MEMORANDUM

TO: Kate Kitchell, Mark Sogge, Ted Melis

CC: Suzette Kimball, Mike Shulters, Deanna Archuleta, Lori Caramanian

FROM: Anne Castle, Secretary’s Designee, Assistant Secretary for Water and Science

DATE: March 31, 2011

RE: Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC) Science Planning

As we discussed in my office last December, GCMRC is in the midst of a transition. With the 

lamentable departure of John Hamill, GCMRC will soon have a new Chief. In addition GCMRC 

is nearing the final year of its five-year science plan and, therefore, is beginning to consider the 

next five years of Grand Canyon science, and begin its science planning process. This process 

will inform how GCMRC proposes to commit its resources over the next few years. There are a 

number of factors influencing this planning process, and we have discussed the priorities for the 

program that will be used to focus the work of GCMRC and facilitate planning. 

First, we have learned a great deal from past GCMRC science. There is a large degree of 

consensus around the idea that we are at a transition point between an almost wholly 

experimental science program and one that includes more components of management 

support. This is something that has been talked about for many years. The work being done 

now on the two EAs (HFE Protocol and non-native fish control) highlights this transition, even 

though the HFEs and non-native fish control remain experimental in nature. And this is what 

adaptive management is all about. So the science plan for GCMRC needs to reflect this course 

adjustment.

Second, we have had and are likely to continue to experience very limited budgets. We cannot 

expect any additional funding for the operation of the Adaptive Management Program and its 

research and monitoring component. So we have to plan very wisely to deal with this limitation.

As a result, we need to focus on priorities. We’ll do that by looking at the Desired Future 

Conditions (DFCs), still in draft but nearing a final recommendation to the Secretary, but we also 

have to narrow the field because the DFCs are very comprehensive. Our first and foremost 

priority is compliance with the Endangered Species Act, which means focus on the native fish 

and particularly the humpback chub. Second, we need to focus on sediment, which was an 

instigating factor for the Grand Canyon Protection Act and continues to be an issue with 

resources downstream of the dam. That includes being able to respond if the high flow protocol 

goes forward and it calls for a high flow experimental release. Third, and these are competing 

priorities, we need science on both non-native fish control and the recreational trout fishery. 

These are the primary areas where I have asked GCMRC to concentrate its resources.

These priorities are largely consistent with those adopted by the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive 

Management Work Group (AMWG) in August 2004. Those priorities focused on the humpback 
chub, sediment, and the “best” flow regime (no specification of what resources it would be best 

for). In addition, the 2004 priorities posed questions about cultural resources and the operation 

of a Temperature Control Device (TCD). While cultural resources remain a very high priority, it 

is not clear that there are significant science questions involving those resources, or the TCD,

that require attention at this time. These conclusions may change over the course of the next 

five-year plan.

It may be helpful to also explain what is not intended by establishing these priorities. First, it 

does not mean that long-term monitoring of core ecosystem components will not be continued. 

Second, it does not mean that no other issues should be considered for scientific investigation –

if there are issues outside of these priorities that have widespread support and further the 

purposes of the Adaptive Management Program, they can be considered as well. Finally, it 

does not mean that we have to have new science in each of these priority areas every year. 

The intent behind the establishment of priorities is to enable GCMRC to better direct its limited 

resources and resist the Christmas tree approach to science planning.

We anticipate a two-phase process: (1) developing the FY2012 work plan and (2) following up 

with a five-year science plan that would be developed next year and be informed by the 

planning that has occurred at that point through the Long Term Experimental and Management 

Plan process, with the ultimate goal of integrating analysis of a long term science plan with the 

LTEMP as part of that process. 

In developing the FY2012 workplan, I requested that GCMRC conduct a streamlined planning 

process that focuses on these key priorities, but also provides for TWG and AMWG input. An 

outline of the streamlined process is attached. The revised FY2012 workplan and a process for 

subsequent long-term science planning will be presented to the AMWG at the August meeting 

this year. The AMWG will be involved in the science plan revision process.

I appreciate GCMRC’s invaluable contributions to the Adaptive Management Program and I 

appreciate your willingness to re-evaluate GCMRC’s role as we tackle the challenges of the 

next five years.