This is an annotated copy of the GCMRC draft with Comments by David Braun,

Sound Science LLC and GCDAMP Executive Coordinator, Science Advisors

Program. The comments are intended to provide feedback to the GCMRC,

Reclamation, and the TWG on ways in which the proposed work for FY18‐20

might be clarified/improved/strengthened. The comments take the 2017

Knowledge Assessment findings (and recommendations) as one source of

guidance, but more importantly focus on the implications of the LTEMP

EIS/ROD objectives and specific needs highlighted by the EIS/ROD for

“learning” through adaptive management. The comments below are intended

for discussion purposes only and are not for citation, quotation, or wider

distribution.

Preliminary Draft of the 

Grand Canyon Monitoring 

and Research Center’s 

Triennial Work Plan and 

Budget for Fiscal Years 

2018-2020 

April 7, 2017 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Project A. Streamflow, Water Quality, and 

Sediment Transport and Budgeting in the 

Colorado River Ecosystem 

1. Investigators 

David J. Topping, Research Hydrologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon 

Monitoring and Research Center 

Water Science Center from USGS headquarters, the Bureau of Land Management, and 

the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. 

This project is designed to provide measurements of stage (i.e., water elevation), 

discharge, water quality, and suspended sediment at sufficiently high temporal 

resolutions (~15-minute) to resolve changes in these parameters and to allow accurate 

determination of suspended-sediment loads for use in sediment budgeting. The proposed 

monitoring under this project will be very similar to that conducted over the last 5-10 

years. The 3 elements of this project are as follows: 

Ronald E. Griffiths, Hydrologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center 

David J. Dean, Research Hydrologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon 

Monitoring and Research Center 

2. Project Summary 

The primary linkage between Glen Canyon Dam operations and the 

characteristics of the physical, biological, and cultural resources of the Colorado River 

ecosystem (CRe) downstream from Glen Canyon Dam is through the stage, discharge, 

water quality, and sediment transport of the Colorado River. This project makes and 

interprets the basic measurements of these parameters at locations throughout the CRe. 

The data collected by this project are used to implement the High Flow Experiment 

(HFE) Protocol (i.e., trigger and design HFE hydrographs), to evaluate the reach-scale 

sand mass-balance response to the HFE Protocol, and to evaluate the downstream effects 

of releases conducted under the Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan 

(LTEMP) EIS. The data collected by this project are also required by the other physical, 

ecological, and socio-cultural projects funded by the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive 

Management Program (GCDAMP). Most of the project funds support basic data 

collection at USGS gaging stations, with only a small amount of project funds supporting 

interpretation of basic data. The funds requested under this proposal cover only ~70% of 

the costs required to operate and interpret data at the network of USGS gaging stations 

used by this project; other funding for this network is provided to the USGS Arizona 

1. Stream gaging: This element partially funds the collection, interpretation, 

and serving of continuous 15-minute measurements of stage and discharge on the mainstem Colorado River at USGS streamflow gaging stations located at river miles (RM) 0, 

2	

Commented [DPB1]: I think it would be useful if each 

project statement explicitly states and explains how the 

project aligns with the monitoring and learning objectives 

embodied in the LTEMP EIS and ROD, as well as the longterm goals of the AMP overall. This presumably would go 

into a TWP overview chapter as well, where the projects are 

introduced in the context of the ‘big picture’ discussion of 

monitoring and research needs. 

Commented [DPB2]: Some project statements formally 

designate their component actions as “Elements” while 

others do not. I found it helpful to have consistent identifiers 

for the components of each proposal (“Element” seems to 

work). Could that be done consistently for all projects? 

Commented [DPB3]: Most projects focus on topics 

explicitly addressed in the 2017 Knowledge Assessment, in 

which expert teams sometimes identified significant gaps 

and weaknesses (unknowns and uncertainties) in existing 

knowledge. These unknowns or uncertainties variously stem 

from ambiguities or gaps in AMP/LTEMP resource 

management objectives, statistical limitations in existing 

data, gaps in present understanding of biological or 

ecological interactions, and so forth. Where appropriate, the 

descriptions of the proposed projects should identify and 

state how the work will address critical unknowns and 

uncertainties. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. Sediment transport and budgeting: This element funds the collection, 

interpretation, and serving of continuous 15-minute measurements and also episodic 

measurements of suspended sediment and bed sediment at the above-mentioned gaging 

stations on the Colorado River and its tributaries. The continuous suspended-sediment 

measurements at the six main-stem Colorado River gaging stations, and the episodic 

suspended-sediment measurements in the tributaries are used in the construction of massbalance sand budgets. These budgets inform scientists and managers on the effects of 

dam operations on the sand mass balance in the CRe between Lees Ferry and Lake Mead 

(divided into six reaches). Increases in the sand mass balance in a reach indicate an 

increase in the amount of sand in that reach and therefore an increase in the amount of 

sand available for sandbar deposition during HFEs, whereas decreases in the sand mass 

balance in a reach indicate a net loss of sand from that reach. 

 All measurements made by this project are made using standard USGS and other 

peer-reviewed techniques. All of these measurements can be plotted and/or downloaded 

at: https://www.gcmrc.gov/discharge_qw_sediment/ or 

https://www.gcmrc.gov/discharge_qw_sediment/. Plots of continuous parameters can be 

made in time-series or duration-curve formats. In addition, the user-interactive massbalance sand budgets for the six CRe reaches are available at this website. 

In addition to the collection and serving of the basic streamflow, water-quality, 

30, 61, 87, 166, and 225, and at gaging stations on the major tributaries and in a 

representative subset of the smaller, and formerly ungaged, tributaries. 

2. Water quality: This element funds the collection, interpretation, and serving 

of continuous 15-minute measurements of water temperature, specific conductance (a 

measure of salinity), turbidity, and dissolved oxygen at the above-mentioned six mainstem Colorado River gaging stations, as well as continuous measurements of water 

temperature at additional stations on the Colorado River and in the major tributaries. In 

addition, this element partially funds the logistics required to make water-chemistry 

measurements (including measurements of nutrients) at gaging stations on the Colorado 

River. 

and sediment-transport 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. The interpretive papers published by 

this project are designed to address key questions relevant to river management, 

especially to management in the GCDAMP. During FY 2018-20, multiple journal articles 

and top-tier USGS reports will be published, including on the following topics: 

 Analysis of Paria River hydrology 1920s-present with implications for longterm sediment management in the CRe (lead author Topping) 

 Geomorphology, hydraulic geometry, and sediment transport in the Paria 

River (lead author Topping) 

	 Sediment transport and geomorphic change in the Little Colorado River, with 

implications for aquatic and riparian habitat in the lower Little Colorado River 

(lead author Dean) 

	 Initial evaluation of LTEMP flows on sediment storage in the CRe (lead 

author Griffiths) 

In addition to these publications, additional data reports and interpretive reports will be 

published by project personnel and USGS cooperators. 

3	

Commented [DPB4]: Should refer reader to Project E. 

Commented [DPB5]: Glad to see this. Many potential 

implications for long-term adaptive management. For 

example, does/will tamarisk defoliation in both watersheds 

affect sediment delivery patterns? How might changes in 

weather patterns affect watershed and flow-path erosion? 

Does land development in the huge, multi-state LCR 

watershed have the potential to affect sediment discharge 

(e.g., see 

https://legacy.azdeq.gov/environ/water/assessment/download 

/lg.pdf)? 
	 	

     

       

       

     

       

       

       

                         

     

       

       

   

            

3. Budget 

Streamflow, Water Quality,

and Sediment Transport and

Budgeting in the Colorado

River Ecosystem

Streamflow, Water Quality,

and Sediment Transport and

Budgeting in the Colorado

River Ecosystem

Salaries $473,491 Salaries $487,696

Traveling and Training $10,000 Traveling and Training $10,000

Operating Expenses $90,000 Operating Expenses $90,000

Logistics $106,146 Logistics $108,269

Cooperators (non‐USGS) Cooperators (non‐USGS)

USGS Cooperators $540,098 USGS Cooperators $547,500

USGS Burden $176,706 USGS Burden $180,951

Total $1,396,441 Total $1,424,416

FY 2018

FY 2018 Project Gross Totals: $ 1,396,441

FY 2019

FY 2019 Project Gross Totals: $ 1,424,416

Streamflow, Water Quality,

and Sediment Transport and

Budgeting in the Colorado

River Ecosystem

Salaries $502,327

Traveling and Training $10,000

Operating Expenses $90,000

Logistics $110,434

Cooperators (non‐USGS)

USGS Cooperators $555,050

USGS Burden $185,318

Total $1,453,129

FY 2020 Project Gross Totals: $ 1,453,129

FY 2020

4	
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

website for serving sandbar data and images will be maintained and improved. The 

methods for automated processing of remote camera images to calculate sandbar area that 

were developed during the FY15-17 triennial work plan will be implemented to provide 

monthly measurements of sandbar area for a subset of the monitoring sites. Work for this 

project will occur on one non-motorized river trip annually. 

Project Element 2. Long-term Monitoring and Research on Sediment Storage and 

Physical Habitat Characteristics of the River Channel: 

Project B. Sandbar and Sediment Storage 

Monitoring and Research 

1. Investigators 

Paul E. Grams, Research Hydrologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon 

Monitoring and Research Center 

Joseph E. Hazel, Jr., Research Associate, Northern Arizona University 

Matt Kaplinski, Research Associate, Northern Arizona University 

Keith Kohl, Surveyor, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research 

Center 

Thomas M. Gushue, GIS Coordinator, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon 

Monitoring and Research Center 

Ed Schenk, Physical Scientist, Grand Canyon National Park 

2. Project Summary 

Project Element 1. Monitoring sandbars using topographic surveys and remote 

cameras: 

The purpose of this monitoring project is to provide annual status and long-term 

trends for sandbars and campsites in Glen, Marble and Grand Canyons. This information 

is used to evaluate the effects of dam operations, including high-flow experiments 

(HFE’s), on sandbars and related resources. We propose to continue annual monitoring of 

the existing set of 45 long-term monitoring sites with annual surveys of sandbar area and 

volume and usable campsite area (subset of 37 sites). In addition, this project will include 

maintenance of remote cameras for daily monitoring at 42 sites and support for the Grand 

Canyon River Guides Adopt-a-Beach program, which provides an assessment of 

campsite condition from the perspective of river guides. The sandbar database and 

The purpose of this combined monitoring and research project is to provide 

assessment of long-term trends in sand storage and track changes in the spatial 

distribution of sand in the channel, eddies, and on exposed sandbars. This project will 

also include continued research on bedload sand transport, classification of bed 

composition, measurement of sand thickness, and flow modeling to support this and other 

projects. 

We propose to make repeat maps of Lower Marble Canyon in 2018 and Eastern Grand 

Canyon in 2020. LMC was mapped previously in 2009 and 2012 and EGC was mapped 

in 2011 and 2014. Thus, the repeat maps made in this work plan will provide a record of 

5	

Commented [DPB6]: I understand that the lag time, 

before channel mapping results are available, means that 

before/after comparisons conditions for HFEs are not 

possible for some time after the HFE. Does this affect the 

usefulness of the mapping? Also, more generally, it might to 

have an explanation of how some of the mapping work 

aligns with the LTEMP EIS and ROD objectives as well as 

long-term AMP objectives. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

changes for 9-year periods. In 2019, we propose to collect an initial map of Western 

Grand Canyon between Diamond Creek and Pearce Ferry. This segment, much of which 

was inundated by Lake Mead, is now an active river channel with gradient controlled by 

Pearce Ferry Rapid. This segment was a zone of sediment accumulation where the 

Colorado River formed a delta at high reservoir levels, but it is unknown whether 

sediment accumulation continues to occur or whether it is now a zone of net sediment 

evacuation. Much of the segment is lined with vertical cutbanks of eroding Lake Mead 

sediments. The information will be used to estimate cutbank erosion rates and evaluate 

options for managing sediment in the river channel. Work in the segment will be 

bedload sand transport. 

coordinated with the National Park Service, the Hualapai Tribe, and potential related 

work on San Juan and Colorado River deltas in Lake Powell. On each mapping trip, we 

will make measurements to estimate sand thickness where possible to develop improved 

estimates for the total (absolute) mass of sand storage in each river segment. We will also 

make measurements of bedload transport at each sediment gage to improve estimates for 

We will use data collected in Marble Canyon between 2009 and 2016 to produce 

a series of two-dimensional (i.e., depth-averaged) flow models. These models will utilize 

bathymetry and near-channel topography collected during previous channel mapping 

trips, along with upland topography collected by the 2013 aerial overflight to predict flow 

depth, velocity, and inundation extent (modeled or “virtual” shorelines) from low flows 

(i.e. < 8,000 ft3/s) to the historic flood of record (210,000 ft3/s). Combined with a 

recently-developed two-dimensional flow model for Glen Canyon, this work will enable 

near-continuous predictions of inundation extents, fish/invertebrate habitat availability, 

and hydraulics in eddies throughout Marble Canyon, that will be used by numerous other 

projects in the triennial work plan. Work for this project requires one motorized river trip 

annually. 

Project Element 3. Sandbar Modeling: 

The purpose of sandbar modeling is to improve capabilities for predicting sandbar 

response to dam operations, including HFE’s. In the FY15-17 work plan progress was 

made on identifying patterns of sandbar response and developing a simple predictive 

model based on site characteristics, streamflow, and sediment supply. We propose to 

continue development and validation of that model in the first year of the FY18-20 

triennial work plan. One of the challenges to the current modeling effort is that there is 

very little capacity for predicting sandbar response to HFEs of different magnitude, 

duration, or hydrograph shape. This is because most of the HFEs have had similar 

hydrographs, but with different sediment supply and antecedent sandbar conditions. This 

lack of controlled conditions in the field coupled with the expense of collecting detailed 

field measurements around each HFE makes it difficult to address questions about the 

effect of hydrograph characteristics on sandbar response based on field data alone. 

Therefore, we propose to investigate the effects of hydrograph shape on sandbar 

deposition and erosion with a set of laboratory flume experiments. Pilot experiments 

conducted in 2016 demonstrated the feasibility of conducting laboratory experiments on 

eddy sandbar formation in a large experimental channel. 

6	

Commented [DPB7]: This may also be a zone of native 

fish species recruitment, and geospatial data are needed on 

macro- and meso-habitat structure to help fisheries teams 

understand how habitat conditions here may bear on 

expanding native fish populations in WGC and upward from 

there. Same concerns for non-native species as well. 

Commented [DPB8]: Do any properties of the Paria 

sediment input affect these responses, too – not just mass but 

particle properties? 
 

 

	 	

       

                     

   

          

Project Element 4. Control Network and Survey Support: 

This project element provides support to project elements 1 and 2 and to other 

projects that require repeatable geospatial measurements. The project requires one river 

trip in FY 2019 to complete control work between River Miles 87 and 166, in support of 

future remote sensing missions and mapping work. 

3. Budget 

Project Project

Salaries $542,355 Salaries $558,626

Traveling and Training $5,900 Traveling and Training $5,900

Operating Expenses $37,000 Operating Expenses $22,000

Logistics $106,424 Logistics $141,534

Cooperators (non‐USGS) $483,880 Cooperators (non‐USGS) $483,880

USGS Cooperators USGS Cooperators

USGS Burden $194,353 USGS Burden $203,812

Total $1,369,912 Total $1,415,752

FY 2018

FY 2018 Project Gross Totals: $1,369,912

FY 2019

FY 2019 Project Gross Totals: $1,415,752

Project

Salaries $617,176

Traveling and Training $5,900

Operating Expenses $37,000

Logistics $97,198

Cooperators (non‐USGS) $490,789

USGS Cooperators

USGS Burden $211,615

Total $1,459,678

FY 2020 Project Gross Totals: $1,459,678

FY 2020

7	
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Project C. Riparian Vegetation Monitoring 

and Research 

1. Investigators 

Joel Sankey, Research Geologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

8	

Research Center 

Brad Butterfield, Northern Arizona University 

Emily Palmquist, Ecologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center 

Laura Durning, Northern Arizona University 

2. Project Summary 

Riparian vegetation affects physical processes and biological interactions along 

the channel downstream of Glen Canyon Dam. The presence and expansion of riparian 

vegetation promotes bank stability, diminishes the magnitude of scour and fill during 

floods, and has a role in wildlife habitat and recreational values. This project utilizes 

annual field measurements (Element 1) and digital imagery (Element 2) for integrated 

monitoring of changes in vegetation assessed at river segment and system-wide scales for 

vegetation associated with sandbars, debris fans and channel margins. Included in 

monitoring are: (1) a 5-year assessment of vegetation change (Element 1); (2) revisiting 

and updating the status of marsh area and composition as was done in 1995 by Stevens et 

al. (1995) (Element 3); and (3) analyzing a new system-wide remote sensing vegetation 

classification, providing a system-wide assessment of Tamarisk beetle defoliation from 

2009-2013, and analyzing the sand/vegetation turnover dynamism (Element 2). Each part 

of the project elements provides an assessment of the status of plant communities 

identified as of interest or concern by stakeholders, and informs proposed research in 

support of the LTEMP and plant mitigation efforts. 

Building on the modeling efforts of elements of the previous workplan, this 

project will also utilize existing data and new genetic data to examine the influence of 

dam operations on riparian vegetation distribution and composition in relation to limiting 

climatic factors (Element 4). The results of this work will inform the parameters in 

which vegetation management will be most successful and improve the State and 

Transition models for predicting vegetation response to changing dam operations. The 

vegetation monitoring and remote sensing products outlined above (and described below) 

will be integrated with flow-response vegetation guilds to develop predictive models of 

vegetation responses to LTEMP flow scenarios. These flow-response guilds categorize 

species by their predicted responses to variation in flow levels, which if accurate could 

greatly simplify and improve predicted responses to future flow scenarios. We will test 

these predictions based on responses observed in long-term monitoring data to a wealth 

of hydrological and geomorphological factors. These empirical relationships will be 

in response to specific future flow scenarios. These predicted outcomes will be generated 

across multiple spatial scales in order to better inform management. 

incorporated into a predictive model that generates probabilities of vegetation outcomes 

Commented [DPB9]: It would be helpful if the project 

summary indicated how the proposed work addresses 

LTEMP EIS and ROD resource goals for Natural Processes, 

Riparian vegetation, and other resources. Also, the 2017 

Knowledge Assessment responses from the Riparian 

Vegetation team indicated several areas of uncertainty about 

status and trends and external drivers. It would be useful if 

the project summary indicated explicitly how the proposed 

work will help redress these unknowns and uncertainties. 

Commented [DPB10]: It also affects the mobility of 

exposed riverine sediment, which affects aeolian 

redistribution onto cultural sites. 

Commented [DPB11]: I would say simply “affects” 

Commented [DPB12]: The LTEMP ROD includes 

specific objectives for riparian vegetation conditions, but 

these are explicitly stated to be achieved through direct 

vegetation management. If direct management is the only 

management tool allowed, how important is it for the AMP 

to understand how flow and water table variation (in relation 

to geo-morphology) affect the details of vegetation? It seems 

more important to understand how topographic, sediment, 

and hydrologic conditions, including disturbance 

magnitude/frequency/timing, affect the suitability of 

different sites – and locations within these sites – as settings 

for establishing and managing specific suites of riparian 

vegetation. 

Commented [DPB13]: Defoliation affects fire fuel loads. 

Should the monitoring include fire-risk assessments? 

Commented [DPB14]: I assume this means improving the 

prediction of responses. Flow experiments are not carried out 

to manage riparian vegetation, so is there a need to ‘predict’ 

here, or just a need to understand how hydrologic conditions 

– including but not limited to flows – affect the vegetation. 

The ‘predictions’ in the latter view become means for testing 

the “how” model, to move from merely describing 

vegetation responses to the flow experiments, to 

understanding the “why” of these responses. That 

information, in turn, would be crucial for identifying the 

kinds of riparian vegetation that it should be possible to 

sustain in different locations and elevations and/or distances 

from river base-flow stage – i.e., information with which to 

guide restoration decision-making. 

Commented [DPB15]: Since flows are not a tool for 

managing vegetation outcomes, the proposal needs to 

provide more information on how such modeling would help 

achieve LTEMP EIS/ROD and longer-term AMP goals. Part 

of the challenge here, though, is that the EIS/ROD and AMP 

goals may not be clear enough, at least in terms of what 

needs to be "learned" for adaptive management. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

prioritize needs for future interventions on a site-by-site basis. A final element of the 

project (Element 6) proposes to conduct decadal-scale vegetation monitoring based on 

replication of historical photographs and building on pilot work completed under the 

previous workplan. 

Each of these project elements and associated objectives inform stakeholders 

about the status of vegetation and support analysis of vegetation’s role in the ecological, 

physical, sociocultural responses to dam operations. 

The elements and objectives for riparian vegetation and associated terrestrial resources 

1. 

and Emily Palmquist). 

are: 

Ground-based riparian vegetation monitoring (Project Element 1; Brad Butterfield 

a.	 Annual measurement and analysis of plant cover and species presence to 

assess change as related to the geomorphic setting, elevation above the 

channel, and flow regime (FY18, 19, 20). 

b.	 Five-year summary of vegetation status and trends in relation to dam 

operations (FY19) 

i.	 Change in monitored parameters 

ii.	 Integration with other resources. 

2.	 Imagery-based riparian vegetation monitoring at the landscape scale (Project 

Element 2: Joel Sankey and Laura Durning). 

a.	 Analysis and change detection of 2013 vegetation classification (FY18) 

9	

Lastly, causal relationships between dam operations and ecological outcomes can 

be difficult to infer from monitoring alone, yet manipulative experiments are 

understandably limited within the CRe. The NPS is interested in conducting vegetation 

plantings in order to expand desired vegetation states, but the long-term persistence of 

these and future plantings will depend on matching genetically suitable plant material to 

specific sites varying in substrate stability and existing vegetation. Vegetation plantings 

arranged in a “common garden” framework can be used to examine the success and 

utility of a variety of genotypes and species for vegetation management and identify 

reasonable constraints on movement of plant materials as they relate to conserving local 

genotypes. Plantings that are designed to contain multiple, replicated genotypes of 

patterns of local adaptation. In collaboration with the NPS, we will help to design 

vegetation plantings in such a way as to test predictions of models based on long-term 

observations, such as state and transition models, which will improve our ability to 

project the effects of alternative flow regimes on long-term stability of riparian vegetation 

and sandbar habitats (Element 5). Furthermore, as outlined in the LTEMP-ROD, the 

NPS, Tribes, and other stakeholders seek to preserve sand resources, camp sites, and 

species of interest can also be used for future research into the impacts of dam operations 

on community genetics (i.e., plant traits with a genetic foundation that influence the 

structure and function of the dependent ecosystem) and would permit assessment of 

archeological sites through vegetation removals. Through monitoring of post-removal 

vegetation trajectories, we can identify how successional processes interact with dam 

operations to reverse riparian vegetation expansion and determine the long-term 

preservation of camp sites, sand bars, sand dunes, and archaeological sites, as well as to 

Commented [DPB18]: Description should include 

information on the purpose of this element, relative to 

LTEMP EIS and ROD objectives and long-term AMP 

objectives. 

Commented [DPB16]: What are the “learning objectives” 

of this work? Shouldn’t the identification of such objectives 

be the first priority? This would have to be a joint planning 

effort of the NPS, tribes, Reclamation, and the GCMRC. 

However, the entire stakeholder community should probably 

have a say as well, given that vegetation management is a 

matter of concern for recreational users, 

archaeological/cultural site managers, possibly fishery 

managers (shoreline vegetation effects on habitat, plant litter, 

etc.), and so forth. This is why the Science Advisors Program 

plan identifies a possible need for a ‘riparian vegetation 

objectives’ workshop, to clear up this larger question of 

learning objectives. 

Commented [DPB17]: Are STMs really needed for this 

purpose, especially given that human manipulation will be 

the main driver of riparian succession and composition along 

the CRE. In my experience, STMs are not a typical modeling 

tool of choice for riparian communities other than to account 

for possible impacts of fire (e.g., see LANDFIRE and ESD 

programs), hence my asking about their applicability here. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

b.	 Vegetation and Sand Turnover/Dynamism 2002-2013 (FY18, 19) 

c.	 Tamarisk defoliation with overflight and satellite image analysis (NAU 

Thesis; FY 18) 

d.	 Integration of imagery land cover and other geospatial data for sand area 

and habitat (FY19) 

e.	 Overflight prep and operation 2020 – reevaluate specs? (FY20) 

3.	 Revisit marsh community changes that were done in 1995 by Stevens et al. 

(Project Element 3; Joel Sankey, Brad Butterfield, Emily Palmquist, Laura 

Durning) (FY19, 20) 

a.	 Identify how marsh area changed since 1996/ROD. Has it increased, 

decreased, or remained stable? 

b.	 Has species composition in the marshes changed, and if so, in what ways? 

4. Examine the relative influences of dam operations and environmental setting on 

riparian vegetation change. Use the resulting information to develop predictive 

models of vegetation responses to LTEMP flow scenarios. (Project Element 4; 

Brad Butterfield and Emily Palmquist) (FY 18, 19, 20) 

a. Use existing data and new genetic data in a Hierarchical Bayesian 

modeling framework to examine the influence of dam operations on 

riparian vegetation distribution and composition in relation to limiting 

climatic factors. 

b. Integrate the flow-response models with data and products from work 

outlined above to develop predictive models of vegetation responses to 

LTEMP flow scenarios. 

5. Vegetation management monitoring and research (Project Element 5; Joel 

Sankey, Brad Butterfield, Emily Palmquist, Laura Durning) (FY 18, 19, 20) 

a. Assist in the design of vegetation plantings, such that vegetation 

management goals and future research goals can be met. 

b. Assist NPS & Tribes with the monitoring design and data analysis 

associated with vegetation removal for sand dunes and archeological site 

preservation (See Project D). 

6. Decadal-scale vegetation monitoring based on replication of historical 

photographs (Project Element 6; Helen Fairley) 

a. Replicate historical photographs that have not been previously or recently 

duplicated (e.g. photographs by Goldwater (1940), Kolb (1923), Weeden 

(1978) to provide a baseline visual record of riparian vegetation conditions 

at the start of the LTEMP period, and a basis for comparison of changes 

20 years from now. 

10

Commented [DPB19]: Purpose not clear w/r/t objectives 

in EIS and ROD. 

Commented [DPB20]: Crucial to begin with learning 

objectives for this experimentation – see my earlier comment 

above. 

Commented [DPB21]: With all the aerial monitoring 

going on, shouldn’t the purpose of the ground-level 

photography be (or include) to improve the usefulness of the 

remote sensing via ground-truthing? Also, given the 

logistical costs and safety risks for retaking ground-level 

photos, couldn’t this be something done via drones with GPS 

control, or aided by incorporating participation by other field 

efforts, to take advantage of having others out there already 

(e.g., tribal monitors)? 
       

            

           

       

       

       

 

                         

 

    

     

     

    

   

   

 

            

 

	 	

3. Budget 

FY 2018 FY 2019

Project

Salaries $291,049

Traveling and Training $38,410

Operating Expenses $15,500

Logistics $78,700

Project

Salaries $282,572

Traveling and Training $41,085

Operating Expenses $19,000

Logistics $73,500

Cooperators (non‐USGS) $218,000 Cooperators (non‐USGS) $224,000

USGS Cooperators $0 USGS Cooperators $0

USGS Burden $114,741 USGS Burden $116,871

Total $748,898 Total $764,530

FY 2018 Project Gross Totals: $748,898 FY 2019 Project Gross Totals: $764,530

FY 2020

Project

Salaries $299,780

Traveling and Training $38,410

Operating Expenses $18,000

Logistics $80,900

Cooperators (non‐USGS) $230,000

USGS Cooperators $0

USGS Burden $120,544

Total $787,634

FY 2020 Project Gross Totals: $787,634

11
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This project provides scientific information on the geomorphic effects of vegetation 

management and dam operations which will be undertaken per the LTEMP ROD during 

the next 20 years. These data and analyses will allow the GCDAMP to objectively 

evaluate whether and how those non-flow and flow actions affect the geomorphic 

condition and sand resources of archaeological sites and source-bordering dunefields 

located in the river corridor downstream of Glen Canyon Dam. This project is cognizant 

that the National Park Service at Grand Canyon National Park (GCNP) and Glen Canyon 

National Recreation Area (GLCA) and Native American tribes have programs to monitor 

cultural resource sites and related resources of interest, and it has been developed with 

the intent to complement, not duplicate, those other monitoring efforts. 

Project D. Effects of vegetation 

management and dam operations for 

geomorphic condition and sand resources 

at archaeological sites and sourcebordering dunefields 

1. Investigators 

Joel Sankey, Research Geologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center 

Helen Fairley, Social Scientist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center 

Amy East, Research Geologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Pacific Coastal and Marine 

Science Center 

2. Project Summary 

The objectives for this project are to: 

operations, via: 

1. Use baseline data to monitor the physical condition of archaeological sites,
 

associated dunefields, and their sand supply as a function of (i) vegetation 

management conducted by NPS and tribes per the LTEMP ROD, and (ii) dam
 

a.	 Site-specific topographic surveys (e.g., lidar, structure-from-motion, total 

station) and subsequent geomorphic change detection 

b.	 Morphological sediment budgeting to quantify the role of individual 

processes (e.g.., fluvial, aeolian, hillslope sediment transport) in driving 

geomorphic change at sites 

c.	 Sediment tracer experiments to quantify the degree of sediment 

connectivity between sandbars and dunefields at individual sites over 

annual timescales 

d.	 Analysis of archaeological site classification data acquired for all rivercorridor sites to assess future erosion vulnerability and make inferences 

12

Commented [DPB22]: This overlaps with Project C, 

Element 5b. Text should be specific about how Projects C 

and D complement. Project D appears to be mostly about the 

second half of its title: “geomorphic conditions and sand 

resources at archaeological sites and source-bordering 

dunefields.” 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

about the role of dam operations in driving geomorphic change at sites and 

associated source-bordering dunefields 

Note that work completed during this and previous workplans related to this 

objective and Objectives 3 and 4 (below) will be useful in collaborations with the 

NPS and tribes to identify sites and design vegetation removal treatments. 

2.	 Determine rates and future susceptibility of terraces to erosion from dam 

operations (e.g., discharge) in GLCA. This will involve collaboration with GLCA 

archaeology staff and include an update of the assessment of dam-related 

geomorphic changes in Glen Canyon published by Grams et al. (2007; “The rate 

Commented [DPB23]: This is the overlap with Project C. 

Text needs to make clear how C and D are complementary. 

and pattern of bed incision and bank adjustment on the Colorado River in Glen 

Canyon downstream from Glen Canyon Dam, 1956–2000”; 

http://bulletin.geoscienceworld.org/content/119/5-6/556) with post-2000 imagery, 

topography, bathymetry, and flow (inundation) modelling, as well as additional 

terrace and vegetation mapping. This will result in an evaluation of contemporary 

(post-2000) changes to Glen Canyon terraces, shorelines, and riparian vegetation 

that are vital for preserving cultural resources and archaeological sites. 

3. Implement the new software utility published by Kasprak et al. (2017), which 

determines site-scale sediment budgets and the relative contributions of individual 

sediment transport processes (e.g., fluvial, aeolian, hillslope transport) in driving 

geomorphic changes, to evaluate contemporary erosion rates of terraces and other 

pre-dam river sediment deposits as a function of dam operations on a reach-scale 

basis in Glen, Marble and Grand Canyons. This will include developing a webmapping framework, hosted by GCMRC, to allow public use of the software 

utility. 

4. Synthesize ongoing and historic data from this and the sandbar and channel 

mapping project (i.e., of Grams; “Sandbar and Sediment Storage Monitoring and 

Research”) to quantify the influence of Glen Canyon Dam discharge and ongoing 

vegetation encroachment on altering the areal extent of bare sand available for 

fluvial and aeolian transport from Glen Canyon Dam to Diamond Creek (this 

work was completed in FY17 by Kasprak for the Lower Marble Canyon reach 

and is now proposed to be extended throughout Grand Canyon). The results of 

this work can be used to identify appropriate areas for targeted vegetation removal 

and to identify and assess vulnerability of sites and specific reaches to future 

geomorphic changes. 

Commented [DPB24]: Wouldn’t bed incision and bank 

adjustment potentially also affect gullying radiating upward 

from channel, affecting fluvial terraces and higher settings? 

Commented [DPB25]: Affected not only by dam 

operations but also by channel sediment dynamics, local 

weather (e.g., precipitation), vegetation, etc. 

Commented [DPB26]: Is this meant as a statement about 

a theoretical possibility, or meant as an explicit objectives, to 

make the results usable in this manner? And if the latter, how 

will this application be implemented? 

13
       

            

           

       

         

       

 

                         

 

    

     

   

        

      

   

   

   

   

   

 

            

 

	 	

3. Budget 

FY 2018 FY 2019

Project

Salaries $314,322

Traveling and Training $22,500

Operating Expenses $24,000

Logistics $37,000

Project

Salaries $311,126

Traveling and Training $22,500

Operating Expenses $30,000

Logistics $34,000

Cooperators (non‐USGS) $0 Cooperators (non‐USGS) $58,000

USGS Cooperators $30,000 USGS Cooperators $31,000

USGS Burden $103,383 USGS Burden $105,174

Total $531,009 Total $591,996

FY 2018 Project Gross Totals: $531,009 FY 2019 Project Gross Totals: $591,996

FY 2020

Project

Salaries $317,430

Traveling and Training $22,500

Operating Expenses $27,000

Logistics $39,000

Cooperators (non‐USGS) $0

USGS Cooperators $32,000

USGS Burden $105,542

Total $543,472

FY 2020 Project Gross Totals: $543,472

14
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Project E. Nutrients and temperature as 

ecosystem drivers: Understanding 

patterns, establishing links and developing 

predictive tools for an uncertain future 

1. Investigators 

Charles B. Yackulic, Research Statistician, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon 

Monitoring and Research Center 

Bridget R. Deemer, Research Ecologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon 

Monitoring and Research Center 

Kimberly Dibble, Fish Biologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center 

Theodore Kennedy, Research Ecologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon 

Monitoring and Research Center 

Michael Yard, Fish Biologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center 

David Ward, Fish Biologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center 

2. Project Summary 

Changes in Lake Powell reservoir elevations have affected water temperatures in 

the Colorado River ecosystem (CRe) in the past. Specifically, years with lower reservoir 

elevations have been associated with warmer water temperatures (i.e., maximum release 

temperature of 13-16 °C), while years with higher reservoir elevations have led to cooler 

releases (i.e., maximum release temperatures of 11-12 °C). Past work has emphasized the 

positive impacts of this modest warming on native fish. Based on other systems, we 

would expect this warming to have neutral to positive effects on rainbow trout (well fed 

rainbow trout should have a temperature preference around 16 °C). However, recent 

bioenergetics modelling and fisheries data indicate that if food base availability does not 

rainbow trout and native fish. For example, in 2011, water temperatures were warmer 

keep pace with warming water temperatures, the outcomes are actually negative for both 

than average and both rainbow trout and humpback chub had high survival and growth. 

In contrast, 2014 had similar water temperatures to 2011, but rainbow trout had low 

survival and growth, humpback chub adults became skinnier (i.e., fish condition 

declined), and the humpback chub juvenile population declined substantially. Data 

presented at the January 2017 annual reporting meeting indicate inter-annual variation in 

the phosphorus concentrations of water released from Lake Powell may explain the 

different fish response in these two years. 

Nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorus serve as the building blocks for all life, 

and their form and relative availability can exert an important control on biological 

communities and on key ecosystem processes. Phosphorous (specifically soluble reactive 

phosphorous - SRP) is required by primary producers (i.e., algae) and levels in the water 

15

Commented [DPB27]: Is there a need to coordinate 

monitoring below the dam with monitoring in Lake Powell, 

e.g., specifically to record data on system state immediately 

prior to experimental releases? And if so, would that be 

better coordinated by including someone from Reclamation 

and GLCA on the investigative team? 

Commented [DPB28]: Could note that the nutrient and 

temperature work falls under the LTEMP EIS and ROD 

resource goals for Natural Processes, HBC, RBT, Other 

Native Fish, and Nonnative Invasive Species. Also, the 2017 

Knowledge Assessment responses from the Aquatic Food 

Base and Water Quality teams indicated several areas of 

uncertainty about status and trends and external drivers. It 

would be useful if the project summary indicated how the 

proposed work will help redress these unknowns and 

uncertainties, anywhere where it does not already do so. 

Commented [DPB29]: Based on recent presentations, it 

looks like lake temperature distribution is affected not just by 

elevation but by internal dynamics affecting vertical 

structure and movement of inflow pulses both horizontally 

and vertically from lake inflows to forebay. So antecedent 

conditions affecting lake discharge temperature are multivariate. Wouldn’t it help to document all of the potentially 

relevant variables of antecedent lake system state? 

Commented [DPB30]: I think this is one of the important 

breakthroughs of recent years, not only in recognizing key 

drivers, but in opening the door to a recognition of the 

way(s) in which the antecedent state of Lake Powell can 

affect the state of the CRE, and the time scales over which 

these dynamics play out. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

analyses by K. Dibble (USGS, unpublished data) indicate it has systematically 

underestimated summer temperatures in the most western parts of Grand Canyon by 

approximately 2 °C over the last decade. Thus, there is a need to revisit this model, 

especially since higher than forecasted temperatures in western Grand Canyon may 

facilitate warmwater species invasion from Lake Mead. 

With respect to nutrients, we have a very poor understanding of how nutrient 

concentrations change longitudinally through the river in response to in-river ecosystem 

processes, interactions with riparian zones, and tributary inputs. The results presented at 

the annual reporting meeting were all based on SRP concentrations at penstock depth in 

Lake Powell, two miles from the Dam. While there are some measurements in Lees 

Ferry, they have been collected haphazardly with respect to time of day (uptake by 

primary producers depresses SRP levels during the middle of the day), and to our 

knowledge there are no measurements of SRP downstream of the Paria River. In other 

words, while tributaries like the Paria River and the LCR are the major drivers of 

sediment and organic matter budgets in the Colorado, their role in nutrient budgets is 

unknown. If nutrients remain low in western parts of the CRe, the resulting low food 

released by Lake Powell are always quite low, making it a likely candidate to be a 

limiting resource. Furthermore, SRP concentrations have varied substantially over time. 

For example, SRP was 3-4x higher in 2011 than in 2014. Preliminary data suggest that 

declines in SRP availability in 2014 propagated through the entire food web, constraining 

rates of primary production, invertebrate production, and ultimately suppressing the 

recruitment of rainbow trout at Lees Ferry and the condition of adult humpback chub near 

the Little Colorado River (LCR) confluence. These results suggest that SRP 

concentrations in the water released from Lake Powell can be a bottom-up control at least 

120 river kilometers below Glen Canyon Dam. However, it is unclear if these effects 

carry further downriver. 

As we travel downriver, the potential impacts of nutrients and water temperature 

may change. With respect to temperature, even in ‘warm’ years like 2005, temperatures 

near the LCR confluence are too low to allow for mainstem reproduction by native fish, 

so temperature mainly affects fish growth and condition. Farther downriver, ‘warm’ years 

may actually provide temperatures that allow for mainstem reproduction of humpback 

chub - this is significant given that mainstem reproduction or a second spawning 

population would be an important step towards recovery. Thus, predicting responses of 

downriver native fish populations to management alternatives in the Long-Term 

Experimental and Management Plan (LTEMP) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

was mainly accomplished through comparing temperature model output to humpback 

chub temperature requirements for reproduction. Although the Wright et al. (2008) 

temperature model has been a valuable tool for fish and EIS modeling efforts, recent 

Commented [DPB31]: Have detection limits been 

consistent? Also, given the likely intense recycling of P 

within the food web, even low SRP values could correspond 

to significant impacts, since SRP would represent only the 

proverbial “tip of the iceberg” in terms of P within the 

ecosystem. 

availability could counteract the expected benefits of increased temperature via 

bioenergetics constraints on growth and reproduction of native fish. 

The important role of nutrients has been overlooked in the past, in part, because 

variation in SRP has frequently coincided with unusual dam releases (e.g., over the past 

16 years, SRP was highest in 2011 and 2012 corresponding to 2011 equalization flows), 

potentially leading to an overemphasis of flow impacts in the models used to predict fish 

population responses and compare alternate management strategies as part of LTEMP 

EIS. More broadly, the fish population models used to make predictions for the LTEMP 

16

Commented [DPB32]: Good point, clearly relevant to 

adaptive management objectives. A side question: do water 

temperatures vary with time of day and depth, and might this 

vertical and temporal variation affect fish biology? 

Commented [DPB33]: Also, you probably have only 

limited information about N and especially P in biomass 

versus in the water. Given that system may be P-limited, 

wouldn’t most P be in biomass rather than in the water (and 

in substrates?). 

Commented [DPB34]: Does the lake SRP lose solubility 

after emerging into the more oxidative CRE environment? 

Commented [DPB35]: Need to distinguish between 

biological availability versus presence in biomass and 

substrates? Low concentrations in water also raise questions 

about detection threshold requirements. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EIS, while a step in the right direction, were still fairly narrow in their treatment of 

drivers and representation of ecosystem processes. In other words, the models linking 

directly from flow and temperature predictors to fish populations become increasingly 

tenuous when making extrapolations to a highly uncertain future. 

Physical and biogeochemical processes in Lake Powell (e.g., wind regime and 

associated mixing, degree of exposure of deltaic sediments, reservoir elevation, 

biological uptake, presence of quagga mussels, dissolved oxygen concentrations, and the 

magnitude, temperature, and nutrient makeup of inflows to the reservoir) are likely to 

play an important role in determining the nutrient concentration of dam releases. Still, we 

currently lack a good quantitative understanding of the reservoir processes that determine 

variation in nutrient concentrations in Lake Powell’s outflow. Dynamic changes to the 

CRe over the next years to decades necessitate the development of models that can better 

characterize the most important controls on nutrients. For example, increases in quagga 

mussels in Lake Powell will likely lead to declines in phytoplankton concentrations of 

releases, but could actually increase concentrations of dissolved nutrients in releases. 

This, in turn, could increase primary production in the CRe and favor invertebrates 

dependent on in-stream primary production. In contrast, this pattern could be reversed 

over the coming years if declining storage in Lake Powell due to drought leads to 

released water being drawn from warmer, nutrient poor surface waters closer to the 

surface of the reservoir. A quantitative model of Lake Powell nutrient dynamics could 

also improve the ability to appropriately trigger certain flow management strategies (e.g., 

trout management flows), and interpret the effects of other flow management strategies 

(e.g., various configurations of high flow experiments and macroinvertebrate production 

flows). 

To address these critical management uncertainties, we propose a multi-pronged 

approach that aims to advance learning about spatial and temporal patterns of nutrients 

and temperature, establish links between these drivers and Colorado River food webs, 

and develop predictive tools to aid future management decisions. Specifically, we 

propose: 1) the development of a model to predict nutrient concentrations in Lake Powell, 

which will be supported by analysis of historic data and targeted sampling within Lake 

Powell to fill knowledge gaps, 2) improved monitoring of nutrients in Lees Ferry, and 

longitudinal studies of nutrients throughout the Colorado River to understand patterns 

and drivers and develop a nutrient budget, 3) development of an improved temperature 

model for the CRe based on exponential warming (as opposed to the current linear form) 

using a longer-time series of data, 4) monitoring, modelling and research on the patterns 

and drivers of ecosystem metabolism (including primary production and respiration) 

throughout the Colorado River, 5) surveys of aquatic vegetation composition and biomass 

in Lees Ferry with the goal of establishing a cost-effective monitoring scheme, 6) 

artificial stream experiments at the Lees Ferry boat ramp or Glen Canyon Dam using 

Colorado River water to determine how primary producers and invertebrates respond to 

variation in temperatures, nutrient availability, and nutrient ratios (N:P) within current 

ranges of variation and under scenarios based on potential future conditions, and 7) 

aquatic ecosystem models to better link our understanding of various drivers of 

ecosystem change. 

17

Commented [DPB38]: The knowledge assessment 

spreadsheet for the aquatic food base mentions allochthonous 

inputs as possible component of riverine nutrient budget. Is 

riparian litter only mobilized substantially during HFEs, or 

do rainstorm runoff and wind transport also carry terrestrial 

organic matter into the river? In a nutrient-starved system 

such as the CRE, wouldn’t even modest inputs of litter 

matter? Is it worthwhile to explore the possible role of 

allochthonous inputs to the C/N/P budget in the river? 

Commented [DPB39]: Do you need or have a way to 

assess primary production, including suspended, substrate, 

and macrophyte components? Also, given that most P is 

stored in invertebrate and vertebrate tissue, is there a way to 

estimate total P storage in the system, so you can assess how 

much the lake inputs may affect total ecosystem P and its 

effects on total biomass? (I also wonder if mechanical 

removal of fish biomass – by anglers as well as by fishery 

managers – could result in the export of an ecologically 

significant fraction of total ecosystem P). 

Commented [DPB36]: Plus the lag effects that result from 

the ways in which inflow pulses move through and affect 

lake geochemical structure... 

Commented [DPB37]: Excellent connecting of proposed 

studies to EIS/ROD and long-term AMP objectives. 

However, need modeling that efficiently produces these 

kinds of forecasts for AMP, without excessive cost. Would 

off-the-shelf software such as CE-QUAL-W2 be good 

enough? Is there an existing Lake Powell model that could 

simply be updated to generate the needed forecasts with 

acceptable accuracy? 
       

     

           

       

       

       

 

                             

    

     

     

   

   

   

 

              

 

	 	

References 

Wright, S. A., C. R. Anderson, and N. Voichick. 2008. A simplified water temperature 

model for the Colorado River below Glen Canyon Dam. River Research and 

Applications 25:675-686. 

3. Budget 

FY 2018

Project

Salaries $357,582

Traveling and Training $16,920

Operating Expenses $157,754

FY 2019

Project

Salaries $310,673

Traveling and Training $13,100

Operating Expenses $100,900

Logistics $14,700 Logistics $12,700

Cooperators (non‐USGS) $0 Cooperators (non‐USGS) $0

USGS Cooperators $0 USGS Cooperators $0

USGS Burden $142,209 USGS Burden $113,717

Total $689,164 Total $551,090

FY 2018 Project Gross Totals: $ 689,164 FY 2019 Project Gross Totals: $ 551,090

FY 2020

Project

Salaries $294,043

Traveling and Training $13,000

Operating Expenses $88,497

Logistics $12,700

Cooperators (non‐USGS) $0

USGS Cooperators $0

USGS Burden $106,142

Total $514,381

FY 2020 Project Gross Totals: $ 514,381

18
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Project F. Aquatic Invertebrate Ecology 

(food base) 

1. Investigators 

Theodore Kennedy, Research Ecologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon 

Monitoring and Research Center 

Mike Dodrill, Fish Biologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center 

Kim Dibble, Fish Biologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center 

Charles Yackulic, Research Statistician, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon 

Monitoring and Research Center 

Mike Yard, Fish Biologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center 

David Lytle, Professor, Department of Integrative Biology, Oregon State University 

2. Project Summary 

The GCMRC aquatic ecology (food base) group will conduct studies in four 

broad themes for the FY 2018–2020 Triennial Workplan. This work consists of 

continuing existing food base monitoring, initiating new monitoring to better understand 

underlying causes of recent apparent humpback chub, brown trout, and quagga mussel 

range expansions, characterizing food base responses to novel experimental flow releases 

from Glen Canyon Dam (GCD), and exploring links between flow management and food 

base conditions across many dams to better understand the role that operations of Glen 

Canyon Dam may be playing in determining the health of the food base in the Colorado 

River. 

1. Continuation of existing food base monitoring programs 

A primary focus of the food base group in this work plan is continuation of 

existing long-term monitoring. Specifically, we will continue monitoring invertebrate 

drift in Glen and Marble Canyons, which now represent datasets spanning 10 and 6 years, 

respectively. We will also continue the citizen science light trapping project that monitors 

adult aquatic insect populations throughout Marble and Grand Canyons, now in its sixth 

year. We will continue the similar sticky and pitfall trap monitoring of emergent adult 

aquatic insects and terrestrial insects in Glen Canyon, now in their fourth and second 

years, respectively, to describe invertebrate distribution patterns and long-term trends in 

the Lees Ferry reach of the Colorado River ecosystem. All of these long-term monitoring 

data provide baseline information on the status of the food base resource and will 

continue at a level of effort similar to prior years. 

In response to new aggregations of native humpback chub and expansion of 

2. Monitoring in support of humpback chub and invasive species range expansions 

invasive brown trout and quagga mussels, we will conduct new research and monitoring 

19

Commented [DPB40]: Could note that the food base work 

falls under the LTEMP EIS and ROD resource goals for 

Natural Processes, HBC, RBT, Other Native Fish, and 

Nonnative Invasive Species. Also, as noted vis Project E, the 

2017 Knowledge Assessment responses from the Aquatic 

Food Base team indicated several areas of uncertainty about 

status and trends and external drivers. It would be useful if 

the project summary here indicated how the proposed work 

will help redress these unknowns and uncertainties, 

anywhere where it has not already done so (thanks for that). 

Commented [DPB41]: Aquatic insects aren’t actually the 

‘base’ of the food web, but the first tier of consumers. What 

do we know about feeding guilds for the aquatic insects and 

about the organic matter on which they feed? 

Commented [DPB42]: New aggregations? Or new data on 

aggregations and the expansions? 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

to determine whether the aquatic food base is influencing the dynamics and range 

expansions of these populations. In conjunction with humpback chub studies, we will 

quantify invertebrate drift and fish feeding habits as part of the “JCM West” fisheries 

work in western Grand Canyon (see Project G), which would mirror similar efforts 

around the LCR confluence from 2012-2016. We will also conduct drift and emergence 

research in the Colorado River reach downstream of Diamond Creek, where very little is 

known about the condition of the aquatic food base, and where humpback chub and 

razorback sucker populations are growing and expanding. As part of these expanded food 

effects of trout removal from Bright Angel Creek, which we initiated within the past year, 

and which will be compared with a similar, pre-removal study led by NPS and 

collaborators. We will also conduct new research into brown trout feeding habits in Glen 

Canyon to understand whether brown trout population increases in this reach are related 

to observed shifts in the invertebrate prey base (i.e., aquatic insects are scarce and New 

Zealand mudsnails are abundant). This research will be similar to the bioenergetics and 

prey selection research on rainbow trout that was led by Mike Dodrill as part of the 

FY15-17 Triennnial Workplan. 

Finally, we will initiate new benthic monitoring to track the expansion of quagga 

mussel into Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyon. Quagga mussels began appearing in Lees 

Ferry in 2013, and their downstream progression is only being tracked by sparse, ad-hoc 

efforts. We will develop a scientifically-robust monitoring program for quagga mussels 

that will include benthic sampling in potential quagga habitats. This effort will describe 

the extent and magnitude of the quagga mussel invasion downstream of GCD, which will 

serve as baseline data for change detection in the populations of this species. 

base monitoring efforts, we will quantify the energy content of invertebrate prey using 

lipid class analysis and comparing fatty acid profiles of invertebrate prey with fish tissues 

to make inferences about the contribution of specific prey items to fish growth. Lipids 

and fatty acids are a key component of many fish tissues including gametes. Thus, 

monitoring the lipid content and fatty acid profiles of invertebrate prey and fishes among 

sites will aid interpretation of humpback chub growth and reproductive potential among 

sites, particularly at downstream locations where there is evidence of recent spawning. 

We will also continue aquatic food base monitoring in tributaries where 

humpback chub occur. Specifically, we will collaborate with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service to monitor the aquatic food base in the Little Colorado River during the spring 

and fall humpback chub monitoring trips. In collaboration with National Park Service, we 

will also initiate new food web research in Bright Angel Creek, Havasu Creek, and 

Shinumo Creek, locations where humpback chub have been translocated or are proposed 

for translocation once conditions such as food base availability are suitable. Research in 

downstream tributaries will be similar to the LCR food web research led by Muehlbauer 

in the FY15-17 Triennial Workplan, and these new efforts will build upon preliminary 

data collected by GCMRC and NPS in these tributaries. Additionally, this research will 

help identify the suitability of invertebrate populations in Grand Canyon tributaries to 

colonize the mainstem river if macroinvertebrate flows are tested, which was identified as 

a high priority research need in the Food Base Knowledge Assessment. 

With respect to brown trout, we will continue ongoing research into the food web 

20

Commented [DPB43]: Is there a possible feedback loop 

here via fish and quagga feeding impacts? 

Commented [DPB44]: Don’t they feed on non-drifting 

invertebrates, too – macro-invertebrates on benthic 

substrates? 

Commented [DPB45]: Sampled how? Presumably can’t 

do this from bugs in fish stomach contents, although stomach 

data would help characterize the relative contributions of 

different prey taxa so you can weight the results of analyses 

of invertebrates collected live themselves. Or are feeding 

behaviors so opportunistic that “relative contributions” just 

depend on availability? 

Commented [DPB46]: I noted for Project E that you may 

need data on storage of P in biomass, too, to interpret the 

water chem data on SRP. If P uptake is indeed intense, the 

greatest fraction may end up in aquatic faunal biomass, with 

the SRP representing only a kind of “tip of the iceberg.” The 

effects of variation in SRP inputs presumably cascade 

through the aquatic ecosystem. Should the lab analyses of 

invertebrate and fish tissue therefore also measure N and P 

(and are these constant fractions of biomass, or can they vary 

with organism condition)? 

Commented [DPB47]: Just drift sampling, or benthos and 

macrophyte sampling, too? And would there be any value in 

Chlorophyll-a monitoring of the water column? Of course, 

C-a levels are likely quite low, so would there be challenges 

with detection limits and accuracy? 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. Monitoring in anticipation of novel flow experimentation 

The LTEMP includes multiple novel flow experiments (macroinvertebrate 

production flows, HFEs, and trout management flows) that have the potential to drive 

large changes in the abundance and composition of the invertebrate prey base. As such, 

we will conduct regular monitoring of invertebrate drift and benthic sampling at new sites 

throughout Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons that will be critical to describing food base 

response to these flow experiments. Most of these new monitoring sites will be adjacent 

to tributaries, and at the nodes and anti-nodes of midge abundance identified by Kennedy 

et al. in their 2016 BioScience paper (e.g., Lees Ferry, Nankoweep, Bright Angel, 

Commented [DPB48]: And, eventually, Low Summer 

Flows, in second decade of LTEMP. 

Tapeats, etc.). We will also continue to support the PhD research of Arizona State 

University graduate student Christina Lupoli describing linkages between emergent 

aquatic insects and terrestrial species such as birds, bats, and lizards that depend on 

emergent aquatic insects as prey. We anticipate collaborating with tribal monitoring trips 

and other citizen scientists, to acquire some of the data needed for this project, including 

bat and bird acoustic monitoring data. This research will identify the extent to which 

aquatic invertebrate resource availability affects the broader Grand Canyon ecosystem, 

and whether changes in aquatic insect abundance owing to “macroinvertebrate production 

flows” cascade out of the River itself. 

To better understand the relationship between the quality of benthic substrates and 

benthic invertebrates, we will also conduct new research, predominantly in Glen Canyon, 

Commented [DPB50]: Spatial nodes, not temporal, right? 

Commented [DPB49]: I assume you need data on prey 

selectivity patterns to make sense of the drift and benthos 

bug data, or are the fishes, cumulatively across all species 

and all age classes, essentially opportunistic? 

Commented [DPB51]: Glad to see this – another part of 

alignment with EIS/ROD objectives for Natural Processes 

and probably other resources (recreation, tribal values), too. 

Commented [DPB52]: Should you also consider the 

possibility of biotic flows in the opposite direction, such as 

allochthonous contributions to aquatic system, per Project E. 

on smaller-scale habitat effects on the food base. We will advance learning of habitatinvertebrate relations by: 1) tracking invertebrate response to mechanical scrubbing of 

rocks and loosening cobbles, which mimic flow-related sediment scouring of benthic 

substrates, 2) exploring the lateral variation in invertebrate drift along channel cross 

sections and across flow conditions, 3) linking invertebrate drift patterns to flow and fish 

spatial abundance patterns using natal origins data and Scott Wright’s 2D flow model of 

Glen Canyon, 4) exploring macrophyte spatial densities in the Lees Ferry reach, and 5) 

synthesizing what is known about potential declines in Gammarus populations from the 

1980s to present. Additionally, we will continue field experiments on insect egg laying 

that were initiated in FY 2017. All of these topics were identified as research needs in the 

Food Base Knowledge Assessment. 

Finally, we will collaborate with Oregon State University graduate student Erin 

Abernethy to explore aquatic invertebrate genetics in tributaries throughout the Colorado 

River ecosystem downstream of GCD, a project that is funded by the USGS-NSF joint 

Graduate Research Improvement (GRIP) Program. This research will identify whether 

insect populations among tributaries are genetically similar (indicating ongoing genetic 

exchange), whether these populations have become genetically isolated in the recent past 

(possibly owing to dam construction and the mainstem becoming inhospitable for aquatic 

insects), or whether populations are distantly related (indicating genetic exchange among 

tributaries never occurred, even prior to dam construction). This research might also pair 

well with work proposed by Larry Stevens at the confluence of Tapeats Creek on the 

“Hofknecht transition,” whereby a diverse suite of aquatic invertebrates present in the 

creek does not colonize the apparently similar main stem; in support of Stevens’ and 

Abernethy’s work we could carry out focused drift studies adjacent to Tapeats Creek to 

better characterize the spatial dynamics of this pattern. 

21

Commented [DPB53]: Interesting. How would dam 

construction and operations affect genetics for insects with 

high aerial mobility as adults? 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

       

                       

 

Project Food Base Project Food Base

Salaries $689,583 Salaries $757,918

Traveling and Training $21,800 Traveling and Training $22,454

Operating Expenses $39,100 Operating Expenses $40,273

Logistics $32,300 Logistics $33,269

Cooperators (non‐USGS) $52,500 Cooperators (non‐USGS) $54,075

USGS Cooperators $14,500 USGS Cooperators $14,935

USGS Burden $205,099 USGS Burden $223,640

Total $1,054,882 Total $1,146,564

FY 2018

FY 2018 Project Gross Totals: $ 1,054,882

FY 2019

FY 2019 Project Gross Totals: $1,146,564

with GCMRC scientists as the lead PIs. 

3. Budget 

22

4. Research to enhance learning from novel flow experiments 

It is inherently difficult to make predictions about responses in one ecosystem 

without having contrasting, or control ecosystems, for comparison. As such, we are 

seeking funding to carry out field research on other tailwaters in the Lower Colorado 

River Basin, and to conduct syntheses on aquatic food base conditions in tailwaters 

across the world. On the first point, WAPA-funded research at Davis and Parker Dams in 

FY2015 identified that there were robust populations of mayflies and caddisflies in these 

tailwaters in spite of very high levels of load-following (i.e., 10 feet of daily stage 

change), seemingly contradicting the mechanisms for hydropeaking-induced egg 

mortality on EPT (e.g., ephemeroptera, plecoptera, and trichoptera) species outlined by 

Kennedy et al. in their 2016 BioScience paper. Studying the abundance and habitat 

associations of mayflies and caddisflies across all their life stages (i.e., egg, larvae, 

pupae, adult) in these highly managed tailwaters would identify why these species are 

able to persist and thrive in spite of extreme load-following flows. By describing how 

these species are able to persist in these other tailwaters, we will be able to more 

accurately explain and predict how the aquatic food base downstream of GCD might 

respond to novel experimental flows, and also which insect taxa are likely to recolonize 

from Grand Canyon tributaries, or which taxa might be ideal candidates for repatriation. 

We are seeking funding from the MSCP and Bureau of Reclamation for these studies. 

We have also proposed a USGS Powell Center working group that, if funded by 

USGS, would entail a synthesis of aquatic invertebrate community responses to dam 

operations throughout the world. Importantly, this synthesis would describe how dam 

management affects the aquatic food base downstream in a mechanistic fashion. If 

successful, the Powell Center would fund Muehlbauer’s salary for FY 2018. This 

proposal represents a collaboration between GCMRC scientists (Muehlbauer and 

Kennedy), the Department of Energy Oak Ridge National Laboratory (Ryan 

McManamay), the USGS NAWQA water quality program (Daren Carlisle), and several 

other working group participants from federal and state agencies, universities, and NGOs, 

Commented [DPB54]: Glad to see these components, 

which align well with EIS/ROD and long-term AMP 

objectives, and glad to see it made clear to the stakeholders 

that non-AMP funding is key to these. I think it is important 

to have information on how larger scientific work benefits 

the AMP, even when not AMP-funded. 
	 	

   

          

Project Food Base

Salaries $780,218

Traveling and Training $23,128

Operating Expenses $41,481

Logistics $34,267

Cooperators (non‐USGS) $55,697

USGS Cooperators $15,383

USGS Burden $230,235

Total $1,180,409

FY 2020 Project Gross Totals: $1,180,409

FY 2020

23
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Project G. Humpback chub population 

dynamics throughout the Colorado River 

1. Investigators 

Charles B. Yackulic, Research Statistician, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon 

Monitoring and Research Center 

David Ward, Fish Biologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center 

Kirk Young, Fish Biologist, US Fish and Wildlife Service 

Michael Yard, Fish Biologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center 

Maria Dzul, Fish Biologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center 

Michael Dodrill, Fish Biologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center 

2. Project Summary 

Activities associated with humpback chub are diverse and primarily motivated by the 

LTEMP EIS and associated Biological Opinion (BiOp). Given the complexity of work 

done on humpback chub, we group these activities into three main groups: 1) ongoing 

long-term studies (e.g., monitoring, population models), 2) new or substantially altered 

research, and 3) translocations and associated research, which we discuss in more detail 

below. 

Ongoing long-term studies. 

1. Population modelling that integrates data from mark-recapture efforts in the Little 

Colorado River (LCR) and Colorado River (CR) will continue to be used to estimate 

abundances and vital rates (survival, growth and movement) of various size classes of 

humpback chub in different locations to directly inform triggers, provide context to 

observed trends, and improve our understanding of humpback chub population ecology. 

Specific priorities for this workplan include: i) integrating new forms of portable remote 

antennae data (including shore-based single antennae) that have only recently been 

incorporated into LCR and CR monitoring of humpback chub, ii) incorporating fish 

Commented [DPB57]: The 2017 Knowledge Assessment 

responses from the Humpback Chub team indicated several 

areas of uncertainty about status and trends and external 

drivers. It would be useful if the project summary indicated 

how the proposed work will help redress these unknowns 

and uncertainties, anywhere where it has not already done so 

(thanks for that). 

Commented [DPB58]: Specifically the CR between 

Powell and Mead – important to not leave readers unsure of 

geographic scope. 

translocated above chute falls into population models to assess translocation 

effectiveness, iii) analysis of drivers of key population processes, especially humpback 

chub recruitment and outmigration rates, and iv) analysis of the relative impacts of 

environmental and individual conditions on adult survival and spawning probabilities 

with implications for abundance estimates. 

2. Monitoring in the LCR in the spring and fall using two trips in each season will 

continue and use joint agency and tribal staffing. We also plan to explore whether use of 

additional gear types during fall trips could allow us to estimate fall juvenile abundances 

24

Commented [DPB55]: Please note that HBC monitoring 

and research was one of the subjects of the Fisheries PEP in 

FY16, and the present proposal incorporates the findings and 

recommendations from that PEP. 

Commented [DPB56]: Needs to be changed to 

“throughout the CRE” to avoid any impression that you will 

be working outside the geography of the AMP. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

sampling (JCM-West) to determine if we can estimate vital rates and abundances (as 

in a single, fall trip timed to avoid floods, potentially leading to similar quality data at 

lower costs and with a smaller footprint in the LCR. 

3. We will continue monitoring of humpback chub in the Colorado River near its 

confluence with the LCR as part of the juvenile chub monitoring (JCM) project. This 

project will involve a single pre-monsoon season trip to the LCR to estimate juvenile 

recruitment and outmigration rates, as well as three trips (decreased from four trips in 

prior years) to a fixed site in the Colorado River just downstream of the LCR confluence 

to estimate juvenile growth and survival in the mainstem. These sampling efforts also 

inform estimates of abundances (including adult abundance) and vital rates of various 

size classes of humpback chub. We plan to slightly decrease the number of nights per CR 

trip, but also increase the spatial extent of JCM study reach with the goal of increasing 

the number of marks released and improving population estimates, while also minimizing 

negative impacts on the wilderness experience in GCNP. We also will incorporate 

portable remote passive integrated transponder (PIT) antennae into our sampling design. 

lower portion of LCR as a potential replacement. USGS and USFWS have already begun 

working on this replacement plan and we are optimistic that shore-based antennae can 

provide as good or better data at a lower costs and with a smaller footprint in the LCR. 

New or substantially altered research. 

5. Since 2009, mark-recapture studies around the LCR (i.e., the Near Shore Ecology 

study from 2009 to 2011 and the JCM study from 2012 onwards) have led to a much 

improved understanding of the drivers of humpback chub population dynamics in the 

LCR aggregation, including providing data to estimate the relative importance of physical 

(temperature, turbidity) and biological (rainbow trout, foodbase, density dependence) 

factors. In recent years, catch in more western aggregations have increased dramatically, 

however, current sampling is insufficient to determine drivers. Furthermore, the BiOp 

states a need to determine the drivers of aggregations. For these reasons we propose to 

establish a fixed site in the western Grand Canyon in which to establish JCM-type 

4. In the short term, we will continue to maintain and operate the remote PIT-tag 

antenna array in the LCR, however this system is slowly degrading and is unlikely to 

remain functioning through 2020. Therefore, we are currently testing the effectiveness of 

a series of shore-based single antennas placed in locations that naturally funnel fish in the 

opposed to catch statistics) with an eventual goal of determining drivers of population 

dynamics. JCM-West would occur as part of the same trips used for JCM because of the 

overlap in gear, and personnel and in order to minimize costs (the Rainbow Trout Natal 

Origins study and JCM were combined logistically in previous workplans). In 2017, we 

are planning a pilot study to determine the best location for JCM-West with three 

potential sites currently being considered (Havasu: - RM 158-167, Parashant: 198-205, 

and Pumpkin Spring: 210-217). 

6. We propose augmenting the existing aggregation sampling and to include tribal 

staff on trips. First, an annual trip will focus on hoop-net monitoring the known 

aggregations (e.g., 30-36 Mile, LCR, Bright Angel, Shinumo (if not monitored by NPS), 

Stephens Aisle/Middle Granite Gorge, Havasu, Pumpkin Spring). The primary objective 

of this annual trip will be to continue a long term CPUE index that has been constructed 

25
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8. We propose to use drift nets to monitor exit patterns of early larval humpback 

chub from the LCR and Havasu Creek. Little is known about the timing and magnitude of 

larval fish outmigration from these tributaries and the overall contribution these larval 

fish may have on aggregations of humpback chub in the mainstem. 

9. Handheld forward looking infrared radar (FLIR) cameras will be used to 

thermally image the Colorado River and identify warm springs within the mainstem that 

may be correlated with increased humpback chub catch rates. Thermal imaging cameras 

have been used to map groundwater inputs and temperature distributions in other Arizona 

streams and have been shown to be effective at identifying and mapping the extent of 

warm-water springs at river mile 30 within Grand Canyon. This relatively low-cost tool 

will allow identification of currently unknown warm water inputs within the Colorado 

River that may provide important thermal refuges for humpback chub. 

10. We propose using humpback chub data collected from 2000 through the present 

along with existing high resolution habitat data from the LCR to better understand 

environmental characteristics associated with spawning of humpback chub. By linking 

incidence of ripe female humpback chub captures to specific locations and environmental 

variables within the Little Colorado River, we hope to gain a better understanding of 

since the early 1990s (Persons et al. 2017). A second annual trip will focus more on status 

and trends of humpback chub in the western Grand Canyon (from Havasu downriver) 

using a stratified random sampling design. The primary objective of this trip will be to 

build a long term CPUE index and provide additional information, such as size 

distributions, which may offer insights into mainstem chub recruitment. A third nonmotorized seining trip will provide information on recruitment dynamics across a large 

spatial extent of Grand Canyon, complementing proposed sampling and extending longterm monitoring of early life-history stage fish. The objective of this trip will be to 

sample all backwaters throughout Grand Canyon for relative abundance of juvenile 

humpback chub and other native species. 

7. Recent sampling efforts, particularly at western aggregations downstream of 

Havasu Creek (RM 165), have documented increased catch of early life stage humpback 

chub in the mainstem Colorado. The natal origin of these small fish is unknown, with 

potential spawning and rearing occurring in tributaries (i.e., Havasu Creek) or within the 

mainstem Colorado in western Grand Canyon. Otolith microchemistry approaches have 

been successfully applied to document movement between mainstem and tributary 

habitats and provide a tool for identifying sources of humpback chub recruitment. To 

identify tributary versus mainstem origins of early life stage humpback chub, we propose 

to use otolith microchemistry on any incidental mortalities, including (if possible) 

humpback chub juveniles recovered from non-native predators, from projects sampling in 

Western Grand Canyon (i.e., mainstem monitoring, JCM-West). 

where humpback chub spawn. This work will establish methodologies for linking 

environmental variables to existing long-term fish data so that the existing database is 

more useable for humpback chub conservation and management. 

Translocations and associated research. 

11. Coordinate with the Havasupai Nation and the National Park Service to 

investigate the feasibility of translocating humpback chub to areas above Beaver Falls in 

26

Commented [DPB59]: Might the channel mapping in 

WGC help identify the meso-habitat settings (and relevant 

characteristics) of the aggregations? If so, it would be useful 

to mention such cross-linkage between Projects B and G and 

their alignment with EIS/ROD and AMP objectives. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

       

                     

 

 

 

 

implementation of Tier 1 management actions if and when they are needed. 

13. We propose to investigate imprinting in humpback chub to improve translocation 

methods. If humpback chub imprint on chemical cues of their natal stream as larvae then 

translocated fish using current methods may not remain in downstream tributaries or 

mainstem aggregations once they reach reproductive maturity. Many of these fish may 

instead attempt to return to the LCR to spawn, thereby reducing the likelihood of 

establishing additional spawning populations to meet downlisting/delisting criteria. We 

will verify that imprinting occurs in the laboratory using captive reared humpback chub 

larvae by measuring thyroid hormones known to be linked to olfactory imprinting. This 

information will then be used to evaluate new methods for conducting translocations, 

such as stocking ripe adult fish whose offspring will imprint on the new location rather 

than translocating juvenile fish that have already imprinted on the LCR. 

3. Budget 

Havasu Creek. If the Havasupai Nation is supportive, we will work with the tribe to 

implement surveys to monitor translocated fish. 

12. We propose to continue translocation of juvenile humpback chub to above Chute 

Falls on an annual basis and to continue annual monitoring (LTEMP BiOp Conservation 

Measure). In addition, we propose to assess the efficacy of translocation of juvenile 

humpback chub into additional predator free areas within the LCR. A number of pools 

have been identified including those at the mouth of Big Canyon and several within 

channel pools 3-5 kilometers upstream of Blue Springs which may serve as head-start 

rearing areas. This research will provide a conservation benefit as a proof of concept for 

FY 2018 FY 2019

Project Humpback Chub Project Humpback Chub

Salaries $543,952 Salaries $557,778

Traveling and

Training $12,000 Traveling and

Training $10,000

Operating Expenses $139,050 Operating Expenses $103,700

Logistics $401,477 Logistics $417,716

Cooperators (non‐

USGS) $505,000 Cooperators (non‐

USGS) $521,000

USGS Cooperators $47,549 USGS Cooperators $31,208

USGS Burden $300,235 USGS Burden $298,820

Total $1,949,263 Total $1,940,222

FY 2018 Project Gross Totals: $1,949,263 FY 2019 Project Gross Totals: $1,940,222

27

Commented [DPB60]: What factors affect feasibility, and, 

if any relate to field conditions, does this sub-project require 

field survey work to confirm or refine information on these 

conditions? 

Commented [DPB61]: What controls are in place vis 

sources, health, genetic diversity, and parasite loads in the 

transported cohorts? What other factors might affect 

success/failure of translocations, including external drivers, 

and are monitoring systems in place to track these other 

factors? Learning from the translocation experiments 

presumably would require such additional information, to 

help increase understanding of the circumstances in which 

such translocations may succeed or fail. The LTEMP and its 

ROD emphasize needs for critical learning, and this is one of 

the recognized “experiments” from which the AMP must 

learn, for purposes of adaptive management. Given this, 

would it be useful for the “proof of concept” trials to include 

figuring out what needs to be monitored or controlled to 

ensure that effective learning takes place? 
	 	

   

          

Project Humpback Chub

Salaries $572,286

Traveling and

Training $14,500

Operating Expenses $108,700

Logistics $432,613

Cooperators (non‐

USGS) $605,000

USGS Cooperators $15,149

USGS Burden $311,457

Total $2,059,705

FY 2020

FY 2020 Project Gross Totals: $2,059,705

28
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Project H. Salmonid Research Project 

1. Investigators 

Josh Korman, Fish Biologist, EcoMetric, Inc. 

Michael Yard, Fish Biologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center 

David Rogowski, Fish Biologist, Arizona Game and Fish Department 

Clay Nelson, Fish Biologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center 

Ken Sheehan, Fish Biologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center 

Charles Yackulic, Research Statistician, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon 

Monitoring and Research Center 

Michael Dodrill, Fish Biologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center 

Kim Dibble, Fish Biologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center 

2. Project Summary 

Nonnative salmonids, such as rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss and brown 

trout Salmo trutta, are considered priority-species in the GCDAMP because of their 

recreational value and potential negative effects on humpback chub (Gila cypha) an 

endangered species (Yard et al., 2011, Yackulic unpublished data). Although rainbow 

trout are the more desired of the two sport fish, brown trout are likely establishing a 

spawning population in Glen Canyon, and their occurrence further complicates the comanagement of the tailwater fishery and downstream reaches of the Colorado River. 

Currently, the number of policy levers available to enhance chub populations is limited to 

actions that are focused on regulating trout movement and abundance through use of 

flows or mechanical removal (Coggins et al. 2011). Not surprisingly then, trout were a 

very important component of the LTEMP EIS and a major consideration in the flow 

decisions identified in the selected alternative. The overarching purpose of this project is 

to determine the effects of flows identified in the Record of Decision (ROD) on the 

recruitment of young-of-year trout in Glen Canyon, the growth rate of juveniles and 

adults, and dispersal of young-of-year trout from Glen Canyon. This research project 

proposes to evaluate (1) the effect of trout management flows (TMFs) on recruitment and 

dispersal; (2) the effects of higher and potentially more stable flows in spring and 

summer during equalization events on recruitment, growth, and dispersal; (3) the effect of 

fall HFEs on recruitment of trout in Glen Canyon, either through direct effects on 

juvenile survival or through reduced egg deposition in later years driven by reduced 

growth of trout (which reduces fecundity and rates of sexual maturation); (4) the effect of 

spring HFEs on recruitment, growth, and dispersal; and (5) develop a rainbow trout 

recruitment/outmigration model. Summarized below are monitoring and research 

elements that address the primary study objectives: 

29

Commented [DPB62]: Please note that salmonid 

monitoring and research was one of the subjects of the 

Fisheries PEP in FY16, and the present proposal incorporates 

the findings and recommendations from that PEP. 

Commented [DPB63]: Would it help with coordination to 

have someone from AZGFD on the team, as is the case with 

Project I (Aquatic Invasive Species)? 

Commented [DPB64]: As well as in the LTEMP EIS and 

ROD 

Commented [DPB65]: And potentially on Other Native 

Fishes and on Natural Processes such as food web dynamics. 

Commented [DPB66]: The 2017 Knowledge Assessment 

responses from the Rainbow Trout and Invasive Species 

teams indicated several areas of uncertainty about RBT and 

BRT status and trends and external drivers, as well as the 

need to monitor the effects of the LTEMP flow experiments 

and other actions on the salmonids. It would be useful if the 

project summary indicated how the proposed work will help 

redress these unknowns and uncertainties. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

trout populations between summer months in years when TMFs are conducted, and 

Ongoing Monitoring Studies 

	 1. System Wide Electrofishing – This project element provides long-term 

monitoring data on the longitudinal distribution and status of the fish community in the 

Colorado River ecosystem (CRe) from Lees Ferry to Lake Mead. The project uses 

electrofishing and hoop-netting CPUE indices to track relative status and trends of the 

most common native and nonnative fish species in the CRe. The current monitoring 

program is designed to be able to detect population level changes in target species over a 

five-year time scale. 

	 2. Rainbow Trout Monitoring in Glen Canyon – The objective of this project 

element is to monitor the basic fish population characteristics, including relative 

abundance, size composition, distribution, and recruitment of rainbow trout and brown 

trout. The current monitoring program is designed to be able to detect population level 

2015). Currently, estimates of angler catch quality (i.e., number of fish ≥ 14” and fish ≥

20”) cannot be reliably determined from these surveys without substantive bias; 

therefore, AGFD proposes to conduct a citizen science project that utilizes fishing guides 

to collect length data on fish caught by their clients. 

New Research Studies 

4. Experimental Flow Assessment for Rainbow Trout – There are two main 

elements to this study, we propose to implement a multi-reach mark-recapture sampling 

design that focuses on marking trout by using a combination of VIE-tags (≤75 mm) and 

PIT-tags (≥75 mm) in three 2-km reaches (located near -3.5 RM, -9RM, and -12.5 RM). 

These data will be integrated into an open population model to estimate abundance, 

recruitment, and growth in each reach. TMFs are a key element of the LTEMP EIS and 

are intended to reduce recruitment of rainbow trout in Glen Canyon to avoid boom-andbust cycles but more importantly, to limit downstream dispersal. Comparing the trends in 

changes over a five-year time scale. 

	 3. Lees Ferry Creel Survey & AGFD Citizen Science Project – This project 

element evaluates the quality and changes in the recreational experience of angling in the 

rainbow trout fishery in Lees Ferry, Glen Canyon National Recreation Area (Rogers 



between fall months or spring months in years when fall- or spring-HFEs are conducted 

provides a rigorous evaluation of TMF and HFE effects (that will be replicated in three 

reaches). By having PIT-tag estimates of recruitment in the same location where Rainbow 

Trout Early Life Stage Survival (RTELSS) estimates of abundance are obtained, allows 

for both sets of results to be integrated into the same open population model (Korman and 

Yard 2017). Logistically, the multi-reach mark-recapture sampling design would be 

similar to the Natal Origins effort in Glen Canyon, but is restricted to three reaches to 

reduce trip length and cost. Modelling and other analytical approaches for this element 

have already been developed which reduces analytical costs (Korman and Yard, in 

review). We propose to move all RTELSS sampling into the three study reaches (currently 

sites are distributed throughout Glen Canyon). In each reach, sites will be continuously 

distributed on the left and right bank and cover a total of 1 km of shoreline on each side. 

30
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

influenced by changes in discharge and rate. Because this is an informative tool, we 

propose using otoliths for measuring daily growth rates in young-of-year brown trout to 

These 1-km sections will be selected so that a low-angle shoreline is present on one side 

and a high-angle shoreline on the other. This design offers a number of advantages: a) the 

continuous sites allow us to conduct more effective mark-recapture of small fish using 

VIE-tags. RTELSS currently assumes that capture probabilities are constant across all 

trips and this has led to problems in the past that this approach will avoid (Avery et al. 

2015); b) we expect TMFs to be more effective in low angle shorelines than steep ones 

because small fish are more likely to be stranded in the former shoreline type. Comparing 

the trends in populations between May and August in years when TMFs are conducted 

provides a rigorous evaluation of TMF effects (which will be replicated in three reaches); 

and c) by having PIT-tag estimates of recruitment in the same location where RTELSS 

VIE-tag estimates of abundance are obtained, we will be able to integrate both sets of 

results in the same open population model. That is, data from both efforts will be used to 

provide more robust and consistent estimates of how flow is effecting survival and 





recruitment of young-of-year as well as other size-classes of trout. 

5. Rainbow Trout Recruitment and Outmigration Model – The ability to predict 

the strength of rainbow trout recruitment and outmigration relative to management 

alternatives outlined in the LTEMP is of central importance to effective management of 

multiple resources in the CRe. The model is designed to integrate data from different 

research and monitoring schemes and will be used in testing various hypotheses of 

drivers (e.g., nutrients, flow, rainbow trout densities, etc.) and predicting rainbow trout 

responses to alternative flows and physical conditions. Also the model will be used to 

determine the statistical power of different monitoring schemes to detect effects of 

different flow experiments. 

6. Young-Of-Year Brown Trout Otolith Study – Brown trout populations have 

increased recently in Glen Canyon and pose a threat to the rainbow trout fishery and chub 

near the LCR. Disturbance from TMFs and HFEs, particularly during spring timed flows 

when brown trout are just emerging from gravel may adversely affect their survival. 

Secondly, TMFs and HFEs may also affect growth following post emergence, and by 

extension influence their ultimate survival and recruitment. Otolith growth studies by 

Korman and Campana (2008) have shown that rainbow trout growth is negatively 

determine if flow magnitude, duration, and timing influence growth. Also by backcalculating hatch and emergence dates, we will identify critical developmental periods 

when flow manipulation and/or other potential management actions may be effectively 

targeted at vulnerable brown trout life stages. 

31
 

 

       

                     

   

          

3. Budget 

Project Project

Salaries $268,698 Salaries $324,782

Traveling and Training $49,260 Traveling and Training $49,260

Operating Expenses $52,900 Operating Expenses $55,400

Logistics $269,422 Logistics $285,559

Cooperators (non‐USGS) $453,669 Cooperators (non‐USGS) $463,313

USGS Cooperators $0 USGS Cooperators $0

USGS Burden $180,083 USGS Burden $199,800

Total $1,274,032 Total $1,378,114

FY 2018 Project Gross Totals: 1,274,032

FY 2019

FY 2019 Project Gross Totals: 1,378,114

FY 2018

Project

Salaries $341,265

Traveling and

Training $51,760

Operating Expenses $52,400

Logistics $302,479

Cooperators (non‐

USGS) $473,246

USGS Cooperators $0

USGS Burden $208,652

Total $1,429,802

FY 2020

FY 2020 Project Gross Totals: 1,429,802

Literature 

Avery, L. A., Korman, J., & Persons, W. R. 2015. Effects of increased discharge on 

spawning and age-0 recruitment of rainbow trout in the Colorado River at Lees 

Ferry, Arizona. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 35: 671-680. 

Coggins, L.G. Jr., Yard, M.D., and Pine, W.E. III. 2011. Nonnative fish control in the 

Colorado River in Grand Canyon, Arizona: an effective program or serendipitous 

timing? Trans. Am. Fish. Soc., 140:456-470. 

Korman, J. and Campana, S.E. 2008. Effects of hydropeaking on nearshore habitat use 

and growth of age-0 rainbow trout in a large regulated river. Trans. Am. Fish. 

Soc., 138:76-87. 

32
 

 

	 	

Korman, J., and M.D. Yard. 2017. Effects of environmental covariates and density on the 

catchability of fish populations and the interpretation of catch per unit effort 

trends. Fish. Res. 189:18-34. 

Korman, J., and M.D. Yard. In review. Trends in recruitment, abundance, survival, and 

growth over a boom-and-bast cycle of a rainbow trout tailwater population. 

Submitted to Trans. Am. Fish. Soc., Dec. 18, 2016. 

Rogers, S. 2015. Fisheries Management Plan Colorado River - Lees Ferry 2015-2025. 

Page 15. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 

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. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc., 140:471-486. 

33
	 	

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Arizona Game and Fish Department, and Tribal agencies to reduce the presence and 

expansion of AIS in three primary ways: 

1. By refining existing monitoring efforts and using new tools to improve early 

detection of AIS. 

2. By assessing the risk of warm-water nonnative fish to humpback chub and 

other native fishes through new research in the Little Colorado River and 

Colorado River Ecosystem and synthesis of existing data/literature. 

3. By developing an action plan that includes the evaluation of existing 

Project I. Aquatic Invasive Species 

1. Investigators 

David Ward, Fish Biologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center 

Dave Rogowski, Fish Biologist, Arizona Game and Fish Department 

Kim Dibble, Fish Biologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center 

Kenneth Sheehan, Fish Biologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring 

and Research Center

Brian Healy, Fisheries	Program	Manager,	National	Park	Service,	Grand	Canyon	

National	Park

Ken Hyde, Chief of Science and Resource Management, National	Park	Service,	Glen 

Canyon National Recreation Area & Rainbow Bridge National Monument 

Kirk Young, Fish Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Mike Yard, Fish Biologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center 

Charles Yackulic, Research Statistician, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon 

Monitoring and Research Center 

2. Project Summary 

Declines in native fish populations throughout the southwest are commonly linked 

to adverse interactions with Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS). The regulation and control 

of invasive fish is an important management action identified in the 2002 humpback chub 

recovery goals (under revision) as well as in the LTEMP EIS and its associated 

Biological Opinion. In this work plan we propose a develop a comprehensive strategy in 

collaboration with the National Park Service, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the 

management strategies and new tools to manage AIS. 

Preventing new invasions is the least expensive and most effective way to control 

nonnative species when compared to the cost of control projects after invasions occur 

(Leung and others, 2002). Therefore, the first component of our comprehensive strategy 

is to improve detection of potentially problematic AIS in the Little Colorado River 

(LCR) and in the Colorado River Ecosystem (CRe) in Grand Canyon by expanding 

monitoring efforts and testing new detection tools. Long-term monitoring to detect 

34

Commented [DPB67]: Please note that AIS monitoring 

and research was one of the subjects of the Fisheries PEP in 

FY16, and the present proposal incorporates the findings and 

recommendations from that PEP. 

Commented [DPB68]: ... and ROD 

Commented [DPB69]: It is also important to mention that 

the project will directly address monitoring needs 

highlighted in the EIS and ROD, and in the 2017 Knowledge 

Assessment. The EIS/ROD lays out specific objectives for 

invasive aquatic species management, mandates assessing 

how mechanical removal affects AIS, and emphasizes the 

need to monitor how all other experimental and management 

actions may affect AIS. 

Commented [DPB70]: Please include Literature Cited 

section. 

Commented [DPB71]: Would the selection of detection 

and management tools depend on where the ‘gateways’ are 

for incoming AIS? For example, to what extent are we 

dealing with existing AIS populations in situ, versus new 

individuals arriving from elsewhere? And if from elsewhere, 

from where? Clearly you view the LCR watershed as a 

potential large source, and the 2017 Knowledge Assessment 

and other discussions have identified concerns about what 

makes it through the GCD, too. Lake Mead presumably also 

is a large source. What else? Is there any effort to 

inform/discourage anglers about “bait fish”? 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(RM 281). This project and other fish monitoring efforts such as the humpback chub 

aggregation monitoring and the juvenile chub monitoring project also provide important 

detection data related to AIS and we propose these activities continue (see Projects G and 

H). As the elevation of Lake Mead has decreased due to drought, the western segment of 

the river has reemerged, creating the need to extend sampling efforts an additional 15 

miles to the Lake Mead interface. Additional surveillance by the US Fish and Wildlife 

Service and the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC) will be 

conducted upstream of Blue Springs in the LCR to identify sources of nonnative fish that 

are likely to move into the CRe during high flows. New tools such as Environmental 

DNA (eDNA) will be tested to validate the presence or absence of key invasive species 

and determine the spatial extent of invasions in the LCR and CRe. Environmental DNA 

can have higher sensitivity and lower cost than traditional sampling methods especially 

when attempting to detect very rare organisms. Water samples for eDNA analysis are 

relatively easy to collect in conjunction with exiting monitoring trips and may also lend 

themselves to cost effective collection using citizen science volunteers, although research 

and additional development to determine effectiveness of these tools will be needed. In 

addition, methods to assess the infestation of Asian tapeworm in humpback chub will 

continue in the LCR and additional monitoring will be extended to humpback chub 

nonnative fishes is currently conducted by the Arizona Game and Fish Department 

(AGFD) in Lees Ferry and throughout the CRe. We propose to increase these monitoring 

efforts in Lees Ferry by adding three additional one-night sampling trips and expanding 

spatial coverage to evaluate four additional sites where warm-water species are likely to 

aggregate and spawn in order to maximize our ability to detect AIS range expansions and 

unwanted species passing through the dam. Monthly monitoring during the summer 

months between the dam and Lees Ferry will focus on locations with warmer water 

where nonnative fishes are most likely to occur. Currently, the AGFD conducts systemwide electrofishing and hoop netting surveys from Lees Ferry (RM 0) to Pearce Ferry 

Commented [DPB73]: Is there a need to calibrate the 

eDNA findings, and if so, wouldn’t that require 

synchronizing sampling for eDNA with the direct-capture. 

Also, it might be useful to have a clearer statement (or 

report) on the limitations of electrofishing and hoop netting 

to survey for AIS, e.g., inability to capture organisms in 

some micro- and meso-habitats (including deep benthic?). 

Such information would give the AMP a better sense of the 

limits on detection using different methods, for comparative 

cost/risk/benefit assessments. 

populations in the CRe. Collectively, the expansion of existing monitoring efforts 

combined with new detection tools are a critical first step for preventing the 

establishment and spread of AIS in Grand Canyon. 

Assessing the risks posed by existing or new AIS is the second component of our 

comprehensive strategy. Hilwig and Andersen (2010) compiled a literature review of the 

potential risks posed by individual species, but those risks need to be updated based on 

expected future conditions in the LCR and CRe in a changing climate. Although 

extensive research to evaluate rainbow and brown trout predation on juvenile humpback 

chub under various environmental conditions has been conducted, other warm-water 

invasive species in the LCR may be just as detrimental to humpback chub and other 

native fish populations. To that end, risks posed by warm-water invasive fishes such as 

bioenergetics modeling. Laboratory studies will be conducted to quantify predation risk 

channel catfish and bullhead catfish will be quantified using diet analysis and 

from common carp and small bodied fishes such as fathead minnow and plains killifish 

on humpback chub eggs and larvae. These studies will determine if warm-water invasive 

fishes present more or less of a predation threat to juvenile chub than predation by trout. 

This information gives context from which to evaluate potential management actions 

such as trout removal and will ensure that any future AIS removal efforts are focused 

only on species that pose the highest threat to chub populations. 

35

Commented [DPB74]: Please include Literature Cited 

section. 

Commented [DPB75]: Wouldn’t one also need to look at 

predator and prey behaviors (foraging and avoidance 

behaviors, differences in where and when different species 

may occur in different habitat settings or how they behave 

under different habitat conditions, etc.) to look for 

circumstances that might favor or disfavor predation? 

Commented [DPB72]: For consistency, “AIS”? 

Commented [DPB76]: The more/less question is 

important, but so is the question of the cumulative effects of 

all predation. The native fish are swimming a “gauntlet” of 

predators with which they have no evolutionary experience. 

Helping the native fishes survive this gauntlet in sufficient 

numbers to maintain or expand their own numbers 

presumably requires some combination of reducing the 

density of attackers and increasing the availability of habitat 

conditions that afford the natives some protection. 

Commented [DPB77]: Again, “threat” here means 

significant contribution to chub mortality, which hinges on 

the numbers and food consumption rates of the AIS as well 

as on the extent to which these AIS forage in habitat 

settings/under habitat conditions where chub will also be 

present – more than just matters of bioenergetics and gape 

sizes. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

       

                     

 

 

 

 

The most challenging aspect of an invasive species management program is that 

removal of AIS is typically very difficult and management strategies are rarely in place a 

priori 

comprehensive strategy is to develop an action plan that incorporates tools to manage 

to address and respond to new invasions. Therefore, the third element of our 

AIS in the LCR and CRe. We propose to evaluate and summarize management actions 

and tools that have been used successfully and unsuccessfully in other systems to control 

AIS. For example, rapidly emerging genetic technologies such as YY chromosomal 

supermales (Herrera and Cruz 2001, Cotton and Wedekind 2007) that gradually eliminate 

female reproductive fish in a population through swamping with infertile fish shows 

promise for reducing or eliminating AIS. Potential management strategies will be 

in the LCR (Ward et al. 2013). Isolated pools between Grand Falls and Blue Springs will 

summarized and combined with information from the risk assessment (above) to 

determine which new AIS pose the largest threat to native populations, and further, 

identify what actions management agencies might take to reduce or eliminate those 

populations if detected through monitoring activities. In addition, we will conduct 

research to evaluate the efficacy of using liquid ammonia as a new fish management tool 

be treated with an experimental dose of liquid ammonia in June prior to monsoon 

flooding to minimize transport of invasive fishes downstream into the CRe during high 

flows. Locations will be identified and treated in coordination with the Navajo Nation 

and the AGFD and results of these small-scale experimental treatments will be evaluated 

for potential use in other tributaries. By being proactive in developing a comprehensive 

action plan and by evaluating new technologies and methods to control AIS, GCMRC 

3. Budget 

will take a leading role in science efforts to control or eliminate nonnative aquatic 

nuisance species in the LCR and in the broader CRe. 

Project Project

Salaries $179,961 Salaries $185,359

Traveling and Training $7,000 Traveling and Training $16,000

Operating Expenses $20,304 Operating Expenses $18,004

Logistics $25,524 Logistics $68,768

Cooperators (non‐USGS) $29,140 Cooperators (non‐USGS) $29,652

USGS Cooperators $0 USGS Cooperators $0

USGS Burden $61,399 USGS Burden $75,804

Total $323,328 Total $393,587

FY 2018

FY 2018 Project Gross Totals: $323,328

FY 2019

FY 2019 Project Gross Totals: $393,587

36

Commented [DPB80]: Need Lit.Cit. section 

Commented [DPB81]: Need Lit.Cit. section 

Commented [DPB78]: I am not sure what is meant by this 

term here. Do you mean “already in place and pre-aligned to 

address new AIS?” 

Commented [DPB79]: The LTEMP EIS/ROD only 

provide for mechanical removal as a management action. 

This part of Project I goes beyond that, to evaluate 

alternative methods for controlling AIS. This idea is fully 

consistent with the objectives of the AMP overall. But the 

GCMRC is not responsible for making the key decisions that 

trigger actions against AIS. The GCMRC role here should 

not be to develop the action plan per se, but to identify and 

evaluate options that are alternatives to mechanical removal 

or alternative ways to carry out mechanical removal (e.g., via 

liquid ammonia), with the results being presented as advice 

to the resources managing agencies and AMP stakeholders. 

Some of these options may also satisfy tribal concerns about 

treatment of aquatic life forms. 
	 	

   

          

Project

Salaries $190,921

Traveling and Training $70,652

Operating Expenses $17,604

Logistics $30,528

Cooperators (non‐USGS) $30,168

USGS Cooperators $0

USGS Burden $81,428

Total $421,300

FY 2020 Project Gross Totals: $421,300

FY 2020

37
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Project J. Socioeconomic Monitoring and 

Research in the Colorado River Ecosystem 

1. Investigators 

Lucas Bair, Economist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research 

Center 

David Brookshire, Professor Emeritus, University of New Mexico 

Cathy Cullinane Thomas, Economist, U.S. Geological Survey 

John Duffield, Research Professor, University of Montana 

Todd Gaston, Economist, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

Center 

Mathew Reimer, Associate Professor, University of Alaska 

Monitoring and Research Center 

2. Project Summary 

Tom Gushue, GIS, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research 

Michael Springborn, Assistant Professor, University of California at Davis 

Charles Yackulic, Research Statistician, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon 

recreation studies that involve the development of a recreational experience simulation 

These elements build on socioeconomic research in the GCDAMP Fiscal Years 2015 – 

2017 Triennial Budget and Work Plan (FY15-17 TWP) and include: a) interrelated 

model to provide the capability to evaluate recreational resource impacts and tradeoffs 

under management actions affecting Colorado River flow, development of a regional 

economic impact model of Glen Canyon angling to understand flows and economic 

impact in the region, and implementation of a Grand Canyon whitewater guide survey to 

identify and evaluate key attributes to the whitewater recreational experience (Element 

1); b) implementation of a tribal member population survey to assess the impact of GCD 

operations on tribal preference for and value of downstream resources (Element 2); and 

c) continued development and integration of decision support models, using economic 

metrics, to evaluate management actions and future scenarios, including proposed 

38

This project is designed to identify preferences for and economic values of 

downstream resources and evaluate how these metrics are influenced by Glen Canyon 

Dam operations, including proposed experiments in the Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term 

Experimental and Management Plan Environmental Impact Statement (LTEMP EIS). 

The research will also integrate economic information from the project with data from 

long-term and ongoing physical and biological monitoring and research studies led by the 

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC) to develop integrated 

assessment models that will improve the ability of the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive 

Management Program (GCDAMP) to evaluate and prioritize management actions, 

monitoring and research. 

This project involves three related socioeconomic monitoring and research elements. 

Commented [DPB82]: The proposal would benefit from a 

summary of how this project aligns with the LTEMP 

EIS/ROD objectives and long-term AMP objectives. The 

clearest alignments are with two resource topics: 

Recreational Experience and Tribal Resources, but the 

decision support tools (Element 3) could be useful for the 

managers of essentially all resources (see my comments 

below). Additionally, it would be useful to see a discussion 

of how this effort aligns with activities in Reclamation’s 

FY18-20 work plan, which also includes actions focused on 

tribal values and perspectives. Integration will be crucial 

over the course of implementing the LTEMP. Would it 

benefit coordination to have one of the tribal liaisons on the 

Project J team? 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Element 1: This project element would build on the research accomplished in Project 

13.1 in the FY15-17 TWP. This includes utilizing the economic values identified with 

experiments in the LTEMP EIS, and prioritize monitoring and research on resources 

downstream of GCD (Element 3). 

Grand Canyon whitewater boating and Glen Canyon angling to expand on a scenario 

analysis model developed for the LTEMP EIS, to estimate the net economic value of 

whitewater boating and angling under various flow scenarios including experimental 

flows considered in the LTEMP EIS. This modeling would incorporate up-to-date 

economic value information estimated for Project 13.1 in the FY15-17 TWP. Simulation 

models and visualization tools to evaluate experimental flows and other management 

actions will be developed in a web-based platform and hosted by GCMRC. The project 

would also develop a regional economic impact model of Glen Canyon angling, utilizing 

settings from the recreational experience scenario analysis model. The regional economic 

impact model would allow for an assessment of the regional economic impacts of 

variation in guided and non-guided angler participation in Glen Canyon. The model 

would rely on angler expenditure data collected in the angler surveys administered for 

Project 13.1 in the FY15-17 TWP. The project element would also implement a Grand 

Canyon whitewater guide (i.e., commercial whitewater guides) survey to identify and 

evaluate key recreational experience attributes that may differ under alternative flow 

regimes and events such as HFEs, low steady flows and other experiments in the LTEMP 

EIS. This survey would allow the GCDAMP to better understand impacts to the 

whitewater recreational experience, building on the economic surveys in Project 13.1 in 

the TWP FY15-17. 

Element 2: This project element would build on the qualitative research being conducted 

in Project 13.2 in the FY15-17 TWP. The qualitative research is being undertaken 

through workshops with tribes involved in the GCDAMP, coordinated with recent work, 

including a National Park Service non-use study focused on national and regional 

populations (Duffield et al. 2016), as well as direct use recreation studies (Bair et al. 

2016, Duffield et al. 2016). The proposed quantitative population-level tribal research is 

designed to provide an efficient and timely approach to tribal information needs related to 

values, perspectives and knowledge of Colorado River Ecosystem resources. The 

Commented [DPB83]: It is not clear why it is necessary to 

continue investing in the model developed for the EIS, when 

you can now begin collecting data on actual implementation 

and its impacts. Presumably the model now identifies (and 

weights?) the economic variables (recreational experience 

attributes) that need to be monitored, because they 

potentially vary in response to different flow conditions. 

Presumably other aspects of system state (e.g., campsite 

conditions) also affect these responses. Could you 

systematically collect data on these variables, to build a 

database of recreational experience state(s) before, during 

(?), and after flow experiments and other required release 

events (e.g., for augmentation, supplemental power 

generation, etc.), which in turn would give you the data you 

need to assess the actual impacts of the ROD-mandated flow 

experiments – the data on which are needed for AMP 

learning and adaptive management? 

Commented [DPB84]: What is the current state of FY15­

17 Project 13.2? That project was a package, to be completed 

by the end of FY17. Will that project be completed, what is 

being learned (FY17 is half over), and in what ways will J.2 

expand on this? Additionally, it would help to explain the 

kinds of “values, perspectives and knowledge” that will be 

considered. Also, one of the long-term challenges for the 

AMP has been the lack of specific indicators of the ‘state of 

the system’ from the standpoint of tribal values – indicators 

that could be tracked to provide information on whether and 

how AMP actions affect the condition of the system from 

various tribal perspectives. The EIS/ROD states the 

following goal for “Tribal Resources,” to “[m]aintain the 

diverse values and resources of traditionally associated 

Tribes along the Colorado River corridor through Glen, 

Marble, and Grand Canyons.” Project J.2 and its 

predecessor, FY15-17 Project 13.2, could help with 

articulating the indicated “values and resources.” This 

alignment is crucial. How close will we be to an initial list of 

tribal “values and resources” amenable to monitoring, by the 

end of FY17? Also, shouldn’t funding be proposed as 

contingent on the results and evaluation of FY15-17 Project 

13.2? 

TWP and use a set of standard methods extensively used in resource economics studies 

population surveys would expand on the qualitative effort in Project 13.2 in the FY15-17 

for valuing ecosystem services. The research would provide core information, informing 

management and associated trade-offs related to operation of GCD. 

Element 3: This project element would develop a series of integrated assessment models 

to improve the GCDAMP’s capacity to organize scientific information and evaluate and 

build on the framework of a bioeconomic model developed to evaluate rainbow trout 

management strategies in relation to humpback chub population goals (Bair et al. In 

preparation) and ongoing research in Project 13.3 in the FY15-17 TWP. Ongoing 

research includes the exploration of which uncertainties in humpback chub population 

39

prioritize, monitoring, research and management alternatives specific to the operation of 

GCD, including proposed flow experiments in the LTEMP EIS. This project element will 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

       

                     

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

parameters have the greatest implications for management decisions and the explicit 

trade-offs (efficacy and cost) between trout management flows (TMFs) at GCD and 

rainbow trout removals at the Little Colorado River (LCR), in an attempt to achieve adult 

humpback chub population goals. Additional modeling research will 

systematically assess management triggers related to rainbow trout removal (e.g., adult 

humpback chub, juvenile humpback chub recruitment, etc.), address the impacts on 

management decisions of interannual variation and potential long-term trends in both 

rainbow trout recruitment at GCD and humpback chub recruitment in the LCR, and 

explore which uncertainties in population parameters and experimental flow 

responses (e.g., TMFs) have the greatest implications for management decisions. We will 

also work to use ongoing research and expert elicitation to develop decision tools to 

inform management of nonnative species and the implementation of macroinvertebrate 

production flows. In parallel to the integrated assessment modeling, a conceptual model 

will be developed in coordination with related ongoing economic and systems modeling 

research by Argonne National Laboratory and the University of Oklahoma’s, Center for 

Energy, Security and Society. The conceptual model will assist in the prioritization of 

analytical model development and the integration and standardization of analytical 

models and parameters. 

3. Budget 

Project Socioecon Project Socioecon

Salaries $139,050 Salaries $143,100

Traveling and Training $10,000 Traveling and Training $10,000

Operating Expenses $1,000 Operating Expenses $1,000

Logistics $500 Logistics $500

Cooperators (non‐USGS) $174,000 Cooperators (non‐USGS) $172,000

USGS Cooperators $0 USGS Cooperators $17,000

USGS Burden $44,363 USGS Burden $45,356

Total $368,913 Total $388,956

FY 2018

FY 2018 Project Gross Totals: $368,913

FY 2019

FY 2019 Project Gross Totals: $388,956

Commented [DPB85]: I found the preceding sentence a 

bit too abstract, but the one-line summary in the second 

paragraph above plus this [highlighted] sentence gave me the 

key I needed, and I have seen presentations by Bair on how 

these decision support tools help compare the trade-offs 

entailed in different management decisions – here 

concerning RBT and HBC. But I am not sure if this should 

be characterized as “research.” It seems to be more an 

application of a methodology to build decision support tools 

that the AMP can use to compare the potential pros and cons 

of different management actions. From a stakeholder 

standpoint, the tools will be the valuable outcome of Element 

3, for a crucial reason: The “Table 4” of the EIS and ROD 

repeatedly states that all experimental and management 

actions are to be checked regularly to make sure they do not 

result in “long-term unacceptable adverse impacts” on the 11 

focal resources addressed by the LTEMP. The challenge of 

such checking of course is that an action that results in 

“adverse impacts” to one resource may in fact benefit some 

other resource. As a result, the AMP crucially needs tools to 

help in evaluating trade-offs. The DSTs you propose are one 

such type of tool. [I should add: Are there others that might 

also help? Would it be useful to inform the AMP about a 

range of options?] 

40
   

          

Project Socioecon

Salaries $147,150

Traveling and Training $10,000

Operating Expenses $1,000

Logistics $500

Cooperators (non‐USGS) $148,000

USGS Cooperators $48,000

USGS Burden $45,689

Total $400,339

FY 2020 Project Gross Totals: $400,339

FY 2020

41
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Project K. Geospatial Science and 

Technology Project 

1. Investigators 

Thomas M. Gushue, U.S. Geological Survey 

Timothy Andrews, U.S. Geological Survey 

James Hensleigh, U.S. Geological Survey 

2. Project Summary 

The geospatial and information technology industries continue to change and expand 

at a rapid pace. Much of this growth is driven by advances in technology -- from 

improved sensors for monitoring the Earth to increased digital data storage capacity to 

new systems designed for processing Big Data faster and more efficiently to the greater 

emphasis of the Internet Of Things where the reliance of web-based technologies have 

revolutionized our world. The purpose of this project is to continue to advance the Grand 

Canyon Monitoring and Research Center’s ability to leverage many of these new 

technologies for the benefit of the Center, the science projects described within this work 

plan, and the larger adaptive management program that they serve. 

The Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center continues to collect, store, 

process, analyze, and serve an ever-growing amassment of digital data. Much of the data 

that now exists in the Center has a geospatial component to it. The importance of being 

able to effectively manage these data has never been greater as technological advances 

have increased both the demand and the expectancy of more open data availability. This 

project will continue to build and maintain systems that will handle these data needs, as 

well as provide high-level support to other science projects in the form of data 

processing, data management and documentation, geospatial analysis, and access to the 

Center’s data holdings. 

42

Commented [DPB86]: For the final version, I think it 

would be appropriate to note that these information systems 

are crucial for allowing the AMP to review data that can 

inform time-sensitive decisions on experimental and 

management actions under the EIS/ROD. This capability is 

crucial to effective decision-making during implementation 

of the LTEMP. 
	 	

       

                     

   

          

3. Budget 

Project Project

Salaries $183,719 Salaries $189,231

Traveling and Training $6,000 Traveling and Training $6,000

Operating Expenses $20,000 Operating Expenses $20,000

Logistics Logistics

Cooperators (non‐USGS) Cooperators (non‐USGS)

USGS Cooperators USGS Cooperators

USGS Burden $54,527 USGS Burden $55,960

Total $264,246 Total $271,191

FY 2018

FY 2018 Project Gross Totals: $264,246

FY 2019

FY 2019 Project Gross Totals: $271,191

Project

Salaries $194,908

Traveling and Training $6,000

Operating Expenses $20,000

Logistics

Cooperators (non‐USGS)

USGS Cooperators

USGS Burden $57,436

Total $278,344

FY 2020 Project Gross Totals: $278,344

FY 2020

43
 
 

 

 

 

 

       

                       

Project L. Administration 

The USGS Administration budget covers salaries for the communications 

coordinator, the librarian, and the budget analyst for GCMRC. 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 for 

the GCMRC Chief and Deputy Chief, half the salary for one program manager, and some 

of the travel and training costs for these personnel. 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. 

Budget 

Project Admin Project Admin

Salaries $867,201 Salaries $896,578

Traveling and Training $55,000 Traveling and Training $57,500

Operating Expenses $239,000 Operating Expenses $245,500

Logistics Logistics

Cooperators (non‐USGS) $103,600 Cooperators (non‐USGS) $106,708

USGS Cooperators USGS Cooperators

USGS Burden $305,020 USGS Burden $315,092

Total $1,569,821 Total $1,621,378

FY 2018

FY 2018 Project Gross Totals: $ 1,569,821

FY 2019

FY 2019 Project Gross Totals: $1,621,378

44
	 	

   

          

Project Admin

Salaries $926,936

Traveling and Training $60,000

Operating Expenses $251,000

Logistics

Cooperators (non‐USGS) $109,909

USGS Cooperators

USGS Burden $325,161

Total $1,673,006

FY 2020 Project Gross Totals: $1,673,006

FY 2020

45
               

     

     

     

     

     

   

     

     

   

     

   

     

   

     

     

     

       

                          

   

     

     

       

   

Appendix A. Preliminary Budget Estimates 

Project Project Title FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020

A Streamflow, Water Quality,

and Sediment Transport $1,396,000 $1,424,000 $1,453,000

B

Sandbar and Sediment

Storage Monitoring and

Research

$1,370,000 $1,416,000 $1,460,000

C Riparian Vegetation $749,000 $765,000 $788,000

D

Geomorphic Effects of

Vegetation Management

and Dam Operations

$531,000 $592,000 $543,000

E Nutrients and Temperature

as Ecosystem Drivers $689,000 $551,000 $514,000

F Aquatic Invertebrate Ecology $1,055,000 $1,147,000 $1,180,000

G Humpback Chub Monitoring

and Research $1,949,000 $1,940,000 $2,060,000

H Salmonid Monitoring and

Research $1,274,000 $1,378,000 $1,430,000

I Invasive Aquatic Species $323,000 $394,000 $421,000

J Socio‐economics $369,000 $389,000 $400,000

K Geospatial Science and

Technology $264,000 $271,000 $278,000

L Administration $1,570,000 $1,621,000 $1,673,000

Proposed Gross Total $ 11,539,000 $ 11,888,000 $ 12,200,000

Anticipated AMP Funding

Available

(Assuming 80.63% of

Funding and 1% CPI)

$8,890,000 $8,979,000 $9,069,000

Long/Short ($2,649,000) ($2,909,000) ($3,131,000)

46