1) The TWP Process

2) GCMRC and applied science in an adaptive manag

context

3) Some thoughts on High Flow Experiments
2: shortfall planning being implemented; expect full program

3: shortfall planning being implemented; Element 3.4 uncertain

4: shortfall planning being implemented; expect full program

5: shortfall planning for AMP elements being implemented; elements beyon

uncertain, reduced level, or dropped6: shortfall planning being implemented; budget savings may be difficult to a

7: shortfall planning being implemented; expect full program

8: shortfall planning being implemented; uncertain funding for some elemen

9: shortfall planning being implemented; expect full program

10: shortfall planning being implemented; expect full program

11: shortfall planning being implemented; expect full program

12: shortfall planning being implemented; expect full program

13: shortfall planning being implemented; reduced support to cooperators li

Anticipating Budget Shortfalls in FY16 and FY17
Annual Reporting meeting and knowledge assessment (January 28)

Technical Work Group meeting (January 29‐30)TWG Budget Ad Hoc Group webinar (February 13)Adaptive Management Work Group meeting (February 19‐20)Initial identification of potential projects (Mar)Technical Work Group meeting (April 8‐9)TWG Budget Ad Hoc Group webinar (April 21)GCMRC/tribes meeting (April 22)TWP Prospectus (May 9)Budget Ad Hoc Group webinar (May 20)GCMRC/tribes meeting (May 22)Adaptive Management Work Group webinar (May 27)First draft TWP (June 6)Stakeholder and Science Advisors review (June)Technical Work Group meetings (June 24‐25, July 15)Final draft TWP (August 1)
Annual Reporting meeting and knowledge assessment (January 28)

Technical Work Group meeting (January 29‐30)TWG Budget Ad Hoc Group webinar (February 13)Adaptive Management Work Group meeting (February 19‐20)Initial identification of potential projects (Mar)Technical Work Group meeting (April 8‐9)TWG Budget Ad Hoc Group webinar (April 21)GCMRC/tribes meeting (April 22)TWP Prospectus (May 9)Budget Ad Hoc Group webinar (May 20)GCMRC/tribes meeting (May 22)Adaptive Management Work Group webinar (May 27)First draft TWP (June 6)Stakeholder and Science Advisors review (June)Technical Work Group meetings (June 24‐25, July 15)Final draft TWP (August 1)

AR meet

articulatbasis of 

develop

include 

monitor

and pro

research 

meeting carefully What is elicit staconcernresponstime bet

TWG me
Annual Reporting meeting and knowledge assessment (January 28)

Technical Work Group meeting (January 29‐30)TWG Budget Ad Hoc Group webinar (February 13)Adaptive Management Work Group meeting (February 19‐20)Initial identification of potential projects (Mar)Technical Work Group meeting (April 8‐9)TWG Budget Ad Hoc Group webinar (April 21)GCMRC/tribes meeting (April 22)TWP Prospectus (May 9)Budget Ad Hoc Group webinar (May 20)GCMRC/tribes meeting (May 22)Adaptive Management Work Group webinar (May 27)First draft TWP (June 6)Stakeholder and Science Advisors review (June)Technical Work Group meetings (June 24‐25, July 15)Final draft TWP (August 1)

ts.It is challeng

this list of pr

this list is rev

evaluated w

would be a g

Science Adv

workshop to 

scienceapproaches/ts.
Annual Reporting meeting and knowledge assessment (January 28)

Technical Work Group meeting (January 29‐30)TWG Budget Ad Hoc Group webinar (February 13)Adaptive Management Work Group meeting (February 19‐20)Initial identification of potential projects (Mar)Technical Work Group meeting (April 8‐9)TWG Budget Ad Hoc Group webinar (April 21)GCMRC/tribes meeting (April 22)TWP Prospectus (May 9)Budget Ad Hoc Group webinar (May 20)GCMRC/tribes meeting (May 22)Adaptive Management Work Group webinar (May 27)First draft TWP (June 6)Stakeholder and Science Advisors review (June)Technical Work Group meetings (June 24‐25, July 15)Final draft TWP (August 1)

What is the best 

tribal input?
Annual Reporting meeting and knowledge assessment (January 28)

Technical Work Group meeting (January 29‐30)TWG Budget Ad Hoc Group webinar (February 13)Adaptive Management Work Group meeting (February 19‐20)Initial identification of potential projects (Mar)Technical Work Group meeting (April 8‐9)TWG Budget Ad Hoc Group webinar (April 21)GCMRC/tribes meeting (April 22)TWP Prospectus (May 9)Budget Ad Hoc Group webinar (May 20)GCMRC/tribes meeting (May 22)Adaptive Management Work Group webinar (May 27)First draft TWP (June 6)Stakeholder and Science Advisors review (June)Technical Work Group meetings (June 24‐25, July 15)Final draft TWP (August 1)

Is this of value? 

feed back was re
Annual Reporting meeting and knowledge assessment (January 28)

Technical Work Group meeting (January 29‐30)TWG Budget Ad Hoc Group webinar (February 13)Adaptive Management Work Group meeting (February 19‐20)Initial identification of potential projects (Mar)Technical Work Group meeting (April 8‐9)TWG Budget Ad Hoc Group webinar (April 21)GCMRC/tribes meeting (April 22)TWP Prospectus (May 9)Budget Ad Hoc Group webinar (May 20)GCMRC/tribes meeting (May 22)Adaptive Management Work Group webinar (May 27)First draft TWP (June 6)Stakeholder and Science Advisors review (June)Technical Work Group meetings (June 24‐25, July 15)Final draft TWP (August 1)

The review proc

TWP is too com

Science Advisor 

developed in to

timeframe. Nee

reconsider how 

level science rev
Annual Reporting meeting and knowledge assessment (January 28)

Technical Work Group meeting (January 29‐30)TWG Budget Ad Hoc Group webinar (February 13)Adaptive Management Work Group meeting (February 19‐20)Initial identification of potential projects (Mar)Technical Work Group meeting (April 8‐9)TWG Budget Ad Hoc Group webinar (April 21)GCMRC/tribes meeting (April 22)TWP Prospectus (May 9)Budget Ad Hoc Group webinar (May 20)GCMRC/tribes meeting (May 22)Adaptive Management Work Group webinar (May 27)First draft TWP (June 6)Stakeholder and Science Advisors review (June)Technical Work Group meetings (June 24‐25, July 15)Final draft TWP (August 1)

Does anyone reTWP and the re

reviewer comm
Late November 2014 – GCMRC meets with DoI agencies to review science a

management issuesLate January 2015 – 1‐day Annual Reporting meeting; primary emphasis is results/scientific advances of FY13/14 BWPLate November 2015 – GCMRC meets with DoI agencies to review science amanagement issuesLate January 2016 – 1‐day Annual Reporting meeting; primary emphasis is implications to management and on results/findings of first year of activitiFY15/16/17 TWPFebruary/March 2016 – TWG considers mid‐TWP adjustments to TWPApril 2016 – TWG recommends mid‐TWP adjustmentsLate November 2016 – GCMRC meets with DoI agencies to review science amanagement issuesLate January 2017 – 2‐day Annual Reporting meeting; primary emphasis is existing knowledge and identification of fundamental monitoring issues anquestions to be addressed in FY18/19/20 TWP
Chief

Logisti

GS

1

Research Groups

Sediment Transport (Top

River Geomorphology (G

Aquatic Ecology (Kenn

Quantitative Ecology (Ya

Remote Sensing and Change Det

Administration and Support

Deputy Chief (Vanderkooi)

Tribal Liaison / Cultural Resource Affairs (Fairley‐12)

Special Projects (Melis‐10)

Fish Monitori

Program 

[Vernieu‐1; P

8; Y

Riparian Monitoring and Research

Program (Ralston‐11)

Current GCMRC

organization

Socio‐economics (Bair‐13)

GCMRC – an organization that does excellent science and is not simply a contracting agency
Think about Big Questions, not Sm

What is the largest amount of fine sediment that can occur abanks of the Colorado River, especially as eddy sandbars? What flow regime, in relation to the natural supply of fine sedtributaries, results in the most widespread distribution of fine salong the channel banks and in eddies?Do larger amounts of fine sediment along the channel bankeddies significantly change the amount and distribution of fisediment that occurs above the active channel and that ocnear archaeological sites?What management strategies should be employed to maintquality rainbow trout fishery in Glen Canyon while protectingpotentially recovering, the endangered humpback chub fish community in Marble and Grand Canyons?

How “Big” are o
Applied Science vs. Adaptive Management Planning: Dyna

Focus of the past three years has been on

solidify position of GCMRC within USGS

build science capacity

invigorate and inspire research scientists

promote

a science vision for GCMRC

leadershipaccountabilitytransparencyempowerment

Adaptive Management Planning:

status of resources (a new SCORE report)

Core Monitoring Plan linked to HFEs, NNFC, DFCs, LTEMP that incorpor

vision of what we mean by Adaptive Management in the context of the Gra

segment of the Colorado River

priorities of resources

priorities of segments
Pointing towards the Future

Funded:

Reservoir Limnology/Ecology Science Panel: reservoir/river linkage; Lake

Powell/Colorado River ecosystem/Lake MeadFish Population Monitoring Science Panel

Non‐native Vegetation Control Science Panel

Other Things We Should Do:

Sand bar monitoring programValley geomorphology and archaeology
Glen C

M

~$40 

Upper Colorado River

Endangered Fish

Recovery Program

(1988‐2013)

[$161 mil. 1989‐2006

~$7 mil./yr;]

Lower Colorado

River Multi‐

SpeciesConservationProgram (2005‐

2055)$620 mil. (50 yrs)

~$13 mil./yr

Minute 319, 1944 Water Treaty

Reco

P

[$34.6 
The long‐term fate of sand bars will depend on ...

time

sandbar size
The long‐term fate of sand bars will depend on ... (1) the magnitud

building during floods,
The long‐term fate of sand bars will depend on ... (2) the amou

erosion that occurs between floods,
The long‐term fate of sand bars will depend on ... (3) the duration 

between floods.
Mainstem flow

Mainstem flow and sediment

Tributary flow and sediment

Sediment budget reach

RM 0-30 – upper Marble CanyonRM 30-61 – lower Marble CanyonRM 61-87 – eastern Grand CanyonRM 87-166 – central Grand CanyonRM 166-225 – western Grand Canyon

Between 

2,100,00

accumula

Marb

~120,000 mt accumulated in lower M

Canyon

~380,000 mt

accumulated in

eastern Grand

Canyon

~440,000 mt accumulated in east‐

central Grand Canyon

uncertainty in west‐

central Grand Canyon

~440,000 mt accumulated in

western Grand Canyon and

Lake Mead

`610,000 m

Lessons learned from mass balance

Inflows from the Paria River during the monsoon season are immediat

Colorado River in uppe

`1,900,000 metric tons entered

Colorado River from the Paria

River
Mainstem flow

Mainstem flow and sediment

Tributary flow and sediment

Sediment budget reach

RM 0-30 – upper Marble CanyonRM 30-61 – lower Marble CanyonRM 61-87 – eastern Grand CanyonRM 87-166 – central Grand CanyonRM 166-225 – western Grand Canyon between 54

metric tons ac

Mar

`690,000 metric tons entered Colorado Rive

from the Paria River

~71,000 mt accumulated in lower M

Canyon

~340,000 mt

accumulated in

eastern Grand

Canyon

uncertainty in east‐central Grand

Canyon

~470,000 mt accumulated in

west‐central Grand Canyon

~370,000 mt accumulated in

western Grand Canyon and

Lake Mead

`620,0

Colora

Lessons learned from mass balance

Inflows from the Paria River during the monsoon season are immediat

Colorado River in uppe
2013 – 1,900,000 mt (Paria)

2012 – 

River Mile 30 gage

1,500,000 – 2,100,000 mt storage

(Upper Marble Canyon) 540,00

(Upper 
River Mile 30 gage

2013 – 1,900,000 mt (Paria)

2012 – 

1,500,000 – 2,100,000 mt storage

(Upper Marble Canyon) 540,00

(Upper 
River Mile 60 gage

2013 – 1,900,000 mt (Paria) 2012 – 686,000 – 160,000 mt storage

(Lower Marble Canyon) 57,000 – 

(Lower M
River Mile 60 gage

2013 – 1,900,000 mt (Paria) 2012 – 6

57,000 – (Lower M

86,000 – 160,000 mt storage

(Lower Marble Canyon)
2013 – 2,500,000 mt (Paria and LCR)

2012 – 1,300,0

River Mile 87 gage

280,000 – 490,000 mt storage(Eastern Grand Canyon)

260,000 (Eastern 
River Mile 87 gage

2013 – 2,500,000 mt (Paria and LCR)

2012 – 1,300,0

280,000 – 490,000 mt storage(Eastern Grand Canyon)

260,000 (Eastern 
River Mile 166 gage

2013 – 2,500,000 mt (Paria and LCR) 2012 – 1,300,0

200,000 – 680,000 mt storage(East‐Central Grand Canyon)

‐290,000 (East‐Cen
River Mile 166 gage

2013 – 2,500,000 mt (Paria and LCR) 2012 – 1,300,0

‐290,000 (East‐Cen

200,000 – 680,000 mt storage(East‐Central Grand Canyon)
Mainstem flow

Mainstem flow and sediment

Tributary flow and sediment

Sediment budget reach

RM 0-30 – upper Marble CanyonRM 30-61 – lower Marble CanyonRM 61-87 – eastern Grand CanyonRM 87-166 – central Grand CanyonRM 166-225 – western Grand Canyon

610,000 ‐ 1,

accumulat

270,000 – 660,000 

accumulated in lo

Marble Canyon

210,000 – 1,000,000 mt

accumulated in eastern

Grand Canyon

750,000 – 2,100,000 mt

accumulated in east‐

central Grand Canyon

uncertainty in west‐

central Grand

Canyon

2,900,000 – 3,200,000

mt accumulated in

western Grand Canyon

and Lake Mead

1,700,000 

fro

Lessons learned from mass balance

For the first two years of the HFE Protocol, sand has 

most o

July 1, 2012 –June 30, 2014

`2,700,000 metric tons entered Colorado River

from the Paria River
Long‐term changes in sandbar volume in Marble an

Canyons, 1990‐2013 (immediately before 2013 f
RM30

11/27/201211/18/2012 02/06/2013

05/01/2013

Changes following first flood caused by

intervening operations
RM 9

2012

2013

GCMRC automated ca

The same eddy sand bar in

two floods

Rehabilitation
Remote camera results indicate gain in san

immediately after floods at ~50% of s

• November 2012 HFE

– Images from remote cameras:

• 52% (17 out of 33): noticeable gain

• 39% (13 out of 33): no substantial change

• 9% (3 out of 33): noticeable loss

• November 2013 HFE

– Images from remote cameras:

• 53% (21 out of 40): noticeable gain

• 30% (12 out of 40): no substantial change

• 18% (7 out of 40): noticeable loss
H

ExP

imtilo
Annual sand 

Rive

2012 and 2013 were relatively good years for sand delivery to 

Colorado River
H

ExP

coeq
Mainstem flow

Mainstem flow and sediment

Tributary flow and sediment

Sediment budget reach

RM 0-30 – upper Marble CanyonRM 30-61 – lower Marble CanyonRM 61-87 – eastern Grand CanyonRM 87-166 – central Grand CanyonRM 166-225 – western Grand Canyon

990,000 – 2

evacuated 

`1,500,000 metric tons entered Colorado River from the Paria River

780,000 – 240,000 

from lower Mar

2,700,000 – 1,700,000

mt evacuated from

eastern Grand Canyon

uncertainty in east‐central

Grand Canyon

uncertainty in west‐

central Grand

Canyon

5,400,000 – 5,900,000

mt accumulated in

western Grand Canyon

and Lake Mead

610,,000 

fro

Lessons learned from mass balance

In the years of equalization flows, there was large‐

July 1, 2010 –June 30, 2012
Mainstem flow

Mainstem flow and sediment

Tributary flow and sediment

Sediment budget reach

RM 0-30 – upper Marble CanyonRM 30-61 – lower Marble CanyonRM 61-87 – eastern Grand CanyonRM 87-166 – central Grand CanyonRM 166-225 – western Grand Canyon

Uncertain

Uncertainty in lo

Canyo

2,500,000 – 690,000 mt

evacuated from eastern

Grand Canyon

Uncertainty in east‐

central Grand Canyon uncertainty in west‐

central Grand

Canyon

8,300,000 – 9,100,000

mt accumulated in

western Grand Canyon

and Lake Mead

2,300,

Color

Lessons learned from mass balance

The mass balance for the past four years is the result 

the equalization flows and the effects of large 

July 1, 2010 –June 30, 2014

`4,200,000 metric tons

entered Colorado River from

the Paria River
Mainstem flow

Mainstem flow and sediment

Tributary flow and sediment

Sediment budget reach

RM 0-30 – upper Marble CanyonRM 30-61 – lower Marble CanyonRM 61-87 – eastern Grand CanyonRM 87-166 – central Grand CanyonRM 166-225 – western Grand Canyon

Uncertain

Uncertainty in lo

Canyo

2,800,000 – 750,000 mt

evacuated from eastern

Grand Canyon

43,000 – 3,200,000 mt in

east‐central Grand Canyon

uncertainty in west‐

central Grand

Canyon

9,400,000 – 10,000,000

mt accumulated in

western Grand Canyon

and Lake Mead

2,900,

Color

Lessons learned from mass balance

The mass balance for the past five years is the result 

the equalization flows and the effects of large 

July 1, 2009 –June 30, 2014

`4,400,000 metric tons

entered Colorado River from

the Paria River
38% of gross storage change 

55% of gross storage change in 

7% of gross storage change 

Local changes

in finesedimentstoragegreatly exceedthe segmentscale change
1) Plan HFEs based on Paria inputs or on estimated mass balance of M

Canyon?2) The model under estimates sand mobilized in Marble Canyon – goo

Need to improve model?

3) Alternative hydrograph shapes

4) Sand mass balance vs. bar/campsite changes

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐A) Scientific basis for patterns of concentration and grain size of sand 

B) Scientific basis of patterns in west‐central Grand CanyonC) What is equilibrium? At what time scale?

a) Reporting – timeliness, comprehensiveness

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐Big Issues:

I) HFEs within the context of equalization

II) Bar building within the context of normal operations and equalizati

Some science and management questions to con