Summary Report of the Peer Review for the 

2020 Annual Project Report 

Bureau of Reclamation Order No. 140R4021F0024

Prepared for:

US Bureau of Reclamation

Upper Colorado Regional Office

125 South State Street, Room 8100

Salt Lake City, UT 84138-1147

11/15/2021
Summary Report of the Peer Review for the 2020 

Annual Project Report 

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program

Bureau of Reclamation Order No. 140R4021F0024

Prepared for:

US Bureau of Reclamation 

Upper Colorado Regional Office

125 South State Street, Room 8100

Salt Lake City, UT 84138-1147

Prepared by:

Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.

11/15/2021

Copyright and non-disclosure notice

The contents and layout of this report are subject to copyright owned by Wood (© Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, 

Inc.). save to the extent that copyright has been legally assigned by us to another party or is used by Wood under license. To the 

extent that we own the copyright in this report, it may not be copied or used without our prior written agreement for any purpose 

other than the purpose indicated in this report. The methodology (if any) contained in this report is provided to you in confidence 

and must not be disclosed or copied to third parties without the prior written agreement of Wood. Disclosure of that information 

may constitute an actionable breach of confidence or may otherwise prejudice our commercial interests. Any third party who obtains 

access to this report by any means will, in any event, be subject to the Third Party Disclaimer set out below.

Third-party disclaimer 

Any disclosure of this report to a third party is subject to this disclaimer. The report was prepared by Wood at the instruction of, and 

for use by, our client named on the front of the report. It does not in any way constitute advice to any third party who is able to 

access it by any means. Wood excludes to the fullest extent lawfully permitted all liability whatsoever for any loss or damage 

howsoever arising from reliance on the contents of this report. We do not however exclude our liability (if any) for personal injury or 

death resulting from our negligence, for fraud or any other matter in relation to which we cannot legally exclude liability. 
Summary Report of the Peer Review for the 2020 Annual Project Report 

Glen Canyon Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP)

Bureau of Reclamation Order No. 140R4021F0024 | 11/15/2021 Page ii

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................................................................ IV

1.0 BACKGROUND...................................................................................................................................................... 5

2.0 PEER REVIEWERS.................................................................................................................................................. 6

3.0 SUMMARY OF RESPONSES.............................................................................................................................. 7

Project A: Streamflow, Water Quality, and Sediment Transport and Budgeting in the 

Colorado River Ecosystem................................................................................................................................ 8

Project B: Sandbar and Sediment Storage Monitoring and Research............................................. 8

Project C: Riparian Vegetation Monitoring and Research.................................................................... 9

Project D: Geomorphic Effects of Dam Operations and Vegetation Management for 

Archaeological Sites..........................................................................................................................................10

Project E: Nutrients and Temperature as Ecosystem Drivers: Understanding Patterns, 

Establishing Links and Developing Predictive Tools for an Uncertain Future ............................10

Project F: Aquatic invertebrate ecology ....................................................................................................11

Project G: Humpback chub population dynamics throughout the CRe .......................................11

Project H: Salmonid research and monitoring .......................................................................................12

Project I: Warm-water native and nonnative fish research and monitoring ...............................12

Project J: Socioeconomic Research in the Colorado River Ecosystem...........................................13

Project K: Geospatial Science and Technology.......................................................................................14

Project L: Overflight Remote Sensing in Support of GCDAMP and LTEMP................................. 14

Project M: Administration...............................................................................................................................14

Project N: Hydropower Monitoring and Research................................................................................14

Appendix 1: Lake Powell Water Quality Monitoring ............................................................................15

Appendix 2: Deliverable (Products) FY 2018-2020................................................................................15

Appendix 3: Budgets, All projects................................................................................................................15

4.0 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................................16

5.0 REFERENCES.........................................................................................................................................................17

APPENDIX A: INDIVIDUAL REVIEWS......................................................................................................................18

APPENDIX B: REVIEWER’S CURRICULA VITAE ....................................................................................................19

APPENDIX C: GCMRC RESPONSE............................................................................................................................20
Summary Report of the Peer Review for the 2020 Annual Project Report 

Glen Canyon Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP)

Bureau of Reclamation Order No. 140R4021F0024 | 11/15/2021 Page iii

List of Tables

Table 1. Summary of Reviewer’s Response by Project....................................................................... 7

Acronyms

CRe Colorado River ecosystem

GIS Geographic Information Systems

GCDAMP Glen Canyon Adaptive Management Program

GCMRC Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

LTEMP Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan

P phosphorus

ROD Record of Decision

USGS U.S. Geological Survey
Summary Report of the Peer Review for the 2020 Annual Project Report 

Glen Canyon Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP)

Bureau of Reclamation Order No. 140R4021F0024 | 11/15/2021 Page iv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The operations of Glen Canyon Dam and other management activities have significant impact on 

ecological, hydrological, and cultural systems along the Colorado River from the forebay of the 

Glen Canyon Dam to upper Lake Mead, referred to as the Colorado River ecosystem (CRe). The 

Glen Canyon Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP) provides a process for adaptive 

management of dam operations, including monitoring and research, integration, and 

management of natural, cultural, and recreational resources affected by Glen Canyon Dam 

operations. The Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC) conducts scientific 

research on the effects of dam operations and associated management and provides robust, 

objective scientific data on the impact of dam operations.

There are eleven priority resources identified in the Long-Term Experimental and Management 

Plan (LTEMP). These eleven priority resources include archeological and cultural resources, natural 

processes, humpback chub, hydropower and energy, other native fish, recreational experiences, 

sediment, tribal resources, rainbow trout fishery, nonnative invasive species, riparian vegetation.

As part of the Science Advisors Program which provides independent review on the research 

programs, five peer reviewers were selected to provide a peer review of the Fiscal Year 2020 

Annual Project Report to the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (USGS 2020). The 

reviewers represent a breadth of expertise related to fisheries and aquatic ecology, vegetation 

management and riparian ecology, hydrology of river systems, GIS data management and remote 

sensing, socioeconomics related to tribal resources, monitoring, and adaptive management. The 

peer reviewers were also selected to avoid conflicts of interest with the GCDAMP. 

The peer reviewers evaluated the material provided by the GDCAMP, which included the annual 

report and associated project presentations. The review focused on two broad questions about 

goals and objectives as well as specific feedback on research design, program outcomes, 

indicators, and methods. While reviewers responded with suggestions and recommendations for 

improvements, they agreed the research programs being pursued by the GCDAMP are overall 

connecting to LTEMP goals.
Bureau of Reclamation Order No. 140R4021F0024 | 11/15/2021 Page 5 

1.0 BACKGROUND

The Glen Canyon Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP) was established in following the 

1996 Record of Decision (ROD) on the Operation of Glen Canyon Dam to comply with the 1992

Grand Canyon Protection Act. Dam operations affect river hydrology, sediment dynamics, 

temperature and chemistry, food web dynamics, and aquatic and riparian species and 

communities along the Colorado River from the forebay of Glen Canyon Dam to upper Lake Mead, 

referred to as the Colorado River ecosystem (CRe).

With an updated 2016 ROD, the activities of GCDAMP came under governance of the Glen Canyon 

Dam Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan (LTEMP). LTEMP established key resource 

priorities in eleven areas and requires adaptive management of these resources through 

experimental and management actions such as, but not limited to, fall and spring high-flow 

experiments, humpback chub translocation, macroinvertebrate production flows, mechanical 

removal of rainbow trout, and riparian vegetation restoration. By monitoring these management 

actions, the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC) provides credible, objective 

scientific information regarding the effects of Glen Canyon Dam operations on the CRe. 

One element of the GDCAMP is a Science Advisors Program where outside experts in relevant 

fields evaluate and give feedback on the research and monitoring programs. These periodic 

independent reviews ensure scientific credibility by providing recommendations regarding 

monitoring and research, integration, and management of natural, cultural, and recreational 

resources affected by Glen Canyon Dam operations.

Independent scientific peer reviews offer perspective on how well technical conclusions are 

supported by data and analyses and whether research being conducted aligns with LTEMP key 

resource priorities. This is a key step in guaranteeing GCMRC provides credible, objective scientific 

information about the effects of Glen Canyon Dam operations on the CRe. 

The purpose of this peer review is to review and provide feedback on each project element 

included in the Fiscal Year 2020 Annual Project Report to the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive 

Management Program (2020 Annual Report). The review included evaluating whether projects 

aligned with expectations laid out in the LTEMP. The individual reviews are provided in Appendix 

A. 

The period of performance for this peer review was 07/01/2021-9/30/2021.
Bureau of Reclamation Order No. 140R4021F0024 | 11/15/2021 Page 6 

2.0 PEER REVIEWERS

Peer reviewers were selected according to their previous experience conducting similar reviews, 

relevant expertise, independence from GCDAMP, and publishing records in scientific journals. All 

peer reviewers were provided the language from the OMB (Office of Management and Budget)

Bulletin (2004) with regard to independence and conflicts of interest, with respect to both 

GCDAMP and GCMRC. 

The combined panel was selected to provide the following expertise:

• Fisheries and aquatic ecology

• Aquatic macroinvertebrates and food web ecology

• Vegetation management and riparian ecology

• Sediment transport, geomorphology, and/or hydrology of river systems, particularly those 

impacted by dams

• GIS data management and remote sensing

• Socioeconomics related to energy generation and/or tribal resources

• Monitoring and adaptive management 

The five peer reviewers selected were mid- to senior-level scientists with PhDs in a relevant field 

who have previously conducted similar reviews or provided reviews of research for scientific 

literature. The full resumes for the peer reviewers are presented in Appendix B. The peer reviewers 

and their primary expertise were: 

• Michael E. Colvin, PhD, Associate Professor at Mississippi State University – expertise with 

big river fisheries, salmonids, and arid ecosystems 

• Stefanie A. Kroll, PhD, Assistant Research Professor at Academy of Sciences of Drexel 

University – expertise with food webs, aquatic macroinvertebrates, and community science

• Lynne Y. Lewis, PhD, Professor at Bates College – expertise in economics, hydropower, and 

community science

• Ben Livneh, PhD, Assistant Professor at University of Colorado – Boulder – expertise in 

sediment transport, hydrogeomorphology, and arid ecosystems

• John C. Stella, PhD, Professor at State University of New York – expertise in riparian 

vegetation ecology 

Two reviewers have worked with Tribes in relation to river projects; although this is not considered 

a primary expertise, their prior experience was valuable during the peer review. 
Bureau of Reclamation Order No. 140R4021F0024 | 11/15/2021 Page 7 

3.0 SUMMARY OF RESPONSES

Reviewers were asked to evaluate the 2020 Annual Report, any appendices, and recorded 

presentations from the Annual Report meeting. Reviewers were asked to focus on two main 

questions when evaluating the report:

1. Is the best information being provided to meet the needs of the Glen Canyon dam 

operations and its potential effects, including whether the investigations focus on the right 

questions for which the GCDAMP needs answers to carry out its mission? 

2. Does the combined effectiveness of the programs advance understanding of the Grand 

Canyon ecosystem; ensure progress in defining and conducting adaptive management 

experiments; monitor resources affected by Glen Canyon Dam operations and the effects 

of those operations; provide options for managing these effects; and facilitate 

coordination and balancing among resource programs? 

Reviewers only reviewed projects for which they felt they had a technical expertise to effectively 

review. In some cases, a reviewer only commented on a portion of a project within their technical 

expertise. The following summary provides the key points provided by the reviewers. The full 

reviews (Appendix A) include additional details and suggestions. Table 1 summarizes which 

reviewer’s provided comments on which projects (A – N) and appendices (1 – 3). 

Table 1. Summary of Reviewer’s Response by Project

Reviewer A B C D E F G H I J K L M N 1 2 3

1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

2 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

3 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

4 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

5 ■ ■
Bureau of Reclamation Order No. 140R4021F0024 | 11/15/2021 Page 8 

PROJECT A: STREAMFLOW, WATER QUALITY, AND SEDIMENT TRANSPORT AND BUDGETING IN THE 

COLORADO RIVER ECOSYSTEM

Reviewer 1: Sustainability requires a look to the future to forecast the effect of operations on 

sand resources, or possibly a retrospective analysis of what has happened in the past. Are the 

specific targets for sand or fine sediment resources defined? If so, what are they? The mass balance 

model could be used to parameterize a dynamic model that can be linked to dam operations, 

environmental conditions, and used to evaluate sustainability in sand resources over time. 

Reviewer 2: There appears to be tension between the goal of supplying sufficient sediment to 

maintain sandy banks and sand bars for recreational and tribal activities, competing with the 

problems that turbidity is causing for biota.

Reviewer 3: Overall, progress has been made in terms of collating, analyzing, and modeling the 

CRe to identify drivers of sand and limitations in historical monitoring. A large number of data 

products, reports, and presentations indicate good progress, generally sound methods, and 

potential applications for further high flow analysis. 

The continuous monitoring of sand would support greater understanding of the sustainability of 

current and future sand resources and critical connections between sand concentrations and high 

flows and other factors. It is difficult to interpret the uncertainty associated with flood flows in the

Little Colorado River Basin. Long-term precipitation gage data could improve regressions and 

understanding of variability, relationships, and uncertainty. Reporting long-term rates of change 

and their uncertainties would be useful for overall planning and overall context.

Reviewer 4: No comment.

Reviewer 5: How does annual and seasonal variability of sediment storage and transport, water 

quality, and discharge factor into whether the system is sustainable, and over what timeframes?

The bullet-point summary of results is informative, clear, and geared appropriately toward 

management. The insights on negative feedback interactions between water discharge and sand 

supply provide clear sideboards for management regarding dam releases and Paria River floods

and highlight the true narrowness of the decision space available for dam management. Including 

a figure or two to illustrate the sediment budget in different reaches of the system would be 

helpful.

PROJECT B: SANDBAR AND SEDIMENT STORAGE MONITORING AND RESEARCH

Reviewer 1: Overall, it would be good to couple monitoring efforts of sandbars with recreational 

experience quality. A number of methodological suggestions were provided. Additional 

information about uncertainty is needed, as well as ways to tie results to the objectives and 

adaptive management. 

Reviewer 2: The modeling and monitoring effort is well designed. There is a tension here 

between the goal of supplying sufficient sediment to maintain sandy banks and sand bars for 

recreational and Tribal activities, competing with the problems that turbidity is causing for biota. 
Bureau of Reclamation Order No. 140R4021F0024 | 11/15/2021 Page 9 

I do not know if the hypothesis that sand can be managed to achieve all goals of the GCMRC 

can hold true for this topic. High Flow Experiments should be monitored in terms of the 

objectives of Projects E, F, and others to ensure that supporting one objective does not end up 

detracting from another objective. 

Reviewer 3: Numerous data products, publications, and presentations indicate good progress, 

generally sound methods, and potential applications linking high-flow events with sand and 

camping impacts. Monitoring and data sharing are important continued activities from this 

project. Suggestions for future work and analysis are provided, particularly around camping, 

climate change, and remote sensing. Further exploration is warranted into potential applications 

of the Bayesian framework as a tool for quantifying reach-scale sediment deficits and surplus 

relevant for future studies. 

Reviewer 4: High flow experiments benefit campsites by causing temporary increases in campsite 

area, yet vegetation encroachment causes campsite declines. The relationship of this work to 

campsites needs to be clarified and any recommendations for recreational experience included 

(which is generally missing from all the projects, not just this one). 

Reviewer 5: No comment.

PROJECT C: RIPARIAN VEGETATION MONITORING AND RESEARCH

Reviewer 1: Vegetation monitoring for composition and cover, with emphasis on nonnative 

species appears to provide robust data that can be used for status and trend analysis, including 

statistical analysis. However, it was unclear how the long-term changes were evaluated and on 

what metric. How well did the model perform? It was not clear what the specific objectives were 

or how they provide decision support for management actions? 

Reviewer 2: No comment.

Reviewer 3: This provides a useful set of monitoring data and methods that connect vegetation 

with flow, environmental variables, and management, with a good webpage. There are some 

details that would be helpful to have reported (e.g., criteria for error checking, fraction of woody 

riparian vegetation, uncertainties). Remote sensing could be a useful technology to support this 

research. The analysis relating climate variables with vegetation patterns (Butterfield et al. 2018) 

is interesting and should continue to be pursued. Additional data should be reported/collected 

to help inform management of campsites and other recreational areas. 

Reviewer 4: Information specific to campsites was missing, including relevant goals and 

objectives. A summary and/or recommendations related to camping area, landscape beauty, and 

shade should be included and tied to Project J. 

Reviewer 5: In the next phase of this research, it would be helpful to focus on integration and 

synthesis, to understand how these interactions between plants and the fluvial system either 

support or undermine the multiple LTEMP goals. What are the most likely restoration actions (e.g., 

flow prescriptions, biological control, physical removal, horticultural plantings), how do they 

support the LTEMP goals, and what scientific questions still need to be answered?
Bureau of Reclamation Order No. 140R4021F0024 | 11/15/2021 Page 10

Though investigating these plant-environment associations using niche models is common and 

informative, it is unclear how useful they will be for predicting the effects of environmental change.

Niche models are less useful for understanding relationships when environmental variables are 

changing faster than the plants can adapt or disperse. Will the hotter and drier conditions result 

in more vegetation encroachment due to a reduced disturbance regime, or conversely a narrowing 

of the vegetated zone? Will these changes favor non-native species, and if so, what are options 

for reducing this risk? 

PROJECT D: GEOMORPHIC EFFECTS OF DAM OPERATIONS AND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT FOR 

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES

Reviewer 1: An evaluation of how flow and non-flow actions affect cultural resources, 

preservation of resources, vegetation, and sediment dynamics should be completed. Can the 

monitoring objectives be clarified? Can this monitoring be used to inform a risk model? 

Clarifications on metrics, how they are estimated, and how those metrics fit with the LTEMP 

resource goals and overall monitoring objectives would be helpful. Lastly, clarification is needed 

on how weather data is used to achieve monitoring objectives.

Reviewer 2: No comment.

Reviewer 3: The meteorological monitoring and data collection described by Caster et al. (2018) 

is extremely valuable and its continuation should be prioritized. Spaceborne remote sensing could 

complement existing aerial imagery. 

Reviewer 4: No comment.

Reviewer 5: No comment.

PROJECT E: NUTRIENTS AND TEMPERATURE AS ECOSYSTEM DRIVERS: UNDERSTANDING PATTERNS,

ESTABLISHING LINKS AND DEVELOPING PREDICTIVE TOOLS FOR AN UNCERTAIN FUTURE

Reviewer 1: The metrics monitored may not directly relate to LTEMP resource goals but are a 

necessary precondition to achieving LTEMP resource goals related to biota (humpback chub, 

rainbow trout, other native fish). There are several questions related to methods and how results 

inform adaptive management. 

Reviewer 2: The approach to monitoring and studying P dynamics is well designed. The 

studies before and after fire are also sound, and the shift to studying gross primary production is 

a good step toward characterizing the dynamics of nutrients in the system, especially regarding 

the food web. Was P historically limited or higher in this area, or how do levels compare with 

inputs into reservoirs? From the studies presented, the turbidity seems to be a greater limitation 

to algal growth and macroinvertebrate success (along with hydropeaking flows, of course), than 

bioavailable P into the system. 

Improved analysis and modelling of food web dynamics is needed to better understand the 

bottom-up controls of P concentrations, turbidity, and flows through the food web and in 

connection to the dynamics of the fish communities. Relative to Projects E and F, 
Bureau of Reclamation Order No. 140R4021F0024 | 11/15/2021 Page 11

macroinvertebrate diets could be analyzed using DNA metabarcoding of their whole abdomens 

to understand which diatoms and prey are most dominant in diets. Additional suggestions for 

improved data collection and analysis were included. 

Reviewer 3: While improvements in the predictive model resulted from using solar radiation as a 

predictor, details of the radiation data were entirely missing. Clearer justification of the water 

temperatures chosen should be provided in the context of existing pool temperatures and 

temperatures relevant for other project components.

Reviewer 4: No comment.

Reviewer 5: No comment.

PROJECT F: AQUATIC INVERTEBRATE ECOLOGY

Reviewer 1: The project illustrates good interaction with other projects to support inference and 

provides auxiliary information that might be needed to explain among year differences in higher 

trophic levels, like native fish and trout. The bases appear to be covered in terms of monitoring 

instream drifting and emerging aquatic invertebrates. 

Reviewer 2: Weekend “breaks” are an excellent idea for egg survival and other possible 

mechanisms for macroinvertebrate success and increasing diversity. Once this experiment is 

complete, will there be another study on how weekend flows can be best designed as ecological 

flows for macroinvertebrates? The community science involved in this project was a great 

component, but there are ways to build on the work already started by following up with 

stakeholders and increasing opportunities for Tribal members and other groups not typically 

involved in this type of community science. 

In this case, access to rafting trips may limit the participation of a diverse audience who 1) are not 

tourists and therefore may not consider participating in such a trip 2) are financially limited and 

may not be able to afford such a trip, and 3) have been historically excluded from such activities.

Reviewer 3: No comment.

Reviewer 4: No comment.

Reviewer 5: No comment.

PROJECT G: HUMPBACK CHUB POPULATION DYNAMICS THROUGHOUT THE CRE

Reviewer 1: The project provides advanced approaches to estimate population dynamics and 

project results have the potential to inform decisions. There are a few technical questions included 

related to methodology and relevance of particular data elements to management. The 

population appears to be increasing. With goal of the effort to monitor status and trend, how is 

the population trend evaluated? Will translocation decisions be informed by monitoring? 

Reviewer 2: No comment.

Reviewer 3: No comment. 
Bureau of Reclamation Order No. 140R4021F0024 | 11/15/2021 Page 12

Reviewer 4: No comment.

Reviewer 5: No comment.

PROJECT H: SALMONID RESEARCH AND MONITORING

Reviewer 1: There needs to be more detail provided for Project H.1 to determine if can sufficiently 

inform operations and provide information relevant to objectives. The coupled brown trout, 

rainbow trout, and humpback chub models used to evaluate management scenarios are an 

interesting application. The salmonid research and monitoring project tied to experimental dam 

operations associated with meeting LTEMP resource objectives is valuable research. How will this 

long-term datasets be used to evaluate experimental flows? 

Reviewer 2: No comment.

Reviewer 3: No comment.

Reviewer 4: There is significant overlap in topic with this project and Project J. It would be helpful 

if the connections between projects was more explicit. The economic value data is from 2016. Has 

more recent data been collected and how does it compare? There is little economic information 

provided about the recreational fishery or how operations impact the economic value. Results or 

an update related to the incentive program are valuable and should be included. The reviewer 

suggested using the term “Community Science” rather than “Citizen Science”.

Reviewer 5: No comment.

PROJECT I: WARM-WATER NATIVE AND NONNATIVE FISH RESEARCH AND MONITORING

Reviewer 1: It appears these efforts support The LTEMP “Goal 10. Nonnative invasive species. 

Minimize or reduce the presence and expansion of aquatic nonnative invasive species” and helps 

inform the “mechanical removal of nonnative fish near the Little Colorado River confluence“. 

There are a number of important details that were either not included or were unclear. The 

following are some notable questions that were unanswered: 

• How trends are calculated from monitoring data and this is likely important for informing 

adaptive operations of Glen Canyon dam and whether operations can achieve 

management objectives? 

• Why is Asian tapeworm monitoring important and how does this support GCDAMP and 

LTEMP? 

• How does this sampling inform a) sampling efforts needed at a larger scale to detect 

warm-water invasive fish and b) if warm-water invasives are expanding in range? 

• How is the eDNA persistence from upstream factored into the eDNA analysis completed?

Reviewer 2: No comment.

Reviewer 3: No comment.
Bureau of Reclamation Order No. 140R4021F0024 | 11/15/2021 Page 13

Reviewer 4: No comment.

Reviewer 5: No comment.

PROJECT J: SOCIOECONOMIC RESEARCH IN THE COLORADO RIVER ECOSYSTEM

Reviewer 1: The applied decision and scenario analysis is an interesting application to evaluate 

and identify optimal management actions that presumably links back to socioeconomic values. A 

table linking back to the LTEMP and management actions is suggested. How will survey 

information from the Tribes be used to inform decision making and adaptive management? 

Reviewer 2: The inclusion of some deliverables related to the use of USGS science by Tribal 

communities is valuable. Are there other ways to engage Tribal collaborators besides workshops? 

A list of outreach and meetings and the associated stakeholders would be informative. There are 

issues with the way some of the surveys have been designed relative to Tribal input and 

suggestions are provided about how to improve those. Are there other (non-Tribal) stakeholders 

involved with the Willingness to Pay research? 

Reviewer 3: Overall, this project is an important component of the CRe, GCMRC, and GCDAMP, 

because it allows for a broad assessment of the connections of ongoing activities with needs and 

economics downstream. Therefore, it is recommended to continue prioritizing this area of analysis.

The proposal to evaluate nonstationary climate impacts using the Donovan et al. (2019) model its 

an important priority; however, realistic constraints need to be used.

Reviewer 4: The section on Tribal Resources is difficult to review since the reports are not available 

and audio for that portion of the meeting was not available. There are concerns about how the 

contingent valuation was designed that limit its utility. 

The decision about which model to apply to willingness to pay data is not neutral and sensitivity 

analysis is important. It would be interesting to use some of the more commonly used approaches 

such as the non-parametric Turnbull with this data. 

The report gives a brief description of the bioeconomic dynamic programming model that 

evaluates the tradeoffs between protecting humpback chub and rainbow trout abundance. Where 

is a summary of the findings? Who are the decision-makers?

Recreational fishing is covered above, but the rainbow trout fishery is also discussed in several of 

the other projects. There needs to be some summary material in this report that weaves these 

related topics together. 

There is no mention of the on-going severe drought or climate change. Will new low-flow 

scenarios be tested? Are there recommendations going forward related to climate change? And 

how does the renegotiation of the Colorado River Compact impact this report?

Reviewer 5: No Comment. 
Bureau of Reclamation Order No. 140R4021F0024 | 11/15/2021 Page 14

PROJECT K: GEOSPATIAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Reviewer 1: It was uncertain what the needs of the GCDAMP and LTEMP are for geospatial science 

and data technology or how these systems support decision-making. There has been an 

impressive set of tools developed, however, to support the GCDAMP and LTEMP. There appears 

to be a significant effort to provide information to stakeholders and researchers.

Reviewer 2: No comment.

Reviewer 3: The migration of data into databases and cloud computing resources is an important 

innovation with payoffs over the long term. ArcGIS may not be the most effective tool due to the 

size of data sets. Other more powerful and efficient tools should be considered for these larger 

datasets and analyses. Tableau may not be a good long-term cost-benefit decision.

Reviewer 4: No comment.

Reviewer 5: No comment.

PROJECT L: OVERFLIGHT REMOTE SENSING IN SUPPORT OF GCDAMP AND LTEMP

Reviewer 1: It was unclear from the summary what the expected outcomes of this effort are, how 

the outcomes of these efforts will support the GCDAMP, or how this integrates with the LTEMP. A 

table that shows the relationship between expected products and their applications in projects 

would be helpful.

Reviewer 2: No comment.

Reviewer 3: The details of the overflight are not clearly articulated, although there is value in 

additional remote sensing. Evaluating opportunities to integrate remote sensing imagery with 

publicly available spaceborne imagery could provide cost-effective benefits. 

Reviewer 4: No comment.

Reviewer 5: No comment.

PROJECT M: ADMINISTRATION

Reviewer 1: No comment.

Reviewer 2: No comment. 

Reviewer 3: A minor comment is that the citizen science programs extend budgets and elevate 

the awareness of visitors.

Reviewer 4: No comment.

Reviewer 5: No comment.

PROJECT N: HYDROPOWER MONITORING AND RESEARCH

Reviewer 1: No comment. 
Bureau of Reclamation Order No. 140R4021F0024 | 11/15/2021 Page 15

Reviewer 2: No comment. 

Reviewer 3: Continue to coordinate with partners to identify opportunities to improve 

hydropower and energy resources. For example, the impact of high flow experiments on total 

outflows, the sensitivity of greenhouse gas emissions to reservoir levels, etc.

Reviewer 4: Goals and objectives could be clearer. Project N needs more detail (i.e., tables or 

other results summaries) and is lacking information about the economic value of hydropower. 

Several suggestions for improving the presentation and questions to clarifying methods and 

assumptions were included. 

Reviewer 5: No comment.

APPENDIX 1: LAKE POWELL WATER QUALITY MONITORING

Reviewer 1: No comment.

Reviewer 2: No comment. 

Reviewer 3: The collaboration with EPA should continue to be prioritized.

Reviewer 4: No comment.

Reviewer 5: No comment.

APPENDIX 2: DELIVERABLE (PRODUCTS) FY 2018-2020 

Reviewer 1: The program appears to be highly productive and the development of varying webbased resources to serve, process and summarize data is an asset.

Reviewer 2: No comment.

Reviewer 3: No comment. 

Reviewer 4: No comment.

Reviewer 5: No comment.

APPENDIX 3: BUDGETS, ALL PROJECTS

Reviewer 1: No comment.

Reviewer 2: No comment. 

Reviewer 3: No comment.

Reviewer 4: No comment.

Reviewer 5: No comment.
Bureau of Reclamation Order No. 140R4021F0024 | 11/15/2021 Page 16

4.0 SUMMARY

All reviewers provided suggestions to improve data presentation and use. All reviewers provided 

suggestions for additional analysis or expanded methodologies in one or more projects. All 

reviewers also identified multiple projects where it was hard to tie the project to the relevant 

LTEMP objective and related management actions. All reviewers commented on one or more 

projects that it was not easy to determine whether a metric could evaluate a goal or be used for 

decision-making (i.e., adaptive management). 

Only some reviewers commented on Tribal involvement and engagement, but those that did all 

agreed that there appeared to be a disconnect with what were likely Tribal priorities in one way 

or another. They also made suggestions for improving Tribal involvement and engagement. 

The socioeconomics elements were particularly difficult for reviewers to understand how projects 

impacted them or how they were tied to other projects. This is an area of great interest to 

stakeholders and yet was poorly presented throughout the 2020 Annual Report. 
Bureau of Reclamation Order No. 140R4021F0024 | 11/15/2021 Page 17

5.0 REFERENCES

Butterfield, B.J., Palmquist, E.C., and Ralston, B.E. 2018. Hydrological regime and climate 

interactively shape riparian vegetation composition along the Colorado River, Grand 

Canyon—poster presentation: Bozeman, MT, July 22-27, 2018, Natural Ecosystems as 

Benchmarks for Vegetation Science, International Association of Vegetation Scientists 

61st Annual Symposium.

Donovan, P., Bair, L.S., Yackulic, C.B., and Springborn, M.R. 2019. Safety in numbers—

Costeffective endangered species management for viable populations: Land Economics, 

v. 95, no. 3:435-453.

Reclamation. 2016a. Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan and 

Final Environmental Impact Statement (October 2016). US Department of Interior, Bureau 

of Reclamation and National Park Service. Denver, CO.

Reclamation. 2016b. Record of Decision for Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and 

Management Plan. US Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation and National Park 

Service. Denver, CO.

USGS. 2020. Fiscal Year 2020 Annual Project Report to the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive 

Management Program. US Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research 

Center. Flagstaff, AZ.
Bureau of Reclamation Order No. 140R4021F0024 | 11/15/2021 Page 18

APPENDIX A: INDIVIDUAL REVIEWS 

Reviewer 1 (Colvin) – August 2021

Reviewer 2 (Kroll) – August 2021

Reviewer 3 (Livneh) – July 2021

Reviewer 4 (Lewis) – September 2021

Reviewer 5 (Stella) – September 2021
Page 1 of 13

Peer Review 

AGENCY: US Bureau of Reclamation, Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive 

Management Program (GCDAMP)

MATERIAL(S) REVIEWED: 2020 Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC) 

Annual Report 

REVIEWED BY: Michael E. Colvin, Mississippi State University

DATE: August 26, 2021

I. Project A: Streamflow, water quality, and sediment transport and budgeting in the 

Colorado River Ecosystem

A. General overview 

1. The project indicates an understanding needed to identify conditions (dam 

operations and tributary conditions) that lead to sand accumulation in CR reaches. 

Mass balance results of sand mass changes over the fiscal year are presented for 

stream reaches. 

B. Link to LTEMP 

1. The project links to LTEMP resource goals related to natural resources (p2) and 

sediment (p5).

2. Are the specific targets for sand or fine sediment resources defined? If so, what are 

they? 

C. Sustainability of sand resources

1. The sustainability of sand resources is referenced as a guiding question and 

hypothesis for Glen Canyon Dam. Sustainability requires a look to the future to 

forecast the effect of operations on sand resources, or possibly a retrospective 

analysis of what has happened in the past. The change in sand resources over the 

near or long term can then be evaluated for increases or decreases. The mass 

balance approach applied to evaluate sand mass dynamics and results shown in 

table demonstrate changes from one year to the next for varying reaches. Are there 

ways to aggregate this to the system level? The mass balance model could be used 

to parameterize a dynamic model that can be linked to dam operations,

environmental conditions, and used to evaluate sustainability in sand resources over 

time. For example, at the system level, the analysis might evaluate if the change in 

sand mass is approximately 0 indicating that the current sand resources are being 

sustained. 
PEER REVIEW OF 2020 GCMRC ANNUAL REPORT 

Page 2 of 13

2. Related to the science questions of suitability, are dam operations coupled with 

environmental influences being used to sustain the current amount of sand 

resources in the (Colorado River ecosystem) CRe? Or is there a need to increase or 

decrease sand resources and then sustain? The LTEMP resource goals for sediment 

(p5) indicate increasing and retaining fine sediment within operational constraints, 

which suggests that sustainability of sand resources might be an objective after 

some level of increase occurs. 

II. Project B: Sandbar and sediment storage monitoring and research

A. Overview, Project goals and objectives and Link to LTEMP

1. Although this project relates to sediment goals of the LTEMP, are there ways to 

couple monitoring efforts of sandbars and recreational experience quality (p4)? 

2. Is there a way to synthesize information on sand bar volume with dam operations 

and environmental conditions to develop a predictive model of sand bar volume 

that can then be linked to objectives? 

B. Project B.1. Sandbar monitoring using topographic surveys and remote cameras

1. This project element relates to the first purpose of Project B, “track the effects of 

individual high flow experiments on sandbars”. 

2. The section was unclear on the application of topographic surveys; were they 

conducted and, if so, how?

3. Camera use is a neat application to passively monitor sandbars. Will the method 

provide sufficient power to detect changes and link to dam operations and tributary 

interactions? Will collecting time series sand bar change on a subset of sand bars be 

sufficient to inform the potential effects of dam operation and interaction with 

tributaries? 

4. Figure 1 (p17) is there uncertainty associated with the point estimates presented for 

sandbar volume?

C. Project B.2. bathymetric and topographic mapping for monitoring long-term 

trends in sediment storage

1. This project element relates to the purpose b, “monitor the cumulative effect of 

successive HFEs and intervening operations on sandbars and sand conservation and 

to Investigate the interaction between dam operations, sand transport, and eddy 

sandbar dynamics”. 

2. P19. “long term trends in sandbars and sand storage....” How will the former and 

latter be quantified and how does that relate to the sand budget model where the 

SNR was determined to be >1? 
PEER REVIEW OF 2020 GCMRC ANNUAL REPORT 

Page 3 of 13

3. P20. Recent progress in bedload transport models is interesting and a nice extension 

of the previous models used and can potentially inform adaptive management 

experiments. 

D. Project B.3. Control network and survey support

1. The maintenance of the geodetic framework seems foundational to supporting 

monitoring efforts. No specific comments.

E. Review specific questions

1. “1) whether the best information is being provided to meet these needs of the Glen 

Canyon dam operations and its potential effects, including whether the investigations 

focus on the right questions for which the GCDAMP needs answers to carry out its 

mission; and 2) resources affected by Glen Canyon Dam operations and the effects of 

those operations, options for managing these effects, coordination and balancing 

among resource programs, and the combined effectiveness of these programs in 

advancing understanding of the Grand Canyon ecosystem and ensuring progress in 

defining and conducting adaptive management experiments.” 

Assessing the report and recorded presentations the monitoring appears to satisfy 

these questions. The monitoring program quantifies sand and fine sediment 

dynamics, albeit analyses of trend and link to resources goals can be clarified. 

III. Project C: Riparian vegetation monitoring and research

A. Overview, Project goals and objectives and Link to LTEMP

1. The project relates to natural processes and recreational experience LTEMP resource 

goals. The project is delineated into four elements that link to monitoring changes 

to riparian vegetation using field and digital data (C.1. and C.2.), developing 

predictive vegetation composition models related to hydrologic regime (C.3), and 

integrated science products into decision support tools (C.4)

B. C.1. Ground-based vegetation monitoring

1. Vegetation monitoring for composition and cover, with emphasis on nonnative 

species appears to provide robust data that can be used for status and trend 

analysis, including statistical analysis (i.e., illustrated by figure 1 p26). 

C. C.2. Imagery-based riparian vegetation monitoring at the landscape scale

1. This project quantified long term changes in total riparian vegetation related to dam 

release patterns and climate for reaches of the CRe. 

2. It was unclear how the long-term changes were evaluated and on what metric. 

Additionally, the effect of dam operations on riparian vegetation was unclear, 

although this topic was addressed in C.3. 

D. C.3. Vegetation responses to LTEMP flow scenarios
PEER REVIEW OF 2020 GCMRC ANNUAL REPORT 

Page 4 of 13

1. The objective of this project was to develop better predictive models of how LTEMP 

flows will alter vegetation. 

2. How well did the models of riparian vegetation perform (p11)? Was a sensitivity 

analysis performed to evaluate where additional study or flow experiments might be 

prioritized? 

E. C.4. Vegetation management decision support

1. The specific objectives of this project element were unclear. How was decision 

support provided? What potential management actions came from information 

provided by this project element? In other words, was information used to evaluate 

trade-offs in plantings of specific strains of cottonwoods and willows?

F. Review specific questions

1. “1) whether the best information is being provided to meet these needs of the Glen 

Canyon dam operations and its potential effects, including whether the investigations 

focus on the right questions for which the GCDAMP needs answers to carry out its 

mission; and 2) resources affected by Glen Canyon Dam operations and the effects of 

those operations, options for managing these effects, coordination and balancing 

among resource programs, and the combined effectiveness of these programs in 

advancing understanding of the Grand Canyon ecosystem and ensuring progress in 

defining and conducting adaptive management experiments.” 

Assessing the report and recorded presentations the monitoring appears to satisfy 

these questions. Clarifications on metrics and how they are estimated would be 

helpful and how those metrics fit with the LTEMP resource goals. 

IV. Project D: Geomorphic effects of dam operations and vegetation management for 

archaeological sites

A. Overview, Project goals and objectives and Link to LTEMP

1. This project links to the LTEMP goal of preserving cultural resources and that 

preservation in place will be enhanced by implementing the preferred alternative 

specified in the LTEMP. The high flow experiments (HFE) specified in alternative D 

may conflict with preservation, eroding terraces containing archeological sites and 

depositing sand on aeolian dune fields thereby providing protection in the Marble 

and Grand Canyon. 

2. The goal of the project is to quantify geomorphic effects of dam operations and 

riparian vegetation management with emphasis on HFEs on sediment supply to 

terraces and culture sites. The project should allow for the evaluation of how flow 

and non-flow actions affect cultural resources, preservation of resources, vegetation, 

and sediment dynamics. 
PEER REVIEW OF 2020 GCMRC ANNUAL REPORT 

Page 5 of 13

B. D.1. Geomorphic effects of dam operations and vegetation management

1. The potential effects of dam operation and vegetation management were monitored 

with Lidar, weather, and time lapse camera. 

2. Can the monitoring objectives be clarified? 

3. Appears to be a good census of archeological sites and features in the monitoring 

portfolio. Can this monitoring be used to inform a risk model?

C. D.2. Cultural resources synthesis to inform historic preservation plan and repeat 

photography to inform project element D.1.

1. No specific comments

D. Review specific questions

1. “1) whether the best information is being provided to meet these needs of the Glen 

Canyon dam operations and its potential effects, including whether the investigations 

focus on the right questions for which the GCDAMP needs answers to carry out its 

mission; and 2) resources affected by Glen Canyon Dam operations and the effects of 

those operations, options for managing these effects, coordination and balancing 

among resource programs, and the combined effectiveness of these programs in 

advancing understanding of the Grand Canyon ecosystem and ensuring progress in 

defining and conducting adaptive management experiments.”

Assessing the report and recorded presentations the monitoring appears to satisfy 

these questions. Clarifications on metrics, how they are estimated, and how those 

metrics fit with the LTEMP resource goals and overall monitoring objectives would 

be helpful. Lastly, clarification is needed on how weather data is used to achieve 

monitoring objectives.

V. Project E: Nutrients and temperature as ecosystem drivers: Understanding patterns, 

establishing links and developing predictive tools for an uncertain future

A. Overview, Project goals and objectives and Link to LTEMP

1. This project examines patterns in nutrients and temperature in reaches of the CRe. 

The metrics monitored may not directly relate to LTEMP resource goals but are a 

necessary precondition to achieving LTEMP resource goals related to biota 

(humpback chub, rainbow trout, other native fish). 

B. E.1. Temperature and nutrients in the CRe

1. What are the biologically important levels for the water nutrients monitored in the 

CRe? 

2. Is DO measured at the sediment water interface (p60)? Periods of anoxia can 

mobilize P that is otherwise sequestered in benthic sediments, might be negligible 

in reaches of the CRe (Mortimer 1942).
PEER REVIEW OF 2020 GCMRC ANNUAL REPORT 

Page 6 of 13

3. Have nutrient budgets/dynamic models been developed to guide monitoring?

4. With the GPP models developed there is some indication that weekend bug flows 

influence system level GPP? Is there feedback on dam operations? For example, to 

modify flows for maximum GPP, or something of that nature? 

C. E.2. Linking temperature and nutrients to metabolism and higher trophic levels

1. The project elements seem to build on and address important questions needed to 

evaluate dam operations and environmental conditions on GPP, which is primarily 

driven by nutrients and temperature. 

D. Review specific questions

1. “1) whether the best information is being provided to meet these needs of the Glen 

Canyon dam operations and its potential effects, including whether the investigations 

focus on the right questions for which the GCDAMP needs answers to carry out its 

mission; and 2) resources affected by Glen Canyon Dam operations and the effects of 

those operations, options for managing these effects, coordination and balancing 

among resource programs, and the combined effectiveness of these programs in 

advancing understanding of the Grand Canyon ecosystem and ensuring progress in 

defining and conducting adaptive management experiments.”

 

Assessing the report and recorded presentations, the monitoring appears to satisfy 

these questions. The utility of monitoring temperature and the extensive modeling 

of temperature directly applies to dam operations and tributary and solar inputs. 

The linkage to the LTEMP, specifically through defined metrics and thresholds, was

unclear. 

VI. Project F: Aquatic invertebrate ecology

A. Goals and objectives

1. The project informs natural resource goals of LTEMP. Specifically, the monitoring 

efforts are being used to evaluate effects of bug flows from Glen Canyon Dam on 

aquatic invertebrate production and emergence timing. The project illustrates good 

interaction with other projects to support inference and provides auxiliary

information that might be needed to explain among year differences in higher 

trophic levels, like native fish and trout.

B. Monitoring of aquatic invertebrates

1. The bases appear to be covered in terms of monitoring instream drifting and 

emerging aquatic invertebrates. Within the constraints of the project, is the 

monitoring sufficient to evaluate bug flows (i.e., is sampling sufficient to detect 

changes in invertebrate production resulting from the flows)? 

2. The use of bat echo recordings is an interesting idea and would seem to be another 

potentially useful source of information indexing aquatic invertebrate production. 
PEER REVIEW OF 2020 GCMRC ANNUAL REPORT 

Page 7 of 13

3. Monitoring appears to rely on catch rates and emergence. Is it possible and useful 

to also look at invertebrate biomass production? For example, production rates 

might provide an additional component, integrating demographics and growth that 

can be linked to dam operations, albeit the temporal resolution needed might be 

insufficient for this large of a system. 

VII. Project G: Humpback chub population dynamics throughout the CRe

A. Overview, Project goals and objectives and Link to LTEMP

1. This project focused on estimation of abundance and demographic rates of 

humpback chub in the CRe. Its emphasis is on triggers associated with the Biological 

Opinion and the potential use of models fit to monitoring data to examine 

alternative management actions. This project informs humpback chub and native 

fish LTEMP resource goals. 

B. G.1. Humpback chub population modeling

1. The project provides advanced approaches to estimate population dynamics. 

2. In Figure 2 (p85), the reduction in uncertainty associated with antennas was not 

large relative to estimates without antennas. Is the benefit in increased precision 

worth the associated effort to maintain antenna arrays? Is the use of antennas 

something that is expected to further increase precision of humpback chub 

estimates over time?

3. Will translocation decisions be informed by monitoring, such that the effort 

associated with the translocations will occur when the expected number of adults 

produced from the effort is maximized?

C. G.2. Annual spring/fall humpback chub abundance estimates in the lower 13.6 km 

of the LCR

1. From the estimates illustrated in the figure on p87, the population appears to be 

increasing. With goal of the effort to monitor status and trend, how is trend 

evaluated? 

D. G.3. Juvenile humpback chub monitoring near the LCR confluence

1. No specific comments

E. G.4 Remote PIT-tag array monitoring in the LCR

1. No specific comments

F. G.5. Monitoring humpback chub aggregation relative abundance and distribution

1. With the associated closed mark-recapture estimators, will relationships of CPUE and 

abundance estimates be considered to evaluate the relationship of catch, effort, and 

abundance (C/f=q*B)? Specifically, will evaluating if catchability is constant, or may 

be exhibiting hyperstability or hyperdepletion (i.e., q^x where x <>1), result in a 
PEER REVIEW OF 2020 GCMRC ANNUAL REPORT 

Page 8 of 13

functional response which may influence the application of capture probability to 

catch data being used to estimate humpback chub in the Western Grand Canyon?

G. G.6. Juvenile humpback chub monitoring – West 

1. No specific comments

H. G.7. Chute Falls translocation 

1. See comment above regarding translocations

I. G.9. Backwater seining 

1. Will backwater seining be useful to evaluate dam operations? For example, is it 

expected that these efforts will index age-0 fish production, and in turn be 

associated with HFEs or other flows? If so, is the sampling effort sufficient to detect 

potential responses?

J. Review specific questions

1. “1) whether the best information is being provided to meet these needs of the Glen 

Canyon dam operations and its potential effects, including whether the investigations 

focus on the right questions for which the GCDAMP needs answers to carry out its 

mission; and 2) resources affected by Glen Canyon Dam operations and the effects of 

those operations, options for managing these effects, coordination and balancing 

among resource programs, and the combined effectiveness of these programs in 

advancing understanding of the Grand Canyon ecosystem and ensuring progress in 

defining and conducting adaptive management experiments.” 

The project appears to be monitoring many aspects of native fish, with emphasis on 

humpback chub, life history, demographics, and dynamics. Many applications have 

direct ability to inform decisions (e.g., translocations) and are informing humpback 

chub status with population models. 

VIII. Project H: Salmonid research and monitoring

A. Overview, Project goals and objectives and Link to LTEMP

1. This project relates to the rainbow trout fishery resource goal of the LTEMP as well 

as a possible predator or humpback chub. Dam operations include experimental 

‘trout flows’ hypothesized to limit rainbow trout recruitment and dispersal. Recent 

increases in brown trout may pose a challenge to native fish conservation but 

provide recreational fishing opportunities. 

B. H.1. Experimental flow assessment and trout recruitment

1. Is the level of sampling sufficient to evaluate the objectives of Project H.1?

2. Is it possible to clarify the proposed analytical procedures to evaluate H1.1-4 and 

the associated timeframe for sufficient learning to inform dam operations?
PEER REVIEW OF 2020 GCMRC ANNUAL REPORT 

Page 9 of 13

C. H.2. Rainbow and brown trout recruitment and outmigration model 

1. The coupled brown trout, rainbow trout, and humpback chub models used to 

evaluate management scenarios sounds like an interesting application. 

D. H.3. Using early life history and physiological growth data from otoliths to inform 

management of rainbow and brown trout in Glen Canyon

1. No specific comments

E. H.4. Rainbow trout monitoring in Glen Canyon

1. Was the creel survey, a roving or access creel? 

F. Item 2 Review specific questions

1. “1) whether the best information is being provided to meet these needs of the Glen 

Canyon dam operations and its potential effects, including whether the investigations 

focus on the right questions for which the GCDAMP needs answers to carry out its 

mission; and 2) resources affected by Glen Canyon Dam operations and the effects of 

those operations, options for managing these effects, coordination and balancing 

among resource programs, and the combined effectiveness of these programs in 

advancing understanding of the Grand Canyon ecosystem and ensuring progress in 

defining and conducting adaptive management experiments.”

 

The salmonid research and monitoring project, like aquatic invertebrate production, 

is unique in that there are experimental dam operations associated with meeting 

LTEMP resource objectives directly associated with salmonids. The monitoring of 

salmonids builds on long term datasets and an overall question that emerges is how 

will monitoring data be used to evaluate experimental flows? 

IX. Project I: Warm-water native and nonnative fish research and monitoring

A. Overview, Project goals and objectives and Link to LTEMP

1. This report section summarizes efforts to monitor warm water nonnative fish and 

research associated with nonnative fish. A snapshot of results for the 2020 sampling 

efforts by AGFD (2 mainstem sampling trips). Previous reports indicate that nonnative species have decreased. The project also includes a research component 

associated with the early detection of warm-water nonnative species and predation 

of native species by nonnative species. 

2. It was not explicit what goal of the LTEMP these efforts support but fall under “Goal 

10. Nonnative invasive species. Minimize or reduce the presence and expansion of 

aquatic nonnative invasive species” and helps inform the “mechanical removal of 

nonnative fish near the Little Colorado River confluence“ management action listed 

in the preferred alternative D of the LTEMP. 

B. Goals and objectives
PEER REVIEW OF 2020 GCMRC ANNUAL REPORT 

Page 10 of 13

1. The stated goal included trends in abundance and distribution of native and 

nonnative fish in the Grand Canyon. However, it is unclear from the report section 

how trend is calculated from monitoring data. Evaluating trend is likely important for 

informing adaptive operations of Glen Canyon dam and whether operations can 

achieve management objectives. 

2. It is unclear why Asian tapeworm monitoring is important and how it supports 

GCDAMP and LTEMP. Is there mortality associated with infestations in humpback 

chubs?

C. Improving early detection of warm-water invasive fish

1. Targeting areas where rare non-natives have been caught as well as warm water 

areas seems reasonable to the detection process. It is unclear how this sampling a) 

can inform the sampling efforts needed at a larger scale to detect warm-water 

invasive fish (i.e., power to detect given presence at low levels) and b) if warm-water 

invasives are expanding in range. 

2. The use of eDNA is a potentially powerful method for monitoring the presence of 

warm-water invasive fish DNA. However, given stream flows, eDNA detected at a site 

could be DNA material that has washed downstream. Is there any information on 

the downstream persistence of DNA in systems like the CRe? Similarly, what 

concentration of DNA is needed to reliably detect warm-water invasive fish? In other 

words, is eDNA in this application sensitive enough to provide an early detection 

system for warm-water invasive fish in the system? 

D. Warm water nonnative fish risks to native fish

1. Some details for the field component of this study would be helpful. Was this effort 

to provide estimates of diet composition which could be further used to inform 

relative risk? 

X. Project J: Socioeconomic research in the Colorado River Ecosystem

A. Integration with GCDAMP and LTEMP.

1. Integration with GCDAMP and LTEMP. This project appears to be integrating science 

outputs into management actions. A table or bulleted list that explicitly defines the 

links to the LTEMP and specifically management actions articulated in preferred 

alternative D. 

B. Integration with existing projects 

1. The applied decision and scenario analysis described in the report represents 

interesting applications of dynamic programming to evaluate and identify optimal 

management actions with a utility that presumably links back to socioeconomic 

values. Given the use of dynamic programming and value of information referenced 

in this section, it is exciting to see it applied to real world problems and whether it is
PEER REVIEW OF 2020 GCMRC ANNUAL REPORT 

Page 11 of 13

important or not to reduce uncertainty in humpback chub survival and rainbow trout 

abundance. 

2. It is clear from this section that there is much integration with native fish monitoring 

and management efforts (i.e., translocation of humpback chubs). Additionally, there 

appears to be integration with the preferred alternative D and monitoring efforts, 

specifically using dynamic programming to assess trout flows.

C. Use of tribal survey information in AM and decision making

1. It was unclear how the survey information for tribal perspectives will be used to 

inform decision making and adaptive management. For example, will the outcomes 

of the survey be used to develop functions representing preference for varying 

outcomes of management actions? Will the survey instruments inform any 

weighting of multi-attribute utilities that might be in optimization routines 

evaluating alternative management actions? 

XI. Project K: Geospatial science and technology

A. General overview

1. The investment into managing the experimental and monitoring data generated as 

part of a program of this size is very important. Impressions from the summary 

provided in the report is that this project is well positioned to provide the support 

needed by the science projects and to curate the data. 

2. Like most large-scale science and monitoring programs, this effort is shifting to the 

use of near real time summaries of monitoring data in the form of dashboards 

which, in turn, can be used to support the GCDAMP and LTEMP. 

3. The project demonstrates clear integration and support of other science projects 

(e.g., Project B, C, E, G, H, G, I) in the text.

4. It was uncertain what the needs of the GCDAMP and LTEMP are for geospatial 

science and data technology. For example, does the GCDAMP need feedback from 

information systems to support decision making? Are there monitoring thresholds 

or triggers identified from the LTEMP that are reported and critical to system 

operations? 

B. Science tools developed

1. The project appears to have developed an impressive set of tools to support the 

GCDAMP and LTEMP, for example, the lake level and water quality tool for Lake 

Powell

2. Of particular interest was the use of interest of things (IoT) to migrate data from 

field sensors to a single field location, potentially increasing the efficiency of 

offloading sensor data and minimizing personnel effort. 
PEER REVIEW OF 2020 GCMRC ANNUAL REPORT 

Page 12 of 13

3. Source control. The project development and integration of source version through 

GIT represents some of the best practices for reproducible analyses - an important 

component of a program of this size. 

4. The project appears to be making the best efforts to provide information to 

stakeholders and supporting the science associated with the GCDAMP and LTEMP. 

XII. Project L: Overflight remote sensing in support of GCDAMP and LTEMP

A. Link to GCDAMP

1. It was unclear from the summary exactly what the outcomes of this effort will be 

beyond imaging from the river corridor and how the outcomes of these efforts will 

support the GCDAMP. Specifically, how will remote sensing be used to evaluate the 

effect of Glen Canyon Dam operations? For example, can this technology be used to 

evaluate vegetation encroachment on sandbars?

2. Potentially add a table or narrative that lists expected products from remote sensing 

and potential integration with monitoring the effects of dam operations and 

potential role in decision making. 

B. Support and integration with LTEMP

1. It was unclear from the report summary how this effort will integrate with the 

LTEMP. From the summary the effort appears to be a singular effort to occur in 

2021. How this effort will support the long-term component of the monitoring plan 

is uncertain. 

2. Potentially add a table that lists expected products from remote sensing and 

potential application and integration with long-term monitoring efforts

C. Clarify link of this effort to other science projects

1. It seems reasonable that remote sensing would be of use to other projects in the 

portfolio of science efforts. It is unclear how this effort might support those projects 

and what outputs might be used once the effort is undertaken in 2021. 

2. Potentially add a table that lists expected products from remote sensing and 

potential application to ongoing science projects. 

XIII. Project M: Administration

1. No specific comments

XIV. Project N: Hydropower Monitoring and Research

1. No specific comments
PEER REVIEW OF 2020 GCMRC ANNUAL REPORT 

Page 13 of 13

XV. Appendix 1. Lake Powell water quality

1. No specific comments, section was a summary of data collected and monitored to 

support understanding of flows downstream. 

XVI. Appendix 2. Deliverable (Products) FY 2018-2020

A. Program productivity

1. The program appears to be highly productive with a great number of peer reviewed 

articles produced, presentations given, reports and datasets generated. 

2. The development of varying web-based resources to serve, process and summarize 

data is an asset. 

XVII. Appendix 3. Budgets, All projects

1. No specific comments

XVIII. Project N: Hydropower Monitoring and Research

1. No specific comments

Mortimer, C.H., 1942. The exchange of dissolved substances between mud and water in lakes. II. 

J. Ecol. 30, 147–201.
Page 1 of 10

Peer Review 

AGENCY: US Bureau of Reclamation, Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive 

Management Program (GCDAMP)

MATERIAL(S) REVIEWED: 2020 Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC) 

Annual Report 

REVIEWED BY: Stefanie A Kroll, PhD, Drexel University

DATE: August 20, 2021

I. Project A & B: Streamflow, water quality and sediment transport and budgeting within 

the Cre; Sandbar and sediment storage monitoring and research

A. Sediment transport need vs turbidity impacts on biota

1. The modeling and monitoring effort is well designed. The research is well 

supported by an article in press.

2. I am noting a tension here between the goal of supplying sufficient sediment to 

maintain sandy banks and sand bars for recreational and tribal activities, 

competing with the problems that turbidity is causing for biota. While I cannot 

suggest any solutions to this tension, perhaps the managers of this aspect of flow 

regulation and the researchers are already working to balance the sediment 

transport needs and the mechanism for it with the advantages to the biota when 

turbidity is low. 

3. I do not know if the hypothesis that sand can be managed to achieve all goals of 

the GCMRC can hold true for this topic. It’s very ambitious and I appreciate that it 

is your goal. From the study on the Hualapai Tribe’s opinions, there seem to be 

mixed feelings about the priorities of each activity.

4. It is possible that I don’t have enough information, as I see that the report notes 

that riparian vegetation encroachment and decreased sand from tributaries is 

responsible for the dynamics of sand erosion/deposition. There may still be some 

need to connect to the turbidity of Glen Canyon Dam releases for this item. I see 

that High Flow Experiments (HFEs) are being deployed to this end and note that 

increasing the number of these events should be monitored in terms of the 

objectives of Projects E, F and others. The previous study on the 2008 HFEs (RosiMarshall et al. 2010) showed declines in Potamopyrgus antipodarum and 

Gammarus, which may be desired results if a reduction in the nonnative snail is 

desired. However, HFEs may put the objective of improving Ephemeroptera, 
PEER REVIEW OF 2020 GCMRC ANNUAL REPORT 

Page 2 of 10

Plecoptera, and Trichoptera (EPT) communities at risk. It appears that these HFEs 

improve sand deposition, but that the effects are short-term, if I am understanding 

properly.

II. Project E: Nutrients and temperatures as ecosystem drivers

A. TP-SRP budgets

1. The approach to monitoring and studying phosphorus (P) dynamics is well 

designed—it appears that the researchers will continue to work to parse out the 

soluble reactive phosphorus (SRP) fraction and total phosphorus (TP), and perhaps 

what other fractions of TP may be biologically available, which should better 

inform algal dynamics and therefore the food web interactions. 

2. Development of a P budget is certainly a priority for understanding how P patterns 

interact with flow, temperature, turbidity and exert bottom-up controls on the 

biological communities.

3. The studies before and after fire are also sound, and the shift to studying gross 

primary production (GPP) is a good step toward characterizing the dynamics of 

nutrients in the system, especially regarding the food web. In addition, the high 

variation during storms is an interesting and pertinent research topic.

4. I agree that understanding other forms and amount of bioavailable P is needed as 

per the experiment notes in E.1.2

B. Seeding P

1. From the question during the presentation about adding P to the system, I agree 

with the researcher’s response that the potential effects are unknown, and that 

this action may have unwanted results in terms of supporting nonnative fishes, or 

other effects. This caution seems particularly important given the management

actions to reduce brown trout populations in favor of humpback chub and 

rainbow trout and removing rainbow trout in certain areas to favor humpback 

chub. Was P historically limited or higher in this area, or how do levels compare 

with inputs into reservoirs? From the studies presented, the turbidity seems to be 

a greater limitation to algal growth and macroinvertebrate success (along with 

hydropeaking flows, of course), than bioavailable P into the system. While I do not 

have enough information to say this is the case, it would be better to continue the 

Bug Flows experiment and the analysis of available P forms before considering 

taking actions to change P dynamics by seeding P. 

C. Whole system food web dynamics

1. In the presentation by Yackulic, he noted a desire to better analyze and model 

food web dynamics. I agree that this research is needed to better understand the 
PEER REVIEW OF 2020 GCMRC ANNUAL REPORT 

Page 3 of 10

bottom-up controls of P concentrations, turbidity, and flows through the food web 

and in connection to the dynamics of the fish communities. Food web research 

would be a high priority for the next steps if I were involved in this program. I 

support the next steps proposed in E.2.1 to better understand the drivers of 

variation in GPP. 

2. To bring together all the elements regarding energy flows, including metabolism, 

nutrient dynamics, algal, macroinvertebrate and fish communities, the results of 

propose sub-element E.2.4 seems like an ideal next step that has a clear and 

interesting foundation already published.

D. Algal community dynamics as food for macroinvertebrates

1. Relative to Projects E and F, macroinvertebrate diets could be analyzed using DNA 

metabarcoding of their whole abdomens to understand which diatoms and prey

are most dominant in diets, to complement the gut analyses of fish that have been 

done in previous studies, which I assume would be part of any food web study. 

2. The laboratory study in E.2.3. is interesting for P. antipodarum. It would be 

interesting to know, either through field or laboratory studies, if a more diverse 

set of grazers (including desired EPT and Diptera other than tolerant Chironomids) 

will respond to changes in upright vs. adnate diatoms. I do not think an additional 

lab/ artificial stream study on response of invertebrates other than P. antipodarum

is a high priority, as gut analysis of macroinvertebrates could be cost- and laboreffective. But as the researchers note the varying palatability of P. antipodarum to 

the different fish taxa, the suitability of diatoms as food for higher quality

invertebrates could provide interesting information on what may be needed for 

their successful colonization during bug flow experiments and how that moves 

through the food web to support more diverse invertebrates. Ideally, native snails 

and other grazers can eventually reduce the prevalence of the nonnative P. 

antipodarum, but I would consider that a less urgent management issue than 

increasing macroinvertebrate diversity, abundance, and biomass overall. 

E. Temperature

1. The development of high-resolution temperature models is important in 

watersheds, especially with flow regulation interacting with climate change. This 

model and approach are well-designed. I am familiar with the modeling approach 

because some of my colleagues are working on the same topic. I appreciate the 

user-friendly version being developed for use by stakeholders as well.

2. It is encouraging to see that projected temperature increases due to climate 

change may benefit humpback chub, even though there is a risk of expansion of 

largemouth bass or other nonnative fishes. This topic certainly deserves to 

continue to be monitored for temperature increases and effects throughout the 

ecosystem.
PEER REVIEW OF 2020 GCMRC ANNUAL REPORT 

Page 4 of 10

III. Project F: Bug Flows

A. Experimental design, community science

1. Weekend “breaks” are an excellent idea for egg survival and other possible 

mechanisms for macroinvertebrate success, and therefore for increasing diversity

as well. Once this experiment is complete, will there be another study on how 

weekend flows can be best designed as ecological flows for macroinvertebrates? 

I do not see details on how they were determined, but perhaps this aspect has 

been modeled and assessed previously to set the flows. I am not an expert on 

ecological flows, so I am not requesting data on the specific flows, but the 

methodology would be interesting, to know if it’s fully developed or another part 

of the experiment.

2. Sampling of aquatic insects is comprehensive, including sampling in the substrate, 

drift and adult emergence, and is well-aligned with the goals of the monitoring to 

inform this objective (i.e., successful growth and reproduction, as food for fishes, 

overall indicators of ecosystem health). 

3. I love the community science involved in this project! I don’t know what 

interactions you have with them after data collection and analysis, but I am sure 

you know it’s important to show them what their work accomplishes and make 

the results available to them in some form so they can share with their 

stakeholders and communities.

4. Are there opportunities for Tribal groups and other local communities and 

stakeholders to take part in the community science programs, including, but not 

limited to, those run by rafting trips? In this case, access to rafting trips may limit 

the participation of a diverse audience who 1) are not tourists and therefore may 

not consider participating in such a trip; 2) are financially limited and may not be 

able to afford such a trip; or 3) have been historically excluded from such activities. 

Could this group invest in recruiting stakeholders from diverse groups and 

funding their participation in this work (even if the recruitment is done by a 

different office or stakeholder group)? It seems that with so many trips happening 

in a typical year, a small budget allocation could make a big difference in 

connecting local stakeholders to the research. 

5. At the same time, sparking interest in these community science trips for a diverse 

audience may help build a more robust and diverse community of recreation 

guides, scientists, etc., which, as you know, is direly needed in the whitedominated environmental research and recreation sectors. Increasing diversity 

and inclusion have not been explicitly incorporated into many actions by 

environmental agencies and research groups and may seem out of place in my 

review of the scientific merit of this program. However, we must start 
PEER REVIEW OF 2020 GCMRC ANNUAL REPORT 

Page 5 of 10

incorporating Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI) into all our activities, and this 

seems like an ideal opportunity to add DEI work, with potential for mentoring 

diverse young people into existing community science activities.

B. Hypothesized effects of bug flows

1. Overall, this experiment seems to be showing success, and I support its 

continuation to compensate for loss of data in 2020 and gather more data to 

better understand the patterns of macroinvertebrate response. The presentation 

by Jeff Muehlbauer was clear and well laid out, as was the report. The 2016 paper 

by Kennedy et al. was also very helpful in understanding the framework. This 

represents an important compromise for hydropower to better support aquatic 

life, and could be applied at many other reservoirs, and I respect and appreciate 

the objectives and methods.

2. I don’t have a problem with the egg desiccation hypothesis as the driver of Bug 

Flows (in reference to a comment after the presentation) in light of the other 

findings and the published paper on the topic (Kennedy et al 2016). Hypotheses 

are meant to be tested, and when they are not supported, lead to other, valid 

conclusions and hypotheses, so it is always acceptable for a hypothesis to not 

hold. Jeff Muehlbauer notes that it may or may not be a hypothesis supported by 

the data, that there are many effects of “bug flows,” and he also indicates 

uncertainty on the mechanism for the increases in EPT abundance and biomass in 

2018 and 2020. For example, possible other mechanisms for higher 2018 

emergence despite no 2017 bug flows: 1) if there are several cohorts of 

Hydropsychids per year and bug flows support emergence of adults, not just egg

moisture, and 2) if a small number of eggs is able to persist during drying, or if 

some egg deposits occur at low flows, which are low again at the time of 

emergence. I appreciate the experiment on this topic and can also appreciate that 

the researchers understand that bug flows have multiple effects on invertebrate 

life histories, not just avoiding egg drying. I am not suggesting the researchers try 

to find out if other mechanisms are responsible, but I am noting that it is entirely 

possible that the 2018 emergence at the start of bug flows could occur through 

several different mechanisms. I think if the approach works, a definitive causal 

analysis may not be needed. The analyses of ecological linkages from P up the 

food web seems more important than a specific causal analysis of the success of 

bug flows.

3. As I noted above, it would be of interest to know how flows could be best 

structured to support macroinvertebrates. Maybe the current form is the best 

one—I don’t have enough information to be sure.

4. Research on bug flows is a great start for restoring and increasing insect biomass 

and aiming to increase insect diversity. As I note above (in Project E), the 
PEER REVIEW OF 2020 GCMRC ANNUAL REPORT 

Page 6 of 10

assessment of the food web (adding to fish diet studies) would be helpful—if 

possible, an analysis of insect diets with DNA barcoding (perhaps combined with 

Stable Isotope to understand the proportions of food types) could help 

understand diatom, organic matter, and plant dynamics leading to insect success. 

In the previous analyses, the group has used stable isotope analysis of fish guts

which were informative regarding algal- or insect-dominance in fish diets. 

However, genus or species-level resolution of fish and insect gut contents may 

contribute significantly to this work by showing small changes over time and 

improvement of the macroinvertebrate community or variation among years. As 

the research over the years done by your group has shown in this area, there are

changes longitudinally as well as at low flows, which may also be better 

understood with greater taxonomic resolution of macroinvertebrates. 

5. Related to above, in terms of identifying the genera of macroinvertebrates in 

samples and in fish diets: one difficulty in designing such restoration practices/ 

experiments is that we do not always have a clear sense of what recovery will look 

like or the expected time scale (or longitudinal reach of the effects, depending on 

the type of restoration). While the initial results are encouraging and the 

experiment is ongoing, it may be helpful to examine genus-level data in

macroinvertebrate samples as well as fish diets to look for early signs of ecosystem 

recovery. Chironomidae may have a variety of pollution and temperature 

tolerances, so I would invite examination of the genera to see if any shift within 

the midge taxa may be an early indicator of improvement, while EPT may lag but 

are still increasing. You have a lot of samples, so even focusing on certain taxa 

would be informative.

6. I also support the statement by Kennedy et al. (2016) and in the presentation that 

macroinvertebrate function should be included in the analyses. Viewing 

macroinvertebrates and fishes through the lens of functional traits is likely to be 

important to understanding not only food web dynamics, but ecosystem functions 

contributed by the biota and changes due to variations in the prominent 

environmental drivers. In my work using multiple indicators relative to restoration, 

I have found that using the functional lens along with the structure lens allows me 

to better understand the biotic communities' relationships with stressors. Using 

functional traits also allows for target-setting of reasonable, desired increases in 

% EPT, % disturbance-tolerant or disturbance-sensitive taxa, etc., and can be 

combined with setting taxon-specific goals as the researchers have for 

Hydropsychidae and Hydroptilidae. Thus, if a function remains similar but the taxa 

who perform it change, it may be an indicator of ecosystem resilience, where if we 

only consider them from a taxonomic viewpoint, we may see only the loss of 

diversity. It goes without saying that it would not be ideal for different fish species 

to replace your target management fishes, but for macroinvertebrates, the 

changes among taxa may be okay if functions are supported.
PEER REVIEW OF 2020 GCMRC ANNUAL REPORT 

Page 7 of 10

7. In terms of flattening the sine wave of longitudinal changes in abundance—I 

understand the researchers would like to see a less patchy distribution. At the 

same time, the data show that caddisfly biomass/abundance is higher where RBT 

and HBC are prevalent. Is this because other aspects of habitat are better for both 

the macroinvertebrate and fish communities in these areas, or is it driven by the 

changes in base flow levels? It would be interesting to know if less patchiness of 

bugs makes more areas suitable for these fishes, or if there are other habitat and 

water quality constraints in those areas. Perhaps I have missed the connection in 

the report and talks. If a more homogenized distribution of bugs leads to the same 

for the fish communities, I can see the great value of “flattening the sine curve.”

Right now, I am inclined (with limited data) to understand that the same habitat is 

supporting the fishes and caddisflies.

8. While Palmer et al. (2005) encourage us to set goals for ecosystems based on 

more natural systems, few researchers and restoration practitioners do so because 

there is a lack of data on recovery of systems, and we do not quite know where to 

start. This becomes a vicious cycle of not knowing  not setting targets  not 

being able to provide data for others to use to set targets (back to not knowing). 

I think it is a good idea to set targets for acceptable/desired amounts of 

improvement. As above, if the hypothesis is wrong, so be it—it can be updated. 

But target-setting allows us to really focus on the specific goals of experiments in 

restoration and to refine the goal-setting process so it can be more commonly 

adopted by others doing similar work. During early analyses of how close we got 

to our goals, we may choose not to share them externally for the uncertainty of 

being held to them. But nonetheless, I think it’s an important exercise to undergo, 

at least internally, within the research group. This approach may not always be 

possible and may be one of my pet topics, admittedly, but I like to raise it in 

restoration/management research, in this case improving flows for biota. 

C. Bug Flows and the food web, especially diatoms

1. The 1992 study by Hardwick et al indicates changes in diatom communities, which 

have implications in terms of macroinvertebrate diet. However, turbidity and 

continuing to experiment with ecological flows seem like the best approaches to 

understanding how macroinvertebrate communities can improve to better 

contribute to the food web and shift from midge-dominated to [larger and more 

nutritious] EPT and Diptera taxa (and for diatom communities to improve as well, 

as they also seem denser at shallower depths and lower turbidity). Diatom diversity 

may be less important than the quality of biofilms and habitat suitability in terms 

of supplying macroinvertebrates with palatable taxa, but macroinvertebrate diets 

could be analyzed through DNA metabarcoding of macroinvertebrate abdomens 

for gut contents. The objective in Project E above to analyze other available forms 

of P would complement this work and may make it unnecessary to have taxonomic 
PEER REVIEW OF 2020 GCMRC ANNUAL REPORT 

Page 8 of 10

data on diatoms in the macroinvertebrate diets. But I’m sure you know that just as 

certain macroinvertebrate taxa provide better nutrition to fish, the same is true for 

diatoms and other algae as food for macroinvertebrates. Thus, any information on 

the nutrition of biofilms and diatoms in the P experiments can be informative to 

the macroinvertebrate analyses.

D. Emergence timing and spring “mud” 

1. This topic seems to reinforce the negative effects of turbidity over longer time 

scales on macroinvertebrate communities. In the report, late emergence appears 

to be interpreted as a negative outcome in relation to spring mud; but in the 

presentation, Jeff Muehlbauer notes that later emerging insects may be larger and 

therefore provide a better food source. It will be interesting to see how this pattern 

evolves with more data collection.

2. Have degree days been related to this later emergence as well in the case that the 

annual water temperature pattern is also related?

3. The pattern with the fall “mud” does seem to suggest that turbidity affects 

macroinvertebrates differently at different life stages, with a higher emergence at 

low turbidity, which would align with general understanding that turbidity 

negatively affects macroinvertebrates through various mechanisms (food sources, 

breathing structures, etc.).

4. I understand this topic is still being researched, and it does seem like an important 

link to turbidity and sediment transport, and thus food web connections. I will be 

curious to know how this variable compares with flow, light, GPP, etc. in its 

strength of relationship with measures of the macroinvertebrate community

(diversity, biomass, emergence, etc.).

IV. Project J 

A. Modes of outreach with tribes

1. I am glad to see that the project team met with tribes and worked to develop 

communication in ways that tribal leaders preferred and offered them a stipend 

for participation.

2. In terms of the survey, no reason was given in the report for why the three tribes 

declined to participate. Is there a member of any of the tribes who is working on 

your team to design the survey, assist with outreach, and overall be a highly 

involved member of the team? Are there opportunities for tribal members to be 

paid more than for surveys, as a part of research and management teams? I 

assume you are continuing to work on these relationships, that it may take time, 

and, especially now, may require good timing and specific opportunities to 
PEER REVIEW OF 2020 GCMRC ANNUAL REPORT 

Page 9 of 10

connect with them. I appreciate this objective of your work and see a need for 

opportunities to expand it. 

3. While it is right to request their input and information, when collaborating for 

research, it is also important to treat the community as a full partner. What are the 

concerns and research questions of the Tribes in terms of management of the 

Grand Canyon and Glen Canyon Dam? To what extent do individuals or leaders 

from the Tribes want to be involved and informed about your work? In my work 

in collaboration with community groups, including some Tribal leaders, some 

decisions need to be bottom-up, from their perspectives, rather than top down, 

from your research teams and the government agencies they represent. It is a 

good time to seek ways to allocate funding for deeper involvement of these 

groups. For example, when we write grant proposals with a community member, 

they are co-PI of the project. You may have already considered these questions—

it was difficult for me to tell from the materials.

4. One survey item, willingness to pay, seems inappropriate for Tribes. It is known 

nationally that the Navajo Tribe requires greater economic support and access to 

resources than they currently have, and thus they and other Tribes should not be 

asked to contribute financially to management of the Grand and Glen Canyon 

resources. This survey item may be appropriate for non-tribal communities using 

the water resources, but due to the history of Europeans taking Native American 

resources and the current topics including the landback movement and 

reparations it appears inappropriate with respect to Tribes. 

5. The results working with the Hualapai Tribe are encouraging in terms of 

understanding their priorities and perspectives. I think the item “anyone should 

have access to these areas at any time” deserves special attention. As it is unlikely 

this area would be given back to Tribal governments, setting aside times and areas 

for their activities may be appreciated, if that is what is meant in the response to 

that survey item. 

B. Deliverables related to Tribes

1. I am pleased to see some deliverables related to the use of USGS science by Tribal 

communities, along with the standard academic and data-driven deliverables I see 

in the report. Have Tribal collaborators weighed in on what they might like to see 

come as a result of the variety of work going on and their involvement? There may 

be books, materials, or other items that Tribes are interested in to inform their and

other communities of their involvement and practices, to promote their culture 

and well-being, etc. that should be considered alongside the formal, scientific 

outputs. I see workshops that appear to be mainly with Tribes—where else should 

this collaboration with them be shared to highlight the cultural aspects and their 
PEER REVIEW OF 2020 GCMRC ANNUAL REPORT 

Page 10 of 10

areas of interest? How could such outreach and deliverables directly support them 

with funding and resources?

C. Inclusion of other stakeholders, Willingness to Pay

1. I am sure you meet with other regional stakeholders such as watershed 

associations, the Riverkeeper, etc. I know that it can complicate the work to hear 

from stakeholders with different objectives and different perspectives on how 

much their opinions should be considered. I think it would be helpful to include 

more information in the reports, more explicit lists, etc., of meetings held and 

groups to whom outreach has been done. Have the non-Tribal towns nearby been 

surveyed about Willingness to Pay? I do think it is an important topic in natural 

resource conservation and management for non-Tribal users. Are the other 

stakeholders (governments, recreation groups, watershed associations, etc.) 

involved in any Water Fund/Willingness to Pay research? I understand that your 

group may or may not be the convener of large stakeholder meetings, but it would 

help to know more about participation without having to glean it from workshops 

and presentations in the Deliverables section.
Page 1 of 10

Peer Review 

AGENCY: US Bureau of Reclamation, Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive 

Management Program (GCDAMP)

MATERIAL(S) REVIEWED: 2020 Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC) 

Annual Report 

REVIEWED BY: Lynne Lewis, Elmer W. Campbell Professor of Economics

 Bates College

DATE: September 15, 2021

Introduction

I have reviewed the report U.S. Geological Survey Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center 

Fiscal Year 2020 Annual Project Report to the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program

I also viewed the video presentations in or related to my area of expertise, listed in in order of 

the agenda list; 

• Introduction to Modeling Tools for Adaptive Management – Mike Runge

• Sediment in the Grand Canyon – Paul Grams

• Recreational use in Glen and Grand Canyons – Lucas Bair 

• Hydropower – Clayton Palmer

• Panel Discussion Modeling Tools for Management

• Lees Ferry Fishery Monitoring – Jan Boyer

I focused particularly on those presentations that address in whole or in part, hydropower and 

energy, recreation and endangered species as well as those that were more indirectly related, 

including the rainbow trout materials. I have also reviewed the tribal resources slides (no audio 

accompanied those). 

I have reviewed the following documents that appeared in the references that relate to socioeconomic values including recreational fishing and hydropower and some that were located 

elsewhere. 

Lucas S. Bair, David L. Rogowski & Chris Neher. 2016. Economic Value of Angling on the 

Colorado River at Lees Ferry: Using Secondary Data to Estimate the Influence of 

Seasonality, North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 36(6): 1229-1239, DOI: 

10.1080/02755947.2016.1204388
PEER REVIEW OF 2020 GCMRC ANNUAL REPORT 

Page 2 of 10

Pierce Donovan, Lucas S. Bair, Charles B. Yackulic and Michae R. Springborn. 2019. Safety in 

Numbers: Cost-Effective Endangered Species Management for Viable Populations. 

Neher, Chris, John Duffield, Lucas Bair, David Patterson, and Katherine Neher. 2017. Testing the 

limits of temporal stability: willingness to pay values among Grand Canyon whitewater 

boaters across decades. Water Resources Research 53, no. 12: 10108-10120.

Duffield, Neher and Patterson (2016) Economics Analysis of Glen Canyon Angler and Grand 

Canyon Whitewater Visitor Surveys. Prepared for USGS. 

https://gcdamp.com/images_gcdamp_com/e/e0/Whitewater_Angler_FINAL_REPORT.pdf

I also looked at some of the survey instruments. 

Based on the report structure, my main objective was to review LTEMP Goals on Recreational 

Experience and hydropower which appear in Projects, B, C, H, J and N as well as in the 

presentations. Project J is focused exclusively on Socio Economics, (Project J: Socio-economic 

Research in the Colorado River Ecosystem); however, socio-economic values and priorities 

permeate many of the other projects including Projects, B, C, H and N. 

I will make some general comments and then more specific comments below:

General Comments

The report that I was asked to review was extremely difficult to review. The LTEMP goals, listed 

at the beginning of the project report, do not map directly to the projects themselves. Table 2 is 

a useful mapping of where those goals appear in the projects, but there is no overall assessment 

or connection across the related items as far as I could tell. Additionally, the presentations do 

not map onto particular projects or goals directly either. Many of them covered parts of several 

projects, but there were no direct articulations of the connections. As such it is not at all clear 

how a decision-maker might use this information. There are many disparate studies and a 

clearer delineation and/or compilation with summaries and recommendations would be 

enormously helpful for any reader to know how they tie together. 

Each project area clearly reports their goals and objectives, but many of the results sections are 

very difficult to follow and some seemed cobbled together. There are some general results, but 

finding specific details is very challenging. A reader should not have to look up each reference in 

the hopes of finding the methods or data for a particular study. Prior recommendations should 

be bulleted with specifics on whether or not those goals were met. Links to survey instruments, 

data and methods of analysis need to be more clear. Without proper context, it is very difficult 

to review some of the sections. Since socio-economics permeates several of the projects, the 

authors might want to discuss how to incorporate a summary of the socio-economics in each 

project? 

That said, the video presentations were excellent. Each presentation started with the goals, 

followed by the metrics used to measure performance and then what the impact topics are. 
PEER REVIEW OF 2020 GCMRC ANNUAL REPORT 

Page 3 of 10

Mike Runge, in the first presentation, articulated that decision makers need this monitoring 

information in order to make predictions and the critical uncertainty is reduced by confronting 

predictions with data from monitoring. He also said that the decision framework is developed by 

US Fish and Wildlife and their role is to determine what predictive models they need to help 

them make those decisions. The example he used was the mallard population. The mallard 

population is a function of habitat and hunting regulations. In that case the hunting regulation is 

the decision metric. They can then choose the best performing alternative for this metric using a 

consequence table. As I understand it, consequence tables he mentioned show which alternative 

performs best in which scenario. In this case, there are seven scenarios including the status quo. 

My question then is where is this table? There is no summary table anywhere that I could find 

and the report does not offer information a decision-maker needs at their fingertips. I had to 

search through a lot of documents to find the information and am still left with many questions. 

Thinking more broadly, how does climate change impact any of the scenarios? What about the 

current renegotiation of the Colorado River Compact? How is future uncertainty included in 

these studies? I do not see any specific mention of climate change in the report. I understand 

the report is primarily monitoring the current situation, but if these are used to form predictions, 

I wonder if the probabilities of extremely low flow futures are considered. 

In my comments below I focus on the report U.S. Geological Survey Grand Canyon Monitoring 

and Research Center Fiscal Year 2020 Annual Project Report to the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive 

Management Program, and intersperse what I took from the presentations and references that 

perhaps could be used in a revision of the report. 

General comments on Socio-economics

My area of expertise is economics. There is one chapter in the report labeled socio-economic 

research, Project J. This section outlines two very different modeling efforts – Tribal surveys and 

bio-economic modeling. Project J refers to tribal surveys without results or survey instruments to 

refer to or references. Then it moves on to bio-economic modeling and some results, but does 

not connect the two or have a general summary on those resulting values. Additionally, socioeconomic results are scattered throughout the entire document related to recreational fisheries, 

endangered species and hydropower. The recreational fisheries values are presented in a 

different project as far as I could tell. Hydropower economic values are discussed, but not 

presented in Project N. As a reviewer it is very hard to understand the bigger picture for each of 

the management scenarios. What were each of the recommendations in conflict with and what 

is the total value? In fact, one of the LTEMP goals is the recreational experience which is 

mentioned, but not summarized in any of the projects. For each flow experiment, what are the 

management recommendations? Which flow regime maximizes economic value or recreational 

experience and is that outweighed by another priority or not? Answers to such questions and 

many others are not obvious. 
PEER REVIEW OF 2020 GCMRC ANNUAL REPORT 

Page 4 of 10

I recommend moving from the use of “citizen science” to the more inclusive term “community 

science.” Many organizations have already made this change to their language referencing 

public participation in data collection, so it would be appropriate to consider doing the same. 

The term “citizen science” appears in a number of projects. 

Specific Project Comments and Questions

I. Project B: Sandbar and Sediment Storage Monitoring and Research

A. Campsites

1. This project chapter reports that high flow experiments benefit campsites by causing 

temporary increases in campsite area. At the same time, vegetation encroachment 

causes campsite declines. While the primary goal of this project is to monitor sediment 

and sandbars (as I understand it), “this project also contributes to the goals for 

recreational experience.”

2. I do not see campsites mentioned anywhere else. Is there a recommendation or 

conclusion? Do larger campsites allow for more visitors or larger individual campsites? 

How does this effect the economic value of the recreational experience? 

3. What are the recommendations as they relate to recreational experience? This is 

missing from the entire report, not just in project B. 

B. Citizen Science

1. See above on moving to the more inclusive term “Community Science.” 

II. Project C: Riparian Vegetation Monitoring and Research

A. Campsites

1. Goals and Objectives are missing. There is a section, but it does not list the goals and 

objectives, only the list of accomplishments. 

2. This project aims to monitor changes to riparian vegetation which can reduce 

camping area (negative in economic value), add beauty to the landscape (positive) 

and create shades and windbreaks (positive). All of these things affect the socioeconomics. Is there a summary or recommendations as related to Project J? 

III. Project H: Salmonid Research and Monitoring

There is significant overlap in topic, if not work, with this project and Project J. 

A. Recreational Fishery

This project focuses on protection of the endangered humpback chub and maintaining a 

healthy recreational rainbow trout fisheries. The goal is to maintain a balance between the 

sport fishery and the downstream humpback chub. Experimental flows proposed in the 
PEER REVIEW OF 2020 GCMRC ANNUAL REPORT 

Page 5 of 10

LTEMP were designed for this purpose. Simultaneously, there is an effort to slow the increase 

in brown trout populations. According to the report ”The primary objective of this Project 

Element is to assess the effectiveness of GCDAMP policy actions that influence abundance, 

survival, recruitment, and movement for two distinctly different trout species.”

1. There is reference to an angler survey, but it appears this is a different angler survey 

than the one used to measure economic value? The economic value (contingent 

valuation survey) looks to be from 2016. Was there any attempt to collect additional 

socio-economic data via the survey that was conducted in 2020? Has the data that

was collected in terms of numbers of anglers and catch rates compared to the 2016 

survey? 

2. I assume the recreational fishery is extremely valuable, but there is no reference to the 

economics or which flow regime could improve the recreational experience (value). 

3. Jan Boyer’s presentation also covered catch rates and angler satisfaction. Catch rates 

and satisfaction both went down this year. The significant drop in 2020 is curious. 

Does this drop have to do with covid-related travel conditions? Or is it simply that 

different people are fishing this year? There was certainly increased visitation at all 

federal recreational areas and national parks in 2020 and 2021. Since the number of 

anglers did indeed go up, is there a way to connect or examine the differences in 

demographics? Does congestion play a role with increased visitation?1

 

B. Incentive program

1. There is brief mention of an incentive program put together by the National Park 

Service and the Arizona Department of Fish and Game aimed at reducing brown trout 

populations. The goal is to incentivize anglers (through payments) to harvest brown 

trout. This is the only time I saw this program mentioned, though it was mentioned 

in one of the video presentations. From a socio-economic perspective, incentives can 

be very powerful tools. Is it working? Is there any data on participation? What is the 

recommendation? 

2. This incentive program was discussed in more detail in Jan Boyer’s presentation. From 

my notes from that presentation, apparently 58% of survey respondents said they 

would participate in an incentivized harvest of brown trout. The survey also asked 

about the amount of money that would incentivize the respondent to participate. It 

sounds like this incentive program was started in November? With a $25? Incentive? 

This was followed by a survey asking anglers if they were aware of this program. This 

seems to be extremely important information, but it is missing from the report. 

C. Citizen Science

1. I recommend moving from “Citizen Science” to the more inclusive “Community 

Science.” 

1 Jan Boyer’s presentation covered items that overlap Projects H and J. 
PEER REVIEW OF 2020 GCMRC ANNUAL REPORT 

Page 6 of 10

IV. Project J: Socioeconomics

This project addresses the Tribal Resources, Humpback Chub (Gila cypha), Hydropower and 

Energy, and Rainbow Trout Fishery Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan (LTEMP) 

Environmental Impact Statement resource goals by addressing the LTEMP Record Of Decision 

(U.S. Department of Interior 2016a, 2016b) objective to respect the “interests and perspectives of 

American Indian Tribes” and “determine the appropriate experimental framework that allows for 

a range of programs and actions, including ongoing and necessary research, monitoring, 

studies, and management actions in keeping with the adaptive management process.” These 

studies also attempt to “maintain or increase Glen Canyon Dam electric energy generation, load

following capability, and ramp rate capability, and minimize emissions and costs to the greatest 

extent practicable, consistent with improvement and long-term stability of downstream 

resources.”

Summarizing the socio-economics is tricky since pieces are covered or mentioned in several 

other projects. This project only reports on two of the resource goals. Since socio-economics 

permeates several of the projects, the authors might want to discuss how to incorporate a 

summary of the socio-economics in each project? 

A. Tribal Resources 

1. Tribal Values: I have read Project J on Tribal values and reviewed the slides that were 

presented. This section is difficult to review since the reports are currently confidential 

as I understand it and the audio that accompanied the slides was not released. Within 

my area of expertise, both the report and the slides mention a tribal survey that 

included a contingent valuation question. I was interested in learning more about this 

since in my experience, many indigenous groups have balked at the idea of 

monetizing cultural resources. 

2. After a series of questions about preferences for environmental and management 

outcomes, the contingent valuation question reads: 

“What is the most you would be willing to pay per month in order to have 

the river management tools you approve of used to manage the Colorado 

River ecosystem? Please keep in mind your financial situation and the fact 

that you may prefer to use the money for other purposes including 

alternative environmental conservation programs.” (Incorporating Tribal 

Knowledge and Preferences slides, January 9, 2021)

I have two concerns with the phrasing of this question. The first is about what is 

being valued. Contingent valuation results suffer from biased responses when 

respondents are not clear on what is being valued, but also when different 

respondents are valuing different things. In this case, the respondent needs to 

presumably remember what management tools they said they preferred, but also 

might be making a payment choice based on something entirely different from 
PEER REVIEW OF 2020 GCMRC ANNUAL REPORT 

Page 7 of 10

another respondent. My preferred management goal might be different from yours; 

in which case, we cannot compare or average our individual willingness to pay (WTP) 

since we are “bidding” on different goods. What are they valuing? If each 

respondent is simply valuing their own choices, these data cannot be used to 

measure the economic value and I urge extreme caution with use of these 

responses, unless they are grouped by management tool. 

Second, the last phrase seems like it could easily induce bias. “Please keep in mind 

your financial situation and the fact that you may prefer to use the money for other 

purposes including alternative environmental conservation programs.” This reads a 

bit like a caution that perhaps I should say no to the willingness to pay question? 

Did this language come from focus groups or survey pre-testing? 

Again, without more context and information, I can only make these general 

comments and cautions. 

Finally, the slide that shows the responses to the WTP question does indeed show a 

larger percentage of $0s. The data on why respondents chose “no” or $0 could be 

very informative on whether they protest the scenario, cannot afford it, prefer the opt 

out given in the question, or something else. Best practice suggests protest bids 

should be removed. 

The simple average of willingness to pay is okay, but a rather crude measure when 

using this payment card method. 

B. Recreational Use 

1. There is no mention in Project J about the economic value of the recreational fishery. 

2. Lucas Bair’s presentation, however, presented two performance metrics: recreation 

and visitor use and experience as it relates to fishing, boating and camping. The 

impact topics include recreational use values and employment and income. 

Glen Canyon rafting metrics were presented, including the statistic that 50,000 people 

participate in day use rafting. The presentation also examined whether or not high 

flow scenarios impacted the number of visitors. They also examined inundation of 

recreation sites. 

C. Whitewater rafting (a subset of B above)

1. Whitewater rafting was also not mentioned in Project J although rafting plays a large 

role in socio-economic value. The presentation did cover whitewater rafting 

extensively comparing the more recent data with the original Bishop study. In high 

demand months, the economic value is significant. I did review the two published 

papers by this team on the value of the whitewater rafting. Those studies are based 

on a contingent valuation survey that was then compared to the original 1995 Bishop 

survey. 

2. The decision about which model to apply to WTP data is not neutral, which is why 

sensitivity analysis is so important. The parametric approaches are fairly 
PEER REVIEW OF 2020 GCMRC ANNUAL REPORT 

Page 8 of 10

straightforward and deliver good estimates with good statistical properties provided 

the specification of the distribution is correct. If the proposed distribution family is 

incorrect, however, the estimated mean WTP can have a systematic upward or 

downward bias. Non-parametric techniques are appealing, in part, because they do 

not rely on an assumption about the underlying distribution of WTP values. Since we 

do not know what this distribution looks like, a linear or logistic function may or may 

not be appropriate. In fact, the authors state that the pooled model suggests possible 

differences in the underlying WTP distribution functions between the two studies 

suggesting a non-parametric approach would be most appropriate for comparison. It 

would be interesting to use some of the more commonly used approaches such as 

the non-parametric Turnbull with this data. The Turnbull is easy to calculate by hand 

and the data from Table 3 in the Neher et al (2017) article would allow for a 

comparison using a non-parametric technique. Another appeal for using the Turnbull 

with this particular data is that the Turnbull does not rely on covariates which clearly 

are changing over time for demographics. As such I recommend including sensitivity 

analysis of WTP estimates including the use of non-parametric models for the next 

iteration with this data. It would certainly be an interesting test of whether these 

values are stable over time using a different technique. 

3. Using a price index more representative of recreation is recommended (rather than 

the CPI for all urban consumers). 

Neher, C., Duffield, J., Bair, L., Patterson, D., & Neher, K. (2017). Testing the limits of 

temporal stability: willingness to pay values among Grand Canyon whitewater 

boaters across decades. Water Resources Research, 53(12): 10108-10120.

D. Humpback Chub and Rainbow Trout

1. “Donovan and others (2019) published an updated bioeconomic model to estimate 

the most cost-effective approach to managing rainbow trout removal at the 

confluence of the LCR and the Colorado River to meet long-term adult humpback 

chub survival goals.” The report gives a relatively short description of the bioeconomic 

dynamic programming model that evaluates that tradeoffs between protecting 

humpback chub and rainbow trout abundance. 

2. Where is a summary of the findings? Who are the decision-makers? 

3. Both of these species have considerably large economic value I presume, so how are 

the tradeoffs measured? Endangered species and other non-use values can be quite 

large. Has the economic value of the humpback chub been estimated? 

E. Rainbow Trout Fishery

1. Recreational fishing is covered above, but the rainbow trout fishery is also discussed 

in several of the other projects. There needs to be some summary material in this 

report that weaves these similar topics together. I am still not clear on the economic 

value of this fishery although it is extremely valuable. 
PEER REVIEW OF 2020 GCMRC ANNUAL REPORT 

Page 9 of 10

2. How have the change in numbers and types of recreational fishers influenced these 

values? 

3. Has the incentivized catch program for brown trout impacted satisfaction and 

economic value of the rainbow trout fishery? 

4. 2016 report on the economic value of the recreational fishery. Is this survey going to 

be repeated to get a more current assessment of recreational fishing that can be used 

with the 2020 fish and angler counts? 

F. Hydropower and Energy 

1. Why is there no summary of the socioeconomics of hydropower? 

G. Climate Change

1. There is no mention of the on-going severe drought or climate change. Will new lowflow scenarios be tested? Are there recommendations going forward related to 

climate change? And how does the renegotiation of the Colorado River Compact 

impact this report. 

2. The report does include: “The Donovan and others (2019) model will also allow 

research into the impact of nonstationary climate impacts (e.g., changes in flood 

frequency) on humpback chub recruitment in the Little Colorado River and how that 

may inform effective and efficient management and research.” This will be important 

for continued inclusion. 

V. Project N: Hydropower Monitoring and Research

A. Lack of detail

1. Goals and objectives could be clearer.

2. One of the goals is ” The operation of [Glen Canyon Dam] GCD to meet hydropower 

and energy resource objectives, as the integration of renewables and a greater 

recognition of the social cost associated with power system emissions occurs, is an 

important consideration when attempting to maintain and improve resources 

downstream of GCD.” 

3. There is no detailed report on the economic value of hydropower outside of the slides, 

and it isn’t clearly laid out in the Annual Report. What is the total value of hydropower? 

The report states “The total value of hydropower generated at GCD includes costs 

associated with energy generation, greenhouse gas emissions, human health, and 

other regional impacts. These impacts are dependent on the price of fuel (e.g., natural 

gas) and the integration of additional generation, including renewable energy, into 

the electricity sector. Scenarios incorporating these factors were used to assess total 

economic costs associated with a proxy experimental flow at GCD.” Where are these 

results? 
PEER REVIEW OF 2020 GCMRC ANNUAL REPORT 

Page 10 of 10

4. “We demonstrated the change in production and emissions costs in the Western 

Interconnect by reoperation of GCD has the potential to be significant and could 

potentially result in offsetting costs.” (p 156). A table with numbers and results from 

different scenarios would be extremely helpful. I would like to see what these external 

social costs are. I agree that they are very important, but having some details or a 

summary table is necessary. 

5. There is a link in the document “for more detail and preliminary results...” but that link 

simply takes me to a powerpoint presentation from February 2020. There are 3 slides 

on hydropower (slides 30-32), but those have very little detail without knowing what 

the speaker said. I do not know how the various scenarios were calculated. For 

example, how are emissions costs measured? Which experimental flow scenario 

results in which costs? What are the recommendations? 

6. Project N needs more detail. 

7. From the presentations I learned that the value of hydropower generation is 

$millions/year was estimated over 20 years discounted at 3.375% and the value of 

hydropower capacity was calculated by finding the 90% exceedance value for daily 

minimum generation in August. A table of these results would be extremely helpful. 

Was any sensitivity analysis performed? Is the choice of a 3.375% discount rate 

mandated or chosen by analysts? 

From the presentations I understand they estimated capacity and energy for various 

flow? scenarios which can then be used to estimate economic value and changes in 

rates for rate payers. Then they look at how this impacts emissions. This seems really 

important? Are the results posted anywhere? 

Other Comments

How do the references on total economic value tie in with the other items in socio economics 

(The Bair/Duffield/Nehere references)

Covid-19 impacted data collection in 2020. It also significantly impacted the numbers and types 

of visitors. How are these changes influencing the monitoring efforts and decision-making?

Finally, there is no mention of the on-going severe drought or climate change. Will new lowflow scenarios be tested? Are there recommendations going forward related to climate change? 

And how does the renegotiation of the Colorado River Compact impact this report? 
Page 1 of 10

Peer Review 

AGENCY: US Bureau of Reclamation, Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive 

Management Program (GCDAMP)

MATERIAL REVIEWED: 2020 Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center 

(GCMRC) Annual Report 

REVIEWED BY: Ben Livneh, PhD, University of Colorado - Boulder

DATE: July 29, 2021

I. Project A: Streamflow, Water Quality, and Sediment Transport and Budgeting 

in the Colorado River Ecosystem

Commentary

This project is focused on making and interpreting basic measurements of streamflow, 

water quality, and sediment budgeting, with relevance for management. Impacts of dam 

operations on sand budgets have implications for nearly all of the LTEMP goals. 

Overall, progress has been made in terms of collating, analyzing, and modeling the 

Colorado River ecosystem (CRe) to identify drivers of sand and to articulate limitations 

in historical monitoring. A large number of data products, reports, and presentations 

indicate good progress, generally sound methods, and potential applications for further 

high flow analysis. 

Sustainability of sand resources

The authors report reductions in sand concentrations in the river, i.e., those needed to 

maintain sand bars. This appears to be both a robust and an important result, which 

raises the question of the sustainability of sand resources within the system. In their 

companion manuscript (Topping et al. 2021), the authors contend that sand 

concentrations need to be measured continuously in order to effectively monitor sand 

availability, given the episodic nature of sand loading in relation to high flows. For 

example, sand loads in different reaches are largely uncorrelated based on the 

available data, which is due to irregular sampling relative to high and low flows. Normal 

flows appear to result in losses in sand, i.e., erosion, such that only high flow events can 

contribute net gains to the sand budget.
PEER REVIEW OF 2020 GCMRC ANNUAL REPORT - LIVNEH

Page 2 of 10

Recommendations for this project element include: 

(i) Continue monitoring and evaluation of sand resources to support the Glen 

Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan (LTEMP) 

sediment goal. If feasible to implement and maintain, the continuous monitoring 

of sand will support greater understanding of the sustainability of current and 

future sand resources and critical connections between sand concentrations and 

high flows and other concomitant factors such as changes to the channel bed 

and flood deposits. 

(ii) To mitigate the continued loss of sand, the timing of HFEs need to be 

coordinated during periods of high availability of fine sand, as a way to support a 

net contribution of sand and minimize erosion of sand.

Reconstruction of flood flows

The authors indicate that flood peaks in the Little Colorado River Basin have decreased 

through time, citing Dean and Topping (2019). This assertion is based partially on the 

authors reconstruction of flood flows using linear regression methods between different 

stream gage data sources. This method inherently contains uncertainty. It would be 

valuable if the authors could estimate the magnitude of this uncertainty either as a 

function of the mean flows or the flood flows in question, so that a clearer interpretability 

of the potential impact of the uncertainty could be made. The flood peak attenuation 

associated with within-channel vegetation (e.g., tamarisk) has the potential to minimize 

the benefit of upstream large flood peaks to propagate into the Little Colorado River.

Recommendations for this project element include: 

(i) Explicitly report uncertainties in the reconstruction. 

(ii) Where long-term precipitation gage data exist, consider incorporating these into 

the regressions, and/or expanding stream gaging to improve understanding of 

within-basin variability, inter-gauge relationships and reduction of uncertainty. 

(iii) Given the high interannual variability in sand mass (i.e., reported in the table for 

years 2018-2020), it would be useful if the authors can report long-term rates of 

change and their uncertainties for overall planning, as well as to put individual 

years into clearer context. 

(iv) Ensure all tables include a descriptive caption. 

(v) Consider management options of riparian vegetation to minimize increased 

roughness and flood-peak attenuation associated with vegetation encroachment.
PEER REVIEW OF 2020 GCMRC ANNUAL REPORT - LIVNEH

Page 3 of 10

II. Project B: Sandbar and Sediment Storage Monitoring and Research

Commentary

This project seeks to connect high flow experiments and dam operations with impacts 

on sandbar dynamics, with relevance for management. Predictive tools for sand 

transport and behavior are contributed, as well as analysis of campsite areas together 

with citizen science. This project addresses the LTEMP sediment goal. Numerous data 

products, publications, and presentations indicate good progress, generally sound 

methods, and potential applications linking high-flow events with sand and camping 

impacts. Monitoring and data sharing are important continued activities from this project.

B.1. Sandbar Monitoring Using Topographic Surveys and Remote Cameras

The authors report that while some significant fraction (greater than or equal to 25%) of 

the sand comes from pre-dam sources, High Flow Experiments (HFEs) contribute to

new sand deposition. This new sand is eroded in many places, but it does persist in 

other places. In the context of campsite areas, vegetation encroachment is an ongoing 

problem which is largely independent of HFE activity. The authors, as well as Chapman 

et al. (2020) clearly show that even the largest controlled floods from the past 20 years 

are much smaller than the pre-dam peak annual flows. In addition, the volume released 

by HFEs is small enough not to affect the annual water volumes released, such that 

HFEs can continue to occur without impacting the needs of the large number of reliant 

stakeholders 

Recommendations for this project element include: 

(i) The importance of Paria River inputs for sand budgets is underscored by the 

authors analyses. Given that trends in the Paria River sediment delivery and 

flood frequency are affected primarily by climatic changes rather than by human 

development activities (as noted by Chapman et al. 2020), it is therefore 

recommended that the authors expand their future work to diagnose the roles of 

historical temperature and precipitation more directly within their sand analysis. 

In this way, in the future it may be possible to more clearly understand the 

implications of projected temperature and precipitation on the long-term 

sustainability of sand resources within the domains of interest. 

(ii) The authors have the capability to report uncertainties in the sand attribution 

analysis using their mixing model approach. It would therefore be helpful if they 

can present their relative confidence in magnitudes of the sources of sand as a 

way to put the current knowledge base into context. For example, to understand 
PEER REVIEW OF 2020 GCMRC ANNUAL REPORT - LIVNEH

Page 4 of 10

the likelihood that the erosion of pre-dam sand presents an existential crisis for 

the system. 

(iii) The viability of replanting native vegetation or manual removal of specific 

vegetation (e.g., tamarisk) should be analyzed as part of future analyses to 

understand the cost-benefit analysis of such an activity. 

(iv) Remote camera images provide invaluable information on the status of 

sandbars within the system and their continued deployment is recommended. 

However, it would be of potentially greater impact to explore the use of existing 

high-resolution (<10 m) spaceborne visible satellite imagery as a way to 

complement and extend the knowledge base gained from existing satellite 

imagery. 

(v) The public sandbar data base is a positive and important development. 

Consideration should be given as to whether MySQL is the appropriate database 

tool in the event that data volume becomes an issue. 

(vi) It would be helpful to see a map of the points in the figure to understand their 

position within the system. 

B.2. Bathymetric and Topographic Mapping for Monitoring Long-Term Trends in 

Sediment Storage 

Recommendations for this project element include: 

(i) Repeated mapping of the riverbed in LMC should be continued, given the 

demonstrated value of this effort in determining the sand budget and high signal 

to noise ratio. 

(ii) Further exploration is warranted into potential applications of the Bayesian 

framework (e.g., Ashley et al. 2019) as a tool for quantifying reach-scale 

sediment deficits and surplus relevant for future studies. 

B.3. Control Network and Survey Support

Recommendations for this project element include: 

(i) The FY2020 expansion into un-surveyed reaches represents an important 

development that could offer new insights into mapping the system and key 

fluxes within it. 

(ii) Regional geodetic improvements may serve a longer-term benefit of connecting 

local imagery with spaceborne remote sensing capabilities. 
PEER REVIEW OF 2020 GCMRC ANNUAL REPORT - LIVNEH

Page 5 of 10

(iii) Mapping of the riverbed in LMC should be continued, given the demonstrated

value of this activity.

III. Project C: Riparian Vegetation Monitoring and Research 

The authors have compiled a useful set of monitoring data and methods that connect 

vegetation with flow, environmental variables, and management. 

C.1. Ground-based Vegetation Monitoring

Recommendations for this project element include: 

(i) It would be helpful to report what criteria are included in the ‘error checking’ of the 

ground-based monitoring data and to consider including stakeholders in the 

ideation process, so as to ensure that important criteria are not being screened 

or missed. 

(ii) The percent cover reported in Figure 1 appears to be very small, i.e., less than 

1.2% of the area, such that a clearer explanation for why such a small coverage 

is of significance is needed. 

(iii) The website is very nice and provides good overview information. The authors 

should consider posting data directly to the webpage.

C.2. Imagery-based Riparian Vegetation Monitoring at the Landscape Scale 

Recommendations for this project element include: 

(i) It would be helpful to report the fraction of woody riparian vegetation as a function 

of total vegetation and as a function of total riparian area. Further, understanding 

changes in woody vegetation through time will be an important reference point in 

terms of data management strategies. It looks like some of this is covered in 

Kasprak et al. (2020). 

(ii) Given the imperfect land-cover classification process (e.g., described by Bedford 

et al. 2018), it would be helpful for the authors to report the uncertainty in their 

estimates of various species composition, fractional coverage, etc., so as to more 

clearly articulate the state-of-the-knowledge of riparian vegetation species 

composition. 

(iii) Given the recent advances in high-resolution spaceborne remote sensing, the 

authors should consider incorporating this technology as part of future work, at a 
PEER REVIEW OF 2020 GCMRC ANNUAL REPORT - LIVNEH

Page 6 of 10

minimum comparing their results with viewable scenes from satellite remote 

sensing.

C.3. Vegetation Responses to LTEMP Flow Scenarios 

Recommendations for this project element include: 

(i) The analysis relating climate variables with vegetation patterns (Butterfield et al. 

2018) is interesting and should continue to be pursued. For example, considering 

the diurnal temperature range, i.e., the difference between maximum daily 

temperature (Tmax) and minimum daily temperature (Tmin) for two reasons. First,

the diurnal temperature range has been shown to be closely related to the daily 

downwelling shortwave radiation which is an important predictor variable for 

vegetation, and second the maximum and minimum temperatures are widely 

reported and are much simpler to observe than radiation. 

(ii) The climate analysis in conjunction with the HFEs highlights an interesting 

avenue to pursue for future vegetation control with warming affecting inundation 

tolerance.

C.4. Vegetation Management Decision Support

Recommendations for this project element include: 

(i) Given the challenges brought about by riparian vegetation for campsites and 

other uses, it would be helpful for the authors to report the typical depth of roots 

for each of the species, as well as the density of the roots at different depths, 

since these will be valuable in determining management strategies and to inform 

decision making regarding long-term treatment options of replanting, removal, 

etc.
PEER REVIEW OF 2020 GCMRC ANNUAL REPORT - LIVNEH

Page 7 of 10

IV. Project D: Geomorphic Effects of Dam Operations and Vegetation 

Management for Archaeological Sites

Recommendations for this project element include: 

(i) The meteorological monitoring and data collection described by Caster et al. 

(2018) is extremely valuable and its continuation should be prioritized. The 

potential linkages between climate and riparian and riverine conditions offer 

unique insights into monitoring and management. 

(ii) There appears to be a grammatical issue on Page 41 of the report, under the 

third-to-last sub-bullet of FY 2019. 

(iii) Consideration should be given to exploring the use of high-resolution 

spaceborne remote sensing to complement existing aerial (e.g., LiDar methods) 

given the semi-continuous availability of spaceborne datasets, which would 

supply a valuable time-evolution of variables of interest.

V. Project E: Nutrients and Temperature as Ecosystem Drivers: Understanding 

Patterns, Establishing Links and Developing Predictive Tools for an Uncertain 

Future

Recommendations for this project element include: 

(i) The authors report improvements in their predictive model on the basis of 

including solar radiation as a predictor. Details of the radiation data were entirely 

missing, such that it is not possible to evaluate the utility and appropriateness of 

the observations. However, effort should be made to utilize radiation 

observations reflective of conditions in situ, rather than relying upon radiation 

observations from distant locations, i.e., from gridded datasets. Further, where 

radiation is not readily observed—acknowledging the challenges in widespread 

radiation observations—the authors should consider using the diurnal air 

temperature range as a proxy for solar radiation in their model. 

(ii) Many of the figures in Project E are low-resolution, making their evaluation

challenging. This may simply be a typesetting issue. 

(iii) Clearer justification of the water temperatures chosen, i.e., 10C, 15C, 20C, 

should be provided in the context of existing pool temperatures and temperatures 

relevant for other project components. 
PEER REVIEW OF 2020 GCMRC ANNUAL REPORT - LIVNEH

Page 8 of 10

(iv) Overall, establishing connections between water temperature and taxa and 

species of interest is a viable area of investigation that should be continued going 

forward.

VI. Project J: Socioeconomic Research in the Colorado River Ecosystem 

This integrative project plays in important role in connecting physical science with 

stakeholder needs, incorporating tribal perspectives within the context of dam 

operations.

Recommendations for this project element include: 

(i) Overall, this project is an important component of the CRe, GCMRC, and 

GCDAMP, because it allows for a broad assessment of the connections of 

ongoing activities with needs and economics downstream. Therefore, it is 

recommended to continue prioritizing this area of analysis. 

(ii) The proposal to evaluate nonstationary climate impacts using the Donovan et al. 

(2019) model appears to be an important idea and its prioritization is

recommended. However, the authors need to be careful that such a modeling 

approach is implemented with realistic constraints dictated by the physical 

system, since there appears to be a chain of models proposed which can lead to

solutions that are not realistic or feasible. For example, connections between the 

biogeomorphic (Dean and Topping 2019) and humpback chub recruitment (Van 

Haverbeke et al. 2013) conditions need to be mapped at the outset to identify 

linkages, constraints and outcomes of interest to stakeholders, while also 

ensuring that physically infeasible solutions are eliminated. 

VII. Project K: Geospatial Science and Technology

Recommendations for this project element include: 

(i) The migration of datasets away from traditional ‘flat-files’ into databases and 

within cloud computing resources (USGS Cloud Hosting Services and Amazon 

Web Services) is an important cross-cutting innovation that will continue to payoff 

throughout and beyond the life of the project. It is therefore recommended to be 

prioritized going forward. 

(ii) The GIS toolkits provided by ESRI Desktop ArcGIS are effective and generally 

comprehensive for small processing and analysis jobs, but can become 
PEER REVIEW OF 2020 GCMRC ANNUAL REPORT - LIVNEH

Page 9 of 10

overwhelmed with larger, multi-site analyses. Therefore, it is recommended that 

consideration be given to more powerful and efficient tools capable of handling 

larger datasets and analyses (e.g., Python-based tools), in the event that data 

sizes and ArcGIS-latency become an issue. The reliance upon ArcGIS may be 

suitable for the short-term, but as data volume and analysis-scope grows, there 

may be a need to expand towards more big-data-capable tools. There may be 

transition-relevant tools like ArcPy that could serve as a bridge. There appears to 

already be some project work being done on the project in Python; for example, 

the geoprocessing done for the lake elevations (Figure 1). 

(iii) Tableau is a sleek visualization software that is generally easy to use and has a 

good community and forum. However, drawbacks of Tableau are its high-cost, 

security issues, and limited product support. Therefore, consideration should be 

given to the cost-benefit of this product in the context of other comparable 

visualization products. 

(iv) Consideration should be given to whether the streamlining of multiple desktop 

applications (ArcGIS, ArcMap, GGIS) would improve workflows. 

(v) It is important that migration continues for software development to follow 

version control protocols. For example those provided by Github. 

(vi) The transition towards IoT sensors will have numerous benefits. However, 

consideration should be given to security issues surrounding such a transition.

VIII. Project L: Overflight Remote Sensing in Support of GCDAMP and LTEMP

Recommendations for this project element include: 

(i) Although the details of the overflight are not clearly articulated, the value of 

additional remote sensing seems high and worthwhile. One recommendation 

would be to evaluate opportunities for integrating remote sensing imagery with 

publicly available spaceborne imagery as a way to potentially extend the 

investment.

IX. Project M: Administration

No major comments. However, one minor comment is that the citizen science 

programs, e.g., Adopt-a-Beach, seem like an excellent way to extend budgets, while 

also elevating the awareness of visitors to issues within the region.
PEER REVIEW OF 2020 GCMRC ANNUAL REPORT - LIVNEH

Page 10 of 10

X. Project N: Hydropower Monitoring and Research

Recommendations for this project element include: 

(i) Continue to coordinate with partners to identify opportunities to improve 

hydropower and energy resources. For example, the impact of HFEs on total 

outflows, the sensitivity of GHG emissions to reservoir levels, etc.

XI. Appendix 1: Lake Powell Water Quality Monitoring

Recommendations for this project element include: 

(i) The collaboration with EPA to support floating chamber-based measurements of 

carbon dioxide and methane should continue to be prioritized to advance 

understanding of GHG emissions from Lake Powell.
Page 1 of 4

Peer Review 

AGENCY: US Bureau of Reclamation, Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive 

Management Program (GCDAMP)

MATERIAL(S) REVIEWED: 2020 Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC) 

Annual Report 

REVIEWED BY: John C. Stella, SUNY College of Environmental Science and 

Forestry

DATE: October 3, 2021

I. Project A: Streamflow, Water Quality, and Sediment Transport and Budgeting in the 

Colorado River Ecosystem

A. Goals and objectives, and science questions

1. The statement of goals and objectives are clear. The physical monitoring of 

streamflow, water quality and sediment are critical to designing flow releases from 

Glen Canyon Dam, as well as supporting other ecological research.

2. The two key hypotheses, sustainable operation of sand resources and other CRe 

resources, are clear, if a bit basic. It would be helpful to know what constitutes a 

“sustainable” system in this context. How does annual and seasonal variability of 

sediment storage and transport, water quality, and discharge factor into whether the 

system is sustainable, and over what timeframes? How does current variability in 

these metrics compare to pre-dam variability, and to projected change in the future?

B. Results and deliverables

1. The physical monitoring program is very productive, with 12 presentations, 6 peerreview papers, and five USGS reports, data releases, and web applications 

developed. The papers are published in high-impact journals such as JGR Earth 

Sciences, ESPL, HESS and Geomorphology.

2. The bullet-point summary of results is informative, clear, and geared appropriately 

toward management. The negative feedback interactions between water discharge 

and sand supply highlight the importance of coordinating dam release levels with 

the timing of Paria River floods, which provide the primary sand supply to Marble 

and Grand Canyons. These insights provide clear sideboards for management, and 

highlight the true narrowness of the decision space available for dam management. 

The reduction of sand supply from the Little Colorado River basin only further

constrains the management options available.
PEER REVIEW OF 2020 GCMRC ANNUAL REPORT 

Page 2 of 4

3. A small point, but it would be helpful to show a figure or two to illustrate the 

sediment budget in different reaches of the system. Some of the figures from 

Topping et al. 2021 (JGR – ES) could be appropriate.

II. Project C: Riparian Vegetation Monitoring and Research

A. Overall program productivity and quality

1. In general, the riparian vegetation monitoring and research is comprehensive, 

informative, and productive. 

2. The project team has produced numerous deliverables including >20 presentations, 

six published peer-reviewed papers, and a USGS Techniques and Methods report. I 

have read or skimmed many of the papers and the report, and their quality is high, 

with several in high-impact journals. 

3. The vegetation science program consists of complementary components including 

ground-based monitoring (C.1), remote sensing approaches (C.2), modeling of 

vegetation response to LTEMP flow scenarios (C.3), and management decision 

support (C.4).

B. Better articulation of overarching scientific and management questions

1. Despite the strength of the overall riparian vegetation program, the scientific 

questions that undergird the specific activities are not clearly articulated. For 

example, the section “Goals and Objectives” in Project C refers to the TWP FY2018-

2020 deliverables, but no overall goals and objectives are stated. Similarly, the 

Science Questions Addressed only lists research questions for section C.2, the 

imagery-based vegetation monitoring project. The four components (C.1 to C.4) and 

their deliverables need to be tied more directly to overarching scientific and 

management questions that relate to how the system operates as a whole and to 

the LTEMP resource goals. Many of these larger questions are implied within the 

individual studies, but how they tie together is less clear. 

2. For example, the interactions between exposed sandbar area, vegetation and 

hydrology modeled in Kasprak et al. (2021) suggest that climate change and river 

management will result in greater vegetation encroachment and less exposed 

sediment within the system. In the Butterfield et al. papers, associations between 

vegetation guilds and environmental conditions suggest that channel position and 

vegetation structure interact to influence the rate and pattern of sediment trapping. 

But what do these interactions predict for the future in terms of how the system 

functions currently and in the past? Will the hotter and drier conditions result in 

more vegetation encroachment due to a reduced disturbance regime, or conversely 

a narrowing of the vegetated zone? Will these changes favor non-native species, 

and if so, what are options for reducing this risk? 
PEER REVIEW OF 2020 GCMRC ANNUAL REPORT 

Page 3 of 4

3. In the next phase of this research (e.g., the 2021-2023 work plan), it would be helpful 

to focus on integration and synthesis, to understand how these interactions between 

plants and the fluvial system either support or undermine the multiple LTEMP goals. 

C. Relationship between restoration actions and management goals

1. Similar to the comment #2 above, it would be helpful to understand how the various 

implemented and planned restoration actions connect to reinforce the management 

goals. There are several examples of restoration-relevant studies conducted in the 

triennial work plan, including the arrowweed flood trials (Fig. 5), the genetic 

population analysis of riparian trees (Fig. 6), and the monitoring of tamarisk beetle 

impacts (Bedford et al. 2018). 

2. However, the overall need and goals for restoration are not clear. Restoration of 

what processes and/or vegetation structure, and to what ends? What are the most 

likely restoration actions (e.g., flow prescriptions, biological control, physical 

removal, horticultural plantings), how do they support the LTEMP goals, and what 

scientific questions still need to be answered?

D. Conceptual model to tie science activities and restoration actions to management 

goals

1. One way to proceed for the next phase of the research is to develop a conceptual 

model of the primary interactions between biotic and abiotic components of the 

system based on the excellent work to date (if this hasn’t been done explicitly yet), 

and to use it to identify the key knowledge gaps needed to advise dam operations 

and restoration actions. 

E. Environmental niche modeling approach

1. The ground-based vegetation monitoring data (section C.1) has been analyzed 

primarily via a niche-based modeling approach (Butterfield et al. 2018, 2021). These 

two papers use innovative applications of niche modeling to understand 

associations of riparian species presence with environmental hydrological variables 

at the site and river scale (2018 paper) and regional scale (2021 paper). 

2. Though investigating these plant-environment associations using niche models is 

common and informative, it is unclear how useful they will be for predicting the 

effects of environmental change. For one thing, there are lag effects in recruitment 

and establishment that do not get captured in niche models based on static 

measurements in time, especially for perennial and woody species. Niche models are 

less useful for understanding relationships when environmental variables are 

changing faster than the plants can adapt or disperse. 

3. The topographic change detection approach in Butterfield et al. 2020 does address 

this issue through the effects of plants on sedimentation. However, the influences 

going the opposite way, of investigating how the changing environment will 

influence plant response, can only be inferred indirectly from the niche models. In 

the next phase of research, the niche model results can be used to inform and 
PEER REVIEW OF 2020 GCMRC ANNUAL REPORT 

Page 4 of 4

design field experiments and lab manipulations (e.g., in flumes) to directly 

investigate the mechanisms governing plant distribution and diversity in the Grand 

Canyon.
Bureau of Reclamation Order No. 140R4021F0024 | 11/15/2021 Page 19

APPENDIX B: REVIEWER’S CURRICULA VITAE

Michael E. Colvin, PhD, Associate Professor at Mississippi State University 

Stefanie A. Kroll, PhD, Assistant Research Professor at Academy of Sciences of Drexel University

Lynne Y. Lewis, PhD, Professor at Bates College

Ben Livneh, PhD, Assistant Professor at University of Colorado – Boulder 

John C. Stella, PhD, Professor at State University of New York 
M.E. Colvin—CV 1 of 27

Education

Michael E. Colvin

Associate Professor

Wildlife, Fisheries and Aquaculture Department

Mississippi State University

Mississippi State, MS, 39762 USA

(662) 325-3592 (O) 

(515) 520-0564 (C)

michael.colvin@msstate.edu

https://mcolvin.github.io

2012-2014 Postdoctoral Scholar Oregon State University

Research focus: Causes and management of prespawn mortality in spring Chinook salmon, 

structured decision making of natural resources

2012 Ph.D. Iowa State University Major: Fisheries Biology 

Dissertation: Impacts of non-native species in a shallow lake: A simulation modeling 

approach for restoration and management 

2005 M.S. University of Idaho Major: Fisheries Resources

Thesis: Ecology of Myxobolus cerebralis in the Pahsimeroi drainage, Idaho 

2000 B.S. Unity College Major: Aquaculture 

Thesis: Inventory of pathogenic bacteria of Maine baitfish

 

Employment

2020-pres. Mississippi State University, Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Aquaculture Associate

Professor

Starkville, Mississippi, USA 

2012-2020 Mississippi State University, Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Aquaculture Associate

Professor

Starkville, Mississippi, USA 

2012-2014 Oregon State University, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Postdoctoral Scholar 

Corvallis, Oregon, USA 

2007- 2012 Iowa State University, Natural Resource Ecology and Management DepartmentResearch

Assistant

Ames, Iowa, USA

2005- 2007 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Western Ecology Division Student 

Contractor

Corvallis, Oregon, USA

2002- 2005 University of Idaho, Department of Fish and WildlifeResearch Assistant

Moscow, Idaho, USA

2002 Idaho Department of Fish and Game 

Fisheries Technician

Nampa, Idaho, USA

2002 Utah Division of Wildlife ResourcesWildlife Technician

Logan, Utah, USA

2001- 2002 Idaho Department of Fish and GameFisheries Technician

Nampa, Idaho, USA
M.E. Colvin—CV 2 of 27

Teaching, mentoring, and workshops

2021 WFA 4313/6313: Fisheries Management 3 Credits (Instructor) WFA 4133/6133: Fisheries 

science 3 Credits (Instructor)

WFA 8433: Natural resource and conservation decision making 3 Credits (Instructor) 

2020 WFA 4133/6133: Fisheries science 3 Credits (Instructor)

WFA 7000: Directed independent study. Fish and fisheries of shallow impoundments 

(Instructor)

WFA 4000: Directed independent study. Inland fisheries exploitation 3 Credits (Instructor) 

WFA 4800: Directed independent study. Evaluating occurrence of migratory riverine fish 

species 3 Credits (Instructor)

WFA 4000: Directed independent study. Fisheries research and management study design 1 

Credits (Instructor) 

WFA 4000: Directed independent study. Fish tagging for management and conservation 3 

Credits (Instructor) 

WFA 7000: Directed independent study. R for biologists (Instructor) WFA 4313/6313: 

Fisheries Management 3 Credits (Instructor) 

2019 WFA 4133/6133: Fisheries science 3 Credits (Instructor) WFA 4313/6313: Fisheries

management 3 Credits (Instructor) 

WFA 8433: Natural resource and conservation decision making 3 Credits (Instructor) 

Undergraduate Research Scholar Program: Using boat mounted RFID to estimate exploitation. 

(Mentor to undergraduate researcher)

2018 WFA 4133/6133: Fisheries science 3 Credits (Instructor) WFA 4313/6313: Fisheries

management 3 Credits (Instructor) 

WFA 7000: Directed independent study: Using R for biology (Instructor; 2 students) 

Undergraduate Research Scholar Program: Southern brook lamprey abundance and lifehistory

(Mentor to undergraduate researcher)

2017 WFA 4133/6133: Fisheries Science 3 Credits (Instructor) 

WFA 8433: Natural resource and conservation decision making 3 Credits (Instructor) WFA

4313/6133: Fisheries management 3 Credits (Instructor) 

Undergraduate Research Scholar Program: Do fishing forecasts work? (Mentor to undergraduate 

researcher)

2016 WFA 4133/6133: Fisheries science 3 Credits (Instructor) 

WFA 4313/6313: Fisheries management 3 Credits (Instructor) 

2015 WFA 4313/6313: Fisheries management 3 Credits (Instructor) 

Undergraduate Research Scholar Program: Adaptive harvest of crappie in Lake

WFA 4133/6133: Fisheries science 3 Credits (Instructor) 

WFA 8990: Ecological theory and applications 3 Credits (Instructor and co- developer) 

2014 MS Access for fish and wildlife application: Workshop at Research Advances inFisheries and 

Wildlife Ecology Symposium (Instructor) 

R for fisheries applications: Continuing education course for Oregon Chapter of the American

fisheries society

2013 FW599: Introduction to R and data management for Fisheries and Wildlife applications – 

Oregon State University (Instructor and co-developer with J.T.

Peterson) 

FW537: Structured Decision Making in Natural Resources – Oregon State University

(Ecampus Instructor) 

FW538: Structured Decision Making in Natural Resources Laboratory – Oregon State
M.E. Colvin—CV 3 of 27

University (Ecampus Instructor)

Making scientific graphics with R – Workshop at Research Advances in Fisheries and

Wildlife Ecology Symposium (Instructor)

2012 FW537: Structured Decision Making in Natural Resources – Oregon State University

(Ecampus Instructor)

FW538: Structured Decision Making in Natural Resources Laboratory – Oregon State

University (Ecampus Instructor)

2011 Clear Lake Ecosystem Model Technology Transfer – Iowa State University (Instructor

for a 1 day workshop) 

AEcl 420/520: Fisheries science – Iowa State University (Guest Lecturer on fisheries

models) 

Iowa Chapter AFS Continuing Education Course Age and Growth (Workshop 

Assistant)

2010 Science with Practice: Benthic invertebrate assemblages in Clear Lake, Iowa:

Spatiotemporal variation due to habitat and the zebra mussel invasion – Iowa StateUniversity

(Mentor for undergraduate student) 

2009 AFS Continuing education course: R for routine fisheries analysis (Workshop 

Instructor for a 1.5 day workshop) 

AEcl 420/520: Fisheries science – Iowa State University (Guest Lecturer on fisheries

models) 

AEcl 490: Independent study: Analysis of Sampling Methods for Dreissena

polymorpha veligers – Iowa State University (Mentor for undergraduate student) 

Ent 525: Aquatic Insects – Iowa State University (Guest Lecturer)

2008 AEcl 575x: Quantitative methods in field ecology – Iowa State University (Teaching

Assistant, developed laboratory component of class)

2004 Fish 424: Fish diseases – University of Idaho (Teaching Assistant)

Peer reviewed articles (

†

graduate student, ††undergraduate student, †††postdoc) 

Aldridge, C.A., D.M. Norris, M.E. Colvin, L.E. Miranda, G. Coppola, H. Hatcher. Accepted.

Structural Persistence of Brush Piles within a Southeastern Flood Control Reservoir.

Submitted to the Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management.

Braaten, P.J., D.B. Fuller, T.M. Haddix, J.R. Hunziker, M.E. Colvin, L.M. Holmquist, R.H. 

Wilson. Accepted. Catch rates for sturgeon and sicklefin chubs in the upper Missouri

River 2004-2016, and Correlations with Biotic and Abiotic Variables. Journal of Fish and 

Wildlife Management.

Coppola, G., L.E. Miranda, M.E. Colvin, H. Hatcher, and M.A. Lashley. 2021. Selection of 

habitat enhancing plants depends on predator-prey interactions. Journal of Fish and 

Wildlife Management.

Shirley, C.A., M.E. Colvin, and P.J. Allen. 2021. Evaluation of methods for cryopreservation of 

black-stripe Black Crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus) sperm and subsequent use in egg 

fertilization. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jwas.12763.

Schumann†††, D.A., M.E. Colvin, Campbell, R.††, M.D. Wagner, and D. Schwartz. 2021. 

Suitability of passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags and enhanced madtom traps to

monitor a cryptic species (Noturus munitus). Endangered species research. Endangered

Species Research 44, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.3354/esr01086.
M.E. Colvin—CV 4 of 27

Aldridge, C.A.†, L.E. Miranda, and M.E. Colvin. 2021. Themes of Contemporary Inland

Fisheries Goals. Fisheries. https://doi.org/10.1002/fsh.10507. 

Richardson, B.M.†, M.J. Griffin, M.E. Colvin, T.E. Greenway, C. Ware, C.C. Mischke, T.S. 

Byars, D.J. Wise, and M.L. Lawrence. 2020. Using quantitative Polymerase Chain

Reaction (qPCR) and occupancy models to estimate atypical Aeromonas hydrophila 

(aAh) prevalence in catfish. Aquaculture. 530: 735687. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2020.735687.

Norris, D.M.†, H.R. Hatcher†, M.E. Colvin, G. Coppola†, M.A. Lashley, and L.E. Miranda. 2020. 

Assessing establishment and growth of agricultural plantings on reservoir mudflats. 

North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 40: 394-405. 

https://doi.org/10.1002/nafm.10419

Kroboth, P., D. Hann, M.E. Colvin, P. Hartfield, and H. Schramm. 2020. Pallid sturgeon 

Scaphirhynchus albus seasonal habitat selection in a large river free-flowing river, the

lower Mississippi River. Journal of Applied Ichthyology. 36: 131-141. 

https://doi.org/10.1111/jai.14000. 

Schumann, D.A.†††, M.E. Colvin, L.E. Miranda, and D.T. Jones-Farrand. 2020. Occurrence and

co-occurrence patterns of gar in river-floodplain habitats: leveraging species interactions

to benefit distributional models. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 40:

622-637. https://doi.org/10.1002/nafm.10402.

Jargowsky, M., P.T. Cooper, M.J. Ajemian, M.E. Colvin, and J.M. Drymon. 2019. Discerning 

the dietary habits of the smooth butterfly ray Gymnura lessae using two distinct methods, 

otolith identification and metagenetics. Journal of Fish Biology. 96 (2), 434-443. 

https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.14221. 

Coppola, G.†

, H. Hatcher†, S. Miranda, M.E. Colvin, and M.A. Lashley. 2019. Submergence 

responses of cool-season annual plants and potential for fish habitat. North American

Journal of Fisheries Management. 39: 1269-1276. https://doi.org/10.1002/nafm.10359. 

Kramer, N., Q.E. Phelps, C.L. Pierce, and M.E. Colvin. 2019. A Food Web Modelling 

Assessment of Asian Carp Impacts in the Middle and Upper Mississippi River. Food 

Webs. 21: e00120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fooweb.2019.e00120. 

Shaw, S.B., J.O. Beslity, and M.E. Colvin. 2019. Working Toward a More Holistic Set of 

Hydrologic Principles to Teach Non-Hydrologists: Five Simple Concepts Within

Catchment Hydrology. Hydrological Processes. 33: 2258-2262. 

Ivey, M.R., M.E. Colvin, B.K. Strickland, and M.A. Lashley. 2019. The effects of 

vertebrate biological invasions on species-area relationships are not scaledependent. Ecology and Evolution. 9: 7761-7767. 

Hatcher†

, H.R., L.E. Miranda, M.E. Colvin, G. Coppola†, and M.A. Lashley. 2019. Fish

assemblages in reservoir mudflats with low structural complexity. Hydrobiologia. 841: 

163-175 

Guy, E.L., C.C. Mischke, M.E. Colvin, and P.J. Allen. 2019. Zooplankton selectivity and 

commercial feed consumption of Black Buffalo Ictiobus niger. North American Journal 

of Aquaculture. 81: 215-221. 

Katzenmeyer, E., M.E. Colvin, T.W. Stewart, C.L. Pierce, and S. Grummer. 2019. Fish growth 

changes over time in a Midwestern USA lake. Transactions of the 

American Fisheries Society. 148: 493-506. 

Gallardo, J.C., F.J. Vilella, and M.E. Colvin. 2019. A periodic population matrix model of the 

Caribbean Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis jamaicensis in eastern Puerto Rico. Ibis.

161: 459-466. https://doi.org/10.1111/ibi.12703 

Colvin, M.E., J.T. Peterson, C. Sharpe, M.L. Kent. and C.B. Schreck. 2018. Identifying optimal
M.E. Colvin—CV 5 of 27

hauling densities for adult Chinook Salmon trap and haul operations. River Research and 

Applications. 34: 1158-1167. 

Miranda, L.E., L. Bull, M.E. Colvin, W.D. Hubbard, and L.L. Pugh. 2018. Segmentation of 

Mississippi Lakes. Lake and Reservoir Management. 34: 376-391 

Gilliland†, C.R., M.E. Colvin, S.A. Rush, and S. Reagan. 2018. American alligators are predators 

of Paddlefish: An undocumented predator-prey linkage affecting Paddlefish population 

dynamics. Foodwebs. 16: 1-4. 

Keretz, K.R., C.P. Dinken, P.J. Allen, M.E. Colvin, and H.L. Schramm Jr. 2018. The

effect of water temperature, angling time, and dissolved oxygen on the survival of angled

and tournament-handled Largemouth Bass. North American Journal of Fisheries

Management. 38: 606-622. 

Mangipane, L.A., J.L. Belant, D.J.R. Lafferty, D.D. Gustine, T.L. Hiller, M.E. Colvin, B.A. 

Mangipane, and G.V. Hilderbrand. 2018. Dietary plasticity in a nutrient-rich system does

not influence brown bear body condition or denning. Polar Biology. 41: 763-772. 

Mangipane, L.A., J.L. Belant, T.L. Hiller, M.E. Colvin, D.D. Gustine, B.A. Mangipane, and 

G.V. Hilderbrand. 2017. Influences of landscape heterogeneity on home-range sizes of 

brown bears in a salmon subsidized system. Mammalian Biology. 88: 1-7. 

Miranda, L.E., and M.E. Colvin. 2017. Sampling for age and growth estimation. Chapter 5 in

Age and Growth of Fishes. Quist, M.C., and D. Isserman editors. American Fisheries 

Society. Bethesda, MD.

Miranda, L.E., M.E. Colvin, A.C. Shamaskin, L.A. Bull, T. Holman, and R. Jones. 2017. 

Length-limits fail to restructure a Largemouth Bass population: A 27-year case history. 

North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 37: 624-632. 

DeWeber, J.T., J.T. Peterson, C.S. Sharpe, M.L. Kent, M.E. Colvin, and C.B. Schreck. 2017. 

Prespawn mortality in outplanted Chinook Salmon is highly variable and associated with

outplant date. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 1: 162-175. 

Colvin, M.E. and J.T. Peterson. 2017. Preparing future fisheries professionals to make good 

decisions. Fisheries 41(8): 473-474. 

Neely, B.C., J.D. Koch, and M.E. Colvin. 2016. Utility of reservoir characteristics on collection

of representative and precise fish samples: implications for determining minimum

sampling effort. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 36: 285-293. 

Howell, P.J., M.E. Colvin, P.M. Sankovich, D.V. Buchanan, and A.R. Hemmingsen. 2016. Life

Histories, Demography, and Distribution of Bull Trout from Mill Creek, a Tributary of

the Walla Walla River. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 145: 173-194. 

Dolan, B.P., K.M. Fisher, M.E. Colvin, S.E. Benda, J.T. Peterson, M.L. Kent, and C.B. Schreck.

2016. Innate and adaptive immune responses in migrating spring-run adult chinook 

salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha. Fish & Shellfish Immunology 48:136-144. 

Dolan, B., K. Fisher, M.E. Colvin, S. Benda, C. Danley, J.T. Peterson, M. Kent, P. Zwollo, and 

C.B. Schreck. 2015. Diminished innate, but not adaptive, immune responses in migrating 

adult Chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha. The Journal of Immunology 194 (1 

Supplement): 146.15-146.15. 

Colvin, M.E., T.W. Stewart, and C.L. Pierce. 2015. A food web modelling analysis of a 

Midwestern, USA eutrophic lake dominated by non-native Common Carp and Zebra

Mussels. Ecological Modelling. 32: 26-40.

Colvin, M.E., J.T. Peterson, M. Kent, C.S. Sharpe, and C.B. Schreck. 2015. Using occupancy 

modeling to estimate detection probabilities and prevalence from hierarchically 

structured pathogen detection data. PLOS ONE. 10: e0116605. 

Carlson, A.K., J.R. Fischer, D.J. Dembkowski, L.L. Pierce, M.E. Colvin, J.A. Kerns. 2015. 
M.E. Colvin—CV 6 of 27

Purpose, History, and Importance of the "Student Angle". Fisheries. 40: 81-83. 

Collymore, C., V. Watral, J.R. White, M.E. Colvin, S. Rasmussen, R.J. Tolwani, M.L. Kent. 

2014. Tolerance and Efficacy of Emamectin Benzoate and Ivermectin for the Treatment

of Pseudocapillaria tomentosa in laboratory Zebrafish (Danio rerio). Zebrafish. 11: 

490-497. 

Koch, J.D., B.C. Neely, and M.E. Colvin. 2014. Evaluation of precision and sample sizes

using standardized sampling in Kansas Reservoirs. North American Journal of Fisheries

Management. 34: 1211-1220. 

Mayfield, M.P., L.D. Schultz, L.A. Wyss, M.E. Colvin, and C.B. Schreck. 2014. Using spatial

resampling to assess survey length requirements to detect and estimate spawner

abundance from redd counts: an example using Pacific lamprey. North American

Journal of Fisheries Management. 34: 923-931. 

Colvin, M.E. G.D. Scholten, and P.W. Bettoli. 2013. Predicting paddlefish roe yields using an

extension of the Beverton-Holt equilibrium yield model. North American Journal of

Fisheries Management. 33: 940-949. 

Colvin, M.E., Pierce, C.L., T.W. Stewart, and S.E. Grummer. 2012. Strategies to control a 

common carp population by pulsed commercial harvest. North American Journal of 

Fisheries Management. 32: 1251-1264. 

Colvin, M.E., C.L. Pierce, and T.W. Stewart. 2012. Semi-discrete biomass dynamic modeling:

an improved approach for assessing fish stock responses to pulsed harvest events.

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 69: 1710-1721. 

Ebersole, J.L., M.E. Colvin, P.J. Wigington, S.G. Leibowitz, J.P. Baker, M.R. Church, J.E. 

Compton, and M.A. Cairns. 2009. Hierarchical modeling of late-summer weight and 

summer abundance of juvenile coho salmon across a stream network. Transactions 

of the American Fisheries Society. 138: 1138-1156. 

Colvin, M.E. and J. Kopaska. 2009. The role of the student member in the American Fisheries

Society Fisheries Information and Technology Section. Fisheries. 34(6): 305-306. 

Ebersole, J.L., M.E. Colvin, P.J. Wigington, S.G. Leibowitz, J.P. Baker, M.R. Church, J.E. 

Compton, B.A., Miller, M.A. Cairns, B.P. Hansen, and H.R. Lavigne. 2009. Modeling 

stream network-scale variation in coho salmon overwinter survival and smolt size.

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 138: 564-580. 

Colvin, M.E., and C.M. Moffitt. 2009. Evaluation of irrigation canal networks to assess stream

connectivity in a watershed. River Research and Applications. 25: 486-496. 

Wigington, P.J., J.E. Ebersole, M.E. Colvin, S.G. Leibowitz, B. Miller, B. Hansen, H.R. 

Lavigne, D. White, J.P. Baker, M.R. Church, J.R. Brooks, M.A. Cairns, and J.E. 

Compton. 2006. Salmon dependent on intermittent streams. Frontiers in Ecology and the 

Environment. 4: 513-518. 

Technical reports (

†

 denotes graduate student, ††denotes undergraduate student) 

Peer-reviewed

Bonneau, J., M.E. Colvin, T. Gemeinhardt, N. Gosch, S. Reynolds†††, and T. Welker. 2020. 

Appendix D. Monitoring Plan for the Pallid Sturgeon to the Missouri River Strategic and

Adaptive Management Plan (SAMP). 167 pg. 

Reynolds, S. ††† and M.E. Colvin. 2020. Modeling Long-Term Population Growth Rate of Pallid

Sturgeon in the Upper Missouri River Below Fort Peck Dam. DRAFT Report to the US 

Army Corps of Engineers. 55 pages. 

Reynolds, S.††† and M.E. Colvin. 2019. Modeling Long-Term Population Growth Rate of Pallid
M.E. Colvin—CV 7 of 27

Sturgeon in the Upper Missouri River Below Fort Peck Dam. Report to the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers for model certification. 38 p. 

Colvin, M.E., S. Reynolds†††, R.B. Jacobson, LL. Pierce, K.D. Steffensen, and T.L. Welker.

2018. PSPAP v.2.0 redesign process: Overview of Pallid Sturgeon Assessment 

Framework Redesign Process. Open-file Report 2018-1166. 87 p., 

https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20181166 

Jacobson, R.B., Colvin, M., Bulliner, E.A., Pickard, D., and Elliott, C.M., 2018, Bend-scale

geomorphic classification and assessment of the Lower Missouri River from Sioux City,

Iowa, to the Mississippi River for application to pallid sturgeon management: U.S.

Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2018–5069, 35 p., 

https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20185069. 

Randall, M., M.E. Colvin, K. Steffensen, T. Welker, L. Pierce, and R. Jacobson. 2017. 

Assessment of Adult Pallid Sturgeon Fish Condition, Lower Missouri River: Application 

of New Information to the Missouri River Recovery Program. U.S. Geological Survey

Open-file Report 2017- 1121. 

Jacobson, R. B., M.L. Annis, M.E. Colvin, D.A. James, T.L. Welker, and M.J. Parsley. 2016. 

Missouri River Scaphirhynchus albus (pallid sturgeon) effects analysis—Integrative

report 2016. Report 2016-5064, Reston, VA. 

Jacobson, R.B., M.J. Parsley, M.L. Annis, M.E. Colvin, T.L. Welker, and D.A. James. 2016. 

Development of working hypotheses linking management of the Missouri River to population 

dynamics of Scaphirhynchus albus (pallid sturgeon): U.S. Geological Survey, Open-file Report 

2015-1236, 36 p. 10.3133/ofr20151236. 

Jacobson, R.B., M.J. Parsley, M.A. Annis, M.E. Colvin, T.L. Welker, and D.A. James, D. 2015. 

Development of conceptual ecological models linking management of the Missouri River 

to pallid sturgeon population dynamics: U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report 2015- 

1038, 47 p. 10.3133/ofr20151038. 

Jacobson, R.B., M.L. Annis, M.J. Parsley, D.A. James, M.E. Colvin, and T.L. Welker. 2015. 

Scientific information to support the Missouri River pallid sturgeon effects analysis: U.S.

Geological Survey, Open-file Report 2015-1226, 78 p. 10.3133/ofr20151226. 

Non-peer reviewed

Dunn, C.D. †††, M.E. Colvin, D.A. Schumann, and K. Evans, 2020. Integrating conservation 

planning tools to develop a transparent conservation blueprint for southeastern aquatic 

species. Interim annual report to the USFWS. 15 pages.

Starnes, V.† and M.E. Colvin. 2020. A structured approach to water level management for a 

multiuse reservoir at Sam D. Hamilton Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge. Interim report 

to the US Fish and Wildlife Service. 63 pages.

Colvin, M.E. 2020. Pallid sturgeon Population Assessment Program Progress Report. Report to 

the USACE. 115 pages. 

Colvin, M.E., and S. Reynolds†††. 2020. High-level planning process related to recovery of the 

endangered Pallid Sturgeon as part of the Missouri River Recovery Program. Final 

completion report to the USGS. 173 pages. 

Aldridge, C.A. †

, M.E. Colvin, and L.E. Miranda. 2020. FRASps: a planning support tool for 

inland fisheries management. Annual report to Mississippi Department of Wildlife

Fisheries and Parks. 37 pages. 

Colvin, M.E. 2020. Estimating adult and subadult pallid sturgeon and shovelnose sturgeon in the 

Yellowstone River. Report to Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks. 44 pages. 

Miranda, L.E., M.E. Colvin, G. Coppola†, H. Hatcher†, M. Lashley, D. Norris†. 2020. 
M.E. Colvin—CV 8 of 27

Establishing Ground Cover in Reservoir Mudflats to Foster Fish Assemblages. Final

report to Mississippi Department of Wildlife Fisheries and Parks. 133 pages. 

Starnes, V.†

, and M.E. Colvin. A structured approach to water level management for a multiple

use shallow eutrophic reservoir at Sam D. Hamilton Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge. 

Interim report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 27 pages. 

Schumann, D.A.††† and M.E. Colvin. 2019. Multi-objective conservation planning: prototyping 

a strategic decision framework for aquatic species conservation (phase 1). Completion

Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 150 pages.

Miranda, L.E., M.E. Colvin, A. Shamaskin†, and C. Aldridge†. 2019. Review, revision and 

development of new monitoring protocols to facilitate the meeting of goals and objectives 

of freshwater fisheries management in Mississippi. Final report to Mississippi

Department of Wildlife Fisheries and Parks. 88 pages. 

Colvin, M.E., and S. Reynolds†††. 2019. High-level planning process related to recovery of the

endangered Pallid Sturgeon as part of the Missouri River Recovery Program. Completion 

Report to the U.S. Geological Survey. 22 pages.

Schumann, D.A.†††, and M.E. Colvin. 2018. Multi-objective conservation planning: prototyping 

a strategic decision framework for aquatic species conservation (Phase 1). Gulf Coastal

Plains and Ozarks Landscape Conservation Cooperative, Annual Report, Columbia, 

Missouri.

Gilliland, C.R.†

, M.E. Colvin, P.J. Allen, and J.W. Neal. 2017. Paddlefish Polyodon spathula 

spawning and migratory habitat use in the Noxubee River System with focus on the 

Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge Management. Interim report to the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service. 47 pages. 

Gilliland, C.R.†, M.E. Colvin, P.J. Allen, and J.W. Neal. 2016. Paddlefish Polyodon spathula 

spawning and migratory habitat use in the Noxubee River System with focus on the 

Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge Management. Interim report to the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 27 pages.

Miranda, L.E., M.E. Colvin, and A.C. Shamaskin†. 2016. Review, revision and development of 

new monitoring protocols to facilitate the meeting of goals and objectives of freshwater 

fisheries management in Mississippi. Progress report to Mississippi Department of

Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks. 9 pages. 

Peterson, J.T., K. McDonnell, and M.E. Colvin. 2014. Coarse Resolution Planning Tools for 

Prioritizing Central Valley Project Improvement Act Fisheries Activities. Final Report to

Central Valley Project Improvement Act Fisheries Program, Sacramento, CA.

Colvin, M.E. 2013. Mill Creek Bull Trout Survival Analysis. Completion report to the U.S.

Forest Service.

Schreck, C.B., M.L. Kent, M.E. Colvin, S. Benda, C. Sharpe, J.T. Peterson, and B. Dolan. 2013. 

Potential causes and management of prespawn mortality in adult upper Willamette River

spring Chinook salmon. Annual report to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Colvin, M.E. 2012. Impacts of nuisance species in a shallow lake: A systems modeling approach 

for evaluating restoration and management policies. Final Report to the Iowa Department

of Natural Resources.

Colvin, M.E., C.L. Pierce, and L. Beck. 2012. Age structure and growth of invasive common 

carp populations in the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. Final Report to the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. 

Colvin, M.E., E.D. Katzenmeyer, T.W. Stewart, and C.L. Pierce. 2010. The Clear Lake

ecosystem simulation model (CLESM) project. Annual Progress Report to the Iowa
M.E. Colvin—CV 9 of 27

Department of Natural Resources.

Colvin, M.E., E.D. Katzenmeyer, T.W. Stewart, and C.L. Pierce. 2009. The Clear Lake

ecosystem simulation model (CLESM) project. Annual Progress Report to the Iowa

Department of Natural Resources.

Colvin, M.E., E.D. Katzenmeyer, T.W. Stewart, and C.L. Pierce. 2008. The Clear Lake

ecosystem simulation model (CLESM) Project. Annual Progress Report to the Iowa

Department of Natural Resources.

Munson, A.D., M.E. Colvin, and K.A. Johnson. 2005. Ceratomyxa shasta exposure trials at

Oxbow fish hatchery. Idaho Department of Fish and Game Fishery Research Report 04- 

48. Boise, ID.

Grants and contracts received

Dunn, C.G., and M.E. Colvin. 2021. Using conservation genomics, morphometrics, and

occupancy modeling to support Species Status Assessments of rivulet crayfishes

(Hobbseus spp.). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. ($230,240) 

Dunn, C.G., L.E. Miranda, and M.E. Colvin. 2021. TNCR data management application. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. ($148,112) 

Dunn, C.G., and M.E. Colvin. 2021. Using a Bayesian belief network to structure Species Status

Assessments of data-deficient species: a case study with Piebald Madtom (Noturus 

gladiator). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. ($69,034) 

Colvin, M.E., and C.G. Dunn. 2021 Developing a cooperative post stocking conservation 

framework to evaluate stocking effectiveness and inform restoration efforts. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. ($26,194) 

Dunn, C.G., and M.E. Colvin. 2021. Development of quantitative tools to support Species Status 

Assessments of freshwater mussels. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. ($234,912) 

Dunn, C.G., L.E. Miranda, and M.E. Colvin. 2021. Developing an adaptive framework based on 

connectivity for evaluating management actions that limit bigheaded carps access to

floodplain lakes. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. ($263,547) 

Colvin, M.E. and C.G. Dunn. 2021. Use of machine learning to quantify habitat for the 

Oktibbeha Rivulet Crayfish. College of Forest Resources Undergraduate Research

Scholars Program. ($3,000) 

Colvin, M.E. and C.G. Dunn. 2020. Evaluating occurrence of migratory riverine fish species.

College of Forest Resources Undergraduate Research Scholars Program. ($3,000) 

Colvin, M.E. 2020. Application of quantitative methods supporting Pallid Sturgeon Adaptive 

Management Project. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. ($174,584) 

Miranda, L.E. and M.E. Colvin. 2020. Intrusion of bigheaded carps into major oxbow lakes. U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service. ($100,000) 

Allen, P.J., M.E. Colvin, and B. Pracheil. 2020. River origins of juvenile Gulf Sturgeon: 

investigating the Pearl/Bogue Chitto Rivers and the Pascagoula River. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. ($250,000) 

Colvin, M.E. and D.A. Schumann. 2019. Using boat mounted RFID readers to monitor the 

effectiveness of conservation stocking efforts of aquatic species. College of Forest

Resources Undergraduate Research Scholars Program. ($3,000) 

Strickland, B.K., G.M. Street, and M.E. Colvin. 2019. Maximizing the effectiveness of feral

swine removal programs to mitigate agricultural damages and recover native species

richness. USDA-APHIS. ($80,000) 

Colvin, M.E., D.A. Schumann, and K. Evans 2019. Integrating conservation planning tools to
M.E. Colvin—CV 10 of 27

develop a transparent conservation blueprint for southeastern aquatic species. U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service. ($181,878)

Miranda, L.E. and M.E. Colvin. 2019. FRASps: a planning support tool for inland fisheries

management. Mississippi Department of Wildlife Fisheries and Parks. ($109,526) 

Colvin, M.E. 2019. High-level planning process related to recovery of the endangered Pallid 

Sturgeon as part of the Missouri River Recovery Program. U.S. Geological Survey. 

($137,589) 

Lashley, M.A., G. Street, B. Strickland and M.E. Colvin. 2018. Continuation of using island 

biogeography to decrease agricultural damage and systematically eradicate feral swine

from agricultural landscapes. USDA-APHIS. ($136,000) 

Colvin, M.E., D. Schumann, J.B. Davis, and L.E. Miranda. 2018. Evaluating the fish assemblage 

and fishery of Bluff Lake and integrating fishery objectives with Paddlefish and bird 

management objectives to evaluate water level management decisions. US Fish and

Wildlife Service. ($117,346) 

Schumann, D. and M.E. Colvin. 2018. Evaluating Southern Brook Lamprey Movement and 

Biology. College of Forest Resources Undergraduate Research Scholars Program.

($3,000) 

Colvin, M.E. 2018. High-level planning process related to recovery of the endangered Pallid 

Sturgeon as part of the Missouri River Recovery Program. U.S. Geological Survey. 

($128,279) 

Colvin, M.E. and K. Evans (2018). Multi-objective Conservation Planning: Prototyping a 

strategic decision framework for aquatic species conservation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service. ($85,159) 

Colvin, M.E. 2017. Evaluating Fishing Forecasts with Real Data. College of Forest Resources

Undergraduate Research Scholars Program. ($3,000) 

Lawrence, M.L., M. Griffin, D. Wise, A. Karsi, T. Greenway, M. Colvin, and C. Mischke. 2017. 

Control strategies for virulent Aeromonas hydrophila in catfish aquaculture by 

vaccination and informing pond management. USDA-National Institute of Food and 

Agriculture. ($500,000) 

Colvin, M.E. 2017. High-level planning process related to recovery of the endangered Pallid

Sturgeon as part of the Missouri River Recovery Program. U.S. Geological Survey. 

($123,731) 

Colvin, M.E. and K. Evans. 2017. Multi-objective Conservation Planning: Prototyping a 

strategic decision framework for aquatic species conservation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service. ($75,281) 

Miranda, L.E., M.E. Colvin, and M.A. Lashley. 2016. Establishing ground cover in reservoir

mudflats to foster fish assemblages, Mississippi Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks.

($194,911) 

Miranda, L.E., M.E. Colvin, and M.A. Lashley. 2016. Establishing ground cover in reservoir 

mudflats to foster fish assemblages, Reservoir Fisheries Habitat Partnership. ($27,570) 

Rush, S., M.E. Colvin, and C. Ayers. 2016. Investigation of bat roost characteristics, senescence

and use on Sam D. Hamilton Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge. College of Forest 

Resources Undergraduate Research Scholars Program. ($5,000) 

Colvin, M.E. 2016. Development of Structured Decision Framework, Missouri River Pallid

Sturgeon Effects Analysis. U.S. Geological Survey. ($77,281) 

Colvin, M.E., P.J. Allen, J.W. Neal, and F. Vilella. 2015. Paddlefish Polyodon spathula 

spawning and migratory habitat use in the Noxubee River System. US Geological 
M.E. Colvin—CV 11 of 27

Survey Quick Response Program. ($8,000)

Colvin, M.E., P.J. Allen, and J.W. Neal. 2015. Paddlefish Polyodon spathula spawning and 

migratory habitat use in the Noxubee River System. US Fish and Wildlife Service

Inventory and Monitoring. ($60,000) 

Colvin, M.E. 2015. Adaptive fishery management of Black Crappie fisheries. College of Forest

Resources Undergraduate Research Scholars Program. ($5,000) 

Colvin, M.E. 2015. Development of Structured Decision Framework, Missouri River Pallid

Sturgeon Effects Analysis. U.S. Geological Survey. ($52,274) 

Miranda, L.E. and M.E. Colvin. 2014. Review, revision and development of new monitoring 

protocols to facilitate the meeting of goals and objectives of freshwater fisheries.

Mississippi Department of Wildlife Fisheries and Parks. ($110,867) 

Colvin, M.E. and J.T. Peterson. 2013. Development of Structured Decision Framework,

Missouri River Pallid Sturgeon Effects Analysis. U.S. Geological Survey. ($37,193) 

Colvin, M.E. and J.T. Peterson. 2012. Mill Creek Bull Trout Survival Analysis. U.S. Forest 

Service. ($5,743) 

Schreck, C.B. M. Kent, J. Peterson, B. Dolan, C. Sharpe, and M.E. Colvin. 2012. Potential 

causes of prespawn mortality in adult UWR Chinook, Middle Fork Basin of the 

Willamette River. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. ($361,000) 

Colvin, M.E. 2005-2007. Student Contractor. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

($86,120) 

Invited presentations (†

 denotes graduate student, †† denotes undergraduate student) 

Colvin, M.E., and D. Schumann. 2018. Decision making process and tools for aquatic systems.

Management Action Team Meeting. Weeks Bay Reserve Tonsmeire Resource Center,

Fairhope, AL.

Gilliland, C.R. †

, M.E. Colvin, J.W. Neal, and P.J. Allen. 2017. Residents, Migrants, or Both? 

Evaluating Movement of Paddlefish Polyodon spathula in a Regulated System.

Presentation to the Friends of the Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge. Oktoc Community

Center, September 8th. 

Colvin, M.E., R. Jacobson, D. James, L. Pierce, M. Randall, and T. Welker. 2017. Missouri 

River Pallid Sturgeon Effects Analysis. Lower Basin Pallid Sturgeon Workgroup 

Meeting. January 10th. 

Gilliland, C.R. † and M.E. Colvin. 2016. Paddlefish Polyodon spathula spawning and migratory 

habitat use in the Noxubee River System with focus on the Noxubee National Wildlife 

Refuge. Presentation to the Audubon Society. Mississippi State, September 8th. 

M.E. Colvin. 2016. Challenges and potential solutions to integrating fisheries research, 

management, and monitoring—emerging patterns from a national perspective. 42nd

annual meeting of the Mississippi Chapter of the American Fisheries Society, Tara

Lodge, MS. March 9-11th. 

Colvin, M.E., R. Jacobson, D. James, L. Pierce, M. Randall, and T. Welker. 2016. Pallid

Sturgeon population modeling update. Middle Basin Pallid Sturgeon Recovery Meeting. 

Kansas City. February 18th -19th. 

Jacobson, R., M.E. Colvin, M. Randall, D. James, and T. Welker. 2016. Effects Analysis.

Lower Basin Pallid Sturgeon Recovery Meeting. Middle Basin Pallid Sturgeon Recovery 

Meeting. Kansas City. February 18th -19th. 

Colvin, M.E., R. Jacobson, D. James, L. Pierce, M. Randall, and T. Welker. 2016. Pallid

Sturgeon population modeling update. Lower Basin Pallid Sturgeon Recovery Meeting. 
M.E. Colvin—CV 12 of 27

Cape Girardeau. January 11th-13th. 

Jacobson, R., M.E. Colvin, M. Randall, D. James, and T. Welker. 2016. Effects Analysis.

Lower Basin Pallid Sturgeon Recovery Meeting. Cape Girardeau. January 11th-13th. 

Colvin, M.E. 2015. Integrating management, monitoring and research in aquatic systems.

University of Southern Mississippi Gulf Coast Research Laboratory. April 9th. 

Colvin, M.E. 2015. Integrating management, monitoring and research with structured decision 

making and adaptive management. Mississippi Research Summit. February 5th. 

Colvin, M.E., J.T. Peterson, M. Kent, and C.B. Schreck. 2014. Estimating sensitivity and 

prevalence from hierarchically structured pathogen sampling data using occupancy

modeling. Oregon State University Microbiology Department Colloquium. 

Colvin, M.E., P.W. Bettoli, G.D. Scholten, C.L. Pierce, and T.W. Stewart. 2012. Caviar and

carp: increasing fisheries model realism and management applications. University of

Idaho 501 Seminar Series.

Colvin, M.E., C.L. Pierce, and T.W. Stewart. 2012. Minimizing impacts of carp in a shallow

lake: A simulation modeling approach for restoration and management. 142nd Annual 

Meeting American Fisheries Society, St. Paul, Minnesota. 

Colvin, M.E. 2011. Clear Lake Ecosystem simulation model overview and managing 

populations experiencing pulsed harvest. Iowa Department of Natural Resources Wildlife

Bureau Meeting. Ames, IA.

Colvin, M.E., T. Stewart, and C. Pierce. 2011. Monitoring and modeling the Clear Lake 

ecosystem: Native and invasive species in the context of lake restoration. Iowa Water

Center Conference. Ames, IA.

Colvin, M.E. 2010. Application of carp control strategies into a model for Malheur NWR.

Malheur National Wildlife Refuge Invasive Carp Control Workshop. Burns, OR.

Colvin, M.E., S. Grummer, J. Wahl, T.W. Stewart, and C.L. Pierce. 2010. Carp and water

quality research, a Midwest case study. Malheur National Wildlife Refuge Invasive Carp

Control Workshop. Burns, OR. 

Colvin, M.E., S. Grummer, J. Wahl, T. Stewart, and C. Pierce. 2010. Real and potential impacts

of common carp and zebra mussel impacts on water quality in the context of ongoing 

shallow lake restoration. 71st Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference. Minneapolis, MN.

Colvin, M.E., T. Stewart and C. Pierce. 2009. Towards ecosystem management of an inland 

freshwater fishery in the context of invasive species. Iowa State University Student

Subunit of the American Fisheries Society, Ames, IA.

Ebersole, J.L., M.E. Colvin, P.J. Wigington, Jr., and S.G. Leibowitz. 2009. Patterns of coho 

salmon size and survival within a stream network. International Environmetrics Society, 

Corvallis, OR.

Colvin, M.E., J.L. Ebersole and P.J. Wigington. 2007. A life-history based strategy for restoring

juvenile salmon habitat across a stream network. Iowa State University Departmental

Seminar Series, Ames, IA.

Technical presentations (

†

 denotes graduate student, †† denotes undergraduate student) 

Blische, H., M.E. Colvin, and C.G. Dunn. 2021Distribution and detection of American eels

Anguilla rostrata in Mississippi. Annual meeting of the Southern Division of the

American Fisheries Society. (Virtual Presentation)

Besson, J., M.E. Colvin, L.E. Miranda, and C.G. Dunn. 2021. A framework for evaluating Silver 
M.E. Colvin—CV 13 of 27

Carp movement in a floodplain system Annual meeting of the Southern Division of the

American Fisheries Society. (Virtual Poster)

Aldridge, C.A., L.E. Miranda, and M.E. Colvin. 2021. Towards standardized fisheries 

management plans. Annual meeting of the Southern Division of the American Fisheries

Society. (Virtual Presentation)

Blische, H., M.E. Colvin, and C.G. Dunn. 2021. Distribution and detection of American eels 

Anguilla rostrata in Mississippi. Annual meeting of the Mississippi Chapter of the

American Fisheries Society. (Virtual Presentation)

Besson, J., M.E. Colvin, L.E. Miranda, and C.G. Dunn. 2021. A framework for evaluating Silver 

Carp movement in a floodplain system Annual meeting of the Mississippi Chapter of the

American Fisheries Society. (Virtual Poster)

Aldridge, C.A., L.E. Miranda, and M.E. Colvin. 2021. Towards standardized fisheries 

management plans. Annual meeting of the Mississippi Chapter of the American Fisheries

Society. (Virtual Presentation)

Reynolds, S.A.†††, M.E. Colvin, C.R. Fischenich, G. Long, and D. Marmorek. 2020. Examining 

Long-Term Pallid Sturgeon, Scaphirhynchus albus, Population Growth with Respect to 

Alternative Management Operations Under Environmental Stochasticity. Annual Meeting

of the North American Surgeon and Paddlefish Society. Virtual.

Reynolds, S.A.†††, M.E. Colvin, C.R. Fischenich, G. Long, and D. Marmorek. 2020. Examining 

Long-Term Pallid Sturgeon, Scaphirhynchus albus, Population Growth with Respect to 

Alternative Management Operations Under Environmental Stochasticity. 150th Annual 

Meeting of the American Fisheries Society. Virtual.

Aldridge, C.A.†

, L.E. Miranda, and M.E. Colvin. 2020. Standardized Management Plans: A 

Glance into the Future. 150th Annual Meeting of the American Fisheries Society. Virtual.

Starnes, V.R.†, M.E. Colvin, J.B. Davis, and L.E. Miranda. 2020. A Decision Support Tool for 

Evaluating Water Level Management in a Multiple Use Reservoir. 150th Annual Meeting

of the American Fisheries Society. Virtual.

Starnes, V.R.†

, M.E. Colvin, J.B. Davis, and L.E. Miranda. 2020. A prototype decision support 

tool for evaluating water level management to achieve competing objectives in a multiple

use reservoir. Annual Meeting of the Southern Division of the American Fisheries 

Society. Little Rock, AR.

Richardson, B.M.†

, Colvin, M.E., Griffin, M.J., Mischke, C.C., Greenway, T.E. and D.J. Wise.

2020. Leaving Nothing on the Table: Using structured decision-making to evaluate 

management decisions in catfish aquaculture. Annual Meeting of the Southern Division 

of the American Fisheries Society. Little Rock, AR.

VanderBloemen, S, L.E. Miranda, M.E. Colvin and G. Sass. 2020. Asian Carp Population 

Dynamics and Movement Ecology within the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway. Annual 

Meeting of the Southern Division of the American Fisheries Society. Little Rock, AR.

Richardson, B.M.†

, Griffin, M.J., Mischke, C.C., Greenway, T.E., Wise, D.J., Colvin, M.E., 

Lawrence, M.L., and Liles, M. 2020. They are the same but different: Comparative 

genomics of two atypical Aeromonas hydrophila pathotypes found in catfish aquaculture 

of the southeast. Annual Meeting of the Southern Division of the American Fisheries 

Society. Little Rock, AR.

Starnes, V.R.†

, M.E. Colvin, B.A. Jones, W.R. Whittington, B.A. Clarke, J.E. Coleman, J.T. 

Gandy, W.P. Johnson, W.R. Horne, R.J. Hurt, R. W. King, R. M. Savoie, B.C. 

Wilkinson. 2020. Development of an affordable autonomous four-dimensional water

quality monitoring network. Annual Meeting of the Southern Division of the American 
M.E. Colvin—CV 14 of 27

Fisheries Society. Little Rock, AR.

Wilmoth, B.M.††, M.E. Colvin, and C. Dunn†††. 2020. Using boat-mounted Radio Frequency 

Identification to estimate stocking exploitation and estimate efficiency of Passive

Integrated Transponders. Annual Meeting of the Southern Division of the American 

Fisheries Society. Little Rock, AR.

Wilmoth, B.M.††, M.E. Colvin, N. Temple, and E. Sparks. 2020. Evaluating Accuracy of 

Inexpensive Acoustic Water Level Sensors. Annual Meeting of the Southern Division of 

the American Fisheries Society. Little Rock, AR. (Poster)

Aldridge, C.A.†

, L.E. Miranda, and M.E. Colvin. 2020. For management plans, consult a 

computer? Annual Meeting of the Southern Division of the American Fisheries Society. 

Little Rock, AR. (Poster) 

Norris, D.M.†, M.E. Colvin, L.E. Miranda, and M.A. Lashley. 2020. To plant or not to plant? A 

decision support tool to minimize risk associated with uncertainty in reservoir habitat

management. Annual Meeting of the Southern Division of the American Fisheries 

Society. Little Rock, AR.

Aldridge, C.A.†

, L.E. Miranda, and M.E. Colvin. 2020. Same profession different jobs — 

fisheries goals across the US. Annual Meeting of the Southern Division of the American

Fisheries Society. Little Rock, AR.

Aldridge, C.A.†, D.M. Norris†, H. Hatcher†, G. Coppola†, M.E. Colvin, and L.E. Miranda. 2020. 

Brush piles: Understanding structural dynamics to help plan habitat management. Annual 

Meeting of the Southern Division of the American Fisheries Society. Little Rock, AR.

Wilmoth, B.M.††, M.E. Colvin, N. Temple, and E. Sparks. 2020. Evaluating accuracy of 

inexpensive acoustic water level sensors. Annual Meeting of the Mississippi Chapter of

the American Fisheries Society. Gulfport, MS. 

Starnes, V.R.†, M.E. Colvin, J.B. Davis, and L.E. Miranda. 2020. A prototype decision support 

tool for evaluating water level management to achieve competing objectives in a multiple

use reservoir. Annual Meeting of the Mississippi Chapter of the American Fisheries

Society. Gulfport, MS. (Poster)

Richardson, B.M.†, Griffin, M.J., Mischke, C.C., Greenway, T.E., Wise, D.J., Colvin, M.E., 

Lawrence, M.L., and Liles, M. 2020. They are the same but different: Comparative 

genomics of two atypical Aeromonas hydrophila pathotypes found in catfish aquaculture

of the southeast. Annual Meeting of the Mississippi Chapter of the American Fisheries

Society. Gulfport, MS. 

Starnes, V.R.†

, M.E. Colvin, B.A. Jones, W.R. Whittington, B.A. Clarke, J.E. Coleman, J.T. 

Gandy, W.P. Johnson, W.R. Horne, R.J. Hurt, R. W. King, R. M. Savoie, B.C. 

Wilkinson. 2020. Development of an affordable autonomous four-dimensional water

quality monitoring network. Annual Meeting of the Mississippi Chapter of the American

Fisheries Society. Gulfport, MS. 

Wilmoth, B.M.††, M.E. Colvin, and C. Dunn†††. 2020. Using boat-mounted Radio Frequency 

Identification to estimate stocking exploitation and estimate efficiency of Passive

Integrated Transponders. Annual Meeting of the Mississippi Chapter of the American

Fisheries Society. Gulfport, MS. 

Aldridge, C.A.†, L.E. Miranda, and M.E. Colvin. 2020. For management plans, consult a 

computer? Annual Meeting of the Mississippi Chapter of the American Fisheries Society. 

Gulfport, MS. (Poster)

Aldridge, C.A.†

, D.M. Norris, H.R. Hatcher, G. Coppola, M.E. Colvin and L.E. Miranda. 2020. 

Brush piles: Understanding structural dynamics to help plan habitat management. Annual 
M.E. Colvin—CV 15 of 27

Meeting of the Mississippi Chapter of the American Fisheries Society. Gulfport, MS.

(Poster)

Norris, D.M.†, M.E. Colvin, L.E. Miranda, and M.A. Lashley. 2020. To plant or not to plant? A 

decision support tool to minimize risk associated with uncertainty in reservoir habitat 

management. Annual Meeting of the Mississippi Chapter of the American Fisheries

Society. Gulfport, MS. 

Reynolds, S.A.†††, M.E. Colvin, C.R. Fischenich, G. Long, and D. Marmorek. 2020. Coupling 

hydrodynamic, spawning, and larval settling models with a pallid sturgeon, 

Scaphirhynchus albus, population model to evaluate alternative management operations.

Annual Meeting of the Mississippi Chapter of the American Fisheries Society. Gulfport, 

MS.

Aldridge, C.A.†, L.E. Miranda, and M.E. Colvin. 2020. Same profession different jobs — 

fisheries goals across the US. Annual Meeting of the Mississippi Chapter of the

American Fisheries Society. Gulfport, MS. 

Richardson, B., M. Griffin, C. Mischke, T. Greenway, M.E. Colvin, and D. Wise. 2019. 

Modeling atypical Aeromonas hydrophila (aAh) dynamics in catfish aquaculture ponds of 

the southeastern United States. Conference of research workers in animal diseases.

Chicago, IL.

Lawrence, M. T. Hasan, M. Griffin, D. Wise, K. Attila, T. Greenway, M. Colvin, and C. 

Mischke. 2019. Control strategies for virulent Aeromonas hydrophila in catfish

aquaculture by vaccination and informing pond management. Conference of research

workers in animal diseases. Chicago, IL.

Schumann, D.A.†††, M.E. Colvin, and D.T. Jones-Farrand. 2019. Occurrence & Co-Occurrence

Patterns of Gar in River-Floodplain Habitats: Leveraging Species Interactions to Benefit

Distributional Models. American Fisheries Society & The Wildlife Society 2019 Joint

Annual Conference. Reno, NV. (Poster) 

Dykstra, Adrienne, D.J. Steakley, G. Street, B. Strickland, K VerCauteren, M. Colvin, M.

Lashley. 2019 Biological Invasions Disrupt Activity Patterns of Native Wildlife: An

Example from Invasive Wild Pigs. American Fisheries Society & The Wildlife Society

2019 Joint Annual Conference. Reno, NV.

Colvin, M. V. Starnes†, D. Schumann†††, S. Shaw, C. Gilliland††, S. Reagan, L.E. Miranda, and 

J.B. Davis. 2019 Evaluating Water Level Management to Satisfy Competing 

Management Objectives for Fish, Fishery, and Birds in a Reservoir American Fisheries

Society & The Wildlife Society 2019 Joint Annual Conference. Reno, NV.

Campbell, R.L.††, M.E. Colvin, D.A. Schumann†††, M.D. Wagner, and D.E. Schwarz. 2019. An

overview of passive integrated transponder (PIT) tag feasibility and a new monitoring

technique for Frecklebelly Madtom, Noturus munitus. Mississippi Chapter of the 

American Fisheries Society annual meeting, Jackson, MS. 

L.E. Miranda, L.A. Bull, M.E. Colvin, W.D. Hubbard, L.L. Pugh. 2019. Segmentation of 

Mississippi’s natural and artificial lakes. Mississippi Chapter of the American Fisheries

Society annual meeting, Jackson, MS. 

Richardson, B.M.†, M.J. Griffin, C.C. Mischke, T.E. Greenway, M.E. Colvin, and D.J. Wise.

2019. State boundaries draw hard lines in Aeromonas hydrophila disease strains of farmraised Channel Catfish, Ictalurus punctatus. Mississippi Chapter of the American

Fisheries Society annual meeting, Jackson, MS. 

Wilmoth, B.M.††, D.A. Schumann†††, B.M. Richardson†

, C.A. Aldridge†, and M.E. Colvin. 2019. 

Ontogeny of Southern Brook Lamprey, Ichthyomyzon gagei, with emphasis on 

abundance, distribution, and morphology in a small watershed. Mississippi Chapter of the 
M.E. Colvin—CV 16 of 27

American Fisheries Society annual meeting, Jackson, MS. 

Aldridge†, C.A., M.E. Colvin, and L.E. Miranda. 2019. Early look: Performance of machine 

learning to classify age from age-length data. Mississippi Chapter of the American

Fisheries Society annual meeting, Jackson, MS. (Poster) 

Norris, D.M.†, G. Coppola†, H. Hatcher†, M.A. Lashley, M.E. Colvin, and L.E. Miranda. 2019. 

Establishing Ground Cover in Reservoir Mudflats to Foster Fish Assemblages. 

Mississippi Chapter of the American Fisheries Society annual meeting, Jackson, MS.

Dykstra, A., Steakley, D., Street, G., Strickland, B., Vercauteren, K., Colvin, M., and M. 

Lashley. Native Wildlife Adjust Activity Patterns to Temporally Avoid Wild Pigs.

Wildlife Damage Management Conference. Starkville, MS. March 26, 2019. 

Steakley, D., A. Dykstra, G. Street, B. Strickland, K. Vercauteren, M. Colvin, and M. Lashley.

Vertebrate Community Response to Wild Pig Control in an Agroecosystem. Wildlife 

Damage Management Conference. Starkville, MS. March 26, 2019. 

Aldridge, C.A.†

, B. Richardson†, D.A. Schumann†††, and M.E. Colvin. 2018. Identifying barriers

to the use and detection of passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags in Southern Brook 

Lamprey ammocoetes (Ichthyomyzon gagei, Hubbs & Trautman, 1937). Presentation at 

Southeastern Fishes Council 44th Annual Meeting. Hickory Knob State Park Resort,

McCormick, SC.

Reynolds, S.A.†††, M.E. Colvin, M. Miller, T.L. Welker, T. Gemeinhardt, K. Steffensen, L. 

Pierce and R.B. Jacobson. 2018. Estimating Abundance and Capture Probabilities of a 

Rare, Endangered Species—Pallid Sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus)—in the Lower

Missouri River. Annual Meeting of the North American Sturgeon and Paddlefish Society. 

Columbia, MO. (Poster).

Reynolds, S.A.†††, M.E. Colvin, R.B. Jacobson, T.L. Welker, L. Pierce, K. Steffensen and D.R. 

Marmorek. 2018. A structured decision making approach to redesigning the Pallid 

Sturgeon population assessment program. Annual Meeting of the North American 

Sturgeon and Paddlefish Society. Columbia, MO. 

Gilliland, C.R.†

, M.E. Colvin, P.J. Allen, J.W. Neal, and S. Reagan. 2018. Evaluating site fidelity

of translocated Paddlefish in a regulated system. Annual Meeting of the North American 

Sturgeon and Paddlefish Society. Columbia, MO. 

Kroboth, P.K., D.A. Hann, M.E. Colvin, P.D. Hartfield, and H.L. Schramm, Jr. 2018. Pallid

Sturgeon Seasonal Habitat Selection in a Large Free-flowing River, the Lower 

Mississippi River. Annual Meeting of the North American Sturgeon and Paddlefish 

Society. Columbia, MO. 

Jacobson, R.B., M.E. Colvin, and D. Marmorek. 2018. Engaging Science to Manage a Very Rare

Fish in a Very Large River – Pallid Sturgeon in the Missouri River. Annual Meeting of 

the North American Sturgeon and Paddlefish Society. Columbia, MO. 

Schumann, D.A.†††, and M.E. Colvin. 2018. A Bayesian Belief Network to Estimate 

Conservation Need for Understudied Aquatic Taxa. 148th Annual Meeting of the 

American Fisheries Society. Atlantic City, NJ.

Reynolds, S.A.†††, M.E. Colvin, R.B. Jacobson, T.L. Welker, L. Pierce, K. Steffensen and D.R. 

Marmorek. 2018. A structured decision making approach to redesigning the Pallid 

Sturgeon population assessment program. 148th Annual Meeting of the American 

Fisheries Society. Atlantic City, NJ.

Coppola, G.††, H. Hatcher††, M.E. Colvin, L.E. Miranda and M. Lashley. 2018. Persistence of 

agricultural plants as potential fish habitat. 148th Annual Meeting of the American 

Fisheries Society. Atlantic City, NJ.
M.E. Colvin—CV 17 of 27

Richardson, B.R.††, M.E. Colvin, D. Wise, M. Griffin, C. Mischke and T. Greenway. 2018. 

Status of Atypical Aeromonas Hydrophila (aAh) in Mississippi. 148th Annual Meeting of 

the American Fisheries Society. Atlantic City, NJ.

Reynolds, S.A.†††, M.E. Colvin, M. Miller, T.L. Welker, T. Gemeinhardt, K. Steffensen, L. 

Pierce and R.B. Jacobson. 2018. Estimating Abundance and Capture Probabilities of a

Rare, Endangered Species—Pallid Sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus)—in the Lower

Missouri River. 148th Annual Meeting of the American Fisheries Society. Atlantic City,

NJ. (Poster).

Schumann, D.A.†††, M.E. Colvin, K. Koupal, and C. Wessel. 2018. A Bayesian Decision

Network to Identify Optimal Management Practice to Support Plains Topminnow

Persistence in Nebraska. 148th Annual Meeting of the American Fisheries Society.

Atlantic City, NJ. (Poster).

Richardson, B.† C.A. Aldridge†, D.A. Schumann††† and M.E. Colvin. 2018. Assessing Viability 

of Passive Integrated Transponder (PIT) Tags for Ecological Studies of Lamprey 

Ammocoetes. 148th Annual Meeting of the American Fisheries Society. Atlantic City, NJ.

(Poster).

Gilliland, C.R.†

, M.E. Colvin, P.J. Allen, J.W. Neal, and S. Reagan. 2018. Residents, Migrants,

or Both? Evaluating Population Dynamics and Movement of Paddlefish Polyodon 

spathula in a Regulated System. Mississippi Chapter of the American Fisheries Society

annual meeting, Oxford, Mississippi.

Shannon, A.N. ††, D.A. Schumann†††, and M.E. Colvin. 2018. Debunking angler lore: can the

Farmer’s Almanac really forecast catch rates? Mississippi State University

Undergraduate Research Symposium, Mississippi State, Mississippi.

Schumann, D.A.†††, and M.E. Colvin. 2018. A Bayesian belief network to prioritize conservation 

need among diverse aquatic taxa in a speciose and understudied region. Mississippi

Chapter of the American Fisheries Society annual meeting, Oxford, Mississippi.

Shannon, A.N.††, D.A. Schumann†††, and M.E. Colvin. 2018. Debunking angler lore: can the 

Farmer’s Almanac really forecast catch rates? Mississippi Chapter of the American

Fisheries Society annual meeting, Oxford, Mississippi.

Richardson, B.R.†, M.E. Colvin, D. Wise, M. Griffin, C. Mischke and T. Greenway. 2018. 

Assessing Atypical Aeromonas hydrophila (aAh) Prevalence in Farm-raised Catfish

Using Occupancy. Mississippi Chapter of the American Fisheries Society annual

meeting, Oxford, Mississippi. 

Coppola, G.†

, H. R. Hatcher†, M. Lashley, M.E. Colvin, L.E. Miranda. 2018. Persistence of 

agricultural plants as potential habitat for fish. Mississippi State University Graduate

Student Research Symposium. February 17, 2018. Starkville, Mississippi.

Coppola, G.†, H. R. Hatcher, M. Lashley, M.E. Colvin, L.E. Miranda. 2018. Persistence of 

agricultural plants as potential habitat for fish. Mississippi American Fisheries Society

Chapter Meeting. February 8, 2018. Oxford, Mississippi.

Hatcher, H.R.†, G. Coppola, M. Lashley, M.E. Colvin, L.E. Miranda. 2018. Assessing Growth 

and Establishment of Agricultural Plantings on Reservoir Mudflats. . Mississippi

American Fisheries Society Chapter Meeting. February 8, 2018. Oxford, Mississippi.

Ivey, M.R., M.A. Lashley, B.K. Strickland, and M.E. Colvin. 2017. Do Feral Swine Alter the 

Island Biogeography of Native Wildlife in Agro-Ecosystem Forest Patches? Annual

Meeting of the Wildlife Society. Albuquerque, NM. 

Ivey, M.R., M.A. Lashley, B.K. Strickland, and M.E. Colvin. 2017. Do Feral Swine Alter the 

Island Biogeography of Native Wildlife in Agro-Ecosystem Forest Patches? Joint
M.E. Colvin—CV 18 of 27

Meeting of the Mississippi and Alabama Wildlife Society. Meridian, MA. 

Jacobson, R.J., M.E. Colvin, D. Marmorek, and M. Randall. 2017. Science to manage a very rare 

fish in a very large river – Pallid sturgeon in the Missouri River. American Geophysical 

Union Fall Meeting. New Orleans, LA.

Pugh, L., L.E. Miranda, and M.E. Colvin. 2017. Thirty Years of Standardized Sampling in

Mississippi Lakes and Reservoirs. Southeastern Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies

71st Annual Conference. Louisville, KY.

Colvin, M.E., S. Reynolds, R.B. Jacobson, T.L. Welker, L. Pierce, K. Steffensen, and M. 

Randall. 2017. Evaluating Potential Population Monitoring Programs for Endangered 

Pallid Sturgeon in the Context of Agency Objectives and Adaptive Management. 147th 

Annual Meeting of the American Fisheries Society. Tampa, FL.

Richardson, B.R. †, M.E. Colvin, C. Mischke, T. Greenway, M. Griffin, and D. Wise. 2017. 

Virulent Aeromonas hydrophila (vAh) – Not Just Another “Hole-in-the-Head”. 147th 

Annual Meeting of the American Fisheries Society. Tampa, FL.

Gilliland†. 2017. Residents, Migrants, or Both? Evaluating Population Dynamics and Movement 

of Paddlefish Polyodon Spathula in a Regulated System. 147th Annual Meeting of the 

American Fisheries Society. Tampa, FL.

Gilliland, C.R. †

, M.E. Colvin, P.J. Allen, and J.W. Neal. Paddlefish Polyodon Spathula Passage

Potential in a Regulated Stream. 147th Annual Meeting of the American Fisheries 

Society. Tampa, FL. (Poster)

Hatcher, H. †

, G. Coppola†, L.E. Miranda, M.E. Colvin, and M.A. Lashley. 2017. Cover in the 

Mudflats of a Reservoir Structures Fish Assemblages. 147th Annual Meeting of the 

American Fisheries Society. Tampa, FL.

Coppola, G. †, H. Hatcher†, M.A. Lashley, L.E. Miranda, and M.E. Colvin. 2017. Performance of 

Agricultural Plantings on Reservoir Mudflats. 147th Annual Meeting of the American 

Fisheries Society. Tampa, FL.

Shamaskin, A.C.†, M.E. Colvin, and L.E. Miranda. 2017. Evaluating Multisystem Scale Length 

Limits. 147th Annual Meeting of the American Fisheries Society. Tampa, FL.

Shamaskin, A.C.†, M.E. Colvin, and L.E. Miranda. 2017. Evaluating Multisystem Scale Length 

Limits. World Recreational Fisheries Conference. Victoria, Canada. July 

Shirley, C.†

, M.E. Colvin, C. Mischke, T. Holman, and P. Allen. 2017. Development of 

techniques for spawning, sperm cryopreservation, and feed-training of crappie (Pomoxis 

spp.). Annual Meeting of the Southern Division American Fisheries Society. MS-AL

Chapter of the American Fisheries Society Annual Meeting. Biloxi, MS. 

Gilliland, C.†

, M.E. Colvin, W. Neal, and P. Allen. 2017. Potential Paddlefish (Polyodon 

spathula) passage in a regulated stream. Annual Meeting of the Southern Division 

American Fisheries Society. MS-AL Chapter of the American Fisheries Society Annual 

Meeting. Biloxi, MS. 

Coppola G.†

, H.R. Hatcher†, M.A. Lashley, L.E. Miranda, and M.E. Colvin. Performance of 

agricultural plantings on reservoir mudflats. MS-AL Chapter of the American Fisheries

Society Annual Meeting. Biloxi, MS. 

Hatcher, H.R.†, G. Coppola†, L.E. Miranda, M.E. Colvin, M.A. Lashley. 2017. Fish Assemblages 

Associated with Cover in the Mudflats of a Reservoir. MS-AL Chapter of the American

Fisheries Society Annual Meeting. Biloxi, MS. 

Shamaskin, A.C.†, M.E. Colvin and L.E. Miranda. 2017. Multisystem scale length limits:

making it easy. MS-AL Chapter of the American Fisheries Society Annual Meeting.

Biloxi, MS. 
M.E. Colvin—CV 19 of 27

Gilliland, C.†, M.E. Colvin, W. Neal, and P. Allen. 2017. Potential Paddlefish (Polyodon 

spathula) passage in a regulated stream. Annual Meeting of the Southern Division 

American Fisheries Society. Oklahoma City, OK. February 5th. (Platform)

Coppola G.†, H.R. Hatcher†, M.A. Lashley, L.E. Miranda, and M.E. Colvin. Performance of 

agricultural plantings on reservoir mudflats. Southern Division American Fisheries

Society. February 3, 2017. Oklahoma City, OK. 

Hatcher, H.R.†, G. Coppola†, L.E. Miranda, M.E. Colvin, M.A. Lashley. 2017. Fish Assemblages 

Associated with Cover in the Mudflats of a Reservoir. Annual Meeting of the Southern 

Division American Fisheries Society. Oklahoma City, OK. February 4th. 

Shamaskin, A.†

, M.E. Colvin and L.E. Miranda. 2017. Sensitivity of a Multisystem Length 

Limit Model. Annual Meeting of the Southern Division American Fisheries Society. 

Oklahoma City, OK. February 4th. 

Hann, D.†, P. Kroboth, M.E. Colvin, P. Hartfield, and H. Schramm. 2017. Seasonal habitat use of

adult Pallid Sturgeon in the Lower Mississippi River. Annual Meeting of the Southern

Division of the American Fisheries Society. February 5th. Oklahoma City, OK.

Hann, D.†, P. Kroboth, M.E. Colvin, P. Hartfield, and H. Schramm. 2017. Seasonal habitat use of

adult Pallid Sturgeon in the Lower Mississippi River. Lower Basin Pallid Sturgeon

Workgroup Meeting. January 10th. 

Shamaskin, A.†

, M.E. Colvin and L.E. Miranda. 2016. Sensitivity of a Multisystem Length 

Limit Model. 147th Annual Meeting of the American Fisheries Society, Kansas City,

MO. August 21-25th. 

Colvin, M.E., R. Jacobson, D. James, L. Pierce, M. Randall, and T. Welker. 2016. Model 

development to support Pallid Sturgeon recovery. 147th Annual Meeting of the American

Fisheries Society, Kansas City, MO. August 21-25th. 

Jacobson, R., M.E. Colvin, D. James, L. Pierce, M. Randall, and T. Welker. Missouri River 

Pallid Sturgeon Effects Analysis. 147th Annual Meeting of the American Fisheries

Society, Kansas City, MO. August 21-25th. 

Miranda, L.E., A. Shamaskin†, and M.E. Colvin. 2016. Long-term population changes in 

relation to harvest regulations at Ross Barnett Reservoir, Mississippi. 147th Annual 

Meeting of the American Fisheries Society, Kansas City, MO. August 21-25th. 

Kramer, N.W., Q.E. Phelps, C.L. Pierce, and M.E. Colvin 2016. Using Food Web Modeling To 

Determine Effects of Increased Exploitation on Invasive Carps In The Middle Mississippi 

River. 76th annual Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference. Grand Rapids, MI. January 

27th. 

Shirley, C.††, N. Aycock, and M.E. Colvin. 2016. Effects of proposed length limit changes and 

‘5 under rule’ on Lake Washington crappie yield. Mississippi State University

undergraduate Research Symposium. Mississippi State, MS. April 15th. (Poster)

Kramer, N.W., Q.E. Phelps, C.L. Pierce, and M.E. Colvin 2016. Using Food Web Modeling To 

Determine Effects of Increased Exploitation on Invasive Carps In The Middle Mississippi 

River. 76th annual Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference. Grand Rapids, MI. January 

27th. 

Jacobson, R., M.E. Colvin, D. James, L. Pierce, M. Randall, and T. Welker. 2016. Missouri 

River Pallid Sturgeon Effects Analysis: Progress and What’s Next. Missouri River

Natural Resources Conference. March 22nd-25th. Great Falls, MT.

Colvin, M.E., R. Jacobson, D. James, L. Pierce, M. Randall, and T. Welker. 2016. Model 

development to support Pallid Sturgeon effects analysis and adaptive management.

Missouri River Natural Resources Conference. March 22nd-25th. Great Falls, MT.
M.E. Colvin—CV 20 of 27

Shirley, C.††, N. Aycock, and M.E. Colvin. 2016. Effects of proposed length limit changes and 

‘5 under rule’ on Lake Washington crappie yield. 42nd annual meeting of the Mississippi

Chapter of the American Fisheries Society, Tara Lodge, MS. March 9-11th. 

Shamaskin, A.†, M.E. Colvin, L.E. Miranda, L. Bull, and T. Holman. 2016. Long-term

population changes in relation to harvest regulations at Ross Barnett Reservoir, 

Mississippi. 42nd annual meeting of the Mississippi Chapter of the American Fisheries

Society, Tara Lodge, MS. March 9-11th. 

Veum, S., S.A. Rush, M.E. Colvin, and S.R. Reagan. 2016. Habitat use and niche partitioning of 

bats in the central gulf coastal plains of Mississippi. 21st Annual Meeting of the 

Southeastern Bat Diversity Network & 26th Annual Colloquium on the Conservation of 

Mammals in the Southeastern U.S. February 18th -19th. 

Kneece, M.R., J.C. Shipes, J.B. Davis, E.P. Wiggers, R.M. Kaminski, and M.E. Colvin. 2016. 

Nesting Ecology of Mottled Ducks in Coastal South Carolina. North American Duck 

Symposium and Workshop. Annapolis, February 1-5. 

Kramer, N.W., Q. Phelps, C.L. Pierce, and M.E. Colvin. 2016. Using Food Web Modeling To 

Determine Effects of Increased Exploitation on Invasive Carps In The Middle Mississippi 

River. 76th Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference, Grand Rapids, MI. January 24-27th. 

James, D.A., L.L. Pierce, M.L. Annis, M.E. Colvin, R.B. Jacobson, M. Randall, and T.L.

Welker. 2015. Association of Native Prey-fish Abundance to Pallid Sturgeon Condition. 

145th Annual Meeting of the American Fisheries Society, Portland, OR. August 16-20th. 

Neely, B.C., J.D. Koch, and M.E. Colvin. 2015. Influence of Reservoir Characteristics on

Collection of Representative and Precise Fish Samples: Implications for Determining

Minimum Sampling Effort. 145th Annual Meeting of the American Fisheries Society,

Portland, OR. August 16-20. 

Colvin, M.E. and L.E. Miranda. 2015. Summary and synthesis of standardized electrofishing

efforts from 1986 to present. 41st Annual meeting of the Mississippi Chapter of the

American Fisheries Society, Tara Lodge, MS. March 22-25th. 

Colvin, M.E., M.L. Annis, D.A. James, R.B. Jacobson, M.R. Randall, and T.L. Welker. 2015. A 

Framework for Integrating the Pallid Sturgeon Effects Analysis to Evaluate Management 

and Restoration Alternatives. Missouri River Natural Resource Conference, Nebraska

City, NE. March 10-12th. 

Jacobson, R. M.L. Annis, M.E. Colvin, D.A. James, M.R. Randall, and T.L. Welker. 2015. 

Missouri River Pallid Sturgeon Effects Analysis: Progress and Prospects. Missouri River

Natural Resource Conference, Nebraska City, NE. March 10-12th. 

James, D.A., L.L. Pierce, M.L. Annis, M.E. Colvin, R.B. Jacobson, M. Randall, and T.L.

Welker. 2015. Association of Native Prey-fish Abundance to Pallid Sturgeon Condition. 

Missouri River Natural Resource Conference, Nebraska City, NE. March 10-12th. 

Colvin, M.E., J.T. Peterson, C. Sharpe, S. Benda, M. Kent and C. Schreck. 2015. Upper 

Willamette River spring Chinook prespawn mortality: data synthesis and prediction of

optimal management actions. Southern Division of the American Fisheries Society

Annual Meeting. Savanah, GA. January 28-February 1. 

Koch, J.D., B.C. Neely, and M.E. Colvin. 2015. Evaluation of precision and sample sizes using 

standardized sampling in Kansas Reservoirs. Kansas Natural Resource Conference.

Wichita, KS. January 29-30. 

Colvin, M.E., J.T. Peterson, M.L. Kent, and C.B. Schreck. 2014. Evaluating of the influence of 

interspecific interactions on the structure of pathogen metacommunities in spring

Chinook salmon. Joint Aquatic Sciences Meeting. Portland, OR.

Herron, C.††, M.E. Colvin, M. Kent, C. Caudill and C. Schreck. 2014. Nanophyetus 
M.E. Colvin—CV 21 of 27

salminocola burdens in Chinook salmon (Onchorhynchus tshawystscha) in the Upper 

Willamette Basin. 50th Annual Meeting Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries 

Society, Eugene, OR 

Colvin, M.E., J.T. Peterson, C. Sharpe, S. Benda, M. Kent, B. Dolan, C. Caudill and C. Schreck. 

2014. Upper Willamette River spring Chinook prespawn mortality: data synthesis and 

prediction of optimal management actions. 50th Annual Meeting Oregon Chapter of the

American Fisheries Society, Eugene, OR. 

Colvin, M.E., J.T. Peterson, C. Sharpe, S. Benda, M. Kent, B. Dolan, C. Caudill and C. Schreck,. 

2014. Integrating science, management, and monitoring: A decision tool for optimizing

annual spring Chinook outplanting strategies and prioritizing future research.

Willamette River Science Review. Portland, OR.

Colvin, M.E., J.T. Peterson, C. Sharpe, S. Benda, C. Schreck, M. Kent, B. Dolan, C. Caudill. 

2013. Development of a tool to evaluate outplanting strategies and prespawn mortality

of Upper Willamette River spring Chinook. Annual Meeting of the Western Division of 

the American Fisheries Society. Boise, Idaho. 

Kent, M.L., S.E. Benda, M.E. Colvin, J.T. Peterson, B. Dolan, C.B. Schreck. 2013. Pathogens, 

lesions and links to prespawning mortality in Chinook salmon from the Willamette River

basin. 54th Joint Western Fish Disease Workshop and AFS Fish Health Section Meeting,

Port Townsend, Washington. 

Colvin, M.E., J.T. Peterson, C. Sharpe, S. Benda, C. Schreck, M. Kent, B. Dolan, C. Caudill. 

2013. Upper Willamette River spring Chinook prespawn mortality synthesis and 

modeling. 49th Annual Meeting Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries Society, 

Bend, OR.

Benda, S., M.L. Kent, J. Unrein, M.E. Colvin, R. Chitwood., C. Caudill, G. Naughton, C. 

Schreck. 2013. A closer look: stress and parasites in prespawn mortality. 49th Annual 

Meeting Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries Society, Bend, OR.

Colvin, M.E. 2012. Willamette River spring Chinook prespawn mortality: probing the depth of

knowledge. Oregon State University Department of Fish and Wildlife Monday Morning

Meeting.

Colvin, M.E., S. Grummer, J. Wahl, T. Stewart, and C. Pierce. 2011. Setting harvest targets for a 

common carp stock undergoing pulsed harvest. 72nd Midwest Fish and Wildlife 

Conference. Des Moines, IA. (Poster) 

Colvin, M.E., S. Grummer, J. Wahl, T. Stewart, and C. Pierce. 2010. Impacts of invasive species

and restoration on recreational fisheries: Zebra mussels and common carp in a shallow

hypereutrophic lake. 140th Annual Meeting American Fisheries Society, Pittsburgh, PA.

Colvin, M.E., S. Grummer, J. Wahl, T. Stewart, and C. Pierce. 2010. Impacts of invasive species

and restoration on recreational fisheries: zebra mussels and common carp in a shallow 

hypereutrophic lake. Joint Annual Meeting of the North American Benthological Society

and ASLO, Santa Fe, NM. (Poster) 

Colvin, M.E., S. Grummer, J. Wahl, T. Stewart, and C. Pierce. 2010. Simulating food web

interactions among nuisance common carp, invading zebra mussels, nutrient reduction 

and the recreational fishery of a shallow eutrophic lake. Iowa Chapter of the American

Fisheries and Wildlife Society Annual Meeting. Ames, IA. (Poster) 

Skiff, J.J.††, M.E. Colvin, T. Stewart and C. Pierce. 2010. Analysis of sampling methods for 

Dreissena polymorpha veligers. Iowa Chapter of the American Fisheries and Wildlife

Society Annual Meeting. Ames, IA. (Poster) 
M.E. Colvin—CV 22 of 27

Colvin, M.E., E. Katzenmeyer, T. Stewart and C. Pierce. 2009. Simulating food web interactions

among nuisance common carp, invading zebra mussels, and the native biological 

community in a shallow eutrophic lake. 70th Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference, 

Springfield, IL. (Poster) 

Colvin, M.E., J.L. Ebersole, P.J. Wigington, B. Miller, and B. Hansen. 2009. Using juvenile

coho salmon demographics and movement to prioritize areas of focal restoration across a 

stream network. 138th Annual Meeting American Fisheries Society, Nashville, TN.

Colvin, M.E., E. Katzenmeyer, T. Stewart and C. Pierce. 2009. Simulating food web interactions

among nuisance common carp, invading zebra mussels, and the native biological 

community in a shallow eutrophic lake. 139th Annual Meeting American Fisheries 

Society, Nashville, TN. (Poster) 

Katzenmeyer, E., M.E. Colvin, C. Pierce and T. Stewart. 2009. Fish growth responses to 

changing conditions in Clear Lake: Effects of common carp (Cyprinus carpio) and zebra 

mussels (Dreissena polymorpha). 138th Annual Meeting American Fisheries Society, 

Nashville, TN.

Katzenmeyer, E., M.E. Colvin, C. Pierce and T. Stewart. 2009. Fish growth responses to 

changing conditions in Clear Lake: Effects of common carp (Cyprinus carpio) and zebra 

mussels (Dreissena polymorpha). Iowa Chapter of the American Fisheries and Wildlife

Society Annual Meeting. Ames, IA.

Katzenmeyer, E., M.E. Colvin, C. Pierce and T. Stewart. 2009. Fish growth responses to 

changing conditions in Clear Lake: Effects of common carp (Cyprinus carpio) and zebra 

mussels (Dreissena polymorpha). 2nd Midwest Student Colloquium. Ames, IA.

Colvin, M.E., C.L. Pierce, and T.W. Stewart. 2008. A simulation model to evaluate common

carp (Cyprinus carpio) removal as a tool to improve water quality. 137th Annual Meeting 

American Fisheries Society, Ottawa, CA.

Colvin, M.E., Ebersole, J.L., and P.J. Wigington. 2008. A demographic based strategy for

prioritizing juvenile salmon habitat restoration across a stream network. 137th Annual 

Meeting American Fisheries Society, Ottawa, CA. (Poster) 

Katzenmeyer, E., C.L. Pierce and M.E. Colvin. 2008. Growth responses of fish species of

multiple trophic levels to a zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) invasion in a shallow, 

eutrophic lake. 138th Annual Meeting American Fisheries Society, Ottawa, CA.

Colvin, M.E., C.L. Pierce, and T.W. Stewart. 2008. A simulation model to evaluate common

carp (Cyprinus carpio) removal as a tool to improve water quality. North American

Benthological Society Annual Meeting, Salt Lake City, UT.

Colvin, M.E., C.L. Pierce, and T.W. 2008. Stewart. A simulation model to evaluate common

carp (Cyprinus carpio) removal as a tool to improve water quality. 1st Midwest Student

Colloquium. Lincoln, NE. 

Colvin, M.E., C.L. Pierce, and T.W. Stewart. 2008. A proposed ecosystem simulation model to 

predict the effects of common carp and zebra mussels in shallow lake ecosystems. 8th

Annual Water Monitoring Conference, Ames, IA. (Poster) 

Colvin, M.E., C.L. Pierce, and T.W. Stewart. 2008. A simulation model to evaluate common

carp (Cyprinus carpio) removal as a tool to improve water quality. Joint Iowa and Dakota 

Chapter AFS Annual Meeting, Sioux City, IA. 

Colvin, M.E., C.L. Pierce, and T.W. Stewart. 2008. A proposed ecosystem simulation model to 

predict the effects of common carp and zebra mussels in shallow lake ecosystems. Joint

Iowa and Dakota Chapter AFS Annual Meeting, Sioux City, IA. (Poster) 
M.E. Colvin—CV 23 of 27

Ebersole, J.L., Colvin, M.E. Colvin, P.J. Wigington, S.G. Leibowitz, and K. Burnett. 2008. 

Application of restoration scenarios to basin-scale demographics of coho salmon inferred

from pit-tags. Tag Conference, Auckland, NZ.

Colvin, M.E., C.L. Pierce, and T.W. Stewart. 2008. A proposed ecosystem simulation model to 

predict the effects of common carp and zebra mussels in shallow lake ecosystems. 2nd

USGS Modeling Conference, Orange Beach, AL. (Poster) 

Colvin, M.E., C.L. Pierce, and T.W. Stewart. 2007. Carp removal strategies: a simulation model

to identify effective carp removal strategies for Clear Lake, IA. 68th Midwest Fish and

Wildlife Conference, Madison, WI. 

Ebersole, J.L., M.E. Colvin, P.J. Wigington, J.P. Baker, M.R. Church, J. Compton, M. Cairns, 

and H.R. LaVigne. 2007. Variation in juvenile coho salmon end-of-summer size and

abundance: Hierarchical analysis of habitat effects. American Fisheries Society Annual 

Meeting, San Francisco, CA. 

Wigington, P.J., M.E. Colvin, B. Miller, B. Hansen, H.R. LaVigne, J.P. Baker, and M.R. Church. 

2007. Over-winter juvenile coho salmon growth and survival in a coastal Oregon stream 

network. American Fisheries Society Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA.

Ebersole, J.L., M.E. Colvin, P.J. Wigington Jr., M.R. Church, J. Compton, J.P. Baker, M.A. 

Cairns, S.G. Leibowitz, and D. White. 2007. Variation in juvenile coho salmon end-ofsummer size: hierarchical analysis of habitat effects. 43rd Annual Meeting Oregon

Chapter of the American Fisheries Society, Eugene, OR. 

Colvin, M.E., J. L. Ebersole, P.J. Wigington Jr., and K. Rodnick. Influence of summer 

temperature spatial variability on distribution and condition of juvenile coho salmon. 

136th Annual Meeting American Fisheries Society, Lake Placid, NY.

Colvin, M.E., J.L. Ebersole, P.J. Wigington Jr., J.P. Baker, M.A. Cairns, H.R. LaVigne, B. 

Hansen, and B. Miller. 2006. Factors associated with the timing of coho salmon smolts. 

42nd Annual Meeting Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries Society, Sun River, OR.

Colvin, M.E., K.J. Anlauf, and C.M. Moffitt. 2005. The ecology of Myxobolus cerebralis in the

Pahsimeroi River drainage, Idaho: factors affecting the distribution and intensity. Idaho 

State Chapter of the American Fisheries Society Annual Meeting, Boise, ID.

Anlauf, K.J., C.M. Moffitt, and M.E. Colvin. 2005. The influence of landscape, stream, and

microhabitat parameters on Tubificid habitat and population abundances. Idaho Chapter 

of the American Fisheries Society Annual Meeting, Boise, ID.

Moffitt, C.M., M.E. Colvin, and B. Sun. 2005. Microbial profiles from rainbow trout intestines,

New Zealand mudsnails, and hatchery inflow and outflow at Hagerman State Fish 

Hatchery, Idaho. American Fisheries Society Fish Health Section 46th Western Fish

Disease Workshop, Boise, ID.

Colvin, M.E., K.J. Anlauf, C.M. Moffitt, and K. Johnson. 2005. Addressing risks of

reconnection in watersheds of the Salmon and Pahsimeroi River. 11th Annual Whirling

Disease Symposium, Denver, CO. (Poster) 

Colvin, M.E., K.J. Anlauf, C.M. Moffitt, and K. Johnson. 2005. Ecology of Myxobolus

cerebralis in the Pahsimeroi River drainage, Idaho: factors affecting the distribution. 11th

Annual Whirling Disease Symposium, Denver, CO. (Poster) 

Anlauf, K.J., C.M. Moffitt, and M.E. Colvin. 2005. The Influence of landscape, stream, and

microhabitat parameters on Tubificid habitat and population abundance. 11th Annual 

Whirling Disease Symposium, Denver, CO. (Poster) 
M.E. Colvin—CV 24 of 27

Colvin, M.E., and C.M. Moffitt. 2004. Piecing together the Pahsimeroi puzzle. Idaho Chapter of 

the American Fisheries Society Annual Meeting, Moscow, ID.

Anlauf, K.J., C.M. Moffitt, M.E. Colvin, and B.E. Reiman. 2004. Understanding the ecology of 

whirling disease through modeling of Tubificid habitat. Idaho Chapter of the American 

Fisheries Society Annual Meeting, Moscow, ID.

Colvin, M.E., K.J. Anlauf, K. Johnson, and C.M. Moffitt. 2004. Effects of fish distributions on

whirling disease in the Pahsimeroi River drainage, Idaho. Joint Western Division of the 

American Fisheries Society and 10th Annual Whirling Disease Foundation Annual 

Meeting, Salt Lake City, UT.

Colvin, M.E., K.J. Anlauf, K. Johnson, and C.M. Moffitt. 2003. Prevalence of Myxobolus 

cerebralis in the Pahsimeroi watershed, Idaho: associations between landscape and fine 

scale habitat characteristics. 9th Annual Whirling Disease Symposium, Seattle, WA.

Anlauf, K.J., C.M. Moffitt, M.E. Colvin, A.H. Haukenes,and B.E. Reiman. 2003. Progress in 

using GIS based landscape parameters to model the likely influence of Myxobolus 

cerebralis in Idaho. 9th Annual Whirling Disease Symposium, Seattle, WA.

Moffitt, C.M., M.K. Santora, C.J. Williams, K.J. Anlauf, M.E. Colvin, and K.A. Johnson. 2003. 

Using parameters from landscape and population based models to understand the 

dynamics of Myxobolus cerebralis infections. 9th Annual Whirling Disease Symposium, 

Seattle, WA.

Colvin, M.E., K.J. Anlauf, K. Johnson, and C.M. Moffitt. 2003. Prevalence of Myxobolus 

cerebralis in the Pahsimeroi watershed, Idaho: Associations between landscape and fine 

scale habitat characteristics. Idaho Chapter of the American Fisheries Society Annual

Meeting, Boise, ID.

Colvin, M.E. and C.M. Moffitt. 2003. Modeling of Myxobolus cerebralis infections in a

landscape altered by irrigation. 4th Annual USGS Conference on Science in Oregon and 

Washington, Troutdale, OR. (Poster) 

Outreach & other creative work

Colvin, M.E., 2015. The legacy of Missouri Mike Colvin. Fisheries Management Newsletter

(March).

Colvin, M.E., E.K. Katzenmeyer, T.W. Stewart and C.L. Pierce. 2009. Zebra mussels: overview, 

preliminary trends and implications for the future of Clear Lake. Project Clear

Newsletter.

Colvin, M.E., E.K. Katzenmeyer, T.W. Stewart and C.L. Pierce. 2010. Clear Lake project 

overview. Clear Lake Association Annual Picnic. Clear Lake, IA.

Colvin, M.E., E.K. Katzenmeyer, T.W. Stewart and C.L. Pierce. 2009. Zebra mussel biology and 

potential impacts in Clear Lake. Clear Lake Association Annual Picnic. Clear Lake, IA

(Poster).

Colvin, M.E., E.K. Katzenmeyer, T.W. Stewart and C.L. Pierce. 2008. Clear Lake project 

overview. Clear Lake Association Annual Picnic. 2008. Clear Lake, IA.

Colvin, M.E., C.L. Pierce, and T.W. Stewart. 2008. Impacts of nuisance species in a shallow 

lake: A simulation modeling approach for restoration and management. Ames Anglers, 

Ames, IA.

Honors and awards 
M.E. Colvin—CV 25 of 27

2016 College of Forest Resources Early Career Achievement Award

2011 Certificate of Appreciation: Education Section of the American Fisheries 

Society Kenneth Carlander Award

USEPA Scientific and Technological Achievement Award (Honorable mention for innovative 

research quantifying the effects of multi-level

factors on fish populations across entire watersheds)

2010 American Fisheries Society Skinner Award

Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation J.N. “Ding” Darling Scholarship Sherry

Fisher Award

2009 Fenske Award Finalist

Kenneth Carlander Award

2007 Level II EPA Scientific and Technology Achievement Award

2005 University of Idaho Fisheries Graduate Student of the Year

Idaho Chapter of the American Fisheries Society Graduate Student of the Year

University of Idaho Alumni Award for Excellence

2004 Adams Scholarship for Academic Achievement

2003 Idaho Chapter American Fisheries Scholarship Recipient

2000 Certificate of Merit from Unity College for Outstanding Undergraduate 

Research in Aquaculture

NSCAA Academic All American

1999 NSCAA Academic All American

1997-2000 

Phi Theta Kappa 

University service

2021-pres. Masters co-advisor: Josh Stafford

2021-pres. Masters committee member: Brad Thorton 

2020-pres. Masters co-advisor: Jordan Besson

2020-pres. Masters committee member: Josh Neary

2020-pres. Ph.D. committee member: Wenteo Song 

2019-pres. Masters committee member: Spencer VanderBloemen

2019-pres. Ph.D. committee member: Rebecca Bracken

2018-pres. Masters committee member: Victoria Starnes

2018-pres. PhD co-advisor: Caleb Aldridge

2018-2020 Masters committee member: T.J. Arnoult 

2018-2019 Masters committee member: D.J. Steakley

2018-2019 Masters committee member: Matthew Jargawsky

2017-2019 Masters committee member: Daniel Firth

2016-2019 Masters committee member: Britney Chesser

2016-2018 Masters co-advisor: Giancarlo Coppolla 

2016-2018 Masters co-advisor: Hunter Hatcher

2016-2018 Masters committee member: Matthew Ivey 

2016-2018 Masters committee member: Christian Shirley

2016-pres. PhD co-advisor: Bradley Richardson

2016-2018 Masters committee member: Emmett Guy

2015-2018 Masters advisor: Chelsea Gilliland

2015-2018 Masters co-advisor: Andrew Shamaskin
M.E. Colvin—CV 26 of 27

2015-2017 Masters committee member: Scott Veum

2015-pres. Ph.D. committee member: Brian Ott

2015-pres. Ph.D. committee member: Rob DeVries

2015-2017 Masters committee member: Lindsey Stutzman

2015-2018 Masters committee member: Kevin Keretz

2015-2017 Masters committee member: Clayton Raines

2014- pres. Ph.D. committee member: Cynthia Fox

Departmental committees and service

2020-pres. Faculty Search Committee – Fish Nutritionist, Mississippi State University

2019 Departmental Seminar Committee

2018 Faculty Search Committee – Vertebrate Ecologist, Mississippi State University

2017 Faculty Search Committee – Aquatic Ecologist, Mississippi State University

2016-2017 Faculty Search Committee – Coastal Fisheries Extension, Mississippi State

University

2016-pres. DAFVM Awards Committee – WFA representative

2015-pres. WFA Communications Committee

2015 Faculty Search Committee – DRAC Aquaculture Economist, Mississippi State

University

2014-Pres. Wildlife, Fisheries and Aquaculture Library Representative

2012 Faculty Research Assistant Search Committee – Department of Fish and

Wildlife, Oregon State University

2011-2012 Faculty Search Committee – Graduate Student Representative Department of

Natural Resource Ecology and Management, Iowa State University

Professional service

2017-pres. Mississippi Chapter of the American Fisheries Society: Webmaster

2017-pres. American Fisheries Society Certification Committee: Committee Chair

2015-pres. American Fisheries Society Certification Committee: Southeastern Division 

Representative for the Education Section

2015-2018. Education Section of the American Fisheries Society: Southeastern Division

Representative

2014- 2018. Fisheries Management Section of the American Fisheries Society: Western

Division Representative

2012-pres. Education Section of the American Fisheries Society: New initiatives

committee chair

2011 Symposium chair “Control Strategies Nonnative and Native Nuisance Aquatic 

Species” 72nd Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference 

2010-2012 Malheur National Wildlife Refuge: Carp Suppression Research and 

Assessment Working Group 

2009-2010 American Fisheries Society Student Subsection: President

2008-2012 Iowa Chapter of the American Fisheries Society: Webmaster

2007-2008 Iowa State University Student Unit of the American Fisheries Society: Webmaster

2008-2009 Iowa State University Graduate Student Organization: Seminar Committee Chair

2005-2007 Oregon Chapter of The American Fisheries Society: Webmaster

2004-2005 Palouse Unit American Fisheries Society: Fund Raising Chair

2003-2004 Palouse Unit American Fisheries Society: President

2002-2003 Palouse Unit American Fisheries Society: Education Committee Chair
M.E. Colvin—CV 27 of 27

Reviewer for: Aquatic Conservation, Fisheries Ecology and Management, Ecological 

Application, Fisheries, Ecology of Freshwater Fish, Ohio Sea Grant, Fisheries Research, 

Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, North American Journal of Fish Management, 

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, Inland Fisheries Management (Third Edition), 

Hydrobiologia, Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management, Springer Online, Canadian Journal of 

Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, PLOS One, 

Fish and Fisheries, Nature Science Communications. 

Professional affiliations

American Fisheries Society (2002- present)

Education Section (2007-present)

Student Section (2007-2012) 

Fisheries Information and Technology Section (2007-2012) 

Western Division (2002-2007) 

Oregon Chapter (2005-present)

Idaho Chapter (2002-2005) 

Palouse Student Unit (2002-2005) 

North Central Division (2007-2012) 

Iowa Chapter (2007-2012) 

Iowa State University Student Unit (2007-2012) 

North American Benthological Society (2008-2010) 

Ecological Society of America (2010-pres.)

Aquatic Ecology Section (2010-pres.)

Student Section (2010-2010) 

Continuing Education, training, and certifications

• Hazardous Waste (Completed September 2016) 

• Classroom Strategy Series: Active Participation Strategies (Completed September 2016) 

• Teaching Online: Alternatives to the Fifty-Minute Lecture in Online Classes (Completed

September 2016) 

• RCR for PIs via myCourses (Completed September 2016) 

• Responsible Conduct of Research via CITI (Completed September 2016) 

• Working With Fish in Research Settings - Lab Animal Research (Completed September

2016) 

• Title IX and Haven Part I (Completed September 2016)

• Perception, Visualization, Cognition, Learning in Sciences (Completed January 2016) 

• Information Security Privacy Training (Completed January 2016) 

• Financial Conflict of Interest (Completed October 2015) 

• Instructors Tool Kit Developing a Good Syllabus (Completed January 2015) 

• Occupational Health and Safety (Completed October 2014) 

• Animal User Certification (Completed October 2014) 

• RCR Live Session - Data Management (Completed October 2014) 

• First Aid with CPR/AED adult and child (Completed June 2013) 

• Open water SCUBA diver (Completed December 2008) 

• Department of the Interior Motorboat Operator Certification Course (Completed June

2008) 
2020

LEWIS page 1

LYNNE Y. LEWIS

Bates College 

Department of Economics

Andrews Rd. Lewiston, ME 04240 

e-mail: llewis@bates.edu

Office: 207 786-6089 

fax:: 207 786-8337 

ACADEMIC POSITIONS

Current:

Elmer W. Campbell Professor of Economics, 2015- 

Department of Economics, Bates College

Professor of Economics and Department Chair 2007-2015 

Department of Economics, Bates College 

Associate Professor of Economics 2000-2007 

Department of Economics, BatesCollege

Assistant Professor of Natural Resource Economics

Yale University School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 1994-2000 

AWARDS & ACADEMIC HONORS

Association of Environmental and Resource Economists Board of Directors, Nov 2018-Dec 

2021.. 

Named the Elmer W. Campbell ‘27 Chair of Economics, April 2012 

Friend of UCOWR Award, July 2005 

Board of Directors of Universities Council on Water Resources, 1999-2005 

NSF/Lucent Technologies Research Fellowship Award, 1997-1999 

Association of Environmental and Resource Economists Travel Fellowship Award, 1998 

Universities Council on Water Resources Outstanding Dissertation Award, 1995 

National Center for Atmospheric Research Dissertation Fellowship, 1992-1994 

Morris E. Garnsey Fellowship, 1992 

EDUCATION

Ph.D in Economics. University of Colorado at Boulder, 1994 

B.A. in International Affairs, University of Colorado at Boulder 

FUNDED PI RESEARCH AND TEACHING DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT

Water Resources Research Institute Grant “20 years of River Restoration in Maine.” $26,402. 

June 2020-March 2021. 

Faculty Development Grant for conference presentations: $4,400, May 2018. 

Phillips Fellowship – sabbatical fellowship awarded for Academic Year 2014-15, “Estimating the SocioEconomic Impacts of Climate Change: Mapping Vulnerabilities and Building Community Resilience in the Face of 

Rapid Glacier Melt and Glacial Lake Outburst Floods.” 
2020

LEWIS page 2

EPSCoR/NSF Award #EPS-0904155 YR5 (September 2013-July 2014) project for "Ecological and 

Economic Recovery and Sustainability of the Kennebec and Androscoggin Rivers” $63,725 with Bev 

Johnson.

EPSCoR/NSF Award #EPS-0904155 year 4, $52,225, with Bev Johnson. 

EPSCoR/NSF Award #EPS-0904155, $165,000 for years 1-3 Maine’s Sustainability Science Initiative.

September 2009-September 2013 – with Bev Johnson. **(year 3: 2011-2012 grant = $54,974, 

National Science Foundation, Participating as Senior Personnel on Collaborative Research Award to Philip 

Brown, Colby College ($162,641), Darin Magee, Hobart and William Smith Colleges ($90,470), and 

Desiree Tullos, Oregon State University ($494,967), Interdisciplinary Research and Methods for 

Assessing Dams as Agents of Change in China. 2008-2011. 

Incoporating Stakeholder Values into River Restoration Decisions, PI, Co-PI: Kathleen Bell. Water 

Resources Research Institute, USGS, $26,000. March 2008 – July 2010. 

Bates Faculty Development Award, January 2010, $2,350. 

Harward Center Publically Engaged Academic Projects, PI, $6,000. 2009. 

“The Androscoggin River: A Living Laboratory. Renewal,” with Faculty at Colby, Bates and Bowdoin, 

August 2008-August 2009, $7,200. 

Faculty Development Grant, Bates, College, $2,150. 2008. 

Capacity Building for Sustainable Governance in the GEF International Waters Portfolio PIMS no.3799. 

The Androscoggin River: A Socio-Economic Inventory, PI, Harward Center for Community Partnerships 

Grant, 2006-2007, $7000.

Faculty Development Grants, Bates College, 2006-2007. 

Valuing Environmental Changes for Decision Making: Dam Removal and Restoration on the Penobscot 

and Kennebec Rivers, PI, Water Resources Research Institute, Mitchell Center for Environmental and 

Watershed Research, Funded for 2005-2006, $23,452. 

Pearson Education, Inc. Authored Instructor’s Manuals for Tom Tietenberg’s Environmental and Natural 

Resource Economics and Environmental Economics and Policy. Also assisted with revisions for new 

textbook edition. Have signed contract to phase-in as co-author of upcoming editions. 

Karl Mills Grant for participating in the Seminar on Reflections in the Liberal Arts, 2003-2004, $1,000. 

Karl Mills Grant to design new interdisciplinary course on Environmental Valuation. $10,000. With Frank

Chessa.

“Management of River Basins Through Decentralization, “Consultancy with the World Bank, 2001. 

LADD Grant, Bates College, with Maggie Maurer-Fazio and Francesco Duina, $5,000, 2001. 

“Connecting Ecological and Social Systems: Watershed Research Relating Ecosystem Structure and

Function to Human Values and Socioeconomic Behaviors,” Co-PI with Stephen Kellert, Gaboury 

Benoit, Mark Ashton, David Skelly and Paul Barten (NSF/EPA: $795,000), 1997-1999. 

“Connecting Ecological and Social Systems: Watershed Research Relating Ecosystem Structure and 

Function to Human Values and Socioeconomic Behaviors,” Co-PI with Stephen Kellert (CT Sea 

Grant: $97,439), 1997-1999. 

“Modeling the Industrial Ecosystem,” Co-PI with Thomas Graedel and Oswald Schmitz, (NSF and Lucent 

Technologies: $100,000), 1997-1999. 

“Effects of the Clean Air Act Amendments on Water Quality—812 Project,” consultancy with Industrial 

Economics, Inc, 1998. 

“Effluent Trading in the Quinnipiac River Watershed: An Experimental Market,” Principal Investigator 

(The Geoffrey C. Hughes Foundation: $19,550), 1997. 
2020

LEWIS page 3

“Estimating the Effects of Water Rate Increases on Residential Customers,” Principal Investigator (S. 

Connecticut Regional Water Authority ($10,000), 1995-1996. 

“Urban Water Supply Reliability: Planning Procedures and Survey Techniques. Charles W. Howe, 

Principal Investigator, Environment and Behavior Program and Department of Economics, University 

of Colorado, 1989-1991. 

RESEARCH & PUBLICATIONS

Books and Edited Volumes

Tietenberg, Tom and Lynne Lewis. Environmental and Natural Resource Economics, 

12th Edition, Taylor and Francis, forthcoming winter 2022. 

Lynne Lewis and Tom Tietenberg. Environmental Economics and Policy, 7th Edition.

Routledge, January 2020. 

Tietenberg, Tom and Lynne Lewis. Environmental Economics: The Essentials., 

Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, 2020. 

Tietenberg, Tom and Lynne Lewis. Natural Resource Economics: The Essentials.,

Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, 2020. 

Tietenberg, Tom and Lynne Lewis. Environmental and Natural Resource Economics, 

11th Edition, Taylor and Francis, February 2018 

Tietenberg, Tom and Lynne Lewis. Environmental and Natural Resource Economics, 

10th Edition, Pearson, 2014. 

Tietenberg, Tom and Lynne Lewis. Environmental and Natural Resource Economics, 

9th Edition, Pearson, 2012.

Tietenberg, Tom and Lynne Lewis. Environmental and Natural Resource Economics, 

8th Edition, Addison-Wesley Publishers, 2009

Tietenberg, Tom and Lynne Lewis. Environmental Economics and Policy, 6th Edition. 

Addison-Wesley Publishers, 2010. 

“River and Lake Restoration: Changing Landscapes,” Journal of Contemporary Water Research and 

Education, Issue 134, July 2006. Issue Editor. 

Refereed Articles and Book Chapters – published and submitted

“Diversity in Environmental and Resource Economics” with Nicolai V. Kuminoff, Katherine Ciaramello, 

Hanna M. Dooley, Martin Heintzelman, Neha Khanna, Lea-Rachel Kosnik, Lynne Lewis, and Eric 

Trimble. Under review at Review of Environmental Economics and Policy. 

“What should we be teaching students about the economics of climate change: Is there a 

consensus?”with Casey Wichman. Under review at Int Rev of Environmental and Resource Economics” 

Preservation Values for an Individual Animal: Does Webcam Viewing Influence Willingness to Pay for 

Conservation? With Leslie Richardson. Under Revision for AJAE
2020

LEWIS page 4

“Rethinking Hydropower:: The Economics and Politics of Privately Owned Hydropower in 

the United States” 2020., Oxford Encyclopedia of Water Resources Management and Policy.

Timothy C. Haab, Lynne Y. Lewis and John C. Whitehead, “State of the Art of Contingent Valuation,” 

Revision Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Environmental Science Haab, T., Lewis, L., & Whitehead, 

J. (2020). State of the Art of Contingent Valuation. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of 

Environmental Science.

“Aligning economic and ecological priorities: conflicts, complementarities, and regulatory frictions,” with 

Guillermo Hererra and Keith Evans, Agriculture and Resource Economics Review. August 2017. 

“River Restoration and Hedonic Property Value Analyses: Guidance for Effective Benefit Transfer.” With 

Craig Landry. Water Resources and Economics. Vol 85. 13-Apr-2017

DOI information: 10.1016/j.wre.2017.02.001

“The Cost of Revenue Stability: Water Pricing During Severe Drought” with Amy Schmidt. Journal of 

Contemporary Water Research and Education, special issue highlighting undergraduate research. Issue 

160. April 2017. 

“The Disappearing Environmental Kuznets Curve: A Study of Water Quality in the Lower Mekong 

Basin,” with Yoon Loon (Andrew) Wong (Bates Economics ’12), in Journal of Environmental 

Management October 2012.

“Environmental and Natural Resource Economics: Teaching the Major and Non-Majors Simultaneously” 

January 2012 in International Handbook on Teaching and Learning Economics (Hoyt and 

McGoldrick, Editors), Elgar Press.

“A “Virtual” Field Trip to the Real World of Cap and Trade: Environmental Economics and the EPA SO2 

Allowance Auction” Journal of Economic Education, 42:4, Fall 2011. 

“Examining the Economic Impacts of Hydropower Dams on Property Values Using GIS,” (with Curtis 

Bohlen) Journal of Environmental Management. December 2009. 

“Demolish it and They will Come: Dam Removal and the Ex-post measurement of Fisheries Benefits,” 

(with Jesse Robbins (Bates ’06. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 44(6) 

December 2008. 

“Dams, Dam Removal and River Restoration: A Hedonic Property Value Analysis,” (with Curtis Bohlen 

and Sarah Wilson (Bates ’06)). Contemporary Economic Policy. April 2008. 

“Environmental Quality and Housing Market: Does Lot Size Matter?” (with G. Acharya), Marine 

Resource Economics, 21, 317-330. 2006. 

“River and Lake Restoration: Changing Landscapes – An Introduction,” Journal of Contemporary Water 

Research and Education, Issue 134, July 2006. 

“Interstate River Compacts of the West?” Water Allocation in the Southeast: New Issues, New Methods, 

New Models, (Jordan and Wolf, Eds.) University Press of Florida, 2006. 

“The Value of Water Supply Reliability in Urban Water Systems,” (with Charles W. Howe, Mark G. 

Smith, et al.) Economics of Water Resources: Institutions, Instruments and Policies for Managing 

Scarcity,(K. William Easter and Mary Renwick, Editors), Ashgate, February 2004. 

reprinted from Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 26, 19-30, 1994.

”Valuing Open Space and Land Use Chaos in Urban Watersheds: An Hedonic Property Value Analysis,” 

(with G. Acharya) Journal of Real Estate Economics and Finance.22:2/3, 221-237. 2001. 
2020

LEWIS page 5

“Interstate River Compacts: Incentives for Noncompliance,” (with C.W. Howe) Conflict Prevention and 

Resolution in Water Systems (Aaron Wolf, Ed), Edward Elgar, November 2001, reprinted from Water 

Resources Research, 34(3), 485-495, March 1998.

“Complexities with Transboundary Water Resource Management: Progress and Stumbling Blocks,” 

(Editor) Water Resources Update, 2001. 

“The Integration of Water Quality into Transboundary Allocation Agreements: Lessons from the 

Southwestern United States,” Agricultural Economics 24, 113-125, 2000. 

“Cost-Effective Control of Nitrogen Loadings in Long Island Sound,” (with S. Thorpe and A.J. Guse) 

Water Resources Research 36(12), 3711-3720, December 2000. 

“The Interstate River Compact as a Water Allocation Mechanism: Efficiency Aspects,” (with C.W. Howe 

and J.S. Shope) American Journal of Agricultural Economics, November 2000. 

“The Cost of Noncompliance: The Economic Value of Water in the Middle Arkansas Valley,” (with R. 

Naeser) Natural Resources Journal, 38(3), 445-463, Summer 1998. 

“Interstate River Compacts: Incentives for Noncompliance,” (with C.W. Howe) Water Resources 

Research, 34(3), 485-495, March 1998. 

“The Impact of Global Warming on Water Systems: Theoretical Issues,” (with R. Mendelsohn) Climatic 

Change 37, 271-290, 1997. 

Also reprinted in “Climate Change and Water Resources Planning Criteria” (Frederick, Major, and 

Stakhiv, Eds.), Kluwer, 1997. 

“Facilitating International Agreements Through an Interconnected Game Approach: The Case of River 

Basins,” (with S. Ragland and P. Yolles) Conflict and Cooperation on Trans-Boundary Water 

Resources (Just and Netanyahu, Eds.), Kluwer, 61-85, 1997. 

“The Arkansas River Compact: Integrated Watershed Management as a Means of Conflict Prevention,” 

(with R. Naeser) in Water Resources Education, Training and Practice: Opportunities for the Next 

Century (Warwick, Ed.), Symposium Proc. AWRA/UCOWR, 723-732, 1997. 

“Design and Analysis of Contingent Valuation Surveys Using the Nested Tobit Model,” (with C.W. Howe 

and B.J. Lee) Review of Economics and Statistics, 385-389, 1994. 

“The Value of Water Supply Reliability in Urban Water Systems,” (with Charles W. Howe, Mark G. 

Smith, et al.) Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 26, 19-30, 1994. 

In Prep/Working papers/Current Projects

Big Solutions Contributor at Anything but Dismal at https://www.anythingbutdismal.com/

 “The Charisma Premium: Iconic Individuals and Wildlife Values” With Christoper Costello, John Lynham 

and Leslie Richardson. 

“On-line wildlife cam viewing: the impact of the pandemic.” With Leslie Richardson. 

Special Issue Editor for IWREC on teaching environmental economics 

“Dam Removal, Hedonic Analysis and Benefit Transfer: What have we learned” with Craig Landry and 

Ben Wilson.

“2nd Stage Hedonic Analysis” with Craig Landry. 

 “Spatial variation in stated willingness to pay for river restoration” Guillermo Herrera and BoRa Kim,

In prep. 

“Dynamic land use under uncertainty and constrained choice” with Jordan Suter and Sahan T. M. 
2020

LEWIS page 6

Dissanayake draft 

Who Gives a Dam?: Taking stock of public support for river restoration” with Kathleen Bell Working 

Paper. 

Other Publications

“Live Animal Cam Viewing: Survey of Katmai National Park Bearcam Viewers 2019 and 2020.” 

With Mike Fitz, Jeffrey Skibins and Leslie Richardson.” Final Report submitted to explore.or 

“Water Quality,” in Environmental and Natural Resource Economics: An Enclyclopedia. (Timothy 

Haab and John C. Whitehead, Editors), Greenwood Press, June 2014. 

"Valuation in a bubble: hedonic modeling pre- and post-housing market collapse" (with Kevin Boyle, 

Jaren Pope and Jeffrey Zabel), Association of Environmental and Resource Economists Fall 

Newsletter, Novemer 2012. 

“Environmental Economics: It’s not an oxymoron anymore?” Newsletter of the Committee on the Status of 

Women in the Economics Profession, Spring/Summer 2010, p. 4-5. 

Instructor’s Manual to Accompany Environmental Economics and Policy, 5th Edition (T. Tietenberg 2006) 

http://www.aw-bc.com/catalog/academic/product/0,1144,0321348907-IS,00.html June 2006. 

Instructor’s Manual to Accompany Environmental and Natural Resource Economics, 7th Edition. (T. 

Tietenberg 2005), June 2005

Instructor’s Manual to Accompany Environmental Economics and Policy, 4th Edition (T. Tietenberg 2004), 

Instructor’s Manual to Accompany Environmental and Natural Resource Economics (T. Tietenberg 2002), 

January 2003. 

Instructor’s Manual to Accompany Environmental Economics and Policy (T. Tietenberg 2000), January 

2001. http://occ.awlonline.com/bookbind/pubbooks/tietenberg_eep3_awl/chapter98/deluxe.html.

“Land Use Diversity and Urban Watersheds: The Case of New Haven County,” (with G. Acharya) 

Proceedings of the 1999 W-133 resource economics meetings.

“Economic Considerations of the Restoration of a Tidal Salt Marsh: The Case of the West River,” (with M. 

Udziela) in Restoration of an Urban Salt Marsh: An Interdisciplinary Approach (David Casagrande, 

Ed.), Yale University School of Forestry and Environmental Studies Bulletin Series, No. 100, 1997. 

“Unidirectional Problems with International River Basins: A Game Theoretic Approach,” (with S. Ragland 

and P. Yolles) in Proceedings of Water: A Trigger for Conflict/Reason for Cooperation, 1996. 

“The Economics of Interstate River Compacts: Efficiency, Compliance and Climate Change,” National 

Center for Atmospheric Research, NCAR/CT-151, 1994. 

“Foreign Threats and Domestic Actions: The Case of Sanctions Against South Africa,” (with W.

H. Kaempfer, A. D. Lowenberg and H. Naci) in Justice Without Violence, (Wehr, Burgess, and 

Burgess, Eds.), Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1993. 

Completion Reports 

“Valuing Environmental Changes for Decision Making: Dam Removal and Restoration on the Penboscot 

and Kennebec Rivers,” Report Submitted to the George J. Mitchell Center for Environmental and 

Watershed Research, June 2006. 

“Effluent Trading for Quinnipiac River Nitrogen Control: Simulation Analysis,” completion report for the 

Geoffrey C. Hughes Foundation, Inc. 1999. 

“Estimating the Benefits of Decreased Nitrogen Deposition into Estuaries in the United States Due to Air 

Quality Improvements Attributable to the CAAA: A Marginal Cost and Avoided Cost Analysis,” 

completion report submitted to Industrial Economics, Inc., July 1998. 
2020

LEWIS page 7

“Estimated Impacts of Proposed Rate Increases on Residential Water Demand for Customers Served by the 

South Central Connecticut Regional Water Authority,” completion report for the South Central 

Regional Water Authority, June 1996. 

“Incorporating Public Preferences in the Optimization of Urban Water Supply Reliability: Planning 

Procedures and Survey Techniques,” (with Charles W. Howe, et al.), completion report for the U.S. 

Geological Survey, December 1991. 

“Urban Water Supply Reliability: Preferences of Managers, Elected Officials, and Water Users in Boulder, 

Colorado,” (with Charles W. Howe, et al.), Colorado Water Resources Research Institute Report No. 

158, December 1990. 

Book Review 

Review of Classic Papers In Natural Resource Economics (Gopalakrishnan, Ed.), MacMillan Press. 

Review of “Water Quantity/Quality Management and Conflict Resolution” (Dinar and Loehman, Eds.). In

The Forum. 

SELECTED CONFERENCE/SEMINAR PRESENTATIONS

Preservation Values for an Individual Animal: Does Webcam Viewing Influence Willingness to Pay for 

Conservation? With Leslie Richardson. Presented at: 

 Southern Economics Association AERE session, November 2019 

 W4133 Nonmarket Valuation Meeting, February 2020 

 AERE virtual conference June 2020 

“Hedonic Analysis, the Second Stage,” Presented at the Southern Economics Association Annual Meeting, 

November 2018. 

“Dam Removal, Hedonic Analysis and Benefit Transfer: What have we learned” W4133 Nonmarket 

Valuation Workshop. February 2018. UNH Department of Economics Seminar. April 2018. 

“Dam Removal, Hedonic Analysis and Benefit Transfer: What have we learned” W4133 Nonmarket 

Valuation Workshop. February 2018. 

“The Cost of Revenue Stability: Water Pricing During Severe Drought” with Amy Schmidt (Bates ’16). 

UCOWR annual meeting June 2017. 

“River Restoration and Hedonic Property Value Analyses: Guidance for Effective Benefit Transfer and 

Environmental Policy.” Invited Presentation. Southern Denmark University, June 2017. 

“River Restoration and Hedonic Property Value Analyses: Guidance for Effective Benefit Transfer.” 

Southern Economic Association, November 2016. 

“Spatial variation in stated willingness to pay for river restoration.” AERE annual conference. June 2015. 

“Who Gives a Dam? When Environmental Economics and Economic Hydrology Collide” Presentation for

Elmer W. Campbell Chair, February 2014. 

Panel Presentation: Participant in “What Economists Think”, Southern Economic Association Meetings 

2013. 

Willingness to Pay for Anadromous Fisheries Restoration: Distance Decay and River Reputation, with 

Lindsay Thompson (ES ’12) and Guillermo Herrera, presented at the 3rd Annual AERE conference, 

June 2013. 

Panel participation: “Hedonic Prices pre- and post- housing market bubble.” 2nd Annual AERE conference, 

Asheville, NC, June 2012. 

“Including the Public in Dam Removal Debates: Using Stated Preference Surveys,” Presentation at the 

International Water Resource Economics Consortium, Banff, Canada, June 2011. 

“Dam Removal and Benefits Transfer: If you’ve seen one, have you seen them all?” Presentation and 
2020

LEWIS page 8

Session Organizer at the World Congress of Environmental and Resource Economists, Montreal, June 

27-July2 2010. 

Invited Speaker for “The Economics for Evaluating Water/Energy Interactions for Policy,” Decision 

Center for a Desert City and Center for Environmental Economics and Sustainability, Arizona State 

University, April 2010. 

Program Committee and Moderator, Northeast Association of Agricultural and Resource Economists, June 

2010. 

NAAFE Forum, Newport, RI, May 2009. 

Invited Plenary Speaker for Goodwin-Niering Center on Conservation Biology and Environmental Studies 

Annual Environmental Symposium, “Water Scarcity and Conflict,” April 2009. Connecticut College.

“A Field Trip to the Real World: Environmental Economics and the EPA SO2Auction” Presented at the 

Southern Economics Association Meetings, November 2008. 

“Do Benefits Really Transfer? A Fish Tale Across 3 Rivers,” presented at the CU Environmental 

Economics Workshop, September 2008, and the Southern Economics Association Meetings, 

November 2008. 

“Environmental Economics: Oxymoron or the New Reality?” Faculty Symposium, Parents Weekend, 

Bates College, October 2008. 

“Hedonic Property Value Models and River Restoration, CSWEP session at the Southern Economics 

Association Annual Meetings November 2007. 

Keynote Speaker for the Global Water Project’s Annual Workshop, University of New Hampshire, 

May 2007. 

“Dams, Dam Removal and River Restoration: A Socio-economic Analysis,” Presentation at Dam Modeling 

Symposium, Washington, April 2007. 

Invited Seminar Speaker. Water Resources Research Center Seminar Series, University of Hawaii.

Presentation scheduled for March 15, 2007. 

Harward Center for Community Partnerships’ Public Works In Progress Seminar Series. Presentation 

Scheduled for February 13, 2007. 

Invited Speaker at Women in Economics Forum, University of Colorado, October 2006. 

Invited Participant for International Water Expert Consultation Workshop Vancouver, British Columbia, 

July 2006. 

Invited Participant for Panel on Building Collaboratories, Campus Compact Conference, April 2006. 

“Experimental Education for Undergraduates: Getting Non-science Students into the Field,” Panel

Discussion at the UCOWR Annual Conference, Portland, ME 2005. 

Committee on the Status of Women in the Economics Profession, Invited Mentor for Workshop, Southern 

Economics Association, November, 2005. 

Allocating Water: Economics and the Environment. Panel presentation on the Columbia River Treaty, July 

2004. 

Water Security in the 21st Century, UCOWR Annual Conference, Moderator for Plenary session, a 

breakout session and presented Warren Hall Medal award, July 2003 

University of Maine at Orono, Department of Resource Economics and Policy Seminar Series, Presented, 

“Spatial Components of Environmental Quality: Watersheds and Housing Markets, April 2003. 

Maine Rivers Conference: Invited Presentation, “The Value of Water,” Bethel, Maine, May 2002 

September 2002. Planning Committee for Integrated Transboundary Water Management, UCOWR

sponsored, 2002.

Symposium on Climate, Water and Transboundary Challenges in the Americas, UCSB, Presented 

“Climate Variability and the Interstate River Compact: When will the Compact Fail?,” July 2000. 
2020

LEWIS page 9

University of Rhode Island, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics Seminar Series.

Presented “Understanding Environmental Preferences in the New Haven Watershed,” September 

1999. 

Universities Council on Water Resources and International Water Economics Consortium annual meeting. 

Presented two papers and chaired two sessions, June 1999. 

University of New Hampshire, Department of Economics Seminar Series. Presented “Valuing Open Space 

and Land Use Chaos in Urban Watersheds: An Hedonic Property Value Analysis,” April 1999. 

Committee on the Status of Women in the Economics Profession, CCOFFE workshop, Eastern Economics 

Association annual meeting, March 1999. 

W-133 annual meeting. Presented “Land Use Diversity and Urban Watersheds: The Case of New Haven 

County,” February 1999. 

Connecticut State Legislature Opening Session. Moderated a panel on nitrogen trading programs for Long 

Island Sound. 1998 

Southern Economics Association annual meeting. Chaired a SAPPCREE session on water quality and 

presented “Cross-Media Trading Possibilities for Water Quality,” November 1998. 

Organized, hosted, and conducted workshop on Permit Trading Possibilities for Long Island Sound. 

Presented computer simulation of permit market. Yale University School of Forestry and 

Environmental Studies, October 1998. 

Universities Council on Water Resources annual meeting. Presented “The Design of Water Allocation 

Mechanisms: The Case of the Interstate River Compact,” August, 1998. 

World Congress of Environmental and Resource Economists. Joint meeting of European Association of 

Environmental and Resource Economists and Association of Environmental and Resource Economists. 

Presented, June 1998. 

Southern Economics Association annual meeting. Invited panelist for SAPPCREE session on “Teaching 

Environmental and Natural Resource Economics,” Atlanta, November, 1997. 

AWRA/UCOWR annual meeting. Presented, June 1997. 

University of Hawaii, Department of Economics Seminar Series. Presented, April 1997. 

Fifth Annual International Water and Resource Economics Consortium, Annapolis. Presented, April 1997. 

Twenty-eighth Annual Symposium on International Relations, Troubled Water: An Impending Global 

Crisis, Invited Panelist, League of Women Voters of Connecticut Education Fund and Yale University 

Center for International Area Studies, March 1997. 

European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists annual meeting, Lisbon. Presented and 

discussed paper, June 1996. 

University of Massachussetts, Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources Seminar Series, May 1996. 

Water: A Trigger for Conflict/Reason for Cooperation, Indiana University. Presented, March 1996. 

ASSA meetings, AERE session. Presented, January 1993.

TEACHING DEVELOPMENT

Short Term Course Redesign. Coastal Adaptation to Climate Change with Bev Johnson. 2018. 

Faculty Commons Training on Learning Goals. 

New course on the Economics of Tourism and Ecotourism, Short Term 2011. 

Committee on the Status of Women in the Economics Profession (CSWEP) mentor for Junior Faculty in 

Economics, Nov. 2005. 

Seminar on Reflection in the Liberal Arts participant, 2003-2004. 
2020

LEWIS page 10

Received Karl Mills Grant for interdisciplinary course development. Course entitled, Valuation: Ethics 

and Economics in Practice, with Frank Chessa, Philosophy, Summer 2001. 

CCOFFE Participant: NSF funded mentoring workshop for junior faculty. Participated as a mentee, 1999. 

Invited panelist. Teaching Environmental and Natural Resource Economics. Southern Economics 

Association annual meeting, Atlanta, 1997.
2020

LEWIS page 11

PROFESSIONAL SERVICE

Bates College

Co-Chair, College Reaccreditation, Standard 6, Teaching Learning and Scholarship, 2018-2020 

Faculty Governance Review Committee: 2019-2021 

Faculty Advisor to WE@Bates (Women in Economics group) 

Teaching and Learning Committee 2016- 

Otis Committee 2016- 

Environmental Studies Committee, 2000-present

Committee on Faculty Governance 2010-2015 (co-chair 2012-2014) 

Chair, Department of Economics, 2007-2014 

Athletics Committee, 2011-2012 

Sustainable Foods Committee 2008-2009 

College Lectures Committee, 2007-2008 

Bates Education Committee, 2005-2006 

Elected to Coordinating Committee for General Education Reform, 2004-2005 

Educational Policy Committee 2002-2004 

Mellon Fellow Faculty Sponsor, Winter 2002 

Honors Committee, 2001-2004 

Presidential Inauguration Committee, May 2002-October 2002. 

Presentation to Trustees on new interdisciplinary course and Karl Mills Grant

Association of Environmental and Resource Economists (AERE)

Board of Directors, Elected Nov 2018: 2018-2021 

Outside Bates for Other Colleges

External Reviewer – Clarement McKenna 

External Reviewer – Tenure, Trinity University 

External Reviewer – Promotion, University of Missouri 

External Review - William and Mary, Environmental Policy Program, January 2019. 

External Reviewer – Tenure review, Colorado State University. 

External Review – Environmental Studies Program, Connecticut College. March 2017. 

External Reviewer - Tenure case, Boston College, 2014 

External reviewer - Tenure case at Oberlin, September 2012

External reviewer - Promotion case at Fairfield University, September 2012 

Maine Water Conference, Chair of Student Poster Competition and Poster Judge, March 2012, 2018. 

External reviewer - Tenure case at Pomona College, Summer 2011

Universities Council of Water Resources (UCOWR)

Board of Directors, 1999-2005 

Guest Editor, Journal of Contemporary Water Research and Education, July 2006 

2005 Annual Meeting Program Chair 

2004 Annual Meeting Program Committee 

2002 Annual Meeting Organizing Committee 

Guest Editor, Water Resources Bulletin, spring 2000-2001 

Editorial Board, Water Resources Bulletin

Lead delegate, 1996-present 

Dissertation Awards Committee, 1999

Maine Audubon

Board of Directors, June 2010-2019 
2020

LEWIS page 12

Natural Resources Council of Maine (NRCM)

Board of Directors, September 2003-October 2010 

Senator George Mitchell Center for the Environment and Watershed Research, University of 

Maine

Research Advisory Board 2005-2011 

Maine Ultimate

Board of Directors. Sept 2016- 

Penobscot Science Steering Committtee

Human Dimensions Representative 

2006-2010 
2020

LEWIS page 13

Androscoggin River Valley Watershed Council

Steering Committee, 2002-2006 

Have served as Referee for:

Land Economics 

Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 

Water Resources and Economics

Marine Resource Economics 

National Science Foundation – review panel May 2013 and May 2014 

Water Resources Research

Contemporary Economic Policy 

Land Use Policy 

Journal of Economic Education 

Landscape and Urban Planning 

Journal of the American Water Resources Association 

Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 

Journal of Environmental Management 

American Journal of Agricultural Economics 

Resource and Energy Economics 

Environmental Management 

South-Western Publishing 

Dryden Press 

Natural Resources Council 

U.S. EPA

New Hampshire Sea Grant 

Delaware Sea Grant 

Industrial Economics, Inc. 

Mountain Institute 

NOAA

Professional Affiliations 

Association of Environmental and Resource Economists (AERE) 

Universities Council on Water Resources (UCOWR)

Committee on the Status of Women in the Economics Profession (CSWEP) 

Natural Resources Council of Maine (NRCM) 

Northeast Agriculture and Resource Economics Association (NAREA) 

American Economic Association (AEA) 

Community Service

Faculty Liaison/coach to Bates Women’s Ultimate Frisbee Team 2005-present. 

Faculty Liaison to Bates Men’s Lacrosse. 2007-2015. 

Volunteer for the Animal Refuge League of Greater Portland, September 2000-present. 

Volunteer Business Manager for CoolestGame2002, video project fundraising for youth ultimate.
1 

Ben Livneh, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor, Department of Civil, Environmental, and Architectural Engineering (CEAE)

Fellow, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES)

University of Colorado, Boulder 

EDUCATION

Ph.D. Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Washington, 2012 

Advisor: Dr. Dennis Lettenmaier 

M.E.Sc. Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Western Ontario, 2006 

Advisor: Dr. M. Hesham El Naggar 

B.E.Sc. Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Western Ontario, 2004 

POSITIONS HELD

2015- Assistant Professor, CEAE and CIRES Fellow, CU-Boulder. 

2014-2015 CIRES Research Scientist II, CU-Boulder. 

2013, 2014 Lecturer, CEAE, CU-Boulder. 

2013-2014 CIRES Research Scientist I, CU-Boulder. 

2012-2013 CIRES Visiting Fellow, CU-Boulder. 

2008,2010,2011 Adjunct Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Seattle University. 

2006-2012 Research Assistant, Land Surface Hydrology Group, University of Washington. 

2006 Design and CAD Engineer, Lican Developments, Windsor, ON. 

2003-2006 V.P. Sales and Engineering, Univercycle Recycling Co., Windsor, ON, Jiang Ying, China. 

2004-2006 Graduate Teaching Assistant, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of Western 

Ontario

2002 Engineer Assistant, Quality Engineering Company, Southfield, MI, USA. 

2001 Event Manager, Canada Summer Games, London, ON. 

AWARDS

2020 Young Researcher Award, Department of Civil, Environmental, and Architectural 

Engineering, University of Colorado, Boulder

2018 New (Early Career) Investigator Award in Earth Sciences, NASA

2017 Ralph E. Power Junior Faculty Enhancement Award, Oak Ridge Associated 

Universities

2012 CIRES Visiting Postdoctoral Fellowship Award. 

REFEREED JOURNAL PUBLICATIONS

Underline denotes a CU graduate student, italicized underline denotes a CU undergraduate student, and 

*asterisk denotes a CU postdoctoral scientist advised by B. Livneh. 

In my field, the order of authorship reflects degree of contribution, with the exception that in some cases the 

last author often oversees the research or is the project PI. 

As of Nov, 2019 an H-Index of 23 (Web of Knowledge), 27 (Google Scholar), with 2083 total citations 

(Web of Knowledge) and 3064 (Google Scholar). 

Abolafia-Rosenzweig, R., M. Pan, J.L. Zeng, and B. Livneh, 2021: A remotely sensed ensemble to observe 

the terrestrial water budget over major global river basins, Remote Sensing of Environment, 252, 

112191, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2020.112191. 

Abolafia-Rosenzweig, R., *A.M. Badger, E.E. Small, and B. Livneh, 2020: A Continental-scale Soil 

Evaporation Dataset Derived from Soil Moisture Active Passive Satellite Drying Rates, Scientific 

Data, 7(1), 1-10, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-020-00748-z. 
2 

Barsugli, J. J., A. Ray, B. Livneh, C. Dewes, A. Heldmyer, I. Rangwala, J. Guinnotte, and S. Torbit, 2020:

Projections of mountain snowpack loss for wolverine denning elevations in the Rocky Mountains, 

Earth’s Future, 8(10), https://doi.org/10.1029/2020EF001537.

Wang, G., C. Kirchhoff, A. Seth, J. T. Abatzoglou, B. Livneh, D. W. Pierce, L. Fomenko, and T. Ding, 

2020: Projected Changes of Precipitation Characteristics Depend on Downscaling Method and 

Training Data: the U.S. Northeast as an Example, Journal of Hydrometeorology, 1-55, 

https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-19-0275.1. 

Kumar, S., M.N. Newman, D.M., Lawrence, M-H. Lo, S. Akula, C-W., Lan, B. Livneh, and D. 

Lombardozzi, 2020: The GLACE-Hydrology Experiment: Effects of Land-Atmosphere Coupling 

on Soil, Journal of Climate, 33(15), 6511–6529, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-19-0598.1. 

Kampf, S., B. Gannon, C. Wilson, F. Saavedra, M. E. Miller, A. Heldmyer, B. Livneh, P. Nelson, and L. 

MacDonald, 2020: PEMIP: Post-fire Erosion Model Inter-comparison Project, Journal of 

Environmental Management, 268, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110704. 

Livneh, B., and *A.M. Badger, 2020: Drought less predictable under declining future snowpack, Nature 

Climate Change, 10, 452–458, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0754-8. 

Williams, A.P., E.R. Cook, J.E. Smerdon, B.I. Cook, R. Seager, J.T. Abatzoglou, K. Bolles, S.H. Baek, *A. 

Badger, and B. Livneh, 2020: Large contribution from anthropogenic warming to an emerging 

North American megadrought, Science, 368(6488), 314-318, 

https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaz9600. 

Steinberg, D., B.K. Mignone, J. Macknick, Y. Sun, K. Eurek, *Badger, A.M., B. Livneh, and K.B. Averyt, 

2020: Decomposing supply-side and demand-side impacts of climate change on the U.S. electricity 

system through 2050, Climatic Change, 158(2), 125-139, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-

02506-6. 

Abolafia‐Rosenzweig, R., Livneh, B., Small, E. E., & Kumar, S. V., 2019: Soil moisture data assimilation 

to estimate irrigation water use. Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, 11, 

https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001797. 

Hoerling, M.P., J.J. Barsugli, B. Livneh, J. Eischeid, X. Quan, and *A. M. Badger, 2019: Causes for the 

Century-Long Decline in Colorado River Flow, Journal of Climate, 32, 8181-8203, 

https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-19-0207.1. 

Kumar, S., Newman, M.N, Wang Y., and B. Livneh, 2019: Potential Reemergence of Seasonal Soil 

Moisture Anomalies in North America, Journal of Climate, 32(8), https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D18-0540.1. 

Morrill, C., E. Meador, B. Livneh, D.T. Liefert, B. N. Shuman, 2019: Quantitative model-data comparison 

of Mid-Holocene lake level change in the central Rocky Mountains, Climate Dynamics, 1-18, 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-019-04633-3. 

Fan Y., M. Clark, D. M. Lawrence, S. Swenson, L. E. Band, S. L. Brantley, P. D. Brooks, W. E. Dietrich, 

A. Flores, G. Grant, J. W. Kirchner, D. S. Mackay, J. McDonnell, P. C. D. Milly, P. L. Sullivan, C. 

Tague, H. Ajami, N. Chaney, A. Hartmann, P. Hazenberg, J. McNamara, J. Pelletier, J. Perket, E. 

Rouholahnejad-Freund, T. Wagener, X. Zeng, E. Beighley, J. Buzan, M. Huang, B Livneh, B. P. 

Mohanty, B. Nijssen, M. Safeeq, C. Shen, W. van Verseveld, J. Volk, D. Yamazaki, 2019: 

Hillslope Hydrology in Global Change Research and Earth System Modeling, Water Resources 

Research, AGU Centennial Volume on GRAND CHALLENGES IN THE EARTH AND SPACE 

SCIENCES, 55(2), 1737-1772, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018WR023903. 

Small, E.E., *A.M. Badger., R. Abolafia-Rosenzweig and B. Livneh, 2018: Estimating soil evaporation 

using drying rates determined from satellite-based soil moisture records, Remote Sensing, 10(12), 

1945; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10121945.

*Badger, A.M., B. Livneh, Hoerling, M.P., and J.K. Eischeid, 2018: Understanding the 2011 Upper 

Missouri River Basin floods in the context of a changing climate, Journal of Hydrology: Regional 

Studies, 19, 110-123, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2018.08.004. 
3 

Hein C.J., S. Gopalakrishnan, J.E. Ten Hoeve, B. Livneh, H.D. Adams, E.L. Marino, and S.C. Weiler, 

2018: Overcoming Early Career Barriers to Interdisciplinary Climate Change Research, Wiley 

Interdisciplinary Reviews Climate Change, 9(5) e530, https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.530. 

Jennings, K.S., T. Winchell, B. Livneh, and N.P. Molotch, 2018: Spatial variation of the rain-snow 

temperature threshold across the Northern Hemisphere, Nature Communications, 9(1), 1148, 

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-03629-7.

Friedrich, K., R. Grossman, J. Huntington, P. Blanken, J. Lenters, K. Holman, D. Gochis, B. Livneh, J. 

Prairie, E. Skeie, N. Healey, K. Dahm, C. Pearson, T. Finnessey, S. Hook, and T. Kowalski, 2018: 

Reservoir Evaporation in the Western United States: Current Science, Challenges, and Future 

Needs, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 99(1), 167-187, 

https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00224.1. 

Shellito, P., E. E. Small, and B. Livneh, 2018: Controls on surface soil drying rates observed by SMAP and 

simulated by the Noah land surface model, Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 22(3), 1649, 

https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-1649-2018. 

Henn, B., A.J. Newman, B. Livneh, C. Daly, and J.D. Lundquist, 2018: An assessment of differences in 

gridded precipitation datasets in complex terrain, Journal of Hydrology, 556, 1205-1219, 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.03.008. 

Marlier, M.E., M. Xiao, R. Engel, B. Livneh, J.T. Abatsoglou, and D.P. Lettenmaier, 2017: The 2015 

drought in Washington State: A harbinger of things to come? Environmental Research Letters, 12 

114008, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa8fde. 

Stewart, J.S., B. Livneh, J.R. Kasprzyk, J.T. Minear, B. Rajagopalan, and W.J. Raseman, 2017: A multialgorithm approach to land surface modeling of suspended sediment in the Colorado Front Range, 

Journal of Advances in Models Earth Systems, 9(7), 2526-2544, 

https://doi.org/10.1002/2017MS001120. 

Yanto, B. Livneh, and B. Rajagopalan, 2017: Development of a gridded meteorological dataset over Java 

island, Indonesia 1985–2014, Nature Scientific Data, 4, 170072, 

https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2017.72. 

Hallar, A.G., N.P. Molotch, J. Hand, B. Livneh, I.B. McCubbin, R. Petersen, J. Michalsky, D. Lowenthal, 

2017: Impacts of Increasing Aridity and Wildfires on Aerosol Loading in the Intermountain 

Western U.S., Environmental Research Letters, 12(1), 014006, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-

9326/aa510a. 

Houle, E.S., B. Livneh, and J.R. Kasprzyk, 2017: Exploring Snow Model Parameter Sensitivity Using 

Sobol' Variance Decomposition, Environmental Model and Software, 89, 144–158, 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2016.11.024. 

Buma, B., and B. Livneh, 2017: Key landscape and biotic indicators of watersheds sensitivity to forest 

disturbance identified using remote sensing and historical hydrography data. Environmental 

Research Letters, 12(7), 074028, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7091. 

Raseman, W. J., J.R. Kasprzyk, F.L. Rosario-Ortiz, J.R. Stewart, and B. Livneh, 2017: Emerging 

investigators series: a critical review of decision support systems for water treatment: making the 

case for incorporating climate change and climate extremes. Environmental Science: Water 

Research & Technology, 3(1), 18-36, doi.org: https://doi.org/10.1039/C6EW00121A. 

Yanto, B. Livneh, B. Rajagopalan, B., and J. R. Kasprzyk, 2017: Hydrological model application under 

data scarcity for multiple watersheds, Java Island, Indonesia. Journal of Hydrology: Regional 

Studies, 9, 127-139, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2016.09.007. 

Barnhart, T.B., N.P. Molotch, B. Livneh, A.A. Harpold, J.F. Knowles, and D. Schneider, 2016: Snowmelt 

Rate Dictates Streamflow, Geophysical Research Letters, 43, 8006–8016, 

https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL069690. 

Livneh B., and M.P. Hoerling, 2016: The Physics of Drought in the U.S. Central Great Plains. Journal of 

Climate, 29, 6783-6804, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0697.1. 
4 

Cheng L., M.P. Hoerling, A. AghaKouchak, B. Livneh, and X-W. Qian, 2016: How Has Human-Induced 

Climate Change Affected California Drought Risk?, Journal of Climate, 29, 111–120, 

https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0260.1. 

Raleigh, M.S., B. Livneh, K. Lapo and J.D. Lundquist, 2016: How does availability of meteorological 

forcing data impact physically-based snowpack simulations in different climates? Journal of 

Hydrometeorology, 17, 99–120, https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-14-0235.1. 

Mizukami N., M.P. Clark, E.D. Gutmann, P.A. Mendoza, A.J. Newman, B. Livneh, B. Nijssen, L. Hay, 

L.D. Brekke and J.R. Arnold, 2016: Implications of the methodological choices for hydrologic 

portrayals over the Contiguous United States: statistically downscaled forcing data and hydrologic 

models, Journal of Hydrometeorology 17, 73–98, https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-14-0187.1. 

Livneh B., R. Kumar, and L. Samaniego, 2015: Influence of Soil Textural Properties on Hydrologic Fluxes 

in the Mississippi River Basin, Hydrological Processes, 29, 4638–4655, 

https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.10601. 

LundquistJ.D., M. Hughes, B. Henn, E. Gutmann, and B. Livneh, J. Dozier, and P. Neiman, 2015: Highelevation precipitation patterns: using snow measurements to diagnose when and why gridded 

datasets succeed or fail across the Sierra Nevada, California, Journal of Hydrometeorology 16, 

1773–1792, https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-15-0019.1. 

Livneh B., T.J. Bohn, D.S. Pierce, F. Munoz-Ariola, B. Nijssen, R. Vose, D. Cayan, and L.D. Brekke, 

2015: A spatially comprehensive, hydrometeorological data set for Mexico, the U.S., and southern 

Canada 1950-2013, Nature Scientific Data, 2, 150042, https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2015.42. 

Funk, C., S. Shukla, A. Hoell, and B. Livneh, 2015: Assessing the contributions of East African and west 

Pacific warming to the 2014 boreal spring East African drought, Bulletin of the American 

Meteorological Society, 96(12), S77-S82, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00106.1. 

Buma B., and B. Livneh, 2015: Potential effects of forest disturbances and management on water resources 

in a warmer climate, Forest Science, http://dx.doi.org/10.5849/forsci.14-164. 

Livneh B., J.S. Deems, B. Buma, J.J. Barsugli, D. Schneider, N.P. Molotch, K. Wolter, and C.A. Wessman, 

2015: Catchment Response to Bark Beetle Outbreak and Dust-on-Snow in the Upper Colorado 

River Basin, Journal of Hydrology 523,196–210, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.01.039. 

Pal, I., E. Towler, and B. Livneh, 2015: How Can We Better Understand Low River Flows as Climate 

Changes?, Eos Opinion, AGU, 96, http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2015EO033875. (*Editor-only

reviewed) 

Livneh, B., J.S. Deems, D. Schneider, J.J. Barsugli, and N.P. Molotch, 2014: Filling in the gaps: Inferring 

spatially distributed precipitation from gauge observations over complex terrain, Water Resources 

Research, 50, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014WR015442. 

Chen F., M. Barlage , M. Tiwari , R. Rasmussen , J. Jin , D.P. Lettenmaier, B. Livneh, C. Lin , G. MichuezMacho , G-Y. Niu , L. Wen , Z-L. Yang, 2014: Modeling seasonal snowpack evolution in the 

complex terrain and forested Colorado Headwaters region: A model inter-comparison study, 

Journal of Geophysical Research, 119(13), 13,795-13,819, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JD022167. 

Kumar, S.V., C.D. Peters-Lidard, D. Mocko, Y. Liu, K. Arsenault, Y. Xia, M.B. Ek, G. Riggs, B. Livneh, 

and M., Cosh, 2014: Assimilation of passive microwave-based soil moisture and snow depth 

retrievals for drought estimation, Journal of Hydrometeorology, 15(6), 2446-2469 

https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-13-0132.1. 

Livneh B., E.A. Rosenberg, C. Lin, B. Nijssen, V. Mishra, K.M. Andreadis, E.P. Maurer, and D.P. 

Lettenmaier, 2013: A Long-Term Hydrologically Based Dataset of Land Surface Fluxes and States 

for the Conterminous United States: Update and Extensions, Journal of Climate, 26, 9384–9392, 

https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00508.1. 

Kumar, R., B. Livneh, and L. Samaniego, 2013: Towards computationally efficient large-scale hydrologic 

predictions with the multi-scale regionalization scheme, Water Resources Research, 49(9), 5700-

5714, https://doi.org/10.1002/wrcr.20431. 
5 

Xia Y., M. B. Ek, J. Sheffield, B. Livneh, H. Wei, S. Feng, L. Luo, J. Meng, and E. Wood, 2013: 

Validation of Noah-simulated Soil temperature in the North American Land Data Assimilation 

System Phase 2, Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, 52, 455–471, 

https://doi.org/10.1175/JAMC-D-12-033.1. 

Bohn, T. J., B. Livneh, J. W. Oyler, S. W. Running, B. Nijssen, and D. P. Lettenmaier, 2013: Global 

evaluation of MTCLIM and related algorithms for forcing of ecological and hydrological models, 

Agriculture Forest Meteorology, 176, 38-49, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2013.03.003. 

Livneh B., and D.P. Lettenmaier, 2013: Regional parameter estimation for the Unified Land Model, Water 

Resources Research, 49(1), 100-114, https://doi.org/10.1029/2012WR012220. 

Sheffield, J., B. Livneh, and E.F. Wood, 2012: Representation of Terrestrial Hydrology and Large Scale 

Drought of the Continental US from the North American Regional Reanalysis, Journal of 

Hydrometeorology, 13, 856–876, https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-11-065.1. 

Livneh, B. and D.P. Lettenmaier, 2012: Multi-criteria parameter estimation for the unified land model, 

Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 16, 3029-3048, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-16-3029-2012. 

Mahanama, S.P., B. Livneh, R.D. Koster, D.P. Lettenmaier, and R.H. Reichle, 2012: Soil Moisture, Snow, 

and Seasonal Streamflow Forecasts in the United States, Journal of Hydrometeorology, 13, 189-

203, https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-11-046.1. 

Xia Y., K. Mitchell, M. Ek, J. Sheffield, B. Cosgrove, L. Luo, C. Alonge, H. Wei, J. Meng, B. Livneh, D.P. 

Lettenmaier, V. Koren, Q. Duan, K. Mo, Y. Fan, and D. Mocko, 2012: Continental-scale water and 

energy flux analysis and validation for the North American Land Data Assimilation System Project 

Phase 2 (NLDAS-2), part 1: inter-comparison and application of model products, Journal of 

Geophysical Research, 117, https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JD016048. 

Xia Y., K. Mitchell, M. Ek, B. Cosgrove, J. Sheffield, L. Luo, C. Alonge, H. Wei, J. Meng, B. Livneh, Q. 

Duan, and D. Lohmann, 2012: Continental-scale water and energy flux analysis and validation for 

the North American Land Data Assimilation System Project Phase 2 (NLDAS-2), part 2: Validation 

of Model-simulated streamflow, Journal of Geophysical Research, 117, 

https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JD016051. 

Livneh, B., P.J. Restrepo, and D.P. Lettenmaier, 2011: Development of a Unified Land Model for 

prediction of surface hydrology and land-atmosphere interactions, Journal of Hydrometeorology, 

12(6), 1299-1320, https://doi.org/10.1175/2011JHM1361.1. 

Koster, R.D., S.P. Mahanama, B. Livneh, D.P. Lettenmaier, and R.H. Reichle, 2010: Skill in Streamflow 

Forecasts Derived from Large-Scale Estimates of Soil Moisture and Snow, Nature Geoscience, 

3(9), 613, https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo944. 

Livneh, B., Y. Xia, K.E. Mitchell, M.B. Ek, and D.P. Lettenmaier, 2010: Noah LSM Snow Model 

Diagnostics and Enhancements, Journal of Hydrometeorology, 11(3), 721-738, 

https://doi.org/10.1175/2009JHM1174.1. 

Barlage, M., F. Chen, M. Tewari, K. Ikeda, D. Gochis, J. Dudhia, R. Rasmussen, B. Livneh, M. Ek, and K. 

Mitchell, 2010: Noah Land Surface Model Modifications to Improve Snowpack Prediction in the 

Colorado Rocky Mountains, Journal of Geophysical Research, 115 (D22), 

https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JD013470. 

Casola, J.H., L. Cuo, B. Livneh, D.P. Lettenmaier, M. Stoelinga, P.W. Mote and J. M. Wallace, 2009: 

Assessing the Impacts of Global Warming on Snowpack in the Washington Cascades, Journal of 

Climate, 22(10), 2758-2772, https://doi.org/10.1175/2008JCLI2612.1. 

Livneh B., and M.H. El Naggar, 2008: Axial testing and numerical modeling of square shaft helical piles 

under compressive and tensile loading, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 45(8), 1142-1155, 

https://doi.org/10.1139/T08-044. 
6 

Papers in Preparation, Review, and in-Press: 

(1) Pierce, D. W., L. Su, D. R. Cayan, M.D. Risser, B. Livneh, and D.P. Lettenmaier, 2021: An 

extreme-preserving long-term gridded daily precipitation data set for the conterminous United 

States, Journal of Hydrometeorology, (in revision). 

(2) Bjarke, N.R., B. Livneh, S. Elmendorf, N. Molotch, E. Hinckley, J. Morse, N. Emery, P. Johnson, 

and K. Suding, 2021: The sensitivity of runoff generation to snowpack uniformity in an alpine 

watershed: Green Lakes Valley, Niwot Ridge Long Term Ecological Research Station, 

Hydrological Processes, (in revision).

(3) *Badger, A.M., N.R. Bjarke, N. Molotch, and B. Livneh, 2021: Catchment scale observations at 

the Niwot Ridge Long-Term Ecological Research site, Hydrological Processes, (in revision).

(4) Culler, E.S., *A.M. Badger, J.T. Minear, K.F. Tiampo, and B. Livneh, 2021: A Multi-sensor 

Evaluation of Precipitation Uncertainty for Landslide-triggering Storm Events, Hydrological 

Processes, (in revision).

(5) Hale, K.E., A.N. Wlostowski, S.P. Anderson, *A.M. Badger, K.N. Musselman, B. Livneh, and 

N.P. Molotch, 2021: Streamflow sensitivity to climate warming through the lens of surface water 

input, (in prep.).

(6) Heldmyer, A.J., B. Livneh, B. Rajagopalan, N. Molotch, and, 2021: Investigating the Relationship 

Between Peak Snow-Water Equivalent and Snow Timing Indices in the Western U.S. and Alaska, 

Water Resources Research (in revision).

(7) Heldmyer, A.J., N.R. Bjarke, and B. Livneh, 2021: A 21st century perspective on snow drought in 

the Upper Colorado River Basin, Journal of the American Water Resources Association,

(submitted).

(8) Guinotte, J., S. Torbit, B. Grizzle, J. Barsugli, A. Ray, I. Rangwala, C. Dewes, A. Heldmyer, and B. 

Livneh, 2021: Future Snow Availability in Rocky Mountain Wolverine Habitat, Journal of Wildlife 

Management and Wildlife Monographs (submitted).

(9) Culler, E.S., B. Livneh, B. Rajagopalan, and K.F. Tiampo, 2021: A data-driven evaluation of postwildfire landslide hazards, Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences (NHESS) (submitted).

(10) Brucker, C.P., B. Livneh, J.T. Minear, and F.L. Rosario-Ortiz, 2021: A Critical Review of 

Simulation Experiment Techniques used to Analyze Wildfire Effects on Water Quality and Supply, 

Water Research, (submitted).

PEER REVIEWED CHAPTERS

Conant, R.T., D. Kluck, M. Anderson, *A. Badger, B.M. Boustead, J. Derner, L. Farris, M. Hayes, B. 

Livneh, S. McNeeley, D. Peck, M. Shulski, and V. Small, 2018: Northern Great Plains. 

In Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States: Fourth National Climate Assessment, 

Volume II [Reidmiller, D.R., C.W. Avery, D.R. Easterling, K.E. Kunkel, K.L.M. Lewis, T.K. 

Maycock, and B.C. Stewart (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, 

USA, pp. 941–986. doi: 10.7930/NCA4.2018.CH22 

CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS PAPERS 

Editor reviewed:

Brucker, C.B., A.J. Heldmyer, B. Livneh, F.L. Rosario-Ortiz, and J.T. Minear, 2019: Wildfires in the 

West: Characterizing Drivers of Post-Disturbance Hydrologic and Sediment Response through 

Laboratory Analysis, Sedimentation and Hydrology Conference, June 2019 (Editor reviewed, full 

paper) 

https://www.sedhyd.org/2019/openconf/modules/request.php?module=oc_proceedings&action=v

iew.php&id=112&file=1/112.pdf&a=Accept
7 

Heldmyer, A.J. and B. Livneh, 2019: Wildfire in the West: Characterizing Spatial Trends in PostDisturbance Hydrologic and Sediment Response at the Watershed Scale, Federal Interagency 

Sedimentation and Hydrologic Modeling Conference, June 2019, (Editor reviewed, full paper) 

https://www.sedhyd.org/2019/openconf/modules/request.php?module=oc_proceedings&action=view.p

hp&id=205&file=1/205.pdf&a=Accept

Not peer-reviewed:

*Badger, A. M., B. Livneh, and N. P. Molotch, 2019: On the role of spatial snow distribution on alpine 

catchment hydrology, World Environmental and Water Resources Congress, May, pp. 215-225, 

https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/9780784482346.022 (full paper).

Heldmyer, A.J., B. Livneh, W. Farmer, J. Driscoll, and N. Molotch, 2019: Evaluating the Potential to 

Regionalize Station-Observed SWE across the Western U.S., World Environmental and Water 

Resources Congress, May 2019, https:///doi.org/10.1061/9780784482346.029 (full paper).

Bensching, L., and B. Livneh, 2018: Hydrologic Disturbance Analysis: Methods Development on the 

Missouri River Basin, an article in the Colorado Water Institute FY18 Annual, available at: 

https://issuu.com/coloradowater/docs/coloradowater_v35-i3_web. 

Livneh, B., *A.M. Badger, and J.J. Lukas, 2017: Assessing the robustness of snow-based drought 

indicators in the Upper Colorado River Basin under future climate change, World Environmental 

and Water Resources Congress, May 2017-03, p 15, https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784480618.051

(full paper).

Stewart, J.R., B. Rajagopalan, J.R. Kasprzyk, W.J. Raseman, and B. Livneh, 2017: The Use of 

Ensemble Modeling of Suspended Sediment to Characterize Uncertainty, World Environmental 

and Water Resources Congress, May 2017-03, p 15, https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784480625.019

(full paper).

Livneh, B., and J. S. Deems, 2013: "Merging Satellite and Model Information to Improve Snowpack 

and Water Supply Forecasting”, Climate Change Technology Conference, Montreal, QC, Canada, 

Paper Number 1569695429 (mini paper). 

JOURNAL AND WEB-BASED ARTICLES

Editor reviewed:

Barsugli, J. J., M. P. Hoerling, and B. Livneh, 2019: Is the recent drought on the Colorado River the 

new normal?, Eos, 100, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019EO117173. Published on 01 March 2019. 

Livneh, B., K. Friedrich, and P. D. Blanken, 2016: New interest in reservoir evaporation in western 

United States, Eos, AGU, 97, https://doi.org/10.1029/2016EO048679. Published on 23 March 

2016.

Livneh, B., E. Marino and J. E. Ten Hoeve, 2014: Emerging Ideas and Interdisciplinary Perspectives on 

Climate Change, Eos Trans. AGU, 95(7), 65, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014EO070006. 

Not peer reviewed: 

Livneh, B., and D. W. Pierce, 2016: New, Higher Resolution Climate Observations and Model 

Projections From Mexico Through Southern Canada, Knowledge Stream, USBR Research and 

Development Office Magazine: Climate Variability and Extremes, Summer 2016-03, p 17. 

Gordon, E.S., Pugh, E.T. and Livneh B., 2014: Bark Beetles: Cause for Concern in Snowy Western 

Watersheds? Utility Intelligence and Infrastructure. Ellwood Media Lab. Web. 

Ek, M. B., Xia, Y., Wood, E., Sheffield, J., Luo, L., Lettenmaier, D. P., Livneh, B., ... & Wei, H., 

2011: North American Land Data Assimilation System Phase 2 (NLDAS-2): Development and 

applications. GEWEX News, 2, 6-8. https://www.gewex.org/gewexcontent/files_mf/1432209506May2011.pdf. 

Munoz-Arriola, F., S. Shukla, T. Bohn, C. Zhu, B. Livneh, D.P. Lettenmaier, R. Lobato-Sanchez, A. 

Wagner-Gomez, 2009. Prediccion de la Hidrologia Superficial en Norte America, Resumen del 

Clima de la Frontera, Julio 13: 1-5. 
8 

INTERVIEWS AND MEDIA

Video and Televised Interviews:

Livneh, B., televised video interview conducted by Shaun Boyd on CBS Denver 4, Monster Storm Still Not 

Enough To Bring State Out Of Drought, Mar, 2021 https://denver.cbslocal.com/2021/03/15/monsterstorm-still-not-enough-to-bring-state-out-of-drought/. 

Livneh, B., video interview conducted by Daniel Grossman on Denver 7, With less moisture, experts worried 

the 2021 fire season could be as bad as 2020, Feb, 2021 

https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/national/with-less-moisture-experts-worried-the-2021-fireseason-could-be-as-bad-as-2020.

Livneh, B., televised interview conducted by Cory Reppenhagen on Denver 9 News, Scientists: Early snowmelt 

in the spring leads to higher wildfire danger, November, 2020 

https://www.9news.com/video/weather/weather-colorado/scientists-early-snowmelt-in-the-spring-leadsto-higher-wildfire-danger/73-680c386c-c6cc-4cbb-a379-a163670e44fa.

Livneh, B., televised interview conducted by Cory Reppenhagen on Denver 9 News, [2,200 views] April, 2020

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zT9UCB3sEA8

Livneh, B. and K. Jennings, Mar., televised interview conducted by Cory Reppenhagen on Denver 9 News, 

2018: http://www.9news.com/video/news/new-research-shows-that-colorado-gets-the-warmest-snow/73-

8042155

Radio Interviews: 

Livneh, B. KGNU Morning Magazine interview on the science and state of reservoir evaporation, 

January, 2016. http://www.kgnu.org/morningmag/1/1/2016. 

Other Interviews and Media:

Livneh, B. among several others, Colorado Public Radio (CPR) “Colorado’s Snowpack Was Almost Normal 

This Winter, But It May Not Be Enough Water For The Year” interview by Miguel Otárola, April, 2021: 

https://www.cpr.org/2021/04/02/colorados-snowpack-was-almost-normal-this-winter-but-it-may-not-beenough-water-for-the-year/.

Livneh, B. among several others, KUNC “When Wildfire Burns A High Mountain Forest, What Happens To 

The Snow?” interview by Luke Runyon, December, 2020: https://www.kunc.org/environment/2020-12-

31/when-wildfire-burns-a-high-mountain-forest-what-happens-to-the-snow. 

Livneh, B., November, 2020: “Drying and dying: Drought conditions plague the Pacific Northwest”, by 

Anthony Edwards, The Daily of the University of Washington 

http://www.dailyuw.com/news/scinews/article_3a378426-1d84-11eb-888c-67f5433d1c49.html. 

Livneh, B. among several others, October, 2020: “Boulder County is among nearly 40% of the state 

experiencing severe drought; communities look at ways to adapt to a drier climate”, by Kelsey Hammon, 

The Longmont Times-Call https://www.timescall.com/2020/10/03/boulder-county-is-among-nearly-40-

of-the-state-experiencing-severe-drought-communities-look-at-ways-to-adapt-to-a-drier-climate/.

Livneh, B., April, 2020: “Study: Snowpack Will Become A Less Reliable Predictor Of Drought In Western 

U.S.”, by Grace Hood, Colorado Public Radio https://www.cpr.org/2020/04/20/study-snowpack-willbecome-an-unreliable-predictor-of-drought-in-western-u-s/. 

Livneh, B., April, 2020: “Climate warming may hit Colorado River Basin farmers hardest as shrinking 

snowpack leads to less irrigation water”, by Bruce Finlay, The Denver Post 

https://www.denverpost.com/2020/04/21/colorado-river-basin-snowpack/. 

Livneh, B., April, 2020: “With shrinking snowpack, drought predictability melting away”, by Kelsey Simpkins, 

CU Boulder Today, https://www.colorado.edu/today/2020/04/20/shrinking-snowpack-droughtpredictability-melting-away. 
9 

Livneh, B. among several others, April, 2020: “Study: American Southwest faces a ‘megadrought,’ the region’s 

worst in centuries”, by Miranda Wilson, The Las Vegas Sun 

https://lasvegassun.com/news/2020/apr/28/study-american-southwest-faces-megadrought-worst/. 

Abolafia-Rosensweig, R. and B. Livneh, 2020: A GREAT WAY TO MEASURE IRRIGATION, Whiteboard 

Animation [450 views] available at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1yxz2ZpM9k&feature=emb_logo

Livneh B. and C. Brucker, “When it rains: The hidden impact of wildfire”, CU Boulder Today Oct. 2019, 

video and article available at: https://www.colorado.edu/today/2019/10/01/when-it-rains-hidden-impactwildfire?fbclid=IwAR1F-XmMiNUnGHh8mqN1NqaRhtL4Z8Yd81M_7O6A2xxvxc6C9TGYrhmR6mw. 

Livneh B. among several others, 2018: University of Colorado professors, scholars helped author federal 

climate report, Boulder Daily Camera interview on publication of the 4th National Climate Assessment, 

2018: http://www.dailycamera.com/cu-news/ci_32294222/university-colorado-professors-scholarshelped-author-federal-climate. 

Livneh, B., Mar., 2018: Inside the Greenhouse: http://www.insidethegreenhouse.org/media/ben-livneh-cires

Livneh, B., Nov., 2017: “UNL shares the consequences of climate change in Nebraska” in The Daily 

Nebraskan, Interview by Denise Munoz, http://www.dailynebraskan.com/news/unl-shares-theconsequences-of-climate-change-in-nebraska/article_1d7dc04e-c2a5-11e7-86b5-

17e34615c6e6.html

Livneh, B. “West's water reservoir managers face big losses from evaporation”. Interview by Bruce 

Finlay The Denver Post, December, 2015. http://www.denverpost.com/2015/12/29/wests-waterreservoir-managers-face-big-losses-from-evaporation/. 

Livneh, B. “More water flowing from bark beetle infested watersheds”. Interview by J. Gilles. 

Environmental Monitor, March, 2015. http://www.fondriest.com/news/more-water-flowing-frombark-beetle-infested-watersheds.htm. 

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS

Kasprzyk, J.R., J.R. Stewart, A.J. Heldmyer, K. Reeves, W. Raseman, R. Balaji, R.S. Summers, F. 

Rosario-Ortiz, and B. Livneh, 2019: An Integrated Modeling and Decision Framework to 

Evaluate Adaptation Strategies for Sustainable Drinking Water Utility Management Under

Drought and Climate Change, Water Research Foundation, Nov 2019, available at: 

https://www.waterrf.org/system/files/resource/2019-10/DRPT-4636.pdf 

Ray, Andrea J., Barsugli, Joseph J. Jr., Livneh, Ben, Dewes, Candida F., Rangwala, Imtiaz, Heldmyer, 

Aaron, Stewart, Jenna. 2017. Future snow persistence in Rocky Mountain and Glacier National 

Parks: An analysis to inform the USFWS Wolverine Species Status Assessment. NOAA Report 

to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 101pp. Available at: 

https://psl.noaa.gov/assessments/pdf/noaa-future-snow-persistence-report-2017.pdf. 

Livneh, B., M.P. Hoerling, *A.M. Badger, and J. Eischeid, 2016: Causes for Hydrologic Extremes in 

the Upper Missouri River Basin, NOAA Climate Assessment Report, July 2016, available at: 

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/csi/factsheets/pdf/mrb-climate-assessment-reporthydroextremes_2016.pdf

Downscaled CMIP3 and CMIP5 Climate Projections – Addendum Release of Downscaled CMIP5 

Climate Projections (LOCA) and Comparison with Preceding Information, July 2016. 

Severe Flooding on the Colorado Front Range, September 2013, Lukas J., ..., Livneh B., et al., 2013, 

Western Water Assessment Report, http://wwa.colorado.edu/resources/front-rangefloods/assessment.pdf?album=1&pid=43#top_display_media. 

Online Lectures:

Livneh, B. “Groundwater Resources in the Western U.S.” Coursera, Water in the Western U.S., Video 

Lecture, 2015. https://www.coursera.org/course/waterwestus. 
10 

PUBLIC DATASETS 

1. Heldmyer, A.J.; and Livneh, Ben (2021), “Annual Snow Timing Index Rasters for the Western US 

and Alaska, WY2001-2019”, Zenodo, http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4327643. 

2. Abolafia-Rosenzweig, Ronnie; *Badger, Andrew; Small, Eric; Livneh, Ben (2020), “E-SMAP: 

Evaporation-Soil Moisture Active Passive”, Mendeley Data, V1, 

http://dx.doi.org/10.17632/ffw8zbdmpm.2. 

3. Abolafia-Rosenzweig, Ronnie; Livneh, Ben (2020), “Remotely sensed ensemble of the water 

cycle”, Mendeley Data, v2, http://dx.doi.org/10.17632/r24rdxt73j.2.

4. Jennings K.S., Winchell T.S., Livneh B, Molotch N.P. (2018) Data from: Spatial variation of the 

rain-snow temperature threshold across the Northern Hemisphere. Dryad Digital Repository. 

https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.c9h35. 

5. Luce, C. H., Lute, A. C. Kormos, P., and Livneh, B. (2017). Modeled historical streamflow metrics 

for the contiguous United States and National Forest Lands. Fort Collins, CO: Forest Service Research 

Data Archive. https://doi.org/10.2737/RDS-2017-0046.

6. Yanto, Livneh B, Rajagopalan B, (2017) Development of a gridded meteorological data set over 

the Java island, Indonesia 1985-2014, http://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.36rs0 (Date Published: May 22, 

2017). 

7. Livneh, Ben; Bohn, Theodore J.; Pierce, David W.; Muñoz-Arriola, Francisco; Nijssen, Bart; Vose, 

Russell; Cayan, Daniel R.; Brekke, Levi (2016) A spatially comprehensive, hydrologic model-based 

data set for Mexico, the U.S., and southern Canada, 1950-2013,. NOAA National Centers for 

Environmental Information. Dataset. https://doi.org/10.7289/v5qz27zg. 

PUBLICLY AVAILABLE CODE 

Livneh, B., and A.M. Badger, 2020: Release of essential processing scripts and companion geospatial files

to calculate and evaluate changes in ETS, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3630827. 

FUNDING (Grants based at CU-Boulder, unless otherwise specified)

Awards with B. Livneh as Lead-PI:

North Central Climate Adaptation and Science Center (NCCASC) (Duration: 7/1/2021-6/30/2023) 

$249,973 Estimation of future high-mountain snowpack to inform terrestrial and aquatic 

species status assessments, recovery plans, and monitoring

Research PI: Ben Livneh, Institutional PI: Jennifer Balch

NOAA Climate Program Office. Modeling, Analysis, Predictions, and Projections (MAPP) (Duration: 

9/2020 - 8/2023) 

$508,951 Identifying alternatives to snow-based streamflow predictions to advance future 

drought predictability. 

PI: Livneh B. Co-PI: Benet Duncan, Joseph Kasprzyk. 

National Science Foundation. Dynamics of Coupled Natural Human Systems (CNH2-S) (Duration: 

8/2020 - 8/2023) 

$743,315 Water-mediated coupling of natural-human systems: drought and water allocation 

across spatial scales. 

PI: Livneh B. Co-PI: Eric Small (CU-Bouloder), Jared Carbone (Colorado School 

of Mines), Cameron Wobus (Lynker Technologies). 

CU Boulder Earthlab Ideas Collider (June 2020) 

$8,000 Projecting Rocky Mountain Snow Persistence and Depth Under Climate Change
11 

PI: Ben Livneh; Co-PI: Robin O’Malley (USGS, North Central Climate Adaptation and Science 

Center), Aparna Bamzai-Dodson (USGS, NC CASC).

CIRES Innovative Research Program Program (Duration: 9/2018 - 12/2019) 

$24,980 A terrestrial simulator of wildfire impacts on watersheds across the western U.S. 

PI: Livneh B.

Niwot Ridge Long Term Ecological Research (LTER-NSF) (Duration: 5/2018 - 5/2019) 

$18,664 Catchment Integration of Sensor Array Observations to Understand Hydrologic 

Connectivity 

PI: Livneh B.

NASA New (Early Career) Investigator Program (Duration: 3/2018 - 3/2021) 

$269,754 REESEN: A Remotely Sensed Ensemble to Understand Human Impacts on the 

Water Cycle. 

PI: Livneh B.

College of Engineering Water-Energy Nexus Interdisciplinary Research Theme (Duration: 3/2018 - 

5/2019) 

$14,001 Toward water and energy security via improved characterization of reservoir 

sedimentation. 

PI: Livneh B. Co-PI: J.R. Kasprzyk.

ORAU Ralph E. Power Junior Faculty Enhancement Award (Duration: 6/2017 - 5/2018) 

$5,000 Livneh B. PI. $5,000 matching funds from CIRES.

Niwot Ridge Long Term Ecological Research (LTER-NSF) (Duration: 5/2017 - 5/2018) 

$31,500 Catchment Integration of Sensor Array Observations to Understand Hydrologic 

Connectivity 

PI: Livneh B.

NASA Research Opportunities in Space and Earth Science (Duration: 8/2016 - 8/2019) 

$293,288 Monitoring soil evaporation using SMAP surface soil moisture in a water balance 

framework. 

PI: Livneh B.; Co-PI: E. Small.

NOAA Climate Program Office. The Sectoral Applications Research Program (Duration: 7/2016 - 

6/2019) 

$286,368 Advancing the use of drought early warning systems in the Upper Colorado River 

Basin. 

PI: Livneh B; Co-PIs: L. Dilling, W. Travis.

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Duration: 10/2014 - 5/2015) 

$59,986 High-resolution meteorological and hydrologic data extension to trans-boundary 

basins in southern Canada and northern Mexico. 

PI: Livneh B. 

Awards with B. Livneh as Co-PI:
12 

NASA Early Stage Innovations (ESI) program (Duration: 1/21/2021 – 12/31/2023) 

$521,215 Studying the impact of water storage changes on earthquake seismicity using 

GRACE data. 

PI: Kristy Tiampo; Co-PI: Steve Nerem, Livneh B. CU-portion: $521,215. 

NOAA Climate Program Office. Modeling, Analysis, Predictions, and Projections (MAPP) (Duration: 

9/2019 - 8/2021) 

$315,612 Physically-Based Evaluation of CMIP6 Hydrologic Projections for the Western 

United States Grant. 

PI: Joseph Barsugli; Co-PI: Livneh B. CU-portion: $178,196. 

Colorado Water Institute (Duration: 7/2019 - 6/2020) 

$50,000 Streamflow estimation in Colorado ungauged basins 

PI: S. Kampf (CSU); Co-PIs: Livneh B., G. Richard (Fort Lewis College), A. 

Bhaskar (CSU), J. Sholtes (Colorado Mesa University). CU portion: $13,511.

NOAA Climate Program Office. Joint Technology Transfer Initiative (JTTI) (Duration: 10/2018 - 

9/2020) 

$468,833 Calibration of Channel Properties to Improve Streamflow Estimates in the 

National Water Model. 

PI: Toby Minear; Co-PI: Livneh B. 

Center for Water, Earth Science and Technology (CWEST CU-Boulder) (Duration: 9/2018 - 8/2019) 

$6,000 A new approach for spatial SWE Mapping: applications improve snowmelt 

representation in the National Hydrologic Model. 

Funding awarded to PhD student Aaron Heldmyer, Livneh B. Graduate 

Advisor. 

Colorado Water Institute (Duration: 7/2018 - 6/2019) 

$49,963 Streamflow estimation in Colorado ungauged basins. 

PI: S. Kampf (CSU); Co-PIs: Livneh B., G. Richard (Fort Lewis College), A. 

Bhaskar (CSU), J. Sholtes (Colorado Mesa University. CU portion: $13,591.

NASA Research Opportunities in Space and Earth Science (Duration: 6/2017 - 7/2021) 

$989,449 The Interaction of Mass Movements with Natural Hazards Under Changing 

Hydrologic Conditions 

PI: K. Tiampo; Co-PIs: Livneh B., J.T. Minear, M. Willis.

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Duration: 5/2017 - 4/2018) 

$30,000 Reservoir Sediment Prediction over the Western U.S.. 

PI: B. Greimann (USBR); Co-PI: Livneh B., CU portion: $20,000. 

Colorado Water Institute (Duration: 3/2017 - 2/2018) 

$4,999 Diagnosing the Role of External Forcings on Streamflow Variability. 

Funding awarded to MS student Leah Bensching, Livneh B. Graduate 

Advisor. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Duration: 7/2016 - 3/2018) 
13 

$130,000 Wolverine Climate Change Snow Refugia Study. 

Lead-PI: J. Barsugli (NOAA/CIRES); Co-PI: Livneh B. CU portion: $69,927. 

Environmental Protection Agency (Duration: 9/2015 - 8/2018) 

$1,250,000 An integrated modeling and decision framework to evaluate adaptation strategies 

for sustainable drinking water utility management under drought and climate 

change. 

PI: B. Rajagopalan; Co-PI: R.S. Summers, B. Livneh, J. Kasprzyk, F. RosarioOrtiz.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, NWD MRBWM (Duration: 10/2015 - 7/2016) 

$146,500 Assessing Causes of Hydrologic Climate Extremes in the Upper Missouri Basin. 

PI: M. Hoerling (NOAA); Co-PI: Livneh B.

NOAA, Regional Integrated Science Assessment (Duration 2015-2019) 

$4,084,000 Western Water Assessment: Building Climate Resilience By Design. 

Lead-PI: L. Dilling; Co-PIs: W. Travis, N. Molotch, J. Barsugli, Livneh B. 

National Aeronautical and Space Administration, Jet Propulsion Laboratory (2/2015 – 6/2015) 

$28,562 Observing System Synthetic Experiment (OSSE) Project: Quantify the utility of 

airborne LiDar surveys of snow information on improving hydrologic forecasts. 

Subcontractor/Lead-PI: Livneh B.

TEACHING

At the University of Colorado Boulder (Assistant Professor)

CVEN 4333 Engineering Hydrology (undergraduate) 

CVEN 5363 Modeling Hydrologic Systems (graduate) 

At Seattle University (Adjunct Professor): 

Applied Hydraulics (undergraduate). 

Fluid Mechanics Laboratory (undergraduate). 

Other teaching: 

COMET-MetEd: Sedimentation Impacts Under Climate Change (SIUCC) Virtual Course, UCAR, 2016 

(Lead-Instructor) 

Water in the Western U.S. Coursera Online Course, 2015 (Lead-Instructor for the Groundwater 

module). 

STUDENT ADVISING AND COMMITTEES 

Active Advisees (B. Livneh primary advisor unless stated otherwise): 

Aaron Heldmyer (Ph.D. CEAE), began 2016, comprehensive exam 2020. 

Elsa Culler (Ph.D. CEAE) began, 2017, comprehensive exam 2020. 

Carli Brucker (Ph.D. CEAE, 2018-). 

Nels Bjarke (Ph.D., CEAE, 2019-).

Melanie Holland (MS Report Option, 2020; Ph.D. co-advised with E. Thomas) 

Parthkumar Modi (Ph.D., CEAE, 2020-).
14 

Supervisees (B. Livneh primary advisor unless stated otherwise): 

Fangfang Yao (Postdoc., CIRES, 2020-) 

Andrew Badger (Postdoc., CIRES, 2015-2019) 

Javier Cepeda (Associate Scientist, CIRES, 2018-2019) 

Past Advisees (B. Livneh primary advisor unless stated otherwise): 

Ronnie Abolafia-Rosenzweig (Ph.D. CEAE, graduated Fall 2020). 

Stephanie Redfern (Ph.D., ATOC, temporary advisor, Fall 2017).

Mas Yanto (Ph.D., CEAE, Co-advised with Prof. Balaji, graduated Spring 2016) 

Michelle O’Donnell (MS CEAE, graduated Summer 2020). 

Leah Bensching (MS, CEAE, graduated Spring 2019) 

Jenna Stewart (MS, CEAE graduated Spring 2017) 

Elizabeth Houle (MS, CEAE, Co-advised with Prof Kasprzyk, graduated Spring 2015) 

Undergraduate Research Advising (B. Livneh primary advisor unless stated otherwise): 

Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program (UROP) 

2019: Rollin Jones (CEAE), Clair Butler (CEAE) 

College of Engineering Discovery Learning Apprenticeship 

2020-2021: Cole Pradiges (CEAE), Sarah Lundell (Computer Science) 

2019-2020: Yuexuan Meng (CEAE), Jun Lin Zeng (CEAE) 

Other undergraduate advising

CEAE: Abbey Turner (2020), Casey Bangs (2018), Yashwanth Kumar (2017 Summer research, visiting 

from India Institute of Technology Gandhinagar). 

ENVS: Baxter Wilson (Primary Advisor, 2016). 

GEOG: Michal Fagrelius (Honors Committee, 2013). 

GEOL: Brielle Kissack (2016 Summer research).

Research Experiences for Community College Students (RECCS, NSF-funded): Alex Brunson (2019).

Undergraduate General Advising: 

CEAE: Ryan Martin, Haoyu Nie, Bailey Vigil, Jack Costello, Kayla Hoag, Ginger Lucas, Benjamin 

Simon. 

Doctoral Committee (Excludes students whom I primarily advise or co-advise): 

CEAE: Benjamin Abel, Kelsey Reeves, Brian Straight, Sarah Baker, Mas Yanto, Andrew Verdin, 

Cameron Bracken, Daniel Broman, Srijita Jana, Adam Wlostowski; 

Aerospace Engineering: Michael Croteau; 

GEOG: Dominik Schneider, Theodore Barnhart, Keith Jennings, Qinghuan Zhang, Kehan Yang; 

GEOL: Hannah Bonner, Peter Shellito, Thomas Enzminger, Claudia Corona. 

ATOC: Richard Bateman*, Brian Rainwater, William Frey, Eric Keenan.

ENVS: Christa Torrens.

CU-Denver, Civil Engineering: Maryam Poshtiri

Masters Committee (Thesis option, unless otherwise stated): 

CEAE: Colleen Wilson, Taylor Winchell, Timothy Clarkin, Erin Jenkins, Brennan Middleton (nonthesis MS), Trisha Shrum (report-based MS), Conor Felletter (report-based MS); 

GEOL: Emily Carbone; 
15 

EBIO: Eric Gordon; 

APPM: Gregory Benton. 

Doctoral Preliminary Exam Committee: 

CEAE: Rebecca Smith, Kelsey Reeves, Alvaro Ossandon, Benjamin Abel. 

Mentoring

2020-2021 CIRES Mentoring Program 

2020 College of Engineering and Applied Science First-Year Under-Represented Minorities Mentoring 

2019-2020 AGU Mentoring365 

2013-2015 Mentor, Faculty Mentoring Students Program, CU-Boulder.

STUDENT AWARDS

Leah Bensching: $4,999, Colorado Water Institute: “Diagnosing the Role of External Forcings on 

Streamflow Variability”. March, 2017.

Aaron Heldmyer: $8,781, Center for Water, Earth Science and Technology Fellowship: “A new

approach for spatial SWE Mapping: applications improve snowmelt representation in the National 

Hydrologic Model”. June 2018. 

Carli Brucker: Hydrologic Sciences Symposium: Best Student Presentation: “Simulator of Wildfire 

Impacts on Watersheds across the Western U.S.” April 2019. 

Michelle O’Donnell: NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Program: April, 2019.

SERVICE

2021 Senior editorial board member, Scientific Data (Nature) 

2020 Lead Panelist, NASA Postdoctoral Program (NPP) [panel held virtually, Dec. 18, 2020].

2020 Mentor, College of Engineering and Applied Science First-Year Under-Represented 

Minorities Mentoring Program, University of Colorado Boulder

2020 Co-organizer, Collider workshop on future snowpack: Projecting Rocky Mountain Snow 

Persistence and Depth Under Climate Change, Jun. 2020, CU-BOulder 

2020 Lead Panelist, NASA Postdoctoral Program (NPP) [panel held virtually, Aug. 20, 2020].

2020 Lead-organizer and Guest Associate Editor of special collection in the journal Earth’s Future

titled CMIP6: Trends, Interactions, Evaluation, and Impacts 

2020 Lead Panelist, NASA Postdoctoral Program (NPP) [panel held virtually, Apr. 23, 2020].

2020 - Faculty Representative for the University of Colorado Boulder, Consortium of Universities 

for the Advancement of Hydrologic Science

2020 - Ecohydrology Technical Committee Member, Hydrology Section, American Geophysical 

Union 

2019 - Lead, NOAA-funded CMIP6 Task Force 

2019 - Mentor, Mentoring 365 Live, American Geophysical Union

2018 Co-organizer, Workshop on Colorado River Drought: The New Normal, Sep. 2018, NOAAESRL

2018 - 2020 Uncertainty Technical Committee Member, Hydrology Section, American Geophysical 

Union 
16 

2018 Co-organizer, Workshop on Drought Early Warning Systems, Aug. 2018, Glenwood Spgs, 

CO

2017 - 2021 Editorial Board Member, Scientific Data (Nature) 

2017 - 2018 Co-Author, 4th National Climate Assessment, Northern Great Plains Chapter

2017 - Associate Editor, Journal of Hydrometeorology

2017 - Surface Water Hydrology Technical Committee, Water Resources Division, ASCE

2016 - 2019 Associate Editor, Journal of the American Water Resources Association 

2015 Co-organizer, Reservoir Evaporation Workshop, Oct. 2015, CU Boulder 

2015 Science-lead, Climate Change and Water Working Group, Aug. 2015 Seattle 

2014 - Annual speaker, International English Center, Go English Program, CU-Boulder 

2014 - NASA User Working Group, Distributed Active Archive Center (DAAC) at NSIDC. 

2014 Contributor: Water Programming Blog (http://waterprogramming.wordpress.com/) 

2013-2015 Mentor, Faculty Mentoring Students Program, CU-Boulder. 

2013 Resource Speaker, Water Education Foundation: Lower Colorado River Tour. 

2013-2020 Lead Session Convener, American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting, San Francisco, CA. 

2013 Symposium Scholar, DISCCRS VIII: Dissertations Initiative for the Advancement of Climate 

Change Research

WORKSHOPS ORGANIZED

Livneh B., lead-PI of workshop grant: co-organized with Robin O’Malley, Alisa Wade, and Aparana 

Bamzai-Dodson, Video-enabled remote workshop, June, 2020: Projecting Rocky Mountain Snow 

Persistence and Depth Under Climate Change, Earthlab Ideas Collider, Boulder, CO. 

Goals: Bring state, federal and tribal land and resource managers in the region together with university 

researchers to identify snow modeling and snowpack tool needs to support habitat assessment and 

planning. 

Link: https://www.usgs.gov/center-news/snow-collider-workshop-held-improve-projections-future-snownorth-central-us

Livneh B., co-organized with Martin Hoerling and Joseph Barsugli, Boulder Colorado, September, 2018: 

Colorado River Drought—The New Normal? National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Earth 

Science Research Laboratory (NOAA-ESRL), Boulder, CO. 

Goals: Is the recent drought on the Colorado River “the new normal”? A Workshop on understanding the 

causes of the historical changes in flow of the Colorado River. 

Livneh B., co-organized with the Western Water Assessment, Glenwood Springs Colorado, August, 2018: 

Advancing Drought Early Warning in the Early Warning in the Upper Colorado River Basin. Colorado 

River District, Glenwood Springs, CO. 

Goals: Connecting physical and social science findings with regional water managers. Focus on decisions 

surrounding drought management and the implications of changing snowpack for water supply 

forecasting. 

Livneh B., co-organized with CU faculty, Katja Friedrich and Peter Blanken, University of Colorado, 

Boulder, October, 2015, Reservoir Evaporation Workshop. 

Goals: Bring together national and state agencies with university scientists to define the state of the science 

and identify key needs. 

REVIEWING

Panelist for proposal review 

Panelist NASA Cyclone Global Navigation Satellite System (CYGNSS), held virtually, February 2021. 
17 

Lead Panelist NASA Postdoctoral Program (NPP), virtual panels held April 2020, August 2020, 

December 2020.

Panelist NASA Terrestrial Hydrology Program (THP), Silver Spring MD, November 2017. 

Proposal review

U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) Partnerships for Enhanced Engagement in 

Research (PEER) Program (2020) 

National Science Foundation (NSF) Hydrological Sciences Program: proposal reviewer (2015, 2018, 

2020) 

National Environment Research Council (NERC, UK): proposal reviewer (2014) 

NOAA: Internal reviewer (2015) 

NASA Postdoctoral Program (NPP) reviewer (2015-) 

NASA Graduate Fellowships (NESSF) reviewer (2017)

NASA Established Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) reviewer (2020) 

Nebraska Research Initiative (NRI) reviewer (2017) 

US Bureau of Reclamation (S&T Program) reviewer (2015-) 

US-Israel Binational Science Foundation: proposal reviewer (2014) 

Journal reviewer: 

Climatic Change, Climate Dynamics, Cold Regions Science and Technology, Earth’s Future, 

Ecohydrology, Earth Interactions, Environmental Modeling and Software, Environmental Research 

Letters, Geophysical Model Development, Geophysical Research Letters, Hydrologic Processes, 

Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, International Journal of Climatology, Journal of Climate, 

Journal of Geophysical Research, Journal of Hydrology, Journal of Hydrometeorology, Journal of the 

Atmospheric Sciences, Journal of Water Resource Planning and Management, Monthly Weather 

Review, Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, Nature Climate Change, Nature Partner Journals 

Climate and Atmospheric Science, Nature Scientific Data, Nature Scientific Reports, Science of the 

Total Environment, Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, Water, Water Resources 

Research. 

Reports: California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment (2018). 

Convened Conference Sessions: 

Livneh B., and S. Shukla, American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, held virtually, Dec. 2020: 

Advances in Quantifying Impacts and Extents of Land Use/Land Cover Change in Hydrology I 

Posters: Oral H094, Posters H083. 

Livneh B., S. Shukla, N. Zegre, and C. Mohr, American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, San 

Francisco, CA, Dec. 2019: Advances in Quantifying Impacts and Extents of Land Use/Land 

Cover Change in Hydrology I Posters: Oral H11B, H12C, Posters H13K. 

Livneh B., and S. Shukla, American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, Washington, DC, Dec. 2018: 

Advances in Quantifying Impacts and Extents of Land Use/Land Cover Change in Hydrology I 

Posters: Oral H21A, Posters H11J. 

Livneh B., S. Zipper, S. Shukla, and L. Condon, American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, New 

Orleans, LA, Dec. 2017: Understanding the Extent and Impacts of Land-Use/Land-Cover and 

Climate Change on Water Resources: Oral H42H, Posters H42J. 

Livneh B., N. Montaldo, S. Shukla, and G. Vico, American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, San 

Francisco, CA, Dec. 2016: Understanding the Extent and Impacts of Land-Use/Land-Cover and 

Climate Change on Ecohydrology: Oral H33R, Posters H33G. 
18 

Livneh B., S. Shukla, A.A. Harpold and S. Kumar, American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, San 

Francisco, CA, Dec. 2015: Understanding the Extent and Impacts of Land Use/Land Cover 

Change on Hydrology: Oral H13S, Posters H11I. 

Livneh B., S. Shukla, and A. Gaughan, and B. Buma, American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, San 

Francisco, CA, Dec. 2014: Understanding the Extent and Impacts of Land Use/Land Cover 

Change on Hydrology: Oral H51T, Posters H53E. 

Livneh B., S. Archfield, and R. Kumar, and R. Singh, American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, San 

Francisco, CA, Dec. 2013: Regional Hydroclimatic Observations, Patterns, Changes, and 

Implications for Modeling: Oral H32E, Posters H33G. 

2013 Co-chair of Symposium Steering Committee, CU-Boulder Hydrologic Sciences Program. 

INVITED PANELIST

Pacific Northwest Drought Early Warning System 2020 Drought and Climate Outlook, held virtually, 

Dec. 2020. Panelists: John Abatzoglou, Andrea Bair, Daniel Leavell, Bart Nijssen, and Ben

Livneh. 

Oregon-Washington Water Year 2020 Recap and 2021 Outlook Meeting, held virtually, Oct. 2020. 

Panelists: Kirby Cook, Ben Livneh, Jeff Marti, Steve Jilk, Kelsey Jensco, Guillaume Mauger, 

Steve King, and Bart Nijssen. 

Wyoming Fish and Game Department Climate Workshop, held virtually, Apr 2020. Panelists: Bryan 

Shuman, Imtiaz Rangwala, Ben Livneh, Annika Walters, Molly Cross, Patrick Donnelly. 

The Future of Skiing: The Science Behind Snow, Arapahoe Basin Ski Area, Dillon, CO, Apr 2018. 

Panelists: Jennifer Kay, Marca Hagenstad, Lindsay Bourgoine. 

State-of-the-art Uncertainty Analysis in Hydroclimate Modeling, World Environmental and Water 

Resources Congress, Sacramento, CA, May 2017. Panelists: Jery Stedinger, Soroosh Sorooshian, 

Ben Livneh, Paul Bloch.

Updating the National-scale Water Balance for Chile: Experts Workshop, Universidad de Chile, 

Santiago, Chile, Mar 2017. Panelists: John Pomeroy, Scott Tyler, Ben Livneh, Graham Fogg. 

Downscaling climate and hydrology data, Climate Change and Water Working Group (CCAWWG), 

Seattle, WA, Aug 2015. Panelists: Martyn Clark, Ben Livneh, Bart Nijssen.

Strengths, Weaknesses, and Motivations for Creating a Large-Scale Hydrologically Consistent Dataset, 

Workshop on Quantitative Evaluation of Downscaled Data, National Centers for Atmospheric 

Research (NCAR), Aug 2013.

INVITED TALKS

Livneh, B. (Invited), Niwot Ridge and City of Boulder Water and Climate Summit, held virtually, Feb. 

2021: Alternatives to Snow-Based Prediction of Seasonal Water Supply. 

Livneh, B. (Invited), American Meteorological Society Annual Meeting, held virtually, Jan. 2021: Joint 

11.2 The Resilience of Computational Approaches for Future Water Supply Predictions in 

California. 

Livneh, B. (Invited), Pacific Northwest Drought Early Warning System 2020 Drought and Climate 

Outlook, held virtually, Dec. 2020: Identifying Alternatives to Snow-based Streamflow 

Predictions to Advance Future Drought Predictability. 

Livneh, B. (Invited), Oregon-Washington Water Year 2020 Recap & 2021 Outlook Meeting, held 

virtually, Oct. 2020: Future Changes in Drought Predictability in the Western U.S. 

Livneh, B. (Invited), North Central Climate Adaptation Science Center (NC CASC), Snow Collider, 

Projecting Rocky Mountain Snow Persistence and Depth Under Climate Change Workshop, held 

virtually, Jun. 2020: Recent experiences in modeling mountain snow in the western U.S. 

Livneh, B. and N.R. Bjarke (Invited), Wyoming Fish and Game Department Climate Workshop, held 

virtually, Apr. 2020: Climate change impacts on Wyoming Streamflow and Snowpack. 
19 

Livneh, B (Invited), Colorado School of Mines, Economics-Business Seminar Series, Golden, CO., 

Sep. 2019: Predicting the fate of our water: A look at the changing roles of snow and forests for 

water supply prediction. 

Livneh, B (Invited), Texas Water Development Board Meeting, Austin, TX, Feb. 2019: Estimating 

reservoir evaporation: Evaluating current and future practices and research-to-operations 

pathways. 

Livneh, B. (Invited), American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, Washington, DC, Dec. 2018: H12H22 What makes watersheds sensitive to forest disturbance? 

Livneh B. (Invited), Princeton University, Princeton NJ, July 2018: Understanding Natural and 

Anthropogenic Impacts on the Water Cycle through Analysis of Soil Moisture and Snowpack.

Livneh B. (Invited), NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, College Park, MD, July 2018: Using Soil 

Moisture and Snowpack Variability to Predict Variations in the Water Cycle. 

Livneh B. (Invited), National Centers for Environmental Prediction, Environmental Modeling Center, 

College Park, MD, July 2018: Hydrologic Prediction through Changes in Soil Moisture and 

Snowpack: Estimating Natural and Anthropogenic Fluxes. [Video: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvFH7xWAeJE] 

Livneh, B. (Invited), The Future of Skiing: The Science Behind Snow, Arapahoe Basin Ski Area, 

Dillon, CO. Apr., 2018: The importance of Snowpack on Water Resources in the Upper Colorado 

River Basin. 

Livneh, B. (Invited), Rocky Mountain National Park Science Symposium, Continental Divide Research 

Learning Center, Mar., 2018: Assessing the impacts of land-cover changes and snowpack 

changes on hydrology in the western U.S. 

Livneh, B. (Invited), A.M. Badger, J.J. Lukas, L. Dilling, and R. Page, American Geophysical Union 

Fall Meeting, New Orleans, LA, Dec. 2017: H14H-01 Characterizing Drought Risk Management 

and Assessing the Robustness of Snowpack-based Drought Indicators in the Upper Colorado 

River Basin.

Livneh, B. (Invited), University of Nebraska, School of Natural Resources, Fall Seminar Series: Our 

Natural Resources in a Changing Environment Oct., 2017: The Role of Climate on Hydrologic 

Extremes in the Northern Great Plains Region: Updates from the National Climate Assessment

[Video: https://mediahub.unl.edu/media/8608]. 

Livneh, B. (Invited), Updating the National-scale Water Balance for Chile: Experts Workshop, 

Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile, Mar 2017: Continental-scale Hydrometeorology: 

Application to an Extreme Hydrologic Event. 

Livneh, B. (Invited), Frontiers in Geosciences Lecture, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, 

NM, Feb 2017: Watershed Response to Hydrologic Disturbances: Local, Regional, and National 

Perspectives. 

Livneh B. (Invited), Missouri River Basin Federal Climate Collaboration Webinar, Aug., 2016: 

Hydrologic Extremes in the Upper Missouri Basin and Central Great Plains.

Livneh B. (Invited), United States Geological Survey, Lakewood, CO, June, 2016: Modeling 

Watershed Response to Hydrologic Extremes in the Upper Missouri River Basin and Colorado 

Front Range. 

Livneh B. (Invited), and J.R. Stewart, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation— Sedimentation and River 

Hydraulics Group, Lakewood, CO, May, 2016: Development of a multi-physics modeling 

framework for analyzing the effects of disturbance on suspended sediment flow in the Colorado 

Front Range. 

Livneh B. (Invited), Lamont Doherty Earth Observing Laboratory, Palisades, NY, Apr., 2016: A LandSurface Perspective of Extremes in the Upper Missouri Basin and Central Great Plains.

Livneh B. (Invited), Columbia Water Center, New York, New York, Apr., 2016: From Scarcity to 

Overabundance: Hydrologic Extremes in the Northern and Central Great Plains, USA. 
20 

Livneh B. (Invited), J.S. Deems, B. Buma, J.S. Stewart, J.J. Barsulgi, D. Schneider, N.P. Molotch, C.A. 

Wessman, and K. Wolter, American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, San Francisco, CA, Dec. 

2015: Hydrologic impacts of land cover disturbances in the Upper Colorado River Basin. 

Livneh, B. (Invited), Climate Change and Water Working Group (CCAWWG), Seattle, WA, August 

2015, Summary of Intermountain West Climate Networks. 

Livneh, B. (Invited), American Meteorological Society, Mountain Meteorology Webinar Series, July, 

2014. The treatment of snow in numerical model land surface schemes. 

Livneh, B. (Invited) and J.S. Deems, Wyoming State Engineers Forum, Cheyenne, WY, May, 2014. 

Beetles and Dust: unraveling influences on snowmelt and streamflow timing in the Upper 

Colorado River Basin. 

Livneh, B. (Invited) Workshop on Quantitative Evaluation of Downscaled Data, National Centers for 

Atmospheric Research (NCAR), Aug., 2013: Strengths, Weaknesses, and Motivations for 

Creating a Large-Scale Hydrologically Consistent Dataset. 

Livneh, B. (Invited), Water Education Foundation, Lower Colorado River Tour, Las Vegas, NV, 

Hoover Dam, AZ, Imperial Irrigation District, CA, Mar. 2013, Colorado River Spring 2013 

Runoff Outlook; Climate Change Projections on the Colorado River Basin – The Long 

Perspective from GCMs and Tree Rings.

Livneh, B. (Invited), J.S. Deems, and B. Buma, National Centers for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) 

Seminar, Boulder, CO, Jan. 2013, Deciphering the impacts of competing hydrologic disturbance 

factors in the Upper Colorado River Basin.

Livneh, B. (Invited), Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, Leipzig, Germany, May, 

2012, Development of a Unified Land Model and Multi-Criteria Parameter Identification.

PRESENTATIONS

Pierce, DW, DR Cayan, MD Risser, B Livneh, and DP Lettenmaier, American Geophysical Union Fall 

Meeting, held virtually, Dec. 2020: H175-09 - An Extreme-Preserving Long-Term Gridded Daily 

Precipitation Data Set for the Conterminous United States. 

Livneh, B, M O’Donnell, P. Modi, *AM Badger, and NR Bjarke, American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, 

held virtually, Dec. 2020: H190-03 - Seasonal Drought Prediction: The Changing Role of Snow in Water 

Supply Forecasting across the Western U.S.. 

Brucker, C, B Livneh, F Rosario-Ortiz, P Wilkerson, A Heldmyer, and JT Minear, American Geophysical 

Union Fall Meeting, held virtually, Dec. 2020: H087-0019 - An observational framework for quantifying 

post-fire sediment and water quality response. 

Culler, ES, *AM Badger, B Livneh, KF Tiampo, and JT Minear, American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, 

held virtually, Dec. 2020: NH030-0028An evaluation of uncertainty in extreme landslide-triggering 

precipitation, NH030-0028 - An evaluation of uncertainty in extreme landslide-triggering precipitation. 

Bjarke, NR, B Livneh, JJ Barsugli, and MP Hoerling, American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, held 

virtually, Dec. 2020: H102-11 - Precipitation variability and the future of water in the West: A multicatchment analysis. 

*Yao, F, J Wang, B Livneh, B Rajagopalan, J-F Cretaux, and Y. Wada, American Geophysical Union Fall 

Meeting, held virtually, Dec. 2020: H025-07 - Quantifying and attributing recent changes in global lake 

and reservoir storage using satellite observations and hydrological modeling. 

Minear, JT, JL McCreight, L Read, T Enzminger, AJ Heldmyer, and B Livneh, American Geophysical Union 

Fall Meeting, held virtually, Dec. 2020: H014-06 - Utilizing Discharge Flow Measurements to Estimate 

Continental-Scale Hydraulic Resistance and Channel Geometry. 

Modi, P, EE Small, CW Wobus, J Carbone, and B Livneh, American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, held 

virtually, Dec. 2020: GC025-0006 - The Impacts of Drought and Water Allocation Practices on River 

Systems and Communities. 
21 

Wang, G, C Kirchoff, J Abatzoglou, B Livneh, and D Pierce, American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, held 

virtually, Dec. 2020: GC090-08Projected changes of precipitation extremes in the U.S. Northeast based 

on two downscaled climate datasets LOCA and MACA. 

Knowles, JF, AM Badger, MB Berkelhammer, JA Biederman, NR Bjarke, P Blanken, M Bretfeld, SP Burns, 

BE Ewers, JM Frank, L Lestak, B Livneh, DE Reed, RL Scott, and NP Molotch, American Geophysical 

Union Fall Meeting, held virtually, Dec. 2020: B064-0003 - Bark Beetle Impacts on Forest 

Evapotranspiration and its Partitioning. 

Abolafia-Rosenzweig, R., B. Livneh, and M. Pan, American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, San Francisco, 

CA, Dec. 2019: H44G-07 - REESEN: A remotely-sensed ensemble for estimating the terrestrial water 

balance. 

O’Donnell, M., *A. Badger, A. Wood, and B. Livneh, American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, San 

Francisco, CA, Dec. 2019: H14E-07 - The implications of changes in peak SWE timing and magnitude for 

drought prediction in the Western U.S. 

Kampf, S., A. Eurich, J. Hammond, B. Livneh, K. Puntenney, G. Richard, J. Sholtes, and H. Harrison, 

American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, San Francisco, CA, Dec. 2019: H31A-08 - What is the fate of 

snowmelt water in the Colorado Rocky Mountains?. 

Heldmyer, A.J., B. Livneh, W. Farmer, J. Driscoll, and N. Molotch, American Geophysical Union Fall 

Meeting, San Francisco, CA, Dec. 2019: C33C-1592 - An observationally-based spatial SWE model for 

the western United States and Alaska. 

Brucker, C., B. Livneh, A. Heldmyer, F. Rosario-Ortiz, and J.T. Minear, American Geophysical Union Fall 

Meeting, San Francisco, CA, Dec. 2019: H23S-2179 - An observational framework for quantifying postfire runoff and sediment response. 

Culler, E.S., B. Livneh, K. Tiampo, and B. Rajagopalan, American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, San 

Francisco, CA, Dec. 2019: H23S-2176 - A data-driven approach to identifying post-fire landslide 

triggers.

Bjarke, N.R., B. Livneh, and J. Cepeda, American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, San Francisco, CA, Dec. 

2019: H23J-2037 - Implications of Hydrometeorological Data Infilling for Portrayal of Hydrological 

Variability in High Alpine Environments. 

Livneh, B., R. Abolafia-Rosenzweig, *A. Badger, and E. Small, American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, 

San Francisco, CA, Dec. 2019: H54E-03 - A SMAP-based Continental-scale Soil Evaporation Dataset. 

Barsugli, J.J., M. Hoerling, B. Livneh, and Q. Xiaowei, American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, San 

Francisco, CA, Dec. 2019: A11Q-2746 - Evaluating hydrologic realism across scales in mountainous 

regions: a Budyko approach. 

Safeeq, M., B. Livneh, R. Bart, C. Kumar, and S. Shukla, American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, San 

Francisco, CA, Dec. 2019: H33M-2151 - Assessment of hydrologic impacts of climate change in the 

Sierra Nevada: comparisons between radiative change and CO2 fertilization. 

Kumar, S., M. Newman, D. Lawrence, M-H., Lo, S. Akula, C-W, Lan, B. Livneh, and D. Lombardozzi, 

American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, San Francisco, CA, Dec. 2019: H54G-06 - The GLACEHydrology Experiment: Effects of Land-Atmosphere Coupling on Soil Moisture Variability and Drought 

Predictability. 

Culler, E.S., B. Livneh and K. Tiampo, 13th Annual Earth System and Space Science Poster 

Conference, Boulder, CO, Dec 2019: A data-driven approach to identifying post-fire landslide 

triggers

Barsugli, Joseph J , Andrea J. Ray, B. Livneh, Candida Dewes, Aaron Heldmeyer, Imtiaz Rangwala, 

John Guinotte and Stephen Torbit, The Wildlife Society and American Fisheries Society Joint 

Conference, Reno, NV, Sep., 2019: High-Resolution Projections of Snowpack Persistence in 

Occupied and Potential Wolverine Habitat in the Rocky Mountains. Presentation. 
22 

Brucker, C.B., A.J. Heldmyer, B. Livneh, F.L. Rosario-Ortiz, and J.T. Minear, Sedimentation and 

Hydrology Conference, Reno, NV, June 2019: Wildfires in the West: Characterizing Drivers of 

Post-Disturbance Hydrologic and Sediment Response through Laboratory Analysis.

Heldmyer, A.J. and B. Livneh, Federal Interagency Sedimentation and Hydrologic Modeling 

Conference, Reno, NV, June 2019: 205: Wildfire in the West: Assessing the Detectability of a 

Post-fire Signal at the Watershed Scale.

Culler, E.S., B. Livneh and K. Tiampo, Community Surface Dynamics Modeling System Annual 

Meeting, Boulder, CO, May 2019: Modeling the hydrology of a post-fire landslide: Case study of 

the Thomas Fire, CA. 

O’Donnell, M.C., JR Kasprzyk, B Livneh, and L Bensching, ASCE World Environmental & Water 

Resources Congress, Pittsburgh, PA, May 2019: Exploring Regional Rates of Reservoir 

Sedimentation.

*Badger, A. M., B. Livneh, and N. P. Molotch, World Environmental and Water Resources Congress, 

Pittsburgh, PA, May 2019: On the role of spatial snow distribution on alpine catchment 

hydrology. 

Livneh, B., L. Dilling, A. M. *Badger, and R. Page, CIRES Rendezvous, Boulder, CO, May 2019: 

Advancing the use of drought early warning systems in the Upper Colorado River Basin: A 

transdisciplinary project. 

Abolafia-Rosenzweig, R., Livneh, B. and Small, E.E., CIRES Rendezvous, Boulder, Colorado, May 

2019: A data assimilation framework to estimate irrigation: merging soil moisture retrievals with 

land surface models

*Badger, A. M., B. Livneh, and N. P. Molotch, Hydrologic Sciences Research Symposium, Boulder, 

CO, April 2019: The role of spatial snow variability on alpine catchment hydrology. 

Brucker, C.B., A.J. Heldmyer, B. Livneh, F.L. Rosario-Ortiz, and J.T. Minear, Hydrologic Sciences 

Symposium, Boulder, CO, April 2019: Simulator of Wildfire Impacts on Watersheds across the 

Western U.S. 

Heldmyer, A.J., B. Livneh, W. Farmer, J. Driscoll, and N. Molotch, Hydrologic Sciences Student 

Research Symposium, Boulder, CO, Apr. 2019: An Observationally-based spatial SWE model for 

the western United States: applications in montane subdomains.

Livneh, B., Workshop on Adaptation Strategies for Sustainable Drinking Water Utility Management 

Under Drought and Climate Change, Boulder, CO., Mar., 2019: Modeling watershed-scale 

sediment response to climate and wildfire.

Livneh, B., *A.M. Badger, J. Cepeda, N.P. Molotch, and K. Suding, City of Boulder Climate Change 

Seminar, Jan. 2019: Hydrologic Response to Climatic Variability in the Green Lakes Valley 

Watershed.

Abolafia-Rosenzweig, R., B. Livneh, Y. Xia, P.A. Dirmyer, S.V. Kumar, C.D. Peters-Lidard, H. Wei, 

and J. Kain, American Meteorological Society Annual Meeting, Phoenix, AZ, Jan. 2019: 2B.3 

Comparing Operational NLDAS-2 and Experimental NLDAS-3 Soil Moisture with Observational 

Soil Moisture Data from In-Situ Networks and SMAP Remote Sensing. 

Barsugli, J.J., M. Hoerling, J. Eischeid, K. Wolter, and B. Livneh, American Meteorological Society 

Annual Meeting, Phoenix, AZ, Jan. 2019: 6.4 How Well Do Observations Constrain the 

Sensitivity of the Upper Colorado River Basin Streamflow to Temperature and Precipitation 

Trends?

Culler, E.S., B. Livneh, B. Corsa and K. Tiampo, American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, 

Washington, DC, Dec. 2018: H23L-2104: A Global Analysis of the Role of Wildfires on 

Landslide Susceptibility. *

Badger, A.M., B. Livneh, K. Tiampo, J.T. Minear, and C. Williams, American Geophysical Union 

Fall Meeting, Washington, DC, Dec. 2018: H51C-08 Evaluating Differences in Precipitation 

Datasets for Characterizing Cascading Hazards.
23 

Raseman W.J, J.R. Kasprzyk, R.S. Summers, B. Rajagopalan, F. Rosario-Ortiz, W. Kleiber, and B. 

Livneh, American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, Washington, DC, Dec. 2018: H21Q-1932 

Advancing Stochastic Water Quality and Simulation-Optimization Techniques for Potable Water 

Systems Facing Source Water Quality Degradation.

Heldmyer, A.J, and B. Livneh, American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, Washington, DC, Dec. 

2018: H23L-2130 Wildfire in the West: Characterizing Spatial Trends in Post-disturbance 

Hydrologic and Sediment Response at the Watershed Scale.

Livneh, B., R. Abolafia-Rosenzweig, E.S. Small, A.M. Badger, and S. V. Kumar, American 

Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, Washington, DC, Dec. 2018: H23A-06 A framework for 

predicting irrigation through soil moisture data assimilation. 

Migone, B., K. Averyt, D. C. Steinberg, J. Macknick, K. Eurek, Y. Sun, *A. M. Badger, and B. Livneh, 

USAEE/IAEE North American Conference, Washington, DC, September 2018: Decomposing 

supply and demand-side impacts of climate change on the U.S. electricity system through 2050. 

Livneh B., *Badger, A.M, and Lukas, J.J., Advancing Drought Early Warning Workshop, Glenwood 

Springs, CO, Aug 2018: Snowpack-streamflow modeling results: How well does snowpack 

predict streamflow in a future climate?

Minear, J.T., Tiampo, K., B. Livneh, M. Willis, C. Williams, *A. Badger, and M. Jacquemart, Asia 

Oceania Geosciences Society Meeting, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, June, 2018: The Interaction of 

Mass Movements with Natural Hazards Under Changing Hydrologic Conditions. 

Livneh, B., pA.M. Badger, J.J. Lukas, L. Dilling, and R. Page, Global Energy and Water Cycle 

Experiment (GEWEX) Meeting, Canmore, Alberta, Canada, May, 2018: Characterizing Drought 

Risk Management and Assessing the Robustness of Snowpack-based Drought Indicators in the 

western U.S. 

B. Livneh. (Invited), Earthlab Extremes Collider, Boulder, CO, May 2018: Regional Extremes: What, 

Why, and How.

Shellito P., E.E. Small, and B. Livneh, Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment (GEWEX) 

Meeting, Canmore, Alberta, Canada, May, 2018: Controls on surface soil drying rates observed 

by SMAP and simulated by the Noah land surface model. 

Heldmyer, A.J., B. Livneh, and S. Kampf, CIRES Rendezvous, Boulder, CO, May 

2018: Sedimentation and runoff in the Colorado Front Range: Diagnosing fire-related changes.

Abolafia-Rosenzsweig, R., B. Livneh, E.S. Small, and pA.M. Badger, Colorado State University, 

Hydrology Days, Fort Collins, CO, Mar. 2018: Evaluation of soil moisture data assimilation to 

improve hydrologic partitioning over agricultural areas. 

Heldmyer, A.J., B. Livneh, and S. Kampf, Colorado State University, Hydrology Days, Fort Collins, 

CO, Mar. 2018: Assessing the Impacts of Wildfire on Sedimentation and Runoff in the Colorado 

Front Range. 

Newman, M, S. Kumar, Y. Want, and Livneh, B., American Meteorological Society Annual Meeting, 

Austin, TX, Jan. 2018: Potential Reemergence of Seasonal Soil Moisture Anomalies in North 

America. 

Livneh, B., E.S. Small, *A.M. Badger, and R. Abolafia-Rosenzweig, American Meteorological Society 

Annual Meeting, Austin, TX, Jan. 2018: Using SMAP Satellite Observations to Estimate 

Terrestrial Evaporation Rates. *

Badger, A.M., B. Livneh, E.E. Small, and R. Abolafia-Rosenzweig, American Geophysical Union Fall 

Meeting, New Orleans, LA, Dec. 2017: H11M-02 A Method for a Multi-Platform Approach to 

Generate Gridded Surface Evaporation.

Kasprzyk, J.R. R. Smith, W. J. Raseman, M.A. DeRousseau, L. Dilling, K. Ozekin, R.S. Summers, R. 

Balaji, B. Livneh, F. Rosario-Ortiz, L. Sprain., and W.V. Srubar III, American Geophysical 

Union Fall Meeting, New Orleans, LA, Dec. 2017: PA41A-0289 Collaborative Workshops for 

Assessment and Creation of Multi-Objective Decision Support for Multiple Sectors.
24 

Ray, A.J, J.J. Barsugli, J.M. Guinotte, B. Livneh, C. Dewes, I. Rangwala, A. Heldmyer, and S. Torbit, 

American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, New Orleans, LA, Dec. 2017: GC31A-0993 Coproduction of Snow Projections for a Study of Snow Persistence Projections for the American 

Wolverine Gulo gulo.

Heldmyer, A.J, B. Livneh, J.J. Barsugli, J.M. Guinotte C. Dewes, and S. Torbit, American Geophysical 

Union Fall Meeting, New Orleans, LA, Dec. 2017: C53A-1006 Simulation of Current and 

Projected Montane Snowpacks for the Preservation of the Wolverine in the Western U.S.

Sun, Y., K. Eurek, J. Macknick, D.C. Steinberg, K. Averyt, *A. Badger, and B. Livneh, American 

Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, New Orleans, LA, Dec. 2017: GC31D-1033 Decomposing 

climate-induced temperature and water effects on the expansion and operation of the US 

electricity system.

Jennings, K.S., T. Winchell, Livneh, B., and N.P. Molotch, American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, 

New Orleans, LA, Dec. 2017: H41N-05: Precipitation phase partitioning variability across the 

Northern Hemisphere. 

Kumar, S.J., M. Newman, D.M. Lawrence, Livneh, B., and D. Lombardozzi, American Geophysical 

Union Fall Meeting, New Orleans, LA, Dec. 2017: H42B-02: Land-atmosphere coupling and soil 

moisture memory contribute to long-term agricultural drought. 

S. Redfern, Livneh, B., N.P. Molotch, K. Suding, J.C. Neff, and E. Hinkley, American Geophysical 

Union Fall Meeting, New Orleans, LA, Dec. 2017: H43C-1656: Catchment Integration of Sensor 

Array Observations to Understand Hydrologic Connectivity. 

Livneh, B., *A.M. Badger, J. J. Lukas, R. Page, and L. Dilling, Upper Colorado River Basin Water 

Forum, Colorado Mesa State University, Nov 2017: Assessing the robustness of spring snowpack 

as a drought indicator in the Upper Colorado River Basin under future climate change. 

Heldmyer, A.J., Livneh, B., and B. Rajagopalan, Upper Colorado River Basin Water Forum, Colorado 

Mesa State University, Nov 2017: Assessing the Impacts of Drought and Wildfire on the 

Colorado Front Range. 

Livneh, B. NASA SUSMAP Workshop, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Oct., 2017: 

Using the SMAP soil drying cycle to produce a unique estimate of direct evaporation from soil: 

E-SMAP.

Livneh, B., CVEN 5333 Advanced Hydrology, Guest Lecture, CU-Boulder, Oct., 2017: An Overview 

of Distributed Hydrologic Modeling. 

Livneh, B. (Invited), EarthLab Postdoctoral Mentoring Series, University of Colorado, Sep., 2017: 

How to write a strong academic research statement.

Livneh, B., S. Redfern, N.P. Molotch, E. Hinckley, and J. Neff, Niwot Ridge Annual Team Meeting, 

University of Colorado, Jul. 2017: Integration of Sensor Array Observations to Understand 

Hydrologic Connectivity. 

Livneh, B. (Invited), International English Center, University of Colorado, May., 2017: Drought in 

Colorado: What you should know.

Livneh, B., *A.M. Badger, and J. J. Lukas, World Environmental and Water Resources Congress, 

Sacramento, CA, May 2017: Assessing the robustness of snow-based drought indicators in the 

Upper Colorado River Basin under future climate change.

Stewart, J.R., B. Rajagopalan, J.R. Kasprzyk, W.J. Raseman, and B. Livneh, World Environmental and 

Water Resources Congress, Sacramento, CA, May 2017: The Use of Ensemble Modeling of 

Suspended Sediment to Characterize Uncertainty. 

Carbone, E., E.E. Small, *A. Badger, and B. Livneh, CU-Boulder Hydrologic Sciences Symposium, 

Boulder CO, Apr. 2017: Generating a global soil evaporation dataset using SMAP soil moisture 

data to estimate components of the surface water balance.
25 

Kasprzyk, J.R., J.R. Stewart, and B. Livneh, CU-Boulder Hydrologic Sciences Symposium, Boulder 

CO, Apr. 2017: Improving the Holistic Calibration of Simulated Hydrologic Processes using 

Multiple Objectives. 

Livneh B. National Climate Assessment, Northern Great Plains Regional Engagement Workshop, Fort 

Collins, CO, Feb, 2017: Impacts of Climate Change on Northern Great Plains Water Resources. *

Badger, A.M., J.K. Eischeid, M.P. Hoerling, and B. Livneh, American Geophysical Union Fall 

Meeting, San Francisco, CA, Dec. 2016: Analysis of Recent Changes in Extreme Hydrologic 

Events in the Upper Missouri River Basin.

Macknick, J., K. Averyt, B. Livneh, *A. Badger, D.C. Steinberg, K. Eurek, and R.L. Newmark, 

American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, San Francisco, CA, Dec. 2016: Isolating the effects 

of climate-mediated changes in temperature and water availability on the capacity expansion and 

operations of the U.S. power sector.

Zhang, Q., M.W. Williams, and B. Livneh, American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, San Francisco, 

CA, Dec. 2016: Streamflow predictions under climate scenarios in the Boulder Creek Watershed 

at Orodell.

Stewart, J., W.J. Raseman, J.R. Kasprzyk, R. Balaji, and B. Livneh, American Geophysical Union Fall 

Meeting, San Francisco, CA, Dec. 2016: Ensemble Modeling of Suspended Sediment in Steep 

Mountain Catchments. 

Raseman, W.J., J.R. Kasprzyk, F. Rosario-Ortiz, R.S. Summers, J. Stewart, and B. Livneh, American 

Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, San Francisco, CA, Dec. 2016: Multi-objective Optimization 

for the Robust Performance of Drinking Water Treatment Plants under Climate Change and 

Climate Extremes.

Livneh, B., *A. Badger, N.P. Molotch, C. Bueno de Mesquita, and K. Suding, American Geophysical 

Union Fall Meeting, San Francisco, CA, Dec. 2016: Hydrologic Response to Climatic and 

Vegetation Change in an Extreme Alpine Environment. 

Carbone, E., E.E. Small, *A. Badger, and B. Livneh, American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, San 

Francisco, CA, Dec. 2016: Generating a global soil evaporation dataset using SMAP soil 

moisture data to estimate components of the surface water balance.

Kumar, S., M. Newman, D.M. Lawrence, and B. Livneh, American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, 

San Francisco, CA, Dec. 2016: Intensified multi-year droughts in California due to landatmosphere interactions and land-memory processes.

Yanto, M., J.R. Kasprzyk, B. Rajagopalan, and B. Livneh, American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, 

San Francisco, CA, Dec. 2016: Multi-objective Optimization Based Calibration of Hydrologic 

Model and Ensemble Hydrologic Forecast for Java Island, Indonesia.

Livneh, B., CEAE Water Resources Seminar, CU-Boulder, Sep 2016: Hydrologic Interactions Across 

Multiple Scales: Drought, Disturbance and Responses. 

Livneh, B. (Invited), International English Center, University of Colorado, Aug., 2016: Drought in 

Colorado: What you should know.

Kumar S., M. Newman, Y. Wang, and B. Livneh, 21st Annual CESM Workshop, 20-23, Breckenridge, 

Colorado USA June 2016: Potential re-emergence of seasonal soil moisture anomalies in North 

America.

Livneh B. (Invited) and J.R. Stewart, Sedimentation Impacts Under Climate Change (SIUCC) Virtual 

Course, Boulder, CO, June, 2016: A multi-physics modeling framework for the Colorado Front 

Range. 

Barnhart, T.B., N.P. Molotch, B. Livneh, A.A. Harpold, J.F. Knowles, and D. Schneider, Western 

Snow Conference, Seattle, WA., Apr. 2016: Rapid Snowmelt Leads to Greater Streamflow 

Across the Western United States. 

Winchell, T.S., Livneh, B., Molotch, N.P., Western Snow Conference, Seattle, WA, Apr. 2016: 

Variation of the Rain-Snow Temperature Threshold Over North America. 
26 

Barnhart, T.B., B. Livneh, D.J. Gochis, and N.P. Molotch, University of Colorado Hydrologic 

Sciences Symposium, Boulder, CO., Mar, 2016: Streamflow Sensitivity to Changes in Snowpack 

Across Trans-Basin Diversions. 

Barnhart, T.B., B. Livneh, D.J. Gochis, and N.P. Molotch, Water Sustainability and Climate Principle 

Investigator Meeting, Arlington, VA., 2016: Streamflow Sensitivity to Changes in Snowpack 

Across Trans-Basin Diversions, poster. 

Newman M, Wang, Y., Kumar S., and Livneh, B., National Centers for Atmospheric Research, 

Boulder, CO, Feb. 2016: Potential re-emergence of seasonal soil moisture anomalies in North 

America.

Livneh, B., K. Friedrich, R. Grossman, J. Huntington, and P. Blanken, American Meteorological 

Society Annual Meeting, New Orleans, LA, Jan. 2016: Estimating reservoir evaporation: 

Evaluating current and future practices and research-to-operations pathways. 

Kim J, Cifelli R., Johnson L.E., Livneh, B., and V. Chandrasekar, American Meteorological Society 

Annual Meeting, New Orleans, LA, Jan. 2016: Comparison of Semi-Distributed and Fully 

Distributed Hydrological Models in Complex Terrain. 

Livneh, B., and M.P. Hoerling, American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, San Francisco, CA, Dec. 

2015: Assessing Causes of Hydrologic Extremes in the Upper Missouri Basin. 

Barnhart, B., Livneh B., N.P. Molotch, J. Knowles, A.A. Harpold, and D. Schneider, American 

Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, San Francisco, CA, Dec. 2015: Rapid Snowmelt Leads to 

Greater Streamflow Across the Western United States.

Hoerling, M.P., and Livneh B., American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, San Francisco, CA, Dec. 

2015: The Physics of Great Plains Drought.

Buma B., and Livneh B., American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, San Francisco, CA, Dec. 2015: 

Quantifying the Sensitivity of Water Yield to Forest Disturbances Across a Diverse Set of 

Unmanaged Watersheds throughout the Continental United States.

M. Yanto, B. Livneh, B. Rajagopalan, and J.R. Kasprzyk, American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, 

San Francisco, CA, Dec. 2015: Hydrologic Modeling and Parameter Estimation under Data 

Scarcity for Java Island, Indonesia.

Kim J, Cifelli R., Johnson L.E., Livneh, B., and V. Chandrasekar, American Geophysical Union Fall 

Meeting, San Francisco, CA, Dec. 2015: Effect of Rainfall Spatial Distribution on Flood 

Forecasting in Complex Terrain. 

Cheng L., Hoerling M.P., Aghakouchak A., Livneh B., Qian X-W., Eischeid J, American Geophysical 

Union Fall Meeting, San Francisco, CA, Dec. 2015: How Has Human-induced Climate Change 

Affected California Drought Risk?

Kim J, Cifelli R., Johnson L.E., Livneh, B., and V. Chandrasekar, America Water Resources 

Association, 2015 Annual Water Resources Conference, Denver, CO, Nov 2015: Comparison of 

Distributed Rainfall-Runoff models: A Case Study for the Storm Event on December 10, 2014. 

Livneh, B. (Invited), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha, NE, Nov 2015: Assessing Causes for 

Hydrologic Extremes in the Upper Missouri Basin. 

Hoerling M. P., and Livneh, B., Implications of a Changing Arctic on Water Resources and Agriculture 

in the Central U.S., Lincoln, NE, Nov 2015: The Physics of Great Plains Drought. 

Livneh, B., CEAE Water Resources Seminar, CU-Boulder, Nov 2015: Hydrologic Interactions Across 

Multiple Scales: Drought, Disturbance and Responses. 

Livneh, B., and M. P. Hoerling, Climate Diagnostics and Prediction Workshop, Denver, CO, Oct 2015: 

The Physics of Great Plains Drought: It’s Predictability and It’s Changed Risk in a Warmer 

World. 

Newman, M., Y. Wang, S. Kumar, and Livneh, B., Climate Diagnostics and Prediction Workshop, 

Denver, CO, Oct 2015: The Seasonal and spatial dependence of soil moisture memory over North 

America. 
27 

Livneh, B. (Invited) ATOC 7500 Seminar Series: Reading the IPCC Working Group II and III 

Reports: Impacts and Mitigation, University of Colorado, Boulder, August 2015, IPCC AR5 

Working Group II Chapters 3 & 4: Fresh Water Resources/ Terrestrial and Inland Water Systems. 

Livneh, B., Webinar for Climate Science Centers and National Center for Environmental Prediction, 

June 2015, Development of a spatially comprehensive, daily hydrometeorological data set for 

Mexico, the conterminous U.S., and southern Canada: 1950-2013. 

Livneh, B., and M. P. Hoerling, North Central Climate Science Center Conference, Fort Collins, CO, 

May 2015, Assessing Antecedent Soil Moisture Impacts on Great Plains Drought Development. 

Livneh, B., (Invited), CU-Boulder Hydrologic Sciences Symposium, Boulder, CO, Apr. 2015, 

Establishing Proximal Causes of Soil Moisture Deficits Accompanying Great Plains Drought 

Development. 

Livneh, B., and M. P. Hoerling, American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, San Francisco, CA, Dec. 

2014, Exploring the linkage between drought, high temperatures, and hydrologic sensitivities: A 

case study of the 2012 Great Plains drought. 

Livneh, B., T.J. Bohn, R. Vose, and F. Munoz-Arriola. Tercera Reunión Annual de la Red de Desastres 

Hidrometeorológicos y Climaticos (REDESCLIM). Mexico City, Nov. 2014. Base de Datos 

Hidroclimatica Subcontinental ("Hydroclimatic Subcontinental Database”). 

Bohn, T.J., B. Livneh, F. Munoz-Arriola, A. Robles-Morua, D.W. Pierce, R.S. Vose, and E.R. Vivoni, 

Mexican Geophysical Union (UGM) Annual Meeting, Puerto Vallarta, Jalisco, Mexico, Nov. 

2014. Long-Term Gridded Meterological Observations over the Continental US, Mexico, and 

Southern Canada, 1950-2013: Assessment over the North American Monsoon Region. 

Livneh, B. (Invited), International English Center, University of Colorado, Aug., 2014. Drought in 

Colorado: What you should know. 

Livneh, B. (Invited), Evapotranspiration mini-workshop, North Central Climate Science Center, Fort 

Collins, CO, May, 2014. Evapotranspiration via Water Balance Methods in Land Surface 

Models. 

B. Buma, B. Livneh , C. A. Wessman, Alaskan Coastal Rainforest Center lecture series, University of 

Alaska Southeast, Juneau AK, March, 2014: Linking forest ecology, hydrology, and management 

to explore the implications of climate change on a critical ecosystem service. 

Livneh, B. (Invited), National Centers for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) Seminar, Boulder, CO, Feb. 

2014: Hydrologic Interactions Across Multiple Scales: Stressors, Thresholds, and Responses. 

Livneh, B., and J.S. Deems, AGU Chapman Conference on Seasonal to Interannual Hydroclimate 

Forecasts and Water Management, Jul., 2013: From catchments to regional scales: hydrologic 

impacts of land cover disturbances in the Upper Colorado River Basin. 

Livneh, B., and J. S. Deems, Climate Change Technology Conference, Montreal, QC, May, 2013:

Merging Satellite and Model Information to Improve Snowpack and Water Supply Forecasting. 

Livneh, B. (Invited), Guest Lecture, Geology 5700, University of Colorado, Boulder, Apr. 2013: 

Parameter Selection for Hydrologic Models. 

Livneh, B. (Invited), J.S. Deems, and B. Buma, San Juan Bark Beetles & Watersheds Workshop, 

Durango, CO., Apr. 2013: Beetles, Dust, and Climate Change: Unraveling Snowmelt 

Perturbations in the Intermountain West. 

Livneh, B., E.A. Rosenberg, C. Lin, B. Nijssen, V. Mishra, K. Andreadis, E.P. Maurer, and D.P. 

Lettenmaier, American Meteorological Society Annual Meeting, Austin, TX, Jan. 2013, A longterm hydrologically based dataset of land surface fluxes and states for climatic modeling and 

analysis over the conterminous United States.

Livneh, B., J.S. Deems, B. Buma, J.J. Barsugli, D. Schneider, N. Molotch, and C. Wessman, American 

Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, San Francisco, CA, Dec. 2012, Interpreting changes to Upper 

Colorado River Basin hydrologic response via alternate climatic and land-cover scenarios.
28 

Livneh, B., J.S. Deems, B. Buma, J.J. Barsugli, D. Schneider, and C. Wessman, Upper Colorado River 

Basin Water Conference, Grand Junction, CO, Nov. 2012, Modeling Hydrologic Impacts of Bark 

Beetles and Desert Dust on Tributary Catchments of the Upper Colorado River Basin. 

Livneh, B. (Invited), CU-Boulder Hydrology and Water Resource Seminar, Boulder, CO, Sep. 2012, 

Development of a Land Surface Model and the Prediction of Land-Atmosphere Fluxes and 

Streamflow Forecasting. 

Livneh, B., B. Thrasher, and D.P. Lettenmaier, Climate Change Conference, Seattle, WA, Jul. 2012, 

Updates and extensions to a long-term Hydrologically based dataset over the Conterminous 

United States.

Livneh, B., and D.P. Lettenmaier, European Geosciences Union General Assembly, Vienna Austria, 

Apr, 2012, Transferability of land surface model parameters using remote sensing and in situ 

observations. 

Livneh, B., and D.P. Lettenmaier, AGU Fall Meeting, San Fransisco, CA., Dec. 2011, Land Surface 

Model parameter regionalization via remote sensing and observations (poster).

Livneh B. (co-presented with T.J. Bohn), University of Washington Hydrology Seminar, Aug. 2011, 

Evaluating performance of MTCLIM and other hydrometeorological algorithms against a global 

set of station data.

Livneh, B., P.J. Restrepo, and D.P. Lettemnaier, 91st AMS Annual Meeting, Seattle, WA, Jan. 2011, 

Application of a Unified Land Model for estimation of the terrestrial water balance (poster).

Koster, R. D., S. Mahanama, B. Livneh, D. P. Lettenmaier, and R. H. Reichle, 91st AMS Annual 

Meeting, Seattle, WA, 2011, Predicting hydrological drought: relative contributions of soil 

moisture and snow information to seasonal streamflow forecast skill. 

Livneh, B., P.J. Restrepo, and D.P. Lettemnaier, AGU Fall Meeting, San Fransisco, CA., Dec. 2010, 

Exploring terrestrial and atmospheric constraints in land surface model validation (poster). 

Livneh, B., D.P. Lettenmaier and K.E. Mitchell, University of Washington Climate Impacts Group, 

Seattle, WA, Jan. 2010, Noah LSM Snow Model Diagnostics and Enhancements. 

Livneh, B., and D.P. Lettenmaier, UBC-UW Hydrology Symposium,University of British Columbia, 

Vancouver, BC, Canada, 25 Sep. 2009, Evapotranspiration Parititioning in Land Surface Models. 

Livneh, B., Y. Xia, K.E. Mitchell, M.B. Ek, and D.P. Lettenmaier, CPPA PI's Meeting, Washington, 

DC, Sep 2008, Noah LSM snow model diagnostics and enhancements (poster). 

Livneh, B., E.P. Salathe, and D.P. Lettenmaier, UW/UBC, Hydrology Conference, Seattle, WA, Sep. 

2008, Understanding the sensitivity of Washington State snowpacks to climate change. 

Livneh, B., D.P. Lettenmaier and K.E. Mitchell, AGU Fall Meeting, San Fransisco, CA., Dec. 2007,

Diagnosis of Performance of the Noah LSM Snow Model.
Kroll 1 

Stefanie A. Kroll, Ph.D.

Stream Ecologist, Research Team Leader, Assistant Research Professor

EDUCATION

Ph.D. in Ecology, State University of New York, College of Environmental Science and 

Forestry (SUNY-ESF), Syracuse, New York. 2012.

Master’s equivalent, Ecology, Department of Agronomic Engineering, University of CastillaLa Mancha (UCLM), Albacete, Spain. 

B.S. in Environmental and Forest Biology, SUNY-ESF.

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

9/2017-present: Head of Watershed Ecology Section, Senior Scientist, Patrick Center for 

Environmental Research (PCER), Academy of Natural Sciences of Drexel Univ. (ANS)

• Seek funding and develop projects related to macroinvertebrates and algae as 

bioindicators, target-setting for freshwater restoration, resilience in agricultural streams, 

and novel uses of bioindicators. Research on headwater system function and climate 

change, DNA metabarcoding, eDNA, freshwater snails. Directly supervise 3 full-time and 

several temporary staff, who run a macroinvertebrate laboratory. Develop data outputs for 

technical and non-technical audiences, such as community scientists & watershed groups. 

3/2013-present: Project Science Director, Delaware River Watershed Initiative, PCER: 

• Coordinate biomonitoring and research efforts for the large, collaborative Delaware River 

Watershed Initiative within ANS as well as in a consulting role for 30 conservation 

partners. As Project Science Lead, I supervise 15 colleagues and staff on monitoring, 

communications, and performing outreach to community science programs and 

practitioners. This work has allowed me to learn a lot from on-the-ground conservation 

experts, their data and information needs as well as their processes. 

9/2016-present: Assistant Research Professor, Adjunct Professor, Department of 

Biodiversity, Earth and Environmental Sciences (BEES), Drexel University. 

5/2012-3/2013: Postdoctoral Associate, Entomology Department, Cornell University with 

Dr. Ann Hajek: Behavior and ecology Sirex noctilio and native Siricidae of the U.S. 

• Refined experimental protocols for choice and non-choice studies on Sirex and fungal 

symbionts, dissected insects, prepared and maintained fungal cultures, supervised 

undergraduates, analyzed data, and published 2 manuscripts. 

4/2010-1/2011: Field Biologist, Graduate Research Assistant, Onondaga Lake Ecosystem 

Recovery Project, Dr. Neil Ringler, SUNY-ESF/Honeywell Corporation, Syracuse, NY. 

• Collaborated on studies of fish, macroinvertebrate and aquatic macrophyte communities 

in Onondaga Lake and its tributaries, performed field work and identified 

macroinvertebrates in gut contents of fish. 

9/2007-12/2009: Staff Scientist, Graduate Research Fellow, Regional Center for Water 

Studies, University of Castilla-La Mancha.

• Field work and data analysis for the regional water monitoring program. 

1/2003-9/2011: Interpreter, Translator, Editor (Spanish-English), Spain and Syracuse, NY. 

• Translated and revised business and technical documents, performed simultaneous and 

consecutive interpreting.
Kroll 2 

TEACHING HISTORY (with course number & type) 

Southern New Hampshire University Online: 

Conservation Biology (330, majors) 6 terms 2019-20

Ecological Principles and Field Methods (315, majors) 4 terms 2019-21 

Drexel University

A Watershed Approach (203, majors) Fall 2018 

Environmental Science & Society (260, majors & non-majors) 3 terms Summer 2017-19

Introduction to Environmental Science (169, non-majors) Spring 2018 

Aquatic Insects and Water Quality with Laboratory (380/580 Fall 2014, Winter 2017 

undergraduate & graduate levels) 

Colgate University

Organismal Biology: Insects (206, majors) Spring 2012 

Onondaga Community College

Introduction to Biology with Laboratory II (152, majors) Spring 2012 

Introduction to Biology with Laboratory I (151, majors) Fall 2011, Summer 2011

Exploring Biology with Laboratory (121, non-majors) Summer 2011 

General Ecology (131, majors & non-majors) Fall 2010, 2011 

PEER REVIEWED PUBLICATIONS 

Kroll, S.A., U. Malvadkar, M. Campagna. Land use differentially predicts

macroinvertebrate index scores in the Delaware Basin. Short communication 

submitted to Ecological Indicators, June, 2021. 

Kroll, S.A., H.C. Oakland, 2021 (in press) Macroinvertebrate and diatom indicators of 

ecosystem integrity for setting targets in agricultural BMP restoration. Ecosphere. 

Kroll, S.A., H.C. Oakland, 2019. Review of studies documenting the effects of agricultural 

best management practices on stream ecosystem integrity. Natural Areas Journal 39(1): 

58-77. 

Kroll, S.A., R.J. Horwitz, D.H. Keller, B.W. Sweeney, J.K. Jackson, L.B. Perez, 2019. Largescale protection and restoration programs aimed at protecting stream ecosystem 

integrity: The role of science-based goal-setting, monitoring, and data management. 

Journal of Freshwater Science 38(1): 23-39.

Kroll, S.A., N.H. Ringler, J. De las Heras, 2017. Macroinvertebrates on the front lines: 

projected community response to temperature and precipitation changes in 

Mediterranean streams. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 32(1): 513-528. 

Hajek, A.E., P. Tobin, S.A. Kroll, S.J. Long, 2017. Symbionts mediate oviposition behavior in 

invasive and native woodwasps. Agricultural and Forest Entomology. 20(3): 442-450. 

Kroll, S.A., E.E. Morris, S.J. Long, A.E. Hajek, 2013. Parasitism of Sirex noctilio by nonsterilizing Deladenus siricidicola in northeastern North America. Biological Control 67: 203-

211. 

Kroll, S.A., N.H. Ringler, J. De las Heras, J.J. Gómez-Alday, A. Moratalla, R.D. Briggs, 2012. 

Changes in stream water quality and macroinvertebrate communities in response to 

flow regulation and inter-basin transfer: The Segura River Basin (SE Spain), 

Ecohydrology 6(5): 878-888.

Kroll, S.A., C. Navarro, M.C. Cano, J. De las Heras, 2009. The influence of land use on 

stream water quality and macroinvertebrate biotic indices in rivers within Castilla-La 

Mancha (Spain). Limnetica 28(2): 203-214.
Kroll 3 

MANUSCRIPTS IN PREPARATION

Oakland, H.C., S.A. Kroll, M.J. Kurz, T.H. Dapkey, M. Hurley, M. Bross, M. Baker. 

Threshold analysis to project community recovery from agricultural restoration. 

Dilworth, R., S.A. Kroll, M.J. Kurz, editors. Shared Governance of the Delaware River Basin. 

Book proposal to Temple University Press, July, 2021. Expected publication 2022.

Kroll, S.A., M.J. Kurz, L.B. Perez. Science for decision-making in the Delaware Basin. Book 

chapter within Dilworth et al. (above), expected publication 2022.

Oakland, H.C., S.A. Kroll, , A. Chan, D.H. Keller, A.M. Stoklosa. Multiple indicators of instream and bank restoration success. 

Kroll, S.A., S. Buczek, D.H. Keller. The influence of adventitious tributaries on the ecological 

integrity of receiving streams.

T.H. Dapkey, Kroll, S.A., H.C. Oakland, M.J. Kurz, M. Bross, D.H. Keller, A.M. Stoklosa. 

Use of ecological traits in projecting vulnerability and potential for recovery of aquatic 

ecosystems after restoration.

RESEARCH FUNDING

$162,000, “Biodiversity of Pennsylvania Headwaters for Assessing Conservation,” 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Growing Greener Program.

March, 2021-December, 2023. (Principal Investigator, Dr. Steven Rier is co-PI)

$327,000, “Evaluating Headwater Biodiversity, Vulnerability, and Potential Resilience to 

Inform Conservation in the Delaware Basin.” National Fish & Wildlife Foundation, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Delaware Watershed Conservation Fund. November, 2020- 

November 2022. (PI, Dr. Steven Rier is co-PI) 

$280,000, “Project Impact Assessment for DRWI projects in agricultural areas and their 

effects on aquatic ecosystems.” National Fish and Wildlife Foundation for September, 

2020- September, 2021. Supports sampling and data analysis.(co-PI with Dr. Marie Kurz) 

$50,000, “Land Protection Impact Assessment.” Open Space Institute, October, 2019-June, 

2020. Supports analysis of aquatic integrity relative to forested land cover in the Delaware 

basin for prioritizing land preservation. In collaboration with Stroud Water Research 

Center (J. Jackson) (co-PI with Dr. Marie Kurz). 

$77,000 “Cobbs Creek Stormwater Control through Residential Actions.” Subcontract with 

Darby Creek Valley Association’s $250,000 grant from PA DEP’s Growing Greener 

Program. October 2019-June 2021. Supports scientific material for outreach products to 

residents and community scientists, sampling and data analysis (Co-PI with DCVA). 

$1.05 million “Science lead to support conservation through the Delaware River Watershed 

Initiative (DRWI).” William Penn Foundation, February 2020- February 2021. Supports 

monitoring, research, consulting with collaborating NGOs on monitoring plans and data 

use for outreach, focusing on the effects of agricultural Best Management Practices on 

aquatic ecosystems (co-PI with Lin Perez)

$2.7 million for the Delaware River Watershed Initiative (as above). William Penn 

Foundation, February 2018- February 2020 (co-PI with Roland Wall). 

$20,000, “Pilot study for using DNA metabarcoding of macroinvertebrates in bioindicator 

research.” Academy of Natural Science’s research endowment, June 2020-June 2021.

Supports analyses of DNA metabarcoding of macroinvertebrate communities in headwater 

streams and potential use as bioindicators (PI). 
Kroll 4 

$1.3 million grant from the William Penn Foundation for the Delaware River Watershed 

Initiative (as above), February 2017- February 2018 (co-PI with Roland Wall). 

$159,886 grant from Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection’s Growing 

Greener Program, July 2015 – December, 2018. Supports monitoring past restoration 

projects for evaluation of their success (PI). 

$2.89 million “Science lead to support conservation through the Delaware River Watershed 

Initiative.” William Penn Foundation, February 2014- February 2017 (co-PI with R Wall). 

$11,000 “Macroinvertebrate communities of lentic habitats in the DRWI.” Academy of 

Natural Science’s research endowment, July 2017-July 2018 (PI). 

$15,000 “Identification of macroinvertebrate samples and data analyses for study on TMDL 

in Wissahickon Creek.” Temple University, September, 2017-December, 2018. (PI). 

$150,000 “Study on stream integrity around a small dam on Wissahickon Creek.” Erdenheim 

Farm, September, 2017- March, 2019. (Head of Macroinvertebrate portion; Dr. 

William Ryan, PI). 

$45,000, 3-year research scholarship from the University of Castilla-La Mancha, funded by the 

Autonomous Community of Castilla-La Mancha for routine biomonitoring studies on 

regional streams. Fall, 2007-January, 2010. (Graduate student) 

TECHNICAL REPORTS/ OTHER PUBLICATIONS

DiverSeTEM blog series. December, 2020-present. Medium.com Co-developer of 

collaborative network of environmental practitioners writing 6 articles about Diversity, 

Equity and Inclusion in STEM fields. Collaboration with Amberly Choi, Lara 

Heacock, Tykee James, Wenny Lin, Lauren McGrath, Jen Orr-Greene, Nancy Popkin. 

Dapkey, T.H., S.A. Kroll, M.J. Kurz, L.B. Perez, M. Campagna, M. Hurley, K. Christopher. 

2019-2020. Multiple data products for the DRWI partners: Non-technical descriptions 

of indicators and presentation of data. 

Kroll, S.A. March 30, 2020. Work from home tips from our scientist. ANS, 

https://www.anspblog.org/wfh-tips-from-our-scientist/

Kroll, S.A. January 2, 2019. Where have all the insects gone? Article review, ANS, 

www.anspblog.org/where-have-all-the-insects-gone. 

Perez, L.B., Christopher, K.A., Kroll, S.A., December, 2018. Impact of Phase 1 actions in the 

DRWI. Report to the William Penn Foundation. 

Christopher, K.A., M.J. Kurz, S.A. Kroll, 2017. Data summaries for the DRWI for all sites 

sampled 2013-2016. Report to the William Penn Foundation. 

Christopher, K.A., S.A. Kroll, G.J. Barren, 2016. Two-page summaries of DRWI cluster 

stream conditions using multiple indicators. Report. http://ansp.org/drwi 

Kroll, S.A., R. Abell, 2015. Points of Departure: Baseline Conditions in the Subwatershed 

Clusters of the Delaware River Watershed Initiative, Academy of Natural Sciences of 

Drexel University, 65 pp. http://www.ansp.org/~/media/Files/ans/research/pcerother/Points%20of%20Departure.ashx?la=en. 

Kroll, S.A., L. Perez, 2014. Delaware River Watershed Initiative: Cluster Characterization 

Report, ANS, 34 pp. http://www.ansp.org/research/environmentalresearch/projects/watershed-protection-program/. 

Kroll, S.A., L. Perez, K. Christopher, 2014. Coordinated Monitoring Plan for the Delaware 

River Watershed Initiative, ANS, 50pp. http://www.ansp.org/~/media/Files/ 
Kroll 5 

ans/research/pcerother/Monitoringplan150728compressed.ashx?la=en.

Navarro-Llacer, C., S. Kroll, J. de las Heras, 2009. Ecological status of rivers of Castilla-La 

Mancha: Relationships with land use, flow regulation and ecological flow criteria. 

University of Castilla-La Mancha, Regional Center for Water Studies, Submitted to the 

Castilla-La Mancha Ministry of the Environment. 

Kroll, S.A. May 13, 2020. Coping with anxiety and worry during COVID. Medium.com 

RELATED SKILLS AND ACTIVITIES

 Invited member or Drexel’s Office of Research and Innovation’s Allyship group for 

Diversity Dialogues, August, 2020-present. 

 Development of monitoring plans for measuring the effects of conservation actions for use 

by professional scientists, non-profit organizations and watershed associations. 

 Consulting with community monitoring groups to tailor monitoring plans and data 

communication for outreach. 

 Publishing data in user-friendly forms for outreach to decision-makers and constituents.

 Knowledge of aquatic macroinvertebrate taxonomy (genus level) in Spain and NE USA.

 Experience performing and assigning various algae, fish and macroinvertebrate sampling 

techniques. 

 Experience with ‘R’, SPSS, CANOCO and e-Primer statistical software packages. 

 Experience with QGIS and ArcGIS software packages. 

 Environmental Leadership program Fellow (2020) 

 Completion of Supervisory Certificate Program (Drexel University; 2016).

 Completion of Drexel Leaders 20/20 Program (2018). 

 Fluent in Spanish, intermediate level in French. 

 Certified medical interpreter for Spanish (MAMI Certification, Syracuse, NY)

 Preparation of tissue samples for Stable Isotope Analysis. 

 Experience with PCR, DNA isolation, sterile technique.

PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES AND OTHER INTERESTS 

 All You Can Save Book Circle facilitator, summer, 2021.

 Advisory Board Co-chair, Tookany-Tacony-Frankford Watershed Partnership, 2016-

present, Diversity Committee (2018-20). 

 Diversity committee, Academy of Natural Sciences, 2019-present. 

 Diversity talk planning committee, Office of Research and Innovation, Drexel University. 

 Monitoring Advisory Committee, Raritan Headwaters Association (RHA), 2014-2020; 

Volunteer, annual stream monitoring, 2014-2017. 

 Community-Based Global Learning professional learning community (Drexel University). 

 Volunteer, Mentor, Women in Natural Sciences Program (engaging young women from 

underrepresented minorities in an out-of-school science program during high school), 

Academy of Natural Sciences.

 Volunteer, Big Brothers, Big Sisters Independence Region, 2014-2016; 2018-2020. 

 Mentor, Drexel Liberty Scholars Program (volunteering to mentor a student with full, 

need-based scholarship), 2018-2019. 

 Peer reviewer: PLOS ONE, Canadian Journal of Zoology, Northeastern Naturalist, 

Restoration Ecology, Diversity. 

 Professional Memberships: 

 Society of Freshwater Science (SFS) National and Mid-Atlantic Chapters 

 500 Women Scientists, Philadelphia Pod

 American Association for the Advancement of Science

 American Water Resources Association 
Kroll 6 

 Society for Ecological Restoration

 Society of Women Environmental Professionals of Philadelphia. 

 Active hobbies (snowshoeing, hiking, yoga), poetry and songwriting, playing the ukulele, 

singing. Certified yoga teacher (200 hour training).

AWARDS

DRWI project receives Integrated Water Resource Management Award from the American 

Water Resources Association, 2018.

Excellence in Project Management, Academy of Natural Sciences, 2014.

Excellence in Advising Undergraduate Research, SUNY-ESF, 2012.

Graduate research fellowship award, University of Castilla-La Mancha, 2008-2010.

PARTICIPATION IN CONFERENCES (students in bold)

September, 2020. Forum of the Coalition for the Delaware River Watershed, Online 

Presentation: Research in the Delaware River Basin Lightning Talk: ANS research on 

indicators of recovery in the DRWI. (SA Kroll, ML Kurz, DH Keller, M Hurley) 

May, 2019: Society of Freshwater Science, Salt lake City, Utah. Moderator

Presentation: Past restoration: Success or failure? And what are the criteria? (SA Kroll, HC 

Oakland, A Chan, DH Keller, L Aycock)

May, 2019: Week of Undergraduate Excellence, Drexel University

Poster: River restoration—Assessing “Successful” Indicators. (L Chamberlain, SA Kroll, 

A Chan, HC Oakland, MJ O’Donnell)

January, 2019: Partnership for the Delaware Estuary Science Summit, Cape May, NJ.

Poster: Coordinated conservation through the DRWI-- how much improvement do we 

predict? (SA Kroll, HC Oakland, MJ O’Donnell, JK Jackson, J Battle)

November, 2018: Delaware Watershed Research Conference, Philadelphia, PA. Moderator.

November, 2018: American Water Resources Association, Baltimore, MD.

Presentation: Connecting Baseline conditions to potential recovery of biotic communities 

due to restoration through the Delaware River Watershed Initiative (SA Kroll, DH 

Keller, RJ Horwitz, JK Jackson) 

October, 2018: Academy Research Day, Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA.

Presentation: Better farming, better streams?

September 2018: Delaware River Watershed Forum, Coalition for the Delaware River 

Watershed, Cape May, NJ.

July 2018: University Council on Water Resources, Pittsburgh, PA. 

Presentation: Monitoring and data management to support conservation in the Delaware 

River Watershed Initiative. (SA Kroll, DH Keller, RJ Horwitz, JK Jackson, SM Haag)

June, 2018: Society of Freshwater Science, Detroit, MI.

Presentation: Structure and function of macroinvertebrate communities for setting targets 

for agricultural BMP restoration. (SA Kroll, HC Oakland, MJ O’Donnell, JK 

Jackson) 

May, 2018: Week of Undergraduate Excellence, Drexel University

Poster: Past restoration: Success or failure? (A Pilla, A Chan, MJ O’Donnell, SA 

Kroll, HC Oakland) 

May, 2018: River Rally, Lake Tahoe, CA.
Kroll 7 

Presentation: Better farming, Better Streams?

June, 2017: Society of Freshwater Science, Raleigh, NC.

Presentation: Connecting baseline conditions to potential recovery of macroinvertebrate and 

diatom communities due to restoration through the DRWI. (SA Kroll, MJ 

O’Donnell, AD Minerovic, JK Jackson)

May, 2016: Society of Freshwater Science, Sacramento, CA.

Presentation: Planning and assessing restoration using multiple indicator monitoring and 

integrated data management in the Delaware River Basin. (SA Kroll, SM Haag, DH 

Keller, RJ Horwitz, JK Jackson)

April, 2016: National Conference on Ecological Restoration, Coral Springs, FL. 

Presentation: Monitoring and data management to inform conservation in the DRWI. (SA 

Kroll, DH Keller, RJ Horwitz, JK Jackson, SM Haag)

May, 2015: Society of Freshwater Science, Milwaukee, WI.

Presentation: Multiple indicator analysis of streams throughout the Delaware River 

Watershed (SA Kroll, RJ Horwitz, DH Keller, AD Minerovic, JK Jackson). 

January, 2015: Partnership for the Delaware Estuary Summit, Cape May, NJ.

Presentation: Macroinvertebrate communities in the eight subwatershed clusters of the 

Delaware River Watershed Initiative (SA Kroll, JK Jackson).

October, 2014: 2nd Annual Delaware River Watershed Forum, Bethlehem, PA.

Presentation: Coordinated monitoring for the DRWI. (SA Kroll, RJ Horwitz). 

November, 2014: American Water Resources Association, 50th Anniversary Conference, 

Vienna, VA. 

Presentation: Monitoring to inform modelling for the DRWI. (SA Kroll, RJ Horwitz) 

Moderator: Watershed Protection Modeling I. 

May, 2014: Joint Aquatic Sciences Meeting, Portland, OR. 

Presentation: Coordinated restoration and conservation actions and monitoring the 

Delaware Watershed Conservation Program. (SA Kroll, RJ Horwitz, R Wall). 

Poster: Predicted effects of climate change on aquatic insect communities in the short-term 

in Castilla-La Mancha, Spain. (SA Kroll, NH Ringler). 

February, 2014: Research Day (student posters), Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA

Poster: The effects of land use on water quality and benthic macroinvertebrate indices of 

biological integrity, a historical study of the Delaware River Basin (D Luong, SA

Kroll, et al.). 

August, 2013: Society for Invertebrate Pathology, Pittsburgh, PA. 

Presentation: Parasitism of Sirex noctilio by non-sterilizing Deladenus siricidicola in northeastern 

North America. (SA Kroll, EE Morris, S Long, AE Hajek). 

January, 2013: USDA Interagency Research Forum on Invasive Species, Annapolis, MD. 

Poster: Parasitism of Sirex noctilio by non-sterilizing Deladenus siricidicola in northeastern 

North America. (SA Kroll, EE Morris, S Long, AE Hajek).

April, 2011: North American Benthological Society (NABS) meeting, Providence, RI. 

Presentation: The impact of hydroelectric dams on the macroinvertebrate community in two 

climates: Salmon River, USA and Segura River, Spain. (SA Kroll, NH Ringler, J de las 

Heras). 

June, 2010: NABS/Association for the Sciences of Limnology and Oceanography (ASLO) 

Joint Meeting, Santa Fe, NM. 

Presentation: Changes in the macroinvertebrate community as a result of flow regulation 

and inter-basin transfer on the in the Segura River Basin, Spain. (SA Kroll, NH 

Ringler, J de las Heras). 
Kroll 8 

September, 2008: XIV Congress of the Iberian Limnological Association, Huelva, Spain. 

Presentation & Poster: The influence of land use on stream water quality and 

macroinvertebrate biotic indices in rivers within Castilla-La Mancha. (SA Kroll, C 

Navarro-Llacer, J de las Heras). 

Poster: Biological and hydromorphological effects of river regulation downstream three 

reservoirs of South Spain. (D Baeza, C Navarro-Llacer, SA Kroll, J de las Heras). 

OTHER RECENT PRESENTATIONS

April 21, 2021. Defining and protecting headwater resilience, NOAA Earth to Sky series in 

the Delaware Basin. 

October 22, 2020. Setting targets for watershed health in the DRWI and related research on 

the projected effects of on-the-ground actions. Virtual Delaware Watershed Research 

Conference. 

August 21, 2020. Panelist and contributor: “Diversity Dialogue: Allyship: Something You Do, 

Not Something You Are.” Webinar with Drexel University’s Office of Research and 

Innovation and ANS’s Black and Brown Caucus. 

August 5, 2020. “Data and communication data products in the DRWI.” Webinar with River 

Network, Stroud Water Research Center.

June 20, 2020. “Study on stream restoration through PA DEP’s Growing Greener and other 

programs.” Webinar with Hayley Oakland and Amanda Chan. 

June, 2020 “Tools for data collection and sharing in the DRWI” Webinar with River Network

November 1, 2019. “Macroinvertebrates tell all: Bioindicators of environmental conditions” 

Biology and Allied Health Sciences Departmental Seminar Series, Bloomsburg University.

September 24, 2019. Panel member for Philadelphia Environmental Film festival screening: 

Anthropocene: The Human Epoch, ANS. 

June 6, 2019. Engaging the Environment, Drexel University.

May 5, 2019. Raft debate, Drexel University (2nd place). 

January 8, 2019. Panel member, Academy Conversation: What happens if federal regulations 

protecting clean water are scaled back? Academy of Natural Sciences of Drexel University.

October 25, 2018. Guest lecture for Introduction to Environmental Studies, Drexel 

University. 

September, 2018. Dean’s Seminar, Drexel University. 

August 22, 2018. Drexel InSites, panel discussion on urban ecology, Academy of Natural 

Sciences of Drexel University.

Summer, 2017. Farmer’s breakfast, Honey Brook, PA. Water quality in your region.
Stella Curriculum Vitae 1

John C. Stella 

Vice President for Research

Professor, Department of Sustainable Resources Management

State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry (SUNY-ESF)

One Forestry Drive, Syracuse, NY 13210

Mobile: (315) 715-5959 stella@esf.edu

Office: (315) 470-4902 https://www.esf.edu/faculty/stella/

EDUCATION

University of California, Berkeley Environmental Science, Policy and Management Ph.D., 2005

Dissertation advisors: Drs. John J. Battles and Joe R. McBride

Title: “A field-calibrated model of pioneer riparian tree recruitment for the San Joaquin Basin, CA” 

University of California, Berkeley Environmental Science, Policy and Management M.S., 1998

Yale University Architecture B.A., 1988

APPOINTMENTS

Vice President, Division of Research, SUNY-ESF, 2021–present

Professor, Dept. of Sustainable Resources Management, SUNY-ESF, 2019–present

Associate Professor, Dept. of Forest and Natural Resource Management, SUNY-ESF, 2013–2019

Assistant Professor, Dept. of Forest and Natural Resource Management, SUNY-ESF, 2006–2013

Adjunct Assistant Professor, Dept. of Geography, Syracuse University, 2009–present

Faculty Fellow, Collegium de Lyon, École Normale Supérieure, Lyon, France, 2013–2014

CALFED Science Program Post-Doctoral Research Fellow, University of California, Berkeley, 2006 

Senior Ecologist / Project Manager, Stillwater Sciences, Berkeley, CA, 1998–2006 

Doctoral Student Researcher, University of California, Berkeley, 2000–2005

RESEARCH GRANTS

National Science Foundation GSS-1660490. Linking Basin-Scale, Stand-Level, and Individual Tree Water 

Stress Indicators for Groundwater-Dependent Riparian Forests in Multiple-Use River Basins. 2017–

2021. J.C. Stella (PI), M.B. Singer (PI, UCSB), and D.A. Roberts (PI, UCSB). $449,982. 

National Science Foundation EAR-1700517. Collaborative Research: Impacts of Dynamic, Climate-Driven 

Water Availability on Tree Water Use and Health in Mediterranean Riparian Forests. 2017–2021. J.C. 

Stella (PI), M.B. Singer (PI, UCSB), K. Caylor (Co-PI, UCSB). Total budget, ESF share: $53,787; total 

$450,353

Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP). Understanding and assessing 

riparian habitat vulnerability to drought-prone climate regimes on Department of Defense bases in the 

southwestern USA. 2018–2022. M.B. Singer (PI, UCSB), J.C. Stella (PI), K. Caylor (Co-PI, UCSB) and 

D.A. Roberts (Co-PI, UCSB). ESF share $348,623; total $1,704,236

The Nature Conservancy. Assessing riparian forest water sources in the Santa Clara River basin. 2018–

2021. M. Singer (PI, UCSB), J.C. Stella (Co-PI), L. Kui (Co-PI, UCSB). $110,000

European Union COST Program. CONVERGES: Knowledge conversion for enhancing management of 

European riparian ecosystems and services. 2017-2021. S. Dufour (PI), J.C. Stella (Collaborator) and 

33 others. 

USDA Cooperative State Research Service. The effects of Riparian Management Zone delineation on 

timber value and ecosystem services in diverse forest biomes across the United States. 2017–2018. R. 

Germain (PI) and J.C. Stella (Co-PI). $63,274.

National Science Foundation EAR-1024820. Collaborative Research: Quantifying Feedbacks between 

Fluvial Morphodynamics and Pioneer Riparian Vegetation in Sand-Bed Rivers. 2010–2015. J.C. Stella 

(PI), A.C. Wilcox (PI, U. Montana), and A.F. Lightbody (PI, UNH). SUNY-ESF share: $205,680 ; total: 

$650,000.
J.C. Stella — Curriculum Vitae 2 

U.S. Geological Survey. Responses of floodplain vegetation to sediment dynamics and feedbacks. 2015. 

J.C. Stella (PI). $10,000. 

The Nature Conservancy/ESSA Technologies. Riparian wood recruitment analysis for bank migration 

scenarios on the Middle Sacramento River, CA. 2015. J.C. Stella (PI). $37,925.

Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Observatoire Homme Milieux (CNRS, France). Ecosystem 

service of carbon sequestration associated with riparian management strategies on the old Rhône 

River. 2015. V. Matzek and J.C. Stella (PI’s). $11,100. 

European Institute for Advanced Study (EURIAS). Common challenges and opportunities in riparian zone 

management along large, Mediterranean-climate rivers. 2013–2014. J.C. Stella (PI). $75,000. 

Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Observatoire Homme Milieux (CNRS, France). Riparian 

forest composition and structure in former Girardon engineering structures of the old Rhône River, 

France. 2014. J.C. Stella (PI). $16,000. 

USDA Forest Service, Northeastern States Research Cooperative. Quantifying Beaver Impacts on 

Adirondack Forest Communities at a Landscape Scale. 2012–2014. J.C. Stella (PI), E. Bevilacqua (CoPI) and J. Frair (Co-PI). $87,850. 

USDA Cooperative State Research Service. Beaver Influence on Vegetation Structure and Avian Diversity 

at Local and Landscape Scales. 2013–2015. S. McNulty (PI), J.C. Stella (Co-PI). $52,000. 

SUNY-ESF, Research Seed Grant. A New Tool for Restoration Ecology: Stable Carbon Isotopes in Tree 

Rings as Indicators of Ecosystem Change. 2010–2011. J.C. Stella (PI) and M. Teece (Co-PI). $8,000.

Western Caucus Pooled Fund. Riparian Study Development for the Lower Yuba River. 2010–11. South 

Yuba River Citizens League. Travel and meeting coordination funding for J.C. Stella. $7,000. 

USDA Cooperative State Research Service. Restoring Small, Ephemeral Wetlands in Forested 

Landscapes in New York State. 2009–2012. J.P. Gibbs, J.C. Stella (Co-PI). $89,850.

Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS, France). Programme International de Coopération 

Scientifique: Contrôles géomorphologiques et dynamique des ripisylves dans les rivières à méandres 

de piémont (étude comparée de l’Ain et du Sacramento). 2009–2011. H. Piégay (PI) and G.M. Kondolf 

(PI). International research funding for J.C. Stella. Total for all collaborators: $120,000. 

CALFED Science Fellows Program. Modeling physical drivers and age structure of cottonwood forest 

habitat: an integrated systems approach. 2008–2010. J.C. Stella (PI) and A.K. Fremier. $228,750.

USDA Cooperative State Research Service. Quantifying riparian zone structure and function to guide 

management of the northern hardwood forest ecosystem. 2008–2011. J.C. Stella (PI). $82,000.

SUNY-ESF, Research Seed Grant. Elemental stoichiometry and ecosystem health of Onondaga Creek. 

2008. J.C. Stella (PI) and K.E. Limburg. $8,000.

CALFED Science Fellows Program. Effects of river regulation and climate on sustainability of Fremont 

cottonwood (Populus fremontii) forests in California’s Central Valley. 2006–2008. J.J. Battles (PI) and 

J.C. Stella. $228,750.

NSF Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grant. Developing a predictive understanding of recruitment and 

survival of pioneer riparian trees on regulated rivers. 2003. J.C. Stella (doctoral fellowship), with J.J. 

Battles (PI). $11,950.

CALFED Science Fellows Program. A mechanistic model to evaluate and improve riparian restoration 

success. 2003–2004. J.C. Stella (doctoral fellowship), with J.J. Battles (PI). $93,491.

CALFED Ecosystem Restoration Program. A mechanistic approach to riparian restoration in the San 

Joaquin Basin. 2002–2003. Research grant #1999-B152 awarded to Stillwater Sciences (Project 

developed by J.C. Stella; data collection used for dissertation research). $289,666.

PUBLICATIONS

Peer-Reviewed Articles (***undergrad advisee; ** grad advisee; *other student contributor)

Rodríguez-González, P., S. Dufour, J.C. Stella, et al. (in review). Bringing the margin to the focus: ten

challenges for riparian vegetation. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 
J.C. Stella — Curriculum Vitae 3 

Beslity, J.O.*, S.B. Shaw, J.E. Drake, J. Fridley, J.C. Stella, J.R. Stark*, K. Singh. (in review) A low cost, 

low power sap flux device for distributed and intensive monitoring of transpiration. Agricultural and 

Forest Meteorology. 

Kibler, C.L.*, E.C. Schmidt*, D.A. Roberts, J.C. Stella, L. Kui, A.M. Lambert, M. Singer. 2021. A brown 

wave of riparian woodland mortality following groundwater declines during the 2012-2019 California 

drought. Environmental Research Letters. DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/ac1377

Stella, J.C., L. Kui, G.H. Golet, F. Poulsen. (in press). Modeling riparian forest structure to estimate large 

wood inputs and other ecosystem services on geomorphically active floodplains. Earth Surface 

Processes and Landforms.

Rohde, M.M.**, J.C. Stella, D.A. Roberts, M.B. Singer. 2021. Groundwater dependence of riparian 

woodlands and the disrupting effect of anthropogenically altered streamflow. Proceedings of the 

National Academy of Sciences. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2026453118

Haynes, K.R.*, J. Friedman, J.C. Stella, D.J. Leopold. 2021. Assessing climate change tolerance and the 

niche breadth-range size hypothesis in rare and widespread plants. Oecologia

Jayasuriya, M.T.*, J.C. Stella, R.H. Germain. 2021. Elevated streambank plant community diversity and 

composition define functional riparian zones in mesic headwater forests across the northeastern U.S. 

Journal of Forestry DOI: 10.1093/jofore/fvab034

Sabathier, R.*, M.B. Singer, J.C. Stella, D.A. Roberts, K.K. Caylor. 2021. Vegetation responses to climatic 

and geologic controls on water availability in southeastern Arizona. Environmental Research Letters 

16 : (ERL-109499) DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/abfe8c

Stephan, E.*, T. Endreny, P. Groffman, P.G. Vidon, J.C. Stella. 2021. Interacting drivers and their tradeoffs 

for predicting denitrification potential across a strong urban to rural gradient within heterogeneous 

landscapes. Journal of Environmental Management 294 DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113021

Warter, M.M.*, M.B. Singer, M.O. Cuthbert, D.A. Roberts, K. Caylor, R. Sabathier*, J.C. Stella. 2021.

Onset and propagation of the 2012 – 2019 drought in Southern California. HESS. DOI: 10.5194/hess2020-479

Janssen P., J.C. Stella, H. Piégay, B. Räpple**, R. Gruel**, B. Pont, S. Dufour. 2020. Response of riparian 

forest structure and composition to long-term, cumulative impacts along a large river. Journal of 

Environmental Management DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111630

Mayes, M., K. Caylor, M.B. Singer, J.C. Stella, D.A. Roberts, P. Nagler. 2020. Climate sensitivity of water 

use by riparian woodlands at landscape scales. Hydrological Processes. DOI: 10.1002/hyp.13942

Diehl, R.M., A.W. Wilcox and J.C. Stella. 2020. Evaluation of the integrated riparian ecosystem response 

to future flow regimes on semiarid rivers. Journal of Environmental Management DOI: 

10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111037

Mahoney, M.***, J.C. Stella. 2020. Stem size selectivity is stronger than species preferences for beaver, a 

central place forager. Forest Ecology and Management. DOI : 10.1016/j.foreco.2020.118331

Kua, Z.X.**, J.C. Stella, J.M. Farrell. 2020. Ecosystem engineer disturbance enhances plant diversity in 

wetlands subject to water regulation and biotic invasion. Ecosphere. DOI: 10.1002/ecs2.3256

Janssen P., J.C. Stella, H. Piégay, B. Räpple**, B. Pont, J-M Faton, J.H.C. Cornelissen, A. Evette. 2020. 

Divergence of riparian forest composition and functional traits from natural succession along a 

degraded river with multiple stressor legacies. Science of the Total Environment 720. DOI: 

10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137730

Lightbody, A., Kui, L.**, J.C. Stella, K.W. Skorko, S. Bywater-Reyes, A.C. Wilcox. 2019. Riparian 

vegetation and sediment supply regulate the morphodynamic flood response of an experimental stream

to floods. Frontiers in Environmental Science (Freshwater Science section). DOI: 

10.3389/fenvs.2019.00040

Kui, L.**, J.C. Stella, R. M. Diehl, A.C. Wilcox, A. Lightbody, L.S. Sklar. 2018. Can environmental flows 

moderate riparian invasions? The influence of seedling morphology and density on scour losses in 

experimental floods. Freshwater Biology DOI: 10.1111/fwb.13235

Matzek, V., J.C. Stella, P. Ropion*. 2018. Development of a carbon calculator tool for riparian restoration. 

Applied Vegetation Science DOI: 10.1111/avsc.12400
J.C. Stella — Curriculum Vitae 4 

Thorel, M., H. Piégay, C. Barthélémy, B. Räpple**, C-R Gruel*, P. Marmonier, T. Winiarsky, J-P Bedell, F. 

Arnaud*, G. Roux, J.C. Stella, G. Seignemartin*, A. Tena-Pagan, V. Wawrzyniak*, D. Roux-Michollet, 

B. Oursel, S. Fayolle, C. Bertrand*, E. Franquet. 2018. Socio-environmental stakes associated with 

process-based restoration strategies in large rivers: should we remove novel ecosystems along the 

Rhône (France)? Regional Environmental Change DOI: 10.1007/s10113-018-1325-7

Räpple, B.**, H. Piégay, J.C. Stella, D. Mercier*. 2017. What drives riparian vegetation establishment in 

river channels at patch to corridor scales? Insights from annual airborne surveys (Drôme River, SE 

France). Ecohydrology DOI: 10.1002/eco.1886

Kui, L.**, J.C. Stella, P.B. Shafroth, P.K. House, A.C. Wilcox. 2017. The long-term legacy of geomorphic 

and riparian vegetation feedbacks on the dammed Bill Williams River, Arizona, USA. Ecohydrology

DOI:10.1002/eco.1839

Ledford, S.H.*, L.K. Lautz, P.G. Vidon, J.C. Stella. 2017. Impact of seasonal changes in stream 

metabolism on nitrate concentrations in an urban stream. Biogeochemistry DOI:10.1007/s10533-017-

0336-7

Diehl, R.M., A.C. Wilcox, J.C. Stella, L. Kui**, L. Sklar, A. Lightbody. 2016. Fluvial sediment supply and 

pioneer woody seedlings as a control on bar-surface topography. Earth Surface Processes and 

Landforms DOI:10.1002/esp.4017

Hultine, K.R., K.C. Grady, T.E. Wood, S.M. Shuster, J.C. Stella, T.G. Whitham. 2016. Climate change 

perils for dioecious plant species. Nature Plants. DOI:10.1038/nplants.2016.109

Ledford, S.H.*, L.K. Lautz, J.C. Stella. 2016. Hydrogeologic processes impacting storage, fate, and 

transport of chloride from road salt in urban riparian aquifers. Environmental Science and Technology

50: 4979–4988 DOI:10.1021/acs.est.6b00402

Kui, L.** and J.C. Stella. 2016. Fluvial sediment burial increases mortality of riparian tree seedlings but 

induces compensatory growth response in survivors. Forest Ecology and Management, 366. DOI: 

10.1016/j.foreco.2016.02.001

Bywater-Reyes, S.*, A.C. Wilcox, J.C. Stella, and A.F. Lightbody. 2015. Flow and scour constraints on 

uprooting of pioneer woody seedlings, Water Resources Research, 51. DOI:10.1002/2014WR016641

Dixon, M.D. and J.C. Stella. 2015. Temporal variability in hydrology modifies the influence of 

geomorphology on wetland distribution along a desert stream: a commentary on Dong et al. 2015. 

Journal of Ecology. DOI:10.1111/1365-2745.12499

Bishop, D.A.*, C.M. Beier, N. Pedersen, G.B. Lawrence, J.C. Stella, T.J. Sullivan. 2015. Regional growth 

decline in sugar maple (Acer saccharum) and potential causes. Ecosphere. DOI:10.1890/ES15-

00260.1

Manners, R., A.C. Wilcox, L. Kui**, A. Lightbody, J.C. Stella, L. Sklar. 2015. When do plants modify fluvial 

processes? Plant-hydraulic interactions under variable flow and sediment supply rates. Journal of 

Geophysical Research – Earth Surface. DOI:10.1002/2014JF003265

Kui, L.**, J.C. Stella, A. Lightbody, A.C. Wilcox. 2014. Ecogeomorphic feedbacks and flood loss of riparian 

tree seedlings in meandering channel experiments. Water Resources Research. 50, DOI: 

10.1002/2014WR015719

Dufour, S., M.K. Hayden*, J.C. Stella, H. Piégay, J.J. Battles. 2014. Maintaining channel abandonment 

processes increases riparian plant diversity within fluvial corridors. Ecohydrology. DOI: 

10.1002/eco.1546

Riddle, J., N. Pedersen, J.C. Stella, D.L. Leopold. 2014. Shifting climate sensitivity and contrasting growth 

trends in Juniperus species growing together at opposite range margins. Tree-Ring Research 70:101–

111. DOI:10.3959/1536-1098-70.2.101

Stella, J.C., J. Riddle*, H. Piégay, M. Gagnage*, M-L. Trémélo. 2013. Climate and local geomorphic 

interactions drive patterns of riparian forest decline along a Mediterranean Basin river. Geomorphology.

DOI:10.1016/j.geomorph.2013.01.013

Stella, J.C., P. Rodríguez-González, S. Dufour, J. Bendix. 2013. Riparian vegetation research in 

Mediterranean-climate regions: common patterns, ecological processes, and considerations for 

management. Hydrobiologia 719:291–315. DOI:10.1007/s10750-012-1304-9
J.C. Stella — Curriculum Vitae 5 

Eallonardo, A. S.*, D.J. Leopold, J.D. Fridley and J.C. Stella. 2012. Salinity tolerance and the decoupling of 

resource axis plant traits. Journal of Vegetation Science. DOI:10.1111/j.1654-1103.2012.01470.x

Singer, M.B., J.C. Stella, S. Dufour, L.B. Johnstone**, H. Piégay, and R.J.S. Wilson. 2012. Contrasting 

water uptake and growth responses to drought in co-occurring riparian tree species. Ecohydrology. 6: 

402–412. DOI:10.1002/eco.1283

Beier C.M., J.C. Stella, M. Dovçiak, S.A. McNulty. 2012. Local climatic drivers of changes in phenology at 

a boreal-temperate ecotone in eastern North America. Climatic Change 115:399–417. DOI: 

10.1007/s10584-012-0455-z

Schifman, L.A.**, J.C. Stella, M. Teece and T.A. Volk. 2012. Plant growth and water stress response of 

hybrid willow (Salix spp.) among sites and years in central New York. Biomass & Bioenergy 36: 316–

326. DOI:10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.10.042

Stella, J.C., M.K. Hayden*, J.J. Battles, H. Piégay, S. Dufour, and A.K. Fremier. 2011. The role of 

abandoned channels as refugia for sustaining pioneer riparian forest ecosystems. Ecosystems 14:

776–790. DOI:10.1007/s10021-011-9446-6

Harper, E.B., J.C. Stella, A.K. Fremier. 2011. Global sensitivity analysis for complex ecological models: a

case study of riparian cottonwood population dynamics. Ecological Applications 21: 1225–1240. 

DOI:10.1890/10-0506.1

Downs, P.W., M.S. Singer, B.K. Orr, Z.E. Diggory, T.C. Church, and J.C. Stella. 2011. Restoring ecological 

integrity in highly regulated rivers: The role of baseline data and analytical references. Environmental 

Management 48:847–864. DOI:10.1007/s00267-011-9736-y

Stella, J.C., and J.J. Battles. 2010. How do riparian woody seedlings survive seasonal drought? Oecologia

164:579–590. DOI:10.1007/s00442-010-1657-6

Stella, J.C., J.J. Battles, J.R. McBride, B.K. Orr. 2010. Riparian seedling mortality from simulated water 

table recession, and the design of sustainable flow regimes on regulated rivers. Restoration Ecology. 

18(S2): 284–294. DOI:10.1111/j.1526-100X.2010.00651.x

Rodríguez-González, P.M.*, J.C. Stella, F. Campelo, T. Ferreira, A. Albuquerque. 2010. Subsidy or stress? 

Tree structure and growth in wetland forests along a hydrological gradient in southern Europe. Forest 

Ecology and Management 259: 2015–2025. DOI:10.1016/j.foreco.2010.02.012

Stella, J.C., J.J. Battles, B.K. Orr, J.R. McBride. 2006. Synchrony of seed dispersal, hydrology and local 

climate in a semi-arid river reach in California. Ecosystems 9:1200-1214. DOI:10.1007/s10021-005-

0138-y 

Book Chapters and Conference Proceeding Papers (*indicates student contributor)

Stella, J.C. and J. Bendix. 2018. Chapter 5: Multiple stressors in riparian ecosystems. In Multiple stressors 

in river ecosystems: status, impacts and prospects for the future (S. Sabater, A. Elosegi, R. Ludwig,

Eds.). Elsevier, San Diego. ISBN: 9780128117132 

Orr, B.K., A.G. Merrill, Z.E. Diggory, J.C. Stella. 2017. Use of the biophysical template for riparian 

restoration and revegetation in the Southwest. In: Ralston, B.E., and Sarr, D.A., Eds. Case studies of 

riparian and watershed restoration in the southwestern United States—principles, challenges, and 

successes. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2017-1091, 116 p. DOI: 10.3133/ofr20171091

Sabater, S., X. Timoner, G. Bornette, M. de Wilde, J.C. Stromberg, J.C. Stella. 2016. The biota of 

intermittent rivers and ephemeral streams: algae and vascular plants. In Intermittent Rivers: Ecology 

and Management (T. Datry, N. Bonada and A. Boulton, Eds.). Elsevier, San Diego. DOI:10.1016/B978-

0-12-803835-2.00016-4

Stella, J.C., H. Piégay, J.D. Riddle, C. Gruel*, B. Räpple**. 2015. Riparian forest impacts and dynamics on 

large rivers managed for multiple uses; insights from the Sacramento (California, USA) and Rhône 

(France). Proceedings of the Second Integrative Sciences and Sustainable Development of Rivers (IS 

Rivers) Conference, Lyon, France, 22–26 June 2015. 

Räpple, B.**, K. Michel, H. Piégay, R. Dunford, D. Mercier*, J.C. Stella. 2015. Caracteristiques et 

dynamique de la vegetation riveraine sur la riviere Drôme: analyses à partir d’images aeriennes de très 

haute résolution. Proceedings of the Société Hydrotechnique de France (SHF) annual congress. Paris, 

France, April 2015.
J.C. Stella — Curriculum Vitae 6 

Bendix, J., and J.C. Stella. 2013. Riparian Vegetation and the Fluvial Environment: A Biogeographic 

Perspective. In Treatise on Geomorphology 12: Ecogeomorphology (D. Butler and C. Hupp, Eds.). 

Elsevier, San Diego. DOI 10.1016/B978-0-12-374739-6.00322-5

Stella, J.C., J.D. Riddle, J.J. Battles, M.K. Hayden*, and A.K. Fremier. 2012. Riparian forest dynamics on a 

large, regulated river (California, USA): impacts and implications for management. Proceedings of the 

Integrative Sciences and Sustainable Development of Rivers (IS Rivers) Conference, Lyon, France, 

26–28 June 2012. http://www.graie.org/ISRivers/actes/pdf2012/1B109-237STE.pdf

Skorko, K.*, A. Lightbody, L. Kui**, J.C. Stella, A.C. Wilcox. 2012. Hydraulic and topographic response of 

sand-be rivers to riparian vegetation presence and patterns: field-scale laboratory methods and results. 

Proceedings of the Hydraulic Measurements and Experimental Methods Conference (HMEM 2012). 

Snowbird, UT. 

Stella, J.C., J.C. Vick, B.K. Orr. 2004. Riparian vegetation dynamics on the Merced River. The Wilderness 

Society Riparian Floodplains Conference Proceedings. Sacramento, CA. March 2001.

Stella, J.C. 1998. The Greywacke Cover-up. Soil Survey Horizons 39(4): 127-130.

Applied Research Reports and Non-Peer Reviewed Articles

Stella, J.C. and L. Kui**. 2015. Large Woody Debris enhancement model for Sacramento River 

Environmental Flow Tool (SacEFT). Prepared for The Nature Conservancy. Chico, CA.

Wilcock, P., J.C. Stella, D. Orth and Atkins Environmental. 2012. Senior scientific review of Trinity River 

Restoration Program, Fiscal Year 2013 Preliminary Science Workplan. Provided to the Trinity 

Management Council (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and Partners). 

Stella, J.C.. 2012. Senior scientific review of Platte River Recovery Implementation Program, Directed 

Vegetation Research. Nebraska Community Foundation, Inc.

Stella, J.C. 2011. Yuba River Riparian Study: Cottonwood Limiting Factors Analysis. Prepared for Yuba 

County Water Agency. Yuba River Development Project, FERC Project No. 2246.

Stillwater Sciences. 2006. Restoring recruitment processes for riparian cottonwoods and willows: a fieldcalibrated predictive model for the lower San Joaquin Basin. Prepared for CALFED Bay-Delta 

Ecosystem Restoration Program, Sacramento, California. Prepared by Stillwater Sciences and Dr.

J.C. Stella, in conjunction with Dr. J.J. Battles and Dr. J.R. McBride, Department of Environmental 

Science, Policy, and Management, University of California, Berkeley. 

(http://www.stillwatersci.com/resources/2006riprecruitbrochure.pdf)

Stillwater Sciences. 2006. Merced River Ranch revegetation experiment. Prepared by Stillwater 

Sciences, Berkeley, California, for CALFED, Sacramento, California. 

(http://merced.stillwatersci.com/pdf/10/Tech%20Memo_10_Reveg%20Expt_compiled.pdf)

Stillwater Sciences. 2002. Merced River corridor restoration plan. Prepared by Stillwater Sciences, 

Berkeley, California for CALFED Bay-Delta Program, Sacramento, California 

(http://www.stillwatersci.com/resources/2004mercedrestoplan.pdf)

Stillwater Sciences. 2001. Merced River Restoration Plan Phase II. Volume II: Baseline evaluations; 

geomorphic and riparian vegetation investigations. Prepared by Stillwater Sciences, Berkeley, CA for 

CALFED Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration Program, Sacramento, CA. 

(http://www.stillwatersci.com/resources/2001mercedrestov2.pdf)

HONORS AND AWARDS 

Faculty Fellowship, European Institute for Advanced Study (EURIAS), Lyon France 2013–2014

Schubert Prize, Dept. of Environmental Science, Policy and Management, UC Berkeley, 2005

Colman Fellowship in Watershed Management, UC Berkeley, 2000, 2003 

ESPM Departmental Fellowships, UC Berkeley, 1996, 1997, 2000 

INVITED PRESENTATIONS AND SPECIAL SESSIONS

Stella, J.C. Riparian tree stress in relation to streamflow. Annual Meeting of the Ecological Society of 

America, Salt Lake City, UT, August 2020
J.C. Stella — Curriculum Vitae 7 

Stella, J.C., Modelling riparian forest development to predict floodplain inputs of large wood to meandering 

rivers. Invited presentation at the American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, Washinton, D.C.. 

December 2018.

Stella, J.C., Riparian vegetation interactions with fluvial processes. Concordia University, Montreal, 

Canada, October 2018.

Stella, J.C., Patterns of natural regeneration of early successional riparian forest habitat. California Yellowbilled Cuckoo Workshop. Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge, Willows, CA. Sept. 6, 2018

Stella, J.C., Cumulative impact legacies create novel riparian forests on large, multi-use rivers 

(Sacramento, CA and Rhône, France). Invited presentation at the Society of Wetland Scientists, 

Denver, June 2018.

Stella, J.C., Multiple stressors and the response of riparian vegetation. Invited presentation at the Third I.S. 

Rivers conference (Integrative sciences and sustainable development of rivers). Lyon, France, June 

2018.

Stella, J.C., Defining groundwater-dependent ecosystems and assessing critical water needs for their 

foundational plant communities. Invited presentation at the American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, 

New Orleans, LA. December 2017.

Stella, J.C., Approaches and tools for assessing dependence and vulnerability of GDE plant communities. 

Putting Policy into Practice: Achieving Sustainable Groundwater Management for People and Nature. 

Annual Meeting of the Ecological Society of America, Portland, OR, August 2017.

Stella, J.C., Confluence to Influence: Preserving and enhancing the multiple functions and services of 

riparian zones in a changing climate. Davis, CA. 17–19 October, 2017. (conference organizing 

committee)

Stella, J.C. 2015. 11th Annual Berkeley River Restoration Symposium. Berkeley, CA. 5 December 2015.,

(invited panelist). 

Stella, J.C., 2015. El Nino Climate Summit. University of California, Davis. 5 December 2015, (invited 

panelist). 

Stella, J.C., Hydrologic Analysis for Ecosystem Restoration. Presentations on behalf of The Nature 

Conservancy for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Hydrologic Engineering Center, Davis, CA. 18-19 

November 2015.

Stella, J.C., Panel on Climate Challenges for the Sacramento–San Joaquin Watershed. Southwest Climate 

Summit. Landscape Conservation Cooperative — Southwest Region. Sacramento, CA. 2–3 November 

2015.

Stella, J.C., Second I.S. Rivers conference (Integrative sciences and sustainable development of rivers). 

Lyon, France. 22–26 June, 2015, (conference organizing committee)

Stella, J.C., H. Piégay, Synthesizing riparian science and management challenges on large, multi-use 

rivers: cross-system lessons from Europe and North America. Second I.S. Rivers conference 

(Integrative sciences and sustainable development of rivers). Lyon, France. 22–26 June, 2015, (coorganizer). 

Stella, J.C., Riparian vegetation and fluvial interactions at multiple scales. Symposium on aquaticterrestrial linkages. Umeå, Sweden, March 2015.

Stella, J.C., H. Piégay, G.M. Kondolf, D. Roux-Michollet, International workshop on large river 

management, Rhône and Sacaramento rivers. Collaborative exchange among managers and scientists 

with the California Department of Water Resources, The Nature Conservancy, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, American Rivers, and the French Water Agency (Agence de l’eau), and the French National 

Center for Scientific Research (CNRS). Berkeley, CA. 14-17 December 2014, (co-organizer). 

Stella, J.C., H. Piégay, G. David, and B. Eaton, River-Floodplain Connectivity: Interactions among Riparian 

Vegetation, Fluvial Wood, Stream Morphodynamics and Biogeochemical Cycles. American 

Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, San Francisco, CA, December 2014, (special session coorganizer). 

Stella, J.C., Riparian forest dynamics and management challenges on Mediterranean-climate rivers. 

Restoring the West Conference, Utah State University. Logan, UT, October 2014
J.C. Stella — Curriculum Vitae 8 

Stella, J.C., K. Holl, V. Matzek, and M. Dixon, Connecting mountains to the sea: riparian research and 

management challenges in large river systems. Annual Meeting of the Ecological Society of America, 

Sacramento, CA, August 2014., (special session co-organizer). 

Stella, J.C., 2014. Développement et enjeux de la gestion des ripisylves sur les grands fleuves (Riparian 

forest development and management challenges on large river floodplains). Café Fluvial, École 

Normale Supérieure de Lyon. Lyon, France, June 2014

Stella, J.C., Populus nigra growth and water use under a changing climate: insights from stable isotopes in 

tree rings. Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique d'Orléans and University of Tours. Orleans, 

France, May 2014

Stella, J.C., Trends in water use and growth for riparian trees undergoing climatic drying. Instituto Superior 

de Agronomia, Universidade de Lisboa. Lisbon, Portugal, March 2014

Stella, J.C., Trends in water use efficiency, and tradeoffs between growth and function for riparian trees 

undergoing climatic drying. Department of Geography, University of Rennes. Rennes, France, 

February 2014

Stella, J.C., Un fleuve durable? Managing large rivers for human and ecosystem needs: the case of the 

Middle Rhône. Collegium de Lyon Seminar Series, École Normale Supérieure de Lyon. Lyon, France, 

October 2013

Stella, J.C., Recent advances in quantifying plant and geomorphic feedbacks in alluvial rivers. Earth 

Sciences Department, University of New Hampshire. Durham,NH, April 2013

Stella, J.C. J. Riddle, J.J. Battles, Coevolution of floodplain and riparian forest dynamics on large, 

meandering rivers. Invited oral presentation at the American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, San 

Francisco, CA, December 2012.

Stella, J.C., Emerging issues in riparian science in arid regions. Center for Watershed Sciences, University 

of California, Davis. Davis, CA, December 2012

Stella, J.C., Partnering with Beaver in Stream Restoration Short Course, Utah State University, Logan, UT, 

October 2012, (invited instructor).

Stella, J.C., Riparian forest dynamics on the Sacramento River (California, USA): impacts and implications 

for management. Research briefing for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service personnel, Willows, CA. July 

2012.

Stella, J.C., Com'Eau Labo Workshop - Better communication and collaboration between managers and 

scientists: discussions about current practices in France and the United States IS Rivers International 

Conference (Integrative Sciences and Sustainable Development of Rivers), Lyon, France, June 2012.

Stella, J.C., Réponse des ripisylves à une modification du régime hydrologique : diagnostic et propositions 

de restauration (Riparian forest response to modified riparian hydrological regimes: diagnosis and 

proposals for restoration). Colloque 13: Réhabilitation des hydrosystèmes: enjeux scientifiques et 

nouvelles perspectives (“Symposium 13: Rehabilitation of hydrosystems: scientific issues and new 

perspectives”). Entretiens Jacques Cartier 2011. Montreal, Canada, October, 2011.

Stella, J.C., Partnering with Beaver in Stream Restoration Short Course, Utah State University. Loga, UT 

September 2011, (invited instructor).

Stella, J.C. J. Riddle, H. Piégay, Dendroecology as an indicator of riparian function and drivers of mesoscale ecosystem impacts. International Association of Vegetation Science Meeting, Lyon, France, June 

2011.

Stella, J.C. J. Riddle, H. Piégay, M. Teece, Integrating tree-ring and stable carbon isotope analysis to 

measure riparian ecosystem function, integrity, and meso-scale hydrogeomorphic impacts. Seventh 

Symposium for European Freshwater Sciences, Girona, Spain, June – July, 2011.

Stella, J.C., J. Bendix, H. Piégay, and P. Downs, Non-equilibrium drivers in Mediterranean climate river 

and riparian ecosystems.American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, San Francisco, CA, December 

2010, (special session organizer). 

Stella, J.C.,. INECOL/SUNY-ESF research collaboration workshop. Presentation on professional research 

program and FNRM discipline areas. Instituto de Ecología, A.C. (INECOL), Xalapa, Mexico. March 15, 

2010. 
J.C. Stella — Curriculum Vitae 9 

Stella, J.C., A.K. Fremier. S. Dufour, and H. Piégay, Ecological processes on abandoned riparian 

floodplains. Annual Meeting of the Ecological Society of America, Albuquerque, NM, August 2009, 

(special session organizer). 

Stella, J.C., A river runs through it: modeling and restoring riparian forests on dynamic floodplains. Invited 

speaker, Bowdoin College Biology Seminar Series. Brunswick, ME. Sept. 2009.

Stella, J.C., Abiotic Controls on Riparian Forest Development at Leaf to Landscape Scales. Invited 

speaker, Syracuse University Biology Seminar Series. Syracuse, NY. February, 2009.

Stella, J.C., Scaling from the leaf to the floodplain: Linking physiology studies with life history traits to 

restore streamside forests in arid regions. IGERT Biogeochemistry and Environmental Biocomplexity 

Seminar, Cornell University. Ithaca, NY. October, 2007.

Stella, J.C., Quantitative approaches to restoring streamside forests in a water-limited ecosystem. 

Department of Geography Symposium, Syracuse University. Syracuse, NY. September, 2007.

Stella, J.C., Quantitative approaches to riparian restoration in California (USA). River Restoration 

International Symposium. Madrid, Spain. September, 2006.

Stella, J.C., Research featured in Forests Round the Bend, a special issue on riparian restoration efforts 

on the Sacramento River. Science-In-Action Newsletter, CALFED Bay-Delta Program. Sacramento, 

CA, 2003, (special feature).

PROFESSIONAL SERVICE

Boards of directors

• The Nature Conservancy, Western and Central New York Chapter. 2015–present.

• Onondaga Earth Corps, Syracuse, NY. 2016–present.

• Town of DeWitt Urban Tree Committee, DeWitt, NY. 2015–2016

• The Star Foundation private philanthropy, EIN 256761169. 2001–present.

Editorial roles and conference planning

• Subject Matter Editor, Ecological Applications, Ecological Society of America (2016–-2021) 

• Editorial Advisory Board member, Riparian Ecology and Conservation (2012–2017) 

• Conference planning committee, Confluence to Influence: Preserving and enhancing the multiple 

functions and services of riparian zones in a changing climate. Davis, CA. (Oct. 2017)

• Conference scientific committee, 2015 I.S. Rivers Conference — Integrative sciences and sustainable 

development of rivers. Lyon, France (June 2015)

• Special session convener, American Geophysical Union Annual Meeting (2010, 2014) and Ecological 

Society of America Annual Meeting (2009, 2014)

Journal reviews for 

Ecological Applications; Water Resources Research; Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment; 

BioScience: Ecohydrology; Global Change Biology; River Research and Applications; Hydrobiologia; 

Forest Ecology and Management; Earth Surface Processes and Landforms; Riparian Ecology and 

Conservation; Ecoscience; Wetlands; Ecological Restoration; Environmental Management; Journal of 

the American Water Resources Association

Proposal reviews for

• National Science Foundation

• French National Research Agency (ANR) proposal panel, 2019–2020

• French National Network of Institutes of Advanced Study (RFIEA)

• Northeastern States Research Cooperative (USDA Forest Service)

• USDA Cooperative State Research Service Grant Program

Technical reviews for:

• US Bureau of Reclamation, Technical Review for Grand Canyon/Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive 

Management Program, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center 2020 Annual Report

• Trinity River Restoration Program, Technical Review for FY13 Preliminary Science Workplan

• Platte River Recovery Implementation Program, Directed Vegetation Research Study. 2011.

• Yuba River Development Project, FERC Relicensing Project No. 2246. 2011.
J.C. Stella — Curriculum Vitae 10

• USGS Geomorphic and Sediment Transport Laboratory. Project for monitoring vegetation change on 

the central Platte River, NE. 2007.

• CA Regional Water Quality Control Boards. Proposed Stream and Wetlands Protection Policy for North 

Coast and San Francisco Bay Regions. 2006.

• CA Dept. of Fish and Game. Protocol for quantitative studies of riparian restoration effectiveness. 2004.

• CA Dept. of Water Resources. Robinson Reach revegetation and monitoring plan, Merced River, CA. 

2002.

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS

Ecological Society of America

American Geophysical Union

Society for Ecological Restoration

Society of Wetland Scientists
Bureau of Reclamation Order No. 140R4021F0024 | 11/15/2021 Page 20

APPENDIX C: GCMRC RESPONSE

GCMRC Scientists’ Response to Summary of Responses

GCMRC Scientists’ Response to Individual Peer Reviewers 
Response to GCDAMP Science Advisor

Review of Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center Annual Report 2020 

 

November 8, 2021 

Prepared for

US Bureau of Reclamation

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program

Upper Colorado Regional Office 

Salt Lake City, Utah 

Prepared by

U.S. Geological Survey

Southwest Biological Science Center

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

Flagstaff, Arizona 

This information is preliminary or provisional and is subject to revision. It is being provided to meet the need for timely best 

science. The information has not received final approval by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and is provided on the condition 

that neither the USGS nor the U.S. Government shall be held liable for any damages resulting from the authorized or 

unauthorized use of the information. The use of trade names is for informational purposes only and does not imply endorsement. 

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
i 

Table of Contents

Executive Summary....................................................................................................................................... 1

1.0 Background ............................................................................................................................................. 2

2.0 Peer Reviewers........................................................................................................................................ 2

3.0 Summary of Responses........................................................................................................................... 3

Project A: Streamflow, Water Quality, and Sediment Transport and Budgeting in the Colorado River 

Ecosystem ..................................................................................................................................................... 5

Reviewer 1 ................................................................................................................................................ 5

Reviewer 2 ................................................................................................................................................ 6

Reviewer 3 ................................................................................................................................................ 6

Reviewer 4 ................................................................................................................................................ 7

Reviewer 5 ................................................................................................................................................ 7

Project B: Sandbar and Sediment Storage Monitoring And Research.......................................................... 8

Reviewer 1 ................................................................................................................................................ 8

Reviewer 2 ................................................................................................................................................ 8

Reviewer 3 ................................................................................................................................................ 8

Reviewer 4 ................................................................................................................................................ 9

Reviewer 5 ................................................................................................................................................ 9

Project C: Riparian Vegetation Monitoring and Research .......................................................................... 10

Reviewer 1 .............................................................................................................................................. 10

Reviewer 2 .............................................................................................................................................. 10

Reviewer 3 .............................................................................................................................................. 10

Reviewer 4 .............................................................................................................................................. 11

Reviewer 5 .............................................................................................................................................. 11

Project D: Geomorphic Effects of Dam Operations and Vegetation Management for Archaeological Sites

.................................................................................................................................................................... 12

Reviewer 1 .............................................................................................................................................. 12

Reviewer 2 .............................................................................................................................................. 12

Reviewer 3 .............................................................................................................................................. 12

Reviewer 4 .............................................................................................................................................. 13

Reviewer 5 .............................................................................................................................................. 13

Project E: Nutrients And Temperature as Ecosystem Drivers: Understanding Patterns, Establishing Links 

and Developing Predictive Tools for an Uncertain Future.......................................................................... 14

Reviewer 1 .............................................................................................................................................. 14
ii 

Reviewer 2 .............................................................................................................................................. 14

Reviewer 3 .............................................................................................................................................. 15

Reviewer 4 .............................................................................................................................................. 15

Reviewer 5 .............................................................................................................................................. 15

Project F: Aquatic Invertebrate Ecology ..................................................................................................... 16

Reviewer 1 .............................................................................................................................................. 16

Reviewer 2 .............................................................................................................................................. 16

Reviewer 3 .............................................................................................................................................. 17

Reviewer 4 .............................................................................................................................................. 17

Reviewer 5 .............................................................................................................................................. 17

Project G: Humpback Chub Population Dynamics Throughout the Colorado River Ecosystem.................18

Reviewer 1 .............................................................................................................................................. 18

Reviewer 2 .............................................................................................................................................. 18

Reviewer 3 .............................................................................................................................................. 18

Reviewer 4 .............................................................................................................................................. 18

Reviewer 5 .............................................................................................................................................. 18

Project H: Salmonid Research and Monitoring........................................................................................... 19

Reviewer 1 .............................................................................................................................................. 19

Reviewer 2 .............................................................................................................................................. 20

Reviewer 3 .............................................................................................................................................. 20

Reviewer 4 .............................................................................................................................................. 20

Reviewer 5 .............................................................................................................................................. 20

Project I: Warm-Water Native and Nonnative Fish Research and Monitoring ..........................................21

Reviewer 1 .............................................................................................................................................. 21

Reviewer 2 .............................................................................................................................................. 22

Reviewer 3 .............................................................................................................................................. 22

Reviewer 4 .............................................................................................................................................. 22

Reviewer 5 .............................................................................................................................................. 22

Project J: Socioeconomic Research in the Colorado River Ecosystem........................................................ 23

Reviewer 1 .............................................................................................................................................. 23

Reviewer 2 .............................................................................................................................................. 23

Reviewer 3 .............................................................................................................................................. 24

Reviewer 4 .............................................................................................................................................. 24

Reviewer 5 .............................................................................................................................................. 25
iii 

Project K: Geospatial Science and Technology ........................................................................................... 26

Reviewer 1 .............................................................................................................................................. 26

Reviewer 2 .............................................................................................................................................. 26

Reviewer 3 .............................................................................................................................................. 26

Reviewer 4 .............................................................................................................................................. 27

Reviewer 5 .............................................................................................................................................. 27

Project L: Overflight Remote Sensing in Support of GCDAMP And LTEMP ................................................28

Reviewer 1 .............................................................................................................................................. 28

Reviewer 2 .............................................................................................................................................. 28

Reviewer 3 .............................................................................................................................................. 28

Reviewer 4 .............................................................................................................................................. 28

Reviewer 5 .............................................................................................................................................. 28

Project M: Administration........................................................................................................................... 29

Reviewer 1 .............................................................................................................................................. 29

Reviewer 2 .............................................................................................................................................. 29

Reviewer 3 .............................................................................................................................................. 29

Reviewer 4 .............................................................................................................................................. 29

Reviewer 5 .............................................................................................................................................. 29

Project N: Hydropower Monitoring and Research ..................................................................................... 30

Reviewer 1 .............................................................................................................................................. 30

Reviewer 2 .............................................................................................................................................. 30

Reviewer 3 .............................................................................................................................................. 30

Reviewer 4 .............................................................................................................................................. 30

Reviewer 5 .............................................................................................................................................. 30

Appendix 1: Lake Powell Water Quality Monitoring .................................................................................. 31

Reviewer 1 .............................................................................................................................................. 31

Reviewer 2 .............................................................................................................................................. 31

Reviewer 3 .............................................................................................................................................. 31

Reviewer 4 .............................................................................................................................................. 31

Reviewer 5 .............................................................................................................................................. 31

Appendix 2: Deliverables (Products) FY 2018-2020.................................................................................... 31

Reviewer 1 .............................................................................................................................................. 31

Reviewer 2 .............................................................................................................................................. 31

Reviewer 3 .............................................................................................................................................. 31
iv 

Reviewer 4 .............................................................................................................................................. 32

Reviewer 5 .............................................................................................................................................. 32

Appendix 3: Budgets, All Projects............................................................................................................... 32

Reviewer 1 .............................................................................................................................................. 32

Reviewer 2 .............................................................................................................................................. 32

Reviewer 3 .............................................................................................................................................. 32

Reviewer 4 .............................................................................................................................................. 32

Reviewer 5 .............................................................................................................................................. 32

4.0 Peer Reviewer Summary....................................................................................................................... 33

5.0 References ............................................................................................................................................ 33

Appendix A: Individual Peer Reviewers ...................................................................................................... 34

Individual Peer Reviews.............................................................................................................................. 35

Peer Reviewer 1 ...................................................................................................................................... 35

Peer Reviewer 2 ...................................................................................................................................... 56

Peer Reviewer 3 ...................................................................................................................................... 72

Peer Reviewer 4 ...................................................................................................................................... 85

Appendix B: Reviewer’s Curricula Vitae.................................................................................................... 102
v 

Acronyms

CRe Colorado River ecosystem 

GIS Geographic Information Systems 

GCDAMP Glen Canyon Adaptive Management Program 

GCMRC Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center 

LTEMP Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan 

P phosphorus 

ROD Record of Decision 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

This information is preliminary or provisional and is subject to revision. It is being provided to meet the 

need for timely best science. The information has not received final approval by the U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS) and is provided on the condition that neither the USGS nor the U.S. Government shall be 

held liable for any damages resulting from the authorized or unauthorized use of the information. The

use of trade names is for informational purposes only and does not imply endorsement.
1 

Executive Summary

The operations of Glen Canyon Dam and other management activities have significant impact 

on ecological, hydrological, and cultural systems along the Colorado River from the forebay of 

the Glen Canyon Dam to upper Lake Mead, referred to as the Colorado River ecosystem CRe. 

The Glen Canyon Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP) provides a process for adaptive 

management of dam operations, including monitoring and research, integration, and 

management of natural, cultural, and recreational resources affected by Glen Canyon Dam 

operations. The Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC) conducts scientific 

research on the effects of dam operations and associated management and provides robust, 

objective scientific data on the impact of dam operations. 

There are eleven priority resources identified in the Long-Term Experimental and Management 

Plan (LTEMP). These eleven priority resources include archeological and cultural resources, 

natural processes, humpback chub, hydropower and energy, other native fish, recreational 

experiences, sediment, tribal resources, rainbow trout fishery, nonnative invasive species, 

riparian vegetation. 

As part of the Science Advisors Program which provides independent review on the research 

programs, five peer reviewers were selected to provide a peer review of the Fiscal Year 2020 

Annual Project Report to the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (USGS 2020). 

The reviewers represent a breadth of expertise related to fisheries and aquatic ecology, 

vegetation management and riparian ecology, hydrology of river systems, GIS data 

management and remote sensing, socioeconomics related to tribal resources, monitoring, and 

adaptive management. The peer reviewers were also selected to avoid conflicts of interest with 

the GCDAMP. 

The peer reviewers evaluated the material provided by the GDCAMP, which included the 

annual report and associated project presentations. The review focused on two broad 

questions about goals and objectives as well as specific feedback on research design, program 

outcomes, indicators, and methods. While reviewers responded with suggestions and 

recommendations for improvements, they agreed the research programs being pursued by the 

GCDAMP are overall connecting to LTEMP goals.

GCMRC Chief Response

We appreciate the thoughtful reviews provided on our Fiscal Year 2020 Annual Project 

Report to the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program. In this document we 

provide written responses to the review comments from Reviewers 1-4. Our project PIs, 

scientists, and cooperators responded to comments in the SUMMARY OF RESPONSES 

section of this document and also in the APPENDIX A: INDIVIDUAL REVIEWS section. The 

former section is a summary of the latter section, and thus responses we provided in the 

former often negated the need to also reply (i.e., in duplicate) to comments in the 
2 

latter. In those instances, we refer the reader to the responses provided to comments in 

the SUMMARY OF RESPONSES section. Also note that at the time of writing this, we 

have not received comments from Reviewer 5.

1.0 Background

The Glen Canyon Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP) was established in following the 

1996 Record of Decision (ROD) on the Operation of Glen Canyon Dam to comply with the 1992 

Grand Canyon Protection Act. Dam operations affect river hydrology, sediment dynamics, 

temperature and chemistry, food web dynamics, and aquatic and riparian species and 

communities along the Colorado River from the forebay of Glen Canyon Dam to upper Lake 

Mead, referred to as the Colorado River ecosystem (CRe). 

With an updated 2016 ROD, the activities of GCDAMP came under governance of the Glen 

Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan (LTEMP). LTEMP established key 

resource priorities in eleven areas and requires adaptive management of these resources 

through experimental and management actions such as, but not limited to, fall and spring highflow experiments, humpback chub translocation, macroinvertebrate production flows, 

mechanical removal of rainbow trout, and riparian vegetation restoration. By monitoring these 

management actions, the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC) provides 

credible, objective scientific information regarding the effects of Glen Canyon Dam operations 

on the CRe. 

One element of the GDCAMP is a Science Advisors Program where outside experts in relevant 

fields evaluate and give feedback on the research and monitoring programs. These periodic 

independent reviews ensure scientific credibility by providing recommendations regarding 

monitoring and research, integration, and management of natural, cultural, and recreational 

resources affected by Glen Canyon Dam operations. 

Independent scientific peer reviews offer perspective on how well technical conclusions are 

supported by data and analyses and whether research being conducted aligns with LTEMP key 

resource priorities. This is a key step in guaranteeing GCMRC provides credible, objective 

scientific information about the effects of Glen Canyon Dam operations on the CRe. 

The purpose of this peer review is to review and provide feedback on each project element 

included in the Fiscal Year 2020 Annual Project Report to the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive 

Management Program (2020 Annual Report). The review included evaluating whether projects 

aligned with expectations laid out in the LTEMP. 

The period of performance for this peer review was 07/01/2021-9/30/2021.

2.0 Peer Reviewers

Peer reviewers were selected according to their previous experience conducting similar 

reviews, relevant expertise, independence from GCDAMP, and publishing records in scientific 
3 

journals. All peer reviewers were provided the language from the OMB (Office of Management 

and Budget) Bulletin (2004) with regard to independence and conflicts of interest, with respect 

to both GCDAMP and GCMRC. 

The combined panel was selected to provide the following expertise: 

• Fisheries and aquatic ecology 

• Aquatic macroinvertebrates and food web ecology 

• Vegetation management and riparian ecology 

• Sediment transport, geomorphology, and/or hydrology of river systems, particularly 

those impacted by dams 

• GIS data management and remote sensing 

• Socioeconomics related to energy generation and/or tribal resources 

• Monitoring and adaptive management

The five peer reviewers selected were mid- to senior-level scientists with PhDs in a relevant 

field who have previously conducted similar reviews or provided reviews of research for 

scientific literature. The full resumes for the peer reviewers are presented in Appendix B. The

peer reviewers and their primary expertise were:

• Michael E. Colvin, PhD, Associate Professor at Mississippi State University – expertise 

with big river fisheries, salmonids, and arid ecosystems. (Reviewer 1)

• Stefanie A. Kroll, PhD, Assistant Research Professor at Academy of Sciences of Drexel 

University – expertise with food webs, aquatic macroinvertebrates, and community 

science. (Reviewer 2)

• Ben Livneh, PhD, Assistant Professor at University of Colorado, Boulder – expertise in 

sediment transport, hydrogeomorphology, and arid ecosystems. (Reviewer 3)

• Lynne Y. Lewis, PhD, Professor at Bates College – expertise in economics, hydropower, 

and community science. (Reviewer 4)

• John C. Stella, PhD, Professor at State University of New York – expertise in riparian 

vegetation ecology. (Reviewer 5)

Two reviewers have worked with Tribes in relation to river projects; although this is not 

considered a primary expertise, their prior experience was valuable during the peer review.

3.0 Summary of Responses

Reviewers were asked to evaluate the 2020 Annual Report, any appendices, and recorded 

presentations from the Annual Report meeting. Reviewers were asked to focus on two main 

questions when evaluating the report: 

1. Is the best information being provided to meet the needs of the Glen Canyon dam 

operations and its potential effects, including whether the investigations focus on the 

right questions for which the GCDAMP needs answers to carry out its mission? 
4 

2. Does the combined effectiveness of the programs advance understanding of the Grand 

Canyon ecosystem; ensure progress in defining and conducting adaptive management 

experiments; monitor resources affected by Glen Canyon Dam operations and the 

effects of those operations; provide options for managing these effects; and facilitate 

coordination and balancing among resource programs? 

Reviewers only reviewed projects for which they felt they had a technical expertise to 

effectively review. In some cases, a reviewer only commented on a portion of a project 

within their technical expertise. The following summary provides the key points provided by 

the reviewers. The full reviews (Appendix A) include additional details and suggestions.
5 

Project A: Streamflow, Water Quality, and Sediment Transport and 

Budgeting in the Colorado River Ecosystem

Reviewer 1 

Sustainability requires a look to the future to forecast the effect of operations on sand 

resources, or possibly a retrospective analysis of what has happened in the past. Are the 

specific targets for sand or fine sediment resources defined? If so, what are they? The mass 

balance model could be used to parameterize a dynamic model that can be linked to dam 

operations, environmental conditions, and used to evaluate sustainability in sand resources 

over time. 

Project A GCMRC PI Response 

Please see Topping and others (2021) published in the Journal of Geophysical Research 

for information on whether the current management approach is sustainable for sand 

resources. As summarized in the Conclusions of that article, 

“Sand storage in the bedrock-canyon Colorado River in Marble and Grand canyons is 

largely self-limiting. Fining of the bed-sand grain size as sand storage increases leads to 

higher suspended-sand concentrations, and therefore greater downstream sand export, 

a negative-feedback mechanism likely operating in other bedrock-canyon rivers. Except 

in the river segments proximal to the major sand-supplying tributaries, bed-sand grain 

size plays a dominant role in regulating whether sand erodes or deposits in the Colorado 

River. By virtue of this self-limitation, substantial increases in sand storage, as occurred 

during periods of low discharge pre-dam, are likely impossible in the Colorado River in 

Marble and Grand canyons at the higher discharges generally released from Glen 

Canyon Dam. Multiyear sand accumulation is only possible in the Colorado River in 

GCNP during years when the tributary sand supply exceeds ∼130% of average and damreleased discharges are below average. Sand erodes during years of below-average to 

average tributary sand supply and average to above-average discharge; net erosion of at 

least 28 million Mg of sand from the Colorado River in GCNP has occurred since the 

1963 closure of Glen Canyon Dam. Thus, sand storage sufficient for maintaining 

sandbars in the Colorado River may require timing periods of higher and lower damreleased discharge based on tributary sand-supply conditions. Whether the sand 

resources of the Colorado River in GCNP can be sustainably managed in perpetuity 

therefore remains an open question.”

In addition, the model of Wright and others (Water Resources Research, 2010) is being 

modified within Project B in the FY 2021-23 TWP to use in attempted improvements of 

models linking sand transport and sandbar response.
6 

Topping, D. J., Grams, P. E., Griffiths, R. E., Dean, D. J., Wright, S. A., & Unema, J. A. 

(2021). Self-limitation of sand storage in a bedrock-canyon river arising from the 

interaction of flow and grain size. Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface, 126, 

e2020JF005565. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JF005565. 

Wright, S. A., Topping, D. J., Rubin, D. M., & Melis, T. S. (2010). An approach for 

modeling sediment budgets in supply-limited rivers. Water Resources Research, 46, 

W10538. https://doi.org/10.1029/2009WR008600. 

Reviewer 2 

There appears to be tension between the goal of supplying sufficient sediment to maintain sandy 

banks and sand bars for recreational and tribal activities, competing with the problems that 

turbidity is causing for biota. 

Project A GCMRC PI Response 

The natural Colorado River was a highly turbid river, 365 days of the year, as shown in 

Voichick and Topping (2014). However, the entire physical template of the river has 

been changed by damming and hydropower operations. For example, water 

temperatures are much colder, nutrient concentrations are lower, and base flows 

(median discharge) are much higher compared to the pre-dam river. Thus, the effect of 

turbidity and fine sediment on biota is likely much different in the post-dam river than it 

was in the pre-dam. It is also worth noting that hydropeaking operations play a major 

role in fine sediment dynamics, which slows biological processes including gross primary 

production and insect growth. In the absence of hydropeaking, the effect of fine 

sediment on biota (e.g., gross primary production-Project E, insect emergence-Project F) 

would be much different. Please see Figures 12 and 13 in that publication. The biota 

that evolved in the Colorado River evolved in highly turbid river, so there should be no 

problem. 

Voichick, N., & 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://dx.doi.org/10.3133/sir20145097. 

Reviewer 3 

Overall, progress has been made in terms of collating, analyzing, and modeling the CRe to 

identify drivers of sand and limitations in historical monitoring. A large number of data 

products, reports, and presentations indicate good progress, generally sound methods, and 

potential applications for further high flow analysis. 
7 

The continuous monitoring of sand would support greater understanding of the sustainability of 

current and future sand resources and critical connections between sand concentrations and 

high flows and other factors. It is difficult to interpret the uncertainty associated with flood 

flows in the Little Colorado River Basin. Long-term precipitation gage data could improve 

regressions and understanding of variability, relationships, and uncertainty. Reporting longterm rates of change and their uncertainties would be useful for overall planning and overall 

context. 

Project A GCMRC PI Response 

Please see Topping and others (2021) published in the Journal of Geophysical Research 

and Dean and Topping (2019) published in the Geological Society of America Bulletin. 

These questions are addressed in those articles.

Dean, D. J., & Topping, D. J. (2019). Geomorphic change and biogeomorphic feedbacks 

in a dryland river: The Little Colorado River, Arizona, USA. Geological Society of America 

Bulletin, 131, 1920–1942. https://doi.org/10.1130/B35047.1

Reviewer 4 

No comment.

Reviewer 5 

For this and other projects, the response from Reviewer 5 will be added once received.

 
8 

Project B: Sandbar and Sediment Storage Monitoring And Research 

Reviewer 1 

Overall, it would be good to couple monitoring efforts of sandbars with recreational experience 

quality. A number of methodological suggestions were provided. Additional information about 

uncertainty is needed, as well as ways to tie results to the objectives and adaptive 

management. 

Project B GCMRC PI Response 

We note that sandbars and campsites are studied and monitored largely because they 

have been recognized by stakeholders as important aspects of the recreational 

experience. We also recognize that our monitoring does not measure recreational 

experience directly, but we believe that there is opportunity to more explicitly connect 

sandbars, campsites, and the economic value of the recreational experience, and hope 

to make that part of future work plans.

Reviewer 2 

The modeling and monitoring effort is well designed. There is a tension here between the 

goal of supplying sufficient sediment to maintain sandy banks and sand bars for recreational 

and Tribal activities, competing with the problems that turbidity is causing for biota. I do not 

know if the hypothesis that sand can be managed to achieve all goals of the GCMRC can 

hold true for this topic. High Flow Experiments should be monitored in terms of the 

objectives of Projects E, F, and others to ensure that supporting one objective does not end 

up detracting from another objective.

Project B GCMRC PI Response 

Studying and understanding the diverse resources and identifying these areas of 

potential conflict among stakeholder goals is certainly part of our goal as GCMRC 

scientists. We note that the issue of turbidity and its relation to biota is complex and in 

need of further study. We would caution readers of the annual report against a 

premature conclusion that turbidity is a “problem.”

Reviewer 3 

Numerous data products, publications, and presentations indicate good progress, generally 

sound methods, and potential applications linking high-flow events with sand and camping 

impacts. Monitoring and data sharing are important continued activities from this project. 

Suggestions for future work and analysis are provided, particularly around camping, climate 

change, and remote sensing. Further exploration is warranted into potential applications of 
9 

the Bayesian framework as a tool for quantifying reach-scale sediment deficits and surplus 

relevant for future studies. 

Project B GCMRC PI Response 

We thank the reviewer for the helpful suggestions and provide more detailed responses 

below.

Reviewer 4 

High flow experiments benefit campsites by causing temporary increases in campsite area, yet 

vegetation encroachment causes campsite declines. The relationship of this work to campsites 

needs to be clarified and any recommendations for recreational experience included (which is 

generally missing from all the projects, not just this one). 

Project B GCMRC PI Response 

The degree to which campsites are affected by sandbar erosion and deposition relative 

to vegetation change has been addressed more thoroughly in previous studies than was 

covered in this annual report (e.g. Hadley and others (2018a; 2018b). We will try to 

summarize and/or refer to this work more completely in future reports. Although it’s 

not our goal in the annual reports to make specific recommendations, we will more 

explicitly address the connections between the resources we monitor and recreational 

experience in future reports.

Hadley, D.R., Grams, P.E., Kaplinski, M.A., Hazel, J.E., J., and Parnell, R.A., 2018, 

Geomorphology and vegetation change at Colorado River campsites, Marble and Grand 

Canyons, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2017–5096, p. 

64, doi:10.3133/sir20175096.

Hadley, D.R., Grams, P.E., and Kaplinski, M.A., 2018, Quantifying geomorphic and 

vegetation change at sandbar campsites in response to flow regulation and controlled 

floods, Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona: River Research and Applications, p. 1–11, 

doi:10.1002/rra.3349.

Reviewer 5 
10

Project C: Riparian Vegetation Monitoring and Research

Reviewer 1 

Vegetation monitoring for composition and cover, with emphasis on nonnative species appears 

to provide robust data that can be used for status and trend analysis, including statistical 

analysis. However, it was unclear how the long-term changes were evaluated and on what 

metric. How well did the model perform? It was not clear what the specific objectives were or 

how they provide decision support for management actions?

Project C GCMRC PI Response 

The Status and Trends report is currently under colleague review and will be submitted 

as a USGS Open File Report before the end of the calendar year. But, briefly, we 

analyzed multiple metrics indicated as important in the GCDAMP using mixed-effects 

models focusing on the interaction between year and hydrologic zone. This allowed us 

to address our primary objective of identifying how each metric responded to different 

aspects of hydrology through time. When possible, observed trends were attributed to 

management actions – specifically daily fluctuating flows and HFEs in the active channel, 

HFEs in the active floodplain.

Reviewer 2 

No comment.

Reviewer 3 

This provides a useful set of monitoring data and methods that connect vegetation with flow, 

environmental variables, and management, with a good webpage. There are some details that 

would be helpful to have reported (e.g., criteria for error checking, fraction of woody riparian 

vegetation, uncertainties). Remote sensing could be a useful technology to support this 

research. The analysis relating climate variables with vegetation patterns (Butterfield et al. 

2018) is interesting and should continue to be pursued. Additional data should be 

reported/collected to help inform management of campsites and other recreational areas.

Project C GCMRC PI Response 

Please see our forthcoming Status and Trends for detailed information on data 

processing, vegetation status and uncertainty. We agree that remote sensing is a useful 

tool for vegetation monitoring and research, please see section C.2 of the report. We 

are continuing to work on interactions between climate and flows, an update will be 

provided in the 2021 Annual Report. Lastly, we will be more explicit in the 2021 report 

about how our monitoring and analysis of sandbar sites, along with work being 
11

conducted by the NPS and other GCMRC projects, relates to campsites and other 

recreational areas.

Reviewer 4 

Information specific to campsites was missing, including relevant goals and objectives. A 

summary and/or recommendations related to camping area, landscape beauty, and shade 

should be included and tied to Project J.

Project C GCMRC PI Response 

Our repeat monitoring sandbar sites are highly relevant to campsite condition. We 

agree with the reviewer that this connection was not made as explicitly as it should have 

been. This suggestion will be incorporated into the FY21 Annual Report where 

appropriate.

Reviewer 5 

 
12

Project D: Geomorphic Effects of Dam Operations and Vegetation 

Management for Archaeological Sites

Reviewer 1 

An evaluation of how flow and non-flow actions affect cultural resources, preservation of 

resources, vegetation, and sediment dynamics should be completed. Can the monitoring 

objectives be clarified? Can this monitoring be used to inform a risk model? Clarifications on 

metrics, how they are estimated, and how those metrics fit with the LTEMP resource goals and 

overall monitoring objectives would be helpful. Lastly, clarification is needed on how weather 

data is used to achieve monitoring objectives.

Project D GCMRC PI Response 

A goal of this project and the long-term body of work preceding this project is to 

evaluate how flow and non-flow actions affect preservation of cultural resources, and to 

evaluate the roles of riparian vegetation, weather, and sediment dynamics in affecting 

cultural resource condition directly and indirectly. The USGS Fact Sheet Managing sand 

along the Colorado River to protect cultural sites downstream of Glen Canyon Dam

(https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/fs20193054) is a recently published summary of 

the state of the science about the impact of flow and non-flow actions on these 

resources. We agree that using the monitoring to explicitly inform a risk model is an 

intriguing idea and we will consider that in the future. Development of metrics for these 

and other resources is part of ongoing work in the FY21-23 workplan. We will more 

clearly explain how the weather data are used and why they are important in future 

reports. 

Reviewer 2 

No comment.

Reviewer 3 

The meteorological monitoring and data collection described by Caster et al. (2018) is 

extremely valuable and its continuation should be prioritized. Spaceborne remote sensing could 

complement existing aerial imagery.

Project D GCMRC PI Response 

We agree that the weather data are important. We are also currently working on 

approaches to monitoring effects of dam operations for archaeological sites that 

incorporate spaceborne remote sensing and look forward to sharing that work in the 

future. 
13

Reviewer 4 

No comment.

Reviewer 5 

 
14

Project E: Nutrients And Temperature as Ecosystem Drivers: 

Understanding Patterns, Establishing Links and Developing Predictive 

Tools for an Uncertain Future

Reviewer 1 

The metrics monitored may not directly relate to LTEMP resource goals but are a necessary 

precondition to achieving LTEMP resource goals related to biota (humpback chub, rainbow 

trout, other native fish). There are several questions related to methods and how results inform 

adaptive management.

Project E GCMRC PI Response 

The metrics monitored are also relevant to natural processes in the river.

Reviewer 2 

The approach to monitoring and studying P dynamics is well designed. The studies before and 

after fire are also sound, and the shift to studying gross primary production is a good step 

toward characterizing the dynamics of nutrients in the system, especially regarding the food 

web. Was P historically limited or higher in this area, or how do levels compare with inputs into 

reservoirs? From the studies presented, the turbidity seems to be a greater limitation to algal 

growth and macroinvertebrate success (along with hydropeaking flows, of course), than 

bioavailable P into the system. 

Improved analysis and modelling of food web dynamics is needed to better understand the 

bottom-up controls of P concentrations, turbidity, and flows through the food web and in 

connection to the dynamics of the fish communities. Relative to Projects E and F, 

macroinvertebrate diets could be analyzed using DNA metabarcoding of their whole abdomens 

to understand which diatoms and prey are most dominant in diets. Additional suggestions for 

improved data collection and analysis were included.

Project E GCMRC PI Response 

Thank you for your comment. Using eDNA metabarcoding of whole abdomens is a good 

suggestion and is a technique that has proven useful in other applications. We are in the 

beginning stages of using eDNA to detect rare native and non-native fishes in the CRe 

and will explore the feasibility of using this emerging tool to assess dominant prey items 

in fish diet in future work plans, since we do not have the resources right now to 

conduct this work.

 
15

Reviewer 3 

While improvements in the predictive model resulted from using solar radiation as a predictor, 

details of the radiation data were entirely missing. Clearer justification of the water 

temperatures chosen should be provided in the context of existing pool temperatures and 

temperatures relevant for other project components.

Project E GCMRC PI Response 

We apologize for the lack of detail on solar radiation data used in our water 

temperature model. We acquired subdaily Global Horizontal Irradiance data from the 

National Solar Radiation Database (https://nsrdb.nrel.gov), Physical Solar Model (PSM, 

v. 3; data available 1998-2015) and Meteorological Statistical Models (MTS, v.1-2; data 

available 1985-2005). Since the PSM and MTS models overlapped from 1998-2005, we 

applied a slight correction to MTS data using the slope of the zero-intercept model for 

each river segment. We calculated mean GHI by month and year. Stations from the 

National Solar Radiation Database used in the water temperature model for the 

Colorado River downstream from Glen Canyon Dam include location ID’s 553, 0, and 

97653.

Reviewer 4 

No comment.

Reviewer 5 
16

Project F: Aquatic Invertebrate Ecology

Reviewer 1 

The project illustrates good interaction with other projects to support inference and provides 

auxiliary information that might be needed to explain among year differences in higher trophic 

levels, like native fish and trout. The bases appear to be covered in terms of monitoring 

instream drifting and emerging aquatic invertebrates.

Project F GCMRC PI Response 

We appreciate these supportive comments.

Reviewer 2 

Weekend “breaks” are an excellent idea for egg survival and other possible mechanisms for 

macroinvertebrate success and increasing diversity. Once this experiment is complete, will 

there be another study on how weekend flows can be best designed as ecological flows for 

macroinvertebrates? The community science involved in this project was a great component, 

but there are ways to build on the work already started by following up with stakeholders and 

increasing opportunities for Tribal members and other groups not typically involved in this type 

of community science. 

In this case, access to rafting trips may limit the participation of a diverse audience who 1) are 

not tourists and therefore may not consider participating in such a trip 2) are financially limited 

and may not be able to afford such a trip, and 3) have been historically excluded from such 

activities.

Project F GCMRC PI Response 

We appreciate these supportive comments. We have scheduled workshops on October 

28 and November 4 to identify potential next steps in ecological flow experiments for 

natural processes and macroinvertebrate assemblages. To improve opportunities for 

Tribal members and diverse audiences to participate in the community science project, 

GCMRC has partnered with Grand Canyon Youth to launch Partners in Science river trips 

for more than 20 years. In 2021, three Partners trips were launched, and all collected 

light trap samples of aquatic insects and several other data collection activities. These 

Partners in Science trips are comprised of high school age students and in 2021 one of 

these trips was comprised entirely of Tribal youth participants. These trips are a 

powerful tool for training the next generation of scientists in the scientific process and 

educating participants about the role that science plays in management of the Colorado 

River and Grand Canyon. Moving forward, we are exploring how to involve tribes in all 

Partners in Science trips to facilitate monitoring of tribal resources and to describe the 
17

role that traditional ecological knowledge and tribal values plays in management of the 

Colorado River and Grand Canyon.

Reviewer 3 

No comment.

Reviewer 4 

No comment.

Reviewer 5 

 

 
18

Project G: Humpback Chub Population Dynamics Throughout the 

Colorado River Ecosystem

Reviewer 1 

The project provides advanced approaches to estimate population dynamics and project results 

have the potential to inform decisions. There are a few technical questions were included 

related to methodology and relevance of particular data elements to management.

Project G GCMRC PI Response 

Responses to specific comments are provided below, in the subsections concerning 

Project G in the APPENDIX A: INDIVIDUAL REVIEWS section of this document.

Reviewer 2 

No comment.

Reviewer 3 

No comment.

Reviewer 4 

No comment.

Reviewer 5 

 
19

Project H: Salmonid Research and Monitoring

Reviewer 1 

There needs to be more detail provided for Project H.1 to determine if can sufficiently inform 

operations and provide information relevant to objectives. The coupled brown trout, rainbow 

trout, and humpback chub models used to evaluate management scenarios are an interesting 

application. The salmonid research and monitoring project tied to experimental dam operations 

associated with meeting LTEMP resource objectives is valuable research. How will this long 

term datasets be used to evaluate experimental flows?

Project H GCMRC PI Response 

The objectives of Project Element H.1 are to evaluate: 1) the effects of higher and 

potentially more stable flows in spring and summer during equalization events or 

weekend stable flows (“bug flows”) on trout recruitment, growth, and dispersal; 2) the 

effect of fall HFEs on recruitment of trout in Glen Canyon, measured either through 

direct effects on juvenile survival or through reduced egg deposition in later years 

driven by reduced growth of trout; 3) the effect of spring HFEs on trout recruitment, 

growth, and dispersal, and 4) the effect of Trout Management Flows on rainbow and 

brown trout recruitment and dispersal. In the FY18-20 TWP, hypotheses related to 

objectives 3 and 4 could not be tested because spring HFEs and TMFs were not released 

as experimental flows. For objective 1, equalization flows were not released but stable 

“bug flows” were tested from 2018-2020. For objective 2, fall HFEs were only released in 

2018. 

While the effects of bug flows on trout recruitment and growth dynamics are still being 

evaluated, data from long-term mark-recapture efforts (2012-2020) from Project 

Element H.1 were analyzed to assess the effects of fall HFEs on trout population 

dynamics in Glen Canyon. The FY20 annual report describes the field sampling 

methodology to collect samples, but it lacks a description of the analytical methods 

used to evaluate experimental flows such as fall HFEs. These models are described in full 

by Korman and others (2017a, b,), but briefly, data are analyzed using a multi-state 

Cormack-Jolly-Seber open population model in a robust design framework (Kendall et al. 

1995) to estimate trout population abundance, growth, survival, and capture probability 

for fish >75 mm. This model is stratified by fish size because capture probability and 

survival are size-dependent, so results presented in the FY20 annual report are 

presented in 5 size bins (75-124, 125-174, 175-224, 225-274, and >275 mm). The model 

is also spatially stratified to account for differences in sampling effort and the number of 

rainbow trout released in each reach. This model covers results presented in Figs 4-8 in 

the annual report pertaining to abundance and mean monthly growth rate. No model is 

needed to estimate brown trout catch rates reported in Figs 1-2 (catch per kilometer of 
20

shoreline), while Fig. 3 includes estimates from a standard equation for relative 

condition factor (Korman and others, 2021).

Reviewer 2 

No comment.

Reviewer 3 

No comment.

Reviewer 4 

There is significant overlap in topic with this project and Project J. It would be helpful if the 

connections between projects was more explicit. The economic value data is from 2016. Has 

more recent data been collected and how does it compare? There is little economic information 

provided about the recreational fishery or how operations impact the economic value. Results 

or an update related to the incentive program are valuable and should be included. The 

reviewer suggested using the term “Community Science” rather than “Citizen Science”.

Project H GCMRC PI Response 

In the FY21 annual report we will try to make a better connection between the types of 

data collected by AZGFD in Project H.4 and the data collected in Project J. In addition, 

the angler surveys collected by AZGFD are designed to collect data on angler use with 

the intent of using that data to understand angler use, assess whether fishery 

management goals are being met, and manage the fishery. They are not designed to 

measure economic impact or collect socioeconomic data. GCMRC will pass the 

suggestion on to use the term “community science” rather than “citizen science” to 

AZGFD.

Reviewer 5 

 
21

Project I: Warm-Water Native and Nonnative Fish Research and 

Monitoring

Reviewer 1 

It appears these efforts support The LTEMP “Goal 10. Nonnative invasive species. Minimize or 

reduce the presence and expansion of aquatic nonnative invasive species” and helps inform the 

“mechanical removal of nonnative fish near the Little Colorado River confluence”. 

There are a number of important details that were either not included or were unclear. The 

following are some notable questions that were unanswered: 

• How trends are calculated from monitoring data and this is likely important for 

informing adaptive operations of Glen Canyon dam and whether operations can 

achieve management objectives? 

• Why is Asian tapeworm monitoring important and how does this support GCDAMP 

and LTEMP? 

• How does this sampling inform a) sampling efforts needed at a larger scale to detect 

warm-water invasive fish and b) if warm-water invasives are expanding in range? 

• How is the eDNA persistence from upstream factored into the eDNA analysis 

completed? 

Project I GCMRC PI Response 

Trends in Catch-per-unit-effort over time for system wide native and non-native fishes 

are calculated by examining deviations in the mean catch among years, compared with 

the calculated 95% confidence interval of catch rate for a given year. Consecutive years 

of catch rates above or below the 95% confidence interval of the mean would indicate a 

significant trend. Trends in Asian fish tapeworm loads are assessed as the proportion of 

fish containing at least one Asian fish tapeworm. A positive or negative trend in 

proportions over time may indicate population level changes in infestation. Trends in 

detection of rare invasive non-native species are assessed as changes in 

presence/absence or relative abundance over time. This additional clarification on how 

trends are calculated will be included in the 2021 annual report.

Asian tapeworm has been identified as 1 of 6 potential threats to the continued 

persistence of humpback chub in Grand Canyon and may decrease growth rate and 

increase predation risk for endangered cyprinid fishes. The GCDAMP is tasked with 

evaluating risks related to persistence of humpback chub. Additional justification for this 

project and how it relates to LTEMP goals will be added to the 2021 annual report to 

improve clarity.
22

Monitoring efforts to improve early detection of Invasive warm-water fishes will be used 

to direct future monitoring efforts or emergency responses as needed. Larger scale 

efforts will be dictated by this initial monitoring. This targeted sampling in places we 

believe warm water invasive fishes will be most likely to become established will 

indicate an expansion in range if detected. Additional details will be added to the 2021 

annual report to clarify how this sampling informs larger scale efforts.

This is a great question about eDNA persistence, that we do not have the answer to yet 

under the specific water temperature and turbidity conditions in present in the 

Colorado River in Grand Canyon. The data collected this year should help to evaluate 

this question, and information will be included in the 2021 annual report to indicate 

how we will factor upstream persistence into the eDNA analysis. Our sampling 

methodology includes three replicates taken on each bank (left and right), spatially 

distributed every two miles from Lees Ferry to Pearce Ferry. At major tributary junctions 

(Little Colorado River, Bright Angel Creek, Tapeats Creek, Shinumo Creek, Kanab Creek, 

Havasu Creek, and Spencer Creek) we took three replicates just upstream from the 

tributary, in the tributary, and every 0.5 miles on both banks for 6 miles downstream. 

This intense sampling in and downstream from tributaries (where non-native species 

may reside in higher densities due to warm water) will allow us to get a better 

understanding of eDNA persistence from known sources in a large river ecosystem like 

Grand Canyon. We are using a combination of qPCR and metabarcoding methodologies 

to detect rare species in Grand Canyon. We are also collecting data on eDNA copy 

number for abundant species like rainbow and brown trout in Glen Canyon to compare 

population abundance estimates to concentrations of DNA in the water column. 

Subsequent studies currently planned using funding outside the AMP will provide 

additional information on eDNA degradation rates (e.g., from solar radiation or warm 

water temperatures) relative to dilution in the environment with higher flow volumes. 

Reviewer 2 

No comment.

Reviewer 3 

No comment.

Reviewer 4 

No comment.

Reviewer 5 
23

Project J: Socioeconomic Research in the Colorado River Ecosystem

Reviewer 1 

The applied decision and scenario analysis is an interesting application to evaluate and identify 

optimal management actions that presumably links back to socioeconomic values. A table 

linking back to the LTEMP and management actions is suggested. How will survey information 

from the Tribes be used to inform decision making and adaptive management? 

Project J GCMRC PI Response 

Thank you for the comments. We will address the ‘table linking back to the LTEMP and 

management actions’ in future annual reports. The tribal surveys will be used to 1) 

collect information to recognize Tribal values for downstream resources and support the 

prioritization of management goals, 2) identify Tribal preferences for experimental flows 

specified in the LTEMP EIS, and 3) evaluate trade-offs from a Tribal perspective. These 

are all important elements in an adaptive management decision framework and 

facilitate the consideration of Tribal perspectives.

Reviewer 2 

The inclusion of some deliverables related to the use of USGS science by Tribal communities is 

valuable. Are there other ways to engage Tribal collaborators than workshops? A list of 

outreach and meetings and the associated stakeholders would be informative. There are issues 

with the way some of the surveys have been designed relative to Tribal input and suggestions 

are provided about how to improve those. Are there other (non-Tribal) stakeholders involved 

with the Willingness to Pay research?

Project J GCMRC PI Response 

Thank you for the comments. There are other ways to engage Tribal collaborators in the 

program. In my opinion the important collaboration revolves around how cultural 

benefit knowledge, specifically relational values, are incorporated into decision making 

processes. I continue to collaborate with the tribes and academic researchers to identify 

these opportunities. Comments about survey design will be addressed in the detailed 

comments below (Appendix A). There is other ‘willingness to pay’ research. This 

research includes recreational (angling and whitewater) surveys (Bishop et al. 1987, Bair 

et al. 2016, Neher et al. 2017, Neher et al. 2019) that have been funded by this program 

and a public survey related to resource in the Grand Canyon (Welsh et al. 1995, U.S. 

Bureau of Reclamation 2016), the latter funded by the National Park Service.

 
24

Reviewer 3 

Overall, this project is an important component of the CRe, GCMRC, and GCDAMP, because it 

allows for a broad assessment of the connections of ongoing activities with needs and 

economics downstream. Therefore, it is recommended to continue prioritizing this area of 

analysis. The proposal to evaluate nonstationary climate impacts using the Donovan et al. 

(2019) model it’s an important priority; however, realistic constraints need to be used.

Project J GCMRC PI Response 

Thank you for the comments.

Reviewer 4 

The section on Tribal Resources is difficult to review since the reports are not available and 

audio for that portion of the meeting was not available. There are concerns about how the 

contingent valuation was designed that limit its utility. 

The decision about which model to apply to willingness to pay data is not neutral and 

sensitivity analysis is important. It would be interesting to use some of the more commonly 

used approaches such as the non-parametric Turnbull with this data. 

The report gives a brief description of the bioeconomic dynamic programming model that 

evaluates the tradeoffs between protecting humpback chub and rainbow trout abundance. 

Where is a summary of the findings? Who are the decision-makers? 

Recreational fishing is covered above, but the rainbow trout fishery is also discussed in 

several of the other projects. There needs to be some summary material in this report that 

weaves these related topics together. 

There is no mention of the on-going severe drought or climate change. Will new low-flow 

scenarios be tested? Are there recommendations going forward related to climate change? 

And how does the renegotiation of the Colorado River Compact impact this report?

Project J GCMRC PI Response 

The Navajo Nation and Hualapai Tribal draft reports were provided to the Bureau of 

Reclamation for this review. It is unfortunate that you didn’t have an opportunity to 

review. The surveys included a choice experiment (without a price attribute) and a 

‘willingness to pay’ question that did not specify quantitative outcomes related to the 

resources being valued. The question format related to the contingent valuation 

question was intentional and researchers are explicit about the limited utility in 

estimating economic value in the report and in past presentations. 

We agree that it would be interesting to use the non-parametric Turnbull with the 

recreation data. As you point out, the published analysis was intended to replicate the 
25

Bishop et al. 1987 analyses. Recreation monitoring and research is not consistently 

funded in every fiscal year (FY). Recreation related monitoring and research was funded 

in FY17 and in Project O in the FY21 workplan. We will continue to undertake recreation 

related research as possible. 

The summary of the findings of the bioeconomic model is found in Donovan et al. 2019. 

The objective of the Annual Report is to brief stakeholders on the recent outcome of 

research. In the 2020 Fiscal Year Annual Report the focus of Project J was on the utility 

of the bioeconomic model in identifying the cost-effectiveness of humpback chub 

translocations (Yackulic et al. 2021). The decision makers are stakeholders in the 

GCDAMP, specifically the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. For example, as part of the 

review of conservation triggers for humpback chub the results of the bioeconomic 

model were used to evaluate the current triggers. 

The objective of the Annual Report is to brief stakeholders on the recent outcome of 

within year research. Recreational fishing economics research is part of the GCDAMP 

Technical Workplan FY21-23 (Project O - Spring Disturbance Flow and Project J – Brown 

Trout Incentivized Harvest). However, there was no recreational angling economics 

research in FY20. The last funded recreation economics project prior to FY20 was in 

FY17. 

Climate change is important. I would argue that to provide the most value, the 

bioeconomic model could be used to evaluate multiple actions related to humpback 

chub conservation in various future climate scenarios. This type of robust decision 

making would better position the program to meet its goals. Additional bioeconomic 

modeling is occurring and research to address climate change is warranted.

Reviewer 5 

 
26

Project K: Geospatial Science and Technology

Reviewer 1 

It was uncertain what the needs of the GCDAMP and LTEMP are for geospatial science and data 

technology or how these systems support decision-making. There has been an impressive set of 

tools developed, however, to support the GCDAMP and LTEMP. There appears to be a 

significant effort to provide information to stakeholders and researchers.

Project K GCMRC PI Response 

Yes, the data resource tools, including but not limited to geospatial analysis tools, have 

been designed and created in response to known needs for both individual GCDAMPfunded science projects and for overarching needs of GCMRC as a science entity 

concerned with long-term monitoring of the Colorado River. Many geospatial data sets 

and geospatial analyses have been developed to support multiple projects and are often 

re-used for new projects or to answer new questions. Any uncertainty in the language 

of the LTEMP or in the needs of the GCDAMP is an issue that is a bit outside the scope of 

this project. The approach taken in Project K is to be knowledgeable on emerging 

trends in Information Technology (IT) as it relates to GCMRC data needs, to work 

towards some consistency in the IT-related realms of software, hardware, techniques, 

source control for coding, application of advanced computing for the Center, and to be 

flexible in terms of how support to science projects can be provided. Having 

consistency, reliability, and accessibility to long-term data resources plays a 

fundamental role in the decision-making process.

Reviewer 2 

No comment.

Reviewer 3 

The migration of data into databases and cloud computing resources is an important 

innovation with payoffs over the long term. ArcGIS may not be the most effective tool due 

to the size of data sets. Other more powerful and efficient tools should be considered for 

these larger datasets and analyses. Tableau may not be a good long-term cost-benefit 

decision.

Project K GCMRC PI Response 

The ESRI ArcGIS software suite, which includes desktop applications such as ArcGIS Pro 

and the Enterprise ArcGIS platform, is widely used throughout the U.S. Geological 

Survey and provides numerous functions for GCMRC’s geospatial data workflows that 

would be difficult to reproduce without expensive and time-consuming changes in the 
27

fundamental software architecture. GCMRC does utilize many, specialized pieces of 

software that range in function from sonar (HyPack, Qinsy) and LiDAR data processing to 

image processing (ENVI, ERDAS Imagine) to custom modelling programs, among others, 

and these tools have very specific uses for individual projects. Not knowing what the 

“other more powerful and efficient tools” are being recommended here makes it 

difficult to develop a full response; however, Project K has been instrumental in helping 

GCMRC leverage resources from the USGS in cloud computing through Amazon Web 

Services, high-performance computing (HPC), using USGS-approved source control sites 

(GitLab) for custom code development. So, there are many options provided to work 

with larger, more complex data sets. The ArcGIS software is but one of many tools 

employed by GCMRC. It allows for the integration of these specific data sets with uses 

ranging from simple data overlays to advanced geospatial analysis, and it provides a 

data serving platform for GCMRC’s geospatial data sets online. The effort to push 

science project data from local hard drives to enterprise, relational databases is not 

separate from the use of ArcGIS – as one of many tools in the data toolbox – but rather 

it is complementary to the growth of relational database use, as ArcGIS is a welldocumented, well-supported client for linking to and accessing data within these 

databases. Currently, the Tableau Desktop and Tableau Server applications are 

provided by the USGS Cloud Hosting Solutions (CHS) free-of-charge, and this has been 

the case for the past three fiscal years.

Reviewer 4 

No comment.

Reviewer 5 

 
28

Project L: Overflight Remote Sensing in Support of GCDAMP And LTEMP

Reviewer 1 

It was unclear from the summary what the expected outcomes of this effort are, how the 

outcomes of these efforts will support the GCDAMP, or how this integrates with the LTEMP. A 

table that shows the relationship between expected products and their applications in projects 

would be helpful.

Project L GCMRC PI Response 

The expected outcomes and integration with GCDAMP and LTEMP is summarized in the 

project description in our FY21-23 Triennial Workplan and we show a table like you 

describe in the workplan. We will incorporate this information into our FY21 Annual 

Report for the Overflight Remote Sensing project.

Reviewer 2 

No comment.

Reviewer 3 

The details of the overflight are not clearly articulated, although there is value in additional 

remote sensing. Evaluating opportunities to integrate remote sensing imagery with publicly 

available spaceborne imagery could provide cost-effective benefits.

Project L GCMRC PI Response 

Please see our response to the similar comment about the purpose and outcomes of the 

overflight from Reviewer 1 above. With regards to spaceborne remote sensing, the 

canyon is extremely deep, narrow, and sinuous, which makes acquiring a synoptic, 

shadow-free orthomosiac at 20cm resolution from a space-based sensor currently not 

feasible for the entire >400km segment of the Colorado River between Lake Powell and 

Lake Mead. However, we do incorporate satellite imagery into our remote sensing 

science as feasible and appropriate. Please see our recent paper (Bransky and others, 

2021 in the journal Remote Sensing) which is an example of work we do incorporating 

high-resolution spaceborne remote sensing (in that case from the Worldview satellite) 

with the high-resolution airborne imagery from the manned airplane overflights.

Reviewer 4 

No comment.

Reviewer 5 
29

Project M: Administration

Reviewer 1 

No comment.

Reviewer 2 

No comment.

Reviewer 3 

A minor comment is that the citizen science programs extend budgets and elevate the 

awareness of visitors.

Project M GCMRC PI Response 

Yes, we agree with this observation about citizen science programs.

Reviewer 4

No comment.

Reviewer 5 

 
30

Project N: Hydropower Monitoring and Research

Reviewer 1

No comment.

Reviewer 2 

No comment.

Reviewer 3 

Continue to coordinate with partners to identify opportunities to improve hydropower and 

energy resources. For example, the impact of high flow experiments on total outflows, the 

sensitivity of greenhouse gas emissions to reservoir levels, etc.

Project N GCMRC PI Response 

Thank you for the comments.

Reviewer 4 

Goals and objectives could be clearer. Project N needs more detail (i.e., tables or other 

results summaries) and is lacking information about the economic value of hydropower. 

Several suggestions for improving the presentation and questions to clarifying methods and 

assumptions were included.

Project N GCMRC PI Response 

Thank you for the comments. I agree that the goals and objectives of Project N could be 

clearer, however the limited funding only allows for coordination with partners to 

identify opportunities to improve hydropower and energy resources. Therefore, no 

specific project is identified prior, only opportunities to add minimal effort to ongoing 

projects that are identified within a fiscal year. The focus of Project N in FY20 was the 

greenhouse gas emissions to reservoir levels (Waldo et al. 2021). The Annual Report is 

not intended to be an in-depth review of fundamental concepts or past projects and 

results. I don’t object to this, but that is not the direction I have been given. For 

example, the economic value of hydropower was not included as a specific result in the 

greenhouse gas emissions and reservoir level manuscript, and therefore was not 

included in the text.

Reviewer 5 
31

Appendix 1: Lake Powell Water Quality Monitoring

Reviewer 1 

No comment.

Reviewer 2 

No comment.

Reviewer 3 

The collaboration with EPA should continue to be prioritized.

Appendix 1 GCMRC PI Response 

The collaboration with EPA for work on Lake Powell has ended. PI Deemer has funding 

from EPA for surveying reservoir GHG emissions from desert Southwest reservoirs more 

broadly, but Lake Powell was not randomly selected to be included in that study.

Reviewer 4 

No comment.

Reviewer 5 

Appendix 2: Deliverables (Products) FY 2018-2020

Reviewer 1 

The program appears to be highly productive and the development of varying web based 

resources to serve, process and summarize data is an asset.

Appendix 2 GCMRC Response 

Thank you. We are proud of our productivity and therefore appreciate this comment!

Reviewer 2 

No comment.

Reviewer 3 

No comment.
32

Reviewer 4 

No comment.

Reviewer 5 

Appendix 3: Budgets, All Projects

Reviewer 1 

No comment.

Reviewer 2 

No comment.

Reviewer 3 

No comment.

Reviewer 4 

No comment.

Reviewer 5 
33

4.0 Peer Reviewer Summary

All reviewers provided suggestions to improve data presentation and use. All reviewers 

provided suggestions for additional analysis or expanded methodologies in one or more 

projects. All reviewers also identified multiple projects where it was hard to tie the project to 

the relevant LTEMP objective and related management actions. All reviewers commented on 

one or more projects that it was not easy to determine whether a metric could evaluate a goal 

or be used for decision-making (i.e., adaptive management). 

Only some reviewers commented on Tribal involvement and engagement, but those that did all 

agreed that there appeared to be a disconnect with what were likely Tribal priorities in one way 

or another. They also made suggestions for improving Tribal involvement and engagement. 

The socioeconomics elements were particularly difficult for reviewers to understand how 

projects impacted them or how they were tied to other projects. This is an area of great 

interest to stakeholders and yet was poorly presented throughout the 2020 Annual Report.

GCMRC Response 

Please see responses in the SUMMARY OF RESPONSES section (3) above to specific 

instances of the comments that are more generally summarized here in the SUMMARY 

section (4).

5.0 References

Butterfield, B.J., Palmquist, E.C., and Ralston, B.E. 2018. Hydrological regime and climate 

interactively shape riparian vegetation composition along the Colorado River, Grand 

Canyon—poster presentation: Bozeman, MT, July 22-27, 2018, Natural Ecosystems as 

Benchmarks for Vegetation Science, International Association of Vegetation Scientists 

61st Annual Symposium. 

Donovan, P., Bair, L.S., Yackulic, C.B., and Springborn, M.R. 2019. Safety in numbers—Costeffective endangered species management for viable populations: Land Economics, v. 

95, no. 3:435-453. 

Reclamation. 2016a. Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan and 

Final Environmental Impact Statement (October 2016). US Department of Interior, 

Bureau of Reclamation and National Park Service. Denver, CO. 

Reclamation. 2016b. Record of Decision for Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and 

Management Plan. US Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation and National Park 

Service. Denver, CO. 

USGS. 2020. Fiscal Year 2020 Annual Project Report to the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive 

Management Program. US Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research 

Center. Flagstaff, AZ.
34

Appendix A: Individual Peer Reviewers 

Reviewer 1 (Colvin) – August 2021 

Reviewer 2 (Kroll) – August 2021 

Reviewer 3 (Livneh) – July 2021 

Reviewer 4 (Lewis) – September 2021 

Reviewer 5 (Stella) – September 2021 
35

Individual Peer Reviews

Peer Reviewer 1 

AGENCY: US Bureau of Reclamation, Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management 

Program (GCDAMP)

MATERIAL(S) REVIEWED: 2020 Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC) Annual 

Report 

REVIEWED BY: Michael E. Colvin, Mississippi State University 

DATE: August 26, 2021

I. Project A: Streamflow, Water Quality, and Sediment Transport and Budgeting in 

the Colorado River Ecosystem 

A. General overview 

1. The project indicates an understanding needed to identify conditions (dam 

operations and tributary conditions) that lead to sand accumulation in CR 

reaches. Mass balance results of sand mass changes over the fiscal year are 

presented for stream reaches. 

B. Link to LTEMP 

1. The project links to LTEMP resource goals related to natural resources (p2) and 

sediment (p5). 

2. Are the specific targets for sand or fine sediment resources defined? If so, what 

are they? 

C. Sustainability of sand resources 

1. The sustainability of sand resources is referenced as a guiding question and 

hypothesis for Glen Canyon Dam. Sustainability requires a look to the future to 

forecast the effect of operations on sand resources, or possibly a retrospective 

analysis of what has happened in the past. The change in sand resources over 

the near or long term can then be evaluated for increases or decreases. The 

mass balance approach applied to evaluate sand mass dynamics and results 

shown in table demonstrate changes from one year to the next for varying 

reaches. Are there ways to aggregate this to the system level? The mass balance 

model could be used to parameterize a dynamic model that can be linked to 

dam operations, environmental conditions, and used to evaluate sustainability in 
36

sand resources over time. For example, at the system level, the analysis might 

evaluate if the change in sand mass is approximately 0 indicating that the 

current sand resources are being sustained. 

2. Related to the science questions of suitability, are dam operations coupled with 

environmental influences being used to sustain the current amount of sand 

resources in the (Colorado River ecosystem) CRe? Or is there a need to increase 

or decrease sand resources and then sustain? The LTEMP resource goals for 

sediment (p5) indicate increasing and retaining fine sediment within operational 

constraints, which suggests that sustainability of sand resources might be an 

objective after some level of increase occurs.

Project A GCMRC PI Response 

These comments are addressed in Topping and others (2021). It remains an open 

question as to whether the current approach to dam management is sufficient to 

sustain a sufficient level of sand in each segment of the Colorado River in Marble and 

Grand canyons to maintain sandbars in perpetuity.

II. Project B: Sandbar and Sediment Storage Monitoring and Research 

A. Overview, Project goals and objectives and Link to LTEMP

1. Although this project relates to sediment goals of the LTEMP, are there ways to 

couple monitoring efforts of sandbars and recreational experience quality (p4)?

2. Is there a way to synthesize information on sand bar volume with dam 

operations and environmental conditions to develop a predictive model of sand 

bar volume that can then be linked to objectives?

B. Project B.1. Sandbar monitoring using topographic surveys and remote cameras

1. This project element relates to the first purpose of Project B, “track the effects 

of individual high flow experiments on sandbars”. 

2. The section was unclear on the application of topographic surveys; were they 

conducted and, if so, how?

3. Camera use is a neat application to passively monitor sandbars. Will the method 

provide sufficient power to detect changes and link to dam operations and 

tributary interactions? Will collecting time series sand bar change on a subset 

of sand bars be sufficient to inform the potential effects of dam operation and 

interaction with tributaries?
37

4. Figure 1 (p17) is there uncertainty associated with the point estimates 

presented for sandbar volume?

C. Project B.2. bathymetric and topographic mapping for monitoring long-term 

trends in sediment storage

1. This project element relates to the purpose b, “monitor the cumulative effect of 

successive HFEs and intervening operations on sandbars and sand conservation 

and to Investigate the interaction between dam operations, sand transport, and 

eddy sandbar dynamics”.

2. P19. “long term trends in sandbars and sand storage....” How will the former 

and latter be quantified and how does that relate to the sand budget model 

where the SNR was determined to be >1?

3. P20. Recent progress in bedload transport models is interesting and a nice 

extension of the previous models used and can potentially inform adaptive 

management experiments.

D. Project B.3. Control network and survey support

1. The maintenance of the geodetic framework seems foundational to supporting 

monitoring efforts. No specific comments.

E. Review specific questions

1. “1) whether the best information is being provided to meet these needs of the 

Glen Canyon dam operations and its potential effects, including whether the 

investigations focus on the right questions for which the GCDAMP needs 

answers to carry out its mission; and 2) resources affected by Glen Canyon Dam 

operations and the effects of those operations, options for managing these 

effects, coordination and balancing among resource programs, and the 

combined effectiveness of these programs in advancing understanding of the 

Grand Canyon ecosystem and ensuring progress in defining and conducting 

adaptive management experiments.” 

Assessing the report and recorded presentations the monitoring appears to 

satisfy these questions. The monitoring program quantifies sand and fine 

sediment dynamics, albeit analyses of trend and link to resources goals can be 

clarified. 

Project B GCMRC PI Response 

• Sandbars and campsites have been identified by stakeholders of the AMP to be 

important aspects of the recreational experience. We have therefore designed 

monitoring programs to track these resources directly and we infer that 

improvements in sandbars and campsites add value to the recreational 
38

experience. The economic value of sandbars and campsites as part of the 

recreational experience has not been quantified directly but has been 

addressed indirectly in studies on the preference for different flow levels by 

whitewater boaters (Bishop and others, 1987; Neher and others, 2017). We 

believe that it is possible to more explicitly connect sandbars, campsites, and 

the economic value of the recreational experience, and hope to make that part 

of future work plans.

• The sandbar volume data have been analyzed with streamflow and sediment 

data (dam operations) and we have developed a sandbar volume model 

(Mueller and Grams, 2020). Because that work was the product of a previous 

workplan and the paper was not net published, it was not discussed in this 

annual report, but the now-published model was presented at a recent 

stakeholder meeting.

• Topographic surveys are an important part of the sandbar monitoring and are 

conducted annually at each of 45 long-term monitoring sites using conventional 

total stations. We will be sure to clarify this in future reports.

• For certain dam operations, such as the high-flow experiments, the sandbar 

response is sufficiently large that the response is easily detectable on the 

remote camera images and a robust conclusion is possible. We are still in the 

process of evaluating whether we can obtain useful information about other 

dam operations.

• There is uncertainty associated with the volume estimates, but at the scale 

presented in these figures, the uncertainty is very low (about the size of the 

data points themselves). We will, however, add those error bars to future plots.

• The long-term trends in sandbars will be measured by the annual topographic 

surveys at the 45 long-term sandbar monitoring sites. The long-term trends in 

sand storage will be measured by the repeat bathymetric surveys of the channel 

bed that occur on the order of every 3 to 10 years, depending on reach. The 

repeat measurements of the channel bed are used to test and verify the results 

of the sand budget model.

• We will add additional information on analyses of trends and links to resource 

goals in future annual reports.

Bishop, R. C., Boyle, K. J., Welsh, M. P., Baumgartner, R. M., & Rathbun, P. R. (1987). 

Glen Canyon Dam releases and downstream recreation: An analysis of user preferences 

and economic values. (Glen Canyon Environ. Stud. Rep. GCES/27/87). Springfield, VA: 

Huberlein-Baumgartner Research Service.
39

Neher, C., Duffield, J., Bair, L., Patterson, D., & Neher, K. (2017). Testing the limits of 

temporal stability: willingness to pay values among grand canyon whitewater boaters 

across decades. Water Resources Research, 53, 10,108–10,120. 

https://doi.org/10.1002/2017WR020729. 

Mueller, E.R., and Grams, P.E., 2021, A Morphodynamic Model to Evaluate Long-Term 

Sandbar Rebuilding Using Controlled Floods in the Grand Canyon: Geophysical Research 

Letters, v. 48, p. 1–10, doi:10.1029/2021GL093007.

III. Project C: Riparian Vegetation Monitoring and Research 

A. Overview, Project goals and objectives and Link to LTEMP

1. The project relates to natural processes and recreational experience LTEMP 

resource goals. The project is delineated into four elements that link to 

monitoring changes to riparian vegetation using field and digital data (C.1. and 

C.2.), developing predictive vegetation composition models related to 

hydrologic regime (C.3), and integrated science products into decision support 

tools (C.4) 

B. C.1. Ground-based vegetation monitoring

1. Vegetation monitoring for composition and cover, with emphasis on nonnative 

species appears to provide robust data that can be used for status and trend 

analysis, including statistical analysis (i.e., illustrated by figure 1 p26). 

C. C.2. Imagery-based riparian vegetation monitoring at the landscape scale

1. This project quantified long term changes in total riparian vegetation related to 

dam release patterns and climate for reaches of the CRe.

2. It was unclear how the long-term changes were evaluated and on what metric. 

Additionally, the effect of dam operations on riparian vegetation was unclear, 

although this topic was addressed in C.3. 

D. C.3. Vegetation responses to LTEMP flow scenarios

1. The objective of this project was to develop better predictive models of how 

LTEMP flows will alter vegetation.

2. How well did the models of riparian vegetation perform (p11)? Was a sensitivity 

analysis performed to evaluate where additional study or flow experiments 

might be prioritized? 
40

E. C.4. Vegetation management decision support

1. The specific objectives of this project element were unclear. How was decision 

support provided? What potential management actions came from information 

provided by this project element? In other words, was information used to 

evaluate trade-offs in plantings of specific strains of cottonwoods and willows? 

F. Review specific questions

1. “1) whether the best information is being provided to meet these needs of the 

Glen Canyon dam operations and its potential effects, including whether the 

investigations focus on the right questions for which the GCDAMP needs 

answers to carry out its mission; and 2) resources affected by Glen Canyon Dam 

operations and the effects of those operations, options for managing these 

effects, coordination and balancing among resource programs, and the 

combined effectiveness of these programs in advancing understanding of the 

Grand Canyon ecosystem and ensuring progress in defining and conducting 

adaptive management experiments.”

Assessing the report and recorded presentations the monitoring appears to satisfy 

these questions. Clarifications on metrics and how they are estimated would be 

helpful and how those metrics fit with the LTEMP resource goals.

Project C GCMRC PI Response 

C.2. Long term changes in riparian vegetation are evaluated by changes in the areal 

coverage of total riparian vegetation and plant species in the riparian zone. Effects of 

dam operations are evaluated by relating those vegetation changes to hydrologic 

variables such as inundation duration. Please see our latest paper (Durning and others 

2021 in the journal Ecohydrology) for a detailed example of this work. We will be clearer

in how we communicate the results of this science in the Annual Report for FY21. 

C.3. Please see the response to general comments, and the forthcoming Status and 

Trends USGS Open File Report, regarding model performance. An explicit sensitivity 

analysis was not performed; however, the overall results implicated an effect of daily 

fluctuating flows and seasonally inverted baseflows relative to pre-dam patterns as 

mechanisms for further investigation. These are prioritized in our current work and will 

be explicitly addressed in the FY 2021 Annual Report.

C.4. The conclusions of this work are that translocating plants for restoration within 

river segments defined by closely related populations are likely to result in maintenance 

of genetic integrity and application of locally adapted materials that may have higher 

rates of success than plants from elsewhere. Critically, these genetically-defined regions 

are generally much larger than those defined by the NPS for translocation. These results 

have been communicated to the NPS vegetation management team, and we are 
41

working closely with them to help translate this research into decisions related to plant 

materials use and translocation.

Review Specific Questions: Please see response to general comments (Section 3 Project 

C above) regarding specific metrics. They are based on the LTEMP and are enumerated 

further in the forthcoming Status and Trends OFR.

IV. Project D: Geomorphic Effects of Dam Operations and Vegetation Management 

for Archaeological Sites 

A. Overview, Project goals and objectives and Link to LTEMP

1. This project links to the LTEMP goal of preserving cultural resources and that 

preservation in place will be enhanced by implementing the preferred 

alternative specified in the LTEMP. The high flow experiments (HFE) specified in 

alternative D may conflict with preservation, eroding terraces containing 

archeological sites and depositing sand on aeolian dune fields thereby providing 

protection in the Marble and Grand Canyon.

2. The goal of the project is to quantify geomorphic effects of dam operations and 

riparian vegetation management with emphasis on HFEs on sediment supply to 

terraces and culture sites. The project should allow for the evaluation of how 

flow and non-flow actions affect cultural resources, preservation of resources, 

vegetation, and sediment dynamics. 

B. D.1. Geomorphic effects of dam operations and vegetation management

1. The potential effects of dam operation and vegetation management were 

monitored with Lidar, weather, and time lapse camera.

2. Can the monitoring objectives be clarified?

3. Appears to be a good census of archeological sites and features in the 

monitoring portfolio. Can this monitoring be used to inform a risk model? 

C. D.2. Cultural resources synthesis to inform historic preservation plan and repeat 

photography to inform project element D.1.

1. No specific comments 

D. Review specific questions

1. “1) whether the best information is being provided to meet these needs of the 

Glen Canyon dam operations and its potential effects, including whether the 

investigations focus on the right questions for which the GCDAMP needs 

answers to carry out its mission; and 2) resources affected by Glen Canyon Dam 
42

operations and the effects of those operations, options for managing these 

effects, coordination and balancing among resource programs, and the 

combined effectiveness of these programs in advancing understanding of the 

Grand Canyon ecosystem and ensuring progress in defining and conducting 

adaptive management experiments.” 

Assessing the report and recorded presentations the monitoring appears to satisfy 

these questions. Clarifications on metrics, how they are estimated, and how those 

metrics fit with the LTEMP resource goals and overall monitoring objectives would 

be helpful. Lastly, clarification is needed on how weather data is used to achieve 

monitoring objectives. 

Project D GCMRC PI Response 

In 2016, we developed a long-term monitoring plan that includes specific metrics for 

evaluating changes in the condition of archaeological sites that are tied to sediment 

dynamics, stability, and geomorphic change. The monitoring plan calls for condition 

evaluations using these metrics to be completed once every 4-10 years (depending on 

the specific metric); therefore, they are not reported on an annual basis.

V. Project E: Nutrients And Temperature as Ecosystem Drivers: Understanding 

Patterns, Establishing Links and Developing Predictive Tools for an Uncertain 

Future 

A. Overview, Project goals and objectives and Link to LTEMP

1. This project examines patterns in nutrients and temperature in reaches of the 

CRe. The metrics monitored may not directly relate to LTEMP resource goals but 

are a necessary precondition to achieving LTEMP resource goals related to biota 

(humpback chub, rainbow trout, other native fish). 

B. E.1. Temperature and nutrients in the CRe

1. What are the biologically important levels for the water nutrients monitored in 

the CRe?

Project E GCMRC PI Response 

At the low end (0.001 mg/L P), the concentrations of soluble reactive phosphorus exiting 

Lake Powell are extremely limiting to ecosystem production. At the higher end (0.01 

mg/L P), the concentrations seem to support a healthier more productive food web. It 

would likely take a great deal more P than that measured at the outflows to risk 

eutrophication. For comparison, total phosphorus concentrations at the GCD outflow 
43

are generally well below the 25th percentile of EPA found data from the Xeric west 

ecoregion (0.022 mg/L P).

2. Is DO measured at the sediment water interface (p60)? Periods of anoxia can 

mobilize P that is otherwise sequestered in benthic sediments, might be 

negligible in reaches of the CRe (Mortimer 1942).

Project E GCMRC PI Response 

We do not currently measure DO at the sediment water interface, but we did conduct 

some sediment incubations this summer where we explored the role of sediment 

anoxia. We compared treatments with low dissolved oxygen to those with higher 

dissolved oxygen and low pH to try to disentangle potential effects of dissolved oxygen 

and pH on P release (e.g., via iron-mediated vs. calcite-mediated dynamics).

3. Have nutrient budgets/dynamic models been developed to guide monitoring?

Project E GCMRC PI Response 

We are working to construct a P budget for the Colorado River through Grand Canyon as 

part of this work plan.

4. With the GPP models developed there is some indication that weekend bug 

flows influence system level GPP? Is there feedback on dam operations? For 

example, to modify flows for maximum GPP, or something of that nature?

Project E GCMRC PI Response 

Yes, given the food-limited status of the river, managing the dam for springtime steadylow flow may improve the condition of the food web by boosting rates of riverine GPP.

C. E.2. Linking temperature and nutrients to metabolism and higher trophic levels 

1. The project elements seem to build on and address important questions needed 

to evaluate dam operations and environmental conditions on GPP, which is 

primarily driven by nutrients and temperature. 

D. Review specific questions 

2. “1) whether the best information is being provided to meet these needs of the 

Glen Canyon dam operations and its potential effects, including whether the 

investigations focus on the right questions for which the GCDAMP needs answers 

to carry out its mission; and 2) resources affected by Glen Canyon Dam operations 

and the effects of those operations, options for managing these effects, 

coordination and balancing among resource programs, and the combined 

effectiveness of these programs in advancing understanding of the Grand Canyon 
44

ecosystem and ensuring progress in defining and conducting adaptive 

management experiments.”

Assessing the report and recorded presentations, the monitoring appears to satisfy 

these questions. The utility of monitoring temperature and the extensive modeling 

of temperature directly applies to dam operations and tributary and solar inputs. The 

linkage to the LTEMP, specifically through defined metrics and thresholds, was 

unclear. 

Project E GCMRC PI Response 

We will include additional information like linkages to LTEMP and defined metrics and 

thresholds in future reports, if we report on this model again.

VI. Project F: Aquatic Invertebrate Ecology 

A. Goals and objectives

1. The project informs natural resource goals of LTEMP. Specifically, the 

monitoring efforts are being used to evaluate effects of bug flows from Glen 

Canyon Dam on aquatic invertebrate production and emergence timing. The 

project illustrates good interaction with other projects to support inference and 

provides auxiliary information that might be needed to explain among year 

differences in higher trophic levels, like native fish and trout. 

B. Monitoring of aquatic invertebrates

1. The bases appear to be covered in terms of monitoring instream drifting and 

emerging aquatic invertebrates. Within the constraints of the project, is the 

monitoring sufficient to evaluate bug flows (i.e., is sampling sufficient to detect 

changes in invertebrate production resulting from the flows)?

2. The use of bat echo recordings is an interesting idea and would seem to be 

another potentially useful source of information indexing aquatic invertebrate 

production.

3. Monitoring appears to rely on catch rates and emergence. Is it possible and 

useful to also look at invertebrate biomass production? For example, production 

rates might provide an additional component, integrating demographics and 

growth that can be linked to dam operations, albeit the temporal resolution 

needed might be insufficient for this large of a system. 

 

 
45

Project F GCMRC PI Response 

We appreciate these supportive comments. Estimates of invertebrate biomass 

production were done at six sites across three years (2006-2009). These efforts showed 

that invertebrate production and species diversity in the Colorado River in Grand 

Canyon were low compared to other rivers. However, making these estimates was 

extremely labor intensive and in my opinion the ability to detect change in response to 

dam operations using benthic sampling is limited, particularly in Grand Canyon where 

sites can only be accessed through river trips. These limitations of invertebrate biomass 

production estimates were a primary motivation for the development of community 

science approaches to monitoring that had greater temporal and spatial resolution. Drift 

monitoring was also adopted because it is a useful proxy for benthic monitoring (drift 

concentrations increase proportional to benthic density; Kennedy and others 2014) and 

can be done across a wide range of flows. Hydropeaking tides also greatly complicate 

collection of benthic samples; sampling at a given site must correspond to low tide, and 

the timing of low tide varies throughout the canyon. Near the Little Colorado River at 

River Mile 61, for example, low tide arrives after dark (~10pm) which creates significant 

safety and data quality issues. During a recent experimental low flow of 4,000 cfs for 5 

days in March 2021, we collected benthic samples from a large segment of the river 

(RM140-225). Low and stable flows like this greatly facilitate collection of benthic 

samples. If there is interest in having benthic sampling incorporated into invertebrate 

monitoring efforts, we would be interested in exploring whether special flows could be 

released from the dam, such as stable low flows, to facilitate safe and accurate sampling 

of benthic invertebrates.

VII. Project G: Humpback Chub Population Dynamics Throughout the Colorado River 

Ecosystem 

A. Overview, Project goals and objectives and Link to LTEMP

1. This project focused on estimation of abundance and demographic rates of 

humpback chub in the CRe. Its emphasis is on triggers associated with the 

Biological Opinion and the potential use of models fit to monitoring data to 

examine alternative management actions. This project informs humpback chub 

and native fish LTEMP resource goals. 

B. G.1. Humpback chub population modeling

1. The project provides advanced approaches to estimate population dynamics.

2. In Figure 2 (p85), the reduction in uncertainty associated with antennas was not 

large relative to estimates without antennas. Is the benefit in increased 

precision worth the associated effort to maintain antenna arrays? Is the use of 
46

antennas something that is expected to further increase precision of humpback 

chub estimates over time?

3. Will translocation decisions be informed by monitoring, such that the effort 

associated with the translocations will occur when the expected number of 

adults produced from the effort is maximized? 

C. G.2. Annual spring/fall humpback chub abundance estimates in the lower 13.6 km 

of the LCR

1. From the estimates illustrated in the figure on p87, the population appears to 

be increasing. With goal of the effort to monitor status and trend, how is trend 

evaluated? 

D. G.3. Juvenile humpback chub monitoring near the LCR confluence

1. No specific comments 

E. G.4 Remote PIT-tag array monitoring in the LCR

1. No specific comments 

F. G.5. Monitoring humpback chub aggregation relative abundance and distribution

1. With the associated closed mark-recapture estimators, will relationships of 

CPUE and abundance estimates be considered to evaluate the relationship of 

catch, effort, and abundance (C/f=q*B)? Specifically, will evaluating if 

catchability is constant, or may be exhibiting hyperstability or hyperdepletion 

(i.e., q^x where x <>1), result in a functional response which may influence the 

application of capture probability to catch data being used to estimate 

humpback chub in the Western Grand Canyon? 

G. G.6. Juvenile humpback chub monitoring – West

1. No specific comments 

H. G.7. Chute Falls translocation

1. See comment above regarding translocations 

I. G.9. Backwater seining

1. Will backwater seining be useful to evaluate dam operations? For example, is it 

expected that these efforts will index age-0 fish production, and in turn be 

associated with HFEs or other flows? If so, is the sampling effort sufficient to 

detect potential responses? 
47

J. Review specific questions

1. “1) whether the best information is being provided to meet these needs of the Glen 

Canyon dam operations and its potential effects, including whether the 

investigations focus on the right questions for which the GCDAMP needs answers to 

carry out its mission; and 2) resources affected by Glen Canyon Dam operations and 

the effects of those operations, options for managing these effects, coordination 

and balancing among resource programs, and the combined effectiveness of these 

programs in advancing understanding of the Grand Canyon ecosystem and ensuring 

progress in defining and conducting adaptive management experiments.” 

The project appears to be monitoring many aspects of native fish, with emphasis on 

humpback chub, life history, demographics, and dynamics. Many applications have 

direct ability to inform decisions (e.g., translocations) and are informing humpback 

chub status with population models.

Project G GCMRC PI Response 

G1, Q2: This is a good point - the relative cost/benefit of antennas is an important 

question that should be revisited every few years. Note that in Figure 2, antennas were 

only deployed in 3 years (2016, 2018, and 2019) and the reduction in the credible 

intervals are relatively large in these years. The additional costs of maintaining the 

submersible antennas is low compared to the cost of running an entire sampling trip, so 

there are relatively good gains in precision for the modest extra costs associated with 

running antennas. The improvement in precision will increase as a higher proportion of 

fish are marked (see citation below), but since relatively intensive humpback chub 

monitoring has been occurring for many years (i.e., >10 years), it is likely that the 

proportion of marked humpback chub has reached equilibrium. 

Dzul, M.C., Yackulic, C.B., Kendall, W.L., Winkelman, D.L., Conner, M.M., & Yard, M.D., 

2021, Incorporating antenna detections into abundance estimates of fish: 

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 

https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfas-2021-0003. 

G1, Q3: We will continue to evaluate the best number of fish to translocate in a given 

year. The summer LCR trip produces a population estimate for age-0 fish, and this age-0 

population estimate will help biologists determine the number to translocate in fall or 

spring. The current thinking is that the benefit of translocations is greater when age-0 

densities are high in fall, because it is relatively easy to catch fish for translocation when 

densities are high and because translocating fish would counter-act the negative effects 

of density-dependence. 

G2, Q1: We cannot infer increases/decreases to the population based solely on USFWS 

LCR monitoring efforts, because humpback chub regularly move between the LCR and 
48

the Colorado River and thus abundance in the LCR is only part of the story. Accordingly, 

population trend will be inferred from combining fall abundance estimates from the LCR 

and the Colorado River (i.e., the multistate model presented in G1). For example, there 

was a decrease in the number of adults in the LCR in spring of 2015 and 2016, but the 

multistate model found no decrease during this time and suggested that CR to LCR 

movement was lower in spring 2015 and spring 2016. Additionally, from antenna data, 

there seems to be yearly variability in movement timing for fish moving from the 

Colorado River into the LCR in spring (see citation below) and this may influence the 

availability of adults during LCR spring monitoring. 

Dzul, M.C., Kendall, W.L., Yackulic, C.B., Winkelman, D.L., Van Haverbeke, D.R., & Yard, 

M.D., 2021, Partial migration and spawning movements of humpback chub in the 

Little Colorado River are better understood using data from autonomous PIT tag 

antennas: Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 

https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfas-2020-0291. 

G5, Q1: For our initial efforts, we are assuming catchability is constant across all 

densities. From a mark-recapture perspective, we always conjecture about behavioral 

effects and individual heterogeneity in capture probabilities. These are important 

questions, but currently we do not have the data to look into this – particularly since 

capture probabilities are often low.

G9, Q1: The seining project was sadly cut from the budget. The seining trip was a useful 

index of age-0 abundances in western Grand Canyon, but it was difficult to scale up 

from CPUE to abundance from these data. 

VIII. Project H: Salmonid Research and Monitoring 

A. Overview, Project goals and objectives and Link to LTEMP

1. This project relates to the rainbow trout fishery resource goal of the LTEMP as 

well as a possible predator or humpback chub. Dam operations include 

experimental ‘trout flows’ hypothesized to limit rainbow trout recruitment and 

dispersal. Recent increases in brown trout may pose a challenge to native fish 

conservation but provide recreational fishing opportunities. 

B. H.1. Experimental flow assessment and trout recruitment

1. Is the level of sampling sufficient to evaluate the objectives of Project H.1?

2. Is it possible to clarify the proposed analytical procedures to evaluate H1.1-4 

and the associated timeframe for sufficient learning to inform dam operations? 

 
49

Project H GCMRC PI Response 

Please see responses to comments in the SUMMARY OF RESPONSES section above.

C. H.2. Rainbow and brown trout recruitment and outmigration model

1. The coupled brown trout, rainbow trout, and humpback chub models used to 

evaluate management scenarios sounds like an interesting application. 

D. H.3. Using early life history and physiological growth data from otoliths to inform 

management of rainbow and brown trout in Glen Canyon

1. No specific comments 

E. H.4. Rainbow trout monitoring in Glen Canyon

1. Was the creel survey, a roving or access creel? 

AZGFD Response 

Both. We use an access point creel to survey boat anglers at the ramp, and a roving 

creel to survey walk in anglers (walk to the main accessible walk-in access areas to 

interview anglers and use binoculars to count anglers that are fishing at more distant 

locations). Our methodology has creel technicians move between the ramp and walk-in 

areas and is designed so they are at the ramp at the times of day when most boats 

return. 

F. Item 2 Review specific questions

3. “1) whether the best information is being provided to meet these needs of the 

Glen Canyon dam operations and its potential effects, including whether the 

investigations focus on the right questions for which the GCDAMP needs 

answers to carry out its mission; and 2) resources affected by Glen Canyon Dam 

operations and the effects of those operations, options for managing these 

effects, coordination and balancing among resource programs, and the 

combined effectiveness of these programs in advancing understanding of the 

Grand Canyon ecosystem and ensuring progress in defining and conducting 

adaptive management experiments.” 

The salmonid research and monitoring project, like aquatic invertebrate production, 

is unique in that there are experimental dam operations associated with meeting 

LTEMP resource objectives directly associated with salmonids. The monitoring of 

salmonids builds on long term datasets and an overall question that emerges is how 

will monitoring data be used to evaluate experimental flows?

 
50

Project H GCMRC PI Response 

Please see responses to comments in the SUMMARY OF RESPONSES section above.

IX. Project I: Warm-Water Native and Nonnative Fish Research and Monitoring 

A. Overview, Project goals and objectives and Link to LTEMP

1. This report section summarizes efforts to monitor warm water nonnative fish 

and research associated with nonnative fish. A snapshot of results for the 2020 

sampling efforts by AGFD (2 mainstem sampling trips). Previous reports indicate 

that nonnative species have decreased. The project also includes a research 

component associated with the early detection of warm-water nonnative 

species and predation of native species by nonnative species.

2. It was not explicit what goal of the LTEMP these efforts support but fall under 

“Goal 10. Nonnative invasive species. Minimize or reduce the presence and 

expansion of aquatic nonnative invasive species” and helps inform the 

“mechanical removal of nonnative fish near the Little Colorado River 

confluence” management action listed in the preferred alternative D of the 

LTEMP. 

B. Goals and objectives

1. The stated goal included trends in abundance and distribution of native and 

nonnative fish in the Grand Canyon. However, it is unclear from the report 

section how trend is calculated from monitoring data. Evaluating trend is likely 

important for informing adaptive operations of Glen Canyon dam and whether 

operations can achieve management objectives.

2. It is unclear why Asian tapeworm monitoring is important and how it supports 

GCDAMP and LTEMP. Is there mortality associated with infestations in 

humpback chubs? 

C. Improving early detection of warm-water invasive fish

1. Targeting areas where rare non-natives have been caught as well as warm water 

areas seems reasonable to the detection process. It is unclear how this sampling 

a) can inform the sampling efforts needed at a larger scale to detect warmwater invasive fish (i.e., power to detect given presence at low levels) and b) if 

warm-water invasives are expanding in range.

2. The use of eDNA is a potentially powerful method for monitoring the presence 

of warm-water invasive fish DNA. However, given stream flows, eDNA detected 

at a site could be DNA material that has washed downstream. Is there any 
51

information on the downstream persistence of DNA in systems like the CRe? 

Similarly, what concentration of DNA is needed to reliably detect warm-water 

invasive fish? In other words, is eDNA in this application sensitive enough to 

provide an early detection system for warm-water invasive fish in the system? 

 

Project I GCMRC PI Response 

Please see response in SUMMARY OF RESPONSES section above pertaining to the topic 

of eDNA persistence and detection in the CRe.

B. Warm water nonnative fish risks to native fish

1. Some details for the field component of this study would be helpful. Was this 

effort to provide estimates of diet composition which could be further used to 

inform relative risk?

Project I GCMRC PI Response 

Please see response in SUMMARY OF RESPONSES section above. 

X. Project J: Socioeconomic Research in the Colorado River Ecosystem 

A. Integration with GCDAMP and LTEMP

1. Integration with GCDAMP and LTEMP. This project appears to be integrating 

science outputs into management actions. A table or bulleted list that explicitly 

defines the links to the LTEMP and specifically management actions articulated 

in preferred alternative D. 

B. Integration with existing projects

1. The applied decision and scenario analysis described in the report represents 

interesting applications of dynamic programming to evaluate and identify 

optimal management actions with a utility that presumably links back to 

socioeconomic values. Given the use of dynamic programming and value of 

information referenced in this section, it is exciting to see it applied to real 

world problems and whether it is important or not to reduce uncertainty in 

humpback chub survival and rainbow trout abundance.

2. It is clear from this section that there is much integration with native fish 

monitoring and management efforts (i.e., translocation of humpback chubs). 

Additionally, there appears to be integration with the preferred alternative D 

and monitoring efforts, specifically using dynamic programming to assess trout 

flows. 
52

C. Use of tribal survey information in AM and decision making

1. It was unclear how the survey information for tribal perspectives will be used to 

inform decision making and adaptive management. For example, will the 

outcomes of the survey be used to develop functions representing preference 

for varying outcomes of management actions? Will the survey instruments 

inform any weighting of multi-attribute utilities that might be in optimization 

routines evaluating alternative management actions? 

Project J GCMRC PI Response 

Thank you for the comments about the dynamic programming modeling. We will 

include a more detailed table or bulleted list that explicitly defines the links to the 

LTEMP and specifically management actions articulated in preferred alternative D. The 

tribal surveys will be used to: 1) collect information to recognize Tribal values for 

downstream resources and support the prioritization of management goals, 2) identify 

Tribal preferences for experimental flows specified in the LTEMP EIS, and 3) evaluate 

trade-offs from a Tribal perspective. These are all important elements in adaptive 

management and value of information assessment. To be specific, I think the Tribal 

preferences for experimental flows (and other management actions) are potential 

proxies for relational values. This information may not be useful in trade-off analysis, 

but very informative in the prioritization of monitoring and research related to reducing 

critical uncertainties. This information will become increasingly important with the 

potential impacts of climate change and the evaluation of the suite of management 

actions that may be necessary to meet the humpback chub goal, for example. The 

challenge is explicitly working this information into a formal adaptive management 

decision framework.

XI. Project K: Geospatial Science and Technology 

A. General overview

1. The investment into managing the experimental and monitoring data generated 

as part of a program of this size is very important. Impressions from the 

summary provided in the report is that this project is well positioned to provide 

the support needed by the science projects and to curate the data.

2. Like most large-scale science and monitoring programs, this effort is shifting to 

the use of near real time summaries of monitoring data in the form of 

dashboards which, in turn, can be used to support the GCDAMP and LTEMP.

3. The project demonstrates clear integration and support of other science 

projects (e.g., Project B, C, E, G, H, G, I) in the text.
53

4. It was uncertain what the needs of the GCDAMP and LTEMP are for geospatial 

science and data technology. For example, does the GCDAMP need feedback 

from information systems to support decision making? Are there monitoring 

thresholds or triggers identified from the LTEMP that are reported and critical to 

system operations? 

B. Science tools developed 

1. The project appears to have developed an impressive set of tools to support the 

GCDAMP and LTEMP, for example, the lake level and water quality tool for Lake 

Powell.

2. Of particular interest was the use of interest of things (IoT) to migrate data from 

field sensors to a single field location, potentially increasing the efficiency of 

offloading sensor data and minimizing personnel effort.

3. Source control. The project development and integration of source version 

through GIT represents some of the best practices for reproducible analyses - an 

important component of a program of this size.

4. The project appears to be making the best efforts to provide information to 

stakeholders and supporting the science associated with the GCDAMP and 

LTEMP. 

Project K GCMRC PI Response 

Please see responses in SUMMARY OF RESPONSES section above.

XII. Project L: Overflight Remote Sensing in Support of GCDAMP And LTEMP 

A. Link to GCDAMP

1. It was unclear from the summary exactly what the outcomes of this effort will 

be beyond imaging from the river corridor and how the outcomes of these 

efforts will support the GCDAMP. Specifically, how will remote sensing be used 

to evaluate the effect of Glen Canyon Dam operations? For example, can this 

technology be used to evaluate vegetation encroachment on sandbars?

2. Potentially add a table or narrative that lists expected products from remote 

sensing and potential integration with monitoring the effects of dam operations 

and potential role in decision making. 

B. Support and integration with LTEMP

1. It was unclear from the report summary how this effort will integrate with the 

LTEMP. From the summary the effort appears to be a singular effort to occur in 
54

2021. How this effort will support the long-term component of the monitoring 

plan is uncertain.

2. Potentially add a table that lists expected products from remote sensing and 

potential application and integration with long-term monitoring efforts.

C. Clarify link of this effort to other science projects

1. It seems reasonable that remote sensing would be of use to other projects in 

the portfolio of science efforts. It is unclear how this effort might support those 

projects and what outputs might be used once the effort is undertaken in 2021.

2. Potentially add a table that lists expected products from remote sensing and 

potential application to ongoing science projects. 

Project L GCMRC PI Response 

Please see response in SUMMARY OF RESPONSES section above.

XIII. Project M: Administration 

1. No specific comments

XIV. Project N: Hydropower Monitoring and Research 

1. No specific comments

XV. Appendix 1: Lake Powell Water Quality Monitoring 

1. No specific comments, section was a summary of data collected and monitored 

to support understanding of flows downstream.

Mortimer, C.H., 1942, The exchange of dissolved substances between mud and water in 

lakes. II. J. Ecol. 30, 147–201.

XVI. Appendix 2: Deliverables (Products) FY 2018-2020 

A. Program productivity

1. The program appears to be highly productive with a great number of peer 

reviewed articles produced, presentations given, reports and datasets 

generated.

2. The development of varying web-based resources to serve, process and 

summarize data is an asset. 
55

XVII. Appendix 3: Budgets, All Projects 

1. No specific comments

 

 
56

Peer Reviewer 2 

AGENCY: US Bureau of Reclamation, Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management 

Program (GCDAMP)

MATERIAL(S) REVIEWED: 2020 Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC) Annual 

Report 

REVIEWED BY: Stefanie A Kroll, PhD, Drexel University

DATE: August 20, 2021

 

I. Project A: Streamflow, Water Quality, and Sediment Transport and Budgeting in 

the Colorado River Ecosystem & Project B: Sandbar and Sediment Storage 

Monitoring and Research 

A. Sediment transport need vs turbidity impacts on biota

1. The modeling and monitoring effort is well designed. The research is well 

supported by an article in press.

2. I am noting a tension here between the goal of supplying sufficient sediment to 

maintain sandy banks and sand bars for recreational and tribal activities, 

competing with the problems that turbidity is causing for biota. While I cannot 

suggest any solutions to this tension, perhaps the managers of this aspect of 

flow regulation and the researchers are already working to balance the 

sediment transport needs and the mechanism for it with the advantages to the 

biota when turbidity is low.

3. I do not know if the hypothesis that sand can be managed to achieve all goals of 

the GCMRC can hold true for this topic. It’s very ambitious and I appreciate that 

it is your goal. From the study on the Hualapai Tribe’s opinions, there seem to 

be mixed feelings about the priorities of each activity.

4. It is possible that I don’t have enough information, as I see that the report notes 

that riparian vegetation encroachment and decreased sand from tributaries is 

responsible for the dynamics of sand erosion/deposition. There may still be 

some need to connect to the turbidity of Glen Canyon Dam releases for this 

item. I see that High Flow Experiments (HFEs) are being deployed to this end 

and note that increasing the number of these events should be monitored in 

terms of the objectives of Projects E, F and others. The previous study on the 

2008 HFEs (Rosi Marshall et al. 2010) showed declines in Potamopyrgus 

antipodarum and Gammarus, which may be desired results if a reduction in the 
57

nonnative snail is desired. However, HFEs may put the objective of improving 

Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera (EPT) communities at risk. It 

appears that these HFEs improve sand deposition, but that the effects are shortterm, if I am understanding properly. 

Project A GCMRC PI Response 

Given that turbidity is mainly maintained by silt and clay concentrations, and to a lesser 

degree by sand concentrations, there is not necessarily a conflict with maintaining larger 

amounts of sand in the Colorado River while also maintaining periods of lower turbidity. 

Also, given that the animals that evolved in the Colorado River evolved in a highly turbid 

system, there may be no large conflict anyway.

Project B GCMRC PI Response 

• Sandbars are dynamic features of the Colorado River system. Long-term 

persistence of sandbars is not expected without regular high-flow experiments 

to deposit new sand. Thus, the HFE protocol was designed to trigger HFEs 

frequently. The combined results of the sandbar monitoring and modeling show 

that sandbars are on average larger during the recent period with frequent HFEs 

than in earlier periods with no HFEs or infrequent HFEs.

• The relation between turbidity, HFEs, and effects on biota requires further 

study. Although some linkages between HFEs and turbidity have been 

suggested, those linkages may be very weak. Because HFEs occur for only a 

short (< 1 week) period in November and turbidity is driven primarily by silt and 

clay inputs from tributaries, it is unlikely that fall HFEs substantially affect 

turbidity the following late winter and spring.

II. Project E: Nutrients And Temperature as Ecosystem Drivers: Understanding 

Patterns, Establishing Links and Developing Predictive Tools for an Uncertain 

Future 

B. TP-SRP budgets

1. The approach to monitoring and studying phosphorus (P) dynamics is well 

designed—it appears that the researchers will continue to work to parse out the 

soluble reactive phosphorus (SRP) fraction and total phosphorus (TP), and 

perhaps what other fractions of TP may be biologically available, which should 

better inform algal dynamics and therefore the food web interactions.
58

2. Development of a P budget is certainly a priority for understanding how P 

patterns interact with flow, temperature, turbidity and exert bottom-up 

controls on the biological communities.

3. The studies before and after fire are also sound, and the shift to studying gross 

primary production (GPP) is a good step toward characterizing the dynamics of 

nutrients in the system, especially regarding the food web. In addition, the high 

variation during storms is an interesting and pertinent research topic.

4. I agree that understanding other forms and amount of bioavailable P is needed 

as per the experiment notes in E.1.2. 

C. Seeding P

1. From the question during the presentation about adding P to the system, I 

agree with the researcher’s response that the potential effects are unknown, 

and that this action may have unwanted results in terms of supporting 

nonnative fishes, or other effects. This caution seems particularly important 

given the management actions to reduce brown trout populations in favor of 

humpback chub and rainbow trout and removing rainbow trout in certain areas 

to favor humpback chub. Was P historically limited or higher in this area, or how 

do levels compare with inputs into reservoirs? From the studies presented, the 

turbidity seems to be a greater limitation to algal growth and macroinvertebrate 

success (along with hydropeaking flows, of course), than bioavailable P into the 

system. While I do not have enough information to say this is the case, it would 

be better to continue the Bug Flows experiment and the analysis of available P 

forms before considering taking actions to change P dynamics by seeding P.

Project E GCMRC PI Response 

About 95-99% of P entering Lake Powell never makes it below Glen Canyon Dam. This 

retention is much more dramatic for P than for other potentially limiting nutrients (N 

and Si) so the river is more P limited than it was historically. P and turbidity interact to 

determine gross primary production.

A. Whole system food web dynamics

1. In the presentation by Yackulic, he noted a desire to better analyze and model 

food web dynamics. I agree that this research is needed to better understand 

the bottom-up controls of P concentrations, turbidity, and flows through the 

food web and in connection to the dynamics of the fish communities. Food web 

research would be a high priority for the next steps if I were involved in this 

program. I support the next steps proposed in E.2.1 to better understand the 

drivers of variation in GPP.
59

2. To bring together all the elements regarding energy flows, including 

metabolism, nutrient dynamics, algal, macroinvertebrate and fish communities, 

the results of propose sub-element E.2.4 seems like an ideal next step that has a 

clear and interesting foundation already published.

D. Algal community dynamics as food for macroinvertebrates 

1. Relative to Projects E and F, macroinvertebrate diets could be analyzed using 

DNA metabarcoding of their whole abdomens to understand which diatoms and 

prey are most dominant in diets, to complement the gut analyses of fish that 

have been done in previous studies, which I assume would be part of any food 

web study. 

Project E GCMRC PI Response 

We agree that eDNA metabarcoding could be a useful tool to identify diatom and prey 

species in fish diet. If resources allow in the future, we may explore this option for the 

Colorado River in Grand Canyon.

2. The laboratory study in E.2.3. is interesting for P. antipodarum. It would be 

interesting to know, either through field or laboratory studies, if a more diverse 

set of grazers (including desired EPT and Diptera other than tolerant 

Chironomids) will respond to changes in upright vs. adnate diatoms. I do not 

think an additional lab/ artificial stream study on response of invertebrates 

other than P. antipodarum is a high priority, as gut analysis of 

macroinvertebrates could be cost- and labor effective. But as the researchers 

note the varying palatability of P. antipodarum to the different fish taxa, the 

suitability of diatoms as food for higher quality invertebrates could provide 

interesting information on what may be needed for their successful colonization 

during bug flow experiments and how that moves through the food web to 

support more diverse invertebrates. Ideally, native snails and other grazers can 

eventually reduce the prevalence of the nonnative P. antipodarum, but I would 

consider that a less urgent management issue than increasing 

macroinvertebrate diversity, abundance, and biomass overall. 

Project E GCMRC PI Response 

Thank you for your comment. We agree additional information on invertebrate taxa 

other than mud snails would add to this body of research. As noted, subsequent studies 

would be costly, so we instead will focus on analyzing the data we have from the 

mesocosm study funded in FY18-20. There are no additional funds to do this type of 

work. 
60

E. Temperature 

1. The development of high-resolution temperature models is important in 

watersheds, especially with flow regulation interacting with climate change. This 

model and approach are well-designed. I am familiar with the modeling approach 

because some of my colleagues are working on the same topic. I appreciate the 

user-friendly version being developed for use by stakeholders as well. 

2. It is encouraging to see that projected temperature increases due to climate 

change may benefit humpback chub, even though there is a risk of expansion of 

largemouth bass or other nonnative fishes. This topic certainly deserves to 

continue to be monitored for temperature increases and effects throughout the 

ecosystem. 

Project E GCMRC PI Response 

Thank you for your comment. We hope the water temperature model is a useful tool in 

predicting the response of water temperatures to changes in flows, release 

temperatures, and air temperatures.

III. Project F: Aquatic Invertebrate Ecology 

A. Experimental design, community science (“Bug Flows”)

1. Weekend “breaks” are an excellent idea for egg survival and other possible 

mechanisms for macroinvertebrate success, and therefore for increasing 

diversity as well. Once this experiment is complete, will there be another study 

on how weekend flows can be best designed as ecological flows for 

macroinvertebrates? I do not see details on how they were determined, but 

perhaps this aspect has been modeled and assessed previously to set the flows. 

I am not an expert on ecological flows, so I am not requesting data on the 

specific flows, but the methodology would be interesting, to know if it’s fully 

developed or another part of the experiment. 

2. Sampling of aquatic insects is comprehensive, including sampling in the 

substrate, drift and adult emergence, and is well-aligned with the goals of the 

monitoring to inform this objective (i.e., successful growth and reproduction, as 

food for fishes, overall indicators of ecosystem health). 

3. I love the community science involved in this project! I don’t know what 

interactions you have with them after data collection and analysis, but I am sure 

you know it’s important to show them what their work accomplishes and make 

the results available to them in some form so they can share with their 

stakeholders and communities. 
61

4. Are there opportunities for Tribal groups and other local communities and 

stakeholders to take part in the community science programs, including, but not 

limited to, those run by rafting trips? In this case, access to rafting trips may 

limit the participation of a diverse audience who 1) are not tourists and 

therefore may not consider participating in such a trip; 2) are financially limited 

and may not be able to afford such a trip; or 3) have been historically excluded 

from such activities. Could this group invest in recruiting stakeholders from 

diverse groups and funding their participation in this work (even if the 

recruitment is done by a different office or stakeholder group)? It seems that 

with so many trips happening in a typical year, a small budget allocation could 

make a big difference in connecting local stakeholders to the research. 

5. At the same time, sparking interest in these community science trips for a 

diverse audience may help build a more robust and diverse community of 

recreation guides, scientists, etc., which, as you know, is direly needed in the 

white dominated environmental research and recreation sectors. Increasing 

diversity and inclusion have not been explicitly incorporated into many actions 

by environmental agencies and research groups and may seem out of place in 

my review of the scientific merit of this program. However, we must start 

incorporating Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI) into all our activities, and this 

seems like an ideal opportunity to add DEI work, with potential for mentoring 

diverse young people into existing community science activities. 

Project F GCMRC PI Response 

We appreciate these supportive comments. We have scheduled workshops on October 

28 and November 4 to identify potential next steps in ecological flow experiments for 

natural processes and macroinvertebrate assemblages. To improve opportunities for 

Tribal members and diverse audiences to participate in the community science project, 

GCMRC has partnered with Grand Canyon Youth to launch Partners in Science river trips 

for more than 20 years. In 2021, three Partners trips were launched, and all collected 

light trap samples of aquatic insects and several other data collection activities. Each of 

these Partners in Science trips engage approximately 30 high school age students and in 

2021 one of these trips was comprised entirely of Tribal youth participants (see 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TxLWlrw7y4 and 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhBGWV8yQw4 for short 7 min videos about these 

Partners in Science river trips.) These trips are a powerful tool for training the next 

generation of scientists in the scientific process and educating participants about the 

role that science plays in management of the Colorado River and Grand Canyon. Moving 

forward, we are exploring how to involve tribes in all Partners in Science trips to 

facilitate monitoring of tribal resources and to describe the role that traditional 
62

ecological knowledge and tribal values plays in management of the Colorado River and 

Grand Canyon.

B. Hypothesized effects of bug flows 

1. Overall, this experiment seems to be showing success, and I support its 

continuation to compensate for loss of data in 2020 and gather more data to 

better understand the patterns of macroinvertebrate response. The presentation 

by Jeff Muehlbauer was clear and well laid out, as was the report. The 2016 paper 

by Kennedy et al. was also very helpful in understanding the framework. This 

represents an important compromise for hydropower to better support aquatic 

life, and could be applied at many other reservoirs, and I respect and appreciate 

the objectives and methods. 

2. I don’t have a problem with the egg desiccation hypothesis as the driver of Bug 

Flows (in reference to a comment after the presentation) in light of the other 

findings and the published paper on the topic (Kennedy et al 2016). Hypotheses 

are meant to be tested, and when they are not supported, lead to other, valid 

conclusions and hypotheses, so it is always acceptable for a hypothesis to not 

hold. Jeff Muehlbauer notes that it may or may not be a hypothesis supported by 

the data, that there are many effects of “bug flows,” and he also indicates 

uncertainty on the mechanism for the increases in EPT abundance and biomass 

in 2018 and 2020. For example, possible other mechanisms for higher 2018 

emergence despite no 2017 bug flows: 1) if there are several cohorts of 

Hydropsychids per year and bug flows support emergence of adults, not just egg 

moisture, and 2) if a small number of eggs is able to persist during drying, or if 

some egg deposits occur at low flows, which are low again at the time of 

emergence. I appreciate the experiment on this topic and can also appreciate that 

the researchers understand that bug flows have multiple effects on invertebrate 

life histories, not just avoiding egg drying. I am not suggesting the researchers try 

to find out if other mechanisms are responsible, but I am noting that it is entirely 

possible that the 2018 emergence at the start of bug flows could occur through 

several different mechanisms. I think if the approach works, a definitive causal 

analysis may not be needed. The analyses of ecological linkages from P up the 

food web seems more important than a specific causal analysis of the success of 

bug flows.

Project F GCMRC PI Response 

We agree with the reviewer that Bug Flows appears to improve conditions for aquatic 

insect populations through several mechanisms. We also agree that because the Bug 

Flow experiment appears to be effective at improving natural processes and aquatic 

insect populations, it may not be relevant to management to quantify the marginal role 
63

of improved egg laying vs. other mechanisms in driving these increases. This causal 

analysis would require additional Bug Flow experimentation in summer months when 

egg laying activity is high combined with much larger research budgets. Yet, recent 

discussions and comments from stakeholders have emphasized the desire to reduce 

impacts to the hydropower resource as a primary objective for future Bug Flow 

experimentation, which might require eliminating summer months from the experiment 

or reducing it to just one weekend day instead of two. We agree with the reviewer that 

reducing uncertainty concerning the role of P in driving food web dynamics is more 

relevant to management decisions than a causal analysis of individual Bug Flow effects. 

Research concerning the role of P in structuring food web dynamics is ongoing as part of 

Project E. In our professional opinion, Bug Flows had ecologically meaningful benefits to 

natural processes and the experiment appears to be a useful tool for achieving LTEMP 

resource goals. If DOI decides to test Bug Flows or other types of stable flows again in 

the future, we will focus study designs and research dollars on food web analysis to 

quantify fish population response to improved natural processes rather than a causal 

analysis of mechanisms underlying insect response.

3. As I noted above, it would be of interest to know how flows could be best 

structured to support macroinvertebrates. Maybe the current form is the best 

one—I don’t have enough information to be sure.

Project F GCMRC PI Response 

As evidenced by questions and comments at the October 28 Bug Flow workshop, 

minimizing impacts of the Bug Flow experiment to the hydropower resource will be an 

important factor in determining the ‘best’ flow strategy for supporting healthier 

macroinvertebrate assemblages. As ecologists, we could design a naturally patterned 

flows regime that would support healthy assemblages of macroinvertebrates and fish, 

but the ecological benefits are hard to quantify compared to the certain financial 

impacts this flow would have on hydropower revenue. Thus, identifying the best flow 

regime to support macroinvertebrates requires analysis of tradeoffs and a willingness to 

experiment and adapt as new information becomes available. It is our hope that the Bug 

Flow workshop will provide a useful venue for discussing these tradeoffs and identifying 

cost-effective strategies for improving natural processes and macroinvertebrate 

assemblages.

4. Research on bug flows is a great start for restoring and increasing insect 

biomass and aiming to increase insect diversity. As I note above (in Project E), 

the assessment of the food web (adding to fish diet studies) would be helpful—

if possible, an analysis of insect diets with DNA barcoding (perhaps combined 

with Stable Isotope to understand the proportions of food types) could help 

understand diatom, organic matter, and plant dynamics leading to insect 

success. In the previous analyses, the group has used stable isotope analysis of 
64

fish guts which were informative regarding algal- or insect-dominance in fish 

diets. However, genus or species-level resolution of fish and insect gut contents 

may contribute significantly to this work by showing small changes over time 

and improvement of the macroinvertebrate community or variation among 

years. As the research over the years done by your group has shown in this area, 

there are changes longitudinally as well as at low flows, which may also be 

better understood with greater taxonomic resolution of macroinvertebrates. 

Project F GCMRC PI Response 

Project F includes a one-year native fish diet study element that will quantify feeding 

habits of native fish. This was originally planned for 2021 but was deferred to 2022 

because of the possibility that Bug Flows might be tested. Conducting these native fish 

diet studies in the context of a Bug Flow experiment would allow us to investigate 

whether these flows improve foraging conditions and energy intake for native fish, 

similar to what was documented in Glen Canyon relative to rainbow trout. If Bug Flows

is implemented in 2022, we will consider adding invertebrate diet studies and DNA 

barcoding to the study design. We will also consider adding these tools to study designs 

during the next triennial workshop for FY24-26, irrespective of whether Bug Flows is

occurring.

5. Related to above, in terms of identifying the genera of macroinvertebrates in 

samples and in fish diets: one difficulty in designing such restoration practices/ 

experiments is that we do not always have a clear sense of what recovery will 

look like or the expected time scale (or longitudinal reach of the effects, 

depending on the type of restoration). While the initial results are encouraging 

and the experiment is ongoing, it may be helpful to examine genus-level data in 

macroinvertebrate samples as well as fish diets to look for early signs of 

ecosystem recovery. Chironomidae may have a variety of pollution and 

temperature tolerances, so I would invite examination of the genera to see if 

any shift within the midge taxa may be an early indicator of improvement, while 

EPT may lag but are still increasing. You have a lot of samples, so even focusing 

on certain taxa would be informative. 

Project F GCMRC PI Response 

We will consider reallocating lab effort towards greater taxonomic resolution of 

macroinvertebrate samples. Tracking changes in species richness or diversity of 

Chironomidae in response to Bug Flows would be a logical place to start given the 

prevalence of Chironomidae in samples. Unfortunately, the sample set with the greatest 

temporal and spatial coverage is light traps of adults, and chironomidae adults are 

extremely difficult and time consuming to identify to genera compared to larvae 

samples. Although it can become cost-prohibitive, we are considering DNA barcoding of 
65

a limited number of adult Chironomidae samples as a means to address this diversity 

question. In fact, in many cases keys are not even available to identify adult 

Chironomidae to genus. Nonetheless, if Bug Flows is tested again in the future we will 

consider approaches for detecting species richness changes of common taxa including 

Chironomidae, and we will consider reprocessing prior light trap samples to investigate 

whether changes in richness of Chironomidae occurred in response to 2018-2020 Bug 

Flow experiments.

6. I also support the statement by Kennedy et al. (2016) and in the presentation 

that macroinvertebrate function should be included in the analyses. Viewing 

macroinvertebrates and fishes through the lens of functional traits is likely to be 

important to understanding not only food web dynamics, but ecosystem 

functions contributed by the biota and changes due to variations in the 

prominent environmental drivers. In my work using multiple indicators relative 

to restoration, I have found that using the functional lens along with the 

structure lens allows me to better understand the biotic communities' 

relationships with stressors. Using functional traits also allows for target-setting 

of reasonable, desired increases in % EPT, % disturbance-tolerant or 

disturbance-sensitive taxa, etc., and can be combined with setting taxon-specific 

goals as the researchers have for Hydropsychidae and Hydroptilidae. Thus, if a 

function remains similar but the taxa who perform it change, it may be an 

indicator of ecosystem resilience, where if we only consider them from a 

taxonomic viewpoint, we may see only the loss of diversity. It goes without 

saying that it would not be ideal for different fish species to replace your target 

management fishes, but for macroinvertebrates, the changes among taxa may 

be okay if functions are supported. 

Project F GCMRC PI Response 

We appreciate these comments and suggestions about additional approaches for 

analyzing macroinvertebrate data in relation to management goals. We will consider 

incorporating these function- and trait-based approaches into future publications and 

annual reports.

7. In terms of flattening the sine wave of longitudinal changes in abundance—I 

understand the researchers would like to see a less patchy distribution. At the 

same time, the data show that caddisfly biomass/abundance is higher where 

RBT and HBC are prevalent. Is this because other aspects of habitat are better 

for both the macroinvertebrate and fish communities in these areas, or is it 

driven by the changes in base flow levels? It would be interesting to know if less 

patchiness of bugs makes more areas suitable for these fishes, or if there are 

other habitat and water quality constraints in those areas. Perhaps I have 

missed the connection in the report and talks. If a more homogenized 
66

distribution of bugs leads to the same for the fish communities, I can see the 

great value of “flattening the sine curve.” Right now, I am inclined (with limited 

data) to understand that the same habitat is supporting the fishes and 

caddisflies.

Project F GCMRC PI Response 

These are excellent points. We will still evaluate whether the sine wave has changed 

because of Bug Flows, because this provides insights into mechanisms underlying insect 

population response, but we will not emphasize potential benefits of flattening the 

curve to fish populations in future presentations or reports because any benefits are 

speculative and highly uncertain. 

8. While Palmer et al. (2005) encourage us to set goals for ecosystems based on more 

natural systems, few researchers and restoration practitioners do so because there 

is a lack of data on recovery of systems, and we do not quite know where to start. 

This becomes a vicious cycle of not knowing  not setting targets  not being able to 

provide data for others to use to set targets (back to not knowing). I think it is a good 

idea to set targets for acceptable/desired amounts of improvement. As above, if the 

hypothesis is wrong, so be it—it can be updated. But target-setting allows us to 

really focus on the specific goals of experiments in restoration and to refine the goalsetting process so it can be more commonly adopted by others doing similar work. 

During early analyses of how close we got to our goals, we may choose not to share 

them externally for the uncertainty of being held to them. But nonetheless, I think 

it’s an important exercise to undergo, at least internally, within the research group. 

This approach may not always be possible and may be one of my pet topics, 

admittedly, but I like to raise it in restoration/management research, in this case 

improving flows for biota.

Project F GCMRC PI Response 

We wholeheartedly agree that goal setting is an important part of ecosystem and 

adaptive management. Ongoing work to develop metrics for each LTEMP goal will 

provide a framework and venue for having these interactive discussions about goals 

between scientists and managers. However, as scientists that conduct research in 

support of the adaptive management program, it is not our role to set goals. Rather, our 

job is to inform management decisions about goals by describing, for example, what 

goals are attainable, what goals are lofty, and what goals are unattainable, and what 

kind of management decisions are likely to support these different goals.

C. Bug Flows and the food web, especially diatoms 

1. The 1992 study by Hardwick et al indicates changes in diatom communities, 

which have implications in terms of macroinvertebrate diet. However, turbidity 
67

and continuing to experiment with ecological flows seem like the best 

approaches to understanding how macroinvertebrate communities can improve 

to better contribute to the food web and shift from midge-dominated to [larger 

and more nutritious] EPT and Diptera taxa (and for diatom communities to 

improve as well, as they also seem denser at shallower depths and lower 

turbidity). Diatom diversity may be less important than the quality of biofilms 

and habitat suitability in terms of supplying macroinvertebrates with palatable 

taxa, but macroinvertebrate diets could be analyzed through DNA 

metabarcoding of macroinvertebrate abdomens for gut contents. The objective 

in Project E above to analyze other available forms of P would complement this 

work and may make it unnecessary to have taxonomic data on diatoms in the 

macroinvertebrate diets. But I’m sure you know that just as certain 

macroinvertebrate taxa provide better nutrition to fish, the same is true for 

diatoms and other algae as food for macroinvertebrates. Thus, any information 

on the nutrition of biofilms and diatoms in the P experiments can be 

informative to the macroinvertebrate analyses. 

Project F GCMRC PI Response 

We appreciate these comments about the potential role of food quality (i.e., diatom 

species richness or nutrient ratios) in driving invertebrate populations. We also 

appreciated the comment and reference from Science Advisor reviewer Albert Ruhi 

during the Bug Flow workshop on October 28 mentioning studies that have shown 

hydropeaking flows lower quality of algae food resources. We will consider 

incorporating these approaches and insights into study designs if Bug Flows is tested in 

2022 and during development of the next triennial workplan but note that these efforts 

would require larger budgets or reducing effort of existing monitoring. 

D. Emergence timing and spring “mud” 

1. This topic seems to reinforce the negative effects of turbidity over longer time 

scales on macroinvertebrate communities. In the report, late emergence 

appears to be interpreted as a negative outcome in relation to spring mud; but 

in the presentation, Jeff Muehlbauer notes that later emerging insects may be 

larger and therefore provide a better food source. It will be interesting to see 

how this pattern evolves with more data collection. 

Project F GCMRC PI Response 

We now have data showing that later caddisfly emergence in 2019 was associated with 

smaller sized adults, another indication that abundant mud slowed growth of 

caddisflies. Additionally, carbon stable isotope analysis of adult caddisflies shows lower 

use of high-quality algae-based resources by caddisflies in 2019 compared to other years 
68

(data will be shown at 2022 ARM meeting). Thus, the combination of high suspended 

sediment and low algae production in 2019 slowed growth of caddisfly larvae, reducing 

both the size and abundance of adult caddisflies that emerged in 2019. Tributary inputs 

of fine sediment played a large role in increasing turbidity in fall 2018-spring 2019, but 

as noted above hydropeaking operations are also an important driver of fine sediment 

dynamics and contributed to this chronically high turbidity and sand transport. Bug 

Flows improved growing conditions for larvae by temporarily decreasing turbidity and 

sediment transport on weekends. Thus, the abundance and size of caddisflies that 

emerged in 2019 would likely have been lower if Bug Flows had not been occurring. 

2. Have degree days been related to this later emergence as well in the case that 

the annual water temperature pattern is also related? 

3. The pattern with the fall “mud” does seem to suggest that turbidity affects 

macroinvertebrates differently at different life stages, with a higher emergence 

at low turbidity, which would align with general understanding that turbidity 

negatively affects macroinvertebrates through various mechanisms (food 

sources, breathing structures, etc.). 

4. I understand this topic is still being researched, and it does seem like an important 

link to turbidity and sediment transport, and thus food web connections. I will be 

curious to know how this variable compares with flow, light, GPP, etc. in its 

strength of relationship with measures of the macroinvertebrate community 

(diversity, biomass, emergence, etc.).

Project F GCMRC PI Response 

We appreciate these supportive comments and suggestions for continued research into 

the interactive role of flow and turbidity in affecting food web dynamics.

IV. Project J: Socioeconomic Research in the Colorado River Ecosystem 

A. Modes of outreach with tribes 

1. I am glad to see that the project team met with tribes and worked to develop 

communication in ways that tribal leaders preferred and offered them a stipend 

for participation. 

2. In terms of the survey, no reason was given in the report for why the three 

tribes declined to participate. Is there a member of any of the tribes who is 

working on your team to design the survey, assist with outreach, and overall be 

a highly involved member of the team? Are there opportunities for tribal 

members to be paid more than for surveys, as a part of research and 
69

management teams? I assume you are continuing to work on these 

relationships, that it may take time, and, especially now, may require good 

timing and specific opportunities to connect with them. I appreciate this 

objective of your work and see a need for opportunities to expand it. 

3. While it is right to request their input and information, when collaborating for 

research, it is also important to treat the community as a full partner. What are 

the concerns and research questions of the Tribes in terms of management of 

the Grand Canyon and Glen Canyon Dam? To what extent do individuals or 

leaders from the Tribes want to be involved and informed about your work? In 

my work in collaboration with community groups, including some Tribal leaders, 

some decisions need to be bottom-up, from their perspectives, rather than top 

down, from your research teams and the government agencies they represent. 

It is a good time to seek ways to allocate funding for deeper involvement of 

these groups. For example, when we write grant proposals with a community 

member, they are co-PI of the project. You may have already considered these 

questions— it was difficult for me to tell from the materials. 

4. One survey item, willingness to pay, seems inappropriate for Tribes. It is known 

nationally that the Navajo Tribe requires greater economic support and access 

to resources than they currently have, and thus they and other Tribes should 

not be asked to contribute financially to management of the Grand and Glen 

Canyon resources. This survey item may be appropriate for non-tribal 

communities using the water resources, but due to the history of Europeans 

taking Native American resources and the current topics including the landback 

movement and reparations it appears inappropriate with respect to Tribes. 

5. The results working with the Hualapai Tribe are encouraging in terms of 

understanding their priorities and perspectives. I think the item “anyone should 

have access to these areas at any time” deserves special attention. As it is 

unlikely this area would be given back to Tribal governments, setting aside times 

and areas for their activities may be appreciated, if that is what is meant in the 

response to that survey item. 

B. Deliverables related to Tribes

1. I am pleased to see some deliverables related to the use of USGS science by 

Tribal communities, along with the standard academic and data-driven 

deliverables I see in the report. Have Tribal collaborators weighed in on what 

they might like to see come as a result of the variety of work going on and their 

involvement? There may be books, materials, or other items that Tribes are 

interested in to inform their and other communities of their involvement and 

practices, to promote their culture and well-being, etc. that should be 
70

considered alongside the formal, scientific outputs. I see workshops that appear 

to be mainly with Tribes-where else should this collaboration with them be 

shared to highlight the cultural aspects and their areas of interest? How could 

such outreach and deliverables directly support them with funding and 

resources? 

C. Inclusion of other stakeholders, Willingness to Pay

1. I am sure you meet with other regional stakeholders such as watershed 

associations, the Riverkeeper, etc. I know that it can complicate the work to 

hear from stakeholders with different objectives and different perspectives on 

how much their opinions should be considered. I think it would be helpful to 

include more information in the reports, more explicit lists, etc., of meetings 

held and groups to whom outreach has been done. Have the non-Tribal towns 

nearby been surveyed about Willingness to Pay? I do think it is an important 

topic in natural resource conservation and management for non-Tribal users. 

Are the other stakeholders (governments, recreation groups, watershed 

associations, etc.) involved in any Water Fund/Willingness to Pay research? I 

understand that your group may or may not be the convener of large 

stakeholder meetings, but it would help to know more about participation 

without having to glean it from workshops and presentations in the Deliverables 

section.

Project J GCMRC PI Response 

Thank you for the comments. The Hopi Tribe, Pueblo of Zuni, and Southern Paiute 

Consortium declined to participate for various reasons, some that were not explicit. We 

did interact with the Hopi Tribe and Pueblo of Zuni at length in the initial phases of the 

project. The decisions to not participate were complex, but in my opinion resulted from 

the limited relationship with the Tribes and longstanding issues with the Federal 

government. We worked alongside Tribal representatives to the GCDAMP AMWG and 

TWG during the entire project. 

You are correct to point out that there are many avenues for engagement. COVID-19 

caused significant delay with interacting with Tribal members to present results of the 

survey. The plan moving forward is to present these results of the survey to tribal 

members, publish the research (including detailed information about engagement), and 

continue to engage with and identify opportunities for Tribal involvement in the 

program. I think that this will allow for a dialogue about Tribal interests and also how 

this information is delivered to Tribal members now and in the future. Co-management 

of resources and funding is a bigger question than Project J. I think the next big step in 

Project J is to improve the implementation of an adaptive management decision 

framework in the program and identify space within that framework for meaningful 
71

consideration of cultural benefits knowledge. I am engaging with Tribal representatives 

to the GCDAMP and academic and government practitioners to do this. 

There is other ‘willingness to pay’ research. This research includes recreational (angling 

and whitewater) surveys (Bishop et al. 1987, Bair et al. 2016, Neher et al. 2017, Neher et 

al. 2019) that have been funded by this program and a public survey related to resource 

in the Grand Canyon (Welsh et al. 1995, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 2016), the later 

funded by the National park Service. The ‘willingness to pay’ question in the Tribal 

surveys does not tie management to specific resource outcomes. This was based on 

early discussion with the Pueblo of Zuni. The question format is similar to a referendum, 

and results are interpreted as such. The question format worked as designed, and we 

did provide respondents who voted ‘$0’ an opportunity to voice a reason why (i.e.,

identify protest votes). 

 
72

Peer Reviewer 3 

AGENCY: US Bureau of Reclamation, Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management 

Program (GCDAMP)

MATERIAL(S) REVIEWED: 2020 Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC) Annual 

Report 

REVIEWED BY: Ben Livneh, PhD, University of Colorado - Boulder

DATE: July 29, 2021

I. Project A: Streamflow, Water Quality, and Sediment Transport and Budgeting in 

the Colorado River Ecosystem 

Commentary 

This project is focused on making and interpreting basic measurements of streamflow, 

water quality, and sediment budgeting, with relevance for management. Impacts of 

dam operations on sand budgets have implications for nearly all of the LTEMP goals. 

Overall, progress has been made in terms of collating, analyzing, and modeling the 

Colorado River ecosystem (CRe) to identify drivers of sand and to articulate limitations 

in historical monitoring. A large number of data products, reports, and presentations 

indicate good progress, generally sound methods, and potential applications for further 

high flow analysis.

Sustainability of sand resources 

The authors report reductions in sand concentrations in the river, i.e., those needed to 

maintain sand bars. This appears to be both a robust and an important result, which 

raises the question of the sustainability of sand resources within the system. In their 

companion manuscript (Topping et al. 2021), the authors contend that sand 

concentrations need to be measured continuously in order to effectively monitor sand 

availability, given the episodic nature of sand loading in relation to high flows. For 

example, sand loads in different reaches are largely uncorrelated based on the available 

data, which is due to irregular sampling relative to high and low flows. Normal flows 

appear to result in losses in sand, i.e., erosion, such that only high flow events can 

contribute net gains to the sand budget. 

Recommendations for this project element include: 

i. Continue monitoring and evaluation of sand resources to support the Glen 

Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan (LTEMP) sediment 

goal. If feasible to implement and maintain, the continuous monitoring of sand 
73

will support greater understanding of the sustainability of current and future 

sand resources and critical connections between sand concentrations and high 

flows and other concomitant factors such as changes to the channel bed and 

flood deposits.

ii. To mitigate the continued loss of sand, the timing of HFEs need to be 

coordinated during periods of high availability of fine sand, as a way to support 

a net contribution of sand and minimize erosion of sand. 

Reconstruction of flood flows 

The authors indicate that flood peaks in the Little Colorado River Basin have decreased 

through time, citing Dean and Topping (2019). This assertion is based partially on the 

authors reconstruction of flood flows using linear regression methods between different 

stream gage data sources. This method inherently contains uncertainty. It would be 

valuable if the authors could estimate the magnitude of this uncertainty either as a 

function of the mean flows or the flood flows in question, so that a clearer 

interpretability of the potential impact of the uncertainty could be made. The flood peak 

attenuation associated with within-channel vegetation (e.g., tamarisk) has the potential 

to minimize the benefit of upstream large flood peaks to propagate into the Little 

Colorado River. 

Recommendations for this project element include:

i. Explicitly report uncertainties in the reconstruction. 

ii. Where long-term precipitation gage data exist, consider incorporating these 

into the regressions, and/or expanding stream gaging to improve understanding 

of within-basin variability, inter-gauge relationships and reduction of 

uncertainty. 

iii. Given the high interannual variability in sand mass (i.e., reported in the table for 

years 2018-2020), it would be useful if the authors can report long-term rates of 

change and their uncertainties for overall planning, as well as to put individual 

years into clearer context. 

iv. Ensure all tables include a descriptive caption. 

v. Consider management options of riparian vegetation to minimize increased 

roughness and flood-peak attenuation associated with vegetation 

encroachment. 

Project A GCMRC PI Response 

Recommendations 1 and 2 are addressed in Dean and Topping (2019). 

Recommendations 3-4 are addressed in Topping and others (2021) and Griffiths and 

Topping (USGS-OFR, to be submitted for review by Dec. 1, 2021). Recommendation 5 

comes directly from Dean and Topping (2019). We are currently trying to gain support 

for a tamarisk removal demonstration project in the Little Colorado River.
74

II. Project B: Sandbar and Sediment Storage Monitoring and Research 

Commentary 

This project seeks to connect high flow experiments and dam operations with impacts 

on sandbar dynamics, with relevance for management. Predictive tools for sand 

transport and behavior are contributed, as well as analysis of campsite areas together 

with citizen science. This project addresses the LTEMP sediment goal. Numerous data 

products, publications, and presentations indicate good progress, generally sound 

methods, and potential applications linking high-flow events with sand and camping 

impacts. Monitoring and data sharing are important continued activities from this 

project. 

B.1. Sandbar Monitoring Using Topographic Surveys and Remote Cameras 

The authors report that while some significant fraction (greater than or equal to 25%) of 

the sand comes from pre-dam sources, High Flow Experiments (HFEs) contribute to new 

sand deposition. This new sand is eroded in many places, but it does persist in other 

places. In the context of campsite areas, vegetation encroachment is an ongoing 

problem which is largely independent of HFE activity. The authors, as well as Chapman 

et al. (2020) clearly show that even the largest controlled floods from the past 20 years 

are much smaller than the pre-dam peak annual flows. In addition, the volume released 

by HFEs is small enough not to affect the annual water volumes released, such that HFEs 

can continue to occur without impacting the needs of the large number of reliant 

stakeholders 

Recommendations for this project element include: 

i. The importance of Paria River inputs for sand budgets is underscored by the 

authors analyses. Given that trends in the Paria River sediment delivery and 

flood frequency are affected primarily by climatic changes rather than by 

human development activities (as noted by Chapman et al. 2020), it is therefore 

recommended that the authors expand their future work to diagnose the roles 

of historical temperature and precipitation more directly within their sand 

analysis. In this way, in the future it may be possible to more clearly understand 

the implications of projected temperature and precipitation on the long-term 

sustainability of sand resources within the domains of interest. 

ii. The authors have the capability to report uncertainties in the sand attribution 

analysis using their mixing model approach. It would therefore be helpful if they 

can present their relative confidence in magnitudes of the sources of sand as a 

way to put the current knowledge base into context. For example, to 
75

understand the likelihood that the erosion of pre-dam sand presents an 

existential crisis for the system. 

iii. The viability of replanting native vegetation or manual removal of specific 

vegetation (e.g., tamarisk) should be analyzed as part of future analyses to 

understand the cost-benefit analysis of such an activity. 

iv. Remote camera images provide invaluable information on the status of 

sandbars within the system and their continued deployment is recommended. 

However, it would be of potentially greater impact to explore the use of existing 

high-resolution (<10 m) spaceborne visible satellite imagery as a way to 

complement and extend the knowledge base gained from existing satellite 

imagery. 

v. The public sandbar data base is a positive and important development. 

Consideration should be given as to whether MySQL is the appropriate database 

tool in the event that data volume becomes an issue. 

vi. It would be helpful to see a map of the points in the figure to understand their 

position within the system. 

B.2. Bathymetric and Topographic Mapping for Monitoring Long-Term Trends in 

Sediment Storage 

Recommendations for this project element include: 

i. Repeated mapping of the riverbed in LMC should be continued, given the 

demonstrated value of this effort in determining the sand budget and high 

signal to noise ratio. 

ii. Further exploration is warranted into potential applications of the Bayesian 

framework (e.g., Ashley et al. 2019) as a tool for quantifying reach-scale 

sediment deficits and surplus relevant for future studies. 

B.3. Control Network and Survey Support 

Recommendations for this project element include: 

i. The FY2020 expansion into un-surveyed reaches represents an important 

development that could offer new insights into mapping the system and key 

fluxes within it. 

ii. Regional geodetic improvements may serve a longer-term benefit of connecting 

local imagery with spaceborne remote sensing capabilities. 

iii. Mapping of the riverbed in LMC should be continued, given the demonstrated 

value of this activity. 

 
76

Project B GCMRC PI Response 

• The reviewer is correct that the future sediment budget for the Colorado River 

depends heavily on the activity of tributaries like the Paria River, which are very 

likely to be impacted by temperature and precipitation changes associated with 

climate change. We appreciate the reminder of this importance. Although such 

research is outside the scope of current AMP projects, we will look for ways to 

develop partnerships to pursue this research direction.

• We thank the reviewer for the suggestion to apply estimates of uncertainty in 

sand sources to our analyses of the overall sand budget. We will consider this 

and attempt to apply this idea where possible. Although we also note that any 

estimate of the degree to which sand erosion represents an “existential crisis” 

for the system will depend heavily on poorly known future sand inputs (which 

the reviewer also recognized as an important issue).

• Vegetation management is currently being undertaken by the National Park 

Service in cooperation with this and other GCMRC projects.

• We have informally evaluated the potential use of “free”, high-frequency 

satellite imagery, such as the products available through Planet Imagery. 

Products with ~ 3 m resolution can be used to estimate changes in sand area, 

although shadows on the images present difficulties in many parts of the 

canyon. One of the main problems with using “off-the-shelf” imagery is the 

variable discharge regime of the Colorado River downstream from Glen Canyon 

Dam. Accurate measurements of feature area can only be made when the 

discharge is relatively low and the features are fully exposed. However, as data 

collection platforms continue to collect images at greater frequency it may 

become possible to find images collected under the right conditions.

• The open-source MySQL platform was recommended to us at the time we 

developed the sandbar database. Currently, the database is still relatively small 

(~170 MB) and we don’t expect database volume to become an issue.

• A map of the study sites is available on the sandbar website 

(www.gcmrc.gov/sandbar), but we can also add a map showing study site 

locations to future reports.

• Although we have used some Bayesian methods for some specific analyses, we 

have used more mechanistic and process-based models for most sediment 

budget applications. We will consider whether there is opportunity for advances 

or improvements by applying other statistical methods such as Bayesian 

inference. 
77

• We agree that repeat riverbed maps will be useful for monitoring and 

interpreting the sand budget.

III. Project C: Riparian Vegetation Monitoring and Research 

The authors have compiled a useful set of monitoring data and methods that connect 

vegetation with flow, environmental variables, and management. 

C.1. Ground-based Vegetation Monitoring 

Recommendations for this project element include: 

i. It would be helpful to report what criteria are included in the ‘error checking’ of 

the ground-based monitoring data and to consider including stakeholders in the 

ideation process, so as to ensure that important criteria are not being screened 

or missed. 

ii. The percent cover reported in Figure 1 appears to be very small, i.e., less than 

1.2% of the area, such that a clearer explanation for why such a small coverage 

is of significance is needed. 

iii. The website is very nice and provides good overview information. The authors 

should consider posting data directly to the webpage.

C.2. Imagery-based Riparian Vegetation Monitoring at the Landscape Scale 

Recommendations for this project element include: 

i. It would be helpful to report the fraction of woody riparian vegetation as a 

function of total vegetation and as a function of total riparian area. Further, 

understanding changes in woody vegetation through time will be an important 

reference point in terms of data management strategies. It looks like some of 

this is covered in Kasprak et al. (2020). 

ii. Given the imperfect land-cover classification process (e.g., described by Bedford 

et al. 2018), it would be helpful for the authors to report the uncertainty in their 

estimates of various species composition, fractional coverage, etc., so as to 

more clearly articulate the state-of-the-knowledge of riparian vegetation 

species composition. 

iii. Given the recent advances in high-resolution spaceborne remote sensing, the 

authors should consider incorporating this technology as part of future work, at 

a minimum comparing their results with viewable scenes from satellite remote 

sensing.
78

C.3. Vegetation Responses to LTEMP Flow Scenarios 

Recommendations for this project element include: 

i. The analysis relating climate variables with vegetation patterns (Butterfield et 

al. 2018) is interesting and should continue to be pursued. For example, 

considering the diurnal temperature range, i.e., the difference between 

maximum daily temperature (Tmax) and minimum daily temperature (Tmin) for 

two reasons. First, the diurnal temperature range has been shown to be closely 

related to the daily downwelling shortwave radiation which is an important 

predictor variable for vegetation, and second the maximum and minimum 

temperatures are widely reported and are much simpler to observe than 

radiation. 

ii. The climate analysis in conjunction with the HFEs highlights an interesting 

avenue to pursue for future vegetation control with warming affecting 

inundation tolerance.

C.4. Vegetation Management Decision Support 

Recommendations for this project element include: 

i. Given the challenges brought about by riparian vegetation for campsites and 

other uses, it would be helpful for the authors to report the typical depth of 

roots for each of the species, as well as the density of the roots at different 

depths, since these will be valuable in determining management strategies and 

to inform decision making regarding long-term treatment options of replanting, 

removal, etc.

Project C GCMRC PI Response 

C1. We will include information on the error checking process in the FY 2021 annual 

report where appropriate. Regarding the cover values in Figure 1, they are for a 

particular group of plants. Monitoring includes a broad array of habitat types, many of 

which are not suitable for any one species.

C2. We have the ability to (and do in other reports and publications) report the fraction 

of woody riparian vegetation as a function of total vegetation and as a function of total 

riparian area. We also agree that understanding changes in woody vegetation through 

time will be an important reference point in terms of data management strategies. So, 

we appreciate these comments and suggestions. 

Please see our latest publication (Durning and others, 2021 in the journal Ecohydrology) 

in which we characterize the uncertainty and effects of classification errors on the 

species classification from the overflight remote sensing data. 
79

Please see our recent paper (Bransky and others, 2021 in the journal Remote Sensing) 

which is an example of work we do incorporating high-resolution spaceborne remote 

sensing (in that case from the Worldview satellite) with the high-resolution airborne 

imagery from the manned airplane overflights.

C3. Agreed, we are including vapor pressure deficit, which is tightly correlated to diurnal 

temperature range, into our modeling moving forward.

C4. We have not collected these data within the CRe given the effort and disturbance 

necessary. However, data are available for many of our species from Stromberg, 2013, 

Journal of Arid Environments.

IV. Project D: Geomorphic Effects of Dam Operations and Vegetation Management 

for Archaeological Sites 

Recommendations for this project element include: 

i. The meteorological monitoring and data collection described by Caster et al. 

(2018) is extremely valuable and its continuation should be prioritized. The 

potential linkages between climate and riparian and riverine conditions offer 

unique insights into monitoring and management. 

ii. There appears to be a grammatical issue on Page 41 of the report, under the 

third-to-last sub-bullet of FY 2019. 

iii. Consideration should be given to exploring the use of high-resolution 

spaceborne remote sensing to complement existing aerial (e.g., LiDar methods) 

given the semi-continuous availability of spaceborne datasets, which would 

supply a valuable time-evolution of variables of interest.

Project D GCMRC PI Response 

Please see our responses related to these comments about Project D above in the 

SUMMARY OF RESPONSES section of this document.

V. Project E: Nutrients And Temperature as Ecosystem Drivers: Understanding 

Patterns, Establishing Links and Developing Predictive Tools for an Uncertain 

Future 

Recommendations for this project element include: 

i. The authors report improvements in their predictive model on the basis of 

including solar radiation as a predictor. Details of the radiation data were 
80

entirely missing, such that it is not possible to evaluate the utility and 

appropriateness of the observations. However, effort should be made to utilize 

radiation observations reflective of conditions in situ, rather than relying upon 

radiation observations from distant locations, i.e., from gridded datasets. 

Further, where radiation is not readily observed—acknowledging the challenges 

in widespread radiation observations—the authors should consider using the 

diurnal air temperature range as a proxy for solar radiation in their model.

Project E GCMRC PI Response 

Thank you for your comment. Solar radiation data were obtained from the closest 

NSRDB location ID relative to each dam that contained data from years matching the 

other physically-based data in the water temperature model. Details on solar radiation 

data are included in the main response section.

ii. Many of the figures in Project E are low-resolution, making their evaluation 

challenging. This may simply be a typesetting issue. 

Project E GCMRC PI Response 

We apologize for the low-resolution quality of the Project E figures and will make an 

effort to improve the resolution of figures in the next annual report.

iii. Clearer justification of the water temperatures chosen, i.e., 10C, 15C, 20C, 

should be provided in the context of existing pool temperatures and 

temperatures relevant for other project components.

Project E GCMRC PI Response 

In the artificial streams experiment, we chose 10, 15, and 20C to approximate release 

temperatures associated with three reservoir elevation scenarios. Ten degrees 

represents very cold temperatures that occur when Lake Powell is completely full, and 

the penstocks draw from deep within the hypolimnion. Fifteen degrees represents 

release temperatures from the mid-2000s when reservoir elevations dropped, and 

warming water temperatures in Grand Canyon propagated downstream. Twenty 

degrees represents a potential future scenario where reservoir elevations continue to 

drop closer toward minimum power pool—under this scenario water would be drawn 

through the penstocks that comes from the metalimnion or even lower part of the 

epilimnion.

iv. Overall, establishing connections between water temperature and taxa and 

species of interest is a viable area of investigation that should be continued 

going forward. 

 
81

Project E GCMRC PI Response 

We thank the reviewer for the suggestions.

VI. Project J: Socioeconomic Research in the Colorado River Ecosystem 

This integrative project plays in important role in connecting physical science with 

stakeholder needs, incorporating tribal perspectives within the context of dam 

operations. 

Recommendations for this project element include: 

i. Overall, this project is an important component of the CRe, GCMRC, and 

GCDAMP, because it allows for a broad assessment of the connections of 

ongoing activities with needs and economics downstream. Therefore, it is 

recommended to continue prioritizing this area of analysis. 

ii. The proposal to evaluate nonstationary climate impacts using the Donovan et 

al. (2019) model appears to be an important idea and its prioritization is 

recommended. However, the authors need to be careful that such a modeling 

approach is implemented with realistic constraints dictated by the physical 

system, since there appears to be a chain of models proposed which can lead to 

solutions that are not realistic or feasible. For example, connections between 

the biogeomorphic (Dean and Topping 2019) and humpback chub recruitment 

(Van Haverbeke et al. 2013) conditions need to be mapped at the outset to 

identify linkages, constraints and outcomes of interest to stakeholders, while 

also ensuring that physically infeasible solutions are eliminated. 

Project J GCMRC PI Response 

Thank you for the comments.

VII. Project K: Geospatial Science and Technology 

Recommendations for this project element include: 

i. The migration of datasets away from traditional ‘flat-files’ into databases and 

within cloud computing resources (USGS Cloud Hosting Services and Amazon 

Web Services) is an important cross-cutting innovation that will continue to 

payoff throughout and beyond the life of the project. It is therefore 

recommended to be prioritized going forward. 

ii. The GIS toolkits provided by ESRI Desktop ArcGIS are effective and generally 

comprehensive for small processing and analysis jobs, but can become 
82

overwhelmed with larger, multi-site analyses. Therefore, it is recommended 

that consideration be given to more powerful and efficient tools capable of 

handling larger datasets and analyses (e.g., Python-based tools), in the event 

that data sizes and ArcGIS-latency become an issue. The reliance upon ArcGIS 

may be suitable for the short-term, but as data volume and analysis-scope 

grows, there may be a need to expand towards more big-data-capable tools. 

There may be transition-relevant tools like ArcPy that could serve as a bridge. 

There appears to already be some project work being done on the project in 

Python; for example, the geoprocessing done for the lake elevations (Figure 1). 

iii. Tableau is a sleek visualization software that is generally easy to use and has a 

good community and forum. However, drawbacks of Tableau are its high-cost, 

security issues, and limited product support. Therefore, consideration should be 

given to the cost-benefit of this product in the context of other comparable 

visualization products. 

iv. Consideration should be given to whether the streamlining of multiple desktop 

applications (ArcGIS, ArcMap, GGIS) would improve workflows. 

v. It is important that migration continues for software development to follow 

version control protocols. For example, those provided by GitHub. 

vi. The transition towards IoT sensors will have numerous benefits. However, 

consideration should be given to security issues surrounding such a transition. 

Project K GCMRC PI Response 

Thank you for the comments. Responses provided for items here:

i. This Project has been the lead for GCMRC adopting the AWS cloud, however, we 

will continue to balance the cost-benefit of utilizing cloud resources versus onpremise data resources – or other options – as each GCMRC science project has 

unique data needs as well as capacity for project staff to work with cloud 

components. We have been and will continue to address cloud adoption on a 

project-by-project basis for the foreseeable future.

ii. This Project has been successful at developing batch processing methods using 

Python (both native and ArcPy, as well as other libraries) to support geospatial 

processing and analysis for science projects. Again, the needs between projects 

vary greatly given the different nature of data being collected (e.g., discreet fish 

sampling locations, with hundreds of thousands of tabular records versus 

continuous imagery and elevation data sets that have relatively simple data 

structure, but high resolutions and very large file sizes). The migration of 

GCMRC’s backend databases from Oracle to Postgres will begin to allow for the 
83

use of native Python, and other programming options such as R, to query and 

analyze project-specific data sets more freely.

iii. The PI for Project K has worked closely with the USGS Cloud Hosting Solutions 

group to gain Creator, Editor and Viewer level licenses of Tableau Desktop 

software. We continue to use this software through that nationally-funded 

USGS entity and have not had to spend GCDAMP funds for those licenses. It is 

noted that this software would otherwise present a higher than budgeted 

expense.

iv. Project K will continue to determine the feasibility of other, open-source GIS 

software, such as QGIS, for meeting the objectives of individual projects and the 

Center as a whole. QGIS can do many of the same functions that ArcGIS 

Desktop applications can, however, the power of ArcGIS is in the ability to 

author and share GIS resources more readily through ArcGIS Server and the 

larger ArcGIS Enterprise platform. 

v. Agreed. Project K has led GCMRC into a more consistent era of source control 

for project development by leveraging both the USGS-approved internal GitLab 

space for code and software development and the related Cloud Hosting 

Solutions GitLab space for development occurring within Amazon Web Services.

vi. Project K staff work closely with the Cloud Hosting Solutions, Cloud Processing 

Framework Team as well as with a newly-formed Information Technology 

Advisory Council for the USGS’ Ecosystem Mission Area (EMA ITAC) that has 

determined the growth of IoT and connect sensors in the USGS as one of its Top 

Five Themes to track. Security, specifically for IoT devices, is commonly 

discussed and we strive to follow the guidance from these two entities.

VIII. Project L: Overflight Remote Sensing in Support of GCDAMP And LTEMP 

Recommendations for this project element include: 

i. Although the details of the overflight are not clearly articulated, the value of 

additional remote sensing seems high and worthwhile. One recommendation 

would be to evaluate opportunities for integrating remote sensing imagery with 

publicly available spaceborne imagery as a way to potentially extend the 

investment. 

Project L GCMRC PI Response 

Please see our response to these suggestions for Project L in the SUMMARY OF 

RESPONSES section of this document above.
84

IX. Project M: Administration 

No major comments. However, one minor comment is that the citizen science 

programs, e.g., Adopt-a-Beach, seem like an excellent way to extend budgets, while also 

elevating the awareness of visitors to issues within the region.

Project M GCMRC PI Response 

Please see our response to these suggestions for Project M in the SUMMARY OF 

RESPONSES section of this document above.

X. Project N: Hydropower Monitoring and Research 

Recommendations for this project element include: 

i. Continue to coordinate with partners to identify opportunities to improve 

hydropower and energy resources. For example, the impact of HFEs on total 

outflows, the sensitivity of GHG emissions to reservoir levels, etc.

Project N GCMRC PI Response 

Please see our response to these suggestions for Project N in the SUMMARY OF 

RESPONSES section of this document above.

XI. Appendix 1: Lake Powell Water Quality Monitoring 

Recommendations for this project element include: 

i. The collaboration with EPA to support floating chamber-based measurements 

of carbon dioxide and methane should continue to be prioritized to advance 

understanding of GHG emissions from Lake Powell.

Appendix 1 GCMRC PI Response 

The collaboration with EPA for work on Lake Powell has ended. PI Deemer has funding 

from EPA for surveying reservoir GHG emissions from desert Southwest reservoirs more 

broadly, but Lake Powell was not randomly selected to be included in that study.

 
85

Peer Reviewer 4 

AGENCY: US Bureau of Reclamation, Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management 

Program (GCDAMP)

MATERIAL(S) REVIEWED: 2020 Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC) Annual 

Report 

REVIEWED BY: Lynne Lewis, Elmer W. Campbell Professor of Economics

DATE: September 15, 2021

Introduction 

I have reviewed the report U.S. Geological Survey Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

Fiscal Year 2020 Annual Project Report to the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program.

I also viewed the video presentations in or related to my area of expertise, listed in in order of 

the agenda list: 

• Introduction to Modeling Tools for Adaptive Management – Mike Runge 

• Sediment in the Grand Canyon – Paul Grams 

• Recreational use in Glen and Grand Canyons – Lucas Bair 

• Hydropower – Clayton Palmer 

• Panel Discussion Modeling Tools for Management 

• Lees Ferry Fishery Monitoring – Jan Boyer 

I focused particularly on those presentations that address in whole or in part, hydropower and 

energy, recreation and endangered species as well as those that were more indirectly related, 

including the rainbow trout materials. I have also reviewed the tribal resources slides (no audio 

accompanied those).

I have reviewed the following documents that appeared in the references that relate to 

socioeconomic values including recreational fishing and hydropower and some that were 

located elsewhere. 

Lucas S. Bair, David L. Rogowski & Chris Neher. 2016. Economic Value of Angling on the

Colorado River at Lees Ferry: Using Secondary Data to Estimate the Influence of 

Seasonality, North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 36(6): 1229-1239, DOI:

10.1080/02755947.2016.1204388 

Pierce Donovan, Lucas S. Bair, Charles B. Yackulic and Michael R. Springborn. 2019. Safety in 

Numbers: Cost-Effective Endangered Species Management for Viable Populations. 
86

Neher, Chris, John Duffield, Lucas Bair, David Patterson, and Katherine Neher. 2017. Testing the 

limits of temporal stability: willingness to pay values among Grand Canyon whitewater 

boaters across decades. Water Resources Research 53, no. 12: 10108-10120. 

Duffield, Neher and Patterson (2016) Economics Analysis of Glen Canyon Angler and Grand 

Canyon Whitewater Visitor Surveys. Prepared for USGS, 

https://gcdamp.com/images_gcdamp_com/e/e0/Whitewater_Angler_FINAL_REPORT.p

df

I also looked at some of the survey instruments. 

Based on the report structure, my main objective was to review LTEMP Goals on Recreational 

Experience and hydropower which appear in Projects, B, C, H, J and N as well as in the 

presentations. Project J is focused exclusively on Socio Economics, (Project J: Socio-economic 

Research in the Colorado River Ecosystem); however, socio-economic values and priorities 

permeate many of the other projects including Projects, B, C, H and N. 

I will make some general comments and then more specific comments below: 

General Comments 

The report that I was asked to review was extremely difficult to review. The LTEMP goals, listed 

at the beginning of the project report, do not map directly to the projects themselves. Table 2 is 

a useful mapping of where those goals appear in the projects, but there is no overall 

assessment or connection across the related items as far as I could tell. Additionally, the 

presentations do not map onto particular projects or goals directly either. Many of them 

covered parts of several projects, but there were no direct articulations of the connections. As 

such it is not at all clear how a decision-maker might use this information. There are many 

disparate studies and a clearer delineation and/or compilation with summaries and 

recommendations would be enormously helpful for any reader to know how they tie together. 

Each project area clearly reports their goals and objectives, but many of the results sections are 

very difficult to follow and some seemed cobbled together. There are some general results, but 

finding specific details is very challenging. A reader should not have to look up each reference in 

the hopes of finding the methods or data for a particular study. Prior recommendations should 

be bulleted with specifics on whether or not those goals were met. Links to survey instruments, 

data and methods of analysis need to be more clear. Without proper context, it is very difficult 

to review some of the sections. Since socio-economics permeates several of the projects, the 

authors might want to discuss how to incorporate a summary of the socio-economics in each 

project? 

That said, the video presentations were excellent. Each presentation started with the goals, 

followed by the metrics used to measure performance and then what the impact topics are. 

Mike Runge, in the first presentation, articulated that decision makers need this monitoring 

information in order to make predictions and the critical uncertainty is reduced by confronting 
87

predictions with data from monitoring. He also said that the decision framework is developed 

by US Fish and Wildlife and their role is to determine what predictive models they need to help 

them make those decisions. The example he used was the mallard population. The mallard 

population is a function of habitat and hunting regulations. In that case the hunting regulation 

is the decision metric. They can then choose the best performing alternative for this metric 

using a consequence table. As I understand it, consequence tables he mentioned show which 

alternative performs best in which scenario. In this case, there are seven scenarios including the 

status quo. My question then is where is this table? There is no summary table anywhere that I 

could find, and the report does not offer information a decision-maker needs at their fingertips. 

I had to search through a lot of documents to find the information and am still left with many 

questions. 

Thinking more broadly, how does climate change impact any of the scenarios? What about the 

current renegotiation of the Colorado River Compact? How is future uncertainty included in 

these studies? I do not see any specific mention of climate change in the report. I understand 

the report is primarily monitoring the current situation, but if these are used to form 

predictions, I wonder if the probabilities of extremely low flow futures are considered. 

In my comments below I focus on the report U.S. Geological Survey Grand Canyon Monitoring 

and Research Center Fiscal Year 2020 Annual Project Report to the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive 

Management Program and intersperse what I took from the presentations and references that 

perhaps could be used in a revision of the report. 

General comments on Socio-economics 

My area of expertise is economics. There is one chapter in the report labeled socio-economic 

research, Project J. This section outlines two very different modeling efforts – Tribal surveys 

and bio-economic modeling. Project J refers to tribal surveys without results or survey 

instruments to refer to or references. Then it moves on to bio-economic modeling and some 

results but does not connect the two or have a general summary on those resulting values. 

Additionally, socioeconomic results are scattered throughout the entire document related to 

recreational fisheries, endangered species and hydropower. The recreational fisheries values 

are presented in a different project as far as I could tell. Hydropower economic values are 

discussed, but not presented in Project N. As a reviewer it is very hard to understand the bigger 

picture for each of the management scenarios. What were each of the recommendations in 

conflict with and what is the total value? In fact, one of the LTEMP goals is the recreational 

experience, which is mentioned, but not summarized in any of the projects. For each flow 

experiment, what are the management recommendations? Which flow regime maximizes 

economic value or recreational experience and is that outweighed by another priority or not? 

Answers to such questions and many others are not obvious. 

I recommend moving from the use of “citizen science” to the more inclusive term “community 

science.” Many organizations have already made this change to their language referencing 
88

public participation in data collection, so it would be appropriate to consider doing the same. 

The term “citizen science” appears in a number of projects. 

Specific Project Comments and Questions

I. Project B: Sandbar and Sediment Storage Monitoring and Research 

A. Campsites

1. This project chapter reports that high flow experiments benefit campsites by 

causing temporary increases in campsite area. At the same time, vegetation 

encroachment causes campsite declines. While the primary goal of this project 

is to monitor sediment and sandbars (as I understand it), “this project also 

contributes to the goals for recreational experience.”

2. I do not see campsites mentioned anywhere else. Is there a recommendation or 

conclusion? Do larger campsites allow for more visitors or larger individual 

campsites? How does this effect the economic value of the recreational 

experience?

3. What are the recommendations as they relate to recreational experience? This 

is missing from the entire report, not just in project B. 

B. Citizen Science

1. See above on moving to the more inclusive term “Community Science.” 

Project B GCMRC PI Response 

• Campsites are considered by AMP stakeholders as an important aspect of the 

recreational experience. Although visitation numbers are regulated by Grand 

Canyon National Park and are not tied to variations in campsite size, the size of 

campsites does affect the recreational experience. 

• The conclusions expressed in the report are that HFEs result in sandbar 

deposition and increases in sandbar volume and increases in campsite area. 

Based on AMP goals and objectives and previous studies (Bishop and others, 

1987; Kearsley and others, 1994; Neher and others, 2017), these changes are 

relevant to the recreational experience. We hope to conduct future work to 

more explicitly connect sandbars, campsites, and the economic value of the 

recreational experience. We did not intend to make recommendations 

regarding recreational experience in this report.

• We note that the reviewer recommends using the term “community science” 

instead of “citizen science.”
89

Bishop, R. C., Boyle, K. J., Welsh, M. P., Baumgartner, R. M., & Rathbun, P. R. (1987). 

Glen Canyon Dam releases and downstream recreation: An analysis of user preferences 

and economic values. (Glen Canyon Environ. Stud. Rep. GCES/27/87). Springfield, VA: 

Huberlein-Baumgartner Research Service.

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 & Management, v. 9, p. 137–149, 

doi:10.1002/rrr.3450090302.

Neher, C., Duffield, J., Bair, L., Patterson, D., & Neher, K. (2017). Testing the limits of 

temporal stability: willingness to pay values among grand canyon whitewater boaters 

across decades. Water Resources Research, 53, 10,108–10,120. 

https://doi.org/10.1002/2017WR020729. 

II. Project C: Riparian Vegetation Monitoring and Research 

A. Campsites

1. Goals and Objectives are missing. There is a section, but it does not list the goals 

and objectives, only the list of accomplishments.

2. This project aims to monitor changes to riparian vegetation which can reduce 

camping area (negative in economic value), add beauty to the landscape 

(positive) and create shades and windbreaks (positive). All of these things affect 

the socioeconomics. Is there a summary or recommendations as related to 

Project J? 

Project C GCMRC PI Response 

We will incorporate these suggestions into the FY21 Annual Report as appropriate and 

relevant.

III. Project H: Salmonid Research and Monitoring 

There is significant overlap in topic, if not work, with this project and Project J. 

A. Recreational Fishery

This project focuses on protection of the endangered humpback chub and maintaining a 

healthy recreational rainbow trout fisheries. The goal is to maintain a balance between 

the sport fishery and the downstream humpback chub. Experimental flows proposed in 

the LTEMP were designed for this purpose. Simultaneously, there is an effort to slow the 

increase in brown trout populations. According to the report “The primary objective of 
90

this Project Element is to assess the effectiveness of GCDAMP policy actions that 

influence abundance, survival, recruitment, and movement for two distinctly different 

trout species.”

1. There is reference to an angler survey, but it appears this is a different angler 

survey than the one used to measure economic value? The economic value 

(contingent valuation survey) looks to be from 2016. Was there any attempt to 

collect additional socio-economic data via the survey that was conducted in 

2020? Has the data that was collected in terms of numbers of anglers and catch 

rates compared to the 2016 survey? 

AZGFD Response 

Our angler surveys are designed to collect data on angler use with the intent of using 

that data to understand angler use, assess whether fishery management goals are being 

met, and manage the fishery. They are not designed to measure economic impact or 

collect socioeconomic data. Estimates of angler use and catch rates by year can be 

found on page 27 (figures 11, 12) of the AZGFD 2020 Annual Report. Surveys to assess 

economic impact are typically separate studies conducted by GCMRC or partners. I 

know that surveys associated with the incentivized harvest program (NPS and GCMRC) 

included questions about annual income.

2. I assume the recreational fishery is extremely valuable, but there is no reference 

to the economics or which flow regime could improve the recreational 

experience (value).

AZGFD Response 

We do address this when we have opportunities to do so. For example, our 

presentations and reports in 2019 included graphs and information on how bug flows 

affected angler catch.

3. Jan Boyer's presentation also covered catch rates and angler satisfaction. Catch 

rates and satisfaction both went down this year. The significant drop in 2020 is 

curious. Does this drop have to do with covid-related travel conditions? Or is it 

simply that different people are fishing this year? There was certainly increased 

visitation at all federal recreational areas and national parks in 2020 and 2021. 

Since the number of anglers did indeed go up, is there a way to connect or 

examine the differences in demographics? Does congestion play a role with 

increased visitation?1 1

 

1 Jan Boyer’s presentation covered items that overlap Projects H and J.
91

AZGFD Response 

These are interesting questions, but I’m not sure we have the data to answer them well. 

We suspect low satisfaction has to do with lower catch, although it is odd that 

satisfaction dropped so much in 2020, but similarly low catches in 2016 did not lead to a 

similar decrease in satisfaction. I think the most I can say here is that angler satisfaction 

is an imperfect and opinion-based metric – even though we tell anglers we are 

interested in their satisfaction with the fishery specifically – their responses end up 

including other factors: the scenery was amazing, they liked their guide, it was too hot, 

they saw 5 bighorn sheep, there were too many kayakers, etc. We did look at angler 

numbers related to covid travel conditions. We saw a drop in April when the initial 

lockdowns went in place, but then angler use increased to expected levels for the rest of 

the year. For annual use, boat angler days were similar to the last 5 years, but walk-in 

angler use increased in 2020. Note that walk-in angling is far more affordable and 

accessible, and easier for new anglers to start with. Regarding examining demographics, 

we collect data on ZIP code and age (youth, adult, retired prior to 2020, started asking 

age in 2020) but not much else. The metric we have that would be best for looking at 

shifts in demographics would be walk-in vs. boat anglers, or ZIP code to see how far 

people are travelling. Congestion decreasing satisfaction is something we have 

anecdotal evidence for (i.e., guides saying they don’t even like to fish on weekends now 

with so many kayaks), but not something we have data to look at (presumably crowding 

could influence the satisfaction data, but we do not specifically ask anglers if crowding 

affects their experience).

B. Incentive program

1. There is brief mention of an incentive program put together by the National 

Park Service and the Arizona Department of Fish and Game aimed at reducing 

brown trout populations. The goal is to incentivize anglers (through payments) 

to harvest brown trout. This is the only time I saw this program mentioned, 

though it was mentioned in one of the video presentations. From a socioeconomic perspective, incentives can be very powerful tools. Is it working? Is 

there any data on participation? What is the recommendation?

2. This incentive program was discussed in more detail in Jan Boyer’s presentation. 

From my notes from that presentation, apparently 58% of survey respondents 

said they would participate in an incentivized harvest of brown trout. The 

survey also asked about the amount of money that would incentivize the 

respondent to participate. It sounds like this incentive program was started in 

November? With a $25? Incentive? This was followed by a survey asking anglers 

if they were aware of this program. This seems to be extremely important 

information, but it is missing from the report.
92

Project H GCMRC PI Response 

We will include additional information in the FY21 annual report on the incentivized 

harvest program, angler participation, incentives, and other details. The program had 

just started when the FY20 annual report was written.

C. Citizen Science

1. I recommend moving from “Citizen Science” to the more inclusive “Community

Science.” 

Project H GCMRC PI Response 

This suggestion will be relayed to AZGFD as well as other project PIs for their 

consideration. 

 

IV. Project J: Socioeconomic Research in the Colorado River Ecosystem

This project addresses the Tribal Resources, Humpback Chub (Gila cypha), Hydropower 

and Energy, and Rainbow Trout Fishery Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan 

(LTEMP) Environmental Impact Statement resource goals by addressing the LTEMP 

Record Of Decision (U.S. Department of Interior 2016a, 2016b) objective to respect the 

“interests and perspectives of American Indian Tribes” and “determine the appropriate 

experimental framework that allows for a range of programs and actions, including 

ongoing and necessary research, monitoring, studies, and management actions in 

keeping with the adaptive management process.” These studies also attempt to 

“maintain or increase Glen Canyon Dam electric energy generation, load following 

capability, and ramp rate capability, and minimize emissions and costs to the greatest 

extent practicable, consistent with improvement and long-term stability of downstream 

resources.” 

Summarizing the socio-economics is tricky since pieces are covered or mentioned in 

several other projects. This project only reports on two of the resource goals. Since 

socio-economics permeates several of the projects, the authors might want to discuss 

how to incorporate a summary of the socio-economics in each project? 

A. Tribal Resources

1. Tribal Values: I have read Project J on Tribal values and reviewed the slides that 

were presented. This section is difficult to review since the reports are currently 

confidential as I understand it and the audio that accompanied the slides was 

not released. Within my area of expertise, both the report and the slides 

mention a tribal survey that included a contingent valuation question. I was 
93

interested in learning more about this since in my experience, many indigenous 

groups have balked at the idea of monetizing cultural resources. 

Project J GCMRC PI Response 

I provided the Bureau of Reclamation the draft Navajo Nation and Hualapai Tribal 

reports for this review. It is disappointing that you were unable to review the reports.

1. After a series of questions about preferences for environmental and 

management outcomes, the contingent valuation question reads: 

“What is the most you would be willing to pay per month in order 

to have the river management tools you approve of used to 

manage the Colorado River ecosystem? Please keep in mind your 

financial situation and the fact that you may prefer to use the 

money for other purposes including alternative environmental 

conservation programs.” (Incorporating Tribal Knowledge and 

Preferences slides, January 9, 2021) 

I have two concerns with the phrasing of this question. The first is about what is 

being valued. Contingent valuation results suffer from biased responses when 

respondents are not clear on what is being valued, but also when different 

respondents are valuing different things. In this case, the respondent needs to 

presumably remember what management tools they said they preferred, but also 

might be making a payment choice based on something entirely different from 

another respondent. My preferred management goal might be different from 

yours; in which case, we cannot compare or average our individual willingness to 

pay (WTP) since we are “bidding” on different goods. What are they valuing? If each 

respondent is simply valuing their own choices, these data cannot be used to 

measure the economic value and I urge extreme caution with use of these 

responses, unless they are grouped by management tool. 

Project J GCMRC PI Response 

This is a very good question. We purposely did not include a quantitative outcome 

related to what is being valued. Even in this system, this question format is common 

(Jones et al. 2017, Neher et al. 2017 [replicating Bishop et al. 1987]) but the analyst 

must be cognizant that the question format prevents an estimate of economic value 

related to what is being valued. We make this explicit in the report and past 

presentations. The question format was chosen based on initial focus groups and pretests with the Pueblo of Zuni (ultimately the Pueblo of Zuni did not participate in the 

community survey). The result of this question format is similar to a referendum. In this 

decision context we feel this information is relevant.
94

Second, the last phrase seems like it could easily induce bias. “Please keep in mind 

your financial situation and the fact that you may prefer to use the money for other 

purposes including alternative environmental conservation programs.” This reads a 

bit like a caution that perhaps I should say no to the willingness to pay question? 

Did this language come from focus groups or survey pre-testing? 

Project J GCMRC PI Response 

Thank you for the comment. In our opinion the reminder about “budget constraints” 

and possible alternative uses of funds is a standard best practice in CV question design. 

The question format is also in response to stakeholder concerns about question format. 

The inclusion of these reminders is consistent with guidance from Arrow et al. (NOAA 

Panel) which stated:

“Respondents must be reminded that their willingness to pay for the environmental 

program in question would reduce their expenditures for private goods or other 

public goods. This reminder should be more than perfunctory, but less than 

overwhelming. The goal is to induce respondents to keep in mind other likely 

expenditures, including those on other environmental goods, when evaluating the 

main scenario.”

Again, without more context and information, I can only make these general 

comments and cautions. 

Finally, the slide that shows the responses to the WTP question does indeed show a 

larger percentage of $0s. The data on why respondents chose “no” or $0 could be 

very informative on whether they protest the scenario, cannot afford it, prefer the 

opt out given in the question, or something else. Best practice suggests protest bids 

should be removed. 

The simple average of willingness to pay is okay, but a rather crude measure when 

using this payment card method.

Project J GCMRC PI Response 

This is a very good question. We purposely did not include a quantitative outcome 

related to what is being valued. Therefore, the result of this question format is similar to 

a referendum and a simple average in this case is a relevant statistic. Including $0 votes 

is therefore also relevant and we did include a question to capture protest votes or 

other reasons for a $0 response.

B. Recreational Use

1. There is no mention in Project J about the economic value of the recreational 

fishery. 
95

2. Lucas Bair’s presentation, however, presented two performance metrics: 

recreation and visitor use and experience as it relates to fishing, boating and 

camping. The impact topics include recreational use values and employment 

and income. 

Glen Canyon rafting metrics were presented, including the statistic that 50,000 

people participate in day use rafting. The presentation also examined whether or 

not high flow scenarios impacted the number of visitors. They also examined 

inundation of recreation sites. 

C. Whitewater rafting (a subset of B above) 

1. Whitewater rafting was also not mentioned in Project J although rafting plays a 

large role in socio-economic value. The presentation did cover whitewater

rafting extensively comparing the more recent data with the original Bishop 

study. In high demand months, the economic value is significant. I did review 

the two published papers by this team on the value of the whitewater rafting. 

Those studies are based on a contingent valuation survey that was then 

compared to the original 1995 Bishop survey. 

2. The decision about which model to apply to WTP data is not neutral, which is 

why sensitivity analysis is so important. The parametric approaches are fairly 

straightforward and deliver good estimates with good statistical properties 

provided the specification of the distribution is correct. If the proposed 

distribution family is incorrect, however, the estimated mean WTP can have a 

systematic upward or downward bias. Non-parametric techniques are 

appealing, in part, because they do not rely on an assumption about the 

underlying distribution of WTP values. Since we do not know what this 

distribution looks like, a linear or logistic function may or may not be 

appropriate. In fact, the authors state that the pooled model suggests possible 

differences in the underlying WTP distribution functions between the two 

studies suggesting a non-parametric approach would be most appropriate for 

comparison. It would be interesting to use some of the more commonly used 

approaches such as the non-parametric Turnbull with this data. The Turnbull is 

easy to calculate by hand and the data from Table 3 in the Neher et al (2017) 

article would allow for a comparison using a non-parametric technique. Another 

appeal for using the Turnbull with this particular data is that the Turnbull does 

not rely on covariates which clearly are changing over time for demographics. 

As such I recommend including sensitivity analysis of WTP estimates including 

the use of non-parametric models for the next iteration with this data. It would 

certainly be an interesting test of whether these values are stable over time 

using a different technique. 
96

3. Using a price index more representative of recreation is recommended (rather 

than the CPI for all urban consumers). 

Neher, C., Duffield, J., Bair, L., Patterson, D., & Neher, K. (2017). Testing the limits of 

temporal stability: willingness to pay values among Grand Canyon whitewater 

boaters across decades. Water Resources Research, 53(12): 10108-10120. 

Project J GCMRC PI Response 

Recreation economics research is not funded every fiscal year, thus not included in the 

FY20 Annual Report. There have been past studies that use revealed and stated 

preference methods to estimate the economic value of the fishery and whitewater 

boating (Bair et al. 2016, Neher at el. 2017, Neher et al. 2019) and how specific 

attributes (e.g., flow, catch) influence that economic value. There are also ongoing 

efforts to refine willingness-to-pay estimates with existing data. For example, as part of 

Project O (FY21) a choice experiment was conducted to complement past economic 

assessments of the recreational fishery (Neher et al. 2016, white paper). The AZGFD 

creel could be used to update the revealed preference economic value estimates (Bair 

et al. 2016). I also agree that it would be interesting to use the non-parametric Turnbull 

with the recreation data. As you point out, the published analysis was intended to 

replicate the Bishop et al. 1987 analyses. This along with other analysis of existing data 

is always a consideration. However, funding is limited and does not occur in every threeyear workplan.

D. Humpback Chub and Rainbow Trout 

1. “Donovan and others (2019) published an updated bioeconomic model to 

estimate the most cost-effective approach to managing rainbow trout removal 

at the confluence of the LCR and the Colorado River to meet long-term adult 

humpback chub survival goals.” The report gives a relatively short description of 

the bioeconomic dynamic programming model that evaluates that tradeoffs 

between protecting humpback chub and rainbow trout abundance. 

2. Where is a summary of the findings? Who are the decision-makers? 

3. Both of these species have considerably large economic value I presume, so 

how are the tradeoffs measured? Endangered species and other non-use values 

can be quite large. Has the economic value of the humpback chub been 

estimated? 

Project J GCMRC PI Response 

The detailed summary of the findings of the bioeconomic model is found in Donovan et 

al. 2019. The objective of the Annual Report is to brief stakeholders on the recent 

outcome of research. In the 2020 Fiscal Year Annual Report the focus of Project J was on
97

the utility of the bioeconomic model in identifying the cost-effectiveness of humpback 

chub translocations (Yackulic et al. 2021). The decision makers are stakeholders in the 

GCDAMP, specifically the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. For example, as part of the 

review of conservation triggers for humpback chub the results of the bioeconomic 

model were used to evaluate the current triggers.

Tradeoffs are measured using a cost-effectiveness analysis in the bioeconomic models 

(Bair et al. 2018, Donovan et al. 2019). The National Park Service has updated a stated 

preference survey that estimates the value of resources in the Grand Canyon (Welsh et 

al. 1995, Neher at al., Unpublished Park Service Report). The estimates of economic 

value related to native fish are high. The marginal value of native fish in this context is 

not helpful in decision making. We use a cost-effectiveness approach because there are 

also other non-economic reasons to recover endangered fish. This decision framing 

shifts focus from the ends to the means (Sagoff 2009) and is useful for adaptive 

management and facilitates the incorporation of relational values into the framework 

(e.g., Tribal values, ongoing work). I made sure there were a few sentences in each 

manuscript (Bair et al. 2018, Donovan et al. 2019) discussing this and there is a lengthier 

discussion in the Donovan et al. (2019) manuscript referencing these points in relation 

to the NPS study.

E. Rainbow Trout Fishery 

1. Recreational fishing is covered above, but the rainbow trout fishery is also 

discussed in several of the other projects. There needs to be some summary 

material in this report that weaves these similar topics together. I am still not 

clear on the economic value of this fishery although it is extremely valuable. 

2. How have the change in numbers and types of recreational fishers influenced 

these values? 

3. Has the incentivized catch program for brown trout impacted satisfaction and 

economic value of the rainbow trout fishery? 

4. 2016 report on the economic value of the recreational fishery. Is this survey 

going to be repeated to get a more current assessment of recreational fishing 

that can be used with the 2020 fish and angler counts?

Project J GCMRC PI Response 

Recent use of survey methods to estimate the economic value of the fishery was 

published in 2016 (Bair et al. 2016). This utilized data from an AZGFD on-site intercept 

survey. This information could be updated with the ongoing collection of data by 

AZGFD. The second recent effort was made to survey anglers and update the Bishop et 

al. 1987 research using stated preference survey methods. This information is available 

in a white paper and there are ongoing efforts to refine and publish this work (Meldrum 
98

et al. In Prep). A choice experiment was implemented this calendar year to identify how 

low flows impact angler value (Project O). This will be made available in a white paper 

the intent is to publish this work. Comparisons have been made between the various 

efforts. 

You can see from the below figure that we do have robust estimates of the economic 

value of angling at different flows. This could be used in a simulation model to estimate 

the annual value of angling under different flow regimes. This was something that was 

proposed but not funded in the GCDAMP FY21-23 Workplan.

Ongoing estimates of recreation economics will occur as possible.

The brown trout incentivized harvest started in November 2020 (FY21). We have 

increased the on-site intercept survey (AZGFD 6 per month and GCMRC 12 per month, 

Project J) and are working with NPS on incentive design. We are also designing a choice 

experiment to further our understanding of the program that will be mailed to anglers 

in 2022. Preliminary results of the brown trout incentivized harvest will be presented at 

the FY21 Annual Reporting Meeting. 
99

F. Hydropower and Energy

1. Why is there no summary of the socioeconomics of hydropower? 

Project J GCMRC PI Response 

Hydropower and Energy is not an explicit project element in Project J. The Annual 

Report is not intended to summarize the socioeconomics of hydropower. Again, I don’t 

object to this, but it’s not the direction provided.

G. Climate Change 

1. There is no mention of the on-going severe drought or climate change. Will new 

low flow scenarios be tested? Are there recommendations going forward 

related to climate change? And how does the renegotiation of the Colorado 

River Compact impact this report. 

2. The report does include: “The Donovan and others (2019) model will also allow 

research into the impact of nonstationary climate impacts (e.g., changes in flood 

frequency) on humpback chub recruitment in the Little Colorado River and how 

that may inform effective and efficient management and research.” This will be 

important for continued inclusion. 

Project J GCMRC PI Response 

I agree that climate change is important. Robust decision making is a method that could 

be implemented, using the bioeconomic and other modeling tools available. This will be 

considered in future proposal submitted for funding. As noted, there is mention of 

climate change and resource dynamics in reference to humpback chub modeling and 

this work is in development. 

V. Project N: Hydropower Monitoring and Research 

A. Lack of detail 

1. Goals and objectives could be clearer. 

2. One of the goals is “The operation of [Glen Canyon Dam] GCD to meet 

hydropower and energy resource objectives, as the integration of renewables 

and a greater recognition of the social cost associated with power system 

emissions occurs, is an important consideration when attempting to maintain 

and improve resources downstream of GCD.” 

3. There is no detailed report on the economic value of hydropower outside of the 

slides, and it isn’t clearly laid out in the Annual Report. What is the total value of 

hydropower? The report states “The total value of hydropower generated at 
100

GCD includes costs associated with energy generation, greenhouse gas 

emissions, human health, and other regional impacts. These impacts are 

dependent on the price of fuel (e.g., natural gas) and the integration of 

additional generation, including renewable energy, into the electricity sector. 

Scenarios incorporating these factors were used to assess total economic costs 

associated with a proxy experimental flow at GCD.” Where are these results? 

4. “We demonstrated the change in production and emissions costs in the 

Western Interconnect by reoperation of GCD has the potential to be significant 

and could potentially result in offsetting costs.” (p 156). A table with numbers 

and results from different scenarios would be extremely helpful. I would like to 

see what these external social costs are. I agree that they are very important, 

but having some details or a summary table is necessary. 

5. There is a link in the document “for more detail and preliminary results...” but 

that link simply takes me to a PowerPoint presentation from February 2020. 

There are 3 slides on hydropower (slides 30-32), but those have very little detail 

without knowing what the speaker said. I do not know how the various 

scenarios were calculated. For example, how are emissions costs measured? 

Which experimental flow scenario results in which costs? What are the 

recommendations? 

6. Project N needs more detail. 

7. From the presentations I learned that the value of hydropower generation is 

$millions/year was estimated over 20 years discounted at 3.375% and the value 

of hydropower capacity was calculated by finding the 90% exceedance value for 

daily minimum generation in August. A table of these results would be 

extremely helpful. Was any sensitivity analysis performed? Is the choice of a 

3.375% discount rate mandated or chosen by analysts? From the presentations I 

understand they estimated capacity and energy for various flow? scenarios 

which can then be used to estimate economic value and changes in rates for 

rate payers. Then they look at how this impacts emissions. This seems really 

important? Are the results posted anywhere? 

Project N GCMRC PI Response 

The funding for hydropower and energy research (Project N) is limited (0.3% of total 

budget). The goal is to coordinate with ongoing projects to advance research with 

respect to the Hydropower and Energy resource goal in the LTEMP EIS. As mentioned 

above, the objective of the Annual Report is to update stakeholders on FY20 projects in 

a concise document. References to documents or presentations in past fiscal years is 

standard (it sounds like you were pointed to a summary of the Project N presentation 

for FY19 and not the complete presentation). It also sounds like you were reviewing 
101

Western Area Power Presentations (Question 7) or information from the LTEMP (e.g., 

capacity expansion, rate payer impacts). The LTEMP EIS information is part of the final 

environmental documentation (Appendix K). Historically, annual reports, including the 

FY20 annual report, have not been a place to summarize fundamental concepts like the 

economic value of hydropower, past results, detailed FY20 results, or modeling that 

took place in environmental compliance documents or by other stakeholders. However, 

your points are all productive. I will attempt to summarize information, past and present 

hydropower modeling undertaken by all stakeholders, in future annual reports.

Other Comments 

How do the references on total economic value tie in with the other items in socio 

economics (The Bair/Duffield/Neher references) 

Covid-19 impacted data collection in 2020. It also significantly impacted the numbers 

and types of visitors. How are these changes influencing the monitoring efforts and 

decision-making? 

Finally, there is no mention of the on-going severe drought or climate change. Will new 

low flow scenarios be tested? Are there recommendations going forward related to 

climate change? And how does the renegotiation of the Colorado River Compact impact 

this report? 

Project N GCMRC PI Response 

These are all good comments. Model integration and understanding more about shocks 

to direct use values (e.g., COVID-19) and the dynamics of climate change would be 

interesting. The socioeconomic program is limited (2% of annual budget), we continue 

to work on the variety of issues, and we appreciate the thoughts about opportunities for 

research.

 
102

Appendix B: Reviewer’s Curricula Vitae

The reviewer CVs are omitted from this review response document for brevity; please see the 

review report.