eds., 

Proceedings of the Colorado River Basin Science and Resource Management Symposium, 

November 18-20, 2008, Scottsdale, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2010-5135, 275-284 p., http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5135/. 

Kaplinski, M., Hazel, J.E., Jr., Parnell, R., Breedlove, M.J., Kohl, K., and Gonzales, M.F., 2009, 

Monitoring fine-sediment volume in the Colorado River ecosystem, Arizona--bathymetric 

survey techniques: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2009-1207, 33 p., 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1207/of2009-1207.pdf. 

Kaplinski, M., Hazel, J.E., Jr., Grams, P.E., and Davis, P.A., 2014, Monitoring fine-sediment 

volume in the Colorado River ecosystem, Arizona--construction and analysis of digital 

elevation models: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2014–1052, 29 p., 

http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20141052. 

Kieffer, S.W., 1985, The 1983 hydraulic jump in Crystal Rapid--implications for river-running 

and geomorphic evolution in the Grand Canyon: The Journal of Geology, v. 93, no. 4, p. 385-

406. 

Kim, H-J., Chang, J-K., Jou, H-T., Park, G-T., Suk., B-C., and Kim., K.Y., 2002, Seabed 

classification from acoustic profiling data using the similarity index: Journal of the 

Acoustical Society of America, v. 111, p. 794-799. 

Kruse, F.A., Lefkoff, A.B., Boardman, J.B., Heidebrecht, K.B., Shapiro, A.T., Barloom, P.J., and 

Goetz, A.F.H., 1993, The spectral image processing System (SIPS)-- Interactive visualization 

and analysis of imaging spectrometer data: Remote Sensing of Environment, v. 44, p. 145-

163. 

Lafferty, B., Quinn, R., and Breen, C., 2006, A side-scan sonar and high-resolution chirp subbottom profile study of the natural and anthropogenic sedimentary record of Lower Lough 

Erne, northwestern Ireland: Journal of Archaeological Science, v. 33, p. 756-766. 

Lamarche, G., Lurton, X., Verdier, A.L., and Augustin, J.M., 2011, Quantitative characterisation 

of seafloor substrate and bedforms using advanced processing of multibeam backscatter--

application to Cook Strait New Zealand: Continental Shelf Research, v. 31, p. S93–S109. 
158 

LeBlanc, L.R., Mayer, L., Rufino, M., Schock, S.G., and King, J., 1992, Marine sediment 

classification using the chirp sonar: Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, v. 91, p. 

107-115. 

Logan, B., Nelson, J., McDonald, R., and Wright, S., 2010, Mechanics and modeling of flow 

sediment transport and morphologic change in riverine lateral separation zones, in Hydrology 

and sedimentation for a changing future; existing and emerging issues (Joint Federal 

Interagency Conference 2010--Federal Interagency Hydrologic Modeling, 4th, and Federal 

Interagency Sedimentation, 9th), Las Vegas, Nev., June 27- July 1, Proceedings. 

Maddock, T., 1976, Equations for resistance to flow and sediment transport in alluvial channels: 

Water Resources Research, v. 12, p. 11-21. 

Magirl, C.F.N., Webb, R., and Griffiths, P., 2008, Modeling water-surface elevations and virtual 

shorelines for the Colorado River in Grand Canyon, Arizona: U.S.Geological Survey 

Scientific Investigations Report 2008-5075, 32 p. 

McElroy B., and Abraham, D., 2011, Quantifying bed load and bed material load from repeat 

bathymetric surveys: Report to FISP Technical Committee on work completed. 

McElroy, B., and Mohrig, D. 2009, Nature of deformation of sandy bed forms: Journal of 

Geophysical Research, v. 114, no. F00A04. 

Melis, T.S., Webb, R.H., Griffiths, P.G., and Wise, T.W., 1995, Magnitude and frequency data 

for historic debris flows in Grand Canyon National Park and vicinity, Arizona: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 94-4214, 285 p. 

Melis, T.S., 1997, Geomorphology of debris flows and alluvial fans in Grand Canyon National 

Park and their influence on the Colorado River below Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona: 

University of Arizona, Tucson, Ph.D. dissertation, 490 p. 

Nittrouer, J., Allison, M., Mohrig, D., and Campanella, R., 2008. Bedform transport rates for the 

lowermost Mississippi River: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 113, no. F03004. 

O’Brien, L.E., Coleman, A., Blank, B.L., Grams, P.E., and Schmidt, J.C., 2000, Testing the 

application of digital photogrammetry to monitor topographic changes in sandbars in the 

Colorado River ecosystem--final report: U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring 

and Research Center, cooperative agreement 1425-98-FC-40-22640, 59 p. 

Rakotonarivo, S., Legris, M., Desmare, R., Sessarego, J-P., Bourillet, J-F., 2011, Forward 

modeling of marine sediment characterization using chirp sonars: Geophysics, v. 76, p. T91-

T99. 

Ralston, B.E., Davis, P.A., Weber, R.M., and Rundall, J.M., 2008, A vegetation database for the 

Colorado River ecosystem from Glen Canyon Dam to the western boundary of Grand 

Canyon National Park, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2008–1216, 37 p. 

Randle, T.J., and Pemberton, E.L., 1987, Results and analysis of STARS modeling efforts of the 

Colorado River in Grand Canyon: Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Reclamation, NTIS report no. PB88-183421/AS. 

Rubin, D.M., Chezar, H., Harney, J.N., Topping, D.J., Melis, T.S., and Sherwood, C.R., 2007, 

Underwater microscope for measuring spatial and temporal changes in bed-sediment grain 

size: Sedimentary Geology, v. 202, no. 3, p. 402-408, 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sedgeo.2007.03.020.

Rubin, D.M., Tate, G.B., Topping, D.J., and Anima, R.A., 2001, Use of rotating side-scan sonar 

to measure bedload, in Seventh Federal Interagency Sedimentation Conference, Reno, Nev., 

March 25-29, 2001, Proceedings: Subcommittee on Sedimentation, v. 1, p. III-139 to III-143. 
159 

Rubin, D.M., Topping, D.J., Schmidt, J.C., Hazel, J., Kaplinski, M., and Melis, T.S., 2002, 

Recent sediment studies refute Glen Canyon Dam hypothesis: Eos Transactions, American 

Geophysical Union, v. 83, no. 25, p. 273, p. 277-278. 

Rubin, D.M., and Topping, D.J., 2001, Quantifying the relative importance of flow regulation 

and grain size regulation of suspended sediment transport alpha and tracking changes in grain 

size of bed sediment beta: Water Resources Research, v. 37, no. 1, p. 133-146. 

Schmidt, J.C., 1999, Summary and synthesis of geomorphic studies conducted during the 1996 

controlled flood in Grand Canyon, in Webb, R.H., Schmidt, J.C., Marzolf, G.R., and Valdez, 

R.A., eds., The controlled flood in Grand Canyon: Washington, D.C., American Geophysical 

Union, Geophysical Monograph Series, v. 110, p. 329–341. 

Schmidt, J.C., and Rubin, D.M., 1995, Regulated streamflow, fine-grained deposits, and 

effective discharge in canyons with abundant debris fans, in Costa, J.E., Miller, A.J., Potter, 

K.W., and Wilcock, P.R., eds., Natural and Anthropogenic Influences in Fluvial 

Geomorphology, Geophysical Monograph Series, vol. 89: Washington, D.C., AGU, p. 177-

195. 

Schmidt, J.C., 1990, Recirculating flow and sedimentation in the Colorado River in Grand 

Canyon, Arizona: The Journal of Geology, v. 98, no. 5, p. 709-724. 

Schmidt, J.C., and Graf, J.B., 1990, Aggradation and degradation of alluvial sand deposits, 1965 

to 1986, Colorado River, Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey 

Professional Paper 1493, 74 p. 

Schmidt, J.C., Grams, P.E., and Leschin, M.F., 1999, Variation and magnitude of deposition and 

erosion in three long-term (8-12 km) reaches as determined by photographic analyses, in

Webb, R.H., Schmidt, J.C., Marzolf, G.R., and Valdez, R.A., eds., The controlled flood in 

Grand Canyon: Washington, D.C., American Geophysical Union, Geophysical Monograph 

Series, v. 110, p. 185–204. 

Schmidt, J.C., Topping, D.J., Grams, P.E., and Hazel, J.E., Jr., 2004, System-wide changes in the 

distribution of fine sediment in the Colorado River corridor between Glen Canyon Dam and 

Bright Angel Creek, Arizona--final report: Logan, Utah, submitted to U.S. Geological 

Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, cooperative agreement no. 1425-

98-FC-40-22640, 107 p., 

http://www.gcmrc.gov/library/reports/Physical/Fine_Sed/Schmidt2004.pdf. 

Schmidt, J.C., and Grams, P.E., 2011, The high flows – physical science results, in Melis, T.S. 

(ed.), Effects of three high-flow experiments on the Colorado River ecosystem downstream 

from Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1366, p. 53-92. 

Schock, S.G., 2004, A method for estimating the physical and acoustic properties of the sea bed 

using chirp sonar data: IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, v. 29, p.1200-1217. 

Schock, S.G., LeBlanc, L.R., and Mayer, L.A., 1989, Chirp subbottom profiler for quantitative 

sediment analysis: Geophysics, v. 54, p. 445-450, 

http://library.seg.org/doi/pdf/10.1190/1.1442670. 

Simmons, S.M., Parsons, D.R., Best, J.L., Orfeo, O., Lane, S.N., Kostaschuk, R., Hardy, R.J., 

West, G., Malzone, C., Marcus, J., and Pocwiardowski, P., 2010, Monitoring suspended 

sediment dynamics using MBES: Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, v. 136, no. 1, p. 45-49. 

Simons, D.B, Richardson, E.V., Nordin, C.F, Jr., 1965, Bedload equation for ripples and dunes: 

U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 462-H, http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/0462h/report.pdf. 

Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., Grams, P.E., Griffiths, R.E., Sabol, T.A., Voichick, N., Tusso, R.B., 

Vanaman, K.M., and McDonald, R.R., 2010, Sediment transport during three controlled-
160 

flood experiments on the Colorado River downstream from Glen Canyon Dam, with 

implications for eddy-sandbar deposition in Grand Canyon National Park: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 2010-1128, 111 p., http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1128/. 

Topping, D.J., Wright, S.A., Rubin, D.M., and Melis, T.S., 2007, Draft report to the technical 

work group of the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program--recommended 

protocols for core monitoring of sediment within the Colorado River Ecosystem below Glen 

Canyon Dam, part IV--developing a scientifically based long-term monitoring plan for the 

GCDAMP: U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, 

Flagstaff, Ariz., 34 p. 

Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., Schmidt, J.C., Hazel, J.E., Jr., Melis, T.S., Wright, S.A., Kaplinski, 

M., Draut, A.E., and Breedlove, M.J., 2006, Comparison of sediment-transport and barresponse results from the 1996 and 2004 controlled-flood experiments on the Colorado River 

in Grand Canyon, in Federal Interagency Sedimentation Conference, 8th, Reno, Nev., April 

2-6, 2006, Proceedings: p. 171-179 (CD-ROM). 

Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., and Vierra, L.E., Jr., 2000, Colorado River sediment transport 1. 

Natural sediment supply limitation and the influence of Glen Canyon Dam: Water Resources 

Research, v. 36, p. 515542. 

U.S. Geological Survey, 2006, Strategic science plan to support the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive 

Management Program, fiscal years 2007–11: Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center 

in cooperation with the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, 11 p., 

www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/amwg/mtgs/06dec05/Attach_07b.pdf.

Webb, R.H., Griffiths, P.G., Melis, T.S., and Hartley, D.R., 2000, Sediment delivery by ungaged 

tributaries of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 00–4055, 67 p., 

http://www.gcmrc.gov/library/reports/physical/coarse_sed_webb/wrir2000_00-4055s.pdf. 

Westoby, M.J., J. Brasington, N.F. Glasser, M.J. Hambrey, J.M. Reynolds, ‘Structure-frommotion’ photogrammetry--a low-cost, effective tool for geoscience applications: 

Geomorphology, v. 179, p. 300-314, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2012.08.021.

Wiele, S.M., Wilcock, P.R., and Grams, P.E., 2007, Reach-averaged sediment routing model of a 

canyon river: Water Resources Research, v. 43, no. W02425, p. 1-16, 

http://www.agu.org/journals/wr/wr0702/2005WR004824/. 

Wiele, S.M., and Griffin, E.R., 1998, Modifications to a one-dimensional model of unsteady 

flow in the Colorado River through Grand Canyon, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 97-4046, 17 p. 

Wiele, S.M., and Smith, J.D., 1996, A reach-averaged model of diurnal discharge wave 

propagation down the Colorado River through the Grand Canyon: Water Resources 

Research, v. 32, no. 5, p. 1375-1386. 

Wiele, S.M., Graf, J.B., and Smith, J.D., 1996, Sand deposition in the Colorado River in the 

Grand Canyon from flooding of the Little Colorado River: Water Resources Research, v. 32, 

p. 3579-3596. 

Wiele, S.M., Andrews, E.D., and Griffin, E.R., 1999, The effect of sand concentration on 

depositional rate, magnitude, and location in the Colorado River below the Little Colorado 

River, in Webb, R.H., Schmidt, J.C., Marzolf, G.R., and Valdez, R.A., eds., The controlled 

flood in Grand Canyon: Washington, D.C., American Geophysical Union, Geophysical 

Monograph Series, v. 110, p. 131-145. 
161 

Wright, S.A., and Grams, P.E., 2010, Evaluation of water year 2011 Glen Canyon Dam flow 

release scenarios on downstream sand storage along the Colorado River in Arizona: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010-1133, 19 p., http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1133/. 

Wright, S.A., and Kaplinski, M., 2011, Flow structures and sandbar dynamics in a canyon river 

during a controlled flood, Colorado River, Arizona: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 116, 

no. F01019, p. 15, http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2009JF001442.shtml. 

Wright, S.A., Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., and Melis, T.S., 2010a, An approach for modeling 

sediment budgets in supply-limited rivers: Water Resources Research, v. 46, no. W10538, p. 

1-18, http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009WR008600.shtml. 

Wright, S.A., Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., and Melis, T.S., 2010, Modeling long-term sediment 

budgets in supply-limited rivers, in Hydrology and sedimentation for a changing future; 

existing and emerging issues (Joint Federal Interagency Conference 2010--Federal 

Interagency Hydrologic Modeling, 4th, and Federal Interagency Sedimentation, 9th), Las 

Vegas, Nev., June 27- July 1, Proceedings. 

Wright, S.A., Schmidt, J.C., Melis, T.S., Topping, D.J., and Rubin, D.M., 2008, Is there enough 

sand? Evaluating the fate of Grand Canyon sandbars: Geological Society of America Today, 

v. 18, no. 8, p. 4-10, http://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/18/8/pdf/i1052-5173-18-8-

4.pdf. 

Wright, S.A., Melis, T.S., Topping, D.J., and Rubin, D.M., 2005, Influence of Glen Canyon Dam 

operations on downstream sand resources of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon, in Gloss, 

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

Canyon: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1282, p. 1731. 

Zeiler, M., Schulz-Ohlberg, J., and Figge, K., 2000, Mobile sand deposits and shoreface 

dynamics in the inner German Bight (North Sea): Marine Geology, v. 170, 363-380.
162 

G. Budget 

Core activities

Support implementation and

evaluation of HFE Protocol and

Non‐Native Fish Control

Technical and analytical

innovations in monitoring

Improving predictive modeling

capacity

Resolving scientific uncertainty

Independent science oversight

and review

Integrating tribes in monitoring

and research

Project Identifier Project Description Salaries Travel & Training Operating Expenses Logistics Coop‐ erators (non‐USGS) USGS Coop‐erat

3

Sandbars and Sediment

Storage Dynamics $549,700 $5,900 $46,000 $56,300 $500,600 $48

X X 3.1.1

Monitoring sandbars using

topographic surveys and remote

cameras

Grams et al. $106,000 $2,000 $4,000 $26,600 $156,100 $48

X X 3.1.2

Monitoring sand bars and

shorelines above 8000 ft3/s by

remote sensing

Sankey et al. $103,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 

X 3.1.3

Surveying wi th a camera: rapid

topographic surveys with digital

images using structure‐from‐

motion (SFM) photogrammetry

Wheaton et

al. $18,700 $0 $0 $0 $20,000 

X 3.1.4 Analysis of historical images at selected monitoring sites Hazel et al. $16,000 $0 $0 $0 $68,400 

X X 3.2 Sediment storage monitoring Grams et al. $163,700 $2,000 $27,000 $29,700 $196,100 

X 3.3

Characterizing, and predictive

modeling, of sand bar response at

local and reach scales

Mueller et al. $64,700 $0 $0 $0 $25,000 

X 3.4

Connecting bed material

transport, bed morphodynamics,

and sand budgets in Grand

Canyon

McElroy et al. $0 $0 $0 $0 $35,000 

X X 3.5 Control network and survey

support Kohl $77,100 $1,900 $15,000 $0 $0 

Monitoring Research

FY15
163 

Core activities

Support implementation and

evaluation of HFE Protocol and

Non‐Native Fish Control

Technical and analytical

innovations in monitoring

Improving predictive modeling

capacity

Resolving scientific uncertainty

Independent science oversight

and review

Integrating tribes in monitoring

and research

Project Identifier Project Description Salaries Travel & Training Operating Expenses Logistics Coop‐ erators (non‐USGS) USGS Coop‐erat

3

Sandbars and Sediment

Storage Dynamics $589,500 $5,900 $46,000 $92,400 $500,600 $20

X X 3.1.1

Monitoring sandbars using

topographic surveys and remote

cameras

Grams et al. $109,100 $2,000 $4,000 $27,900 $156,100 $20

X X 3.1.2

Monitoring sand bars and

shorelines above 8000 ft3/s by

remote sensing

Sankey et al. $107,200 $0 $0 $0 $0 

X 3.1.3

Surveying wi th a camera: rapid

topographic surveys with digital

images using structure‐from‐

motion (SFM) photogrammetry

Wheaton et

al. $43,000 $0 $0 $0 $20,000 

X 3.1.4 Analysis of historical images at selected monitoring sites Hazel et al. $16,300 $0 $0 $0 $68,400 

X X 3.2 Sediment storage monitoring Grams et al. $167,000 $2,000 $27,000 $64,500 $196,100 

X 3.3

Characterizing, and predictive

modeling, of sand bar response at

local and reach scales

Mueller et al. $67,500 $0 $0 $0 $25,000 

X 3.4

Connecting bed material

transport, bed morphodynamics,

and sand budgets in Grand

Canyon

McElroy et al. $0 $0 $0 $0 $35,000 

X X 3.5 Control network and survey

support Kohl $79,400 $1,900 $15,000 $0 $0 

Monitoring Research

FY16
164 

Core activities

Support implementation and

evaluation of HFE Protocol and

Non‐Native Fish Control

Technical and analytical

innovations in monitoring

Improving predictive modeling

capacity

Resolving scientific uncertainty

Independent science oversight

and review

Integrating tribes in monitoring

and research

Project Identifier Project Description Salaries Travel & Training Operating Expenses Logistics Coop‐ erators (non‐USGS) USGS Coop‐erat

3

Sandbars and Sediment

Storage Dynamics $611,600 $5,900 $46,000 $95,800 $500,600 $20

X X 3.1.1

Monitoring sandbars using

topographic surveys and remote

cameras

Grams et al. $114,200 $2,000 $4,000 $29,100 $156,100 $20

X X 3.1.2

Monitoring sand bars and

shorelines above 8000 ft3/s by

remote sensing

Sankey et al. $110,300 $0 $0 $0 $0 

X 3.1.3

Surveying wi th a camera: rapid

topographic surveys with digital

images using structure‐from‐

motion (SFM) photogrammetry

Wheaton et

al. $44,500 $0 $0 $0 $20,000 

X 3.1.4 Analysis of historical images at selected monitoring sites Hazel et al. $15,900 $0 $0 $0 $68,400 

X X 3.2 Sediment storage monitoring Grams et al. $174,700 $2,000 $27,000 $66,700 $196,100 

X 3.3

Characterizing, and predictive

modeling, of sand bar response at

local and reach scales

Mueller et al. $71,000 $0 $0 $0 $25,000 

X 3.4

Connecting bed material

transport, bed morphodynamics,

and sand budgets in Grand

Canyon

McElroy et al. $0 $0 $0 $0 $35,000 

X X 3.5 Control network and survey

support Kohl $81,000 $1,900 $15,000 $0 $0 

FY17

Monitoring Research
165 

Monitoring: Core activities 

Monitoring: Supports implementation and evaluation of HFE Protocol and Non-Native Fish Control 

Research: Technical and analytical innovations in monitoring 

Project 4. Connectivity along the fluvial-aeolian-hillslope 

continuum: quantifying the relative importance of riverrelated factors that influence upland geomorphology and 

archaeological site stability 

Initial Estimate: FY15: $185,600; FY16: $412,900; FY17: $404,700 

GCDAMP Funding: FY15: $185,600; FY16: $384,000; FY17: $384,500 

Other BoR Funding: FY15: $150,000; FY16: $150,000; FY17: $186,000 

A. Investigators 

Joel Sankey, Research Geologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center 

Amy East (formerly Amy Draut), Research Geologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Pacific Coastal 

and Marine Science Center 

Helen Fairley, Research Specialist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center 

Joshua Caster, Geographer, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research 

Center 

B. Project Summary 

 The rate and magnitude of wind transport of sand from active channel sandbars to higher 

elevation valley margins potentially affects the stability of archaeological sites and the 

characteristics of other cultural and natural resources. The degree to which valley margin areas 

are affected by upslope wind redistribution of sand is called “connectivity”. Connectivity is 

affected by several factors including the sand source as well as physical and vegetative barriers 

to sand transport. The primary hypothesis of this project is that high degrees of connectivity lead 

to potentially greater archaeological site stability. 

 This project is responsive to recommendations from stakeholders in the Glen Canyon Dam 

Adaptive Management Program. The Bureau of Reclamation, the National Park Service, and the 

tribes, collectively have identified the need for science that will improve understanding of how 

cultural resources are linked to modern river processes. This project proposal is composed of two 

integrated elements; the first (4.1) is a research element, and the second (4.2) is a monitoring 

element. The research element (4.1) consists of three sub-elements that are landscape scale 

analyses that will examine the connectivity between attributes of the active channel and 

geomorphic processes and patterns at higher elevations (above the 45,000 ft3

/s stage) at several 

temporal and geographic scales. In the monitoring element (4.2), a year (2015) will be invested 

to develop and draft a long-term monitoring plan to evaluate if and how much the interactions 

between fluvial, aeolian, and hillslope processes affect the condition of cultural resource sites in 
166 

the Colorado River corridor. The monitoring plan will be drafted by USGS scientists with close 

collaboration from tribes, National Park Service, and Bureau of Reclamation. The monitoring 

plan will be implemented in years 2 and 3 (2016 and 2017, respectively) of the triennial workplan effort. 

C. Background

C.1. Scientific Background 

 The environmental processes and factors that contribute to the current condition of cultural 

resources in the CRe are complex. Because the vast majority of archaeological sites in the CRe 

are situated well above the elevation reached by 25,000 ft3/s river flows (Sondossi and Fairley, in 

revision), effects of dam operations on cultural sites are mainly indirect and manifest themselves 

through diffuse effects to the larger terrestrial ecosystem (Fairley and others, 1994; Fairley and 

Sondossi, 2010). The 1995 Environmental Impact Statement on the Operations of Glen Canyon 

Dam (USDI 1995) identified 336 sites in Grand, Marble, and Glen Canyons that were directly or 

indirectly affected by dam operations. These archaeological sites are situated in or on Holocene 

fine-sediment fluvial deposits derived from the Colorado River that were formed either before or 

after completion of Glen Canyon Dam (GCD). 

 Interest in the potential of dam operations to affect erosion rates at cultural resource sites in 

the CRe dates back to the early 1980s, when NPS archaeologists observed an increase in the 

amount and severity of gullying at archaeological sites (Hereford and others, 1991; Fairley, 

2003). This topic was also identified by the Hopi Tribe as an important issue, because these 

processes influenced the Hopi’s perspective on whether mitigation of potential dam effects to 

archaeological sites would, or would not, be appropriate to undertake (L. Kuwanwisiwma, 

personal communication, 1990, to H. Fairley). In 1989, a decision by the Department of Interior 

to undertake research on the downstream effects of Glen Canyon Dam resulted in the initiation 

of several studies focused on mapping the geomorphic context of archaeological resources and 

the geomorphic processes acting on those resources (Hereford and others, 1991, 1993, 1996; 

Lucchitta, 1991). This initial phase of research led to the publication of several detailed surficial 

geology maps that emphasized the distribution of Holocene deposits in areas of high cultural 

resource density, plus several reports documenting changes in the post-dam environment 

(Hereford and others, 1993, 1996; Hereford, Burke and Thompson, 1998, 2000a, 2000b; 

Lucchitta, 1991). 

 Subsequent work (e.g., Draut and others, 2005, 2010; Draut and Rubin, 2008; Collins and 

others, 2008, 2009, 2012; Draut 2012) has collectively indicated that a post-dam reduction in 

fine sediment supply (Topping and others, 2003) contributed to a reduction in active channel 

sandbars that are available for transport to high elevation sand deposits where archaeological 

sites are often located (Draut, 2012). This same phenomenon appears to have also reduced the 

resilience of the upland landscape to weather-induced erosional impacts, as illustrated, for 

example, by the fact that locations with less high elevation sand have greater prevalence of 

gullies (Sankey and Draut, 2014). Draut (2012) and Draut and Rubin (2008) proposed that the 

upland sand deposits in the river corridor can be broadly grouped into those with modern sand 

supply by wind from river sandbars (modern-fluvial-sourced sand deposits, hereafter referred to 

as MFS) and those that have not received sand in post-dam time, and received their most recent 

major sediment replenishment from deposits associated with the 1921 flood of 170,000 ft3

/s 

(relict-fluvial-sourced deposits, hereafter referred to as RFS; Draut, 2012). Available evidence 
167 

indicates that sediment supply limitation and lack of large floods, in conjunction with increased 

biological soil crust cover, has further reduced mobility of high-elevation sand deposits, with 

multiple interacting effects to surface erosion processes in and adjacent to archaeological sites 

and associated Holocene deposits (Draut, 2012). Work conducted in 2013 and 2014 (Project J of 

the FY 13/14 Biennial Work Plan) described the extent to which aeolian sand provides a 

protective cover to the ground surface of archaeological sites, and even infills – with potential to 

mitigate – eroding gullies within and adjacent to archaeological sites (Sankey and Draut, 2014; 

Collins and others, in review). Very recent work has also qualitatively described the role, in 

many locations, of riparian vegetation that produces a barrier to the onshore and upslope 

transport by wind of MFS aeolian sand (East, 2014). Riparian vegetation can thus segregate the 

general category of MFS landscapes into additional categories that reflect the varying degrees to 

which sites receive modern sand resupply based on whether vegetation impedes aeolian transport 

of sand from a fluvial sandbar to an archaeological site. 

 Recent work has quantified the long-term trend of the lowering and encroachment of riparian 

vegetation into the former active channel in response to decreased flood magnitude and duration 

(Sankey and others, in review). During the same post-dam timeframe, periods of increases and 

decreases in xeric (upland, desert) vegetation have occurred at higher stage-elevations in 

response to regional climate and episodes of drought (Sankey and others, in review). While 

environmental factors, including fluvial sources of aeolian sand and riparian vegetation, have 

been identified previously (Draut, 2012; Collins and others, in review) as important controls on 

connectivity along the fluvial-aeolian-hillslope continuum, the relative prevalence and 

importance of many of these controls have not been explicitly tested over large geographic extent 

or multi-temporal scales. We define connectivity (Merriam, 1984) as the “degree to which a 

landscape facilitates or impedes movement among resource patches” (Taylor and others, 1993), 

and focus specifically on the potential for movement of sand by wind between active channel 

sandbars to higher elevation sand landscapes. Potentially important controls on connectivity 

include: upwind sand bars that are resupplied by controlled floods (administratively referred to 

as High Flow Experiments or HFEs); alternative sediment sources including tributary 

channels/mouths, bare sediment surfaces on terrace risers, campsites and other high user impact 

areas; vegetation (either barriers positioned between fluvial sand bars and upland areas or cover 

of formerly open sand [source] areas); and, topographic barriers such as rock outcrops and 

debris fans. 

 In addition to the recent work conducted at landscape scales that has identified some of the 

important controls on connectivity along the fluvial-aeolian-hillslope continuum, site-specific 

monitoring has identified that many archaeological sites are dominated by erosion processes 

caused by discrete runoff erosion events that can lower the ground surface several centimeters 

over areas as large as tens to hundreds of square meters (Collins and others, 2012; Collins and 

others, in review). In addition to aeolian influx of fluvial sediment, potentially important controls 

on site erosion also include proposed mitigation treatments such as the installation of check dams 

that might control expansion and propagation of gullies. Possible vegetation treatments that 

remove or reduce dense vegetation barriers also might be employed to promote aeolian transport 

of fluvially sourced sand to higher elevations. Defoliation of tamarisk caused by the recent 

spread of the tamarisk beetle (Diorhabda carinulata) is also a contemporary environmental 

factor that might increase the potential for aeolian sand transport through vegetation barriers, and 

may have effects similar to vegetation removal treatments. 
168 

 Most recent small spatial scale monitoring work in Grand Canyon has been conducted with 

terrestrial (ground-based) lidar remote sensing. Collins and Kayen (2006) first demonstrated 

lidar’s potential utility for documenting topographic and vegetation change in the CRe. A phased 

program of research and development was initiated between 2006 and 2010 towards 

implementation of a long-term core-monitoring program (Fairley and others, 2007). The first 

phase of this project (Phase I) began in spring 2006 and initially focused on completing a 

comprehensive assessment of the geomorphic and archaeological attributes of 232 river corridor 

sites (O’Brien and Pederson, 2009a) to characterize the range of variability in these 

archaeological sites and to aid in the selection of an appropriate sample for a future pilot 

monitoring program (Vance and Smiley, 2011). Phase I involved testing a variety of survey 

techniques, including terrestrial lidar, as potential tools for measuring change in resource 

condition (Collins and others, 2008). 

 The applicability and utility of monitoring archaeological sites using terrestrial lidar was 

subsequently demonstrated at 13 sites in Grand Canyon (e.g., Collins and others, 2008, 2009, 

2012). Collins and others, (2008) showed that terrestrial lidar technology could be used to collect 

data as accurate as or better than previously evaluated total station topographic surveys, while 

minimizing impacts to the sites being monitored; total station techniques had been previously 

evaluated as a potential monitoring approach (Leap and others, 2000). Several criticisms of the 

total station method that led to the investigation of lidar as an alternative tool included the fact 

that total station surveys often resulted in significant impacts (e.g., trampling) to sites, and the 

resolution and measurement error in repeated surveys was potentially greater than the amount of 

change targeted for detection. The work of Collins and others, (2008) documented that entire site 

areas could be monitored with lidar with minimal impact. Initially, Collins and others (2009) 

documented surface-elevation changes greater than 8 cm at 6 of 9 sites monitored between 

September 2006 and September 2007. Since these initial field studies, advances in lidar 

technology have resulted in laser scanning devices with greater accuracy and new software with 

improved potential to measure small-scale (centimeter-level) topographic change (Collins and 

others, 2012). Incorporating these advances, Collins and others (2012) collected multiple 

comparable lidar data sets at 11 sites during a 5-year period. This effort demonstrated that (1) 

land surface change of ~ 5 cm could be reliably and accurately detected over large areas, and (2) 

it is possible to link observed changes to specific geomorphic processes. There is a finite limit to 

the sample size of sites that can be surveyed with lidar at this level of detail in a single 

monitoring effort, due to logistics. Therefore the question persists of how to most appropriately 

extrapolate from an inherently small set of detailed lidar measurements to the large population of 

archaeological sites. 

 Work completed in 2013 and 2014 incorporated additional lidar surveys into a synthesis of 

more than 5 years of surface-elevation data and change detection at archaeological sites in Grand 

Canyon and sought to link measured landscape changes to meteorological conditions (Collins 

and others, January 28, 2014 GCMRC Annual Reporting Meeting, and Collins and others, in 

review). Key findings of this work were that erosion dominates the landscape response at most 

sites, in large part because high intensity, runoff producing storms that sometimes induce erosion 

and gullying are relatively common within Grand Canyon. Precipitation records from the past 

century indicate that storms comparable to those that induce significant overland flow occur 

during years of average and wet conditions. Erosion-inducing storms occur at individual sites 

with frequencies that range from approximately once per year to once per decade, and results 

suggest that such storms occur at a majority of sites at least once every 2-3 years. The synthesis 
169 

also identified the influx of aeolian sand – and specifically the infilling of individual gullies by 

aeolian sand – as a key landscape process that can mitigate erosion and the formation and 

propagation of gullies. 

 Change detection with lidar surveys identifies magnitude of topographic change and type of 

change, whether net erosion or deposition. However, it is also important to understand whether 

detected changes represent progressive or potentially reversing geomorphic change. Hillslope 

erosion and gullying in valley margins of the canyon are viewed as geomorphically progressive 

changes that in archaeological sites can result in net erosion in time. The key geomorphic process 

identified to date with potential to reverse this progressive change is influx of aeolian sand. 

Collins and others (2012, in review) have attributed changes detected with lidar surveys to one of 

several types of geomorphic change that are either runoff erosion, runoff deposition, aeolian 

erosion, or aeolian deposition. From the magnitude of changes attributed to each of these types 

of geomorphic change, it is possible to infer the degree of progressive vs. potentially reversing 

geomorphologic change at an individual site or sample of sites. However, it is still difficult to 

accurately extrapolate these observations to a more general understanding of the relative degree 

of progressive vs. reversing geomorphic processes for the population of archaeological sites, 

without a framework, such as an archaeological site classification system, for doing so. 

 In conjunction with the work in 2013 and 2014 that was conducted at landscape scales 

(Sankey and Draut, 2014) and site-specific scales (Collins and others, in review) and that 

quantified the importance of aeolian influx to gullied archaeological sites, additional novel work 

developed a system for classifying archaeological sites based on the degree to which the sites 

could potentially receive windblown sand from recent controlled floods (East, 2014). The 

classification of additional archaeological sites is currently ongoing and is anticipated to be 

completed in 2014 for sites within Grand Canyon National Park. All river-corridor 

archaeological sites will be classified based on an evaluation of geographic position relative to 

visible recent flood-sediment deposits, measured or inferred local prevailing wind directions, and 

identification of any potential barriers to aeolian sand transport between flood deposits and 

archaeological sites. The classification system identifies whether a site’s geomorphic context 

includes river-derived sediment—either fluvial, aeolian, or both. The system also identifies 

whether barriers exist that could limit the aeolian transport of upwind fluvial sediment by wind 

to archaeological site(s). There are 5 types of sites included in the classification: 

Type 1: Sites with an adjacent, upwind fluvial sediment deposit formed by a recent high 

flow, and no evident barriers that would hinder aeolian sand transport from the flood 

deposit toward the archaeological site. 

Type 2: Sites with an upwind sediment deposit formed by a recent flood, but with a 

barrier separating the flood deposit from the archaeological site. These barriers were 

interpreted to potentially limit aeolian sand transport from the fluvial deposit toward the 

archaeological site. Such barriers may not entirely eliminate sand movement from fluvial 

deposit to archaeological site, but are interpreted as likely to inhibit aeolian sand 

transport. 

 2a: Vegetation barrier present (may be riparian or higher-elevation, non-riparian 

upland vegetation). 

 2b: Topographic barrier present (most often a tributary channel, but in several 

cases a steep bedrock cliff or large boulders). 
170 

 2c: Both vegetation and topographic barriers present. 

Type 3: Sites at which a recent flood did not deposit sediment upwind of site, even 

though flood water had been present at an upwind location relative to the archaeological 

site (where an upwind shoreline exists for a recent controlled flood). 

Type 4: Sites at which there is no upwind shoreline that could allow deposition from a 

recent controlled flood, but whose geomorphic context does involve river-derived sand 

deposited by pre-dam floods. 

Type 5: Sites in the river corridor whose geomorphic context is not dependent on 

Colorado River-derived sand, such as those situated on bedrock or talus. 

 

 The classification of all archaeological sites within the river corridor of Grand Canyon 

National Park will be completed in 2014 and presented in the final report of “Project J” of the 

2013 and 2014 GCMRC biennial workplan. One purpose of completing the classification for all 

river corridor sites within Grand Canyon National Park is to answer the question of “what 

proportion of sites in the river corridor are affected by river-derived sand and potentially receive 

windblown sand from recent controlled floods?”. A summary of the classification of a subset of 

the sites within Grand Canyon National Park is provided in Figure 1 (previously presented by 

Sankey and others, and Fairley and others, January 28, 2014 GCMRC Annual Reporting 

Meeting). While Figure 1 only pertains to a subset of all sites (197 sites had already been 

classified as of winter 2014 when Figure 1 was generated), it does indicate that a substantial 

number of river corridor sites (e.g., those classified as types 1 or 2) are linked to modern river 

processes with potential to receive windblown sand from recent controlled floods. 

 For the purposes of this proposal, we have considered the recent synthesis of 5 years of 

monitoring surface-elevation changes at 13 archaeological sites in Grand Canyon (Collins and 

others, in review) in the context of the site classification system (Figure 2). We note that this 

evaluation presently includes only a limited sample size which can lead to large uncertainties in 

estimates (e.g., note the large standard errors for many of the mean volume change bars plotted 

in Figure 2), and that increasing the number of sites available for such evaluations is one of the 

goals of the work we propose herein. Some of the largest surface elevation changes attributed to 

rainfall events – and including erosion and deposition by aeolian and overland flow transport – 

occurred at sites classified as type 1. Upwind fluvial sediment deposits formed by recent 

controlled flood(s) occur at these type 1 sites, and there were no barriers to hinder aeolian sand 

transport from the flood deposit toward the archaeological sites. However, fewer than half of 

these type 1 sites (two of the five type 1 sites; Figure 2) exhibited measureable aeolian deposition 

during the period of analysis. Moreover, a majority of the sites for which detailed data are 

available (8 of the 13 total sites), encompassing a variety of classes, had measurable aeolian 

erosion (deflation). Thus, interpretation of the site-specific surface elevation changes in the 

context of the archaeological site classification suggests that most sites of all classes are likely 

not transport limited with respect to aeolian processes (i.e., wind energy is often sufficient for 

transport). However, apparently even the most favorably positioned sites (e.g., type 1) with 

respect to fluvial sources of aeolian sand can still be lacking in either sediment source and/or 

possibly the right temporal and spatial interaction of wind energy and sediment availability to 
171 

cause net long-term deposition and improve the chance of archaeological-site preservation in 

place. 

 Clearly, the classification system developed in 2013 and 2014, and the actual classification of 

archaeological sites, creates an important framework that should be further evaluated as a guide 

for future monitoring and research efforts. In particular, the classification provides scientists and 

managers with hypotheses that can be tested concerning the expected future landscape response 

of individual archaeological sites relative to dam operations and high flow events. The 

classification also promotes hypothesis testing concerning the future landscape response of 

individual sites to the potentially interacting effects of dam operation and high flow events with 

contemporary and possible future mitigation efforts such as erosion control check dams and 

riparian vegetation reduction treatments. 

 
172 

Figure 1. Summary of archaeological site classifications completed as of winter 2014 for a subset of Grand Canyon National 

Park river-corridor sites (previously presented by Sankey and others, and Fairley and others, January 28, 2014 GCMRC Annual 

Reporting Meeting). Note that the classification of all river-corridor archaeological sites within Grand Canyon National Park (> 

350 sites) will be completed in 2014 and presented in the final report of “Project J” of the 2013 and 2014 GCMRC biennial 

workplan.
173 

Figure 2. Volumetric surface change (by type and process) at archaeological sites, measured with ground-based lidar, and 

summarized by archaeological site class. Individual site change data are from Collins and others (in review) and are summarized

by classes. Changes were determined at 1-3 year intervals for 13 sites between 2006 and 2010. Error bars show the standard error 

of the mean for n sites. 

C.2. Management Background 

 Project 4 has been designed to be responsive to the goals of the GCDAMP, the monitoring 

requirements of the Grand Canyon Protection Act, the recommendations of the 2000 PEP 

(Doelle, 2000) and the 2007 Legacy Monitoring Data review panel (Kintigh and others, 2007). 

Project 4 has also been designed to be responsive to the needs of DOI agencies related to 

compliance with Section 106 and Section 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act for 

assessing effects of dam operations and effectiveness of experimental management actions such 

as HFEs, as well as the effectiveness of other non-flow management actions that may be initiated 

in the future to achieve the management goals for in situ preservation of archaeological sites. 

 When BOR decided to modify operations at Glen Canyon Dam in the early 1980s in order to 

increase peaking power generation, they initiated a series of environmental discussions and 

studies that led to development of an EIS and Record of Decision under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (USDOI 1995, 1996) and a programmatic agreement (PA) under the 

National Historic Preservation Act, all three of which included provisions to continue monitoring 

and researching effects of dam operations on archaeological sites and other cultural resources. 

Prior to these events, Grand Canyon National Park (GCNP) archeologists had been monitoring 

cultural sites in the river corridor since the late 1970s, using a monitoring approach that was 

designed to document the presence or absence of visitor use impacts and other types of threats 

and disturbances (Kintigh and others, 2007). These threats and disturbances included 

observations about erosion that potentially compromised the integrity of cultural sites. The NPS 

monitoring approach was subsequently incorporated as the interim approach for monitoring dam 

effects under the PA. This approach relied on assigning sites by categorical monitoring criteria. 

Observations of change were supplemented with repeat photographs of impacted areas, and maps 

were drawn to show locations of specific impacts. Monitoring was performed to meet the Park’s 

compliance obligations under Section 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), to 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Type 1

(n = 5)

 Type 2a and 2b

(n = 5)

 Type 3 and 4

(n = 3)

Mean Volume Change (m3)

Archaeological Site Classification

Runoff Erosion

Aeolian Erosion

Runoff Deposition

Aeolian Deposition
174 

meet the section 106 requirements of BOR, and to identify sites that might require excavation or 

other forms of treatment to preserve their cultural, historic, and scientific values. The current 

NPS monitoring approach, which was developed by the Grand Canyon Cultural Resource 

Program in 2011 (Dierker and Brennan, 2011), has peer-reviewed monitoring protocols and 

mitigation protocols that guide monitoring and treatment activities in the park. The current NPS 

protocols supersede and improve monitoring efforts as prescribed under the Archeological Sites 

Information System (ASMIS). 

 In 2000, a cultural resources Protocol Evaluation Panel (PEP) recommended redesigning the 

PA monitoring program to focus more specifically on monitoring the effects of dam operations 

and evaluating the efficacy of erosion control efforts (Doelle, 2000). Although effects of dam 

operations were not specifically defined by the PEP, it is clear from the context of discussion in 

the PEP report that effects of dam operations were thought to be changes in the physical 

condition of archaeological sites that result from the direct inundation of sites and increases in 

rates of erosion that result from sediment supply limitations due to the presence and operation of 

Glen Canyon Dam. Although the PEP criticized the “overly narrow focus, adoption, and 

reliance on the ’base-level’ hypothesis developed by Hereford et al.”, geomorphologists on the 

panel recognized that “dam operations must contribute to the spatial and temporal variability in 

rates of erosion of deposits along the river corridor” to some unknown degree. They also noted 

that the hypothesis that aeolian influx of river-derived sand can affect rates of erosion of deposits 

along the river corridor, as proposed by Thompson and Potochnik (2000), “had not been 

adequately tested” and that “broader research on the topic would be useful.” Thus, the PEP felt 

that it was important to structure the future monitoring program to distinguish and track the 

effects of dam operations separately from other non-dam-related impacts that can also affect 

cultural site condition, such as social trailing and artifact loss due to visitation. Specifically, the 

PEP recommended that the monitoring activities of the NPS and GCMRC should be integrated 

and refocused to: (1) evaluate the effectiveness of long-term management strategies (including 

treatments designed to control/minimize dam-related erosion) and (2) evaluate effects of 

different flow regimes on archaeological sites and other cultural resources such as Traditional 

Cultural Properties (TCPs). The PEP noted that “monitoring should be designed and organized to 

serve as the basis for periodic quantitative evaluations of the effect of dam operations, 

effectiveness of erosion control methods, and development of treatment plans”. These 

recommendations were later echoed and further refined by the members of the legacy monitoring 

review committee (Kintigh and others, 2007), who emphasized the need for “unpacking the 

concept of site condition” to distinguish dam-related effects from other sources of impacts to 

cultural sites and for developing an explicit model to describe our understanding of how dam 

operations affect site condition, and then design a monitoring protocol that could explicitly test 

and evaluate the model. 

 Throughout the history of the GCDAMP, there has been ongoing discussion and considerable 

debate about the need for monitoring programs in general and what purpose(s) monitoring is 

supposed to serve. In general terms, monitoring can serve a broad variety of purposes (Hellawell, 

1991): 

 To assess the effectiveness of policy or legislation; 

 To comply with regulatory requirements (performance or audit function); and, 

 To detect incipient change (“early warning system”). 
175 

 Noon (2003) proposed an additional reason: to “assess the value and temporal (or spatial) 

trend of those indicators that characterize the state of an ecological system”. In the GCDAMP 

generally, and in the cultural program arena specifically, all of these reasons have been cited as 

driving the need for monitoring (GCDAMP, 2003). Additionally, there is concern with meeting 

legal mandates, such as those identified in the Grand Canyon Protection Act (GCPA), which 

calls for “long term monitoring programs and activities that will ensure that Glen Canyon Dam is 

operated in a manner consistent with that of Section 1802.” Section 1802 requires that the dam 

be operated in such a manner as to “protect, mitigate adverse impacts to, and improve the values 

for which Grand Canyon National Park and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area were 

established including, but not limited to natural and cultural resources and visitor use.” In 

addition, there are legal obligations embedded within the National Historic Preservation Act 

(NHPA) that require federal agencies to consider effects of their actions on cultural resources 

(NHPA, Section 106) and also for the responsible land manager to identify, evaluate, and protect 

historic properties under their care (NHPA, Section 110). While monitoring is not specifically 

required for compliance with NHPA, monitoring is routinely implemented as a component of 

Section 106 compliance programs to assess effects of management actions or to evaluate the 

effectiveness of mitigation measures. 

 In the 2003 Strategic Plan (GCDAMP, 2003), GCDAMP stakeholders distinguished two 

monitoring categories: “Core Monitoring” and “Effects Monitoring”. The GCDAMP developed 

the following definition of core monitoring: 

Core monitoring consists of consistent, long-term, repeated measurements using set 

protocols and is designed to establish status and trends in meeting specific management 

objectives. Core monitoring is implemented on a fixed schedule regardless of variable 

factors or circumstances (e.g., water year, experimental flows, temperature control, 

stocking strategy, non-native control, etc.) affecting target species. 

Effects monitoring, on the other hand, was defined as: 

... the collection of data associated with an experiment performed under the Record of 

Decision, an unanticipated event, or other management action. Changes in resource 

conditions measured by effects monitoring generally will be short-term responses. The 

purpose of effects monitoring is to supplement the fixed schedule and variables collected 

under core monitoring. This will both increase the understanding of the resource status 

and trends and provide a research opportunity to discover the effect of the experiment or 

management action. 

 The project described here will implement monitoring protocols to address both “core 

monitoring information needs” (CMINs) and “effects information needs” (EINs) for cultural 

sites in Glen and Grand Canyons. The highest priority CMIN for historic properties, as revised 

by the Cultural Resource Ad Hoc Group (CRAHG) and adopted by the Science Planning Group 

(SPG) of the GCDAMP in the fall of 2005, is: 

 CMIN 11.1.1 (SPG revised). Determine the condition and integrity of prehistoric and 

historic sites in the CRe through tracking rates of erosion, visitor impacts, and other 

relevant variables. Determine the condition and integrity of TCPs in the CRe. 
176 

 In 2007, an expert panel reviewed the previous PA monitoring protocols and existing NPS 

monitoring data and developed recommendations for potentially incorporating these “legacy” 

monitoring data into future monitoring programs for the GCDAMP (Kintigh and others, 2007). 

Among several recommendations, the panel recommended that the monitoring program be 

redesigned to “unpack” the concept of site condition and separate out the factors affecting site 

condition that are potentially dam-related from those that are not (Wood and Johnson, 1978; 

Wildesen, 1982; Jones, 2007). The panel suggested that data from historical photographs might 

be productively mined in the future to evaluate changes that have already occurred to the sites 

through time. In addition, the reviewers suggested exploring the use of lidar technology as a tool 

for measuring and tracking ongoing surface changes at archaeological sites that are potentially 

linked to dam operations. At the same time, the panel recommended developing a model 

reflecting current understanding of how dam operations affect archaeological site condition, and 

to use the monitoring program to evaluate whether model predictions conform to monitoring 

results. The current proposal incorporates all of these recommendations. 

 This project is designed to address two primary Strategic Science Questions (SSQs) 

identified in the 2007 Monitoring and Research Plan (GCMRC, 2007): 

 SSQ 2-1. Do dam-controlled flows affect (increase or decrease) rates of erosion and 

vegetation growth at archaeological sites and TCP sites in the CRE, and if so, how? 

 SSQ 2-4. How effective are various treatments (e.g., experimental flows, check dams, 

vegetation management, etc.) in slowing rates of erosion at archaeological sites over the 

long term? 

 A monitoring program is also essential for determining whether management actions 

designed to stabilize or improve site conditions are working as intended. Therefore, this project 

also directly addresses EIN 11.1 (formerly CMIN 11.1.2 of the GCDAMP Strategic Plan, 

subsequently re-designated by CRAHG/SPG as EIN 11.1): 

 EIN 11.1. Determine the efficacy of treatments for mitigation of adverse effects to 

historic properties. 

 Additionally, this project addresses a general GCDAMP research information need 

(formerly identified as CMIN 11.1.4 in the 2001 GCDAMP Strategic Plan): 

How effective is monitoring, what are the appropriate strategies to capture change 

at an archaeological site – qualitative, quantitative? 

 The desired future conditions (DFCs) for archaeological sites articulated by AMP 

stakeholders and DOI management agencies identify preservation in place as the desired goal for 

archaeological sites and identify rates of erosion or deposition as one metric for assessing 

whether desired future conditions are being achieved. The DFCs do not specify what rates of 

erosion or deposition are necessary to meet (or not meet) the desired condition, however. Other 

metrics for assessing cultural resource condition include the presence of other impacts that affect 

National Register eligibility of sites (such as evidence of artifact collecting and deliberate 

vandalism). These latter impacts are not necessarily dam-related, however, and therefore would 
177 

not be a focus of the future monitoring program being proposed by GCMRC. However, by 

combining the data that will be collected through the currently proposed project, along with other 

data that is being routinely collected by NPS to meet their Section 110 obligations and Section 

106 obligations for other management purposes such the 2005 Colorado River Management 

Plan, plus monitoring data that is currently being collected by tribal stakeholders, it is possible to 

achieve multiple related objectives for monitoring cultural resource condition in the CRe. 

 The process of developing a new Long Term Experimental and Management Plan (LTEMP) 

to guide future operations of Glen Canyon Dam has highlighted the need for additional 

monitoring data that can help us better understand how dam-controlled flows affect cultural 

resource condition. Completion of the LTEMP may also introduce additional needs for 

monitoring in the future. While those additional monitoring needs are currently unknown, the 

monitoring plan that is proposed for development as part of Project Element 4.2 will be 

designed, at a minimum, to track the effects to cultural resources of whatever preferred 

alternative flow regime is ultimately selected. 

C.3. Key Monitoring and Research Questions Addressed in this project 

 In element 4.1., the primary question that we will ask is: (1) How do the contemporary 

location and size of active and inactive aeolian sand deposits vary spatially throughout the river 

corridor as a function of, and in proximity to, controls that we have identified or hypothesized to 

be important? We hypothesize that important controls include: 

 Upwind sand bars subject to scour and fill during HFEs

 Other sediment sources including deposits in tributary mouths, bare sediment surfaces on 

terrace treads and risers, campsites, and other high user impact areas

 Vegetation (either thick vegetation barriers that occur between fluvial sand bars and 

upland areas or cover of formerly open sand [source] areas)

 Topographic barriers including rock outcrops, debris fans, and tributary channels, and 

terrace risers

 The second question that we will ask is how have location and size of active and inactive 

upland sand units varied temporally in the contemporary period of restricted power plant 

operation with controlled floods? This work will consider temporal changes relative to the 

hypothesized important controls presented above and employ interpretation of digital imagery 

acquired by overflights since 2002. We propose to test the following hypotheses: 

 The distribution of aeolian sand has varied as a function of vegetation changes, and 

episodes of decreased potential for aeolian activity are evident in response to vegetation 

expansion at low elevations and increased potential for aeolian activity are evident in 

response to vegetation decreases (“drought pruning”) at high elevations

 

 A third question we will consider is how has the presence of active and inactive aeolian sand 

varied within archaeological sites over longer-term pre- to post-dam time periods? Building on 

earlier work (Draut and Rubin, 2008) that found limited utility of the analog aerial photograph 

record for identifying trends in aeolian sand cover but recommended using oblique historical 

photographs for this purpose, this work will consider temporal changes in historical oblique 

photos and will test the following hypotheses: 
178 

 Cultural sites currently situated in inactive aeolian areas (areas that no longer receive 

aeolian sand inputs from upwind source areas) have more biologic crust cover and/or 

more vegetation cover today than in the past, and

 Cultural sites currently situated in inactive aeolian areas have more and/or larger gullies 

than in the past. 

 The fourth question that we will ask is: How are the processes and controls that govern 

aeolian-fluvial-hillslope connectivity impacted by the different effects that river regulation has 

on rivers? Answering this last question will involve a comparison of findings related to questions 

1-3 asked in Grand Canyon with observations in Desolation and Gray Canyons of the Green 

River; we will specifically investigate whether, in the Desolation-Gray Canyon system with 

greater fluvial sediment supply and larger annual spring floods, there exists a greater proportion 

of active aeolian sand in upland sediment deposits than occurs in Grand Canyon. We are seeking 

non-GCDAMP funding for this last sub-element. 

 In element 4.2., we propose to draft and implement a monitoring plan that is designed to 

identify whether, and how much, HFE sand is transported by wind to a representative sample of 

archaeological sites, and then to measure the effect that wind transported sand has on site surface 

condition and site stability (i.e., the degree to which these processes mitigate effects from 

precipitation-induced gully erosion and other surface impacts). Review, approval, and 

implementation of the monitoring plan will require that BOR, NPS, and the tribes work very 

closely with GCMRC to come to agreement about the full scope and specific objectives of the 

monitoring program. In addition to satisfying BOR’s Section 106 compliance responsibilities and 

to meeting legal requirements of GCPA for monitoring how changes in dam operations affect 

resource condition, the proposed monitoring program will be designed to test the following 

hypotheses: 

 Cultural sites where adjacent, upwind fluvial sediment deposits form by high flow events, 

and that have unimpeded aeolian sand transport from the flood deposit toward the 

archaeological site (i.e., type 1), show less erosional surface change than sites of the other 

classification types (types 2-4) where either lack of sediment sources, presence of 

transport barriers, or both are potentially limiting factors, and where other factors 

(weather conditions, drainage catchment size) are approximately equivalent.

 Cultural sites where transport barriers are present, but fluvial source of aeolian sand is 

also present (i.e., type 2), show less erosional surface change than sites with no current 

fluvial source of aeolian sand (type 3 or 4). 

 Since approximately 30 sites within the Grand Canyon portion of the river corridor have 

received erosion control treatments (check dams) in the past (Leap and others, 2000), we also 

plan to further explore the efficacy of check dam treatments as a mitigation measure by 

evaluating potential differences in erosion condition between treated and untreated sites. While 

acknowledging that we might be limited logistically in our ability to sample a large number of 

sites with check dam treatments and untreated control sites, if sample sizes allow, we would 

propose to test the following two hypotheses: 
179 

 Cultural sites with check dams show less evidence of gully erosion than sites without 

check dams, regardless of whether or not they are situated downwind of open sand areas 

(e.g., among all archaeological site classes), and 

 Cultural sites with check dams that are situated downwind of open sand source areas (i.e., 

type 1 and type 2 sites) show less evidence of gully erosion than sites with check dams 

that are not situated downwind of open sand source areas (i.e., type 3 and 4 sites). 

D. Proposed Work 

D.1. Project Elements 

Project Element 4.1. Quantifying connectivity along the fluvial-aeolian-hillslope continuum at landscape 

scales 

Joel Sankey, Research Geologist, USGS, GCMRC 

Amy East, Research Geologist, USGS, PCMSC

Helen Fairley, Research Specialist, USGS, GCMRC

Joshua Caster, Geographer, USGS, GCMRC

 The primary objective of Project Element 4.1 is to explain how connectivity along the 

fluvial-aeolian-hillslope continuum varies spatially throughout the river corridor and to 

determine if this connectivity has changed during the recent decades of restricted power plant 

operation and the occurrence of controlled floods. As noted previously, we define connectivity 

(Merriam, 1984) as the “degree to which a landscape facilitates or impedes movement among 

resource patches” (Taylor and others, 1993). This project element includes three sub-elements 

that examine connectivity by focusing on the potential for movement of sand by wind from 

active channel sandbars to higher elevation sand landscapes. In the context of landscape 

connectivity, vegetation and topography have the potential to decrease the distance that sand can 

be transported, by decreasing the length of the connected pathway between source (e.g. sandbar) 

and sink (MFS sandscape) (Okin and others, 2009). The sub-elements are designed to examine 

the nature of connectivity between sand in the active channel of the Colorado River and higher 

elevation sand patches and to examine the factors that control these redistribution processes at 

different spatial and temporal scales. The first sub-element, examines landscape-scale spatial 

variability using a combination of remote sensing and GIS analyses of existing digital imagery 

and topography data that span the entire river corridor to test hypotheses developed during the 

FY 13–14 work-cycle about what environmental factors related to river operations control the 

location and size of aeolian sand deposits and whether or not these deposits contribute to the 

stability of archaeological sites. The second project sub-element will extend the first analysis 

farther back in time by conducting visual interpretation of historical oblique photos to assess 

whether hypothesized changes due to dam operations are supported by photographic evidence. 

The third project sub-element will investigate how the processes and controls that govern 

connectivity are impacted by the effects of river regulation on sediment supply. This last subelement will contrast observations of aeolian sand distribution in Grand Canyon with other, 

analogous river systems, specifically Desolation and Gray Canyons of the Green River. The subelements are each described in further detail below. 

 In the first sub-element, we will conduct landscape-scale, remote sensing and GIS analyses 

of existing digital imagery and topography as well as geospatial databases developed and 
180 

previously reported on for work conducted in the FY13–14 work plan (Sankey and Draut, 2014; 

East, 2014). We will spatially analyze the relative importance of the hypothesized controls 

independently for each date of “corridor-wide” digital imagery and topography that we have 

(e.g., 2002, 2009, and 2013). Methodological steps will be to first expand the aeolian sand map 

completed for the FY13–14 work plan to include the greater river corridor using image 

classification techniques and the existing maps as training data to identify river-derived upland 

sand (above 45,000 ft3

/s) that is active or inactive with respect to aeolian transport. In defining 

areas that are ‘active’ with respect to aeolian sediment transport, we assume that sand deposits 

are active where there is open sand area lacking vegetation, biologic soil crust, or matter other 

than sand; these are places where sediment forms wind-rippled surfaces and, locally, dune 

slipfaces at the angle of repose, thus meeting the criteria for ‘active aeolian sand’ defined by 

Lancaster (1994). We will next quantify relationships of the spatial proximity of aeolian sand 

units and their areal dimensions to the location and dimensions of adjacent and upwind fluvial 

sand (sandbar) deposits. We will similarly quantify relationships of aeolian sand units to 

alternative sediment sources that are adjacent and upwind, including exposed terrace scarps, 

tributary mouths, and open campsite areas. Work completed in the FY13–14 work plan described 

the role, in many locations, of riparian vegetation that produces a barrier to the inland and 

upslope transport of fluvially-sourced aeolian sand (East, 2014). Previous work also quantified 

the long-term trends of: (1) riparian vegetation that has consistently increased at lower elevations 

and encroached towards increasingly lower elevations in response to decreased flood magnitude 

and duration; (2) xeric (upland) vegetation that has exhibited increases and decreases at higher 

elevations in response to regional climate and specifically episodes of drought (Sankey and 

others, in review). Therefore, an important step will also be to examine how the presence, 

dimensions, and long-term stability of vegetation located between aeolian sand deposits and 

active channel sandbars, or formerly open sand areas, are related to the distribution and size of 

contemporary mapped aeolian sand deposits. Finally, we will quantify temporal changes in area 

and dimensions of aeolian sand units and attempt to explain changes as a function of variability 

in fluvial sand sources, alternative fine-sediment sources, and transport barriers. We will conduct 

the change analysis for the decadal time period between 2002 and 2013 for which high resolution 

digital imagery are available. We propose to statistically test the independent and interacting 

effects of the hypothesized explanatory variables for the response of aeolian sand unit area and 

change. Statistical tests may employ mixed model analysis with hypothetical effects (predictor 

variables) that could include, for example: distance and direction to fluvial sand; area of fluvial 

sand; distance, direction to, and area of vegetation barrier; stage-elevation of aeolian sand; relief 

or elevation difference between aeolian and fluvial sand; distance and direction to alternative 

sediment sources or topographic barriers such as camp sites or tributary channels, respectively; 

inferred or measured wind direction (including predominant, in addition to secondary or less 

common, wind directions where such information are available); as well as additional and 

potentially random effects such as geomorphic reach or distance from Glen Canyon Dam. The 

work in the first sub-element will be led by Joel Sankey with collaboration from Amy East and 

Joshua Caster. 

 In the second sub-element, we will extend the analysis back farther in time, to ascertain the 

degree to which environmental conditions at or near cultural sites have changed during the past > 

50 years by comparing conditions in areas that appear to have functioned differently as aeolian 

landscapes in the past compared to current conditions. This work will be completed using 

qualitative visual comparisons of historical oblique imagery and current surface conditions. 
181 

Although the exact number of images that will be analyzed is currently unknown, we anticipate 

that several hundred historical images (>600) will be examined, of which perhaps 150-200 will 

contain information directly relevant to this analysis. Methods will include visual evaluations of 

area and cover of bare sand, soil crust, and vegetation. Images capturing cultural sites and 

aeolian sand source areas by photographers such as Stanton (1890), Birdseye (1923), Schwartz 

(1965), Euler (1960s), Shoemaker (1969), and Webb and others, (1990, 2010) will be the focus 

of the analysis. Historical photographs and recent imagery will be carefully examined and 

qualitatively assessed in terms of whether the imagery shows more or less biologic crust cover, 

vegetation cover, surface inflation or deflation, and other evidence of erosion or surface stability 

within specific areas designated as cultural sites and also within the areas that appear to have 

served as aeolian source areas to cultural sites (Figure 3). Changes in vegetation composition, 

density, biocrust cover, and evidence of surface deposition or erosion will be assigned to ranked 

categories reflecting “no apparent change”, “minimal change”, and “significant change”. We also 

propose to experimentally apply some automated techniques to digitized imagery to further 

quantify the changes in the amount of lateral vegetation cover evident in the photos. The current 

state of cultural sites and aeolian sand areas will be similarly assessed based on recent site photos 

as well as recent site descriptions (e.g., from site investigation work completed in 2013 and 

2014). An important outcome of this analysis will be an estimate of the proportion of previously 

classified cultural sites for which the potential influence of aeolian sand inputs has changed with 

time, as reflected in changes in aeolian-sand-dependent environmental characteristics such as 

vegetation and biologic crusts. The work in the second sub-element will be led by Helen Fairley 

with collaboration from Joel Sankey, Amy East, and Joshua Caster. 

 In the third sub-element, we will investigate how the processes and controls that govern 

connectivity are impacted by the different effects of river regulation on sediment supply. This 

work will contrast observations in Grand Canyon with those in Desolation and Gray Canyons of 

the Green River, Utah. There, previous mapping has shown that numerous large aeolian deposits 

exist (Elliott, 2002) that are likely sourced from fluvial sandbars. In that system with greater 

fluvial sand supply and a flow regime that more closely resembles natural flows, we aim to map 

active and inactive sand deposits and to map the distribution of gullies. We will evaluate whether 

there is widespread evidence of gully annealing. This will also complement comparative work 

done in the Colorado River corridor through Cataract Canyon (Draut, 2012), but using a canyon 

where aeolian dunes are a more common feature of upland river-corridor morphology. The work 

in the third sub-element will be led by Amy East, conducted by an M.S. student at Utah State 

University supervised by J.C. Schmidt, with collaboration from Joel Sankey. 
182 

Figure 3. (Top) Stanton photograph of the Fossil area, looking downstream, February, 1890, Center photo: 1990. Bottom photo: 

May, 2014. In all three photos, the biologic composition (small and sparse arrowweed shrubs, bunch grasses, and lack of 

biocrust) is indicative of an active aeolian landscape, but note that the density and also pedestaling of some plants appears to have 

increased through time. Note also that there appears to be a greater exposure of rocks and deepening of swales in the sand dune

surface in 2014 relative to the earlier photos. The arrow in the 2014 photo points towards a gully that formed in 2007 and is the 

focus of monitoring with repeat lidar surveys by Collins and others, (2012).

 
183 

Project Element 4.2. Monitoring of cultural sites in Grand and Glen Canyons 

Joel Sankey, Research Geologist, USGS, GCMRC 

Helen Fairley, Research Specialist, USGS, GCMRC 

Amy East, Research Geologist, USGS, PCMSC

Joshua Caster, Geographer, USGS, GCMRC 

 The primary objectives of Project Element 4.2. are to 1) draft (in 2015) and 2) implement (in 

2016 and 2017) a monitoring plan that meets requirements for monitoring effects of dam 

operations to cultural resources relative to the requirements of the Grand Canyon Protection Act 

and the terms of a new Programmatic Agreement currently being developed to achieve BOR’s 

Section 106 compliance under the National Historic Preservation Act for the Long Term 

Experimental and Management Plan (LTEMP). At a minimum, the monitoring plan will be 

designed to identify whether, and how much, HFE sand is transported by wind to a 

representative sample of archaeological sites and to measure the effect of the wind-transported 

sand on site surface condition and site stability (i.e., the degree to which this mitigates effects 

from gully erosion and other surface impacts). Year 1 of the project will focus on drafting, 

reviewing, revising, and pursuing approval for the monitoring plan. Years 2 and 3 of the project 

will focus on implementing the monitoring plan. The draft plan will make a recommendation of 

the sample of archaeological sites that should be monitored, but stakeholders (presumably 

including the BOR, NPS, and tribes) will need to work very closely with GCMRC in year 1 of 

the project to come to agreement about the full scope and specific objectives of the monitoring 

program. 

 The BOR has explicitly recommended that the draft monitoring plan consider 22 points (M. 

Barger, email communication, May 19 2014, to J. Sankey). The NPS Grand Canyon Cultural 

Resource Program has also made explicit recommendations that the draft monitoring plan 

consider several points that include specific responses to some of the points presented by BOR 

(J. Balsom, email communication, July 7, 2014, to J. Schmidt, H. Fairley, G. Knowles). GCMRC 

will evaluate these recommendations in the course of drafting the plan as well as any additional 

recommendations provided by other stakeholders (note that in the following list, BOR 

recommendations are in plain text and NPS comments are quoted in italics): 

 

1. Focus on sites that would benefit from HFE sand (types 1 and 2a, maybe 2b and 2c); “We 

believe a full understanding of effects is necessary properly manage and mitigate adverse 

effects from dam operation, not just those that have beneficial effects. Reports by Sankey 

and East (2014) and East (2014) suggests that deposition and erosion can change 

through time, even at Type 1 sites.”

2. For those sites identified in #1, describe a method to determine which sites could receive 

enough sand to make a difference e.g. the HFE sand bar is large enough, the vegetation 

barrier is not too dense or the topographic barrier is not too large; “We are not sure this 

direction is practicable as written. Does the comment really mean, describe a method to 

determine which sites could receive enough sand to stabilize them in-situ. Determine 

what HFE sand bar size is large enough, what density of vegetation is not too dense, and 

what topographic barrier is not too high to facilitate movement of sand to archaeological 

sites at a volume that will stabilize them in-situ. Reports by Sankey and East (2014) and 

East (2014) suggests that deposition and erosion can change through time, even at Type 
184 

1 sites and we need to recognize that “type” may change over time given changing field 

conditions.”

3. Define how much sand is needed to benefit a site that is eroding (this may be part of the 

methodology); “We believe the answer to this question is going to be different for every 

site because it will relate to site type and features present, local topography and 

weather.”

4. Include criteria to determine where to focus the monitoring effort on such sites (gullies?); 

“We believe monitoring activities have to look at an archaeological site within the 

landscape area where it exists. Tribes do not think of archaeological sites as only the 

physical manifestations of the past but the areas within which the sites are located. 

Perhaps something else is intended by the comment.” 

5. Include the number of sites and schedule/interval of monitoring events that would be 

statistically significant; “We may be misunderstanding the context of this statement. We 

know what the number of sites present in the APE. The sample should be based on 

geomorphic context and the potential for indirect effects (both adverse and beneficial)” 

6. State criteria to be used in the evaluation of effectiveness that the HFE sand is making a 

difference for site erosion/stability; “We think this statement may mean “State how you 

will quantify beneficial effects from HFE sand in making sites more stable. State how you 

will quantify adverse effects from HFE sand and site erosion.”” 

7. Include a form used for any monitoring; 

8. Define qualifications of the monitors; 

9. State criteria to determine if covering the site with HFE sand would be an adverse effect 

by changing the site’s setting; 

10. State criteria to determine any other negative (adverse) effects from HFE sand on or 

across sites; “We believe these (BOR points 9 and 10) are complex questions that can’t be 

answered without tribal involvement and SHPO concurrence. We think it will depend on 

the type of site and how that site continues to be used by the traditionally associated 

tribes of the Grand Canyon (or Glen Canyon). The question really needs to address 

integrity of setting; the Colorado River setting has not changed, nor has the location of 

the archaeological sites. Evaluation of the aspects of integrity was performed a number 

of years ago and it might be worthwhile to incorporate previous evaluations into the 

component suggested in this project element.” 

11. Include strategies to re-evaluate sites to see if their type has changed; include strategies 

for removing sites from monitoring if HFE sand is either 1) not reaching the site or 2) not 

effective for stabilizing erosion; 

12. Precisely define all monitoring attributes that will be used (e.g. how will you use lidar?); 

“We think the word “attributes” is referring to “methods” if the discussion is about field 

activities. If the discussion refers to analysis then the word for “attributes” might be 

“data.”” 

13. For monitoring not using lidar, include what will be measured; 

14. Since geomorphic conditions can vary from time to time based on sand availability and 

weather conditions, state how temporal variations of this type will be incorporated into 

the assessment of effectiveness; 

15. State the criteria by which plant cover will be evaluated in relation to sand transport to 

and across the site (this could include how evaluate cryptogamic crust); 
185 

16. How you will determine if the archaeological assemblage is in situ or has been lowered to 

an erosional surface (mixing of components); “We are not sure about what is intended 

here. In-situ deposits can be mixed chronologically as a result of site use from multiple 

occupations. Sheetwash would be evidence of movement. In any case archaeological sites 

are recorded in situ and monitoring information would indicate if creep and sheetwash 

are currently moving artifacts or features in the site context. We can’t think of any 

archaeological sites that have been moved and whole redeposited elsewhere. If it were to 

occur, it would be obvious in the geomorphic context of the site. There would be no 

uniformity or human agency in the archeological deposits present in such cases. We are 

not sure this statement is relevant.” 

17. Define the criteria for active vs. inactive sand; 

18. Where weather station is used, describe what data is collected and how it will be 

analyzed; 

19. Where remote cameras will be used, describe what data is collected and how it will be 

analyzed; 

20. Describe how new sites (discoveries) will be addressed and assigned a type; 

21. Include a method to report findings to the PA signatories; and 

22. The GCMRC’s geoarchaeologist should be instrumental in developing this plan. 

 

Two additional comments from the NPS Grand Canyon Cultural Resource Program are: 

 It is imperative to link monitoring activities to mitigation actions. The key purpose of the 

monitoring program, in our view, is to track resource condition, identify disturbance 

mechanisms, implement strategies, i.e., mitigations, to reduce adverse effects resulting 

from disturbance mechanisms, and evaluate the efficacy of treatment actions. There may 

be a tendency to describe research as monitoring. 

 Drafting a monitoring plan will definitely require close cooperation to negotiate issues 

related to requirements, management recommendations, and agency mission for example. 

We feel we need more information to develop the site sample, the time frame for 

monitoring sites, the variables that will be observed/collected and other specifics. It is 

imperative that a monitoring program be easily replicated and provide information to 

allow management decisions and treatments by the management entity. 

 

 Development of the monitoring plan in 2015 will clearly require that we work closely with 

all stakeholders including the tribes, NPS, and BOR – and also that stakeholders work closely 

with each other – to come to agreement on an approach that can collectively address the science 

recommendations of each group. While the monitoring protocol that is ultimately adopted will be 

contingent on consultation and review from all stakeholders, we believe it is logical to propose to 

design the monitoring plan in the context of the 5-class archaeological site classification system 

developed and applied in 2013 and 2014 (East, 2014). The classification provides useful, sitespecific expectations of landscape response to dam operations and controlled floods, and 

potentially will allow us to make inference from detailed monitoring and measurements 

conducted at a smaller sample of site to the larger population of sites in the CRe. While recent 

monitoring efforts by GCMRC have focused on the use of lidar to measure topographic changes, 

in drafting the monitoring plan we will also consider the use of other monitoring methods and 

tools. In particular, we will consider protocols and tools that might be used by NPS and/or tribes 

on river trips not led by GCMRC personnel. This might include, for example, keeping track of 
186 

presence of sandbars upwind of archaeological sites with repeat oblique photography, tracking 

changes in the lateral cover and porosity of vegetation barriers with repeat oblique photography, 

measuring area of active aeolian sand at sites and between HFE deposits and archaeological 

sites, measuring the cover and stature and spacing of vegetation at sites or between HFE deposits 

and sites, and documenting wind directions near fluvial sandbars from sand shadows, ripples, 

and dune slip faces. 

 In drafting the monitoring plan, we will consider the recent synthesis of 5 years of 

monitoring surface-elevation changes from ground-based lidar at archaeological sites in Grand 

Canyon (Collins and others, in review) in the context of the site classification system (Figures 1 

and 2). Figure 1 indicates that variability exists among sites in the degree to which they are 

linked to modern river processes and specifically their relative potential to receive aeolian influx 

of river-derived sand. Figure 2 shows the mean response with time of runoff and aeolian surface 

change for different classes of archaeological sites measured with lidar during site investigations 

between 2006 and 2010. The large uncertainties (shown by bars that are the standard error of the 

mean for n sites in Figure 2) demonstrate the inherent limitations associated with the small 

sample sizes of the present monitoring program (# of sites per class). For example, the large 

amount of erosion shown for Type 1 sites reflects the presence of one recently formed and 

exceptionally large gully at a single site (Collins and others, 2012; in review.) Therefore, while 

the existing lidar monitoring data provide useful information about landscape response to dam 

operations and controlled floods, additional data (i.e., additional sites but also additional repeat 

visits of previously measured sites) are required to tighten the uncertainty about the mean 

responses and identify any observed differences that are statistically significant. 

 Summary of existing lidar monitoring data indicate that type 1 and 2 sites – which have 

upwind sources of flood-supplied sand but differ in terms of the existence of transport barriers – 

might exhibit some of the largest surface elevation changes attributed to aeolian processes 

(Figure 2); an expected result based on the site class definitions. However, fewer than half of 

these type 1 (2 of 5 sites) and type 2 (2 of 4 sites) sites exhibited measureable aeolian deposition 

during the time period of analysis. Moreover, a majority of all sites (8 of 13 total sites), 

encompassing a variety of classes, had measurable aeolian erosion. Therefore, our current 

interpretation of the site-specific surface elevation changes in the context of the archaeological 

site classification suggests that most sites of all classes are likely not transport limited with 

respect to aeolian processes (i.e., wind energy is often sufficient for transport); however, even the 

most favorably positioned sites (type 1 and type 2) with respect to fluvial sources of aeolian sand 

can still be lacking in either sediment source and/or possibly the right temporal and spatial 

interaction of wind and sediment availability to cause net long-term deposition and improve the 

chance of archaeological-site preservation in place. The site-specific surface-elevation lidar 

monitoring employed for these analyses was conducted with repeat site measurements on the 

order of once every 1-3 years (Collins and others, in review); field campaigns were strategically 

designed such that every site under consideration was not necessarily measured in a single 

campaign or year, but a longer term record of change was still amassed for a maximum number 

of sites (Table 1). In the context of the archaeological site classification system, change detection 

results by volume, mechanism and type (runoff erosion, aeolian erosion, runoff deposition, 

aeolian deposition) will have been derived by the end of 2014 for various intervals between 2006 

and 2014 at five type 1 sites, five type 2 sites, four type 3 sites, and three type 4 sites (Table 1). 

Table 1. Summary of measurement intervals for lidar change detection by archaeological site 
187 

Lidar Change Intervals

Site

Jurisdiction

Class 5/2006‐

5/2007

5/2007‐

9/2007

9/2007‐

4/2010

9/2007‐

9/2010

4/2010‐

9/2010

11/2012‐

11/2013

5/2013‐

5/2014

1 GRCA 1       x    x

2 GRCA 1       x    x

3 GRCA 1     x     x

4 GRCA 1 x x    x     x

5 GRCA 1 x x    x     x

6 GRCA 2a x x    x      

7 GRCA 2a    x    x      

8 GRCA 2b x x x        

9 GRCA 2b x x          

10 GLCA 3        x   

11 GLCA 3        x   

12 GLCA 3        x   

13 GLCA 3        x   

14 GRCA 3 x x          

15 GRCA 4 x x     x    

16 GRCA 4 x x x    x    

17 GRCA 4 x x x    x    

 In drafting the monitoring plan, we will consider whether the continuation of detailed 

characterization of topographic changes with lidar, such as conducted by Collins and others (in 

review) is necessary for monitoring whether and how much HFE sand is transported by wind to 

archaeological sites, and to measure the effect that wind transported sand has on site surface 

condition and site stability. We might, for example, propose to incorporate additional sites to the 

set measured by Collins and others, (in review) and in surveys completed in 2013 and 2014, such 

that we maintain a meaningful number of sites (i.e., n = 3 to 5 clearly presents limitations for 

evaluating the central tendency and uncertainty among classes of sites; even a slightly larger 

sample size might be extremely useful for identifying the variety of landscape process trends) of 

each of the classification types 1, 2 (a+b), 3 and 4. With the combination of the existing and new 

terrestrial lidar survey time series data in addition to other measurements that may be made as 

part of the new monitoring protocol, we will be positioned to answer the following questions: 

1. Do sites where adjacent, upwind fluvial sediment deposits form by high flow events, and 

unimpeded aeolian sand transport from the flood deposit toward the archaeological site 

(i.e., type 1), show different types of surface change and less erosion by gullies and 

overland flow than sites of the other classification types where either lack of sediment 

source, presence of transport barriers, or both are potentially limiting factors? 

2. Do sites where transport barriers are present, but fluvial source of aeolian sand is also 

present (i.e., type 2), show different types of surface change and less erosion by gullies 

and overland flow than sites without a fluvial source of aeolian sand (type 3 or 4)? 

 

 Check dams have been installed at several sites by the NPS and, depending on the 

recommendations of stakeholders, could also be considered in addition to aeolian sand influx as 

a possible interacting control on erosion and surface elevation changes within archaeological 
188 

sites. Sites of any classification type where check-dam-type erosion control treatments have been 

applied might be expected to benefit from interacting effects of dam operations and high flow 

events with the erosion control treatments. It might not be logistically feasible to monitor the 

large number of sites from each class that might be required to test for significant effects and 

interactions of site class and check dam treatments. However, in drafting the monitoring plan, we 

will consider the potential of using the combination of the existing and new terrestrial lidar 

survey time series data to ask, “Do sites of any classification type that have check dams exhibit 

surface elevation changes and types of change that appear to be anomalous relative to those 

without check dams?” 

 Vegetation barriers are perceived as the most temporally transient obstacle to aeolian influx 

for sites that have a modern fluvial source of aeolian sand. Defoliation of tamarisk owing to the 

recent spread of the tamarisk beetle is one of the only contemporary environmental factors that 

might increase the potential for aeolian sand transport through vegetation barriers. Potential 

future vegetation reduction treatments might also be useful for promoting aeolian sand transport 

from fluvial sources to upslope cultural sites. In drafting the monitoring plan, we will consider 

the potential for using existing airborne lidar data (from previous high density airborne lidar 

acquired in 2013–2014 in GLCA; Collins and others, in press) in addition to existing or new 

terrestrial lidar site surveys as appropriate, to evaluate effects of changes in porosity, stature, and 

spacing of vegetation barriers, such as might occur with tamarisk defoliation or potential 

treatments that would reduce or remove the barrier of vegetation within units of active aeolian 

sand and between fluvial sources of sand and higher elevation cultural sites. We could for 

example, examine natural gradients of vegetation cover and porosity, as well as manipulate the 

lidar datasets to represent different levels of cover and porosity – e.g., that could be characteristic 

of different intensities of vegetation treatments or defoliation – and use an aeolian transport 

model to estimate potential sediment fluxes for the different vegetation treatment scenarios. The 

methodology for this work has been previously tested and published by Sankey and others, 

(2013) for different levels of mesquite encroachment in a Sonoran desert vegetation community 

and the transport model is presented in Okin (2008) and validated in Li and others, (2013). 

 Ground based lidar has proven to be a useful and efficient tool for tracking fine-scale 

changes of upland environments associated with cultural sites in Glen, Marble and Grand 

Canyons, and the technology also holds promise for future interdisciplinary physical science and 

aquatic ecology work at GCMRC focused on mapping terrestrial settings and near-shore 

environments. Although in past years GCMRC has relied on personnel and equipment from other 

USGS centers to perform lidar surveys, for future monitoring that uses lidar, we intend to rely on 

“in-house” terrestrial lidar capacity at GCMRC. This would require the purchase of a lidar 

scanner and hiring of a survey/scanner technician prior to implementing the monitoring plan. 

River trips in year 2 and year 3 would likely be conducted to collect lidar topography using 

protocols developed and tested in the FY13–14 and prior GCMRC work plans. Pending NPS 

approval, the currently deployed automated weather stations and stationary cameras (installed in 

FY13) would continue to collect data on local weather conditions at 24.5 mile, 70 mile, 126 mile, 

and 223 mile (all type 1 sites in the recent classification) to refine our current understanding of 

how local weather events contribute to the erosion and/or deposition measured at this sample of 

type 1 sites; these data are useful for attributing site-specific surface elevation changes to 

meteorological events. The weather stations that are currently deployed in GRCA are permitted 

to collect data through April 30, 2015, and we will discuss with the NPS extension of the permit 

through the duration of this project (December, 2017). 
189 

D.2. Personnel and Collaborations 

 This project builds upon several past research efforts, including very recent work completed 

in 2013 and 2014 by Sankey and Draut (2014), Collins and others, (in review, in press), and East 

(2014). It builds upon the previous work of Draut and Rubin (2006, 2008), Draut and others, 

(2005, 2009a, 2009b, 2010a, 2010b), Draut (2011, 2012), Pederson and others, (2003, 2006) 

O’Brien and Pederson (2009a, 2009b), Damp and others, (2007), Fairley and others, (2007; 

Fairley and Sondossi 2010) and Collins and others, (2008, 2009, 2012). Specifically, it directly 

builds upon the Phase I work of the Cultural Monitoring Research and Development Project by 

applying the knowledge gained through that effort (Collins and others, 2008, 2009, 2012, in 

press); Draut and others, 2009a, 2009b, 2010a, 2010b; O’Brien and Pederson 2009a, 2009b) to 

track and quantify dam-related topographic changes (i.e., amounts and rates of erosion and 

deposition from fluvial sand sources) occurring at cultural sites throughout the CRe. 

 This study complements Grand Canyon National Park’s CRMP monitoring program. 

Monitoring protocols for assessing impacts of human visitation at archaeological sites have been 

developed independently by GRCA staff to serve the monitoring needs of the NPS for evaluating 

effects of visitation at cultural sites (Dierker and Brennan, 2011), and tribal monitoring programs 

also collect information related to visitor use impacts. These sources of data will be drawn upon 

in the analysis of the results of this project specifically to determine whether measured surface 

changes correlate with NPS’s documentation of visitor use levels, as reflected in monitored 

visitor use impacts. The quantitative approaches for monitoring change in archaeological site 

condition developed through the previous cultural monitoring R&D effort and proposed for 

implementation now as part of this project will supplement and enhance the qualitative, 

observational monitoring protocols and data developed by NPS for CRMP compliance and by 

the tribes who monitor resource conditions in Grand Canyon through the adaptive management 

program. 

D.3. Deliverables 

 An annual report on the progress of the project with relevant results, maps and graphics will 

be prepared for each year of the project. For element 4.1, at least one journal article or 

professional USGS report will be prepared in FY17 for each sub-element. These publications are 

expected to address several of the themes of the proposed work, including: 

 connectivity along the fluvial-aeolian-hillslope continuum in Grand Canyon;

 implications of river regulation, and variability in downstream responses of rivers to 

dams, for connectivity along the fluvial-aeolian-hillslope continuum;
190 

 documenting changes in the size and location of aeolian sand dominated landscapes, as 

determined from the analysis of historical oblique photographs;

 evaluating potential effectiveness of management treatments for promoting aeolian 

redistribution of fluvially-sourced sand along the fluvial-aeolian-hillslope continuum, and 

mitigating erosion of cultural sites in Grand Canyon

 For element 4.1, if funding is secured for the third sub-element that will contrast observations 

of aeolian sand distribution in Grand Canyon with other, analogous river systems, a thesis and 

journal publication will be produced from this work. 

 For element 4.2, the monitoring plan will be drafted in FY15, and a monitoring report will be 

completed in FY17 that reports on the results of monitoring implemented in FY16 and FY17. 

E. Productivity from Past Work (during FY13–14) 

E.1. Data Products 

E.2. Completed Publications 

Hereford, R., Bennett, G.E., and Fairley, H.C., 2014, Precipitation variability of the Grand 

Canyon region, 1893 through 2009, and its implications for studying effects of gullying of 

Holocene terraces and associated archeological sites in Grand Canyon, Arizona: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 2014–1006, 23 p., 

http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20141006. 

Sankey, J.B., Draut, A.E., 2014. Gully annealing by aeolian sediment: Field and remote-sensing 

investigation of aeolian-hillslope-fluvial interactions, Colorado River corridor, Arizona, 

USA. Geomorphology 220, 68-80, doi: 10.1016/j.geomorph.2014.05.028 

Collins, B.D., Corbett, S.C., Sankey, J.B., Fairley, H.C., in press. High resolution topography 

and geomorphology of select archaeological sites in Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, 

AZ. US Geological Survey, Scientific Investigations Report 2014-XXXX 

Dealy, T., East, A.E., and Fairley, H.C., 2014. 2010 weather and aeolian sand-transport data 

from the Colorado River corridor, Grand Canyon, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey OpenFile Report 2014-1135, 90 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20141135 

E.3. Publications in progress 

Collins, B.D., Bedford, D., Corbett, S.C., Cronkite-Ratcliff, C, and Fairley, H.C., in review. 

Meteorologic and anthropogenic effects on archeological site change in Grand Canyon, 

Arizona: fluvial-aeolian interactions within a dam-controlled river corridor. (Submitted to 

Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface) 

Caster, J., Dealy, T., Andrews, T., Fairley, H., East, A., Collins, B., Sankey, J, Bedford, D. 

Meteorological data for select sites along the Colorado River Corridor, Arizona, 2011-2013, 

US Geological Survey, Data Series Report 2014-XXXX, in preparation. 

E.4. Presentations at GCDAMP meetings 

Sankey, J.B., Draut, A.E., Fairley H., Collins B., Bedford, D., 2014, Gully annealing by aeolian 

sediment: Field and remote-sensing investigation in Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons. 

Annual Reporting Meeting to the Stakeholders of the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive 

Management Program, Jan. 29, 2014, Phoenix, AZ 
191 

Collins, B., Corbett, S., Bedford, D., Fairley, H., Sankey, J., 2014. Quantifying archaeological 

site erosion in Glen Canyon National Recreation Area and Grand Canyon National Park to 

assist sand resource management and operations of Glen Canyon Dam. Annual Reporting 

Meeting to the Stakeholders of the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, Jan. 

29, 2014, Phoenix, AZ 

Collins, B., Corbett, S., Bedford, D., Fairley, H., Sankey, J., 2014. Quantifying archaeological 

site erosion in Glen Canyon National Recreation Area and Grand Canyon National Park to 

assist sand resource management and operations of Glen Canyon Dam. Annual Reporting 

Meeting to the Stakeholders of the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, Jan. 

29, 2014, Phoenix, AZ (poster) 

Collins, B., Corbett, S., Sankey, J., Fairley, H., 2014. High resolution topography and 

geomorphology of select archaeological sites in Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, 

Arizona. Annual Reporting Meeting to the Stakeholders of the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive 

Management Program, Jan. 29, 2014, Phoenix, AZ (poster) 

Sankey, J.B., Draut, A.E., Fairley H.C., Collins B., Bedford, D., 2014, Gully annealing by 

aeolian sediment: Field and remote-sensing investigation in Glen, Marble, and Grand 

Canyons. Annual Reporting Meeting to the Stakeholders of the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive 

Management Program, Jan. 29, 2014, Phoenix, AZ (poster) 

Fairley, H.C., Draut, A.E., Sankey, J.B., Collins, B., Bedford, D., Corbett, S., 2014. Landscapescale management implications of cultural resource studies. Annual Reporting Meeting to the 

Stakeholders of the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, Jan. 29, 2014, 

Phoenix, AZ. 

E.5. Presentations at professional meetings 

Fairley, H.C., Collins, B., Draut, A.E., Corbett, S. and Bedford, D., 2014. Evaluating the Effects 

of Glen Canyon Dam on Downstream Archaeological Sites in Glen and Grand Canyons, 

Arizona. 78th annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, April 24, Austin, 

TX. 

Sankey, J.B., Draut, A.E., 2013, Reconciling historical and contemporary evidence of aeolianbased, gully annealing processes in Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyon, USA. American 

Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, Dec 9-13, San Francisco, CA. 

F. References 

Collins, B.D., Bedford, D., Corbett, S.C., Cronkite-Ratcliff, C, and Fairley, H.C., in review. 

Meteorologic and anthropogenic effects on archeological site change in Grand Canyon, 

Arizona: fluvial-aeolian interactions within a dam-controlled river corridor. (Submitted to 

Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface) 

Collins, BD, Corbett, SC, Sankey, JB, Fairley, HC, in press. High resolution topography and 

geomorphology of select archaeological sites in Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, AZ. 

US Geological Survey, Scientific Investigations Report 2014-XXXX 

Collins, B.D., Brown, K.B., and Fairley, H., 2008. Evaluation of Terrestrial LIDAR for 

Monitoring Geomorphic Change at Archaeological Sites in Grand Canyon National Park, 

Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey, Open File Report 2008-1384, 60 p. 

[http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1384/]. 
192 

Collins, B.D. and Kayen, R., 2006. Applicability of Terrestrial LIDAR Scanning for Scientific 

Studies in Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona, U.S. Geological Survey, Open File Report 

2006-1198, 27p, Menlo Park, California, [http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1198/]. 

Collins, B.D., Minasian, D., and Kayen, R., 2009. Topographic Change Detection at Select 

Archaeological Sites in Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona, 2006-2007: U.S. Geological 

Survey, Scientific Investigations Report 2009-5116, 97p. 

[http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2009/5116/]. 

Collins, B.D., Corbett, S., Fairley, H., Minasian, D., Dealy, T.P., and Kayen, R., 2012. 

Topographic Change Detection at Select Archeological Sites in Grand Canyon National Park, 

Arizona, 2007-2010: U.S. Geological Survey, Scientific Investigations Report 2012-XXXX, 

150pg; (http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2012/XXXX/). 

Damp, J., Pederson, J., and O’Brien, G., 2007, Geoarchaeological Investigations and 

Archaeological Treatment Plan for 151 Sites in the Grand Canyon, Arizona. Unpublished 

report prepared for Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado River Region, Salt Lake City. 

502p. 

Dierker, J., Brennan, E., 2011. Cultural Resource Monitoring Protocol for Implementation of the 

Colorado River Management Plan. Cultural Resource Report 2011-02-GRCA. US 

Department of Interior, National Park Service, Division of Science and Resource 

Management, Grand Canyon National Park. 

Doelle, W. H., editor, 2000. Final Report: Cultural Resource Program Assessment. Ms. on file, 

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, Flagstaff, Ariz. 

Draut, A.E., 2011, Vegetation and substrate properties of aeolian dune fields in the Colorado 

River corridor, Grand Canyon, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2011-

1195., 16 p. and 28 tables, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2011/1195/. 

Draut, A., 2012, Effects of river regulation on aeolian landscapes, Colorado River, southwestern 

USA: Journal of Geophysical Research – Earth Surface, v. 117, F2, 

doi:10.1029/2011JF002329. 

Draut, A.E., Andrews, T., Fairley, H.C., and Brown, C.R., 2009a, 2007 Weather and aeolian 

sand-transport data from the Colorado River corridor, Grand Canyon, Arizona: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 2009-1098, 110 p. [http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1098/]. 

Draut, A.E., Hazel, J.E., Jr., Fairley, H.C., and Brown, C.R., 2010, Aeolian reworking of 

sandbars from the March 2008 Glen Canyon Dam high-flow experiment in Grand Canyon, in 

Melis, T.S., Hamill, J.F., Bennett, G.E., Coggins, L.G., Jr., Grams, P.E., Kennedy, T.A., 

Kubly, D.M., and Ralston, B.E., eds., Proceedings of the Colorado River Basin Science and 

Resource Management Symposium, November 18-20, 2008, Scottsdale, Arizona: U.S. 

Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5135, 325-331 p., accessed on July 

15, 2010, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5135/. 

Draut, A.E., and Rubin, D.M., 2005, Measurements of wind, aeolian sand transport, and 

precipitation in the Colorado River corridor, Grand Canyon, Arizona—November 2003 to 

December 2004: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2005-1309. 

Draut, A.E., and Rubin, D.M., 2006, Measurements of wind, aeolian sand transport, and 

precipitation in the Colorado River corridor, Grand Canyon, Arizona—January 2005 to 

January 2006: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2006-1188, 88 p. [URL 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1188/]. 
193 

Draut, Amy E., and Rubin, David M. 2008, The role of eolian sediment in the preservation of 

archeologic sites along the Colorado River corridor in Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona: 

U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1756, 71 p. [http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/1756]. 

Draut, A.E., Rubin, D.M., Dierker, J.L., Fairley, H.C., Griffiths, R.E., Hazel, J.E., Jr., Hunter, 

R.E., Kohl, K., Leap, L.M., Nials, F.L., Topping, D.J., and Yeatts, M., 2005, Sedimentology 

and stratigraphy of the Palisades, Lower Comanche, and Arroyo Grande areas of the 

Colorado River corridor, Grand Canyon, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2005-5072, 68 p. 

Draut, A. E., Rubin, D. M., Dierker, J. L., Fairley, H. C., Griffiths, R. E., Hazel, J. E. Jr., Hunter, 

R. E., Kohl, K., Leap, L. M., Nials, F. L., Topping, D. J., and Yeatts, M., 2008, Application 

of sedimentary-structure interpretation to geoarchaeology in the Colorado River corridor, 

Grand Canyon, Arizona, USA: Geomorphology, v. 101, n. 3, p. 497-509, doi: 

10.1016/j.geomorph.2007.04.032. 

Draut, A.E., Sondossi, H.A., Hazel, J.E., Jr., Andrews, T., Fairley, H.C., Brown, C.R., and 

Vanaman, K.M., 2009b, 2008 Weather and aeolian sand-transport data from the Colorado 

River corridor, Grand Canyon, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2009-

1190, 98 p., accessed on August 23, 2010, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1190/. 

Draut, A.E., Sondossi, H.A., Dealy, T.P., Hazel, J.E., Jr., Fairley, H.C., and Brown, C.R., 2010, 

2009 weather and aeolian sand-transport data from the Colorado River corridor, Grand 

Canyon, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010-1166, 98 p. 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1166/. 

East, A.E., 2014, Summary of Methods Analyzing Potential Aeolian HFE Sediment Supply to 

Individual Archaeological Sites: U.S. Geological Survey Administrative Report, 11 p. 

Fairley, H.C., 2003, Changing river: time, culture, and the transformation of landscape in Grand 

Canyon: a regional research design for the study of cultural resources along the Colorado 

River in lower Glen Canyon and Grand Canyon, National Park, Arizona: Tucson, Ariz., 

Statistical Research, Inc., SRI Press, Technical Series 79. 

Fairley, H.C., Bungart, P.W., Coder, C.M., Huffman, J., Samples, T.L., and Balsom, J.R., 1994, 

The Grand Canyon river corridor survey project: archaeological survey along the Colorado 

River between Glen Canyon Dam and Separation Rapid: Flagstaff, Ariz., Bureau of 

Reclamation Glen Canyon Environmental Studies Program, cooperative agreement no. 9AA40-07920. 

Fairley, H.C., Collins, B, and Draut, A., 2009, FY07-FY11 Archaeological Site Monitoring 

Research and Development Project. NPS Research and Collecting Permit Proposal. 99pp. 

Fairley, H.C., and Sondossi, H., 2010, Applying an ecosystem framework to evaluate 

archaeological site condition along the Colorado River in Grand Canyon National Park, 

Arizona, in Melis, T.S., Hamill, J.F., Bennett, G.E., Coggins, L.G., Jr., Grams, P.E., 

Kennedy, T.A., Kubly, D.M., and Ralston, B.E., eds., Proceedings of the Colorado River 

Basin Science and Resource Management Symposium, November 18-20, 2008, Scottsdale, 

Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5135, 333-341 p., 

accessed on July 15, 2010, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5135/. 

Hereford, R., Burke, K.J., and Thompson, K.S. 1998. Quaternary Geology and Geomorphology 

of the Nankoweap Rapids Area, Marble Canyon, Arizona. U. S. Gological Survey Geological 

Investigations Series Map I-2608. 
194 

Hereford, R., Burke, K.J., and Thompson, K.S. 2000a, Map Showing Quaternary Geology and 

Geomorphology of the Lees Ferry Area, Marble Canyon, Arizona. U. S. Gological Survey 

Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-2663, scale 1:2000, with discussion. 

Hereford, R., Burke, K.J., and Thompson, K.S. 2000b, Map Showing Quaternary Geology and 

Geomorphology of the Granite Park Area, Grand Canyon, Arizona. U. S. Gological Survey 

Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-2662, scale 1:2000. 

Hereford, R., Fairley, H.C., Thompson, K.S., and Balsom, J.R., 1993, Surficial geology, 

geomorphology and erosion of archeologic sites along the Colorado River, eastern Grand 

Canyon, Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona. Grand Canyon National Park in cooperation 

with the Bureau of Reclamation, Glen Canyon Environmental Studies, Flagstaff, Ariz.: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 93-517. 

Hereford, R., Thompson, K.S., Burke, K.J., and Fairley, H.C., 1996, Tributary debris fans and 

Late Holocene alluvial chronology of the Colorado River, eastern Grand Canyon, AZ: GSA 

Bulletin, v. 108, no. 1, p. 3–19. 

Jones, K., 2007, Caring for archaeological sites: practical guidelines for protecting and managing 

archaeological sites in New Zealand. Department of Conversation, Wellington, New Zealand. 

Kintigh, K., lipe, W., Altschul, J., and Urquhart, N.S., 2007, Legacy monitoring data review 

panel report to the grand canyon monitoring and research center. Unpublished report 

prepared for the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, November 29, 2007. 

 http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/07dec04/Attach_10.pdf 

Lancaster, N., 1994. Controls on aeolian activity: some new perspectives from the Kelso Dunes, Mojave 

Desert, California. Journal of Arid Environments, v. 27(2), p. 113–125.

Leap. L.M., Kunde, J.L., Hubbard, D.C., Andrews, N., Downum, C.E., Miler, A., and Balsom, 

J.R., 2000, Grand Canyon Monitoring Project 1992-1999: Synthesis and Annual Monitoring 

Report FY99. Grand Canyon National Park River Corridor Monitoring Project Report No. 

66, submitted to Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado River Region Office, Salt Lake 

City, UT. 

Li, J., G. S. Okin, J. E. Herrick, J. Belnap, M. E. Miller, K. Vest, and A. E. Draut (2013), 

Evaluation of a new model of aeolian transport in the presence of vegetation, J. Geophys. 

Res., 118, doi:10.1002/jgrf.20040. 

Lucchitta, I., 1991, Quaternary geology, geomorphology, and erosional processes, eastern Grand 

Canyon, Arizona. U.S. Geological Survey administrative report: Submitted to Bureau of 

Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region, Salt Lake City, Utah. 

Merriam, G. 1984. Connectivity: A fundamental ecological characteristic of landscape pattern. - 

In: Brandt, J. and Agger, P. (eds), Proceedings First international seminar on methodology in 

landscape ecological research and planning. Theme I. International Association for 

Landscape Ecology. Roskilde Univ., Roskilde, pp. 5-15. 

Noon, B. R., 2003, Conceptual Issues in Monitoring Ecological Resources. Chapter 2 in Busch, 

D.E. and Trexler, J.C., editors, Monitoring Ecosystems: Interdisciplinary Approaches for 

Evaluating Ecoregional Initiatives: Washington, D.C., Island Press, p. 27-71. 

O’Brien, G. and Pederson, J., 2009a, Geomorphic Attributes of 232 Cultural Sites Along The 

Colorado River In Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona. Final report dated July 20, 2009. 

Submitted by Department of Geology, Utah State University, Logan, to U.S. Geological 

Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, Flagstaff. 

O’Brien, G. and Pederson, J., 2009b, Gully Erosion Processes and Parameters at Six Cultural 

Sites Along the Colorado River in Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona. Final draft report 
195 

dated July 20, 2009, submitted by Department of Geology, Utah State University, Logan, to 

U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, Flagstaff. 

Okin, G. S., 2008. A new model of wind erosion in the presence of vegetation. J. Geophys. Res. 

113, F02S10. 

Okin, G. S., Parsons, A. J., Wainwright, J., Herrick, J. E., Bestelmeyer, B. T., Peters, D. C., and 

Fredrickson, E. L., 2009. Do changes in connectivity explain desertification?. BioScience, 

59(3), 237-244. 

Pederson, J.L., Petersen, P.A., MacFarlane, W.W., Gonzales, M.F., and Kohl, K., 2003, 

Mitigation, monitoring, and geomorphology related to gully erosion of cultural sites in Grand 

Canyon. Final report in fulfillment of CA-01-WRAG-0074: On file, Grand Canyon 

Monitoring and Research Center, Flagstaff, Ariz. 

Pederson, J.L., Petersen, P. A., and Dierker, J.L., 2006, Gullying and erosion control at 

archaeological sites in Grand Canyon, Arizona: Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, v. 

31, p. 507-525, doi: 10.1002/esp.1286 

Sankey, JB, Law, D, Breshears, DD, Munson, SM, Webb, RH, 2013. Employing LiDAR to 

detail vegetation canopy architecture for prediction of aeolian transport. Geophysical 

Research Letters 40, 1-5, doi: 10.1002/grl.50356 

Sankey, JB, Draut, AE, 2014. Gully annealing by aeolian sediment: Field and remote-sensing 

investigation of aeolian-hillslope-fluvial interactions, Colorado River corridor, Arizona, 

USA. Geomorphology 220, 68-80, doi: 10.1016/j.geomorph.2014.05.028 

Sankey, JB, Ralston, BE, Grams, PE, Schmidt, JC, Cagney, LE, in review. Colorado River, 

vegetation, and climate: five decades of spatio-temporal dynamics in the Grand Canyon with 

river regulation 

Sondossi, H.A. and Fairley, H.C., in revision, An Analysis of Potential for Glen Canyon Dam 

Releases to Inundate 242 Cultural Sites in Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 2012-XXXX 

Taylor, P. D., Fahrig, L., Henein, K., and Merriam, G., 1993. Connectivity is a vital element of 

landscape structure. Oikos, 571-573. 

Thompson, K.S., Potochnik, A.R., Ryel, R., O’Brien, G., Neal, L.A., 2000, Development of a 

geomorphic model to predict erosion of pre-dam Colorado River terraces containing 

archaeological resources: SWCA, Environmental Consultants, Inc., submitted to Grand 

Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, Flagstaff, Ariz.Wildesen, L.E., 1982, The study of 

impacts on archaeological sites. In Schiffer, M.E., editor, Advances in Archaeological 

Method and Theory 5. New York: Academic Press, 51-59 p.

Topping, D.J., J.C. Schmidt, and L.E. Vierra, Jr., 2003, Computation and Analysis of the 

Instantaneous-Discharge Record for the Colorado River at Lees Ferry, Arizona—May 8, 

1921, through September 30, 2000: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1677, 118 p. 

Vance, M.M., and Smiley, F.E., 2011. Landforms, Inundation and Archaeological Sites: Data 

Exploration and Sample Selection for a Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center Pilot 

Monitoring Project in the Colorado River Corridor. Northern Arizona University 

Archaeological Report No. 1337, Flagstaff, Ariz. 26 p., with database. 

Webb, R.H., Belnap, J., Scott, M.L., Esque, T.C., 2011. Long-term change in perennial 

vegetation along the Colorado River in Grand Canyon National Park (1889-2010). Park 

Science 28, 73-77. 

Wildesen, L.E., 1982, The study of impacts on archaeological sites. in Schiffer, M.E., editor, 

Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 5. New York: Academic Press, 51-59 p. 
196 

Wood, W.R. and Johnson, D.L., 1978. A survey of disturbance processes in archaeological site 

formation. In Schiffer, M.E., editor, Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 1. New 

York: Academic Press, 315-381 p. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, 1995, Operation of Glen Canyon Dam Final Environmental 

Impact Statement, Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region, Salt Lake City, 337 p. 

plus appendices.
197 

G. Budget 

Core activities

Support implementation and

evaluation of HFE Protocol and

Non‐Native Fish Control

Technical and analytical

innovations in monitoring

Improving predictive modeling

capacity

Resolving scientific uncertainty

Independent science oversight

and review

Integrating tribes in monitoring

and research

Project Identifier Project Description Salaries Travel & Training Operating Expenses Logistics Coop‐ erators (non‐USGS) USGS Coop‐erat

4

Connectivity along the

Fluvial‐Aeolian‐Hillslope

Continuum: Quantifying

the Relative Importance of

River‐Related Factors that

Influence Upland

Geomorphology and

Archaeological Site

Stability

$197,800 $9,000 $10,000 $0 $0 $84

X 4.1

Quanti fying connectivity along the

fluvial‐aeolian‐hillslope

continuum at landscape scales

Sankey et al. $107,200 $9,000 $2,500 $0 $0 $75

X X 4.2 Monitoring of cultural sites in Grand and Glen Canyons Sankey et al. $90,600 $0 $7,500 $0 $0 $9

4

Connectivity along the

Fluvial‐Aeolian‐Hillslope

Continuum: Quantifying

the Relative Importance of

River‐Related Factors that

Influence Upland

Geomorphology and

Archaeological Site

Stability

$285,000 $14,000 $63,000 $30,000 $0 $87

X 4.1

Quanti fying connectivity along the

fluvial‐aeolian‐hillslope

continuum at landscape scales

Sankey et al. $99,200 $10,000 $5,000 $0 $0 $77

X X 4.2 Monitoring of cultural sites in Grand and Glen Canyons Sankey et al. $185,800 $4,000 $58,000 $30,000 $0 $10

Monitoring Research

FY15FY16
198 

Core activities

Support implementation and

evaluation of HFE Protocol and

Non‐Native Fish Control

Technical and analytical

innovations in monitoring

Improving predictive modeling

capacity

Resolving scientific uncertainty

Independent science oversight

and review

Integrating tribes in monitoring

and research

Project Identifier Project Description Salaries Travel & Training Operating Expenses Logistics Coop‐ erators (non‐USGS) USGS Coop‐erat

4

Connectivity along the

Fluvial‐Aeolian‐Hillslope

Continuum: Quantifying

the Relative Importance of

River‐Related Factors that

Influence Upland

Geomorphology and

Archaeological Site

Stability

$317,200 $14,000 $34,000 $30,000 $0 $87

X 4.1

Quanti fying connectivity along the

fluvial‐aeolian‐hillslope

continuum at landscape scales

Sankey et al. $119,800 $10,000 $8,000 $0 $0 $77

X X 4.2 Monitoring of cultural sites in Grand and Glen Canyons Sankey et al. $197,400 $4,000 $26,000 $30,000 $0 $10

FY17

Monitoring Research
199 

Monitoring: Core activities 

Research: Technical and analytical innovations in monitoring 

Research: Resolving scientific uncertainty 

Project 5. Foodbase Monitoring and Research 

Initial Estimate: FY15: $521,200; FY16: $591,900; FY17: $596,700 

GCDAMP Funding: FY15: $521,200; FY16: $550,500; FY17: $566,900 

A. Investigators 

Theodore Kennedy, Research Aquatic Ecologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon 

Monitoring and Research Center 

Jeffrey Muehlbauer, Research Ecologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center 

Charles Yackulic, Research Statistician, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center 

Scott Miller, Director, BLM/Utah State University National Aquatic Monitoring Center 

David Lytle, Associate Professor, Oregon State University 

Scott Wright, Research Hydrologist, U.S. Geological Survey, California Water Science Center 

Michael Yard, Fisheries Biologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center 

B. Project Summary 

 The productivity of the aquatic foodbase, particularly invertebrates, fuels production and 

growth of fishes in the Colorado River. However, recent studies by Kennedy and collaborators 

have shown that the productivity of this foodbase is low. Further, the foodbase in Grand Canyon 

is dominated by only two groups of invertebrates: midges and blackflies, both of which are 

small-bodied, relatively low-quality prey. Larger, more nutritious aquatic insects such as 

mayflies, stoneflies, and caddisflies (hereafter, EPT), are virtually absent throughout Glen, 

Marble, and Grand Canyons. These conditions of low invertebrate productivity and the absence 

of high quality invertebrate prey have resulted in a fishery throughout Glen, Marble, and Grand 

Canyons that is food-limited, negatively affecting the abundance of native fishes such as 

humpback chub (Gila cypha), as well as the growth of recreationally-important non-native 

rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). If the factors and stressors affecting this low foodbase 

productivity and diversity can be isolated, adaptive management experimentation intended to 

ameliorate these stressors, and benefit the productivity and diversity of the aquatic foodbase, 

could be considered. 

 In this proposal, we describe a multi-faceted approach to better understanding the conditions 

effecting the low productivity and diversity of the foodbase in the Colorado River, as well as an 

experiment to potentially improve these conditions. We focus principally on two methods: 

sampling emergent aquatic insect adults on land, and sampling aquatic invertebrate larvae in the 

drift. Sampling emergent insects allows for the observation of large-scale patterns in insect 

dynamics through time and over large spatial scales, such as throughout the entire Colorado 

River in Grand Canyon. In contrast, sampling invertebrate drift allows us to understand the finescale factors affecting invertebrate populations, particularly during a phase (drifting in the water 
200 

column) in which these invertebrates are most available to fish. To a lesser extent, we also 

describe the continuation of a monitoring effort to estimate algae production in the Colorado 

River, which represents the base of the entire aquatic food web and the food resources available 

to these invertebrate populations. 

 Many of the studies we propose here are logical continuations of projects initiated in FY13–

14, such as an expansion of the citizen science monitoring of emergent insects and the 

development of a more mechanistic understanding of the factors controlling invertebrate drift. In 

addition, we intend to synthesize published datasets to explore the factors affecting invertebrate 

productivity, diversity, and EPT abundance throughout tailwaters in the Intermountain West. We 

will couple this synthesis with natural history observations and lab studies of invertebrates in the 

Colorado River and adjacent ecosystems. The goal of those studies is to better understand how 

the specific insects present in the Colorado River and its tributaries in Glen, Marble, and Grand 

Canyons respond to environmental conditions such as altered temperature regimes and daily 

hydropeaking. We also propose to carry out insect emergence and drift studies in other Colorado 

River Basin tailwaters and in Cataract Canyon to better characterize aquatic foodbase conditions 

in reference ecosystems, and to determine whether the foodbase downstream of Glen Canyon is 

unique, or broadly similar to other river segments in the region. Finally, based on logic described 

below, we identify recruitment limitation of insects as a primary stressor limiting both 

invertebrate production and the colonization of EPT in the Colorado River in Glen, Marble, and 

Grand Canyons. Accordingly, we outline a flow experiment that could be implemented in FY15–

17 involving weekend summer steady flows that may mitigate this recruitment limitation. If 

successful, this experiment would improve the short- and long-term productivity and diversity of 

the aquatic foodbase and, ultimately, the condition of fish populations and the stability of food 

webs in the Colorado River. 

C. Background

C.1. Scientific Background 

Productivity and Diversity of the Aquatic Foodbase 

 The primary focus of foodbase research at GCMRC over the past two decades has been on 

the broad-scale characterization of the aquatic foodbase in Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons. 

The recent culmination of this research has been illuminating, particularly because of the strong 

links that were identified between flow management, the invertebrate prey base, and fish 

populations. Specifically, food web architecture and energy flow were quantified and it was 

shown that the growth and abundance of rainbow trout in Glen Canyon and native fishes in 

Grand Canyon are limited by the absence/scarcity of high quality invertebrate prey (Cross and 

others, 2013; Kennedy and others, 2013b). The foodbase is dominated by two aquatic insect taxa, 

midges and blackflies, and production of these taxa is low (Cross and others, 2013; Kennedy and 

others, 2013b). In fact, annual invertebrate production across four reaches of the Colorado River 

in Grand Canyon falls in the bottom 10th percentile of invertebrate production values for streams 

and rivers worldwide (Huryn and Wallace, 2000). This result is surprising because midges and 

blackflies can be among the most productive invertebrate taxa in streams and rivers. For 

example, four of the eight highest invertebrate production values ever measured for streams and 

rivers (production levels 100-1000 times higher than in Grand Canyon) were in streams where 

midges and blackflies were the dominant taxa in the assemblage (Huryn and Wallace, 2000). 
201 

 Further, the tailwater synthesis GCMRC initiated in FY2013 revealed that it is actually a 

unique condition for a tailwater to support only two insect taxa; the invertebrate assemblage in 

the Glen Canyon tailwater supports fewer aquatic insects than any of the 58 other tailwaters in 

Dibble’s tailwater synthesis database (Kennedy and others, 2014a; Dibble, USGS, unpublished 

data). This is significant, because low insect diversity likely contributes to food limitation of 

fishes in the River, as larger-bodied, higher-quality invertebrates in the mayfly, stonefly, and 

caddisfly groups (“EPT,” from their collective Order names: Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and 

Trichoptera, respectively) are conspicuously absent (Cross and others, 2013; Kennedy and 

others, 2013b). Whereas midges and blackflies are known to be some of the most stress-tolerant 

groups of aquatic invertebrates, EPT taxa are actually used as bio-indicators of stream quality 

nationwide and internationally (Lenat, 1993). EPT taxa are useful bio-indicators on a global 

scale because: 1) EPT are universally present in streams and rivers, but they are sensitive to 

human perturbation and 2) they are universally important to fish populations. An important 

benefit of the EPT metric is that simply measuring EPT abundance or richness, and then relating 

it to other streams/rivers in the region, provides an integrated measure of food web structure and 

stream health (Lenat and Penrose, 1996; Barbour and others, 1999). The condition of zero EPT 

taxa in Glen Canyon, and only one EPT taxon (the micro-caddisfly, Hydroptilidae) at very low 

densities in Marble and Grand Canyons, would result in the Colorado River ecosystem being 

classified as “unhealthy,” regardless of the specific reference condition used for comparison 

(Carlisle and others, 2013). Although some may argue whether invertebrates have value or 

importance in their own right, in practical terms, low aquatic insect diversity and simple food 

web architecture result in fish populations and food webs that are inherently unstable (Cross and 

others, 2013). 

 It is commonly accepted in aquatic ecology that flow and temperature alterations associated 

with river regulation can lead to invertebrate assemblages that are “unhealthy” (Bunn and 

Arthington, 2002). Specifically, regulation often leads to invertebrate assemblages that are 

dominated by non-insects such as worms, snails, and amphipod crustaceans like Gammarus spp., 

while insect groups such as EPT taxa tend to decline in abundance (Vinson, 2001; Robinson, 

2012). However, the extremely low EPT condition found in the Colorado River downstream of 

Glen Canyon Dam is unusual even relative to other regulated rivers in the region (Fig. 1). In 

contrast to the Glen Canyon Dam tailwater where no EPT are found, EPT taxa represent 24–35% 

of the invertebrate assemblage in five other large tailwaters in the Colorado River Basin. 

 One possible explanation for the low diversity of the aquatic foodbase in Glen, Marble, and 

Grand Canyons may be that the invertebrate assemblage has never been diverse, even before 

construction of Glen Canyon Dam. The physical template of the pre-dam Colorado River did 

have a dramatic disturbance regime with many distinctive characteristics that may have made life 

in the River difficult for aquatic invertebrates (Resh and others, 1988), including large snowmelt 

floods, extremely high suspended sediment concentrations, and low water clarity. However, the 

Green and Colorado Rivers located near or within Cataract Canyon, approximately 100 river 

miles upstream of Glen Canyon Dam, maintain similar characteristics to the pre-dam river, and 

the invertebrate assemblage of these reaches includes 16 genera of mayflies (Order 

Ephemeroptera), 7 genera of stoneflies (Order Plecoptera), and 7 genera of caddisflies (Order 

Trichoptera; Haden and others, 2003; Fig. 1). Tributaries in Grand Canyon also support a diverse 

invertebrate assemblage that includes many species of EPT (Oberlin and others, 1999; Whiting 

and others, 2014). It thus seems probable that EPT were extirpated from the mainstem Colorado 

River at some point in the past half century, and that some stressors exist that prevent these 
202 

groups from recolonizing the river. 

 

 Using midges and blackflies as surrogates for all aquatic insects, including EPT, it may be 

possible to identify specific, principal stressors affecting the aquatic foodbase in Glen, Marble, 

and Grand Canyons. For example, over the past two years river guides working in Marble and 

Grand Canyons have been serving as “citizen scientists” by setting out light traps at night and 

collecting the winged, terrestrial adult forms of aquatic insect larvae. These data show striking 

spatial and temporal patterns in midge and blackfly emergence that likely reflect similar 

variation in larval aquatic invertebrate densities within the River (Statzner and Resh, 1993). They 

can also be used as indicators of environmental stress, as the timing of emergence can be 

affected by environmental cues (Lytle, 2002). Analysis of the citizen science data in Grand 

Canyon is ongoing; however, preliminary data suggest that emergent insect dynamics may be 

affected by changes in the hydropeaking regime, the daily timing of high water at a given 

location, and monthly step changes in flow (Fig. 2). 
203 

 If the specific stressors that prevent EPT from becoming re-established can be better 

identified, then the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program could consider evaluating 

alternative policies that mitigate these stressors (see section C.4, below, for a proposed flow 

experiment). Re-establishment of EPT will improve the overall health of the River, and it will 

likely also increase the overall productivity of the foodbase. This is because, as bio-indicators, 

EPT are sentinels of environmental perturbation, meaning a decrease in the abundance, density, 

or richness of these taxa is generally mirrored by declines in other aquatic invertebrate groups. 

Midges and blackflies, as insects, have similar life histories to EPT taxa, but are less sensitive to 

environmental perturbation. The same stressors that are sufficient to prevent mayflies, stoneflies, 

and caddisflies from recolonizing the Colorado River may also be negatively affecting midge 

and blackfly populations, albeit to a lesser extent, thereby directly causing their low overall 

production. Therefore, even in the absence of successful re-colonization by EPT taxa, mitigation 

of the stressors that might be limiting aquatic insects in general could still have the beneficial 

effect of increasing the production of midges and blackflies present in the aquatic foodbase. 

Thus, adaptive management experimentation intended to improve the aquatic foodbase in Glen, 

Marble, and Grand Canyons should consider not only ways to improve the productivity of 

existing groups, but also approaches that will improve the overall diversity of the invertebrate 

assemblage as a whole. 

Invertebrate Drift in Tailwaters 

 Over the past several years, GCMRC foodbase research has also been focused on measuring 

invertebrate drift, particularly in Glen Canyon. Invertebrate drift is a ubiquitous phenomenon in 

freshwaters, in which aquatic insects and other macroinvertebrates leave the channel bed and 

become entrained or caught in the water column. Unlike the broad-scale, system-wide patterns in 

the foodbase described above, measurement of invertebrate drift can allow the study of 

invertebrate population dynamics at spatial scales that are directly relevant to fish populations. 
204 

Quantifying invertebrate drift concentrations (#·m-3), and the spatial and temporal variation in 

drift at this level of resolution is critical from a fisheries perspective, because these drifting 

invertebrates represent a key food resource for many fish species. Relevant to the Colorado 

River, the endangered humpback chub (Gila cypha) and recreationally-important non-native 

rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) are both classified as “drift-feeding fishes,” meaning that 

they rely on invertebrate drift as the key component of their foodbase. 

 In addition, drifting represents a key life stage for many aquatic invertebrates. Drift can be a 

behavioral response to avoid predation or to move away from unfavorable habitat. It can also be 

unintentional or “catastrophic” in nature, such as during floods when high water velocities shear 

invertebrates off the channel bed. Finally, for aquatic insects specifically, drift necessarily occurs 

during the transitional time between when insect larvae leave the channel bed and when they 

emerge out of the water as winged adults. Thus, measuring invertebrate drift concentrations 

provides data about the stability of aquatic invertebrate populations and the conditions 

underlying the entire aquatic food web. 

 Foodbase research has documented that aquatic invertebrate drift in Glen Canyon is 

controlled by a suite of factors, including benthic invertebrate density (Kennedy and others, 

2014b) and physical variables such as discharge (Kennedy and others, 2014b), bed shear stress 

(the force of the water acting on bed sediment and biota), and distance from the dam 

(Muehlbauer and others, 2013; Fig. 3). These results have improved our general understanding of 

the conditions under which drift occurs; however, the specific mechanisms by which many of 

these variables actually affect invertebrate drift remain unclear. For instance, “catastrophic” drift 

(Anderson and Lehmkuhl, 1968) occurs when invertebrates are physically removed from the 

channel bed and a high proportion of the available invertebrates become entrained in the drift. If 

the conditions for initiating catastrophic drift persist for prolonged periods of time, benthic 

populations can be depleted, reducing the food base available to support fish over long time 

scales (i.e., months to years). Logically, such catastrophic drift may be initiated when one of 

three conditions is met (Gibbins and others, 2007a; b): 

1. Shear stress is sufficient to entrain sand and “sand blast” invertebrates off the bed. 

2. Shear stress is sufficient to physically remove invertebrates off the bed. 

3. Very high shear stress mobilizes the cobble substrates on which invertebrates live. 

 Some data are available for small streams (<10 ft3

/s) in linking the initiation of catastrophic 

drift to specific shear stress and sediment grain size conditions (e.g., Gibbins and others, 2007a; 

b). However, the applicability of drift studies on small streams to larger systems such as the 

Colorado River (>10,000ft3

/s) is tenuous, and few large river drift data are available (Kennedy 

and others, 2014b). Bed sediment conditions also vary substantially throughout the Colorado 

River (gravels in Glen Canyon, sand deposits in Marble Canyon, etc.). Thus, the frequency with 

which one or more of these three catastrophic drift conditions occurs likely varies widely 

throughout Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons. In order to quantify and predict the response of 

invertebrate drift to flow conditions within specific habitats throughout the Colorado River, 

studies that couple high resolution measurements of shear stress, sediment grain size, and 

invertebrate drift are needed. 

 These results will provide important information for characterizing the spatial and temporal 

dynamics of the aquatic invertebrate community in the Colorado River and, by extension, the 

food base available to drift-feeding rainbow trout and humpback chub populations. For example, 
205 

research conducted in Glen Canyon demonstrates that Glen Canyon Dam acts as a 

“discontinuity” (Ward and Stanford, 1983; Stanford and Ward, 2001). Essentially, the dam 

creates conditions akin to a headwater stream, in that there is no upstream source of 

macroinvertebrate colonists. This is in contrast to most large river reaches, including the 

Colorado River in Marble and Grand Canyons, where invertebrate drift from upstream provides a 

principal source of colonists. Populations in the Glen Canyon tailwater are therefore maintained 

entirely by individuals flying, crawling, or swimming against the current from downstream 

(Müller, 1982). As a result, species accumulation in Glen Canyon increases with distance 

downstream of the dam, as more invertebrates are able to colonize and maintain persistent 

populations. This affects invertebrate drift concentrations, benthic populations, and the food base 

available to fish, such that the number of invertebrates entering the drift varies as a function of 

distance from the dam, and very low drift concentrations are found in the first ~ 4 miles of the 

tailwater (Muehlbauer and others, 2013; Fig. 3). 

 

 The low diversity of the invertebrate foodbase in Glen Canyon may also have tangible effects 

on drift characteristics in this tailwater. For instance, tailwaters with high diversity may 

experience less pronounced seasonal and spatial variation in drift availability, as a more diverse 

invertebrate assemblage will contain species that drift and emerge at different times of year, and 

from a greater diversity of habitats. This may benefit fish populations by providing a more 

consistently-available food base (McKinney and Speas, 2001). Thus, better characterizing 

invertebrate drift not only in Glen Canyon, but also in tailwaters throughout the Intermountain 
206 

West, will better inform how fish in Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons may be affected by the 

low diversity and productivity of the aquatic foodbase present in the Colorado River. 

Monitoring algae production in Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyon 

 Algae represent the base of the food web in Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons, feeding the 

invertebrates that, in turn, become food for fish (Cross and others, 2011; Donner, 2011; Cross 

and others, 2013; Wellard Kelly and others, 2013; Seegert and others, in press). In cooperation 

with University of Wyoming and Montana State University, GCMRC has developed an approach 

for continuously measuring rates of algal production in the River at reach-scales using detailed 

dissolved oxygen budgeting (Hall and others, 2010; Hall and others, 2012; Hall and others, In 

review). In collaboration with GCMRC’s water quality monitoring program (Project 2), we have 

been continuously measuring dissolved oxygen concentrations at six sites (RM 0, 30, 61, 87, 

166, and 225) since 2008–2010 (Fig. 4). Continued monitoring of algae production at these sites 

in FY15–17 will identify the effects that ongoing adaptive experimentation have on a key 

resource that is at the base of Colorado River food webs. Further, continuous estimates of algae 

production from Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons will help inform insect emergence and 

invertebrate drift data that is also described in this Project. 

C.2. Management Background 

 An important part of maintaining native and desired non-native fish populations is ensuring 

there is an adequate food supply to support them. This need has been translated into policy as 

part of the strategic plan of the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program: 

Goal 1: Protect or improve the aquatic foodbase so that it will support viable populations of 

desired species at high trophic levels. 

 The research and monitoring described in this Project is motivated by Goal 1, and informed 

by Protocol Evaluation Panels (PEP) conducted in 2001 and 2012. The PEP conducted in 2001 

recommended that: 
207 

“The food base program needs to be critically reviewed because the current level of 

understanding about the linkages between lower trophic levels and food availability 

of native fishes is not adequate to interpret food base data in relation to [Goal 1].” 

(Anders and others, 2001). 

 In other words, the 2001 PEP recommended that GCMRC ‘unpack’ the GCDAMP’s Goal 1 

for foodbase by first demonstrating whether populations of desired species at higher trophic 

levels would even benefit from protection or improvement of the aquatic foodbase. Although it 

might seem like a purely academic exercise to demonstrate that animals populations are limited 

by their food, in fact, factors other than food can often limit animal populations. For example, 

because cold water temperatures during spring and summer prevent native fishes from spawning 

in the River, the supply of recruits to adult mainstem populations is limited by the capacity of 

tributaries to produce young fish. Thus, one might expect the food requirements of native fish 

populations in Grand Canyon to be far lower than the foodbase is capable of supporting, because 

native fish populations might be limited by the availability of suitable spawning and rearing 

habitat. In fact, the food web studies that were motivated by the recommendations of the 2001 

PEP demonstrated that fish populations throughout Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons were 

consuming virtually all of the available midge and blackfly biomass produced annually (Cross 

and others, 2013; Kennedy and others, 2013b). Simply put, these recent food web studies 

demonstrated that fish populations in the River were limited by the foodbase. Further, the simple 

architecture of the Glen Canyon tailwater food web makes it inherently unstable and susceptible 

to large changes following disturbances, including High Flow Experiments (HFE) (Cross and 

others, 2013). Thus, food web studies described in Cross and others (2013) demonstrated that 

fish populations will likely benefit from improvement of the aquatic food base. 

 Project 5.1 seeks to identify the specific stressors that are limiting the diversity and 

productivity of the foodbase so that managers will have a scientific basis for considering how 

they might go about improving the foodbase. Additionally, Project 5.1 describes a flow 

experiment that might actually improve the foodbase, and could be considered for 

implementation in FY15–17. 

 The scope of the research described in Project 5 is also informed by the recommendations of 

the 2012 PEP. Specifically, that panel recommended that GCMRC: 

 

“Expand monitoring and research beyond the Colorado River mainstem within Glen and 

Grand Canyons; information from key tributaries and mainstem locations above Lake Powell 

is critical to understanding the aquatic food webs of the Colorado River and what potential 

exists for successful alterations to the system.”(Carlisle and others, 2012).

 Invertebrate drift provides a principal food source for drift-feeding fishes such as humpback 

chub and rainbow trout, so characterizing this component of the aquatic foodbase is critical to 

understanding the state of fish populations in the Colorado River in Glen, Marble, and Grand 

Canyons. The proposed monitoring and research outlined in Project 5.2 is dedicated to 

understanding the conditions, habitats, and times under which invertebrate drift occurs. As such, 

it is directly related to Goal 1. 

 Finally, the data collection and methods employed by the GCMRC Foodbase Group 

represent the state-of-the-art in terms of aquatic monitoring and research, as described in section 

E, below. This monitoring and research therefore reflects another of the 12 goals of the Adaptive 
208 

Management Program: 

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

C.3. Key Monitoring and Research Questions Addressed 

 Stated simply, the overarching question we propose to answer through the work described in 

this project is “why is the diversity and productivity of the aquatic foodbase in Glen, Marble, and 

Grand Canyons so low?” Each of the questions enumerated below represents a component of this 

question. The numbers in italics at the end of each question represent the project sub-elements 

associated with answering each question. 

1. Do water level stage changes due to hydropeaking lead to aquatic invertebrate 

recruitment limitation, preventing recolonization of the Colorado River by EPT? 5.1.1, 

5.1.2, 5.1.5

2. Is recruitment limitation a primary cause of low midge and blackfly production in the 

Colorado River? 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 5.1.5, 5.1.6

3. What factors generally control EPT distributions in rivers, and are conditions different in 

the Colorado River in Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons compared to other systems in 

the Upper and Lower Basin? 5.1.3, 5.1.4, 5.1.7, 5.1.8

4. Does higher invertebrate diversity in a tailwater result in larger trout and higher densities, 

or less variable trout populations over time? 5.1.4

5. Do processes and physical characteristics of drift habitat (flow dependent distributions of 

bed shear stress and distribution of substrate type) vary among reaches, and does this 

explain differences in observed concentrations of invertebrate drift? 5.2.3, 5.2.4

6. How does invertebrate drift in Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons vary spatially and 

seasonally, and with respect to emergent insect densities, dam management, and fish 

population dynamics? 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.2.3

7. Is the rate at which species accumulate and drift concentrations increase with distance 

from the dam consistent across tailwaters, or is this rate unusually low downstream of 

Glen Canyon Dam? 5.2.1, 5.2.5

8. Are the spatial patterns and functional relationships between physical controls and 

invertebrate drift downstream of Glen Canyon Dam unique, or more broadly applicable 

to other tailwaters in the Colorado River Basin? 5.2.3, 5.2.4, 5.2.5

9. Does higher invertebrate diversity in a tailwater result in less variable seasonal and 

spatial patterns of drift? 5.2.1, 5.2.5

10. How does algae production vary seasonally, with HFEs and other flow changes, and 

longitudinally throughout Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons? 5.3.1, 5.3.2, 5.3.3

C.4. Hypotheses Explaining Aquatic Invertebrate Productivity and Diversity 

 We present five hypotheses that could explain why aquatic insect diversity is low 

downstream of Glen Canyon Dam. We also note whether any of these diversity hypotheses can 

also explain why production of midges and blackflies is low. Numerous other hypotheses can 

explain just the low production, but not the low diversity, of the Colorado River, such as nutrient 

dynamics, high turbidity/low algae, or armoring of the bed; however, these types of productionrelated hypotheses are not included here because they were a major focus of earlier foodbase 

research (Cross and others, 2013; Kennedy and others, 2013b). After each hypothesis is 
209 

presented, we outline management implications if the hypothesis is true. 

Hypothesis 1 (H1). Cold water temperatures of the Colorado River prevent EPT taxa from 

completing their lifecycle. 

 Rationale: H1 specifically attributes the absence of EPT taxa to cold water temperatures. 

Summer water temperatures of the post-dam Colorado River are colder than the tributary streams 

in Grand Canyon that support populations of EPT taxa (Voichick and Wright, 2007). Larval 

stages of EPT taxa from tributaries may be able to survive and grow in the mainstem in spite of 

cold water temperatures, as evidenced by the persistence of EPT in the tributaries even though 

winter temperatures in these tributaries are similar to the mainstem. However, consistently cold 

temperatures throughout spring and summer may prevent EPT taxa from completing their life 

cycle in the mainstem, particularly due to the sensitivity of key life stage transitions, such as the 

transition from egg to larva, that occur at these times (Elliott, 1978). Although H1 may explain 

why EPT taxa are absent, this hypothesis cannot by itself explain why production of midges and 

blackflies is low, because many cold water streams and rivers have high invertebrate production 

(Huryn and Wallace, 2000). 

 Management Implications: Under H1, installation of a selective withdrawal structure on 

Glen Canyon Dam would be required to increase river temperature and allow populations of EPT 

taxa to complete their life cycle and establish naturally recruiting populations in the Colorado 

River. Alternatively, EPT taxa may colonize the Colorado River in future years if climate change 

results in consistently lower elevations in Lake Powell and warmer releases from Glen Canyon 

Dam. Warmer water temperatures would also be expected to increase the production of midges 

and blackflies (Huryn and Wallace, 2000). 

Hypothesis 2 (H2). Unnatural water temperature regimes are out of phase with the seasonal 

timing of key EPT life stage changes. 

 Rationale: H2 ascribes the absence of EPT taxa to the unnatural seasonal timing of 

temperature regimes rather than to cold temperatures per se (Olden and Naiman, 2010). For 

example, in the Glen Canyon tailwater, maximum water temperatures typically occur in October 

or November (http://www.gcmrc.gov/discharge_qw_sediment/station/GCDAMP/09380000), 

whereas in tributaries maximum water temperatures occur in June–July when air temperatures 

are highest (Voichick and Wright, 2007). If annual maximum temperatures or specific 

temperature thresholds (e.g., day of year when 55 °F is reached) are the primary cues that trigger 

insect emergence and other key life stage changes, then the unnatural timing of water 

temperature regimes may be causing critical delays in the life cycle of EPT taxa. For example, 

unnatural water temperature regimes might be causing EPT taxa to emerge from the Colorado 

River during winter months when air temperatures are freezing. However, H2 cannot explain 

why midge and blackfly production is low, because citizen science emergence monitoring 

indicates midge and blackfly emergence occurs throughout the spring and summer, and peaks in 

late June around the summer solstice (Kennedy and others, unpublished data). That is, midge and 

blackfly emergence appears related to day length, and the unnatural seasonal timing of Colorado 

River water temperature regimes does not appear to be causing abnormal delays in emergence of 

these insects. 

 Management Implications: The management implications of H2 are similar to H1. 

However, the specifications on a selective withdrawal device, such as the number of units 

outfitted, may differ if the management objective is re-creating the pre-dam maximum and 

minimum temperatures (H1) vs. more natural seasonal timing of temperature thresholds (H2). 
210 

Hypothesis 3 (H3). Dispersal limitation prevents EPT taxa native to the Colorado River from 

colonizing Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons. 

 Rationale: H3 posits that native EPT taxa are capable of inhabiting the Colorado River in 

Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons, but they have not re-colonized because suitable source 

populations are distant. For example, Cataract Canyon is >100 river miles from Glen Canyon and 

is separated from it by a large dam and reservoir. However, there are several assumptions 

implicit in H3. First, there is an assumption that load-following flows (i.e., unconstrained 

hydropeaking) or some other historical bottleneck extirpated EPT taxa from segments 

downstream of Glen Canyon Dam. Second, there is the assumption that this bottleneck is no 

longer present, most likely due to flow changes implemented by the 1996 Record of Decision. 

H3 also assumes that EPT species currently present in Grand Canyon tributaries differ from 

species historically present in the Colorado River mainstem. That is, H3 assumes that EPT taxa 

in tributaries are incapable of serving as source populations for mainstem re-colonization. H3 is 

the first hypothesis presented that attributes the absence of EPT to flow management, specifically 

to flow management policies that have not been in place for more than two decades. However, 

H3 cannot explain why EPT taxa present in tributaries have not colonized the mainstem river, 

especially at downstream locations where water temperature regimes are somewhat naturalized. 

Further, H3 cannot explain why production of midges and blackflies within the mainstem is low. 

 Management implications: Reintroductions of invertebrates from upper basin segments and 

tailwaters is a logical next step in the adaptive management process under H3. Note that a 

similar dispersal limitation hypothesis provides the basis for ongoing humpback chub 

translocations in Grand Canyon tributaries (Holton, 2008; Spurgeon, 2012; Trammel and others, 

2012). That is, humpback chub translocations are occurring (Shinumo Creek, Havasu Creek, 

Upstream of Chute Falls in the Little Colorado River), and are planned (Bright Angel Creek), 

because it is assumed that dispersal limitation is preventing humpback chub from inhabiting 

these locations. Likewise, a dispersal limitation hypothesis motivates recent translocations of 

razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) into western Grand Canyon. 

Hypothesis 4 (H4). Hydropeaking causes catastrophic drift and high mortality of EPT larvae, 

thereby preventing populations from becoming established.

 Rationale: Invertebrate drift is a fundamental aspect of the overall life history of aquatic 

insects because drift allows for rapid re-colonization of benthic substrates by larvae following 

egg-laying by emergent adults. Invertebrate drift is often triggered by changes in discharge, and 

the daily changes in discharge associated with hydropeaking may cause exceptionally high rates 

of drift for EPT taxa that have catastrophic consequences for their populations. H4 is informed 

by recent research in Glen Canyon that demonstrated the strong effect that hydropeaking can 

have on invertebrate drift concentrations (Kennedy and others, 2014b). Specifically, during 

summer hydropeaking, Kennedy and others (2014b) found that more than 1% of midge and 

blackfly larvae for the entire 16 mile tailwater were being exported past Lees Ferry each day. H4

posits that over invertebrate life spans (months to years), catastrophic drift (Anderson and 

Lehmkuhl, 1968) associated with hydropeaking is a critical source of mortality. Note that H4 can 

also reasonably explain why production of midges and blackflies is low, because Kennedy and 

others (2014) demonstrated high rates of drift for these taxa in Glen Canyon. However, H4

implicitly assumes that EPT taxa on whole are susceptible to catastrophic drift to a much greater 

extent than midges and blackflies, such that EPT have become extirpated but midges and 

blackflies have not. H4 is the first hypothesis presented that attributes the absence/rarity of EPT 
211 

to existing flow management policies. 

 Management Implications: H4 suggests that a new flow action, constraining the daily range 

of hydropeaking to reduce catastrophic invertebrate drift, be considered. These constraints would 

likely need to occur for substantial portions of the year under H4, because aquatic insects are 

susceptible to catastrophic drift throughout their larval lifespan. 

Hypothesis 5 (H5). EPT taxa are recruitment limited, because hydropeaking causes high egg 

mortality. 

 Rationale: Hydropeaking from Glen Canyon Dam creates a large varial (intermittently 

wetted) zone along shorelines. Because the Colorado River in Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyon 

is canyon bound and the tributaries that join the river all have comparatively low discharge, the 

size of the varial zone does not appreciably decrease with distance downstream. For example, 

daily stage change during summer hydropeaking is around 2 feet at both the Lees Ferry gage and 

the Diamond Creek gage 225 miles downstream. Thus, although water temperature regimes 

become more naturalized with distance downstream, the effect that hydropeaking has on the 

stability of shoreline habitat does not attenuate with distance from the dam. 

 H5 attributes the absence of EPT and the poor health of the invertebrate assemblage to the 

width of the varial zone, similar to earlier investigations (Blinn and others, 1995), but H5 goes a 

step further and focuses on the effect that unstable shorelines have on a specific life stage of 

aquatic insects—eggs. H5 implicitly assumes that egg-laying by EPT taxa occurs principally 

along shorelines, because if egg-laying by EPT taxa was occurring in the main channel then egg 

survival would be unaffected by daily changes in stage. This assumption of egg-laying along 

shorelines seems reasonable given the life history of aquatic insects, and EPT taxa in particular. 

Aquatic insects concentrate along shorelines immediately after emergence, and mating swarms 

of aquatic insects are associated with vegetation and other physical structures along shorelines 

(Gratton and Vander Zanden, 2009; Muehlbauer and others, 2014). Females likely choose to 

oviposit (lay eggs) in the first ideal habitat they encounter as they travel back to the water from 

land, so it makes intuitive sense that most egg laying would also occur in the varial zone near 

shorelines. Further, the specialized egg-laying behaviors of some EPT taxa necessitate this 

critical life history step occur along shorelines. For example, mated females of the ubiquitous 

mayfly genus Baetis land on an emergent rock in fast water, then crawl a couple of inches under 

the water’s surface and affix a cluster of eggs to the rock (Encalada and Peckarsky, 2012). In 

fact, Encalada and Peckarsky (2012) were able to double the number of Baetis larvae present in 

50 m stream reaches simply by doubling the number of rocks available for Baetis egg-laying, and 

to reduce by half the number of Baetis larvae present in stream reaches by eliminating the 

emergent rocks that adults require for egg-laying. This example highlights the critical role that 

recruitment plays in determining aquatic insect population dynamics. 

H5 posits that EPT taxa downstream of Glen Canyon Dam are recruitment limited, because 

hydropeaking negatively affects habitat quality along the shorelines where egg-laying is assumed 

to occur. Note that H5 also assumes that the eggs laid by EPT taxa in the varial zone, and which 

are subjected to daily drying, will experience high mortality prior to larval development. This 

assumption of high mortality also seems reasonable given typical summertime air temperatures 

in Grand Canyon that can exceed >110 °F, with ground temperatures >130 °F. H5 can also 

explain why midge and blackfly production is low, because these taxa will also be susceptible to 

high egg mortality and recruitment limitation if egg laying occurs principally along shorelines. 

 Management implications: Both H5 and H4 posit that hydropeaking is responsible for the 

absence/rarity of EPT taxa and the low production of midges and blackflies. However, mitigating 
212 

the effects of hydropeaking under H5 is fundamentally different than mitigating the effects of 

hydropeaking under H4. Specifically, H5 implies that shorelines only need to be stable for 

sufficient time to overcome the negative effects that recruitment limitation is having on the 

diversity and productivity of the aquatic food base. 

Support for Hypothesis 5 (H5)

 As a first step toward framing the problem of low aquatic invertebrate diversity and 

productivity in the Colorado River, we have focused on the role that individual stressors may be 

playing in driving observed patterns of insect diversity and productivity. Although there are 

likely significant interactions among stressors such as temperature and flow (Olden and Naiman, 

2010), isolating the predominant, most-impactful stressor will represent a major step towards 

understanding how to go about improving the aquatic foodbase. Likely each stressor represents 

an environmental filter that limits invertebrate populations to some extent (Poff, 1997), with the 

cumulative effect of all these stressors resulting in the low diversity and productivity conditions 

in the Colorado River. Removing all these stressors is infeasible; however, identifying and 

ameliorating the stressor that has the greatest filtering effect on invertebrate populations may be 

sufficient to impart large and beneficial change to the aquatic invertebrate diversity and 

productivity of the Colorado River ecosystem. 

 Managers also have limited ability or willingness to actively mitigate some of the stressors 

we identified. For example, the high-cost (>$150M) and risks (invasion by warm-water 

nonnatives) associated with installation and use of a selective withdrawal structure on Glen 

Canyon Dam mean active temperature mitigation is unlikely (H1 and H2). Mitigating and testing 

the dispersal limitation hypothesis (H3) could be accomplished through translocations of insects 

from other river segments, but, in our opinion, this hypothesis requires too many unreasonable 

assumptions, none of which are actually testable, to warrant serious consideration. In contrast, 

mitigating the negative effects of hydropeaking under both H4 and H5 is logistically possible. 

However, the diversity assumption implicit in H4 is that EPT are much more susceptible to 

catastrophic drift than midges and blackflies. Project 5.2 describes research and monitoring that 

will address uncertainties relative to H4. However, while it may be a lesser filter affecting 

species distributions within small scales or certain reaches of the river (Poff, 1997), it seems 

unreasonable to expect that catastrophic drift is the predominant stressor limiting EPT 

colonization throughout Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons. 

 There are two assumptions that are implicit in H5: that substantial egg-laying by adult insects 

occurs near shorelines, and that mortality of eggs subjected to drying is high. Because aquatic 

insects have a biological imperative to return to the water as quickly as possible to lay their eggs 

and are generally not well adapted to life outside of water, both of these assumptions seem 

reasonable. Further, both assumptions can be tested with field and laboratory studies. 

 Given management realities as well as the assumptions embedded in many of the five 

hypotheses, we focus on testing H5 in Project 5.1 and with the flow experiment we propose, 

because emergence and egg-laying of aquatic insects are very poorly studied processes, 

particularly in the context of river regulation and hydropeaking. Most importantly, mitigating 

potentially negative effects of recruitment limitation, assuming H5 is true, has the highest 

probability of leading to a large and positive increase in insect diversity and productivity, even as 

other stressors persist. 

 
213 

Proposed Flow Experiment 

 There are numerous flow experiments that could be developed to experimentally test the 

validity of H5. However, a central tenet of adaptive management is to focus on testing 

alternative policies, as opposed to simply testing hypotheses (Walters, 1986), and many potential 

flow experiments are impractical from a policy standpoint. For example, year-round stable flows 

would represent a definitive test of H5, but such an experiment would likely lead to a large 

cohort of juvenile rainbow trout (Korman and others, 2012), with potentially negative 

consequences for humpback chub populations. Thus, year-round stable flows do not represent a 

good test of a policy option that might eventually be considered for long-term implementation, 

because negative or undesirable effects on other resources such as rainbow trout and hydropower 

production may outweigh the benefits that year-round stable flows might have on insect diversity 

and productivity. Although stable summer flows have occurred in 2000 and 2011, foodbase 

monitoring techniques were not well developed in 2000, and only rudimentary monitoring was in 

place in 2011 due to budget cuts in the foodbase program. Thus, it is not possible to draw 

inferences about H5 using invertebrate monitoring data from these years. 

 Alternatively, the validity of H5 could be evaluated with a shorter duration block of steady 

flows. For example, the time of year with the highest rates of emergence and egg-laying could be 

identified (mid-June–mid-July), and then stable flows that encompass this entire emergence 

period could be implemented. However, emergence timing varies widely among EPT taxa, and a 

month-long block of stable flows might positively affect egg survival for some species, but other 

species that emerge and lay eggs during other times of year would not be affected by this 

experiment. Additionally, short-lived species such as midges and Baetis mayflies have multiple 

generations per year, so this experimental design might positively affect egg survival for one 

generation of these short-lived species, but population dynamics would likely be determined by 

the fate of other generations that are emerging at other times of year. Thus, this type of shortduration experiment does not represent a good test of a policy option that might eventually be 

considered for implementation, because it is unlikely that a month-long block of steady flows 

will significantly increase invertebrate diversity or productivity. 

 We propose a novel experimental design for testing the validity of H5 that involves stable 

flows every weekend from May through August (34 days total). The discharge on weekends 

would be the minimum discharge for that month, which will ensure that the insect eggs laid 

during weekends will never be subjected to drying due to lower water levels at any point prior to 

larval development. No change in monthly volumes, ramping rates, or the daily range in 

discharge during weekdays would be required as part of this experiment. To offset the smaller 

water releases that would occur during weekends within a given month, larger releases would 

need to occur during the weekdays within a given month. Ideally, and pending environmental 

compliance discussions and approval, this flow experiment could be initiated in 2015. Results 

from 2015 would be available in early 2016 and should be sufficient to provide baseline support 

or opposition for any continuation of the flow experiment in summer 2016 and future years. 

 The timing of the proposed experiment is informed by citizen science light trapping results 

demonstrating that midges, and to a lesser extent blackflies and micro-caddisflies (Order 

Trichoptera, Family Hydroptilidae), are emerging from the mainstem throughout the summer 

period from May to August (Kennedy unpublished data). This experiment will provide an ideal 

egg-laying environment of stable water levels along shorelines, at regularly-timed intervals 

throughout the emergence and egg-laying season. Thus, if the mechanisms and assumptions 

underlying H5 are true, this flow experiment should elicit both short-term (month-to-month) and 
214 

long-term, (year-to-year) population-level responses from aquatic insects, as more eggs hatch 

into larvae, leading to more adults, which lay the eggs that set the stage for more successful 

cohorts of future generations. Importantly, the flow experiment we propose also represents a 

viable mitigation strategy, because it is likely to benefit the target resource, and impacts to other 

non-target resources such as hydropower may be minimal/acceptable. 

D. Proposed Work 

 Sixteen proposed project sub-elements are described in this proposal. For ease, these subelements are partitioned into three broader project elements: 1) tasks principally related to 

studying the factors limiting diversity and production of the invertebrate foodbase, 2) tasks 

principally related to characterizing the factors controlling invertebrate drift, and 3) tasks related 

to monitoring algae production in the Colorado River. 

 Some of the project sub-elements described here involve fieldwork in the Upper and Lower 

Colorado River Basin, outside of Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons (Project Elements 5.1.7, 

5.1.8, and 5.2.5). We recognize that these sub-elements therefore may not be eligible for funding 

by GCDAMP. Consequently, supplemental funding for these projects has been requested from 

sources external to the GCDAMP. These project sub-elements are noted by the text “*Submitted 

for non-GCDAMP funding.” We have chosen to incorporate these project sub-elements into this 

GCDAMP proposal because, regardless of their ultimate source of funding, they represent a 

critical component of the overall body of work we propose to carry out in FY15–17, and will be 

crucial in providing insight into the remaining project elements we propose for GCDAMP 

funding. 

D.1. Project Elements 

Project Element 5.1. Is aquatic insect diversity and production recruitment limited? 

 Here, we present research and monitoring focused on evaluating the validity of H5, described 

in section C.4 above. This work includes field experiments and modeling that will directly 

address the assumptions that are implicit in this hypothesis. The strength of our inferences will 

be significantly increased if these studies are accompanied by the proposed flow experiment; 

however, these studies will provide insights into the validity of H5, regardless of whether the 

flow experiment is also implemented. Because EPT taxa are virtually absent from the Colorado 

River in Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons, we also propose field studies of insect emergence 

and egg-laying in other segments of the Colorado River that support these taxa. 

Project Element 5.1.1. Insect emergence in Grand Canyon via citizen science 

Theodore Kennedy, Research Aquatic Ecologist, USGS, GCMRC 

Charles Yackulic, Research Statistician, USGS, GCMRC 

Jeffrey Muehlbauer, Research Ecologist, USGS, GCMRC 

David Lytle, Associate Professor, Oregon State University 

 

 The citizen science sampling of insect emergence initiated by Kennedy in 2012 has yielded 

an unprecedented dataset of spatial and temporal patterns in aquatic insect emergence throughout 

225 miles of Grand Canyon. These data are also beginning to shed light on how flow 

management affects the critical adult life stage of aquatic insects. This project has also become a 
215 

powerful outreach tool for communicating Grand Canyon science, and the important role that 

adaptive management plays, to dozens of river guides and thousands of passengers annually. In 

many ways, this dataset has been the basis for the research and questions described in this 

proposal, and we propose to continue this citizen science monitoring in FY15–17. In addition, if 

flow management changes aimed at increasing insect productivity and diversity in the Colorado 

River are initiated, data from this monitoring program will be essential in tracking any changes 

to aquatic insect populations. 

Project Element 5.1.2. Quantifying the effects of hydropeaking on oviposition and egg mortality 

Theodore Kennedy, Research Aquatic Ecologist, USGS, GCMRC 

Jeffrey Muehlbauer, Research Ecologist, USGS, GCMRC

 The main focus of this project element is addressing the two assumptions that are implicit in 

H5. Specifically, this project will quantify 1) the proportion of egg-laying by aquatic insects that 

occurs in the varial zone relative to permanently inundated habitats, and 2) rates of mortality for 

eggs that are subjected to daily drying. Observational and field studies of egg-laying will be 

conducted at sites where the varial zone is wide vs. narrow, and sites where daily flow minima 

occur during daytime hours vs. nighttime hours. Field studies on egg mortality will be 

complemented by more controlled laboratory studies on egg mortality (see Project Element 5.1. 

6). Studies by Encalada and Peckarsky (2012) and Deutsch (1984) provide examples of methods 

and approaches that can be used to study egg-laying and egg-mortality, although some 

innovation and new methods will likely be required for the unique conditions present in the 

Colorado River. Specifically, we anticipate field studies that will make use of colonization 

substrate trays for quantifying egg laying at certain locations within the varial zone, and possibly 

enclosures that allow in situ egg laying to be differentiated from egg deposition via drift from 

upstream. 

Project Element 5.1.3. Synthesis of stressors and controls on EPT distributions 

Jeffrey Muehlbauer, Research Ecologist, USGS, GCMRC 

Theodore Kennedy, Research Aquatic Ecologist, USGS, GCMRC 

Scott Miller, Director, National Aquatic Monitoring Center, Bureau of Land Management 

 All the hypotheses described above are predicated on an understanding of the stressors and 

controls that affect the ability of insects to colonize, reproduce, and persist in aquatic 

ecosystems. The hypotheses we presented are based on sound science for aquatic insects in 

general; however, in moving toward potential mitigation strategies that will promote colonization 

or increased production of target species, a better understanding of species-specific traits and 

stressors will be required (Table 1). We anticipate this synthesis providing general information 

that is applicable across a suite of EPT taxa; however, we will also use this effort to identify and 

characterize taxa that could be candidates for colonization of the Colorado River downstream of 

Glen Canyon Dam, based on their predicted response to the conditions present in this ecosystem. 

Table 1. Life History Information for Select Aquatic Insect Taxa. Information on midges and blackflies is specific 

to the sub-families (midges) or species (blackflies) that are present and widely distributed in the Colorado River. 

Life history information for representative genera from Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera are also 

presented, even though these taxa are not present in the Colorado River in Grand Canyon. This type of speciesspecific information will inform the development of field studies and provide insights into invertebrate population 
216 

responses to the flow experiment we have proposed. Data from Merritt and others (2008). 

Life Trait 

Midges 

(Chironominae, 

Orthocladiinae) 

Blackflies 

(Simulium vittatum 

complex) 

Ephemeroptera 

(mayflies) 

Baetis 

Plecoptera 

(stoneflies) 

Hydroperla 

Trichoptera 

(caddisflies) 

Hydropsyche 

Feeding mode CollectorGatherer Filter feeder Collectorgatherer 

Leaf shredder, 

then predator Filter feeder 

Generations per year Multiple One or multiple Multiple One One 

Egg-laying location Water surface Below water line 

on vegetation 

Shallow riffles, 

under stones Head of riffles Submerged object 

Pre-egg laying 1-2 days Variable, requires 

blood meal 1 day 2-5 days A few days 

Fecundity 

(eggs per female) 1000-2000 300-600, clumps from many females ~1000 150-300 per egg mass 

300-500 

Egg incubation Days to weeks Days to weeks Weeks Weeks-months Days-weeks 

Notes Eggs masses 

often float 

Overwinters as 

diapausing egg 

Hatching period 

highly variable 

Synchronous 

hatching 

Project Element 5.1.4. Synthesis of the aquatic foodbase, and its effects on trout populations, in western US 

tailwaters 

Jeffrey Muehlbauer, Research Ecologist, USGS, GCMRC 

Theodore Kennedy, Research Aquatic Ecologist, USGS, GCMRC 

Scott Miller, Director, National Aquatic Monitoring Center, Bureau of Land Management 

 This project element will follow an approach similar to the tailwater synthesis project being 

led by Kim Dibble (see Project 9). That synthesis of trout population dynamics has yielded 

important insight into how dam management affects trout populations, and has been useful in 

putting the rainbow trout fishery in Glen Canyon and the operations of the Glen Canyon Dam in 

context. We will conduct a similar synthesis of aquatic food base conditions in western 

tailwaters. Some data are already available as a result of Dibble’s work, and much of these data 

were provided by Scott Miller; however, the food base synthesis will naturally have a somewhat 

different focus from that project. Specifically, in our synthesis we will accomplish the following 

objectives: 1) describe variation in invertebrate assemblages among tailwaters, 2) use a variety of 

modeling approaches to identify the role that physical factors (i.e., temperature, flow regime) vs. 

regional species pools (i.e., H3) play in structuring invertebrate assemblages in tailwaters, and 3) 

describe the relationship between invertebrate diversity and overall productivity of invertebrate 

assemblages to determine whether a more diverse assemblage downstream of Glen Canyon Dam 

will likely lead to greater prey resource availability for fishes. Additionally, we will collaborate 

with Dibble, and directly link information on invertebrate assemblages among tailwaters to the 

trout population dynamics information she is synthesizing, to evaluate whether tailwaters that 

support healthy invertebrate assemblages also have more or larger trout, or more stable trout 

populations. Successful completion of this project will require additional data collection from 

published journal articles, government reports, and databases, as well as further interaction and 

data gathering from state, federal, and academic researchers across these western tailwaters. 

 
217 

Project Element 5.1.5. Natural history of oviposition for species present in Grand Canyon 

Theodore Kennedy, Research Aquatic Ecologist, USGS, GCMRC 

Eric Kortenhoeven, Ecologist, USGS, GCMRC 

Anya Metcalfe, Ecologist, USGS, GCMRC 

 To understand how environmental stressors affect the populations of aquatic insects present 

in Grand Canyon, a better understanding of their life history is required. For instance, additional, 

observational information on the oviposition (egg-laying) behavior of black flies and midges in 

the Colorado River in Grand Canyon will help support or discredit the hypotheses listed above, 

and will inform the extent to which alterations to flow management may increase production of 

the aquatic food base. 

Project Element 5.1.6. Laboratory studies on insect oviposition and egg mortality associated with changing 

water levels 

Theodore Kennedy, Research Aquatic Ecologist, USGS, GCMRC 

Adam Copp, Ecologist, USGS, GCMRC 

 Many of the hypotheses listed above are based on mortality at key insect life stages, 

particularly the effect of desiccation on egg-mortality (H5). Lab or experimental mesocosm 

studies are highly amenable to isolating such effects and providing conclusive data on the impact 

of individual stressors, such as the desiccation time and temperature at which 50% (a clinical 

threshold for mortality) of midge or blackfly eggs become non-viable. 

Project Element 5.1.7. Comparative emergence studies in Upper Basin using citizen science light trapping 

*Submitted for non-GCDAMP funding 

Theodore Kennedy, Research Aquatic Ecologist, USGS, GCMRC 

Scott Miller, Director, BLM/Utah State University National Aquatic Monitoring Center 

Jeffrey Muehlbauer, Research Ecologist, USGS, GCMRC 

 Citizen science emergence monitoring in Grand Canyon (Project Element 5.1.1) will provide 

information on insect population response to Glen Canyon Dam operations; however, it is 

difficult to put the temporal and spatial patterns present in these data into context without 

comparable data from other regulated and unregulated rivers that have different characteristic 

flow regimes. Thus, we propose to carry out similar studies in Upper Basin tailwaters including 

Flaming Gorge Dam, Fontenelle Dam, and Navajo Dam. We will also collaborate with citizen 

scientists to quantify insect emergence in segments that are unregulated, such as the Green River 

in Desolation-Gray Canyon, the Colorado River in Westwater and Black Rocks, and Cataract 

Canyon. These data will elucidate the degree to which unique operations of Glen Canyon Dam 

affect insect behaviors and life stages, and the degree to which certain behaviors and population 

dynamics are consistent across segments of the Colorado River Basin. Note that the three years 

of citizen science emergence monitoring that we have acquired from Grand Canyon (2012–2014) 

will provide an experimental ‘control’ in the event the flow experiment we propose is 

implemented. Citizen science monitoring in the San Juan River was already initiated in April 

2014 in collaboration with Grand Canyon Youth, and will occur through FY14 and, ideally, into 

future years as well. As with the Grand Canyon citizen science monitoring, we expect this 
218 

collaboration to also provide a large outreach benefit to the GCDAMP. 

Project Element 5.1.8. Natural history of oviposition for EPT via studies in the Upper Basin 

*Submitted for non-GCDAMP funding

Theodore Kennedy, Research Aquatic Ecologist, USGS, GCMRC 

Scott Miller, Director, BLM/Utah State University National Aquatic Monitoring Center 

Jeffrey Muehlbauer, Research Ecologist, USGS, GCMRC 

 As described in Project Element 5.1.5, understanding the life history behaviors of aquatic 

insects will provide useful information for predicting insect population responses to flow 

management. For midge and blackfly species, these studies can be done in Grand Canyon. 

However, for target EPT taxa that are not currently present in Grand Canyon, their life histories 

must be studied in river systems where they are extant. The closest segments where these species 

are present is the Upper Colorado River Basin, specifically tailwaters such as those downstream 

of Flaming Gorge, Fontenelle, and Navajo Dams, and the unregulated Cataract Canyon reach 

that serves as a proxy for conditions in the pre-dam river. Thus, we propose natural history 

studies similar to those in Project Element 5.1.5., to be carried out in these Upper Basin segments 

with a focus on EPT taxa. 

Project Element 5.2. Patterns and controls of aquatic invertebrate drift in Colorado River tailwaters 

 The work described here focuses on studies that predominantly use drift as a method for 

assessing the condition of the aquatic foodbase. Such measurements represent a more direct 

metric for quantifying food availability for humpback chub and rainbow trout, both of which are 

“drift-feeding fish.” The purpose of many of the tasks proposed in these sub-elements is to 

mechanistically describe the factors influencing drift, particularly on small scales that are known 

hotspots of fisheries interest such as Glen Canyon and at the confluence of the Little Colorado 

River. Measuring drift is also a well-established method in stream and river ecology, which 

allows results of these studies to be more easily compared to other river ecosystems. As with the 

studies proposed in Project Element 5.1, some of the project sub-elements proposed here will 

also take place in other tailwaters in the Upper and Lower Colorado River Basin, for the sake of 

comparing conditions in Glen Canyon to representatively similar sites in the region. 

Project Element 5.2.1. Continue characterizing and monitoring drift and insect emergence in Glen Canyon 

Jeffrey Muehlbauer, Research Ecologist, USGS, GCMRC 

 Monthly invertebrate drift measurements have been taken longitudinally at six stations 

throughout Glen Canyon (RM -11, -8, -4.9, -3.5, -2.1, 0.2) and laterally at a cross section at Lees 

Ferry (RM 0) since January 2013. Monthly monitoring of emergent insects using sticky and light 

trap sampling was also initiated throughout Glen Canyon in January 2014. This monitoring is 

carried out using published methods developed by our lab group (Kennedy and others, 2013a; 

Kennedy and others, 2014b; Smith and others, 2014). These monitoring efforts will be used to 

describe spatial and temporal patterns of drift throughout Glen Canyon and will be compared to 

similar data we will collect from other tailwaters as outlined in Project Elements 5.2.2 and 5.2.5, 

below. In addition, the emergent insect monitoring in Glen Canyon will be linked to the citizen 

science emergent insect study initiated in 2012 (Kennedy and others, 2013a) to provide an 
219 

unprecedented longitudinal dataset of emergence, from Glen Canyon Dam at RM -16, to 

Diamond Creek 225 miles downstream. Extending insect emergence monitoring into Glen 

Canyon will allow us to better identify the role that flow management plays in driving insect 

population dynamics, because Glen Canyon is unaffected by sediment turbidity. Emergent insect 

monitoring will also be coupled with the drift data to describe the proportional relationship 

between concentrations of drifting invertebrates (i.e., food for fishes) and emergent insects 

(Statzner and others, 1986; Statzner and Resh, 1993) in the Colorado River. Emergent insects are 

more easily sampled than drift, and better quantifying the nature of this relationship in Glen 

Canyon and at the Natal Origins sites in Marble and Grand Canyons (as outlined in Project 

Element 5.2.2, below) will allow the citizen science emergent insect database to be used as a 

proxy for drift concentrations throughout the Colorado River. 

Project Element 5.2.2. Continue Natal Origins drift monitoring in Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons 

Theodore Kennedy, Research Aquatic Ecologist, USGS, GCMRC 

 Invertebrate drift has been monitored as part of the ongoing fish Natal Origins (NO) project 

since 2012. Drift samples are taken at all NO sites (RM -3.5, 18.9, 39.5, 60.15, 63.7) and during 

the run-out of NO trips at RM 63.7, 71.2, 88, 138.6, 166, and 225. Drift data from NO sites will 

eventually be linked to fish diet, abundance and distribution data collected concurrently with NO 

quarterly sampling (see Project 9 in work plan). NO drift data will also be used to parameterize 

rainbow trout bioenergetics models for Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons (Project 9). High 

resolution drift monitoring will also be used to build a coarse-scale map of drift patterns 

throughout the Colorado River, as outlined in Project Elements 5.2.3 and 5.2.4, below.

 In FY13–14, 20 drift samples were taken quarterly at each NO site (100 total samples per 

trip, or 500 per year). In this work plan, sampling effort per site visit will be reduced by ~50% 

(10 samples per site) to reduce laboratory sample processing burdens. Power analysis indicates 

this reduction will only marginally affect our ability to draw inferences from the data. Intensive 

diet sampling was also conducted at each NO site during FY12–14, resulting in 100 samples for 

rainbow trout gut content analysis per trip, or 400 per year. This diet analysis sampling will be 

discontinued in this work plan, because the three years of intensive diet sampling are sufficient to 

describe the relationship between drift concentrations, water clarity, and rainbow trout feeding 

habits. During the last two years of the NO project (FY15–16), we will predict rainbow trout 

feeding habits based on drift concentrations and water clarity, rather than continuing with timeintensive fish gut content analysis.

Project Element 5.2.3. Link drift at Natal Origins project transects to channel bed shear stress 

Jeffrey Muehlbauer, Research Ecologist, USGS, GCMRC

Scott Wright, Research Hydrologist, USGS, California Water Science Center 

 Bed shear stress conditions will be quantified at all drift sites sampled during NO trips (11 

total sites). This work can be done over the course of one NO trip using an acoustic Doppler 

current profiler (ADCP) with standardized methods developed previously in Glen Canyon 

(Muehlbauer and others, 2013). These hydrodynamic data will also be useful in fish 

bioenergetics modeling at the NO sites, and in understanding spatial variability in habitat 

conditions affecting both invertebrate and fish distributions. Further, these data will be used to 

characterize the functional relationship between physical environmental controls and invertebrate 
220 

drift at a coarse scale throughout Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons, as outlined in Project 

Element 5.2.5, below.

Project Element 5.2.4. Link invertebrate drift patterns to substrate conditions in Glen, Marble, and Grand 

Canyons 

Jeffrey Muehlbauer, Research Ecologist, USGS, GCMRC

Scott Wright, Research Hydrologist, USGS, California Water Science Center

 This task will integrate spatially and temporally-extensive data on aquatic macroinvertebrate 

drift, bed shear stress, and sediment grain size distributions. Much of the data collection required 

has already been completed or is ongoing. The critical work remaining for this task is to 

systematically link available point data on drift and bed shear stress to channel bed grain size 

estimates at these same locations. Such data can be used to predict the shear stress conditions 

under which incipient motion of bed sediment will occur for a given substrate habitat patch 

(Shields, 1936; Parker and Klingeman, 1982; Wilcock, 1996). By comparing variation in 

macroinvertebrate drift concentrations across habitat patches where sands and gravels are 

alternately stable or mobilized for given flow conditions, it is possible to determine the effects on 

drift of “sand blasting,” vs. shear stress alone, vs. habitat loss via rock rolling.

 We will carry out high resolution, habitat-specific, linked drift-shear stress-grain size data 

collection at five fishing ‘hot-spots’ in Glen Canyon (e.g., “4-mile bar” at RM -4.1). These study 

locations were originally suggested by fishers (Gerald Meyers, personal communication) and 

were corroborated as drift ‘hot-spots’ using drift monitoring data (see figure, above). On multiple 

dates and flow conditions over two years, we will collect data using standardized drift methods 

(Kennedy and others, 2014b), ADCP velocimetry for shear stress, and photographic methods for 

bed surface sediment. Using existing Glen Canyon-wide drift and bed shear stress data, along 

with bed sediment data that will be collected as part of Project 3, these resulting habitat-specific 

relationships between invertebrate drift concentrations, shear stress, and sediment entrainment 

can then be scaled up to predict invertebrate drift responses at habitat patches throughout Glen 

Canyon. To extend these predictions down river, especially into habitat near the LCR of interest 

for humpback chub management, we will use data from ADCP measurements for shear stress at 

the NO drift sites, as outlined above in Project Element 5.2.2. Combined with drift and with 

existing channel mapping data for the LCR inflow reach from Project 3, these data will allow 

drift predictions to be scaled up at a coarse scale throughout Grand Canyon, especially in reaches 

of particular interest for fisheries management.

 For the study reach in Lower Marble Canyon—and possibly the reaches outlined above for 

Glen Canyon—invertebrate drift and bed condition will be investigated at a process level. In this 

reach, drift sampling in short downstream intervals will be conducted concurrently with repeat 

bed surveys and full water column multibeam echosounder data collection (described in Project 

3). These repeat bed surveys will enable identification of areas of the bed where active sand 

transport may limit benthic invertebrate colonization and areas where colonization may occur but 

is subject to disturbance. The full water column data may be used to detect invertebrate drift in 

the water column directly. 

Project Element 5.2.5. Comparative longitudinal drift studies in Upper and Lower Colorado River Basin 

tailwaters 

*Submitted for non-GCDAMP funding 
221 

Theodore Kennedy, Research Aquatic Ecologist, USGS, GCMRC 

Jeffrey Muehlbauer, Research Ecologist, USGS, GCMRC 

Scott Miller, Director, BLM/Utah State University National Aquatic Monitoring Center 

 Here, we propose research on invertebrate drift in Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons, and in 

other tailwaters of the Colorado River Basin: downstream of Fontenelle, Flaming Gorge, Navajo, 

Hoover, Davis, and Parker Dams. We will quantify the extent to which the low invertebrate 

diversity/productivity condition in Glen Canyon is unusual and how invertebrate diversity affects 

drift dynamics, especially in terms of temporal and spatial variation. We will also quantify how 

drift concentrations vary among tailwaters that are situated in canyons with different 

geomorphology than Glen Canyon, and have different flow management policies, such as 

hydropeaking in Flaming Gorge and Hoover, but not in Fontenelle and Navajo. Finally, we will 

characterize longitudinal drift and shear stress dynamics downstream of these Upper and Lower 

Basin dams and conduct seasonal at-a-station drift measurements to characterize the diversity 

and density of invertebrates entering the drift through time. 

 Sampling will occur over the course of one or two trips (single sampling), including sites 

extending approximately every mile from the dam to ~15 miles downstream. In addition, 

seasonal changes in the drift will be monitored at select stations within these tailwaters, likely 

proximate to discharge gages. Such seasonal monitoring in the Fontenelle and Flaming Gorge 

tailwaters would ideally be carried out through a collaborative agreement with other agencies, or 

by personnel led by Scott Miller and the BLM Bug Lab at Utah State University. 

 Our group has developed optimized methods for monitoring drift in Glen Canyon (as 

outlined in the Background and in Project Element 5.1). However, we expect these methods to 

require some adjustment in the Upper Basin tailwaters, particularly in river reaches that are 

narrower and shallower than those present in Glen Canyon. Ideally, appropriate drift sampling 

methodologies would be modified for these sites in consultation and collaboration with Scott 

Miller, who has experience sampling drift in some of these tailwaters (Miller and Judson, 2014). 

 One outcome of characterizing drift in other tailwaters will be to better understand the 

response of the food base that is available to endangered fish species, as relevant to proposed 

peak flow studies for endangered fish habitat in the Upper Basin (LaGory and others, 2014). 

Longitudinal and seasonal drift data in these tailwaters will also be useful in comparison to 

emergent insect data to better link emergent insect dynamics to invertebrate drift concentrations, 

as discussed in Project Element 1, above. Emergent insect citizen science monitoring in these 

tailwaters is currently proposed by Kennedy and others, and was initiated on the San Juan River 

downstream of Navajo Dam in April 2014 in collaboration with Grand Canyon Youth. 

 Finally, these drift data will be useful in putting observed drift, habitat, and invertebrate 

diversity patterns in the Glen Canyon Dam tailwater in context. For example, increased 

understanding of drift in other tailwaters should elucidate the degree to which observed patterns 

and biological processes downstream of Glen Canyon Dam, such as food limitation of fish 

populations, zero/low EPT diversity, and rates of downstream colonization are potentially 

atypical. These studies may also help identify approaches for increasing invertebrate drift 

availability, which would benefit native and desired non-native fish populations in the GlenMarble-Grand Canyon reach of the Colorado River. 

Project Element 5.3. Monitoring algae production in Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons 

 The monitoring described in this project element will synthesize algae production data for 
222 

Glen Canyon, maintain dissolved oxygen monitoring at select locations in Glen, Marble, and 

Grand Canyon, and develop simpler, automated approaches for estimating algae production. 

Project Element 5.3.1. Controls of algal production in Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyon 

Theodore Kennedy, Research Aquatic Ecologist, USGS, GCMRC 

Charles Yackulic, Research Statistician, USGS, GCMRC 

Michael Yard, Fisheries Biologist, USGS, GCMRC 

Robert Payn, Assistant Professor, Montana State University 

Robert Hall Jr., Professor, University of Wyoming 

 Daily estimates of algal production in Glen Canyon have been computed from 2008–present 

(Fig. 4). In FY15, we will synthesize these data and develop a manuscript describing the controls 

of algal production in Glen Canyon. In FY16 and FY17 we will estimate algae production in 

Marble and Grand Canyon using data from 2011–2015. A manuscript describing controls of 

algae production in these locations is currently in review (Hall and others, In review), but the 

period of record for that manuscript only spans 2008–2011 for one location (Diamond Creek) 

and quarterly estimates for other locations. Notably, the period of record does not include any 

HFEs. 

Project Element 5.3.2. Continuous monitoring of dissolved oxygen concentrations in Glen, Marble, and Grand 

Canyons 

Adam Copp, Ecologist, USGS, GCMRC 

Nicholas Voichick, Hydrologist, USGS, GCMRC 

 In FY15–17 we will maintain our network of continuous dissolved oxygen monitoring 

stations at six locations in Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons (RM 0, 30, 61, 87, 166, and 225). 

Project Element 5.3.3. Develop automated tools for converting dissolved oxygen data to algal production 

Charles Yackulic, Research Statistician, USGS, GCMRC 

Edward Stets, Ecologist, USGS, National Research Program 

Robert Hall Jr., Professor, University of Wyoming 

 Stets is the lead, and Hall and Yackulic are collaborators, on a recently submitted USGS 

Powell Center for Analysis and Synthesis proposal, the purpose of which is to develop 

automated tools for converting dissolved oxygen data into algal production estimates. If the 

proposal is successful, one outcome of the synthesis will be automated tools developed 

specifically for sites in Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons where we have been continuously 

monitoring dissolved oxygen since 2008–2010. 

D.2. Personnel and Collaborations 

 Aquatic invertebrate monitoring and research efforts at GCMRC provide important insight 

into the condition of the Colorado River ecosystem, particularly with respect the foodbase 

available to fish. However, these studies require the collection of a large number of samples that 

can demand substantial time to process, necessitating a large staff. Within the GCMRC Aquatic 

Ecology group, research projects are conceived, designed, and analyzed by principal investigator 
223 

Theodore Kennedy. Postdoctoral fellow Jeffrey Muehlbauer also acts as a principal investigator 

in conceiving and carrying out research projects and analysis, and brings integrated invertebrate 

ecology, geomorphology, and hydrology expertise to the group. Adam Copp manages sample 

inventories and databases, maintains the invertebrate drift and water quality monitoring projects, 

and oversees the day-to-day operations of the lab. Joshua Smith serves as field crew leader, 

particularly for ongoing research and monitoring projects in Glen Canyon and the Little 

Colorado River. Eric Kortenhoeven and Anya Metcalfe are responsible for processing light trap 

samples; they also provide outreach and interface with the citizen scientist river guides who 

collect these samples. Moriah Evans, Thomas Quigley, and ~3 additional full time, part time, or 

student technicians are primarily responsible for the lab processing of drift samples. All 

personnel also take part in field work in support of these projects. 

 Our group is also taking innovative steps to optimize workflow and minimize processing 

times. For instance, we have developed a barcoding system to track the status of >6000 samples 

that are in various stages, from sample collection, to storage, to active processing, to analyzed 

sample archiving (Copp and others, In review). Since barcoding was initiated in 2012, we have 

collected an average of 900 drift samples per year, which will be reduced to ~650 samples 

annually in FY 15–17 with reduced sampling effort for the Natal Origins project. Earlier 

inefficiencies created a large backlog of samples that we are still processing, but at current rates 

of 4 hours of processing time per sample we expect our FY15–17 drift processing capacity to be 

approximately equal to sample collection efforts. 

 We have also processed ~2000 light trap samples since 2012, at a rate of roughly one sample 

every 45 minutes. Finally, we have deployed ~2000 sticky traps since 2013 (Smith and others, 

2014). Most of the sticky trap samples have not yet been processed because the automated image 

processing protocol for their analysis is still in active development; however, early tests indicate 

that processing time should ultimately be only 2 minutes per sample. 

 This project will utilize and integrate data from, provide data for, and require collaborations 

with other projects described in this work plan. Specifically, data collection in Projects 2 and 3 

related to discharge, temperature, suspended sediment concentrations, channel width, and 

shoreline inundation will be requisite for successful completion of most of the sub-tasks in 

Project Elements 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3 outlined in this project. Completion of these tasks will take 

place with input from geomorphologists Paul Grams and Daniel Buscombe and hydrologist 

Nicholas Voichick associated with those projects, in addition to Scott Wright from the USGS 

California Water Science Center. Algae production modeling described in Project Element 5.3 

will also occur in collaboration with faculty at Montana State University and the University of 

Wyoming, as well as USGS scientists affiliated with the National Research Program. 

 Many sub-tasks within this project will specifically address fisheries questions outlined 

throughout this work plan. For instance, Project Elements 5.2.2 and 5.2.3 build upon rainbow 

trout and humpback chub foodbase data needs described by Michael Yard, Josh Korman, and 

others as part of the Natal Origins project described in Project 9. These data will be used to 

quantify the availability of invertebrate prey resources at key fish monitoring locations in Glen 

and Marble Canyons, including at the confluence of the Little Colorado River. Citizen science 

emergence monitoring data will also inform new proposed studies on terrestrial-aquatic linkages 

(see Project Element 11.4). 

 Several of the sub-tasks in Project Elements 5.1 and 5.2 describe a nascent collaboration 

between GCMRC scientists and the BLM/Utah State University National Aquatic Monitoring 

Center. The results and output from this collaboration will be invaluable toward the goal of 
224 

putting the state of the aquatic foodbase in Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons in the larger 

context of the Colorado River Basin throughout the Intermountain West. 

 Finally, David Lytle/Oregon State University is the author of seminal publications on aquatic 

insect dispersal, aquatic insect response and adaptations to disturbances including floods, and 

population genetics of insects in arid landscapes (Lytle, 1999, 2001, 2002; McMullen and Lytle, 

2012). Collaboration with Lytle on Project Element 5.1 will allow us to put proposed data 

collections into the broader context of disturbance regimes and aquatic insect life-history 

evolution. 

D.3. Deliverables 

 This project will yield new scientific insights that are directly relevant to management of 

invertebrate assemblages and food webs in the River. Our investigations will largely focus on 

evaluating the validity of one hypothesis (H5) that explains the low diversity and productivity of 

the aquatic foodbase. The flow experiment we propose represents a test of policy option that 

might ultimately ameliorate the effects that hydropeaking may be having on invertebrate 

diversity and productivity. Implementation of the proposed flow experiment will also greatly 

increase the power of the inferences we can draw relative to the validity of H5. If the studies 

proposed for FY2015-2017 yield data that does not ultimately support this hypothesis (i.e., 

hydropeaking does NOT appear to be the principal stressor limiting the diversity and 

productivity of invertebrate assemblages), then investigations in 2018 and beyond could focus on 

evaluating alternative hypotheses, including the dispersal limitation hypothesis (H3) through 

direct translocations of native Colorado River invertebrates. Additionally, the syntheses and 

field studies we propose in other regulated and unregulated segments of the Basin will yield a list 

of “candidate” aquatic insect species that are native to the Colorado River that Grand Canyon 

National Park could consider for translocation. 

 In general, most of the 16 project elements should result in one or more peer-reviewed 

journal articles and presentations at scientific meetings; the remaining smaller project elements 

will provide critical supporting information to larger project elements. These larger project 

elements describe cutting-edge work in the fields of limnology as well as ecology in general, and 

the outcome of several of these project elements should be the publication of papers in some of 

the highest-tier scientific journals. 

 The studies described in Project Elements 5.1 and 5.2 on emergent and drifting insect 

dynamics are representative examples of the current trend in ecology toward “big data,” or the 

analysis of very large datasets, as well as the syntheses of data on a large scale from multiple, 

disparate sources. This work will enable us to characterize aquatic insect and invertebrate 

dynamics in the Colorado River Basin in unprecedented detail, with the benefit that we will be 

able to discern patterns and controls on invertebrate populations that were previously impossible 

to describe. The publication of these data and analyses, beginning in FY15 and continuing in 

future fiscal years as studies are completed, thus represent a major step forward in our power to 

predict and describe aquatic foodbase patterns in time and space. 

 Finally, algae production monitoring described in Project Element 5.3 is unprecedented for a 

large river, and at least two peer-reviewed articles describing controls on algae production in 

Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyon will be produced during FY15–17. 

 
225 

E. Productivity from Past Work (during FY 13–14) 

E.1. Data Products 

Aquatic ecology webpage. Provides photos and publications that describes major areas of 

research. (http://www.gcmrc.gov/research_areas/food_base/food_base_default.aspx) 

Citizen Science in Grand Canyon. 7 minute video that describes the ecology of the Colorado 

River in Grand Canyon, and how citizen science insect monitoring is leading to a deeper 

understanding of this unique ecosystem. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TxLWlrw7y4) 

E.2. Completed Publications 

Cross, W.F., Baxter, C.V., Rosi-Marshall, E.J., Hall, R.O., Kennedy, T.A., Donner, K.C., 

Wellard Kelly, H.A., Seegert, S.E.Z., Behn, K.E., and Yard, M.D., 2013, Food-web 

dynamics in a large river discontinuum: Ecological Monographs, v. 83, no. 3, p. 311–337. 

Kennedy, T.A., 2013, Identification and evaluation of scientific uncertainties related to fish and 

aquatic resources in the Colorado River, Grand Canyon—summary and interpretation of an 

expert-elicitation questionnaire: US Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 

2013–5027. 

Kennedy, T.A., Cross, W.F., Hall, R.O., Baxter, C.V., and Rosi-Marshall, E.J., 2013, Native and 

nonnative fish populations of the Colorado River are food-limited—evidence from new food 

web analyses: US Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2013–3039, 8 p. 

Kennedy, T., Kortenhoeven, E., and Fritzinger, C., 2013, Guides + science = citizen science: 

Boatman's Quarterly Review, v. 26, no. 1, p. 20–21. 

Kennedy, T.A., Yackulic, C.B., Cross, W.F., Grams, P.E., Yard, M.D., and Copp, A.J., 2014, 

The relation between invertebrate drift and two primary controls, discharge and benthic 

densities, in a large regulated river: Freshwater Biology, v. 59, no. 3, p. 557–572. 

Muehlbauer, J.D., Collins, S.F., Doyle, M.W., Tockner, K., 2014, How wide is a stream? Spatial 

extent of the potential "stream signature" in terrestrial food webs using meta-analysis: 

Ecology v. 95, no. 1. p. 44–55. 

Riggsbee, J.A., Doyle, M.W., Julian, J.P., Manners, R., Muehlbauer, J.D., Sholtes, J.S., and 

Small, M.J., 2013, Influence of aquatic and semi-aquatic organisms on channel forms and 

processes, in Wohl, E., ed., Fluvial Geomorphology: San Diego, California, USA, Academic 

Press, p. 189–202. 

Smith, J.T., Kennedy, T.A., and Muehlbauer, J.D., 2014, Building a better sticky trap: 

description of an easy-to-use trap and pole mount for quantifying the abundance of adult 

aquatic insects: Freshwater Science, v. 33, no. 3. 

Wang, H., Li, H., Zhang, Z., Muehlbauer, J.D., He, Q., Xu, X., Yue, C., and Jiang, D., 2014, 

Linking stoichiometric homeostasis of microorganisms with soil phosphorus dynamics in 

wetlands subjected to microcosm warming: PLoS ONE, v. 9, no. 1, p. e85575. 

Wellard Kelly, H.A., Rosi-Marshall, E.J., Kennedy, T.A., Hall, R.O., Cross, W.F., and Baxter, 

C.V., 2013, Macroinvertebrate diets reflect tributary inputs and turbidity-driven changes in 

food availability in the Colorado River downstream of Glen Canyon Dam: Freshwater 

Science, v. 32, no. 2, p. 397–410. 

Zahn Seegert, S., Rosi-Marshall, E., Baxter, C., Kennedy, T., Hall, R., and Cross, W., In press, 

High diet overlap between native small-bodied and non-native Fathead Minnow in the 

Colorado River, Grand Canyon: Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 
226 

E.3. Publications in progress 

Clay, P.A., Muehlbauer, J.D., and Doyle, M.W., In review, Effect of tributary and braided 

confluences on aquatic macroinvertebrate communities and geomorphology in an alpine river 

watershed: Submitted to Freshwater Science. 

Copp, A.J., Kennedy, T.A., and Muehlbauer, J.D. In review, Barcodes are a useful tool for 

labeling and tracking ecological samples: Submitted to Bulletin of the Ecological Society of 

America. 

Hall, R.O., Yackulic, C.B., Kennedy, T.A., Yard, M.D., Rosi-Marshall, E.J., Voichick, N., Behn, 

K.E., In review, Turbidity, light, and hydropeaking control gross primary production in the 

Colorado River, Grand Canyon: Submitted to Limnology and Oceanography. 

Muehlbauer, J.D., and Doyle, M.W. (In Prep) Flooding decouples a major aquatic-terrestrial 

subsidy: insights from the combination of multiple ecological theories: For Journal of Animal 

Ecology. 

Muehlbauer, J.D., Clay, P.A., Doyle, M.W., and Tockner, K. (In Prep) Geophysical controls on 

the spatial dynamics of river-to-land subsidies, based on global field analysis: For Ecological 

Monographs. 

E.4. Presentations at GCDAMP meetings 

Kennedy, T.A., 2013, Foodbase update, Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program 

Technical Work Group Annual Reporting Meeting, Phoenix, Arizona, USA. 

Kennedy, T.A., and Hall, R.O., 2013, Foodweb analysis shows that food availability for fish 

downstream of Glen Canyon Dam is severely limited, Webex Briefing to the Assistant 

Secretary for Water and Science. 

Kennedy, T.A., Hall, R.O., and Cross, W.F., 2013, Foodweb analysis shows that food 

availability for fish downstream of Glen Canyon Dam is severely limited, Webex Briefing to 

the Technical Work Group. 

Kennedy, T., Muehlbauer, J., and Yackulic, C. 2014, Foodweb update, Glen Canyon Dam 

Adaptive Management Program Annual Reporting Meeting, Phoenix, Arizona, USA. 

E.5. Presentations at professional meetings 

Copp, A.J., Kennedy, T.A., and Muehlbauer, J.D., 2013, Learning from retailers: barcoding is a 

useful tool for labeling and tracking samples in field and lab settings, 12th Biennial 

Conference of Science and Management on the Colorado Plateau: Flagstaff, Arizona, USA. 

Copp, A.J., Kennedy, T.A., and Muehlbauer, J.D., 2014, Don't get clogged up: using net 

filtration efficiency to inform deployment length in drift studies, Joint Aquatic Sciences 

Meeting: Portland, Oregon, USA. 

Kennedy, T., Yackulic, C., Cross, W., Grams, P., Yard, M., and Copp, A. 2013, The relationship 

between invertebrate drift and two primary controls—discharge and benthic density—in a 

large regulated river, Ecological Society of America Meeting: Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA. 

Kennedy, T.A., Yackulic, C.B., Muehlbauer, J.D., Kortenhoeven, E., and Copp, A.J., 2013, High 

resolution sampling of insect emergence by citizen scientists leads to fundamental insights 

about the life history of aquatic insects in the Colorado River, Grand Canyon, 12th Biennial 

Conference of Science and Management on the Colorado Plateau: Flagstaff, Arizona, USA. 

Kennedy, T.A., Muehlbauer, J.D., and Yackulic, C.B., 2014, Flow management alters rates of 

insect emergence from the Colorado River in Grand Canyon, Joint Aquatic Sciences 

Meeting: Portland, Oregon, USA. 
227 

Muehlbauer, J.D., Kennedy, T.A., and Yackulic, C.B., 2013, Shear stress drives local variation in 

invertebrate drift in a large river, American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting: San Francisco, 

Califonia, USA. 

Muehlbauer, J.D., Kennedy, T.A., Smith, J.T., Sankey, J.B., and Kortenhoeven, E.W., 2014, 

Advances in emergent insect sampling: new sticky trap designs and automated sample 

processing, Joint Aquatic Sciences Meeting: Portland, Oregon, USA. 

Smith, J.T., Kennedy, T.A., and Muehlbauer, J.D., 2013, Building a better bug trap, 12th 

Biennial Conference of Science and Management on the Colorado Plateau: Flagstaff, 

Arizona, USA. 

Smith, J.T., Muehlbauer, J.D., and Kennedy, T.A., 2014, Determining the effects of insect 

pheromone release on sticky trap catch rates, Joint Aquatic Sciences Meeting: Portland, 

Oregon, USA. 

F. References 

Anders, P., Bradford, M.c., Higgins, P., Nislow, K.H., Rabeni, C.F., and Tate, C., 2001, Grand 

Canyon Monitoring and Research Center protocols evaluation program—final report of the 

aquatic protocol evaluation program panel: U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon 

Monitoring and Research Center, 43 p. 

Anderson, N.H., and Lehmkuhl, D.M., 1968, Catastrophic drift of insects in a woodland stream: 

Ecology, v. 49, no. 2, p. 198–206. 

Barbour, M.T., Gerritsen, J., Snyder, B.D., and Stribling, J.B., 1999, Rapid bioassessment 

protocols for use in streams and wadeable rivers: US Environmental Protection Agency 

Report EPA 841-B-99-002, 339 p. 

Blinn, D.W., Shannon, J.P., Stevens, L.E., and Carder, J.P., 1995, Consequences of fluctuating 

discharge for lotic communities: Journal of the North American Benthological Society, v. 14, 

no. 2, p. 233–248. 

Bunn, S.E., and Arthington, A.H., 2002, Basic principles and ecological consequences of altered 

flow regimes for aquatic biodiversity: Environmental Management, v. 30, no. 4, p. 492–507. 

Carlisle, D.M., Meador, M.R., Short, T.M., Tate, C.M., Gurtz, M.E., Bryant, W.L., Falcone, J.A., 

and Woodside, M.D., 2013, Ecological health in the Nation’s streams, 1993–2005: US 

Geological Survey Circular 1391, 120 p. 

Copp, A.J., Kennedy, T.A., and Muehlbauer, J.D., In review, Barcodes are a useful tool for 

labeling and tracking ecological samples: Submitted to Bulletin of the Ecological Society of 

America. 

Cross, W.F., Baxter, C.V., Donner, K.C., Rosi-Marshall, E.J., Kennedy, T.A., Hall, R.O., 

Wellard Kelly, H.A., and Rogers, R.S., 2011, Ecosystem ecology meets adaptive 

management: food web response to a controlled flood on the Colorado River, Glen Canyon: 

Ecological Applications, v. 21, no. 6, p. 2016–2033. 

Cross, W.F., Baxter, C.V., Rosi-Marshall, E.J., Hall, R.O., Kennedy, T.A., Donner, K.C., 

Wellard Kelly, H.A., Seegert, S.E.Z., Behn, K.E., and Yard, M.D., 2013, Food-web 

dynamics in a large river discontinuum: Ecological Monographs, v. 83, no. 3, p. 311–337. 

Deutsch, W.G., 1984, Oviposition of Hydropsychidae (Trichoptera) in a large river: Canadian 

Journal of Zoology, v. 62, no. 10, p. 1988–1994. 

Donner, K.C., 2011, Trophic basis of production of fishes in the Colorado River, Grand 

Canyon—an assessment of potential competition for food: Pocatello, Idaho, USA, Idaho 

State University, M.S. Thesis. 
228 

Elliott, J.M., 1978, Effect of temperature on the hatching time of eggs of Ephemerella ignita 

(Poda) (Ephemeroptera:Ephemerellidae): Freshwater Biology, v. 8, no. 1, p. 51–58. 

Encalada, A.C., and Peckarsky, B.L., 2012, Large-scale manipulation of mayfly recruitment 

affects population size: Oecologia, v. 168, no. 4, p. 967–976. 

Gibbins, C., Vericat, D., and Batalla, R.J., 2007a, When is stream invertebrate drift catastrophic? 

The role of hydraulics and sediment transport in initiating drift during flood events: 

Freshwater Biology, v. 52, no. 12, p. 2369–2384. 

Gibbins, C., Vericat, D., Batalla, R.J., and Gomez, C.M., 2007b, Shaking and moving: low rates 

of sediment transport trigger mass drift of stream invertebrates: Canadian Journal of Fisheries 

and Aquatic Sciences, v. 64, no. 1, p. 1–5. 

Gratton, C., and Vander Zanden, M.J., 2009, Flux of aquatic insect productivity to land: 

comparison of lentic and lotic ecosystems: Ecology, v. 90, no. 10, p. 2689–2699. 

Haden, G.A., Shannon, J.P., Wilson, K.P., and Blinn, W., 2003, Benthic community structure of 

the Green and Colorado Rivers through Canyonlands National Park, Utah, USA: The 

Southwestern Naturalist, v. 48, no. 1, p. 23–35. 

Hall, R.O., Kennedy, T.A., and Rosi-Marshall, E.J., 2012, Air–water oxygen exchange in a large 

whitewater river: Limnology & Oceanography: Fluids & Environments, v. 2, p. 1–11. 

Hall, R.O., Kennedy, T.A., Rosi-Marshall, E.J., Cross, W.F., Wellard, H.A., and Baxter, C.F., 

2010, Aquatic production and carbon flow in the Colorado River, in Melis, T.S., Hamill, J.F., 

Bennet, G.E., Coggins, L.G., Grams, P.E., Kennedy, T.A., Kubly, D.M., and Ralston, B.E., 

eds., Proceedings of the Colorado River Basin Science and Resource Management 

Symposium, November 18–20, 2008, Scottsdale, Arizona: US Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2010–5135, p. 105-112. 

Hall, R.O., Yackulic, C.B., Kennedy, T.A., Yard, M.D., Rosi-Marshall, E.J., Voichick, N., and 

Behn, K.E., In review, Turbidity, light, and hydropeaking control gross primary production 

in the Colorado River, Grand Canyon: Submitted to Limnology and Oceanography. 

Holton, B., 2008, Translocation of humpback chub above Chute Falls in the Little Colorado 

River, July 17-22, 2008—trip report: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 13 p. 

Huryn, A.D., and Wallace, J.B., 2000, Life history and production of stream insects: Annual 

Review of Entomology, v. 45, p. 83–110. 

Kennedy, T., Kortenhoeven, E., and Fritzinger, C., 2013a, Guides + science = citizen science: 

Boatman's Quarterly Review, v. 26, no. 1, p. 20–21. 

Kennedy, T., Muehlbauer, J., and Yackulic, C., 2014a, Foodweb update, Glen Canyon Dam 

Adaptive Management Program Annual Reporting Meeting: Phoenix, Arizona, USA. 

Kennedy, T.A., Cross, W.F., Hall, R.O., Baxter, C.V., and Rosi-Marshall, E.J., 2013b, Native 

and nonnative fish populations of the Colorado River are food-limited—evidence from new 

food web analyses: US Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2013–3039, 8 p. 

Kennedy, T.A., Yackulic, C.B., Cross, W.F., Grams, P.E., Yard, M.D., and Copp, A.J., 2014b, 

The relation between invertebrate drift and two primary controls, discharge and benthic 

densities, in a large regulated river: Freshwater Biology, v. 59, no. 3, p. 557–572. 

Korman, J., Martell, S.J.D., Walters, C.J., Makinster, A.S., Coggins, L.G., Yard, M.D., and 

Persons, W.R., 2012, Estimating recruitment dynamics and movement of rainbow trout 

(Oncorhynchus mykiss) in the Colorado River in Grand Canyon using an integrated 

assessment model: Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, v. 69, no. 11, p. 

1827–1849. 

LaGory, K., Chart, T., Mohrman, J., Pitlick, J., Williams, C., Minear, J.T., Schmidt, J.C., 
229 

Topping, D., Grams, P., Greimann, B., Pitts, T., and Luecke, D.F., 2014, Study plan to 

identify peak flow requirements for sediment transport and habitat maintenance in the Upper 

Colorado River Basin (Preliminary draft): Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery 

Program, 21 p. 

Lenat, D.R., 1993, A Biotic Index for the Southeastern United States: Derivation and List of 

Tolerance Values, with Criteria for Assigning Water-Quality Ratings: Journal of the North 

American Benthological Society, v. 12, no. 3, p. 279-290. 

Lenat, D.R., and Penrose, D.L., 1996, History of the EPT taxa richness metric: Bulletin of the 

North American Benthological Society, v. 13, no. 2, p. 305-307. 

Lytle, D., 1999, Use of rainfall cues by Abedus herberti (Hemiptera: Belostomatidae): a 

mechanism for avoiding flash floods: Journal of Insect Behavior, v. 12, no. 1, p. 1-12. 

Lytle, D., 2001, Disturbance regimes and life history evolution: American Naturalist, v. 157, p. 

525-536. 

Lytle, D., 2002, Flash floods and aquatic insect life-history evolution: evaluation of multiple 

models: Ecology, v. 83, no. 2, p. 370-385. 

McKinney, T., and Speas, D., 2001, Observations of size-related asymmetries in diet and energy 

intake of rainbow trout in a regulated river: Environmental Biology of Fishes, v. 61, no. 4, p. 

435–444. 

McMullen, L.E., and Lytle, D.A., 2012, Quantifying invertebrate resistance to floods: a globalscale meta-analysis: Ecological Applications, v. 22, no. 8, p. 2164-2175. 

Merritt, R.W., Cummins, K.W., and Berg, M.B., eds., 2008, An introduction to the aquatic 

insects of North America (4th ed.): Dubuque, Iowa, USA, Kendall Hunt, 1214 p. 

Miller, S.W., and Judson, S., 2014, Responses of macroinvertebrate drift, benthic assemblages 

and trout foraging to hydropeaking: Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 

Muehlbauer, J.D., Collins, S.F., Doyle, M.W., and Tockner, K., 2014, How wide is a stream? 

Spatial extent of the potential “stream signature” in terrestrial food webs using meta-analysis: 

Ecology, v. 95, no. 1, p. 44–55. 

Muehlbauer, J.D., Kennedy, T.A., and Yackulic, C.B., 2013, Shear stress drives local variation in 

invertebrate drift in a large river, American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting: San Francisco, 

Califonia, USA. 

Müller, K., 1982, The colonization cycle of freshwater insects: Oecologia, v. 52, no. 2, p. 202–

207. 

Oberlin, G.E., Shannon, J.P., and Blinn, D.W., 1999, Watershed influence on the 

macroinvertebrate fauna of ten major tributaries of the Colorado River through Grand 

Canyon, Arizona: The Southwestern Naturalist, p. 17–30. 

Olden, J.D., and Naiman, R.J., 2010, Incorporating thermal regimes into environmental flows 

assessments: modifying dam operations to restore freshwater ecosystem integrity: Freshwater 

Biology, v. 55, no. 1, p. 86–107. 

Parker, G., and Klingeman, P.C., 1982, On why gravel bed streams are paved: Water Resources 

Research, v. 18, no. 5, p. 1409–1423. 

Poff, N.L., 1997, Landscape Filters and Species Traits: Towards Mechanistic Understanding and 

Prediction in Stream Ecology: Journal of the North American Benthological Society, v. 16, 

no. 2, New Concepts in Stream Ecology: Proceedings of a Symposium, p. 391-409. 

Resh, V.H., Brown, A.V., Covich, A.P., Gurtz, M.E., Li, H.W., Minshall, G.W., Reice, S.R., 

Sheldon, A.L., Wallace, J.B., and Wissmar, R.C., 1988, The role of disturbance in stream 

ecology: Journal of the North American Benthological Society, v. 7, no. 4, Community 
230 

Structure and Function in Temperate and Tropical Streams: Proceedings of a Symposium, p. 

433–455. 

Robinson, C.T., 2012, Long-term changes in community assembly, resistance, and resilience 

following experimental floods: Ecological Applications, v. 22, no. 7, p. 1949–1961. 

Seegert, S.E.Z., Rosi-Marshall, E.J., Baxter, C.V., Kennedy, T.A., Hall, R.O., and Cross, W.F., 

In press, High diet overlap between native small-bodied and non-native Fathead Minnow in 

the Colorado River, Grand Canyon: Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 

Shields, A., 1936, Anwendung der aehnlichkeitsmechanik und der turbulenzforschung auf die 

geschiebebewegung, Mitteilung der preußischen Versuchsanstalt für Wasserbau und 

Schiffbau: Berlin, Germany. 

Smith, J.T., Kennedy, T.A., and Muehlbauer, J.D., 2014, Building a better sticky trap: 

description of an easy-to-use trap and pole mount for quantifying the abundance of adult 

aquatic insects: Freshwater Science, v. 33, no. 3. 

Spurgeon, J.J., 2012, Translocation of humpback chub (Gila cypha) and food-web dynamics in 

Grand Canyon National Park tributary streams: Columbia, Missouri, USA, University of 

Missouri-Columbia, M.S. Thesis, 84 p. 

Stanford, J.A., and Ward, J.V., 2001, Revisiting the serial discontinuity concept: Regulated 

Rivers: Research & Management, v. 17, no. 4-5, p. 303–310. 

Statzner, B., Elouard, J.M., and Dejoux, C., 1986, Field experiments on the relationship between 

drift and benthic densities of aquatic insects in tropical streams (Ivory Coast). II. 

Cheumatopsyche falcifera (Trichoptera: Hydropsychidae): Journal of Animal Ecology, v. 55, 

no. 1, p. 93–110. 

Statzner, B., and Resh, V., 1993, Multiple-site and-year analyses of stream insect emergence: a 

test of ecological theory: Oecologia, v. 96, no. 1, p. 65–79. 

Trammel, M., Healy, B., Omana Smith, E., and Sponholtz, P.J., 2012, Humpback chub 

translocation to Havasu Creek, Grand Canyon National Park—implementation and 

monitoring plan: National Park Service, Grand Canyon Park Natural Resource Report 

NPS/GRCA/NRR—2012/586, 26 p. 

Vinson, M.R., 2001, Long-term dynamics of an invertebrate assemblage downstream from a 

large dam: Ecological Applications, v. 11, no. 3, p. 711–730. 

Voichick, N., and Wright, S.A., 2007, Water-temperature data for the Colorado River and 

tributaries between Glen Canyon Dam and Spencer Canyon, northern Arizona, 1988-2005 

U.S. Geological Survey Data Survey Series 251, 24 p. 

Walters, C.J., 1986, Adaptive management of renewable resources: Caldwell, New Jersey, USA, 

The Blackburn Press, 374 p. 

Ward, J.V., and Stanford, J.A., 1983, The serial discontinuity concept of lotic ecosystems, in

Fontaine, T.D., and Bartell, S.M., eds., Dynamics of Lotic Ecosystems: Ann Arbor, 

Michigan, USA, Ann Arbor Science Publications, p. 29–42. 

Wellard Kelly, H.A., Rosi-Marshall, E.J., Kennedy, T.A., Hall, R.O., Cross, W.F., and Baxter, 

C.V., 2013, Macroinvertebrate diets reflect tributary inputs and turbidity-driven changes in 

food availability in the Colorado River downstream of Glen Canyon Dam: Freshwater 

Science, v. 32, no. 2, p. 397-410. 

Whiting, D.P., Paukert, C.P., Healy, B.D., and Spurgeon, J.J., 2014, Macroinvertebrate prey 

availability and food web dynamics of nonnative trout in a Colorado River tributary, Grand 

Canyon: Freshwater Science, v. 33, no. 3. 

Wilcock, P.R., 1996, Estimating local bed shear stress from velocity observations: Water 
231 

Resources Research, v. 32, no. 11, p. 3361–3366.
232 

G. Budget 

Core activities

Support implementation and

evaluation of HFE Protocol and Non

‐

Native Fish Control

Technical and analytical

innovationsin monitoring

Improving predictive modeling

capacity

Resolving scientific uncertainty

Independentscience oversight and

review

Integrating tribes in monitoring

and research

Project Identifier Project Description Salaries Travel & Training Operating Expenses Logistics Coop‐erators (non‐USGS) USGS Coop‐erat

5

Food Base Monitoring and

Research $470,900 $22,200 $37,100 $58,000 $36,100 $18,

5.1

Are aquatic insect diversity

and production recruitment

limited?

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

X 5.1.1

Insect emergence in Grand

Canyon via citizen science

Kennedy and

Yackulic $80,500 $400 $9,000 $3,800 $9,000 

X 5.1.2

Quantifying the effects of

hydropeaking on oviposition

and egg mortality

Kennedy and

Muehlbauer $47,500 $700 $3,000 $26,600 $6,800 

X 5.1.3 Synthesis of stressors and controls on EPT distributions Muehlbauer et al. $25,200 $400 $0 $0 $0 

X 5.1.4

Synthesis of the aquatic

foodbase in western US

tailwaters

Muehlbauer et

al. $25,200 $400 $0 $0 $0 

X 5.1.5

Natural history of oviposition

forspecies present in Grand

Canyon

Kennedy et al. $12,600 $700 $3,000 $0 $6,800 

X 5.1.6

Laboratory studies on insect

oviposition and egg mortality

associated with changing

water levels

Kennedy and

Copp $25,200 $700 $6,000 $0 $0 

X 5.1.7

Comparative emergence

studies in Upper Basin using

citizen science light trapping

Kennedy et al. $39,500 $1,400 $6,000 $3,800 $0 

X 5.1.8

Natural history of oviposition

for EPT via studies in the

Upper Basin

Kennedy et al. $12,600 $2,500 $3,000 $3,800 $0 

Monitoring Research

FY15
233 

Core activities

Support implementation and

evaluation of HFE Protocol and Non

‐

Native Fish Control

Technical and analytical

innovationsin monitoring

Improving predictive modeling

capacity

Resolving scientific uncertainty

Independentscience oversight and

review

Integrating tribesin monitoring

and research

Project Identifier Project Description Salaries Travel & Training Operating Expenses Logistics Coop‐erators (non‐USGS) USGS Coop‐erat

5.2

Patterns and controls of

aquatic invertebrate drift in

Colorado River tailwaters

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

X 5.2.1

Continue characterizing and

monitoring drift and insect

emergence in Glen Canyon

Muehlbauer $36,400 $7,000 $1,500 $0 $0 

X 5.2.2

Continue natal origins drift

monitoring in Glen, Marble,

and Grand Canyons

Kennedy $72,800 $1,000 $1,500 $0 $0 

X 5.2.3

Link drift at natal origins

Project transects to channel

bed shearstress

Muehlbauer &

Wright $9,100 $300 $300 $0 $0 $9

X 5.2.4

Link invertebrate drift

patterns to substrate

conditions in Glen, Marble,

and Grand Canyons

Muehlbauer &

Wright $9,100 $400 $300 $0 $0 $9

X 5.2.5

Comparative longitudinal drift

studies in Upper and Lower

Colorado River Basin

tailwaters

Kennedy et al. $54,600 $5,300 $1,500 $20,000 $0 

5.3

Primary Production

Monitoring in Glen Marble

and Grand Canyons

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

X 5.3.1 Synthesis and publication of Glen Canyon algae production Kennedy, Yackulic, Yard, Payn & Hall $10,400 $0 $0 $0 $13,500 

X 5.3.2

Monitoring dissolved oxygen

in Glen, Marble, and Grand

Canyon

Copp &

Voichick $10,200 $1,000 $2,000 $0 $0 

X 5.3.3

Developing automated tools

for estimating algae

production

Yackulic, Hall &

Stets $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Monitoring Research

FY15
234 

Core activities

Support implementation and

evaluation of HFE Protocol and

Non‐Native Fish Control

Technical and analytical

innovationsin monitoring

Improving predictive modeling

capacity

Resolving scientific uncertainty

Independentscience oversight and

review

Integrating tribesin monitoring

and research

Project Identifier Project Description Salaries Travel & Training Operating Expenses Logistics Coop‐erators (non‐USGS) USGS Coop‐erat

5

Food Base Monitoring and

Research $530,900 $22,600 $38,200 $59,800 $78,500 $19,

5.1

Are aquatic insect diversity

and production recruitment

limited?

X 5.1.1

Insect emergence in Grand

Canyon via citizen science

Kennedy and

Yackulic $83,300 $400 $9,300 $3,900 $1,900 

X 5.1.2

Quantifying the effects of

hydropeaking on oviposition

and egg mortality

Kennedy and

Muehlbauer $49,300 $700 $3,100 $27,500 $7,000 

X 5.1.3 Synthesis of stressors and controls on EPT distributions Muehlbauer et al. $26,100 $400 $0 $0 $0 

X 5.1.4

Synthesis of the aquatic

foodbase in western US

tailwaters

Muehlbauer et

al. $26,100 $400 $0 $0 $0 

X 5.1.5

Natural history of oviposition

forspecies present in Grand

Canyon

Kennedy et al. $13,000 $700 $3,100 $0 $7,000 

X 5.1.6

Laboratory studies on insect

oviposition and egg mortality

associated with changing

water levels

Kennedy and

Copp $26,100 $700 $6,200 $0 $0 

X 5.1.7

Comparative emergence

studies in Upper Basin using

citizen science light trapping

Kennedy et al. $40,800 $1,400 $6,200 $3,900 $500 

X 5.1.8

Natural history of oviposition

for EPT via studies in the

Upper Basin

Kennedy et al. $13,000 $2,500 $3,100 $3,900 $0 

Monitoring Research

FY16
235 

Core activities

Support implementation and

evaluation of HFE Protocol and

Non‐Native Fish Control

Technical and analytical

innovations in monitoring

Improving predictive modeling

capacity

Resolving scientific uncertainty

Independentscience oversight and

review

Integrating tribesin monitoring

and research

Project Identifier Project Description Salaries Travel & Training Operating Expenses Logistics Coop‐erators (non‐USGS) USGS Coop‐erat

5 Food Base Monitoring and $530 900 $22 600 $38 200 $59 800 $78 500 $19 

5.2

Patterns and controls of

aquatic invertebrate drift in

Colorado Rivertailwaters

X 5.2.1

Continue characterizing and

monitoring drift and insect

emergence in Glen Canyon

Muehlbauer $46,400 $7,200 $1,500 $0 $0 

X 5.2.2

Continue natal origins drift

monitoring in Glen, Marble,

and Grand Canyons

Kennedy $92,800 $1,000 $1,500 $0 $0 

X 5.2.3

Link drift at natal origins

Project transects to channel

bed shearstress

Muehlbauer &

Wright $11,600 $300 $300 $0 $0 $9

X 5.2.4

Link invertebrate drift

patterns to substrate

conditions in Glen, Marble,

and Grand Canyons

Muehlbauer &

Wright $11,600 $400 $300 $0 $0 $9

X 5.2.5

Comparative longitudinal drift

studies in Upper and Lower

Colorado River Basin

tailwaters

Kennedy et al. $69,600 $5,500 $1,500 $20,600 $48,200 

5.3

Primary Production

Monitoring in Glen Marble

and Grand Canyons

X 5.3.1 Synthesis and publication of Glen Canyon algae production Kennedy, Yackulic, Yard, Payn & Hall $10,500 $0 $0 $0 $13,900 

X 5.3.2

Monitoring dissolved oxygen

in Glen, Marble, and Grand

Canyon

Copp &

Voichick $10,700 $1,000 $2,100 $0 $0 

X 5.3.3

Developing automated tools

for estimating algae

production

Yackulic, Hall &

Stets $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Monitoring Research

FY16
236 

Core activities

Support implementation and

evaluation of HFE Protocol and

Non‐Native Fish Control

Technical and analytical

innovationsin monitoring

Improving predictive modeling

capacity

Resolving scientific uncertainty

Independentscience oversight and

review

Integrating tribesin monitoring

and research

Project Identifier Project Description Salaries Travel & Training Operating Expenses Logistics Coop‐erators (non‐USGS) USGS Coop‐erat

5

Food Base Monitoring and

Research

5.1

Are aquatic insect diversity

and production recruitment

limited?

$635,300 $23,300 $39,400 $61,500 $66,500 $20,

X 5.1.1

Insect emergence in Grand

Canyon via citizen science

Kennedy and

Yackulic $93,500 $400 $9,500 $4,000 $1,400 

X 5.1.2

Quantifying the effects of

hydropeaking on oviposition

and egg mortality

Kennedy and

Muehlbauer $54,500 $700 $3,200 $28,300 $7,200 

X 5.1.3 Synthesis of stressors and controls on EPT distributions Muehlbauer et al. $29,400 $400 $0 $0 $0 

X 5.1.4

Synthesis of the aquatic

foodbase in western US

tailwaters

Muehlbauer et

al. $29,400 $400 $0 $0 $0 

X 5.1.5

Natural history of oviposition

forspecies present in Grand

Canyon

Kennedy et al. $14,700 $700 $3,200 $0 $7,200 

X 5.1.6

Laboratory studies on insect

oviposition and egg mortality

associated with changing

water levels

Kennedy and

Copp $29,400 $700 $6,400 $0 $0 

X 5.1.7

Comparative emergence

studies in Upper Basin using

citizen science light trapping

Kennedy et al. $45,900 $1,500 $6,400 $4,000 $1,000 

X 5.1.8

Natural history of oviposition

for EPT via studies in the

Upper Basin

Kennedy et al. $14,700 $2,600 $3,200 $4,000 $0 

FY17

Monitoring Research
237 

Core activities

Support implementation and

evaluation of HFE Protocol and

Non‐Native Fish Control

Technical and analytical

innovationsin monitoring

Improving predictive modeling

capacity

Resolving scientific uncertainty

Independentscience oversight and

review

Integrating tribes in monitoring

and research

Project Identifier Project Description Salaries Travel & Training Operating Expenses Logistics Coop‐erators (non‐USGS) USGS Coop‐erat

5.2

Patterns and controls of

aquatic invertebrate drift in

Colorado River tailwaters

X 5.2.1

Continue characterizing and

monitoring drift and insect

emergence in Glen Canyon

Muehlbauer $60,400 $7,400 $1,600 $0 $0 

X 5.2.2

Continue natal origins drift

monitoring in Glen, Marble,

and Grand Canyons

Kennedy $120,800 $1,100 $1,600 $0 $0 

X 5.2.3

Link drift at natal origins

Project transects to channel

bed shearstress

Muehlbauer &

Wright $15,100 $300 $300 $0 $0 $10

X 5.2.4

Link invertebrate drift

patterns to substrate

conditions in Glen, Marble,

and Grand Canyons

Muehlbauer &

Wright $15,100 $400 $300 $0 $0 $10

X 5.2.5

Comparative longitudinal drift

studies in Upper and Lower

Colorado River Basin

tailwaters

Kennedy et al. $90,600 $5,600 $1,600 $21,200 $49,700 

5.3

Primary Production

Monitoring in Glen Marble

and Grand Canyons

X 5.3.1 Synthesis and publication of Glen Canyon algae production Kennedy, Yackulic, Yard, Payn & Hall $10,600 $0 $0 $0 $0 

X 5.3.2

Monitoring dissolved oxygen

in Glen, Marble, and Grand

Canyon

Copp &

Voichick $11,200 $1,100 $2,100 $0 $0 

X 5.3.3

Developing automated tools

for estimating algae

production

Yackulic, Hall &

Stets $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

FY17

Monitoring Research
238 

Monitoring: Core activities 

Monitoring: Supports implementation and evaluation of HFE Protocol and Non-Native Fish Control 

Research: Technical and analytical innovations in monitoring 

Research: Resolving scientific uncertainty 

Project 6. Mainstem Colorado River Humpback Chub 

Aggregations and Fish Community Dynamics 

Initiall Estimate: FY15: $567,600; FY16: $626,200; FY17: $733,800 

GCDAMP Funding: FY15: $567,600; FY16: $582,400; FY17: $697,100 

Other BoR Funding: FY15: $102,700; FY16: $66,900; FY17: $0 

A. Investigators 

William Persons, Fishery Biologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center 

Michael Dodrill, Fishery Biologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center 

David Ward, Fishery Biologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center 

Luke Avery, Fishery Biologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research 

Center 

Brian Healy, Fishery Biologist, National Park Service, Grand Canyon National Park 

Kirk Young, Fishery Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Office 

David Van Haverbeke, Fishery Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Fish and 

Wildlife Conservation Office 

David Rogowski, Fishery Biologist, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Research Branch 

Karin Limburg, Professor, State University of New York 

B. Project Summary 

 Native and nonnative fish populations in Glen and Grand Canyons are key resources of 

concern influencing decisions on both the operation of Glen Canyon Dam and non-flow actions. 

To inform these decisions, it is imperative that accurate and timely information on the status of 

fish populations, particularly the endangered humpback chub (Gila cypha), be available to 

managers. A suite of adaptive experimental management actions are either underway or being 

contemplated to better understand the mechanisms controlling the population dynamics of fish in 

the Colorado River in Glen and Grand Canyons and to identify policies that are consistent with 

the attainment of management goals. Much effort has been and continues to be focused on 

humpback chub and rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) both in the reach of the Colorado 

River from Glen Canyon Dam to the Little Colorado River (LCR) confluence and in the LCR 

itself (see Projects 7 and 9). While this work is important and meets critical information needs, it 

is also important to have robust monitoring of mainstem fish populations downstream of the 

LCR confluence. Status and trend information is needed to further understand mechanisms 
239 

controlling native and nonnative fish population dynamics, determine the effects of dam 

operations and other management actions, and identify evolving threats presented by expansion 

in range or numbers of nonnative predators. This type of information is also potentially useful in 

assessing changes to the Federal Endangered Species Act listing status of humpback chub in 

Grand Canyon. 

 Sampling mainstem humpback chub aggregations has been conducted periodically over the 

last two decades. Fish were sampled by hoop and trammel nets at aggregations first described by 

Valdez and Ryel (1995). Most captures of humpback chub in the mainstem Colorado River have 

been downstream of the LCR (Persons and others, in preparation). Continuing to sample for 

humpback chub in the mainstem river outside of the LCR and the LCR confluence area is 

important for monitoring the status of the Grand Canyon population of this endangered species 

and determining the effects of management actions like dam operations and translocations. 

 During the last few years the first 75 miles of the Colorado River downstream of Glen 

Canyon Dam has been sampled extensively for fish by several projects including the following 

projects in the USGS Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center’s (GCMRC) FY11–12 and 

FY13–14 work plans: 

 E.2 Juvenile Chub Monitoring Project near the LCR confluence Near Shore Ecology 

Project; BIO 2.R15.11 in FY11–12; and Project Element F.3 in FY13–14, 

 H.2 Rainbow Trout Movement Project, a.k.a. the Rainbow Trout Natal Origins 

Project; Project Element BIO 2.E18 in FY11–12; and Project Element F.6 in FY13–

14, 

 D.4 System Wide Electrofishing Projectl; Project Element BIO 2.M4 in FY11–12; 

and Project Element F.1 in FY13–14 

 H.1 Lees Ferry Trout Monitoring Project; Project Element BIO 4.M2 in FY11–12; 

and Project Element F.2 in FY13–14 

 D.7 Rainbow Trout Early Life Stage Survey Project; RTELSS, Project Element BIO 

4.M2 in FY11–12; and Project Element F.2.2 in FY13–14 

 The remaining portion of the Colorado River downstream of Glen Canyon Dam (between 

approximately the LCR and Lake Mead) has been sampled using standardized methods since 

2000 as described in Project 6.4, the System Wide Electrofishing Project and since 2010 as 

described in Project 6.1, the Mainstem Humpback Chub Aggregation Monitoring Project. In 

order to improve efficiencies and to reduce duplication of effort, GCMRC and cooperating 

agencies conducting fisheries monitoring and research propose to coordinate and/or combine 

several project elements in GCRMC’s FY15–17 work plan. These include the Juvenile Chub 

Monitoring project and System Wide Electrofishing effort (see Project Elements 7.2 and 6.4) as 

well as the Rainbow Trout Natal Origins study and Lees Ferry Trout Monitoring (see Project 

Elements 9.1 and 9.2). In general, this will mean a reduction of electrofishing effort in the first 

70 miles of the Colorado River downstream of Glen Canyon Dam and a focus on obtaining 

abundance estimates rather than catch per unit effort (CPUE) indices through the updated Lees 

Ferry Rainbow Trout Monitoring project (see Project Elements 9.1 and 9.2). Systematic 

sampling of the mainstem Colorado River downstream of the Juvenile Chub Monitoring (see 

Project Element 7.2) reference site (River Mile (RM) 63-64.5) will continue under Project 

Elements 6.1, 6.2, and 6.4 (see Section 4) and will continue to collect and analyze species 

composition and CPUE data. 
240 

 Project 6 is comprised of eight Project Elements and includes monitoring and research 

projects in the mainstem Colorado River, with particular emphasis on humpback chub 

aggregations. Over the last several years humpback chub in the LCR aggregation have increased 

in abundance (Coggins and Walters, 2009; Van Haverbeke and others, 2013; Yackulic and 

others, 2014). Humpback chub at many other aggregations have also increased in abundance, and 

some aggregations appear to have increased their distribution (Persons and others, in 

preparation). Recruitment to aggregations may come from local reproduction (e.g. 30 Mile 

aggregation; Andersen and others, 2010; Middle Granite Gorge Aggregation; Douglas and 

Douglas, 2007), the LCR aggregation, and translocations to Shinumo and Havasu Creeks. 

 Annual monitoring of the status and trends of the mainstem humpback chub aggregations has 

been identified as a conservation measure in a recent Biological Opinion (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 2011) and will continue to be monitored in Project Element 6.1, although effort will be 

reduced to a single trip per year down from two trips annually in the FY13–14 work plan. We 

will also continue to sample in conjunction with the National Park Service (NPS) near Shinumo 

Creek and Havasu Creek to assess contribution of translocated humpback chub to mainstem 

aggregations. 

 Understanding recruitment at aggregations continues to be an area of uncertainty. Humpback 

chub otolith microchemistry (Hayden and others, 2012; Limburg and others, 2013) was proposed 

as a method to determine sources of humpback chub recruitment in the FY13–14 Work Plan. 

However, due to Tribal concerns about directed take of humpback chub we were unable to 

collect the otoliths necessary for these analyses. During FY15–16 we plan to further evaluate the 

use of otolith microchemistry to identify surrogate fish hatched in Shinumo Creek, Havasu 

Creek, 30-Mile springs or other locations in Project Element 6.2. We will work with NPS staff to 

collect water samples and otoliths from brown trout (Salmo trutta), rainbow trout, and other 

fishes sacrificed as part of their trout removal activities. We will also make use of any humpback 

chub incidentally killed during other sampling efforts. Further, we will place additional emphasis 

on catching and marking juvenile humpback chub to assist in determining sources of recruitment 

to aggregations. During FY15–16 we propose to evaluate slow shocking and seining as methods 

to capture and mark more juvenile humpback chub with passive integrated transponder (PIT) 

tags in order to assess juvenile humpback chub survival and recruitment to aggregations. This 

will also provide a possible method to assess dispersal of juvenile humpback chub marked in the 

LCR with visible implant elastomer (VIE) and PIT tags (see Project Element 7.3). 

 Project Element 6.3 will continue efforts that began in the FY13–14 work plan to locate 

additional aggregations by standardized sampling and by the use of remotely deployed PIT-tag 

antennas. GCMRC has had success in deploying relatively portable PIT-tag antennas in the LCR 

and proposes to work with NPS and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) personnel to 

develop antenna systems that can be deployed at mainstem aggregations and other locations to 

detect PIT-tagged fish. If successful, these systems will provide an opportunity for collaborative 

citizen science with commercial and scientific river trips whereby river guides could deploy 

antennas overnight at camp sites in an attempt to detect PIT-tagged fish in areas not sampled 

during mainstem fish monitoring trips. 

 The System Wide Electrofishing Project (Project Element 6.4) will continue to collect longterm monitoring data following the methods described in Makinster and others, (2010) and will 

evaluate the efficacy of a mark-recapture approach downstream of the LCR confluence. To 

eliminate duplicative efforts, we propose that sampling be conducted in areas not sampled by the 

Rainbow Trout Natal Origins and the Juvenile Chub Monitoring projects (Project Elements 7.2
241 

and 9.2). We will also increase sampling effort downstream of Diamond Creek to monitor for 

native and non-native fishes. Continued concerns over upstream movement of non-native 

warmwater predatory species such as striped bass (Morone saxatilis), largemouth bass 

(Micropterus salmoides), channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) and walleye (Sander vitreus) 

from Lake Mead highlight the need to continue to monitor the river for non-native fishes. 

Electrofishing is effective at capturing bass species, sunfishes (Centrarchidae), and walleye, so 

this sampling should detect upstream movements of these species. Channel catfish on the other 

hand, are not effectively captured by electrofishing, so monitoring of catfish distribution by 

standardized angling (Persons and others, 2013) will continue during electrofishing trips. 

Standardized electrofishing sampling is also effective at capturing native sucker species 

including flannelmouth sucker (Catostomus latipinnis), bluehead sucker (Catostomus 

discobolus), and razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus). Recent captures of razorback sucker 

downstream of Diamond Creek by this project have been widely publicized and ongoing 

monitoring will help document if this once extirpated species continues its apparent recolonization of Grand Canyon. 

 Nonnative brown trout are effective fish predators known to preferentially prey on native 

Colorado River fishes including humpback chub (Yard and others, 2011). Determining the 

source or sources of this species in Grand Canyon will help scientists and managers better target 

efforts aimed at controlling this threat to native fish populations (see Project Element 8.1). 

Project Element 6.5 will conduct research on the use of brown trout pigment patterns to identify 

natal origins of brown trout; data and images will be collected during the System Wide 

Electrofishing Project and other projects that encounter brown trout. 

 One risk to the Grand Canyon humpback chub population is that it includes only one selfsustaining spawning population, the LCR aggregation. The USFWS has identified the 

establishment of a second self-sustaining spawning population of humpback chub as an 

important step towards recovery of this endangered species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

1995). Project Element 6.6 will develop plans and conduct necessary compliance activities to 

experimentally translocate humpback chub from the LCR to a mainstem aggregation in 2016 or 

later. 

 The Rainbow Trout Early Life Stage Survey (Project Element 6.7 - RTELLS) seasonally 

monitors rainbow trout egg deposition and population early life history dynamics, particularly 

age-0 survival in Glen Canyon. This project in particular, provides managers with an initial 

indication of the annual cohort strength of rainbow trout recruiting into the population. Findings 

from this also have relevance to the Natal Origin research project (see Project Element 9.2). 

 The Lees Ferry Creel Survey (Project Element 6.8) monitors the health of the rainbow trout 

fishery and provides information on the influence of Glen Canyon Dam operations, other 

management actions, and natural disturbances on recreational fishing. Information on the levels 

of direct harvest as well as angler use and satisfaction of the important recreational fishery is also 

provided. 

C. Background 

C.1 Scientific Background 

 Currently, the only known reproducing and self-sustaining population of humpback chub 

within Grand Canyon is in the LCR and in the mainstem Colorado River near its confluence with 

the LCR (Valdez and Ryel, 1995; Gloss and Coggins, 2005; Coggins and others, 2006). Because 
242 

these fish appear to rely exclusively on the LCR for reproduction, they are at increased risk of 

catastrophic loss (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2008; Bureau of Reclamation, 2011).

 Eight other aggregations of humpback chub were described in the mainstem Colorado River 

(Valdez and Ryel, 1995), and closed population model abundance estimates were generated for 

six of those aggregations An aggregation was defined as “a consistent and disjunct group of fish 

with no significant exchange of individuals with other aggregations, as indicated by recapture of 

PIT-tagged juveniles and adults and movement of radio-tagged adults” (Valdez and Ryel, 1995). 

Recent data collected at aggregations and throughout the Colorado River, suggest that there is 

substantial movement among some of the originally identified aggregations, and they may not all 

meet the original definition of an aggregation. 

 The LCR aggregation of humpback chub has been studied extensively, (Van Haverbeke and 

others, 2013; Yackulic and others, 2014) and models have been developed to estimate abundance 

of chub in the LCR and near the confluence of the Colorado River (Coggins and Walters, 2009; 

Yackulic and others, 2014). Results from these efforts demonstrate that humpback chub 

abundance in the LCR aggregation has increased over the last several years (Coggins and 

Walters, 2009; Van Haverbeke and others, 2013; Yackulic and others, 2014). An understanding 

of the status and trends of humpback chub outside of the LCR population is needed for managers 

to assess the effects of Glen Canyon Dam operations on mainstem populations of humpback 

chub. Recent findings suggest that humpback chub relative abundance has increased at most 

locations since the 1990’s and some aggregations appear to have increased their distribution (fig. 

1) (Persons and others, in preparation). 
243 

Figure 1. Mean catch per unit effort (CPUE) in humpback chub ≥ 150 mm TL per 24 hours for hoop net and humpback chub 

≥ 150 mm TL per 2 hours for trammel nets at eight humpback chub aggregations, 1990-2013. Error bars represent 95% 

confidence intervals of the mean (Persons and others, in prep). 

 Recruitment to aggregations may come from local reproduction (e.g., 30 Mile aggregation; 

Andersen and others, 2010; Middle Granite Gorge Aggregation; Douglas and Douglas, 2007), 

the LCR aggregation, and translocations to Shinumo and Havasu Creeks. Recent evidence 

indicates that female humpback chub are capable of producing eggs at most aggregations (M. 

Brizendine, GCMRC Annual Reporting Meeting 2014 poster). In addition, humpback chub that 

were translocated to Shinumo and Havasu Creeks are common in catches near the confluences of 

these two tributaries (fig. 2) (Persons and others, in prep). 

Figure 2. Number and percent of humpback chub captured during aggregation sampling trips that were previously 

translocated to Shinumo Creek (Persons and others, in prep). 

 Valdez and Ryel (1997) were able to generate closed abundance estimates of humpback chub 

at several aggregations by sampling up to 7 times per year. The amount of sampling required to 

generate similar abundance estimates raises serious concerns about over-handling these rare fish. 

From a conservation standpoint, it may be more hazardous to extensively sample this endangered 

species in order to generate abundance estimates than it is to monitor trends over time using 

CPUE indices. 

 Attempts were made to estimate humpback chub abundance at known aggregations during 

2012 and 2013 using pooled capture probability estimates derived from closed mark-recapture 

population estimates. This approach and these estimates were deemed not valid during peer 

review. In addition, attempts to generate two-pass mark-recapture population estimates at the 

Shinumo Creek aggregation during 2012 by combining NPS sampling and USFWS/GCMRC 

sampling were unsuccessful because capture probabilities appeared to change dramatically 

between the first capture event and subsequent attempts to recapture fish within a few days. 

Results suggest fish were evidently very trap-shy after their initial capture. 

 We propose to continue use of CPUE indices to evaluate trends in relative abundance of 

humpback chub at known aggregations as well as at locations not associated with aggregations 

(Persons and others, in preparation). Although CPUE indices have a high degree of uncertainty, 

trends in these indices over 4–5 year time periods are likely reflective of relative abundance of 

humpback chub in the mainstem Colorado River. Use of CPUE indices to evaluate changes in 

abundance over annual time periods is not proposed due to the high variability in capture 
244 

probabilities (the probability of capturing an individual fish) among trips. 

 Limburg and others (2013) developed a geochemical atlas of the Colorado River in Grand 

Canyon and in the Little Colorado River, and used it to identify provenance and habitat use by 

humpback chub. We had planned to evaluate use of similar techniques using carbon stable 

isotope ratios (δ13 C) and other tracers (SrSr, Ba, and Se in ratio to Ca) to learn the natal origins 

of humpback chub collected in the mainstem Colorado River distant from the LCR, but were not 

able to collect fish due to tribal concerns. We plan to expand the humpback chub otolith 

microchemistry project to include other tributaries and springs, and to use brown trout and 

rainbow trout from Shinumo, Havasu and Bright Angel Creeks as surrogate species to determine 

if they reveal unique markers from different tributaries. 

 Long-term fish monitoring in the mainstem Colorado River has been an essential element of 

GCDAMP supported fisheries work. Data from this program provides managers and 

stakeholders with accurate and timely information on the status and trends of fish populations in 

Grand Canyon in support of their efforts manage Glen Canyon Dam operations and other nonflow actions in a manner beneficial to the aquatic ecosystem. The annual System Wide 

Electrofishing (SWEF) of native and nonnative fish in the mainstem Colorado River has been 

ongoing since 2000 (Makinster and others, 2010). These efforts rely upon boat-operated 

electrofishing to provide information on native and nonnative fishes between Lees Ferry and 

Lake Mead. Information generated includes population status and trends and species 

distributions as well as surveillance for undesirable or potentially harmful nonnative species 

(figs. 3, 4). 

Figure 3. Mean river-wide CPUE (catch per hour) of bluehead sucker captured during sampling in the Colorado River, 

Grand Canyon, AZ, 2000 – 2013. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals. Note: the number of sample sites differs 

from year to year (Rogowski and others, 2014a). 

‐1

0

1

2

3

4

5

1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014

CPUE (fish/hr)

Year

0

20

40

60

80

100

1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014

CPUE (fish/hr)

Year
245 

Figure 4. Mean river-wide CPUE (catch per hour) of rainbow trout captured during sampling in the Colorado River, Grand 

Canyon, Ariz., 2000–2013. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals. Note: the number of sample sites differs from year 

to year (Rogowski and others, 2014b). 

 

 Surveys of anglers in the Lees Ferry tailwater reach have been conducted by the Arizona 

Game and Fish Department. Angler catch, effort, and harvest data have been collected regularly 

since 1966 (Persons and others 1985, Reger and others 1998) and data has been used to 

recommend changes in regulations and management strategies. Creel data provide a good index 

of angler satisfaction, and catch rate of rainbow trout (fish per hour) is well correlated with 

electrofishing catch per minute (Rogowski and others, 2014b) (fig. 5). 

Figure 5. Comparison of rainbow trout mean CPUE from two methods, standard boat electrofishing and angler surveys of 

boaters at Lees Ferry boat ramp, Colorado River, error bars are 95% confidence intervals (Rogowski and others, 2014b). 

 

 GCMRC has developed and maintained a database of all known fish capture records from 

Grand Canyon starting in the early 1980’s. Although effort and types of gear have changed over 

time, there are some general patterns in distribution of many warmwater nonnative piscivores, 

with fish more common in the tailwater below Glen Canyon Dam and in western Grand Canyon 

near the inflow to Lake Mead (fig. 6). Walleye, striped bass, smallmouth bass, and largemouth 

bass are found in both Lake Powell and Lake Mead. Large (> 400 mm TL) walleye were 

captured downstream from Diamond Creek by trammel net in the early 1990’s when Bio/West 

sampled western Grand Canyon intensively (Valdez and Ryel, 1996) and more recently by 

AGFD electrofishing downstream of Diamond Creek (Rogowski and others, 2014a) . Large 

walleye have also been captured by electrofishing just below Glen Canyon Dam near the right 

spillway during nonnative surveillance surveys (Rogowski and others, 2014b). These fish most 

likely came from Lake Powell through the Glen Canyon Dam turbines. 

 Large adult (> 400 mm TL) striped bass were common in trammel net catches downstream of 

Diamond Creek during 1993 and 1995 when Lake Mead water level was fairly high (Valdez and 

Ryel, 1996). Large adult striped bass were again common in catches downstream of Diamond 

Creek in 2006 when trammel net and electrofishing effort was higher (SWCA, unpublished data, 

Year

1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013

Mean angler catch rate

(fish/hour)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

Mean rainbow trout relative abundance

(CPUE: catch/min)

0

2

4

6

8

10

Angler CPUE

Electrofishing CPUE
246 

AGFD, unpublished data), but striped bass have been relatively rare in catches since 2011. 

Striped bass are occasionally captured near the confluence of the Little Colorado River. They are 

rarely seen at the base of Glen Canyon Dam and most fish are dead and likely came through the 

turbines. 

Figure 6. Catch of large bodied nonnative piscivorous fish by time period, river mile (RM), and size of fish. Each point 

represents an individual fish capture. Vertical dashed lines represent, from left to right, RM 0 (Lees Ferry), RM 61 (Little 

Colorado River), and RM 225 (Diamond Creek). Note that effort and gear types varied between periods. GCMRC 

unpublished data. 

 Smallmouth bass are known to be highly detrimental to native fish in the Upper Colorado 

River basin. Smallmouth bass are vulnerable to electrofishing but are rare in Grand Canyon 

catches (n=12) with most captured downstream of Diamond Creek. Five adult smallmouth bass 

(>285 mm TL) were captured in recent years during directed nonnative surveillance 

electrofishing near the base of Glen Canyon Dam (Rogowski and others, 2014b). Two 

smallmouth bass were captured near the LCR confluence by electrofishing, a 354 mm TL 

individual in 2005 and a 68 mm individual in 2006 (GCMRC unpublished data). Two 

largemouth bass were captured in the Lees Ferry tailwater in 1985 (Maddux and others, 1986), 

the other 75 in the GCMRC database were all captured in western Grand Canyon downstream of 
247 

RM 212. 

 Channel catfish were one of the most common species in Grand Canyon prior to closure of 

Glen Canyon Dam and comprised 90% of the fish population in Glen Canyon (AGFD, 

unpublished data in Niccum and others, 1998). After closure of the Dam few channel catfish 

have been captured in Glen and Marble Canyon, but the species is common downstream of about 

RM 179 (Lava Falls). Adult channel catfish are rarely captured during standard hoop net 

monitoring in the LCR, but are vulnerable to directed angling and there are periodic large catches 

of young channel-catfish in the Little Colorado River (GCMRC unpublished data). Most adult 

channel catfish were collected by trammel net, and the species is common downstream of 

Diamond Creek. 

 Bullheads (primarily black bullhead) are occasionally common in LCR hoop net catches, but 

they do not seem to persist long in the system (Stone and others, 2007) . They are rarely captured 

in other parts of the system. 

 Brown trout are found throughout most of Grand Canyon, but the center of their distribution 

is near Bright Angel Creek (fig. 7). Grand Canyon National Park has initiated a project to 

attempt to remove trout from Bright Angel Creek (Nelson and others, 2014; National Park 

Service, 2013), and Project element 8.1 includes evaluating the feasibility of brown trout 

removal using electrofishing in the mainstem Colorado River near the confluence of Bright 

Angel Creek in support of this effort. 

Figure 7. Number of brown trout captured by river mile, GCMRC unpublished data. Dashed line at river mile 88 represents 

Bright Angel Creek. 

C.2. Key Monitoring and Research Questions Addressed in this project 

This project directly addresses the following Strategic Science Questions (SSQs), Core 

Monitoring Information Needs (CMINs), and Research Information Needs (RINs) previously 

identified by the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP). 

Primary SSQ addressed: 

 SSQ 1-1. To what extent are adult populations of native fish controlled by production of 

young fish from tributaries, spawning and incubation in the mainstem, survival of youngof-year and juvenile stages in the mainstem, or by changes in growth and maturation in 

the adult population as influenced by mainstem conditions? 

 SSQ 1-2. Does a decrease in the abundance of rainbow trout and other cold- and warm 

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

recruitment rate of juvenile humpback chub to the adult population? 
248 

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

impacts from capture and handling or sampling? 

The GCDAMP Science Advisors articulated the following summary science questions addressed 

by this project: 

 SA 1. What are the most limiting factors to successful humpback chub adult recruitment 

in the mainstem: spawning success, predation on young of year and juveniles, habitat 

(water, temperature), pathogens, adult maturation, food availability, competition? 

 SA 2. What are the most probably positive and negative impacts of warming the 

Colorado River on humpback chub adults and juveniles? 

Information Needs Addressed: 

 CMIN 2.1.2. Determine and track recruitment of all life stages, abundance, and 

distribution of humpback chub in the Colorado River. 

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

fish species in the Colorado River. 

 CMIN 2.6.1. Determine and track the abundance and distribution of flannelmouth 

sucker, bluehead sucker, and speckled dace populations in the Colorado River ecosystem. 

 RIN 2.2.8. What combination of dam release patterns and nonnative fish control 

facilitates successful spawning and recruitment of humpback chub in the Colorado River 

ecosystem?

 RIN 2.4.2. Determine if suppression of nonnative predators and competitors increases 

native fish populations. 

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

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

 RIN 2.4.4. What are the target population levels, body size, and age structure for 

nonnative fish in the Colorado River ecosystem that limit their levels to those 

commensurate with the viability of native fish populations? 

 EIN 2.1.1. How does the abundance and distribution of all size classes of HBC in the 

LCR and mainstem change in response to an experiment performed under the Record of 

Decision, unanticipated event, or other management action? 

 EIN 2.1.2. How does the year class strength of HBC (51–150 mm) in the LCR and 

mainstem change in response to an experiment performed under the Record of Decision, 

unanticipated event, or other management action? 

 EIN 2.4.1. How does the abundance and distribution of nonnative predatory fish species 

and their impacts on native fish species in the Colorado River ecosystem change in 

response to an experiment performed under the Record of Decision, unanticipated event, 

or other management action? 

 EIN 2.6.1 How does the abundance, distribution, recruitment and mortality of 

flannelmouth sucker, bluehead sucker and speckled dace populations in the Colorado 

River ecosystem change in response to an experiment performed under the Record of 

Decision, unanticipated event, or other management action? 

 
249 

C.3. Key management goals and objectives addressed in this project 

 Goal 2: Maintain or attain a viable population of existing native fish, remove jeopardy 

for humpback chub and razorback sucker, and prevent adverse modification to their 

critical habitats. 

In August 2004, the GCDAMP Adaptive Management Work Group reviewed these goals and 

identified priority questions. This project addresses the top priority question: 

 Priority 1: Why are humpback chub not thriving, and what can we do about it? How 

many humpback chub are there and how are they doing? 

D. Proposed Work 

D.1. Project Elements 

 Project elements include sampling humpback chub aggregations, investigating recruitment at 

aggregations, investigating the use of PIT-tag antennas at aggregations, system wide monitoring 

of native and non-native fishes outside of Glen and Marble Canyons, investigating brown trout 

origins through examining their pigment patterns, investigating the translocation of humpback 

chub to the mainstem Colorado River, and investigating the use of portable PIT tag antennas to 

detect tagged humpback chub and other fishes 

Project Element 6.1. Monitoring humpback chub aggregation relative abundance and distribution 

William Persons, Fishery Biologist, USGS, GCMRC 

D.R. Van Haverbeke, Fishery Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Brian Healy, Fishery Biologist, NPS, Grand Canyon National Park 

 This Project Element will concentrate on monitoring status and trends of humpback chub 

aggregations not associated with the LCR. This Project Element will build on work conducted in 

2013 and 2014. Persons and others (in prep) have been able to detect long term changes in 

relative abundances by pooling data into 5-year blocks, but were unable to provide defensible 

annual abundance estimates from the aggregations (Persons and others, GCMRC Annual 

Reporting Meeting, 2014). Sampling will be reduced from two trips to one trip, but will include 

sampling by seine and nearshore electrofishing which has been effective capturing juvenile 

humpback chub near the LCR confluence (J. Korman, pers. comm.). While sampling trips will 

concentrate on known aggregations and translocation sites, several days of effort will also be 

devoted to sampling areas associated with springs and faults thought likely to harbor humpback 

chub. 

 The project will produce annual progress reports and one peer reviewed publication at project 

completion. 

Project Element 6.2. Humpback chub aggregation recruitment studies 

Michael Dodrill, USGS, GCMRC 

Karin Limburg, State University of New York 

Brian Healy, Fishery Biologist, NPS, Grand Canyon National Park 
250 

 

 Recent apparent increases in relative abundance of humpback chub at mainstem aggregations 

(Persons and others, in preparation) suggest that local recruitment may be occurring at some 

sites. While it is known that the LCR serves as a source of humpback chub into the mainstem 

Colorado River and that some of these fish move downstream and survive, there may be other 

areas with local reproduction that act as sources of recruitment (Andersen and others, 2010). 

Although we will not deliberately sacrifice humpback chub to collect otoliths for microchemistry 

analysis, we will work with NPS to collect surrogate species from tributaries of interest and 

analyze samples for unique chemical signatures that might be associated with particular 

tributaries. We will continue to work with all projects to collect and preserve any humpback 

chub incidentally killed during sampling. 

 This Project Element will also attempt to collect juvenile humpback chub in backwaters and 

other nearshore areas by seining and electrofishing. Fish will be examined closely for VIE tags 

(see Project Element 7.3) and PIT tags to evaluate possible sources of recruitment. The project 

will also acquire and explore the use of a thermal imaging infrared camera to help identify 

sampling locations at warm springs in the mainstem. 

 The project will produce annual progress reports and one peer reviewed publication at project 

completion. 

Project Element 6.3. Monitoring mainstem humpback chub aggregations using PIT-tag antenna technology 

Kirk Young, Fishery Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

D.R. Van Haverbeke, Fishery Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Brian Healy, Fishery Biologist, NPS, Grand Canyon National Park 

David Ward, Fishery Biologist, USGS, GCMRC 

William Persons, Fishery Biologist, USGS, GCMRC 

 The objective of this project is to investigate use of remotely deployed, portable PIT-tag 

antennas to monitor mainstem aggregations of humpback chub, especially at mainstem 

translocation sites. Two long standing goals of biologists monitoring humpback chub in Grand 

Canyon are to develop indices to monitor the abundance or relative abundance of humpback 

chub, and to reduce handling of fish. This project will evaluate use of stationary, temporary PITtag antennas to detect humpback chub and other PIT-tagged fish in the mainstem Colorado 

River. Deployment of antennas at known aggregations may also help answer questions about 

residencies of humpback chub within and among aggregations, potential gene flow among the 

aggregations, and movement. It is believed that given strategic placement of antennas at sites 

such as near Shinumo Creek, we may be able to increase the detection rates of tagged fish, and 

possibly decrease the amount of trammel netting or hoop netting. In addition, remote antennas 

could be deployed near future translocation sites in the mainstem. If proven feasible, similar 

technology might also be used in a Citizen Science approach working with commercial and 

science river guides to deploy PIT-tag antennas at overnight campsites. 

 Investigators and involved agencies will coordinate selection of appropriate locations, obtain 

environmental clearances, coordinate with tribes and install up to three experimental remote 

solar powered PIT-tag antennas at known aggregations. Site location, materials, and temporary 

installation strategies will be deployed so as to minimize visual impact and Grand Canyon visitor 

detection. Possible sites include near aggregations at 30-Mile, the Shinumo Creek Inflow, 

Middle Granite Gorge, the Havasu Creek Inflow, or near RM 214. Sites for antennas would be 
251 

located at aggregations that have historically yielded a high number of chub. The ability to keep 

antennae equipment safe and out of view of the public would also be a factor in site selection. 

Antennas will be downloaded and serviced from existing GCMRC river trips and data will be 

evaluated for incorporation into the GCRMC fish database. The project will produce annual 

progress reports and recommendations for use of the methods and data as part of long-term 

monitoring efforts. 

Project Element 6.4. System Wide Electrofishing 

David Rogowski, Fishery Biologist, Arizona Game and Fish Department 

William Persons, Fishery Biologist, USGS, GCMRC 

The primary objective of this project element is to continue providing data on the 

longitudinal distribution and status of the fish community in the mainstem Colorado River from 

Lees Ferry to Lake Mead, with an emphasis on reaches downstream of Lava-Chuar rapid (RM 

66.0). This project uses CPUE indices to track relative status and trends of the most common 

native and nonnative fish species in the mainstem. The current monitoring program was designed 

to be able to detect population level changes in target species over a five-year time scale. 

Localized questions or questions on a time scale shorter than five years require additional, 

separate effort beyond that outlined for long-term monitoring (Rogers and others, 2008). Given 

this, we propose to incorporate mark-recapture sampling events to estimate fish abundance and 

vital rates at specific sites (e.g., confluence of Bright Angel Creek, reaches downstream of 

Diamond Creek) to evaluate the ability of this approach to address questions of interest to 

scientists and managers. 

Sampling for the SWEF project in FY13–14 consisted of two annual spring electrofishing 

trips from Lees Ferry to Diamond Creek and one fall trip from Diamond Creek to Lake Mead. 

For the FY15–17 workplan, we propose to increase sampling effort by extending one spring trip 

to include sampling from Diamond Creek to Lake Mead. This will extend the temporal and 

geographic scope of available information on nonnative and native fish in this reach of the 

Colorado River. In order to avoid duplication of effort with the Natal Origins research project 

(Project Element 9.2), we propose to coordinate sample site selection such that these projects 

avoid sampling in the same reaches. Stratified random sampling will occur in Marble Canyon, 

but at a reduced effort and may occur in directed areas of interest not sampled by the Natal 

Origins research project (e.g., near the confluence of Nankoweap Creek). To avoid oversampling 

and duplication of effort, sampling will not occur in the Juvenile Chub Monitoring (see Project 

Element 7.2) reference site (RM 63-64.5). Normal random stratified sampling will occur from 

Lava-Chuar rapid (RM 66.0) to Lake Mead and will provide information on species composition 

and relative abundance. 

 Difficulties arise in fish monitoring programs as a result of the rarity of many species, life 

history characteristics that contribute to patchy distributions and variable densities in time and 

space, low and variable capture probabilities, and the inability to use consistent sampling gear 

among all occupied habitats. With the exception of mark-recapture based abundance estimators, 

most fish monitoring efforts produce relative indices of abundance (e.g., catch rates, 

presence/absence) for monitoring the status and trend of a fish community. Yet, in order for 

catch rates (i.e., CPUE) to be effective as a short term monitoring metric, capture probabilities 

(probability of an animal being caught) need to be known rather than just assumed to be constant 

across sites or sampling periods. When capture probabilities vary due to factors like trout 
252 

densities, fish size or turbidity levels (Korman and others, 2009; Korman and others, unpublished 

data; Speas and others, 2004), catch rate indices can become an inaccurate proxy for fish 

abundance. Factors like these are a common phenomenon in Grand Canyon that leads to 

estimation biases in fish abundance. For example, catch rates are likely to underestimate actual 

abundance at high trout densities (i.e., Glen Canyon) and overestimate actual abundance under 

low trout densities (i.e., below the LCR). Therefore, reliance on this type of metric solely 

becomes problematic, particularly when management decisions require a high degree of 

accuracy. This can only be resolved if capture probabilities are estimated using mark-recapture 

procedures, hence our interest in implementing this approach at selected sites to address specific 

questions. 

 For FY15–17, we propose a hybrid approach be evaluated for this project; one that maintains 

continuity with past SWEF sampling, but also evaluates the applicability of using a markrecapture program (where increased accuracy and precision are needed), particularly in the 

downstream reaches. One downstream sampling trip and part of the second will use the standard 

SWEF sampling (single-pass) protocol with a stratified random sampling design used in site 

selection (400-500 sites per year) (similar to Makinster and others, 2010). The second 

downstream sampling trip will also incorporate one or more focused mark-recapture efforts using 

similar sampling protocols developed for the Natal Origin research project (Korman and others, 

2012) at specific areas of interest (e.g., confluence of Bright Angel Creek, reaches downstream 

of Diamond Creek). This may require lengthening the duration of the second trip by several days 

to implement both sampling protocols. Data from initial efforts will be used in conjunction with 

other mark-recapture and CPUE data to develop a set of estimation procedures for conducting 

simulations to evaluate and redesign the GCDAMP’s long-term fishery monitoring programs 

inclusive of the System Wide Electrofishing program. The redesigned program will be evaluated 

by an independent protocol evaluation panel (see Project Element 8.3). Sampling efforts as part 

of the System Wide Electrofishing program will continue sampling the downstream sections 

including below Diamond Creek. Three trips will be conducted annually during late April-May, 

late May-June, and October (Diamond Creek to Pearce Ferry) to increase the probability that 

maximum water clarity conditions are present for electrofishing, particularly in the downstream 

reaches. 

 This project will produce trip and annual reports with recommendations for long-term 

monitoring. 

Project Element 6.5. Brown trout natal origins through body pigmentation patterns in the Colorado River 

David Rogowski, Fishery Biologist, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Research Branch 

Michael Collyer, Assistant Professor, Western Kentucky University 

William Persons, Fishery Biologist, USGS, GCMRC 

 Non-native brown trout have been introduced into the Colorado River and tributaries and are 

maintaining a naturally reproducing population. Brown trout are highly piscivorous and 

negatively affect the imperiled native fishes of the Colorado River drainage (Yard and others, 

2011). Much effort has been invested in control and removal of brown trout and other nonnatives (Coggins and others, 2011; Yard and others, 2011). It is thought that the bulk of 

reproduction and recruitment occurs in the tributaries (e.g., Bright Angel Creek). However, it is 

not known whether Bright Angel Creek is the main source of brown trout into the system, if 

there are other major recruitment areas (mainstem or tributaries), or even if there is a large 
253 

panmictic population or a number of smaller populations. For salmonids there appears to be a 

heritable basis for coloration as well as a phenotypic response based on environment. It is 

thought that background color is based on environment (Westley and others, 2013), while 

spotting characteristics have a heritable basis (Blanc and others, 1982; 1994; Skaala and Jørstad, 

1988; Skaala and others, 1992). It has been shown that one can discriminate between native and 

hatchery brown trout as well as hybrids based on the number and shape of parr marks (Blanc and 

others, 1982; Mezzera and others, 1997). One can also discriminate different strains of brown 

trout based on coloration and spotting patterns (Aparico and others, 2005). Thus it might be 

possible to determine if brown trout within the Colorado River system are one panmictic 

population or comprised of various metapopulations based on differing phenotypic 

characteristics. 

 We propose to quantify the colorations and spotting patterns of brown trout at various 

locations within the Colorado River and tributaries between Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Mead. 

Digital images of fish will be taken with a Munsell color chart and a scale. The shape, color, size, 

number, and location of spots (and parr marks for juvenile fish) will be quantified using a digital 

imaging program (e.g., ImageJ, tpsDIG2). 

 This project will produce annual progress reports and one peer reviewed publication at 

project completion. 

Project Element 6.6. Mainstem translocation of humpback chub 

Kirk Young, Fishery Biologist, USFWS, Arizona Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office 

D. Van Haverbeke, Fishery Biologist, USFWS, Arizona Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office 

Brian Healy, Fishery Biologist, NPS, Grand Canyon National Park 

David Ward, Fishery Biologist, USGS, GCMRC 

William Persons, Fishery Biologist, USGS/GCMRC 

 A long standing goal of managers has been establishing a second spawning population of 

humpback chub in Grand Canyon. The USFWS issued a Biological Opinion (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 1995) concerning the preferred Modified Low Fluctuating Flow alternative on 

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

element of the reasonable and prudent alternative (RPA) was to “Make every effort to establish a 

second spawning aggregation of humpback chub downstream of Glen Canyon Dam.” To address 

this RPA, Valdez and others, (2000) produced a research and implementation plan for 

establishing a second spawning population of humpback chub in Grand Canyon. The conclusions 

in Valdez and others, (2000) were: 1) the highest chance for success of establishing a viable 

mainstem spawning population for humpback chub would be in the mainstem itself, and 2) 

experimental translocations into side tributaries should be conducted. The second 

recommendation of Valdez and others (2000) has been implemented with promising success at 

Shinumo and Havasu Creeks. This project would attempt to more directly address the first 

recommendation of Valdez and others, (2000). 

 Humpback chub have been successfully translocated into Shinumo and Havasu Creeks, and 

emigrants from these tributaries have augmented their respective mainstem aggregations 

(Persons and others, in prep). These translocations are thought to have been successful in 

augmenting mainstem aggregations in part because the tributaries provide suitable rearing habitat 

for juveniles before some emigrate into the mainstem. Many translocated humpback chub that 

have emigrated from Shinumo and Havasu Creeks and were subsequently captured in the 
254 

mainstem have been sub adults (<200 mm), suggesting that direct augmentation of small 

humpback chub into the mainstem may be feasible. This approach could be an avenue to 

augment aggregations or other groups of humpback chub not located near tributaries. 

Approximately 250 juvenile (<100 mm) or larval humpback chub will be collected annually 

from the LCR as part of Project Element 7.1. Fish will be transported out of the LCR by 

helicopter and then transported to Southwestern Native Aquatic Resources and Recovery Center 

(SNARRC) along with humpback chub designated for Shinumo and Havasu Creeks. Once at 

SNARRC, fish will undergo quarantine procedures and will be reared for a year until reaching 

~150 mm TL. Fish will be PIT tagged, and transported back to Grand Canyon. They will then be 

transported either by boat or by helicopter to a release site. The eventual release site will be 

decided upon by management agencies, with input from cooperators. One possible location 

would be within, or adjacent to, the Pumpkin Spring aggregation. This area may be favorable for 

humpback chub rearing due to the presence of springs, several large eddy complexes, at least one 

large backwater, a large cove, several gravel producing debris fan inflows, and relatively warm 

water. 

 Fish will be tempered and soft released in large eddy complexes, backwaters or slow current 

areas. Release of fish would likely occur in September or possibly earlier if it is possible to grow 

chub to a sufficient size at SNAARC. Annual monitoring would occur during mainstem 

aggregation trips. Additional monitoring could be possible if release occurs near the Pumpkin 

Spring aggregation, and upriver access was granted from Diamond Creek. The project will 

produce annual progress reports and one peer reviewed publication at project completion. 

Project Element 6.7 Rainbow Trout Early Life Stage Survey 

Luke Avery, Fishery Biologist, USGS, GCMRC 

G. Dave Foster, Logistic Support, USGS, GCMRC 

The objective of the RTELSS study is to monitor the response of the age-0 population of 

rainbow trout in Lees Ferry to variations in Glen Canyon Dam operations and to naturally 

occurring disturbances to the CRe in Glen Canyon. 

Understanding of the effects of various physical and biological conditions on the age-0 

rainbow trout population will enable better management practices to attain desired rainbow trout 

abundance and population structure. Monitoring of the age-0 population also provides early 

indication of potential changes to the juvenile and adult rainbow trout population, providing the 

potential for early response to undesirable conditions. This monitoring will answer the following 

questions: 1) how do changes in the conditions (e.g., bed texture, flow, aquatic vegetation, and 

sediment supply) of the Colorado River in Glen Canyon effect the age-0 population of rainbow 

trout? 2) How can dam operations be experimentally evaluated to determine whether or not they 

might be used to manage the rainbow trout population via influences on the young-of-the-year 

population? 

The RTELSS program was initiated in January 2003 to monitor the effects of the nonnative 

fish suppression flows (NFSF) that occurred during January through March from 2003–2005 

(Korman and others, 2005). Since then it has provided information on the response of the age-0 

rainbow trout population to higher flow dam releases that have occurred in March through June 

2008, and falls of 2011, 2012, and 2013, as well as the response to the equalization flows that 

occurred in spring through fall 2011. An understanding of the response of the age-0 rainbow 

trout population to these flow events has provided a more mechanistic understanding of 
255 

correlated changes that have occurred in the adult rainbow trout population and downstream 

emigration events that have been associated with some of those changes (Korman and others, 

2012, Makinster and others, 2011, Melis and others, 2012). Maintaining the RTELSS as a 

monitoring program ensures sufficient data will be available to detect a response of the age-0 

rainbow trout population to changes in the CRe within Glen Canyon, whether those changes in 

the system be by scientific design or not. Understanding of the response of age-0 rainbow trout 

to various conditions and events may enable management to better maintain the balance between 

a blue ribbon rainbow trout fishery and the welfare of the endangered native humpback chub. 

The RTELSS program monitors egg deposition in winter and early spring and proceeds with 

monitoring of population dynamics through summer, fall, and early winter. Monitoring of egg 

deposition consists of 9-10 redd surveys conducted from December through May. Data collected 

provides information on the timing and magnitude of the spawn that provides the foundation for 

the year’s cohort of fish. Larval and juvenile fish sampling (backpack and boat electrofishing) 

trips occur once a month in June-September and November. Data collected provides information 

on hatch success and early survival, as well as survival through the year. Otoliths extracted from 

specimens collected across trips provide information on growth and hatch distribution. Survey, 

sampling, and data analysis details can be found in in Korman and others (2009), and Korman 

and others (2011). 

Project Element 6.8. Lees Ferry Creel Survey 

David Rogowski, Fishery Biologist, AGFD 

William Persons, Fishery Biologist, USGS, GCMRC 

 The objective of this project element is to evaluate how changes in the conditions of the 

Colorado River in Glen Canyon affect angler effort, catch and harvest on an annual basis

 The blue ribbon rainbow trout fishery of Lees Ferry has been identified as a key resource of 

the Colorado River in Glen Canyon under the purview of the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive 

Management Program (GCDAMP) and so must be maintained. The Lees Ferry trout fishery is 

located in the tailwater portion of the Colorado River ecosystem from Glen Canyon Dam to the 

Paria River. The status and trends of the fishery are regulated by biotic and abiotic mechanisms 

that may in turn be affected by the operations of Glen Canyon Dam. 

 Creel surveys are an effective tool to monitor a variety of metrics such as: the impact of 

recreational fishing on the fishery (harvest rates), angler use (indirect measure of economic 

impact), and angler satisfaction (Malvestuto 1996). Creel surveys are also an effective way to 

maintain an active presence with the fishing public, provide needed outreach, as well as feedback 

and observations about the fishery from the public. Anglers are often the first to notice changes 

in fish health or invasive species. Angler creel surveys will be conducted to estimate angler 

effort, catch and harvest. Monitoring basic angler statistics including angler usage (anglers/year), 

catch-per-unit-effort, and harvest rates provide information necessary to assess the status of these 

resources and inform the Adaptive Management Program. GCDAMP funded the Arizona Game 

and Fish Department to collect creel survey data in FY13 and 2014. AGFD agreed to fund the 

surveys during FY15 and GCDAMP will fund this effort during FY16 and FY17. 

D.2 Personnel and Collaborations 

The overall lead for Project 6 is William Persons a fishery biologist with GCMRC. Kirk 

Young and David Van Haverbeke are fishery biologists with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
256 

with extensive humpback chub experience and will lead the humpback chub aggregation project 

(6.1). Brian Healy is a fishery biologist with Grand Canyon National Park with expertise in 

humpback chub translocations and humpback chub aggregations at Shinumo and Havasu Creeks. 

Mr. Healy will assist with humpback chub aggregation studies (6.1 and 6.2), the PIT tag antenna 

project (6.3) and mainstem translocation of humpback chub (6.6). Dr. Karin Limburg is a 

professor at State University of New York who specializes in otolith microchemistry and will be 

the lead for the humpback chub recruitment project (6.2). Michael Dodrill is a fishery biologist 

with GCMRC with extensive experience sampling for young-of-the-year humpback chub and 

will assist with the humpback chub recruitment project (6.2). David Ward is a fishery biologist 

with GCMRC that maintains and operates the GCMRC experimental laboratory facility at 

Northern Arizona University. He will provide expertise in sampling young-of-the-year 

humpback chub (6.2) the PIT tag antenna project (6.3) and the translocation of humpback chub 

(6.6). Dr. David Rogowski is a fisheries biologist with Arizona Game and Fish Department with 

expertise in aquatic ecology and conservation biology of fish, and will lead the System Wide 

Electrofishing project (6.4), the brown trout natal origins project (6.5) and the Lees Ferry Creel 

Survey project (6.8). Dr. Michael Collyer is an Assistant Professor at Western Kentucky 

University with expertise in development of quantitative methods for analyzing phenotypic 

change and will provide technical support for the brown trout natal origins project. Luke Avery 

is a GCMRC fishery biologist with GCMRC and is the lead for the RTELSS (6.7). Dave Foster 

is a GCMRC River Operations Mechanic and Lees Ferry fishing guide and will assist with the 

RTELSS project. Thomas Gushue is a GCMRC GIS specialist, expert in collecting, processing 

and analyzing spatial data in Grand Canyon. 

D.3 Deliverables 

Project elements will produce annual progress reports and peer reviewed publications at project 

completions. 

E. Productivity from Past Work (during FY 13–14) 

During FY13 the following products were delivered to GCMRC prior to April 1, 2014. 

E.1. Data Products 

Data, trip reports and annual reports: 

Trip ID Project 

GC20130404 System Wide Electrofishing and catfish angling, Lees Ferry to Diamond Creek 

GC20130525 System Wide Electrofishing and catfish angling, Lees Ferry to Diamond Creek 

GC20131028 System Wide Electrofishing and catfish angling, Diamond Creek to Lake Mead 

 Rogowski, D.L. and P.N. Wolters. Colorado River Fish Monitoring in Grand 

Canyon, Arizona – 2013 Annual Report. 

GC20130720 Mainstem netting, July aggregation monitoring 

GC20130907 Draft manuscript in preparation: Persons, W.R. and D.R. Van Haverbeke. 

Colorado River Fish Monitoring in Grand Canyon, Arizona: 2002—2013 

Humpback Chub Aggregations. 

RTELSS RTELLS survey results. 

Draft manuscript submitted. Avery, L.A. and others, 2014, Effects of 

increased discharge and temperature on age-0 rainbow trout dynamics in 

Lees Ferry, AZ 
257 

Linder, C.M., R.A. Cole, T.L. Hoffnagle, B. Persons, and A. Choudhury. 2012. Parasites of 

fishes in the Colorado River and selected tributaries in Grand Canyon, Arizona. Journal of 

Parasitology 98(1) pp 117-127. 

Makinster, A.S., Persons, W.R., and Avery, L.A., 2011, Status and trends of the rainbow trout 

population in the Lees Ferry Reach of the Colorado River downstream from Glen Canyon 

Dam, Arizona, 1991–2009: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2011-

5015, 17 p., http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2011/5015/. 

Makinster, A.S., Persons, W.R., Avery, L.A., and Bunch, A.J., 2010, Colorado River fish 

monitoring in Grand Canyon, Arizona--2000 to 2009 summary: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 2010-1246, 26 p., http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1246/. 

E.2. Publications in progress 

Persons, W.R. and D.R. Van Haverbeke. 2014. Colorado River Fish Monitoring in Grand 

Canyon, Arizona: 2002—2013 Humpback Chub Aggregations. 

Avery, L.A. 2014. Effects of increased discharge and temperature on age-0 rainbow trout 

dynamics in Lees Ferry, AZ. 

Bunch, A.J., W.R. Persons, and W.T. Stewart. 2014. Integrating stationary PIT antennas into 

evaluations of fish sampling gear. In review. 

Pearson, K.N., W.L. Kendall, D.L. Winkelman, and W.R. Persons. 2014. Evidence for skipped 

spawning in the endangered humpback chub (Gila cypha) with implications for demographic 

parameter estimates. In review. 

E.3. Presentations at GCDAMP meetings 

Healy, B., E.Omana Smith, C. Nelson, M. Trammel, M. McKinstry, B. Albrecht, and R. 

Kegerries. Native Fish Population Trends – Grand Canyon Tributaries and Razorback 

Sucker: Status and Habitat Use. January 28, 2014 , Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management 

Program Annual Reporting Meeting, Phoenix, AZ. 

Persons, W.R., D.R. Van Haverbeke and B. Healy. Colorado River fish monitoring in Grand 

Canyon, Arizona: 1990-2013 humpback chub, Gila cypha, aggregations. January 28, 2014 

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program Annual Reporting Meeting, Phoenix, AZ. 

Rogowski, D. and B. Healy. Other native fishes: population status and trends in the Colorado 

River and tributaries. January 28, 2014, Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program 

Annual Reporting Meeting, Phoenix, AZ. 

Rogowski, D. Colorado River trout population monitoring: spawning and rearing surveys, 

seasonal and annual electrofishing surveys, and creel survey. January 28, 2014, Glen Canyon 

Dam Adaptive Management Program Annual Reporting Meeting, Phoenix, AZ. 

Young, K. and B. Healy. Humpback chub in the Little Colorado River and other tributaries: 

monitoring of juveniles, sub-adults, and adults and translocations. January 28, 2014, Glen 

Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program Annual Reporting Meeting, Phoenix, AZ. 

E.4. Presentations at professional meetings 

Persons, W.R., D.R. Van Haverbeke and B. Healy. Colorado River fish monitoring in Grand 

Canyon, Arizona: 1990-2012 humpback chub, Gila cypha, aggregations. Desert Fishes 

Council Annual Meeting, November 20-24, 2013, Flagstaff, AZ. 
258 

Rogowski, David. Does variation in sampling effort during a long term monitoring project 

matter? Desert Fishes Council Annual Meeting, November 20-24, 2013, Flagstaff, AZ. 

Brizendine, M.E., D.L. Ward and S.A. Bonar. Use of ultrasonic imaging and Ovaprim® to 

evaluate egg maturation of humpback chub, Gila cypha. Desert Fishes Council Annual 

Meeting, November 20-24, 2013, Flagstaff, AZ. 

Omana Smith, E., B. Healy, C. Nelson and M. Trammell. Endangered humpback chub 

translocations to Colorado River tributaries in Grand Canyon National Park. Desert Fishes 

Council Annual Meeting, November 20-24, 2013, Flagstaff, AZ. 

Healy, B., C. Nelson, E. Omana Smith, and M. Trammell. Non-native fish control in Colorado 

River tributaries in Grand Canyon National Park . Desert Fishes Council Annual Meeting, 

November 20-24, 2013, Flagstaff, AZ. 

Van Haverbeke, D.R., M.J. Pillow, D.M. Stone and K.L. Young. Monitoring of humpback chub, 

bluehead sucker, and flannelmouth sucker in the Little Colorado River, Grand Canyon, 

Arizona. Desert Fishes Council Annual Meeting, November 20-24, 2013, Flagstaff, AZ. 

F. References 

Andersen, M.E., Ackerman, M.W., Hilwig, K.D., Fuller, A.E., and Alley, P.D., 2010, Evidence 

of young humpback chub overwintering in the mainstem Colorado River, Marble Canyon, 

Arizona, USA: The Open Fish Science Journal, v. 3, , p. 42-50, at 

http://www.bentham.org/open/tofishsj/articles/V003/42TOFISHSJ.pdf. 

Aparicio, E., García-Bertho, E., Araguas, R.M., Martínez, P., and García-Marín, J.L., 2005, 

Body pigmentation pattern to assess introgression by hatchery stocks in native Salmo trutta

from Mediterranean streams: Journal of Fish Biology, v. 67, p. 931-949. 

Blanc, J.M., Poisson, H. and Vibert, R., 1982, Variabilité génétique de la punctuation noire sur la 

truitelle fario (Salmo trutta L.): Annales de Génétique et de Sélection Animale, v. 14, p. 225-

236. 

Blanc, J.M., Chevassus, B. and Krieg, F., 1994, Inheritance of the number of red spots on the 

skin of brown trout: Aquatic Living Resources, v. 7, p. 133-136. 

Bureau of Reclamation, 2011, Environmental assessment--non-native fish control downstream 

from Glen Canyon Dam: Salt Lake City, Utah, Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado 

Region, 102 p. plus appendices, http://www.usbr.gov/uc/envdocs/ea/gc/nnfc/NNFC-EA.pdf. 

Coggins, L.G., Jr., Pine, W.E., III, Walters, C.J., Van Haverbeke, D.R., Ward, D., and Johnstone, 

H.C., 2006, Abundance trends and status of the Little Colorado River population of 

humpback chub: North American Journal of Fisheries Management, v. 26, no. 1, p. 233-245, 

http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/06may24/Attach_06f.pdf. 

Coggins, L.G., Jr., and Walters, C.J., 2009, Abundance trends and status of the Little Colorado 

River population of humpback chub--an update considering data from 1989-2008: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 2009-1075, 18 p., http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1075/. 

Coggins, L.G., Yard, M.D., and Pine, W.E., 2011, Nonnative fish control in the Colorado River 

in Grand Canyon, Arizona--an effective program or serendipitous timing?: Transactions of 

the American Fisheries Society, v. 140, no. 2, p. 456-470, 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00028487.2011.572009. 

Douglas, M.R., and Douglas, M.E., 2007, Genetic structure of humpback chub Gila cypha and 

roundtail chub G. robusta in the Colorado River ecosystem--final report: Fort Collins, 

Department of Fish, Wildlife and Conservation Biology, Colorado State University, 99 p., 

http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/07jun25/Attach_04.pdf. 
259 

Gloss, S.P., and Coggins, L.G., 2005, Fishes of the Grand Canyon, in Gloss, S.P., Lovich, J.E., 

and Melis, T.S., eds., The state of the Colorado River ecosystem in Grand Canyon--a report 

of the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center 1991-2004: U.S. Geological Survey 

Circular 1282, p. 33-56, http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1282/. 

Hayden, T.A., Limburg, K.E., and Pine, W.E., III, 2012, Using otolith chemistry tags and growth 

patterns to distinguish movements and provenance of native fish in the Grand Canyon: River 

Research and Applications, v. (online), 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/rra.2627/abstract. 

Korman, J., Yard, M., Walters, C.J., and Coggins, L.G., 2009, Effects of fish size, habitat, flow, 

and density on capture probabilities of age-0 rainbow trout estimated from electrofishing at 

discrete sites in a large river: Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, v. 138, no. 1, p. 

58-75, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1577/T08-025.1. 

Korman, J., Martell, S.J.D., Walters, C.J., Makinster, A.S., Coggins, L.G., Yard, M.D., and 

Persons, W.R., 2012, Estimating recruitment dynamics and movement of rainbow trout 

(Oncorhynchus mykiss) in the Colorado River in Grand Canyon using an integrated 

assessment model: Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, v. 69, no. 11, p. 

1827-1849, http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/F2012-097. 

Limburg, K.E., Hayden, T.A., Pine, W.E., III, Yard, M.D., Kozdon, R., and Valley, J.W., 2013, 

Of travertine and time--otolith chemistry and microstructure detect provenance and 

demography of endangered humpback chub in Grand Canyon, USA: PLoS ONE, v. 8, no. 12, 

online (e84235), http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0084235. 

Makinster, A.S., Persons, W.R., Avery, L.A., and Bunch, A.J., 2010, Colorado River fish 

monitoring in Grand Canyon, Arizona--2000 to 2009 summary: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 2010-1246, 26 p., http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1246/. 

Malvestuto, S. P., 1996, “Sampling the recreational creel”, in Murphy, B.R. and Willis, D.W., 

eds., Fisheries techniques (2d): Bethesda, Maryland: American Fisheries Society, p. 591–

623. 

Melis, T.S., Korman, J., and Kennedy, T.A., 2012, Abiotic and biotic responses of the Colorado 

River to controlled floods at Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona, USA: River Research and 

Applications, v. 28, no. 6, p. 764-776, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/rra.1503. 

Mezzera, M., Largiadèr, C.R., and Scholl, A. 1997, Discrimination of native and introduced 

brown trout in the River Doubs (Rhône drainage) by number and shape of parr marks: 

Journal of Fish Biology, v. 50, p. 672-677. 

Nelson, C., Ward, D., Healy, B., and Smith, E.O., 2014, Bright Angel Creek inflow trout 

reduction pilot study-- trip report: Flagstaff, Ariz., National Park Service, prepared for the 

Upper Colorado Region, Bureau of Reclamation, interagency agreement no. R12PG40034. 

National Park Service, 2013, Comprehensive fisheries management plan--Grand Canyon 

National Park and Glen Canyon National Recreation area: U.S. Department of the Interior, 

National Park Service. 

Persons, W.R., Ward, D.L., and Avery, L.A., 2013, Standardized methods for Grand Canyon 

fisheries research 2012: U.S. Geological Survey, Techniques and Methods, book 2, chapter 

A12, 19 p., http://pubs.usgs.gov/tm/tm2a12/. 

Rogers, S., Ward, D., Clark, B., and Makinster, A., 2008, History and development of long-term 

fish monitoring with electrofishing in Grand Canyon, 2000–2007: Phoenix, Arizona Game 

and Fish Department, 70 p. 

Rogowski, D.L., and Wolters, P.N., 2014a, Colorado River fish monitoring in Grand Canyon, 
260 

Arizona--2013 annual report: Flagstaff, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Colorado River 

Research Office, draft submitted to U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center, cooperative agreement no. G10AC00147, 51 p. 

Rogowski, D.L., Wolters, P.N., and Osterhoudt, R.J., 2014b, Status of the Lees Ferry rainbow 

trout fishery--2013 annual report: Flagstaff, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Colorado 

River Research Office, draft submitted to U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring 

and Research Center, cooperative agreement no. G10AC00147, 36 p. 

Skaala, Ø., and Jørstad, K.E., 1988, Inheritance of the fine-spotted pigmentation pattern of 

brown trout: Polskie Archiwum Hydrobiologii, v. 35, p. 295-304. 

Skaala, Ø., Jørstad, K.E., and Børgstrom, R., 1992, Fine-spotted brown trout--genetic aspects 

and the need for conservation: Journal of Fish Biology, v. 39 (suppl. A), p. 123-130. 

Speas, D.W., Walters, C.J., Ward, D.L., and Rogers, R.S., 2004, Effects of intraspecific density 

and environmental variables on electrofishing catchability of brown and rainbow trout in the 

Colorado River, Arizona: North American Journal of Fisheries Management, v. 24, no. 2, p. 

586-596, http://dx.doi.org/10.1577/M02-193.1. 

Stone, D.M., Van Haverbeke, D.R., Ward, D.L., and Hunt, T.A., 2007, Dispersal of nonnative 

fishes and parasites in the intermittent Little Colorado River, Arizona: The Southwestern 

Naturalist, v. 52, no. 1, p. 130-137, http://dx.doi.org/10.1894/0038-

4909(2007)52[130:DONFAP]2.0.CO;2. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, 1995, Operation of Glen Canyon Dam--final environmental 

impact statement, Colorado River storage project, Arizona: Salt Lake City, Utah, Bureau of 

Reclamation, Upper Colorado Regional Office, 337 p., 

http://www.usbr.gov/uc/library/envdocs/eis/gc/pdfs/Cov-con/cov-con.pdf. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1995, Final biological opinion for the operation of Glen Canyon 

(2-21-93-F-167), submitted to Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region, 

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/Biol_Opin/93167_GlenCanyonOperati

ons.pdf. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2008, Final biological opinion for the operation of Glen Canyon 

Dam: Phoenix, Ariz., submitted to Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region, 

AESO/SE 22410-1993-F-167R1, 88 p., http://www.usbr.gov/uc/envdocs/bo/FinalGCDBO2-

26-08.pdf. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2011, Final biological opinion on the operation of Glen Canyon 

Dam including high flow experiments and non-native fish control: Phoenix, Ariz., submitted 

to Bureau of Reclamation, Salt Lake City, Utah, AESO/SE 22410-2011-F-0100, 22410-

2011-F-0112, 150 p., 

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/Biol_Opin/110112_HFE_NNR.pdf. 

Valdez, R.A., and Ryel, R.J., 1995, Life history and ecology of the humpback chub (Gila cypha) 

in the Colorado River, Grand Canyon, Arizona--final report: Logan, Utah, BIO/WEST, Inc., 

submitted to Bureau of Reclamation, contract no. 0-CS-40-09110, technical report no. TR250-08, 328 p. 

Valdez, R.A., Carothers, S.W., Douglas, M.E., Douglas, M., Ryel, R.J., Bestgen, K.R., and 

Wegner, D.L., 2000, Research and implementation plan for establishing a second population 

of humpback chub in Grand Canyon--final report: Flagstaff, Ariz., U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, 56 p. 

Van Haverbeke, D.R., Stone, D.M., Coggins, L.G., and Pillow, M.J., 2013, Long-term 

monitoring of an endangered desert fish and factors influencing population dynamics: 
261 

Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management, v. 4, no. 1, p. 163-177, 

http://dx.doi.org/10.3996/082012-JFWM-071. 

Westley, P.A.H., Stanley, R., Fleming, I.A., 2013, Experimental tests for heritable morphological 

color plasticity in non-native brown trout (Salmo trutta) populations: PLoS ONE, v. 8, no. 

11, e80401. 

Yackulic, C.B., Yard, M.D., Korman, J., and Van Haverbeke, D.R., 2014, A quantitative life 

history of endangered humpback chub that spawn in the Little Colorado River--variation in 

movement, growth, and survival: Ecology and Evolution, v. 4, no. 7, p. 1006-1018, 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.990. 

Yard, M.D., Coggins, L.G., Baxter, C.V., Bennett, G.E., and Korman, J., 2011, Trout piscivory 

in the Colorado River, Grand Canyon--effects of turbidity, temperature, and fish prey 

availability: Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, v. 140, no. 2, p. 471-486, 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00028487.2011.572011. 

 
262 

 Table 1. Administrative History of Project 6. 

Project 

FY11-12 FY13-14 FY15-17 

Mainstem Fish Studies 

6.1. Humpback chub 

aggregation monitoring. 

FY11: BIO 2.M4.11 $283,090 

FY12: BIO 2.M4.12 $539,107

FY13: D.1 $203,900 

FY14: D.1 $210,000

FY15: $218,768 

FY16: $249,888 

FY17: $252,6332

6.2 Humpback chub 

aggregation 

recruitment. 

FY13: D.2 $167,400 

FY14: D.2 $155,300 

FY15: $83,750 

FY16: $53,680 

FY17: $50,048 

6.3 Detecting 

aggregations with PIT 

tag antennas (new 

project) 

 FY15: $18,444 

FY16: $13,500 

FY17: $ 9,216 

6.4 System Wide 

Electrofishing (SWEF) 

FY11: BIO 2.M4.11 $283,090 

FY12: BIO 2.M4.12 $539,107 

FY13: F.1 $220,500 

FY14: F.1 $227,200 

FY15: $283,722 

FY16: $295,900 

FY17: $298,522 

6.5 Brown trout origins 

through body 

pigmentation patterns. 

(new project) 

 FY15: $16,146 

 

6.6 Humpback chub 

translocation to 

mainstem locations. 

(new project) 

 FY15: $ 9,790 

FY16: $10,152 

FY17: $10,782 

6.7 Rainbow trout early 

life stage survey 

(RTELSS) 

FY11 BIO4.M2.11 

No line item for this project

FY13-14: F2.2 

No line item for this 

project

FY15: $77,024 

FY16: $69,296 

FY17: $74,112 

6.8 Lees Ferry Creel 

Survey

FY11 BIO4.M2.11 

No line item for this project

FY13-14: F2.3 

No line item for this 

project

FY15: 

FY16: $25,750 

FY17: $25,750 

 

Related Projects 

7.2 Juvenile Chub 

Monitoring near LCR 

confluence (NSE and 

JCM). Integrated with 

6.4

NSE BIO 2.R15.11 $697,039 

NSE BIO 2.R15.12 $423,475 

FY13: F.3 $474,600 

FY14: F.3 $488,800 

FY15: $492,700 

FY16: $510,900 

FY17: $182,600 

9.2 Rainbow trout 

movement (Natal 

Origins). Integrated 

with 6.4

BIO 2.E.18.11 $432,518 

BIO 2.E.18.12 $453.029 

FY13: F.6 $281,800 

FY14: F.6 $290,300 

FY15: $440,500 

FY16: $484,900 

FY16: $371,900 
263 

G. Budget 

Core activities

Support implementation and

evaluation of HFE Protocol and

Non‐Native Fish Control

Technical and analytical

innovations in monitoring

Improving predictive modeling

capacity

Resolving scientific uncertainty

Independent science oversight

and review

Integrating tribes in monitoring

and research

Project Identifier Project Description Salaries Travel & Training Operating Expenses Logistics Coop‐ erators (non‐USGS) USGS Coop‐erat

X 6

Mainstem Colorado River

Humpback Chub

Aggregations and Fish

Commuity Dynamics

$187,000 $4,900 $29,700 $100,300 $305,000 

X 6.1

Mainstem Colorado River

Humpback Chub aggregation

monitoring

Persons et al. $55,400 $1,000 $6,100 $36,700 $100,000 

X 6.2 Aggregation recrui tment Dodrill et al. $35,400 $0 $6,400 $8,800 $25,000 

X 6.3

Monitoring mainstem

aggregations with PIT tag

antennas (pilot)

Ward $8,100 $0 $7,800 $0 $0 

X 6.4 System Wide Electrofishing Persons and Rogowski $31,900 $0 $8,100 $49,200 $165,000 

X X 6.5

Brown trout natal origins through

body pigmentation patterns in the

Colorado River

Rowgoski $0 $0 $600 $0 $15,000 

X X 6.6 Direct Mainstem Augmentation of Humpback Chub Young et al. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

X X 6.7 Rainbow Trout Early Li fe Stage Survey Avery and Foster $56,200 $3,900 $700 $5,600 $0 

X 6.8 Lees Ferry Creel Survey Rogowski and Persons $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Monitoring Research

FY15
264 

Core activities

Support implementation and

evaluation of HFE Protocol and

Non‐Native Fish Control

Technical and analytical

innovations in monitoring

Improving predictive modeling

capacity

Resolving scientific uncertainty

Independent science oversight

and review

Integrating tribes in monitoring

and research

Project Identifier Project Description Salaries Travel & Training Operating Expenses Logistics Coop‐ erators (non‐USGS) USGS Coop‐erat

X 6

Mainstem Colorado River

Humpback Chub

Aggregations and Fish

Commuity Dynamics

$180,100 $5,700 $21,200 $118,000 $305,000 

X 6.1

Mainstem Colorado River

Humpback Chub aggregation

monitoring

Persons et al. $62,500 $1,200 $6,200 $44,300 $100,000 

X 6.2 Aggregation recrui tment Dodrill et al. $31,000 $500 $3,500 $9,000 $0 

X 6.3

Monitoring mainstem

aggregations with PIT tag

antennas (pilot)

Ward $8,400 $0 $2,700 $0 $0 

X 6.4 System Wide Electrofishing Persons and Rogowski $22,700 $0 $8,100 $59,700 $165,000 

X X 6.5

Brown trout natal origins through

body pigmentation patterns in the

Colorado River

Rowgoski $0 $0 $0 $0 $15,000 

X X 6.6 Direct Mainstem Augmentation of Humpback Chub Young et al. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

X X 6.7 Rainbow Trout Early Li fe Stage Survey Avery and Foster $55,500 $4,000 $700 $5,000 $0 

X 6.8 Lees Ferry Creel Survey Rogowski and Persons $0 $0 $0 $0 $25,000 

Monitoring Research

FY16
265 

Core activities

Support implementation and

evaluation of HFE Protocol and

Non‐Native Fish Control

Technical and analytical

innovations in monitoring

Improving predictive modeling

capacity

Resolving scientific uncertainty

Independent science oversight

and review

Integrating tribes in monitoring

and research

Project Identifier Project Description Salaries Travel & Training Operating Expenses Logistics Coop‐ erators (non‐USGS) USGS Coop‐erat

X 6

Mainstem Colorado River

Humpback Chub

Aggregations and Fish

Commuity Dynamics

$189,800 $5,700 $26,300 $118,300 $340,000 

X 6.1

Mainstem Colorado River

Humpback Chub aggregation

monitoring

Persons et al. $63,300 $1,200 $6,200 $44,200 $100,000 

X 6.2 Aggregation recrui tment Dodrill et al. $26,000 $500 $3,500 $9,100 $0 

X 6.3

Monitoring mainstem

aggregations with PIT tag

antennas (pilot)

Ward $4,400 $0 $2,800 $0 $0 

X 6.4 System Wide Electrofishing Persons and Rogowski $30,700 $0 $8,100 $60,000 $185,000 

X X 6.5

Brown trout natal origins through

body pigmentation patterns in the

Colorado River

Rowgoski $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

X X 6.6 Direct Mainstem Augmentation of Humpback Chub Young et al. $4,400 $0 $5,000 $0 $30,000 

X X 6.7 Rainbow Trout Early Li fe Stage Survey Avery and Foster $61,000 $4,000 $700 $5,000 $0 

X 6.8 Lees Ferry Creel Survey Rogowski and Persons $0 $0 $0 $0 $25,000 

FY17

Monitoring Research
266 

Monitoring: Core activities 

Research: Technical and analytical innovations in monitoring 

Research: Improving predictive modeling capacity 

Research: Resolving scientific uncertainty 

Project 7. Population Ecology of Humpback Chub in and 

around the Little Colorado River 

Initial Estimate: FY15: $1,290,100; FY16: $1,493,200; FY17: $1,364,600 

GCDAMP Funding: FY15: $1,290,100; FY16: $1,388,700; FY17: $1,296,400 

Other BoR Funding: FY15: $261,000; FY16: $215,400; FY17: $0 

A. Investigators 

Charles B. Yackulic, Research Statistician, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring 

and Research Center 

Bill Persons, Fishery Biologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center 

Kirk Young, Fishery Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Office 

Kimberly Dibble, Research Biologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center 

Michael Yard, Fishery Biologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center 

Maria Dzul, Fishery Biologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research 

Center 

David Rogowski, Fisheries Biologist, Arizona Game and Fish Department 

Randy VanHaverbeke, Fishery Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Fish and 

Wildlife Conservation Office 

Dennis Stone, Fishery Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Office 

David Ward, Fishery Biologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center 

Jeff Muehlbauer, Aquatic Ecologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center 

Josh Korman, President, Ecometric Research Inc. 

Ted Kennedy, Aquatic Ecologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center 

B. Project Summary 

 During 2013–14 we developed models that integrate data collected in the Little Colorado 

River (LCR) with data collected by the juvenile chub monitoring (JCM) project to provide a 

holistic picture of humpback chub (Gila cypha) population dynamics (Yackulic and others,

2014). This manuscript suggests that chub movement between the LCR and Colorado River prior 
267 

to adulthood is relatively rare, with the exception of young-of-the-year outmigration and that 

growth and survival rates are very different in these two environments. This journal article also 

identified the need for studies of trap avoidance among older humpback chub in the LCR, a need 

that can potentially be addressed by increased use of remote technologies for detecting 

humpback chub. We then used a modified version of these models to explain interannual 

variability in mainstem growth and survival in terms of monthly temperature and estimated 

rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) abundances in order to support the development of the 

Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan (LTEMP) Environmental 

Impact Statement and address the key uncertainty surrounding the relative importance of 

rainbow trout and temperature in humpback chub population dynamics (Yackulic and others, in 

prep.). While parameter estimates in these models are based on field data collected in the LCR 

and JCM, this modelling was aided conceptually by lab experiments exploring impacts of trout 

and temperature on chub growth and survival (Ward and others, in prep). 

 Simulating future dynamics under alternative management strategies as part of the LTEMP 

process highlighted the importance of uncertainty associated with several key population 

processes, especially the production and outmigration of young-of-the-year humpback chub from 

the LCR. Available information suggests that the number of Age-0 chub present in July in the 

LCR has varied from roughly 5,000 to 50,000 in recent years and that the overall outmigration 

rate can vary from 25% to 75%. To address this uncertainty, already identified in the Grand 

Canyon Monitoring and Research Center’s workplan for Fiscal Years (FY) 2013–14, we initiated 

juvenile humpback chub marking with visible implant elastomer (VIE) tags in the LCR during 

early July, a period when humpback chub are just becoming large enough to have a reasonable 

chance of surviving in the mainstem. Although LTEMP obligations have delayed a formal 

analysis of these data, preliminary work suggests that this effort will allow us to estimate 

juvenile humpback chub abundance and outmigration with acceptable precision. We also 

analyzed data collected by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) from 2001–2013 to 

characterize spatio-temporal variation in survival, growth and movement of sub-adult humpback 

chub in the LCR (Dzul and others, in review). This work suggests both that winter growth is 

strongly and negatively correlated with the extent of winter/spring flooding and that habitat 

quality for sub-adult humpback chub is better in upper reaches of the LCR. This follows work by 

Vanhaverbeke and others (2013) indicating that when winter/spring flooding was minimal, 

juvenile production was poor. Other activities during FY13–14 included pilot work to determine 

the best ways to characterize spatio-temporal variation in the food base in FY13, with plans to 

rigorously sample the LCR food base in calendar year 2014. 

 In FY15–17, we will: (a) continue to monitor humpback chub in the LCR and Colorado 

River reference site (river mile (RM) 63.0-64.5) and to mark young-of-year humpback chub 

throughout the lower 13.6 km of the LCR in July, (b) develop field and analytical techniques to 

better use remote technologies for detecting passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags to address 

questions of trap avoidance and to potentially minimize future handling of chub, (c) develop new 

non-lethal tools for measuring the health and condition of humpback chub in the field, (d) 

undertake targeted, cost-effective research to understand mechanisms underlying observed 

population processes, including the roles of high CO2 at base flow, gravel limitation, parasites, 

and the aquatic food base, and (e) continue to develop models that integrate findings from the 

above projects. The proximate goals of these activities is to better understand the relative roles of 

LCR hydrology, water quality, intraspecific and interspecific interactions, and mainstem 

conditions in humpback chub juvenile life history and adult recruitment, as well as to better 

estimate the current adult abundance. The ultimate goal of these activities is to continue to 
268 

develop tools that allow us to better predict the impacts of dam operations and other management 

activities on humpback chub populations as well as appropriately account for uncertainty in these 

predictions. Specific questions of interest include: 

1. To what extent does young-of-the-year humpback chub production and outmigration 

from the LCR vary between years and how is this variation driven by LCR hydrology and 

intraspecific interactions (i.e., cannibalism and competition)? 

2. What are the drivers of interannual and spatial variation in survival and growth of 

juvenile and sub-adult humpback chub? In particular, what are the roles of LCR and 

mainstem conditions in the overall trajectory of the population? 

3. Are there factors, such as heterogeneity in skip-spawning rates, heterogeneity in adult 

humpback chub capture probabilities in the JCM, or trap avoidance in the LCR that bias 

estimates of the adult population size and population processes? 

 Juvenile humpback chub are the most sensitive life stage to mainstem conditions and an 

understanding of their life history is the key to predicting the influence of dam operations on this 

species. Prior to the Near Shore Ecology (NSE) project (2009–2011) and the more recent JCM 

project (2012–current), our understanding of humpback chub early life history was limited to 

back-calculations of cohort strength (number of fish surviving to adulthood from a given hatch 

year) derived from abundance estimates of humpback chub greater than 200 mm and believed to 

be four years old (Coggins and others, 2006; Coggins and Walters, 2009). However, given the 

disparity in growth rates between humpback chub living in the LCR and Colorado River 

(Yackulic and others, 2014) this approach was almost certainly misleading as humpback chub 

could be anywhere from 4–10 years old when they reach 200 mm depending on where they had 

spent most of their time (LCR or mainstem Colorado River) and what environmental conditions 

had been like in those locations. 

 Since 2009, we have developed the field techniques (including a fixed reference site in the 

Colorado River) and analytical methods that allow us to understand humpback chub early life 

history in the detail required to begin to tease apart the effects of variation in population 

processes caused by mainstem temperature, trout abundance, and conditions in the LCR. For 

example, in support of the LTEMP process we were able to fit relationships between monthly 

temperature and estimated rainbow trout abundance and juvenile humpback chub survival and 

growth using only data from 2009–2013 that accurately predicted trends in adult humpback chub 

numbers from 1989–2009 (Figure 1). While there is still room for improvement in these models, 
269 

Figure 1: (left) Annual survival of juvenile humpback chub in the mainstem Colorado estimated annually (July to July) in 

red versus estimates using estimated trout abundance as a covariate. (right) Backcasting using temperature and trout 

relationships estimated from 2009-2013 data, as well as trout estimates and measured temperatures match well with 

estimates from previous population assessments. (Preliminary data, do not cite).

this represents a dramatic step in our ability to predict the consequences of management options. 

While conditions in the LCR are not directly affected by dam operations, they nonetheless play a 

vital role in determining the degree to which temperature and rainbow trout numbers in the 

Colorado River must be managed (Figure 2). For example, if juvenile humpback chub 

production and export are high, this may suggest less need for rainbow trout management and/or 

lower flows to increase water temperatures in the mainstem. Alternatively, a better understanding 

of the factors leading to increased humpback chub production could provide decision makers 

opportunities to strategically implement management actions in years when they would have the 

largest effect. For example, the 2000 Low Steady Summer Flow experiment may have been 

ineffective simply because it followed two years of potentially minimal production of juvenile 

chub. Improved information about the drivers of humpback chub population dynamics could 

have helped managers and scientists plan this experiment such that it occurred when conditions 

were more likely to result in a detectable response. Likewise, management actions such as 

mechanical removal of nonnative fishes will be much more effective if they occur in years of 

high humpback chub production. If variation in production is primarily driven by exogenous 

factors (e.g., extent of flooding) as opposed to endogeneous factors (e.g., competition between 

cohorts) this also has implications for long-term population dynamics. 

 

Figure 2: Predicted minimum adult humpback chub population sizes over twenty year simulations (each dot represents a 

simulation based on different alternatives and/or potential parameter values). Different plots are for wetter/warmer (left) and

drier/colder (right) hydrologic traces. Colors represent high (green), medium (blue), and low (red) humpback chub 

recruitment scenarios. (Preliminary data, do not cite) 

With respect to adult humpback chub, key uncertainties revolve around our understanding of 

capture probability and movement. In particular, heterogeneity in capture probability in the LCR 

caused by some adult humpback chub (especially potential residents) avoiding hoop nets could 

Trout outmigration(x10,000)

Lowest Adult Chub (x1000)

0 5 10 15 20

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Trout outmigration(x10,000)

Lowest Adult Chub (x1000)

0 5 10 15 20

0

2

4

6

8

10

12
270 

lead to underestimates of abundance. At the same time, the potential for temporary emigration in 

the JCM reach is a cause for concern and could lead to overestimates of abundance. Lastly, a 

better understanding of skip-spawning in adult humpback chub is essential because many adults 

are only vulnerable to capture during spring sampling in the LCR and thus inferences about their 

survival and abundance depends on assumptions about the skip-spawning process. Answering 

the above uncertainties is dependent both on new data streams from remote tag readers and 

intellectual investment into developing the appropriate models to incorporate this information 

and test hypotheses. 

C. Background

C.1. Scientific Background 

 Standardized sampling in the LCR over the last decade has revealed substantial year to year 

variation in relative abundances of juvenile humpback chub in the fall (VanHaverbeke and 

others, 2013). In particular, juvenile catch in 2002 and 2006 was markedly lower than other years 

and occurred in the same years as relatively low winter/spring discharge in the LCR over the 

same span, suggesting an important and unresolved link between LCR hydrology and humpback 

chub population dynamics. On the other hand, there appears to be substantial variation in fall 

juvenile relative abundances in others years (e.g., 2009 and 2013 were relatively low) that 

appears to be unrelated to winter/spring discharge. 

 There are at least four hypotheses to explain this linkage, each of which has different 

implications for the significance of the observation—low juvenile fall abundance in the LCR—to 

humpback chub population dynamics and adult recruitment. These hypotheses also have 

different implications for the relative roles of conditions in the mainstem Colorado versus the 

LCR in determining adult humpback chub population dynamics and adult recruitment. Low 

juvenile abundance in the fall could be a leading indicator of a failed hatch year caused by: 

(Hypothesis-(H1) poor egg survival in the LCR associated with gravel limitation (H1a) or high 

CO2 levels (H1b), (H2) poor juvenile survival in the LCR the preceding summer associated with 

low prey production, (H3) low juvenile survival in the LCR the preceding summer due to 

predation by conspecifics, or (H4) unrelated to juvenile survival and instead a result of 

outmigration from the LCR due to displacement from monsoon floods or relatively favorable 

rearing conditions in the mainstem Colorado River. 

 Under Hypothesis 1 (H1) Survival of humpback chub eggs in the LCR is limited in years 

when snowmelt flooding is negligible or small because of poor spawning substrate conditions or 

high CO2 conditions that limit egg and larval survival. The rationale for this spawning limitation 

hypothesis is that the LCR is a high CO2, travertine system, and marl deposition in the lower 

LCR is extremely rapid (Robinson and others, 1996). Without moderate/large snowmelt floods 

that deliver lower CO2 water and clean gravels, substrates in the downstream part of the LCR 

during the spawning season will likely be cemented together with marl and will lack the 

interstitial spaces and/or water quality necessary for egg survival. Under this hypothesis, we 

would expect lowered numbers of juveniles in both the LCR and in the mainstem near the LCR 

confluence during years without large LCR snowmelt floods. Further, if this hypothesis is true, it 

suggests that the continued success of the LCR population may be predicated on climatic 

conditions in the LCR basin and are best in years of moderate/large snowmelt floods. H1b may 

also explain the lower frequency of juvenile chub in upper portions of the LCR, where CO2 

concentrations are greater. 
271 

 Under Hypothesis 2 (H2) Large snowmelt floods in the LCR stimulate production of the prey 

base through improvements in both the quantity and quality of food resources consumed by 

humpback chub, which leads to high juvenile humpback chub survival and low outmigration. 

(H2) is somewhat related to H1 in that it also posits a link between LCR hydrology and juvenile 

abundance in the fall, but the mechanism underlying H2 is different. In years with small 

snowmelt floods, the foodbase in the LCR is unproductive (see Fisher and others, 1982; Cross 

and others, 2011), which in turn leads to low survival and/or high out-migration of juvenile 

humpback chub. Under this hypothesis, the population of juvenile humpback chub (both 

yearlings and young-of-year) in the mainstem could remain the same, or even increase, if 

juveniles choose to outmigrate in response to low food densities in the LCR in years without 

substantial snowmelt flooding. If this hypothesis is true, and there is earlier and higher 

outmigration in response to negligible/small snowmelt floods in the LCR, it suggests that 

mainstem conditions may be especially important as a greater proportion of the juvenile 

population will be rearing in the mainstem. 

 Hypothesis 3 (H3) focuses on the role of intraspecific interactions, especially predation and 

cannibalism by yearlings on young-of-the-year, and can take two non-mutually exclusive forms. 

The first variety of this hypothesis (H3a) posits that in years without large LCR snowmelt 

floods, more yearlings remain in the system and there are higher levels of cannibalism and 

competition than in years with large LCR snowmelt floods. The second version (H3b) posits 

that, independent of the reason for decreases in fall abundances in 2002 and 2006, the lack of 

yearlings in the LCR in the following spawning season (2003 and 2007) led to especially large 

cohorts of young-of-year in those hatch years because of reduced cannibalism and competition. 

It is also possible that snowmelt floods are not an important factor affecting humpback chub 

dynamics and, instead, the intensity of summer/fall monsoon floods is the primary driver of fall 

abundances of juvenile humpback chub; that is, low LCR fall abundances are not a leading 

indicator of a failed hatch year. In both 2002 and 2006, LCR discharge during the snowmelt 

season was negligible, but there were relatively large monsoon floods in the fall. This 

observation leads to Hypothesis 4 (H4), which argues that outmigration rates of juvenile 

humpback chub from the LCR are directly linked to the intensity of monsoon flooding in the 

summer and fall. Under this hypothesis, we would expect increased migration from the LCR to 

the mainstem during years of large monsoon flooding in the LCR, and we would expect most 

migration to occur during the monsoon season—from July to September. VIE marking as part of 

both USFWS and NSE sampling between 2009 and 2011 has provided hints of movement 

between the LCR and the mainstem over these time scales; however, interpretation of these data 

has been hampered by the relatively low number of juveniles marked between the spawning 

season and before fall monsoons. Specifically, the last scheduled spring marking event in the 

LCR occurs in May, and young-of -year humpback chub are rarely large enough to mark with 

VIE tags (>40 mm total length). The next scheduled marking occurs in September, and monsoon 

floods that displace young-of- year may have already occurred. 

 Survival rates for juvenile fish are highly correlated with individual growth rates; a juvenile 

population that grows rapidly will generally experience higher survival relative to a population 

of juveniles that is growing slowly (Walters and Martell, 2004). Understanding the causes of 

variation in juvenile humpback chub growth rates among habitats will therefore aid interpretation 

of any estimates of juvenile survival among habitats. One hypothesis to explain the observed 

variation in humpback chub growth rates among locations and times is that growth rates are 

mainly driven by concomitant changes in water temperature (H5). This hypothesis has clear 

implications for dam operations. Another hypothesis (H6) states that humpback chub growth 
272 

among locations and times is mainly driven by differences in the quantity and quality of prey 

available to juvenile humpback chub. This hypothesis also has implications for dam operations, 

but the types of operational changes that might be evaluated to mitigate low prey production in 

the mainstem are very different from the types of operations that might be evaluated to mitigate 

water temperature effects related to (H5). Lastly, interspecific and intraspecific competition for 

food resources is the main driver of humpback chub growth rates among locations and times 

(H7). These hypotheses (H5-H7) are obviously not mutually exclusive. H6 and H7, in particular, 

are linked because food limitation (H6) is a necessary condition for resource competition (H7). 

We believe the distinction is important, however, because LCR hydrology may have strong 

effects on resource availability (H6) independent of fish abundance (H7). Thus, there may be 

some years when one factor ultimately limits or constrains humpback chub growth, and other 

years when a different factor limits growth. 

 It is improbable that a two-year study could fully resolve all of these hypotheses, in part 

because our ability to distinguish among certain hypotheses is dependent on LCR hydrology. 

However, irrespective of LCR hydrology, the activities we will conduct in FY15–17 will allow 

us to evaluate the strength of evidence for at least some of the above hypotheses and address key 

uncertainties surrounding the population dynamics of humpback chub. This new research will be 

integrated with ongoing USFWS monitoring in the LCR and JCM sampling in the mainstem, 

which will help minimize handling of juvenile humpback chub. Integration of this new research 

effort into ongoing monitoring will also build upon these long-term efforts in a way that allows 

us to ask new questions. 

C.2. Management Background 

This project directly addresses the following Strategic Science Questions (SSQs), Core 

Monitoring Information Needs (CMINs), and Research Information Needs (RINs) previously 

identified by the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP). 

 Goal 2: Maintain or attain a viable population of existing native fish, remove jeopardy for 

humpback chub and razorback sucker, and prevent adverse modification to their critical 

habitats. 

 Goal 4: Maintain a naturally reproducing population of rainbow trout above the Paria River, 

to the extent practicable and consistent with the maintenance of viable populations of native 

fish. 

In August 2004, the GCDAMP Adaptive Management Work Group reviewed these goals 

and identified priority questions. This project addresses the top priority question: 

 Priority 1: Why are humpback chub not thriving, and what can we do about it? How many 

humpback chub are there and how are they doing? 

In March 2011, the Secretary’s Designee, Assistant Secretary for Water and Science, 

identified that the first priority was compliance with the Endangered Species Act, followed by 

sediment, with the third priority being science on both non-native control and the recreational 

trout fishery. These monitoring projects contribute to improved understanding of humpback 

chub, rainbow trout, and their interactions. 

C.3. Key Monitoring and Research Questions Addressed in this project 
273 

Primary SSQ addressed: 

 SSQ 1-1. To what extent are adult populations of native fish controlled by production of 

young fish from tributaries, spawning and incubation in the mainstem, survival of youngof-year and juvenile stages in the mainstem, or by changes in growth and maturation in 

the adult population as influenced by mainstem conditions? 

 SSQ 1-2. Does a decrease in the abundance of rainbow trout and other cold- and warm 

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

recruitment rate of juvenile humpback chub to the adult population? 

Additional SSQs addressed: 

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

impacts from capture and handling or sampling? 

 SSQ 5-4. What is the relative importance of increased water temperature, shoreline 

stability, and food availability on the survival and growth of YoY and juvenile native 

fish? 

 SSQ 5-6. Do the potential benefits of improved rearing habitat (warmer, more stable, 

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

increases in nonnative fish abundance? 

The GCDAMP Science Advisors articulated the following summary science questions addressed 

by this project: 

 SA 1. What are the most limiting factors to successful humpback chub adult recruitment 

in the mainstem: spawning success, predation on young of year and juveniles, habitat 

(water, temperature), pathogens, adult maturation, food availability, competition? 

 SA 2. What are the most probably positive and negative impacts of warming the 

Colorado River on humpback chub adults and juveniles? 

Information Needs Addressed 

 CMIN 2.1.2. Determine and track recruitment of all life stages, abundance, and 

distribution of humpback chub in the LCR. 

 RIN 2.2.2. Determine if a population dynamics model can effectively predict response of 

native fish under different flow regimes and environmental conditions. 

 RIN 2.2.8. What combination of dam release patterns and nonnative fish control 

facilitates successful spawning and recruitment of humpback chub in the Colorado River 

ecosystem? 

 RIN 2.4.2. Determine if suppression of nonnative predators and competitors increases 

native fish populations. 

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

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

 RIN 4.2.5 To what extent is there overlap in the Colorado River ecosystem below the 

Paria River of RBT habitat and native fish habitat? 

 EIN 2.1.1 How does the abundance and distribution of all size classes of humpback chub 

in the LCR and mainstem change in response to an experiment performed under the 

Record of Decision, unanticipated event, or other management action? 
274 

 EIN 2.1.2 How does the year class strength of humpback chub (51–150 mm) in the LCR 

and mainstem change in response to an experiment performed under the Record of 

Decision, unanticipated event, or other management action? 

 EIN 2.4.1 How does the abundance and distribution of nonnative predatory fish species 

and their impacts on native fish species in the Colorado River ecosystem change in 

response to an experiment performed under the Record of Decision, unanticipated event, 

or other management action? 

D. Proposed Work 

D.1. Project Elements 

Project Element 7.1. Annual spring/fall humpback chub abundance estimates in the lower 13.6 km of the 

Little Colorado River 

William Persons, Fishery Biologist, USGS, GCMRC

Kirk Young, Fishery Biologist, USFWS, Arizona Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office David 

R. Van Haverbeke, Fishery Biologist, USFWS, Arizona Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office

David Rogowski, Fisheries Biologist, Arizona Game and Fish Department 

The most efficient way to sample adult humpback chub that spawn in the LCR is during the 

spring as capture probabilities in the LCR for adults are much higher than in the mainstem. Fall 

sampling provides us with yearly estimates of the abundance of young-of-the-year that have not 

left the LCR and is the closest we have to a long-term dataset of juvenile humpback chub 

production. Data collected during these trips are all used to estimate spring and fall closed 

population abundance for various size classes of humpback chub (> 150 mm and > 200 mm total 

length (TL)), and during some years provides abundance estimates of other native fishes 

(Coggins and others, 2006; Van Haverbeke, 2010). The project also marks juvenile humpback 

chub (< 100 mm TL) with VIE tags in the fall in conjunction with JCM project (Project Element 

7.2) and the July LCR marking project (Project Element 7.3) to improve our understanding of 

juvenile humpback chub production and outmigration. This is an ongoing project since 2000 and 

the monitoring was identified as a necessary component in the 2011 Environmental Assessment 

for Non-Native Fish Control Downstream from Glen Canyon Dam and associated Biological 

Opinion (Bureau of Reclamation, 2011). The specific objectives for 2015–17 (similar to 

objectives for previous years) are: 

1. Determine length stratified Chapman modified Peterson closed population estimates of 

humpback chub (e.g., >100 mm, ≥150 mm, ≥200 mm) in the lower 13.57 km of the LCR 

during the spring and fall. 

2. Generate a population estimate of age 0 humpback chub (40-99 mm) during fall. 

3. Collect data on PIT tagged fish in support of humpback chub population modelling 

(Project Element E.10). 

4. Collect additional data on fishes in the LCR such as size, species, sexual condition and 

characteristics, and external parasites (i.e., Lernaea cyprinacea). 

Modifications to this project include use of experienced biologists and expansion of remote 

sensing efforts throughout the LCR (see Project Element 7.4). Specifically, we will replace three 

volunteer positions with paid staff. This will result in increased salary costs for fiscal years 

2015–2017, but reduced travel expenses that had been used for volunteer travel. Working with 
275 

partners, we propose amalgamation of Arizona Game and Fish Department’s (AGFD) lower 

1200 meter monitoring efforts into LCR mark-recapture effort (Spring and Fall). This approach 

avoids the need to increase overall LCR long term monitoring costs due in part to savings 

associated with fewer helicopter flights and facilitates deployment of portable remote PIT tag 

readers to assess humpback chub demographics across the three sample reaches constituting the 

occupied 13 km of the LCR. We also propose to involve Navajo Nation or other Tribal members 

in sampling activities and have included funding to support a temporary field position (four 10-

day trips). Methods will follow those used from 2000-2014 (described in Van Haverbeke and 

others, 2013). Arizona Game and Fish Department will provide experienced biologists to assist 

with hoop net efforts, and be responsible for small PIT tag antennas deployed near each camp. 

Project Element 7.2. Juvenile Chub Monitoring in the mainstem near the Little Colorado River Confluence 

Michael Yard, Fishery Biologist, USGS, GCMRC 

Josh Korman, President, Ecometric Research, Inc. 

Maria Dzul, Fishery Biologist, USGS, GCMRC 

Charles B. Yackulic, Research Statistician, USGS, GCMRC 

This project provides the data to estimate survival, growth and abundance of juvenile 

humpback chub for a reference reach (RM 63-64.5) in the mainstem Colorado River just 

downstream of the LCR confluence. It also provides additional passes to estimate rainbow trout 

and brown trout abundance in this same reach (the reference reach is sampled using rainbow 

trout specific methods as part of the Natal Origins project; Project Element 9.2). Data from this 

project, in addition to temperature collected near the LCR confluence through Project 2, will be 

used in Project Element 7.10 to refine our understanding of the effects of temperature and trout 

on humpback chub survival and growth. Recent progress in our understanding of trout and 

mainstem temperature effects on humpback chub population dynamics are solely dependent on 

data collected through this project and its precursor, the NSE project. Recaptures of VIE marked 

humpback chub in the reference reach, especially humpback chub marked through the July LCR 

sampling (Project Element 7.3), are crucial to understanding annual survival and movement out 

of the LCR into the Colorado River. Obtaining rainbow and brown trout abundance estimates 

between RM 63-64.5 were identified as necessary activities in the 2011 Environmental 

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

Biological Opinion (Bureau of Reclamation, 2011). The metrics are included in the suite of 

triggers identifying when to implement mechanical removal of nonnative fish to protect 

humpback chub. Continued annual assessments of juvenile humpback chub survival rates and 

abundance in the mainstem using methods developed in the NSE Study will provide key metrics 

by which management actions such as rainbow trout removal will be evaluated. 

As with the Natal Origin Research project (Project Element 9.2), the Juvenile Chub 

Monitoring project is scheduled to be completed by the end of FY2016. This leaves a significant 

data gap in outlying years for information on juvenile humpback chub as required by the 

Biological Opinion for Glen Canyon Dam operations including high flow experiments and 

nonnative fish control (USFWS 2011). To avoid this gap, a transition of the Juvenile Chub 

Monitoring project from a research focus to a monitoring effort needs to occur while maintaining 

a robust multi-gear, multi-pass mark-recapture effort necessary to generate reliable survival 

estimates of these young fish. We propose that GCMRC and its cooperators collaboratively 

develop a plan for this transition and include it among the topics to be reviewed by the fisheries 

program protocol evaluation panel (PEP; see Project Element 8.3). The new monitoring project 
276 

will begin in FY2017 following review and implementation, as appropriate, of the PEP’s 

recommendations by GCMRC. 

Project Element 7.3. July Little Colorado River juvenile humpback chub marking to estimate production and 

outmigration 

Maria Dzul, Fishery Biologist, USGS, GCMRC 

Charles B. Yackulic, Research Statistician, USGS, GCMRC 

Luke Avery, Fishery Biologist, USGS, GCMRC 

David Ward, Fishery Biologist, USGS, GCMRC 

Mike Yard, Fishery Biologist, USGS, GCMRC 

 The objective of this project element is to determine how rates of juvenile humpback chub 

outmigration vary between years and the degree to which outmigration rates are driven by 

juvenile densities or the strength of flooding associated with summer monsoons. This project 

also seeks to estimate the abundance of young-of-the-year humpback chub in the LCR prior to 

the most significant period of outmigration (July-September). As mentioned above, juvenile 

production and rates of juvenile outmigration are two of the largest uncertainties in population 

models of humpback chub that spawn in the LCR and thus uncertainty in these population 

processes hampers efforts to determine how much management is required to maintain healthy 

adult populations. Uncertainty in juvenile production and outmigration was one of the largest 

uncertainties in predicting humpback chub responses to alternatives during the LTEMP process. 

Previous research suggests that rates of outmigration are relatively high (Yackulic and others, 

2014). It should be noted, however, that these estimates were based on marks put out only in the 

lowest portion of the LCR and were concentrated in years that likely had high levels of export 

(2011 & 2012), thus may have biased estimates high. Preliminary estimates suggest that 

outmigration by the 2013 cohort was lower and that the size of this cohort may have be relatively 

small. Lastly, if rates of recovery of juvenile humpback chub marked during July sampling are 

substantially lower at non-LCR aggregations (Project D) as opposed to in the JCM reach (Project 

Element E.2) this could be taken as evidence of local reproduction at aggregations. 

Sampling during July relies on three gear types, seining, dip nets and hoop nets to capture 

juvenile humpback chub at each of the three sample reaches and humpback chub between 40-100 

mm are given VIE batch marks (humpback chub over 100 mm are scanned for PIT tags 

according to the standard protocol, however, the focus of our efforts is on juveniles, that is 

humpback chub under 100 mm in total length). 

Project Element 7.4 Remote PIT tag array monitoring 

William Persons, Fishery Biologist, USGS, GCMRC

 The objectives of this project are to provide data to test hypotheses about trap avoidance and 

humpback chub movement and to potentially provide a future alternative to decrease handling of 

adult humpback chub. This has been an ongoing effort since 2009, with lapses and equipment 

failures during parts of 2010 and 2011. The project has installed two PIT tag antenna arrays in 

the LCR approximately 2 km upstream from the confluence with the mainstem Colorado River. 

The antenna arrays read and record PIT tag codes from marked fish along with a date/time stamp 

as they pass near antennas anchored to the river bottom. These data can be used within 

population models as well as to provide information on timing of movement and survival of PIT 

tagged native fishes. Antenna detection efficiency has varied greatly and was estimated to be 6 – 
277 

42%. Work completed during FY12–13 by a Colorado State University graduate student is 

expected to result in a thesis during 2014. Preliminary findings suggests that skip-spawning by 

adult humpback chub is Markovian (i.e., individuals that spawned in the previous year are less 

likely to spawn than individuals that did not spawn). During FY2015-17 we plan to maintain the 

existing antenna arrays and to deploy three portable antennas approximately 9 km upstream from 

the LCR mouth to attempt to better assess movement and avoidance of hoop nets. 

Project Element 7.5. Food web monitoring in the Little Colorado River 

Jeff Muehlbauer, Aquatic Ecologist, USGS, GCMRC 

Ted Kennedy, Aquatic Ecologist, USGS, GCMRC 

Charles B. Yackulic, Research Statistician, USGS, GCMRC 

 The objectives of this project are to characterize invertebrate drift, benthic densities and 

emergence throughout the perennial (lower 21 km) reach of the LCR over various seasons and to 

test whether emergence techniques are an appropriate technique for long-term monitoring in this 

and other tributaries. We suspect that the amount of invertebrates available for consumption by 

fish, and humpback chub in particular, varies longitudinally because of work suggesting higher 

humpback chub growth above Chute Falls (Stone and others, in prep) as well as higher growth 

and abundance of subadult humpback chub in Coyote and Salt camps relative to Boulders camp 

(Dzul and other, in review; Vanhaverbeke and others, 2013). Preliminary data collected in July 

2013 suggests that emergence below the Chute Falls (no sampling occurred above Chute Falls) 

increases at stations located further from the confluence. A better understanding of the food base 

in areas that support high densities of humpback chub growing quickly may aid in determining 

the carrying capacity within the LCR as well as in tributaries considered for translocation efforts. 

 This project is a continuation of a project begun in FY13–14. Logistical constraints and 

weather-related issues ultimately precluded the total completion of this project within that 

timeframe, and we therefore propose to continue the project into FY15 and possibly the first 

months of FY 2016 in order to provide better quality results. Sampling will occur quarterly 

(December, April, June, and September), and monthly in the period of highest humpback chub 

growth (April to September), with additional opportunistic samples occurring once per year as 

soon as possible after the first annual summer monsoon flood. Sampling will involve the 

deployment of sticky traps (Smith and others, 2014) in consistent locations and habitat 

conditions throughout the perennial 21 km reach of the LCR, from Blue Spring to the confluence 

with the Colorado River. Light traps (Kennedy and others, 2013) are also set out at camps in the 

evenings. At the three main camps (Salt, Coyote, Boulders) and at major aquatic habitat changes 

(Blue Spring, Chute Falls, confluence), benthic samples are also taken using standard D-nets, 

emergence traps are deployed over the water, infall traps for organic matter and terrestrial insects 

are deployed at the water’s edge, and aquatic habitat is quantified based on visual estimates of 

percent cover of algae and using pebble counts (Wolman, 1954). Finally, temperature, 

conductivity, and dissolved oxygen are measured using data loggers deployed above and below 

the Chute Falls/Atomizer complex and near Salt and Coyote camps. 
278 

Project Element 7.6. Potential for gravel substrate limitation for humpback chub reproduction in the LCR 

Maria Dzul, Fishery Biologist, USGS, GCMRC 

Jeff Muehlbauer, Aquatic Ecologist, USGS, GCMRC 

David Ward, Fishery Biologist, USGS, GCMRC 

Charles B. Yackulic, Research Statistician, USGS, GCMRC 

 The objectives of this project element are to characterize year-to-year variation in gravel 

availability in the LCR and determine whether lack of gravels limits juvenile humpback chub 

production in certain years. VanHaverbeke and others (2013) showed that juvenile humpback 

chub production in the LCR has been lower during the period 2001–2012 during years without 

significant winter/spring flooding. Earlier work suggested that increases in discharge in the LCR 

exposes fresh gravel deposits that are ideal for development of humpback chub eggs (Kaeding 

and Zimmerman 1983) and that humpback chub spawning activity is associated with clean 

gravel deposits (Gorman and Stone 1999). Accordingly, scarcity of gravel substrates may play a 

significant role in humpback chub population processes, however, there is little direct evidence 

to determine whether the cause of low recruitment is due to scarcity of fresh gravel deposits. 

Evaluating how low spring discharge affects humpback chub recruitment is especially important 

because climate projections predict decreased precipitation throughout the southwestern USA 

(Seager and others 2007), and thus years with low snowmelt may become increasingly common 

in northern Arizona. This project will involve annual substrate mapping and monitoring using 

bed surface random-walk pebble counts (Wolman 1954) in a reference reach of the LCR 

conducted every year in conjunction with spring LCR monitoring (Project Element 7.1). In 

addition, we will conduct gravel tray experiments to determine the sediment characteristics that 

are required for humpback chub egg deposition and survival. 

Project Element 7.7. Evaluate CO2 as a limiting factor early life history stages of humpback chub in the Little 

Colorado River 

David Ward, Fishery Biologist, USGS, GCMRC 

Dennis Stone, Fishery Biologist, USFWS, Arizona Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office 

 The objective of this project is to evaluate the extent to which high levels of dissolved CO2 in 

the LCR at base flow impacts early life history stages of humpback chub. High levels of 

dissolved CO2 in water are known to negatively affect fish populations and have been 

hypothesized to constrain humpback chub to the lower 14.2 km of the LCR in Grand Canyon 

(Mattes 1993, Robinson and others 1996, Kaeding and Zimmerman 1983). Elevated CO2 levels 

decrease the ability of a fish’s hemoglobin to transport oxygen and can compromise respiration 

in fishes. The safe or accepted levels of CO2in water depend upon fish species (Basu 1959). In 

general, levels above 60 ppm are avoided by fish and can be detrimental to fish health (Alabaster 

and others 1957, Reviewed in Heinen and others 1996) with early life history stages of fish being 

most sensitive (Baumann and others 2012). At base flow CO2 levels near the confluence of the 

LCR are often above 100 ppm and increase upstream (Robinson and others 1996, Dennis Stone 

FWS, personal communication). Such high levels of CO2 have the potential to structure the fish 

community within the LCR, but little is known about CO2 tolerances of humpback chub or other 

native Colorado River fishes. Measures of upper lethal CO2 tolerances will be made in the 

laboratory for all fish species commonly found within the LCR and for invasive nonnative fishes 

that could become established within the LCR. Both adult and juvenile life stages will be 

evaluated. Captive reared humpback chub from the Southwestern Native Aquatic Research and 
279 

Recovery Center in Dexter New Mexico will be utilized for these studies. All other species will 

be captured from the LCR in Grand Canyon. 

Project Element 7.8. Evaluate effects of Asian tapeworm infestation on juvenile humpback chub 

David Ward, Fishery Biologist, USGS, GCMRC 

 The objective of this project is to monitor the extent of Asian fish tapeworm 

(Bothriocephalus acheilognathi) infestation in juvenile humpback chub annually in the LCR and 

assess potential impacts to humpback chub populations. Asian fish tapeworm has been identified 

as one of six potential threats to the continued persistence of endangered humpback chub 

(USFWS 2002). It is potentially fatal to multiple age classes of fish (Schäpperclaus 1986), and 

has caused high mortality when infecting new host species (Hoffman and Schubert 1984). Asian 

fish tapeworm was first documented in the LCR in Grand Canyon in 1990 (Minckley 1996) and 

is hypothesized to be a cause of long-term declines in condition of adult humpback chub from 

the LCR (Meretsky and others 2000). The life cycle of Asian fish tapeworm is highly 

temperature dependent (Granth and Esch 1983) and management options aimed at increasing 

mainstem Colorado River water temperatures may permit Asian tapeworm to increase in number 

and range with detrimental effects to humpback chub. Monitoring is needed since no baseline 

information for tapeworm infestation in humpback chub is available. USFWS captures juvenile 

humpback chub from the LCR each summer prior to monsoon flooding for translocation into 

Grand Canyon tributary streams such as Shinumo Creek and Havasu Creek. These fish are held 

at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Southwest Native Aquatic Research and Recover Center 

(SNARRC) in Dexter, New Mexico prior to being PIT tagged and translocated. They are treated 

with Praziquantel to remove Asian Tapeworm as part of this process but no efforts have been 

made to quantify tapeworm loads in these fish. We propose to non-lethally quantify tapeworm 

loads (Ward 2007) on an annual basis from humpback chub collected for translocation. Our 

objectives are to establish a baseline of tapeworm infestation levels in LCR humpback chub and 

to determine whether year-to-year variation in the prevalence of tapeworm infestation is linked 

to annual variation in growth, survival or abundance of juvenile humpback chub. 

Project Element 7.9. Development of a Non-Lethal Tool to Assess the Physiological Condition of Humpback 

Chub in the Colorado and Little Colorado Rivers 

Kimberly Dibble, Research Biologist, USGS, GCMRC 

Mike Yard, Fishery Biologist, USGS, GCMRC 

David Ward, Fishery Biologist, USGS, GCMRC 

 This research focuses on laboratory work to test the feasibility of a more sensitive technique 

to assess the condition of native fish, which could then be used in the field as a non-lethal tool to 

monitor the health and condition of fish residing in mainstem aggregations and in the LCR. Past 

research studies using length-weight relationships and recapture data have observed differences 

in fish condition and growth between fish residing in the mainstem vs. the LCR. Findings have 

shown periodic and seasonal declines in adult humpback chub condition, where fish recovered 

more rapidly in the Colorado River than those remaining in the LCR (Meretsky and others 2000). 

Similar patterns have also been observed for juvenile humpback chub growth rates (Finch and 

others 2013; Hayes and others, unpublished data), findings that are of concern because of 

implications to humpback chub survival. However, these length/weight relationships may not 

provide an accurate assessment of the true physiological condition of fish because relationships 
280 

change through ontogeny and seasonally (Bolger and Connolly 1989, Cone 1989, Simpkins and 

others 2003, Froese 2006), and weights may be overinflated due to ova (eggs), parasites, 

hydrated tissues (water gain following lipid loss), and/or instrument error, especially for small 

fish. Further, high summer growth of humpback chub in the LCR followed by low growth in 

early fall suggests that the energy allocation strategy of these fish shifts toward fat storage in 

preparation for winter rather than somatic growth (length or weight gain). Investment into lipid 

storage would increase the condition of humpback chub, but this is not reflected in growth 

analyses. Therefore, humpback chub monitoring of growth and condition would be improved 

through the development of a tool in the laboratory to assess the condition of native fish, which 

would eventually be incorporated into field monitoring efforts. 

 Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis (BIA) is a tool that has been successfully developed for 

cyprinids and other fish species (e.g., common carp (Cyprinus carpio), brook trout (Salvelinus 

fontinalis), cobia (Rachycentron canadum), steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss)) in both freshwater 

and marine ecosystems (Cox and Hartman 2005, Duncan and others 2007, Hanson and others 

2010, Klefoth and others 2013); however, this technique has not been refined for native cyprinids 

such as humpback chub, roundtail chub (Gila robusta), or sucker species of interest in the 

Colorado River basin. BIA measures body condition and is based on the technology used by 

humans to estimate percentages of body fat and water when they step on an at-home digital 

scale. A low-level, safe, electrical current is passed through the human body (or fish body), and 

the level of “impedance” is measured. Fat offers more resistance to electrical current than water, 

so a human (or fish) that has a higher fat content will score higher on the impedance scale. For 

fish, a higher impedance reading correlates to better condition and indicates the fish is more 

likely to survive periods of low food availability, disease outbreaks, successfully reproduce the 

following spring, and cope with environmental perturbations. 

The temperature of the water in which a fish resides can significantly influence BIA readings 

(Klefoth and others 2013), so we will develop a suite of experimental treatments in the 

laboratory where temperature and food rations can be controlled. Throughout each experiment, 

repeated measures of impedance in hatchery-raised humpback chub and/or surrogate species 

(e.g., roundtail chub, bonytail (Gila elegans)) of varying lengths will be quantified using a 

Quantum IV Body Composition Analyzer. Relationships between impedance readings and 

proximate body composition (percent lipid, protein, carbohydrate, water, ash) of sacrificed fish 

from laboratory experiments will allow us to calibrate the models for use in subsequent field 

monitoring (we need this calibration to verify the BIA analyzer is accurately characterizing the 

condition of native fish species). Since we need to develop these relationships for multiple 

species of varying lengths, this project will occur in several phases over 3 years to allow 

hatchery fish to grow to the size of comparable fish in the field. 

Project Element 7.10. Humpback chub population modelling 

Charles B. Yackulic, Research Statistician, USGS, GCMRC 

Maria Dzul, Fishery Biologist, USGS, GCMRC 

 The ultimate objective of this project is to provide better tools to understand the current state 

of the humpback chub resource (i.e., adult population size) and to predict its future state in 

response to management decisions. In some instances, better prediction will come mainly 

through the incorporation of more data (e.g., additional JCM data will help determine whether 

trout and temperature relationships developed for the LTEMP model hold), whereas other 

instances require substantial intellectual investment into building appropriate statistical models 
281 

(e.g., efforts to incorporate data collected through remote sensors (Project Element 7.4) with data 

collected through mark-recapture techniques (Project Elements 7.1-3)). One area of emphasis in 

FY15–17 will be on better estimation of juvenile humpback chub production and outmigration, 

as well as on potential mechanisms that may explain year to year variation in these population 

processes. Another area of emphasis will be on further clarifying relationships between 

temperature, trout abundances and juvenile humpback chub population biology in the mainstem. 

Specific attention will be placed on publishing statistical models used to link temperature and 

rainbow trout analyses to humpback chub growth and survival for the LTEMP process as well as 

exploring the implications of these results for triggering management actions like mechanical 

removal of nonnative fishes. We can also envision modifying these models to jointly model 

rainbow trout abundance and humpback chub survival to provide more accurate estimates of 

uncertainty. A third area of emphasis will be on testing hypotheses about adult humpback chub 

capture probability and movement. 

D.2 Personnel and Collaborations 

 The overall project lead for Research Project 7.0 is Dr. Charles Yackulic, a research 

statistician with U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center 

(GCMRC), who specializes in population dynamics and modeling. Kirk Young, Randy 

VanHaverbeke, and Dennis Stone are fishery biologists with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Arizona Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office that collect and analyze fishery data from annual 

spring and fall mark-recapture studies conducted in the LCR. Bill Persons, a fishery biologist at 

GCMRC is responsible for database management, analysis, and remote PIT tag array monitoring 

in the LCR. Dr. Kim Dibble is a post-doctoral fellow and research biologist at GCMRC with 

expertise in fish physiology and metadata analysis. Maria Dzul is a fishery biologist (GCMRC) 

that specializes in data collection, modeling and data analysis of HBC production and movement. 

David Ward is a fishery biologist (GCMRC) that maintains and operates the experimental 

laboratory facility at Northern Arizona University. He has expertise in experimental physiology 

with an emphasis on non-native and native fish interactions. Dr. Jeff Muehlbauer is a postdoctoral fellow and research biologist at GCMRC with expertise in ecology and life history of 

aquatic macro-invertebrates. Dr. David Rogowski is a fishery biologist with Arizona Game and 

Fish Department and is the principal investigator that collects, provides, and analyzes data as part 

of the SWEF project (6.4). Dr. Josh Korman with Ecometric Research Inc. and Dr. Michael Yard 

with (GCMRC) are co-investigators on the Natal Origin Project (9.2) that provide the necessary 

field data from the Colorado River mainstem for the JCM project. 

D.3 Deliverables 

 The work described here should lead to multiple peer-reviewed publications (i.e., at least 4), 

as well as annual reports and presentations to the GCDAMP. This project will also provide 

estimates of quantities relevant to biological opinions at regular intervals. 

 
282 

E. Productivity from Past Work (during FY 13–14) 

E.1. Data Products 

By the end of FY13–14, FWS LCR system-wide sampling will have occurred four times in each 

year, JCM sampling will have occurred four times in each year, and July LCR juvenile marking 

will have occurred once per year. All data from these trips has or will be entered into the 

GCMRC fish database. 

E.2. Completed Publications 

Van Haverbeke, D. R., D. M. Stone, L. G. Coggins, and M. J. Pillow. 2013. Long-Term 

Monitoring of an Endangered Desert Fish and Factors Influencing Population Dynamics. 

Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management 4:163-177. 

Yackulic, C. B., M. D. Yard, J. Korman, and D. R. Van Haverbeke. 2014. A quantitative life 

history of endangered humpback chub that spawn in the Little Colorado River: variation in 

movement, growth, and survival. Ecology and Evolution 4:1006-1018. 

E.3. Publications in progress 

Dodrill, M., C. B. Yackulic, B. Gerig, W. E. Pine, III, J. Korman, C. Finch in review. Do 

Management Actions to Restore Rare Habitat Benefit Native Fish Conservation? Distribution 

of Juvenile Native Fish among Shoreline Habitats of the Colorado River. River Research and 

Applications 

Dzul, M., C. B. Yackulic, D. M. Stone, D. R. Van Haverbeke in review. Survival, growth, and 

movement of age 1-2 humpback chub, Gila cypha, in the Little Colorado River, Arizona. 

River Research and Applications 

Ward, D.L. and others. In review. A laboratory evaluation of tagging related mortality and tag 

loss in juvenile humpback chub, Gila cypha. North American Journal of Fisheries 

Management. 

Ward, D.L. and R. Morton-Starner. In prep. Effects of water temperature and fish size on 

predation vulnerability of humpback chub to rainbow and brown trout. 

Yackulic, C. B. and others. In prep. Vital rate estimation sheds light on the relative importance 

of altered habitat and introduced rainbow trout in the decline and recovery of an endangered 

fish, humpback chub. 

E.4. Presentations at GCDAMP meetings 

Dzul and others (2014) Variation in vital rates of age 1 humpback chub Gila cypha in the Little 

Colorado River. Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program Annual Reporting 

Meeting, Phoenix, AZ. POSTER – TWG and AMWG meetings. 

Morton-Starner, R. and D.L. Ward (2014). An experimental evaluation of competition between 

rainbow trout and humpback chub. Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program 

Annual Reporting Meeting, Phoenix, AZ. POSTER. 

Yackulic C.B. and others (2013) Recent advances in population modeling, preliminary estimates, 

and their relevance to BO triggers. Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program 

Annual Reporting Meeting, Phoenix, AZ. PRESENTATION – TWG. 
283 

Yackulic C.B. and others (2014) Results from Colorado River Study Site and ongoing population 

modeling. Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program Annual Reporting Meeting, 

Phoenix, AZ. PRESENTATION – TWG. 

Yackulic C.B. and others (2014) LTEMP modelling results for humpback chub and trout. 

LTEMP stakeholders workshop, Phoenix, AZ. PRESENTATION – LTEMP. 

Yackulic C.B. and others (2014) LTEMP modelling results for humpback chub and trout and 

follow up. LTEMP Consensus discussions, Phoenix, AZ. PRESENTATION – LTEMP. 

Ward, D.L. and R. Morton-Starner (2014). Effects of water temperature and fish size on 

predation vulnerability of humpback chub to rainbow and brown trout. Glen Canyon Dam 

Adaptive Management Program Annual Reporting Meeting, Phoenix, AZ. POSTER – TWG 

and AMWG meetings. 

E.5. Presentations at professional meetings 

Dzul M. and others (2013) Assessing variation through space and time in the vital rates of 

humpback chub in the Little Colorado River. Desert Fishes Council – Flagstaff, AZ. 

Dzul M. and others (2014) Spatial and temporal variation in vital rates of an endangered fish in a 

desert stream. Ecological Society of Ameria – Sacramento, CA. 

Morton-Starner, R. and D.L. Ward (2014). An experimental evaluation of competition between 

rainbow trout and humpback chub. Desert Fishes Council – Flagstaff, AZ. 

Yackulic C.B. and others (2012) Movement and growth in humpback chub: Using multistate 

models for inference from a mixed batch and individual tag dataset. Ecological Society of 

America – Portland, OR. 

Yackulic C.B. and others (2013) Variation in vital rates in a doubly partially migratory system: 

Humpback chub in the lower Colorado River. Euring Analytical conference – Athens, GA. 

Yackulic C.B. and others (2013) Disentangling residency and migration in a partial migratory 

system where detection is much less than one. Ecological Society of America – Minneapolis, 

MN. 

Yackulic C.B. and others (2013) A quantitative life history of humpback chub that spawn in the 

Little Colorado River: variation in movement, growth and survival. Desert Fishes Council – 

Flagstaff, AZ. 

Ward, D.L. and R. Morton-Starner. Effects of water temperature and turbidity on predation 

vulnerability of juvenile humpback chub to rainbow trout and brown trout. Desert Fishes 

Council – Flagstaff, AZ. 

F. References 

Alabaster, J.S., Herbert, D.W.H., and He-mens, J., 1957, The survival of rainbow trout (Salmo 

gairdneri Richardson) and perch (Perca fluviatilis L.) at various concentrations of dissolved 

oxygen and carbon dioxide: Annals of Applied Biology, v. 45, p. 177-188. 

Baumann , H., Talmage,S.C., and Gobler, C.J., 2012, Reduced early life growth and survival in a 

fish in direct response to increased carbon dioxide: Nature Climate Change, v. 2, p. 38-41. 

Basu, S.P., 1959, Active respiration of fish in relation to ambient concentrations of oxygen and 

carbon dioxide: Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada, v. 16, no. 2, p. 175-212. 

Coggins, L.G., Jr., Pine, W.E., III, Walters, C.J., and Martell, S.J.D., 2006, Age-structured markrecapture analysis--a virtual population-analysis-based model for analyzing age-structured 

capture-recapture data: North American Journal of Fisheries Management, v. 26, no. 1, 

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1577/M05-133.1. 
284 

Coggins, L.G., Jr., and Walters, C.J., 2009, Abundance trends and status of the Little Colorado 

River population of humpback chub--an update considering data from 1989-2008: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 2009-1075, 18 p., http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1075/. 

Cross, W.F., Baxter, C.V., Donner, K.C., Rosi-Marshall, E.J., Kennedy, T.A., Hall, R.O., Jr., 

Wellard-Kelly, H.A., and Rogers, R.S., 2011, Ecosystem ecology meets adaptive 

management--food web response to a controlled flood on the Colorado River, Glen Canyon: 

Ecological Applications, v. 21, no. 6, p. 2016-2033, 

http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/10-1719.1. 

Fisher, S.G., Gray, L.J., Grimm, N.B., and Busch, D.E., 1982, Temporal succession in a desert 

stream ecosystem following flash flooding: Ecological Monographs, v. 52, no. 1, p. 93-110, 

http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/2937346.pdf. 

Granath, W.O., Jr., and Esch, G.W., 1983, Seasonal dynamics of Bothriocephalus acheilognathi

in ambient and thermally altered areas of a North Carolina cooling reservoir: Proceedings of 

the Helminthological Society Washington, v. 50, no. 2, p. 205-218, 

http://bionames.org/bionames-archive/issn/0018-0130/50/205.pdf. 

Heinen, J.M., Hankins, J.A., Weber, A.L., and Watten, B.J., 1969, A semiclosed recirculatingwater system for high- density culture of rainbow trout: The Progressive Fish-Culturist, v. 58, 

p. 11-22. 

Hoffman, G.L., and Schubert, G., 1984, Some parasites of exotic fishes, in Courtenay, W.R.J., 

and Stauffer, J.R.J., eds., Distribution, biology, and management of exotic fishes: Baltimore, 

Md., Johns Hopkins University Press, p. 233-261. 

Kaeding, L.R., and Zimmerman, M.A., 1983, Life history and ecology of the humpback chub in 

the Little Colorado and Colorado Rivers of the Grand Canyon: Transactions of the American 

Fisheries Society, v. 112, no. 5, p. 577-594, http://dx.doi.org/10.1577/1548-

8659(1983)112<577:LHAEOT>2.0.CO;2. 

Mattes, W.P., 1993, An evaluation of habitat conditions and species composition above, in and 

below the Atomizer Falls complex of the Little Colorado River: Tucson, University of 

Arizona, M.S. thesis, 105 p. 

Meretsky, V.J., Valdez, R.A., Douglas, M.E., Brouder, M.J., Gorman, O.T., and Marsh, P.C., 

2000, Spatiotemporal variation in length-weight relationships of endangered humpback chub-

-implications for conservation and management: Transactions of the American Fisheries 

Society, v. 129, no. 2, p. 419-428, http://dx.doi.org/10.1577/1548-

8659(2000)129<0419:SVILWR>2.0.CO;2. 

Minckley, C.O., 1996, Observations on the biology of the humpback chub in the Colorado River 

Basin, 1980-1990: Flagstaff, Northern Arizona University, Ph.D. dissertation, 218 p. 

Robinson, A.T., Kubly, D.M., Clarkson, R.W., and Creef, E.D., 1996, Factors limiting the 

distribution of native fishes in the Little Colorado River, Grand Canyon, Arizona: The 

Southwestern Naturalist, v. 41, no. 4, p. 378-387, http://www.jstor.org/stable/30055194. 

Schäperclaus, W., 1986, Fish diseases, Vol. 2: Berlin, Akademie-Verlag. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2002, Humpback chub (Gila cypha) recovery goals--amendment 

and supplement to the humpback chub recovery plan: Denver, Colo., U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Mountain-Prairie Region 6. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2011, Final biological opinion on the operation of Glen Canyon 

Dam including high flow experiments and non-native fish control: Phoenix, Ariz., submitted 

to Bureau of Reclamation, Salt Lake City, Utah, 150 p. 

Van Haverbeke, D.R., Stone, D.M., Coggins, L.G., and Pillow, M.J., 2013, Long-term 

monitoring of an endangered desert fish and factors influencing population dynamics: 
285 

Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management, v. 4, no. 1, p. 163-177, 

http://dx.doi.org/10.3996/082012-JFWM-071. 

Walters, C.J., and Martell, S.J.D., 2004, Fisheries ecology and management: Princeton, N.J., 

Princeton University Press. 

Ward, D.L., 2007, Removal and quantification of Asian tapeworm from bonytail chub using 

Praziquantel: North American Journal of Aquaculture, v.69, p. 207-210. 

Yackulic, C.B., Yard, M.D., Korman, J., and Van Haverbeke, D.R., 2014, A quantitative life 

history of endangered humpback chub that spawn in the Little Colorado River--variation in 

movement, growth, and survival: Ecology and Evolution, v. 4, p. 1006-1018.
286 

G. Budget

Core activities

Support implementation and

evaluation of HFE Protocol and

Non‐Native Fish Control

Technical and analytical

innovations in monitoring

Improving predictive modeling

capacity

Resolving scientific uncertainty

Independent science oversight

and review

Integrating tribes in monitoring

and research

Project Identifier Project Description Salaries Travel & Training Operating Expenses Logistics Coop‐ erators (non‐USGS) USGS Coop‐erators USGS/SBSC Burden 

7

Population Ecology of

Humpback Chub in and

around the Little Colorado

River

$508,600 $15,000 $61,100 $262,300 $555,000 $0 $149,100 

X 7.1

Annual spring/fall humpback

chub abundance estimates in the

lower 13.6 km of the Little

Colorado River

Persons et al. $23,200 $0 $15,500 $90,800 $370,000 $0 $31,30

X 7.2

Juvenile chub monitoring in the

mainstem near the Little Colorado

River confluence

Yard et al. $93,600 $0 $8,900 $135,800 $170,000 $0 $42,40

X 7.3

July Little Colorado River juvenile

humpback chub marking to

estimate production and

outmigration

Dzul et al. $62,500 $4,000 $5,400 $24,800 $0 $0 $15,100 

X 7.4 Remote PIT tag array monitoring in the LCR Persons $34,700 $0 $3,500 $3,600 $5,000 $0 $6,70

X 7.5 Food web monitoring in the Little Colorado River Muehlbauer et al. $114,800 $2,000 $1,000 $4,200 $0 $0 $19,100 

X 7.6

Potential for gravel substrate

limitation for humpback chub

reproduction in the LCR

Dzul et al. $5,400 $500 $1,000 $3,100 $0 $0 $1,60

X 7.7

Evaluate CO2 as a limiting factor

early life history stages of

humpback chub in the Little

Colorado River

Ward and

Stone $53,500 $3,000 $17,500 $0 $10,000 $0 $11,90

X 7.8

Evaluate effects of Asian

tapeworm infestation on Juvenile

humpback chub

Ward $11,000 $2,000 $1,500 $0 $0 $0 $2,30

X 7.9

Development of a non‐lethal tool

to assess the physiological

condition of humpback chub in

the Colorado and Little Colorado

Rivers

Dibble et al. $27,900 $1,500 $6,700 $0 $0 $0 $5,60

X X 7.10 Humpback chub population modelling Yackulic and Dzul $82,000 $2,000 $100 $0 $0 $0 $13,100 

Monitoring Research

FY15
287 

Core activities

Support implementation and

evaluation of HFE Protocol and

Non‐Native Fish Control

Technical and analytical

innovations in monitoring

Improving predictive modeling

capacity

Resolving scientific uncertainty

Independent science oversight

and review

Integrating tribes in monitoring

and research

Project Identifier Project Description Salaries Travel & Training Operating Expenses Logistics Coop‐ erators (non‐USGS) USGS Coop‐erato

7

Population Ecology of

Humpback Chub in and

around the Little Colorado

River

$603,400 $13,300 $52,400 $267,900 $555,000 

X 7.1

Annual spring/fall humpback

chub abundance estimates in the

lower 13.6 km of the Little

Colorado River

Persons et al. $26,900 $0 $8,300 $98,100 $370,000 

X 7.2

Juvenile chub monitoring in the

mainstem near the Little Colorado

River confluence

Yard et al. $96,700 $0 $9,000 $135,800 $170,000 

X 7.3

July Li ttle Colorado River juvenile

humpback chub marking to

estimate production and

outmigration

Dzul et al. $60,900 $4,000 $5,300 $26,800 $0 

X 7.4 Remote PIT tag array monitoring in the LCR Persons $79,900 $0 $3,500 $3,900 $5,000 

X 7.5 Food web monitoring in the Li ttle Colorado River Muehlbauer et al. $70,000 $2,000 $0 $0 $0 

X 7.6

Potential for gravel substrate

limitation for humpback chub

reproduction in the LCR

Dzul et al. $5,600 $300 $1,000 $3,300 $0 

X 7.7

Evaluate CO2 as a limi ting factor

early li fe history stages of

humpback chub in the Little

Colorado River

Ward and

Stone $59,500 $3,000 $18,000 $0 $10,000 

X 7.8

Evaluate effects of Asian

tapeworm infestation on Juvenile

humpback chub

Ward $11,300 $2,000 $500 $0 $0 

X 7.9

Development of a non‐lethal tool

to assess the physiological

condition of humpback chub in

the Colorado and Little Colorado

Rivers

Dibble et al. $71,600 $0 $6,700 $0 $0 

X X 7.10 Humpback chub population modelling Yackulic and Dzul $121,000 $2,000 $100 $0 $0 

Monitoring Research

FY16
288 

Core activities

Support implementation and

evaluation of HFE Protocol and

Non‐Native Fish Control

Technical and analytical

innovations in monitoring

Improving predictive modeling

capacity

Resolving scientific uncertainty

Independent science oversight

and review

Integrating tribes in

monitoring and research

Project Identifier Project Description Salaries Travel & Training Operating Expenses Logistics Coop‐ erators (non‐USGS) USGS Coop‐erato

7

Population Ecology of

Humpback Chub in and

around the Little Colorado

River

$587,000 $13,300 $52,500 $168,200 $435,000 

X 7.1

Annual spring/fall humpback

chub abundance estimates in the

lower 13.6 km of the Little

Colorado River

Persons et al. $22,400 $0 $8,400 $105,300 $370,000 

X 7.2

Juvenile chub monitoring in the

mainstem near the Little Colorado

River confluence

Yard et al. $67,100 $0 $9,000 $26,300 $50,000 

X 7.3

July Li ttle Colorado River juvenile

humpback chub marking to

estimate production and

outmigration

Dzul et al. $63,600 $4,000 $5,300 $28,800 $0 

X 7.4 Remote PIT tag array monitoring in the LCR Persons $108,000 $0 $3,500 $4,200 $5,000 

X 7.5 Food web monitoring in the Li ttle Colorado River Muehlbauer et al. $0 $2,000 $0 $0 $0 

X 7.6

Potential for gravel substrate

limitation for humpback chub

reproduction in the LCR

Dzul et al. $5,900 $300 $1,000 $3,600 $0 

X 7.7

Evaluate CO2 as a limi ting factor

early li fe history stages of

humpback chub in the Little

Colorado River

Ward and

Stone $71,400 $3,000 $18,000 $0 $10,000 

X 7.8

Evaluate effects of Asian

tapeworm infestation on Juvenile

humpback chub

Ward $11,900 $2,000 $500 $0 $0 

X 7.9

Development of a non‐lethal tool

to assess the physiological

condition of humpback chub in

the Colorado and Little Colorado

Rivers

Dibble et al. $74,400 $0 $6,700 $0 $0 

X X 7.10 Humpback chub population modelling Yackulic and Dzul $162,300 $2,000 $100 $0 $0 

FY17

Monitoring Research
289 

Monitoring: Core activities 

Research: Resolving scientific uncertainty 

Independent science oversight and review 

Project 8. Experimental Actions to Increase Abundance 

and Distribution of Native Fishes in Grand Canyon 

Initial Estimate: FY15: $184,500; FY16: $226,500; FY17: $296,100 

GCDAMP Funding: FY15: $184,500; FY16: $210,600; FY17: $281,300 

A. Investigators 

David Ward, Fishery Biologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center 

William Persons, Fishery Biologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center 

Brian Healy, Fishery Biologist, National Park Service, Grand Canyon National Park 

Clay Nelson, Fishery Biologist, National Park Service, Grand Canyon National Park 

Emily Omana, Fishery Biologist, National Park Service, Grand Canyon National Park 

Kirk Young, Fishery Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Office 

Dennis Stone, Fishery Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Office 

David R. VanHaverbeke, Fishery Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Fish and 

Wildlife Conservation Office 

David Rogowski, Fisheries Biologist, Arizona Game and Fish Department 

Scott VanderKooi, Supervisory Biologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring 

and Research Center 

B. Project Summary 

This project encompasses two ongoing management actions and two new projects, all 

designed to increase survival of juvenile native fishes in Grand Canyon. In addition, we propose 

to convene a protocol evaluation panel comprised of external experts to conduct a review of the 

fisheries research, monitoring, and management actions conducted in support of the Glen 

Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP). In FY15–17 we will continue 

ongoing mechanical removal of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and brown trout (Salmo 

trutta) using electrofishing near the confluence of Bright Angel creek, in support of Grand 

Canyon National Park’s goals to reduce nonnative fish abundance in and around Bright Angel 

Creek for the benefit of juvenile native fish. We will also continue to translocate juvenile 

humpback chub (Gila cypha) annually from the Little Colorado River (LCR) into areas within 

the LCR and continue to support translocation efforts into Havasu Creek and Shinumo Creek, to 

increase survival and distribution of humpback chub. In FY16 or FY17 we will participate in a 

review by external experts of these activities and other fisheries projects (see Projects 6, 7, and 

9). The review of Project 8 activities will emphasize evaluation of the effectiveness of these 

experimental actions in meeting GCDAMP or National Park Service (NPS) goals and objectives 

as appropriate, and the panelists will be asked to make recommendations as to how projects can 
290 

be adapted to meet project goals and objectives and whether the continuation of these efforts are 

warranted in future years. NPS will also consider the review panel’s recommendations, but any 

changes in implementation are under the discretion of the NPS consistent with the 

Comprehensive Fish Management Plan for Grand Canyon National Park (NPS, 2013). This 

project also includes two new project elements that will inform future potential management 

actions: 1). An assessment of invasive aquatic species within the LCR drainage, to evaluate 

potential risks to humpback chub populations and 2.) Genetic monitoring of humpback chub to 

confirm that ongoing management activities do not have detrimental effects on the genetics of 

the Grand Canyon population of this endangered species. 

C. Background 

Fish populations are typically limited by survival and recruitment of juvenile fish (Myers 

1995). Endangered humpback chub in Grand Canyon are also believed to be limited by survival 

and recruitment of juvenile fish (Coggins and Walters, 2009; Hayden and others, 2012; Limburg 

and others, 2013). Management actions for humpback chub have focused on trying to reduce 

predation mortality of juvenile fish by either mechanically removing predatory trout from the 

mainstem Colorado River, or by translocating juvenile humpback chub from the lower LCR into 

other areas to improve growth and subsequent survival. Predation mortality in fish is highly size 

dependent with smaller fish being much more vulnerable to predation than larger individuals 

(Bailey and Houde, 1989). Increases in growth rate generally leads to higher survival and less 

predation mortality (Tonn and Paszkowski, 1992). These general patterns are also true for 

humpback chub in Grand Canyon (Ward and Morton-Starner, in prep). Translocation of juvenile 

humpback chub from the LCR into other areas with lower fish densities and higher food 

abundance is one way to increase growth rates and potentially increase subsequent survival. 

Experimental actions to benefit native fishes that were funded in the USGS Grand Canyon 

Monitoring and Research Center’s FY13–14 workplan included a collaborative effort with the 

National Park Service (NPS) to mechanically remove trout from the Colorado River mainstem 

near the confluence of Bright Angel Creek and a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service led project to 

translocate juvenile humpback chub from the LCR into areas above the Chute/Atomizer Falls 

complex, within the LCR. Support was also provided for NPS efforts to collect juvenile 

humpback chub from the LCR for translocation into Shinumo and Havasu Creeks. 

C.1. Management Background 

Humpback chub have declined in both abundance and distribution likely because of 

interactions with nonnative species and the alteration of flow and temperature regimes caused by 

construction and operation of Glen Canyon Dam (Minckley and Marsh, 2009). Introduced 

rainbow trout and brown trout are known to prey upon juvenile native fish, including humpback 

chub, in Grand Canyon (Yard and others, 2011). Predation by these nonnative species may 

adversely affect native fishes at a population level. To reduce potential predation on humpback 

chub, electrofishing was used to mechanically remove nonnative fish from the Colorado River 

near the confluence with the LCR, from 2003–2006, and again in 2009 (Coggins and others, 

2011). Humpback chub abundance increased following removal efforts, but system-wide 

decreases in rainbow trout and drought induced increases in water temperature occurred during 

the same period making it difficult to determine which factors were responsible for increased 

native fish abundance (Coggins and others, 2011). 
291 

Brown trout are of particular concern for native fishes in Grand Canyon because of their 

highly piscivorous nature (Yard and others, 2011, Ward and Morton-Starner, in prep, Whiting et 

al. 2014). The highest densities of brown trout in Grand Canyon occur in or near Bright Angel 

Creek (Makinster and others, 2010). Large numbers of brown trout in this area may be limiting 

native fish abundance, including humpback chub, locally as well as downstream. This idea is 

based on the hypothesis that most of the humpback chub inhabiting western Grand Canyon are 

produced within the LCR and disperse downstream. If the bottleneck to dispersal and recruitment 

of humpback chub or other native fish species in western Grand Canyon is occurring near the 

confluence of Bright Angel Creek because of brown trout predation, then removing brown trout 

from this area could increase the number of native fish that inhabit downstream reaches. 

Removal of rainbow trout and brown trout in the mainstem Colorado River near the confluence 

of Bright Angel Creek occurred in 2013. The effectiveness of this experimental action cannot be 

adequately evaluated without at least two to three more years of removal effort so is planned to 

occur in FY15-17. The 2013 High Flow Experiment (HFE) caused mechanical removal efforts at 

Bright Angel Creek to be reduced from 10 depletions to 5 depletions, and high turbidity 

throughout much of the removal effort reduced capture efficiency significantly such that only 

1,851 fish were removed (Nelson and others, 2014). The possibility of another HFE in 

November 2014 led us to reconsider the timing of removals in FY15 and begin discussions with 

the National Park Service to conduct this action later in the fiscal year. Mainstem mechanical 

removal of nonnative fish near the confluence of the LCR is a prescriptive management action 

that is only implemented when a set of criteria outlined in the 2011 Biological Opinion for 

Operation of Glen Canyon Dam (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2011) are met, but mainstem 

mechanical removal near the confluence of Bright Angel Creek is being evaluated as an 

experimental action as described in the Comprehensive Fisheries Management Plan for Grand 

Canyon National Park (NPS, 2013). 

Efforts to translocate humpback chub upstream of Chute Falls in the LCR and to monitor 

their status have been ongoing annually since 2003. Approximately 2,363 juvenile (70-130 mm 

total length; TL) humpback chub have been translocated upstream of Chute Falls through 2013. 

In 2003, the action was identified as a voluntary conservation action to offset potential impacts 

on humpback chub from proposed experimental releases from Glen Canyon Dam and mainstem 

mechanical removal of nonnative fish. Since 2012, translocation and monitoring efforts of 

humpback chub in this upper portion of the LCR corridor have been incorporated as a 

conservation measure in the recent Final Biological Opinion on the Operation of Glen Canyon 

Dam (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2011). 

C.2 Key Monitoring and Research Questions Addressed in this Project 

This project addresses two Adaptive Management Work Group (AMWG) priority Questions 

1: Why are humpback chub not thriving? and 2: What are the most limiting factors to successful 

humpback chub adult recruitment in the mainstem Colorado River? 

This project directly addresses the following Strategic Science Questions (SSQs), Core 

Monitoring Information Needs (CMINs), Science advisory summary questions (SA), and 

Research Information Needs (RINs) previously identified by the GCDAMP in the 2007 Grand 

Canyon Monitoring and Research Plan: 

Primary SSQ addressed: 

 SSQB2. What are the most effective strategies and control methods to limit nonnative 

fish predation on, and competition with native fishes? 
292 

Primary Core Monitoring Information Needs addressed: 

 CMIN SA 1. Which of the following are the most limiting factors to successful HBC 

adult recruitment in the mainstem: spawning success, predation on YoY and juveniles, 

habitat (water, temperature), pathogens, adult maturation, food availability, or 

competition? 

Research Information Needs addressed: 

 RIN 2.4. To what degree, which species, and where in the system are exotic fish a 

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

This project will answer the following key questions about impacts of nonnative fish on 

native fish within Grand Canyon: 

1. What is the efficacy and feasibility of using electrofishing to control brown trout 

populations through a coordinated mainstem and tributary removal effort in and around 

Bright Angel Creek. 

2. Does brown trout removal have a measurable positive effect on native fish abundance 

and distribution in the mainstem near Bright Angel Creek or within Bright Angel Creek? 

3. Can translocation of Juvenile Humpback chub from the Little Colorado River into 

uninhabited locations increase survival and recruitment of juvenile chub? 

D. Proposed Work 

D.1. Project Elements 

Project Element 8.1. Efficacy and Ecological Impacts of Trout Removal at Bright Angel Creek 

David Ward, Fishery Biologist, USGS, GCMRC 

Mike Yard, Fishery Biologist, USGS, GCMRC 

Brian Healy, Fishery Biologist, NPS, Grand Canyon National Park 

Emily Omana, Fishery Biologist, NPS, Grand Canyon National Park 

Clay Nelson, Fishery Biologist, NPS, Grand Canyon National Park 

The objective of this project is to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of mechanical 

(electrofishing) trout removal in meeting NPS management goals for Bright Angel Creek and the 

Bright Angel Creek inflow reach, and to assess the response of native fish to trout removal. This 

project is being conducted in close collaboration with Grand Canyon National Park, consistent 

with the NPS Comprehensive Fisheries Management Plan and related compliance documents. 

The mainstem trout removal treatment is part of a multi-year, comprehensive experimental trout 

removal treatment using mechanical removal that began in 2013. This treatment will be applied 

to the mainstem Colorado River and will complement ongoing NPS efforts in Bright Angel 

Creek (i.e., weir operation and electrofishing). The objective is to significantly reduce trout 

abundance by 80% (NPS 2013). Removal in the Colorado River mainstem will occur in a 8.45 

km (5.25 mile) reach of Upper Granite Gorge (river miles 85 to 90) using electrofishing 

depletion methods similar to those used from 2003 to 2006 at the confluence of the LCR 

(Coggins and others, 2011). Electrofishing removals on the mainstem Colorado River will occur 

during the fall-winter season concurrent with weir and multi-pass backpack electrofishing 
293 

operations within Bright Angel Creek from October to March. Efforts in the mainstem will 

consist of 5 to 10-pass depletions with a single pass occurring over the entire study area in two 

nights (amount of effort based on calculated capture probabilities with a goal of 75% reduction 

in trout numbers). It has been estimated that each trip will consist of 10-20 nights of sampling. 

All electrofishing will be conducted at night using two 16’ sport boats outfitted for electrofishing 

with a Coffelt® or equivalent CPS unit with one netter per boat. Large numbers of trout (> 2,000 

fish) are likely to be removed. These fish will be put to beneficial use as described in the 

Comprehensive Fish Management Plan for Grand Canyon National Park (NPS, 2013), and 

pursuant to the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the NPS and Arizona State Historic 

Preservation Officer, and through continued consultation with Traditionally Associated Tribes. 

To determine efficacy and ecological consequences of trout removal, densities and conditions of 

native fishes will be monitored by NPS and the USGS Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research 

Center (GCMRC) in Bright Angel Creek and the Bright Angel Inflow reach. Continued native 

fish monitoring (see Project Element 6.4), both within the removal area and in other areas 

downstream, are needed to assess if increased dispersal of native fish is occurring as a result of 

removal efforts. This project was initiated in 2013–2014 (Nelson and others, 2014) and we 

propose that this experimental management action be continued in FY15 with possible extension 

through FY17. 

Project Element 8.2. Translocation and monitoring of Humpback chub above Chute Falls in the Little Colorado 

River 

Dennis Stone, Fishery Biologist, USFWS, Arizona Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office 

D. R. VanHaverbeke, Fishery Biologist, USFWS, Arizona Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office 

Kirk Young, Fishery Biologist, USFWS, Arizona Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office 

Brian Healy, Fishery Biologist, NPS, Grand Canyon National Park 

William Persons, Fishery Biologist, USGS, GCMRC 

The objective of this project is to increase the survival of up to 1,000 juvenile humpback 

chub annually by translocating them from the lower Little Colorado River (LCR) into areas 

above the Chute /Atomizer Falls complex in the LCR or into Shinumo Creek or Havasu Creeks. 

These locations all have low densities of large-bodied fish and high food abundance (Robinson 

and others 1996; Spurgeon, 2012), which would presumably lead to increased growth rates and 

higher likelihood of survival. In the December 2002 and November 2004 Biological Opinions on 

the proposed experimental releases from Glen Canyon Dam and removal of nonnative fish 

within the Colorado River, a conservation action was identified to relocate approximately 300 

humpback chub (50-100 mm TL) in 2003 and 2004, and another 600 fish in 2005 from near the 

LCR confluence to an upstream LCR reach above Chute Falls that was previously unoccupied by 

this species. Additional translocations ensued following the recommendations of other 

Biological Opinions. Translocation and monitoring efforts of humpback chub in this upper 

portion of the LCR corridor have since been incorporated as a conservation measure in the recent 

Final Biological Opinion on the Operation of Glen Canyon Dam Including High Flow 

Experiments and Non-Native Fish Control (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2011). Through 

2013, 2,363 juvenile (50–130 mm TL) humpback chub have been translocated upstream of 

Chute Falls (Stone and others, in prep). From 2003 to 2013, 777 unique humpback chub (i.e., 

counted only once) have been captured above Chute Falls, of which 369 were adults (≥ 200 mm). 

Additionally, 1,540 unique humpback chub (893 were ≥ 200 mm) were captured directly 

downriver in the small 0.5 km Atomizer reach. The rapid growth rates of humpback chub in 
294 

these two reaches may have resulted in many individuals losing their elastomer tags before they 

were recaptured, making it difficult to distinguish the provenance of many of these fish (i.e., 

translocated, progeny, or upriver migrants); however, all humpback chub translocated since 2008 

have been PIT-tagged before being released. From 2006 to 2009, two-pass mark recapture 

population estimates of humpback chub were conducted annually in the Atomizer reach and 

above Chute Falls, after which capture probabilities have been used to estimate the populations. 

Monitoring will continue to occur during the spring, prior to monsoon flooding to evaluate the 

retention and growth rates of translocated humpback chub. 

Project Element 8.3.Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program Fisheries Research, Monitoring, and 

Management Actions Protocol Evaluation Panel 

Scott VanderKooi, Supervisory Biologist, USGS, GCMRC 

Kirk Young, Fishery Biologist, USFWS, Arizona Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office 

Brian Healy, Fishery Biologist, NPS, Grand Canyon National Park 

David Rogowski, Fisheries Biologist, Arizona Game and Fish Department 

An external review panel comprised of scientists with relevant expertise will be convened in 

either FY16 or FY17 to ensure that the quality and relevance of fisheries science being 

conducted by GCMRC and its cooperators is held to the highest of standards. This panel will 

conduct a review of all aspects of the GCRMC fisheries program described in Projects 6, 7, 8, 

and 9 of the FY15–17 workplan. They will make recommendations regarding the scope and 

direction of the program as well as provide an evaluation and recommendations for future work 

with respect to the level of effort, study design, and relevance of individual research activities. 

Project Element 8.4. Little Colorado River Invasive Aquatic Species Surveillance 

Kirk Young, Fishery Biologist, USFWS, Arizona Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office 

Dennis Stone, Fishery Biologist, USFWS, Arizona Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office 

David Ward, Fishery Biologist, USGS, GCMRC 

Bill Persons, Fishery Biologist, USGS, GCMRC 

David Rogowski, Fisheries Biologist, AGFD 

The objective of this project is to identify surveillance sites within the LCR basin upstream 

of Grand Canyon that can provide early detection and response for emerging deleterious invasive 

aquatic species within the LCR drainage. If invasive species deleterious to humpback chub are 

detected, we will develop and implement a rapid response plan. In Arizona, dozens of aquatic 

invasive species have been introduced (fish, mollusks, crustaceans), have expanded distributional 

ranges, and pose a growing threat to native aquatic species. The first line of defense for reducing 

the impact from invasive species is preventing their introduction and establishment. Multiple 

management agencies, notably state wildlife agencies, maintain active invasive species 

prevention programs. Even the best prevention efforts cannot stop all invasive species, and thus, 

early detection, rapid assessment and Rapid Response actions represent a critical second defense. 

In Grand Canyon, the LCR is the largest tributary and primary spawning ground for 

humpback chub, however, the species is limited to the lower 15 km of the system (Douglas and 

Marsh, 1996; Gorman and Stone, 1999). The LCR encompasses a basin of about 8,100 m2

 in 

eastern Arizona and western New Mexico, with its perennial headwaters arising near Mt. Baldy, 

Arizona. Estimates of surface water supply and contemporary cultural depletions by the Arizona 

Department of Water Resources (1989; 1990; 1994) feed approximately 95 reservoirs and 3,700 
295 

stock tanks. Reservoirs and stock tanks are potential sources of invasive species and many drain 

into the LCR or its tributaries. Large quantities of human derived debris in the LCR in Grand 

Canyon illustrate the connectivity of the river in Grand Canyon to upper portions of the 

watershed. Biological connectivity also exists based on the capture of red shiner (Cyprinella 

lutrensis), common carp (Cyprinus carpio), fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas), black 

bullhead (Ameiurus melas), and plains killifish (Fundulus zebrinus) at Grand Falls, all thought to 

have originated hundreds of kilometers upstream (Stone and others, 2007). Conservation success 

of humpback chub in the LCR and Grand Canyon is vulnerable to incursion by invasive aquatic 

species from upstream. 

A Reasonable and Prudent Alternative in the 1995 EIS was to protect humpback chub in the 

LCR by development of a LCR Management Plan (USBR, 1995). A final draft of the plan was 

completed in 2008 (Valdez and Thomas, 2009). This study will augment that plan by providing 

specific information and data concerning sources of non-native fish within the LCR basin. 

Surveillance sites will be assessed based on their likelihood to concentrate/harbor species, 

watershed/sub-watershed reference location, accessibility, ability to be sampled. From 6–12 sites 

will be sampled annually in May-June using passive (entanglement nets, hoop nets) and active 

(seines, electrofishers) gears as appropriate. 

Project Element 8.5. Genetic monitoring of Humpback chub in Grand Canyon 

Kirk Young, Fishery Biologist, USFWS, Arizona Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office Bill 

Persons, Fishery Biologist, USGS, GCMRC 

Wade Wilson, Geneticist, USFWS, Southwest Native Aquatic Resources Research and Recovery 

Center 

The objectives of this project are to monitor genetic changes in the Grand Canyon population 

of humpback chub that may result because of ongoing management activities such as 

translocations. Humpback chub management actions in the lower basin of the Colorado River 

include annual population monitoring, translocations to Shinumo Creek, Havasu Creek, and the 

Chute Falls area of the LCR. In 2008, a refuge population was started at the USFWS Southwest 

Native Aquatic Resources Research and Recovery Center. As a result of these ongoing 

management actions, a small set of fin clip samples (about 30 per reach in the LCR) were taken 

to establish baseline genetic data in the LCR. An initial assessment of the LCR samples indicated 

no biologically meaningful differences between Boulders, Coyote and Salt reaches, but sample 

sizes were low. An initial and provisional assessment of Chute Falls reach showed a significantly 

higher Fst value (increased homozygosity compared to other LCR reaches) which would suggest 

genetic variation between these groups. The source of this difference, however, is uncertain. It is 

possible that the difference was due to sample error (sample size 40), or it may have indicated 

breeding by a small number of adults above Chute Falls being reflected in increased 

homozygosity of the offspring (F1) generation. In any case, funding for analyzing the LCR tissue 

samples has never been procured, and further investigation into such anomalies would appear 

warranted. Although baseline genetics data for humpback chub in the LCR and other mainstem 

aggregations has been collected, the authors of these studies stated unequivocally that sample 

sizes were low and results should be interpreted cautiously (Douglas and Douglas, 2007; 2010; 

Connie-Keeler Foster and Wade Wilson, pers. com.). 

Douglas and Douglas (2007) addressed the genetics of mainstem Colorado River humpback 

chub aggregations in Grand Canyon, and many of the results from their report were published in 

Douglas and Douglas (2010). Based on a sample size of 234 fish collected from nine areas in 
296 

Marble and Grand Canyons, Douglas and Douglas (2010) indicated that humpback chub 

downstream from the LCR were clearly connected by gene flow, and proposed downstream drift 

of larvae and juveniles as the scenario, with the LCR population being the primary source. 

However, contribution from occasional local reproduction by mainstem aggregations could not 

be excluded. Based on excess homozygosity, Douglas and Douglas (2010) specifically stated 

local reproduction may be occasionally occurring at Middle Granite Gorge. To date, this is the 

only baseline genetics data that researchers have concerning mainstem aggregations of 

humpback chub in Grand Canyon. The sample sizes obtained by Douglas and Douglas (2007; 

2010) were generally very small, ranging from 4-26 fish from all aggregations except the LCR (n 

= 77) and Middle Granite Gorge (n = 80). This led Douglas and Douglas (2010) to suggest 

cautionary interpretation of some of their results, and underscores the need for additional 

baseline data. 

Fin clips from approximately 300 humpback chub will be collected annually for DNA 

extraction and genotyping. Samples will be collected throughout the LCR as well as from 

translocated fish and from fish in each of the established mainstem aggregations. It is expected 

that establishing baseline data will take 2–3 years after which only periodic sampling (once every 

3–5 years) would be required. 

D.2 Personnel and Collaborations 

The USGS lead for Project 8 is David Ward, a fishery biologist with GCMRC with expertise 

in native non-native fish interactions. Dr. Michael Yard is a fishery biologist with GCMRC with 

extensive experience in non-native fish removal projects. Brian Healy, Clay Nelson, and Emily 

Omana are fishery biologists with Grand Canyon National Park with extensive experience in 

non-native fish removal and native fish translocation projects who will provide expertise and 

guidance for the Trout Removal project (8.1) and the Chute Falls Translocation Project (8.2). 

Kirk Young, Dennis Stone, and David R. VanHaverbeke are fishery biologists with the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service and will provide data, analysis and reporting on the Chute Falls 

Translocation project (8.2). Kirk Young has extensive fisheries management experience and will 

lead the Little Colorado River Invasive Aquatic Species Surveillance project (8.4). Dr. Wade 

Wilson is a geneticist with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Southwest Native Aquatic 

Resources Research and Recovery Center and will expertise on the genetic monitoring of 

humpback chub (8.5). Dr. David Rogowski is a fisheries biologist with Arizona Game and Fish 

Department with expertise in aquatic ecology and conservation biology of fish and will provide 

research and management experience to the project elements in Project 8 including contributions 

to the Protocol Evaluation Panel review. Scott VanderKooi is the Deputy Chief and a 

supervisory biologist with GCMRC and will lead the Protocol Evaluation Panel review (Project 

8.3). 

D.3 Deliverables 

Project elements will produce annual progress reports submitted to GCMRC and peer 

reviewed publications at project completions. 
297 

E. Productivity from Past Work (during FY 13–14) 

E.1. Data Products 

Healy, B., C. Nelson, E. O. Smith, and A. Martin. Bright Angel Creek Trout Control Project. 

National park Service Trip Report. February 2013. 

Nelson C., D. Ward, B. Healy, and E. O. Smith. Bright Angel Creek inflow trout reduction pilot 

study. Trip report submitted to GCMRC. February 2014. 

Stone D. Summer 2013 monitoring and translocation of humpback chub (Gila cypha) above 

Lower Atomizer falls in the Little Colorado River, Arizona. Trip Report submitted to 

GCMRC. July 2013. 

Spurgeon, J. J., C. P. Paukert, B. D. Healy, C. A. Kelley, D. P. Whiting. 2014. Can translocated 

native fishes retain their trophic niche when confronted with a resident invasive? Ecology of 

Freshwater Fish 2014: 1-11. Doi: 10.1111/eff.12160. 

Whiting, D. P., C. P. Paukert, B. D. Healy, and J. J. Spurgeon. 2014. Macroinvertebrate prey 

availability and food web dynamics of nonnative trout in a Colorado River tributary, Grand 

Canyon. Freshwater Science, Published online May 7, 2014 (in press). 

Pine, W. E., III, B. Healy, E. Omana Smith, M. Trammell, D. Speas, R. Valdez, M. Yard, C. 

Walters, R. Ahrens, R. Van Haverbeke, D. Stone, W. Wilson. 2013. An individual-based 

model for population viability analysis of humpback chub in Grand Canyon. North American 

Journal of Fisheries Management 33:626-641. 

E.2. Publications in progress 

Stone D., D. Van Haverbeke, M. Pillow, J. Walters, M. Cantrell, and K. Young. Translocation of 

Endangered Humpback Chub above Chute Falls in the Little Colorado River, Arizona. In 

prep . North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 

Ward, D.L. and others. In review. A laboratory evaluation of tagging related mortality and tag 

loss in juvenile humpback chub, Gila cypha. In Review. North American Journal of Fisheries 

Management. 

Ward, D.L. and R. Morton-Starner. In prep. Effects of water temperature and fish size on 

predation vulnerability of humpback chub to rainbow and brown trout. 

E.3. Presentations at GCDAMP meetings 

Morton-Starner, R. and D.L. Ward. 2014. An experimental evaluation of competition between 

rainbow trout and humpback chub. Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program 

Annual Reporting Meeting, Phoenix, AZ. POSTER. 

Ward, D.L. and R. Morton-Starner. 2014. Effects of water temperature and fish size on 

predation vulnerability of humpback chub to rainbow and brown trout. Glen Canyon Dam 

Adaptive Management Program Annual Reporting Meeting, Phoenix, AZ. POSTER – TWG 

and AMWG meetings. 

E.4. Presentations at professional meetings 

Morton-Starner, R. and D. L. Ward 2014. An experimental evaluation of competition between 

rainbow trout and humpback chub. Desert Fishes Council – Flagstaff, AZ. 

Stone D. M. Translocation of Humpback Chub above Chute Falls in the Little Colorado River, 

Arizona. The 47th Joint Annual Meeting of the Arizona/New Mexico Chapter of the 

American Fisheries Society, Hon-Dah Resort and Casino, Pinetop, Arizona. February 2014. 
298 

Ward, D. L. and R. Morton-Starner. Effects of water temperature and turbidity on predation 

vulnerability of juvenile humpback chub to rainbow trout and brown trout. Desert Fishes 

Council – Flagstaff, AZ. 

F. References 

Arizona Department of Water Resources, 1989, Hydrology of the Little Colorado River system--

special report to the settlement committee, in The general adjudication of the Little Colorado 

River system and source: Phoenix, Arizona Department of Water Resources. 

Arizona Department of Water Resources, 1990, Hydrographic survey report for the Silver Creek 

watershed, vol. I--general assessment, filed with the court November 30, 1990. 

Arizona Department of Water Resources, 1994, Little Colorado River settlement committee 

group “A”--in-basin negotiating committee assessment of Chevelon Creek, Clear Creek, and 

Jacks Canyon watersheds. 

Bailey, K.M., and Houde, E.D., 1989, Predation on early developmental stages of marine fishes 

and the recruitment problem: Advances in Marine Biology v. 25, p. 1–83. 

Coggins, L.G., Jr., and Walters, C.J., 2009, Abundance trends and status of the Little Colorado 

River population of humpback chub--an update considering data from 1989-2008: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 2009-1075, 18 p., http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1075/. 

Coggins, L.G., Yard, M.D., and Pine, W.E., 2011, Nonnative fish control in the Colorado River 

in Grand Canyon, Arizona--an effective program or serendipitous timing?: Transactions of 

the American Fisheries Society, v. 140, no. 2, p. 456-470, 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00028487.2011.572009. 

Douglas, M.E., and Marsh, P.C., 1996, Population estimates/population movements of Gila 

cypha, an endangered cyprinid fish in the Grand Canyon region of Arizona: Copeia, v. 1996, 

no. 1, p. 15-28, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1446938. 

Douglas, M.R., and Douglas, M.E., 2007, Genetic structure of humpback chub Gila cypha and 

roundtail chub G. robusta in the Colorado River ecosystem--final report: Fort Collins, 

Department of Fish, Wildlife and Conservation Biology, Colorado State University, 99 p., 

http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/07jun25/Attach_04.pdf. 

Douglas, M.R., and Douglas, M.E., 2010, Molecular approaches to stream fish ecology, in Gido, 

K.B., and Jackson, D.A., eds., Community ecology of stream fishes--concepts, approaches, 

and techniques, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, August 19-20, 2008, Proceedings of the American 

Fisheries Society Symposium 73: v. 73, p. 157–195. 

Gorman, O.T., and Stone, D.M., 1999, Ecology of spawning humpback chub, Gila cypha, in the 

Little Colorado River near Grand Canyon, Arizona: Environmental Biology of Fishes, v. 55, 

no. 1-2, p. 115-33, http://www.springerlink.com/content/vq675171n84786p7/. 

Hayden, T.A., Limburg, K.E., and Pine, W.E., III, 2012, Using otolith chemistry tags and growth 

patterns to distinguish movements and provenance of native fish in the Grand Canyon: River 

Research and Applications, v. (online), 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/rra.2627/abstract. 

Makinster, A.S., Persons, W.R., Avery, L.A., and Bunch, A.J., 2010, Colorado River fish 

monitoring in Grand Canyon, Arizona--2000 to 2009 summary: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 2010-1246, 26 p., http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1246/. 

Minckley, W.L., and Marsh, P.C., 2009, Inland fishes of the greater Southwest--chronicle of a 

vanishing biota: Tucson, University of Arizona Press. 
299 

Myers, R., 1995, Recruitment of marine fish—the relative roles of density-dependent and 

density-independent mortality in the egg, larval, and juvenile stages: Marine Ecology 

Progress Series, v. 128, p. 305-310. 

Nelson, C., Ward, D., Healy, B., and Smith, E.O., 2014, Bright Angel Creek inflow trout 

reduction pilot study-- trip report: Flagstaff, Ariz., National Park Service, prepared for the 

Upper Colorado Region, Bureau of Reclamation, interagency agreement no. R12PG40034. 

National Park Service, 2013, Comprehensive fisheries management plan--Grand Canyon 

National Park and Glen Canyon National Recreation area: U.S. Department of the Interior, 

National Park Service. 

Paine, R.T., 1976, Size-limited predation--an observational and experimental approach with the 

Mytilus-Pisaster interaction: Ecology, v. 57, p. 858-873. 

Robinson, A.T., Kubly, D.M., Clarkson, R.W., and Creef, E.D., 1996, Factors limiting the 

distribution of native fishes in the Little Colorado River, Grand Canyon, Arizona: The 

Southwestern Naturalist, v. 41, no. 4, p. 378-387, http://www.jstor.org/stable/30055194. 

Spurgeon, J.J., 2012, Translocation of humpback chub (Gila cypha) and food-web dynamics in 

Grand Canyon National Park tributary streams: Columbia, University of Missouri-Columbia, 

M.S. thesis, 84 p. 

Stone, D.M., Van Haverbeke, D.R., Ward, D.L., and Hunt, T.A., 2007, Dispersal of nonnative 

fishes and parasites in the intermittent Little Colorado River, Arizona: The Southwestern 

Naturalist, v. 52, no. 1, p. 130-137, http://dx.doi.org/10.1894/0038-

4909(2007)52[130:DONFAP]2.0.CO;2. 

Tonn, W.M., and Paszkowski C.A., 1992, Piscivory and recruitment--mechanism structuring 

prey populations in small lakes: Ecology, v. 73, p. 951–958. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, 1995, Operation of Glen Canyon Dam--final environmental 

impact statement, Colorado River storage project, Arizona: Salt Lake City, Utah, Bureau of 

Reclamation, Upper Colorado Regional Office, 337 p., 

http://www.usbr.gov/uc/library/envdocs/eis/gc/pdfs/Cov-con/cov-con.pdf. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2011, Final biological opinion on the operation of Glen Canyon 

Dam including high flow experiments and non-native fish control: Phoenix, Ariz., submitted 

to Bureau of Reclamation, Salt Lake City, Utah, AESO/SE 22410-2011-F-0100, 22410-

2011-F-0112, 150 p., 

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/Biol_Opin/110112_HFE_NNR.pdf. 

Yard, M.D., Coggins, L.G., Baxter, C.V., Bennett, G.E., and Korman, J., 2011, Trout piscivory 

in the Colorado River, Grand Canyon--effects of turbidity, temperature, and fish prey 

availability: Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, v. 140, no. 2, p. 471-486, 

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00028487.2011.572011.
300 

G. Budget 

Core activities

Support implementation and

evaluation of HFE Protocol and

Non‐Native Fish Control

Technical and analytical

innovationsin monitoring

Improving predictive modeling

capacity

Resolving scientific uncertainty

Independent science oversight

and review

Integrating tribesin monitoring

and research

Project Identifier Project Description Salaries Travel & Training Operating Expenses Logistics Coop‐ erators (non‐USGS) USGS Coop‐erato

8

Experimental Actions to

Increase Abundance and

Distribution of Native

Fishes in Grand Canyon

$53,700 $0 $7,500 $37,600 $68,200 

X 8.1 Efficacy and ecological impacts of Trout removal Ward and Healy $49,700 $0 $2,800 $30,400 $0 

X 8.2 Translocation and monitoring above Chute Falls Persons et al. $4,000 $0 $4,700 $7,200 $68,200 

X 8.3 Fisheries Protocol Evaluation Panel (FY16 or FY17) VanderKooi et al. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

X 8.4 Invasive Species Surveillance and Response Young et al. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

X 8.5 Genetic Moni toring of Lower Basin Humpback Chub Wilson et al. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

8

Experimental Actions to

Increase Abundance and

Distribution of Native

Fishes in Grand Canyon

$61,400 $0 $5,100 $45,300 $88,200 

X 8.1 Efficacy and ecological impacts of Trout removal Ward and Healy $57,300 $0 $2,800 $37,500 $0 

X 8.2 Translocation and monitoring above Chute Falls Persons et al. $4,100 $0 $2,300 $7,800 $68,200 

X 8.3 Fisheries Protocol Evaluation Panel (FY16 or FY17) VanderKooi et al. $0 $0 $0 $0 $20,000 

X 8.4 Invasive Species Surveillance and Response Young et al. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

X 8.5 Genetic Moni toring of Lower Basin Humpback Chub Wilson et al. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Monitoring Research

FY15FY16
301 

Core activities

Support implementation and

evaluation of HFE Protocol and

Non‐Native Fish Control

Technical and analytical

innovations in monitoring

Improving predictive modeling

capacity

Resolving scientific uncertainty

Independent science oversight

and review

Integrating tribes in

monitoring and research

Project Identifier Project Description Salaries Travel & Training Operating Expenses Logistics Coop‐ erators (non‐USGS) USGS Coop‐erato

8

Experimental Actions to

Increase Abundance and

Distribution of Native

Fishes in Grand Canyon

$69,400 $0 $6,300 $44,900 $138,200 

X 8.1 Efficacy and ecological impacts of

Trout removal

Ward and

Healy $56,200 $0 $2,800 $37,700 $0 

X 8.2 Translocation and moni toring above Chute Falls Persons et al. $4,400 $0 $2,300 $7,200 $68,200 

X 8.3 Fisheries Protocol Evaluation Panel (FY16 or FY17) VanderKooi et al. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

X 8.4 Invasive Species Surveillance and Response Young et al. $4,400 $0 $0 $0 $45,000 

X 8.5 Genetic Moni toring of Lower Basin Humpback Chub Wilson et al. $4,400 $0 $1,200 $0 $25,000 

FY17

Monitoring Research
302 

Monitoring: Core activities 

Monitoring: Supports implementation and evaluation of HFE Protocol and Non-Native Fish Control 

Research: Resolving scientific uncertainty 

Project 9. Understanding the Factors Determining 

Recruitment, Population Size, Growth, and Movement of 

Rainbow Trout in Glen and Marble Canyons 

Initial Estimate: FY15: $924,700; FY16: $946,200; FY17: $602,100 

GCDAMP Funding: FY15: $924,700; FY16: $880,000; FY17: $572,000 

A. Investigators 

Michael Yard, Fishery Biologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center 

Kim Dibble, Research Biologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center 

Josh Korman, President, Ecometric Research Inc. 

Charles Yackulic, Research Statistician, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center 

Theodore Melis, Physical Scientist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center 

David Rogowski, Fishery Biologist, Arizona Game and Fish Department 

Theodore Kennedy, Research Aquatic Ecologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon 

Monitoring and Research Center 

David Ward, Fishery Biologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center 

Michael Dodrill, Fishery Biologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center 

William Persons, Fishery Biologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center 

Daniel Buscombe, Research Geologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center 

Paul Grams, Research Hydrologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center 

Thomas Gushue, Computer Specialist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center 

B. Project Summary 

Over the past few decades, electrofishing and creel monitoring data collected by Arizona 

Game and Fish Department (AGFD) in Glen Canyon and Lees Ferry has shown that the rainbow 

trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) fishery is characterized by three undesirable properties, including: 

(1) instability in population size that has led to decadal cycles of high and low fish abundance; 

(2) increased potential for negative interactions between rainbow trout and native fishes, 

especially the endangered humpback chub (Gila cypha), primarily due to rainbow trout 
303 

population expansion downstream (Yard and others, 2011); and (3) an absence of the large 

rainbow trout that are highly valued by the angling community (Schmidt and others, 1998). 

Accordingly, much of the recent biological research conducted in Glen and Marble Canyons has 

focused on understanding factors that influence the size and health of the rainbow trout fishery 

(Korman and Campana, 2009; Anderson and others, 2012; Cross and others, 2013), as well as 

determining how Glen Canyon Dam operations and other factors may influence interactions 

between non-native trout and native species downriver (Yard and others, 2011; Korman and 

others, 2012; Melis and others, 2012). 

These undesirable properties have also been a key concern to decision makers involved with 

the development of the Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan 

(LTEMP) Environmental Impact Statement. Fisheries modelling conducted to support the 

LTEMP process has identified a number of factors that lead to uncertainty in our ability to 

predict rainbow trout responses to flow management. Uncertainties identified prior to modelling 

as “critical” included the degree to which the seasonal timing of high flow experiments (HFEs) 

versus other factors contributes to variation in the strength of the trout recruitment response, and 

the degree to which experimental trout management flows (TMFs), if implemented, could limit 

rainbow trout recruitment in Glen Canyon (as well as other chub related uncertainties – see 

Project 7). The modelling also included other uncertainties, including the uncertainty in 

recruitment-flow relationships, rates of rainbow trout outmigration from Glen Canyon, and the 

degree to which larger rainbow trout populations in Lees Ferry limit trout growth. Modelling 

revealed that these other uncertainties had a large impact on variation in predictions, a similar 

effect to the “critical” uncertainties, and generally larger uncertainty in hydrologic traces over the 

next 20 years. Resolving uncertainty in the “critical” uncertainties as well as the recruitmentflow relationships will require the continuation of sampling focused on juvenile rainbow trout 

recruitment (i.e., RTELLS) alongside a well-designed plan for testing different flow management 

strategies (assuming that refining these uncertainties is necessary for management). Uncertainties 

in our ability to predict outmigration rates and growth, on the other hand, requires a combination 

of mark-recapture techniques which provide more precise estimates of movement and survival 

parameters, and process levels studies to better understand how movement and growth might 

respond to future conditions. 

The Natal Origins Project (see Project Element H.2 in the GCMRC FY13–14 workplan) was 

designed to address the need for mark-recapture studies to better understand rainbow trout 

population dynamics, especially movement. Previous modelling work using just catch data found 

it difficult to parse out whether local reproduction in Marble Canyon contributed meaningfully to 

populations or whether population dynamics were driven primarily by outmigration from the 

Lees Ferry reach (Korman and others, 2012). Preliminary results from the Natal Origins study 

suggest that movement is lower than expected, however, it is unclear whether movement rates 

may vary over time either as fish age or in response to changing environmental conditions. 

Furthermore, it is unclear how well these drift-feeding fish can maintain locally self-sufficient 

populations in Marble Canyon where environmental factors (i.e., reduced underwater light due to 

intermittent periods of high turbidity) may influence their ability to effectively forage (Kennedy, 

unpublished data). Another unknown is why local reproduction does not occur in Marble Canyon 

more than it does in Glen Canyon (Korman and others, 2012; also see Project 10). 

Physiologically, fish that exhibit reduced foraging capacity because of low light conditions 

and/or prey size and availability will often not be able to successfully spawn since gamete 

development is energetically costly (Hutchings, 1994; Hutchings and others, 1999). For the 

FY15–17 workplan, we developed a suite of research and monitoring projects that will elucidate 
304 

some of the mechanisms behind changes in trout abundance, survival, movement, reproduction, 

and growth in Glen and Marble Canyons. These research efforts will provide information that 

can be used to better understand the potential for negative interactions between non-native trout 

and native species like humpback chub, and perhaps identify experimental treatment options for 

mitigating high rainbow trout abundance downstream of Lees Ferry. 

Since the early 1990’s the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) has monitored the 

Lees Ferry rainbow trout fishery via electrofishing in multiple seasons, providing data that has 

fostered the development of research projects to investigate causal mechanisms behind changes 

in population and trout size over time. These data have been used to develop catch per unit effort 

(CPUE) indices as a surrogate for population size, but other research and monitoring programs 

have commenced that estimate population size via more robust mark-recapture methods. To 

reduce redundancy between programs and optimize the utility of data generated (e.g., markrecapture population estimates in lieu of CPUE), a transition is needed from current research and 

monitoring efforts to a longer-term monitoring program that maintains a robust multi-pass markrecapture effort necessary to generate reliable estimates of vital rates for rainbow trout in Glen 

and Marble Canyons. We propose to develop and implement a plan for this transition during 

FY2015-17. Monitoring of juvenile trout will also continue under the Rainbow Trout Early Life 

Stage Survey (RTELSS) project (Project Element 6.7), while creel data from the Lees Ferry 

fishery will continue to be collected by AGFD (Project Element 6.8). Collectively, these 

monitoring data are essential to the management of the Lees Ferry trout fishery because they 

provide an indication of the influence of Glen Canyon Dam operations and other naturally 

occurring disturbances in the Colorado River ecosystem (CRe) on the health of the rainbow trout 

fishery. 

In addition to monitoring adult and juvenile rainbow trout populations, a suite of new 

research activities will improve our understanding of the mechanisms that drive rainbow trout 

population dynamics as they relate to dam operations and flow management actions. 

Specifically, these research projects will target questions related to characteristics of the physical 

habitat (e.g., channel-bed texture, water temperature, turbidity, water depth, and flow) and food 

base that may limit trout growth, size, and reproduction including: (a) a quantification of the 

energy (lipid) reserves of drift-feeding trout in Glen and Marble Canyons to examine potential 

drivers of trout growth, movement, survival, and reproduction under varying light intensities preand post-monsoon; (b) a morphometric analysis of feeding structures in drift feeding fish to 

assess whether feeding efficiency is constrained by the size of invertebrate prey in the CRe; (c) a 

meta-analysis of data on the effects of light intensity, prey size, predator size, and turbidity on 

visual reactive distances of drift feeding fish, which will be used to develop an encounter rate 

model that predicts how light intensity and prey size affects trout foraging success and growth in 

Glen and Marble Canyons; (d) a laboratory study to assess the feasibility of using dam 

operations following fine sediment inputs (sub-sand sized) into Marble Canyon so as to assess 

whether or not managing turbidity is feasible as a trout management tool during minimumvolume dam release years; (e) development of bioenergetics models to quantify the effects of 

turbidity and food availability on trout growth in Marble Canyon; (f) an assessment of the 

mechanisms that limit trout growth in other tailwaters using data collected during the tailwater 

synthesis project; (g) development of population dynamic models that assess growth, 

reproduction and movement of rainbow trout between Glen and Marble Canyons; and (h) an 

evaluation of the effects of fall High Flow Experiments (HFE) on the growth, survival, 

movement, and condition of young-of-the-year rainbow trout via comparison of data from HFE 

and non-HFE sampling years. Collectively, results from these monitoring and research projects 
305 

will be used to identify key drivers behind changes in rainbow trout population size, movement, 

survival, reproduction, size, and condition that will be used to better manage the trout fishery 

while protecting endangered fish populations in the CRe. 

C. Background 

Rainbow trout data collected in both Lees Ferry and Marble Canyon over the last few 

decades has been synthesized recently to provide a more holistic picture of rainbow trout 

population dynamics that points to uncertainties in our understanding and ultimately in our 

ability to predict the effects of management options. Korman and others, (2012) quantified the 

connections between certain flow characteristics and rainbow trout recruitment and attempted to 

estimate movement from Lees Ferry and Marble Canyon. This exercise illustrated that the sort of 

data collected over the preceding decades (mainly CPUE), while useful, was not capable of 

answering important questions about the origins of rainbow trout in Marble Canyon. More recent 

modelling to support the LTEMP process has reiterated this uncertainty, while also suggesting 

that our understanding of relationships between flows and rainbow trout recruitment require 

more precision to manage both rainbow trout and humpback chub. In short, if conditions 

favorable to high abundance of trout were desired, then operations that included steady summer 

flows with frequent equalization and HFE events would be implemented and rainbow trout 

monitoring efforts could be minimal. Similarly, if conditions favorable to humpback chub were 

favored, sufficient evidence exists to suggest that the opposite conditions (as few HFEs and 

equalizations as possible and unsteady summer flows) would be recommended. Under this 

scenario, again little rainbow trout monitoring would be required. However, to manage for 

intermediate conditions requires continued research and monitoring of rainbow trout recruitment, 

movement, growth and abundance. 

During FY13–14, studies of rainbow trout were partitioned in such a way that research into 

the abundance and movement of rainbow trout below Lees Ferry was separated from research 

into the growth and abundance of these fish in Glen Canyon. For FY15–17, we have integrated 

much of this work into Project 9. Findings from these research activities in 2013–14, though 

preliminary (GCMRC Annual Reporting Meeting, January 2014; 

http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/14jan30/), suggest that the rainbow trout population in 

Glen and Marble Canyons is characterized by instability in population size, uneven spatial 

distribution, seasonally and spatially variable growth rates, and higher than expected survival 

upstream of the LCR. Furthermore, there is growing evidence linking rainbow trout abundance 

to declines in juvenile humpback chub survival near the LCR confluence (obtained through 

mark-recapture efforts begun during NSE and continued as part of the Natal Origins and Juvenile 

Chub Monitoring projects; Yackulic, unpublished data). To date, only limited downstream 

movement of tagged rainbow trout has been detected, however, many rainbow trout near the 

LCR are likely immigrants from Glen Canyon. Thus, despite the extremely high densities of 

rainbow trout in upper Marble Canyon, only a small proportion has moved downstream. 

Although small relative to upstream abundance, these numbers of rainbow trout appear to have 

been sufficient to significantly reduce juvenile humpback chub survival near the LCR 

confluence. At the same time, these results are based on only a few years’ data and movement 

appears to be lower than measured during the mechanical removal period from 2003–06 (the 

only other period when mark-recapture techniques were used and thus allows for inferences to be 

made about movement). This suggests that movement likely varies through time and that the 

number of rainbow trout in lower Marble Canyon may correspond directly to increases or 

decreases in emigration rates or recruitment rates in Glen Canyon or Marble Canyon 
306 

The ability to predict movement of rainbow trout might improve if a better understanding 

were developed as to why they were moving more in the early 2000s than they are now. 

Turbidity, changes in the prey base and the increasing energetic needs of older rainbow trout 

have all been suggested as potential factors that could explain these differences. Previous and 

ongoing bioenergetic modelling (McKinney and Speas 2001; Dodrill, unpublished data), as well 

as a lipid pilot study, and measurement of weight losses and gains suggest that the limited quality 

and quantity of drift in Glen Canyon and Marble Canyon may limit growth to a few months of 

the year. As rainbow trout grow, they appear to spend many months of the year only meeting 

maintenance energy requirements, but not growing. This could be due to a number of causes 

including seasonal increases in turbidity that negatively affect rainbow trout foraging ability, 

limited food resources, intense competition due to high fish densities, or other factors. The low 

rates of downstream movement by rainbow trout in recent years may be related to relatively low 

turbidity levels and most fish being small, thus more likely to find adequate food. In the future, 

movement may increase to levels seen during the mechanical removal study as fish grow and 

require more food, if turbidity increases, or if other conditions that influence fish movement rates 

change. We believe this warrants the continuation of more directed studies along this research 

line, with greater emphasis on measuring the short-term physiological effects of dam operations 

on trout populations and modeling the interacting mechanisms that potentially control trout 

growth, population size, distribution, and recruitment in Glen and Marble Canyons. 

Rainbow trout were initially introduced to Grand Canyon (circa, 1920–30’s) through 

stocking in small tributaries, which then resumed once flow regulation commenced with 

completion of Glen Canyon Dam in 1964 (refer to unpublished stocking reports: Stricklin 1950; 

AGFD records). During the “stocking era,” the rainbow trout fishery was sustained by annual 

stocking at Lees Ferry (1964–1997) with minimal recruitment from natural reproduction 

(Maddux and others, 1987; McKinney and others, 2001). Rainbow trout were widely distributed 

throughout the Colorado River in advance of the most fish surveys (Carothers and others, 1981; 

Maddux and others, 1987) and occurred in areas used by native fish (Kaeding and Zimmerman, 

1983; Valdez and Ryle, 1995). The extent of interactions between native and non-native fish 

during this period is not well understood, and is often presumed to have been limited in 

comparison to more recent years (Valdez and Ryel, 1995; Marsh and Douglas, 1997). 

Since 1991, the fishery has been increasingly sustained by natural recruitment and stocking 

was completely phased out by 1998 (McKinney and others, 2001). While limited recruitment 

was occurring prior to 1991 (Maddux and others, 1987), this transition to a “recruitment era” is 

often attributed to implementation of modified low fluctuating flows (MLFF; USDOI, 1996; 

Walters and others, 2000). Demography of rainbow trout during the recruitment era is closely 

linked not only to implementation of MLFFs, higher-flow periods, such as High Flow 

Experiments (HFE; USDOI, 2011a) and equalization flows (Interim Guidelines; USDOI, 2007). 

Spring-timed high flow experiments in 1996, 2000, and 2008, while higher and steadier dam 

operations (response to spring runoff forecasts in the upper Colorado River basin) during the 

middle of the water year, either to mitigate the probability of spills from the dam or equalize 

water storage between Lakes Powell and Mead flows in winter to spring seasons, as in 1997, 

2008 and 2011, led to recruitment of large numbers of juvenile rainbow trout in subsequent years 

(Korman and others, 2012; Korman and others, unpublished data). Research surrounding these 

flow events suggests that this recruitment, driven by increased juvenile survival and growth, was 

mainly attributable to increased food availability in the drift. In turn, this was linked to higher 

production of key drifting species of insects upon which rainbow trout rely heavily (blackflies 

and midges; Cross and others, 2013; Kennedy and others, 2013). Although increased local 
307 

reproduction led to a self-sustaining population, the “recruitment era” for the rainbow trout 

fishery has been characterized by undesirable properties such as fluctuations in population size, a 

decline in trout size (Schmidt and others, 1998), and an increased potential for negative 

interactions with humpback chub (Yard and others, 2011). 

On one hand, there is a renowned and highly valued sport fishery of rainbow trout whose 

population is self-sustaining. On the other hand, there is an endangered fish population separated 

from the trout fishery by distance, although not entirely insular from the other, and whose status 

appears negatively related to the population dynamics of rainbow trout found upstream (Yard 

and others, 2011; Yackulic, and others, in prep.). The intersection between these two important 

but, interacting fish populations appears strongly linked to causal mechanisms that control 

growth and population density, particularly for trout. Nonetheless, the degree to which dam 

operations and associated factors (i.e., population cycles) interact to affect rainbow trout 

movement and growth is considered one of the largest uncertainties associated with the Glen 

Canyon Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP; McKinney and others, 2001; McKinney 

and Speas, 2001; Cross and others, 2011). This is the central motivation driving the proposed 

research and monitoring projects in FY15–17. 

This uncertainty was highlighted during modelling for the recent LTEMP process. While 

there is a good understanding of the direction of flow impacts on trout recruitment (Korman and 

others, 2012) and an improving understanding of the magnitude of the effect of rainbow trout on 

juvenile humpback chub survival (Yackulic and others, in prep.), management options that could 

meaningfully decouple trout and sand resources from humpback chub are not being considered. 

Presumably, this is due to the costs of resolving these issues in terms of other resources. 

Whereas, the density of the stocked rainbow trout fishery present 20-30 years ago was relatively 

easy to manage by changing stocking strategies, changes in in flow management have led to a 

rainbow fishery that is more difficult to manage. More recently, HFEs and equalization flows 

appear to have led to increased rainbow trout recruitment. While some management options 

being considered (e.g., TMFs) could counteract increased recruitment linked to an increasing 

frequency of HFEs if applied selectively, trout abundance or recruitment are likely to continue to 

be instable. In other words, the problem of a naturally reproducing, and thus difficult to manage, 

rainbow trout fishery is unlikely to disappear given future dam operations being considered in 

proposed alternatives for the LTEMP EIS. Each alternative being considered would require 

maintaining a rainbow trout fishery and conserving sand resources while working to recover 

humpback chub, and the science to support this detailed tradeoff analysis is necessarily intense. 

Recognizing this uncertainty has led to a plethora of hypotheses regarding the causal 

source(s) regulating rainbow trout density, recruitment, and growth. Cause and effect 

relationships are more easily determined when a single factor is chronically apparent and 

measureable; all the same, the difficulty in discerning causal mechanisms often arises because: 

(1) an effect is acutely strong but short lived; (2) a mechanism is no longer present but the 

antecedent effect remains; and (3) multiple causal factors may be involved. Since growth is an 

integrated measure across time, the use and application of different metrics that exemplify 

growth over different time scales (long-term vs. short-term) are helpful in discriminating 

between effects from different environmental factors. Monitoring programs are important for 

documenting population characteristics (e.g., abundance, size distribution, and occurrence; 

Project Element F in the GCMRC FY13–14 Workplan), but are not a very effective approach in 

time or cost for determining causation, particularly when used as the sole method. How then do 

we better understand what factor(s) might be regulating trout growth? 
308 

Although rainbow trout are one of the most abundant fish species in the CRe, trout densities 

and growth rates decline substantially with distance downstream from Glen Canyon Dam 

(Makinster and others, 2011; Korman and others, unpublished data). Spatial and temporal 

variation in the invertebrate prey base and how it is consumed by fish may play an important role 

in determining individual fish growth, and subsequently, fish survival, movement and 

reproduction throughout the CRe. Non-native rainbow trout and brown trout (Salmo trutta) are 

likely to compete with (and prey on) native fish (Donner, 2011), including humpback chub (Yard 

and others, 2011), because the foraging mode used by all three fish species relies predominately 

on drifting invertebrates (Cross and others, 2013). Larger invertebrates are often more vulnerable 

and therefore preferentially selected by fish predators over small prey because ease of detection 

and retention while foraging, particularly since prey size is also correlated with energy content 

(Breck and Gitter, 1983; McKinney and others, 2001). Although food is often one of the most 

commonly limiting resources in aquatic ecosystems, visual sight feeders like rainbow and brown 

trout may have encounter rates that are periodically reduced; in essence the number of 

invertebrates a fish encounters daily, thereby affecting growth rates. Consequently, 

understanding these biotic interactions is of significant concern to the management of the CRe 

(Yackulic and others, 2014). 

Owing to a recent and extensive tagging effort associated with the Natal Origins of Rainbow 

Trout research project (see Project Element F.4 in the GCMRC FY13–14 workplan) we are now 

able to estimate size-based seasonal growth rates for rainbow trout using across-trip recapture 

data, as well as model length-at-age growth trajectories for trout in downstream reaches (i.e., 

from Glen Canyon to the Little Colorado River (LCR) confluence) using a von Bertalanffy 

growth curve. Other data are being collected in conjunction with the Natal Origins project, 

including integrated drift samples, trout diet (rainbow and brown trout), trout lipid mass, and gill 

branchial arches, as well as physical data (turbidity and temperature). In particular, lipid analysis 

will provide a sensitive indicator of the physiological condition of trout since fat stores in fish 

become depleted during prolonged starvation events (Adams, 1999; Parrish, 1999). This 

analytical tool will be very effective in evaluating the effects of food availability and fish density 

and size on the energy storage capacity of trout residing in different reaches of the Colorado 

River, which will elucidate potential mechanisms behind between-reach differences in 

reproductive capacity (Adams, 1999; Cleary and others, 2012). Preliminary findings from the 

above research projects indicate seasonal differences in trout growth that are likely due to a 

combination of factors, including drifting prey availability (food resource limitations; Kennedy, 

unpublished data), trout densities (intra-specific competition; Korman and others, unpublished 

data), turbidity events (prey detection), and energy storage (feeding efficiencies; Dibble, 

unpublished data). The metrics from these and future data collections will be extremely useful 

for comparing empirical findings to the outcomes from predictive models (encounter rate and 

bioenergetics models). 

Data collected in FY13–14 has provided significant insights on rainbow trout population 

dynamics in the CRe as well as in other regulated rivers across the West. Management concerns 

for the trout fishery in the CRe downriver of Glen Canyon Dam are similar to those in other 

systems, including a decline in trout size and catch, potential interactions with endangered 

species, whirling disease, seasonal low flow conditions, diminished food base, parasites, and 

other natural and anthropogenic factors that influence trout growth and survival. Analysis of 

tailwater data has revealed that a decline in the size of rainbow and brown trout in other 

tailwaters is primarily correlated with dam operations (hydropeaking and seasonal and annual 

flow volume) and high densities of small and medium-sized rainbow and brown trout. Additional 
309 

analyses planned in FY15–16 (see Project Element 9.8) will elucidate some of the mechanisms 

behind changes in trout size and growth in other tailwaters, which will not only inform the 

management of Glen Canyon Dam but will inform the management of a broader number of 

tailwater systems in the Western U.S. 

To resolve uncertainties associated with factors that regulate trout growth in Glen and Marble 

Canyons and in other tailwater systems, we propose complementing long-term rainbow trout 

monitoring with a suite of new research activities. 

C.1. Scientific Background 

As specified in the FY13–14 Work Plan, many of the same hypotheses thought to explain the 

mechanisms of rainbow trout growth still pertain to this project. For brevity we have reduced 

some of the original text, but have included some additional research hypotheses that support the 

proposed project elements. 

Hypothesis 1 (H1) The strain of rainbow trout present in Glen Canyon is incapable of growing 

to large sizes (i.e., >20 inches). This hypothesis attributes diminished rainbow trout growth to 

changes in the genetic strains historically stocked at Lees Ferry, and does not consider 

physiological conditions for trout growth as affected by dam operations (see GCMRC FY13–14 

Workplan, Project Element H.1). 

Hypothesis 2 (H2) The current prey base, composed chiefly of midges and black flies, can 

support the growth of smaller rainbow trout, but does not provide enough energy to allow for 

growth in large rainbow trout. H2 argues that there have been shifts in the foodbase that now 

leave it incapable of supporting larger rainbow trout. While dam operations can shift the 

foodbase to favor the recruitment and growth of small rainbow trout (Cross and others, 2011), 

growth and survival of large rainbow trout appears largely unaffected by Glen Canyon dam 

operations. Possible causes of this shift in the foodbase include declining nutrient inputs from 

Lake Powell as the reservoir has aged (Stockner and others, 2000; see GCMRC FY15–17 

Workplan, Project Element 5.3. [nutrient budget]), introduction of invasive species (i.e., New 

Zealand mudsnail (Potamopyrgus antipodarum); Cross and others, 2010), and changes in 

channel-bed texture as the Glen Canyon reach was winnowed of finer sediment initially in 

summer 1965 and then during other periods of higher dam releases over time (Grams and others, 

2007). Changes in invertebrate composition could lead to changes in both the seasonal 

availability of drifting invertebrates (there is currently ~100-fold variation in drift rates among 

seasons; Kennedy, unpublished data) and in the prevalence of high quality drift (i.e., large prey 

items such as Gammarus), both of which might strongly constrain growth of large rainbow trout 

while still allowing small rainbow trout to thrive. Support for this hypothesis comes from 

McKinney and Speas (2001), who observed size-related asymmetries in rainbow trout diet and 

energy intake that suggests larger sized trout are food-limited more often than smaller fish. 

Although the total amount of prey available to support rainbow trout populations may have 

increased during this time period (Angradi and Kubly, 1993; Blinn and others, 1995; Benenati 

and others, 1998), juvenile trout appear to be the primary beneficiaries of any such change 

(McKinney and Speas, 2001). More recent research on the Glen Canyon food web (Cross and 

others, 2011) supports these observations. 

A corollary to H2 is that some combination of rainbow trout dispersal patterns, food 

availability, and declining prey detectability explains the declining abundances of rainbow trout 

at distances further downstream from Lees Ferry (Carothers and Brown, 1991; Makinster and 
310 

others, 2011). Turbidity increases downriver (Voichick), and since rainbow trout are visual 

feeders, it is more challenging for them to see food. However, the importance of this effect 

relative to declining food availability and dispersal rates is unknown (Barrett and others, 1992; 

Stuart-Smith and others, 2004). 

Defined below, are a set of secondary hypotheses where we explore some of the mechanisms 

underlying H2; these hypotheses are not mutually exclusive. Under 

Hypothesis 2.1 (H2.1), Feeding morphology differs among rainbow trout, brown trout, and 

humpback chub which leads to resource partitioning among drift feeding fish. We expect that 

morphological differences in the branchial-arch/gill-raker feeding structure exists among the 

three drift feeding species, which leads to a preferential consumption of different prey sizes. If 

true, differences in feeding efficiencies due to feeding morphology rather than behavior may 

explain the differential consumption of prey observed between trout species (Yard, unpublished 

data). The anatomical similarities and differences found in feeding morphology among these 

three fish species may partially explain why rainbow trout and humpback chub have a high diet 

overlap and a potential for competitive interactions (Donner, 2011), whereas brown trout diet 

consists primarily of large prey items, with a strong preferential use of Gammarus and juvenile 

fish (Yard and others, 2011). 

Under Hypothesis 2.2 (H2.2), Feeding morphology changes with fish size and leads to feeding 

inefficiencies. This hypothesis presupposes that feeding efficiencies change as a fish grows 

which should lead to a selection of specific prey based on size, a trend that favors consumption 

of larger invertebrates (chironomids → simuliids → gammarids) as a fish grows (MacNeill and 

Brandt, 1990). Because anatomical features often change in size and shape disproportionately as 

a fish increases in length (increase in gill-raker spacing as a consequence of growth), it is likely 

that these morphological differences should reduce the retention efficiencies for smaller prey 

items with increasing fish length. Therefore, we would expect to observe increases in the mean 

prey size as a fish becomes larger, along with a commensurate decrease in the variation of the 

prey size distributions found in the diet. Under environmental conditions where prey availability

is not limited, we should expect that the diet of small fish will be more similar to the invertebrate 

size distributions in the drift, whereas the diet for large fish should contain a higher proportion of 

larger invertebrates than the actual size distributions available in the drift (high electivity 

indices). In contrast, under environmental conditions when prey availability is limited, we should 

expect reduced feeding efficiencies for larger sized fish, such that the quantity of food items 

found in the diet, scaled according to fish size, will be less in larger fish than in smaller fish. 

Thus, limited prey diversity (H.2.0) favoring small sized dipterans impose growth restrictions on 

larger sized trout due to feeding inefficiencies. 

Nevertheless, it is also possible that feeding efficiencies of trout are not limited by feeding 

morphology, but by other mechanisms such as visual prey detection. Under 

Hypothesis 2.3 (H2.3); Feeding efficiencies of trout are limited by visual acuity, presupposes 

that varying underwater light intensities (Hansen and others, 2013) mediated by turbidity and 

prey size (Barrett and others, 1992) affect reactive distances of visual sight feeders, particularly 

in rainbow trout. This is one of the most abundant fish species in the CRe; even so, it has been 

observed that trout densities and growth rates decline with increasing turbidity levels as found 

downstream (Korman, unpublished data). Under increased turbidity conditions we expect that 
311 

the quantity of dietary items found in small and large fish will be reduced regardless of prey 

availability in the drift (Hansen and others, 2013). 

Hypothesis 3 (H3) The growth of large rainbow trout is limited by exploitative competition for 

limited prey items. The diet composition of large and small rainbow trout overlap (i.e., their 

production is primarily supported by midges, black flies, and Gammarus; McKinney and Speas, 

2001; Cross and others, 2011); however, smaller rainbow trout may be able to subsist on smaller 

prey items, and this may in turn affect food availability for larger rainbow trout. Many of the 

smaller prey items (small Gammarus and 1st instar larvae of midges and black flies) consumed 

by small rainbow trout represent early life stages of species that large fish would be better able to 

exploit if these prey items continued to mature. Since recruitment of smaller rainbow trout is tied 

to dam operations, H3 posits an indirect and time lagged linkage to dam operations. While H2

and H1 predict no changes in large rainbow trout growth if small rainbow trout numbers are 

suppressed, H3 predicts an increase in the growth of large rainbow trout if small rainbow trout 

are suppressed. H3 can also be extended to argue that while HFEs augment juvenile recruitment, 

the dynamics in the following years may be chiefly driven by intraspecific interactions between 

younger and older age-classes of trout, as opposed to physical factors (Schlosser 1985; Walters 

and Post, 1993). 

Hypotheses 4 (H4) Operational constraints that occurred in 1990 limit the growth of large 

rainbow trout. H4 directly links the lack of large rainbow trout to changes in dam operations. H4

posits that the load-following dam operations that occurred during the stocking era created 

habitat that was more beneficial to large rainbow trout by favoring a fast-growing and highquality early successional algal assemblage, creating daily surges in invertebrate drift (Perry and 

Perry, 1986). This also favored larger invertebrate prey items, all of which sustained the growth 

of larger rainbow trout (Barrett and others, 1992; Graf, 1995; Stuart-Smith and others, 2004). 

Growth studies on young-of-year rainbow trout have demonstrated that daily flow variation has 

significant effects on growth for early life stages (Korman and Campana, 2009). However, we 

lack a similar understanding of how daily variation in discharge affects growth of larger rainbow 

trout. 

Hypotheses 5 (H5) Depressed growth rates leads to rainbow trout movement. Predator-prey 

dynamics may occur under conditions where invertebrate prey are initially plentiful (e.g., springfloods or equalization flows stimulate invertebrate production); conditions favoring increased 

growth and physiological condition may lead to successful trout reproduction and recruitment 

(Korman and others, 2011). Subsequently, high trout densities the following year may exceed the 

carrying capacity of the food resources and outstrip the food supply (H2). Under this scenario, 

H5 predicts that fish are more likely to move when metabolic requirements are not met, due to 

either an increase in foraging time when invertebrate prey are less available (H2, resource 

limitations), or when there are strong competitive interactions occurring within or between 

different sized cohorts (H3, intraspecific competition). If movement is governed by predatorprey dynamics, downstream dispersal may occur episodically due to resource depletion (H2) or 

gradually over time depending on the relationship between trout densities and resource 

availability (H3). 

The motivation for these proposed research projects is to better understand how growth 

affects rainbow trout dynamics so as to improve the recreational fishing experience for rainbow 

trout at Lees Ferry, while at the same time protecting and maintaining native fish populations 
312 

downstream in Marble and Grand Canyons. Being able to distinguish among these multiple 

hypotheses will help inform the types of experiments the GCDAMP might evaluate during the 

Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan (LTEMP) Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) to meet goals for native and non-native fishes. If the research outlined below supports 

either H1 or H2.0-2.3, then experimental changes in dam operations alone are unlikely to 

provide the conditions necessary to support the large rainbow trout that are sought by anglers. If 

we find support for H1, then this would suggest that the GCDAMP might pursue experimental 

stocking of alternative strains of rainbow trout, which are capable of growing to large size, into 

Glen Canyon. If the proposed research primarily supports H2.0-2.3, then the GCDAMP could 

consider experimentally introducing invertebrate species from other Colorado River Basin 

tailwaters (i.e., San Juan, Flaming Gorge, etc.), particularly larger taxa, and/or consider habitat 

modification (e.g., flows, large woody debris additions, or a temperature control device). If the 

proposed research primarily supports H3 or H4, then the GCDAMP might consider alterations in 

dam operations. In recent years, dam operations designed to achieve goals for sediment and 

native fish (i.e., HFEs and Low Steady Summer Flows) or meet equalization requirements (i.e., 

2008 and 2011-12), have created pulses of rainbow trout recruitment (Korman and others, 2012). 

As a consequence, recreational catch rates in Glen Canyon have increased following these 

operations, yet the large rainbow trout that are sought by many anglers are absent. Further, these 

pulses of recruitment and subsequent downstream dispersal (H5) have led to costly and 

controversial rainbow trout removal efforts designed to reduce the threat that they pose to 

endangered humpback chub (Coggins and others, 2011). One specific management option 

available to the GCDAMP is moving towards dam operations that will suppress juvenile 

recruitment. Suppressing juvenile rainbow trout recruitment might improve growth of larger 

rainbow trout either by lowering the degree of competition with smaller size classes (H3) or by 

creating more ideal habitat conditions (H4). 

C. 2. Key Monitoring and Research Questions Addressed in this Project 

This project directly addresses the following Strategic Science Questions (SSQs), Core 

Monitoring Information Needs (CMINs), and Research Information Needs (RINs) previously 

identified by the GCDAMP. In addition, Project Elements 9.9 and 9.10 in the current workplan 

comply with directives from the Secretary of the Interior to ensure effective and coordinated 

implementation of Environmental Assessments associated with the High Flow Experimental 

releases and with Non-Native Fish Control downriver of Glen Canyon Dam. 

Primary SSQ addressed: 

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

lower trophic levels with fish and how will they link to dam operations? 

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

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

invertebrate flux? 

 SSQ 3-5. How is invertebrate flux affected by water quality (for example, temperature, 

nutrient concentrations, turbidity) and dam operations? 

 SSQ 3-6. What GCD operations (ramping rates, daily flow range, etc.) maximize trout 

fishing opportunities and catchability? 

 SSQ 5-2. Is invertebrate flux affected by water quality (e.g., temperature, nutrient 

concentrations, turbidity) and dam operations? 
313 

 SSQ 5-6. Do the potential benefits of improved rearing habitat (warmer, more stable, 

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

increases in non-native fish abundance? 

Primary Core Monitoring Information Needs addressed: 

 CMIN 1.5.1. Determine and track the composition and biomass of drift in the Colorado 

River in conjunction with measurements of flow, nutrients, water temperature, and light 

regime. 

Research Information Needs addressed: 

 RIN 1.1. What are the fundamental trophic interactions in the aquatic ecosystem? 

 SIN 7.2.2. Which water quality variables influence food base and fisheries in the CRE? 

 IN 6.3. How is the abundance of vertebrate consumers affected by seasonal shifts in food 

base abundance in the CRE? 

 RIN 1.4.3. How do top-down effects (grazing and predation) affect the abundance and 

composition of benthic invertebrates? 

D. Proposed Work- Monitoring and Research Projects 

D.1. Project Elements- Research 

Project Element 9.1. Rainbow Trout Population Dynamics – Ongoing Modelling and Future Monitoring 

Charles Yackulic, Research Statistician, USGS, GCMRC 

Josh Korman, President, Ecometric Research, Inc. 

William Persons, Fishery Biologist, USGS, GCMRC 

David Rogowski, Fishery Biologist, AGFD 

Michael Yard, Fishery Biologist, USGS, GCMRC 

Scott VanderKooi, Supervisory Biologist, USGS, GCMRC 

Luke Avery, Fishery Biologist, USGS, GCMRC 

The Lees Ferry rainbow trout fishery is one of the most intensively studied tailwaters in the 

western United States (Dibble pers. comm.). Standard monitoring in most tailwaters consists of 

CPUE indices based on a single sampling trip (typically in the fall), whereas monitoring in Glen 

Canyon has traditionally consisted of three seasonal trips to collect CPUE data. Given the 

sensitivity of the fishery to dam operations and the interests of stakeholders, extra effort is 

perhaps warranted, however, much of the concern regarding rainbow trout revolves around fish 

not residing in the tailwater. Therefore, any monitoring design should consider questions 

regarding rainbow trout both in Glen and Marble Canyons. Downstream of Glen Canyon, 

monitoring has traditionally consisted of CPUE based indices based on 1-2 trips per year as part 

of the SWEF project (project element 6.4). Recent modelling efforts (Korman and others, 2011 

and 2012; Yackulic, unpublished data) suggest that these data were not sufficient to address 

competing hypotheses concerning the origin of rainbow trout in Marble Canyon. Intuitively, this 

makes sense since the only indication of provenance in catch data comes from few tag recaptures 

of adult fish (Maddux and others, 1987) and differences in size structure at different locations 

(Korman and others, 2012), and these differences can be explained via multiple processes (e.g., 

different combinations of spatial variation in timing of spawning, growth, survival and 

movement). This suggests the need for mark-recapture studies, which allow for estimation of key 
314 

process variables (survival, growth, movement, etc.) and was the motivation for the Natal 

Origins project. The increased information in mark-capture data over catch data is illustrated by 

the dramatic increases in our understanding of the roles of temperature and trout in the dynamics 

of juvenile humpback chub through NSE and then JCM sampling (see Project Element 7.2) 

combined with recent modelling for LTEMP process. For example, these data allowed us to 

determine that recent decreases in juvenile humpback chub survival in a mainstem reference 

reach (RM 63-64.5) in response to increasing rainbow trout numbers were somewhat offset by 

years of high juvenile production and outmigration from the LCR such that juvenile chub 

numbers initially increased even as survival decreased (Yackulic and others, 2014 annual 

reporting). The Natal Origins project has helped answer questions about how different process 

variables (survival, growth and movement) vary throughout Glen and Marble Canyons. It is 

likely, however, that rates of these variables fluctuate through time, warranting continuation of 

this research in some form at least for the duration of the HFE protocol (through 2020). 

In light of the above, the goals of this project are two-fold. Firstly, to analyze ongoing Natal 

Origins research activities to better understand rainbow trout population dynamics in Glen and 

Marble Canyons and secondly, to use information gained to develop recommendations for future 

monitoring and research. An initial assessment informed by modelling for the LTEMP process 

and guidance from DOI leadership and stakeholders, suggests that some version of the Natal 

Origins project will be needed in the near future so long as the GCDAMP seeks to maintain 

naturally reproducing populations of rainbow trout and a healthy humpback chub population in 

the same river. While primarily focused on rainbow trout downstream of Lees Ferry, the Natal 

Origins project also includes sampling in Glen Canyon, particularly in the fall when large 

numbers of fish are marked with PIT tags. Ongoing analyses suggest that data from this effort 

can be analyzed to provide estimates of the actual abundance of rainbow trout in Glen Canyon 

with no additional sampling (Dzul, unpublished data). If correct, catch indices as well as actual 

estimates of the state variable of interest (i.e., abundance) will be able to be calculated from data 

collected during the marking efforts described above. While minor differences in sampling 

protocols exist between this work and those used to collect the long-term data set, a comparison 

is needed to determine if a mark-recapture approach can be used in lieu of the CPUE monitoring 

that has been in place since 2000. We propose that additional data be collected in 2015 and that 

all overlapping data be evaluated to determine the suitability of a Natal Origins-type approach to 

meet long-term status and trend information needs. AGFD will continue to be funded through 

FY2015 to monitor the Lees Ferry fishery; however, continuation of monitoring in outlying years 

(FY2016-2017) will be dependent on the analysis of monitoring protocols and recommendations 

from the PEP. 

As with the Juvenile Chub Monitoring project (Project Element 7.2), the Natal Origin 

Research project (Project Element 9.2) is scheduled to be completed by the end of FY2016. This 

leaves a significant data gap in outlying years for information on rainbow trout abundance, 

distribution, and movement in Glen and Marble Canyons in response to dam operations and 

other management actions outlined in environmental assessments for HFEs and nonnative fish 

control (USDOI, 2011a and 2011b) and other management documents. To avoid this gap, a 

transition of the Natal Origin Research project from a research focus to a monitoring effort needs 

to occur. We propose that GCMRC and its cooperators collaboratively develop a plan for this 

transition and include it among the topics to be reviewed by the fisheries program protocol 

evaluation panel (PEP; see Project Element 8.3). The new monitoring project will begin in FY17 

following review and implementation, as appropriate, of the PEP’s recommendations by 

GCMRC. 
315 

Project Element 9.2. Detection of Rainbow Trout Movement from the Upper Reaches of the Colorado River 

below Glen Canyon Dam/Natal Origins 

Josh Korman, Ecometric Research, Inc. 

Michael Yard, Fishery Biologist, USGS, GCMRC 

Charles Yackulic, Research Statistician, USGS, GCMRC 

The central objectives of this research project are to (1) determine the natal origins of 

rainbow trout in the Marble Canyon/LCR confluence area via a large-scale mark and recovery 

effort, (2) to evaluate the linkage between trout populations in the Lees Ferry reach and Marble 

Canyon, (3) assess the efficacy of the proposed alternative of a trout removal effort between the 

Paria River to Badger Rapid (PBR), (4) develop analytical methods for monitoring abundance, 

survival, recruitment and capture probability of rainbow trout in the CRe. And lastly (5) studying 

the response of juvenile native fish to changes in trout density near the LCR area resulting from 

removal and experimental flow treatments will be used to support the data and analytical 

requirements as per the Biological Opinion for Glen Canyon Dam operations including high flow 

experiments and nonnative fish control (USFWS 2011) (see project element 7.2 [Juvenile chub 

monitoring]). 

This project as originally described in the FY11–2012 Work Plan (BIO 2.E18.11, 12), has 

been modified and expanded (see FY13–14 Work Plan) with fieldwork continuing through the 

end of FY16. The scheduled completion for this project is 1st quarter of FY17. This study is a 

research project to determine if Glen Canyon is the natal source of trout emigrating into the 

downstream reaches of Marble and Grand Canyons (Korman and others, 2011). Information 

from this project will help resolve some of the uncertainties about prescribing nonnative fish 

control activities such as fish suppression flows (e.g., LTEMP possible alternatives), or in 

locations that are geographically distant to the area of concern (Little Colorado River confluence 

area). This project is based on existing information (Coggins, 2008; Korman and others, 2012) 

that concludes that rainbow trout reared in the Lees Ferry reach of the Colorado River (Glen 

Canyon Dam to Lees Ferry) move downstream under some conditions. During FY13–k14, the 

Natal Origin Research project used a quarterly sampling design (January, April, June-July, and 

September); however, owing to budgetary constraints the number of research trips may be 

reduced to three trips in 2015 and 2016. This reduction in field work will reduce other associated 

project costs (see Project Elements: 5.2.2, 9.1, 9.3, 9.4, 9.7, 9.9, and 9.10). 

The analytical methods being developed to assess trout movement use a robust-design (RD, 2 

km section) where captured fish are spatially referenced at a 250 m resolution in all sampling 

reaches (Lees Ferry [R1], House Rock [R2], Buckfarm [R3], Above LCR [R4], and Below LCR 

[R5]) initially on pass 1, and when recaptured on pass 2 or on other sampling trips. Therefore, 

emigration losses can be determined based on observations of movement distances of fish 

released in the RD section and subsequently recaptured at the same or different locations within 

or across trips. To further supplement this movement information, 2 km sections upstream and 

downstream of the RD section in reaches R1-3 are sampled. This spatial layout allows us to 

detect within-reach movements of up to 4 km, but the opportunity to detect shorter movements is 

greater than for larger ones. Fitting parametric distributions to such data facilitates comparison of 

movement patterns among reaches and trip intervals, and can also be used to derive a robust 

estimate of emigration losses for an open population modeling approach like the Jolly Seber (JS) 

model. Although, the current sampling design allows for estimations of trout movement 

distances occurring within and across sampling reaches located between Glen Canyon and the 

LCR; the spatially fixed sampling approach (5-reaches) limits estimations of intermediate 
316 

movement occurring among tagged trout found between reaches that are not currently sampled. 

To acquire additional trout movement data for between reach movements of tagged animals, 

AGFD is planning on conducting mark recapture studies between the five sampling reaches in 

Marble and Eastern Grand Canyons during FY15–16 (see Project Element 6.4). 

The JS model is used to estimate reach-specific abundance, survival and recruitment based 

on data from the RD mark-recapture sampling design. The apparent survival of marked fish in 

RD sections based on the decline in recaptures of each marked cohort (a group of fish released in 

a reach on a given trip) through time. That decline depends on mortality rate as well as loss of 

fish due to emigration from RD sections. Estimates of movement are required to convert the 

apparent survival normally estimated by a JS model (which includes losses from mortality and 

movement) into an actual survival rate, by comparing models where survival rate can vary 

among trips vs. models where survival is assumed to be constant. Using different modeling 

approaches allows for estimating abundance at the start of each trip, survival and recruitment 

between trips, and capture probability for each trip and pass. Parameters of the different models 

are estimated by minimizing the negative value of the total log likelihood and using the nonlinear 

search procedure in the AD model-builder (ADMB) software (Fournier and others, 2011). 

Abundance of unmarked fish at the start of the 1st pass on trips 2 and later depends on 

abundance at the end of the last pass on the previous trip, and survival and recruitment between 

trips. Combinations of models (Mt-So, Mtb-So, Mt-S*, Mtb-S*) are being evaluated using 

Akaike’s Information Criteria (AIC, Burnham and Anderson 2002). Model selection, particularly 

the use of Mb model (behavioral response to capture) types are required because of detection 

differences for within trip vs across trip. This is likely due to spatial heterogeneity that leads to 

overestimating capture probabilities and results in an underestimation of trout abundance. These 

habitat linked differences in fish vulnerability to capture might arise due to fish moving to lower 

velocity or more protected/shallow habitats, and are to be addressed by some additional habitat 

assessment (see Project Element 10.1).

Preliminary results from this research study (GCMRC Annual Reporting Meeting, January 

2013 & 2014); indicate relatively modest movement of trout between trips with a high proportion 

of recaptures found in their original release sections, or in adjacent sections, and the vast 

majority of the recaptures occurring within a 2 km of the original release locations. To date, 

movement rates into a reach (immigration) rather than out of a reach (emigration) have been 

considerably less (1/2 the rate observed in 2003) than those reported for previous studies 

(Coggins 2008; and Coggins and others, 2011) near the LCR. This suggests that the current low 

immigration rate for trout may be indicative of relatively good conditions for growth in Marble 

Canyon which could reduce downstream dispersal (see Project Elements 9.3-5, & 9.9), and that 

movement is more episodic rather than incrementally constant. This is the underlying rationale 

for such an extended research project (2012 201 – 6). Trout growth is key to interpreting the 

observed differences in length frequencies and provides the insight on the underlying 

mechanisms for trout movement. Trout growth is very limited between Sep-Jan and likely most 

of Jan-Apr period and may be linked to low food availability (hypothesis H2) or low feeding 

efficiency (H2.1-3). The differential trout growth as observed among the five RD sections 

provides insight on understanding what fraction of the Marble Canyon fish immigrate into the 

LCR inflow reach. 

This research project also provides the logistical framework to support the fieldwork 

necessary for a number of other study projects, these include several project elements in Project 

9 “Understanding the Factors Limiting the Recruitment, Population Size, Growth, and 

Movement of Rainbow Trout in Glen and Marble Canyons”, Project Element 7.2., “Mainstem 
317 

monitoring of native and nonnative fishes near the LCR confluence -Juvenile Chub Monitoring” 

(as per USDOIa 2011), and Project Element L.2. “Linking invertebrate drift with fish feeding 

habits.” Owing to the extensive tagging effort in this study, other research studies are possible 

which allow for greater collaboration between these research studies. Currently the NO project 

provides the logistical framework for data collection and some of the analysis as part of the JCM 

project (see Project Element 7.2) and other research elements proposed addressing the 

underlying mechanisms for trout growth and possible movement (see Project Elements: 5.2.2, 

9.2, 9.3, 9.4, 9.7, 9.9, and 9.10). 

Products expected from this project are a series of peer-reviewed publications. 

Project Element 9.3. Exploring the Mechanisms behind Trout Growth, Reproduction, and Movement in Glen 

and Marble Canyon using Lipid (fat) Reserves as an Indicator of Physiological Condition 

Kimberly Dibble, Research Biologist, USGS, GCMRC 

Michael Yard, Fishery Biologist, USGS, GCMRC 

Josh Korman, President, Ecometric Research Inc. 

Ted Kennedy, Research Aquatic Ecologist, USGS, GCMRC 

Charles Yackulic, Research Statistician, USGS, GCMRC 

The objective of this research is to determine whether the ability of adult rainbow trout to 

acquire and store energy from the prey base is a potential mechanism behind spatial and 

temporal differences in growth, reproduction, and movement of rainbow trout in Glen and 

Marble Canyons. 

As described in GCMRC’s FY13–14 Work Plan (see Project Elements H.2 & L.2.2), 

rainbow trout size, distribution, diet, and prey base data have been collected for the past two 

years to examine potential drivers of trout growth, movement, and population size in Glen and 

Marble Canyons. Continuations of these projects have been requested as part of the FY15–17 

Work Plan (see Project Element 9.2), so we propose to add an additional component to this 

project to quantify lipid (fat) reserves in a subsample of the fish that are already sacrificed to 

collect data on trout diet. This provides an opportunity to leverage an existing project to gain 

exciting scientific information in a cost-effective way. Briefly, five sampling reaches 

downstream from Glen Canyon Dam will be sampled on two separate nights during four seasons 

over one year. Fish tissue (muscle, liver, hindgut) will be excised, preserved in liquid nitrogen, 

and brought back to GCMRC for biochemical analysis. In the laboratory, total lipid will be 

extracted gravimetrically (Bligh and Dyer, 1959; Phillips and others, 1997) and then separated 

into lipid classes (e.g., non-polar “storage” lipids and polar “structural” lipids) using highperformance thin layer chromatography (Churchward and others, 2008; Zhou and others, 2012). 

These data will then be used to: 1) examine temporal and spatial differences in the physiological 

condition of trout in Glen and Marble Canyons; 2) improve rainbow trout growth models 

currently in development by Korman and Yard; and 3) understand the mechanisms behind the 

maximum size and growth potential of rainbow trout in Lees Ferry. 

Lipid mass data will be examined in combination with growth (mark-recapture data from the 

whole population; Project Element 9.1), diet (from the same individuals), and drift availability 

(see GCMRC’s FY13–14 Workplan, Project Element F.7.1, FY15–17 Workplan, Project 

Element 5.2.2) to assess how energy availability and storage plays a role in rainbow trout 

growth, reproduction, and movement across all study reaches during multiple seasons. These 

data will be especially important in elucidating the mechanisms behind reproduction in Marble 

Canyon. If adult rainbow trout are critically depleted in lipid mass throughout the growing 
318 

season (e.g., due to high turbidity in summer) such that energy stores are depleted in fall and 

spring, there is a high likelihood that fish in Marble Canyon may choose to forgo spawning or 

reabsorb eggs and gametes to survive (Adams 1999, Hutchings and others, 1994, 1999), which 

may explain the apparent reduction in local reproduction in lower Marble Canyon by the LCR 

(Korman and others, 2012). 

These data will also be used to improve modeling efforts that assess rainbow trout population 

dynamics in Glen and Marble Canyons. Korman and Yard have analyzed preliminary data from 

the Natal Origins project to assess spatial and temporal differences in rainbow trout growth 

(length and weight; GCMRC Annual Reporting Meeting, January 2014; 

http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/14jan30/). However, unexplained patterns in weight 

loss in the late summer (when the fish should be gaining weight in preparation for winter) 

indicate the fish may have switched to a fat storage strategy (Adams, 1999), which as described 

above, would be under-represented in the growth analysis. Models will be improved by 

incorporating data on spatial and temporal fluctuations in tissue energy density, which is a more 

reliable indicator of weight gain. 

In addition to helping answer mechanistic questions related to rainbow trout growth, these data 

will also improve our understanding of factors that constrain the maximum size of trout in Lees 

Ferry. One of the main hypotheses in the FY15–17 Work Plan (H.2) was that the size of and 

species available in the prey base (primarily midges and black flies) support the growth of small 

rainbow trout but limit the growth of large adult trout. This hypothesis is supported by research 

conducted by McKinney and Speas (2001) that found that adult rainbow trout are more often 

food-limited than smaller trout. Rainbow trout, like other temperate fishes, invest in somatic 

growth (length) prior to investing in visceral (fat) stores, so lipid mass vs. length should show an 

allometric relationship (Post and Parkinson, 2001; Simpkins and others, 2003). However, 

preliminary data indicate the opposite, with small fish having larger fat reserves per gram of 

body tissue than large adult fish (Dibble, unpublished data). Therefore, additional lipid data will 

be very useful in evaluating the hypothesis that rainbow trout fail to reach trophy status due to a 

diminished prey base. 

Project Element 9.4. Comparative study on the feeding morphology of drift feeding fish 

Michael Yard, Fishery Biologist, USGS, GCMRC 

Joel Sankey, Research Physical Scientist, USGS, GCMRC 

Theodore Kennedy, Research Aquatic Ecologist, USGS, GCMRC 

Charles Yackulic, Research Statistician, USGS, GCMRC 

Josh Korman, President, Ecometric Research Inc. 

The objective to this project element is to determine if prey retention efficiencies associated 

with the feeding morphology of rainbow trout, and brown trout are potentially constrained by the 

size of invertebrate prey available in the CRe. Prey size has a strong effect on foraging success 

because prey items are not always retained once consumed. In a functional sense, once prey 

items are captured in the mouth cavity of a fish, water passes through the gill-rakers like a sieve, 

and prey are retained and ingested. Therefore, branchial arch/gill-raker morphology may control 

feeding efficiencies (i.e., the number of prey consumed divided by the number of prey captured) 

such that larger prey items are more often retained than smaller prey. Feeding efficiencies 

change because morphological structures become larger with increasing fish length (Breck and 

Gitter, 1983; MacNeill and Brandt, 1990), which cause larger fish to selectively retain only 

larger prey items (Budy and others, 2005). Therefore, size-related changes in feeding 
319 

morphology are likely to vary within the same species due to plasticity of morphological traits 

(Keeley and others, 2007); essentially structural relationships may vary between different 

environments even though it is the same species. Similarly, these same morphological structures 

are highly likely to vary among different species, which may be partially responsible for resource 

partitioning. Lack of prey diversity and minimal prey size in the CRe (Cross and others, 2013) 

has likely influenced competitive and piscivorous interactions between native and non-native 

fishes. Findings from these analyses will be used to test hypotheses H2.1, H2.2, and H3

(potential for intra- and interspecific competition). 

Results from detailed diet analysis from mechanical removal (2003-2004) on rainbow trout 

(n=1,391) and brown trout (n = 401) (Yard, unpublished) suggest that invertebrate prey 

availability and prey size; as well as predator size strongly influences feeding success. Aquatic 

prey items found in the CRe lack taxonomic diversity, these invertebrates consist primarily of a 

Nearctic dipteran assemblage of small midges and black flies, and a large lentic species of 

amphipod (Gammarus lacustris). Diet for both trout species indicates a high electivity for larger 

rather than smaller prey items. (An electivity index [E] is based on a scale of 1 to -1, and 

represents the relative proportion of a diet item to its availability in the drift.) Typically, G. 

lacustris (E = 0.87; size range 1-12 mm) and black flies (E = 0.55; size range 0.7-5 mm) 

consume prey in higher proportion than their availability to the drift; however, midges (E = -

0.79; size range 0.5-2 mm) and zooplankton (E = -1; size range 0.35-0.7 mm) were consumed 

less than their availability. Although suspended sediment appears to also negatively affect prey 

detection for visual sight feeders by reducing food intake (high frequency of empty stomachs 

during increased turbidity) (unpublished data) (project 9.5 & 9.6), trout size was also negatively 

correlated with prey food intake (weight of gut contents). Essentially, the difference between 

observed and expected food intake based on size suggests that the daily rations for trout become 

limiting for larger sized trout (> 250 mm TL), unless prey availability is limitless. Budy and 

others (2005) and (Langeland and Nost, 1995) analyses of branchial arch/gill-raker morphology 

for rainbow and brown trout, respectively, would strongly suggest that prey size and its 

availability may be a limiting factor on trout growth because of feeding inefficiencies with 

increasing trout size. 

In this study, we propose to (1) measure gill-raker number, length, and spacing for two drift 

feeding species: rainbow trout and brown trout; (2) develop and compare branchial arch and gillraker morphology within and among fishes; (3) determine if mean prey size distributions found 

in fish diet correlate with morphometrics (i.e., method of quantifying a structure through 

measurements of size, shape, and quantity); (4) and determine if diet electivity for prey size 

distributions are proportionally greater in the fish diet than what is found available in the drift. 

Exploring these other types of quantitative methods may further reduce the amount of analytical 

time and cost associated with conducting these types of morphometric measurements. 

Invertebrate drift and diet samples for rainbow and brown trout have been and are continuing 

to be collected as part of the Foodbase Monitoring project (see GCMRC’s FY13–14 Workplan, 

Project Element F.7.1). For each fish species, we will evaluate a large size distribution (~50 to 

400+ mm fork length) and develop relationships between fish size and morphological 

characteristics. The minimum fish size has yet to be determined because of developmental 

differences in feeding structures. For comparative purposes, morphological data will be paired 

with detailed diet analysis (prey size and prey densities), using a subset of fish samples 

containing both branchial arches and stomach contents. For the fish length relationships we will 

select and measure three fish per size class, with samples grouped at 5 mm increments. This 
320 

project will produce one manuscripts, suitable for publication. Expected timeline for project 

completion is 2017. 

Project Element 9.5. Meta-analysis, and the development of reactive distance relationships for encounter rate 

models 

Michael Yard, Fishery Biologist, USGS, GCMRC 

Josh Korman, President, Ecometric Research Inc. 

Charles Yackulic, Research Statistician, USGS, GCMRC 

Theodore Kennedy, Research Aquatic Ecologist, USGS, GCMRC 

The objective of this project element contains two parts: (1) determine the effects of varying 

light intensity and prey size on fish reactive distances; and (2) develop an encounter rate model 

for drift feeding fish that accounts for varying reactive distances and prey availability within the 

range of channel depths and light levels encountered in Glen and Marble Canyons. 

Underwater light intensities are likely to interact with different prey sizes because larger 

rather than smaller items are perceived at greater distances. Reactive distance relationships have 

been developed for a number of fish species (e.g., Howick and Obrien, 1983; Vinyard and 

O’Brien, 1976; Ware, 1973); however, inconsistencies exist in the literature. This is partly due to 

the scope and range of variables experimentally tested, particularly with the use of turbidity as a 

predictive proxy for light (e.g., Barrett and others, 1992; Sweka and Hartman, 2003). 

Considering that underwater light intensities change over the day and with increasing depth, 

most turbidity-based relationships are limited in application to small, clear, and shallow (depth < 

0.5 m) streams. There are however a number of existing models that have been developed 

specifically for the CRe that account for variation in light reaching the water surface due to 

canyon topography (Yard and others, 2005) as well as predictive relationships between the 

underwater light attenuation and suspended sediment (Yard, 2003). 

We will conduct an extensive meta-analysis on all known published data on reactive 

distances (i.e., distance a prey item can be visually detected) of visual sight-feeding fish. We will 

evaluate literature and quantitatively summarize regression slopes obtained from independent 

studies, either published as relationships or through extraction of data from graphs and tables 

(Tummers, 2006). Through this meta-analysis we are going to refine the predictive capabilities 

of these reactive distance relationships so that they can be broadly applied to more realistic 

environmental conditions. We will evaluate specific variables that affect predator reactive 

distances, including light intensity, turbidity, prey size, and predator size. Findings from this data 

synthesis will inform the process used in selecting or developing the most appropriate 

relationships to use in developing an encounter rate model (i.e., quantifying the daily number of 

drifting invertebrates encountered by a visual sight feeding fish; Gerritsen and Strickler, 1977; 

Harvey and Nakamoto, 2013). From this analysis, the type of encounter rate model selected will 

be a critical element for developing an accurate bioenergetic model capable of linking driftavailability and metabolic demands thought to limit overall fish growth in a seasonally turbid 

river (see project 9.7). 

Data sets from both long-term monitoring and research studies will be used for developing an 

encounter rate model for rainbow trout. These data requirements include seasonal variation in 

invertebrate drift (Project Element 5.2.2), and other physical data such as instantaneous light 

intensities (Yard and others, 2005), channel characteristics, flow discharge, and suspended 

sediment concentrations (http://www.gcmrc.gov/discharge_qw_sediment/). Encounter rates will 

be determined for five specific study reaches (NO reach designation) located between Glen 
321 

Canyon and the LCR confluence area. We will model the potential influence that reduced light 

levels have on the frequency of trout daily encounter rates (mediated through differences in 

channel depths, turbidity levels, and invertebrate drift). Findings from these analyses will be used 

to test hypothesis H2.3, as well as compare responses to other independent data on trout diet (see 

Project Element 5.2.2.), monthly growth rates (see Project Element 9.2), and physiological 

condition (see Project Element 9.3). Results from this will determine whether or not reduced 

encounter rates exert a population-level effect on rainbow trout throughout Glen and Marble 

Canyons. This project will produce two manuscripts, each suitable for publication. Expected 

timeline for project completion is 2017. 

Project Element 9.6. Evaluation of Turbidity (in terms of TSS) as a potential Glen Canyon Dam operations 

management tool to constrain rainbow trout populations and reduce predation/competition on juvenile 

humpback chub 

David Ward, Fishery Biologist, USGS, GCMRC 

The objective to this project element is to determine what level and duration of turbidity 

would be necessary to negatively effect, or prevent persistence of, rainbow trout in lower Marble 

Canyon and below the Little Colorado River confluence in eastern Grand Canyon. This project 

aims to determine whether turbidity levels in the Colorado River could be manipulated during 

years of minimum annual release, coincident with Paria and Little Colorado River fine-sediment 

inputs, so as to limit survival of rainbow trout downstream of the these tributaries. 

Predation on juvenile humpback chub by rainbow trout is considered a significant threat to 

humpback chub populations in Grand Canyon (Marsh and Douglas, 1997; Coggins and others, 

2011; Yard and others, 2011; Runge and others, 2011). Relatively low levels of turbidity <100 

Formazin Nephelometric Units (FNU) have been found to effectively reduce vulnerability of 

juvenile humpback chub to predation by rainbow trout (Ward, 2014 AMWG poster session, 

unpublished data), and extended periods of turbidity have been shown to negatively impact and 

exclude salmonids in other systems (Harvey and Railsback, 2011, reviewed in Newcombe and 

MacDonald, 1991). Increasing turbidity can also have positive effects on small species and 

juvenile fish but a negative effect on larger piscivorous fishes (Utne-Palm, 2002). Understanding 

how the magnitude and duration of turbidity in the Colorado River impacts various life stages of 

rainbow trout will allow researchers to better evaluate turbidity as a potential management tool 

of juvenile humpback chub in Marble and eastern Grand Canyons. 

This project is intended to evaluate the feasibility of using turbidity as a management tool to 

disadvantage trout populations in the mainstem Colorado River below the Paria River and Little 

Colorado Rivers. In the laboratory, we will evaluate the effects of multiple turbidity 

concentrations (50–200 FNU) and extended high turbidity durations (1–5 months) to identify 

turbidity thresholds that negatively impact rainbow trout and reduce survival. LISST-100 

instrumentation will be used in combination with YSI turbidity probes to compare the level of 

FNUs to total suspended sediment concentration and grain size distributions in controlled tank 

experiments (Voichick and Topping, written commun., USGS, 2014). This information will 

allow for science based, data driven discussions of possible annual-to-multiyear scenarios for 

seasonal dam operations under minimum annual release volumes from Lake Powell that may 

allow levels of turbidity associated with natural tributary sediment inputs to be used as a fish 

management tool. 

Understanding how turbidity impacts rainbow trout is critical in evaluating flow and exotic 

fish control management options aimed at preservation of native fishes in Grand Canyon. Runge 
322 

and others, (2011) in assessing 19 options for mitigating the negative influence of rainbow trout 

on humpback chub identified sediment augmentation from sources in Lake Powell to Lees Ferry 

as likely the most effective treatment for reducing trout predation on chub juveniles, and 

numerous studies (Reviewed in Newcombe and MacDonald, 1991) demonstrate that relatively 

low sediment concentrations can adversely impact rainbow trout populations. Questions 

regarding effects of turbidity on fish are difficult to answer in a field setting because of 

confounding factors and the often extended time periods needed to evaluate turbidity effects, but 

these types of interactions can often effectively be evaluated in laboratory settings (Hairston, 

1989). Previous discussions about sediment augmentation below Glen Canyon Dam were aimed 

at restoring both sand and finer sediment to the river to benefit native fish, as well as sandbars, 

which was cost prohibitive, but small scale silt and clay augmentation that only increase turbidity 

slightly may be just as effective at reducing predation mortality of native fish and was identified 

by Randle and others, (2007) as much less costly than sand augmentation. Seasonally focused 

flow management efforts to increase turbidity within the Colorado River may be a much more 

cost effective and acceptable solution than downstream mechanical trout removal (Coggins and 

others, 2011) as a means to reduce predation and competition on juvenile humpback chub, 

particularly during periods when dam releases are naturally warmer at the LCR; a condition 

known in 2011 to be associated with reduced juvenile chub annual survival (possibly, linked to 

increase trout metabolism; see Keiffer and others, 1994). This project will allow an assessment 

of turbidity as a trout management tool, from a laboratory experimental perspective. 

Project Element 9.7. Application of a bioenergetics model in a seasonally turbid river 

Michael Dodrill, Fishery Biologist, USGS, GCMRC 

Charles Yackulic, Research Statistician, USGS, GCMRC 

Theodore Kennedy, Research Aquatic Ecologist, USGS, GCMRC 

Michael Yard, Fishery Biologist, USGS, GCMRC 

Josh Korman, President, Ecometric Research, Inc. 

The objective to this project element is to adapt process-oriented ecological models (such as 

drift-foraging bioenergetics or net energy intake methods) to quantify the effects of physical 

conditions (i.e., flow, turbidity, and depth) and food availability on rainbow trout growth and 

distribution. 

Understanding the linkages between food availability and growth of drift feeding fish in large 

regulated rivers presents significant challenges to scientists and managers. Process-oriented 

ecological models show promise for describing ecological dynamics in rivers across levels of 

biological organization (Anderson and others, 2006). Linked foraging-bioenergetics or Net 

Energy Intake (NEI) models explicitly consider physical habitat (depth, velocity) and ecological 

processes (drift-availability) to describe the foraging process and how food availability translates 

into fish growth. These methods have been used to assess the effects of invertebrate drift size 

structure on the lifetime growth of drift-feeding fish (Hayes and others, 2000), assess habitat, and 

provide an alternative to traditional approaches (i.e., PHABSIM) for predicting the response of 

fish changes in physical conditions, such as altered flow regimes (Rosenfeld and Ptolemy, 2012) 

or turbidity levels (Harvey and Railsback, 2009). 

Building on preliminary methods developed for Lees Ferry (Dodrill, unpublished data), 

coupled drift-foraging bioenergetics have identified linkages between drift-availability and 

metabolic demands thought to limit overall fish growth. Benthic invertebrates are the ultimate 

source of drift consumed by rainbow trout and contribute to the spatial patterns of drifting 
323 

invertebrates. Understanding factors that influence the spatial and temporal dynamics of 

invertebrate drift and physical factors (such as turbidity or flow conditions) that influence the 

detection of food items (Project Element 9.5) will help to correlate patterns of rainbow trout 

growth and abundance (Project Element 9.2) to underlying mechanisms. We propose integrating 

data sourced from existing and proposed projects to develop and parameterize process-oriented 

models. This includes information on invertebrate drift rates (Project Element 5.2.2), channel 

characteristics (Project Element 10.1), turbidity, and temperatures for river segments extending 

from Lees Ferry to the LCR. 

Project Element 9.8. Mechanisms that Limit Rainbow and Brown Trout Growth in other Western Tailwater 

Systems 

Kimberly Dibble, Research Biologist, USGS, GCMRC 

Charles Yackulic, Research Statistician, USGS, GCMRC 

Ted Kennedy, Research Aquatic Ecologist, USGS, GCMRC 

Phaedra Budy, Research Aquatic Ecologist, USGS, Utah Coop. Fish and Wildlife Research Unit 

Michael Dodrill, Fishery Biologist, USGS, GCMRC 

The objective of this research is to continue to develop a broader understanding of the links 

between dam operations and salmonid population dynamics by synthesizing data from tailwaters 

across the Western United States. 

Under Project H.2 of GCMRC’s FY13–14 Workplan, the principal investigator amassed 

fishery, discharge, reservoir, food base, and other data from 56 dams throughout the West. We 

are in the process of analyzing this dataset and continued funding will maximize the degree to 

which the GCDAMP can learn from other tailwater ecosystems. The analysis presented at 

GCMRC’s Annual Reporting Meeting (January 2014) was an appropriate first step at 

synthesizing these data and addressed one of the four main hypotheses (H4) related to changes in 

trout size over time relative to dam operations. This analysis focused on the influence of 

hydropeaking, seasonal flow, specific discharge, and other metrics on trout size, recruitment, and 

catch-per-unit-effort downriver of dams with multiple purposes (e.g., hydropower, irrigation, and 

storage). This analysis allowed us to understand broad correlations between dam operations and 

aspects of trout populations across many dams and we are in the process of preparing a 

manuscript based on these results, which will be submitted for publication in FY14. 

We propose to complement this broad assessment with in-depth analyses of tailwaters that 

contain a rich time-series of information. This new set of analyses will be focused on assessing 

the mechanisms behind salmonid growth as they relate to dam operations (e.g., prey availability, 

temperature, nutrients) using a subset of high-quality fishery data from the Colorado River Basin 

that spans 20+ years. For example, does discharge volume and/or hydropeaking directly 

influence trout size, or does discharge indirectly influence trout size through another variable 

(e.g., prey availability or nutrient inputs from the reservoir). Since all the data for this analysis 

are already collected, we expect to begin our work within FY14, with the expectation that it will 

spill over into FY15. We will prepare one manuscript for publication associated with the new 

analysis in FY15. 

In addition to the mechanistic model developed in FY15, we propose to apply bioenergetics 

models developed for rainbow trout in Glen and Marble Canyon to other data-rich tailwaters in 

the Colorado River Basin (CRB) to further elucidate mechanisms responsible for differential 

performance on trout fisheries. By applying the same modelling format to different tailwaters, it 

should ease our ability to interpret differences between Glen Canyon and other tailwater systems. 
324 

We have high-quality fishery, growth, foodbase, temperature, discharge, and reservoir data from 

Flaming Gorge Dam, which is the system that is most comparable to Glen Canyon Dam in the 

CRB. However, it differs from Glen Canyon because it has a selective withdrawal device that 

allows modification of the thermal regime (a phenomenon that may occur naturally below Glen 

Canyon resulting from climate change), it differs in invertebrate composition, and its trout 

population is composed of >50% brown trout. Brown trout are highly efficient predators (Yard 

and others, 2011), and their population expansion has been of concern in the Colorado River 

downriver of Glen Canyon Dam. Therefore, we propose to develop a bioenergetics model for the 

Flaming Gorge tailwater that is similar to the model currently being developed for Glen Canyon, 

which will examine how prey size, water velocity, temperature, and rainbow and brown trout 

density (competition) influence the growth potential of rainbow trout. In addition, we may also 

construct a bioenergetics model for the tailwater below Navajo Dam. The Navajo tailwater lacks 

thermal modification and differs from Glen Canyon and Flaming Gorge in its flow regime (no 

hydropeaking), invertebrate assemblage, and brown trout density (~39%). Comparison of Glen 

Canyon to other tailwaters from a bioenergetics perspective will yield important insights that will 

be useful in the management of Glen Canyon Dam operations. We will prepare one manuscript 

in FY16 associated with these bioenergetics models. 

Project Element 9.9. Effects of High Experimental Flows on Rainbow Trout Population Dynamics 

Michael Yard, Fishery Biologist, USGS, GCMRC

Josh Korman, President, Ecometric Research, Inc. 

Charles Yackulic, Research Statistician, USGS, GCMRC 

Ted Melis, Physical Scientist, USGS, GCMRC 

Dan Buscombe, Research Geologist, USGS, GCMRC 

Thomas Gushue, Computer Specialist, USGS, GCMRC 

The objective to this project element is to determine the effects of fall HFEs and other 

potential management actions, such as the Fall Steady Flow treatments of 2011–12, on rainbow 

trout populations in Glen Canyon. The purpose of the contingency plan as originally proposed 

(GCMRC FY13–14 Workplan, Project Element H.3) was to determine the effect of a single fall 

HFE on age-0 trout densities. Although spring floods were known to have a large effect on early 

life stages of age-0 trout (Korman and Campana, 2009), there was considerable uncertainty about 

the effect that fall floods had on the survival of age-0 trout due to seasonal differences in growth 

(Melis and others, 2012). Typically, age-0 fish have a higher mortality rate than adults, yet rates 

begin to stabilize through late-summer into fall (Korman and others, 2011). The experiment was 

originally designed to estimate age-0 trout density and survival during pre- and post-flood 

periods, and then compare estimates between years with and without experimental floods. 

Currently we have successfully estimated changes in the apparent survival across two successive 

HFEs, flow events that had different magnitudes and durations, but due to hydrology we have 

been unable to acquire data during a year without an experimental flow. 

The sampling design uses two mark-recapture trips that are conducted annually during earlyand late-fall and samples the entire 25 km reach between Glen Canyon Dam and Lees Ferry. On 

average a total of ~5,000 fish are tagged with passive integrated transponders (PIT tags) per trip 

to determine site-specific capture probabilities for estimating age-0 fish abundance. A second 

trip is repeated in late-fall, to estimate across-trip survival and growth using recapture 

information from the previous trip. Although age-0 trout densities were estimated to be very high 

at the inception of the research study (fall 2011) successive marking efforts conducted in 2012 
325 

and 2013 have each required an additional 10-day sampling trip per year to tag sufficient 

numbers of trout (~10,000 age-0 trout quota) for the Natal Origin Project (see Project Element 

9.2). For this reason we propose a continuation of funding for fall marking trips through FY16, 

when at that time the Natal Origins research project will transition to monitoring led by AGFD. 

Funding for this project will support additional fieldwork and tagging efforts necessary for 

meeting the Natal Origin research objectives, as well as providing a means to further evaluate 

multiple fall-HFEs over a range of different age-0 fish densities. Also, efforts were started in fall 

2013 to assess change in Glen Canyon channel-bed texture (Natal Origins Reach 1) in response 

to August 2013 fine-sediment inputs to that reach from Waterholes Canyon (the reach being 

imaged with side-scan sonar in October and December 2013 to bracket the November 2013 HFE, 

as well as in April 2014 to assess evolving shorelines and bed textures relative to ongoing trout 

monitoring and research.

Project Element 9.10. Examining the Effects of High Flow Experiments on the Physiological Condition of Age-0 

and Adult Rainbow Trout in Glen Canyon 

Kimberly Dibble, Research Biologist, USGS, GCMRC 

Luke Avery, Fishery Biologist, USGS, GCMRC 

Michael Yard, Fishery Biologist, USGS, GCMRC 

Josh Korman, President, Ecometric Research, Inc. 

Theodore Kennedy, Research Aquatic Ecologist, USGS, GCMRC 

Charles Yackulic, Research Statistician, USGS, GCMRC 

The objective of this research is to quantify the effect of lower and steadier fall flows (~5,000 

ft3/s) followed by an HFE on the physiological condition and growth of age-0 and adult rainbow 

trout in Glen Canyon. 

In fall 2012 and 2013, the Federation of Fly Fishers raised concerns regarding the potential 

effects of lower and steadier fall flows followed by an HFE on the foodbase for rainbow trout in 

Glen Canyon. Although previous research indicates that steadier flows can increase the growth 

rate of age-0 rainbow trout (Korman and Campana, 2009), and spring-timed HFEs can increase 

their survival and growth (Korman and others, 2011), it is unclear how lower and steadier fall 

flows (5,000-8,000 ft3

/s) followed by a potentially energetically costly HFE may influence the 

growth and physiological condition of rainbow trout during a season where prey are typically 

limited. It is also unclear how quickly the trout population recovers following such an event, and 

whether the response for age-0 and adult fish differs. Therefore, this research will assess rainbow 

trout condition by using total lipid mass and lipid classes (e.g., storage fats, triacylglycerols) as 

sensitive biochemical indicators of physiological condition. In addition, otoliths of age-0 

rainbow trout will be collected in post-flood fish to examine their daily growth rate in the weeks 

prior to and following an HFE to assess response and recovery time. These data will be 

compared to food base data collected prior to, during, and after the HFE. In addition, data will be 

collected in fall during a non-HFE year to compare rainbow trout condition and growth in a 

normal year to those influenced by an HFE. 

Field sampling to collect fish will largely be incorporated into existing research and 

monitoring trips (Project Elements 6.7 [RTELSS], 9.2 [Natal Origins], and 9.9 [HFE/Fall 

Marking]), but additional electrofishing trips may be necessary. Total lipid will be extracted 

gravimetrically from whole-body age-0 fish and from adult tissue samples (Bligh and Dyer, 

1959; Phillips and others, 1997), and total lipid will be separated into lipid classes using highperformance thin layer chromatography (Churchward and others, 2008; Zhou and others, 2012). 
326 

Otoliths will be extracted from age-0 rainbow trout (Secor and others, 1991) collected during an 

HFE year and prepared for growth rate analysis using the distance between daily increments preand post-flood (Gilliers and others, 2004; Amara and others, 2009). In addition, age-0 otoliths 

will be checked for a “check” (a dark line indicating daily growth rings are placed very close 

together) to determine whether growth is interrupted in response to environmental conditions 

prior to and during the HFE. Growth rate measurements will be compared to those from fish 

captured during a non-HFE year to account for normal seasonal fluctuations in growth that occur 

regardless of the occurrence of a controlled flood. 

D.2 Personnel and Collaborations 

The overall project lead for Research Project 9.0 is Dr. Michael Yard a fishery biologist with 

U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC). Dr. Josh 

Korman a fishery biologist with Ecometric Research Inc., and is the principal investigator for the 

Natal Origin Project (9.2) specializing in analytical models and database development, 

population dynamics, and modelling capabilities. Dr. Kim Dibble is a post-doctoral fellow and 

research biologist at GCMRC with expertise in fish physiology and metadata analysis. Dr. 

Charles Yackulic is a research statistician specializing in population dynamics with an emphasis 

in modeling linkages and vital rates between trout populations. Dr. Theodore Melis is a physical 

scientist and will be instrumental in assessing changes in channel-bed texture and relationships 

among fish communities. Daniel Buscombe is a post-doctoral fellow and Research Geologist 

with specialization in image processing and bed-texture characterization. Thomas Gushue is a 

GIS specialist, expert in collecting, processing, and analyzing digital elevation models.

D.3 Deliverables 

Journal articles will be prepared in FY15–17 covering several of the following components 

of this project: 

 Factors leading to differential growth in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in the 

Colorado River, Grand Canyon. 

 Experimental flood effects on age-0 rainbow trout in the Colorado River, Grand Canyon. 

 Analytical methods using a modified open robust design: estimation of rainbow trout 

abundance in a large spatially complex river. 

 Using a hierarchical Bayesian model: estimating age-0 rainbow trout abundance in the 

Lees Ferry sport fishery. 

 Estimating rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) emigration using capture-recapture data 

with open robust design models

E. Productivity from Past Work (during FY 13–14) 

E.1. Completed Publications 

Kennedy, T.A., Yackulic, C.B., Cross, W.F., Grams, P.E., Yard, M.D., and Copp, A.J., 2013, 

The relation between invertebrate drift and two primary controls, discharge and benthic 

densities, in a large regulated river, Freshwater Biology, v. 59, p. 557-572. 

Ward, D.L., Morton-Starner, R., and Hedwall S.J., 2013, An evaluation of liquid ammonia 

(ammonium hydroxide) as a candidate piscicide, North American Journal of Fisheries 

Management, v. 33, p. 400-405. 
327 

Yackulic, C.B., Yard, M.D., Korman, J., and Van Haverbeke, D.R., 2014, A quatitative life 

history of endangered humpback chub that spawn in the Little Colorado River: variation in 

movement, growth, and survival: Ecology and Evolution, doi: 10.1002/ece3.990. 

E.2. Publications in progress 

Dibble, K.L., Yackulic, C.B., Kennedy, T., and Budy, P., Factors that limit salmonid size in 

tailwater fisheries across the western United States. 

Ward, D.L., and R. Morton-Starner. In prep. Effects of turbidity on predation vulnerability of 

humpback chub to rainbow trout and brown trout. 

Yard, M.D., Coggins, L.G., Kennedy, T., and Yackulic, C.B., Effects of turbidity on foraging 

ecology of nonnative rainbow trout and brown trout 

E.3. Presentations at GCDAMP meetings 

Dibble, K.L., Yackulic, C.B., Kennedy, T., and Budy P., 2014, Context and comparison: status 

of tailwater fisheries in the Western United States: Annual Reporting Meeting to the 

Adaptive Management Program for Glen Canyon Dam. Phoenix, AZ, 1/28/2014. 

Korman, J., and Yard, M., 2014, Rainbow trout movement, growth, population dynamics and 

modeling in Glen and Marble Canyons: Annual Reporting Meeting, Adaptive Management 

Program for Glen Canyon Dam, Phoenix, AZ, 1/28/2014. 

Melis, T.S., Gushue, T., Kennedy, T.A., Muehlbauer, J.D., Yard, M.D., Grams, P.E., Sankey, 

J.B., Kohl, K., Andrews, T., Hazel, J.E., Jr., and Korman, J., 2014, Low flows in Glen 

Canyon, preliminary geomorphic analysis of the potential effects on fish and foodbase: 

Annual Reporting Meeting to the Adaptive Management Program for Glen Canyon Dam. 

Phoenix, AZ, 1/28/2014. 

Rogowski, D., 2014, Colorado River trout population monitoring: spawning and rearing surveys, 

seasonal and annual electrofishing surveys, and creel survey: Adaptive Management Program 

for Glen Canyon Dam, Phoenix, AZ, 1/28/2014. 

Ward, D.L. and R. Morton-Starner (2014). Effects of turbidity on predation vulnerability of 

humpback chub to rainbow trout and brown trout: Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management 

Program Annual Reporting Meeting, Phoenix, AZ. POSTER – TWG and AMWG meetings. 

Yackulic, C., Yard, M.D., Korman, J., Van Haverbeke, D.R., and Coggins, L., 2014, Results 

from Colorado River study site and ongoing population modeling: Annual Reporting 

Meeting , Adaptive Management Program for Glen Canyon Dam, Phoenix, AZ, 1/28/2014. 

E.4. Presentations at professional meetings 

Avery, L., Korman, J, and Copp, A., 2013, Flow related responses of the age-0 population of 

rainbow trout in Lees Ferry, Desert Fishes Council, Flagstaff, AZ. 11/20/13. 

Dibble, K.L., Yackulic, C.B., Kennedy, T., and Budy, P., 2013, What factors drive salmonid 

growth in tailwater ecosystems? A synthesis of data on salmonid population dynamics and 

dam operations across the Western United States, Annual Colorado River Fish Cooperator’s 

Meeting, Flagstaff, AZ, 12/19/2013. 

Dibble, K.L., Yackulic, C.B., Kennedy, T., Budy, P., and Korman J., 2013, What can we learn 

from other tailwaters? A synthesis of data on salmonid population dynamics and dam 

operations across the Western United States, 12th Biennial Conference of Science and 

Management on the Colorado Plateau, Flagstaff, AZ, 9/18/13. 

Dibble, K.L., 2013, Telling tall tales? Teasing out the mechanisms behind changes in trout size 

over time in western tailwaters, Watershed Sciences Department, Utah State University, 
328 

Logan, UT. 5/8/13. 

Dodrill, M., Pine, B., Gerig, B., and Finch, C., 2013, Steady as she flows: assessing the response 

of native fish to a steady flow experiment from Glen Canyon Dam, Desert Fishes Council, 

Flagstaff, AZ. 11/20/13. 

Rogowski, D., 2013, Does variation in sampling effort during a long term monitoring project 

matter (Lees Ferry, Colorado River)?, Desert Fishes Council – Flagstaff, AZ. AZ. 11/20/13. 

Morton-Starner, R., and Ward, D.L., 2014, An experimental evaluation of competition between 

rainbow trout and humpback chub. Desert Fishes Council – Flagstaff, AZ. 

Ward, D.L., and Morton-Starner, R., 2014, What environmental factors reduce predation 

vulnerability for native fish? Colorado River Area Biologists Meeting, Laughlin, NV. 

Ward, D.L., and Morton-Starner, R., 2014, Effects of water temperature and turbidity on 

predation vulnerability of juvenile humpback chub to rainbow trout and brown trout. Desert 

Fishes Council – Flagstaff, AZ. AZ. 11/20/13. 

Wolters, P., 2013, Common carp ages, back calculations and growth rates at a large backwater 

above Lees Ferry in Glen Canyon, Colorado River, Desert Fishes Council – Flagstaff, AZ. 

AZ. 11/20/13. 

Yackulic, C., Yard, M., Korman, J., and Vanhaverbeke, D.R., 2013, A quantitative life history of 

humpback chub that spawn in the Little Colorado River: variation in movement, growth and 

survival, Desert Fishes Council, Flagstaff, AZ. 11/20/13. 

Yard, M., Korman, J., Kennedy, T., Yackulic, C., VanderKooi, S., 2013, Turbidity effects on 

spatial dynamics of rainbow trout abundance and growth, Grand Canyon, AZ, 

F. References 

Adams, S.M., 1999, Ecological role of lipids in the health and success of fish populations, in 

Arts, M.T., and Wainman, B.C., eds., Lipids in freshwater ecosystems: New York, Springer, 

p. 132-160. 

Amara, R., Selleslagh, J., Billon, G., and Minier, C., 2009, Growth and condition of 0-group 

European flounder, Platichthys flesus as indicator of estuarine habitat quality: Hydrobiologia, 

v. 627, p. 87-98. 

Anderson, C.R, Wright, S.A., 2007, Development and application of a water temperature model 

for the Colorado River ecosystem below Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona: Hydrological Science 

and Technology, v. 23, no.1–4, Annual Meeting and International Conference, Reno, Nev., 

April 22-25, 2007, Proceedings: American Institute of Hydrology, p. 13–26. 

Anderson, K.E., Paul, A.J., McCauley, E., Jackson, L.J., Post, J.R., Nisbet, R.M., 2006, Instream 

flow needs in streams and rivers--the importance of understanding ecological dynamics: 

Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, v. 4, no. 6, p. 309 – 318. 

Anderson, M.C., Bunch, A.J., and Osterhoudt, R.J., 2012, Status of the Lees Ferry rainbow trout 

fishery: Flagstaff, Arizona Game and Fish Department. 

Angradi, T.R., and Kubly, D.M., 1993, Effects of atmospheric exposure on chlorophyll a, 

biomass and productivity of the epilithon of a tailwater river: Regulated Rivers--Research 

and Management, v. 8, no. 4, p. 345-358, http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgibin/fulltext/113394869/PDFSTART. 

Barrett, J.C., Grossman, G.D., and Rosenfeld, J., 1992, Turbidity-induced changes in reactive 

distance of rainbow trout: Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, v. 121, no. 4, p. 

437-443, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1577/1548-

8659%281992%29121%3C0437%3ATICIRD%3E2.3.CO%3B2. 
329 

Benenati, P.L., Shannon, J.P., and Blinn, D.W., 1998, Desiccation and recolonization of 

phytobenthos in regulated desert river--Colorado River at Lees Ferry, Arizona, USA: 

Regulated Rivers--Research and Management, v. 14, p. 519-532, 

http://www.rmrs.nau.edu/awa/ripthreatbib/Benenati_etal_1998.pdf. 

Bligh, E.G., and Dyer, W.J., 1959, A rapid method of total lipid extraction and purification: 

Canadian Journal of Biochemistry and Physiology, v. 37, p. 911-917. 

Blinn, D.W., Shannon, J.P., Stevens, L.E., and Carder, J.P., 1995, Consequences of fluctuating 

discharge for lotic communities: Journal of the North American Benthological Society, v. 14, 

no. 2, p. 233-248, http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/1467776.pdf. 

Breck, J.E. and Gitter, M.J., 1983, Effect of fish sizes on the reactive distance of bluegill 

(Lepomis macrochirus) sunfish: Canadian Journal of Fisheries Aquatic Science, v. 40, p. 

162–167. 

Budy, P., Haddix, T., and Schneidervin, R., 2005, Zooplankton size selection relative to gill 

raker spacing in rainbow trout: Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, v. 134, p. 

1228-1235. 

Burnham, K.P., and Anderson, D.R., 2002, Model selection and multimodel inference: a 

practical information-theoretic approach: New York, Springer. 

Carothers, S.W., and Brown, B.T., 1991, The Colorado River through Grand Canyon--natural 

history and human change: Tucson, University of Arizona Press, 235 p. 

Churchward, M., Brandman, D., Rogasevskaia, T., and Coorssen, J., 2008, Copper (II) sulfate 

charring for high sensitivity on-plate fluorescent detection of lipids and sterols--quantitative 

analyses of the composition of functional secretory vesicles: Journal of Chemical Biology, v. 

1, p. 79-87. 

Cleary, J.S., Bradford, M.J., and Janz, D.M., 2012, Seasonal and spatial variation in lipid and 

triacylglycerol levels in juvenile chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) from the 

Bridge River, British Columbia: Limnologica--Ecology and Management of Inland Waters, 

v. 42, p. 144-150. 

Coggins, L.G., Jr., 2008, Active adaptive management for native fish conservation in the Grand 

Canyon--implementation and evaluation: Gainseville, University of Florida, Ph.D. 

dissertation, 173 p. 

Coggins, L.G., Yard, M.D., and Pine, W.E., 2011, Nonnative fish control in the Colorado River 

in Grand Canyon, Arizona--an effective program or serendipitous timing?: Transactions of 

the American Fisheries Society, v. 140, no. 2, p. 456-470, 

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00028487.2011.572009. 

Cross, W.F., Rosi-Marshall, E.J., Behn, K.E., Kennedy, T.A., Hall, R.O., Fuller, A.E., and 

Baxter, C.V., 2010, Invasion and production of New Zealand mud snails in the Colorado 

River, Glen Canyon: Biological Invasions, v. 12, no. 9, p. 3033-3043, 

http://www.springerlink.com/content/bv834031865h2077/. 

Cross, W.F., Baxter, C.V., Donner, K.C., Rosi-Marshall, E.J., Kennedy, T.A., Hall, R.O., Jr., 

Wellard-Kelly, H.A., and Rogers, R.S., 2011, Ecosystem ecology meets adaptive 

management--food web response to a controlled flood on the Colorado River, Glen Canyon: 

Ecological Applications, v. 21, no. 6, p. 2016-2033, 

http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/10-1719.1. 

Cross, W.F., Baxter, C.V., Rosi-Marshall, E.J., Hall, R.O.J., Kennedy, T.A., Donner, K.C., 

Wellard-Kelly, H.A., Seegert, S.E.Z., Behn, K.E., and Yard, M.D., 2013, Foodweb dynamics 

in a large river discontinuum: Ecological Monographs, v. 8, no. 3, p. 311-337. 
330 

Donner, K.C., 2011, Trophic basis of production of fishes in the Colorado River, Grand Canyo--

an assessment of potential competition for food: Pocatello, Idaho State University, M.S. 

thesis. 

Eggers, D.M., 1977, The nature of prey selection by planktivorous fish: Ecology, v. 58, p. 46-59. 

Gerritsen, J., and Strickler, J.R., 1977, Encounter probabilities and community structure in 

zooplankton--a mathematical model: Journal of the Fisheries Research Board Canada, v. 34, 

p.73-82. 

Gilliers, C., Amara, R., and Bergeron, J.-P., 2004, Comparison of growth and condition indices 

of juvenile flatfish in different coastal nursery grounds: Environmental Biology of Fishes, v. 

71, p. 189-198. 

Graf, J.B., 1995, Measured and predicted velocity and longitudinal dispersion at steady and 

unsteady flow, Colorado River, Glen Canyon Dam to Lake Mead: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water Resources Bulletin, v. 31, no. 2, p. 265−281. 

Grams, P.E., Schmidt, J.C., and Topping, D.J., 2007, The rate and pattern of bed incision and 

bank adjustment on the Colorado River in Glen Canyon downstream from Glen Canyon 

Dam, 1956-2000: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 119, no. 5-6 p. 556-575, 

http://gsabulletin.gsapubs.org/content/119/5-6/556.abstract. 

Hairston, N.G., Sr., 1989, Hard choices in ecological experimentation: Herpetologica, v. 45, no. 

1, p. 119-122. 

Hansen, A.G., Beauchamp, D.A., and Schoen, E.R., 2013, Visual prey detection responses of 

piscivorous trout and salmon--effects of light, turbidity, and prey size: Transactions of the 

American Fisheries Society, v. 142, p. 854-867. 

Harvey, B.C., and Nakamoto, R.J., 2013, Seasonal and among-stream variation in predator 

encounter rates for fish prey: Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, v. 142, p. 621–

627. 

Harvey, B.C., Railsback, S.F., 2009, Exploring the persistence of stream-dwelling trout 

populations under alternative real-world turbidity regimes with an individual-based model: 

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, v. 138, p. 348 – 360. 

Hayes, J.W., Stark, J.D., Shearer, K.A., 2000, Development and test of a whole-lifetime foraging 

and bioenergetics growth model for drift-feeding brown trout: Transactions of the American 

Fisheries Society, v. 129, p. 315 – 332. 

Howick, G.L., and O’Brien, W.J., 1983, Piscivorous feeding behavior of largemouth bass--an 

experimental analysis: Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, v. 112, p. 508-516. 

Hutchings, J.A., 1994, Age- and size-specific costs of reproduction within populations of brook 

trout, Salvelinus fontinalis: Oikos, v. 70, p. 12-20. 

Hutchings, J.A., Pickle, A., McGregor-Shaw, C.R., and Poirier, L., 1999, Influence of sex, body 

size, and reproduction on overwinter lipid depletion in brook trout: Journal of Fish Biology, 

v. 55, p. 1020-1028. 

Kaeding, L.R., Zimmerman, M.A., 1983, Life history and ecology of the humpback chub in the 

Little Colorado and Colorado rivers of the Grand Canyon: Transactions of the American 

Fisheries Society, v. 112, p. 557-594. 

Keeley, E.R., Parkinson, E.A., and Taylor, E.B., 2007, The origins of ecotypic variation of 

rainbow trout--a test of environmental vs. genetically based differences in morphology: 

Journal of Evolutionary Biology, v. 20, p. 725-736. 

Kennedy, T.A., Yackulic, C.B., Cross, W.F., Grams, P.E., Yard, M.D., and Copp, A.J., 2013, 

The relation between invertebrate drift and two primary controls, discharge and benthic 

densities, in a large regulated river: Freshwater Biology, v. 59, p. 557-572. 
331 

Kieffer, J.D., Currie, S., and Tufts, B.L., 1994, Effects of environmental temperature on the 

metabolic and acid–base responses of rainbow trout to exhaustive exercise: Journal of 

Experimental Biology, v. 194, p. 299–31. 

Kondolf, G.M., Cook, S.S., Maddux, H.R., and Persons, W.R., 1989, Spawning gravels of 

rainbow trout in the Grand Canyon, Arizona: Journal of the Arizona–Nevada Academy of 

Science, v. 23, p. 19–28. 

Korman, J., Kaplinski, M., Hazel, J.E.J., and Melis, T.S., 2005, Effects of the experimental 

fluctuating flows from Glen Canyon Dam in 2003 and 2004 on the early life history stages of 

rainbow trout in the Colorado River--final report: Ecometric Research, Inc., Northern 

Arizona University, and U.S. Geological Survey, submitted to U.S. Geological Survey, 

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, cooperative agreement no. 04-WRAG-0006 

and modification no. 002, 171 p. 

Korman, J., Yard, M., Walters, C.J., and Coggins, L.G., 2009a, Effects of fish size, habitat, flow, 

and density on capture probabilities of age-0 rainbow trout estimated from electrofishing at 

discrete sites in a large river: Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, v. 138, no. 1, p. 

58-75, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1577/T08-025.1. 

Korman, J., and Campana, S.E., 2009b, Effects of hydropeaking on nearshore habitat use and 

growth of age-0 rainbow trout in a large regulated river: Transactions of the American 

Fisheries Society, v. 138, no. 1, p. 76-87, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1577/T08-

026.1. 

Korman, J., Kaplinski, M., and Melis, T.S., 2011, Effects of fluctuating flows and a controlled 

flood on incubation success and early survival rates and growth of age-0 rainbow trout in a 

large regulated river: Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, v. 140, no. 2, p. 487-

505, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00028487.2011.572015. 

Korman, J., Martell, S.J.D., Walters, C.J., Makinster, A.S., Coggins, L.G., Yard, M.D., and 

Persons, W.R., 2012, Estimating recruitment dynamics and movement of rainbow trout 

(Oncorhynchus mykiss) in the Colorado River in Grand Canyon using an integrated 

assessment model: Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, v. 69, p. 1827-1849. 

MacNeill, D.B., and Brandt, S.B., 1990, Ontogenetic shifts in gill-raker morphology and 

predicted prey capture efficiency of the alewife, Alosa pseudoharengus: Copeia, v. 1990, p. 

164-171. 

Maddux, H.R., Kubly, D.M., deVos, J.C., Jr., Persons, W.R., Staedicke, R., and Wright, R.L., 

1987, Effects of varied flow regimes on aquatic resources of Glen and Grand Canyons--final 

report: Phoenix, Arizona Game and Fish Department, submitted to Bureau of Reclamation, 

Glen Canyon Environmental Studies, contract no. 4-AG-40-01810, 291 p. 

Makinster, A.S., Persons, W.R., and Avery, L.A., 2011, Status and trends of the rainbow trout 

population in the Lees Ferry reach of the Colorado River downstream from Glen Canyon 

Dam, Arizona, 1991–2009: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2011–

5015, 17 p.  

Malvestuto, S.P., 1996, Sampling the recreation creel, in B.R. Murphy and D.W. Willis, eds., 

Fisheries Techniques (2d): Bethesda, Md., American Fisheries Society, p. 591-623. 

Marsh, P.C., and Douglas, M.E., 1997, Predation by introduced fishes on endangered humpback 

chub and other native species in the Little Colorado River, Arizona: Transactions of the 

American Fisheries Society, v. 126, p. 343-346. 

McKinney, T., and Speas, D.W., 2001, Observations of size-related asymmetries in diet and 

energy intake of rainbow trout in a regulated river: Environmental Biology of Fishes, v. 61, 

no. 4, p. 435-444, http://www.springerlink.com/content/u177356554v07546/. 
332 

McKinney, T., Speas, D.W., Rogers, R.S., and Persons, W.R., 2001, Rainbow trout in a 

regulated river below Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona, following increased minimum flows and 

reduced discharge variability: North American Journal of Fisheries Management, v. 21, p. 

216-222. 

Melis, T.S., Korman, J., and Kennedy, T.A., 2012, Abiotic and biotic responses of the Colorado 

River to controlled floods at Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona, USA: River Research and 

Applications, v. 28, p. 764-776. 

Newcombe, C.P., and MacDonald, D.D., 1991, Effects of suspended sediment on aquatic 

ecosystems: North American Journal of Fisheries Management, v. 11, p. 72–82. 

Parrish, C.C., 1999, Determination of total lipid, lipid classes, and fatty acids in aquatic samples, 

in Arts, M.T., and Wainman, B.C., eds., Lipids in freshwater ecosystems: New York, 

Springer-Verlag, p. 4-20. 

Perry, S.A., and Perry, W.B., 1986, Effects of experimental flow regulation on invertebrate drift 

and stranding in the Flathead and Kootenai Rivers, Montana, USA: Hydrobiologia, v. 134, 

no. 2, p. 171-182. http://www.springerlink.com/content/wu08t083k8r41554/. 

Phillips, K.M., Tarrago-Trani, M.T., Grove, T.M., Grun, I., Lugogo, R., Harris, R.F., and 

Stewart, K.K., 1997, Simplified gravimetric determination of total fat in food composites 

after chloroform-methanol extraction: Journal of the American Oil Chemists Society, v. 74, 

p. 137-142. 

Post, J.R., and Parkinson, E.A., 2001, Energy allocation strategy in young fish--allometry and 

survival: Ecology, v. 82, p. 1040-1051. 

Rosenfeld, J.S., Ptolemy, R., 2012, Modelling available habitat versus available energy flux--do 

PHABSIM applications that neglect prey abundance underestimate optimal flows for juvenile 

salmonids?: Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, v. 69, p. 1920 – 1934. 

Runge, M.C., Bean, E., Smith, D.R., and Kokos, S., 2011. Non-native fish control below Glen 

Canyon Da--report from a structured decision-making project: U.S. Geological Survey OpenFile Report 2011–1012, 74 p., http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2011/1012/. 

Schmidt, J.C., Webb, R.H., Valdez, R.A., Marzolf, G.R., and Stevens, L.E., 1998, Science and 

values in river restoration in the Grand Canyon: Bioscience, v. 48, p. 735-747. 

Secor, D.H., Dean, J.M., and Laban, E.H., 1991, Manual for otolith removal and preparation for 

microstructural examination: Belle W. Baruch Institute for Marine Biology and Coastal 

Research. 

Simpkins, D.G., Hubert, W.A., Del Rio, C.M., and Rule, D.C., 2003, Physiological responses of 

juvenile rainbow trout to fasting and swimming activity--effects on body composition and 

condition indices: Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, v. 132, p. 576-589. 

Speas, D.W., Walters, C.J., Ward, D.L., and Rogers, R.S., 2004, Effects of intraspecific density 

and environmental variables on the electrofishing catchability of brown and rainbow trout in 

the Colorado River: North American Journal of Fisheries Management, v. 24, p. 586-596. 

Stockner, J.G., Rydin, E., and Hyenstrand, P., 2000, Cultural oligotrophication--causes and 

consequences for fisheries resources: Fisheries, v. 25, p. 7-14. 

Stuart-Smith, R.D., Richardson, A.M.M., and White, R.W.G., 2004, Increasing turbidity 

significantly alters the diet of brown trout--a multi-year longitudinal study: Journal of Fish 

Biology, v. 65, p. 376-388. 

Sweka, J.A., and Hartman, K.J., 2003, Reduction of reactive distance and foraging success in 

smallmouth bass, Micropterus dolomieu, exposed to elevated turbidity levels: Environmental 

Biology of Fishes, v. 67, p. 341–347. 
333 

Topping, D.J., Schmidt, J.C., and Vierra, L.E., Jr., 2003, Computation and analysis of the 

instantaneous-discharge record for the Colorado River at Lees Ferry, Arizona–May 8, 1921, 

through September 30, 2000: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1677, 118 p. 

Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., Grams, P.E., Griffiths, R.E., Sabol, T.A., Voichick, N., Tusso, R.B., 

Vanaman, K.M., and McDonald, R.R., 2010, Sediment transport during three controlledflood experiments on the Colorado River downstream from Glen Canyon Dam, with 

implications for eddy-sandbar deposition in Grand Canyon National Park: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 2010–1128, 111 p. 

Tummers, B., 2006, DataThief III--version 1.6, available from http://datathief.org. 

Bureau of Reclamation, 1996, Record of decision on the operation of Glen Canyon Dam--final 

environmental impact statement: Salt Lake City, Utah, Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive 

Management Program, UC-326 ENV-6.00, 15 p., 

http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/pdfs/sp_appndxG_ROD.pdf. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, 2007, Record of decision, Colorado River interim guidelines for 

lower basin shortages and the coordinated operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead: 

Washington, D.C., Office of the Secretary of the Interior, 59 p., 

http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/strategies/RecordofDecision.pdf. 

Bureau of Reclamation, 2011, Environmental assessment--development and implementation of a 

protocol for high-flow experimental releases from Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona, 2011 through 

2020: Salt Lake City, Utah, Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region, 176 p. + 

appendices, http://www.usbr.gov/uc/envdocs/ea/gc/HFEProtocol/HFE-EA.pdf. 

Utne-Palm, A.C., 2002, Visual feeding of fish in a turbid environment--physical and behavioural 

aspects: Marine and Freshwater Behaviour and Physiology, v. 35, p. 111–128. 

Valdez, R.A., and Ryel, R.J., 1995, Life history and ecology of the humpback chub (Gila cypha) 

in the Colorado River, Grand Canyon, Arizona--final report: Logan, Utah, BIO/WEST, Inc., 

submitted to Bureau of Reclamation, contract no. 0-CS-40-09110, technical report no. TR250-08, 328 p. 

Van Haverbeke, D.R., Stone, D.M., Coggins, L.G., Pillow, M.J., 2013, Long-term monitoring of 

an endangered desert fish and factors influencing population dynamics: Journal of Fish and 

Wildlife Management, v. 4, p. 163–177. 

Vinyard, G.L. and O’Brien, W.J., 1976, Effects of light and turbidity on the reactive distance of 

bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus): Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada, v. 33, p. 

2845-2849. 

Voichick, N., and Wright, S.A., 2007, Water-temperature data for the Colorado River and 

tributaries between Glen Canyon Dam and Spencer Canyon, northern Arizona, 1988-2005: 

U.S. Geological Survey Data Survey Series 251, 24 p., http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/2007/251/. 

Vogel, J.L., and Beauchamp, D.A., 1999, Effects of light, prey size, and turbidity on reaction 

distances of lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush) to salmonid prey: Canadian Journal of 

Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, v. 56, p. 1293-1297. 

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

of adaptive management policies in the Grand Canyon: Conservation Ecology, v. 4, no. 2, p. 

1-38. 

Ware, D.M., 1973, Risk of epibenthic prey to predation by rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri): 

Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada, v. 30, p. 787-797. 

Wright, S.A. and Grams, P.E., 2010, Evaluation of water year 2011 Glen Canyon Dam flow 

release scenarios on downstream sand storage along the Colorado River in Arizona: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010-1133, 18 p. 
334 

Yackulic, C.B., Yard, M.D., Korman, J., and Van Haverbeke, D.R., 2014, A quantitative life 

history of endangered humpback chub that spawn in the Little Colorado River--variation in 

movement, growth, and survival: Ecology and Evolution, v. 4, no. 7, p. 1006-1018, 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ece3.990/abstract. 

Yard, M.D., 2003, Light availability and aquatic primary production, Colorado River, Glen and 

Grand Canyons, AZ: Flagstaff, Northern Arizona University, Ph.D. dissertation, 205 p. 

Yard, M.D., Bennett, G.E., Mietz, S.N., Coggins Jr., L.G., Stevens, L.E., Hueftle, S., and Blinn, 

D.W., 2005, Influence of topographic complexity on solar insolation estimates for the 

Colorado River, Grand Canyon, AZ: Ecological Modelling, v. 183, p. 157–172. 

Yard, M.D., Coggins, L.G., Baxter, C.V., Bennett, G.E., and Korman, J., 2011, Trout piscivory 

in the Colorado River, Grand Canyon--effects of turbidity, temperature, and fish prey 

availability: Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, v. 140, no. 2, p. 471-486, 

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00028487.2011.572011. 

Zhou, A.L., Hintze, K.J., Jimenez-Flores, R., and Ward, R.E., 2012, Dietary fat composition 

influences tissue lipid profile and gene expression in Fischer-344 rats: Lipids, v. 47, p. 1119-

1130.
335 

G. Budget

Core activities

Support implementation and

evaluation of HFE Protocol and

Non‐Native Fish Control

Technical and analytical

innovations in monitoring

Improving predictive modeling

capacity

Resolving scientific uncertainty

Independent science oversight

and review

Integrating tribes in monitoring

and research

Project Identifier Project Description Salaries Travel & Training Operating Expenses Logistics Coop‐ erators (non‐USGS) U

Coop‐

9

Understanding Factors

Determining Recruitment,

Population Size, Growth,

and Movement of Rainbow

Trout in Glen and Marble

Canyons

$483,200 $9,000 $94,800 $162,400 $190,000 

XX X 9.1 Lees Ferry RBT; monitoring, analysis, and study design Persons et al. $41,100 $0 $0 $12,900 $115,000 

X X 9.2

Detection of RBT movement from

upper Colorado River below GCD

(NO)

Yard, Korman,

Persons and

Rogowski

$95,700 $0 $14,900 $127,400 $75,000 

X 9.3

Exploring the mechanisms behind

trout growth, reproduction, and

movement in Glen and Marble

Canyons using lipid (fat) reserves

as an indicator of physiological

condition

Dibble et al. $48,500 $0 $40,000 $0 $0 

X 9.4 Comparative study on the feeding morphology of drift feeding fish Yard et al. $72,100 $0 $2,400 $0 $0 

X 9.5

Meta‐analysis and the

development of reactive distance

relationships for encounter rate

models

Yard et al. $29,200 $2,500 $1,500 $0 $0 

X 9.6

Lab studies to evaluate turbidity

as a potential Glen Canyon Dam‐

operations management tool to

constrain rainbow trout

populations and reduce

predation/competition on juvenile

humpback chub

Ward $27,500 $2,000 $2,500 $0 $0 

Monitoring Research

FY15
336 

 

Core activities

Support implementation and

evaluation of HFE Protocol and

Non‐Native Fish Control

Technical and analytical

innovations in monitoring

Improving predictive modeling

capacity

Resolving scientific uncertainty

Independent science oversight

and review

Integrating tribes in monitoring

and research

Project Identifier Project Description Salaries Travel & Training Operating Expenses Logistics Coop‐ erators (non‐USGS) USGS Coop‐erato

X 9.7 Application of a bioenergetics model in a seasonally turbid river Dodrill et al. $53,800 $2,000 $1,500 $0 $0 

X 9.8

Mechanisms that limit RBT and

BNT growth in other western

tailwater systems

Dibble et al. $58,400 $2,500 $1,500 $0 $0 

X X 9.9

Contingency Planning for High

Experimental Flows and

Subsequent Rainbow Trout

Population Management

Yard et al. $12,500 $0 $28,000 $22,100 $0 

X 9.10

Examining the Effects of High Flow

Experiments on the Physiological

Condition of Age‐0 and Adult

Rainbow Trout in Glen Canyon

Dibble et al. $44,400 $0 $2,500 $0 $0 

Monitoring Research

FY15
337 

Core activities

Support implementation and

evaluation of HFE Protocol and

Non‐Native Fish Control

Technical and analytical

innovations in monitoring

Improving predictive modeling

capacity

Resolving scientific uncertainty

Independent science oversight

and review

Integrating tribes in monitoring

and research

Project Identifier Project Description Salaries Travel & Training Operating Expenses Logistics Coop‐ erators (non‐USGS) USGS Coop‐erato

9

Understanding Factors

Determining Recruitment,

Population Size, Growth,

and Movement of Rainbow

Trout in Glen and Marble

Canyons

$483,600 $7,500 $87,500 $168,400 $190,000 

XX X 9.1 Lees Ferry RBT; monitoring, analysis, and study design Persons et al. $62,300 $2,500 $0 $12,900 $115,000 

X X 9.2

Detection of RBT movement from

upper Colorado River below GCD

(NO)

Yard, Korman,

Persons and

Rogowski

$100,500 $0 $50,100 $145,500 $75,000 

X 9.3

Exploring the mechanisms behind

trout growth, reproduction, and

movement in Glen and Marble

Canyons using lipid (fat) reserves

as an indicator of physiological

condition

Dibble et al. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

X 9.4 Comparative study on the feeding morphology of drift feeding fish Yard et al. $80,000 $2,500 $2,400 $0 $0 

X 9.5

Meta‐analysis and the

development of reactive distance

relationships for encounter rate

models

Yard et al. $29,800 $0 $1,500 $0 $0 

X 9.6

Lab studies to evaluate turbidity

as a potential Glen Canyon Dam‐

operations management tool to

constrain rainbow trout

populations and reduce

predation/competition on juvenile

humpback chub

Ward $21,400 $0 $2,500 $0 $0 

FY16

Monitoring Research
338 

Core activities

Support implementation and

evaluation of HFE Protocol and

Non‐Native Fish Control

Technical and analytical

innovations in monitoring

Improving predictive modeling

capacity

Resolving scientific uncertainty

Independent science oversight

and review

Integrating tribes in monitoring

and research

Project Identifier Project Description Salaries Travel & Training Operating Expenses Logistics Coop‐ erators (non‐USGS) USGS Coop‐erato

X 9.7 Application of a bioenergetics model in a seasonally turbid river Dodrill et al. $56,100 $0 $1,500 $0 $0 

X 9.8

Mechanisms that limit RBT and

BNT growth in other western

tailwater systems

Dibble et al. $65,600 $0 $1,500 $0 $0 

X X 9.9

Contingency Planning for High

Experimental Flows and

Subsequent Rainbow Trout

Population Management

Yard et al. $12,900 $0 $28,000 $10,000 $0 

X 9.10

Examining the Effects of High Flow

Experiments on the Physiological

Condition of Age‐0 and Adult

Rainbow Trout in Glen Canyon

Dibble et al. $55,000 $2,500 $0 $0 $0 

FY16

Monitoring Research
339 

 

Core activities

Support implementation and

evaluation of HFE Protocol and

Non‐Native Fish Control

Technical and analytical

innovations in monitoring

Improving predictive modeling

capacity

Resolving scientific uncertainty

Independent science oversight

and review

Integrating tribes in

monitoring and research

Project Identifier Project Description Salaries Travel & Training Operating Expenses Logistics Coop‐ erators (non‐USGS) USGS Coop‐erato

9

Understanding Factors

Determining Recruitment,

Population Size, Growth,

and Movement of Rainbow

Trout in Glen and Marble

Canyons

$357,600 $0 $86,000 $123,700 $50,000 

XX X 9.1 Lees Ferry RBT; monitoring, analysis, and study design Persons et al. $60,400 $0 $0 $0 $0 

X X 9.2

Detection of RBT movement from

upper Colorado River below GCD

(NO)

Yard, Korman,

Persons and

Rogowski

$98,600 $0 $50,100 $101,600 $50,000 

X 9.3

Exploring the mechanisms behind

trout growth, reproduction, and

movement in Glen and Marble

Canyons using lipid (fat) reserves

as an indicator of physiological

condition

Dibble et al. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

X 9.4 Comparative study on the feeding morphology of drift feeding fish Yard et al. $70,000 $0 $2,400 $0 $0 

X 9.5

Meta‐analysis and the

development of reactive distance

relationships for encounter rate

models

Yard et al. $25,700 $0 $1,500 $0 $0 

X 9.6

Lab studies to evaluate turbidity

as a potential Glen Canyon Dam‐

operations management tool to

constrain rainbow troutpopulations and reduce

predation/competition on juvenile

humpback chub

Ward $20,900 $0 $2,500 $0 $0 

FY17

Monitoring Research
340 

 

Core activities

Support implementation and

evaluation of HFE Protocol and

Non‐Native Fish Control

Technical and analytical

innovations in monitoring

Improving predictive modeling

capacity

Resolving scientific uncertainty

Independent science oversight

and review

Integrating tribes in

monitoring and research

Project Identifier Project Description Salaries Travel & Training Operating Expenses Logistics Coop‐ erators (non‐USGS) USGS Coop‐erato

X 9.7 Application of a bioenergetics model in a seasonally turbid river Dodrill et al. $50,800 $0 $1,500 $0 $0 

X 9.8

Mechanisms that limit RBT and

BNT growth in other western

tailwater systems

Dibble et al. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

X X 9.9

Contingency Planning for High

Experimental Flows and

Subsequent Rainbow Trout

Population Management

Yard et al. $27,200 $0 $28,000 $22,100 $0 

X 9.10

Examining the Effects of High Flow

Experiments on the Physiological

Condition of Age‐0 and Adult

Rainbow Trout in Glen Canyon

Dibble et al. $4,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 

FY17

Monitoring Research
341 

Research: Technical and analytical innovations in monitoring 

Research: Resolving scientific uncertainty 

Project 10. Where does the Glen Canyon Dam rainbow trout 

tailwater fishery end? - Integrating Fish and Channel 

Mapping Data below Glen Canyon Dam 

Initial Estimate: FY15: $148,600; FY16: $163,500; FY17: $132,200 

GCDAMP Funding: FY15: $148,600; FY16: $152,100; FY17: $125,600 

A. Investigators 

Ted Melis, Physical Scientist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research 

Center 

Daniel Buscombe, Research Geologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center 

Michael Yard, Fishery Biologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center 

Josh Korman, Ecometric Research, 

Paul Grams, Research Hydrologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center 

Tom Gushue, GIS Coordinator, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center 

Geographer, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center 

Student, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center 

B. Project Summary 

Glen Canyon Dam’s rainbow trout tailwater fishery (hereafter, GCD tailwater) begins in the 

project’s tailrace, but where does it end? The serial discontinuity concept for impounded rivers 

was first described by Ward and Stanford (1983), whereby recovery of river ecosystems 

impaired by dams is predicted to increase with distance below dams; often influenced by 

locations of downstream tributaries that to some degree add back resources lost to upstream 

reservoirs. The Colorado River ecosystem (CRe) is composed of several river segments 

extending from the forebay of GCD to the western boundary of GCNP, and has been studied 

extensively for the past five decades (Gloss and others, 2005; Schmidt and Grams, 2011a). 

However, it remains unclear how long-term trends in the river’s channel morphology in response 

to dam operations, will combine with climate-change induced trends in downstream quality-ofwater (QW) to influence the exotic rainbow trout tailwater fishery and native fish in the CRe. 

Stream forecasting under current climate change for the southwestern US and Colorado River 

suggests dryer conditions are already occurring under global warming (see chaps. 8 & 20 of the 

2014 National Climate Assessment: http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report). 

Reduced water storage in Lake Powell since 2001, has already resulted in warmer GCD 

releases; a trend that has significantly influenced the discontinuity distance and recovery relative 

to the river’s altered thermal regime in Grand Canyon over the last 14 years. Whether exotic or 

native fish species in GCNP will benefit more from these somewhat warmer, but still unnaturally 
342 

cold releases under both drier and warmer conditions below GCD remains highly uncertain. 

Located 15 miles below GCD, the confluence with the Paria River is typically referred to as the 

downstream terminus of the “Lees Ferry” recreational trout fishery, and is also the approximate 

boundary between Glen Canyon National Recreation Area and Grand Canyon National Park 

(GCNRA and GCNP, respectively). However, rainbow trout are also found below the Paria and 

Little Colorado Rivers, more than 75 miles downstream of the dam (Makinster and others, 2010). 

Recent modeling studies suggest that sand-sized sediment can be a significant limiting factor in 

the spawning success of trout in gravel-bed settings, and may be more important than finer 

sediments in limiting flow and reducing levels of dissolved oxygen needed by incubating trout 

eggs within redds (Pattison and others, 2012; Sear and others, 2012). The highly sporadic and 

intermittent nature of flooding and sediment production from the Paria River results in periods 

when the Colorado River’s bed and water quality may or may not be greatly affected by finesediment deliveries from this important tributary. Paria River flow volumes are relatively small 

and typically have little influence on the now-altered temperature regime of the Colorado River 

below Glen Canyon. Therefore, the effective “discontinuity distance” below GCD may be highly 

variable through time relative to the Paria River’s location below the dam. 

Ellis and Jones (2013) conclude that at least two recovery gradients exist in regulated rivers, 

with the thermal recovery gradient typically being the longest. To improve understanding about 

discontinuity distance(s) associated with the GCD tailwater, this interdisciplinary research 

project proposes to integrate new and existing channel mapping methods with ongoing fisheries 

monitoring and analyses using a variety of information about the geometry of channel margins, 

bed-sediment characteristics (softer (sand and finer) and harder (gravel or bedrock) substrates), 

and quality of water (QW) data (including, flow, water temperature and turbidity or total 

suspended sediment). This project’s aim is to evaluate the potential effects of physical processes 

(water temperature and sediment input frequency) on native and nonnative fish dynamics. The 

basic questions being asked are: 1) How do seasonal fine-sediment inputs, high flow events and 

dam release temperatures affect downstream spawning for rainbow trout, and rearing habitat for 

trout and humpback chub? and, 2) Do fall-timed pulse flows extend the rainbow trout fishery 

downstream toward or beyond the Little Colorado River? Sources of information needed to 

address these questions are shown in figure 1. 
343 

Figure 1. Sources of existing and new information from ongoing GCMRC monitoring and research projects that are 

available to answer new ecologically important questions about GCD operation and co-management of native and nonnative 

fish in GCNRA and GCNP. The CRe’s thermal recovery gradient has moved upstream since 2002, in response to reduced 

Lake Powell storage, while highly variable point sources of fine sediment influencing turbidity remained fixed. 
344 

This information has management implications, particularly below GCNRA where rainbow 

trout are of concern relative to native fish conservation in GCNP. Understanding the 

relationships between trout life history, and abiotic and biotic processes affected by specific dam 

operations and climate change will provide greater insight about strategies for co-managing 

native and nonnative fisheries between Lakes Powell and Mead. Project findings may also be 

transferable to inform management of other Colorado River basin tailwaters where similar 

challenges in co-management of native and nonnative sport fisheries exist (see Trammel, 2010; 

Clarkson and Marsh, 2010). 

As shown in figure 1, this project intends to build on the numerous recent achievements of 

several FY13–14 projects, including near real time monitoring of flow, QW and suspendedsediment transport (Topping and others, Project 2), annual channel mapping of sandbars (Grams 

and others, Project 3), quarterly monitoring of natal origins (NO) of rainbow trout and humpback 

chub juvenile survival (Korman and Yard, Project 9), and ongoing monitoring of the CRe’s food 

base (Kennedy and others, Project 5). Proposed interdisciplinary analyses of fish and channelmap data also critically depend upon the capabilities of the GCMRC’s GIS Services and Support 

project, as well as GCMRC’s abundant existing remote sensing data (Gushue and others, Project 

14). 

We propose to use both new and existing channel mapping data (Table 1) to advance an 

integrated physical and biological outcome that is only possible owing to ongoing QW and 

channel monitoring, as well as NO and food base field monitoring during 2015-16. Outcomes 

from other monitoring projects focused on riparian vegetation and cultural resources (Projects 11 

and 12) will also be considered in terms of channel-shoreline changes in NO study reaches as 

appropriate and available during project synthesis in 2017. 

Table 1. Existing and Proposed channel-bed bathymetry and bed-sediment imagery data needed for integrated 

analyses with biological data from Natal Origins of Rainbow Trout & Juvenile Humpback Chub Survival (NO, 

Project 9) study reaches 

Water Year (WY) / 

Month(s) data 

collected/ Annual 

Release Volume 

(maf)/ Types of dam 

operations 

NO 

Reach #1 

(rms -6 

to -2) 

NO Reach 

#2 (rms 

16 to 20) 

NO Reach #3 

(rms 37 to 41) 

NO Reach 

#4a (rms 60 

to 61) 

NO Reach 

#4b (rms 

62 to 64) 

WY2016/ annual 

volume & operations 

are not projected yet 

HSS 

(SEP & 

APR) 

MBB/AB 

(MAY) + 

HSS (SEP 

& APR) 

HSS (SEP & 

APR) 

*

MBB/AB & 

HSS (APR, 

*

JUL & SEP) 

HSS (APR 

& SEP) 

WY2015/ projected

~9.0 maf/ Modified 

Low Fluctuating 

Flows (MLFF) 

MBB/AB 

(NOV or 

AUG)

HSS (APR 

& SEP) 

HSS (APR & 

SEP)) 

*

MBB/AB & 

HSS (APR, 

*

JUL & SEP) 

HSS (APR 

& SEP) 

WY2014/ 7.48 maf/ 

MLFF & fall HFE 

HSS 

(APR) 

HSS 

(SEP) 

HSS (SEP) HSS (APR), 

MBB/AB 

(MAY) 

HSS 

(APR), 

MBB/AB 

(MAY) 

WY2013/ 8.23 maf/ 

MLFF & fall HFE 

HSS 

(OCT & 

DEC) 

HSS 

(MAY) 

n.d. MBB/AB 

(AUG) 

n.d. 
345 

WY2012/ 9.47 maf/ 

MLFF & fall steady 

flow test (OCT 2011) 

n.d. n.d. MBB/AB/HSS MBB/AB/HSS n.d. 

KEY – n.d., No data, HSS, Humminbird sidescan sonar imagery; MBB/AB, Multi-beam bathymetry/acoustic 

backscattering imagery; TSS, Towed sidescan imagery (Klein® system, digital, duel frequency, UWV, Underwater 

video, AHGI, 2003, Airborne, high-gain digital imagery). *

, Collection of these data contingent upon funding of 

Project Element 3.4 (McElroy and others). 

These coordinated research efforts involving members of multiple existing projects will 

culminate in new interdisciplinary geospatial analyses in 2017, centered around a workshop, and 

will be built upon the following three project elements with the following 7 objectives: 

Element #1 (2015) – has one objective

1. Complete Humminbird® Sidescan Sonar Mapping Methods - in 2015, for determining 

changes in the areal extents of sand and gravel bed surface sediment types using lowcost, easy-to-use sidescan sonar technology, where drifting benthic organisms and 

spawning trout are monitored in Glen and Marble Canyon study segments, 

Element #2 (2015-16) – has five objectives

1. Use of Glen Canyon Channel Map to Support Aquatic Modeling Research - Project 3 

element 3.2, channel topographic and bed-sediment type map for Glen Canyon, data 

collected in 2015 (see Grams and others), will be used with flow model (Project 5) to 

support primary production model, and assessment of channel margins and shorelines in 

task 3, below, 

2. Document Geometry of Glen Canyon Channel Margins and Grain Size – in 2015-16, the 

proportion of low-angle channel margins (less than 11 degree slopes, after Korman and 

others, 2005) known to be used by juvenile trout in Glen Canyon, 

3. Document Geometry of Marble and eastern Grand Canyon Channel Margins – using 

existing channel data from previously mapped segments of Marble and Eastern Grand 

Canyon within NO study sites, we will estimate the proportion of low-angle channel 

margins (less than 11 degrees) for comparison with results from task #3 above, 

4. Determining the Time-Varied Proportion of Sand and Gravel in Deeper Channel – 

through use of new and existing channel-map data, we will estimate the time-varied 

spatial distributions (2012-16) of sand and gravel areas on the Colorado River bed 

surface that may support rainbow trout spawning in NO study sites 1 - 4b, 

5. Determining Time-Varied Proportion of Channel Margin Types in NO Study Sites – to 

assess possible influences on fish catch rates in NO study reaches #1 - 4b between 2012-

16, associated with changing shoreline and near-shore sand deposits (low elevation eddy 

and lower channel sandbars) that may result from tributary sand inputs combined with 

high flow dam operations. 

Element #3 (2017) – has one objective

1. Synthetic Analysis of Rainbow Trout Catch and Physical Data – Integrating, in 2017, five 

years of physical (segment-scale channel geometry, changes in areal bed surface sand 

coverage, and variations in flow patterns, total suspended sediment flux and water 

temperature) and biological (the aquatic foodbase, in terms of invertebrate drift) and 

rainbow trout responses; analyses developed through an integration workshop approach. 
346 

Downstream of GCD, QW, suspended-sediment transport and sandbars (Project 2 and 3) are 

already monitored by the GCMRC in support of several GCDAMP information needs. However, 

recent data and advances in understanding about how specific dam operations can affect aquatic 

resources, such as benthic invertebrates and rainbow trout that are linked to the river bed and 

channel margins (Kennedy and others, 2013a; 2013b; Cross and others, 2012; Korman and 

others, 2011;12) suggest that there is a greater need to evaluate changes in QW and physical 

characteristics of the river channel through collaborative analyses between physical and aquatic 

scientists. The integrated goal of this proposed interdisciplinary effort is to increase 

understanding about how specific dam operations under drier hydrology from global warming 

may directly or indirectly influence fish distribution, abundance tied to early life history 

responses to changes in QW, use of changing channel margins (more or less sandbars and/or 

riparian vegetation) and bed-sediment type up and downstream of the Paria River confluence. 

C. Background 

Despite its 1996 reoperation (USDOI, 1995; 1996), GCD releases can still vary quite widely 

over hourly-to-decadal time scales in response to variations in upper basin hydrology and Lake 

Powell storage. Relative to pre-regulation, average daily flow is now much higher, but much less 

steady, while annual peaks are only a fraction of previous floods that occurred in Grand Canyon 

prior to dam closure (Topping and others, 2003). Hourly patterns of GCD water release, termed 

Modified Low Fluctuating Flows (MLFF) vary with monthly and annual water release volumes 

that are governed by upper Colorado River basin hydrology, water transfer agreements, and 

hydropower electrical energy demands. As a result, these factors can all directly influence 

inundation of channel margins used by aquatic organisms, as well as flow velocities and shear 

stresses along the river bed below the dam. Downstream variation in channel geometry within 

and between Glen, Marble and eastern Grand Canyon river segments means that abiotic and 

biotic resources can be affected differently by changes in hourly, daily, seasonal or annual 

patterns of releases (see figure 3 of Alvarez and Schmeeckle, 2012). In addition, suspendedsediment transport, spatial segregation of fine and coarse sediments of the river bed that affects 

channel geomorphology, and QW below the dam, including water temperature and turbidity, all 

vary longitudinally throughout GCNRA and GCNP. Spatial gradients in these quantities are 

known to change through time in response tributary sediment inputs, water storage in Lake 

Powell, and dam operations (Gloss and others, 2005). Perhaps the largest influence of GCD 

operations on downstream aquatic organisms has been that of thermal “pollution” – meaning 

generally colder dam releases which have a severely diminished range in seasonal water 

temperature (Olden and Naiman, 2010) that resulted from filling of Lake Powell by 1980. 

During the last two years, GCDAMP stakeholders have expressed interest in better 

understanding whether or not dam releases below 8,000 ft3

/s might negatively influence the 

foodbase and recreational rainbow trout fishery in Glen Canyon. In support of foodbase research 

tied to this question, the combined outcomes of Projects 3 and 10 will provide aquatic foodbase 

researchers with channel geometry, channel-bed sediment type, and bed grain-size at Four-Mile 

Bar and other low-angle shoreline areas within Glen Canyon; information required to evaluate 

early life-stage survival of invertebrates and low-flow influences on the foodbase (see projects 

5.1 and 5.2). Shallow nearshore channel margin areas as well as deeper parts of the channel with 

coarse-grained sediments (gravel) are known to be important substrates that support primary 

production and aquatic food for tailwater fish, as well as areas required for rainbow trout 

spawning and juvenile trout rearing. Better quantification and understanding about how varying 
347 

dam releases alter channel-bed sediment types (sand and gravel), and inundate channel margins 

used by juvenile rainbow trout throughout Glen Canyon requires more detailed channel map data 

than currently exists in the GCD tailwater if understanding about how dam operations influence 

trout dynamics is to be improved. 

Implementation of a decade-long High Flow Experiment (HFE) Protocol in 2012, now 

potentially allows HFEs to occur 1 to 2 times annually following Paria River floods that supply 

sufficient new sand to the CRe below Glen Canyon. The potential increasing frequency of these 

high-flow operations, in combination with other higher releases to manage water storage in 

Lakes Powell and Mead, provides a unique chance for scientists and managers to conduct 

integrated studies of the influence of dam operations on both sediment, fish and the foodbase 

during 2015-17 research and monitoring. Nearly all of the data required for ecological 

assessments are already being collected from various monitoring projects, and this project aims 

at integrating these diverse data through collaborative analyses. Information from integrated 

studies on how specific dam operations influence the river’s bed-sediment type, inundation of 

channel margins used by fish, and other aquatic organisms is needed by members of the 

GCDAMP, but will also inform resource managers working to complete an ongoing 

environmental impact statement required to implement a 20-year Long Term Experimental 

Management Plan (LTEMP) for operating Glen Canyon Dam (see: http://ltempeis.anl.gov/). 

C.1. Scientific Background 

The GCD tailwater is commonly referred to by recreationists, managers and scientists as 

“The Lees Ferry reach” and contains a popular and highly valued recreational rainbow trout 

fishery within the remaining ~15-mile long segment of Glen Canyon, extending from the dam to 

the confluence of the Paria and Colorado Rivers (Korman and others, 2010). Glen Canyon has 

generally been considered to be the main source of rainbow trout found in GCNP, and is where 

most of the CRe’s limited aquatic food is produced (mainly composed of drifting benthic 

invertebrates; Kennedy and others, 2013a). Owing to the facts that Lake Powell traps about 94% 

of the river’s upstream fine sediment supply, and Paria River flows are of limited duration and 

highly variable, winnowing of fine sediments on the bed of the river below Glen Canyon occurs 

nearly continuously under most dam operations. Because sand and finer particles are efficiently 

transported downstream by higher MLFF releases (greater than about 9,000 ft3/s; Topping and 

others, 2000) in the main channel between Paria River sediment deliveries, long periods may 

occur when the tailwater, and its discontinuity distance created by the dam may extend below the 

Paria River confluence. Sediment researchers have extensively studied the influence of dam 

operations on sediment transport, and bed winnowing as these physical processes relate to fine 

sediment resources in GCNP (Grams and others, 2013; Schmidt and Grams, 2011a; 2011b; 

Wright and others, 2010; Grams and others, 2007; Grams and Wilcock, 2007; Rubin and others, 

2002; Topping and others, 2000;). However, the process of bed winnowing with respect to fine 

sediment below the dam has not been fully evaluated as an integrated part of aquatic resource 

monitoring and research projects, particularly those focused on rainbow trout and the food base. 

 
348 

Glen Canyon 

Although the CRe is impounded by a single large dam, Kennedy and others have described 

the GCD tailwater as being highly impaired on the basis of the river’s low diversity of aquatic 

invertebrates, and complete lack of three key indicator invertebrate taxa (written commun., US 

Geological Survey, 2013). At full pool, the dam impounds about 4 years of upper Colorado River 

basin runoff in Lake Powell; resulting in release temperatures more like those found in alpine 

river settings. The impounded river below the reservoir consists of several different “rivers” or 

segments, each with their own unique characteristics; the first being the remaining segment of 

Glen Canyon not inundated by Lake Powell. Glen Canyon is a meandering segment of the 

Colorado River incised into Navajo Sandstone with only a few ephemeral tributaries which 

rarely flow and contribute very little sand to the channel below the dam. An exception to this 

occurred in August 2013, when two large floods in Waterholes Canyon, a tributary about 3 miles 

upstream of Lees Ferry, added volumes of gravel and fine sediment to lower Glen Canyon at 

about the mid-point of NO study reach 1 (lower 1/3 of Glen Canyon). Although details about 

these floods are not yet available, the sediment inputs appear to have altered the river’s channelbed and channel margin sediment type immediately below this ephemeral tributary (preliminary 

observations, Yard, Korman and Melis, 2013). In winter 2013-14, NO researchers later reported 

declines in quarterly rainbow trout catch, perhaps in response to increased sand coverage of the 

gravel bed and channel margins (preliminary data, Korman and Yard, US Geological Survey, 

2014). Juvenile trout are known to use interstitial pore spaces in gravel-bed settings as sheltering 

habitat during early life stages (Finstad and others 2007), and embeddedness of coarse particles 

by sand and finer sediment may affect use and survival of juvenile fish. The Waterholes Canyon 

flooding was an important motivating influence for this project, as well as other questions 

recently raised by recreational anglers about possible influences of lower-flow dam operations on 

the trout fishery during 2014 (the WY 2014 7.48 maf minimum release volume has been the 

lowest since 1964). Recent evaluation of existing Glen Canyon channel data associated with lowangle channel margins accessed by juvenile trout (figure 2-upper panels; preliminary data, Melis 

and Grams, US Geological Survey, 2014), indicates that dam releases result in very different 

types of shoreline changes as flow increases between the dam and Lees Ferry. Use of low-angle 

near shore channel margins by juvenile trout is therefore likely to be quite variable throughout 

Glen Canyon under diurnal fluctuating releases associated with hydropeaking operations. Trout 

researchers have suggested that knowing more about how dam releases inundate low-angle 

channel margins used by trout would advance understanding about how various stable or 

fluctuating flows influence early life survival of rainbow trout. Figure 2 (lower) shows the 

variability in deep versus shallow areas of Glen Canyon, and most low-angle channel margins 

are located near the shallower channel sections, such as Four Mile Bar (RM -3.9). Additional 

details on Glen Canyon channel change history since closure of GCD can be found in the Project 

3, element 3.2 (Grams and others, above). 
349 

Figure 2. Top panels - two examples of hypsometric profiles, or channel-margin inundation curves derived from 2 

dimensional cross sections located adjacent to low-angle gravel bars in Glen Canyon; (upper left) Four-Mile, and (upper 

right) Fourteen-Mile Bars, (located 4 and 14 miles upstream from Lees Ferry, repsectively). Though not derived from 

modelled flows, or even thought to be fully representative of river stage and inundation across the entirety of either of these

bars, the examples demonstrate the range of variability in gravel bar area river shorelines at low-angle channel margins 

between the dam and Lees Ferry for dam releases ranging from the lowest to the highest flows that typically occur under 

MLFF operations (preliminary data, Melis, Gushue and Grams, U.S. Geological Survey, 2014). Lower panel – longitudinal 

depth profile of the bed of the CRe (measured at a flow of 8,000 ft3

/s) between Glen Canyon Dam and Lees Ferry in late May 

14

14.5

15

15.5

16

16.5

17

17.5

18

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

FOUR-MILE BAR (river miles -4.2 to -3.2) 

Low-Angle Habitat Area Changes with Increasing 

Glen Canyon Dam Releases [X-Section R-4]

y = 8.2299 * x^(0.10344) R= 0.95438 

CUMULATIVE WETTED CHANNEL AREA (ha)

DISCHARGE (m3/s)

HISTORIC VERTICAL SCOUR OF R-14

[1965-2000] ~ 0.60 METERS

5.5

6

6.5

7

7.5

8

8.5

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

PUMPHOUSE BAR (river miles -14.5 to -14.0) 

Low-Angle Habitat Area Changes with Increasing 

Glen Canyon Dam Releases [X-Section R-18]

y = 3.3956 * x^(0.12725) R= 0.83532 

CUMULATIVE WETTED CHANNEL AREA (ha)

DISCHARGE (m3/s)

25,000 CFS

8,000 CFS

6,000 CFS

5,000 CFS

7,000 CFS

HISTORIC VERTICAL SCOUR OF R-18 

[1965-2000] ~ 2.25 METERS

0

20

40

60

80

14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

LONGITUDINAL PROFILE OF 

GLEN CANYON TAILWATER - MAY 2009

WATER DEPTH IN FEET AT 8,000 FT3/S

DISTANCE ABOVE LEES FERRY IN MILES

Glen 

Canyon 

Dam

Lees Ferry

X-Section

Locations

APPROXIMATE 8,000 CFS WATER SURFACE
350 

2009, (with large vertical exaggeration) showing the high variability in flow depth in the post-regulated era (preliminary data, 

Melis, Andrews and Kennedy, U.S. Geological Survey, 2009). 

As Lake Powell filled during the 1970s, Glen Canyon was further transformed from its 

setting as a desert river to one with near-perfect conditions for establishment of a highly prized 

GCNRA rainbow trout sport fishery through annual stocking that continued into the 1990s. 

Between 1986 and 2002, dam releases were cold owing to hypolimnetic reservoir releases from 

Lake Powell through the GCD hydropower plant, with little annually variation. The river in Glen 

Canyon in that era was about 3-8o C colder than optimal temperatures needed by rainbow trout 

for spawning, egg incubation and growth (Valdez and Speas, 2007). By 1980 GCD and Lake 

Powell had even created a “thermal” discontinuity in the Colorado River with respect to 

introduced trout. A similar issue was recognized on the Green River below Flaming Gorge Dam, 

but alteration of the thermal regime there was mitigated through construction and operation of a 

selective withdrawal structure to warm dam releases to manage the tailwater sport fishery (see 

figure 6 of Olden and Naiman, 2010). 

Glen Canyon Dam Operations and Rainbow Trout 

In keeping with the river continuum and serial discontinuity concepts, GCD releases from 

Lake Powell are virtually devoid of fine sediment most of the time, resulting in turbidity levels 

more typically found in a headwater mountain stream than in a desert river (Ward and Stanford, 

1983). Hence, the channel bed remained armored from the 1965 releases, and Kondolf and others 

(1989) report that grain-size distributions of gravel in Glen Canyon were “adequate” for trout 

spawning when sampled in the mid-1980s. However, daily ranges in GCD releases associated 

with hydropeaking operations between 1965 and 1991, are believed to have limited natural 

rainbow trout reproduction in Glen Canyon (Maddux and others, 1987), and the fishery required 

annual stocking to be maintained as a recreational resource until after daily fluctuations became 

more limited in the 1990s. Despite channel scouring following dam closure in 1963, many areas 

of the river in Glen Canyon remain relatively shallow, particularly at lower MLFF dam releases 

of 8,000 ft3/s or below (figure 2-lower panel). Trout spawning areas in Glen Canyon are often 

located along shorelines and channel margins, particularly along point bars, such as the Four 

Mile Bar, but redds are also observed in the deeper parts of the river channel (Korman and 

others, 2005). Experimental daily fluctuating flows ranging from 5,000 to 20,000 ft3/s in January 

through March 2003-5, were intended to lure spawning trout onto higher parts of gravel bars; 

areas where lower daily flows would then desiccate eggs in redds down to 5,000 ft3

/s and hence 

limit trout survival. However 5,000 ft3/s flows were found to be insufficient to reduce the Glen 

Canyon trout population owing to compensatory survival of fry that emerged from deeper redds 

in the channel (Korman and others, 2011; Korman and Melis, 2011). 

Following reoperation of the dam in 1996, MLFF releases were observed to support natural 

reproduction of rainbow trout and allowed for the fishery to become self-sustaining (Walters and 

others, 2000). Recent channel surveys (preliminary data, Grams and others, US Geological 

Survey, 2014) and 1998 resurvey of Marble Canyon cross sections, plus suspended-sediment 

transport monitoring in channel segments downstream of Glen Canyon (preliminary channel data 

from the late 1990s, and WY 2011 data, Topping and others, US Geological Survey) suggest that 

similar channel-bed adjustments may have continued downstream of Glen Canyon since dam 

closure in 1963. What might be the implications of channel-bed sediment winnowing in Marble 

Canyon (coarsening of bed grain size and reduction of bed coverage by fine sediment) if the 

grain size of bed sediments evolve there in ways similar to those observed in 1965 above Lees 

Ferry? 
351 

Our first hypothesis follows after this question: “Dam operations that support trout” 

Hypothesis - 1: Operations of Glen Canyon Dam result in progressive winnowing of the 

channel-bed to the extent that coarsened bed sediments of the main channel, combined with 

ongoing tributary inputs of gravel, and QW conditions, increasingly support life history 

requirements of nonnative rainbow trout within and downstream of Glen Canyon. 

We suggest that river managers consider the possibility that such combined influences of 

GCD operations may, at least in part, explain the recently emerging 2013-14 presence of 

abundant age-0 fish caught in lower Marble and eastern Grand Canyons (figure 3). To date, 

Korman and Yard report that preliminary NO catch data from NO reach #2 (RM16 to RM20) of 

upper Marble Canyon through April 2014, have yet to include juvenile trout, but do contain 

abundant adult rainbow trout. One possibility for explaining this might be the upstream influence 

of 2012-13 Paria River sand inputs and resulting sand coverage of the deeper channel bed 

upstream of mid-Marble Canyon, among several other possible reasons. 

Figure 3. Length-frequency rainbow trout catch data collected by NO project from reach 4b (river miles 62-64 below the 

LCR confluence). Left – July 2012 catch includes mostly adults. Right – July 2013 catch includes abundant juveniles 

(preliminary data, Korman and Yard, US Geological Survey, 2013). Similar emerging patterns to the July 2013 data have 

also been detected in 2014 within NO reaches 3 (mid Marble Canyon) and 4a (lower Marble Canyon). 

 

Following the March 2008 HFE, Korman and others (2011) report that rainbow trout survival 

and recruitment in Glen Canyon was above average in 2008-9. This enhanced fish production is 

thought to have, in part, been the result of flood disturbance of the channel bed in Glen Canyon; 

a process that resulted in reduced production of benthic invertebrates overall, but with elevated 

production of a couple of benthic taxa that were important dietary items for juvenile trout fry 

after their emergence from gravel redds (Cross and others, 2012). Korman and others (2012) also 

report that other experimental and management flow operations from GCD since 2008, that have 

been associated with enhanced rainbow trout production on the basis of monitoring data and 

modelling simulations (figure 4). 

High-flow dam releases since GCD was experimentally re-operated to MLFF rules in 1996, 

such as the March 2008 HFE, indicate that such flows are large enough to “cleanse” the channel 

bed below the dam of finer sediment and other debris that clog interstitial pore spaces used by 

trout and benthic invertebrates (Cross and others, 2012; see table 1 of Melis and others, 2012; 

Korman and others, 2011). 
352 

Figure 4. Flow hydrographs for Colorado River measured at Lees Ferry, AZ (USGS streamgage #09380000) – these show 

Glen Canyon Dam releases in water years during which Korman and others (2012) modeled above-average rainbow trout 

survival/recruitment: (a) 1997, (b) 2000, (c) 2008, (d) 2011. Each of these hydrographs contains annual release volumes 

greater than the minimum required water transfer from the Upper to Lower Colorado River Basin, and have similarities in 

that each year had periods from winter through summer and fall in which river flows were higher and steadier than would 

otherwise have likely occurred during minimum-volume release years after 1996 (8.23 million acre feet), without reservoir 

equalization between Lakes Powell and Mead, or experimental flows (2001-02, and 2006-07). Since the Glen Canyon Dam 

EIS was completed in 1995, experimental flows of one type or another have occurred in: 1996-97, 2000, 2003-05 and 2008-

13. Water Years 1998-99, were the only years of MLFF operations associated with larger than minimum annual release 

volumes, but no experimental flow treatments other than MLFF. 

The four annual hydrographs shown in figure 4, each have common elements of higher flows 

in late winter through spring, as well as a component of increased daily flow stability during 

seasons in which trout early life-stage survival are known to respond positively, at least within 

Glen Canyon (Korman and others, 2005; 2011; 2012). In 2011, the largest estimated trout 

recruitment year to date, dam operations were managed most of the year to achieve required 

“equalization” water transfer from Lakes Powell to Mead, but experimental steady flows in 

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

10/1/1996 1/1/1997 4/1/1997 7/1/1997 10/1/1997 1/1/1998

Discharge of the Colorado River below 

Glen Canyon Dam, 

measured at Lees Ferry, AZ 

(USGS streamgage #09380000)

DISCHARGE (cubic feet per second)

WATER YEAR 1997

A.

Low Flow for 

Aerial Imagery

Overflight

Higher Steady

Flows Released

in response to 

Above Average

Runoff Forecast

1st Test of Habitat-Maintenance

Flow in November (Fall HFE)

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

10/1/1999 1/1/2000 4/1/2000 7/1/2000 10/1/2000 1/1/2001

Discharge of the Colorado River below 

Glen Canyon Dam, 

measured at Lees Ferry, AZ 

(USGS streamgage #09380000)

DISCHARGE (cubic feet per second)

WATER YEAR 2000

B.

Low Summer Steady Flows

June through September

Higher Steady

Flows Released

as part of Low Summer Steady 

Flow Experiment 

(intended to pond

LCR confluence and simulate

spring flooding prior to 

summer lows)

2nd and 3rdTests of Habitat-Maintenance

Flow released as part of Low Summer Steady Flow

Experiment

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

10/1/2007 1/1/2008 4/1/2008 7/1/2008 10/1/2008 1/1/2009

Discharge of the Colorado River below 

Glen Canyon Dam, 

measured at Lees Ferry, AZ 

(USGS streamgage #09380000)

DISCHARGE (cubic feet per second)

WATER YEAR 2008

C.

Higher Monthly

Volume MLFF

Released

in response to 

Above Average

Runoff Forecast

First Time

Equalization 

Operations 

Released under

2007 Interim Guidelines

Record-of-Decision

Spring Test of High Flow

Experiment in March

First Year of 

5-Year Long

Test of Fall Steady

Flow Experiment

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

10/1/2010 1/1/2011 4/1/2011 7/1/2011 10/1/2011 1/1/2012

Discharge of the Colorado River below 

Glen Canyon Dam, 

measured at Lees Ferry, AZ 

(USGS streamgage #09380000)

DISCHARGE (cubic feet per second)

WATER YEAR 2011

D.

High & Steady

Flows Released

in response to 

Above Average

Runoff Forecast for

Upper Colorado 

River Basin

4th-Year Test of 

Fall Steady Flow

Experiment - Flows

Were Steady at about

16,000 cfs for Sept - Oct.

2nd Equalization Operations under

2007 Interim Guidelines Record-of-Decision
353 

September-October 2011, were also released at about 16,000 ft3/s. The Water Year 2011 

hydrograph was characterized by relatively high and stable flows relative to most MLFF releases 

that had occurred from about 2001, up to that time. Korman and others (2012) conclude that high 

flows in spring, and steady flows after trout fry emerge from redds, appear to support elevated 

juvenile trout survival in Glen Canyon. Perhaps similar dam releases might also benefit rainbow 

trout in Marble and eastern Grand Canyons. However, to date early life-stage survival studies 

including redds inventory surveys, such as those conducted by Korman and others in 2003-6, 

(Korman and others, 2005), have only been conducted within Glen Canyon. 

 A key uncertainty recently identified by aquatic biologists about HFEs is whether falltimed high releases would also disturb the channel bed in ways that increase rainbow trout 

populations in Glen Canyon, or result in more abundant trout in GCNP (Kennedy and Ralston, 

2011)? 

Our second hypothesis follows after this question: “High-flow frequency and timing” 

Hypothesis - 2: Increasing frequency of higher and more seasonally varied thermal releases 

from Glen Canyon Dam increases rainbow trout production in the GCD tailwater regardless of 

seasonal timing, but this response is also spatially controlled by the abundance and distribution 

of fish and available food items in Glen, Marble and eastern Grand Canyons, as well as the 

timing, frequency and magnitude of Paria River floods. 

During recent periods from 2003-13, when Lake Powell storage has been reduced, available 

QW data from lower Marble Canyon suggest that the thermal discontinuity distance below GCD, 

at least with respect to rainbow trout life history requirements, has likely retreated upstream of 

the Little Colorado River into Marble Canyon. Bioenergetic needs and muscle recover times of 

rainbow trout have been shown by Kieffer and others (1994) to be sensitive to increased 

temperatures. In addition, Robinson and Uehlinger (2008) also report that increased frequency of 

artificial flood disturbance over several years of experimental releases in the River Spol, and 

alpine river with somewhat similar thermal and benthic invertebrate characteristics as the CRe, 

led to gradual shifts in the benthos associated with improvements in a brown trout fishery below 

a hydroelectric dam. Owing to relatively more frequent high releases from GCD since 2008, 

more seasonally variable water temperatures in lower Marble Canyon combined with periods of 

low turbidity, and relatively shallow river depths in spring seasons of 2012-13, we therefore 

propose to integrate QW data with channel-bed sediment and fish catch data in evaluating the 

above hypotheses. 

Marble and Eastern Grand Canyons 

Below Glen Canyon, the Colorado River through Marble Canyon descends through harder 

Paleozoic lithologies that contribute very coarse sediments to the main channel from small, 

ephemeral tributaries during infrequent hill slope failures that result in debris flows. These 

bouldery debris flow deposits create a series of pools and drops where rapids are formed below 

tributary channel constrictions. The Marble Canyon segment is most clearly distinguished from 

Glen Canyon by relative absence of frequent point bars, but appearance of numerous debris faneddy complexes. These landforms are river reworked lag deposits accumulated from repeated 

debris flows over time (Melis and others, 1995), that locally constrict the river’s channel and 

create recirculating flow zones that are effective traps for sand and finer sediment transported in 

suspension (Schmidt and Rubin, 1995). 

Owing to Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Powell, only about 6% of the CRe’s former sand 

supply is still delivered to the upstream boundary of GCNP in Marble Canyon by the Paria River 

just below Lees Ferry (Topping and others, 2000). This is the primary sand supply available to 

rebuild and maintain sandbars in the eastern third of park when high flows are released that can 
354 

move sand from the river bed and redeposit it along the channel margins (Schmidt and Grams, 

2011b). Currently, an experimental 10-year protocol of HFE releases from the dam is ongoing 

through 2020, in which each experimental release occurs following tributary sand inputs from 

the Paria River. Because Paria River floods that enrich the CRe with sand and finer sediment are 

relatively infrequent, but releases from the dam are nearly always devoid of fine sediments, 

winnowing of channel-bed sand in Marble Canyon occurs most of the time. During experimental 

high flows intended to rebuild sandbars within eddies, bed winnowing is in-fact a required 

process, whereby new sand in the lower areas of the river channel are suspended and carried into 

near shore areas along channel margins and re-deposited at higher elevations. 

The upper Tapeats Sandstone gorge of GCNP is bisected 61 miles below Lees Ferry by the 

Little Colorado River (LCR) at its confluence with the Colorado River. Eastern Grand Canyon 

begins at this point. The LCR is the natal origin source area for the largest population of 

endangered humpback chub, is a second major source of sand to the main channel, and is also 

one of three potential source areas for exotic fish introductions to the Colorado River in Grand 

Canyon. The LCR is also a second significant downstream source of silt/clay loads to the main 

channel below the dam. Turbidity values measured 26 miles downstream of the LCR confluence 

are typically elevated above levels resulting from Paria River fines input to Marble Canyon. On 

the basis of both water temperature and downstream turbidity, one might reasonably conclude 

that the LCR is the downstream boundary of the GCD discontinuity distance with respect to 

nonnative trout and the CRe’s foodbase, but not perhaps relative to native fish in terms of either 

turbidity or temperature. 

Recent Lower Marble Canyon Sediment Monitoring Data 

Besides site-to-site variation in how a given flow from the dam might inundate specific 

channel-margin areas used by rainbow trout, it’s also important to recognize that above-average 

dam operations in 2011, were also very effective at exporting a large volume of the highly 

limited sand supply in Marble Canyon downstream, as reported by Topping (U.S. Geological 

Survey, written commun., January 2012, as the annual volume released from the dam was about 

50% greater (12.5 maf than prior minimum annual releases of 8.23 maf). The estimated sand 

budget for the lower 30 miles of Marble Canyon between May 2009 and 2012, suggests a sand 

deficit within measurement uncertainties; one that appears to have mostly resulted from 2011 

operations (figure 5-left). 

One possible influence of sand export from Marble Canyon might be that sediment on the 

river bed becomes coarser grained as finer particles (sand and finer) are winnowed (Rubin and 

others, 2002). Topping and others (2003) report that re-operation of GCD in the 1990s actually 

reduced the percentage of time that sand inputs from the Paria River can accumulate on the river 

bed (figure 5-right) as a result of reduction in the lower flows that commonly occurred from 

1965 until late 1991. Ongoing annual inputs of sediment coarser than sand from smaller 

ephemeral tributaries in Marble Canyon (Webb and others, 2000), also means that gravel 

supplied to the bed of the Colorado River below Lees Ferry could also be potentially augmenting 

trout spawning areas of the deeper bed as sand is exported downstream under most dam releases. 

Preliminary results from channel mapping (Project 3, Grams and others, US Geological Survey, 

2014) conducted over a three year period from 2009 to 2012 in lower Marble Canyon also 

support the downward trending sand budget over the same period (figure 5-left). The repeat 

channel surveys also reveal that the majority of sand lost from the 30-mile long river segment 

was evacuated from the deeper parts of the channel bed outside of eddies where most sandbars 

are found. An example of bed map imagery is shown in figure 15 of Project element 3.4 (above). 
355 

Figure 5. Left - cumulative sand budget for Lower Marble Canyon (river miles 30-61) from May 2009 to June 2012, and 

discharge at the Colorado River above the Little Colorado River near Desert View, AZ. Although the budget over this 3-

year period is still technically indeterminate within the uncertainty bounds, it more clearly suggests sand mass export from 

Lower Marble Canyon (GCMRC preliminary sand budget, 2014; www.gcmrc.gov), and the downward trend in sand storage 

supports topographic channel-bed monitoring of the segment from May 2009 to May 2012, that indicates about 0.47(+/-

0.15) Tg of sand were eroded from the main channel of Lower Marble Canyon in the period between the mapping surveys 

(Grams and others, preliminary data, USGS 2014). Right - Flow-duration curves for the Colorado River at Lees Ferry from 

each of the four post-dam decades and the entire pre-dam period. The gray shaded region shows the pre-dam discharge 

range under which sand accumulated in the reach between the Lees Ferry and Grand Canyon gaging stations, in Marble and 

upper Grand Canyons. The percentages of time when these discharges were exceeded during each period are indicated in 

italics (from Topping and others, 2003). This trend suggests that MLFF has probably been effective at keeping the channel 

bed in lower Marble Canyon highly winnowed with respect to sand and finer sediments, and implementation of the 2012-20 

HFE protocol, allowing annual clear water floods annually in the fall might also be providing areas of gravel exposure and 

lower water turbidity during the December through June periods; seasons when rainbow trout are typically known to spawn 

below Glen Canyon Dam. 

Recent Lower Marble Canyon Water Quality Data 

Korman and others (2012) report that high and steady releases from the dam throughout 

much of Water Year 2011, and the earlier spring 2008 HFE both resulted in above average 

rainbow trout survival and recruitment in Glen Canyon. Fish monitoring data in Marble and 

eastern Grand Canyons after 2010, indicate that rainbow trout abundance increased below Lees 

Ferry, but most trout were assumed to have derived from Glen Canyon source area. As already 

mentioned, recent trout catch data from the NO project in July 2013, as well as January and April 

2014, suggest that rainbow trout reproduction has been occurring in either lower Marble or 

eastern Grand Canyons (figure 3). The most recent spring 2014, preliminary catch data also 

suggest possible spawning further upstream in mid-Marble Canyon as well. (preliminary data, 

Korman and Yard, US Geological Survey, 2014). One possible explanation for these 

observations is the presence of more trout below Lees Ferry since 2011, but other information 

likely also must be considered to explain downstream abundance of juvenile trout. 

Recent (2006-13) QW data collected from the Colorado River 61 miles downstream of Glen 

Canyon, provide insight about the July 2013 juvenile rainbow trout catch data collected by NO 

researchers in their most downstream study site (NO reach 4b) just below the confluence of the 

Little Colorado River (figure 3). The median water temperature of the Colorado River in lower 

Marble Canyon during the December through May period (months when rainbow trout are 

observed to spawn in Glen Canyon) of Water Year (WY) 2013, was only slightly above the 
356 

optimal temperature of 10o C for rainbow trout spawning and egg incubation (figure 5-left; 

Valdez and Speas, 2007). Bioenergetic and food availability must also be considered relative to 

temperature influences and trout metabolism (Elliott, 1984; Kieffer and others, 1994), and 

Kennedy and others (2013a) report aquatic food to be a limiting factor for fish in the CRe. 

As part of a risk assessment study of thermal conditions and fish below GCD, Valdez and 

Speas (preliminary data, R. Valdez and D. Speas, 2007, written commun., Bureau of 

Reclamation) estimated “assessment scores” for native and nonnative species found in GCNRA 

and GCNP, under two simulated thermal regimes for operation of GCD; with and without a 

selective withdrawal structure (SWS) added to the project’s hydropower plant intakes. The 

purpose of the previously proposed SWS, is to mitigate thermal pollution from GCD, and 

manage for warmer water temperature releases downstream; the aim being to increase juvenile 

native fish survival, including humpback chub. Scores estimated for rainbow trout under the 

SWS simulations in both Glen and Marble Canyon suggest that this nonnative species is likely to 

benefit most from the relatively small increases in downstream water temperatures when a 2-unit 

SWS operation, with brown trout scoring second highest (preliminary data, R. Valdez and D. 

Speas, 2007, written commun., Bureau of Reclamation). Although an SWS is no longer being 

proposed for operation at the GCD, reduced storage in Lake Powell since about 2001, has 

resulted in downstream water temperatures that trend very close to those estimated from the 

SWS 2-unit simulations. In the late 1970s, Flaming Gorge Dam on the Green River was 

retrofitted with an SWS, and has been operated successfully, but mostly to increase downstream 

water temperatures to benefit nonnative sport fish, including rainbow trout (see figure 6 of Olden 

and Naiman, 2010). 

Following sustained high releases from Glen Canyon Dam in the latter half of WY 2011, and 

the November 2012 HFE, the median value of main channel turbidity in lower Marble Canyon 

from December 2012 through May 2013,was very low (figure 5-right). On the basis of what is 

known about the life-history requirements of rainbow trout (Valdez and Speas, 2007; Korman 

and others, 2011), water quality in lower Marble Canyon was similar during winter through 

spring 2012-13, to conditions found upstream in Glen Canyon. However, many other factors 

might limit or promote trout spawning, egg survival and recruitment in lower Marble Canyon. 

Korman and Melis (2011) have suggested that careful and consistent monitoring of rainbow trout 

and factors associated with their survival and recruitment, including HFEs, is required to inform 

managers about GCD operating strategies aimed at co-management of native and nonnative fish 

below the dam. 
357 

Figure 6. Left - median annual and (DEC through JUN) water temperatures of the Colorado River measured at river mile 

61 in lower Marble Canyon for water years 2006-13 (NO reach 4a). December through June periods have tended to be 

colder than the annual median water temperature and contrast the most during Water Year 2011, when 12.5 million acre feet 

(MAF) of water were released from Glen Canyon Dam to equalize water storage between Lakes Powell and Mead. During 

the following Water Year 2012, by contrast, water temperatures were relatively warmer upstream of the Little Colorado 

River (NO study reach 4a) and about 2o C warmer than in 2011, during months when rainbow trout are known to spawn 

upstream in Glen Canyon. Both colder median annual and winter-through-spring water temperatures occurred in Water 

Year 2013, prior to preliminary juvenile rainbow trout catch data (July 2013) suggesting localized trout production in lower 

Marble Canyon. It is not presently clear how water temperatures, turbidity levels or channel-bed sediment types might 

influence aquatic food production and potential for rainbow trout spawning and recruitment below Glen Canyon, but 

monitoring has shown increased abundance of trout near the Little Colorado River since about 2011 (W. Pine, written 

commun. Univ. of Florida, 2012, and Korman and Yard, preliminary data, Ecometric Research and USGS, 2014). Right - 

recent levels of median turbidity (DEC through JUN) measured at river mile 61 in lower Marble Canyon for water years 

2006-13. The winter through spring seasons shown follow the warm-season (JUL – OCT) when tributary fine-sediment 

inputs typically enter Marble Canyon from the Paria River and other lesser drainages upstream of the Little Colorado River. 

Rainbow trout studies in Glen Canyon suggest that fall through winter and into spring is the main period for spawning in the 

15-mile long tailwater below Glen Canyon Dam. It is not clear if and to what degree both lower turbidity and channel-bed 

sediment types (presence of gravel suitable for redds) during 2012-13 in lower Marble Canyon might have contributed to 

July 2013 to April 2014, preliminary juvenile catch data suggesting localized trout production in NO study reaches 3 and 4a, 

located between 37 and 61 mile and just upstream of the LCR confluence with the main Colorado River. 

Drift samples are also collected as an ongoing part of rainbow trout research within all NO 

study sites during seasonal fish monitoring to evaluate trout diets. At present, those data are not 

yet available, but increasing water depth has been identified by Yard (2003) as an attenuating 

factor in solar insolation reaching the river bed under low turbidity, and may therefore also limit 

primary production. It is possible that higher rainbow trout abundance in lower Marble Canyon 

observed after 2011, combined with more optimal water temperatures for spawning and egg 

incubation in winter, plus low turbidity and warming in late spring and summer may have 

promoted aquatic food availability and trout growth in spring 2013. Such influences may 

partially explain large numbers of juvenile trout captured recently by NO researchers below Lees 

Ferry. But what about conditions of the channel bed with respect to suitable spawning gravels? 

Channel-bed sediment data that might shed light on this question have been collected by Project 

3 (channel and sandbar mapping) scientists in May of 2009 and 12, as part of sand storage 

monitoring throughout lower Marble Canyon, but have not yet been evaluated relative to trout 

monitoring data collected by NO researchers. Similarly, the river segment just below the LCR 

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

2007 2009 2011 2013

Colorado River at 61-Mile Upstream of

the Little Colorado River Confluence

 Water Years 2006-13

MEDIAN ANNUAL WATER TEMP

MEDIAN DEC-JUN WATER TEMP

MEDIAN ANNUAL WATER TEMPERATURE,

DEGREES CELSIUS

MEDIAN DEC-JUN WATER TEMPERATURE,

DEGREES CELSIUS

WATER YEAR

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2007 2009 2011 2013

61-Mile Median Colorado River

Turbidity (DEC-JUN) WY2006-13

MEDIAN TURBIDITY (DEC-JUN), FNUs

WATER YEAR
358 

confluence (NO study site 4b) was also mapped by sediment researchers in May 2011 and 14, as 

part of eastern Grand Canyon sandbar monitoring (Project 3, Grams and others). We propose that 

an integrated evaluation of these valuable physical data sets with fish data is needed to address 

new and emerging ecological questions (figure 1). We believe that this research must now be 

undertaken to further inform managers about how dam operations may be influencing aquatic 

resources through downstream changes in physical characteristics of the GCD tailwater. 

“STAGE” SET FOR A THIRD HYPOTHESIS 

Korman and others (2012) also report that high and steady flows in spring through summer, 

may also provide trout fry that emerge from gravel redds access to expanded near-shore areas 

that are hypothesized to enhance juvenile survival. One of these areas, Four Mile Bar in Glen 

Canyon, was observed by fisheries scientists (Korman and Avery, 2011) to be shallow, warm 

and vegetated with extremely abundant numbers of juvenile rainbow trout in summer 2011 when 

dam releases were steady at about 25,000 ft3

/s. This is one hypothesis for why the 2011 rainbow 

trout cohort likely exceeded the 2008 HFE response. Owing to geomorphic variations in the Glen 

Canyon channel width, and non-uniform 1965 vertical channel scouring that transformed Glen 

Canyon gravel bars, we estimate that any given dam release will inundate the low-angle channel 

margins differently, and these are areas known to be used by juvenile trout in the Lees Ferry 

tailwater (Korman and others, 2011; figure 2-upper panels). How different are distributions of 

low-angle and steeper channel margins in Glen, Marble and eastern Grand Canyon NO study 

areas, and which of the low-angle channel-margin areas used by rainbow trout throughout these 

river segments are most sensitive to river inundation or dewatering in response to hourly varied 

GCD operations? 

 Our third hypothesis follows after this question: “Flow variations and shoreline changes” 

Hypothesis - 3: Geomorphic differences of the Colorado River’s channel geometry within NO 

reaches 1 & 4b, combined with behavior of flow and stage, result in varied channel margins, and 

these differences influence fish access to near shore areas in ways that limit the influence of how 

hourly changes in flow affect trout below GCD relative to their distribution, abundance, growth 

and survival of age-0 rainbow trout. 

As such, experimental dam operations that have been recently discussed by GCDAMP 

stakeholders and LTEMP cooperators for managing rainbow trout abundance below the dam in 

Glen and Marble Canyons, may have limited downstream effectiveness on early life-stage 

survival of rainbow trout. Without proposed 2015 mapping by Project 3 (see description for 

element 3.2), developing more detailed hyposometric profiles (relationship showing area of 

channel margins covered by water over a range of river stages and dam releases using flow 

modeling methods) is only possible for Glen Canyon from Lees Ferry upstream to about SixMile Bar, where shoreline and channel bathymetry were previously obtained in 2004 and 2009. 

Upstream of Six-Mile Bar, full channel bathymetry has not been collected. In most of Glen 

Canyon only widely spaced cross sections exist (Grams and others, 2007), but most of them are 

not ideally located close to juvenile trout nursery channel-margin areas to be fully informative to 

NO or foodbase researchers (Projects 9 and 5). Further, without development of a flow model in 

Glen Canyon in 2015 (see project 5, Kennedy, Muehlbauer and Wright), shorelines can only be 

crudely estimated in low-angle channel margin areas using a few of the widely spaced, cross 

sections and associated rating curves. A two-dimensional flow model already exists for NO reach 

4b, and we propose to use it for estimating shorelines along channel margins below the LCR 

confluence (RM62-RM64) where rainbow trout and juvenile humpback chub are intensively 

monitored) in this project. A meaningful comparison of shoreline sensitivity to dam operations 
359 

between fish sampling sites in lower Glen Canyon (NO reach 1) and NO reach 4b (lower Marble 

Canyon), requires that flow modeling be possible upstream of Lees Ferry as well (see Project 5 

elements). 

 Depending upon which of the several hypotheses regarding rainbow trout growth are 

supported by ongoing research (see hypotheses associated with Project 9), recruitment of 

juvenile trout tied to use of low-angle channel margins in late spring and summer seasons 

(Korman and others, 2011) might be experimentally managed throughout the GCD tailwater 

using flow treatments patterned over specific stage ranges and changing flow rates. Hence, 

design of future flow experiments to manage the trout population in Lees Ferry, might be 

informed using low-angle channel margin and shoreline maps in NO reaches 1 (lower Glen 

Canyon) and 4b (RM62 to RM64 of eastern Grand Canyon), as well as information resulting 

from combined analyses of fish catch data and shoreline mapping. This new project, in 

combination with Projects 2, 3, 5, 9, and also possibly 11, intends to collect additional data about 

physical channel-margin characteristics (Table 1) that will allow more detailed assessments and 

understanding about how specific experimental and management dam releases influence use of 

channel margins relative to life history strategies of rainbow trout in Glen, Marble and eastern 

Grand Canyons. 

C.2. Management Background 

At least eleven resources are described within four Desired Future Conditions (DFC) 

associated with adaptive management of Glen Canyon Dam. Three of them include: protection of 

native fish, particularly the humpback chub; maintaining a quality recreational rainbow trout 

fishery immediately below the dam in GCNRA, while also simultaneously controlling nonnative 

fish in GCNP, particularly trout; and conservation of fine sediment (rebuilding and maintenance 

of sandbars also valued as camping beaches). All three of these valued resources are described in 

two of the DFCs “Colorado River ecosystem” and “Recreation”, but understanding by scientists 

and managers about how each of these resources is tied to dam operations can vary from well 

documented to highly uncertain (Gloss and others, 2005; Kennedy and Ralston, 2011). 

Responses of sandbars, fish and their prey items, to dam releases also vary widely in time and 

space over 400 km of the CRe. The other two DFCs include hydropower, and cultural resources. 

An ecosystem approach to long-term monitoring was identified as a priority by the GCMRC 

at the time it was established in 1996. During past reviews of the GCMRC and the GCDAMP, 

integrating physical, biological monitoring efforts with focused interdisciplinary analyses of 

diverse, but interrelated data was identified as a critically needed strategy for improved 

understanding about how Glen Canyon Dam operations influence downstream resources: 

“As pointed out in previous National Research Council reviews (1987, 1996a), an 

ecosystem approach seeks an understanding of interrelationships among important 

physical, chemical, biological, and social processes.” (Wescoat and others, 1999). 

Further, the 1999 review panel suggested that “Short term research projects must be closely 

linked with the monitoring program.” and that “Physical, biological, cultural, and socioeconomic 

measures should be co-located in space and time wherever and whenever practical.” In their 

review of the biological program at that time, the panel’s final report states that “Linkages 

between and among biological and various other resource categories remain poorly articulated. It 

is therefore critical that the Biological Resources Program be closely integrated within itself and 

that, at a minimum, the Biological Resources and Physical Resources programs be tightly 
360 

interwoven; it is not yet apparent that either condition is satisfied.” (Wescoat and others, 1999). 

Since then, many advances have been made in areas of the GCMRC’s physical and biological 

monitoring programs. However, less progress has occurred in the area of interdisciplinary 

research using now abundant monitoring data for focused science integration to address 

management uncertainties; particularly, those relating sediment to the CRe’s nonnative and 

native fisheries, and the river’s food base. 

Conceptual ecosystem modeling was also identified in the GCMRC’s initial 5-year strategic 

science plan as a critical activity to help identify gaps in monitoring, linkages between resources 

and dam operations, as well as alternative “policy” experiments that might also be considered for 

adaptive management of the dam. Two phases of such modeling between 1998 and about 2011, 

focused mostly on the CRe’s aquatic resources, but understanding about how certain dam 

operations influence fine sediment, exotic rainbow trout and elements of the river’s food web has 

been greatly advanced through flow experimentation, such as HFEs mainly intended to rebuild 

sandbars using the highly limited remaining sand inputs below the dam. 

Although conceptual ecosystem modeling is not currently an element of the science program 

to support the GCDAMP, the legacy of past modeling efforts strongly suggests that aquatic 

ecosystem linkages with physical characteristics of the river channel that support fish and 

foodbase resources of GCNRA and GCNP, are particularly important areas to focus integrated 

research on. This may be particularly true now that ongoing sediment, flow, QW, and aquatic 

monitoring projects are well established. 

Perhaps one of the largest uncertainties facing GCDAMP resource managers, may be dam 

operating options to achieve sustainable co-management of both valued nonnative recreational 

and endemic native fisheries below Glen Canyon Dam in GCNRA and GCNP. Uncertainties 

about trout in GCNP and their interactions with humpback chub are at the center of this goal 

(Yard and others, 2011; Korman and others, 2011; Korman and Melis, 2011). Because nonnative 

species are not desired within GCNP, but rainbow trout are highly valued as a recreational 

resource within GCNRA, the challenge of co-managing these two fisheries has a strong 

longitudinal and geographical context relative to Glen Canyon Dam and its operation. Recent 

monitoring and research has shed light on direct and indirect influences of dam operations and 

these two important fisheries, as well as the aquatic foodbase of the CRe. Integrated studies of 

specific dam operations, such as high and steady flows, and their influence on multiple resources 

linked to both fisheries will help identify possible future options for fisheries co-management. 

C.3. Key Monitoring and Research Questions Addressed in this project 

This interdisciplinary project will use QW data collected by Project 2 (Topping and others), 

and foster collaboration between physical and aquatic Projects 3, 5 and 9, through the 

coordinated involvement of scientists that are already conducting research and monitoring in 

support of the GCDAMP and planning of a 20-year long experimental management plan being 

completed as part of the LTEMP EIS (see Grams and others; Korman, Yard and Kennedy, 

FY2013-14 BWP). These combined projects directly address the following Strategic Science 

Questions (SSQs), and Core Monitoring Information Needs (CMINs) previously identified by 

the GCDAMP, but through coordination provided by this project and the valuable products 

derived from Projects 3, 5 and 9, we will ensure a more direct linkage between existing channel 

sandbar mapping data and NO fish studies in an attempt to address the following questions and 

information needs relative to the three hypotheses identified above. 

Primary SSQs addressed: 
361 

 SSQ 1-3. Do rainbow trout immigrate from Glen to Marble and eastern Grand 

Canyons, and, if so, during what life stages? To what extent do Glen Canyon immigrants 

support the population in Marble and eastern Grand Canyon? 

 SSQ 5-6. Do the potential benefits of improved rearing habitat (warmer, more stable, 

more backwater and vegetated channel margins, more food) outweigh negative impacts 

due to increases in nonnative fish abundance? 

Answering any of the above questions requires integrated analyses of fisheries and foodbase 

information with data from Project 3 (see Grams and others, FY2013-14 BWP), a project that 

has also identified information needs focused on sediment conditions monitored in the main 

channel of the Colorado River, including: 

 CMIN 8.6.1. Track, as appropriate, changes in coarse sediment (> 2 mm) abundance and 

distribution. 

 CMIN 8.1.1. Determine and track the biennial sandbar area and fine-sediment volume 

and grain-size changes within eddies below 5,000 cfs stage, by reach. 

Although not specifically identified as an information need by the GCDAMP, Project 3 also 

provides critical information about bathymetry and “sand area and fine-sediment volume and 

grain-size changes” throughout long segments of the main channel below 5,000 ft3/s stage 

outside of eddies in upper and lower Marble Canyon, as well as eastern Grand Canyon; areas 

containing intensive rainbow trout and native fish monitoring segments. The GCDAMP’s DFC 

“Colorado River ecosystem” encompasses what was originally identified as the main sediment 

resource objective: “Goal 8: Maintain or attain levels of sediment storage within the main 

channel and along channel margins to achieve Adaptive Management ecosystem goals.” 

Generally, it is assumed that the sediment goal focuses on rebuilding and maintenance of 

higher-elevation sandbars along channel margins which can only be achieved by periodic high 

dam releases that re-suspend available sand from deeper parts of the main channel and lower 

eddies and redeposit it as sandbars. However, to date, there has not previously been any 

identification by managers about whether sand deposits covering the river bed have any role in 

the management of other non-sediment resources also described in the CRe desired future 

condition, such as nonnative trout, native fish or the foodbase. Despite guidance from managers 

about the role of fine sediment in the Colorado River channel outside of eddies, there has been 

prior recognition of the linkages between fine and coarse sediments in the channel and other CRe 

aquatic resources, as mentioned within the FY2013/14 biennial work plan (formerly Project A, 

now Project 3, Grams and others): 

“Because sediment monitoring addresses the physical framework of the ecosystem, which 

underlies many biological resource objectives, Project A also indirectly supports achievement of: 
362 

 Goal 1: Protect or improve the aquatic food base so that it will support viable 

populations of desired species at higher trophic levels. The proposed monitoring 

supports this goal by providing information on the size and distribution of channel 

substrate. 

 Goal 2: Maintain or attain a viable population of existing native fish, remove jeopardy 

for humpback chub and razorback sucker, and prevent adverse modification to their 

critical habitats. The proposed sandbar and sediment storage monitoring supports this 

goal by providing information on sandbars which create backwaters, a habitat used by 

native fish.” 

 

Another overarching question identified by Grams and others (FY2013/14 BWP) during the 

last two years is: “What is the long-term net effect of dam operations, including high flows, on 

changes in low-elevation sand storage and bed sediment texture (the sand below the 8,000 ft3

/s 

stage)?” The answer to this question, perhaps as much as any other, is the one that we intend to 

integrate into 2017 NO analyses tied to NO fish catch and diet data provided by Project 5 

researchers. 

The strategy for ongoing channel mapping was initiated prior to the start of NO monitoring 

efforts in the FY2013/14 biennial work plan and before recent fish sampling suggesting trout 

reproduction in Marble Canyon. Therefore, there has been only limited opportunity for planning 

of integration between fish and sediment monitoring efforts before now. In light of new 

emerging information from juvenile trout catch data below Glen Canyon, coordinating additional 

bed imagery and topographic data collection is now critically needed in 2015–16 within NO 

study sites in Glen, Marble and eastern Grand Canyons. This effort will support multi-year 

integrated evaluation (2012–16) of fisheries and channel-bed sediment data (Table 1). Following, 

are summary descriptions of the tasks and methods associated with the seven project tasks within 

two elements proposed for 2015–17. 

D. Proposed Work 

D.1. Project Elements 

As listed above, there are seven objectives of this integrated tailwater fisheries project to be 

achieved in three elements. One particularly critical objective likely has the most immediate 

management implications for co-management of native and nonnative fisheries below the dam. 

This is the assessment of the low-angle channel-margin areas inundated by most MLFF dam 

releases typically ranging from 5,000 up to ~25,000 ft3

/s. These are operations that have 

occurred since rainbow trout studies started in 2003, and have a direct influence on the nearshore 

areas that become available to trout fry after they emerge from redds (Korman and others, 2011). 

We believe that observations in summer 2011 by NO researchers of juvenile trout extensively 

using shallow inundated channel margins within Glen Canyon under high and steady dam 

operations, and the resulting survival of record numbers of rainbow trout fry that year (Korman 

and Yard, preliminary 2011 juvenile trout population estimate ranging from 0.8 to 1.2 million 

fish, 2012), warrant evaluation of the range of dam releases that create rearing areas for trout. As 

such, we anticipate the use for this type of information in planning future experimental flows that 

may be proposed to manage rainbow trout abundance below the dam. This information may be 

of particular interest to managers involved in the ongoing LTEMP EIS, and planning of a 20-

year experimental management plan for Glen Canyon Dam operations. 
363 

Project Element 10.1. Refine Humminbird® Sidescan Sonar and Other Channel Mapping Methods to Support 

Fish and Foodbase Research 

Dan Buscombe, Research Geologist, USGS, GCMRC 

GS-9 Pathway Student, USGS, GCMRC

Ted Melis, Physical Scientist, USGS, GCMRC

Tom Gushue, GIS Coordinator, USGS, GCMRC 

GS-9 Geographer, USGS, GCMRC 

Mike Yard, Fishery Biologist, USGS, GCMRC 

Paul Grams, Research Hydrologist, USGS, GCMRC 

Cooperator: Josh Korman, Fishery Biologist, Ecometric Research 

Here, we intend to complete and document the methodology for determining changes in sand 

and gravel of channel-bed areas where trout are monitored by NO researcher in Glen, Marble and 

eastern Grand Canyons. This work is anticipated to be completed in FY2015, with methods 

being used through 2016 for ongoing post-processing of sidescan sonar channel-bed imagery. 

Results will support data collection and analyses needed to address three hypotheses associated 

with Project element 10.3.

Objectives: 

 Define protocols for the best use of sidescan sonar to quantify spatial area of sand and 

gravel bed sediments of the Colorado River channel, as such the proposal includes 

provision for a graduate student, whose tasks will include: 

 Developing completely or partially supervised bed sediment classification algorithms 

using existing sidescan data, collected in recent years, at high resolution with continuous 

coverage, based on calibrated echo strengths and texture (spatial pattern) of echoes, 

 Validating these methods using concurrent video observations and sediment 

classifications based on multibeam backscatter (where available), 

 Developing the computational advances necessary for correcting a boat-mounted 

sidescan sonar transducer for attitude instabilities (heave, roll, pitch and yaw), and 

evaluating the effects on sidescan sonar image quality, using data collected in Upper 

Marble Canyon in 2013 and eastern Grand Canyon in 2014, 

 Evaluate the sensitivities in corrected geo-referenced sidescan amplitudes to uncertainties 

in attenuation due to sediment or gradients in sediment concentration, transducer location 

and boat heading, 

 Developing the computational means by which sidescan can be corrected for bed slope 

effects when bed bathymetry is available, in which case it would be possible to correct 

for grazing angle effects on the sidescan echoes. The grazing angle is the angle made 

between the incoming acoustic beam and the local normal to the surface and affects the 

extent to which acoustic wave energy is reflected specularly and scattered diffusely. As 

such it represents a significant source of uncertainty in the image of the bed taken from 

multiple viewpoints (transducer locations and look angles). If the slopes are known along 

and across the beam, from existing bathymetries, a beam footprint can be accurately 

calculated and the backscatter value from each sidescan pixel modified by integrating 

over the area, 

 Systematically characterize bed sediments in data collected in 2000 using a Klein towedsidescan system, from RM0 to RM225 (preliminary data, Anima and others, 2007, US 

Geological Survey, Marine Geology Team, Pacific Science Center, Santa Cruz, CA). 
364 

Rationale/Justification 

Topographic mapping and the collection of photographic imagery of the Colorado River’s 

deeper channel bed below GCD have become an ongoing monitoring protocol to track changes 

in the spatially segregated distribution of sand area and sand volume with in the main channel 

and eddies of the Colorado River. This information supports sediment information needs of the 

GCDAMP, and is an integral part of monitoring in support of the 2012-20 HFE protocol. Dam 

operations are known to influence sand and gravel area coverage of the bed, and areas of coarser 

bed sediment are known to be used by benthic invertebrates and trout below the dam. As such, 

there is need to better document and evaluate changes over time in bed sediment type in response 

to tributary sediment inputs and MLFF dam operations, including high flow releases, particularly 

in key areas where fish and fish diet data are intensively monitored (NO, Project 9). Integrated 

analyses of bed mapping information with NO catch and diet data will then help identify how 

dam operations may influence and perhaps be used to manage not only sandbars, but also certain 

aquatic resources, such as trout and the foodbase. 

The sediment make-up of the bed surface, which is exceptionally diverse in character, with 

the full spectrum of fine sand to boulders arranged in complicated spatial patterns, is constantly 

evolving and almost impossible to predict to any meaningful degree. That is, beyond generalized 

(and broad scale) observations of sand accumulating in eddies adjacent to sand-winnowed main 

channels, our prediction skill for a particular substrate or substrate mixture to be present in a 

particular location is poor. Bed sediment type is a boundary condition for which no predictive 

model exists. We therefore rely on observations of the bed which consists of: 1) the technology 

to image the riverbed surface with sufficient resolution that different substrates are 

distinguishable; 2) the accuracy and precision in positional measurements which make it possible 

to detect changes in individual locations through time; and 3) methods with which to accurately 

and efficiently (ideally unsupervised or partially supervised) estimate substrate type. 

Conventional sampling of submerged sediment deposits (e.g. grabs, cores, and dredges) is costly 

and labor-intensive. Video and photographic sampling is more cost-effective and does not 

require time-consuming laboratory analyses, which allows sampling at greater frequency and 

coverage (Rubin and others, 2007; Buscombe and others, 2014a). However, the use of highfrequency acoustic backscatter from swath-mapping systems to characterize sediment and 

classify by grain size (Anderson and others, 2008; Brown and Blondel, 2009; Brown and others, 

2011) has the potential to provide near complete coverage, which photographic sampling could 

not practically achieve, at least within the same time and with the same positional accuracy. 

Completely capturing the variability bed sediment grain size with conventional physical or 

photographic sampling would be prohibitively costly and time-consuming. 

Methods 

We have recently developed a technique (Buscombe and others 2014b; 2014c) which 

automatically classifies sediments into 3 broad categories: 1) sand; 2) gravel (and sand-gravel 

mixtures); and 3) rocks (boulders and bedrock), based on the statistics of backscatter over these 

different sediments. Using this technique we're producing maps of substrates at unprecedented 

coverage and detail (figure 7). The method uses the spectral properties of the fluctuating 

component of backscatter over small spatial scales in combination with a machine-learning 

classification approach (decision tree). The method has been designed to be general in 

application with a solid physical basis. So far, 30 miles of river bed (lower Marble Canyon, 

LMC) have been classified at a resolution of 0.25 m2

, through a completely automated and 

unsupervised classification algorithm, using data collected in May 2012. The results have been 
365 

validated using thousands of underwater video observations. The approach to sediment 

classification was able to classify patches of homogeneous sands, gravels (and sand-gravel 

mixtures), and cobbles/boulders with 95, 88, and 91% accuracy, respectively. The technique is 

currently being applied to other reaches mapped by Project 3 (LMC in 2009, eastern Grand 

Canyon (EGC) in 2011, and upper Marble Canyon, (UMC) in 2013). This work, which will be 

completed in 2014, will provide a full channel substrate map from RM0 to RM87, and a repeat 

substrate map for RM30 to RM61. Ongoing and future method development work (within 

Project Element 3.2) includes extending this technique so it is able to differentiate between sands 

and gravels of different sizes, as well as experimenting with the use of multibeam (MBES) 

backscatter to map submerged vegetation in Glen Canyon in 2015. With an operational method 

already developed for acoustic substrate classification, and several years of experience with 

collecting MBES data from the Colorado River in GCNP, we anticipate a rapid turn-around in 

data-processing which, for the first time, makes repeat mapping of substrates a realistic 

operational goal. To maximize efficiency, and minimize data collection costs, this data will be 

collected as part of Project Elements 3.2 and 3.4: namely, “Bathymetric and Topographic 

Mapping”, which proposes to map the reach RM-15 to RM0 in 2015 (including Natal Origins 

(NO) reach 1), RM87 to RM165 in 2016, and RM0 to RM30 in 2017 (including NO reach 2, 

RM16 to RM 20); and “Connecting bed material transport, bed morphodynamics, and sand 

budgets in Grand Canyon”, which is proposed to annually map in NO reach 4a upstream of the 

confluence of the Little Colorado and Colorado Rivers (RM60 to RM61). 

Sidescan Sonar

The dynamics of the system are such that at a given location, sand coverage, and the spatial 

distribution of sand coverage, can vary significantly in time. Given the spatial heterogeneity of 

the Colorado riverbed, substrate estimates based on only a handful of observations at discrete 

locations are difficult to reliably extrapolate to reach-scale areal coverage of various substrate 

types. Physical sampling is also costly, laborious, and intrusive to organisms that call the 

riverbed home or use the bed to spawn. However, the use of acoustics for substrate mapping is 

non-intrusive and offers unparalleled spatial coverage and resolution. 

The need to develop methodologies to map subaqueous riverbed sediment types is especially 

great when the water is too swift or deep to wade, too shallow for multibeam sonar, too turbid or 

deep to sense the bed from aerial imaging platforms, and/or when minimal logistics are required. 

The deployment of multibeam sonar requires a significant logistical overhead. Conventional 

underwater photographic imaging systems are limited by light attenuation, turbidity, and small 

spatial footprint of images when close enough to the bed to provide high resolution. A lowprofile, pole- or transom-mounted sidescan sonar has the potential to meet this technical 

shortfall. Sidescan sonars image large swaths of the bed from a vessel, typically with decimeter 

to meter resolution depending on the range to the bed. The sonar sends out a high-frequency 

(several hundreds of kHz) acoustic pulse either side of the receiver and records the amplitude of 

the returning echo. With each pulse, a small strip of the bed is mapped, providing near 

continuous coverage as the boat moves slowly downstream. Coupled with a GPS or other type of 

vessel tracking, it can provide a continuous image of the bed, the texture of which can be used to 

infer the channel-bed sediment type. In addition to morphological form roughness, the strength 

of the returned echo is a function of the composition of the bed sediments. The basic premise is 

that, given the same roughness, a harder surface with greater acoustic impedance, such as rocks 

and cobbles, will return more energy than a softer bed such as sand. Inexpensive commercial 

sidescan systems are available which are designed to be mounted to small vessels and easy to 
366 

use. They are also lightweight and have low demands for power, so could potentially be applied 

in any navigable river or stream, by as little as one person. Many modern sidescan transducers 

are very low profile and require minimal draft which means they are especially suitable for 

imaging in very shallow water. Kaeser and Litts (2010) reported that the sidescan sonar on the 

Humminbird® commercial fishfinder was sufficient quality for shallow water bed sediment 

mapping in shallow rocky streams. They were able to produce bed texture maps by merging and 

superimposing imagery onto a base map in a GIS, and manually identifying regions of similar 

bed texture on these maps (Kaeser and others, 2012). Since 2009, a Humminbird® sidescan 

sonar unit has been used opportunistically to image certain sections of the riverbed. We have 

tested this inexpensive sidescan sonar system in Marble and Glen Canyons in 2013 and 2014, 

establishing that the sonar is able to provide detailed images of the bed in water depths less than 

a meter (whereas MBES systems are limited to relatively deep water: >2m). The sonar provides 

an instant picture of the texture of the bed (figure 8) and can be used to map hundreds to 

thousands of square meters of riverbed in minutes (figure 9). Over the past year, we have 

improved upon the processing procedures of Kaeser and others (2012) by developing means by 

which to, in an automated sense: 

1. Convert raw recorded sidescan amplitudes into units of acoustic power (dBW; decibel 

Watts). This potentially enables the derivation of acoustic/physical properties such as 

acoustic attenuation, bed roughness and hardness. 

2. Correct the sidescan amplitudes for directivity attenuation, which depends on the 

geometry of the transducers and the beam shape of the acoustic wave, and acoustic 

attenuation by water and sediment, based on measured depth and estimates of the 

concentration and grain size of sediment in suspension. 

3. Correct (partially) the sidescan amplitudes for angular effects imposed by the relative 

angle between the acoustic beam and the surface insonified by the beam (the acoustic 

footprint). 

4. Apply geometric (slant-range) corrections to the data and estimate the orientation of scan 

lines, so it is possible to estimate the location of each sidescan pixel with greater 

accuracy, and which enables sidescan amplitudes to be processed as a geo-referenced 

point cloud. 

Small, portable and lightweight sidescan sonars are easily deployable instruments for bed 

sediment reconnaissance surveys and the instantaneous qualitative assessment of large swaths of 

bed habitats. As such it is a technology which is, uniquely amongst its competitors, capable of 

providing rapid assessment of substrates over large areas of the bed, with minimal logistic 

overhead. In this proposal, we aim to build upon the recent advances listed above in a number of 

ways, all contributing to the aim of developing and utilizing robust and automated methods to 

relate sidescan image texture to different channel-bed sediment types, with an aim of producing 

maps of bed-sediments which are comparable in quality, resolution and reproducibility as those 

created using MBES backscatter. We aim to develop unsupervised (fully automated) or partially 

supervised (minimal user input) methods to classify bed sediments by grain-size using the echo 

strengths and/or the texture (spatial pattern) of echoes. If substrate classifications are carried out 

manually, this is not only time-consuming and labor-intensive (therefore expensive) but, in 

addition, the results are not necessarily reproducible (the same classifications obtained by 

different people, or by the same person at different times) unless a set of rigid protocols are in 

place. Such protocols would be difficult to achieve for sonar data across multiple instruments. 

The solution is to develop automated (unsupervised) or at least partially supervised (minimal 

user input) methods to classify large amounts of bed imagery in a consistent manner. 
367 

In summary, the aim of this work is to produce near-continuous (spatially explicit) maps of 

channel-bed sediment types, broadly categorized into sand, gravel, cobble and rock, at high 

spatial resolution (centimeters to meters). These techniques will be applied existing data sets 

(Table 1) previously collected in each of the NO reaches during 2012-14, as well as data which 

will be collected during 2015-2016, in support of the collaborative 5-year integrated analysis of 

fish and physical data described in Project Element 10.3. 

Figure 7. Map of riverbed sediments near Phantom Ranch in eastern Grand Canyon. Yellows are sandy bed, blues are 

gravels and mixed sand/gravels, and reds are rocky areas. This map has been created using a newly developed technique 

which relates the statistics of multibeam echoes to different types of riverbed sediments (preliminary data, Buscombe and 

others, U.S. Geological Survey, 2014). 

Figure 8. Example of “Humminbird®” sidescan imagery of the riverbed near -9 mile bar in Glen Canyon showing a patchy 

riverbed with fine to coarse gravels and clumps of submerged vegetation (shadow areas). Ongoing work is trying to relate 

each observed texture to a substrate type using underwater video for reference (preliminary data, Buscombe and Melis, US 

Geological Survey, 2013). 
368 

 

Figure 9. Example of “Humminbird®” sidescan imagery of the riverbed immediately downstream of Glen Canyon Dam 

showing a uniform coarse gravel bed. Units are decibel Watts, assuming a root-mean-square transducer output of 1000 

Watts. It is standard convention to express this value 1m from the transducer. The inset panels show the trace from the low 

frequency sonar, and the depth sounding from under the boat (preliminary data, Buscombe and Melis, US Geological 

Survey, 2013). 
369 

Project Element 10.2 Collecting New Channel-Bed Humminbird® Sidescan Sonar and Digital Channel Margin 

Imagery, and Analyzing Channel-Margin Geometry, and Shoreline Responses to Flow Variation using Channel 

Map Data to Support Natal Origins of Rainbow Trout and Juvenile Humpback Chub Research 

Ted Melis, Physical Scientist, USGS, GCMRC

Tom Gushue, GIS Coordinator, USGS, GCMRC 

GS-9 Geographer, USGS, GCMRC 

Dan Buscombe, Research Geologist, USGS, GCMRC 

GS-9 Pathway Student, USGS, GCMRC

Mike Yard, Fishery Biologist, USGS, GCMRC 

Paul Grams, Research Hydrologist, USGS, GCMRC 

Josh Korman, Fishery Biologist, Ecometric Research 

Objectives: 

 Collect new Humminbird® sidescan sonar imagery of the channel-bed and evaluate 

similar existing data to determine spatially segregated proportions of bed-sediment type 

within NO reaches 1 through 4 (see Table 1), 

 Semi-annually in 2015-16, collect new Brinno® time-lapse digital imagery of shorelines 

during April and September intensive fish sampling trips in NO reaches 1 through 4. 

 Evaluate changes in distributions of sand deposits along NO sampled shorelines between 

2012 and 2017, using 2013 aerial imagery, existing Brinno® imagery collected in 2014, 

and new imagery collected through 2016, 

 Spatially analyze shoreline geometry (proportion of slope angles less than 11 degrees 

used by juvenile trout) and gravel grain size distributions of low-angle channel margins 

throughout Glen Canyon; then evaluate hypsometric characteristics of shorelines relative 

to changes in dam releases from 5,000 to ~25,000 ft3

/s using new Glen Canyon flow 

model (contingent upon funding for Wright and others, Project 5), in NO reach 1, 

 Spatially analyze geometry (proportion of slope angles less than 11 degrees used by 

juvenile trout) of low-angle channel margins throughout NO reaches 2 – 4b of Marble 

and eastern Grand Canyons; then evaluate hypsometric characteristics of shorelines 

relative to changes in dam releases from 5,000 to ~25,000 ft3/s using existing flow model 

(preliminary model, B. Logan, US Geological Survey, 2012) in NO reach 4b in eastern 

Grand Canyon, 

 Summarize median seasonal and annual statistics for water temperature and total 

suspended-sediment, and turbidity measurements made in the Colorado River from 

available QW data collected in 2011-16, at monitoring sites between the dam and RM87. 

Hypotheses/Questions: 

1. Hypothesis - Operations of Glen Canyon Dam result in progressive winnowing of the 

channel-bed to the extent that coarsened bed sediments of the main channel, combined 

with ongoing tributary inputs of gravel, and QW conditions, increasingly support life 

history requirements of nonnative rainbow trout within and below Glen Canyon. 

Questions: 1) Are grain-size distributions of low-angle gravel bars throughout Glen 

Canyon similar between the dam and Lees Ferry? 2) Do proportions of sand and gravel 

areas of the deeper channel bed channel in NO reaches 1 through 4 vary annually (within 

detection limits) between 2012 and 2016, and if so, then by how much? 3) Do 

proportions of sandbar mantled shorelines in NO reaches 1 through 4 vary annually 
370 

between 2012 and 2016, and if so by how much? 4) Is there a multi-year trend in the 

relative proportions of channel-bed sand and gravel area within NO reaches 1 through 4, 

and if so, then do variations correspond with release of high flows from GCD, and annual 

fine-sediment supplied to the Colorado River from the Paria and Little Colorado Rivers?

2. Hypothesis - Geomorphic differences of the Colorado River’s channel geometry within 

NO study sites 1 & 4b, combined with behavior of flow and stage, result in varied 

channel margins, and these differences influence fish access to near shore areas in ways 

that limit the influence of how hourly changes in flow affect trout below GCD relative to 

their distribution, abundance, growth and survival of age-0 rainbow trout. Questions: 1) 

Is the abundance and distribution of low-angle (less than 11 degree channel-margin 

slopes), consistent throughout NO reaches 1 - 4b? 2) Are shorelines associated with lowangle (less than 11 degree slope) channel margins most sensitive to changes in dam 

operations on the basis of modelled shorelines over a range of 5,000 to 25,000 ft3/s within 

NO reach 1 (lower Glen Canyon) or 4b (eastern Grand Canyon below the LCR)?

Rationale/Justification 

Gravel spawning areas for rainbow trout in Glen and Marble Canyons have been previously 

described (Korman and others 2005; Kondolf and others, 1989, Maddux and others, 1987). Trout 

spawning continues to be monitored in Glen Canyon annually as continuation of the rainbow 

trout early life-stage survival (RTELSS) studies initiated in 2003 to study effects of experimental 

fluctuations on trout egg survival (see element 9.2). However, much less is known about whether 

spawning gravel area grain sizes used by trout in Glen Canyon have changed at sites such as 

Four Mile Bar over time, or whether new trout spawning areas have evolved downstream in 

Marble Canyon since initial studies were done by Kondolf and others (1989) in the 1980s. 

Previously collected bathymetric and digital imagery of Marble Canyon have been obtained 

through a variety of methods associated with earlier mapping and monitoring projects and are 

available in FY 2015 for use in development of quantitative methods for estimating areas below 

Glen Canyon with suitable rainbow trout spawning substrates. This research is needed now, as 

preliminary 2013-14 data from the NO project suggest local production of rainbow trout below 

Glen Canyon (fig. 3) has occurred since the project started in fall 2011 (Korman and others, 

Ecometric Research and USGS, preliminary data). Sand budgeting and channel bathymetry data 

collected from 2009 to 2012 from lower Marble Canyon (Grams and others, USGS, 2014, 

preliminary data) also suggest that dam operations since 2009, such as the 2011 extended high 

releases, have created a sand deficit in this segment such that channel-bed conditions below river 

mile 30 may be highly winnowed of finer sediment. The winnowed bed of the channel, 

combined with changing water quality, may have made Marble Canyon more suitable recently 

for rainbow trout spawning and rearing of juveniles; in effect, extending the favorable conditions 

for trout found in Glen Canyon to areas downstream of Lees Ferry. 

Topping and others (2003) report that dam operations under MLFF during the 1990s resulted 

in flows exceeding those required to accumulate sand on the river bed between Lees Ferry and 

Phantom Ranch – by about a factor of two compared to the pre-regulated era (figure 6-right). 

This fact also further supports the idea that MLFF dam operations since 1996 have likely 

winnowed bed conditions in parts of lower Marble Canyon where rainbow trout from natal origin 

areas upstream might find suitable channel-bed spawning areas after moving downstream from 

Glen Canyon. Because typical MLFF dam operations were shown to limit accumulation of multiyear tributary sand inputs on the bed of Marble Canyon after 1996, a protocol was implemented 

in 2012 to experimentally determine if more frequent HFEs could rebuild and maintain sandbars 
371 

following Paria River tributary floods. More frequent HFEs that deposit sand deposits from the 

deeper channel to channel margins within eddies may, however, also create conditions of bed 

winnowing in deeper parts of the channel in lower Marble Canyon; scoured areas that perhaps 

expose areas of the bed with coarser grain sizes (see fig. 15 of Project Element 3.4, above); areas 

perhaps suitable for spawning by rainbow trout. 

Methods 

Below Glen Canyon, submerged areas of Marble and eastern Grand Canyon have been 

previously mapped at high resolution (Grams, Buscombe and others, preliminary data, USGS, 

2014) multi-beam sonar, but discharge and inundation characteristics of nearshore habitats used 

by juvenile trout have not been previously evaluated downstream of Lees Ferry. The location of 

the USGS gage at 61-Mile (gage 09383100), also provides an opportunity to document channel 

margin habitat inundation upstream of the Little Colorado River confluence, while existing 

channel bathymetry data downstream of the Little Colorado River to about river mile 64, and an 

existing 2-dimensional flow model (B. Logan, preliminary model, USGS, 2012) now make 

evaluation of nearshore habitat in these reaches also possible in 2015-17. 

In 2015, using existing 2004 channel bathymetry data, 2009 digital surface model data, and 

available 2-dimensional cross-sections to estimate flows, we will estimate hypsometric curves 

associated with shorelines that vary with dam releases along channel margins where rainbow 

trout and native fish sampling by NO researchers is ongoing between 2012-16. Products will 

include maps showing channel margins inundated by flows of 5,000, 8,000, 15,000, and 25,000 

ft3

/s, and this channel geometry information will also support data needs of food base researchers 

(see Project Elements 5.2.2 and 5.2.4). As shown in Table 1, Project 3 researchers will collect 

new channel map data in Glen Canyon during 2015 (see Project Element 3.2, above), to provide 

a full-channel topographic and channel-bed sediment map for Glen Canyon, in part, to support 

more integrated evaluations of channel characteristics and fish data collected as part of the NO 

project (Project 9). These new data will be used in 2016 to develop a Glen Canyon flow model 

that can then be used to improve modelled shorelines in NO reach 1, and extend similar 

hypsometric channel margin analyses upstream to other low-angle channel margin areas used by 

juvenile trout. We will also use the new 2015 channel data to conduct Arc® map based 

evaluations of the abundance and distribution of low-angle channel margin areas throughout 

Glen Canyon, with particular emphasis within NO reach 1 and the Four Mile Bar, as this 

segment contains a point bar that is frequently used by sport anglers, and on that is also annually 

monitored for redds as part of rainbow trout early life-stage survival (RTELSS) effort (see 

Project Element 9.2).

As described above, in an attempt to better use channel-bed imagery data to support fish and 

foodbase research, Buscombe and others, will develop completely or partially supervised 

channel-bed sediment classification algorithms using existing sidescan data and validate these 

methods using concurrent video observations and multibeam backscatter. They will also pursue 

computational advances necessary for correcting a boat-mounted sidescan transducer for attitude 

instabilities (heave, roll, pitch and yaw) and evaluate the effects on sidescan image quality, using 

data collected from Marble Canyon in 2013 and eastern Grand Canyon in 2014. 

Using the computational means developed in 2015 from Project Element 10.1 (above), by 

which sidescan data can be corrected for bed slope effects, when bed bathymetry is available, we 

will also systematically characterize channel bed sediments in sidescan sonar imagery collected 

in September 2000 (Anima and others 2007). Data from this era prior to intensive rainbow trout 

sampling and research will provide a historical context for bed-change mapping results using 
372 

data from 2011-16, particularly in Glen Canyon where RTELSS monitoring has been ongoing 

for more than a decade. Within detection limits of data and methods used for image analysis and 

mapping, we will identify spatial and temporal trends in sand and gravel area of the channel bed 

from existing channel-bed topographic or imagery data collected within four NO study reaches 

(and to the extent possible, adjacent segments upstream) between 2012 and 2016. This is the 

main interpretive physical resource element intended to link areas of the channel associated with 

1) drifting and emergent insects (Projects 5.1 and 5.2), and 2) rainbow trout spawning and early 

life history (Project 9) to changing physical conditions of the Colorado River channel (Project 

3), in the context of other quality-of-water environmental attributes (turbidity and water 

temperature) within Glen and Marble Canyons (Project 2) already being evaluated within the 

2015–17 budget and workplan. 

Glen Canyon Low-Angle Channel Margins & Grain Size 

In addition, we will document surficial grain size distributions of gravel bars associated with 

these fish monitoring shorelines using digital images collected at approximately the 8,000 ft3

/s 

shoreline elevation at each sample site. Size distributions will be determined using the algorithm 

of Buscombe (2013; example shown in figure 10 here) and these data will be evaluated to 

identify longitudinal trends in grain size along channel margins used by trout between GCD and 

Lees Ferry. Riebe and others (2014) report that trout length may be associated with gravel 

particle size in channel settings where fish build redds. Following after this finding, we will 

measure surficial grain size in channel margin areas of Glen Canyon where redds are typically 

observed and compare them with trout catch data from NO fall marking trips in Glen Canyon to 

evaluate whether either trout abundance and/or length are related to gravel size distributions. 

We will also determine shoreline and dam release relationships along low-angle channel 

margins within NO study reach 1 with emphasis on Four Mile Bar; an area used by juvenile trout 

in Glen Canyon (Korman and others, 2011). This work is intended to more accurately identify 

areas of Four Mile Bar that are most sensitive to changes in dam releases; information that can 

be used to inform hydrograph design(s) of experimental trout management dam releases that 

might be implemented under LTEMP as strategy to regulate early life history stages (age-0) of 

rainbow trout, and later using existing 2000-era cross sections (local 2-D rating curves) and 2015 

channel bathymetry data for entire Glen Canyon segment in 2016. Using underwater video 

imaging systems, we will also determine aquatic vegetation characteristics of selected areas of 

the river bed at 500-m spacing between Eight Mile Bar and Lees Ferry above and below 8,000 

cfs to support ongoing development of a potential primary production model (Yard and others). 
373 

 Figure 10. Example of coarse-grained size distribution derived from digital still image taken from the surface of a point bar 

located along the river right shoreline about 9 miles upstream of Lees Ferry in Glen Canyon (preliminary data, Buscombe 

and Melis, US Geological Survey, 2013), using the algorithm of Buscombe (2013). 

Use of Marble and Eastern Grand Canyon Map Data to Assess Channel Margins 

We will produce information similar to what derives from task 3 above, but for existing 

mapped segments of Marble and eastern Grand Canyon - physical channel geometry data needed 

for addressing NO issues regarding spatial heterogeneity effects on capture probabilities within 

and among NO study reaches 2 - 4b (see project element 9.2). This will be undertaken using 

ARC® Map slope analysis tools to evaluate May 2012-13-14 topographic channel data collected 

by Grams and others for sandbar monitoring. Additional multibeam data may also be collected as 

part of Project 3 in 2015-17 in NO reaches 4a and 4b as part of bedload sediment transport 

studies proposed by Grams and others. An existing flow model (preliminary model, B. Logan, 

US Geological Survey, 2012) will also be used to identify shoreline and flow relationships 

within NO reach 4b below the confluence of the LCR and the Colorado River. 

This information will then be used to compare the sensitivity of channel margins to flow 

changes below the LCR, where trout and juvenile chub are monitored, to similar changes in dam 

operations upstream within NO reach 1 (Four Mile Bar) and possibly at other upstream lowangle channel margin settings. Differences in shorelines in response to varied dam releases 

between lower Glen and eastern Grand Canyons will inform fish scientists and dam managers 

about the potential for designing and testing experimental trout management flows in these river 

segments relative to use of low-angle channel margins by juvenile trout. 

Estimating Relative Proportion of Sand and Gravel in Deeper Channel 

Using the methods developed and documented in 2015 by task #1, we will determined 

the time-varied spatial distributions of gravel and sand area exposed along channel margins and 

the deeper channel bed of the Colorado River that are known to be used by rainbow trout in Glen 

Canyon. In Marble and eastern Grand Canyon river segments, we will conduct similar 

assessments in deeper areas of the channel bed to identify areas that may represent potential 

spawning gravel used by trout below the Paria and Little Colorado River confluences. The 

evaluation will be done using pre-existing and new Humminbird and multibeam data specifically 

within or upstream of NO reaches 1 - 4b in 2016; Buscombe, Melis, Gushue, and others. 
374 

Estimating Relative Changes in Proportion of Sand Mantled Shorelines in NO Study Sites 

Evaluating possible influences on fish catch rates in NO study reaches 1 - 4b between 2012-

16, associated with changing shoreline and near-shore sandbar deposits (low elevation eddy and 

lower channel sandbars) that may result from tributary sand inputs combined with high flow dam 

operations. To identify channel-margin changes in NO sample sites, we will examine shorelines 

imaged within NO study sites in 2009 and 2013 (digital overflights flown at 8,000 ft3

/s), and 

compare sediment and vegetation conditions of those shorelines, with Brinno® time-lapse digital 

camera imagery collected at the study sites on NO fish sampling trips during spring 2014, and 

September and April 2015-16. The imagery will also be evaluated in the context of the 

geomorphic base map being developed by Project 3 (Grams and others) in Glen, Marble and 

eastern Grand Canyons. Changes in sandbar distribution along channel margins between 2013 

and 2016 will be evaluated relative to fish catch data from the NO project to determine whether 

or not sediment characteristics of shorelines influence use of channel margins by rainbow trout 

and native fish. Using Brinno® time-lapse digital cameras, we will image and evaluate channel 

margins in September and April during times when NO rainbow trout catch data are collected 

and when shorelines are imaged at relatively lower flows associated with “shoulder season” or 

reduced monthly dam release volumes that tend to expose larger channel margin areas. 

In this task, we believe we have two unique opportunities to assess possible influences of 

sandbar deposition along shorelines on fish catch. First, within NO site 1, up and downstream of 

Waterholes Canyon. Summer 2013 flooding from this ephemeral tributary appears to have 

altered the lower portion of this most upstream NO study reach; perhaps to an extent that has 

altered trout distribution in Glen Canyon. Trends in trout catch data from 2011 through 2016 

collected above and below Waterholes Canyon will be evaluated relative to the timing of 

Waterholes Canyon flooding and high flows from the dam to determine whether or not the 2013 

sediment inputs altered fish abundance and distribution in reach 1. Downstream, in Marble and 

eastern Grand Canyons, we will also evaluate changes in sandbar abundance along channel 

margins in NO study sites 1 through 4, to determine possible influences of Paria River sand 

inputs and HFEs that may occur in 2014-16, and compare them with fish catch data; Melis, 

Buscombe, Grams and others, in collaboration with Yard and Korman. 

Project Element 10.3. Integrated Time Series Analysis of Physical Channel Mapping, Quality-of Water, and 

Natal Origins of Rainbow Trout and Juvenile Humpback Chub Catch and Diet Data 

Ted Melis, Physical Scientist, USGS, GCMRC

Mike Yard, Fishery Biologist, USGS, GCMRC 

Josh Korman, Fishery Biologist, Ecometric Research 

Dan Buscombe, Research Geologist, USGS, GCMRC 

Paul Grams, Research Hydrologist, USGS, GCMRC 

Tom Gushue, GIS Coordinator, USGS, GCMRC 

GS-9 Geographer, USGS, GCMRC 

Other aquatic biologists, and invited synthesis workshop expert participants, USGS and 

GCDAMP stakeholders 
375 

Objectives 

1. Identify spatial and temporal correlations between adult and age-0 rainbow trout 

abundance, growth rates, and channel-bed and channel-margin sediment type (sand and 

coarser grain sizes) within NO reaches 1 through 4b, 

2. Compare multi-year trends in NO fish catch data, with seasonal to annual variation in 

median water temperature and total suspended sediment data (turbidity), the frequency, 

magnitude and seasonal timing of high-flow dam releases, relative to frequency and 

magnitude of Paria and Little Colorado River fine-sediment inputs to the Colorado River 

between 2011 through 2016, 

3. Identify spatial and temporal correlations between age-0 rainbow trout abundance and 

growth rates and the distribution of low-angle (11 degrees slope or less) channel margins 

throughout Glen Canyon, and within NO study reaches 1 through 4b, 

4. In collaboration with Project 3, 5 and 9 researchers, evaluate trends in foodbase and 

rainbow trout diet relative to 2011-16 changes in fish catch and channel-bed sediment 

type in NO reaches 1 through 4. 

Hypotheses/Questions 

1. Hypothesis - Operations of Glen Canyon Dam result in progressive winnowing of the 

channel-bed to the extent that coarsened bed sediments of the main channel, combined 

with ongoing tributary inputs of gravel, and QW conditions, increasingly support life 

history requirements of nonnative rainbow trout within and below Glen Canyon. 

Question: Do trends in mapped areas of sand and gravel along channel margins and 

within the deeper channel bed in NO reaches 1 through 4b, change between 2011 and 

2017, and if so, then is there any correlation between bed sediment type, adult or age-0 

rainbow trout abundance and growth-rate, or juvenile humpback chub survival data? 

2. Hypothesis - Increasing frequency of higher and warmer releases from Glen Canyon Dam 

increases rainbow trout production in the GCD tailwater regardless of seasonal timing, 

but this response is also spatially controlled by the abundance and distribution of fish in 

Glen, Marble and eastern Grand Canyons, as well as the timing, frequency and magnitude 

of Paria River floods. Question: How has the discontinuity distance below GCD changed 

through time relative to the CRe’s thermal and turbidity regimes relative to NO project 

catch data for adult and age-0 rainbow trout abundance and distribution?

Rationale/Justification 

Ongoing monitoring of aquatic resources of the CRe, including fish, foodbase, quality-ofwater and sediment, have now been underway to support information and research needs of the 

GCDAMP since the late 1990s through GCMRC’s science program. Over time, new finding 

about how each of these individual resources is tied to operation of GCD has grown. Earlier, 

learning about how dam releases influence fine and coarse sediment in GCNP was advanced 

rapidly by monitoring of the spring 1996 Beach/Habitat Building Flow experiment, as well as 

sediment-transport and channel monitoring of sandbar thereafter (Schmidt and Grams, 2011b; 

Topping and others, 2000). Understanding about how dam operations influence rainbow trout 

and the foodbase in Glen Canyon were advanced initially following integration of singleresource monitoring during and after the March 2008 HFE (Korman and others, 2011; Cross and 

others, 2012). Knowledge about food web dynamics, dam operations and fish in the CRe was 

also advanced by research that focused on trophic linkages below the dam over the last decade 
376 

(Cross and others, 2013; Kennedy and others, 2013). On the basis of these recent advances 

intended to better inform managers about options for operating GCD to achieve downstream 

resource goals tied to Desired Future Conditions in GCNRA and GCNP, new research to 

synthesize physical and aquatic data over a multiple year period is now needed. The outcome of 

the project 9 synthesis is intended to provide greater understanding about how specific GCD 

operations influence the channel bed and margins of the CRe, and in turn how changes in those 

physical resources may influence fish and the foodbase over distances that might vary 

downstream of the dam through time. In undertaking this synthesis, we propose to address the 

question about where the GCD tailwater ends below the dam. 

Methods 

Synthesis Workshop 2017 - The project’s seventh element is the main objective of the 

project, which is to achieve a synthesis of physical and aquatic monitoring data and research 

findings from the NO fisheries and physical channel mapping and QW projects. The aim here is 

to better understand whether and how specific dam operations may be influencing the 

downstream length of the GCD tailwater fisheries, particularly in terms of rainbow trout and 

humpback chub dynamics and interactions, as well as trout diet related to the CRe foodbase. This 

will be a collaboration between aquatic biologist and sediment scientists; one that is initiated 

through a 2-3 day integrated workshop with participants from Projects 3, 5 and 9, as well as 

other invited experts. The timing of this activity is proposed for some time during the first half 

2017, and following the proposed Project 9 Protocol Evaluation Panel (PEP) 2016 review 

meeting to allow input from the PEP to also be considered by workshop participants. Workshop 

participants will present findings from individual research and monitoring projects to promote 

sharing of information among synthesis team members. The first step in synthesizing the 

available physical and biological data will be to overlay time series for rainbow trout catch data, 

with channel map information related to bed-sediment type within each of the NO study reaches 

using available data from 2012-16. The objective of the workshop is to refine approaches for 

further analyses and toward completion of an interpretive report on integrated research findings 

from the NO project’s 5-year intensive fish monitoring of trout origins, movements, diet and 

juvenile humpback chub survival in the Colorado River below the Little Colorado River.

Strategies for further analyzing available time series data to identify spatial and temporal 

patterns in rainbow trout catch and diet, relative to measured variations in channel characteristics 

and QW of the CRe downstream of the dam in the GCD tailwater, will be reviewed and 

discussed among team members to develop approaches for further analyzing spatial and temporal 

patterns of fish catch trends within the GCD tailwater. Strategies for integration physical and 

aquatic data sets into fisheries and productivity models developed by Projects 2, 3, 5 and 9 will 

also be identified. In the 2017 workshop, the 2012-16 fish and other biological resources (such as 

riparian vegetation changes derived from Project 11), and physical resource information will also 

be evaluated and discussed in context of earlier ecosystem modeling exercises that were formerly 

undertaken by GCMRC and cooperators in the late 1990s and mid-2000s. In the spirit of these 

early conceptual modeling efforts, GCDAMP stakeholders will participate in the final day of the 

project’s synthesis workshop. 

While many other factors likely influence the distribution and abundance of rainbow trout 

below the dam, our synthesis of physical and available biological data will provide new 

perspectives about the possible role of dam operations as a factor influencing these aquatic 

resources throughout Glen and Marble Canyons (abiotic/biotic synthesis of dam operations 

within the upper 1/3 of the CRe), and will also inform managers about possible value or need for 
377 

continuing similar integration of physical and biological strategies in future long term monitoring 

of the CRe. 

D.2 Personnel and Collaborations 

The majority of researchers is located at the US Geological Survey’s Southwest Biological 

Science Center, GCMRC, but is largely dependent upon ongoing collaboration with cooperator J. 

Korman of Ecometric Research (Vancouver, BC). 

D.3 Deliverables 

Project element 10.1 - Manuscript on research and development of new methods for using 

Humminbird® sidescan sonar instruments for imaging channel-bed sediment type and sediment 

changes in channel margin settings to support aquatic resource monitoring, Buscombe and others 

proposed for 2016. 

Project element 10.2 – New topographic and channel-bed sediment type maps (Grams, 

Buscombe and others collected in 2015 and proposed to be available for further analyses by 

2016). Preliminary USGS report in 2015 on slope analyses of existing 2004 & 2009 full-channel 

topography of Glen Canyon related to proportion of low and high-angle channel margins (Melis 

and Gushue). 

Project elements 10.3 and 10.4 – USGS final report (Melis and others proposed for 2016) on 

spatial channel-geometry (channel margin slopes) variations along the Colorado River within 

selected segments of Glen, Marble and eastern Grand Canyons, with focus on modelled flow in 

channel margin areas (NO reaches 1 & 4b, contingent upon flow model development being 

funded for Glen Canyon) relative to channel margins used by early life stage rainbow trout. 

Project elements 10.5 and 10.6 – Time series analyses of spatially segregated distribution of 

sand and gravel areas of the Colorado River channel bed within NO study sites 1, 3, 3, 4a and 4b 

between 2011 and 2016. USGS report by Melis, and others (proposed for 2016-17). 

Project element 10.7 – Interdisciplinary spatial analysis of 5-years of abiotic and biotic data, 

Melis and others (2017 manuscript) on multi-year rainbow trout catch and diet data relative to 

mapped changes in channel-bed sediment type (sand and coarser grained bed sediment) in Glen, 

Marble and eastern Grand Canyons study sites associated with NO project. Also, presentations at 

conferences and annual progress reports to GCDAMP stakeholders on Project 10 elements. 

E. Productivity from Past Work (during FY 13–14) 

E.1. Data Products 

None to date, owing to new project status, but the proposed interdisciplinary research builds 

upon numerous physical and biological data products from other ongoing projects preceding this 

integration (see Projects 2, 3, 5, 9). 

E.2. Completed Publications 

None to date, owing to new project status, but the proposed interdisciplinary research builds 

upon various publications from other ongoing projects preceding this effort (see Projects 2, 3, 5, 

9). 

E.3. Publications in progress 
378 

Buscombe and others, currently have three manuscripts submitted and in review on 

development of methods for imaging channel-bed substrates on the basis of 2013-14 Colorado 

River research conducted under Project 3 (Grams and others) that supports the Element 10.4.1: 

Buscombe, D., Rubin, D.M., Lacy, J.R., Storlazzi, C., Hatcher, G., Chezar, H., Wyland, R., 

and Sherwood, C., 2014a (accepted for publication), Autonomous bed-sediment imagingsystems for revealing temporal variability of grain size: Limnology and Oceanography: Methods; 

Buscombe, D., Grams, P.E., Kaplinski, M.A., 2014b (in review), Characterizing riverbed 

sediments using high-frequency acoustics 1: Spectral properties of scattering: Journal of 

Geophysical Research - Earth Surface; and Buscombe, D., Grams, P.E., Kaplinski, M.A., 2014c 

(in review), Characterizing riverbed sediments using high-frequency acoustics 2: Scattering 

signatures of Colorado River bed sediments in Marble and Grand Canyons: Journal of 

Geophysical Research - Earth Surface. 

E.4. Presentations at GCDAMP meetings 

PowerPoint Presentation: GCDAMP Annual Reporting Meeting, Phoenix, AZ, January 29, 

2014, “Low flows in Glen Canyon: preliminary geomorphic analysis of the potential effects on 

fish and food base”, by T.S. Melisa, T. Gushuea, T.A. Kennedya, J.D. Muehlbauera, M.D. Yarda, 

P.E. Gramsa, J.B. Sankeya, K. Kohla, T. Andrewsa, J.E. Hazel Jr.b and J. Kormanc

a U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, Southwest 

Biological Science Center, 2255 N. Gemini Dr., Flagstaff, AZ 86001 Contact: tmelis@usgs.gov 

b Northern Arizona University, c

Ecometric Research, 3650 W. 22nd Ave., Vancouver, B.C. 

V6S1J3 

Poster Sessions: “PRELIMINARY LOW-FLOWS STUDY IN THE LEES FERRY 

TAILWATER BELOW GLEN CANYON DAM” January TWG, and February AMWG 

meetings, Phoenix, AZ, by T.S. Melisa

, T. Gushuea, T.A. Kennedya, J.D. Muehlbauera, M.D. 

Yarda, P.E. Gramsa, J.B. Sankeya, K. Kohla, T. Andrewsa, J.E. Hazel Jr.b and J. Kormanc

a U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, Southwest 

Biological Science Center, 2255 N. Gemini Dr., Flagstaff, AZ 86001 Contact: tmelis@usgs.gov 

b Northern Arizona University, c

Ecometric Research, 3650 W. 22nd Ave., Vancouver, B.C. 

V6S1J3. 

E.5. Presentations at professional meetings 

None to date, owing to new project status, but the proposed interdisciplinary research builds 

upon various presentations from other ongoing projects preceding this effort (see Projects 2, 3, 5, 

9). 

F. References 

Alvarez, L.V., and Schmeeckle, M.W., 2012, Erosion of river sandbars by diurnal stage 

fluctuations in the Colorado River in the Marble and Grand Canyons: Full-scale laboratory 

experiments: River Research and Application, DOI: 10.1002/rra. 

Anima, R., Wong, F.L., Hogg, D., Galanis, P., 2007, Sidescan Sonar Imaging of the Colorado 

River, Grand Canyon: U.S. Geological Survey Open-file Report 2007-1216. 

Anderson, J.T., Holliday, D.V., Kloser, R., Reid, D.G., Simard, Y., 2008, Acoustic seabed 

classification: current practice and future directions: ICES Journal of Marine Science 65, 

1004–1011. 
379 

Brown, C.J., Blondel, P., 2009, Developments in the application of multibeam sonar backscatter 

for seafloor habitat mapping: Applied Acoustics, 70, 1242–1247. 

Brown, C.J., Smith, S.J., Lawton, P., Anderson, J.T., 2011, Benthic habitat mapping: A review of 

progress towards improved understanding of the spatial ecology of the seafloor using 

acoustic techniques: Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 92, 502–520. 

Buscombe, D., 2013, Transferable Wavelet Method for Grain Size-Distribution from Images of 

Sediment Surfaces and Thin Sections, and Other Natural Granular Patterns: Sedimentology, 

60: 1709–1732. 

Buscombe, D., Rubin, D.M., Lacy, J.R., Storlazzi, C., Hatcher, G., Chezar, H., Wyland, R., and 

Sherwood, C., 2014a, Autonomous bed-sediment imaging-systems for revealing temporal 

variability of grain size: Limnology and Oceanography: Methods. 

Buscombe, D., Grams, P.E., Kaplinski, M.A., 2014b (in review), Characterizing riverbed 

sediments using high-frequency acoustics 1: Spectral properties of scattering: Journal of 

Geophysical Research - Earth Surface. 

Buscombe, D., Grams, P.E., Kaplinski, M.A., 2014c (in review), Characterizing riverbed 

sediments using high-frequency acoustics 2: Scattering signatures of Colorado River bed 

sediments in Marble and Grand Canyons: Journal of Geophysical Research - Earth Surface. 

Clarkson, R.W., and Marsh, P.C., 2010, Effectiveness of the Barrier-and-Renovate Approach to 

Recovery of Warmwater Native Fishes in the Gila River Basin: p. 209-218, in Melis, T.S., 

Hamill, J.F., Bennett, G.E., Coggins, L.G., Jr., Grams, P.E., Kennedy, T.A., Kubly, D.M., 

and Ralston, B.E., eds., 2010, Proceedings of the Colorado River Basin Science and 

Resource Management Symposium, November 18–20, 2008, Scottsdale, Arizona: U.S. 

Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5135, 372 p. 

Cross, W.F., Baxter, C.V., Donnor, K.C., Rosi-Marshall, E.J., Kennedy, T.A., Hall, R.O. Jr., 

Wellard Kelly, H.A., and Rogers, R.S., 2012, Ecosystem ecology meets adaptive 

management: food web response to a controlled flood on the Colorado River, Glen Canyon: 

Ecological Applications, 21(6), 2011, pp. 2016–2033. 

Davis, P.A., and Melis, T.S., 2010, Mapping Full-Channel Geometry in Grand Canyon by Using 

Airborne Bathymetric Lidar: The Lees Ferry Test Case: pp. 363-372 in Melis, T.S., Hamill, 

J.F., Bennett, G.E., Coggins, L.G., Jr., Grams, P.E., Kennedy, T.A., Kubly, D.M., and 

Ralston, B.E., eds., 2010, Proceedings of the Colorado River Basin Science and Resource 

Management Symposium, November 18–20, 2008, Scottsdale, Arizona: U.S. Geological 

Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5135, 372 p. 

Dietrich, W.E., Smith, J.D., 1984, Bed load transport in a river meander: Water Resources 

Research, 20, 1355–1380. 

Ellis, L.E., and Jones, N.E., 2013, Longitudinal trends in regulated rivers: a review and synthesis 

within the context of the serial discontinuity concept: Environmental Reviews, 21: 136–148 

(2013) dx.doi.org/10. DOI: 10.1139er-2012-0064.

Finstad, A.G., Einum, S., Forseth, T., and Ugedal, O., 2007, Shelter availability affects behavior, 

size-dependent and mean growth of juvenile Atlantic salmon: Freshwater Biology, 52, 1710-

1718. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2427.2007.01799.x 

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.

Grams, P.E., Topping, D.J., Schmidt, J.C., Hazel, J.E., Kaplinski, M., 2013, Linking 

morphodynamic response with sediment mass balance on the Colorado River in Marble 

Canyon: Issues of scale, geomorphic setting, and sampling design: Journal of Geophysical 

Research - Earth Surface, 118, 361–381. 
380 

Grams, P.E., and Wilcock, P.R., 2007, Equilibrium entrainment of fine sediment over a coarse 

immobile bed: Water Resources Research, 43, W10420, doi:10.1029/2006WR005129. 

Grams, P.E., Schmidt, J.C., and Topping, D.J., 2007, The rate and pattern of bed incision and 

bank adjustment on the Colorado River in Glen Canyon downstream from Glen Canyon 

Dam, 1956–2000: Geological Society of America Bulletin 119(5–6):556–575. [online] URL: 

doi:10.1130/B25969.1. 

Kaeser, A.J., and Litts, T.L., 2010, A novel technique for mapping habitat in navigable streams 

using low-cost side scan sonar: Fisheries, 35 (4), 163–174. 

Kaeser, A.J., Litts, T.L., and Tracy, T.W., 2012, Using low-cost sidescan sonar for benthic 

mapping throughout the Lower Flint River, Georgia, USA: River Research and Applications, 

29, 634 – 644. 

Kennedy, T.A., Yackulic, C.B., Cross, W.F., Grams, P.E., Yard, M.D., and Copp, A.J., 2013, 

The relation between invertebrate drift and two primary controls, discharge and benthic 

densities, in a large regulated river: Freshwater Biology, doi:10.1111/fwb.12285, p. 1-16. 

Kennedy, T.A., Cross, W.F. , Hall, R.O. Jr., Baxter, C.V. , and Rosi-Marshall, E.J., 2013, Native 

and nonnative fish populations of the Colorado River are food limited--evidence from new 

food web analyses: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2013-3039, 4 p. [online] URL: 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2013/3039/. 

Kennedy, T.A., and Ralston, B.E., 2011, Biological Responses to High-Flow Experiments at 

Glen Canyon Dam: in Melis, T. S., ed., 2011, Effects of three high-flow experiments on the 

Colorado River ecosystem downstream from Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona: U.S. Geological 

Survey Circular 1366, 147 p. 

Kieffer, J.D., Currie, S., and Tufts, B.L., 1994, Effects of environmental temperature on the 

metabolic and acid-base responses of rainbow trout to exhaustive exercise: Journal of 

Experimental Biology,194, 299–317. 

Kondolf, G.M., Cook, S.S. , Maddux, H.R., and Persons, W.R., 1989, Spawning gravels of 

rainbow trout in Glen and Grand Canyons, Arizona: Journal of the Arizona-Nevada Academy 

of Science, 23:19-28. 

Korman, J., Martell, S.J.D., Walters, C.J., Makinster, A.S., Coggins, L.G. , Yard, M.D. , and 

Persons, W.R., 2012, Estimating Recruitment Dynamics and Movement of Rainbow Trout in 

the Colorado River in Grand Canyon using an Integrated Assessment Model: Canadian 

Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science. 69:1-23. 

Korman, J., and Melis, T.S., 2011, The Effects of Glen Canyon Dam Operations on Early Life 

Stages of Rainbow Trout in the Colorado River: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2011-

3002, 4 p.

Korman, J., Kaplinski, M., and Melis, T.S. 2011, Effects of fluctuating flows and a controlled 

flood on incubation success and early survival rates and growth of age-0 rainbow trout in a 

large regulated river: Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 140(2):487–505. 

[online] URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00028487.2011.572015/.

Korman, J., Kaplinski, M., and Melis, T.S., 2010, Effects of high-flow experiments from Glen 

Canyon Dam on abundance, growth, and survival rates of early life stages of rainbow trout in 

the Lees Ferry reach of the Colorado River: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010–

1034. 31 p. [online] URL: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1034/. 

Korman, J., Kaplinski, M., Hazel, J.E. III, and Melis, T.S., 2005, Effects of the experimental 

fluctuating flows from Glen Canyon Dam in 2003 and 2004 on early life history stages of 

rainbow trout in the Colorado River: Final RTELSS report to the GCMRC, 171 p. [online] 

URL: http://www.gcmrc.gov/. 
381 

Maddux, H.R., Kubly, D.M., deVos, J.C., Jr., Persons, W.R., Staedicke, R., and Wright, R.L., 

1987, Effects of varied flow regimes on aquatic resources of Glen and Grand Canyons—

Final report: Phoenix, Arizona Game and Fish Department, submitted to Bureau of 

Reclamation, Glen Canyon Environmental Studies, contract no. 4-AG-40-01810, 291 p. 

[Available from National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va. as NTIS Report 

PB88-183439/AS.] 

Makinster, A.S., Persons, W.R., Avery, L.A., and Bunch, A.J., 2010, Colorado River fish 

monitoring in Grand Canyon, Arizona: 2000 to 2009 summary: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 2010–1246. 

Melis, T.S., Korman, J., and Kennedy, T.A., 2012, Abiotic & biotic responses of the Colorado 

River to controlled floods at Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona, USA: River Research and 

Applications 28:764–776. 

Melis, T.S., Webb, R.H., Griffiths, P.G., and Wise, T.J., 1995, Magnitude and frequency data for 

historic debris flows in Grand Canyon National Park and vicinity, Arizona: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water Resources Research Investigation Report 94-4214, 297 p. [online] URL:

http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wri944214. 

Olden, J.D., and Naiman, R.J., 2010, Incorporating thermal regimes into environmental flows 

assessments: modifying dam operations to restore freshwater ecosystem integrity. 

Freshwater Biology 55: 86–107. 

Pattison, I., Sear, D.A., Carling, P., Collins, A.L., Jones, J.I., and Naden, P.S., 2012, Assessing 

the effect of fine sediment upon salmonid egg incubation using a modelling approach: SIDOUK. BHS Eleventh National Symposium, Hydrology for a changing world, Dundee 2012. 

ISBN: 1903741181© British Hydrological Society. doi: 10.7558/bhs.2012.ns43. 

Riebe, C.S., Sklar, L.S., Overstreet, B.T., and Wooster, J.K., 2014, Optimal reproduction in 

salmon spawning substrates linked to grain size and fish length, Water Resources Research, 

50, doi:10.1002/2013WR014231. 

Rubin, D.M., Topping, D.J., Schmidt, J.C., Hazel, J.E., Kaplinski, M.A., and Melis, T.S., 2002, 

Recent sediment studies refute Glen Canyon Dam hypothesis: Eos, Transactions, American 

Geophysical Union, 83(25):273, 277-278. 

Rubin, D.M., Chezar, H., Harney, J.N., Topping, D.J., Melis, T.S., Sherwood, C.R., 2007, 

Underwater microscope for measuring spatial and temporal changes in bed-sediment grain 

size: Sedimentary Geology, 202, 402–408. 

Schmidt, J.C., and Rubin, D.M., 1995, Regulated streamflow, fine-grained deposits, and 

effective discharge in canyons with abundant debris fans: in Costa, J.E., Miller, A.J., Potter, 

K.W., and Wilcock, P.R., eds., Natural and anthropogenic influences in fluvial 

geomorphology: American Geophysical Union, Geophysical Monograph Series, v. 89, p. 

177–195. 

Schmidt, J.C., and Grams, P.E., 2011a, Understanding Physical Processes of the Colorado River: 

Pages 17-52, in T.S. Melis, editor, 2011, Effects of three high-flow experiments on the 

Colorado River ecosystem downstream from Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona, [online] URL: 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1366/. 

Schmidt, J.C., and Grams, P.E., 2011b, The high flows – physical science results: Pages 53-92, 

in T.S. Melis, editor. 2011, Effects of three high-flow experiments on the Colorado River 

ecosystem downstream from Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 

1366, [online] URL: http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1366/. 
382 

Sear, D.A., Pattison, I., Collins, A.L., Newson, M.D., Jones, J.I., Naden P.S., and Carling, P.A., 

2012, Factors controlling the temporal variability in dissolved oxygen regime of salmon 

spawning gravels: Hydrological Processes, 2012, DOI: 10.1002/hyp.9565. 

Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., and Vierra, L.E., Jr., 2000, Colorado River sediment transport, 1. 

Natural sediment supply limitation and the influence of the Glen Canyon Dam: Water 

Resources Research, v. 36, no. 2, p. 515–542, doi: 10.1029/1999WR900285. 

Topping, D.J., Schmidt, J.C., and Vierra, L.E., Jr., 2003, Computation and analysis of the 

instantaneous-discharge for the Colorado River at Lees Ferry, Arizona: May 8, 1921, through 

September 30, 2000: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper; 1677, 118 p. 

Trammel, M. 2010, Fish Management in National Park Units Along the Colorado River: p. 235-

244, in Melis, T.S., Hamill, J.F., Bennett, G.E., Coggins, L.G., Jr., Grams, P.E., Kennedy, 

T.A., Kubly, D.M., and Ralston, B.E., eds., 2010, Proceedings of the Colorado River Basin 

Science and Resource Management Symposium, November 18–20, 2008, Scottsdale, 

Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5135, 372 p. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, 1995, Operation of Glen Canyon Dam 

Colorado River Storage Project, Arizona, Final Environmental Impact Statement: 337 pages 

+ appendices. [online] URL: http://www.usbr.gov/uc/envdocs/eis/gc/pdfs/Cov-con/covcon.pdf. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, 1996, Record of Decision, Operation of 

Glen Canyon Dam Final Environmental Impact Statement: Office of the Secretary of the 

Interior. [online] URL: http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/pdfs/sp_appndxG_ROD.pdf. 

U.S. Global Change Research Program, 2014, National Climate Assessment: Washington, DC, 

[online] URL: http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report. 

Valdez, R.A., and Speas, D.W., 2007, A RISK ASSESSMENT MODEL To Evaluate Risks and 

Benefits to Aquatic Resources From A Selective Withdrawal Structure On Glen Canyon 

Dam, draft report, Bureau of Reclamation, Salt Lake City, UT, 55 p. 

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

of adaptive management policies in the Grand Canyon: Conservation Ecology, 4(2):1. 

[online] URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol4/iss2/art1/. 

Ward, J.V., and Stanford, J.A., 1983, The serial discontinuity concept of lotic ecosystems: In 

Dynamics of Lotic Ecosystems, Fontaine TD, Bartell SM (eds), Ann Arbor Scientific 

Publishers: Ann Arbor, MI; 29–42. 

Webb, R.H., Griffiths, P.G., Melis, T.S., and Hartley, D.R., 2000, Sediment delivery by ungaged 

tributaries of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 00–4055, 67 p. [online] URL: 

http://wwwpaztcn.wr.usgs.gov/webb_pdf/wrir00-4055.pdf. 

Wescoat, J.L., Jr., Cameron, T.A., Fish, S.K., Ford, D., Gloss, S.P., Kratz, T.K., Minckley, W.L., 

and Wilcock, P.R., 1999, Downstream: adaptive management of Glen Canyon Dam and the 

Colorado River Ecosystem: National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 230 p. 

Wright, S.A., Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., and Melis, T.S., 2010, An approach for modeling 

sediment budgets in supply‐limited rivers: Water Resources Research, 46: 1-18. W10538, 

doi:10.1029/2009WR008600. [Online] URL: 

http://www.agu.org/journals/wr/wr1010/2009WR008600/2009WR008600.pdf. 

Yard, M.D., 2003, Light availability and aquatic primary production: Colorado River, Glen and 

Grand Canyons, AZ: Ph.D. dissertation, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, 205 p. 
383 

Yard, M.D., Coggins, L.G., Jr., Baxter, C.V., Bennett, G.E., and Korman, J., 2011, Trout 

piscivory in the Colorado River, Grand Canyon: Transactions of the American Fisheries 

Society, 140(2):471– 486
uscombe, Yard, Korman and Grams, derived from Projects 3 & 9 budgets. 2. USGS salary support is distributed as follows: 2015 - 

grapher 2 PP, Student Pathway 18 PP; 2016 - Melis 11 PP, Gushue 4 PP, Geographer 2 PP, Student Pathway 18 PP; 2017 - Melis 11 

PP. 3. USGS indirect cost rates applied to estimated direct costs shown in 2015-17, were calculated at 16, 22 and 28% respectively, 

for non-GCMRC USGS or non-USGS cooperators in this project budget. 

g gg

and research

Project Identifier Project Description Salaries Travel & Training Operating Expenses Logistics Coop‐ erators (non‐USGS) USGS Coop‐erators USGS/SBSC Burden Total

10

Mapping and Assessment

of Aquatic Habitats below

Glen Canyon Dam

Melis et al. $123,500 $5,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $20,100 $148,600

10

Mapping and Assessment

of Aquatic Habitats below

Glen Canyon Dam

Melis et al. $129,800 $5,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $28,700 $163,500

10

Mapping and Assessment

of Aquatic Habitats below

Glen Canyon Dam

Melis et al. $96,800 $7,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $28,400 $132,200

FY17FY15FY16
385 

Monitoring: Core activities 

Research: Resolving scientific uncertainty 

Independent science oversight and review 

Project 11. Riparian Vegetation Monitoring and Analysis 

of Riparian Vegetation, Landform Change and AquaticTerrestrial linkages to Faunal Communities 

Initial Estimate: FY15: $488,100; FY16: $551,700; FY17: $504,500 

GCDAMP Funding: FY15: $488,100; FY16: $513,100; FY17: $479,300 

A. Investigators 

Barbara E. Ralston, Supervisory Biologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring 

and Research Center 

Daniel Sarr, Research Ecologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center 

Joel B. Sankey, Research Geologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center 

Paul E. Grams, Research Hydrologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center, 

Charles B. Yackulic, Research Statistician, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring 

and Research Center 

Theodore A. Kennedy, Research Aquatic Ecologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon 

Monitoring and Research Center 

Jeff Muehlbauer, Aquatic Ecologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center 

David M. Merritt, Research Ecologist, U.S. Forest Service 

Patrick Shafroth, Research Ecologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Fort Collins 

Joseph E. Hazel, Research Associate, Northern Arizona University 

Emily Palmquist, Ecologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research 

Center 

Laura Cagney, Research Specialist, Northern Arizona University 

Todd Chaudhry, Restoration Ecologist, NPS, Grand Canyon National Park, 

Dustin W. Perkins, Program Manager, NPS, Northern Colorado Plateau Inventory and 

Monitoring Program 

John Spence, Resource Manager, National Park Service, Glen Canyon National Recreation Area 

B. Project Summary 

Riparian vegetation affects physical processes and biological interactions along the channel 

downstream of Glen Canyon Dam. The presence and expansion of riparian vegetation promotes 

bank stability, diminishes the magnitude of scour and fill during floods, and has a role in wildlife 

habitat and recreational values. This project utilizes annual field measurements and digital 

imagery for integrated monitoring of changes in vegetation assessed within a hydro-geomorphic 

context. Research elements of this project utilize the monitoring data to explore the utility of 
386 

plant response-guilds to probabilistically evaluate and assess wildlife habitat, and integrate the 

response guilds with a 22-year topographic survey record for retrospective analyses of 

topographic change of 20 sandbars. This project builds upon accomplishments associated with 

the FY13/14 Work Plan, provides information that support stakeholder needs as identified by 

guiding documents developed by the Adaptive Management Program, and furthers our 

understanding of the role of riparian vegetation in ecosystem processes in a regulated river 

ecosystem. 

The objectives and elements of this monitoring and research project are: 

1. Measurement and analysis of plant cover and species presence to assess change as related 

to the geomorphic setting, elevation above the channel, and flow regime (Project Element 

11.1) 

2. Mapping changes in woody vegetation at the landscape scale through image processing, 

classification, and analysis (Project Element 11.2) 

3. Utilizing vegetation response-guilds for integrated research of sandbars and riparian 

vegetation (Project Element 11.3) 

4. Use multiple sampling approaches and historic data sets to quantify the strength of 

aquatic-terrestrial linkages and the relative importance of vegetation change and aquatic 

production in driving the population dynamics of a subset of the terrestrial fauna (Project 

Element 11.4).

5. A review and assessment of nonnative plant control and native plant restoration efforts 

along regulated segments of the Colorado and Rio Grande Rivers (Project Element 11.5). 

Each of these objectives and the associated project elements inform stakeholders about the 

status of vegetation and support analysis of vegetation’s role in the ecological, physical, 

sociocultural responses to dam operations. 

C. Background 

The abundance, structure, and location of riparian plant species reflect differential responses 

to substrate properties, channel geomorphology (e.g., width, depth, bed and bank material, slope, 

floodplain functionality), and flow regime (Auble and Scott 1998; Mahoney and Rood 1998; 

Auble and others, 2005; Naiman and others, 2005). Species that respond similarly to these 

geomorphic and hydrologic processes can be categorized into response-guilds (Grime, 1979; 

Lavorel and Garnie, 2002; Merritt and others, 2010). Alteration of the flow regimes due to 

regulation by dams changes the disturbance regime and hydroperiod across channel margins and 

leads to changes in the plants that dominate the landscape: river regulation contributed to the 

dominance of tamarisk (Tamarix sp.) and Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia) along the 

majority of the streams and rivers in the southwestern United States (Stromberg and others, 

2007; Birken and Cooper, 2006; Merritt and Poff 2010). River regulation is thus a selective force 

on riparian communities and shifts the dominant species and associated response-guilds found 

along channel boundary. 

The nine preliminary response-guilds identified from the 2012-2013 field collections (fig. 1, 

Table 1) are a unifying component of each element of the riparian vegetation project (Project 11) 

in FY15–17. Annual, ground-based vegetation plot data that are associated with hydrologic 

zones (see methods 11.1) of inundation frequency are used to develop a guild flora (species 

groups based on physiological and morphologic traits measured and recorded in the literature). 
387 

Changes in the frequency of guilds encountered at fixed and random sampling sites can be used 

as a tool to interpret vegetation response to flow regimens (for example, reduced annual water 

volumes may increase the frequency of occurrence of group B - Drought tolerant well dispersed, 

ruderal herbs/grasses observed in stage elevations above 25,000 ft3

/s). Monitoring vegetation 

within a hydro-geomorphic framework permits the identification of response guilds along a river 

channel and among geomorphic features. 

Monitoring that includes landscape-scale change detection enables an assessment of the 

extent of observed ground-based changes across the landscape and answers questions such as: Is 

a trend of more plants adapted to xeric conditions along one river segment similar to that 

observed elsewhere? Is a trend of vegetation-type or amount specific to sandbars or channel 

margins or common to all or most features along a river channel? Annual ground-based 

monitoring provides primary data that enables local and landscape-scale assessment of changes 

in the riparian plant community relative to changes in annual hydrology. 

With the increasing recognition of the role that both vegetation and river regulation have on 

fluvial geomorphology, studies evaluating the additive effects of these change agents on 

shoreline and channel geomorphic landforms are increasingly relevant to resource managers 

interested in preserving or re-establishing channel dynamics and in native plant restoration 

efforts (Stromberg, 2001). Just as plants respond to river regulation, the location and distribution 

of riparian plants along a channel affects alluvial landform evolution (Corenblit and others,, 

2008; Osterkamp and Hupp, 2010; Manners and others, 2014). In Grand Canyon, the effect of 

riparian plants on the physical template of the Colorado River corridor is little studied, yet the 

interaction between vegetation and sediment has implications for campsite availability and 

accessibility (Hadley, 2014, Kaplinski and others, 2005, 2014), wildlife habitat (Durst and 

others, 2008; Sogge and others, 2003), and aquatic shoreline habitats. 
388 

   

Figure 1. Dendrogram of preliminary Plant-response guilds for the 

Colorado River in Grand Canyon. 

Table 1. Description of Plant Response-guild and 

associated species within guilds.

Guild Guild Description Species 

A Xeroriparian 

shrubs, disturbance 

intolerance 

Lycium pallida, 

Artemisia 

ludoviciana, 

Baccharis 

sarothroides

B Drought tolerant 

well dispersed, 

ruderal 

herbs/grasses 

Melilotus spp., 

Oenothera pallida, 

Bromus rubens, 

Sporobolus 

cryptandrus 

C Mesic, well 

dispersed, 

herbs/grasses 

Taraxicum 

officianale, 

Conyza 

canadensis 

D Wetland, clonal 

grasses 

Agrostis 

stolonifera, 

Phragmites 

australis 

E Wetland, 

low growing, 

short-lived, forbs 

Equisetum 

arvense, Veronica 

americana 

F Wetland, shallow 

rooted, forb, 

nonclonal 

Apocynum 

canabinum, 

Boehmeria 

cylindrica 

G Wetland, perennial 

grasses, forbs 

Juncus spp. 

Muhlenbergia 

asperifolia, Typha 

latifolia

H Tall-deep rooted, 

disturbance 

tolerant riparian 

phraeatophytes 

Tamarix spp., 

Salix exigua, 

Pluchea sericea

I Woody, 

xeroriparian, 

disturbance 

adapted 

Prosopis 

glandulosa, Celtis 

reticulate, 

Acacia greggii 
389 

The plant response-guild information developed during FY13–14 provides a means to 

aggregate multiple species into a single variable (guild) to study vegetation’s effect on sediment 

dynamics. For example, each response-guild, composed of a suite of species, could be assigned a 

single roughness value when considering the process of sediment transport and deposition, or a 

single critical shear stress value assigned to a response-guild to evaluate plant removal and 

erosion during high flows in Grand Canyon. A research element for FY15–17 proposes to 

conduct a retrospective analysis of sandbar evolution since 1991 when significant flow regime 

changes occurred. A retrospective analysis of sandbar evolution contributes to an understanding 

of how landforms along the channel change in response to annual hydrology, controlled floods, 

and the presence of vegetation. 

Riparian vegetation comprises critical habitat for terrestrial fauna along the Colorado River 

corridor (Carothers and Brown, 1991; Kearsley and others, 2006; Ralston, 2005), yet the 

relationship between riparian guilds and these animal species remains unstudied. While dam 

operations modify the frequency of vegetation guilds likely leading to changes in the abundance 

and distribution of animal species that rely on these habitats, most studies of terrestrial 

consumers were done many years ago over a relatively short period of time. During these shorter 

time scales, the primary linkage between flow regime and terrestrial animals may be through 

variation in space and time in the amount of emerging aquatic insects that are available as prey to 

terrestrial consumers. Therefore, we will study a suite of terrestrial consumers to better 

understand short-term variation attributable to changes in the strength of insect emergence from 

the Colorado River and, where long-term data are available, use methods that allow us to make 

inferences about long-term changes potentially linked to vegetation change. To the extent 

possible, we will also use historic data to better understand which animal species are linked to 

specific vegetation-flow response guilds 

Lastly, native and nonnative woody riparian vegetation expansion is linked to Glen Canyon 

Dam operations (Turner and Karpiskac, 1980; Mortenson and others, 2011), but removal of 

woody vegetation through dam operations may have limited success. To achieve desired future 

conditions for riparian vegetation, experimental vegetation removal and plantings of native 

vegetation that incorporate future flow operations may be required. For example, experimental 

plant removal and subsequent habitat restoration efforts may focus on tamarisk since tamarisk 

beetle defoliation has occurred along segments of the Colorado River since 2009 (see Project 

Element 11.2). Incorporating a review of previous riparian restoration projects within the 

Colorado River Basin (Colorado River in Canyonlands, the Yampa River in Lodore Canyon, and 

the Rio Grande River in Big Bend National Park) can identify approaches that may be most 

successful in identifying expected outcomes, and in estimating costs for project initiation and 

subsequent monitoring and maintenance. Project Element 11.5 proposes a science panel review 

to examine successes and challenges in non-native vegetation control in the Colorado River and 

Rio Grande watersheds (the area that is the jurisdiction of the US and LC regions 

of reclamation) and to seek recommendations from that group as to how to plan a scientificallybased riparian management control program. 

Collectively, the monitoring and research elements proposed in the riparian vegetation 

project support the Adaptive Management Program’s efforts to evaluate the High-Flow 

Experiment Protocol (Bureau of Reclamation, 2011) and flow alternatives that will result from 

the on-going EIS for a Long-term Experimental Management Plan (LTEMP) for Glen Canyon 

Dam. The proposed research elements fundamentally aid in furthering our understanding of the 

role of riparian vegetation in ecosystem processes of a regulated river. 
390 

C.1. Scientific Background 

A riparian plant community integrates the history of hydrologic events that vary in 

magnitude of disturbance and depth of inundation (Naiman and others, 2005). General 

conclusions from decades of plant studies along the Colorado River downstream from Glen 

Canyon Dam and in other rivers in the southwest are: 

 tamarisk colonization events occur following large-scale disturbance that create bare 

substrate for colonization, or changes in the flow regime of regulated rivers where 

alluvial deposits become exposed (Stevens and Waring, 1986; Birkin and Cooper, 2006; 

Mortenson and others, 2012); 

 the reduction in magnitude and frequency of floods in Grand Canyon promoted the 

development of marsh communities (Stevens and others, 1995); 

 woody riparian vegetation, in general, has expanded under Record of Decision (RoD) 

operations also because of reduced flood magnitude and disturbance (Sankey and others, 

unpublished). 

 increases in base flow in the mid-2000’s resulted in increased woody vegetation 

expansion below the stage of 25,000 ft3

/s discharge even with increasing flood frequency 

(Sankey and others, unpublished). 

Landscape scale research and small-scale data collection since the 1980s document the 

immediate and long-term response of vegetation to changes in seasonal hydrographs and 

minimum base flows associated with dam operations. 

Current knowledge gained from geophysical studies affords opportunities for linkages 

between geomorphology and plant ecology to assess the interactive response of sediment and 

vegetation on landform processes and terrestrial habitat quality. Key insights from the physical 

science program for the Colorado River in Grand Canyon that are fundamental to integrated 

research include the following: 

 Sediment grain-sized eddy bars and channel margin deposits has coarsened since Glen 

Canyon Dam was completed; wind-transported deposits are also coarser as a result (Draut 

and others, 2008; Schmidt and others, 2004; Topping and others, 2000a, b). 

 Sandbar response to high-flows include deposition occurring principally within debris fan 

eddy-complexes, with the greatest amount of deposition occurring near zones of flow 

separation and reattachment (Hazel and others, 1999; Schmidt and others, 2001); 

Sediment storage along the channel is greatest within these eddy complexes (Hazel and 

others, 2006b). 

Coarser sediment deposits along the river’s channel and upslope have implications for water 

accessibility and nutrient availability to the roots of plants. Coarser sediments and reduced 

nutrient availability favor drought tolerant plant species and plant species that are adapted to 

nutrient poor environments. Controlled floods result in sediment reworking and deposition, and 

affects vegetation by scouring herbaceous vegetation and partially burying woody vegetation 

(Kearsley and Ayers, 1999). Vegetation that is adapted to burial or disturbance (for example, 

Salix exigua, Pluchea sericea; table 1) may fair better under increased frequencies of controlled 

floods. Sediment deposition that results in sandbars with increasing elevation affects 
391 

relationships plants roots have to the water table. Plants that are more drought tolerant and have 

deeper root systems may be favored under this scenario (for example, Prosopis sp., Tamarix sp.; 

table 1). 

The vegetated landscape that results from changes in sediment characteristics and landform 

evolution affects associated terrestrial fauna. Sogge and others, (1998) identified that complex 

structural habitat, present along the river channel from 1990-1994 increase bird diversity. A 

long-term trend towards increased woody vegetation of similar architecture and height may 

result in either reduced bird diversity, or the attraction of a different assemblage of birds than 

those currently observed along the channel. Similarly, the terrestrial arthropod assemblage that 

forms a food base for both terrestrial and aquatic species may change as substrates become drier, 

or vegetation shifts from a mix of perennial herbaceous and woody vegetation towards a 

predominantly woody vegetated landscape (McCluny and Sabo, 2012; Paetzold and others, 

2008). Whereas vegetation may act a primary filter to determine which species are present in a 

given area, the abundance and distribution of particular terrestrial animal species may also be 

affected by the amount of local insect emergence (Project 5). 

The physical components that are studied downstream of Glen Canyon Dam (Projects 2, 3) 

constitute the abiotic inputs that constrain landform processes and the biotic responses. 

Understanding the riparian landscape response to Glen Canyon Dam operations requires 

collective analysis of data from physical and biological disciplines. The challenge for the FY15–

17 Project 11 work plan is higher-level research that links physical and biological responses and 

associated feedbacks. The proposed research elements fundamentally aid in furthering our 

understanding of the role of riparian vegetation in ecosystem processes and the potential effect of 

riparian vegetation on habitat quality within a regulated river. 

C.2. Management Background 

Vegetation is recognized as in important element of the Colorado River and is highlighted 

with a specific management goal [Goal 6: Protect or improve the biotic riparian and spring 

communities, including threatened and endangered species and their critical habitat] of the 

GCDAMP. Vegetation provides wildlife habitat (cover, forage, nesting), is the basis of terrestrial 

food webs, influences channel and bar dynamics, provides recreational opportunities and 

aesthetic value, and performs many of the important functions and services valued by humans. 

Most recently, the response of vegetation to future flow regimes associated with the LTEMP EIS 

has been a focus for stakeholders. The vegetation component of the EIS process considers how 

groups of riparian plants may respond to changes in flows and how particular flow regimes may 

benefit native or nonnative species (for example, tamarisk), increase biodiversity, and affect the 

Desire Future Conditions developed by stakeholders. The State and Transition Modeling effort 

by Ralston and others (2014) provided stakeholders with a tool that can assist in evaluating how 

plants respond to changes in the flow regime. For example, the state and transition models 

suggest that relying of flows to remove woody vegetation is likely to have limited success, unless 

the flow regime includes large extended controlled floods like those that occurred in the mid1980s. These collaborative efforts between the GCMRC, the LTEMP EIS team and the agency 

leads involved in assessing alternative flow regimes provides opportunities to be forward 

thinking about the need for mitigation efforts related to vegetation management, as a means to 

support goals for vegetation associated with desired future conditions for the Colorado River 

downstream of Glen Canyon Dam. The state and transition model provides a first step in being 
392 

aware of potential vegetation management needs, strategic planning for vegetation management 

that is linked to monitoring and research outcomes can be a follow-up step. 

Monitoring approaches have aimed to collect data in a manner that informs stakeholders of 

the status of riparian vegetation as well as other elements of the riparian ecosystem (Kearsley 

and others, 2006; Ralston and others, 2008). The response of riparian vegetation to dam 

operations can positively or negatively affect the quality of other resources within the riparian 

zone. For example, available campable area can decline as vegetation cover increases (Kearsley 

and others, 1994), though more recent analysis suggests that since 2002 vegetation encroachment 

in campsite areas appears to be less important when evaluating changes in campsite conditions 

(Hadley, 2014). Additionally, though not well documented in Grand Canyon, increasing 

vegetation on sandbars likely affects sediment transport dynamics and aeolian processes thus 

playing a role in sediment conservation (Trimble 2004, Kean and Smith, 2004; Dean and others, 

2011; Draut and Rubin, 2008). Thus, the status of riparian vegetation and its relationship to other 

resources is a primary information need for the stakeholders to evaluate how dam operations are 

affecting downstream resources. 

This project consists of monitoring and associated research activities relating to the 

measurement of riparian vegetation attributes in response to dam operations to inform multiple 

stakeholder needs. Project 11 incorporates information gained from previous monitoring efforts 

(Stevens and Ayers 1995; Kearsley and Ayers 1995; Kearsley and others, 2006) and 

recommendations from protocol review panels (Urquhart and others, 2000; Cooper and others, 

2008). The primary objectives of this project are to measure variables of plant response (cover, 

species presence, and abundance) as related to the geomorphic setting, elevation, and flow 

regime. These variables inform stakeholders about the status of vegetation and support analysis 

of vegetation’s role in the physical and sociocultural responses to dam operations. The proposed 

methods in the Plant-response Guild element also support research related to evaluation of 

alternative flow regimes, including implementation of the High-Flow Experiment Protocol (U.S. 

Department of the Interior, 2011) and other flow regimes that may result from the LTEMP EIS. 

The sampling is hydrologically and geomorphically based, the annual sampling schedule in 

September and October generally brackets proposed high flow releases, and sampling at the end 

of each growing season provides an assessment of riparian vegetation for each year. Thus, data 

collected by this project contribute to core monitoring, agency actions such as the High-Flow 

Experiment Protocol or other dam operations, and fundamental support for understanding 

riparian plant responses within a regulated river. 

C.3. Key Monitoring and Research Questions Addressed in this project 

This project addresses the following Strategic Science Questions (SSQs), Core Monitoring 

Information Needs (CMINs), and Research Information Needs (RINs) and Desire Future 

Conditions (DFC’s) previously identified by the GCDAMP. 

Primary SSQs addressed are: 

 SSQ 2-1. Do dam-controlled flows affect (increase or decrease) rates of erosion and 

vegetation growth at archaeological sites and TCP sites, and if so, how? 

 SSQ 5-7. How do warmer releases affect viability and productivity of native/nonnative 

vegetation? 

The primary information needs addressed by these projects are CMINs 6.1.1., 6.2.1, 6.5.1, and 

6.6.1, which are summarized as the following: 
393 

 Determine and track the abundance, composition, distribution, and area of terrestrial 

native and nonnative vegetation species in the CRe 

 Determine parameters and metrics to be measured, and the information needs that address 

each element 

 Determine how the abundance, composition, and distribution of the Old High Water 

Zone, New High Water Zone, and sand beach community have changed since dam 

closure (1963), high flows (1984), interim flows (1991), and the implementation of ROD 

operations (RIN 6.2.1, 6.3.1, 6.4.1, 6.5.1, 6.5.2, 6.5.3) 

In addition to supporting GCDAMP Goal 6, this project also supports Goals 8, 9, and 11. 

 Goal 8: Maintain or attain levels of sediment storage within the main channel and along 

shorelines to achieve GCDAMP ecosystem goals. 

This project supports Goal 8 by collecting vegetation response data associated with sandbars and 

other geomorphic features that physical scientists can use to further understand mechanisms 

affecting sediment storage and transport. 

 Goal 9: Maintain or improve the quality of recreational experiences for users of the CRe 

within the framework of GCDAMP ecosystem goals. 

This project supports Goal 9 by collecting vegetation response data that may inform researchers 

about how vegetation cover and abundance affects recreational experiences. This has 

implications for both direct vegetation management as well as altering flow regimes to achieve 

specific management goals. 

 Goal 11: Preserve, protect, manage, and treat cultural resources for the inspiration and 

benefit of past, present, and future generations. 

This project supports Goal 11 by collecting vegetation cover data and an overall species list that may be 

used to inform other researchers about how the quantity of vegetation affects sediment transport and 

cultural site preservation, or how the loss or gain of plant species affect interpretations of ecosystem 

status. 

All element of this project also support information related to the Desire Future Conditions 

(Department of Interior, 2012) associated with: Sediment-related Resources, the Riparian 

Domain and the Linkages component - Ecosystem Structure. The research 

D. Proposed Work 

D.1. Project Elements 

Project Element 11.1. Ground-based Vegetation Monitoring 

Barbara Ralston, Supervisory Biologist, USGS, GCMRC 

Daniel Sarr, Research Ecologist, USGS, GCMRC 

Emily Palmquist, Ecologist, USGS, GCMRC 

Todd Chaudhry, Restoration Ecologist, NPS, Grand Canyon National Park, 

Dustin W. Perkins, Program Manager, NPS, Northern Colorado Plateau Inventory and 

Monitoring Program 

 
394 

Work Category: Required monitoring 

Objectives 

 To annually collect vegetation data (presence, cover) within a geomorphic and hydrologic 

framework downstream of Glen Canyon Dam.

 To use the traits of the plants found to identify plant response-guilds 

 Data and results are collected and described in a manner that can be utilized by multiple 

stakeholders for monitoring approaches used by Tribal stakeholders, and for use in basinwide riparian vegetation monitoring programs overseen by the National Park Service’s 

Northern Colorado Plateau Network Inventory and Monitoring Program 

Hypotheses/Questions 

1. Tracking response guild frequency as determined through annual data collection is an 

effective way to monitor directional responses of the riparian community and the river 

channel to dam operations. 

Rationale/Justification 

River regulation in the semi-arid West creates conditions that support both nonnative and 

native riparian plant species (Stromberg, 1998; Rood and others, 2009). The altered flow regime 

associated with river regulation can promote successful colonization of nonnative species, 

particularly tamarisk (Tamarix spp.) or other colonizing species, on newly exposed bare 

substrates (Sher and others, 2000; Birken and Cooper, 2006; Mortenson and others, 2012). In the 

southwest, the riparian plant community is one in which nonnative tamarisk or Russian olive 

dominates the landscape (Friedman and others, 2005). Consistent monitoring at the local and 

landscape scale, and research that strives to understand the interplay among river regulation, 

riparian vegetation response and the feedback between riparian vegetation development and 

sediment deposition in regulated rivers is critical. Ground-based monitoring provides an 

assessment of annual changes in species occurrences that feeds into the frequency occurrence of 

response-guilds.

Methods 

The study area consists of four river segments whose limits are defined by the influence of 

tributaries and by floristic communities (Glen Canyon, Marble Canyon, eastern Grand Canyon, 

western Grand Canyon; fig. 2). The confluences of the Paria and Little Colorado Rivers and 

Kanab Creek with the Colorado River are points that divide the four segments. These river 

segment designations also overlap with suspended sediment sampling stations and work focused 

on sediment budgets that bracket Marble Canyon and eastern Grand Canyon (see Project 2). 

Further, assessing response guilds within short river reaches can help stakeholders identify areas 

that may be more or less responsive to dam operations. Species lists obtained from plot sampling 

(described below) within these river segments can inform park management of areas where 

undesirable species occur in greater abundance and allow a more focused approach to controlling 

these species. 
395 

Figure 2. Four landscape-scale segment used for stratification (Glen Canyon, Marble Canyon, Eastern Grand Canyon, and 

Western Grand Canyon). The confluences of the Paria, and the Little Colorado Rivers, and Kanab Creek with the Colorado 

River separate the four segments. 

Ground-based sampling 

Sampling is intended to be complementary with the Big River Protocol of the NPS Northern 

Colorado Plateau Network (Scott and others, 2011), which includes fixed sites and randomly 

sampled sites that are matched to geomorphic features (e.g., reattachment bar, separation bar, 

debris fan, channel margins). Sampling downstream from Glen Canyon Dam will follow a 

similar approach. Fixed sites will be coincident with sandbar monitoring sites (Hazel and others, 

2010, see Project Element 3.1). Random sites will be stratified and equal numbers of geomorphic 

features other than sandbars will be sampled within river segments. Response guild identification 

was initiated in 2012 in collaboration with D. Merritt using species lists and data collected from 

2001-2005 (Kearsley and others, 2006) and Stevens and others, (1995) from 1991-1993 and data 

collected in 2012. These guilds continue to being refined as monitoring data are added to the 

database. 

Common to all sites is the division of the site into hydrologic zones for plot sampling. Plots 

at fixed and random sites will consist of 1-m2

 plots placed along a transect perpendicular to the 

channel (fig. 3A). A minimum of three transects will be sampled at each site (larger sample sites 

will have up to five transects). Each transect is divided into three hydrologic zones that 

correspond to Record of Decision Operations. The active channel (AC) is the portion of the 

channel feature that is subject to daily fluctuations up to 25,000 ft3/s. The active floodplain (AF) 

is that area within a sampling unit that is subject to periodic inundation associated with either 

steady discharges above 25,000 ft3/s or experimental floods with discharges up to 45,000 ft3/s. 

The elevation above the 45,000 ft3

/s stage is considered the inactive floodplain (IF) which has 

not been inundated since the late 1980’s. Within each hydrologic zone, three evenly spaced plot 

locations will be established (fig. 3B). 
396 

Figure 3. Example of transect lines across a feature (A.) and example of hydrologic zone differentiation and evenly space 

plot placement within zones (B.). 

For each plot, every species within each plot is identified and the percent vegetative cover for 

each is estimated using a 1 m2 frame with 0.1 m segments marked on it. Cover estimate to the 

nearest 5% (e.g. 5%, 10%, 15%), except for cover values of less than 5%. For cover <5%, record 

“T” for trace if cover is less than 1% and record 1% for cover between 1% and 5%. We will also 

estimate ground cover elements: bare soil surface, litter, woody litter (>5 mm diameter), 

biological soil crust, gravel (5 mm – 7.5cm), stone (25 cm – 60 cm), boulder (>60 cm), bedrock, 

and water, but only those areas not covered by plants (see data sheet example). The proposed 

data collection and basic metrics calculated appear in table 1. Plot data will also provide species 

richness and diversity and distinguish between native and nonnative species 

Fixed site sampling 

Sampling sites are coincident with sandbar and channel monitoring sites. Among the 

potential sites that can be sampled (44 sandbars and the river channel data from RM 30 to 87), 

sandbar sites that are most and least responsive to controlled floods, as measured by changes in 

sand volume and area (Hazel and others, 2010; Schmidt and Grams, 2011). Because the 44 sites 

in Project 3 are surveyed and sandbar area and volume calculated, the relationship between 

vegetation plot locations, associated plant response guild (derived from plot samples) and stage 

can be determined. Monitoring vegetation response guilds at sandbars that are measured for 

responses to HFEs and other dam operations can help address physical resource questions about 

A.

B.
397 

causes of variability in sandbar response. Specifically, this co-located data collection effort can 

support the monitoring and research questions presented in Project 3 with respect to the role of 

vegetation and the type of vegetation present on a sandbar affecting sandbar response to 

controlled floods. 

Plots at fixed sites will consist of 1-m2 quadrats that are stratified across across the survey 

area (sensu Schmidt and Rubin, 1995). The number of quadrats sampled will be proportional to 

the area of each feature. For example, a reattachment bar may be half the size of a separation bar 

and would have 50% fewer plots sampled. Plots will be randomly placed within each 

geomorphic feature. Because the sandbar sites are surveyed annually (Project 3), the topographic 

information can be used to determine river flow necessary to inundate plots. The complementary 

data reduces the time necessary to locate permanent plots and obviates the need to monument 

plots. The vegetation monitoring determines annual changes in response guilds to dam 

operations and informs managers about how these changes may affect geomorphic features. Data 

collected will include cover and species presence. Plot data will also provide species richness 

and diversity and distinguish between native and nonnative species (table 2). 

Random site sampling 

The objective of random site sampling is to augment the fixed site sampling. Plot sampling 

here is limited to the area affected by annual dam operations including HFEs. Sampling includes 

an equal number of sandbars, debris fans, and channel margins within each river segment. 

Selection of random sites occurs prior to the sampling trip to ensure the sites are logistically 

feasible. Because the locations will be determined prior to launch of the trip, the height above 

river level in relation to the 45,000 ft3

/s stage can be determined using established stage elevation 

relationships and flow routing models (Griffin and Wiele, 1996; Hazel and others, 2006). Having 

the known river discharge for a particular day and time of day can assist in determining distance 

upslope to reach the 45,000 ft3/s stage. Successive plots along the transect line will be sampled. 

These results will be compared with the fixed sampling site results for an assessment of the river 

segment and total river corridor. 

Analysis 

Sampling occurs annually at the end of the growing season (September/October) to capture 

vegetation response to changes in the annual flow regime. These sampling approaches will also 

capture non-flow related interactions (e.g., tamarisk leaf beetle) that affect changes in 

community composition. Data analyses result in descriptive metrics outlined in Table 2 and are 

used to support response guilds identification. For many of the common species, the 

physiological traits that are related to hydrology (disturbance tolerance, inundation capacity, 

drought tolerance), reproductive mode (seed only, vegetative), growth form, life span and 

salinity tolerance are determined for species encountered, primarily from the PLANTS database 

(www.usda.gov). These traits are used in a classification procedure to statistically determine the 

plant-response guilds (fig. 1). The number of species within each guild and the number of guilds 

may change as more trait information is quantified and added. 
398 

Table 2. Data collected for all plots and interpretation 

Objective Data Inference Goal 

Raw Summarized Trend Statistic(s) for 

status 

Estimate temporal 

change in riparian and 

wetland plant 

communities 

Herbaceous 

spp 

 Y* ݔ̅ % cover/sp; 

p plots/sp 

 spp richness Y ݔ̅ richness 

 Total 

herbaceous 

 Y ݔ̅ % cover 

Woody spp Y* ݔ̅ % cover/sp; 

p plots/sp; ݔ̅

no./m2

 Total woody Y ݔ̅ % cover; 

p plots; ݔ̅

no./m2

Exotic spp Y* ݔ̅ % cover/sp; 

p plots/sp 

 spp richness Y ݔ̅ richness 

 Total exotics Y ݔ̅ % cover; p

plots 

Litter Y ݔ̅ % cover 

Bare ground Y ݔ̅ % cover 

Timeline 

Work and reporting schedule. 

FY 15 FY 16 FY 17 

Field work September, October August, October August, October 

Meeting w/NPS, 

Tribes 

February February February 

Draft Report May May May 

Final Annual Report December December December 

Outcomes and Products 

 Annual species list provide at annual reporting meeting 

 Annual monitoring report describing changes in cover and species occurrence along the 

river corridor. Description of changes in indicator species and changes in frequency of 

vegetation response-guilds. – As an annual report this may be folded into a USGS data 

series report where data are accessible to the public and each year’s data are added to the 

report, FY 15, 16, 17. 
399 

 USGS Methods and Techniques report formalizing sampling to be reviewed by 

statisticians and ecologists FY15. 

 Peer-review journal articles on response-guilds as a monitoring tool for rivers in the 

southwestern United States. One identifying guilds within Grand Canyon and among 

other rivers of the Colorado River Basin. 

Project Element 11.2. Periodic landscape scale vegetation mapping and analysis using Remotely Sensed Data 

Joel Sankey, Research Geologist, USGS, GCMRC 

Laura Cagney, Research Specialist, Northern Arizona University 

Barbara Ralston, Supervisory Biologist, USGS, GCMRC 

Daniel Sarr, Research Ecologist, USGS, GCMRC 

Work Category: Required monitoring

Objectives 

1. To produce an accurate classification of vegetation from the imagery acquired with the 

remote sensing overflight in 2013. 

2. To quantify stability and changes in vegetation composition from the classifications of 

vegetation completed for imagery acquired in 2002 to 2013. 

3. To cross-walk the composition of vegetation in the image-based classes from 2013 and 

2002 with composition of response guilds identified in Element 11.1. 

4. To detect and map tamarisk leaf beetle effects for remotely sensed vegetation canopies 

from overflight imagery from 2009 to 2013. 

Hypotheses/Questions 

1. What was the composition of riparian vegetation in 2013, and how did it vary spatially 

throughout the CRe? 

The ability to address the first question of this objective is contingent upon successful, 

accurate classification of vegetation based on the 2013 imagery that is as good as or better than 

the classification based on 2002 imagery. The classification will be derived from the high 

resolution (20-cm pixel size) multispectral remote sensing imagery from the May, 2013 

overflight for the entire river corridor of the CRe. This will produce a new and up-to-date 

assessment of the presence, absence, and composition of vegetation in the CRe. (This work will 

be completed by Laura Cagney). 

2. How has the vegetation composition in the CRe changed within the approximately 1-

decade period from 2002 to 2013? 

The assessment of change and stability in vegetation composition will span a decade of rivermanagement characterized by reduced powerplant operations and 3 controlled floods, as well as 

the appearance of the tamarisk leaf-beetle (Diorhabda carinulata) in portions of the CRe. 

Importantly, the 2013 classification can also be added to the long term assessment of riparian 

vegetation encroachment for select reaches (Waring, 1995) of total vegetation from 1965 to 2013 

that was successfully completed using data through 2009 in the FY-14–15 work plan. We 

anticipate that changes from 2002 to 2013 will reflect a suite of environmental conditions 
400 

identified by previous work at GCMRC; including recent work completed during the FY 13–14 

work plan. Based on previous work, we hypothesize that (i) temporal stability and changes in 

vegetation classes (composition) will vary by river stage zone, and (ii) compositional changes by 

river stage zone will be indicative of effects of regional drought at higher elevations, and river 

hydrology (e.g., flow duration) at lower elevations. Moreover, we know from work completed 

during the FY13–14 work plan that the long-term, post-dam trajectory of increased vegetation 

expansion into increasingly lower elevation zones occurred during the 2002 to 2009 time period 

at elevations well below the maximum of recent controlled floods. Therefore, we will ask 

whether increases and decreases in vegetation at these lower elevations (i.e., inundated during 

operations that include controlled floods between 2002 and 2013) vary by vegetation class 

composition. In particular, we will focus on identifying the range of (and most common) classes 

of vegetation that bare ground (e.g., sand) transitioned to from 2002 to 2013. Finally, we know 

that the tamarisk leaf beetle appeared in portions of the CRe during the time period of our 

vegetation composition change analysis and therefore we will ask whether the spatial variability 

in changes in the abundance of the class containing tamarisk exists and if so, whether it 

correlates to understanding of where the tamarisk leaf-beetle existed pre-2013? (This work will 

be completed by Laura Cagney in collaboration with Joel Sankey). 

3. Can the composition of vegetation in the image-based classes from 2013 and 2002 be 

cross-walked with the composition of response guilds identified in Element 11.1 in a 

manner that produces a useful and accurate, landscape-scale assessment of spatial 

variability in response guilds? 

To the extent possible, we will expand on the third question to quantify how the relative 

abundance and spatial variability in the detectable response guild(s) have and have not changed 

during the approximately 1-decade time period. Our ability to detect these changes, if present, 

largely depends on whether the composition of response guilds can be effectively cross-walked. 

(This work will be completed by Joel Sankey in collaboration with Barbara Ralston and Daniel 

Sarr). 

4. Can beetle-impacted stands of tamarisk be detected and successfully mapped by 

independent and combined analysis of 2009 and 2013 imagery in select reaches where 

the leaf beetle are known to have appeared since approximately 2009. Additionally, can 

variability and changes in remotely sensed characteristics of the tamarisk canopies (e.g., 

greenness, cover, leaf area) be detected and attributed quantitatively to the presence of 

the leaf beetle? 

This fourth question will focus on specific reaches where the beetle appeared since 2009, 

including (1) Kanab Creek in Grand Canyon, (2) within Glen Canyon, as well as (3) a control 

reach not yet impacted by the leaf beetle. (Completed by NAU M.S. student Ashton Bedford 

with Joel Sankey and Barbara Ralston serving as thesis committee members). 

Rationale/Justification 

The relative abundance and composition of vegetated and non-vegetated surfaces are factors 

that contribute to the evaluation by stakeholders of goals for physical resources, recreation, 

cultural resources, and riparian communities. In addition to producing a basemap of vegetation 
401 

composition and providing additional data for detection and analysis of stability and change, 

mapping vegetation at the landscape scale can inform stakeholders of the status of several 

resources in the CRe that include: effects of riparian vegetation for campsite quality (Kearsley 

and other, 1994; Hadley, unpublished); and effects of riparian vegetation for wildlife habitat 

(Kearsley and others, 2006; Sogge and others, 2003); effects of riparian vegetation on transport 

of sand along the fluvial-aeolian-hillslope continuum, which is important to archaeological site 

preservation (Draut and Rubin, 2008). The development and application of a remote sensing 

image-based methodology that is accurate and provides a synoptic assessment of the CRe has 

been identified as integral to supplementing and corroborating ground-based monitoring data. 

The primary deliverable product is a vegetation classification dataset that can be used in 

multiple disciplines working in the CRe, with additional deliverables focused on salient 

interpretations of variability and change in vegetation composition summarized in written 

report(s) and journal manuscript(s). The dataset will extend from the 8,000 ft3

/s to 250,000 ft3/s 

shoreline, starting at River Mile -15 and ending at approximately River Mile 280. The products 

are designed to fulfill stakeholders’ request to, “Determine and track the abundance, 

composition, distribution, and area of terrestrial native and nonnative vegetation species in the 

CRe.” as defined by Core Monitoring Information Needs (CMIN) 6.1.1., 6.6.1., 6.2.1, 6.5.1. 

Methods - Preparation of 2013 imagery mosaic and shoreline masks 

Before vegetation analysis can begin, the 2013 imagery must be mosaicked from flight lines 

received from the contractor, and broken down into standardized GCMRC Quarter-Quarter-Quad 

boundaries. This process includes the required reflectance value or digital number histogram 

matching. Another critical step before vegetation analysis can begin is to produce a shoreline, 

which also creates the ability to remove known open water pixels from further analysis. 

Depending on the sediment load of the 2013 imagery, this process can be executed using a 

Green/Red band ratio extraction or a principal component analysis approach. The Green/Red 

band ratio extraction compares the values of the green band to the red band. These two 

reflectance values are uniquely different when trying to isolate open terrestrial water and will 

result in a dataset that represents the May 2013 shoreline at a steady 8,000 ft3/s water discharge. 

Methods - Total vegetation map 

We will produce a total vegetation database and a vegetation class database with at least 6 

vegetation classes for the entire river corridor up to the top of the Old High-Water Zone (at the 

250,000 ft3/s flow stage) using image processing of remotely sensed data. Normalized Difference 

Vegetation Index (NDVI) is a commonly used method to segregate total vegetation in 

multispectral data. A more robust and accurate method is the Spectral Angle Mapper (SAM), 

which was used in mapping with the 2009 imagery and is proposed for use with the 2013 dataset. 

The SAM technique provides the vector angle between the wavelength-band values of an image 

pixel determined to be vegetation. For any pixel, the smaller the vector angle, the more likely the 

image pixel is to contain vegetation. Both sunlit and shadowed vegetation spectra will be used in 

the SAM analysis in order to map all vegetation, even within shadows. If image band data are 

consistent throughout the corridor, then the range of SAM values for vegetation should also be 

consistent, or at least vary systematically throughout the canyon, allowing the vegetation to be 

mapped quickly. The range of SAM values for vegetation will be determined interactively using 

the image result from the SAM output and the corresponding color-infrared image. To determine 

corridor consistence and variability, SAM ranges will be determined every 8 km of the corridor; 
402 

if the derived SAM ranges are consistent or vary systematically, then the observed SAM range 

relation will be used to map the total vegetation throughout the canyon. The results for each of 

the 126 image tiles that cover the river corridor will be examined for accuracy and the SAM 

range adjusted when necessary. If the initial SAM ranges at 8 km increments are random, then 

the SAM range for every image tile will be independently determined and applied interactively 

to provide an accurate total vegetation database. 

Methods - Vegetation classification 

Once total vegetation is segregated in the 2013 image data set (anticipated by or before 

summer 2016), a most-likely vegetation species will be assigned to each image pixel based on 

reflectance angle. Even though final mapping will probably occur at the response guild or 

association level (categories of classification within the National Vegetation Classification 

Standard (FGDC, 2008)), the spectral band quality of the 2013 imagery are very different in 

terms of dynamic range, consistency, and accuracy and, therefore, the level of the final 

vegetation map for this database will not be known until the species classification is completed. 

Species classification will be accomplished using the following information, in order of 

preference: (1) ground observations that were collected in August and September 2013; (2) 

ground-truth site observations that occurred during other image acquisitions, where it is 

determined by visual examination of the periodic images that certain vegetation is the same in 

the image data being analyzed; and (3) our previously collected ground-reflectance database for 

the common vegetation species within the canyon. Image classification will proceed in 8-km 

increments progressing downstream in the river corridor from Glen Canyon Dam, because 

vegetation composition and the spectral properties of species gradually change downstream. 

Image classification will be based mostly on the image-band signatures and canopy texture of 

representative vegetation species (Davis and others, 2002). Species classification using the 2013 

image data will use a supervised classifier, such as Maximum Likelihood, SAM, or Neural 

Network. We will experiment with various classifiers to determine the classifier that is most 

robust and produces the highest accuracies for most vegetation species. We will use the same 

canopy texture measures that were employed for the 2002 vegetation mapping, although the areal 

dimensions of the spatial tools may change due to the higher spatial resolutions of the 2013 

image data compared to that of the 2002 image data, the most recent vegetation map from 

GCMRC. 

Undoubtedly, there will be ambiguities in the final species classifications, because the 

spectral and textural characteristics of some species overlap. We will try to reduce the ambiguity 

using knowledge of dominant species within particular ecotones related to river stages, although 

care will be exercised within the riparian zone not to exclude xeric species. When the species 

classification process reaches the point of diminishing returns, a statistical accuracy assessment 

will be performed on the 2013 results, and a determination will be made as to the aggregation 

levels for their final vegetation databases. We will also incorporate approaches used in Grand 

Canyon National Park’s vegetation-mapping project to develop compatible layers and classes of 

vegetation. 

 
403 

Methods – Objective 2

Total vegetation from 2013 will be used to extend the long-term change analysis conducted 

for the FY13–14 BWP using the GIS and statistical methods previously developed and 

described. Change and stability in vegetation classes from 2002 to 2013 will be summarized by 

stage-elevation zone, and by units of debris fan, channel margin, and eddy areas as represented in 

the canyon-wide geomorphic base map (see Project Element 3.1.2). Relationships of temporal 

variability in vegetation composition by elevation zone and by geomorphic unit will be examined 

relative to variability in flow duration by elevation zone and the expected response to regional 

drought from 2002 to 2013. Changes to the abundance and spatial distribution of the class 

containing tamarisk will be examined longitudinally throughout the corridor and tested for 

significant differences between reaches where leaf beetles have been and have not been 

documented. 

Methods – Objective 3

The composition of the mapped vegetation classes and response guilds will be compared to 

determine whether any of the response guilds or aggregates of functionally similar guilds can be 

accurately represented by individual or aggregate vegetation classes. If some classes or 

aggregates are successfully identified as potential proxies for response guilds, spatial and 

temporal variability from 2002 to 2013 will be examined using the change detection and 

summary methods described for the secondary objective. 

Methods – Objective 4

Supervised classification methods will be used to map foliated tamarisk within the study 

reaches using 2009 and 2013 imagery. The classifications will potentially incorporate the 4 

multispectral bands from the imagery in addition to NDVI, EVI and leaf area index (LAI). The 

classification will be developed from training pixels in the study reaches that represent foliated 

tamarisk stands. Change analysis of the area mapped as foliated tamarisk in 2009 and 2013 will 

be conducted. Change analysis will also consider relative changes in the indices (NDVI, EVI, 

LAI) for locations where foliated tamarisk was mapped as present in one image date and absent 

in the other, as well as present or absent in both dates. Ground-based point observations of 

known beetle populations (personal communication, Levi Jameson and Charles van Riper, April 

2014, to Ashton Bedford) will be used identify the relationship between changes in presence and 

remotely sensed canopy characteristics of tamarisk stands and beetle populations. 

Outcomes and Products 

The primary deliverable is the vegetation classification dataset that will extend from the 8,000 

ft3

/s to 250,000 ft3/s shoreline starting at River Mile 15 and end at approximately River Mile 280, 

and that can be used in multiple disciplines working in the CRe. Additional deliverables will be 

USGS professional reports or journal manuscripts that focus on salient interpretations of 

variability and change in vegetation composition, and at least one publication will be produced 

per objective by FY17. 

   
404 

Project Element 11.3 Influence of sediment and vegetation feedbacks on the evolution of sandbars in Grand 

Canyon since 1991 (FY15–17) 

Daniel Sarr, Research Ecologist, USGS, GCMRC 

Paul Grams, Research Hydrologist, USGS, GCMRC 

Barbara Ralston, Supervisory Biologist, USGS, GCMRC 

Pat Shafroth, Research Ecologist, USGS, Fort Collins 

Emily Palmquist, Ecologist, USGS, GCMRC 

Joseph E. Hazel, Research Associate, NAU 

David M. Merritt, Research Ecologist, U.S. Forest Service 

Work Category: High priority research

Objectives 

To understand the interplay between hydrology, vegetation and sediment dynamics among 20 

sandbars for a 23-year period (1991 to 2013) by using long-term sandbar monitoring data, 

instantaneous discharge record, sediment transport information, intermittent vegetation sampling 

data, riparian plant response guilds, and aerial and oblique repeat photography.

Hypotheses/Questions 

1. How does establishment of vegetation nearer the channel (below stage at power plant 

capacity (31,000 ft3/s) influence sediment deposition on sandbars (net deposition and 

scour) associated with experimental high flows?

2. Does expansion of woody riparian vegetation below stage elevations of power plant 

capacity (31,000 ft3/s) and associated sediment response decrease shoreline complexity 

and negatively affect native fish rearing habitat (backwaters) and riparian habitat 

(compositional and structural complexity)?

3. In a regulated, debris fan-eddy river system does expanded floodplain development on 

reattachment bars result in smaller eddy circulation zones and with reduced temporary 

storage capacity, or do river currents fundamentally change and affect sediment storage 

and transport capacity?

Rationale/Justification 

In Grand Canyon, the effect of riparian plants on the physical template of the Colorado River 

corridor is little studied, yet the interaction between vegetation and sediment has implications for 

campsite availability and accessibility, wildlife habitat, and aquatic and shoreline habitats. The 

shoreward expansion of vegetation along the channel is believe to be caused by reduced 

frequency and magnitude of floods, a result of Glen Canyon Dam operations (Turner and 

Karpiscak, 1980; Sankey and others, unpublished). This results in less frequent disturbance of 

sand deposits and longer intervals between floods, facilitating vegetation establishment. Since 

2002, the greatest increase in woody vegetated area is associated with stage elevations less than 

31,000 ft3

/s. 

The Experimental High Flow Protocol (Bureau of Reclamation, 2011) will increase the 

frequency of short-duration flood disturbance to the Colorado River with the goal of causing 

cumulative increase in the size of sandbars. How vegetation responds to the increased frequency 

of these short flood pulses, and how vegetation response creates a feedback that affects 
405 

subsequent patterns of sediment deposition is unknown, but could significantly affect the longterm geomorphic response to the high flow protocol. Increased frequency of short-duration 

floods greater than 31,000 ft3

/s may limit the expansion of woody vegetation and reverse the 

observed trend of channel narrowing. Conversely, the presence of vegetation may also accelerate 

the rate of sediment deposition on sandbars. The presence of vegetation along channel margins 

increases resistance, reduces water velocities and erosive power, increases bank cohesion, and 

thus affects sediment mobilization, transport, and deposition. This is reflected by the pattern of 

vegetation on sandbars, which is often distributed in clumped or linear arrangements, with the 

densest vegetation associated with the annual flood stage (on the Colorado River in Grand 

Canyon this has been approximately 566 m3/s since 2000). 

Instead of sediment depositing somewhat uniformly across a sandbar, sediment is predicted 

to accumulate where vegetation reduces water velocity at and around the vegetation associated 

with the annual flood stage. This will result in an increase of sandbar elevation near the channel 

(i.e., vegetated levees), but reduced deposition beyond the vegetation boundary. Repeated floods 

of similar or smaller magnitude may have a ratcheting effect where deposition on sandbars 

results in steeper sandbar fronts and channel narrowing. At the same time, vegetation on the 

sandbar may continue to expand and cover the bar’s surface, creating a vegetated floodplain and 

loss or reduction in the size of the eddy boundary. The repeated response may thus limit the 

effectiveness of these pulse flows, and change the channel shape and width. Currently, work is 

under way to test hypotheses about how sandbars stabilized by vegetation affect patterns of 

streamflow and sand deposition in eddies (FY 13–14 Project A.3) using numerical flow models. 

The modeling work, which is expected to provide results in late 2014, will provide more specific 

predictions about how established vegetation will affect depositional patterns. Thus, this 

proposed retrospective analysis of sandbars will complement the work initiated in FY13-14. In 

this project we will exploit the more than 20-years of sandbar monitoring data (1992-2013), 

instantaneous discharge records, intermittent vegetation sampling data, repeat photographs, and 

plant response-guild occurrence probabilities to describe topographic sandbar response, changes 

in eddy boundaries and vegetation expansion among sandbars since 1992. The frequency of 

short-duration high flows, a management action intended to promote sediment conservation, is 

likely to increase in the coming years. Understanding how vegetation responds to this 

management regime and its effect on sediment deposition and transport provides stakeholders 

with critical information that they can use to help meet their goals. 

Methods 

This element has two parts A: retrospective analysis of vegetation change among sandbars in 

response to flow regimes (FY15-16). B: linking vegetation change and geomorphology, a proof 

of concept (FY17). 

Approach for Part A: The retrospective analysis uses multiple data sources (Table 3). 

Topographic surfaces from 1991 to 2013 of selected sandbars will be used to compute the 

elevation changes between each survey for transects across sandbars and following controlled 

floods. Using plant-response guilds (based on traits associated with water acquisition and fluvial 

disturbance, but also grouped based on traits that influence hydraulics) and exceedance 

probabilities associated with the instantaneous discharge record for each year, we will make 

occurrence probability maps for plant guilds across the sandbar surfaces for each year. The daily 

repeat photography collected since 1991 (table 3) will be used to verify guild representation. 

Repeat aerial imagery will be used to estimate canopy cover. The intermittent vegetation 
406 

sampling data will also be used to determine guild occurrence relative to predicted guilds and 

support estimated cover values for guilds. This approach will give a time-series of vegetation 

succession based on annual hydrology that is also coupled with observed sandbar morphologic 

change. We propose to do this analysis for 20 sandbars distributed throughout the canyon. 

Approach for Part B: The linkage between vegetation change and geomorphology will be 

strengthened with numerical flow modeling. The purpose of the modeling that was initiated in 

the FY13–14 work plan (Element A.3) and is proposed to continue in FY15-17 in Project 3.3 

examines processes by which vegetation-stabilized bar areas affect flow and deposition (see 

preliminary findings (Alvarez and others 2013, and Project 3.3 description). The modeling 

proposed in Element A.3 study will be used to establish relations between the vegetation 

response-guilds and flow parameters such as velocity and shear stress for high flows. Models 

will be developed using roughness values for vegetation obtained in the literature (Manners and 

others, 2014; Griffith and others, 2014) and applied to the guilds. For example, roughness for 

tamarisk or willow that co-occur in a guild (Table 1) may be applied for all plants associated in 

the guild. The age of guilds will be determined from the vegetation succession time-series 

process described above. Age of guilds provides a proxy for the stem diameters of vegetation 

within a guild. This information and canopy cover estimates that can be used to estimate stem 

stiffness that influence hydraulics and sediment transport in the water column (Griffith and 

others, 2014; Kean and Smith, 2004). Available velocity profiles and suspended sediment data 

will also be used in this modeling effort (McDonald and Nelson, 1996; Wright and Kaplinski, 

2011). Subsequent year change in sandbar topography can be used to verify expected versus 

observed sediment response. This approach is proposed as a proof of concept for a subset (2-4) 

of the 20 sandbars described in the retrospective analysis for vegetation change beginning in 

FY17. The subset will be distributed upstream and downstream of the Little Colorado River to 

account for tributary effects on sediment inputs related to sandbar response. 

Table 3. Summary of topographic, sediment transport, imagery and vegetation sample data 

available for sandbars 

Data type Dates collected Reference 

Instantaneous (15 minute 

interval) discharge at Lees Ferry

1921 to present Topping and others, 2003 

Sediment transport data 1996, 2000, 2004, 

2008, 2012, 2013 

Webb and others, 1999; Schmidt and 

others, 2007; Grams and others, 2013 

High-precision Topographic 

surveys (±0.05m ground point 

precision) 

Annually since 1991 Hazel and others, 2008, Kaplinski 

and others, 2014; 

Stage-discharge relations 1990-2005 Hazel and others, 2007 

Oblique Imagery Intermittently since 

1991 

USGS, unpublished data 

Aerial imagery (orthorectified) 2002, 2009, 2013 Davis, 2013, 2012 

Vegetation sample plots 1995, 2001-2005, 

2012-2013 

Kearsley and Ayers, 1995; Kearsley 

and others, 2006; USGS unpublished 

data, 2012-13. 

 
407 

Timeline: 

Work and reporting schedule. 

FY 15 FY 16 FY 17 

1st quarter Part A: Data 

Consolidation, 

Parameter 

Identification, 

Initial methodology 

outlined 

Application of 

methodology to 

successive bars 

Part B: Initiate Proof 

of concept, 

Consolidation, 

Parameter 

Identification, 

Initial methodology 

outlined 

2nd quarter Preliminary analysis 

for 4 sandbars 

Results Initial analysis of first 

sandbar 

3rd quarter Status Report Draft 

Report/manuscript 

Results 

4th quarter Methods Report and 

initial results 

Manuscript 

submission 

Draft 

report/manuscript 

Outcomes and Products 

 Analysis of 20 bars for vegetation response to changing flow regimes. 

 Report of 20 sandbars retrospective analyses FY16 

 American Geophysical Union presentation FY16 

 Manuscripts FY16 – Methods for using response guilds to understand multi-year 

vegetation response to river regulation: Vegetation assembly rules along a regulated river. 

 Draft manuscript FY17 - Twenty-year reconstructive geomorphic history and vegetatitive 

evolution for 2 sandbars in Grand Canyon. 

Project Element 11.4 Linking dam operations to changes in riparian biodiversity – the potential significance of 

vegetation change and insect emergence 

Charles B. Yackulic, Research Statistician, USGS, GCMRC 

John Spence, Resource Manager, National Park Service, Glen Canyon National Recreation Area 

Jeff Muehlbauer, Aquatic Ecologist, USGS, GCMRC 

Charles Drost, Research Wildlife Biologist, USGS, SBSC 

Barbara Ralston, Supervisory Ecologist, USGS, GCMRC 

Theodore Kennedy, Research Aquatic Ecologist, USGS, GCMRC Daniel A. Sarr, Research Ecologist, USGS, GCMRC 

Emily Palmquist, Ecologist, USGS, GCMRC 

Work Category: High priority research

Objectives 

1. Build a strong conceptual basis for understanding and analyzing linkages between flow 

management and riparian biodiversity in the Colorado River ecosystem 
408 

2. Determine the degree to which populations of terrestrial animals respond to spatial and 

temporal variation in aquatic insect emergence along the Colorado River, with an initial 

focus on the Glen and upper Marble Canyons. 

3. Identify whether long-term changes in vegetation have influenced populations of 

terrestrial consumers, particularly birds and terrestrial insects inGlen Canyon. 

4. To the extent possible, determine the links between terrestrial fauna and vegetation-flow 

response guilds. 

Hypotheses/Questions 

1. Can we identify and compare quantitative linkages between ongoing vegetation and 

aquatic and geomorphic monitoring and targeted riparian wildlife assemblages in the 

Colorado River ecosystem? 

2. Can we detect long and/or short-term trends in avian populations by combining historical 

and newly collected data in an occupancy modeling framework? Are short-term trends 

for insectivores linked to changes in annual aquatic production? 

3. To what degree does swallow and bat activity track spatial and temporal patterns in insect 

emergence from the Colorado River? Can their activity serve as a continuous noninvasive 

index of insect emergence? 

4. How have terrestrial arthropod communities responded to relatively recent changes in 

dam operations, including increased frequency of HFEs (which may remove litter within 

the inundated area); how have communities changed in response to increasing impacts of 

tamarisk beetle? 

5. How are aquatic-terrestrial subsidies structured spatially and do spiders distribute 

themselves to take advantage of these subsidies? What proportion of spider consumption 

is based on terrestrial versus aquatic sources? 

Rationale/Justification 

Riparian environments comprise critical habitat for terrestrial fauna along the Colorado River 

corridor (Carothers and Brown, 1991; Kearsley and others, 2006; Ralston, 2005), yet the 

mechanisms that link flow management with riparian biodiversity are poorly understood. A 

focused effort to expand our knowledge of the pathways linking flow with biodiversity, and their 

relative strength, is a valuable step forward in our efforts to understand and conserve the 

Colorado River ecosystem. 

Terrestrial fauna of the Colorado River may be affected by flow management from Glen 

Canyon Dam via two fundamentally different pathways: 1) changes in the availability of 

emergent insect prey from the Colorado River and 2) the density and composition of the riparian 

vegetation that provides habitat for many of these animals. Although the structure of riparian 

food webs and animal populations has been conceptually sketched (e.g. Suttkus and others, 1976, 

Spence 2004, Yard and others, 2004, Kearsley and others, 2006), trends in the structure of these 

food webs, and riparian food web response to changes in aquatic food webs, are poorly known. 

Moreover, we do not yet know the relative strengths of trophic-driven effects of emergent insects 

in comparison to the effects of vegetation structure and composition. We will employ the method 

of multiple working hypotheses to (Chamberlin 1965) to explore the relative strength of the two 

causal pathways. 

Emergent insects—The emergence of adult insects from aquatic ecosystems (i.e., streams, rivers, 
409 

lakes) represents a key source of energy and nutrients that supports terrestrial food webs and 

consumers including birds, bats, lizards, toads, frogs, and spiders (Nakano and Murakami 2001, 

Sabo and Power 2002, Baxter and others, 2005). The availability of adult life stages of aquatic 

insects as prey can be critical to supporting the stability and biodiversity of riparian food webs 

(Nakano and Murakami 2001, Sabo and Power 2002, Baxter and others, 2005). The aquatic 

invertebrate assemblage of the Colorado River in Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons contains 

only two common groups: midges and blackflies (Diptera: Chironomidae and Simuliidae), with 

midges being particularly abundant (Cross and others, 2013). Research has demonstrated that 

inter-annual differences in flow management (e.g., spring HFE’s, occasional large volume 

releases associated with equalization) can drive increases in the production of midges and 

blackflies (Cross and others, 2013, Kennedy unpublished data). It is well established that 

rainbow trout (Oncorhyncus mykiss) populations, which are studied and monitored closely, have 

responded strongly to these inter-annual changes in aquatic insect productivity (Cross and others, 

2011; Korman and others, 2011; Korman and others, 2012). Previous work in Grand Canyon has 

demonstrated that emergent insects, particularly midges, are a key prey item for several bird 

species (Yard and others, 2004). Thus, occasional pulses of aquatic insects associated with 

infrequent flow events may also lead to increases in the populations of terrestrial animals that 

also prey on emerging insects (i.e., bats, some bird species, spiders), but this has never been 

evaluated. 

In addition to tracking temporal variation in emergent insects, terrestrial animals may also be 

tracking spatial variation in emergent insect availability. Within river reaches, terrestrial fauna 

that rely on aquatic subsidies are expected to be more common at sites near to aquatic production 

hotspots (e.g., riffles), whereas other factors may affect the amount of insect emergence across 

reaches. Specifically, citizen science monitoring indicates emergent insect availability is greatest 

in parts of Lower Marble Canyon (RM 30-50) and the Muav Gorge (RM 140-160), and lowest in 

Furnace Flat and Upper Granite Gorge (RM 60-90) and Glen Canyon (RM -15 to 0) (Kennedy 

and others, unpublished data). 

Riparian vegetation— Habitat availability likely acts a primary filter determining which 

terrestrial fauna are found locally. As vegetation communities of the Colorado River riparian 

zones expand and contract in response to changes in flow management and other perturbations 

(e.g., Tamarix beetle invasion), the density and composition of terrestrial animals will likely 

respond in kind. Changes in animal populations that are mediated by riparian vegetation will 

occur over long time scales (i.e., many years to decades), while changes in animal populations 

that are mediated by emergent insect prey will occur over shorter time scales (i.e., seasonally to 

annually). Understanding the relative importance of these factors, as well as association between 

terrestrial fauna and vegetation-flow response guilds will help create a better understanding of 

how terrestrial fauna will respond to future dam operations.

Choices of study organisms are driven by many factors. Bats and certain bird species (e.g., 

swallows) can be monitored relatively cheaply using either remote technology or citizen 

scientists, and rely heavily on aquatic insects emerging from the river (are thus are most likely to 

respond to spatio-temporal variation in the amount of emergence). Birds and terrestrial 

arthropods have been well studied in the past, particularly in Glen and Upper Marble Canyons, 

providing reference conditions to quantify long-term population changes. Within these two 

groups, we hypothesize that certain species (e.g., yellow warblers and spiders) may be more 
410 

closely linked to the aquatic ecosystem than other species. 

Methods 

This project is intended to be implemented in two phases, starting with analysis, synthesis, 

and conceptual model development in FY 2015 , and followed by targeted research projects that 

will test the aquatic and terrestrial pathways in FY 2016 and 2017. This project element will 

summarize and synthesize current understanding of linkages between flow and riparian 

biodiversity, and utilize information and insights gained from past work. Specifically, it 

emphasizes the vegetation response-guild work and insect emergence monitoring conducted in 

FY13–14. It will also include some analysis of historic data, particularly breeding bird data 

collected in the 1990s in Glen Canyon and studies of terrestrial arthropod communities ~5 years 

ago. This project will also involve field work to collect new data. Broad tasks for this project 

follow. 

1. Task 1 (FY15): Develop a concept paper summarizing and articulating hypothesized 

linkages between flow variables and riparian biodiversity in Grand Canyon. Specifically, 

the paper will evaluate existing data and information about aquatic and terrestrial 

pathways. This paper will also articulate a riparian research agenda for testing such 

hypothesized linkages in an adaptive management context, which will guide subsequent 

fields studies. 

2. Task 2 (FY15): Hold a scoping workshop with project principals and other scientists to 

decide upon the appropriate consumer taxa and field sampling locations for target studies. 

3. Task 3 (FY16–17): Work with a graduate student to prepare field study in Glen Canyon 

todevelop and test methods for quantifying the abundance and distribution of targeted 

riparian consumers (swallow,bat species, and test whether feeding concentrations are 

closely linked to patterns of emergence, as we hypothesize. Possible approaches include 

cost-effective remote automated cameras positioned to capture hourly pictures of 

swallows and fixed acoustic recorders for quantifying bat activity and species 

composition. Additionally, we will also develop standardized techniques for 

quantification of swallow abundance and bat activity that can be used throughout Grand 

Canyon by citizen scientists. 

4. Task 4 (FY16–17: Develop project toinvestigate changes in the abundance and 

distribution of breeding bird populations in Glen Canyon using sampling methods and 

fixed locations previously surveyed by John Spence (National Park Service) in the 1990s, 

and reanalyze both the historic and new data using occupancy methodswith respect to 

changes in riparian vegetation structure and guild composition using FY13–14 

monitoring data, and if feasible, with respect to FY13–14 patterns of aquatic insect 

emergence. 

Outcomes and Products 

 Deliverable 1: Manuscript describing hypothesized linkages between flow management 

and riparian biodiversity in the Colorado River ecosystem. Draft FY15 

 Deliverable 2: Workshop report summarizing existing datasets, highest priority 

consumer taxa to sample, and specific sampling recommendations. FY15 

 Deliverable 3: Manuscript describing the relationship between aquatic emergence and 

consumer abundance in a temporal and spatial context. FY17 
411 

 Deliverable 4: Manuscript linking bird occurrence and changes in riparian vegetation 

structure and composition for a 20-year time period at Glen Canyon National Recreation 

Area. FY17 

 Deliverable 5: Annual list of taxa recorded during the duration of the field projects FY16, 

FY17 

Project Element 11.5. Science Review Panel of Successes and Challenges in Non-native Vegetation Control in 

the Colorado River and Rio Grande Watersheds 

Daniel Sarr, Research Ecologist, USGS, GCMRC 

Barbara Ralston, Supervisory Biologist, USGS, GCMRC

Work Category: Research 

Objectives 

To convene a science expert review panel composed of natural resource managers and 

riverine research scientists to examine successes and challenges in non-native vegetation control 

in the Colorado River and Rio Grande watersheds, and to seek recommendations from that group 

as to how to plan a scientifically-based riparian management control program applicable to the 

Colorado River ecosystem in Glen, Marble and Grand Canyons. 

Rationale/Justification 

Native and nonnative woody riparian vegetation expansion is linked to Glen Canyon Dam 

operations (Turner and Karpiscak, 1980; Mortenson and others, 2011), but removal of woody 

vegetation through repeated flooding in association with the Experimental High Flow Protocol 

may have limited success. To achieve desired future conditions for riparian vegetation as 

outlined by stakeholder of the GCDAMP (Castle memo, 2012), removal of nonnative species 

and planting of native vegetation with approaches that incorporate future flow regimes may be 

required. For example, experimental plant removal and plant actions may focus on tamarisk 

since tamarisk beetle defoliation has occurred along segments of the Colorado River since 2009 

(see Project Element 11.2). 

Revegetation efforts are often costly and many times the success is unquantifiable. One 

reason for a lack of quantifiable success is that the project objectives are too vague (Shafroth and 

others, 2008). Specific measureable objectives help to define the approach for prioritizing sites 

and the methodology for vegetation removal regardless of the nonnative or native status of the 

target species. Additionally, incorporating a review of previous riparian restoration projects 

within the Southwest (Green River in Canyonlands, the Yampa River in Dinosaur National Park, 

and the Rio Grande River in Big Bend National Park) can identify approaches that may be most 

successful in identifying expected outcomes, and in estimating costs for project initiation and 

subsequent monitoring and maintenance. Element 11.1.5 proposes a science panel review to 

examine successes and challenges in non-native vegetation control in the Colorado River and 

Rio Grande watersheds and to seek recommendations from that group as to how to plan a 

scientifically-based riparian management control program applicable to the Colorado River 

ecosystem in Glen, Marble and Grand Canyons. 
412 

Methods

In FY15, convene a review panel –2-day workshop. Panel participants will include:

 Representatives from National Park Units (GRCA, GCNRA, CANY, DINO, BIBE), the 

BLM with hands-on experience in nonnative plant control in riparian habitats on 

regulated rivers

 Riparian ecologists and geomorphologists involved in nonnative species control and 

environmental flows research.

Use case studies from park units, BLM, or tribal land units to describe results (positive/negative) 

and recommendations for future planning related to riparian management. 

GCMRC organizers will work with presenters prior to the review panel to develop a summary 

document that can be used to plan science-based management and monitoring for nonnative 

control for the Colorado River ecosystem. 

Questions that will drive the discussion and case study narratives 

1. What were nonnative control objectives and what were the methods used for control 

(poison, mechanical removal, etc)? 

2. Which effort resulted in greater or less desirable outcomes? (Was there subsequent 

extensive weed control that was required and greater manpower needed than anticipated 

for success). 

3. What were the criteria used for each site (logistics only? extent of tamarisk cover?) and 

were there other considerations that should be included in future site selection?

4. How did hydrologic and geomorphic controls influence or inform site location or 

approaches for nonnative removal or revegetation?

5. How was success assessed? What monitoring occurred prior to and following 

removal/restoration actions?

6. What should all resource managers consider prior to and following initiation of riparian 

management control efforts?

One outcome of this panel would be the decision to proceed with development of a multiagency planning program (in FY16) wherein BoR, GCNP, and GCMRC would work together to 

develop a science-based program to plan where vegetation control along the Colorado River 

ought to occur, the methods to be used in removal, and the methods to be used in monitoring 

success/or challenges. 

Timeline:Work and reporting schedule. 

FY 15 FY 16 FY 17 

1st quarter Identify Review Panel 

participants, specific 

questions for each 

case study and format 

for case study 

document 

TBD – Potentially 

Planning program for 

experimental 

vegetation control 

2nd quarter Convene Review 

Panel (February) 

Status Report 
413 

3rd quarter Draft Case Study 

Report 

 

4th quarter Final Document 

Outcomes and Products

 A journal article that summarizes Case Studies of Nonnative Riparian Vegetation Control 

within the Colorado and Rio Grande Watersheds. 

D.2. Personnel and Collaborations 

Personnel from GCMRC include riparian ecologists, aquatic ecologists and wildlife 

ecologists. Collaborators include individuals from the National Park Service, other USGS 

Science Centers, the U.S. Forest Service, Northern Arizona University, and masters students 

affiliated with Arizona State University and Northern Arizona University. 

D.3. Deliverables 

See “Outcomes and Products” listed by project element, above. 

E. Productivity from Past Work (during FY 13–14) 

E.1. Data Products 

Field data sheets entered from 2012 and 2013. 

Traits database initiated and being populated 

Guilds identified – Draft manuscript completed Fall 2014, to be submitted Jan 2015 

E.2. Completed Publications 

Ralston, B.E., Starfield, A.M., Black, R.S., and Van Lonkhuyzen, R.A., 2014, State-andtransition prototype model of riparian vegetation downstream of Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2014-1095, 26 

p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20141095. 

E.3. Publications in progress 

Sankey, J.B., Ralston, B.E., Grams, P.E., Schmidt, J.C. and Cagney, L.E. Colorado River, 

vegetation, and climate: five decades of spatio-temporal dynamics in the Grand Canyon with 

regulation – to be submitted this summer. 

Vegetation monitoring report 2012-2013 in development –Draft to be completed Summer 2014 – 

Ralston is lead author. 

Riparian vegetation response-guilds downstream of Glen Canyon Dam: a tool for monitoring and 

evaluating flow needs for vegetation. – Preliminary guilds identified, draft manuscript 

completed by December 2014. Sarr is lead author. 

E.4. Presentations at GCDAMP meetings 
414 

Sankey, J.B., and Ralston, B.E. Changes in riparian vegetation in the Colorado River Corridor, 

1965-present. Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Working Group Meeting August 

2013. 

E.5. Presentations at professional meetings 

Sankey, J.B., and Ralston, B.E., Colorado River, Vegetation, and Climate: Five Decades of 

Spatio-Temporal Dynamics in the Grand Canyon in Response to River Regulation. Colorado 

Plateau Biennial Conference, Flagstaff, AZ, September 2013. 

Ralston, B.E., and Sankey, J.B., EP43C-0860. Colorado River, Vegetation, and Climate: Five 

Decades of Spatio-Temporal Dynamics in the Grand Canyon in Response to River 

Regulation. American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting, San Francisco, CA, December 

2013.

F. References 

Auble, G., and Scott, M., 1998, Fluvial disturbance patches and cottonwood recruitment along 

the upper Missouri River, Montana: Wetlands, v. 18, no. 4, doi: 10.1007/bf03161671, p. 

546-556, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF03161671. 

Auble, G., Scott, M., and Friedman, J., 2005, Use of individualistic streamflow-vegetation 

relations along the Fremont River, Utah, USA to assess impacts of flow alteration on 

wetland and riparian areas: Wetlands, v. 25, no. 1, doi: 10.1672/0277-

5212(2005)025[0143:uoisra]2.0.co;2, p. 143-154. 

Baxter, C. V., Fausch, K.D., and Saunders, W.C., 2005, Tangled webs--reciprocal flows of 

invertebrate prey link streams and riparian zones: Freshwater Biology, no. 50, p. 201–

220. 

Birkin, A.S., and Cooper, D.J., 2006, Processes of Tamarix invasion and floodplain development 

along the Lower Green River, Utah: Ecological Applications, v. 16, no. 3, p. 1103-1120, 

accessed on March 8, 2011, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/1051-

0761(2006)016[1103:POTIAF]2.0.CO;2. 

Brown, B. T., and Trosset, M.W., 1989, Nesting-Habitat Relationships of Riparian Birds along 

the Colorado River in Grand Canyon, Arizona: The Southwestern Naturalist, no. 34, v. 2, 

260 p., doi:10.2307/3671736. 

Bureau of Reclamation, 2011, Environmental assessment--development and implementation of a 

protocol for high-flow experimental releases from Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona, 2011 

through 2020: Salt Lake City, Utah, Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region, 176 p. 

+ appendices, http://www.usbr.gov/uc/envdocs/ea/gc/HFEProtocol/HFE-EA.pdf. 

Carothers, S.W., and Brown, B.T., 1991, The Colorado River through Grand Canyon--natural 

history and human change: Tucson, University of Arizona Press, 235 p. 

Cooper, D.J., Battaglia, L., Batzer, D., Chong, G.K., Hudak, A., and Young, M., 2008, Review 

of terrestrial monitoring protocols for the Grand Canyon--report of the Protocol Evaluation 

Panel (PEP): submitted to U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research 

Center, 31 p. 

Corenblit, D., Gurnell, A.M., Steiger, J. and Tabacchi, E., 2008, Reciprocal adjustments between 

landorms and living organisms: Extended geomorphic evolutionary insights: Catena. 

73:261-273. 
415 

Cross, W.F., Baxter, C.V., Donner, K.C., Rosi-Marshall, E.J., Kennedy, T.A., Hall, R.O., Jr., 

Wellard-Kelly, H.A., and Rogers, R.S., 2011, Ecosystem ecology meets adaptive 

management--food web response to a controlled flood on the Colorado River, Glen Canyon: 

Ecological Applications, v. 21, no. 6, p. 2016-2033, 

http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/10-1719.1. 

Cross, W.F., Baxter, C.V., Rosi-Marshall, E.J., Hall, R.O., Jr., Kennedy, T.A., Donner, K.C., 

Wellard Kelly, H.A., Seegert, S.E.Z., Behn, K., and Yard, M.D., 2013, Foodweb dynamics in 

a large river discontinuum: Ecological Monographs, v. 83, no. 3, doi: 10.1890/12-1727.1, p. 

311-337, http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/12-1727.1. 

Davis, P.A., Staid, M.I., Plescia, J.B. Johnson, J.R., 2002, Evaluation of airborne image data for 

mapping riparian vegetation within the Grand Canyon, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report: 2002-470, 65p. 

Dean, D.J., Scott, M.L., Shafroth, P.B., and Schmidt, J.C., 2011, Stratigraphic, sedimentologic, 

and dendrogeomorphic analyses of rapid floodplain formation along the Rio Grande in Big 

Bend National Park, Texas: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 123, no. 9-10, doi: 

Doi 10.1130/B30379.1, p. 1908-1925, <Go to ISI>://000293286100015. 

Draut, A.E., and Rubin, D.M., 2008, The role of aeolian sediment in the preservation of 

archaeological sites, Colorado River corridor, Grand Canyon, Arizona, in van Riper, C., III, 

and Sogge, M.K., eds., The Colorado Plateau III--integrating research and resource 

management for more effective conservation: Tucson, University of Arizona Press, ISBN: 

0816527385, p. 331-350. 

Durst, S.L., Theimer, T.C., Paxton, E.H., and Sogge, M.K., 2008, Age, Habitat, and Yearly 

Variation in the Diet of a Generalist Insectivore, the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher: 

Condor, v. 110, no. 3, doi: DOI 10.1525/cond.2008.8493, p. 514-525, <Go to 

ISI>://000260732000012. 

Griffin, E.R., and Wiele, S.M., 1996, Calculated hydrographs for unsteady research flows at 

selected sites along the Colorado River downstream from Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona, 1990 

and 1991: U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 95-4266, 30 p., 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/1995/4266/report.pdf. 

Grime, J.P., 1979, Plant Strategies and Vegetation Processes: John Wiley & Sons, Chichester. 

Hazel, J.E., Jr., Grams, P.E., Schmidt, J.C., and Kaplinski, M., 2010, Sandbar response in Marble 

and Grand Canyons, Arizona, following the 2008 high-flow experiment on the Colorado 

River: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5015, 52 p., accessed on 

July 27, 2010, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5015/. 

Hazel, J.E., Jr., Kaplinski, M., Parnell, R., Kohl, K., and Topping, D.J., 2006, Stage-discharge 

relations for the Colorado River in Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons, Arizona,1990-2005: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2006-1243, 7 p., accessed on January 11, 2010, at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1243/pdf/of06-1243_508.pdf. 

Hazel, J.E., Jr., Kaplinski, M., Parnell, R., Manone, M., and Dale, A., 1999, Topographic and 

bathymetric changes at thirty-three long-term study sites, in Webb, R.H., Schmidt, J.C., 

Marzolf, G.R., and Valdez, R.A., eds., The controlled flood in Grand Canyon: Washington, 

D.C., American Geophysical Union, Geophysical Monograph Series, v. 110, p. 161-183. 

Kaplinski, M., Behan, J., Hazel, J.E., Parnell, R.A., and Fairley, H.C., 2005, Recreational values 

and campsites in the Colorado River ecosystem, in Gloss, S.P., Lovich, J.E., and Melis, 

T.S., eds., The state of the Colorado River ecosystem in Grand Canyon--a report of the 
416 

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center 1991-2004: U.S. Geological Survey 

Circular 1282, 193-205 p., http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1282/. 

Kaplinski, M.A., Hazel, J.E., Grams, P.E., and Davis, P.A., 2014, Monitoring fine-sediment 

volume in the Colorado River ecosystem, Arizona--Construction and analysis of digital 

elevation models: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2014–1052, 29 p., 

http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20141052. 

Kean, JW, and Smith, JD, 2004, Flow and boundary shear stress in channels with woody bank 

vegetation in Bennett, S.J., Simon, A. eds., Riparian vegetation and fluvial geomorphology, 

American Geophysical Union: Water Science and Application, v. 8, Washington, D.C.; 237-

252. 

Kearsley, L.H., Schmidt, J.C., and Warren, K.D., 1994, Effects of Glen Canyon Dam on 

Colorado River sand deposits used as campsites in Grand Canyon National Park, USA: 

Regulated Rivers--Research and Management, v. 9, no. 3, p. 137-149, accessed on 

December 30, 2009, at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgibin/fulltext/113512382/PDFSTART. 

 Kearsley, M.J.C., Cobb, N.S., Yard, H.K., Lightfoot, D.C., Brantley, S.L., Carpenter, G.C., and 

Frey, J.K., 2006, Inventory and monitoring of terrestrial riparian resources in the Colorado 

River corridor of Grand Canyon--an integrative approach--final report: Flagstaff, Northern 

Arizona University, submitted to U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center, cooperative agreement no. 01-WRAG-0044 (NAU) and 01-WARG-0034 

(HYC), 262 p. 

Korman, J., Kaplinski, M., and Melis, T.S., 2011, Effects of fluctuating flows and a controlled 

flood on incubation success and early survival rates and growth of age-0 rainbow trout in a 

large regulated river: Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, v. 140, no. 2, p. 487-

505, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00028487.2011.572015. 

Korman, J., Martell, S.J.D., Walters, C.J., Makinster, A.S., Coggins, L.G., Yard, M.D., and 

Persons, W.R., 2012, Estimating recruitment dynamics and movement of rainbow trout 

(Oncorhynchus mykiss) in the Colorado River in Grand Canyon using an integrated 

assessment model: Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, v. 69, no. 11, p. 

1827-1849, http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/F2012-097. 

Lavorel S., Garnier E., 2002, Predicting changes in community composition and ecosystem 

functioning from plant traits: revisiting the Holy Grail: Functional Ecology, v. 16, p. 545-

556. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2435.2002.00664.x. 

Mahoney J, Rood S. 1998. Streamflow requirements for cottonwood seedling recruitment—An 

integrative model. Wetlands 18, 634-645. DOI: 10.1007/bf03161678. 

Manners, R.B., Schmidt, J.C., and Scott, M.L., 2014, Mechanisms of vegetation-induced channel 

narrowing of an unregulated canyon river: Results from a natural field-scale experiment. 

Geomorphology. 211:100-115. 

Mccluney, K.E., and Sabo, J.L., 2012, River drying lowers the diversity and alters the 

composition of an assemblage of desert riparian arthropods: Freshwater Biology, v. 57, no. 

1, doi: DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2427.2011.02698.x, p. 91-103, 

Merritt, D.M., Scott, M.L., Poff, N.L., Auble, G.T., and Lytle, D.A., 2010, Theory, methods and 

tools for determining environmental flows for riparian vegetation--riparian vegetation-flow 

response guilds: Freshwater Biology, v. 55, no. 1, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2427.2009.02206.x, 

p. 206-225, accessed on October 18, 2010, at 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2009.02206.x/full. 
417 

Merritt, D.M., and Poff, N.L., 2010, Shifting dominance of riparian Populus and Tamarix along 

gradients of flow alteration in western North American Rivers: Ecological Applications, v. 

20, no. 1, p. 135-152, http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/08-2251.1. 

Mortenson, S., Weisberg, P., and Stevens, L., 2012, The influence of floods and precipitation on 

Tamarix establishment in Grand Canyon, Arizona: consequences for flow regime 

restoration: Biological Invasions, v. 14, no. 5, doi: 10.1007/s10530-011-0139-z, p. 1061-

1076, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10530-011-0139-z. 

Nakano, S., and Murakami, M., 2001, Reciprocal subsidies--dynamic interdependence between 

terrestrial and aquatic food webs: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, v. 98, 

no. 1, p. 166-170, http://www.pnas.org/content/98/1/166.full. 

Naiman, R.J., Decamps, H., and McClain, M.E., 2005, Riparia--ecology, conservation, and 

management of streamside communities: Oxford, Elsevier Academic Press, 430 p. 

Osterkamp, W.R., Hupp, C.R., 2010, Fluvial processes and vegetation – Glimpses of the past, the 

present and perhaps the future, Geomorphology. 116: 274-285. 

Ralston, B.E., 2005, Riparian vegetation and associated wildlife, in Gloss, S.P., Lovich, J.E., and 

Melis, T.S., eds., 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, 103-121 p., http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1282/. 

Ralston, B.E., Davis, P.A., Weber, R.M., and Rundall, J.M., 2008, A vegetation database for the 

Colorado River ecosystem from Glen Canyon Dam to the western boundary of Grand 

Canyon National Park, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2008-1216, 37 

p., accessed on January 12, 2010, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1216/. 

Ralston, B.E., Starfield, A.M., Black, R.S., and Van Lonkhuyzen, R.A., 2014, State-andtransition prototype model of riparian vegetation downstream of Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2014-1095, 26 

p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20141095. 

Rood, S.B., Braatne, J.H., and Goater, L.A., 2009, Responses of obligate versus facultative 

riparian shrubs following river damming: River Research and Applications, v. 26, no. 2, doi: 

10.1002/rra.1246, p. 102-117, accessed on June 6, 2011, at 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/rra.1246/abstract. 

Sabo, J.L., and Power, M.E., 2002, River-watershed exchange--effects of riverine subsidies on 

riparian lizards and their terrestrial prey: Ecology, v. 83, no. 7, p. 1860-1869, 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2002)083[1860:RWEEOR]2.0.CO;2. 

Scott, M.L., Perkins, D, Wheaton, J.M., 2011, Big River Protocol Development – A Prototype 

Warranty Project: Final Report submitted to USGS Park Inventory and Monitoring Program. 

68 p. 

Shafroth, P.B., Beauchamp, V.B., Briggs, M.K., Lair, K., Scott, M.L., and Sher, A.A., 2008, 

Planning riparian restoration in the context of Tamarix control in western North America: 

Restoration Ecology, v. 16, no. 1, doi: DOI 10.1111/j.1526-100X.2008.00360.x, p. 97-112. 

Sher, A.A., Marshall, D.L., and Gilbert, S.A., 2000, Competition between native Populus 

deltoides and invasive Tamarix ramosissima and the implications for reestablishing flooding 

disturbance: Society of Conservation Biology, v. 14, no. 6, p. 1744-1754, accessed on 

January 12, 2010, at http://www.jstor.org/stable/2641526. 

Sogge, M.K., Sferra, S.J., McCarthey, T.D., Williams, S.O., and Kus, B.E., 2003, Distribution 

and characteristics of southwestern willow flycatcher breeding sites and territories: 1993-

2001: Studies in Avian Biology, v. 26, p. 5-11 
418 

Spence, J.R., 2004, The riparian and aquatic bird communities along the Colorado River from 

Glen Canyon Dam to Lake Mead, 1996-2000: Final Report to Grand Canyon Monitoring 

and Research Center. 

Stevens, L.E., and Waring, G.L., 1986, Effects of post-dam flooding on riparian substrates, 

vegetation, and invertebrate populations in the Colorado River corridor in Grand Canyon, 

Arizona: Flagstaff, Ariz., Bureau of Reclamation, Glen Canyon Environmental Studies, 

contract no. IA4-AA-40-01930, GCES 19/87, 175 p. [Available from National Technical 

Information Service, Springfield, Va. as NTIS Report PB88-183488.] 

Stevens, L.E., Schmidt, J.C., Ayers, T.J., and Brown, B.T., 1995, Flow regulation, 

geomorphology, and Colorado River marsh development in the Grand Canyon, Arizona: 

Ecological Applications, v. 5, no. 4, p. 1025-1039, accessed on December 10, 2009, at 

http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/2269352.pdf. 

Stevens, L.E., Shannon, J.P., and Blinn, D.W., 1997, Colorado River benthic ecology in Grand 

Canyon, Arizona, USA--dam, tributary, and geomorphological influences: Regulated Rivers-

-Research and Management, v. 13, no. 2, p. 129-149, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-

1646(199703)13:2<129::AID-RRR431>3.0.CO;2-S. 

Stromberg, J., 1998, Dynamics of Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii) and salt cedar 

(Tamarix chinensis) populations along the San Pedro River, Arizona: Journal of Arid 

Environments, v. 40, no. 2, p. 133-155, accessed on August 23, 2011, at 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jare.1998.0438. 

Stromberg, J.C., 2001, Restoration of riparian vegetation in the south-western United States: 

importance of flow regimes and fluvial dynamism: Journal of Arid Environments, v. 49, no. 

1, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jare.2001.0833, p. 17-34 

Stromberg, J.C., Lite, S.J., Marler, R., Paradzick, C., Shafroth, P.B., Shorrock, D., White, J.M., 

and White, M.S., 2007, Altered stream-flow regimes and invasive plant species: the Tamarix

case: Global Ecology and Biogeography, v. 16, no. 3, p. 381-393, 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-8238.2007.00297.x. 

Trimble, S.W., 2004, Effects of riparian vegetation on stream channel stability and sediment 

budgets, in Bennett S.J., Simon, A., eds., Riparian vegetation and fluvial geomorphology, 

American Geophysical Union, Water Science and Application, v. 8, Washington, D.C.; 153-

170. 

Suttkus, R.D., Clemmer, G.H., Jones, C., and Shoop, C.R., 1976, Survey of the fishes, mammals 

and herpetofauna of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon, Colorado River Research Program 

final report, Research Series contribution no. 34: Grand Canyon National Park, Grand 

Canyon, Ariz., Technical report no. 5, 48 p., 

http://www.riversimulator.org/Resources/NPS/GCresearch/1976no5animals.pdf. 

Turner, R.M., and Karpiscak, M.M., 1980, Recent vegetation changes along the Colorado River 

between Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Mead, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Professional 

Paper 1132, 125 p. 

Urquhart, N.S., Auble, G.T., Blake, J.G., Bolger, D.T., Gerrodette, T., Leibowitz, S.G., 

Lightfoot, D.C., and Taylor, A.H., 2000, Report of a peer review panel on terrestrial aspects 

of the biological resources program of the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center: 

submitted to U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, 50 p. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, 1996, Record of decision, operation of Glen Canyon Dam--final 

environmental impact statement: Washington, D.C., Office of the Secretary of the Interior, 
419 

Bureau of Reclamation, 15 p., accessed on October 13, 2010, at 

http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/pdfs/sp_appndxG_ROD.pdf. 

Waring, G. L., 1995, Current and historical riparian vegetation trends in Grand Canyon, using 

multitemporal remote sensing analyses of GIS sites: Final report, submitted to Bureau of 

Reclamation, Glen Canyon Environmental Studies, and National Park Service Rep., 20 pp, 

Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff. 

Wright, S.A., and Kaplinski, M., 2011, Flow structures and sandbar dynamics in a canyon river 

during a controlled flood, Colorado River, Arizona: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 

116, no. F01019, 15 p., http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2009JF001442.shtml. 

Yard, H.K., van Riper Charles III, Brown, B.T., and Kearsley, M.J., 2004, Diets of insectivorous 

birds along the Colorado River in Grand Canyon, Arizona: Condor, v. 106, no. 1, p. 106-

115, accessed on December 28, 2009, at http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/1370520.pdf
420 

G. Budget 

*2 pay periods of D. Sarr’s time will be charged to Project 12 to assist in the workshop facilitation.

Core activities

Support implementation and

evaluation of HFE Protocol and

Non‐Native Fish Control

Technical and analytical

innovations in monitoring

Improving predictive modeling

capacity

Resolving scientific uncertainty

Independent science oversight

and review

Integrating tribes in monitoring

and research

Project Identifier Project Description Salaries Travel & Training Operating Expenses Logistics Coop‐ erators (non‐USGS) USGS Coop‐erat

11

Riparian Vegetation

Studies: Ground‐based and

Landscape‐scale Riparian

Vegetation Monitoring and

Plant Response‐Guild

Research associated with

Sandbar Evolution and

Wildlife Habitat Analysis

$241,800 $8,000 $5,500 $48,900 $126,000 $6

X 11.1 Ground‐based vegetation monitoring Ralston et al. $84,100 $1,500 $1,000 $48,900 $18,800 

X 11.2

Periodic landscape scale

vegetation mapping and analysis

using remotely sensed data

Sankey et al. $41,600 $2,000 $1,500 $0 $99,600 

X 11.3

Influence of sediment and

vegetation feedbacks on the

evolution of sandbars in Grand

Canyon since 1991

Sarr et al. $71,000 $2,000 $1,000 $0 $7,600 $6,

X 11.4 Linking dam operations to changes in terrestrial fauna Yackulic et al. $16,200 $2,500 $2,000 $0 $0 

X 11.5

Science Review Panel of Successes

and Challenges in Non‐native

Vegetation Control in the

Colorado River and Rio Grande

Watersheds

Sarr et al. $28,900 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Monitoring Research

FY15
421 

Core activities

Support implementation and

evaluation of HFE Protocol and

Non‐Native Fish Control

Technical and analytical

innovations in monitoring

Improving predictive modeling

capacity

Resolving scientific uncertainty

Independent science oversight

and review

Integrating tribes in monitoring

and research

Project Identifier Project Description Salaries Travel & Training Operating Expenses Logistics Coop‐ erators (non‐USGS) USGS Coop‐erat

11

Riparian Vegetation

Studies: Ground‐based and

Landscape‐scale Riparian

Vegetation Monitoring and

Plant Response‐Guild

Research associated with

Sandbar Evolution and

Wildlife Habitat Analysis

$244,300 $13,500 $7,500 $65,400 $139,500 $6

X 11.1 Ground‐based vegetation monitoring Ralston et al. $88,700 $1,000 $1,000 $50,400 $19,100 

X 11.2

Periodic landscape scale

vegetation mapping and analysis

using remotely sensed data

Sankey et al. $44,900 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $65,900 

X 11.3

Influence of sediment and

vegetation feedbacks on the

evolution of sandbars in Grand

Canyon since 1991

Sarr et al. $63,500 $2,500 $2,500 $0 $7,700 $6,

X 11.4 Linking dam operations to changes in terrestrial fauna Yackulic et al. $47,200 $8,000 $2,000 $15,000 $46,800 

X 11.5

Science Review Panel of Successes

and Challenges in Non‐native

Vegetation Control in the

Colorado River and Rio Grande

Watersheds

Sarr et al. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Monitoring Research

FY16
422 

Core activities

Support implementation and

evaluation of HFE Protocol and

Non‐Native Fish Control

Technical and analytical

innovations in monitoring

Improving predictive modeling

capacity

Resolving scientific uncertainty

Independent science oversight

and review

Integrating tribes in monitoring

and research

Project Identifier Project Description Salaries Travel & Training Operating Expenses Logistics Coop‐ erators (non‐USGS) USGS Coop‐erat

X 11.1 Ground‐based vegetation monitoring Ralston et al. $96,400 $1,200 $1,000 $52,000 $19,500 

X 11.2

Periodic landscape scale

vegetation mapping and analysis

using remotely sensed data

Sankey et al. $46,700 $1,500 $2,000 $0 $67,100 

X 11.3

Influence of sediment and

vegetation feedbacks on the

evolution of sandbars in Grand

Canyon since 1991

Sarr et al. $61,000 $2,600 $2,500 $0 $7,800 $6,

X 11.4 Linking dam operations to changes in terrestrial fauna Yackulic et al. $43,500 $4,000 $2,500 $8,000 $35,000 

X 11.5

Science Review Panel of Successes

and Challenges in Non‐native

Vegetation Control in the

Colorado River and Rio Grande

Watersheds

Sarr et al. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

FY17

Monitoring Research
423 

Monitoring: Core activities 

Integrating tribes in monitoring and research 

Project 12. Changes in the Distribution and Abundance of 

Culturally-Important Plants in the Colorado River 

Ecosystem: A Pilot Study to Explore Relationships 

between Vegetation Change and Traditional Cultural 

Values 

Initial Estimate: FY15: $52,000; FY16: $86,400; FY17: $0 

GCDAMP Funding: FY15: $52,000; FY16: $80,400; FY17: $0 

A. Investigators 

Helen Fairley, Social Scientist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research 

Center 

Peter Bungart, Senior Archaeologist, Department of Cultural Resources, Hualapai Tribe 

Tony Joe, Supervisory Anthropologist, Historic Preservation Department, Navajo Nation 

Michael Yeatts, Archaeologist, Hopi Tribe 

Daniel Sarr, Riparian Ecologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center 

Charles Yackulic, Biostatistician, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center 

B. Project Summary 

The river corridor landscape in lower Glen Canyon and Grand Canyon National Park has 

undergone significant change during the past several decades. Some of those changes, especially 

in terms of vegetation, are the result of river regulation by Glen Canyon Dam. The Glen Canyon 

Dam Adaptive Management Program supports a $10 million program of research and monitoring 

to study and document linkages between river regulation and riparian responses; however, few 

GCDAMP studies have attempted to understand how the changes being documented by GCMRC 

scientists affect cultural perceptions and values of the diverse stakeholders in the GCDAMP. 

This project proposes to begin to fill that gap by undertaking a pilot study to evaluate how 

changes in the riparian assemblage of the river corridor, and specifically in the distribution and 

abundance of culturally-important plant species, has affected attributes of the landscape that are 

culturally-important to Native American tribes. 

This project will involve holding two workshops with tribal stakeholders, riparian ecologists 

and social scientist to explore and discuss linkages between changes in plant distributions and 

abundance and affects to the cultural values associated with plants. We will use these workshops 

to further refine research questions and directions related to changes in the riparian system that 

tribal participants would like to explore through future research and monitoring. As part of this 

project, we will compile and synthesize available data focused initially on a subset of culturally-
424 

important plant species and conduct some exploratory analyses; however, the larger aim of this 

project is to initiate a dialog on how to evaluate changes in the river corridor landscape that are 

due wholly or in part to dam operations in terms of the affects that these changes may have on 

cultural values and human perceptions of the landscape, especially those values that are 

important to tribal participants in the GCDAMP. 

This project is intended to serve the interests of the tribes involved in the GCDAMP, as well 

as the interests of all GCDAMP stakeholders, in several important respects. At a general level, 

this project proposes to utilize a combination of western scientific data about vegetation in 

combination with traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) to interpret landscape changes from 

tribal perspectives and assess how observed changes to culturally-important plant species affect 

cultural values associated with the riparian corridor. This information will help to inform DOI 

managers and GCDAMP stakeholders about how changes in culturally-valued vegetation species 

of the river corridor’s riparian landscape affect cultural resource values of tribal participants in 

the GCDAMP. More specifically, this project will: 1) integrate Native American values and 

traditional ecological knowledge in a collaborative GCMRC-sponsored science effort that 

assesses potential dam effects to culturally-valued plant components of the Colorado River 

riparian landscape; 2) utilize traditional ecological knowledge to identify plant species of cultural 

importance to multiple tribes, with a focus on plants that are dependent on and potentially 

affected by changes in river hydrology; 3) compile and synthesize existing scientific and 

ethnobotanical information about a subset of culturally-valued plant resources; and 4) utilize a 

combination of traditional ecological knowledge and western scientific information to further 

enhance understanding of how dam operations and other potential agents of change affect 

cultural resource values in the CRe. If, after completing this initial study, tribes decide to 

incorporate the results of this pilot study into their monitoring programs, this could provide 

another mechanism for further enhancing knowledge transfer between tribal elders, youth, and 

non-tribal scientists in the context of tribal monitoring programs. In addition, this project 

supports the interests of multiple GCDAMP stakeholders who would like to see a variety of 

approaches, including more holistic and qualitative methods, used to assess the effects of Glen 

Canyon Dam operations on the riparian landscape and the diverse cultural values of the Colorado 

River corridor. Furthermore, it is aligned with the new Department of Interior Secretarial 

directive to use a landscape approach for assessing and mitigating effects of energy-related 

projects on federal lands (DOI 2013, Secretarial Order No.330). 

C. Background

C.1. Scientific Background 

Landscapes are dynamic, multidimensional constructs of interest to many disciplines, yet 

landscape studies are rarely conceived as opportunities for inter-disciplinary collaboration (Tress 

and others, 2001). The natural components of landscapes, and human perceptions about those 

components, plus the human tendency to modify landscapes, would seem to offer a natural 

laboratory for exploring linkages between the biophysical and social sciences. Landscape 

studies provide a perfect opportunity to create a bridge between the natural and social sciences, 

because landscapes are, in many respects, culturally and socially constructed concepts (Greider 

and Garkovich, 1994; Evans and others, 2001) that reflect observed physical and biological 
425 

attributes filtered through lenses of human perception. For example, the Colorado River corridor 

in Grand Canyon is often viewed as an example of wild, untrammeled nature by EuroAmerican 

visitors to Grand Canyon National Park, while this same landscape is viewed by local Native 

American tribes as a formerly occupied, previously cultivated, and extensively utilized area that 

was once part of their traditional homelands. These differences in perception reflect significant 

differences in histories, traditions, and world views, although both groups cherish this landscape, 

albeit for different reasons and from different points of view. 

As attributes of landscapes change, whether through natural processes or as a result of 

inadvertent or deliberate human intervention, human perceptions about the value and 

significance of landscapes change as well. We propose to study the linkage between changes in 

landscape attributes, specifically culturally-important plants, and human perceptions of the 

landscape, specifically in terms of whether the observed landscape changes constitute positive or 

negative changes from the perspective of each of the tribes that value the Grand Canyon, in order 

to explore the relationship between biophysical changes documented through western scientific 

methods and cultural perceptions of these changes. This information can be used by land and 

water managers to inform future decisions about how to manage Glen Canyon Dam operations, 

riparian vegetation, and potentially other vegetation-dependent resources by providing a broader 

interdisciplinary understanding of how changes in dam operations affect cultural values 

important to tribal participants in the GCDAMP. This information may also be useful for 

refining managers’ understanding of how to “improve” the condition of riparian vegetation 

“resources” in keeping with current human societal values. 

Although landscapes and their associated vegetation may change for many different reasons, 

it is well documented that the distribution, density, and diversity of riparian vegetation is directly 

and indirectly affected by dam regulation of rivers (Williams and Wohlman, 1984; Nilsson and 

Berggren, 2000; Nilsson and others, 2005). The Colorado River below Glen Canyon Dam is no 

exception (Stevens and Ayers, 1993; Turner and Karpisak 1980; Webb 1996; Webb, Leake, and 

Turner, 2007; Sankey and others, in review). Dam-related changes can include shifts in plant 

densities and in dominant plant communities tied to the frequency and elevation of seasonal 

inundation, wetting-drying cycles tied to diurnal fluctuations, periodicity and magnitude of 

flooding, and other types of dam-controlled disturbances. In lower Glen and Grand Canyons, as a 

result of hydrologic changes due to the presence and operation of Glen Canyon Dam, riparian 

vegetation has moved downslope and become much denser (Sankey and others, in review), while 

some of the old high water zone vegetation has died or is senescent (Anderson and Ruffner, 

1988; Carothers and Brown, 1991). These changes have resulted in a river corridor landscape 

that appears significantly different in certain respects from the one that existed prior to the 

construction of Glen Canyon (Webb, 1996). 

Given that cultural values are embedded in landscapes (Stephenson 2005, 2008; Wu 2010), 

Glen Canyon Dam operations that affect the distribution and abundance of vegetation and 

associated habitats can also potentially affect the culturally-valued attributes of the landscape. 

The question that remains to be answered is how and in what respects have cultural resource 

values associated with the riparian landscape been altered, and how do perceptions of change 

vary across the different cultures that place value on these resources? 

The term “ethnoecology” is often used to describe the study of human perceptions of 

ecological relationships. As originally conceived, ethnoecology referred explicitly to indigenous 

perceptions of ecological relationships (Conklin, 1954; Fowler 2000). One early proponent of 

ethnoecology (Frake 1962) maintained that early efforts to understand a particular cultural 
426 

group’s relationship to its surrounding environment using typical western scientific methods 

were insufficient because they simply inventoried and categorized plants and animals according 

to the Linnaean system used by EuroAmerican scientists, which did not capture the unique 

cultural concepts and complex understanding of the indigenous group’s ecological knowledge; 

instead, Frake (1962) argued that it was essential to “describe the environment as the people 

themselves construe it according to the categories of their ethnoscience.” Thus, the original 

meaning of the term ethnoecology was in many respects synonymous with the phrase “traditional 

ecological knowledge” in widespread use today. 

Traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) embodies the accumulated wisdom of individual 

indigenous cultures about ecological relationships based on multiple generations of interacting 

with and using the products of a local environment. Although several definitions of TEK can be 

found in the literature (e.g., Lewis 1993; Berkes 1999; Mailhot 1993; Miraglia 1998; Usher 

2000), the most commonly cited one is from Berkes (1999): “A cumulative body of knowledge, 

practice and belief, evolving by adaptive processes and handed down through generations by 

cultural transmission, about the relationship of living beings (including humans) with one 

another and with their environment.” This definition captures the holistic view of ecological 

knowledge that most indigenous people share in common. Although several scholars have 

explored the common ground between TEK and western science (e.g., Argawal 1995a, 1995b; 

Barnhardt and Kawagley, 2005; Berkes and others, 2000; Houde, 2007; Tsuji and Ho 2002), 

there are some widely recognized differences that make the integration of these two knowledge 

systems challenging and problematic. These differences reflect fundamental differences in how 

most western scientists and indigenous people conceptualize the universe and humans’ place 

within in it (Berkes, 1999; Cajete, 2000; Casimiri, 2003; Lertzman, 2010). For example, in 

contrast to western science, the accumulated ecological wisdom of multiple generations of 

indigenous users of a particular landscape typically includes each culture’s unique understanding 

of how ecological events and processes interface with and may be influenced by non-biophysical 

dimensions (e.g., spiritual aspects) of the universe. Thus, TEK can and often does include 

spiritual and metaphysical aspects that are foreign to most western scientist’s perceptions of 

ecological relationships. This difference presents just one of several challenges to integrating 

TEK and western science perspectives (Berkes, 1999; Houde, 2007; see also Nadasdy, 1999, 

2003). 

In recent years, the field of ethnoecology has evolved to incorporate a more holistic and 

inclusive perspective (Fowler, 2000) in which both western science and indigenous knowledge 

systems contribute to assessing an array of environmental challenges, changes and effects (e.g., 

Martin, 1995; Nazarea, 2003). While it might be beneficial for the GCDAMP to undertake a 

comprehensive ethnoecological study of the river corridor in the future, such an allencompassing study is not proposed at this time. Instead, for this pilot project we propose to 

initially focus on documenting changes to a subset of culturally-valued plants and explore 

through a series of workshops how this information, as well as other information that may be 

collected in the future, can contribute to furthering understanding of how environmental changes 

that are due at least in part to operations of Glen Canyon Dam, may affect cultural values 

important to Native American participants in the GCDAMP. Based on the outcomes of this 

initial pilot study, we may expand the scope of this work in the future to include other plants 

and/or other contributing landscape components such as animals. 

All of the tribes involved in the GCDAMP possess considerable knowledge of the terrestrial 

riparian and upland landscapes of the Colorado Plateau from multi-generational use of these 
427 

resources for daily sustenance, medicines, and ceremonial purposes. For example, ancestors and 

relatives of the Hualapai and Southern Paiute gathered plants for food, medicine and ceremonies 

and hunted sheep and other fauna in the western portions of Grand Canyon well into the first 

decades of the 20th century, while Navajo people used Glen and Marble Canyon for grazing and 

watering livestock and collecting medicinal plants into the recent historical era (Stoffle and 

others, 1994; Stoffle and others, 1997; Roberts and others, 1995). These traditional activities 

require an intimate knowledge of the seasonality and distribution of plants based on centuries of 

prior experience living within this environment and using plants for various purposes. This 

knowledge and its application through extensive traditional use of plants as food, medicine, and 

utilitarian materials contribute to each tribe’s perception of their own unique identity (sensu

Stephenson, 2008). Thus, in contrast to most scientists and stakeholders involved in the 

GCDAMP, many Native American tribal members view the river corridor landscape as a 

cultural resource, and many of its associated plants are likewise viewed as cultural resources, in 

addition to being valued as habitat for animals. 

In contrast to the time depth of Native American traditional knowledge, studies of plants in 

the Grand Canyon river corridor by western scientists date back less than a century to the late 

1930s, when Elzada Clover, a professor of botany from the University of Michigan, and her 

assistant Lois Jotter, conducted the first botanical inventory in the river corridor of Grand 

Canyon (Clover and Jotter, 1944). In the late 1950s, additional inventories and studies were 

undertaken by scientists affiliated with the University of Utah in anticipation of the inundation of 

the Glen Canyon reservoir (Woodbury and others, 1958, 1959a, 1959b). Starting in the 1970s 

and continuing through the 1980s, more detailed studies of specific plant distributions and their 

response to Glen Canyon Dam operations were undertaken by National Park Service scientists 

and by other scientists who worked for the Bureau of Reclamation’s Glen Canyon 

Environmental Studies (GCES) program (e.g., Anderson and Ruffner, 1988; Carothers and 

others, 1976; Carothers and Brown, 1991; Stevens, 1989; Stevens and others, 1995; Stevens and 

Waring, 1986). Beginning in the early 2000s, U.S. Geological Survey scientists working in 

collaboration with various academic researchers undertook additional vegetation and ecological 

studies focused on the riparian zone (Kearsley and others, 2006; Ralston, 2005; Ralston and 

others, 2008). In addition, several USGS-sponsored studies used the replication of historical 

photographs to document changes to both the riparian and high desert vegetation of the river 

corridor through time (e.g., Turner and Karpisak, 1980; Webb, 1996, Webb and others, 2007). 

Other studies focused on evidence from the dendrochronological record to interpret dam-related 

changes in the distribution and abundance of specific riparian species, such as Goodding willow 

and netleaf hackberry (Mast and Waring, 1997; Salzer and others, 1996), while still other studies 

have mapped the distribution of specific species (e.g., Anderson and Ruffner, 1986; Stevens, 

2011). 

Recently, GCMRC initiated a new study to evaluate effects of Glen Canyon Dam operations 

on downstream riparian vegetation. This study focuses on monitoring plant-response guilds (see 

Project 11, this volume). While plant response-guilds monitoring is not specifically focused on 

tracking changes of individual species, species-specific data is collected with a consistent 

protocol throughout the length of the Grand Canyon river corridor, and this data could contribute 

to assessing changes in the distribution and density (percent cover) of culturally-valued plants 

(see Project 11, this volume). 

Other recent work by Amy Draut (2011, 2012) has demonstrated that dam operations can 

affect vegetation growing well-above the zone of active inundation. These effects occur in part 
428 

because dam operations influence the distribution of sand bars and other exposed sand areas 

which serve as sources for wind-blown sand. The distribution of wind-blown sand at higher 

elevations within the river corridor, and whether it is regularly resupplied or not, influences the 

texture of surface substrates, water retention capacity of the substrate, distribution of biological 

soil crusts, and the types, density and distribution of associated plant species. Some of the plants 

commonly associated with active aeolian landscapes, such as Sporobolus sp. and Oryzopsis 

hymenoides, are known to have been highly valued as food sources by many Southwestern tribes. 

The extent of active and inactive aeolian sand areas has been partially mapped by Draut and 

others for large segments of the river corridor as part of Project J in the FY13–14 work plan, and 

will be more completely mapped in FY15–17 as part of Project 4 (this volume), but the extent to 

which these landscape-scale changes have affected plant species of cultural importance to Native 

American tribes is currently unknown. 

This project intends to build on botanical studies previously undertaken and accomplished by 

GCES and GCMRC staff and cooperators, as well as recent work initiated by the Hualapai Tribe 

as part of their pilot TEK study (Hualapai Tribe, 2013). Ultimately, the larger goal of this project 

is to place species-specific observations of a select group of culturally-valued plants in a larger 

landscape context and have tribes evaluate these changes from their own unique cultural 

perspectives as part of their ongoing tribal monitoring programs. The specifics of how this last 

part will be accomplished will be determined over the course of this project through future 

collaborative workshops involving tribal partners, social scientists and riparian ecologists. 

C.2. DFCs and Key Monitoring and Research Questions Addressed by this project 

The recently approved Desired Future Conditions (DFCs) for the Glen Canyon Dam 

Adaptive Management Program (Ann Castle memo to Secretary Salazar dated April 26, 2012) 

specify that cultural resources of concern to the program include historic properties that are 

eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as traditionally significant 

resources such as plants and animals that are not individually eligible for listing on the National 

Register. According to the DFC document, plant and animal resources as well as landscapes are 

“[r]esources that have the potential to be considered of traditional cultural significance in the 

Grand Canyon” although they may not meet the strict definition of significance for listing on the 

National Register of Historic Places. On the other hand, according to the approved DFCs for 

cultural resources, Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs) are potentially Register-eligible 

cultural resources, and TCPs can include a variety of different kinds of resources, including (but 

not limited to) “ethnoecological resources” and “the Grand Canyon itself”. 

According to the DFC document, goals for managing traditional cultural properties include, 

but are not limited, to the following (only the goals that have relevance to this project are listed): 

 Attributes are maintained such as [sic] National Register eligibility is not compromised. 

These attributes will be specific to the traditionally associated groups and will need to be 

identified by the federal agencies in consultation with these groups. Attributes may 

include aspects of the location or physical integrity, as well as intangible elements that 

link the resource to ongoing traditional practices. 

 Culturally appropriate conditions of the resource are maintained based on traditional 

ecological knowledge; integration of the desired condition is included in relevant 

monitoring and management programs. 
429 

 Maintain ongoing consultation with the groups for whom the resource has traditional 

value. Because the desired resource of a TCP needs to be determined by the group for 

whom it has the traditional value, ongoing consultation is necessary to assess the 

condition of the resource. 

The DFC document further species that one metric for cultural resource condition is “impacts 

at sites that will affect eligibility.” Thus, there is a need to document how operations of Glen 

Canyon Dam potentially affect attributes of TCPs, including ethnoecological resources, and to 

understand how those changes can negatively (or positively) impact resource integrity. This 

project will begin to explore linkages between potential dam-related changes to ethnoecological 

resources within the river corridor and impacts to cultural values that make these resources 

significant to tribes and potentially eligible for National Register listing. 

Over the past decade, GCDAMP stakeholders have identified other core monitoring and 

research information needs, some of which will be partially addressed through the proposed 

study. These include the following information needs: 

 CMIN 11.2.1 Are the traditionally important resources and locations for each tribe and 

other groups being affected [by dam operations]? 

 RIN 11.2.1 What are the traditionally important resources and locations for each tribe and 

other groups? 

 RIN 11.24 What changes are occurring in cultural resources sites, and what are the causes 

of those changes? 

 RIN 12.9.1 How well does current tribal participation in the AMP research and long-term 

monitoring programs meet tribal needs and desires? 

Finally, in the 2007-2012 Monitoring and Research Plan, scientists and stakeholders 

identified the following Strategic Science Question which is also relevant to this proposed study: 

 SSQ 2-1. Do dam-controlled flows affect (increase or decrease) rates of erosion and 

vegetation growth at archaeological sites and TCP sites in the CRE, and if so, how? 

Research questions specific to this project: 

Project 12 is framed around a single broad research question: 

 

 How have culturally-valued vegetation attributes of the riparian landscape of the 

Colorado River corridor changed since closure of Glen Canyon Dam, and how have those 

changes (which may be partially or wholly due to dam operations) affected cultural 

resource values that are important to tribes? 

This overarching question has two components, and each requires a different approach: 

1. an assessment of biological changes that are relevant to some of the expressed cultural 

interests of tribes, and 

2. an assessment of how those changes may have affected (either positively or negatively) 

culturally-important aspects of the landscape valued by Native American AMP 

participants. 
430 

D. Proposed Work 

This project encompasses two elements with inter-related objectives: 1) an assessment of 

biological changes that are relevant to some of the expressed cultural interests of Native 

American AMP tribes, and 2) an assessment of how those changes may have affected (either 

positively or negatively) culturally-important aspects of the landscape valued by these same 

groups. Element 12.1 will involve holding two workshops with GCMRC staff and tribal 

partners, plus other interested stakeholders with particular expertise in riparian and cultural 

resources, to identity culturally-important plants and other landscape attributes valued by each 

tribe and to compile and synthesize existing data related to species of interest to multiple tribes. 

The primary objectives of this first element are three-fold: 1) engage tribes in a collaborative 

research effort to identify how changes in the riparian ecosystem of the Colorado River corridor 

has affected or is affecting cultural values and resources that contribute to the identification of 

Grand Canyon as a Traditional Cultural Property; 2) compile and synthesize data about riparian 

vegetation and specific species of cultural importance to tribes from a variety of existing sources, 

including but not limited to previous GCES-era studies, existing GCMRC data, tribal monitoring 

data, and oblique historical imagery, and 3) analyze these existing data to evaluate the 

distribution and comparative abundance targeted (culturally-important) plant species in past 

decades throughout the river corridor landscape as compared with current conditions. 

The second component of this project proposes to use the information obtained in Part 12.1 

to develop culturally-appropriate methods for eliciting tribal perspectives about the changes that 

have occurred to the landscape and culturally-important important plant species. Specific 

methods to be employed in project element 12.2 will be determined collaboratively with tribal 

participants after they have had a chance to review the results of Part 12.1 and engage in further 

discussions about possible methodological approaches. Thus, most of the discussion that follows 

focuses on the methods that will be used to complete Part 12.1. 

D.1. Project Elements 

Project Element 12.1. Tribal workshops and analysis of cultural landscape change 

As stated above, the primary objectives of this first element are three-fold: 1) engage tribes in 

a collaborative research effort to identify how changes in the riparian ecosystem of the Colorado 

River corridor has affected or is affecting cultural values and resources that contribute to the 

identification of Grand Canyon as a Traditional Cultural Property; 2) compile and synthesize 

data about riparian vegetation and specific species of cultural importance to tribes from a variety 

of existing data sources, including but not limited to GCMRC’s current vegetation program, 

tribal monitoring programs, and oblique historical imagery, and 3) analyze these existing data to 

assess how the distribution and comparative abundance particular culturally-important plants 

may have changed through time. 

First Workshop 

Early in the first year of the project, as part of project element 12.1, GCMRC will host a 

workshop to review and discuss the goals of the project, identify plant species of mutual interest 

to multiple tribes, and to discuss and refine methods for compiling and analyzing available data 

related to the targeted species that will be the focus of this pilot study. As part of this workshop, 

GCMRC’s riparian ecologist (Sarr) will review data currently being collected for Project 11 and 
431 

discuss some ways that these data could be analyzed to provide information relevant to tribal 

interests. In addition, one or more representatives from the Hualapai Tribe will review how 

historical imagery is currently being applied in their monitoring program to assess vegetation 

changes from tribal perspectives. The final list of species that will become the focus of 

subsequent analysis efforts will be determined during the first workshop through consensus of 

the tribes directly involved in this project. The actual number of species that will become the 

focus of analysis is currently unknown, but is anticipated to include perhaps 6-8 species, or 

possibly a few more or less, depending on which species are ultimately selected to be the focus 

of the pilot study. 

Data Compilation and Analysis 

With input from the first workshop, GCMRC staff, working in close collaboration with tribal 

co-leads, will compile existing data from existing sources about the targeted species of interest. 

Data sources will include, but not be limited to, data from prior GCES-era and GCDAMPsponsored research, the current and proposed versions of Project 11, tribal monitoring programs, 

and historical imagery. Based on tribal guidance from the first workshop, we will undertake 

some initial analyzes of the available data. For example, logistic regression models that are 

being prepared as part of Project 11 to evaluate linkages between flow variables and riparian 

plant guilds could be modified to model individual species of cultural significance. Such models 

present probabilities of occurrence for the taxa studied. This information could be developed 

and provided to tribes to help target future monitoring efforts. Such models could also be used to 

identify areas with high habitat suitability for target species but which are not currently occupied 

by those taxa, thus providing target locations for future restoration efforts. 

In addition, we will undertake an analysis of historical imagery; general procedures are 

described below, but the specific kinds of information to be extracted from the imagery may be 

refined or modified based on outcomes of discussions during the first workshop: 

After the list of target species has been identified, the Project lead working in close 

collaboration with Project Co-lead Bungart, will undertake a systematic analysis of historical 

photograph collections to extract information about the distribution and relative abundance of 

culturally important plants in their predam setting along the Colorado River. Specific collections 

that will be analyzed include the photographs from the Stanton expedition (1890) and matches of 

these photographs created by Webb and colleagues in 1990–1991 and 2010–2011 (Webb, 1996; 

Webb and others, 2011), photographs from the 1871–1872 Powell expedition and the 1923 

Birdseye Expedition (some which have been previously matched by Stephens and Shoemaker, 

1987 and Barrs and Buchanan, 1994), photo matches documenting vegetation changes by Turner 

and Karpisak (1980), plus photographs taken by H. Butchart, R. Euler, and D. Schwartz in the 

early to mid-1960s and by Weeden and others (1975) in the mid-1970s. This analysis will be 

carried out in conjunction with similar analyses being undertaken for other purposes as part of 

Project 4. 

An effort will be made to identify photographs from a variety of temporal contexts 

distributed throughout the length of the river corridor over a variety of geomorphic settings. 

Primary emphasis will be placed on riparian species located immediately adjacent to the 

historically-active river channel. The intent is to provide a reasonably representative diachronic 

picture of the river corridor landscape immediately adjacent to the historically-active channel. 

We estimate that out of approximately 800 historical photographs that will be initially sorted, 

perhaps 100-150 historical photographs will contain sufficiently detailed images of vegetation to 
432 

allow species identification; these images will provide the basis for the historical photo analysis 

component of this project and will serve as the “sampling frame” for characterizing changes in 

plant distributions throughout the river corridor. 

Using analytical methods previously developed by Webb (1996) for comparing the 1890 

Stanton photos and 1990 replicates, plus other existing data previously compiled by Webb and 

others, GCMRC staff will systematically analyze and qualitatively assess changes to specific 

plants of traditional cultural importance to tribes. In addition to abundance and/or cover of 

specific plants, other variables may also be assessed. The full range of variables to be analyzed 

will be determined through discussions with tribal participants during the first workshop. At a 

minimum, the photographic analysis will identify whether the same plants are present in the 

same areas today, and whether their abundance appears to have increased or decreased in each 

photograph using a simple ranked scale (e.g., no apparent increase/decrease, slight increase or 

decrease (less than 25% difference in individuals or total cover -- the exact metric will depend on 

the plant species being evaluated), moderate increase or decrease (25–50% difference) or 

significant change (>50% difference). We will also use the photographs to qualitatively 

characterize the context in which the plants of interest occur, noting any apparent physical 

changes to local context associated with observed plant changes (e.g., differences in 

characteristics of fluvial deposits, biological soil crust cover, aeolian sand cover, associated 

vegetation, etc.) Specific protocols will be developed in consultation with tribal partners for 

recording these observations to ensure consistency, comparability, reliability and utility of 

resulting data. While conducting the photo analysis for Project Element 12.1, photographs taken 

at or near locations currently monitored by Tribes will be flagged for potential later use in future 

tribal monitoring programs. To minimize field time and reduce costs, the photographic analysis 

will initially rely on existing matches of photographs that have been made through previous 

replication efforts (e.g., Webb, 1996; Webb and others, 2011). A sample of the photographic 

matches will be later assessed through field checking and comparing previously documented 

changes with current conditions observed in the field. Any field work conducted for this project 

will be accomplished in conjunction with river trips planned for other projects, such Projects 3, 4 

and 11, tribal monitoring trips, or Grand Canyon Youth trips. 

Second Workshop 

Once the preliminary analyses and synthesis of existing information has been completed, we 

will convene a second workshop in FY16 to review the results of this initial work. In addition to 

reviewing the initial pilot study results, a primary purpose of the second workshop will be to 

discuss and refine methods for applying these data in future monitoring and/or research projects. 

During the second workshop, we will explore a variety of methods of applying these data and/or 

collecting additional information that is needed to more fully capture the affects to landscape 

attributes valued by the various tribes. 

Project Element 12.2. Tribal evaluations of cultural landscape changes 

Project element 12.2 proposes to apply information gleaned through element 12.1 to help 

tribes design and implement culturally-appropriate approaches for eliciting information from 

tribal members concerning how documented changes in vegetation affect cultural values 

associated with the riparian landscape. Project element 12.2 would be led by tribal partners and 

would focus on eliciting tribal input about the changes to the riparian system along the Colorado 

River. The AMP tribal representatives have requested that precise methods for eliciting tribal 
433 

perspectives be determined after they have had the opportunity to participate in the workshops 

and review the outcomes of Part 12.1 Therefore, the methods described below are just two 

possibilities for how tribal perspectives on vegetation change could be elicited in the future: 

1. Choice experiments using historical imagery. Comparisons of historical photographs 

matched with modern photographs provide one potential way to elicit tribal preferences 

and perceptions about the positive and negative aspects of observed landscape changes. 

Methods similar to those previously used by Stewart and others (2003) for documenting 

recreational river runner’s preferences for camping beach characteristics could potentially 

be modified and applied for this purpose . 

2. Semi-structured interviews. Another potential approach would be to use comparisons of 

photographs to elicit tribal members’ perspectives through semi-structured interviews. 

Respondents’ preferences could be documented through completing an interview form or 

perhaps through employing other recording media to document responses. Interview 

responses could then be compiled and analyzed using previously tested methods such as 

those described by Toupal (2003). 

As described previously, the final choice of methods to be used for eliciting tribal 

perspectives on landscape and plant-specific changes will be determined through a review of 

potential methods, followed by focused discussions during the second workshop. 

D.2 Personnel and Collaborations 

This project will be led by Helen Fairley, GCMRC Social Scientist, in collaboration with 

multiple tribal cooperators. Peter Bungart will lead the Hualapai Tribe’s participation in this 

project. Bungart is also co-lead of the Hualapai Tribe’s ongoing TEK project, and his experience 

and insights gained from this earlier work, plus his knowledge of managing culturally-sensitive 

databases, will be essential to conducting this project. Tony Joe, a Supervisory Anthropologist 

with the Navajo Nation, will help organize and contribute information relevant to the Navajos’ 

perspective on culturally-valued plants and landscapes. Tony will lead the Navajo Nation’s 

participation in elements 1 and 2 of Project 12. Michael Yeatts is an archaeologist with the Hopi 

Tribe. Yeatts will organize Hopi’s participation in Project 12, which will initially focus on 

element 1. The Hopi’s participation in element 2 will depend, in part, on the results obtained 

from the first year of work. Fairley will have management responsibility for the project, but data 

compilation and reporting will be carried out collaboratively with Bungart, Joe, and Yeatts and 

with input from other GCDAMP tribal representatives who choose to participate. 

D.3 Linkages to other projects 

This project has linkages to other GCMRC projects in the FY15–17 work plan, as well as to 

at least one project previously sponsored by Reclamation in the FY13–14 work plan. 

Project 11 will collect information about current plant species distribution and abundance, 

which may be useful for documenting changes in the abundance and distribution of culturallyimportant plants. Daniel Sarr, who is a co-lead on Project 11, will contribute to Project 12 

through providing information about the ecology and distribution of riparian plants, and by 

providing guidance on sampling designs, as appropriate. Charles Yackulic, who is also a 

member of the Project 11 team, will assist with evaluation of statistical power and other 
434 

considerations for making sound inferences about the significance of plant changes documented 

through Project 12. 

Some work being conducted as part of Project 4 may benefit the work in Project 12 because 

both projects will analyze the same sets of historical imagery to identify landscape changes 

specific to each project. In particular, Project 4 will analyze changes in the amount and locations 

of active aeolian landscapes throughout the river corridor, and this information may also be 

relevant to understanding changes in the distribution and abundance of some culturally important 

plants and landscape characteristics considered by Project 12. 

In FY2013-2014, Reclamation funded the Hualapai Tribe to undertake a pilot TEK study. 

This study will be completed during FY2015. One part of this Hualapai TEK study is exploring 

the use of historical imagery to document changes in vegetation that is specifically valued by the 

Hualapai Tribe. It is anticipated that information coming from the Hualapai’s pilot TEK study 

may be useful for informing the historical photo analysis work proposed as part of element 12.1 

and may also be useful for guiding how historical imagery can be used by other tribes in future 

monitoring work. 

Finally, depending on which species become the focus of analysis in Project 12, some of the 

data being compiled and synthesized through Project 12, such as information about the 

geomorphic setting of specific plants, may prove useful for informing future plant restoration 

efforts currently being proposed by the Hualapai Tribe in collaboration with Grand Canyon 

National Park as part of the FY15–17 work plan. 

D.4 Deliverables 

A USGS report will be prepared at the end of the project documenting the changes that have 

been compiled and observed through the review and synthesis of existing studies and the 

intensive photo analysis. This report may also include a summary of observations made by tribal 

members, to the extent that tribes are willing to share their observations. 

A journal article will be collaboratively prepared at the conclusion of the project 

documenting the work accomplished and its strengths or weaknesses as a model for 

incorporating tribal perspectives in science programs that can be potentially applied to other 

adaptive management programs in the future. 

E. References 

Anderson, L.S., and Ruffner, G.A., 1988, Effects of the post-Glen Canyon Dam flow regime on 

the old high water line plant community along the Colorado River in Grand Canyon--

executive summaries of technical reports: Bureau of Reclamation, Glen Canyon 

Environmental Studies. [Available from National Technical Information Service, Springfield, 

Va. as NTIS Report PB-183505/AS]

Argawal, A., 1995a, Indigenous and scientific knowledge: some critical comments. Indigenous 

Knowledge and Development Monitor, v. 3, no. 3, p. 3-6. 

Argawal, A. 1995b, Dismantling the divide between indigenous and scientific knowledge. 

Development and Change, v. 26, p.413-439. 

Baars, D.L. and Buchanan, R.C., 1994, The Canyon Revisited: A Rephotography of the Grand 

Canyon 1923/1991: Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 168 p. 

Barnhardt, R. and Kawagley, A.O., 2005, Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Alaska Native 

Ways of Knowing. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, vol. 36, no. 1, p.8-23. 
435 

Berkes, F., 1999, Sacred Ecology: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Resource 

Management: London: Taylor and Francis. 

Berkes, F., Colding, J., and Folke, C., 2000, Rediscovery of Traditional Ecological Knowledge 

as Adaptive Management. Ecological Applications, v. 10, no. 5, p.1251-1262. 

Cajete, G., 2000, Native Science: Natural Laws of Interdependence. Santa Fe, Clear Light 

Publishers. 

Carothers, S.W., Aitchison, S.W., Karpiscak, M.M., Rufner, G.A., Sharber, N.J., Shoemaker, 

P.L., Stevens, L.E., Theroux, M.E., and Tomko, D.S., 1976, An ecological survey of the 

riparian zone of the Colorado River and its tributaries between Lees Ferry and the Grand 

Wash Cliffs--final report: Flagstaff, Museum of Northern Arizona, Department of Biology, 

submitted to U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Grand Canyon National 

Park, Colorado River Research Series, contribution no. 38, contract no. CX821500007, 

Colorado River Research technical report no.10, 251 p. 

Carothers, S.W., and Brown, B.T., 1991, The Colorado River through Grand Canyon--natural 

history and human change: Tucson, University of Arizona Press, 235 p. 

Casimirri, G., 2003, Problems with Integrating Traditional Ecological Knowledge into 

Contemporary Resource Management. Paper submitted to the XII World Forestry Congress, 

Quebec city, Canada. 

Clover, E.U., and Jotter, L., 1944, Floristic studies in the canyon of the Colorado and tributaries: 

American Midland Naturalist, v. 32, no. 3, p. 591-

642., http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/2421241.pdf. 

Conklin, H.C., 1954, An ecological approach to shifting agriculture. New York Academy of 

Sciences Transactions, v. 172, p. 133-144. 

Draut, A.E., 2011, Vegetation and substrate properties of aeolian dune fields in the Colorado 

River corridor, Grand Canyon, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2011–

1195, 16 p., available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2011/1195/. 

Draut, A.E., 2012. Effects of river regulation on aeolian landscapes, Colorado River, 

southwestern USA. Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface, 117(F2). 

Evans, M.J., Roberts A. and Nelson, P., 2001, Ethnographic Landscapes. CRM v. 24, no.5, p. 53-

56. 

Fowler, C.S., 2000, Ethnoecology: An Introduction. In Minnis, P.E, ed., Ethnobotany: A 

Reader: Norman, University of Oklahoma Press, p. 13-16. 

Frake, C.O., 1962, Cultural ecology and ethnography. American Anthropologist, v. 63, no.1, 

p.113-132. 

Greider, T. and Garkovich, L., 1994, Landscape: The social construct of nature and the 

environment. Rural Sociology, v. 59, no. 1, p. 1-24. 

Houde, N., 2007, The Six Faces of Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Challenges and 

Opportunities for Canadian Co-Management Arrangements. Ecology and Society, v. 12, no. 

2, article 34. [Online URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/art34 ]. 

Hualapai Tribe, 2013, Proposal for TEK Pilot Project. Ms. submitted to Bureau of Reclamation, 

Upper Colorado River Region, Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program. 

Kearsley, M.J.C., Cobb, N.S., Yard, H., Lightfoot, D., Brantley, S., Carpenter, G., and Frey, J., 

eds., Inventory and monitoring of terrestrial riparian resources in the Colorado River corridor 

of the Grand Canyon--an integrative approach--final report: Flagstaff, Northern Arizona 

University, submitted to U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research 
436 

Center, cooperative agreement no. 01 WRAG 0044 (NAU) and 01 WRAG 0034 (HYC), 177-

85 p. 

Kearsley, M.J.C., and Ayers, T.J., 1996, The effects of interim flows from Glen Canyon Dam on 

riparian vegetation in the Colorado River corridor, Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona--

final report: Flagstaff, Northern Arizona University, submitted to Grand Canyon National 

Park, Grand Canyon Science Center, cooperative agreement no. 8041-8-0002, 702 

p., http://www.riversimulator.org/Resources/GCMRC/Terrestrial/Kearsley1996b.pdf. 

Lertzman, D. A., 2010, Best of two worlds: traditional ecological knowledge and western 

science in ecosystem-based management. BC Journal of Ecosystem Management, v. 10, no. 

3, p. 104-126. 

Lewis, H. T., 1993, Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Some Definitions. In Williams, N.M. 

and Baines, G., eds., Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Wisdom for Sustainable 

Development, Canberra: Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, Australian National 

University p. 8-12 

Mailhot, J., 1993, Traditional ecological knowledge: the diversity of knowledge systems and 

their study. Great Whale Public Review Support Office, Montreal, Canada. 

Martin, G.J., 1995, Ethnobotany: A Methods Manual: London: Chapman and Hall. 

Mast, J.N. and Waring, G., 1997, Dendrochronological Analysis of Goodding Willows in Grand 

Canyon National Park. In Van Riper, C. and Deshler, E., eds., Proceedings of the Third 

Biennial Conference of Research on the Colorado Plateau. Transactions and Proceedings 

Series NPS/NRNAU?NRTP-97/12: Flagstaff, National Park Service, p. 115-127. 

Miraglia, R. A., 1998, Traditional Ecological Knowledge Handbook: A Training Manual and 

Reference Guide for Designing, Conducting, and Participating in Research Projects using 

Traditional Ecological Knowledge. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of 

Subsistence. Funded by the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Committee as part of 

Restoration Project 97052B. 

Nadasdy, P., 1999, The politics of TEK: Power and “integration” of knowledge. Arctic 

Anthropology, v. 36, nos. 1-2, p. 1-18. 

Nadasdy, P., 2003, Hunters and Bureaucrats: Power, Knowledge and Aboriginal State 

Relationships in the Southwest Yukon. Yukon, University of British Columbia Press, . 

Nazarea, V.D., ed., 2003, Ethnoecology: Situated Knowledge/Located Live: Tuscon, University 

of Arizona Press, 299 p. 

Nilsson, C., and Berggren, K., 2000, Alterations of riparian ecosystems caused by river 

regulation. Bioscience, v. 50, n. 9, p.783-792. 

Nilsson, C., Reidy, C.A., Dynesius, M. and Revenga, C., 2005, Fragmentation and flow 

regulation of the world’s large river systems. Science, v. 308, p.405-408. 

Ralston, B., 2005, Riparian Vegetation and Associated Wildlife. Chapter 6 in Gloss, S.P., 

Lovich, J.E., and Melis, T.S., eds., 2005, The State of the Colorado River Ecosystem in 

Grand Canyon: A Report of the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, 1991-2004. 

U.S. Geological Circular No. 1282, p. 103-122. 

Roberts, A., Begay, R.M., and Kelley, K.B., 1995 Bits’iis Nineeze (The River of Neverending 

Life), Navajo History and Cultural Resources of the Grand Canyon and the Colorado River.

Submitted by the Navajo Nation Historic Preservation Department to the Glen Canyon 

Environmental Studies Office, USDI Bureau of Reclamation, Flagstaff, Arizona.

Salzer, M.W., McCord, V.A.S., Stevens, L.E. and Webb, R.H., 1996, The dendrochronological 

analysis of netleaf hackberry (Celtis reticulate Torr.) in Grand Canyon: Assessing the impact 
437 

of regulate river flow on tree growth, in Dean. J.S., Meko, D.M., and Swetham, T.S., eds., 

1996, Tree Rings, Environment, and Humanity: Tucson: Radiocarbon, p. 273-281. 

Sankey, J.B., Ralston, B.E., Grams, P.E., Schmidt, J.S., and Cagney, L.E., in review, Riparian 

vegetation, Colorado River, and climate: five decades of spatio-temporal dynamics in the 

Grand Canyon with river regulation. Manuscript in review. 

Stephens, H. G. and Shoemaker, E. M., 1987, In the Footsteps of John Wesley Powell: An 

Album of Comparative Photographs from the Green and Colorado Rivers, 1871-1872: 

Boulder, Colorado: Johnson Books. 

Stephenson, J., 2008, The Cultural Values Model: An integrated approach to values in 

landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning v. 84, p. 127-139. 

Stevens, L.E., 1989, Mechanisms of Riparian Plant Community Organization and Succession in 

Grand Canyon, Arizona. Ph.D. Dissertation, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff. 

Stevens, L.E., 2011, Goodding’s Willow in Grand Canyon: Requiem or Revival? Boatman’s 

Quarterly Review, v. 24, no3, p. 6-9. 

Stevens, L.E. and T.J. Ayers, 1993,The impacts of Glen Canyon Dam on riparian vegetation and 

soil stability in the Colorado River corridor, Grand Canyon, Arizona. National Park Service 

Cooperative Parks Study Unit 1992 Final Report, Flagstaff. 

Stevens, L.E., Schmidt, J.C., Ayers, T.J., and Brown, B.T., 1995, Flow regulation, 

geomorphology, and Colorado River marsh development in the Grand Canyon, Arizona: 

Ecological Applications, v. 5, no. 4, doi: 10.2307/2269352, p. 1025-

1039, http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2269352. 

Stevens, L.E., and Waring, G. 1986, Effects of Post-Dam Flooding on Riparian Substrates, 

Vegetation and Invertebrate Populations in the Colorado River Corridor in Grand Canyon, 

Arizona. Final Report, Terrestrial Biology of the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies. Glen 

Canyon Environmental Studies Report No. A2, April 15, 1986. 

Stewart, W., Larkin, K., Orland, B., Anderson, D., 2003, Boater preferences for beach 

characteristics downstream from Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona. Journal of Environmental 

Management, v. 69, p.201-211. 

Stoffle, R.W., Halmo, D.B., and Austin, D.E., 1997 Cultural Landscapes and Traditional 

Cultural Properties: A Southern Paiute View of the Grand Canyon and the Colorado River. 

American Indian Quarterly v. 21, p. 219–249. 

Stoffle, R.W., Halmo, D.B., Evans, M.J., and Austin, D.E., 1994 Piapaxa ‘Uipi (Big River 

Canyon): Southern Paiute Ethnographic Resource Inventory and Assessment for Colorado 

River Corridor, Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, Utah and Arizona, and Grand 

Canyon National Park, Arizona. Submitted to the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies 

Office, USDI Bureau of Reclamation, Flagstaff. 

Tsuji, L. and Ho, E., 2002, Traditional environmental knowledge and western science: in search 

of common ground. The Canadian Journal of Native Studies, v. 22, no.2, p. 327-360. 

Topping, D.J., Schmidt, J.C., and Vierra, L.E., Jr., 2003, Computation and Analysis of the 

Instantaneous-discharge Record for the Colorado River at Lees Ferry, Arizona – May 8, 1921 

through September 30, 2000. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper1677, 118 p. 

Toupal, R.S., 2003, Cultural Landscapes as a Methodology for Understanding Natural Resource 

Management Impacts in the Western United States. Ecological and Society, v. 7, no.1, 

article 12 (accessed online 4/17/2007 at URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol7/iss1/art12/.) 

Tress, B., Tress, G., Decamps, H., and d’Hauteserre, A., 2001, Bridging human and natural 

sciences in landscape research. Landscape and Urban Planning, v.57, nos.3-4, p. 137-141. 
438 

Turner, R. M. and Karpisak, M.M., 1980, Recent Vegetation Changes Along the Colorado River 

Between Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Mead, Arizona. U.S. Geological Survey Professional 

Paper 1132, 125 p. 

Usher, P., 2000, Traditional ecological knowledge in environmental assessment and 

management. Arctic, v. 53, no. 2, p183-193. 

Webb, R. H., 1996, Grand Canyon, a Century of Change: Rephotography of the 1889-1890 

Stanton Expedition. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 290 p. 

Webb, R.H., Belnap, J., Scott, M.L., and Esque, T.C., 2011, Long-term change in perennial 

vegetation along the Colorado River in Grand Canyon National Park (1889-2010). Park 

Science v. 28, no. 2, p. 83-87. 

Webb, R.H., Leake, S.A., and Turner, R.M., 2007, The Ribbon of Green: Change in Riparian 

Vegetation in the Southwestern United States: Tucson, University of Arizona Press, 463 p. 

Weeden, H., Borden, F. Turner, B., Thompson, D., Strauss, C. and Johnson, R., 1975, Grand 

Canyon National Park Campsite Inventory. Report prepared for National Park Service 

Contract No. CX 001-3-0061. University Park: Pennsylvania State University. 

Williams, G.P and Wohlman, M.G., 1984, Downstream Effects of Dams on Alluvial Rivers. U.S. 

Geological Survey Professional Paper 1286, 83 p. 

Woodbury, A.M., and multiple additional authors, 1958, Preliminary Report on Biological 

Resources of Glen Canyon Reservoir: Salt Lake City: University of Utah Anthropological 

Papers, v. 31 

Woodbury, A.M., and multiple additional authors, 1959a, Ecological Studies of the Flora and 

Fauna of Glen Canyon: Salt Lake City: University of Utah Anthropological Papers, v. 40. 

Woodbury, A.M., Durrant, S.D., and Flowers, S., 1959b, A Survey of Vegetation in the Glen 

Canyon Reservoir Basin: Salt Lake City: University of Utah Anthropological Papers, v. 36.
439 

F. Budget 

Note: In addition to the GCMRC salary listed for FY15 and 16 (above), up to two pay periods of Sarr’s time and 1 pay peri

both of which are currently covered in the Project 11 budget, will be devoted to Project 12 workshop preparation, partici

analyses in each fiscal year.

Core activities

Support implementation and

evaluation of HFE Protocol and

Non‐Native Fish Control

Technical and analytical

innovations in monitoring

Improving predictive modeling

capacity

Resolving scientific uncertainty

Independent science oversight

and review

Integrating tribes in monitoring

and research

Project Identifier Project Description Salaries Travel & Training Operating Expenses Logistics Coop‐ erators (non‐USGS) USGS Coop‐erat

12

Dam‐Related Effects on the

Distribution and

Abundance of Selected

Culturally‐Important Plants

in the Colorado River

Ecosystem

$19,600 $5,000 $2,000 $5,000 $15,000 

X X 12.1 Tribal workshop and analysis of cultural landscape change Fairley et al. $19,600 $5,000 $2,000 $5,000 $15,000 

X X 12.2 Tribal evaluations of cultural landscape changes Fairley et al. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

12

Dam‐Related Effects on the

Distribution and

Abundance of Selected

Culturally‐Important Plants

in the Colorado River

Ecosystem

$20,000 $2,500 $5,500 $5,000 $45,000 

X X 12.1 Tribal workshop and analysis of cultural landscape change Fairley et al. $20,000 $2,500 $5,500 $5,000 $15,000 

X X 12.2 Tribal evaluations of cultural landscape changes Fairley et al. $0 $0 $0 $0 $30,000 

Monitoring Research

FY15FY16
440 

Core activities

Support implementation and

evaluation of HFE Protocol and

Non‐Native Fish Control

Technical and analytical

innovations in monitoring

Improving predictive modeling

capacity

Resolving scientific uncertainty

Independent science oversight

and review

Integrating tribes in monitoring

and research

Project Identifier Project Description Salaries Travel & Training Operating Expenses Logistics Coop‐ erators (non‐USGS) USGS Coop‐erat

12

Dam‐Related Effects on the

Distribution and

Abundance of Selected

Culturally‐Important Plants

in the Colorado River

Ecosystem

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

X X 12.1 Tribal workshop and analysis of cul tural landscape change Fairley et al. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

X X 12.2 Tribal evaluations of cultural landscape changes Fairley et al. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

FY17

Monitoring Research
441 

Research: Improving predictive modeling capacity 

Research: Resolving scientific uncertainty 

Project 13. Socioeconomic Monitoring and Research 

Initial Estimate: FY15: $176,100; FY16: $220,300; FY17: $356,100 

GCDAMP Funding: FY15: $176,100; FY16: $204,900; FY17: $338,300 

A. Investigators 

Lucas Bair, Economist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center 

Charles Yackulic, Research Statistician, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center 

John Duffield, Research Professor, Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of 

Montana 

Chris Neher, Researcher, Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Montana 

David Patterson, Professor, Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Montana 

Michael Springborn, Assistant Professor, University of California at Davis 

Craig Bond, Economist, Pardee RAND Graduate School 

B. Project Summary 

During the past three decades, socioeconomic monitoring and research in the Glen Canyon 

Environmental Studies and Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP) have 

been limited (Hamilton and others, 2010). Previous research has indicated that the economic 

value of recreation and other downstream resources are impacted by Glen Canyon Dam (GCD) 

operations; however, because these studies were conducted 20 to 30 years ago, the findings are 

out-of-date, as dam operations and resource conditions have changed since that time (Bishop and 

others, 1987; Welsh and others, 1995; U.S. Department of Interior, 1996; USGS, 2005). 

This project is designed to identify recreation and tribal preferences for, and values of, 

downstream resources and evaluate how preference and value are influenced by GCD operations. 

In addition, the research will integrate economic information with data from long-term and 

ongoing physical and biological monitoring and research studies led by the Grand Canyon 

Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC) to develop a decision support system that will 

improve the ability of the GCDAMP to evaluate and prioritize management actions, monitoring 

and research (Hamilton and others, 2010). 

This project involves three related socioeconomic monitoring and research studies. These 

studies include: (a) evaluation of the impact of GCD operations on regional economic 

expenditures and economic values associated with angling in the Glen Canyon National 

Recreation Area (GCNRA) downstream from GCD, and whitewater floating in Grand Canyon 

National Park (GCNP) that begins at Lees Ferry (Project Element 13.1); (b) assessment of the 

impact of GCD operations on tribal preference for and value of downstream resources (Project 

Element 13.2); and (c) development of decision methods, using economic metrics, to evaluate 

management actions and prioritize monitoring and research on resources downstream of GCD 

(Project Element 13.3). 
442 

This project will be coordinated with related economic research efforts implemented by the 

National Park Service (NPS) and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) in conjunction with 

the Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan Environmental Impact 

Statement (LTEMP EIS). The NPS is conducting research to provide current economic values of 

ecosystem resources downstream of GCD. In addition, Argonne National Laboratory, contracted 

through Reclamation, has made significant advancements in the power system analysis modeling 

for the LTEMP EIS that provide information on the economic value of hydropower production at 

GCD under different management alternatives. These coordinated efforts to determine individual 

preferences for and economic values of downstream resources, and the development of decision 

methods to improve decision making abilities of GCDAMP are necessary to evaluate and 

prioritize management, monitoring, and research decisions. 

C. Background 

Recreation 

The Grand Canyon Protection Act (GCPA) of 1992 states that, “long-term monitoring of 

Glen Canyon Dam shall include any necessary research and studies to determine the effect of the 

Secretary's actions under section 1804(c) on the...recreational...resources of Grand Canyon 

National Park and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area” (GCPA, sec. 1805(b)). Bishop and 

others (1987) were the first to establish a relationship between dam operations and recreational 

preferences and economic values related to angling in GCNRA and whitewater floating in 

GCNP. Nearly 30 years have passed since this comprehensive study of regional recreational 

expenditures and preferences for and economic values of releases at GCD. The characteristics of 

recreational resources have changed significantly since this research was conducted. Specifically, 

alteration of diurnal flow patterns and greater whitewater floating opportunities resulting from 

The Operation of Glen Canyon Dam, Record of Decision (ROD) (U.S. Department of Interior, 

1996), and the Colorado River Management Plan (NPS, 2006), respectively, have changed the 

whitewater floating experience. The angling experience has also changed in Glen Canyon since 

the Bishop and others (1987) study as a result of fluctuations in catch rates and fish condition 

and modifications to angling regulations (Loomis and others, 2005). 

Additional research was conducted in GCNP to assess whitewater floater trip preferences; 

although the research did not identify specific economic values of flows for whitewater floating 

trips (Stewart and others, 2000). Furthermore, the economic information related to recreation 

will not be updated through empirical research for the LTEMP EIS (Harpman, 2013). Because it 

is important to understand the potential effects of dam operations on the recreational experiences 

in GCNRA and GCNP, there is a need to update and extend the original Bishop and others 

(1987) study. Undoubtedly, this research will contribute to a primary GCDAMP goal, which is to 

“maintain or improve the quality of recreational experiences for users of the Colorado River 

ecosystem, within the framework of the GCDAMP ecosystem goals” (USGS, 2006). 

Native American Tribes 

The operation of GCD also has direct and indirect effects on downstream resources of 

cultural value and traditional use in GCNRA and GCNP. The GCPA of 1992 states that, 

“...monitoring programs and activities conducted under subsection (a) shall be established and 

implemented in consultation with...Indian tribes...” (GCPA, sec. 1805(c)). The GCDAMP has 
443 

also recognized a need to maintain effective consultation with tribes to appropriately incorporate 

tribal values into the GCDAMP. 

“Because culture defines the roles that resources play in that culture, only 

members of that culture can assess the status or health of the resources. Therefore, 

measures for resource status or health and appropriate management will need to 

be determined individually by the federal agencies in consultation with the 

traditionally associated peoples (AMWG, 2012a).” 

Research concerning tribal preferences for and values of downstream resources, and 

assessment of the influence of dam operations on these resources, is lacking (Hamilton and 

others, 2010). This research, in coordination with the tribes, is critical for furthering the 

understanding of tribal preferences for and socioeconomic impacts associated with resource 

management decisions within the GCDAMP. 

Decision Theory 

It is the “absence of decision making mechanisms” in adaptive management (AM) programs 

that make systematic prioritization of investment in monitoring, research, and management 

alternatives difficult (Scarlet, 2013). Decision making mechanisms, including the economic 

assessment of investment in monitoring and research, are important components of AM 

programs (Doremus, 2010). Recent studies have highlighted the shortcomings of traditional costbenefit methods when facing the state-dependency and inherent uncertainty in AM programs 

(Loomis and other, 2009, Bond 2010). Given these shortcomings, optimal control or stochastic 

dynamic optimization methods have been proposed to evaluate the economics of management 

actions and monitoring and research efforts (Bond, 2010; Bond and Loomis, 2009; EpanchinNiell and Hasting, 2010; Springborn and Sanchirico, 2013). These methods use mathematical 

techniques to identify optimal management actions, including monitoring and research, given an 

objective (e.g., minimize economic costs) and a set of physical, biological and/or institutional 

constraints (e.g., humpback cub recovery goals). 

Previous research has developed a decision support system for the Colorado River ecosystem 

(CRE) in GCNRA and GCNP downstream from GCD. Walters and others (2000) developed a 

decision support system to screen the effect of various management options on downstream 

resources. While some predictions of resource responses to various management scenarios were 

accurate, responses to management scenarios of other resources (e.g., sediment storage, native 

fish) were very uncertain, due to limited empirical data (Walters and others, 2000). More recent 

analysis in the LTEMP EIS used structured decision analysis to identify alternative future 

management scenarios, but this process is not comparable to an economically based decision 

support system (Reclamation, 2014). This project element would take the next step in the 

development of a decision support system to inform the GCDAMP in the organization and 

evaluation of management actions, monitoring, and research. 

It is pertinent that monitoring and research in the physical science (see FY15–17 Workplan, 

Projects 1, 2, 3, and 11), biological science (see FY15–17 Workplan, Projects 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10), 

cultural (see FY15–17 Workplan, Project 4 and 12), and socioeconomic (see FY15–17 

Workplan, Project Elements 13.1 and 13.2) programs be integrated into an analytical framework 

that can inform the GCDAMP in evaluation of future monitoring and research. Developing a 

decision support system based on analytical methods, such as predictive, integrated dynamic 
444 

models, is essential when answering questions such as, “how do we quantify and integrate the 

full range of socio-economic concerns into dam re-regulation, in addition to hydropower 

concerns (GCDAMP, 2004)?” Therefore, there is a critical need to develop a decision support 

system within the GCDAMP to assist in the organization, evaluation and prioritization of 

investment in monitoring and research and improve the economic efficiency of long-run 

management decisions under uncertainty. 

C.1. Scientific Background 

The following hypotheses and research questions support the proposed project elements. 

Given that project elements are a synthesis of monitoring and research, there are components that 

are not hypothesis driven. 

Recreation 

Hypothesis 1 (H1) The operation of GCD influences the economic value of angling in 

GCNRA, between GCD and Lees Ferry. 

Hypothesis 2 (H2) The operation of Glen Canyon Dam influences the economic value of 

whitewater floating in GCNP. 

Hypothesis 3 (H3) The changes in operation of GCD, since the ROD, have influenced the 

economic value of angling in GCNRA, between GCD and Lees Ferry. 

Hypothesis 4 (H4) The changes in operation of GCD, since the ROD, have influenced the 

economic value of angling in whitewater floating in GCNP. 

Demand for recreation is determined by (a) socioeconomic characteristics (e.g., income, 

education, age, etc.), (b) quality, (c) substitutes, (d) travel time, (e) crowding, and (f) tastes and 

preferences (Loomis and Walsh, 1997). Operation of GCD directly impacts the quality of 

angling in GCNRA and whitewater floating in GCNP (Bishop and others, 1987). For example, 

different flows affect the ability to operate watercraft during angling and whitewater floating 

activities and influence trip attributes such as catch rate for anglers and length of time spent on 

the river for whitewater floaters. Similar to findings by Bishop and others (1987), H1 and H2

posit that both anglers’ and whitewater floaters’ economic values increase with increased flows, 

until an inflection point is reached, at which time economic value decreases with increased flow. 

Figure 1 is an example of the relationship between an individual whitewater floater’s surplus 

economic value per trip and average flows. 
445 

Figure 1. Theoretical Flow Value Curve for an Individual Whitewater Floater (Bishop and others, 1987) 

H3 and H4 posit that both anglers’ and whitewater floaters’ economic values have increased 

with the changes in operation of GCD, since the ROD. These hypothesizes are based on the 

findings of Bishop and others (1987), large fluctuations at moderate flows are not preferred by 

anglers or whitewater floaters. 

While the primary objective of this research is to evaluate the relationship between operation 

of GCD and economic values of recreational angling and whitewater floating, this project 

element will also provide information about; (a) regional expenditures, (b) trip attributes of 

importance, and (c) direct recreational use values (see section D.1). This information is important 

when conducting short and long-term impact, and other policy related analysis. 

Native American Tribes 

Hypothesis 3 (H3) Tribal preferences for and values of downstream resources differ among 

downstream resource attributes. To test this hypothesis, the relative ranking, marginal rate of 

substitution, and parameter estimates of preference relationships among resource attributes (e.g., 

hydropower, native fish) will be generated and assessed. H3 posits that there will be significant 

variation in the preferences for and values of downstream resources by resource attribute. 

Because tribes may have specific culturally determined “decision processes” and approaches to 

resource valuation that may limit aggregation of individual preferences, the choice of elicitation 

methods, and comparison of preferences among tribes (Adamowicz and others, 1998), additional 

hypotheses to be tested in Project Element 13.2 will be generated following tribal consultation. 

An additional hypothesis that may be addressed in this project element is: 

 Tribal preferences for and values of downstream resources differ among tribes. 

This research will enhance understanding of tribal preferences for and values of downstream 

resources, and perspectives associated with tradeoffs that occur when evaluating management 

actions and prioritizing monitoring and research decisions within the GCDAMP. This research 

will develop methods to clearly identify preference for and economic value of resource 

management decisions, independent of non-economic Tribal cultural values associated with Glen 

and Grand Canyons. 

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

5,000 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000

Individual's

Surplus Value

Per Trip ($)

Average Flow Level (CFS)
446 

Decision Theory 

This project element will improve the GCDAMP’s ability to organize scientific information 

and evaluate and prioritize, monitoring, research and management alternatives specific to the 

operation of GCD. For example, in the Non-native Fish Control Downstream from Glen Canyon 

Dam Environmental Assessment (NNFC) (Reclamation, 2011), it is informally hypothesized that 

in mitigation of the effects of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) on humpback chub (Gila 

cypha) (Reclamation 2011), flow actions may be more cost-effective in the long-run relative to 

the proposed non-native removal efforts in the Paria-Badger Creek Rapid and Little Colorado 

River reaches (Reclamation, 2011). This is the type of question this project element will address. 

One of the twelve goals of the GCDAMP is to “maintain a high-quality monitoring, research, 

and adaptive management program” (USGS, 2006). In order to accomplish this goal, it is 

important to prioritize management actions, including monitoring and research. In fact, several 

of the eleven other goals of the GCDAMP specify desired resource states and stress actions to 

achieve these states where “practicable”, “feasible”, or “within the framework” of other resource 

goals (e.g., ecosystem goals). This direction calls for a balanced approach to managing resources 

downstream of GCD. Identifying economic values of downstream resources and establishing a 

decision support system will assist in the evaluation of actions the GCDAMP recommends and 

implements through GCMRC to answer research questions specific to its goals. 

C.2. Key Monitoring and Research Questions Addressed in this project 

This project is organized around hypotheses and research questions (see section C.1) that are 

based on Strategic Science Questions (SSQs), Core Monitoring Information Needs (CMINs), and 

Research Information Needs (RINs) previously identified by the GCDAMP. The project also 

supports the evaluation and prioritization of Desired Future Conditions as identified by the 

AMWG (2012a.) 

Primary SSQ addressed: 

 SSQ 2-6. 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? 

 SSQ 2-7. Are dam controlled flows affecting TCPs and other tribally-valued resources in 

the CRE, and, if so, in what respects are they being affected, and are those effects 

considered positive or negative by the tribes who value these resources? 

 SSQ 3-7. How do dam controlled flows affect visitors’ recreational experiences, and what 

is/are the optimal flows for maintaining a high quality recreational experience in the 

CRE? 

 SSQ 3-8. What are the drivers for recreational experiences in the CRE, and how 

important are flows relative to other drivers in shaping recreational experience outcomes? 

Primary Core Monitoring Information Needs addressed: 

 CMIN 11.2.1 (SPG revised). Determine the condition of traditionally important resources 

and locations using tribal perspectives and values. 

Research Information Needs addressed: 
447 

 RIN 12.1.1 What is the economic value of the recreational use of the CRE downstream 

from GCD? 

 RIN 12.3.2 What are the differences between western science and tribal processes for 

design of studies and for gathering, analyzing, and interpreting data used in the adaptive 

management program? How well do research designs and work plans incorporate tribal 

perspectives and values into the standard western science paradigm? Is it more beneficial 

to keep the perspective separated? 

The development of the proposed project has occurred through communication with and 

cooperation from the GCDAMP Socioeconomics Ad Hoc Group (SEAHG). The SEAHG has 

repeatedly identified the proposed project elements as critical information needs (AMWG 

2012b). The proposed project elements are also based on coordinated activities with the NPS and 

Reclamation in conjunction with the LTEMP EIS. The proposed project elements will 

compliment current economic analysis associated with the LTEMP EIS. 

D. Proposed Work 

D.1. Project Elements 

Project Element 13.1. Economic Values of Recreational Resources along the Colorado River – Grand Canyon 

Whitewater Floater and Glen Canyon Angler Values – Recommended for Funding (FY15 $69,801; FY16 $ 

73,525; FY17 $0) 

Lucas Bair, Economist, USGS, GCMRC 

John Duffield, Research Professor, Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of 

Montana 

Chris Neher, Researcher, Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Montana 

David Patterson, Professor, Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Montana 

The objective of this project element is to determine preferences, regional expenditures, and 

economic values of anglers in GCNRA2 and whitewater floaters in GCNP3

, as affected by 

operation of GCD, to provide the GCDAMP and federal decision-makers with current recreation 

resources information for decision making. This project element has been initiated with FY13–

14 funds from Project K, Economist and Support ($241,305). Survey printing and mailing costs 

are included in the FY13-14 Project K funds. The funding request for FY15–16 is only for 

continued involvement of the GCMRC economist, Lucas Bair. 

To accomplish the project objective, a series of economic surveys will be conducted to obtain 

current information on recreationists’ preferences, expenditures, and economic values associated 

with angler and whitewater floater trips. Specifically, surveys of anglers in GCNRA and 

whitewater floaters in GCNP will include questions addressing:

 Regional expenditures associated with trip activities such as the cost of transportation, 

lodging, guide services, and various other local purchases. 

                                                            

2

 For purposes of this project element, anglers in GCNRA include walk-in anglers from Lees Ferry to Badger Creek 

Rapid. 

3

 This project does not include whitewater floaters that begin their trip at Diamond Creek. 
448 

 Trip attributes of importance such as crowding, fish catch characteristics, overall trip 

enjoyment, and other trip qualities. 

 Direct recreational use values (i.e., net economic benefits) to the recreationist, as 

measured by willingness to pay over and above trip costs. 

 Variation in direct recreational use values related to a range of flow levels presented in 

the surveys. 

As was the case with the original Bishop and others (1987) study, the proposed project will 

use a mail survey contact method with a follow-up protocol for non-responders. The respondents 

will be sent a mail survey packet, followed by a postcard reminder, and, later, by a second survey 

packet for non-responders. Non-respondents to the second survey packet will be contacted to 

complete non-response questions. 

A random sample from the most recent year’s whitewater floaters will be obtained with the 

assistance of GCNP and outfitters. GCNP maintains a comprehensive mailing list of all members 

of private whitewater floater parties. Additionally, commercial outfitters maintain mailing lists of 

the commercial clients. The survey will include: 1) private party floaters, 2) commercial motor 

powered floaters, and 3) commercial oar powered floaters. The target sample size will be 2,850 

whitewater floaters divided equally between private and commercial trip participants. The 

commercial sample will be further divided equally between oar and motor-powered trips. 

Anglers in Glen Canyon, using Lees Ferry downstream to Badger Creek Rapid as access 

points, will be contacted, in cooperation with Arizona Department of Game and Fish, during 

high use periods, spring (April-May) and fall (October-November), to participate in the surveys. 

No a priori attempt will be made to stratify the sampling based on guided or non-guided status. 

However, preferences, expenditures, and economic values of guided and non-guided anglers will 

be compared within the data analysis. Anglers contacted at Lees Ferry will be asked questions 

regarding demographics and attributes of their trip. In addition, anglers will be asked to provide 

contact information. The target sample size is 750 anglers. 

Statistical models appropriate for the experimental design and elicitation format of the 

surveys will be developed to evaluate the relationship between preferences, economic value and 

trip attributes (e.g., flow levels). The models will provide information on the relative preferences 

and economic value for trip attributes and the marginal rates of substitution between trip 

attributes. This information is necessary for the GCDAMP to make informed decisions about the 

economic tradeoffs that occur, with regard to recreation, when evaluating future management 

actions (see FY15–17 Workplan, Project Element 13.3).

Project Element 13.2. Tribal Perspectives for and Values of Resources Downstream of Glen Canyon Dam – 

Funding Uncertain (FY15 $0; FY16 $136,580; FY17 $128,065) 

Lucas Bair, Economist, USGS, GCMRC 

John Duffield, Research Professor, Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of 

Montana 

Chris Neher, Researcher, Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Montana 

David Patterson, Professor, Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Montana 

The objective of this project element is to identify tribal preferences and values associated 

with management of resources downstream of GCD in order to inform decision making 

processes in the GCDAMP. Defining individual tribe’s preferred actions or constraints 
449 

associated with management of downstream resources is important when evaluating potential 

actions and associated trade-offs. Emphasis will be placed on resources of tribal significance that 

are directly or indirectly affected by dam operations, experiments, and ongoing management. 

The assessment of tribal preferences and values will be achieved through focus group meetings 

with individual tribes, where choice experiment methods will be conducted to explicitly evaluate 

resource attributes tradeoffs that occur from management of GCD. The project will be 

implemented in in FY16, with continued dialogue and informational presentations provided by 

GCMRC staff throughout FY15 to facilitate the proposed research. 

The individual project elements will consist of four major tasks: 

1. Cooperate with GCDAMP Tribal representatives and Tribal members to review previous 

studies and tribal programs relating to tribal preferences for and values of resources 

downstream of GCD and obtain necessary permits to conduct research on tribal land. 

2. Conduct initial meetings with individual tribes to obtain permission and gauge interest in 

participation, identify focus group participants, and develop and pretest focus group 

survey content to ensure culturally appropriate methodology. 

3. Conduct focus group meetings with individual Tribal members to explore preferences for 

and values of downstream resources.4

 The meetings will use choice experiment methods 

(Breffle and Rowe, 2002; Harpman, 2008), which are commonly applied in marketing 

and resource economics studies, to identify these preferences and values. When 

appropriate, nominal compensation will be provided to Tribal members for their 

participation in focus groups. Focus groups provide an open forum for clarifying survey 

methods and participant questions. However, in-person, mail or alternative survey 

methods will be used if individual tribes discourage the use of focus groups. 

4. Analyze survey results and prepare manuscript for publication. Reports and presentations 

specific to the research methods and results of Project 13.2 will be provided to individual 

Tribes as requested. 

 For the choice experiment methods, downstream resource attributes of tribal importance 

(e.g., hydropower, humpback chub) and their potential variation with different future 

management actions will be defined in Task 2 and will shape the experimental design. The 

experimental design will be based on the number of possible scenarios to choose from, where 

respondents may be asked to evaluate all possible scenarios or just a subset of randomly chosen 

scenarios if the number of choices are unwieldy. Based on input during tribal consultation, future 

attribute levels will be either ranked, rated, or evaluated in a choice-based format (two alternative 

future scenarios compared and one is selected). It is important to note that comparisons among 

resource attributes can contain explicit cost information (e.g., forgone hydropower revenue) 

when comparing future resource attributes, or may just compare resource attributes alone. 

Statistical models appropriate for the experimental design and elicitation format will be 

developed to evaluate the relationship between preferences, or values, and resource attributes. 

The models will provide information on the relative preferences and values for resource 

                                                            

4

 Focus groups are considered “qualitative” research and require less time-intensive review by the Office of 

Management and Budget. 
450 

attributes and the rates of substitution between resource attribute tradeoffs.5 Information 

gained through this research is necessary for evaluation of management decisions and 

development of applied decision methods that accommodate tribal preferences for and values of 

downstream resources (see FY15–17 Workplan, Project Element 13.3). The anonymity of 

individual focus group participants and scientific integrity of the research is concomitant with the 

Office of Management and Budget survey review as part of the Paperwork Reduction Act and 

peer review, respectively. 

Project Element 13.3. Applied Decision Methods for the Glen Canyon Adaptive Management Program – 

Recommended for Funding (FY15 $106,803; FY16 $147,640; FY17 $228,984) 

Lucas Bair, Economist, USGS, GCMRC 

Charles Yackulic, Research Statistician, USGS, GCMRC 

Michael Springborn, Assistant Professor, University of California at Davis 

Craig Bond, Economist, Pardee RAND Graduate School 

The objective of this project element is to improve the GCDAMP’s ability to consider, 

organize and prioritize monitoring, research, and long-term management alternatives related to 

the operation of GCD. A decision support system comprised of analytical models, that 

incorporate economic parameters, will provide prompt assessment capabilities in science and 

management program planning. 

To accomplish this, existing published approaches to resource management under uncertainty 

will be evaluated. Specific attention will be paid to methods that improve decision making 

processes when evaluating resource tradeoffs related to monitoring, research, and management 

decisions. Evaluation efforts will focus on decision frameworks and analytical tools that best 

apply to the GCDAMP when considering the need for collaboration, complex 

biophysical/socioeconomic interactions, and constraints on GCDAMP resources. 

There are multiple analytical approaches used in decision frameworks that address resource 

management under uncertainty. These include maximizing expected utility, applying the 

precautionary principle and other robust decision making processes such as dynamic stochastic 

programming, optimal control, or simulation methods (Lempert and Collins, 2007). The various 

approaches differ in the types of scientific information utilized and the way in which decision 

process outcomes are framed and communicated (Lempert and Collins, 2007). 

There are also various types of decision support system frameworks that are important to 

consider when interdisciplinary teams of scientists and stakeholder groups that hold divergent 

views, or core values, are involved in the decision process. It is as important to address the 

decision process, or context, as it is to develop the scientific foundation, or content, of the 

analytical methods (Norton, 2005; Clifford and Sagoff, 2009). 

This project element will develop and implement a decision support system specific to the 

GCDAMP in a series of model development tasks. Analytical model development of 

downstream resources will be prioritized for resources that:

1. Contain significant economic value and/or that garner a significant portion of the 

GCMRC annual budget; 

2. Are impacted by operational decisions at GCD; and 

                                                            

5

 Model results will not quantify the economic value of the resource attribute. However, if price based attributes 

(e.g. hydropower costs) are assessed in the surveys, economic values can be ascertained. 
451 

3. Have sufficient predictive modeling frameworks developed to assess future resource 

states. 

The initial focus of this project element will be the development of a bioeconomic model to 

identify the economically preferred management strategy for established nonnative fish, in 

relation to humpback chub survival.6 This is a question explicitly identified in the NNFC 

(Reclamation, 2011). This task follows the model prioritization structure, (1) ecosystem values 

(including humpback chub) exhibit significant economic value (Welsh and other, 1995); (2) dam 

operation impacts non-native fish populations (see FY15-17 Workplan, Project 9), and (3) recent 

advancements in predictive models of rainbow trout and humpback chub survival have led to 

opportunities to evaluate humpback chub population management from an economic perspective 

(Yackulic and others, 2014). This task will evaluate economic outcomes, as part of the Yackulic 

and others (2014) model, to minimize the cost of rainbow trout removal over time, under 

different future scenarios. While the exact methodological approach will be determined through 

model development, the likely approaches include optimization (stochastic dynamic 

programming or optimal control) and/or simulation based approaches (Epanchin-Niell and 

Hasting, 2010). Incorporating future scenarios allows for modeling humpback chub recovery 

goals in various conditions while identifying strategies that are both cost-effective and robust to 

uncertain future conditions (e.g., climate). This analytical model, and accompanying 

documentation, will be completed in FY15. 

This proposed bioeconomic model utilizes cost-effectiveness analysis. Like cost-benefit 

analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis is a standard economic practice. However, cost-effectiveness 

fundamentally asks a different question than cost-benefit analysis. Cost-benefit analysis assigns 

an overall net benefit (or net cost) to a future management action. Cost-effectiveness analysis inturn identifies the least cost alternative, when faced with competing or complimentary 

management actions, to reach a defined objective. In this case, the objective is humpback cub 

recovery, as defined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

2002). Implementing cost-effectiveness analysis is consistent with the ROD’s goal, not to 

maximize benefits but to determine an operation at GCD that limits impact to hydropower while 

meeting recovery and long-term sustainability of downstream resources (Reclamation, 1996). 

There are several other implications when using cost-effectiveness analysis that are important 

to recognize. For example, it must be determined that the defined goal is worth achieving. This is 

demonstrated by either verifying the economic benefit of the objective outweighs the costs 

associated with achieving the objective or the objective is mandated through a public process. In 

the case of the humpback chub recovery goals, both the economic value of recovery exceeds the 

cost of proposed recovery actions and recovery goals are mandated through public process 

(Welsh and others, 1995; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2002). Conducting cost-effectiveness 

analysis also implies that the defined goal will be reached across all possible alternative future 

scenarios. Again, this is a reasonable assumption based on the recovery mandate (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 2002). This implication is important because it essentially removes the 

onerous, or in some cases contentious, identification of economic value of downstream 

resources. The focus is shifted from establishing the benefit of the objective to identifying the 

most cost-effective way to meet the objective (Sagoff, 2009). This is an important distinction 

when stakeholders may fundamentally reject attempts to economically value aspect of ecosystem 

                                                            

6

 Management strategies would consider constraints with respect to tribal concerns and other factors (e.g., whirling 

disease). 
452 

resources. Cost-effectiveness analysis isn’t appropriate in every context. However, it lends itself 

to the GCDAMP’s task of evaluating and prioritizing management actions, monitoring and 

research where incremental decisions must be made, under uncertainty, understanding that many 

overarching objectives are set through public processes. 

While the initial task is focused on research to identify the most cost-effective management 

actions with respect to non-native fish management policies, as identified in the NNFC 

(Reclamation, 2011), the modeling effort will be expanded in FY16–17 to include other 

downstream resources that impact rainbow trout and humpback chub populations, better 

facilitating decision making in the GCDAMP. Specifically, in FY16–17, subsequent tasks in 

model development will include: 

1. Identify the importance of parameter uncertainty on the sensitivity of cost-effective 

outcomes in the bioeconomic model. Evaluating parameter uncertainty will aid in the 

identification of the value and prioritization of monitoring and research (i.e., how 

scientific discovery and monitoring, and reducing model parameter uncertainty, decreases 

expected management costs) and demonstration of how modeling can prioritize future 

monitoring and research. This advancement in the analytical model, and accompanying 

documentation, will be completed in FY16–17. 

2. Incorporate additional management variables and associated costs, such as trout 

management flows at GCD, to improve humpback chub survival, again identifying the 

most cost-effective management alternatives under different future scenarios. This 

advancement in the analytical model, and accompanying documentation, will be 

completed in FY16–17. 

The decision support system will be developed over FY15–17 in cooperation with 

stakeholders, according to stakeholder’s expressed needs and the advancement of scientific 

knowledge at GCMRC. For example, updating the economic value of whitewater floating in 

GCNP will provide insight into modeling the tradeoffs between flow regimes and recreational 

experiences (see FY15–17 Workplan, Project Element 13.1). This deliberate process of building 

a decision support system through the development of individual analytical, predictive models 

will enable analysts to identify monitoring and scientific information needs and screen policy 

options as the GCDAMP advances its goals. This process is essential in enabling the GCDAMP 

to better organize and evaluate the scientific monitoring and research that is provided by 

GCMRC. 

D.2 Personnel and Collaborations 

The project lead is Lucas Bair. Collaborators for Project Elements 13.1 and 13.2. include 

John Duffield and Chris Neher, economists at the University of Montana, and David Patterson, a 

statistician at the University of Montana. These collaborators will assist with the development 

and implementation and analysis of recreational and tribal surveys. Collaborators for Project 

Element 13.3. will include Charles Yackulic and other biology and physical-sciences program 

staff at the GCMRC, mostly in supporting roles, Michael Springborn, an economist specializing 

in adaptive management, at the University of California at Davis, and Craig Bond, an economist 

specializing in adaptive management, at the RAND Corporation. These collaborators will assist 

with development of applied decision methods. 
453 

D.3. Deliverables 

Products from this project, led by Lucas Bair, will include annual reports to the GCDAMP, 

presentations at TWG and AMWG meetings when appropriate, presentations at scientific 

meetings, and peer-reviewed scientific journal articles. Reports and presentations specific to the 

research methods and results of Project 13.2 will be provided to individual Tribes as requested. 

 In FY16–17, one or two manuscripts will be prepared from the results of Project Element 

13.1 for submission to peer-reviewed scientific journals. 

 In FY17, one manuscript will be prepared from the results of Project Element 13.2 for 

submission to a peer-reviewed scientific journal. 

 In FY15–17, two or three manuscripts will be prepared from the results of Project 

Element 13.3 for submission to peer-reviewed scientific journals. 

 
454 

E. References 

Adamowicz , W., Beckley, T., Hatton Macdonald, D., Just, L., Luckert, M., Murray, E., and 

Phillips, W., 1998, In search of forest resource values of indigenous peoples--are nonmarket 

valuation techniques applicable?: Society & Natural Resources--An International Journal, v. 

11, no. 1, doi: 10.1080/08941929809381061, p. 51-66. 

Bishop, R.C., Boyle, K.J., Welsh, M.P., Baumgartner, R.M., and Rathbun, P.R., 1987, Glen 

Canyon Dam releases and downstream recreation--an analysis of user preferences and 

economic values: Madison, Wisc., Huberlein-Baumgartner Research Service, submitted to 

Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region, Glen Canyon Environmental Studies report 

no. GCES/27/87, 188 p. [Available from National Technical Information Service, 

Springfield, Va. as NTIS report PB88-182546/AS.] 

Bond, C.A., and Loomis, J.B., 2009, Using numerical dynamic programming to compare passive 

and active learning in the adaptive management of nutrients in shallow lakes: Canadian 

Journal of Agricultural Economics, v. 57, p. 555-573. 

Bond, C.A., 2010, On the potential use of adaptive control methods for improving adaptive 

natural resource management: Optimal Control Applications and Methods, v. 31, p. 55-56. 

Breffle, W.S., and Rowe, R.D., 2002, Comparing choice question formats for evaluating natural 

resource tradeoffs: Land Economics, v. 78, no. 2, p. 298-314. 

Clifford, R.S., and Sagoff, M., 2009, On the collaboration of economists and ecologists, in 

Clifford, R.S., and Sagoff, M., eds., Evolution of water resource planning and decision 

making: Northampton, Mass., Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc. 

Doremus, H., 2010, Adaptive management as an information problem: NCL Review, v. 89, p. 

1455. 

Epanchin-Niell, R.S., and Hastings, A., 2010, Controlling established invaders--integrating 

economics and spread dynamics to determine optimal management: Ecology Letters, v. 13, p. 

528-541. 

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP), 2004, Priority setting 

workshop--questions from stakeholders to help design GCMRC budget and workplan: 

Updated August 8, 2004, 

http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/amwg/mtgs/04aug09/Attach_13a.pdf. 

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Work Group (AMWG), 2012a, Desired future 

conditions for the Colorado River ecosystem in relation to Glen Canyon Dam: DFC Ad Hoc 

Committee Review 23 January 2012 as Approved by AMWG on February 23, 2012. 

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Work Group (AMWG), 2012b, Recommended 

information needs and program elements for a proposed AMP socioeconomics program as 

approved by AMWG on February 23, 2012: AMWG. 

Harpman, D.A., 2008, Introduction to conjoint analysis for valuing ecosystem amenities: U.S. 

Bureau of Reclamation, Technical Service Center, technical memorandum number EC 2008-

03. 

Hamilton, J.R., Hanemann, W.M., Loomis, J.B., and Peters, L., 2010, Final report of the 

GCMRC socioeconomic research review panel: Flagstaff, Ariz., U.S. Geological Survey, 

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, report of a workshop held December 2 & 3, 

2009, Phoenix, Ariz., http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/10mar15/Attach_03b.pdf. 
455 

Lempert, R.J., and Collins, M.T., 2007, Managing the risk of uncertain threshold responses--

comparison of robust, optimum, and precautionary approaches: Risk Analysis, v. 27, no. 4, 

doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2007.00940.x, p. 1009–1026. 

Loomis, J.B., Bond, C.A., and Harpman, D.A., 2009, The potential of agent-based modelling for 

performing economic analysis of adaptive natural resource management: Journal of Natural 

Resource Policy Research, v. 1, no. 1, p. 35-48. 

Loomis, J.B., Douglas, A.J., and Harpman, D.A., 2005, Recreation use values and nonuse values 

at Glen and Grand Canyon--chapter 9, in Gloss, S.P., Lovich, J.E., and Melis, T.S., eds., 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, 153-164 

p., http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1282/. 

Loomis, J.B., and Walsh, R., 1997, Recreation economic decisions--comparing benefits and 

costs (2d ed.): State College, Pa., Venture Publishing, 637 p. 

National Park Service, 2006, Colorado River management plan: Grand Canyon, Ariz., 

Department of the Interior, Grand Canyon National Park, Office of Planning and 

Compliance. 

Norton, B.G., 2005, Sustainability--a philosophy of adaptive ecosystem management: Chicago, 

Ill., University of Chicago Press. 

Sagoff, M., 2009, Collaborative adaptive management--challenges and opportunities: Ecology 

and Society, v. 18, no. 3, p. 26. 

Scarlet, L., 2013, Collaborative adaptive management--challenges and opportunities: Ecology 

and Society, v. 18, no. 3, p. 26. 

Springborn, M., and Sanchirico, J.N., 2013, A density projection approach for non-trivial 

information dynamics--adaptive management of stochastic natural resources: Journal of 

Environmental Economics and Management, v. 66, no. 3, p. 609-624, 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2013.07.003. 

Stewart, W.P., Larkin, K., Orland, B., Anderson, D., Manning, R., Cole, D., Taylor, J., and 

Tomar, N., 2000, Preferences of recreation user groups of the Colorado River in Grand 

Canyon--final report: Flagstaff, Ariz., submitted to U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon 

Monitoring and Research Center, cooperative agreement no. 98-FG-40-0190, 232 p., 

http://www.gcmrc.gov/library/reports/cultural/Recreation/Stewart2000.pdf. 

Bureau of Reclamation, 2011, Environmental assessment--non-native fish control downstream 

from Glen Canyon Dam: Salt Lake City, Utah, Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado 

Region, 102 p. + appendices, http://www.usbr.gov/uc/envdocs/ea/gc/nnfc/NNFC-EA.pdf. 

Bureau of Reclamation, 2014, Glen Canyon LTEMP environmental impact statement (EIS) 

update--presentation to AMWG, February 20, 2014: Bureau of Reclamation and National 

Park Service, http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/amwg/mtgs/14feb19/Attach_11b.pdf. 

Bureau of Reclamation, 1996, Record of decision on the operation of Glen Canyon Dam--final 

environmental impact statement: Salt Lake City, Utah, Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive 

Management Program,, UC-326 ENV-6.00, 15 p., accessed on July 22, 2011, at 

http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/pdfs/sp_appndxG_ROD.pdf. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2002, Humpback chub (Gila cypha) recovery goals--amendment 

and supplement to the humpback chub recovery plan: Denver, Colo., U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Mountain Prairie Region, 71 p., http://www.fws.gov/mountainprairie/crrip/doc/rg/Humpbackchub.pdf. 
456 

U.S. Geological Survey, 2006, Strategic science plan to support the Glen Canyon Dam adaptive 

management program--Fiscal years 2007-11: U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon 

Monitoring and Research Center, in cooperation with the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive 

Management Program (GCDAMP), 11 p., 

http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/amwg/mtgs/06dec05/Attach_07b.pdf. 

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

of adaptive management policies in the Grand Canyon: Conservation Ecology, v. 4, no. 2, p. 

1-38, http://www.consecol.org/vol4/iss2/art1/. 

Welsh, M.P., Bishop, R.C., Phillips, M.L., and Baumgartner, R.M., 1995, Glen Canyon Dam 

Colorado River storage project, Arizona--non-use values final study summary report: 

Madison, Wisc., Hagler Bailly Consulting, Inc., National Technical Information Service no. 

PB98-106636, 37 p. 

Yackulic, C.B., Coggins, L., and Korman, J., 2014, An overview of rainbow trout-humpback 

chub model developed for the LTEMP environmental impact statement (EIS): Flagstaff, 

Ariz., U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center. 
457 

F. Budget 

Core activities

Support implementation and

evaluation of HFE Protocol and

Non‐Native Fish Control

Technical and analytical

innovations in monitoring

Improving predictive modeling

capacity

Resolving scientific uncertainty

Independent science oversight

and review

Integrating tribes in monitoring

and research

Project Identifier Project Description Salaries Travel & Training Operating Expenses Logistics Coop‐ erators (non‐USGS) USGS Coop‐erat

13

Socio‐economic

Monitoring and Research $118,800 $12,500 $1,000 $0 $22,500 

X 13.1

Economic Values of Recreational

Resources Along the Colorado

River – Grand Canyon Whitewater

Floater and Lees Ferry Angler

Values

Bair et al. $54,700 $5,000 $500 $0 $0 

X 13.2

Tribal Values and Perspectives of

Resources Downstream of Glen

Canyon Dam

Bair et al. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

X 13.3

Applied Decision Methods for the

Glen Canyon Adaptive

Management Plan

Bair et al. $64,100 $7,500 $500 $0 $22,500 

13

Socio‐economic

Monitoring and Research $124,900 $12,500 $11,100 $0 $171,500 

X 13.1

Economic Values of Recreational

Resources Along the Colorado

River – Grand Canyon Whitewater

Floater and Lees Ferry Angler

Values

Bair et al. $57,500 $2,500 $300 $0 $0 

X 13.2

Tribal Values and Perspectives of

Resources Downstream of Glen

Canyon Dam

Bair et al. $0 $2,500 $10,300 $0 $117,500 

X 13.3

Applied Decision Methods for the

Glen Canyon Adaptive

Management Plan

Bair et al. $67,400 $7,500 $500 $0 $54,000 

Monitoring Research

FY15FY16
458 

Core activities

Support implementation and

evaluation of HFE Protocol and

Non‐Native Fish Control

Technical and analytical

innovations in monitoring

Improving predictive modeling

capacity

Resolving scientific uncertainty

Independent science oversight

and review

Integrating tribes in monitoring

and research

Project Identifier Project Description Salaries Travel & Training Operating Expenses Logistics Coop‐ erators (non‐USGS) USGS Coop‐erat

13

Socio‐economic

Monitoring and Research $127,400 $12,500 $1,000 $0 $171,500 

X 13.1

Economic Values of Recreational

Resources Along the Colorado

River – Grand Canyon Whitewater

Floater and Lees Ferry Angler

Values

Bair et al. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

X 13.2

Tribal Values and Perspectives of

Resources Downstream of Glen

Canyon Dam

Bair et al. $0 $5,000 $500 $0 $117,500 

X 13.3

Applied Decision Methods for the

Glen Canyon Adaptive

Management Plan

Bair et al. $127,400 $7,500 $500 $0 $54,000 

FY17

Monitoring Research
459 

Monitoring: Core activities 

Project 14. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) 

Services and Support 

Initial Estimate: FY15: $222,800; FY16: $236,500; FY17: $253,900 

GCDAMP Funding: FY15: $222,800; FY16: $219,900; FY17: $241,200 

A. Investigators 

Thomas M. Gushue, GIS Coordinator, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center 

Timothy Andrews, IT Specialist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center 

TBD, Geographer (GS-09), U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research 

Center 

B. Project Summary 

 Geographic Information Systems (GIS) continues to play a critical role in nearly all of 

GCMRC’s science efforts and is prevalent in many of the projects proposed in the FY2015-17 

Triennial Work Plan. It is used across disciplines and is itself a powerful tool for integrating 

geospatial data collected by many different projects. The GIS Services and Support project is the 

epicenter of GCMRC’s geospatial knowledge and support for a broad range of activities. It 

supports acquisition of remote sensing overflight data and river-based data collection efforts, 

provides geospatial expertise across all resources of interest, maintains and preserves all 

geospatial data holdings, and produces a wide range of cartographic, geographic and analytical 

output in support of GCMRC’s science projects. Linkages to other projects in this work plan are 

addressed in the Geospatial Data Analysis element of this project (14.1.1.) and more specifically 

outlined in Table 1 at the end of this project description. This project provides a high-level of 

support to other GCMRC projects in the form geospatial data processing and analysis, geospatial 

data management, and the development of web-based services and applications that provide 

access to GCMRC’s geospatial data holdings. 

 As we move into a new planning cycle, an opportunity exists to promote a vision of how a 

GIS project will successfully function within GCMRC and meet the current and future needs of 

scientists, managers and the public alike. Most work performed within this project falls within 

one of three main tenets: Geospatial Data Analysis, Geospatial Data Management, and Access to 

Geospatial Data Holdings. These concepts are not new, and have been a part of GCMRC work 

in various forms over the last 15 years or more. This project description affords us a chance to 

more clearly define each of these elements and how they relate to individual projects as well as 

GCMRC’s overall mission. 
460 

 Figure 1. One example of many Grand Canyon location maps designed and produced by GIS staff in support of GCDAMP 

activities. 

C. Background

C.1. Scientific Background 

 Research and monitoring efforts at GCMRC have led to the collection of a wealth of 

geospatial information over the last twenty years. Many of GCMRC’s geospatial data holdings 

have large spatial extents (from Lake Powell to Lake Mead), fine resolutions (20-cm pixels for 

imagery, 0.01 meter spatial tolerances), and large file sizes with tens of thousands to millions of 

records per file. This presents a challenge to map a considerably large area at very fine scales, as 

does the sinuosity of the Colorado River and the extreme elevation changes found in Grand 

Canyon. Challenges also arise in handling, analyzing, storing and serving these unique data sets. 

The GIS staff at GCMRC has met these challenges by continuing to provide a stable and 

consistent platform for conducting geospatial processing, analysis and output for over a decade. 

 The last ten years have seen many advances in the geospatial industry, with some of the more 

noticeable changes coming in the role that GIS and geospatial data now play in our daily lives. 

Similarly, the role of GIS within GCMRC has changed during this same time period. The most 

recent versions of GIS software have become easier to use with more standardized workflows for 

creating, maintaining, processing and analyzing geospatial data. This has allowed science staff 

to begin using GIS tools on their own, thus broadening the Center’s base knowledge in GIS. It 

has also increased the amount and level of support requested of GIS professional staff within 

GCMRC. 
461 

 Over the last decade, the use of GIS within GCMRC has evolved into a fully functioning, 

mature, enterprise-level system. All geospatial information collected and produced by GCMRC 

can be overlaid, analyzed and integrated. More recently, the GIS staff has made a concerted 

effort to stay at the forefront of technological advances in providing access to geospatial 

information online. Final versions of geospatial data are available internally through both filebased and server-based platforms, and externally through custom-built web mapping applications 

on GCMRC’s website, as well as other online avenues (see Project Elements 14.3.1 and 14.3.2). 

Anyone can now access many of GCMRC’s most important geospatial data sets online including 

canyon-wide, aerial imagery (Fig. 2) and elevation data of the CRe between Lakes Powell and 

Mead, locations of river campsites used by recreationalists, long-term sandbar monitoring DEM 

surfaces, site photographs of campsites and sandbars, and sandbar deposition photographs before 

and after recent high flow events. These data serve as a tremendous resource to managers, 

stakeholders, and members of the general public interested in Grand Canyon and its resources. 

 The advances made by GCMRC in online mapping applications have already proven useful 

in supporting management activities such as the development of the Glen Canyon Dam LongTerm Experimental and Management Plan (LTEMP) Environmental Impact Statement. In 

addition, they provide opportunities for scientific collaborations not previously possible. 

Figure 2. Aerial imagery collected in May 2009 showing the top of Hance Rapid. Digital imagery collected in years 2002, 

2005, and 2009, along with many other geospatial data sets, can be viewed online at http://www.gcmrc.gov/ 

 
462 

C.2. Management Background 

 As the science provider for the Glen Canyon Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP), 

GCMRC is responsible for providing complete and spatially accurate geospatial data in support 

of funded GCDAMP projects. Historically, this responsibility was outlined in the Adaptive 

Management Work Group’s (AMWG) original list of program goals (Goal 12: Maintain a high 

quality monitoring, research and adaptive management program), and upheld by GCMRC’s GIS 

and Survey staff, both formerly a part of a now nonexistent Information Technology (IT) 

program. The elements of GIS and Survey (Project 3.5) still remain and have continued to 

provide the expertise required to maintain federal guidelines and standards for data quality and 

accuracy as well as fully support the needs of GCMRC scientists and managers. 

 The ability to maintain consistent and accurate geospatial information, perform necessary 

analyses on geospatial data, and integrate information across projects has been essential to other 

GCMRC projects directly supporting many of the other GCDAMP goals. Successive 

refinements of GCDAMP goals, objectives, and questions (Core Monitoring Information Needs, 

Research Information Needs, Strategic Science Questions, Desired Future Conditions, and the 

HFE EA) all still rely on GCMRC’s ability to maintain, process and serve highly accurate 

geospatial information, and in some cases, have prompted the need for new or additional data to 

be collected and processed. 

 Beginning in 1999, GCMRC’s GIS staff undertook the development of a canyon-wide, 

spatially consistent Geographic Information Systems platform. The centerpiece of this platform 

was the GCMRC centerline and river mileage reference system that was completed in 2002. 

This data set cross-referenced the most commonly used river mile systems in existence at the 

time, and has since become the backbone of all georeferenced information collected or 

developed along the Colorado River corridor. Nearly all scientific research, published literature, 

management decisions, and even commercially available river guide books now use this system 

for referencing locations along the river. The GCMRC centerline and river mileage reference 

system, as well as all other geospatial data collected or derived within the Colorado River 

corridor, are dependent on the survey control network (Project Element 3.5). These two 

components (GIS and Survey) remain closely tied and together have produced a spatially 

accurate and logically consistent georeference system used by all GCMRC projects. This 

geospatial system is comprised of data sets, databases, workflows, processing techniques and 

metadata documentation that is adaptable to new advances in technology, and yet continues to be 

a stable platform for conducting long-term scientific studies of the Colorado River. Even as 

management needs change and become further refined, it is anticipated that the role of GIS as 

both a scientific and management support tool will continue to become increasingly important. 

C.3. Key Monitoring and Research Questions Addressed in this project 

 For relationships between the GIS Services and Support project and key monitoring and 

research questions, please refer to project linkages briefly described below in Geospatial Data 

Analysis (14.1.1.) and more specifically listed in Table 1 of this project description.

 
463 

D. Proposed Work 

D.1. Project Elements 

Project Element 14.1. Geospatial Data Analysis 

Thomas M. Gushue, GIS Coordinator, USGS, GCMRC 

Timothy Andrews, IT Specialist, USGS, GCMRC 

TBD, Geographer (GS-09), USG, GCMRC 

 To measure the amount of GIS support provided to all projects in the FY2015-17 Work plan, 

we estimated the number of pay periods required of GIS professional staff to assist with 

geospatial related tasks for each project element. The level of involvement was determined in 

consultation with principal investigators and other researchers for each project with specific 

geospatial processing, analytical tasks and associated writing assignments described within the 

appropriate project element. In some cases, senior GIS staff members are assigned as coinvestigators to specific projects or project elements that require high-level geospatial application 

and analytical support (see Project Elements 3.1.2, 3.1.4, 9.9, and 10.1). Proposed research 

efforts defined in the work plan that will require a significant amount of high-level GIS support 

include elements of projects 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10. For project elements requiring geospatial 

support that is lower-level in nature (Projects 8 and 11), the work to be performed is considered 

to be fairly simple, commonly performed tasks requiring less than one day of one person’s time. 

A listing of GIS support planned for all pertinent project elements is provided in Table 1 at the 

end of this project description. 

 Figure 3. Two examples of map products designed and produced by GIS staff in support of a) GCDAMP management 

actions, a map series illustrating anticipated inundation areas related to the November 2012 HFE (left), and b) GCMRC 
464 

science efforts, a map book series created specifically for the system-wide electrofishing project (right), Project element 6.4

in FY2015-17 work plan. 

Project Element 14.2.1. Geospatial Data Management 

Thomas M. Gushue, GIS Coordinator, USGS, GCMRC 

Timothy Andrews, IT Specialist, USGS, GCMRC 

TBD, Geographer (GS-09), USG, GCMRC 

 

 Geospatial data and how these data are handled has changed considerably in the last ten 

years. Improvements in remote sensing technologies have resulted in much larger, more 

accurate geospatial data sets that require advanced storage and retrieval systems. As a solution, 

the GIS industry has moved away from the traditional desktop environment (localized software 

and data ) to an enterprise environment consisting of server and client roles where the ability to 

share large amounts of geospatial data and associated analytical tools is increasingly more 

important. Previously, individuals processing and maintaining their own individual data sets (i.e. 

Arc/Info coverages, shapefiles) was the norm; now organizations build GIS services and 

applications for GIS users to consume in many different ways. The move towards an enterprise 

GIS system at GCMRC began over a decade ago, however, this effort has gained momentum 

over the last five years. In 2011, a stand-alone Oracle database was designed and built 

specifically for storing and serving large amounts of geospatial data. Prior to this time, all 

tabular and spatial were stored on the same Oracle database server which caused many data 

storage and access issues. Since 2012, we have been populating an Oracle Spatial Database 

with a range of geospatial data sets that are used locally by GCMRC for mapping and analysis 

purposes and consumed by the public through our web mapping services online. 

 Geospatial data management incorporates the organization and documentation of both filebased and server-based geospatial data. This needs to be a collaborative effort with GIS staff 

providing the lead through consultation on the best practices for organizing, storing, using, 

processing and documenting geospatial data, and GCMRC project staff adhering to protocols and 

best practices. Each project is unique, and how the geospatial data are organized is the 

responsibility of the principal investigator or another member of the project assigned as the data 

steward. This mostly speaks to file-based data (data stored in directories and folders). Serverbased geospatial data are final versions of data sets stored within an Oracle Spatial Database. 

These are enterprise-level data sets that range from canyon-wide data collection missions 

(overflight imagery, digital surface models) to long-term monitoring efforts (site-based and 

reach-based topographic surveys) to more localized reference layers (Glen Canyon Fish 

Sampling Units). The GCMRC Oracle Spatial Database now contains over 3.5 terabytes of 

geospatial data, with more being added every year. 

 By leveraging the power of an Oracle database, very large data sets, such as 20-cm pixel 

resolution, 4-band (Red, Green, Blue, and Near-Infrared wavelengths) digital imagery for 300 

miles of river, can be stored and served efficiently allowing for improved access to geospatial 

data by multiple users through many different avenues. While maintaining an Oracle database 

does come with some additional responsibility for GIS staff, the benefits by far outweigh the 

costs in terms of staff time. While the ease of access and improved performance alone would 

warrant using an enterprise system, the power of server-based data storage and retrieval is truly 

realized when considering how much utility is gained through this system. Data stored just once 

in an Oracle database can be accessed simultaneously on a local desktop computer, through 

GCMRC’s web mapping applications, on a mobile device application, and through services to a 
465 

remote computer. The effort devoted to building and improving upon this aspect of our data 

management capability will benefit most, if not all, projects and GCMRC as a whole. 

Project Element 14.2.2. GIS Process and Data Set Documentation 

Thomas M. Gushue, GIS Coordinator, USGS, GCMRC 

Timothy Andrews, IT Specialist, USGS, GCMRC 

TBD, Geographer (GS-09), USG, GCMRC 

 Senior GIS staff members will also be in charge of writing USGS Open-File Reports and 

possibly other published works that document geospatial data sets, GIS processes and other GISrelated applications developed for GCMRC. These published reports would follow the USGS 

peer and policy review process and provide the necessary, citable building blocks for other, more 

scientifically rigorous manuscripts developed by other projects. Currently, a need exists for 

researchers to be able to cite some of our most basic data sets, such as the GCMRC river mile 

system, within their own manuscripts. 

Outcomes and Products – FY15 

 The GCMRC Centerline and River Mileage Reference System. A published data series 

report on the methods and processes used to develop this system and the associated cross 

reference work with other known mile systems used for the Colorado River between 

Lake Powell and Lake Mead. 

Outcomes and Products – FY16 

 The GCMRC Colorado River Map Book. A data series/map series publication of 

GCMRC’s most commonly used river map book developed by GIS staff as a field 

reference for scientific work conducted on the Colorado River in Grand Canyon. The 

map book to be published will contain many of GCMRC’s geospatial data sets including 

most recent available overflight imagery (May 2013), GCMRC’s river mile system, 

monitored and National Park System river campsites, river rapids, place names, and 

tributaries of the Colorado River. Peer and policy reviews will be required prior to 

making this mapping product more widely available. 

Outcomes and Products – FY17 

 The GCMRC Colorado River Fish Sampling Cross Reference System. A data series 

report on the methods used to develop a fish sampling system currently used by all 

mainstem sampling efforts, and how the cross reference relationships were built to join 

previously collected fish monitoring data associated with mainstem sampling. 

Project Element 14.3.1. Access to Geospatial Data Holdings – The Geospatial Portal 

Thomas M. Gushue, GIS Coordinator, USGS, GCMRC 

Timothy Andrews, IT Specialist, USGS, GCMRC 

TBD, Geographer (GS-09), USG, GCMRC 

 

 Along with the strides made in developing an enterprise-level GIS at GCMRC, new GIS 

services leveraging the Oracle Spatial Database have been deployed both internally for desktop 
466 

GIS users and through GCMRC’s public-facing website to provided better access to more 

geospatial data holdings than ever before (Fig. 4). How geospatial data are stored and served is 

intimately tied to how users will access these data sets. Perhaps the most powerful aspect of 

using GIS services for disseminating data is the flexibility in how data can be packaged (a single 

service for an individual data set, multiple services containing many data sets within one map, 

time-enabled services, 3D services, etc.) and how these services can be consumed (desktop 

mapping applications, web page maps, website applications, mobile device applications, etc.). 

Geographic Information Systems services are the new currency for sharing geospatial data, and 

providing a single website for accessing these services is the next logical step for improving 

access to GCMRC’s geospatial data holdings. 

Figure 4. GCMRC’s interactive campsite and sandbar site map with integrated photo viewer. Users can query campsite 

and sandbar site data sets, view related attributes, and launch available photo collections that offer thousands of on-site and

remote camera photographs. 

 

 In 2014, a beta version Geospatial Portal is being designed and built that will streamline 

access to many of GCMRC’s most frequently used and requested geospatial data sets. 

Ultimately, the Geospatial Portal will provide access to all of GCMRC’s finished geospatial 

products. The Geospatial Portal builds on the existing Oracle-ESRI system architecture 

currently used by GCMRC for creating and sharing GIS Services, and so many of the 

components needed for the Geospatial Portal are already in place. The portal will provide access 

to maps, data sets, metadata, applications and other associated data through an organized, 

searchable interface. Services accessible through the portal will range from a basic map of 

where GCMRC projects conduct their field work to an application with interactive tools for 

analyzing sandbar changes over time to a map service that allows researchers to create and print 

their own field maps. 

 Ultimately, GCMRC project leads and outside cooperators will be able to share data through 

this system, pushing the Geospatial Portal beyond just a content delivery system into a truly 

collaborative tool. While it is anticipated that a development version of the Geospatial Portal 

will be available in FY15, it is likely that populating the portal with content will be an ongoing 
467 

activity. Benchmarks for what is made available through the Geospatial Portal will be addressed 

as project-specific geospatial data sets are finalized. 

Project Element 14.3.2. Access to Geospatial Data Holdings – ESRI’s ArcGIS Online 

Thomas M. Gushue, GIS Coordinator, USGS, GCMRC 

Timothy Andrews, IT Specialist, USGS, GCMRC 

TBD, Geographer (GS-09), USG, GCMRC 

 In FY13–14, GCMRC’s GIS staff began using ESRI’s online portal service for disseminating 

data to a much wider audience than ever before. This service, ArcGIS Online, has quickly 

become one of the most used geospatial content delivery systems available on the web. There 

are currently several GCMRC applications and data sets available through this online system 

(see Data Products section). In FY15–17, we plan to expand on the data made available to the 

public through this service. The benefit of using ArcGIS online in addition to hosting our own 

geospatial portal is that a particular service only needs to be created once by GIS staff, but can 

then be posted on both GCMRC’s website and through ESRI’s ArcGIS Online to reach a wider 

audience. 

D.2 Personnel and Collaborations 

 The personnel required for this project includes two full-time senior (GS-12) GIS 

professionals and one full-time junior-level (GS-09) GIS professional. Geospatial data 

processing and analysis tasks performed specifically for other project elements are described and 

budgeted within those project descriptions (see Table 1 below for a listing of those project 

elements). Additionally, one half-time junior-level (GS-09) GIS professional will be assigned to 

GIS Services and Support project elements (14.2.2. and 14.3.2.). 

D.3 Deliverables 

See “Outcomes and Products” in Project Element 14.2.2. 

E. Productivity from Past Work (during FY 13–14) 

E.1. Data Products 

List of existing Products (from FY13–14) 

 Web Mapping Applications and Services available on GCMRC’s website 

Maps and Data Portal: http://www.gcmrc.gov/dasa/ (Fig. 5) 

 GCMRC Interactive Campsite and Sandbar Map with Photo Viewer: 

http://www.gcmrc.gov/gis/silvermap1.aspx (requires Microsoft Silverlight) 

 GCMRC Campsite Atlas Viewer: http://www.gcmrc.gov/gis/silveratlas1.aspx (requires 

Microsoft Silverlight) 

 Grand Canyon River Campsites Tour: http://www.gcmrc.gov/gis/camptour/index.html 

(multiplatform, works on Windows, Mac, iOS, Android operating systems) 

 Photo Viewer application: http://www.gcmrc.gov/gis/silverimage1.aspx (view thousands 

of sandbar and campsite photos, requires Microsoft Silverlight) 
468 

 Dual Photo Viewer application: http://www.gcmrc.gov/gis/silverdualpivot.aspx (view 

thousands of sandbar and campsite photos side-by-side for comparison, requires 

Microsoft Silverlight) 

Figure 5. Sample image from GCMRC’s website showing the Maps and Data Portal page. 

Availability of GCMRC data and services on ESRI’s http://www.arcgis.com/home/

 Digital imagery of the Colorado River corridor between Glen Canyon Dam and Lake 

Mead (2002, 2005, and 2009) 

 10-meter Digital Elevation Model (DEM) of the Grand Canyon basin 

 Fine-grained Integrated Sediment Team (FIST) reach-based full channel topography 

(2000 – 2005) 

 Sandbar deposition map tour web application following the HFEs of 2012 and 2013 

 Campsite atlas map tour web application 

 Grand Canyon base layers web mapping application 

E.2. Presentations at GCDAMP meetings 

 Development of a new web mapping and photo viewer application for the Grand Canyon 

Monitoring and Research Center, Poster presentation at GCDAMP Technical Work 

Group meeting, Phoenix, AZ, January 28, 2014. 

 Extending sandbar monitoring back in time using photogrammetry, digital terrain 

extraction, and orthorectification of historical aerial imagery, Grand Canyon, Arizona, 

Poster presentation at GCDAMP Technical Work Group meeting, Phoenix, AZ, January 

28, 2014. 
469 

 Low flows in Glen Canyon: preliminary geomorphic analysis of the potential effects on 

fish and food base, Presentation by T.S. Melis and others, at GCDAMP Technical Work 

Group meeting, Phoenix, AZ, January 28, 2014. 

 Preliminary low-flows study in the Lees Ferry tailwater below Glen Canyon Dam, Poster 

presentation at GCDAMP Technical Work Group meeting, Phoenix, AZ, January 28, 

2014. 

E.5. Presentations at professional meetings 

Development of a new web mapping and photo viewer application for the Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center, Poster presentation at ESRI UC Conference, July 2013, San Diego, CA
470 

F. Budget 

Core activities

Support implementation and

evaluation of HFE Protocol and

Non‐Native Fish Control

Technical and analytical

innovations in monitoring

Improving predictive modeling

capacity

Resolving scientific uncertainty

Independent science oversight

and review

Integrating tribes in monitoring

and research

Project Identifier Project Description Salaries Travel & Training Operating Expenses Logistics Coop‐ erators (non‐USGS) USGS Coop‐erat

X 14

Geographic Information

Systems, Services, and

Support

Gushue et al. $171,300 $4,000 $17,400 $0 $0 

X 14

Geographic Information

Systems, Services, and

Support

Gushue et al. $172,900 $6,000 $16,000 $0 $0 

X 14

Geographic Information

Systems, Services, and

Support

Gushue et al. $179,300 $4,000 $16,000 $0 $0 

FY17

Monitoring Research

FY15FY16
471 

Table 1. A list of GIS planned support for FY2015–17 Triennial Work Plan      Number of Pay

Periods

Project Title Name Project

Number

GIS Staff Project Element Title FY15   FY16 FY17

Sandbars and Sediment

Storage Dynamics

3.1.2 Tom Gushue, GS‐12 Monitoring sandbars and shorelines above

8,000 ft3/s by remote sensing

2 1 1

Sandbars and Sediment

Storage Dynamics

3.1.2 Geographer, GS‐09 Monitoring sandbars and shorelines above

8,000 ft3

/s by remote sensing

2 3 3

Sandbars and Sediment

Storage Dynamics

3.1.4 Tom Gushue, GS‐12 Analysis of historical images at select

monitoring sites

4 4 4

Sandbars and Sediment

Storage Dynamics

3.1 Tim Andrews, GS‐12 Sandbar Monitoring 1 1 1

Connectivity along the

fluvial‐aeolian‐hillslope

continuum

4.2 Tim Andrews, GS‐12 Monitoring of cultural sites in Grand and

Marble Canyons

4 4 4

Foobase Monitoring and

Research

5.1.1

5.2

Geographer, GS‐09 Insect emergence in Grand Canyon via

citizen science; Patterns and controls of

aquatic drift

2 2 2

Foobase Monitoring and

Research

5.2 Tim Andrews, GS‐12 Patterns and controls of aquatic drift 4 4 4

Mainstem Colorado

River humpback chub

aggregations

6.1 Tom Gushue, GS‐12 Monitoring humpback chub aggregation

relative abundance and distribution

2 2 1

Mainstem Colorado

River Humpback Chub

Aggregations

6.1

6.2

6.7

Geographer, GS‐09 Mainstem Colorado River humpback chub

aggregations and fish community dynamics

(four elements supported)

1 2 2

Mainstem Colorado

River Fish Community

Dynamics

6.4 Geographer, GS‐09 System‐wide Electrofishing 1 2 3

Population Ecology of

Humpback Chub in LCR

7.1 Geographer, GS‐09 Annual spring/fall humpback chub

abundance estimates in the lower 13.6 km

of the LCR

1 2 3

Population Ecology of

Humpback Chub in LCR

7.2

7.3

7.5

Geographer, GS‐09 Juvenile Chub Monitoring in the mainstem

near LCR; July LCR juvenile humpback chub

marking; Food web monitoring in the Little

Colorado River.

2 2 2

Population Ecology of

Humpback Chub in LCR

7.3 Tim Andrews, GS‐12 GIS software development for field mapping

and data entry applications

2 2 2

Population Ecology of

Humpback Chub in LCR

7.4 Tim Andrews, GS‐12 Remote PIT tag array monitoring 3 3 3

Rainbow Trout in Glen

and Marble Canyons

9.1

9.2

Tom Gushue, GS‐12 Lees Ferry Rainbow Trout Monitoring;

Detection of Rainbow Trout Movement

2 2 1

Rainbow Trout in Glen

and Marble Canyons

9.9 Tom Gushue, GS‐12 Effects of High Flow Experiments on

Rainbow Trout Population Dynamics

2 2 2

Rainbow Trout in Glen

and Marble Canyons

9.1       

9.9

Geographer, GS‐09 Lees Ferry Rainbow Trout: Monitoring,

Analysis, and Study Design;   Effects of High

Flow Experiments on Rainbow Trout

Population Dynamics

1 1 1

Mapping Flow

Inundation of Shoreline

Areas and Bed Textures

10.1 Tom Gushue, GS‐12 Refine Hummingbird Sidescan Sonar and

other Channel Mapping Methods to Support

Fish and Foodbase Research

3 4 4
472 

Mapping Flow

Inundation of Shoreline

Areas and Bed Textures

10.1 Geographer, GS‐09 Refine Hummingbird Sidescan Sonar and

other Channel Mapping Methods to Support

Fish and Foodbase Research

2 2 2

Riparian Vegetation

Monitoring and Analysis

11.1 Geographer, GS‐09 Project Element 11.1.  Ground‐based

Vegetation Monitoring

1 0 0

GIS Services and

Support

14.2.1 Tom Gushue, GS‐12 Geospatial Data Management 4 5 5

GIS Services and

Support

14.2.1 Geographer, GS‐09 Geospatial Data Management 7 5 4

GIS Services and

Support

14.2.2 Tom Gushue, GS‐12 GIS Process and Data Set Documentation 5 4 4

GIS Services and

Support

14.2.2 Geographer, GS‐09 GIS Process and Data Set Documentation 6 5 4

GIS Services and

Support

14.2.2 Tim Andrews, GS‐12 GIS Process and Data Set Documentation 6 5 5

GIS Services and

Support

14.2.2 SBSC Geographer,

GS‐09

GIS Process and Data Set Documentation 5 5 5

GIS Services and

Support

14.3.1

14.3.2

Tom Gushue, GS‐12 Access to Geospatial Data Holdings 4 4 6

GIS Services and

Support

14.3.1

14.3.2

Tim Andrews, GS‐12 Access to Geospatial Data Holdings 6 5 5

GIS Services and

Support

14.3.1

14.3.2

SBSC Geographer,

GS‐09

Access to Geospatial Data Holdings 8 8 8

   
473 

Monitoring: Core activities 

Project 15. Administration 

Initiall Estimate: FY15: $1,298,500; FY16: $1,432,700; FY17: $1,556,300 

GCDAMP Funding: FY15: $1,298,500; FY16: $1,332,400; FY17: $1,478,500 

The USGS Administration budget covers salaries for the communications coordinator, the 

librarian, and the budget analyst for GCMRC, in addition to monetary awards for all GCMRC 

personnel. The vehicle section covers GSA vehicle costs including monthly lease fee, mileage 

costs, and any costs for accidents and damage. DOI vehicles are also included in this section of 

the budget to pay for vehicle gas, maintenance, and replacements costs. Leadership personnel 

covers salary for the GCMRC Chief and Deputy Chief, half the salary for two program 

managers, and some of the travel and training costs for these personnel. AMWG/TWG travel 

covers the cost of GCMRC personnel to travel to the AMWG and TWG meetings. SBSC 

Information Technology (IT) overhead covers GCMRCs IT equipment costs. Logistics base 

costs covers salaries and travel/training. These base costs also include a $35,000 contribution to 

the equipment and vehicles working capital fund. 
474 

Budget 

Core activities

Support implementation and

evaluation of HFE Protocol and

Non‐Native Fish Control

Technical and analytical

innovations in monitoring

Improving predictive modeling

capacity

Resolving scientific uncertainty

Independent science oversight

and review

Integrating tribes in monitoring

and research

Project Identifier Project Description Salaries Travel & Training Operating Expenses Logistics Coop‐ erators (non‐USGS) USGS Coop‐erat

15

Administration and

Support $770,600 $35,000 $227,000 $20,000 $79,000 

X 15.1 GCMRC Admin and Support $511,300 $30,000 $227,000 $20,000 $79,000 

X 15.2 GCMRC logistical support $259,300 $5,000 $0 $0 $0 

15

Administration and

Support $827,700 $37,500 $226,500 $20,000 $81,500 

X 15.1 GCMRC Admin and Support $563,200 $32,000 $226,500 $20,000 $81,500 

X 15.2 GCMRC logistical support $264,500 $5,500 $0 $0 $0 

15

Administration and

Support $847,900 $40,000 $246,000 $20,000 $84,000 

X 15.1 GCMRC Admin and Support $578,100 $34,000 $246,000 $20,000 $84,000 

X 15.2 GCMRC logistical support $269,800 $6,000 $0 $0 $0 

FY17

Monitoring Research

FY15FY16
475 

Appendices 

Appendix 1 references Project 1, which is funded through a different account. 

Appendix 2-A summarizes the source of funding for each project element for the FY15 budget. 

Project elements for which no funding source has presently been identified are listed. 

Appendix 2-B summarizes the categories for the FY15 budget. A budget summary for each 

project element is described. The category for “non-USGS cooperators” includes universities, 

consulting firms, sister agencies of the federal government, and agencies of state government. 

The category for “USGS cooperators” includes various science centers of the USGS located in 

Arizona, California, and Wisconsin. Investigators and their affiliations are described in each 

project description. 

Appendix 2-C summarizes the categories for the FY16 budget. A budget summary for each 

project element is described. The category for “non-USGS cooperators” includes universities, 

consulting firms, sister agencies of the federal government, and agencies of state government. 

The category for “USGS cooperators” includes various science centers of the USGS located in 

Arizona, California, and Wisconsin. Investigators and their affiliations are described in each 

project description. 

Appendix 2-D summarizes the categories for the FY17 budget. A budget summary for each 

project element is described. The category for “non-USGS cooperators” includes universities, 

consulting firms, sister agencies of the federal government, and agencies of state government. 

The category for “USGS cooperators” includes various science centers of the USGS located in 

Arizona, California, and Wisconsin. Investigators and their affiliations are described in each 

project description. 

Appendix 3 lists logistics and schedules for all river trips and field work. 

Appendix 4 lists key TWG guidance on how the Triennial Work Plan was prepared. 

 
476 

Appendix 1 Project 1 

Monitoring: Core Activities 

Independent science oversight and review 

Project 1. Lake Powell and Glen Canyon Dam Release 

Water-Quality Monitoring 

Initial Estimate: FY15: $20,600; FY16: $0; FY17: $0 

GCDAMP Funding: FY15: $20,600; FY16: $0; FY17: $0 

Other BoR Funding: FY15: $289,100; FY16: $310,500; FY17: $333,200 

A. Investigators 

William S. Vernieu, Hydrologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center 

B. Project Summary 

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. Water temperature, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, pH, 

redox potential, turbidity, and chlorophyll concentration are measured throughout the water 

column at up to 30 sites on the reservoir (fig. 1), with samples for major ionic constituents, 

nutrients, dissolved organic carbon, chlorophyll, phytoplankton, and zooplankton being collected 

at selected sites. The project also includes continuous monitoring of Glen Canyon Dam releases 

for water temperature, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, pH, turbidity, and chlorophyll 

concentration and monthly sampling for major ionic constituents, nutrients, dissolved organic 

carbon, chlorophyll, phytoplankton, and zooplankton below the dam and at Lees Ferry. 

The data collected by the project describe the current water quality of Glen Canyon Dam 

releases to the downstream ecosystem, as well as describe the current water-quality conditions 

and hydrologic processes in the Lake Powell reservoir, which can be used to predict the quality 

of future releases from the dam. 

It is proposed that the existing water-quality monitoring program will continue through the 

FY15–17 period at its current level. The Seabird CTD instrument will continue to be used as the 

primary profiling device for reservoir stations. Minor changes may be made to the existing 

program in terms of number of stations sampled and the amount and type of samples collected. 

Recent data collected from the monitoring program will continue to be published and an 

interpretive synthesis of existing data will be developed for publication during the FY15–17 

period. 

Physical and chemical information from this program was published as Data Series Report 

DS-471 (Vernieu, 2013). An updated revision to this report is currently in development. 

Biological data will be published in a separate data series report, currently in review. These 
477 

reports will be combined in future revisions. All information from this program is currently 

stored in the Microsoft Access water-quality database (WQDB). 

It is also proposed that a system for online data access and dissemination will be developed 

during this period. This will involve migration of the current WQDB database into an Oracle 

database to enhance online data availability. A web site will then developed that will allow 

access to currently available data and the interactive display of various graphic products 

depicting summarized data collected by the program through a map-based user interface. Some 

aspects of data management and the development of visualization tools will be made in-house, 

while other products will be developed in collaboration with other USGS offices such as the 

Wisconsin Science Center’s Wisconsin Internet Mapping office (WiM) 

(http://wi.water.usgs.gov/wim/) or the Center for Integrated Data Analytics (CIDA) 

(http://cida.usgs.gov/). 

Figure 2. Lake Powell water-quality monitoring locations. 

The USGS Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC) will work 

collaboratively with the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) in efforts to enhance simulation modeling 

of Lake Powell Reservoir water quality and limnology. Modeling will utilize the CE-QUAL-W2 

model, a 2D water quality and hydrodynamic model, currently maintained by BOR. This model 

is currently used to project Glen Canyon Dam release temperatures, and will be enhanced to 

answer various research questions relating to the fate of inflow currents, effects of reservoir 

drawdowns, and dissolved oxygen dynamics in the reservoir. 
478 

The Lake Powell monitoring program continues to be directed and administratively managed 

by GCMRC, with cooperation and sole funding provided by BOR under Interagency Agreement 

No. R13PG40028, effective through December 31, 2017. 

 
479 

C. Background

C.1. Scientific Background 

Lake Powell is formed by impoundment of the Colorado River by Glen Canyon Dam, which 

was completed in 1963 and receives the combined inflows of the Colorado, Green, San Juan, 

Escalante, and Dirty Devil rivers. The reservoir is stratified vertically according to density into 

different layers with varying water-quality characteristics. This stratification is the primary 

determinant of the quality of water released from Glen Canyon Dam and also affects physical, 

chemical, and biological characteristics of other portions of the reservoir. 

Two main mixing processes take place in Lake Powell. Convective mixing is the cooling of 

surface waters in winter months, which increase in density and mix with deeper waters in the 

upper layers of the reservoir as winter progresses. This results in a well-mixed surface layer, or 

epilimnion, that extends to the penstock withdrawal zone in early winter and begins to influence 

Glen Canyon Dam releases, resulting in the warmest water released from the dam. Advective 

mixing results from the horizontal flow of water through the reservoir. Seasonal differences in 

the density of inflow currents determine the depth at which this water moves through the 

reservoir and its interaction with existing reservoir waters. The largest volume of water enters the 

reservoir from spring snowmelt runoff and represents the water with the least density entering 

the reservoir. This runoff plume travels through the reservoir near the surface and influences the 

most biologically active layers of the reservoir. In contrast, winter inflows represent water of the 

greatest density entering the reservoir and plunge to deeper depths as they enter the reservoir. 

When densities are sufficient to cause a bottom underflow throughout the length of the reservoir, 

this fresher water displaces older water in the deepest portions of the reservoir upward. When 

winter inflows are of insufficient density to travel as a bottom underflow, they flow into 

intermediate layers of the reservoir and leave the deepest portions of the reservoir stagnant, 

which can lead to a loss of dissolved oxygen. The conditions that result in a bottom underflow, 

as opposed to an interflow, are currently poorly understood. Application of the CE-QUAL-W2 

model can help address this question by running multiple scenarios of inflow and meteorological 

conditions and evaluating the resultant fates of these inflow currents. 

Reservoir drawdown and the fate of these inflow current can have a substantial effect on the 

water-quality conditions of the reservoir forebay and Glen Canyon Dam releases. Throughout the 

history of Lake Powell, there have been several extended drought periods that have been 

characterized by lower inflow volumes to the reservoir, compared to reservoir release volumes, 

resulting in a reduction in reservoir storage and a drawdown of surface elevations. Through most 

of the past decade, the Colorado River basin has experienced drought conditions, which resulted 

in the drawdown of the reservoir to a minimum of 3,555 ft in 2005. This resulted in the warmer 

surface layers being closer to the penstock withdrawal elevation and caused release temperatures 

to increase to a maximum of 16°C in October 2005, more than 6°C above normal for that period. 

Release temperatures have been above normal from 2003 through 2013 as the reservoir remained 

at elevations below 3,640 ft, with the exception of 2011 in which the reservoir reached an 

elevation of 3,660 ft. In the spring of 2014, Lake Powell reached a surface elevation of 3,575 ft, 

its second lowest elevation since the reservoir first filled in 1980. Increased temperatures and 

possible reductions in dissolved oxygen concentrations in Glen Canyon Dam releases are 

expected in the fall of 2014. 

Lake Powell receives an average of approximately 30,000 acre feet of sediment per year 

(Ferrari, 1986), most of which forms deltaic sediment deposits in the inflow areas of the 
480 

reservoir. As reservoir elevations fluctuate, these deposits are resuspended and moved further 

downstream into the reservoir. Because of oxygen demand from decaying organic matter in the 

delta sediments, inflows traveling through the exposed delta become depleted in oxygen 

concentrations. With low reservoir elevations, these hypoxic waters can influence dam releases, 

which can cause adverse conditions in the aquatic ecosystem below Glen Canyon Dam. In 2005, 

the inflow plume had a minimum dissolved oxygen concentration of 1.7 mg/L and resulted in a 

dissolved oxygen concentration in Glen Canyon Dam releases of 3.6 mg/L in October 2005. 

Reservoir drawdown may also cause the release of nutrients from deltaic deposits and may 

act to enhance the biological characteristics of the reservoir. If further reductions to reservoir 

inflows occur in the future in response to a changing climate, these reservoir drawdown 

scenarios may become more common. An increased understanding of the effects of various 

factors such as reservoir elevation, inflow volume, age and oxygen demand of delta sediments on 

Glen Canyon Dam releases would be gained by applying the CE-QUAL-W2 model to determine 

the relative effects of these factors and would result in increased capabilities in predicting and 

mitigating adverse effects to the downstream ecosystem. 

As delta deposits are resuspended, they are also redeposited as they enter the reservoir, 

resulting in the overall movement of the sediment deltas farther downstream under drawdown 

conditions. Although the 2014 low reservoir elevation of 3,575 ft was approximately 20ft higher 

than its 2005 low elevation of 3,555 ft, sediment deltas extended 2.5, 1.4, and 0.5 km farther 

downstream on the Colorado, San Juan, and Escalante arms of the reservoir, respectively, than 

they did in 2005. In some areas of the reservoir, major landslide deposits in the main channel of 

the reservoir can act as underwater dams that block sediment from moving further downstream. 

C.2. Management Background

BOR initiated a water-quality monitoring program on Lake Powell starting in 1964, which 

has continued to the present, to gather information to describe water-quality conditions and to 

observe changes in water quality as the reservoir filled and matured. Four distinct phases of 

monitoring activity have been identified, based on sampling frequency, spatial resolution of 

measurements, and changes in instrumentation. 

Studies related to Lake Powell were conducted in the 1970s by educational consortiums and 

Federal and State agencies on topics that include sedimentation, circulation patterns, traceelement chemistry, remote sensing, and public-health issues (Potter and Drake, 1989). Various 

agencies and institutions have conducted additional research and monitoring during Lake 

Powell’s recent history (Hart and Sherman, 1996; Marzolf, 1998; Hart, and others, 2005). 

Since 1996, the Lake Powell water-quality monitoring program has been administered and 

conducted by GCMRC. While coordinating with GCMRC investigators and addressing the 

information needs of the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP), 

funding for the Lake Powell monitoring program is provided solely by BOR, through Colorado 

River Storage Project power revenues. In 2013, a five-year Interagency Agreement (No. 

R13PG40028) for Lake Powell monitoring was initiated between BOR and GCMRC and is 

effective through December 31, 2017. 

C.3. Key Monitoring and Research Questions Addressed in this project 

The Lake Powell monitoring program is designed to address the status and trends of the 

water quality in Lake Powell and Glen Canyon Dam releases over a varying time scales as 
481 

affected by hydrology, meteorology, climatology, and dam operations. The key components of 

reservoir and release water quality the monitoring program addresses include: 

1. Characterization of the quality of Glen Canyon Dam releases immediately below 

Glen Canyon Dam and at Lees Ferry. 

2. Characterization of the water quality of the forebay area immediately upstream from 

Glen Canyon Dam, immediately available for release. 

3. Characterization of the water quality of the three major tributary arms of the reservoir 

to determine fate of inflow currents moving through the reservoir and their potential 

for release entrainment. 

4. Determining ionic makeup of release and reservoir waters as an indicator of the origin 

of reservoir waters and overall Colorado River salinity patterns. 

5. Determining nutrient concentrations of release and reservoir waters for their support 

of primary productivity in the reservoir and tailwater. 

6. Determination of chlorophyll concentrations in release and reservoir waters and 

characterization and quantification of the biological community structure. 

Several key research questions have developed from observations generated by the 

monitoring program. These include: 

1. What determines the fate of reservoir inflow currents that promote mixing of the 

deeper portions of the reservoir near Glen Canyon Dam? 

2. How do fluctuations in inflow volumes, reservoir storage, and surface elevation affect 

the quality of water moving past the tributary inflow deltas and through the reservoir 

and the potential for their influence on reservoir releases? 

3. How do nutrient concentrations affect the primary production of the reservoir and 

tailwater, compared to other factors such as light availability and water temperature? 

4. How will the establishment of quagga mussel populations affect nutrient 

concentrations and planktonic community structure? 

5. How do underwater landslide deposits act to impede flows of density currents through 

the reservoir or trap suspended sediments? 

Fate of Inflow Currents 

Reservoir simulation modeling has the potential to address several of the research questions 

related to reservoir hydrodynamics and the water quality in Lake Powell and Glen Canyon Dam 

releases. The CE-QUAL-W2 is currently being used to predict temperatures of Glen Canyon 

Dam releases for the Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan (LTEMP) Environmental 

Impact Statement currently in development. However, additional development of the model is 

possible to provide better predictive capabilities earlier in time with improved inflow and 

meteorological monitoring. The model also has the capabilities to model dissolved oxygen 

concentrations, as well as other parameters such as nutrients and plankton, but the model has not 

been calibrated to do so. Improvement of inflow and meteorological monitoring and calibrations 

of the model for dissolved oxygen, nutrients, and plankton will improve the model’s 

effectiveness. 

One of the most important processes in maintaining dissolved oxygen concentrations in the 

deepest portions of the reservoir is the travel of high density water currents through the reservoir 

during the winter. Normally, winter inflows are of sufficient density and volume to travel along 

the bottom of the reservoir and reach the dam in the early spring. This displaces pre-existing 
482 

water in the hypolimnion upward for entrainment in dam releases and freshens the water in the 

deepest portion of the reservoir. However, in some years, the inflows are not of sufficient density 

to flow along the entire bottom of the reservoir and may travel through the reservoir in 

intermediate layers, leaving deeper portions of the reservoir stagnant and hypoxic. The 

conditions that dictate the fate of this inflow current are poorly understood at present. Simulation 

modeling of various winter inflow scenarios may be beneficial in identifying what factors are 

most important in determining the fate of these inflow currents. 

Quality of Advective Inflows 

The magnitude of inflow volumes, combined with reservoir elevations, determines how 

much resuspension occurs in the sediment deltas of the reservoir. Depending on the amount of 

organic material in the deltaic sediments and the resultant oxygen demand, a significant amount 

of dissolved oxygen can be removed from these currents. The actual effect of these currents on 

release water-quality depends on the volume of these currents moving through the reservoir and 

the amount of mixing or dilution with other reservoir water. 

Nutrient Effects on Primary Production

Primary production is the synthesis of biomass by photosynthetic organisms, usually 

microscopic alage, or phytoplankton, in the reservoir. Secondary production is the generation of 

biomass from consumers of photosynthesizing organisms, such as zooplankton and higher 

trophic forms. In the presence of adequate light availability and water temperatures, nutrient 

concentrations are the primary determinants of primary productivity processes in Lake Powell 

and the Glen Canyon Dam tailwater. In general, concentrations of phosphorus compounds are 

relatively low in Lake Powell, which may indicate that phosphorus is a limiting nutrient in the 

reservoir in comparison to nitrogen compounds. Concentrations of both types of compounds in 

Lake Powell are mediated by primary production and are higher in deeper portions of the 

reservoir that have little or no light availability but continue to receive decomposing organic 

material from shallower depths. Concentrations of these compounds in Glen Canyon Dam 

releases fluctuate seasonally and could influence primary production in the tailwater below Glen 

Canyon Dam. 

Effects on Quagga Mussel Establishment

Reproducing populations of quagga mussels (Dreissena rostriformis bugensis) have now 

been identified in Lake Powell. Subsequent monitoring of plankton populations will provide an 

excellent opportunity to determine the effects of this invasion on the biological resources of Lake 

Powell by comparison to the existing pre-invasion dataset of plankton abundance and community 

structure. A compilation of biological data through 2009 is slated for publication in 2014. In 

addition, a contract is now in place for the analysis of a large backlog of plankton samples 

collected through 2014. All backlogged samples have been submitted for analysis; these analyses 

are expected to be completed by early 2015. Data from these analyses will be incorporated into 

the WQDB database and published as part of an annual comprehensive data report, which will 

combine the biological data with existing chemical and physical data. This information will also 

be available through interactive online queries once the Lake Powell portion of the GCMRC 

website is developed. 

 
483 

Sediment Deposition Patterns

As the reservoir ages, the major tributaries of the Colorado, San Juan, and Escalante rivers 

continue to add sediment and reduce capacity of the reservoir with most sedimentation occurring 

in the inflow areas of the tributary arms as delta deposits. Reservoir drawdown processes 

remobilize these deposits, moving them further downstream in the reservoir basins. Large 

landslide deposits are present in the major tributary arms of the reservoir and can act to prevent 

further downstream movement of sediment. They can also cause localized water-quality 

problems in some areas of the reservoir. Two large landslide deposits in the Escalante arm of the 

reservoir are now, acting as underwater weirs, and limit hypolimnetic circulation, above these 

areas. This phenomenon results in low dissolved oxygen concentrations and presents an 

opportunity for simulation modeling to replicate these conditions and identify factors that 

promote or mitigate the development of these conditions. 

D. Proposed Work 

D.1. Project Elements 

Monitoring 

It is proposed the Lake Powell monitoring program continue in its present structure, 

consisting 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. Depth profiles of 

water temperature, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, pH, oxidation-reduction potential, 

turbidity, and chlorophyll concentration are measured throughout the water column at up to 30 

sites (fig. 1) on the reservoir, with samples for major ionic constituents, nutrients, dissolved 

organic carbon, chlorophyll, phytoplankton, and zooplankton being collected at selected sites. 

Continuous monitoring of Glen Canyon Dam releases for water temperature, specific 

conductance, dissolved oxygen, pH, turbidity, and chlorophyll concentration and monthly 

sampling for major ionic constituents, nutrients, dissolved organic carbon, chlorophyll, 

phytoplankton, and zooplankton below the dam and at Lees Ferry, will also be maintained. 

Data Access and Availability 

To ensure data collected by the Lake Powell monitoring program is readily accessible to 

stakeholders, researchers, and the general public in a timely manner, the development of a 

website with online data access capabilities is proposed as a necessary component of the 

monitoring program. Data are already stored effectively in the Microsoft Access WQDB 

database, have been published as a USGS Data Series Report, and are available for download in 

database and csv format. However, the ability to query selected data, view graphical analyses of 

these queries, and serve other products through an interactive web-based interface is currently 

lacking. It is proposed that a system with these capabilities be developed and implemented early 

in the proposal period. 

This project would first entail migration of the existing database to an Oracle-based database 

so that it would be for use by GCRMC staff to provide functionality equal to, or better than the 

existing database system. Since the existing database is already normalized and fully functional 

migration is expected to be fairly straightforward and can be accomplished in-house. Migration 

would consist of the following steps: 
484 

1. Migration of existing field definitions, table structure and metadata 

2. Migration existing queries, data-entry forms, and reports 

3. Transfer of the contents of each table in the database 

4. Establishing procedures for incorporation of new data by manual or automated methods 

5. Develop interfaces to various analytical software tools such as SAS, Surfer, Arc Map, 

and Microsoft Office products 

6. Testing and quality assurance verification 

To facilitate online access by stakeholders, managers, and other interested users, a website 

will also be developed that would serve as a primary point of access for information relating to 

the Lake Powell water-quality monitoring program. This site would allow interactive access to 

the database in the form of a map-based query system that would serve data from the various 

components of the monitoring program based on selected locations and time ranges. From these 

queries, users would be able to retrieve tabular data, statistical summaries of these data, and 

graphical depictions of depth profiles and the results of chemical and biological sample analyses 

at various time scales ranging from recent data to the entire historical record. 

The development of the website and associated visualization tools will be developed in 

collaboration with other USGS offices such as the Wisconsin Science Center’s Wisconsin 

Internet Mapping office (WiM) (http://wi.water.usgs.gov/wim/) or the Center for Integrated Data 

Analytics (CIDA) (http://cida.usgs.gov/). 

Data products would include summary graphs and tables showing Lake Powell reservoir 

elevations and 24-month projections, Glen Canyon Dam release water quality, selected reservoir 

depth profiles, and isopleth figures displaying temperature, conductivity, dissolved oxygen or 

other parameters for the entire reservoir at a single point in time or as a time series for a given 

station. 

At its full development, data from other sources would be available on the website, 

including: 

1. reservoir elevation and storage information for other upper and lower Colorado River 

Basin reservoirs provided by BOR 

2. streamflow and water-quality information for inflows from tributaries to Lake Powell 

from the USGS NWIS system 

3. other Lake Powell data collected outside the existing GCMRC monitoring program 

4. water-quality information collected on other reservoirs such as Lake Mead, Flaming 

Gorge, Navajo, and other reservoirs provided by BOR, Southern Nevada Water 

Authority, and other agencies or academic institutions. 

5. links to other data sources and relevant publications. 

The development of the website, map-based user interface, and associated visualization tools 

would be accomplished by a combination of in-house efforts and assistance from other USGS 

offices such as the Wisconsin Science Center’s Wisconsin Internet Mapping office (WiM) 

(http://wi.water.usgs.gov/wim/) or the Center for Integrated Data Analytics (CIDA) 

(http://cida.usgs.gov/). Under the existing Interagency Agreement with BOR, funds have been 

allocated for the work of Dale Robertson of the Wisconsin Science Center. This funding would 
485 

be used for initial development of the website, map-based user interface, visualization tools, 

depending on the actual distribution of work between GCMRC and other USGS entities. 

Modeling 

Simulation modeling of Lake Powell water quality and hydrodynamic patterns is currently 

being conducted by BOR's Upper Colorado Regional Office using the Army Corps of Engineers 

CE-QUAL-W2 model. The CE-QUAL-W2 model is a two-dimensional (longitudinal and 

vertical), laterally averaged, finite-difference water-quality and hydrodynamic model for rivers, 

estuaries, lakes, reservoirs and river basin systems. It was originally known as LARM (Laterally 

Averaged Reservoir Model), developed by Edinger and Buchak (1975). In its early stages, The 

LARM model was applied to Lakes Powell and Mead, (Edinger and Buchak, 1982; Edinger and 

others, 1984). Current model release enhancements have been developed under research 

contracts between the Army Corps of Engineers and Portland State University under supervision 

of Dr. Scott Wells (2000). Williams (2007) applied the CE-QUAL-W2 model to Lake Powell 

and developed an initial dissolved oxygen calibration for the model.

GCMRC provides data and collaboration with the development of the model for calibration 

and verification. The model has been calibrated and verified to simulate historical patterns of 

temperature and salinity in Glen Canyon Dam releases. Dissolved oxygen is also being 

simulated; however, some additional effort is needed for final calibration and verification. This 

model can be used to synthesize data for periods in which regular monitoring was not conducted 

and to simulate the effects of various hypothetical operational, hydrological, and climatological 

scenarios on historical patterns. It is also used to provide predictions of future temperature and 

dissolved oxygen patterns in Glen Canyon Dam releases. One major shortcoming of the model's 

predictive capabilities is the lack of adequate input data for inflow water quality and 

meteorological conditions in the upstream portion of the reservoir. The error in predictive 

capability decreases substantially with the input of data from reservoir monitoring in the early 

summer.

Opportunities exist for further understanding of reservoir processes by model development 

and enhancement. The use of this model, calibrated for temperature, nutrients, and biological 

components, to reconstruct historical conditions, project future hydrological and climatic 

scenarios, and simulate the response of the system to hypothetical reservoir operations could help 

to answer a variety of research questions and gain further understanding of the various 

hydrodynamic, chemical, biological, and mixing processes in the reservoir.

GCMRC will work on a collaborative basis with BOR to calibrate the model for dissolved 

oxygen, nutrient dynamics, and biological responses under a collaborative system in which 

current capabilities of the CE-QUAL-W2 model are maintained, while the research-related 

capabilities of the model, such as the forecasting of low dissolved oxygen concentrations in Glen 

Canyon Dam releases under reservoir drawdown and identifying factors that affect the fate of 

inflow currents. It is proposed the model be maintained for its current purposes by BOR, with 

further development by GCMRC, a post-doctoral fellow, or an outside contractor, such as Ed 

Buchak, who has performed previous work for BOR.

Biological Data Analysis 

As data from a backlog of plankton samples become available within the next year, a 

complete history of Lake Powell plankton data, including the initial stages of a quagga mussel 

invasion, will become available for analysis. When complete, it is proposed that the biological 
486 

data be incorporated in regular reporting with physical-chemical data. An analysis of these data 

would include identifying trends in biomass and community structure of zooplankton and 

phytoplankton populations and identifying potential factors that affect these populations. 

Sediment Delta Monitoring 

Since 1998, longitudinal sonar depth measurements of the sediment deltas in Lake Powell 

tributaries have been recorded on thermal chart paper, in conjunction with quarterly reservoir 

water-quality surveys. Digitization of these charts yields a longitudinal profile of the elevation of 

the sediment delta with respect to distance along the original river channel. Collectively, these 

profiles provide a history of Lake Powell sediment deposition during this period, over a range of 

reservoir elevations and inflow volumes. Information from this record demonstrates sediment 

transport and deposition processes as affected by inflow currents, underwater landslides, and 

other channel obstructions and can help to explain unusual water-quality conditions observed in 

portions of the reservoir. 

Digitization of these profiles was initiated in 2012, with the aid of a temporary student intern. 

Progress has stalled since the departure of that intern and lack of additional staffing. With the 

addition of a technician to the GCMRC staff, it is proposed that remaining profiles be digitized, 

compiled, and published as a complete historical record. 

D.2 Personnel and Collaborations 

Funding for the Lake Powell water-quality monitoring program is provided directly by BOR; 

no GCDAMP funds are used for this project. In addition to direct funding, BOR also provides 

field support staff for quarterly reservoir surveys, chemical sample analysis through its Lower 

Colorado Regional Laboratory, plankton sample analysis through contract, and maintains the 

Seabird SBE19plusV2 CTD profiling instrument. The National Park Service provides a 0.5 FTE 

field technician, also funded by BOR. GCMRC participates in the Lake Powell Cooperators 

Group, a group of federal, state, and academic researchers, tribal representatives, 

concessionaires, recreational organizations, and members of the general public with interests in 

scientific activities conduction on Lake Powell. The National Park Service hosts annual meetings 

of the Lake Powell Cooperators Group to present and discuss current monitoring activities and 

findings, and coordinate future activities. 

Dr. Dale Robertson, of the USGS Wisconsin Science Center, has been collaborating with the 

Lake Powell program to assist with data interpretation and modeling and to develop an 

interpretive synthesis of the published data. This synthesis will describe the physical, chemical, 

and biological characteristics of Lake Powell and Glen Canyon Dam releases compared to 

climatological factors and various aspects of dam operations. Available meteorological, 

hydrological, and limnological data will be used to improve, document, and verify the existing 

CE-QUAL-W2 model for Lake Powell, in collaboration with BOR scientists. The model will 

then be used to better understand the changes that have occurred in Lake Powell, predict future 

changes in response to climate change, and verify interpretive hypotheses. 

We propose to collaborate with the Wisconsin Science Center’s Wisconsin Internet Mapping 

office (WiM) (http://wi.water.usgs.gov/wim/) or the Center for Integrated Data Analytics 

(CIDA) (http://cida.usgs.gov/) to assist with migration of the current database to an Oracle 

platform, to develop tools for data retrieval, summary, and analysis, and to develop a web-based 

interface to allow access to data and display of graphical products. In addition, GCMRC will 
487 

become more closely involved with the USGS Community for Data Integration to share and 

integrate reservoir data management techniques with other reservoir monitoring programs. 

GCMRC also plans to continue to work closely with Dr. Richard A. Wildman, currently 

serving as professor at Quest University Canada and previously a postdoctoral fellow and 

Harvard University Center for the Environment. GCMRC has provided field assistance, water 

quality data, and reviews for publications related to phosphorus release and sediment transport 

related to reservoir drawdown (Wildman and others, 2011; Wildman and Hering, 2011.) 

Other potential collaborations include work with Dr. Kevin Speer, Professor of Physical 

Oceanography at Florida State University. He has proposed using Lake Powell as a testing site 

for the deployment of unmanned underwater profiling systems. GCMRC has been working with 

Dr. Kelin Whipple, with the School of Earth and Space Exploration at Arizona State University 

to share pre-dam topographic files of the Lake Powell basin in conjunction with his research on 

incision processes in the Colorado River basin. BOR works closely with Brigham Young 

University on studies of some Utah reservoirs. GCMRC supported a study in August 2013 in 

which students used various locations in the Colorado River inflow area of Lake Powell for the 

deployment and refinement of sediment oxygen demand sensors. 

D.3 Deliverables 

During FY15–17, an interpretive data synthesis report will be published to build on the 

monitoring data and provide insights into how climatological, meteorological, and hydrodynamic 

processes, as well as the operation of Glen Canyon Dam, affect inflow routing and stratification 

in the reservoir and the water quality of releases from Glen Canyon Dam. Each year, the DS-471 

report, “Historical Physical and Chemical Data for Water in Lake Powell and from Glen Canyon 

Dam Releases, Utah-Arizona, 1964–2012”, will be revised with final data from the previous 

year. After initial publication of the biological data report in 2014, these reports will be 

combined and revised annually. The existing WQDB database will be migrated to the Oracle 

platform, online access tools and automated statistical and graphical products will be developed, 

and a website will be developed to provide current conditions and historical data to the public in 

the form of graphical or statistical summaries. Other reports will be developed in future years 

describing water-quality changes in response to climatological factors, model development and 

verification, and application of modeling results to downstream resources. 

E. Productivity from Past Work 

E.1. Data Products 

Products from the Lake Powell monitoring program include published reports, listed in the 

following section, the WQDB database, which is now available through online download, 

presentations at scientific meetings, presentations to the general public, and presentations or 

supporting data to the AMWG and TWG. Preliminary data from monitoring surveys are 

provided to BOR within one month of collection. 

E.2. Completed Publications 

Vernieu, W.S., 2013, Historical physical and chemical data for water in Lake Powell and from 

Glen Canyon Dam releases, Utah-Arizona, 1964–2012 (ver. 2.0, October 2013): U.S. 

Geological Survey Data Series 471, 23 p., http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/471/. 
488 

Vernieu, W.S., and Anderson, C.R., 2013, Water temperatures in select nearshore environments 

of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon, Arizona, during the Low Steady Summer Flow 

experiment of 2000: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2013–1066, 44 p., 

http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr20131066. 

Ross, R.P., and Vernieu, W.S., 2013, Nearshore temperature findings for the Colorado River in 

Grand Canyon, Arizona--Possible implications for native fish: U.S. Geological Survey Fact 

Sheet 2013-3104, 4 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/fs20133104. 

E.3. Publications in progress 

Vernieu, W.S., 2014, Biological data for water in Lake Powell and from Glen Canyon Dam 

releases, Utah-Arizona, 1991-2008: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series xxx (in review). 

Vernieu, W.S., 2013, Historical physical and chemical data for water in Lake Powell and from 

Glen Canyon Dam releases, Utah-Arizona, 1964–2013 (ver. 3.0): U.S. Geological Survey 

Data Series 471, 23 p., http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/471/. (revision for 2013). 

E.4. Presentations at professional meetings 

11/7/2012 Presentation at North American Lake Management Society 32nd International 

Symposium titled “Data Management for Long-Term Water-Quality Monitoring in Lake 

Powell, Utah-Arizona, 1964–2011”. 

11/8/2012 Presentation at North American Lake Management Society 32nd International 

Symposium titled “Historic Deltaic Sedimentation Patterns in Lake Powell, Utah-Arizona, 

1998-2011”. 

3/11-13/2013 River Management Society Workshop – presentation cancelled because of 

sequester. 

7/10/2013 Presentation at Museum of Northern Arizona’s Science Café lecture series on Lake 

Powell and Glen Canyon Dam Release Water-Quality Monitoring Program. 

9/18/2013 Organized and led special symposium at 12th Biennial Conference of Science and 

Management on the Colorado Plateau at Northern Arizona University titled “Lake Powell 

after 50 Years – Patterns, Processes, and Predictions”. This session consisted of seven 

presentations relating to water-quality monitoring, simulation modeling, hydrodynamic 

processes, quagga mussel status, the Lake Powell sport fishery, contaminant monitoring, and 

sedimentation patterns. 

9/19/2013 Presentation at Arizona Hydrological Society annual symposium in Tucson, AZ titled 

“Historic Deltaic Sedimentation Patterns in Lake Powell, Utah-Arizona, 1998-2011”. 

9/20/2013 Interview with Eric Betz, Arizona Daily Sun reporter, for 9/20/2013 article on turbid 

releases from Glen Canyon Dam in late September (http://azdailysun.com/floods-turnpowell-discharge-murky/article_cfd87d70-2285-11e3-9c56-001a4bcf887a.html). 

9/30/2013 Presentations to three middle and high school classes titled “Lake Powell and Glen 

Canyon Dam – Storing Water in Times of Drought” as part of Flagstaff Festival of Science 

in-school program. 

10/30/2013 Presentation at North American Lake Management Society 33rd International 

Symposium titled “Biological Data for Water in Lake Powell and from Glen Canyon Dam 

Releases, Utah-Arizona, 1990–2009”. 

 
489 

F. References 

Edinger, J.E., and Buchak, E.M., 1975, A hydrodynamic, two-dimensional reservoir model--the 

computational basis: Cincinnati, Ohio, prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Ohio 

River Division, contract no. DACW27-74-C-0200. 

Edinger, J.E., and Buchak, E.M., 1982, Development, verification and use of methods to model 

chemical and thermal processes for Lakes Mead and Powell, phase I--model evaluation and 

data analysis: Denver, Colo., prepared J.E. Edinger Associates, Inc. for U.S. Department of 

Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, 44 p. 

Edinger, J.E., Buchak, E.M., and Merritt, D.M., 1984, Longitudinal-vertical hydrodynamics and 

transport with chemical equilibria for Lake Powell and Lake Mead, in French, R.H., ed., 

Salinity in watercourses and reservoirs--International Symposium on State-of-the-Art Control 

of Salinity, Salt Lake City, Utah, July 13-15, 1983, Proceedings: Butterworth Publishers, p. 

213-222. 

Ferrari, R.L., 1988, 1986 Lake Powell survey: Denver, Colo., Bureau of Reclamation, report no. 

REC-ERC-88-6, 67 p. [Available from National Technical Information Service, Springfield, 

Va. as NTIS Report PB89-178818.] 

Hart, R.J., and Sherman, K.M., 1996, Physical and chemical characteristics of Lake Powell at the 

forebay and outflow of Glen Canyon Dam, northeastern Arizona, 1990-91: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 96-4016, 78 p., 

http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wri964016. 

Hart, R.J., Taylor, H.E., Antweiler, R.C., Fisk, G.G., Anderson, G.M., Roth, D.A., Flynn, M.E., 

Peart, D.B., Truini, M., and Barber, L.B., 2005, Physical and chemical characteristics of 

Knowles, Forgotten, and Moqui Canyons, and effects of recreational use on water quality, 

Lake Powell, Arizona and Utah: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 

2004-5120, 116 p., http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2004/5120/pdf/sir2004-5120.pdf. 

Hueftle, S.J., and Vernieu, W.S., 1998, Assessment of impacts of Glen Canyon Dam operations 

on water quality resources in Lake Powell and the Colorado River in Grand Canyon--

unpublished draft report: Flagstaff, Ariz., U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring 

and Research Center, 77 p. 

Jones, J., Kennedy, R.H., Nestler, J., Robertson, D., Ruane, R.J., and Schladow, S.G., 2001, 

Final report of the Protocol Evaluation Panel (PEP) for the Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center Integrated Water Quality Program (IWQP): Flagstaff, Ariz., 39 p. plus 

appendices. (Available at 

http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/09mar16/Attach_11.pdf.) 

Majeski, A.L., 2009, Fluvial systems tied together through a common base level--the 

geomorphic response of the Dirty Devil River, North Wash Creek, and the Colorado River to 

the rapid base level drop of Lake Powell: Logan, Utah State University, Ph.D. dissertation, 

191 p. 

Marzolf, G.R., Hart, R.J., and Stephens, D.W., 1998, Depth profiles of temperature, specific 

conductance, and oxygen concentrations in Lake Powell, Arizona-Utah, 1992-1995: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 97-835, 124 p. 

Potter, L.D., and Drake, C.L., 1989, Lake Powell-Virgin flow by dynamo, University of New 

Mexico Press, 311 p. 

Pratson, L., Hughes-Clarke, J., Anderson, M., Gerber, T., Twichell, D., Ferrari, R., Nittrouer, C., 

Beaudoin, J., Granet, J., and Crockett, J., 2008, Timing and patterns of basin infilling as 
490 

documented in Lake Powell during a drought: Geology, v. 36, no. 11, doi: 10.1130/

G24733A.1, p. 843-846. 

Vernieu, W.S., 2013, Physical and chemical data for water in Lake Powell and from Glen 

Canyon Dam releases, Utah-Arizona, 1964-2012 (ver. 2.0, October 2013): U.S. Geological 

Survey Data Series 471, 23 p., http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/471/. 

Wells, S.A., 2000, Hydrodynamic and water quality river basin modeling using CE-QUAL-W2 

in Ibarra-Berastegic, G., Brebbia, C., and Zannetti, P., eds., Development and Application of 

Computer Techniques to Environmental Studies: WIT Press, Boston, 195-204. 

Wildman, R.A., Pratson, L.F., DeLeon, M., and Hering, J.G., 2011, Physical, chemical, and 

mineralogical characteristics of a reservoir sediment delta (Lake Powell, USA) and 

implications for water quality during low water level: Journal of Environmental Quality, v. 

40, no. 2, p. 575-586. 

Wildman, R.A., Jr., and Hering, J.G., 2011, Potential for release of sediment phosphorus to Lake 

Powell (Utah and Arizona) due to sediment resuspension during low water level: Lake and 

Reservoir Management, v. 27, no. 4, p. 365-375. 

Williams, N.T., 2007, Modeling dissolved oxygen in Lake Powell using CE-QUAL-W2: Provo, 

Brigham Young University, M.S. thesis, 120 p. 

Wurtsbaugh, W., Lay, C., Carlise, D., Huxol, C., Schaugaard, C., Clements, B., Beauchamp, D., 

1992, A trophic gradient analysis of Lake Powell during spring runoff 1992, Report to the 

Glen Canyon National Recreation Area: Watershed Sciences Faculty Publications, paper 517, 

Utah State University, 217 p. 
491 

G. Budget 

Core activities

Support implementation and

evaluation of HFE Protocol and

Non‐Native Fish Control

Technical and analytical

innovations in monitoring

Improving predictive modeling

capacity

Resolving scientific uncertainty

Independent science oversight

and review

Integrating tribes in monitoring

and research

Project Identifier Project Description Salaries Travel & Training Operating Expenses Logistics Coop‐ erators (non‐USGS) USGS Coop‐erat

1

Lake Powell and Glen

Canyon Dam Release Water‐

Quality Monitoring

$183,500 $8,700 $40,300 $0 $20,000 $20,

X 1

Lake Powell and Glen

Canyon Dam Release Water‐

Quality Monitoring

Vernieu $183,500 $8,700 $40,300 $0 $0 $20,

X 1.2

Reservoir limnology and ecology

moni toring and research science

review palen

Vernieu $0 $0 $0 $0 $20,000 

1

Lake Powell and Glen

Canyon Dam Release Water‐

Quality Monitoring

$187,200 $9,000 $41,600 $0 $0 $22,

X 1

Lake Powell and Glen

Canyon Dam Release Water‐

Quality Monitoring

Vernieu $187,200 $9,000 $41,600 $0 $0 $22,

X 1.2

Reservoir limnology and ecology

moni toring and research science

review palen

Vernieu $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

1

Lake Powell and Glen

Canyon Dam Release Water‐

Quality Monitoring

$190,900 $9,200 $42,800 $0 $0 $23,

X 1

Lake Powell and Glen

Canyon Dam Release Water‐

Quality Monitoring

Vernieu $190,900 $9,200 $42,800 $0 $0 $23,

X 1.2

Reservoir limnology and ecology

moni toring and research science

review panel

Vernieu $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

FY17

Monitoring Research

FY15FY16
492 

Appendix 2-A. Fiscal Year 2015 Funding Recommendation 

Core activities

Support implementation and

evaluation of HFE Protocol

and Non‐Native Fish Control

Technical and analytical

innovations in monitoring

Improving predictive

modeling capacity

Resolving scientific

uncertainty

Independent science

oversight and review

Integrating tribes in

monitoring and research

Project Identifier Project Description GCDAMP Funded Other BoR Funding Fund Source Not Yet Determined Initial Estimate GCDAMP Funded Other BoR Funding Fund Source Not Yet Determined Initial Estimate 

3 Total w/o Lake Powell $8,745,300 $802,800 $368,600 $9,802,800 $9,116,800 $742,800 $670,000 $9,775,500 1

Lake Powell and Glen

Canyon Dam Release Water‐

Quality Monitoring

$20,600 $289,100 $0 $0 $0 $310,500 $0 $0 

X 1

Lake Powell and Glen Canyon

Dam Release Water‐Quality

Monitoring

Vernieu $0 $289,100 $0 0 $310,500 $0 $0 

X 1.2

Reservoi r limnology and ecology

monitoring and research science

review panel

Vernieu $20,600 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

X X 2

Stream Flow, Water

Quality, and Sediment

Transport in the Colorado

River Ecosystem

Topping et al. $1,340,300 $0 $0 $1,452,000 $1,350,400 $0 $0 $1,534,900 

Monitoring Research FY15 FY16 
493 

Core activities

Support implementation and

evaluation of HFE Protocol

and Non‐Native Fish Control

Technical and analytical

innovations in monitoring

Improving predictive

modeling capacity

Resolving scientific

uncertainty

Independent science

oversight and review

Integrating tribes in

monitoring and research

Project Identifier Project Description GCDAMP Funded Other BoR Funding Fund Source Not Yet Determined Initial Estimate GCDAMP Funded Other BoR Funding Fund Source Not Yet Determined Initial Estimate 

3 Total w/o Lake Powell $8,745,300 $802,800 $368,600 $9,802,800 $9,116,800 $742,800 $670,000 $9,775,500 3

Sandbars and Sediment

Storage Dynamics $1,324,600 $0 $0 $1,362,800 $1,267,400 $0 $63,100 $1,439,600 

X X 3.1.1

Moni toring sandbars using

topographic surveys and remote

cameras

Grams et al. $369,100 $0 $0 $354,300 $0 $0 $371,000 

X X 3.1.2

Monitoring sand bars and

shorelines above 8000 ft3/s by

remote sensing

Sankey et al. $119,700 $0 $0 $130,100 $0 $0 $140,500 

X 3.1.3

Surveying with a camera: rapid

topographic surveys with digital

images using structure‐from‐

motion (SFM) photogrammetry

Wheaton et

al. $42,200 $0 $0 $72,800 $0 $0 $77,300 

X 3.1.4 Analysis of historical images at selected monitoring sites Hazel et al. $89,000 $0 $0 $45,100 $0 $45,100 $45,400 

X X 3.2 Sediment storage monitoring Grams et al. $459,200 $0 $0 $518,000 $0 $0 $546,400 

X 3.3

Characterizing, and predictive

modeling, of sand bar response at

local and reach scales

Mueller et al. $100,600 $0 $0 $107,600 $0 $0 $116,200 

X 3.4

Connecting bed material

transport, bed morphodynamics,

and sand budgets in Grand

Canyon

McElroy et al. $36,100 $0 $0 $18,100 $0 $18,000 $18,100 

X X 3.5 Control network and survey

support Kohl $108,700 $0 $0 $116,800 $0 $0 $124,700 

Monitoring Research FY15 FY16 
494 

Core activities

Support implementation and

evaluation of HFE Protocol

and Non‐Native Fish Control

Technical and analytical

innovations in monitoring

Improving predictive

modeling capacity

Resolving scientific

uncertainty

Independent science

oversight and review

Integrating tribes in

monitoring and research

Project Identifier Project Description GCDAMP Funded Other BoR Funding Fund Source Not Yet Determined Initial Estimate GCDAMP Funded Other BoR Funding Fund Source Not Yet Determined Initial Estimate 

3 Total w/o Lake Powell $8,745,300 $802,800 $368,600 $9,802,800 $9,116,800 $742,800 $670,000 $9,775,500 4

Connectivity along the

Fluvial‐Aeolian‐Hillslope

Continuum: Quantifying

the Relative Importance of

River‐Related Factors that

Influence Upland

Geomorphology and

Archaeological Site

Stability

$185,600 $150,000 $0 $412,900 $384,000 $150,000 $0 $404,700 

X 4.1

Quanti fying connectivity along the

fluvial‐aeolian‐hillslope

continuum at landscape scales

Sankey et al. $137,300 $75,000 $0 $140,700 $75,000 $0 $159,600 

X X 4.2 Monitoring of cultural sites in Grand and Glen Canyons Sankey et al. $48,300 $75,000 $0 $272,200 $75,000 0 $245,100 

Monitoring Research FY15 FY16 
495 

Project Elements 5.1.7, 5.1.8, and 5.2.5 (in grey) submitted for non-GCDAMP funding

Core activities

Support implementation and

evaluation of HFE Protocol

and Non‐Native Fish Control

Technical and analytical

innovations in monitoring

Improving predictive

modeling capacity

Resolving scientific

uncertainty

Independent science

oversight and review

Integrating tribes in

monitoring and research

Project Identifier Project Description GCDAMP Funded Other BoR Funding Fund Source Not Yet Determined Initial Estimate GCDAMP Funded Other BoR Funding Fund Source Not Yet Determined Initial Estimate G

3 Total w/o Lake Powell $8,745,300 $802,800 $368,600 $9,802,800 $9,116,800 $742,800 $670,000 $9,775,500 $5

Food Base Monitoring and

Research $521,200 $0 $214,900 $591,900 $550,500 $0 $298,900 $596,700 

5.1 Are aquatic insect diversity and production recruitment limited?

X 5.1.1 Insect emergence in Grand Canyon via citizen science Kennedy and Yackulic $117,600 $0 $0 $119,500 $0 $0 $138,200 

X 5.1.2

Quanti fying the effects of

hydropeaking on oviposition and

egg mortality

Kennedy and

Muehlbauer $97,000 $0 $0 $105,000 $0 $0 $117,900 

X 5.1.3 Synthesis of stressors and controls on EPT distributions Muehlbauer et al. $29,600 $0 $0 $32,200 $0 $0 $0 

X 5.1.4 Synthesis of the aquatic foodbase in western US tailwaters Muehlbauer et al. $29,600 $0 $0 $32,200 $0 $0 $0 X 5.1.5 Natural history of oviposition for species present in Grand Canyon Kennedy et al. $25,900 $0 $0 $27,600 $0 $0 $0 

X 5.1.6

Laboratory studies on insect

oviposition and egg mortality

associated with changing water

levels

Kennedy and

Copp $0 $0 $36,900 $0 $0 $40,000 $46,500 

X 5.1.7

Comparative emergence studies in

Upper Basin using citizen science

light trapping

Kennedy et al. $0 $0 $58,600 $0 $0 $64,000 $0 

X 5.1.8 Natural history of oviposition for EPT via studies in the Upper Basin Kennedy et al. $0 $0 $25,300 $0 $0 $27,300 $0 

5.2

Patterns and controls of aquatic

invertebrate drift in Colorado

River tailwaters

X 5.2.1

Continue characterizing and

monitoring dri ft and insect

emergence in Glen Canyon

Muehlbauer $51,900 $0 $0 $66,900 $0 $0 $88,400 

X 5.2.2

Continue natal origins dri ft

monitoring in Glen, Marble, and

Grand Canyons

Kennedy $87,100 $0 $0 $115,600 $0 $0 $157,300 

X 5.2.3

Link dri ft at natal origins Project

transects to channel bed shear

stress

Muehlbauer &

Wright $20,600 $0 $0 $24,500 $0 $0 $0 

X 5.2.4

Link invertebrate drift patterns to

substrate conditions in Glen,

Marble, and Grand Canyons

Muehlbauer &

Wright $20,700 $0 $0 $24,600 $0 $0 $30,100 

X 5.2.5

Comparative longitudinal dri ft

studies in Upper and Lower

Colorado River Basin tailwaters

Kennedy et al. $0 $0 $94,100 $0 $0 $167,600 $0 

5.3 Primary Production Monitoring in Glen Marble and Grand Canyons

X 5.3.1 Synthesis and publication of Glen Canyon algae production

Kennedy,

Yackulic, Yard,

Payn & Hall

$25,900 $0 $0 $27,100 $0 $0 $0 

X 5.3.2 Monitoring dissolved oxygen in Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyon Copp & Voichick $15,300 $0 $0 $16,700 $0 $0 $18,300 

X 5.3.3 Developing automated tools for estimating algae production Yackulic, Hall & Stets $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Monitoring Research FY15 FY16 
496 

Core activities

Support implementation and

evaluation of HFE Protocol

and Non‐Native Fish Control

Technical and analytical

innovations in monitoring

Improving predictive

modeling capacity

Resolving scientific

uncertainty

Independent science

oversight and review

Integrating tribes in

monitoring and research

Project Identifier Project Description GCDAMP Funded Other BoR Funding Fund Source Not Yet Determined Initial Estimate GCDAMP Funded Other BoR Funding Fund Source Not Yet Determined Initial Estimate 

3 Total w/o Lake Powell $8,745,300 $802,800 $368,600 $9,802,800 $9,116,800 $742,800 $670,000 $9,775,500 

X 6

Mainstem Colorado River

Humpback Chub

Aggregations and Fish

Commuity Dynamics

$567,600 $102,700 $16,100 $626,200 $582,400 $66,900 $15,500 $733,800 

X 6.1

Mainstem Colorado River

Humpback Chub aggregation

monitoring

Persons et al. $217,700 $0 $0 $241,600 $0 $0 $249,400 

X 6.2 Aggregation recruitment Dodrill et al. $0 $84,300 $0 $0 $53,400 $0 $0 

X 6.3

Monitoring mainstem

aggregations with PIT tag

antennas (pilot)

Ward $0 $18,400 $0 $0 $13,500 $0 $9,200 

X 6.4 System Wide Electrofishing Persons and Rogowski $273,100 $0 $0 $279,700 $0 $0 $316,400 

X X 6.5

Brown trout natal origins through

body pigmentation patterns in the

Colorado River

Rowgoski $0 $0 $16,100 $0 $0 $15,500 $0 

X X 6.6 Direct Mainstem Augmentation of Humpback Chub Young et al. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $42,900 

X X 6.7 Rainbow Trout Early Li fe Stage Survey Avery and Foster $76,800 $0 $0 $79,100 $0 $0 $90,100 

X 6.8 Lees Ferry Creel Survey Rogowski and Persons $0 $0 $0 $25,800 $0 $0 $25,800 

Monitoring Research FY15 FY16 
497 

Core activities

Support implementation and

evaluation of HFE Protocol

and Non‐Native Fish Control

Technical and analytical

innovations in monitoring

Improving predictive

modeling capacity

Resolving scientific

uncertainty

Independent science

oversight and review

Integrating tribes in

monitoring and research

Project Identifier Project Description GCDAMP Funded Other BoR Funding Fund Source Not Yet Determined Initial Estimate GCDAMP Funded Other BoR Funding Fund Source Not Yet Determined Initial Estimate 

3 Total w/o Lake Powell $8,745,300 $802,800 $368,600 $9,802,800 $9,116,800 $742,800 $670,000 $9,775,500 7

Population Ecology of

Humpback Chub in and

around the Little Colorado

River

$1,290,100 $261,000 $0 $1,493,200 $1,388,700 $215,400 $0 $1,364,600 

X 7.1

Annual spring/fall humpback chub

abundance estimates in the lower

13.6 km of the Little Colorado

River

Persons et al. $530,800 $0 $0 $542,800 $0 $0 $554,500 

X 7.2

Juvenile chub monitoring in the

mainstem near the Little Colorado

River confluence

Yard et al. $450,700 $0 $0 $468,100 $0 $0 $181,900 

X 7.3

July Li ttle Colorado River juvenile

humpback chub marking to

estimate production and

outmigration

Dzul et al. $0 $111,800 $0 $117,700 $0 $0 $129,500 

X 7.4 Remote PIT tag array monitoring in the LCR Persons $53,500 $0 $0 $111,100 $0 $0 $152,500 

X 7.5 Food web moni toring in the Little Colorado River Muehlbauer et al. $141,100 $0 $0 $87,400 $0 $0 $2,500 

X 7.6

Potential for gravel substrate

limitation for humpback chub

reproduction in the LCR

Dzul et al. $0 $11,600 $0 $0 $12,400 $0 $0 

X 7.7

Evaluate CO2 as a limiting factor

early life history stages of

humpback chub in the Little

Colorado River

Ward and

Stone $0 $95,900 $0 $0 $108,000 $0 $64,000 

X 7.8

Evaluate effects of Asian

tapeworm infestation on Juvenile

humpback chub

Ward $16,800 $0 $0 $16,700 $0 $0 $18,300 

X 7.9

Development of a non‐lethal tool

to assess the physiological

condition of humpback chub in the

Colorado and Little Colorado

Rivers

Dibble et al. $0 $41,700 $0 $0 $95,000 $0 $52,000 

X X 7.10 Humpback chub population modelling Yackulic and Dzul $97,200 $0 $0 $149,400 $0 $0 $209,400 

Monitoring Research FY15 FY16 
498 

Core activities

Support implementation and

evaluation of HFE Protocol

and Non‐Native Fish Control

Technical and analytical

innovations in monitoring

Improving predictive

modeling capacity

Resolving scientific

uncertainty

Independent science

oversight and review

Integrating tribes in

monitoring and research

Project Identifier Project Description GCDAMP Funded Other BoR Funding Fund Source Not Yet Determined Initial Estimate GCDAMP Funded Other BoR Funding Fund Source Not Yet Determined Initial Estimate 

3 Total w/o Lake Powell $8,745,300 $802,800 $368,600 $9,802,800 $9,116,800 $742,800 $670,000 $9,775,500 8

Experimental Actions to

Increase Abundance and

Distribution of Native

Fishes in Grand Canyon

$184,500 $0 $0 $226,500 $210,600 $0 $0 $296,100 

X 8.1 Efficacy and ecological impacts of

Trout removal

Ward and

Healy $95,900 $0 $0 $118,400 $0 $0 $123,200 

X 8.2 Translocation and monitoring above Chute Falls Persons et al. $88,600 $0 $0 $87,500 $0 $0 $88,000 

X 8.3 Fisheries Protocol Evaluation Panel (FY16 or FY17) VanderKooi et al. $0 $0 $0 $20,600 $0 $0 $0 

X 8.4 Invasive Species Surveillance and

Response Young et al. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $52,000 

X 8.5 Genetic Moni toring of Lower Basin Humpback Chub Wilson et al. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $32,900 

Monitoring Research FY15 FY16 
499 

Core activities

Support implementation and

evaluation of HFE Protocol

and Non‐Native Fish Control

Technical and analytical

innovations in monitoring

Improving predictive

modeling capacity

Resolving scientific

uncertainty

Independent science

oversight and review

Integrating tribes in

monitoring and research

Project Identifier Project Description GCDAMP Funded Other BoR Funding Fund Source Not Yet Determined Initial Estimate GCDAMP Funded Other BoR Funding Fund Source Not Yet Determined Initial Estimate 

3 Total w/o Lake Powell $8,745,300 $802,800 $368,600 $9,802,800 $9,116,800 $742,800 $670,000 $9,775,500 9

Understanding Factors

Determining Recruitment,

Population Size, Growth,

and Movement of Rainbow

Trout in Glen and Marble

Canyons

$924,700 $0 $137,600 $946,200 $880,000 $0 $155,900 $602,100 

XX X 9.1 Lees Ferry RBT; monitoring, analysis, and study design Persons et al. $180,900 $0 $0 $212,700 $0 $0 $76,900 

X X 9.2

Detection of RBT movement from

upper Colorado River below GCD

(NO)

Yard, Korman,

Persons and

Rogowski

$352,500 $0 $0 $436,500 $0 $0 $370,300 

X 9.3

Exploring the mechanisms behind

trout growth, reproduction, and

movement in Glen and Marble

Canyons using lipid (fat) reserves

as an indicator of physiological

condition

Dibble et al. $102,300 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

X 9.4 Comparative study on the feeding morphology of drift feeding fish Yard et al. $0 $0 $86,100 $0 $0 $103,000 $0 

X 9.5

Meta‐analysis and the

development of reactive distance

relationships for encounter rate

models

Yard et al. $20,000 $0 $18,400 $20,000 $0 $18,000 $18,000 

X 9.6

Lab studies to evaluate turbidity

as a potential Glen Canyon Dam‐

operations management tool to

constrain rainbow trout

populations and reduce

predation/competition on juvenile

humpback chub

Ward $37,000 $0 $0 $29,000 $0 $0 $0 

X 9.7 Application of a bioenergetics model in a seasonally turbid river Dodrill et al. $33,200 $0 $33,100 $35,000 $0 $34,900 $33,300 

X 9.8

Mechanisms that limit RBT and

BNT growth in other western

tailwater systems

Dibble et al. $72,200 $0 $0 $81,400 $0 $0 $0 

X X 9.9

Contingency Planning for High

Experimental Flows and

Subsequent Rainbow Trout

Population Management

Yard et al. $72,400 $0 $0 $61,800 $0 $0 $98,500 

X 9.10

Examining the Effects of High Flow

Experiments on the Physiological

Condition of Age‐0 and Adult

Rainbow Trout in Glen Canyon

Dibble et al. $54,200 $0 $0 $69,800 $0 $0 $5,100 

Monitoring Research FY15 FY16 
500 

Core activities

Support implementation and

evaluation of HFE Protocol

and Non‐Native Fish Control

Technical and analytical

innovations in monitoring

Improving predictive

modeling capacity

Resolving scientific

uncertainty

Independent science

oversight and review

Integrating tribes in

monitoring and research

Project Identifier Project Description GCDAMP Funded Other BoR Funding Fund Source Not Yet Determined Initial Estimate GCDAMP Funded Other BoR Funding Fund Source Not Yet Determined Initial Estimate 

3 Total w/o Lake Powell $8,745,300 $802,800 $368,600 $9,802,800 $9,116,800 $742,800 $670,000 $9,775,500 

X X 10

Mapping and Assessment of

Aquatic Habitats below

Glen Canyon Dam

Melis et al. $148,600 $0 $0 $163,500 $152,100 $0 $0 $132,200 

11

Riparian Vegetation

Studies: Ground‐based and

Landscape‐scale Riparian

Vegetation Monitoring and

Plant Response‐Guild

Research associated with

Sandbar Evolution and

Wildlife Habitat Analysis

$488,100 $0 $0 $551,700 $513,100 $0 $0 $504,500 

X 11.1 Ground‐based vegetation monitoring Ralston et al. $176,000 $0 $0 $190,900 $0 $0 $211,900 

X 11.2

Periodic landscape scale

vegetation mapping and analysis

using remotely sensed data

Sankey et al. $154,700 $0 $0 $127,200 $0 $0 $133,100 

X 11.3

Influence of sediment and

vegetation feedbacks on the

evolution of sandbars in Grand

Canyon since 1991

Sarr et al. $100,100 $0 $0 $97,800 $0 $0 $49,600 

X 11.4 Linking dam operations to changes in terrestrial fauna Yackulic et al. $23,900 $0 $0 $135,800 $0 $0 $109,900 

X 11.5

Science Review Panel of Successes

and Challenges in Non‐native

Vegetation Control in the Colorado

River and Rio Grande Watersheds

Sarr et al. $33,400 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

12

Dam‐Related Effects on the

Distribution and

Abundance of Selected

Culturally‐Important Plants

in the Colorado River

Ecosystem

$52,000 $0 $0 $86,400 $80,400 $0 $0 $0 

X X 12.1 Tribal workshop and analysis of cultural landscape change Fairley et al. $52,000 $0 $0 $55,500 $0 $0 $0 

X X 12.2 Tribal evaluations of cultural landscape changes Fairley et al. $0 $0 $0 $30,900 $0 $0 $0 

Monitoring Research FY15 FY16 
501 

 

Core activities

Support implementation and

evaluation of HFE Protocol

and Non‐Native Fish Control

Technical and analytical

innovations in monitoring

Improving predictive

modeling capacity

Resolving scientific

uncertainty

Independent science

oversight and review

Integrating tribes in

monitoring and research

Project Identifier Project Description GCDAMP Funded Other BoR Funding Fund Source Not Yet Determined Initial Estimate GCDAMP Funded Other BoR Funding Fund Source Not Yet Determined Initial Estimate 

3 Total w/o Lake Powell $8,745,300 $802,800 $368,600 $9,802,800 $9,116,800 $742,800 $670,000 $9,775,500 

13

Socio‐economic Monitoring

and Research $176,100 $0 $0 $220,300 $204,900 $0 $136,600 $356,100 

X 13.1

Economic Values of Recreational

Resources Along the Colorado

River – Grand Canyon Whitewater

Floater and Lees Ferry Angler

Values

Bair et al. $69,600 $0 $0 $73,200 $0 $0 $0 

X 13.2

Tribal Values and Perspectives of

Resources Downstream of Glen

Canyon Dam

Bair et al. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $136,600 $128,000 

X 13.3

Applied Decision Methods for the

Glen Canyon Adaptive

Management Plan

Bair et al. $106,500 $0 $0 $147,100 $0 $0 $228,100 

X 14

Geographic Information

Systems, Services, and

Support

Gushue et al. $222,800 $0 $0 $236,500 $219,900 $0 $0 $253,900 

15

Administration and

Support $1,298,500 $0 $0 $1,432,700 $1,332,400 $0 $0 $1,556,300 

X 15.1 GCMRC Admin and Support $992,900 $0 $0 $1,105,100 $0 $0 $1,205,000 X 15.2 GCMRC logistical support $305,600 $0 $0 $327,600 $0 $0 $351,300 

Total Lake Powell $0 $289,100 $0 $0 $0 $310,500 $0 $0 

Total AMP $8,745,300 $513,700 $368,600 $9,802,800 $9,116,800 $432,300 $670,000 $9,775,500 

Grand Total $8,745,300 $802,800 $368,600 $9,802,800 $9,116,800 $742,800 $670,000 $9,775,500 

Monitoring Research FY15 FY16 

Independent Review

Fisheries Protocol Evaluation

Panel (see Project 8.3)

Reservoir Limnology/ecology

and linkage PEP (see Project

1.2)

Vegetation Management PEP

(see Project 11.5)
502 

Appendix 2-B. Fiscal Year 2015 Budget 

Project Identifier Project Description Salaries Travel & Training Operating Expenses Logistics Coop‐ erators (non‐USGS) USGS Coop‐erators USGS/SBSC Burden Total Coop‐ erators (non‐ USGS) Estimated

Burden

C

e

Est

B

Total w/o Lake Powell $4,515,500 $140,500 $589,100 $820,800 $1,917,400 $638,400 $1,005,900 $9,627,600 $285,400

Burden Rate 15.634%

1

Lake Powell and Glen

Canyon Dam Release Water‐

Quality Monitoring

$183,500 $8,700 $40,300 $0 $20,000 $20,300 $36,900 $309,700 $3,000 

1

Lake Powell and Glen

Canyon Dam Release Water‐

Quality Monitoring

Vernieu $183,500 $8,700 $40,300 $0 $0 $20,300 $36,300 $289,100 $0 

1.2

Reservoir limnology and ecology

monitoring and research science

review palen

Vernieu $0 $0 $0 $0 $20,000 $0 $600 $20,600 $3,000 

2

Stream Flow, Water

Quality, and Sediment

Transport in the Colorado

River Ecosystem

Topping et al. $619,000 $5,000 $50,000 $70,000 $0 $480,000 $116,300 $1,340,300 $0 $

3

Sandbars and Sediment

Storage Dynamics $549,700 $5,900 $46,000 $56,300 $500,600 $48,000 $118,100 $1,324,600 $74,500 

3.1.1

Monitoring sandbars using

topographic surveys and remote

cameras

Grams et al. $106,000 $2,000 $4,000 $26,600 $156,100 $48,000 $26,400 $369,100 $23,200 

3.1.2

Monitoring sand bars and

shorelines above 8000 ft3/s by

remote sensing

Sankey et al. $103,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,200 $119,700 $0 

3.1.3

Surveying with a camera: rapid

topographic surveys with digital

images using structure‐from‐

motion (SFM) photogrammetry

Wheaton et

al. $18,700 $0 $0 $0 $20,000 $0 $3,500 $42,200 $3,000 

3.1.4 Analysis of historical images at

selected monitoring sites Hazel et al. $16,000 $0 $0 $0 $68,400 $0 $4,600 $89,000 $10,200 

3.2 Sediment storage monitoring Grams et al. $163,700 $2,000 $27,000 $29,700 $196,100 $0 $40,700 $459,200 $29,200 3.3

Characterizing, and predictive

modeling, of sand bar response at

local and reach scales

Mueller et al. $64,700 $0 $0 $0 $25,000 $0 $10,900 $100,600 $3,700 

3.4

Connecting bed material

transport, bed morphodynamics,

and sand budgets in Grand

Canyon

McElroy et al. $0 $0 $0 $0 $35,000 $0 $1,100 $36,100 $5,200 

3.5 Control network and survey

support Kohl $77,100 $1,900 $15,000 $0 $0 $0 $14,700 $108,700 $0 
503 

Project Identifier Project Description Salaries Travel & Training Operating Expenses Logistics Coop‐ erators (non‐USGS) USGS Coop‐erators USGS/SBSC Burden Total Coop‐ erators (non‐ USGS) Estimated

Burden

Total w/o Lake Powell $4,515,500 $140,500 $589,100 $820,800 $1,917,400 $638,400 $1,005,900 $9,627,600 $285,400

Burden Rate 15.634%

4

Connectivity along the

Fluvial‐Aeolian‐Hillslope

Continuum: Quantifying

the Relative Importance of

River‐Related Factors that

Influence Upland

Geomorphology and

Archaeological Site

Stability

$197,800 $9,000 $10,000 $0 $0 $84,900 $33,900 $335,600 $

4.1

Quanti fying connectivity along the

fluvial‐aeolian‐hillslope

continuum at landscape scales

Sankey et al. $107,200 $9,000 $2,500 $0 $0 $75,000 $18,600 $212,300 $

4.2 Monitoring of cultural sites in

Grand and Glen Canyons Sankey et al. $90,600 $0 $7,500 $0 $0 $9,900 $15,300 $123,300 $
504 

Project Identifier Project Description Salaries Travel & Training Operating Expenses Logistics Coop‐ erators (non‐USGS) USGS Coop‐erators USGS/SBSC Burden Total Coop‐ erators (non‐ USGS) Estimated

Burden

U

Co

er

Esti

Bu

Total w/o Lake Powell $4,515,500 $140,500 $589,100 $820,800 $1,917,400 $638,400 $1,005,900 $9,627,600 $285,400

Burden Rate 15.634%

5

Food Base Monitoring and

Research $470,900 $22,200 $37,100 $58,000 $36,100 $18,800 $93,000 $736,100 $5,300 $

5.1 Are aquatic insect diversity and

production recruitment limited? $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

5.1.1 Insect emergence in Grand Canyon

via citizen science

Kennedy and

Yackulic $80,500 $400 $9,000 $3,800 $9,000 $0 $14,900 $117,600 $1,300 

5.1.2

Quantifying the effects of

hydropeaking on oviposition and

egg mortality

Kennedy and

Muehlbauer $47,500 $700 $3,000 $26,600 $6,800 $0 $12,400 $97,000 $1,000 

5.1.3 Synthesis of stressors and

controls on EPT distributions

Muehlbauer

et al. $25,200 $400 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,000 $29,600 $0 

5.1.4 Synthesis of the aquatic foodbase in western US tailwaters Muehlbauer et al. $25,200 $400 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,000 $29,600 $0 5.1.5 Natural history of oviposition for

species present in Grand Canyon Kennedy et al. $12,600 $700 $3,000 $0 $6,800 $0 $2,800 $25,900 $1,000 

5.1.6

Laboratory studies on insect

oviposition and egg mortality

associated with changing water

levels

Kennedy and

Copp $25,200 $700 $6,000 $0 $0 $0 $5,000 $36,900 $0 

5.1.7

Comparative emergence studies in

Upper Basin using citizen science

light trapping

Kennedy et al. $39,500 $1,400 $6,000 $3,800 $0 $0 $7,900 $58,600 $0 

5.1.8

Natural history of oviposition for

EPT via studies in the Upper Basin Kennedy et al. $12,600 $2,500 $3,000 $3,800 $0 $0 $3,400 $25,300 $0 

5.2

Patterns and controls of aquatic

invertebrate drift in Colorado

River tailwaters

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

5.2.1

Continue characterizing and

monitoring drift and insect

emergence in Glen Canyon

Muehlbauer $36,400 $7,000 $1,500 $0 $0 $0 $7,000 $51,900 $0 

5.2.2

Continue natal origins drift

monitoring in Glen, Marble, and

Grand Canyons

Kennedy $72,800 $1,000 $1,500 $0 $0 $0 $11,800 $87,100 $0 

5.2.3

Link dri ft at natal origins Project

transects to channel bed shear

stress

Muehlbauer &

Wright $9,100 $300 $300 $0 $0 $9,400 $1,500 $20,600 $0 

5.2.4

Link invertebrate drift patterns to

substrate conditions in Glen,

Marble, and Grand Canyons

Muehlbauer &

Wright $9,100 $400 $300 $0 $0 $9,400 $1,500 $20,700 $0 

5.2.5

Comparative longitudinal drift

studies in Upper and Lower

Colorado River Basin tailwaters

Kennedy et al. $54,600 $5,300 $1,500 $20,000 $0 $0 $12,700 $94,100 $0 

5.3 Primary Production Monitoring in

Glen Marble and Grand Canyons $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

5.3.1 Synthesis and publication of Glen

Canyon algae production

Kennedy,

Yackulic,

Yard, Payn &

Hall

$10,400 $0 $0 $0 $13,500 $0 $2,000 $25,900 $2,000 

5.3.2 Monitoring dissolved oxygen in

Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyon

Copp &

Voichick $10,200 $1,000 $2,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,100 $15,300 $0 

5.3.3 Developing automated tools for

estimating algae production

Yackulic, Hall

& Stets $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 
505 

Project Identifier Project Description Salaries Travel & Training Operating Expenses Logistics Coop‐ erators (non‐USGS) USGS Coop‐erators USGS/SBSC Burden Total Coop‐ erators (non‐ USGS) Estimated

Burden

USG

Coo

erat

Estim

Burd

Total w/o Lake Powell $4,515,500 $140,500 $589,100 $820,800 $1,917,400 $638,400 $1,005,900 $9,627,600 $285,400

Burden Rate 15.634%

6

Mainstem Colorado River

Humpback Chub

Aggregations and Fish

Commuity Dynamics

$187,000 $4,900 $29,700 $100,300 $305,000 $0 $59,500 $686,400 $45,400 

6.1

Mainstem Colorado River

Humpback Chub aggregation

monitoring

Persons et al. $55,400 $1,000 $6,100 $36,700 $100,000 $0 $18,500 $217,700 $14,900 

6.2 Aggregation recruitment Dodrill et al. $35,400 $0 $6,400 $8,800 $25,000 $0 $8,700 $84,300 $3,700 6.3

Monitoring mainstem

aggregations with PIT tag

antennas (pilot)

Ward $8,100 $0 $7,800 $0 $0 $0 $2,500 $18,400 $0 

6.4 System Wide Electrofishing

Persons and

Rogowski $31,900 $0 $8,100 $49,200 $165,000 $0 $18,900 $273,100 $24,600 

6.5

Brown trout natal origins through

body pigmentation patterns in the

Colorado River

Rowgoski $0 $0 $600 $0 $15,000 $0 $500 $16,100 $2,200 

6.6 Direct Mainstem Augmentation of Humpback Chub Young et al. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 6.7 Rainbow Trout Early Life Stage

Survey

Avery and

Foster $56,200 $3,900 $700 $5,600 $0 $0 $10,400 $76,800 $0 

6.8 Lees Ferry Creel Survey Rogowski and Persons $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

7

Population Ecology of

Humpback Chub in and

around the Little Colorado

River

$508,600 $15,000 $61,100 $262,300 $555,000 $0 $149,100 $1,551,100 $82,600 

7.1

Annual spring/fall humpback

chub abundance estimates in the

lower 13.6 km of the Little

Colorado River

Persons et al. $23,200 $0 $15,500 $90,800 $370,000 $0 $31,300 $530,800 $55,100 

7.2

Juvenile chub monitoring in the

mainstem near the Li ttle Colorado

River confluence

Yard et al. $93,600 $0 $8,900 $135,800 $170,000 $0 $42,400 $450,700 $25,300 

7.3

July Little Colorado River juvenile

humpback chub marking to

estimate production and

outmigration

Dzul et al. $62,500 $4,000 $5,400 $24,800 $0 $0 $15,100 $111,800 $0 

7.4 Remote PIT tag array monitoring

in the LCR Persons $34,700 $0 $3,500 $3,600 $5,000 $0 $6,700 $53,500 $700 

7.5 Food web monitoring in the Little

Colorado River

Muehlbauer

et al. $114,800 $2,000 $1,000 $4,200 $0 $0 $19,100 $141,100 $0 

7.6

Potential for gravel substrate

limitation for humpback chub

reproduction in the LCR

Dzul et al. $5,400 $500 $1,000 $3,100 $0 $0 $1,600 $11,600 $0 

7.7

Evaluate CO2 as a limiting factor

early life history stages of

humpback chub in the Li ttle

Colorado River

Ward and

Stone $53,500 $3,000 $17,500 $0 $10,000 $0 $11,900 $95,900 $1,500 

7.8

Evaluate effects of Asian

tapeworm infestation on Juvenile

humpback chub

Ward $11,000 $2,000 $1,500 $0 $0 $0 $2,300 $16,800 $0 

7.9

Development of a non‐lethal tool

to assess the physiological

condition of humpback chub in

the Colorado and Little Colorado

Rivers

Dibble et al. $27,900 $1,500 $6,700 $0 $0 $0 $5,600 $41,700 $0 

7.10 Humpback chub population modelling Yackulic and Dzul $82,000 $2,000 $100 $0 $0 $0 $13,100 $97,200 $0 
506 

Project Identifier Project Description Salaries Travel & Training Operating Expenses Logistics Coop‐ erators (non‐USGS) USGS Coop‐erators USGS/SBSC Burden Total Coop‐ erators (non‐ USGS) Estimated

Burden

Total w/o Lake Powell $4,515,500 $140,500 $589,100 $820,800 $1,917,400 $638,400 $1,005,900 $9,627,600 $285,400

Burden Rate 15.634%

8

Experimental Actions to

Increase Abundance and

Distribution of Native

Fishes in Grand Canyon

$53,700 $0 $7,500 $37,600 $68,200 $0 $17,500 $184,500 $10,200 

8.1 Efficacy and ecological impacts of

Trout removal

Ward and

Healy $49,700 $0 $2,800 $30,400 $0 $0 $13,000 $95,900 $

8.2 Translocation and monitoring above Chute Falls Persons et al. $4,000 $0 $4,700 $7,200 $68,200 $0 $4,500 $88,600 $10,208.3 Fisheries Protocol Evaluation

Panel (FY16 or FY17)

VanderKooi et

al. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $

8.4 Invasive Species Surveillance and

Response Young et al. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $

8.5 Genetic Monitoring of Lower Basin

Humpback Chub Wilson et al. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 
507 

Project Identifier Project Description Salaries Travel & Training Operating Expenses Logistics Coop‐ erators (non‐USGS) USGS Coop‐erators USGS/SBSC Burden Total Coop‐ erators (non‐ USGS) Estimated

Burden

Total w/o Lake Powell $4,515,500 $140,500 $589,100 $820,800 $1,917,400 $638,400 $1,005,900 $9,627,600 $285,400

Burden Rate 15.634%

9

Understanding Factors

Determining Recruitment,

Population Size, Growth,

and Movement of Rainbow

Trout in Glen and Marble

Canyons

$483,200 $9,000 $94,800 $162,400 $190,000 $0 $122,900 $1,062,300 $28,30

9.1 Lees Ferry RBT; monitoring, analysis, and study design Persons et al. $41,100 $0 $0 $12,900 $115,000 $0 $11,900 $180,900 $17,109.2

Detection of RBT movement from

upper Colorado River below GCD

(NO)

Yard, Korman,

Persons and

Rogowski

$95,700 $0 $14,900 $127,400 $75,000 $0 $39,500 $352,500 $11,20

9.3

Exploring the mechanisms behind

trout growth, reproduction, and

movement in Glen and Marble

Canyons using lipid (fat) reserves

as an indicator of physiological

condition

Dibble et al. $48,500 $0 $40,000 $0 $0 $0 $13,800 $102,300 $

9.4 Comparative study on the feeding

morphology of dri ft feeding fish Yard et al. $72,100 $0 $2,400 $0 $0 $0 $11,600 $86,100 $

9.5

Meta‐analysis and the

development of reactive distance

relationships for encounter rate

models

Yard et al. $29,200 $2,500 $1,500 $0 $0 $0 $5,200 $38,400 $

9.6

Lab studies to evaluate turbidity

as a potential Glen Canyon Dam‐

operations management tool to

constrain rainbow trout

populations and reduce

predation/competition on juvenile

humpback chub

Ward $27,500 $2,000 $2,500 $0 $0 $0 $5,000 $37,000 $

9.7 Application of a bioenergetics model in a seasonally turbid river Dodrill et al. $53,800 $2,000 $1,500 $0 $0 $0 $9,000 $66,300 $9.8

Mechanisms that limit RBT and

BNT growth in other western

tailwater systems

Dibble et al. $58,400 $2,500 $1,500 $0 $0 $0 $9,800 $72,200 $

9.9

Contingency Planning for High

Experimental Flows and

Subsequent Rainbow Trout

Population Management

Yard et al. $12,500 $0 $28,000 $22,100 $0 $0 $9,800 $72,400 $

9.10

Examining the Effects of High Flow

Experiments on the Physiological

Condition of Age‐0 and Adult

Rainbow Trout in Glen Canyon

Dibble et al. $44,400 $0 $2,500 $0 $0 $0 $7,300 $54,200 $
508 

Project Identifier Project Description Salaries Travel & Training Operating Expenses Logistics Coop‐ erators (non‐USGS) USGS Coop‐erators USGS/SBSC Burden Total Coop‐ erators (non‐ USGS) Estimated

Burden

Total w/o Lake Powell $4,515,500 $140,500 $589,100 $820,800 $1,917,400 $638,400 $1,005,900 $9,627,600 $285,400

Burden Rate 15.634%

10

Mapping and Assessment

of Aquatic Habitats below

Glen Canyon Dam

Melis et al. $123,500 $5,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $20,100 $148,600 $

11

Riparian Vegetation

Studies: Ground‐based and

Landscape‐scale Riparian

Vegetation Monitoring and

Plant Response‐Guild

Research associated with

Sandbar Evolution and

Wildlife Habitat Analysis

$241,800 $8,000 $5,500 $48,900 $126,000 $6,700 $51,200 $488,100 $18,70

11.1 Ground‐based vegetation

monitoring Ralston et al. $84,100 $1,500 $1,000 $48,900 $18,800 $0 $21,700 $176,000 $2,800 

11.2

Periodic landscape scale

vegetation mapping and analysis

using remotely sensed data

Sankey et al. $41,600 $2,000 $1,500 $0 $99,600 $0 $10,000 $154,700 $14,800 

11.3

Influence of sediment and

vegetation feedbacks on the

evolution of sandbars in Grand

Canyon since 1991

Sarr et al. $71,000 $2,000 $1,000 $0 $7,600 $6,700 $11,800 $100,100 $1,100 

11.4 Linking dam operations to

changes in terrestrial fauna Yackulic et al. $16,200 $2,500 $2,000 $0 $0 $0 $3,200 $23,900 $0 

11.5

Science Review Panel of Successes

and Challenges in Non‐native

Vegetation Control in the

Colorado River and Rio Grande

Watersheds

Sarr et al. $28,900 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,500 $33,400 $

12

Dam‐Related Effects on the

Distribution and

Abundance of Selected

Culturally‐Important Plants

in the Colorado River

Ecosystem

$19,600 $5,000 $2,000 $5,000 $15,000 $0 $5,400 $52,000 $2,20

12.1 Tribal workshop and analysis of

cultural landscape change Fairley et al. $19,600 $5,000 $2,000 $5,000 $15,000 $0 $5,400 $52,000 $2,20

12.2 Tribal evaluations of cultural

landscape changes Fairley et al. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $
509 

 

Project Identifier Project Description Salaries Travel & Training Operating Expenses Logistics Coop‐ erators (non‐USGS) USGS Coop‐erators USGS/SBSC Burden Total Coop‐ erators (non‐ USGS) Estimated

Burden

Total w/o Lake Powell $4,515,500 $140,500 $589,100 $820,800 $1,917,400 $638,400 $1,005,900 $9,627,600 $285,400

Burden Rate 15.634%

13

Socio‐economic

Monitoring and Research $118,800 $12,500 $1,000 $0 $22,500 $0 $21,300 $176,100 $3,40

13.1

Economic Values of Recreational

Resources Along the Colorado

River – Grand Canyon Whitewater

Floater and Lees Ferry Angler

Values

Bair et al. $54,700 $5,000 $500 $0 $0 $0 $9,400 $69,600 $

13.2

Tribal Values and Perspectives of

Resources Downstream of Glen

Canyon Dam

Bair et al. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $

13.3

Applied Decision Methods for the

Glen Canyon Adaptive

Management Plan

Bair et al. $64,100 $7,500 $500 $0 $22,500 $0 $11,900 $106,500 $3,40

14

Geographic Information

Systems, Services, and

Support

Gushue et al. $171,300 $4,000 $17,400 $0 $0 $0 $30,100 $222,800 $

15

Administration and

Support $770,600 $35,000 $227,000 $20,000 $79,000 $0 $166,900 $1,298,500 $11,800 

15.1 GCMRC Admin and Support $511,300 $30,000 $227,000 $20,000 $79,000 $0 $125,600 $992,900 $11,800 15.2 GCMRC logistical support $259,300 $5,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $41,300 $305,600 $0 

Total Lake Powell $183,500 $8,700 $40,300 $0 $0 $20,300 $36,300 $289,100 $0 

Total AMP $4,515,500 $140,500 $589,100 $820,800 $1,917,400 $638,400 $1,005,900 $9,627,600 $285,400 

Grand Total $4,699,000 $149,200 $629,400 $820,800 $1,917,400 $658,700 $1,042,200 $9,916,700 $285,400 

Independent Review

Fisheries Protocol Evaluation

Panel (see Project 8.3)

Reservoir Limnology/ecology

and linkage PEP (see Project

1.2)

Vegetation Management PEP

(see Project 11.5)
510 

Appendix 2-C. Fiscal Year 2016 Budget 

Project Identifier Project Description Salaries Travel & Training Operating Expenses Logistics Coop‐ erators (non‐USGS) USGS Coop‐erators USGS/SBSC Burden Total C

er

(

U

Esti

Bu

Total w/o Lake Powell $4,912,500 $151,000 $632,000 $944,200 $2,154,800 $629,500 $1,481,100 $10,905,100 $3

Burden Rate 21.325%

1

Lake Powell and Glen

Canyon Dam Release Water‐

Quality Monitoring

$187,200 $9,000 $41,600 $0 $0 $22,000 $50,700 $310,500 

1

Lake Powell and Glen

Canyon Dam Release Water‐

Quality Monitoring

Vernieu $187,200 $9,000 $41,600 $0 $0 $22,000 $50,700 $310,500 

1.2

Reservoir limnology and ecology

monitoring and research science

review palen

Vernieu $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

2

Stream Flow, Water

Quality, and Sediment

Transport in the Colorado

River Ecosystem

Topping et al. $659,000 $5,000 $52,000 $72,000 $0 $496,000 $168,000 $1,452,000 

3

Sandbars and Sediment

Storage Dynamics $589,500 $5,900 $46,000 $92,400 $500,600 $20,000 $171,500 $1,425,900 $

3.1.1

Monitoring sandbars using

topographic surveys and remote

cameras

Grams et al. $109,100 $2,000 $4,000 $27,900 $156,100 $20,000 $35,200 $354,300 $

3.1.2

Monitoring sand bars and

shorelines above 8000 ft3/s by

remote sensing

Sankey et al. $107,200 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $22,900 $130,100 

3.1.3

Surveying with a camera: rapid

topographic surveys with digital

images using structure‐from‐

motion (SFM) photogrammetry

Wheaton et

al. $43,000 $0 $0 $0 $20,000 $0 $9,800 $72,800 

3.1.4 Analysis of historical images at

selected monitoring sites Hazel et al. $16,300 $0 $0 $0 $68,400 $0 $5,500 $90,200 $

3.2 Sediment storage monitoring Grams et al. $167,000 $2,000 $27,000 $64,500 $196,100 $0 $61,400 $518,000 $3.3

Characterizing, and predictive

modeling, of sand bar response at

local and reach scales

Mueller et al. $67,500 $0 $0 $0 $25,000 $0 $15,100 $107,600 

3.4

Connecting bed material

transport, bed morphodynamics,

and sand budgets in Grand

Canyon

McElroy et al. $0 $0 $0 $0 $35,000 $0 $1,100 $36,100 

3.5 Control network and survey

support Kohl $79,400 $1,900 $15,000 $0 $0 $0 $20,500 $116,800 
511 

Project Identifier Project Description Salaries Travel & Training Operating Expenses Logistics Coop‐ erators (non‐USGS) USGS Coop‐erators USGS/SBSC Burden Total 

Total w/o Lake Powell $4,912,500 $151,000 $632,000 $944,200 $2,154,800 $629,500 $1,481,100 $10,905,100 

Burden Rate 21.325%

4

Connectivity along the

Fluvial‐Aeolian‐Hillslope

Continuum: Quantifying

the Relative Importance of

River‐Related Factors that

Influence Upland

Geomorphology and

Archaeological Site

Stability

$285,000 $14,000 $63,000 $30,000 $0 $87,300 $83,600 $562,90

4.1

Quantifying connectivity along the

fluvial‐aeolian‐hillslope

continuum at landscape scales

Sankey et al. $99,200 $10,000 $5,000 $0 $0 $77,100 $24,400 $215,70

4.2 Moni toring of cul tural si tes in

Grand and Glen Canyons Sankey et al. $185,800 $4,000 $58,000 $30,000 $0 $10,200 $59,200 $347,20
512 

Project Identifier Project Description Salaries Travel & Training Operating Expenses Logistics Coop‐ erators (non‐USGS) USGS Coop‐erators USGS/SBSC Burden Total 

Total w/o Lake Powell $4,912,500 $151,000 $632,000 $944,200 $2,154,800 $629,500 $1,481,100 $10,905,100 

Burden Rate 21.325%

5

Food Base Monitoring and

Research $530,900 $22,600 $38,200 $59,800 $78,500 $19,400 $141,400 $890,800 

5.1 Are aquatic insect diversity and

production recruitment limited?

5.1.1 Insect emergence in Grand Canyon

via citizen science

Kennedy and

Yackulic $83,300 $400 $9,300 $3,900 $1,900 $0 $20,700 $119,500 

5.1.2

Quanti fying the effects of

hydropeaking on oviposition and

egg mortality

Kennedy and

Muehlbauer $49,300 $700 $3,100 $27,500 $7,000 $0 $17,400 $105,000 

5.1.3 Synthesis of stressors and

controls on EPT distributions

Muehlbauer

et al. $26,100 $400 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,700 $32,200 

5.1.4 Synthesis of the aquatic foodbase in western US tailwaters Muehlbauer et al. $26,100 $400 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,700 $32,200 5.1.5 Natural history of oviposition for

species present in Grand Canyon Kennedy et al. $13,000 $700 $3,100 $0 $7,000 $0 $3,800 $27,600 

5.1.6

Laboratory studies on insect

oviposition and egg mortality

associated with changing water

levels

Kennedy and

Copp $26,100 $700 $6,200 $0 $0 $0 $7,000 $40,000 

5.1.7

Comparative emergence studies in

Upper Basin using citizen science

light trapping

Kennedy et al. $40,800 $1,400 $6,200 $3,900 $500 $0 $11,200 $64,000 

5.1.8

Natural history of oviposition for

EPT via studies in the Upper Basin Kennedy et al. $13,000 $2,500 $3,100 $3,900 $0 $0 $4,800 $27,300 
513 

Project Identifier Project Description Salaries Travel & Training Operating Expenses Logistics Coop‐ erators (non‐USGS) USGS Coop‐erators USGS/SBSC Burden Total 

Total w/o Lake Powell $4,912,500 $151,000 $632,000 $944,200 $2,154,800 $629,500 $1,481,100 $10,905,100 

Burden Rate 21.325%

5.2

Patterns and controls of aquatic

invertebrate drift in Colorado

River tailwaters

5.2.1

Continue characterizing and

monitoring dri ft and insect

emergence in Glen Canyon

Muehlbauer $46,400 $7,200 $1,500 $0 $0 $0 $11,800 $66,90

5.2.2

Continue natal origins dri ft

monitoring in Glen, Marble, and

Grand Canyons

Kennedy $92,800 $1,000 $1,500 $0 $0 $0 $20,300 $115,60

5.2.3

Link dri ft at natal origins Project

transects to channel bed shear

stress

Muehlbauer &

Wright $11,600 $300 $300 $0 $0 $9,700 $2,600 $24,50

5.2.4

Link invertebrate drift patterns to

substrate conditions in Glen,

Marble, and Grand Canyons

Muehlbauer &

Wright $11,600 $400 $300 $0 $0 $9,700 $2,600 $24,60

5.2.5

Comparative longitudinal drift

studies in Upper and Lower

Colorado River Basin tailwaters

Kennedy et al. $69,600 $5,500 $1,500 $20,600 $48,200 $0 $22,200 $167,60

5.3 Primary Production Monitoring in

Glen Marble and Grand Canyons

5.3.1 Synthesis and publication of Glen

Canyon algae production

Kennedy,

Yackulic,

Yard, Payn &

Hall

$10,500 $0 $0 $0 $13,900 $0 $2,700 $27,10

5.3.2 Monitoring dissolved oxygen in

Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyon

Copp &

Voichick $10,700 $1,000 $2,100 $0 $0 $0 $2,900 $16,70

5.3.3 Developing automated tools for

estimating algae production

Yackulic, Hall

& Stets $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $
514 

Project Identifier Project Description Salaries Travel & Training Operating Expenses Logistics Coop‐ erators (non‐USGS) USGS Coop‐erators USGS/SBSC Burden Total 

Total w/o Lake Powell $4,912,500 $151,000 $632,000 $944,200 $2,154,800 $629,500 $1,481,100 $10,905,100 

Burden Rate 21.325%

6

Mainstem Colorado River

Humpback Chub

Aggregations and Fish

Commuity Dynamics

$180,100 $5,700 $21,200 $118,000 $305,000 $0 $78,600 $708,60

6.1

Mainstem Colorado River

Humpback Chub aggregation

monitoring

Persons et al. $62,500 $1,200 $6,200 $44,300 $100,000 $0 $27,400 $241,60

6.2 Aggregation recruitment Dodrill et al. $31,000 $500 $3,500 $9,000 $0 $0 $9,400 $53,406.3

Monitoring mainstem

aggregations with PIT tag

antennas (pilot)

Ward $8,400 $0 $2,700 $0 $0 $0 $2,400 $13,50

6.4 System Wide Electrofishing

Persons and

Rogowski $22,700 $0 $8,100 $59,700 $165,000 $0 $24,200 $279,70

6.5

Brown trout natal origins through

body pigmentation patterns in the

Colorado River

Rowgoski $0 $0 $0 $0 $15,000 $0 $500 $15,50

6.6 Direct Mainstem Augmentation of

Humpback Chub Young et al. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $

6.7 Rainbow Trout Early Li fe Stage

Survey

Avery and

Foster $55,500 $4,000 $700 $5,000 $0 $0 $13,900 $79,10

6.8 Lees Ferry Creel Survey Rogowski and Persons $0 $0 $0 $0 $25,000 $0 $800 $25,80
515 

Project Identifier Project Description Salaries Travel & Training Operating Expenses Logistics Coop‐ erators (non‐USGS) USGS Coop‐erators USGS/SBSC Burden Total 

Total w/o Lake Powell $4,912,500 $151,000 $632,000 $944,200 $2,154,800 $629,500 $1,481,100 $10,905,100 

Burden Rate 21.325%

7

Population Ecology of

Humpback Chub in and

around the Little Colorado

River

$603,400 $13,300 $52,400 $267,900 $555,000 $0 $216,600 $1,708,600 

7.1

Annual spring/fall humpback

chub abundance estimates in the

lower 13.6 km of the Little

Colorado River

Persons et al. $26,900 $0 $8,300 $98,100 $370,000 $0 $39,500 $542,80

7.2

Juvenile chub monitoring in the

mainstem near the Little Colorado

River confluence

Yard et al. $96,700 $0 $9,000 $135,800 $170,000 $0 $56,600 $468,10

7.3

July Little Colorado River juvenile

humpback chub marking to

estimate production and

outmigration

Dzul et al. $60,900 $4,000 $5,300 $26,800 $0 $0 $20,700 $117,700 

7.4 Remote PIT tag array monitoring

in the LCR Persons $79,900 $0 $3,500 $3,900 $5,000 $0 $18,800 $111,10

7.5 Food web monitoring in the Little

Colorado River

Muehlbauer

et al. $70,000 $2,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $15,400 $87,400 

7.6

Potential for gravel substrate

limitation for humpback chub

reproduction in the LCR

Dzul et al. $5,600 $300 $1,000 $3,300 $0 $0 $2,200 $12,40

7.7

Evaluate CO2 as a limiting factor

early life history stages of

humpback chub in the Little

Colorado River

Ward and

Stone $59,500 $3,000 $18,000 $0 $10,000 $0 $17,500 $108,00

7.8

Evaluate effects of Asian

tapeworm infestation on Juvenile

humpback chub

Ward $11,300 $2,000 $500 $0 $0 $0 $2,900 $16,70

7.9

Development of a non‐lethal tool

to assess the physiological

condition of humpback chub in

the Colorado and Little Colorado

Rivers

Dibble et al. $71,600 $0 $6,700 $0 $0 $0 $16,700 $95,00

7.10 Humpback chub population

modelling

Yackulic and

Dzul $121,000 $2,000 $100 $0 $0 $0 $26,300 $149,400 
516 

Project Identifier Project Description Salaries Travel & Training Operating Expenses Logistics Coop‐ erators (non‐USGS) USGS Coop‐erators USGS/SBSC Burden Total 

Total w/o Lake Powell $4,912,500 $151,000 $632,000 $944,200 $2,154,800 $629,500 $1,481,100 $10,905,100 

Burden Rate 21.325%

8

Experimental Actions to

Increase Abundance and

Distribution of Native

Fishes in Grand Canyon

$61,400 $0 $5,100 $45,300 $88,200 $0 $26,500 $226,500 

8.1 Efficacy and ecological impacts of

Trout removal

Ward and

Healy $57,300 $0 $2,800 $37,500 $0 $0 $20,800 $118,40

8.2 Translocation and monitoring

above Chute Falls Persons et al. $4,100 $0 $2,300 $7,800 $68,200 $0 $5,100 $87,50

8.3 Fisheries Protocol Evaluation

Panel (FY16 or FY17)

VanderKooi et

al. $0 $0 $0 $0 $20,000 $0 $600 $20,60

8.4 Invasive Species Surveillance and

Response Young et al. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $

8.5 Genetic Monitoring of Lower Basin

Humpback Chub Wilson et al. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 
517 

Project Identifier Project Description Salaries Travel & Training Operating Expenses Logistics Coop‐ erators (non‐USGS) USGS Coop‐erators USGS/SBSC Burden Total 

Total w/o Lake Powell $4,912,500 $151,000 $632,000 $944,200 $2,154,800 $629,500 $1,481,100 $10,905,100 

Burden Rate 21.325%

9

Understanding Factors

Determining Recruitment,

Population Size, Growth,

and Movement of Rainbow

Trout in Glen and Marble

Canyons

$483,600 $7,500 $87,500 $168,400 $190,000 $0 $165,100 $1,102,10

9.1 Lees Ferry RBT; monitoring,

analysis, and study design Persons et al. $62,300 $2,500 $0 $12,900 $115,000 $0 $20,000 $212,70

9.2

Detection of RBT movement from

upper Colorado River below GCD

(NO)

Yard, Korman,

Persons and

Rogowski

$100,500 $0 $50,100 $145,500 $75,000 $0 $65,400 $436,50

9.3

Exploring the mechanisms behind

trout growth, reproduction, and

movement in Glen and Marble

Canyons using lipid (fat) reserves

as an indicator of physiological

condition

Dibble et al. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $

9.4 Comparative study on the feeding

morphology of dri ft feeding fish Yard et al. $80,000 $2,500 $2,400 $0 $0 $0 $18,100 $103,00

9.5

Meta‐analysis and the

development of reactive distance

relationships for encounter rate

models

Yard et al. $29,800 $0 $1,500 $0 $0 $0 $6,700 $38,00

9.6

Lab studies to evaluate turbidity

as a potential Glen Canyon Dam‐

operations management tool to

constrain rainbow trout

populations and reduce

predation/competition on juvenile

humpback chub

Ward $21,400 $0 $2,500 $0 $0 $0 $5,100 $29,00

9.7 Application of a bioenergetics model in a seasonally turbid river Dodrill et al. $56,100 $0 $1,500 $0 $0 $0 $12,300 $69,909.8

Mechanisms that limit RBT and

BNT growth in other western

tailwater systems

Dibble et al. $65,600 $0 $1,500 $0 $0 $0 $14,300 $81,40

9.9

Contingency Planning for High

Experimental Flows and

Subsequent Rainbow Trout

Population Management

Yard et al. $12,900 $0 $28,000 $10,000 $0 $0 $10,900 $61,80

9.10

Examining the Effects of High Flow

Experiments on the Physiological

Condition of Age‐0 and Adult

Rainbow Trout in Glen Canyon

Dibble et al. $55,000 $2,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $12,300 $69,80
518 

  

Project Identifier Project Description Salaries Travel & Training Operating Expenses Logistics Coop‐ erators (non‐USGS) USGS Coop‐erators USGS/SBSC Burden Total 

Total w/o Lake Powell $4,912,500 $151,000 $632,000 $944,200 $2,154,800 $629,500 $1,481,100 $10,905,100 

Burden Rate 21.325%

10

Mapping and Assessment

of Aquatic Habitats below

Glen Canyon Dam

Melis et al. $129,800 $5,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $28,700 $163,50

11

Riparian Vegetation

Studies: Ground‐based and

Landscape‐scale Riparian

Vegetation Monitoring and

Plant Response‐Guild

Research associated with

Sandbar Evolution and

Wildlife Habitat Analysis

$244,300 $13,500 $7,500 $65,400 $139,500 $6,800 $74,700 $551,70

11.1 Ground‐based vegetation

monitoring Ralston et al. $88,700 $1,000 $1,000 $50,400 $19,100 $0 $30,700 $190,900 

11.2

Periodic landscape scale

vegetation mapping and analysis

using remotely sensed data

Sankey et al. $44,900 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $65,900 $0 $12,400 $127,200 

11.3

Influence of sediment and

vegetation feedbacks on the

evolution of sandbars in Grand

Canyon since 1991

Sarr et al. $63,500 $2,500 $2,500 $0 $7,700 $6,800 $14,800 $97,800 

11.4 Linking dam operations to

changes in terrestrial fauna Yackulic et al. $47,200 $8,000 $2,000 $15,000 $46,800 $0 $16,800 $135,800 

11.5

Science Review Panel of Successes

and Challenges in Non‐native

Vegetation Control in the

Colorado River and Rio Grande

Watersheds

Sarr et al. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $
519 
520 

 

Project Identifier Project Description Salaries Travel & Training Operating Expenses Logistics Coop‐ erators (non‐USGS) USGS Coop‐erators USGS/SBSC Burden Total 

Total w/o Lake Powell $4,912,500 $151,000 $632,000 $944,200 $2,154,800 $629,500 $1,481,100 $10,905,100 

Burden Rate 21.325%

12

Dam‐Related Effects on the

Distribution and

Abundance of Selected

Culturally‐Important Plants

in the Colorado River

Ecosystem

$20,000 $2,500 $5,500 $5,000 $45,000 $0 $8,400 $86,40

12.1 Tribal workshop and analysis of

cultural landscape change Fairley et al. $20,000 $2,500 $5,500 $5,000 $15,000 $0 $7,500 $55,50

12.2 Tribal evaluations of cultural

landscape changes Fairley et al. $0 $0 $0 $0 $30,000 $0 $900 $30,90

13

Socio‐economic

Monitoring and Research $124,900 $12,500 $11,100 $0 $171,500 $0 $36,900 $356,90

13.1

Economic Values of Recreational

Resources Along the Colorado

River – Grand Canyon Whitewater

Floater and Lees Ferry Angler

Values

Bair et al. $57,500 $2,500 $300 $0 $0 $0 $12,900 $73,20

13.2

Tribal Values and Perspectives of

Resources Downstream of Glen

Canyon Dam

Bair et al. $0 $2,500 $10,300 $0 $117,500 $0 $6,300 $136,60

13.3

Applied Decision Methods for the

Glen Canyon Adaptive

Management Plan

Bair et al. $67,400 $7,500 $500 $0 $54,000 $0 $17,700 $147,10
521 

 

Project Identifier Project Description Salaries Travel & Training Operating Expenses Logistics Coop‐ erators (non‐USGS) USGS Coop‐erators USGS/SBSC Burden Total 

Total w/o Lake Powell $4,912,500 $151,000 $632,000 $944,200 $2,154,800 $629,500 $1,481,100 $10,905,100 

Burden Rate 21.325%

14

Geographic Information

Systems, Services, and

Support

Gushue et al. $172,900 $6,000 $16,000 $0 $0 $0 $41,600 $236,50

15

Administration and

Support $827,700 $37,500 $226,500 $20,000 $81,500 $0 $239,500 $1,432,700 

15.1 GCMRC Admin and Support $563,200 $32,000 $226,500 $20,000 $81,500 $0 $181,900 $1,105,100 15.2 GCMRC logistical support $264,500 $5,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $57,600 $327,600 

Total Lake Powell $187,200 $9,000 $41,600 $0 $0 $22,000 $50,700 $310,500 

Total AMP $4,912,500 $151,000 $632,000 $944,200 $2,154,800 $629,500 $1,481,100 $10,905,100 

Grand Total $5,099,700 $160,000 $673,600 $944,200 $2,154,800 $651,500 $1,531,800 $11,215,600 

Independent Review

Fisheries Protocol Evaluation

Panel (see Project 8.3)

Reservoir Limnology/ecology

and linkage PEP (see Project

1.2)

Vegetation Management PEP

(see Project 11.5)
522 

Appendix 2-D. Fiscal Year 2017 Budget 

Project Identifier Project Description Salaries Travel & Training Operating Expenses Logistics Coop‐ erators (non‐USGS) USGS Coop‐ erators USGS/SBSC Burden Total 

Total w/o Lake Powell $4,937,900 $140,000 $614,500 $796,400 $1,915,200 $646,200 $1,834,200 $10,884,40

Burden Rate 27.380%

1

Lake Powell and Glen Canyon Dam Release Water‐

Quality Monitoring $190,900 $9,200 $42,800 $0 $0 $23,800 $66,500 $333,20

1

Lake Powell and Glen Canyon Dam Release Water‐

Quality Monitoring Vernieu $190,900 $9,200 $42,800 $0 $0 $23,800 $66,500 $333,20

1.2 Reservoir limnology and ecology monitoring and research

science review panel Vernieu $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $

2

Stream Flow, Water Quality, and Sediment

Transport in the Colorado River Ecosystem Topping et al. $671,000 $5,000 $53,000 $74,000 $0 $512,000 $219,900 $1,534,90

3 Sandbars and Sediment Storage Dynamics $611,600 $5,900 $46,000 $95,800 $500,600 $20,000 $223,000 $1,502,90

3.1.1 Moni toring sandbars using topographic surveys and remote

cameras

Grams et al. $114,200 $2,000 $4,000 $29,100 $156,100 $20,000 $45,600 $371,00

3.1.2 Moni toring sand bars and shorelines above 8000 ft3/s by remote

sensing Sankey et al. $110,300 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $30,200 $140,50

3.1.3 Surveying with a camera: rapid topographic surveys wi th digital

images using structure‐from‐motion (SFM) photogrammetry

Wheaton et

al. $44,500 $0 $0 $0 $20,000 $0 $12,800 $77,30

3.1.4 Analysis of historical images at selected monitoring sites Hazel et al. $15,900 $0 $0 $0 $68,400 $0 $6,400 $90,70

3.2 Sediment storage monitoring Grams et al. $174,700 $2,000 $27,000 $66,700 $196,100 $0 $79,900 $546,403.3 Characterizing, and predictive modeling, of sand bar response at local and reach scales Mueller et al. $71,000 $0 $0 $0 $25,000 $0 $20,200 $116,203.4 Connecting bed material transport, bed morphodynamics, and

sand budgets in Grand Canyon McElroy et al. $0 $0 $0 $0 $35,000 $0 $1,100 $36,10

3.5 Control network and survey support Kohl $81,000 $1,900 $15,000 $0 $0 $0 $26,800 $124,70
523 

Project Identifier Project Description Salaries Travel & Training Operating Expenses Logistics Coop‐ erators (non‐USGS) USGS Coop‐ erators USGS/SBSC Burden Total 

Total w/o Lake Powell $4,937,900 $140,000 $614,500 $796,400 $1,915,200 $646,200 $1,834,200 $10,884,40

Burden Rate 27.380%

4

Connectivity along the Fluvial‐Aeolian‐Hillslope

Continuum: Quantifying the Relative Importance of

River‐Related Factors that Influence Upland

Geomorphology and Archaeological Site Stability

$317,200 $14,000 $34,000 $30,000 $0 $87,300 $108,200 $590,70

4.1 Quantifying connectivi ty along the fluvial‐aeolian‐hillslope

continuum at landscape scales Sankey et al. $119,800 $10,000 $8,000 $0 $0 $77,100 $37,700 $252,60

4.2 Moni toring of cultural sites in Grand and Glen Canyons Sankey et al. $197,400 $4,000 $26,000 $30,000 $0 $10,200 $70,500 $338,10
524 

Project Identifier Project Description Salaries Travel & Training Operating Expenses Logistics Coop‐ erators (non‐USGS) USGS Coop‐ erators USGS/SBSC Burden Total 

Total w/o Lake Powell $4,937,900 $140,000 $614,500 $796,400 $1,915,200 $646,200 $1,834,200 $10,884,40

Burden Rate 27.380%

5 Food Base Monitoring and Research

5.1 Are aquatic insect diversity and production recruitment limited? $635,300 $23,300 $39,400 $61,500 $66,500 $20,000 $210,000 $1,056,00

5.1.1 Insect emergence in Grand Canyon via ci tizen science Kennedy and Yackulic $93,500 $400 $9,500 $4,000 $1,400 $0 $29,400 $138,205.1.2 Quanti fying the effects of hydropeaking on oviposition and egg

mortali ty

Kennedy and

Muehlbauer $54,500 $700 $3,200 $28,300 $7,200 $0 $24,000 $117,90

5.1.3 Synthesis of stressors and controls on EPT distributions

Muehlbauer

et al. $29,400 $400 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,200 $38,00

5.1.4 Synthesis of the aquatic foodbase in western US tailwaters

Muehlbauer

et al. $29,400 $400 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,200 $38,00

5.1.5 Natural history of oviposition for species present in Grand

Canyon Kennedy et al. $14,700 $700 $3,200 $0 $7,200 $0 $5,300 $31,10

5.1.6 Laboratory studies on insect oviposition and egg mortality

associated with changing water levels

Kennedy and

Copp $29,400 $700 $6,400 $0 $0 $0 $10,000 $46,50

5.1.7 Comparative emergence studies in Upper Basin using citizen

science light trapping Kennedy et al. $45,900 $1,500 $6,400 $4,000 $1,000 $0 $15,900 $74,70

5.1.8 Natural history of oviposition for EPT via studies in the Upper

Basin Kennedy et al. $14,700 $2,600 $3,200 $4,000 $0 $0 $6,700 $31,20

5.2 Patterns and controls of aquatic invertebrate drift in Colorado

River tailwaters

5.2.1 Continue characterizing and monitoring drift and insect

emergence in Glen Canyon Muehlbauer $60,400 $7,400 $1,600 $0 $0 $0 $19,000 $88,40

5.2.2 Continue natal origins dri ft moni toring in Glen, Marble, and

Grand Canyons Kennedy $120,800 $1,100 $1,600 $0 $0 $0 $33,800 $157,30

5.2.3 Link drift at natal origins Project transects to channel bed shear

stress

Muehlbauer &

Wright $15,100 $300 $300 $0 $0 $10,000 $4,300 $30,00

5.2.4 Link invertebrate drift patterns to substrate conditions in Glen,

Marble, and Grand Canyons

Muehlbauer &

Wright $15,100 $400 $300 $0 $0 $10,000 $4,300 $30,10

5.2.5 Comparative longitudinal drift studies in Upper and Lower Colorado River Basin tailwaters Kennedy et al. $90,600 $5,600 $1,600 $21,200 $49,700 $0 $34,100 $202,80

5.3 Primary Production Monitoring in Glen Marble and Grand Canyons

5.3.1 Synthesis and publication of Glen Canyon algae production

Kennedy,

Yackulic,

Yard, Payn &

Hall

$10,600 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,900 $13,50

5.3.2 Moni toring dissolved oxygen in Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyon Copp & Voichick $11,200 $1,100 $2,100 $0 $0 $0 $3,900 $18,305.3.3 Developing automated tools for estimating algae production Yackulic, Hall & Stets $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $
525 

Project Identifier Project Description Salaries Travel & Training Operating Expenses Logistics Coop‐ erators (non‐USGS) USGS Coop‐ erators USGS/SBSC Burden Total 

Total w/o Lake Powell $4,937,900 $140,000 $614,500 $796,400 $1,915,200 $646,200 $1,834,200 $10,884,40

Burden Rate 27.380%

6

Mainstem Colorado River Humpback Chub

Aggregations and Fish Commuity Dynamics $189,800 $5,700 $26,300 $118,300 $340,000 $0 $103,500 $783,60

6.1 Mainstem Colorado River Humpback Chub aggregation

monitoring Persons et al. $63,300 $1,200 $6,200 $44,200 $100,000 $0 $34,500 $249,40

6.2 Aggregation recrui tment Dodrill et al. $26,000 $500 $3,500 $9,100 $0 $0 $10,700 $49,806.3 Monitoring mainstem aggregations with PIT tag antennas (pilot) Ward $4,400 $0 $2,800 $0 $0 $0 $2,000 $9,206.4 System Wide Electrofishing

Persons and

Rogowski $30,700 $0 $8,100 $60,000 $185,000 $0 $32,600 $316,40

6.5 Brown trout natal origins through body pigmentation patterns in the Colorado River Rowgoski $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6.6 Direct Mainstem Augmentation of Humpback Chub Young et al. $4,400 $0 $5,000 $0 $30,000 $0 $3,500 $42,906.7 Rainbow Trout Early Life Stage Survey Avery and Foster $61,000 $4,000 $700 $5,000 $0 $0 $19,400 $90,106.8 Lees Ferry Creel Survey Rogowski and Persons $0 $0 $0 $0 $25,000 $0 $800 $25,80

7 Population Ecology of Humpback Chub in and

around the Little Colorado River $587,000 $13,300 $52,500 $168,200 $435,000 $0 $237,700 $1,493,70

7.1 Annual spring/fall humpback chub abundance estimates in the

lower 13.6 km of the Little Colorado River Persons et al. $22,400 $0 $8,400 $105,300 $370,000 $0 $48,400 $554,50

7.2 Juvenile chub moni toring in the mainstem near the Li ttle Colorado

River confluence Yard et al. $67,100 $0 $9,000 $26,300 $50,000 $0 $29,500 $181,90

7.3 July Li ttle Colorado River juvenile humpback chub marking to

estimate production and outmigration Dzul et al. $63,600 $4,000 $5,300 $28,800 $0 $0 $27,800 $129,50

7.4 Remote PIT tag array monitoring in the LCR Persons $108,000 $0 $3,500 $4,200 $5,000 $0 $31,800 $152,507.5 Food web moni toring in the Li ttle Colorado River

Muehlbauer

et al. $0 $2,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $500 $2,50

7.6 Potential for gravel substrate limi tation for humpback chub

reproduction in the LCR Dzul et al. $5,900 $300 $1,000 $3,600 $0 $0 $3,000 $13,80

7.7 Evaluate CO2 as a limiting factor early life history stages of

humpback chub in the Li ttle Colorado River

Ward and

Stone $71,400 $3,000 $18,000 $0 $10,000 $0 $25,600 $128,00

7.8 Evaluate effects of Asian tapeworm infestation on Juvenile humpback chub Ward $11,900 $2,000 $500 $0 $0 $0 $3,900 $18,307.9

Development of a non‐lethal tool to assess the physiological

condition of humpback chub in the Colorado and Little Colorado

Rivers

Dibble et al. $74,400 $0 $6,700 $0 $0 $0 $22,200 $103,30

7.10 Humpback chub population modelling

Yackulic and

Dzul $162,300 $2,000 $100 $0 $0 $0 $45,000 $209,40
526 

Project Identifier Project Description Salaries Travel & Training Operating Expenses Logistics Coop‐ erators (non‐USGS) USGS Coop‐ erators USGS/SBSC Burden Total 

Total w/o Lake Powell $4,937,900 $140,000 $614,500 $796,400 $1,915,200 $646,200 $1,834,200 $10,884,40

Burden Rate 27.380%

8 Experimental Actions to Increase Abundance and

Distribution of Native Fishes in Grand Canyon $69,400 $0 $6,300 $44,900 $138,200 $0 $37,300 $296,10

8.1 Efficacy and ecological impacts of Trout removal

Ward and

Healy $56,200 $0 $2,800 $37,700 $0 $0 $26,500 $123,20

8.2 Translocation and monitoring above Chute Falls Persons et al. $4,400 $0 $2,300 $7,200 $68,200 $0 $5,900 $88,008.3 Fisheries Protocol Evaluation Panel (FY16 or FY17) VanderKooi et al. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8.4 Invasive Species Surveillance and Response Young et al. $4,400 $0 $0 $0 $45,000 $0 $2,600 $52,008.5 Genetic Monitoring of Lower Basin Humpback Chub Wilson et al. $4,400 $0 $1,200 $0 $25,000 $0 $2,300 $32,90

9

Understanding Factors Determining Recruitment,

Population Size, Growth, and Movement of Rainbow

Trout in Glen and Marble Canyons

$357,600 $0 $86,000 $123,700 $50,000 $0 $156,700 $774,00

9.1 Lees Ferry RBT; moni toring, analysis, and study design Persons et al. $60,400 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,500 $76,909.2

Detection of RBT movement from upper Colorado River below GCD

(NO)

Yard, Korman,

Persons and

Rogowski

$98,600 $0 $50,100 $101,600 $50,000 $0 $70,000 $370,30

9.3

Exploring the mechanisms behind trout growth, reproduction, and

movement in Glen and Marble Canyons using lipid (fat) reserves

as an indicator of physiological condi tion

Dibble et al. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $

9.4 Comparative study on the feeding morphology of drift feeding fish Yard et al. $70,000 $0 $2,400 $0 $0 $0 $19,800 $92,209.5 Meta‐analysis and the development of reactive distance relationships for encounter rate models Yard et al. $25,700 $0 $1,500 $0 $0 $0 $7,400 $34,609.6

Lab studies to evaluate turbidity as a potential Glen Canyon Dam‐

operations management tool to constrain rainbow trout

populations and reduce predation/competi tion on juvenile

humpback chub

Ward $20,900 $0 $2,500 $0 $0 $0 $6,400 $29,80

9.7 Application of a bioenergetics model in a seasonally turbid river Dodrill et al. $50,800 $0 $1,500 $0 $0 $0 $14,300 $66,609.8 Mechanisms that limi t RBT and BNT growth in other western

tailwater systems Dibble et al. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $

9.9 Contingency Planning for High Experimental Flows and

Subsequent Rainbow Trout Population Management Yard et al. $27,200 $0 $28,000 $22,100 $0 $0 $21,200 $98,50

9.10

Examining the Effects of High Flow Experiments on the

Physiological Condi tion of Age‐0 and Adult Rainbow Trout in Glen

Canyon

Dibble et al. $4,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,100 $5,10
527 

Project Identifier Project Description Salaries Travel & Training Operating Expenses Logistics Coop‐ erators (non‐USGS) USGS Coop‐ erators USGS/SBSC Burden Total 

Total w/o Lake Powell $4,937,900 $140,000 $614,500 $796,400 $1,915,200 $646,200 $1,834,200 $10,884,40

Burden Rate 27.380%

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

10 Mapping and Assessment of Aquatic Habitats below

Glen Canyon Dam Melis et al. $96,800 $7,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $28,400 $132,20

11

Riparian Vegetation Studies: Ground‐based and

Landscape‐scale Riparian Vegetation Monitoring and

Plant Response‐Guild Research associated with

Sandbar Evolution and Wildlife Habitat Analysis

$247,600 $9,300 $8,000 $60,000 $129,400 $6,900 $92,800 $554,00

11.1 Ground‐based vegetation moni toring Ralston et al. $96,400 $1,200 $1,000 $52,000 $19,500 $0 $41,800 $211,9011.2 Periodic landscape scale vegetation mapping and analysis using

remotely sensed data Sankey et al. $46,700 $1,500 $2,000 $0 $67,100 $0 $15,800 $133,10

11.3 Influence of sediment and vegetation feedbacks on the evolution of sandbars in Grand Canyon since 1991 Sarr et al. $61,000 $2,600 $2,500 $0 $7,800 $6,900 $18,300 $99,1011.4 Linking dam operations to changes in terrestrial fauna Yackulic et al. $43,500 $4,000 $2,500 $8,000 $35,000 $0 $16,900 $109,90

11.5

Science Review Panel of Successes and Challenges in Non‐native

Vegetation Control in the Colorado River and Rio Grande

Watersheds

Sarr et al. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $

12

Dam‐Related Effects on the Distribution and

Abundance of Selected Culturally‐Important Plants

in the Colorado River Ecosystem

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $

12.1 Tribal workshop and analysis of cul tural landscape change Fairley et al. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $12.2 Tribal evaluations of cultural landscape changes Fairley et al. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $

13 Socio‐economic Monitoring and Research $127,400 $12,500 $1,000 $0 $171,500 $0 $43,700 $356,10

13.1

Economic Values of Recreational Resources Along the Colorado

River – Grand Canyon Whitewater Floater and Lees Ferry Angler

Values

Bair et al. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $

13.2 Tribal Values and Perspectives of Resources Downstream of Glen

Canyon Dam Bair et al. $0 $5,000 $500 $0 $117,500 $0 $5,000 $128,00

13.3 Applied Decision Methods for the Glen Canyon Adaptive

Management Plan Bair et al. $127,400 $7,500 $500 $0 $54,000 $0 $38,700 $228,10
528 

Project Identifier Project Description Salaries Travel & Training Operating Expenses Logistics Coop‐ erators (non‐USGS) USGS Coop‐ erators USGS/SBSC Burden Total 

Total w/o Lake Powell $4,937,900 $140,000 $614,500 $796,400 $1,915,200 $646,200 $1,834,200 $10,884,40

Burden Rate 27.380%

14 Geographic Information Systems, Services, and

Support

Gushue et al. $179,300 $4,000 $16,000 $0 $0 $0 $54,600 $253,90

15 Administration and Support $847,900 $40,000 $246,000 $20,000 $84,000 $0 $318,400 $1,556,30

15.1 GCMRC Admin and Support $578,100 $34,000 $246,000 $20,000 $84,000 $0 $242,900 $1,205,0015.2 GCMRC logistical support $269,800 $6,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $75,500 $351,30

Total Lake Powell $190,900 $9,200 $42,800 $0 $0 $23,800 $66,500 $333,20

Total AMP $4,937,900 $140,000 $614,500 $796,400 $1,915,200 $646,200 $1,834,200 $10,884,40

Grand Total $5,128,800 $149,200 $657,300 $796,400 $1,915,200 $670,000 $1,900,700 $11,217,60

Independent Review

Fisheries Protocol Evaluation Panel (see Project 8.3)

Reservoir Limnology/ecology and linkage PEP (see

Project 1.2)

Vegetation Management PEP (see Project 11.5)
529 

Appendix 3. Logistics and Schedules of River Trips and Field Work 

PROJECT TITLE PROJECT

CODE

GENERAL LOGISTICS

DESCRIPTION

LOGISTICS

TYPE (RT=river

trip, LP=Lake

Powell,

HS=Helicopter

Support,

LF=Glen

Canyon Reach annual #

trips trip months boats #people #days

1 Lake Powell and Glen Canyon Dam

Release Water Quality Monitoring

LPQM food packs provided for quarterly

Lake Powell monitorng trips, 4‐6

people, 7 days, includes limited  

boat/motor maintence support

LP

4

2 Stream flow, water quality, and

sediment transport

FGS two river trips anually, to monitor

sediment transport at monitoring

stations; 30 mi., 60 mi., Phantom,

National and Diamond Creek

RT

2

February, late

August

2 support, 1‐

16' technical

3 Sandbars and Sediment Storage

Dynamics

3.1 Sandbar and camping beach monitoring FCS one river trip anually to survey

established longterm set of

monitoring sites. Non motorized

trip consisting of 6‐18' row boats

occurs in October

RT

1 October 6 row 12 18

3.2 Sediment storage monitoring SSM one river trip anually, motor

supported trip occurs April/May

to map channel in rotating

reaches of river. In 2015, mapping

will occur in Glen Canyon reach

which will require less equipment

and personnel. The project plans

to survey RM 0‐RM30 in 2016 and

RM 166‐RM225 in 2017.

RT

1 May

2 support, 2‐

22' technical

(multi‐beam

and "eye‐

ball"), 1‐16'

technical

(single beam),

1‐16'

technical 20 19

4 Connectivity along the fluvial‐aeolian

hillslope continuum

4.1 Monitoring the status of cultural

resources in Glen Canyon

LF

1 Nov/Dec cofelt 2 4

4.2 . Monitoring strategies for the status of

cultural resources in Grand Canyon

one river trip to monitor

designated sites and maintain

weather stations, additional

logistics for weater station

maintenace will be covered on

existing  scheduled trips (GCY,

FCS, NO/JCM). In 2015 monitoring

will only occur in Glen Canyon

reach. 2016 and 2017

RT

1 May

1‐support, 1‐

22' 10 13
530 

 

PROJECT TITLE PROJECT

CODE

GENERAL LOGISTICS

DESCRIPTION

LOGISTICS

TYPE (RT=river

trip, LP=Lake

Powell,

HS=Helicopter

Support,

LF=Glen

Canyon Reach annual #

trips trip months boats #people #days

5 Foodbase Monitoring and Research

5.1 AQFB  Emergence Trip AQFB one river trip annually, citizen

science

RT

1 June

1‐support, 1‐

22', 1‐sport

boat 5 15

5.2 AQFB Invertebrate Drift: Dam to Badger

Rapids

AQFB‐LF monthly trips, Copp or Smith will

operate boat (no boatman

needed).

LF (to Badger)

12 Monthly

coffelt or jet

boat 3 2

AQFB Invertebrate Drift: upper/lower

basin

AQFB‐U/LB one trip annually to upper and

lower basin (separate trips)

Logistics are

similar to LF,

except not in

LF 2

June‐August?

TBA

1‐sport boat,

or coffelt 3 8

AQFB Invertebrate Drift: mainstem AQFB‐NO work is conducted on NO/JCM

trips

RT

6 Mainstem humpback chub

aggregations and fish community

dynamics

6.1 Monitoring Humpback Chub

aggregation relative Abundance and

Distribution

MSF‐AG one river trips anually, to support

monitoring focused on identified

HBC aggregations

RT

1

July,

September

2‐support, 2‐

16' technical 10 18

6.2 Humpback Chub aggregation

recruitment studies

work is conducted on project 6.1

logistics with addition of one

sport boat for

electroshocking/seining

1‐16'

technical

boat

6.3 Mainstem. PIT tag antenna monitoring maintence of remote PIT tag array

as needed

HS (will tag on

to existing

trips) 2

6.4 System wide electrofishing MSF‐NN two river trips anually, to

electrofish sample entire river

corridor,

RT

2 April, May

2‐support, 2‐

16' technical 10 14

6.5 Brown Trout natal origins no stand alone logistics‐work will

be conducted on existing logistics

6.6 Mainstem Translocation no stand alone logistics‐work will

be conducted on existing logistics

6.7 Rainbow trout early life stage studies Redd/RTELSS 8 winter/spring one day trips to

survey Glen Canyon reach for RBT

redds, and 4 sampling trips

utilizing electrofishing and

backpack shocking to monitor RBT

early life stage

LF

8 Redd, 4

RTLESS

Redd: Dec,

Jan, Feb,

March, April  

RTELSS: July,

Aug, Sept,

Nov

Cofelt, 2‐16'

technical 2

Redd:

one day

trips,

RTELSS:

2‐16'

technic

al

6.8 LF Creel Survey work conducted by AZGFD‐no

logistics
531 

 

PROJECT TITLE PROJECT

CODE

GENERAL LOGISTICS

DESCRIPTION

LOGISTICS

TYPE (RT=river

trip, LP=Lake

Powell,

HS=Helicopter

Support,

LF=Glen

Canyon Reach annual #

trips trip months boats #people #days

7 Population Ecology of Humpback Chub  

in and around the Little Colorado River

7.1 Annual spring and fall humpback chub

abundance estimates in the

downstream 13.6km of the Little

Colorado River

LCR‐HBC helicopter support for 3 LCR

camps, April/May and

September/October, 9 people, 11

days per trip

HS

4

April, May,

September,

October 9 11

7.2 Juvenile Chub Monitoring in the

mainstem near the Little Colorado River

Confluence

JCM Logistics are combined with

project 9.2 ( days 7‐16 of river

trip) to sample for HBC near LCR

confluence.

RT

4

May, July,

September,

January*

(January trip

may be

eliminated)

2‐support, 1‐

22'

Processing

boat 3‐16'

technical 18 18

7.3 LCR JCM helicopter support for 3 LCR

camps to monitor LCR HBC

populations

HS

1 June/July 12 12

7.4 LCR PIT tag antenna monitoring maintence of remote PIT tag array

as needed

HS

1 24

7.5 LCR foodweb work is conducted in conjunction

with project 7.1 trips

HS

8 Management Actions to Increase

Abundancee and Distribution of Native

Fishes in Grand Canyon

8.1 Efficacy and ecological impacts of

brown trout removal at Bright Angel

Creek

new project to colaborate with

NPS to remove Brown trout in

Bright Angel Creek confluence.

Logistics could be coupled with

F.3/F.6 project run‐out.

RT

2

May,

September

1‐support, 2‐

16' technical 8 18

8.2 F.4.3. Translocation and monitoring

above Chute Falls

3 helicopter supported trips for

HBC mark/recap and

translocation/capture

HS

3

April/May,

July

8.3 PEP may be one river trip for PEP in

2016

RT

1? 2‐support 18 12
532 

 

PROJECT TITLE PROJECT

CODE

GENERAL LOGISTICS

DESCRIPTION

LOGISTICS

TYPE (RT=river

trip, LP=Lake

Powell,

HS=Helicopter

Support,

LF=Glen

Canyon Reach annual #

trips trip months boats #people #days

9 Understanding the Factors Limiting the

Recruitment, Population Size, Growth,

and Movement of Rainbow Trout in

Glen and Marble Canyons

9.1 Glen Canyon Rainbow trout;

monitoring, analysis and study design

LFT 3 Glen Canyon trips to monitor

RBT population, includes

additional day on July trip for non‐

native fish detection

LF

3

April, July,

October

2‐16'

technical 4

4days,

July trip

5 days

9.2 Detection of rainbow trout movement

from Glen Canyon to Marble Canyon

NO Logistics are combined with

project 7.2 (first six days of river

trip) to electrofish sample for

tagged RBT between Glen Canyon

Dam and LCR confluence.

RT

4

May, July,

September,

January*

(January trip

may be

eliminated)

2‐support, 1‐

22'

Processing

boat 3‐16'

technical 18 18

9.3 Detection of rainbow trout movement

from Glen Canyon to Marble Canyon‐

Lees Ferry marking

NO‐mark november Glen Canyon marking

trip

Glen Canyon

1 November

1‐support, 1‐

22'

processing

boat, 2‐16'

technical,

cofelt 10 9

9.9 Contingency planning for High Flow

Experiments and subsequent rainbow

trout population managment

1 additional RBT marking trip in

Glen Canyon post HFE (in years

when fall HFE occurs)

Glen Canyon

1 Dec

1‐support, 1‐

22'

processing

boat, 2‐16'

technical,

cofelt 10 9

10 Mapping Flow Innundation of Shorline

Areas and Bed Textures in Glen and

Marble Canyons

This project hast no stand‐alone

logistics  but does propose a field

element to be accomplished on

APR & SEP 2015‐16 NO/JCM trips

(collecting additional channel‐bed

sediment and channel margin

imagery, See Table 1 of revised

description). Other new field data

used in this integrated project will

derive from Project 3 channel

mapping in Glen (2015) and

upper/lower Marble Canyons

(2015‐16, see Grams and others

elements 3.2 & 3.4).

RT

11 Riparian Vegetation Monitoring and

Analysis of Riparian Vegetation,

Landform Change and Aquatic‐

Terrestrial linkages to Faunal

Communities

Integrated vegetation monitoring one river trip to monitor riparian

vegetation, plus addition of one

boat to project 3.1

RT

1 September 4 row 14 16

12 Dam‐Related Effects on the

Distribution and Abundance of

Selected Culturally‐Important Plants in

the Colorado River Ecosystem

add one boat to project 3.1? RT October 1 row 2 16

13 Socio‐Economic Monitoring and

Research

LF to Badger creel survey no additional logistics, surveys

completed by foot trail access
533 

Appendix 4. TWG Triennial Budget Input FY 2015–17 Consensus by full 

TWG on April 9, 2014 

April 10, 2014 

HUMPBACK CHUB 

P or 

T 

# Budget Description 

T 1 Humpback chub natal origins. 

 Continue looking into non-lethal methods, and utilize humpback chub 

that are taken as a result of incidental take. 

T 2 Continue LCR studies. 

 Lower 1200m effort discontinued, enhance existing spring and fall 

monitoring with remote sensing. 

T 3 Effect of temperature vs. trout on humpback chub. 

 Continue existing studies and monitoring on the effect of temperature vs. 

trout on humpback chub. 

T 4 Humpback chub aggregation monitoring, continue and add new sites. 

 Randomize sites, assess 2013/14 work 

 Utilize citizen science and remote tag readers 

T 5 Increase humpback chub aggregations funding for monitoring. 

 Continue requirements of BO 

T 6 Humpback chub mainstem aggregation enhancement by translocation. 

 Support pilot study. 

T 7 More money to study the influence of turbidity on trout-humpback chub 

interactions. 

 Evaluate current research before moving forward, determine potential 

management actions to increase turbidity. 

T 8 Support further development of the Yackulic humpback chub population 

model. 

T 9 Support project, but also support proposed changes to reduce costs for 

Chute Falls translocations/monitoring. 

MODELING 

P or 

T 

# Budget Description 

T 1 The following model elements need to be better understood (consider a 

workshop) to scope the utility and cost of developing a CRE ecosystem 

concept model to improve the predictive capability for effects of dam 

operations: 

 Fish studies (trout, chub, others) 
534 

 Sediment transport 

 Hydrology 

 Foodbase 

 Recreation 

 Riparian ecology* 

 Nutrient budget* 

 Climate change* 

 Cultural values and perspectives/TEK* 

*these elements need considerably more information/instruction on how 

to incorporate these elements into a CRE ecosystem model. 

T 2 Continue to develop research projects that would incorporate Traditional 

Ecological Knowledge (TEK) into CRE science and management and 

help contribute to management decisions. 

FOOD BASE 

P or 

T 

# Budget Description 

T 1 The priority for developing food base projects should be a higher priority 

because of its potential importance to the CRE ecosystem in general and 

native fish recovery in particular. 

NONNATIVES 

P or 

T 

# Budget Description 

T 1 Provide annual report and synthesis of nonnative invasive species 

monitoring data and options for monitoring and management. (fund with 

Experimental Fund) 

T 2 Increase invasive species surveillance in the LCR and from Diamond 

down . (fund with Experimental Fund) 

T 3 Review and synthesize data on tamarisk mortality impacts in the upper 

basin based on review of literature and on-going studies ($10K). DOI 

should consider whether this project is appropriate for the use of power 

revenues. 

TROUT 

P or 

T 

# Budget Description 

T 1 Continue funding support to resolve questions about whether rainbow 

trout at the LCR originate from Glen Canyon. Provide additional funding 

to assess whether RBT reproduction is occurring in Marble canyon. 

Provide management recommendations. 
535 

T 2 Continue to fund Lees Ferry rainbow trout monitoring (electrofishing, 

RTELLS, and CREEL). 

P 3 Evaluate the feasibility of options to maintain water quality (e.g., 

temperature) needed to support a quality trout fishery in Lees Ferry and 

native fish downstream (TCD, water management options etc.). 

T 4 GCMRC should participate in the development of a more detailed fish 

management plan for Lees Ferry consistent with the NPS Comprehensive 

Fish management plan and other agency policies and mandates. 

T 5 Provide funding to map the channel in Glen canyon and assess the effect 

of low flows on fish habitat. 

T 6 Continue funding projects to assess competition and predation between 

Humpback chub & trout. 

T 7 Continue to fund system-wide electrofishing monitoring for natives and 

nonnatives using techniques intended to be non-lethal. 

PROGRAM PLANNING 

P or 

T 

# Budget Description 

T 1 GCDAMP administrative history funding. Proceed with proposed effort. 

P 2 Cost for new GCMRC facility in Flagstaff. Devastating reduction of 

research due to increased USGS burden. 

P 3 Utility of the POAHG - some funding may be appropriate, but review the 

costs and benefits - less money may be appropriate. 

P 4 Role of Science Advisors in GCDAMP. TWG needs to be involved in the 

development of the role of the SAs, and SA budget may need to be 

increased. 

T 5 PEP reviews should be funded in the budget, especially for trout, 

humpback chub, research and monitoring. 

T 6 Cultural resources treatment plan, resolution of tribal issues related to 

treatment needs to occur. This needs to be resolved by DOI before budget 

is approved. This is needed to implement the new PA. 

T 7 What are we “required” to do under the biological opinion for 

monitoring? Clarify for the TWG, the biological opinion requirements 

within the GCDAMP. 

 
536 

TWG Triennial Budget Input FY 2015–17 

For consideration by BAHG on behalf of the TWG 

CORE MONITORING 

P or 

T 

# Budget Description 

T 1 Core monitoring needs, Strategic Plan, and SSQs should be considered 

after LTEMP is completed. 

T 2 Develop system model linking aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. This is 

the framework on which core monitoring can be established. Establish a 

discussion in the FY15-16 time frame to learn how to undertake this 

effort - review other systems model (e.g., MSCP). After LTEMP 

approval, request review by SAs, etc. No significant budget implications 

at this stage, but FY16+ may involve SA review and project formulation. 

NEW PROJECTS 

P or 

T 

# Budget Description 

P 1 Should the cost of AMWG river trips be a budget item, and if so, how 

many trips should be provided. This should be an AMWG decision. 

T 2 Sand Bar Model. Develop it and peer review and fix it. LTEMP has 

attempted this, and not come up with a useful model. We think it would 

take too much money to fix this, and that high quality sand bar 

monitoring is sufficient for our program. 

T 3 Driftwood (CWD) history, distribution, movement, HFE & normal flows 

(citizen science). Initial steps would be to think about projects, and 

implement with volunteers. For instance, river guides could try to 

recapture marked wood. Should only be a very small line item. 

T 4 Need to understand impacts at historic properties. We need more 

information on this. A question of clarification: is this a permit issue? 

T 5 Razorback sucker monitoring, need more funds for translocations and 

monitoring. Evaluate the adequacy of existing programs to determine 

whether this species needs more funding. 

T 6 Discuss options for equalization that minimize resource degradation. 

Restatement of issue: Discuss options for scheduling equalization 

releases that minimize resource degradation. This should be a technical 

issue, and not a budget issue. We ask that this be placed on a future 

agenda. 

T 7 Assess cataract canyon as a control for CRE DFCs. We encourage 

cooperative work without using AMP funding. 
537 

T 8 More money for work below Diamond Creek. Needs more clarification. 

T 9 What is the question needing an answer regarding mapping habitats 

program? (320k) We need more discussion about this project and its 

objectives. We want to know more about all Lee Ferry’s reach work. 

Refer back to TWG. 

SUPPORT IN QUESTION 

P or 

T 

# Budget Description 

T 1 Can’t support bat/bird/spider work. Need more information about this. 

Some of us like it just from the title, but some have concerns. 

P 2 Reduce habitat map below GCD totally. We need more details and 

discussion about this project. Refer back to TWG. 

P 3 Expansion of AMP into Powell and Mead, what is the funding source and 

is it legal? TWG and AMWG not qualified to make legal determination – 

if this is a concern, check with DOI solicitor office. 

P 4 $500k for experimental carry over fund. TWG should discuss whether 

this fund be capped at some number. 

P 5 Socioeconomic costs? Are more funds needed for unfunded science? 

Socioeconomic studies are appropriate and needed. 

T 6 The increase in cultural resources work from $371k to over $500k does 

not seem justified, more info needed. This is an accounting change and 

not a real increase – formerly overhead costs are now being directly 

assigned to this work. 

T 7 The socio-economic DSS work is a low priority. Clarification – this 

means Applied Decision Methods (ADM, not DSS). Needs more 

discussion. How does this fit in with work being done for LTEMP. 

Please justify. 

T 8 How does socio-economics fit into the program? It is an important part of 

our program. 

T 9 Reduce trout turbidity funding, pipeline. Clarification: the thought is, if 

there is nothing we can do to control turbidity, why study it. Needs more 

discussion.