U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Draft BHBF Science 

Comments/Responses/Discu

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Resear

June 25, 2007 Technical Work Group 
Outline

 Overview of BHBF Science Plan  Review by Science Advisors TWG Review - Summary of Con

Questions and Comments

 Discussion of Steps for Moving 
Basis for Further BHBF Tes

 BHBF is an element of each of the SP

is likely to be a LTEP element

 Has potential to benefit a number of re

promote learning

 Sediment Near shore aquatic habitats (backwaters,  Terrestrial habitats (new and old riparian z Cultural Resources (archeological sites; n

by the Tribes) 

 Camping areas for recreation
Summary of Comments - BI

Comment: Additional fish and backwater monito

Response: GCMRC proposes to add a spring trip

Comment: More information needs should be ad

Response: BHBF plan is subset of AMP work information needs will be addressed

Comments: Citing displacement of nonnative fis

rivers is inappropriate

Response: The hypothesis that nonnative fishdisproportionately displaced by high flows in River is worth testing
Summary of Comments – PH

Is the Concept of the Revised Triggering tied to a

Document?

- Basis for Revised Sediment Triggering DeveProcess – See EXP Assessment

Not Sure About How Revised Sediment Triggerin

(including LCR & Paria)?

- Upstream Sand Inputs are Weighted More ThInputs

Agreed Upon Approach for Evaluating Sediment 

Testing is Still Needed

- Future Desired Conditions for Fine-SedimenStill be Defined

How Specifically is the Proposed Timing Identifie

Test?

- Late Winter to Early Spring
Summary of Comments – P

How is this Proposed Sediment Test Different/Sam

the 2004 Test?

- Similar Hydrograph, but Later Timing to Allow Redistribution First

If 2004 Results Suggest That More Sand is Neede

This Achieved?

- Determine Whether or Not The Benefit of 200With Next Test

How Many of These Tests Are Needed to Fullfill M

InfoNeeds?

- This Still Depends on Outcome of Answering Question
Summary Comments – Aeolian 

1. Summary comment: Effects of aeolian processe

as well as positive and can confuse the interpre

archaeological record.

 Response: Agree, but potential preservative b

further evaluation since this is one of few potenavailable to offset erosion and reduce run-off

2. Summary comment: Benefits of aeolian sedimen

sites are stated as facts, rather than as hypothe

Response:

 Draut and Rubin documented low elevation san

wind to higher elevation archaeological sites 

 Draut and Rubin documented that increasing th

supply after a BHBF can result in increased tranunder same wind conditions

 Need for further study is clearly acknowledged 

information needs are formulated as hypothese
Summary Comments – Aeolian 

3. Summary comment: $618,00 to measu

aeolian transport rates or gully infilling archaeological sites is a waste of mone

 Response: $618,000 covers all of Proje

- integrated, multidisciplinary approach effects of sediment storage- measures sand storage above and becfs level throughout CRE

- quantifies changes to backwaters, c

and archaeological sites
Summary Comments – Tribal R

1. Summary comment: No effort to includ

of Tribal concerns in the science plan.

Response:  Native riparian species are important cu

resources for all tribes

 Project 2 evaluates effects of BHBFs on 

non-native vegetation

 Hualapai and Zuni concern for potentia

BHBF on Glen Canyon site is identified compliance need in the plan

 Agree that not every topic of potential i

stakeholder (tribal or otherwise) was or addressed by the plan 
Summary Comments – Cultura

Resources, General1. Summary comment: GCMRC conflates the term 

resources with archaeological resources. You concerned about archaeological sites.

Response: 

 GCMRC staff aware of the different meanings o We avoid using them as synonyms unless it is 

do so

2. Summary comment: No consideration given t

negative impacts of BHBFs on cultural resourc

 Response: Potential negative impacts address

compliance 
Summary Comments – Econ

1. Summary comment: GCMRC doesn’t have the c

economic trade-off analyses or evaluate impacts so eliminate these issues.

 Response: GCMRC is fully prepared to enlist ex

these types of economic analyses in the future if recommends we do this.

2. Summary comment: You state that an economic 

has not been completed; we disagree.

 Response:  Experimental options analysis of economic impa

was a financial impact analysis specific to hydropimpacts; this is not the same as an economic anaimpacts. 

 Plan will be revised to reflect that a financial ana

in 2006.-
Proposed Next Steps

 GCMRC respond to remaining commen Further TWG review (ad hoc work grou TWG recommend to the AMWG that the 

hydrograph include the option of condsubject to (a) the sediment trigger beinfinalization of BHBF Science Plan and the Secretary of the Interior. 

 TWG recommendation on the budget im

implementing a BFBF Science Plan in 2