by 

The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

Upper Colorado Regional Office 

Salt Lake City, Utah 

Draft June 10, 2005 

THE U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATOIN 

UPPER COLORADO REGIONAL OFFICE

GLEN CANYON DAM 

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

FISCAL YEAR 2006 BUDGET & WORK PLAN
PROJECT TITLE AND ID: A.1. Personnel Costs 

General Project Description: This project represents Reclamation staff costs to 

perform the daily work activities required to operate the Adaptive Management Work 

Group. The work includes completing assignments resulting from AMWG meetings, 

consulting with stakeholders on a variety of AMP issues relating to the operation of Glen 

Canyon Dam (GCD), disseminating pertinent information to the AMWG, preparing and 

tracking budget expenses, and updating Reclamation’s web page. 

Project Goals and Objectives: The primary goal is to perform all work associated 

with the AMWG in a timely and efficient manner, while using the funds available as 

prudently as possible. Secondary goals include increasing each stakeholder’s awareness 

of significant budget and legislative issues related to the AMP, improving working 

relationships with the AMWG members/alternates, finding constructive ways to resolve 

differences, and addressing individual concerns in an open and accepting forum of 

discussion. 

Expected Results: Personnel costs will not exceed what has been proposed in the budget 

and Reclamation staff will provide budget information to the AMWG on a regular basis. 

Completed work products will be of high quality and promptly distributed to AMWG 

members/alternates and interested parties. Budget reports will be presented in a format 

conducive to AMWG needs. 

Budget: $159,418 

FUNDING HISTORY Fiscal year 

 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 

Outside USBR 

Science/Labor -- -- -- -- -- 

Logistics Field 

Support -- -- -- -- -- 

Project Related 

Travel/Training -- -- -- -- -- 

Operations/Supplies -- -- -- -- -- 

USBR Salaries 118,990 126,290 110,230 113,537 116,375 

Subtotal 118,990 126,290 110,230 113,537 116,375 

DOI Customer 

Burden (27%) 44,010 46,710 40,770 41,993 43,043 

Project Total 163,000 173,000 151,000 155,530 159,418 

% Total Outsourced -- -- -- -- -- 
PROJECT TITLE AND ID: A.2. AMWG Member Travel Reimbursement

General Project Description: This project covers the costs to reimburse AMWG 

members or alternates to attend regularly scheduled AMWG meetings. 

Project Goals and Objectives: The primary goal for reimbursing travel expenses to 

AMWG members or alternates is to encourage their attendance at all meetings. Because 

the meetings are often scheduled in Phoenix, Arizona, many members must incur air or 

POV travel, and by having Reclamation reimburse those and other related travel costs, 

e.g., hotel, per diem, rental car, etc., opportunities are increased for more members to 

participate in a variety of AMWG assignments. Also, because Reclamation can purchase 

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

program. 

Expected Results: The Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program will benefit 

from having all the AMWG members participate in regularly scheduled meetings. As a 

collective body, they address and resolve concerns associated with the operation of Glen 

Canyon Dam and make recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior for continued 

science efforts performed below the GCD. 

Budget: $13,390 

FUNDING HISTORY Fiscal year 

 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 

Outside USBR 

Science/Labor -- -- -- -- -- 

Logistics Field 

Support -- -- -- -- -- 

Project Related 

Travel/Training 10,000 10,000 10,000 13,000 13,390 

Operations/Supplies -- -- -- -- -- 

USBR Salaries -- -- -- -- -- 

Subtotal 10,00 10,000 10,000 13,000 13,390 

DOI Customer 

Burden (27%) -- -- -- -- -- 

Project Total 10,000 10,000 10,000 13,000 13,390 

% Total Outsourced -- -- -- -- -- 
PROJECT TITLE AND ID: A.3. Reclamation Travel

General Project Description: This project covers travel expenses Reclamation staff 

incur to attend AMWG and ad hoc group meetings. In order to work on AMWG/ad hoc 

assignments, the meetings are often held in Phoenix, Arizona. As such, Reclamation 

staff must make additional trips throughout the year in completion of those assignments. 

Project Goals and Objectives: The primary goal is for Reclamation staff to be able to 

travel to meetings and participate in completing AMWG/TWG assignments. By doing 

so, the program benefits from greater interaction among its members as well as continued 

improvement and commitment to operating GCD in the best manner possible and 

obtaining the results from science work being done in the canyon. 

 

Expected Results: Reclamation staff will be involved with AMWG/TWG members in 

completing work assignments and resolving issues that affect the AMP. They will 

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

variety of sensitive issues. 

Budget: $ 13,000 

FUNDING HISTORY Fiscal year 

 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 

Outside USBR 

Science/Labor -- -- -- -- -- 

Logistics Field 

Support -- -- -- -- -- 

Project Related 

Travel/Training 18,000 18,000 18,000 15,540 13,000 

Operations/Supplies -- -- -- -- -- 

USBR Salaries -- -- -- -- -- 

Subtotal 18,000 18,000 18,000 15,540 13,000 

DOI Customer 

Burden (27%) -- -- -- -- -- 

Project Total 18,000 18,000 18,000 15,540 13,000 

% Total Outsourced -- -- -- -- -- 
PROJECT TITLE AND ID: A.4. Facilitation Contract 

General Project Description: This project represents the work assigned to one 

individual under contract to the Bureau of Reclamation to facilitate at Adaptive 

Management Work Group meetings. This person may also assist AMWG ad hoc groups 

in completing AMWG assignments. 

Project Goals and Objectives: The facilitator’s primary responsibility is to keep the 

AMWG meetings organized and help the members reach consensus on important issues. 

The facilitator creates a setting in which all members and the public are able to express 

their views. 

Results: The facilitator will create an atmosphere in which the members and other 

participants at AMWG meetings feel comfortable expressing their individual viewpoints. 

The facilitator will bring the AMWG members to consensus on pertinent issues affecting 

the GCD AMP. 

Budget: $25,000 

FUNDING HISTORY Fiscal year 

 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 

USBR Reimbursements 25,000 25,000 21,000 21,000 25,000 

Logistics Field 

Support -- -- -- -- -- 

Project Related 

Travel/Training -- -- -- -- -- 

Operations/Supplies -- -- -- -- -- 

USBR Salaries -- -- -- -- -- 

Subtotal 25,000 25,000 21,000 21,000 25,000 

DOI Customer 

Burden (27%) -- -- -- -- -- 

Project Total 25,000 25,000 21,000 21,000 25,000 

% Total Outsourced -- -- -- -- -- 
PROJECT TITLE AND ID: A.5. Other

General Project Description: This project represents some of the other “miscellaneous” 

expenses incurred in operation of the AMWG. For example: 

- overnight mailings of AMWG meeting packets 

- copying of reports 

- purchasing meeting materials (cassette tapes, markers, paper, software upgrades 

for AMP website posting, etc.) 

- equipment (audio recording/transcribing machines) 

In addition to the above, training courses are often required for staff to keep current on 

environmental issues, Federal Advisory Committee Act changes, computer technology 

improvements, etc. 

Also included in this category are monetary awards given to Reclamation staff who have 

contributed significantly to the success of the GCDAMP. 

 

Project Goals and Objectives: The primary goal is to limit spending on “other” items 

as much as possible. By doing so, more money can be applied to science and research. 

Expected Results: Other expenses will be kept to a minimum in an effort to reduce the 

administrative portion of the AMP budget. 

Budget: $7,175 

FUNDING HISTORY Fiscal year 

 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 

Outside USBR 

Science/Labor -- -- -- -- -- 

Logistics Field 

Support -- -- -- -- -- 

Project Related 

Travel/Training/Awards 6,000 6,000 6,000 5,000 5,000 

Operations/Supplies 2,000 2,000 3,000 2,000 2,175 

USBR Salaries -- -- -- -- -- 

Subtotal 8,000 8,000 9,000 7,000 7,175 

DOI Customer 

Burden (27%) -- -- -- -- -- 

Project Total 8,000 8,000 9,000 7,000 7,175 

% Total Outsourced -- -- -- -- -- 
PROJECT TITLE AND ID: B.1. Personnel Costs 

This project represents Reclamation staff costs to perform the daily work activities 

required to operate the Technical Work Group, a subgroup of the AMWG. The work 

includes completing assignments resulting from TWG meetings, consulting with 

stakeholders on a variety of AMP issues relating to the operation of Glen Canyon Dam, 

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

and updating Reclamation’s web page. 

Project Goals and Objectives: This project represents Reclamation staff costs to 

perform the daily work activities required to operate the Technical Work Group. The 

work includes completing assignments resulting from AMWG or TWG meetings, 

consulting with stakeholders on a variety of AMP issues relating to the operation of Glen 

Canyon Dam, disseminating pertinent information to the TWG, preparing and tracking 

budget expenses, and updating Reclamation’s web page. 

Expected Results: Personnel costs will not exceed what has been proposed in the budget 

and Reclamation staff will provide budget information to the TWG on a regular basis. 

Completed work products will be promptly distributed to TWG members/alternates and 

interested parties. 

Budget: $72,847 

FUNDING HISTORY Fiscal year 

 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 

Outside USBR 

Science/Labor -- -- -- -- -- 

Logistics Field 

Support -- -- -- -- -- 

Project Related 

Travel/Training -- -- -- -- -- 

Operations/Supplies -- -- -- -- -- 

USBR Salaries 54,020 56,940 50,370 51,881 53,178 

Subtotal 54,020 56,940 50,370 51,881 53,178 

DOI Customer 

Burden (27%) 19,980 21,060 18,630 19,189 19,669 

Project Total 74,000 78,000 69,000 71,070 72,847 

% Total Outsourced -- -- -- -- -- 
PROJECT TITLE AND ID: B.2. TWG Member Travel Reimbursement

General Project Description: This project covers the costs to reimburse TWG members 

or alternates to attend regularly scheduled TWG meetings. 

Project Goals and Objectives: The primary goal for reimbursing travel expenses to 

TWG members or alternates is to encourage their attendance at all meetings. Because the 

meetings are often scheduled in Phoenix, Arizona, many members must incur air or 

personal vehicle travel. By reimbursing those and other related travel costs, e.g., hotel, 

per diem, rental car, etc., opportunities are increased for more members to participate in a 

variety of AMWG/TWG assignments. 

Expected Results: The Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program will benefit 

from having all the TWG members participate in regularly scheduled meetings. As a 

collective body, they address and resolve concerns associated with the operation of Glen 

Canyon Dam and make recommendations to the AMWG for continued research in the 

canyon. 

Budget: $20,836 

FUNDING HISTORY Fiscal year 

 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 

Outside USBR 

Science/Labor -- -- -- -- -- 

Logistics Field 

Support -- -- -- -- -- 

Project Related 

Travel/Training 10,000 10,000 15,000 15,540 20,836 

Operations/Supplies -- -- -- -- -- 

USBR Salaries -- -- -- -- -- 

Subtotal 10,000 10,000 15,000 15,540 20,836 

DOI Customer 

Burden (27%) -- -- -- -- -- 

Project Total 10,000 10,000 15,000 15,540 20,836 

% Total Outsourced -- -- -- -- -- 
PROJECT TITLE AND ID: B.3. Reclamation Travel

General Project Description: This project covers travel expenses Reclamation staff 

will incur to prepare and attend TWG meetings as well as ad hoc group meetings which 

result from AMWG/TWG assignments. In order to work on those assignments, the 

meetings are often held in Phoenix, Arizona, because it is centrally located to those 

entities/states represented on the AMWG/TWG. This often requires Reclamation staff to 

make additional trips throughout the year in completion of AMWG/TWG assignments. 

Project Goals and Objectives: The primary goal is for Reclamation staff to be able to 

travel to meetings and participate in completing AMWG/TWG assignments. By doing 

so, the program benefits from greater interaction among its members as well as continued 

improvement and commitment to operating GCD in the best manner possible and for 

obtaining the necessary results from science work done in the canyon. 

 

Expected Results: Reclamation staff will continue to be involved in meeting with 

AMWG/TWG members in completing work assignments and resolving issues that affect 

the operation of GCD. They will develop better working relationships with all involved 

and work toward consensus on a variety of AMP issues. 

Budget: $ 15,898 

FUNDING HISTORY Fiscal year 

 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 

Outside USBR 

Science/Labor -- -- -- -- -- 

Logistics Field 

Support -- -- -- -- -- 

Project Related 

Travel/Training 18,000 18,000 17,000 15,510 15,898 

Operations/Supplies -- -- -- -- -- 

USBR Salaries -- -- -- -- -- 

Subtotal 18,000 18,000 17,000 15,510 15,898 

DOI Customer 

Burden (27%) -- -- -- -- -- 

Project Total 18,000 18,000 17,000 15,510 15,898 

% Total Outsourced -- -- -- -- -- 
PROJECT TITLE AND ID: B.4. TWG Chair Reimbursement

General Project Description: This project represents the work assigned to one 

individual under contract to the Bureau of Reclamation to act as chairperson at Technical 

Work Group meetings. This person may also work on AMWG/TWG ad hoc group 

assignments. 

Project Goals and Objectives: The chairperson’s primary responsibility is to conduct 

regularly scheduled TWG meetings. The chairperson also participates in ad hoc group 

assignments and works closely with Reclamation and GCMRC in setting meeting 

agendas. The chairperson follows up on TWG and ad hoc group assignments and ensures 

that information is shared with the members and alternates in a timely manner. 

Expected Results: The chairperson creates an atmosphere in which the members and 

other participants at TWG meetings feel comfortable expressing their individual 

viewpoints. The chairperson will bring the TWG members to consensus on sensitive 

issues with the ultimate goal of making recommendations to AMWG that incorporate the 

best scientific information available to the GCDAMP. The chairperson will follow up on 

action items and make assignments as necessary to accomplish TWG objectives. 

Budget: $22,171 

FUNDING HISTORY Fiscal year 

 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 

Outside USBR 

Science/Labor 25,000 25,000 21,000 21,630 22,171 

Logistics Field 

Support -- -- -- -- -- 

Project Related 

Travel/Training -- -- -- -- -- 

Operations/Supplies -- -- -- -- -- 

USBR Salaries -- -- -- -- -- 

Subtotal 25,000 25,000 21,000 21,630 22,171 

DOI Customer 

Burden (27%) -- -- -- -- -- 

Project Total 25,000 25,000 21,000 21,630 22,171 

% Total Outsourced -- -- -- -- -- 
PROJECT TITLE AND ID: B.5. Other

General Project Description: This project represents some of the other “miscellaneous” 

expenses incurred in operation of the TWG. For example: 

- overnight mailings of TWG meeting packets 

- copying of reports 

- purchasing meeting materials (cassette tapes, markers, paper, etc.) 

- equipment (audio recording/transcribing machines) 

Project Goals and Objectives: The primary goal is to limit spending on “other” items 

as much as possible. By doing so, more money can be spent on science and research. 

Expected Results: Other expenses will be kept to a minimum in an effort to keep within 

the AMP budget. 

Budget: $2,050 

FUNDING HISTORY Fiscal year 

 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 

Outside USBR 

Science/Labor -- -- -- -- -- 

Logistics Field 

Support -- -- -- -- -- 

Project Related 

Travel/Training -- -- -- -- -- 

Operations/Supplies 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,050 

USBR Salaries -- -- -- -- -- 

Subtotal 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,050 

DOI Customer 

Burden (27%) -- -- -- -- -- 

Project Total 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,050 

% Total Outsourced -- -- -- -- -- 
PROJECT TITLE AND ID: C. Compliance Documents 

General Project Description: This project covers the costs for preparing compliance 

documents for AMP-proposed actions in order to comply with the Endangered Species 

Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and National Historic Preservation Act. 

Project Goals and Objectives: Reclamation staff will keep informed on any changes to 

the ESA, NEPA, and NHPA and will consult with AMWG stakeholders to ensure proper 

compliance is undertaken for actions taken in support of the GCDAMP. 

Expected Results: Reclamation staff will be involved in all compliance issues related to 

the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program. They will utilize travel expenses 

to meet with the AMP stakeholders to resolve any differences. 

Budget: $22,450 

FUNDING HISTORY Fiscal year 

 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 

Outside USBR 

Science/Labor -- -- -- -- -- 

Logistics Field 

Support -- -- -- -- -- 

Project Related 

Travel/Training -- -- -- -- -- 

Operations/Supplies -- -- -- -- -- 

USBR Salaries 26,000 26,000 26,000 26,780 22,450 

Subtotal 26,000 26,000 26,000 26,780 22,450 

DOI Customer 

Burden (27%) -- -- -- -- -- 

Project Total 26,000 26,000 26,000 26,780 22,450 

% Total Outsourced -- -- -- -- -- 
 

PROJECT TITLE AND ID: D. Contract Administration

General Project Description: This project covers the expenses for Reclamation staff to 

prepare and monitor contracts associated with the GCD AMP. Specifically, these 

contracts are for AMWG Facilitation, TWG Chairperson reimbursement, tribal 

participation, and Programmatic Agreement work. 

Project Goals and Objectives: Reclamation contract specialists will accurately apply 

funds spent on individual contracts to ensure costs do not exceed contract limits. They 

will keep other Reclamation staff informed as to those charges so accurate reporting can 

be made to both AMWG and TWG members. 

Expected Results: Contract specialists will ensure that individual contractors are 

fulfilling the requirements of their contracts. They will maintain accurate records of 

payments made against the contracts and will keep Reclamation staff informed of 

discrepancies or concerns. Work will be completed on time and within the limits of the 

contract. 

Budget: $24,394 

FUNDING HISTORY Fiscal year 

 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 

Outside USBR 

Science/Labor -- -- -- -- -- 

Logistics Field 

Support -- -- -- -- -- 

Project Related 

Travel/Training -- -- -- -- -- 

Operations/Supplies -- -- -- -- -- 

USBR Salaries 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,750 24,394 

Subtotal 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,750 24,394 

DOI Customer 

Burden (27%) -- -- -- -- -- 

Project Total 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,750 24,394 

% Total Outsourced -- -- -- -- -- 
PROJECT TITLE AND ID: Public Outreach 

General Project Description: This project covers the expenses for Reclamation staff 

and the Public Outreach Ad Hoc Group (POAHG) to develop materials for the GCDAMP 

public outreach efforts. 

 Project Goals and Objectives: Reclamation Public Affairs Staff and POAHG will 

work jointly in developing materials to inform and educate the public on the goals and 

administration of the GCDAMP. They will keep other AMP members advised of 

progress and expenditures. 

Expected Results: Products will include Fact Sheets, brochures, media articles, and 

other pertinent means of advising the public and program members on the achievements 

of the GCDAMP. The POAHG will maintain accurate records of payments made against 

the contracts and will keep Reclamation staff informed of discrepancies or concerns. 

Budget: $50,000 

FUNDING HISTORY Fiscal year 

 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 

Outside USBR 

Science/Labor -- -- -- -- -- 

Logistics Field 

Support -- -- -- -- -- 

Project Related 

Travel/Training -- -- -- -- -- 

Operations/Supplies -- -- -- -- -- 

USBR Salaries -- -- 0 0 50,000 

Subtotal -- -- 0 0 50,000 

DOI Customer 

Burden (27%) -- -- -- -- -- 

Project Total -- -- 0 0 50,000 

% Total Outsourced -- -- -- -- -- 

I 
PROJECT TITLE AND ID: IIA. TRIBAL CONSULTATION: Cooperative 

Agreements with Tribes

Rationale/Problem Statement: Government-to-government consultation will be 

maintained between the five AMP tribes (Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Tribe, Southern Paiute 

Consortium, Pueblo of Zuni, Navajo Nation) and five Interior agencies (US Geological 

Survey, National Park Service, Reclamation, US Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau 

of Indian Affairs). 

Integration: The purpose of the continued funding of tribal cooperative agreements is to 

ensure tribal viewpoints are integrated into continuing AMP dialogs, votes, and in the 

final recommendations made to the Secretary of the Interior. 

Expected Products: The most important product is the incorporation of tribal 

perspectives into the recommendations forwarded to the Secretary. In addition, the tribes 

prepare annual reports on activities funded under the cooperative agreements. Continued 

funding of government-to-government consultation through the agreements ensure 

enhanced communication and understanding of the AMP issues and concerns. 

Recommended Approach: A tribal consultation plan will be completed that may 

modify the current approach and will be an appendix to the AMP Strategic Plan. 

Status: Ongoing. 

External Project Awards: Tribal cooperative agreements are funded through 

appropriated dollars provided by five Department of the Interior agencies (USBR, NPS, 

FWS, BIA, and USGS). The cooperative agreements are administratively managed by 

Reclamation with funding provided by power revenues. 

Project Accomplishments: Communication and government-to-government 

consultation between agencies, tribes, and other AMP stakeholders. 

Schedule: Agreements are modified on a fiscal year basis. Each funded tribe must 

submit a yearly status report to Reclamation at the close of the fiscal year. Copies of the 

reports may be distributed to AMP stakeholders upon request. 

Budget: The cost is $475,000 annually to fund the cooperative agreements with each 

agency contributing $95,000: 
FUNDING HISTORY Fiscal year 

 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 

Outside USBR 

Science/Labor 400,000 400,000 320,000* 400,000 410,000 

Logistics Field 

Support -- -- -- -- -- 

Project Related 

Travel/Training -- -- -- -- -- 

Operations/Supplies -- -- -- -- -- 

USBR Salaries -- -- -- -- -- 

Subtotal 400,000 400,000 320,000 400,000 410,000 

DOI Customer 

Burden (27%) -- -- -- -- -- 

Project Total 400,000 400,000 320,000 400,000 410,000 

% Total Outsourced -- -- -- -- -- 

* Total commitment is $400,000; however, $80,000 was administered directly by 

GCMRC. 
PROJECT TITLE AND ID: IIB. TRIBAL CONSULTATION: River Trip 

Logistical Costs to GCMRC 

Rationale/Problem Statement: River trips, at a logistical cost of $15,000 per tribe, 

were funded using power revenues to enable the tribes to identify resources of tribal 

concern, including traditional cultural properties eligible to the National Register of 

Historic Places. This identification effort was largely completed by the mid-1990s. 

Since then, the trips have been used by tribes to identify how and where dam operations 

are impacting identified resources or properties. Beginning in FY03, river trips were 

funded through appropriated dollars provided by the five DOI agencies. 

Integration: River trips enable the tribes to identify impacts of dam operations on 

resources of tribal concern. Based on river trip observations, tribes identify concerns to 

other AMP stakeholders and ultimately to the Secretary of the Interior. 

Expected Products: As the permitting agency, NPS requires an annual investigator 

report from each tribe conducting a river trip. In addition, the tribes are required to report 

to Reclamation or the AMP as a whole on whether conditions within the river corridor 

were stable, improving, or worsening. As a nominal variable, this can then be tracked 

over time to measure trends. 

Recommended Approach: River trip costs have been limited to $15,000 per tribe per 

year. Beginning in FY06 these costs will be indexed by the CPI. The tribes are allowed 

to select the approach they take to the trips within this cost constraint and meeting NPS 

minimum tool requirements. 

Status: Ongoing. 

External Project Awards: None. 

Project Accomplishments: Tribes have been able to identify resources or properties and 

to determine where and how dam operations affect those resources. This information will 

be used to develop treatment or mitigation plans for the array of resources of concern. 

Schedule: A report is submitted to the NPS as a result of any trips undertaken during the 

year. 

Budget: $76,875 
FUNDING HISTORY Fiscal year 

 2002 2003 2004 * 2005 2006 

Outside USBR 

Science/Labor 

75,000 75,000 60,000 75,000 76,875

Logistics Field 

Support -- -- -- -- -- 

Project Related 

Travel/Training -- -- -- -- -- 

Operations/Supplies -- -- -- -- -- 

USBR Salaries -- -- -- -- -- 

Subtotal 75,000 75,000 60,000 75,000 76,875

DOI Customer 

Burden (27%) -- -- -- -- -- 

Project Total 75,000 75,000 60,000 75,000 76,875

% Total Outsourced -- -- -- -- -- 

* An additional $15,000 was administered directly by GCMRC. 
PROJECT TITLE AND ID: III.2. PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT: 

Reclamation Administrative Costs for Programmatic Agreement 

Rationale/Problem Statement: Reclamation’s regional archeologist administers the PA 

program, tribal consultation cooperative agreements and river trip fund transfers to 

GCMRC. This project funds salary, travel, and indirect costs of program administration. 

Integration: The costs help integrate the PA and tribal consultation into the larger AMP. 

Expected Products: The major product is accountability for the cooperative agreements, 

contracts, and use of both appropriated dollars and power revenues. 

Recommended Approach: Compliance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation and 

other accountability laws, regulations, and policies. 

Status: Ongoing. 

External Project Awards: Cooperative agreements with tribes and contract 

administration for competed projects. 

Project Accomplishments: Moving towards completion of the stipulations in the 

programmatic agreement. 

Schedule: The schedule is a continuation of previous work within the fiscal year. 

Budget: $52,788 

FUNDING HISTORY Fiscal year 

 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 

Outside USBR 

Science/Labor -- -- -- -- -- 

Logistics Field 

Support -- -- -- -- -- 

Project Related 

Travel/Training -- -- -- -- -- 

Operations/Supplies -- -- -- -- -- 

USBR Salaries 50,000 50,000 43,000 51,500 52,788

Subtotal 50,000 50,000 43,000 51,500 52,788

DOI Customer 

Burden (27%) -- -- -- -- -- 

Project Total 50,000 50,000 43,000 51,500 52,788

% Total Outsourced -- -- -- -- -- 
PROJECT TITLE AND ID: III.2. PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT: Grand 

Canyon and Glen Canyon Treatment Plans 

Rationale/Problem Statement: In consultation with Grand Canyon NPS, develop an 

RFP for the FY06 implementation of a treatment plan for the cultural resources of Grand 

Canyon based upon a treatment plan design completed in FY05. Treatment of individual 

properties may include in situ preservation measures, nature and extent testing, full data 

recovery or additional documentation/recordation. 

It is anticipated that the bulk of development and implementation of the Glen Canyon 

treatment plan will be completed in FY05. Additional funds may be required in FY06 to 

finish the reporting task. 

Administration of Glen Canyon and Grand Canyon cultural resource monitoring will be 

transferred to GCMRC in FY06. Funding for FY06 identified in the following table is 

for implementation of the treatment plans. 

Integration: Not applicable. 

Expected Products: Re-evaluations of all affected Glen and Grand Canyon properties 

for eligibility to the Nation Register of Historic Places. Mitigation of effects as 

determined by the treatment plans. Detailed and comprehensive reports on consultant 

activities, results and recommendations. 

Recommended Approach: Evaluation, nature and extent testing, application of 

mitigative measures or total data recovery, following the Secretary of the Interior 

Standards and Guidelines for Historic Preservation and guidance of the Advisory Council 

on Historic Preservation. 

Status: Ongoing. 

External Project Awards: Competitive Requests for Proposals. 

Project Accomplishments: The development of the Glen Canyon treatment plan will 

begin in March, 2005, followed by treatment plan implementation. An RFP for the 

Grand Canyon treatment plan will be advertised in FY2005 with work to begin in that 

year. An RFP for implementation of that plan will be advertised in FY06. 

Schedule: The schedule is based on the fiscal year. 

Budget: Treatment plan implementation is estimated at $250,000 for Grand Canyon. $20 

will be reserved to complete the Glen Canyon implementation. 
FUNDING HISTORY Fiscal year 

 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 

Outside USBR 

Science/Labor 

229,000 229,000 229,000 584,840 270,000

Logistics Field 

Support -- -- -- -- -- 

Project Related 

Travel/Training -- -- -- -- -- 

Operations/Supplies -- -- -- -- -- 

USBR Salaries -- -- -- -- -- 

Subtotal 229,000 229,000 229,000 584,840 270,000

DOI Customer 

Burden (27%) -- -- -- -- -- 

Project Total 229,000 229,000 229,000 584,840 270,000

% Total Outsourced -- -- -- -- -- 
June 10, 2005 

MEMORANDUM 

To: D. Kubly, Co-Chair, Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Technical 

Workgroup, Chair, Budget Ad Hoc Group of TWG

From: T. Melis, Acting Chief, GCMRC 

Subject: Transmittal of and Request for Assistance with Distribution of Revised Draft FY 

2006, Work Plan and Budget (version 3.0) to the Technical Workgroup 

As promised earlier this spring, the GCMRC has completed its revision of the draft FY 2006 

work plan and budget(s), including recommendation for experimental science and sciencesupport activities intended to continue elements of the GCMRC’s 2002 Experiment Plan. The 

focus of the recommended experimental treatments and other science activities is intended to 

support identified information needs of the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program. 

Owing to her obligation to lead the Recreational PEP fieldtrip, Helen Fairley, our Socio-Cultural 

Program Manager, was not able to complete revisions of the three socio-cultural project 

descriptions in response to recommendations of the Budget ad hoc group. However, she will 

provide revised handouts of these work plan sections at the upcoming TWG meeting, along with 

a briefing of the proposed changes in Projects C.2 and C.3. 

Please distribute the attached version (3.0) of the revised work plan dated June 10, 2005, 

(including the two budget scenarios with and without experimental activities) to the Technical 

Workgroup members as soon as possible, so as to ensure that they have sufficient time to review 

the draft prior to the next meeting on June 21-22, 2005. 

We appreciate all of your time and assistance, as well as other members of the Budget and 

Humpback Chub Comprehensive Plan ad hoc groups in getting through the review and revision 

process. We are excited to discuss this version of the draft plan with you and other TWG 

members at the upcoming meeting. We also look forward to participating with you and other 

TWG members in the overall process of strategic science planning throughout the summer and 

fall. 

United States Department of the Interior 

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

GRAND CANYON MONITORING AND RESEARCH CENTER

2255 NORTH GEMINI DRIVE, MS-9394 

FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA 86001

928 556-7094 Telephone

928 556-7092 Fax
 

by 

THE U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

SOUTHWEST BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE CENTER 

GRAND CANYON MONITORING AND RESEARCH CENTER 

Draft June 10, 2005 

THE U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

SOUTHWEST BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE CENTER

GRAND CANYON MONITORING AND RESEARCH CENTER

FISCAL YEAR 2006 

MONITORING AND RESEARCH WORK PLAN
i

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft June 10, 2005) 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

CHAPER 1: THE GCMRC’s Draft FY 2006 Annual Work Plan

INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 

STRATEGY FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE WORK PLAN..........................................1 

 GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE ......................................................................................................8 

 GRAND CANYON MONITORING AND RESEARCH CENTER ................................10 

 Mission of GCMRC...............................................................................................10 

 Role and Responsibilities.......................................................................................11 

 Ensuring Objective, Quality Science .....................................................................11 

 MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES AND INFORMATION NEEDS..................................12 

 Introduction............................................................................................................12 

 Historical Development of the Management Objectives 

 and Information Needs...............................................................................12 

 Revision Process ....................................................................................................13 

 GCMRC’s PROPOSED SCIENTIFIC ACTIVITIES .......................................................13 

 OVERVIEW OF SCIENCE COORDINATION AND SUPPORT ..................................14 

 GCMRC’S BIENNIAL SCIENCE SYMPOSIUM ...........................................................19 

 SCHEDULE AND BUDGET............................................................................................20 

 Budget Review and Approval Process...................................................................20 

 

CHAPTER 2. SCIENCE ACTIVITIES .....................................................................................22 

PROJECT A. PHYSICAL SCIENCE, MODELING, AND DASA PROGRAM .................22 

Project A.1. Ongoing Provisional Monitoring – Lake Powell Quality-of-Water ..........22 

Project A.2. Ongoing Provisional Monitoring – Downstream Quality-of-Water 

 for Physical, Biological and Chemical Sampling ......................................24 

Project A.3. Completion of Research & Development in Support of Monitoring 

Changes in Fine-Sediment Storage along the Main Channel & 

 Shorelines of the CRE................................................................................28 

Project A.4. Ongoing Support of Provisional Monitoring Remote Sensing Data 

Acquisition.................................................................................................31 

Project A.5a. Science Support of All Data Storage Within Grand Canyon Integrated 

(Oracle) Database Management System (DASA) .....................................34 

Project A.5b. Ongoing Data Conversion & Library Operations (DASA) .......................36 

Project A.6. Ongoing Support – GIS General Support for Integrated Analyses 

 and Projects (DASA) .................................................................................38 

Project A.7. Completion of Channel-Mapping Project (DASA) ...................................40 

B. BIOSCIENCES ................................................................................................................42 

 Project B.1. Ongoing Provisional Monitoring – Terrestrial Activities (KAS and 

SWWF) ......................................................................................................42 

 Project B.2. Continued Research and Development – Aquatic Productivity, 

 Organic Mass Balance, and Food Web Linkage Studies...........................44 

 Project B.3. Ongoing Provisional Monitoring – Status and Trends of 

 Downstream Fish Community ...................................................................46 

 Project B.4. Ongoing Provisional Monitoring – Status & Trends of Lees Ferry 

 Trout...........................................................................................................48 

 Project B.5. Completion of Habitat Map& Inventory in Support of Monitoring ..........50 
ii

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft June 10, 2005) 

 Project B.6. Completion of Experimental Treatment – Spawning Redds and 

 Suppression Mechanisms...........................................................................52 

Project B.7. Completion of Experimental Treatment – Mechanical Removal 

 of Non-Native Fishes in the Colorado River .............................................53 

 Project B.8. Ongoing Humpback Chub Action – Translocation of 

 Humpback Chub ........................................................................................55 

 Project B.9. Completion of Humpback Chub Action – Dam Operations 

 Experiment.................................................................................................57 

 Project B.10. Completion of Humpback Chub Action – Monitoring Fish 

 Disease and Parasites in the Colorado River Ecosystem...........................58 

 Project B.11. Completion of Humpback Chub Action – Temperature 

 Control Device...........................................................................................60 

C. CULTURAL RESOURCES........................................................................................... 61 

Project C.1. Ongoing Provisional Monitoring of Integrated Archaeological Sites .......61 

Project C.2. Initiate Research and Development of Integrated Tribal Values 

 Monitoring .................................................................................................66 

Project C.3. Initiate Research and Development of Integrated Campsite 

 Monitoring Program...................................................................................70 

D.1 LOGISTICS OR SUPPORT SERVICES PROGRAM................................................77 

Project D.1. Ongoing Coordination and Support Program-Logistics Operations..........77 

Project D.2. Ongoing Survey Operations.......................................................................80 

Project D.3. Ongoing Development of Geodetic Control Network...............................83 

E. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT............................................................88 

Project E.1. Ongoing Information Technologies Activities ..........................................88 

CHAPTER 3. ADMINISTRATION AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT SERVICES ......................91 

 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................91 

 GCMRC ADMINISTRATION .........................................................................................91 

F. ADMINISTRATIVE AND MANAGEMENT......................................................92 

F.1. Administrative Operations...............................................................................92 

F.2. Program Planning and Management................................................................93 

F.3. AMWG/TWG Participation.............................................................................94 

F.4. Independent Review Panels .............................................................................94 

F.5. Support for Strategic Science Implementation Planning.................................97 

F.6. GCMRC’s FY 2006 Biennial Science Symposium.........................................98 

F.7. Experimental Support Fund for FY 2007 and Beyond ....................................99 

F.8. AMWG, TWG Requests During FY 2006 ....................................................100 

 TASK AND AD HOC GROUPS ....................................................................................100 

 GCMRC BUDGET..........................................................................................................101 

REFERENCES CITED................................................................................................................104 

APPENDIX A: FY 2006 Budget with GCMRC’s Experimental Recommendations................112

APPENDIX B: Relationship of Science Projects to INs and MO’s ...........................................121 

APPENDIX C: FY 2006 Budget without GCMRC’s Experimental Recommendations...........123 

APPENDIX D: Program Overviews and Resources Status Updates..........................................131
1 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft June 10, 2005) 

CHAPTER 1

THE GCMRC’S DRAFT FY 2006 ANNUAL WORK PLAN

INTRODUCTION 

The Fiscal Year 2006 (FY 2006), Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center’s 

(GCMRC) Work Plan describes scientific activities intended to provide the information needed 

to address the management objectives developed by the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive 

Management Work Group (GCD-AMP). These management objectives have been 

recommended by the AMWG to the Secretary of the Interior to meet the intent of the 1992 

Grand Canyon Protection Act (GCPA), and the Record-of-Decision (ROD; DOI, 1996) for the 

Final - Operations of Glen Canyon Dam Environmental Impact Statement (DOI, 1995). Owing 

to many planning activities that are currently ongoing in FY 2005-06, this draft work plan is 

proposed as a provisional or transitional stepping-stone in the pathway to a next phase of 

strategic science implementation in support of the needs of the active Adaptive Management 

program for managing Glen Canyon Dam operations. 

STRATEGY FOR DEVELOPMENT OF 

THE WORK PLAN 

The GCMRC’s Need for a Strategic Science Implementation Plan - In response to 

constraints on science funding for the GCD-AMP, combined with an expanding assortment of 

research and monitoring needs identified by stakeholders, the GCMRC critically evaluated 

program planning during FY 2005. Because of increasing needs for science information without 

additional funding, the GCMRC identified several recommended adjustments in the science 

program during winter 2005. This was done in an attempt to balance the critical needs of the 

program as a new science strategy is developed within the context of the FY 2006 work plan and 

budget. During the early stages of work plan and budget development, the GCMRC also 

recognized the need on the part of the program to develop a new Strategic Science 

Implementation Plan (SSIP) that would chart the course of science activities from 2006 through 

2010. To be most effective, the SSIP needs to be drafted during 2005-06, and critically needs to 

contain strategic sub-elements, such as the Core-Monitoring, Humpback Chub Comprehensive

and Research (including Experimental) Plans. Such plans are now being developed jointly with 
2 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft June 10, 2005) 

stakeholders towards a recommendation for implementation (presumably, starting with the FY 

2007-08 work plan) by the Adaptive Management Workgroup in FY 2007 budget and beyond. 

Identifying a Strategic Planning Process - A prospectus for undertaking development 

of the SSIP was prepared during spring 2005, by the Executive Director of the Science Advisors 

(L.D. Garrett) and the Secretary’s designee and the TWG members were then briefed about the 

proposed approach strategic approach. Afterwards, initial steps in this planning process began 

through meetings with the Technical Workgroup’s Budget, Core-Monitoring, Experimental and 

Humpback Chub Comprehensive Plan ad hocs. These initial ad hoc meetings with GCMRC 

staff provided a solid basis for the following draft work plan during many hours of discussions. 

As a result of these deliberations with the Technical Workgroup members, numerous 

recommendations, both in general program approach, as well as specific to individual projects 

were considered by the GCMRC during revision of this work plan. To effectively chart the 

course of science in support of the GCD-AMP in its 2006-1010 next phase, an agreed upon 

strategic science implementation plan is essential to ensure continuing progress in the adaptive 

management process. In part, this draft work plan represents the beginning of the strategic 

science planning process. 

Core Monitoring to Document the Influence 1996 Record-of-Decision – This program 

element stems from the list of key downstream resources identified within the Operations of 

Glen Canyon Dam – Final Environmental Impact Statement. These data provide the essential 

time series for use by both managers and scientists in evaluating environmental changes below 

the dam, despite the fact that such data alone cannot identify cause and effect. These data are 

deemed to be of great value to the Adaptive Management Program in and of themselves and 

provide a foundation on which experimental design can be built that does identify cause and 

effect. The “Downstream” report of the National Research Council (NRC, 1999)states “The 

Center has correctly identified the need for a scientifically sound, comprehensive, long-term 

monitoring program as a major priority.” 

One example of this type of work is the continuous monitoring of streamflow, 

temperature, conductivity and suspended-sediment transport within the main channel of the 

Colorado River ecosystem and its major tributaries described within provisional monitoring 

project A.2. Monitoring projects should evolve through time on the basis of the identification of 

new information needs that focus on more complex ecosystem functions and responses to dam 
3 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft June 10, 2005) 

operations. For instance, additional elements of monitoring for water quality, such as nutrients, 

may be added to this project in direct response to basic efforts related to other research projects, 

such as the aquatic food web initiative, started in FY 2005 (see research and development 

project, B.2, below). The Core-Monitoring ad hoc group (CMP) is also undertaking a process to 

fully evaluate projects described in this work plan as “provisional monitoring” in an attempt to 

clearly identify the elements of the ongoing work that directly meet the information needs 

specified in the GCD-AMP Strategic Plan (see APPENDIX B with project associations). 

Research & Development to Improve Monitoring – This has been a fundamental 

component of the GCMRC activities since the Center was established in 1995, as a process of 

review and science activities (described in the GCMRC’s Prospectus for Protocol Evaluation

Panel activities) intended to support development of a Long-Term Monitoring program for the 

Colorado River ecosystem. Ongoing R&D activities, such as those related to aquatic ecosystem 

productivity and camping areas, are intended to identify effective and efficient methods for 

collection of monitoring data, as well as identify methods and needs for inventory of critical 

resources below the dam. The Center’s Protocol Evaluation Program (PEP) for externally 

reviewing monitoring methods was started in 1998 in the area of remote sensing and physical 

resources. Later meetings focused on terrestrial and aquatic parts of the science program. 

Additional meetings are planned for the Socio-Cultural program, and others are proposed for 

review of new advances in the Physical & Modeling and Biology programs as research and 

development are completed in FY 2006. Following the research and development and review 

phases, elements of long-term, core monitoring should be implemented in ways that meet the 

needs of the program, are cost effective and result in consistent and comparable data into the 

future. 

“Active Adaptive Management” [Completing Phased Experimental Treatments] –

Completion of experimental treatments originally recommended by the GCMRC in 2002, has 

been identified as a high priority in the FY 2006 draft work plan. The 2002 Experimental Plan 

focused on both sediment and biological tests, so the initial 2003-06 phase of the experimental 

strategy relates to an assessment of knowledge with respect to: 1) implementation of the fourth 

year of mechanical removal of non-native fishes, 2) completion of analyses related to the 

November 2004, sediment High-Flow flow release and 3) continuation of studies related to 

experimental fluctuating flows during winter, are also an objective for completing the 2003-2006 
4 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft June 10, 2005) 

experimental work. Fiscal Years 2005-06, are specifically intended to be a milestone period in 

the experimental process in terms of assessing the knowledge gained through testing of these 

specific flow and non-flow treatments (Mechanical Removal, BHBF’s, revised implementation 

of the BHBF concept and less-constrained fluctuating flows intended to disadvantage non-native 

fish). During summer 2005, Knowledge Assessment workshops aim to identify remaining 

uncertainties related to the experimental treatments being tested in the Colorado River below the 

dam. This information provides the basis for identifying approaches and an experimental design 

that will hopefully be recommended for implementation as a second phase of experimentation, 

presumably starting with the FY 2007-08 combined work plan. 

Recommendation for Experimental Treatments in FY 2006 – Within its draft FY 

2006 work plan, the GCMRC identifies two experimental treatments that are recommended for 

continued implementation during Water Year 2006 (starting in October 2005). These activities 

are also intended to provide continuity between the initial period of experimental efforts and the 

next phase that is approved and implemented. The first of these treatments, Mechanical 

Removal of non-native fish, was recommended as a four-year treatment in the GCMRC’s 2002, 

experimental plan. The FY 2006 effort represents the fourth and final year of this recommended 

experimental treatment. Although more costly than originally projected, the mechanical removal 

project has proven to be effective in reducing non-native salmonid populations in the Lower 

Marble Canyon and Eastern Grand Canyon reaches proximal to the confluence of the Little 

Colorado River. However, the implications of reducing the non-native trout population below 

Lees Ferry with respect to benefits to native fish recruitment are not yet known. 

The second recommended treatment (return to MLFF during January through April, 

2006) consists of field and modeling studies relating Experimental versus Modified LowFluctuating Flows to rainbow trout reproduction within the Lees Ferry and Upper Marble 

Canyon reaches. Results of experimental studies related to Experimental Fluctuating Flows 

(5,000 to 20,000 cfs daily range) during 2003-05, and related modeling simulations, suggest that 

the experimental flows were probably not a mechanism for increased rainbow trout mortality 

(with respect to either redds or fry) compared to normal MLFF operations, had they occurred 

during that time period. To verify or refute these simulation results, a return to normal MLFF 

operations during January through April 2006, is required to determine through field data, 
5 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft June 10, 2005) 

whether or not the conclusions from this study are valid (see additional information below on 

Experimental Update, see APPENDIX D for further information on these studies). 

Owing to several factors, the GCMRC does not include another High-Flow Sediment 

component in its experimental recommendation at this time. These factors include: 1) 

 uncertainty about conducting another high-flow sediment test until the results of the November 

2004 experiment are more certainly known and reported to the stakeholders at the October 2005 

Science Symposium (a concern expressed by AMWG members at their March 2005 meeting), 2) 

uncertainty related to influence of the November 2004 test on juvenile native fish downstream of 

the Little Colorado River and potential for a repeat of such actions to confound biological 

science aimed at identifying a humpback chub recruitment signal in the reach as a possible 

response to the Mechanical Removal treatment, and 3) current fiscal limitations projected for the 

FY 2006 science budget that would preclude simultaneous implementation of both Mechanical 

Removal activities AND replication of intensive field studies (and remote sensing) required to 

compare the results of a 2006 sediment test with results from the November 2004 experiment. 

With implementation of the November 2004 sediment experiment, the experimental fund 

for this activity, originally created from budget in 2001-03, has been exhausted. A minimal cost 

associated with replicating the November 2004 sediment studies is thought to be in the range of 

about $1,500,000 beyond what is available in the FY 2006 projected budget. Hence, to conduct 

another similar-scale sediment experiment in 2006, additional funds need to be obtained beyond 

what is available in the draft 2006 budget. A portion of the required funds might be obtained 

during FY 2007, from cessation of Mechanical Removal activities after 2006 (approximately, 

$800,000). The other portion of the required funds might also be derived from a strategic carryforward account created within the 2006 budget. On the basis of this information, the Technical 

Workgroup’s Budget ad hoc resolved that a combination of both approaches be considered in a 

strategy to actively develop a new fund for experimental work that would presumably start in FY 

2007. If additional sediment high-flow tests are deemed unnecessary following knowledge 

assessment activities, then the carry-forward fund would still be available to support biological 

experimentation or other monitoring and research aimed at further reducing management 

uncertainties, as outlined in the strategic science implementation plan. 

The FY 2006 work plan experimental recommendation is intended to allow completion of 

two important biological experimental treatments. The proposed work plan also allows for 
6 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft June 10, 2005) 

completion of the fine-sediment change detection project to finalize work related to monitoring 

and research related to the November 2004 Experimental High-Flow test. This work includes 

studies to better document the fate of new sand bar deposits with respect to reworking by wind 

and verification of a one-dimensional sand routing model. 

Two Budget Scenarios (and Potential for Experimental Fund) - The draft budget 

associated with the GCMRC’s experimental treatment recommendation is shown in 

APPENDIX A. At the March 2005, meeting of the AMWG, members passed a motion 

requesting the GCMRC and the Budget ad hoc group to develop an alternative “NonExperimental” version of the FY 2006 budget. This version of the budget has been created 

(without implementation of either of the above recommended treatments) and through this 

approach, an experimental carry-forward fund of just over $1,000,000 can be generated. The 

GCMRC and the Budget ad hoc also resolved an experimental carry-forward of about $600,000, 

within the “With-Experiment” version of the budget. These carry-forward strategies were 

intended to: 1) provide a new experimental fund to support implementation of the next phase of 

experimental work, perhaps as early as FY 2007 and 2) allow a period of reduced science 

activities in FY 2006, while the strategic Science Implementation Plan is completed; including 

sub-elements related to monitoring and research approved by AMWG. 

The alternative draft budget associated with the AMWG’s request for a NONexperimental work plan and budget recommendation is shown in APPENDIX C. The 

identified carry-forward amount to support future experimental work in FY 2007-08, is projected 

to be approximately $1,000,000 in this non-experimental scenario. 

Identified Priorities & Expansion of Socio-Cultural Program – This theme was 

seriously embraced by the GCMRC during development of the FY 2006 work plan, in response 

to priorities identified by the AMWG at their August 2004 meeting. The desire to increase the 

available information related to recreational and culture resources was identified as second only 

to fishery objectives by members of the GCD-AMP, with the need to complete other research 

activities, including experimentation. However, the identified need to complete science planning 

activities in FY 2006, as well as the projected costs for full implementation of new socio-cultural 

activities caused the Budget ad hoc and the GCMRC to recommend limiting startup of new 

research and monitoring activities (campsite and tribal values) during FY 2006, until the 

Strategic Science Implementation Plan and its various sub-elements for research and monitoring, 
7 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft June 10, 2005) 

was completed. These new projects are still scheduled for startup in FY 2006, but at a reduced 

level while planning efforts continue, and with sufficient support to allow scientists and 

stakeholders opportunities for active participation in the strategic science planning process. 

Following completion of planning activities, these and other projects may be fully implemented 

in 2007 (following approval of the monitoring and research modules of the SSIP). 

Focused Support for Humpback Chub Actions – Several conservation measure 

activities were implemented during FY 2003-2005, related to humpback chub. Some of these 

activities were directly tied to the Environmental Assessment completed in 2002, allowing 

experimental treatments to be implemented in 2003-05. Some of the proposed actions were 

deemed to be either heading to completion in FY 2005, or were projects not sufficiently well 

developed to have been implemented yet. Pending completion of the Humpback Chub 

Comprehensive Plan (HBCCP) by the Adaptive Management Work Group, the HBCCP ad hoc 

proposed to the Budget ad hoc and the GCMRC that three areas of the draft Plan be funded in 

the FY 2006 budget: 1) continuation of the USFWS’s translocation of humpback chub above 

Chute Falls within the Little Colorado River (see project B.8), 2) continuation of funding for 

Dam Operations Experiment planning activities (see project B.9), and 3) implementation of the 

study plans associated with the Temperature Control Device related to the supplemental EA in 

fall 2005 (see project B.11). 

The Budget ad hoc also recommended that funds for concurrent population estimates (see 

project formerly designated as B.5) be budgeted in the FY 2007 rather than FY 2006, owing to 

the fact that simulation results now being generated will not likely be available in time to plan 

and implement such an effort during winter and spring 2005-06. The GCMRC strongly concurs 

with this recommendation, owing to the uncertainties about whether logistics support needs for 

both concurrent population estimates and the fourth year of Mechanical Removal can even be 

met simultaneously in the 2005-06 time period. If such estimates are not deemed essential to the 

program, then the FY 2007 funds would become available for support of other research and 

monitoring activities, such as ongoing implementation of experimental treatments or other 

monitoring and research. 

In the FY 2006 work plan, the GCMRC proposes what the staff believes is a balanced 

fiscal approach to science programming that continues focused research tied to development of: 

Core Monitoring, Research & Experimentation, Humpback Chub Comprehensive and overall 
8 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft June 10, 2005) 

Strategic Science Implementation Plans, as well as completing experimental flow and non-flow 

treatments outlined in the GCMRC’s 2002 Experimental Plan. In essence, the FY 2006 work 

plan and budget provides a natural point for ending an earlier GCMRC phase of research and 

development activities related to certain resource areas, such as sediment, and allows for new 

knowledge about experimental results to be assessed in planning a more focused next phase. 

These activities provide an opportunity to direct the science activities of the program to areas 

where large uncertainties still exist and where experimental work is still required to reduce those 

uncertainties. This is an important step toward identifying future options for achieving 

management objectives. The GCMRC concurs with the various Technical Workgroup ad hocs in 

promoting the idea that FY 2006 provisional and planning approach is the most logical strategy 

to follow until FY 2007, when research and monitoring plans are developed and adopted for 

implementation under available funding. If one sees the last twenty years of science activities as 

consisting of four distinct (five-year) phases of the program, then the 2006 through 2010 period 

represents the fifth phase of this environmental science and management effort. In this fifth 

phase, the GCMRC intends to promote studies that further reduce uncertainties associated with 

management of critical resources of concern. 

GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE 

The geographic scope of the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP) is the Colorado River mainstem corridor and interacting resources in associated riparian 

and terrace zones, located primarily from the forebay of Glen Canyon Dam to the western 

boundary of Grand Canyon National Park (Figure 1.1). It includes the area where dam 

operations impact physical, biological, recreational, cultural, and other resources. The scope of 

Adaptive Management Program activities may include limited investigations into some 

tributaries (e.g., the Little Colorado and Paria Rivers). The lateral scope is an issue of ongoing 

research and investigation to determine where the effects of dam operations are located along the 

floodplain and where opportunities exist for mitigation of dam operations (e.g., sediment in the 

Paria River, or humpback chub breeding habitat in the Little Colorado River). The Adaptive 

Management Program may do research outside the geographic scope defined above to obtain 

needed information. Such linkages with other areas “should be made on a case-by-case basis, 
GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft June 10, 2005) 

Figure 1.1. Map of the Colorado River Ecosystem (GCMRC Study Area). 
10 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

considering ecosystem processes, management alternatives, funding sources, and stakeholder 

interests,” (NRC, 1999:43; Loveless, 2000).

The GCMRC’s scientific activities are intended to determine the effects of Record-ofDecision (ROD) dam operations and other management actions primarily on downstream 

natural, recreational, and cultural resources of the Colorado River Ecosystem (CRE). Annual 

GCMRC activities include limited investigations into tributaries (e.g., the Little Colorado and 

Paria Rivers) and reservoirs (e.g., Lake Powell). The GCD-AMP, in drawing these boundaries 

on the geographic scope of GCMRC scientific activities, acknowledge that these constraints may 

inhibit the ability to distinguish the effects of dam operations on CRE resources from other 

effects. Therefore, scientific information from programs outside the GCD-AMP may be needed 

as a means of strengthening the understanding of the entire CRE. For additional information on 

programmatic and institutional scope of the Adaptive Management Program, please refer to the 

AMWG Strategic Plan on the web (http://www.uc.usbr.gov/amp/amwg/02jan17/Attach_06.pdf).

GRAND CANYON MONITORING AND RESEARCH CENTER 

The USGS is the primary science provider for the U.S. Department of the Interior. The 

scientific nature of the USGS, its national perspective, and its non-regulatory role enable the 

USGS to provide information and understanding that are policy relevant and policy neutral. The 

USGS serves the Nation as an independent fact-finding agency that collects, monitors, analyzes, 

and provides scientific understanding about natural resource conditions, issues, and problems. 

The mission of the USGS is to serve the Nation by providing reliable scientific 

information to: 

1. describe and understand the Earth; 

2. minimize loss of life and property from natural disasters; 

3. manage water, biological, energy, and mineral resources; and enhance and protect our 

quality of life. 

Mission of GCMRC 

The final EIS on Operations of Glen Canyon Dam (DOI, 1995), directed the Secretary of 

the Interior, “To establish and implement long-term monitoring programs and activities that will 

ensure that Glen Canyon Dam is operated in a manner consistent with that of Section 1802. . .” 

of the GCPA. The mission of the GCMRC 

is: 
11 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

 To provide credible, objective scientific information to the Glen Canyon Dam 

Adaptive Management Program on the effects of operating Glen Canyon Dam 

under the Record of Decision and other management actions on the 

downstream resources of the Colorado River ecosystem, utilizing an 

ecosystem science approach. 

Roles and Responsibilities

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

management decision process. 

2. Provide scientific information for all resources of concern identified in the 

“Operation of Glen Canyon Dam Final Environmental Impact Statement.” 

3. Support the Secretary’s designee and the Adaptive Management Work Group in a 

technical advisory role. 

4. Develop research designs and proposals for implementing, by GCMRC and/or its 

contractors, monitoring and research activities in support of information needs 

identified by the Adaptive Management Work Group. 

5. Coordinate review of the monitoring and research program with independent review 

panel(s). 

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

and as final products. 

7. Prepare and forward technical management recommendations and annual reports, as 

specified in Section 1804 of the Grand Canyon Protection Act to the Technical 

Work Group. 

8. Manage all data collected as part of the Adaptive Management Program. Serve as a 

repository (source of information) for others (stakeholders, students, public, etc.) in 

various formats (paper, electronic, etc.) about the effects of operating Glen Canyon 

Dam on the downstream resources of the Colorado River ecosystem and the 

Adaptive Management Program. 

9. Administer research proposals through a competitive contract process, as 

appropriate. 

10. Manage GCMRC finances and personnel efficiently and effectively. 

Ensuring Objective, Quality Science

 The GCMRC was established to provide objective, high quality scientific information to 

the Secretary of the Interior and to the GCD-AMP. To accomplish these goals, specific 
12 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

operating protocols for GCMRC were established.1

 The quality and objectivity of GCMRC 

research findings is ensured through competition and independent external scientific peer 

review.2

 All proposals, data, reports, etc., are reviewed by independent, external scientists as 

well as by the GCMRC science team. 

MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES AND INFORMATION NEEDS 

Introduction

 Management objectives (MO’s) and information needs (INs) help the science program 

managers to focus studies on both measurable and attainable standards relating to future resource 

conditions associated with the GCD-AMP’s Strategic Plan. The MO’s and INs also drive the 

strategic planning process and they provide the basis for the annual monitoring and research 

program described in this plan (see APPENDIX B for details on how this information is 

generally linked to proposed science activities). Both science cooperators and external peer 

reviewers look to the GCD-AMP for insight about the goals and objectives of the Adaptive 

Management effort, as well as the details about what specific conditions are desired for the 

various resources of the river ecosystem. The challenge of clearly identifying the desired 

resource conditions below the dam is a difficult but essential task of the AMWG and its 

Technical Workgroup if the GCD-AMP Strategic Plan objectives are to be linked closely with 

monitoring and research efforts. Clear identification by managers of “evaluation criteria” for 

discerning when environmental objectives for downstream conditions are being met is ongoing. 

One primary objective of the GCMRC’s Strategic Science Implementation Plan, is to ensure that 

science activities evolve to best meet the needs of the GCD-AMP as these evaluation criteria are 

more clearly defined. 

Historical Development of the Management Objectives and Information Needs

 Using the nine resource areas in the EIS, meetings and workshops were held in 1996 to 

formulate management objectives and to define information needs associated with the various 

management objectives. These were intended to guide the development of GCMRC monitoring 

and research activities. In 1997 and 1998, additional discussions were held to revise 

Management Objectives and prioritize Information Needs. In FY 2001, the AMWG adopted a 

 

1 Operating Protocols for GCMRC, June, 1996. 

2 GCMRC Peer Review Guidelines, October 26, 2001. 
13 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

new set of MO’s that resulted from its effort to develop an GCD-AMP strategic plan. The full 

GCD- strategic plan was completed in FY 2002-03. 

Revision Process

 As part of the GCD-AMP strategic planning process, the INs were revised and approved 

by the AMWG in August 2003. The approved MO’s and INs are listed in APPENDIX B. 

 The monitoring and research activities proposed in the FY 2006 Work Plan are intended 

to address the current management objectives and information needs. The specific MO’s 

addressed by the monitoring and research activities proposed in this plan are listed in 

APPENDIX B and referenced in the project descriptions. 

GCMRC’s PROPOSED SCIENTIFIC ACTIVITIES 

 The FY 2006 Work Plan describes monitoring and research activities that address the 

management objectives (MO’s) and information needs (INs)3

 of the GCD-AMP to the extent 

allowed under current funding (see APPENDIX B). Projects described as provision with respect 

to long-term monitoring (see column B of APPENDICES A and C), are designed to determine 

changes in resource attributes. These science projects are currently being reviewed by external 

experts on a technical basis, as well as being evaluated by the Technical Workgroup’s CoreMonitoring Plan ad hoc group (CMP) with respect to their appropriateness in meeting the 

designated information needs of the overall GCD-AMP. Research is used to improve 

monitoring, interpret and explain trends observed from monitoring - most critically to determine 

cause-and-effect relationships with dam operations (or other non-dam influences) and complex 

resource interactions or associations, and to better define interrelationships among physical, 

biological and social processes. The GCMRC is lead on the development of the Strategic 

Science Implementation Plan (SSIP) and within that activity is also leading the way toward a 

research plan, including a next-phase experimental design to follow the experimental work of 

2003-2006, as well as development of a core-monitoring plan. 

In addition, GCMRC has responsibility for management and dissemination of technical 

information in the GCD-AMP program. Included, is development and maintenance of its 

sophisticated Oracle database management system for archiving data collected as a result of 

 

3 The MO’s and the IN’s are currently undergoing revision. This Work Plan references the draft revised MO’s. The 

INs are being revised and they are not included in this document. 
14 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

monitoring and research activities, maintenance of a geographic information system for analysis 

and archiving of spatial data, and a library for additional archiving and data dissemination 

activities. A major emphasis is placed on serving digital publications, data, and analytical tools 

to our stakeholders and the public through the portal of the Southwest Biological Science 

Center’s GCMRC website (www.gcmrc.gov). GCMRC also operates a surveying department 

designed to provide consistent, quality, cost-effective support to monitoring and research 

projects. Finally, GCMRC operates a logistics program to provide cost-effective support to 

scientific field activities. 

For additional details regarding individual program area overviews, as well as updated 

information about the status of resources derived from the science program activities, please 

refer to APPENDIX D. In addition, the GCMRC shall be distributing its report on the State of 

the Colorado River Ecosystem (SCORE) report in fall 2005. This report will provide 

information on the status and trends of resources of the Colorado River in response to the current 

operating policy (1996 ROD). 

OVERVIEW OF SCIENCE COORDINATION AND SUPPORT 

 Implementation of the GCMRC mission to provide credible, objective scientific 

information to the GCD-AMP begins with effective coordination of all technical and logistical 

support of research activities. The Research Coordination and Support Program staff functions as 

a team to facilitate collaboration with the Integrated Science and Cultural Programs through 

effective communication with Program Managers, PI’s and the Technical Support Services. The 

program encompasses the integration of 5 elements: 

• Permitting 

• Data Acquisition, Storage, Analysis (DASA), DBMS & Library Operations 

• Survey Support Coordination 

• DASA’s GIS Technical Support Coordination 

• Logistics Operations 

Program Staff address each of these elements in assessment of support requests from 

researchers to determine which tools and processes will best facilitate the most effective 

collection and delivery of information from research projects. Through the combined effort of 

the program elements the process of research support is executed as a complete and fully 

integrated support service. The process is initiated in the proposal review and permitting stage, 
15 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

continued through the support coordination stage and completed with information delivery. The 

process acts as an accountability checkpoint, failure to meet agreed data collection and delivery 

standards is addressed immediately and corrective solutions are sought to avoid any delay in 

project completion. 

 Permitting-Research projects supported by the GCMRC must hold all required permits in 

compliance with Federal, State, Tribal and Local Agencies in which project activities are 

conducted and accessed. Research activities conducted within Grand Canyon National Park and 

Glen Canyon National Recreation Area require National Park Service Research and Collecting 

Permits and Access Permits for all river launches, back country use, over flights, and media 

(filming) production. All permits acquired for GCMRC-supported projects are processed and 

submitted through the Research Coordination and Support Program. Copies of all approved 

permits are kept on file in the Research Coordinator’s Office. 

All Investigators, Permitees, and project cooperators are responsible for compliance with 

the regulations and restrictions of their Research and Collection Permit. All trip participants are 

expected to comply with all GCNP Commercial Operating Requirements while participating on 

research trips. All PI’s and their designated Permitee are required to sign a Research Use 

Affidavit/Notice of Adverse Actions and Penalties Form which specifies potential penalties for 

violations of permit conditions. Failure on the part of investigators or their representatives 

to adhere to Park and Permit Regulations may result in withdrawal of their permit and 

other penalties.

• Research and Collecting Permits-Researchers submit project proposals and all other 

required information (guidelines available on NPS web site) to the GCMRC Research 

Coordinator. Proposals are distributed externally for review in accordance with the 

GCMRC Peer Review Guidelines and Protocols. Internal review is completed by 

Program Managers, support coordinators, and are submitted to the GCMRC Chief for 

final approval. Finalized permit information is then submitted to the NPS for final 

review and approval. NPS Research and Collecting Permit applications require 90 

days for processing. 

• Access Permits-Researchers holding approved R & C Permits submit a Trip Request 

Form to the Research Coordinator 60 days in advance of their planned research 

activity. This form includes request for logistical and support services and all 

information required for an NPS access permit application. NPS Access Permit 

applications require 45 days for processing. 
16 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

DASA’s Database Management System (DBMS) and Library Operations - Interaction 

within the DASA’s DBMS and Library Operations, as well as coordination with the SBSC 

Information Technologies Department and other GCMRC staff, is a vital component in the 

success of the support of GCMRC’s monitoring and research projects. The philosophy of the 

DASA is that data acquisition is the first step to any science analysis done in support of meeting 

the information needs of the GCD-AMP. Once data are acquired, they must be securely stored, 

but also made readily available for use. The ultimate use of the data is for focused analyses to 

achieve the learning required to link dam operations to changes detected in downstream 

resources. The data are also needed within the context of a high-powered, relational database if 

integrated science is to be achieved. Conversion of analog “legacy” data from previous eras 

(such as analog stereo air photo sets) to digital files is a form of data acquisition and is the first 

step toward eventual orthorectification of these images if they are to be photogrammetrically 

analyzed to extend historical time series back into the pre-digital age. Hence, such data 

conversion is most logically conducted and oversighted by the same group that will facilitate and 

lead the final analyses. Such an approach promotes the highest quality results from integrated 

analyses Coordination with DASA/Library Operations facilitates the support of research 

activities in three key aspects: 

1. The Library provides a centralized repository for remaining hard copy information 

such as books, reports, maps, photography, and videos that are not easily provided 

through the GCMRC web site in digital format. 

2. A major objective and growing function of the database and library is to provide 

stakeholders, cooperators, and other interested parties, with ready electronic access to 

most of the library’s materials (once scanned and stored in the Oracle data engine) 

that are uniquely a part of the GCMRC archival collection. Access is facilitated via 

the internet through the SBSC-supported web page(s). 

3. The Library has also implemented a consistent peer review process to help ensure the 

quality of scientific projects conducted by the GCMRC. The Peer Review Protocols 

developed and administered by the library are utilized in the NPS permitting process 

for external review of project proposals prior to submittal to the NPS Research Office 

for review and approval. 

DASA’s Additional GIS Technical Support Coordination - Integration of support 

capabilities in the areas of GIS and Remote Sensing is critical to the success of scientific data 

collection and integration for all of GCMRC’s research and monitoring projects. Technical 

Support Coordination requires effective communication with Researchers, Program Managers 

and GIS and DASA personnel to facilitate collection and delivery of information that complies 
17 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

with GCMRC Data Standards. Coordination entails evaluation of requests and scheduling of the 

appropriate equipment, materials, services and personnel required to implement research 

activities. Examples of Technical Support requests include: 

• Copies of existing map products and aerial photo sets. 

• Processing requests to GIS for new map products. 

• Scheduling Field Equipment (i.e. Computers, handheld GPS units, digital cameras, 

etc.). 

• Scheduling personnel required to assist with field work. 

• Consultation with GIS personnel for recommendations on data collection methods to 

achieve effective integration with the GIS. 

• Consultation with Data Base personnel for advice on data collection formatting to 

achieve effective integration with the GCMRC Data Base. 

• Analog-to-Digital Data conversion of the GCES and GCMRC’s archive of historical, 

analog aerial photography. 

Additionally, future dissemination of essential information to researchers related to 

permitting procedures, trip planning and survey and technical support requests will necessitate 

utilization of the GCMRC web page. Development of a Research Coordination and Support 

Program web page will include information pages and access to on-line forms to submit requests 

for scheduling river trips, and survey and technical support. The web pages will be developed in 

ongoing coordination and cooperation between the GCMRC staff and the SBSC’s Information 

Technology Director and staff. 

Survey Operations - The long term monitoring objectives of GCMRC require positions 

and elevations for past, present, and future spatial datasets. The GCMRC Survey Department’s 

mission is to provide survey support for 1) collection of these spatial measurements and, 

2) referencing the spatial data collected in the Colorado River ecosystem to the primary control 

network. The survey department is also responsible for establishing and maintaining the geodetic 

control network in Grand Canyon. The geodetic control network serves as the foundation for all 

spatial measurements necessary for long term monitoring. This control network also serves as the 

spatial framework for the Geographic Information System (GIS). The referencing of spatial data 

must be consistent in order to perform accurate change detection. All measurements collected for 

studies approved by the Adaptive Management Program are archived for quality assurance, 

quality control, network adjustment, and database integration. 

The survey department provides network control point coordinates and error estimates, 

QA/QC for remote sensing, topographic and hydrographic maps, and the additional manpower 
18 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

necessary to collect these data. The survey department staff also incorporates historical datasets 

that had been previously referenced to superceded or local control coordinates into the CRE 

database. This integration requires translation and rotation of the instrument and reference 

azimuth stations to match the most current coordinates, which reference the primary geodetic 

control network. 

The survey department is familiar with data collection and processing of topographic, 

hydrographic, and geodetic data. Specific equipment available to researchers includes static, 

kinematics, and Real Time Kinematics (RTK) Global Positioning Systems, single-beam and 

multi-beam hydrography, acoustic Doppler sensors, laser scanners and conventional survey 

equipment. The Survey coordinator assesses the level of survey support required to efficiently 

implement individual studies and evaluates and schedules equipment and personnel requests. 

 Logistics Operations - The GCMRC provides complete logistical support for 35-40 

research, monitoring and administrative river trips through the Grand Canyon annually. These 

trips range in length from 7 to 21 days and from 4 to 36 people in size. Trips are comprised of a 

variety of motor and oar powered boats operated by contracted boat operators. Projects operating 

in the Glen Canyon reach of the Colorado River (Glen Canyon Dam to Lees Ferry) are supported 

by a variety of motor powered boats operated by GCMRC researchers and contracted boat 

operators. Additionally, research activities on the Little Colorado River and at other locations 

outside of the Grand Canyon National Park boundaries are supported by helicopter services 

contracted with the Bureau of Reclamation. Ground based support for other research activities 

outside of the river corridor are also coordinated with the use of GCMRC vehicles. 

 The GCMRC uses a method of supporting trips in which government owned boats and 

river logistical equipment are used in conjunction with a contracted vendor who supplies 

Technical and Logistical Boat Operators. A concerted effort is made to match PI’s with the best 

possible Boat Operators for their particular study. Food packs, trip supplies, and equipment are 

organized, packed and maintained at the GCMRC warehouse. Put-in and take-out transportation 

is provided with the use of GSA leased vehicles and contracted shuttle drivers. 

 This logistical approach has evolved since the GCES phase to allow a detailed overview 

of trip particulars that most influence cost and efficiency, ultimately giving the GCMRC control 

over trip costs and productivity. Effective communication with PI’s and sensitivity to and 

awareness of the challenges they face in implementing their studies enable the GCMRC to offer 
19 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

more customized (and therefore more cost-effective and productive) logistical support than other 

support strategies utilized previously. Retaining control over the process of supporting trips also 

facilitates compliance with NPS regulations and allows greater control over issues sensitive to 

the general public and the “recreational river community.” 

 The trip planning and scheduling process begins in the fall when the Logistics 

Coordinator, in cooperation with contracted PI’s, Program Managers and the Research 

Coordination and Support Staff work together to generate a draft schedule of trips for the fiscal 

year. The schedule includes; launch and take-out dates, numbers of personnel and specific boat 

and boat operator requests for each trip. Researchers must submit a Trip Request Form a 

minimum of 60 days prior to the scheduled launch date. This form provides information for two 

purposes: 1) determine and schedule logistical and support services and 2) complete a GCNP 

River Trip Application in order to meet the GCNP 45 day deadline for submitting access permit 

applications. 

 The Logistics Budget is distributed to GCMRC projects based on a formula proportional 

to use of services. The formula takes into account contractor costs, trip size and length, and a 

percentage of operating expenses, and salaries. 

GCMRC’S BIENNIAL SCIENCE SYMPOSIUM 

The GCMRC has initiated a program of regular scientific symposia to discuss the current 

state of scientific knowledge regarding the Colorado River ecosystem, as well as to learn about 

similar research in other systems. The initial science symposium was convened at Flagstaff in 

spring 1997, and focused on results of the 1996 controlled flood experiment. A second 

symposium, convened at Grand Canyon National Park in 1999, focused on monitoring and 

research related to the 1996 Record-of-Decision operations at Glen Canyon Dam. GCMRC 

hosted a third symposium in spring 2001 that focused on the preliminary results of the LowSteady Summer Flows implemented during summer 2000. A fourth science symposium was 

held in Tucson in fall 2003. The GCMRC will host its fifth science symposium in October, 2005, 

to present preliminary results from the FY 2003-05 experimental treatments, as well as report on 

the current status of knowledge about the initial phase of its long-term monitoring program. For 

the first time in this draft work plan and budget, a line item is included in the budget for the 

estimated cost of planning and implementing the Science Symposium. These costs include: lease 
20 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

of the meeting venue, duplication and technical support costs, as well as invitational travel and 

per diem associated with keynote speakers and other invited guests. 

SCHEDULE AND BUDGET

The development and approval process for the Annual Work plan of the GCD-AMP, 

including the GCMRC’s science budget has been developed through the recommendations from 

the Budget ad hoc group of the Technical Workgroup. Typically, the schedule for development, 

review, revision and approval of the annual work plan for a single, out-year, is setup so as to 

identify a “bottom line” for the work plan and budget by about January, with approval of the 

detailed plan to follow in the spring during the AMWG’s normally scheduled March meetings. 

Unfortunately, owing to the many pending planning activities, this schedule has been somewhat 

delayed in the past several years owing to the uncertainty associated with not having approved 

core-monitoring and research plans completed. 

For the FY 2006 work plan and budget, additional uncertainties (and thereby, additional 

delays) have forced the development and approval process well into the summer of 2005. A 

future hope is that a two-year work plan and budget can start being developed at an earlier 

scheduled (presumably, this would start in summer 2005 for a combined FY 2007-08 work plan 

and budget) once major components of the Strategic Science Implementation Plan (SSIP) are 

finalized and approved by AMWG in the coming months. 

For information about other GCD-AMP administrative activities, the budget and the 

Programmatic Agreement, please contact Mr. Dennis Kubly at the Bureau of Reclamation, Salt 

Lake City, Utah. 

Budget Review and Approval Process

 GCMRC recognizes the critical need for the Technical and Adaptive Management 

Workgroups to be involved in the science programming, planning and budget process. 

Following extensive discussions between the GCMRC staff and various ad hoc groups of the 

Technical Workgroup, a third revision of the work plan and budget has been prepared and 

distributed to the TWG members. The GCMRC will seek a motion from the TWG at its summer 

2005 meeting, as a recommendation supporting the proposed activities described in the FY 2006, 

that will then be forwarded from the TWG to the AMWG during summer 2005. Ultimately, a 

final recommendation for implementation of the work plan will be sought by the TWG from the 
21 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

AMWG at its August 2005 meeting in Phoenix, AZ and that recommendation will be forwarded 

to the Secretary’s Designee and considered for approval by the Department of the Interior.
22 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

CHAPTER 2 

SCIENCE ACTIVITIES

 

A. PHYSICAL SCIENCE, MODELING AND DASA PROGRAM 

Project A.1. Ongoing Provisional Monitoring - Lake Powell Quality-of-Water 

 FUNDING HISTORY Fiscal year 

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 

Outside GCMRC 

Science/Labor 94,000 25,000 25,000 29,000 0

Logistics Field Support 0 0 0 0 0

Project Related 

Travel/Training 10,000

Operations/Supplies 25,000 25,000 25,000 35,000 38,924

GCMRC Salaries 146,000 151,000 128,000 115,000 138,250

Project Subtotal — — — — 187,174

USGS Assessment (17%) 0 36,000 32,000 31,000 31,820

Funding to GCMRC 265,000 237,000 210,000 210,000 215,250

Reclamation Assistance 35,000 114,000 *0 *0 ?

Project Total 300,000 351,000 210,000 210,000 218,994

% Total Outsourced 35% 10% ~12% ~14% 0%

Principal Investigators: Vernieu (Lake Powell Coordinator) and Hueftle, U.S. Geological 

Survey (GCMRC) 

Statement of Problem: Water quality refers to the physical, chemical and biological 

characteristics of water. The components affect higher-level community composition, quality 

and interactions and represent a cornerstone resource upon which all other downstream aquatic 

and terrestrial resources depend. The water quality parameters are linked to upper basin inflows, 

reservoir dynamics, and operations of Glen Canyon Dam, and downstream tributary inputs. The 

relationship between operations of Glen Canyon Dam and water quality variables affecting 

downstream resources is a management concern. Of special concern is the current draw-down 

condition in Lake Powell, resulting from several years of drought. Total capacity has been 

reduced 40%, resulting in warm releases, deltaic sediment resuspension, dissolved oxygen 

reductions and salinity increases. 
23 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

Summary Project Description: Funded by an interagency agreement with the Bureau of 

Reclamation Upper Colorado Regional Office, GCMRC conducts monitoring and research on 

Lake Powell to meet the following information needs. 

- Determine status and trends of physical, chemical, and biological components of 

water quality in the Lake Powell reservoir as a function of regional hydrologic 

conditions and their relation to downstream releases. These components include 

temperature, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, pH, turbidity, major ions, 

nutrients, trace elements, chlorophyll, plankton, and organic matter. 

- Determine stratification, convective mixing patterns, and behavior of advective 

currents in Lake Powell and their relation to Glen Canyon Dam operations to predict 

seasonal patterns and trends in downstream releases. 

- Determine status and trends of physical, chemical, and biological components of 

water quality in Glen Canyon Dam releases. 

- Evaluate quality and collection methods of existing data and determine where 

monitoring activities should be implemented, augmented, revised, decreased, or 

discontinued. 

Decreased funding in the project reflects a combination of personnel restructuring, reduced 

chemical sample collection and processing, direct funding from USBR for sample analysis and 

field assistance and redirection of effort in development of the downstream water quality 

program. USBR supplies support personnel and funding for technical field assistance and 

maintains service contracts for chemical sample analysis, further reducing the amount of direct 

funding to GCMRC. 

MO’s and IN’s ADDRESSED: Goal 7, MO’s 7.1, 7.2, 7.3; CMIN 7.3.1. 

Status/Schedule: Monthly and quarterly monitoring program for Lake Powell. Sampling for 

major ions and nutrients, temperature, conductivity and dissolved oxygen, and other basic 

parameters. Reservoir drawdown from current drought has resulted in increased release 

temperatures, resuspension of deltaic sediments, and the potential for hypoxic releases in 2005. 

Since 2005, chemical analysis is being provided by the USBR Lower Colorado Regional 

Laboratory through a service agreement with the UC Region. Beginning in 2004, monthly webbased updates of water quality status have been provided on the GCMRC web site. Data from 

this project provides a basis for predictive capability for downstream water quality parameters, 

including temperature. 
24 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

Expected Products/Deliverables: 

• Monthly web site report 

• Annual water year open file report 

• Complete Lake Powell water quality database 

• Publish and provide on-line access to historical water quality information 

• Contribution to SCORE report 

Integration: During FY 2006, new research on food web dynamics will be initiated through a 

competitive process. As this effort gets underway, the Integrated Quality of Water program will 

be evaluated and modified to meet the needs of this new research effort, as well as other existing 

project. The Lake Powell monitoring program will be included in these evaluations, as well as 

any planning that occurs related to future implementation of thermal modification experiments. 

Implications of Experimental vs. Non-Experimental Scenarios: None here. 

Project A.2. – Ongoing Provisional Monitoring – Downstream Quality-of-Water for 

Physical, Biological and Chemical Sampling 

FUNDING 

HISTORY* Fiscal year 

 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 

Outside GCMRC 

Science/Labor 329,000 476,000 614,500 927,500 325,000

Logistics Field 

Support 40,000 40,000 152,000 160,000 25,000

Project Related 

Travel/Training — — — — 10,000

Operations/Supplies 235,500 130,500 142,500 190,000 30,000

GCMRC Salaries 81,000 162,000 195,000 330,000 309,100

Project Subtotal — — — — 699,100

DOI Customer 

Burden (17%) — — — — 118,847

Project Total 685,500 808,500 1,104,000** 1,607,500** 817,947

% Total 

Outsourced ~51% ~61% ~63% ~63% 41%

* In earlier annual plans and budgets, this project was previously described and budgeted as two separate projects, one relating to Downstream 

Quality of Water monitoring and the other relating to the monitoring of suspended-sediment flux. The FY 2002-2005, budget totals shown here 

reflect the combined sums of costs from the two projects, respectively, shown in the previous work plans. Combining the two projects is done to 

better integrate the monitoring and the FY 2006 efforts combine the logistical support needed for accomplishing the suspended-sediment mass 

flux with other downstream quality-of-water monitoring. 

** The FY 2004 & 2005 total project costs reflect additional research funding to support additional monitoring of the experimental Fluctuating 

Flows in 2003-2004, & the High-Flow test conducted in November 2004. 
25 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

Principal Investigators: Topping, Wright, Melis, Rubin and Wiele, U.S. Geological Survey 

National Research Program, GCMRC, Marine Geology Team and Arizona District of Water 

Resources Discipline, respectively. 

Statement of Problem: Glen Canyon Dam has altered the character of the water that is released 

downstream into the Colorado River. The supply of fine sediment has been reduced to nearly 

zero, which has impacted fine sediment deposits and turbidity in Glen, Marble, and Grand 

Canyons. The thermal regime of the releases has changed from seasonal variations that followed 

air temperatures to nearly constant release temperatures throughout the year which are colder in 

the summer and warmer in the winter than pre-dam temperatures. These changes, as well as 

changes in the downstream delivery of minerals, nutrients, and carbon have altered the 

ecosystem of the Colorado River downstream from Glen Canyon Dam. The Lake Powell Project 

characterizes the water quality of the lake and downstream releases. This project monitors how 

the releases affect the downstream ecosystem and develops tools to assist decision-makers in the 

management of Glen Canyon Dam. 

Summary Project Description: 

 The downstream IQWP has two major components. The first component is focused on 

monitoring and modeling the mass-balance of fine sediment in the CRE. The second component 

of IQWP is focused on characterizing other water quality components of the ecosystem, such as 

water temperature, oxygen, nutrients, and carbon. Each component has monitoring and research 

elements as described below. 

Downstream Monitoring Components: 

1. Fine sediment mass balance: Use of laser-acoustic system and conventional 

suspended-sediment samples to monitor transport at several locations along the 

mainstem Colorado River and on key tributaries. Monitoring data are used to provide 

a continuous accounting of the mass-balance (input minus export) of sand and fine 

sediment in Marble and Grand Canyons and to assess the impacts of experimental 

flows on the mass-balance. 

2. Continuous water quality monitoring: Temperature, conductivity, dissolved 

oxygen, and pH are monitored at several locations along the mainstem Colorado 

River and key tributaries. Most sites are coincident with the mass-balance monitoring 

locations. Temperature monitoring in selected backwater habitat areas. Data are used 

to characterize the thermal regime and longitudinal gradient in mineral and oxygen 

content of the river, and to calibrate and validate numerical models. 
26 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

Research Components:

1. Numerical model development and application: Fine sediment transport models 

are currently in use and under development. Research includes flume studies and 

detailed flow measurements of sediment transport dynamics. Water temperature 

model development is underway. Research includes detailed measurements of heat 

exchange between the river and the atmosphere; water temperature dynamics in 

backwater habitat areas. 

2. Real-time two-way telemetry: A system is being developed to provide two-way 

telemetry between the office and instrumentation in the Canyon. The two-way 

communication not only provides real-time access to data, but also allows the user 

full control of the instrument from the office. The system is being developed in a 

generic fashion to allow use with any instrument that uses serial communications. 

MO’s and IN’s ADDRESSED: Goals 7 and 8; MO’s 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, and 8.1; CMIN’s 7.1.1, 

7.2.1, 7.3.1, 7.4.1, 7.4.2, 8.1.2, 8.1.3. 

Status/Schedule: FY02-06: Monitoring activities are ongoing and scheduled to continue. 

Analysis of the November 2004 high-flow test data is scheduled to continue into FY06. 

Completion of the initial phase of suspended-sediment transport model development is scheduled 

to be completed in FY05 with continued refinement in FY06. Water quality model development 

to continue with scheduled completion of the water temperature component in FY06. 

Expected Products/Deliverables: 

• Preliminary real-time data posted to World-Wide-Web for some sites for parameters 

that do not require extensive processing. 

• Preliminary data made available in real-time through the GCMRC Oracle database 

using the in-development two-way telemetry system. 

• Final, reviewed data made available through GCMRC Oracle database annually. 

• Annual Open-File Reports summarizing methods and collected data. 

• Peer-reviewed publications where appropriate, including assessment of the November 

2004 high-flow test. 

• Presentations at AMWG/TWG meetings as well as other professional meetings. 

• Numerical models made available for general use at appropriate time. 

Integration: The fine sediment mass balance project is intimately linked with the fine sediment 

storage project because the mass balance should track with changes in storage. The water quality 

project will become integrated with the new aquatic foodbase program as it develops. 
27 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

Implications of Experimental vs. Non-Experimental Scenarios: Even in the earlier draft 

workplan of February 2005, this project was limited in its scope to measurements made only 

between the forebay of the dam and river mile 87 (Grand Canyon gage near Phantom Ranch). 

Under the “With Experiment” scenario, there are reductions in several parts of the the budget 

that are required to support both: 1) the experimental treatments and Humpback chub actions and 

2) the proposed carry-forward fund to support experimental work in FY 2007 and beyond. 

Under the “With Experiment” scenario, these reductions will force the GCMRC staff to 

undertake more of the field efforts required to obtain water quality samples and data in support 

of the suspended-sediment mass balance work to keep the project viable (meaning more need to 

coordinate and oversight student contractors, employees, administrative support, etc.). In the 

“Without Experiment” scenario, the project is basically restored to the funding levels under the 

original budget (shown in the February 2005 draft version) and most of this field effort would be 

undertaken by the Water Resources Discipline of the USGS (Arizona District personnel), albeit 

at a higher cost. More involvement by GCMRC staff in the “With Experiment” version of the 

work plan means that these scientists and technicians have less time to contribute to planning 

activities, as well as analyses and reporting. Reduction in the number of river-support trips for 

sampling and maintenance of the monitoring sites (from 6/yr down to 2/yr) will likely have the 

effect of increasing the measurement uncertainty associated with the reporting of fine-sediment 

inputs versus export. 
28 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

Project A.3. Completion of Research & Development in Support of Monitoring Changes in 

Fine-Sediment Storage along the Main Channel & Shorelines of the CRE 

FUNDING Fiscal year HISTORY 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 

Outside GCMRC 

Science/Labor 300,000 300,000 621,000 760,000 256,250

Logistics Field 

Support 58,000 18,000 120,000 120,000 0

Project Related 

Travel/Training — — — — 0

Operations/Supplies 100,000 93,000 63,000 60,000 0

GCMRC Salaries 53,000 31,000 56,000 60,000 0

Project Subtotal — — — — 256,250

DOI Customer 

Burden (6%) — — — — 15,375

Project Total 511,000 442,000 860,000* 1,000,000* 271,625

% Total 

Outsourced ~68% ~71% ~79% ~87% 100%

*The FY 2004 & 2005 project totals include extra data acquisition costs for monitoring effects of experimental Fluctuating Flow 

& the sediment High-Flow test implemented in November 2004. The FY 2006 costs are to support final reporting on the 2001-

2005, monitoring and research related to the High-Flow test. 

Principal Investigators: Rubin, Topping, Schmidt and Parnell, U.S. Geological Survey (WRD, 

GD & BRD, plus Utah State and Northern Arizona Universities) 

Statement of Problem: Sandbars and other sandy deposits in and along the Colorado River in 

Grand Canyon National Park (GCNP) were an integral part of the pre-dam riverscape, and are 

important for habitat, protecting archeological sites, and recreation. These deposits have eroded 

substantially following the 1963 closure of Glen Canyon Dam that reduced the supply of sand at 

the upstream boundary of GCNP by about 94%; sandbars in Marble Canyon have decreased in 

size by about 25% during the last 15 years. Results from the geomorphic synthesis project have 

shown that the deeper portions of eddies and the channel pools also contain about 25% less sand, 

silt, and clay than they contained in the early 1990s. 

 Relationships between Glen Canyon Dam operations, fine-sediments input from gaged 

and ungaged tributaries below the dam, and interrelated downstream biological, socio-cultural 

resources are of primary management concern. This is true owing to the fact that sand bars are 

the primary substrate along many shoreline areas of the ecosystem. Monitoring data on fine-
29 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

grained (sand and finer) deposits, linkages with physical habitats and relationships to nonphysical resources and processes offer insight on the effectiveness of the Secretary’s 1996 

Record-of-Decision (ROD), relative to management objectives. 

Annual-to-biennial monitoring of fine-grained sediment storage provides information: 

(1) on the status of near-shore aquatic and terrestrial habitats where vegetation and associated 

fauna, socio-cultural resources are of management concern; (2) on the availability of finegrained sediment that can be periodically manipulated through controlled floods to preserve and 

sustain downstream resources dependent on fine sediment; (3) on identification and 

interpretation of linkages between dam operations and changes in physical habitats and related 

ecosystem resources. All three areas of information support science-based evaluations of largescale flow experiments (e.g., the Secretary’s actions), and associated decision responses required 

for adaptive management to succeed. 

Summary Project Description: Fine-grained deposits (sand and finer) of the main channel 

constitute a major storage component of the Colorado River ecosystem’s sediment budget. Glen 

Canyon Dam operations influence fine deposits in ways that affect aquatic and terrestrial habitats 

over both short and long periods. The emphasis of this long-term monitoring project is to 

document system-wide changes in fine-grained deposits relative to dam operations and natural 

inputs, with emphasis on key storage settings within critical reaches. This project was initiated 

through release of a competitive solicitation in October 2000. The first phase of this project was 

scheduled for completion at the end of FY 2005, but has been extended through FY 2006 owing 

to the additional field data collection campaign around the November high-flow test, and will be 

externally reviewed through the PEP process. In addition, the project is also focused on 

researching the fate of campsite areas on an annual basis, as well as the fate of sand bars 

reworked by wind in the vicinity of archeological preservation sites. 

Two other subcomponents of this project include monitoring sediment deposition in 

arroyos near archaeological sites and monitoring changes at campable beach areas owing to 

experimental high flows. These projects are described in the Two-Year Science Plan for

Experimental Flow Treatments and Mechanical Removal Activities in WY’S 2002-2004. 

MO’s and IN’s ADDRESSED: Goal 8, MO’s 8.1, 8.2. 8.3, 8.4, and 8.5; CMIN’s 8.1.1, 8.2.1, 

8.3.1, 8.4.1, 8.5.1. 
30 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

Status/Schedule: FY01-06: This project was scheduled for completion in FY05 but will be 

extended into FY06 because of the additional field work around the November 2004 high-flow 

test. No additional field work is scheduled, and FY06 will serve as the final reporting year for 

this project, including results of the November 2004 High-Flow sediment test.. 

Reports published to date: 

• Rubin, D.M., 2004, A simple autocorrelation algorithm for determining grain size 

from digital images of sediment: Sedimentology. 

• NAU 2005 Fact Sheet. 

• Hazel, J.E., Jr., Topping, D.J., Schmidt, J.C., Kaplinski, M., and Melis, T.S., 

Downstream effects of a dam on sediment storage in a bedrock canyon: the relative 

roles of eddy and channel storage for the Colorado River in Marble Canyon, AZ, in 

press. 

• Topping and others, 2004, High-resolution monitoring of suspended-sediment 

concentration and grain size in the Colorado River in Grand Canyon using a laseracoustic system. 

• Melis and other, 2003, Testing laser-based sensors for continuous in situ monitoring 

of suspended sediment in the Colorado River, Arizona. 

Expected Products/Deliverables: 

• Final report summarizing the findings of the FIST project, including an assessment of 

sandbar changes between 2000 and 2005 and the effects of the November 2004 highflow test. 

• 2-3 more peer-reviewed journal articles or USGS reports during FY 2006. 

• All reach data from this project delivered to the GCMRC database coordinator during 

FY2006 as scheduled under the original project timeline defined in FY2001. 

• Reporting of the results of the November 2004 sediment experiment at the 2005 

Science Symposium 

Integration: This project is closely integrated with the Integrated Quality-of-Water Project, 

particularly the fine sediment mass balance. 

Implications of Experimental vs. Non-Experimental Scenarios: None here, as there is no 

High-Flow Sediment Experimental treatment proposed. Funding is maintained at the originally 

proposed level so as to accomplish final reporting on the November 2004 sediment experiment.
31 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

Project A.4. – Ongoing Support of Provisional Monitoring Remote Sensing Data 

Acquisition – DASA Coordinator (G. Bennett) and Remote Sensing Support (F.M. 

Gonzales)

FUNDING HISTORY Fiscal year 

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 

Outside GCMRC 

Science/Labor 82,500 123,000 170,000 0 85,500

Logistics Field 

Support N/A 20,000 5,000 0 20,000

Project Related 

Training/Travel 0 0 0 0 5,000

Operations/Supplies 0 0 0 0 56,000

GCMRC Salaries 20,000 20,000 25,000 28,100 28,100

Project Subtotal — — — 28,100 194,100

DOI Customer 

Burden (17%) — — — 4,777 32,997

Project Total 102,500 163,000 200,000 32,877 227,097

% Total Outsourced 80% 82% 85% 0% 4%

Note: Additional funds are required starting in FY2007 to support ongoing management of the system wide airborne remotelysensed data collected in May 2005. FY2007 budget elements shown here are merely estimates provided by the DASA staff. 

Examples of ongoing needs to support digital overflights include additional services and licenses required to serve these data.

Principal Investigators: DASA Coordinator and Database Administrator (G. Bennett), U.S. 

Geological Survey (GCMRC)

Statement of Problem: Sediment and vegetation data are important at various scales to 

numerous scientists and resource managers. Past monitoring efforts have focused on expensive, 

large-scale, manual data collection aimed at small areas of the CRE. These were supplemented 

by collecting hard-copy aerial photography to help in manual interpretation. In FY2004, further 

development was made in automated processing of multi-spectral digital imagery to accurately 

map the two-dimensional distribution of fine-grained sediment deposits (sand) above 8,000 cfs 

on a canyon-wide basis. These products were derived from the system-wide digital overflight 

collected in May 2002, which offered a spatial resolution of 44 cm for the red, green and blue 

color bands, 22 cm for the panchromatic band, and a horizontal accuracy (RMSE) of 30 cm. 

Digital elevation data accompanying the imagery provided 1-meter resolution with a vertical 

accuracy (RMSE) of approximately 40 cm as measured against survey data. While these vertical 

accuracies are just outside the error range deemed acceptable to physical scientists for change 
32 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

detection, they are more than acceptable to resource managers that are concerned with canyonwide changes in sediment, vegetation and camping beaches. An FY 2005 airborne remotesensing mission to replicate these data on a system-wide scale collection provides the necessary 

inputs for determine changes to the resources in the CRE between May 2002 and May 2005. 

Efforts in FY 2006 will focus on management of these digital data and preparation for serving 

both the 2002 and 2005 imagery so that change detection analyses can be accomplished in 2007 

through 2008. The next system-wide overflight is proposed for FY 2009. 

Summary Project Description: In accordance with the DASA program’s long-term monitoring 

goals, an airborne mission to collect digital imagery for the entire CRE from Glen Canyon Dam 

down to Lake Mead was implemented in May 2005. Those data, along with the 2002 imagery 

fulfill the proposal currently offered by GCMRC to collect system-wide aerial imagery about 

every 4 years as outlined in the draft Core Monitoring Plan. The May 2005 dataset is similar to 

that collected in May 2002, using digital sensors mounted in a fixed-wing aircraft to collect data 

for both panchromatic and red, green, blue (RGB) bands in the visible spectrum as well as nearinfrared data. A Digital Surface Model (DSM) with a 1-meter pixel resolution will also be a part 

of the dataset from this mission. The DSM will be comparable to that collected in May 2002 for 

change detection in the non-vegetated, open sand areas. For purpose of review, the following is 

provided as an approximate cost for acquisition of this imagery in 2005. Additional funds are 

needed to continue supporting management of the expanding imagery dataset in the Oracle data 

base as multiple data layers are obtained through 2009 (see 2007 budget elements shown in 

budget table above). 

Breakdown of Estimated Costs for FY 2005 System-wide Overflights (including EXP) 

Year Remote Sensing Component Cost per km Kilometers Total Cost 

• Digital Multi-spectral Imagery 

• Planning Support (Davis detail) 

• LiDAR (FIST Reaches only) 

• Technical Costs & Labor 

• Data Storage (Eight Terabytes) 

• Reduced HydroRevenue (?days) 

• TOTAL PROJECT COST 

$588

$2,850

~480 

~35 

$242,500

$40,000

$100,000

$30,000

$64,000

?

$476,500

MO’s and IN’s ADDRESSED: Goal 12; CMINs: All, or most, related to mapping changes in 

terrestrial ecosystem. 
33 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

Consequences of FY06 Funding Recommendations: Owing to the fact that the FY 2005 

experimental and monitoring budget was able to support a system-wide digital overflight in 

support of the Experimental High-Flow Test for both sediment and terrestrial vegetation, the FY 

2006 budget for this project is reduced to cover only one-third of salary of the GCMRC’s 

Remote-Sensing Coordinator within the DASA. This strategy allows funds to be made available 

to support the FY 2006 (fourth year) of experimental mechanical removal of salmonids below 

Lees Ferry. 

Status/Schedule: The System-wide remote sensing mission is scheduled for May 2005 (with 

another flight proposed for 2009) with products expected to be delivered by the end of 

September 2005. During the first half of FY 2006, a quality and accuracy period will 

immediately follow the receipt of all deliverables and should take approximately one to four 

months, after which time existing automated procedures will be adapted for the newly acquired 

data and used to perform a variety of spatial analyses designed to determine changes to the 

resource over time. The remainder of FY 2006, the DASA staff will upgrade the various servers 

associated with the Oracle data base, so as to prepare for management and serving of the 2005 

imagery. Some limited analyses of the imagery, relating to the November 2004 Experimental 

High-Flow Test, will also occur during FY 2006, within the context of final analysis and 

reporting by the Fine-Grained Storage research project. 

Expected Products/Deliverables: 

• Canyon-wide, four band, multi-spectral digital imagery at 18 cm spatial resolution. 

• Canyon-wide, panchromatic digital imagery at 18 cm spatial resolution. 

• Canyon-wide, digital surface model at 1 meter spatial resolution. 

Integration: The system-wide imagery dataset will provide the necessary base information for 

all mapping and spatial analysis, and coupled with selected automated-classification techniques, 

the data will then be made available to the physical, biological and cultural resource programs as 

baseline monitoring data and information from which program assessments can be made, 

resource theses tested, and more detailed data collection efforts planned. 
34 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

Implications of Experimental vs. Non-Experimental Scenarios: None here, as there is no 

High-Flow Sediment Experimental treatment proposed. Budget consists only of partial salary 

support for the GCMRC’s Remote-Sensing Coordinator. 

Project A.5a. Science Support of All Data Storage within Grand Canyon Integrated 

(Oracle) Database Management System (DASA) – Database Administrator and DASA 

Coordinator (G. Bennett) 

FUNDING 

HISTORY Fiscal year 

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 

Outside GCMRC 

Science/Labor 100,000 251,000 18,000 15,000 32,500

Logistics Field 

Support — — — — 0

Project Related 

Training/Travel 3,000 1,000 2,000 3,000 3,000

Operations/Supplies 10,000 10,000 5,000 5,000 12,000

GCMRC Salaries 56,000 67,000 80,000 89,000 91,500

Project Subtotal — — — — 139,000

DOI Customer 

Burden (6 to 17%) — — — — 18,105

Project Total 201,000 363,000 128,000 128,000 157,105

% Total 

Outsourced 50% 69% ~14% ~12% 21%

Principal Investigators: DASA Coordinator and DBMS administrator (G. Bennett), U.S. 

Geological Survey (GCMRC) 

Statement of Problem: The need for a comprehensive database for maintaining this 

information was recognized by the National Academy of Sciences in their initial review of the 

GCES Program in 1987, and reinforced during a second review in 1990. Extensive data and 

information currently exists in the GCMRC collections relating to resource conditions, quality, 

and relationships to other resources. Potentially equal amounts of data and information exist 

within museums, universities, agencies, etc. However, much of this information has not been 

organized, managed or integrated into an analysis of the interrelationship among various 

resources and dam operations. 
35 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

Summary Project Description: The purpose of the GCMRC Database Management System 

(DBMS) is to store and deliver all tabular and spatial data, via our Spatial Data Engine (SDE), 

gathered as the result of GCMRC investigations and legacy data. Developing the DBMS requires 

inventorying, organizing, archiving, and developing delivery systems for many years worth of 

environmental data collection activities representing a vast array of disparate data including 

physical, biological, cultural, socio-economic, and climatic information. Many datasets have 

been integrated into our DBMS with additional datasets in working progress. The additional 

data yet to be included in our DBMS are organized in Microsoft Excel files, Microsoft Access 

databases, SAS, or another proprietary format. The DBMS program is currently working on 

bringing together years of disparate historical data, collected by multiple entities located in 

databases across the southwest, in an organized fashion and then deliver it transparently to 

stakeholders and researchers for decision making and modeling purposes. Delivering data in an 

automated fashion is key to the success of the DBMS. Accommodating such a task will be done 

utilizing database driven web pages and ArcIMS, a web accessible tool to allow access to our 

spatial data. These technologies can be integrated to deliver tabular and spatial data referenced 

through the Oracle relational database. 

MO’s and IN’s ADDRESSED: Besides supporting Goal 12, the DBMS indirectly assists 

GCMRC personnel and cooperators in completing the majority of other resource MO’s and IN’s. 

Consequences of FY06 Funding Recommendations: The currently proposed budget for FY 

2006 will allow the database development to continue through a combination of internal staff 

expertise and a cooperative agreement with an Oracle database expert. The Grand Canyon 

Integrated Databases is currently severely understaffed and there is a constant threat of losing the 

knowledge base necessary for basic database maintenance as well as the development of new 

procedures that will allow increased access to the database for scientists, resources managers and 

the public alike. Significant progress had been made in database accessibility during the second 

half of FY2004 and the beginning of FY2005, unfortunately, owing to a change in personnel this 

aspect of database development is likely to be reduced until the recently vacated role of database 

programmer can be filled. 
36 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

Status/Schedule: FY01-03 – DBMS development produced the following datasets: Fish 

Monitoring Data (1977 to present); Discharge unit values (1921 to present); Lake Powell water 

quality (1986 to present); Sediment transport data (1921 to present); Water temperature 

(downstream); Survey Control database. 

FY04-06 – Develop applications to interact with database, set up database outside firewall for 

external read-only access, conduct training sessions, manage (backup, recover, and tune), service 

data requests, and continue developing schemas. 

Expected Products/Deliverables: 

• Integrated DBMS (Internal read-write database and external read-only database) 

• Applications for accessing both databases 

• Documentation for backups, recoveries, DBMS daily tasks, and disaster recovery 

Implications of Experimental vs. Non-Experimental Scenarios: None here, as there is no 

High-Flow Sediment Experimental treatment proposed. 

Project A.5b. Ongoing Data Conversion & Library Operations (DASA) – DASA 

Coordinator and DASA Librarian (G. Bennett and S. Wyse), U.S. Geological Survey 

FUNDING HISTORY Fiscal year 

 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 

Outside GCMRC 

Science/Labor 0 15,249 0 17,0001

 24,0002

Logistics Field 

Support 0 0 0 0 0

Project Related 

Travel/Training — — — — 4,000

Operations/Supplies 18,000 29,000 39,000 39,000 29,250

GCMRC Salaries 47,500 32,800 40,000 43,000 88,6003

Project Subtotal — — — — 145,850

DOI Customer 

Burden (6 to 17%) — — — — 22,155

Project Total 65,500 77,049 79,000 99,000 168,005

% Total Outsourced 0% 20% 0% 17% 14% 1

Student contractor funding for 2004 funded in 2003. 

2

This figure assumes an increase in pay rate for a student contractor with a bachelor’s degree as well as additional costs 

of hiring through Northern Arizona University and other services. 

3

This figure reflects the total salary of GCMRC GIS and Database support (formerly, the Librarian), as well as 1/3 of the 

Remote-Sensing Coordinator’s salary to assist with analog-to-digital data conversion efforts. 
37 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

Principal Investigators: S. Wyse – GCMRC and E. Quinn – Student Contractor 

Statement of Problem: The scope and purpose of the library is to collect, archive and deliver 

materials that assist GCMRC in its efforts to administer long-term monitoring and research. 

Many of these materials are archival, meaning only one copy exists, and are at risk of loss or 

damage. The library program also coordinates GCMRC’s peer review process to ensure the high 

quality of the scientific information it produces. 

Summary Project Description: Library operations facilitate monitoring and research by 

providing a centralized repository for hard copy information such as books, reports, maps, 

photography, and videos. The library has undertaken a project to convert all materials in the 

library and make them accessible on the GCMRC website. Having materials available through 

the website will allow multiple users to access data concurrently from remote locations as well as 

protect one of a kind items from damage or loss. This project commenced in 2003 and will be 

completed in 2008. Independent scientific peer review at all levels of GCMRC scientific 

activities -- proposals, ongoing programs, publications, and other products -- provides a 

mechanism for ensuring the quality, credibility, and objectivity of GCMRC’s scientific activities. 

MO’s and RIN’s ADDRESSED: The library provides support to the GCMRC science programs 

and the adaptive management program and addresses all MO’s and RIN’s. 

Consequences of FY06 Funding Recommendation: The currently proposed budget for FY06 

will maintain the current level of library support. In addition, the DASA scanning project will 

proceed on schedule, with an initial pilot study conducted to ascertain the appropriate steps 

required to proceed from data conversion (scanning process) to orthorectification and 

photogrammetry towards topographic analysis (change detection for sand bar volume and area 

within a sample study reach). 

Status/Schedule: FY2006 is year 4 of the six year scanning project. All other library activities 

are ongoing. 
38 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

Expected Products/Deliverables: Specific products of the library include: 

• On-line library catalog which provides access to more than 8000 publications. 

• Catalog records of new materials. 

• Monthly update of new reports received in the library. 

• Review process for proposals and reports which includes a monthly report of the 

status of deliverables as it relates to the review process. 

• Assistance to cooperators, stakeholders, media contacts and the public by providing 

access to reports, aerial photos, maps, slides and photos in hardcopy and digital form. 

• Research in locating contemporary and legacy materials. 

• A research facility for researchers, GMCRC employees, cooperators and the public. 

• Access to 17,652 aerial photographs, 9000 digital aerial images, 8000 hardcopy 

reports, 8000 photos and slides, and 700 videos in broadcast and VHS format. In 

additional, once the library scanning project is complete, this information will be 

available in digital format from the library via digital media such as DVD and on-line 

via the World Wide Web. 

Implications of Experimental vs. Non-Experimental Scenarios: None here, as there is no 

High-Flow Sediment Experimental treatment proposed. 

Project A.6. Ongoing Support – GIS General Support for Integrated Analyses and Projects (DASA) 

GIS Lead, (T. Gushue) 

 FUNDING 

HISTORY Fiscal year 

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 

Outside GCMRC 

Science/Labor 8,000 8,000 0 0 18,200

Logistics Field 

Support — — — — 0

Project Related 

Travel/Training 0 0 0 0 5,000

Operations/Supplies 50,000 46,000 15,000 15,000 15,000

GCMRC Salaries 91,000 76,000 65,000 65,000 122,500

Project Subtotal — — — — 160,700

DOI Customer 

Burden (15%) — — — — 25,315

Project Total 149,000 130,000 80,000 80,000 186,017

% Total 

Outsourced 5% 6% 0% 0% 10%

Principal Investigator: GIS Coordinator (T. Gushue), plus one GIS term appointment. 
39 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

Statement of Problem: The traditional role of the GIS Program is inherently service-oriented, 

providing spatial database development, programming and analysis support to the science 

programs and their cooperators on both a planned and an as-needed basis. To continue 

functioning in this capacity it is imperative to factor in designated blocks of time to maintain and 

in some cases improve the level of GIS support. There is also a need for a higher level of 

support for more specific GIS application development and analysis of available spatial data. 

Integration: Analyses performed using GIS tools will allow for, and often require, the 

integration of datasets from across several scientific disciplines. An example of this would be 

using the existing shoreline habitat dataset, which is geomorphic in nature, in junction with 

terrestrial vegetation for developing a food base generation dataset. 

Summary Project Description: Work performed by GIS personnel for physical, biological and 

cultural resource projects include but are not limited to the following: Data entry and GIS 

database development, analysis of new and existing spatial data, map and graphic generation for 

field collection, presentation and publication purposes. 

Project Goals and Objectives: To provide spatial products and analysis capabilities to the 

physical, biological and cultural resource programs and their cooperators. 

MO’s and RIN’s ADDRESSED: Those associated with Goal 12 and others related to specific 

resource monitoring and research objectives for the Colorado River ecosystem. 

Consequences of FY06 Funding Recommendations: The increased level of support within 

project subcomponents are adjusted upward to cover support now provided by a cooperators 

(formerly covered by a third GIS staff member. The overall objective is provide a level of 

services similar to FY2003-04. 

Expected Products: Products derived from GIS support include maps for publications, 

generation and printing of maps and graphics for posters, creation of improved base maps for 

Lake Powell and Grand Canyon, instructional sessions for staff, cooperators and contractors on 

GIS layer development, integration and analysis, and advanced spatial analysis for monitoring 

projects. 
40 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

Recommended Approach / Methods: Standard GIS applications, plus customized 

programming developed by the DASA coordinator intended to facilitate and expedite rapid 

analysis of data collected by GCMRC science staff, cooperators and various contractors. 

Status/Schedule: Products to be delivered in FYs 2004-05. 

Support for 2004 Experimental Analysis: Standard GIS and Oracle data applications will be 

applied, as needed, to a variety of remotely sensed data sets collected in support of high-flow 

experiments designed to test various sediment-conservation hypotheses. The GIS department 

will also assist in directing data collection protocols of scientists prior to and during key 

experimental treatments and will also assist in post-processing and analysis of experimental data 

sets. 

Implications of Experimental vs. Non-Experimental Scenarios: None here, as there is no 

High-Flow Sediment Experimental treatment proposed. 

Project A.7. Completion of Channel-Mapping Project (DASA) – Remote-Sensing 

Coordinator, (F.M Gonzales) 

FUNDING HISTORY Fiscal year 

2003 2004 2005 2006 

Outside GCMRC 

Science/Labor — — — — 

—

Logistics Field 

Support — — — — 

—

Project Related 

Training/Travel — — — — —

Operations/Supplies — — — — —

GCMRC Salaries — — — 28,100 —

Project Subtotal — — — 28,100 —

DOI Customer 

Burden (17%) — — — 4,777 —

Project Total — — — 32,877 —

% Total Outsourced — — — 0% —

Summary Project Description: This project is intended to provide full channel geometry map 

coverage of the portions of the main channel between Glen Canyon Dam and Phantom Ranch. 

The FY 2006 effort is intended to complete the channel mapping work that was initially started 
41 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

in FY 2001. The remaining work mostly consists of a GIS efforts required to combine the 

terrestrial portion of the topographic data derived system-wide from the 2000 LiDAR overflight 

with the multi-beam bathymetric (aquatic) topographic data collected by the Remote-Sensing 

Coordinator. 

Project Goals and Objectives: Once completed, these combined topographic channel models 

are used to support flow and sediment model simulations aimed at prediction of physical habitat 

conditions that evolve under differing scenarios of dam releases and fine-sediment supply 

conditions. These topographic models can also be used to determine changes in sediment 

storage in the main channel when repeat mapping is conducted for similar areas in the future 

(related to either experimental research or long-term monitoring). 

Implications of Experimental vs. Non-Experimental Scenarios: None here, as there is no 

High-Flow Sediment Experimental treatment proposed. Budget consists only of partial salary 

support for the GCMRC’s Remote-Sensing Coordinator. 
42 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

B. BIOSCIENCES 

Project B.1. Ongoing Provisional Monitoring – Terrestrial Activities (KAS and SWWF) 

FUNDING 

HISTORY Fiscal year 

 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 

Outside GCMRC 

Science/Labor 10,000 30,000 21,000 22,000 35,000

Logistics Field 

Support 40,000 33,000 37,000 35,000 30,000

Project Related 

Travel/Training — — — — —

Operations/Supplies 16,000 6,000 7,000 7,000 0

GCMRC Salaries 16,000 12,000 14,000 15,000 14,215

Project Subtotal — — — — 79,215

DOI Customer 

Burden (6 to 17%) — — — — 9,617

Project Total 82,000 81,000 79,000 79,000 88,832

% Total 

Outsourced 48% 69% 64% 63% 56%

Note: In FY06 there were be no other planned terrestrial data collection under the biology program due to funding limitations 

and in accordance with funding priority directives provided by the Adaptive Management Work Group. 

Principal Investigators: Arizona Game and Fish Department, TBD, U.S. Geological Survey 

(B. Ralston). 

Statement of Problem: Kanab ambersnail and southwestern willow flycatcher (SWWF) are 

federally listed endangered species that occur with the Colorado River ecosystem. Kanab 

ambersnail is endemic to Vaseys Paradise, though a translocated population exists at Elves 

Chasm. The snail and its habitat is a unique ecosystem identified as a resource of concern by 

stakeholders. The abundance and distribution of the snail and the quality of its habitat is 

influenced by operations of Glen Canyon Dam, as well as by springs located at Vaseys Paradise. 

Monitoring of habitat area and ambersnail numbers occurs on a more detailed scale due to the 

limited nature of the habitat. Southwestern willow flycatchers utilize habitat in lower Marble 

Canyon and in western Grand Canyon. Surveys for SWWF follow standard protocols developed 

by USFWS that require surveys in May, June and July. Surveys assess presences of breeding 

pairs. 
43 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

Implications of Experimental vs. Non-Experimental Budget: Surveys for KAS will only 

occur once, in the fall in FY06. 

Monitoring of Kanab ambersnails and utilized habitat, and southwestern willow 

flycatcher breeding pairs: (1) is a compliance requirement and allows managers to assess the 

status of this endangered species (2) provides data on the effect of periodic management of 

sediment through high flows under the Record of Decision on the population dynamics and 

habitat interactions of Kanab ambersnail. 

Summary Project Description: To determine the extent of Kanab ambersnail habitat at Vaseys 

Paradise and estimate the abundance of Kanab ambersnails at Vaseys Paradise. To determine the 

presence of breeding pairs of southwestern willow flycatchers within the CRE. Specific 

objectives of the project include: 

• Provide habitat estimates and change detection of habitat of Kanab ambersnail for 

varying stage levels. 

• Provide yearly estimates of adult snails at Vaseys Paradise 

• Identify the location of breeding pairs of southwestern willow flycatchers. 

MO’s and IN’s ADDRESSED: Goal 5 and 6, MO’s 5.1, 5.2, 6.6, 6.7; CMINs 5.1.1, 5.2.1, 

6.7.1.

Status/Schedule: FY01-05 – Initiated in its current design as a monitoring effort in FY 2001 

through a cooperative agreement with AGFD. A review of methodologies could take place in 

FY06, pending availability of funds and staff time. Exploring alternative methodologies will be 

delayed under this schedule until funds are available. 

Budget Changes: Outside Science/labor: Allocation is reduced by $20,000 and KAS surveys 

are conducted once in the fall (August/September) of 2006. Logistics: logistics is reduced by 

$10,000, the cost of a trip. Training/travel related costs: reduced to zero. GCMRC salaries: 

Reduced to cover 1/7th of terrestrial biologist time. 
44 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

Expected Products/Deliverables: 

• Annual data delivery Trip reports providing area estimates of vegetation and general 

description of status of snails at Vaseys Paradise. 

• Contribution to SCORE report 

Project B.2. Continued Research and Development – Aquatic Productivity, Organic Mass 

Balance, and Food Web Linkage Studies 

FUNDING 

HISTORY Fiscal year 

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 

Outside GCMRC 

Science/Labor N/A N/A 160,000 220,000 100,000

Logistics Field 

Support N/A N/A 40,000 40,000 50,000

Project Related 

Travel/Training — — — — 5,000

Operations/Supplies N/A N/A 18,000 25,000 0

GCMRC Salaries N/A N/A 30,000 30,000 109,015

Project Subtotal — — — — 264,015

DOI Customer 

Burden (6 to 17%) — — — — 35,055

Project Total N/A N/A 248,000 315,000 299,070

% Total 

Outsourced N/A N/A ~79% ~81% 42%

Principal Investigators: Kennedy (USGS/GCMRC) and others to be determined. 

Statement of Problem: River systems are fueled by different sources of organic material that 

originate from a combination of allochthonous (organic debris from terrestrial environments) and 

autochthonus production (algae, and macrophytes). These organics serve as the fundamental 

food source and linkage between aquatic invertebrates and higher level consumers such as fish 

and waterfowl. The proportion of these organic sources and their overall quantity and quality 

varies between and within different river systems. Since the closure of Glen Canyon Dam some 

of the coarser larger organics (woody debris) supplied to the Colorado River are sequestered in 

Lake Powell. Owing to increased water clarity conditions algal production has become very 

extensive in the upper river section; however downstream periodic suspended sediment and 

organic debris supplied from tributaries causes a decline in algal production. The aquatic 
45 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

foodbase is assumed to be both derived from primary production and limited to consumers such 

as native and endangered fish. Algal production appears to support the major component of the 

foodbase in the upper river section, yet it remains uncertain whether or not algal production is as 

important, or as limiting to the downstream foodweb. The aquatic protocol evaluation panel had 

concerns with the lack of empirically established linkages between food base and fishes, and 

identified that a possible consequence of the recent increase in primary and secondary production 

may differentially benefit non-native species (competitors or predators) over native species. 

Research and the restructuring of the existing foodbase monitoring program is warranted in light 

of its importance toward meeting stakeholder objectives. 

Summary Project Description: This study will address a number of issues identified by the 

aquatic protocol evaluation panel. This project focuses on the research and development of an 

organic budget and foodweb linkage program as an organizational framework to determine 

whether or not the aquatic foodbase is limiting, and to determine what organic sources, and 

where limitations occur within the Colorado River system. This requires several approaches: 1) 

conduct in-stream metabolism and community respiration experiments; 2) quantifying organic 

and inorganic carbon flux and decompositional rates; and 3) based on findings of the organic 

mass balance research develop an effective sampling design having the appropriate sampling 

methods and frequency for assessing and quantifying organic flux (sources, pools, 

transformations and movement). Sampling will focus on research and development of alternate 

collecting devices (e.g., Hester-Dendie, drift sample collections) and alternate sample processing 

techniques during 2005–2007. Sampling will be coordinated with the fisheries and quality of 

water programs to encourage true linkages of variables collected and variables of biological 

significance in a food web framework. Request for proposals will be developed during 2005 

addressing items above for initiation during 2006. Development of long term monitoring 

protocols will proceed during 2005-2007 based on the results of research and development 

during 2005-2006. It is anticipated that a request for proposals to implement a long term 

monitoring program will be developed in 2008. 

MO’s and RIN’s ADDRESSED: Goal 1; MO’s 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5; 

Status/Schedule: Project scheduled for implementation in FY06 and to continue through FY08. 
46 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

Implications of Experimental vs. Non-Experimental Budget: Outside Science/labor: 

Allocation is reduced by $100,000 as recommended by BAHG for either budget scenario. The 

bulk of funding for FY06 is coming from FY05 obligation that is to occur in August 2005. This 

budget item will be restored to at least $200,000 in FY07 & FY08 to ensure success and 

completion of this initiative. Logistics: logistics is reduced by $35,000 in the with experiment 

scenario, this is essentially the cost of a motorized or 2 oar trips depending on equipment 

personnel needs. In the non-experimental budget scenario, logistics is restored to 85,000 levels. 

Training/travel related costs: not changed. GCMRC salaries: Includes aquatic biologist salary 

and 1/7th of terrestrial biologist time that will provide support for this cooperative effort.

Expected Products/Deliverables: 

• Contribution to SCORE report

• Publications on in-stream metabolism 

• Publications on organic and inorganic flux and decompositional processes 

• Development of an organic mass balance sampling program 

• Research, design and feasibility analysis for developing long-term monitoring 

program. 

Integration: (Linkages downstream IQWP and with fisheries) 

Project B.3. Ongoing Provisional Monitoring – Status and Trends of Downstream Fish 

Community 

FUNDING 

HISTORY Fiscal year 

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 

Outside GCMRC 

Science/Labor 469,000 570,000 596,000 546,000 550,000

Logistics Field 

Support 176,000 153,000 150,000 150,000 125,000

Project Related 

Travel/Training — — — — 5,000

Operations/Supplies 0 15,000 30,000 30,000 20,000

GCMRC Salaries 28,000 71,000 94,000 94,000 135,465

Project Subtotal — — — — 835,465

DOI Customer 

Burden (6 to 17%) — — — — 82,379

Project Total 673,000 809,000 870,000 820,000 917,844

% Total 

Outsourced 92% 88% 84% 83% 68%
47 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

Principal Investigators: Coggins, and technician, U.S. Geological Survey, (GCMRC), U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Game and Fish Department, and SWCA, Inc. 

Statement of Problem: The downstream fish community is an assemblage of native and nonnative fish that occur in the Colorado River ecosystem. This assemblage is exclusive of the trout 

fishery that is managed in Glen Canyon by the Arizona Game and Fish Department. The 

constituents include four native fish and introduced competitors/predators like rainbow trout, 

brown trout, channel catfish, carp, and other non-native forms. The status and trends of the 

fishery are regulated by biotic and abiotic mechanisms that may in turn be affected by the 

operations of Glen Canyon Dam. Monitoring basic population statistics including recruitment, 

abundance, and distribution of native and non-native fishes provide the fundamental information 

necessary to assess the status of these resources and the attainment of program goals and 

objectives. 

Summary Project Description: Since 2000, GCMRC and cooperators have been developing a 

long-term monitoring program for fishes in the CRE. To date, significant progress has been 

made toward this end such that it is now appropriate for GCMRC to formalize a long-term 

monitoring program for key non-native fishes (i.e. rainbow trout, brown trout, and common 

carp). The FY 06 funding recommendation is sufficient to maintain downstream monitoring in 

the Little Colorado River and in the mainstem for salmonids. Remaining funds will be used to 

continue development and implementation of the long-term monitoring program. 

MO’s and CMIN’s ADDRESSED: Goal 2 and 4, MO’s 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, and 4.2; CMIN’s 

1.1.1, 2.1.1, 2.4.1, 2.6.1, EIN 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3. 

Status/Schedule: This is on-going work associated with monitoring development and 

evaluation. The LCR component will undergo review in FY06. 

Implications of Experimental vs. Non-Experimental Budget: Outside Science/labor: 

Allocation is unchanged, but still remains below FY04 funding levels. Logistics: logistics is 

reduced by $5,000. In the non-experimental budget scenario, logistics is restored to 130,000 

levels. Training/travel related costs: not changed. Operations/supplies: remains unchanged for 
48 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

each budget. GCMRC salaries: Includes 100% fishery biologist salary, 50% fishery technician 

and 14% of terrestrial biologist time for agreement coordination. 

Expected Products/Deliverables: 

• Annual stock assessment reports for humpback chub and non-native fish. 

• Contribution to SCORE reports 

• Trip reports following each trip summarizing general catch effort and preliminary 

results. 

• Evaluation of alternative sampling designs that may be tested.

• Data delivery following every sampling trip. 

Integration: (Linkages downstream IQWP and with fishery life histories and ecosystem 

dynamics, distribution and abundance of fishes relative physical habitat elements) 

Project B.4. Ongoing Provisional Monitoring – Status & Trends of Lees Ferry Trout 

FUNDING HISTORY Fiscal year 

 2003 2004 2005 2006 

Outside GCMRC Science/Labor 90,000 116,000 80,000 90,000

Logistics Field Support 20,000 20,000 10,000 8,000

Project Related Travel/Training — — — —

Operations/Supplies 10,000 16,000 10,000 —

GCMRC Salaries 18,000 9,000 11,000 44,215

Project Subtotal — — — 142,215

DOI Customer Burden (6 to 17%) — — — 14,277

Project Total 138,000 161,000 111,000 156,492

% Total Outsourced 78% 83% 85% 60%

Principal Investigators: Persons, Arizona Game and Fish Department 

Statement of Problem: The Lees Ferry trout fishery refers to the tailwaters portion of the 

Colorado River ecosystem managed by Arizona Game and Fish Department. This fishery 

represents an important recreational and economic resource. This assemblage includes 

flannelmouth suckers and competitors such as carp. The status and trends of the fishery is linked 

to the phytobenthic community and to operations of Glen Canyon Dam. Community traits such 

as spawning and recruitment are influenced by the quality of substrate, water, and food. 

Competitive interactions between trout and other fish species and among trout may also account 
49 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

for population status. The relationships between operations from Glen Canyon Dam, and the 

coarse-sediment that forms the spawning substrate and the near shoreline habitat used by young 

developing trout in the Glen Canyon portion of the Colorado River ecosystem resources are a 

management concern. 

Summary Project Description: Primary method uses electrofishing as the sampling method 

over multiple nights, which occurs tri-annually. Electrofishing equipment and trained operators 

are contracted personnel through the GCMRC logistical contract. As of FY01 this monitoring 

project has used a random stratified sampling approach based on shoreline habitat characteristics 

for site selection. Nine sites are consistently sampled and linked to past monitoring efforts 

conducted since 1990. The other remaining 27 sites are randomly selected. Direct and derived 

metrics for assessing status and trends are to be reported including CPE, stock assessment, PSD 

and condition factor of fish. 

MO’s and RIN’s ADDRESSED: Goal 4 and MO 4.1; CMIN’s 4.1.1, 4.1.2, 4.1.3, 4.1.4, 4.1.5, 

4.1.7. 

Status/Schedule: Renewal for monitoring status and trends of Lees Ferry Trout are expected to 

continue in FY06. This project is one of the core monitoring projects identified in the 

provisional core monitoring plan and will undergo review in FY06. An RFP would be released 

for subsequent funding years. 

Implications of Experimental vs. Non-Experimental Budget: Outside Science/labor: 

Allocation is unchanged. Logistics: logistics is reduced by $2,000 in both scenarios. 

Training/travel related costs: reduced to zero. Supplies/operations: reduced to zero with 

equipment costs absorbed by downstream fish monitoring. GCMRC salaries: 50% of fish 

technician salary and 14% of terrestrial biologist time for agreement coordination. 

Expected Products/Deliverables: 

• Annual report of status and trends of fishery 

• Contributions to SCORE report

• Data delivery following each sampling period. 

• Trip report following each sampling period 
50 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

Integration: (Linkages downstream IQWP and with fishery life histories and ecosystem 

dynamics, distribution and abundance of fishes relative physical habitat elements) 

Formerly B.5 “Concurrent Estimates of Humpback Chub” Note: This project is deferred 

to FY07. 

Project B.5. Completion of Habitat Map & Inventory in Support of Monitoring 

FUNDING 

HISTORY Fiscal year 

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 

Outside GCMRC 

Science/Labor — — — — —

Logistics Field 

Support — — — — —

Project Related 

Travel/Training — — — — —

Operations/Supplies 

GCMRC Salaries — — — — 14,215

Project Subtotal — — — — 14,215

DOI Customer 

Burden (6 to 17%) — — — — 2,417

Project Total 70,650 88,000 — 16,632

% Total 

Outsourced 92% 88% 84% 0% 0%

Principle Investigators: B. Ralston, GCMRC/USGS, P. Davis USGS. 

Statement of Problem: This project addresses recommendations made in the terrestrial, cultural 

resource, and sediment protocol review reports. Terrestrial mapping of the Colorado River 

corridor is required for spatial monitoring of physical, biological, and cultural resources. 

Terrestrial mapping usually produces a digital terrain model (DTM) in combination with the 

XYZ position of features and artifacts. Periodic mapping of the same areas can be used for 

change detection of resources. Attributes associated with a coverage type can also be used as a 

predictive tool for monitoring and research. 

Project Summary: This project is intended to measure, record and map terrestrial habitat 

throughout the river ecosystem. These data will be related to available habitat relative to annual 
51 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

operations of Glen Canyon Dam and compared with change since 1992, and earlier years as 

permissible with existing data. Specific objectives of the project include: 

• Provide a baseline of vegetated and open terrestrial habitat that can be used for longterm, community-based change detection. 

• Το provide a vegetation map of the river corridor that uses a uniform hierarchical 

vegetation classification system that is compatible with NPS park units and AMP 

program purposes. 

• The vegetation data will be compared with historic aerial photographs to detect and 

study changes. 

MO’s Addressed: This project addresses MO’s under Goal 6 including 6.1, 6.2. 6.3., 6.4., and 

6.5. 

Status/Schedule: This project should be completed and through the review process by 

December 2005. The budget covers 14% of the terrestrial biologist’s salary to complete the 

reports and finalize the coverage. 

Implications of Experimental vs. Non-Experimental Budget: Outside Science/labor: 

Allocation is unchanged. Logistics: unchanged. Training/travel related costs: unchanged. 

Supplies/operations: unchanged. GCMRC salaries: 14% of terrestrial biologist time to complete 

project.. 

Expected Products/Deliverables: 

• Completion of vegetation coverage for GIS network. 

• Randomized sampling design for terrestrial resource survey. 

Integration: To achieve ecosystem-level scientific understanding of the relationships between 

resources of the CRE and Glen Canyon Dam operations, integration of long-term monitoring 

between physical, cultural, biological, and recreational resources is required. The inventory and 

mapping of system-wide vegetation communities provides information about changes in open 

and vegetated areas (camping beaches) and changes in the old and new high water vegetative 

communities as a whole (e.g., how have marsh community areas changed since 1992?). The 

primary goal for this project is to document compositional and area coverage changes at a reach 

based or landscape scale every 5 years to complement field based surveys that occur at a finer 

scale every year. 
52 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

Project B.6. Completion of Experimental Treatment – Spawning Redds and Suppression 

Mechanisms 

FUNDING HISTORY Fiscal year 

2003 2004 2005 2006 

Outside GCMRC 

Science/Labor — 145,000 — 100,000

Logistics Field Support — 20,000 — 30,000

Project Related 

Travel/Training — — — —

Operations/Supplies — — —

GCMRC Salaries — — — 14,215

Project Subtotal — — — 144,215

DOI Customer Burden 

(6 to 17%) — 10,000 — 13,517

Project Total — 175,000 — 157,732

% Total Outsourced — 88% 0 73%

Principal Investigators: L. Coggins, U.S. Geological Survey (GCMRC), and J. Korman, 

Ecometric Research Inc. 

Statement of Problem: Experimental flows from 2003 – 2005 targeted survival rate of young 

rainbow trout through increased daily fluctuations in flow from January through March. A study 

was conducted during this period to measure the impact of the flows on the early life stages of 

rainbow trout below Glen Canyon Dam. The study measured timing and distribution of redd 

excavation across elevations, quantified spawning habitat preferences with depth, velocity and 

substrate relative to changes in discharge, estimated trends in trout fry recruitment and survival 

in Glen Canyon, and lastly surveyed for redd and fry in the mainstem below Lees Ferry to the 

Little Colorado River confluence to evaluate natural reproduction in the mainstem. The results 

and conclusions provide testable hypotheses around these four objectives with the prospect of 

returning to previous MLFF operations. 

Project Summary: This project would follow-up on data collection initiated under 

experimental flows to determine how MLFF operations affect survival rates of young rainbow 

trout below Glen Canyon Dam. The specifics of the project are still in the development phase. 
53 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

MO’s and RINs addressed: 4.2. 

Status/schedule: This project would begin in FY06 and be completed in FY07. 

Implications of Experimental vs. Non-Experimental Budget: Outside Science/labor: 

Reduced from previous effort to $100,000 Logistics: 30,000 for downstream work support. 

Training/travel related costs: zero Supplies/operations: zero. GCMRC salaries: 14% of 

terrestrial biologist time to assist with coordination. Under the “Non-Experimental” scenario, 

this project would not be funded. 

Expected Products/Deliverables: 

Draft and final report 

 Possible peer reviewed manuscript 

Project B.7. Completion of Experimental Treatment – Mechanical Removal of Non-Native 

Fishes in the Colorado River 

 FUNDING HISTORY Fiscal year 

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 

Outside GCMRC 

Science/Labor N/A 130,000 130,000 160,000 240,000

Logistics Field 

Support N/A 375,000 375,000 375,000 418,000

Project Related 

Travel/Training N/A — — — 0

Operations/Supplies N/A 15,000 15,000 15,000 0*

GCMRC Salary N/A 66,000 66,000 36,000 44,215

Project Subtotal N/A — — — 702,215

DOI Customer 

Burden (6 to 17%) N/A — — — 92,977

Project Total N/A 586,000 586,000 586,000 795,192**

% Total Outsourced N/A 54% 54% 59% 56%

*Operations cost for the project in FY06 will be covered through the general logistics within the project. 

**Project total for mechanical removal in FY2006 is intended to reflect the actual proposed costs as determined by actual 

expenditures in FY2005. 

Principal Investigators: L. Coggins, U.S. Geological Survey (GCMRC), and B. Persons, 

Arizona Game and Fish Department. 

Statement of Problem: Trends in the abundance and recruitment of the Little Colorado River 

population of humpback chub suggest this population has been in decline for over a decade. 
54 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

Factors contributing to this decline are unknown but likely include: interaction (predation and/or 

competition) with non-native fishes, infection by non-native parasites, sub-optimal mainstem 

water temperatures, hydrological conditions in the mainstem Colorado and Little Colorado 

Rivers, and decline of near-shore rearing habitat in the mainstem Colorado River. Though it is 

unknown which factor(s) are most responsible for humpback chub mortality, it is likely that 

interactions with non-native forms are a contributing element. 

Summary Project Description: Following a recommendation from the adaptive management 

work group (AMWG), the first two years of a long-term experimental design was conducted 

during 2003-2004. This project subsequently received AMWG approval for continuation during 

2005. We anticipate that AMWG will direct GCMRC to continue this project for four years as 

originally proposed and therefore include it in the 2006 work plan. However, we reiterate the 

need for this work to accompany implementation of other experimental factors (i.e. Dam 

Operations and Temperature Modification) in a long-term experimental block design in order to 

understand the affects of several factors likely to influence humpback chub recruitment. This 

project addresses one element of that experiment and is designed to provide a better 

understanding of the interactions between humpback chub and non-native fishes. Additionally, 

this project addresses the feasibility of non-native fish control in a large segment of the mainstem 

Colorado River utilizing electrofishing as a method for mechanical removal. During FY-05, the 

field work component of this project is being conducted through a cooperative agreement with 

the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD). Contingent on AMWG approval, the 

cooperative agreement with AGFD will be continued to complete fieldwork in FY-06. A 

complete study plan is available upon request. 

MO’s and RIN’s ADDRESSED: Goals 2 and 4, MO’s 2.1, 2.4, and 4.2. 

Status/Schedule: First and second-year field efforts completed. Draft report covering three year 

efforts in preparation. Planning for subsequent final year is underway. 

Implications of Experimental vs. Non-Experimental Budget: Outside Science/labor: 

Allocation is increased to meet true costs of project. Logistics: increased to meet true costs of 

project. Training/travel related costs: unchanged. Supplies/operations: absorbed by 

downstream fish project. GCMRC salaries: Student aide position to assist with trip prep/repair, 
55 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

14% of terrestrial biologist time to assist with agreement coordination. Under the “NonExperimental” scenario, this project would end in FY 2005. 

Expected Products/Deliverables: 

• Biannual oral reports on project status to the AMWG. 

• Interim report in 2005 

• Final reports and publications in 2007. 

Experimental Component: (Mechanical removal of trout in the main channel during FY02 

through FY06) 

Integration: (Linkages between recruitment of Humpback chub and abundance and distribution 

of salmonids in the Marble and eastern Grand Canyon reaches) 

Project B.8. Ongoing Humpback Chub Action – Translocation of Humpback Chub 

 FUNDING 

HISTORY Fiscal year 

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 

Outsourced 

Science/Labor N/A 10,000 10,000 46,000 45,000

Logistics N/A 15,000 15,000 0 5,000

Operations N/A 0 0 0 0

Salary N/A 0 0 0 0

Project Subtotal N/A — — 47170 50,000

DOI Customer 

Burden (6 to 

17%) N/A — — 2830 3,550

Project Total N/A 25,000 25,000 50,000 53,550

% total 

outsourced N/A ~70% ~70% ~94% 100%

Principal Investigators: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 

Statement of Problem: As identified by the AMWG ad hoc committee on humpback chub and 

the December 2002 USFWS Biological Opinion, the first phase of this project is aimed at 

increasing the survival and expanding the geographic range of humpback chub in the LCR. The 

first phase of this effort will be completed by the delivery of a report in December 2005. With 

the existence of these additional fish above established monitoring sites for the LCR comes the 
56 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

issue of adding these fish to the monitoring efforts and how much this additional effort will 

affect monitoring budgets and overall program budgets. The second phase addresses identifying 

other tributaries where translocation of humpback chub and other native fishes would be 

appropriate. The identification of other tributaries, development of an appropriate translocation 

plan, monitoring and funding source for this effort would be included in this phase. This effort 

would be coordinated with the National Park Service. 

Summary Project Description: Phase 1 initiated in 2003 by USFWS with translocation of 

juvenile humpback chub to the upper reaches of the perennial flowing LCR with follow-up 

monitoring. Funds for this work include continued data collection at the translocation site in the 

LCR and time for additional translocation events, if appropriate. If phase 2 of this project is to 

proceed, we recommend preparing an RFP for initiation in 2007. Award of project funding will 

be contingent on rigorous scientific review of project proposal. 

MO’s and RIN’s ADDRESSED: MO 2.1 and 2.6 

Status/Schedule: This project will be completed in December 2005 with the delivery of a final 

report. 

Implications of Experimental vs. Non-Experimental Budget: Outside Science/labor: 

Allocation is increased to cover monitoring and translocation. Logistics:unchanged. 

Training/travel related costs: zero. Supplies/operations: zero. GCMRC salaries: zero. 

Expected Products/Deliverables: 

• Annual and final reports. 
57 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

Project B.9. Completion of Humpback Chub Action – Dam Operations Experiment 

 FUNDING HISTORY Fiscal year 

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 

Outside GCMRC 

Science/Labor N/A N/A 20,000 20,000 15,000

Logistics Field 

Support N/A N/A --- --- ---

Project Related 

Travel/Training N/A N/A 27,000 36,000 10,000

Operations/Supplies N/A N/A --- --- ---

GCMRC Salary N/A N/A --- --- ---

Project Subtotal N/A N/A — — 25,000

DOI Customer 

Burden (6 to 17%) N/A N/A 3,000 3,000 2,600

Project Total N/A N/A 50,000 50,000 27,600

% Total Outsourced N/A N/A 54% 59% 90%

Principal Investigators: U.S. Geological Survey (GCMRC), stakeholders, science cooperators 

Statement of Problem: The Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program is charged with 

implementing experiments to better understand the linkages between operation of Glen Canyon 

Dam and other experimental manipulations and resources for which management goals and 

objectives have been established. Experimental planning is a crucial element in this process. 

With the approval of the 2003-2004 recommended experimental treatments, the GCDAMP has 

begun long-term experimental planning. However, adequate time and resources must be made 

available to continue this process. 

Summary Project Description: We propose to use the funds identified in this project to 

continue the planning process for experimentation during 2006. This will be accomplished in 

part by convening a workshop for GCDAMP participants in the fall and spring of 2005/2006. 

This workshop will utilize the multi-attribute trade off analysis begun earlier this year. Expected 

results of the workshop will include recommendations for future year experiments. This project 

will also fund additional GCMRC staff to develop RFP’s associated with GCMRC sponsored 

activities related to core monitoring, experimental treatments, new research initiatives, and 

AMWG ad hoc humpback chub committee recommendations. 

MO’s and RIN’s ADDRESSED: Goal 2 and MO 2.1 - 2.5 
58 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

Status/Schedule: Yet to be determined.

Implications of Experimental vs. Non-Experimental Budget: Outside Science/labor: 

Allocation is decreased to $15,000 Logistics: zero. Training/travel related costs: changed to 

$10,000 to cover travel associated with planning. Supplies/operations: zero. GCMRC salaries: 

zero. 

Expected Products/Deliverables: 

• Long term experimental plan 

Experimental Component: (supports long-term experimental planning and Multi-Attribute 

Trade-off and Risk Assessments (MATA workshops and other related experimental planning 

activities) 

Project B.10. Completion of Humpback Chub Action – Monitoring Fish Disease and 

Parasites in the Colorado River Ecosystem 

FUNDING 

HISTORY Fiscal year 

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 

Outsourced 

Science/Labor N/A N/A 50,000 55,000 0

Logistics N/A N/A 0 0 20,000

Operations N/A N/A 0 0 0

Salary N/A N/A 0 0 0

Project Subtotal N/A N/A 42,500 51,700 20,000

DOI Customer 

Burden (6 to 

17%) N/A N/A 7,500 3,300 3,400

Project Total N/A N/A 50,000 55,000 23,400

% total 

outsourced N/A N/A ~88% ~94% ~43%

Principal Investigators: R. Cole, U.S.G.S and B. Persons, Arizona Game and Fish Dept. 

Statement of Problem: With the advent of increased river warming as reservoir water levels 

fall and particularly with the operation of a temperature control devise, increased fish disease and 

parasitism may occur. As potential disease could represent a significant mortality threat to fishes 
59 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

within the CRE, it is important not only to monitor the future incidence of parasitism and 

disease, but to document a baseline condition before initiation of TCD. 

Summary Project Description: A survey of the parasites of fish of the Colorado River and 

selected tributaries will be conducted over an 18-20 day period in June-July 2006. Fish will be 

collected by AZGD fish biologists using a combination of electroshocking (boat and backpack), 

seining, minnow trapping, trammel netting and hoop netting. Fish will be collected by AZGD 

fish biologists and necropsied by parasitologists from the National Wildlife Health Center 

(NWHC), Madison WI on site. Approximately 10-15 fish of each species will be necropsied at 

each collection point. Parasite samples collected will be preserved and transported back to the 

NWHC for identification and enumeration. Aquatic invertebrate samples at each sample site will 

be collected to assess the ability of intermediate hosts to spread into the mainstem as water 

temperature increases. We will especially monitor the presence/absence of the New Zealand 

mudsnail Potamopyrgus antipodarum (Gray). After the initial survey, the investigators will 

design a program to monitor changes in the parasite community over time. It is estimated that a 

field survey trip of smaller magnitude would be encouraged every 5-7 years. 

MO’s and RIN’s ADDRESSED: Goal 2: M.O. 2.5 

Status/Schedule: This project will begins in late FY05 and ends in FY07. 

Implications of Experimental vs. Non-Experimental Budget: Outside Science/labor: Project 

was funded in FY05. Logistics: 20,000 to support project trip. Training/travel related costs: 

zero. Supplies/operations: zero. GCMRC salaries: zero. 

Expected Products/Deliverables: 

• Annual and Final Reports 

• Monitoring recommendations 

Experimental Component: (Related to implementation and testing the TCD proposed for Glen 

Canyon Dam) 

Integration: (Downstream elements of the IQWP, such as temperature and relationship to 

pathogens and parasites in the main channel – influence on fisheries and food base) 
60 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

Project B.11. Completion of Humpback Chub Action – Temperature Control Device 

FUNDING 

HISTORY Fiscal year 

2001 2002 2004 2005 2006 

Outsourced 

Science/Labor N/A N/A 105,000 104,187 188,680

Logistics N/A N/A 20,000 13,000 —

Operations N/A N/A 25,000 43,080 —

Salary N/A N/A 50,000 16,430 —

Project Subtotal N/A N/A 176,679 188,680

DOI Customer 

Burden (6%) N/A N/A 17,772 11,320

Project Total N/A N/A 200,000 194,451 200,000

% total 

outsourced N/A N/A ~60% ~90% 100%

Principal Investigators: To be determined 

Statement of Problem: A possible benefit to elevated release temperatures from Glen Canyon 

Dam associated with a temperature control device is an increase in mainstem and nearshore 

water temperature. These nearshore environments can serve as rearing habitat utilized by native 

fishes. In addition to monitoring water temperature, it may also be important to monitor use of 

these potential rearing habitats by native and non-native fishes. 

Summary Project Description: The BuRec allocated $200,000 per year in FY 2004 and FY 

2005 and possibly in FY 2006 to complete final compliance for the TCD as well as support 

baseline monitoring of nearshore habitats prior to implementation of the TCD. We recommend 

that whatever portion of these funds that are available following compliance be used to fund a 

project to monitor key nearshore habitats near the Little Colorado River for both warming and 

fish utilization. The BuRec has oversight on the funds and their allocation. 

Implications of Experimental vs. Non-Experimental Budget: Outside Science/labor: 186,000 

subject to appropriated funds being available. Logistics: undermined. Training/travel related 

costs: N/A. Supplies/operations: undetermined. GCMRC salaries: undetermined.
61 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

C. CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Project C.1. Ongoing Provisional Monitoring of Integrated Archaeological Sites

 FUNDING 

HISTORY Fiscal year 

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 

Outside GCMRC 

Science/Labor — — 17,500 234,420 —

Logistics Field 

Support — — 15,000 70,000 —

Project Related 

Travel/Training — — — — — 

Operations/Supplies — — — 5,000 —

GCMRC Salaries — — 7,500 32,450 —

Project Subtotal — — 40,000 341,870 —

DOI Customer 

Burden (6 to 17%) — — — 32,331 —

Project Total — — — 374,201 —

% Total 

Outsourced — — 63% 72% ?%

Principal Investigators: TBD 

Statement of Problem: Cultural resources (composed of National Register eligible 

archaeological sites, cultural landscapes, and places of traditional significance, plus biotic and 

mineral resources of cultural importance to Native American tribes) are influenced by dam 

operations and are also affected by physical processes unrelated to dam operations, including 

visitor activities. Specifically, dam operations directly affect cultural resources through 

inundation and other stream flow processes. Dam operations also affect these resources 

indirectly and cumulatively through constraining and managing flows in a manner that prohibits 

retention of sediment within the channel and adjacent sand bars and by limiting regenerative 

disturbance processes within the riparian ecosystem. Dam operations control sediment inputs 

and determine the amount, grain sizes, and elevations of fine-grained sediment deposits, which in 

turn form the matrix and cover of many archaeological sites in the river corridor. Damcontrolled flows also determine the availability and location of low elevation sand bars, which 

provide a potential source of sediment for transportation by wind to higher elevation terraces, 

where most cultural resources occur. 
62 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

Monitoring of archaeological sites by NPS archaeologists has been ongoing in the river 

corridor since the late 1970s. Until the 1990s, the NPS monitoring program focused almost 

exclusively on visitor impacts to archaeological resources. In 1992, intensive monitoring of 

cultural resources to determine effects of dam operations began. Monitoring since 1992 has been 

conducted under the Programmatic Agreement for Cultural Resources. Although these past 12 

years of monitoring have documented ongoing erosion of archaeological sites, as well as 

continuing impacts from visitation, the data have not been collected in a manner that allows 

amounts, rates and trends of erosion (or visitor impacts) to be tracked and quantified, nor does it 

allow for the effects of dam-related vs. non-dam-related erosion to be distinguished in a 

meaningful manner. Monitoring of diverse kinds of cultural resources (archaeological sites, 

plants, mineral resources) has also been conducted by individual Native American tribes using a 

variety of field methods. 

In 2000, a Protocol Evaluation Panel reviewed the entire cultural program and 

recommended that the PA monitoring program be redesigned and “reoriented to contribute 

information to: 1) prioritize historic properties for treatment decisions, and 2) evaluate the 

effectiveness of treatment options” (Doelle, 2000:8). The panel also recommended that in the 

future “monitoring should be used in a much more focused manner to document progressive 

erosion at sites where preservation actions have not been implemented, to assess the 

effectiveness of particular protection measures, and to ensure that effects of visitor activities 

remain below a threshold that causes long-term damage” (Doelle, 2000:8). Specific monitoring 

protocols were not recommended by the PEP. Although the National Park Service instituted 

some minor changes to their previous monitoring approach as a result of these recommendations, 

the fundamental issues that prompted the PEP to make these recommendations remain to be 

addressed. 

 

Summary Project Description: This project will implement new monitoring protocols to 

quantify the amount and extent of erosion and other types of geomorphic and visitor impacts at a 

variety of cultural resource sites. This integrated site monitoring program will also assess 

interactions between dam operations, non-fluvial physical processes, and human activities in 

causing or accelerating erosional impacts to cultural resources by directly measuring amounts 

and rates of geomorphic change at a random sample of sites. Detailed monitoring of geomorphic 
63 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

variables will occur at approximately 40 sites every year, in conjunction with more generalized 

condition monitoring that will occur at approximately 60 sites per year. 

In FY05, GCMRC will host a PEP that will focus specifically on refining monitoring 

protocols for archaeological sites. National experts in geomorphology, statistical sampling, and 

cultural resource integrity evaluation will be brought in to review the current program and 

recommended revisions based on the monitoring objectives defined by the cultural program 

(stakeholders and GCMRC scientists) as a whole. In FY06, a four year pilot program will be 

implemented. After the fourth year (2009), the initial results will be reassessed to ensure that the 

selected approaches are providing the requisite quality and quantity of data necessary to detect 

meaningful changes within a reasonable time frame. 

The proposed long term core monitoring program for archaeological sites will be 

composed of several interrelated components: 1) archaeological site condition monitoring 

(approximately 60 sites per year), 2) intensive monitoring of a randomly selected site sample to 

detect and quantify rates and trends of geomorphic change and to relate these changes to systemwide processes (approximately 40 sites per year), and 3) weather monitoring. (Although closely 

related to the archaeological site monitoring effort, tribal values monitoring is discussed below 

under a separate project statement and budget.) 

The first two components of this integrated cultural monitoring program are described 

below as a single project description. The weather monitoring and tribal values monitoring 

components are included under separate project descriptions, although all components are 

interrelated and will ultimately comprise a single, integrated program. 

Component 1: Site Condition Monitoring: This component involves completing visual 

assessments of site impacts and overall condition for approximately 60 sites per year. Over a 

four year period, a total of approximately 240 sites will be monitored. These sites have 

previously been identified as being potentially affected by dam operations. We will reassess the 

geomorphic context of each site during the first four year cycle of monitoring and eliminate sites 

that have no potential for future impacts due to dam operations (e.g., rock art sites on high cliff 

faces, sites situated in rockshelters above the prehistoric flood plain). The remaining sites will 

be divided into three to four groups of 60-70 sites each, and every site in each group will be 

monitored on an even schedule (approximately once every 3-4 years, depending on the total 
64 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

number of sites remaining in the pool.) Condition and impact information will be recorded 

according to a standardized format, and the results tabulated to produce an overall site condition 

index rating that can be objectively compared from one monitoring episode to the next. The 

recording format will build on the previous NPS monitoring protocols but will incorporate new 

variables, eliminate redundant variables, and incorporate some new recording methods as 

dictated by the PEP review. This monitoring component will require to two river trips per year. 

Component 2: The second component of the integrated archaeological site monitoring program 

is explicitly structured to quantify amounts and rates of erosion occurring at archaeological sites 

in a system-wide sense and establish the nature and extent of linkages between dam operations 

and archaeological site conditions. Monitoring of a stratified random sample of cultural 

resources will provide measured data on: (1) rates and amounts of change in the physical 

conditions of cultural resources; (2) cause-and effect linkages between dam operations and 

natural physical processes in the ongoing erosion of archaeological sites and other cultural 

resources; (3) information on system-wide influences of flow regulation on archaeological 

resources, with specific respect to long-term stability of high elevation fluvially-derived 

sedimentary deposits. 

These objectives will be attained through selecting a stratified random sample of 

approximately 40 sites from the total population of sites included in Component 1. The site 

population will be stratified by a constellation of geomorphic attributes, using the Thompson and 

Potochnik model (or some other scheme recommended by the PEP) as the basis for stratification. 

Stratification ensures that the sample of monitored sites covers a broad range of geomorphic 

settings within the CRE, while randomization ensures that sites will not be pre-selected on the 

basis of assumed rates/amounts of ongoing erosion. This sample of sites will be subject to 

repeat mapping, using state-of-art mapping technologies tied to geo-referenced controls. 

Measurements will be geared towards tracking geomorphic changes through time in order to 

determine trends in resource status. Specific monitored attributes will include volumetric 

(topographic) change, nickpoint migration, channel thalweg evolution/incision, and channel 

cross section widening. The mapping component of the long-term monitoring program will 

require an additional two trips per year, focused exclusively on repeat mapping of the sample 

sites. 
65 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

Component 3: Linking observed changes in resource condition to dam operations and other 

geomorphic drivers in the system requires that observed changes in resource condition be 

assessed in relation both to ongoing dam operations, as well as regional climatic processes and 

localized weather events. The current monitoring program documents evidence of active and 

inactive site erosion, but has no way of evaluating those data in a meaningful context. Without a 

weather context with which to evaluate this information, the data remain uninterruptible. 

The proposed weather monitoring component of this project--although presented as a 

separate monitoring program with broad applications to diverse resources within the CRE—will 

be integral to the success of a long term intensive monitoring effort for cultural resources, as it 

will allow us to begin to establish the various cause-and-effect relationships between dam 

operations, weather events, and observed changes in physical conditions at individual 

archaeological sites. (At the present time, weather monitoring is NOT included in the FY06 

budget.) 

MO’s and IN’s ADDRESSED: Goal 11, MO 11.1; CMINs 11.1.1, 11.1.2, 11.1.3a, 11.1.4 and 

11.2.1 (also RINs 11.2.2 and 11.2.4). 

Consequences of FY05 - 06 Funding Recommendations: FY06 will be the first full year of 

what will be the long term core monitoring program for cultural resources focused on addressing 

the mandates of the Grand Canyon Protection Act, as well as meeting the needs for cultural 

resource monitoring under NHPA. Field implementation in FY06 will be preceded by a cultural 

monitoring PEP during FY05. 

At the present time, the weather monitoring component is not included in the FY06 

budget. The lack of local weather data will preclude our ability to determine cause-and-effect 

relationships between local weather events, observed erosion at archaeological sites, and dam 

operations. However, we will still be able to gather measurements on rates and amounts of 

erosion, which will constitute a significant improvement in the overall scientific quality of the 

cultural program data. 

During FY’s 2007-2009, this core monitoring effort will continue. After FY09, the 

program will be re-evaluated and refined, if necessary. 
66 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

Status/Schedule: FY05 – Convene review committee to develop and refine specific protocols 

for quantitatively monitoring changes in the condition of cultural resources and linking observed 

changes to dam operations. FY06 – 09 pilot the protocols and reassess their effectiveness for 

detecting change. Refine protocols as necessary. 

Expected Products/Deliverables: 

• Map products including detailed topographic maps, longitudinal survey profiles of 

gully thalwegs, measured channel cross sections, and accompanying technical reports 

• Annual reports, documenting changes in the condition of monitored resources 

• Digital files of all maps, photographs, and raw monitoring data resulting from the 

field effort, plus all analyzed data sets. 

• SCORE report and peer-reviewed journal articles documenting influences of dam 

releases on the status and long-term condition trends of cultural resources in the 

Colorado River ecosystem. 

Implications of Experimental vs. Non-Experimental Budget: None. 

Project C.2. Initiate Research and Development of Integrated Tribal Values Monitoring 

[THE FOLLOWING BUDGET TABLE HAS BEEN UPDATED AND A REVISED 

PROJECT DESCRIPTION FOR THE FOLLOWING PROJECT – TO BE PROVIDED 

BY THE SOCIOCULTURAL PROGRAM MANGER (H. Fairley) AS HANDOUT 

INSERT AT THE JUNE 21, 2005 TWG MEETING. THE PROGRAM MANAGER 

WILL PROVIDE A SHORT BRIEFING AT THE MEETING ON THE PROPOSED 

WORK TO BE CONDUCTED IN FY 2006.] 

 FUNDING 

HISTORY Fiscal year 

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 

Outside GCMRC 

Science/labor — — — 50,000 —

Logistics Field 

Support — — — — —

Project Related 

Travel/Training — — — — —

Operations/Supplies — — — — —

GCMRC Salary 

(student intern) — — — 25,000 —

Project Subtotal — — — 75,000 —

DOI Customer 

Burden (6 to 17%) — — — 7,250 —

Project Total — — — 82,250 —

% Total 

Outsourced — — — 61% —
67 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

Principal Investigators: TBD

Statement of Problem: The five tribal groups participating in the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive 

Management Program have cultural traditions associated with Grand Canyon that extend back 

many hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of years. Many of the same resources are valued by 

multiple tribes for different reasons. Resources valued by the tribes include many of the same 

prehistoric and historic sites that are also valued by the National Park Service and the general 

public for their informational and potential interpretive values. In addition to archaeological 

sites, the tribes place value on a number of specific locations (geologic landmarks, springs, 

shrines) in the CRE that they identify as being important to their traditional cultures. Many of 

the sites and landmarks qualify as traditional cultural properties under the National Historic 

Preservation Act, although formal determinations of eligibility have not been completed. Other 

resources valued by the tribes included a broad suite of plants and animals (particularly those 

found in proximity to archaeological site and TCP areas) and minerals. Numerous native plant 

and animal species in the CRE have been identified by the Southern Paiute, Navajo, Hualapai 

and Hopi people as having significant cultural value because they were traditionally or are 

currently used in ceremonies, as medicines, and in daily living. (Jackson, 1993; Lomaomvaya, 

1999; Southern Paiute Consortium and Bureau of Applied Research, 1997). Above and beyond 

these individual resources, however, the Tribes value Grand Canyon as a whole for its uniquely 

important role in their traditional histories and spiritual lives. 

Since the mid 1990s, three of the five tribal entities participating in the GCD-AMP 

(Southern Paiute Consortium, Hualapai, and Hopi) have monitored some of their traditionallyvalued resources at selected locations in the river corridor in conjunction with annual tribal river 

trips funded by the DOI agencies through the GCD-AMP. Like the current historic property 

monitoring program, the purpose and rationale behind most of the current tribal monitoring 

programs has not been made explicit. Methods are highly variable between the various 

programs, and the data being gathered and reported are not always clearly tied to the needs of the 

GCD-AMP for information on the effects of dam operations. 

Systematic monitoring of register-eligible TCPs is currently hampered by the lack of a 

formal inventory and evaluation of tribal TCPs within the CRE. Because TCPs are highly 

variable in nature, ranging from unmodified natural landmarks to humanly crafted structures and 
68 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

from very small areas to extensive expanses of terrain, it is necessary to identify the TCPs and 

their values, at least in a general sense, in order to devise appropriate monitoring strategies. The 

identification and evaluation of TCPs must be carried out by the community that values these 

resources, as the resource values are in many cases, tribally (culturally) specific. Many Native 

American communities are reluctant to identify TCPs for fear that these places will be co-opted 

or desecrated by ignorant or insensitive people. It is nevertheless necessary to identify TCP 

values in a general sense in order to ensure that monitoring and management approaches are 

relevant and sensitive to the particular resources of concern.

In 2001, GCMRC attempted to engage the Tribes in the development of a long-term 

terrestrial ecosystem monitoring program (TEM) to incorporate tribal needs for information 

about non-Register eligible plant and animal resources of cultural importance. This attempt met 

with only limited success. Although representatives from Southern Paiute, Hualapai, and Hopi 

attended most of the TEM meetings, and representatives from Hopi and the Kaibab Band 

participated on TEM river trips, only the Hopi Tribe provided specific input to GCMRC about 

how current data collection strategies could be modified or supplemented to meet their specific 

needs for information. Hualapai and Southern Paiute representatives indicated that their needs 

could be met through the TEM program as currently designed, because the resources of interest 

to them are tied to specific locations in the river corridor, while the TEM program relies on a 

randomly selected sample of study sites, none of which overlap with their specific locations of 

interest. 

Regardless of the final TCP inventory and evaluation results, future monitoring of 

tribally-valued resources needs to be explicitly linked to the goals of GCPA and the needs of the 

GCD-AMP for current information on the status of resources relative to dam operations. 

Currently, three of five tribal entities engaged in the GCD-AMP are conducting monitoring 

programs of one kind or another in the CRE. Most of these programs monitor one or more 

tribally-identified TCPs, plus archaeological sites, and plant and mineral resources. The 

upcoming (FY05) Traditional Values and Science Integration workshop will assist the tribes in 

refining their current monitoring programs in spring FY05 to articulate with the needs of the 

GCD-AMP for tribal feedback on resource conditions. GCMRC will work with the tribes to 

provide guidance on implementing the workshop results and modifying current protocols as 

necessary to meet the specific needs of the GCD-AMP.
69 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

Management Objectives Associated with Cultural Resources

MO # Objective

11.1 Preserve historic properties in the area of potential effect via protection, 

management, and/or treatment (e.g. data recovery) for the purpose of federal agency 

compliance with NHPA and GCD-AMP compliance with GCPA. 

11.2 Preserve resource integrity and cultural values of traditionally important resources 

within the Colorado River Ecosystem.

11. 3 Protect and maintain physical access to traditional cultural resources through 

meaningful consultation on GCD-AMP activities that might restrict or block 

physical access by Native American religious and traditional practitioners.

CMIN # Question

11.1.1 Determine the status of historic properties under Record of Decision operations. 

(11.1.1a Determine periodically whether the essential physical features are visible 

enough to convey their integrity or retain their information potential)

11.1.3 What are the thresholds for impacts that threaten the integrity and eligibility of 

historic properties? (11.1.3a Are the current monitoring programs collecting the 

necessary information to assess resource integrity?)

11.1.4 How effective is monitoring, and what are the appropriate strategies to capture 

change at an archaeological site – qualitative, quantitative?

11.2.1 Are the traditionally important resources and locations for each tribe and other 

groups being affected?

Proposed Program: Tribal monitoring protocols for traditionally valued resources will be 

developed through the upcoming Traditional Values and Western Science Integration workshop. 

The tribes will work with research collaborators from Northern Arizona University to assess 

their current programs in terms of their relevance to GCPA and the GCD-AMP goals as well 

meeting tribal information needs, and to ensure that they address the CMINs identified in the 

GCD-AMP strategic plan. Tribes will be asked to articulate rationales for using specific 

approaches and methodologies, as well as generic values of resources that they consider 

important to monitor and preserve. For example, if a tribe is concerned with preserving native 

plant diversity at certain culturally important locations in the river corridor, a monitoring strategy 

that is specifically designed to measure and track the proportion of native vs. non-native plants at 

those locations needs to be developed. On the other hand, if a tribe is concerned with tracking 

the abundance of a specific plant or animal species on a system-wide basis, then a different 

monitoring approach is required. The first step is for the tribes to define the values of interest to 
70 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

them and articulate the specific parameters that must be monitored in order to determine whether 

those values are being retained, degraded, or enhanced under current dam operations.

Tribal monitoring programs will be piloted in FY06. To the extent possible, field-based 

tribal monitoring efforts will be integrated with ongoing archaeological site monitoring trips to 

reduce overall trip numbers while improving communication and integration of cultural 

monitoring activities across program boundaries. Integration of tribal monitoring activities with 

archaeological site monitoring makes good sense, both economically and programmatically, 

because the tribes are interested in monitoring many of the same locations that are currently 

monitored by NPS archaeologists, although they do not necessarily want to monitor the same 

attributes at these locations. By combining field efforts, we hope that the amount of human 

(monitoring-related) impact to fragile archaeological areas can be minimized and communication 

and exchange of ideas across internal cultural program boundaries improved. The tribes will 

continue to receive funding for at least one river trip per year, during which time they can 

monitor particularly sensitive locations independently and consult with tribal elders in private.

Project C.3. Initiate Research and Development of Integrated Campsite monitoring 

Program 

[THE FOLLOWING BUDGET TABLE HAS BEEN UPDATED AND A REVISED 

PROJECT DESCRIPTION FOR THE FOLLOWING PROJECT – TO BE PROVIDED 

BY THE SOCIOCULTURAL PROGRAM MANGER (H. Fairley) AS HANDOUT 

INSERT AT THE JUNE 21, 2005 TWG MEETING. THE PROGRAM MANAGER 

WILL PROVIDE A SHORT BRIEFING AT THE MEETING ON THE PROPOSED 

WORK TO BE CONDUCTED IN FY 2006.] 

 FUNDING 

HISTORY Fiscal year 

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 

Outside GCMRC 

Science/Labor — — — — 50,000 — 

Logistics Field 

Support & MPS ———— 15,000 —

Project Related 

Travel/Training — — — — 0 —

Operations/Supplies ———— 6,000 —

GCMRC Salaries — — — — 7,450 —

Project Subtotal — — — — 78,450 —

 DOI Customer 

Burden (6 to 17%) — — — — 7,837 —
71 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

Project Total ———— 86,287 —

% Total Outsourced — — — — 67% ?% 

Principal Investigators: TBD

Statement of Problem: Campable areas in the CRE are diminishing in size, quality and overall 

number under current dam operations (Kaplinski et al., 2003; NPS, 2005.) In the early 1980s, 

growing public concern over diminishing size and quality of camping opportunities in the CRE 

and the impact of proposed changes in dam operations on “camping beaches” was one of the 

critical issues that prompted the Bureau of Reclamation to initiate the Glen Canyon 

Environmental Studies program.

The loss of campable area in the CRE impacts visitor use values in a variety of ways. 

The number, size classes, and distribution of campsites are critical for maintaining the types and 

quality of recreational opportunities consistent with National Park Management objectives (NPS, 

2004). These three critical factors--number, size, and distribution--constrain the upper limits of 

the Colorado River corridor’s visitor carrying capacity (NPS, 2005). A diminishing quantity and 

range of camping opportunities negatively impacts visitor experience through increasing 

crowding, increasing numbers of contacts between groups, and increasing human use-related 

impacts (an end result of large numbers and large groups of recreational users being forced to 

camp in increasingly smaller areas.) Moreover, some specifically-valued campsite qualities 

such as amount and spatial distribution of open sand area, boat mooring attributes, and 

availability of shade (Stewart et al., 2000) are directly influenced by dam operations. 

Repeat surveys of a non-random sample of camping areas in the CRE shows a continual 

downward trend in campsite area (Kaplinski et al., 2004.) As sand bars continue to decline in 

size, elevation, and distribution, recreational users “pioneer” new camps in the old high water 

zone. Visitors also “pioneer” new camps in the New High Water zone by deliberating breaking 

or cutting back vegetation or by modifying the landscape in other ways. These impacts are 

contrary to the Grand Canyon National Park’s long-term management objectives for the 

Colorado River corridor. 

The relationship between operations of Glen Canyon Dam and camping opportunities in 

the river corridor has been studied over the course of the last three decades, using a variety of 

assumptions and approaches (Borden, 1976; Brian and Thomas, 1984; Brown and Hahn-O’Neill, 
72 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

1987; Kearsley and Warren, 1993; Kearsley et al., 1994, 1995, 1994; Shelby et al., 1976, 1992; 

Stewart et al., 2000; Kaplinski et al., 2004; see also Behan, 2000 and Kaplinski et al., 2003 for a 

summary of past recreation monitoring and research approaches pertaining to the Colorado River 

in Grand Canyon.) Recent monitoring shows that sand bar camp size and opportunities have 

decreased through time as sediment has been removed from the system by dam operations 

(Kaplinski et al., 2004). 

Decreases in total amount of campable area are also due to vegetation encroachment 

(Kaplinski et al., 2004.) The lack of periodic scouring floods under current dam operations has 

allowed vegetation to become established on many formerly open sand areas. Vegetation 

encroachment is believed to be an important factor contributing to the reduction in size and 

abundance of campable areas in the CRE, yet actual rates and amount of campsite loss due to 

vegetation encroachment remain unmeasured and unknown (Kaplinski et al., 2003, 2004). 

The National Park Service currently monitors approximately 100 campsites for visitor 

related impacts such as social trailing, vegetation damage, fire scars and litter. NPS recently 

initiated a new pilot campsite impact monitoring program to meet Park-specific management 

needs related to the Colorado River Recreation Management planning process. The current NPS 

recreation monitoring programs are primarily concerned with tracking human impacts at 

campsites, rather than focusing on physical changes linked to dam operations. The current NPS 

monitoring program will continue into the foreseeable future as a separate but complementary 

program to the one presented here. The GCD-AMP currently does not have a well conceived, 

integrated cGCD-AMPsite monitoring program that is fully responsive to stakeholder needs. 

Despite more than 30 years of research on Grand Canyon river corridor campsite issues, 

an up-to-date, comprehensive inventory of camping areas in the river corridor is currently 

lacking (Kaplinski, 2003). Such an inventory is needed to provide a comprehensive baseline 

record of campsite number, distribution, and size in the CRE, from which changes and trends in 

physical conditions can be objectively compared and tracked over time. In addition to a 

comprehensive inventory (list) of all camps, we also need a ground-truthed record of current 

camp area, so that changes in area, vegetation growth, and related-social impacts can be tracked 

and measured over time. 

A long-term campsite monitoring program is essential for tracking both long-term and 

short-term impacts, as well as cumulative effects of current dam operations on camp-based 
73 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

visitor use values in the CRE. Currently, the only GCD-AMP-sponsored campsite monitoring 

program is funded and conducted on an ad hoc basis. The current program serves to define one 

important component of the visitor use equation: overall change in the amount of suitable 

camping area (extrapolated from repeat surveys at approximately three dozen popular 

campsites). A more comprehensive and integrated approach, as proposed here, will track 

system-wide changes in the numbers, distribution and qualities of the camping resource over 

time, using primarily remotely sensed data collected as digital imagery once every four years, 

coupled with repeat survey and photographic data. 

Summary Project Description: This campsite monitoring program is designed to track and 

quantify trends in the size, distribution, and physical qualities of recreational camping 

opportunities in the CRE, using a combination of remotely sensed and field-based data. This 

project will build on the current (FIST) campsite area survey program and integrate it with 

complementary data derived from remotely sensed vegetation and sediment (digital imagery) 

data. The long-term photographic record produced by the Grand Canyon River Guides Adopt-abeach program will continue to provide a long term, site specific visual record of campsite 

changes, to complement the more generic assessments accomplished through analysis of 

remotely sensed imagery. In addition, we will complete a comprehensive inventory (georeferenced maps) of current camping areas and transfer these maps to a GIS, which will serve as 

the foundation for monitoring system-wide changes in campsite size, distribution and quality 

through time. 

The baseline GIS-based inventory will serve as the foundation for the long-term core 

campsite monitoring program. Once the baseline inventory of camp sites is in place (a two-year 

process), we will be positioned to use remotely sensed imagery to make system-wide 

assessments of changes in camp site size, distribution, and quality over time in relation to 

ongoing dam operations. During the first two years of this project, we will compile the results of 

all previous camp sites inventories into a GIS, integrating legacy campsite data with information 

derived from a recent remotely sensed campable area initiative (Breedlove, 2003), coupled with 

on-the-ground maps of current campsite areas. Current use levels will be established through 

surveys of current recreational users, and compared with use level data from prior studies. Prior 

inventory data will be validated and refined through field inspections, as necessary. 
74 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

GCMRC and NPS recreation management staff will collaborate to define campsites 

boundaries from a management perspective (i.e., NPS staff will define what they consider to be 

the acceptable boundaries of each camp). We will also document all areas currently used for 

camping, including areas that NPS considered to be “out-of-bounds,” based on physical evidence 

of prior use and river runner survey data. 

The specific (interrelated) components of this project include the following:

1) The current program of repeat mapping of campable area at a judgmental sample of 

sand bar camps will continue, while we transition to more use of remotely sensed 

data.

2) Aerial photo-based inventories by Weeden et al. (1975), Brian and Thomas (1984), 

and Kearsley and Warren (1993) will be compiled into a single GIS. The quality and 

collection methods of this pre-existing aerial photo data will be evaluated, then 

transferred to one set of orthorectified digital imagery in a spatially referenced GIS.

3) We will comprehensively inventory all campsites currently used by river runners in 

the river corridor. We will supplement the existing inventory data (now somewhat 

out of date) with information derived from recent commercial guidebooks (e.g. 

Martin and Whitis, 2004) and by interviewing commercial guides and science 

outfitters to identify all actively used locations. We will combine the geographic 

information with past and current NPS assessments of the maximum group size 

considered appropriate for each identified campsite.

4) With NPS collaboration, we will outline current camp sites areas on orthorectified 

images in the field using the pen tablet approach pioneered by Kaplinski et al. (2003). 

Important attributes of camp sites will be coded in linked data fields (e.g., type of 

camp: bedrock ledges vs. open beach, percentage of total area covered by sand vs. 

vegetation, boat mooring characteristics, etc). 

5) We will compare currently used camp sites with formerly identified sites to determine 

changes in type, distribution and (where possible) size of camp sites over the past 

thirty years.

6) We will compare currently used camp sites with campable area polygons derived from 

analysis of remotely sensed data (Breedlove, 2003). As part of this effort, we will 
75 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

also thoroughly evaluate the limitations and benefits of using remotely sensed data to 

track changes in various attributes at various types of camp sites through time.

7) We will track and quantify amounts and rates of vegetation encroachment at 

campsites. Vegetation encroachment will be measured at camps currently being 

monitored by NAU, as well as at key Adopt-A-Beach sites, plus at a random sample 

of all CRE camp sites (selected from the total population of camp sites identified 

through the inventory). We will directly measure vegetation encroachment via repeat 

comparisons of remotely sensed, digital imagery. (The digital imagery data will be 

gathered once every four years, but analysis of the data will be ongoing throughout 

the intervening period.)

8) To supplement the remotely sensed vegetation and beach area data, we will continue 

to gather and maintain a visual record of campsite changes using volunteer labor 

provided through the Grand Canyon River Guides’ Adopt-A-Beach program.

MO’s and IN’s ADDRESSED: Goal 9, MO’s 9.1, 9.3; CMINs 9.1.1, 9.1.2, 9.1.3, 9.3.1, 9.3.2; 

EIN 9.3.1.

Consequences of FY06 Funding Recommendations: This long-term monitoring project 

should be a high priority for implementation in FY06. FY06 presents the first opportunity to 

implement the project.

Status/Schedule: FY06-09: This multi-year project will begin in FY06. The first two years will 

emphasize collection of baseline campsite data and refining methods for calculating sand area 

and vegetation change. Collection of system-wide digital imagery will occur in FY06; analysis 

of this digital data set will continue through FY09. This project builds upon and integrates the 

previous work of Kaplinski et al. (2004), Breedlove (2003), and the ongoing Adopt-A-Beach 

effort.

Expected Products/Deliverables: A series of GIS layers composed of 1) previously inventoried 

camp sites tied to spatially-referenced digital imagery, 2) current campsites with NPS 

management boundaries and actual use areas delineated; 3) inventory of potentially campable 

sand areas (based on remote sensing analysis); 4) vegetation. GIS data will be complemented by 

the long-term visual (photographic) record of campsite changes derived from the ongoing Adopt-
76 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

A-Beach Program. A thorough GIS-based analysis of these data will be conducted to 

1) document changes in type, distribution and size (where feasible) of camp sites over time, and 

2) document encroachment of vegetation on campable areas. We also hope to establish the 

reliability of using remotely-sensed data to predict future camp site locations. 

Integration: This project integrates vegetation monitoring, sand bar area monitoring, and repeat 

photo monitoring into one, integrated campsite monitoring program. This project also integrates 

remotely sensed data with legacy data derived from conventional aerial photos into one GIS, and 

it ultimately builds our capacity to link the physical attributes of camp sites to experiential 

parameters that are important for tracking effects of dam operations on other visitor use values.
77 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

D. LOGISTICS SUPPORT SERVICES PROGRAM 

Project D.1. Ongoing Coordination and Support Program-Logistics Operations 

FUNDING 

HISTORY Fiscal year 

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 

Operations/Supplies (direct 

funded) — — — — 42,000

GCMRC Salaries (direct funded) 98,300 121,000 121,000 125,000 62,800

Direct Funded Subtotal — — — — 104,800

DOI 17% Customer Burden — — — — 17,816

Direct Funded Total — — — — 122,616

Outside GCMRC Science/Labor 

(See project Budgets) 537,000 402,000 406,000 444,000 —

NPS Permit Processing 57,000 72,000 76,000 97,000 —4

Outside GCMRC Subtotal (Shown 

in Individual Project Budgets) — — — — —

Operations/Supplies (Project 

Funded) 70,000 210,000 222,000 240,000 —

Project Total 762,300 805,000 825,000 906,000 122,616

% Total Outsourced 78% 59% 58% 60% 0%

Notes: 1Project Funded dollars are deducted from applicable projects where the burden has been calculated. They 

previously been shown here to demonstrate the proportion of work that is completed by non-GCMRC individuals. 

For the FY 2006 workplan, the outside costs are shown only in the individual project budget tables, as well as in 

APPENDICES A and C. 

2

All Logistics Operations/Supplies costs are distributed to GCMRC projects based on a formula proportional to use of services. 

The formula takes into account contractor costs, trip size and length, and a percentage of operating expenses, salaries and 

permitting costs. 

3

In FY2006 the Logistics Program Manager’s salary is included in the Administrative Program Planning & 

Development portion of the GCMRC budget (see lines #146 in APPENDICES A and C (see F.2). 

4

These administrative costs are now included in the GCD-AMP budget (see lines #19 of APPENDICES A & C) 

Principal Investigators: C. Fritzinger and P. Steffensen 

RIN’S ADDRESSED by this Project: The Logistics Program provides support to the GCMRC 

science programs and the adaptive management program. 

Program Description: Implementation of the GCMRC mission to provide credible, objective 

scientific information to the GCD-AMP begins with effective coordination of all technical and 

logistical support of research activities. The Research Coordination and Support Program staff 

functions as a team to facilitate collaboration with the Integrated Science and Cultural Programs 
78 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

through effective communication with Program Managers, PI’s and the Technical Support 

Services. The program encompasses the integration of 5 elements: 

• Permitting Coordination 

• Library Operations Coordination 

• Survey Support Coordination 

• Technical Support Coordination 

• Logistics Operations Coordination 

 Program Staff address each of these elements in assessment of support requests from 

researchers to determine which tools and processes will best facilitate the most effective 

collection and delivery of information from research projects. Through the combined effort of 

the program elements the process of research support is executed as a complete and fully 

integrated support service. The process is initiated in the proposal review and permitting stage, 

continued through the support coordination stage and completed with information delivery and 

report. The process acts as an accountability checkpoint, failure to meet agreed data collection 

and delivery standards is addressed immediately and corrective solutions are sought to avoid any 

delay in project completion. 

Summary Project Description: The GCMRC provides complete logistical support for 25-40 

research, monitoring and administrative river trips through the Grand Canyon annually. These 

trips range in length from 7 to 21 days and from 4 to 36 people in size. Trips are comprised of a 

variety of motor and oar powered boats operated by contracted boat operators. Projects operating 

in the Glen Canyon reach of the Colorado River (Glen Canyon Dam to Lee’s Ferry) are 

supported by a variety of motor powered boats operated by GCMRC researchers and contracted 

boat operators. Additionally, research activities on the Little Colorado River and at other 

locations outside of the Grand Canyon National Park boundaries are supported by helicopter 

services contracted with the Bureau of Reclamation. Ground based support for other research 

activities outside of the river corridor are also coordinated with the use of GCMRC leased 

vehicles. 

 The GCMRC uses a method of supporting trips in which government owned boats and 

river logistical equipment are used in conjunction with a contracted vendor who supplies 

Technical and Logistical Boat Operators. A concerted effort is made to match PI’s with the best 

possible Boat Operators for their particular study. Food packs, trip supplies, and equipment are 
79 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

organized, packed and maintained at the GCMRC warehouse. Put-in and take-out transportation 

is provided with the use of GSA leased vehicles and contracted shuttle drivers. 

 This logistical approach has evolved since the GCES phase to allow a detailed overview 

of trip particulars that most influence cost and efficiency, ultimately giving the GCMRC control 

over trip costs and productivity. Effective communication with PI’s and sensitivity to and 

awareness of the challenges they face in implementing their studies enable the GCMRC to offer 

more customized (and therefore more cost-effective and productive) logistical support than other 

support strategies utilized previously. Retaining control over the process of supporting trips also 

facilitates compliance with NPS regulations and allows greater control over issues sensitive to 

the general public and the “recreational river community.” 

Schedule: The trip planning and scheduling process begins in the fall when the Logistics 

Coordinator, in cooperation with contracted PI’s, Program Managers and the Research 

Coordination and Support Staff work together to generate a draft schedule of trips for the fiscal 

year. The schedule includes; launch and take-out dates, numbers of personnel and specific boat 

and boat operator requests for each trip. Researchers must submit a Trip Request Form a 

minimum of 60 days prior to the scheduled launch date. This form provides information for two 

purposes: 1) determine and schedule logistical and support services and 2) complete a GCNP 

River Trip Application in order to meet the GCNP 45 day deadline for submitting access permit 

applications. The schedule is implemented throughout the fiscal year. Project cost distribution is 

determined at the close of the fiscal year. 

Consequences of FY05 Funding Recommendations: The Logistics Budget represents the 

funding required to support all research and monitoring projects in the 2005 work plan. Any 

reduction in funding will result in inability to provide logistical support to projects as proposed. 

Implications of Experimental vs. Non-Experimental Scenarios: Under the “With 

Experiment” scenario, the funding available to replace equipment in the warehouse is reduced by 

more than half ($100,000 down to $42,000) and this will delay upgrades of worn equipment at 

the same time that additional use occurs to support ongoing Mechanical Removal activities. 

Additional funds will be to be made available in FY 2007 and beyond to replace and upgrade 
80 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

river logistics equipment. Under the “Non-Experimental” scenario, funds for this area of the 

program are the same as originally proposed in the February 2005 version of the workplan. 

Project D.2. Ongoing Survey Operations 

 FUNDING HISTORY Fiscal year 

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 

Outside GCMRC 

Science/Labor 0 0 33,000 0 18,150

Logistics Field Support 0 0 12,200 45,200 20,000

Operations/Supplies 

(includes equipment) 35,000 36,000 36,800 68,800 0

GCMRC Salaries 35,550 41,180 44,000 44,000 64,900

Project Subtotal — — — — 103,050

DOI 17% Customer 

Burden 70,550 77,180 126,000 158,000 17,919

Project Total 0 0 26% 0 120,969

% Total Outsourced — — 31% 14% 23%

Principal Investigators: K. Brown, U.S. Geological Survey 

Rationale: GCMRC’s survey department supports the research needs of the scientists and 

includes acquiring topographic data, positioning remotely sensed data, evaluating innovative 

mapping techniques supporting research goals, validating accuracy of topographic and spatial 

data, compiling historical data, as well as, updating positions for historical topographic and 

spatial data for inclusion into the GIS database. For inclusion into the GIS database, the spatial 

data must be referenced to the geodetic control network which provides highly accurate realworld coordinate values from which measurements computing change are calculated. 

Referencing historical, current and future data to the control network ensures that the data are in 

a common reference system, and are comprised of the most accurate coordinate values available 

for ecosystem monitoring studies, research and inclusion into the GIS database for analysis. 

 The survey support offered by GCMRC allows for consistent data collection methods by 

technically trained personnel familiar with the surveying equipment and the logistical constraints 

of Grand Canyon fieldwork. The survey department also develops and performs consistent 

storage and database protocols for all survey data collected in the CRE for simple integration 

into the GIS database. 
81 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

Statement of Problem: Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC) is charged 

with providing credible, objective scientific information to the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive 

Management Group on the downstream resources of the Colorado River using an ecosystem 

wide approach. This approach requires that physical, biological and cultural spatial data be 

integrated into a regional Geographic Information System (GIS) database to allow for accurate, 

long-term change detection analysis of CRE resources and for interrelationship analysis between 

CRE resources. All spatial data collected under the direction of the GCMRC requires referencing 

to the geodetic control network established by the National Geodetic Survey and the GCMRC. 

The geodetic control network is the framework for the entire Geographic Information System 

Database (GIS). Accurate positioning of the spatial data allows for accurate change detection 

computations including volumetric and surface area computations. The trained GCMRC Survey 

staff supports research and monitoring activities by collecting survey data following survey 

protocols, and by delivering the data in the formats consistent with data standards. The survey 

staff maintains survey equipment for field use including conventional total station equipment, 

static, kinematics and Real Time Kinematics (RTK) GPS equipment, digital cameras, echo 

sounders, acoustic Doppler and bathymetry systems, and field maps for resource identification. 

Summary Project Description: The survey department has several responsibilities. First, the 

control point database must be populated and verified to serve as a reference for positioning 

current and future field data, as well as a reference for updating historical data for inclusion in 

the GIS database. Second, the survey department assists the researchers collect the field 

measurements for scientific investigations, following protocols that ensure researchers, 

contractors, and staff, achieve accurate spatial data with realistic error assessments for reliable 

data analysis and database integration. Furthermore, the survey department advises researchers 

on the appropriate methods of collecting topographic or spatial data to meet the requirements of 

a scientific study. Finally, the survey is responsible for obtaining, maintaining and upgrading all 

survey equipment necessary to meet the needs of the researchers. 

Survey operations in support of programs within GCMRC are divided into the following areas: 

1) Positioning of historically and newly collected spatial data. 

2) Reference historical spatial data to modern control network. 

3) Populate the Control Point Database. 

4) Quality Assurance/ Quality Control of spatial data. 
82 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

5) Evaluate innovative mapping techniques 

6) Maintain and upgrade equipment 

Recommended Approach and Methods: Control points are established and spatial data is 

collected using both GPS and conventional survey methods. Surveys follow protocols developed 

by GCMRC with technical support from the National Geodetic Survey, Army Corps of 

Engineers, and the Federal Geodetic Data Committee. 

Integration: All programs within the GCMRC require spatial data measurements. Integration 

with each program’s requirements and the GIS database is imperative to the process of survey 

data collection, post-processing, storage, and evaluation. The survey department is available to 

all GCMRC principal investigators and can often collect data for multiple projects during the 

same mission. 

MO’s and IN’s ADDRESSED: Goals 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, and 12, MO’s 4.1, 4.2, 5.1, 5.2, 6.4, 

7.3, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, 8.5, 9.3, 11.1, 12.2, 12.3, and 12.9 

Consequences of FY06 Funding Recommendations: Funding will allow for more historical 

datasets to be integrated into the GIS database for accurate change detection with GIS tools. 

Additional funds will be preserved by attaining accurate positions and elevations of spatial data 

prior to integration into GIS database. 

Status/Schedule: FY2001- Low Summer Steady Flows, Kanab Amber Snail, Channel Mapping 

FY2002- Fine-grained Sediment Team, Cultural Mitigation, Kanab Amber Snail, 

Remote sensing support 

FY2003- Remote sensing support, Cultural Mitigation, Kanab Amber Snail 

FY2004- Physical resource historical data sets, Colorado River Ecosystem Elevation 

Database, Fine-grained Sediment Team, Kanab Amber Snail, Colorado River 

Ecosystem Elevation Database 

FY2005-6 Physical resource historical data sets, Cultural resource historical datasets, 

cultural mitigation, Kanab Amber Snail, Colorado River Ecosystem Elevation 

Database, remote sensing support 

Project Goals and Objectives: 

1) Supply GCMRC principal investigators with the necessary equipment, supplies, and 

survey knowledge to perform the spatial data collection required by their research. 

2) Publish updated control point coordinates, superseded coordinates, and associated 

error estimates for all network control. This will be done through the development of 
83 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

the GCMRC control point database and made available to Grand Canyon National 

Park and all CRE researchers. 

3) Publish control point maps and make them available for all CRE field survey 

activities 

4) Publish and populate the descriptions in the Control Point Database. 

5) Continue translating and rotating historical survey data sets to updated network 

control coordinates 

6) Integrate the prioritized historical survey datasets into the CRE database 

7) Educate principal investigators and researchers regarding the limits of various 

mapping techniques. 

8) Evaluate innovative mapping techniques supporting research goals 

Implications of Experimental vs. Non-Experimental Scenarios: Under the “With 

Experiment” scenario, the funding available to support survey activities is reduced and this 

reduction will delay progress to some degree on the development of the geodetic control network 

(see next section). Under the “Non-Experimental” scenario, funds for this area of the program 

are the same as originally proposed in the February 2005 version of the workplan. 

Project D.3. Ongoing Development o0f Geodetic Control Network 

FUNDING 

HISTORY Fiscal year 

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 

Outside GCMRC 

Science/Labor — — 0 50,000 30,000

Logistics Field 

Support — — 54,000 52,000 25,000

Operations/Supplies — — 10,000 20,000 0

GCMRC Salaries — — 22,000 33,000 66,000

Project Subtotal — — 86,000 155,000 121,000

2006 DOI Customer 

Burden (17%) — — 12,900 23,250 22,015

Project Total — — 98,900 178,500 143,015

% Total Outsourced — — 27% 43% 30%

Principal Investigators: K. Kohl, U.S. Geological Survey 

Rationale: The geodetic control network serves as the foundation for all spatial measurements 

necessary for long term monitoring. This control network also serves as the spatial framework 

for the Geographic Information System (GIS). The referencing of spatial data must be consistent 
84 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

in order to perform accurate change detection. All spatial data collected within the CRE requires 

georeferencing to the primary geodetic control network established by the GCMRC and the 

National Geodetic Survey. While current remote sensing and long-term monitoring sites have 

been referenced to this network, additional GCMRC monitoring activities require expanded 

network control efforts. 

Statement of Problem: The geodetic control network serves as the spatial framework for the 

entire Geographic Information System Database (GIS). Discrepancies of control point 

coordinates affect both the surveys that reference these coordinates and the spatial data analyses 

performed with available GIS tools. These discrepancies exist, mainly in the vertical component, 

due to complications of deflection of the vertical, local gravitational anomalies, satellite signal 

multipath errors, and the combination of conventional measurements, which reference gravity, 

with GPS measurements, which reference a geocentric ellipsoid. It is the geoid that provides the 

connection between terrestrial and GPS surveys and it is the geoid that, at this time, is undefined 

within the complex topography of Grand Canyon. 

Summary Project Description: The geodetic control network in Grand Canyon requires both 

survey operations for research and survey operations for program support. Research is required 

to better understand the vertical accuracies associated with the Grand Canyon control network. 

The National Geodetic Survey is pursuing height modernization efforts that will allow for more 

accurate height systems. Current NGS-funded geodesy research is concentrating on the 

gravitational effects on heights and geoid computations within the Grand Canyon. The Grand 

Canyon was selected as a study area to determine the effects of terrain in an extreme and 

computationally challenging topographic setting. Results from this research will immediately 

assist GCMRC in the accuracy assessment of CRE control and will potentially contribute to 

height modernization projects throughout the world. 

It has been shown that horizontal positions can be efficiently attained with the use of GPS 

techniques. While the vertical component is more problematic, heights referencing the ellipsoid 

can be effectively calculated throughout much of the CRE. These horizontal and vertical 

coordinates are required for previously collected data sets prior to inclusion in the CRE Oracle 

database. Coordinates are also required for control in areas of future data collection to eliminate 

the need to translate and rotate surveys collected in local or historical coordinate systems. 
85 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

Substantial project cost savings are achieved when the geodetic control is established within 

study areas prior to field data collection in support of monitoring and research projects. 

QA/QC is required for all remotely sensed spatial data sets. The Photo-identifiable Fixed 

Point Database is designed to give positions and elevations at visible “hard points” along the 

river corridor. This dataset can be used to check accuracy of LiDAR and digital aerial 

photography (ISTAR) remote sensing techniques, both on a canyon wide basis and for a local 

assessment of positional and elevational accuracies of each day’s flight. With the high cost of 

remote sensing data collection, QA/QC is critical to analyzing the usefulness of each data subset. 

Additionally, this elevation database can also be used to georeference scanned photos from 

previous missions to study change detection. 

Recommended Approach/Methods: Control points are established using both GPS and 

conventional survey methods. GPS techniques utilize relative positioning where antennas and 

receivers are placed at both known and unknown network positions. Distances are measured 

between the known and unknown points by time dependant calculations from GPS satellite data. 

Conventional survey techniques involve the use of a total station (a survey instrument which 

combines the horizontal and vertical angle measurement abilities of a transit with electronic 

distance measurements). Conventional traverse surveys begin at a known reference point, 

measure through a series of line-of-sight stations, and close at either the point of beginning or 

another known reference point. Both conventional and GPS measurements will be required for 1) 

coordinate determinations of positions and elevations throughout the CRE, and 2) realistic error 

estimates for each network control station. 

Integration: Accurate spatial positioning of scientific data from the cultural, biological and 

physical programs is necessary for facilitating change detection methods. Historical data must be 

adjusted to reliable coordinates before integration into the database and before these resource 

assessments can be made. Often, past surveys that relate to current monitoring efforts have been 

referenced to local datums. These sites also require accurate positional and elevational data 

before the data can be entered into the GIS database for examination and change detection.

MO’s and IN’s ADDRESSED: Goals 6, 7, 8, 11, and 12, MO’s 6.4, 7.3, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, 8.5, 

9.3, 11.1, 12.2, 12.3, and 12.9. 
86 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

Consequences of FY06 Funding Recommendations: Funding decrease in this year will delay 

ongoing efforts to complete the control network. 

Status/Schedule: The CRE geodetic control network schedule has been modified to reflect 

changes resulting from the development of the long-term monitoring reaches of the biological, 

cultural, and physical resource programs. Efforts have been concentrated to establish, verify and 

validate the coordinates of the control stations utilized in these monitoring studies. Additional 

efforts have added 9 stations to the primary rim control network and 36 secondary control 

stations extending the line-of-site network from Glen Canyon Dam to Bright Angel Creek. These 

efforts both increase accuracy of the entire network and minimize errors inherent with longer 

baselines (distances from known to unknown positions). Future survey operations will increase 

accuracy of CRE control points by expanding the river corridor network. These GPS data sets 

will be combined with conventional traverse measurements to evaluate the effects of varying 

geoid undulations and to give realistic error estimates to all network control stations. 

Project Goals and Objectives: The objective of this project is to develop a high-precision 

control network throughout the CRE. Control monuments will be established at consistent 

intervals throughout the CRE and at locations required for accurate positions and elevations of 

past, current, and future data sets. The goal of this project is the expansion of the control network 

into the necessary areas prior to spatial data collection required by the research activities. By 

having stable control monuments and accurate coordinates completed before spatial data 

acquisition begins, post-processing methods are reduced, and both human resources and money 

are conserved. 

Expected Products: The products of the CRE control network project will be: 

• A network of survey control points established in specific research areas and 

throughout the CRE, referenced to the primary control network established by the 

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center and the National Geodetic Survey. 

• Coordinates and realistic positional and height accuracy estimates for all network 

control stations will be available to the National Park Service, the GCMRC, and all 

cooperating agencies. 

• Index maps showing the location of the network control stations. 

• Creation of a Photo-identifiable Fixed Point Database for georeferencing of past 

datasets and accuracy evaluation of remotely sensed data. 

• GIS layers with control station information. 
87 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

Timeline for Geodetic Control Network 

 

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 

Primary Network 

Established, 

LSSF reaches 

surveyed 

LTM reaches 

surveyed, Lineof-site network 

established to 

Bright Angel 

Creek 

Densification of 

primary network, 

Accuracy assessment 

of previous control 

network 

Georeferencing of 

historical datasets 

upstream of Bright 

Angel Creek 

Primary, secondary 

and tertiary network 

adjustment, NSRS 

inclusion data. 

Georeferencing of 

historical datasets 

throughout CRE 

Implications of Experimental vs. Non-Experimental Scenarios: Under the “With 

Experiment” scenario, the funding available to support control network activities is reduced and 

this reduction will delay progress to some degree on the development of the geodetic control 

network (see next section). Owing to the fact that there are no additional remote-sensing 

overflights planned during FY 2006, as this time, this delay in the progress of the work is not a 

major problem. However, additional funding will be needed in FY 2007 to keep this effort 

moving ahead. Under the “Non-Experimental” scenario, funds for this area of the program are 

the same as originally proposed in the February 2005 version of the workplan. 
88 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

E. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT (PROVIDED BY SBSC) 

Project E.1. Ongoing Information Technology Activities 

FUNDING 

HISTORY Fiscal year 

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 

Outside GCMRC 

Science/Labor — — — 65,000 133,0001

Travel & Training — — — 0 5,000

Operations/Supplies — — — 10,000 165,000

GCMRC Salaries — — — 0 See 

footnote 2

Project Subtotal — — — 75,000 303,000

2006 DOI Customer 

Burden (17%) — — — 11,250 51,510

Project Total — — — 86,250 354,510

% Total Outsourced — — — 75% 38% 1

These costs cover seventy-five percent of an SBSC IT-Specialist (GS-12) and 100% of an SBSC IT-Specialist (GS-9) salary as 

contribution to GCMRC’s need for Information Technology support. 

2

Seventy-five percent of the SBSC Information Technology Director’s salary is covered under item F.2 (Program Planning & 

Development) as shown in lines #146 of APPENDICES A and C. 

Principal Staff: M. Liszewski, IT Director for SBSC, D. Blank, SBSC, U.S. Geological Survey 

Summary Project Description: The Information Technologies Department of the SBSC 

supports a variety of technology needs of the GCMRC’s various program areas: computer 

security, systems administration and procurement of new servers and computers, as well as web 

site development and web page maintenance. These support, development and maintenance 

services are cost shared between the GCMRC and the SBSC and the IT Department is 

coordinated by the Center’s Deputy Director so as to meet the IT needs of all four of the research 

stations. 

MO’s and IN’s ADDRESSED: The Information Technology Department of the SBSC supports 

the GCMRC’s computer needs intended to provide a centrally located distribution point for data 

and information relating to all GCMRC science activities. These activities generally relate to the 

12 Goals of the GCD-AMP’s Strategic Plan, but most centrally to Goal #12, ensuring a quality 

science-based Adaptive Management Program. 
89 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

Consequences of FY06 Funding Recommendations: The currently proposed budget for FY 

2006 provides for the continued development and IT support at a level that will allow the 

computing and related technology needs to be continued and the web site development ongoing. 

Status/Schedule: The GCMRC Information Technology Department was formally established 

in 1998, but with the creation of the Southwest Biological Science Center in 2002, the need for 

Information Technology support expanded from one to four research stations. In FY 2006, the 

IT Department becomes a more centralized element of the SBSC, so as to continue meeting the 

needs of the GCMRC, as well as the needs of the other three research stations. The IT 

Department’s development is expected to continue through 2006 and beyond as the four research 

stations evolve. It is anticipated that new development cycles will need to commence on 1 to 3 

year intervals depending upon the changing needs of the SBSC science activities, user needs, and 

advances in technology. 

Expected Products and Services: The primary products and services of the SBSC Information 

Technology Department with respect to ongoing support of the GCMRC’s needs are: 

• Comprehensive and fully functional website development and maintenance, with 

access to all non-sensitive digital data and information relating to the effects of dam 

operations on the CRE. Non-digital data and information will be cataloged 

electronically with instructions on how to obtain it. 

• Coordination with GCMRC’s DASA to ensure and support a comprehensive and 

fully functional library containing all hard copy and digital media containing data and 

information relating to the effects of dam operations on the CRE cataloged and 

accessible. Sensitive and non-releasable data and information will be archived and 

secured separately from releasable data and information.

• Fully functional and integrated computing environment. 

Timeline for project implementation and maintenance: 

 2004 2005 2006 

Project development – 

build web and library 

infrastructure 

January 

through 

December 

January through 

December 

Project maintenance – 

integration of new data 

and information 

Annual, 

January 

through 

December 

Annual, January 

through 

December 

Annual, January 

through 

December 

• Desktop and servers - GCMRC’s computing environment is based upon the PC 

platform, Microsoft Windows operating system, and Microsoft Office, office 

automation software. Systems maintenance is performed using a combination of 
90 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

warranty service, service contracts, and in-house service as needed to facilitate quick 

turnaround, minimize downtime, and reduce costs. 

• Network environment- Computer interconnectivity is provided using TCP/IP network 

communication protocol running on a 1000baseT and 100baseT network media. 

Network traffic is arbitrated by 4 3COM switches and hubs operating at 100 Mbps 

and 1 Gbps. 

• Internet connectivity– The GCMRC computer network is linked to the Internet 

through the Flagstaff Field Center GEOnet-3 router that provides a DS-3 (45 Mbps) 

virtual circuit to Menlo Park where it joins the U.S. Geological Survey’s GEOnet 

network. Also located in Menlo Park is a network portal to the Internet operated by 

the U.S. Geological Survey and NASA through a peering partnership. GEOnet 

provides a secure Survey-wide networking environment that interconnects 

headquarter region, district, and field offices located throughout the United Sates. 

• Intranet website– GCMRC’s intranet offers a secure centralized medium for 

information exchange among GCMRC employees. Among things to be internally 

shared via the intranet are: standard operating procedures, personnel availability and 

contact info, vehicle and equipment loans, and an IT support system. The GCMRC 

intranet is served from a Windows 2000 Server utilizing ASP. 

• Computer security – Network security is provided by firewalls, routers, system 

update server (SUS), systems management server (SMS) and antivirus (AV). 

Firewalls and routers are configured and maintained to restrict outside access to 

authorized systems. Operating systems (OS) are updated to minimize vulnerabilities 

using SUS that automates a central delivery system for patch management. AV 

updates are downloaded from the web as released and pushed to all systems the same 

night. 

• System back-up and disaster recovery – System back-up and disaster recovery is 

accomplished using dual LTO tape drives in a 30 slot carriage with a capacity of 3 

Tbytes. Tapes are stored locally in a fire vault and archival tapes are stored off-site. 

Server disks are configured to run either a raid-5 array or mirrored for redundancy. 

• Web and FTP Services – The GCMRC web site and FTP site serve to make the 

mission and findings of GCMRC accessible to the public. The sites offer our updated 

work plan, descriptions of our program areas, and various interactive stores of data 

including our Internet Map Server and our online library. 

• Assistance and support of online discussion forums – GCMRC hosts on-line 

discussions forums for the AMWG, GCMRC, and the U.S. Geological Survey 

LiDAR discussion group. These forums provide a widely accessible medium for 

informal discussions and announcements relating to the respective topics. 

• Troubleshooting and maintenance – helpdesk support is provided as 

requested/required. Requests are received via the web, email and telephone. Support 

is tracked in a searchable database with solutions to facilitate prioritization and 

resolution. 

• Assistance with GCMRC’s data storage – Over 7 Tbytes of on-line disk storage is 

provided by multiple servers with SCSI disk arrays. Server disk arrays are hot 

swappable to minimize downtime. GCMRC also utilizes Networked Attached Storage 

(NAS) devices. These devices are IDE drives connected to a SCSI backplane. NAS 

units are used to provide bulk storage capacity at less expense. 
91 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

CHAPTER 3

ADMINISTRATION AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT SERVICES

INTRODUCTION 

This chapter provides descriptions and budget information on GCMRC administration 

and technical support services. GCMRC administration includes sections on administrative 

operations, program planning and management, AMWG/TWG participation, and the 

independent review process. Technical support services include geographic information 

systems, systems administration, library operations, database management, survey operations, 

and logistics support. At the end of this chapter is a schedule for implementing the FY 2006 

monitoring and research annual plan. 

GCMRC ADMINISTRATION 

The GCMRC is currently administered by a Chief and four Program Managers: Physical 

Science, Modeling and DASA Program, Biological Sciences, Socio-cultural, and Logistics 

Support Program. As mentioned above, a Biology Program Manager position is being filled in 

summer 2005; at this time the position is filled with an Acting Biology Program Manager. The 

Program Managers provide GCMRC support to the Chief and oversee the individual resource 

areas and an extensive program of data analysis and management. The DASA’s GIS, DBMS, 

Remote-Sensing, Library are coordinated jointly with the SBSC’s IT Department, as well as the 

Logistics and Surveying staff, to collaborate in support of program integration and evaluation of 

the influence of Glen Canyon Dam operations on the CRE. 

In addition to their program management responsibilities, the program managers are also 

expected to remain subject area experts in their respective fields on the Colorado River 

ecosystem. It is important that GCMRC program managers and scientific staff maintain this 

expertise so they can provide high quality technical assistance in the form of expert analysis, 

opinion, and advice to the Chief, TWG and the AMWG as requested. This will include, but is 

not limited to, the State of the Colorado River Ecosystem (SCORE) Report, evaluation of the 

Beach/Habitat-Building-Flow (BHBF) resource criteria, and preparing syntheses of current 

knowledge and other such activities that may be requested. The Socio-cultural Program 
92 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

Manager also functions as the Native American Coordinator. The program managers supervise 

additional technical and support staff, and act as project lead with their cooperators. 

 The GCMRC will continue to conduct logistics for its programs in FY 2006, with direct 

coordination with appropriate NPS offices. This approach has proven to be cost-effective. In 

addition to cost savings, by running the logistics program in-house, GCMRC is able to ensure 

compliance with all NPS directives, consolidate and coordinate river trips, and create a level 

playing field so all researchers have an equal chance at competing for proposals and successfully 

implementing their projects. All river trip logistics and permitting, helicopter support, rescue, 

etc., is overseen by the logistics coordinator in cooperation with the NPS. GCMRC expects to 

initiate between 25 and 40 river trips in FY 2006. As mentioned in Chapter 1, the administrative 

costs for supporting NPS permitting have been included in the Administrative budget of this 

version of the FY 2006, draft workplan and budget. This change was recommended by the 

Technical Workgroup’s Budget ad hoc group in spring 2005 and the GCMRC concurs with this 

recommendation (see lines #19 of APPENDICES A and C). 

F. ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT 

F.1. Administrative Operations 

FUNDING 

 HISTORY Fiscal year 

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 

Outside GCMRC 

Admin costs — — 395,000 400,000 15,000

Logistics Field 

Support 

— — — — 0

Project Related 

Travel/Training 

———— 40,795

Operations/Supplies — 340,500 154,000 160,000 314,500

GCMRC Salaries — 243,500 71,000 78,000 290,000

Subtotal — — — — 660,295

DOI Customer 

Burden (17%) 

— — — — 112,250

Project Total — 584,000 620,000 638,000 772,545

% Total Outsourced 0% 0% 64% 63% 2%
93 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

 These costs are for salary and other operating expenses in support of administrative 

operations and management of GCMRC. Included is salary of the Chief (including 

approximately $150,000 re-location support fund for hire of a new Chief), space and facilities, 

non-project related travel and training, vehicles, office supplies and equipment and maintenance. 

Also included are costs for USGS local network, Flagstaff Science Center support, and USGS 

regional services including contracting and personnel. During FY 2006, the SBSC plans to 

support the salaries associated with the Budget Analyst and Chief’s Administrative Assistant. 

Hence, these costs are not included in this budget line item. 

F.2. Program Planning and Management 

FUNDING 

HISTORY Fiscal year 

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 

Outside GCMRC 

Science/Labor — — — — 0

Logistics Field 

Support — — — — 0

Project Related 

Travel/Training — — — — 15,000

Operations/Supplies — 226,000 20,000 22,000 4,800

GCMRC Salaries — 243,000 254,000 260,000 458,200

Subtotal — — — — 478,000

DOI Customer 

Burden (17%) — — — — 81,260

Project Total 584,000 274,000 282,000 559,260

% Total Outsourced 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

 

 In FY2006, in an effort to simplify distribution of program planning and management 

salaries and travel, the Program Manager salaries were assigned to this category exclusively. In 

addition to the four program managers, seventy-five percent of the salary for the SBSC’s 

Information Technologies Director is also included in this line item to support the GCMRC’s 

ongoing IT needs. Travel expenses in support of the program, but separate from TWG and 

AMWG participation are also included. These costs are for the four Program Managers: 

Physical Science, Modeling and DASA, Biological Sciences, Socio-cultural Resources and the 

Logistics Support Program. 
94 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

F.3. AMWG/TWG Participation (GCMRC travel & per diem only) 

 

FUNDING 

HISTORY Fiscal year 

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 

Outside GCMRC 

Science/Labor — — — — 0

Logistics Field 

Support — — — — 0

Project Related 

Travel/Training — — — — 15,000

Operations/Supplies — 12,000 12,000 12,350 0

GCMRC Salaries — 26,500 33,000 34,000 0

Subtotal — — — — 15,000

DOI Customer 

Burden (17%) — — — — 2,550

Project Total — 38,500 45,000 46,350 17,550

% Total Outsourced 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

 

 Included in this category are the travel expenses related to attending and participating in 

TWG and AMWG meetings. Project related travel expenses are accounted for by projects, and 

administrative travel (e.g. safety training) are planned under the Administrative Operations 

budget. 

F.4. Independent Review Panels 

FUNDING 

HISTORY Fiscal year 

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 

Outside GCMRC 

Science/Labor — 89,000 200,000 240,000 325,000

Logistics Field 

Support — — — — 0

Project Related 

Travel/Training — — — — 0

Operations/Supplies — — — — 0

GCMRC Salaries — 10,000 22,000 32,000 0

Subtotal — — — — 325,000

DOI Customer 

Burden (17%) — — — — 55,250

Project Total — 99,000 222,000 272,000 380,250

% Total Outsourced 0% 90% 90% 90% 100%
95 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

 Independent external review is at the heart of GCMRC’s approach to program 

management and implementation. Together with the competitive process, independent external 

peer-review ensures the quality and objectivity of GCMRC’s programs. Independent review 

panels are utilized to evaluate GCMRC’s plans and activities. All proposals, reports, programs, 

etc., are subject to independent peer review according to GCMRC’s peer-review protocols. 

Managing GCMRC’s peer-review process requires 3 to 6 person-months, but requires no 

additional salary and is the responsibility of the Librarian/Review Coordinator. The Review 

Coordinator reports to the Chief directly, but work under the guidance of the DASA Coordinator 

for all non-review related activities. 

Peer Review

 All of GCMRC's scientific activities undergo an independent, external peer-review. This 

is true for all proposals, whether unsolicited, solicited, or an in-house proposal. Similarly, all 

draft reports received by GCMRC undergo independent, external peer-review. The peer-review 

protocols developed by GCMRC meet or exceed the standards articulated by the Secretary of the 

Interior for the Department of the Interior. 

 Peer-review for proposals received by GCMRC in response to an RFP is conducted 

through a panel process, while peer-review for unsolicited and in-house proposals, as well as 

project reports is conducted through the mail. In all cases, the peer-reviewers are offered 

anonymity and the individual and panel reviews, where applicable, are provided to the PIs along 

with comments from GCMRC. In addition, GCMRC conducts protocol evaluation panels (PEPs) 

to review and assess GCMRC’s projects and methodologies. To date, PEPs have been held for 

remote sensing, physical, survey control, terrestrial and aquatic, cultural resources and the water 

quality program. Recommendations from the various PEPs are described in Chapter 1 of this 

plan. 

 The GCMRC review process is handled by a report review coordinator to ensure that the 

peer-review process is conducted one-step removed from the GCMRC program managers to 

guard against any conflicts of interest, real or perceived. Strict conflict-of-interest guidelines are 

adhered to. GCMRC annually recruits new individuals to join the ranks of its peer-reviewers and 

maintains a database of almost 500 potential reviewers, organized by area of expertise. GCMRC 

peer-reviewers come from academia, Federal, State and Tribal government, non-governmental 

organizations, and the private sectors. Reviewers are selected on the basis of their record of 

scientific accomplishment and expertise. 
96 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

Science Advisors

The GCMRC works with a group of Science Advisors (SAs) as one of its independent 

review panels. The SAs are advisory and not a decision-making body. It is an interdisciplinary 

group composed of scientists who are qualified, based on their record of publication in the peerreviewed literature, or other demonstrable scientific achievements. An executive Director 

provides leadership to the SAs and serves as the liaison officer to the AMWG and the GCMRC. 

 The SAs together and individually will be expected in FY 2006, among other things, to 

review and comment to the AMWG and GCMRC on: (1) GCMRC's annual work plan and 

budget proposal, (2) GCMRC's long-term monitoring and research plan (SSIP), (3) the results of 

GCMRC's completed monitoring and research activities, (4) the results of any synthesis and 

assessment activities initiated by the GCMRC, and (5) any other activities (i.e., developing a 

monitoring plan, enhancing opportunities for integrated science, and other program specific 

scientific advice) it is asked to address by the GCMRC Chief or the AMWG. 

 Involvement by the Science Advisors and their Executive Director in the Strategic 

Science Planning process in FY 2006, requires some additional level of activity and interactions 

with the GCMRC and the various members of the several planning ad hocs. Additional funding 

is required to support this elevated level of involvement by the Science Advisors and other 

experts. The request by the AMWG for the Executive Director of the Science Advisors to attend 

and participate more actively in all of the GCD-AMP meetings, again requires a higher level of 

funding support for the category of Independent Review in FY 2006 and beyond. In order to 

limit the need to increase funding beyond what is proposed in the FY 2006 draft budgets, 

GCMRC recommends that the number of active Science Advisors be strategically focused in the 

future, and limited to eight rather than ten or more members. To facilitate discussion in this area 

of the program, the GCMRC suggests that the following program areas be represented by future 

Science Advisors: 

Adaptive Management Practice

Fisheries

2nd Fishery Role with added focus in Aquatic Ecology

Cultural Resources

Recreation/Economics

Quality-of-Water

Sediment and Geomorphic Process 

Systems Ecology and Modeling.
97 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

F.5. Support for Strategic Science Implementation Planning 

FUNDING 

HISTORY Fiscal year 

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 

Outside GCMRC 

Science/Labor — — — — 25,000

Logistics Field 

Support — — — — 0

Project Related 

Travel/Training — — — — 0

Operations/Supplies — — — — 0

GCMRC Salaries — — — — 0

Subtotal — — — — 25,000

DOI Customer 

Burden (17%) — — — — 4,250

Project Total — — — — 29,250

% Total Outsourced — — — — 100%

Strategic Science Planning – The additional required activities associated with multi-faceted 

planning tasks in FY 2005-06 has been identified as a requirement to complete the Strategic 

Science Implementation Plan, as well as the various Core-Monitoring, Research, Experimental 

and Humpback Chub Comprehensive Plan sub-elements of the SSIP. Additional funds are 

intended to support external facilitation and participation by experts in the various resources 

areas, as well as in the realm of adaptive management implementation, etc. The funds shall be 

used to support travel and per diem of those invited to attend planning sessions, as well as to 

support an existing cooperative agreement to provide ongoing facilitation of planning meetings 

aimed at completing the experimental design element of the SSIP. 
98 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

F.6. GCMRC’s FY 2006 Biennial Science Symposium 

FUNDING 

HISTORY Fiscal year 

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 

Outside GCMRC 

Science/Labor — — — — 25,000

Logistics Field 

Support — — — — 0

Project Related 

Travel/Training — — — — 0

Operations/Supplies — — — — 0

GCMRC Salaries — — — — 0

Subtotal — — — — 25,000

DOI Customer 

Burden (17%) — — — — 4,250

Project Total — — — — 29,250

% Total Outsourced — — — — 100%

Convening of Science Symposia to Facilitate Information Transfer – The GCMRC has 

convened and hosted Biennial Science Symposia in the springs of 1997, 1999, 2001 and fall of 

2003. These meeting are intended to facilitate critical information transfer and promote science 

and management discussions as new information is derived from the science and GCD-AMP 

efforts. The costs associated with these meetings have never been explicitly shown in annual 

workplans and budget. To better document the implementation of these meetings in the future, 

the GCMRC includes an estimate of the cost for the next, upcoming meeting in this workplan. 

The schedule for the FY 2006 Biennial Science Symposium, is set for October 25-27, 2005, and 

will be held in Tempe, AZ. The GCMRC seeks additional input from the GCD-AMP on how the 

Biennial Science Symposium can be improved to better meet the information transfer needs of 

the managers. 
99 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

F.7. Experimental Support Fund for FY 2007 and Beyond 

FUNDING 

HISTORY Fiscal year 

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 

Outside GCMRC 

Science/Labor — — — — 600,000

Logistics Field 

Support — — — — 0

Project Related 

Travel/Training — — — — 0

Operations/Supplies — — — — 0

GCMRC Salaries — — — — 0

Subtotal — — — — 600,000

DOI Customer 

Burden (0%) — — — — 01

Project Total — — — — 600,000

% Total Outsourced — — — — 100% 1

The DOI burden would not be charged until the funds are obligated or expended in FY 2007 or beyond. 

Experimental Funding (Proposed Carry-Forward to FY 2007 and Beyond) – On the basis of 

the recommendation of the Technical Workgroup’s Budget ad hoc, this fund is intended to 

provide a carry-forward toward reestablishment of the Experiment Support fund. This strategy is 

similar to the approach taken by the program in 2000-03, when carry-forward funds were 

accumulated to support eventual implementation of the experimental science activities in FY 

2003-05. This budget amount reflects the attempt by the Budget ad hoc and the GCMRC staff to 

approach a targeted amount of $750,000, as well as implement two experimental treatments 

recommended by the GCMRC for FY 2006 (see chapter 1), and fund conservation measure 

activities identified by the Humpback Chub Comprehensive Plan ad hoc group. In the “NonExperiment” version of the FY 2006 budget and workplan, an experimental fund of just over 

$1,000,000 was identified as a carry-forward possibility, even with ongoing support for 

humpback chub conservation measures, ongoing provisional monitoring and completion of 

reporting on the 2004 sediment experimental work, as well as support for additional science 

planning. 
100 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

F.8. AMWG, TWG Requests During FY 2006 

FUNDING 

HISTORY Fiscal year 

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 

Outside GCMRC 

Science/Labor — — — — 75,000

Logistics Field 

Support — — — — 0

Project Related 

Travel/Training — — — — 0

Operations/Supplies — — — — 0

GCMRC Salaries — — — — 0

Subtotal — — — — 75,000

DOI Customer 

Burden (17%) — — — — 12,750

Project Total — — — — 87,750

% Total Outsourced — — — — 100%

Contingency for Unexpected Requests from the GCD-AMP – This funding is recommended 

by the GCMRC as a placeholder in the event that additional needs are identified by the GCDAMP during the course of FY 2006. 

TASK AND AD HOC GROUPS 

 Task and Ad Hoc groups have been established over time by the GCD-AMP in areas 

where GCMRC seeks on-going dialogue and guidance for specific science issues. In one sense, 

this also applies to interactions between the Science Advisors and the GCMRC staff (tasks 

related to science advisory and external expert review). Several task and ad hoc groups are 

described below; however and the experience of the GCMRC has been such that it believes that 

other task groups will likely continue to be formed as needs arise. The proposal for supporting 

the task groups involved in the multi-faceted science planning process is to utilize additional 

funds in the FY 2006 budget related to: 1) strategic science planning (see F.7), 2) Dam 

Operations Experiment (see B.9) and 3) increased funding in the area of Independent Review 

(see F.4). 

 A Cultural Resources Task Group operates to facilitate the incorporation of cultural 

concerns within all GCMRC program areas to assist the GCMRC in the development of a more 

integrated program that incorporates Native American perspectives in project development and 
101 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

work plans. The Task Group consists of the GCMRC Socio-cultural Resources Program 

Manager, Reclamation’s Regional Archaeologist, NPS managers, Western Area Power 

Administration's Archaeologist, and Tribal representatives. In addition, a tribal task group 

functions to obtain guidance from tribal representatives in program development, and program 

and project implementation. 

 A Biological Opinion Task Group operates to ensure appropriate coordination between 

GCMRC and the monitoring and research needs of the Bureau and USFWS under various 

biological opinions. The Task Group consists of the GCMRC Biological Resources Program 

Manager and appropriate representatives of Reclamation, FWS, AGFD, Tribal governments, and 

other AMWG and TWG members. All proposed activities are reviewed by the TWG. 

 Several ad hoc groups are currently working in the following key planning areas in an 

attempt to build a solid Strategic Science Implementation Plan that is supported by the GCDAMP and effectively accomplished by the GCMRC: 

 Experimental Ad hoc 

 Core-Monitoring Ad hoc 

 Strategic Science Plan Ad hoc 

 Humpback Chub Comprehensive Ad hoc. 

GCMRC BUDGET 

In FY 2003 the USGS began full-cost recovery accounting and instituted a DOI customer 

rate of 15% against all DOI agency reimbursable funding. In FY 2006, the customer rate will 

rise to 17% to achieve the required additional facilities costs. The DOI customer rate was 

established by the USGS Bureau Headquarters and determined to be significantly lower than the 

“full” burden rate that varies annually and includes facilities and the Cost Center and the Bureau 

burdens. In addition to the above rates, a special “pass through” rate of 6% was also instated. 

As a transitional aid to GCMRC, which had received under a previous administration the 

guarantee that USGS would not charge the power revenue funds any burden, the Bureau allowed 

the entire GCMRC power revenue budget to be charged only the 6% special rate (3% was 

retained by the Cost Center and 3% by Headquarters). 

In FY 2004, USGS Headquarters approved the special rate of 6% for only a portion of 

GCMRC’s power revenue funding. This rate was applied to approximately $1 million dollars of 
102 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

funding that went directly to GCMRC cooperators. The balance of power revenue funds were 

charged the full DOI customer rate of 15%. As a part of the full cost recovery policy, the USGS 

established a process referred to as “cost share” as a means of handling a limited electronic 

financial system. 

Cost Share is the funding that “covers” the balance of the full burden rate minus the DOI 

customer rate. In most cases, reimbursable funding from non-DOI agencies is charged the full 

burden rate. In FY 2004, the full burden rate for GCMRC was approximately 30%. The 

difference between the full rate of 30% and the DOI Customer rate of 15% equals 15% (all 

percentages are approximate). In FY 2004 the cost share funding requirement for all DOI 

agency reimbursable dollars received by GCMRC equaled almost $1 million. USGS policy 

requires cost share funding be from appropriated dollars only, and those funds are also charged 

the Cost Center burden rate. In essence, the $1 million dollar appropriation provided by USGS to 

GCMRC in FY 2004 had the effect of not adding funding, but merely filling the holes created by 

the cost share policy. 

In FY 2005 and FY 2006 the USGS appropriation requested for GCMRC (also $1 

million) is not likely to be added to the funding table (refer to lines #198). However, information 

has been forwarded to the GCMRC that the required DOI cost share funds will be provided by 

the USGS Headquarters, so as to continue allowing for the reduced customer rate to apply to the 

GCMRC science program in FY 2006. Per the full cost accounting policy and the requirement 

that cost share dollars be appropriated dollars only, the effect of these appropriations is entirely 

transparent and does not add funding to the AMP. The issue relating to how these cost share 

funds are derived in the future is a major area of concern for the GCMRC science program. 

Discussion among members of the GCD-AMP on this topic is highly encouraged by the 

GCMRC as the initial attempts are undertaken to draft an FY 2007-08, combined workplan and 

budget. 

In the FY2006 budget proposal and spreadsheet (see attached) for GCMRC, the costs are 

not necessarily correct for FY 2005. This is because of a discrepancy in funding amounts and 

application of the USGS $1 million appropriation discovered by GCMRC and the BOR during a 

January, 2005 budget meeting held in Salt Lake City. The expenses identified will need to be 

reworked to account for the discrepancy in funding and cost share expenses as well as the 15% 

DOI customer burden. 
103 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

The total FY 2005 and FY 2006 budgets for the AMP are $10,828,000 and $10,692,000 

respectively. These totals include $8,572,000 in FY 2005 and $8,786,300 in FY 2006 from AMP 

Power Revenues; and $210,000 and $219,000, respectively, from the Bureau of Reclamation 

Water Quality fund for both years.
104 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

REFERENCES CITED 

Arizona Game and Fish Department. 2001. Salmonid population size in the Colorado River, 

Grand Canyon, Arizona. Fishery Fact Sheet, Arizona Game and Fish Department, 

Phoenix, AZ. 

Austin, D., I. Bullets, B. Drye. 2000. Educational Outreach Program for Southern Paiute 

Cultural Resources along the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon. Submitted to the 

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center. 

Balsom, J.R. and S. Larralde (editors). 1996. Mitigation and monitoring of cultural resources in 

response to the experimental habitat building flow in Glen and Grand Canyons, Spring 

1996. USDI Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region, Salt Lake City. 

Bordon, F.Y. 1976. User carrying capacity for river-running the Colorado River in the Grand 

Canyon, USDOI, National Park Service, Colorado River Research Program, Technical 

Report No. 9. 

Brian, N.J. and J.R. Thomas, 1984, 1983. Colorado River Sand Bar Campsite Inventory. 

Division of Resources Management, National Park Service, Grand Canyon National 

Park, AZ. 

Bullets, I. 2003. Southern Paiute Consortium Colorado River Corridor Resource Evaluation 

Program Annual Report of activities. Report prepared for the U.S. Bureau of 

Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region, Salt Lake City. 

Coggins, L. and M. Yard. 2003. Mechanical removal of non-native fishes in the Colorado River 

in Grand Canyon: Update of winter 2003 operations and findings. Report to GCMRC. 

Coggins, L. and C. Walters. 2001. Trends in the recruitment and abundance of humpback chub 

(Gila cypha) in the Little Colorado River. American Fisheries Society Meeting Abstract. 

Culver, D.A., B.L. Kerans, M. Liermann, and G.R. Wilde. 2000. Final Report of the Lees Ferry 

Rainbow Trout Monitoring Peer Review Panel. Submitted to Grand Canyon Monitoring 

and Research Center, Flagstaff, AZ 86001. 

Davis, W. E. 2003. Stranding of rainbow trout during experimental fluctuating releases from 

Glen Canyon Dam on the Colorado River. EcoPlan Associates, Inc., Report 02-606. 

Cooperative agreement number 01WRCN0036. Submitted to Grand Canyon Monitoring 

and Research. 

Doelle, W. (editor). 2000. Final Report: Cultural Resource Program Assessment. Protocol 

Evaluation Panel submitted to Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, Flagstaff, 

AZ. 
105 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

Dongoske, K.E. 2001. Annual Report on the Hopi Tribe’s Involvement in the Glen Canyon 

Dam Adaptive Management Program and the Programmatic Agreement Regarding 

Historic Properties. Submitted to the Bureau of Reclamation. 

Douglas, M.E. and P.C. Marsh. 1996. Population estimates/population movements of Gila 

cypha, and endangered Cyprinid fish in the Grand Canyon region of Arizona. Copeia 

1:15-28. 

Drye, B., I. Bulletts, A. Phillips III, T. Snow, G. Stanfield. 2001. 200a southern Paiute 

Consortium Colorado River Corridor Resource Evaluation Program: Annual Report of 

Activities. Submitted to Bureau of Reclamation. 

Fairley, H. 2003. Changing River: Rime, culture and the transformation of landscape in the 

Grand Canyon. SRI Technical Series No. 79. SRI Press, Tucson. 

Fairley, H. C. 2004. Changing River: Time, Culture, and the Transformation of Landscape in 

the Grand Canyon. Statistical Research Technical Series 79. University of Arizona 

Press, Tucson. 179 pp. 

Gorman O.T., R.G. Bramblett. 1998. Monitoring and studies of native fishes of the Colorado 

River ecosystem in Grand Canyon, Arizona. US Fish and Wildlife Service submitted to 

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, Flagstaff, AZ. 

Hazel J., M. Kaplinski, R. Parnell, M. Manone. 2001. Monitoring the Effects of the Spring 2001 

Habitat maintenance Flow on Colorado River Ecosystem Sand Bars. Northern Arizona 

University, Department of Geology Sand Bar Studies Fact Sheet. 

Hazel J., M. Kaplinski, R. Parnell, M. Manone. 2001. Monitoring the Effects of the Spring 2002 

Habitat maintenance Flow on Colorado River Ecosystem Sand Bars. Northern Arizona 

University, Department of Geology Sand Bar Studies Fact Sheet. 

Hazel J., M. Kaplinski, R. Parnell, M. Manone, Alan Dale. 1999. Topographic and Bathymetric 

Changes at Thirty-three Long-Term Study Sites. American Geophysical Union 

Monograph #110, pages 161-184. 

Hazel J., M. Kaplinski, R. Parnell, M. Manone. 2001. Monitoring the Effects of the Spring 2000 

Habitat maintenance Flow on Colorado River Ecosystem Sand Bars. Northern Arizona 

University, Department of Geology Sand Bar Studies Fact Sheet. 

Hereford, R. 1993. Description of Map Units and Discussion to accompany Map showing 

Surficial Geology and Geomorphology of the Palisades Creek Archeologic Area, Grand 

Canyon National Park, Arizona. U.S. Geological Survey (U.S. Geological Survey OpenFile Report 93-553). Flagstaff, AZ. 
106 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

Hereford, R., H. C. Fairley, K. S. Thompson and J. R. Balsom. 1993. Surficial Geology, 

Geomorphology and Erosion of Archeologic Sites along the Colorado River, Eastern 

Grand Canyon, Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona. Grand Canyon National Park in 

cooperation with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Glen Canyon Environmental Studies 

(U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 93-517). Flagstaff, AZ. 

Hereford, R., K. S. Thompson, K. J. Burke and H. C. Fairley. 1995. Late Holocene Debris Fans 

and Alluvial Chronology of the Colorado River, Eastern Grand Canyon, AZ. U.S. 

Geological Survey (U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 95-57). Flagstaff, AZ. 

Hereford, R., K. J. Burke and K. S. Thompson. 1996. Description of Map Units and Discussion 

to Accompany Map Showing Quarternary Geology and Geomorphology of the 

Nankoweap Rapids area, Marble Canyon, Arizona. U.S. Geological Survey (U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 96-502). Flagstaff, AZ. 

Jalbert L. 2003. Implications of Low Summer Steady Flows on Whitewater Boating Safety and 

other Recreational Attributes. Paper presented at the 2003 GCMRC Science Symposium, 

Tucson. 

Jonas, L. and W. Stewart. 2002. An overview of various impacts to Grand Canyon River 

Experiences with at focus on intergroup encounters, flow levels, and the 2000 Low 

Summer Steady Flow Experiment. Report prepared in fulfillment of Contract 

#00PG400250, SWCA Environmental Consultants, Flagstaff. 

Kaplinski, M., J. Hazel, R. Parnell, M. Manone, M. Gonzales. 2003. Long-term monitoring of 

fine-sediment storage throughout the Colorado River ecosystem. Annual progress report. 

Kaplinski, M., J. Behan, J. E. Hazel, M. Manone, and R. Parnell. 2003. Evaluation of campsite 

studies in the Colorado River Ecosystem: Analysis and recommendations for long-term 

monitoring. Final Report in fulfillment of CA-00PG-400255-0001. 

Kaplinski, M., J. Hazel, R. Parnell, M. Manone, M. Gonzales. 2000. Evaluation of Hydrographic 

Survey Techniques Used for Channel Mapping by the GCMRC in the Colorado River 

Ecosystem, Grand Canyon, AZ. Unpublished report. 

Kaplinski, M., J.E. Hazel, Jr., and S.S. Beus. 1995. Monitoring the effects of interim flows from 

Glen Canyon Dam on sand bars in the Colorado River Corridor, Grand Canyon National 

Park, Arizona Final Report to Glen Canyon Environmental Studies, 62 pp., N. Ariz. 

Univ., Flagstaff, AZ. 

Kearsley, L. H. 1994. Effects of Glen Canyon Dam on Colorado River sand deposits used as 

campsites in Grand Canyon National Park, USA. Regulated Rivers: Research and 

Management, v9, 137-149. 
107 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

Kearsley, M. J. C., N. Cobb, H. Yard, D. Lightfoot, S. Brantley,G. Carpenter, J. Frey. 2002. 

Inventory and monitoring of terrestrial riparian resources in the Colorado River corridor 

of Grand Canyon: An integrative approach. 2002 Annual Report. Cooperative 

agreement number 01WRAG0044 and 01WRAG0034. Submitted to USGS/GCMRC. 

Kearsley, L. H., R. D. Quartaroli and M. J. C. Kearsley. 1999. Changes in the number and size 

of campsites as determined by inventory and measurement in The Controlled Flood in 

Grand Canyon. Geophysical Monograph 110, American Geophysical Union. 

Kearsley, L. H. 1995. Monitoring the effects of interim flows on campsite size along the 

Colorado River in Grand Canyon National Park (final report). Grand Canyon National 

Park Division of Resource Management, National Park Service. In cooperation with 

USDOI Bureau of Reclamation, Glen Canyon Environmental Studies, Cooperative 

Agreement CA8022-8-0002. 

Kearsley, L. H., R. D. Quartaroli and M. J. C. Kearsley. 1999. Changes in the number and size 

of campsites as determined by inventory and measurement in The Controlled Flood in 

Grand Canyon. Geophysical Monograph 110, American Geophysical Union. 

Kearsley, M.J.C, and T.J. Ayers. 2001. Review assessment and recommendations regarding 

terrestrial riparian vegetation monitoring in the Colorado River corridor of Grand 

Canyon. Submitted to Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, Flagstaff, AZ 

86001. 

Kearsley, L. H. and K. Warren. 1993. River campsites in Grand Canyon National Park: 

Inventory and effects of discharge on campsite size and availability (final report). Grand 

Canyon National Park, Division of Resource Management, National Park Service. 

Kunde, J.L., L. Leap, N. B. Andrews. 2001. Draft Annual report, FY 2001. River Corridor 

Monitoring Project No. 70, Grand Canyon National Park and Northern Arizona 

University. Cooperative Agreement No. CA 8210-97-002. 

Leap, L. M., J. L. Dierker, and N. Andrews. 2003. Archaeological site monitoring and 

management activities along the Colorado River in Grand Canyon National Park. Grand 

Canyon National Park River Corridor Monitoring Report No. 89. Submitted to Bureau of 

Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region, Salt Lake City. 

Leap, L. M., J.L. Kunde, D.C. Hubbard, N. Andrews, C.E. Downum, A. Miller and J.R. Balsom. 

2000. Grand Canyon Monitoring Project 1992-1999: Synthesis and Annual Monitoring 

Report FY99. Grand Canyon National Park River Corridor Monitoring Report No. 66. 

Submitted to Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region, Salt Lake City 

Lomaomvaya, M. , T.J. Ferguson, M. Yeatts. 2001. Ongtuvqava Sakwtala: Hopi Ethnobotany 

in the Grand Canyon. Submitted to the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center. 

Loveless, S. 2000. Bureau of Reclamation White Paper. 
108 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

Melis, T.S., and D.M. Rubin. 2003. Testing laser-based sensors for continuous in situ 

monitoring of suspended sediment. Proc. Oslo Workshop, June 2002. IAHS Publ. 282, 

2003. 

Melis, T.S. 1997, Geomorphology of debris flows and alluvial fans in Grand Canyon National 

Park and their influence on the Colorado River below Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona: Ph.D. 

dissertation, 490 p. University of Arizona, Tucson. 

Melis, T. S., R. H. Webb, P. G. Griffiths, and T. W. Wise. 1995. Magnitude and frequency data 

for historic debris flows in Grand Canyon National Park and vicinity, Arizona: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water Resources Investigation Report 94-4214, 285p. 

Meretsky, V. J. and D. L. Wegner. 1998. Annual report on monitoring of Kanab ambersnail at 

Vaseys Paradise. SWCA, Environmental Consultants, Inc., submitted to Grand Canyon 

Monitoring and Research Center, Flagstaff, AZ. 

National Academy of Sciences, 1999, Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam 

and the Colorado River Ecosystem, Washington, DC, 230 p. 

Neal, L. A., D. Gilpin, L. Jonas and J.H. Ballagh. 2000. Cultural Resources Data Synthesis 

Within the Colorado River Corridor, Grand Canyon National Park and Glen Canyon 

National Recreation Area, Arizona. SWCA, Environmental Consultants, Inc., submitted 

to Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, Flagstaff, AZ. 

Pederson, J. L., P. A. Petersen, W. W. MacFarlane, M. F. Gonzales, and K. Kohl. 2003. 

Mitigation, monitoring, and geomorphology related to gully erosion of cultural sites in 

Grand Canyon. Final Report in fulfillment of CA-01-WRAG-0074, on file, Grand 

Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, Flagstaff. 

Pennis, E. 2004. The Grand (Canyon) Experiment. Ecosystems. AAAS, 10 December 2004, v. 

306. 

Peterson, J. H. and C. Paukert. 2003. The utility of bioenergetics models in Grand Canyon 

Fisheries Research, U.S. Geological Survey. 

Roberts, C.A. and J.A. Bieri. 2001. Impacts of Low Flow Rates on Recreational Rafting Traffic 

on the Colorado River in Grand Canyon National Park. Electronic report on file at 

http://www.gcmrc.gov\library\reports\cultural\Recreation\roberts2001.pdf.

Rubin, D.M. 2004. A Simple Autocorrelation Algorithm for Determining Grain Size from 

Digital Images of Sediment. Journal of Sedimentary Research, vol. 74, No. 1, January, 

2004, p. 160-165. 

Rubin, D.M., D.J. Topping, J.C. Schmidt, J. Hazel, M. Kaplinski, and T.S. Melis. 2002. Recent 

sediment studies refute Glen Canyon Dam EIS hypothesis: EOS, vol. 83, no. 25, p. 273 

and 277-278, American Geophysical Union, Washington, D.C. 
109 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

Speas, D.W., C. Walters, T. McKinney, B. Persons. 2001. Population biology of rainbow trout 

in the Lees Ferry tailwater under varied flow regimes. American Fisheries Society 

Meeting Abstract. 

Shelby, B. 1976. Use levels and crowding in the Grand Canyon, USDI, National Park Service, 

Colorado River Research Program, River Contact Study, Final Report, Part 3. 

Spence, J. 2001. The riparian and aquatic bird communities along the Colorado River from 

Glen Canyon Dam to Lake Mead, 1996-2000. Partial Draft report submitted to Grand 

Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, Flagstaff, AZ 86001. 

 

Stevens, L.E., P. Keim and M. Miller. 2000. Morphological and genetic relatedness among 

succinieid landsnails in the United States and Canada, with emphasis on the endangered 

Kanab ambersnail (Oxyloma haydeni kanabensis). Final report submitted to Grand 

Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, Flagstaff, AZ 86001. 

Stewart, W., et al. 2000. Preferences of recreation user groups of the Colorado River in Grand 

Canyon. University of Illinois, Carbondale, submitted to Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center, Flagstaff, AZ. 

Thompson, K. S., A. R. Potochnik, R. Ryel, G. O’Brien, L. A. Neal. 2000. Development of a 

geomorphic model to predict erosion of pre-dam Colorado River terraces containing 

archaeological resources. SWCA, Environmental Consultants, Inc., submitted to Grand 

Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, Flagstaff, AZ. 

Topping, D.J., T.S. Melis, D.M. Rubin, S.A. Wright. 2004. High-resolution monitoring of 

suspended-sediment concentration and grain size in the Colorado River in Grand Canyon 

using a laser-acoustic system. Proc. of the Ninth International Symposium on River 

Sedimentation, October 18-21, 2004, Yichang, China. 

Topping, D. J., J.C. Schmidt, and I.E. Vierra, Jr. 2003. Computational Analysis of the 

Instantaneous-discharge record for the Colorado River at Lees Ferry , Arizona: May 8, 

1921 through September 30, 2000. USGS Professional Paper 1677. U.S.Geological 

Survey, Washington, DC. 

Urquhart, S., G. T. Auble, J. G. Blake, D. T. Bolger, T. Gerrodetter, S. G. Leibowitz, D. C. 

Lightfoot, A. H. Taylor. 2000. Report of a peer review panel on terrestrial aspects of the 

biological resources program of Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Operation of Glen Canyon Dam Final Environmental Impact 

Statement, Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region, 337 p. plus appendices, Salt 

Lake City, March 1995. 
110 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Authors: Van Haverbeke, D. R., L. G. Coggins, Jr. 

2002. Stock assessment and fisheries monitoring activities in the Little Colorado River 

within Grand Canyon during 2001. Draft final report submitted to the Grand Canyon 

Monitoring and Research Center. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Flagstaff. Doc. No. 

USFWS-AZFRO-FL-03-002. 

Webb, R. H., T.S. Melis, P. G. Griffiths, and J. G. Elliot. 1999. Reworking of aggraded debris 

fans: in R. H. Webb, J. C. Schmidt, G. R. Marzolf, and R. A. Valdez (editors): The 

Controlled Flood in Grand Canyon, p. 37-52, American Geophysical Union Monograph 

110, Washington. 

Weeden, H., F. Borden, B. turner, D. Thompson, C. Strauss, and R. Johnson. 1975. Grand 

Canyon National Park campsite inventory, Contract Number CX001-3-0061 with the 

National Park Service, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA. 

Wiele, S.M. 2003. Annual progress report (year-1) on sediment-transport modeling of 

mainstem flow and sediment dynamics. 

Wiele, S.M. and M. Franseen. 2000. Modeling of Mainstem flow and sediment dynamics at 

selected cultural resource locations. Draft report, under review. 

Yard, H. and J. G. Blake. 2002. Breeding bird assessment and surveys. In Kearsley et al. 

Inventory and monitoring of terrestrial riparian resources in the Colorado River corridor 

of Grand Canyon: An integrative approach. 2002 annual report. Cooperative agreement 

number 01WRAG0044 and 01WRAG0034. Submitted to USGS/GCMRC. 

Yard, H. and N. Cobb. 2001 Bottom-up structuring of avian communities in the Grand Canyon: 

In search of arthropod indicators. Project report 2000. Submitted to Grand Canyon 

Monitoring and Research Center, Flagstaff, AZ 86001. 
GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 200

APPENDIX A 

FY 2006 BUDGET WITH GCMRC’S EXPERIMENTAL REC

ID Project Descriptions BOR Approved FY04 Budget BOR Approved FY05 Budget BOR Draft FY06 Budget 

Reclamation Administration Power Revenue Funded ProjectsA Adaptive Management Work Group 

 1 Personnel Costs 151,000 155,530 159,418  2 AMWG Member Travel Reimbursement 13,000 13,390 15,725  3 Reclamation Travel 18,000 15,540 13,000  4 Facilitation Contract 21,000 21,000 25,000  5 Other 9,000 7,000 7,175 

BOR AMWG Subtotal 212,000 212,460 220,318B Technical Work Group 

 1 Personnel Costs 69,000 71,070 72,847  2 TWG Member Travel Reimbursement 15,000 15,450 20,836  3 Reclamation Travel 17,000 15,510 15,898  4 TWG Chair Reimbursement 21,000 21,630 22,171  5 Other 2,000 2,000 2,050 

TWG Subtotal 124,000 125,660 133,801C Other 

 1 Compliance Documents 26,000 26,780 22,450  2 Administrative Support for NPS Permitting(1) 100,000 This a

on 5/

 3 Contract Administration 25,000 25,750 24,394 

ADM Public Outreach 85,000 50,000 Move

FY04

Other Subtotal 136,000 102,530 146,844Reclamation Administrative Subtotal 472,000 440,650 500,964

Programmatic Agreement Cultural Resources 

 1 Reclamation Administration 43,000 51,500 52,788  2 NPS-GRCA Monitoring Costs 200,000 206,000 

- 

FY06 

 3 NPS-GLCA Monitoring Costs 28,000 28,840 

- 

FY06 FY06

 4 NN & GLCA Treatment Plan and 

Implementation 

100,000 100,000 20,000 Shou
GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 200

ID Project Descriptions BOR Approved FY04 Budget BOR Approved FY05 Budget BOR Draft FY06 Budget 

 5 Canyon Treatment Plan and Implementation 0 250,000 250,000  6 Zuni Conservation Program Mitigation 0 10,000 - Cove 7 TCP GIS Documentation 0 30,000 - 

PA Subtotal 371,000 676,340 322,788Reclamation Power Revenue Program Subtotal

843,000 1,116,990 823,752

Reclamation Administration NON-Power Revenue Funded ProjectsHCA Development of a LCR Management Plan 0 100,000 - BORTribal ConsultationA Cooperative Agreements with Tribes 

 1 Hopi Tribe 80,000 80,000 97,375 TWG 

they m

 2 Hualapai Tribe 80,000 80,000 97,375 TWG 

they m

 3 Navajo Nation 80,000 80,000 97,375 TWG 

they m

 4 Pueblo of Zuni 80,000 80,000 97,375 TWG 

they m

 5 Southern Paiute 80,000 80,000 97,375 TWG 

they m

Tribal Consultation Subtotal 400,000 500,000 486,875B River Trips for Consulation and DOEs 

 1 Hopi Tribe 0 15,000 - See c 2 Hualapai Tribe 0 15,000 - See c 3 Navajo Nation 0 15,000 - See c 4 Pueblo of Zuni 0 15,000 - See c 5 Southern Paiute 0 15,000 - See c

Tribal River Trip Subtotal 0 75,000 0Tribal Subtotal 400,000 575,000 486,875Reclamation NON-Power Revenue Subtotal 400,000 575,000 486,875

Bureau of Reclamation Total AMP Program Costs: 

1,243,000 1,691,990 1,310,627
GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 200

GCMRC 

Work Plan 

ID 

ID Project Descriptions 

Approved 

FY04 

Budget 

Approved 

FY05 

Budget 

Outside 

GCMRC 

Science/

Labor 

Logistics 

Field 

Support 

Project Related 

Trvl/Training 

Operations / 

Supplies 

GCMR

Salarie

U.S. Geological Survey - Biological Resource Division - GCMRC - Power Revenue Funded ProjectsA Physical Sciences, Modeling & DASA

A.2 CM Integrated Downstream 

Water Quality Monitoring 

179,000 250,000 325,000 25,000 10,000 30,000 309,1

A.3 RES Fine-Sediment Storage - 

Monitoring 

549,000 250,000 256,250 - - - 

 CM Streamflow & SS Transport 

- Monitoring 

505,000 500,000 - - - - 

 EXP SS Mass Balance - Exp. 

Support 

420,000 137,500 - - - - 

 RES Nutrient Flux - Res. Toward 

Core Mon. 

0 0 - - - - 

 RES SS Transport Modeling 231000 0 - - - -  CM Coarse-Grained Inputs - 

Monitoring 

135,000 0 - - - - 

 EXP Coarse Sediment - DebrisFan Reworking 49,000 0 - - - -  EXP Fine-Sediment Storage - 

Extra EXP. Elements 

500,000 750,000 - - - - 

 EXP Fine-Sediment - Sand 

Deposition in Arroyos 

25,000 0 - - - - 

 EXP Fine-Sediment - Camping 

Beach Changes 

25,000 0 - - - - 

 EXP SS Transport Modeling - 

Sand Routing Exps. 

62,000 0 - - - - 

 Physical Sciences 

Subtotal 

2,680,000 1,887,500 581,250 25,000 10,000 30,000 309,1

DASA Activities

A.4 DASA Air-Remote Sensing - 

Monitoring 

163,000 200,000 - - - - 28,1

A.5a DASA Data Base Management 

System 

128,000 128,000 32,500 - 3,000 12,000 91,5

A.5b DASA Library & Scanning Data 

Conversion Project 

79,000 99,000 24,000 - 4,000 29,250 88,6

A.6 DASA GIS: GIS General Support 

for Integrated Analyses & 

160,000 160,000 18,200 - 5,000 15,000 122,5
GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 200

GCMRC 

Work Plan 

ID 

ID Project Descriptions 

Approved 

FY04 

Budget 

Approved 

FY05 

Budget 

Outside 

GCMRC 

Science/

Labor 

Logistics 

Field 

Support 

Project Related 

Trvl/Training 

Operations / 

Supplies 

GCMR

Salarie

Projects 

A.7 DASA Channel Mapping 90,000 0 - - - - 28,1

 DASA Subtotal 620,000 587,000 74,700 0 12,000 56,250 358,8

Physical Sciences, Modeling & DASA Subtotal

3,300,000 2,474,500 655,950 25,000 22,000 86,250 667,9

B BioSciences Program 

 Aquatic & Terrestrial 

Ecosystem Activities 

B.1 RES Kanab Ambersnail & 

SWWF - Monitoring 

79,000 79,000 35,000 30,000 - - 14,2

B.2 RES Aquatic Foodbase - 

Monitoring 

248,000 315,000 100,000 50,000 5,000 - 109,0

B.3 RES&CM Status & Trends of DS Fish 

- Monitoring 

870,000 820,000 550,000 125,000 5,000 20,000 135,4

B.4 CM Status & Trends LF Trout - 

Monitoring 

161,000 111,000 90,000 8,000 - - 44,2

 CM Terrestrial Ecosystem - 

Monitoring 

505,000 300,000 - - - - 

B.5 RES Habitat Map & Inventory - 

Monitoring 

48,000 0 - - - - 14,2

 EXP Primary Productivity, 

Carbon Flux 

59,000 0 - - - - 

 EXP Temperatures and Habitat 

Use Monitoring 

200,000 150,000 - - - - 

 EXP Kanab Ambersnail 

Population EHF Impacts 

10,000 10,000 - - - - 

 EXP Foodbase Impacts of EHF 

Flows 

50,000 0 

- - - - 

B.6 EXP Spawning Redds & 

Suppression Mechanisms 

175,000 0 100,000 30,000 - - 14,2

 EXP Food Base Impacts of 

Fluctuating Flows 

60,000 0 - - - - 

B.7 EXP Mechanical Removal of 

Non-native Fish 

586,000 586,000 240,000 418,000 - - 44,2

 EXP Rainbow Diet Analysis & 

Predation of Chubs 

50,000 50,000 - - - - 

B.8 HCA Translocation of Humpback 

Chub 

25,000 50,000 45,000 5,000 - - 
GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 200

GCMRC 

Work Plan 

ID 

ID Project Descriptions 

Approved 

FY04 

Budget 

Approved 

FY05 

Budget 

Outside 

GCMRC 

Science/

Labor 

Logistics 

Field 

Support 

Project Related 

Trvl/Training 

Operations / 

Supplies 

GCMR

Salarie

B.9 HCA Dam Operations 

Experiment 

50,000 50,000 15,000 - 10,000 - 

 HCA Scientific, Recreation 

Impact Assessment 

11,000 30,000 - - - - 

 HCA Fish Monitoring below 

Diamond Creek 

50,000 50,000 - - - - 

B10 HCA Monitoring Parasites and 

Diseases 

50,000 55,000 - 20,000 - - 

B.5 HCA Concurrent LCR, Mainstem 

HBC Pop Est. 

250,000 200,000 - - - - 

 HCA HBC Outreach 0 0 - - - -  HCA Genetics Management Plan 0 0 - - - -  HCA Sediment, Turbidity 

Augmentation 

50,000 25,000 - - - - 

 HCA Sediment Augmentation 

Feasibility Study 

0 50,000 - - - - 

 HCA HBC Genetics Evaluation 0 0 - - - -  HCA Feasibility of HBC 

Augmentation 

0 0 - - - - 

BioSciences Subtotal 3,587,000 2,931,000 1,175,000 686,000 20,000 20,000 375,5C Sociocultural Program 

 CM Eval. & Plan for Cultural - 

Monitoring 

0 0 - - - - 

 RES 1st Yr Geomorph. Model, 

Process Study 

0 135,000 - - - - 

 RES Implementation of 

Recreation PEP recommendations 

0 40,000 - - - - 

 RES Implementation of 

Socioeconomic PEP recommendations 

0 40,000 - - - - 

 EXP Tribal Funding for 

Experimental Flows 

0 25,000 - - - - 

 RES Tribal Outreach Workshop 

(Tribal Training/Integration) 

45,000 0 - - - - 

 RES APE Study 25,000 0 

- - - - 

C.1 CM Integrated Archaeological 

Site Monitoring 

0 0 234,420 70,000 - 5,000 32,4
GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 200

GCMRC 

Work Plan 

ID 

ID Project Descriptions 

Approved 

FY04 

Budget 

Approved 

FY05 

Budget 

Outside 

GCMRC 

Science/

Labor 

Logistics 

Field 

Support 

Project Related 

Trvl/Training 

Operations / 

Supplies 

GCMR

Salarie

C.2 CM Integrated Tribal Values 

Monitoring 

0 0 50,000 - - - 25,0

C.3 CM Integrated Campsite 

Monitoring Program 

0 0 50,000 15,000 - 6,000 7,4

Sociocultural Program Subtotal 70,000 240,000 334,420 85,000 0 11,000 64,9D Logistics Support 

D.1 L&S Logistics (Dispersed 

throughout projects) 

- - - 42,000 62,8

D.2 L&S Survey Operations 126,000 126,000 18,150 - 64,9

 EXP Technical Support - Survey 

Equipment 

32,000 32,000 - - - - 

D.3 L&S Control Network 86,000 150,000 

30,000 25,000 - - 66,0

Logistics Support Subtotal 244,000 308,000 48,150 45,000 0 42,000 193,7E Information and Outreach 

Program 

E.1 IPO Web page and product 

development 

- 75,000 - - - - 

E.1 IPO GCMRC Component of 

SBSC Sys Admin Support 

242,000 242,000 - - 5,000 165,000 133,0

E.2 EXP Systems Administration & 

Computer Technical Support 

21,000 21,000 - - - - 

Information Office Subtotal 263,000 338,000 0 0 5,000 165,000 133,0Admin. & Tech. Supp. Services F Administrative & 

Management 

F.1 ADM Administrative Operations(1) 620,000 638,600 15,000 - 40,795 314,500 290,0F.1 EXP Administrative Support 5,000 5,000 - - - - F.2 ADM Program Planning & 

Management 

274,000 282,220 - - 15,000 10,940 458,2

F.3 ADM TWG/AMWG Participation 45,000 46,350 - - 15,000 - F.4 ADM Independent Reviews 222,000 272,000 325,000 - - - 
GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 200

GCMRC 

Work Plan 

ID 

ID Project Descriptions 

Approved 

FY04 

Budget 

Approved 

FY05 

Budget 

Outside 

GCMRC 

Science/

Labor 

Logistics 

Field 

Support 

Project Related 

Trvl/Training 

Operations / 

Supplies 

GCMR

Salarie

F.5 TBD GCMRC's additional 

Strategic Planning Support 

 25,000 

F.6 TBD GCMRC Science 

Symposium 25,000 

F.7 EXP Projected FY 2006 Carry Forward for 

Experiment Phase II 600,000 

ADM Public Outreach (Moved 

to BOR) 

0 0 - - - - 

F8 AMP AMWG, TWG Requests 0 73,000 75,000 - - - 

 AMP Unsolicted Proposals 

(Other research activities) 

0 50,000 - - - - 

Administrative & Management Subtotal 

1,166,000 1,367,170 1,065,000 - 70,795 325,440 748,2

Logistics, Info Office & Admin Support Subtotal 

1,673,000 2,013,170 1,113,150 45,000 75,795 532,440 1,074,9

GCMRC Power Revenue Subtotal 8,630,000 7,658,670 3,278,520 841,000 117,795 649,690 2,183,2U.S. Geological Survey - Biological Resource Division - GCMRC - NON-Power Revenue Funded Projects 

A Lake Powell 

A.1 CM Lake Powell Monitoring 210,000 210,000 - - 10,000 38,924 138,2

B.11 HCA Temperature Control 

Device (TCD) 

200,000 50,000 

188,680 

- - - 

 RES Kanab Ambersnail 

Taxonomy (USGS Appr. Only) 

88,000 0 - - - - 

GCMRC NON-Power Revenue Funded Project Subtotal 

498,000 260,000 188,680 0 10,000 38,924 138,2

GCMRC TOTAL AMP PROGRAM COSTS: 

9,128,000 7,918,670 3,467,200 841,000 127,795 688,614 2,321,5
GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 200

GCMRC 

Work 

Plan 

ID

Project Description Approved FY04 Budget Approved FY05 Budget Outside GCMRC Science/Labor Logistics Field Support Projec

Relate

Trvl/Tria

BOR & USGS-GCMRC AMP PROGRAM COSTS FISCAL YEAR 2004 FISCAL YEAR 2005 FISCAL YEAR 2006 BOR Power Revenue Program Costs 843,000 1,116,990 823,752 GCMRC Power Revenue Program Costs (net) 7,578,261 6,703,191 7,070,260 GCMRC DOI Customer Burden (Indirect Costs) 1,136,739 1,005,479 892,282 Subtotal BOR & GCMRC Power Revenue Program Costs 

9,558,000 8,825,660 8,786,293 

BOR Non-Power Revenue Program Costs 400,000 575,000 486,875 GCMRC Non-Power Revenue Program Costs 498,000 260,000 375,854 GCMRC DOI Customer Burden (Indirect Costs) 0 0 43,140 Subtotal BOR & GCMRC Non-Power Revenue Program Costs 

898,000 835,000 905,869 

 Estimated Cost Share expense required by USGS policy(3) 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 

TOTAL AMP PROGRAM COSTS (BOR & GCMRC): 11,456,000 10,660,660 10,692,162OTHER AGENCY AMP PROGRAM COSTS FISCAL YEAR 2004 FISCAL YEAR 2005 FISCAL YEAR 2006 US Fish & Wildlife Service 

 HCA HBC Captive Breeding/Refugia 40,000 0 ? USFWS responsibility  HCA Willlow Beach genetics Assessment 0 0 ? USFWS responsibility 

National Park Service 

 HCA Bright Angel Non_Native Fish Removal 167,000 167,000 ? NPS Funds; feasibility  HCA Tributary Non-native Fish Survey & Removal 0 0 ? NPS Funds; feasibility 

TOTAL AMP PROGRAM COSTS FOR OTHER AGENCIES: 

207,000 167,000 0 

TOTAL AMP PROGRAM COSTS - ALL AGENCIES: FISCAL YEAR 2004 FISCAL YEAR 2005 FISCAL YEAR 2006 

11,663,000 10,827,660 ,692,162 
GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 200

GCMRC 

Work 

Plan 

ID

Project Description Approved FY04 Budget Approved FY05 Budget Outside GCMRC Science/Labor Logistics Field Support Project Related Trvl/Trianing 

FUNDING: FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006(2) 

 USBR & USGS Power 

Revenues under cap 

8,363,000 8,572,000 8,786,300 FY2005 power revenues adjusted per BOR; 

 FY04 Carry Over 0 0 0 Updated to reflect the actuals determined for 

FY05 Previously Unidentified Funds (EHF) 

0 848,000 0 

 USGS Appropriations (3) 1,100,000 1,000,000 1,097,375 At this time, USGS appropriations are identi USBR Appropriations (4) 295,000 295,000 297,375 BOR appropriations unknown at this time -in NPS Funds (5) 167,000 167,000 0  NPS Appropriations (3) 95,000 95,000 97,375  FWS Appropriations (3) 95,000 95,000 97,375  BIA Appropriations (3) 95,000 95,000 97,375  BOR Operations & Maintenance 

(IQWP) 

210,000 210,000 218,994 

 USGS Funds for Remote 

Sensing 

180,000 0 0 

TOTAL AVAILABLE FUNDS 10,600,000 11,377,000 10,692,169 TOTAL FUNDING NEEDED 11,663,000 10,827,660 10,692,162 SUB-TOTAL AVAILABLE FUNDS - ESTIMATED COSTS 

(1,063,000) 549,340 6 

Experimental High Flows Testing - 11/2004 

0 549,340 8 FY05-This is not a surplus! These funds hav

TOTAL AVAILABLE FUNDS - ESTIMATED COSTS 

(1,063,000) 0 (2) They were not applied to the project porti

(1) The Logistics NPS Permitting costs are included above the line under BOR AMWG Administrative support (item #5) (2) CPI adjustment of 2.5% used for FY2006 (3) Cost share is the difference between the USGS full burden rate (37 to 42%) and the DOI customer rate (17%). USGS full burden rate varieenacted) at 15%. An additional 2% is added in FY 2006 to cover facilities charges. FY2006 Budget Assumptions: *The budget reflects the confirmed information that the USGS would again approve a special "pass-through" rate of 6% for GCMRC; it has bee*Budget based on the assumption that BOR contributes $200K for TCD, special rate of 6% is applied here *GCMRC budget based on assumption that the DOI Customer Burden Rate will be 17% and that the USGS Bureau contributes approximately $This version of the budget is developed around the option for EXPERIMENTAL TREATMENTS RECOMMENDED FOR IMPLEMENTION IN FY the target carry-forward of $750,000 to support experimental work in FY 2007. Indirect costs do not apply to the carry-forward amount until theCells in column A that contain project numbers, such as "A.2", AND are highlighted in LIGHT GREEN, indicate that they are proposed and reco
120 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

APPENDIX B 

GCMRC 

Work 

Plan ID 

ID FY2006 Project Descriptions MO CMINS or INS 

U.S. Geological Survey - Biological Resource Division - GCMRC - Power Revenue Funded Projects

A Physical Sciences, Modeling & DASA

A.2 CM Integrated Downstream Water 

Quality Monitoring 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 8.1 CMIN 7.1.1, 7.2.1, 7.3.1, 

7.4.1, 7.4.2, 8.1.2, 8.1.3 

A.3 RES Fine-Sediment Storage - 

Monitoring 8.1, 8.2., 8.3, 8.4, 8.5 CMIN 8.1.1, 8,2,1, 8.3.1, 

8.4.1, 8.5.1 

 DASA Activities 

A.4 DASA Air-Remote Sensing - 

Monitoring Goal 12 CMIN 8.5.1? 

A.5a DASA Data Base Management 

System Goal 12 

A.5b DASA Data Conversion & Library 

Support Goal 12 

A.6 DASA GIS: Automated Monitoring 

Technologies & Applications Goal 12 

A.7 DASA GIS: GIS General Support for 

Integrated Analyses & Projects Goal 12 

B BioSciences Program Aquatic & Terrestrial Ecosystem Activities 

B.1 RES Kanab Ambersnail & SWWF - 

Monitoring 5.1, 5.2, 6.6, 6.7 CMIN 5.1.1, 5.2.1, 6.7.1 

B.2 RES Aquatic Food base - 

Monitoring 1.1, 1.2., 1.3, 1.4, 1.5 CMIN 1.1.1, 1.2.1, 1.3.1, 

1.4.1, 1.5.1 

B.3 CM Status & Trends of DS Fish - 

Monitoring

Goal 2 & MO’s 2.1., 

2.2, 2.3, 2.4 & Goal 4 

& MO 4.2 

CMIN 2.1.1-21.2, 2.4.1, 

2.6.1,EIN 2.1.1-2.1.3 

B.4 CM Status & Trends LF Trout - 

Monitoring Goal 4 & MO 4.1 CMIN 4.1.1-4.1.5, 4.1.7 

B.5 HCA Concurrent LCR, Mainstem 

HBC Pop Est. Goal 2 

B.5 RES Habitat Map & Inventory Goal 6 (MO’s 6.1-6.5) 

B.6 EXP Spawning Redds & 

Suppression Mechanisms Goals 2 & 4 

B.7 EXP Mechanical Removal of Nonnative Fish 

Goal 2 (MO’s 2.1, 2.4, 

4.2) & Goal 4 

B.8 HCA Translocation of Humpback 

Chub Goal 2 

B.9 HCA Dam Operations Experiment Goal 2 

B.10 HCA Monitoring Parasites & 

Diseases Goal 2 

B.11 HCA Temperature Control Device Goal 2 MO’s 

 
121 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

C Sociocultural Program

C.1 CM&RES Integrated Archaeological Site 

Monitoring 11.1 CMINs 11.1.1., 11.1.2., 

11.1.3a, 11.1.4, 11.2.1 

C.2 RES Integrated Tribal Values 

Monitoring 

11.1, 11.2, 11.3, 12.5, 

12. 7, 12.8 

CMINs 11.1.1., 11.1.3, 

11.1.4, 11.2.1 

C.3 RES Integrated Campsite Monitoring 

Program 9.1, 9.3 CMINs 9.1.1-9.1.3; 9.3.1, 9.3.2; EIN 9.3.1 

 

GCMRC 

Work 

Plan ID 

ID FY2006 Project Descriptions MO CMINS or INS 

D Logistics Support

D.1 L&S Logistics (Dispersed 

throughout projects) 

D.2 L&S Survey Operations 

4.1, 4.2, 5.1, 5.2, 6.4, 

7.3, 8.1-8.5, 9.3, 11.1, 

12.2, 12.3, 12.9 

D.3 L&S Control Network 6.4, 7.3, 8.1-8.5, 9.3, 

11.1, 12.2, 12.3, 12.9 

 

E Information Technology Support

E.1 IT Systems Administration All MO’s 

F Admin. & Tech. Supp. Services - Administrative & Management

F.1 ADM Administrative Operations(1) All MO’s 

F.2 ADM Program Planning & 

Management All MO’s 

F.3 ADM TWG/AMWG Participation All MO’s 

F.4 ADM Independent Reviews All MO’s 

F.5 ADM Strategic Science Planning Goal 12 & All MO’s 

F.6 ADM GCMRC Science Symposium Goal 12 & All MO’s

F.7 ADM Experimental Fund Goal 12 & All MO’s

F.8 ADM AMWG and TWG Requests Goal 12 & All MO’s

U.S. Geological Survey - Biological Resource Division - GCMRC - NON-Power Revenue Funded 

Projects 

A Lake Powell Water Quality

A.1 CM Lake Powell Monitoring 7.1, 7.2, 7.3 CMIN 7.3.1 

 B.11 HCA Temperature Control Device 

(TCD) Goals 2 & 4 Native & Non Fish RIN’s 
GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 200

APPENDIX C 

FY 2006 BUDGET WITHOUT GCMRC’S EXPERIMENTA

ID Project Description BOR Approved FY04 Budget BOR Approved FY05 Budget BOR Draft FY06 Budget Comments 

Reclamation Administration Power Revenue Funded Projects 

A Adaptive Management Work Group 

 1 Personnel Costs 151,000 155,530 159,418  2 AMWG Member Travel Reimbursement 13,000 13,390 15,725  3 Reclamation Travel 18,000 15,540 13,000  4 Facilitation Contract 21,000 21,000 25,000  5 Other 9,000 7,000 7,175 

BOR AMWG SUBTOTAL 212,000 212,460 220,318 B Technical Work Group 

 1 Personnel Costs 69,000 71,070 72,847  2 TWG Member Travel Reimbursement 15,000 15,450 20,836  3 Reclamation Travel 17,000 15,510 15,898  4 TWG Chair Reimbursement 21,000 21,630 22,171  5 Other 2,000 2,000 2,050 

TWG SUBTOTAL 124,000 125,660 133,801 C Other 

 1 Compliance Documents 26,000 26,780 22,450  2 Administrative Support for NPS Permitting(1) 100,000 This administrative cost 

above the science line. 

 3 Contract Administration 25,000 25,750 24,394 

ADM Public Outreach 85,000 50,000 - Moved from USGS in FYOther Subtotal 136,000 102,530 146,844 Reclamation Administrative Subtotal 472,000 440,650 500,964 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT CULTURAL RESOURCES

 1 Reclamation Administration 43,000 51,500 52,788  2 NPS-GRCA Monitoring Costs 200,000 206,000 - FY06 Moved under GCM 3 NPS-GLCA Monitoring Costs 28,000 28,840 - FY06 Moved under GCM 4 NN & GLCA Treatment Plan and Implementation 100,000 100,000 20,000 Should be completed wi 5 Canyon Treatment Plan and Implementation 0 250,000 250,000  6 Zuni Conservation Program Mitigation 0 10,000 -  7 TCP GIS Documentation 0 30,000 - 

PA SUBTOTAL 371,000 676,340 322,788 

Reclamation Power Revenue Program Subtotal 843,000 1,116,990 823,752 
GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 200

ID Project Description BOR Approved FY04 Budget BOR Approved FY05 Budget BOR Draft FY06 Budget Comments 

Reclamation Administration NON-Power Revenue Funded Projects 

 HCA Development of a LCR Management Plan 0 100,000 - BOR: Plan to cover Bio

TRIBAL CONSULTATIONA Cooperative Agreements with Tribes 1 Hopi Tribe 80,000 80,000 97,375 TWG requests more info 

specified 

2 Hualapai Tribe 80,000 80,000 97,375 TWG requests more info 

specified 

3 Navajo Nation 80,000 80,000 97,375 TWG requests more info 

specified 

4 Pueblo of Zuni 80,000 80,000 97,375 TWG requests more info 

specified 

5 Southern Paiute 80,000 80,000 97,375 TWG requests more info 

specified 

TRIBAL CONSULTATION SUBTOTAL 400,000 500,000 486,875 B River Trips for Consultation and DOEs 

 1 Hopi Tribe 0 15,000 - See comments above  2 Hualapai Tribe 0 15,000 - See comments above  3 Navajo Nation 0 15,000 - See comments above  4 Pueblo of Zuni 0 15,000 - See comments above  5 Southern Paiute 0 15,000 - See comments above 

TRIBAL RIVER TRIP SUBTOTAL 0 75,000 0 

Tribal Subtotal 400,000 575,000 486,875 

Reclamation NON-Power Revenue Subtotal 400,000 575,000 486,875 BUREAU OF RECLAMATION TOTAL AMP PROGRAM COSTS: 1,243,000 1,691,990 1,310,627 
GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 200

GCMRC 

Work 

Plan ID 

ID Project Descriptions 

Approved 

FY04 

Budget 

Approved 

FY05 

Budget 

 Outside GCMRC 

Science/ 

Labor 

 Logistics 

Field 

Support 

 Project 

Related 

Trvl/ 

Training 

 Operations / 

Supplies 

 GCMRC 

Salaries 

 Proj

Subt

(w/

Burd

U.S. Geological Survey - Biological Resource Division - GCMRC - Power Revenue Funded Projects

A Physical Sciences, Modeling & DASA 

A.2 CM Integrated Downstream Water Quality Monitoring 179,000 250,000 500,000 75,000 15,000 70,000 309,100 96A.3 RES Fine-Sediment Storage - Monitoring 549,000 250,000 256,250 - - - - 25

 CM Streamflow & SS Transport - Monitoring 505,000 500,000 - - - - -  EXP SS Mass Balance - Exp. Support 420,000 137,500 - - - - -  RES Nutrient Flux - Res. Toward Core Mon. 0 0 - - - - -  RES SS Transport Modeling 231000 0 - - - - -  CM Coarse-Grained Inputs - Monitoring 135,000 0 - - - - -  EXP Coarse Sediment - Debris-Fan Reworking 49,000 0 - - - - -  EXP Fine-Sediment Storage - Extra EXP. Elements 500,000 750,000 - - - - -  EXP Fine-Sediment - Sand Deposition in Arroyos 25,000 0 - - - - -  EXP Fine-Sediment - Camping Beach Changes 25,000 0 - - - - -  EXP SS Transport Modeling - Sand Routing Exps. 62,000 0 - - - - - 

 Physical Sciences Subtotal 2,680,000 1,887,500 756,250 75,000 15,000 70,000 309,100 1,22 DASA Activities 

A.4 DASA Air-Remote Sensing - Monitoring 163,000 200,000 - - - - 28,100 2

A.5a DASA Data Base Management System 128,000 128,000 32,500 - 3,000 12,000 91,500 13A.5b DASA Library & Scanning Data Conversion Project 79,000 99,000 24,000 - 4,000 29,250 88,600 14

A.6 DASA GIS: GIS General Support for Integrated Analyses & Projects 160,000 160,000 18,200 - 5,000 15,000 122,500 16A.7 DASA Channel Mapping 90,000 0 - - - - 28,100 2

 DASA Subtotal 620,000 587,000 74,700 0 12,000 56,250 358,800 50

Physical Sciences, Modeling & DASA Subtotal 3,300,000 2,474,500 830,950 75,000 27,000 126,250 667,900 1,72
GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 200

GCMRC 

Work 

Plan ID 

ID Project Descriptions 

Approved 

FY04 

Budget 

Approved 

FY05 

Budget 

 Outside GCMRC 

Science/ 

Labor 

 Logistics 

Field 

Support 

 Project 

Related 

Trvl/ 

Training 

 Operations / 

Supplies 

 GCMRC 

Salaries 

 Pr

Su

(w

Bu

B BioSciences Program  Aquatic & Terrestrial Ecosystem Activities 

B.1 RES Kanab Ambersnail & SWWF - Monitoring 79,000 79,000 55,000 40,000 5,000 - 14,215 B.2 RES Aquatic Foodbase - Monitoring 248,000 315,000 100,000 85,000 5,000 - 109,015 B.3 CM Status & Trends of DS Fish - Monitoring 870,000 820,000 550,000 130,000 5,000 20,000 135,465 B.4 CM Status & Trends LF Trout - Monitoring 161,000 111,000 90,000 8,000 - - 44,215 

 CM Terrestrial Ecosystem - Monitoring 505,000 300,000 - - - - - 

B.5 RES Habitat Map & Inventory - Monitoring 48,000 0 - - - - 14,215 

 EXP Primary Productivity, Carbon Flux 59,000 0 - - - - -  EXP Temperatures and Habitat Use Monitoring 200,000 150,000 - - - - -  EXP Kanab Ambersnail Population EHF Impacts 10,000 10,000 - - - - -  EXP Foodbase Impacts of EHF Flows 50,000 0 - - - - - 

B.7 EXP Spawning Redds & Suppression Mechanisms 175,000 0 - - 

 EXP Food Base Impacts of Fluctuating Flows 60,000 0 - - - - - 

B.6 EXP Mechanical Removal of Non-native Fish 586,000 586,000 - - - - - 

 EXP Rainbow Diet Analysis & Predation of Chubs 50,000 50,000 - - - - - 

B.6 HCA Translocation of Humpback Chub 25,000 50,000 45,000 5,000 - - - B.7 HCA Dam Operations Experiment 50,000 50,000 15,000 - 10,000 - - 

 HCA Scientific, Recreation Impact Assessment 11,000 30,000 - - - - -  HCA Fish Monitoring below Diamond Creek 50,000 50,000 - - - - - 

B.8 HCA Monitoring Parasites and Diseases 50,000 55,000 - 20,000 - - - B.5 HCA Concurrent LCR, Mainstem HBC Pop Est. 250,000 200,000 - - - - - 

 HCA HBC Outreach 0 0 - - - - - 
GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 200

GCMRC 

Work 

Plan ID 

ID Project Descriptions 

Approved 

FY04 

Budget 

Approved 

FY05 

Budget 

 Outside GCMRC 

Science/ 

Labor 

 Logistics 

Field 

Support 

 Project 

Related 

Trvl/ 

Training 

 Operations / 

Supplies 

 GCMRC 

Salaries 

 Pr

Su

(w

Bu

 HCA Genetics Management Plan 0 0 - - - - -  HCA Sediment, Turbidity Augmentation 50,000 25,000 - - - - -  HCA Sediment Augmentation Feasibility Study 0 50,000 - - - - -  HCA HBC Genetics Evaluation 0 0 - - - - -  HCA Feasibility of HBC Augmentation 0 0 - - - - - 

BioSciences Subtotal 3,587,000 2,931,000 855,000 288,000 25,000 20,000 317,125 1,C Sociocultural Program 

 CM Eval. & Plan for Cultural - Monitoring 0 0 - - - - -  RES 1st Yr Geomorph. Model, Process Study 0 135,000 - - - - -  RES Implementation of Recreation PEP recommendations 0 40,000 - - - - -  RES Implementation of Socioeconomic PEP recommendations 0 40,000 - - - - -  EXP Tribal Funding for Experimental Flows 0 25,000 - - - - -  RES Tribal Outreach Workshop (Tribal Training/Integration) 45,000 0 - - - - -  RES APE Study 25,000 0 - - - - - 

C.1 CM Integrated Archaeological Site Monitoring 0 0 234,420 70,000 - 5,000 32,450 C.2 CM Integrated Tribal Values Monitoring 0 0 50,000 - - - 25,000 C.3 CM Integrated Campsite Monitoring Program 0 0 50,000 15,000 - 6,000 7,450 

Sociocultural Program Subtotal 70,000 240,000 334,420 85,000 0 11,000 64,900 D Logistics Support 

D.1 L&S Logistics (Dispersed throughout projects) - - - 100,000 62,800 D.2 L&S Survey Operations 126,000 126,000 28,150 35,000 - - 64,900 

 EXP Technical Support - Survey Equipment 32,000 32,000 - - - - - 

D.3 L&S Control Network 86,000 150,000 51,150 35,000 - - 66,000 

Logistics Support Subtotal 244,000 308,000 79,300 70,000 0 100,000 193,700 
GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 200

GCMRC 

Work 

Plan ID 

ID Project Descriptions 

Approved 

FY04 

Budget 

Approved 

FY05 

Budget 

 Outside GCMRC 

Science/ 

Labor 

 Logistics 

Field 

Support 

 Project 

Related 

Trvl/ 

Training 

 Operations / 

Supplies 

 GCMRC 

Salaries 

 Pr

Su

(w

Bu

E Information and Outreach Program 

 IPO Web page and product development - 75,000 - - - - - 

E.1 IPO GCMRC Component of SBSC Sys Admin Support 242,000 242,000 - - 5,000 165,000 133,000 

 EXP Systems Administration & Computer Technical Support 21,000 21,000 - - - - - 

Information Office Subtotal 263,000 338,000 0 0 5,000 165,000 133,000 Admin. & Tech. Supp. ServicesF Administrative & Management 

F.1 ADM Administrative Operations(1) 620,000 638,600 15,000 - 40,795 314,500 290,000 F.1 EXP Administrative Support 5,000 5,000 - - - - - F.2 ADM Program Planning & Management 274,000 282,220 - - 15,000 12,130 458,200 F.3 ADM TWG/AMWG Participation 45,000 46,350 - - 15,000 - - F.4 ADM Independent Reviews 222,000 272,000 325,000 - - - - F.5 TBD GCMRC's additional Strategic Planning Support 25,000 F.6 TBD GCMRC Science Symposium 25,000 F.7 EXP Projected FY 2006 Carry Forward for Experiment Phase II 1,030,500 1,

ADM Public Outreach (Moved to BOR) 0 0 - - - - - 

F.8 AMP AMWG, TWG Requests 0 73,000 75,000 - - - - 

 AMP Unsolicted Proposals (Other research activities) 0 50,000 - - - - - 

Administrative & Management Subtotal 1,166,000 1,367,170 1,495,500 - 70,795 326,630 748,200 2,Logistics, Info Office & Admin Support Subtotal 1,673,000 2,013,170 1,574,800 70,000 75,795 591,630 1,074,900 3,

GCMRC Power Revenue Subtotal 8,630,000 7,658,670 3,595,170 518,000 127,795 748,880 2,124,825 7,U.S. Geological Survey - Biological Resource Division - GCMRC - NON-Power Revenue Funded Projects

A Lake Powell 

A.1 CM Lake Powell Monitoring 210,000 210,000 - - 10,000 38,924 138,250 B.9 HCA Temperature Control Device (TCD) 200,000 50,000 188,680 - - - - 

 RES Kanab Ambersnail Taxonomy (USGS Appr. Only) 88,000 0 - - - - - 

 GCMRC NON-Power Revenue Funded Project Subtotal 498,000 260,000 188,680 0 10,000 38,924 138,250 

GCMRC TOTAL AMP PROGRAM COSTS: 9,128,000 7,918,670 3,783,850 518,000 137,795 787,804 2,263,075 7,
GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 200

GCMRC 

Work 

Plan ID 

ID Project Descriptions 

Approved 

FY04 

Budget 

Approved 

FY05 

Budget 

 Outside GCMRC 

Science/ 

Labor 

 Logistics 

Field 

Support 

 Project 

Related 

Trvl/ 

Training 

 Operations / 

Supplies 

 GCMRC 

Salaries 

 

S

B

BOR & USGS-GCMRC AMP PROGRAM COSTS 

FISCAL 

YEAR 2004 

FISCAL 

YEAR 2005 

 FISCAL 

YEAR 2006 

BOR Power Revenue Program Costs 843,000 1,116,990 823,752 GCMRC Power Revenue Program Costs (net) 7,578,261 6,703,191 7,114,670 GCMRC DOI Customer Burden (Indirect Costs) 1,136,739 1,005,479 847,869 Subtotal BOR & GCMRC Power Revenue Program Costs 9,558,000 8,825,660 8,786,290 BOR Non-Power Revenue Program Costs 400,000 575,000 486,875 GCMRC Non-Power Revenue Program Costs 498,000 260,000 375,854 GCMRC DOI Customer Burden (Indirect Costs) 0 0 43,140 Subtotal BOR & GCMRC Non-Power Revenue Program Costs 898,000 835,000 905,869 

 Estimated Cost Share expense required by USGS policy(3) 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 

TOTAL AMP PROGRAM COSTS (BOR & GCMRC): 11,456,000 10,660,660 10,692,160 OTHER AGENCY AMP PROGRAM COSTS 

FISCAL 

YEAR 2004 

FISCAL 

YEAR 2005 

 FISCAL YEAR 

2006 

US Fish & Wildlife Service 

 HCA HBC Captive Breeding/Refugia 40,000 0 ? USFWS responsibility to be completed in FY04  HCA Willlow Beach genetics Assessment 0 0 ? USFWS responsibility to be completed in FY04 

National Park Service 

 HCA Bright Angel Non_Native Fish Removal 167,000 167,000 ? NPS Funds; feasibility study initiated  HCA Tributary Non-native Fish Survey & Removal 0 0 ? NPS Funds; feasibility study initiated 

TOTAL AMP PROGRAM COSTS FOR OTHER AGENCIES: 207,000 167,000 0 

FISCAL 

YEAR 2004 

FISCAL 

YEAR 2005 

 FISCAL 

YEAR 2006 TOTAL AMP PROGRAM COSTS - ALL AGENCIES: 

11,663,000 10,827,660 10,692,160 
GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 200

GCMRC 

Work 

Plan ID 

ID Project Descriptions 

Approved 

FY04 

Budget 

Approved FY05 

Budget 

 Outside GCMRC 

Science/ 

Labor 

 Logistics 

Field 

Support 

 Project 

Related 

Trvl/ 

Training 

 Operations / 

Supplies 

 GCMRC 

Salaries 

 

S

B

FUNDING: FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006(2) USBR & USGS Power Revenues under cap 8,363,000 8,572,000 8,786,300 FY2005 power revenues adjusted per BOR; FY2006 increased bFY04 Carry Over 0 0 0 Updated to reflect the actuals determined for FY 2004 FY05 Previously Unidentified Funds (EHF) 0 848,000 0 USGS Appropriations (3) 1,100,000 1,000,000 1,097,375 At this time no USGS appropriations are identfied for use by GCMUSBR Appropriations (4) 295,000 295,000 297,375 BOR appropriations unknown at this time -included $200K for TCNPS Funds (5) 167,000 167,000 0 NPS Appropriations (3) 95,000 95,000 97,375 FWS Appropriations (3) 95,000 95,000 97,375 BIA Appropriations (3) 95,000 95,000 97,375 BOR Operations & Maintenance (IQWP) 210,000 210,000 218,994 USGS Funds for Remote Sensing 180,000 0 0 TOTAL AVAILABLE FUNDS 10,600,000 11,377,000 10,692,169 TOTAL FUNDING NEEDED 11,663,000 10,827,660 10,692,160 SUB-TOTAL AVAILABLE FUNDS - ESTIMATED COSTS (1,063,000) 549,340 9 Experimental High Flows Testing - 11/2004 0 549,340 8 FY05-This is not a surplus! These funds have been expendeTOTAL AVAILABLE FUNDS - ESTIMATED COSTS (1,063,000) 0 1 FY06-Surplus based on no experimental work in FY06 FY2006 Budget Footnotes: (1) The Logistics NPS Permitting costs are included above the line under BOR AMWG Administrative support (item #5) (2) CPI adjustment of 2.5% used for FY2006 (3) Cost share is the difference between the USGS full burden rate (37 to 42%) and the DOI customer rate (17%). USGS full burden rate varies between fiscal years; the DOI customer rate has remaFY2006 Budget Assumptions: *The budget reflects the confirmed information that the USGS would again approve a special "pass-through" rate of 6% for GCMRC; it has been factored into the budget as accurately as is feasible at *Budget based on the assumption that BOR contributes $200K for TCD, special rate of 6% is applied here *GCMRC budget based on assumption that the DOI Customer Burden Rate will be 17% and that the USGS Bureau contributes approximately $1 million for the cost share portion of the burden. This version of the budget is developed around the option for NO EXPERIMENTAL TREATMENTS IMPLEMENTED IN FY 2006Indirect costs do not apply to the carry-forward amount until they are expended or obligated in the outyear. Cells in column A that contain project numbers, such as "A.2", AND are highlighted in LIGHT GREEN, indicate that they are proposed and recommended by the GMCRC for funding and implementatio
130 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

APPENDIX D 

Program Overviews and Resource Status Updates 

 The GCMRC proposes to operate during FY 2006, under a slightly revised organizational 

structure focused on the following four program areas, each with a program manager: Physical 

Science and Data Acquisition, Storage and Analysis (DASA), Biosciences, Cultural Resources, 

and Logistics & Surveying. In 2006 and beyond, Information Technology needs of the GCMRC 

(system administration, web page development and maintenance, IT security and off-site data 

archives, etc.) shall be provided through a more centralized support of the SBSC Information 

Technologies Director and related IT staff of the overall Science Center. Of the four research 

stations within the SBSC, the GCMRC is the largest and therefore contributes the greatest 

amount of funding to the IT Department through a cost-shared approach to getting support 

needs met for all SBSC scientists and staff. 

 Additional revisions within the four remaining program areas of the GCMRC shall be 

identified within the GCMRC’s Strategic Science Implementation Plan and will implemented 

fully starting in FY 2007 and beyond. The intended purpose of these organization changes is to 

better focus the GCMRC staffing plan on resource and science need priorities identified in the 

GCD-AMP’s Strategic Plan. The GCMRC believes that a more streamlined and re-focused 

organizational structure within the GCMRC will allow the staff and cooperators to better meet 

the challenges of integrating monitoring and research activities as stipulated in the GCMRC 

mission statement (see above), while retaining critical technology support from the larger 

Southwest Biological Science Center. 

Furthermore, the former existence of an Information Technology program within the 

GCMRC formed a barrier to integrating the included logistical support-activities (e.g., GIS, 

survey, database management) into a larger, Center-based framework. In recognition of these 

challenges, the GCMRC Chief instituted a reorganization of the Center on October 9, 2003. 

Fundamental changes included combining the Biology and Physical Science programs into a new 

Integrated Ecosystem Science program, and strategically merging elements of the old 

Information Technology into the newly constituted science programs. The reorganization was 

expected to increase the effectiveness of GCMRC, particularly as it relates to the conduct of 

integrated, or ecosystem science. However, the workload of the Integrated Science Program 

exceeded the ability of staff to effectively manage for increased integration and productivity. In 
131 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

summer 2005, the GCMRC expects to hire a Biology Program Manager to administer that 

component of the program. The new program numbering system, on the Project Summary Sheets 

that follow, reflect the reorganization. 

An emphasis in the reorganization of the GCMRC programs is focused on meeting 

critical research needs related to fisheries and related aquatic resources, expanding the range of 

science related to the Socio-Cultural resource areas, continued experimentation to reduce 

management uncertainties and establishment of a cost effective long-term monitoring program 

that can be used by managers and scientists to relate dam operations to changes in downstream 

resources. 

PHYSICAL SCIENCE, MODELING AND DASA PROGRAM 

 The Physical Science, Modeling and DASA Program (Physical) represents the GCMRC’s 

primary support capability for research and monitoring related to the physical elements of the 

Colorado River ecosystem, as well as development and verification of simulation models related to 

fluvial processes in the Colorado River. It is also the driving force in designing and achieving 

science integration between physical, biological and socio-cultural elements of the monitoring and 

research program. It is also the part of the program that aims to develop and verify numerical 

modeling capabilities related to predictions of flow, sediment transport, thermal regimes and other 

critical ecosystem parameters related to fluvial processes. Under GCMRC’s new 2004 and beyond, 

organizational structure (see GCMRC’s FY 2005 Annual Work Plan), science integration for the 

CRE centers primarily around analysis of airborne remotely sensed and ground-based data on the 

Colorado River ecosystem. The system-wide analyses are facilitated within the DASA (Data 

Acquisition, Storage and Analysis) and driven by team-based initiatives aimed at acquiring resource 

data, with integrated objectives for analysis clearly identified prior to data acquisition. Following 

system-wide, airborne digital data acquisition and storage activities in spring FY02 and FY05, a 

variety of spatially integrated analyses of sand storage, vegetation and coarse sediment deposits 

(2002 versus 2004 and 2006) become possible in relatively shorter timeframes owing to the 

increasing functionality of the GCMRC’s Oracle relational data engine. Through a combination of 

technological advances in database and airborne positioning methods, as well as a new organizational 

structure, barriers that have hindered past integration efforts for rapid change detection are being 

reduced. 
132 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

Proposed Integration Topics - The growing capabilities of the GIS and DBMS staff within 

the DASA, will be focused on integrated analyses in the following areas during FY 2005-2008: 1) 

Development of techniques to inventory recreational camping areas throughout the CRE in 2006, as 

well as changes in these areas with respect to changes in sand-bar area and vegetation between 2002 

and 2006, 2) recent changes in system-wide sandbars areas and relationships to return-current 

channels (backwaters) designated as critical habitat elements related to native fishes early life history 

between 2002 and 2005, 3) recent changes in the distribution and abundance of shoreline habitat 

types between 2002 and 2005 relative to distribution and abundance data of both native and nonnative fish species of interest, 4) recent changes in fine-sediment storage between 2002 and 2005, 

relative to the known distribution of archeological preservation sites and other elements of the 

cultural resources program, 5) recent changes between 2002 and 2005, in the distribution of new 

coarse-grained sediment deposited by tributary debris flows and stream floods (their impacts to 

associated camping areas and rapids) and their relationship to the benthic organisms of the 

ecosystem’s food web, 6) integration of historical data relating to Lake Powell and associated 

downstream trends in critical quality-of-water parameters, such as temperature, suspended-sediment 

transport, dissolved oxygen, specific conductivity, etc. Additional integrated science topics shall be 

scheduled and undertaken with the GCMRC in collaboration with its stakeholders and science 

cooperators as funds allow and needs are identified. 

Model Development and Verification - In addition to pursuing integrated science analyses, 

the Physical Science program will also continue high-resolution monitoring of the system-wide flux 

of stream flow, quality-of-water and fine sediment through the combined use of conventional and 

innovative new sensor technologies (Melis et al., 2003; Topping et al., 2004). As initiated in 2002-

2004, these new technologies will be further supported by two-way satellite telemetry systems that 

allow real-time access to suspended-sediment and stream flow data, as well as remote control of 

automated monitoring systems. Over the past decade, several numerical models have been developed 

by cooperating scientists to predict the fate of operational releases from Glen Canyon Dam, as well as 

their influence on downstream resources, such as fine-sediment. Ongoing collection of highresolution data related to the mass flux of fine sediment, water and other parameters such as 

temperature, provide the ability to further refine and verify the existing models, as well as develop 

new models. Through time, as the various model capabilities are advanced, the Physical Science 

program intends to work with the Socio-Cultural and Biology program areas to develop additional 
133 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

ecological simulations for the CRE. Advanced modeling predictions can then be used to better focus 

the planning process for longer-term experimental designs that may be considered for 

implementation. 

Physical Science and DASA Updates - Following, are descriptions and updates on current 

knowledge related to the individual elements of the Physical Science, Modeling and DASA program 

area. 

Integrated Quality-of-Water Program Upstream Component - Lake Powell

Lake Powell Prolonged drought conditions in the Colorado River Basin and a high test 

flow in November 2004 have contributed to low Lake Powell elevations. Elevations following 

November’s release were at 3567.4 ft. This elevation is similar to that seen in the 1970’s when 

the reservoir was still filling. Storage in the reservoir was at 36% of live capacity (Bureau of 

Reclamation, http://www.usbr.gov/uc/water/crsp/cs/gcd.html) in December 2004. 

 As the warmer surface layers of the reservoir come closer to the penstock withdrawal 

elevation, increased release temperatures during the summers were recorded in 2003 and 2004. 

Release temperatures reached 12°C in September 2003 and 14°C in September 2004, the warmest 

temperatures observed for that time of year since 1973. Dissolved oxygen levels were at very low 

levels throughout the reservoir in September 2003 owing to resuspension of deltaic sediments. 

The GCMRC long-term monitoring program for Lake Powell continues, with monthly 

forebay and quarterly reservoir surveys. These surveys consist of the collection of a profile of 

physical and chemical parameters through the water column, sampling at discrete depths for 

major ion and nutrient concentrations, and biological sampling for chlorophyll, phytoplankton, 

and zooplankton at selected stations in the reservoir forebay, main channel, and major tributary 

arms of the reservoir. Continuous water quality monitors are in place for thermal monitoring in 

the reservoir forebay and in the reservoir tailwater. 

The database (WQDB) for Lake Powell and Grand Canyon water quality is nearing 

completion and being integrated with GCMRC’s Oracle database management system. These 

data comprise all Bureau of Reclamation, GCES, and GCMRC water quality monitoring 

information collected since 1965, representing the entire water quality history of Lake Powell. 

The consolidation and management of these data make it possible to evaluate the information 

collected from this long-term effort and make changes in sample collection to achieve a more 
134 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

efficient program. Revisions in major ion and nutrient sampling, plankton sampling, and inflow 

monitoring are expected during FY2006-2007. Monthly and quarterly provisional data from 

monitoring trips are posted on the GCMRC website and open file reports for each water year are 

published. The latter was instituted for WY2003. 

 The GCMRC receives funding for the Lake Powell Water Quality Monitoring Program from 

Bureau of Reclamation Operation and Maintenance funds, based on an agreement with the Technical 

Work Group. Adaptive Management Program funds are not used directly for Lake Powell 

monitoring. The Bureau provides additional support for model development and technical field 

assistance. Additionally, reclamation provides laboratory analytical services through a service 

agreement, eliminating the need for GCMRC to contract directly for these services and reducing its 

direct funding to GCMRC. 

Integrated Quality-of-Water Downstream Component 

 The Integrated Quality-of-Water Project (IQWP) has two major downstream components. 

The first component is focused on monitoring and modeling the mass-balance of fine sediment in 

the CRE. Monitoring of fine sediment is important because 1) sand typically provides the 

material that accumulates in side-channel eddies and creates sandbars that provide backwater 

habitat areas for native fish and recreational campsites for river runners, and 2) very fine 

sediment creates turbidity that was ubiquitous in the pre-dam era and has a significant effect on 

many ecological functions. The second component of IQWP downstream is focused on 

characterizing other water quality components of the ecosystem, such as water temperature, 

oxygen, nutrients, and carbon. This component of the program will have a strong linkage to the 

newly developing aquatic foodbase initiative. 

Fine-Sediment Mass Balance – A return to daily monitoring of the fine-sediment mass 

balance (i.e. input minus export) in the CRE began in August of 1999. Since then, the project has 

made significant advancements in the monitoring of fine sediment transport through the use of 

emerging technologies such as laser diffraction and acoustic backscatter. Results of sand-transport 

mass balance calculations for the period of fall 1999 through September 2000, show that sand loads 

passing the Grand Canyon gage, located 102 miles downstream of Glen Canyon Dam, exceeded total 

estimated tributary inputs; except during the period of June through August 2000 (Low Summer 

Steady Flow test), when dam operations were held constant at 8,000 cfs. Sand mass-balance data for 
135 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

October 2000 through November 2001, do show evidence of some accumulation of sand upstream of 

Phantom Ranch (river mile 87), in response to an approximate 1,000,000 metric ton input of sand 

from the Paria River in October 2000, in combination with relatively low-flow releases from Glen 

Canyon Dam throughout Water Year 2001. Additional sand inputs from the tributaries that occurred 

during September of Water Year 2002, also accumulated in the channel bed under the low-flow 

operations of September through December 2002. However, preliminary observations during 

January through March 2003, suggest that experimental fluctuating flows exported 2002 sand inputs 

from critical reaches above Phantom Ranch. Indeed, mass-balance calculations for Marble Canyon 

and Upper Grand Canyon (Lees Ferry to Phantom Ranch) indicate that sediment export has exceeded 

input since August 1999 (Figure 1.2). Further, Figure 1.2 indicates that significant export during the 

winter experimental fluctuating flows is contributing to the negative mass-balance. Significant 

tributary inputs during fall 2004, led to an experimental high-flow release from Glen Canyon Dam, as 

discussed in a subsequent section updating experimental flows. 

-4.0

-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

MASS-BALANCE SAND BUDGET

BETWEEN LEES FERRY AND THE GRAND CANYON GAGE

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

MASS-BALANCE UNCERTAINTY ENVELOPE

WATER DISCHARGE

SAND MASS IN REACH RELATIVE TO 

THAT ON AUG 15, 1999 (million metric tons)

DISCHARGE AT THE LEES FERRY GAGE (ft3/s)

PARIA RIVER FLOODS LCR FLOOD

PARIA RIVER FLOOD

ACCUMULATION

EROSION

Figure 1.2. Mass-balance of fine sediment between Lees Ferry and Grand Canyon since August 1999 

(data are provisional and subject to review and revision). 

 Existing management actions taken through Water Year 2004, under the Record-ofDecision (ROD) failed to meet even the expectations contained in the Glen Canyon Dam EIS 
136 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

that, compared to the no action alternative, the preferred alternative would result in sand 

resources in the CRE increasing over time. The basic finding of the mass-balance project team is 

that downstream transport of new sand inputs occurs much more rapidly than was previously 

predicted by the Glen Canyon Dam EIS writing team (Rubin et al., 2002). The rapid export of 

new sand inputs measured during 1999 through 2004 (Figure 1.2), from sediment-starved 

upstream reaches such as Marble Canyon, indicates that the ecosystem’s sand supply does not 

become progressively enriched over multi-year periods, except during periods when monthly 

release volumes are at about 700,000 acre feet or lower. If most ROD dam operations prevent 

new sand inputs from accumulating within the river channel, then re-deposition of new sand 

inputs cannot occur during occasional controlled floods, termed “Beach/Habitat-Building 

Flows.” Such periodic releases are intended to restore and maintain sand bars that have 

experienced erosion since dam closure. Suggested alternatives for better conserving new sand 

inputs include timing the release of bar-building floods to more closely follow significant periods 

of sand input from tributaries (this alternative was tested in November 2004, as discussed in a 

subsequent section on experimental flows). Another alternative is to schedule BHBF releases 

following periods when monthly ROD operations at Glen Canyon Dam consistently reflect 

below-average basin-hydrology conditions (8.23 million acre feet minimum release annual 

volumes).

 Water Quality Monitoring – Downstream water quality monitoring has been aimed 

primarily at establishing a robust record of tributary and mainstem temperature data under 

different flow conditions. More recent protocols attempt to characterize a variety of other 

parameters that provide information on the ecosystem function, such as dissolved oxygen. 

Temperature, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, and pH are monitored continuously at Glen 

Canyon Dam and at several locations on the Colorado River between the dam and Diamond 

Creek. Temperature is monitored at several other mainstem locations as well as on major 

tributaries. These data provide information on how these parameters change both in time and 

space throughout the CRE, aid in the calibration and validation of numerical models, and serve 

as baseline data for integration with the aquatic foodbase program. As an example, Figure 1.3 

shows temperature data collected at Lees Ferry and at the Grand Canyon gage (Phantom Ranch) 

during the Low Summer Steady Flows of 2000, illustrating the effects of low flows on 
137 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

downstream warming. Monitoring of water temperatures in backwater areas is also ongoing in 

order to assess the thermal regime of these critical habitats. 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Jan - 2000

Feb - 2000

Mar - 2000

Apr - 2000

May - 2000

Jun - 2000

Jul - 2000

Aug - 2000

Sep - 2000

Oct - 2000

Nov - 2000

Dec - 2000

Daily water temperature (C)

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

Daily water discharge (cfs)

Lees Ferry daily water temperature

Grand Canyon daily water temperature

Lees Ferry daily discharge

Figure 1.3. Daily water temperature data at Lees Ferry (mile 0) and Grand Canyon gages (mile 

87) and daily flows at Lees Ferry during calendar year 2000. 

Ongoing data analysis includes the assessment of spatial and temporal trends in the 

monitored parameters (temperature, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, and pH). In the future, 

analyses of these data will be integrated with the developing aquatic foodbase program, 

particularly with respect to analyzing whole-stream metabolism using dissolved oxygen. 

Protocols are in development for the transfer of collected data into the GCMRC Oracle database 

in order to facilitate these integrated analyses. A protocol of annual data reporting (as USGS 

Open-File Reports) is also being implemented in order to give stakeholders and other scientists 

access to peer-reviewed data as quickly as possible. 

Simulation Model Development and Application – Fine sediment transport model 

development and application has been ongoing since 2003. Two models are under development. 

The first model simulates flow and sediment transport in individual eddies and is used to predict 
138 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

how sandbars build under varying flow and sediment supply conditions. The second model uses 

results from the first model to simulate sediment transport, erosion, and deposition down the 

Colorado River channel between Lees Ferry and Phantom Ranch. When completed, this model 

may be used to assess the effects of various dam operations on fine sediment resources in the 

CRE, and to tailor-design any future high-flow test hydrographs (peak and duration) to maximize 

effectiveness in bar-building response. The model will be a valuable tool to help managers 

assess the potential effects of management decisions before implementation. 

One of the primary recommendations of the water quality Protocol Evaluations Panel was 

the development of numerical models of water quality dynamics within the CRE. Numerical 

models are useful for various applications, including 1) analyzing “what if” scenarios for 

management decisions (e.g. how would a temperature control device at GCD affect temperatures 

at various downstream locations?), 2) interpolating both spatially and temporally between 

collected data (i.e. filling gaps in monitoring records), and 3) isolating the effects of different 

driving mechanisms (e.g. how do fluctuating flows affect downstream oxygen levels with all 

other factors being equal?). Beginning in FY05, work was initiated on the development of a 

water quality model of the Colorado River downstream of Glen Canyon Dam, and this work will 

continue in FY06. The model is one-dimensional (streamwise) and incorporates results from a 

previously developed 1D flow model. A modular structure is being implemented so that any 

generic source/sink term can be added to the model in order to simulate the parameter of interest. 

The first source/sink term being added to the model is heat exchange between the river and the 

atmosphere in order to simulate water temperature, since temperature is an important parameter 

for many ecological processes. Future envisioned additions to the model include DO-BOD 

relationships, nutrient transport and cycling, and linkage to the fine sediment transport model to 

assess the effects of fine sediment on other ecosystem processes. The model will be an essential 

tool for integrated analyses of water quality data in the context of the aquatic foodbase program. 

Fine-Sediment and Related Shoreline Habitats

 Fine-Sediment Storage Monitoring: Individual sand bar data collected from 1990 

through fall 2003, show that sand bars in the actively fluctuating zone (8,000 to 25,000 cfs), and 

above the 25,000 cfs stage within Marble Canyon (river miles 0-61) have continued to decline 

since 1990, despite bar restoration gains achieved by the Beach/Habitat-Building Flow test of 
139 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

1996, and peak power-plant test flows released in November 1997, and May and September 

2000. Although high-elevation sand bars (above 25,000 cfs) below river mile 61 (Grand 

Canyon) appear to be in somewhat better condition in 2000 versus 1990, than bars in Marble 

Canyon, deposits within the actively fluctuating zone continue to show decline throughout the 

ecosystem. The sand-bar time series (1990 through 2002) suggests that the long-term fate of 

beaches in the upper, critical reaches of the ecosystem will likely be in continued decline under 

current ROD operations. Beach data collected in fall 2003, show decline in bar conditions at 

many sites within the first 100 miles below the dam. The most probable reason for the 

continuing decline of sand bars appears to be related to depletion of the ecosystem’s sediment 

supply. This trend might be reversed if new fine-sediment inputs from tributaries can be 

managed more strategically using combinations of power-plant operations and BHBF’s 

following tributary floods. Declining beach trends correlate with the findings of the sediment 

mass-balance project that indicate that new sand inputs from tributaries are transported 

downstream relatively quickly rather than being retained throughout the river channel and 

periodically re-deposited on diminishing bars. 

Experimental Flows Update – Fine Sediment High-Flow Testing in November 2004 

Experimental fluctuating flows from 5,000 to 20,000 cfs were conducted in January – 

March 2003 and 2004. These flows are designed to disadvantage non-native fish in the Glen 

Canyon reach, but also have an effect on fine sediment transport. Because of the non-linear 

nature of the relation between sediment-transport and water discharge, higher peak fluctuations 

tend to transport much more sediment. Analysis of sediment export using rating curves indicates 

that the 5,000 to 20,000 cfs daily fluctuations export 147 – 241% more fine sediment than 

Modified Low Fluctuations Flows (MLFF) for a 700,000 acre-feet release month. The high 

export rate of sediment during these experimental fluctuations is also apparent in the massbalance plot presented in the previous section (Figure 1.2). 

 Further experimental flows were conducted in November 2004, in response to medium 

Paria River inputs during September, October, and November. Between July 1 and November 

11, 2004, fine sediment monitoring indicated that between 760,000 and 1,260,000 metric tons of 

sand had accumulated in Marble Canyon, leading managers to initiate a high-flow test in an 

attempt to redistribute this newly supplied sand to high elevation eddies and sandbars. On 
140 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

November 20th at 10 pm flows began to ramp up from 8,000 cfs at Glen Canyon Dam, reaching a 

peak of 41,000 cfs on November 22nd at 4 am. The peak was maintained for 60 hours and the 

flow returned to 8,000 cfs on November 25th at 1 pm. High-resolution suspended-sediment and 

bed material data were collected during the high-flow test, along with pre- and post-high-flow 

sandbar surveys (ground-based and aerial remote sensing combined with traditional land 

surveying) in selected reaches throughout Marble Canyon in order to evaluate the effects of the 

high-flow test on fine sediment resources within the CRE. Data analysis is ongoing with 

preliminary results expected during the fall of 2005 (see Pennisi, 2004). 

Data Acquisition, Storage and Analysis (DASA) 

Based on results of the 2000-2003, Remote Sensing Initiative (Davis, et al., 2003) and the 

success of several automated analysis projects undertaken in FY2003, the GCMRC proposes to 

refocus many of its monitoring data acquisition and analysis efforts around a common theme 

entitled, automated monitoring technologies and applications. This approach envisions: (1) 

adoption of a suite of remote sensing technologies that have either been proven or are very likely 

to produce terrestrial and hydrographic data of sufficient accuracy to satisfy many of the 

scientific needs of the physical, biological and cultural resource programs, as well as information 

requirements of resource managers, and (2) development or adoption of digital analysis routines 

for automating the extraction and classification of information formatted to the monitoring needs 

of scientists or cooperators attached to the physical, biological and cultural resource programs 

and to those of resource managers. This approach is designed to supplement and enhance more 

traditional scientific data collection and analysis technologies, and, in some cases, supplant them. 

Airborne and ground-based sensors have joined the ranks of more traditional gauging stations as 

technologies for monitoring the environment. This approach is adaptive. It recognizes that, 

while all scientific data collection cannot be automated, many analysis and field-support 

activities can be. Where applicable, the GIS program exists to provide this support. In this 

vision, ‘storage’ is that component of the triad that provides the framework for housing and 

accessing an expanding digital database composed of traditional and remotely sensed data 

together with their derived information products. 

System-Wide Data Acquisition (Airborne Remote Sensing) - The automated monitoring 

technologies and applications approach envisions implementation of many findings and remote 

sensing technologies recommended to the Technical Work Group in the final report from the 
141 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

remote sensing initiative. The remote sensing technology proposed for 2005 was multi-spectral 

and panchromatic digital imagery (25 cm and 12.5 cm spatial resolutions) together with digital 

elevation data (1 meter spatial resolution), whose analysis was automated in 2003 to produce 

terrestrial vegetation and fine-grained sediment inventories. 

Remote sensing accomplishments in FY2002-05 included acquisition of a canyon-wide 

set of multi-spectral digital imagery and a 1-meter digital elevation model (DEM), a successful 

test of very high resolution LiDAR within Marble Canyon, and the publication of results from 

the remote sensing initiative. Several automated products were developed from the multispectral imagery. These include: a canyon-wide fine-grained sediment inventory, a camping 

beach characteristic inventory, and the development of digital topographic cross-sections (based 

on the May, 2002 1-meter digital elevation model) to support hydrographic modeling. FY2004 

accomplishments included: a detailed, canyon-wide vegetation map developed from the May, 

2002 multi-spectral digital imagery; acquisition of canyon-wide multi-spectral and panchromatic 

digital imagery (assuming available funds); and very high resolution LiDAR, hydrographic 

LiDAR and selected multi-beam sonar to support a final assessment of these technologies as 

primary monitoring technologies. These data will form the basis of detailed inventories, change 

analyses and technology assessments that will be produced in FY2006 and beyond. 

FY 2005 Remote-Sensing Activities – In support of the November 2004 High-Flow 

sediment test, two LiDAR missions were flown (before and after the release) to define highresolution topographic changes in sand bars with in study reaches between Lees Ferry and 

Phantom Ranch (river miles 0 to 87). These overflights were intended only to provide data on 

topography changes caused by the test release, but provided no imagery per se. To achieve the 

goals of capturing imagery of the changes caused by the 2004 test system-wide, as well as 

document the persistence of any sand bar changes captured in the winter LiDAR overflights, a 

mutli-faceted overflight was planned and implemented approximately six months following the 

high-flow Test. During the Memorial Day weekend 2005, the GCMRC’s contractors 

successfully accomplished overflights aimed at: 1) system-wide capture of orthorectified, 

digital, multi-spectral imagery (with automated photogrammetry to define topographic changes 

at a coarser resolution than achieved with the LiDAR technique) and 2) repeat of LiDAR 

coverage previously flown immediately before and after the November 2004 High-Flow Test 

within monitoring reaches between Lees Ferry and Phantom Ranch. Both of these data sets were 
142 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

collected within the agreed upon timeframe of steady flows planned by BuRec and GCMRC so 

as to minimize the impact to normal hydropower plant operations. Flows were held at a steady 

release of 8,000 cfs from the evening of Thursday May 26th through the evening of Tuesday May 

31st. Normal operations commenced on June 1st with no impact to the June operating schedule. 

These data will be extremely valuable in evaluations of the influence of the November 2004 

sediment test on downstream sand resources, as well as meet the longer-term monitoring 

requirements of the science program with respect to assessing changes in the terrestrial 

environment, including vegetation changes. 

Terrestrial digital elevation base maps - Prior to 2001, GCMRC had sub-meter accuracy 

terrestrial topographic maps of approximately 80 miles of the ecosystem in 17 areas of 

concentrated scientific effort that have been referred to as GIS sites. GCMRC also has similar 

topographic maps from GCD to Badger Rapid near river mile (RM) 8 derived from our LiDAR 

evaluation in 1998. In FY2000, the GCMRC collected high-resolution orthophotography and 

topography of the entire CRE. This dataset provides one-foot resolution geo-referenced and 

rectified imagery and one meter interval contour maps as well as a four-meter digital elevation 

model. This data set was delivered, inspected, and incorporated into the GCMRC FTP site 

(accessible from the GCMRC web page or directly at ftp.gcmrc.gov) in the /data/orthophotos and 

/data/lidar subdirectories. In addition to sub-meter terrestrial base maps described above, we 

have high-resolution field surveys of 35 sand bar sites that have been repeated at varying 

intervals since 1991. The GCMRC has numerous field surveys of vegetation, cultural, and 

endangered species habitat such as KAS surveys. Additional sub-meter accuracy terrestrial 

topographic coverage needs to be obtained for the remainder of the ecosystem. 

Hydrographic base maps - The hydrographic mapping program was established for the 

purpose of producing a sub-aqueous channel map of the Colorado River within the ecosystem. 

Hydrographic mapping supports several GCMRC scientific initiatives including: streamflow and 

fine-grained sediment transport, fine-grained sediment storage, streamflows and suspended 

sediment modeling, advanced conceptual modeling of coarse grained sediment, fish habitat 

mapping, and measuring changes in morphology and topography of the sub-aqueous canyon 

ecosystem. The Center currently has low resolution (20 meter transects) single beam base data 

from GDC to Badger Rapid, and GIS Site 7. Additionally, the Center has single beam data (10 

meter square) repeated since 1993 at 35 NAU sand bar sites (Hazel et al., 1999; Kaplinski, 
143 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

2000), repeated surveys from Paria (RM 1) to Cathedral Wash (RM 3), 4 large pool sites in Site 

5 (Wiele, 1998), 5 repeated surveys in RM 42-43 and RM 62-65 to monitor the 1996 flood, and a 

pre- and post-flood survey on the Lake Mead Delta. High resolution (multi-beam) surveys also 

exist in the pools from RM 1-3, RM 9-11, 29-42, and 45-68. Additional channel mapping of all 

the remaining river channel needs to be obtained as control is established. In FY2001-03, 

hydrographic channel data was collected for approximately 60 additional miles of the CRE. This 

data were processed in FY2002-03. Additionally, the GCMRC has explored the potential of 

channel mapping using an airborne LiDAR system with water-penetrating capabilities as part of 

a sediment augmentation feasibility study. 

Mapping Riparian Vegetation - We examined various airborne remote-sensing data that 

were collected during different seasons within a one-year time frame, with different spatial 

resolutions (11 cm to 100 cm), and with various technologies (CIR film, CIR CCDs, and multispectral data) to determine the relative merits of each data set for mapping riparian vegetation 

within the Grand Canyon. This study determined that digital, 3-4 band image data using 

appropriate wavelength bands can provide maps of riparian vegetation communities at a 60-70% 

accuracy level without field surveys. Field verification and limited surveys can increase this 

accuracy to about 80% or greater. 

Mapping Warm-Water Fish Habitats and Cultural Features – The GCMRC’s DASA staff 

evaluated airborne thermal-infrared (TIR) data that were acquired at 100-cm resolution during 

maximum solar heating (at 1:30 p.m.) to determine the capability of such data for mapping warm 

backwaters and near-shore habitats for fish, in addition to mapping archaeological structural sites 

and natural springs within the Grand Canyon. Airborne TIR data can provide an instantaneous 

map of surface water temperature for very large regions, which cannot be obtained by in-situ 

measurement methods. Detection of archaeological structures requires the use of an airborne 

TIR sensor that can detect temperature differences as small as 0.1 degrees C, and provide at a 

spatial resolution of no more than 25 cm. Detection would be optimized by data collection after 

sunset or just after sunrise. Safety issues after dark and shadows during early morning make such 

data collections very difficult. Detection of natural springs is better approached using TIR data 

collected after sunset. The TIR data collected during daylight hours detect only the largest 

springs, whose existence is already known. Detection of natural springs after sunset can and has 

been accomplished using rather low-resolution imagery (1-3 meters) because the spring waters 
144 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

spread from their source and present a large area and the spring water is much colder than the 

surrounding warm, dry ground. 

Monitoring Sand-Bar Deposits - The GCMRC evaluated light detection and ranging 

(LiDAR) and photogrammetric methods for remotely mapping sand bar deposits along the 

Colorado River to determine if these two remote-sensing technologies for mapping topography 

could approach the accuracies currently obtained using field survey methods and at a comparable 

cost, while providing more aerial coverage. Thus far, our studies have determined that LiDAR 

appears to be a suitable method for rapidly obtaining the topography of bare sediment surfaces 

over very large regions whereas photogrammetry produces more accurate ground topography in 

vegetated terrain than LiDAR. 

Members of the DASA are further investigating LiDAR and photogrammetry in terms of 

their ability to map volumes of terrestrial sediments, which does not require knowledge of 

absolute elevations. In FY2002-03, the Center staff investigated remote-sensing technologies to 

determine vegetation habitat structures (area, volumes, heights), to map and monitor older river 

terraces, to map and monitor channel bottom deposits, and to monitor the river water’s 

suspended load and turbidity. In November 2004, LiDAR data was collected for FIST reaches 2 

through 7 (Paria River to Palisades) during the steady flow periods before and after the 

experimental high-flow of 42,000 cfs to capture the pre- and post-flood conditions of those sites. 

Additionally, the Center is currently planning another LiDAR mission to further monitor the 

same reaches in May 2005. 

The remote sensing initiative was completed at the end of FY2003, and a final 

presentation on the findings and recommendations associated with the initiative was made to the 

Adaptive Management Workgroup in March 2005. The final report, completed in fall FY2003, 

recommends technologies for implementation within all GCMRC program areas (Davis et al., 

2003). Remote sensing activities in FY 2005 consisted of digital, multi-spectral data (similar to 

the system-wide data set from May 2002), collected using state-of-the-art airborne sensors in 

support of the biological, cultural, and physical science programs at GCMRC. The digital 

imagery collected in May 2002 has proven to be a definitive data source for hardcopy river 

atlases in support of field work, in-house spatial database development, spatial analysis and 

internet mapping applications. The overflight of May 2005 served these same purposes as well 

as supply an updated dataset for future scientific endeavors.
145 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

Data Storage (Database management) - The DASA is the first of three fundamental 

technologies for consolidating, storing, and distributing data gathered as part of monitoring and 

research projects at GCMRC. Its purpose is to store all tabular data available in electronic form 

and to reference additional data that is either not available in electronic form or is not tabular 

(e.g., digital imagery). The Oracle database engine was selected for GCMRC database 

development. Oracle is a state-of-the-art data storage and delivery system that can function either 

as a centralized or distributed database and incorporates a high degree of information technology 

integration. The Database Management System (DBMS) program is currently working on 

bringing together years of disparate historical data collected by multiple entities located in 

databases across the southwest, in an organized fashion and then deliver it transparently to 

stakeholders and researchers for decision-making and modeling purposes. A key aspect of this 

work has been integrating Oracle’s database management software with the Center’s ARC/INFO 

GIS, so that all tabular data sets can be viewed and queried in a spatial context. This database 

will continue to serve as the backbone for data management encompassing other DASA 

components from data storage and analysis to the automated access of CRE information. 

Data Analysis (Geographic Information Systems) – The Geographic Information Systems 

(GIS) Program provides technical support, spatial databases and spatial analysis capabilities to 

scientists in the physical, biological and cultural resource programs and their cooperators. 

Monitoring activities within the CRE are inherently spatial in nature, any cross many scientific 

disciplines. In this context, spatial database integration is an extremely important component of 

a successful integrated science program. It provides the framework for canyon-wide ecosystem 

studies. In combination with canyon-wide remote sensing data, GIS provides an important tool 

for integrating and analyzing large amounts of site-specific, regional and canyon-wide data in 

formats that are supportive of scientists as well as resource managers. 

 Over the past several years, the GIS program has provided many important products and 

services to scientists and cooperators operating within the GCMRC framework. These have 

included: spatial database collection, development and integration; field operation and mapping 

support activities; the development of common spatial referencing systems; and custom GIS 

programming and analysis for specific scientific projects. Important GIS products have 

included: a canyon-wide shoreline habitat map; an automated fine-grained sediment inventory 

and camping beach analysis developed from digital imagery; an automated tool for generating 
146 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

composite terrestrial / hydrographic cross-sections and virtual shorelines in support of hydrologic 

modeling; and large-scale river map guides. 

The GIS program will lead the effort in implementing the automated monitoring 

technologies and applications approach. This effort is designed to quickly and accurately 

classify large sets of raster and vector data into monitoring information that are useful to 

scientists and resource managers. Future GIS efforts will focus on automated analyses of 

remotely-sensed data in support of specific physical, biological and cultural resource projects 

and monitoring missions, as well as continued integration of spatial information for scientific 

analysis and reporting. In FY2003, the GIS program demonstrated that automated processing of 

multi-spectral digital imagery could be utilized to accurately map vegetation and the twodimensional distribution of fine-grained sediment deposits above 8,000 cfs on a canyon-wide 

basis. Techniques will also be developed for automated processing and classification of data 

acquired from the terrestrial and hydrographic LiDAR missions and existing multi-beam sonar 

data. 

Technical Support Coordination - Integration of support capabilities in the areas of GIS 

and Remote Sensing is critical to the success of scientific data collection and integration for all 

of GCMRC’s research and monitoring projects. Technical Support Coordination requires 

effective communication with Researchers, Program Managers and GIS and DASA personnel to 

facilitate collection and delivery of information that complies with GCMRC Data Standards. 

Coordination entails evaluation of requests and scheduling of the appropriate equipment, 

materials, services and personnel required to implement research activities. Examples of 

Technical Support requests include: 

• Copies of existing map products and aerial photo sets. 

• Processing requests to GIS for new map products. 

• Scheduling Field Equipment (i.e. Computers, handheld GPS units, digital cameras, 

etc.). 

• Scheduling personnel required to assist with field work. 

• Consultation with GIS personnel for recommendations on data collection methods to 

achieve effective integration with the GIS. 

• Consultation with Database personnel for advice on data collection formatting to 

achieve effective integration with the GCMRC Database. 

Additionally, future dissemination of essential information to researchers related to 

permitting procedures, trip planning and survey and technical support requests will necessitate 
147 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

utilization of the GCMRC web page. Development of a Research Coordination and Support 

Program web page will include information pages and access to on-line forms to submit requests 

for scheduling river trips, and survey and technical support. The web pages will be developed in 

cooperation with the Information Office staff. 

BIOSCIENCES PROGRAM 

Terrestrial Resources

Terrestrial resources of interest to stakeholders in the adaptive management program 

include riparian vegetation, riparian breeding birds and waterfowl, invertebrates including Kanab 

ambersnail, small mammals, reptiles, and amphibians. Recommendations from a protocol 

evaluation panel (Urquhart et al., 2000) were incorporated into 2001 monitoring and research 

plans, and portions of this work continue to be evaluated and implemented through 2005. 

Stage (kcfs)

10 20 30 40 50 60

Percent Vegetative Cover

0

10

20

30

40

2001

2002

2003

Figure 1.4. Percent vegetative cover at five stage elevation zones between 2001 and 2003. 

Vertical bars represent +/- 1 standard error. Cover has declined in all zones since 2001. 

Discharge had the greatest affect on stages from 35k cfs to 15K cfs. Overall vegetation cover 

within the riparian zone is not dense, though cover is greatest at the 25k cfs zone which 

corresponds with areas utilized for camping. 
148 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

Through FY05 terrestrial monitoring included a yearly field-based assessment of 

vegetation cover, species richness and diversity at 60 transect sites along the CRE at discharges 

of 15, 25, 35, 45, and 60k cfs. The intent of these longitudinal transects at set discharges are to 

link changes in measured vegetation parameters to operations and climatic patterns. Multi-year 

data sets through 2003 indicate that operations and the extended drought affect vegetation cover 

differentially. Operations had a significant affect at stages up to 35k cfs, while climate affected 

plants at higher discharges (see figure above from Kearsley et al., 2003). Since 2002 cover has 

declined below 25k stage level possibly as a result of scour associated with winter fish 

suppression flows (5-20k cfs daily), or as a result of June – August discharges that reached peaks 

of 18k cfs. Vegetation is sampled in September and it is likely that cover values at the 15k cfs 

level are associated with summer discharge patterns. The mean wetland score, which most 

closely tracks operational effects on vegetation and available groundwater, showed no change 

within zones between years, but an increase in value for all zones compared to 2001 (Kearsley et 

al., 2002). Again these scores may be associated with either winter or summer discharge 

patterns. Repeat data collection would determine how these cover and wetland values may be 

trending relative to climatic and operational changes over time, and illustrates the value of 

sustained monitoring. Funding limitations in FY06 do not permit continuation of this groundbased monitoring. 

A vegetation basemap initiated in FY2003, to be completed in FY2005, serves as a 

template for past and future large-scale change detection for core monitoring, as well as for 

randomized selection of monitoring sites for vertebrates including bird patches. A system-wide 

mission to acquire a digital dataset, similar to 2002 ISTAR, will be acquired in 2005. This 

dataset will permit landscape scale change detection for vegetation that is proposed as part of 

core monitoring. Questions that could be addressed in this avenue of study include camping 

beach encroachment, status of old high water zone riparian area change, and general riparian 

vegetation productivity changes at a very gross scale when used in combination with LiDAR and 

ground truth efforts for canopy heights. These questions and analysis do not address smaller 

scale species abundance and distribution questions, however. 

 Riparian breeding birds monitoring, excluding southwest willow flycatcher, will be 

temporarily suspended in 2006 due to funding limitations. Surveys over the period of 2001-

2003 suggest that bird abundances shift between Old and New High Water Zones depending on 
149 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

resource availability. Bird abundance and density, which included migrants and permanent 

winter and summer residents, was greater in the New High Water Zone (t=3.4, p=0.001) (Yard 

and Blake, 2002). Species richness was also higher in the New High Water Zone. This was in 

contrast to 2001 where species abundance was greater in the Old High Water Zone. The shift in 

bird abundance between Old and New High Water Zones may be associated with lower 

abundance and diversity of arthropods or seeds from annual grasses and herbs in the Old High 

Water Zone related to the drought conditions. Decreases in annual grasses and herbaceous plants 

was recorded in the 35k-60k cfs vegetation transect plots that incorporate stage discharge level 

(Kearsley et al 2003), which was part of this integrated monitoring project, These data provide 

correlational support for density shifts observed among riparian birds between years. Synthesis 

of invertebrate data will take place in 2004-05 and it is anticipated that trophic level interactions 

will be more developed by 2006. 

Lastly, Kanab ambersnail monitoring at Vaseys Paradise has continued to follow the 

protocols begun 1997. Data collection efforts continue at two trips per year: one in spring and 

one in fall. Population estimates for the snail indicate that the snail numbers vary widely 

throughout the year (10,000 in the spring to 100,000+ in the fall), influenced by climatic and 

concomitant habitat variability (SWCA, 1999). Greatest gains in habitat occurred between 2001 

and 2002 where snail habitat at Vaseys Paradise increased 6 % in area between spring and fall of 

2002. Total surveyed habitat changed from 270.01 m2

 in April to 288.36 m2 by August 24, 2002. 

KAS habitat 1998-'04

0

200

400

Year

area (sq. m)

Spring

Fall

Spring 177.8 215.7 203.3 211.4 270 277.4 274.4

Fall 175.8 162.9 210.9 220.6 288.4 289.8 297.1

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
150 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

Yearly average total habitat has increased steadily and significantly since 1998, from 176 

m

2

 in 1998 to 297 m2 in 2004 (see figure above). Patch composition has shifted toward more 

monkey flower and less watercress which may also be an indication of drier soil moisture 

conditions and fewer disturbances. 

Snail Abundances - Estimated snail numbers have not changed significantly since 1998, 

but numbers have shown a decline to a value of 4147 snails in April 2004. Curiously, while 

habitat has increased, snail numbers have not had a correlated increase. The lack of increase in 

snail numbers may be associated with soil moisture and shifts in plant species composition rather 

than the amount of habitat available. The discharge from the spring at Vaseys Paradise has 

declined since 2001, the amount of watercress found within the habitat has become reduced, and 

bighorn sheep have begun to habitually visit and forage on Carex aquatilus (sedge) at the 

springs. These factors in combination may be affecting snail numbers recorded since 2001 (see 

figure above). 

Aquatic Resources 

Aquatic resources continue to undergo review of methodologies and historic data. New 

sampling methods are being incorporated into monitoring the sport fishery, native fish 

communities, food base, and water quality monitoring. Protocol review panels were held for the 

water quality program (Ruane et al., 2001), the Lees Ferry trout fishery (Culver et al., 2000) and 

for the aquatic program (Bradford et al., 2001), which includes the mainstem fishery downstream 

of Lees Ferry, and the aquatic food base program at a system-wide perspective. 

Recommendations made for the native and non-native fishery programs have included increasing 

random sampling efforts, strengthening efforts associated with integration across disciplines and 

Estimated snail numbers 1998-2004

0

20000

40000

year

snails

spring

fall

spring 10953 8667 13438 3124 3745 6787 4147

fall 11921 35973 5582 16052 7444 16400

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
151 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

developing modeling efforts. An effective mark-recapture program in the LCR and different 

stock assessment models for assessing the status and trends of the humpback chub have been 

developed from this review process. 

The water quality and food base resources are in the process of incorporating 

recommendations into a revised program and will spend 2005 – 2007 testing and evaluating data 

and sampling methods that are most pertinent to stakeholder management objectives, information 

needs, and that are biologically informative from a food web perspective. Reviews of the aquatic 

food base program determined methods and approaches done up to 2002, while informative, 

were insufficient for monitoring because an understanding about linkages between lower trophic 

levels and food availability of fish were deemed inadequate to interpret food base in relation to 

management goals. They identified that further research was needed before a long-term 

monitoring program existed, because assumed linkages between food base and fishes had not 

been empirically established. 

Aquatic Productivity and Food Resources 

The aquatic protocol evaluation panel had concerns with the lack of empirically 

established linkages between food base and fishes (Bradford et al., 2001), and identified that a 

possible consequence of the recent increase in primary and secondary production may 

differentially benefit non-native species (competitors or predators) over native species. Because 

of this, additional research and the restructuring of the existing food base monitoring program is 

warranted in light of its importance toward meeting stakeholder objectives. A series of 

integrated studies will address a number of issues identified by the aquatic protocol evaluation 

panel (Bradford et al., 2001). Primary focus is on the research and development of an organic 

budget and food web linkage program as an organizational framework to determine whether or 

not the aquatic food base is limiting, and to determine what organic sources, and where 

limitations occur within the Colorado River system. This requires multiple approaches: 1) 

conduct in-stream metabolism and community respiration experiments; 2) quantify organic and 

inorganic carbon supply and fluxes (decomposition, transformations and residency); 3) based on 

findings of the organic mass balance research design and effective sampling program having the 

appropriate sampling locations, methods and frequency for assessing and quantifying organic 

flux (sources, pools, transformations and movement), and 4) develop a better understanding of 

food web linkages within the spatial distribution of the entire fish community. Downstream 
152 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

water quality parameters will be developed in conjunction with the food base program to define 

biologically important water quality variables. 

Several research projects assessing food-fish linkages have been recently implemented. 

These include: bioenergetics modeling (Peterson and Paukert, 2003) and diet and predation 

associated with non-native trout removal project at the LCR (Coggins and Yard, 2003). 

Following the aquatic protocol evaluation panel recommendations, it is proposed that an organic 

mass balance project be used as an indicator of system-wide production and export. A request for 

proposals will be developed during 2005 for this initiative. 

Fisheries Resources 

The Lees Ferry trout fishery has developed a stock assessment model using historic 

angling data and catch effort data from past monitoring efforts. The model provides a three-to 

five-year view of the state of this fishery resource and provides an opportunity to evaluate 

management strategies associated with this fishery (Speas et al., 2001). The monitoring program 

that is in place through a cooperative effort between GCMRC and Arizona Game and Fish 

includes the historic fixed sampling sites and new random, stratified sites based on shoreline 

type. The program’s design is intended to increase sampling areas to better characterize the trout 

fishery as a whole. Recent data indicate that the fishery is strongly influenced by diel changes in 

flows and that growth is likely density dependent: The stable flows associated with ROD 

operations has increased recruitment and the increased numbers of fish has resulted in smaller 

fish (Speas et al., 2001). 

 The downstream fishery program has approached the development of a long-term 

monitoring program in a step-wise fashion to allow for analysis of historic data and to ensure that 

new monitoring protocols address adaptive management program needs. Steps that have been 

taken in the downstream fishery program include development of population estimates for 

rainbow trout and brown trout in the mainstem and for humpback chub in the LCR and its 

confluence with the mainstem. Stock assessment models of current and historic data suggest that 

the LCR population of humpback chub has been in decline for over a decade. This downward 

trend in population abundance is based on an estimated chronic recruitment decline. Multiple 

hypotheses exist for the apparent recruitment decline including dam operations, tributary 

flooding, parasitism, predation/competition and mainstem temperature effects. An independent 

panel of experts was convened in 2004 to review current stock assessment methods. A report 
153 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

from this panel was made available at the January 2004 AMWG meeting. The findings lend 

support for the stock assessment models, but did make suggestions regarding additional 

simulation efforts associated with the model. 

Associated with the 2003-2004 adaptive management experiment approved by the 

Secretary of Interior, a program of mechanical removal of non-native fishes near the confluence 

of the Little Colorado was implemented in 2003. This work continued into 2004-2005 as 

recommended. Results from 2003 through March 2004 suggest the efficacy of mechanical 

removal of non-native salmonids is quite high (>50%), but that immigration of fish back into the 

removal reaches is substantial. Therefore, frequent removal of non-native fishes is necessary to 

maintain low abundance. 

Experimental Flows Update 

In December 2002, U.S. Secretary of Interior Norton approved an adaptive management 

experiment to be conducted in Grand Canyon National Park. This experiment, recommended by 

the GCMRC, began in January 2003 and consists of elements designed to provide a better 

understanding of both sediment and fisheries resources. As part of the current GCMRC Adaptive 

Management Program, a key objective is to determine whether certain policy actions are 

improving humpback chub juvenile survival and recruitment. A central part of the fisheries 

experiment includes reducing the abundance of non-native fishes in a 16.5-mile reach of the 

Colorado River near the confluence of the Little Colorado River (LCR; RM 56.2-72.7). This 

experimental manipulation has been implemented in an attempt to better understand interactions 

between native and non-native fishes, particularly non-native coldwater salmonids and the 

federally endangered humpback chub. 

The Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, at the Direction of the Glen Canyon 

Dam Adaptive Management Program, began implementation of non-native fish control in the 

LCR inflow area of the Colorado River in January of 2003 as part of a joint federal action 

entitled “Proposed Experimental Flows and Removal of Non-Native Fishes.” The fisheries 

objective of this action was to reduce the number of potential predatory and competitor fishes in 

habitat occupied by the federally endangered humpback chub, Gila cypha. The fish control effort 

uses electrofishing and had three primary purposes: 

• determine the efficacy of this technique to reduce and control the number of nonnative fishes in critical habitat for the humpback chub, 
154 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

• assess native/non-native fish interaction by conducting diet and incidence of 

predation studies on non-native fishes (primarily rainbow and brown trout), and 

• reduce the abundance of non-native fishes in the control reach as much as practicable. 

Examination of the preliminary results from 2003 and winter 2004 indicate that the 

January, February, and March of 2003 removal activities suggests a reduction ~88 % in RBT 

from the initial January abundance (6,570 fish) following the March trip (779 fish). Theses 

analyses also indicate very little change in the abundance of RBT between the end of the January 

trip and the beginning of the February trip (~ 7 fish). However, there was an apparent larger 

change in the abundance of fish between the end of the February trip and the beginning of the 

March. Monitoring by the Arizona Game and Fish Department during April indicated the 

abundance of fish in the removal reach was approximately 80% of estimates obtained the 

previously year. However, removal efforts in July 2003 suggested significant immigration into 

the removal reach had occurred such that starting abundance estimates in July were 

approximately 60% of the pre-January level. 

Diet analyses are ongoing, but results thus far indicate low rate of piscivory by rainbow 

trout and high rate of piscivory by brown trout. Increasing hoop net catches of humpback chub 

through out 2003 and 2004 may indicate a habitat/survival response by HBC following nonnative removal. These data reviewed in conjunction with stock assessment information will 

provide more definitive information regarding these questions. 

The success in the first months of the experiment, prompted GCMRC to examine and 

propose a modification to the original plan for mechanical removal. The modification extended 

the original area of removal downstream to RM 72.7, adding 7 miles to the area below the LCR. 

During 2004, removal areas and depletion pass numbers were increased. Four depletion passes 

in the original reach (RM 56.2-65.7) and 4 depletion passes in only the upper part of the 

expanded reach (65.7 – 68.5; Lava Canyon to Tanner Canyon) were conducted. This design 

permits adequate removal efforts to maintain low non-native abundance and an expansion 

beyond the originally proposed reach. This compromise should strengthen the experimental 

treatment and increase both the likelihood that a change in HBC survival and recruitment will 

occur as well as our ability to detect such an increase. 

Mechanical removal was continued into FY05 and is proposed in this work plan for a 

fourth year. It will be implemented as per recommendations from the Adaptive Management 
155 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

Work Group as approved by the Secretary of the Interior. GCMRC recommends continuing 

implementation of experimental treatments under the current experimental flows plan for years 3 

and 4.

Humpback Chub

The GCMRC reported a continuing decline in the Grand Canyon population of humpback 

chub (Gila cypha) in 2002. Cause for the decline is unknown, but stock synthesis models 

indicate a lower recruitment for most of the previous 10 years. 

In response to concerns about the status of humpback chub, on January 29, 2003, the 

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Work Group (AMWG) created the Humpback Chub 

Ad Hoc Committee and directed that the committee “... will consider actions to implement a 

comprehensive research and management program for the HBC (humpback chub) ... (and make) 

a recommendation to the AMWG ....” The motion that was approved further indicated that the 

Ad Hoc Committee would consist of AMWG, TWG (Technical Work Group), and GCMRC, and 

science advisors which would again develop recommendations and report to AMWG at a special 

session. Meetings of the Ad Hoc Committee were held February 12, March 12, April 1, 21, and 

22, and May 6, 2003. Conference calls were held April 16 and 25, 2003 

An overview of the status and trend of the Grand Canyon population of humpback chub 

was prepared by GCMRC for the AMWG on April 22, 2003. That report stated that recent 

analyses of historical data on humpback chub in Grand Canyon have caused considerable 

concern, because of uncertainties about the current size of the population and the strong 

probability that the population has been declining steadily for at least a decade. The most recent 

assessment model indicates that the spawning population is probably somewhere between 2,000 

and 4,000 age-4 and older fish. A different estimate, using the “Supertag” assessment model, 

resulted in an estimate of 1,100-1,200 adults in 2001. Estimates of the LCR spawning 

population for 1992-1995 were 2,000-4,700 adults (Douglas and Marsh, 1996). The assessment 

model also determined a lower level of recruitment (i.e., fish reaching maturity at age-4) over the 

last decade. The GCMRC report also stated that if recruitment continues to be stable at an 

average of the 1995-98 rate, the population will likely stabilize at 1,000-3,000 adults. 

Recovery goals exist for the humpback chub in the Colorado River Basin, and include all 

six populations (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2002). The Recovery Goals provide guidance 

on recovery of the species, basin-wide, and identify site-specific management actions, and 
156 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

objective, measurable criteria for achieving recovery. The Recovery Goals identify actions 

necessary to conserve and recover the Grand Canyon population of humpback chub, as well as 

the role of the Grand Canyon population in recovery of the species. 

A goal of the GCDAMP is to remove jeopardy and assist in achieving recovery goals for 

humpback chub in Grand Canyon by expanding the population size and reducing threats to the 

humpback chub. This will be accomplished by (1) expanding the range of spawning and rearing 

in Grand Canyon for humpback chub, (2) increasing survival and recruitment of humpback chub, 

and (3) reducing the threat of catastrophic events or unintended consequences that may 

negatively affect the wild population of humpback chub. 

The primary mechanism for expanding range would be to increase the suitability of the 

mainstem for reproduction and recruitment of humpback chub. This would be accomplished by 

warming dam releases and providing flows necessary for spawning and rearing. 

Until the TCD is approved and constructed, actions such as the translocation of young 

humpback chub from the LCR into Grand Canyon tributaries and/or mainstem could provide 

safe refugia for wild fish and possibly expand the current range of humpback chub. To be 

successful, translocations would need to occur concurrently with non-native control efforts, and 

with consideration of other factors such as water quality, flows, and tribal concerns. Use of a 

grow-out facility may be considered to increase growth and survival of wild fish to be 

translocated. If there are genetic concerns, these would need to be addressed, perhaps through 

establishing connectivity between the tributary populations and the mainstem population or other 

actions. These genetic concerns will be evaluated by conservation geneticists. 

Increasing Survival and Recruitment of Humpback Chub would be accomplished through 

a combination of temperature modification, non-native control, dam operations, turbidity 

management, control of disease and parasites, reduce impacts of scientific and recreational 

activities, and prevent invasion of new non-native species. These actions include: 

(1) Construct and test a temperature control device with the intent of improving 

spawning and rearing habitat in the mainstem for humpback chub. Providing 

adequate temperatures for mainstem spawning and rearing may increase other 

threats such as non-native predation and parasitic infestation. 

(2) Control non-native predators and competitors to reduce impacts to humpback chub 

and other native species. This would also help ensure that any negative impacts 

from temperature modification would not be on top of an already high 

predator/competitor load. Additional research may be needed to determine which 

non-natives have the greatest impact on humpback chub mortality. Mainstem and 
157 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

tributary control actions would target the most harmful species using a variety of 

methods. Monitoring of native and non-native fish species must be able to detect 

changes in these populations that may result from management action, e.g., nonnative control efforts and the warming of dam releases. 

(3) Use experimental dam releases to reduce mortality of young-of-year (YOY) 

humpback chub leaving the LCR, particularly prior to operation of the TCD. These 

actions may include releases that would impound the LCR during periods when 

young humpback chub are leaving the LCR, stabilize habitat near the LCR 

confluence, reduce non-native spawning and recruitment, displace or disadvantage 

non-native fish, and maintain levels of turbidity that reduce feeding behavior of 

sight feeders in the mainstem. Following construction of the TCD, the focus of 

dam operations might change to improving spawning and rearing habitat for native 

fish in the mainstem and controlling the spread of non-natives and parasites. 

(4) Control parasites and diseases. Additional monitoring and research is needed to 

determine the level of infestation and to develop control methods. Warmer dam 

releases may increase the spread or impact of parasites on humpback chub in the 

mainstem. 

(5) Use other management actions such as sediment/turbidity augmentation to 

disadvantage non-native fish and provide cover for native species, invasive species 

management plans, and impact reduction from scientific and recreational uses. 

There is a risk of extirpation from catastrophic events in the LCR because it is currently 

the principle spawning location for humpback chub in Grand Canyon and is occupied by much 

of the population in a given year. Also, operation of the TCD and other management actions 

intended to benefit the humpback chub carry the risk of unintended consequences that may 

negatively affect the humpback chub population. 

The top priorities to protect against such risks are (1) expand the range of the population 

both above and below the LCR confluence (both mainstem and tributaries) so that a catastrophic 

event is less likely to negatively affect the population, (2) develop and implement an action plan 

to alleviate threats that originate in the LCR watershed, and (3) establish a captive breeding 

population for restoring the Grand Canyon population in case of extirpation. 

A genetics management plan should be prepared that guides preservation of the genetic 

diversity of the humpback chub in Grand Canyon. Developing a captive breeding population 

needs to follow this peer-reviewed comprehensive plan as well as USFWS policy on controlled 

propagation. Developing the broodstock should not compromise the viability of any extant 

aggregations (i.e., it may be appropriate only to collect gametes or YOY from the mainstem 

aggregations). Gametes, YOY, or adult fish may be collected specifically for a new captive 

breeding population following the comprehensive plan and genetic analysis. The disposition and 
158 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

use of the existing Willow Beach population must be determined, and may include research or a 

portion of a founder captive breeding population. 

A total of twenty individual projects were identified and rudimentary work plans 

developed by the HBC Ad Hoc Committee. Those projects will be or are being implemented by 

GCMRC, its contractors and/or other agencies participating in the GCDAMP. The projects 

scheduled for FY06 are identified as Humpback Chub Action (HCA) in this work plan. 

SOCIO-CULTURAL RESOURCES 

The Sociocultural Program has traditionally been a stand alone program within 

GCMRC’s organizational structure. In GCMRC’s new organization structure, the program’s 

independent status has been maintained, but the research and monitoring initiatives of the 

program have been realigned with GCMRC’s over-arching integrated science framework. Under 

GCMRC’s new organizational structure and approach, research and monitoring projects 

conducted in support of sociocultural program needs will be coordinated and integrated with 

ongoing research and monitoring activities in the Integrated Science Program. Data collected 

through the sociocultural program’s research and monitoring projects will be stored and analyzed 

using the Oracle database engine and GIS spatial positioning technologies, allowing impacts of 

dam operations on cultural components of the Colorado River Ecosystem to be evaluated and 

analyzed in conjunction with physical and biological elements. 

In the past, GCMRC’s sociocultural program has been defined in terms of three program 

elements: cultural resources, recreational resources, and socioeconomics. In reality, these 

program elements are closely interrelated. For example, recreational campsites are essentially 

the modern equivalent of prehistoric archaeological sites, in that they are places preferentially 

selected for human activity according to the dictates of the culture currently making active use of 

the Grand Canyon river corridor. Values attached to traditional cultural places by Native 

American communities have counterparts in the values attached to beaches, rapids, fishing holes, 

and trails by modern recreational (angler and whitewater boating) communities. While the 

specific, culturally-determined values associated with particular places in the CRE may be very 

different, the fundamental concern with protecting specific place-based attributes and the river 

corridor as a whole from adverse effects of dam operations is similarly focused on retaining the 

intrinsic values of places that foster and perpetuate a community’s sense of identity and tradition. 
159 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

There are specific legal obligations and regulations that pertain to historic cultural 

resources deemed eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places; these legal 

mandates require that certain classes of cultural resources be treated and managed in accordance 

with regulatory guidelines and standards promulgated by the Secretary of Interior. The Bureau 

of Reclamation has primary responsibility for managing and treating National Register-eligible 

cultural resources within the CRE for the purposes of meeting the legal requirements of Section 

106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. BOR fulfills its Section 106 responsibilities 

through conforming to the stipulations of a Programmatic Agreement with the the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation. The Arizona State Historic Preservation Office, National Park 

Service, and six Native American Tribes are also signatories to this agreement. In the past, 

GCMRC has assisted the BOR and PA signatories with fulfilling their Section 106 obligations 

through contracting required studies, organizing review panels, and conducting protocol 

assessments. The GCMRC sociocultural program has also addressed the cultural resource needs 

for research and monitoring that fall outside the purview of the PA and relate directly to the 

mandates of the Grand Canyon Protection Act. Beginning in FY06, GCMRC will oversee an 

integrated cultural resource monitoring program that meets both the needs of the PA program 

and NPS for basic archaeological site condition information, while also meeting the needs of the 

AMP for information specific to effects of dam operations and cause-and-effect relationships 

among the various factors and processes contributing to current cultural resource conditions in 

the CRE. 

Due to the need for continuing consultation with the Native American tribes who have a 

long-standing affiliation with the landscape and resources of the Grand Canyon, and because of 

the unique trust responsibilities of the federal government in relation to Native Americans, 

GCMRC’s sociocultural program involves more than implementing and directing cultural 

resource-related science projects. Therefore, the sociocultural program has retained its 

independent status within the new GCMRC organization, while at the same time moving towards 

increased levels of integration with the other science programs. 

Cultural Resources - Cultural resources of interest to the AMP along the Colorado River 

corridor include National Register eligible archaeological sites and traditional cultural places, as 

well as non-eligible resources of traditional cultural importance such as springs, landforms, and 

traditionally used plants and animals. In keeping with the stated purpose of the Grand Canyon 
160 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

Protection Act (Section 1802) to “operate Glen Canyon Dam in ... such a manner as to protect, 

mitigate adverse impacts to, and improve the values for with Grand Canyon National Park and 

Glen Canyon National Recreation Area were established,” the GCD-AMP seeks to ensure the insitu preservation of cultural resources with minimal impact to the integrity of those resources. 

When in-situ preservation is not possible, data recovery through excavation or other mitigation 

measures as appropriate may be implemented. GCMRC works with the signatories to the 

Programmatic Agreement for Cultural Resources and their designated representatives, as well as 

other stakeholders in the AMP, to help devise monitoring and research projects that will assist in 

the preservation and treatment of National Register eligible properties. In addition, GCMRC is 

concerned with devising and implementing monitoring and research projects that address the 

non-eligible resources of traditional importance to Native American tribes who have cultural 

affiliation with the Grand Canyon.

Since 1992, cultural resources have been monitored by National Park Service 

archaeologists and by tribal representatives (Leap et al., 2000). The cultural resource monitoring 

work conducted to date has primarily been carried out in fulfillment of the Programmatic 

Agreement requirement to provide information for use in developing a long-term Historic 

Preservation Plan. The PA-driven monitoring activities typically have included repeated visits to 

archaeological sites, using repeat photography and qualitative observation to track changes in 

resource condition. Tribal assessments of traditional cultural resources employ many of the 

same techniques used in monitoring archaeological sites: repeat field visits, repeat photography 

and qualitative observations recorded on forms. Tribal assessments of the overall “health” of the 

ecosystem are generally based on subjective assessments grounded in traditional perspectives. 

Cultural resources are monitored routinely and during high flow events. Beginning in FY06, 

monitoring of cultural resources in the CRE will be redirected to focus on the specific 

requirements of the Grand Canyon Protection Act, in addition to providing basic condition 

information to meet the requirements for monitoring under the PA. The former PA monitoring 

program will be realigned and redesigned to generate data that will improve understanding of the 

effects of dam operations on these highly valued and largely non-renewable resources and to 

provide information to the AMP that will be useful in formulating recommendations to the 

Secretary of the Interior about managing dam operations so as to “protect, mitigate adverse 

impacts to, and improve” the cultural resource values in the CRE. 
161 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

Many of the archaeological resources along the river corridor are contained in the 

sediment deposits that form alluvial terraces. Since the completion of Glen Canyon Dam, the 

sediment resource has declined. The alluvial terraces where many archaeological sites are 

located continue to erode. A system-wide method for regenerating the river terraces and 

redistributing sediment has been identified as an essential component to maintaining future 

integrity for cultural resources (Balsom and Larralde, 1996).

Previous Cultural Resource Investigations: During the past five years, GCMRC 

implemented and saw to completion the following projects: a synthesis of data collected by the 

NPS and Tribal groups (Neal et al., 2000), mainstem flow and deposition modeling (Wiele, 

2003), and development of a geomorphic model for predicting the susceptibility of 

archaeological sites to erosion (Thompson and Potochnik, 2000), and preparation of a cultural 

resource research design for the river corridor (Fairley, 2004).. The data synthesis report (Neal 

et al., 2000) identified crucial data gaps in previously collected data. Wiele’s (2003) stage flow 

and deposition modeling project provided information on estimated sediment deposition at 

selected archaeological resource locations, given particular water releases and modeled sediment 

loads. The geomorphic model by Thompson and Potochnik (2000) attempted to distinguish 

erosional processes that are related to dam operations versus naturally-occurring processes. Also 

in FY2000, a cultural resource protocol evaluation panel (PEP) was organized. The panel’s 

report (Doelle, 2000) provided GCMRC and USBR with a series of recommendations for 

program coordination and future activities. The work activities undertaken since 2001 have been 

driven by the PEP recommendations. 

New initiatives implemented by GCRMC in the last few years, following 

recommendations of the 2000 cultural PEP, include a project to evaluate the effectiveness of 

check dams as a mitigation strategy to slow erosion at archaeological sites, and a comprehensive 

research design for the cultural resources in the river corridor. 

The check dam study was initiated in FY01, and a final report was completed in 

November, 2003. The results of this project (Pederson et al., 2003) suggest that check dams are 

effective if they are situated appropriately, use appropriate materials (brush appears to be more 

effective and less damaging than rock checks), and are continually maintained. Another related 

goal of this research initiative was to test the accuracy of photogrammetry as a tool for detecting 

geomorphic changes at archaeological sites. Pederson et al. (2003) concluded that errors 
162 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

associated with low-level, high resolution photogrammetry are too great to detect meaningful 

changes in arroyo depths and nick point migration at the level most desirable for tracking erosion 

at archaeological sites (less than 20 cm vertical change); however, they noted that newly 

developed remote sensing technologies such as LiDAR may be able to provide remote data with 

the necessary accuracy. 

Another cultural PEP recommendation that was implemented in FY2002 involved the 

preparation of a comprehensive research design to guide future research and monitoring 

initiatives in the river corridor. The research design was identified by the PEP as a key 

component of the Historic Preservation Plan mandated as a stipulation of the current PA. 

Although originally intended to serve the specific needs of the PA program, GCMRC expanded 

the scope and purpose of the research design to include a framework for researching and 

monitoring the full spectrum of cultural resources found within the CRE, in order to meet not 

only the requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act but also the broader mandates of 

the Grand Canyon Protection Act. A draft version of the research design was submitted to 

GCMRC and reviewed by independent scientists and PA signatories in spring, 2003; the final 

research design was published in 2004 (Fairley, 2004). 

Recent and Ongoing Cultural Resource Investigations: Current resource monitoring of 

archaeological and traditionally-valued resources indicate that archaeological resources continue 

to be impacted by physical processes such as surface erosion and gullying in both the Grand and 

Glen Canyon areas. In the CRE, some surface erosion is clearly due to natural processes that are 

unrelated to dam operations; however, other sediment loss from archaeological sites is believed 

to be related to dam operations. The contributing effects of dam operations to the ongoing 

erosion of the river corridor’s alluvial terraces (where many archaeological sites) are located 

remains uncertain and a issue of continuing controversy. Furthermore, the contributing effects of 

visitor use to the erosion of archaeological resources have never been systematically evaluated, 

although a relationship between human recreational activities and soil compaction and erosion is 

known to exist. 

A new cultural resource research project that was initiated in FY2003 is designed to track 

the effects of aeolian transport of fine sediment on the preservation of archaeological resources 

in the CRE (Rubin, 2003). This research project is one of the integrated research initiatives 

being conducted as a component of Fine Sand-Storage (FIST) Monitoring in FY04-05. (See 
163 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

Project A.2 in this document for more details). In FY06, the Cultural Program hopes to continue 

this aeolian study with one year of additional funding. 

In November 2004, a high-flow experiment was conducted to test a variety of hypotheses 

that resulted from the 1996 Beach Habitat Building Flow. The 1996 BHBF presented an 

opportunity to study the effects of high flow discharge from Glen Canyon Dam on alluvial 

terraces and margin deposits along the river corridor. The flow was expected to provide 

system-wide mitigation to most cultural sites in the Colorado River corridor through the 

accumulation of additional sediment. The overall findings of the cultural resources studies 

strongly suggested that the 45,000 cfs BHBF flow had either no effect, no adverse effect, or a 

beneficial effect on cultural resources (Balsom and Larralde, 1996.) These findings lent support 

to the original contention that beach habitat-building flows above power plant capacity could 

offer system-wide mitigation for cultural resources. One location in the Glen Canyon reach, did 

experience loss of sediments in a way that, in the long run, could be detrimental to cultural 

resources(Balsom and Larralde, 1996), but three of the four study areas gained sand, and some of 

the newly deposited sand appears to have been redeposited over subsequent months at higher 

elevations through wind action (Hazel et al. 2001.) The experimental high flow of November, 

2004 provided an opportunity to reassess the potentially beneficial aspects of bar-building flows 

near archaeological sites. One location in the Palisades area that had been studied in 1996 was 

remapped both before and immediately following the 2004 experimental flow, and we will be 

continuing to track the fate of sand deposits in that area by means of repeat mapping through 

FY06. 

Recreational Resources - Recreational resources encompass several diverse, tangible 

elements: the blue-ribbon trout fishery at Lees Ferry, the challenging whitewater rapids in the 

Colorado River, and camping beaches in Grand Canyon. Recreational resources also encompass 

experiential attributes, such as opportunities to experience solitude, natural quiet, and physical 

challenges in a wilderness-like environment. Recreational issues of specific concern to the 

GCMRC sociocultural program include changes in the size and availability of camping beaches 

due to dam operations, changes in the quality of recreational experiences within the CRE 

(including trout sport fishing, recreational river trips, and wilderness-dependent recreational 

opportunities) due to effects of dam operations, plus the economic impacts to the recreation 

industry from varying flow regimes. GCMRC has supported studies in all of these areas. 
164 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

Previous Recreation Investigations: Sand bars serve as campsites for rafting groups and 

are highly valued by the boating public based on size, boat mooring quality, wind protection, 

access to side canyon hikes, scenery, and shade. Historically, these beaches were replenished 

annually by sand and silt transported by the river during spring runoff. Approximately 93% of 

this sediment now settles out in Lake Powell, so the beaches downstream are eroding due not 

only to the river's clear, sediment-free flows (Kearsley et al., 1994), but also due to the way that 

the remaining 7% of the sand supply is currently being managed through dam operations. 

Camping beaches are also being eroded through gullying induced by monsoon rainstorm runoff. 

Due to the lack of periodic, sediment-enriched floods, these increasingly degraded beaches are 

not being replenished. Since dam operations began in 1963, most pre-dam beaches have become 

considerably smaller, while some have disappeared completely. Another factor contributing to 

the loss of campable areas in the CRE is vegetation encroachment, which is a direct result of the 

lack of frequent scouring floods under current dam operations. The size and availability of 

camping beaches is directly tied to visitor experience parameters in that the decreasing size, 

abundance, and distribution of campsites constrains the visitor carrying capacity of the CRE and 

may lead to crowding or reduction in visitor access, thereby creating adverse impacts to visitor 

use values in the CRE. 

In 1994, change in campable area from previous studies was analyzed using aerial 

photographs (Kearsley et al., 1994). This analysis revealed that loss of campsites was an 

ongoing process. The researchers noted that not all sand bars responded in the same manner to 

flows and vegetation encroachment, and that campsite availability in critical reaches (Marble 

Canyon, the Inner Gorge, and the Muav Gorge) had decreased the most. Effects of the 1996 

controlled flood at selected campsites were also evaluated, and it was found that the increase in 

the number and size of campsites was of short duration (Kearsley et al., 1999). The post-BHBF 

data indicated that while floods temporarily increased campsite number and size, the beneficial 

effects to campsites were temporary, and that campsite size rapidly degenerated to pre-BHBF 

levels and then continued to erode more slowly. Although the effects of the 1996 artificial flood 

were temporary, periodic “floods” above power plant capacity appear to be the only feasible 

means of depositing sediment and rejuvenating camping beaches above normal fluctuations 

(Kearsley et al., 1999). 
165 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

One previous study assessed recreational preferences relative to dam-controlled flows 

and quality of camping opportunities (Stewart et al., 2000). The study concluded that users of 

the Colorado River were relatively unconcerned about impacts of fluctuating flows, had strong 

concerns (generally positive) about impacts of spike flows, and strongly preferred sandy beaches 

with shade (especially from trees) for camping. 

Recent and Ongoing Recreation Investigations: Recent GCMRC studies have assessed 

camping beaches, trout fishing activities, and recreational river running in terms of visitor 

experience issues and safety concerns associated with varying flow levels. Low Steady Summer 

Flows in summer 2000, provided data on impacts to recreational experiences (Jonas and Stewart, 

2002), travel rates and safety (Jalbert, 2001) and economic impacts to concessionaires (Hjerpe 

and Kim, 2001). Final reports have been received for all projects except the safety study. 

Annual monitoring of 31 campsite areas is on-going as part of the FIST. Interim results 

from this monitoring effort indicate that camping areas continue to erode steadily. However, 

research results also suggest that erosion can be offset by flows greater than power plant capacity 

combined with adequate sediment supply (Hazel et al., 2001). A more complete discussion of 

sediment monitoring is found in the previous sediment resources section for fine-sediment 

storage and sand bar monitoring. 

In addition to the quantitative evaluation of beach size, camping beaches are also being 

monitored by repeat photography carried out by volunteers working for the Grand Canyon River 

Guides through the Adopt-A-Beach (AAB) program. Initiated in 1996, the Adopt-A-Beach 

effort relies largely on volunteer contributions of commercial guides to provide qualitative and 

anecdotal information on changing beach conditions. The program relies on repeat photography 

taken from established photo points, supplemented by the guide’s observations. The results of 

the AAB monitoring effort supplements the quantitatively derived information derived from the 

campsite surveys. The FY04 AAB report generally supports findings of the most recent beach 

surveys (Kaplinski et al., 2004) that campsite areas are generally declining due to both loss of 

sediment from the beaches and encroachment of vegetation.

An analysis of past campsite assessment and monitoring protocols used to qualitatively 

and quantitatively assess changes in beaches (sand bars) and detect area and volume changes 

was finalized in December 2003 (Kaplinski et al., 2003) One recommendation of this 

assessment effort is that GCMRC should convene a panel of recreational experts to assess the 
166 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

effectiveness of current approaches for monitoring visitor use values over the long-term. This 

recommendation is being implemented through organizing a recreational PEP review in spring, 

FY05. In addition, the researchers point out that despite 30 years of monitoring human and damrelated impacts at campsites, we lack a comprehensive inventory of campsites in the river 

corridor. A campsite monitoring program proposed for FY06 will rectify this inventory 

deficiency, and at the same time, bring together various pieces of the current recreation 

monitoring program into a single, more unified program. 

SBSC’s ROLE IN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT 

The Southwest Biological Science Center’s Information Technology and Outreach 

Department (SBSC-ITOD) was originated as part of the GCMRC in 1998. It served the GCMRC 

well, but is now expanding to meet the greater needs of other research stations housed within the 

SBSC. The broad purpose of a more centralized SBSC’s ITOD, is to increase awareness of each 

of the four research station’s science activities and products and to facilitate the dissemination of 

data, information, and products to the SBSC’s cooperators, stakeholders, other non-cooperating 

scientists and the public through web page design, access and support. These groups of end users 

can be collectively referred to as the SBSC’s science constituency. 

The SBSC’s Information Technology Department objectives will be accomplished 

through the jointly funded, but SBSC guided, activities focused on increasingly important IT 

security, general systems administration and ongoing web page and server access development. 

Systems administration is responsible for providing computer and network infrastructure needed 

for all SBSC websites, including GCMRC. Systems administration also coordinates the Center’s 

World Wide Web presence via a website on the Internet. Eventually, nearly all of the digital 

data, information, and products generated by the research stations of the SBSC will be available 

to our constituency from the SBSC website. Some imagery data sets may not be available 

through the web sites, owing to sheer size and will be served through delivery of DVD 

duplicates, tapes, etc. However, most is not all reports will eventually be available in a paperless format through the internet. Such a plan also reduces space costs associated with housing 

paper reports within a conventional library as future work continues. This plan proposes that 

future website development be serviced in-house to provide greater flexibility with the changing 

needs of the GCMRC, as well as the other three research stations. A new full-time Web 
167 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

development position will be created that will be funded jointly by the GCMRC and the SBSC to 

serve the overall needs of the science center. 

Program implementation, primarily in the area of web development, is expected to 

continue advancing in FY2004 and continue through FY2006 and beyond to a point where the 

program may enter a maintenance era that will primarily involve minor system modification and 

the integration of new data and information as it becomes available. It is anticipated that new 

development cycles will need to commence on 1 to 3 year intervals depending upon the changing 

needs of SBSC and GCMRC science activities, user needs, and advances in technology. 

SBSC Website Services 

Aside from direct personal contact through formal and informal meetings with staff, the 

SBSC website(s) are the most comprehensive and visible interface with our constituency. The 

website is intended to provide multiple types of information at varying degrees of complexity to 

accommodate the broad spectrum of individuals who make up our constituency. These primarily 

are: 

1) General information about the GCMRC and other station’s mission and projects 

2) Contact information for all SBSC science and support staff 

3) Links to other relevant U.S. Geological Survey offices and SBSC partners 

4) Fact sheets, strategic and annual work plans 

5) Location map 

6) Calendar of meetings and events 

7) Employment opportunities 

8) Notices of requests for proposals (RFPs) 

9) Protocol evaluation panel reports 

10) Information on large science initiatives 

11) Searchable library catalog 

12) Access to digital content 

In addition, the website hosts electronic discussion forums for GCMRC, GCD-AMP, and 

the U.S. Geological Survey LiDAR discussion group and provides a number of interactive maps 

of the ecosystem. Related to the website is the GCMRC’s FTP site that contains over 500 Gbytes 

of additional miscellaneous data and information. However, this information is often nondescript (data with little explanation) and difficult to navigate. It is the intent of the Information 

Office to integrate this data into the GCMRC website with complete data descriptions and 

navigation tools. Data from other sources, such as the DASA, will be integrated into the 

GCMRC website as it becomes available. When fully developed, the website will be a one-stop-
168 

GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10, 2005) 

shop for all of your information needs related to the Colorado River ecosystem, including nearly 

all of the data and digital library content.

Services would include restructuring the website for improved navigation and appeal, 

integration of additional data including the content of the FTP site, new and improved feature 

content about GCMRC programs and projects suited for the public at large, and the addition of a 

public outreach section. 

Systems administration 

The SBSC and GCMRC computing environments are a complex system of servers, 

workstations, laptops, printers, plotters, disk arrays, routers, hubs, switches, tape backups, copy 

and Fax machines, and audio-visual and telecommunications equipment. In addition, over 50 

software applications are utilized by scientists and support personnel in carrying out the 

collective mission of the SBSC. The computing environment currently includes workstations, 

laptops, network printers, tape backup systems, and over 7 Terabytes of disk storage. These 

devices must work together in a reliable, seamless, and secure manner in order to facilitate the 

mission of GCMRC. 

Web and FTP Services - The IT Department of the SBSC administers the GCMRC web 

site and FTP site serve to make the mission and findings of GCMRC accessible to the public. 

During the last year the GCMRC website has been accessed over 1.5 million times. This 

illustrates the importance of the website as a highly visible interface to our constituency. 

The web server is located inside a firewall. The firewall restricts enterprise level intrusion 

attempts while allowing the public access to our publicly available web and FTP servers. 

GCMRC hosts and maintains the web and FTP sites on a Microsoft Windows 2000 Server with 

Internet Information Services. The web content is served utilizing Active Server Pages (ASP) 

and .NET. The content is designed and maintained using the Macromedia Studio software suite 

and Visual Studio.net. Content is checked for compliance with USGS, DOI and federal 

standards.