Prepared in cooperation with the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive 

Management Program 

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management 

Program Biennial Budget and Work 

Plan—Fiscal Years 2013–14 

Prepared by 

Bureau of Reclamation 

Upper Colorado Regional Office 

Salt Lake City, Utah 

and 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Southwest Biological Science Center 

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center 

Flagstaff, Arizona 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Geological Survey 
ii

Contents 

Chapter 1. Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region, Biennial Budget and Work Plan—Fiscal Year 2013-14	 6

Introduction	................................................................................................................................................................................	6

A.1. Adaptive Management Work Group Costs	....................................................................................................................	8

A.2. AMWG Member Travel Reimbursement	.......................................................................................................................	9

A.3. AMWG Reclamation Travel	...........................................................................................................................................	10

A.4. AMWG Facilitation Contract	.........................................................................................................................................	11

A.5. Public Outreach	...............................................................................................................................................................	12

A.6. Other	.................................................................................................................................................................................	13

B.1. TWG Personnel Costs	.....................................................................................................................................................	14

B.2. TWG Member Travel Reimbursement	..........................................................................................................................	15

B.3. Reclamation Travel	.........................................................................................................................................................	16

B.4. TWG Chair Reimbursement/Facilitation	......................................................................................................................	17

B.5. Other	.................................................................................................................................................................................	18

C.1. Compliance Documents	..................................................................................................................................................	19

C.2. Administrative Support for NPS Permitting	.................................................................................................................	20

C.3. Contract Administration	.................................................................................................................................................	21

C.4. Experimental Carryover Funds	.......................................................................................................................................	22

C.5. Integrated Tribal Resources Monitoring	......................................................................................................................	23

C.6. Native Fish Conservation Contingency Fund................................................................................................................	24

D.1. Cultural Resources Program Administrative Costs	.....................................................................................................	25

D.2. Cultural Resources Program Implementation	..............................................................................................................	26

Tribal Participation in the GCDAMP: Sole-Source Reimbursable Contracts with Tribes	..........................................	29

Appendix 1-A. FY 2013-14 Preliminary Draft Budget for the Bureau of Reclamation	......................................................	6

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

Center Biennial Budget and Work Plan—Fiscal Years 2013-14	.........................................................................................	8

Introduction	................................................................................................................................................................................	8

Purpose	.......................................................................................................................................................................................	8

Overview of the FY13/14 GCMRC Monitoring and Research Program	..............................................................................	8

Overview of the FY13/14 Projects	..........................................................................................................................................	8

Geomorphology, sediment transport, and water quality projects	................................................................................	10

Projects in Fish Ecology	.....................................................................................................................................................	11

Project in Riparian Ecology	................................................................................................................................................	12

Cultural Resources Monitoring and Research Project	...................................................................................................	13

Other Project Components	.................................................................................................................................................	13

GCMRC Project Administration	.........................................................................................................................................	13

Allocation of the FY13/14 Budget	....................................................................................................................................	13

References	...............................................................................................................................................................................	15

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

Ecosystem Scales	........................................................................................................................................................................	16

1. Investigators	........................................................................................................................................................................	16

2.Project Summary	..................................................................................................................................................................	16

3.Background	...........................................................................................................................................................................	17

3.1. Scientific Background	.................................................................................................................................................	19

3.2. Key Monitoring and Research Questions Addressed in this project	....................................................................	23

4. Proposed Work	..............................................................................................................................................................	24
iii

4.1. Project Elements	.........................................................................................................................................................	24

4.2 Personnel and Collaborations	.....................................................................................................................................	36

4.3 Deliverables	..................................................................................................................................................................	36

5. Productivity from Past Work	........................................................................................................................................	37

5.1. Data Products	..............................................................................................................................................................	38

5.2. Completed Publications	..............................................................................................................................................	38

5.3. Publications in progress	.............................................................................................................................................	38

5.4. Presentations at GCDAMP meetings	........................................................................................................................	39

5.5. Presentations at professional meetings	...................................................................................................................	39

5.6. Productivity prior to 2011	...........................................................................................................................................	40

6.References	............................................................................................................................................................................	45

7.Budget	...................................................................................................................................................................................	49

Project B.Streamflow, Water Quality, and Sediment Transport in the Colorado River Ecosystem	..................................	50

1. Investigator	..........................................................................................................................................................................	50

2.Project Summary	..................................................................................................................................................................	50

3.Background	...........................................................................................................................................................................	50

3.1. Scientific Background	.................................................................................................................................................	50

3.2. Key Monitoring and Research Questions Addressed in this project	....................................................................	51

3.3. Management Background	..........................................................................................................................................	52

4.Proposed work	......................................................................................................................................................................	54

4.1. Project Element	...........................................................................................................................................................	54

4.2. Personnel and Collaborations	....................................................................................................................................	55

4.3 Deliverables	..................................................................................................................................................................	56

5. Productivity from Past Work	..............................................................................................................................................	56

5.1. Data Products	..............................................................................................................................................................	56

5.2. Publications in progress	.............................................................................................................................................	57

5.3. Presentations at professional meetings	...................................................................................................................	58

5.4. Productivity prior to 2011	...........................................................................................................................................	59

6. References	...........................................................................................................................................................................	64

7. Budget	..................................................................................................................................................................................	66

Project C.Water-Quality Monitoring of Lake Powell and Glen Canyon Dam Releases	......................................................	67

1. Investigator	..........................................................................................................................................................................	67

2. Project Summary	.................................................................................................................................................................	67

3. Background	..........................................................................................................................................................................	67

3.1. Scientific Background	.................................................................................................................................................	69

3.2. Monitoring Background	..............................................................................................................................................	69

3.3. Reservoir Conditions	...................................................................................................................................................	71

4. Proposed Work	....................................................................................................................................................................	72

4.1. Project Elements	.........................................................................................................................................................	72

4.2 Personnel and Collaborations	.....................................................................................................................................	73

4.3 Deliverables	..................................................................................................................................................................	74

5.Productivity from Past Work	...............................................................................................................................................	74

5.1. Completed Publications	..............................................................................................................................................	75

6. References	...........................................................................................................................................................................	75

7.Budget	...................................................................................................................................................................................	77

Project D.Mainstem Humpback Chub Aggregation Studies and Metapopulation Dynamics	............................................	78

1.Investigators	.........................................................................................................................................................................	78

2. Project Summary	.................................................................................................................................................................	78
iv

3.Background	...........................................................................................................................................................................	79

4. Proposed Work	....................................................................................................................................................................	81

4.1. Project Elements	.........................................................................................................................................................	81

5.Productivity from Past Work	...............................................................................................................................................	86

6.References	............................................................................................................................................................................	87

7. Budget	..................................................................................................................................................................................	89

Project E.Humpback Chub Early Life History in and Around the Little Colorado River	.......................................................	90

1.Investigators	.........................................................................................................................................................................	90

2. Project Summary	.................................................................................................................................................................	90

3. Background	..........................................................................................................................................................................	92

3.1. Scientific Background	.................................................................................................................................................	93

4.Proposed Work	.....................................................................................................................................................................	95

4.1. Project Elements	.........................................................................................................................................................	95

5.References	.........................................................................................................................................................................	102

6.Budget	................................................................................................................................................................................	105

Project F.Monitoring of Native and Nonnative Fishes in the Mainstem Colorado River and the lower Little Colorado 

River	.......................................................................................................................................................................................	106

1.Investigators	......................................................................................................................................................................	106

2.Summary	............................................................................................................................................................................	106

3.Background	........................................................................................................................................................................	106

3.1. Scientific Background	..............................................................................................................................................	107

4.Proposed Work	..................................................................................................................................................................	108

4.1. Project Elements	......................................................................................................................................................	108

5.References	.........................................................................................................................................................................	116

6.Budget	................................................................................................................................................................................	119

Project G.Interactions between Native Fish and Nonnative Trout	.....................................................................................	120

1.Investigators	......................................................................................................................................................................	120

2.Project Summary	...............................................................................................................................................................	120

3.Background	........................................................................................................................................................................	120

3.1. Scientific Background	..............................................................................................................................................	121

3.2. Key Monitoring and Research Questions Addressed in this project	.................................................................	122

4. Proposed Work	...........................................................................................................................................................	123

4.1. Project Elements	......................................................................................................................................................	123

5.Publications	.......................................................................................................................................................................	125

5.1. Publications in progress	..........................................................................................................................................	125

5.2. Past Productivity	.......................................................................................................................................................	125

6. References	........................................................................................................................................................................	126

7. Budget	...............................................................................................................................................................................	128

Project HUnderstanding the Factors Limiting the Growth of Large Rainbow Trout in Glen and Marble Canyons	.......	129

1.Investigators	......................................................................................................................................................................	129

2.Project Summary	...............................................................................................................................................................	129

3.Background	........................................................................................................................................................................	130

3.1. Scientific Background	..............................................................................................................................................	131

4.Proposed Work	..................................................................................................................................................................	133

4.1. Project Elements	......................................................................................................................................................	133

5. References	........................................................................................................................................................................	140

6.Budget	................................................................................................................................................................................	143
v

Project I.Riparian Vegetation Studies: Response Guilds as a Monitoring Approach, and Describing the Effects of 

Tamarisk Defoliation on the Riparian Community Downstream of Glen Canyon Dam....................................................	145

1. Investigators	.....................................................................................................................................................................	145

2. Project Summary	..............................................................................................................................................................	145

3. Background	.......................................................................................................................................................................	146

3.1. Scientific Background	..............................................................................................................................................	147

4. Proposed Work	.................................................................................................................................................................	149

4.1. Project Elements	......................................................................................................................................................	149

4.2. Collaborations	..........................................................................................................................................................	162

5. Productivity from Past Work	...........................................................................................................................................	163

5.2. Completed Publications	...........................................................................................................................................	164

5.2. Unpublished Reports................................................................................................................................................	164

6. References	........................................................................................................................................................................	164

7. Budget	...............................................................................................................................................................................	170

Project J.Monitoring of Cultural Resources at a Small Scale and Defining the Large-Scale Geomorphic Context of 

those Processes	........................................................................................................................................................................	171

1. Principal Investigators	.....................................................................................................................................................	171

2. Project Summary	..............................................................................................................................................................	171

3. Background	.......................................................................................................................................................................	171

3.1. Scientific Background	..............................................................................................................................................	174

3.2. Key Monitoring and Research Questions Addressed in this Project	.................................................................	177

4. Proposed Work	.................................................................................................................................................................	180

4.1. Project Elements	......................................................................................................................................................	180

4.2 Personnel and Collaboration	....................................................................................................................................	197

4.3 Logistics	.....................................................................................................................................................................	198

4.4 Deliverables	...............................................................................................................................................................	198

5. Productivity from Past Work	...........................................................................................................................................	199

5.1. Data Products	...........................................................................................................................................................	199

5.2. Publications in progress	..........................................................................................................................................	199

5.3. Presentations at professional meetings	................................................................................................................	200

5.4. Productivity prior to 2011	........................................................................................................................................	200

6. References	........................................................................................................................................................................	201

7. Budget	...............................................................................................................................................................................	207

Project K. GCMRC Economist and Support	.......................................................................................................................	208

Project L. Independent Reviews and Science Advisors	...................................................................................................	209

Project M.USGS Administration	.........................................................................................................................................	211

Project N.Incremental Allocations in Support of Quadrennial Overflights	...................................................................	213

Appendices	...........................................................................................................................................................................	214

Appendix 2-A. Fiscal Year 2013 Budget	............................................................................................................................	215

Appendix 2-B. Fiscal Year 2013 Funding Source	..............................................................................................................	223

Appendix 2-C. Fiscal Year 2014 Funding Source	..............................................................................................................	228

 
Chapter 1. Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region, 

Biennial Budget and Work Plan—Fiscal Year 2013-14 

Introduction 

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

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

Dam (GCD) by emphasizing learning through monitoring, research, and experimentation. The 

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

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

stakeholder involvement. The majority of program funding is derived from hydropower 

revenues; however, supplemental funding is provided by various Department of the Interior 

(DOI) agencies that receive appropriations. These agencies include Reclamation, the U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS), the National Park Service (NPS), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS), and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). 

The budget and work plan for fiscal years (FY) 2013-14 was developed on the basis of 

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

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

version April 3, 2011. Additional consideration was given to meeting the commitments outlined 

in the following compliance documents(1) the 2007 USFWS Biological Opinion for the 

Proposed Adoption of Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and 

Coordinated Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead (2007 Opinion); (2) the 2011 

Reclamation Environmental Assessment (EA) and 2012 Finding of No Significant Impact 

(FONSI) for Development and Implementation of a Protocol for High-Flow Experimental 

Releases from Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona, 2011 through 2020 (HFE Protocol); (3) the 2011 

Reclamation EA and 2012 FONSI for Non-native Fish Control Downstream from Glen Canyon 

Dam (NNFC EA and FONSI); and the 2011 USFWS Final Biological Opinion on the Operation 

of Glen Canyon Dam including High Flow Experiments and Non-Native Fish Control (2011 

Opinion). 

The process used to arrive at the FY2013-14 budget and work plan was adopted by the 

AMWG in 2004 and revised in 2010 and 2011 to a 2-year fixed budget. In summary, the Budget 

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

Resources Ad Hoc Group (CRAHG), worked with the BRUC and the GCMRC to develop a 

proposal for the TWG. The TWG then reviews the proposed budget and work plan and develops 

a recommendation to the AMWG (this document). 

The FY2013-14 budget and work plan was also prepared in consideration of the projected 

hydrograph for Lake Powell release for water year (WY) 2013, which is based on forecasted 

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

operation of Glen Canyon Dam, the 2007 Record of Decision on interim guidelines for 

coordinated operation of Lake Mead and Lake Powell, and the 2008 FONSI on the EA of 

experimental releases for the period 2008–12, and with the consideration of the approved 

FY2012 approved by the Secretary of the Interior on December 7, 2011. It also observes 

commitments made in the 2007 and 2011 biological opinions. The projected hydrograph is based 

on best estimates available from Reclamation’s 24-month study released in May 2010; however, 

the forecast is subject to change as further data becomes available. 
7

This document consists of two chapters: Chapter 1, the BRUC budget and work plan, and 

Chapter 2, the GCMRC budget and work plan. The FY13/14 BWP is organized differently from 

the BWPs of past years. The FY13/14 BWP includes fewer projects, and each project is 

organized around larger monitoring and research themes. For example, there were 12 projects 

concerning fish and other aquatic resources in the FY11/12 BWP, and there are 5 projects in the 

FY13/14 BWP. The monitoring and research themes identified in the FY13/14 BWP are those 

common to (1) the 5 priority questions and the 12 program goals developed by the AMWG in 

2004, (2) the monitoring and research plan prepared by GCMRC, approved by AMWG in 

August 2007 and amended and approved in April 2009 (U.S. Geological Survey, 2007a), (3) the 

strategic science plan prepared by GCMRC in March 2007 and amended in April 2009 (U. S. 

Geological Survey, 2007b), (4) the draft Core Monitoring Plan (U. S. Geological Survey, 2011), 

(5) the General Science Plan appended to the Environmental Assessment for the Development 

and Implementation of a Protocol for High-flow Experimental Releases from Glen Canyon Dam 

(Bureau of Reclamation, 2011a, appendix B), (6) the Research and Monitoring Plan for the 

Environmental Assessment for Non-Native Fish Control Downstream from Glen Canyon Dam 

(Bureau of Reclamation, 2011b, appendix B), and (7) the 2011 report of the Desired Future 

Conditions Ad Hoc Group of the AMWG. 

A comprehensive budget spreadsheet is provided in Appendix A-1. 
8

A.1. Adaptive Management Work Group Costs 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the FACA database. Reclamation is now required to complete all stakeholder travel, activities that range 

from preparing travel authorizations to completing travel vouchers. Additionally, Upper Colorado Region 

staff must provide documentation related to litigation involving the Department of the Interior’s operation 

of Glen Canyon Dam to various solicitors; these efforts often require many hours of work not 

programmed into the fiscal year budget(s). 

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

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

stakeholder’s awareness of significant budget and legislative issues related to the GCDAMP, improving 

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

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

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

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

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    

FY2013 = $190,391 

FY2014 = $196,103 

Reclamation Project - Personnel Costs—Funding History 

Activity 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Outside Reclamation 

science/labor — — — — — — —

Logistics field support — — — — — — —

Project-related 

travel/training — — — — — — —

Operations/supplies — — — — — — —

Reclamation salaries 123,223 132,892 131,165 134,443 136,846 190,391 196,103

Subtotal 123,223 132,892 131,165 134,443 136,846 190,391 196,103

DOI Overhead (35%) 35,735 43,855 43,284 44,367 47,923 49,361 50,842

Project total 158,958 176,747 174,449 178,810 184,846 190,391 196,103

Total outsourced (%) 

   
9

A.2. AMWG Member Travel Reimbursement 

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

scheduled AMWG meetings. 

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

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

held. As a result, many members must incur travel costs. Having Reclamation provide reimbursement to 

AMWG members or alternates for air travel or mileage for the use of private vehicles, as well as other 

related travel costs such as hotel, per diem, and rental car increases opportunities for members to 

participate in a variety of AMWG assignments. Because Reclamation can purchase airline tickets at the 

Federal Government rate, there are additional cost savings to the program. 

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

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

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

the GCD. 

Budget 

FY2013 = $15,199 

FY2014 = $15,655 

Reclamation Project - AMWG Travel Reimbursement—Funding History 

Activity 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Outside Reclamation 

science/labor — — — — — — —

Logistics field support — — — — — — —

Project-related 

travel/training 16,651 17,467 17,240 17,671 14,756 15,199 15,655

Operations/supplies — — — — — — —

Reclamation salaries — — — — — — —

Subtotal 16,651 17,467 17,240 17,671 14,756 15,199 15,655

DOI Overhead (35%) — — — — — — —

Project total 16,651 17,467 17,240 17,671 14,756 15,199 15,655

Total outsourced (%) — — — — — — —

   
10

A.3. AMWG Reclamation Travel 

This budget supports 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. 

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 being conducted in the study area. 

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

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

involved and work toward consensus on a variety of sensitive issues. 

Budget 

FY2013 = $15,595 

FY2014 = $16,062 

Reclamation Project - Reclamation Travel—Funding History 

Activity 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Outside Reclamation 

science/labor — — — — — — —

Logistics field support — — — — — — —

Project-related 

travel/training 13,765 14,439 13,994 14,344 15,140 15,595 16,062

Operations/supplies — — — — — — —

Reclamation salaries — — — — — — —

Subtotal 13,765 14,178 13,994 14,344 15,140 15,595 16,062

DOI Overhead (35%) — — — — — — —

Project total 13,765 14,178 13,994 14,344 15,140 15,595 16,062

Total outsourced (%) — — — — — — —

 
11

A.4. AMWG Facilitation Contract 

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

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

assignments. 

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

members reach consensus on important issues. The facilitator creates a setting that allows all members 

and the public to express their views. 

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 help bring the 

AMWG members to consensus on pertinent issues affecting the GCDAMP when possible. 

Budget 

FY2013 = $41,747 

FY2014 = $43,000 

Reclamation Project - Facilitation Contract—Funding History 

Activity 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Outside Reclamation 

science/labor — — — — — — —

Logistics field support — — — — — — —

Project-related travel/training 25,700 26,959 26,609 27,274 40,531 41,747 43,000

Operations/supplies — — — — — — —

Reclamation salaries — — — — — — —

Subtotal 25,700 26,959 26,609 27,274 40,531 41,747 43,000

DOI Overhead (35%) — — — — — — —

Project total 25,700 26,959 26,609 27,274 40,531 41,747 43,000

Total outsourced (%) — — — — — — —

 
12

A.5. Public Outreach 

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

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

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

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

GCDAMP members advised of progress and expenditures. 

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

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

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

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

Budget 

FY2013 = $59,305 

FY2014 = $61,084

Reclamation Project - Public Outreach—Funding History 

Activity 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

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

Logistics field support — — — — — — —

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

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

Reclamation salaries 41,040 38,846 36,714 37,744 39,430 45,247 46,605

Subtotal 41,040 40,846 41,214 2,244 43,930 45,247 46,605

DOI Overhead (35%) 11,902 13,684 13,600 13,940 15,375 15,837 16,312

Project total 52,942 55,536 54,814 56,184 59,305 61,084 62,917

Total outsourced (%) — — — — —

   
13

A.6. Other 

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

AMWG, including the following expenses: 

 Overnight mailings of AMWG meeting packets 

 Copying of reports 

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

Web site posting, etc.) 

 Purchasing equipment (audio recording/transcribing machines) 

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

on environmental issues, FACA changes, computer technology improvements, etc. Also included in this 

category are monetary awards given to Reclamation staff who have contributed significantly to the 

success of the GCDAMP. 

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

can be applied to science and research. 

Other expenses will be kept to a minimum in an effort to reduce the administrative portion of the 

GCDAMP budget. 

Budget 

FY2013 = $8,765 

FY2014 = $9,028

Reclamation Project - Other—Funding History 

Activity 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Outside Reclamation 

science/labor — — — — — — —

Logistics field support — — — — — — —

Project-related travel/training 5,597 5,969 5,865 6,062 6,509 6,765 7,028

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

Reclamation salaries — — — — — — —

Subtotal 7,597 7,969 7,865 8,062 8,509 8,765 9,028

DOI Overhead (35%) — — — — — — —

Project total 7,597 7,969 7,865 8,062 8,509 8,765 9,028

Total outsourced (%) — — — — — — —

   
14

B.1. TWG Personnel Costs 

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

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

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

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

updating the Web pages Reclamation maintains for the program. Reclamation also completes all 

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

vouchers. 

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

the TWG. The work includes completing assignments resulting from AMWG or TWG meetings, 

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

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

updating the Web pages Reclamation maintains for the program. 

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

salaries are increased above the CPI. 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 

FY2013 = $92,045 

FY2014 = $97,651 

Reclamation Project - Personnel Costs—Funding History 

Activity 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2011 2012

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

Logistics field support — — — — — — —

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

Operations/supplies — — — — — — —

Reclamation salaries 56,306 64,808 63,965 65,565 68,181 70,227 72,334

Subtotal 56,306 64,808 63,965 65,565 68,181 70,227 72,334

DOI Overhead (35%) 16,329 21,387 21,109 21,636 23,864 24,579 25,317

Project total 72,635 86,195 85,074 87,201 92,045 94,806 97,651

Total outsourced (%) — — — — — — —

   
15

B.2. TWG Member Travel Reimbursement 

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

attend regularly scheduled TWG meetings. 

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

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

held. As a result, many members must incur travel costs. Having Reclamation provide reimbursement to 

TWG members or alternates for air travel or mileage for the use of private vehicles, as well as other 

related travel costs such as hotel, per diem, and rental car increases opportunities for members to 

participate in a variety of TWG assignments. Because Reclamation can purchase airline tickets at the 

Federal Government rate, there are additional cost savings to the program. 

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

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

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

Budget 

FY2013 = $22,331 

FY2014 = $23,001

Reclamation Project - TWG Member Travel Reimbursement—Funding History 

Activity 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Outside Reclamation 

science/labor — — — — — — —

Logistics field support — — — — — — —

Project-related travel/training 22,833 23,952 23,641 24,232 21,861 22,331 23,001

Operations/supplies — — — — — — —

Reclamation salaries — — — — — — —

Subtotal 22,833 23,952 23,641 24,232 21,861 22,331 23,001

DOI Overhead (35%) — — — — — — —

Project total 22,833 23,952 23,641 24,232 21,861 22,331 23,001

Total outsourced (%) — — — — — — —
16

B.3. Reclamation Travel 

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

TWG meetings and ad hoc group meetings resulting from AMWG/TWG assignments. Meetings needed 

to advance AMWG/TWG efforts are often held in Phoenix, Arizona, because it is centrally located to 

those entities/States represented on the AMWG/TWG. As a result, Reclamation staff members who are 

not located in Phoenix are required to make additional trips throughout the year in completion of 

AMWG/TWG assignments. 

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 being conducted in the study area. 

Reclamation staff will continue to be involved in meeting with AMWG/TWG members to 

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

working relationships with all involved and work toward consensus on a variety of GCDAMP issues. 

Budget 

FY2013 = $15,407 

FY2014 = $15,869

Reclamation Project - Reclamation Travel—Funding History 

Activity 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Outside Reclamation 

science/labor — — — — — — —

Logistics field support — — — — — — —

Project-related 

travel/training 16,834 17,658 17,428 17,864 14,958 15,407 15,869

Operations/supplies — — — — — — —

Reclamation salaries — — — — — — —

Subtotal 16,834 17,658 17,428 17,864 14,958 15,407 15,869

DOI Overhead (35%) — — — — — — —

Project total 16,834 17,658 17,428 17,864 14,958 15,407 15,869

Total outsourced (%) — — — — — — —

 
17

B.4. TWG Chair Reimbursement/Facilitation 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Budget 

FY2013 = $31,049 

FY2014 = $31,980

Reclamation Project - TWG Chair Reimbursement—Funding History 

Activity 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Outside Reclamation 

science/labor — — — — — — —

Logistics field support — — — — — — —

Project-related 

travel/training 23,474 24,625 24,305 24,913 30,145 31,049 31,980

Operations/supplies — — — — — — —

Reclamation salaries — — — — — — —

Subtotal 23,474 24,625 24,305 24,913 30,145 31,049 31,980

DOI Overhead (35%) — — — — — — —

Project total 23,474 24,625 24,305 24,913 30,145 31,049 31,980

Total outsourced (%) — — — — — — —

 
18

B.5. Other 

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

including the following expenses: 

 Overnight mailings of TWG meeting packets 

 Copying of reports 

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

 Purchasing equipment (audio recording/transcribing machines) 

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

can be spent on science and research. 

Other expenses will be kept to a minimum in an effort to keep within the GCDAMP budget. 

Budget 

FY2013 = $2,504 

FY2014 = $2,579 

Reclamation Project - Other—Funding History 

Activity 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Outside Reclamation 

science/labor — — — — — — —

Logistics field support — — — — — — —

Project-related travel/training 2,171 2,277 2,247 2,303 2,431 2,504 2,579

Operations/supplies — — — — — — —

Reclamation salaries — — — — — — —

Subtotal 2,171 2,277 2,247 2,303 2,431 2,504 2,579

DOI Overhead (35%) — — — — — — —

Project total 2,171 2,277 2,247 2,303 2,431 2,504 2,579

Total outsourced (%) — — — — — — —

 
19

C.1. Compliance Documents 

This budget covers the costs for preparing documents for GCDAMP-proposed actions required to 

comply with the Endangered Species Act (ESA), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and 

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Reclamation staff will keep informed on changes to the ESA, 

NEPA, and NHPA and will consult with AMWG stakeholders to ensure appropriate compliance is 

undertaken for actions taken in support of the GCDAMP. Reclamation staff will be involved in all 

compliance issues related to the GCDAMP, using travel expenses to meet with the GCDAMP 

stakeholders to resolve any differences. 

Because the primary compliance need for FY2013-14 will be the Long-Term Experimental and 

Management Plan (LTEMP) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), and all personnel costs associated 

with the LTEMP will be paid through Reclamation appropriations, no funding is programmed for this 

project in FY2013-14.

Budget 

FY2013 = $0 

FY2014 = $0

Reclamation Project - Compliance Documents—Funding History 

Activity 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Outside Reclamation 

science/labor — — — — — — —

Logistics field support — — — — — — —

Project-related 

travel/training — — — — — — —

Operations/supplies — — — — — — —

Reclamation salaries 210,080 37,594 37,105 300,701 195,300 

Subtotal 60,923 37,594 37,105 300,701 195,300 

DOI Overhead (35%) 12,406 12,245 99,232 64,450 

Project total 271,003 50,000 49,350 399,933 259,750 0 0

Total outsourced (%) — — — — — — —

 
20

C.2. Administrative Support for NPS Permitting 

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

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

permitting specialist and staff who review all proposals for projects to be completed in the park under the 

auspices of the GCDAMP. The program provides these funds to offset the park’s administrative burden in 

providing these services. 

The primary goal is to ensure that projects conducted under the GCDAMP are reviewed and 

permitted by the NPS. 

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

Budget 

FY2013 = $126,242 

FY2014 = $130,029

Reclamation Project - Administrative Support for NPS Permitting—Funding History 

Activity 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Outside Reclamation 

science/labor — — — — — — —

Logistics field support — — — — — — —

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

Operations/supplies — — — — — — —

Reclamation salaries — — — — — — —

Subtotal 113,300 118,852 117,307 120,240 121,882 126,242 130,029

DOI Overhead (35%) — — — — — — —

Project total 113,300 118,852 117,307 120,240 121,882 126,242 130,029

Total outsourced (%) — — — — — — —
21

C.3. Contract Administration 

This budget covers the expenses for Reclamation staff to prepare and monitor contracts 

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

reimbursement, Tribal participation, Tribal resource monitoring, and programmatic agreement (PA) work. 

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. 

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 

FY2013 = $43,945 

FY2014 = $45,264

Reclamation Project - Contract Administration—Funding History 

Activity 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Outside Reclamation 

science/labor — — — — — — —

Logistics field support — — — — — — —

Project-related 

travel/training — — — — — — —

Operations/supplies — — — — — — —

Reclamation salaries 25,830 30,040 29,650 30,391 31,604 32,552 33,529

Subtotal 25,830 30,040 29,650 30,391 31,604 32,552 33,529

DOI Overhead (35%) 7,491 9,913 9,784 10,029 11,061 11,393 11,735

Project total 33,321 39,953 39,434 40,420 42,665 43,945 45,264

Total outsourced (%) — — — — — — —

 
22

C.4. Experimental Carryover Funds 

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

be available to conduct experiments when conditions are appropriate. If the funds are not needed in a 

given year, they will be transferred to the Native Fish Conservation Fund. 

Budget 

FY2013 = $515,000 

FY2014 = $515,000

Reclamation Project - Experimental Carryover Funds—Funding History 

Activity 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Outside Reclamation 

science/labor — — — — —

Logistics field support — — — — — — —

Project-related 

travel/training — — — — — — —

Operations/supplies — — — — — — —

Reclamation salaries — — — — — — —

Subtotal 500,000 500,000 493,500 505,838 521,013 515,000 515,000

DOI Overhead (35%) — — — — — —

Project total 500,000 500,000 493,500 505,838 521,013 515,000 515,000

Total outsourced (%) — — — — — — —
23

C.5. Integrated Tribal Resources Monitoring 

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

Native American monitoring protocols that were developed in FY2007 and recommended by the TWG as 

part of efforts to develop a core-monitoring program. 

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

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

historic properties in Glen and Grand Canyons. This will be accomplished by adding an additional 3 days 

to the annual GCDAMP monitoring trips. 

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

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

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

compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. 

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

implementing core-monitoring protocols for historic properties. Condition monitoring data will be 

provided to Reclamation to assist in prioritization of historic properties for treatment in subsequent years. 

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

Budget 

FY2013 = $157,160 

FY2014 = $161,875

Reclamation Project - Integrated Tribal Resources Monitoring—Funding History 

Activity 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Outside Reclamation 

science/labor — — — — — — —

Logistics field support — — — — — — —

Project-related 

travel/training — — — — — — —

Operations/supplies — — — — — — —

Reclamation salaries — — — — — — —

Subtotal (power 

revenues) 136,210 142,884 141,027 144,553 148,889 157,160 161,875

DOI Overhead (35%) — — — — — — —

Appropriated Funds — — 75,000 75,000 — — —

Project total 136,210 142,884 216,027 219,553 148,889 157,160 161,875

Total outsourced (%) — — — — — — —
24

C.6. Native Fish Conservation Contingency Fund 

This budget item establishes a native fish conservation contingency fund. This is a fund 

consisting of GCDAMP carryover funds from prior years, and service to ensure that funds are available 

for the control of nonnative fish should the need arise. This fund will also implement non-native fish 

control actions as defined in the 2007 and 2011 Opinions, and the NNFC EA and FONSI. Efforts to 

control nonnative fish, particularly warm water species that reproduce rapidly, may also be required to 

protect native fish populations more expeditiously than can be accommodated by the standard biennial 

budget process. Should excess funds become available beyond those needed for non-native fish control, 

these funds could be expended on other research, monitoring, and management actions that help conserve 

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

The goal of this budget item is to ensure that funds are available for nonnative fish control, 

particularly the control of rapidly reproducing warm water species that can become problematic at time 

scales unsuitable for addressing with the standard biennial GCDAMP process. 

Funds will be available for nonnative fish control efforts as a contingency for addressing rapidly 

developing populations of problematic species, and for other native fish conservation actions as 

appropriate. 

Budget 

FY2013 = $782,660 

FY2014 = $1,321,139

Reclamation Project – Native Fish Conservation Contingency Fund—Funding History 

Activity 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

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

Logistics field support — — — — — — —

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

Operations/supplies — — — — — — —

Reclamation salaries — — — — — — —

Subtotal — 48,483 47,853 49,049 50,521 782,660 1,321,139

DOI Overhead (35%) — — — — — — —

Project total — 48,483 47,853 49,049 50,521 782,660 1,321,139

Total outsourced (%) — — — — — — —

   
25

D.1. Cultural Resources Program Administrative Costs 

This budget funds the salary and travel expenses of Reclamation staff to administer the NHPA 

compliance for the GCDAMP. This includes the 1994 PA for Glen Canyon Dam Operations, the 2012 

Memoranda of Agreement (MOA) documents for Non-native Fish Control and the HFE Protocol, and 

general needs of tribal consultation for the GCDAMP. This also includes Reclamation staff 

administration costs associated with maintaining the grants for tribal participation in the GCDAMP and 

five tribal sole source contracts from power revenues to implement Native American monitoring 

protocols. 

Project Goals and Objectives:

 Management of five tribal sole source contracts from appropriated funds for participation in the 

GCDAMP and management of five tribal sole source contracts from power revenues to implement 

Native American monitoring protocols. 

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

projects associated with implementation of NHPA compliance agreements for the operation of Glen 

Canyon Dam. 

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

required by the 1994 PA and 2012 MOAs. 

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

project, which also ensures accountability for the tribal grants and contracts and appropriate use of both 

appropriated dollars and power revenues. 

Budget 

FY2013 = $127,839 

FY2014 = $131,310

Reclamation Project - Cultural Resources Program Administrative Costs—Funding History 

Activity 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

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

Logistics field support — — — — — — —

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

Operations/supplies — — — — — — —

Reclamation salaries 57,354 42,236 41,633 42,302 44,575 85,696 88,267

Subtotal 57,354 45,236 44,633 45,302 47,575 94,696 97,267

DOI Overhead (35%) — 14,928 14,729 14,950 16,651 33,143 34,043

Project total 57,354 60,164 59,362 60,252 64,226 127,839 131,310

Total outsourced (%) — — — — — — —
26

D.2. Cultural Resources Program Implementation 

Introduction 

The 1994 Programmatic Agreement (PA) has resulted in determinations of eligibility and 

18 years of monitoring data, but given new efforts currently underway, it is appropriate to revisit 

and review our approach to a number of cultural resource issues. This project will provide for 

mitigation, treatment and changes to monitoring of resources through the 1994 PA or the newly 

executed HFE Protocol and NNFC MOAs. 

As the LTEMP EIS moves forward, Reclamation and NPS will be evaluating the 

necessary steps for compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act and 36 CFR 800 with 

respect to any undertaking or undertakings adopted as part of that new Federal action. 

Reclamation will be evaluating whether to amend and update the 1994 PA or to follow 36 CFR 

800 for any undertakings identified in the EIS. This project will also provide a placeholder for 

potential actions that may be need for LTEMP EIS NHPA compliance. 

Reclamation’s intent is to involve the American Indian tribes who participate in the 

Adaptive Management Program during the development of the FY13-14 budget. Reclamation 

will seek tribal input through tribal consultation in addition to tribal input received in the 

GCDAMP biennial budget process. 

The following is Reclamation’s FY13 and FY14 work plan prepared to be consistent with 

these NHPA compliance needs. 

1. Implementation of HFE Protocol MOA. Consultation on the National Historic 

Preservation Act for the HFE Protocol resulted in a signed MOA in compliance with the 

NHPA and 36 CFR 800.6. The undertaking was considered to have an adverse effect on 

19 historic properties because the undertaking (multiple HFEs) might diminish the 

integrity of the property’s setting, materials, feeling, or association. Reclamation and 

NPS consulted with the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office and the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation for these 19 sites. Stipulations to resolve the adverse 

effect included monitoring for multiple HFEs, and according to Stipulation I of the MOA, 

within 120 days after execution of the MOA, Reclamation must consult with the parties 

to the MOA to develop a program to resolve adverse effects of HFEs. Reclamation will 

have this meeting during FY12 to discuss potential monitoring, treatment and mitigation 

efforts related to the HFE Protocol (this will be funded with FY12 power revenues). 

In preparation for this meeting, Reclamation analyzed the 19 sites and has determined 

that four prehistoric sites within the Area of Potential Effect have not been mitigated and 

could be adversely affected by multiple HFEs. These sites are: AZ C:2:35, AZ C:2:75, 

AZ C:2:77, and AZ C:13:9. The first three sites are in Glen Canyon National Recreation 

Area, and the last site is in Grand Canyon National Park. Site C:2:75 was tested by the 

NPS in 1999 and NPS recommended no further work; however, a site condition 

assessment by Navajo Nation Archeology Department (NNAD) in 2007 recommended 

additional work. Likewise, C:2:77 was tested by NPS in 2000 and no further work was 

recommended, but the NNAD site condition assessment in 2007 recommended additional 

excavation to retrieve information important in prehistory (National Register Criterion d). 
27

During the FY12 meeting, Reclamation will consult with all MOA signatories to seek 

agreement on mitigation of adverse effects of the undertaking on all or some of these four 

sites based on agreed upon field assessments and information provided by monitoring as 

well as tribal input. Proposed mitigation would include mitigation for loss of tribal 

associative values under National Register Criteria a and b (including consideration of 

traditional ecological knowledge (TEK), if applicable). If consultation results in 

agreement on resolution of effects, an MOA would be prepared and a contract would be 

awarded in FY 13 for the first three sites, and FY14 for the fourth site to implement a 

treatment plan. The FY12 meeting may result in the identification of other resources 

requiring monitoring, treatment or mitigation. The proposed scope and budget (below) 

can be modified after the FY12 meeting to accommodate any changes. 

Proposed budget: FY13 $66,000, FY14 implementation of treatment plan for one site in Grand 

Canyon $50,000. 

2. Documentation of Associative Values. In FY13, Reclamation will consult with the tribes 

to see if they agree that there should be additional documentation. If so, Reclamation will 

convene a workshop to develop and implement a strategy for documenting associative 

values. Such a strategy might include developing a scope of work with the tribes for a 

contract for an ethnographer or ethnohistorian to document tribal associations with their 

eligible historic properties; i.e., the five historic properties determined eligible in the HFE 

Protocol and NNFC MOAs. The resulting documentation could include information that 

can be shared for purposes of educating tribal children on their heritage and association 

with the canyons. The documentation would also serve to mitigate for loss of associative 

values or integrity under the NPS’s policies (see National Register Bulletin 15). If 

consultation during FY13 results in agreement among Reclamation and the tribes, then 

the contract would be awarded by the end of FY13. 

Proposed budget: FY13 $100,000; FY 14 $30,000. 

3. Non-native Fish Control Consultation. Under the non-native fish control MOA, there are 

stipulations for consultation with tribes before and after any proposed removal actions 

and also stipulations for tribes to participate in non-native fish control efforts. This 

funding will facilitate tribal participation. During consultation, Reclamation will discuss 

any potential to include TEK into this project. 

Proposed budget: FY13 $10,000; FY14 $10,000. 

4. GCMRC monitoring support. GCMRC is developing a proposal to better understand 

aeolian transport and gully incision that will help identify dam operation effects on 

archaeological sites. This will fund GCMRC’s Project Element C. As this project is 

developed, tribes will be consulted. 

Proposed budget: FY13 $161,929; FY14 $156,129. 

5. At the last TWG meeting, GCMRC presented information on TEK as it has been used for 
28

other projects. Using some of this data as the base, this line item would support the 

development of a pilot TEK project with the tribes for monitoring and/or treatment in the 

canyons. This will be a project that is developed with the tribes and may involve an 

existing monitoring or treatment program. 

 

Proposed budget: FY13 develop this project with the tribes $15,000; FY14 implement the pilot 

project $50,000. 

6. Implement LTEMP recommendations. At this time, we can expect some 

recommendations to come out of LTEMP for the cultural resources program. This is a 

place holder. 

Proposed budget: FY13 $10,000; FY14 implement any recommendations $40,000. 

Reclamation Cultural Program Budget Table, FY13-14. 

Fiscal 

Year 

Treatment Associative 

Values 

NNMOA

 Consult 

GCMRC 

Support 

Tribal 

TEK 

Project 

Implement 

 LTEMP 

Total 

FY13 $ 66,000 $ 100,000 $10,000 $161,129 $15,000 $10,000 $362,129

FY14 $50,000 $30,000 $10,000 $156,129 $50,000 $40,000 $336,129

Budget 

FY2013 = $440,620 

FY2014 = $406,419

Reclamation Project – Cultural Resources Program Implementation—Funding History 

Activity 2008 2009 2010* 2011 2012 2013 2014

Outside Reclamation 

science/labor — — — — — — —

Logistics field support — — — — — — —

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

Operations/supplies — — — — — — —

Reclamation salaries — — — — — — —

Subtotal 300,000 500,000 493,500 205,838 519,500 

Subtotal (less GCMRC Sup.) 207,030 185,400

DOI Overhead (35%) — — — — — 72,461 64,890

GCMRC Support 161,129 156,129

Project total 300,000 500,000 493,500 205,838 519,500 440,620 406,419

Total outsourced (%) — 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

*Note that CPI and DOI Overhead are not applied to the funds for GCMRC Support because 

these figures include CPI and GCMRC Overhead. 
29

D.3. Appropriated Funding 

Tribal Participation in the GCDAMP: Sole-Source Reimbursable Contracts with Tribes 

As a result of this project, participation in GCDAMP meetings, resource monitoring, and 

government-to-government consultation will be accomplished in concert with the five GCDAMP 

Tribes (Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Tribe, Kaibab Paiute Tribe, Pueblo of Zuni, Navajo Nation) and 

five DOI agencies (U.S. Geological Survey, National Park Service, Reclamation, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Indian Affairs), with Reclamation serving as lead agency. 

The purpose of funding of tribal contracts is to ensure tribal viewpoints are integrated 

into continuing GCDAMP dialogs, votes, and in the final recommendations made to the 

Secretary of the Interior. 

The 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 these contracts. Continued funding of government-to-government 

consultation through the agreements ensures enhanced communication and understanding of the 

GCDAMP issues and concerns. 

Budget 

FY2013 = $475,000 

FY2014 = $475,000

Reclamation Project E. Tribal Participation in the GCDAMP: Sole-Source Reimbursable Contracts 

with Tribes—Funding History 

Activity 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Outside Reclamation 

science/labor 

— — — — — — —

Logistics field support — — — — — — —

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

Operations/supplies — — — — — — —

Reclamation salaries — — — — — — —

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

DOI Overhead (35%) 

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

Total outsourced (%) 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Appendix 1-A. FY 2013-14 Preliminary Draft Budget for the Bureau of Reclamation 

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management

Program

FY 2013-14 Preliminary Draft Budget for the 

Bureau of Reclamation      

Updated: 

5/24/12

 Description 

 FY12 

w/3.9% 

CPI 

FY13 

w/3.0% 

CPI 

FY14 

w/3.0% 

CPI 

AMWG                     

   Personnel Costs ‐ Labor & Burden           184,846 190,391 196,103

   AMWG Member Travel Reimb           14,756 15,199 15,655

   AMWG Reclamation Travel

Reimb.          15,140 15,595 16,062

   Facilitation Contract           40,531 41,747 43,000

   POAHG Expenses ‐ Labor, Burden,

& Travel          59,305 61,084 62,917

   Other           8,509 8,765 9,028

   Subtotal           $323,087 $332,781 $342,765

TWG                      

   Personnel Costs ‐ Labor           92,045 94,806 97,651

   TWG Member Travel Reimb.           21,681 22,331 23,001

   Reclamation Travel           14,958 15,407 15,869

   TWG Chair / Facilitation           30,145 31,049 31,980

   Other           2,431 2,504 2,579

   Subtotal           $161,260 $166,097 $171,080

OTHER                

   Compliance Documents           259,750 0 0

   Admin Support NPS Permitting            121,882 126,242 130,029

   Contract Administration ‐ Labor,

Burden, Travel          42,665 43,945 45,264

   Experimental Carryover Funds           507,679 515,000 515,000

   Integrated Tribal Resource

Monitoring           152,583 157,160 161,875

   Native Fish Conservation

Contingency Fund          0 782,660 1,321,139

   Subtotal           $1,084,559 $1,625,007 $2,173,308

CULTURAL PROGRAM                   

   Cultural Resources Program

Administrative Costs          64,226 127,839 131,310

   Cultural Resources Program

Implementation          519,500 440,620 406,419

   Subtotal           $583,726 $568,459 $537,729

 Reclamation Power Revenue 

Costs Total $2,152,632 $2,692,344 $3,224,882
7

    

 Reclamation Power Revenue 

Costs w/o Carryover $2,152,632 $1,909,684 $1,903,742

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management

Program

FY 2013‐14 Preliminary Draft Budget for the Bureau of

Reclamation          

Updated:

5/24/12

   Description        FY12

w/3.9% CPI

FY13

w/3.0% CPI

FY14

w/3.0% CPI

OTHER APPROPRIATED FUNDS                  

   NPS Cultural Resources

Monitoring FY12    91,000            

                       

TRIBAL CONTRACTS (Appropriated

Funds)                  

   Hopi Tribe         95,000          

   Hualapai Tribe        95,000          

   Navajo Nation         95,000          

   Pueblo of Zuni        95,000          

   Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians        95,000          

   DOI Agency Appropriated Funds

Total      $91,000 $475,000         

Total    $91,000 $475,00

0 $2,152,632 $2,705,038 $3,270,290

   Total w/o Carryover $2,152,632 $1,909,684 $1,903,742
8

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

Science Center, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research 

Center Biennial Budget and Work Plan—Fiscal Years 2013-

14 

Introduction 

The Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP) is a program and a 

process wherein protection and management of Colorado River resources downstream from Glen 

Canyon Dam are part of decision process concerning dam operations. The Grand Canyon 

Protection Act of 1992 directed the Secretary of the Interior to establish and implement longterm monitoring programs to ensure that Glen Canyon Dam is operated “... in such a manner as 

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

Park and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area were established, including, but not limited to 

natural and cultural resources and visitor use.” The Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

for Operation of Glen Canyon Dam (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1995) recommended 

creation of a federal advisory committee to advise the Secretary on implementation of an 

adaptive management program for operations of the dam. The Record of Decision for the EIS 

that was signed in October 1996 created this federal advisory committee, and the charter of the 

Adaptive Management Work Group (AMWG) that implements the GCDAMP was signed in 

January 1997. 

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

GCDAMP budget supports BoR’s project administration and staff travel, provides 

reimbursements to AMWG members and members of other GCDAMP committees and 

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

activities. BoR funding, with supplemental support from 4 other agencies of the Department of 

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

A large proportion of the GCDAMP annual budget supports the monitoring and research work of 

the USGS Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC). The GCMRC is the 

primary science provider for the GCDAMP, and undertakes monitoring activities about the status 

and trends of natural, cultural, and recreational resources of the Colorado River between Glen 

Canyon Dam and Lake Mead reservoir. The GCMRC also undertakes research activities to 

resolve critical uncertainties about how dam operations affect downstream river resources. 

Purpose 

This Biennial Work Plan (BWP) describes the monitoring and research activities that will 

be undertaken by GCMRC and its cooperators in fiscal years 2013 and 2014 (FY 13/14). These 

fiscal years occur between October 1, 2013, and September 30, 2014. 

Overview of the FY13/14 GCMRC Monitoring and Research Program 

The FY13/14 BWP is organized differently from the BWPs of past years. The FY13/14 BWP 

includes fewer projects, and each project is organized around larger monitoring and research themes. For 

example, there were 12 projects concerning fish and other aquatic resources in the FY11/12 BWP, and 
9

there are 5 projects in the FY13/14 BWP. The monitoring and research themes identified in the FY13/14 

BWP are those common to 

(1) the 5 priority questions and the 12 program goals developed by the AMWG in 2004; 

(2) the monitoring and research plan prepared by GCMRC, approved by AMWG in August 2007 

and amended and approved in April 2009 (U.S. Geological Survey, 2007a); 

(3) the strategic science plan prepared by GCMRC in March 2007 and amended in April 2009 (U. 

S. Geological Survey, 2007b); 

(4) the draft Core Monitoring Plan (U. S. Geological Survey, 2011); 

(5) Assistant Secretary Castle’s March 31, 2011, memo establishing priorities in GCMRC science 

planning; 

(6) the General Science Plan appended to the Environmental Assessment for the Development 

and Implementation of a Protocol for High-flow Experimental Releases from Glen Canyon Dam 

(Bureau of Reclamation, 2011a, appendix B); 

(7) the Research and Monitoring Plan for the Environmental Assessment for Non-Native Fish 

Control Downstream from Glen Canyon Dam (Bureau of Reclamation, 2011b, appendix B); and, 

(8) the 2011 report of the Desired Future Conditions Ad Hoc Group of the AMWG. 

The monitoring and research themes described in the various GCDAMP documents and 

agreements written during the past decade concern (1) maintenance of the predam physical template, 

especially regarding fine sediment, upon which the native ecosystem developed; (2) recovery of the 

endangered humpback chub (Gila cypha) and maintenance of populations of other native fish; (3) 

maintenance of the food base on which the native fish community depends; (4) maintenance of the native 

riparian vegetation community; and, (5) maintenance of culturally important sites, including those that are 

of archaeological and historical significance. The various goals, questions, information needs, and desired 

future conditions developed by the various GCDAMP committees also recognize the importance of the 

nonnative rainbow trout fish population in Glen Canyon and the role played by nonnative riparian 

vegetation in providing habitat for some desired species. In addition to these resource considerations, 

delivery of water in accordance with the Law of the River and generation of renewable hydroelectricity 

are also essential to the economic well-being of the southwest. Thus, economic analysis of the various 

recommendations of the GCDAMP is another critical part of the GCDAMP. 

Overview of the FY13/14 Projects 

In response to the monitoring and research themes described above, the FY13/14 

workplan is organized into ten major projects. Three of these projects are in the fields of 

geomorphology, sediment transport, stream flow measurement, and water quality monitoring. 

Five projects are in the field of fish ecology, and one project is focused in riparian ecology. An 

additional project is focused in the field of cultural resources and includes project elements 
10

concerning small scale monitoring of landscape change at archaeological sites and a project 

element concerning the larger scale geomorphic processes that affect archaeological sites. 

Geomorphology, sediment transport, and water quality projects 

Three projects are in the physical sciences. Project A concerns the geomorphology of fine 

sediment deposits in and near the Colorado River. Fine sediment is sand (0.0625 – 2 mm) and 

mud; in turn, mud is silt (0.0039-0.0625 mm) and clay (<0.0039 mm). These deposits are the 

substrate of the campsite resource, substrate in which the riparian ecosystem has developed, the 

architecture of native fish habitat including backwater nursery habitat for humpback chub, and is 

the substrate in and on which archaeological sites occur. The existence of Glen Canyon Dam and 

Lake Powell causes the deposition of all of the fine sediment supplied from the Upper Colorado 

River Basin in the reservoir. Releases of reservoir water at the dam are free of sediment, and 

there is no significant fine sediment supply to Glen Canyon. The Paria River enters the Colorado 

River at Lees Ferry and delivers approximately 3.3 x 106 tons/yr of fine sediment (Topping et al., 

2000), although the amount supplied from year to year varies greatly. In relation to the predam 

fine sediment supply rate of 62.8 x 106

 tons/yr that was supplied from the Upper Colorado River 

Basin (Topping et al., 2000), the postdam fine sediment supply has been decreased by 95% at the 

upstream end of Marble Canyon. Thus, the postdam Colorado River has excess mechanical 

energy available to transport fine sediment, and large amounts of fine sediment on the river bed 

and in eddies has been eroded and transported downstream towards Lake Mead. 

The remaining fine sediment deposits that are of greatest interest to river managers are 

primarily composed of sand and occur in eddies. Eddies typically occur downstream from the 

rapids that make Marble and Grand Canyons a famous recreational whitewater river. Since the 

1970s, river scientists have struggled to understand the dynamics of the postdam Colorado River 

and its adjustment to a greatly reduced fine sediment supply (Laursen and others, 1976, Howard 

and Dolan, 1981, Schmidt and Grams, 2011). It is inevitable that postdam fine sediment deposits 

will be smaller and more sparsely distributed than predam deposits, and significant river 

management questions concerning the Colorado River downstream from Glen Canyon Dam are: 

What is the largest, sustainable amount of fine sediment that can occur along the banks of the 

Colorado River, especially as eddy sandbars? What flow regime, in relation to the natural 

supply of fine sediment from the Paria and Little Colorado Rivers, results in the largest 

distribution of fine sediment along the channel banks and in eddies? 

Project B concerns continued monitoring of the rate and quantity of the Colorado River’s 

stream flow, as well as the inflow that occurs from tributaries. Additionally, Project B concerns 

measurement of the amount of fine sediment that enters the Colorado River from tributaries and 

measurement of the quality of the Colorado River’s water. Project C concerns continued 

monitoring of the quality of Lake Powell reservoir, because that water determines the quality of 

water in the Colorado River downstream. 

Projects A and B are essential components to implementation of the Protocol for Highflow Experimental Releases, because the protocol calls for high flow releases from Glen Canyon 

Dam whenever a threshold amount of fine sediment delivered form the Paria River is exceeded. 

Project B is this measurement program, as well as the measurements that describe the fate of that 

fine sediment once it enters the Colorado River. Project A supports the direct measurements of 

the volume of fine sediment, especially sand, that is stored on the bed of the Colorado River, in 

its eddies, or at higher elevation along the river’s banks. For the first time, the program for 

measurement of campsites is integrated with this fine sediment measurement program. 
11

Projects in Fish Ecology 

Projects D, E, F, G, and H concern study of the fishes of the Colorado River, its 

tributaries, and the food base on which those fish depend. Project F includes all of the long-term 

monitoring projects funded by the GCDAMP during the past few years. Projects D and E are 

research projects intended to resolve critical uncertainties about humpback chub, their 

distribution in the Colorado River ecosystem (CRe), and their life history in the Little Colorado 

River and elsewhere. Project H concerns the rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) fishery of 

Glen Canyon, and Project G concerns understanding the competitive and predatory relationships 

between trout and native fish. 

The goals in developing the aquatic ecology and fisheries portions of the FY13/14 BWP 

were to maintain long-term monitoring programs of key aquatic resources in the CRe while also 

addressing persistent scientific uncertainties that have plagued management of the aquatic 

ecosystem. Because nonnative rainbow and brown trout (Salmo trutta) compete and prey of 

native fish, including the humpback chub, significant management questions focus on 

What management strategies should to be employed to maintain a high quality rainbow trout 

fishery in Glen Canyon while protecting, and potentially recovering, the endangered 

humpback fish community in Marble and Grand Canyons? 

In response to these questions, new or expanded research projects are intended to provide 

information in areas where the greatest amounts of uncertainty still remain. Most of the 

monitoring needs in the FY 13/14 BWP were identified in the Environmental Assessment for 

Non-Native Fish Control Downstream from Glen Canyon Dam and its associated Biological 

Opinion. These documents identified some areas of uncertainty where more research was 

needed. These uncertainties, as well as others identified during several workshops held as part of 

GCMRC’s second Knowledge Assessment, formed the foundation of the projects for new and 

expanded research presented in the BWP. Although not listed explicitly in these project 

descriptions, consideration was also given to past recommendations and guidance that were part 

of the development of Strategic Science Questions, Research Information Needs, Core 

Monitoring Information Needs, and Desired Future Conditions. 

The emphasis of research proposed in these 5 projects is primarily on native fish, 

especially the humpback chub. Although much has been learned about the distribution, habitat 

use, life history, population dynamics and other aspects of the biology and ecology of this 

species, key uncertainties still remain. Two areas of uncertainty believed to be among the most 

critical to resolve through directed research include the dynamics and ecology of the mainstem 

population segments of humpback chub known as ‘aggregations’ (Project D) and the variability 

in survival, growth, and emigration rates of early life history stages of humpback chub in the 

Little Colorado River as well as the physical and biological drivers of this variation (Project E). 

Interactions between native and nonnative fish, particularly between humpback chub and trout, 

are still an area of concern given several remaining uncertainties. A research approach that 

includes laboratory experimentation and field study is needed to better understand the predation 

and competition effects of nonnative fish on native species and to determine to what extent these 

interactions are affected by environmental conditions (Project G). 

Maintaining the rainbow trout fishery in Glen Canyon has been a longstanding 

management priority. While our understanding of some of the drivers of this population has 

improved, a number of unknowns remain. A combination of laboratory and field studies, 
12

modeling, and comparison to similar systems will help clarify the drivers of rainbow trout 

population status and trends, size composition, and downstream migration (Project H), thus 

allowing for more effective management of this important fishery. 

Monitoring of key aquatic resources in the CRe remains a critical component of the 

FY13/14 BWP (Project F). In fact, the majority of work proposed for this biennium is 

monitoring to be conducted by GCMRC and its cooperators. These projects generate data that 

can be used to provide a baseline for observing status and trends in resources of interest, to 

assess the effectiveness of various management actions, and to inform managers as to the need to 

conduct management actions or the attainment of identified goals. Surveys of humpback chub 

and other fishes are proposed to continue in the Little Colorado River. This will include both 

physical captures of fish in the spring and fall and continuous electronic monitoring to detect 

individuals previously tagged with passive integrated transponders. Mainstem surveys will also 

continue annually in the fall as part of the Aggregation Study (Project D) and quarterly near the 

mouth of the Little Colorado River. These surveys provide critical information on the relative 

abundance of humpback chub populations and also provide data used in generating survival 

estimates as well as abundance estimates with the Age-Structured Mark Recapture model. 

Annual surveys of other native fish as well as nonnative species will also continue in Glen, 

Marble, and Grand Canyons. This work includes monitoring of trout spawning, early life stages, 

and adult populations in Glen Canyon, trout abundance and emigration in Marble Canyon, and 

the distributions and relative abundance of all native and nonnative fishes in Glen, Marble, and 

Grand Canyons. These efforts will help keep scientists and managers informed on the status and 

trends of fish throughout the CRe and will provide a mechanism of surveillance and early 

detection of invasive fish species. Although study of the aquatic food base has been integrated 

into several research proposals, monitoring of this important resource will also continue or be 

expanded. Information to be collected includes production of algae and invertebrates, algae and 

organic matter biomass, and drift of invertebrates and organic matter. Understanding the aquatic 

food base and its dynamics is essential to understanding the distribution, condition and 

abundance of fish populations in the CRe. 

Project in Riparian Ecology 

Results of on-going monitoring, and presentations made at the second Knowledge 

Assessment Workshop demonstrated that riparian vegetation is increasing greatly in its 

distribution in the CRe, has significant impact on campsite availability, and has significant 

implications on the aquatic and terrestrial ecosystem. The expansion in the distribution of the 

tamarisk beetle (Diorhabda elongata) significantly affects the riparian ecosystem, and 

potentially provides the opportunity to river managers to create a new distribution of native and 

nonnative vegetation downstream from the dam, because the distribution of tamarisk (Tamarix 

spp.) is likely to greatly decrease. Project I is a revision and expansion of the present monitoring 

program for riparian vegetation. The revisions have been made to make the CRe work 

complementary to that underway in the Upper Colorado River Basin, as conducted by the 

National Park Service’s Northern Colorado Plateau Information and Monitoring Network. The 

effort here is to develop data sets that can be compared across larger spatial scale in different 

geomorphic settings and different dam operation scenarios. The field monitoring in riparian 

ecology is complemented by remote sensing work and an applied research project focused on 

assessing the implications of tamarisk beetle expansion. 
13

Cultural Resources Monitoring and Research Project 

In relation to past BWPs, the monitoring and research program in cultural resources is 

substantially revised. The project work in FY13/14 is divided into a monitoring phase and a 

research phase. The monitoring phase will partly take place in Glen Canyon where new airborne 

LiDaR protocols will be evaluated. In Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons, existing ground-based 

LiDaR protocols will be applied at a range of sites dominated by different styles of geomorphic 

processes. A new applied research program will be initiated in FY13/14 that focuses on placing 

the various site-scale measurements into a larger context. The focus of this last project element is 

to understand (1) what is the geographic extent of the influence of Glen Canyon Dam on those 

geomorphic processes that affect archaeological resources, (2) is gully erosion progressive in the 

CRe and under what conditions does windblown sand reverse gullying, and (3) do changes in 

sand bar area result in significant changes in erosional processes that threaten archaeological 

resources? This large-scale, overview of geomorphic processes in the Colorado River valley will 

provide a critical context for the small-scale measurements that occur at monitoring sites. 

The FY 13/14 Cultural Resources Project was developed with substantial contributions 

by the National Park Service, and is being undertaken with substantial collaborations by USGS 

scientists at the Pacific Coastal and Marine Science Center (Santa Cruz, CA) and at the Geology, 

Minerals, and Geophysics Science Center (Menlo Park, CA). 

Other Project Components 

The FY13/14 program also supports the work of a yet-to-be-hired economist at GCMRC. 

Funding includes support for project work as well as the salary and benefits for this individual. 

The program of study that will be undertaken by this individual has not yet been 

comprehensively described. The program of the economist will involve close consultation with 

the AMWG, the Technical Work Group (TWG), and ad hoc committees of these groups that are 

focused on economic issues. 

Independent review of the work of the GCMRC, the work of GCMRC’s associated 

scientists in sister agencies, consulting firms, and universities, and the decisions and programs of 

the AMWG and TWG are critical aspects of the GCDAMP. In FY13/14, the budgets allocated 

for specific independent reviews and for the work of the Science Advisors have been reduced, 

consistent with reduced expectations about the number of papers and proposals that are expected 

to require review. Nevertheless, funding supports the full suite of activities critical to the mission 

of the GCDAMP, especially by the Science Advisors. 

GCMRC Project Administration 

Administration of the GCMRCs work is funded in two ways – as direct costs associated 

with the salaries and travel expenses of key leadership and administrative personnel and as 

indirect costs (called “burden” in the USGS) that support the USGS Southwest Biological 

Science Center (SBSC). Part of the indirect costs are assessed at a 14% burden rate on all work 

conducted by GCMRC staff and partly by a direct $1 million allocation by the USGS to the 

SBSC. 

Allocation of the FY13/14 Budget 

The total proposed budget of GCMRC in FY13 is $10,187,000 of which $8,634,600 is 

from GCDAMP funds. An additional $225,200 is from GCMRC carryover funds, $414,000 from 
14

other regular BoR funding, and $567,400 from BoR carryover funds. The BoR carryover funds 

have a two-year duration and will fund specific applied research projects in fish ecology for the 

FY 13/14 BWP. Presently, $345,700 of required funding has not yet been identified, and those 

research projects will not be implemented if these funds are not subsequently identified. 

Of the projected $10.1 million budget, 41% is to be allocated to monitoring and research 

work in fish ecology and 30% is to be allocated to the projects in geomorphology, stream flow 

monitoring, sediment transport, and water quality (Fig. 1). Direct administrative costs are 17% of 

the budget. Thus, the combined work in riparian ecology, cultural resources, economics, and 

independent reviews is a small part of the proposed work. The budget for the GCMRC part of the 

FY13/14 BWP is described at the end of each project description, and is summarized in various 

appendices at the end of this document. 

Figure 1. Allocations for the proposed FY 13 GCMRC budget, including some projects for 

which funding has not yet been identified. 

The proposed budget for FY 14 is $10, 580,300, of which $8,903,300 would be from 

GCDAMP funds, $415,900 from other BoR funding sources, and $574,200 from BoR carryover 

sources. Several identified projects ($686,900) do not yet have identified funding sources. 
15

References 

Bureau of Reclamation, 2011a, Environmental assessment--development and implementation of 

a protocol for high-flow experimental releases from Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona, 2011 

through 2020: Salt Lake City, Utah, Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region, 176 p. 

+ appendices, accessed on March 21, 2012, at 

http://www.usbr.gov/uc/envdocs/ea/gc/HFEProtocol/HFE-EA.pdf. 

Bureau of Reclamation, 2011b, Environmental assessment--non-native fish control downstream 

from Glen Canyon Dam: Salt Lake City, Utah, Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado 

Region, 102 p. + appendices, accessed on March 21, 2012, at 

http://www.usbr.gov/uc/envdocs/ea/gc/nnfc/NNFC-EA.pdf. 

Howard, A.D., and Dolan, R., 1981, Geomorphology of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon: 

Journal of Geology, v. 89, no. 3, doi: 10.1086/628592, p. 269-298, accessed on February 18, 

2010, at http://www.jstor.org/pss/30078299. 

Laursen, E.M., Ince, S., and Pollack, J., 1976, On sediment transport through the Grand Canyon, 

in Federal Interagency Sedimentation Conference, 3d, Denver, Colo., March 22-25, 1976, 

Proceedings: p. 4-76 to 74-87. 

Schmidt, J.C., and Grams, P.E., 2011, Understanding physical processes of the Colorado River, 

in Melis, T.S., ed., Effects of three high-flow experiments on the Colorado River ecosystem 

downstream from Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1366, 17-51 

p., accessed on June 28, 2011, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1366/. 

Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., Nelson, J.M., and Kinzel, P.J., 2000, Colorado River sediment 

transport 2--systematic bed-elevation and grain-size effects of sand supply limitation: Water 

Resources Research, v. 36, no. 2, doi: 10.1029/1999WR900286, p. 543-570, accessed on 

November 9, 2010, at http://www.agu.org/journals/wr/v036/i002/1999WR900286/. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, 1995, Operation of Glen Canyon Dam--final environmental 

impact statement, Colorado River storage project, Coconino County, Arizona: Salt Lake 

City, Utah, USA, Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Regional Office, 337 p., accessed 

on November 18, 2010, at http://www.usbr.gov/uc/library/envdocs/eis/gc/pdfs/Cov-con/covcon.pdf

U.S. Geological Survey, 2011, General core monitoring plan for the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive 

Management Program: Flagstaff, Ariz., U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring 

and Research Center, 134p. 

U.S. Geological Survey, 2007a, Monitoring and research plain in support of the Glen Canyon 

Dam Adaptive Management Program: Flagstaff, Ariz., U.S. Geological Survey, Grand 

Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, 149 p. 

U.S. Geological Survey, 2007b, Monitoring and research plan in support of the Glen Canyon 

Dam Adaptive Management Program: Flagstaff, Ariz., U.S. Geological Survey, Grand 

Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, 149 p. 

 
16

Project A. 

Sandbars and Sediment Storage Dynamics: Long-term 

Monitoring and Research at the Site, Reach, and 

Ecosystem Scales 

1. Investigators 

Paul Grams, Research Hydrologist, USGS, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center 

Phil Davis, Research Geologist, USGS, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center 

Barbara Ralston, Biologist, USGS, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center 

David Rubin, Research Geologist, USGS, Coastal and Marine Geology 

Joseph E. Hazel, Jr. and Matt Kaplinski, Research Associates, Northern Arizona University 

School of Earth Science and Environmental Sustainability 

Keith Kohl, Surveyor, USGS, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center 

2. Project Summary 

The work described here is an ongoing project and includes a set of integrated studies 

conducted at several different spatial and temporal scales. Collectively, these studies are 

designed to track the results of individual High-Flow Experiments (HFEs) and to monitor the 

cumulative effect of these HFEs and intervening operations. Additionally, the goal of this work 

is to advance understanding of sediment transport and eddy sandbar dynamics to improve 

capacity for predicting the effects of future dam operations. 

One of the central challenges in the management of the Colorado River downstream from 

Glen Canyon Dam is the need to balance objectives related to sediment conservation with other 

management objectives, and to do so in the context of a limited supply of fine sediment. 

Evaluation of whether management goals are being met currently and prediction of the 

likelihood of meeting goals in the future requires a combination of monitoring activities and 

research efforts. 

The key uncertainty about management of sandbars downstream from Glen Canyon Dam 

articulated in the recently completed Environmental Assessment for Development and 

Implementation of a Protocol for High-Flow Experimental Releases from Glen Canyon Dam, is 

the question, "Can sandbar building during HFEs exceed sandbar erosion during periods between 

HFEs, such that sandbar size can be increased and maintained over several years?" This question 

can be answered through continued monitoring of sand deposits over a multi-year timeframe of 

repeated controlled flood experiments. 

Monitoring conducted in this project will include daily and annual observations of longterm sandbar monitoring sites by remote camera and conventional topographic survey, 

respectively. These observations add to the existing long-term dataset and will be available 

following each HFE as an initial assessment of resource condition that could be used to adjust 

the HFE implementation strategy, if necessary. Because these monitoring sites represent only a 

small proportion of the total number of sandbars in Marble and Grand Canyons, this project also 
17

includes the analysis of system-wide airborne remote-sensing data to monitor a much larger set 

of sandbars every four years to assess sandbar size and abundance. 

The continued success of HFEs to rebuild sandbars depends on maintaining an adequate 

supply of sand in and near the Colorado River. If there is a decline in sand storage, the likelihood 

that HFEs alone can maintain sandbars is decreased. While the sandbar monitoring studies 

provide needed information on resource condition, they do not provide any measure of the total 

amount of sand in storage in and near the Colorado River, because a very small fraction of the 

sand in storage is in the monitoring sites. To provide this critical information about sand storage 

and to evaluate whether dam operations, including HFEs, are likely to result in sandbar 

maintenance or eventual decline, sediment storage will be monitored by repeat channel-wide 

surveys of river segments on a rotating basis of approximately every 3 to 10 years. Other 

components of this project are designed to integrate findings across longer spatial and temporal 

scales, investigate how specific changes in sandbar morphology affect campsite quality, link 

sandbar deposition dynamics with the distribution of riparian vegetation along shorelines, 

provide habitat and riverbed substrate information to biological studies, and improve 

understanding of the variability of sandbar response to dam operations. Collectively, these 

studies will contribute to improved capacity to predict the effects of future controlled floods. 

3. Background 

One of the stated goals of the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program 

(GCDAMP) is to “maintain or attain levels of sediment storage within the main channel and 

along shorelines” (U.S. Geological Survey, 2006). This overarching goal encompasses many 

linkages between sediment storage and ecosystem goals including: maintenance of sandbars used 

by recreationists, creation of sandbar-associated backwater habitats used by native fish, and 

maintenance of exposed bare sand surfaces that supply sand for redistribution to upland areas by 

wind. Research and monitoring supporting these objectives also provides knowledge of the 

relative proportions and spatial distributions of fine and coarse sediment on the bed of the river, 

because those characteristics control transport of suspended sediment and affect primary 

production and aquatic habitat. Because many of these objectives concern sandbars, the focus of 

this project is on the sand-size component of sediment. We use the term “sediment” to refer to 

alluvium of all sizes, “fine sediment” to refer to sand, silt, and clay (all sediment < 2 mm), and 

“sand” to refer to sand-sized sediment only (0.0625 – 2 mm). This project addresses these 

objectives through monitoring components designed to track the trends in sandbars and fine 

sediment storage and research components designed to improve understanding of processes that 

affect fine-sediment related resources. 

Conditions of fine sediment deficit and changes in flow regime brought about by 

completion of Glen Canyon Dam have resulted in a decline in the number and size of sandbars in 

Grand Canyon National Park (Schmidt and others, 2004; Wright and others, 2005). Sandbars are 

used as camping beaches, form aquatic habitat, and are a source of eolian sand for the upland 

ecosystem (see project J...). Schmidt and others (2004) estimated that there has been about a 25 

percent decrease in the area of exposed sandbars in Marble Canyon and eastern Grand Canyon 

based on comparison of pre-dam and post-dam aerial photographs. Monitoring of sandbars 

between 1990 and 2011 has shown that controlled floods cause widespread increases in the size 

of sandbars exposed above a given reference stage and that these bars decrease in size between 

controlled floods (Schmidt and others, 1999; Hazel and others, 1999; Topping and others, 2006; 
18

Hazel and others, 2010; Schmidt and Grams, 2011). The difference between fine sediment 

supply and fine sediment export is positive in some time periods and negative in other time 

periods (D.J. Topping, US Geological Survey, unpublished data). Thus, it remains unknown 

whether the net long-term effect of dam operations, including controlled floods, will result in a 

stable fine-sediment budget or will progressively mine fine sediment from storage (Fig. 1). A 

quasi-stable sediment budget would indicate that controlled floods will continue to be an 

effective tool for building sandbars, while a downward trending sediment budget would indicate 

a decreasing capacity to rebuild sandbars using floods alone (Rubin and others, 2002; Wright and 

others, 2008; Schmidt and Grams, 2011). 

Figure 1. Conceptual diagram illustrating the dependency of net sandbar size on potential variations in 

the amount of deposition that occurs during a High-Flow Experiment (HFE), the frequency of HFEs, and 

the rate of post-HFE erosion (figured adapted from Schmidt and Grams, 2011). The case shown in 1 

shows a hypothetical amount of HFE deposition followed by an equal amount of erosion. Cases two and 

three result in net increases in sandbar size by increasing the amount of deposition during HFEs and 

increasing the frequency of HFEs, respectively. In case 4, the rate of erosion following HFEs is greater 

than the HFE deposit such that there are net decreases in sandbar size. 

The recently completed Environmental Assessment for Development and Implementation 

of a Protocol for High-Flow Experimental Releases from Glen Canyon Dam, (HFE EA) outlines 

a program for conducting additional controlled floods during the next 10 years. The sandbar and 

sediment storage monitoring and research described in this project consists of a set of integrated 

studies designed to track the response of sand bars and sediment storage to high-flow 

experiments (HFE). The time frame of interest includes both individual HFEs and the cumulative 

effect of multiple HFEs and intervening operations. The project also includes studies to advance 

understanding of sediment and eddy sandbar dynamics to increase the capacity for designing 

flow regimes that have the greatest possible sandbar building response with the available 

sediment supply. 
19

3.1. Scientific Background 

Closure of Glen Canyon Dam has resulted in at least a 90 percent reduction in fine 

sediment supply to the Colorado River in Marble and Grand Canyons (Topping and others, 

2000). In response to this reduction in sand supply and the alteration of the natural hydrograph 

by dam operations, sandbars in Marble Canyon and the upstream part of Grand Canyon have 

substantially decreased in size (Schmidt and others, 2004). Although there have been temporary 

increases during floods, bars erode during normal power plant operations (Wright and others, 

2005; Schmidt and Grams, 2011). The net result since the inception of the first controlled flood 

in 1996 has been mixed. In upper Marble Canyon and eastern Grand Canyon (Fig. 2), only about 

one-third of the long-term monitoring sites were larger in October 2008, 6 months after the most 

recent controlled flood, than they were immediately before the first controlled flood in 1996 

(Schmidt and Grams, 2011). In all other reaches 80 percent or more of the sandbars at 

monitoring sites increased in size. 

Growing concern about the effects of the operations of Glen Canyon Dam led to the 

initiation of systematic measurements of sandbars in the 1970s (Dolan and others, 1974; 

Howard, 1975; Howard and Dolan, 1981). This sandbar-monitoring program was reestablished 

in the 1980s (Schmidt and Graf, 1990; Beus and others, 1992), and led to the sandbar-monitoring 

program now conducted by Northern Arizona University (NAU) (Hazel and others, 1999; 

Schmidt and others, 2004). A synthesis of these studies (Schmidt and others, 2004) indicated that 

the observations of change made at the limited set of sandbar monitoring sites were not 

necessarily representative of changes in fine-sediment over the much longer sediment budgeting 

reaches1

 of the Colorado River, because these programs utilize surveys of a relatively small 

proportion of the total number and area of sandbars, and the variability of response among sites 

was large. 

A parallel monitoring effort designed to document trends in fine-sediment storage 

involved repeat measurements at a collection of channel cross-sections between 1992 and 1997 

(Flynn and Hornewer, 2003). These data indicated bed degradation in some locations, but also 

showed high variability from place to place. This indication of possible sediment depletion 

coupled with the inability to detect significant trends owing to variability led to the recognition 

that there was a need for a more comprehensive and systematic measurement program. These 

findings resulted in the initiation in 1999 of (1) a suspended sediment sampling program to 

enable the calculation of sand budgets for long sediment budgeting reaches (see Project B: 

Streamflow, Sediment Transport, and Water Quality) and (2) a sediment storage monitoring 

program based around making repeat measurements over short reaches, 3 to 5 km in length. 

Here, we focus on the findings resulting from the pilot sediment storage monitoring that was 

conducted between 2000 and 2004. We refer to this effort as the “short-reach” monitoring 

program. 

These monitoring programs were based around the concept of a sediment mass balance or 

sediment budget. The sediment budget is simply the accounting by mass (or volume) of all 

                                                            

1 In this proposal, we refer to observations and study areas that span a variety of spatial scales. We use

“monitoring site” to refer to monitoring locations that are at the scale of individual sandbars, 100’s of meters in

length. We use “short reach” to refer to study reaches that include many sites and are on the order of 2 to 5 km in

length. We use “long reach” or “sediment budgeting reach” to refer to segments of the river that encompass the

entire channel between fine‐sediment monitoring gages; these reaches are 50 to 130 km in length.  
20

sediment entering and exiting a specified river segment. The budget may be expressed in 

mathematical terms as 

ܫ െ ܱ ൌ 	 ∆ܵ, (1) 

which states that the sum of all sediment inputs, ܫ, minus the sum of all outputs, ܱ, is equal to the 

net change in sediment storage, ∆ܵ, within the designated segment. In the case that inputs exceed 

outputs, ∆ܵ is positive indicating sediment accumulation. To provide greater resolution and the 

opportunity to monitor different mechanisms and resources, the sand storage can be divided into 

sand stored in lower elevations that are typically underwater and sand stored in higher elevations 

that are only flooded occasionally, 

∆ܵ ൌ ∆ܵ௟௢௪ ൅ ∆ܵ௛௜௚௛. (2) 

We use “low” to refer to sediment below the 8,000 ft3/s stage and “high” to refer to 

sediment above the 8,000 ft3/s stage. The low-elevation sediment is underwater except during the 

trough of some flow fluctuations. The high-elevation fine sediment is alternately inundated and 

exposed, depending on the flow regime. The high-elevation sediment is most relevant to 

camping beaches, riparian vegetation, and other upland resources while the low-elevation 

sediment is relevant to aquatic habitat and, in the case of sandbars in eddies, is the foundation for 

the high-elevation sediment. The purpose of the measurements of suspended sediment initiated 

in 1999 was to measure sediment inputs and outputs for each segment between measurement 

stations, i.e. the sediment budgeting reaches (Fig. 2). This ongoing measurement program (see 

Project B: Streamflow, Sediment Transport, and Water Quality) tracks the accumulation and fate 

of tributary inputs, providing the information that is needed to plan high flow events. The 

purpose of the short-reach monitoring program was to measure changes in sediment storage and 

where those changes in storage occurred. 

The short-reach monitoring program, conducted from 2000 to 2004, was accomplished 

by repeat measurements of the river bed using sonar and repeat measurements of exposed 

deposits by airborne LiDar, aerial photogrammetry, and conventional topographic survey. Eleven 

short reaches were selected, although repeat measurements were only made at seven of these 

reaches between RM 0 and RM 87 (Fig. 2). The methods are described by Hazel and others 

(2008) and Kaplinski and others (2009). This monitoring program was a substantial advancement 

beyond earlier monitoring programs, because nearly all of the channel in each short reach was 

mapped, in contrast to previous efforts which made measurements at widely-spaced crosssections or isolated sandbars. 
21

Figure 2. Map showing the Colorado River between Glen Canyon Dam and Diamond Creek. The stations 

for suspended sediment transport monitoring (Project B: Streamflow, Sediment Transport, and Water 

Quality) are shown by the red circles. The short reaches where sediment storage was mapped in 2000 to 

2005 are shown by the green ovals. The current sediment storage monitoring plan calls for mapping 50 to 

80 percent of the channel in the segments between the sediment monitoring stations. In 2009 and 2012, 

most of the long sediment budgeting reach between RM 30 and RM 61 was mapped. In 2011, most of the 

sediment budgeting reach between RM 61 and RM 87 was mapped. 

Results from this monitoring program demonstrated that 90 percent or more of the fine 

sediment stored in the modern river is in low-elevation locations (Hazel and others, 2006). Thus, 

the fine sediment that is generally of greatest management interest comprises only about 10 

percent of the fine sediment in the system. This study also demonstrated that change in lowelevation sediment storage computed from repeat measurements of erosion and deposition in 

short (< 15 km) reaches is not consistent with the change in storage computed from the 

difference in sediment transport over longer sediment budgeting reaches (Topping and others, 

2006; Grams and others, 2011). In other words, the measurement of ∆ܵ over short reaches and 

extrapolation of the results to the longer reaches does not yield the same answer as the 

computation of ∆ܵ from equation (1). This discrepancy does not result from an inability to 

measure changes with sufficient precision, but from the inability to extrapolate measurements 

from the short reaches to longer reaches. 

Extrapolation is made difficult for at least two major reasons: changes in storage are 

highly localized and changes in storage are locally variable. Schmidt and others (2004) showed 

that large changes in sediment storage are concentrated in eddies and pools in the channel 

adjacent to eddies. In addition, nearby eddy/channel storage locations in the same short reach do 

not necessarily behave consistently—scour in one eddy may be offset by an equal or larger 
22

magnitude of deposition in the next eddy. Finally, the magnitude of change in storage in these 

isolated pools can be large relative to the net change over a long reach. The net ∆ܵ over a long 

reach is the sum of many individual ∆ܵ terms, some positive, some negative, and nearly all of 

them large relative to the total sum. Thus, without better knowledge of the distribution, size, and 

behavior of these storage locations, it is not currently possible to extrapolate measurements from 

the short reaches to longer reaches (Grams and others, 2011). These findings have indicated that 

in order to determine whether sediment storage as a whole – at low and high elevations and in 

the channel and eddy storage environments – is increasing, decreasing, or stable requires repeat 

measurements of sand storage throughout the long sediment budgeting reaches. Fortunately, 

advances in monitoring techniques now allow practical measurement of changes in topography at 

the scale of the sediment budgeting reaches. The proposed fine sediment monitoring includes 

measurements of channel and eddy sand storage at the scale of the long reaches. 

The variability observed in the short-reach monitoring program and the variability 

observed in the monitoring of individual sandbars are related. Grams and others (2011) showed 

how the volume of sand at many of the individual monitoring sites is correlated with the flow of 

the river during the preceding month. This means that, for a given flow regime and sediment 

supply condition, some sites tend to accumulate large sandbars while other sites tend to lose sand 

and these differences depend on the flow regime. This insight was only made possible, because 

we now have a long monitoring record at more than 30 individual sandbars that can be compared 

with flow record. Although we have identified that sandbar response is highly variable (Hazel 

and others, 1999; Schmidt and others, 1999; Schmidt and others, 2004; Hazel and others, 2010; 

Grams and others, 2011), we have yet to discover how to categorize eddies such that we can 

predict sandbar variability outside of the long-term monitoring sites where these relations can be 

determined empirically. It is likely that specific site characteristics, such as channel geometry, 

control the flow patterns in eddies and affect sandbar response. If the specific characteristics that 

determine patterns of erosion and deposition can be discovered, it would be possible to predict 

sandbar response at a much larger range of sites than the limited set of sites where we have 

empirical observations. 

Better understanding of the physical controls on eddy dynamics will also contribute to 

improved predictive capability through modeling. Documented and well-verified models have 

been produced to predict mainstem streamflow throughout Marble and Grand Canyons (Randle 

and Pemberton, 1987; Wiele and Smith, 1996; Wiele and Griffin, 1997; Magirl and others, 2008) 

and sediment flux at approximately 50-km increments between RM 0 and RM 87 (Wright and 

others, 2010). These models can be used to predict sediment availability for planning reservoir 

releases (Wright and Grams, 2010) but do not allow prediction of sandbar response. Wiele and 

others (2007) made an effort to couple the canyon-scale models with detailed eddy models in 

order to provide better predictions of bar building response. This approach assumed all eddies 

behaved similarly, with the magnitude of erosion and deposition scaled by eddy size. We now 

know that a predictive canyon-scale model for eddy response will have to incorporate the 

observed site-to-site variability in erosion and deposition. 

One of the challenges faced in developing physically-based predictive models for 

sediment transport and eddy sandbar deposition is the linkage between the condition of the 

sediment on the bed and the sediment in transport. The strong correlation between bed sediment 

grain size and the rate and grain size of sediment in transport was demonstrated for the Colorado 

River by Topping and others (1999). Grams and Wilcock (2007) used laboratory experiments to 

establish a relation between the areal extent of sand cover and sand entrainment rate. Both of 
23

these relations were used by Topping and others (2010) to infer bed composition and coverage 

from suspended sediment measures for each of the three controlled floods. This is a potentially 

useful monitoring technique, because it would allow the use of the continuous record of 

suspended sediment concentration to track the amount of sand on the bed. However, 

implementation will require a better understanding of the spatial scale at which the correlation 

between bed condition and suspended sediment concentration can be demonstrated. 

3.2. Key Monitoring and Research Questions Addressed in this project 

This project is formulated around seven research questions that have evolved from the 

goals, strategic science questions, information needs, and desired future conditions developed in 

cooperation with stakeholders of the GCDAMP. The primary GCDAMP goal addressed is “Goal 

8: Maintain or attain levels of sediment storage within the main channel and along shorelines to 

achieve Adaptive Management ecosystem goals.” This goal statement is somewhat refined in the 

strategic science questions: “Is there a “Flow Only” operation (that is, a strategy for dam 

releases, including releases responding to large tributary inputs, without sediment augmentation) 

that will rebuild and maintain sandbar habitats over decadal timescales?” and “What is the rate of 

change in eddy storage (erosion) during time intervals between high flows?” To address these 

questions, the 2007 Monitoring and Research Plan identified a series of core monitoring 

information needs which specify the need to monitor fine sediment in the channel and eddies at 

both low and high elevations. 

Further guidance on monitoring needs is provided by the HFE EA. The overarching 

sandbar-related question identified in the HFE EA is, "Can sandbar building during HFEs exceed 

sandbar erosion during periods between HFEs, such that sandbar size can be increased and 

maintained over several years?" This document also contains specific science questions related 

to sandbars and camping beaches: (1) Will multiple high flows conducted over a period of 10 

years result in net increases in sandbar area and volume?; (2) With the available sand supply (i.e. 

tributary inputs), is the approach of using repeated floods to build sandbars sustainable?; and, (3) 

Will multiple high flows conducted over a period of 10 years result in net increases in campable 

area along the Colorado River? 

These goals, science questions, and information needs are incorporated in the following 

list of specific questions addressed in this Sandbar and Sediment Storage project: 

1. What is the long-term net effect of dam operations, including high flows, on changes in 

high-elevation sandbar area and sand storage (i.e. the sand above the 8,000 ft3/s stage)?

These changes are relevant to camping beaches, riparian vegetation, backwater habitat, 

and control the supply of bare sand that is redistributed by wind. 

2. What is the long-term net effect of dam operations, including high flows, on changes in 

low-elevation sand storage and bed sediment texture (the sand below the 8,000 ft3

/s 

stage)? These changes are relevant to backwaters and other aquatic habitat, the 

foundation of eddy sandbars, and as the source of sediment that fuels transport and 

determines whether the use of high flows is sustainable. 

3. What are the relative proportions of pre-dam sediment (sediment that entered the 

Colorado River before dam completion) and post-dam sediment (sediment from 

tributaries that has entered the Colorado River following dam completion) present in 

deposits formed by dam operations, including HFEs? Do the proportions of pre- and postdam fine sediment indicate depletion of non-renewable pre-dam fine sediment from 
24

storage or accumulation of tributary-derived post-dam fine sediment? This question is 

relevant to determining whether the use of HFEs is sustainable. 

4. What are the causes of variability in sandbar response to controlled floods and other dam 

operations (i.e. why do sandbars respond differently from place to place to the same flow 

and sediment supply conditions?), and how does vegetation affect sandbar response? This 

builds on sandbar monitoring (Question 1) to support prediction of sandbar response. 

5. What is the spatial distribution of bed sediment texture, and how does it affect primary 

production, fish habitat, and sediment transport modeling? This builds on low elevation 

sand monitoring (Question 2) to support sediment transport and biological prediction. 

6. Can we relate changes in the spatial distribution of bed sediment texture to observed 

changes in suspended sand concentrations and grain size? This would enable use of the 

continuous record of suspended sediment to infer changes in bed sediment composition 

for use in modeling of sediment transport and primary production. 

7. How have changes in sandbar size, sandbar characteristics (e.g., slope, roughness), and 

vegetation cover affected the Marble and Grand Canyon camping beach resource? This 

builds on sandbar monitoring (Question 1) to address the recreation resource. 

4. Proposed Work 

4.1. Project Elements 

This project is divided into five major monitoring and research elements and one 

additional support element. The first two project elements are monitoring projects, each with 

some research aspects. The latter three elements are research projects that contribute to 

improving the monitoring program and improving predictive capacity. The control network and 

survey project element supports the other project elements, as well as other GCMRC projects. 

The ultimate measure of whether or not fine sediment is conserved in and near the 

Colorado River is the increase or decrease in volume and area of fine sediment deposits. Thus, 

monitoring elements involve repeat measurements of topography such that changes in the 

volume of sand deposits can be calculated. Because the management focus is on fine sediment, it 

is necessary to discriminate sand and finer sediment from gravel, cobbles, and boulders. In order 

to more effectively detect change in different resources of importance, it is necessary to monitor 

change in sand storage at both high and low elevations. This requires a mix of direct field 

measurement, remote sensing, and extrapolation throughout the 255 miles of the Colorado River 

between Glen Canyon Dam and River Mile 240, which is the upstream end of Lake Mead 

reservoir. 

Data collection efforts occur across a wide range of spatial and temporal scales (Table 1) 

in order to detect change in a very large system in which significant change is often local and 

episodic. At a select set of long-term monitoring sites, sandbar monitoring is conducted at a daily 

(using remote cameras) and annual (by conventional survey) interval in order to track local 

response to individual events in the context of a long-term record. A larger collection of sandbars 

are also monitored every four years using remote sensing, in order to provide a synoptic view of 

the entire Colorado River 

 
25

Table 1. Summary of sandbar and sediment storage monitoring efforts. 

Project 

Element 

Spatial Focus Method Measurement 

Frequency 

Information 

Needs Met 

1 Selected highelevation sandbars 

(~50) 

Conventional 

topographic surveys 

(volume and area) 

Yearly Annual status 

check on sandbar 

and camping 

beach condition 

1 Selected highelevation sandbars 

(~30) 

Remotely deployed 

digital camera 

(approximate size) 

Daily Status check on 

sandbar 

condition at ~6-

month intervals 

1 High-elevation 

sandbars 

systemwide 

(>1000 sites) 

Remote sensing (area) Every 4 years Long-term trend 

of sandbar 

condition 

2 Low-elevation fine 

sediment storage 

in 30 to 80-mile 

segments. 

Combined 

bathymetric and 

topographic surveys 

(area and volume) 

Every 3 to 10 

years, depending 

on reach. 

Long-term trend 

in fine sediment 

storage 

Monitoring of fine sediment deposists is also conducted at multiple scales using a variety 

of methods. Sediment inputs and outputs (the ܫ	and	ܱ terms in equation 1) are monitored at a 

daily scale in 30-mile or longer sediment budgeting reaches (Project B: Streamflow, Water 

Quality, and Sediment Transport). In this project, we monitor changes in sediment storage 

directly (the ∆ܵ term in equation 1) at approximately 3- to 10-year time intervals and with very 

high precision. These monitoring strategies are complementary. The mass balance measurements 

of high temporal resolution can be used to track tributary inputs and to schedule high flows. Fine 

sediment storage monitoring provides a direct measurement of changes in storage for all storage 

environments over the entire monitoring period, whether a few years or several decades. The 

geochemical signature project element provides an additional indirect method to evaluate the 

sediment budget that is based on estimating the age of the sand deposits. 

Project Element A.1. Sandbar and Camping Beach Monitoring ($269,000) 

The main purpose of the sandbar monitoring element of the project is to track trends in 

the status of sandbars throughout Marble and Grand Canyons that are emergent above the water 

surface at 8,000 ft3

/s. This work is to be accomplished by a continuation of established 

monitoring activities and research. Monitoring is to be conducted at multiple spatial and 

temporal scales, in order to track detailed changes at a subset of monitoring sites and general 

changes at a larger number of sites. Work at the two scales is justified, because we would lack 

understanding of the causes of sandbar changes without higher frequency measures made at 

fewer sites, but, we would lack the ability to track sandbars beyond the area of the long-term 

monitoring sites without system wide data. 

 
26

Project Element A.1.1. Monitoring sandbars using topographic surveys and remote cameras 

Joseph Hazel and Matt Kaplinski, Research Associates, Northern Arizona University 

Bob Tusso, Hydrologist, USGS/GCMRC 

A subset of sandbars and campsites located throughout the Colorado River will be 

monitored annually using conventional ground-based surveying methods. This dataset is 

commonly referred to as the “long term sandbar time series” and is the most temporally rich 

dataset describing the state of sandbars currently available. The monitoring program was 

initiated in 1990. These surveys of approximately 50 sites include measurements of sandbar area 

and sandbar volume above the stage associated with 8,000 ft3/s. In addition, campable area is 

measured at a subset of 37 of these sites. Methods for these surveys are described by Hazel and 

others (2008), Hazel and others (2010), and Kaplinski and others (2009). These annual surveys 

are supplemented by daily photographs of about 30 sites using remote digital cameras. These 

images make it possible to record the effects of changes in flow regime that cannot be resolved 

by the annual measurements. 

This project will result in an annual report on the status of sandbars based on monitoring 

from the previous year. The sandbar monitoring surveys and photographs will also be made 

available on the GCMRC website. 

Project Element A.1.2. Monitoring sandbars by remote sensing 

Phil Davis, Research Geologist, USGS/GCMRC 

Rob Ross, Hydrologist, USGS/GCMRC 

Paul Grams, Research Hydrologist, USGS/GCMRC 

Because only a subset of sandbars are topographically surveyed, we will use remote 

sensing to track the area of exposed sand above the elevation of the 8,000 ft3/s stage (highelevation sand) of more than 1000 large eddies along the Colorado River every 4 years. The 

canyon-wide remote sensing data that will be used in this effort consists of (1) four-band, 

orthorectified digital imagery (blue, green, red, and near-infrared bands) acquired in 2002, 2005, 

and 2009, and will be in acquired in 2013; (2) Digital Surface (elevation) Models (DSM) derived 

from the 4-band imagery mentioned above; (3) Color-InfraRed (CIR), stereo imagery acquired in 

1988; and (4) DSM that will be derived from the 1988 stereo imagery. The annual ground 

surveys and quadrennial remote-sensing data are complementary. The ground-survey data, which 

provide detailed topographic and land-cover information for specific sites will be used to 

calibrate the DSM data and to “train” canyon-wide image analysis. These products will, in turn, 

be used to improve understanding of the degree to which changes observed at the long-term 

monitoring of sites in the field are representative of the entire system. Changes in unit area and 

volume observed within the periodic remote-sensing data will be compared to the changes 

observed in the ground survey data to determine the degree to which and the scale at which the 

ground sites correspond to changes at larger scales. 

The remote sensing effort will involve a landscape delineation of four units: water, 

vegetation, sand, and other bare ground (e.g. pre-dam alluvial deposits, talus, and bedrock). This 

landscape database is currently being produced for image data sets collected in 2002, 2005, and 

2009. In the course of this project, new image data will be collected in 2013 and analyzed in 

2014, which will allow an 11-year, quantitative examination of the changes in sand and 

vegetation surface area and how these changes compare to dam operations. For each image set, 

the water surface is mapped using interactive computer algorithms. Vegetation is mapped using 
27

the Spectral Angle Mapper (SAM) technique that determines the n-dimensional vector angle 

between the wavelength-band values of an image pixel and a user-supplied vegetation spectrum 

(Kruse and others, 1993). The smaller the vector angle for a particular image pixel, the more 

likely the pixel represents vegetation. A maximum SAM angle for vegetation is determined by 

visual comparison of the SAM image with its corresponding 4-band or CIR image on a regional 

basis and that maximum value is used to produce a thematic image of vegetation. 

Following the classification of water and vegetation, areas of sand will be mapped at 

more than 1000 eddies. These sites are not the entire population of sand deposits, but comprise a 

very large sample that includes nearly every eddy that has contained a sandbar larger than about 

250 m2 and nearly every location that has had a camping beach in any campsite inventory since 

1975. Sand surfaces are characterized by a set of relative spectral properties and a very low 

surface texture or roughness. Water and vegetated areas within each Area of Interest (AoI) will 

be removed from the image data, and a textural (roughness) analysis will be performed on the 

remaining image data. The surface texture analysis will be designed to (1) minimize confusion 

along roughness or cliff-shadow transition borders, (2) include damp or shadowed, lower 

reflectance sand areas, and (3) exclude bedrock with similar spectral and texture properties. The 

application of the sand-surface mapping will proceed similar to that for vegetation, in that the 

spectral and textural image properties of sand surfaces will be visually examined at a river-length 

interval to determine and to apply the optimum spectral and textural ranges to accurately map 

sand surfaces. In addition, surface slope (a factor for camping beaches) and sandbar volume 

change will also be examined using the digital surface models from the 2002, 2009, and 2013 

data sets. The landscape maps for 2002, 2005, and 2009 will be completed before October 2012; 

the landscape maps for 2013 will be completed near the end of September 2014 following 

collection and calibration of the 2013 image data. 

Once the accuracy of the 2002-2009 databases are acceptable, the same landscape 

analysis will be performed on “historic” aerial photographic data. The 1988 photographs are the 

best set of images that approximately coincide with the beginning of sandbar monitoring by 

topographic survey and with the implementation of the Interim Operating Critera that limited the 

daily range of flow fluctuations in 1991. Before such analysis, the photographs that cover the 

AoI’s will be orthorectified, which will first be attempted using one of our more recent DSM 

data sets, using fiducial points within the 2002 and 2009 image data as horizontal control points 

and their corresponding DSM values as vertical control points. Fiducial points are identifiable 

points whose location and elevation have not changed between different periods of observation. 

If an AoI does not have sufficient fiducial points for rectification or the DSM rectification does 

not produce accurate image results for an AoI (due to changes in an AoI’s perimeter 

topography), then a DSM will be produced for the AoI using the 1988 CIR stereo images that 

cover the AoI, but this will require the acquisition of more accurate fiducial ground control by 

survey crew. Regardless, DSM data will be generated for sandbars within selected reaches in 

order to determine subaerial sandbar volume and to exam changes in volume, as well as area, 

throughout the time series. Stereo photogrammetry (which derives topography from stereo, 

point-perspective images) is time consuming and expensive and, therefore, “historic” volume 

change will only be estimated for a few reaches (see Project 1d). 

This project will result in maps that depict the location and size of sandbars present in the 

2013 images (for all of Marble and Grand Canyons) and the 1988 images (for selected reaches). 

The methods and findings will be documented in at least one U.S. Geological Survey 

interpretative report or peer-reviewed journal article. 
28

Project Element A.1.3. Geomorphic attributes of camping beaches 

Paul Grams, Research Hydrologist, USGS/GCMRC 

Graduate Student 

One of the difficulties that has been encountered when interpreting the sandbar and 

campsite data is the imprecise relation between the monitoring metrics and the attributes of bars 

most relevant to camping. Current monitoring emphasizes sandbar area and volume (e.g. Hazel 

and others, 2010) as the primary metrics of sandbar change. The other metric currently in use is 

“campable area,” which has been monitored since 1998 (Kaplinski and others, 2010). While this 

measure provides some indication of camping beach size, the metric lumps together important 

attributes, such as open, flat sand, thus providing an incomplete assessment of trends in camping 

beach characteristics. Many factors such as the spatial distribution of sand and other geomorphic 

units, the slope of the sandbar, and the distribution and density of vegetation affect the degree to 

which a sandbar is desirable as a camping beach. Many of these factors can be examined by 

performing new analyses on currently available data. Topographic characteristics of the camping 

beaches can be extracted from the dataset of sandbar surveys. The distribution of vegetation and 

the distribution of sand or other substrate types can be interpreted from aerial photographs and 

the catalog of site photographs. We will analyze these and other datasets to develop new metrics 

that can be used to track trends in specific camping beach attributes over time and in response to 

changes in flow regime. These new analytical tools will help managers understand whether or 

not management actions, such as controlled floods, are having the desired outcome of enhancing 

the camping beach resource in addition to causing sandbar deposition. 

The results from this project will be described in at least one U.S. Geological Survey 

interpretative report or peer-reviewed journal article. 

Project Element A.1.4. Analysis of historical images at selected monitoring sites 

Joe Hazel, Research Associate, NAU 

Phil Davis, Research Geologist, USGS/GCMRC 

Tom Gushue, Information Technology Specialist, USGS/GCMRC 

Our understanding of the trends in sandbar size and abundance is limited by the extent of 

the monitoring period. Many perceptions regarding the current condition of sandbars is based on 

limited observations of sandbars following the floods of 1983-86 (Schmidt and Grams, 2011). 

However, those observations are based largely on imprecise photo comparisons and are not 

quantitatively tied to the current sandbar monitoring program. The purpose of this research 

activity is to extend the length of the monitoring record back in time for the long-term sandbar 

monitoring sites (Project A.1.1.) by incorporating data from air photos taken before 1990. Pilot 

studies (Blank, 2000; O’Brien and others, 2000) investigated the feasibility of applying digital 

photogrammetric methods to 1984 stereo photography to derive sandbar topography for 

comparison with modern surveys. Although these studies found that the photogrammetric 

surfaces did not agree perfectly with ground-based surveys, the elevations for sand areas were 

generally within 25 cm of surveyed elevations, which is sufficient for detecting significant 

change in sandbar elevation. Our proposed task will apply a similar, but more sophisticated 

approach, to derive topography for selected sandbar study sites in order to extend the sandbar 

monitoring record back in time. This project will produce digital elevation models using digitally 

scanned 1984 stereo photographs. In FY2013, representative sites will be selected and various 

techniques and approaches will be tested to determine the method that produces the best results. 
29

If acceptable results are obtained from the 2013 effort, additional sites will be incorporated in 

2014. 

The results from this project will be described in at least one U.S. Geological Survey 

interpretative report or peer-reviewed journal article. 

Project Element A.2. Sediment Storage Monitoring ($609,000) 

Project Element A.2.1. Bathymetric and topographic mapping 

Matt Kaplinski, Research Associate, NAU 

Paul Grams, Research Hydrologist, USGS/GCMRC 

The purpose of the sediment storage monitoring element of this project is to track longterm trends in sand storage to provide a robust measure of whether or not management objectives 

for fine sediment conservation are being met. In other words, this project provides the direct 

measure of ∆ܵ in equation (1) over the time scale of the HFE EA. An additional purpose of this 

project is to track the location of changes in sand storage between the channel and eddies and 

between high- and low-elevation deposits (equation 2). The greatest challenge in developing an 

appropriate monitoring program is the scale of the area of management interest, which includes 

the entire Colorado River ecosystem (CRe) from Glen Canyon Dam to Lake Mead. As described 

above, previous efforts have demonstrated that measurements of sediment storage change made 

in short reaches cannot be extrapolated to determine sediment storage throughout the CRe. The 

large local variability in response requires sampling a large proportion of the river channel. 

Using the repeat maps made for the short reaches between 2000 and 2004, we 

investigated potential sampling strategies. This was accomplished by artificially subsampling the 

maps of topographic change that cover an entire 5-km short reach, using three different sampling 

strategies: (1) regularly spaced channel cross-sections; (2) randomly located channel crosssections; and, (3) subsampling of major eddy storage locations. This analysis indicates that all of 

these sampling strategies result in error that is greater than 50 percent of the actual change in 

storage unless sampling intervals are sufficiently small such that the level of effort is essentially 

equivalent to comprehensively mapping the entire reach. To estimate storage change with an 

uncertainty of 50 percent of the observed value would require average cross-sections spacing of 

300 m or less, regardless of whether the spacing is regular or locations are selected randomly. To 

achieve a similar level of accuracy by sampling eddy storage locations would require sampling 

more than 75 percent of those locations. Thus, to reduce the need for extrapolation, the 

monitoring program will consist of repeat mapping of most of the bed of the river for long 

segments. 

Because it is not logistically feasible to map the entire river corridor in every segment, 

the goal of this work is to map approximately 80 percent of each segment between the dam and 

RM 87 and approximately 50 percent of each segment between RM 87 and RM 225. Although it 

is not possible to identify all the important sediment storage locations prior to mapping, the effort 

is expected to include mapping of more than 90 percent of the large eddy storage locations 

upstream from RM 87 and at least 75 percent of those storage locations downstream from RM 

87. Each year, one of the five sediment budgeting reaches that are between 26 and 80 miles in 

length will be mapped such that each segment could be mapped twice in 10 years. This 

monitoring strategy was first described in the draft sediment core monitoring plan (Topping and 

others, 2007). 
30

Table 2. Long sediment budgeting reaches for long-term monitoring of sediment storage. 

Segment River 

Miles 

Existing 

or planned 

surveys 

Short 

reaches*

Crosssections**Estimated proportion 

of reach mapping will 

cover 

Repeat 

Interval 

1 -15 to 0 2012-

2014 

1 20 80% ~ 10 yr 

2 0 to 30 2013 2 41 80% 5 to 10 yr 

3 30 to 61 2009, 

2012 

3 17 80% 3 to 5 yr 

4 61 to 87 2011 2 39 80% 3 to 5 yr 

5 87 to 166 2015 1 20 50% ~ 10 yr 

6 166 to 

225 

2014 2 8 50% 5 to 10 yr 

7 225 to 

240 

2013 -- -- *** ~ 10 yr 

* The number of short reaches 2 to 5 km in length that were mapped at least once between 2000 

and 2005 (Kaplinski and others, 2009). 

** The number of cross-sections that were measured at least once between 1992 and 1999 (Flynn 

and Hornewer, 2003). 

*** The method that will be used for mapping this reach has not been determined. 

 

Because about 90 percent of the sand and finer sediment that is available for 

redistribution by dam operations is below the water surface (Hazel and others, 2006), the 

monitoring method must include measurements of the bed of the river in eddies and pools. Data 

collection will combine multibeam and singlebeam sonar coupled with conventional surveys for 

areas above the water surface. These methods have been described by Hazel and others (2008), 

Kaplinski and others (2009) and were used extensively in monitoring the 2008 HFE (Hazel and 

others, 2010). Similar methods are used to monitor channel changes on other large rivers, 

including the Missouri River (Jacobson and others, 2009). The data will result in a high 

resolution digital elevation model of the mapped segments for each mapping effort. Upon 

completion of a repeat map of a segment, the DEMs will be compared to compute the net change 

in the volume of sediment within the segment. These computations will distinguish between fine 

and coarse sediment (see project element A.3.), between sediment stored in the channel and 

eddies, and between sediment at high- and low-elevation. The computations will also incorporate 

estimates of uncertainty (e.g. Wheaton and others, 2010). In addition to making comparisons 

between years for which the entire segments are mapped, comparisons will also be made to 

earlier data where available. This will include comparisons to data collected in short reaches in 

2000 to 2005 and data collected at monumented channel cross-sections (Table 2). 

The current approach differs from that outlined in the draft sediment core monitoring 

plan (Topping and others, 2007) in two ways. First, the core monitoring plan suggested a simple 

rotation beginning with upstream segments and working downstream. Our revised plan is to map 

in a sequence based on scientific and management priority, balancing the need to map all 

segments with the need to provide repeat maps and preliminary results. The long reach from RM 

30 to RM 61 was the first mapped in 2009. That segment is of high priority, because Marble 

Canyon has been identified as the segment most at risk for long-term erosion. Within Marble 
31

Canyon, the downstream half was selected, because it includes the largest area where data were 

collected from 2000 to 2004. The second long reach mapped was the reach from RM 61 to RM 

87 that was mapped in 2011. This long reach was chosen, because it contains areas that are of 

interest for habitat characterization. In spring 2012, we repeated the RM 30 to 61 long reach to 

evaluate the efficacy of demonstrating the methods described here and to show the sand storage 

response to the summer 2011 sustained high flows. Long reaches selected for data collection in 

2013 and 2014 will depend on circumstances, but we currently plan to map the long reach from 

RM 0 to RM 30 in 2013 and the long reach from RM 166 to RM 225 in 2014. The other 

difference between this and the original monitoring plan is that the draft monitoring plan 

recommended against collecting data in years with HFEs. The current plan includes data 

collection each year, regardless of operating regime or if HFE’s occur. We propose this change, 

because the current protocol for implementing future high flows involves a trigger that makes 

planning for data collection difficult, and because we believe that the repeat channel mapping 

will be most informative if data are collected annually. 

This project will result in digital elevation models of the segment mapped in each year of 

the project. Those data will be made available on the GCMRC website. The results describing 

changes in sediment storage based on the repeat mapping of the RM 30-61 reach mapped in 2012 

will be described in a U.S. Geological Survey interpretative report or peer-reviewed journal 

article. 

Project Element A.2.2. Bed-material characterization 

Paul Grams, Research Hydrologist, USGS/GCMRC 

Matt Kaplinski, Research Associate, Northern Arizona University 

Bob Tusso, Research Hydrologist, USGS/GCMRC 

Postdoc 

A necessary component of the effort to monitor fine sediment storage is the identification 

of the bed surface texture as well as the bed surface elevation. Currently, we rely on a 

categorization of the bed that does not do a good job of discriminating sand from gravel in those 

places where the bed topography has little relief. We propose to improve the method used to 

characterize bed texture using the backscattering data from the multibeam sonar surveys to 

identify and map bed material. The backscatter data collected by sonar will be calibrated and 

validated against observations of bed material characteristics made by underwater video camera, 

which are collected and processed using the methods of Rubin and others (2007) and Buscombe 

and others (2010). We expect that this technique will enable more robust discrimination among 

sand, gravel, cobbles, and boulders. This work will include testing of existing processing 

algorithms, comparing results for selected reaches to evaluate technology, and developing new 

algorithms if necessary. 

These improved maps of bed material texture will be developed in coordination with 

aquatic biologists for use in modeling aquatic primary productivity and characterization of 

aquatic habitat. 

This project will result in maps of the bed texture for the segment mapped in each year of 

the project. The maps will be made available on the GCMRC website. The methods and results 

of the bed texture mapping will be described in at least one U.S. Geological Survey interpretative 

report or peer-reviewed journal article. 
32

Project Element A.3. Investigating Eddy Sandbar Variability and the Interactions among Flow, Vegetation, and 

Geomorphology ($104,000) 

Paul Grams, Research Hydrologist, USGS/GCMRC 

Barbara Ralston, Biologist, USGS/GCMRC 

Postdoc and Researcher 

The large body of work that has been conducted on sediment transport on the Colorado 

River, coupled with the monitoring of sandbar response to high flows, has resulted in the 

observation that even when there is a large supply of sand on the river bed, as was the case in 

2008, sandbar response is highly variable. The analysis of the long-term sandbar monitoring data 

by Grams and others (2011) showed that there are systematic differences in eddy behavior from 

place to place. Some eddies tend to accumulate sediment during relatively high flows (e.g. the 

high end of the range of powerplant operations and HFEs), while other eddies tend to accumulate 

fine sediment at relatively low flows (the low end of the range of powerplant operations). The 

purpose of this project is to systematically study the hydraulic characteristics of eddies that are 

representative of these different styles of behavior to discover what controls these differences. 

Improved understanding of eddy behavior will benefit monitoring efforts, because this study 

could provide a basis for developing a more targeted stratified sampling design. In addition, this 

knowledge could lead to better capacity to predict the sandbar-building response to HFEs and 

other dam operations to specific sites, or groups of similar sites. 

There are many possible causes for variable sandbar-building response among eddies. In 

general, it is likely that the structure of the channel causes variability in the details of the 

hydraulics and, thereby, variability in patterns of deposition and erosion. However, it is unknown 

what aspect of channel geometry is most important in controlling this variability. 

A related hypothesis is that the amount and spatial distribution of established vegetation 

affects patterns of deposition. Riparian vegetation affects sediment transport and deposition by 

stabilizing portions of eddy sandbars and by introducing added roughness that affects sediment 

deposition dynamics. Thus, while vegetation may stabilize existing deposits, those stabilized 

areas may prevent or hinder the creation of new deposits. 

We propose to investigate these dynamics by coupling our large existing dataset of eddy 

sandbar behavior with metrics that describe site geometric and hydrodynamic characteristics. In 

other words, we will look for statistical relations between observed eddy behavior and site 

characteristics. We will use the analysis of Grams and others (2011) who categorized eddies by 

flow regime response as an initial basis for metrics to anticipate eddy behavior. We will 

characterize physical attributes by extracting metrics of channel geometry from 

topographic/bathymetric maps for each site. Other site characteristics, such as the extent, 

location, density, and maturity of vegetation will also be incorporated. We will supplement these 

metrics with metrics derived from computational hydraulic models. Because models for sandbar 

deposition have not yet performed well (Logan and others, 2010), we will only focus instead on 

models for hydrodynamics that do perform well. We will use model output to create metrics to 

describe the magnitude and distribution of flow velocity and shear stress. 

The expected result of this analysis is the discovery of specific site characteristics and 

vegetation patterns that most strongly affect the amount and pattern of sandbar deposition. Once 

we are able to identify characteristics that influence response, we will apply the efforts to 

additional sites to test these hypotheses. If we are able to discover site characteristics that are 

truly correlated with depositional patterns, we will have a powerful tool for predicting sandbar 
33

response to given flow events. The research is expected to result in a simple categorization of 

eddy sandbars into predicted styles of response to different flow regimes. For example, we 

predict for a given flow regime, such as a 45,000 ft3/s controlled flood, which sites we would 

expect to have large sandbars, small sandbars, or no sandbar. 

This research project will result in at least one U.S. Geological Survey interpretative 

report or peer-reviewed journal article that describes the methods and results of the study. 

Project Element A.4. Quantifying the correlation between bed and transport grain size ($244,000) 

Dave Rubin, Research Geologist, USGS 

A strong correlation between bed sediment grain size and the rate and grain size of 

sediment in transport has been demonstrated for the CRe. This correlation has been used to infer 

bed composition and coverage from suspended sediment measurements. This is a potentially 

useful monitoring technique, but implementation will require a better understanding of the 

spatial scale at which the correlation can be demonstrated. In addition to bed grain size, transport 

depends on areal sand coverage and the spatial distribution of bed shear stress. 

The proposed work will use both field measurements and modeling to partition these 

three effects, in order to provide a more reliable link between bed and transport grain size. 

Modeling will use work of Grams and Wilcock (2007) to quantify the effect of areal sand 

coverage and the approach of Rubin and Topping to quantify the effects of local shear stress and 

grain size (which previously have been quantified at a reach average). We will use dense field 

measurements of bed topography and bed texture extending 2 to 4 km upstream from one or 

more gages. These measurements will be repeated at approximately 2-month intervals for a 6-

month period beginning in early 2013. The measurements will either be made in a reach that is 

accessible without requiring additional river trips (e.g. near Diamond Creek), or the 

measurements will be made in conjunction with other trips; no additional river trips dedicated to 

this project are proposed. Additional possible technological approaches include deploying a 

recording bed camera to measure a time series of grain size at a single point, or deploying 

rotating sonar to develop a time series of areal coverage of sand on the bed. 

This work will improve our understanding of the linkages between suspended-sediment 

observations and bed-sediment texture, which will provide greater understanding of the upstream 

extent of river that determines concentration and grain size at sediment gaging stations. Findings 

from this work will be used to improve models for suspended sediment transport and may 

provide improved methods for tracking the abundance of sand on the river bed using the 

suspended sediment monitoring network. For example, Topping and others (2010) used the 

measurements of suspended sand concentration during the 1996, 2004, and 2008 HFEs to 

estimate the proportion of the bed covered by sand and the grain size of that sand. Those 

calculations suggested that, in some reaches, there was likely more sand on the bed in 1996 than 

in 1998, although of coarser grain size. Results from this project would improve our ability to 

use measurements of sand in suspension to infer the condition of the bed. 

The specific hypotheses that will be investigated by this component of the project are: 

1. Observed variability in sand flux (as much as 1000-fold differences in flux for a given 

water discharge) is caused by—and can be mathematically described as a function of—

changes in bed sediment (grain size, areal coverage, and specific spatial distribution). 

2. Observations of suspended-sediment concentration and grain size can be used to calculate 

these three properties of bed sediment. 
34

3. Application of the relations between bed-sediment and flux and observations of bedsediment boundary conditions can be used to improve or optimize bar-building flows 

(greatest bar-building for a given amount of sediment and water used during artificial 

floods. 

Better understanding of temporal changes in bed texture will also be used to improve our 

ability to model and predict aquatic primary productivity. Bed sediment texture, the spatial 

distribution of bed sediment, and bed topography all affect the rate of primary production. These 

characteristics affect the amount of light that reaches a given portion of the bed and the substrate 

that algae and invertebrates occupy. For example, coarse bed material, such as cobbles and 

boulders, is associated with different benthic species and population densities than sand and finer 

substrate. This project will be conducted in cooperation with studies of the aquatic foodbase 

(Project H, Identifying the main drivers of rainbow trout growth...) to advance understanding of 

these issues and improve models for primary production. 

This research project will result in at least one U.S. Geological Survey interpretative report or 

peer-reviewed journal article that describes the methods and results of the study. 

Project Element A.5. Geochemical Signatures of Pre-Dam Sediment ($56,000) 

Renee Takesue, Geologist, USGS/Pacific Science Center

Preliminary work has identified two elements (sodium and scandium) as promising 

tracers for discriminating pre-dam mainstem Colorado River and Paria River sand in Marble 

Canyon. These tracers are presently being evaluated by analyzing additional samples from the 

Paria River, the mainstem Colorado River in Marble Canyon, and archived samples from HFEs. 

If the geochemical distinction holds for these samples, the technique will be used to analyze 

additional archived material from past floods (1983, 1984, 1986, 1996, 2004, and 2008). This 

analysis will be used to determine whether the method can be used to resolve the relative 

proportions pre- and post-dam sediment in a deposit that contains a mixture of these two sources. 

If successful, the method will give scientists and managers an additional measure to 

evaluate long-term trends of sediment abundance in Marble Canyon and the ability to detect 

mined pre-dam sediment in future high flows. This approach for investigating the sediment 

budget is independent from measurements of sediment inputs, outputs, and topographic change, 

and, unlike other methods, does not require subtraction of one number from another, such as in 

equation (1). Rather, the method relies on estimating the proportion of sediments within a deposit 

that pre- or post-date dam completion. This research addresses what is perhaps one of the 

most important questions regarding sediment in the ecosystem: Is pre-dam sand still being 

excavated and exported downriver under present operations of the dam? Is the rate 

constant, or has the amount of pre-dam sand changed during the past half century? If the rate is 

constant, is it because pre-dam sand is stable and protected, or is it because most pre-dam sand 

has already been removed? 

This research project will result in at least one U.S. Geological Survey interpretative 

report or peer-reviewed journal article that describes the methods and results of the study. 

Project Element A.6. Control Network and Survey Support ($37,000) 

Keith Kohl, Surveyor, USGS/GCMRC 

An accurate geodetic control network is required to support nearly every aspect of this 

project as well as other GCMRC monitoring projects. The purpose of the control network is to 

ensure that spatial data acquired on all projects are collected with accurate and repeatable spatial 
35

reference. The control network is essential to enable comparison among data sets collected by 

different methods and ensure that spatially referenced observations are repeatable and that all 

data are archived appropriately. Projects that are directly dependent on the control network 

include this project, all other projects that use systemwide airborne remote sensing, archeological 

site monitoring, and vegetation monitoring. The remote sensing work is particularly dependent 

on accurate control operations, without which image data could not be compared accurately with 

ground-based measurements. 

The control network is the set of monumented and documented reference points 

(benchmarks) that exist along the river corridor and on the rim together with the collection of 

observations that determine the relative and absolute positions of those points. Those points 

serve as the basis for referencing all ground- and air-based monitoring observations. Currently, 

the control network includes more than 7,000 GPS observations and more than 2,000 optical 

observations that determine the precise location of 1,303 benchmarks in the river corridor and on 

the canyon rim. This project includes work in three broad categories: (1) building the control 

network, (2) direct support of research and monitoring activities, and (3) storage and archival of 

the control database. 

Building the Control Network 

The primary task of building the control network involves making GPS observations at 

new and existing benchmarks. This effort is nearing completion, and most segments of the river 

corridor now have a sufficient number of control points to support monitoring activities. In 2013 

and 2014, field work will be required to complete this task in Glen Canyon (between the dam 

and Lees Ferry), RM 81 to RM 91, RM 98 to RM 119, RM 144 to RM 166, and RM 225 to 277. 

Building the control network also requires addressing the difference that exists between ellipsoid 

height, which is provided by the GPS observations that GCMRC makes, and orthometric 

elevation (i.e. NAVD88), which can be obtained only by gravity measurements or precise 

leveling. The deviation between ellipsoid height and orthometric height can be as large as 10 cm 

over a distance of 1 km. This problem exists everywhere and is a major focus of work by the 

National Geodetic Survey (NGS). The problem has not been resolved in Marble and Grand 

Canyons because of the remote location, low population, and difficult access. We are working on 

this problem by incorporating existing leveling measurements into the control network and 

encouraging the NGS to conduct a campaign of gravity measurements for the Grand Canyon 

region. 

Support of Research and Monitoring Projects 

The two major projects that require survey support in 2013 and 2014 are the sandbar 

(A.1.) and sediment storage (A.2.) project elements and the systemwide remote sensing data 

collection effort. The sandbar and sediment storage project elements described here utilize the 

control network, and the expertise of the survey staff in data collection efforts. Geodetic control 

work supports the remote sensing data collection effort by panel placement and recovery, 

collecting reference base station data for overflights, and processing the data to publish GNSS 

results for the stations within the NGS database. Other projects that receive survey support 

include the Streamflow, Water Quality, and Sediment Transport project (Project B), and the 

Vegetation Monitoring project (Project I). 
36

Storage, Archival, and Documentation of the Control Network Database 

The control network data are stored in a Microsoft Access database that is linked with the 

GCMRC GIS database. The survey staff works with GIS staff to maintain and update the 

database as needed. 

This project will result in updates to the National Geodetic Survey Integrated Database 

(NGSIDB) of all available Height Modernization and Benchmark stations. This project will also 

result in at least one U.S. Geological Survey report or peer-reviewed journal article on the 

accuracy and uncertainty in topographic change detection associated with measurement 

instrumentation, geodetic projections, or a related topic. 

4.2 Personnel and Collaborations 

The project lead is Paul Grams. Phil Davis is the remote sensing expert. Keith Kohl is the 

control network specialist and surveyor. Support is provided by Rob Ross and Bob Tusso who 

are term hydrologists. One term post-doctoral fellow will be hired to work on the bed material 

characterization project (Project A.2.2.), a second post-doctoral research fellow will be hired to 

work on the eddy sandbar variability project (Element A.3.), and an MS level graduate student 

will work on the geomorphic attributes of camping beaches (Project A.1.3.). The GCMRC staff 

have management responsibility for the entire project and share responsibility for data collection, 

analysis, and reporting. David Rubin and Renee Takesue at the USGS, Costal and Marine 

Geology, Joseph E. Hazel, Jr, and Matt Kaplinski from Northern Arizona University. 

4.3 Deliverables 

Products from this project will include annual reports to the GCDAMP, presentations at 

TWG and AMWG meetings, presentations at scientific meetings, and reports. All of the products 

listed as reports will be peer-reviewed USGS interpretive reports or peer-reviewed scientific 

journal articles. Updates of the status of sandbars based on annual surveys and the remote 

cameras will be made available at the January annual reporting meeting of each year to support 

the HFE EA science plan. Specific products are listed below: 

   
37

Product Project 

Element* 

Lead 

Responsibility 

Time of 

Completion 

Data from long-term sandbar monitoring sites A.1.1./HFE NAU Annual 

Images from daily remote camera monitoring of 

sandbars 

A.1.1./HFE GCMRC Annual 

Map, showing extent of sandbars in selected 

reaches for 1988 

A.1.2. GCMRC Year 1 

Map, showing extent of sandbars throughout CRE 

in 2013 

A.1.2./HFE GCMRC Year 2 

Report on system-wide sandbar monitoring, 1988-

2013 

A.1.2./HFE GCMRC Year 2 

Report on the geomorphic attributes of camping 

beaches 

A.1.3. GCMRC/NA

U 

Year 2 

Report on the extended sandbar monitoring time 

series (1984 to present) based on use of old air 

photos 

A.1.4. NAU Year 2 

Report on changes in sediment storage, RM 30 to 

RM 61 

A.2.1./HFE GCMRC Year 1 

Data from sediment storage monitoring, RM 30 to 

RM 61 

A.2.1./HFE NAU Year 1 

Data from sediment storage monitoring for long 

reach mapped in 2013 

A.2.1./HFE NAU Year 2 

Data from sediment storage monitoring for long 

reach mapped in 2014 

A.2.1./HFE NAU After Year 2 

Maps of bed texture for each of the long reaches 

mapped in the sediment storage monitoring project

A.2.2. GCMRC Year 2 

Report on bed material characterization A.2.2. GCMRC Year 2 

Report on eddy sandbar variability A.3. GCMRC Year 2 

Report on interaction between bed sediment and 

suspended sediment 

A.4. CMG Year 2 

Report on geochemical signature of pre-dam 

sediment 

A.5. CMG Year 2 

* HFE indicates products that also support the HFE science plan. 

5. Productivity from Past Work 

During FY 11-12, the following products were either delivered to the GCDAMP prior to 

April 1, 2012, or are on track to be delivered by September 30, 2012. 
38

5.1. Data Products 

Sandbar monitoring database. Digital elevation models of sandbar surveys 1990-2011 in ArcGIS 

geodatabase format. To be made available at http://www.gcmrc.gov pending website 

improvements. Currently available at ftp://ftpext.usgs.gov/pub/wr/az/flagstaff/physical/sandbar 

or by request. 

Channel mapping database. Maps and digital elevation models of channel mapping surveys. To 

be made available at http://www.gcmrc.gov pending website improvements. Data currently 

available at ftp://ftpext.usgs.gov/pub/wr/az/flagstaff/physical/cm_data and maps available at 

ftp://ftpext.usgs.gov/pub/wr/az/flagstaff/physical/cm_maps or by request. 

Survey control database. Microsoft Access database containing all geodetic control, over 1600 

reference marks, in Glen Canyon, Marble Canyon, and Grand Canyon. Available upon request. 

Geomorphic change detection software. Software to compute changes in sediment storage 

between successive surveys. Developed in collaboration with Utah State University and ESSA 

Technologies. Software is available at http://gcd.joewheaton.org/

5.2. Completed Publications 

Alvarez, L. and Schmeeckle, M., 2012, Erosion of sandbars by diurnal stage fluctuations in the 

Colorado River in Marble and Grand Canyon--full-scale laboratory experiments: River 

Research and Applications, online at, 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/rra.2576/abstract. 

Schmidt, J.C., and Grams, P.E., 2011a, The high flows--physical science results, in Melis, T.S., 

ed., Effects of three high-flow experiments on the Colorado River ecosystem downstream 

from Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1366, 53-91 p., accessed 

on June 28, 2011, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1366/. 

Schmidt, J.C., and Grams, P.E., 2011b, Understanding physical processes of the Colorado River, 

in Melis, T.S., ed., Effects of three high-flow experiments on the Colorado River ecosystem 

downstream from Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1366, 17-51 

p., accessed on June 28, 2011, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1366/. 

Melis, T.S., Grams, P.E., Kennedy, T.A., Ralston, B.E., Robinson, C.T., Schmidt, J.C., Schmit, 

L.M., Valdez, R.A., and Wright, S.A., 2011, Three experimental high-flow releases from 

Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona—Effects on the downstream Colorado River ecosystem: U.S. 

Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2011-3012, 4 p. 

5.3. Publications in progress 

Polino, M., Grams, P.E., and Kennedy, T.A., in review, A General Classification of Bed Texture 

for Select Reaches of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon, Arizona, U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-file report, 20xx-xxxx, xx p. 

Ross, R. and Grams, P.E., in revision, Near-shore Thermal Gradients of the Colorado River Near 

the Little Colorado River Confluence, Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona, U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-file report, 20xx-xxxx, xx p. 

Grams, P.E., and others, in preparation, Linking Morphodynamic Response with Sediment Mass 

Balance: Issues of Scale, Geomorphic Setting, and Sampling Design, to be submitted for 

review to Sedimentary Geology by June 30, 2012.
39

Czarnomski, N., Wheaton, J.M., Grams, P.E., Hazel, J.E., Kaplinski, M.A., Schmidt, J.C., in 

preparation, Untangling Geomorphic Processes in the Grand Canyon with Topographic Time 

Series from Hybrid Surveys, to be submitted for review to journal by September 30, 2012. 

Hazel, J.E., Jr., Kaplinski, M., Schott, N., Parnell, R., Grams, P., and Ross, R., in progress, Sand 

Storage Measured at Selected Sites in Colorado River in Marble and Grand Canyons, 

Arizona, 1990-2009: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report, to be 

submitted for review by June 30, 2012. 

Kaplinski, M., Grams, P., Hazel, J.E., Gushue, T., Tusso, R., Kohl, K., Shott, N., in progress, 

Monitoring Fine-Sediment Volume in the Colorado River Ecosystem, Arizona: Construction 

and Analysis of Digital Elevation Models, U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations 

Report, to be submitted for review by June 30, 2012. 

Wheaton and others, in preparation, Documentation and users guide for geomorphic change 

detection software, to be submitted for review by September 30, 2012. 

Kohl, K., and others, in preparation, Establishing a Spatial Infrastructure for Long Term 

Monitoring in Grand Canyon, Arizona: Robust Geodetic Control in Support of Scientific 

Research and Resource Management, to be submitted for review by July 30, 2012. 

5.4. Presentations at GCDAMP meetings 

1. Presentations at TWG and AMWG meetings. Presentations are available at 

http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/

2. Presentations at January 2011 GCMRC Annual Reporting Meeting. 

3. Multiple presentations at July 2011 Knowledge Assessment workshop for physical 

sciences. 

4. Presentation at October 2011 Knowledge Assessment workshop. 

5. Presentations at January 2012 Knowledge Assessment workshop and annual reporting 

meeting. 

5.5. Presentations at professional meetings 

Grams, P.E., Topping, D.J., Schmidt, J.C., Kaplinski, M.A., Hazel, J.E., 2011, Linking 

Morphodynamic Response with Sediment Mass Balance: Issues of Scale, Geomorphic 

Setting, and Sampling Design, Abstract EP31F-04 presented at 2011 Fall Meeting, American 

Geophysical Union San Francisco, CA, 5-9 Dec.

Czarnomski, N., Wheaton, J.M., Grams, P.E., Hazel, J.E., Kaplinski, M.A., Schmidt, J.C., 2011, 

Untangling Geomorphic Processes in the Grand Canyon with Topographic Time Series from 

Hybrid Surveys, Abstract H51I-1322 presented at 2011 Fall Meeting, American Geophysical 

Union San Francisco, CA, 5-9 Dec. 

Kilham, N.E., Schmidt, J.C., Wheaton, J.M., Grams, P.E., 2010, Evidence for the evacuation of 

fine sediment and fine gravel of the Colorado River below Glen Canyon Dam, Abstract 

EP51B-0558 presented at 2010 Fall Meeting, American Geophysical Union San Francisco, 

CA, 13-17 Dec. 

Schmidt, J.C., Grams, P.E., Hazel, J.E., Kaplinski, M.A., 2010, Topographic Analyses of 

Reaches of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon Reveal Focused Locations of Fine-Sediment 

Accumulation and Evacuation, Abstract EP31C-0756 presented at 2010 Fall Meeting, 

American Geophysical Union San Francisco, CA, 13-17 Dec. 
40

5.6. Productivity prior to 2011 

Akahori, R., Schmeeckle, M.W., Topping, D.J., and Melis, T.S., 2008, Erosion properties of 

cohesive sediments in the Colorado River in Grand Canyon: River Research and 

Applications, v. 24, no. 8, doi: 10.1002/rra.1122, p. 1160-1174, accessed on January 28, 

2010, at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/117949914/PDFSTART. 

Buscombe, D., Rubin, D.M., and Warrick, J.A. (2010) Universal Approximation of Grain Size 

from Images ofNon-Cohesive Sediment. Journal of Geophysical Research - Earth Surface 

115, F02015. 

Davis, P.A., and Melis, T.S., 2010, Mapping full-channel geometry in Grand Canyon by using 

airborne bathymetric lidar--The Lees Ferry test case, in Melis, T.S., Hamill, J.F., Bennett, 

G.E., Coggins, L.G., Jr., Grams, P.E., Kennedy, T.A., Kubly, D.M., and Ralston, B.E., eds., 

Proceedings of the Colorado River Basin Science and Resource Management Symposium, 

November 18-20, 2008, Scottsdale, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2010-5135, 363-372 p., accessed on July 15, 2010, at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5135/. 

Draut, A.E., Hazel, J.E., Jr., Fairley, H.C., and Brown, C.R., 2010a, Aeolian reworking of 

sandbars from the March 2008 Glen Canyon Dam high-flow experiment in Grand Canyon, in 

Melis, T.S., Hamill, J.F., Bennett, G.E., Coggins, L.G., Jr., Grams, P.E., Kennedy, T.A., 

Kubly, D.M., and Ralston, B.E., eds., Proceedings of the Colorado River Basin Science and 

Resource Management Symposium, November 18-20, 2008, Scottsdale, Arizona: U.S. 

Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5135, 325-331 p., accessed on July 

15, 2010, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5135/. 

Draut, A.E., and Rubin, D.M., 2007, The role of eolian sediment in the preservation of 

archeologic sites in the Colorado River corridor, Grand Canyon, Arizona--final report on 

research activities 2003-2006: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2007-1001, 144 p., 

accessed on February 10, 2010, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2007/1001/of2007-1001.pdf. 

Draut, A.E., and Rubin, D.M., 2008a, The role of aeolian sediment in the preservation of 

archaeological sites, Colorado River corridor, Grand Canyon, Arizona, in van Riper, C., III, 

and Sogge, M.K., eds., The Colorado Plateau III--integrating research and resource 

management for more effective conservation: Tucson, University of Arizona Press, ISBN: 

0816527385, p. 331-350. 

Draut, A.E., and Rubin, D.M., 2008b, The role of eolian sediment in the preservation of 

archeologic sites along the Colorado River corridor in Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona: 

U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1756, 71 p., accessed on January 12, 2010, at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/1756/pp1756.pdf. 

Draut, A.E., Rubin, D.M., Dierker, J.L., Fairley, H.C., Griffiths, R.E., Hazel, J.E., Jr., Hunter, 

R.E., Kohl, K., Leap, L.M., Nials, F.L., Topping, D.J., and Yeatts, M., 2008, Application of 

sedimentary-structure interpretation to geoarchaeological investigations in the Colorado 

River corridor, Grand Canyon, Arizona: Geomorphology, v. 101, no. 3, p. 497-509, 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2007.04.032.

Draut, A.E., Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., Wright, S.A., and Schmidt, J.C., 2010c, Grain-size 

evolution in suspended sediment and deposits from the 2004 and 2008 controlled-flood 

experiments in Marble and Grand Canyons, Arizona, in Hydrology and sedimentation for a 

changing future--existing and emerging issues (Joint Federal Interagency Conference 2010--

Federal Interagency Hydrologic Modeling, 4th, and Federal Interagency Sedimentation, 9th), 

Las Vegas, Nev., June 27- July 1, Proceedings: v. ISBN: 978-0-9779007-3-2, CD-ROM. 
41

Grams, P.E., 2006, Sand transport over a coarse and immobile bed: Baltimore, Johns Hopkins 

University, Ph.D. dissertation, 177 p. 

Grams, P.E., Hazel, J.E., Schmidt, J.C., Kaplinski, M., Wright, S.A., Topping, D.J., and Melis, 

T.S., 2010a, Geomorphic response of sandbars to the March 2008 high-flow experiment on 

the Colorado River downstream from Glen Canyon Dam, in Hydrology and sedimentation 

for a changing future; existing and emerging issues (Joint Federal Interagency Conference 

2010--Federal Interagency Hydrologic Modeling, 4th, and Federal Interagency 

Sedimentation, 9th), Las Vegas, Nev., June 27- July 1, Proceedings: v. ISBN: 978-0-

9779007-3-2, CD-ROM. 

Grams, P.E., Schmidt, J.C., and Andersen, M.E., 2010b, 2008 High-flow experiment at Glen 

Canyon Dam--morphologic response of eddy-deposited sandbars and associated aquatic 

backwater habitats along the Colorado River in Grand Canyon National Park: Reston, Va., 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010-1032, 73 p., accessed on July 27, 2010, at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1032/. 

Grams, P.E., Schmidt, J.C., and Topping, D.J., 2007, The rate and pattern of bed incision and 

bank adjustment on the Colorado River in Glen Canyon downstream from Glen Canyon 

Dam, 1956-2000: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 119, no. 5-6, doi: 

10.1130/B25969.1, p. 556-575, accessed on February 12, 2010, at 

http://gsabulletin.gsapubs.org/content/119/5-6/556.abstract. 

Grams, P.E., Schmidt, J.C., and Topping, D.J., 2010c, Bed incision and channel adjustment of 

the Colorado River in Glen Canyon National Recreation Area downstream from Glen 

Canyon Dam, in Melis, T.S., Hamill, J.F., Bennett, G.E., Coggins, L.G., Jr., Grams, P.E., 

Kennedy, T.A., Kubly, D.M., and Ralston, B.E., eds., Proceedings of the Colorado River 

Basin Science and Resource Management Symposium, November 18-20, 2008, Scottsdale, 

Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5135, 167-176 p., 

accessed on July 15, 2010, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5135/. 

Grams, P.E., and Wilcock, P.R., 2007, Equilibrium entrainment of fine sediment over a coarse 

immobile bed: Water Resources Research, v. 43, doi: 10.1029/2006WR005129, p. W10420, 

accessed on March 30, 2011, at 

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006WR005129.shtml. 

Grams, P.E., Wilcock, P.R., and Wiele, S.M., 2006, Entrainment and non-uniform transport of 

fine-sediment in coarse-bedded rivers, in Parker, G., and Garcia, M.H., eds., RCEM 2005--

River, costal and estuarine morphodynamics, v. 1: Leiden, Netherlands, Taylor & 

Francis/Balkema, ISBN: 0-415-39375-2, p. 1073-1081. 

Hazel, J.E., Jr., Grams, P.E., Schmidt, J.C., and Kaplinski, M., 2010, Sandbar response in Marble 

and Grand Canyons, Arizona, following the 2008 high-flow experiment on the Colorado 

River: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5015, 52 p., accessed on 

July 27, 2010, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5015/. 

Hazel, J.E., Jr., Kaplinski, M., Parnell, R., Kohl, K., and Topping, D.J., 2006a, Stage-discharge 

relations for the Colorado River in Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons, Arizona,1990-2005: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2006-1243, 7 p., accessed on January 11, 2010, at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1243/pdf/of06-1243_508.pdf. 

Hazel, J.E., Jr., Kaplinski, M., Parnell, R.A., Kohl, K., and Schmidt, J.C., 2008a, Monitoring 

fine-grained sediment in the Colorado River ecosystem, Arizona--control network and 

conventional survey techniques: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2008-1276, 15 p., 

accessed on January 27, 2010, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1276/. 
42

Hazel, J.E., Jr., Topping, D.J., Schmidt, J.C., and Kaplinski, M., 2006b, Influence of a dam on 

fine-sediment storage in a canyon river: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 111, no. 

F01025, doi: 10.1029/2004JF000193, p. 1-16, accessed on December 28, 2009, at 

http://www.agu.org/journals/jf/jf0601/2004JF000193/2004JF000193.pdf. 

Hazel, J.E., Kaplinski, M., Parnell, R., A., and Fairley, H.C., 2008b, Aggradation and 

degradation of the Palisades gully network, 1996 to 2005, with emphasis on the November 

2004 high- flow experiment, Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 2008-1264, 14 p., accessed on August 23, 2010, at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1264/. 

Kaplinski, M., Hazel, J.E., Jr., and Parnell, R., 2010, Colorado River campsite monitoring, 1998–

2006, Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona, in Melis, T.S., Hamill, J.F., Bennett, G.E., 

Coggins, L.G., Jr., Grams, P.E., Kennedy, T.A., Kubly, D.M., and Ralston, B.E., eds., 

Proceedings of the Colorado River Basin Science and Resource Management Symposium, 

November 18-20, 2008, Scottsdale, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2010-5135, 275-284 p., accessed on July 15, 2010, at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5135/. 

Kaplinski, M., Hazel, J.E., Jr., Parnell, R., Breedlove, M.J., Kohl, K., and Gonzales, M.F., 2009, 

Monitoring fine-sediment volume in the Colorado River ecosystem, Arizona--bathymetric 

survey techniques: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2009-1207, 33 p., accessed on 

January 28, 2010, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1207/of2009-1207.pdf. 

Kaplinski, M., Hazel, J.E., Jr., Parnell, R., Breedlove, M.J., and Schmidt, J.C., 2007, Integrating 

topographic, bathymetric, and LiDAR surveys of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon to 

assess the effects of a flow experiment from Glen Canyon Dam on the Colorado River 

ecosystem, in Hydrographic Society of America, Norfolk, Va., May 14-17, 2007, 

Proceedings: p. 22. 

Kaplinski, M.A., Hazel, J.E., Jr., Parnell, R., and Schott, N., 2008, High-resolution multibeam 

bathymetric and topographic surveys at two eddy sandbars before, during, and after the 2008 

high-flow experiment on the Colorado River in Grand Canyon [abstract #H43B-09890]: Eos 

Transactions, American Geophysical Union--Fall Meeting Supplement, v. 89, no. 53, p. ___. 

Kinzel, P., Nelson, J., McDonald, R., and Logan, B., 2010, Topographic evolution of sandbarsflume experiment and computational modeling, in Hydrology and sedimentation for a 

changing future; existing and emerging issues (Joint Federal Interagency Conference 2010--

Federal Interagency Hydrologic Modeling, 4th, and Federal Interagency Sedimentation, 9th), 

Las Vegas, Nev., June 27- July 1, Proceedings: v. ISBN: 978-0-9779007-3-2, CD-ROM. 

Logan, B., Nelson, J., McDonald, R., and Wright, S., 2010, Mechanics and modeling of flow 

sediment transport and morphologic change in riverine lateral separation zones, in Hydrology 

and sedimentation for a changing future; existing and emerging issues (Joint Federal 

Interagency Conference 2010--Federal Interagency Hydrologic Modeling, 4th, and Federal 

Interagency Sedimentation, 9th), Las Vegas, Nev., June 27- July 1, Proceedings: v. ISBN: 

978-0-9779007-3-2, CD-ROM. 

Magirl, C. F.N., Webb, R., Griffiths, P., 2008, Modeling Water-Surface Elevations and Virtual 

Shorelines for the Colorado River in Grand Canyon, Arizona, U.S.Geological Survey 

Scientific Investigations Report 2008-5075, 32p. 

Melis, T.S., ed., 2011, Effects of three high-flow experiments on the Colorado River ecosystem 

downstream from Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1366, 147 

p., accessed on June 28, 2011, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1366/. 
43

Melis, T.S., Grams, P.E., Kennedy, T.A., Ralston, B.E., Robinson, C.T., Schmidt, J.C., Schmit, 

L.M., Valdez, R.A., and Wright, S.A., 2011, Three experimental high-flow releases from 

Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona--effects of the downstream Colorado River ecosystem: U.S. 

Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2011-3012, 4 p., accessed on June 28, 2011, at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2011/3012/. 

Melis, T.S., Hamill, J.F., Bennett, G.E., Coggins, L.G., Grams, P.E., Kennedy, T.A., Kubly, 

D.M., and Ralston, B.E., 2010a, Proceedings of the Colorado River Basin Science and 

Resource Management Symposium, November 18–20, 2008, Scottsdale, Arizona: U.S. 

Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5135, 372 p., accessed on August 

21, 2010, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5135. 

Melis, T.S., Topping, D.J., Grams, P.E., Rubin, D.M., Wright, S.A., Draut, A.E., Hazel, J.E., Jr., 

Ralston, B.E., Kennedy, T.A., Rosi-Marshall, E., Korman, J., Hilwig, K.D., and Schmit, 

L.M., 2010b, 2008 High-flow experiment at Glen Canyon Dam benefits Colorado River 

resources in Grand Canyon National Park: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2010-3009, 4 

p., accessed on July 27, 2010, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2010/3009/. 

Melis, T.S., Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., and Wright, S.A., 2007, Research furthers conservation 

of Grand Canyon sandbars: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2007-3020, 4 p., accessed on 

February 1, 2010, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2007/3020/. 

Melis, T.S., Wright, S.A., Ralston, B.E., Fairley, H.C., Kennedy, T., Coggins, L.G., Jr., and 

Korman, J., 2006, 2005 Knowledge assessment of the effects of Glen Canyon Dam on the 

Colorado River ecosystem--an experimental planning support document: U.S. Geological 

Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, 82 p., accessed on July 7, 2011, at 

http://www.gcmrc.gov/files/1198/w-1198_2011-03-31-01-33-40-577_Attach_10b.pdf. 

Rubin, D.M., 2006, Ripple effect--unforeseen applications of sand studies: EOS Transactions, 

American Geophysical Union, v. 87, no. 30, p. 293-297, accessed on March 15, 2010, at 

http://137.227.239.66/reports/reprints/Rubin_Eos_87.pdf. 

Rubin, D.M., Chezar, H., Harney, J.N., Topping, D.J., Melis, T.S., and Sherwood, C.R., 2006a, 

Underwater microscope for measuring spatial and temporal changes in bed-sediment grain 

size: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2006-1360, 15 p., accessed on January 27, 

2010, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1360/. 

Rubin, D.M., Chezar, H., Harney, J.N., Topping, D.J., Melis, T.S., and Sherwood, C.R., 2007, 

Underwater microscope for measuring spatial and temporal changes in bed-sediment grain 

size: Sedimentary Geology, v. 202, no. 3, p. 402-408. (Also available at 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sedgeo.2007.03.020.) 

Rubin, D.M., and Topping, D.J., 2008, Correction to "Quantifying the relative importance of 

flow regulation and grain-size regulation of suspended-sediment transport a, and tracking 

changes in bed-sediment grain size b": Water Resources Research, v. 44, no. W09701, doi: 

10.1029/2008wr006819, p. 133-146, accessed on August 31, 2010, at 

http://www.agu.org/journals/wr/wr0809/2008WR006819/2008WR006819.pdf. 

Rubin, D.M., Topping, D.J., Chezar, H., Hazel, J.E., Schmidt, J.C., Breedlove, M., Melis, T.S., 

and Grams, P.E., 2010, 20,000 grain-size observations from the bed of the Colorado River 

and implications for sediment transport through Grand Canyon, in Hydrology and 

sedimentation for a changing future; existing and emerging issues (Joint Federal Interagency 

Conference 2010--Federal Interagency Hydrologic Modeling, 4th, and Federal Interagency 

Sedimentation, 9th), Las Vegas, Nev., June 27- July 1, Proceedings: v. ISBN: 978-0-

9779007-3-2, CD-ROM. 
44

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 hypothesis, Eos, Transactions, American 

Geophysical Union, 83(25), 273, 277-278. 

Schmidt, J.C., Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., Hazel, J.E., Jr., Kaplinski, M., Wiele, S.M., and 

Goeking, S.A., 2007, Streamflow and sediment data collected to determine the effects of low 

summer steady flows and habitual maintenance flows in 2000 on the Colorado River between 

Lees Ferry and Bright Angel Creek, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

2007-1268, 79 p., accessed on March 17, 2010, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2007/1268/. 

Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., Grams, P.E., Griffiths, R.E., Sabol, T.A., Voichick, N., Tusso, R.B., 

Vanaman, K.M., and McDonald, R.R., 2010a, Sediment transport during three controlledflood experiments on the Colorado River downstream from Glen Canyon Dam, with 

implications for eddy-sandbar deposition in Grand Canyon National Park: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 2010-1128, 111 p., accessed on July 25, 2010, at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1128/. 

Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., and Melis, T.S., 2007a, Coupled changes in sand grain size and sand 

transport driven by changes in the upstream supply of sand in the Colorado River--relative 

importance of changes in bed-sand grain size and bed-sand area: Sedimentary Geology, v. 

202, no. 3, doi: 10.1016/j.sedgeo.2007.03.016, p. 538-561, accessed on August 10, 2010, at 

http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/amwg/mtgs/08sep09/Attach_06b.pdf;

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sedgeo.2007.03.016. 

Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., and Schmidt, J.C., 2008, Update on regulation of sand transport in 

the Colorado River by changes in the surface grain size of eddy sandbars over multiyear 

timescales: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2008-5042, 24 p., 

accessed on March 22, 2010, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2008/5042/. 

Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., Schmidt, J.C., Hazel, J.E., Jr., Melis, T.S., Wright, S.A., Kaplinski, 

M., Draut, A.E., and Breedlove, M.J., 2006a, Comparison of sediment-transport and barresponse results from the 1996 and 2004 controlled-flood experiments on the Colorado River 

in Grand Canyon, in Federal Interagency Sedimentation Conference, 8th, Reno, Nev., April 

2-6, 2006, Proceedings: p. 171-179 (CD-ROM). 

Tusso, R., Rubin, D.M., Topping, D.J., Chezar, H., and Breedlove, M., 2010, Using changes in 

bed-surface grain size as a proxy for changes in bed sand storage Colorado River Grand 

Canyon, in Melis, T.S., Hamill, J.F., Bennett, G.E., Coggins, L.G., Jr., Grams, P.E., 

Kennedy, T.A., Kubly, D.M., and Ralston, B.E., eds., Proceedings of the Colorado River 

Basin Science and Resource Management Symposium, November 18-20, 2008, Scottsdale, 

Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5135, 347-355 p., 

accessed on July 15, 2010, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5135/. 

Wiele, S.M., Wilcock, P.R., and Grams, P.E., 2007, Reach-averaged sediment routing model of a 

canyon river: Water Resources Research, v. 43, no. W02425, doi: 10.1029/2005WR004824, 

p. 1-16, accessed on February 1, 2010, at 

http://www.agu.org/journals/wr/wr0702/2005WR004824/. 

Wright, S.A., and Grams, P.E., 2010, Evaluation of water year 2011 Glen Canyon Dam flow 

release scenarios on downstream sand storage along the Colorado River in Arizona: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010-1133, 19 p., accessed on July 27, 2010, at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1133/. 

Wright, S.A., and Kaplinski, M., 2011, Flow structures and sandbar dynamics in a canyon river 

during a controlled flood, Colorado River, Arizona: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 116, 
45

no. F01019, doi: 10.1029/2009JF001442, p. 15, accessed on March 9, 2011, at 

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2009JF001442.shtml. 

Wright, S.A., Schmidt, J.C., Melis, T.S., Topping, D.J., and Rubin, D.M., 2008, Is there enough 

sand? Evaluating the fate of Grand Canyon sandbars: Geological Society of America Today, 

v. 18, no. 8, doi: 10.1130/GSATG12A.1, p. 4-10, accessed on May 26, 2010, at 

http://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/18/8/pdf/i1052-5173-18-8-4.pdf. 

Wright, S.A., Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., and Melis, T.S., 2010a, An approach for modeling 

sediment budgets in supply-limited rivers: Water Resources Research, v. 46, no. W10538, 

doi: 10.1029/2009WR008600, p. 1-18, accessed on November 15, 2010, at 

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009WR008600.shtml. 

Wright, S.A., Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., and Melis, T.S., 2010b, Modeling long-term sediment 

budgets in supply-limited rivers, in Hydrology and sedimentation for a changing future; 

existing and emerging issues (Joint Federal Interagency Conference 2010--Federal 

Interagency Hydrologic Modeling, 4th, and Federal Interagency Sedimentation, 9th), Las 

Vegas, Nev., June 27- July 1, Proceedings: v. ISBN: 978-0-9779007-3-2, CD-ROM. 

6. References 

Beus, S.S., David, J.N., Lojko, F.B., and Stevens, L.E., 1992 Colorado River investigations XI, 

Report submitted to Grand Canyon National Park, on file at USGS Grand Canyon 

Monitoring and Research Center, Flagstaff, AZ., 175 p. 

Buscombe, D., Rubin, D.M., and Warrick, J.A. (2010) Universal Approximation of Grain Size 

from Images ofNon-Cohesive Sediment. Journal of Geophysical Research - Earth Surface 

115, F02015. 

Dolan, R., Howard, A., and Gallenson, A., 1974, Man's impact on the Colorado River in the 

Grand Canyon: American Scientist, v. 62, p. 393-401. 

Flynn, M.E., and Hornewer, N.J., 2003, Variations in sand storage measured at monumented 

cross sections in the Colorado River between Glen Canyon Dam and Lava Falls Rapid, 

Northern Arizona, 1992-99: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 

03-4104, 39 p. 

Grams, P.E., and Wilcock, P.R., 2007, Equilibrium entrainment of fine sediment over a coarse 

immobile bed: Water Resources Research, v. 43, doi: 10.1029/2006WR005129, p. W10420, 

accessed on March 30, 2011, at 

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006WR005129.shtml. 

Hazel, J.E., Jr., Grams, P.E., Schmidt, J.C., and Kaplinski, M., 2010, Sandbar response in Marble 

and Grand Canyons, Arizona, following the 2008 high-flow experiment on the Colorado 

River: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5015, 52 p., accessed on 

July 27, 2010, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5015/. 

Hazel, J.E., Jr., Kaplinski, M., Parnell, R.A., Kohl, K., and Schmidt, J.C., 2008a, Monitoring 

fine-grained sediment in the Colorado River ecosystem, Arizona--control network and 

conventional survey techniques: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2008-1276, 15 p., 

accessed on January 27, 2010, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1276/. 

Hazel, J.E., Jr., Kaplinski, M., Parnell, R., Kohl, K., and Topping, D.J., 2006a, Stage-discharge 

relations for the Colorado River in Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons, Arizona,1990-2005: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2006-1243, 7 p., accessed on January 11, 2010, at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1243/pdf/of06-1243_508.pdf. 
46

Hazel, J.E., Jr., Kaplinski, M., Parnell, R., Manone, M., and Dale, A., 1999, Topographic and 

bathymetric changes at thirty-three long-term study sites, in Webb, R.H., Schmidt, J.C., 

Marzolf, G.R., and Valdez, R.A., eds., The 1996 controlled flood in Grand Canyon: 

Washington, D.C., American Geophysical Union, Geophysical Monograph 110, p. 161184. 

Howard, A.D., 1975, Establishment of benchmark study sites along the Colorado River in Grand 

Canyon National Park for monitoring of beach erosion caused by natural forces and human 

impact, p. 14. 

Howard, A., and Dolan, R., 1981, Geomorphology of the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon: 

Journal of Geology, v. 89, no. 3, p. 269-298. 

Jacobson, Robert B.; Johnson, Harold E., III; Dietsch, Benjamin J., 2009, Hydrodynamic 

Simulations of Physical Aquatic Habitat Availability for Pallid Sturgeon in the Lower 

Missouri River, at Yankton, South Dakota, Kenslers Bend, Nebraska, Little Sioux, Iowa, and 

Miami, Missouri2006-07: US Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2009-5058. 

Kaplinski, M., Hazel, J.E., Jr., and Parnell, R., 2010, Colorado River campsite monitoring, 1998–

2006, Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona, in Melis, T.S., Hamill, J.F., Bennett, G.E., 

Coggins, L.G., Jr., Grams, P.E., Kennedy, T.A., Kubly, D.M., and Ralston, B.E., eds., 

Proceedings of the Colorado River Basin Science and Resource Management Symposium, 

November 18-20, 2008, Scottsdale, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2010-5135, 275-284 p., accessed on July 15, 2010, at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5135/. 

Kaplinski, M., Hazel, J.E., Jr., Parnell, R., Breedlove, M.J., Kohl, K., and Gonzales, M.F., 2009, 

Monitoring fine-sediment volume in the Colorado River ecosystem, Arizona--bathymetric 

survey techniques: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2009-1207, 33 p., accessed on 

January 28, 2010, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1207/of2009-1207.pdf. 

Kruse, F.A., Lefkoff, A.B., Boardman, J.B., Heidebrecht, K.B., Shapiro, A.T., Barloom, P.J., and 

Goetz, A.F.H., 1993, The Spectral Image Processing System (SIPS) – Interactive 

visualization and analysis of imaging spectrometer data: Remote Sensing of Environment, v. 

44, p. 145-163. 

Logan, B., Nelson, J., McDonald, R., and Wright, S., 2010, Mechanics and modeling of flow 

sediment transport and morphologic change in riverine lateral separation zones, in Hydrology 

and sedimentation for a changing future; existing and emerging issues (Joint Federal 

Interagency Conference 2010--Federal Interagency Hydrologic Modeling, 4th, and Federal 

Interagency Sedimentation, 9th), Las Vegas, Nev., June 27- July 1, Proceedings: v. ISBN: 

978-0-9779007-3-2, CD-ROM. 

Magirl, C. F.N., Webb, R., Griffiths, P., 2008, Modeling Water-Surface Elevations and Virtual 

Shorelines for the Colorado River in Grand Canyon, Arizona, U.S.Geological Survey 

Scientific Investigations Report 2008-5075, 32p. 

Randle, T. J., and E. L. Pemberton (1987), Results and analysis of STARS modeling efforts of 

the Colorado River in Grand Canyon, NTIS PB88-183421/AS, Bur. of Reclamation U.S. 

Dept. of the Int., Washington, D. C. 

Rubin, D.M., Chezar, H., Harney, J.N., Topping, D.J., Melis, T.S., and Sherwood, C.R., 2007, 

Underwater microscope for measuring spatial and temporal changes in bed-sediment grain 

size: Sedimentary Geology, v. 202, no. 3, p. 402-408. (Also available at 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sedgeo.2007.03.020.) 
47

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 hypothesis, Eos, Transactions, American 

Geophysical Union, 83(25), 273, 277-278. 

Rubin, D.M., and Topping, D.J., 2001, Quantifying the relative importance of flow regulation 

and grain size regulation of suspended sediment transport alpha and tracking changes in grain 

size of bed sediment beta: Water Resources Research, v. 37, no. 1, p. 133-146. 

Schmidt, J.C., and Graf J.B., 1990, Aggradation and degradation of alluvial sand deposits, 1965 

to 1986, Colorado River, Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey 

Professional Paper 1493, 74 p. 

Schmidt, J.C., Grams, P.E., and Leschin, M.F., 1999, Variation and magnitude of deposition and 

erosion in three long-term (8-12 km) reaches as determined by photographic analyses, in 

Webb, R.H., Schmidt, J.C., Marzolf, G.R., and Valdez, R.A., eds., The controlled flood in 

Grand Canyon: Washington, D.C., American Geophysical Union, Geophysical Monograph 

Series, v. 110, p. 185–204. 

Schmidt, J.C., Topping, D.J., Grams, P.E., and Hazel, J.E., 2004. System-wide changes in the 

distribution of fine sediment in the Colorado River corridor between Glen Canyon Dam and 

Bright Angel Creek, Arizona. Final report to the USGS Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center, Flagstaff, Ariz. 

[http://www.gcmrc.gov/library/reports/physical/Fine_Sed/Schmidt2004.pdf] 

Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., Grams, P.E., Griffiths, R.E., Sabol, T.A., Voichick, N., Tusso, R.B., 

Vanaman, K.M., and McDonald, R.R., 2010a, Sediment transport during three controlledflood experiments on the Colorado River downstream from Glen Canyon Dam, with 

implications for eddy-sandbar deposition in Grand Canyon National Park: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 2010-1128, 111 p., accessed on July 25, 2010, at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1128/. 

Topping, D.J., Wright, S.A., Rubin, D.M., and Melis, T.S., 2007, Draft report to the technical 

work group of the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program: Recommended 

protocols for core monitoring of sediment within the Colorado River Ecosystem below Glen 

Canyon Dam, Part IV – developing a scientifically based long-term monitoring plan for the 

GCDAMP, USGS Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, Flagstaff, Ariz., 34 p. 

Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., Schmidt, J.C., Hazel, J.E., Jr., Melis, T.S., Wright, S.A., Kaplinski, 

M., Draut, A.E., and Breedlove, M.J., 2006a, Comparison of sediment-transport and barresponse results from the 1996 and 2004 controlled-flood experiments on the Colorado River 

in Grand Canyon, in Federal Interagency Sedimentation Conference, 8th, Reno, Nev., April 

2-6, 2006, Proceedings: p. 171-179 (CD-ROM). 

Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., and Vierra, L.E., Jr., 2000, Colorado River sediment transport 1. 

Natural sediment supply limitation and the influence of Glen Canyon Dam: Water Resources 

Research, v. 36, p. 515542. 

U.S. Geological Survey, 2006, Strategic Science Plan to Support theGlen Canyon Dam Adaptive 

Management Program, Fiscal Years 2007–11, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research 

Center in cooperation with the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, 11 p. 

www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/amwg/mtgs/06dec05/Attach_07b.pdf

Wiele, S.M., Wilcock, P.R., and Grams, P.E., 2007, Reach-averaged sediment routing model of a 

canyon river: Water Resources Research, v. 43, no. W02425, doi: 10.1029/2005WR004824, 

p. 1-16, accessed on February 1, 2010, at 

http://www.agu.org/journals/wr/wr0702/2005WR004824/. 
48

Wiele, S. M., and E. R. Griffin (1997), Modifications to a one-dimensional model of unsteady 

flow in the Colorado River through the Grand Canyon, U.S. Geol. Surv. Water Resour. 

Invest., 97–4046. 

Wiele, S. M., and J. D. Smith (1996), A reach-averaged model of diurnal discharge wave 

propagation down the Colorado River through the Grand Canyon, Water Resour. Res., 32, 

1375– 1386. 

Wright, S.A., and Grams, P.E., 2010, Evaluation of water year 2011 Glen Canyon Dam flow 

release scenarios on downstream sand storage along the Colorado River in Arizona: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010-1133, 19 p., accessed on July 27, 2010, at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1133/. 

Wright, S.A., Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., and Melis, T.S., 2010a, An approach for modeling 

sediment budgets in supply-limited rivers: Water Resources Research, v. 46, no. W10538, 

doi: 10.1029/2009WR008600, p. 1-18, accessed on November 15, 2010, at 

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009WR008600.shtml. 

Wright, S.A., Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., and Melis, T.S., 2010b, Modeling long-term sediment 

budgets in supply-limited rivers, in Hydrology and sedimentation for a changing future; 

existing and emerging issues (Joint Federal Interagency Conference 2010--Federal 

Interagency Hydrologic Modeling, 4th, and Federal Interagency Sedimentation, 9th), Las 

Vegas, Nev., June 27- July 1, Proceedings: v. ISBN: 978-0-9779007-3-2, CD-ROM. 

Wright, S.A., Schmidt, J.C., Melis, T.S., Topping, D.J., and Rubin, D.M., 2008, Is there enough 

sand? Evaluating the fate of Grand Canyon sandbars: Geological Society of America Today, 

v. 18, no. 8, doi: 10.1130/GSATG12A.1, p. 4-10, accessed on May 26, 2010, at 

http://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/18/8/pdf/i1052-5173-18-8-4.pdf. 

Wright, S.A., Melis, T.S., Topping, D.J., and Rubin, D.M., 2005, Influence of Glen Canyon Dam 

operations on downstream sand resources of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon, in Gloss, 

S.P., Lovich, J.E., and Melis, T.S., eds., The state of the Colorado River ecosystem in Grand 

Canyon: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1282, p. 1731. 

 
49

7. Budget 

 

Project Element A.1.

Sandbar and Camping

beach monitoring

Project Element A.2.

Sediment storage

monitoring

Project Element A.3.

Investigating eddy sandbar

variability and the

interaction among flow,

vegetation, and

geomorphology

Salaries $106,000 Salaries $259,00 Salaries $87,000

Traveling and Training $4,000 Traveling and Training $5,000 Traveling and Training $2,000

Operating Expenses $10,000 Operating Expenses $35,000 Operating Expenses $2,000

Logistics $27,000 Logistics $74,000 Logistics $0

GIS/RS/Electronics

support (includes burden) $0 GIS/RS/Electronics support

(includes burden) 0 GIS/RS/Electronics support

(includes burden) $0

Cooperators (non‐USGS) $98,000 Cooperators (non‐USGS) $164,000 Cooperators (non‐USGS) $0

USGS cooperators 0 USGS cooperators $14,000 USGS cooperators $0

USGS Burden $24,000 USGS Burden $57,000 USGS Burden $13,000

Total $269,000 Total $609,000 Total $104,000

Project Element

A.4.Quantifying the

correlation between bed

and transport grain size

Project Element A.5.

Geochemical signatures of

pre‐dam sediment

Project Element A.6.

Control network and

surveying support

Salaries $43,000 Salaries $6,000 Salaries $22,000

Traveling and Training $3,000 Traveling and Training $0 Traveling and Training $2,000

Operating Expenses $1,000 Operating Expenses $0 Operating Expenses $2,000

Logistics $37,000 Logistics $0 Logistics $6,000

GIS/RS/Electronics

support (includes burden) 0 GIS/RS/Electronics support

(includes burden) $0 GIS/RS/Electronics support

(includes burden) $0

Cooperators (non‐USGS) $65,000 Cooperators (non‐USGS) $0 Cooperators (non‐USGS) $0

USGS cooperators $80,000 USGS cooperators $48,000 USGS cooperators

USGS Burden $14,000 USGS Burden $1,000 USGS Burden $4,000

Total $243,000 Total $55,000 Total $36,000

FY 2013 Project A. Gross Total:

$1,316,000

FY 2014 Project A. Gross Total:

$1,358,000
50

Project B. 

Streamflow, Water Quality, and Sediment Transport in 

the Colorado River Ecosystem 

1. Investigator 

David Topping, Research Hydrologist, USGS, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center 

2. Project Summary 

This proposal is to fund the ongoing measurement of stage, discharge, water quality 

(water temperature, specific conductance, turbidity, and dissolved oxygen), suspended sediment, 

and bed sediment at gaging stations in the Colorado River ecosystem (CRe) downstream from 

Glen Canyon Dam in Glen Canyon National Recreation Area and Grand Canyon National Park. 

The data collected by this project provide the fundamental stream flow, sediment transport, 

temperature, and water quality data that are used by other physical, ecological, and socio-cultural 

resource studies. Thus, this project directly links dam operations to the physical, biological, and 

sociocultural resources of the CRe. This project also funds interpretation of these data, 

specifically examining how stream flow and its related attributes affect resources of the CRe. 

3. Background 

3.1. Scientific Background 

The primary linkage between dam operations and the response of the physical, biological, 

and cultural resources in the CRe between Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Mead reservoir is 

through the stage, discharge, water quality, and sediment transport of the Colorado River (U.S. 

Department of the Interior, 1995; National Research Council, 1996). Releases from Glen Canyon 

Dam provide the principal control on these attributes of the Colorado River downstream from the 

dam. Only during periods of large tributary floods do tributaries exert any substantial control on 

stage, discharge, water quality, or sediment transport. 

Sediment on the bed and banks forms the physical template for the CRe (U.S. 

Department of the Interior, 1995; National Research Council, 1996). Suspended sediment is an 

important water quality parameter, because it regulates the eddy sandbars and channel-margin 

deposits that are important to many biological, cultural, and recreational resources (Rubin and 

others, 2002, Wright and others, 2005). Suspended sediment also controls turbidity and therefore 

influences the aquatic ecology of the river. The endangered and threatened native fishes evolved 

in a highly turbid river (Gloss and Coggins, 2005). Turbidity is predominantly determined by the 

concentration of suspended silt and clay and, to a lesser degree, suspended sand. Prior to the 

closure of Glen Canyon Dam, 60 percent of the upstream sediment supply to the Colorado River 

in Glen Canyon was silt and clay (Topping and others, 2000a). Closure of Glen Canyon Dam 

reduced the supply of sand, silt, and clay by about 95 percent at Lees Ferry, and the Paria River 

is now the major supplier of sediment to Marble Canyon (Topping and others, 2000). The postdam Colorado River in Marble and Grand Canyons is much less turbid with clearer-water 
51

conditions than ever occurred naturally. Because the in-channel storage of sand, silt, and clay in 

the post-dam Colorado River is greatly reduced from pre-dam conditions, the Colorado River in 

the study area is only now turbid during periods of tributary inflow. 

Systematic measurements of stream flow and the quality of water, including suspendedsediment concentration, in the CRe began with the installation of the Lees Ferry gaging station in 

May 1921 (Topping and others, 2003; Howard, 1947). During much of the 20th century, daily 

measurements of suspended-sediment concentration and temperature, and episodic 

measurements of other water-quality parameters, were made by the USGS at multiple sites. This 

intensive period of measurements ended in the early 1970s (Topping and others, 2000a). 

Concern over the effects of the operations of Glen Canyon Dam on the CRe resulted in a new 

scientific emphasis on measurements and modeling of water quality and sediment transport 

beginning in the early 1980s (National Research Council, 1996). The results of these studies 

have been published in numerous USGS reports and journal articles and ultimately resulted in 

the current form of this project. 

Recent research on the Colorado and other rivers has shown that, to be meaningful, 

measurements of stage, discharge, water quality, and suspended fine sediment must be made 

directly, and not through proxies at temporal resolutions higher than those over which these 

parameters vary. In the specific case of suspended fine sediment, substantial changes in 

suspended-sand concentration and suspended-silt-and-clay concentration are driven by changes 

in the upstream supply of sediment. These changes occur over timescales < 1 hour (Topping and 

others, 2000b). Furthermore, Rubin and Topping (2001, 2008) showed that, in the case of the 

dam-regulated Colorado River, suspended-sand transport is equally regulated by changes in 

discharge and changes in the size of sand available for transport that is driven by changes in the 

upstream supply of sand. The former control is largely determined by changes in dam operations, 

and the latter control is largely determined by changes in tributary sediment supply interacting 

with changes in dam operations. The major flaw that invalidated key aspects of the 1995 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1995) was that, in the 

1995 EIS, suspended-sand transport was thought to be only regulated by changes in discharge 

(Rubin and others, 2002). Thus, this project is designed to provide measurements of stage, 

discharge, water quality, and suspended sediment at sufficiently high temporal resolutions 

(~15-minute) to allow accurate determination of suspended sediment loads, as well as other 

water quality parameters. To allow the construction of this comprehensive and cost-effective 

monitoring network, this project has conducted pioneering, cutting-edge research on using new 

laser-diffraction and acoustic technologies to measure water quality and sediment. 

3.2. Key Monitoring and Research Questions Addressed in this project 

This project also directly addresses the following Strategic Science Questions (SSQs), Core 

Monitoring Information Needs (CMINs), and Research Information Needs (RINs) previously 

identified by the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP). 

SSQ 4-1. Is there a “Flow-Only” operation that will restore and maintain sandbar habitats 

over decadal timescales? 

SSQ 5-1. How do dam release temperatures, flows (average and fluctuating component), 

meteorology, canyon orientation and geometry, and reach morphology interact to 

determine mainstem and nearshore water temperatures throughout the CRe? 
52

CMIN 7.4.2. Determine and track flow releases from Glen Canyon Dam, under all operating 

conditions, particularly related to flow duration, upramp, and downramp conditions. 

CMIN 7.1.2. Determine and track LCR discharge and temperature near the mouth. 

CMIN 7.1.1. Determine the water temperature dynamics in the mainstem, tributaries, 

backwaters, and near shore areas throughout the Colorado River ecosystem. 

CMIN 8.1.3. Track, as appropriate, the monthly sand and silt/clay volumes and grain-size 

characteristics, by reach, as measured or estimated at the Paria and LCR, other major 

tributaries like Kanab and Havasu Creeks, and “lesser” tributaries. 

CMIN 8.1.2. What are the monthly sand and silt/clay export volumes and grain-size 

characteristics, by reach, as measured or estimated at Lees Ferry, Lower Marble Canyon, 

Grand Canyon, and Diamond Creek Stations? 

RIN 7.4.1. What is the desired range of seasonal and annual flow dynamics associated with 

powerplant operations, BHBFs, and habitat maintenance flows, or other flows that meet 

GCDAMP goals and objectives? 

RIN 7.3.1. Develop simulation models for Lake Powell and the Colorado River to predict 

water-quality conditions under various operating scenarios, supplants monitoring efforts, 

and elucidate understanding of the effects of dam operations, climate, and basin 

hydrology on Colorado River water quality. 

RIN 8.5.1. What elements of RoD operations are most/least critical to conserving new fine 

sediment inputs, and stabilizing sediment deposits above the 25,000 ft3/s stage? 

3.3. Management Background 

This project funds ongoing monitoring and research activities associated with the 

measurement of stream flow, sediment transport, and associated water quality attributes. This 

project began as fundamental research in the late 1990s and became a GCDAMP-approved coremonitoring project in 2007, designed to fully address the monitoring needs of GCDAMP Goal 7 

and partially address the monitoring needs of GCDAMP Goal 8. 

 Goal 7: Establish water temperature, quality, and flow dynamics to achieve 

GCDAMP ecosystem goals. 

 Goal 8: Maintain or attain levels of sediment storage within the main channel and 

along shorelines to achieve GCDAMP ecosystem goals. 

The primary objectives of this project are to measure water stage and discharge as well as 

the water-quality parameters of water temperature, specific conductance, turbidity, dissolved 

oxygen, suspended-sediment concentration, and suspended-sediment grain size. These data are 

basic to other physical science, biology, and sociocultural projects funded by the GCDAMP. In 

essence, the data collected by this project are those that directly link dam operations to most of 

the other resources of the CRe. Although the focus of this project is on monitoring, the project 

also supports research related to evaluation of alternative flow regimes, as well as 

implementation of the High-Flow Experiment protocol (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2011). 

Thus, data collected by this project constitute core monitoring, administrative support for agency 

actions such as the High-Flow Experiment protocol EA and fundamental support for 

understanding ecosystem processes. Additionally, these data are used to monitor compliance 

with the 1996 RoD, to support research about flow experiments and are critical to development 

of numerical models concerning river processes. 
53

In addition to supporting GCDAMP Goals 7 and 8 (above), this project also supports 

Goals 1, 2, 4, 6, 9, and 11. 

 Goal 1: Protect or improve the aquatic foodbase so that it will support viable 

populations of desired species at higher trophic levels. 

This project supports Goal 1 by providing information on flows, water temperature, 

turbidity, and dissolved oxygen that aids in foodbase studies, such as the assessment of primary 

productivity and allochthonous inputs. 

 Goal 2: Maintain or attain a viable population of existing native fish, remove 

jeopardy for humpback chub and razorback sucker, and prevent adverse modification 

to their critical habitats. 

This project supports Goal 2 by providing water-temperature data for the assessment of 

fish growth rates, turbidity data that are used to adjust for catch efficiency in population models, 

flow and stage data that are important to understanding the effects of nearshore habitat disruption 

caused by fluctuating flows, and data on sandbars and resulting backwater habitats that are 

helpful in understanding the importance of sandbars for native fish. 

 Goal 4: Maintain a wild reproducing population of rainbow trout above the Paria 

River to the extent practicable and consistent with the maintenance of viable 

populations of native fish. 

This project supports Goal 4 through monitoring of dam releases, water temperature, 

specific conductance, turbidity, and dissolved oxygen levels in Glen Canyon. 

 Goal 6: Protect or improve the biotic riparian and spring communities within the 

CRe, including threatened and endangered species and their critical habitat. 

This project supports Goal 6 by monitoring the transport and fate of sand, silt, and clay, 

which provides the substrate for riparian vegetation and marsh communities. 

 Goal 9: Maintain or improve the quality of recreational experiences for users of the 

CRe within the framework of GCDAMP ecosystem goals. 

This project supports Goal 9 by collecting the monitoring data used in experimental and 

modeling research relating flow and sediment-transport dynamics to the size and abundance of 

sandbars used as campsites. 

 Goal 11: Preserve, protect, manage, and treat cultural resources for the inspiration 

and benefit of past, present, and future generations. 

This project supports Goal 11 by collecting the stage, flow, and sediment data used to 

assess effects of dam operations on cultural sites. 

In August 2004, the GCDAMP Adaptive Management Work Group reviewed these goals 

and identified priority questions. The top five priority questions are as follows: 

 Priority 1: Why are humpback chub not thriving, and what can we do about it? How 

many humpback chub are there and how are they doing? 

 Priority 2: Which cultural resources, including TCPs, are within the Area of 

Potential Effect (APE), which should we treat, and how do we best protect them? 

What is the status and trends of cultural resources and what are the agents of 

deterioration? 

 Priority 3: What is the best flow regime? 

 Priority 4: What is the impact of sediment loss and what should we do about it? 

 Priority 5: What will happen when a TCD is tested or implemented? How should it 

be operated? Are safeguards needed for management? 
54

This project provides direct support to some of the priority questions, while indirectly 

supporting others. Monitoring of stage, flows, sediment transport, water temperature (and other 

water quality parameters) supports priority questions 3, 4, and 5 directly and indirectly supports 

priority questions 1 and 2 by providing information on the general physical framework of the 

river environment. 

4. Proposed work 

4.1. Project Element ($1,287,000) 

Much of the proposed work in this project consists of high-resolution (typically 15-

minute) measurements of: stage, discharge, water temperature, specific conductance, turbidity, 

dissolved oxygen, suspended-sediment concentration, and suspended-sediment grain-size 

distribution. In addition, episodic measurements of bed sediment are made. These parameters are 

measured at USGS stream-flow gaging stations located on the Colorado River in Marble and 

Grand Canyons at river miles 0, 30, 61, 87, 166, and 225. Selection of these gaging-station 

locations was largely based on the need to resolve longitudinal differences in sediment storage in 

key reaches of the CRe, to bracket major tributaries, to support other GCDAMP-funded projects, 

and to reoccupy former USGS stream-flow gaging stations. In addition, high-resolution stage, 

discharge, water temperature, suspended-sediment concentration, and suspended-sediment grainsize distribution are measured in all of the major tributaries to the Colorado River and in a 

representative subset of the smaller, and formerly ungaged, tributaries. Some of the gaging 

stations on the Colorado River and its tributaries receive substantial amounts of funding from 

non-GCDAMP sources, thus their locations are partially dictated by non-GCDAMP goals. All 

measurements of stage, discharge, water quality, and physical measurements of suspended- and 

bed sediment are made using standard, approved USGS techniques. The laser diffraction and 

acoustic measurements of suspended sediment are made using techniques described in Melis and 

others (2003), Topping and others (2004, 2006b, 2007b), and Wright and others (2010c). To 

augment the limited number of physical measurements of the bed-sediment grain-size 

distribution, the methods of Rubin and Topping (2001, 2008) are used to back-calculate changes 

in reach-averaged bed-sediment grain size from the suspended-sediment data. 

In addition to the collection of these basic stream-flow, water-quality, and sedimenttransport data, time is spent in this project interpreting the data and reporting on the results and 

interpretations in peer-reviewed articles in the areas of hydrology, water quality, and sediment 

transport. These papers are designed to answer key questions relevant to river management, 

especially to GCDAMP managers in the. The data collected in this project form the basis of the 

collaborations listed in the next section. All of the projects funded in the areas of physical 

science, biology, and socioeconomics require the data collected by this project. 

 One of the major products of this project has been the mass-balance sand budgets (e.g., 

Topping and others, 2010) used to trigger controlled floods and to evaluate the effects of all dam 

operations on the CRe. To make all of the data collected by this project—and especially these 

sediment budgets—more available to both GCDAMP stakeholders and the general public, a 

major emphasis is being placed on the development of user-interactive web tools for 

downloading and visualizing these data through collaboration with the USGS Center for 

Integrated Data Analytics (CIDA). CIDA is the leader within the USGS in database and web 

programming. Collaboration with the CIDA will therefore result in a major leap forward in 

serving data in a user friendly and interactive way, something that has proven problematic for 
55

GCMRC to do on its own in previous funding cycles. The tools developed in collaboration with 

CIDA will allow anyone to plot the data, construct mass-balance sediment budgets, and plot 

changes in reach-averaged bed-sediment grain size for any time period in any reach of the CRe 

on demand. In addition, these tools will allow different user-chosen methods for error 

propagation through these sediment budgets. Because sandbar response during artificial floods 

depends on both the amount and grain-size distribution of the sand stored in each reach (Topping 

and others, 2010), these tools will be essential in the planning of controlled floods under the HFE 

EA (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2011) and in the upcoming Long-Term Environmental 

Management Plant (LTEMP) EIS that is now being produced. Much of the proposed increase in 

the budget for this project above previous funding levels is for this effort to make the data 

collected by this project more available, more usable, and therefore more relevant, to the 

decision makers in the GCDAMP. 

It is also proposed to continue the development and application of a one-dimensional 

sand routing model (Wright and others, 2010a). One task for this modeling component will be to 

extend the existing model, whose downstream boundary is river mile 87, through the central and 

western part of Grand Canyon to river mile 225. Downstream extension of the model is 

dependent on discharge and sand concentration/flux data for the central and western parts of the 

canyon and major tributaries, because it is a simplified yet physically-based model that requires 

calibration with field data. Sufficient data from this monitoring program (for example, river mile 

166 station, Kanab and Havasu Creek gaging stations) is now available to make this model 

extension possible. Another task of the modeling component will be to make more comparisons 

between the model and the measurements, particularly with respect to suspended-sand 

concentration and grain size. Previous comparisons have focused primarily on the total sand flux 

at a gaging station, because this is of importance for sand mass balance accounting. However, 

further comparisons between the model and measurements are necessary to better understand 

where the model performs well and where the modeling assumptions cause deviation between 

predictions and measurements. The final project element will be to continue to update the model 

predictions through the present as new boundary condition data become available from the 

monitoring program. 

4.2. Personnel and Collaborations 

The major collaborations funded through this project are with four cooperators in the 

U.S. Geological Survey: the Arizona Water Science Center, the Utah Water Science Center, the 

California Water Science Center, and the Center for Integrated Data Analytics. Together, these 

four cooperators will receive about 39% of the total project funding given to this project (as 

described below). Collaborations also exist between this project and other physical-sciences and 

biology projects at the GCMRC, mostly in a supporting role, and with researchers in academia. 

In previous years, academic collaborations have existed between this project and researchers at 

the University of Colorado, College of William and Mary, Arizona State University, Utah State 

University, and Northern Arizona University. Additional collaborations within the USGS during 

2013-14 are planned with research scientists in Western Coastal and Marine Geology and the 

National Research Program. 

The staff of this project at the GCMRC consists of four full-time, permanent USGS 

employees, one full-time, term USGS employee, and one student laboratory technician. The 

leader of the project is David J. Topping, a Research Hydrologist at the USGS, whose research 

expertise is in the areas of sediment transport and sedimentology. Support staff on this project 
56

are: Nicholas Voichick (emphasis on non-sediment water quality), Thomas Sabol (emphasis on 

Colorado River stage, discharge, and suspended sediment), Ronald Griffiths (emphasis on CRe 

tributary sediment supply, modeling, and monitoring network maintenance), Karen Vanaman 

(laboratory manager and emphasis on CRe tributary stage and discharge), and Jason Fobair 

(student laboratory technician). Topping, Voichick, Sabol, and Griffiths regularly interface with 

cooperating USGS employees funded by this project in the Arizona, Utah, and California Water 

Science Centers and in the CIDA. Topping, Sabol, and Griffiths receive parts of their salaries 

from non-GCDAMP funds. Additional employees at the GCMRC that are partially funded by 

this project are Glenn Bennett (Oracle database support and collaborator with CIDA) and 

Timothy Andrews (electronics support). Karen Vanaman oversees work in the GCMRC 

sediment laboratory, where all sediment samples collected by all GCDAMP-funded projects are 

processed. The GCMRC sediment laboratory participates in the USGS Branch of Quality 

Systems Sediment Laboratory QA/QC Project, where it repeatedly performs as one of the best 

(most accurate) sediment laboratories in the country. This project conducts two river trips per 

year to perform maintenance on the monitoring network in the CRe and to collect suspendedsediment samples used to calibrate and/or verify the 15-minute resolution acoustic suspendedsediment data. 

4.3 Deliverables 

Products from this project are as follows: 

1. 2-3 peer-reviewed journal articles or interpretative USGS reports per year during FY 13-

14; 

2. Annual data reports for the 9 USGS stream-flow gaging stations funded by this project 

and operated by the Arizona and Utah Water Science Centers; 

3. Real-time posting (updated every 1-4 hours) to the world-wide-web of the stage, 

discharge, and water-quality parameters measured at the 9 USGS stream-flow gaging 

stations operated by the Arizona and Utah Water Science Centers ; 

4. Real-time to monthly posting to the world-wide web of the stage, discharge, waterquality parameters (temperature, specific conductance, turbidity, dissolved oxygen), 

suspended-sediment concentration, and suspended-sediment grain size distribution at the 

monitoring stations operated by the GCMRC, through cooperation with the Center for 

Integrated Data Analytics; and, 

5. Monthly to bi-monthly updates of the mass-balance sediment budgets posted to the 

world-wide web for 5 reaches of the Colorado River in Marble and Grand Canyons, 

through cooperation with the Center for Integrated Data Analytics. 

5. Productivity from Past Work 

During FY 11-12, the following products were either delivered to the GCDAMP prior to April 1, 

2012, or are still on track to be delivered to the GCDAMP by September 30, 2012. 

5.1. Data Products 

1. 15-minute stage, discharge, and water temperature data (updated every 1-4 hours in 

realtime) and other QW data from the 9 gaging stations maintained by the USGS Arizona 

and Utah Water Science Centers under this project are available at 

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis and http://www.gcmrc.gov. 
57

2. 15-minute stage, discharge, water temperature, specific-conductance, turbidity, dissolvedoxygen, and suspended-sediment-concentration and grain-size data from the stations 

maintained by GCMRC under this project are available at http://www.gcmrc.gov. These 

data are updated as frequently as every month, depending on data-collection location. 

3. Annual water-data reports for stage, discharge, and water quality data collected during 

2010 and 2011 were published by the Arizona and Utah Water Science Centers. These 

reports are at: 

http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/wy2010/pdfs/09380000.2010.pdf 

http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/wy2010/pdfs/09381800.2010.pdf 

http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/wy2010/pdfs/09382000.2010.pdf 

http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/wy2010/pdfs/09402000.2010.pdf 

http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/wy2010/pdfs/09402300.2010.pdf 

http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/wy2010/pdfs/09402500.2010.pdf 

http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/wy2010/pdfs/09404200.2010.pdf 

http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/wy2011/pdfs/09380000.2011.pdf 

http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/wy2011/pdfs/09381800.2011.pdf 

http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/wy2011/pdfs/09382000.2011.pdf 

http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/wy2011/pdfs/09402000.2011.pdf 

http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/wy2011/pdfs/09402300.2011.pdf 

http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/wy2011/pdfs/09402500.2011.pdf 

http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/wy2011/pdfs/09403850.2011.pdf 

http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/wy2011/pdfs/09404115.2011.pdf 

http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/wy2011/pdfs/09404200.2011.pdf

Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., Wright, S.A., and Melis, T.S., 2011, Field evaluation of the error 

arising from inadequate time averaging in the standard use of depth-integrating suspendedsediment samplers: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1774, 95 p. 

[http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/1774/] 

5.2. Publications in progress 

Griffiths, R.E., Topping, D.J., Andrews, T., Bennett, G.E., Sabol T.A., and Melis, T.S., in press, 

Design and maintenance of a network for collecting high-resolution suspended-sediment data 

at remote locations on rivers, with examples from the Colorado River: U.S. Geological 

Survey Techniques and Methods 2–A__, __p. 

Sabol, T.A., and Topping, D.J., in press, Evaluation of intake efficiencies and associated 

sediment-concentration errors in US D-77 bag-type and US D-96-type depth-integrating 

suspended-sediment samplers: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2012-

__, __p. 

The following USGS Professional Paper by Topping, Wright, Rubin, and others entitled 

"Evaluation of using multi-frequency acoustics, laser diffraction, and automatic samplers to 

measure the concentration and grain-size distribution of suspended sediment at high temporal 

resolution over multi-year durations" is on track to be in USGS peer review before 

September 30, 2012. 
58

5.3. Presentations at professional meetings 

Grams, P.E., Topping, D.J., Schmidt, J.C., Kaplinksi, M.A., and Hazel, J.E., 2011, Linking 

Morphodynamic Response with Sediment Mass Balance: Issues of Scale, Geomorphic 

Setting, and Sampling Design: Abstract EP31F-04 presented at 2011 Fall Meeting, AGU, 

San Francisco, Calif., 5-9 Dec. 

Sabol, T.A., Topping, D.J., and Griffiths, R.E., 2011, Evaluation of intake efficiencies and 

associated sediment-concentration errors in US D-77 bag-type and US D-96-type depthintegrating suspended-sediment samplers: Abstract EP43B-0689 presented at 2011 Fall 

Meeting, AGU, San Francisco, Calif., 5-9 Dec. 

Substantial progress was also made on completing the delivery of the historical periods of record 

for unit-value stage and discharge for USGS gaging stations with QW and sediment data 

relevant to the CRe. All historical data from these stations should be available online by 

2013. As of April 2012, the following historical periods of record have been processed and 

are available at http://www.gcmrc.gov. 

 

09380000 Colorado River at Lees Ferry, AZ 1921-1986...Entire period of station record 

processed and online. 

09381500 Paria River near Cannonville, UT 1951-1956...Entire period of station record 

processed and online. 

09401000 Little Colorado River at Grand Falls 1926-1960, 1994-1995...Entire period of 

station record processed and online. 

09401250 Moenkopi Wash near Moenkopi, AZ 1974-1976...Entire period of station record 

processed and online. 

09401260 Moenkopi Wash at Moenkopi, AZ 1976-1988...Entire period of station record 

processed and online. 

09401400 Moenkopi Wash near Tuba City, AZ 1949-1954, 1965-1977...Other years 

remaining to be processed. 

09401500 Moenkopi Wash near Cameron, AZ 1954-1965...Entire period of station record 

processed and online. 

09402000 Little Colorado River near Cameron, AZ 1947-1990...Entire period of station 

record processed and online. 

09402500 Colorado River near Grand Canyon, AZ 1923-1986...Entire period of station 

record processed and online. 

09403000 Bright Angel Creek near Grand Canyon, AZ 1933-1936, 1943-1974, 1991-

1993...Other years remaining to be processed. 

09403780 Kanab Creek near Fredonia, AZ 1964-1970, 1974-1977...Other years remaining to 

be processed. 

Sediment and QW updates for the CRe were provided to the GCDAMP Adaptive Management 

Work Group at 6-month intervals. 

The annual report for FY 2011 was delivered to the GCDAMP on time (January 2012) and the 

annual report for FY 2012 will be delivered to the GCDAMP on time (January 2013). 

 Although progress was made on developing user-interactive web tools to make the collected by 

this project (including the mass-balance sediment budgets) more useful for stakeholders, 

managers, and the general public, it was determined that GCMRC and SBSC lacked the 
59

expertise to finish this work. Therefore collaboration with CIDA was initiated so that this 

work can be completed within FY 13-14. 

5.4. Productivity prior to 2011 

 Akahori, R., Schmeeckle, M.W., Topping, D.J., and Melis, T.S., 2008, Erosion properties of 

cohesive sediments in the Colorado River in Grand Canyon: River Research and 

Applications, v. 24, p. 1160-1174, doi: 10.1002/rra.1122. 

Barnhardt, W., Kayen, R., Rubin, D., and Minasian, D., 2001, The internal structure of sand bars 

on the Colorado River, Grand Canyon, as determined by ground-penetrating radar: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 01–425. 

Draut, A.E., Rubin, D.M., Dierker, J.L., Fairley, H.C., Griffiths, R.E., Hazel, J.E., Jr., Hunter, 

R.E., Kohl, K., Leap, L.M., Nials, F.L., Topping, D.J., and Yeatts, M., 2005, 

Sedimentology and stratigraphy of the Palisades, Lower Comanche, and Arroyo Grande 

areas of the Colorado River corridor, Grand Canyon, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey 

Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5072, 68 p. 

Draut, A. E., Rubin, D. M., Dierker, J. L., Fairley, H. C., Griffiths, R. E., Hazel, J. E. Jr., Hunter, 

R. E., Kohl, K., Leap, L. M., Nials, F. L., Topping, D. J., and Yeatts, M., 2008, Application 

of sedimentary-structure interpretation to geoarchaeology in the Colorado River corridor, 

Grand Canyon, Arizona, USA: Geomorphology, v. 101, n. 3, p. 497-509, doi: 

10.1016/j.geomorph.2007.04.032. 

Draut, A.E., Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., Wright, S.A., and Schmidt, J.C., 2010, Grain-size 

evolution in suspended sediment and deposits from the 2004 and 2008 controlled-flood 

experiments in Marble and Grand Canyons, Arizona: Proceedings of the Joint Federal 

Interagency Conference on Sedimentation and Hydrologic Modeling, June 27- July 1, 

2010, Riviera Hotel, Las Vegas, Nevada, 

http://acwi.gov/sos/pubs/2ndJFIC/Contents/P_DRAUT_GRANDCYN_FINAL.pdf. 

Flynn, M.E., and Hornewer, N.J., 2003, Variations in sand storage measured at monumented 

cross sections in the Colorado River between Glen Canyon Dam and Lava Falls Rapid, 

Northern Arizona, 1992–1999: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 03–4104, 39 p. 

Grams, P.E., Schmidt, J.C., and Topping, D.J., 2007, The rate and pattern of bed incision and 

bank adjustment on the Colorado River in Glen Canyon downstream from Glen Canyon 

Dam: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 119, p. 556-575, doi: 10.1130/B25969.1, 

with additional supporting material in the Geological Society of America Data Repository. 

Grams, P.E., Hazel, J.E., Schmidt, J.C., Kaplinski, M., Wright, S.A., Topping, D.J., and Melis, 

T.S., 2010, Geomorphic response of sandbars to the March 2008 high-flow experiment on 

the Colorado River downstream from Glen Canyon Dam: Proceedings of the Joint Federal 

Interagency Conference on Sedimentation and Hydrologic Modeling, June 27- July 1, 

2010, Riviera Hotel, Las Vegas, Nevada, 

http://acwi.gov/sos/pubs/2ndJFIC/Contents/5D_Grams.pdf. 

Gray, J.R., Gooding, Melis, T.S., Topping, D.J., and Rasmussen, P.P., 2003, U.S. Geological 

Survey suspended-sediment surrogate research, Part II: Optic technologies: Proceedings of 

the Virginia Water Research Symposium 2003, Water Resource Management for the 

Commonwealth, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, October 

8-10, 2003, pp. 58-64. 

Gray, J.R., Melis, T.S, Patiño, Eduardo, Larsen, M.C., Topping, D.J., Rasmussen, P.P., and 

Figueroa-Alama, Carlos, 2003, U.S. Geological Survey research on surrogate 

measurements for suspended sediment, in Renard, K.G., McElroy, S.A., Gburek, W.J., 

Canfield, H.E., and Scott, R.L., eds., Proceedings of the 1st Interagency Conference on 

Research in Watersheds: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, 

October 27-30, 2003, Benson, Arizona, pp. 95-100. 
60

Gray, J.R., Patiño, Eduardo, Rasmussen, P.P., Larsen. M.C., Melis, T.S., Topping, D.J., and 

Alamo, C.F., 2003, Evaluation of sediment surrogate technologies for computation of 

suspended-sediment transport: Proceedings of the 1st International Yellow River Forum on 

River Basin Management, October 21-24, 2003: Zhengzhou, Henan Province, China, the 

Yellow River Conservancy Publishing House, Vol. III, pp. 314-323. 

Gray, J.R., Melis, T.S, Patiño, Eduardo, Gooding, D.J., Topping, D.J., Larsen, M.C., and 

Rasmussen, P.P., 2005, Proceedings of the Federal Interagency Sediment Monitoring 

Instrument and Analysis Workshop, September 9-11, 2003, Flagstaff, Arizona, J.R. Gray, 

ed.: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1276, 10 p. 

Griffiths, R.E., Topping, D.J., McDonald, R.R., and Sabol, T.A., 2010, The use of the multidimensional surface-water modeling system (MD_SWMS) in calculating discharge and 

sediment transport in remote ephemeral streams: Proceedings of the Joint Federal 

Interagency Conference on Sedimentation and Hydrologic Modeling, June 27- July 1, 

2010, Riviera Hotel, Las Vegas, Nevada, 

http://acwi.gov/sos/pubs/2ndJFIC/Contents/P40_Griffiths_paper.pdf. 

Hazel, J.E., Jr., Kaplinski, M., Parnell, R., Kohl, K., and Topping, D.J., 2007, Stage-discharge 

relations for the Colorado River in Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons, Arizona, 1990-2005: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2006-1243, 19 p. 

Hazel, J., Jr., Topping, D.J., Schmidt, J.C., and Kaplinski, M., 2006, Influence of a dam on finesediment storage in a canyon river: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 111, F01025, 16 p. 

Hornewer, N.J., and Wiele, S.M., 2007, Flow velocity and sediment data collected during 1990 

and 1991 at National Canyon, Colorado River, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Data 

Series 246, 11 p. 

Melis, T.S., Topping, D.J., Grams, P.E., Rubin, D.M., Wright., S.A., Draut, A.E., Hazel, J.E., Jr., 

Ralston, B.E., Kennedy, T.A., Rosi-Marshall, E., Korman. J., Hilwig, K.D., and Schmit, 

L.M., 2010, 2008 High-Flow Experiment at Glen Canyon Dam Benefits Colorado River 

Resources in Grand Canyon National Park: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2010-3009, 

4 p. 

Melis, T.S., Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., Wright, S.A., 2007, Research furthers conservation of 

Grand Canyon sandbars: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2007-3020, 4 p. 

Melis, T.S., Topping, D.J., and Rubin D.M., 2003, Testing laser-based sensors for continuous in 

situ monitoring of suspended sediment in the Colorado River, Arizona, in Bogen, J., 

Fergus, T., and Walling, D.E., eds., Erosion and Sediment Transport Measurement in 

Rivers: Technological and Methodological Advances: Wallingford, Oxfordshire, United 

Kingdom, IAHS Press, IAHS Publication 283, p. 21-27. 

Melis, T.S., Topping, D.J., and Rubin, D.M., 2002, Testing laser-based sensors for continuous, 

in-situ monitoring of suspended sediment in the Colorado River, Grand Canyon, Arizona, 

in Appendix 2 of Gray, J.R., and Glysson, G.D., eds., Proceedings of the federal 

interagency workshop on turbidity and other sediment surrogates, April 30-May 2, 2002, 

Reno, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1250 

[http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2003/circ1250/pdf/circ1250.book_web.pdf and 

http://water.usgs.gov/osw/techniques/TSS/listofabstracts.pdf]. 

Rubin, D.M., Topping, D.J., Chezar, H., Hazel, J.E., Schmidt, J.C., Breedlove, M., Melis, T.S., 

and Grams, P.E., 2010, 20,000 grain-size observations from the bed of the Colorado River, 

and implications for sediment transport through Grand Canyon: Proceedings of the Joint 

Federal Interagency Conference on Sedimentation and Hydrologic Modeling, June 27- July 

1, 2010, Riviera Hotel, Las Vegas, Nevada, 

http://acwi.gov/sos/pubs/2ndJFIC/Contents/3C_Rubin_03_08_10.pdf. 
61

Rubin, D.M., and Topping, D.J., 2008, Correction to “Quantifying the relative importance of 

flow regulation and grain-size regulation of suspended-sediment transport α, and tracking 

changes in bed-sediment grain size β”: Water Resources Research, v. 44, W09701, 5 p., 

doi: 10.1029/2008WR006819. 

Rubin, D.M., Chezar, H., Topping, D.J., Melis, D.J., and Harney, J., 2007, Two new approaches 

for measuring spatial and temporal changes in bed-sediment grain size: Sedimentary 

Geology, 7 p., doi: 10.1016/j.sedgeo.2007.03.020. 

Rubin, D.M., Chezar, H., Harney, J.N., Topping, D.J., Melis, T.S., and Sherwood, C.R., 2006, 

Underwater microscope for measuring spatial and temporal changes in bed-sediment grain 

size: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2006-1360, 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1360/ 

Rubin, D.M., Chezar, H., Topping, D.J., Melis, D.J., and Harney, J., 2005, Two new approaches 

for measuring spatial and temporal changes in bed-sediment grain size, in Flemming, B.W., 

Hartmann, D., and Delafontaine, M.T., eds., From Particle Size to Sediment Dynamics 

International Workshop, Hanse Institute for Advanced Study, Delmenhorst (Germany), 

April 15-18, 2004: Research Centre Terramare Reports, No. 13, p. 135-138. 

Rubin, D.M., 2004, A simple autocorrelation algorithm for determining grain size from digital 

images of sediment: Journal of Sedimentary Research, v, 74, n. 1, p. 160-165. 

Rubin, D.M., Topping, D.J., Schmidt, J.C., Hazel, J., Kaplinski, K., and Melis, T.S., 2002, 

Recent sediment studies refute Glen Canyon Dam hypothesis: EOS, Transactions, 

American Geophysical Union, v. 83, n. 25, p. 273, 277-278. 

Rubin, D.M., and Topping, D.J., 2001, Quantifying the relative importance of flow regulation 

and grain-size regulation of suspended-sediment transport (), and tracking changes in 

bed-sediment grain size (): Water Resources Research, v. 37, p. 133-146. 

Rubin, D.M., and Topping, D.J., 2001, What regulates suspended-sediment transport in a given 

setting? Grain size of bed sediment or flow: Proceedings of the 7th Inter-Agency 

Sedimentation Conference, v. 1, p. I-199 through I-205. 

Rubin, D.M., Tate, G.M., Topping, D.J., and Anima, R.A., 2001, Use of rotating side-scan sonar 

to measure bedload: Proceedings of the 7th Inter-Agency Sedimentation Conference, v. 1, p. 

III-139 through III-143. 

Sabol, T.A., Topping, D.J., and Griffiths, R.E., 2010, Field evaluation of sediment-concentration 

errors arising from non-isokinetic intake efficiency in depth-integrating suspendedsediment bag samplers: Proceedings of the Joint Federal Interagency Conference on 

Sedimentation and Hydrologic Modeling, June 27- July 1, 2010, Riviera Hotel, Las Vegas, 

Nevada., http://acwi.gov/sos/pubs/2ndJFIC/Contents/P23_SABOL_02_23_10.pdf. 

Schmidt, J.C., Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., Hazel, J.E., Jr., Kaplinski, M., Wiele, S.M., and 

Goeking, S.A., 2007, Streamflow and sediment data collected to determine the effects of 

Low Summer Steady Flows and Habitat Maintenance Flows in 2000 on the Colorado River 

between Lees Ferry and Bright Angel Creek, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 2007-1268, 79 p. 

Schmidt, J.C., Topping, D.J., Grams, P.E., and Hazel, J.E., Jr., 2004, System-wide changes in the 

distribution of fine sediment in the Colorado River corridor between Glen Canyon Dam 

and Bright Angel Creek, Arizona: Final report to the USGS Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center, Flagstaff, Arizona, 107 p. 

Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., Wright, S.A., and Melis, T.S., 2011, Field evaluation of the error 

arising from inadequate time averaging in the standard use of depth-integrating suspendedsediment samplers: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1774, 95 p., 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/1774/. 

Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., Grams, P.E., Griffiths, R.E., Sabol, T.A., Voichick, N., Tusso, R.B., 

Vanaman, K.M., and McDonald, R.R., 2010, Sediment transport during three controlledflood experiments on the Colorado River downstream from Glen Canyon Dam, with 
62

implications for eddy-sandbar deposition in Grand Canyon National Park: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 2010-1128, 111 p. 

Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., and Schmidt, J.C., 2008, Update on regulation of sand transport in 

the Colorado River by changes in the surface grain size of eddy sandbars over multiyear 

timescales: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2008–5042, 24 p. 

Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., and Melis, T.S., 2007a, Coupled changes in sand grain size and sand 

transport driven by changes in the upstream supply of sand in the Colorado River: Relative 

importance of changes in bed-sand grain size and bed-sand area: Sedimentary Geology, 24 

p., doi: 10.1016/j.sedgeo.2007.03.016. 

Topping, D.J., Wright, S.A., Melis, T.S., and Rubin, D.M., 2007b, High-resolution 

measurements of suspended-sediment concentration and grain size in the Colorado River in 

Grand Canyon using a multi-frequency acoustic system: Proceedings of the Tenth 

International Symposium on River Sedimentation, August 1-4, 2007, Moscow, Russia, v. 3, 

p. 330-339. 

Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., Schmidt, J.C., Hazel, J.E., Jr., Melis, T.S., Wright, S.A., Kaplinski, 

M., Draut, A.E., and Breedlove, M.J., 2006a, Comparison of sediment-transport and barresponse results from the 1996 and 2004 controlled-flood experiments on the Colorado 

River in Grand Canyon: CD-ROM Proceedings of the 8th Federal Inter-Agency 

Sedimentation Conference, Reno, Nevada, April 2-6, 2006, ISBN 0-9779007-1-1. 

Topping, D.J., Wright, S.A., Melis, T.S., and Rubin, D.M., 2006b, High-resolution monitoring of 

suspended-sediment concentration and grain size in the Colorado River using laserdiffraction instruments and a three-frequency acoustic system: CD-ROM Proceedings of 

the 8th Federal Inter-Agency Sedimentation Conference, Reno, Nevada, April 2-6, 2006, 

ISBN 0-9779007-1-1. 

Topping, D., Rubin, D., and Melis, T., 2005, Coupled changes in sand grain size and sand 

transport driven by changes in the upstream supply of sand in the Colorado River, in

Flemming, B.W., Hartmann, D., and Delafontaine, M.T., eds., From Particle Size to 

Sediment Dynamics International Workshop, Hanse Institute for Advanced Study, 

Delmenhorst (Germany), April 15-18, 2004: Research Centre Terramare Reports, No. 13, 

p. 153-158. 

Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., and Schmidt, J.C., 2005, Regulation of sand transport in the 

Colorado River by changes in the surface grain size of eddy sandbars over multi-year 

timescales: Sedimentology, v.52, p. 1133-1153. 

Topping, D.J., Melis, T.S., Rubin, D.M., and Wright, S.A., 2004, High-resolution monitoring of 

suspended-sediment concentration and grain size in the Colorado River in Grand Canyon 

using a laser-acoustic system, in Hu, C., and Tan, Y, eds., Proceedings of the Ninth 

International Symposium on River Sedimentation, October 18-21, 2004, Yichang, China: 

People’s Republic of China, Tsinghua University Press, p. 2507-2514. 

Topping, D.J., J.C. Schmidt, and L.E. Vierra, Jr., 2003, Computation and Analysis of the 

Instantaneous-Discharge Record for the Colorado River at Lees Ferry, Arizona—May 8, 

1921, through September 30, 2000: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1677, 118 

p. 

Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., and Vierra, Jr., L.E., 2000a, Colorado River sediment transport 1. 

Natural sediment supply limitation and the influence of Glen Canyon Dam: Water 

Resources Research, v. 36, p.515-542. 

Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., Nelson, J.M., Kinzel, III, P.J., and Corson, I.C., 2000b, Colorado 

River sediment transport 2. Systematic bed-elevation and grain-size effects of sand supply 

limitation: Water Resources Research, v. 36, p. 543-570. 

Tusso, R., Rubin, D.M., Topping, D.J., Chezar, H., and Breedlove B., 2010, Using changes in 

bed-surface grain size as a proxy for changes in bed sand storage, Colorado River, Grand 
63

Canyon, in Melis, T.S., Hamill, J.F., Bennett, G.E., Coggins, L.G., Jr., Grams, P.E., 

Kennedy, T.A., Kubly, D.M., and Ralston, B.E., eds., Proceedings of the Colorado River 

Basin Science and Resource Management Symposium, November 18–20, 2008, Scottsdale, 

Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5135, p. 347-355. 

Voichick, N., and Topping, D.J., 2010, Use of specific conductance in estimating salinity and as 

a natural tracer of water parcels in the Colorado River between Glen Canyon Dam and 

Diamond Creek, northern Arizona, in Melis, T.S., Hamill, J.F., Bennett, G.E., Coggins, 

L.G., Jr., Grams, P.E., Kennedy, T.A., Kubly, D.M., and Ralston, B.E., eds., Proceedings 

of the Colorado River Basin Science and Resource Management Symposium, November 

18–20, 2008, Scottsdale, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report

2010–5135, p. 357-362. 

Voichick, N., and Topping, D.J., 2010, Comparison of turbidity to multi-frequency sideways 

looking acoustic-Doppler data and suspended-sediment data in the Colorado River in 

Grand Canyon: Proceedings of the Joint Federal Interagency Conference on Sedimentation 

and Hydrologic Modeling, June 27- July 1, 2010, Riviera Hotel, Las Vegas, Nevada, 

http://acwi.gov/sos/pubs/2ndJFIC/Contents/P34_Voichick_FISC_Paper.pdf. 

Voichick, N., 2008, Specific conductance in the Colorado River between Glen Canyon Dam and 

Diamond Creek, northern Arizona, 1988–2007: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 364, 

16 p. 

Voichick, N., and Wright, S.A., 2007, Water-temperature data for the Colorado River and 

tributaries between Glen Canyon Dam and Spencer Canyon, northern Arizona, 1988–2005: 

U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 251, 24 p. 

White, M.A., Schmidt, J.C., and Topping, D.J., 2005, Application of wavelet analysis for 

monitoring the hydrologic effects of dam operation: Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado 

River at Lees Ferry, Arizona: River Research and Applications, v.21, p. 551-565. 

Wright, S.A., Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., and Melis, T.S., 2010a, An approach for modeling 

sediment budgets in supply-limited rivers: Water Resources Research, v. 46, W10538, 18 

p., doi:10.1029/2009WR008600. 

Wright, S.A., Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., and Melis, T.S., 2010b, Modeling long-term sediment 

budgets in supply-limited rivers: Proceedings of the Joint Federal Interagency Conference 

on Sedimentation and Hydrologic Modeling, June 27- July 1, 2010, Riviera Hotel, Las 

Vegas, Nevada, 

http://acwi.gov/sos/pubs/2ndJFIC/Contents/3B_Wright_12_29_09_paper.pdf. 

Wright, S.A., Topping, D.J., and Williams, C.A., 2010c, Discriminating silt-and-clay from 

suspended-sand in rivers using sidelooking acoustic profilers: Proceedings of the Joint 

Federal Interagency Conference on Sedimentation and Hydrologic Modeling, June 27- July 

1, 2010, Riviera Hotel, Las Vegas, Nevada, 

http://acwi.gov/sos/pubs/2ndJFIC/Contents/2C_Wright_03_01_10_paper.pdf. 

Wright, S.A., Schmidt, J.C., Melis, T.S., Topping, D.J., and Rubin, D.M., 2008, Is there enough 

sand? Evaluating the fate of Grand Canyon sandbars: GSA Today, v. 18, no. 8, p. 4-10, doi: 

10.1130/GSATG12A.1. 

Wright, S.A., Anderson, C.R., and Voichick, N., 2009, A simplified water temperature model 

doe the Colorado River below Glen Canyon Dam: River Research and Applications: v. 25, 

p. 675-686, doi: 10.1002/rra.1179.

Wright, S.A., Melis, T.S., Topping, D.J., and Rubin, D.M., 2005, Influence of Glen Canyon Dam 

operations on downstream sand resources of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon, in 

Gloss, S.P., Lovich, J.E., and Melis, T.S., eds., The state of the Colorado River ecosystem 

in Grand Canyon: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1282, p. 17-31. 
64

6. References 

Gloss, S.P., and Coggins, L.G., 2005, Fishes of Grand Canyon, in Gloss, S.P., Lovich, J.E., and 

Melis, T.S., eds., The state of the Colorado River ecosystem in Grand Canyon: U.S. 

Geological Survey Circular 1282, p. 33-68. 

Howard, C.S., 1947, Suspended sediment in the Colorado River 1925-41: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Supply Paper 998, 165 p. 

Melis, T.S., Topping, D.J., and Rubin D.M., 2003, Testing laser-based sensors for continuous in 

situ monitoring of suspended sediment in the Colorado River, Arizona, in Bogen, J., 

Fergus, T., and Walling, D.E., eds., Erosion and Sediment Transport Measurement in 

Rivers: Technological and Methodological Advances: Wallingford, Oxfordshire, United 

Kingdom, IAHS Press, IAHS Publication 283, p. 21-27. 

National Research Council, 1996, River Resource Management in the Grand Canyon: 

Washington, D.C., National Academy Press, 226 p. 

Rubin, D.M., and Topping, D.J., 2008, Correction to “Quantifying the relative importance of 

flow regulation and grain-size regulation of suspended-sediment transport α, and tracking 

changes in bed-sediment grain size β”: Water Resources Research, v. 44, W09701, 5 p., 

doi: 10.1029/2008WR006819. 

Rubin, D.M., and Topping, D.J., 2001, Quantifying the relative importance of flow regulation 

and grain-size regulation of suspended-sediment transport (), and tracking changes in 

bed-sediment grain size (): Water Resources Research, v. 37, p. 133-146. 

Rubin, D.M., Topping, D.J., Schmidt, J.C., Hazel, J., Kaplinski, K., and Melis, T.S., 2002, 

Recent sediment studies refute Glen Canyon Dam hypothesis: EOS, Transactions, 

American Geophysical Union, v. 83, n. 25, p. 273, 277-278. 

Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., Grams, P.E., Griffiths, R.E., Sabol, T.A., Voichick, N., Tusso, R.B., 

Vanaman, K.M., and McDonald, R.R., 2010, Sediment transport during three controlledflood experiments on the Colorado River downstream from Glen Canyon Dam, with 

implications for eddy-sandbar deposition in Grand Canyon National Park: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 2010-1128, 111 p. 

Topping, D.J., Wright, S.A., Melis, T.S., and Rubin, D.M., 2007b, High-resolution 

measurements of suspended-sediment concentration and grain size in the Colorado River in 

Grand Canyon using a multi-frequency acoustic system: Proceedings of the Tenth 

International Symposium on River Sedimentation, August 1-4, 2007, Moscow, Russia, v. 3, 

p. 330-339. 

Topping, D.J., Wright, S.A., Melis, T.S., and Rubin, D.M., 2006b, High-resolution monitoring of 

suspended-sediment concentration and grain size in the Colorado River using laserdiffraction instruments and a three-frequency acoustic system: CD-ROM Proceedings of 

the 8th Federal Inter-Agency Sedimentation Conference, Reno, Nevada, April 2-6, 2006, 

ISBN 0-9779007-1-1. 

Topping, D.J., Melis, T.S., Rubin, D.M., and Wright, S.A., 2004, High-resolution monitoring of 

suspended-sediment concentration and grain size in the Colorado River in Grand Canyon 

using a laser-acoustic system, in Hu, C., and Tan, Y, eds., Proceedings of the Ninth 

International Symposium on River Sedimentation, October 18-21, 2004, Yichang, China: 

People’s Republic of China, Tsinghua University Press, p. 2507-2514. 

Topping, D.J., J.C. Schmidt, and L.E. Vierra, Jr., 2003, Computation and Analysis of the 

Instantaneous-Discharge Record for the Colorado River at Lees Ferry, Arizona—May 8, 

1921, through September 30, 2000: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1677, 118 

p. 
65

Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., and Vierra, Jr., L.E., 2000a, Colorado River sediment transport 1. 

Natural sediment supply limitation and the influence of Glen Canyon Dam: Water 

Resources Research, v. 36, p.515-542. 

Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., Nelson, J.M., Kinzel, III, P.J., and Corson, I.C., 2000b, Colorado 

River sediment transport 2. Systematic bed-elevation and grain-size effects of sand supply 

limitation: Water Resources Research, v. 36, p. 543-570. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, 1995, Operation of Glen Canyon Dam Final Environmental 

Impact Statement, Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region, Salt Lake City, 337 p. 

plus appendices. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, 2011, Environmental Assessment: Development and 

Implementation of a Protocol for High-Flow Experimental Releases from Glen Canyon 

Dam, Arizona, 2011 through 2020, Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region, Salt 

Lake City, 496 p. 

Wright, S.A., Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., and Melis, T.S., 2010a, An approach for modeling 

sediment budgets in supply-limited rivers: Water Resources Research, v. 46, W10538, 18 

p., doi:10.1029/2009WR008600. 

Wright, S.A., Topping, D.J., and Williams, C.A., 2010c, Discriminating silt-and-clay from 

suspended-sand in rivers using sidelooking acoustic profilers: Proceedings of the Joint 

Federal Interagency Conference on Sedimentation and Hydrologic Modeling, June 27- July 

1, 2010, Riviera Hotel, Las Vegas, Nevada, 

http://acwi.gov/sos/pubs/2ndJFIC/Contents/2C_Wright_03_01_10_paper.pdf. 

Wright, S.A., Melis, T.S., Topping, D.J., and Rubin, D.M., 2005, Influence of Glen Canyon Dam 

operations on downstream sand resources of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon, in 

Gloss, S.P., Lovich, J.E., and Melis, T.S., eds., The state of the Colorado River ecosystem 

in Grand Canyon: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1282, p. 17-31. 
66

7. Budget 								

      

Project B: Streamflow,

Water Quality, and

Sediment Transport in the

Colorado River Ecosystem

Salaries $524,000

Traveling and Training $0

Operating Expenses $50,000

Logistics $60,000

GIS/RS/Electronics support

(includes burden) $55,000

Cooperators (non‐USGS) $0

USGS cooperators $502,000

USGS Burden $96,000

Total $1,287,000

FY 2013 Project B. Gross Total:

$1,287,000

FY 2014 Project B. Gross Total:

$1,336,000
67

Project C. 

Water-Quality Monitoring of Lake Powell and Glen 

Canyon Dam Releases 

1. Investigator 

William S. Vernieu, Hydrologist, USGS, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center 

2. Project Summary 

The data collected by this project describe the current quality of Glen Canyon Dam 

releases to the downstream ecosystem, as well as describe the current water-quality conditions 

and hydrologic processes in Lake Powell, which can be used to predict the quality of future 

releases from the dam. The current long-term monitoring program will continue at the current 

level, with possible minor revisions to the number of sites monitored or parameters collected. In 

an effort to improve the predictive capabilities of the CE-QUAL-W2 simulation model, it is 

proposed that one or more inflow monitoring stations be reestablished to provide input data on 

inflow temperature and salinity. It is also proposed to establish one or more weather stations at 

remote pumpout stations in the upper part of the reservoir to improve inputs to the model. In 

addition to the ongoing monitoring program, efforts are currently being made to analyze sonar 

chart paper data to develop longitudinal profiles of the sediment deltas of the three major 

tributaries to evaluate rates and patterns of deposition under varying hydrologic regimes and 

reservoir levels. These profiles have been collected in conjunction with most quarterly reservoir 

surveys since 2001. This project conducts water-quality monitoring on Lake Powell and the Glen 

Canyon Dam tailwaters. The water-quality monitoring program consists of monthly surveys of 

the reservoir forebay and tailwater, as well as quarterly surveys of the entire reservoir, including 

the Colorado, San Juan, and Escalante arms. It also includes continuous monitoring of dam 

releases. The entire funding for this project is provided directly by the Bureau of Reclamation 

(Reclamation). No Adaptive Management Program funds are used for this project.

3. Background 

The Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC) will be continuing its 

long-term water-quality monitoring program of Lake Powell reservoir. This program has been in 

existence since 1965. USGS has conducted the monitoring program since 1996. The monitoring 

program measures water-quality conditions in the forebay of the reservoir on a monthly basis and 

throughout the reservoir on a quarterly basis. Water temperature, specific conductance, dissolved 

oxygen, pH, redox potential, and turbidity are measured throughout the water column at 30 sites 

(fig. 1), with samples for major ionic constituents, nutrients, dissolved organic carbon, 

chlorophyll, phytoplankton, and zooplankton being collected at selected sites. Physical and 

chemical information from this program was published as USGS Data Series Report DS-471 

(Vernieu, 2009). An updated revision to this report is currently in review. Biological data are 

contained in a separate data series report, also in review. All information from this program is 

stored in the WQDB database. 
68

Data from this monitoring program describe current status and trends of water quality in 

the reservoir, the movement and fate of advective currents flowing through the reservoir, and the 

quality of releases from Glen Canyon Dam (GCD) to the Colorado River ecosystem (CRe) in 

Grand Canyon as they relate to various patterns of dam operation, hydrology, and climatologic 

patterns. 

Figure 1. Lake Powell water-quality monitoring locations.

Reclamation initiated a water-quality monitoring program in 1965, consisting of 

sampling at 8 sites on Lake Powell for major ionic chemical constituents. This program was 

augmented in 1990 and conducted by Reclamation's Glen Canyon Environmental Studies office 

to include sampling at an increased number of sites with a more precise vertical resolution and 

the addition of nutrient, chlorophyll, and plankton samples. 

An assessment conducted in 1996 by GCMRC determined that various aspects of dam 

operations, such as daily fluctuations, high sustained releases, and operation of alternate 

withdrawal structures have a measureable effect on the quality of reservoir water and dam 

releases (Hueftle and Vernieu, 1998). Various concerns were raised by the Glen Canyon Dam 

Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP) stakeholders as to whether it was appropriate to 

fund studies conducted upstream from GCD even though the program measured the effects of the 

dam on water flowing into the CRe downstream from GCD. Reclamation agreed to fund the 

monitoring program directly from operating and maintenance funds. Therefore, while funding 
69

for the monitoring program was not provided by the GCDAMP, it was agreed that the program 

was an integral part of the GCDAMP, while meeting Reclamation's internal reservoir-monitoring 

needs. 

A protocol evaluation panel was conducted in 2000 to evaluate the scientific basis for the 

monitoring program and provide comments for integration with other aspects of the GCDAMP 

(Jones and others, 2001). The panel recommended a gradual shift in emphasis from Lake Powell 

to downstream, the employment of water-quality/ecosystems models to link GCD operations 

with downstream responses, integration with other GCMRC programs, and the development of a 

long-range water-quality monitoring strategy to evaluate current and future management actions 

at GCD. Subsequent to the panel's report, downstream temperature monitoring has been moved 

to the GCMRC physical sciences program, and aquatic foodbase monitoring work has developed 

and conducts additional downstream monitoring. Additionally, Reclamation has employed and 

maintained the CE-Qual-W2 reservoir model to provide projections of release temperature and 

other parameters. A Seabird oceanographic profiler has been acquired that automates reservoir 

profiling procedures and includes the ability to obtain vertical profiles of chlorophyll 

concentration. 

The program is currently funded as part of a three-year agreement with Reclamation, 

which will be evaluated for renewal in FY 2013. 

3.1. Scientific Background 

The objectives of this monitoring program have changed since 1965, reflecting changes 

in scientific interest as the reservoir filled, responsibilities of Reclamation for maintaining 

salinity levels in the Colorado River, and the monitoring status of Upper Colorado River basin 

reservoirs;. Objectives have also been responsive to more recent environmental concerns related 

to the Grand Canyon Protection Act, the GCD Environmental Impact Statement and subsequent 

Record of Decision, and the establishment of the GCDAMP. 

Objectives of this long-term monitoring program include: 

1. Determination of water-quality status and trends in Lake Powell and GCD releases; 

2. Documentation of the historical record of Lake Powell water quality during various 

climatological and hydrological conditions; 

3. Documentation of the effects of the structure and operation of GCD on the quality of 

water in Lake Powell and GCD releases; 

4. Integration with GCDAMP information needs and downstream monitoring programs; 

5. Documentation of the density structure of the water column in the GCD forebay and 

other locations in the reservoir to determine the quality of water available for release 

from GCD; 

6. Assessment of the distribution and patterns of major ionic constituents; 

7. Assessment of the distribution and patterns of nutrient constituents; and, 

8. Assessment of the structure, status, and trends of the plankton community and its effect 

on primary and secondary production. 

3.2. Monitoring Background 

Since 1965, Lake Powell’s water quality has been monitored in order to gather 

information describing water-quality conditions and to observe changes in water quality as the 

reservoir filled and matured. There have been four distinct phases of monitoring activity (table 
70

1). Phase 1, 1965-71, consisted of monthly forebay surveys and quarterly reservoir-wide surveys 

at 8 locations, the collection of major ion samples at 50-ft depth intervals, shipboard temperature 

measurements, and Winkler titrations for dissolved oxygen concentration in the samples 

collected. In Phase 2, 1972-81, monthly reservoir-wide surveys were conducted and 

electrometric determinations of temperature and dissolved oxygen concentrations were added. In 

Phase 3, 1982-90, a multi-parameter profiling device was employed which measured 

temperature, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen concentrations, pH, and oxidation-reduction 

potential at various depths in the water column. However, the frequency of monitoring was 

decreased through that period from quarterly to yearly reservoir-wide surveys, because of 

decreased needs of the Colorado River Salinity Control Program. At the beginning of Phase 4, 

1990-present, monitoring was conducted by Reclamation's Glen Canyon Environmental Studies 

office. At this time, the current schedule of monthly forebay surveys and quarterly reservoirwide surveys was initiated, sampling for nutrient concentrations was added, and the depth 

interval of sampling was changed to represent major strata within the reservoir, rather than 

sampling at 50-ft depth intervals. Quantitative sampling for chlorophyll, phytoplankton, and 

zooplankton began and continuous monitoring of the GCD tailwater, immediately downstream 

from the dam and at Lees Ferry, was initiated. Monitoring activities were transferred to GCMRC 

(USGS) in 1996. 

 Phase 1 

1965–71 

Phase 2

1972–81 

Phase 3

1982–90 

Phase 4

1990–Present 

Frequency: 

 forebay 

 reservoir 

monthly 

quarterly 

monthly 

monthly 

quarterly to yearly 

quarterly to yearly 

monthly 

quarterly 

Number of stations 8 8 8–10 23–30 

Physicochemical 

parameters 

Temperature 

DO (Winkler 

titration), occasional 

SC & pH 

Temperature 

DO 

(electrometric) 

Multiparameter 

profiling (T, SC, 

DO, pH, ORP) 

Multiparameter 

profiling with 

datalogger (T, SC, 

DO, pH, ORP, 

turbidity). Seabird 

CTD in use since 

2010. 

Chemical Sampling Major Ions Major Ions Major Ions 

(Field processing 

initiated) 

Major Ions 

Nutrients 

Sampling interval 50 ft 50 ft 50 ft Variable, 

representative of 

stratification 

Biological sampling none none Qualitative 

zooplankton 

sampling 

chlorophyll 

phytoplankton 

zooplankton 

Inflow monitoring none none selected sites 

depending on 

reservoir level 

selected sites 

depending on 

reservoir level 

Tailwater monitoring none none below dam 

T, SC 

below dam 

Lees Ferry 

T, SC, DO, pH 
71

In September 2010, a Seabird SBE-19plusV2 oceanographic CTD profiler was purchased 

by Reclamation to replace the previously used Hydrolab H20/Surveyor 3 and profiling 

instrument. This instrument continuously collects data every 0.25 seconds while lowered and 

raised through the water column. It also provides for the collection of depth profiles at a more 

precise vertical resolution in a shorter time period. 

Studies related to Lake Powell were conducted in the 1970s by university consortiums 

and Federal and State agencies on topics that include sedimentation, circulation patterns, traceelement chemistry, remote sensing, and public-health issues (Potter and Drake, 1989). Various 

agencies and institutions have conducted additional research and monitoring on water quality and 

sedimentation during Lake Powell’s recent history (Ferrari, 1988; Wurtsbaugh and others, 1992; 

Hart and Sherman, 1996; Marzolf, 1998; Hart and others, 2005; Majeski, 2009; Pratson and 

others, 2009; Wildman and others, 2011; Wildman and Hering, 2011). 

3.3. Reservoir Conditions 

Based on existing data, the limnology of Lake Powell is dominated by penstock 

withdrawal from the reservoir at an elevation of 3,470 ft and advective inflow currents flowing 

through the reservoir at different depths throughout the year. During the summer months, inflow 

from snowmelt runoff in the upper Colorado River basin consists of warm dilute water of low 

density relative to the receiving waters of the reservoir. This inflow enters the reservoir as an 

overflow density current and flows along the surface of the reservoir, usually appearing near the 

dam in late summer/early fall. During winter months, inflows are colder, more saline, are usually 

denser than the receiving waters of the reservoir, and tend to flow along the bottom of the 

reservoir. Depending on the density of the water in the deepest portions of the reservoir, these 

inflows either (1) continue to flow along the bottom of the reservoir, or (2) encounter deeper 

water of higher density and flow through the reservoir at an intermediate depth. In the former 

case, the winter inflows appear near the dam in the months from April to May and displace the 

deep water upwards to be gradually entrained in dam releases. This refreshes the deeper portions 

of the reservoir with oxygenated water and serves to mix the reservoir from below. In the latter 

case, the inflows do not disturb this deep body of water and tend to contribute more directly into 

dam releases. In this case, the deeper portions of the reservoir stagnate and dissolved oxygen 

concentrations decrease over time. 

In the winter months, convective cooling mixes the epilimnion, or surface layer, of the 

reservoir to increasingly greater depths. As convective mixing progresses, release temperatures 

gradually warm until the depth of mixing reaches that of the penstock withdrawal zone, usually 

between November and December. At this point, dam releases are being drawn from the mixed 

epilimnion, which contains the warmest water in the reservoir at that time, and release 

temperatures reach an annual maximum. As the epilimnion continues to cool, release 

temperatures drop correspondingly to reach an annual minimum temperature in February and 

March. 

Through most of the past decade, the Colorado River basin has experienced drought 

conditions, which resulted in the drawdown of the reservoir to a minimum of 3,555 ft in 2005. 

This resulted in warmer surface layers being drawn down nearer to the penstock withdrawal 

elevation, and release temperatures increased to a maximum of 160C in October 2005, more than 

60C above normal for that period. Release temperatures were above normal from 2003 through 

2010 as the reservoir remained at elevations below 3,640 ft. In 2011, Lake Powell received 15.97 

maf (147% of average) of unregulated inflow, increasing reservoir levels to over 3,660 ft. This 
72

resulted in increased releases from GCD to meet equalization criteria for Lake Mead. 

Equalization resulted in the evacuation of cold water from deep portions of the reservoir. These 

unusual conditions resulted in the warmest release temperatures since 2005, reaching 15.20C on 

November 12, 2011, in spite of higher reservoir elevations. 

Associated with the drought-induced reservoir drawdown, sediment deltas in the inflow 

tributaries became exposed and the continued head cutting of the tributaries through these 

sediments resulted in the re-suspension of large quantities of delta sediment, causing a severe 

oxygen demand to the reservoir inflows. This process resulted in reduced dissolved oxygen 

concentrations to a minimum of 3.3 mg/L in October 2005. 

4. Proposed Work 

4.1. Project Elements ($236,000) 

4.1.1. Project Element C.1. Revisions to Existing Program 

Evaluations will be mad, of current chlorophyll preservations methods, involving 

preservation by desiccation, compared to conventional methods of freezing. In an effort to 

improve the predictive capabilities of the current simulation modeling, one or more inflow 

monitoring stations will be reestablished to provide input data on inflow temperature and 

salinity. One or more weather stations will be established at remote pumpout stations in the 

upper part of the reservoir. In addition to the ongoing monitoring program, efforts are currently 

being made to construct historical longitudinal profiles of the sediment deltas of the three major 

tributaries to evaluate rates and patterns of deposition under varying hydrologic regimes and 

reservoir levels. These profiles have been collected in conjunction with most quarterly reservoir 

surveys since 2001 and currently exist as sonar chart paper records. They will be compared to 

other work done by Ferrari (1988), Majeski (2009), and Pratson (2009) to provide a more precise 

temporal record of sedimentation in Lake Powell. 

4.1.2. Project Element C.2. Details of Current Program 

The ongoing Lake Powell water-quality monitoring program consists of monthly surveys 

of the reservoir forebay and tailwater and quarterly surveys of the entire reservoir, including the 

Colorado, San Juan, and Escalante arms of the reservoir to the inflow areas. The GCD forebay 

station is located approximately 2.4 km upstream from GCD. Two tailwater sites are located 

immediately downstream from the dam and at Lees Ferry, approximately 25km downstream. 

Depending on reservoir elevation, 25-30 established sites, including the forebay and tailwater 

stations, are sampled on a quarterly basis and extend up the three major tributary arms 

(Colorado, San Juan, and Escalante) to the inflow areas. 

At each site, initial surface observations (for example, bottom depth, Secchi depth, 

weather observations) are recorded, after which a depth profile of temperature, specific 

conductance, dissolved oxygen, pH, redox potential, turbidity, and chlorophyll florescence is 

collected, using the Seabird SBE19plusV2 instrument. These data are downloaded immediately 

after collection and viewed in the field to determine stratification patterns. Based on stratification 

patterns, chemical samples for major ionic constituents and nutrient concentrations are collected 

in the major strata at selected sites. Dissolved organic carbon samples are collected at the 

forebay, tailwater, and tributary inflow sites. Biological samples for chlorophyll concentration, 
73

phytoplankton, and zooplankton are also collected at selected sites. Samples are filtered and 

preserved in the field for subsequent laboratory analysis. 

Analysis for major ionic constituent, nutrient, and chlorophyll concentrations are 

performed by Reclamation's Lower Colorado Regional Laboratory in Boulder City, NV. 

Phytoplankton and zooplankton samples are analyzed under contract by BSA Environmental, 

Inc. 

Data processing of the Seabird profile data is performed in the office shortly after the 

field survey. All field and analytical data are entered into the WQDB database for statistical and 

graphical analysis and long-term storage. 

Details of the monitoring program, a description of the WQDB database, and 

physicochemical data from 1965 to 2008 are available as a USGS Data Series report at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/471/ (Vernieu, 2009). A revision of this report, including data through 

2011, is currently in review. Biological data from the monitoring program will be published in a 

separate data series report, currently in peer review with an expected publication date of 2013. 

4.1.3. Project Element C.3. Reservoir Modeling 

Simulation modeling of Lake Powell water quality and hydrodynamic patterns is 

currently being conducted by Nick Williams of Reclamation's Upper Colorado Regional Office 

using the Army Corps of Engineers CE-QUAL-W2 model. The CE-QUAL-W2 model is a twodimensional (longitudinal and vertical), laterally averaged, finite-difference water-quality and 

hydrodynamic model for rivers, estuaries, lakes, reservoirs and river basin systems. The model 

was originally known as LARM (Laterally Averaged Reservoir Model), developed by Edinger 

and Buchak (1975). In its early stages, the LARM model was applied to Lakes Powell and Mead, 

(Edinger and Buchak, 1982; Edinger and others, 1984). Current model release enhancements 

have been developed under research contracts between the Army Corps of Engineers and 

Portland State University under supervision of Dr. Scott Wells (2000). Williams (2007) applied 

the CE-QUAL-W2 model to Lake Powell and developed an initial dissolved oxygen calibration 

for the model. 

GCMRC has provided data and collaboration in the development of the model, its 

calibration, and its verification. The model has been calibrated and verified to simulate historical 

patterns of temperature and salinity in GCD releases. Dissolved oxygen is also being simulated; 

however, some additional effort is needed for final calibration and verification. This model can 

be used to synthesize data for periods in which regular monitoring was not conducted and to 

simulate the effects of various hypothetical operational, hydrological, and climatological 

scenarios on historical patterns. It is also used to provide predictions of future temperature and 

dissolved oxygen patterns in GCD releases. One major shortcoming of the model's predictive 

capabilities is the lack of adequate input data for inflow water quality and meteorological 

conditions in the upstream portion of the reservoir. The error in predictive capability decreases 

substantially with the input of data from reservoir monitoring in the early summer. 

4.2 Personnel and Collaborations 

Funding for the Lake Powell water-quality monitoring program is provided directly by 

Reclamation; no Adaptive Management funds are used for this project. In addition to funding, 

Reclamation also provides field support staff for quarterly reservoir surveys, provides chemical 

sample analysis through its Lower Colorado Regional Laboratory and plankton analysis through 

contract, and recently purchased the Seabird SBE19plusV2 profiling instrument. The National 
74

Park Service provides a 0.5 FTE field technician, also funded by Reclamation. GCMRC 

participates in the Lake Powell Cooperators Group, a group of federal, state, and academic 

researchers, tribal representatives, concessionaires, recreational organizations, and members of 

the general public with interests in scientific activities conduction on Lake Powell. The National 

Park Service hosts annual meetings of the Lake Powell Cooperators Group to present and discuss 

current monitoring activities and findings, and coordinate future activities. 

Dale Robertson, of the USGS Wisconsin Science Center, has been collaborating with the 

Lake Powell program to assist with data interpretation and modeling and develop an interpretive 

synthesis of the published data. This synthesis will describe the physical, chemical, and 

biological characteristics of Lake Powell and GCD releases, compared to climatological factors 

and various aspects of GCD operations. Available meteorological, hydrological, and 

limnological data will be used to improve, document, and verify the existing CE-QUAL-W2 

model for Lake Powell, in collaboration with Reclamation scientists. The model will then be 

used to better understand the changes that have occurred in Lake Powell, predict future changes 

in response to climate change, and verify interpretive hypotheses. 

Efforts are underway by Dr. Robertson to feature a special Lake Powell symposium at the 

2013 meeting of the North American Lake Management Society in November 2013. In addition 

to serving as the annual meeting for the Lake Powell cooperators group, this symposium will 

also bring together researchers from academic, government, and private organizations with 

interest in Lake Powell, Lake Mead, and similar reservoirs. The proceedings of this symposium 

will be published in a special issue of Lake and Reservoir Management. 

In recent years, GCMRC has worked closely with Richard A. Wildman, currently serving 

as postdoctoral fellow and Harvard University Center for the Environment. GCMRC has 

provided field assistance, data availability, and review for publications related to phosphorus 

release and sediment transport related to reservoir drawdown (Wildman and others, 2011; 

Wildman and Hering, 2011.) 

4.3 Deliverables 

During the FY 13-14 period, an interpretive data synthesis report will be developed to 

build on the monitoring data and provided insights into how climatological, meteorological, and 

hydrodynamic processes, as well as the operation of GCD, affect inflow routing and stratification 

in the reservoir and the quality of releases from GCD. A website will be developed during this 

period to provide current conditions and historical data to the public. Other reports will be 

developed in future years describing water-quality changes in response to climatological factors, 

model development and verification, and application of modeling results to downstream 

resources. 

5. Productivity from Past Work 

Products from the Lake Powell monitoring program include published reports, listed in 

the following section, the WQDB database, available on-line, presentations at scientific 

meetings, presentations to the general public, and presentations or supporting data to the AMWG 

and TWG. Preliminary data from monitoring surveys are provided to Reclamation within one 

month of collection. 
75

5.1. Completed Publications 

Vernieu, W.S., 2012, Biological data for water in Lake Powell and from Glen Canyon Dam 

releases, Utah-Arizona, 1991-2008: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series xxx (in 

development). 

Vernieu, W.S., 2012, Water temperatures in select nearshore environments of the Colorado River 

in Grand Canyon, Arizona, during the low summer steady flow experiment of 2000. (Final 

review completed, in publication.) 

Vernieu, W.S., 2010, Effects of the 2008 high-flow experiment on water quality in Lake Powell 

and Glen Canyon Dam releases, Utah-Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

2010–1159, 51 p. 

Vernieu, W.S., 2009, Physical and chemical data for water in Lake Powell and from Glen 

Canyon Dam releases, Utah-Arizona, 1964–2008: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 471, 

23 p. and database. (an updated revision of this report, presenting data collected through 

2011, is currently in review.) 

Vernieu, W.S., Hueftle, S.J., and Gloss, S.P., 2005, Water quality in Lake Powell and the 

Colorado River, in Gloss, S.P., Lovich, J.E., and Melis, T.S., eds., The state of the Colorado 

River ecosystem in Grand Canyon: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1282, 69-85 p. 

6. References 

Edinger, J.E. and Buchak, E.M., 1975, A hydrodynamic and two-dimensional reservoir model: 

the computational basis. Contract No. DACW27-74-C-0200, U.S. Army Engineer Division, 

Ohio River. Cincinnati, Ohio. 

Edinger, J.E. and Buchak, E.M., 1982, Development, verification, and use of methods to model 

chemical and thermal processes for Lakes Mead and Powell, Phase I. Prepared for U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. 

Edinger, J.E., Buchak, E.M., and Merritt, D.H., 1984, Longitudinal-vertical hydrodynamics and 

transport with chemical equilibria for Lake Powell and Lake Mead, pp. 213-222 in R.H. 

French (ed.), Salinity in Watercourses and Reservoirs. Proceedings of the 1983 International 

Symposium on State-of-the-Art Control of Salinity, July 13-15, 1983, Salt Lake City, Utah. 

Butterworth Publishers, Boston. 

Ferrari, R.L., 1988, 1986 Lake Powell survey: Denver, Colo., Bureau of Reclamation, report no. 

REC-ERC-88-6, 67 p. [Available from National Technical Information Service, Springfield, 

Va. as NTIS Report PB89-178818.] 

Hart, R.J., and Sherman, K.M., 1996, Physical and chemical characteristics of Lake Powell at the 

forebay and outflow of Glen Canyon Dam, northeastern Arizona, 1990-91: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 96-4016, 78 p. 

Hart, R.J., Taylor, H.E., Antweiler, R.C., Fisk, G.G., Anderson, G.M., Roth, D.A., Flynn, M.E., 

Peart, D.B., Truini, M., and Barber, L.B., 2005, Physical and chemical characteristics of 

Knowles, Forgotten, and Moqui Canyons, and effects of recreational use on water quality, 

Lake Powell, Arizona and Utah: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 

2004-5120, 116 p., http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2004/5120/pdf/sir2004-5120.pdf. 

Hueftle, S.J., and Vernieu, W.S., 1998, Assessment of impacts of Glen Canyon Dam operations 

on water quality resources in Lake Powell and the Colorado River in Grand Canyon--

unpublished draft report: Flagstaff, Ariz., U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring 

and Research Center, 77 p. 
76

Jones, J., Kennedy, R.H., Nestler, J., Robertson, D., Ruane, R.J., and Schladow, S.G., 2001, 

Final report of the Protocol Evaluation Panel (PEP) for the Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center Integrated Water Quality Program (IWQP): Flagstaff, Ariz., 50 p., 

http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/09mar16/Attach_11.pdf. 

Majeski, A.L., 2009, Fluvial systems tied together through a common base level: The 

geomorphic response of the Dirty Devil River, North Wash Creek, and the Colorado River to 

the rapid base level drop of Lake Powell: Logan, Utah State University, M.S. thesis 191p. 

(Available athttp://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/291) 

Marzolf, G.R., Hart, R.J., and Stephens, D.W., 1998, Depth profiles of temperature, specific 

conductance, and oxygen concentrations in Lake Powell, Arizona-Utah, 1992-1995: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 97-835, 124 p. 

Potter, L.D., and Drake, C.L., 1989, Lake Powell-Virgin flow by dynamo, University of New 

Mexico Press, ISBN: 0826311237, 311 p. 

Pratson, L., Hughes-Clarke, J., Anderson, M., Gerber, T., Twichell, D., Ferrari, R., Nittrouer, C., 

Beaudoin, J., Granet, J., and Crockett, J., 2008, Timing and patterns of basin infilling as 

documented in Lake Powell during a drought, Geology, vol. 36 no. 11, pp. 843-846. 

(Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1130/G24733A.1) 

Vernieu, W.S., 2009, Physical and chemical data for water in Lake Powell and from Glen 

Canyon Dam releases, Utah-Arizona, 1964-2008: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 471, 

23 p., http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/471/. 

Wells, S.A., 2000, Hydrodynamic and water quality river basin modeling using CE-QUAL-W2 

in Ibarra-Berastegic, G., Brebbia, C., and Zannetti, P., eds. Development and Application of 

Computer Techniques to Environmental Studies, WIT Press, Boston, 195-204. 

Wildman, R.A., Pratson, L.F., DeLeon, M., and Hering, J.G., 2011, Physical, chemical, and 

mineralogical characteristics of a reservoir sediment delta (Lake Powell, USA) and 

implications for water quality during low water level: Journal of Environmental Quality, v. 

40, p. 575–586, http://dx.doi.org/10.2134/jeq2010.0323. 

Wildman, R.A. and Hering, J.G., 2011, Potential for release of sediment phosphorus to Lake 

Powell (Utah and Arizona) due to sediment resuspension during low water level: Lake and 

Reservoir Management, v. 27, no. 4, p. 365-375, 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07438141.2011.632705. 

Williams, N.T., 2007, Modeling dissolved oxygen in Lake Powell using CE-QUAL-W2: Provo, 

Brigham Young University, M.S. thesis, 120 p. 

Wurtsbaugh, W. and 6 others, 1992, A trophic gradient analysis of Lake Powell during spring 

runoff 1992. Report to the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. 217 p. 
77

7. Budget 

   

Project C: Lake Powell

Water Quality Monitoring

Salaries $166,000

Traveling and Training $8,000

Operating Expenses $12,000

Logistics $22,000

GIS/RS/Electronics support

(includes burden) $0

Cooperators (non‐USGS) $0

USGS cooperators $0

USGS Burden $29,000

Total $236,000

FY 2013 Project C. Grand Total:

$236,000

FY 2014 Project C. Grand Total:

$260,000
78

Project D. 

Mainstem Humpback Chub Aggregation Studies and 

Metapopulation Dynamics 

1. Investigators 

William Persons, Fishery Biologist, USGS, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center 

David L. Ward, Fishery Biologist, USGS, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center 

D.R. VanHaverbeke, Fishery Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services 

Scott Bonar, Fishery Biologist, USGS, University of Arizona 

Karin Limburg, Professor, State University of New York, College of Environmental Science and 

Forestry 

2. Project Summary 

Sampling mainstem humpback chub (Gila cypha) aggregations has been conducted 

periodically over the last decade including in 2002 through 2004, 2006, 2010, and 2011.Fish 

were sampled by hoop and trammel nets at aggregations first described by Valdez and Ryel 

(1995). These monitoring efforts provide catch per unit effort indices, but abundance estimates 

were infrequently made. This project proposes to increase sampling during FY13-14, following 

on the results of a pilot study in FY12. The purpose of this work is to improve monitoring 

techniques and provide estimates of humpback chub abundance in several mainstem 

aggregations. Continued monitoring of aggregations is required as part of the Non-Native Fish 

Control Environmental Assessment and associated Biological Opinion. Additionally, this project 

will improve our understanding of the impact of translocation efforts in humpback chub 

metapopulation dynamics. Basic information on status and trends of humpback chub outside of 

the LCR aggregation is also desired by managers to assess impacts of operations of Glen Canyon 

Dam and other management actions on mainstem Colorado River humpback chub aggregations. 

 Although recent catch rate information indicates aggregations might be growing, 

absolute numbers of humpback chub at aggregations remain low relative to the aggregation that 

occurs at the confluence with the Little Colorado River (hereafter referred to as the LCR 

aggregation). We will also evaluate the growth potential of humpback chub at aggregations by 

quantifying the availability of food resources and measuring feeding habits. These data will be 

compared with similar data collected near the LCR (Project E: Humpback Chub (Gila cypha)

Early Life History in and around the Little Colorado River). Reproductive potential of humpback 

chub will be determined using condition indices and experiments. Collectively, the proposed 

research will yield a more rigorous aggregation monitoring program and will increase our 

understanding of the ecology of aggregations, including whether downstream reaches in 

Grand Canyon are capable of supporting self-sustaining populations of humpback chub. We 

also propose research on otolith microchemistry of juvenile humpback chub captured at 

aggregations or of areas such as during backwater seining to assess whether these aggregations 

are supported by emigration of juvenile fish from the LCR or local spawning and recruitment. 
79

3. Background 

Currently, the only known reproducing and self-sustaining population of humpback chub 

within Grand Canyon is in the LCR and in the mainstem Colorado River near its confluence with 

the LCR (hereafter referred to as the LCR aggregation) (Valdez and Ryel, 1995; Gloss and 

Coggins, 2005; Coggins and others, 2006). Because these fish appear to rely exclusively on the 

LCR for reproduction, these fish are at increased risk of catastrophic loss (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 2008; Bureau of Reclamation, 2011).

Eight other aggregations of humpback chub were described in the mainstem Colorado 

River (Valdez and Ryel, 1995), and closed population model abundance estimates were 

generated for six of those aggregations (table 1). An aggregation was defined as “a consistent 

and disjunct group of fish with no significant exchange of individuals with other aggregations, as 

indicated by recapture of Passive Integrated Transponder (PIT) tagged juveniles and adults and 

movement of radio-tagged adults” (Valdez and Ryel, 1995). Recent data collected at 

aggregations and throughout the Colorado River, suggest that there is substantial movement 

among some of the originally identified aggregations, and they may not all meet the original 

definition of an aggregation. 

Table 1. Locations of nine mainstem aggregations, adult (> 200 mm) humpback chub abundance 

(N) and 95% confidence interval (CI) estimated in 1993 by (Valdez and Ryel, 1995). 

Aggregation River Miles N 95% CI 

30-Mile 29.831.3 52 24-136 

Little Colorado River Inflow 5765.4 3,482 2,682-4,281 

Lava Chuar to Hance1 65.776.3 

Bright Angel Creek Inflow 83.892.2 

Shinumo Creek Inflow 108.1108.6 57 31-149 

Stephen Aisle 114.9120.1 

Middle Granite Gorge 126.1129.0 98 74-153 

Havasu Creek Inflow 155.8156.7 13 5-70 

Pumpkin Spring 212.5213.2 5 4-16 

1

Recent examination of PIT tag recaptures indicated that humpback chub in the Lava Chuar to Hance 

aggregation mix with humpback chub in the LCR aggregation, and thus the two locations could be 

considered the same aggregation. 

 
80

Only the LCR aggregation is known to successfully reproduce and recruit into the 

spawning population (Coggins and others, 2006). This aggregation has been sampled extensively 

with regular reporting of its status and trends (Coggins and others, 2006; Coggins and Walters, 

2009). The remaining eight aggregations were sampled during 1990-93, again in 2002-04, and in 

2006 (Valdez and Ryel, 1995; Ackerman, 2008). In 2010 and 2011, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service conducted surveys to assess their status and trends (VanHaverbeke and Persons, 2012, 

unpublished). The abundance of humpback chub at aggregations appears to be increasing, but 

current monitoring methods only provide catch rate indices that have a high degree of 

uncertainty. Recent synthesis of data suggests that capture probability estimates pooled over all 

aggregations may be used to derive a relatively unbiased estimate of overall (summed over 

aggregations) humpback chub abundance (C. Walters, pers. comm.) 

Annual humpback chub mainstem aggregation monitoring was specified in the 2011 

Environmental Assessment for Non-native Fish Control Downstream from Glen Canyon Dam 

(Bureau of Reclamation, 2011) and was funded in FY2010 and FY2011-12 (Bureau of 

Reclamation and U.S. Geological Survey Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, 

2010). However, a long-term monitoring program has not been developed for the project, and a 

thorough synthesis of existing aggregation data has not been completed or published. We will 

produce a long-term monitoring plan for sampling humpback chub aggregations by the end of 

FY14. 

The metapopulation dynamics, including movement among aggregations, of chub in the 

LCR inflow aggregation and the rest of the mainstem Colorado River are poorly understood. 

Adult humpback chub generally have high site fidelity, i.e., PIT tagged adults are usually 

recaptured in the same aggregation where they were tagged (table 2), (Paukert and others, 2006; 

Coggins, 2007, 2008; Coggins and Walters, 2009). However, dispersal of juvenile and subadult 

(age 1-4) humpback chub is poorly understood. The natal origins of humpback chub at 

downstream aggregations are uncertain. Fish at aggregations may be dispersing from the LCR as 

juveniles or subadults (ages 1-3). Alternatively, humpback chub at aggregations may be derived 

from local spawning and recruitment. Humpback chub have been reported to initiate spawning at 

about 16° C (Hamman, 1982). Mainstem water temperatures vary depending on release 

temperature from Glen Canyon Dam, and water can warm to 16° C at River Mile 65 during some 

years (Wright and others, 2008). Understanding if the mainstem Colorado River can support selfsustaining populations of humpback chub will help inform future experimentation conducted as 

part of the adaptive management process. However, the ability of humpback chub females to 

produce viable gametes in the mainstem Colorado River at mainstem aggregations is unknown. 

 
81

Table 2. Nights of sampling, sampling location, and gear (T=trammel net, H=baited hoop net) at 

fixed sites (aggregations) and at stratified random sites (outside of aggregations), spring and fall, 

FY13 and FY14. 

 

Spring Trip: 

Fixed site 

and stratified 

random 

CPUE 

sampling 

Fall Trip: 

Fixed site 

markrecapture and 

CPUE 

sampling Total 

Aggregation Gear FY13 FY14 FY13 FY14 FY13 FY14

Outside of aggregations T,H 14 14 4 4 18 18 

30-Mile T,H 1 2 1 2 2 

Little Colorado River 

Inflow H 1 1 2 2 3 3 

Bright Angel Creek Inflow H 1 1 1 1 2 2 

Shinumo Creek Inflow H 1 1 2 2 3 3 

Stephen Aisle H 1 1 2 2 2 

Middle Granite Gorge T,H 1 1 2 1 3 2 

Havasu Creek Inflow T,H 1 1 2 2 3 3 

Pumpkin Spring H 1 1 1 2 2 3 

Total nights 21 21 17 17 38 38 

4. Proposed Work 

4.1. Project Elements 

Project Element D.1. Improve aggregation sampling to develop more rigorous approaches to monitor 

aggregations (includes ongoing monitoring) ($225,000) 

D.R. VanHaverbeke, Fishery Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

William Persons, USGS/GCMRC 

Brian Healy, Fishery Biologist, NPS, Grand Canyon National Park 

We propose increasing our sampling effort at a subset of aggregations by adding a second 

sampling trip during late spring or early summer in both FY13 and FY14. Additional effort may 

be needed to estimate population sizes of humpback chub at several aggregations in order to 

estimate capture probability. This information will allow us to evaluate the use of catch per unit 

effort indices as a tool to monitor relative abundance of fish in aggregations. Preliminary work 

synthesizing existing aggregation data as well as initial mark-recapture efforts at the 

aggregations is already underway and is funded in FY12. In addition, recent synthesis of data 

suggests that we may be able to pool capture probability estimates over all aggregations, and use 
82

the pooled capture probability to derive a relatively unbiased estimate of overall (summed over 

aggregations) humpback chub abundance. 

We will investigate use of mark-recapture methods during FY12 at the Shinumo Inflow 

aggregation (table 1) and will include sampling at translocation tributary inflow aggregations 

Havasu and Shinumo Creeks during FY13-14 (table 3). Shinumo Inflow aggregation sampling 

will be conducted twice in September, 2012: the initial “marking” sampling event will be 

conducted by the National Park Service/Bureau of Reclamation during the September Shinumo 

Creek translocation monitoring trip with the potential for sampling over 3-5 nights (number of 

net sets to be determined), and the recapture sampling effort will be conducted during the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service/GCMRC aggregation monitoring trip. No trammel nets will be used 

during this effort to investigate whether baited hoop nets can be used to collect sufficient 

capture-recapture data to infer abundance and capture probabilities. In addition to improving 

abundance estimates, work at these sites will improve our understanding of the role of 

translocations in humpback chub metapopulation dynamics. For example, coordinated humpback 

chub sampling in the mainstem and in Shinumo Creek in the future may allow for improved 

estimates of survival of translocated fish, as well as PIT tag antenna detection efficiency 

estimates through a multistate capture-recapture model (Horton and others, 2011) if 

translocations of humpback chub into Shinumo Creek continue. 

Table 3. Tag and recapture location for humpback chub recaptured more than 13.9 days after 

tagging, LCR and mainstem Colorado River, 1991 – 2011. Numbers in bold and italic represent 

fish recaptured in the same reach as they were tagged in. Numbers above the diagonal indicate 

downstream movement whereas numbers below the diagonal indicate upstream movement. 

Numbers do not represent individual fish because some fish were recaptured more than once. 

Does not include fish translocated to Shinumo Creek. 30M = 30 Mile aggregation, LCR = Little 

Colorado River, LCR reach = Little Colorado River mainstem aggregation, LCH = Lava Chuar 

to Hance aggregation, BAC = Bright Angel Creek aggregation, SHI = Shinumo Creek 

aggregation, STE = Stephen Aisle aggregation, MGG = Middle Granite Gorge aggregation, 

HAV = Havasu Creek aggregation, PUM = Pumpkin Spring aggregation. 

Location Recaptured (rkm) 

Location 

Tagged (rkm) 

74 - 

77.3 

(30M

) LCR 

117.7 

- 

131.4 

(LCR 

reach

) 

131.4 

- 

151.5 

(LC

H) 

160.9 

- 

174.4 

(BA

C) 

199.5 

- 203 

(SHI)

210.9 

- 

220.4 

(STE

) 

227.2 

- 

233.6 

(MG

G) 

276.7 

- 279 

(HA

V) 

368 - 

372.2 

(PU

M) Total 

74 - 77.3 (30M) 34 1 2 - - - - - - - 37 

LCR 2 28,73

0 

 1,659 60 2 1 - 4 2 - 30,46

0 

117.7 - 131.4 

(LCR reach) 1 1,438 460 8 1 - - 1 2 - 1,911 

131.4 - 151.5 

(LCH) - 39 10 8 - - - - - - 57 
83

160.9 - 174.4 

(BAC) - 1 - - - - - - - - 1 

199.5 - 203 

(SHI) - - - - - 9 1 2 - - 12 

210.9 - 220.4 

(STE) - - 1 - - - 1 2 - - 4 

227.2 - 233.6 

(MGG) - - 1 - - - 1 86 1 - 89 

276.7 - 279 

(HAV) - 4 - - - - - - 6 - 10 

368 - 372.2 

(PUM) - - - - - - - - - 2 2 

Total 37 30,21

3 

 2,133 76 3 10 3 95 11 2 32,58

3 

During FY13 and 14, three or four of the aggregations, exclusive of the LCR, will be 

sampled on two successive nights to attempt closed population estimates using mark-recapture 

methods; these efforts will also yield a more precise estimate of capture probabilities. The 

current approach to monitoring, which involves one or two nights of sampling at each 

aggregation, only provides catch rate indices (i.e., fish captured per hour). Because of the large 

uncertainty in capture probabilities (the probability of catching an individual fish), the inferences 

that can be drawn from the current monitoring program are very limited. 

Because of concerns about potential impacts of increased sampling on aggregations, we 

propose sampling different aggregations in FY13 than in FY14. Thus, all aggregations will be 

sampled during the two year budget period. Sampling will be reduced in later years. With a 

better understanding of capture probabilities and associated variation at aggregations, long-term 

monitoring in later years should involve one or two nights of sampling at each aggregation to 

make absolute abundance estimates based on pooled capture probabilities. 

A stratified random sampling design will be used for the second sampling trips in FY13 

and FY14 to assess humpback chub relative abundance in other areas of the river (table 3). It is 

likely that as humpback chub abundance in the mainstem Colorado River increases, the species 

may not merely increase in abundance at specific locations, but may colonize new habitats in the 

river. Baited hoop nets and trammel nets will be fished in sections of the river not associated 

with known aggregations. 

To address concerns about over handling humpback chub, trammel nets will be 

discontinued in areas where hoop nets can be fished effectively. Trammel nets will be checked 

every two hours, they will not be fished in water warmer than 16°

 C, and they will not be fished 

in the same location for more than one night in a row. 

This project will result in the following products: 

 

 FY13 and FY14: Capture probability estimates to allow inferences about abundance 

estimates to be drawn from a long-term monitoring program of catch-per-unit. 

 FY13: Catch per unit effort estimates at four aggregations (30 mile, LCR, Shinumo Creek, 

and Havasu Creek). 

 FY14: Catch per unit effort estimates at four aggregations(Shinumo Creek, Havasu Creek, 

Middle Granite Gorge, Pumpkin Springs) 
84

 FY13 and FY14: Estimates of humpback chub abundance at mainstem aggregations 

exclusive of the LCR aggregation. 

 FY14. Long-term monitoring plan and protocols to guide future, cost-effective monitoring 

program published in the peer reviewed literature. 

 1 Administrative report 

 1 article submitted to a peer review journal 

Project Element D.2.1. Natal origins of Humpback Chub, adult condition and reproductive potential ($167,000) 

We do not know if the mainstem Colorado River under current dam operations can 

support self-sustaining populations of humpback chub. This knowledge gap makes it very 

difficult to plan management actions and future dam operations aimed at conservation of 

humpback chub. The first step in determining if the mainstem Colorado River provides the 

necessary elements for humpback chub to complete their life cycle is to evaluate if existing 

mainstem water temperatures are warm enough for successful gamete development. Fish 

reproductive cycles are separated into the growth (gametogenesis) and maturation phase (oocyte 

maturation and spermiation), both of which are influenced by water temperature (Mylonas 2010). 

Disruptions in male and female reproductive cycles because of cold water have been documented 

for other species (Rideout and others, 2000), and stenothermic environments that lack seasonal 

variation have been shown to interrupt egg production in some fish (Robinson and others,. 2011). 

Mainstem water temperatures vary from year to year depending on release temperature from 

Glen Canyon Dam (Project C:Water-Quality Monitoring of Lake Powell and Glen Canyon Dam 

Releases), and water can warm to 16° C at River Mile 65 during some years (Wright and others, 

2008). Humpback chub have been reported to initiate spawning at about 16° C (Hamman, 1982). 

However, the ability of humpback chub females to produce viable gametes in the mainstem 

Colorado River at mainstem aggregations is unknown. 

If water temperatures are adequate for female humpback chub to mature gametes yet no 

viable gametes are found, it would indicate other factors such as nutritional requirements are not 

being met (Toucher, 2010). If female humpback chub are meeting thermal and nutritional 

requirements to produce and mature gametes in the various mainstem aggregations, then the next 

step is to determine if those eggs hatch and if the larval humpback chub survive. By 

systematically examining each life stage of humpback chub development in the mainstem 

Colorado River, we can isolate factors that may be limiting mainstem survival and recruitment 

and focus management actions on those limiting life stages. 

This study will require additional handling of humpback chub, but efforts will be made to 

minimize any harmful effects of handling. Hoop nets will be used instead of trammel nets 

whenever possible, and trammel nets will not be used if mainstem water temperatures are above 

16° C to minimize capture related mortality (Hunt and others, 2012, in press). Procedures that 

require additional manipulation of captured fish will not be conducted at the same aggregation 

more than once per year, and captured fish will be maintained in oxygenated coolers at salinity 

of 3.0 ppt to minimize capture/handling related stress. 

Project Element D.2.2. Natal origins of humpback chub at aggregations by otolith microchemistry 

Karin Limburg, Professor, State University of New York, College of Environmental Science and 

Forestry 

William Persons, Fishery Biologist, USGS 

D.R. Van Haverbeke, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
85

Brian Healy, NPS, Grand Canyon National Park 

Pilot work done by Limburg and Hayden in 2010 revealed that carbon stable isotopic 

ratios can be used to differentiate water samples from the mainstem Colorado River and many 

tributaries to the Colorado River. Sixteen humpback chub otoliths were also analyzed using 

Secondary Ion Mass Spectroscopy (SIMS) (Limburg, K., and others personal communications). 

Results from this pilot work revealed that carbon and oxygen isotopic ratios in the otoliths can be 

used to discriminate where the fish were located at various life stages. Determining the natal 

origin of fish that inhabit the aggregations has important implications for management of 

humpback chub. Positively linking natal origin of fish to either the LCR, or the mainstem, or 

other Grand Canyon tributaries will help to inform management actions. If all of the fish in the 

downstream aggregations are from the LCR then management actions aimed at increasing 

survival of downstream dispersing individuals may be beneficial to the humpback chub 

population in Grand Canyon. If certain age classes show signs of mainstem origin then we may 

be able to link dam operations and water temperatures to times when mainstem recruitment 

occurred. 

We propose to capture 30-40 young-of-the-year humpback chub annually from up to 3 

downstream aggregations and from locations not associated with aggregations, as well as from 

the LCR and Havasu Creek and sacrifice them for otolith microchemistry evaluation. Surrogate 

species will be tested in FY12 to confirm that fish resident in Havasu Creek can be distinguished 

from LCR fish. Specimens will be preserved in the field and provided to a Cooperator for otolith 

extraction and analysis. A PhD. Student will be supported for two years with a Cooperative 

Agreement with SUNY. 

This project will result in a final report and recommendation for use of techniques as part 

of long term monitoring of mainstem Colorado River humpback chub recruitment dynamics 

(FY14). A dissertation with a chapter as a peer review publication detailing use of techniques to 

identify natal origins of humpback chub from the mainstem Colorado River downstream of the 

LCR (FY14). 

Project Element D.2.2. Egg maturation studies using Ultrasonic Imaging and Ovaprim® 

David L. Ward, Fishery Biologist, USGS/GCMRC 

Scott Bonar USGS and University of Arizona (MS student project) 

D.R. Van Haverbeke, Fishery Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Brian Healy, Fishery Biologist, NPS, Grand Canyon National Park 

Ultrasonic images have been used in fisheries research to non-lethally determine sex and 

maturational status of many fishes (Evans and others, 2004). Use of ultrasonic imagery may help 

resolve questions about stage of maturity of adult humpback chub in mainstem aggregations. We 

will collect ultrasound images of captive reared fish at fish hatcheries to refine methods and 

techniques. Ultrasound images will then be collected from a small sample of adult fish from the 

LCR, and at mainstem aggregations to evaluate the ability of female humpback chub to produce 

viable gametes in mainstem aggregations. 

Following development and testing of ultrasonic methods at hatcheries and in the LCR, a 

small number of adult humpback chub (<30 fish) will be captured at up to three mainstem 

aggregations, exclusive of the LCR inflow, using hoopnets. Fish will be non-lethally scanned 

with ultrasound to evaluate the status of gamete development . If females with developed eggs 

are encountered, a subset of these individuals (<10 fish) will be injected with Ovaprim®, a 
86

synthetic hormone used to artificially induce spawning in fish. If the females have eggs that are 

close to being mature, Ovaprim® will allow those eggs to be manually extruded within 2 days. If 

females do not have eggs that are close to maturation, it will have no effect on the fish. 

Ultrasound and Ovaprim® methods will be developed and tested in the LCR in FY13, and if 

proven useful, will be used on humpback chub from mainstem aggregations in FY14. Fish will 

be held in the river in holding pens following hormone injection and subsequently released. In a 

survey of 40,000 fish of 25 different species (mostly cyprinids), mortality after handling and 

injection with Ovaprim® was 1.3 % (Hill and others, 2009). These hormone injections on fish 

known to possess eggs using ultrasound will be conducted on less than 10 adult fish per year 

from 2-3 mainstem aggregations. If eggs are expelled from any females, they will be incubated 

in the laboratory to evaluate hatching success. Use of ultrasound combined with Ovaprim® 

injections at different times of year over the space of 2-3 years, will allow researchers to assesses 

if the mainstem Colorado River conditions are adequate for females to mature and ripen eggs. 

This project will produce a Final report/MS thesis chapter suitable for publication 

presenting results of Ultrasound and Ovaprim studies (FY14). 

5. Productivity from Past Work 

Clark, B.C., Persons, W.R., and Ward, D.L., 2010, Little Colorado River lower 1,200-meter 

long-term fish monitoring, 1987–2008, in Melis, T.S., Hamill, J.F., Bennett, G.E., Coggins, 

L.G., Jr., Grams, P.E., Kennedy, T.A., Kubly, D.M., and Ralston, B.E., eds., Proceedings of 

the Colorado River Basin Science and Resource Management Symposium, November 18-20, 

2008, Scottsdale, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010-

5135, 256-260 p., accessed on July 15, 2010, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5135/. 

Kondolf, G. M., S.S. Cook, H.R. Maddux and W.R. Persons. 1989. Spawning gravels of 

Rainbow Trout in Glen and Grand Canyons, Arizona. Journal of the Arizona-Nevada 

Academy of Science 23: 19-28. 

Linder, C.M., R.A. Cole, T.L. Hoffnagle, B. Persons, and A. Choudhury. 2012. Parasites of 

fishes in the Colorado River and selected tributaries in Grand Canyon, Arizona. Journal of 

Parasitology 98(1) pp 117-127. 

Makinster, A.S., Persons, W.R., and Avery, L.A., 2011, Status and trends of the rainbow trout 

population in the Lees Ferry Reach of the Colorado River downstream from Glen Canyon 

Dam, Arizona, 1991–2009: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2011-

5015, 17 p., http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2011/5015/. 

Makinster, A.S., Persons, W.R., Avery, L.A., and Bunch, A.J., 2010, Colorado River fish 

monitoring in Grand Canyon, Arizona--2000 to 2009 summary: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 2010-1246, 26 p., http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1246/. 

McKinney, T., R. S. Rogers, and W.R. Persons. 1999. Effects of flow reductions on aquatic biota 

of the Colorado River below Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona. North American Journal of 

Fisheries Management 19: 984-991. 

McKinney, T., W.R. Persons and R.S. Rogers. 1999. Ecology of flannelmouth sucker in the 

Lee's Ferry tailwater, Colorado River, Arizona. Great Basin Naturalist. 59: 259-265. 

McKinney, T., R.S. Rogers, A.D. Ayers, and W.R. Persons. 1999. Lotic community responses in 

the Lees Ferry Reach. The Controlled Flood in Grand Canyon Geophysical Monograph 110: 

249-258. 
87

McKinney, T., D. W. Speas, R.S. Rogers and William R. Persons. 2001. Rainbow trout in a 

regulated river below Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona, following increased minimum flows and 

reduced discharge variability. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 21: 216-

222. 

Persons, W. R. and R. V. Bulkley. 1982. Feeding activity and spawning time of striped bass in 

the Colorado River Inlet, Lake Powell, Utah. North American Journal of Fisheries 

Management 4: 403-408. 

Ward, D.L., M.R. Childs and W.R. Persons. 2008. PIT tag retention and tag induced mortality in 

juvenile bonytail and Gila chub. Fishereies Management and Ecology. Vol 15(2) 159-161. 

6. References 

Ackerman, M.W., 2008, 2006 native fish monitoring activities in the Colorado River, Grand 

Canyon: Flagstaff, Ariz., SWCA Environmental Consultants, report to Grand Canyon 

Monitoring and Research Center, cooperative agreement 04WRAG0011. 

Bureau of Reclamation, 2011, Environmental assessment--non-native fish control downstream 

from Glen Canyon Dam: Salt Lake City, Utah, Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado 

Region, 102 p. + appendices, http://www.usbr.gov/uc/envdocs/ea/gc/nnfc/NNFC-EA.pdf. 

Bureau of Reclamation, and U.S. Geological Survey Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research 

Center, 2010, Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program biennial budget and work 

plan--fiscal years 2011-12: Salt Lake City, Utah, Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado 

Regional Office, 250 p. + appendices. 

Coggins, L.G., Jr., 2007, Abundance trends and status of the Little Colorado River population of 

humpback chub--an update considering data from 1989-2006: U.S. Geological Survey OpenFile Report 2007-1402, 28 p., http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2007/1402/. 

Coggins, L.G., Jr., 2008, Active adaptive management for native fish conservation in the Grand 

Canyon--implementation and evaluation: Gainseville, University of Florida, Ph.D. 

dissertation, 173 p. 

Coggins, L.G., Jr., Pine, W.E., III, Walters, C.J., Van Haverbeke, D.R., Ward, D., and Johnstone, 

H.C., 2006, Abundance trends and status of the Little Colorado River population of 

humpback chub: North American Journal of Fisheries Management, v. 26, no. 1, p. 233-245, 

http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/06may24/Attach_06f.pdf. 

Coggins, L.G., Jr., and Walters, C.J., 2009, Abundance trends and status of the Little Colorado 

River population of humpback chub--an update considering data from 1989-2008: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 2009-1075, 18 p., http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1075/. 

Evans, A.F., Fitzpatrick, M.S., and Siddens, L.K., 2004, Use of ultrasound imaging and steroid 

concentrations to identify maturational status in adult steelhead: North American Fisheries 

Management, v. 24, no. 3, p. 967-978, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1577/M03-

112.1. 

Gloss, S.P., and Coggins, L.G., 2005, Fishes of the Grand Canyon, in Gloss, S.P., Lovich, J.E., 

and Melis, T.S., eds., The state of the Colorado River ecosystem in Grand Canyon: U.S. 

Geological Survey Circular 1282, 33-56 p., http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1282/. 

Hamman, R.L., 1982, Spawning and culture of humpback chub: The Progressive Fish-Culturist, 

v. 44, no. 4, p. 213-216, http://afsjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1577/1548-

8659(1982)44%5B213:SACOHC%5D2.0.CO%3B2. 
88

Hill, J.E., Kilgore, K.H., Pouder, D.B., Powell, J.F.F., Watson, C.A., and Yanong, R.P.E., 2009, 

Survey of Ovaprim use as a spawning aid in ornamental fishes in the United States as 

administered through the University of Florida tropical aquaculture laboratory: North 

American Journal of Aquaculture, v. 71, no. 3, p. 206-209, 

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1577/A08-020.1. 

Horton, G.E., Letcher, B.H., and Kendall, W.L., 2011, A multistate capture-recapture modeling 

strategy to separate true survival from permanent emigration for a passive integrated 

transponder tagged population of stream fish: Transactions of the American Fisheries 

Society, v. 140, no. 2, p. 320-333, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00028487.2011.567861. 

Hunt, T.A., Ward, D.L., Propper, C.R., and Gibb, A.C., 2012, in press, Effects of capture by 

trammel net on Colorado River native fishes: Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management, v. 3, 

no. 1, p. (online), http://www.fwspubs.org/doi/abs/10.3996/122011-JFWM-070. 

Mylonas, C.C., Foster, A., and Zanuy, S., 2010, Broodstock management and hormonal 

manipulations of fish reproduction: General and Comparitive Endocrinology, v. 165, no. 3, p. 

516-534, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ygcen.2009.03.007. 

Paukert, C.P., Coggins, L.G., Jr., and Flaccus, C.E., 2006, Distribution and movement of 

humpback chub in the Colorado River, Grand Canyon, based on recaptures: Transactions of 

the American Fisheries Society, v. 135, no. 2, p. 539-544, 

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1577/T05-204.1. 

Rideout, R.M., Burton, M.P.M., and Rose, G.A., 2000, Observations on mass atresia and skipped 

spawning in northern Atlantic cod, from Smith Sound, Newfoundland: Journal of Fish 

Biology, v. 57, no. 6, p. 1429-1440, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1095-

8649.2000.tb02222.x/abstract. 

Robinson, D.M., Konkin-Garcia, T., Espinedo, C.M., Gabor, C.R., and Aspbury, A.S., 2011, 

Seasonal effects on female fecundity and male sperm availability in a thermally stable 

temperate population of sailfin mollies (Poecilia latipinna): The American Midland 

Naturalist, v. 166, no. 2, p. 394-403, http://dx.doi.org/10.1674/0003-0031-166.2.394. 

Toucher, D.R., 2010, Fatty acid requirements in ontogeny of marine and freshwater fish: 

Aquaculture Research, v. 41, no. 5, p. 717-732, 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2109.2008.02150.x/abstract. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2008, Final biological opinion for the operation of Glen Canyon 

Dam: Phoenix, Ariz., submitted to Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region, 

AESO/SE 22410-1993-F-167R1, 88 p., http://www.usbr.gov/uc/envdocs/bo/FinalGCDBO2-

26-08.pdf. 

Valdez, R.A., and Ryel, R.J., 1995, Life history and ecology of the humpback chub (Gila cypha) 

in the Colorado River, Grand Canyon, Arizona--final report: Logan, Utah, BIO/WEST, Inc., 

submitted to Bureau of Reclamation, contract no. 0-CS-40-09110, technical report no. TR250-08, 328 p. 

Wright, S.A., Anderson, C.R., and Voichick, N., 2008, A simplified water temperature model for 

the Colorado River below Glen Canyon Dam: River Research and Applications, v. 25, no. 6, 

p. 675-686. (Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/rra.1179.) 

 
89

7. Budget 

Project Element D.1.

Aggregation Sampling

Project Element D.2.1.

Otolith Isotopic Rations

(Humpback Chub Natal

origins)

Salaries $20,000 Salaries $17,000

Traveling and Training $0 Traveling and Training $0

Operating Expenses $5,000 Operating Expenses $3,000

Logistics $100,000 Logistics $0

GIS/RS/Electronics support

(includes burden) $0 GIS/RS/Electronics support(includes burden) $0

Cooperators (non‐USGS) $80,000 Cooperators (non‐USGS) $60,000

USGS cooperators $0 USGS cooperators $0

USGS Burden $20,000 USGS Burden $5,000

Total $225,000 Total $85,000

Project Element D.2.2. Egg

Maturation Studies

Salaries $22,000

Traveling and Training $1,000

Operating Expenses $12,000

Logistics $0

GIS/RS/Electronics support

(includes burden) $0

Cooperators (non‐USGS) $40,000

USGS cooperators $0

USGS Burden $6,000

Total $81,000

FY 2013 Project D. Gross Total:

$391,000

FY 2014 Project D. Gross Total:

$320,000
90

Project E. 

Humpback Chub Early Life History in and Around the Little 

Colorado River 

1. Investigators 

Charles Yackulic, Research Statistician, USGS, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center 

Theodore Kennedy, Research Aquatic Biologist, USGS, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center 

Colden Baxter, Associate Professor, Udah State University 

Bill Pine, Associate Professor, University of Florida 

Dennis Stone, Fishery Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Craig Stricker, Research Biologist, USGS—Fort Collins Science Center 

Randy VanHaverbeke, Fishery Biologist, US Fish and Wildlife Service 

David Walters, Research Ecologist, USGS—Fort Collins Science Center 

Rich Wanty, Research Chemist, USGS—Fort Collins Science Center 

Mike Yard, Fishery Biologist, USGS, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center 

2. Project Summary 

In FY13-14, we will: (a) estimate growth, survival, and movement of juvenile humpback 

chub in the Little Colorado River (LCR) by marking young-of-year humpback chub (Gila cypha) 

each year in the LCR in July, (b) describe food web structure and assess the potential for food 

limitation within the LCR, and (c) conduct data analysis and modeling that will integrate 

findings from the above efforts and ongoing standardized monitoring to determine the relative 

roles of LCR hydrology, intraspecific and interspecific interactions, and mainstem conditions in 

humpback chub juvenile life history and adult recruitment. These new research efforts will 

address a suite of questions that have arisen based on insights gained from standardized 

monitoring conducted since 2000 and new findings from the mainstem monitoring of native and 

nonnative fishes near the LCR confluence-Juvenile Chub Monitoring (Project F: Monitoring of 

Native and Nonnative Fishes in the Mainstem Colorado River and Lower 13.6 km of the Little 

Colorado, Element F.3. Mainstem monitoring of native and nonnative fishes near the LCR 

confluence-Juvenile Chub Monitoring): 

1. To what extent do survival and growth in the LCR aggregation vary annually and 

spatially (i.e., mainstem vs. LCR downstream of Chute Falls vs. LCR upstream of Chute 

Falls)? 

2. What are the drivers of observed variation in survival and growth? Specifically, to what 

extent are endogenous (e.g., intraspecific predation and competition for food) versus 

exogenous factors (e.g., interspecific competition and predation, mainstem conditions—

including dam operations—and variation in LCR hydrology, etc.) responsible for 

temporal and spatial variation in survival and growth? 

3. To what extent does outmigration of humpback chub from the LCR vary over time? 
91

Prior to the Near Shore Ecology (NSE) project (2009-2011), our understanding of variation 

in humpback chub early life history was limited to back-calculations of cohort strength (# of fish 

surviving to adulthood from a given birth year) derived from abundance estimates of four yearold fish (Coggins and others, 2006; Coggins and Walters, 2009). The life history parameters (i.e., 

direct estimates of survival and growth for juvenile humpback chub rearing in specific locations) 

provided by NSE-style sampling are more germane to evaluating ongoing adaptive management 

experimentation because population dynamics of many fish species are driven by changes in 

growth or survival at early life stages (Walters and Martell, 2004). Furthermore, direct estimates 

of survival and growth for juvenile humpback chub are more sensitive to yearly changes in, for 

example, dam operations or LCR hydrology, than the indirect estimates of survival and growth 

derived from back-calculations in the Age-Structured Mark Recapture (ASMR) model (Coggins 

and Walters, 2009). 

The survival rate estimates for juvenile humpback chub in the mainstem measured by the 

NSE project were higher than most scientists anticipated (Knowledge Assessment, 2011; 2012). 

However, the NSE project occurred during a period when water temperatures, rainbow trout 

(Oncorhynchus mykiss) abundances, and LCR conditions were all favorable to native fish and 

fairly consistent among years. Continuation of NSE sampling in FY12 and beyond will allow 

scientists to determine the impacts of increasing rainbow trout abundances and decreasing water 

temperature, which are anticipated in FY12, on juvenile humpback chub survival and growth in 

the mainstem. However, even these estimates of juvenile humpback chub survival and growth in 

the mainstem under a new set of conditions will be partially confounded by un-described 

variation in LCR conditions unless additional primary research studies in the LCR are initiated. 

The NSE project also found that growth rates for juvenile humpback chub were higher in the 

LCR relative to the mainstem during summer months. However, the opposite was true in the 

fall—growth rates were higher in the mainstem than in the LCR. This finding—that growth rates 

in the mainstem were at times higher than in the LCR—also came as a surprise to many 

scientists. Yet, interpretation of these differences in growth rates is not straightforward, because 

densities in one habitat—the LCR—may be dependent on conditions there (e.g., density of adult 

humpback chub and other native species, food availability, etc.), but juvenile abundance in the 

LCR might also be a function of conditions in the mainstem (i.e., warm water, low non-native 

abundances, etc.). 

Humpback chub translocations upstream of Chute Falls have also yielded insights about 

early life history parameters. Growth rates for juvenile humpback chub rearing upstream of 

Chute Falls are two times higher than growth rates of juvenile humpback chub rearing in the 

LCR downstream of Chute Falls. It is worth noting that these differences in juvenile humpback 

chub growth within the LCR (upstream vs. downstream of Chute Falls) are actually larger than 

the differences in juvenile humpback chub growth between the downstream part of the LCR and 

the mainstem (Knowledge Assessment, 2011; 2012). 

Standardized monitoring indicates that fall juvenile abundances in the LCR vary strongly 

among years (VanHaverbeke and others, 2012; Knowledge Assessment presentations, 2011; 

2012). During the NSE project, fall LCR juvenile abundances were consistently high, but there 

have been years in the recent past (i.e., 2002 and 2006) when LCR juvenile abundances in the 

fall were very low. These years—2002 and 2006—may correspond to either higher or lower 

juvenile abundances in the mainstem, depending on whether variation in juvenile survival in the 

LCR or outmigration from the LCR is the primary lever affecting fall LCR juvenile abundances. 

Put another way, low fall abundances in the LCR might be a leading indicator of a failed birth 
92

year because of poor juvenile survival in the LCR, or low fall abundances may simply reflect 

decreased use of the LCR by juveniles because of forced (LCR flooding) or purposeful migration 

into the mainstem Colorado River. Additional primary research studies in the LCR are needed to 

resolve these new questions and associated uncertainties. 

3. Background 

Population dynamics for many fish species are driven by changes in survival at early life 

stages (Walters and Martell, 2004); survival of adult fish is less affected by changes in 

environmental conditions than is the survival of small juveniles, because adult fish have larger 

energy reserves that can be used to survive occasional periods of unfavorable environmental 

conditions. Larger, adult fish are also less vulnerable to predation than juveniles. Differences in 

survival of juvenile humpback chub among years are likely responsible for long-term trends in 

adult humpback chub abundances, because adult survival rates over the last 20 years have been 

high and stable through time (Coggins and Walters, 2009). This is why previous and ongoing 

adaptive management experimentation has been directed towards improving the rearing 

environment for juveniles (i.e., mechanical removal of rainbow trout, fall steady flow 

experiments, high-flow experiments that create backwaters, etc.). Estimating humpback chub 

cohort strength and juvenile survival annually is critical to evaluation of ongoing adaptive 

management experimentation. 

Prior to the NSE study, our understanding of humpback chub early life history was 

limited to back-calculations of cohort strength and juvenile survival derived from the abundance 

of approximately four-year old fish (Coggins and others, 2006; Coggins and Walters, 2009). 

Humpback chub are considered adults, and therefore capable of reproduction, when they reach 

approximately 200 mm in total length (Kaeding and Zimmerman, 1983), and it takes humpback 

chub around four years to attain this size. By calculating the number of new adult (that is, 200 

mm long) humpback chub added to the population each year, scientists were able to backcalculate four years and estimate juvenile survival rates for specific birth years (i.e., survival for 

the 2002 birth year, based on the number of new adult fish in 2006). Estimates of survival and 

cohort strength for specific years were then analyzed in relation to environmental conditions in 

the mainstem (i.e., rainbow trout abundance, water temperatures, etc.) in an attempt to evaluate 

the effectiveness of ongoing adaptive management experimentation (Coggins and Walters 2009). 

Unfortunately, these back-calculated estimates of cohort strength and survival are imprecise, 

because there are large differences in growth rates for juveniles rearing in the LCR versus the 

mainstem. Differences in growth rates (and hence length) among individuals that are the same 

age but using different habitats leads to inaccurate age assignments, and by extension, inaccurate 

estimates of back-calculated survival for specific birth years (e.g., the 2002 birth year started 

recruiting to the adult population in 2006, but slower growing individuals were not considered 

adults until 2007 or later and get assigned to subsequent birth years). Further, there are large 

differences in the timing and amount of juvenile humpback chub outmigration from the LCR, 

which may itself be a function of conditions in both the LCR and the mainstem. 

To overcome some of the limitations inherent in back-calculating juvenile survival, the 

NSE project (2009-2011) directly measured survival of juvenile humpback chub by batch 

marking small humpback chub using Visual Implant Elastomer (VIE) tags. Fish can be marked 

with VIE tags at a smaller size than the Passive Integrated Transponder (PIT) tags that are used 

to mark larger fish (>100 mm) as part of regular monitoring. Recaptures of these batch-marked 
93

humpback chub has substantially increased our understanding of juvenile humpback chub life 

history parameters, even though recaptures of batch-marked fish do not yield as much 

information as recaptures of PIT-tagged fish, which are an individual mark similar to a social 

security number. Specifically, the survival rate estimates for juvenile humpback chub in the 

mainstem were higher than most scientists anticipated. 

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) standardized sampling and translocations of 

juvenile humpback chub within the LCR have also yielded insights about early life history 

parameters (VanHaverbeke and others, 2012). Standardized sampling demonstrates that there is 

large year-to-year variation in the fall abundances of juvenile humpback chub in the LCR 

(VanHaverbeke and others, 2012). Large differences in fall abundances in the LCR among years 

could be a result of differences in juvenile survival among years. Alternatively, differences in fall 

abundance estimates in the LCR could be unrelated to survival per se and instead reflective of 

higher migration out of the LCR due to, for example, relatively favorable rearing conditions in 

the mainstem. Growth rates for juvenile humpback chub translocated and rearing upstream of 

Chute Falls are two times higher than growth rates for juvenile humpback chub rearing in the 

LCR downstream of Chute Falls. It is worth noting that the differences in juvenile humpback 

chub growth rates within the LCR (upstream vs. downstream of Chute Falls) are actually larger 

than the differences in growth rates between the downstream end of the LCR and the mainstem. 

In light of these new findings, three key uncertainties relevant to the early life history of 

humpback chub are: 

1. To what extent do survival and growth in the LCR aggregation vary temporally (i.e., 

among years) and spatially (i.e., mainstem vs. LCR upstream of Chute Falls vs. LCR 

downstream of Chute Falls)? 

2. What are the drivers of observed variation in survival and growth? Specifically, to what 

extent are endogenous (e.g., intraspecific predation and competition for food) versus 

exogenous factors (e.g., interspecific competition and predation, dam operations, 

variation in LCR hydrology, etc.) responsible for temporal and spatial variation in 

juvenile survival and growth? 

3. To what extent does outmigration of humpback chub from the LCR vary from year to 

year? 

3.1. Scientific Background 

Standardized sampling in the LCR over the last decade has revealed substantial variation 

in fall juvenile abundances from year to year (VanHaverbeke and others, 2012). In particular, 

abundances in 2002 and 2006 were markedly lower than other years (Knowledge Assessment, 

2012) and occurred in the same years as the two lowest snowmelt runoff floods in the LCR over 

the same span, suggesting an important and unresolved link between LCR hydrology and 

humpback chub population dynamics. There are at least four hypotheses to explain this linkage, 

each of which has different implications for the significance of the observation—low juvenile 

fall abundance in the LCR—to humpback chub population dynamics and adult recruitment. 

These hypotheses also have different implications for the relative roles of conditions in the 

mainstem Colorado versus the LCR in determining adult humpback chub population dynamics 

and adult recruitment. Low juvenile abundance in the fall could be a leading indicator of a failed 

birth year caused by: (Hypothesis-(H1) poor egg survival in the LCR, (H2) poor juvenile 

survival in the LCR the preceding summer associated with low prey production, (H3) low 

juvenile survival in the LCR the preceding summer due to predation by conspecifics, or (H4) 
94

unrelated to juvenile survival and instead a result of outmigration from the LCR due to 

displacement from monsoon floods or relatively favorable rearing conditions in the mainstem 

Colorado River. 

Under Hypothesis 1 (H1) Survival of humpback chub eggs in the LCR is limited in years 

when snowmelt flooding is negligible or small because of poor spawning substrate conditions. 

The rationale for this spawning limitation hypothesis is that the LCR is a travertine system, and 

marl deposition in the lower LCR is extremely rapid (Robinson and others, 1996). Without 

moderate/large snowmelt floods that deliver clean gravels, substrates in the downstream part of 

the LCR during the spawning season will likely be cemented together with marl and will lack the 

interstitial spaces necessary for egg survival. Under this hypothesis, we would expect lowered 

numbers of juveniles in both the LCR and in the mainstem near the LCR confluence during years 

without large LCR snowmelt floods. Further, if this hypothesis is true, it suggests that the 

continued success of the LCR population may be predicated on climatic conditions in the LCR 

basin and are best in years of moderate/large snowmelt floods. 

Under Hypothesis 2 (H2) Large snowmelt floods in the LCR stimulate production of the 

prey base through improvements in both the quantity and quality of food resources consumed by 

humpback chub, which leads to high juvenile humpback chub survival and low outmigration. 

(H2) is somewhat related to H1 in that it also posits a link between LCR hydrology and juvenile 

abundance in the fall, but the mechanism underlying H2 is different. In years with small 

snowmelt floods, the foodbase in the LCR is depauperate and unproductive (see Fisher and 

others, 1982; Cross and others, 2011), which in turn leads to low survival and/or high outmigration of juvenile humpback chub. Under this hypothesis, the population of juvenile 

humpback chub (both yearlings and young-of-year) in the mainstem could remain the same, or 

even increase, if juveniles choose to outmigrate in response to low food densities in the LCR in 

years without substantial snowmelt flooding. If this hypothesis is true, and there is earlier and 

higher outmigration in response to negligible/small snowmelt floods in the LCR, it suggests that 

mainstem conditions may be especially important as a greater proportion of the juvenile 

population will be rearing in the mainstem. 

Hypothesis 3 (H3) focuses on the role of intraspecific interactions, especially predation 

and cannibalism by yearlings on young-of-the-year, and can take two non-mutually exclusive 

forms. The first variety of this hypothesis (H3a) posits that in years without large LCR snowmelt 

floods, more yearlings remain in the system and there are higher levels of cannibalism and 

competition than in years with large LCR snowmelt floods. The second version (H3b) posits that, 

independent of the reason for decreases in fall abundances in 2002 and 2006, the lack of 

yearlings in the LCR in the following spawning season (2003 and 2007) led to especially large 

cohorts of young-of-year in those birth years because of reduced cannibalism and competition. 

It is also possible that snowmelt floods are not an important factor affecting humpback 

chub dynamics and, instead, the intensity of summer/fall monsoon floods is the primary driver of 

fall abundances of juvenile humpback chub; that is, low LCR fall abundances are not a leading 

indicator of a failed birth year. In both 2002 and 2006, LCR discharge during the snowmelt 

season was negligible, but there were relatively large monsoon floods in the fall. This 

observation leads to Hypothesis 4 (H4), which argues that outmigration rates of juvenile 

humpback chub from the LCR are directly linked to the intensity of monsoon flooding in the 

summer and fall. Under this hypothesis, we would expect increased migration from the LCR to 

the mainstem during years of large monsoon flooding in the LCR, and we would expect most 

migration to occur during the monsoon season—from July to September. VIE marking as part of 
95

both USFWS and NSE sampling between 2009 and 2011 has provided hints of movement 

between the LCR and the mainstem over these time scales; however, interpretation of these data 

has been hampered by the relatively low number of juveniles marked between the spawning 

season and before fall monsoons. Specifically, the last scheduled spring marking event in the 

LCR occurs in May, and young-of -year humpback chub are rarely large enough to mark with 

VIE tags (>40 mm total length). The next scheduled marking occurs in September, and monsoon 

floods that displace young-of- year may have already occurred. 

Survival rates for juvenile fish are highly correlated with individual growth rates; a 

juvenile population that grows rapidly will generally experience higher survival relative to a 

population of juveniles that is growing slowly (Walters and Martell, 2004). Understanding the 

causes of variation in juvenile humpback chub growth rates among habitats will therefore aid 

interpretation of any estimates of juvenile survival among habitats. One hypothesis to explain the 

observed variation in humpback chub growth rates among locations and times is that growth 

rates are mainly driven by concomitant changes in water temperature (H5). This hypothesis has 

clear implications for dam operations. Another hypothesis (H6) states that humpback chub 

growth among locations and times is mainly driven by differences in the quantity and quality of 

prey available to juvenile humpback chub. This hypothesis also has implications for dam 

operations, but the types of operational changes that might be evaluated to mitigate low prey 

production in the mainstem are very different from the types of operations that might be 

evaluated to mitigate water temperature effects related to (H5). Lastly, interspecific and 

intraspecific competition for food resources is the main driver of humpback chub growth rates 

among locations and times (H7). It is unlikely that these hypotheses (H5-H7) are mutually 

exclusive and, instead, there are probably some years when one factor ultimately limits or 

constrains humpback chub growth, and other years when a different factor limits growth. 

It is improbable that a two-year study could fully resolve all of these hypotheses, in part 

because our ability to distinguish among certain hypotheses is dependent on LCR hydrology. 

However, irrespective of LCR hydrology, the new activities we will conduct in FY13-14 will 

allow us to evaluate the strength of evidence for at least some of the above hypotheses and 

address key uncertainties surrounding the population dynamics of humpback chub. This new 

research will be integrated with ongoing USFWS monitoring in the LCR and NSE style sampling 

in the mainstem, which will help minimize handling of juvenile humpback chub. Integration of 

this new research effort into ongoing monitoring will also build upon these long-term efforts in a 

way that allows us to ask new questions. 

4. Proposed Work 

4.1. Project Elements 

Project Element E.1. July Little Colorado Marking ($122,000) 

Charles Yackulic, Research Statistician, USGS/GCMRC 

Mike Yard, Fishery Biologist, USGS/GCMRC 

The objective of this project element is to determine the extent of juvenile humpback 

chub outmigration and the role that summer monsoon floods play in augmented outmigration. 

We will use hoop net sampling at each of the 3 camps used by USFWS in July to capture 

juvenile humpback chub. Fish between 40-100 mm will be given VIE batch marks, and fish 
96

larger than 100 mm will be scanned for PIT tags. Recaptures of these marked individuals will 

occur as part of ongoing monitoring projects (i.e., USFWS sampling, NSE sampling). 

The additional marking trip in July is primarily motivated by a trend emerging from the 

NSE study. A proportion of the small number of fish marked in the LCR by NSE researchers 

during July show up in the Colorado River in later sampling periods. However, relatively few of 

the fish marked by the USFWS in the fall are subsequently found in the Colorado River. This 

suggests that large numbers of juveniles may be moving out of the LCR between July and the 

fall, consistent with H3. 

Whether juveniles out-migrate or die is unimportant for determining the causes of yearto-year variation in LCR juvenile abundances, but crucially important for determining the longterm impacts of such variation on humpback chub population dynamics. Juvenile humpback 

chub survival has been higher than anticipated under the Colorado River conditions of the last 

few years. Nevertheless, given the novelty of this study, we do not know how these rates 

compare to rates under different environmental conditions (e.g., with different nonnative fish 

abundance or different dam operations, including changes in water temperature). Estimating 

juvenile humpback chub growth and survival under a new set of conditions in the Colorado 

River (i.e., higher nonnative abundance, colder water) than those observed during the NSE 

sampling era will hopefully provide the contrast needed to resolve whether water temperatures or 

nonnative abundance are master variables affecting humpback chub population dynamics. 

Resolving this uncertainty will require both continued NSE sampling and LCR sampling, an 

additional LCR marking event in July, followed by statistical analyses and modeling to integrate 

these data. Lastly, if many juveniles are moving from the LCR between July and September, then 

VIE marking in July will allow us to more definitively link dynamics in the LCR to dynamics in 

other aggregations, particularly as sampling in these aggregations becomes more rigorous 

(Project D: Mainstem Humpback Chub Aggregation Studies and Metapopulation Dynamics). 

Project Element E.2. Describing food web structure and the potential for food limitation within the LCR 

($250,000) 

Theodore Kennedy, Research Biologist, USGS/GCMRC 

Colden Baxter, Associate Professor, Idaho State University 

David Walters , Research Ecologist, USGS - Fort Collins Science Center 

Dennis Stone, Fishery Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-Flagstaff 

Craig Stricker, Research Biologist, USGS-Fort Collins Science Center 

Richard Wanty, Research Chemist, USGS- Crustal Geophysics and Geochemistry Science 

Center 

Randy VanHaverbeke Fishery Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-Flagstaff 

For this project, we will develop quantitative food webs for two segments of the LCR—

the reach upstream of Chute Falls and the reach downstream of Chute Falls—using methods 

described in Cross and others (2011). Quantitative food webs will be used to estimate both the 

flux of energy (that is, carbon) along food web pathways, and also the flux of contaminants (i.e., 

arsenic, lead, selenium, etc.) along these same food web pathways. In this way, exact trophic 

pathways that are important to fish growth or contribute to elevated contaminant burdens can be 

identified. 

Developing quantitative food webs requires estimates of production (or supply) for each 

trophic level (i.e., algae production, detritus inputs during floods, invertebrate production, fish 
97

production), and also information on feeding habitats of higher trophic levels (that is, 

invertebrates and fish). Algae production will be estimated by constructing dissolved oxygen 

budgets, using the methods of Hall and others (2010). Detritus inputs will be estimated by 

sampling organic matter fluxes during LCR floods. Measurement of organic matter standing 

stock in both segments will be used to track the fate of new detritus inputs. These measurements 

of inputs and standing stock will be complemented by decomposition experiments in both 

locations and across seasons to assess the potential for detritus inputs to be incorporated into the 

food web. Benthic invertebrate production will be estimated using either the instantaneous 

growth method or size-frequency method, depending on taxa (Cross and others, 2011). 

Invertebrate drift rates will also be quantified as an independent estimate of food availability to 

humpback chub, which are generally considered drift feeders. We will sample the diets of all 

common species of fish in the LCR on a seasonal basis. Diets of humpback chub will be assessed 

using non-lethal gastric lavage (Baker and Fraser, 1976). Gastric lavage is not feasible with the 

native suckers (mortality is extremely high because suckers have a thinned-walled digestive 

tract) or small-bodied fishes (speckled dace and fathead minnow) that are common in the LCR, 

so we will humanely euthanize up to 30 individuals of each species per site and season to assess 

feeding habits of other fish species. Estimates of population size for the entire fish assemblage 

from multiple years of monitoring will be coupled with information on age structure and sizeage-weight relationships to estimate fish production using the instantaneous growth rate method 

(Hayes and others, 2007). 

There are two methods for calculating the trophic basis of production for fish—

quantitative gut content analysis (Benke and Wallace, 1980) and stable isotope analysis 

(McCutchan and Lewis, 2002). Trophic basis of production is the proportional contribution of 

each food resource to fish production. In the case of gut content analysis, assimilation 

efficiencies of each food resource are used to estimate the relative importance of each food 

resource in the diet of the fish, thereby accounting for differences in quality/digestibility among 

different food resources (Cummins, 1973). Algae production, detritus inputs/supply, and 

invertebrate production estimates are then incorporated to calculate flows from food resources to 

fish. These calculations yield a rate (g m-2

 y

-1), which represents the flow of carbon from food 

resources to consumers and is taxon and resource specific. We will extend these flux estimates to 

include contaminants by measuring contaminant concentrations in food web compartments. 

Evaluation of contaminants in fish requires muscle plugs, which can be taken from fish without 

sacrificing the animal, but collecting even a small muscle plug obviously represents a major 

stressor to individual fish. In FY13, we will assess contaminant levels in food web compartments 

including common native fish other than humpback chub (i.e., suckers and speckled dace). If 

contaminant levels in these fish are elevated, we will submit an amendment to our USFWS 

permit and seek permission to take muscle plugs from humpback chub in FY14 to assess 

contaminant levels. 

Stable isotope analysis can also be used to estimate the trophic basis of production for 

fish (McCutchan and Lewis, 2002), so long as potential food sources are sufficiently separate in 

isotope space—that is, food resources have stable isotope signatures that are unique and can be 

distinguished. Isotope analysis of the food web in the mainstem Colorado River has documented 

high variability within specific food web compartments (e.g., the carbon isotope signature for 

algae varies spatially; Shannon and others, 2001) and a general lack of separation among 

potential carbon sources, making trophic basis of production estimates for fish using stable 

isotopes infeasible (Shannon and others, 2001; Rosi-Marshall, unpublished data). However, we 
98

believe stable isotopes may be a useful tool for trophic basis of production calculations within 

the LCR because of strong gradients in dissolved inorganic carbon within the LCR (Robinson 

and others 1996). As ground water discharged from springs in the LCR equilibrates with 

atmospheric conditions, the concentration of dissolved CO2 decreases (CO2 is a major 

component of dissolved inorganic carbon in all streams; Robinson and others, 1996). Algae 

production, by taking up dissolved CO2 from the water, also speeds the process of dissolved CO2

equilibration and decline. Likewise, geomorphic features like Chute Falls, which increase rates 

of air-water gas exchange (Hall and others, 2012), will also speed the process of CO2

equilibration. Strong and predictable downstream gradients in dissolved inorganic carbon will 

cause strong and predictable gradients in algal carbon stable isotope values (Finlay and Kendall, 

2007; Kennedy and others, 2005). Kennedy and others (2005) were able to capitalize on similar 

downstream gradients in algal carbon stable isotope values in a spring-fed stream in Nevada to 

resolve trophic pathways linking basal resources to two species of endangered fish. 

We will take fin clips from humpback chub, and muscle plugs and fin clips from all other 

fish, in FY13-14, along with collections of food resources (i.e., algae, terrestrial detritus, and 

invertebrates) and analyze stable isotope ratios of carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur. We will follow 

the methods of McCutchan and Lewis (2002) to incorporate stable isotope information into our 

trophic-basis of production calculations. Analysis of nitrogen stable isotope ratios in food web 

compartments will also yield information on nitrogen content of food resources consumed by 

fish, which is a metric of food quality (i.e., nutritional content). We will update the quantitative 

food webs developed for the mainstem during the foodbase project (2006-2009; project 

F:Monitoring of Native and Nonnative Fishes in the Mainstem Colorado River and Lower 13.6 

km of the LCR, element F.7. Foodbase Monitoring) to describe conditions there; however, 

updating the mainstem food web will mainly involve new estimates of invertebrate production 

and invertebrate drift whereas the feeding habits of fishes in the mainstem will not be reassessed. 

Bioenergetics models will be used to integrate these data and assess the potential for food 

limitation in both the LCR and the mainstem. 

Spatial and temporal variation in the prey base may play an important role in determining 

patterns of juvenile humpback chub growth and survival (e.g., H2, H6). After habitat, food is the 

resource that most often limits animal populations (Krebs, 1994). To understand whether 

differences in the quantity or quality of food resources is an important driver underlying 

differences in humpback chub growth or movement among habitats, it is necessary to place 

estimates of juvenile humpback chub growth and survival in the context of the LCR and 

mainstem food webs as a whole. A food web context is critical, because humpback chub are one 

of several species of fish (i.e., flannelmouth sucker [Catostomis latipinnis] and bluehead sucker 

[Catostomis discobolus]) that rely heavily on the LCR for spawning and rearing (VanHaverbeke 

and others, 2012; Walters and others, 2012). Indeed, the spawning season abundance estimates 

for bluehead sucker in the LCR from 2007-2009 ranged from 40,000-70,000, or nearly ten times 

higher than spawning season abundance estimates for humpback chub (VanHaverbeke and 

others, 2012). Although suckers and humpback chub have different feeding modes—suckers are 

bottom feeders whereas chub are drift feeders—the sheer numbers of bluehead suckers present in 

the LCR during spawning season in these years suggests interspecific competition for food could 

be an important factor affecting humpback chub juvenile growth at times. Recent foodbase 

research efforts indicate fish production in the mainstem near the LCR may even be limited by 

the availability of high quality invertebrate prey (Donner, 2011); however, food web structure 

and the potential for food limitation of humpback chub in the LCR itself have not been studied. 
99

During the 1990s, several investigators documented low invertebrate abundance and 

biomass in the LCR downstream of Chute Falls relative to both the mainstem Colorado River 

and also the reach upstream of Chute Falls (Robinson and others, 1996; Haden, unpublished 

data). Robinson and others (1996) went a step further and also translocated juvenile and yearling 

humpback chub and yearling bluehead sucker to the reach upstream of Chute Falls to assess 

whether water quality upstream of Chute Falls represented an acute stress for fish other than 

speckled dace—dace are common upstream of Chute Falls. These short-term cage experiments 

(3 days in duration) revealed significantly higher mortality rates for juvenile humpback chub 

near Blue Springs (at river kilometer 20) relative to other locations (river kilometers 17.5 and 15 

and a control reach downstream of Chute Falls at river kilometer 10; Chute Falls is at river 

kilometer 14.1). There was no difference in mortality rates for yearling humpback chub or 

bluehead sucker among locations. These authors concluded that food resources and water 

chemistry were not restricting the distribution of humpback chub and bluehead sucker within the 

LCR to the segment downstream of Chute Falls. They went on to suggest, “Translocations of 

fish to the reach [upstream] of Chute Falls, or breaching that barrier, may be feasible 

management actions to increase available habitat for the endangered humpback chub and other 

native fishes in the LCR” (Robinson and others, 1996). 

The USFWS began translocating juvenile humpback chub to the reach upstream of Chute 

Falls in 2003. Growth rates for these translocated fish are two times higher than juveniles rearing 

in the LCR downstream of Chute Falls (Knowledge Assessment, 2012). Since 2003, 1848 

juvenile humpback chub have been translocated upstream of Chute Falls, but total abundance in 

2011for the translocation segment was only 133. Thus, humpback chub are apparently moving 

downstream of Chute Falls even though conditions there are extremely favorable for growth. 

Patterns of juvenile humpback chub growth rates among habitats could be due to 

differences in either the quantity or quality of food resources, among other things. Algae biomass 

and production in the lower LCR segment is low and appears to be limited by rapid marl 

deposition and low water clarity (Robinson and others, 1996). Indeed, there is a negative 

feedback between algae growth and marl deposition in carbonate-rich systems like the LCR 

(Spiro and Pentecost, 1991). Algae uptake of CO2, which is required for photosynthesis, drives 

the dissolved inorganic carbon budget for travertine streams out of balance and actually causes 

precipitation of marl on spatial scales ranging from the microscopic scale (individual algae cells 

become smothered in marl) to the segment (i.e., lower LCR downstream of Chute Falls; 

Robinson and others, 1996). Floods that scour the LCR and remove marl may temporarily 

increase the production of high-quality algae biomass, which then fuels production of the fast 

growing invertebrate taxa that are the preferred prey items of humpback chub (see Fisher and 

others, 1982; Cross and others, 2011 for examples of floods stimulating production of fast 

growing invertebrate taxa). Algae is probably an important component of the LCR food web, but 

it may not be the only basal resource that fuels production of higher trophic levels. The LCR 

food web is almost completely based in part on detritus inputs that are delivered with large 

floods, as has been observed in the mainstem (Wellard Kelly and others, in review; Donner, 

2011). The environment for decomposition in the LCR appears favorable (warm temperatures, 

deep pools that will retain detritus), particularly in relation to mainstem conditions. Large 

snowmelt floods might deliver large amounts of detrital organic matter that then fuels production 

of fast growing invertebrate prey. 

The quality of food resources could also be affecting humpback chub growth in the LCR. 

The quality of food resources could be related to the nutritional quality of the organic matter and 
100

invertebrates eaten by chub (e.g., the amount of nitrogen and phosphorus they contain). 

Alternatively, concentrations of metals and other toxins in food resources could be a more 

important determinant of resource quality for chub than nutrient content. High fluxes of selenium 

have been measured along a primary food web pathway in the mainstem for 4 different segments 

(river mile 62, 127, 165, and 225) downstream of the LCR (suspended organic matterfilter 

feeding black flies fish; Walters and others, in prep). The elevated concentrations of selenium 

in rainbow trout and speckled dace downstream of the LCR are actually cause for concern 

because they exceeded the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) wildlife warning 

threshold of 3 μg Se per gram dry weight (EPA, 2004). If inputs of water, sediment, or detritus 

from the LCR are capable of driving selenium concentrations in the mainstem food web above 

wildlife warning thresholds, it begs the question of whether selenium or other metals are playing 

a major role in fish growth, condition, and survival within the LCR? Andrews and others (1995) 

documented elevated concentrations for a suite of toxic metals (arsenic, copper, mercury, lead, 

selenium, and zinc) in fish collected from segments of the LCR that are well upstream of the 

perennial reach in Grand Canyon. Ecotoxicology of the LCR food web clearly warrants further 

study. 

We will measure trace metals (e.g., Cu, Cd, Zn, etc.) as well as Hg and Se in water, 

organic matter, and organisms in the LCR food web. These data, in combination with the trophic 

basis of production data will allow us to 1) characterize the extent and magnitude of metal 

contamination in the LCR; 2) identify those metals posing the greatest risk to LCR fishes; 

3)calculate rates (μg m-2

 y

-1) metal flux from food resources to consumers that are taxon and 

resource specific. This will allow us to quantify important pathways of metal exposure to species 

of concern like humpback chub. In addition, we will analyze samples for isotopic ratios of 

selected metals – Cu, Cd, and Zn. Based on previous studies (Cloquet et al., 2008) we expect to 

see significant fractionation of Zn isotopes between trophic levels, and by extension, perhaps 

greater fractionations in Cu isotopes, as Cu participates in fractionating redox reactions. Together 

with the other data gathered in this study, the isotopic fractionations and mass balances should 

yield insights into the mechanism of biological uptake and transfer among trophic levels. 

This project will produce multiple peer-reviewed publications and a master’s thesis. 

Idaho State University is providing a graduate student stipend/salary in support of this 

Project Element. 

Project Element E.3. Population modeling ($86,000) 

Charles Yackulic, Research Statistician, USGS/GCMRC 

Theodore Kennedy, Research Aquatic Biologist, USGS/GCMRC 

Bill Pine, Associate Professor, University of Florida 

This project’s objectives are to develop integrated statistical models to estimate survival, 

growth and movement in the LCR and Colorado River portions of the LCR complex. This 

project will also develop models to test the roles of intraspecific interactions and hydrology in 

explaining observed juveniles abundance trends over the last decade. 

We will use multistate mark-recapture models to estimate survival, growth, and 

movement within the LCR complex. Multistate mark-recapture models provide a flexible means 

for estimating transition rates between states which can be defined in many ways. In our model, 

states will be defined in terms of both location and size allowing us to estimate both movement 

and growth. Although multistate models are fairly standard in wildlife ecology (Williams and 

others, 2001), the model we will develop will require new developments to integrate batch (VIE 
101

marks) and individual marks (pit tags) and share information across sampling events. Data 

collected through project element E.1. will be very important in allowing us to estimate juvenile 

movement between the LCR and the mainstem with an acceptable level of precision. 

 We will also develop deterministic models to evaluate the degree to which variation in 

juvenile abundances and sizes in the LCR can be attributed to LCR hydrology versus 

intraspecific or interspecific interactions. Our ability to evaluate hypotheses H1-H4 during FY 

13-14 will be somewhat dependent on LCR hydrology in 2012-2014, when better estimates of 

juvenile survival and movement between the LCR and NSE study area will be available; 

however, we will also be able to incorporate existing data into our analyses, particularly FWS 

and NSE data gathered in 2009-2011. 

Prior to 2009, fish under 150 mm were not marked, limiting our ability to track 

individuals and make direct inferences about movement, growth, and survival. However, catch 

per unit effort data collected in the LCR over the last decade suggests that there is large variation 

in size distributions among seasons and years suggesting variable growth and survival and/or 

movement out of the LCR. Since 2009, fish between 100 mm and 150 mm have begun to be 

individually marked and fish between 40 mm and 100 mm have received batch marks. Batch 

marks were applied in all NSE trips and during fall FWS trips (at 1 of 3 camps in 2009 and all 3 

camps in following years). NSE trips in July and August also applied a limited number of VIE 

marks in the lower parts of the LCR in 2009-2011. Extension of marking efforts to smaller fish 

and increased effort in the mainstem now provides us with the opportunity to better understand 

variation in early life history and the role that variation in mainstem and LCR conditions plays in 

early life history variation. The multistate model developed as part of the project element will 

help us estimate variation in life history parameters more accurately than separate analyses of 

LCR and mainstem data, while the deterministic model will, at the very least, help to clarify 

which hypotheses are unlikely and what observations would be needed to distinguish likely 

hypotheses. 

This project will produce at least 2 peer reviewed articles. 
102

5. References 

Andrews, B.J., Kind, K.A., and Baker, D.L., 1995, Radionuclides and trace elements in fish and 

wildlife of the Puerco and Little Colorado Rivers, Arizona, 

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/ECReports/RadionuclidesAZ.pdf. 

Baker, A.M., and Fraser, D.F., 1976, A method for securing the gut contents of small, live fish: 

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, v. 105, p. 520-522. 

Benke, A.C., and Wallace, J.B., 1980, Trophic basis of production among net-spinning 

caddisflies in a southern Appalachian stream: Ecology, v. 61, no. 1, p. 108-118, 

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/119642567/PDFSTART. 

Cloquet, C., Carignan, J., Lehmann, M.F., and Vanhaecke, R., 2008, Variation in the isotopic 

composition of zinc in the natural environment and the use of zinc in isotopes in the 

biogeosciences—a review: Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, v. 390, p. 451-463 

Coggins, L.G., Jr., Pine, W.E., III, Walters, C.J., and Martell, S.J.D., 2006, Age-structured markrecapture analysis--a virtual population-analysis-based model for analyzing age-structured 

capture-recapture data: North American Journal of Fisheries Management, v. 26, no. 1, 

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1577/M05-133.1. 

Coggins, L.G., Jr., and Walters, C.J., 2009, Abundance trends and status of the Little Colorado 

River population of humpback chub--an update considering data from 1989-2008: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 2009-1075, 18 p., http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1075/. 

Cross, W.F., Baxter, C.V., Donner, K.C., Rosi-Marshall, E.J., Kennedy, T.A., Hall, R.O., Jr., 

Wellard-Kelly, H.A., and Rogers, R.S., 2011, Ecosystem ecology meets adaptive 

management--food web response to a controlled flood on the Colorado River, Glen Canyon: 

Ecological Applications, v. 21, no. 6, http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/10-1719.1. 

Cummins, K.W. 1973. Trophic relations of aquatic insects. Annual Review of Entomology 

18:183-206. 

Donner, K.C., 2011, Trophic basis of production of fishes in the Colorado River, Grand Canyon-

-an assessment of potential competition for food: Pocatello, Id., Idaho State University, M.S. 

thesis. 

Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. Draft aquatic life water quality criteria for Selenium, 

http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/aqlife/pollutants/selenium/index.cf

m. 

Finlay, J.C., and Kendall, C., 2007, Stable isotope tracing of temporal and spatial variability in 

organic matter sources to freshwater ecosystems, in Michener, R., and Lajtha, K., eds., Stable 

isotopes in ecology and environmental science (2d ed.): Malden, Mass., Blackwell 

Publishing, p. 283-333, 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9780470691854.ch10/summary. 

Fisher, S.G., Gray, L.J., Grimm, N.B., and Busch, D.E., 1982, Temporal succession in a desert 

stream ecosystem following flash flooding: Ecological Monographs, v. 52, no. 1, p. 93-110, 

http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/2937346.pdf. 

Hall, R.O., Jr., Kennedy, T.A., Rosi Marshall, E.J., Cross, W.F., Wellard, H.A., and Baxter, C.F., 

2010, Aquatic production and carbon flow in the Colorado River, in Melis, T.S., Hamill, J.F., 

Bennett, G.E., Coggins, L.G., Jr., Grams, P.E., Kennedy, T.A., Kubly, D.M., and Ralston, 

B.E., eds., Proceedings of the Colorado River Basin Science and Resource Management 

Symposium, November 18-20, 2008, Scottsdale, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2010-5135, 105-112 p., http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5135/. 
103

Hall, R.O., Jr., Kennedy, T.A., and Rosi-Marshall, E.J., 2012, Air-water oxygen exchange in a 

large whitewater river: Limnology and Oceanography--Fluids and Environments, v. 2 (2012), 

doi: 10.1215/21573689-1572535, p. 1-11, 

http://hwmaint.lofe.dukejournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/2/0/1. 

Hayes D.B., Bence, J.R., Kwak, T.J., and Thompson, B.E., 2007, Abundance, biomass, and 

production, in Guy C.S., Brown, M.L., eds., Analysis and interpretation of freshwater 

fisheries data: American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland, p. 327-374. 

Kaeding, L.R., and Zimmerman, M.A., 1983, Life history and ecology of the humpback chub in 

the Little Colorado and Colorado Rivers of the Grand Canyon: Transactions of the American 

Fisheries Society, v. 112, no. 5, p. 577-594, 

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1577/1548-

8659%281983%29112%3C577%3ALHAEOT%3E2.0.CO%3B2. 

Kennedy, T.A., Finlay, J.C., and Hobbie, S.E., 2005, Eradication of invasive saltcedar (Tamarix 

ramosissima) along a desert springbrook increases native fish density: Ecological 

Applications v.15, p. 2072-2083. 

Krebs, C.J., 2008, Ecology--the experimental analysis of distribution and abundance (6th ed.): 

Menlo Park, Calif., Benjamin Cummings, 688 p., http://elib.tudarmstadt.de/tocs/94263906.pdf. 

McCutchan, J.H., and Lewis, W.M., Jr., 2002, Carbon sources for macroinvertebrates in a Rocky 

Mountain stream: Limnology and Oceanography v. 47, p. 742-752. 

Robinson, A.T., Kubly, D.M., Clarkson, R.W., and Creef, E.D., 1996, Factors limiting the 

distribution of native fishes in the Little Colorado River, Grand Canyon, Arizona: The 

Southwestern Naturalist, v. 41, no. 4, p. 378-387, http://www.jstor.org/stable/30055194. 

Shannon, J.P., Blinn, D.W., Haden, G.A., Benenati, E.P., and Wilson, K.P., 2001, Food web 

implications of δ13C and δ15N variability over 370 km of the regulated Colorado River, 

USA: Isotopes in Environmental and Health Studies, v. 37, no. 3, 

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a757118642. 

Spiro, B., and Pentecost, A., 1991, One day in the life of a stream—a diurnal inorganic carbon 

mass balance for a travertine-depositing stream (waterfall beck, Yorkshire): 

Geomicrobiology Journal 9. 

Van Haverbeke, D.R., Stone, D.M., and Pillow, M.J., 2012, Mark-Recapture and Fish 

Monitoring Activities in the Little Colorado River in Grand Canyon during 2011: submitted 

to USGS Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, Flagstaff, Arizona, 70 p. 

Walters, C.J., and Martell, S.J.D., 2004, Fisheries ecology and management: Princeton, N.J., 

Princeton University Press. 

Walters, C.J., VanPoorten, B.T., and Coggins, L.G., 2012, Bioenergetics and population 

dynamics of flannelmouth sucker and bluehead sucker in Grand Canyon as evidenced by tag 

recapture observations: Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, v. 141, p. 158-173. 

Walters, D.M., Rosi-Marshall, E.J., Cross, W.F., Kennedy, T.A., and Baxter, C.V., in prep., A 

quantitative food web approach for estimating selenium flux in the Colorado River in Grand 

Canyon. 

Wellard Kelly, H.A., Rosi-Marshall, E.J., Kennedy, T.A., Hall, R.O., Cross, W.F., and Baxter, 

C.V., in review, Macroinvertebrate diets reflect longitudinal and seasonal changes in food 

availability downstream of a large dam. 
104

Williams, B.K., Nichols, J.D., and Conroy, M.J., 2002, Analysis and management of animal 

populations--modeling, estimation, and decision making: San Diego, Calif., Academic Press, 

ISBN: 0-12-754406-2, 817 p.

 
105

6. Budget 

Project Element  E.1. July

LCR marking

Project Element E.2.

Describing the food web

structure and the potential

for food limitation within

the Little Colorado River

Salaries $58,000 Salaries $112,000

Traveling and Training $0 Traveling and Training $2,000

Operating Expenses $5,000 Operating Expenses $15,000

Logistics $10,000 Logistics $0

GIS/RS/Electronics support

(includes burden) $34,000 GIS/RS/Electronics support

(includes burden) $0

Cooperators (non‐USGS) $0 Cooperators (non‐USGS) $100,000

USGS cooperators $0 USGS cooperators $0

USGS Burden $15,000 USGS Burden $21,000

Total $122,000 Total $250,000

Project Element E.3.

Population Modeling

Salaries $60,000

Traveling and Training $4,000

Operating Expenses $2,000

Logistics $0

GIS/RS/Electronics support

(includes burden) 0

Cooperators (non‐USGS) $10,000

USGS cooperators $0

USGS Burden $10,000

Total $86,000

FY 2013 Project E. Gross Total:

$457,000

FY 2014 Project E. Gross Total: $460,000
106

Project F. 

Monitoring of Native and Nonnative Fishes in the Mainstem 

Colorado River and the lower Little Colorado River 

1. Investigators 

William Persons, Fishery Biologist, USGS, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center 

Charles Yackulic, Research Statistician, USGS, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center 

Aaron Bunch, Fishery Biologist, Arizona Game and Fish Department 

Luke Avery, Fishery Biologist, USGS, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center 

Josh Korman, President, Ecometric Research, Inc. 

Matt Kaplinski, Research Assistant, Northern Arizona University 

David VanHaverbeke, Fishery Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Dana Winkelman, Professor, Colorado State University 

Brian Healy, Fishery Biologist, Grand Canyon National Park 

Steve Martell, Professor, University of British Columbia 

2. Summary 

Native fish populations in Grand Canyon are key resources of concern influencing 

decisions on both the operation of Glen Canyon Dam and non-flow actions. To inform these 

decisions, it is imperative that accurate and timely information on the status of fish populations, 

particularly the endangered humpback chub (Gila cypha), be available to managers. A suite of 

adaptive experimental management actions are being contemplated to better understand the 

mechanisms controlling the population dynamics of native fish and to identify policies that are 

consistent with the attainment of management goals. The assessments generated from this project 

provide a baseline from which to assess the effects of implemented experimental actions. This 

information is therefore crucial to (1) inform the program as to attainment of identified goals, (2) 

provide baseline status and trend information to be used as a backdrop to further understand 

mechanisms controlling native and nonnative fish population dynamics, and (3) evaluate the 

efficacy of particular management policies in attaining program goals. The results of this project 

are potentially useful in assessing changes to the Federal Endangered Species Act listing status 

of humpback chub in Grand Canyon. 

3. Background 

Long-term monitoring of fishes and aquatic resources in Glen and Grand Canyon is of 

interest to the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP), a federally 

authorized initiative to protect and mitigate adverse impacts to the resources downstream from 

Glen Canyon Dam (GCD). The U.S. Geological Survey’s Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center (GCMRC) is responsible for long-term fish monitoring for the program, which 

is implemented in cooperation with the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD), U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and others. Long-term monitoring establishes a “baseline,” 

through which response of resources to changing management policies or experiments can be 
107

interpreted and evaluated (Walters and Holling, 1990; Thomas, 1996; Walters, 1997). For 

example, since 1996, a series of experimental high flows have been released from GCD as part 

of a strategy intended to restore sandbars in Grand Canyon (Melis and others, 2011); several 

stable-flow tests and localized removal of nonnative fish have been conducted to benefit native 

fishes (Coggins and others, 2011; Yard and others, 2011). In addition, drought induced warming 

of the Colorado River that occurred during 2004 and 2005 is thought to have benefitted native 

fishes (Coggins and others, 2011). 

Two recent Environmental Assessments and an associated Biological Opinion, as well as 

the GCDAMP 2011-2012 Work plan and Budget (Bureau of Reclamation and U.S. Geological 

Survey Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, 2010; Bureau of Reclamation, 2011; 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2011), mandate monitoring the status and trends of adult 

humpback chub in the Little Colorado River (LCR) near the confluence, in the mainstem 

Colorado River (see Mainstem Humpback Chub Aggregation, Project D), and at areas where 

humpback chub have been translocated. The Biological Opinion defines triggers to determine 

when nonnative fish control will take place near the LCR. Triggers are related to the abundance 

of adult and juvenile humpback chub, survival rates of juvenile humpback chub, abundance of 

rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and brown trout (Salmo trutta), and river temperature. The 

following monitoring projects contribute data and information required by the Environmental 

Assessments and Biological Opinion to determine if elements and conditions of the trigger are 

met. 

Long-term perspective is necessary when evaluating ecosystem change that results from 

management actions. Changes may take place over a period of years rather than abruptly, hence 

the critical importance of long-term baseline monitoring. The currently funded monitoring 

program (Bureau of Reclamation and U.S. Geological Survey Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center, 2010) includes two types of monitoring (Walters and others 2012). 

1. “Core” monitoring provides annual estimates of net recruitment rates to the adult 

population of native and nonnative fishes along with basic information on changes in 

water quality parameters such as temperature and suspended sediment, and biomasses of 

aquatic foodbase organisms. This “core” program provides information on net 

recuritment of native and nonnative fishes within about 2-3 years after treatments. Some 

treatments may affect juvenile life stages, and “core” monitoring does not consider 

density dependent or environmental conditions outside of the treatment that may affect 

recruitment. 

2. “Initial response” monitoring programs provide short term (seasonal) information on 

immediate effects of treatments on abundance and survival rates of juvenile fishes. The 

“initial response” monitoring provides information with which to interpret data gathered 

later through “core” monitoring and may provide more information concerning cause and 

effect mechanisms that influence survival and recruitment. 

3.1. Scientific Background 

Monitoring projects have been designed in anticipation of management actions such as 

high-flow experiments (HFEs), fall steady flows, and others. These plans are consistent with 

science plans described in the Science Plans of the Environmental Assessments (EAs) for 

nonnative fish control and HFEs. Typically, management actions or experimental treatments are 

considered as annual treatments and it is difficult to discern effects of single flow perturbations 

like HFEs on biological resources such as adult fish populations. In cases where we are 
108

interested in the effect of an HFE on a particular life stage of fish, such as juvenile rainbow trout 

in Glen Canyon, the Rainbow Trout Early Life Stage Study (RTELSS, F.2.2.) has sufficient 

resolution to estimate effects of such a high flow. In the case of RTELSS, extra field sampling 

can be conducted quickly around an HFE to assess short term impacts to juvenile rainbow trout. 

The Rainbow Trout Monitoring in Glen Canyon Project (Element F.2.1.) will also be able to 

assess impacts of an HFE to juvenile rainbow trout recruitment at an annual time scale. 

Responses of juvenile humpback chub in the mainstem Colorado River immediately downstream 

of the LCR confluence will be assessed by quarterly sampling during FY13-14 as part of Project 

Element F.4. 

The Detection of Rainbow Trout Movement from the Upper Reaches of the Colorado 

River below Glen Canyon Dam Project (Element F.6.) includes separate contingency plans for 

marking additional fish after a HFE if necessary. Other fish monitoring projects are assessing 

impacts on an annual or larger time step, and no additional field work is required. Foodbase 

Monitoring (Project Element F.7.) may need to add additional drift and benthos samples to 

bracket any HFE in an attempt to describe short term impacts of the experimental treatment on 

foodbase resources. 

4. Proposed Work 

The majority of the work proposed here has been described previously in documents 

already vetted by the GCDAMP. Rather than merely copy from these sources, we have instead 

provided brief summaries of ongoing projects and referenced the relevant sections of the original 

documents. For those projects where expanded or new work is being proposed, more detailed 

information in the form of background, rationale, and methods is provided as needed. 

4.1. Project Elements 

Project element F.1. System Wide Electrofishing ($217,000) 

Aaron Bunch, Fishery Biologist, Arizona Game and Fish Department 

William Persons, Fishery Biologist, USGS/GCMRC 

Annual monitoring of native and nonnative fish in the main stem Colorado River has 

been ongoing since 2000 (Makinster and others, 2010; see also BIO 2.M4.11, 12 in the FY 11-12 

Work Plan). These efforts rely upon boat-operated electrofishing to provide information on 

status and trends of native and nonnative fish between Lees Ferry and Lake Mead. Sampling 

consisted of two annual spring electrofishing trips during 2002-2010, except during 2007 when a 

spring trip and a fall trip were conducted. During 2011 and 2012 a single annual spring trip was 

conducted. Adult humpback chub are generally not vulnerable to electrofishing; therefore they 

are sampled in Project D. Data collected from this project are used to provide trout relative 

abundance estimates which, in turn, may be used as part of the suite of triggers identifying when 

to implement mechanical removal of nonnative fish to protect humpback chub (Bureau of 

Reclamation, 2011). The project also uses catch per unit effort indices to track relative status and 

trends of most common native and nonnative fish. This project includes sampling downstream 

from Diamond Creek. 

This project will produce trip and annual reports. 
109

Project Element F.2. Glen Canyon Monitoring ($285,000) 

Project Element F.2.1. Rainbow Trout Monitoring in Glen Canyon 

Aaron Bunch, Fishery Biologist, Arizona Game and Fish Department 

Mike Anderson, Arizona Game and Fish Department 

William Persons, Fishery Biologist, USGS/GCMRC 

The importance of the Lees Ferry rainbow trout fishery as a valuable recreational 

resource is recognized by the GCDAMP. Monitoring the trout fishery and evaluating responses 

of the rainbow trout population in Glen Canyon to GCD operations is also critical to the 

Adaptive Management Program (AMP). The fishery is regulated by biotic and abiotic 

mechanisms that may in turn be affected by the operations of GCD. The monitoring of basic fish 

population elements, including relative abundance, size composition, distribution, and 

recruitment of native and nonnative fish, provides the information necessary to assess the status 

of these resources and to inform the GCDAMP. 

Electrofishing has been used to sample the fish community in Glen Canyon since the 

early 1980s (Maddux and others, 1987). Standardized monitoring using electrofishing was 

initiated in 1991 and has been used since that time to provide data to evaluate the response of the 

rainbow trout population to GCD dam operations (McKinney and others, 2001; Makinster and 

others, 2011). The sampling program underwent refinements following protocol evaluation 

panels (PEPs) in 2000 and 2009 that provided independent, external scientific reviews of 

monitoring protocols (Anders and others, 2001; Bradford and others, 2009). The project, as 

described in the FY11-12 Work Plan (BIO 4.M2.11, 12), will conduct three trips in FY12 that 

each sample 36 random sites stratified longitudinally by river mile and by shoreline type. This 

design is planned to continue in FY13-14. 

The 2009 PEP recommended that the Lees Ferry rainbow trout monitoring project be 

expanded to include an invasive fish surveillance and detection program at sites where nonnative 

fish are most likely to be captured, including the slough at RM -12, warm spring inputs, and 

immediately downstream of the dam. This project was initiated in 2010, and 15 sites were 

surveyed for warm water nonnative fish in Glen Canyon. The objective is to provide an early 

detection system for warmwater nonnative fish species that may pass through the GCD turbines 

or be otherwise introduced into the area. 

During 2010 and 2011 surveys detected smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu), 

walleye (Sander vitreus), and bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus) (Bunch and others, 2012, 

Hilwig and Foster, 2010). Sampling will be conducted as part of the Rainbow Trout Monitoring 

in Glen Canyon Project to save costs. 

This project will produce annual stock assessment reports showing status and trends of 

rainbow trout relative abundance, size distribution, and condition factor, in the Lees Ferry reach 

by size class. Information on angler use, harvest, and attitudes is not included in this element. 

Project Element F.2.2. Rainbow Trout Early Life Stage Studies 

Luke Avery, Fishery Biologist, USGS/GCMRC 

G.D. Foster, Logistic Support, USGS/GCMRC 

Josh Korman, President, Ecometric Research, Inc. 

Matt Kaplinski, Research Associate, NAU 
110

This project was initiated to assess the response of early life stages of rainbow trout in the 

Lees Ferry tailwater to experimental nonnative fish suppression flows in years 2003-2005 

(Korman, 2009). Continued sampling using the same methods described in the Monitoring Lees 

Ferry Fish project’s (BIO 4.M2.11, 12) Early Life History Monitoring element in the FY11-12 

Work Plan, has provided information on the effects of other flow manipulations, such as the high 

flow event of 2008 and the steady equalization flows of 2011 (Korman and others, 2011; USGS, 

unpublished data). Winter and early spring redd surveys provide information on the magnitude of 

spawn and the effects of flows on incubation mortality. Electrofishing of nearshore habitat in the 

summer and fall provides information on recruitment, survival, and growth of juvenile fish. 

Whereas the Rainbow Trout Monitoring in Glen Canyon Project (Project Element F.2.1.) 

monitors relative abundance of young-of-the-year rainbow trout in the fall, this project provides 

“initial response” information about survival rates of age-0 rainbow trout, and provides insight 

into how early rainbow trout life stages are affected by their density. 

This project will produce Reports presenting annual results in context of previous results, 

and relating early rainbow trout survival to dam operations. 

Project Element F.3. Mainstem Monitoring of Native and Nonnative Fishes Near the LCR Confluence; Juvenile 

Chub Monitoring ($432,000) 

Mike Yard, Fishery Biologist, USGS/GCMRC 

Josh Korman, President, Ecometric Research, Inc. 

D.R. VanHaverbeke, Fishery Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Aaron Bunch, Fishery Biologist, Arizona Game and Fish Department 

This project will estimate juvenile humpback chub survival rates, and will estimate 

rainbow trout and brown trout abundance near the confluence of the mainstem Colorado River 

and the LCR. Obtaining rainbow and brown trout abundance estimates between RM 63–64.5 

were identified as necessary activities in the 2011 Environmental Assessment for Non-Native 

Fish Control Downstream from Glen Canyon Dam and associated Biological Opinion (Bureau of 

Reclamation, 2011). The metrics are included in the suite of triggers identifying when to 

implement mechanical removal of nonnative fish to protect humpback chub. Continued annual 

assessments of juvenile humpback chub survival rates and abundance in the mainstem using 

methods developed in the Near Shore Ecology Study (B. Pine, pers. Comm.; see also Bio 

2.R15.11, 12 in the FY 11-12 Work Plan) will provide key metrics by which management 

actions such as rainbow trout removal will be evaluated. 

This project will result in annual reports with juvenile humpback chub survival rates and 

recommendations for future sampling, and peer reviewed publication relating humpback chub 

survival rates and management activities.

Project Element F.4. Little Colorado River Monitoring ($606,000) 

LCR monitoring consists of three primary elements that provide information on status 

and trends of native and nonnative fishes in the LCR. All LCR monitoring projects provide data 

for use in the Age-Structured-Mark-Recapture Model (ASMR) as well as information required in 

the 2011 Biological Opinion. These projects also include monitoring external parasites on native 

and non-native fishes. 
111

Project Element F.4.1 Annual Spring and Fall Humpback Chub Abundance Estimates in the Lower 13.6 km of 

the Little Colorado River 

D.R. Van Haverbeke, Fishery Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

William Persons, Fishery Biologist, USGS/GCMRC 

Spring and fall closed population abundance estimates provide annual estimates of 

abundance of adult humpback chub (> 150 mm and > 200 mm total length(TL)), and during 

some years provides abundance estimates of other native fishes (Coggins and others, 2006; 

Coggins, 2007; Van Haverbeke, 2010). The project also marks juvenile humpback chub (< 100 

mm TL) with Visible Elastomer Implant tags in the fall to assist the Natal Origins Project 

(Project Element D.1.1) This is an ongoing project since 2000 (see BIO 2.m.1.11, 12 in FY11-12 

Work Plan) and the monitoring was identified as a necessary component in the 2011 

Environmental Assessment for Non-Native Fish Control Downstream from Glen Canyon Dam 

and associated Biological Opinion (Bureau of Reclamation, 2011). Sampling is conducted by 

nine biologists at three camps during four annual trips. Logistics costs include helicopter and 

food costs. 

Reports expected from this project are annual reports provided to GCMRC with spring 

and fall abundance estimates of humpback chub in the lower 13.6 km of the LCR. 

Project element F.4.2. Monitoring Native and Nonnative Fishes in the Lower 1.2 km of the Little Colorado 

River 

Aaron Bunch, Fishery Biologist, Arizona Game and Fish Department 

William Persons, Fishery Biologist, USGS/GCMRC 

This program, established by the Arizona Game and Fish Department in 1987, has 

operated continuously, except in 2000 and 2001 (Coggins and others, 2006; Arizona Game and 

Fish Department, unpub. data, 2011; see also BIO 2.M1.11, 12 in the FY11-12 Work Plan). The 

program produces annual assessments of the relative abundance (that is, catch-per-unit effort) of 

all size classes of humpback chub, flannelmouth suckers, bluehead suckers, speckled dace, and a 

host of nonnative fish in the lower 1,200 m of the LCR. Data are collected during a 30- to 40-day 

period in spring (April and May) using hoop nets set in standardized locations throughout the 

reach. Results of this monitoring provide independent comparisons to humpback chub abundance 

trends generated by the ASMR model and Project element 2.1. The statistical power of this 

portion of the monitoring program has not yet been assessed, but statistically significant 

differences in relative abundance are apparent in current data. 

Reports to be expected from this project are annual reports with results of monitoring of 

the lower 1.2 km of the LCR. 

Project Element F.4.3. Translocation and Monitoring above Chute Falls 

D.R. VanHaverbeke, Fishery Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Brian Healy, Fishery Biologist, Grand Canyon National Park 

William Persons, Fishery Biologist, USGS/GCMRC 

Efforts to translocate humpback chub upstream of Chute Falls on the Little Colorado 

River and to monitor their status have been ongoing annually since 2003 (see BIO 2.M3.11, 12 

in the FY11-12 Work Plan). Approximately 1,850 juvenile (80 – 130 mm TL) humpback chub 

have been translocated upstream of Chute Falls to date. Beginning in 2006, two-pass mark 
112

recapture population estimates of humpback chub were conducted upstream of Chute Falls and 

Lower Atomizer Falls at 13.57 km. Early results suggested rapid growth of translocated fish, 

although few adult humpback chub (> 200 mm) have been caught upstream of Chute Falls since 

2009. The project is identified as a Conservation Measure in the 2011 Biological Opinion. 

Translocations to Shinumo Creek and Havasu Creek and the continued maintenance of a refuge 

population of humpback chub at Dexter National Fish Hatchery and Technology Center are also 

prescribed in the Biological Opinion, but funding and work activities occur largely outside of 

GCMRC. There is a need to continue coordinating the various translocation efforts and to 

conduct an independent peer-review of results to guide future management activities. 

A report describing results of translocation and monitoring activities is expected out of 

this project 

Project Element F.4.4. PIT Tag antenna monitoring 

Dana Winkelman, Professor, Colorado State University 

William Persons, Fishery Biologist, USGS/GCMRC 

This has been an ongoing effort since 2009 (see BIO 2.R13.11, 12 in the FY 11-12 Work 

Plan), with lapses and equipment failures during parts of 2010 and 2011. The project has 

installed a PIT tag antenna system in the LCR approximately 2 km upstream from the confluence 

with the mainstem Colorado River. The antenna system reads PIT tags from fish as they pass the 

tag station, and data can be used within ASMR and to provide information on timing of 

movement and survival of PIT tagged native fishes. Between January 1, 2012 April 27, 2012, 

1,576 unique PIT tagged humpback chub were detected by the antenna. An agreement is in place 

with Dr. Dana Winkelman, Colorado State University, and a graduate student, Kristen Pearson 

for FY12 and FY13 to: 

1. Assemble all available capture, recapture, and remote PIT tag detections, and integrate 

them to estimate abundance, survival, and movement probabilities by life stage. 

2. Estimate abundance, survival, and movement probabilities by life stage, ignoring 

detection data from the PIT tag arrays, and compare precision with the integrated data. 

3. Estimate survival and movement probabilities by life stage, using just initial capture data 

with remote detections of tagged fish from the PIT tag arrays (i.e., ignoring physical 

recaptures), and compare precision and estimability of parameters with the integrated 

analysis. 

4. Use simulation, based on the parameter estimates from the previous analyses, as well as 

cost information for capturing fish, to identify an optimal allocation of capture effort 

combined with PIT tag array detections. 

5. Empirically evaluate detection probabilities of PIT tags in the LCR. 

Expected Products for this project is a Master’s thesis and at least one peer-reviewed 

publication. 

Project Element F.5. Stock Assessment and Age Structured Mark Recapture Model humpback chub abundance 

estimates ($21,000) 

Charles Yackulic, Research Statistician, USGS/GCMRC 

Steve Martell, Professor, University of British Colombia 
113

This project will provide essential updates of population size composition and capture 

rates of humpback chub and other Grand Canyon fish to the GCDAMP and other managers. This 

work was previously described in the FY11-12 Work Plan as part of two projects: Stock 

Assessment of Grand Canyon Native Fish (BIO 2.R7.11, 12) and Biometrics and General 

Analysis (BIO 2.R19.11, 12). Reporting will include periodic updates on the status and trends of 

populations of humpack chub and other native fishes in Grand Canyon and retrospective time 

series of native fish populations to allow for comparison with previous years’ data. The 

assembled humpback chub data from the Grand Canyon fish monitoring projects will be 

incorporated into updates of the ASMR model approximately every 3 years. Providing ASMR 

estimates is called for in the Environmental Assessment for Non-Native Fish Control 

Downstream from Glen Canyon Dam and associated Biological Opinion. 

Products that will come from this project are a report with estimates of humpback chub 

abundance and description of ASMR or revised length-based model. 

Project Element F.6. Detection of Rainbow Trout Movement from the Upper Reaches of the Colorado River 

below Glen Canyon Dam/Natal Origins ($295,000) 

Josh Korman, President, Ecometric Research Inc. 

Mike Yard, Fishery Biologist, USGS/GCMRC 

Charles Yackulic, Research Statistician, USGS/GCMRC 

Aaron Bunch, Fishery Biologist, Arizona Game and Fish Department

This project as described in the FY11-12 Work Plan (BIO 2.E18.11, 12), has been 

modified and expanded. This study is an experimental research project to determine if Glen 

Canyon is the natal source of trout emigrating into the downstream reaches of Marble and Grand 

Canyons (Korman and others, 2011). Information from this project will help resolve some of the 

uncertainties about prescribing nonnative fish control activities in locations that are 

geographically distant to the area of concern (Little Colorado River confluence area). This 

project is based on existing information (Coggins, 2008; Coggins and others, in review) that 

concludes that rainbow trout reared in the Lees Ferry reach of the Colorado River (Glen Canyon 

Dam to Lees Ferry) move out of that reach under some conditions. 

 The central objectives of this research project are to (1) determine the natal origins of 

rainbow trout in the Marble Canyon/LCR confluence area via a large-scale mark and recovery 

effort, (2) to evaluate the linkage between trout populations in the Lees Ferry reach and Marble 

Canyon, and (3) assess the efficacy of Paria to Badger Reach removal efforts. Response of 

juvenile native fish to changes in trout density near the LCR area resulting from removal and 

experimental flow treatments will be studied. 

 This project also provides logistical and field support for Project H “Identifying the main 

drivers of rainbow trout growth, population size, demographics and distribution in Glen and 

Marble Canyon” (Study Elements: H.2., H.3., and H.5.), and project element F.3., Mainstem 

monitoring of native and nonnative fishes near the LCR confluence -Juvenile Chub Monitoring 

(as per Environmental Assessment 2011). 

Reports expected from this project are annual and final reports and possible peerreviewed publications. 

Project Element F.7. Foodbase Monitoring ($256,000) 

Monitoring of the aquatic foodbase in the Colorado River below Glen Canyon Dam is an 

ongoing project. The activities described in the FY11-12 Work Plan (BIO 1.M1.11, 12) and 
114

being conducted in FY12 include estimating algae production, algae and organic matter biomass, 

invertebrate production, and invertebrate and organic drift at two sites: Lees Ferry and Diamond 

Creek. This work will continue in FY13 and FY14 with the modifications and additions 

described below. 

Project Element F.7.1. Linking Invertebrate Drift with Fish Feeding Habits 

Theodore Kennedy, Research Aquatic Biologist, USGS/GCMRC 

Adam Copp, Ecologist, USGS/GCMRC 

The two focal fish species for the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program—

humpback chub and rainbow trout—are both drift feeders. Invertebrate drift measurements are 

easy to collect relative to benthic invertebrate samples, and these data are much less variable than 

benthic invertebrate data. A key component of long-term foodbase monitoring will therefore 

involve characterizing spatial and temporal variation in invertebrate drift. Invertebrate 

monitoring programs typically involve benthic sampling, but benthic sampling in the Colorado 

River is extremely challenging because of swift currents and hydropeaking. Thus, the proposed 

approach to monitoring overcomes these challenges by focusing on a foodbase metric—

invertebrate drift—that might actually be more meaningful to focal drift-feeding fish species 

relative to benthic invertebrate abundance. However, not all invertebrates that are drifting will be 

available to drift feeding fish. For example, turbidity combined with small overall invertebrate 

size may mean that only a small portion of the drift is available to humpback chub or rainbow 

trout. Understanding what spatial and temporal variation in drift rates means to food availability 

for fishes will therefore require simultaneous sampling of invertebrate drift and fish feeding 

habits (see Project H). Long-term monitoring of drift will occur at two accessible sites—Glen 

Canyon and Diamond Creek. Collections will occur in the thalweg. Drift nets will be vertically 

integrated throughout the water column for 5 minutes. Monitoring will focus on midday 

collections because drift rates tend to be more variable, but higher, during nighttime hours. 

Seven samples will be collected every six weeks from each location. 

Project Element F.7.2. Citizen Science Monitoring of Emergent Aquatic Insects 

Theodore Kennedy, Research Aquatic Biologist, USGS/GCMRC 

Adam Copp, Ecologist, USGS/GCMRC 

Colden Baxter, Idaho State University 

There is a consistent relation between the production of benthic insects in a river reach 

and the total flux of insect that emerge from a river reach (Statzner and Resh, 1993; Gratton and 

VanderZanden, 2009). Thus, tracking the flux of emergent insects might represent a useful 

surrogate for traditional benthic invertebrate monitoring programs. However, insect emergence is 

temporally variable and characterized by pronounced ‘hatches’. Given large spatial variation in 

water temperatures and resource quality across the 390 km of Colorado River, one might expect 

large temporal variation in the timing of these hatches. Further, midges and blackflies have 

multiple emergences per year. Spatial variation in emergence timing makes it unlikely that a 

single science river trip per year could adequately capture peak emergence among sites in Grand 

Canyon. We will overcome these challenges by using a previously untapped pool of citizen 

scientists—professional river guides. We will equip up to 10 guides with light traps to collect 

samples of flying insects from April through October. Light traps will catch both flying aquatic 

and terrestrial insects. Thus, light trap data might also be useful for long-term monitoring of 
115

terrestrial insect populations. Each guide will be equipped with two light traps. One will be 

deployed near the day’s high water line and the second trap will be deployed near the 45,000 cfs 

stage elevation. Light traps will be deployed within an hour after sunset and will stay on for one 

hour. Samples will be preserved in ethanol. Interpretive materials and handouts will be provided 

to guides to facilitate outreach with the public. Guides will collect light trap samples in Glen 

Canyon during the evening prior to their launch downstream. Emergent aquatic insects represent 

an important subsidy that sustains animals populations in riparian zones adjacent to rivers (Sabo 

and Powers 2002; Sabo and others, 2002; Gratton and Vander Zanden, 2009). These data can 

also be used to better understand the potential importance of aquatic-terrestrial linkages in the 

Colorado River below Glen Canyon Dam. 

We will also sample emergent insects in Glen Canyon and Diamond Creek in association 

with regular monitoring trips to these accessible sites. Emergence monitoring at these sites will 

involve additional gear types. Specifically, we will use sticky traps, similar to fly paper, to 

characterize insect abundance over longer-time scales than is possible with lights traps. 

Plexiglass sheets (0.1 m2) coated with Tangelfoot and suspended from a garden post temporarily 

placed along nearshore areas will be used to catch emergent insects. These traps will be deployed 

for up to 6 weeks (pilot efforts will verify that deployments of this duration are possible). Sticky 

traps will also be deployed from existing USGS cableways at these two locations. Deploying 

traps from cableways has several advantages including an identical spatial distribution of traps 

among these two locations, and sampling across the entire river surface, as opposed to transects 

that run parallel to shore. The timing of peak emergence is not known precisely, but 

conversations with river and fishing guides suggests that peak emergence occurs between March 

and June. Once we have a better idea of emergence timing, future emergence monitoring at Lees 

Ferry and Diamond Creek may be reduced and just focus on key months when emergence is 

high. 

Samples of emergent insects are far easier and quicker to process than traditional benthic 

samples because there is little organic matter or debris on emergence samples, and winged adults 

are easier to identify than aquatic larvae. This is an important consideration in the selection of 

monitoring metrics because a program that emphasizes samples that are quick and easy to 

process is more likely to provide timely information to decision makers relative to a program that 

emphasizes samples that are difficult and time-intensive to process. 

Project Element F.7.3. Primary Production Monitoring 

Theodore Kennedy, Research Aquatic Biologist, USGS/GCMRC 

Adam Copp, Ecologist, USGS/GCMRC 

Bob Hall, Biologist, University of Wyoming 

Algae is the crank that turns the Colorado River food web in Glen Canyon and Grand 

Canyon. We will continuously monitor algae primary production at 5 locations: Glen Canyon, 

river mile 30, river mile 61, river mile 87, and river mile 225. Yard (2003) predicts large 

variation in algae growth among reaches, especially due to differences in canyon orientation, 

channel depth, and turbidity. Continuous estimates of primary production at these five sites will 

be used to evaluate the predictions of Yard (2003). These monitoring data will also be used to 

parameterize a mechanistic model of primary production that can be used to make predictions 

about algae growth response to dam operations. 
116

Project Element F.7.4. Benthic Algae and Invertebrate Biomass 

Theodore Kennedy, Research Aquatic Biologist, USGS/GCMRC 

Adam Copp, Ecologist, USGS/GCMRC 

Traditional benthic sampling of invertebrates is another important part of our foodbase 

monitoring strategy because it will provide information on the non-insect taxa that tend to 

dominate production budgets, but do not emerge or drift, and would therefore be missed using 

just drift and emergence measurements (Cross and others, 2011). However, directly sampling 

benthic habitats in the Colorado River is extremely difficult and time intensive, which limits the 

utility of benthic biomass as a monitoring metric. For example, hydropeaking constrains benthic 

sampling to a brief window of low water that varies in timing throughout the canyon (i.e., low 

water at river mile 30 is typically in the late morning while low water at river mile 61, near the 

LCR confluence, occurs in the middle of the night), which greatly limits the area of habitat that 

can be sampled in a day. Further, just a small percentage of benthic habitats can actually be 

sampled (<20%) due to the constraints that depth and velocity create. Individual benthic samples 

are integrating over very small spatial scales, so they have limited value as an ecosystem 

monitoring index unless they are collected over large areas. Benthic samples can also take 

considerable time and effort to process because of abundant inorganic and organic debris. 

We will conduct traditional benthic sampling once per year. Further, we will conduct this 

annual synoptic monitoring at a time of year when discharge is low (i.e., spring) to maximize our 

ability to sample benthic habitats. Benthic habitats throughout Grand Canyon will be sampled 

using river trips. We will sample all habitat types, not just the most productive ones (i.e., cobble), 

in order to develop habitat-weighted estimates of algae and invertebrate abundance, biomass, and 

composition that can be compared among years. These data will provide a comprehensive 

snapshot of the benthic environment in Grand Canyon that can be repeated annually and will 

allow for detection of major trends such as the arrival of new invertebrate taxa, or changes in the 

diversity or richness of the invertebrate assemblage. A detailed benthic sampling design that 

incorporates randomly selected sites will be developed in consultation with GCMRCs research 

statistician to ensure the scope of inference for these samples is canyon-wide. 

5. References 

Anders, P., Bradford, M., Higgins, P.S., Nislow, K.H., Rabeni, C., and Tate, C., 2001, Final 

report of the Aquatic Protocol Evaluation Program Panel: U.S. Geological Survey, Grand 

Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, 43 p. 

Bradford, M., Bevelhimer, M., Hansen, M., Mueller, G., Osmundson, D., Rice, J.A., and 

Winkelman, D., 2009, Report of the 2009 protocol evaluation panel for fish monitoring 

programs of the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center: [Unpublished report 

submitted to U.S. Geological Survey, September 2009]. 

Bureau of Reclamation, 2011, Environmental assessment--non-native fish control downstream 

from Glen Canyon Dam: Salt Lake City, Utah, Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado 

Region, 102 p. + appendices, http://www.usbr.gov/uc/envdocs/ea/gc/nnfc/NNFC-EA.pdf. 

Bureau of Reclamation, and U.S. Geological Survey Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research 

Center, 2010, Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program biennial budget and work 

plan--fiscal years 2011-12: Salt Lake City, Utah, Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado 

Regional Office, 250 p. + appendices. 
117

Coggins, L.G., Jr., 2007, Abundance trends and status of the Little Colorado River population of 

humpback chub--an update considering data from 1989-2006: U.S. Geological Survey OpenFile Report 2007-1402, 28 p., http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2007/1402/. 

Coggins, L.G., Jr., Pine, W.E., III, Walters, C.J., Van Haverbeke, D.R., Ward, D., and Johnstone, 

H.C., 2006, Abundance trends and status of the Little Colorado River population of 

humpback chub: North American Journal of Fisheries Management, v. 26, no. 1, doi: 

10.1577M05-075.1, p. 233-245, 

http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/06may24/Attach_06f.pdf. 

Coggins, L.G., Yard, M.D., and Pine, W.E., 2011, Nonnative fish control in the Colorado River 

in Grand Canyon, Arizona--an effective program or serendipitous timing?: Transactions of 

the American Fisheries Society, v. 140, no. 2, p. 456-470, 

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00028487.2011.572009. 

Cross, W.F., Baxter, C.V., Donner, K.C., Rosi-Marshall, E.J., Kennedy, T.A., Hall, R.O., Jr., 

Wellard-Kelly, H.A., and Rogers, R.S., 2011, Ecosystem ecology meets adaptive 

management--food web response to a controlled flood on the Colorado River, Glen Canyon: 

Ecological Applications, v. 21, no. 6, p. 2016-2033, 

http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/10-1719.1. 

Gratton, C., and Vander Zanden, M.J., 2009, Flux of aquatic insect productivity to land--

comparison of lentic and lotic ecosystems: Ecology, v. 90, no. 10, p. 2689-2699, at 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/08-1546.1. 

Korman, J., 2009, Early life history dynamics of rainbow trout in a large regulated river: 

Vancouver, University of British Columbia, Ph.D. thesis, 214 p. 

Korman, J., Kaplinski, M., and Melis, T.S., 2011, Effects of fluctuating flows and a controlled 

flood on incubation success and early survival rates and growth of age-0 rainbow trout in a 

large regulated river: Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, v. 140, no. 2, doi: 

10.1080/00028487.2011.572015, p. 487-505, 

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00028487.2011.572015. 

Maddux, H.R., Kubly, D.M., deVos, J.C., Jr., Persons, W.R., Staedicke, R., and Wright, R.L., 

1987, Effects of varied flow regimes on aquatic resources of Glen and Grand Canyons--final 

report: Phoenix, Arizona Game and Fish Department, submitted to Bureau of Reclamation, 

Glen Canyon Environmental Studies, contract no. 4-AG-40-01810, 291 p. [Available from 

National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va. as NTIS Report PB88-183439/AS.] 

Makinster, A.S., Persons, W.R., and Avery, L.A., 2011, Status and trends of the rainbow trout 

population in the Lees Ferry Reach of the Colorado River downstream from Glen Canyon 

Dam, Arizona, 1991–2009: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2011-

5015, 17 p., http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2011/5015/. 

Makinster, A.S., Persons, W.R., Avery, L.A., and Bunch, A.J., 2010, Colorado River fish 

monitoring in Grand Canyon, Arizona--2000 to 2009 summary: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 2010-1246, 26 p., http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1246/. 

McKinney, T., Speas, D.W., Rogers, R.S., and Persons, W.R., 2001, Rainbow trout in a 

regulated river below Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona, following increased minimum flows and 

reduced discharge variability: North American Journal of Fisheries Management, v. 21, no. 

1, p. 216-222, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1577/1548-

8675(2001)021%3C0216:RTIARR%3E2.0.CO;2. 

Melis, T.S., Grams, P.E., Kennedy, T.A., Ralston, B.E., Robinson, C.T., Schmidt, J.C., Schmit, 

L.M., Valdez, R.A., and Wright, S.A., 2011, Three experimental high-flow releases from 
118

Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona--effects of the downstream Colorado River ecosystem: U.S. 

Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2011-3012, 4 p., http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2011/3012/. 

Sabo, J.L. and Power, M.E., 2002, River-watershed exchange--effects of riverine subsidies on 

riparian lizards and their terrestrial prey: Ecology, v. 83, no. 7, p. 1860-1986. 

Sabo, J.L., Bastow, J.L., and Power, M.E., 2002, Length-mass relationships for adult aquatic and 

terrestrial invertebrates in a California watershed: Journal of the North American 

Benthological Society, v. 21, no. 2, p. 336-343, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1468420. 

Thomas, L., 1996, Monitoring long-term population change--why are there so many analysis 

methods?: Ecology, v. 77, no. 1, p. 49-58, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2265653. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2011, Final biological opinion on the operation of Glen Canyon 

Dam including high flow experiments and non-native fish control: Phoenix, Ariz., submitted 

to Bureau of Reclamation, Salt Lake City, Utah, AESO/SE 22410-2011-F-0100, 22410-

2011-F-0112, 150 p., 

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/Biol_Opin/110112_HFE_NNR.pdf. 

Van Haverbeke, D.R., 2010, The humpback chub of Grand Canyon, in Melis, T.S., Hamill, J.F., 

Bennett, G.E., Coggins, L.G., Jr., Grams, P.E., Kennedy, T.A., Kubly, D.M., and Ralston, 

B.E., eds., Proceedings of the Colorado River Basin Science and Resource Management 

Symposium, November 18-20, 2008, Scottsdale, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2010-5135, 261-268 p., http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5135/. 

Walters, C.J., 1997, Challenges in adaptive management of riparian and coastal ecosystems: 

Conservation Ecology, v. 1, no. 2, p. 1, (available as online document at 

http://www.consecol.org/vol1/iss2/art1/). 

Walters, C.J., and Holling, C.S., 1990, Large-scale management experiments and learning by 

doing: Ecology, v. 71, no. 6, p. 2060-2068, http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/1938620.pdf. 

Yard, M.D., 2003, Light availability and aquatic primary production--Colorado River, Glen and 

Grand Canyons, AZ: Flagstaff, Northern Arizona University, Ph.D. dissertation, 205 p. 

Yard, M.D., Coggins, L.G., Baxter, C.V., Bennett, G.E., and Korman, J., 2011, Trout piscivory 

in the Colorado River, Grand Canyon--effects of turbidity, temperature, and fish prey 

availability: Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, v. 140, no. 2, doi: 

10.1080/00028487.2011.572011, p. 471-486, 

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00028487.2011.572011. 
119

6. Budget 

   

Project Element F.1.

Mainstem

spring/nonnative fish

moniroting

Project Element F.2. Glen

Canyon Monitoring

Project Element F.3. Stock

assessment and structured

mark recapture model

humpback chub

abundance estimates

Salaries $104,000 Salaries $39,000 Salaries $7,000

Traveling and Training $6,000 Traveling and Training $0 Traveling and Training $0

Operating Expenses $22,000 Operating Expenses $24,000 Operating Expenses $0

Logistics $259,000 Logistics $141,000 Logistics $0

GIS/RS/Electronics support

(includes burden) $56,000 GIS/RS/Electronics support(includes burden) $56,000 GIS/RS/Electronics support

(includes burden) $11,000

Cooperators (non‐USGS) $412,000 Cooperators (non‐USGS) $521,000 Cooperators (non‐USGS) $0

USGS cooperators $0 USGS cooperators $0 USGS cooperators $0

USGS Burden $75,000 USGS Burden $51,000 USGS Burden $3,000

Total $934,000 Total $834,000 Total $20,000

Project Element F.4.

Detection of rainbow trout

movement from upper

Colorado

Project Element F.5.

Foodbase Monitoring

Salaries $25,000 Salaries $152,000

Traveling and Training $0 Traveling and Training $3,000

Operating Expenses $75,000 Operating Expenses $5,000

Logistics $87,000 Logistics $20,000

GIS/RS/Electronics support

(includes burden) $11,000 GIS/RS/Electronics support

(includes burden) $11,000

Cooperators (non‐USGS) $67,000 Cooperators (non‐USGS) $37,000

USGS cooperators $0 USGS cooperators $0

USGS Burden $30,000 USGS Burden $28,000

Total $294,000 Total $256,000

FY 2013 Project F. Gross Total:

$2,337,000

FY 2014 Project F. Gross Total:

$2,365,000
120

Project G. 

Interactions between Native Fish and Nonnative Trout 

1. Investigators 

David Ward, Fishery Biologist, USGS, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center 

Mike Yard, Fishery Biologist, USGS, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center 

Scott VanderKooi, Supervisory Biologist, USGS, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research 

Center 

Brian Healy, Fishery Biologist, NPS, Grand Canyon National Park 

Clay Nelson, Fishery Biologist, NPS, Grand Canyon National Park 

Emily Omana, Fishery Biologist, NPS, Grand Canyon National Park 

Melissa Trammel, Fishery Biologist, Intermountain Region 

David Speas, Fishery Biologist, Bureau of Reclamation 

2. Project Summary 

This project will evaluate impacts of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and brown 

trout (Salmo trutta) on humpback chub (Gila cypha) in both laboratory and field settings. 

Laboratory studies will be used to isolate confounding variables and quantify relative 

competition and predation impacts of rainbow and brown trout on humpback chub under varying 

environmental conditions. Results of laboratory tests will then be used in conjunction with data 

from long-term monitoring to model population level impacts of trout on humpback chub. The 

field study will remove brown trout by electrofishing in and around Bright Angel Creek and 

subsequently evaluate impacts of brown trout removal on native fish populations. Combining 

laboratory studies, field studies, monitoring efforts, and modeling will allow researchers to 

understand how predation and competition by rainbow and brown trout impact humpback chub 

at various life stages and at population level. This will allow managers to improve management 

actions designed to conserve Colorado River native fishes.

3. Background 

Continued decline of native fish populations in the southwestern United States is largely 

attributed to interactions with invasive aquatic species (Minckley and Marsh, 2009; Tyus and 

Saunders, 2000). Repeated studies demonstrate the inability of native fishes to persist in 

environments where nonnative fish have become established (Marsh and Pacey, 2005). Diet 

studies of rainbow and brown trout collected from the confluence of the Little Colorado and 

Colorado Rivers, indicate these species do consume native fish (Yard and others, 2011), but 

population level impacts are difficult to assess because predation vulnerability is known to 

change with turbidity (Yard and others, 2011), fish size, and water temperature (Ward and 

others, 2002; Ward and Bonar, 2003; 2011 GCMRC knowledge assessment workshop 

presentations). Competitive interactions with introduced trout can also impact native fishes 

(Robinson and others, 2003), but the extent to which these interactions affect humpback chub 

populations in the Grand Canyon is unknown. Understanding the effects of predation and 

competition by trout on endangered humpback chub is critical in evaluating management options 
121

aimed at preservation of native fishes in Grand Canyon and was identified as a critical 

information need at recent Knowledge Assessment Workshops (GCMRC and Cooperator 

presentations, 2011-2012). 

Many key questions related to native southwestern fishes’ recruitment and survival 

remain unanswered because of the cost and difficulties of conducting field studies in remote 

environmental settings like Grand Canyon and in isolating confounding factors present in natural 

systems. This project introduces a new laboratory component to Grand Canyon fish research that 

augments existing Colorado River field based data collection capabilities. In this part of the 

project, researchers will conduct studies on stream dwelling organisms in a controlled laboratory 

setting. This new capability will allow researchers to quickly and cost-effectively quantify 

relative impacts of rainbow and brown trout competition and predation on humpback chub, 

which can then be extrapolated to population level responses using long-term monitoring data. 

The second part of the project is to evaluate the effects of brown trout on native fish in a 

field setting. Brown trout are known to suppress growth and movement of other fish species 

(McHugh and Budy, 2006) and are much more piscivorous on juvenile native fishes in Grand 

Canyon than rainbow trout (Yard and others, 2011). The highest catch rates of brown trout in 

Grand Canyon are found in the Colorado River near the confluence of Bright Angel Creek 

(Makinster and others, 2010), and in Bright Angel Creek itself, with densities as high as 30 fish 

per 100 meters (National Park Service data). Large numbers of juvenile chub and suckers are 

known to exit the LCR each spring (Robinson and others, 1998), yet relatively few juvenile 

humpback chub are captured in the mainstem Colorado River downstream of Bright Angel 

Creek. Dispersal of juvenile humpback chub into downstream areas of Grand Canyon may be 

limited by brown trout inhabiting the area around Bright Angel Creek. If this is the case, then 

management efforts targeted to reduce brown trout predation near Bright Angel Creek may have 

positive benefits for downstream dispersal and recruitment of juvenile humpback chub. We will 

apply an experimental treatment and remove brown trout from the area in and around Bright 

Angel Creek to evaluate this hypothesis. If effective, mechanical removal of brown trout from 

Bright Angel Creek and from the mainstem Colorado River surrounding Bright Angel Creek 

could be applied as a long-term management action to increase habitat for native fishes and 

reduce predation on these species. 

3.1. Scientific Background 

Endangered humpback chub, endemic to the Colorado River basin, have declined in both 

abundance and distribution due to the introduction of nonnative species and alternation of flow 

and temperature regimes (Minckley and Marsh, 2009). Introduced rainbow trout and brown trout 

are known to prey upon juvenile native fish in Grand Canyon (Yard and others, 2011) including 

humpback chub. Predation by these nonnative species may adversely impact native fish at a 

population level. To reduce potential predation on humpback chub, electrofishing was used to 

mechanically remove nonnative fish from the Colorado River, near the confluence with the LCR, 

from 2003-2006, and again in 2009 (Coggins and others, 2011). Humpback chub abundance 

increased following removal efforts, but system-wide decreases in rainbow trout and droughtinduced increases in water temperature occurred during the same time period making it difficult 

to determine which factors were responsible for increased native fish abundance (Coggins and 

others, 2011). The interaction between water temperature, fish size, and trout presence has been 

shown to affect predation vulnerability in flannelmouth suckers in laboratory studies and likely 
122

all play a role in predation vulnerability of native fish in Grand Canyon (Ward and others, 2002; 

Ward and Bonar, 2003). 

Brown trout are of particular concern given their highly piscivorous nature (Yard and 

others, 2011). The highest densities of brown trout in Grand Canyon occur in or near Bright 

Angel Creek (Makinster and others, 2010; NPS data). Large numbers of brown trout in this area 

may be limiting native fish abundance, including humpback chub, locally as well as downstream. 

This idea is based on the hypothesis that most of the humpback chub inhabiting western Grand 

Canyon are produced within the LCR and disperse downstream. If the bottleneck to dispersal and 

recruitment of humpback chub or other native fish species in western Grand Canyon is occurring 

near the confluence of Bright Angel Creek because of brown trout predation, then removing 

brown trout from this area could increase the number of native fish that inhabit downstream 

reaches. 

3.2. Key Monitoring and Research Questions Addressed in this project 

This work, along with ongoing National Park Service (NPS) brown trout removal from 

Bright Angel Creek, has been identified as a conservation measure in the December 2011 

Biological Opinion for the Environmental Assessment for Non-Native Fish Control Downstream 

from Glen Canyon Dam. It also addresses AMWG priority Questions 1: Why are humpback 

chub not thriving; and Science Activity #1: What are the most limiting factors to successful 

HUMPBACK CHUB adult recruitment in the mainstem. 

It also specifically addresses the following Key Strategic Science Question Research 

Information Needs, which were identified in the 2007 Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research 

Plan: 

SSQ RIN 1: What habitats and habitat characteristics, if any, will enhance survival, growth, 

and reproduction of native Grand Canyon fishes, especially HUMPBACK CHUB, in the 

mainstem Colorado River? 

SSQ RIN 2: What are the most effective strategies and control methods to limit nonnative 

fish predation on, and competition with, native fishes? 

SSQ RIN 3: What life stage(s) of rainbow trout pose the greatest threat to HUMPBACK 

CHUB and other native fishes in Grand Canyon? 

This project will answer the follow key questions about impacts of nonnative fish on 

native fish within Grand Canyon: 

1. What are the mechanisms by which nonnative trout impact humpback chub? 

2. What is the relative predation risk for humpback chub to rainbow trout and brown trout 

under varying temperature, flow, and turbidity conditions? 

3. What is the efficacy and feasibility of using electrofishing to control brown trout 

populations through a coordinated mainstem and tributary removal effort in and around 

Bright Angel Creek? 

4. Does brown trout removal have a measurable positive effect on native fish abundance 

and distribution in the mainstem near Bright Angel Creek or within Bright Angel Creek? 

 
123

4. Proposed Work 

4.1. Project Elements 

Project Element G.1. Laboratory Studies to Assess the Effects of Trout Predation and Competition on 

Humpback Chub ($90,000) 

David Ward, Fishery Biologist, USGS/GCMRC 

The first objective for this project element is to determine to what extent water 

temperature and turbidity influences vulnerability of humpback chub to predation by rainbow 

and brown trout. Laboratory experiments will allow evaluation of these variables prior to any 

changes in dam operations or implementation of expensive management options. We will 

evaluate the effects of water temperature and turbidity on predation vulnerability of juvenile 

humpback chub, captive reared humpback chub larvae will be obtained from Dexter National 

Fish Hatchery and reared at the Rocky Mountain Research Station in Flagstaff, AZ, for six 

months until they are 50 to 100 mm total length (TL). Twelve replicate raceway tanks will be 

used to create artificial stream environments of varying temperature and turbidity from 0 to 500 

Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU). Juvenile humpback chub 50 to100 mm TL will be 

exposed to rainbow and brown trout predators at varying sizes, temperatures and turbidities 

during overnight trials to assess predation vulnerability as a function of temperature and 

turbidity. 

The second objective is to determine if rainbow and brown trout present more or less of a 

predation threat to juvenile chub than predation by adult chub. This assessment of potential 

impacts of predation by adult chub on juvenile chub gives context with which to evaluate 

predation by nonnative fishes and allows for an assessment of the relative impacts of predation 

by introduced fish on the overall humpback chub population. We will do this by determining if 

rainbow and brown trout present more or less of a predation threat to juvenile chub than 

cannibalism by adult chub. For this experiment, non-listed roundtail chub (Gila robusta) will be 

used as a surrogate for humpback chub. Roundtail chub are a good surrogate for humpback chub 

because they are closely related genetically (Douglas and Douglas, 2007), morphologically, and 

in habitat use (Kaeding and others, 1990; Karp and Tyus, 1990). Using a surrogate for humpback 

chub will greatly expedite our ability to conduct this study, because adult captive-reared 

humpback chub are not available at this time for laboratory research. Captive reared roundtail 

chub 50 to 70 mm TL obtained from Bubbling Ponds Native Fish Conservation Facility will be 

exposed to adult rainbow trout from Lees Ferry and similar sized adult roundtail chub collected 

from Fossil Creek, AZ. Relative predation vulnerability will be assessed in 12 replicate artificial 

streams at 15 - 20°C during overnight trials using 4 predators and 12 prey fish per tank. 

And the third objective is to evaluate the effects that rainbow and brown trout 

competition have on condition and growth of similar sized humpback chub, using roundtail chub 

as a surrogate for humpback chub. Laboratory evaluations of competition require large numbers 

of adult humpback chub to be held in captivity. As stated above, these fish are not currently 

available which makes research using non-listed surrogates (roundtail chub) a good alternative. 

We will evaluate the effects that trout competition may have on condition and growth of 

humpback chub, we will use adult roundtail chub captured with hoop nets from Fossil Creek or 

the Verde River as surrogates for humpback chub. Rainbow trout and brown trout will be 

collected by electrofishing. Similar sized roundtail chub and rainbow and brown trout will be 

held jointly and separately at two densities in 12, 200-L artificial raceways at the Rocky 
124

Mountain Research Station in Flagstaff, AZ at 20°C. Fish will be fed a combination of 

amphipods and small fathead minnows every other day. Condition and growth of all fish will be 

monitored over a 6-month period. Remote video camera observations will be made to evaluate 

how competitive interactions alter chub behavior. 

This research will result in three peer reviewed publications with the following titles: 

 Effects of temperature and turbidity on predation vulnerability of juvenile humpback 

chub to rainbow and brown trout 

 Relative predation vulnerability of juvenile chub to adult conspecifics (cannibalism) and 

to rainbow and brown trout 

 Effects of competition between rainbow and brown trout and roundtail chub (as a 

surrogate for humpback chub). 

Project Element G.2. Efficacy and Ecological Impacts of Brown Trout Removal at Bright Angel Creek 

($193,000) 

David Ward, Fishery Biologist, USGS/GCMRC 

Mike Yard, Fishery Biologist, USGS/GCMRC 

Scott VanderKooi, Supervisory Biologist, USGS/GCMRC 

Brian Healy, Fishery Biologist, NPS, Grand Canyon National Park 

Emily Omana, Fishery Biologist, NPS, Grand Canyon National Park 

Melissa Trammel, Fishery Biologist, Intermountain Region 

David Speas, Fishery Biologist, Bureau of Reclamation 

The objective for this project is to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of brown trout 

removal in and around Bright Angel Creek using electrofishing, and assess the response of native 

fish to brown trout removal. 

A multi-year, brown trout removal treatment using mechanical removal will be applied to 

both the mainstem Colorado River and Bright Angel Creek with the objective of significantly 

reducing brown trout abundance by 75–80 %. Removal in the Colorado River mainstem will 

occur in a 8.45 km (5.25 mile) reach of Upper Granite Gorge (river miles 85 to 90) using 

electrofishing depletion methods similar to those used from 2003 to 2006 at the confluence of the 

LCR (Coggins and others, 2011). Electrofishing removals on the mainstem Colorado River will 

occur during the motor season in September and in April and will compliment ongoing NPS 

operation of a weir within Bright Angel Creek from October to March. Researchers will conduct 

6 to 10-pass depletions with a single pass occurring over the entire study area in two nights 

(amount of effort based on calculated capture probabilities with a goal of 75% reduction in 

brown trout numbers). It has been estimated that each trip will consist of 10-20 nights of 

sampling. All electrofishing will be conducted at night using two 16’ sport boats outfitted for 

electrofishing with a Coffelt® or equivalent CPS unit with one netter per boat. Large numbers of 

brown trout (> 2,000 fish) are likely to be removed. The beneficial use for these fish will be 

identified through the NPS’s comprehensive fish management planning process and Section 106 

consultation with Native American tribes. We estimate that as many as 500 fish could be 

removed on the first depletion pass with numbers diminishing thereafter. This estimate is based 

on 2010 and 2011 catch per unit effort data from fish captured in the Bright Angel reach during 

spring nonnative fish monitoring conducted by the Arizona Game and Fish Department (Bunch 

and others, 2010; 2011). Mechanical removal efforts in the Bright Angel Reach will be 

conducted simultaneously with additional native fish hoop net monitoring in the same area to 
125

assess whether or not a decrease in abundance of brown trout in the Bright Angel Reach is 

correlated with increased presence and abundance of native fish. 

This effort will be conducted in collaboration with the NPS’s ongoing removal efforts 

(fish weir and electrofishing) in Bright Angel Creek and potential future efforts such as expanded 

electrofishing, chemical treatments, a rotary screw trap designed for capturing migrating juvenile 

fish, or other methods yet to be determined. To determine efficacy and ecological consequences 

of brown trout removal, capture probabilities for each study area will be estimated and used to 

develop a closed population model for estimating size-structured abundance of brown trout. 

Densities and conditions of native fishes in Bright Angel Creek and areas near its confluence will 

be monitored. Continued native fish monitoring, both within the removal area and in other areas 

downstream, are needed to assess if increased dispersal of native fish is occurring as a result of 

removal efforts (see Project D: Mainstem Humpback Chub Aggregation Studies and 

Metapopulation Dynamics and Project F: Monitoring of Native and Nonnative Fishes in the 

Mainstem Colorado River and Lower Little Colorado). In addition, primary productivity and 

invertebrate production will be monitored in Bright Angel Creek and the mainstem near its 

confluence to quantify any changes in availability of food for native fish. This project is 

proposed as an experimental research project to be conducted in FY 2013 with possible 

extension through FY 2016. 

This research project will result in annual NPS data series and/or USGS open-file reports 

throughout the duration of the study, as well as trip reports for each electrofishing effort. A peer 

reviewed publication will be produced (co-authored USGS, NPS, and Reclamation biologists) on 

the efficacy of brown trout removal using electrofishing in and around Bright Angel Creek and 

the ecological impacts of brown trout removal. This publication will inform managers on the 

effectiveness of mechanical removal of brown trout as a tool to aid in native fish conservation in 

Grand Canyon. 

5. Publications 

5.1. Publications in progress 

Ward, D.L., and Figiel, C.R., Jr., in review, Behaviors of four southwestern native fishes 

in response to catfish predators: The southwestern Naturalist. 

Ward, D.L., Morton-Starner, R., and Hedwall, S., in review, An evaluation of liquid 

ammonia (Ammonim Hydroxide) as a candidate piscicide: Journal of fish and 

Wildlife Management. 

Ward, D.L., 2012, in press, Salinity of the Little Colorado River in Grand Canyon confers 

antiparasitic properties for native fish: Western North American Naturalist. 

Hunt, T.A., Ward, D.L., Propper, C.R., and Gibb, A.C., in press, Effects of capture by 

trammel net on Colorado River native fishes: Journal of Fish and Wildlife 

Management. 

5.2. Past Productivity 

Ward, D.L., Childs, M.R., and Persons, W.R., 2008, PIT tag retention and tag induced mortality 

in juvenile bonytail and Gila chub: Fisheries Management and Ecology, v. 15, no. 2, 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2400.2008.00595.x/abstract. 

Ward, D.L., 2007, Removal and Quantification of Asian tapeworm from bonytail chub using 

Praziquantel: North American Journal of Aquaculture, v. 69, p. 207-210. 
126

Ward, D.L., and Hunt, T.A., 2007, Dispersal of nonnative fishes and parasites in the intermittent 

Little Colorado River, Arizona: Southwestern Naturalist v. 52, no. 1, p. 132-138. 

Ward, D.L., 2005, Selective Removal of nonnative fish using Supaverm®: Toxcicity screening 

for a candidate species-specific piscicide: Journal of Freshwater Ecology v. 20 no. 4, p. 787-

789. 

Speas, D.W., Walters, C.J., Ward, D.L., and Rogers, R.S., 2004, Effects of intraspecific density 

and environmental variables on electrofishing catchability of brown and rainbow trout in the 

Colorado River, Arizona: North American Journal of Fisheries Management, v. 24, no. 2, p. 

586-596, http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a932063633. 

Speas, D.W., Walters, C.J., Ward, D.L., and Rogers, R.S., 2004, Effects of intraspecific density 

and environmental variables on electrofishing catchability of brown and rainbow trout in the 

Colorado River, Arizona: North American Journal of Fisheries Management, v. 24, no. 2, p. 

586-596, http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a932063633. 

Ward, D.L., Maughan, O.E., Bonar, S.A., and Matter, W.J., 2002, Effects of temperature, fish 

length, and exercise on swimming performance of age-0 flannelmouth sucker: Transactions 

of the American Fisheries Society, v. 131, no. 3, p. 492-497, 

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1577/1548-

8659(2002)131%3C0492:EOTFLA%3E2.0.CO;2. 

6. References 

Bunch, A.J., Makinster, A.S., Avery, L.A., Stewart, W.T., and Persons, W.R., 2011, Colorado 

River fish monitoring in Grand Canyon, Arizona–2011 annual report: Submitted to the Grand 

Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, Flagstaff AZ, Cooperative agreement number 

G09AC0036. 

Bunch, A.J., Makinster, A.S., Avery, L.A., Stewart, W.T., and Persons, W.R., 2010, Colorado 

River fish monitoring in Grand Canyon, Arizona–2010 annual report: Submitted to the Grand 

Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, Flagstaff AZ, Cooperative agreement number 

G09AC0036. 

Coggins, L.G., Yard, M.D., and Pine, W.E., 2011, Nonnative fish control in the Colorado River 

in Grand Canyon, Arizona--an effective program or serendipitous timing?: Transactions of 

the American Fisheries Society, v. 140, no. 2, p. 456-470, 

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00028487.2011.572009. 

Douglas, M.R., and Douglas, M.E., 2007, Genetic structure of humpback chub Gila cypha and 

roundtail chub G. robusta in the Colorado River ecosystem--final report: Fort Collins, 

Department of Fish, Wildlife and Conservation Biology, Colorado State University, 99 p., 

http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/07jun25/Attach_04.pdf. 

Kaeding, L.R., Burdick, B.D., Schrader, P.A., and McAda, C.W., 1990, Temporal and spatial 

relations between the spawning of humpback chub and roundtail chub in the upper Colorado 

River: Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, v. 119, no. 1, p. 135-144, 

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1577/1548-

8659%281990%29119%3C0135%3ATASRBT%3E2.3.CO%3B2. 

Karp, C.A., and Tyus, H.M., 1990, Humpback chub (Gila cypha) in the Yampa and Green 

Rivers, Dinosaur National Monument, with observations on roundtail chub (G. robusta) and 

other sympatric fishes: Great Basin Naturalist, v. 50, no. 3, p. 257-264, 

https://ojs.lib.byu.edu/ojs/index.php/wnan/article/view/202/1313. 
127

Makinster, A.S., Persons, W.R., Avery, L.A., and Bunch, A.J., 2010, Colorado River fish 

monitoring in Grand Canyon, Arizona--2000 to 2009 summary: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 2010-1246, 26 p., http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1246/. 

Marsh, P.C., and Pacey, C.A., 2005, Immiscibility of native and non-native fishes, in Brouder, 

M.J., Springer, C.L., and Leon, C.S., eds., Restoring natural function within a modified 

riverine environment--the lower Colorado River, Albuquerque, N.Mex., July 8-9, 1998 and 

in Restoring native fish to the lower Colorado River--interactions of native and non-native 

fishes, Las Vegas, Nev., July 13-14, 1999, Proceedings of two symposia: p. 59-63. 

McHugh P., and Budy, P., 2006, Experimental effects of nonnative brown trout on the 

individual- and population-level performance of native Bonneville cutthroat trout: 

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society v. 135, p. 1441-1455. 

Minckley, W.L., and Marsh, P.C., 2009 Inland fishes of the greater Southwest—chronicle of a 

vanishing biota: University of Arizona Press, Tucson. 

Robinson, A.T., Bryan, S.D., and Sweetser, M.G., 2003, Habitat use by nonnative rainbow trout, 

Oncorhynchus mykiss, and native Little Colorado River spinedace, lepidomeda vittata. 

Environmental Biology of Fishes, v. 68, no. 2, p. 205-214. 

Robinson, A.T., Kubly, D.M., Clarkson, R.W., and Creef, E.D., 1996, Factors limiting the 

distribution of native fishes in the Little Colorado River, Grand Canyon, Arizona: The 

Southwestern Naturalist, v. 41, no. 4, p. 378-387, http://www.jstor.org/stable/30055194. 

Tyus, H.M., and Saunders, J.F., III, 2000, Nonnative fish control and endangered fish recovery--

lessons from the Colorado River: Fisheries, v. 25, no. 9, doi: 10.1577/1548-

8446(2000)025<0017:NFCAEF>2.0.CO;2, p. 17-24, 

http://afsjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1577/1548-

8446%282000%29025%3C0017%3ANFCAEF%3E2.0.CO%3B2. 

Ward, D.L., Maughan, O.E., Bonar, S.A., and Matter, W.J., 2002, Effects of temperature, fish 

length, and exercise on swimming performance of age-0 flannelmouth sucker: Transactions 

of the American Fisheries Society, v. 131, no. 3, p. 492-497, 

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1577/1548-

8659(2002)131%3C0492:EOTFLA%3E2.0.CO;2. 

Ward, D.L., and Bonar, S.A., 2003, Effects of cold water on susceptibility of age-0 flannelmouth 

sucker to predation by rainbow trout: The Southwestern Naturalist, v. 48, no. 1, p. 43-46, 

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3672736. 

Yard, M.D., Coggins, L.G., Baxter, C.V., Bennett, G.E., and Korman, J., 2011, Trout piscivory 

in the Colorado River, Grand Canyon--effects of turbidity, temperature, and fish prey 

availability: Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, v. 140, no. 2, p. 471-486, 

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00028487.2011.572011. 
128

7. Budget 

Project Element G.1.

Laboratory Studies

Project Element G.2.

Efficacy Ecological Impacts

of Brown Trout

Salaries $58,000 Salaries $73,000

Traveling and Training $2,000 Traveling and Training $2,000

Operating Expenses $18,000 Operating Expenses $5,000

Logistics $0 Logistics $89,000

GIS/RS/Electronics support

(includes burden) $0 GIS/RS/Electronics support(includes burden) $0

Cooperators (non‐USGS) $0 Cooperators (non‐USGS) $0

USGS cooperators $0 USGS cooperators $0

USGS Burden $11,000 USGS Burden $24,000

Total $89,000 Total $193,000

FY 2013 Project G. Gross Total:

$283,000

FY 2014 Project G. Gross Total:

$300,000
129

Project H. 

Understanding the Factors Limiting the Growth of Large 

Rainbow Trout in Glen and Marble Canyons 

1. Investigators 

Theodore Kennedy, Research Aquatic Biologist, USGS, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center 

Charles Yackulic, Research Statistician, USGS, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center 

Mike Yard, Fishery Biologist, USGS, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center 

Mike Anderson, Fishery Biologist, Arizona Game and Fish Department 

Luke Avery, Biologist, USGS, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center 

Robert Hall, Biologist, University of Wyoming 

Josh Korman, President, Ecometric Research Inc. 

Scott Wright, Research Hydrologist, USGS, California Water Science Center 

Williams Persons, Fishery Biologist, USGS, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center 

2. Project Summary 

This project will involve: (a) a simple laboratory experiment to determine if the strain of 

rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in Lees Ferry is capable of growing to large size; (b) data 

collection and model development to better understand factors controlling primary production 

and invertebrate drift; (c) collecting hydrodynamic and fish diet data, which will be used to 

develop a bioenergetics model of trout foraging; and (d) undertaking a synthesis of other 

tailwaters to better understand how dam operations affect the size distribution of salmonids in 

other settings. In addition, we present a contingency plan of work activities in case a fall highflow experiment (HFE) occurs in Fiscal Year 2013 or 2014. Although we have a good 

understanding of food web response to the spring high-flow experiments conducted in 1996 and 

2008, our understanding of food web response to the fall high-flow experiment in 2004 is more 

limited. Thus, we are poised to take advantage of learning opportunities presented by any highflow experiments that occur during FY 2013 or 2014. 

Over the last few decades, the rainbow trout fishery in Lees Ferry has been characterized 

by three undesirable properties: (1) population fluctuations characterized by decadal scale cycles 

in rainbow trout abundances (Makinster and others, 2011); (2) increasing potential for negative 

interactions between rainbow trout and native fishes caused by expansion of rainbow trout 

populations downstream (Yard and others, 2011); and (3) an absence of the large-sized rainbow 

trout that are highly valued by the angling community (Schmidt and others 1998). The causes of 

the long term population cycles are fairly well understood (Korman and others, in press; Cross 

and others, 2011), and the Natal Origins project (Project Element D.2.) was specifically designed 

to address uncertainties surrounding the downstream migration of rainbow trout. In this project 

we propose a suite of research activities designed to better understand the factors limiting the 

growth of large rainbow trout. These efforts will also provide information that can be used to 
130

better the understand factors of population fluctuations and the potential for negative interactions 

between rainbow trout and native species. 

3. Background 

The history of rainbow trout in the Colorado River can be thought of as having two eras. 

During the “stocking era,” which began in 1964, the fishery was sustained by annual stocking 

and recruitment was limited (McKinney and others, 2001). The size of stocked rainbow trout 

varied by year and ranged from 4 to 8 inches (10 to 20 cm). Adult rainbow trout routinely grew 

to 20 inches (50 cm), with occasional 30 inch plus fish (>75 cm), earning the fishery a reputation 

as blue ribbon (Schmidt and others, 1998). Rainbow trout were also found downstream in areas 

used by native fish (Valdez and Ryle, 1996). However, the extent of native and nonnative fish 

interactions during this period is not well understood, and is often presumed to have been limited 

in comparison to more recent years. Since 1991, the fishery has been increasingly sustained by 

natural recruitment and stocking was completely phased out by 1998 (McKinney and others, 

2001). While limited recruitment was occurring prior to 1991 (Maddux and others, 1987), this 

transition to a “recruitment era” is often attributed to implementation of modified low fluctuating 

flows (MLFF; DOI, 1996). Demography of rainbow trout during the recruitment era is closely 

linked not only to implementation of MLFFs, but also to HFEs. High-flow experiments in 1996 

and 2008 led to recruitment of large number of juvenile rainbow trout in the subsequent years 

(Korman and others, in press). Research surrounding the 2008 flood suggests that this 

recruitment, driven by increased juvenile survival and growth, was mainly attributable to 

increased food availability in the drift. In turn, this was linked to higher production of key 

drifting species of insects upon which rainbow trout rely heavily (blackflies and midges; Cross 

and others, 2011). 

The rainbow trout fishery during the recruitment era has been characterized by three 

undesirable properties: 

1. instability in population size, which there are decadal cycles of large and small numbers, 

2. increasing potential for negative interactions between rainbow trout and native fishes, 

especially humpback chub (Gila cypha), primarily due to rainbow trout populations 

expansion downstream (Yard and others, 2011), and 

3. an absence of the large rainbow trout that are highly valued by the angling community 

(Schmidt and others, 1998). 

The degree to which dam operations and associated factors (i.e., population cycles) 

interact to affect the growth of large rainbow trout is the largest uncertainty associated with 

adaptive management of the fishery (McKinney and others, 2001; McKinney and Speas, 2001; 

Cross and others, 2011). The existence of this uncertainty has led to a plethora of hypotheses 

regarding the ultimate cause of diminished growth in large rainbow trout, which would take 

decades of manipulation and observation to sift through if we relied solely on field monitoring in 

Glen Canyon. In other words, while ongoing monitoring in association with adaptive 

management experimentation is important for documenting trends in population size, size 

distribution, and rainbow trout distribution, monitoring alone is an extremely inefficient way to 

determine the factors limiting the growth of large rainbow trout. With regard to the first and 

second undesirable properties (cyclic changes in population size and downstream expansion), we 
131

have a good understanding of the dynamics and drivers over the last decade (Korman and others, 

in press), but we still lack a cause-and-effect understanding that would allow us to confidently 

predict the impacts of dam operations outside the set of observed operations that occurred during 

the same time span (2000-2011). 

To resolve these uncertainties, we propose complementing long-term rainbow trout 

monitoring with a suite of new research activities. We will pursue a multipronged approach to 

understanding these complex issues that involves: 

 

1. laboratory studies of fish growth; 

2. algal colonization and growth experiments, including an assessment of nutrient limitation 

of algae growth and targeted field sampling of algae biomass and invertebrate drift, to 

support development of predictive models of both primary production and invertebrate 

drift; 

3. collection of hydrodynamic and rainbow trout diet data to help parameterize a 

bioenergetics model that explicitly incorporates information on water velocities 

(swimming costs) and drift delivery rates (concentrations and daily loads) in order to 

estimate net energy intake potential for rainbow trout; and, 

4. a national synthesis of tailwaters to understand how dam operations affect salmonid 

populations dynamics in other systems. 

Collectively, these studies will allow us to better understand the consequences of 

alternative dam operations on rainbow trout populations in both Glen and Marble Canyons. The 

proposed research activities will be integrated with the ongoing Foodbase Monitoring Program 

(Project Element F.7.), as well Detection of Rainbow Trout Movement from the Upper Reaches 

of the Colorado River below Glen Canyon Dam (Project F.6.) and Rainbow Trout Early Life 

Stage Survival project (Project Element F.2.2.) The foodbase monitoring program currently 

monitors drift and primary production at fixed locations in the Glen Canyon, Marble Canyon 

(river mile 30), near the LCR confluence (river mile 61), Phantom Ranch (river mile 87), and 

Diamond Creek (river mile 225). The natal origins project addresses uncertainties surrounding 

the amount of downstream rainbow trout dispersal; the potential dependence of dispersal on both 

population (density-dependence) and individual (size) properties; questions relevant to 

understanding population dynamics; distribution dynamics; and spatial variation in growth. The 

Rainbow Trout Early Life Stage Survival project (Project Element F.2.2) is critical in helping us 

understand the dynamics of young rainbow trout, which are both integral to population dynamics 

and may also limit growth of larger rainbow trout (see Hypotheses, below). 

3.1. Scientific Background 

 The many hypotheses to explain the lack of trophy rainbow trout can be arranged by the 

degree to which these hypotheses attribute declining growth of large rainbow trout to changes in 

dam operations. 

 Hypothesis 1 (H1) The strain of rainbow trout present in Glen Canyon is incapable of 

growing to large sizes (i.e., >20 inches). H1 attributes the absence of large rainbow trout to a 

change in the strain of rainbow trout sometime after the 1970s. Thus, H1 does not consider that 

rainbow trout conditions are affected by dam operations. Although exact strains stocked during 

the 1970s are unknown, records of fish larger than 30 in (76 cm) were not uncommon in the creel 

from 1977–1984 (Persons and others, personal communication). Since the mid 1980’s, fish 
132

caught by angling or in electrofishing surveys have rarely been larger than 22 in (56 cm) 

(GCMRC and AGFD, unpublished data). 

 Hypothesis 2 (H2) The current prey base, composed chiefly of midges and black flies, 

can support the growth of smaller rainbow trout, but does provide enough energy to allow for 

growth in large rainbow trout. H2 argues that there have been shifts in the foodbase that now 

leave it incapable of supporting larger rainbow trout. While dam operations can shift the 

foodbase to favor the recruitment and growth of small rainbow trout (Cross and others, 2011), 

growth and survival of large rainbow trout appears largely unaffected by dam operations. 

Possible causes of this shift in the foodbase include declining nutrient inputs from Lake Powell 

as the reservoir has aged (Stockner and others, 2000), introduction of invasive species (i.e., New 

Zealand mudsnail; Cross and others, 2010), and changes in substrates as the Glen Canyon reach 

has degraded over time (Grams and others, 2007). Changes in invertebrate composition could 

lead to changes in both the seasonal availability of drifting invertebrates (there is currently ~100-

fold variation in drift rates among seasons; Kennedy unpublished data) and in the prevalence of 

high quality drift (i.e., large prey items such as Gammarus), both of which might strongly 

constrain growth of large rainbow trout while still allowing small rainbow trout to thrive. 

Support for this hypothesis comes from McKinney and Speas (2001), who observed size-related 

asymmetries in rainbow trout diet and energy intake that suggests larger sized trout are foodlimited more often than smaller fish. Although the total amount of prey available to support 

rainbow trout populations may have increased during this time period (Angradi and Kubly 1993; 

Blinn and others, 1995; Benenati and others, 1998), juvenile trout appear to be the primary 

beneficiaries of any such change (McKinney and Speas, 2001). More recent research on the Glen 

Canyon food web (Cross and others, 2011) supports these observations. 

 A corollary to H2 is that some combination of rainbow trout dispersal patterns, food 

availability, and declining prey detectability explains the declining abundances of rainbow trout 

at distances further downstream from Lees Ferry (Carothers and Brown, 1991; Makinster and 

others, 2011). Turbidity increases downriver, and since rainbow trout are visual feeders, it is 

more challenging for them to see food. However, the importance of this effect relative to 

declining food availability and dispersal rates is unknown (Barrett and others, 1992; Stuart-Smith 

and others, 2004; Yard and Coggins, in review). 

 Hypothesis 3 (H3) The growth of large rainbow trout is limited by exploitative 

competition for limited prey items. The diet composition of large and small rainbow trout overlap 

(i.e., their production is primarily supported by midges, black flies, and Gammarus; McKinney 

and Speas, 2001; Cross and others, 2011); however, smaller rainbow trout may be able to subsist 

on smaller prey items, and this may in turn affect food availability for larger rainbow trout. Many 

of the smaller prey items (small Gammarus and 1st instar larvae of midges and black flies) 

consumed by small rainbow trout represent early life stages of species that large fish would be 

better able to exploit if these prey items continued to mature. Since recruitment of smaller 

rainbow trout is tied to dam operations, H3 posits an indirect and time lagged linkage to dam 

operations. While H2 and H1 predict no changes in large rainbow trout growth if small rainbow 

trout numbers are suppressed, H3 predicts an increase in the growth of large rainbow trout if 

small rainbow trout are suppressed. H3 can also be extended to argue that while high-flow 

experiments augment juvenile recruitment, the dynamics in the following years may be chiefly 

driven by intraspecific interactions between younger and older age-classes of trout, as opposed to 

physical factors (Schlosser 1985; Walters and Post, 1993). 
133

Hypotheses 4 (H4) Operational constraints that occurred in 1990 limit the growth of large 

rainbow trout. H4 directly links the lack of large rainbow trout to changes in dam operations. H4

posits that the load-following dam operations that occurred during the stocking era created 

habitat that was more beneficial to large rainbow trout by favoring a fast-growing and highquality early successional algal assemblage, creating daily surges in invertebrate drift (Perry and 

Perry, 1986). This also favored larger invertebrate prey items, all of which sustained the growth 

of larger rainbow trout (Barrett and others, 1992; Graf, 1995; Stuart-Smith and others, 2004). 

Growth studies on young-of-year rainbow trout have demonstrated that daily flow variation has 

significant effects on growth for early life stages (Korman and Campana, 2009). However, we 

lack a similar understanding of how daily variation in discharge affects growth of larger rainbow 

trout. 

 The motivation for this proposed research is to improve the recreational fishing 

experience for rainbow trout at Lees Ferry, while at the same time protecting and maintaining 

native fish populations downstream in Marble and Grand Canyons. Being able to distinguish 

among these four hypotheses will help inform the types of experiments the Adaptive 

Management Program might evaluate during the Long-Term Experimental and Management 

Plan (LTEMP) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to meet native and nonnative goals. If the 

research outlined below supports either H1 or H2, then changes in dam operations alone are 

unlikely to provide the conditions necessary to support the large rainbow trout that are sought by 

anglers. If we find support for H1, this would suggest that the Adaptive Management Program 

might pursue stocking of alternative strains of rainbow trout, which are capable of growing to 

large size, into Glen Canyon. If the proposed research primarily supports H2, the Adaptive 

Management Program could consider introducing invertebrate species from other Colorado River 

Basin tailwaters (i.e., San Juan, Flaming Gorge, etc.), particularly larger taxa, and/or consider 

habitat modification (e.g., flows, large woody debris additions, or a temperature control device). 

If the proposed research primarily supports H3 or H4, the Adaptive Management Program might 

consider alterations in dam operations. In recent years, dam operations designed to achieve goals 

for sediment and native fish (i.e., high-flow experiments and Low Summer Steady Flows) or 

meet equalization requirements (i.e, 2011), have created pulses of rainbow trout recruitment 

(Korman and others, in press). As a consequence, recreational catch rates in Glen Canyon have 

increased following these operations, yet the large rainbow trout that are sought by many anglers 

are absent. Further, these pulses of recruitment and subsequent downstream dispersal have led to 

costly and controversial rainbow trout removal efforts designed to reduce the threat that they 

pose to endangered humpback chub (Coggins and others, 2011). One specific management 

option available to the Adaptive Management Program is moving towards dam operations that 

will suppress juvenile recruitment. Suppressing juvenile rainbow trout recruitment could 

improve growth of larger rainbow trout either by lowering the degree of competition with 

smaller size classes (H3) or by creating more ideal habitat conditions (H4). 

4. Proposed Work 

4.1. Project Elements 

Project Element H.1. Laboratory Feeding Studies ($35,000) 

Luke Avery, Fishery Biologist, USGS/GCMRC 
134

The objective of this project element is to evaluate growth potential of Glen Canyon 

rainbow trout by rearing fish in captivity to address H1. 

Adult Glen Canyon rainbow trout will be collected by angling, transported to a facility 

yet to be determined, and fed ad libitum with high quality trout food for two years. Fish will be 

measured and PIT tagged when stocked, and will be measured throughout the study to estimate 

growth and condition. Tissue samples will be taken, which can be used to compare Glen Canyon 

trout to trout in the National Fish Strain Registry, and growth rates will be compared with growth 

of rainbow trout in other tailwaters as well as with wild populations (see Project Element H.5.). 

Project Element H.2. Understanding the Links among Dam Operations, Environmental Conditions, and the 

Foodbase ($248,000) 

Project Element H.2.1. Developing a Mechanistic Model of Primary Productivity 

Mike Yard, Fishery Biologist, USGS/GCMRC 

Charles Yackulic, Research Statistician, USGS/GCMRC 

Theodore Kennedy, Research Aquatic Biologist, USGS/GCMRC 

Bob Hall, Biologist, University of Wyoming 

The objective of this project element is to develop a mechanistic model of primary 

production that can be used to make predictions about the effects of dam operations and 

environmental conditions (i.e., turbidity, water quality from Lake Powell) on a key food web 

component—algae. 

We will conduct small scale experiments of nutrient limitation and direct measurement of 

algae biomass at various depths using self-contained underwater breathing apparatus (SCUBA) 

to describe how algae growth is limited by nutrients and variation in light availability. Cliff 

habitats will be the focus of these measurements and experiments, because water velocities are 

often too high in other habitat types to safely SCUBA. Further, by doing this work at cliff 

habitats, we will be able to measure algae growth rates across a large range of depths and light 

availability. We will follow the methods of Tank and Dodds (2003) to assess nutrient limitation 

of algae growth. Nutrient diffusing substrates that include nitrogen, phosphorus, a combination 

of nitrogen and phosphorus, and a control will be deployed at multiple depths in several cliff 

habitats in Glen Canyon and near Diamond Creek. We will then develop a model that builds 

upon the work of Yard (2003) and Hall and others (2010) by linking our predictive 

understanding at small spatial scales to measurements at the reach-scale. Mechanistic models 

proposed here have a higher probability of making accurate predictions for conditions outside the 

set of observed conditions relative to more phenomenological models (Cale and others, 1989; 

Oreskes and others, 1994). New data collections will occur, and mechanistic models developed, 

in the Glen Canyon and Diamond Creek reaches because of the availability of long-term algae 

growth estimates (since 2008 and 2009, respectively). Reach scale estimates of algae growth will 

also continue at other reaches (i.e., RM 30, 61, and 87) but no additional data collections or 

mechanistic models are proposed for these reaches. 

Algae is the crank that turns the Colorado River food web in Glen Canyon (Shannon and 

others, 1994; Angradi 1994; Cross and others, 2011) and in Marble and Grand Canyons (Stevens 

and others 1997; Cross and others in prep). Yard (2003) demonstrated how light, turbidity, and 

algae biomass interact to affect algae production using experiments in small chambers. Yard 

(2003) extrapolated from these small-scale measurements (meters) to demonstrate how algae 

growth at the scale of the reach (10s of river miles) would likely be affected by the interactive 

effects of turbidity and discharge, which affect river depth and therefore light availability at the 
135

scale of the reach. Yard (2003) predicted something that is somewhat counterintuitive—at 

downstream locations that are limited by light due to suspended sediment turbidity, reach-scale 

algae growth can actually decline as discharge increases. This is due to strong effects of light 

limitation on algae growth when river depth reaches a critical value that is dependent on reach 

geometry (width and depth) and turbidity. 

Hall and others (2010) estimated algae production at the scale of the reach (10s of river 

miles) by developing detailed dissolved oxygen budgets that incorporate information on incident 

light (Yard and others, 2005) and air-water gas exchange rates (Hall and others, 2012). Initially, 

as a proof-of-concept, dissolved oxygen was monitored for 1.5 days at regular intervals as part of 

foodbase research (once per month at Diamond Creek and Glen Canyon, and quarterly at 4 sites 

in Grand Canyon during river trips). In collaboration with the Streamflow, Water Quality, and 

Sediment Transport in the Colorado River Ecosystem monitoring project (project B), continuous 

dissolved oxygen monitoring has been occurring in Glen Canyon since 2008, Diamond Creek (at 

river mile 225) since 2009, and at river miles 30, 61, and 87 since summer 2011 (see Foodbase 

Monitoring Project F.7.). Analysis of long-term algae production estimates from Glen Canyon 

reveals strong seasonal variation in primary production, and also links to operations. But as 

predicted by Yard (2003), the effect of operations on algae growth does not appear as 

pronounced as for downstream locations that are more limited by light availability caused by 

suspended sediment turbidity. Analysis of long-term algae production estimates from Diamond 

Creek reveals strong effects of turbidity and discharge on algae growth that are consistent with 

the predictions of Yard (2003), but there is also a strong interaction between distinguishing the 

relative roles of the turbidity and discharge (Hall and others, in prep). Interactions such as this 

complicate main effects—turbidity and discharge. That is, because there is a strong interaction 

between the main effects, we are unable to completely separate the effects of turbidity from 

discharge and predict with confidence algae growth rates for dam operations that are outside of 

the set of observed conditions (i.e., Modified Low Fluctuating Flows). Further, we are unable to 

describe how the March 2008 HFE affected annual rates of algae growth in Glen Canyon near 

Diamond Creek, because continuous dissolved oxygen monitoring was initiated in Glen Canyon 

in February 2008, just weeks before the high-flow experiment occurred and at Diamond Creek in 

2009. Algae biomass estimates from Glen Canyon that were also collected as part of foodbase 

research efforts indicate the March 2008 HFE scoured algae from habitats in Glen Canyon and 

that algae quickly regrew. However, these data cannot be used to make precise estimates of 

reach-scale effects over annual timescales because they were only collected from shallow 

nearshore habitats. 

Evaluating H2 and predicting algae response to environmental conditions will also 

require a better understanding of algae growth response to differing concentrations of dissolved 

nutrients. Nutrient loadings from Lake Powell are known to vary seasonally and in response to 

changing reservoir elevations (Vernieu and others, 2005). Further, large reservoirs such as Lake 

Powell undergo an aging process over timescales of decades, where nutrient concentrations of 

releases are initially high as a vast terrestrial landscape is flooded (Stockner and others, 2000). 

As nutrients from the inundated valley floor are leached and depleted, nutrient concentrations 

released to the downstream ecosystem progressively decline (Stockner and others, 2000). The 

nutritional quality of algae also declines over the scale of decades, which can ultimately affect 

the growth potential of downstream fish populations (Stockner and others, 2000). A small scale 

research project conducted in Glen Canyon as part of Foodbase monitoring (Project Element 
136

F.7.) revealed algae growth is jointly limited by dissolved nitrogen and phosphorus. The 

nutritional quality of the algae itself likely varied too, but this was not measured. 

Predicting algae growth response to novel flow regimes that are outside of the set of 

observed conditions will be an important component of ongoing adaptive management 

experimentation. To address this need, we propose additional data collection and development of 

a mechanistic model of algae growth that can be used to predict algae response to dam operations 

and changing environmental conditions (i.e., turbidity and nutrient loading). 

This research will result in a mechanistic model that can be used to predict algae growth 

response to dam operations and environmental conditions, as well as multiple peer-reviewed 

journal articles describing (a) nutrient limitation experiments, (b) time-series analysis of reachscale primary production estimates, and (c) mechanistic model of algae growth. 

Project Element H.2.2. Characterizing Invertebrate Drift 

Theodore Kennedy, Research Aquatic Biologist, USGS/GCMRC 

Charles Yackulic, Research Statistician, USGS/GCMRC 

Mike Yard, Fishery Biologist, USGS/GCMRC 

The objective of this project element is to characterize spatial and temporal variation in 

the quantity and size distribution of invertebrate drift throughout Glen and Marble Canyon. 

We will undertake additional sampling during the Natal Origins of Humpback Chub at 

Aggregations by Otolith Microchemistry Project (Project Element D.2.1.) river trips to 

characterize spatial variation in drift throughout Glen and Marble Canyons. Invertebrate drift 

will be quantified on two consecutive days at each of the four fixed sampling sites during the 

daytime. Drift samples will be collected from multiple depths in the thalweg. More intensive 

drift measurements beyond what we propose here are not possible in the context of the natal 

origins project because of the large electrofishing effort. Characterizing smaller spatial scale 

variation in drift rates will therefore only occur in Glen Canyon. As part of regular monitoring 

trips, we will sample drift at additional sites that span the full range of habitat types present 

there. Data on spatial and temporal variation in drift from both long-term monitoring and the 

research proposed here will be analyzed using standard statistical techniques and results will 

inform H2 and H3. These drift data will also be used to parameterize a rainbow trout 

bioenergetics model (see Project Element H.3.). 

Invertebrate drift monitoring under the Foodbase Monitoring project (Project Element 

F.7.) focuses on describing temporal variation in drift rates at a single fixed location—USGS 

cableways—in both Glen Canyon and near Diamond Creek. These monitoring data revealed that 

drift rates for key taxa—midges and blackflies—at Glen Canyon increased in the months 

following the March 2008 HFE (Cross and others, 2011), and this foodbase sustained the high 

juvenile rainbow trout growth and recruitment that was subsequently observed (Korman and 

others, 2011). The sites where drift monitoring occurs are ideal for long-term monitoring, 

because the hydrodynamics of these sites are conducive to measurement of sediment and 

invertebrate flux, and access to both locations is relatively easy. But the distribution of large 

rainbow trout varies spatially, with larger fish generally found proximate to highly productive 

cobble bars (AZGFD, unpublished data) that also have high water velocities, both of which lead 

to higher food delivery rates relative to other habitat types (Hayes and others, 2007). Here, we 

propose collecting additional data on invertebrate drift rates among various habitat types in Glen 

Canyon, and also in association with the natal origins project, to estimate net energy intake 

potential for small versus large rainbow trout (see Project Element H.3.). 
137

Project Element H.3. Developing a Bioenergetics Model for Large Rainbow Trout ($138,000) 

Charles Yackulic, Research Statistician, USGS/GCMRC 

Theodore Kennedy, Research Aquatic Biologist, USGS/GCMRC 

Mike Yard, Fishery Biologist, USGS/GCMRC 

Scott Wright, Research Hydrologist, USGS, California Water Science Center 

Mike Anderson, Biologist, Arizona Game and Fish Department 

Josh Korman, President, Ecometric Research Inc. 

The objective to this project element is to develop a bioenergetics model that allows us to 

quantify the effects of prey size, water velocity, and intra-specific competition on growth 

potential for rainbow trout. 

We will develop an integrated invertebrate drift and trout foraging model building on the 

work of Paukert and Peterson (2007), Hayes and others (2007), and Rosenfeld and Taylor 

(2009). This model depends on outputs from Project Element H.2., as well as additional data 

collection. Specifically, in this project element, we propose quantifying how rainbow trout 

energy intake varies between small and large rainbow trout by analyzing stomach contents 

seasonally at the four Natal Origins project sample sites (Project Element D.2.1.). We will also 

collect detailed hydrodynamic data from these reaches. Stomach contents of 120 rainbow trout 

on each Natal Origins trip will be collected by Mike Yard and analyzed by Ted Kennedy; for 

each of the four Natal Origins sites that will be sampled seasonally, the stomach contents for 15 

small (<15 cm) and 15 large (>15 cm) rainbow will be collected and analyzed. Scott Wright will 

use an acoustic Doppler current profiler to characterize water velocity profiles at multiple crosssections throughout Glen and Marble Canyons at different flow levels. Charles Yackulic, Mike 

Yard, Josh Korman, and Mike Anderson will estimate size-specific growth rates for rainbow 

trout in Glen and Marble Canyons using various long-term data sources (i.e., Rainbow Trout 

Early Life Stage Survival Project Element F.2.2., annual Lees Ferry rainbow trout monitoring 

project element F.2.1., and Natal Origins Project Element D.2.1.). The bioenergetics model will 

be developed jointly by Charles Yackulic, Ted Kennedy, Mike Yard, and Scott Wright and will 

be used to evaluate both H2 and H3 by allowing us to determine how energy gains and losses 

vary at different discharge and prey density levels, and the degree to which intra-specific 

competition (by lowering prey densities) lowers the growth potential of large rainbow trout. 

Drift feeding fish like rainbow trout are known to feed across gradients in water velocity, 

from a holding position in slow-moderate velocities into faster surrounding waters that have 

higher prey delivery rates (Hayes and others, 2007, and references therein). This strategy confers 

the highest net energy intake for drift feeding fish, because it optimizes the tradeoff between the 

need to acquire food with the energetic costs of swimming that must be expended while 

capturing prey (Hayes and others, 2007). The daily energy intake requirements for fish increase 

as fish grow in size, such that small fish are able to meet these requirements in habitats that have 

low prey delivery rates (e.g., shallow, low velocity nearshore habitats), but as fish grow they 

must begin occupying habitats that have higher prey delivery rates. But even here, large fish can 

balance this tradeoff between energy intake and swimming costs by either selecting habitats that 

have lower swimming costs (deep pools) or faster velocity habitats that have higher prey delivery 

rates (Rosenfeld and Taylor, 2009). 

Benthic invertebrates are the ultimate source of the drifting invertebrates consumed by 

rainbow trout, and there are large differences in benthic invertebrate biomass across multiple 

spatial scales—from the reach scale (i.e., higher biomass in Glen Canyon and lower biomass at 
138

locations reaches; Stevens and others, 1997; Cross and others, 2011) to the patch scale (i.e., 

within a given reach, invertebrate biomass is highest on cobble bars relative to other habitat 

types; Stevens and others, 1997; Cross and others, 2011). Further, water velocities and 

geomorphology varies across these same spatial scales (Schmidt and Graf, 1990; Graf, 1995). 

Water velocities also vary strongly as a function of dam operations (Graf, 1995), and under the 

modified low fluctuating flow alternative, these differences in flow regimes tend to vary 

seasonally (large discharge volumes and high water velocities in summer and winter, lower 

discharge volumes and water velocities in spring and fall). Thus, invertebrate drift rates and 

hydrodynamic data across flow regimes, seasons, and from multiple spatial scales—from the 

reach to the patch—are needed to develop a cause-and-effect understanding of how net energy 

intake potential for rainbow trout populations in Glen and Marble Canyons vary in response to 

things such as HFEs (Cross and others, 2011), dam operations (i.e., 2011 equalization flows), 

and among segments (i.e., Glen Canyon versus Marble Canyon). Constraints on the net energy 

intake potential for large rainbow trout in Glen Canyon is a leading hypothesis explaining the 

absence of large rainbow trout from the Glen Canyon sport fishery (see H2). Differences in net 

energy intake potential among segments may also partially explain the recent finding that 

rainbow trout appear to migrate from Glen Canyon downstream late in their first year of life 

(Korman and others, in press). We propose addressing these uncertainties and testing H2 by 

developing a bioenergetics model for rainbow trout that includes information on invertebrate 

drift rates, water velocities, and water temperatures. Previous bioenergetic models developed for 

Grand Canyon fish populations have focused on evaluating growth potential for humpback chub 

and rainbow trout as a function of water temperature (Peterson and Paukert, 2005; Paukert and 

Peterson, 2007). Our model will also include water temperature because this has a strong effect 

on fish metabolism and swimming performance (Peterson and Paukert, 2005; Hayes and others, 

2007). We will also incorporate information on water velocities, because this information is 

critical for evaluating differences in net energy intake potential among segments (i.e., Glen 

Canyon versus Marble Canyon) and among seasons and flow regimes. 

Project Element H.4. Learning from other Tailwaters—a Synthesis of Tailwaters in the United States 

($150,000) 

Theodore Kennedy, Research Aquatic Biologist, USGS/GCMRC 

Charles Yackulic, Research Statistician, USGS/GCMRC 

Bill Persons, Fishery Biologist, USGS/GCMRC 

Mike Yard, Fishery Biologist, USGS/GCMRC 

Josh Korman, President, Ecometric Research Inc. 

The objective to this project element is to develop a broader understanding of the links 

between dam operations and salmonid population dynamics, including novel flow regimes that 

might be evaluated on Glen Canyon Dam, by synthesizing data from tailwaters throughout the 

nation. 

While it is not possible to evaluate H4 without major changes in Glen Canyon Dam 

operations, it is possible to evaluate H4 by synthesizing data from other tailwaters that 

experience different flow regimes than Glen Canyon Dam. The tailwaters downstream from all 

the major Colorado River dams (e.g., Navajo Dam, Aspinall Units, Flaming Gorge) are 

intentionally managed for salmonid (i.e., rainbow trout brown trout [Salmo trutta]) populations, 

because the clear, cold-water conditions that exist are ideal for these species. Environmental 
139

flows, and in some cases temperature modification, have been implemented on many segments 

of the Colorado River in an attempt to restore ecosystem processes and benefit native fish 

species. For example, a program of environmental flows that includes artificial spring floods, 

summer minimum flows, and thermal modification using a selective withdrawal structure, has 

been implemented at Flaming Gorge Dam (Muth and others, 2000). Environmental flows have 

also been implemented for Glen Canyon Dam, but the focus has been on artificial floods only 

(Kennedy and Ralston, 2011; Schmidt and Grams, 2011). Thermal modification in Grand 

Canyon is not possible, because no selective withdrawal structure exists. However, the artificial 

flood conducted in 2008 strongly benefitted the population of rainbow trout in the dam’s 

tailwaters (Cross and others, 2011; Korman, Kaplinski, and Melis, 2011). This led to a large 

cohort of juvenile rainbow trout, but significant increases in the abundance of large rainbow trout 

were not seen. Countless other examples of environmental flows—both with and without thermal 

modification—exist for various dams in the Colorado River basin, all of which are intended to 

benefit native fish populations, while still maintaining salmonid sport fisheries in the tailwaters. 

There are countless tailwaters outside of the Colorado River basin that are also managed for 

salmonids, and we will learn about the links among flow regimes, water temperature regimes, 

and salmonid populations dynamics by incorporating information from these systems into our 

synthesis. We will hire a post-doctoral researcher to synthesize available monitoring and 

research data from tailwaters throughout the United States, with an emphasis on tailwaters in the 

Colorado River basin. The post-doctoral researcher will be charged with making connections 

with the scientists from state, federal, and academic organizations throughout the United States 

needed to acquire relevant data from other tailwaters (i.e., information on the foodbase and fish 

catch data). The synthesis will culminate with a symposium that the post-doctoral researcher 

organizes. By comparing long-term trends in salmonid populations across a range of tailwaters, 

we will develop a broader understanding of the links between dam operations and salmonid 

populations than could be achieved with monitoring and research in Glen Canyon alone. 

Project Element H.5. Contingency Planning for High Experimental Flows and Subsequent Rainbow Trout 

Population Management ($65,000) 

Mike Yard, Fishery Biologist, USGS/GCMRC

Josh Korman, President, Ecometric Research, Inc. 

The objective to this project element is to determine the effects of fall HFEs and other 

potential management actions on rainbow trout populations in Glen Canyon. Spring floods are 

known to have a large impact on age-0 rainbow trout mortality and movement. However, the 

effects of fall floods are less well understood. It is possible that fall HFEs may lead to further 

population fluctuations and dispersal downstream necessitating management response(s). A fall 

HFE may also directly impact juvenile and adult trout in the system. Therefore, we propose that 

in the event of an HFE, there should be an additional trip shortly after to monitor trout responses. 

The Natal Origins marking trip will occur before a potential HFE and the next sampling would 

not be scheduled until January, making it difficult to parse out direct impacts of fall flooding (i.e. 

increased dispersal) on life history parameters from indirect impacts (e.g., through the foodbase), 

so the contingent marking trip would require additional pit tagging. 

Any actions to manage rainbow trout populations in Glen Canyon would also require 

monitoring to determine their effectiveness. Potential actions may include flows or flow regimes 

that limit availability of suitable spawning or rearing habitat, reproduction, or survival of 
140

fertilized eggs, larvae, or juveniles. Ongoing monitoring projects including System Wide 

Electrofishing (Project F.1.), Rainbow Trout Monitoring in Glen Canyon (Project F.2.1.), 

Rainbow Trout Early Life Stage Studies (Project F.2.2.), and Natal Origins (Project F.6.) will 

provide information on the responses of rainbow trout in Glen Canyon to these actions. 

Additional monitoring, however, may also be necessary if, as described above for HFEs, the 

timing of management actions and planned monitoring activities makes it difficult to resolve the 

effects of any experimental actions. Supplemental monitoring may include electrofishing surveys 

to determine any changes in size composition, relative abundance or distribution of rainbow trout 

or additional tagging of fish to generate abundance estimates through mark-recapture. 

5. References 

Angradi, T.R., and Kubly, D.M., 1993, Effects of atmospheric exposure on chlorophyll a, 

biomass and productivity of the epilithon of a tailwater river: Regulated Rivers--Research 

and Management, v. 8, no. 4, p. 345-358, http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgibin/fulltext/113394869/PDFSTART. 

Barrett, J.C., Grossman, G.D., and Rosenfeld, J., 1992, Turbidity-induced changes in reactive 

distance of rainbow trout: Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, v. 121, no. 4, p. 

437-443, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1577/1548-

8659%281992%29121%3C0437%3ATICIRD%3E2.3.CO%3B2. 

Benenati, P.L., Shannon, J.P., and Blinn, D.W., 1998, Dessication and recolonization of 

phytobenthos in regulated desert river--Colorado River at Lees Ferry, Arizona, USA: 

Regulated Rivers--Research and Management, v. 14, p. 519-532, 

http://www.rmrs.nau.edu/awa/ripthreatbib/Benenati_etal_1998.pdf. 

Blinn, D.W., Shannon, J.P., Stevens, L.E., and Carder, J.P., 1995, Consequences of fluctuating 

discharge for lotic communities: Journal of the North American Benthological Society, v. 14, 

no. 2, p. 233-248, http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/1467776.pdf. 

Carothers, S.W., and Brown, B.T., 1991, The Colorado River through Grand Canyon--natural 

history and human change: Tucson, University of Arizona Press, 235 p. 

Coggins, L.G., Yard, M.D., and Pine, W.E., 2011, Nonnative fish control in the Colorado River 

in Grand Canyon, Arizona--an effective program or serendipitous timing?: Transactions of 

the American Fisheries Society, v. 140, no. 2, p. 456-470, 

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00028487.2011.572009. 

Cross, W.F., Rosi-Marshall, E.J., Behn, K.E., Kennedy, T.A., Hall, R.O., Fuller, A.E., and 

Baxter, C.V., 2010, Invasion and production of New Zealand mud snails in the Colorado 

River, Glen Canyon: Biological Invasions, v. 12, no. 9, p. 3033-3043, 

http://www.springerlink.com/content/bv834031865h2077/. 

Cross, W.F., Baxter, C.V., Donner, K.C., Rosi-Marshall, E.J., Kennedy, T.A., Hall, R.O., Jr., 

Wellard-Kelly, H.A., and Rogers, R.S., 2011, Ecosystem ecology meets adaptive 

management--food web response to a controlled flood on the Colorado River, Glen Canyon: 

Ecological Applications, v. 21, no. 6, p. 2016-2033, 

http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/10-1719.1. 

Grams, P.E., Schmidt, J.C., and Topping, D.J., 2007, The rate and pattern of bed incision and 

bank adjustment on the Colorado River in Glen Canyon downstream from Glen Canyon 

Dam, 1956-2000: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 119, no. 5-6 p. 556-575, 

http://gsabulletin.gsapubs.org/content/119/5-6/556.abstract. 
141

Hall, R.O., Jr., Kennedy, T.A., Rosi Marshall, E.J., Cross, W.F., Wellard, H.A., and Baxter, C.F., 

2010, Aquatic production and carbon flow in the Colorado River, in Melis, T.S., Hamill, J.F., 

Bennett, G.E., Coggins, L.G., Jr., Grams, P.E., Kennedy, T.A., Kubly, D.M., and Ralston, 

B.E., eds., Proceedings of the Colorado River Basin Science and Resource Management 

Symposium, November 18-20, 2008, Scottsdale, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2010-5135, 105-112 p., http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5135/. 

Hayes, J.W., Hughes, N.F., and Kelly, L.H., 2007, Process-based modeling of invertebrate drift 

transport, net energy intake and reach carrying capacity for drift-feeding salmonids: 

Ecological Modeling, v. 207, p. 171-188. 

Kennedy, T.A., and Ralston, B.E., 2011, Biological responses to high-flow experiments at Glen 

Canyon Dam, in Melis, T.S., ed., Effects of three high-flow experiments on the Colorado 

River ecosystem downstream from Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey 

Circular 1366, 93-125 p., http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1366/. 

Korman, J., and Campana, S.E., 2009, Effects of hydropeaking on nearshore habitat use and 

growth of age-0 rainbow trout in a large regulated river: Transactions of the American 

Fisheries Society, v. 138, no. 1, p. 76-87, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1577/T08-

026.1. 

Korman, J., Kaplinski, M., and Melis, T.S., 2011, Effects of fluctuating flows and a controlled 

flood on incubation success and early survival rates and growth of age-0 rainbow trout in a 

large regulated river: Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, v. 140, no. 2, p. 487-

505, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00028487.2011.572015. 

Maddux, H.R., Kubly, D.M., deVos, J.C., Jr., Persons, W.R., Staedicke, R., and Wright, R.L., 

1987, Effects of varied flow regimes on aquatic resources of Glen and Grand Canyons--final 

report: Phoenix, Arizona Game and Fish Department, submitted to Bureau of Reclamation, 

Glen Canyon Environmental Studies, contract no. 4-AG-40-01810, 291 p. [Available from 

National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va. as NTIS Report PB88-183439/AS.] 

Makinster, A.S., Persons, W.R., and Avery, L.A., 2011, Status and trends of the rainbow trout 

population in the Lees Ferry reach of the Colorado River downstream from Glen Canyon 

Dam, Arizona, 1991–2009: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2011–

5015, 17 p. 

McKinney, T., Speas, D.W., Rogers, R.S., and Persons, W.R., 2001, Rainbow trout in a 

regulated river below Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona, following increased minimum flows and 

reduced discharge variability: North American Journal of Fisheries Management, v. 21, no. 

1, p. 216-222, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1577/1548-

8675(2001)021%3C0216:RTIARR%3E2.0.CO;2. 

McKinney, T., and Speas, D.W., 2001, Observations of size-related asymmetries in diet and 

energy intake of rainbow trout in a regulated river: Environmental Biology of Fishes, v. 61, 

no. 4, p. 435-444, http://www.springerlink.com/content/u177356554v07546/. 

Muth, R.T., Crist, L.W., LaGory, K.E., Hayse, J.W., Bestgen, K.R., Ryan, T.P., Lyons, J.K., and 

Valdez, R.A., 2000, Flow and temperature recommendations for endangered fishes in the 

Green River downstream of Flaming Gorge Dam--final report: Denver, Colo., submitted to 

Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program, project FG-53, 343 p., 

http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/crrip/doc/flaminggorgeflowrecs.pdf. 

Oreskes N., Shrader-Frechette, K., and Belitz, K.,1994, Verification, validation, and 

confirmation of numerical models in the earth sciences: Science, v. 263, p. 641-646. 
142

Perry, S.A., and Perry, W.B., 1986, Effects of experimental flow regulation on invertebrate drift 

and stranding in the Flathead and Kootenai Rivers, Montana, USA: Hydrobiologia, v. 134, 

no. 2, p. 171-182, http://www.springerlink.com/content/wu08t083k8r41554/. 

Persons, W,R., McCormack, K., and McCall, T., 1985, Fishery investigation of the Colorado 

River from Glen Canyon Dam to the confluence of the Paria River--Assessment of the 

impact of fluctuating flows on the Lee’s Ferry Fishery, Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration 

Dingell Johnson Project F-14-R-14, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 93 p. 

unpublished report available by contacting the Arizona Game and Fish Department. 

Pine, W.E.I., Martell, S.J.D., Walters, C.J., and Kitchell, J.F., 2009, Counterintuitive responses 

of fish populations to management actions--some common causes and implications for 

predictions based on ecosystem modeling: Fisheries, v. 34, no. 4, p. 165-180, 

http://www.lssu.edu/faculty/gsteinhart/GBS-LSSU/BIOL432-

Fish_Management_files/Pine%20et%20al%202009.pdf. 

Rosenfield, J.S., and Taylor, J., 2009, Prey abundance, channel structure and the allometry of 

growth rate potential for juvenile trout: Fisheries Management and Ecology, v. 16, p. 202-

218. 

Schmidt, J.C., and Grams, P.E., 2011, The high flows--physical science results, in Melis, T.S., 

ed., Effects of three high-flow experiments on the Colorado River ecosystem downstream 

from Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1366, 53-91 p., 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1366/. 

Schmidt, J.C., Webb, R.H., Valdez, R.A., Marzolf, G.R., and Stevens, L.E., 1998, Science and 

values in river restoration in the Grand Canyon: BioScience, v. 48, no. 9, p. 735-747, 

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1313336. 

Shaver, M.L., Shannon, J.P., Wilson, K.P., Benenati, P.L., and Blinn, D.W., 1997, Effects of 

suspended sediment and desiccation on the benthic tailwater community in the Colorado 

River, USA: Hydrobiologia, v. 357, p. 63-72, 

http://www.springerlink.com/content/u7g71330387621w8/. 

Stevens, L.E., Buck, K.A., Brown, B.T., and Kline, N.C., 1997a, Dam and geomorphological 

influences on Colorado River waterbird distribution, Grand Canyon, Arizona, USA: 

Regulated Rivers--Research and Management, v. 13, no. 2, p. 151-169, 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1646(199703)13:2%3C151::AIDRRR447%3E3.0.CO;2-U/abstract. 

Stevens, L.E., Shannon, J.P., and Blinn, D.W., 1997b, Colorado River benthic ecology in Grand 

Canyon, Arizona, USA--dam, tributary, and geomorphological influences: Regulated Rivers-

-Research and Management, v. 13, no. 2, p. 129-149, at 

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/11832/PDFSTART. 

Stockner, J.G., Rydin, E., and Hyenstrand, P., 2000, Cultural oligotrophication: causes and 

consequences for fisheries resources: Fisheries, v. 25, p. 7-14. 

Tank, J.L. and Dodds, W.K., 2003, Nutrient limitation of epilithic and pqixlic biofilms in ten 

North American Streams: Freshwater Biology, v. 48., p. 1031-1049. 

Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., and Vierra, L.E., Jr., 2000, Colorado River sediment transport 1--

natural sediment supply limitation and the influence of the Glen Canyon Dam: Water 

Resources Research, v. 36, no. 2, p. 515-542, 

http://www.agu.org/journals/wr/v036/i002/1999WR900285/. 

Valdez, R.A., and Ryel, R.J., 1995, Life history and ecology of the humpback chub (Gila cypha) 

in the Colorado River, Grand Canyon, Arizona--final report: Logan, Utah, BIO/WEST, Inc., 
143

submitted to Bureau of Reclamation, contract no. 0-CS-40-09110, technical report no. TR250-08, 328 p. 

Yard, M.D., 2003, Light availability and aquatic primary production--Colorado River, Glen and 

Grand Canyons, AZ: Flagstaff, Northern Arizona University, Ph.D. dissertation, 205 p. 

Yard, M.D., Coggins, L.G., Baxter, C.V., Bennett, G.E., and Korman, J., 2011, Trout piscivory 

in the Colorado River, Grand Canyon--effects of turbidity, temperature, and fish prey 

availability: Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, v. 140, no. 2, p. 471-486, 

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00028487.2011.572011. 

6. Budget 

   

Project Element H.1.

Laboratory feeding studies

Project Element H.2.

Understanding the links

among dam operations,

environmental conditions,

and the foodbase

Project Element H.3.

Developing a bioenergetics

model for large rainbow

trout

Salaries $15,000 Salaries $109,000 Salaries $63,000

Traveling and Training $0 Traveling and Training $8,000 Traveling and Training $3,000

Operating Expenses $16,000 Operating Expenses $21,000 Operating Expenses $2,000

Logistics $0 Logistics $1,000 Logistics $1,000

GIS/RS/Electronics support

(includes burden) $0 GIS/RS/Electronics support

(includes burden) $79,000 GIS/RS/Electronics support

(includes burden) $34,000

Cooperators (non‐USGS) $0 Cooperators (non‐USGS) $0 Cooperators (non‐USGS) $20,000

USGS cooperators $0 USGS cooperators $0 USGS cooperators $0

USGS Burden $4,000 USGS Burden $30,000 USGS Burden $15,000

Total $35,000 Total $248,000 Total $138,000

Project Element H.4.

Learning from other

tailwaters‐‐a synthesis of

tailwaters in the U.S.

Project Element H.5.

Contingency planning for

High Flow Experiments and

subsequent rainbow trout

population management

Salaries $115,000 Salaries $5,000

Traveling and Training $15,000 Traveling and Training $0

Operating Expenses $2,000 Operating Expenses $28,000

Logistics $0 Logistics $23,000

GIS/RS/Electronics support

(includes burden) $0 GIS/RS/Electronics support

(includes burden) $0

Cooperators (non‐USGS) $0 Cooperators (non‐USGS) $0

USGS cooperators $0 USGS cooperators $0

USGS Burden $18,000 USGS Burden $8,000

Total $150,000 Total $65,000

FY 2013 Project H. Gross Total:

$636,000

FY 2014 Project H. Gross Total:

$664,000
144

   
145

Project I. 

Riparian Vegetation Studies: Response Guilds as a Monitoring 

Approach, and Describing the Effects of Tamarisk Defoliation on the 

Riparian Community Downstream of Glen Canyon Dam 

1. Investigators 

Barbara Ralston, Research Biologist, USGS, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center 

Phil Davis, Research Geologist, USGS, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center 

Joel Sakey, Research Physical Scientist, USGS, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center 

Todd Chaudhury, Restoration Ecologist, Grand Canyon National Park, NPS 

Neil S. Cobb, Director Merriam-Powell Center for Environmental Research, Northern Arizona 

University 

Lori Makarick, Vegetation Program Manager, Grand Canyon National Park, NPS 

David Merritt, Research Ecologist, U.S. Forest Service, Ft. Collins, CO 

Dustin W. Perkins, Program Manager, Northern Colorado Plateau Inventory and Monitoring 

Program, NPS 

David R. Smith, Biologist, U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 2 Arizona

2. Project Summary 

Riparian vegetation affects physical processes and biological interactions along the 

Colorado River’s corridor. The presence and expansion of riparian vegetation promotes bank 

stability and diminishes the magnitude of scour and fill during floods. Scour and fill is the 

process by which bare sandbars are maintained. Dam operations that include daily fluctuations 

provide sufficient water to dry marshs, vegetation, as well as woody riparian shrubs. Thus, 

expansion of these species has occurred during normal powerplant operations. Alternatively, 

occasional high flows and sustained periods of low flows promote the recruitment of tamarisk. 

Thus, each of these vegetation groups responds an aspect to the flow regime and forms a 

vegetation response guild. The presence and extent of particular response guilds creates a 

monitoring framework to evaluate riparian vegetation response to dam operations and the 

potential effect guilds of vegetation may have on the status of other resources, such as sandbar 

stability and campsite availability. 

While dam operations affect riparian vegetation responses, the introduced tamarisk beetle 

(Diorhabda spp.) is another driver affecting riparian vegetation in Grand Canyon. Tamarisk is a 

keystone species in the postdam riparian community, because its presence affects so many 

biological and physical processes. Tamarisk’s presence affects native plant diversity, wildlife 

habitat and poses an increased wildfire risk where dense stands occur in some areas of the 

southwest. In spite of the negative properties attributed to tamarisk, the plant is a source of shade 

for recreational boaters and hikers in Grand Canyon and is nesting habitat for some neotropical 

bird species. The defoliation of tamarisk by the beetle will likely alter the composition of the 

riparian community and affect associated resources and some management goals. 

The effect of riparian vegetation on associated resources and the uncertain direction of 

the riparian community’s composition in response to dam operations and the tamarisk beetle 
146

have garnered the attention of stakeholders within the Adaptive Management Program for Glen 

Canyon Dam (GCDAMP). The stakeholders of the GCDAMP requested that a greater effort be 

made to understand riparian vegetation response to dam operations and the effect of riparian 

vegetation on other resources. This project proposes vegetation response guild monitoring, and 

quantifying the effects of the tamarisk beetle on ground dwelling arthropods and pollinators. The 

response guild monitoring approach that is utilized here is being conducted across the Colorado 

River basin within the National Park system. Thus, the work described here is complimentary to 

work elsewhere and permits comparison of vegetation response across river segments subject to 

different flow regimes elsewhere in the watershed. The sampling described here occurs within a 

hydro-geomorphic framework and allows interpretation of vegetation response as related to dam 

operations and geomorphic setting. The type of response guilds found downstream from Glen 

Canyon Dam can identify contracting or expanding areas of riparian vegetation, simplification of 

the riparian community, and simplification or narrowing of the river channel. Describing the 

effects of tamarisk defoliation on the postdam riparian community is the first requirement to 

understanding the implications of the tamarisk beetle on the riparian community in Grand 

Canyon. Ground dwelling arthropods and pollinators are good earlier indicators of environmental 

change and are links to the terrestrial food web. 

3. Background 

Substrate properties, channel geomorphology (e.g., width, depth, bed and bank material, 

slope, floodplain functionality; Nanson and Croke, 1992), and flow regime affect the abundance, 

structure, and location of riparian plant communities (Auble and Scott 1998; Mahoney and Rood 

1998; Auble and others, 2005; Naiman and others, 2005). Convergent adaptations by species that 

respond similarly to these geomorphic and hydrologic attributes create response guilds that cross 

genera and vary in habit and longevity (Grime, 1979; Lavorel and Garnie, 2002; Merritt and 

others, 2010). Alteration of the flow regime through dam regulation changes the disturbance 

regime for native riparian species and leads to changes in the response guilds present within a 

riparian ecosystem. River regulation thus becomes a selective force on riparian community 

structure that has potential to shift the dominant species and response guilds of the native 

ecosystem to an alternative state. 

River regulation in the semi-arid West creates conditions that support nonnative riparian 

trees and shrubs and some of the native plant species that historically grew in the floodplain and 

channel margin (Stromberg, 1998; Rood and others, 2009). The reduced flood frequency and 

magnitude and the increased base flow in regulated rivers permit vegetation to persist and 

expand downslope and shoreward from the historic annual flood line. The altered hydrograph 

can promote successful colonization of nonnative species on newly exposed bare substrates (e.g., 

tamarisk (Tamarix spp.); Sher and others, 2000; Birken and Cooper, 2006; Mortenson and 

others, 2012). In the southwest, the alternative stable state of the native riparian plant community 

is one in which nonnative tamarisk is dominant. Tamarisk can be considered the keystone 

species of the postdam riparian community. Tamarisk affects food availability for foraging birds, 

nesting preferences for birds, ground dwelling arthropod composition, plant diversity, litter 

quality and quantity, and other community interactions and functions (Bailey and others, 2001; 

Ellis and others, 2001; Sogge and others, 2003; Kennedy and Hobbie, 2004, Yard and others, 

2004). 
147

Selective forces, such as river regulation, that create alternative riparian community states 

can create feedback loops with geomorphic processes. Vegetation expansion that includes 

tamarisk colonization can result in channel narrowing and channel simplification (Allred and 

Schmidt 1999; Dean and Schmidt, 2011). These changes can affect the riparian community by 

changing the width, structure, and composition of riparian vegetation including reductions in 

vegetation diversity (Auble 2005; Graf 2006). The expectation for large river channels in the 

southwestern U.S. is that continued channel narrowing will occur, particularly with reduced 

stream flow (Seager and others, 2007; Sabo and others, 2010). Yet, natural resource managers 

continue to seek to improve natural resources downstream of dams by exploring alternative dam 

operations that promote biodiversity and healthy ecosystems. 

Society is increasingly interested in restoring and maintaining diverse riparian 

communities (National Research Council, 2002; Shafroth and others, 2008). Accordingly, the 

stakeholders of the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP) 

identified a riparian habitat in which native species dominate as the preferred desired 

future condition for the Colorado River downstream from the dam. In other words, 

stakeholders are interested in identifying those selective forces that will permit riparian 

vegetation to switch from the present state of a tamarisk-dominated habitat to one dominated by 

native riparian species. Approaches available to changing the composition of the riparian 

community include physical removal of nonnative species, introducing biocontrol agents (for 

example, the tamarisk beetle (Diorhabda sp.)), and/or changing the pattern of annual water 

delivery. Changes in the flow regime might include periodic flood pulses, altering daily and 

monthly flow volumes, and altering the daily flow regime (Poff and Zimmerman, 2010; Melis 

and others, 2011). 

Shifting the riparian ecosystem from the present tamarisk-dominated stable state to a 

native species dominated stable state is a significant scientific challenge. Because tamarisk is a 

keystone species along the Colorado River, its reduction may profoundly affect the riparian 

community’s composition, structure, and general character, which merits monitoring and study. 

Further, because plants form guilds in response to hydrologic regimes (Merritt and others, 2010), 

and these guilds can affect channel response (Allred and Schmidt, 1999; Dean and Schmidt, 

2011), it is necessary that vegetation data collection be set within a hydro-geomorphic 

framework. Without a hydro-geomorphic framework, the linked responses of channel 

morphology and the riparian community to drivers of change (e.g., altered hydrology, tamarisk 

beetle) will remain unknown. The result is that stakeholders will remain unable to understand 

how dam operations may or may not effectively shift the riparian community from the tamariskdominated state toward a native species dominated state. 

3.1. Scientific Background 

The current hydrologic regime of Glen Canyon Dam promotes vegetation expansion, and 

it is unknown how the introduced tamarisk beetle in combination with future flow regimes will 

affect the riparian community downstream of the dam. Stakeholders of the GCDAMP recognized 

riparian communities as an important element of the Colorado River and developed a specific 

management goal [Goal 6: Protect or improve the biotic riparian and spring communities, 

including threatened and endangered species and their critical habitat]. The current flow regime 

promotes shoreward expansion of woody riparian shrubs (Stevens and others, 1995; Ralston, 

2005). Experimental low flows in the summer promote tamarisk recruitment (Porter, 2002; 

Mortenson and others, 2012; Birken and Cooper, 2006). Increased frequency of high flows of 
148

similar magnitude and duration in the spring or fall may reduce wetland and riparian plant 

diversity by selecting for response guilds that are adapted to burial and that can expand through 

vegetative propogation (Kennedy and Ralston, 2011). The effect of vegetation expansion can 

negatively affect the quality of other resources within the riparian zone. For example, available 

campable area can decline as vegetation expands (Kearsley and others, 1994). Additionally, 

though not well documented in Grand Canyon, increasing vegetation on sandbars likely 

confounds sediment conservation efforts by affecting sediment transport dynamics and eolian 

processes (Trimble 2004, Kean and Smith, 2004; Dean and others, 2011; Draut and Rubin, 

2008). Thus, the status of riparian vegetation and its relationship to other resources is a 

primary information need for the stakeholders to evaluate how dam operations are 

affecting downstream resources. 

Studying the effect of the tamarisk beetle (Diorhabda spp.) on defoliating and reducing 

tamarisk’s dominance is also important in riparian community management. For example, 

declines in tamarisk leaf material may result in reduced abundance of the leaf hopper (Opsius 

stactogalis) commonly found on tamarisk, that is a primary food source for some riparian birds 

(Yard and others, 2004): Will this food source be replaced by some other arthropod, or will 

there be a shift in bird composition? Reduced tamarisk flowers may also affect the abundance 

of pollen and nectar collectors, including bees and hummingbirds (Brown 1992): Since tamarisk 

flowers from April to September, will the reduction in flower availability resulting from 

herbivory reduce total pollinator richness and abundance, and will pollinators become 

more typical than was found in the predam riparian zone? Each of these changes alters the 

riparian community. A decline in tamarisk may affect recreational qualities such as reducing 

available shade and windbreaks and may affect sediment transport dynamics. The tamarisk 

beetle first came to the Colorado River in Grand Canyon in 2009 (Johnson and others, 

unpublished). Its current distribution is not continuous, and its effect on the riparian ecosystem in 

Grand Canyon remains unknown (Johnson and others, unpublished). Collecting data on riparian 

vegetation and associated faunal responses to the tamarisk beetle is necessary to help 

stakeholders understand how beetle distribution in combination with dam operations affect 

stakeholder’s goals related to the riparian community. 

This project has two elements. (1) Monitoring riparian vegetation response guilds to dam 

operations within a hydrogeomorphic framework, and (2) determining the response of ground 

dwelling arthropods and pollinators to tamarisk beetle defoliation. The work proposes 

1. To use ecological and life-history traits of riparian plant species found along the 

Colorado River downstream from Glen Canyon Dam to define flow response guilds 

(sensu Merritt and others, 2010.) These guilds will be the basis to monitor directional 

responses of the riparian community and the river channel to dam operations.

Directional responses that might be revealed by monitoring might include constricting or 

expanding riparian vegetation, simplification of the riparian community, and narrowing 

of the river channel. 

2. To compare the response of the pollinator and ground dwelling arthropod community in 

Glen Canyon to defoliation by the tamarisk beetle. Arthropods are ideal indicators of 

environmental change, because they are sensitive to changes in climate, habitat, 

topography, soil type, fire frequency, and plant composition. They are also primary food 

sources for vertebrates including birds, lizards, and fish. Changes in plant cover and 

ground litter and seasonal floral availability associated with tamarisk defoliation can 
149

affect multiple trophic levels. These changes in vegetation may be reflected in response 

guild monitoring. 

These two project elements will provide stakeholders necessary information about 

riparian vegetation response to dam operations, and information about how changes in 

vegetation, be it expanded area, or community structure, may affect other resources such as 

campsite availability and quality, terrestrial and aquatic food webs, and sediment dynamics 

related to sediment transport. 

4. Proposed Work 

4.1. Project Elements 

Project Element I.1. Monitor Vegetation and Channel Response using Response Guilds and Landscape Scale 

Vegetation Change Analysis 

Response guild development involves identifying groups of species that share traits 

related to life history, reproductive strategy, adaptation to fluvial disturbance, and inundation 

duration response (i.e., water availability) within a particular river geomorphic setting. For each 

guild, a probabilistic response to a flow variable is determined and projected (Fig. 1). The guilds 

can be used to indicate a directional response of the riparian community and the river channel to 

an implemented flow regime. For example, on the Yampa River, the presence of active channel 

plant species measured in monitored plots is now used as an indicator of the responsiveness of 

the channel. The response guild approach, which is a relatively new approach to riparian 

vegetation management (Merritt and others, 2010) provides managers an opportunity to evaluate 

trade-offs and risks associated with flow management strategies. Sampling that uses guilds as a 

monitoring approach can validate projected responses. The guilds downstream from Glen 

Canyon Dam would be used to identify contracting or expanding areas of riparian vegetation, 

simplification of the riparian community, and simplification or narrowing of the river channel. 

Because guilds have a probabilistic response to flows, we can project their trajectory and model 

faunal species responses to riparian changes. 
150

Figure 1. Hypothetical graph of probability of occurrence curves for 4 plant guilds subject to a 

flow scenario and associated with a typical reattachment bar in Grand Canyon. In this 

scenario, Guilds 4 and 3 are more responsive to greater variation in the flow variable as seen 

by the height and width of the curves, while Guilds 1 and 2 have narrower ranges of response 

and may be found in more specific sites or under more specific flow scenarios (adapted from 

Merritt and others, 2010). 

Implementing a response guild approach for monitoring compliments riparian vegetation 

monitoring that is occurring in other National Parks bisected by the Colorado or Green Rivers 

(Scott and others,, 2012). These monitoring efforts are occurring in association with the National 

Park Service’s Northern Plateau Inventory and Monitoring Program, also known as the Big River 

Protocol (BRP). The BRP is hypothesis driven, which allows for articulation of system response 

and focuses monitoring efforts that are crucial for understanding resource response and 

management options in a scientific context. Further, because experimental releases are part of the 

Glen Canyon Dam adaptive management strategy, comparisons between changes observed in 

riparian vegetation in Grand Canyon with those observed in the upstream reaches of the 

Colorado River basin are possible. 

Measuring and reporting riparian vegetation changes in Grand Canyon covers more than 

70 years, but the data stream is not continuous. The discontinuous nature of data collection 

hampers understanding long-term vegetation responses, particularly vegetation changes due to 

dam operations. Data includes periodic floristic surveys conducted in the 1930s, 1970s, and 

1980s (Clover and Jotter, 1944; Carothers and others, 1976; Phillips et al, 1977; Greene, 1980; 

Turner and Karpiscak, 1980). The use of repeat photography by Turner and Karpiscak (1980) 

documented the expansion of plants along the channel margins. Turner and Karpiscak (1980) 

noted the expansion of tamarisk within the river corridor. Clover and Jotter (1944) noted the 

presence of tamarisk along the river on their trip in 1938. 

Event driven sampling of vegetation occurred in the mid-1980s and early 1990s in 

response to the annual floods of 1983, 1984, 1985, and 1986. These years also had unusually 

large total runoff and only short periods of fluctuating flows. Research during this period was 
151

also associated with the Environmental Impact Statement for the operations of Glen Canyon 

Dam (Stevens and Waring, 1986; Stevens and others, 1995). Sampling measured the loss of 

vegetation following sustained flooding, and the expansion of vegetation following reductions in 

flows and changes in daily operations. 

These results parallel other work on riparian ecology in Europe and the western United 

States (Nilsson and others,, 1989, 1997; Stromberg, 1993; Nilsson and Jansson, 1995) in 

regulated and unregulated river systems. Ancillary to these efforts, Webb (1996) conducted 

another repeat photography effort that contrasted the 1889 Stanton expedition photos with 

images from the river for the period of 1989–1993. The latter effort provided qualitative 

information about the state of vegetation prior to implementation of interim flows and modified 

low fluctuating flow operations. General conclusions from these studies conducted in the late 

1980’s and mid-1990s were that 1) tamarisk colonization events occur following large-scale 

disturbance or operations that expose bare substrate for colonization (Stevens and Waring, 

1986; Mortenson and others, 2012); 2) that river regulation that reduces flood magnitude 

and frequency permits the development of marsh communities (Stevens and others,, 1995); 

and, 3) that woody riparian vegetation, in general, would be expected to expand under 

Record of Decision (RoD) operations because of their greater drought tolerance compared 

with marsh vegetation that requires greater inundation duration (Stevens and others, 

1995). 

The RoD for Glen Canyon Dam operations included the establishment of the Adaptive 

Management Program (U.S. Department of Interior, 1996). Urquhart et al (2000) provided the 

first review of research and monitoring protocols for terrestrial ecosystems. The review was not 

limited to vegetation sampling and included recommendations for faunal elements (e.g., birds, 

arthropods, endangered snails). For riparian vegetation, the recommendation was to link 

sampling to the elevation of different characteristic discharges (e.g., stage) and to expand the 

number of sampling sites. An overall recommendation for terrestrial monitoring was to develop 

sampling approaches that integrated multiple biological resource responses to Glen Canyon Dam 

operations and to develop a vegetation map using remote sensing (Urquhart and others, 2000).

A subsequent sampling approach included testing a sample design wherein vegetation 

plots are rotated during different sample periods and plots at different stage elevations are 

sampled (e.g., 8,000 ft3/s , 15,000 ft3/s, etc. ; Kearsely and others, 2006). Total vegetated cover 

(%), species richness, and species diversity were determined from the 4 1-m2

 plots and were 

summed across 60 sampling sites for the river corridor for each stage. Indicator species analysis 

was conducted for each stage to determine if associated species changed significantly in cover 

from year to year. Indicator species analysis identifies species that are uniquely associated with a 

stage. The vegetation map that was created was based on 2002 imagery and identified 6 

vegetation classes and determined vegetated area for each vegetation class by geomorphic 

segment following the Schmidt and Graf (1990) designation (Ralston and others, 2008). 

Conclusions associated with these data collection efforts were that vegetation up to 35,000 

ft3

/s is affected by annual operations of Glen Canyon Dam (Kearsley and others, 2006). 

These results supported the work done by Stevens and others (1995). Plant cover data 

collected in plots above power plant operations (>35,000 ft3

/s) provided information on 

plant response to the low dam releases that began in 2000. 

Review of this approach (Cooper and others, 2008) suggested that sampling design 

should incorporate hydrologic and geomorphic units to distinguish plant responses among these 

environments along the river corridor. Nesting river stage within hydrologic units is 
152

complementary with recent riparian response modeling efforts that group riparian plants into 

flow-related response guilds (Merrit and others, 2010). Cooper and others, (2008) also 

recommended retaining the larger scale vegetation mapping effort that estimates area change of 

vegetation at a landscape scale. 

Long-term monitoring that incorporates these recommendations can inform stakeholders 

about how specific types of vegetation may respond in specific geomorphic settings. These 

geomorphic features are also associated with other resources of concern (e.g., sandbars that serve 

as camping beaches) and the information about vegetation response can contribute to the 

evaluation of these resource conditions. Analysis of total vegetated area monitors vegetation 

expansion across the river corridor and corroborates smaller scale change observed in groundbased monitoring. Incorporating compatible sampling aspects from other rivers (e.g., Green 

River, Colorado River in Utah; Scott and others, 2011) within the Colorado River basin can also 

support resource managers trying to determine if the responses in the Grand Canyon portion of 

the Colorado River are unique, or are typical of the entire basin. Though we cannot replicate the 

river as can be done in controlled experiments, we can use replicate response guilds to compare 

hydrologic treatments across the Colorado River basin. 

 The study area consists of four river segments whose limits are defined by the influence 

of tributaries and by floristic communities (Glen Canyon, Marble Canyon, Eastern Grand 

Canyon, Western Grand Canyon; fig. 1). The confluences of the Paria and Little Colorado Rivers 

and Kanab Creek with the Colorado River are points that divide the four segments. These river 

segment designations also overlap with suspended sediment sampling stations and work focused 

on sediment budgets that bracket Marble Canyon and eastern Grand Canyon (see Project B: 

Stream flow, water quality, and sediment transport in the Colorado River ecosystem). Further, 

assessing response guilds within short river reaches can help stakeholders identify areas that may 

be more or less responsive to dam operations. Species lists obtained from plot sampling 

(described below) within these river segments can inform park management of areas where 

undesirable species occur in greater abundance and allow a more focused approach to controlling 

these species. 
153

Figure 2 . Four landscape-scale reaches used for stratification (Glen Canyon, Marble Canyon, Eastern Grand 

Canyon, and Western Grand Canyon. The confluence of the Paria, the Little Colorado Rivers Kanab Creek 

with the Colorado River separates the four reaches).

Ground-based sampling using Flow Response Guilds 

 Sampling in the BRP (Scott and others, 2011) includes fixed sites and randomly sampled 

plots that are matched to geomorphic features (e.g., sandbars, debris fans, channel margins). 

Sampling downstream from Glen Canyon Dam will follow a similar approach. Fixed sites will 

be coincident with sandbar monitoring sites (Hazel and others, 2010) and channel mapping 

segments (USGS, 2011). Random sites will be stratified and equal numbers of geomorphic 

features will be sampled within river segments. Response guild identification will be initiated in 

2012 in collaboration with D. Merritt using species lists and data collected from 2001-2005 

(Kearsley and others, 2006) and Stevens and others (1995) from 1991-1993. 

Fixed site sampling 

 Sampling sites will be coincident with sandbar and channel monitoring sites. Among the 

potential sites that can be sampled (44 sandbars and the river channel data from RM 30 to 87, 

Hazel and others, 2010; USGS unpublished data), sandbar sites that are most and least 

responsive (in a geomorphic sense) to high-flow events will be established as fixed sampling 
154

sites. A responsive sandbar is defined as one that consistently changes in area and volume in 

response to high flow events. Data from Hazel and others (2010) will be used to identify these 

sites. Monitoring vegetation response guilds within these extreme settings seeks to determine if a 

particular suite of plants (response guild) may be associated with an active sandbar versus an 

inactive sandbar. There are a greater number of sandbar monitoring sites above Phantom Ranch 

(RM 87) than further downstream and it is likely that all NAU sandbar sites downstream of 

Phantom Ranch will be used. These sites have local survey control, and the relationship between 

plot location and stage can be determined. 

 Plots at fixed sites will consist of 1-m2

 plots that are stratified across geomorphic surfaces 

within a debris-fan eddy complex (upper pool, debris fan, separation bar, reattachment bar). The 

number of quadrats sampled will be proportional to the area of each surface. For example, a 

reattachment bar may be half the size of a separation bar and would have 50% fewer plots 

sampled. Plots will be randomly placed within each geomorphic surface. Their location will be 

identified on aerial photos of the site. The 22-cm resolution of the 2009 imagery provides an 

ability to approximate sample location. Randomized plot points generated prior to sampling trips 

will ensure unbiased sampling. Because the sandbar sites are surveyed annually (see Project A: 

Sandbars and sediment storage dynamics), the topographic information can be used to determine 

river stage of the random plots. This reduces the time necessary to locate permanent plots and 

reduces the need to monument plots. The vegetation monitoring determines changes in response 

guilds to dam operations at any specific time and informs managers about how these changes 

affect geomorphic features. Data collected will include cover and species presence. Plot data will 

also provide species richness and diversity and distinguish between native and nonnative species 

(table 1). 

Table 1. Proposed data collected at fixed sites

Objective Data Inference Goal 

Raw Summarized Trend Statistic(s) for 

status 

Estimate temporal change in 

riparian and wetland plant 

communities 

Herbaceous spp Y* ݔ̅ % cover/sp; 

p plots/sp 

 spp richness Y ݔ̅ richness 

 Total herbaceous Y ݔ̅ % cover 

 PI Y ݔ̅ index value 

Woody spp Y* ݔ̅ % cover/sp; 

p plots/sp; ݔ̅ no./m2

 Total woody Y ݔ̅ % cover; 

p plots; ݔ̅ no./m2

Exotic spp Y* ݔ̅ % cover/sp; 

p plots/sp 

 spp richness Y ݔ̅ richness 

 Total exotics Y ݔ̅ % cover; p plots 

Litter Y ݔ̅ % cover 

Bareground Y ݔ̅ % cover 

Random site sampling 

The objective of random site sampling is to assess the percent of the channel in each 

river segment that has response guilds that may indicate a directional response within the river 
155

segment. Plot sampling here is limited to stage affected by annual dam operation including highflow experiments. Sampling will also include an equal number of sandbars, debris fans, and 

channel margins within each river segment. One-meter square plots will be used, and data 

collected will be on the presence and absence of indicator species of identified guilds and total 

vegetative cover. Selection of random sites will occur prior to the sampling trip to ensure the 

sites are logistically feasible. Plots will be located along transects that are perpendicular to the 

channel. Because the locations will be determined prior to launch of the trip, the height above 

river level to the 45,000 ft3

/s can be determined using established stage elevation relationships 

and flow routing models (Wiele and Griffin, 1998, Hazel and others, 2006). Having the known 

river discharge for a particular day and time of day can assist in determining distance upslope to 

reach the 45,000 ft3/s stage. Successive plots along the transect line will be sampled. These 

results will be compared with the fixed sampling site results for an assessment of the river 

segment and total river corridor. 

 Data will be annually collected at the end of the growing season (September/October) to 

capture vegetation response to changes in annual flows that may include short-duration flood 

pulses. The timing for this sampling brackets any likely planned high flow event (Wright and 

Kennedy, 2011). These sampling approaches will also capture non-river related interactions (e.g., 

tamarisk leaf beetle) that affect changes in community composition. 

Project I.1.1. Periodic Landscape Scale Vegetation Mapping and Change Analysis using Remotely Sensed 

Data 

 Landscape scale mapping of vegetation provides data that can provide stakeholders 

information about the status of multiple resource goals of the GCDAMP. Riparian vegetation 

affects camp site quality (Kearsley and others, 1994), eolian transport and archaeological site 

preservation (Draut and Rubin, 2008), and provides habitat to wildlife (Sogge and others, 1993). 

Knowing the extent and kind of vegetation is one data source that contributes to the evaluation of 

the stakeholder’s goals for recreation, cultural resources, and riparian communities. Further, data 

from landscape-scale mapping and change detection of vegetation can supplement and 

corroborate results obtained from ground-based vegetation sampling. For example, if the area of 

tamarisk expands in a segment of river as observed in the mapping effort, then ground based 

sampling should corroborate this finding. The objectives of this portion of the study is to 

complete a total vegetation database and vegetation class database for the 2009 imagery, and to 

conduct change detection analysis of vegetation between 2002 and 2009. 

Corridor-wide Riparian Vegetation Database 

This effort produces total vegetation and a vegetation class database with at least 6 

vegetation classes for the entire river corridor up to the top of the Old High-Water Zone (at the 

250,000 ft3/s flow stage) using image processing of remotely sensed data. The first such database 

was generated for the river corridor using the 2002 image data. The approach used Normalized 

Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) to determine total vegetation and then classified the result 

into vegetation classes. 

Although NDVI is a commonly used method to segregate total vegetation in multispectral 

data, a more robust and accurate method is the Spectral Angle Mapper (SAM), which is 

proposed for mapping using the 2009 imagery. The Spectral Angle Mapper (SAM) technique 

provides the vector angle between the wavelength-band values of an image pixel and usersupplied vegetation spectra. The smaller the vector angle, the more similar the image pixel is to 

user-designated vegetation. Both sunlit and shadowed vegetation spectra will be used in the 
156

SAM analysis in order to map all vegetation, even within shadows. If image band data are 

consistent throughout the corridor, then the range of SAM values for vegetation should also be 

consistent, or at least vary systematically throughout the canyon, allowing the vegetation to be 

mapped quickly. The range of SAM values for vegetation will be determined interactively using 

the SAM image and its corresponding color-infrared image. Initially, SAM ranges will be 

determined every 8-km of the corridor; if the derived SAM ranges are consistent or vary 

systematically, then the observed SAM range relation will be used to map the total vegetation 

throughout the canyon. The results for each of the 126 image tiles that cover the river corridor 

will be examined for accuracy and the SAM range adjusted when necessary. If the initial SAM 

ranges at 5-mile increments are random, then the SAM range for every image tile will be 

determined and applied interactively to provide an accurate total vegetation database. In order to 

segregate vegetation in the 2009 image data, the SAM ranges defined by the previous task will 

be used on the 2009 image data for all 126 image-mosaic tiles that cover the river corridor. 

Once total vegetation is segregated in the 2009 image data set (anticipated by fall 2012), 

a most likely vegetation species will be assigned to each image pixel based on reflectance angle. 

Even though final mapping will probably occur at the alliance or association level, the spectral 

band quality of the 2009 imagery are very different in terms of dynamic range, consistency, and 

accuracy and, therefore, the level of the final vegetation map for this database will not be known 

until the species classification is completed. We do know that the 2009 image data are much 

better in all respects than the 2002 digital image data sets. Species classification will be 

accomplished using the following information, in order of preference: (1) ground observations 

that occurred near the period of image acquisition in 2009; (2) ground-truth site observations that 

occurred during other image acquisitions (2002), where it is obvious by visual examination of 

the periodic images that certain vegetation is the same in the image data being analyzed; and (3) 

our previously collected ground-reflectance database for the common vegetation species within 

the canyon. Image classification will proceed in 8-km increments progressing down the river 

corridor from Glen Canyon Dam, because vegetation composition and the spectral properties of 

species gradually change downstream. 

Image classification will be based mostly on the image-band signatures and canopy 

texture of representative vegetation species. The 2002 vegetation inventory was produced using 

an unsupervised (ISODATA) classifier, because we did not have an extensive ground-truth 

database at the time of analysis. Species classification using the 2009 image data will use a 

supervised classifier, such as Maximum Likelihood, Spectral Angle Mapper, or Neural Net. We 

will experiment with various classifiers to determine the classifier that is most robust and 

produces the highest map accuracies for most vegetation species. We will use the same canopy 

texture measures that were employed for the 2002 vegetation mapping, although the areal 

dimensions of the spatial tools may change due to the higher spatial resolutions of the 2009 

image data compared to that of the 2002 image data. 

Undoubtedly, there will be ambiguities in the final species classifications. because the 

spectral and textural characteristics of some species overlap. We will try to reduce the ambiguity 

using knowledge of dominant species within particular ecotones or river stages, although care 

will be exercised within the riparian zone not to exclude xeric species. The downslope migration 

of xeric species has been observed for several years. When the species classification process 

reaches the point of diminishing returns, a statistical accuracy assessment will be performed on 

the 2009 results, and a determination will be made as to the aggregation levels for their final 
157

vegetation databases. We will also incorporate approaches used in the National Park Service’s 

vegetation-mapping program to develop compatible layers and classes of vegetation. 

 Vegetation change will compare changes in area among vegetation classes and total 

area between 2002 and 2009. Changes in vegetation classes occurring with the debris fan-eddy 

complexes will be compared with the response guilds identified for the ground-based monitoring 

component to assess changes in response guilds between 2002 and 2009. Historic aerial 

photographs from 1984 that are orthorectified and coincide with long-term sandbar studies will 

be incorporated for change analysis on a longer time scale. 

Project Element I.2. Riparian vegetation dynamics and trophic level linkages related to tamarisk defoliation 

Tamarisk (Tamarix spp.) is an introduced plant that has formed a hybrid complex within 

the Colorado River basin, and is the dominant overstory plant along the Colorado River 

downstream of Glen Canyon Dam. The plant found in the southwest is predominantly a hybrid 

between T. ramosissima and T. chinensis (Gaskin and Schaal, 2002) with individuals in Grand 

Canyon likely either backcrosses with T. ramosissima, or F2 hybrids (e.g., plants that originate 

from self-fertilization by the original hybrid, or cross breeding between two hybrids; Gaskin and 

Kazmer, 2009). Tamarisk’s presence can affect native plant diversity, wildlife habitat, and pose 

an increased wildfire risk where dense stands occur (Busch and Smith, 1995; Bailey and others, 

2001; Kennedy and Hobbie, 2004). In spite of the negative properties attributed to tamarisk, the 

plant is a source of shade for recreational boaters and hikers in Grand Canyon, and is nesting 

habitat for some neotropical bird species found in Grand Canyon and in other riparian areas of 

the southwest (Sogge and others, 2003; Durst and others, 2008). 

In 1999, the tamarisk leaf beetle (Diorhabda spp.) was approved for release as a 

biological control agent for tamarisk in the southwestern US, specifically in southern Utah and 

southwestern Colorado (DeLoach and others, 2000; Dudley and others, 2005). By 2009, surveys 

for the leaf beetle identified populations of the insect in the Dolores, Green, and Colorado Rivers 

including a site on the Colorado River that was 10-km downstream from Lees Ferry (Tamarisk 

Coalition, unpublished). By 2010, the beetle was found in Grand Canyon downstream to River 

Mile (RM) 214 (fig. 2, Johnson and others, unpublished data). The distribution of the beetle was 

not continuous along the corridor (fig. 2), and defoliation was not similar across sites where the 

beetle occurred (fig. 3, Johnson and others, unpublished data). Because these beetles are 

herbivores that evolved with the original parental species, their behavior and defoliation success 

on putative hybrid individuals may be variable. Hybrid resistance or susceptibility as found in 

other plant-herbivore studies (Mopper and Simberloff, 1995; Fritz and others, 1998; Whitney and 

others, 2006) may play a role in the effect the beetle has on defoliation and tamarisk decline in 

Grand Canyon. 
158

Figure 3. Map of Tamarisk Leaf Beetle (larvae and Adults) detection locations and non-detection locations 

during 2010 tamarisk leaf beetle surveys from Glen Canyon Dam to the boundary of Lake Mead (Johnson 

and others, unpublished data).

Figure 4. Average defoliation of tamarisk sampled in 2011 in Glen Canyon by rivermile (RM) with Lees 

Ferry designated as RM 0 (Johnson and others, unpublished data). Error bars are standard error of the 

mean.

The beetle is an ecological driver that affects understory plant dynamics by affecting light 

availability within tamarisk stands. The beetle also reduces the litter that accumulates within 
159

stands and these changes may increase the potential of understory seed germination. Tamarisk 

also produces flowers throughout the growing season which is unique within the arid southwest. 

The reduction in flower production, as a result of herbivory, may affect pollinator abundance and 

diversity. The changes in litter and increased light may also affect ground dwelling arthropod 

abundance and richness by changing soil moisture and ground structure (fig. 4). The rates at 

which vegetation changes in composition will occur, and the resultant effects on ripariandependent fauna and associated food webs are unknown, but may be profound (van Riper and 

others, 2008, Hultine and others, 2009). 

Figure 5. Initial ecological setting (A), drivers (B) and proposed community response elements (C) for study.

Because many of the tamarisk individuals in Grand Canyon are likely hybrids, the 

response to the beetle may be more variable. Understanding the extent of resistant and 

susceptible tamarisk individuals within and among sites may assist managers in understanding 

the extent to which riparian communities may change. This study focuses on three hypotheses: 

 The reduction in continuous sources of pollen throughout the summer months associated 

with tamarisk flowers will result in reduced seasonal pollinator abundance. Pollinator 

abundance and diversity may be similar to the predam riparian zone. 

 Reductions in ground litter and soil moisture associated with decreased cover will reduce 

ground-dwelling arthropod richness and abundance. Arthropod abundance and richness 

may become similar to the predam riparian zone. 

 Increased light availability as a result of mid-summer defoliation will favor understory 

plants that germinate late in the summer and fall, following monsoons. 

The Glen Canyon segment of the Colorado River and the area around Lees Ferry are ideal 

locations to initiate trophic interaction studies that describe the effects of tamarisk beetle 

defoliation. The accessibility of Glen Canyon reduces logistics costs and permits more intensive 

data collection. Further, there is a range of vegetation cover that exists within the 25 km segment 
160

of river downstream of Glen Canyon Dam. At one extreme is a restoration site at Lees Ferry 

where tamarisk were removed and replaced with Gooding’s willow and cottonwood more than 

10 years ago. At the other extreme are upstream and adjacent downstream sites near the Paria 

River that consist of >50% tamarisk canopy cover. The presence of predam and postdam riparian 

vegetation provides a contrasting study for species of interest. Previous data on ground dwelling 

arthropods indicate significant differences in richness and abundance between these two habitats 

(fig. 5) that allow for comparison following the tamarisk beetle introduction and expansion. 

Figure 6. Bar graphs comparing (A) arthropod abundance and (B) arthropod richness between pre- and 

postdam habitats in Glen Canyon. Data are from 2009 (USGS, unpublished). 

Susceptibility to herbivory 

Surveys for beetle presence and defoliation conducted in 2010 through 2012 will be used 

to identify initial high and low susceptibility sites within Glen Canyon. Defoliation assessments 

will continue in 2013 and 2014. 

Sampling for understory plants, arthropod and pollinator studies will be located in four 

tamarisk defoliation sites. If possible, 2 sites of low defoliation and 2 sites with high defoliation 

will be used. For example, data from 2011 indicate that RM 0 and RM -12 are potential high 

defoliation sites and RM -4 and RM -6 potential low defoliation sample sites (fig. 3). Further 

data collection in 2012 is needed to verify percent defoliation: the error bars associated with 

defoliation across all sites suggest defoliation is similar (fig. 2) 

Ground-dwelling arthropod sampling 

Sampling for arthropods will be done using transects composed of 10 pitfall traps 

approximately 10 m apart in a line parallel with the river in pre-and postdam habitats as shown in 

figure 6. The pitfall is a 32 mm (in diameter) X 200 mm long borosilicate glass test tube placed 

inside a 25 cm long PVC sleeve and buried in the sand. The test tube is filled halfway with 

propylene glycol that preserves the arthropods. A 6 X 7.5 cm PVC tube segment placed over the 

trap and secured with medium gage wire prevents disturbance from rain or animals. A 5-cm wide 

soil auger creates a hole for the trap with minimum disturbance to the surrounding soil. To 

ensure adequate soil depth to hold a pitfall trap, a rebar inserted into the ground at the potential 

trap site determined the first suitable site within a meter of the designated location. The traps will 

be deployed throughout the spring and summer seasons and tubes collected and replaced every 
161

three weeks. Previous sampling experience with these traps indicates that changing the test tubes 

every 3 weeks is sufficient to capture abundance and richness. Arthropods will be sorted into 

three groups: Coleoptera, Hymentopeter and Arachnida. In a previous sampling effort in 2009 

(USGS, unpublished data), Hymenoptera, Arachnida, and Coleoptera comprised >90% of the 

individuals captured. 

Figure 7. Example of 100 m transect lines for pitfall traps in the predam (solid squares) and postdam (solid 

triangles) riparian habitats located at RK -19.0 R (RM -12.6 R). Transect lines are overlaid on black and 

white imagery from 2005 (USGS photo). 

Pollination studies 

The Glen Canyon site may be one of three sites in the Southwest evaluating the effect of 

the tamarisk beetle on pollinator abundance and richness. The other proposed sites are on the Rio 

Grande in New Mexico and along the Lower Colorado south of Hoover Dam. Native bees and 

other select insect pollinators will be sampled using modified pan traps set for each vegetation 

zone at the locations described above (Smith et al., in review). Ten trap triads will be placed 10-

m apart along each line near a pitfall trap; each triad will consist of a white, blue, and yellow 12-

ounce plastic cup (Fig. 7), with each cup elevated above the ground in specially built PVC pipe 

holders. Cups will be left standing to sample for one week per month from April 2013 to October 

2013. The cups will be filled with a 50:50 mixture of water and food grade propylene glycol. The 

propylene glycol acts as a preservative and has a lower evaporation rate than plain water. Dish 

soap will be added, at a rate of one tablespoon per gallon of mixture, to break the water surface 

tension so insects sink when they landed on the surface. Bees and other insects are attracted to a 

colored cup, land on the fluid surface, then sink and drown. The cup trapping will be 

complemented by hand collection of insects during site visitation, using nets and hand vacuums 

to obtain specific insect-plant association data. Deployment of pollinator traps will be 

coordinated with switching out of pitfall traps. 
162

Understory plant surveys 

Ten 1·m2 plots will be sampled along the same pitfall trap transects. Sampling will take 

place every month from May to September. Percent cover and species presence will be recorded 

for each plot and average cover determined for each site. High defoliation sites and low 

defoliation sites will be compared. 

4.2. Collaborations 

 Project element I.1. collaborations include the Northern Colorado Plateau Inventory and 

Monitoring Network (D. Perkins), the Grand Canyon National Park (L. Makarick, T. Chaudhry), 

the USGS (M. Scott, emeritus), and the US Forest Service (D. Merritt). These collaborations will 

ensure that data collection approaches implemented downstream from Glen Canyon Dam are 

compatible with those occurring on other large river segments of the Colorado and Green Rivers 

in the Upper Basin. Data sharing across park management groups is anticipated to enable 

system-wide comparisons of vegetation response. Project Element I.1.1. image processing, 

classification, and analysis will be done by researchers within GCMRC, including GIS technical 

support and a Ph.D. graduate student at the University of Arizona (T. Andrews (USGS), L. 

Cagney (USGS), P. Davis (USGS), B. Ralston (USGS), J. Sankey (USGS), and U. Nguyen (U of 

A). Project element I.2. collaborations include NAU Biological Science Department, the 

Merriam Powell Center for Biological Diversity (Neil Cobb), and with Dave Smith of the US 

Fish and Wildlife Service. The project would support a master’s student half-time. The master’s 

student would be hired as a part-time term employee within the USGS, or the support for the 

student will be made available through a cooperative agreement with the major advisor identified 

at NAU. 

 

Figure 7. 12 ounce plastic cup pan trap
163

4.3. Deliverables 

For project element I.1. and I.1.1. products from the Ground-based Riparian Monitoring 

and landscape scale vegetation mapping and change detection include a manuscript describing 

the response guilds found within Grand Canyon (co-lead B. Ralston/D. Merritt); total vegetated 

area extraction and quantification; quantification of vegetation within vegetation classes for 2009 

imagery; manuscript of vegetation change analysis between 2002 and 2009 (lead – P. Davis and 

J. Sankey), in FY13 

For FY 14, products from the ground-based riparian monitoring will include a draft 

manuscript of relating the percent and locations of response guilds within river segments of the 

Colorado River downstream from Glen Canyon Dam (lead B. Ralston), and a species list of 

plants found within geomorphic features including native and nonnative species (Lead – TBD 

GS-9 technician). For landscape scale vegetation mapping and change detection, products 

include a sraft manuscript of Multi-scale and multi-temporal comparison of vegetation change 

along the Colorado River from 1984 to 2009 (co-author P.Davis, B. Ralston, J. Sankey). 

Each of these projects will have reports and peer-reviewed journal articles coming from the 

terrestrial program are listed below.

For project element I.2.,trophic linkages related to tamarisk beetle, products include a 

manuscript on pollinator and ground dwelling arthropods found in the pre- and postdam and the 

Lees Ferry restoration site, a manuscript addressing response of pollinators and ground-dwelling 

arthropods to Tamarisk beetle impacts, and a manuscript on effect of differential susceptibility of 

tamarisk to defoliation and implications for community change within Grand Canyon. This 

project will also produce the FY13 established sample sites and first field season of data 

collection through September 2013. This project will also include sorting, data entry, species list 

generation and preliminary analysis by December 2013. 

5. Productivity from Past Work 

Kennedy, T.A. and Ralston, B.E., 2011. Biological responses to high-flow experiments at Glen 

Canyon Dam in Melis, T.S., ed., 2011, Effects of three high-flow experiments on the 

Colorado River ecosystem downstream from Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona: U.S. Geological 

Survey Circular 1366, pp 93-126. 

Kennedy, T.A., and Ralston, B.E., 2010. Regulation leads to increases in riparian vegetation, but 

not direct allochthonous inputs, along the Colorado River in Grand Canyon, Arizona, River 

Research and Applications. DOI:10.1002/rra.1431. 

Mortenson, S.G., Weisberg, P.J., and Ralston, B.E. 2008. Do beaver promote the invasion of 

non-native Tamarix in the Grand Canyon riparian zone? WETLANDS, 28:666-675. 

Porter ME, Kearsley M. 2001. The response of Tamarix to experimental flows in Grand Canyon. 

Hydrology and Water Resources in Arizona and the Southwest 31, 45-50. 

Ralston, B.E., 2010, Riparian vegetation response to the March 2008 short-duration, high-flow 

experiment—implications of timing and frequency of flood disturbance on nonnative plant 

establishment along the Colorado River below Glen Canyon Dam: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 2010–1022, 30 p. 

Ralston, B.E., 2005. Riparian vegetation and associated wildlife. In Gloss, S. P., Lovich, J.E., 

and Melis. T. S. eds., 2005, The State of the Colorado River Ecosystem in Grand Canyon: a 

report of the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, U.S. Geological Survey 

Circular 1282, pp 103-121. 

Ralston, B.E., Davis, P.A., Weber, R.M., and Rundall, J.M., 2008. A vegetation database for the 
164

Colorado River ecosystem from Glen Canyon Dam to the Western Boundary of Grand 

Canyon National Park, Arizona. U.S. Geological Survey Open-file Report 2008-1216, 37 p. 

Yard HK, van Riper Charles III, Brown BT, Kearsley MJ. 2004. Diets of insectivorous birds 

along the Colorado River in Grand Canyon, Arizona. Condor 106, 106-115. 

5.2. Completed Publications 

Ralston, B.E., Cobb, N.S., Brantley, S.L. and Higgins, J. River regulation increases grounddwelling arthropod diversity along a semi-arid river. For submission to River Research and 

Applications. 

Cobb, N.S., Ralston, B.E., Brantley, S.L. and Higgins, J. Inventory of ground dwelling 

arthropods found among three riparian habitats downstream from Glen Canyon Dam and 

evaluation for monitoring. For submission to Great Basin Naturalist. 

5.2. Unpublished Reports 

Kearsley MJC, Cobb NS, Yard HK, Lightfoot DC, Brantley SL, Carpenter GC, Frey JK. 2006. 

Inventory and monitoring of terrestrial riparian resources in the Colorado River corridor of 

Grand Canyon--an integrative approach--final report. Cooperative agreement no. 01-WRAG0044 (NAU) and 01-WARG-0034 (HYC). 

Ralston, B.E., 2011. Knowledge Assessment of the Riparian Vegetation Response to Glen 

Canyon Dam Operations in Grand Canyon, Ariz., U.S. Geological Survey, Southwest 

Biological Science Center, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, Flagstaff, AZ. 

28 p. 

6. References 

Allred, T.M., and Schmidt, J.C., 1999, Channel narrowing by vertical accretion along the Green 

River near Green River, Utah: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 111, no. 12, p. 

1757-1772. 

Auble, G., and Scott, M., 1998, Fluvial disturbance patches and cottonwood recruitment along 

the upper Missouri River, Montana: Wetlands, v. 18, no. 4, doi: 10.1007/bf03161671, p. 

546-556, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF03161671. 

Auble, G., Scott, M., and Friedman, J., 2005, Use of individualistic streamflow-vegetation 

relations along the Fremont River, Utah, USA to assess impacts of flow alteration on 

wetland and riparian areas: Wetlands, v. 25, no. 1, doi: 10.1672/0277-

5212(2005)025[0143:uoisra]2.0.co;2, p. 143-154. 

Bailey, J.K., Schweitzer, J.A., and Whitham, T.G., 2001, Salt cedar negatively affects 

biodiversity of aquatic macroinvertebrates: Wetlands, v. 21, no. 3, doi: 10.1672/0277-

5212(2001)021[0442:SCNABO]2.0.CO;2, p. 442-447 

Birkin, A.S., and Cooper, D.J., 2006, Processes of Tamarix invasion and floodplain development 

along the Lower Green River, Utah: Ecological Applications, v. 16, no. 3, p. 1103-1120, 

accessed on March 8, 2011, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/1051-

0761(2006)016[1103:POTIAF]2.0.CO;2. 

Brown, B.T., 1992, Nesting chronology, density and habitat use of black-chinned hummingbirds 

along the Colorado River, Arizona: Journal of Field Ornithology, v. 63, no. 4, p. 393-400, 

accessed on December 11, 2009, at http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/4513733.pdf. 
165

Busch, D.E., and Smith, S.D., 1995, Mechanisms associated with decline of woody species in 

riparian ecosystems of the southwestern U.S.: Ecological Monographs, v. 65, no. 3, p. 347-

370, accessed on December 7, 2009, at http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/2937064.pdf. 

Carothers, S.W., Aitchison, S.W., Karpiscak, M.M., Rufner, G.A., Sharber, N.J., Shoemaker, 

P.L., Stevens, L.E., Theroux, M.E., and Tomko, D.S., 1976, An ecological survey of the 

riparian zone of the Colorado River and its tributaries between Lees Ferry and the Grand 

Wash Cliffs--final report: Flagstaff, Museum of Northern Arizona, Department of Biology, 

submitted to U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Grand Canyon National 

Park, Colorado River Research Series, contribution no. 38, contract no. CX821500007, 

Colorado River Research technical report no.10, 251 p. 

Clover, E.U., and Jotter, L., 1944, Floristic studies in the canyon of the Colorado and tributaries: 

American Midland Naturalist, v. 32, no. 3, p. 591-642, accessed on December 7, 2009, at 

http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/2421241.pdf. 

Cooper, D.J., Battaglia, L., Batzer, D., Chong, G.K., Hudak, A., and Young, M., 2008, Review 

of terrestrial monitoring protocols for the Grand Canyon--report of the Protocol Evaluation 

Panel (PEP): submitted to U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research 

Center, 31 p. 

Dean, D.J., and Schmidt, J.C., 2011, The role of feedback mechanisms in historic channel 

changes of the lower Rio Grande in the Big Bend region: Geomorphology, v. 126, no. 3–4, 

doi: 10.1016/j.geomorph.2010.03.009, p. 333-349, 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169555X10001157. 

DeLoach, C.J., Lewis, P.A., Herr, J.C., Carruthers, R.I., Tracy, J.L., and Johnson, J., 2003, Host 

specificity of the leaf beetle, Diorhabda elongata deserticola (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) 

from Asia, a biological control agent for saltcedars (Tamarix: Tamaricaceae) in the Western 

United States: Biological Control, v. 27, no. 2, doi: 10.1016/s1049-9644(03)00003-3, p. 

117-147, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1049964403000033. 

Draut, A.E., and Rubin, D.M., 2008, The role of aeolian sediment in the preservation of 

archaeological sites, Colorado River corridor, Grand Canyon, Arizona, in van Riper, C., III, 

and Sogge, M.K., eds., The Colorado Plateau III--integrating research and resource 

management for more effective conservation: Tucson, University of Arizona Press, ISBN: 

0816527385, p. 331-350. 

Dudley, T.L., and Kazmer, D.J., 2005, Field assessment of the risk posed by Diorhabda elongata, 

a biocontrol agent for control of saltcedar (Tamarix spp.), to a nontarget plant, Frankenia 

salina: Biological Control, v. 35, no. 3, doi: 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2005.05.002, p. 265-275, 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1049964405001167. 

Durst, S.L., Theimer, T.C., Paxton, E.H., and Sogge, M.K., 2008, Temporal variation in the 

arthropod community of desert riparian habitats with varying amounts of saltcedar (Tamarix 

ramosissima): Journal of Arid Environments, v. 72, no. 9, doi: 

10.1016/j.jaridenv.2008.04.003, p. 1644-1653, 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140196308000992. 

Ellis LM, Molles MC, Jr., Crawford CS, Heinzelmann F. 2001. Surface-Active Arthropod 

Communities in Native and Exotic Riparian Vegetation in the Middle Rio Grande Valley, 

New Mexico. The Southwestern Naturalist 45, 456-471. 

Fritz, R.S., Roche, B.M., and Brunsfeld, S.J., 1998, Genetic Variation in Resistance of Hybrid 

Willows to Herbivores: Oikos, v. 83, no. 1, p. 117-128, 

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3546552. 
166

Gaskin, J., and Kazmer, D., 2009, Introgression between invasive saltcedars (<i>Tamarix 

chinensis</i> and <i>T. ramosissima</i>) in the USA: Biological 

Invasions, v. 11, no. 5, doi: 10.1007/s10530-008-9384-1, p. 1121-1130, 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10530-008-9384-1. 

Gaskin, J.F., and Schaal, B.A., 2002, Hybrid Tamarix widespread in the U.S. invasion and 

undetected in native Asian range, in National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings: v. 99, p. 

11256-11259. 

Graf, W.L., 2006, Downstream hydrologic and geomorphic effects of large dams on American 

rivers: Geomorphology, v. 79, no. 3–4, doi: 10.1016/j.geomorph.2006.06.022, p. 336-360, 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169555X06002571. 

Grime, J.P., 1979, Plant Strategies and Vegetation Processes: John Wiley & Sons, Chichester. 

Hazel, J.E., Jr., Grams, P.E., Schmidt, J.C., and Kaplinski, M., 2010, Sandbar response in Marble 

and Grand Canyons, Arizona, following the 2008 high-flow experiment on the Colorado 

River: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5015, 52 p., accessed 

on July 27, 2010, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5015/. 

Hazel, J.E., Jr., Kaplinski, M., Parnell, R., Kohl, K., and Topping, D.J., 2006, Stage-discharge 

relations for the Colorado River in Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons, Arizona,1990-2005: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2006-1243, 7 p., accessed on January 11, 2010, at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1243/pdf/of06-1243_508.pdf. 

Hazel JE, Jr., Kaplinski M, Parnell R, Manone M, Dale A. 1999. Topographic and bathymetric 

changes at thirty-three long-term study sites. In The controlled flood in Grand Canyon, 

Webb RH, Schmidt JC, Marzolf GR, Valdez RA (eds). American Geophysical Union, 

Geophysical Monograph Series, v. 110, Washington, D.C.; 161-183. 

Hultine, K.R., Belnap, J., van Riper, C., Ehleringer, J.R., Dennison, P.E., Lee, M.E., Nagler, 

P.L., Snyder, K.A., Uselman, S.M., and West, J.B., 2009, Tamarisk biocontrol in the 

western United States: ecological and societal implications: Frontiers in Ecology and the 

Environment, v. 8, no. 9, doi: 10.1890/090031, p. 467-474, accessed on 2012/05/16, at 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/090031. 

Kean, JW, and Smith, JD, 2004. Flow and boundary shear stress in channels with woody bank 

vegetation. In Riparian vegetation and fluvial geomorphology, Bennett SJ, Simon A (eds). 

American Geophysical Union, Water Science and Application, v. 8, Washington, D.C.; 237-

252. 

Kennedy, T.A., and Hobbie, S.E., 2004, Saltcedar (Tamarix ramosissima) invasion alters organic 

matter dynamics in a desert stream: Freshwater Biology, v. 49, no. 12, p. 65-76, accessed on 

December 2, 2009 

Kearsley, L.H., Schmidt, J.C., and Warren, K.D., 1994, Effects of Glen Canyon Dam on 

Colorado River sand deposits used as campsites in Grand Canyon National Park, USA: 

Regulated Rivers--Research and Management, v. 9, no. 3, p. 137-149, accessed on 

December 30, 2009, at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgibin/fulltext/113512382/PDFSTART. 

 Kearsley, M.J.C., Cobb, N.S., Yard, H.K., Lightfoot, D.C., Brantley, S.L., Carpenter, G.C., and 

Frey, J.K., 2006, Inventory and monitoring of terrestrial riparian resources in the Colorado 

River corridor of Grand Canyon--an integrative approach--final report: Flagstaff, Northern 

Arizona University, submitted to U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center, cooperative agreement no. 01-WRAG-0044 (NAU) and 01-WARG-0034 

(HYC), 262 p. 
167

Lavorel S., Garnier E., 2002, Predicting changes in community composition and ecosystem 

functioning from plant traits: revisiting the Holy Grail: Functional Ecology, v. 16, p. 545-

556. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2435.2002.00664.x. 

Lite, S.J., Bagstad, K.J., and Stromberg, J.C., 2005, Riparian plant species richness along lateral 

and longitudinal gradients of water stress and flood disturbance, San Pedro River, Arizona, 

USA: Journal of Arid Environments, v. 63, no. 4, p. 785-813. (Available at 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2005.03.026.) 

 Mahoney J, Rood S. 1998. Streamflow requirements for cottonwood seedling recruitment—An 

integrative model. Wetlands 18, 634-645. DOI: 10.1007/bf03161678. 

Melis, T.S., ed., 2011, Effects of three high-flow experiments on the Colorado River ecosystem 

downstream from Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1366, 147 

p., accessed on June 28, 2011, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1366/. 

Merritt, D.M., Scott, M.L., Poff, N.L., Auble, G.T., and Lytle, D.A., 2010, Theory, methods and 

tools for determining environmental flows for riparian vegetation--riparian vegetation-flow 

response guilds: Freshwater Biology, v. 55, no. 1, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2427.2009.02206.x, 

p. 206-225, accessed on October 18, 2010, at 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2009.02206.x/full. 

Mopper, S., and Simberloff, D., 1995, Differential Herbivory in an Oak Population: The Role of 

Plant Phenology and Insect Performance: Ecology, v. 76, no. 4, p. 1233-1241, 

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1940930

Mortenson, S., Weisberg, P., and Stevens, L., 2012, The influence of floods and precipitation on 

Tamarix establishment in Grand Canyon, Arizona: consequences for flow regime 

restoration: Biological Invasions, v. 14, no. 5, doi: 10.1007/s10530-011-0139-z, p. 1061-

1076, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10530-011-0139-z. 

Naiman, R.J., Decamps, H., and McClain, M.E., 2005, Riparia--ecology, conservation, and 

management of streamside communities: Oxford, Elsevier Academic Press, 430 p. 

 Nanson, G.C., and Croke, J.C., 1992, A genetic classification of floodplains: Geomorphology, v. 

4, no. 6, doi: 10.1016/0169-555x(92)90039-q, p. 459-486, 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0169555X9290039Q. 

National Research Council (NRC), 2002, Riparian Areas: Functions and Strategies for 

Management, The National Academies Press, ISBN: 9780309082952, 

Nilsson, C., Grelsson, G., Johansson, M., and Sperens, U., 1989, Patterns of plant species 

richness along river banks: Ecology, v. 70, p. 77-84, accessed on April 27, 2010, at 

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1938414. 

Nilsson, C., and Jansson, R., 1995, Floristic differences between riparian corridors of regulated 

and free-flowing boreal rivers: Regulated Rivers--Research and Management, v. 11, no. 1, 

p. 55-65. (Also available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/rrr.3450110106.) 

Nilsson, C., Jansson, R., and Zinko, U., 1997, Long-term responses of river-margin vegetation to 

water-level regulation: Science, v. 276, no. 5313, p. 798-800, accessed on December 30, 

2009, at http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/2892345.pdf. 

Phillips, B.G., Phillips, A.M., III, Theroux, M., and Downs, J., 1977, Riparian vegetation of 

Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona: submitted to National Park Service, Grand Canyon 

National Park, 200 p. 

Phillips, B.G., Phillips, A.M., III, and Schmidt-Bernzott, M.A., 1987, Annotated checklist of 

vascular plants of Grand Canyon National Park--Grand Canyon natural history association 

monograph no. 7: Grand Canyon, Ariz. ISBN: 0938216309, 79 p. 
168

Poff, N.L., and Zimmerman, J.K.H., 2010, Ecological responses to altered flow regimes--a 

literature review to inform environmental flows science and management: Freshwater 

Biology, v. 55, no. 1, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2427.2009.02272.x, p. 194-205, accessed on 

October 14, 2010, at 

http://rydberg.biology.colostate.edu/~poff/Public/poffpubs/Poff_Zimmerman_2010_FWB.p

df. 

Porter, M.E., 2002, Riparian vegetation responses to contrasting managed flows of the Colorado 

River in Grand Canyon: Flagstaff, Northern Arizona University, M.S. thesis, 33 p. 

 Ralston, B.E., Davis, P.A., Weber, R.M., and Rundall, J.M., 2008, A vegetation database for the 

Colorado River ecosystem from Glen Canyon Dam to the western boundary of Grand 

Canyon National Park, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2008-1216, 37 

p., accessed on January 12, 2010, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1216/. 

Rood, S.B., Braatne, J.H., and Goater, L.A., 2009, Responses of obligate versus facultative 

riparian shrubs following river damming: River Research and Applications, v. 26, no. 2, doi: 

10.1002/rra.1246, p. 102-117, accessed on June 6, 2011, at 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/rra.1246/abstract. 

Sabo, J.L., Finlay, J.C., Kennedy, T., and Post, D.M., 2010, The role of discharge variation in 

scaling of drainage area and food chain length in rivers: Science Express website, v. 330, 

no. 6006, doi: 10.1126/science.1196005, p. 965-967, accessed on March 8, 2011, at 

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/science.1196005. 

Schmidt, J.C., and Graf, J.B., 1990, Aggradation and degradation of alluvial sand deposits, 1965-

1986, Colorado River, Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey 

Professional Paper 1493, 74 p., accessed on March 17, 2010, at 

http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/usgspubs/citfor/pp/pp1493. 

Scott, M.L., Friedman, J.M., and Auble, G.T., 1996, Fluvial process and the establishment of 

bottomland trees: Geomorphology, v. 14, no. 4, doi: 10.1016/0169-555X(95)00046-8, p. 

327-339, accessed on June 6, 2011, at 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0169555X95000468. 

 Scott, M.L., Perkins, D, Wheaton, J.M., 2011, Big River Protocol Development – A Prototype 

Warranty Project: Final Report submitted to USGS Park Inventory and Monitoring Program. 

68 p. 

Shafroth, P. B., J. R. Cleverly, T. L. Dudley, J. P. Taylor, C. Van Riper III, E. P. Weeks, and J. 

N. Stuart. 2005. Control of Tamarix in the western United States: Implications for water 

salvage, wildlife use, and riparian restoration. Environmental Management 35:231–246. 

Seager, R., Ting, M., Held, I., Kushnir, Y., Lu, J., Vecchi, G., Huang, H.-P., Harnick, N., 

Leetmaa, A., Lua, N.-C., Li, C., Velez, J., and Naik, N., 2007, Model projections of an 

imminent transition to a more arid climate in southwestern North America: Science, v. 316, 

no. 5828, doi: 10.1126/science.1139601, p. 1181-1184, accessed on March 17, 2010, at 

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/316/5828/1181. 

Shafroth, P.B., and Briggs, M.K., 2008, Restoration ecology and invasive riparian plants--an 

introduction to the special section on Tamarix spp. in western North America: Restoration 

Ecology, v. 16, no. 1, doi: 10.1111/j.1526-100X.2007.00362.x, p. 94-96, accessed on July 

20, 2011, at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2007.00362.x/full. 

Sher, A.A., Marshall, D.L., and Gilbert, S.A., 2000, Competition between native Populus 

deltoides and invasive Tamarix ramosissima and the implications for reestablishing flooding 
169

disturbance: Society of Conservation Biology, v. 14, no. 6, p. 1744-1754, accessed on 

January 12, 2010, at http://www.jstor.org/stable/2641526. 

Sogge, M.K., Sferra, S.J., McCarthey, T.D., Williams, S.O., and Kus, B.E., 2003, Distribution 

and characteristics of southwestern willow flycatcher breeding sites and territories: 1993-

2001: Studies in Avian Biology, v. 26, p. 5-11 

Stevens, L.E., and Waring, G.L., 1986, Effects of post-dam flooding on riparian substrates, 

vegetation, and invertebrate populations in the Colorado River corridor in Grand Canyon, 

Arizona: Flagstaff, Ariz., Bureau of Reclamation, Glen Canyon Environmental Studies, 

contract no. IA4-AA-40-01930, GCES 19/87, 175 p. [Available from National Technical 

Information Service, Springfield, Va. as NTIS Report PB88-183488.] 

Stevens, L.E., Schmidt, J.C., Ayers, T.J., and Brown, B.T., 1995, Flow regulation, 

geomorphology, and Colorado River marsh development in the Grand Canyon, Arizona: 

Ecological Applications, v. 5, no. 4, p. 1025-1039, accessed on December 10, 2009, at 

http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/2269352.pdf. 

Stromberg, J.C., 1993, Instream flow models for mixed deciduous riparian vegetation within a 

semiarid region: Regulated Rivers--Research and Management, v. 8, no. 3, doi: 

10.1002/rrr.3450080303, p. 225-235, accessed on October 18, 2010, at 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/rrr.3450080303/abstract. 

Stromberg, J., 1998, Dynamics of Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii) and salt cedar 

(Tamarix chinensis) populations along the San Pedro River, Arizona: Journal of Arid 

Environments, v. 40, no. 2, p. 133-155, accessed on August 23, 2011, at 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jare.1998.0438. 

Trimble, SW, 2004. Effects of riparian vegetation on stream channel stability and sediment 

budgets. In Riparian vegetation and fluvial geomorphology, Bennett SJ, Simon A (eds). 

American Geophysical Union, Water Science and Application, v. 8, Washington, D.C.; 153-

170. 

Turner, R.M., and Karpiscak, M.M., 1980, Recent vegetation changes along the Colorado River 

between Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Mead, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Professional 

Paper 1132, 125 p. 

Urquhart, N.S., Auble, G.T., Blake, J.G., Bolger, D.T., Gerrodette, T., Leibowitz, S.G., 

Lightfoot, D.C., and Taylor, A.H., 2000, Report of a peer review panel on terrestrial aspects 

of the biological resources program of the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center: 

submitted to U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, 50 p. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, 1996, Record of decision, operation of Glen Canyon Dam--final 

environmental impact statement: Washington, D.C., Office of the Secretary of the Interior, 

Bureau of Reclamation, 15 p., accessed on October 13, 2010, at 

http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/pdfs/sp_appndxG_ROD.pdf. 

Van Riper, C., Paxton, K.L., O’Brien, C., Shafroth, P.B., and McGrath, L.J., 2008, Rethinking 

Avian Response to Tamarix on the Lower Colorado River: A Threshold Hypothesis: 

Restoration Ecology, v. 16, no. 1, doi: 10.1111/j.1526-100X.2007.00354.x, p. 155-167, 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2007.00354.x

Webb, R.H., 1996, Grand Canyon--a century of change--rephotography of the 1889-1890 

Stanton expedition: Tucson, University of Arizona Press, ISBN: 0-8165-1578-6, 290 p. 

Whitney, Kenneth D., Randell, Rebecca A., and Rieseberg, Loren H., 2006, Adaptive 

Introgression of Herbivore Resistance Traits in the Weedy Sunflower Helianthus annuus: 
170

The American Naturalist, v. 167, no. 6, p. 794-807, 

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/504606. 

Wiele, S.M., and Griffin, E.R., 1998, Modifications to a one-dimensional model of unsteady 

flow in the Colorado River through Grand Canyon, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 97-4046, 17 p. 

Wright, S.A., and Kennedy, T.A., 2011, Science-based strategies for future high-flow 

experiments at Glen Canyon Dam, in Melis, T.S., ed., Effects of three high-flow 

experiments on the Colorado River ecosystem downstream from Glen Canyon Dam, 

Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1366, 127-147 p., accessed on June 30, 2011, at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1366/. 

Yard, H.K., van Riper Charles III, Brown, B.T., and Kearsley, M.J., 2004, Diets of insectivorous 

birds along the Colorado River in Grand Canyon, Arizona: Condor, v. 106, no. 1, p. 106-

115, accessed on December 28, 2009, at http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/1370520.pdf. 

7. Budget 

   

Project Element I.1.

Integrated Vegetation

Monitoring

Project Element I.2.

Riparian vegetation

dynamics and trophic level

linkages related to

tamarisk defoliation

Salaries $69,000 Salaries $30,000

Traveling and Training $0 Traveling and Training $1,500

Operating Expenses $0 Operating Expenses $4,000

Logistics $30,000 Logistics $6,000

GIS/RS/Electronics support

(includes burden) $137,000 GIS/RS/Electronics support(includes burden) $0

Cooperators (non‐USGS) $28,000 Cooperators (non‐USGS) $0

USGS cooperators $0 USGS cooperators $0

USGS Burden $15,000 USGS Burden $6,000

Total $278,000 Total $47,000

FY 2013 Project I. Gross Total: $325,000

FY 2014 Project I. Gross Total: $332,000
171

Project J. 

Monitoring of Cultural Resources at a Small Scale and 

Defining the Large-Scale Geomorphic Context of those 

Processes 

1. Principal Investigators 

Helen Fairley, Cultural Program Manager, USGS Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research 

Center 

Amy Draut, USGS Pacific Coastal and Marine Science Center 

Brian Collins, Research Geologist, USGS Geology, Minerals, Energy and Geophysics Science 

Center 

Skye Corbett, USGS Geology, Minerals, Energy and Geophysics Science Center 

David Bedford, USGS Geology, Minerals, Energy and Geophysics Science Center 

Phil Davis and Joel Sankey, USGS Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center 

2. Project Summary 

In FY13/14, GCMRC will continue its monitoring work in Glen Canyon; begin a pilot 

monitoring program at a few select sites in Marble and Grand Canyons; and, begin a 

comprehensive Colorado River valley geomorphology research program. The objective of the 

first two elements of this research and monitoring project are to further refine the appropriate 

level of precision, accuracy, and spatial scope required to monitor the condition of 

archaeological resources in Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons in ways that are responsive to the 

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP). The third element of this 

project initiates a large-scale evaluation of the geomorphic processes that have created and 

maintain the Holocene deposits in and on which archaeological sites occur. This element seeks to 

determine the long-term stability and erosional vulnerability of those deposits and relies on a 

combination of field measurements, remote sensing, and geomorphic modeling. The integration 

of small (Project Elements J.1. and J.2.) and large (Project Element J.3.) scale approaches will 

provide the large-scale geomorphic context to the detailed scale monitoring that occurs at 

specific archaeological sites. 

3. Background 

Cultural resources along the Colorado River downstream from Glen Canyon Dam consist 

of the physical evidence of past human activities dating back at least 8,000 years before present, 

as well as places and natural resources of traditional cultural importance to present day 

communities. Many of the remnants of past human activities, commonly referred to as 

“archaeological sites” or “historic properties”, are buried by, embedded within, or situated on top 

of fine-grained sedimentary deposits derived from the Colorado River. These historically and 

culturally significant places are susceptible to damage over time due to natural weathering and 

erosion processes, inundation by the river, and by a variety of visitor use-related impacts. 

GCDAMP stakeholders, native American tribes, and various federal agencies have established 
172

the importance of monitoring surface changes resulting from erosion that threatens important 

cultural features. 

Grand Canyon is an iconic erosional landscape. Past geomorphic studies (e.g., Lucchitta, 

1991; Pederson and others, 2003, 2006; Draut and others, 2005) document a dynamic landscape 

where erosion and deposition of boulders, gravel, sand, and mud still occur. While some erosion 

of cultural resources is inevitable given the high intensity rainfall and strong winds of this region, 

past studies (e.g., Hereford and others, 1993) suggest that erosion of the Holocene-age sediment 

that forms the substrate of many cultural sites in the Colorado River ecosystem (CRe) may have 

increased during the past few decades. Several factors have been proposed to explain the 

apparent increase in erosion rates, including increased intensity and magnitude of rainfall during 

the late 1970s and early 1980s, reduction in rate at which fine sediment (defined as sand and 

mud) is now supplied to the CRe, the ongoing depletion of fine sediment in sandbars, and 

secondary effects related to increased visitation and cumulative impacts from recreational use of 

the river corridor (Hereford and others, 1993; Thompson and others, 2000; Fairley 2005). 

During the past 15 years, two related hypotheses have been proposed to explain how dam 

operations affect cultural sites in the CRe. One hypothesis offered by Hereford and others (1993) 

suggests that the system-wide decrease in fine sediment especially at elevations typical of predam floods has caused gullies to incise and prograde upslope throughout their drainage networks. 

Hereford and others (1993) suggested that the mouths of most ephemeral tributaries in the predam era were graded to alluvial terrace surfaces high above the elevation of typical base flows. 

Where tributaries had eroded to enter the Colorado River at lower elevations typical of base 

flows, high magnitude floods with relatively high suspended-sediment concentrations would 

have backfilled these gullies mouths. In the modern, sediment-depleted conditions of the postGlen Canyon Dam era, gully mouths are not regularly filled with flood sands, gullies have 

expanded in size, and erosion has propagated throughout the tributary watersheds. The 

application of this hypothesis to management of the river corridor was extensively criticized by 

Doelle (2000) in the Final Report of the Protocol Evaluation Panel that reviewed the Cultural 

Program of the GCMRC, but the conceptual model still significantly influences river corridor 

managers and is frequently referenced in administrative documents. 

A second, closely-related hypothesis focuses on the role of wind-blown sand in affecting 

surface infiltration capacity and gully backfilling processes. Specifically, this hypothesis posits 

that the reduction in numbers and area of high elevation sand bars (Hazel and others, 2010; 

Schmidt and others, 2004; Schmidt and Grams, 2011) has resulted in a reduction in the amount 

of sand transported inland towards archeological sites by wind, and this in turn, has changed the 

depth and surface characteristics of aeolian sand cover at many archaeological sites (Lucchitta, 

1991; Thompson, 2000; Draut and Rubin, 2008; Draut, in press). Because aeolian sand transport 

is able to counteract surface erosion to some degree by creating expanses of aeolian sand that can 

absorb rainfall and by filling in small gullies that form during rainfall-induced overland flow 

events, the post-dam decrease in large, unvegetated sandbars is hypothesized to have resulted in 

a consequent increase in the amount and intensity of surface erosion from gullying. Draut (in 

press) has noted that this process is only significant in controlling gully erosion where there are 

large sand bars whose surfaces are available to be entrained by wind, and where the prevailing 

wind directions are onshore. The proportion of Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons that has this 

favorable combination of factors is unknown. 

One objective of the recent Environmental Assessment for Development and 

Implementation of a Protocol for High-Flow Experimental Releases (HFEP EA) is to redistribute 
173

sand and mud to higher elevations and to increase the area of bare sand bars that provide 

potential sand sources for redistribution to higher elevations by wind. It is hypothesized that 

deposition of aeolian sand can bury and help to protect sites from future erosion. The evaluation 

of the efficacy of this management technique partly depends on the ability to measure 

topographic changes associated with these processes of deposition or erosion, especially at and 

near cultural sites (Collins and others, 2009, in review). 

The Grand Canyon Protection Act and the work of the GCDAMP depends on monitoring 

and research to track and decipher the effects of dam operations and experimental management 

actions on the CRe and its associated resources. Stated goals of the GCDAMP include the need 

to track the status and trends of cultural resource condition, evaluate the role that dam operations 

play in influencing resource condition, and determine how best to mitigate effects due to dam 

operations (GCDAMP, 2003). Thus, an expectation of this program is development of an 

accurate and precise monitoring program to track the amount and rate of physical change 

occurring at cultural sites in the CRe and to determine whether and to what degree dam 

operations are responsible for that change. 

In FY2013, Reclamation will implement the new High Flow Experimental Release 

Protocol that is designed to benefit sediment-dependent resources, including cultural resources. 

Although the effects of high flows on sand bars can be measured with well understood precision 

and accuracy using established methods (Project A: Sandbars and Sediment Storage Dynamics: 

Long-term Monitoring and Research at the Site, Reach, and Ecosystem Scales), the degree to 

which changes in sand bar size affect aeolian transport rates is poorly known. Thus, the 

consequent effects to cultural sites are not well understood. Scientists struggle to understand 

whether measurement of small changes in aeolian deposition is necessary to describe the effects 

of the High-Flow Experimental Protocol, or if large-scale, coarse resolution measurements are 

sufficient to measure these effects. Similarly, scientists struggle to understand the amount of 

erosional change that needs to be detected in a comprehensive topographic monitoring program. 

Some scientists argue that measurements must be to a scale of a few centimeters, because 

changes larger than this have the potential to irreversibly damage, or in some cases, completely 

obliterate, archaeological deposits and cultural features. Others argue that coarse resolution 

measurements are sufficient to monitor site status over the large spatial scale of the CRe. 

 A standardized, measurement-based monitoring protocol that can systematically track 

changes in resource condition tied to dam operations is essential for improving understanding of 

how dam operations affect cultural sites and also for helping managers understand how and why 

resource condition degrades (e.g., Wildesen, 1982, Wood and Johnson 1978). In addition, a 

robust monitoring program can help managers select the most appropriate methods for 

preserving sites and can also be useful for evaluating how well the selected erosion control 

methods perform at decadal time scales. 

A critical objective of this project is to place the small scale, detailed measurements of 

Elements A and B in the context of CRe-scale processes. This effort to provide large-scale, 

geomorphic context will be accomplished by an integrated suite of field-based and model-based 

approaches. Modeling is an important tool with which to describe the field situation in a 

relatively simple suite of processes and parameters. These modeling approaches will be used to 

inform our understanding of how dam operations potentially affect landscape geomorphic and 

vegetation processes that in turn affect site stability and erosion rates. The ultimate aim of this 

modeling effort is to identify those sites that are most vulnerable to the effects of weather, human 

visitation, and other factors. 
174

3.1. Scientific Background 

As previously noted, the environmental processes and factors that contribute to the 

current condition of cultural resources in the CRe are complex. Because the vast majority of 

archaeological sites in the CRe are situated well above the elevation reached by 25,000 ft3

/s 

(hereafter referred to as “stage”) (Sondossi and Fairley, in revision), effects of dam operations on 

cultural sites are mainly indirect and manifest themselves through diffuse effects to the larger 

terrestrial ecosystem (Fairley and Sondossi, 2010). The Glen Canyon segment of the Colorado 

River has no significant fine sediment supply (Topping and others, 2000). The Paria River 

contributes around 5-10% of the pre-dam sand supply to Marble Canyon. Downstream from the 

Little Colorado River, about 15% of the pre dam sediment supply is available (Topping and 

others, 2003). In addition to these effects that are related to the existence of the dam, the postdam flow regime has effectively eliminated low flows that formerly would have allowed 

sediment to accumulate in the channel and also the very high flows that formerly allowed 

sediment to be redistributed to higher elevations in the CRe via fluvial processes (Topping and 

others, 2003). 

These conditions of fine sediment deficit and changes in flow regime have resulted in a 

decline in the number and size (especially volume) of sandbars in Marble and Grand Canyons 

(Topping and others, 2003; Schmidt and others 2004; Schmidt and Grams 2011). Along with the 

decrease in bar volumes, daily fluctuating flows, in conjunction with expanding riparian 

vegetation (Project I: Riparian Vegetation Studies: Response Guilds as a Monitoring Approach, 

and Describing the Effects of Tamarisk Defoliation on the Riparian Community Downstrem of 

Glen Canyon Dam) have had the effect of limiting the amount of open, dry sand area available 

for redistribution by wind, resulting in the deflation of formerly active sand areas that covered 

and partially protected many cultural sites in the CRe (Draut and others, 2005, 2006; Draut and 

Rubin, 2008; Thompson and others, 2000). 

The post-dam loss of high elevation sand has led to a situation where Marble and Grand 

Canyons have less active aeolian sand area than does the less regulated Cataract Canyon 

immediately upstream from Lake Powell reservoir (Draut, in press). Thus, available evidence 

indicates that the modern dam controlled flow regime has led to reduced aeolian sand supply and 

increased biological soil crust cover, which further reduces sand mobility of high-elevation sand 

deposits, with multiple interacting effects to surface erosion processes. However, rainfallinduced erosion is a natural process in Grand Canyon,.and, pre-dam floods inundated and eroded 

many cultural sites in the past. Thus, erosion of cultural sites is a natural and ongoing process 

that would be occurring whether or not Glen Canyon Dam existed (Hereford and others, 1993; 

Hereford and others, in review, Pederson and others, oral comm., 2011). Therefore, a key 

research question that needs to be resolved is not whether cultural sites are eroding or 

otherwise changing but whether they are eroding or changing faster or in a significantly 

different manner than they would if the dam were not present or was operated differently than 

it has been up until now. 

Interest in the potential of dam operations to affect erosion rates at cultural resource sites 

in the CRe dates back to the early 1980s when NPS archaeologists first observed an increase in 

the amount and severity of gullying at archaeological sites. In 1989, a decision by the 

Department of Interior to undertake research on the downstream effects of Glen Canyon Dam 

initiated several studies focused on mapping the geomorphic context of archaeological resources 

and the geomorphic processes acting on those resources (Hereford and others 1991, 1993, 1996; 

Lucchitta 1991). This initial phase of research led to the publication of several detailed maps that 
175

emphasized the distribution of Holocene deposits in areas of high cultural resource density, plus 

several reports documenting changes in the post-dam environment (Hereford and others 1993, 

1996; Hereford, Burke and Thompson 1998, 2000a, 2000b; Lucchitta 1991). 

One hypothesis that emerged from this initial research effort focused on the role that 

changes in the post-dam flood regime plays in affecting gully formation and erosion processes. 

Hereford and others (1993) hypothesized that, in the pre-dam era, archaeological sites were 

subject to the same fundamental geomorphic processes that they are today but that natural 

erosion processes were ameliorated to some degree by annual spring and monsoon-season floods 

of the Colorado River, that periodically deposited a large volume of fine-grained sediment on 

terraces, in eddies, and along the channel margins. During large flood events, fluvial deposits 

backfilled the mouths of tributary drainages (McKee, 1938). These backfilling events had the 

effect of temporarily raising the effective base level of many minor tributaries. Hereford and 

others (1993) observed that many tributary drainages are not integrated with the main stem of the 

Colorado but debouch onto alluvial terrace surfaces several meters above the level of the active 

river channel, forming small temporary ponds in the dune fields. Without periodic restorative 

floods, however, Hereford and others (1993) argued that many of these drainages eventually 

work their way out to the terrace edge and integrate with the mainstem Colorado River. Once 

this occurs, gullies rapidly erode headward, as the drainages re-grade their thalwegs to the lower 

base level of the main channel. 

Hereford and others (1993) did not propose that there had been a fundamental change in 

the actual base level of the river under post-dam conditions. Rather, they hypothesized that the 

alluvial terrace surfaces, which would have been periodically replenished with flood deposits and 

wind-blown sand, served as the effective base level for minor tributary gullies. In the absence of 

periodic floods, however, these gullies progressively work their way towards the terrace edge, 

and once they reach the river, they rapidly regrade their channels to the lower effective base level 

of the mainstem river channel. 

Lucchitta (1991) added an important nuance to Hereford and others’ (1993) hypothesis 

by focusing on the role of wind-blown sand in reducing the erosion potential of alluvial terraces 

and associated archaeological sites. Lucchitta (1991) hypothesized that in pre-dam times, barren 

sand bars and open sand areas were more prevalent, owing to both more frequent flood-related 

depositional events and more frequent low flows. Consequently, there was more sand available 

for redistribution by wind and more wind-blown sand covering the surfaces of terraces and 

archaeological sites. The aeolian sand cover helped to absorb rainfall and reduce the potential for 

rainfall-driven gullying. Furthermore, with more abundant sand available for redistribution by 

wind, the smaller gullies that did form were backfilled by sand prior to the next gullying event, 

thereby reducing the potential for gullies to erode and expose underlying deposits containing 

archaeological materials. 

Thompson and others (2000) built upon on this body of work and proposed a geomorphic 

model based on the familiar and widely-used Universal Soil Loss Equation. They measured gully 

catchment area, made imprecise slope measurements, and estimated vegetation cover and soil 

characteristics. They categorized approximately 100 sites in the CRe in terms of their 

susceptibility to future gully erosion. Although the model and study were subsequently criticized 

for failing to adequately account for the effects of hill slope processes (Doelle 2000), this 

research made important contributions by exploring the influence of aeolian sand cover as a 

natural mitigation to erosion by comparing the condition of alluvial terraces and gully size in 

Cataract Canyon, where a less regulated river system still allows for high spring floods and 
176

associated high elevation sand deposition, to the condition of sites in Grand Canyon. Thompson 

and others (2000) showed that gullies were fewer and smaller in Cataract Canyon terrace 

deposits than in Grand Canyon. 

Draut and Rubin (2005, 2006, 2008) further explored the role of aeolian sediment in 

preserving archaeological sites. As part of this research, a series of weather stations were 

established within the river corridor, and information was collected on wind speed and direction, 

rainfall, and sand-transport rates near selected archaeological sites (Draut and Rubin 2006, 

2008). These stations established large-scale wind regimes, an essential component of 

understanding whether and where fine sediment from sandbars deposited by controlled floods is 

transported onshore by wind toward threatened archaeological sites. The data from these stations 

were used to document effects of the 2004 controlled-flood experiment, and demonstrated 

differences in sand-transport rates in various locations. 

Concurrently with these research efforts, the NPS began experimenting with various 

techniques for monitoring erosion and topographic change at archeological sites in Grand 

Canyon. NPS monitoring methods underwent considerable modification throughout the 1990s, 

beginning initially with qualitative observations, and then progressed to repeat oblique 

photography and total station surveys (Leap and others, 2000). Use of total station surveys was 

abandoned, however, because it soon became apparent that total station survey methods could 

not measure small-scale topographic changes over large areas without causing extensive surface 

disturbance to the sites. Other remote sensing methods, such as oblique, ground-based 

photogrammetry, did not detect topographic changes over large site areas at a satisfactory level 

of resolution. Pederson and others (2003) argued that in order to detect erosion before gullies 

incised to the point of irreversibly damaging archaeological features and deposits, it was 

important to be able to detect vertical changes on the order of 10-20 cm or less. In 2002, 

Pederson and others (2006) explored low altitude semi-automated aerial photogrammetry as an 

alternative monitoring method in an attempt to refine the amount of topographic change that 

could be reliably detected within gullies. Based on experiments using very low altitude, 

helicopter-based imaging technology, Pederson and others (2006) concluded that changes less 

than 20 cm could not be reliably measured using that approach. Therefore, they measured gully 

thalweg incision rates using repeat, conventional total station survey methods. 

Although measuring gully thalwegs using traditional total station survey methods is not 

without challenges (Pederson and others, 2003, 2006; Hazel and others, 2008), this method 

remains a reliable and efficient option for measuring rates of gully incision. However, if a goal of 

monitoring is to track not only rates of gully incision, but also track total volumes of sediment 

moved to and from sites and the potential restorative benefits of sediment deposition and gully 

back-filling, then total station surveys may not be the best or most appropriate tool. 

Within the past decade, rapidly evolving LiDaR technology has offered scientists an 

alternative option for obtaining precise measurements of topographic change over large areas. 

Collins and Kayen (2006) demonstrated LiDaR’s scientific utility in the CRe. Elsewhere, LiDaR 

has been widely used by archaeologists as an architectural documentation tool (Barber and 

others, 2006; Hough and Brennan 2007, D. Jones 2007, Korumaz and others 2010) and for 

mapping sites in advance of excavation. LiDaR has also been used to monitor millimeter-scale 

erosion of stone surfaces exhibiting prehistoric rock art (Barnett and others, 2005). While the 

concept of using LiDaR as a monitoring tool has been around for several years, actual 

application of LiDaR for detecting and quantifying rates of topographic change across entire site 
177

areas had not previously been demonstrated prior to the initiation of GCMRC’s cultural 

monitoring project in 2006. 

The currently proposed cultural resource pilot monitoring and research project is a direct 

outgrowth of the phased program of research and development that was undertaken in 2006-2010 

towards implementation of a long-term core-monitoring program. The first phase of this project 

(Phase I) began in spring 2006 and initially focused on completing a comprehensive assessment 

of the geomorphic and archaeological attributes of 232 river corridor sites (O’Brien and 

Pederson 2009a; Leap n.d.) to characterize the range of variability in the population of 

potentially affected archaeological sites and to aid in the selection of an appropriate sample for a 

future pilot monitoring program (Vance and Smiley, 2011). As described above, Phase I also 

involved testing a variety of survey techniques, in addition to terrestrial LiDaR, as potential tools 

for measuring change in resource condition (e.g., Collins and others, 2008). 

The applicability and utility of monitoring archaeological sites using terrestrial LiDaR 

was subsequently demonstrated at 11 sites in Grand Canyon (e.g., Collins and others, 2008, 

2009, in review). Collins and others (2008) showed that terrestrial LiDaR technology could be 

used to collect data as accurate as or better than total station techniques for larger areas while 

minimizing impacts to the sites being monitored. Collins and others (2009) showed that 

topographic changes greater than 8 cm in the vertical could be documented using a state-of-theart terrestrial LiDaR device at 6 of 9 monitored sites. Since the time of their field studies, 

advances in the technology have resulted in laser scanning devices with greater accuracy and 

new software with improved potential to measure small-scale (centimeter-level) topographic 

change (Collins and others, in review). Incorporating these advances, Collins and others (in 

review) collected multiple comparable LiDaR data sets at 11 sites over a 5-year period. This 

effort demonstrated that change could be reliably and accurately detected at less than 5 cm, and 

that it is possible to link the observed changes to specific geomorphic processes. Development of 

a network of solar-powered weather stations for monitoring local weather conditions throughout 

the river corridor was also a component of the initial research and monitoring effort (Fairley and 

others, 2007; Draut and others, 2009a, 2009b, 2010). 

3.2. Key Monitoring and Research Questions Addressed in this Project 

Grand Canyon National Park (GCNP) archeologists began monitoring cultural sites in the 

river corridor during the late 1970s, and they continue to do so. Kintigh and others (2007) 

observed that the current NPS monitoring approach is designed to document the presence or 

absence of visitor use impacts and other types of threats and disturbances. These threats and 

disturbances include observation of the presence of gullies that potentially compromise the 

integrity of cultural sites. The NPS monitoring approach results in a general determination of site 

condition. Based on observed impacts, NPS archaeologists assign a rating of poor, fair, good, or 

undisturbed to characterize overall site condition (See Appendix 2 for the specific definitions 

used by GCNP to assign these condition ratings). Kintigh and others (2007) noted that past and 

present GCNP monitoring programs are not designed to monitor dam effects. 

The NPS monitoring approach relies on assigning sites by categorical monitoring criteria 

that are supplemented with repeat photographs of impacted areas. Maps are drawn to show 

locations of specific impacts. Monitoring is performed to meet the Park’s compliance obligations 

under Section 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and to demonstrate 

progress towards achieving federally-mandated goals for historic preservation under the 

Government Performance and Results Act. At the same time, the NPS monitoring program 
178

results in identification of sites that may require excavation or other forms of “treatment” to 

preserve their cultural, historic, and scientific values. The same approach is currently used by 

GCNP archaeologists to monitor impacts associated with implementing the Colorado River 

Management Plan and to monitor sites on the Canyon rims. 

In 2000, a cultural Protocol Evaluation Panel (PEP) recommended redesigning the 

Bureau of Reclamation (BoR)’s 1994–2000 Programmatic Agreement (PA) to focus more 

specifically on monitoring the effects of dam operations and evaluating the efficacy of erosion 

control efforts (Doelle, 2000). Specifically, the PEP recommended that the monitoring activities 

of the NPS and GCMRC should be integrated and refocused to: (1) evaluate the effectiveness of 

long-term management strategies (including treatments designed to control/minimize erosion) 

and (2) evaluate effects of different flow regimes on archaeological sites and other cultural 

resources such as Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs). The PEP noted, “monitoring should be 

designed and organized to serve as the basis for periodic quantitative evaluations of the effect of 

dam operations, effectiveness of erosion control methods, and development of treatment plans.” 

Throughout the history of the GCDAMP, there has been ongoing discussion and 

considerable debate about the need for monitoring programs in general and what purpose(s) 

monitoring is supposed to serve. In general terms, monitoring can serve a broad variety of 

purposes (Hellawell 1991, p.3): 

 To assess the effectiveness of policy or legislation; 

 To comply with regulatory requirements (performance or audit function); and, 

 To detect incipient change (“early warning system”). 

Noon (2003, p.30) proposed an additional reason: to “assess the value and temporal (or 

spatial) trend of those indicators that characterize the state of an ecological system.” In the 

GCDAMP generally, and in the cultural program arena specifically, all of these reasons have 

been cited as driving the need for monitoring (GCDAMP, 2003). Additionally, there is concern 

with meeting legal mandates, such as those identified in the Grand Canyon Protection Act 

(GCPA), which calls for “long term monitoring programs and activities that will ensure that Glen 

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

requires that the dam be operated in such a manner as to “protect, mitigate adverse impacts to, 

and improve the values for which Grand Canyon National Park and Glen Canyon National 

Recreation Area were established including, but not limited to natural and cultural resources and 

visitor use.” In addition, there are legal obligations embedded within the National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA) that require federal agencies to consider effects of their actions on 

cultural resources (NHPA, Section 106) and also, for the responsible land manager to identify, 

evaluate, and protect historic properties under their care (NHPA, Section 110). While monitoring 

is not specifically required for compliance with NHPA, monitoring is often implemented to 

assess effects or to evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation measures. Ideally, all GCDAMP 

monitoring programs should be sufficiently sensitive to detect significant resource changes in a 

timely manner in order to make adjustments in dam operating procedures before undesirable 

thresholds in resource condition are crossed. 

In the 2003 Strategic Plan (GCDAMP, 2003), GCDAMP stakeholders distinguished two 

monitoring categories: “Core Monitoring” and “Effects Monitoring”. The GCDAMP developed 

the following definition of core monitoring: 
179

Core monitoring consists of consistent, long-term, repeated measurements using 

set protocols and is designed to establish status and trends in meeting specific 

management objectives. Core monitoring is implemented on a fixed schedule 

regardless of variable factors or circumstances (e.g., water year, experimental 

flows, temperature control, stocking strategy, non-native control, etc.) affecting 

target species. 

Effects monitoring, on the other hand, was defined as: 

... the collection of data associated with an experiment performed under the 

Record of Decision, an unanticipated event, or other management action. 

Changes in resource conditions measured by effects monitoring generally will be 

short-term responses. The purpose of effects monitoring is to supplement the fixed 

schedule and variables collected under core monitoring. This will both increase 

the understanding of the resource status and trends and provide a research 

opportunity to discover the effect of the experiment or management action. 

 

The project described here will implement monitoring protocols to address both “core 

monitoring information needs” (CMINs) and “effects monitoring information needs” (EMINs) 

for cultural sites in Glen and Grand Canyons. In 2007, an expert panel reviewed the previous PA 

monitoring protocols and existing NPS monitoring data and developed recommendations for 

potentially incorporating these “legacy” monitoring data into future monitoring programs for the 

GCDAMP (Kintigh and others, 2007). Among several recommendations, the panel 

recommended that the monitoring program be redesigned to “unpack” the concept of site 

condition and separate out the factors affecting site condition that are potentially dam related 

from those that are not (Wood and Johnson 1978; Wildesen 1982; Jones, 2007). In addition, the 

reviewers suggested that the use of LiDaR (Light Detection and Ranging) technology as a tool 

for measuring and tracking surface changes at archaeological sites that are potentially influenced 

by dam operations be explored. At the same time, the panel recommended developing a model 

reflecting current understanding of how dam operations affect archaeological site condition, and 

to use the monitoring program to evaluate whether model predictions conform to monitoring 

results. The current proposal incorporates these recommendations. 

As noted previously, this project is aimed at addressing the highest priority CMIN for 

historic properties (as revised by the CRAHG and SPG in fall 2005): 

CMIN 11.1.1 (SPG revised). Determine the condition and integrity of prehistoric and 

historic sites in the CRe through tracking rates of erosion, visitor impacts, and other 

relevant variables. Determine the condition and integrity of TCPs in the CRe. 

This project is also designed to address two primary Strategic Science Questions (SSQs): 

SSQ 2-1. Do dam-controlled flows affect (increase or decrease) rates of erosion, and 

vegetation growth, at archaeological sites and TCP sites in the CRE, and if so, how? 
180

SSQ 2-4. How effective are various treatments (e.g., experimental flows, check dams, 

vegetation management, etc.) in slowing rates of erosion at archaeological sites over the 

long term? 

A high-quality monitoring program is also essential for determining whether management 

actions designed to stabilize or improve site conditions are working as intended. Therefore, this 

project also directly addresses EIN 11.1 (formerly CMIN 11.1.2 of the GCDAMP Strategic Plan, 

subsequently re-designated by CRAHG/SPG as EIN 11.1): 

EIN 11.1. Determine the efficacy of treatments for mitigation of adverse effects to 

historic properties. 

Additionally, this project addresses a general GCDAMP research information need 

(formerly identified as CMIN 11.1.4 in the 2001 GCDAMP Strategic Plan): 

How effective is monitoring, what are the appropriate strategies to capture change at an 

archaeological sitequalitative, quantitative? 

In summary, this project has been designed to be responsive to the stated goals of the 

GCDAMP, the recommendations of the 2000 PEP (Doelle, 2000) and the 2007 Legacy 

Monitoring Data review panel (Kintigh and others, 2007), the needs of the BoR and NPS related 

to compliance with Section 106 and Section 110 for assessing effects of normal dam operations 

and effectiveness of experimental management actions such as HFEs, as well as the effectiveness 

of other non-flow management actions that may be initiated in the future to achieve the 

management goals for in situ preservation of archaeological sites. The data collected by this 

project will also be relevant for addressing the strategic science questions identified in the 2007 

Monitoring and Research Plan (GCMRC, 2007). 

4. Proposed Work 

The objective of the first two elements of this research and monitoring project are to 

further refine the appropriate level of precision, accuracy, and spatial scope required to monitor 

the condition of archaeological resources in Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons in a way that is 

responsive to the GCDAMP. The third element of this project initiates a large-scale evaluation of 

the geomorphic processes that have created and maintain the Holocene deposits in and on which 

archaeological sites occur. This project element seeks to determine the long-term stability and 

erosional vulnerability of those deposits relies on a combination of field measurements, remote 

sensing, and geomorphic modeling. The integration of small (J.1. and J.2.) and large (J.3.) scale 

approaches provides the large-scale geomorphic context to the detailed scale monitoring that 

occurs at specific archaeological sites. 

4.1. Project Elements 

J.1. Cultural Site Monitoring in Glen Canyon ($152,000) 

Helen Fairley, Cultural Program manager, USGS/GCMRC 

Brian Collins, Research Geologist, USGS Geology, Minerals, Energy and Geophysics Science 

Center 
181

Skye Corbett, Research Geologist, USGS Geology, Minerals, Energy and Geophysics Science 

Center 

Long-term monitoring can provide a perspective on the cumulative effects of diverse 

processes acting on cultural sites. Such a program can also provide a site-specific perspective on 

how dam-related processes and impacts, weather, and other environmental factors interact to 

affect the physical stability and rates and amounts of erosion occurring at cultural sites. Although 

the monitoring approach described here is primarily designed to track and quantify trends in the 

amount and rates of erosion and deposition, and thereby provide a measure of site stability and 

current resource condition, the resulting data have the potential to shed light on the cumulative 

effects of diverse and diffuse geomorphic processes acting over time. 

As a starting point for determining whether current erosion rates exceed pre-dam rates, it 

is helpful to understand current rates of erosion occurring at sites. If, as hypothesized by 

Hereford and others (1993), tributary drainages crossing alluvial terraces cut down and retreat 

faster once they become integrated with the main drainages, it is essential to have data 

documenting differences in rates of erosion between terrace- based and river- based tributaries. 

The sites in Glen Canyon provide a variety of erosional features in various states of development 

that allow comparison and contrast of erosion rates with sites in Marble and Grand Canyons. 

Proposed Monitoring and Site Locations 

In FY 2013-2014, the monitoring program for Glen Canyon will measure surface 

changes, track trends in condition, and measure weather data at four sites (AZ C:2:0032, AZ 

C:2:0035, AZ C:2:0077 and AZ C:2:0077). Unlike the majority of sites in Glen Canyon, many of 

which are located on cliff faces unaffected by Glen Canyon Dam operations or on lands managed 

by the Navajo Nation, the four sites targeted for monitoring in Glen Canyon are located on Park 

Service lands within and on fine-grained alluvial terraces adjacent to the Colorado River. These 

sites are situated in the upstream half of Glen Canyon, where sediment inputs to the system are 

minimal, and where on-going erosion of cultural deposits is evident. The sites provide locations 

in which to measure erosion rates that might be expected to be at their maximum for the river 

corridor, thereby bracketing expectation at other sites further downriver. 

These sites are clustered between River Miles (RM) -11.5 and -9.5 and are situated in and 

on interbedded mainstem alluvium and colluvium dating between 2000-8000 BP. The four 

buried sites are of corresponding age; two of the sites also exhibit evidence of more recent use 

during the ancestral Puebloan occupation of Glen Canyon (ca. 1200-800 BP). These sites include 

some of the oldest archaeological materials documented in the river corridor, with one site 

producing a calibrated 2-sigma C14 date on wood charcoal from a hearth of 7320–7070 BC 

(Anderson 2006: Table 1). 

All sites show signs of recent active erosion. In one place, the terrace cut bank shows 

evidence of recent slumping, where large blocks of fine sediment have dropped directly into or 

immediately adjacent to the Colorado River, threatening the integrity of two sites perched on the 

brink of these cut banks. In another area farther upstream, the terraces and associated sites have 

been affected by post-dam floods. The individual archaeological sites exhibit various forms and 

intensities of recent erosion, from relatively minor gullies incised into terrace scarps to large 

scale retreating terrace cut banks. At one site, an arroyo has cut down through >3 m of fine 

grained alluvium to Navajo sandstone, and the gully appears to be laterally expanding in multiple 

directions through cut bank and headcut retreat. 
182

Methods 

Topographic Data Methods 

Using methods developed during a preceding phase of this project (Collins and others, 

2008, 2009, in review), we will monitor changes in the surface topography of these four sites and 

track rates, amounts, and locations of erosion, as well as areas of surface stability. Data will be 

collected using a combination of conventional total station mapping and RTK GPS for 

establishing survey controls and for pin-pointing knick point positions within gully thalwegs, 

along with ground-based or airborne LiDaR for mapping total site surfaces. Terrestrial LiDaR, 

which is being used to collect baseline topography at the four sites in FY12, will be repeated 

again in FY214. In FY13, we will collect similar LiDaR -based measurements from an airborne 

platform. Airborne LiDaR will be employed in FY13 to capture not only the topography of the 

immediate site area but also the topography of the terrain immediately surrounding the sites. In 

addition to collecting information on the topographic context of each site, collection of airborne 

LiDaR in FY13 will serve as a basis of assessing the relative efficiency, costs, and data accuracy 

of both data collection methods. Further, the airborne dataset will provide a baseline topographic 

record for other sites not currently monitored that fall within the scanned area. We expect 

airborne LiDaR to produce slightly less accurate measurements of much larger areas at 

somewhat less cost per area. 

Ground-based LiDaR surveys will be directed by either GCMRC personnel or by 

cooperating USGS scientists following methods employed and refined in Phase I (Collins and 

others, 2008, 2009, in review). Airborne LiDaR will be collected and processed by an external 

contractor, then delivered to GCMRC for analysis. Both terrestrial and airborne data will be 

edited and filtered to produce a “bare-earth” terrain model without reflections from vegetation 

canopy. Surface maps of each site area from each time period will then be generated and 

compared with one another in order to document the amount, rate, and specific locations of 

erosion and deposition, as well as deterioration of built features (hearths, structures, etc.) that 

may become exposed at sites over time. Collins and others (2009, in review) provide technical 

details of how surface change is calculated using terrestrial LiDaR measurements; nearly 

identical protocols are used to integrate airborne methods. The accuracy of the models is 

expected to be less than 2 cm in the case of terrestrial LiDaR and on the order of 10 cm in the 

case of airborne LiDaR. Precision at this scale allows identification of subtle topographic 

features that might allow prediction of future gully knickpoints, areas of aeolian dune deflation, 

and rilling. 

The monitoring program for Glen Canyon in FY13-14 builds directly on the preceding 

FY 12 monitoring effort. By monitoring these sites annually and collecting repeat measurements 

of the amounts and locations of erosion, it will be possible to study and more fully understand 

the processes responsible for eroding these sites and the specific manner in which these 

processes unfold. For example, at AZ C:02:0075, it appears that in the past, a steep-walled gully 

initially formed as a consequence of concentrated run off from the Navajo sandstone expanses 

upslope from the site, but that more recently, high flows of the Colorado River have backed into 

the 3-m deep arroyo and undermined the interior arroyo walls at their base, causing the gully to 

expand laterally in multiple directions. Understanding ongoing changes to these four sites will 

help to inform what might be expected to occur at other sites further downriver if their sediment 

supply is also cut off. 
183

Supplementary Site Condition Monitoring 

In addition to the collection of high-resolution topographic data, supplementary 

observational data will be collected at the same sites. Observed impacts will be evaluated using a 

combination of binary, ordinal, and numeric values. Checklists will be employed to focus on 

documenting changes in archaeological and geomorphic attributes (“condition indicators”) that 

are relevant to specific types and settings of sites. Observational monitoring will emphasize 

condition factors that cannot be detected remotely, such as soil crust cover changes and human 

impacts such as trailing, soil compaction from trampling, graffiti, vandalism, artifact piling, and 

structural modifications. We also intend to fill out the ASMIS monitoring forms that the Park 

Service requires for Section 110 compliance purposes. These on-site inspections will also 

provide researchers and land managers with an opportunity to verify remotely sensed 

observations, and in addition, will afford land managers an opportunity to assess and plan future 

treatments necessitated by ongoing erosion or visitor impacts. 

Meteorological Monitoring 

Although several previous studies have explored the relationship between weather and 

archaeological site condition to varying degrees (e.g., Hereford and others, 1993; Thompson and 

others, 2000; Draut and Rubin 2008; Draut and others 2010a, b; Hereford, in revision), the 

degree to which local weather variation affects archaeological site condition and erosion 

warrants further evaluation. Weather data are essential for evaluating the role of individual storm 

events in causing specific types and amount of overland flow and gulying and for evaluating the 

effectiveness of erosion control measures under varying weather conditions (Pederson and 

others, 2003; Draut and Rubin 2008; Collins and others, in review). Therefore, in addition to 

monitoring the condition of individual cultural sites, two weather stations will monitor a suite of 

weather parameters at at the mouth of the Paria River and the other near RM -10. These stations 

will allow us to better understand the range of local weather variability in this part of the river 

corridor. These data will also complement weather data proposed for collection downstream in 

Marble and Grand Canyons. The monitored parameters include temperature, rainfall intensity 

and amount, wind speed and direction, barometric pressure, and humidity. 

The downstream weather station will be located near the mouth of the Paria River, in an 

area that receives relatively light but intermittent visitation from walk-in anglers. The upstream 

site is located within a few hundred meters of two monitored cultural sites, but is not directly 

adjacent to either. Whereas this area receives considerable visitation by day rafting tour groups, 

as well as fishermen, its location accomplishes several purposes: (1) it minimizes visual impacts 

by being located near other existing structures; (2) it potentially reduces the chance of vandalism 

by having the station in an area that is visited often; and, (3) it serves as an outreach opportunity 

for sharing information about weather monitoring and local climate with the many visitors who 

already stop to visit a nearby petroglyph site. In addition to the two weather stations, we propose 

to install a single, unobstrusive rain gage in the vicinity of AZ C:02:0075 that will have 

negligible visual impacts. 

Logistical Support 

Logistical support for Project Element A will require one low altitude (~300 m ags) 

helicopter-based LiDaR data collection mission of 1-2 hrs duration in the winter of FY13, and in 

FY14 and a 5-day motorized boat-support mission to collect site specific data using terrestrial 

LiDaR. In both years, the main data collection mission will be supplemented with several single-
184

day trips by motorized skiff to download and maintain the weather station at river mile -10 mile 

and the rain gage near RM -11.5. These latter, 1-day trips may be carried out in conjunction with 

other ongoing monitoring efforts conducted by the GCMRC biology program in Glen Canyon. 

Research Expectations 

The monitoring strategy provided herein is intended to provide the necessary data to 

assess the current site condition with respect to expected geomorphic change. In addition, the 

data should be sufficient to establish conclusive baseline levels for future research efforts. In 

addition, the data will allow researchers to consider and understand the effects of archaeological 

site change in an area of the river in which the sediment supply has been completely shut off. 

This can help establish a “control” data set to compare with expected changes further downriver 

in which the sediment supply is slightly higher and may be cumulatively increased as a result of 

high-flow experiments (HFEs). 

Project Element J.2. Monitoring of Select Cultural Sites in Grand Canyon ($206,000) 

Helen Fairley, Cultural Program Manager, USGS/GCMRC 

Brian Collins, Research Geologist, USGS Geology, Minerals, Energy and Geophysics Science 

Center 

Skye Corbett, Research Geologist, USGS Geology, Minerals, Energy and Geophysics Science 

Center 

At its most basic level, monitoring provides a means to assess either stability or change. 

As the sophistication of monitoring increases, so too do the means to determine causes for 

stability or change. Within the context of archaeological sites in the CRe, monitoring allows an 

assessment of relative site stability. Similarly, as the sophistication of monitoring increases, we 

are able to assess potential causes for instability. 

This project is formulated around the concept that archaeological site monitoring can be 

used to inform the expectations of how sites respond to certain stressors. For example, where 

erosion is measured, monitoring should provide a means to assess whether erosion is progressive 

or is intermittently offset by depositional processes. It is important to the NPS as land manager to 

have quantitative monitoring techniques that are cost efficient, replicable and, most importantly, 

time sensitive. In addition, monitoring provides the inputs to test models for both reconstructing 

measured site changes and projecting expected site behaviors. Again, in the context of 

archaeological sites in the CRe, quantitative monitoring data should feed geomorphic models 

capable of examining various cause and effect scenarios such as precipitation and gullying 

erosion. 

The project described herein outlines and evaluates a monitoring strategy consisting of 

extensive and precise topographic, site condition, and weather data collection at four 

archaeological sites in Grand Canyon. Through the monitoring program, we will track rates and 

amounts of erosion and deposition, as well as areas of surface stability at the four sites. Whereas 

this proposal focuses on the collection of pertinent data necessary to continue to quantitatively 

assess short-term changes affecting site condition of archaeological sites in the CRe, the project 

work has also been structured to address several existing research questions of importance to site 

response from the potential effects of high flows and to longer-term expectations of site 

condition. The sites proposed for monitoring have been specifically selected on the basis that an 

understanding of their individual geomorphologic and topographic behavior will provide either 

confirmation or contradiction to existing expected responses. Although specific sties are 

described here as the locations for our work, we will work with the NPS to identify if other sites 
185

are more appropriate for this pilot monitoring effort. Similarly, we will work with the NPS in an 

effort to target the results of this program to the needs for management of the sites by the Park 

Service. 

Proposed Monitoring and Site Locations 

Similar to the monitoring program for Glen Canyon, in FY13-14, monitoring in Grand 

Canyon will focus on measuring geomorphic processes and land surface change at four cultural 

sites: AZ C:5:0031, AZ C:13:0321, AZ B:10:0225, and AZ G:03:0072. Based on surface 

evidence, three of these sites date to the Puebloan era (1200-800 BP); the other is primarily 

protohistoric in age (<700BP). These sites are all situated in areas mantled with aeolian sand; 

subsurface materials are primarily debris fan colluvium, coarse gravels, and fluvially-deposited 

sand. 

Unlike the sites being monitored in Glen Canyon, all of which are primarily threatened 

by progressive erosion, the four sites in Grand Canyon have been selected for long-term 

monitoring based on their geomorphic settings, surface characteristics, and specific locations in 

the river corridor landscape which place them in positions that are potentially conducive for 

aeolian deposition. These sites are situated downwind from sand bars that will be potentially 

enlarged by future high flows. These sites are distributed throughout the river corridor, in both 

narrow and wide reaches of the CRe, and all are associated with active or semi-active aeolian 

areas. In addition, the topography of each of these sites has been measured at least twice 

previously between 2007-2010 by Collins and others (2008, 2009, in review), providing a 

foundation for extending long-term trend data at these four sites. Monitoring thus far has 

identified important aspects of site change with respect to archaeological site stability. These 

include extensive gullying and subsequent gully infilling at AZ:B:10:0225 during 2007-2010 and 

continued site erosion at AZ:C:13:0321 despite a positive buildup of upwind river sandbar 

derived sediment source. 

Research Questions 

The primary goal of monitoring is to track trends in site condition that have the potential 

to be affected by dam operations, and a secondary goal is to gain additional insight about the 

suite of geomorphic processes acting upon individual sites. Monitoring has already shown that 

existing assumptions as to how the river system may behave under both natural and 

anthropogenic changes (i.e., HFEs) can be both confirmed or challenged based on what is 

recorded at the site- specific level. Thus, precise topographic measurements can help inform on 

both the individual and cumulative effects of small scale incremental changes, as well as the 

effects from less frequent, but often more dramatically transformative, episodic events, such as 

exceptionally intense storms, high main stem flows, and tributary floods. The lsmall-scale, sitespecific measurements of Project Element J.2. will inform the larger-scale, landscape-process 

investigations that will be conducted under Project Element J.3. 

Monitoring these four sites will allow us to test the hypothesis that over time, sites 

situated near sand sources that are situated predominantly downwind from these sources, will be 

less prone to gullying and ultimately more stable than sites located in areas where sediment 

resupply via aeolian deposition does not routinely occur. For example, at sites AZ:C:50:0031 and 

AZ:C:13:0321, previous HFEs have provided an upwind sediment source (Draut and Rubin, 

2006, 2008). However, whereas a river sandbar formed upwind of these sites in the 2008 HFE 

and some aeolian sediment was transported either near or directly to these sites, we recorded an 
186

overall erosion signal during a six-month interval several years later. This leads to the following 

question: 

Is the magnitude of aeolian transport to and deposition at sites from river sand bars 

sufficient to protect archaeological resources? 

Monitoring these four sites will provide evidence that either erosion is progressive or that 

occasional deposition reverses the effects of erosion. It has been hypothesized that infilling of 

incipient gullies by wind-blown sand is a primary mechanism responsible for the general absence 

of large, visible gullies in active aeolian areas of the river corridor. Past monitoring data at two 

sites (AZ:B:10:0225 and AZ:G:03:0072; see Collins and others, in review) has demonstrated that 

large gullies can and do form in active aeolian areas (see also Draut and Rubin, 2006). In 

addition, these data also indicate that the processes responsible for obliterating evidence of these 

gullies may be more complex and less benign than simple infilling by wind-blown sand. For 

example, at one site near Fossil Canyon, previous monitoring documented a fresh, deep, sheerwalled gully that had formed during an intense rainstorm during September 2007. Three years 

later, this gully had been modified from a steep-walled arroyo with a V-shaped cross section, to a 

broader and shallower gully with an open U-shaped cross section. Topographic monitoring 

showed that this transformation involved large scale deposition on the floor of the former arroyo, 

accompanied by bank slumping and horizontal expansion of the gully perimeter (see Appendix 

B, Figure 2). Much of the infilling appeared to be due to slumping of the arroyo side walls rather 

than aeolian infilling, although there was evidence of some aeolian infilling as well. Thus, 

although three years later the gully was shallower and less sharply defined than in 2007, the 

overall effect was a lateral expansion of the gully area accompanied by over one hundred cubic 

meters of net erosion. Over time, it is likely that the gully will eventually disappear from view, 

but the ground surface on either side of the former gully will be considerably lower and will 

result in significant (more than 15cm) of surface deflation, directly impacting the integrity of 

adjacent cultural deposits. Thus, although evidence of erosion may not be visible in future years, 

the cultural site and its associated deposits will have experienced a net loss of surface sediment. 

The monitoring of this site over time will allow us to evaluate whether these predictions are born 

out over time, and if not, what processes intervened to change the trajectory of the site’s 

topographic evolution. The following questions have been framed to encompass these 

hypotheses: 

1. Is the magnitude of aeolian deposition at appropriately situated archaeological sites in 

Grand Canyon sufficient to outpace erosion caused by high-intensity precipitation and 

gullying events?

2. In areas with active aeolian deposition, do sites that are subjected to significant gullying 

(i.e., >30 cm down cutting) undergo net topographic lowering such that archaeological 

resources are impacted?

Additional monitoring at these sites, along with the geomorphological modeling already 

begun and expanded upon in Project Element C should provide a means to quantitatively assess 

the relative components of site change. 
187

Methods 

Topographic Surveys 

Topographic data will be collected using a combination of conventional total station 

mapping and RTK GPS for establishing survey controls and for pin-pointing knick point 

positions within gullies, along with ground-based LiDaR for mapping topography. In addition, 

these data will be accompanied with automated digital photography (taken from the same 

position as the LiDaR scanner.) These complementary data provide both a realistic visual and 

interpolated digital topographic image of the site. 

Ground-based LiDaR provides a remotely-sensed solution for obtaining high resolution, 

highly precise topographic surveys. The ability to measure changes at the sub-decimeter scale is 

necessary to identify topographic subtleties, such as knickpoints and dune deflation, that often 

govern site erosion patterns. Collins and others (2008, 2009, in review) provide details and 

descriptions for the use of this technology in Grand Canyon. 

Ground-based LiDaR surveys will be directed by either GCMRC personnel or by 

cooperating USGS scientists following methods employed and refined in Phase I (Collins and 

others, 2008, 2009, in review). LiDaR data will be manually edited and filtered to produce a 

“bare-earth” terrain model without reflections from vegetation canopy. The terrain models will 

then be compared to existing datasets from each of these sites previously collected between 2006 

and 2010. This will provide a short-term understanding of archaeological site change that will 

inform the geomorphic modeling work proposed under Project Element J.3. 

Site Condition Evaluations 

We also propose to make supplementary observational data at the same sample of sites 

where topographic surveys are performed. These observational data are similar and 

complementary to the protocols presently used by GCNP. The purpose of this effort is to assess 

the differences in site assessment gained by detailed LiDaR measurements and simple qualitative 

assessment techniques. The aspect of the project will be undertaken in cooperation with GCNP 

so as to ensure that the maximum learning opportunity is provided in developing a robust, and 

cost effective long-term monitoring strategy. 

Observed impacts will be evaluated using a combination of binary, ordinal, and numeric 

values. Checklist formats will be employed to focus on documenting changes in archaeological 

and geomorphic attributes (“condition indicators”) that are relevant to specific types and settings 

of sites. Observational monitoring will emphasize condition factors that cannot be detected 

remotely, such as soil crust cover changes and ground-disturbing human impacts such as trailing. 

Although not dam-related, human visitation impacts at archaeological sites can have 

profound effects on site condition. While some human impacts are intentional and 

instantaneously destructive, in National Park settings most visitor impacts are inadvertent, 

incremental and cumulative. However, even unintentional impacts can have profound impacts on 

archaeological site integrity over time. For example, foot paths created by visitors can evolve 

over time into erosion channels, as precipitation induced run-off concentrates and flows along 

the shallow linear depression created by visitors repeatedly walking to and from sites. Likewise, 

trampled zones created by visitors milling about on sites can create compacted soil areas where 

rainfall pools, then overflows down trails, creating a more concentrated flow and more severe 

erosion than would otherwise occur if the soil had not been compacted. Although the full extent 

of human impacts at cultural sites in the CRe has not been systematically analyzed, we know 
188

from the monitoring reports of Native American tribes that visitor impacts are observed at many 

tribally-valued cultural sites. For example, in the 2010 report of the Zuni tribe, Dongoske (2011) 

reports that 34 of 61 monitored sites (56%) exhibited human impacts unrelated to Glen Canyon 

dam. When human impacts are combined with system-wide decreases in sand bar areas and 

aeolian sediment replenishment, as is occurring below Glen Canyon Dam under current dam 

operations, effects to site condition may be more extreme than if human or dam effects were 

occurring separately. For this reason, human impacts to archaeological sites need to be 

monitored and considered along with potential effects of dam operations and climate factors in 

assessing changes to site condition in the CRe. We propose to do this using a combination of 

approaches, including documenting area of disturbed and undisturbed biological crust cover and 

tracking specific geomorphic changes and surface evidence linked to human activities. This work 

will be undertaken in cooperation with the staff of GCNP. Once quantified, we will use site data 

to assess if human-induced site changes are expected to outpace natural causes such as aeolian or 

gully-induced erosion thereby quantifying expected responses at a suite of sites. 

Weather Monitoring 

In conjunction with the site-based topographic monitoring, three existing weather stations 

located adjacent to three of the four sites are proposed for continued monitoring of rainfall and 

wind characteristics. In addition, a fourth station is proposed to be installed near the fourth site 

(AZ B:10:0225) to constrain precipitation characteristics here that has previously led to highintensity gully erosion events and document when wind conditions conducive to aeolian 

transport and deposition occur. A distribution of stations throughout the river corridor will allow 

us to track the range of local weather variability and verify assumptions regarding the amount 

and intensity of rainfall and wind that drives gully erosion and infilling at sites. These data will 

directly drive modeling efforts proposed in Project Element C. The monitored parameters 

include temperature, rainfall intensity and amount, wind speed and direction, barometric pressure 

and humidity. These data will complement similar weather data being collected upstream in Glen 

Canyon and provide a generalized spatial understanding over a majority of the river corridor. 

The details of maintenance and installation of weather stations will be developed in cooperation 

with GCNP. Weather data is also critical to the objectives of Project Element J.3. 

Site Visits to Assess Local Factors Contributing to Site Stability 

In addition to the formally structured monitoring work described above, we are 

considering visiting a non-random sample of additional locations where previous monitoring and 

assessment work has indicated little or no evidence of active erosion. We will use the qualitative 

geomorphic assessments of individual archaeological sites prepared by O’Brien and Pederson 

(2009) to identify sites situated on sandy substrates, in coppice dunes, or in active aeolian areas 

that received an erosion ranking of 1 or 2 (stable or only slightly eroding). The purpose of these 

field visits will be to evaluate and discuss with colleagues the specific conditions that appear to 

contribute to site stability. These field visits will include the researchers involved in Project 

Elements J.2. and J.3. and will include staff of GCNP. 

Logistical Support 

A single river trip will collect the topographic data necessary for archaeological site 

change detection at the four sites. This trip will be coupled with the geomorphic data collection 

proposed in Project Element J.3. to both minimize costs and to ensure sufficient overlap between 

researchers working on different parts of this project. For example, it will be essential that 
189

relevant geomorphic information from Project Element C be integrated with the observations 

made in as a result of the monitoring and change detection proposed here. We proposed to utilize 

existing river trips being conducted for other research purposes for data retrieval and 

maintenance of the weather stations. The effort to collect weather data is not expected to be a 

significant burden on any of these existing trips. 

Research Expectations 

We expect that the monitoring and research proposed herein will make direct 

contributions to understanding changes in archaeological site condition on several fronts. First, 

we will be able to decadal scale trends in topographic change in order to gain confidence in 

tracking the effects of geomorphic processes on site condition. Second, we will quantify the 

processes leading to site change. 

Project Element J.3. Defining the Extent and Relative Importance of Gully Formation and Annealing Processes 

in the Geomorphic Context of the Colorado River Ecosystem ($162,000) 

Amy Draut, Research Geologist, USGS Santa Cruz 

David Bedford, Research Geologist, USGS Menlo Park 

Joel Sankey, Research Physical Scientist, GCMRC 

The balance of forces that cause gully incision in relation to those processes that cause 

gully annealing, or infilling, ultimately determines the eventual extent of erosion into Holocene 

sediment deposits and the archaeological sites associated with those deposits. Thus, a more 

thorough understanding of the interaction between gully incision and annealing processes as they 

operate today in Marble and Grand Canyons is essential for evaluating the extent to which dam 

operations have altered the physical and cultural resources there. Analyzing gully erosion 

processes and the effectiveness of gully amelioration in the modern river corridor is also 

important for evaluating the possible future progression of erosion in sediment deposits above 

the modern high water line and the archaeological sites within and on those deposits. The 

proposed work to be undertaken for Element C is a large-scale, process-based geomorphic study 

that will provide a more complete context for the site-scale processes measured and monitored 

by Elements A and B, and that will build on related previous landscape investigations by 

researchers including Hereford and others (1993), Thompson and others (2000), Pederson and 

others (2006), Collins and others (2009), Draut and others (2008, 2010a), and Draut (2012). The 

work proposed in Element C would be concentrated in reaches encompassing 78 river km in 

Marble and Grand Canyons, though reference would be made to other locations as necessary, 

based on investigators’ past experience working in other areas and on findings from the aerial 

photographic record. The investigators will seek to relate findings there to other areas of the 

Colorado River corridor that have either already been investigated or in which related work will 

be pursued under separate (non-GCDAMP) funding. The goal of this proposed work is to 

develop and refine quantitative and conceptual understanding of gully development and 

annealing in order to evaluate the effectiveness of management actions on a large scale (such as 

controlled flooding) and smaller scale (such as check dams and other site-scale erosion control 

measures) in reducing gully erosion of sediment deposits and associated archaeological sites. 

Gully erosion of alluvial deposits occurs as a result of episodic rainfall forming overland 

flow runoff. Storms in Grand Canyon and the surrounding region occasionally produce 

sufficiently intense rainfall to exceed the infiltration capacity of sand deposits, forming gullies. 

However, a more common occurrence in Marble and Grand Canyons is for rainfall runoff over 
190

nearly impermeable upland bedrock or talus surfaces to form overland flow that concentrates and 

localizes upslope of sand deposits and then incises into the sand deposits. Gullies that erode sand 

deposits in this way can terminate either at the Colorado River or on sedimentary surfaces at 

higher elevation than the river (Hereford and others, 1993). Factors contributing to the formation 

of gullies include the catchment or drainage-basin area, slope, permeability of the substrate in 

and upslope of the sediment deposit, and rainfall intensity. As discussed above, natural processes 

counteracting gully incision would be infilling by large, sediment-rich floods, and windblown 

sand deposition. Infilling by deposition during large floods is consistent with long-standing field 

observations that spatially extensive unconsolidated, fine-sediment deposits in Grand Canyon are 

composed predominantly of flood-deposited material (for example, Lucchitta, 1991; Hereford 

and others, 1996; Draut and others, 2005, 2008; Anderson and Neff, 2011), including those with 

some of the largest and best-studied gully systems (such as Palisades and Arroyo Grande, at RM 

66 and 208, respectively). Using topography from a digital elevation model (DEM), Magirl and 

others (2008) used hydrologic models to demonstrate that a flood of 170,000 ft3

/s, a level last 

attained in spring 1921, would be sufficient to submerge most of the area where alluvial and 

aeolian sediment occurs in the river corridor of Marble and Grand Canyons. A sediment-rich 

flood of this magnitude could fill areas that are presently gullied and would have deposited new 

sediment over widespread areas that have not received substantial fluvial or aeolian sediment 

supply since such a flood last occurred 91 years ago. According to a flood-frequency analysis by 

Topping and others (2003), a flood of such size (170,000 ft3

/s) would have had a recurrence 

interval of ~40 years in the predam hydrograph. Smaller floods on the order of 120,000 ft3/s 

occurred on ~8-year intervals (Topping and others, 2003), and such floods would also have 

backfilled many gullies and created high-elevation sand deposits that would have been reworked 

and redistributed by wind. In a natural, unregulated river environment, during the decades-long 

intervals between the large floods, the flood-deposited sediment would have been reworked by 

wind to form aeolian dunes, would have been colonized by plants and biologic soil crust (see 

conceptual model by Draut, 2012), and would have been incised by gullies during rainfall runoff 

events. 

In the absence of such large, sediment-rich floods in the postdam river, the only 

remaining natural process for gully annealing is infilling by aeolian sand deposition, with 

probably intermittent contribution by slopewash (if runoff events are depositional on occasion 

rather than erosional). Filling of gullies by windblown sand has been observed in localized 

occurrences in Marble and Grand Canyons (for example, Draut and Rubin, 2008; Collins and 

others, in review) and has been called “one of the strongest restorative forces operating at 

[eroding] archaeological sites” (Neal and others, 2000), but it remains unknown exactly how 

effective aeolian deposition is overall today in the Colorado River corridor at counteracting 

erosion of sediment deposits and associated cultural sites. Aeolian deposition may be thought of 

as a “band-aid” hindering gully development, though gully erosion could only be entirely 

stopped (temporarily) by a sediment-rich flood much larger than any postdam flows have been. It 

is presently not known whether the “band-aid” of aeolian sedimentation prevents one tenth of the 

gully erosion that otherwise would occur in Marble–Grand Canyon, or one half, or some other 

proportion, or whether it has no detectable effect on the extent of gully erosion today. 

Determining the large-scale effectiveness of aeolian sediment at counteracting gully 

incision in Grand Canyon National Park, as Element C of this work aims to do, will provide 

critical information concerning the effectiveness of GCDAMP management actions that intend, 

in part, to increase the aeolian sand supply in the Colorado River corridor by releasing controlled 
191

floods from Glen Canyon Dam. Although surveys have documented local instances of flooddeposited sand being reworked by wind and forming aeolian dunes that migrate inland in the 

months following a controlled flood (Draut and others, 2010a), this proposed work will place 

such observations into a larger context by quantifying the effect, if any, that such locally 

observed processes have had on the present state of upland (above the 41,000 ft3/s water line) 

landscapes in various regions of the river corridor. The results of Element C work will inform 

GCDAMP managers as to whether the effectiveness of aeolian sand transport at limiting gullies 

is sufficient to warrant planning future controlled floods such that the timing of greatest sandbar 

extent is maximized during spring, so that the typically dry, windy weather in that season can 

move the most possible sand from fluvial sandbars into upland regions. Such timing of 

controlled flooding occurred in spring 2008 and has been suggested in previous high-flowexperiment planning documents. Another factor to be evaluated concerns defining the duration 

over which sand bars remain sufficiently large to constitute significant sources of sand available 

for wind transport. Fall flood, for example, might create large bars in winter, but such bars must 

still be large in spring if they are to benefit upslope distribution of sand by wind. 

If it is found that aeolian sand activity has, overall, had an essentially negligible effect on 

gully incision and landscape development in the modern river corridor, then the seasonal timing 

of future controlled floods could be determined based solely on other resource needs without 

consideration for upland sediment and cultural resources. If Element C findings support the latter 

situation, then this would imply that site-scale management actions such as checkdam 

construction, rather than increasing aeolian sand availability by controlled flooding to enlarge 

sandbars, would be the most substantial means to counteract erosion-driven loss of 

archaeological cultural material. (This discussion assumes that potential GCDAMP management 

actions would not include enacting a sediment-rich 170,000 ft3

/s flood as a means to fill gullies 

and replenish sand supply in Grand Canyon National Park). 

The proposed work for Element C will combine field-based investigations, analysis of 

historical aerial photographs, and geomorphic modeling to quantify the extent of aeolian 

sediment activity in the river corridor and its effectiveness at counteracting gully incision in 

upland sediment deposits. Part C investigations will address the following three research 

problems in FY13-14: 

Research Question 1: How does the relative abundance of active and inactive aeolian 

sediment vary in different regions of the Colorado River corridor? 

Hypothesis: The proportion of active aeolian sand will be less in wide reaches of the river 

corridor and greater in narrower reaches of the river corridor. 

 As a first step in determining the effectiveness of aeolian sand transport at annealing 

gullies that erode sediment deposits and archaeological sites, it is necessary to identify the extent 

of active, mobile aeolian sand in the river corridor. It is likely that there is spatial variation 

within Marble–Grand Canyon in the role that aeolian sand plays in gully development and 

cultural-site erosion, but the spatial prevalence (or lack) of these process has never been 

thoroughly defined. “Active” aeolian sedimentary deposits and landscapes are defined as those 

having evidence for contemporary sand transport: wind-rippled surfaces and, locally, dune 

slipfaces at the angle of repose (Lancaster, 1994). Previous work has shown that in the highly 

flow-regulated and sediment-supply limited environment downstream of Glen Canyon Dam, the 

proportion of active, mobile aeolian sand is substantially lower (by a factor of 5) than in the 
192

much less regulated river corridor upstream of the dam in Cataract Canyon, Utah (Draut, 2012). 

This difference is attributed to the greater availability of sand from fluvial sandbars to act as a 

windblown sand supply in Cataract Canyon (Thompson and others, 2000; Draut, 2012). This 

finding was based upon a study reach in lower Marble Canyon (Eminence–LCR, RM 44–61) 

chosen specifically for comparison with geometrically and geomorphically similar Cataract 

Canyon. Because the spatially extensive environment of Grand Canyon includes a diverse range 

of river-corridor morphology (controlled by bedrock lithology and faulting), it is likely that the 

proportion of active and inactive aeolian sand, and therefore the potential for aeolian sand to 

mitigate erosion at cultural sites, varies considerably in different regions of the canyon system. 

The hypothesis above was developed based on the possibility that modern aeolian sand 

activity may be a function of river-corridor width. Wide reaches commonly contain areally 

extensive predam fluvial sediment deposits that have not received new sediment supply in 

postdam time; aeolian dunes that depended on those predam flood deposits as a sediment source 

therefore also have not received substantial new sediment postdam. The last flood large enough 

to replenish sand deposits substantially in wide reaches of the river corridor occurred in 1921, as 

discussed above. Places of former (predam) sediment deposition that are sediment-starved in the 

modern, dammed era tend to develop extensive biologic soil crust cover and to have little aeolian 

sand transport, comprising sand deposits that are inactive (with respect to wind transport of 

sediment). Therefore, the prevalence of ample accommodation space in wide reaches that 

formerly were loci of major predam flood deposition now may have led to an especially high 

proportion of inactive aeolian sediment there. Identifying spatial variation in active vs. inactive 

aeolian landscapes is important because of the connection between aeolian sand activity and 

annealing of small gullies, and also because the concentration of archaeological sites is greatest 

in wide reaches of the river corridor (Fairley and others, 1994; O’Brien and Pederson, 2009a). If 

inactive aeolian landscapes are most common in reaches of the river corridor where the 

archaeological record is also densest, then this could mean that the ability of aeolian sand 

transport to fill gullies and reduce erosion risk is least effective in those regions of the river 

corridor where the cultural record could most benefit from gully annealing and is at the greatest 

risk of loss by gully erosion. 

To address this hypothesis, we propose to map active and inactive aeolian sand area in 

targeted reaches of the Colorado River corridor with variable width, and to analyze the relative 

proportions of active and inactive sand by delineating their boundaries using ArcGIS. The river 

corridor in the Eminence–LCR reach, in which active and inactive aeolian sand have already 

been mapped, has a ratio of the river at predam flood stage vs. 8000 cfs of 2.1 to 2.3. The 

proportion of active aeolian sand in that reach is 13.0% (Draut, 2012). Doing similar mapping in 

other reaches would likely yield different results and thus would be very informative for 

analyzing the availability of active aeolian sand that could counteract gully incision in various 

regions of the river corridor. We hypothesize that in a wide reach (such as Furnace Flats, RM 

66–72, where the flood:nonflood width is as great as 6 or even 7), the proportion of active sand 

would be less than in the Eminence-LCR reach. It will be valuable also to analyze narrower 

reaches such as a portion of Upper Granite Gorge where the flood:nonflood river width is less, 

between 1 and 2 (RM 87–99), and a reach with width similar to Eminence-LCR (ratio of 2.1 to 

2.3) but in the western canyon where, farther below the dam, there is more sediment 

(Stevens/Conquistador Aisles, RM 116–130). It would also be valuable to map active and 

inactive sand area in Granite Park (RM 207–210), an additional wide reach (flood:nonflood 

width ratio approaching 6) in the western canyon, if permitted by NPS and the Hualapai Tribe. 
193

Although this reach-based approach covers a total of slightly more than one third of the rivercorridor length in Grand Canyon National Park and not its entirety, evaluating how aeolian sand 

activity varies with river-corridor width could lead to the ability to characterize other regions’ 

susceptibility to aeolian-sand influence on gully incision without the need to map at the same 

level of detail as in the study reaches. The proposed study reaches also focus on the areas of the 

canyon with the densest concentration of archaeological sites (Fairley and others, 1994; O’Brien 

and Pederson, 2009), in order to maximize the utility of the research results for application to 

cultural-resource preservation. 

Mapping will be conducted by identifying in the field aeolian sand-deposit area in each of 

the proposed reaches and mapping active and inactive aeolian sand by drawing active-sand 

boundaries on a set of printed aerial photographs using the high-resolution 2009 imagery. This 

involves making short stops at every place in each reach where aeolian sand is present. (It 

became clear during the 2011 field work that field checking is necessary and that aeolian sand 

activity cannot be determined merely by identifying the lightest-colored sand areas on aerial 

photographs without field verification; areas of light colored gravel commonly look identical to 

active aeolian sand deposits on aerial photographs.) After the field work is complete, areas of 

active and inactive sand identified on the photographs will be digitized as polygons in ArcGIS 

and their area and relative proportions analyzed. In all of these study reaches, the GIS coverages 

of archaeological site localities would be compared with the spatial occurrence of active and 

inactive aeolian sand, as a means to more thoroughly assess the potential for aeolian sand activity 

to directly affect each cultural site (building on previous work by, e.g., O’Brien and Pederson, 

2009a and Collins and others, 2009). 

Research Question 2: How does the degree of gully incision differ in sediment deposits that 

are active vs. inactive (with respect to aeolian sand transport)? 

Hypothesis: Gullies will be larger and longer-lived in inactive aeolian sand deposits than in 

active aeolian sand deposits. 

In the absence of large floods in postdam Marble and Grand Canyons, the geomorphic 

process most able to counteract the effects of gully incision and potentially reduce erosional 

damage to cultural sites is that of aeolian sand transport that can partially or entirely fill small 

gullies (on the order of tens of centimeters). This process has been observed in several instances 

in the modern river corridor, operating on time scales of months (e.g., Thompson and others, 

2000; Draut and Rubin, 2008). Aeolian inflation of the land surface near one archaeological site 

was measured by Collins and others (2009) over a time span of just under a year. The individual, 

short-term occurrences of aeolian deposition counteracting erosion that these examples 

illustrated, however, has not yet been expanded into a landscape-scale evaluation of how 

prevalent gully-annealing aeolian processes are over longer recent time scales (years to decades) 

within Marble and Grand Canyons. 

Observations indicate that extensive evidence of gully incision is much more prevalent in 

sediment deposits with surfaces containing well developed biologic soil crust rather than active 

aeolian sand. Well-developed biologic crust and aeolian sand activity are essentially mutually 

exclusive, with evidence for contemporary sand transport (Lancaster, 1994) generally not 

observed on sand surfaces where biologic crust cover exceeds ~20% of the ground area (Draut, 

2012). It is also known that biologic soil crust not only limits aeolian sand activity (by armoring 

surface sediment; Belnap and Lange, 2003) but also that biologic crust can affects the potential 
194

for gullying because of its influence on soil infiltration capacity. Therefore, it is likely that the 

extent of gully incision differs in active and inactive sedimentary landscapes. However, no 

systematic survey has yet been made of gully extent in active vs. inactive sediment deposits. If it 

is found that gullies are larger, deeper, and longer-lived in areas without substantial aeolian sand 

activity, this would support the supposition made by previous researchers that aeolian sand 

transport is an effective process counteracting gully incision and cultural-site erosion in the 

postdam Colorado River ecosystem. It is also important to discover whether or not there are 

examples in the available temporal record of gully networks entirely annealing by windblown 

dune activity, which would indicate that there can be larger spatial scale or longer temporal-scale 

healing of gullies by aeolian sand in addition to the lesser spatial and temporal scales on which 

these processes have already been documented in the field. 

To address this second research question, we propose to map gully extent (position and 

depth) in the field, using the same targeted reaches identified under Question 1 above. Field 

mapping will be conducted using aerial photographs and supplemented by RTK GPS 

measurement to assure positional accuracy. Gully extent has already been mapped for much of 

the Furnace Flats reach and will be entered into ArcGIS in summer 2012. During that fieldwork 

(April 2012), it was observed that no part of the several hundred meters of mapped gully length 

incised into active aeolian sediment. With the exception of one gully segment ~5 m long that was 

partially filled by an active aeolian dune along one side of the gully, all of the gully extent 

observed in Furnace Flats (RM 65–71) to date affected sediment deposits that were inactive with 

respect to aeolian sand transport. The remainder of the study reaches proposed here have not yet 

been assessed. We propose to conduct those measurements by the use of one river trip, in 

combination with the work described above for Element B. It would not be necessary to use a 

motorized river trip, nor (for Element C) to use any equipment that would remain in the field 

after the river trip. 

The above field-based approach targets spatial variation in gully extent in the modern 

river corridor. This research question will also be addressed by examination (led by Dr. Joel 

Sankey) of temporal changes in gully extent using historical aerial photographs and other 

remote-sensing information from the GCMRC library archives. The goal of this effort is to 

examine links, if any, between the site-scale examples known of aeolian sand annealing gullies 

and the impact that such processes may effect on the larger landscape over annual to decadal 

time scales. Although the resolution and exposure of early photographs (particularly from the 

1960s and earlier) limit the quantitative information that can be gleaned regarding the condition 

of sediment deposits, and although care must be taken regarding the potential for study bias. 

More-recent photographs have much greater resolution than earlier photographs (which allow the 

number and size of gullies to be identified more easily and in greater detail in later photographs), 

but older air photos may nevertheless provide some valuable temporal information about 

possible changes in gully extent over the past several decades. 

Remote sensing methods such as aerial photography and topographic surface 

interpretation provide useful tools for quantifying changes in formation and development of 

gullies and interactions with other erosion and deposition processes (Vrieling, 2006; Marzolff 

and Poesen, 2009; Shruthi and others, 2011). For example, multispectral imagery has been used 

to identify important evidence of geomorphic change associated with interactions of aeolianfluvial processes in desert regions, such as the encroachment of aeolian dunes into gullies (Farraj 

and Harvey, 2004). Time series of digital imagery, often in conjunction with digital terrain 

models, are used to monitor gully erosion processes like head cutting, collapse of sidewalls, and 
195

erosion of the gully floor (Aber and others, 2010). DEMs derived from remotely sensed imagery 

and data sources are particularly useful for geomorphic change detection through the 

construction of DEMs of difference (Wheaton and others, 2010; James and others, 2012). A 

limitation to this DEM-based approach for geomorphic change detection in Marble and Grand 

Canyons is that the available GCMRC data archive currently consists of digital surface models 

for the time frame of 2002 to present, but not earlier. Moreover, remote sensing detection and 

measurement of many gullies is also likely limited by the photogrammetric accuracy of the data 

relative to gully features that often only vary in horizontal and vertical extent on the order of 10s 

of centimeters. Nonetheless, contemporary larger gullies in Marble and Grand Canyons with 

width and depth on the order of 1s to 10s of meters have been identified and mapped in the field 

(for example, Hereford and others, 1993, 1996; Thompson and others, 2000; Pederson and 

others, 2006; Collins and others, 2009 in addition to Draut, observations in Furnace Flats from 

2012 mentioned above). The presence of gullies of this size can be visually identified in the 

range of historical image data types available from the GCMRC archives. 

We propose to identify large gullies in the historical imagery and then work progressively 

forward in time in the remote-sensing record to identify any evidence of sediment deposition or 

complete infill by aeolian processes. While the analysis will use a presence/absence approach to 

quantifying changes to gullies that are proximal to aeolian sediment sources over time, change 

analysis will also attempt to detect decreases in 2D area of gullies over time (Aber and others, 

2010). A benefit of this approach to historical image analysis (looking for decrease, rather than 

increase in gully presence and extent) is that it potentially alleviates a bias problem of better 

image quality of modern relative to historical data. Evidence, or lack thereof, of decrease in the 

presence of historically identifiable gullies, decreases in gully 2D area, over the 127 river km of 

the proposed study reaches will directly address the question of whether there are places in 

Marble and Grand Canyons where aeolian sediment activity identifiably prevents or limits gully 

incision of river-corridor sediment deposits over larger spatial scales, and potentially longer 

temporal scales, than has already been observed in isolated cases in the field. Knowing whether 

such cases exist in the decadal-scale remote-sensing record will be highly informative in 

answering the question of whether the site-scale aeolian infilling processes already observed and 

measured in the field may extend over large enough spatial and temporal scales to provide 

substantial erosion prevention to cultural sites in the postdam river corridor. 

Research Question 3: To what extent does aeolian sediment transport counteract gully 

erosion in Marble and Grand Canyon? 

Hypothesis: Aeolian sediment substantially limits gully incision of river-corridor sediment 

deposits in Marble–Grand Canyon such that the modeled extent of gully development will be 

greater than the actual extent. 

This third research question is similar to the second but utilizes a modeling approach to 

evaluate potential vs. actual gully development in the proposed study reaches of the river 

corridor. Addressing this question will allow the entire research project to move from site-scale 

observations of gullies being annealed by aeolian sand (previous work and Element B of this 

proposal), through larger-scale field and remote-sensing observations of gully prevalence and 

annealing in active vs. inactive aeolian landscapes (Questions 1 and 2 of Element C), to a 

process-based evaluation of the effectiveness of aeolian sand at annealing gullies in the postdam 

environment of Marble and Grand Canyons. To refer back to the “band-aid” analogy given in the 
196

introduction to Element C, this modeling investigation will provide insight into how extensively 

aeolian sediment movement prevents gully incision that would otherwise additionally erode 

sediment deposits and archaeological sites. 

A suite of physically-based erosion modeling approaches can be used to better understand 

processes driving archaeological site stability. We will use two complementary approaches to 

modeling to better understand gully dynamics. We intend to extend existing modeling work 

begun by D. Bedford in FY12 to better understand generation of runoff and subsequent erosion. 

We also propose to implement a landscape evolution model to test some of the hypotheses of 

gully formation, expansion, and healing. 

Detailed modeling already underway (FY12) is aimed at determining rainfall intensity 

thresholds and quantifying runoff and erosion source areas for areas around specific cultural sites 

where high-resolution topography exists. This modeling, at a site-specific level, can also be 

generalized towards more simple assessments of the kinds of sites that are susceptible to erosion. 

It is anticipated that some of this modeling, at lower resolution, will likely be necessary in order 

to define criteria for assessing vulnerability to site erosion. 

Landscape evolution models (LEMs) can be used to better understand processes that 

sculpt the land. In cases where much is known about landscape processes and either initial, 

transient, or resulting conditions can be determined, LEMs can make significant contributions to 

understanding landscape change (Tucker, 2009). One of the benefit of using a LEM is that they 

can inform on changes both in hypothetical landscapes and real landscapes, but allow initial or 

input conditions to be changed to understand effects of different scenarios. 

We intend on implementing a LEM to better understand gully dynamics in the postdam 

environment of Marble and Grand Canyons. We will likely implement one of three LEMs that 

have previously been used to model gully systems. The CHILD LEM (Tucker and others, 2001) 

has a long history of use and has been used to model gully systems (Istanbulluoglu and others, 

2005). Two other similar models, SIBERIA and CAESAR have been used in gully environments 

and over shorter time frames appropriate for changes to sites along the CRE (Hancock and 

others, 2000, 2010, 2011). While each of these models has the potential to inform on changes 

affecting sediment deposits and associated archaeological sites, only initial implementations of 

the models will make clear which is the most effective model. We intend to use the LEM to test 

the formation of gullies and the effects of geomorphic processes that may exacerbate or 

counteract gully expansion. We will do this by modifying landscape evolution trajectories under 

various hypothesized drivers of gully incision. Under this method, we assume that gullies will 

form as long as there is readily mobile sediment under high-intensity rainfall. Using the 2002 

digital elevation and digital surface models with 1-m resolution (available from GCMRC), we 

will use these robust modeling capabilities to identify places within each of the proposed study 

reaches where gullies would be expected to form (and to what extent), and then will compare the 

model results with the current real state of those anticipated gullies. By comparing the predicted 

(modeled) state of gully development with the actual gully extent, we will then evaluate whether 

landscape processes evidently explain any differences between modeled and real conditions—are 

there places in the Colorado River corridor where robust models predict gully development is 

now not evident, but where active aeolian dunes exist instead? If so, how extensive and how 

common are such examples? If modeling results are highly consistent with the actual sites and 

extent of gully presence today, and if thus no locations can be identified where aeolian dunes 

occur in place of model-predicted gullies, then this would support the notion that aeolian sand 

activity has not substantially inhibited gully development in the study reaches over a large spatial 
197

scale and on the 90-year time scale over which these sediment deposits have gone without major 

sediment resupply, even though (from prior observations and to be explored further in Element B 

of this proposed work) aeolian sand may temporarily anneal small gullies or portions of gullies 

on smaller spatial and temporal scales. 

Further modeling applications include the ability to simulate trajectories where gullies are 

allowed to form in the LEM but are periodically backfilled by flood or aeolian sand. Finally, we 

can test the "base level" hypotheses of Hereford and others (1993) by simulating gully formation 

and propagation on terraces with raised base level (i.e., those that would be replenished by 

periodic large flooding in an unregulated flow regime) but driven by 20th century climate, and 

then simulate observed low base level, also with 20th century climate. Such modeling 

investigations could provide new insights on the role of flood sediment deposition on base level 

of channels, thus evaluating some of the concepts proposed by Hereford and others (1993). 

Ultimately these model exercises can be used to guide the adoption or elimination of gully 

development hypotheses, move toward a better understanding of the conditions driving gully 

formation, and help lead investigators to locations on the actual landscape that warrant further 

study. 

We propose the above work as steps to be undertaken in FY13/14, from which further 

work could expand in subsequent years. Based upon the results obtained in the phases of work 

outlined above, additional work could expand upon these concepts for a further 3–5 years (or 

longer), to more fully analyze the question of whether sedimentary landscapes and associated 

archaeological sites are eroding more rapidly, and/or under different processes, in the modern 

postdam river corridor compared with a predam or unregulated environment (assuming 

comparable climatic conditions). Informative further work in subsequent phases of the study 

could include an investigation of short-term vs. long-term erosion rates, whereby short-term 

erosion rates quantified by Collins and others (2009, and proposed for additional study in 

Element B) would be compared to longer-term, decadal or centennial-scale erosion rates of 

sediment deposits in the river corridor. This might be conducted through the use of radionuclide 

or optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) studies in a vertical section of sediment exposed in a 

large gully or arroyo (e.g., building on work by Rittenour, 2008). It could also be possible to 

build on anticipated results of the modeling component outlined under Question 3 above, to 

identify places where gullies are predicted to occur but are currently absent. If such places were 

identified, it might be worthwhile to propose targeted trenching of sediment deposits to look for 

paleogullies that were infilled by sediment, and to examine any such areas for sedimentary 

structures consistent with aeolian deposition. Because such work would require more invasive 

techniques, such as disturbing sediment deposits and collecting samples for laboratory analysis 

that would need more involved permitting, we would propose such work only if the results of the 

currently proposed study indicated that such work could be especially informative to the research 

questions. The work as currently conceived for Element C would not require motorized river 

transportation, would not require leaving any equipment deployed in the field unattended, and 

would not require collection of any samples. 

4.2 Personnel and Collaboration 

This project builds upon several past research efforts, including the previous work of 

Draut and Rubin (2006, 2008), Draut and others (2005, 2009a, 2009b, 2010a, b), Draut (2012), 

Pederson and others (2003, 2006) O’Brien and Pederson (2009a. 2009b.), Damp and others 

(2007), Fairley and others (2007; Fairley and Sondossi 2010) and Collins and others, (2008, 
198

2009, in review). Specifically, it builds upon the work of Draut and others by extending the 

weather monitoring record and measurements of aeolian sand transport at selected locations in 

the CRe and examines the role that changes in aeolian sediment distribution may play in 

affecting stability of cultural sites over time. It also expands information on gully erosion rates 

initiated by Utah State University (USU) in FY2001–02 and continued in FY2006–07, and it 

expands on the geomorphic baseline data set collected for the 151 site treatment plan (Damp and 

others, 2007). In addition, it directly builds upon the Phase I work of the Cultural Monitoring 

Research and Development Project by applying the knowledge gained through that effort 

(Collins and others, 2008, 2009, in review; Draut and others 2009a, 2009b, 2010b; O’Brien and 

Pederson 2009a, 2009b) to track and quantify dam-related changes occurring at cultural sites 

throughout the CRe. 

This study complements Grand Canyon National Park’s CRMP monitoring program. 

Monitoring protocols for assessing impacts of human visitation at archaeological sites are being 

developed independently by GRCA staff to serve the monitoring needs of the Park Service for 

evaluating effects of visitation at cultural sites. The quantitative approaches for monitoring 

change in archaeological site condition developed through the previous cultural monitoring R&D 

effort and proposed for implementation now on a pilot basis will supplement and enhance the 

qualitative, observational monitoring protocols and data being developed by NPS for CRMP 

compliance. 

Other ongoing GCMRC monitoring projects that have benefited or could potentially 

benefit from the work being undertaken includes: 

 Integrated flow, temperature, and sediment modeling project (temperature data from the 

weather stations) (Project B: Streamflow, Water Quality, and Sediment Transport in the 

Colorado River Ecosystem) 

 Vegetation monitoring program (the full suite of weather data could be useful for 

interpreting observed changes in vegetation) (Project I: Riparian Studies: Response 

Guilds as a Monitoring Approach, and Describing the Effects of Tamarisk Defoliation on 

the Riparian Community Downstream of Glen Canyon Dam) 

 Sediment modeling and monitoring projects (by providing measured data on volumes of 

sediment removed during storm events of documented intensity) (Project A: Sandbars 

and Sediment Storage Dynamics: Long-term Monitoring and Research at the Site, Reach, 

and Ecosystem Scales) 

4.3 Logistics 

One five-day motor-supported trip each year, plus several day trips by motor boat will be 

needed to support Element A. In addition, one low altitude helicopter mission will be required to 

collect airborne LiDaR data in FY2013. One 13-day river trip will be required each year to 

support Element B; these trips will also support Element C. In addition, one or more researchers 

will accompany other GCMRC trips to maintain weather stations and collect additional field 

measurements. 

4.4 Deliverables 

 Trips reports will be prepared after each field episode to fulfill NPS permit requirements. 
199

 Weather data will be served annually via GCMRC’s website. A USGS Data Series 

Report describing the technical aspects of the weather monitoring project will be 

prepared in FY2013. 

 An interim Open File report summarizing progress on development of a geomorphic 

model will be published in FY2013. A final Scientific Investigations report or USGS 

Professional Paper documenting the modeling effort will be prepared in FY2015. 

 

 An interim Open-File Report will be completed in FY2015, summarizing the results of 

the first two years of the pilot monitoring project. A comprehensive report analyzing the 

results of the pilot monitoring project will be prepared at the conclusion of the pilot 

monitoring study (FY16-17). 

 Journal articles will be prepared in FY15 covering one or more of the following 

components of this project: results of aerial imagery analysis, airborne LiDaR as a 

landscape scale change detection tool for assessing impacts to cultural sites; use of 

historical analog imagery for detecting changes in pre and post-dam gully erosion 

patterns; the results of the active vs. inactive mapping and site condition analysis. 

 Results will be presented at TWG and AMWG meetings as appropriate, as well as at 

major national scientific meetings such as the American Geophysical Union, to ensure 

that the findings from this significant research endeavor are shared with the scientific 

research community and may inform other, related river- and environmental-management 

programs. 

5. Productivity from Past Work 

5.1. Data Products 

During FY11/12, the following data sets were compiled, checked for accuracy, and delivered to 

the GCMRC Data Base Manager for posting on the GCMRC website: 

1. 4-minute data from 11 weather stations spanning calendar years 2007-2010 for 

precipitation rate, precipitation volume, wind speed, wind direction, temperature, 

humidity, and barometric pressure. 

2. Sand transport data from 12 sand traps through calendar year 2010. 

3. Compiled weather data from 32 regional weather stations spanning the period 1893-2008. 

5.2. Publications in progress 

Collins, B.D., Corbett, S., Fairley, H., Minasian, D., Dealy, T.P., and Kayen, R., in review. 

Topographic Change Detection at Select Archeological Sites in Grand Canyon National Park, 

Arizona, 2007-2010: U.S. Geological Survey, Scientific Investigations Report 2012-XXXX, 

150pg; (http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2012/XXXX/). 

Dealy, T., Draut, A and Fairley, H., in prep., 2010 Weather and aeolian sand-transport data from 

the Colorado River corridor, Grand Canyon, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 2012-XXXX, [http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2012/XXXX/] 
200

Draut, A., in press, Effects of river regulation on aeolian landscapes, Colorado River, 

southwestern USA: Journal of Geophysical Research – Earth Surface, in press, manuscript 

#2011JF002329. 

Hereford, R., Bennett, G.E., and Fairley, H.C., in revision, Precipitation Variability of the Grand 

Canyon Region, 1893 to 2009, and Its Effects on Gullying of Holocene Terraces and 

Associated Archaeological Sites in Grand Canyon: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

2012-XXXX 

Sondossi, H.A. and Fairley, H.C., in revision, An Analysis of Potential for Glen Canyon Dam 

Releases to Inundate 242 Cultural Sites in Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 2012-XXXX 

Vance, M.M., and Smiley, F.E., 2011. Landforms, Inundation and Archaeological Sites: Data 

Exploration and Sample Selection for a Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center Pilot 

Monitoring Project in the Colorado River Corridor. Northern Arizona University 

Archaeological Report No. 1337, Flagstaff, Ariz. 26 p., with database. 

5.3. Presentations at professional meetings 

Collins, B., Corbett, S., and Fairley, H, 2012, Measuring and modeling high-resolution 

topographic change at archaeological sites in Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona, U.S.A. 

Poster presented at European Geophysical Union General Assembly, Session GM2.1, High 

definition topography: data acquisition, modeling, interpretation. Vienna, Austria, April 27, 

2012. 

Collins, B.D., 2008, Terrestrial Lidar Topographic Change Monitoring At Archaeological Sites 

Along The Colorado River Corridor Of Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona, 2008 

Colorado River Science Symposium, Phoenix, Arizona, November 2008. 

Collins, B.D., 2008, Topographic Change Detection Monitoring Using Terrestrial Lidar at 

Archaeological Sites in the Colorado River Corridor of Grand Canyon National Park, 

Arizona, Eos Trans. AGU, 89(53), Fall Meet. Suppl., Ground-Based Geodetic Techniques 

and Science Applications I, Abstract No. G52A-04. 

Corbett, S. and Collins, B.D., 2011. Evaluating the use of empirical error analysis on terrestrial 

lidar data for geomorphic change detection, presented at 2011 Fall Meeting, AGU, San 

Francisco, Calif., Abstract EP51E-07. 

Draut, A.E., Collins, B.D., Fairley, H.C., and Rubin, D.M., 2009, Postdam evolution of aeolian 

landscapes in the Colorado River corridor through Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona, 

USA: EOS, Transactions of American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting Supp., EP21A-0571. 

Fairley, H., Collins, B., and Draut, A., 2011, Use of Terrestrial Lidar for Monitoring 

Archaeological Sites in Grand Canyon, Arizona. Oral presentation at the 76th Annual 

Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Sacramento, California, April 3, 2011. 

5.4. Productivity prior to 2011 

Collins, B.D., Brown, K.B., and Fairley, H., 2008. Evaluation of Terrestrial LIDAR for 

Monitoring Geomorphic Change at Archaeological Sites in Grand Canyon National Park, 

Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey, Open File Report 2008-1384, 60 p. 

[http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1384/]. 

Collins, B.D. and Kayen, R., 2006. Applicability of Terrestrial LIDAR Scanning for Scientific 

Studies in Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona, U.S. Geological Survey, Open File Report 

2006-1198, 27p, Menlo Park, California, [http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1198/]. 
201

Collins, B.D., Minasian, D., and Kayen, R., 2009. Topographic Change Detection at Select 

Archaeological Sites in Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona, 2006-2007: U.S. Geological 

Survey, Scientific Investigations Report 2009-5116, 97p. 

[http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2009/5116/]. 

Draut, A.E., Andrews, T., Fairley, H.C., and Brown, C.R., 2009a, 2007 Weather and aeolian 

sand-transport data from the Colorado River corridor, Grand Canyon, Arizona: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 2009-1098, 110 p. [http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1098/]. 

Draut, A.E., Sondossi, H.A., Hazel, J.E., Jr.,, Andrews, T., Fairley, H.C., Brown, C.R., and 

Vanaman, K.M., 2009b, 2008 Weather and aeolian sand-transport data from the Colorado 

River corridor, Grand Canyon, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2009-

1190, 98 p., accessed on August 23, 2010, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1190/. 

Draut, A.E., Hazel, J.E., Jr., Fairley, H.C., and Brown, C.R., 2010, Aeolian reworking of 

sandbars from the March 2008 Glen Canyon Dam high-flow experiment in Grand Canyon, in 

Melis, T.S., Hamill, J.F., Bennett, G.E., Coggins, L.G., Jr., Grams, P.E., Kennedy, T.A., 

Kubly, D.M., and Ralston, B.E., eds., Proceedings of the Colorado River Basin Science and 

Resource Management Symposium, November 18-20, 2008, Scottsdale, Arizona: U.S. 

Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5135, 325-331 p., accessed on July 

15, 2010, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5135/. 

Draut, A.E., Sondossi, H.A., Dealy, T.P., Hazel, J.E., Jr., Fairley, H.C., and Brown, C.R., 2010, 

2009 weather and aeolian sand-transport data from the Colorado River corridor, Grand 

Canyon, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010-1166, 98 p. 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1166/. 

Fairley, H.C., and Sondossi, H., 2010, Applying an ecosystem framework to evaluate 

archaeological site condition along the Colorado River in Grand Canyon National Park, 

Arizona, in Melis, T.S., Hamill, J.F., Bennett, G.E., Coggins, L.G., Jr., Grams, P.E., 

Kennedy, T.A., Kubly, D.M., and Ralston, B.E., eds., Proceedings of the Colorado River 

Basin Science and Resource Management Symposium, November 18-20, 2008, Scottsdale, 

Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5135, 333-341 p., 

accessed on July 15, 2010, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5135/. 

6. References 

Aber, JS, Marzolff, I, Ries, JB, 2010, Ch. 13 Gully Erosion Monitoring, in Small Format Aerial 

Photography. Elsevier 257p. 

Anderson, K., and T. Neff (2011), Geomorphic interpretation of Pueblo II to Early Pueblo III 

(A.D. 1050–1170) period settlement patterns along the Colorado River in Grand Canyon, 

Arizona, Catena, 85, 168–186. 

Barber, D., Ross, M., Dallas, W.A., and Mills, J.P., 2006, Laser Scanning for Architectural 

Documentation. Journal of Architectural Conservation v. 12, no. 1, pp. 35-52. 

Barnett, T., Chalmers, A, Diaz-Andreau, M., Ellis, G., Longhurst, P., Sharpe,K and Trinks,I., 

2005. 3D Laser Scanning for Recording and Monitoring Rock Art Erosion. International 

Newsletter on Rock Art, v. 41, 25-29 p. 

Bedford, D.R., 2008, Effects of Vegetation-related Soil Heterogeneity on Runoff, Infiltration, 

and Redistribution in Semi-arid Shrubland and Grassland Landscapes: Boulder, University of 

Colorado, PhD Dissertation, 178 p. 

Belnap, J., and O. L. Lange, eds. (2003), Biological soil crusts—structure, function, and 

management (Ecological Studies series, v. 150), Springer-Verlag, Berlin. 
202

Collins, B.D., Brown, K.B., and Fairley, H., 2008. Evaluation of Terrestrial LIDAR for 

Monitoring Geomorphic Change at Archaeological Sites in Grand Canyon National Park, 

Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey, Open File Report 2008-1384, 60 p. 

[http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1384/]. 

Collins, B.D. and Kayen, R., 2006. Applicability of Terrestrial LIDAR Scanning for Scientific 

Studies in Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona, U.S. Geological Survey, Open File Report 

2006-1198, 27p, Menlo Park, California, [http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1198/]. 

Collins, B.D., Minasian, D., and Kayen, R., 2009. Topographic Change Detection at Select 

Archaeological Sites in Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona, 2006-2007: U.S. Geological 

Survey, Scientific Investigations Report 2009-5116, 97p. 

[http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2009/5116/]. 

Collins, B.D., Corbett, S., Fairley, H., Minasian, D., Dealy, T.P., and Kayen, R., in review. 

Topographic Change Detection at Select Archeological Sites in Grand Canyon National Park, 

Arizona, 2007-2010: U.S. Geological Survey, Scientific Investigations Report 2012-XXXX, 

150pg; (http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2012/XXXX/). 

Doelle, W. H., editor, 2000. Final Report: Cultural Resource Program Assessment. Ms. on file, 

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, Flagstaff, Ariz. 

Dongoske, Kurt E., 2011, Pueblo of Zuni 2010 Cultural Resource Monitoring of the Colorado 

River Ecosystem through Grand Canyon. Unpublished administrative report prepared for the 

Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Regional Office, Salt Lake City, Utah in partial 

fulfillment of Contract R10PC40022. Report dated August, 2011, 

Draut, A.E., 2012, Effects of river regulation on aeolian landscapes, Colorado River, 

southwestern USA: Journal of Geophysical Research – Earth Surface, v. 117, manuscript 

#2011JF002329. 

Draut, A.E., Andrews, T., Fairley, H.C., and Brown, C.R., 2009a, 2007 Weather and aeolian 

sand-transport data from the Colorado River corridor, Grand Canyon, Arizona: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 2009-1098, 110 p. [http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1098/]. 

Draut, A.E., Hazel, J.E., Jr., Fairley, H.C., and Brown, C.R., 2010, Aeolian reworking of 

sandbars from the March 2008 Glen Canyon Dam high-flow experiment in Grand Canyon, in 

Melis, T.S., Hamill, J.F., Bennett, G.E., Coggins, L.G., Jr., Grams, P.E., Kennedy, T.A., 

Kubly, D.M., and Ralston, B.E., eds., Proceedings of the Colorado River Basin Science and 

Resource Management Symposium, November 18-20, 2008, Scottsdale, Arizona: U.S. 

Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5135, 325-331 p., accessed on July 

15, 2010, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5135/. 

Draut, A.E., and Rubin, D.M., 2005, Measurements of wind, aeolian sand transport, and 

precipitation in the Colorado River corridor, Grand Canyon, Arizona—November 2003 to 

December 2004: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2005-1309. 

Draut, A.E., and Rubin, D.M., 2006, Measurements of wind, aeolian sand transport, and 

precipitation in the Colorado River corridor, Grand Canyon, Arizona—January 2005 to 

January 2006: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2006-1188, 88 p. [URL 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1188/]. 

Draut, Amy E., and Rubin, David M. 2008, The role of eolian sediment in the preservation of 

archeologic sites along the Colorado River corridor in Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona: 

U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1756, 71 p. [http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/1756]. 

Draut, A.E., Rubin, D.M., Dierker, J.L., Fairley, H.C., Griffiths, R.E., Hazel, J.E., Jr., Hunter, 

R.E., Kohl, K., Leap, L.M., Nials, F.L., Topping, D.J., and Yeatts, M., 2005, Sedimentology 
203

and stratigraphy of the Palisades, Lower Comanche, and Arroyo Grande areas of the 

Colorado River corridor, Grand Canyon, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2005-5072, 68 p. 

Draut, A. E., Rubin, D. M., Dierker, J. L., Fairley, H. C., Griffiths, R. E., Hazel, J. E. Jr., Hunter, 

R. E., Kohl, K., Leap, L. M., Nials, F. L., Topping, D. J., and Yeatts, M., 2008, Application 

of sedimentary-structure interpretation to geoarchaeology in the Colorado River corridor, 

Grand Canyon, Arizona, USA: Geomorphology, v. 101, n. 3, p. 497-509, doi: 

10.1016/j.geomorph.2007.04.032. 

Draut, A.E., Sondossi, H.A., Hazel, J.E., Jr.,, Andrews, T., Fairley, H.C., Brown, C.R., and 

Vanaman, K.M., 2009b, 2008 Weather and aeolian sand-transport data from the Colorado 

River corridor, Grand Canyon, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2009-

1190, 98 p., accessed on August 23, 2010, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1190/. 

Draut, A.E., Sondossi, H.A., Dealy, T.P., Hazel, J.E., Jr., Fairley, H.C., and Brown, C.R., 2010, 

2009 weather and aeolian sand-transport data from the Colorado River corridor, Grand 

Canyon, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010-1166, 98 p. 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1166/. 

Fairley, H.C., 2003, Changing river: time, culture, and the transformation of landscape in Grand 

Canyon: a regional research design for the study of cultural resources along the Colorado 

River in lower Glen Canyon and Grand Canyon, National Park, Arizona: Tucson, Ariz., 

Statistical Research, Inc., SRI Press, Technical Series 79. 

Fairley, H.C., Bungart, P.W., Coder, C.M., Huffman, J., Samples, T.L., and Balsom, J.R., 1994, 

The Grand Canyon river corridor survey project: archaeological survey along the Colorado 

River between Glen Canyon Dam and Separation Rapid: Flagstaff, Ariz., Bureau of 

Reclamation Glen Canyon Environmental Studies Program, cooperative agreement no. 9AA40-07920. 

Fairley, H.C., Collins, B, and Draut, A., 2009, FY07-FY11 Archaeological Site Monitoring 

Research and Development Project. NPS Research and Collecting Permit Proposal. 99pp. 

Fairley, H.C., and Sondossi, H., 2010, Applying an ecosystem framework to evaluate 

archaeological site condition along the Colorado River in Grand Canyon National Park, 

Arizona, in Melis, T.S., Hamill, J.F., Bennett, G.E., Coggins, L.G., Jr., Grams, P.E., 

Kennedy, T.A., Kubly, D.M., and Ralston, B.E., eds., Proceedings of the Colorado River 

Basin Science and Resource Management Symposium, November 18-20, 2008, Scottsdale, 

Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5135, 333-341 p., 

accessed on July 15, 2010, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5135/. 

Farraj, A.A., Harvey, A.M., 2004. Late quaternary interactions between aeolian and fluvial 

processes: a case study in the northern UAE. Journal of Arid Environments 56, 235-248. 

Grams, P.E., Schmidt, J.C., and Topping, D.J., 2007, The rate and pattern of bed incision and 

bank adjustment on the Colorado River in Glen Canyon downstream from Glen Canyon 

Dam: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 119, p. 556-575, doi: 10.1130/B25969.1, 

with additional supporting material in the Geological Society of America Data Repository. 

Hancock, G.R., Coulthard, T.J., Martinez, C., and Kalma, J.D., 2011, An evaluation of landscape 

evolution models to simulate decadal and centennial scale soil erosion in grassland 

catchments: Journal of Hydrology, v. 398, no. 3–4, p. 171-183. 

Hancock, G.R., Evans, K.G., Willgoose, G.R., Moliere, D.R., Saynor, M.J., and Loch, R.J., 

2000, Medium-term erosion simulation of an abandoned mine site using the SIBERIA 

landscape evolution model: Australian Journal of Soil Research, v. 38, no. 2, p. 249-263. 
204

Hancock, G.R., Lowry, J.B.C., Coulthard, T.J., Evans, K.G., and Moliere, D.R., 2010, A 

catchment scale evaluation of the SIBERIA and CAESAR landscape evolution models: Earth 

Surface Processes and Landforms, v. 35, no. 8, p. 863-875. 

Hazel, J.E., Jr., Grams, P.E., Schmidt, J.C., and Kaplinski, M., 2010, Sandbar response in Marble 

and Grand Canyons, Arizona, following the 2008 high-flow experiment on the Colorado 

River: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5015, 52 p., accessed on 

July 27, 2010, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5015/. 

Hereford, R., Burke, K.J., and Thompson, K.S. 1998. Quaternary Geology and Geomorphology 

of the Nankoweap Rapids Area, Marble Canyon, Arizona. U. S. Gological Survey Geological 

Investigations Series Map I-2608. 

Hereford, R., Burke, K.J., and Thompson, K.S. 2000a, Map Showing Quaternary Geology and 

Geomorphology of the Lees Ferry Area, Marble Canyon, Arizona. U. S. Gological Survey 

Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-2663, scale 1:2000, with discussion. 

Hereford, R., Burke, K.J., and Thompson, K.S. 2000b, Map Showing Quaternary Geology and 

Geomorphology of the Granite Park Area, Grand Canyon, Arizona. U. S. Gological Survey 

Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-2662, scale 1:2000. 

Hereford, R., Fairley, H.C., Thompson, K.S., and Balsom, J.R., 1993, Surficial geology, 

geomorphology and erosion of archeologic sites along the Colorado River, eastern Grand 

Canyon, Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona. Grand Canyon National Park in cooperation 

with the Bureau of Reclamation, Glen Canyon Environmental Studies, Flagstaff, Ariz.: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 93-517. 

Hereford, R., Thompson, K.S., Burke, K.J., and Fairley, H.C., 1996, Tributary debris fans and 

Late Holocene alluvial chronology of the Colorado River, eastern Grand Canyon, AZ: GSA 

Bulletin, v. 108, no. 1, p. 3–19. 

Hereford, R., Bennett, G.E., and Fairley, H.C., in revision, Precipitation Variability of the Grand 

Canyon Region, 1893 to 2009, and Its Effects on Gullying of Holocene Terraces and 

Associated Archaeological Sites in Grand Canyon: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

2012-XXXX. 

Hough, I. and Brennan, E., 2008., Architectural documentation and preservation of Havasupai 

and Navajo Wooden Pole Structures in Grand Canyon in Berger, T.R., ed. Reflections of 

Grand Canyon Historians: Ideas, Arguments, and First-Person Accounts. Grand Canyon, 

Ariz.: Grand Canyon Association, pp. 81-88. 

Huang, Jennifer, n.d., The Application of Light Detecting and Ranging Technology to Improve 

the Management and Protection of Heritage Assets in the American Falls Archaeological 

District, Idaho. Unpublished 2009 proposal submitted to the Bureau of Reclamation. 

Istanbulluoglu, E., Bras, R.L., Flores-Cervantes, H., and Tucker, G.E., 2005, Implications of 

bank failures and fluvial erosion for gully development: Field observations and modeling: J. 

Geophys. Res., v. 110, no. F1, p. F01014. 

James, LA, Hodgson, ME, Ghoshal, S, Latiolais, MM, 2012. Geomorphic change detection using 

historic maps and DEM differencing: The temporal dimension of geospatial analysis. 

Geomorphology 137, 181-198. 

Jones, D., editor, 2007, 3D Laser Scanning for Heritage: Advice and guidance to users on laser 

scanning in archaeology and architecture. English Heritage. 

Jones, K., 2007, Caring for archaeological sites: practical guidelines for protecting and managing 

archaeological sites in New Zealand. Department of Conversation, Wellington, New Zealand. 
205

Kintigh, K., lipe, W., Altschul, J., and Urquhart, N.S., 2007, Legacy monitoring data review 

panel report to the grand canyon monitoring and research center. Unpublished report 

prepared for the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, November 29, 2007. 

 http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/07dec04/Attach_10.pdf 

Lancaster, N., 1994. Controls on aeolian activity: some new perspectives from the Kelso Dunes, 

Mojave Desert, California. Journal of Arid Environments 27, 113–125. 

Leap, L., n.d., Fiscal Year 2007 Report for Interagency Agreement between National Park 

Service, Grand Canyon National Park, and the U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon 

Monitoring and Research Center to Collaborate in the Development of Long-Term 

Monitoring Protocols for Archaeological Resources of the Colorado River Corridor in Grand 

Canyon that may be Affected by the Operation of Glen Canyon Dam. Draft report submitted 

October 3, 2008 to U.S. Geological Survey Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, 

Flagstaff. 

Leap, L.M., Kunde, J.L., Hubbard, D.C., Andrews, N., Downum, C.E., Miller, A., and Balsom, 

J.R., 2000, Grand Canyon monitoring project 1992–1999: synthesis and annual monitoring 

report FY99. Grand Canyon National Park River Corridor Monitoring Report No. 66: 

Submitted to Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region, Salt Lake City, Utah. 

Lucchitta, I., 1991, Quaternary geology, geomorphology, and erosional processes, eastern Grand 

Canyon, Arizona. U.S. Geological Survey administrative report: Submitted to Bureau of 

Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region, Salt Lake City, Utah. 

Magirl, C. S., M. J. Breedlove, R. H. Webb, and P. G. Griffiths (2008), Modeling water-surface 

elevations and virtual shorelines for the Colorado River in Grand Canyon, Arizona, U.S. 

Geol. Surv. Sci. Inv. Rep. 2008-5075, 40 pp., http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2008/5075/ 

Marzolff, I, Poesen, J, 2009. The potential of 3D gully monitoring with GIS using highresolution aerial photography and a digital photogrammetry system. Geomorphology, 111, 

48-60. 

Neal, L.A., Gilpin, D., Jonas, L., and Ballagh, J.H., 2000, Cultural resources data synthesis 

within the Colorado River corridor, Grand Canyon National Park and Glen Canyon National 

Recreation Area, Arizona: SWCA, Inc., Cultural Resources Report 98-85. 

O’Brien, G. and Pederson, J., 2009a, Geomorphic Attributes of 232 Cultural Sites Along The 

Colorado River In Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona. Final report dated July 20, 2009. 

Submitted by Department of Geology, Utah State University, Logan, to U.S. Geological 

Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, Flagstaff. 

O’Brien, G. and Pederson, J., 2009b, Gully Erosion Processes and Parameters at Six Cultural 

Sites Along the Colorado River in Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona. Final draft report 

dated July 20, 2009, submitted by Department of Geology, Utah State University, Logan, to 

U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, Flagstaff. 

Pederson, J.L., Petersen, P.A., MacFarlane, W.W., Gonzales, M.F., and Kohl, K., 2003, 

Mitigation, monitoring, and geomorphology related to gully erosion of cultural sites in Grand 

Canyon. Final report in fulfillment of CA-01-WRAG-0074: On file, Grand Canyon 

Monitoring and Research Center, Flagstaff, Ariz. 

Pederson, J.L., Petersen, P. A., and Dierker, J.L., 2006, Gullying and erosion control at 

archaeological sites in Grand Canyon, Arizona: Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, v. 

31, p. 507-525, doi: 10.1002/esp.1286 

Rittenour, T., 2008, Luminescence dating of fluvial deposits: applications to geomorphic, 

palaeoseismic and archaeological research: Boreas, doi:10.1111/j.1502-3885.2008.00056. 
206

Schmidt, J.C., Topping, D.J., Grams, P.E., and Hazel, J.E., 2004. System-wide changes in the 

distribution of fine sediment in the Colorado River corridor between Glen Canyon Dam and 

Bright Angel Creek, Arizona. Final report to the USGS Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center, Flagstaff, Ariz. 

[http://www.gcmrc.gov/library/reports/physical/Fine_Sed/Schmidt2004.pdf] 

Schmidt, J.C., and Grams, P.E., 2011, The high flows--physical science results, in Melis, T.S., 

ed., Effects of three high-flow experiments on the Colorado River ecosystem downstream 

from Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1366, 53-91 p., accessed 

on June 28, 2011, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1366/. 

Sondossi, H.A. and Fairley, H.C., in revision, An Analysis of Potential for Glen Canyon Dam 

Releases to Inundate 242 Cultural Sites in Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 2012-XXXX 

Thompson, K.S., Potochnik, A.R., Ryel, R., O’Brien, G., Neal, L.A., 2000, Development of a 

geomorphic model to predict erosion of pre-dam Colorado River terraces containing 

archaeological resources: SWCA, Environmental Consultants, Inc., submitted to Grand 

Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, Flagstaff, Ariz.Wildesen, L.E., 1982, The study of 

impacts on archaeological sites. In Schiffer, M.E., editor, Advances in Archaeological 

Method and Theory 5. New York: Academic Press, 51-59 p.

Topping, D.J., J.C. Schmidt, and L.E. Vierra, Jr., 2003, Computation and Analysis of the 

Instantaneous-Discharge Record for the Colorado River at Lees Ferry, Arizona—May 8, 

1921, through September 30, 2000: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1677, 118 p. 

Tucker, G., Lancaster, S., Gasparini, N., and Bras, R., 2001, The Channel-Hillslope Integrated 

Landscape Development model (CHILD), in Harmon, R.S., and Doe, W.W., III, eds., 

Landscape Erosion and Evolution Modeling: New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum 

Publishers, p. 349-388. 

Tucker, G.E., 2009, Natural experiments in landscape evolution: Earth Surface Processes and 

Landforms, v. 34, no. 10, p. 1450-1460. 

Wheaton JM, Brasington J, Darby SE, Sear D. 2010. Accounting for Uncertainty in DEMs from 

Repeat Topographic Surveys: Improved Sediment Budgets. Earth Surface Processes and 

Landforms 35, 136-156. 

Vance, M.M., and Smiley, F.E., 2011. Landforms, Inundation and Archaeological Sites: Data 

Exploration and Sample Selection for a Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center Pilot 

Monitoring Project in the Colorado River Corridor. Northern Arizona University 

Archaeological Report No. 1337, Flagstaff, Ariz. 26 p., with database. 

Vrieling, A., 2006. Satellite remote sensing for water erosion assessment: A review, Catena, v. 

65, 2-18. 

Wood, W.R. and Johnson, D.L., 1978. A survey of disturbance processes in archaeological site 

formation. In Schiffer, M.E., editor, Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 1. New 

York: Academic Press, 315-381 p. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, 1995, Operation of Glen Canyon Dam Final Environmental 

Impact Statement, Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region, Salt Lake City, 337 p. 

plus appendices. 

 
207

7. Budget 

Project Element J.1.

Cultural Site Monitoring in

Glen Canyon

Project Element J.2.

Monitoring of Select

Cultural Sites in Grand

Canyon

Salaries $35,000 Salaries $25,000

Traveling and Training $2,000 Traveling and Training $1,000

Operating Expenses $5,000 Operating Expenses $5,000

Logistics $2,000 Logistics $19,000

GIS/RS/Electronics support

(includes burden) $11,000 GIS/RS/Electronics support

(includes burden) $10,000

Cooperators (non‐USGS) $53,000 Cooperators (non‐USGS) $5,000

USGS cooperators $29,000 USGS cooperators $120,000

USGS Burden $15,000 USGS Burden $10,000

Total $152,000 Total $206,000

Project Element  J.3.

Defining the Extent and

Relative Importance of

Gully Formation and

Annealing Processes in the

Geomorphic Context of

the Colorado River

Ecosystem

Salaries $4,000

Traveling and Training $1,000

Operating Expenses $3,000

Logistics $0

GIS/RS/Electronics support

(includes burden) $10,000

Cooperators (non‐USGS) $0

USGS cooperators $146,000

USGS Burden $0

Total $162,000

FY 2013 Project J. Gross Total:

$520,000

FY 2014 Project J. Gross Total:

$540,000
208

Project K. 

GCMRC Economist and Support 

The economist position within GCMRC is expected to be filled during FY 12. Funding in 

FY 13/14 will support the anticipated salary of this individual and associated travel and training. 

The work activities of this individual will be developed based on consultation with the AMWG, 

TWG, GCDAMP ad hoc committees, and guidance from agencies. 

 

GCMRC Economist and Support    

Salaries $150,000

Traveling and Training $25,000

Operating Expenses $25,000

Logistics $0

GIS/RS/Electronics support (includes

burden) $0

Cooperators (non‐USGS) $0

USGS cooperators $0

USGS Burden $0

Total $200,000

FY 2013 Gross Total: $200,000

FY 2014 Gross Total: $206,000

   
209

Project L. 

Independent Reviews and Science Advisors 

Independent reviews are an essential part of the GCDAMP. There are two items in the 

independent review part of the GCDAMP budget. One part concerns independent reviews 

commissioned by GCMRC. The primary activity is the convening of Protocol Evaluation Panels 

(PEP) to review the state-of-the-science in critical areas of science and management and to 

consider development of formal protocols for monitoring different aspects of the CRe. In FY 

13/14, there are no new PEPs scheduled, and the work involved in these reviews is expected to 

decrease. Thus, the proposed budget for this activity from $36,000 in FY 12 to $24,000 in FY 13. 

Careful consideration was given to providing appropriate support for the work of the 

Science Advisors. The work of the Science Advisors is coordinated by L. D. Garrett of M3 

Research. Dr. Garrett was the first Chief of the GCMRC. Dr. Garrett provided a request to 

GCMRC describing proposed activities for FY13 in a memo dated May 3. After review of that 

request, the requested Science Advisor budget for report review and development was funded, 

the amount allocated to meeting attendance was significantly reduced, and LTEMP support was 

eliminated. Thus, the Science Advisors budget is proposed to be: 

Reviews by 5 Science Advisors (total requested amount) $50,000 

Review support by additional specialists (total requested amount) $8,500 

GCMRC reviews and review development by L. D. Garrett (total 

requested amount) 

$24,000 

LTEMP support (0% of requested amount) $0 

Stipend and travel costs in service to GCDAMP meetings (31% 

of requested amount) 

$19,000 

Development of white papers and reports to Secretary’s Designee, 

AMWG, TWG (total requested amount) 

$20,000 

Participation in phone calls and webinars (50% of requested 

amount) 

$6250 

Project administration (total requested amount) $6,500 

Total Science Advisors request $134,300 

USGS burden $18,800 

Total budget amount $153,000 

 
210

 

Indepent Reviews Science Advisors

Salaries $0 Salaries $0

Traveling and Training $0 Traveling and Training $0

Operating Expenses $0 Operating Expenses $0

Logistics $0 Logistics $0

GIS/RS/Electronics support

(includes burden) $0 GIS/RS/Electronics support(includes burden) $0

Cooperators (non‐USGS) $21,000 Cooperators (non‐USGS) $136,000

USGS cooperators $0 USGS cooperators $0

USGS Burden $600 USGS Burden $19,000

Total $24,000 Total $155,000

FY 2013 Gross Total: $155,000

FY 2014 Gross Total: $25,000 FY 2014 Gross Total: $160,000

FY 2013 Gross Total: $24,000
211

Project M. 

USGS Administration 

The USGS Administration budget covers salaries for the communications coordinator, 

the librarian, and the budget analyst for GCMRC, in addition to monetary awards for all 

GCMRC personnel. The vehicle section covers GSA vehicle costs including monthly lease fee, 

mileage costs, and any costs for accidents and damage. DOI vehicles are also included in this 

section of the budget to pay for vehicle gas, maintenance, and replacements costs. Leadership 

personnel covers salary and some of the travel and training costs for the GCMRC Chief, Deputy 

Chief, and two program managers. AMWG/TWG travel covers the cost of GCMRC personnel to 

travel to the AMWG and TWG meetings. SBSC Information Technology (IT) overhead covers 

GCMRCs IT equipment costs.. Logistics base costs covers salaries and travel/training. These 

base costs also include a $35,000 contribution to the equipment and vehicles working capital 

fund. 
212

Budget Analyst, Communications Support,

Library, Discretionary Awards Vehicles

Salaries $252,000 Salaries $0

Traveling and Training $6,000 Traveling and Training $0

Operating Expenses $50,000 Operating Expenses $117,000

Logistics $0 Logistics $0

GIS/RS/Electronics support (includes burden) $0 GIS/RS/Electronics support

(includes burden) $0

Cooperators (non‐USGS) $72,000 Cooperators (non‐USGS) $0

USGS cooperators $0 USGS cooperators $0

USGS Burden $45,000 USGS Burden $17,000

Total $425,000 Total $134,000

Leadership Personnel AMWG/TWG Travel

Salaries $585,000 Salaries $0

Traveling and Training $21,000 Traveling and Training $28,000

Operating Expenses $0 Operating Expenses $0

Logistics $0 Logistics $0

GIS/RS/Electronics support (includes burden) $0 GIS/RS/Electronics support

(includes burden) $0

Cooperators (non‐USGS) $0 Cooperators (non‐USGS) $0

USGS cooperators $0 USGS cooperators $0

USGS Burden $85,000 USGS Burden $4,000

Total $690,000 Total $32,000

SBSC IT Overhead Logistics Base Costs

Salaries $0 Salaries $244,000

Traveling and Training $0 Traveling and Training $15,000

Operating Expenses $0 Operating Expenses $35,000

Logistics $0 Logistics $0

GIS/RS/Electronics support (includes burden) $0 GIS/RS/Electronics support

(includes burden) $0

Cooperators (non‐USGS) $0 Cooperators (non‐USGS) $0

USGS cooperators $110,000 USGS cooperators $0

USGS Burden $15,000 USGS Burden $41,000

Total $123,000 Total $335,000

FY 2013 Gross Total: $1,740,000

FY 2014 Gross Total: $1,799,000
213

Project N. 

Incremental Allocations in Support of Quadrennial 

Overflights 

Overflights, during which digital aerial photographs and remotely-sensed data are 

acquired, occur every 4 years as part of the regular monitoring program of he GCDAMP. These 

data are used by most of the projects described in the BWP. The estimated average cost of each 

quadrennial overflight is approximately $565,000, and this amount is accrued during a 4-yr 

period. Thus, the amount listed in the FY 13 and FY 14 budgets represents the required amounts 

so that overflight data acquisition will occur in 2013 and 2017. 
Appendices 

Appendix	2‐A	summarizes	the	categories	for	the	FY	13	budget.	A	budget	summary	for	each	project	elemencategory	for	“non‐USGS	cooperators”	includes	universities,	consulting	firms,	sister	agencies	of	the	federal	gagencies	of	state	government.	The	category	for	“USGS	cooperators”	includes	various	science	centers	of	theArizona,	California,	and	Wisconsin.	Investigators	and	their	affiliations	are	described	in	each	project	descripAppendix	2‐B	summarizes	the	source	of	funding	for	each	project	element.	Project	elements	for	which	no	fupresently	been	identified	are	listed.	Appendix	2‐C	lists	the	total	project	amount	for	each	project	element	for	FY	14	and	lists	the	anticipated	sou

 
215

Appendix 2-A. Fiscal Year 2013 Budget 

Fiscal Year 2013

Project Description Salaries

Travel

and

Training

Operating

Expenses Logistics

GIS / RS /

electronics

support

(includes

burden)

Cooperators

(non‐USGS)

USG

Cooper

Total Amount in Category $3,659,900 $170,100 $615,100 $1,014,400 $780,800 $1,948,300 $1,1

A

Sandbars and sedimentstorage dynamics $180,600 A.1. Sandbar and camping

beach monitoring $106,100 $3,500 $10,100 $27,200 $98,200 

A.2. Sediment storage

monitoring $258,900 $5,000 $35,100 $74,300 $163,700 $14,4

A.3. Investigating eddysandbar variability and the

interactions among flow,

vegetation, and

geomorphology

$86,800 $2,000 $2,100 

A.4. Quantifying the

correlation between bed

and transport grain size

$43,300 $2,800 $800 $36,900 $65,500 $80,4

A.5. Geochemical

signatures of pre‐dam

sediment

$6,300 $48,2

A.6. Control network andsurveying support $21,600 $2,300 $2,400 $5,700 
216

Project Description Salaries

Travel

and

Training

Operating

Expenses Logistics

GIS / RS /

electronics

support

(includes

burden)

Cooperators

(non‐USGS)

USG

Cooper

B

Stream flow, waterquality, and sedimenttransport

$524,000 $50,000 $60,000 $55,000 $502,

C Lake Powell water quality monitoring $153,700 $7,600 $12,000 $21,900 $26,0

D

Mainstem humpbackchub aggregationstudiesD.1. Aggregation sampling $20,300 $5,000 $100,000 $80,000 D.2. Natal origins of

humpback chub, adult

condition, and

reproductive potential

$40,000 $1,000 $15,000 $60,000 $40,0

E

Humpback chub earlylife history in andaround the LittleColorado RiverE.1. July LCR marking $58,200 $5,000 $10,000 $33,700 

E.2. Describing the food

web structure and the

potential for food

limitation within the Little

Colorado River

$111,600 $2,000 $15,000 $100,000 
217

Project Description Salaries

Travel

and

Training

Operating

Expenses Logistics

GIS / RS /

electronics

support

(includes

burden)

Cooperators

(non‐USGS)

USG

Cooper

E.3. Population modeling $60,100 $4,000 $2,000 $10,000 

F

Monitoring of nativeand nonnative fishes inthe mainstem ColoradoRiver and the lowerLittle Colorado RiverF.1. System wide

electrofishing $7,400 $2,000 $10,000 $55,000 $22,500 $103,000 

F.2.1 Glen Canyon

monitoring $13,300 $5,000 $42,000 $11,200 $132,000 

F.2.2. Rainbow trout early

life stage studies $27,000 $3,600 $2,000 $15,000 $11,200 

F.3. Mainstem monitoring

of native and nonnative

fishes near the LCR

confluence

$55,400 $5,000 $147,000 $11,200 $177,000 

F.4.1. Annual spring and

fall humpback chub

abundance estimates in

the downstream 13.6 km

of the Little Colorado

River

$11,000 $15,000 $86,000 $11,200 $364,000 

F.4.2 Monitoring native

and nonnative fishes in

the downstream 1.2 km of

the Little Colorado River

$7,400 $3,000 $12,000 $11,200 $50,000 
218

Project Description Salaries

Travel

and

Training

Operating

Expenses Logistics

GIS / RS /

electronics

support

(includes

burden)

Cooperators

(non‐USGS)

USG

Cooper

F.4.3 Translocation and

monitoring above Chute

Falls

$3,700 $1,000 $37,000 $11,200 $67,000 

F.4.4 PIT tag antenna

monitoring $17,000 $5,000 $6,000 $22,500 $40,000 

F.5. Stock assessment and

estimation of humpbackchub abundance using the

age structured mark

recapture model

$6,600 $11,200 

F.6. Detection of rainbow

trout movement fromGlen Canyon to Marble

Canyon

$24,300 $75,000 $87,000 $11,200 $67,000 

F.7. Foodbase monitoring $152,000 $3,000 $5,000 $20,000 $11,200 $37,000 

G

Interactions betweennative fish andnonnative troutG.1. Laboratory studies to

assess the effects of trout

predation and

competition on humpback

chub

$58,400 $2,000 $18,000 

G.2. Efficacy and

ecological impacts of

brown trout removal at

Bright Angel Creek

$73,400 $2,000 $5,000 $89,000 
219

Project Description Salaries

TravelandTraining

OperatingExpenses Logistics

GIS / RS /electronicssupport(includesburden)

Cooperators(non‐USGS)

USGSCooper

H

Understanding thefactors limiting thegrowth of rainbowtrout in Glen andMarble CanyonsH.1. Laboratory feeding

studies $14,900 $16,000 

H.2.1. Developing a

mechanistic model ofprimary productivity

$53,400 $5,000 $17,000 $1,200 $33,700 

H.2.2. Characterizing

invertebrate drift $55,800 $3,000 $3,500 $44,900 

H.3. Developing a

bioenergetics model for

large rainbow trout

$63,300 $3,000 $1,500 $1,200 $33,700 $20,000 

H.4. Learning from other

tailwaters ‐‐ a synthesis of

tailwaters in the United

States

$114,700 $15,000 $2,000 

H.5. Contingency planningfor High Flow Experiments

and subsequent rainbowtrout population

management

$5,400 $28,300 $23,000 
220

Project Description Salaries

TravelandTraining

OperatingExpenses Logistics

GIS / RS /electronicssupport(includesburden)

Cooperators(non‐USGS)

USGSCooper

I

Integrated riparianvegetation studiesI.1.1. Integratedvegetation monitoring $69,000 $30,000 $28,000 I.1.2. Landscape scale

monitoring and changedetection

$137,000 

I.2. Riparian vegetation

dynamics and trophic level

linkages related to

tamarisk defoliation

$30,000 $1,500 $4,000 $6,000 

J

Monitoring of culturalresources at a smallscale and defining thelarge‐scale geomorphiccontext of thoseprocessesJ.1. Monitoring the statusof cultural resources in

Glen Canyon NationalRecreation Area

$34,800 $2,500 $5,000 $2,000 $10,600 $52,700 $29,

J.2. Monitoring strategies

for the status of cultural

resources in GrandCanyon National Park

$34,800 $1,500 $5,000 $19,000 $10,400 $4,700 $120,
221

Project Description Salaries

Travel

and

Training

Operating

Expenses Logistics

GIS / RS /

electronics

support

(includes

burden)

Cooperators

(non‐USGS)

USG

Cooper

J.3. Large‐scale

geomorphology of the

Colorado River valley in

Glen, Marble, and Grand

Canyons

$4,200 $1,200 $2,700 $10,400 $146,

K GCMRC economist and

support $150,000 $25,000 $25,000 

L Independent Reviewers

Independent Reviewers $21,000 Science Advisors $134,300 

M USGS Administration

Budget analyst,

communications support,

library, discretionaryawards

$253,400 $5,900 $49,400 $71,500 

Vehicles $117,200 Leadership Personnel $584,400 $20,500 AMWG/TWG travel $28,200 SBSC IT overhead $110,Logistics base costs $244,000 $15,000 $35,000 
222

Project Description Salaries

TravelandTraining

OperatingExpenses Logistics

GIS / RS /

electronicssupport(includesburden)

Cooperators(non‐USGS)

USGSCooper

N

Incremental Allocationsin Support ofQuadrennial OverflightsAnnual contribution $85,000 

 
223

Appendix 2-B. Fiscal Year 2013 Funding Source 

Fiscal Year 2013 funding so

GCDAMP

GCMRC

carryover

Other

BoR

BoR fund

from AM

carryove

funds

Total Amount in Category $8,634,600 $225,200 $414,100 $567,40

A Sandbars and sediment storage dynamics $180,600

A.1. Sandbar and camping beach monitoring $268,700A.2. Sediment storage monitoring $608,500A.3. Investigating eddy sandbar variability and the

interactions among flow, vegetation, and geomorphology $103,700

A.4. Quantifying the correlation between bed and transport

grain size 

A.5. Geochemical signatures of pre‐dam sediment A.6. Control network and surveying support $36,400

B Stream flow, water quality, and sediment

transport $1,287,000

C Lake Powell water quality monitoring $252,200
224

GCDAMP

GCMRC

carryover

Other

BoR

BoR fund

from AM

carryove

funds

D

Mainstem humpback chub aggregationstudies

D.1. Aggregation sampling $225,200D.2. Natal origins of humpback chub, adult condition, and

reproductive potential $167,00

E Humpback chub early life history in and around the Little Colorado River

E.1. July LCR marking $121,900E.2. Describing the food web structure and the potential for

food limitation within the Little Colorado River $249,600

E.3. Population modeling $85,700

F

Monitoring of native and nonnative fishes inthe mainstem Colorado River and the lowerLittle Colorado RiverF.1. System wide electrofishing $216,500F.2.1 Glen Canyon monitoring $217,500F.2.2. Rainbow trout early life stage studies $67,000F.3. Mainstem monitoring of native and nonnative fishes

near the LCR confluence $431,500

F.4.1. Annual spring and fall humpback chub abundance

estimates in the downstream 13.6 km of the Little Colorado

River $515,400
225

GCDAMP

GCMRC

carryover

Other

BoR

BoR fund

from AM

carryove

funds

F.4.2 Monitoring native and nonnative fishes in the

downstream 1.2 km of the Little Colorado River $89,800

F.4.3 Translocation and monitoring above Chute Falls $129,300F.4.4 PIT tag antenna monitoring $98,800F.5. Stock assessment and estimation of humpback chub

abundance using the age structured mark recapture model $20,300

F.6. Detection of rainbow trout movement from Glen

Canyon to Marble Canyon $294,200

F.7. Foodbase monitoring $256,100

G Interactions between native fish and nonnative trout

G.1. Laboratory studies to assess the effects of trout

predation and competition on humpback chub $89,400

G.2. Efficacy and ecological impacts of brown trout removal

at Bright Angel Creek $193,000

H Understanding the factors limiting the growth of rainbow trout in Glen and Marble Canyons

H.1. Laboratory feeding studies $35,200H.2.1. Developing a mechanistic model of primary

productivity $125,70

H.2.2. Characterizing invertebrate drift $122,200
226

GCDAMP

GCMRC

carryover

Other

BoR

BoR fund

from AM

carryove

funds

H.3. Developing a bioenergetics model for large rainbow

trout $137,700

H.4. Learning from other tailwaters ‐‐ a synthesis of

tailwaters in the United States $150,10

H.5. Contingency planning for High Flow Experiments and

subsequent rainbow trout population management $64,600

I Integrated riparian vegetation studies

I.1.1. Integrated vegetation monitoring $141,000I.1.2. Landscape scale monitoring and change detection $137,000I.2. Riparian vegetation dynamics and trophic level linkages

related to tamarisk dfoliation 

J

Monitoring of cultural resources at a smallscale and defining the large‐scale geomorphiccontext of those processesJ.1. Monitoring the status of cultural resources in Glen

Canyon National Recreation Area $151,300

J.2. Monitoring strategies for the status of cultural

resources in Grand Canyon National Park $205,900

J.3. Large‐scale geomorphology of the Colorado River valley

in Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons $161,900
227

GCDAMP

GCMRC

carryover

Other

BoR

BoR fund

from AM

carryove

funds

K GCMRC economist and support $200,000L Independent Reviewers

Independent Reviewers $24,000Science Advisors $155,000

M USGS Administration

Budget analyst, communications support, library,

discretionary awards $425,600

vehicles $134,000leadership personnel $689,600AMWG/TWG travel $32,100SBSC IT overhead $123,000Logistics base costs $335,000

N

Incremental Allocations in Support ofQuadrennial OverflightsAnnual contribution $85,000

 
228

Appendix 2-C. Fiscal Year 2014 Funding Source 

Fiscal Year 2014

GCDAMP

funding

Other BoR

funding

BoR

funding

from

AMP

carryover

funds

Fundi

source n

identif

Total Amount in Category $8,903,250 $415,900 $574,200 $686,9

A Sandbars and sediment storage dynamics $189,600

A.1. Sandbar and camping beach monitoring $277,400A.2. Sediment storage monitoring $626,000A.3. Investigating eddy sandbar variability and the

interactions among flow, vegetation, and geomorphology $108,600

A.4. Quantifying the correlation between bed and transport

grain size $249,8

A.5. Geochemical signatures of pre‐dam sediment $57,1A.6. Control network and surveying support $37,700

B Stream flow, water quality, and sediment

transport $1,336,000

C Lake Powell water quality monitoring $259,800
229

GCDAMP

funding

Other BoR

funding

BoR

funding

from

AMP

carryover

funds

Fundi

source n

identif

D

Mainstem humpback chub aggregationstudiesD.1. Aggregation sampling $232,000D.2. Natal origins of humpback chub, adult condition, and

reproductive potential $157,200

E Humpback chub early life history in and around the Little Colorado River

E.1. July LCR marking $119,400E.2. Describing the food web structure and the potential for

food limitation within the Little Colorado River $252,600

E.3. Population modeling $88,200

F

Monitoring of native and nonnative fishes inthe mainstem Colorado River and the lowerLittle Colorado RiverF.1. System wide electrofishing $223,000F.2.1 Glen Canyon monitoring $224,200F.2.2. Rainbow trout early life stage studies $69,200F.3. Mainstem monitoring of native and nonnative fishes

near the LCR confluence $444,600
230

GCDAMP

funding

Other BoR

funding

BoR

funding

from

AMP

carryover

funds

Fundi

source n

identif

F.4.1. Annual spring and fall humpback chub abundance

estimates in the downstream 13.6 km of the Little Colorado

River

$530,900

F.4.2 Monitoring native and nonnative fishes in the

downstream 1.2 km of the Little Colorado River $92,600

F.4.3 Translocation and monitoring above Chute Falls $133,200F.4.4 PIT tag antenna monitoring $59,300F.5. Stock assessment and estimation of humpback chub

abundance using the age structured mark recapture model $20,900

F.6. Detection of rainbow trout movement from Glen

Canyon to Marble Canyon $303,100

F.7. Foodbase monitoring $263,800

G Interactions between native fish and nonnative trout

G.1. Laboratory studies to assess the effects of trout

predation and competition on humpback chub $96,400

G.2. Efficacy and ecological impacts of brown trout removal

at Bright Angel Creek $203,400

H Understanding the factors limiting the growth of rainbow trout in Glen and Marble Canyons

H.1. Laboratory feeding studies $36,400
231

GCDAMP

funding

Other BoR

funding

BoR

funding

from

AMP

carryover

funds

Fundi

source n

identif

H.2.1. Developing a mechanistic model of primary

productivity $129,500

H.2.2. Characterizing invertebrate drift $63,000 $63,00H.3. Developing a bioenergetics model for large rainbow

trout $141,7

H.4. Learning from other tailwaters ‐‐ a synthesis of

tailwaters in the United States $154,700

H.5. Contingency planning for High Flow Experiments and

subsequent rainbow trout population management $75,200

I Integrated riparian vegetation studies

I.1.1. Integrated vegetation monitoring $144,100I.1.2. Landscape scale monitoring and change detection $140,000I.2. Riparian vegetation dynamics and trophic level linkages

related to tamarisk defoliation $48,0

J

Monitoring of cultural resources at a smallscale and defining the large‐scale geomorphiccontext of those processesJ.1. Monitoring the status of cultural resources in Glen

Canyon National Recreation Area $171,500

J.2. Monitoring strategies for the status of cultural resources

in Grand Canyon National Park $212,100
232

GCDAMP

funding

Other BoR

funding

BoR

funding

from

AMP

carryover

funds

Fundi

source n

identif

J.3. Large‐scale geomorphology of the Colorado River valley

in Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons $156,100

K GCMRC economist and support $206,000L Independent Reviewers

Independent Reviewers $24,700Science Advisors $160,000

M USGS Administration

Budget analyst, communications support, library,

discretionary awards $438,900

vehicles $137,600leadership personnel $716,900AMWG/TWG travel $33,100SBSC IT overhead $126,700Logistics base costs $345,050
233

GCDAMPfunding

Other BoR

funding

BoR

funding

from

AMP

carryover

funds

Fundi

source n

identif

N

Incremental Allocations in Support ofQuadrennial OverflightsAnnual contribution $100,000 $100,0