Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center Strategic Science 

Plan to Support the GCD AMP: 2007-

2011 

Developed in Cooperation with the Glen Canyon Dam 

Adaptive Management Program

Draft version: November 18, 2005 

Southwest Biological Science Center 

2255 Gemini Drive, Flagstaff AZ 86001
11/03/05 – Draft SSP Sentence Outline – New Edits - 11/20/05 

 

GCMRC STRATEGIC SCIENCE PLAN FOR MONITORING AND 

RESEARCH PROGRAMS FOR THE GCD AMP: FY 2007-2011 

IN COOPERATION WITH THE GCD AMP 

I. THE GCD AMP STRATEGY FOR SCIENCE PLANNING 

 

A. The AMWG, GCMRC and TWG propose a more comprehensive and responsive 

 approach to science and management planning that incorporates all active GCD 

 AMP groups, Including Ad Hoc Groups. The new science planning process 

 incorporates both strategic planning for 3-5 years and operational and 

 budget planning at two year intervals. 

B. The New Science Planning Approach Develops a More Holistic and Adaptive 

 Science and Management Planning Process 

 1. Incorporating all GCD AMP Groups in the planning process, i.e., GCMRC, 

 TWG, Ad Hocs, SAs, AMWG, external science and management community. 

 2. Incorporating operating adaptive management principles in the planning 

 process, i.e., rapid cycling of science and management trails new knowledge 

 and management application within a 5 year period. 

 3. Applying more ecosystem based science processes, including ecosystem 

 modeling and assessment approaches. 

 4. Annual evaluations of potential new knowledge application and management 

 actions. Complete management and program assessments of potential science 

 management changes at 3-5 year intervals and requirements for new or 

 additional science 

II. THE GCMRC MISSION AND GOALS FOR THE STRATEGIC SCIENCE 

 PLAN 

A. The Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center GCMRC was established 

by the Secretary of Interior in 1995 to develop research designs and proposals for 

implementing monitoring and research information needs identified by AMWG. 

This GCMRC Strategic Science Plan outlines the mission and objectives of the 

Center, the context in which the Center addresses this mission, and the FY 2007-

2011 science and resource strategies the Center employs to accomplish its mission. 

1. The GCMRC vision is to be the undisputed leader in providing relevant, 

valuable, accurate, and timely information on the effects of Glen Canyon Dam 

operations on the natural and cultural resources in the Grand Canyon. 

2. The GCMRC Mission is: 

 “To provide credible, objective scientific information to the Glen Canyon 
11/03/05 – Draft SSP Sentence Outline – New Edits - 11/20/05 

3

 Dam Adaptive Management Program on the effects of operating Glen 

 Canyon Dam under the Record of Decision and other management actions 

 on the downstream resources of the Colorado River ecosystem, utilizing an 

 ecosystem science approach.” 

The Record of Decision in 1996 provided the first definitive proposals for 

experimental flows and non-flow management actions to be evaluated with the 

adaptive management and science process. 

 3. GCMRC’s key roles and responsibilities are comprehensive, but remain 

 focused on critical issues of stakeholders. GCMRC will: 

• Advocate quality, objective science 

• Provide scientific information for priority resources of concern 

• Support the Secretary’ designee and the Adaptive Management Work 

Group 

• Develop research designs to implement monitoring, research and 

development activities 

• Coordinate ongoing science reviews with independent review panels 

• Prepare technical management recommendations and annual reports 

• Manage all data collected 

• Manage GCMRC programs, finances, and personnel 

III. CONTEXT OF IMPLEMENTING THE GCMRC’s VISION WITHIN 

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT AND APPLIED SCIENCE PROGRAMS IN THE 

CRE 

A. Requirement for All Operations of Glen Canyon Dam (GCD) [photos here]. 

1. “The Secretary shall operate Glen Canyon Dam in accordance with the 

additional criteria and operating plans specified in section 1804 and exercise 

other authorities under existing law 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.” (GCPA,1992). 

B. Implementing Adaptive Management (GCD-AMP) in the Colorado River 

Ecosystem (CRE) [location map here]. 

1. “It is intended that the Record-of-Decision (ROD) will initiate a process of 

adaptive management whereby the effects of dam operations on downstream 

resources would be assessed and the results of those resource assessments 

would form the basis for future modification of dam operations.” (DOI, 1995). 

2. Resource assessments will determine through monitoring, and research where 

applicable, if modification of dam operations are effective in moving CRE 

resources to desired future conditions (dcfs) specified and agreed to by the 

AMWG. A process for determining dcfs individual resources will be 
11/03/05 – Draft SSP Sentence Outline – New Edits - 11/20/05 

4

developed and incorporated in the science and management for programs in 

this planning period. 

. 

C. Implementing Applied Science Programs in the CRE. 

 1. “The concept of adaptive management is based on the recognized need for 

 operational flexibility to respond to future monitoring and research findings 

 and varying resource conditions.” (DOI, 1995).

2. The GCD-AMP is structured as related in the AMWG Strategic Plan and in 

Figure II-10 of the GCD EIS (DOI, 1995). [organizational figure here] 

 3. “Monitoring and research programs should be designed by qualified 

 researchers in direct response to the needs of management agencies.” 

 (DOI, 1995). 

 4. “A process is required to coordinate and communicate management agency 

 needs to researchers.” (DOI, 1995). 

 5. The Adaptive Management Work Group (AMWG) develops and 

 communicates to the Center its goals, management objectives and 

 information needs for the GCD-AMP (AMWG Strategic Plan, 2001). 

 Twelve goals and over 100 information needs have been identified. 

 6. The Center will “develop research designs and proposals for 

 implementing monitoring and research identified by the AMWG, and manage 

 all monitoring and research on resources affected by dam operations.” (DOI, 

 1995). 

 7. The interactive process of scientists providing new information to managers 

 and they implementing them as management actions is depleted in figure 1.1. 

 Accomplished effectively it maximizes the utility of science and significantly 

 shortens the time to realize results from a science finding and management 

 action (insert V. Dale schematic as figure 1.1). 

 

D. Continued Milestones in Learning in the CRE. 

Gaining knowledge in the CRE has resulted from extensive management and 

science activities over the last 50 years by many science management and 

educational entities. Following is a brief listing of science inquiry. 

1. 1950-1982: During this period several organized investigations took place. 

None were continuous over the period, and were initiated for differing reasons. 

They included: NPS, BOR, Dartmouth, and AG& FD as well as others. 

 The primary findings for this period of investigation was baseline information 

on selected resources, such as flow changes related to wet and dry periods in 

the upper basin, variable sediment pulses to the CRE and changes in water 

quality resulting from dam construction. 
11/03/05 – Draft SSP Sentence Outline – New Edits - 11/20/05 

5

2. 1982-1988 GCES Phase I: BOR science program to develop baseline 

information on selected resources. The Science investigation during this 

period developed new sampling and measurement methods for both research 

and monitoring projects. Improved baseline information was developed for the 

riparian corridor, flows and sediment dynamics. The period also marked the 

first continuous multiresource assessments in the CRE. 

 

3. 1989-1995 GCES Phase II: program to establish active science studies tied to 

GCD releases (1990) & implementation of interim flows (1991). 

 This period of science investigation focused on evaluating existing knowledge 

from BOR science and other studies to develop best management strategies for 

flows and other resources. An extensive assessment of potential flow impacts 

to CRE resources was completed. 

4. 1996-2000: Transition Monitoring era during which time GCMRC/AMWG 

programs of adaptive management and ecosystem science were formerly 

established. 

 This science period was devoted to three primary outcomes; developing the 

record of decision for experimental flow operations from GCD; moving the 

BOR GCES science program from a management agency to USDI and then 

USGS to increase independence and gain greater guidance for science 

approaches; and designing and implementing an adaptive management 

ecosystem science program GCMRC 

5. 2001-2006: GCMRC/AMWG/TWG/BAHG/SA. Both the AMWG and 

GCMRC strategic management plans are developed and implementation of 

Active Adaptive Management is underway in 2003 with large-scale flow and 

non-flow experimental treatments. 

 This science period accomplished significant assessments of differing flow and 

non-flow management actions on specific resources and/or processes; 

refinement of the adaptive management process; improvements in ecosystem 

linkage of flow impacts to various resources; and improvements in ecosystem 

modeling. 

6. 2007-2011: GCMRC/AMWG/TWG/BAHG/HBCCP/SPG/SA. Challenge: The 

next Phase of GCD-AMP programs must improve the Adaptive Ecosystem 

Management process and incorporate more effective ecosystem science 

approaches, including active experimental studies, monitoring, and developing 

collaborative science partnerships. 
11/03/05 – Draft SSP Sentence Outline – New Edits - 11/20/05 

6

Figure 1.1. The GCD AMP Adaptive Management Process, defining process and linkage 

for accelerating science results into management actions.
11/03/05 – Draft SSP Sentence Outline – New Edits - 11/20/05 

7

IV. IMPLEMENTING GCDAMP SCIENCE UTILIZING ECOSYSTEM SCIENCE 

 PARADIGM 

A. Four Critical Strategies Initiated in 2007-2011, will improve implementation 

of ecosystem science in the GCD-AMP. 

1. Expanded design, development and use of a conceptual ecosystem model.

In FY 2006-2008 will upgrade the Colorado River Ecosystem Model as 

presented in figure 4.1. Possible additions are: 

a. Capture more social resource components and agency decision- 

 support processes. 

b. Move into “landscape” scale incorporating multiple watersheds. 

c. Additional fishery elements. 

d. Modeling non-flow management activities. 

e. Synthesis of terrestrial vegetation changes. 

 f. Downstream temperature sub-model linked to fine-sediment, food web and 

 fisheries sub-models. 

 g. Enhanced use of climatic input data and simulations, climate change. 

 h. Recreational use. 

 i. Cultural resource change. 

 j. Financial impact simulations. 

k. Continuing stakeholder education 

2. Explicit new science project designs that document system data component that 

specifically addresses the overarching science questions and promotes 

integration and linkage to other system components. (example: recent 

solicitations for the food web research). 

a. Explicit design of science projects to specify linkages across projects and 

integration of programs to a landscape level. 

 b. Incorporation of “looking outward” matrix links in the 

 ecosystem model through defined processes (Holling, 1978) to fully 

 characterize “effectors” and impacts of processes relating various resource 

 and process interaction. 

 

c. The looking outward matrix incorporated into the conceptual model would 

track management actions and their interactive processes to specific 

resource indicators and inputs to other sub-models. Figure 3.2 provides an 

example of mainstream temperature sub-model illustrating the linkages of 

management actions to indicator outcomes and inputs to other sub-models. 

3. Analysis of data and evaluation of research and monitoring information from 

an ecosystem perspective. 
11/03/05 – Draft SSP Sentence Outline – New Edits - 11/20/05 

8

a. Incorporating conceptual, simulation and/or predictive ecosystem submodels to formulate and define critical processes/and integration of 

resources to enhance data analysis and evaluation of resource impact 

associations. 

b. The use of linked physical sub-models that define how flow and finesediment export relates to cultural resource site erosion throughout the river 

corridor. 

c. Flow and sediment simulations designed to evaluate optimized strategies 

for implementation of Beach/Habitat-Building Flows. Concepts of linear 

programming developed as part of a prescription for achieving sediment 

objectives linked to long-term monitoring of sediment and habitats. 

4. Assessment of science and management interactions in adaptive management 

from a system perspective. 

 

a. Development of a CRE systems model for adaptive management using a 

decision support system designed and linked to the more objective 

ecosystem science process. 

 
11/03/05 – Draft SSP Sentence Outline – New Edits - 11/20/05 

9

Figure 4.1. A schematic of the CRE Concept Ecosystem Model (after Walters and 

others, 2000). 

Physical Sub model

• Operations

• Flow-routing

• Sediment budget/distribution

• Water temperature

Aquatic Productivity - Riparian Plant Sub models

• Benthic algae and detrital production

• Benthic invertebrate production

• Riparian vegetation succession

Vertebrate Population Sub models

• Food availability

• Predator-prey interactions

• Physical habitat effects

Socio-Economic Sub models

• Cultural Resources

•Recreation (rafting/angling)

• Power values

Glen Canyon Dam

monthly and hourly release 

hydrograph (flow/temperature)

•Stocking

•Predator control

•Trout harvest rates

•Rafting schedules

•Fishing regulations

Model Overview
11/03/05 – Draft SSP Sentence Outline – New Edits - 11/20/05 

10

Figure 4.2. Example outward looking matrix for the mainstream temperature sub-model. 

Actions 

• Selective Withdrawal Structure 

• Constrained fluctuations to stable flows 

• On-going reservoir depletions 

• Surplus criteria ROD 

• Conjunctive Use agreement 

Mainstream Temperature 

Sub-Model

Indicators 

• Recruitment of Native Fish 

(HBC). 

• Mainstem spawning and 

recruitment of native fish. 

• Lees Ferry RBT abundance 

• Primary and secondary 

production 

• Safer and improved 

recreational experience 

Input to other submodels and data sets 

• QW monitoring 

o Mainstem temp model 

GGEMS (2&3-D 

near shore) 

• Meteorological data 

• Reservoir / climate analysis 

• Tributary synthesis 

• Recreational evaluations 

Output from other submodels and 

data sets 

• QW 

• Suspended sediment 

monitoring 

• Other QW 

monitoring/modeling 

(nutrients, CEQUAL2) 

• Meteorological 

monitoring 

• Food base productivity 

monitoring 

• Fisheries Monitoring 

• Stock assessment 

(native fish, nonnatives, LF trout) 

• Disease/parasite 

monitoring 

• Recreation 

• Rafting/angling 

evaluation 

• Creel Survey 

• Public Health 

• Power evaluations 

• Cultural valuations 

• Lake Powel model 
11/03/05 – Draft SSP Sentence Outline – New Edits - 11/20/05 

11

B. Using information needs, knowledge assessments and ecosystem models to 

enhance conceptual model effectiveness in identifying knowledge gaps and science 

needs. 

1. Matrix assessments of system information needs across physical, biological, 

socio-cultural resources, strategically using knowledge assessments in context 

of evolving stakeholders needs to satisfy desired future conditions, and model 

evaluations to link learning with planning of science activities. Figure 4.3 

provides an overall assessment of general information gaps identified by the 

knowledge assessment. 

2. Outcomes focus and specify overarching and refined questions that must be 

 resolved to address knowledge gaps. 

a. Examples of comprehensive questions that integrate science and identify 

how resources are linked to dam operations, other forcing influences and to 

each other. 

V. FORMULATING SCIENCE QUESTIONS TO FOCUS RESEARCH 

 EXPERIMENTATION AND MONITORING TO RESOLVE MANAGEMENTS 

 MOST CRITICAL INFORMATION NEEDS 

A. Development of Overarching and Refined Science Questions to Respond to 

Gaps in Management Information Needs and Guide the Science Inquiry 

Process 

1. The GCD-AMP process is driven by managers specifying priority goals and 

information needs relating to desired future conditions of resources, many of 

which can be addressed by GCMRC specifying explicit questions to guide 

research and/or monitoring programs/projects. 

2. The GCD-AMP’s AMWG has specified the following general goal areas with 

greatest priority assigned to endangered fish, aquatic, cultural, and sand 

resources. 

• Fish and aquatic 

• Cultural resources 

• Sediment, with emphasis on sand 

• T&E species 

• Vegetation 

• Water 

• Power 

• Recreation 

• Adaptive process and science 

 3. Within each goal AMWG has specified several information needs that are 

 expressed as Research Information Needs (RINS), Sequenced Information 
11/03/05 – Draft SSP Sentence Outline – New Edits - 11/20/05 

12

 Needs (SINs), or Core Monitoring Information Needs (CMINS). Generally, it 

 is expected that CMINS would be satisfied through a monitoring program, and 

 likewise for RINS through a research program. 

 4. Formal knowledge assessment processes by GCMRC (Figure 5.1) and CMIN 

 and RIN assessments and Science Planning by GCD AMP/GCMRC in FY 

 2006 identified gaps in the CMINS and RINS that will be satisfied by GCMRC 

 developed overarching and refined science questions. 

5. An example of the linkage of goals and information needs to science questions 

 and research and monitoring projects is displayed in the following hierarchical 

 linkage of science to the goal of aquatic food base. 

AMWG Goal: Protect or improve the aquatic food base so that it will support 

viable populations of desired species at higher trophic levels. 

AMWG Information Need: Identify the contribution of primary and secondary 

productivity to the aquatic food web, and identify how operations affect 

productivity and food web dynamics. 

GCMRC overarching science question. What are the primary food base 

components and their relative contributions to the aquatic food web? 

 

GCMRC refined research question. 

• What are the important pathways, and the rate of flux among them that 

link lower trophic levels with fish? 

• How is invertebrate flux affected by water quality and dam operation? 

• Are trends in the abundance of fish populations or indicators associated 

 with fish, correlated with patterns of food availability and/or quality? 

• What is the most effective monitoring approach to reflect the 

 information needs for the AMP? 

GCMRC Monitoring Project. Aquatic food web monitoring (Tied to CMINS 

that may be subject to revision) 

This portion of the program is under development but may include: 

• Bioenergetics modeling 

• Whole river metabolism 

• Secondary producer monitoring 

• Fish diet sampling 

• Utilization of fish abundance data from fisheries monitoring. 

6. The linkage of goals, information needs, over-arching and refined science 

questions and monitoring approaches is developed in the conceptual ecosystem 

model. The resources of concern are tracked through monitoring and/or 

research studies. For the aquatic food base, identifying the important pathways 

and how the components fluctuate under operations is a key information need 

for Goals 2 and 4 and supports recreational goals associated with angler 
11/03/05 – Draft SSP Sentence Outline – New Edits - 11/20/05 

13

satisfaction. This effort represents a research element. Once these pathways 

and components are better understood, monitoring of changes in attributes of 

the food base and fish abundance and condition can more clearly be related to 

operations. 

 
11/03/05 – Draft SSP Sentence Outline – New Edits - 11/20/05 

14

Figure 4.3. Conceptual portrayal of some of the information gaps identified through 

GCMRC knowledge assessment. 

TABLE EXPLANATION: Example of simplified Uncertainty Matrix for Colorado River 

Ecosystem in Grand Canyon, USA. The table depicts levels of knowledge about the flow (dam 

operations) and non-flow treatments with respect to some key river resources of concern, such as 

hydropower, endangered, native fish and physical habitats. Notes: 1) (+), positive response 

predicted relative to management objective; (o), neutral response; (-), negative response, N/A, not 

applicable, 2) responses assume dam operations are constrained by fixed monthly volumes, 3) suite 

of operational elements are contained within column “Increased Daily Fluctuating Flow,” such as 

hourly ramp rate, flow range, peak, minimum flow, for any given monthly volume release, relative 

to the operational policy implemented in 1996 for the dam. Shading: White – scientists can predict 

the direction and the magnitude of resource response relative to flow or non-flow treatment, Gray – 

Owing to unresolved uncertainties, scientists can predict the direction, but not the magnitude of 

response, Black – Uncertainties are so large that a link with dam operations is suspected, but too 

little is known to make a prediction for resource response direction or magnitude of response. 

Resource 

Objectives 

Restore 

Sand 

Habitats & 

Warm River 

to Increase 

Native 

Fish 

Warmer 

Dam 

Releases 

From 

(Naturally 

or from 

A Control 

Device) 

Changing 

Annual 

Monthly 

Release 

Pattern 

(Lower 

Seasonally 

Adjusted 

Daily Peaks) 

Artificial 

Floods to 

Restore 

Habitats 

(After 

Sediment 

Inputs from 

Downstream 

Tributaries) 

Increased 

Daily 

Fluctuating 

Flows 

(Following 

Peak 

Energy 

Demand) 

Sustained 

Low 

Steady 

Flow 

(Below 

Average 

Condition) 

Sustained 

High 

Steady 

Flow 

(Above 

Average 

Condition) 

Physical 

Removal 

of NonNatives, 

(Cold 

Water 

Species 

Of Fishes) 

Physical 

Removal 

of NonNatives, 

(Warm 

Water 

Species 

Of Fishes) 

Increase

Sand in the 

River 

(+) (+) (+) 

(-) 

(+) 

(-) 

N/A N/A 

Promote

Backwater 

Habitats 

(+) (+) (+) 

(-) 

(+) 

(-) 

N/A N/A 

Support

Native Fish 

Recruitment 

(+) (+) 

(-) 

Limit

Non-Native 

Fishes 

(+) (+) (+) 

Increase 

Near-shore 

Temps. 

(+) (+) 

(-) (-) 

(+) 

(-) 

N/A N/A 

More 

Stable

Shorelines N/A 

(+) 

N/A 

(-) 

(+) (+) 

N/A N/A 

Benefit to 

Hydropower 

(-) (-) (-) 

(+) 

(-) (-) N/A N/A 
11/03/05 – Draft SSP Sentence Outline – New Edits - 11/20/05 

15

VI. RESEARCH AND MONITORING PROGRAMS TO RESOLVE 

 MANAGEMENTS MOST CRITICAL INFORMATION NEEDS. 

Organization of the new GCMRC science program is around issues, goals, information 

needs of managers and stakeholders. Implementation of all science project efforts are 

within an adaptive management process using an ecosystem science paradigm driven by 

fundamental science questions. Research and monitoring projects are structured to respond 

directly to overarching and refined questions for each goal. 

 The new proposed research program incorporates efforts in experimentation with flow 

and non-flow management alternatives, research to develop needed information for 

managers and research to develop new monitoring procedures. 

 An experimentation program will evaluate, as an example, over the 2007-2011 period, 

the effects of high flows, warmer water, predation control, stable flows on humpback chub 

lifecycles, sand bars, food web, etc. 

 Critical research studies will evaluate, as examples, CRE food base, humpback chub 

translocation within the Little Colorado River, modeling sand dynamics and loss, etc. 

 Research studies will also be used to, for example, design new monitoring protocols 

for food base, warm and coldwater control of exotic fishes and assessment of gear types 

and efficiencies for monitoring warm water fishes, changes in pathogens in the CRE, etc. 

 The monitoring program is redesigned to address the core monitoring information 

needs of managers and stakeholders and will emphasize native fish populations, water 

quality, cultural resources, etc. 

 Strategies will be pursued so that developed data more closely tracks changes in 

critical resources at levels of resolution required in the advisory process associated with the 

GCD-AMP. 

 Following, are examples of research and monitoring program efforts addressing 

managers’ information needs through the ecosystem science format: 

 A. Social Resources Goal: Providing Power Generation. 

 1. Issues of Concern: Maintaining programmed power operations; obtaining 

 replacement power; exceeding operating criteria. 

 2. AMWG Goal # 10. “Maintain power production capacity and energy 

 generation, and increase where feasible and available, within the adaptive 

 management competing goals.” 

 3. There are extensive ecosystem implications of flow changes to increased or 
11/03/05 – Draft SSP Sentence Outline – New Edits - 11/20/05 

16

 decreased power. Flow levels, ramp up and ramp down rates, flow temporal 

 variation etc. can impact physical, biotic and socio-cultural resources. 

 Knowledge assessment of power generation in this system indicates that wide 

 variations in high/low daily flows and hourly ramping rates are beneficial to 

 power and some other resources, but potentially not beneficial to other 

 resources. The economic trade-offs to make informed decisions are known 

 owing to abundant data and protocols to track resource change, but these data 

 are not well documented nor accessible to all stakeholders. 

 

 4. Overarching science question: 

 

 a. What flow regimes best mitigate cultural, sediment and recreation resource 

 impacts, improve fishery resources, maintain or improve riparian habitat 

 and insure acceptable power generation? 

 5. Proposed science program for study of power operations: 

 a. Research programs: 

• Develop simulation sub-model to produce variable power and water 

opportunity costs for alternative flow regimes 

• Evaluate modified ramping rates and load following flows on resources 

 in selected periods. 

 b. Monitoring Program: 

• Monitor water and power variability and associated changes in other 

 resources. 

 B. Physical Resource Goal: Resource effects of downstream water temperature 

including implications of utilizing a Selective Withdrawal Structure (SWS). 

1. Issues of Concern. 

Current natural warming of the CRE (2004-2008?) offers potential for 

evaluating SWS. Warm water temperature could have positive effects, but also 

negative effects. The net effect becomes the critical issue and therefore the risk 

associated with SWS implementation must be fully evaluated through use of 

sub-model simulations. An operational downstream water temperature submodel is needed. 

 2. AMWG Goal #7. “Establish water temperature, quality, and flow dynamics to 

 achieve the adaptive management program ecosystem goals.” 

3. Ecosystem implication of variable water temperatures are most paramount 

regarding biotic resources i.e., potential enhanced humpback chub (HBC) 

habitat, movement of warm water predators up river. However, social resource 

impacts could be significant, if for example, HBC are negatively impacted by 
11/03/05 – Draft SSP Sentence Outline – New Edits - 11/20/05 

17

warm water predators, or pathogens increase and impact rainbow trout (RBT) 

numbers or condition. A knowledge assessment identified that changing 

temperature would significantly impact all biology in the CRE and influence 

recreational experience. Some knowledge exists regarding longitudinal main 

channel water temperature changes, however increased knowledge is needed 

about the influence of tributary, LCR, and Lake Powell elevation and regional 

climate influences. A multi-dimensional sub-model for downstream 

temperature has already been developed by BOR, but needs to be more fully 

evaluated, verified and incorporated into the ecosystem science program, and 

made accessible to other scientists and fully linked to other sub-models, such as 

the CE-QUAL2 model for Lake Powell. 

4. Two significant overarching questions relating to this resource goal are: 

 a. How do dam operations, reservoir conditions, tributaries, climate, canyon 

 orientation/aspect, and the proposed Selective Withdrawal Structure affect water 

 temperature along the Colorado River in Grand Canyon? 

 b. How does water temperature affect other water quality parameters and 

 other resources such as the aquatic food base, fish, biological pathogens, 

 recreation, etc? 

 

 5. Proposed science program: 

 

 a. Research Program 

• Evaluate current warm water impacts from low reservoir conditions on 

CRE biology, especially HBC life stages. 

• Collaborate with BOR engineers to refine, and improve development 

of a water temperature predictive model and implementation of a SWS. 

• Evaluate and verify model performance and link with other sub-models 

through advanced conceptual modeling efforts. 

• Synthesis of Lake Powell data for the purpose of modeling and 

monitoring resource change. 

• Synthesis of historic tributary data (e.g., LCR). 

b. Monitoring Program 

• Data for model calibration and verification, and tracking changing 

boundary conditions. 

• Anticipate QW w/nutrients in support of aquatic resources. 

• Surface water and temperature measurements at discrete points. 

• HBC and RBT (Lees Ferry reach) life stage changes. 

C. Physical Resource Goal: Restoring Sand Bars and Maintaining Related 

Habitats. 

1. Issues of Concern: 
11/03/05 – Draft SSP Sentence Outline – New Edits - 11/20/05 

18

Feasibility under the Record-of-Decision of restoring and maintaining sand 

bars at levels needed to achieve priority ecosystem objectives. 

2. AMWG Goal #8: “Maintain or attain levels of sediment storage within the 

 main channel and along shorelines to achieve the Adaptive Management 

 Program ecosystem goals.” 

3. Ecosystem implications: Restoring and maintaining physical sand bar habitats 

and main channel sediment storage below Glen Canyon Dam can affect other 

physical, biotic and socio-cultural resources. Impacts to socio-cultural and 

biotic resources from releasing controlled floods during seasons of sediment 

input (summer and fall) relative to originally proposed spring timeframe. 

Additional socio-cultural and biotic resource impacts from constraining 

releases so as to retain or bank fine sediment tributary inputs until spring 

timing for floods. The 2005 Knowledge Assessment identified flow regimes 

required to bank tributary-input sand supplies (~10,000 cfs or lower) and 

identified that fine-sediment enrichment is required to achieve sandbar 

restoration. Even under supply enrichment, sand bars can only be significantly 

restored by elevating flows above power plant capacity. For new sand bars to 

persist, the deposits need to be isolated from erosion attributed by daily 

fluctuations. 

4. Overarching Science Question: Is there a “flow-only” operating strategy for 

Glen Canyon Dam releases that will attain and maintain necessary levels of 

useable sediment? 

 5. Proposed science program for determining whether or not a flow-only 

 strategy for maintaining sediment will be possible. 

a. Research Program 

• Potential replication of the 2004, high-flow 

sediment test, but perhaps in alternate season of winter/spring, 

following some monitored period of MLFF operations to redistribute 

new sand supplies more uniformly throughout reach of interest. 

• Flow and sediment-transport model development and 

 refinement. 

 b. Monitoring Program 

• Develop event monitoring in support of experimental 

 research and modeling associated with both tributary sand production 

(Paria and Little Colorado Rivers and lesser tributaries) 

 and mainstem suspended flux. 

• Focus monitoring around required parameters associated with 

 boundary conditions required as input by sediment sub-models. 

• Sand bar and eddy storage data collected around controlled flood 

 events that are required to verify the sediment sub-models. 
11/03/05 – Draft SSP Sentence Outline – New Edits - 11/20/05 

19

• Stage measurements at key locations that are needed to verify flow 

 routing sub-models. 

D. Biological Resource Goal. Protection of CRE Food Base 

1. Issue of Concern: Contribution of primary and secondary productivity to the 

aquatic food web and how dam operations affect productivity and food web 

dynamics. 

2. AMWG Goal #1: “Protect or improve the aquatic food base so that it will 

support viable populations of desired species at higher trophic levels.” 

3. Ecosystem implications of significant changes in aquatic food base can affect 

higher tropic levels such as RBT and HBC. A knowledge assessment revealed 

that the flux of invertebrates is expected to increase with temperature but the 

directional response in Grand Canyon is unknown. Higher temperatures and 

increase food production normally lead to increase invertebrate production and 

drifting rates. In Grand Canyon, it is unknown whether invertebrate production 

and drift rates will increase with temperature. 

4. Overarching science questions exist in at least three areas as follows: 

 a. What are the important pathways, and the rate of flux along them, that link 

lower trophic levels with fish? 

 b. How is invertebrate flux affected by water quality and dam operations? 

 c. Are trends in the abundance of fish populations or indicators associated 

with fish, correlated with patterns in food availability and/or quality? 

5. Proposed science program for the aquatic food base: 

 a. Research program 

• Whole river metabolism 

• Stable isotope/diet analysis 

• Carbon/energy transfer from basal level through invertebrates 

 (secondary production) 

• Bioenergetics modeling 

 b. Monitoring program – TBD but may include a combination of 

• Bioenergetics modeling input data 

• Whole river metabolism 

• Secondary producer monitoring 

• Fish diet 

• Fish abundance data from fisheries program 
11/03/05 – Draft SSP Sentence Outline – New Edits - 11/20/05 

20

 E. Biological Resources Goal: Maintain Lees Ferry Rainbow Trout Fishery 

 [ photo of trout fisherman] 

1. Issues of Concern: Potential impacts of Lees Ferry rainbow trout program on 

downstream native fishes. Inability to sustain quality RBT in a naturally 

reproducing fishery. 

2. AMWG Goal #4: “Maintain a naturally reproducing population of rainbow 

trout above the Paria River, to the extent practical and consistent with the 

maintenance of viable populations of native fish.” 

3. Ecosystem implications of maintaining a naturally reproducing population of 

rainbow trout above the Paria River. The goal of upstream population 

abundance (100,000 adults) may cause downstream migration and increased 

downstream competition and predation on native fishes. Recreational fishing 

interactions could increase pathogen prominence or effect food base and/or 

native fish. Knowledge assessment recognized that the link between Lees 

Ferry and downstream RBT populations needs to be clarified. 

4. Overarching Science Questions: What is the relationship between GCD flow 

regimes, and annual volumes, and population dynamics of rainbow trout in the 

Lees Ferry reach and downstream? What could be the water quality effects on 

RBT/Brown trout in Lees Ferry? 

 5. Proposed science program for Lees Ferry rainbow trout: 

a. Research program 

• Research to evaluate Lees Ferry migration downstream. 

• A research study to evaluate increased temperature effects on RBT 

b. Monitoring Program 

• Monitor changes in trout condition under differing temperature regimes 

• Stock assessment for Lees Ferry linked with downstream RBT 

monitoring 

• Monitoring of brown trout occurrence in L.F 

F. Biological Ecosystem Resource Goal. Maintain or Enhance Native Fish 

Populations [photos of native fishes here] 

1. Issues of concern. The two main factors likely responsible for decline of native 

Colorado River fishes are physical-habitat modification and interaction with 

non-native species. However, there are fundamental uncertainties regarding 

how these factors, and perhaps others, influence native fishes. 

2. AMWG Goal #2: “Maintain or attain viable populations of existing native 

fish.” 
11/03/05 – Draft SSP Sentence Outline – New Edits - 11/20/05 

21

3. Ecosystem implications relating to maintaining native fish components are 

broad due to inter- and intraspecific interactions of fishes, trophic level 

linkages that involve water quality, food availability and quality, and the 

interactions each resource that affects native fish recruitment has with flow and 

temperature. The looking outward matrix identifies extensive effectors to HBC 

and illustrates the complex interactions that HBC have with other resources as 

flows change. 

4. Overarching science questions. Two overarching questions must be resolved 

regarding HBC. 

 a. What are the limiting life stages controlling population dynamics of 

 the HBC? 

 b. What are the dominant factors controlling recruitment dynamics of 

 HBC? 

5. Proposed science program for the native fish program involves extensive 

research and monitoring: 

a. Research program: 

• Improving monitoring technologies (gear efficiency and detection) and 

 data analysis – field/lab based. 

• Assessment of mortality factors (habitat, predation, competition) for 

 life history parameters – lab and controlled field experiment. 

• Evaluate increased temperature and Asian tapeworm infestation in 

 HBC – monitoring protocol development - field experiment. 

• Exotic control efficacy – field experimentation. 

• Sampling protocol/approach for estimating YOY survivorship. 

• Relative importance of temperature, fluctuations food on survival and 

growth of YOY native fish. – modeling and controlled field 

experiment. 

• Define successful strategies of YOY and juveniles that recruit to the 

 adult population. 

b. Monitoring program: 

• Stock assessment of LCR HBC 

• Stock assessment of non-natives 

G. Biological Ecosystem Resource Goal. Maintain or improve riparian and 

spring communities including endangered species [photo of Vaseys Paradise 

and kanab ambersnail here] 
11/03/05 – Draft SSP Sentence Outline – New Edits - 11/20/05 

22

1. Issues of Concern. Riparian plant communities are linked to both aquatic and 

 terrestrial resources and interacts with cultural resources associated with 

recreation and possibly archaeological sites. Understanding how riparian 

vegetation responds to flows and affects other resources of concern forms a 

basis for managing critical resources like native fish, archaeological properties. 

 

2. AMWG Goals #5 & 6: “Maintain or attain viable populations of kanab 

ambersnail. Protect or improve the biotic riparian and spring communities 

including threatened and endangered species and their critical habitat.” 

3. Ecosystem implications of maintaining or improving riparian communities 

relate to aquatic and terrestrial food webs associated with native and sport 

fishes and riparian breeding birds including southwestern willow flycatcher. 

The looking outward matrix identifies flow and sediment inputs as primary 

effectors for riparian vegetation, but there are multiple sub-models to which the 

riparian community information is a contributor. The knowledge assessment 

recognized that there was some certainty about the relationship of marsh 

community development and flows, but that this uncertainty decreased as one 

progresses upslope. The interactions between wildlife and riparian habitat are 

less developed. 

 

4. Overarching science questions are as follows: 

a. How do processes occurring at a variety of spatial scales (i.e., population 

level to community to landscape scales) interface to influence riparian 

habitat? 

b. What is the nature and timing of terrestrial—aquatic linkages, and what is 

their influence on the recipient habitat? 

c. How do terrestrial habitat and cultural resources interact? 

5. Proposed science program for the native fish program involves extensive 

research and monitoring: 

a. Research program: 

• Vegetation synthesis 

• Quantify rates of change and assess sources of change 

• Estimate above ground productivity and determine contribution to 

 energy/carbon cycles – vegetation map – field sampling - modeling 

• Quantify vegetation encroachment in tandem with camp site 

 assessments/inventory 

• Remote survey of Vaseys Paradise 

• Population modeling of KAS 
11/03/05 – Draft SSP Sentence Outline – New Edits - 11/20/05 

23

b. Monitoring program: 

• Annual system-wide measure of change related to annual operations. 

• Five – year overflight vegetation map to quantify community change. 

• Secondary production monitoring. 

• Riparian bird surveys/inventory – frequency to be determined. 

H. Sociocultural Ecosystem Resource Goal. Maintain high quality recreation 

 experience in the CRE. [photo of boaters here] 

1. Issues of Concern. Flows are known to be important influences of recreational 

experience, but the relative importance of flows compared with other 

experiential attributes is uncertain. Evaluation of how flows affect recreation 

experience will require a trade-off analysis that considers not only the multiple 

and sometimes contradictory effects of flows on recreational experience, but 

also the effects of non-flow attributes. 

2. AMWG Goal #9: “Maintain or improve the quality of recreation experiences 

for users of the CRE, within the framework of the adaptive management 

program ecosystem goals.” 

3. Ecosystem implications of maintaining recreation quality are not fully 

understood, but recreational activities can potentially affect rates of sediment 

erosion, terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems functions. Visitor use also impacts 

cultural resource integrity and wilderness qualities. The looking-outward 

matrix identifies flow as a primary effector of key recreational experience 

attributes. Faster flows result in more time at sites and more impact. 

Knowledge assessment identified the need to understand the importance of 

flows relative to other factors that may affect recreational experience. 

Subsequent knowledge gaps involved how the variables of flow interacted with 

other aspects of recreation along the river corridor. 

 

4. Overarching science questions are as follows: 

 a. What are the principle drivers of recreational experience quality in the 

CRE, and how important are flows relative to the other drivers? 

b. How do dam-controlled flows and other management actions affect 

 recreational experiences? 

 5. Proposed science program for study of recreation-related issues: 

 a. Research programs: 
11/03/05 – Draft SSP Sentence Outline – New Edits - 11/20/05 

24

• Conduct study to establish importance of flow parameters relative to 

other experiential attributes in determining quality of recreational 

experience in the CRE. 

• Inventory current campsites; evaluate change in campsite. 

size/distribution/qualities through time (1976-2006) using Weeden 

1976 inventory as baseline. 

• Apply NAU visitor encounter model to predict crowding/congestion 

under varying proposed flow regimes. 

• Quantify recreational impacts from an ecosystem perspective (e.g., 

contributions to food base, human-induced sediment loss at beaches, 

vegetation impacts) focused on debris-fan complexes. 

• Define indicators of recreational experience, including human health 

and safety under varying flow regimes for future monitoring. 

• Conduct trade-off analysis of key experiential attributes under varying 

flow regimes. 

b. Monitoring Program: 

• Monitor indicators of high quality visitor experiences (e.g., campable 

area, campsite competition/crowding). 

• Monitor visitor impacts to ecosystem processes. 

• Monitor human health and safety-related parameters under varying 

flow regimes. 

I. Socio-cultural Ecosystem Resource Goal. Insure the preservation cultural 

 resources. 

1. Issues of Concern: 1)NPS management policy and standards requires the NPS 

to preserve arch sites “in site” which may constrain management options; 2) 

resolving legal requirements and public values; 3) developing/evaluating 

appropriate mitigation strategies to offset resource loss; 4) resolving MNPS, 

BOR, and GCMRC appropriate roles in science and management. 

2. AMWG Goal #11: “Preserve, protect, manage and treat cultural resources for 

the inspiration and benefit of past, present and future generations.” 

3. Ecosystem implications of protecting and preserving cultural resources are not 

fully understood, but the ongoing loss of Holocene deposits threatens our 

ability to reconstruct/understand past ecosystem processes and interpret cultural 

resources in their prehistoric and historic contexts. Flows also affect culturallyvalued native plants. Proposed treatment activities can potentially affect 

recreation and tribally-valued traditions, as well as effect ecosystem processes. 

The looking outward matrix identifies flow regimes as one of several key 

factors affecting cultural resource conditions in the CRE. A knowledge 

assessment workshop identified the need for a well-conceived geomorphic 

model to assess the relationship between sediment transport and arch site 
11/03/05 – Draft SSP Sentence Outline – New Edits - 11/20/05 

25

erosion. The workshop also pointed out the need for research to 

inventory/evaluate and resolve effects to TCPs. 

4. Overarching science questions are as follows: 

a. How do flows, climate, and human use interact to impact historic properties 

in the CRE, and what are appropriate roles for GCMRC, BOR, and NPS in 

science and management? 

b. How do flows positively or negatively impact the culturally-valued flora 

and fauna and recreation values in the CRE? 

c. What kinds of important historical/legacy information about the CRE 

ecosystem and past human use of the CRE are embedded within the higher 

elevation Holocene deposits, where they are, and how can they be 

conserved? 

5. Proposed science program for study of cultural resources: 

a. Research Programs: 

• Develop geomorphic model to predict erosion rates at arch sites under 

different flow regimes, climate, and geomorphic parameters. 

• Map and evaluate ecological/cultural information embedded within 

CRE Holocene deposits. 

• Identify and evaluate TCPs and the flow-related processes that may be 

affecting them. 

b. Monitoring Programs: 

• Monitor/quantify erosion of Holocene terraces and physical changes 

affecting integrity of archaeological sites and TCPs. 

• Monitor changes to specific plants/vegetation communities valued by 

tribes as resources of traditional concern. 

• Monitor effectiveness of proposed cultural resource treatments. 

 

 J. Data Management Goal: Ensure Adequacy of Existing and Future Data 

 1. Issue of concern: Adequacy, accessibility and relevance of existing data (data 

 needed for modeling ecosystem interactions as well as assessing status and 

 trends of key resources) needs to be assessed periodically to ensure that the 

 AMP has the data it needs to fulfill its stated goals/objectives and maintain 

 scientific credibility. 

 2. AMWG Goal 12: “Maintain a high quality monitoring, research and adaptive 

 management program.” 

 

 3. Ecosystem implications are indirect, but this issue is important for future 
11/03/05 – Draft SSP Sentence Outline – New Edits - 11/20/05 

26

 monitoring and modeling of ecosystem functions. 

4. Overarching Question: What is the status of existing GCMRC/AMP data 

 related to key resources and ecosystem processes with respect to the following: 

1)accuracy of existing data, 2) adequacy/precision necessary for modeling and 

status/trends assessments, and 3) current accessibility/utility of existing 

databases for analyses and future model development. 

5. Proposed science program: Evaluate defined data needs relative to existing 

databases. 

VII. A GOAL TO INTEGRATE ALL GCD AMP SCIENCE FOR IMPROVED 

 KNOWLEDGE AND EFFECTIVE DECISIONS 

 A. Extensive research, monitoring and management actions are now occurring in the 

 CRE by various management and science groups. Although most are within the 

 GCD AMP/GCMRC programs, managed with GCD AMP protocols, some are not. 

 

 B. A Proposed SPG Aproach regarding “all non GCD AMP directed science” is to: 

 1. Request TWG fully document all agency and other science programs in the 

 CRE by FY 2006/2007. 

 2. Evaluate potential implications of these activities to GCD AMP goals and 

 objectives by 2007. 

 3. Recommend to AMWG in FY 2007 approaches for GCD AMP to benefit from 

 these programs and/or resolve any potential conflicts to GCD AMP goals. 

 

VIII. IDENTIFICATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF RESOURCE NEEDS FOR 

 SUPPORTING SCIENCE PROCESS 

A. Defining GCMRC generalized 2-year and 5-year budgets 

 1. The GCMRC will organize administratively within its own staff and in 

 collaborative partnerships with other groups to improve its science capability 

 to resolve GCD AMP resource issues. 

 

a. The Center’s policy, development and science leadership effectiveness in 

this planning period is predicated on its ability to design and implement, 

with diverse cooperators and leading cooperative and contract scientists, 

several new resource development efforts and critical systems-based 

biology, sediment and cultural science efforts. This will include aggressive 

leadership from the GCMRC Chief in new collaborative partnerships and 

aggressive science leadership for increased understanding of HBC 

population enhancement, opportunities and procedures to understand and 

improve CRE aquatic food base capabilities and non-native fish predation 
11/03/05 – Draft SSP Sentence Outline – New Edits - 11/20/05 

27

and pathogen control mechanisms. This may require positions in systems 

and fish ecology at the Center and development of both cooperative and 

contractual programs external to GCMRC for resource support and to gain 

expertise in modeling, food base and native and non-native fish ecology. 

Some cooperative science programs are in place such as RBT programs and 

non-native fish depredation programs. Others such as riparian vegetation 

contribution to drift, systems understanding of aquatic food base and 

predation and pathogen programs must be developed. A sediment program 

effort to understand fine sediment loss to the system will be pursued in both 

cooperative and contractual modeling programs, and new approaches to 

cultural resources monitoring, research and preservation will involve both 

cooperative and contract programs. 

 b. The FY 2007/2008 budget will reflect the beginning efforts in this 

 planning period to resolve key AMWG concerns. Structured budget 

 planning will follow the AMWG developed protocol. New collaborative 

 partnerships will be forged by the GCMRC Chief to assure success of these 

 programs. The proposed revisions in the biology budget is to rapidly 

 increase aquatic food base knowledge, especially as it relates to HBC 

 needs, including vegetation contributions to drift; critical HBC life cycle 

 constraints; fine sediment maintenance in the mainstem; and new 

 approaches for cultural resources protection. It is anticipated that the 

 additional funds will be needed in these efforts in FY 2008 can be obtained 

through AMWG leadership. 

 In FY 2007, the GCMRC may need to propose opportunities for collaborative 

partnerships to expand external resource capability to the Center to support 

expanded AMWG information needs. 

 
11/03/05 – Draft SSP Sentence Outline – New Edits - 11/20/05 

28

B. Specifying desired collaborative programs and partnerships. 

 The GCMRC has had to respond to many new science and administrative issues in 

 the past 5 years; i.e., non-native fish removal, sandbar building, reductions in budget, 

 etc. Looking forward over the next five year planning period it will be necessary 

 to do improved budget planning with the AMWG. Support from AMWG is 

 necessary in the area of priority setting on programs and assisting GCMRC with 

 budget support and new collaborative programs. To respond to the expanding 

 science needs in the CRE, GCMRC and AMWG must build additional program 

 capability in several areas. 

 1. AMWG should implement a 3-5 year cycle of revisiting its priority setting 

 exercise for AMWG goals and information needs, to assist GCMRC in 

 program reductions and program realignment under constrained budgets. 

 2. AMWG should develop greater support from the Secretary/Congress to 

 prevent budget cuts and expand budgets when AMWG feels programs 

 should be expanded. 

3. GCMRC will formally program an in depth knowledge assessment and 

significant program revisions at 5 year intervals to align future science 

activities with AMWG priority goals. 

 4. GCMRC, with AMWG assistance, will program expanded collaborative 

 partnerships to increase resource capability in three areas. 

 a. Develop formal cooperative partnerships with GCD AMP agencies 

 on associated GCD AMP programs to reduce GCD AMP program 

 cost or effort; i.e., NPS, BOR, SWSC, USF&W, etc. 

 b. AMWG should develop formal collaborative partnerships with federal and 

 state agencies not currently involved in GCD AMP, but interested in GCD 

 AMP programs; i.e., other federal and state agencies. 

 c. GCMRC should develop formal collaborative partnerships with other 

 organizations and foundations with interest in GCD AMP programs, i.e., 

 NRCS, NSF, museums, and foundations. Collaborative efforts will be 

 extended to organizations interested in formal information technology 

 partnerships with GCMRC, a program that must remain continually at the 

 cutting edge. 

 

C. GCMRC organizational strategy for meeting science needs through 

internal and external activities. 

 1. GCMRC has only recently (2005) replaced two key leadership positions, 

and still lacks significant needed help in the area of systems ecology and 
11/03/05 – Draft SSP Sentence Outline – New Edits - 11/20/05 

29

systems modeling. With the placement of a new Chief and Biology 

Program Managers, programs staffing will be evaluated for needed 

revisions.