ii

*Reclamation anticipates there will be $300,000 available from Canyon Treatment Plan and 

implementation unexpended funds. In addition, the funds allocated for FY10 ($49,350) and 

FY11 ($50,583) are being included for a total of $399,933.

*The FY2010 total is being negotiated based on a modified SOW. Reclamation estimates that 

$300,000 of the $493,500 previously in that line item will be available for expenditure toward 

the long term experiment and management plan EIF in FY2011, since the treatment plan is 

being revised to better include Native American Tribal perspective. Therefore, $300,000 is 

being proposed to being moved to the Compliance document line item.
iii
iv
v
vi
vii

This document was prepared by the Bureau of Reclamation‘s Upper Colorado Regional Office 

and the U.S. Geological Survey‘s Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC) in 

cooperation with members of the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program‘s Adaptive 

Management Work Group (AMWG) and Technical Work Group. 

[to be completed later]

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center 

June 11, 2010

U.S. Geological Survey 
viii

This page intentionally left blank.
9

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

continually improving management practices related to the operation of Glen Canyon Dam (GCD) by 

emphasizing learning through monitoring, research, and experimentation. The Bureau of Reclamation‘s 

(Reclamation) Upper Colorado Region (BRUC) is responsible for administering funds for the GCDAMP 

and providing those funds for monitoring, research, and stakeholder involvement. The majority of program 

funding is derived from hydropower revenues; however, supplemental funding is provided by various 

Department of the Interior (DOI) agencies that receive appropriations. These agencies include Reclamation, 

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

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

The budget and work plan for fiscal years (FY) 2011-12 was developed on the basis of previous 

budgets and work plans, the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC) Strategic Plan, and 

the GCMRC Monitoring and Research Plan—all of which have been approved by the Adaptive 

Management Work Group (AMWG). In FY2011-12, additional consideration was given to meeting the 

commitments outlined in the conservation measures sections of two biological opinions issued by the 

USFWS: (1) the 2007 Biological Opinion for the Proposed Adoption of Colorado River Interim Guidelines 

for Lower Basin Shortages and Coordinated Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead (known as the 

shortage criteria biological opinion) and (2) the 2008 Final Biological Opinion for the Operation of Glen 

Canyon Dam.

The process used to arrive at the FY2011-12 budget and work plan was adopted by the AMWG in 

2004 and revised in 2010 to a 2-year fixed budget. In summary, the Budget Ad Hoc Group (BAHG) of the 

Technical Work Group (TWG), with input from the Cultural Resources Ad Hoc Group (CRAHG), worked 

with the BRUC and the GCMRC to develop a proposal for the TWG. The TWG then reviews the proposed 

budget and work plan and develops a recommendation to the AMWG (this document).

The projected hydrograph for Lake Powell release (fig. 1) for water year (WY) 2010 is based on 

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

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

operation of Lake Mead and Lake Powell, and the 2008 Finding of No Significant Impact on the 

environmental assessment of experimental releases for the period 2008–12. It also observes commitments 

made in the 2007 and 2008 biological opinions. The projected hydrograph is based on best estimates 

available from Reclamation‘s 24-month study released in June 2010; however, the forecast is subject to 

change as further data becomes available.

This document consists of two chapters: Chapter 1, the BRUC budget and work plan, and Chapter 2, 

the GCMRC budget and work plan. A comprehensive budget spreadsheet is provided in Appendix E.
11

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

AMWG. The work includes completing assignments resulting from AMWG meetings, consulting with 

stakeholders on a variety of GCDAMP issues relating to the operation of GCD, disseminating pertinent 

information to the AMWG, preparing and tracking budget expenses, and updating Reclamation‘s Web page. 

Reclamation also responds to regular requests from the General Services Administration (GSA) to complete 

Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) reports and incorporate meeting and member information into the 

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

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

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

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

the fiscal year budget(s).

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

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

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

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

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

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

salaries are increased above the consumer price index (CPI). Reclamation staff will provide budget 

information to the AMWG on a regular basis. Completed work products will be of high quality and 

promptly distributed to AMWG members/alternates and interested parties. Budget reports will be presented 

in a format conducive to AMWG needs.

FY2011 = $178,810 FY2012 = $184,175
12

Outside Reclamation 

science/labor — — — — — — —

Logistics field support — — — — — — —

Project-related 

travel/training — — — — — — —

Operations/supplies — — — — — — —

Reclamation salaries 116,375 119,866 123,223 132,892 131,165 134,443 138,477

Subtotal 116,375 119,866 123,223 132,892 131,165 134,443 138,477

DOI Customer burden 

(33% for FY09-12)

40,043 34,762 35,735 43,855 43,284 44,367 45,698

Project total 159,418 154,628 158,958 176,747 174,449 178,810 184,175

Total outsourced (%)
13

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

scheduled AMWG meetings.

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

attendance at all meetings. Many members live outside of Phoenix, Ariz., where meetings are often held. As 

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

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

costs such as hotel, per diem, and rental car increases opportunities for members to participate in a variety of 

AMWG assignments. Because Reclamation can purchase airline tickets at the Federal Government rate, 

there are additional cost savings to the program.

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

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

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

GCD.

FY2011 = $17,671 FY2012 = $18,201

Outside Reclamation 

science/labor — — — — — — —

Logistics field support — — — — — — —

Project-related 

travel/training 15,725 16,197 16,651 17,467 17,240 17,671 18,201

Operations/supplies — — — — — — —

Reclamation salaries — — — — — — —

Subtotal 15,725 16,197 16,651 17,467 17,240 17,671 18,201

DOI Customer burden 

(33% for FY09-12)

— — — — — — —

Project total 15,725 16,197 16,651 17,467 17,240 17,671 18,201

Total outsourced (%) — — — — — — —
14

This project supports travel expenses Reclamation staff incur to attend AMWG and ad hoc group 

meetings. In order to work on AMWG/ad hoc assignments, the meetings are often held in Phoenix, Ariz. As 

such, Reclamation staff must make additional trips throughout the year in completion of those assignments. 

The primary goal is for Reclamation staff to be able to travel to meetings and participate in 

completing AMWG/TWG assignments. By doing so, the program benefits from greater interaction among 

its members as well as continued improvement and commitment to operating GCD in the best manner 

possible and obtaining the results from science being conducted in the study area.

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

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

and work toward consensus on a variety of sensitive issues.

FY2011 = $14,344 FY2012 = $14,774

Outside Reclamation 

science/labor — — — — — — —

Logistics field support — — — — — — —

Project-related 

travel/training 13,000 13,390 13,765 14,439 13,994 14,344 14,774

Operations/supplies — — — — — — —

Reclamation salaries — — — — — — —

Subtotal 13,000 13,390 13,765 14,178 13,994 14,344 14,774

DOI Customer burden

(33% for FY09-12) — — — — — — —

Project total 13,000 13,390 13,765 14,178 13,994 14,344 14,774

Total outsourced (%) — — — — — — —
15

This project supports a facilitator who is under contract to Reclamation to provide facilitations services for 

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

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

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

the public to express their views.

The facilitator will create an atmosphere in which the members and other participants at AMWG meetings 

feel comfortable expressing their individual viewpoints. The facilitator will help bring the AMWG members 

to consensus on pertinent issues affecting the GCDAMP when possible. 

FY2011 = $27,274 FY2012 = $28,092

Outside Reclamation 

science/labor — — — — — — —

Logistics field support — — — — — — —

Project-related travel/training 25,000 25,000 25,700 26,959 26,609 27,274 28,092

Operations/supplies — — — — — — —

Reclamation salaries — — — — — — —

Subtotal 25,000 25,000 25,700 26,959 26,609 27,274 28,092

DOI Customer burden

(33% for FY09-12) — — — — — — —

Project total 25,000 25,000 25,700 26,959 26,609 27,274 28,092

Total outsourced (%) — — — — — — —
16

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

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

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

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

members advised of progress and expenditures. 

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

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

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

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

FY2011 = $ 56,184 FY2012 = $57,870

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

Logistics field support — — — — — — —

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

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

Reclamation salaries 50,000 51,500 41,040 38,846 36,714 37,744 39,011

Subtotal 50,000 51,500 41,040 40,846 41,214 2,244 43,511

DOI Customer burden

(33% for FY09-12)

11,902 13,684 13,600 13,940 14,359

Project total 50,000 51,500 52,942 55,536 54,814 56,184 57,870

Total outsourced (%) — — — — — —
17

This project represents some of the other ―miscellaneous‖ expenses incurred in operation of the 

AMWG, including the following expenses:

Overnight mailings of AMWG meeting packets

Copying of reports

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

site posting, etc.)

Purchasing equipment (audio recording/transcribing machines)

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

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

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

of the GCDAMP. 

The primary goal is to limit spending on ―other‖ items as much as possible. By doing so, more 

money can be applied to science and research.

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

GCDAMP budget. 

FY2011 = $8,062 FY2012 = $8,303

Outside Reclamation 

science/labor — — — — — — —

Logistics field support — — — — — — —

Project-related travel/training 5,000 5,390 5,597 5,969 5,865 6,062 6,303

Operations/supplies 2,175 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000

Reclamation salaries — — — — — — —

Subtotal 7,175 7,390 7,597 7,969 7,865 8,062 8,303

DOI Customer burden

(33% for FY09-12)

— — — — — — —

Project total 7,175 7,390 7,597 7,969 7,865 8,062 8,303

Total outsourced (%) — — — — — — —
18

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

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

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

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

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

travel activities, which range from preparing travel authorizations to completing travel vouchers. 

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

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

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

information to TWG members, preparing and tracking budget expenses, and updating the Web pages 

Reclamation maintains for the program.

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

salaries are increased above the CPI. Reclamation staff will provide budget information to the TWG on a 

regular basis. Completed work products will be promptly distributed to TWG members/alternates and 

interested parties. 

FY2011 = $87,201 FY2012 = $89,817

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

Logistics field support — — — — — — —

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

Operations/supplies — — — — — — —

Reclamation salaries 53,178 54,773 56,306 64,808 63,965 65,565 67,532

Subtotal 53,178 54,773 56,306 64,808 63,965 65,565 67,532

DOI Customer burden

(33% for FY09-12)

19,669 15,884 16,329 21,387 21,109 21,636 22,285

Project total 72,847 70,657 72,635 86,195 85,074 87,201 89,817

Total outsourced (%) — — — — — — —
19

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

attend regularly scheduled TWG meetings.

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

at all meetings. Many members live outside of Phoenix, Ariz., where meetings are often held. As a result, 

many members must incur travel costs. Having Reclamation provide reimbursement to TWG members or 

alternates for air travel or mileage for the use of private vehicles, as well as other related travel costs such as

hotel, per diem, and rental car increases opportunities for members to participate in a variety of TWG 

assignments. Because Reclamation can purchase airline tickets at the Federal Government rate, there are 

additional cost savings to the program.

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

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

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

FY2011 = $24,232 FY2012 = $24,959

Outside Reclamation 

science/labor — — — — — — —

Logistics field support — — — — — — —

Project-related travel/training 20,836 22,211 22,833 23,952 23,641 24,232 24,959

Operations/supplies — — — — — — —

Reclamation salaries — — — — — — —

Subtotal 20,836 22,211 22,833 23,952 23,641 24,232 24,959

DOI Customer burden

(33% for FY09-12)

— — — — — — —

Project total 20,836 22,211 22,833 23,952 23,641 24,232 24,959

Total outsourced (%) — — — — — — —
20

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

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

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

entities/States represented on the AMWG/TWG. As a result, Reclamation staff members who are not 

located in Phoenix are required to make additional trips throughout the year in completion of AMWG/TWG 

assignments. 

The primary goal is for Reclamation staff to be able to travel to meetings and participate in 

completing AMWG/TWG assignments. By doing so the program benefits from greater interaction among its 

members as well as continued improvement and commitment to operating GCD in the best manner possible 

and for obtaining the necessary results from science being conducted in the study area.

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

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

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

FY2011 = $17,864 FY2012 = $18,400

Outside Reclamation 

science/labor — — — — — — —

Logistics field support — — — — — — —

Project-related 

travel/training 15,898 16,375 16,834 17,658 17,428 17,864 18,400

Operations/supplies — — — — — — —

Reclamation salaries — — — — — — —

Subtotal 15,898 16,375 16,834 17,658 17,428 17,864 18,400

DOI Customer burden

(33% for FY09-12)

— — — — — — —

Project total 15,898 16,375 16,834 17,658 17,428 17,864 18,400

Total outsourced (%) — — — — — — —
21

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

that incorporate the best scientific information available to the GCDAMP. The chairperson will follow up on 

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

FY2011 = $24,305 FY2012 = $25,660

Outside Reclamation 

science/labor — — — — — — —

Logistics field support — — — — — — —

Project-related 

travel/training 22,171 22,836 23,474 24,625 24,305 24,913 25,660

Operations/supplies — — — — — — —

Reclamation salaries — — — — — — —

Subtotal 22,171 22,836 23,474 24,625 24,305 24,913 25,660

DOI Customer burden

(33% for FY09-12)

— — — — — — —

Project total 22,171 22,836 23,474 24,625 24,305 24,913 25,660

Total outsourced (%) — — — — — — —
22

This project represents some of the other ―miscellaneous‖ expenses incurred in support of the TWG, 

including the following expenses:

Overnight mailings of TWG meeting packets

Copying of reports

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

Purchasing equipment (audio recording/transcribing machines)

The primary goal is to limit spending on ―other‖ items as much as possible. By doing so, more 

money can be spent on science and research.

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

FY2011 = $2,303 FY2012 = $2,372

Outside Reclamation 

science/labor — — — — — — —

Logistics field support — — — — — — —

Project-related travel/training 2,050 2,112 2,171 2,277 2,247 2,303 2,372

Operations/supplies — — — — — — —

Reclamation salaries — — — — — — —

Subtotal 2,050 2,112 2,171 2,277 2,247 2,303 2,372

DOI Customer burden

(33% for FY09-12)

— — — — — — —

Project total 2,050 2,112 2,171 2,277 2,247 2,303 2,372

Total outsourced (%) — — — — — — —
23

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

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

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). In FY2010 funds not expended were carried forward and FY2011 funds 

will be carried forward for anticipated use in FY2012, unless the Secretary of the Interior agrees to a 

recommendation for a large-scale experiment.

Reclamation staff will keep informed on changes to the ESA, NEPA, and NHPA and will consult 

with AMWG stakeholders to ensure appropriate compliance is undertaken for actions taken in support of the 

GCDAMP.

Reclamation staff will be involved in all compliance issues related to the GCDAMP, using travel 

expenses to meet with the GCDAMP stakeholders to resolve any differences. 

FY2011 = $399.933* FY2012 = $52,101

Outside Reclamation 

science/labor — — — — — — —

Logistics field support — — — — — — —

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

Operations/supplies — — — — — — —

Reclamation salaries 22,450 263,622 210,080 37,594 37,105 300.701 39,174

Subtotal 60,923 37,594 37,105 300,701 39,174

DOI Customer burden

(33% for FY09-12)

12,406 12,245 99,232 12,927

Project total 22,450 263,622 271,003 50,000 49,350 399.933 52,101

Total outsourced (%) — — — — — — —

*Reclamation anticipates there will be $300,000 available from Canyon Treatment Plan and implementation 

unexpended funds. In addition, the funds allocated for FY10 ($49,350) and FY11 ($50,583) are being 

included for a total of $399,933.
24

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

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

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

the GCDAMP. The program provides these funds to offset the park‘s administrative burden in providing 

these services.

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

permitted by the NPS.

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

FY2011 = $120,240 FY2012 = $123,847

Outside Reclamation 

science/labor — — — — — — —

Logistics field support — — — — — — —

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

Operations/supplies — — — — — — —

Reclamation salaries — — — — — — —

Subtotal 100,000 110,000 113,300 118,852 117,307 120,240 123,847

DOI Customer burden 

(33% for FY09-12)

— — — — — — —

Project total 100,000 110,000 113,300 118,852 117,307 120,240 123,847

Total outsourced (%) — — — — — — —
25

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

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

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

Reclamation contract specialists will accurately apply funds spent on individual contracts to ensure

costs do not exceed contract limits. They will keep other Reclamation staff informed as to those charges so 

accurate reporting can be made to both AMWG and TWG members. 

Contract specialists will ensure that individual contractors are fulfilling the requirements of their 

contracts. They will maintain accurate records of payments made against the contracts and will keep 

Reclamation staff informed of discrepancies or concerns. Work will be completed on time and within the 

limits of the contract.

FY2011 = $40,420 FY2012 = $41,632

Outside Reclamation 

science/labor — — — — — — —

Logistics field support — — — — — — —

Project-related 

travel/training — — — — — — —

Operations/supplies — — — — — — —

Reclamation salaries 24,394 32,413 25,830 30,040 29,650 30,391 31,302

Subtotal 24,394 32,413 25,830 30,040 29,650 30,391 31,302

DOI Customer burden

(33% for FY09-12)

7,491 9,913 9,784 10,029 10,330

Project total 24,394 32,413 33,321 39,953 39,434 40,420 41,632

Total outsourced (%) — — — — — — —
26

This budget item reserves funds for conducting experiments under the GCDAMP. Given previous 

experience, the estimated cost of large-scale experiment, or high-flow experiment (HFE), is approximately 

$1.5 million. This amount will be reserved over the course of several years to minimize the budgetary 

impacts of conducting a large-scale experiment on any individual annual budget.

See above.

The funds will be available to conduct a large-scale experiment when conditions are appropriate.

FY2011 = $493,500 FY2012 = $21,013

Outside Reclamation 

science/labor — — — — — —

Logistics field support — — — — — — —

Project-related 

travel/training — — — — — — —

Operations/supplies — — — — — — —

Reclamation salaries — — — — — — —

Subtotal 424,675 500,000 500,000 500,000 493,500 505,838 521,013

DOI Customer burden

(33% for FY09-12)

— — — — — — —

Project total 424,675 500,000 500,000 500,000 493,500 505,838 521,013

Total outsourced (%) — — — — — — —
27

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

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

part of efforts to develop a core-monitoring program.

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

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

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

annual GCDAMP monitoring trips.

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

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

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

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

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

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

to Reclamation to assist in prioritization of historic properties for treatment in subsequent years. In addition, 

monitoring data will be used to update NPS databases.

FY2011 = $144,553 (Power revenues) FY2011 = $75,000 (Appropriated fund)*

FY2012 = $148,889 (Power revenues)

NOTE: FY10–11 $75k Appropriated Funds received in previous years were reallocated in both FY10 and 

FY11

*Appropriated funds for this project are unexpended Tribal funds from previous years.
28

Outside Reclamation 

science/labor — — — — — — —

Logistics field support — — — — — — —

Project-related 

travel/training — — — — — — —

Operations/supplies — — — — — — —

Reclamation salaries — — — — — — —

Subtotal (power 

revenues) 125,000 132,500 136,210 142,884 141,027 144,553 148,889

DOI Customer burden

(33% for FY09-12)

— — — — — — —

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

Project total 125,000 132,500 136,210 142,884 216,027 219,553 148,889

Total outsourced (%) — — — — — — —
29

This budget item establishes a nonnative fish suppression contingency fund to ensure that funds are 

available for the control of nonnative fish should the need arise. Efforts to control nonnative fish, 

particularly warm water species that reproduce rapidly, may be required to protect native fish populations 

more expeditiously than can be accommodated by the standard biennial budget process. The 2008 Final 

Biological Opinion for the Operation of Glen Canyon Dam expressed concern about the threats posed to 

native fish by nonnative fish species and called for planning to address the potential threat. This fund will be 

incrementally increased with future carryover dollars when available. A plan of action for nonnative fish 

control is being developed by the GCMRC and will be used to determine when and how these funds will be 

used after the plan has been recommended by AMWG and accepted by the Secretary of the Interior.

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

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

scales unsuitable for addressing with the standard biennial GCDAMP process.

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

developing populations of problematic species.

FY2011 = $49,049 FY2012 = $50,521

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

Logistics field support — — — — — — —

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

Operations/supplies — — — — — — —

Reclamation salaries — — — — — — —

Subtotal — — — 48,483 47,853 49,049 50,521

DOI Customer burden

(33% for FY09-12)

— — — — — — —

Project total — — — 48,483 47,853 49,049 50,521

Total outsourced (%) — — — — — — —
30

This project funds the salary and travel expenses of the PA program administrator and indirect costs 

of PA program administration. Reclamation‘s regional archeologist administers the PA program and tribal 

contracts. The project integrates the PA and Tribal consultation into the larger GCDAMP.

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

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

Native American monitoring protocols.

Management of the treatment plan including monitoring and data recovery of at-risk historic properties.

Chair one PA meeting and attend TWG and AMWG meetings.

Compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act, Sec. 106 is the administration of the Glen 

and Grand Canyon treatment plans is the primary outcome of this project, which also ensures accountability 

for the ten tribal contracts and appropriate use of both appropriated dollars and power revenues. 

FY2011 = $60,252 FY2012 = $62,060

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

Logistics field support — — — — — — —

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

Operations/supplies — — — — — — —

Reclamation salaries 54,107 71,892 57,354 42,236 41,633 42,302 43,662

Subtotal 54,107 71,892 57,354 45,236 44,633 45,302 46,662

DOI Customer burden

(33% for FY09-12)

— — — 14,928 14,729 14,950 15,398

Project total 54,107 71,892 57,354 60,164 59,362 60,252 62,060

Total outsourced (%) — — — — — — —
31

In consultation with Grand Canyon National Park, the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office 

(SHPO), and the remainder of the PA signatories, Reclamation completed a scope-of-work for the 

development of a treatment plan for the cultural resources of Grand Canyon. A request for proposal based 

on this scope-of-work was issued in FY2008 and the contract was awarded to Utah State University. Four 

sites were targeted for data recovery in FY2008 and five were excavated in FY2009. A final report, 

analyses of all recovered materials and curation at the GRCA museum facility will be completed in FY10. 

An in-depth assessment and reorientation of this project will be undertaken in FY2011.

Compliance with the National Historic Preservation act through execution of the 1994 PA. 

Government-to-government consultation with Tribal councils regarding Glen and Grand Canyon 

resources including archeological sites, traditional cultural properties and natural resources important to 

the tribes.

Completion of a historic preservation plan and research design. Collaboration with NPS archeologists 

in carrying out field activities.

This effort will result in the prioritization, based on significance, of all affected Glen and Grand 

Canyon properties and implementation of an MOA for treatment of adverse effects. Detailed and 

comprehensive reports on consultant activities, results, and recommendations will be produced. Evaluation 

and implementation of mitigative measures or total data recovery, following the Secretary of the Interior 

Standards and Guidelines for Historic Preservation and guidance of the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation, will be completed. 
32

FY2011 = $205,838 FY2012 = $521,013

Outside Reclamation 

science/labor — — — — — — —

Logistics field support — — — — — — —

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

Operations/supplies — — — — — — —

Reclamation salaries — — — — — — —

Subtotal 300,000 500,000 493,500 205,838 521,013

DOI Customer burden

(33% for FY09-12)

— — — — — — —

Project total 300,000 500,000 493,500 205,838 521,013

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

*The FY2010 total is being negotiated based on a modified SOW. Reclamation estimates that $300,000 of 

the $493,500 previously in that line item will be available for expenditure toward the long term experiment 

and management plan EIF in FY2011, since the treatment plan is being revised to better include Native 

American Tribal perspective. Therefore, $300,000 is being proposed to being moved to the Compliance 

document line item.
33

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

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

(Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Tribe, Kaibab Paiute Tribe, Pueblo of Zuni, Navajo Nation) and five DOI agencies 

(U.S. Geological Survey, National Park Service, Reclamation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau 

of Indian Affairs), with Reclamation serving as lead agency. 

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

continuing GCDAMP dialogs, votes, and in the final recommendations made to the Secretary of the Interior.

The most important product is the incorporation of tribal perspectives into the recommendations 

forwarded to the Secretary. In addition, the Tribes prepare annual reports on activities funded under these

contracts. Continued funding of government-to-government consultation through the agreements ensures 

enhanced communication and understanding of the GCDAMP issues and concerns.

FY2011 = $475,000 FY2012 = $475,000 (appropriated funds)

Outside Reclamation 

science/labor

— — — — — — —

Logistics field support — — — — — — —

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

Operations/supplies — — — — — — —

Reclamation salaries — — — — — — —

Subtotal 477,375 475,000 475,000 475,000 475,000 475,000 475,000

DOI Customer burden

(33% for FY0-12)

Project total 477,375 475,000 475,000 475,000 475,000 475,000 475,000

Total outsourced (%) 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
34

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

continually improving management practices related to the operation of Glen Canyon Dam (GCD) that 

emphasizes learning through monitoring, research, and experimentation. The U.S. Geological Survey‘s 

(USGS) Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC) is responsible for the scientific 

monitoring and research of the GCDAMP. GCMRC staff worked cooperatively with GCDAMP participants 

and the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) to develop this document, the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive 

Management Program Biennial Budget and Work Plan—Fiscal Years 2011–12 (hereafter BWP). 

This BWP describes the core-monitoring, long-term experimental, research and development, and 

related activities by project that will be implemented in fiscal years (FY) 2011–12 to address priority goals, 

questions, and information needs specified by the GCDAMP. This document also provides budget 

information for each project.

This BWP is designed to implement and be consistent with the GCMRC SSP Strategic Science Plan 

(SSP) and Monitoring and Research Plan (MRP) that have been approved by the AMWG and the Secretary 

of the Interior. The primary elements of the MRP and SSP addressed by this BWP include

employing the adaptive environmental assessment and management approach to resources management 

that was developed by Holling (1978) and Walters (1986), and articulated in the Adaptive Management 

Program Strategic Plan (AMPSP); 

using GCDAMP priority questions and associated strategic science questions (SSQs) to provide the 

primary (but not exclusive) basis for designing the science program (appendix A); 

implementing an interdisciplinary, integrated river science approach to better understand the factors 

contributing to native fish population status and trends, and updating key elements of the Grand Canyon 

Ecosystem Model (GCEM) to assist in long-term experimental planning such as future high-flow 

experiments (HFE); and

working collaboratively with managers and stakeholders to better integrate the use of scientific 

information (Figure 1) into the GCDAMP process.

In FY2011-12, the GCMRC will update the 2005 Knowledge Assessment and State of the Colorado River 

Ecosystem in Grand Canyon (SCORE) report for managers and stakeholders for planning management 

actions and the next phase of research and experimentation. The KA and SCORE report will provide the 

technical basis for updating the SSP and MRP.
35

In April 2009, the Adaptive Management Work Group (AMWG), the Federal Advisory Committee 

that facilitates the GCDAMP, recommended approval of amendments to the SSP and MRP—the documents 

that are the basis of this BWP—that reflect the requirements of two biological opinions prepared by the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). As a result, projects presented in this work plan incorporate 

requirements of the 2007 Final Biological Opinion for the Proposed Adoption of Colorado River Interim 

Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and Coordinated Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead (known 

as biological opinion for shortage criteria) and the 2008 Final Biological Opinion for the Operation of Glen 

Canyon Dam.

Additionally, GCMRC staff members discussed FY2011–12 budget priorities with the Budget Ad 

Hoc Work Group (BAHG), the Technical Work Group (TWG), and the AMWG. The results of those 

discussions were considered in the development of this BWP.

This BWP assumes that the FY2011-12 hydrograph will consist of modified low fluctuating flow 

(MLFF) operations, including experimental steady flows in October 2010/110 and September 2011/2012. 

 SSP

 MRP

BWP

Annual 

Work 

Activities

Annual/Final 

Reports

Annual 

Review

5-year Analysis

SCORE Report

KA Report

S

AMPSP

5-Year 

Analysis and 

Report

Annual 

Analysis & 

Report

Annual 

Analysis & 

Report

Other Plans:

HBC Comp Plan

NPS CRMP

Colorado River AOP

NEPA documents and 

Biological Opinions.
36

The BWP provides for the evaluation of a potential high flow experiment (HFE) in FY20110 and/or 

FY20121. Currently, the Bureau of Reclamation is preparing and Environmental Assessment (EA) for a 

HFE Protocol that will specify the conditions under which future HFE‘s will be conducted. The BWP 

provides for the scientific evaluation of the effects of future HFE‘s primarily through reliance on existing 

resource monitoring programs for native fishes, Lee‘s ferry trout, riparian vegetation, sediment storage, sand 

bars, camping beaches, archaeological sites, and hydropower. The monitoring and research activities 

conducted in support of the HFE protocol may be revised based on (a) the results of the HFE Protocol EA, 

and (b) the results of the synthesis of the scientific findings for HFEs conducted in 1996, 2004, and 2008 

that will be completed by USGS by December 31, 2010. 

This BWP includes several new and expanded projects as well as the continued implementation of a 

number of ongoing projects included in the approved Glen Canyon Adaptive Management Program Biennial 

Budget and Work Plan—Fiscal Year 2010-11. Funding for ongoing projects was adjusted to reflect cost of 

living increases, increased salary costs, logistical support, past performance, etc. The FY201l budget 

assumed a 2.5 percent increase in funding based on the consumer price index (CPI) and a 3 percent CPI 

increase from FY2011 to FY2011. The proposed budget addresses all of the conservation measures included 

in the 2007 and 2008 USFWS biological opinions that are within the purview of the GCMRC (see appendix 

C for a summary of the conservation measures). Addressing conservation measures was accomplished, in 

part, with additional appropriations from Reclamation for the Near Shore Ecology Study. 

Table 1 summarizes the project and activities that are include in the BWP, including changes that 

were included in the approved FY 2010-11 BWP.

Two major new projects are included in the BWP:

A new initiative to investigate trout movement below Lees Ferry and the feasibility or effectiveness 

of alternatives approaches for reducing the impacts of rainbow trout on the humpback chub population in the 

Little Colorado Reach of the Colorado River.

The aquatic food base, Lees Ferry trout, and sediment monitoring programs were enhanced to 

facilitate the scientific evaluation of future HFE‘s on these resources. In addition, a new monitoring effort is 

recommended to assess how Lee Ferry angler satisfaction is affected by HFE‘s and other experimental 

activities.

To achieve a balanced budget, a number of ongoing projects had to be scaled back to accommodate 

new projects described above and non-discretionary cost increases for continuing projects. In addition, based 

on direction from DOI and recommendations for the AMWG, approximately $ 617,000 was moved from the 

USGS budget to the Bureau of Reclamation budget (Chapter1) to increase funding available for nonnative 

fish suppression and the development of a Long Term Experimental and Management Plan EIS. This shift 

in funds was accomplished by reducing funding for the following project:

Aquatic food base monitoring

Mainstem fish monitoring 

Science support for nonnative fish management

Native fish stock assessment

Science advisor support

GCMRC program management 
37

GCMRC FY11-12 Project Summaries

Project FY11 Summary FY12 Summary

1. Food Base

Aquatic Food base monitoring Focus on completion of research, 

reports, PEP review, and development 

of core monitoring plan; Monthly drift 

and benthos monitoring at Lees Ferry 

and Diamond Creek only 

Monthly drift and benthos monitoring at 

Lees Ferry and Diamond Creek only, 

Implementation of core monitoring plan 

subject to approval

2. Native Fishes

LCR Monitoring Repeat FY10 monitoring, revise based 

on analysis of PEP recommendations; 

Repeat FY10 monitoring, revise based 

on analysis of PEP recommendations; 

Mainstem Monitoring Mainstem monitoring reduced from 4 

to 2 trips (to support nonnative control 

work by BOR)

Mainstem monitoring restored to 4 trips

HBC Translocation & 

Monitoring

Monitor HBC status and translocate 

fish above Chute Falls; include 

funding for GCMRC oversight

Monitor HBC status and translocate fish 

above Chute Falls; include funding for 

GCMRC oversight

Stock Assessment of Native 

Fish

Continued analysis of fish stock data at 

reduced level; Complete & publish. 

ASMR estimate humpback chub adult 

population

Continued analysis of fish stock data at 

reduced level; No ASMR

Remote PIT Tag Reading Operate & maintain equipment and 

analyze data with graduate student and 

advisor; Defer expansion of the system

Operate & maintain equipment and 

analyze data with graduate student and 

advisor; Defer expansion of the system

Near Shore Ecology Implement project per work plan; 

Increase logistics funding

Implement project per work plan; Field 

work ends in October, 2011; (FY12)

Increase logistics funding for October 

river trip; prepare final report

Mainstem Nonnative Fish 

Control

Deleted from GCMRC budget; $600K 

identified in BOR budget to determine 

scope of work, if any

Deleted from GCMRC budget; $300K 

identified in BOR budget to determine 

scope of work, if any

Nonnative Control Plan Science 

Support

Monitor and synthesize nonnative 

capture data in Open File Report and 

conduct 2011 nonnative workshop

Monitor and synthesize nonnative 

capture data in Open File Report and 

conduct 2011 nonnative workshop

NEW Evaluation of Trout 

Movement, Natal Origins and 

Alternatives for Controlling 

Rainbow Trout Populations 

Investigate RBT movement patterns 

between Paria R. and Badger Rapid. 

Investigate RBT movement patterns 

between Paria R. and Badger Rapid

Biometrics & General Analysis 

(Vice Coggins)

ASMR, ecosystem modeling, and 

biometric support 

ASMR, ecosystems modeling, and 

biometric support 
38

Project FY11 Summary FY12 Summary

3. Extirpated Species

No funded projects; GCMRC will 

participate in extirpated species ad hoc 

group and razorback workgroup

No funded projects; GCMRC will 

participate in extirpated species ad hoc 

group and razorback workgroup

4. Rainbow Trout

Continue monitoring of fish 

community in Lees Ferry reach 

including YOY, juvenile and adult 

RBT monitoring 

Continue monitoring of fish community 

in Lees Ferry reach including YOY, 

juvenile and adult RBT monitoring 

5. Kanab Ambersnail 

Continue annual monitoring Continue annual monitoring

6. Springs / Riparian

Implement vegetation transect 

monitoring (assumes approval of core 

monitoring plan); Analyze 2009 

imagery for vegetation change

Analyze 2009 imagery and prepare 

report; Defer bird and/or arthropod 

monitoring

7. Quality of Water

Lake Powell & Tailwaters Continue monitoring; PEP review; 

Increase emphasis on analysis and 

modeling

Continue monitoring; Prepare core 

monitoring plan; Implementation of 

core monitoring plan subject to 

approval Increase emphasis on analysis 

and modeling

Downstream Continue monitoring flow, temperature

and sediment, etc.; PEP review of 

water quality component

Prepare core monitoring plan; 

Implementation of core monitoring plan 

subject to approval Continue 

monitoring flow, temperature and 

sediment, etc.; 

Modeling support Operate & maintain models; no new 

model development

Operate & maintain models; no new 

model development

8. Sediment

Conduct SedTrend core monitoring. 

Monitor sandbar study sites. Report on 

2009 SedTrend monitoring and 2009 

remote sensing for sandbar area.

Conduct SedTrend core monitoring. 

Report on 2011 SedTrend monitoring.

9. Recreation

Grand Canyon Conduct biennial campsite monitoring; 

Continue river guide monitoring; 

Analyze campsite atlas data as part of 

integrated image analysis project; 

Update & maintain campsite atlas on 

website

Camp area field monitoring does not 

resume until FY13; Continue river 

guide monitoring; Analyze campsite 

atlas data as part of integrated image 

analysis project; Update & maintain 

campsite atlas on website; Campsite 

PEP review

Glen Canyon New Project: Evaluate visitor use 

values and satisfaction in the Lees 

Ferry Reach (HFE Experimental 

funds). Assumes matching funds / 

shared costs with AZGFD

Year 2: Evaluate visitor values and 

satisfaction in the Lees Ferry Reach 

(HFE Experimental funds). Assumes 

matching funds / shared costs with 

AZGFD
39

Project FY11 Summary FY12 Summary

10. Hydropower

New Project: Evaluate GTmax model 

as a tool for assessing economic costs 

to hydropower in the context of the 

western electrical grid. Prepare report. 

Serve data via website; Annual report

Use model to assess economic costs to 

hydropower from alternative flow 

regimes; Prepare report. Serve data via 

website; Annual report

11. Cultural

Implement pilot monitoring with 

reduced scope (fewer sites, etc), which 

may extend length of project

Implement pilot monitoring with 

reduced scope (fewer sites, etc), which 

may extend length of project

12. DASA

Overflights Contribute $116k to overflight fund Contribute $84k to overflight fund

Oracle Database Update & maintain Oracle database, 

develop custom data management 

applications, provide data modeling, 

data mining, and architecture support

Update & maintain Oracle database, 

develop custom data management 

applications, provide data modeling, 

data mining, and architecture support

Library Operations / Scanning Maintain GCMRC library reduced to 

1⁄2 time position; Defer online library 

system

Maintain GCMRC library reduced to 1⁄2

time position; Defer online library 

system

GIS Support Provide spatial database and analysis 

support to GCMRC projects; continue 

supporting all mapping functions, and 

expand on spatial web applications

Provide spatial database and analysis 

support to GCMRC projects; continue 

supporting all mapping functions, and 

expand on spatial web applications

Integrated Image Analysis & 

Change Detection

Coordinate analysis of 2009 imagery; 

Map & analyze sandbars, campsites, 

backwaters & vegetation

Final reporting of 2009 imagery; Plan 

for 2013 overflight

12. Planning

Ecosystem Modeling Working with senior ecologist, 

continue to update & refine ecosystem 

models, focusing on aquatic resources; 

including development of news Lees 

Ferry rainbow trout production model; 

Defer LCR [downstream ecopath w/ 

ecosim] model expansion, publication 

of results, & MATA workshop

Working with senior ecologist, continue 

to update & refine ecosystem models, 

focusing on aquatic resources; complete 

Lees Ferry rainbow trout production 

model; Defer LCR [downstream 

ecopath w/ ecosim] model expansion, 

publication of results, & MATA 

workshop

Knowledge Assessment & 

SCORE Report

Complete KA & initiate S.C.O.R.E. 

report; use results of KA to support 

ongoing efforts to develop Desired 

Future Conditions, as requested

Finalize S.C.O.R.E. report; use results 

of KA to support ongoing efforts to 

develop Desired Future Conditions, as 

requested

HFE Protocol Science Evaluate HFE protocol implementation 

using existing and expanded 

monitoring projects. Open file report 

prepared after each HFE

Evaluate HFE protocol implementation 

using existing and expanded monitoring 

projects. Open file report prepared after 

each HFE

12. Support

Logistics Base Provide base logistics support to field 

operations

Provide base logistics support to field 

operations
40

Project FY11 Summary FY12 Summary

Survey & Control Network Provide survey support to GCMRC 

projects (through contract); Maintain 

& expand network as needed

Provide survey support to GCMRC 

projects (through contract); Maintain & 

expand network as needed

12. Administrative

Operations Continue to provide administrative 

support

Continue to provide administrative 

support

Program Planning & 

Management

Continue to provide planning & 

management support

Continue to provide planning & 

management support

AMWG/TWG Travel Continue to provide funding to attend 

AMWG & TWG meetings

Continue to provide funding to attend 

AMWG & TWG meetings

Independent Reviews Peer review all publications; Integrated 

Water Quality and Food Base PEP 

Peer review all publications; Campsite 

& Sediment PEPs

Science Advisors Reduce SA support by 25% Continue SA support at reduce level

Computer Systems Support Maintain IT support for GCMRC Maintain IT support for GCMRC

Synthesis of High Flow 

Experiment

Complete HFE synthesis by 01/01/11

A summary of anticipated GCMRC support in FY2011 and FY2012 by funding source is provided 

in tables 2 and 3, respectively and summarized below. 

Lake Powell water-quality monitoring ($182,002 in FY2011 and $188,063 in FY2011)—Power 

revenue funding received under a separate interagency agreement from Reclamation to monitor 

water quality in Lake Powell.

Nearshore fish ecology ($697,039 in FY2011 and $423,475 in FY 2012)—Appropriated funds 

received from Reclamation under a separate agreement to conduct research on the nearshore 

ecosystem.

GCDAMP power revenues ($7,797,725 in FY2011 and $7,948,282 in FY2012)—GCDAMP 

power revenues are capped by Congress and adjusted annually based on the CPI. For the purposes 

of this budget, the CPI is estimated at 2.5 percent in FY2011 and 3 percent in FY2012. The budget 

will be adjusted in fall 2011 and 2012 to reflect the actual CPI for FY2011 and 2012 respectively.

Experimental funds—$617,673 in FY2011 and $731,770 in FY2012

USGS appropriations (approximately $1,000,000 annually)—These funds are used to provide a 

reduced USGS overhead rate for the GCDAMP. Overhead rates vary annually. With the 

approximately $1,000,000 in support appropriations, the GCMRC is able to maintain the 

Department of Interior (DOI) customer rate of 15 percent plus facilities for science activities in the 

GCDAMP agreement. In FY2011–12, the DOI customer rate is estimated to be 21percent. 

Non science activities (management actions and compliance activities) will be assess the full 

USGS overhead rate in FY 2011and 2012.
41

Funding 

source Agreement title Type of funds

Estimated 

FY2010 

carry 

forward 

funds

FY2011

Funds

Gross 

funding total

Percent of 

FY2011

GCMRC 

budget

Notes

Bureau of 

Reclamation 

(Reclamation)

Lake Powell water 

quality

Power revenues not 

under cap $0 $ 182,002 $ 182,002 1.77%

Reclamation Nearshore fish 

ecology Appropriated funds $0 $ 697,039 $ 697,039 6.78%

Reclamation

Glen Canyon Dam 

Adaptive Mgmt 

Program

Power revenues under 

cap (GCDAMP) $0 $ 7,797,725 $ 7,797,725 75.74%

Reclamation

Glen Canyon Dam 

Adaptive 

Management 

Program

Experimental Funds held 

by Reclamation $0 $ 617,673 $ 617,673 6.00%

Supplement FY2011

project funding

Subtotal of funding received from Reclamation $0 $ 9,294,439 $ 9.294,439

USGS 

Headquarters

Cost-share burden 

assistance

USGS appropriated 

funds for cost-share use 

for GCMRC annual 

work plan

$0 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 9.71%

Total of estimated funding to be received for FY2011 $0 $ 10,294,439 $ 10,294,439 100.00%
42

‘

Funding source Agreement title Type of funds

Estimated 

FY2011

carry 

forward 

funds

FY2012

Funds

Gross 

funding 

total

Percent of 

FY2012

GCMRC 

budget

Notes

Bureau of Reclamation 

(Reclamation)

Lake Powell water 

quality

Power revenues not 

under cap $0 $ 188,063 $188,063 1.83%

Reclamation Nearshore fish 

ecology Appropriated funds $0 $ 423,475 $423,475 4.12%

Reclamation

Glen Canyon Dam 

Adaptive Mgmt 

Program

Power revenues under 

cap (GCDAMP) $0 $ 7,948,282 $7,948,282 77.22%

Reclamation

Glen Canyon Dam 

Adaptive 

Management 

Program

Experimental Funds 

held by Reclamation $0 $ 731,770 $731,770 7.11%

Supplement 

FY2012 project 

funding

Subtotal of funding 

received from Reclamation $0 $ 9,291,590 $9,291,590

USGS Headquarters Cost-share burden 

assistance

USGS appropriated 

funds for cost-share use 

for GCMRC annual 

work plan

$0 $ 1,000,000 $1,000,000 9.72%

Total of estimated funding 

to be received for FY2012

$0 $ 10,291,590 $ 10,291,590 100.00%
43

Figure 2 summarizes the GCMRC‘s FY2010, FY2011, and FY2012 budgets by 

GCDAMP goal. A breakout of the projects included as part of goal 12 is summarized in Figure 3. 

The budget for each project in the work plan is included in the project descriptions and 

summarized for the entire budget in the separate budget attachment.

GCMRC Portion of GCDAMP Budgets: Approved FY09 & FY10 

Budgets, Proposed FY11 and FY12 Budgets

June 2, 2010

(in thousands)

$-

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

Goal 1 Food Base

Goal 2 Native Fishes

Goal 3 Extirpated Species

Goal 4 Rainbow Trout

Goal 5 Kanab Ambersnail

Goal 6 Springs/Riparian

Goal 7 Quality-of-Water

Goal 8 Sediment

Goal 9 Recreation

Goal 10 Hydropower

Goal 11 Cultural

Goal 12 DASA

Goal 12 Logistics/Survey

Goal 12 Planning

Goal 12 Program Management

FY2009

FY2010

FY2011

FY2012
44

Bar chart comparing the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC) fiscal year 

FY2009 approved budget, FY2010 approved budget revised with <-1.3> CPI and FY2011 and 

FY2012 budgets for Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP) efforts by 

project for goal 12.

GCMRC Goal 12 Approved FY09 & FY10 Budgets, 

Proposed FY11 and FY12 Budgets

June 2, 2010

(in thousands)

$-

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

$1,600

DASA

Logistics / Survey

Planning

Admin Ops

Prog Mgrs

AMWG / TWG Trvl

Independent Review

Science Advisors

IT Support

FY2009

FY2010

FY2011

FY2012

Annual reports for projects included in this BWP will be completed by December 15, 

2011 and 2012. The reports will summarize the work accomplished, project shortfalls, and 

recommendations for additional studies or project modifications. The GCMRC will host a 

meeting in mid-January 2011and 2012 for GCDAMP stakeholders to review the annual reports 

and discuss their implications for the next BWP.
45

Detailed descriptions of each project included in the FY2011–12 BWP are provided in 

the following section. Activities are presented based on the GCDAMP goal they are designed to 

address. Activities included in the BWP will be carried out in an integrated, interdisciplinary 

fashion. Integration efforts are described as an element of each project description.

Since its inception, the GCDAMP has attempted to ensure appropriate science program 

continuity and balance across all goals adopted by the program. The current focus of the 

GCDAMP is on monitoring resource status and trends, answering SSQs associated with highpriority AMWG information needs and on meeting the conservation measures included in the 

2007 and 2008 USFWS biological opinions. Other GCDAMP goals will still be pursued but with 

less intensity until priority issues of concern are resolved and monies can be reprogrammed or 

obtained through alternative sources. This includes at least one activity to address each GCDAMP 

goal. 
46

October 2010

BIO 1.R1.10 and BIO 1.R4.10 end in September 2010, with BIO 1.M1.11 ongoing 

beginning in October 2010

Theodore Kennedy, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research 

Center; Robert Hall, University of Wyoming; Emma Rosi-Marshall, Cary Institute of Ecosystem 

Studies; and Colden Baxter, Idaho State University

Colorado River below from Lees Ferry at Ferry at river mile (RM) 0 and Diamond Creek, 

Ariz., about RM 225

The overall goal of food base research (BIO 1.R1.10 and BIO 1.R4.10) was to determine 

the role that food plays in the distribution, condition, and abundance of fish throughout the 

Colorado River in Grand Canyon. Quantifying the density and production of basal resources (that 

is, algae, terrestrial leaf litter, etc.) and invertebrates determines the amount of energy that is 

available to support fish production. Trophic basis of production calculations, where the types 

and amounts of different food items eaten by invertebrates and fish are quantified, determines the 

relative contribution of basal resources, invertebrates, and other food items to fish production. 

The results of this work will establish the degree to which native fish are limited by food 

resources, by either low production at the base of the food web or via shunting of energy to 

nonnative animals such as New Zealand mudsnails or rainbow trout. This information, in turn, 

provides guidance to managers considering various management options.
47

The overall goal of the aquatic food base monitoring (BIO 1.M1.11) is to determine 

whether dam operations or experimental flow regimes affect food resources for fish. In FY11 we 

will complete analysis of food base research results and, based on these findings, implement food 

base monitoring that is informed by the findings of food base research. The goal of monitoring 

will be to estimate algae and invertebrate production and drift at two accessible sites along the 

Colorado River. Algae and invertebrates are both high quality food items that are consumed by 

fish throughout the system. Estimating production of these two key food resources will provide a 

quantitative estimate of the amount of food that is available to support fish growth. These 

methods were employed during food base research efforts and were able to detect statistically 

significant changes in production due to the March 2008 controlled flood. Thus, these metrics are 

sensitive enough to determine the net effect (that is, increase or decrease in available food) of 

management actions and experimental flow regimes, e.g., any future high flow experiments, on 

available food for aquatic organisms. 

The specific objectives addressed by this project include:

Estimate algae production continuously at Lees Ferry and Diamond Creek using opensystem metabolism methods developed by the food base research project

Make monthly estimates of algae and organic matter biomass at Lees Ferry and Diamond 

Creek

Estimate annual invertebrate production at Lees Ferry and Diamond Creek using monthly 

invertebrate collections

Estimate invertebrate and organic drift at Lees Ferry and Diamond Creek

Specific goals for FY20111 include:

Produce a final report and peer-reviewed publications that summarize food base research 

project findings 

Implement monitoring protocols at Lees Ferry and Diamond Creek in October 2010

Participate in joint water quality and food base Protocol Evaluation Panel (PEP) in 

Summer 2011

Specific goals for FY2012 include: 

Produce a core monitoring report based on the recommendations of the PEP

Continue monitoring at Lees Ferry and Diamond Creek with potential to modify 

monitoring based on PEP 

Monitoring ecosystem properties such as algae and invertebrate production and 

invertebrate drift is critical to understanding mechanisms underlying the response of fish 

populations to dam operations. For example, rainbow trout monitoring in Lees Ferry 

conclusively demonstrated that survival and growth of juvenile rainbow trout increased in 

response to the March 2008 high flow experiment (HFE), which in turn led to a substantial 

increase in rainbow trout populations. But with the rainbow trout monitoring data alone it was 

impossible to say why the HFE had led to substantially higher growth, survival, and numbers —

was it due to improvements in habitat quality, food resources, or some other factor? Data from 

the foodbase research project provided the missing link—the HFE had caused a shift in the 
48

invertebrate assemblage towards higher quality taxa (fewer New Zealand mudsnails and more 

midges and blackflies) that were more prone to drifting than the taxa they replaced. Thus, even 

though total invertebrate biomass and production in Lees Ferry decreased following the HFE, the 

amount of invertebrates available to fish in the drift actually increased by a factor of two and it 

was this increase in drifting food resources that allowed for substantially higher rainbow trout 

growth and survival. Thus, food base monitoring complements fish monitoring, and together 

these projects provide a comprehensive picture of how the aquatic ecosystem is affected by dam 

operations and experimental flow regimes. The monitoring program described in this project will 

provide baseline data in years without a HFE, and will provide the necessary monitoring to assess 

aquatic food base changes, if any, during years that include a HFE.

Primary SSQ addressed:

SSQ 3-5. How is invertebrate flux affected by water quality (for example, temperature, 

nutrient concentrations, turbidity) and dam operations?

CMIN 1.1.1. Determine and track the composition and biomass of primary producers below 

Glen Canyon Dam in conjunction with measurements of flow, nutrients, water temperature, 

and light regime.

CMIN 1.2.1. Determine and track the composition and biomass of benthic invertebrates 

below Glen Canyon Dam in conjunction with measurements of flow, nutrients, water 

temperature, and light regime.

CMIN 1.5.1. Determine and track the composition and biomass of drift in the Colorado River 

in conjunction with measurements of flow, nutrients, water temperature, and light regime.

In October 2010 we will launch the food base monitoring project with monthly sampling 

at Lees Ferry and Diamond Creek. Parameters sampled will include algae production, benthic 

organic matter, drifting organic matter, and invertebrates. 

In FY2011 we will collect quantitative samples of benthic invertebrates monthly at Lees 

Ferry and monthly at Diamond Creek. Daily estimates of algae production will be made based on 

dissolved oxygen data that is being collected at both locations with continuously logging water 

quality monitors. Invertebrate drift will be collected at Lees Ferry at the same time that benthic 

samples are collected. Primary production and ecosystem respiration will be quantified using 

whole-stream metabolism calculations. With this procedure, continuous measurements of 

dissolved oxygen are used to make estimates of algae production for an entire reach of river (that 

is, a section of river several miles long). Nighttime sags in dissolved oxygen concentration in the 

Lees Ferry reach will be used to determine ecosystem respiration, a measure of total resource 

consumption. If the quantity of carbon consumed through respiration exceeds the quantity of 

carbon produced through algal photosynthesis, this indicates detrital (non-living) resources may 

be fueling the aquatic food web. It is not possible to estimate ecosystem respiration along 

downstream segments because dissolved oxygen is always above saturation due to high rates of 

air-water gas exchange in rapids. Nevertheless, diel peaks in dissolved oxygen can still be used 

to estimate rates of algae production. YSI water quality monitors deployed in the Lees Ferry 
49

reach and near Diamond Creek record dissolved oxygen concentrations. Data are being collected 

every 5 minutes and will allow daily estimates to be made of algae production and ecosystem 

respiration. Instruments will be downloaded and recalibrated monthly. Twenty samples will be 

collected at each location (Lees Ferry and Diamond Creek) across a range of habitat types 

(depositional environments, cobble, cliff, talus). Organic matter and chlorophyll content of each 

sample will be determined and will complement the algae production measurements. 

Benthic invertebrate samples will be collected from the same locations as drift samples 

using similar collection techniques. In the lab, organisms will be counted and measured to the 

nearest millimeter and length—mass regressions will be used to estimate biomass. These data 

will be used to estimate annual invertebrate production for Lees Ferry and Diamond Creek. 

Invertebrates that are drifting are more vulnerable to consumption by fish than benthic 

invertebrates, so drifting invertebrate samples will also be collected from both locations to 

determine concentrations of drift. Ten-to-fifteen such samples will be collected each month and 

processed as above for organic content and invertebrate biomass. Samples will be collected 

across a range of discharges, including high flow experiments, should they be conducted.

The Diamond Creek area is a fine-grained integrated sediment transport (FIST) and 

integrated water-quality (IWQ) monitoring site. Algae and invertebrate production estimates will 

be compared with sediment transport and water-quality data to determine the relationship 

between these key physical drivers and food production. The temperature model that is being 

developed by the Physical Science and Modeling Program will be a valuable tool for estimating 

system wide growth rates of algae and invertebrates because temperature is an important 

determinant of algae and invertebrate growth rates. 

Data on algae and invertebrate production can be used to support interpretation of the 

trends in fish abundance or composition. 

Monthly sampling will be conducted at Lees Ferry and Diamond Creek. 

At least seven publications in peer-reviewed journals will be produced as a result of food 

base research projects. Tentative subjects for these publications include: 

Measuring air-water gas exchange and whole-system metabolism in a large, regulated

river (proof-of-concept paper)

Assessing the seasonal and spatial variation in organic matter inputs to the Colorado 

River, Grand Canyon (synthesis paper of metabolism, allochthonous inputs, lake inputs, 

tributary inputs, etc.)
50

Determining spatial variation of secondary production of invertebrates in the Colorado 

River

Analyzing the spatial variation in the relative importance of basal resources to 

invertebrate and fish production in the Colorado River

Linking whole-river carbon flows with food webs in the Colorado River

Determining impacts of New Zealand mudsnails on invertebrate production in the 

Colorado River (in press), and

Effects of dam operations on rates of invertebrate drift

The following reports will be produced as a result of these projects:

Brief trip reports are completed and submitted to Grand Canyon National Park shortly 

after each trip to comply with permitting requirements

A draft final report summarizing major results and recommendations will be submitted by 

June 2011

Annual progress report will be submitted by December 31 of each year

A core-monitoring report will be produced by January 2012
51

2011

Ongoing

D.R. Van Haverbeke, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and W. Stewart, Arizona Game and 

Fish Department 

Little Colorado River up to 13.6 km upstream from the confluence with the Colorado 

River

This project seeks to continue monitoring of humpback chub Gila cypha in their primary 

spawning tributary in Grand Canyon, the Little Colorado River (LCR) using five monitoring trips

in FY2011. If a review of the data confirms the recommendation of the 2009 Protocol Evaluation 

Panel for Grand Canyon fishes (PEP) to make protocol changes, a modified plan will be 

developed for Fall 2011 or Spring 2012 sampling with the continued goal of implementing an 

ongoing core monitoring of humpback chub in the LCR. 
52

The specific objectives this project addresses include: 

Providing an annual assessment of the humpback chub population in the LCR by 

collecting mark-recapture data and making closed population estimates of humpback chub in the 

lower 13.6 km of the LCR

Collecting and reporting biological data for native and nonnative fishes including

recording PIT tag numbers in tagged fish, length-frequency data, community composition, sexual 

condition and characteristics of fish (gender, ripeness, tuberculate, etc.), and frequency of 

external parasites (primarily Lernaea cyprinacea)

Collecting other pertinent information related to physical parameters of the LCR, 

especially temperature and turbidity, and 

Determining the critical physical and biotic factors that may be limiting to, or supportive 

of, the humpback chub and other native fish populations in Grand Canyon so as to develop 

strategies that reduce, eliminate, or control limiting factors

The endangered status of humpback chub makes the species a resource of concern for the 

GCDAMP and natural resource managers. The data collected by this project has been essential to 

modeling the Grand Canyon population of humpback chub (Coggins and Walters, 2009). 

Monitoring of the Grand Canyon humpback chub population is also critical to meeting the 

important, ongoing need for status and trends information for this endangered fish. Because most 

humpback chub in Grand Canyon are found either in or near the LCR (Paukert and others, 2006),

monitoring in the LCR is an efficient way to gather data on the population.

Since 2000, the research efforts of this project have included an annual spring and fall 

mark-recapture effort and annual monitoring in the lower 1,200 m of the LCR. The 2009 PEP

noted that the spring sampling of humpback chub in the LCR is one of the most important fish 

monitoring projects that the GCMRC and its cooperators conduct on behalf of the GCDAMP and 

recommended that it continue in the future. While the PEP recognized that much good humpback 

chub information had been generated by the fall monitoring effort and monitoring the lower 1,200 

m during the spring, the PEP did not identify these projects as critical to a core-monitoring effort. 

The PEP did observe, however, that these two projects might have other benefits, including 

occasional increased tagging efforts, in the future. The PEP did recommend that elements of 

monitoring conducted in the lower 1,200 m of the LCR—such as sampling protocol, gear types, 

and analysis—were suitable for continuation. The PEP recommended a thorough analysis of 

impacts of sampling protocol changes on Age-Structured Mark-Recapture (ASMR) model output 

and of our ability to assess accurately the status and trends of the entire LCR fish community. 

That analysis is ongoing, and is expected to be completed in late 2010.

The established program of five LCR monitoring trips will be continued in FY2011 to 

allow sufficient time to determine the ramifications of possible protocol changes on monitoring 

and modeling. The evaluation of proposed changes is being conducted in FY2010, and a meeting 

of the cooperating agencies and interested GCDAMP parties will be convened after completion of 

the data analyses to discuss results. This meeting will help identify the specific monitoring

objectives, techniques, and analyses to support core monitoring. 
53

Primary SSQ addressed:

SSQ 1-1. To what extent are adult populations of native fish controlled by production of 

young fish from tributaries, spawning and incubation in the mainstem, survival of young-of-year 

(YoY) and juvenile stages in the mainstem, or by changes in growth and maturation in the adult 

population as influenced by mainstem conditions? 

Additional science question addressed by these projects:

SSQ 1-2. Does a decrease in the abundance of rainbow trout and other cold- and warm

water nonnatives in Marble and eastern Grand Canyons result in an improvement in the 

recruitment rate of juvenile humpback chub to the adult population? 

GCDAMP Science Advisors (SAs) have summarized the SSQs with the following 

question (the projects outlined here specifically address this question, especially their evaluation 

of annual spawning success):

SA 1. What are the most limiting factors to successful humpback chub adult recruitment 

in the mainstem: spawning success, predation on YoY and juveniles, habitat (water, temperature), 

pathogens, adult maturation, food availability, competition?

Primary information needs addressed:

CMIN 2.1.2. Determine and track recruitment (identify life stage), abundance, and 

distribution of humpback chub in the LCR.

In the spring, two mark-recapture trips (10 days) are conducted annually in the lower 13.6 

km of the LCR to generate a closed population estimate of humpback chub (>100 mm total 

length). This program has been ongoing since 2000 using passive integrated transponder (PIT) 

tags. Additionally, this sampling effort provides much of the data for the ASMR stock 

assessment model, an open population model.

During each LCR trip, three camps are used: Salt Canyon, Coyote Canyon, and Boulders

Camps. Unbaited hoop nets (0.5–0.6 m diameter, 1.0-m length, 6-mm mesh, single 10-cm throat) 

are set from shorelines to capture and PIT tag humpback chub as part of a mark-recapture

program. Each camp is responsible for fishing hoop nets throughout an approximately 5-km 

reach from 0 to 13.6 km. Sixty hoop nets spaced 80 to 150 m apart are fished throughout the

reach. Each hoop net is positioned in habitat suspected to yield good catches of humpback chub. 

Nets are repositioned as needed. On average, each hoop net is checked once every 24 hours. 

Each reach is divided into three sub-reaches and nets are fished for three net checks (3 days) in 

each sub-reach. In addition to fishing hoop nets as detailed above, personnel are responsible for 

the tasks including:

Measuring and recording the fork and total lengths, sex, sexual condition, and sexual 

characteristics for all captured native fish (except speckled dace)

Measuring and recording the total length, sex, and sexual condition of all other captured fish

Implanting PIT tags in all humpback chub 100 mm total length and all other native fish 

150 mm total length and fin clipping tagged fish recaptured on the same marking effort. In 
54

order to reduce PIT tagging, but still obtain population information, bluehead suckers will 

only be tagged during the first (April) trip), and

Recording the location, shoreline habitat, hydraulic unit, set and pull time, and map locations 

for each hoop net set

Personnel at Boulders Camp will make daily measurements of turbidity with the Hach 

2100 turbidimeter and water temperature.

The fall sampling primarily provides an estimate of the abundance of subadult fish

rearing in the LCR. These data support the ASMR model to assess humpback chub population 

numbers. Two trips are used to collect the mark-recapture data used for closed population

estimates in the fall (September and October). Sampling uses hoop nets evenly distributed 

throughout the lower 13.6 km of the LCR as in the spring sampling. 

At the conclusion of the October LCR effort, two people from the LCR crew proceed 

down the mainstem by boat to the Hopi-Salt site (~RM 63.5). Thirty hoop nets are set along 

standardized sites within this reach. Each net is fished for 3 nights and checked daily. 

This program, established by the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD) in 1987,

has operated continuously, except from 2000 to 2001 (Arizona Game and Fish Department, 

unpub. data, 2010). The program produces annual assessments of the relative abundance (that is, 

catch-per-unit effort) of all size classes of humpback chub, flannelmouth suckers, bluehead 

suckers, speckled dace, and a host of nonnative fish in the lower 1,200 m of the LCR. Data are

collected during a 30- to 40-day period in spring (April and May) using hoop nets set in 

standardized locations throughout the reach. Results of this monitoring provide an independent 

comparison to the mark-recapture assessments. The statistical power of this portion of the 

monitoring program has not yet been assessed, but statistically significant differences in relative 

abundance are apparent in current data.

Analysis of all the historical data of humpback chub monitoring generated by the three 

projects listed above will be conducted in FY2010 and early FY2011. The three cooperating 

agencies (USGS, USFWS, and AZGFD) will provide their data and participate in the analysis 

process. In particular, the analyses will focus on how closed population efforts and the ASMR 

(open) population estimate performs using only subsets of tagging data. Specific sampling 

methods, gears, and analyses for core monitoring beginning in FY2012 will be developed in 

FY2011 for GCDAMP consideration.
55

Improvement of the status of the humpback chub will be necessary for the species to be 

considered for downlisting or delisting. The most recent iteration of the recovery goals for the 

humpback chub (initiated in 2007) required a minimum of 2,100 adults in Grand Canyon, a 

steady or increasing trend in the population, and control of environmental threats, among other 

requirements. One element of humpback chub conservation in Grand Canyon could be a Glen 

Canyon Dam flow-release regimen that supports this species. These flows can be expected to 

affect many elements of the canyon resources, including sediment, cultural resources, and 

recreation. Therefore, releases that benefit one resource like the humpback chub must also be 

consistent with conservation of other resources. Conservation of LCR resources, especially 

water, and protection from catastrophic events is important not only to protecting the spawning 

humpback chub population in the LCR, but also to protecting other organisms found there.

Two spring mark-recapture trips, and two fall mark-recapture trips subject to outcome of 

PEP analyses and cooperator/stakeholder input, helicopter support

Lower 1,200 m: One spring trip, subject to outcome of PEP analyses and 

cooperator/stakeholder input, helicopter support

Two spring mark-recapture trips, and two fall mark-recapture trips subject to outcome of 

PEP analyses and cooperator/stakeholder input, helicopter support

Lower 1,200 m: One spring trip, subject to outcome of PEP analyses and 

cooperator/stakeholder input, helicopter support

The USFWS will deliver two trip reports annually within 60 days of completion of the 

fieldwork, including data collected, to the GCMRC. The trip reports will be summarized and 

analyzed in a final report delivered to the GCMRC in January of the following year. These 

reports address the lower 15-km monitoring and the monitoring above Chute Falls (see project 

description for BIO 2.M3.11–12)

An annual report will be prepared by USFWS in cooperation with GCMRC, in USGS 

Open File Report format following USGS Fundamental Science Practices

The AZGFD will deliver one annual report on the results of their monitoring of the lower 

1,200 m of the LCR to the GCMRC

An annual report will be prepared by AZGFD in cooperation with GCMRC, in USGS 

Open File Report format following USGS Fundamental Science Practices

A core-monitoring report, summarizing core-monitoring efforts, 2009 PEP 

recommendations, and results of analyses recommended by the 2009 PEP will be completed in 

FY2011
56
57

2003

Ongoing

D.R. Van Haverbeke, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

The Little Colorado River (LCR) above Chute Falls

The goals of this project in FY2011–12 include:

Determining the critical physical and biotic factors that may be limiting to, or supportive 

of, humpback chub and other native fish populations in Grand Canyon to identify 

strategies to reduce, eliminate, or control limiting factors

Identifying the habitat characteristics that are most important to all life stages of 

humpback chub to identify methods that maintain, and possibly replicate, suitable 

habitats

Reducing predation risk to humpback chub from nonnative species that may ascend the 

LCR from the mainstem Colorado River

Allowing opportunity for translocated humpback chub to grow and survive in additional 

habitat

Specific objectives of the project includes:

Translocating small humpback chub from near the confluence with the Colorado River to 

above Chute Falls

Obtaining population estimates for humpback chub 100 mm and 200 mm above Chute 

Falls

Coordinating the production of a document that establishes a written framework for 

translocation, including overall goals, specific objectives, and objective measures of 

success. This framework should be consistent with the Genetics Management Plan, when 

it becomes available
58

Translocation is a management action designed to help conserve humpback chub. In 

2003, as a conservation measure to the Biological Opinion on the 2002 experimental flows and 

nonnative fish removal proposal, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) began a 

translocation program funded by Reclamation for humpback chub above Chute Falls in the LCR. 

Chute Falls is a series of waterfalls approximately 16 km upstream on the LCR above the 

confluence with the Colorado River. Despite evidence that fish do move above Chute Falls, the 

potential exists for genetic drift, or a change in the genetic makeup of the population when 

compared to the main humpback chub population farther downstream on the LCR, owing to the 

―founder effect,‖ a situation managers wish to avoid. Genetic drift was considered in the Draft 

Humpback Chub Genetics Management Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, unpub. data, 2008). 

Translocating humpback chub above Chute Falls was conducted six times between 2003 

and 2010. Because the LCR above Chute Falls contains fewer nonnative fish than the lower 

portion of the LCR, translocation above Chute Falls is thought to allow humpback chub 

opportunity for better survival than in the lower LCR. Translocation also increases the 

demographic range for the species by nearly 5 km. Researchers have documented movement of 

humpback chub from below Chute Falls to above the barrier, providing new information about 

the movement capabilities of humpback chub. Monitoring above Chute Falls is important for 

evaluating the effectiveness of translocating humpback chub.

The 2009 PEP report clearly stated that management objectives for Chute Falls and other 

translocations should be specified in measurable terms to guide monitoring and reporting. The 

panel could not comment on current monitoring activities with available information. The need 

for additional translocations and the timing of those efforts should be compared to 

recommendations made in the Final Humpback Chub Genetics Management Plan, which is being 

prepared by the USFWS, when it is available. In addition, translocations to Shinumo Creek and 

Havasu Creek, which are planned for the near future, should be incorporated into translocation 

planning efforts. The GCMRC will work with USFWS and other cooperators to develop a 

translocation framework to help guide future translocation efforts.

The Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program Science Advisors have 

summarized strategic science questions related to humpback chub with the following question, 

which this project specifically addresses, especially annual spawning success:

SA 1. What are the most limiting factors to successful humpback chub adult recruitment 

in the mainstem: spawning success, predation on YoY and juveniles, habitat (water, temperature), 

pathogens, adult maturation, food availability, competition?

Primary information need addressed:

CMIN 2.1.2. Determine and track recruitment (identify life stage), abundance, and 

distribution of humpback chub in the LCR.
59

Two mark-capture trips will be conducted in the summer above Chute Falls in the LCR to 

monitor translocated fish and potential offspring and to generate a closed population estimate for 

humpback chub. These trips occur during late May or early June when the LCR discharge is at 

base flow. In addition to the annual population estimate, these data can be incorporated into 

ASMR and other open population models. All fish > 100mm TL are implanted with PIT tags.

A camp has been established on Navajo lands 16.2 km above the LCR and Colorado 

River confluence, which is used to temporarily house project staff during the field work. The 

camp has an established helicopter pad and offers protection from most floods. 

Baited hoop nets (0.5–0.6-m diameter, 1.0-m length, 6-mm mesh, single 10-cm throat) 

are fished in the LCR corridor above Chute Falls (13.6 km), which is the upstream extent of the 

current downstream LCR monitoring. The overall reach is divided into two subreaches and each 

subreach fished for 3 days. Approximately 50 hoop nets are fished throughout this upper reach 

from 13.6 to 18.0 km, with an average spacing between nets of approximately 100 to 150 m. 

Hoop nets are positioned in favorable habitats for catching humpback chub and repositioned as 

needed. On average, each hoop net is checked once every 24 hours. Each net is baited near its 

cod end by attaching a nylon mesh bag (30- by 30-cm, 6-mm mesh) containing AquaMaxTM

Grower 600 for Carnivorous Species (Purina Mills Inc., Brentwood, MO). All captured 

humpback chub are checked for colored elastomer tags and PIT tags. Individuals not previously 

PIT tagged, but of sufficient size to tag without injury, are held overnight offshore in an aerated 

tank, or in the LCR in a secured holding pen to allow time for digestion of any consumed bait, 

and thereafter tagged and released.

In addition to fishing baited hoop nets and PIT-tagging humpback chub as detailed above, 

staff will be responsible for:

Measuring and recording the fork and total lengths, gender, spawning condition, and 

sexual characteristics for all captured fish (except speckled dace)

Recording the location, shoreline habitat, hydraulic unit, set and pull time, and map 

locations for each hoop net set, and

Measuring daily turbidity (using the Hach 2100 turbidimeter), water temperature, and 

CO2(using titration)

Projects such as this one that investigate potential strategies for expanding the Grand 

Canyon humpback chub population support the basin wide goal of conserving humpback chub 

with the long-term goal of downlisting and delisting the species from the Federal endangered 

species list. Chute Falls translocations and monitoring inform additional translocations to other 

tributaries, currently expected to be Shinumo Creek, and perhaps Havasu Creek.

Both the translocation trip and the monitoring trip for this effort require helicopter 

support. Translocation is anticipated in the summer with follow-up monitoring in the fall.
60

The USFWS will deliver two trip reports annually within 60 days of completion of the 

fieldwork, including data collected, to the GCMRC. The trip reports will be summarized and 

analyzed in a final report delivered to the GCMRC in January of the following year. These 

reports address the lower 15-km monitoring and the monitoring above Chute Falls (see project 

description for BIO 2.M1.11–12)

An annual report will be prepared by USFWS in cooperation with GCMRC in USGS 

Open File Report following USGS Fundamental Science Practices
61

2010

Ongoing

A.S. Makinster, Arizona Game and Fish Department; D.R. Van Haverbeke, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service; and W.R. Persons and K.D. Hilwig, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon 

Monitoring and Research Center

The mainstem Colorado River in Grand Canyon between Lees Ferry and upper Lake 

Mead

This project is intended to increase knowledge of native and nonnative fish in the 

Colorado River mainstem. It is also intended to be responsive to the recommendations of the 

2009 PEP for Grand Canyon Fishes. The project seeks to advance the following goals:

Monitor the documented humpback chub aggregations in the mainstem Colorado River

Continue to monitor native and nonnative fish in the mainstem Colorado River

Provide presence/absence and distribution information on Colorado River native and 

nonnative fish

Conduct three monitoring efforts (four trips in total) in years without mechanical removal 

in the Little Colorado River reach (or other, comparably large control effort) subject to 

additional funding being made available by Reclamation from the Nonnative fish control 

contingency fund or other funding source. In years when a large mechanical removal 

trip is conducted in the Little Colorado River reach then the personnel and equipment will 

be shifted from the two full mainstem monitoring trips to the mechanical removal effort, 

collecting intensive monitoring data for that reach. Monitoring is intended to be

responsive to advances in data analysis, sampling design, and gear selection. A flexible 

approach that builds on prior knowledge is needed to develop monitoring of the Colorado 

River fish population that is responsive to continuing changes in dam operations, climate, 

local meteorology, species population sizes, and management actions. Primary emphasis 

is on broad sampling, with a secondary emphasis on developing high statistical 

confidence in species-specific trends. If this monitoring suggests changes in either native 

or nonnative populations, future monitoring can be directed at gathering more data on a 

specific species or location 

Provide annual monitoring and timely reporting that allows for annual review of specific 

sampling design, gear, and data analyses. The cooperating agencies will meet formally at 

least once a year with interested Grand Canyon Adaptive Management Program 

(GCDAMP) members to review and potentially modify sampling design, gear, and data 
62

analyses. The three lead cooperators— Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD), 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research 

Center (GCMRC)—will assume responsibility, with other cooperators as assigned, for 

data reporting and analysis

Tasks to address the goals described above will be phased in over the FY2010–12 period 

and are to be included in analysis of existing fish data recommended by the 2009 PEP. 

Native fish populations in Grand Canyon are key resources of concern influencing 

decisions on both the operation of Glen Canyon Dam and non-flow actions. To inform these 

decisions, it is imperative that accurate and timely information on the status of fish populations, 

particularly the endangered humpback chub, be available to managers. A suite of adaptive 

experimental management actions are being contemplated to better understand the mechanisms 

controlling the population dynamics of native fish and to identify policies that are consistent with 

the attainment of management goals. The assessments generated from this project provide a 

baseline from which to assess the effects of implemented experimental actions. This information 

is therefore crucial to (1) inform the program as to attainment of identified goals, (2) provide 

baseline status and trend information to be used as a backdrop to further understand mechanisms 

controlling native and nonnative fish population dynamics, and (3) evaluate the efficacy of 

particular management policies in attaining program goals. The results of this project are 

potentially useful in assessing changes to the Federal Endangered Species Act listing status of 

humpback chub in Grand Canyon.

Nonnative fish are among the greatest threats to native fish in western North American 

rivers (Miller, 1961; Minckley and Deacon, 1991; Tyus and Saunders, 2000; Coggins, 2008). 

Nonnative fish may threaten native fish by direct predation, by competing for available food and 

other resources, and by habitat modification (Minckley, 1991; Hawkins and Nesler, 1991). 

Nonnative fish were introduced into Grand Canyon not later than early in the 20th century 

(Woodbury, 1959; Valdez and Ryel, 1995). While native fish survived these initial introductions 

at least long enough to be described by early researchers, other system stressors, especially the 

modification of natural flows as a result of dam installation and operations, appear to have 

increased the threats to native fish from nonnative fish (Minckley, 1991; Clarkson and Childs, 

2000). 

The GCDAMP has recognized nonnative fish as a threat that needs to be addressed, 

proceeding with implementation of a nonnative fish control experiment around the Little 

Colorado River (LCR) inflow reach from 2003 to 2006. The 2003 to 2006 control project was 

most successful at removing rainbow trout. This work plan builds on that effort. As the 

Colorado River mainstem becomes warmer because of climate effects (Seager and others, 2007), 

the potential for an increased threat from warm water adapted nonnative fish increases (Eaton and 

Scheller, 1996; Chu and others, 2005; Rahel and Olden, 2008). There is an immediate need to 

investigate which species pose the greatest threats to natives in Grand Canyon, to understand how 

those species might be better monitored and controlled, and to test control approaches for 

efficacy.

In response to identified GCDAMP goals, the 2009 PEP for Grand Canyon Fishes 

concluded that it is important to conduct mainstem fish monitoring with a variety of sampling 

designs and gear types. The experts involved with the PEP determined that fine resolution of 

confidence in species-specific mark-recapture population estimates could only be accomplished 
63

with large amounts of personnel time, sampling gear and equipment, and funding that is not 

currently available. Further, the PEP determined that even if more resources could be employed, 

fine-scale data collection every year was not warranted and could cause harm to native fish. 

Therefore, the PEP recommended a broad approach to use multiple gear types at various times of 

the year and over a broad geographic range to give scientists and managers the most useful data 

on an annual basis.

Primary SSQ addressed:

SSQ 1-1. To what extent are adult populations of native fish controlled by production of 

young fish from tributaries, spawning and incubation in the mainstem, survival of young-of-year

and juvenile stages in the mainstem, or by changes in growth and maturation in the adult 

population as influenced by mainstem conditions?

SSQ 1-2. Does a decrease in the abundance of rainbow trout and other cold- and warm 

water nonnatives in Marble and eastern Grand Canyons result in an improvement in the 

recruitment rate of juvenile humpback chub to the adult population?

Additional SSQs addressed:

SSQ 1-4. Can long-term decreases in abundance of rainbow trout in Marble and eastern 

Grand Canyons be sustained with a reduced level of effort of mechanical removal or will 

recolonization from tributaries and from downstream and upstream of the removal reach require 

that mechanical removal be an ongoing management action? This question also applies to future 

removal programs targeting other nonnative species.

SSQ 1-8. How can native and nonnative fishes best be monitored while minimizing 

impacts from capture and handling or sampling?

SSQ 5-6. Do the potential benefits of improved rearing habitat (warmer, more stable, 

more backwater and vegetated shorelines, more food) outweigh negative impacts due to increases 

in nonnative fish abundance?

The GCDAMP Science Advisors articulated the following summary science questions 

addressed by this project:

SA 1. What are the most limiting factors to successful humpback chub adult recruitment 

in the mainstem: spawning success, predation on young of year and juveniles, habitat (water, 

temperature), pathogens, adult maturation, food availability, competition?

SA 2. What are the most probably positive and negative impacts of warming the 

Colorado River on humpback chub adults and juveniles?

Primary information needs addressed:

CMIN 2.1.2. Determine and track recruitment of all life stages, abundance, and 

distribution of humpback chub in the Colorado River.

CMIN 2.4.1. Determine and track the abundance and distribution of nonnative predatory 

fish species in the Colorado River.

CMIN 2.6.1. Determine and track the abundance and distribution of flannelmouth 

sucker, bluehead sucker, and speckled dace populations in the Colorado River ecosystem.

RIN 2.4.2. Determine if suppression of nonnative predators and competitors increases 

native fish populations.

RIN 2.4.3. To what degree, which species, and where in the system are exotic fish a 

detriment to the existence of native fish through predation or competition?
64

RIN 2.4.4. What are the target population levels, body size, and age structure for 

nonnative fish in the Colorado River ecosystem that limit their levels to those commensurate with 

the viability of native fish populations?

The methods described below are intended to be consistent with the 2009 PEP for Grand 

Canyon Fishes and will be compared to the PEP final analysis report to ensure consistency when 

that document is available. Annual review may indicate alternative methods are required, 

especially if expanding humpback chub populations or expanding nonnative fish populations are 

indicated by the data from this and other trips collected in these and previous years. This 

approach is intended to sample species and habitats as broadly as possible in order to give 

managers and scientists diverse information on which to direct this and other projects in future 

years. If the analyses conducted by GCMRC, USFWS, and AZGFD in 2010 and 2011 indicate 

that the methods described herein and the recommendations of the 2009 PEP are not warranted, 

alternative approaches to monitoring will be developed and implemented.

Mainstem fish monitoring, including the monitoring below Diamond Creek, has used 

boat-operated electrofishing to provide information on status and trends of native and nonnative 

fish in the Colorado River between Lees Ferry and Lake Mead since 2001. Data from these trips 

supports annual analyses of species catch-rate data, species distribution data, and species length 

frequency and size data. Electrofishing remains the most important tool for providing an overall 

assessment of the mainstem fish community. Two electrofishing trips will be conducted at 

stratified random sites not in immediate proximity to campers. This protocol applies only to years 

in which a large mechanical removal project (or similar large scale effort) is not conducted. If 

management agencies determine that a mainstem mechanical removal of nonnative fish in the 

Little Colorado River reach, or similar effort, is desired, then the personnel and equipment used 

for mainstem spring electrofishing will be shifted to the mechanical removal project. Mainstem 

spring electrofishing is included in this work plan because no mechanical removal project has 

been planned or scheduled at the time of work plan preparation. Mechanical removal would result 

in intensive fish community sampling in the LCR reach and so could substitute for mainstem 

spring electrofishing, at least for a limited number of years. If no mechanical removal is 

conducted then the funding for personnel and equipment will have to be transferred from the 

Reclamation portion of the GCDAMP budget to pay for these expenses. 

Several known aggregations of humpback chub (Valdez and Ryel, 1995) will be sampled 

with a variety of nets by this project. Additional sites selected by a stratified random selection 

will also be sampled. The primary humpback chub aggregations that will be sampled include 30 

Mile, near the confluence of the LCR, and Inner Granite Gorge. The project will also sample at 

and below the mouth of Shinumo Creek, a tributary to the Colorado River, to investigate whether 

humpback chub translocated to this tributary have moved into the mainstem. Gear types may 

include, but are not limited to, the following: hoop nets, trammel nets (when water temperature 

below 20 deg. C), and seines. Gear selection is dependent on habitats sampled.

This project makes use of trammel nets when water temperatures are below 20 degree C 

to limit stress on captured fish. Trammell net sets are for 2 hours or less. Because working 

trammel nets requires use of motor boats, this monitoring will emphasize use of trammel nets in 

locations determined in advance of the trip, but other gear types may be deployed as time and
65

opportunity is available. Sampling in the LCR reach is not conducted in areas where the 

nearshore ecology project is working. Data from this monitoring will provide data for the ASMR 

model for humpback chub.

This project will conduct multi-gear monitoring at potential nonnative fish aggregations, 

especially near humpback chub aggregations, tributary inflow areas and also stratified random 

sites. Gear types may include, but not be limited to, hoop nets, trammel nets, backpack and oarpowered electroshockers, seines, minnow traps and angling. Gear selection is dependent on 

habitats sampled. This trip is launched late in September and will be non-motorized. 

The primary site selection for this trip will be conducted using a stratified random design. 

As additional information is gathered regarding nonnative species, this trip may also be focused 

on areas where nonnative concentrations may be found, such as near the mouth of warm water 

tributaries. Data from these trips supports annual analyses of species catch rate data; species 

composition and distribution; species size class composition, and may also support the update of 

the ASMR model for humpback chub.

Understanding the factors influencing the dynamics of the Grand Canyon native fish 

populations, especially the endangered humpback chub, is important to evaluating the effects of 

management and conservation activities, especially GCD operations. To determine these factors, 

a combination of large scale manipulations (for example, experimental removal of nonnative fish 

or long-term implementation of contrasting flow regimes) and smaller scale process oriented 

research (for example, assessment of juvenile fish growth rates under various temperature 

regimes or availability of particular food items) will likely prove most efficient in determining the 

key mechanisms regulating native fish populations. In each of these endeavors, it is critical that 

baseline trends in population abundance and recruitment be known. Only with this knowledge is 

it possible to assess the population level effects of large-scale manipulations. Although it is 

informative to assess the effects of experimental management on processes thought to be 

important, like growth or survival at particular life stages, this is not enough to determine the 

efficacy of particular management actions. Linkages between these processes and ultimate 

recruitment to populations must be established. Again, these linkages can only be made if 

baseline trends in population abundance and recruitment are available.

The logistical needs for the project are as follows:

Mainstem Fall Humpback Chub Monitoring—1 trip in FY2011 and FY2012, September, 

motorized; GCMRC, USFWS, AZGFD 

Mainstem Fall Fish Monitoring—1 trip in FY2011 and FY2012, October, float; GCMRC 

Mainstem Spring Electrofishing Monitoring—2 trips in FY2012, February and March, 

motorized; AZGFD 
66

Annual reporting on the catch rates, species encountered, size class distributions, and 

locations of captures for the fall HBC monitoring will be the responsibility of the agency leading 

the effort, currently anticipated to be GCMRC in FY2011 and USFWS in FY2012

All fish data will be submitted to GCMRC for inclusion in the fish database. These data 

are used for other projects, especially the stock assessment project, and to support 

nonnative fish monitoring 

Annual reports will be delivered in USGS Open File Report format
67

2007

Ongoing

W.R. Persons, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, 

and C.J. Walters, University of British Columbia

Colorado and Little Colorado Rivers in Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons

This project will provide annual updates of population size composition and capture rates 

of humpback chub and other Grand Canyon fish to the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management 

Program (GCDAMP) and other managers. Reporting will include retrospective time series to 

allow for comparison with previous years‘ data. The assembled humpback chub data from the 

Grand Canyon fish monitoring projects will be incorporated into updates of the Age-Structured 

Mark-Recapture (ASMR) model approximately every 3 years. The next ASMR update is 

anticipated for publication in 2011.

This project will lead the analyses of existing fish capture information recommended by 

the 2009 Protocol Evaluation Panel for Grand Canyon Fishes (PEP). The goal of these analyses 

is to evaluate whether the fish monitoring project changes recommended by the PEP, especially 

to reduce some efforts and increase others, are consistent with the available data.

This project will seek to develop and implement methods for making the humpback chub 

database available electronically. Data serving must be done in a manner consistent with USGS 

Fundamental Science Practices.

This project will develop an annual reporting framework for native and nonnative fishes 

that includes results of current and historic fisheries monitoring. As recommended by the 2009 

PEP, we will develop a single, concise report that includes information from all fisherymonitoring projects, including the Little Colorado River monitoring as well as mainstem 

monitoring at both Lees Ferry and downstream. The report may include closed population 

estimates for the LCR, catch rate indices for commonly captured species, size composition 

information, recruitment indices, species distribution information, and pertinent information 

regarding fishery responses to experimental treatments such as High Flow Experiments and 

mechanical removal.

Native fish populations in Grand Canyon are key resources of concern influencing 

decisions on both the operation of Glen Canyon Dam and other non-flow actions. To inform 
68

these decisions, it is imperative that accurate and timely information on the status of native fish 

populations, particularly the endangered humpback chub, be available to managers.

Several experimental and management actions are being contemplated to understand the 

mechanisms controlling the population dynamics of native and nonnative fish and to identify 

policies that are consistent with management goals. This project will support assessment of 

experimental actions. This information is therefore crucial to:

Inform the program as to attainment of identified goals and objectives

Provide baseline status and trend information to be used as a backdrop to understand the 

mechanisms controlling native fish population dynamics, and 

Evaluate the efficacy of particular management policies in attaining program goals

Contribute to Federal Endangered Species Act listing status of humpback chub in the 

Colorado River

Primary SSQ addressed:

SSQ 1-1. To what extent are adult populations of native fish controlled by production of 

young fish from tributaries, spawning, and incubation in the mainstem, survival of YoY and 

juvenile stages in the mainstem, or by changes in growth and maturation in the adult 

population as influenced by mainstem conditions?

Additional SSQ addressed:

SSQ 1-8. How can native and nonnative fishes best be monitored while minimizing impacts 

from capture and handling or sampling?

The Adaptive Management Program Science Advisors have articulated the following 

science question, which is partially addressed by this project:

SA 1. What are the most limiting factors to successful humpback chub adult recruitment in 

the mainstem: spawning success, predation on YoY and juveniles, habitat (water, 

temperature), pathogens, adult maturation, food availability, competition?

RIN 2.2.8. What combination of dam release patterns and nonnative fish control 

facilitates successful spawning and recruitment of humpback chub in the Colorado River 

ecosystem?

RIN 2.4.2. Determine if suppression of nonnative predators and competitors increases 

native fish populations.

To provide humpback chub status and trend information, the Grand Canyon Monitoring 

and Research Center (GCMRC) mark-recapture database will be updated annually with the most 

recent data collected during monitoring efforts. Following this update, the humpback chub markrecapture database will be reanalyzed using (where appropriate) both open and closed mark-
69

recapture-based abundance estimators and catch rate indices to provide the most current 

information on humpback chub status and trends. In particular, the ASMR models (Coggins and 

others, 2006a and 2006b; Coggins, 2007; Coggins and Walters, 2009) will be used to determine 

trends in humpback chub abundance and recruitment over multiyear time scales. Over annual 

time scales, this project will assemble and deliver summaries of annual catch rate and size-class 

composition of humpback chub and other species from the Little Colorado River (LCR) and 

mainstem to the GCDAMP and managers. It will also deliver other species metrics, likely to 

include results of closed population estimates and juvenile abundance from the LCR.

This project was reviewed by the 2009 PEP. The panel recommended that because of the 

inherent variability in the ASMR (for example, estimates of growth and mortality rates limit its 

ability to detect fine scale changes), preparing annual updates of the model was an inefficient use 

of personnel time, especially for the long-lived humpback chub. The PEP observed that the 

ASMR has only limited sensitivity to detect small annual population changes and that it requires 

tremendous personnel and computer resources to generate. Based on these observations, the PEP 

recommended that the ASMR be updated every 3 to 5 years. Because the GCMRC is planning to 

prepare the next State of the Colorado River Ecosystem in Grand Canyon (SCORE) report in 

FY2011, the GCMRC will accelerate this recommendation for the next iteration and include an 

update of ASMR in the FY2011 SCORE report. This update is being prepared as part of the 

evaluation of data recommend by the 2009 PEP. In the future, the GCMRC intends the next 

iteration of the ASMR following the FY2011 update will be scheduled for FY2014, consistent 

with the PEP recommendation. Updates will be developed in the stock assessment framework 

previously reported. 

The 2009 PEP for Grand Canyon Fishes made a series of recommendations that direct 

shifting monitoring efforts to decrease efforts in the LCR and increase efforts in the mainstem of 

the Colorado River, subject to an analysis of the existing data to see if their recommendations are 

consistent with the data. The GCMRC fisheries biologist working on this project will be 

responsible for assembling and/or conducting the analyses necessary to evaluate the 

recommendations. AZGFD and USFWS personnel to support this effort will also conduct data 

analyses of individual projects. If the recommendations are found to be warranted, the shift to 

different monitoring may be initiated in late FY2011. The full analysis of all the data will not be 

required in FY2011, so there will be some shifting of the fisheries biologist time to other projects.

As recommended by the 2009 PEP, we will develop a single concise report that includes 

information from all fishery-monitoring projects, including the Little Colorado River monitoring 

as well as mainstem monitoring at both Lees Ferry and downstream. 

The status and trends of the Grand Canyon humpback chub population are two of the key 

metrics utilized in GCDAMP to evaluate the success of the GCDAMP and actions undertaken 

under the sponsorship of the GCDAMP. Therefore, an annual stock assessment report that 

includes all fishery monitoring is related to many other GCDAMP work plan elements, especially 

experimental actions such as the March 2008 High Flow Experiment, other flow experiments, or 

removal of nonnative fish. The annual humpback chub population status will be important to 

projects studying biotic and abiotic aspects of the system including the aquatic food base, and 

nearshore ecology projects because changes in the parameters measured by these projects can 

be compared to trends in the humpback chub population to search for relevant correlations. 
70

There are no logistical needs for this project.

This project will be the lead for retrospective analysis of the fish catch rate data, 

especially for humpback chub. The analyses will also be supported by AZGFD and 

USFWS personnel as part of the reporting for their respective projects. Under this 

project, GCMRC will convene an annual fish meeting to review these analyses and to 

develop a single annual stock assessment report.

A single stock assessment report will be delivered to the GCDAMP during the winter of 

each year

The next update of the ASMR model will be in FY2011 to coincide with the next SCORE 

report, with the next scheduled update anticipated in FY2014

This project will pursue making the humpback chub data base information available 

electronically in a manner consistent with USGS Fundamental Science Practices
71

October 2006

Ongoing

W.R. Persons, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

and Graduate Student (to be determined)

Little Colorado River

This project is planned for FY2011–12 and seeks to advance the following goals:

Determine and refine the most appropriate method(s) for estimating the population size of 

humpback chub and other Grand Canyon fish, including sampling design and 

development of remote monitoring methods

Determine movement patterns of fish in Grand Canyon using the Little Colorado River 

LCR

This project will test monitoring methods that do not require repeated handling of fish, 

capture of evasive species, or additional field fish sampling trips. Remote antennae can read the

passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags as tagged fish pass the station. PIT tags are already 

implanted in a large proportion of the adult population of humpback chub in Grand Canyon. 

Because one PIT-tag antennae array was installed in the LCR in FY2009, this project also seeks 

to provide maintenance and upgrades to the equipment already in place.

A limited number of humpback chub and other native fish are present in the modern day 

Colorado River in Grand Canyon. Nonnative fish species are also present and are important to 

study because of the known predatory and competitive threats they pose to native fish. Scientists 

and managers wish to know the spatial and temporal movement patterns of these species and the 

effectiveness of sampling gears in sampling populations. Obtaining population information in the 

least intrusive manner(s) possible, especially when sampling the endangered humpback chub, is 

also desirable. Remote PIT-tag antennae have been shown in other rivers and streams, which 

have generally been smaller than the LCR, to be very effective at continuous monitoring, 

alleviating the need for additional field sampling trips and multiple fish handling events.

The 2009 PEP reviewed the initial implementation of this project and recommended that 

it be continued and expanded. This project description is designed to be consistent with the

panel‘s recommendations.
72

Primary SSQ addressed:

SSQ 1-8. How can native and nonnative fishes best be monitored while minimizing 

impacts from capture and handling or sampling?

CMIN 2.1.2. Determine and track recruitment (identify life stage), abundance and 

distribution of humpback chub in the LCR.

RIN 2.2.2. Determine if a population dynamics model can effectively predict response of 

native fish under different flow regimes and environmental conditions.

In FY2009, personnel from Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC), 

Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD), and the USGS Columbia River Research Lab 

experimented with the use of remote antennae to read PIT tags. The equipment installed 

generally performed as anticipated, although some improvements will be sought, especially 

increasing detection distance and increasing equipment stability in high flows. PIT-tag antennae 

are initially evaluated with passing tags over the antennae, which is followed by assessing 

whether the antennae are reading and recording deployed tags. The study area will focus on the 

LCR because humpback chub spawn and are concentrated there. Progressively more 

sophisticated equipment and deployments have been tested over time. This incremental approach 

has allowed for efficient use of funds, specific evaluation of equipment and methods, and 

consultation with Tribes that must permit the deployment. 

In FY2010 an additional array will be deployed in the LCR (June 2010) to increase 

coverage of the width of the river, increasing the probability of detections, and increasing ability 

to detect movement. Personnel from USGS and AZGFD will cooperate to expand the coverage 

and detection capabilities beyond those already observed. USGS Columbia River Research Lab 

personnel will assist with array design, installation and data analysis.

Together with AZGFD, the GCMRC will seek to identify an appropriate graduate student 

to work on this project, both as the primary person for maintenance and for data analysis. The 

USGS Cooperative Unit Leader from Colorado State University has indicated interest in serving 

as the major advisor for this person, and would contribute to data analysis.

Remote data telemetry is being attempted in FY2010. This will allow biologists to 

remotely download the data from the remote PIT-tag detector and determine operational status 

and maintenance needs instead of visiting the site regularly throughout the year.

If the PIT-tag readers continue to be successful, more  ̳recapture‘ data on individual 

tagged native and nonnative fish will be available without concurrent expenditures on personnel, 

supplies, and logistics. Currently about one-half of the fish detected have been humpback chub, 

with native suckers and a few common carp making up the remainder. These data will be 

important for support of the annual catch-rate indexes and multiyear model updates. More 

information on movement into and out of the LCR will also inform open population models.
73

Trips that require large equipment transport will require helicopters into and out of the 

LCR. In FY2011 and FY2012, 6 days of helicopter transport are budgeted. Four to five trips for 

two people are expected to conduct servicing, maintenance, and downloading; as many of the 

trips as possible will be combined with existing trips. 

Personnel will schedule appropriate servicing and downloading trips using a combination 

of hiking and boat travel, ideally in combination with other science trips, but this project includes 

logistics costs to support the minor additional demands of small crews in the LCR to service the 

PIT antennae.

Annual reporting on the installation and operation of the equipment and collected data 

will be delivered to the GCMRC by December of each year. These data are to be discussed in at 

least one annual meeting by the fish cooperators, managers, and interested Glen Canyon Dam 

Adaptive Management Program committee members.

GCMRC will pursue the identification of an appropriate graduate student and institution 

to support cooperative additional data analysis. The USGS Cooperative Unit at Colorado State 

University has expressed initial interest in having such a graduate student enrolled there. A 

graduate student would be expected to provide a thesis and one or more peer reviewed reports 

analyzing the data collected by this project. The emphasis of possible graduate research may 

include detailed descriptions of the movement patterns of humpback chub in to and out of the

LCR.
74

2008

September 2012

William E. Pine, III, University of Florida; M.D. Yard, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand 

Canyon Monitoring and Research Center; and C.J. Walters, University of British Columbia

The mainstem Colorado River in Grand Canyon below the mouth of the Little Colorado 

River

The primary goal of the nearshore ecology study is to relate river flow variables and 

ecological attributes of nearshore habitats to better understand the relative importance of the 

biotic and abiotic attributes of these habitats to juvenile (< 200mm total length) native and 

nonnative fish

The objectives addressed by this project are as follows:

Develop sampling approaches and analytical methods to use for determining abundance, 

density, or occurrence of native and nonnative fish among different nearshore habitat 

types

Assess past and current data and integrate data across multiple sources and disciplines to 

determine small-bodied and juvenile fish nearshore habitat selection at local, geomorphic, 

and landscape scales

Evaluate past habitat classification schemes and associated data collection efforts, using 

both habitat information associated with the fisheries database and Data Acquisition, 

Storage and Analysis (DASA) Program GIS habitat classification methods

Develop methods for measuring and estimating small-bodied and juvenile fish vital rates 

(growth and survival) among different nearshore habitat types and during steady versus 

fluctuating flow operations

Determine the key factors (abiotic and biotic) influencing nearshore habitat selection 

among small-bodied and juvenile fish

Determine the effect(s) of fluctuating and steady flow releases on nearshore habitat 

selection, movement, growth, and survival of native and nonnative fish

Design and implement a multiyear (FY2009–12) experimental plan (process oriented) to 

determine the effect(s) of fluctuating and steady flow releases (September–October) on 

nearshore habitat selection, movement, growth, and survival of native and nonnative fish
75

Develop a contingency plan for releases above peak power plant capacity that details how 

these releases will affect the proposed research and a research plan for assessing the 

potential impacts of these releases on nearshore habitat selection among small-bodied and 

juvenile fish

The goal of this project is to provide information for developing future models with the 

capability to predict small-bodied and juvenile fish composition, distribution, and abundance in 

relation to changes in management actions (for example, flows, temperatures, and nonnative fish 

interactions) and nearshore habitat availability. 

The mainstem Colorado River life-history requirements of HBC are not well understood. 

The habitat selection of HBC, and how those habitats may or may not be affected by human 

activities such as dam operations, are of particular interest to the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive 

Management Program (GCDAMP) and managers. To help meet these information needs, this 

project is intended to identify juvenile native fish habitat requirements, and how habitat selection, 

preference, and availability affect native fish vital rates such as growth and survival. Findings 

from this project are intended to provide information on native fish habitat requirements and 

guide future GCDAMP recommendations for the Department of the Interior to consider as 

management or experimental actions.

Primary SSQs addressed:

SSQ 1-1. To what extent are adult populations of native fish controlled by production of 

young fish from tributaries, spawning and incubation in the mainstem, survival of young-of-year 

(YoY) and juvenile stages in the mainstem, or by changes in growth and maturation in the adult 

population as influenced by mainstem conditions?

SSQ 1-7. Which tributary and mainstem habitats are most important to native fishes and 

how can these habitats best be made useable and maintained?

SSQ 3-2. To what extent could predation impacts by nonnative fish be mitigated by 

higher turbidities or dam-controlled high-flow releases?

SSQ 4-2. How important are backwaters and vegetated shoreline habitats to the overall 

growth and survival of YoY and juvenile native fish? Does the long-term benefit of increasing 

these habitats outweigh short-term potential costs (displacement and possibly mortality of young 

humpback chub) associated with high flows?

SSQ 5-4. What is the relative importance of increased water temperature, shoreline 

stability, and food availability on the survival and growth of YoY and juvenile native fish?

SSQ 5-6. Do the potential benefits of improved rearing habitat (warmer, more stable, 

more backwater and vegetated shorelines, more food) outweigh negative impacts due to increases 

in nonnative fish abundance?

RIN 2.1.3 What is the relationship between size of HBC and mortality in the LCR and the 

mainstem? What are the sources of mortality (that is, predation, cannibalism, other) in the 

LCR and the mainstem?

RIN 2.1.4 What habitats enhance recruitment of native fish in the LCR and mainstem? What 

are the physical and biological characteristics of those habitats?
76

RIN 2.4.3 To what degree, which species, and where in the system are exotic fish a detriment 

to the existence of native fish through predation or competition?

RIN 4.2.6 To what extent are RBT below the Paria River predators of native fish, primarily 

HBC? At what size do they become predators of native fish, especially HBC, that is, how do 

the trophic interactions between RBT and native fish change with size of fish?

RIN 2.4.4 What are the target population levels, body size and age structure for nonnative 

fish in the Colorado River ecosystem that limit their levels to those commensurate with the 

viability of native fish populations?

RIN 12.9.1 What is the impact on downstream resources of short-term increases to maximum 

flow, daily fluctuations, and downramp limits?

RIN 2.6.6 How is the rate of mortality for flannelmouth sucker, bluehead sucker, and 

speckled dace in the Colorado River ecosystem related to individual body size? What are the 

sources of mortality for flannelmouth sucker, bluehead sucker, and speckled dace in the 

Colorado River ecosystem?

RIN 4.2.5 To what extent is there overlap in the Colorado River ecosystem below the Paria 

River of RBT habitat and native fish habitat?

RIN 7.4.1 What is the desired range of seasonal and annual flow dynamics associated with 

power plant operations, BHBFs, and habitat maintenance flows, or other flows that meet 

GCDAMP goals and objectives?

EIN 2.1.1 How does the abundance and distribution of all size classes of HBC in the LCR 

and mainstem change in response to an experiment performed under the Record of Decision, 

unanticipated event, or other management action?

EIN 2.1.2 How does the year class strength of HBC (51–150 mm) in the LCR and mainstem 

change in response to an experiment performed under the Record of Decision, unanticipated 

event, or other management action?

EIN 2.4.1 How does the abundance and distribution of nonnative predatory fish species and 

their impacts on native fish species in the Colorado River ecosystem change in response to an 

experiment performed under the Record of Decision, unanticipated event, or other 

management action?

EIN 2.6.1 How does the abundance, distribution, recruitment and mortality of flannelmouth 

sucker, bluehead sucker and speckled dace populations in the Colorado River ecosystem 

change in response to an experiment performed under the Record of Decision, unanticipated 

event, or other management action?

SIN 8.5.4 What is the role of turbidity and how can it be managed to achieve biological 

objectives?

The potential effects of fall steady flows on biological resources are being investigated 

with three Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC) projects: aquatic food base 

(goal 1), rainbow trout monitoring (goal 4), and nearshore ecology (goal 2). Descriptions of the 
77

first two projects are found under the goal they are intended to address elsewhere in this work 

plan.

This nearshore ecology study is to incorporate findings from ongoing studies and to 

develop new sampling and analytical approaches that examine the effects of the March 2008 

high-flow experiment on nearshore habitats and to address the effects of modified low fluctuating 

flows (MLFF), including September–October steady flows, on juvenile HBC and other native 

fish. 

1. This project will investigate sampling methods to estimate fish habitat use, growth,

and survival. Estimation of juvenile abundance, survival rate, growth rate, and habitat 

use is fundamental to resolving uncertainties in the conceptual model and the two key 

research questions outlined and identified above. Sampling trips are proposed in late 

July and late August to characterize abundance, habitat use, growth, and survival rate 

of juvenile fish over the summer under MLFF operations. These trips would be 

followed by sampling trips in early September and late October to characterize 

juvenile fish responses during the MLFF-fall steady experimental flow transition and 

steady flow period. Differences in abundance in each habitat type between sampling 

trips would be used to estimate habitat specific, reach-wide survival rates across flow 

events.

2. Two basic sampling approaches are proposed for estimating these characteristics: (1) 

reach-wide abundance estimation and (2) robust-design mark-recapture at replicate 

sites.

3. The site selection for this project is expected to utilize existing data and models from 

the GCMRC Physical Science and Modeling Program to quantify habitat availability 

over the study reach that contains the robust-design mark-recapture sites, habitat 

availability within the sites, and how habitat changes with flow. The existing 

GCMRC shoreline GIS database and other surveys can be used to stratify habitat into 

classes such as talus slopes, open sandbars, vegetated sandbars, cobble bars, and 

backwaters. The working hypothesis is that unstable habitat types will be used only 

minimally during the summer unsteady flow period, but that use of these habitats will 

increase during the fall steady period when flows are stabilized. If this difference in 

habitat use is ecologically important, the prediction would be an increase in growth 

and survival of fish during the fall steady flow period relative to the summer.

4. Any mark-recapture approach to estimating abundance and density depends on 

recapturing sufficient numbers of marked individuals to draw inferences on the 

parameters of interest. Closed population models generally have fewer parameters 

(and assumptions) than open models and are thus better able to estimate parameters 

of interest (capture probability and abundance) when recaptures are low. The closure 

assumption will be evaluated in our mark-recapture experiments using methods 

similar to Korman and others (2009). Additionally, recaptures of fish marked on 

previous trips will provide useful information on growth and movement (for 

example, movement into backwaters during periods of steady flow) between 

sampling trips and associated flow conditions. The Nearshore Ecology project pilot 

sampling data from 2008 should provide some information on closure and also 

provide information on capture probability that is necessary to fully assess how 

violation of the closure assumption biases abundance estimates. This project will 

evaluate occupancy models (MacKenzie and others, 2006) and sonic tags to support 

habitat-use assessment. This project will use otoliths (inner ear bones) from 

humpback chub and other natives to investigate habitat use and origin of fish. 
78

Otoliths may also prove useful for determining growth and survival rates of 

humpback chub and other fish.

These methods are discussed in greater detail in the project proposal submitted to the 

GCMRC by Pine and others. These methods require repeated sampling at multiple mainstem 

locations below the mouth of the Little Colorado River. Repeated sampling is needed to develop 

statistical confidence in abundance estimation, which in turn is needed to draw conclusions about 

habitat use. Repeated sampling will require use of motorboats and electroshocking equipment, 

including generators.

This project uses habitat information developed largely by the Physical Science and 

Modeling Program and the Data Acquisition, Storage, and Analysis (DASA) Program. The 

results of this project will help evaluate responses of small-size classes of fish to various dam 

release flows and will provide some of the information needed to assess the status and trends of 

humpback chub in the mainstem Colorado River.

This project will require four trips, one each in July, August, September, and October for 

3 years, FY2009–11, subject to permit approval. All four trips are to be motor supported. The first 

three are scheduled to launch in the motor season, but the October trip will require authority from 

Grand Canyon National Park to use motors during the non-motor season. Sampling in October 

supports investigation of the possible effects of steady flows on fish habitat use and so authority 

to conduct the trip will be requested.

Annual reports of project results will be delivered in December of each year. A final, 

synthetic report will be delivered by September 2012.
79

Funds for mainstem nonnative fish control are to be assembled in a nonnative contingency budget 

to be administered by Bureau of Reclamation. The use of these funds is subject to determination 

of the appropriate method(s) in consultation with affected parties, development of a protocol and 

logistics, and award of necessary permits. The Bureau will lead these activities. GCMRC 

proposes the establishment of a $600,000 nonnative contingency fund in FY 2011 and an 

additional $300,000 in FY 2012. No specific nonnative fish control project is proposed in this 

work plan because the environmental compliance and tribal consultation has not been completed 

as this work plan is written.
80

October 2009

Ongoing

K.D. Hilwig, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

Colorado River ecosystem in Grand Canyon

This project implements components of the nonnative fish technical document developed 

by the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC). This includes efforts to 

improve monitoring of nonnative fish in Grand Canyon and to recommend appropriate control 

options, if monitoring results indicate control is necessary. Monitoring improvements will 

initially focus on capturing nonnative fish during the fall mainstem monitoring with multiple gear 

types (see BIO 2.M4.11–12 Monitoring Mainstem Fish). This project includes the development 

of a synthesis report of nonnative fish information from monitoring and research data available in 

the GCMRC fish database, project reports and peer reviewed literature. Capture information 

provided by all fish-sampling and monitoring projects (Lees Ferry, Little Colorado River (LCR) 

and mainstem Colorado River) will be used to assess the presence or absence of nonnative 

species at various locations and the potential need for nonnative control efforts. Updates on the 

status and trends of nonnative fish in Grand Canyon will be presented to scientists and managers 

during the annual Nonnative Fish Workshop.

Specific project goals for this project are the following:

Development of a synthesis report on nonnative fish in Grand Canyon

Inform scientists and managers on an annual basis of nonnative fish issues in Grand 

Canyon

Nonnative fish are among the greatest threats to native fishes in western North American 

rivers (Miller, 1961; Minckley and Deacon, 1991; Tyus and Saunders, 2000; Coggins, 2008). 

Nonnative fish may threaten native fish by direct predation, by competing for available food and 

other resources, and by habitat modification (Minckley, 1991; Hawkins and Nesler, 1991). 

Nonnative fish were introduced into Grand Canyon not later than early in the 20th century 

(Woodbury, 1959; Valdez and Ryel, 1995). While native fish survived these initial introductions 

at least long enough to be described by early researchers, other system stressors, especially the 

modification of natural flows as a result of dam installation, appear to have increased the threats 

to native fish from nonnative fish (Minckley, 1991; Clarkson and Childs, 2000). As the Colorado 
81

River mainstem becomes warmer because of climate effects (Seager and others, 2007) and the 

GCDAMP considers implementation of a temperature control device (TCD), the potential for an 

increased threat from warm water-adapted nonnative fish increases (Eaton and Scheller, 1996; 

Chu and others, 2005; Rahel and Olden, 2008). There is a need to improve monitoring of 

nonnative fish posing threats to native fish in Grand Canyon to provide managers with 

information to evaluate control needs. Dissemination of this information to scientists and decision 

makers during annual workshops is important because it will foster the use of best professional 

judgment to identify nonnative fish issues of concern and provide a platform for the development 

of a timely response. 

Primary SSQs addressed:

SSQ 1-4. Can long-term decreases in abundance of rainbow trout in Marble and eastern 

Grand Canyons be sustained with a reduced level of effort of mechanical removal or will 

recolonization from tributaries and from downstream and upstream of the removal reach 

require that mechanical removal be an ongoing management action? This question also 

applies to future removal programs targeting other nonnative species.

SSQ 5-6. Do the potential benefits of improved rearing habitat (warmer, more stable, 

more backwater and vegetated shorelines, more food) outweigh negative impacts due to 

increases in nonnative fish abundance?

Primary information needs addressed:

CMIN 2.4.1. Determine and track the abundance and distribution of nonnative predatory 

fish species in the Colorado River.

RIN 2.4.1. What are the most effective strategies and control methods to limit nonnative 

fish predation and competition on native fish?

RIN 2.4.3. To what degree, which species, and where in the system are exotic fish a 

detriment to the existence of native fish through predation or competition?

In FY2011 and FY2012, this project will include the following:

A synthesis report summarizing historical captures and the recent status and trends of 

nonnative fish in Grand Canyon

Conduct Annual Nonnative Fish Workshops

This project links to several ongoing projects. Nonnative fish are captured during the 

Monitoring Mainstem Fish Project (BIO 2.M4.11–12), the Little Colorado River Humpback 

Chub Monitoring Project (BIO 2.M1.11-12), the Nearshore Ecology/Fall Steady Flows Project

(BIO 2.R15.11-12), and the Monitoring Lees Ferry Fish Project (BIO 4.M2.11-12). These

projects gather information on all fish species captured in Grand Canyon, including the relative 

abundance of these species and their size distribution. Nonnative fish capture information from 

these projects will be assembled and presented during the annual nonnative fish workshops. 
82

There are no logistics requirements for this project. 

Synthesis report of nonnative fish information from monitoring and research data 

available in GCMRC fish database, project reports and peer reviewed literature will be delivered 

in USGS Open File Report format

Conduct nonnative fish workshops annually
83

November 2010

June 2012

A.S. Makinster, W. Stewart, Arizona Game and Fish Department, J. Korman, Ecometric 

Research, Inc., K.D. Hilwig, W.R. Persons, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring 

and Research Center

Colorado River between Paria River inflow and Badger Rapid, River Mile 8

The goal of this project is to collect baseline information on movement of rainbow trout 

Oncorhynchus mykiss between the Paria River and Badger Rapid at River Mile 8 (PBR). This 

information is a necessary component of determining the potential feasibility and efficacy of 

removing rainbow trout in the PBR as an alternative to removal in the Little Colorado River reach 

of the Colorado River. Additional studies will be necessary to completely determine the 

feasibility and efficacy of this approach. This project is predicated on existing information 

(Coggins, 2008; Coggins and others, in review) that concludes that rainbow trout reared in the 

Lees Ferry reach of the Colorado River (Glen Canyon Dam to Lees Ferry) move out of that reach 

under some conditions. Our working hypothesis is that rainbow trout moving out of the Lees 

Ferry reach could be captured and removed from the river, thereby providing a benefit to native 

fish downstream by reducing predators and competitors of native fish. This project will use 

mark-recapture methods to estimate downstream movement of rainbow trout from the Lees Ferry 

reach.

Primary project objectives are to:

Estimate age stratified downstream movement of rainbow trout from the Lees Ferry 

reach to Badger Rapid

Estimate age stratified capture probability of rainbow trout in the Lees Ferry reach and 

in the reach from the Paria River to Badger Rapid

Estimate age stratified abundance of rainbow trout in the Lees Ferry reach and in the 

reach from the Paria River to Badger Rapid 

If the hypothesized movement of rainbow trout out of the Lees Ferry reach, passing the 

mouth of the Paria River, is correct, this project will provide information about the age classes of 

fish that may be moving downstream. Understanding population movement characteristics is an 
84

important first step in being able to assess the potential for successful control of rainbow trout 

immediately below Lees Ferry, a potential alternative to removing rainbow trout from the Little 

Colorado River reach as has been conducted previously. Information from this project will be 

integrated with ongoing monitoring of rainbow trout upstream from Lees Ferry to assess any 

potential correlation between rainbow trout density in the Lees Ferry reach and potential 

emigration out of the reach. 

The most complete understanding of potential rainbow trout movement patterns is most 

likely achievable with multiple observations over multiple years. Based on downstream 

observations, Coggins (2008) predicted rainbow trout movement is seasonal, with most of the 

movement taking place in the fall and winter months. Additional sampling in additional years 

would be necessary to fully address the seasonal component of movement, as well as potential 

correlation with rainbow trout population sizes upstream. This project is proposed as an 

experimental research project to be conducted in FY 2011 and FY 2012 to increase knowledge of 

rainbow trout movement patterns, a necessary precursor to any attempts to act on rainbow trout 

movement, such as removal in the miles immediately below the mouth of the Paria River.

This project would be useful for immediately assessing potential effectiveness of rainbow 

trout capture and/or removal in the PBR reach, but fully determining the most effective times of 

the year to conduct the work will require sampling in different seasons in multiple years. Because 

rainbow trout density in the Lees Ferry reach is hypothesized to play a role in rainbow trout 

movement, it would be useful to conduct this study with various rainbow trout densities in the 

Lees Ferry reach. Density is relatively high in 2010 (Makinster and others, in review).

The risk posed to endangered humpback chub Gila cypha from predation by rainbow 

trout is an ongoing management and conservation concern (GCMRC, 2008). In part to address 

this risk, the 2008 Biological Opinion on the Operation of Glen Canyon Dam called for a 

resumption of mechanical removal in the vicinity of the Little Colorado River. However, several 

Native American tribes have advised that they find the large scale taking of life in Grand Canyon 

to be offensive. Additionally, mechanical removal of nonnative fish in the Little Colorado River 

reach is expensive. Because of the cultural concerns two mechanical removal trips scheduled for 

2010 in GCMRC‘s final FY2010 Work Plan were cancelled. To partially address the cultural 

concerns for taking of life in Grand Canyon, and also to potentially reduce costs, GCMRC is 

working with Arizona Game and Fish and other agencies to investigate alternative rainbow trout 

control methods.

The current fish community of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon is numerically 

dominated by rainbow trout and brown trout Salmo trutta (Gloss and Coggins, 2005; Makinster 

and others, in review). There is a growing body of scientific literature that hypothesizes and/or 

demonstrates the deleterious effects of rainbow trout and brown trout on native Colorado River 

fishes by means of direct predation (Valdez and Ryel, 1995; Marsh and Douglas, 1997; Mueller 

and Marsh, 2002; Yard and others, in review), exploitative and interference competition 

(Minckley, 1991; Valdez and Ryel, 1995; Marsh and Douglas, 1997; Petersen and Paukert, 2005), 

and habitat displacement (Robinson and others, 2003). Interactions with nonnative species have 

been implicated as a major cause in the decline of native species in the Colorado River (Tyus and 

Saunders, 2000; Mueller and Marsh, 2002). Recent and historical data have shown that trends in 

Grand Canyon native species abundance, particularly the endangered humpback chub Gila cypha, 

declined in the 1990s, then increased 2000 - 2008 (Coggins and Walters, 2009). This pattern is 

inversely proportional to (i.e., the opposite of) the trend in rainbow trout catch rates in the 
85

Colorado River below the Glen Canyon Dam (Makinster and others, in review), suggesting that 

large rainbow trout populations have a deleterious effect on humpback chub in Grand Canyon. 

The population size trends of the two species are consistent with the findings of Yard and others 

(in review) demonstrating that rainbow trout and brown trout eat humpback chub and other native 

fishes. 

Concern over the decline of humpback chub in Grand Canyon in the early 2000s caused 

the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program to investigate possible methods for 

increasing their population size. One of these methods was to use electrofishing to mechanically 

remove rainbow trout in the vicinity of the Little Colorado River, anticipating that this would 

reduce predation risk for humpback chub. This project ran for four years, 2003-2006 (Coggins, 

2008; Coggins and others, in review). In 2005, the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) 

entered into a cooperative agreement with the GCMRC to conduct the remaining field work, data 

analysis, and project reporting for this experiment. The 2003-2006 mechanical removal effort 

reduced the proportion of nonnative fish captured in the reach from 90% in 2003 to 50% in 2006. 

Rainbow trout were nearly 90% of the captures in this reach in 2003, but were less than 10% of 

the catch in 2006 (Coggins, 2008; Coggins and others, in review).

Monitoring of rainbow trout relative abundance in 2008 and 2009 throughout the 

Colorado River suggests the population has rebounded to levels observed prior to the initiation of 

the mechanical removal project in 2003. The majority of rainbow trout in Grand Canyon occur 

above Lees Ferry in the relatively cooler and clearer tailwaters below Glen Canyon Dam (Gloss 

and Coggins, 2005). The majority of humpback chub occur in and around the Little Colorado 

River with only limited movement upstream (Valdez and Maslich, 1999; Paukert and others, 

2006). The two species must come into contact for interactions (i.e., predation, competition) to be 

observed. Coggins (2008) observed changes in rainbow trout age class structures in different 

reaches, suggesting that most rainbow trout are spawned upstream of Lees Ferry. Coggins

reached this conclusion because the majority of rainbow trout that were observed in the Little 

Colorado River reach 2003 – 2006 were adults, but multiple age classes were captured above 

Lees Ferry. Based on Coggins‘ (2008) observations, rainbow trout must be leaving the Lees Ferry 

reach, at least in some years. This project seeks to better understand rainbow trout movement 

patterns. If scientists and managers can develop a more complete understanding of how rainbow 

trout move downstream from Lees Ferry, then additional control options may become available 

that could be employed to restrict interactions between rainbow trout and humpback chub. This 

project will mark and attempt to recapture fish in the upper river to assess movement and survival 

of rainbow trout. Because of the interest in understanding movement patterns, the work is 

proposed for the Colorado River between the mouth of the Paria River (just below Lees Ferry) 

and Badger Rapid.

Stakeholders in the GCDAMP have expressed the need for controlling rainbow trout 

farther upstream from the culturally sensitive Little Colorado River inflow reach. Many 

alternatives are being discussed, including dam operation approaches, disrupting rainbow trout 

redds (nests), capturing rainbow trout for live removal, and other options. Whether one of these 

options or another is eventually selected, this project, together with ongoing fish monitoring in 

the Lees Ferry reach (see goal 4) are fundamental to all approaches. This is because scientists and 

managers need a better understanding of how and why rainbow trout may move below the mouth 

of the Paria River.
86

This project will provide preliminary information that will be necessary to answer the following 

strategic science questions. 

SSQ 1-2. Does a decrease in the abundance of rainbow trout and other cold and warm water 

nonnatives in Marble and eastern Grand Canyons result in an improvement in the recruitment 

rate of juvenile humpback chub to the adult population?

SSQ 1-3. Do rainbow trout immigrate from Glen to Marble and eastern Grand Canyons, and, 

if so, during what life stages? To what extent do Glen Canyon immigrants support the 

population in Marble and eastern Grand Canyons?

SSQ 1-4. Can long-term decreases in abundance of rainbow trout in Marble and eastern 

Grand Canyons be sustained with a reduced level of effort of mechanical removal or will 

recolonization from tributaries and from downstream and upstream of the removal reach 

require that mechanical removal be an ongoing management action? This question also 

applies to future removal programs targeting other nonnative species.

The primary research information needs that are informed by the project are the following.

RIN 4.2.1 What is the rate of emigration of rainbow trout from the Les Ferry reach?

RIN 4.2.2 What is the most effective method to detect emigration of rainbow trout from 

the Lees Ferry reach?

RIN 4.2.3 How is the rate of emigration of rainbow trout from the Lees Ferry reach to 

below the Paria River affected by abundance, hydrology, temperature, and other 

ecosystem processes?

We will employ multiple passes using electrofishing to capture rainbow trout from the 

left and right shorelines of the river in the Lees Ferry reach and between the Paria River inflow 

(river mile [RM] 1) and Badger Rapid (RM 8). Sampling efforts needed to complete the project 

objectives will be similar to efforts used during mechanical removal sampling. However, this 

project will differ from mechanical removal efforts in that captured rainbow trout will be tagged 

with individually numbered tags rather than euthanized. No fish will be purposely killed or 

removed in this study.

This project is a pilot effort with two field trips in FY 2011 and FY 2012 in June and 

November. If the project proves effective at capturing rainbow trout additional efforts would be 

proposed for future fiscal years. Additional trips conducted during different seasons, river 

conditions, and rainbow trout population sizes will all provide more basis on which to draw 

conclusions about the hypothesized movement of rainbow trout out of the Lees Ferry reach. 

Therefore, subject to the anticipated success of the pilot effort, we recommend this effort to be 

applied over several years. A multi-year approach will maximize our ability to evaluate 

movement of rainbow trout from the Lees Ferry area, the majority of which may occur during 

winter. Future detection of tagged rainbow trout could occur during annual Arizona Game and 

Fish Department Lees Ferry and river-wide monitoring surveys as well as Near Shore Ecology 

project sampling. 
87

The PBR reach will be separated into two approximately 4-mile sub-reaches. Individual 

electrofishing stations approximately 500 m in length will be established on each side of the river 

within each sub-reach. We will complete a total of 3 electrofishing passes over the entire PBR 

reach in 6 nights of sampling and 3 passes over randomly selected subsections of the Lees Ferry 

reach in 3 nights of sampling. Sampling is proposed for November 2010, June and November 

2011, and June 2012; sampling in future years will be dependent on outcome of the first sampling 

efforts and input from the Adaptive Management Program. All data will be collected at night 

using four 16 ́ sport boats outfitted for electrofishing with a Coeffelt CPS unit, with one netter 

and one driver per boat. The boats will apply between 350 and 500 volts and 10 to 15 amps to 

spherical steel electrodes. Two additional 16‘ inflatable sport boats will be used in the PBR reach 

to handle and tag fish captured during electrofishing surveys.

We will record maximum total length (TL mm) of all fish captured. Brown trout greater 

than 149 mm TL will be implanted with passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags and receive an 

adipose fin clip following standard methods. We will investigate tagging rainbow trout less than 

149 mm using individually numbered Floy FD68B fingerling T-bar anchor tags. Rainbow trout 

and common carp greater than 149 mm TL will receive an individually numbered Floy tag and a 

right pelvic fin clip for rainbow trout or a dorsal spine clip for common carp. The fin clips will 

be used as a secondary mark to evaluate tag loss. Rainbow trout have also been marked with Floy 

tags since 2007 during standardized Lees Ferry electrofishing monitoring. Sampling between the 

Paria River and Badger Rapid may enable detection of downstream movement of those tagged 

fish from the Lees Ferry reach. We will record TL and fork length (FL) of all native fish captured 

and implant native fish greater than 149 mm TL, and humpback chub greater than 99 mm TL, 

with PIT tags if none were found on capture (Ward and Hangsleben, in review). All tag numbers 

will be recorded on hardcopy and PIT scanners will be downloaded to verify tag numbers.

Data analysis will include the following:

Estimate age stratified abundance using mark-recapture methods

Estimate age stratified capture probability using mark-recapture estimates in the LF and 

PBR reaches 

Estimate age stratified net immigration rate (fish/day) 

Estimate initial and secondary tag loss rates following the methods of Coggins (2008)

Explore association between turbidity and catchability – record daily NTU‘s (turbidity 

metric)

Estimate age stratified movement between the LF and PBR reaches and across 500 m 

sections within the PBR study reach among trips

The success of this project depends on our ability to mark and recapture a sufficient 

number of trout to draw meaningful conclusions related to capture probability, abundance, and 

immigration rates. For example, preliminary analyses of 2009 catch rate data suggest that we can 

mark approximately 2,860 rainbow trout in the study area on each trip. Assuming a capture 

probability of .25, we would extrapolate a population estimate of 11,440 trout in the study area. 

The probability of detecting a fish tagged in the study area varies with movement and survival 

rates, among other factors. If we assume a range of immigration or emigration, the probability of 
88

detecting a marked fish is relatively low (see Table, below). As more fish are marked in the Lees 

Ferry reach the probability of detecting movement from the Lees Ferry reach to the Paria/Badger 

reach will increase approximately 25%. 

Downstream 

Emigration rate 

scenarios

Single pass detection probability 

in PBR Reach 

Single pass detection probability in 

LCR Reach during mainstem 

monitoring

0.025 0.005 0.020

0.05 0.01 0.041

0.1 0.02 0.082

0.5 0.1 0.41

The work proposed in this project is closely linked with rainbow trout monitoring in the Lees 

Ferry reach because of the hypothesized linkage of rainbow trout movement to density of this 

species in the Lees Ferry reach. Because of the effect of rainbow trout on humpback chub there is 

a close linkage of this project to the status and trends of humpback chub.

Standard trip report within 30 days of completion of each trip with summary statistics and 

preliminary analysis

Draft annual report with full analysis by September 30, 2012

Data delivered in standard USGS annual report format

Final report in USGS Open File Report format by December 1, 2012
89

2010

Ongoing

Statistician, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

Associated projects within the Colorado River ecosystem

The primary goal of the GCMRC Biometrics position is to provide necessary and 

relevant statistical and modeling support in planning and analyzing science projects conducted or 

supported by GCMRC and the AMP. Additionally, the GCMRC biometrician will conduct 

focused research in areas such as model development and analytical techniques to further the 

science capability of the GCMRC.

GCMRC has identified the need for greater technical oversight and rigor with regard to 

study planning and analysis of some AMP sponsored projects. This need includes both projects 

conducted primarily by GCMRC staff and cooperating scientists. To meet this need GCMRC will 

employ a staff biometrician whose role will be to provide analysis and modeling support for AMP 

sponsored projects, particularly in the biological discipline. As needed, this support will focus 

primarily in assisting in the development and review of research and study plans as well as data 

analysis and modeling. Additionally, GCMRC recognizes the need to provide additional training 

opportunities in analytical techniques for GCMRC staff and cooperating scientists. The 

biometrician position will support this need by conducting workshops (4-5 days) on topics 

relevant to current statistical and modeling challenges faced by GCMRC staff and cooperating 

scientists. Recently identified topics include: basic probability models and likelihood based 

inference, occupancy rate estimation, capture-recapture models, hierarchical Bayes modeling, 

simulation techniques to inform study design, and ecosystem modeling using Ecopath/Ecosim 

models. This position will be the lead for updates of the Age-Structured Mark-Recapture model, 

and/or other models, to estimate the adult humpback chub population.

This project is a primary support project that provides study design and data analysis 

guidance to the projects, so provides secondary support to a number of SSQs. The role of the 

biometrician is to support GCMRC and cooperating scientists in developing greater certainty 

about their study designs and results, so it is anticipated that many SSQs will be addressed in this 

and future years. For example, the primary SSQs this project will support is:
90

SSQ 1-1: To what extent are adult populations of native fish controlled by production of 

young fish from tributaries, spawning and incubation in the main stem, survival of young-of-year 

and juvenile stages in the main stem, or by changes in growth and maturation in the adult 

population as influenced by main stem conditions?

SSQ 1-2. Does a decrease in the abundance of rainbow trout and other cold- and warm

water nonnatives in Marble and eastern Grand Canyons result in an improvement in the 

recruitment rate of juvenile HBC to the adult population?

This project is a primary support project that provides study design and data analysis 

guidance to the projects, so provides secondary support to a number of information needs. As an 

example of the RINs most directly addressed by this project, in FY2010 task 1 below will support 

modeling to investigate patterns in native and nonnative fish population abundance and 

distribution allowing for comparison with various environmental factors. Other RINs about fish 

responses to environmental conditions that can be partially addressed with this modeling effort 

include the following:

RIN 2.2.8. What combination of dam release patterns and nonnative fish control 

facilitates successful spawning and recruitment of humpback chub in the Colorado River 

ecosystem?

RIN 2.4.2. Determine if suppression of nonnative predators and competitors increases 

native fish populations.

Conduct ASMR population estimate of adult humpback chub (see BIO 2.R7.11)

Assist in the continued development of Ecopath/Ecosim models for key reaches of the 

Colorado River associated with project PLAN 12.P1.10. 

Assist GCMRC fisheries biologist, cooperating scientists, and the biology program 

manager in evaluating implications to the ability to detect changes in fisheries resources 

associated with recommended changes to the fisheries monitoring program by the 2009 Fisheries 

Monitoring Protocol Evaluation Panel.

Assist Arizona Game and Fish Department cooperating scientists in analyzing fisheries 

mechanical removal data from project BIO 2.R17.10. This effort may employ hierarchical Bayes 

depletion models.

Assist in study planning and analysis of PIT tag data collected from project BIO 

2.R13.10.

Assist with study design and analysis of fish capture-recapture data from the Nearshore 

Ecology Project (BIO 2.R15.10) to estimate fish abundance and occupancy rate among various 

habitat types.
91

Assist with analysis of terrestrial, aquatic food base, or other data from AMP sponsored 

projects as needed.

Conduct two or three approximately 5-day workshops on the following or related topics: 

basic probability models and likelihood-based inference, occupancy-rate estimation, capturerecapture models, hierarchical Bayes modeling, simulation techniques to inform study design, and 

ecosystem modeling using Ecopath/Ecosim models.

Assist in the continued development of Ecopath/Ecosim models for key reaches of the 

Colorado River associated with project PLAN 12.P1.11. 

Assist Arizona Game and Fish Department cooperating scientists in analyzing fisheries 

mechanical removal data from project BIO 2.R17.10. This effort may employ hierarchical Bayes 

depletion models.

Assist in study planning and analysis of PIT tag data collected from project BIO 

2.R13.10.

Assist with study design and analysis of fish capture-recapture data from the Nearshore 

Ecology Project (BIO 2.R15.11) to estimate fish abundance and occupancy rate among various 

habitat types.

Assist with analysis of terrestrial, food base, or other data from AMP sponsored projects 

as needed.

Conduct two or three approximately 5 day workshops on the following or related topics: 

basic probability models and likelihood-based inference, occupancy-rate estimation, capturerecapture models, hierarchical Bayes modeling, simulation techniques to inform study design, and 

ecosystem modeling using Ecopath/Ecosim models.

This project is primarily a support project to the projects listed above.

There are no logistical needs for this project.

This project will contribute to and co-author, as appropriate, reports and manuscripts 

associated with the tasks above and other projects associated with Goals 1, 2, 4, and others as 

needed.
92

2010

Ongoing

A.S. Makinster, Arizona Game and Fish Department, K.D. Hilwig, U.S. Geological 

Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

Colorado River from Glen Canyon Dam (GCD) to Lees Ferry

The goals of this project are as follows:

Monitor the rainbow trout recreational fishery between Glen Canyon Dam and the Paria 

River

Monitor rainbow trout redds and early life stages to support assessment of experimental 

flow releases from Glen Canyon Dam

Monitor for presence or absence of other nonnative fish in this reach

Operation of Glen Canyon Dam affects the ecology of rainbow trout and the aquatic food 

base in the Lees Ferry reach (McKinney and others, 1999, 2001). The Lees Ferry recreational 

fishery was recognized as a resource of concern in the Operation of Glen Canyon Dam Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), 1995), which 

concluded: ―Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP) goals for the trout 

fishery are to provide a recreational resource while maintaining and conserving native fish in 

Grand Canyon‖. Components of this project provide monitoring information, such as relative 
93

abundance, recruitment, survival, growth and condition, to evaluate the influence of GCD 

operations, including experimental flows, on the Lees Ferry rainbow trout.

The recreational fishery and early life stage monitoring components of this project were

reviewed by the 2009 PEP for Grand Canyon Fishes. The panel recommended that it was not cost 

effective or necessary to conduct multiple recreational fishery monitoring trips each year. Rather, 

the panel recommended a single electrofishing trip at randomized sites each year to physically 

observe the adult population and perhaps to tag fish, if tagging was desired for more data 

collection. The panel also did not recommend maintaining the monitoring of early life stages of 

rainbow trout that has been conducted for 5 of the last 7 years. Analysis of long-term data sets for 

these two components will be completed in FY2010 to determine impacts of the recommended 

reduction in effort on the ability to monitor management objectives. In the interim, these 

monitoring techniques may be useful for studying the response of the rainbow trout to 

experimental dam releases. 

The 2009 PEP for Grand Canyon Fishes also recognized the importance of sampling 

other fish in the Lees Ferry reach. Lees Ferry is an area where nonnative species introductions 

likely occur as a result of illegal stocking, movement from Lake Powell through Glen Canyon 

Dam and from the Paria River. The introduction of fish species into Lees Ferry is a concern 

because nonnative species that are introduced or become established in this reach can then 

disperse throughout the river system below Glen Canyon Dam. The panel suggested that at least 

one surveillance trip be conducted annually to focus on known or suspected warm water 

nonnative fish concentrations. Information from tagging warm water species, such as growth and 

movement, will help inform fish management decisions. 

The Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD) has managed the Lees Ferry 

recreational fishery since 1964. Lees Ferry serves as a popular destination fishery for 

international, national, and local anglers. As such, it provides significant contributions to the 

Marble Canyon business community. The fishery is regulated by biotic and abiotic mechanisms 

that may in turn be affected by the operations of GCD. The monitoring of basic fish population 

elements, including relative abundance, distribution and recruitment of native and nonnative fish,

provides the information necessary to assess the status of these resources and to inform the 

GCDAMP.

Nonnative fish are among the greatest threats to native fishes in western North American 

rivers (Miller, 1961; Minckley and Deacon, 1991; Tyus and Saunders, 2000; Coggins, 2008). 

Nonnative fish may threaten native fish by direct predation, by competing for available food and 

other resources, and by habitat modification (Minckley, 1991; Hawkins and Nesler, 1991). 

Nonnative fish were introduced into Grand Canyon not later than early in the 20th century 

(Woodbury, 1959; Valdez and Ryel, 1995). While native fish survived these initial introductions 

at least long enough to be described by early researchers, other system stressors, especially the 

modification of natural flows as a result of dam installation, appear to have increased the threats 
94

to native fish from nonnative fish (Minckley, 1991; Clarkson and Childs, 2000). Surveillance of 

suspected or known concentrations of warm water nonnative fish in Lees Ferry will help identify 

nonnative fish issues of management concern and tagging efforts may provide information on

movement of nonnative fish captured in Lees Ferry into downstream reaches.

Primary SSQ addressed:

SSQ 3-6. What GCD operations (ramping rates, daily flow range, etc.) maximize trout fishing 

opportunities and catchability?

This project also seeks to inform the following SSQs:

SSQ 1-3. Do rainbow trout immigrate from Glen to Marble and eastern Grand Canyons, and, 

if so, during what life stages? To what extent do Glen Canyon immigrants support the 

population in Marble and eastern Grand Canyon?

SSQ 5-6. Do the potential benefits of improved rearing habitat (warmer, more stable, 

more backwater and vegetated shorelines, more food) outweigh negative impacts due to increases 

in nonnative fish abundance?

Information needs are the basis for developing and implementing the long-term strategic 

and annual monitoring and research programs. Identified below are the current information needs 

pertinent to the monitoring plan for the Lees Ferry Glen Canyon trout fishery.

Rainbow trout information needs addressed: 

CMIN 4.1.1. Determine annual population estimates for age 2+ rainbow trout in the Lees 

Ferry reach

CMIN 4.1.2. Determine annual proportional stock density of rainbow trout in the Lees 

Ferry reach.

CMIN 4.1.4. Determine annual growth rate, standard condition (Kn), and relative weight 

of rainbow trout in the Lees Ferry reach.

RIN 4.1.1. What is the target proportional stock density (that is, tradeoff between 

numbers and size) for rainbow trout in the Lees Ferry reach?

Other nonnative fish information needs addressed: 

CMIN 2.4.1. Determine and track the abundance and distribution of nonnative predatory 

fish species in the Colorado River.

RIN 2.4.1. What are the most effective strategies and control methods to limit nonnative 

fish predation and competition on native fish?
95

Starting in FY2010, adult rainbow trout monitoring was reduced from 3-4 times per year 

to twice a year using standardized random electrofishing samples. This is consistent with the 

2009 PEP recommendations. Information from these samples is used to estimate biological 

parameters and to assess the status and trends of the fishery. The sampling design, methods, and 

analyses provide sufficient information on the relative abundance, size composition, and 

condition of the fish community in the Lees Ferry to detect population trends and to precisely 

estimate status of the rainbow trout population (Urquhart and others, 1998). Fish specimens are 

also collected annually for whirling disease examination. Work is currently underway to assess 

the statistical power of intra- and inter-annual comparisons. Data from this project are also used 

in a Lees Ferry rainbow trout stock-assessment model which will be updated and revised as 

needed.

The 2009 PEP stated that assessing abundance using catch-rate indices is a suitable 

surrogate for indexing abundance if catchability is proportional to population density. Project 

BIO 2.E18.11-12 will help determine if catchability is proportional to population density. If 

managers require an actual annual population estimate, rather than the catch-rate index currently 

used, modification of the project will be necessary.

In FY2011–12, the AZGFD will conduct four rainbow trout early life history trips 

annually and work cooperatively with Ecometric Research, Inc. to transfer the age-0 and redd 

survey techniques and data analysis for this project from the contractor to the agency. AZGFD 

will be completely responsible for the conduct of any early life stage monitoring that may be 

necessary in FY2012 and beyond. Surveys of rainbow trout redd and early life stages of rainbow 

trout in the Lees Ferry reach have been conducted for the last 7 years by Ecometric Research, Inc. 

These studies have been useful in evaluating dam operations on rainbow trout recruitment and 

this work will be maintained for FY2011–12 to evaluate the effect of fall steady flows on rainbow 

trout. Flow treatments to manage rainbow trout recruitment in Lees Ferry could be effectively 

evaluated through this project and include fluctuating flows targeting young-of-year rainbow 

trout and stranding flows (Gloss and Coggins, 2005). 

Consistent with the recommendations of the 2009 PEP for Grand Canyon Fishes, this 

project will conduct annual surveillance trips in Lees Ferry at warm water nonnative fish 

concentrations. Sampling locations will include areas such as the warm slough (RM -12) and 

warm spring inputs. Common carp captured during this effort will be tagged and other warm

water nonnative fish will be harvested for otolith analysis to evaluate age and growth and 

possibly origin if microchemistry tools are available (see BIO 2.R15.11-12, Near Shore Ecology). 

Surveys will be combined with other field efforts to reduce logistics costs. Tagging information 

from this survey may provide information on movement of nonnative fish captured in Lees Ferry 

into downstream reaches. 

This project links to Monitoring Mainstem Fish (BIO 2.M4.11-12), Near Shore Ecology 

(BIO 2.R15.11-12), Mainstem Nonnative Fish Control (BIO 2.R16.11-12, if conducted) and 

Detection of rainbow trout movement from the upper reaches of the Colorado River below Glen 
96

Canyon Dam (BIO 2.E18.11-12) projects. Understanding factors affecting rainbow trout and 

warm water nonnative fish populations is important for evaluating the risk that these species may 

pose to young humpback chub in the Little Colorado River reach. With the recent increase in 

catch rates of age-1 rainbow trout, monitoring the status and trends of rainbow trout in Lees Ferry 

and the mainstem Colorado River will be important to evaluate movement of rainbow trout into

downstream reaches.

This project will include annual trips as follows:

Two annual standardized random electrofishing surveys

Four annual early life history trips (may extend below Paria River)

One annual nonnative surveillance trip (may extend below Paria River)

All trips are motor supported, launching from, and returning to, Lees Ferry just upstream 

of the mouth of the Paria River.

The AZGFD will deliver one annual report on the results of their Lees Ferry monitoring

(rainbow trout fishery and early life history data) to the GCMRC

A Lees Ferry Monitoring annual report will be prepared by AZGFD and Ecometric in 

cooperation with the GCMRC in USGS Open File Report following USGS Fundamental Science 

Practices

GCMRC will develop an annual report summarizing warm water nonnative fish 

surveillance trip findings
97

April 2007

September 2012

J.A. Sorensen, Arizona Game and Fish Department

Vaseys Paradise, located 31.5 river miles (RM) downstream of Lees Ferry

This project is proposed for FY2011–12. The goals of this project are to determine the 

extent and kind of vegetation that exists as habitat for the Kanab ambersnail (KAS) and to track 

the abundance and distribution of KAS at Vaseys Paradise. 

Knowing the extent of habitat is needed in the event of a high flow experiment to develop 

a biological opinion and to determine snail densities. Changes in snail numbers can be associated 

with changes in vegetation. Vegetation monitoring at Vaseys Paradise indirectly monitors the 

snails by assuming that if the preferred habitat is present, snails are present. Total habitat can be 

measured using remote methods, but the composition of the habitat may still require on-theground sampling. Sampling at Vaseys Paradise can also provide data for Glen Canyon Dam 

Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP) goal 6, which refers to the protection and 

improvement of riparian and spring communities.

The KAS is a federally listed endangered species; however, the legal status is under 

review by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Conducting this project in FY2011 and 

FY2012 permits consistent surveying during the review period. If it is determined that the KAS 

no longer merits an endangered species listing, the GCDAMP will need to consider the extent of 

its support for monitoring this taxon. 

There are no directly related SSQs associated with the goal of maintaining or attaining 

viable KAS populations. 
98

Primary information needs addressed:

CMIN 5.1.1. Determine and track the abundance and distribution of Kanab ambersnail at 

Vaseys Paradise in the lower zone (below 100,000 cfs) and the upper zone (above 100,000 

cfs).

CMIN 5.2.1. Determine and track the size and composition of habitat used by Kanab 

ambersnail at Vaseys Paradise. 

Determine percent cover, diversity, and distribution of vegetation that constitutes KAS 

habitat. Random samples of habitat document percent cover, plant height of dominant plants, and 

soil moisture. Quantify total habitat and plots using conventional survey methods. The Grand 

Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC) survey department calculates habitat area.

Data are analyzed using univariate and multivariate approaches. This project will:

Monitor relocated vegetation associated with high-flow experimental conservation 

measures

Sample vegetation plots at Vaseys Paradise to determine patch composition and areal 

extent (fall of each year) and sample for the presence of KAS in plots

Enter data and conduct quality control on data entry, providing the data to the GCMRC 

for vegetation analysis

Compare previous vegetation composition to previous vegetation/habitat surveys to 

assess habitat

Provide abundance estimates of snails 

Write reports for the GCMRC during the winter of each year

Riparian vegetation, including vegetation at springs, is a critical interface between 

aquatic and terrestrial environments around the world. There are multiple components that 

riparian and spring communities either contribute to or influence (for example, food base and 

available habitat). In the Colorado River ecosystem, the spring vegetation itself serves as a host 

for invertebrates like KAS, provides breeding and foraging habitat for small mammals and birds, 

provides cover in the heat of the day, and provides spring water that may be used for ceremonial 

purposes. Changes in the composition or structure of riparian spring communities, such as the 

expansion of an exotic species, may alter these interactions. Riparian and spring vegetation 

regulates nutrient exchange between the land and water, and leaf litter is a terrestrial carbon 

source that may influence in-stream invertebrate production. The relative importance of terrestrial 

carbon in the aquatic food web is being addressed in part through the Aquatic Food Base Project 

(BIO 1.M1.11-12). Studies that focus on terrestrial productivity and processes further define this 

linkage.
99

The survey work described for this project requires two scientists to have a full day at 

Vaseys Paradise in the fall. This work is conducted in conjunction with fall fish monitoring effort 

(BIO 2.M4.11-12) led by the GCMRC.

The AZGFD will produce an annual report for KAS habitat and density estimates by 

Arizona Game by December 15 of each year.

High Flow Experiment Compliance Needs

In the event of a high-flow experiment, the Arizona Game and Fish Department can 

conduct necessary onsite monitoring and compliance at Vaseys Paradise (VP), Grand Canyon, to 

meet legal and regulatory requirements for the endangered Kanab ambersnail—in coordination 

with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and/or National Park 

Service. Compliance and mitigation efforts will follow stipulations outlined in the most recent 

Biological Opinion regarding the operation of Glen Canyon Dam and its effects on the Kanab 

ambersnail population and habitat at VP. The methods repeat those used from the November 

2004 high flow habitat mitigation effort for VP KAS habitat (referenced in the December 6, 2002 

Biological Opinion, which proposes the temporary removal and replacement of 25%−40% of 

ambersnail habitat). Additional costs would be approximately $16,400

Logistics is coordinated with gaging work that takes place at 30 mile during the 

experiment.
100

October 2009

Ongoing

B.E. Ralston, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center,

and other cooperators, to be determined 

The geographic extent is the riparian zone, including the old high-water zone (OHWZ; 

>97,000 cubic feet per second (cfs)), in the Colorado River corridor from Glen Canyon Dam to 

Lake Mead.

Quantifying the extent of total riparian vegetation along the corridor and among 

hydrologic and geomorphic features (for example, debris fans, and old high water zones), 

including change detection

Separating effects of Glen Canyon Dam (GCD) operations on vegetation cover, richness, 

and diversity from local climate effects or other non-dam related agents (for example, tamarisk 

leaf beetle defoliation). 

Analyzing remotely sensed data (collected every 4-years) and mapping vegetated area for 

the corridor achieves the first goal. Biennial sampling of vegetation across stage elevations and 

among geomorphic features throughout the corridor achieves the second goal. Mapping and 

transect sampling evaluate vegetation change at both the landscape scale and the community scale 

over time and distinguishes between operational effects and other factors affecting vegetation 

change. The protection or improvement of riparian and spring communities is the objective of 

goal 6. Dam operations, over time, result in an ebb and flow of vegetation expansion, with 

vegetated area generally increasing (Turner and Karpiscak, 1980; Waring, 1995; Ralston and 

others, 2008). The increase in vegetation contributes to above ground primary productivity, 

arthropod densities, and associated food resources for terrestrial and aquatic vertebrates. Riparian 
101

and spring environments provide habitat for the endangered species Southwestern willow 

flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) and support other species of interest (for example, 

warblers, peregrine falcons, lizards, and snakes). Vegetation expansion affects recreational 

resources by encroachment into camping area. Some of the vegetation is also culturally 

important. Because riparian vegetation is linked to multiple resources, knowing how vegetation is 

changing through monitoring (for example, which species are expanding or declining and where) 

is an important source of data when monitoring the effect of dam operations.

Addressing the Adaptive Management Work Group (AMWG) information needs 

associated with riparian vegetation requires system wide assessment of vegetation change at the 

broad scale (for example, vegetation mapping) and at the local scale (stage-elevation transect 

sampling). Accounting for vegetated area in the river corridor is a basic need of the program. It is 

equally important to note the number and types of plants that make up the vegetated area and 

identify changes in these variables over time. Riparian systems are highly susceptible to exotic 

species introductions (Nilsson and Jansson, 1995). A most recent introduction to the riparian 

system is the tamarisk leaf beetle (Diorhabda elongata). The leaf beetle, a biocontrol agent for 

tamarisk, eats tamarisk leaves and reduces the trees’ ability to photosynthesize. Tamarisk 

cover provides habitat for nesting birds and some food resources. A reduction in tamarisk 

cover may affect both nesting birds and food quality. Because riparian vegetation contributes to 

aquatic productivity (Naiman and others, 2005) and serves as a host to terrestrial invertebrates 

and higher order vertebrates (for example, lizards and birds), assessing the quality of these plants 

can help explain changes observed in higher order vertebrate abundances, including fish species 

(Nakano and Murakami, 2001). 

Stage-elevation based transects can assess how operations inhibit or encourage invasive 

species colonization and expansion. Changes in invasive, herbaceous plants cannot be determined 

through remote-sensing techniques because the scale is too small for image resolution. 

Monitoring changes in the composition of vegetation requires on-the-ground sampling. Remotely 

sensed data can assess changes in overstory woody species, including tamarisk cover, that change 

more slowly. The two projects are complementary because they provide information about 

changes in riparian habitat at different ecological scales that affect riparian community 

constituents like invertebrate biomass and riparian bird abundances.

Primary SSQs addressed:

SSQ 2-1. Do dam-controlled flows affect (increase or decrease) rates of erosion and 

vegetation growth at archaeological sites and TCP sites, and if so, how?

SSQ 4-2. How important are backwaters and vegetated shoreline habitats to the overall 

growth and survival of YoY and juvenile native fish? Does the long-term benefit of increasing 

these habitats outweigh short-term potential costs (displacement and possible mortality of young 

humpback chub) associated with high flows?

SSQ 5-7. How do warmer releases affect viability and productivity of native/nonnative 

vegetation?

The primary information needs addressed by these projects are CMINs 6.1.1., 6.2.1, 

6.5.1, and 6.6.1, which are summarized as the following:
102

Determine and track the abundance, composition, distribution, and area of terrestrial 

native and nonnative vegetation species in the CRE

Determine parameters and metrics to be measured, and the information needs that address 

each element

Determine how the abundance, composition, and distribution of the OHWZ, NHWZ, and 

sand beach community have changed since dam closure (1963), high flows (1984), 

interim flows (1991), and the implementation of ROD operations (RIN 6.2.1, 6.3.1, 6.4.1, 

6.5.1, 6.5.2, 6.5.3)

These information needs will be addressed through the following actions:

Quadrennial color infrared digital imagery mapping that quantifies (1) area change of 

dominant overstory species, (2) community composition and possibly changes in 

understory community composition through ground truthing associated with mapping, 

and (3) coarse primary productivity estimates for riparian vegetation.

Vegetation transects conducted at an appropriate frequency correlated with river stage 

elevations zones to quantify cover, richness, and diversity, and community composition 

at each zone. This work is most informative for herbaceous annuals and perennials, 

including invasive species. This component may incorporate marsh-monitoring needs of 

Tribes.

Vegetation community identification in the field will be conducted using the 50 m2 plot 

data obtained from the vegetation transect monitoring. In these plots, the presence and cover 

values of the species are recorded. Cover values are a categorical scale similar to Daubenmire 

scale (<1% cover; 1-5% cover; 5-25% cover; 25-50% cover; 50-75% cover; 75-95% cover; >95% 

cover). Plant height of the dominant species is also recorded. Transect samples are stratified 

within geomorphic reach, and include geomorphic features (for example, debris fans, sandbars, 

and channel margins). These data are analyzed using nonmetric multidimensional scaling 

(McCune and Grace, 2002), per the 2007 PEP recommendations (Cooper and others, 2008) to 

identify the dominant communities along the river corridor. Classification follows the National 

Vegetation Classification System. Field efforts include initial vegetation sampling to identify 

vegetation classes that is coincident with the quadrennial overflight. Subsequent accuracy

assessment occurs the year following data acquisition and analysis and is coincident with 

vegetation transect sampling.

Vegetation classification will use supervised classification routines that are available in 

an image-processing software package ENVI (ITT, 2005). Training areas will use previously 

ground-truthed areas. Previous class categories include tamarisk, seepwillow/coyote willow, 

marsh/wetlands, mesquite/acacia, arrowweed, and bare ground (Ralston and others, 2008). User 

and producer accuracies will be determined and class aggregation may be required to meet 

national vegetation-mapping standards. The 2009 overflight data and subsequent overflight data 

will be compared with previously mapped imagery (for example, 2005 and 2002) for vegetation 

area change-detection purposes.

Quantification of changes in riparian communities will use a Geographic Information 

Systems (GIS) platform (ArcMap; Environmental Systems Research Institute, 2002).
103

The following tasks are designed to reach the goal for vegetation mapping in FY2011 and 

FY2012:

FY2011 Determine the capabilities of the 2009 imagery for vegetation classification 

(FY2011)

FY2011 Identify community types from 2009 field samples (FY2011)

FY2011 Use 2002 and 2005 vegetation data to compare total vegetation change 

(FY2011)

FY2011 Develop draft report of community change and accuracy assessment based on 

May 2009 ground-truth data (FY2011)

FY2012 Compare revised vegetation map to 2002 vegetation map (Ralston and others, 

2008) to determine area change for vegetation classes. Write draft report 

A biennial, canyon-wide, stratified sampling approach tied to hydrologic zones and 

geomorphic features will be used for the vegetation transect work, following the PEP

recommendations (Cooper and others, 2008). Plots will be approximately 50 m2 in size to ensure 

comprehensive sampling of species found within a hydrologic zone. Zones encompass a range of 

stage elevations: 8–20k cfs, 20–31k cfs, 31–45k cfs, and >45k cfs. The first two zones are 

generally affected by annual dam operations and the last two zones are affected by local climate 

factors or an HFE experiment (Kearsley and Ayers, 1999; Ralston, 2010). Geomorphic features 

sampled include debris fans, sandbar eddies, and channel margins. Each of these features can 

consist of somewhat different riparian species assemblages (Stevens and Ayers, 1995).

At each sampling plot and within each hydrologic zone a list of species encountered and 

cover value is given using a categorical scale of cover. These data are included in the univariate 

measures (cover, richness, diversity) and in developing community descriptions for vegetation 

mapping purposes.

The biennial sampling schedule coincides with vegetation mapping overflights and accuracy 

assessments that occur on a biennial basis. In the event of a HFE, transects will be conducted 

around the event to supplement monitoring as per the PEP recommendations (Cooper and others, 

2008). 

In the event that a high flow experiment occurs in a year that is not coincident with 

biennial sampling, an additional trip in September will be required to asses vegetation change 

following the HFE event, assuming the HFE occurs in the spring and the hydrograph is similar to 

previous hydrographs. For example, vegetation transect sampling is anticipated to occur in 

September 2011 and an HFE occurring in spring 2011 would not require an additional trip. An 

HFE occurring in 2012 would require a trip in September 2012 that is not currently scheduled. 

The cost of the additional trip would be the cost of a 4-boat row trip (30,000) and a field crew 

($17,000), beyond the salary costs of Ralston.
104

Riparian vegetation is a critical interface between aquatic and terrestrial environments 

around the world. In the CRE, the vegetation itself serves as a host for invertebrates, provides 

breeding and foraging habitat for birds, provides cover in the heat of the day, and may be 

harvested for cultural purposes. Changes in the composition or structure of riparian vegetation, 

such as the expansion of an exotic species, may alter these interactions. Riparian vegetation 

regulates nutrient exchange between the land and water, and leaf litter is a terrestrial carbon 

source that may influence in-stream invertebrate production. The relative importance of terrestrial 

carbon in the aquatic food web is being addressed in part through the food base initiative. The 

linkage could be further defined through studies that focus on terrestrial productivity and 

processes. Changes in abundance or kind of riparian carbon sources may influence aquatic 

productivity processes. 

Logistics for Vegetation Transect sampling require a 4-boat oar trip or a single snout and 

sport boat trip in September 2011. These projects will produce the following and will be reported 

on at the annual reporting meeting:

FY2011 Status report of vegetation mapping and transect sampling 

FY2011 Species list by hydrologic zone of plant encountered in sampling conducted in 

May 2009

FY2012 USGS draft report on vegetation change from 2002 to 2009 

FY2012 update the vegetation base layer for GIS

FY2012 A core-monitoring report for vegetation transect monitoring 
105

1991

Ongoing 

William S. Vernieu, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research 

Center

Lake Powell and its major tributary arms, inflow tributaries entering Lake Powell, and 

the tailwater from Glen Canyon Dam to Lees Ferry

This project seeks to

maintain a water-quality monitoring program for Lake Powell to predict and track 

processes in the reservoir that may influence Glen Canyon Dam (GCD) release water 

quality;

maintain water-quality monitoring in tailwater to directly evaluate the quality of GCD 

releases, the effects of GCD operations, and suitability for downstream aquatic resources;

contribute to ongoing modeling efforts by the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation),

currently the CE-QUAL-W2 model, to predict future changes in the water quality of Lake 

Powell and GCD releases by simulating the effects of various proposed and hypothetical 

climate, experimental, and operational scenarios; and guide future monitoring program 

revisions;

compile and publish biological information from the long-term database of Lake Powell

water-quality information and provide further interpretation, synthesis, and analysis of 

this and previously published chemical and physical data;

implement a revised monitoring program in conjunction with development of the CEQUAL-W2 model and historical data analysis; and 

conduct a protocol evaluation panel (PEP) review of the monitoring program to ensure 

scientific credibility and adequate linkages with other downstream resources.
106

Processes within Lake Powell, climate changes in the upper Colorado River Basin, the 

structure of GCD, and various aspects of dam operations affect the quality of water released from 

GCD to the Colorado River in Grand Canyon. Temperature, dissolved oxygen concentrations, 

nutrient concentrations, biological composition, and other characteristics of GCD releases can 

have a profound effect on the aquatic ecosystem below the dam.

Since 1999, inflow to Lake Powell has been below average in every year except water 

years (WY) 2005 and 2008. The 5-year period of below-normal inflows in the upper Colorado 

River Basin from 2000 to 2004 resulted in a drawdown of Lake Powell by more than 140 ft, 

decreasing total capacity of the reservoir to 38 percent. The increasing influence of Lake Powell 

surface layers on GCD releases caused warmer release temperatures, decreased release nutrient 

concentrations, and increased the export of aquatic biota from Lake Powell. The lower level of 

warm surface layers in relation to withdrawal levels at the penstock resulted in above normal late

summer release temperatures from WY2003 to WY2007. Release temperatures of 16 C were 

recorded in October 2005, representing the warmest releases since 1971. Resuspension of 

exposed deltaic sediments from reservoir drawdown by WY2005 inflow currents resulted in a 

plume of hypoxic water that appeared at GCD and began to be incorporated in dam releases in 

July 2005. As a result, dam releases contained the lowest concentrations of dissolved oxygen on 

record, only 3.3 milligrams per liter in October 2005. Changes to individual turbine operations at 

GCD in September and October 2005 were shown to have a significant impact on the reaeration

of hypoxic releases.

Differential routing of winter inflow currents can cause longer term changes to the water 

quality of Lake Powell and eventual dam releases. For the period WY2000–07, with the 

exception of WY2006, winter underflow density currents moved along the bottom of the reservoir 

and refreshed oxygen concentrations in the deepest layers of Lake Powell, displacing older 

hypolimnetic water upward to be entrained in penstock releases. In contrast, from WY1994 to 

WY1999 and during other periods in Lake Powell‘s history, winter density currents moved 

through the reservoir in intermediate layers as an interflow, which caused stagnation and a 

reduction of dissolved oxygen concentrations in the deepest hypolimnetic water of the reservoir. 

This interflow pattern again appeared in WY2006. Exceptionally cold winter inflows caused an 

underflow in January 2007, increasing hypolimnetic density and increasing the likelihood of 

future interflow conditions, which may cause reductions in hypolimnetic dissolved oxygen in 

future years. A weak underflow current was observed in early WY2008, but was absent in 

WY2009.

Since 2007, the western United States has experienced a rapid invasion of the nonnative 

quagga (Dreissena rostriformis bugensis) and zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) and has been 

found in several Colorado River reservoirs above and below Lake Powell. These mussels have 

the potential to drastically alter reservoir and lake ecosystems and as yet, have not been 

documented in Lake Powell. Zooplankton and phytoplankton sampling at Lake Powell has been 

conducted since 1990. The analyses from these samples forms a rich database from which to 

establish a pre-invasion baseline at Lake Powell and evaluate changes to the ecosystem if these 

mussels become established at Lake Powell.

The Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC) works in cooperation

with Reclamation on the development of the CE-QUAL-W2 model by providing monitoring data 

to be used for model calibration and verification. This monitoring data consists of information 

describing the quality of water in GCD releases, Lake Powell, and tributary inflows into Lake 
107

Powell. In addition, the GCMRC provides comments on the direction of model development so 

that a product can be developed that meets the needs of both Reclamation and the Glen Canyon 

Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP). A functional model is expected to provide 

reliable simulations of hydrodynamic processes and water-quality conditions in the reservoir, 

including validation with historical observations. It is also expected to provide reasonable 

predictions of these processes and conditions under various projected and hypothetical 

operational and climatological scenarios. Comparison of these predictions with monitoring 

observations may help to verify or refute the sensitivity of the model to various input factors. 

Beyond simulations of historical and future conditions, many questions may be posed that could 

be addressed by a well-constructed and calibrated model. It is likely that GCMRC, Reclamation, 

and other parties will have different priorities and research interests for questions to be addressed 

by the model. A functional, calibrated model with a common set of input files would provide a 

common basis from which the research needs of these various entities could be met.

As model development progresses, many components of the water-quality monitoring 

program and Lake Powell data synthesis can be facilitated with results from the model, such as 

identifying parameters for which the model is more or less sensitive and restructuring monitoring 

efforts appropriately. Results can be used to identify the need for more detailed inflow waterquality monitoring, establish and maintain additional meteorological stations at the reservoir, and 

modify sampling methods and frequency for biological parameters such as chlorophyll and 

plankton, in order to refine the model's ability to simulate productivity processes in the reservoir.

While the 2005 knowledge assessment workshop specified many SSQs addressing the 

effects of water quality on various resources (sediment, food base, fisheries, recreation), no SSQs 

were proposed that dealt directly with tracking and predicting changes in water quality in Lake 

Powell or GCD releases. The following questions are the SSQs most closely related to the effects 

of water quality on key resources:

AMWG Priority 3: What is the best flow regime?

SSQ 3-5. How is invertebrate flux affected by water quality (for example, temperature, 

nutrient concentrations, turbidity) and dam operations?

AMWG Priority 5: What will happen when we test or implement the temperature 

control device (TCD)? How should it be operated? Are safeguards needed for management?

SSQ 5-1. How do dam release temperatures, flows (average and fluctuating component), 

meteorology, canyon orientation and geometry, and reach morphology interact to determine 

mainstem and nearshore water temperatures throughout the CRE? 

SSQ 5-3. To what extent do temperature and fluctuations in flow limit spawning and 

incubation success for native fish? 

The following information needs (including synthesis information needs (SINs)) (as 

updated June 23, 2003) relate directly to water-quality monitoring in Lake Powell and the GCD 

tailwater.
108

CMIN 7.1.1. Determine the water temperature dynamics in the mainstem, tributaries (as 

appropriate, temperature only in mainstem and LCR), backwaters, and near-shore areas 

throughout the Colorado River ecosystem.

CMIN 7.2.1. Determine the seasonal and yearly trends in turbidity, water temperature, 

conductivity, DO, and pH changes in the main channel throughout the Colorado River 

ecosystem.

SIN 7.2.1. How do the hydrodynamics and stratification of Lake Powell influence the food 

base or fisheries downstream?

SIN 7.2.2. Which water-quality variables influence food base and fisheries in the Colorado 

River ecosystem?

RIN 7.3.1. Develop simulation models for Lake Powell and the Colorado River to predict 

water-quality conditions under various operating scenarios, supplant monitoring efforts and 

elucidate understanding of the effects of dam operations, climate, and basin hydrology on 

Colorado River water quality.

7.3.1.a. Determine status and trends of chemical and biological components of water 

quality in Lake Powell as a function of regional hydrologic conditions and their relation 

to downstream releases.

7.3.1.b. Determine stratification, convective mixing patterns, and behavior of advective 

currents in Lake Powell and their relation to GCD operations to predict seasonal patterns 

and trends in downstream releases.

RIN 7.3.3. How do dam operations affect reservoir limnology?

SIN 7.3.1. Measure appropriate water-quality parameters to determine the influence of these 

parameters on biological resources in the Colorado River ecosystem.

EIN 7.3.1. How does the water quality of releases from GCD change in response to an 

experiment performed under the ROD, unanticipated event, or other management action?

Other information needs (as updated June 23, 2003) require supporting information from 

water-quality monitoring in Lake Powell and the GCD tailwater:

RIN 7.1.1. What are the desired ranges of spatial and temporal patterns of water temperatures 

for the CRE?

RIN 7.1.2. What are the most likely downstream temperature responses to a variety of 

scenarios involving a TCD on GCD?

RIN 7.1.3. What are the potential ecological effects of increasing mainstem water 

temperature?

RIN 7.2.1. Which major ions should be measured? Where and how often?

RIN 7.2.2. Which nutrients should be measured? Where and how often?

RIN 7.2.3. Which metals should be measured? Where and how often?
109

Lake Powell monitoring is conducted monthly in the GCD forebay and quarterly at 25–

30 sites throughout the reservoir. Profiles of physical parameters (temperature, specific 

conductance, pH, dissolved oxygen, and turbidity) are collected through the water column at each 

site in the reservoir. Chemical (major ions and nutrients) and biological samples (chlorophyll and 

plankton) are collected at selected sites to characterize major strata and advective currents in the 

reservoir.

GCD tailwater monitoring consists of continuous monitoring (temperature, specific 

conductance, pH, dissolved oxygen, turbidity) with monthly chemical and biological sample 

collection. Lake Powell monitoring parameters include temperature, conductance, pH, dissolved 

oxygen, and turbidity. Chemical analyses include determination of major ionic constituents and 

nutrient compounds of phosphorus and nitrogen. Plankton analyses include enumeration and 

identification of species, biomass estimates, and relative abundance calculations. All 

measurements and laboratory analyses are performed in accordance with standard approved 

methods.

In FY2009, the Hydrolab H20/Surveyor III multiparameter water-quality monitoring 

system was lost at Lake Powell. The system has been the primary monitoring instrument for Lake 

Powell since 1993. A Eureka Environmental Manta/Amphibian monitor is currently being used as 

a replacement. An oceanographic CTD profiler will be acquired in FY 2010 and will become the 

primary instrument for reservoir profiling. With the data acquired from the new instrument, 

analysis of historical data, and simulation modeling, the monitoring program will be restructured 

to maximize the effectiveness of the monitoring program. Part of the restructuring will be the 

reduction of some of the chemical sampling, higher spatial resolution of in situ monitoring and 

establishment of meteorological and inflow water-quality monitoring stations.

Reservoir modeling is performed cooperatively between Reclamation and the GCMRC to 

achieve predictive capabilities, and guide, redirect, or supplant some aspects of monitoring. 

Current model development has progressed to include calibrations for dissolved oxygen 

concentration, algal components, and oxygen demand from deltaic resuspension. 

In 2011, a protocol evaluation panel (PEP) will be convened which will evaluate the Lake 

Powell and tailwater monitoring programs, along with foodbase and water quality monitoring 

programs. A previous PEP was conducted for the Lake Powell and tailwater monitoring 

programs in 2000.

The quality of dam releases and subsequent in-stream changes can have a profound effect 

on various aspects of the aquatic ecosystem in Grand Canyon. Temperature affects metabolic 

rates of various organisms, including bacteria, plants, invertebrates, and vertebrates. It also affects 

reproductive processes, larval development, and behavior of native and nonnative fish. Nutrient 

concentrations in dam releases can influence primary productivity processes in the clear water 

Lees Ferry reach. Dissolved oxygen is essential to maintaining healthy fish and invertebrate 

populations throughout Grand Canyon. Temperature and dissolved oxygen have the most direct 

effect on native and nonnative fish populations. Suspended sediment concentrations limit the light 

available for primary productivity and affect the behavior of various fish. Tracking status and 

trends of these water-quality parameters represent a direct link with various food base and fishery 

studies currently underway in Grand Canyon.
110

The current Lake Powell monitoring program provides its own logistic support and does 

not require support from the GCMRC Logistics program, with the exception of the use of 

GCRMC vehicles for transportation of personnel and equipment between Flagstaff and Lake 

Powell. Lake Powell logistics consists of operation, fuel, maintenance, and repair costs for the 

Uniflite limnology vessel. Food costs and procurement for field monitoring crews are borne by 

the monitoring crew travel costs.

A comprehensive report describing the 43-year history of Lake Powell water-quality

monitoring was published in FY2009.

A compilation of existing biological data, analysis of the existing backlog of biological 

samples, and a preliminary analysis of the existing data will be performed in FY2010

An interpretive data synthesis report will be developed in FY2010 to build upon the 

monitoring data and provide insights into how climatological, meteorological, and 

hydrodynamic processes, and the operation of GCD, affect inflow routing and 

stratification in the reservoir and the quality of releases from GCD.

Periodic reports of water-quality conditions will be posted on the GCMRC Web site.

Updates on water-quality conditions will be provided to the Adaptive Management Work 

Group, Technical Work Group, and other interested parties through written reports or oral 

presentations periodically.
111

October 2006

Ongoing. FY2011 and FY2012 will be the fifth and sixth years of a project that was 

initiated to perform core monitoring to meet the information needs related to GCDAMP goals 7 

and 8. This monitoring project follows a 6-year research and development phase conducted from 

FY2001 to FY2006. If sufficient funding is available from outside sources (USGS Arizona 

Water Science Center and Bureau of Land Management) during FY2011, streamflow and 

sediment records will be maintained on the two remaining major tributary suppliers of sand that 

were not monitored in FY2010, Kanab and Havasu Creeks. As discussed in the stakeholderapproved goal 7 core monitoring plan, monitoring these tributaries is required to accurately 

construct mass-balance sediment budgets for Grand Canyon downstream from River Mile 87. No 

other substantive difference is anticipated between FY2010, FY2011, and FY2012 activities.

David Topping, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

The downstream integrated quality of water (IQW) project focuses on the main channel 

of the Colorado River from the tailwaters of Glen Canyon Dam (RM -15) downstream to the 

upper end of Lake Mead (as measured at the gaging station above Diamond Creek at RM 225). 

The project also includes a combination of monitoring and modeling of tributary sediment inputs. 

Sediment- and flow-monitoring activities are conducted for the Paria River at the Highway 89 

crossing in Utah, the Paria River at Lees Ferry, the Little Colorado River (LCR) near Cameron, 

Arizona, LCR above the Colorado River confluence, Kanab Creek above its mouth, Havasu 

Creek above its mouth, and various lesser tributaries in Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons.

The primary objectives of the downstream IQW monitoring project concern the measurement of 

water stage and discharge throughout the river ecosystem and measurement of quality-of-water 

parameters of water temperature, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, turbidity, and 

suspended-sediment concentration and grain size. Although the focus is on monitoring, the 

project also supports research related to stable-flow testing, evaluation of alternative fluctuating 

flows, tests of high flows, and ongoing development and evaluation of numerical modeling. In 

some instances monitoring activities are closely related to experimental activities. For example, 

monitoring of the sediment budget may be considered core monitoring, but it is also required to 

assess a trigger for high flows such that this monitoring may also be considered experimental 

research support. In the section on project tasks, the individual project elements are described.

In addition, the IQW monitoring project directly supports achievement of the following 

GCDAMP goals:
112

Goal 7: Establish water temperature, quality, and flow dynamics to achieve 

GCDAMP ecosystem goals

Goal 8: Maintain or attain levels of sediment storage within the main channel and 

along shorelines to achieve GCDAMP ecosystem goals

Because this monitoring project addresses the physical framework of the ecosystem, 

which underlies many biological, cultural, and recreational resource objectives, it indirectly 

supports achievement of almost all other GCDAMP goals, including:

Goal 1: Protect or improve the aquatic food base so that it will support viable 

populations of desired species at higher trophic levels

This project supports this goal by providing information on flows, water temperature, and 

turbidity that aids in food base studies, such as the assessment of primary productivity and 

allochthonous inputs. 

Goal 2: Maintain or attain a viable population of existing native fish, remove 

jeopardy for HBC and razorback sucker, and prevent adverse modification to their 

critical habitats

This project supports the native fish program by providing nearshore water temperature 

data for the assessment of growth rates, sediment concentration data that are used to adjust for 

catch efficiency in population models, flow and stage data that are important to understanding the 

effects of nearshore habitat disruption caused by fluctuating flows, and data on sandbars and 

resulting backwater habitats that are helpful in understanding the importance of sandbars for 

native fish.

Goal 4: Maintain a wild reproducing population of RBT above the Paria River to the 

extent practicable and consistent with the maintenance of viable populations of native 

fish

This project monitors dam releases and Glen Canyon IQW, which are critically important 

when dissolved oxygen levels are low, requiring modifications to release patterns in order to raise 

oxygen levels.

Goal 6: Protect or improve the biotic riparian and spring communities within the 

CRE, including threatened and endangered species and their critical habitat

The downstream IQW monitoring project also tracks the transport and fate of fine sediment, 

which provides the substrate for riparian vegetation and marsh communities.

Goal 9: Maintain or improve the quality of recreational experiences for users of the 

CRE within the framework of GCDAMP ecosystem goals

This project also produces monitoring data and supports experimental and modeling research to 

understand flow dynamics and the size and abundance of sandbars, which are resources that 

affect the recreational experiences of Colorado River users such as rafters and fishermen.
113

Goal 11: Preserve, protect, manage, and treat cultural resources for the inspiration 

and benefit of past, present, and future generations

This project also provides monitoring data on riverine sandbars, which are a source of 

sediment, through aeolian transport, to high elevation sand deposits that contain archaeological 

resources. In addition, the downstream IQW monitoring project has also developed stage

modeling capabilities that can assess the flow level inundating a given cultural site.

In August 2004, the AMWG reviewed these goals and identified priority questions. The 

top five priority questions are as follows:

Priority 1: Why are HBC not thriving, and what can we do about it? How many HBC are 

there and how are they doing? 

Priority 2: Which cultural resources, including TCPs, are within the area of potential effect 

(APE), which should we treat, and how do we best protect them? What is the status and 

trends of cultural resources and what are the agents of deterioration?

Priority 3: What is the best flow regime?

Priority 4: What is the impact of sediment loss and what should we do about it? 

Priority 5: What will happen when a TCD is tested or implemented? How should it be 

operated? Are safeguards needed for management?

The downstream IQW monitoring project provides direct support to some of the priority 

questions, while indirectly supporting others. Monitoring and research on flows, sediment 

transport, and water temperature support priority questions 3, 4, and 5 directly and indirectly 

support priority questions 1 and 2 by providing information on the general physical framework of 

the riverine environment.

Information on flow, water quality, and suspended-sediment transport is critical to 

understanding the physical environment upon which biological and sociocultural resources 

depend. In order to understand the responses of these resources to dam operations, we must 

understand and monitor the effects of dam operations on the physical environment. The goal of 

the downstream IQW project is to provide this information and link dam operations to changes in 

the physical environment.

The downstream IQW monitoring project is designed with the goal of providing data that 

supports answering the two primary physical resources questions identified during the knowledge 

assessment workshop conducted in the summer of 2005, as follows:

SSQ 4-1. Is there a ―Flow-Only‖ operation (that is, a strategy for dam releases, including 

managing tributary inputs with BHBFs, without sediment augmentation) that will restore 

and maintain sandbar habitats over decadal timescales?

SSQ 5-1. How do dam release temperatures, flows (average and fluctuating component), 

meteorology, canyon orientation and geometry, and reach morphology interact to 

determine mainstem and nearshore water temperatures throughout the CRE?
114

Also, as detailed throughout this project description, this project provides information on 

the physical environment that is critical to other resource areas and will thus contribute indirectly 

to answering a variety of other science questions related to other resources.

The downstream IQW monitoring project directly addresses several of the CMINs and 

RINs related to GCDAMP goals 7 and 8. Selections of the information needs that are addressed 

by downstream IQW monitoring project are listed below. The downstream IQW monitoring 

project addresses many more CMINs, but the ones listed below are considered most relevant to 

answering the science questions outlined above.

CMIN 7.4.2. Determine and track flow releases (gage data and SCADA data; time 

interval still TBD) from Glen Canyon Dam, under all operating conditions, particularly 

related to flow duration, upramp, and downramp conditions (parameters are upramp and 

downramp rates, volume, daily minimum and maximum).

CMIN 7.1.2. Determine and track LCR discharge and temperature near the mouth (below 

springs).

CMIN 7.1.1. Determine the water temperature dynamics in the mainstem, tributaries (as 

appropriate, temperature only in mainstem and LCR), backwaters, and near shore areas 

throughout the Colorado River ecosystem.

CMIN 8.1.3. Track, as appropriate, the monthly sand and silt/clay volumes and grainsize characteristics, by reach, as measured or estimated at the Paria and LCR [near 

Cameron, Ariz., and above the confluence] stations, other major tributaries like Kanab 

and Havasu Creeks, and ―lesser‖ tributaries?

CMIN 8.1.2. What are the monthly sand and silt/clay export volumes and grain-size 

characteristics, by reach, as measured or estimated at Lees Ferry, Lower Marble Canyon, 

Grand Canyon, and Diamond Creek Stations?

The monitoring data from this project not only fulfill the CMINs listed above, but are 

also intended to feed new information directly into modeling efforts (see PHY 7.R2) that 

will allow sediment transport modelers the opportunity to address RINs related to 

GCDAMP goals 7 and 8.

RIN 7.4.1. What is the desired range of seasonal and annual flow dynamics associated 

with power plant operations, BHBFs, and habitat maintenance flows, or other flows that 

meet GCDAMP goals and objectives?

RIN 7.3.1. Develop simulation models for Lake Powell and the Colorado River to predict 

water-quality conditions under various operating scenarios, supplant monitoring efforts, 

and elucidate understanding of the effects of dam operations, climate, and basin 

hydrology on Colorado River water quality.

RIN 8.5.1. What elements of ROD operations (upramp, downramp, maximum and 

minimum flow, MLFF, high modified flow (HMF), and BHBF) are most/least critical to 

conserving new fine sediment inputs, and stabilizing sediment deposits above the 25,000 

cfs stage?

Discharge, stage, water temperature, specific conductance, turbidity, and suspendedsediment data are collected using standard USGS protocols with quality assurance/quality control 
115

(QA/QC) (Rantz and others, 1982a). Suspended-sediment sampling is supplemented through the 

use of emerging technologies, including acoustics and laser-diffraction (Melis and others, 2003; 

Topping and others, 2004, 2006, 2007). Stage, water temperature (Voichick and Wright, 2007), 

specific conductance (Voichick, 2008), turbidity, and suspended-sediment surrogates (acoustics 

and laser-diffraction) are monitored with in situ instrumentation recording at 15-minute intervals. 

Water discharge is measured episodically and used to develop a stage-discharge rating curve, 

providing 15-minute flow records (Rantz and others, 1982b). Similarly, suspended-sediment 

concentration is measured episodically using standard USGS protocols (Edwards and Glysson, 

1999) and used to calibrate and evaluate acoustic and laser diffraction instrumentation, providing 

15-min records of concentration (sand and silt/clay), and sand grain size.

Continued monitoring of flow and stage at established mainstem locations and major 

tributaries (RM -15, RM 0, RM 30, RM 61, RM 87, RM 166, RM 225, Paria River at the 

Highway 89 bridge and near Lees Ferry, two sites on the LCR, Kanab Creek above its mouth, and 

Havasu Creek above its mouth). Category(s): core monitoring. Schedule: ongoing. Official 

surface water records are collected at Paria River near Kanab, UT (at the Highway 89 bridge) and 

published by the USGS Utah Water Science Center. Official surface-water records are collected 

and published by the USGS Arizona Water Science Center at the following tributary gage sites: 

Paria River at Lees Ferry, AZ; LCR near Cameron, AZ; LCR above the mouth near Desert View, 

AZ; Kanab Creek above the mouth near Supai, AZ; Havasu Creek above the mouth near Supai, 

AZ; and at the mainstem gages at RM 0, RM 87, and RM 225, AZ. The dam-released RM -15 

discharge is reported by Reclamation. Stage data are also collected at sites in the following lesser 

tributaries: Water Holes Canyon, Badger Creek, Tanner Wash, House Rock Wash, North 

Canyon, Shinumo Wash, and Bright Angel Creek; these data are converted to discharge using 

methods described in Griffiths and others (2010).

Monitoring of water temperature is conducted at established mainstem locations and 

major tributaries (RM -15, RM 0, RM 30, RM 61, RM 87, RM 166, RM 225, RM 246, Paria 

River at Lees Ferry, two sites on the LCR, and Kanab and Havasu Creeks). Continuation of a new 

near shore/backwater-temperature monitoring program is conducted at selected sites. Continued 

monitoring of specific conductivity is conducted at established stations (RM -15, RM 0, RM 30, 

RM 61, RM 87, and RM 225). Continued monitoring of turbidity at established stations (RM 30, 

RM 61, RM 87, and RM 225). Continued monitoring of dissolved oxygen is also conducted at 

established stations (RM -15, RM 0, and RM 225).

Monitoring of suspended-sediment flux will continue at established mainstem locations 

and major tributaries (RM 30, RM 61, RM 87, RM 166, RM 225, Paria River at Lees Ferry, and 

several sites along the lower LCR and it major sand-supplying tributary, Moenkopi Wash). 

Because sediment-based high-flow triggers are based on sediment retention within the mainstem 

and tributary-supplied sand is exported quickly downstream under all but the lowest dam releases, 

it is insufficient to monitor tributary sand inputs only. To provide the information required to 

construct accurate mass-balance sand budgets in key reaches of the Colorado River, suspendedsediment data are also collected on the above-mentioned lesser-tributary sites.
116

Regular meetings and interaction with other resource area personnel, particularly at the 

program manager level, will be done in order to facilitate an ecosystem approach to our scientific 

studies and ensure that the downstream IQW monitoring project is providing useful information 

regarding the physical environment to the other resource areas. 

The program for monitoring non-sediment water quality parameters (temperature, 

specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, and turbidity) will be reviewed by a Protocol Evaluation 

Panel in Summer 2011 to be conducted jointly with a review of the food base monitoring 

program. 

The tasks and methods are expected to be the same for FY2012 as for FY2011, with the 

possible incorporation of recommendations based on the FY2011 Protocol Evaluation Panel 

review.

Monitoring of sediment (sand and finer) flux during future high flows will be conducted 

as part of the regular goal 7 downstream integrated quality of water program as described above. 

Some added work during a high flow is necessary to maintain the monitoring record because the 

instrumentation is vulnerable to high dam releases and additional samples are required to 

maintain instrument calibration. Budget implications are addressed in PLAN 12.P6. 

The downstream IQW monitoring project is closely related to the SedTrend component 

of the program for long-term monitoring of sediment storage that is described under goal 8. The 

downstream IQW monitoring includes the tracking of sediment fluxes entering and exiting each 

of the five sediment monitoring segments over short time scales (up to ~ 5 years) for planning 

high flows or other dam operations designed to improve or maintain sandbars. The SedTrend 

program uses direct measurements of channel topography and bathymetry to track long-term (5 

years and longer) changes in sediment storage for the same monitoring segments. 

This project supports research focused on the food web of the river ecosystem by 

providing continuous data on surface flow in the main channel and major tributaries, as well as 

related quality-of-water data, such as water temperature, specific conductivity, dissolved oxygen, 

and suspended-sediment concentrations and grain size for suspended particles in transport.

This project also supports science activities in the fisheries program by providing flow 

and quality-of-water data that may be used by fisheries biologists in evaluating their fish catch 

data, as well as growth, movement, and habitat use information.
117

Funding for streamflow and water quality monitoring conducted by the USGS Arizona 

Water Science Center is supplemented by contributions from the USGS National Stream 

Information Program, the Bureau of Reclamation in Boulder City, NV, and the Southern Nevada 

Water Authority. Additional outside funds provided by the Bureau of Land Management are 

anticipated to support monitoring of Kanab Creek and Havasu Creek.

This project requires two motorized river trips annually. Project needs require that the 

trips occur at approximately 6-month intervals. Motors are required for sampling activities and 

servicing the instrumented gage sites. Typically, the trips have two support boats and one 

technical boat. The current plan is to continue with one trip in February and one trip in August.

Streamflow, stage, and tributary sediment data will be published annually in Arizona and 

Utah Water Resources Data reports (surface water and sediment records published by the 

USGS Utah and Arizona Water Science Centers) and served through the GCMRC Web 

page (http://www.gcmrc.gov/products/) (data delivered on or before February 28, 2012)

Mainstem sediment transport and IQW data will be served through the GCMRC web 

page and a web-based application will be implemented to provide stakeholders and 

interested public with the ability to perform interactive online data visualization and 

analysis

Conference abstracts and proceedings articles (2–4 annually), journal articles (1–3

annually), and presentations at stakeholder meetings

All work conducted under the IQW project will be summarized in annual reports, with 

the FY2011 report to be completed by January 1, 2012

Streamflow, stage, and tributary sediment data will be published annually in Arizona and 

Utah Water Resources Data reports (surface water and sediment records published by the 

USGS Utah and Arizona Water Science Centers) and served through the GCMRC Web 

page (http://www.gcmrc.gov/products/) (data delivered on or before February 28, 2013).

Mainstem sediment transport and water-quality data will be served through the GCMRC 

web page and a web-based application will be implemented to provide stakeholders and 

interested public with the ability to perform interactive online data visualization and 

analysis 

Conference abstracts and proceedings articles (2–4 annually), journal articles (1–3

annually), and presentations at stakeholder meetings

All work conducted under the IQW project will be summarized in annual reports, with 

the FY2012 report to be completed by January 1, 2013
118
119

October 2010

Ongoing. Fiscal year 2010 is the end of a 2-year model development period. The 

FY2011-12 project provides support for model maintenance and implementation that is intended 

to occur in parallel to the monitoring programs. As new data are collected, the existing models 

will be continuously tested, improved, and applied. However, due to budget constraints further 

development of new models is deferred.

Scott A. Wright, U.S. Geological Survey, California Water Science Center; Jonathan 

Nelson, U.S. Geological Survey, National Research Program; David J. Topping, U.S. Geological 

Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center; Paul E. Grams, U.S. Geological Survey, 

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center; and David M. Rubin, U.S. Geological Survey, 

Marine Geology Team

The one-dimensional flow, temperature, and sediment-transport modeling activities are 

spatially parallel to the IQW project and also focus on the main channel of the CRE between 

GCD (RM -15) to Diamond Creek (RM 226). Multidimensional modeling efforts will be applied 

at specific locations where appropriate topographic, bathymetric, and other calibration data have 

been collected. 

The purpose of the modeling support project is to apply both commercial and custom 

models for the prediction of flow, water temperature, sediment flux, and sediment deposition and 

erosion. The model predictions will be used to estimate sediment inputs from tributaries in 

support of the goal 7 IQW project, predict the effects of dam releases on downstream water 

temperature, and predict the fate of fine sediment that enters the ecosystem from tributaries. Both 

detailed multidimensional models, which can only be applied to a few specific locations, and 

general one-dimensional models, which can be applied to the entire CRE, will be used.

Ongoing application of models to simulate flow, sediment transport, and downstream 

water temperature are intended to be closely interfaced with ongoing monitoring activities 

throughout the science program. The downstream IQW monitoring project includes 

measurements of surface flow throughout the river ecosystem, as well as monitoring of qualityof-water parameters such as temperature, specific conductivity, dissolved oxygen, and suspendedsediment transport. These projects directly support achievement of the following GCDAMP 

goals:

Goal 7: Establish water temperature, quality, and flow dynamics to achieve GCDAMP 

ecosystem goals.
120

Goal 8: Maintain or attain levels of sediment storage within the main channel and along 

shorelines to achieve GCDAMP ecosystem goals.

Modeling capability is needed to provide predictive capacity in linking dam operations 

with changes in the physical environment, including water flow, sediment conditions, and 

temperature. Better models for water flow are needed to predict the depth and velocity of flow for 

specified locations for specified dam operations. Models for sediment transport are needed to help 

determine the optimal magnitude and duration for high flow releases and estimate the potential 

long-term impact of changes in dam operations or sediment supply conditions. Temperature 

models are needed to link dam operations with temperature dynamics in the downstream channel 

and near shore habitats. Thus, the goal of modeling activities is to provide increased predictive 

capabilities in the form of simulations that can be used as planning tools for linking dam 

operations to changes in the physical environment. Models of the physical system are also needed 

to develop and expand interdisciplinary relationships with biological, cultural, economic, and 

recreational elements of GCDAMP.

The integrated modeling activities are designed with the objective of providing predictive 

capability that supports answering the two primary physical resource questions identified during 

the KAW conducted in the summer of 2005:

SSQ 4-1. Is there a ―Flow-Only‖ operation (that is, a strategy for dam releases, including 

managing tributary inputs with BHBFs, without sediment augmentation) that will restore and 

maintain sandbar habitats over decadal timescales? 

SSQ 5-1. How do dam release temperatures, flows (average and fluctuating component), 

meteorology, canyon orientation and geometry, and reach morphology interact to determine 

mainstem and nearshore water temperatures throughout the CRE?

In the process of developing a formal project proposal in 2009, the 2009-2010 modeling team 

listed five related science and related management questions that the project was designed to 

address:

1) Science question: How do eddy sandbars evolve for a given sediment supply and flow 

hydrograph, including short duration high flow releases? 

Related management question: What is the ―optimal‖ high flow hydrograph (peak and 

duration) for a given supply condition?

2) Science question: How are tributary sediment inputs transported through the mainstem 

for a given flow hydrograph? 

Related management question: How long will tributary sediments be available (and 

where will they be) for a given operation (i.e. monthly volume, daily peak, daily range)?

3) Science question: How does the long-term (i.e. decadal scale) sand budget evolve for a 

given flow hydrograph and tributary sediment supply (and/or sediment augmentation)?

Related management question: How do different operations compare with respect to 

long-term sustainability?

4) Science question: What controls the slope stability of sandbars that fill and drain on a 

daily basis due to fluctuating flows?

Management: How do various ramping rates affect the stability of sandbars?
121

5) Science question: How does channel complexity and habitat type affect shoreline water 

temperature distribution and dynamics?

Related management question: Do various fluctuating and steady flow regimes affect 

shoreline water temperature differently?

The modeling project directly addresses several of the RINs related to GCDAMP goals 7 

and 8:

RIN 7.4.1. What is the desired range of seasonal and annual flow dynamics associated with 

power plant operations, BHBFs, and habitat maintenance flows, or other flows that meet 

GCDAMP goals and objectives?

RIN 7.3.1. Develop simulation models for Lake Powell and the Colorado River to predict 

water-quality conditions under various operating scenarios, supplant monitoring efforts, and 

elucidate understanding of the effects of dam operations, climate, and basin hydrology on 

Colorado River water quality.

RIN 8.5.1. What elements of ROD operations (upramp, downramp, maximum and minimum 

flow, MLFF, HMF, and BHBF) are most/least critical to conserving new fine sediment 

inputs, and stabilizing sediment deposits above the 25,000 cfs stage?

The modeling support project will include use of previously existing models and models 

developed during the FY 2009-10 modeling initiative. It is necessary to use a suite of modeling 

tools, because the questions outlined above span a wide range of time and space scales. For 

example, models appropriate for simulating the evolution of an individual sandbar during a high 

flow release are not appropriate for simulating the long-term (decadal) sand budget for the 

canyon. In general, models of short time scales and high spatial resolution can apply fundamental 

governing equations (though some empiricism is always required), whereas models of longer 

time scales require increasing degrees of simplifying assumptions and substantially more 

empirical data. Thus, a variety of modeling approaches are required to address the disparity in 

scales, potentially with information sharing between the models. To this end, we will continue to 

apply multiple modeling approaches, although time and budget constraints may not permit work 

on all approaches in every year.

Local/Eddy scale modeling (ESM): This approach is designed to simulate flow, sediment 

transport, morphology, and temperature dynamics at the scale of short reaches or individual 

eddies. Resolution of these finer spatial scales limits the length of simulation that can be 

performed due to computational constraints, such that this modeling approach is appropriate for 

time scales of days to weeks. The short time scale and high spatial resolution allows for the use of 

numerical modeling tools based on basic conservation equations. In the simplest application, 

these models may be used to estimate discharge for locations where it cannot or has not been 

measured directly, such as ungaged tributaries. In more complicated applications, these models 

may be used to predict detailed temperature distributions and patterns of sandbar deposition. 

Bar stability modeling (BSM): The ESMs predict transport, erosion, and deposition based 

on shear stress imparted from the flow onto the bed of the river, but do not account for slope 

failures resulting from elevated pore water pressures during rising and falling river stages. 

Because normal hydropower dam operations include daily flow fluctuations, this bar failure 
122

mechanism is important to understand when considering alternative flow ramping rates. The bar 

stability model is applied to an individual bar in a two-dimensional profile (i.e. a vertical cut 

through the bar face). In the future, the model could be linked to the ESMs to incorporate the 

failed material back into the flow. 

Reach scale modeling (RSM): The ESMs are not applicable to broader spatial scales and 

longer time scales. For these scales, further simplifications are required in order to be 

computationally feasible. There are several potential applications for reach scale models in Grand 

Canyon. One application is modeling the cross-sectional averaged (i.e. one-dimensional) 

mainstem sediment transport and temperature dynamics. These models can be used to simulate 

the fate of tributary inputs as they move downstream through the mainstem, and the downstream 

warming of dam releases that occurs for most of the year. This information can be used to 

evaluate various dam release scenarios (for flow and possibly temperature control), and the 

models can also be used to deliver boundary conditions to the ESMs. The RSM for mainstem 

temperature has already been developed, tested, and documented (Anderson and Wright, 2007). A 

RSM for sediment transport (the 1-D sand routing model) has been developed and documented 

(Wiele and others, 2007).

Decadal scale modeling (DSM): This modeling approach is designed to simulate the 

long-term sand budget for the river at relatively low spatial resolution. The unsteady, onedimensional RSMs described above, while substantially simplified from the ESMs, are still too 

complex to apply to decadal time scales particularly if the goal is to simulate a range of potential 

future conditions with, for example, Monte Carlo simulation. This approach relies heavily on 

high-resolution sand transport data that is currently collected at several sites along the river (PHY 

7.M1). The basic methodology is to allow the relationship between sand concentration and 

discharge to shift up and down depending on the level of sand supply in the system (i.e. a 

―shifting rating curve‖), a phenomenon that has been documented since the 1996 controlled flood. 

Because of the empirical nature of the approach, the sand budget can only be resolved at the same 

spatial resolution as the sand transport monitoring, currently ~30 mile reaches encompassing 

upper Marble Canyon (river miles 0 to 30), lower Marble Canyon (river miles 30 to 61) and 

Eastern Grand Canyon (river miles 61 to 87).

The modeling approaches and many of the specific models that are either available for 

use are still in development are listed in Table 4 along with brief descriptions of how the models 

can be applied to meet stakeholder and management needs. Integration of these modeling 

approaches will provide a suite of tools that incorporates appropriate processes over short and 

long time scales, thereby allowing predictions of water temperature dynamics, the long-term sand 

budget, or the response of eddy morphology to hypothetical hydrographs, dam release 

temperatures, and tributary sand supply rates. This approach captures the importance of tributary 

inputs, the local storage of sediment in the mainstem that can be made available by higher flows 

for storage in eddies, the processes of exchange between the eddies and mainstem over short time 

scales, and the potential for mechanical failure of the eddy deposits.
123

Modeling 

approach Model Time scale

Spatial scale 

and 

resolution

Brief 

description

Primary 

questions 

addressed

Work to occur 

in FY2011-12

Local or 

Eddy 

scale 

(ESM)

3-D eddy 

model 

(Delft 3D 

or similar)

Days to 

weeks

Individual 

eddies or 

short reaches 

resolved on 

meter scale 

grids

Multidimensional 

model of flow, 

sediment, and 

heat; 

Physicallybased with 

relatively little 

empiricism

How do eddy 

sandbars 

evolve?

What is the 

―optimal‖ high 

flow shape 

(peak and 

duration)?

How is water 

temperature 

distributed along 

shorelines?

Application to 

additional sites 

and additional 

verification, 

pending 

outcome of 

work in FY2010

Local or 

Eddy 

scale 

(ESM)

MDSWMSDays to 

weeks

Short reaches 

resolved on 

meter to 10-

meter scale 

grids

Multidimensional 

model of flow; 

Physicallybased with 

relatively little 

empiricism

What is the 

discharge of 

ungaged 

tributary flows?

Application of 

the model to 

ungaged 

tributaries to 

improve 

estimates of 

tributary 

sediment input 

volumes

Local or 

Eddy 

scale 

(ESM)

MDSWMSDays to 

weeks

Short reaches 

resolved on 

meter to 10-

meter scale 

grids

Multidimensional 

model of flow; 

Physicallybased with 

relatively little 

empiricism

What are the 

physical 

characteristics 

(e.g. velocity, 

bed mobility) of 

fish habitat in 

the Lees Ferry 

reach?

Application of 

the model to 

selected reaches 

to quantify 

physical habitat

Bar 

stability

(BSM)

Slope 

stability 

model

Days

2D slices of 

individual 

sandbar faces

Slope stability 

modeling in the 

presence of 

rising and 

falling water 

stage

How do various

ramping rates 

affect the 

stability of 

sandbars?

Potential 

application and 

integration with 

ESM pending 

outcome of 

ongoing work

Reach 

scale

(RSM)

HEC-RAS 

1-D steady 

flow model

Days to 

weeks

Long reaches 

resolved at 

closely 

spaced (~100 

m) 

interpolated 

crosssections

Onedimensional 

model of flow; 

Physicallybased but with 

substantial 

empiricism

What is the 

water surface 

elevation for any 

steady discharge 

at any location 

of interest?

Model 

application as 

needed
124

Modeling 

approach Model Time scale

Spatial scale 

and 

resolution

Brief 

description

Primary 

questions 

addressed

Work to occur 

in FY2011-12

Reach 

scale

(RSM)

CRFSS 1-

D unsteady 

flow model

Days to 

years

Long reaches 

resolved at 

widely 

spaced (~0.1-

1 km) crosssections

Onedimensional 

model of flow. 

Physicallybased but with 

substantial 

empiricism.

What is the 

discharge at any 

given location 

during 

fluctuating 

flows?

Model 

application, as 

needed.

Reach 

scale

(RSM)

1-D sand 

routing 

model

Months 

to years

Long reaches 

resolved at 

widely 

spaced (~0.1-

1 km) crosssections

Onedimensional 

model of flow 

and sediment. 

Physicallybased but with 

substantial 

empiricism.

How are 

tributary 

sediments

transported and 

distributed 

throughout the 

mainstem?

Potential 

application 

pending 

outcome of 

calibration and 

testing that is 

ongoing in FY 

2010.

Reach 

scale

(RSM)

1-D water 

temp.

model

Months 

to years

Long reaches 

resolved at 

widely 

spaced (~0.1-

1 km) crosssections

Onedimensional 

models of flow 

and heat. 

Physicallybased but with 

substantial 

empiricism.

At what rate 

does 

downstream 

warming occur 

in the 

mainstem?

Model 

application, as 

needed.

Decadal 

scale 

(DSM)

Shifting 

rating 

curve 

model

Years to 

decades

Long reaches 

resolved at 

the resolution 

of the 

monitoring 

sites

Sand budget 

calculations 

using shifting 

rating curves. 

Highly 

empirical with 

a minimum 

amount of 

physics.

How do various 

dam operations 

compare with 

respect to the 

long-term sand 

budget?

Application of 

model to predict 

fate of tributary 

inputs for 

alternative dam 

operation 

scenarios; 

potential 

planning tool for 

EIS or long-term 

experimental 

plan.
125

Specific modeling applications must be devised in close cooperation with stakeholders of the 

GCDAMP. This cooperation requires information sharing so that (1) the stakeholders clearly 

understand the capabilities of the models, and (2) the modelers clearly understand the desired scenarios 

to be modeled. Below are three examples of potential applications of the models:

Example 1: Predicting the long-term sand budget for a range of dam release scenarios. This type of 

question is ideally suited for the shifting rating curve model, and was the motivation for development 

of such a model. The model can also evaluate the effects of a range in tributary sand supply conditions. 

Once up and running, it will be relatively easy to evaluate a wide range of flow conditions on the longterm sand budget due to the simplicity of the model formulation.

Example 2: Designing a hydrograph for a high flow event. If substantial tributary inputs occur in the 

future and a high flow event is scheduled, the suite of models can be used to evaluate various 

proposals for the hydrograph (i.e. peak, duration, ramping rates). First, the shifting rating curve and/or 

1-D sand routing model would be run to estimate the distribution of new tributary sand throughout the 

canyon and the concentrations during the high flow. The 3-D eddy model would then be run for the 

quantification sites to evaluate the sandbar responses to the various hydrographs, allowing for tradeoff 

analysis and selection of a hydrograph.

Example 3: Modeling in support of near shore ecology. Over the next several years, extensive field 

work will occur in the reach below the Little Colorado River for the study of the ecology of near shore 

habitats, in particular their importance to native fish. The 1-D temperature and 3-D eddy models can 

be used to interpolate and extrapolate estimates of water temperature in space and time throughout the 

study reach. Thus, high resolution (space and time) estimates of water temperature (as well as depth 

and velocity) can be developed and used to assist interpretation of native fish habitat use.

Application of the models as outlined in Table 4. Prioritization of tasks will be based on the 

needs of other research and monitoring projects and on stakeholder input.

Finalization of papers and reports from the FY2009-10 modeling initiative (see FY2010 work 

plan)

Continued application of the models as outlined in Table 4

Because ongoing modeling efforts are linked to the downstream IQW monitoring project, it is 

also intended to address and support elements of the physical framework of the ecosystem, which 

underlies many biological, cultural, and recreational resource objectives. As a result, the modeling 

efforts indirectly support achievement of almost all other GCDAMP goals, as described in PHY 7.M1. 

The ongoing activities associated with the development of simulation capabilities and verification of 

existing models can benefit from monitoring data from the downstream IQW project. These simulation 

models include flow routing, suspended-sediment transport, sandbar evolution, and downstream 

thermal simulations throughout the main channel. Improved predictive capabilities for physical 

resources related to dam operations will be of great value as a support tool in planning future 

experimental treatments, as well as evaluating proposed management actions in the river ecosystem 

that generally relate to GCDAMP goal 1, goal 2, goal 4, goal 6, goal 8, goal 9, and goal 11. In 

addition, goal 12 is also supported by efforts to advance modeling activities for the ecosystem.
126

Both the downstream IQW monitoring project and its modeling support link to thermal and 

suspended-sediment transport can help to support new research on the river ecosystem food web by 

providing continuous data on surface flow in the main channel and major tributaries, as well as related 

quality-of-water data such as water temperature, specific conductivity, dissolved oxygen, suspendedsediment concentrations, and suspended particle grain size. This project and its modeling support link 

can also provide simulations for predicting downstream boundary conditions that limit in-stream 

productivity.

The downstream IQW modeling activities provide support beyond IQW data by making 

simulations for physical habitat changes, such as backwaters, available to fishery scientists before 

future HFE tests. Such information can assist scientists in planning better integrated studies.

There are no logistics requirements for the modeling support project.

Preparation of conference abstracts, proceedings articles, and journal articles (at least one per year)

Presentations at GCDAMP meetings and stakeholder workshops (as appropriate)

All work conducted under the integrated modeling project will be summarized in annual reports to 

be completed by January 1, 2012

Preparation of conference abstracts, proceedings articles, and journal articles (at least one per year)

Presentations at GCDAMP meetings and stakeholder workshops (as appropriate)

All work conducted under the integrated modeling project will be summarized in annual reports, to 

be completed by January 1, 2013
127

October 2008 

Ongoing 

Matt Kaplinski, Joseph E. Hazel, Jr., and Roderic Parnell, Northern Arizona University, 

Department of Geology; David J. Topping and Paul E. Grams, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon 

Monitoring and Research Center

The primary purpose of goal 8 is to track the status of fine sediment that is stored in sandbars 

over multi-year periods that include normal dam operations and high flows. Thus, goal 8 activities 

consist of research and monitoring of alluvial deposits of the banks and bed of the Colorado River 

from Glen Canyon Dam to the upper end of Lake Mead. The geographic scope for any given year 

varies depending on that year‘s activity. Quadrennial remote sensing overflights cover the entire 

project area, sandbar monitoring focuses on specific study sites between GCD and Diamond Creek, 

and channel mapping focuses on discrete reaches between Lees Ferry and Diamond Creek.

Achieving the goal of maintaining or expanding sandbars and associated habitats requires 

balance between the two competing effects of dam releases on fine sediment. High releases in excess 

of power plant capacity are needed to build sandbars above the zone associated with normal dam 

operations. However, in the absence of tributary sediment inputs, both normal dam operations and high 

flows result in net export of fine sediment. Thus, high flows conducted during periods of relative fine 

sediment enrichment in the main channel that occur following tributary sediment inputs have the 

greatest chance of resulting in sandbar deposition. The magnitude of tributary inputs and main 

channel enrichment are tracked by the goal 7 IQW program, which provides the information needed to 

appropriately time high flows. Yet, the continued effectiveness of high flows to build sandbars also 

requires that total fine sediment storage is maintained or increased over periods spanning multiple high 

flows and intervening dam operations. Progressive depletion of fine sediment storage is likely to 

result in a decrease in the ability of high flows to build sandbars. Because uncertainties in sediment 

flux measurements accumulate over time, goal 7 monitoring cannot be used to monitor trends in 

storage over these five-year to decadal periods. The purpose of goal 8 monitoring is to collect the data 

that will demonstrate whether the net result of dam operations, including power plant operations and 

high flows, and tributary sediment inputs is accumulation, maintenance, or depletion of sand storage. 
128

More specifically, the ―SedTrend‖ monitoring is designed to determine magnitudes and trends in fine 

sediment storage throughout the CRE in the main channel and eddies for three major sand-storage 

elevation zones: (1) below the stage associated with a discharge of 8,000 cfs where over 90 percent of 

the fine sediment in the CRE is typically stored, (2) between the stages associated with discharges of 

8,000 and 25,000 cfs, and (3) above the stage associated with a discharge of 25,000 cfs.

Additional goals of this project include tracking trends in sandbar area, sandbar volume, and 

sandbar distribution, which supports goal 9; measurements of backwater geometry and distribution, 

which supports goal 2; and monitoring of the availability of open dry sand on sandbars that can be 

transported by the wind upslope into archeological sites, which supports goal 11.

The sediment monitoring program directly supports achievement of the following Glen 

Canyon Dam Adaptive Management (GCDAMP) goals:

1. Goal 8: Maintain or attain levels of sediment storage within the main channel and along 

shorelines to achieve GCDAMP ecosystem goals

2. Goal 9: Maintain or improve the quality of recreational experiences for users of the 

Colorado River ecosystem within the framework of GCDAMP ecosystem goals; the 

monitoring provides information on the size and abundance of sandbars, which are 

resources that affect the recreational experiences of Colorado River users

3. Goal 11: Preserve, protect, manage, and treat cultural resources for the inspiration and 

benefit of past, present, and future generations; the program includes monitoring sandbars 

that provide a source of sediment, through aeolian transport, to high-elevation sand 

deposits that contain archaeological resources

Because sediment monitoring addresses the physical framework of the ecosystem, which 

underlies many biological resource objectives, it also indirectly supports achievement of the following 

GCDAMP goals:

Goal 1: Protect or improve the aquatic food base so that it will support viable populations 

of desired species at higher trophic levels; the SedTrend monitoring supports this goal by 

providing information on the size and distribution of channel substrate

Goal 2: Maintain or attain a viable population of existing native fish, remove jeopardy for 

humpback chub and razorback sucker, and prevent adverse modification to their critical 

habitats; SedTrend and sandbar monitoring supports this goal by providing information on 

sandbars which create backwater habitats

Goal 6: Protect or improve the biotic riparian and spring communities within the Colorado 

River ecosystem, including threatened and endangered species and their critical habitat; 

the SedTrend and sandbar monitoring tracks the status of the fine sediment deposits which 

provides the substrate for riparian vegetation and marsh communities

Closure of Glen Canyon Dam has resulted in at least a 90% reduction in sediment supply to 

the CRE in Grand Canyon (Topping and others, 2000). Moreover, operations of the dam tend to result 

in net export of sand and finer sediment in most years (Topping and others, 2000). In response to this 

reduction in sand supply and the alteration of the natural hydrograph by dam operations, sandbars in 
129

Marble Canyon and the upstream part of Grand Canyon have substantially decreased in size (Schmidt 

and others, 2004) and are still in decline under normal power plant operations at the dam (Wright and 

others, 2005).

The primary signal for fine sediment is the change in storage volume of the fine sediment 

below the 8,000 cfs water stage. While the IQW monitoring program tracks the fluxes of fine sediment 

and enables calculation of the change in storage, the uncertainty in these estimates accumulates and 

restricts the use of that method to time scales of ~5 years or less. The essential data to detect trends in 

storage change over periods longer than ~5 years are repeat measurements of channel bathymetry that 

are compared to determine change in storage between the measurement intervals. Changes in the area 

and volume of sand exposed above the 8,000 cfs stage are monitored to track whether management 

actions are achieving desired results. 

Growing concern about the effects of the operations of Glen Canyon Dam on the CRE led to 

the initiation of systematic measurements of sandbars in the 1970s (Dolan and others, 1974; Howard, 

1975; Howard and Dolan, 1981). This sandbar-monitoring program was revisited in the 1980s 

(Schmidt and Graf, 1990; Beus and others, 1992), and eventually led to the sandbar-monitoring 

program conducted by NAU during the 1990s (Hazel and others, 1999; Schmidt and others, 2004). 

Evaluation begun in the 1990s and finalized in the geomorphic synthesis of Schmidt and others (2004) 

indicated that the observations of change made during these site-based programs were not necessarily 

representative of changes in the fine-sediment resource over longer reaches of the Colorado River 

because these programs utilized surveys of relatively small areas and the variability between sites was 

large. Moreover, the fact that substantial positive changes in sediment volume were observed in these 

site-based programs during periods when no sediment entered the system called into question the value 

of sediment budgeting based on monitoring of small sites (Hazel and others, 2006). In contrast to the 

large variability within the site-based NAU data, analysis of cross-section data collected by the USGS 

indicated near-universal scour of sediment from the CRE during the 1990s (Flynn and Hornewer, 

2003). These observations led to the initiation in 1999 of flux-based monitoring. By 2001, research 

and development activities led to the current reach-based IQW project that combines conventional 

sediment transport sampling with sediment surrogate techniques to provide a high resolution sand flux 

monitoring dataset used for calculating the fine sediment mass balance systemwide.

These previous research and monitoring efforts guided the development of the current fine 

sediment core monitoring plan. Results from the 2002 to 2005 period of the IQW project demonstrated 

that 90% or more of the fine sediment is stored in the eddies and channel at elevations lower than the 

8,000 cfs stage (Hazel and others, 2006). This study also demonstrated that change in low-elevation 

sediment storage computed from repeat measurements over short (~ 15 km) reaches is not consistent 

with the change in storage computed based on the measurements of sediment transport over longer 

(~50 km) reaches (Topping and others, 2006). While the measurements of sediment transport that are 

made as part of the goal 7 IQW are used to detect changes in sediment storage in long reaches over 

short timescales (up to ~ 5 years), accumulated uncertainty in these measurements will prevent the 

determination of longer-term trends in sediment storage with adequate certainty. Transport monitoring 

is necessary to track the accumulation and fate of tributary inputs and provide information needed to 

plan high flow events. However, in order to determine whether sediment storage in the system as a 

whole is increasing, decreasing, or stable requires repeat measurements of sand storage throughout the 

entire system (Figure 4). For these reasons, goal 8 fine sediment monitoring includes system-wide 

measurements of channel and eddy sand storage in addition to monitoring related to high-elevation 

sandbars, campsites, and backwaters. 
130

“Sand storage in the channel and 

eddies below 8,000 cfs”

loss gain

“Sandbars above 8,000 cfs” loss gain

Building 

sandbars 

and 

maintaining 

storage!

Mining 

sand from 

storage

Mining 

sand and 

losing 

sandbars

Accumulating 

sand, not 

building bars -

Could be 

having more 

floods!

Figure 4 Conceptual plot showing how long-term trends in sand storage detected by the goal 8 

SedTrend monitoring program will inform management for sandbars. In the event that sandbars are 

increasing in size above the 8,000 cfs stage, the SedTrend monitoring of sand below the 8,000 cfs 

stage will enable distinction between net depletion, ―mining‖ from storage, and net gain, or 

―maintenance‖ of sand. If sandbars above the 8,000 cfs stage are decreasing in size, the SedTrend 

monitoring will be used to determine whether this is also associated with net decrease in storage or an 

increase in storage. The later would mean that more high flows could be used to achieve management 

goals of building sandbars while the former would mean that sandbar goals are unlikely to be met 

without additional sediment.

At the 2004 Adaptive Management Work Group (AMWG) priority-setting workshop, 

questions relating specifically to sediment were identified within three of the top five priorities of the 

GCDAMP:

GCDAMP Priority 4: What is the impact of sediment loss and what should we do about it?

GCDAMP Priority 3: What is the best flow regime?

GCDAMP Priority 2: Which cultural resources, including traditional cultural properties, are 

within the Area of Potential Effect, which should we treat, and how do we best protect them? What is 

the status and trends of cultural resources and what are the agents of deterioration? 

Several SSQs were identified by scientists and managers during the knowledge assessment 

workshop conducted in the summer of 2005 (Melis and others, 2006). The SedTrend monitoring 

project provides valuable information to help answer several of the questions related to sediment 

conservation, and in particular the following primary sediment question:

SSQ 4-1. Is there a ―Flow Only‖ operation (that is, a strategy for dam releases, including 

managing tributary inputs with BHBFs, without sediment augmentation) that will rebuild and 

maintain sandbar habitats over decadal timescales? 
131

The 2003 GCDAMP Strategic Plan identified Core Monitoring Information Needs (CMINs) 

related to sediment storage (goal 8). The CMINS that are addressed by the SedTrend and sandbar 

monitoring are listed below. For each, the prioritization ranking applied by the GCDAMP Science 

Planning Group (SPG) in 2006 is also included. 

CMIN 8.1.1. Determine and track the biennial sandbar area and fine-sediment volume and 

grain-size changes within eddies below 5,000 cfs stage, by reach. (fourth-ranked goal 8 

CMIN).

CMIN 8.2.1. Track, as appropriate, the biennial or annual sandbar area, volume. and grainsize changes within and outside of eddies between 5,000 and 25,000 cfs stage, by reach. 

(second-ranked goal 8 CMIN).

CMIN 8.5.1. Track, as appropriate, the biennial sandbar area, volume, and grain-size changes 

above 25,000 cfs stage, by reach (fifth-ranked goal 8 CMIN).

SedTrend monitoring also addresses this unranked goal 8 CMIN:

CMIN 8.6.1. Track, as appropriate, changes in coarse sediment (> 2 mm) abundance and 

distribution.

The SedTrend and sandbar monitoring also directly address this top-ranked goal 9 CMIN 

priority (jointly with REC 9.R1: Sandbar and Campable Area Monitoring):

CMIN 9.3.1. Determine and track the size, quality, and distribution of camping beaches by 

reach and stage level in Glen and Grand Canyons (top-ranked goal 9 CMIN).

Developing and testing monitoring protocols for these CMINs was the primary focus of 

research and development conducted during FY1998–2006, and was reviewed during the 

physical sciences protocols evaluation program, SEDS-PEP III (Wohl and others, 2006).

During FY2011 and FY2012, SedTrend and sandbar monitoring will include work on all three 

tasks described below. The task 1 sandbar monitoring will be completed using protocols described by 

Hazel and others (1999); Task 3 is conducted using standard ground-based surveying protocols and 

multibeam-sonar bathymetric surveying protocols described in Kaplinski and others (2000, 2007). The 

grain-size data collected under task 3 (recommended by the final PEP, Wohl and others, 2006) are 

collected and processed using protocols described in Rubin and others (2006, 2007) and Rubin (2004). 

The data collection for task 2 systemwide inventory of high-elevation sand deposits was described in 

section DASA 12.D9 of the FY2010 work plan.

Task 1 consists of monitoring the area and volume of fine sediment above the stage associated 

with 8,000 cfs for subsets of sandbars and campsites throughout the CRE using conventional groundbased surveying methods. This dataset is commonly referred to as the ―Northern Arizona University 

(NAU) sandbar time series‖ and is the longest running dataset on the state of sandbars currently 

available (initiated in 1990). For budget reasons, to better facilitate reporting, and because previous 

results have shown steady declines in sandbar area and volume between high flow events (Wright and 

others, 2005), sandbar monitoring was put on a biennial schedule beginning in FY2010 when no 

sandbar monitoring was scheduled in the FY2010 work plan. Thus, except around high flows, biennial 

monitoring will be sufficient to document future trends in sandbar area and volume. Sandbar 

monitoring will occur in September-October 2011 and will not occur in 2012. This task is conducted in

coordination with goal 9 campsite monitoring. The sandbar monitoring sites are also monitored by 

daily photographs taken by remote digital cameras. These images provide a record of sandbar changes 

between surveys, allowing more precise determination of the relation between changes in sandbar size 

and flow regime. These remote cameras will provide the only direct monitoring of sandbar condition 

immediately before and after future high flows. Currently, 18 sites are monitored by remote camera. 
132

Additional cameras will be installed as funds are available (see high flow contingency, below). The 

images will be used to create movies for each sandbar for the period of photographic record.

An important aspect of the long-term sandbar data series is how the size of sandbars at the 

initiation of monitoring in 1990 compares with sandbar size (area and volume) prior to 1990. In 

FY2012, we will begin extending the sandbar data series backward in time by analysis of aerial 

photographs for sandbar area and volume. This project will proceed with technical assistance from the 

survey support project (SUP 12.S2) and is contingent upon staff availability in FY2012. The degree to 

which this project can be implemented in FY2012 will be addressed in the review of the FY2012 work 

plan during FY2011.

Approximately once every 4 years (but only in years without high flows), the systemwide area 

of fine sediment above the stage associated with a discharge of 8,000 cfs (that is, approximately 10 

percent of the fine sediment in the CRE) will be monitored using orthrectified aerial photography 

images collected during quadrennial overflights (the volume of fine sediment may also be monitored if 

light detection and ranging [LiDAR] sensors are deployed). Although these data only monitor sand 

that is above the 8,000 cfs water surface and, therefore, cannot be used to quantify changes in sand 

storage volume, they do provide a robust assessment of the systemwide distribution of bare sand and 

the distribution of riparian vegetation. The most recent overflight consisting of 4-band images 

occurred in May 2009. Analysis of these images for sandbar area will occur in FY2011 and a pilot 

evaluation of their use in determining sandbar volume will occur in FY2012, as described in the 

coordinated image analysis project in the FY 2010 work plan, DASA 12.D9.

Monitoring of the area and volume of fine sediment at all elevations over long reaches is 

designed to occur each year that a high flow does not occur using multibeam bathymetric surveys, 

ground-based topographic surveys, underwater video transects, and underwater camera measurements 

of bed grain size. Although this monitoring is not designed to monitor the results of any single high 

flow, it is designed to monitor the cumulative results of multiple high flows over a 5 to 10 year period. 

The results from previous high flow monitoring demonstrate that high flows build sandbars and that 

the magnitude of bar building is greatest when sand concentrations are highest. The question that is 

unresolved, which this program seeks to address, is whether repeated high flows and intervening dam 

operations can result in maintenance or increase in sandbars over longer periods of time. Site-based 

monitoring does not include enough study sites to address this question and remote sensing is not able 

to capture submerged sand, which is 80 percent or more of the active storage. 

Because deposits at all elevations are mapped, this monitoring provides a comprehensive 

assessment of changes in sandbar area, volume, and morphology. Thus, in addition to tracking the 

amount of low-elevation sand stored in the channel, this monitoring will also provide the first robust 

assessment of changes in sandbar size and morphology above the 8,000 cfs stage. 

This task is planned to be performed on a systemwide basis every 5 to 10 years in order to 

calculate fine-sediment budgets over timescales for which the goal 7 mass-balance sediment budgets 

likely become inconclusive due to accumulating measurement errors. In addition to providing this key 

sediment budget information (that is, the status of the fine sediment ―bank account‖), these data will 

provide maps of the river bed that can be used for flow and sediment transport models, information to 

allow mapping of bed texture, which is an essential component for interpreting the results of research 

on the aquatic food base, and information on the location and geometries of backwaters thought to be 

important habitat for native fish. It is not possible within current budgetary and personnel constraints 

to survey the bathymetry of the entire river in any given year. Therefore, a different reach of the river 

will be surveyed each year on a rotating basis. The reaches will correspond to the segments outlined in 
133

the goal 7 IQW project, such that upon completion of a repeat survey for a given reach, all components 

of the sediment budget for that reach will have been measured directly. The reaches are as follows: 

reach 1, RM 0 to RM 30 (upper Marble Canyon); reach 2, RM 30 to RM 61 (lower Marble Canyon); 

reach 3, RM 61 to RM 87 (eastern Grand Canyon); reach 4, RM 87 to RM 166 (central Grand 

Canyon); reach 5, RM 166 to RM 226 (western Grand Canyon). 

These surveys are scheduled for late spring and will only be completed in years without high 

flows. In the absence of high-flow tests, each reach would be surveyed every 5 years, or, if a high-flow 

test occurred on average every other year, then each reach would be surveyed on average every 10 

years. This 5 to 10 year interval between repeat bathymetric and topographic surveys coupled with the 

goal 7 IQW flux monitoring will provide a robust quantification of long-term trends in the fine 

sediment budget. Because reaches 4 and 5 are much longer than reaches 1 through 3, it is possible that 

portions of these reaches will not be surveyed. Existing data will be used to identify the portions of 

these reaches that are most likely to store fine sediment. It is also possible that technological 

advancements and improvements in methods will allow for complete surveys of these reaches in the 

future.

The schedule for SedTrend monitoring under goal 8 is complicated by the potential for highflow tests. It is advantageous for task 2 remote-sensing missions and task 3 channel monitoring 

surveys to occur in years without tests so that the monitoring data are not dominated by the effects of a 

single high-flow test. Rather, remote-sensing and reach survey monitoring should represent the 

integral response of the system to several years of dam operations and tributary inputs. Further, 

logistical constraints would make it difficult to conduct the remote-sensing and channel mapping in 

addition to high-flow monitoring. Thus, without knowing the exact frequency of tests, it is impossible 

to outline the exact schedule for SedTrend monitoring.

In FY2009, channel mapping data were collected in reach 2 (RM 30 to RM 61). Analyses of 

these data are underway to ensure the data meet the needs of the planned monitoring program within 

acceptable ranges of certainty. The desired outcome of a computation of change in storage over a long 

reach requires that we have a thorough examination of error and uncertainty such that we can apply 

confidence levels to these computations. Although repeat measurements of topographic and 

bathymetry have been used routinely in the GCMRC monitoring over the past 10 years and longer, the 

channel mapping project represents a significant scaling upwards of these methods. For FY2010, data 

collection was suspended to allow finalization of 2008 high flow reporting and analysis and reporting 

on FY2009 channel mapping data. 

Data collection will resume in FY2011 with either the segment between RM 61 and RM 87 or 

the segment between RM 166 and RM 226. The segment not mapped in FY2011 will be mapped in 

FY2012. A high flow in either of these years would result in deferment of channel mapping to the 

next year without a high flow. 

Table 5 presents two possible 10-year schedules based on different assumptions regarding 

high flow frequency for illustrative purposes. The first is the schedule in the absence of high-flow tests 

where the exact schedule can be delineated. The second schedule assumes that high-flow tests occur 

every other year, which would be the approximate frequency under previous triggers based on 

tributary sediment supply. In reality, even if the frequency were every other year on average, there 

would likely be periods with successive years of tests and successive years without tests such that the 

core-monitoring schedule for remote-sensing and reach surveys must be flexible. The sequence of the 

channel mapping surveys is based on priority for long-term monitoring. Reaches 2 and 5 are likely to 

be the best indicators of long-term trends because they are not immediately downstream from major 

tributaries and are, therefore, likely to have smaller fluctuations in storage resulting from tributary 

inputs. The sequence is interrupted by an early resurvey of reach 2. This will allow calculation of a 
134

change in fine sediment storage for this reach over a time period for which the uncertainty in the goal 7 

mass balance is well constrained. This will also provide an early demonstration of how the long-term 

SedTrend monitoring data will be analyzed and presented.

Task 1:

subsample 

campsites/ 

sandbars

Task 2: 

4-year 

overflights

Task 3: 

SedTrend 

channel 

mapping

Task 1:

subsample 

campsites/ 

sandbars

Task 2: 

4-year 

overflights

Task 3: 

SedTrend 

channel 

mapping

2009 X X Reach 2 X X Reach 2

2010 (high-flow 

test)

Suspend 

data 

collection

*

2011 X

Reach 3 (or 

5) X

Reach 3 (or 

5)

2012 (high-flow 

test)

Reach 5 (or 

3)

*

2013 X X Reach 2 X X

Reach 5 (or 

3)

2014 (high-flow 

test) Reach 1 *

2015 X Reach 4 X Reach 2

2016 (high-flow 

test) Reach 5 *

2017 X X Reach 3 X X Reach 1

2018 (high-flow 

test) Reach 2 *

* Additional sandbar/campsite monitoring that occurs if high flow occurs in year without 

scheduled biennial monitoring.

SedTrend monitoring provides data (that is, maps showing the topography and distribution of 

sediment types over about 30-mile reaches of the river) that are essential to the development and 

testing of numerical predictive models of discharge, stage, sediment transport, and sandbar 

morphology. These predictive models can be used to evaluate a wide range of resource responses, such 

as the fate of sandbar habitats to various dam release scenarios, controlled floods, steady flows, 

fluctuating flows, etc.

SedTrend monitoring provides data to be used to evaluate the effectiveness of dam operations 

(including high-flow tests) for rebuilding and maintaining sandbars in the CRE. Additionally, 

SedTrend monitoring will provide the data showing whether dam operations continue to mine the 

long-term fine-sediment reserve stored at elevations below the stage associated with a discharge of 

8,000 cfs (more than 90 percent of the fine sediment in the system is currently stored below this 

elevation). If the amount of sediment in this ―bank account‖ continues to decrease, then operations will 

ultimately not be able to sustain fine-sediment resources at higher elevations.
135

Sandbar monitoring supports the campsite inventories conducted under goal 9 by 

characterizing the status and trends of the sandbars used as campsites (covered under project REC 

9.R1: sandbar and campable area monitoring).

SedTrend and sandbar monitoring support goal 11 by characterizing the status of fine sediment 

at higher elevations in and around cultural sites, and by characterizing the amount of open dry sand 

available to be transported by the wind into these cultural sites. SedTrend monitoring also supports 

new research focused on the food web of the river ecosystem by providing data on the input of gravel 

used as a substrate by the aquatic food web.

SedTrend monitoring provides information on the distribution of the fine-sediment deposits 

that form the substrate for the riparian ecology.

Finally, SedTrend and sandbar monitoring supports science activities in the fisheries program 

by providing the data to characterize the locations and geometries of backwaters thought to be 

important habitat for native fish.

As described above, the SedTrend project is designed to monitor the cumulative effect of 

multiple high flows, but is not conducted in years with high flows because the channel mapping 

component is not designed to monitor the effects of individual high flows. Individual high flows and 

subsequent sandbar erosion are monitored by remote cameras and the repeat surveys of the sandbar 

monitoring sites. Details of the high flow monitoring plan and budget implications are addressed in 

PLAN 12.P6.

The SedTrend channel mapping will ultimately result in decadal-timescale sediment budgets 

for each of the five channel mapping segments, providing information on the long-term status of the 

fine-sediment reserve. These sediment budgets will also be compared to the sediment budgets 

computed for these reaches under the complementary mass-balance project described under goal 7. 

These comparisons, however, cannot be made until the segment mapped in 2009 is repeated. 

Collection of channel mapping data for the SedTrend project and sandbar monitoring will both occur 

in FY2011. These data will not be fully processed and reported until FY2012. 

Collection and processing of SedTrend channel mapping data for an additional one of the five 

channel mapping segments. Currently, this work is planned to occur in the segment between RM 61 

and RM 87 or between RM 166 and RM 225

Repeat surveys of the NAU sandbar study sites

Finalization of reports outlined in the FY 2010 work plan, which include:

Data series report and journal article on the Northern Arizona University sandbar data, 1990-

2009

Topographic/bathymetric maps of the RM 29 to RM 61 segment mapped during the FY2009 

SedTrend field work

Analysis of uncertainty in the SedTrend topographic/bathymetric maps. This analysis is 

necessary to demonstrate that maps generated over long reaches have sufficient accuracy that they can 

be used to compute changes in fine sediment storage within acceptable levels of uncertainty; this 

analysis will result in one or more peer-reviewed reports and journal articles
136

Comparisons between the data collected in lower Marble Canyon in FY2009 and multibeamsonar data collected in parts of lower Marble Canyon between 2000 and 2008 to evaluate volume 

changes in the fine-sediment reserve, resulting in at least one peer-reviewed report or journal article

Analysis and preliminary reporting on system-wide monitoring of sand area above the 8,000 cfs 

stage with remote sensing collected in 2002, 2005, and 2009 in coordination with DASA 12.D9

Preparation of conference abstracts and/or proceedings articles

Presentations at GCDAMP meetings (as necessary)

All work conducted for the SedTrend and sandbar monitoring project will be summarized in 

annual reports to be completed by January 1, 2012

Reporting and publication of the data collected in FY2011 will occur in FY2012. 

Collection and processing of SedTrend channel mapping data for an additional one of the five 

channel mapping segments; currently, this work is planned to occur in the segment between RM 166 

and RM 225 or RM 61 and RM 87

Topographic/bathymetric maps of the segment mapped during the FY2011 SedTrend field 

work with comparisons between these data and earlier data collected in this reach

Final reporting on system-wide monitoring of sand area above the 8,000 cfs stage with remote 

sensing collected in 2002, 2005, and 2009 in coordination with DASA 12.D9

Preparation of conference abstracts and/or proceedings articles

Presentations at GCDAMP meetings (as necessary)

All work conducted for the SedTrend and sandbar monitoring project will be summarized in 

annual reports to be completed by January 1, 2013
137

October 1998

Ongoing

R. Parnell, M. Kaplinski, and J. Hazel, Northern Arizona University, Geology Department, in 

cooperation with U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center staff.

Campable area monitoring for GCDAMP has historically focused on monitoring campable 

space at approximately 31 sandbars located along the main channel of the Colorado River between 

Lees Ferry (RM 0) and Diamond Creek (RM 226). In FY2011, these long term study sites will 

continue to be the focus of campable area monitoring.

Campsites in the reach below Diamond Creek are of interest to National Park Service (NPS)

and Hualapai tribal managers due to the increasing recreational use of the ―Diamond Down‖ reach and 

the fact that persistent sandbars are now exposed along a flowing river reach as a result of the recent 

years of lower reservoir elevations and sand storage in Lake Mead. Therefore, 1-3 additional sandbar

campsites between RM 226 and the western boundary of the geographical scope of the GCDAMP 

program (approximately RM 278) may be included in this monitoring project starting in FY2011.

The goal of this project is to track changes in campable area using established monitoring 

protocols (repeat total station surveys) while alternative monitoring approaches using remotely sensed 

data are being explored and evaluated (see project REC 9.R3/DASA 12.D9):

The specific objectives of this study include the following: 

Measure campsite area at a series of long-term monitoring sandbar sites

Evaluate changes in campsite area in relation to changes in sandbar volume and topography 

Evaluate how changes in campsite area affect other attributes that relate to camp site quality 

and visitor experience
138

Public concern with the ongoing loss of sandbar ―beaches‖ and recreational capacity in the 

Colorado River corridor was a key factor leading to the development of the 1995 Glen Canyon Dam 

Final Environmental Impact Statement and passage of the Grand Canyon Protection Act (GCPA) in 

1992. With the supply of new sand below the dam estimated to be about 6 percent of the pre-dam 

supply in Marble Canyon and about 16 percent of the pre-dam supply below the confluence with the 

LCR (RM 61–278), there is considerable uncertainty about the future fate and long-term sustainability 

of sandbar campsites below GCD under proposed operational strategies intended to promote sand 

conservation of tributary inputs. The protection of visitor use values is specifically identified as a goal 

of GCPA and is a stated goal of the GCDAMP. This project directly addresses one element of the top

priority core-monitoring information need (change in campsite size) for goal 9 of the GCDAMP 

Strategic Plan (2003), and indirectly addresses aspects of campsite quality and visitor experience 

quality. This project will provide data to managers about the status and trend of campsite area

throughout the CRE below GCD at sites that were monitored annually since 1998, and that are now 

proposed for monitoring every other year, with FY2011 being the next year when monitoring will 

occur. 

In terms of questions that are specific to the AMP goals for recreation, this project directly addresses 

the following SSQ:

SSQ 3-9. How do varying flows positively or negatively affect campsite attributes that are 

important to visitor experience? 

Because campsite size can affect visitor experience, this project also indirectly addresses two other 

important science questions related to recreation in the CRE:

SSQ 3-7. How do dam-controlled flows affect visitors’ recreational experiences, and what is/are 

the optimal flows for maintaining a high-quality recreational experience in the CRE? 

SSQ 3-8. What are the drivers for recreational experiences in the CRE, and how important are 

flows relative to other drivers in shaping recreational experience outcomes?

Indirectly, this project is also relevant to resolving the primary strategic science question for sediment, 

in that it provides another measurement of sandbar habitat (in this case, human habitat): 

SSQ 4-1. Is there a ―Flow Only‖ operation (that is, a strategy for dam releases, including 

managing tributary inputs with BHBFs, without sediment augmentation) that will restore and 

maintain sandbar habitats over decadal timescales? 

This project directly addresses one part of the top priority CMIN for goal 9 (campsite size): 

CMIN 9.3.1. Determine and track the size, quality, and distribution of camping beaches by reach 

and stage level in Glen and Grand Canyons. (This project specifically addresses the part of the 

CMIN concerned with campsite size.)

This project partially addresses a second campsite CMIN (9.3.2) that is closely related to the top

priority CMIN for camping beaches (Note: The Science Planning Group of the TWG recommended 

that CMINs 9.3.1 and 9.3.2 be combined as one): 
139

CMIN 9.3.2. Determine and track the effects of ROD operations on the size, quality, and 

distribution of camping beaches in the CRE.

This monitoring project also is designed to track the short- and long-term effects of experimental flows

on camping beaches (campable area), as defined by EIN 9.3.1:

EIN 9.3.1. How do the size, quality, and distribution of camping beaches change in response to an 

experiment performed under the ROD, unanticipated event, or other management action?

Repeat surveys of sandbars have been conducted since 1990 using trained field personnel 

under the joint direction of the GCMRC‘s physical program staff and scientists from the Northern 

Arizona University (NAU) Department of Geology. Campable area survey protocols were 

subsequently established in 1998 and have been applied consistently to a sub-set of these long-term 

sandbar monitoring sites by the same team of NAU scientists since 1998 (Kaplinski and others, 2005). 

As described in the SCORE report (Kaplinski and others, 2005, p. 196), in the past, campable area 

surveys were conducted annually in the fall, at the conclusion of the prime river recreation season. 

Survey crews from NAU Department of Geology measure the study sites using standard total station 

survey techniques (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1994). Starting in FY2010, GCMRC decided to 

reduce the frequency of sand bar and campable area monitoring to every other year. FY2010 was the 

first year since 1998 that sand bar and campsite monitoring did not occur. In the FY2011-12 work 

plan, FY2011 will be an ―on‖ year, in which campsite monitoring will occur again, while FY2012 will 

be an ‖off‖ year, in which the focus will be limited to further analysis of legacy data and reporting. 

Following established protocols, topographic data will be collected and referenced to Arizona

State Plane Coordinates generated through the GCMRC‘s survey control network throughout the CRE. 

Data will be reduced and analyzed by the NAU team in cooperation with GCMRC and presented in a 

variety of formats. The campable areas will also be assessed relative to flow and stage elevations 

linked to dam operations. These data will be integrated with, and analyzed in relation to, sandbar 

measurement data (area and volume relative to stage elevations) that are being collected as a 

component of the core-monitoring program for sediment (see project PHY 8.M2).

Surveyors follow the criteria of Kearsley (1995) and Kearsley and Quartaroli (1997) to 

identify campable area. Campable area is defined as ―a smooth substrate (preferably sand) with no 

more than 8 degrees of slope with little or no vegetation‖ (Kaplinski and others, 2005, p.196). 

Although the goal is to capture the total campable area at each site, camping areas located at 

considerable distance (>100 m) from the main mooring/cooking areas are generally not included in the 

totals. In the future, these protocols may be adjusted to measure all campable area with variable slope 

criteria within the NPS-defined campsite boundaries using remotely sensed data (see REC 9.R3/DASA 

12.D9); however, until new protocols are tested and refined, the existing monitoring program will 

continue.FY2011 

In the FY2010-11 work plan, GCMRC originally proposed to hold a PEP in FY2011 to review and 

potentially refine campsite monitoring protocols; however, the analysis of remote sensing data has 

been delayed due to delays processing the 2009 overflight data. Therefore, FY2011 will be another

on year, in which the long-standing approach to campsite monitoring will occur, and the PEP will be 

deferred to FY2012..

In addition, GCMRC will continue to support Grand Canyon River Guides with a small amount of 

funding (~$8k) to continue the collection, analysis, digitizing, and archiving of photographic records 

documenting changes occurring at 45 popular campsites. These data, which are collected by river 

guides on a volunteer basis and compiled, digitized, and analyzed by a paid staff person, provide 
140

another form of monitoring data at minimal cost for tracking changes in campsite area, 

shoreline/mooring characteristics, and overall camp quality through time.

In FY2012, GCMRC will convene a PEP to review existing monitoring protocols for 

campsites, as well as to consider the results of analyzing remotely sensed data to evaluate campsite 

changes (see project REC 9.R3/DASA 12.D9). Upon completion of this PEP, monitoring of campsites 

will recommence in FY2013, subject to revisions recommended by the PEP. In addition, GCMRC 

will continue to support Grand Canyon River Guides with a modest amount of funding (~$8k) to 

continue the collection, analysis, digitizing, and archiving of photographic records at 45 popular 

campsites. These data, which are collected by river guides on a volunteer basis and compiled, 

digitized, and analyzed by a paid staff person, provide another form of monitoring data targeted at 

tracking changes in campsite area, shoreline/mooring characteristics, and overall camp quality through 

time.

This monitoring project will continue in conjunction with, and will be analyzed in relation to,

the data collected from NAU‘s long-term sandbar monitoring sites, a project that has been underway 

since the early 1990s. The campable area surveys that this project focuses on have occurred annually at 

a subset of the NAU sandbar sites since 1998. Both the NAU sandbar survey and campable area 

monitoring projects are concerned with monitoring sandbar sediment, but in different respects. The 

sandbar survey tracks changes in total area and volume of sandbars above the 5,000 cfs level, while the 

campable area monitoring project specifically evaluates changes in the amount of campable area 

available at a subset of these sandbar sites. In combination, these two projects provide a relatively 

holistic assessment of how flows are affecting the sandbar habitats used by recreational boaters for 

camping. 

The sites being assessed by this monitoring project constitute a relatively small and nonrandom, but fairly representative (Schmidt and others, 2004) subset of the total number of campsites 

located throughout the river ecosystem. Data resulting from this monitoring project will be 

incorporated into the GIS campsite atlas in FY2012 (REC 9.R3). In addition, these directly surveyed 

campable area measurements will be used to assess the quality and accuracy of campable area data 

derived from remotely sensed imagery (see REC 9.R3/DASA 12.D9).

In addition to recreation resources, sandbars are closely linked with other resources of 

GCDAMP concern, such as terrestrial and aquatic habitats related to native fish rearing areas 

(backwaters) and cultural sites. Campable area monitoring provides information on changes in area of 

open sand above the active fluctuating flow operating zone (above 25,000 cfs stage) and indirectly 

provides information about whether sand storage in those areas is stable, increasing, or decreasing 

through time in response to normal dam operations or experimental high flows that are intended to 

promote conservation of new sand supplies. The abundance of open sand areas along shorelines 

provides another indirect measurement of the potentially available sand for transport by wind to higher 

elevations where archaeological sites are located. In the future, studies at cultural sites may incorporate 

data derived from monitoring sandbars and campable area to estimate changes in sand flux at nearby 

cultural sites.
141

In FY2011, fieldwork will require a single oar powered river trip planned for late September–

early October 2011 in conjunction with the sandbar monitoring project (PHY 8.M2). No field work is 

planned for FY2012 unless a high flow occurs, in which case one trip would occur within 6 months 

following the flow in conjunction with sandbar monitoring (see HFE Protocol experiment project.)

A comprehensive, synthetic, peer reviewed report documenting the change in campable area

over the past 10 years and relating these changes to other monitored changes, such as sandbar area and 

volume, is being prepared in FY2010. This report will be served through the GCMRC web site and 

Campsite GIS Atlas in FY2011. Results of FY2011 fieldwork will be reported in a USGS fact sheet or 

Open-File Report and served through the GCMRC website in FY2012. 
142

2007

September 30, 2012

Helen Fairley, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, with 

GCMRC staff support

Entire Colorado River ecosystem (CRE), from base of Glen Canyon Dam (GCD) to Lake 

Mead (River Mile [RM] 277)

The goals of this project are to expand the existing GIS campsite atlas database and use the 

atlas as a foundational tool for analyzing and documenting changes in campsite attributes that are 

potentially affected by dam controlled flows. These goals will be accomplished by: 

Adding recently collected campsite data to the atlas database

Continuing to expand the legacy data component of the atlas

Analyzing the currently compiled campsite data to document changes in the spatial extent, 

geographic distribution, and associated attributes of campsites located throughout the CRE. In 

FY2011, the focus will be on evaluating vegetation encroachment at a random sample of currently 

used campsites in the atlas using a combination of remotely sensed imagery and oblique photography 

analyzed in relation to GIS data that defines current campsite boundaries.

The atlas currently contains tabular data on current campsite attributes that are important to 

maintaining a high quality recreation experience in the CRE and that have the potential to be affected 

by flows (for example, campable area, amount of open sand area, type and amount of vegetation cover, 

and shoreline/mooring characteristics under varying flows). The atlas also documents the locations and 

attributes of past campsites identified in previous inventories that have since disappeared due to loss of 

sediment and/or vegetation encroachment. The atlas is designed to serve as the primary electronic 

repository for all data that have been collected on campsites over the past few decades (for example, 

repeat photographs, campable area survey data, vegetation transect data, human impact data, etc.). It 

also serves as the baseline ―status‖ record for future monitoring and research projects. It defines the 

boundaries of current campsites in a GIS environment so that future evaluations that rely on remotely

sensed data and statistical samples to quantify change in campsite attributes relative to dam operations 

(e.g., DASA 12.D9) have a common spatial basis for evaluating change through time. 

Baseline inventories provide the foundation for long-term monitoring programs and research 

studies. Comprehensive campsite inventories in the CRE conducted initially in 1973 were repeated in
143

1984 (Weeden and others, 1975; Brian and Thomas, 1984) and again in the 1990s. The last 

comprehensive campsite inventory was completed 18 years ago in 1991 (Kearsley and Warren, 1993).

The 1991 inventory showed a dramatic decline in number and size of campsites compared with 

previous inventories (Kaplinski and others, 2005). As conditions change, additional comprehensive 

inventories are needed periodically to assess status and trends related to camp size, quality, and 

distribution throughout the CRE. The atlas provides the baseline data against which future changes can 

be assessed. This atlas will also serve as the central repository for all campsite data collected during 

future inventory and monitoring projects. The 2005 recreation PEP identified the development of this 

atlas as the highest priority research need under management objective 9.3. In addition to assessing 

overall changes in campsite area and distribution, there is a need to understand the specific factors 

contributing to changes in campsite area through time. The work proposed in FY2011–12 will focus 

on analyzing remotely sensed data using GIS tools in the atlas to evaluate the role of vegetation in 

affecting available camping area and influencing the quality of campsites through time.

This project directly addresses the following strategic science question:

SSQ 3-9. How do varying flows positively or negatively affect campsite attributes that are 

important to visitor experience? 

Indirectly, this project will also provide information that is relevant for addressing a second strategic 

science question about the effects of flows on the quality of recreational experience in the CRE:

SSQ 3-8. What are the drivers for recreational experiences in the CRE, and how important are 

flows relative to other drivers in shaping recreational experience outcomes? 

This project is designed to address management objective 9.3 and specifically, the AMP’s top priority 

CMIN for Goal 9: 

CMIN 9.3.1. Determine and track the size, quality, and distribution of camping beaches by 

reach and stage level in Glen and Grand Canyons. 

CMIN 9.3.1 is very closely related to a second CMIN under Management Objective. 9.3

CMIN 9.3.2. Determine and track the effects of ROD operations on the size, quality, and 

distribution of camping beaches in the CRE.

The current monitoring program for campsites (REC 9.R1) focuses primarily on one aspect of 

CMIN 9.3.1: campsite size. Task 3 of this project will contribute information about the role of 

vegetation encroachment on campsite size. In addition, this project is developing a comprehensive 

database relevant to tracking other key relevant campsite variables, such campsite distribution and 

quality throughout the CRE. Through analyzing the FY2002, FY2005, and FY2009 post-experimental 

flows imagery in relation to campsites, this project is also designed to contribute valuable information 

relative to interpreting the effects of experimental flows on camping sites, as defined by EIN 9.3.1.

EIN 9.3.1. How do the size, quality, and distribution of camping beaches change in response 

to an experiment performed under the ROD, unanticipated event, or other management action?

The work proposed in FY2011–12 will involve three primary components:Incorporate data 

from FY2009 and11 campsite monitoring efforts into the GIS atlas
144

Tabular data, survey data, supporting metadata, and photographs collected in FY2009 and 

FY2011 will be scanned and linked to GIS/spatial data

Scan additional maps, slides, and photographs and incorporate additional legacy data from past 

campsite monitoring projects into the atlas 

Analyze vegetation encroachment at both the NAU long-term sandbar sites and at a random 

sample of campsites the campsite polygon data overlaid on 2002, 2005, and 2009 overflight imagery 

and oblique photographic records from a sample of campsites

o Using aerial imagery collected in 2002, 2005, and 2009, we will analyze the amount of 

vegetation contained within the established polygon boundaries at the NAU sandbar sites 

and at a randomly-selected sample of other campsites to determine how much vegetation 

encroachment has contributed to changing campable area through time 

The GIS atlas is designed to serve as the definitive source for information on prior and current 

campsite inventory data. It provides a foundation and repository for all future research and monitoring 

projects related to CRE campsites. In addition to meeting GCDAMP information needs, data from this 

project will be used by the National Park Service as they develop implementation plans and resource 

monitoring projects tied to the Colorado River Management Plan. For example, in addition to 

documenting areas used for recreational camping, the GIS campsite layer documents areas of the CRE 

most heavily used and impacted by humans. This information will be useful for assessing human 

impacts rates on nearby cultural resources such as archaeological sites and traditional cultural 

properties. 

Fieldwork required to verify or update the atlas will be accomplished by participating on other 

scheduled GCMRC river trips. 

An assessment of the role of vegetation in affecting campsite area will be published as a 

Scientific Investigation Report in FY2012
145

2011

2012

TBD, in cooperation with Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD) and National Park 

Service (NPS)

Colorado River from Glen Canyon Dam (GCD) to Lees Ferry

The goals of this project are as follows:

Evaluate the recreational values and visitor experience quality under varying flow regimes, 

including high flow experiments, of anglers and other visitors who benefit from fishing and pursuing 

other recreational activities in the Glen Canyon reach 

Work with AZGFD to refine the creel survey to gather basic recreation experience quality data 

and economic (expenditure) data and to serve as a tool for future periodic monitoring of visitor 

satisfaction associated with trout fishing in the Lees Ferry reach

Operation of Glen Canyon Dam (GCD) affects the ecosystem of the Glen Canyon reach, 

including the ecology of RBT, the resulting quality of the trout fishery, the condition of camping 

beaches, and other physical and biological attributes that are important to having and maintaining a 

high quality visitor experience. The Lees Ferry recreational fishery was recognized as a resource of 

concern in the Operation of Glen Canyon Dam Final Environmental Impact Statement (U.S. 

Department of the Interior (DOI), 1995), which concluded: ―Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management 

Program (GCDAMP) goals for the trout fishery are to provide a recreational resource while 

maintaining and conserving native fish in Grand Canyon‖. The management objective of the 

GCDAMP is to maintain a blue ribbon trout fishery that produces a healthy, self-sustaining population 

of at least 100,000 age-2 RBT. The Glen Canyon Reach is also a popular day use rafting area.

The Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD) has managed the Lees Ferry-Glen Canyon 

recreational fishery since 1964, while the National Park Service (NPS) manages visitor use in this area. 

Lees Ferry and the 15 mile long corridor upstream of Lees Ferry (hereafter referred to as the Glen 

Canyon Reach) serves as a popular destination fishery for international and national anglers. As such, 

it provides significant contributions to the Marble Canyon business community. The fishery is

regulated by biotic and abiotic mechanisms that may in turn be affected by the operations of GCD. 

In addition to recreational fishing, the Glen Canyon Reach is a popular destination for day use 

rafting and it is also used occasionally by canoeists and kayakers for day use boating and overnight 

camping. 
146

This project responds to recommendations that have been made to the AMP by numerous 

independent PEP panels, including the 2005 Recreation PEP (Loomis and others, 2005), the 2009 Fish 

Pep (2009) and the review panel at the 2009 Socioeconomic workshop (Hamilton and others, 2009). 

This project is designed to complement existing monitoring programs in the Lees Ferry reach that 

focus on monitoring the condition, recruitment, population and other biological parameters of the Lees 

Ferry rainbow trout population. Unlike existing monitoring programs in the Lees Ferry Reach, 

however, the focus of this project is not on monitoring additional biological parameters but on 

assessing the full suite of recreational values and biophysical attributes that contribute to visitor 

enjoyment of the Glen Canyon reach under varying flows and resource conditions. This study will lay 

the foundation for evaluating changes in recreational experience quality resulting from future dam 

operations, including implementation of a future high flow protocol as well as other experimental flow 

regimes that may be implemented in the future. 

Primary SSQs addressed:

SSQ 3-6. What GCD operations (ramping rates, daily flow range, etc.) maximize trout fishing 

opportunities and catchability?

SSQ 3-8. What are the drivers for recreational experiences in the CRE, and how important are 

flows relative to other drivers in shaping recreational experience outcomes?

Information needs are the basis for developing and implementing long-term strategic and 

annual monitoring and research programs. Identified below are the current information needs pertinent 

to the recreational experience monitoring in the Glen Canyon Reach:

Primary information needs addressed include the following: 

CMIN 9.1.1 Determine and track the changes attributable to dam operations in recreational 

quality, opportunities and use, impacts, serious incidents, and perceptions of users, including the 

level of satisfaction, in the Colorado River Ecosystem

CMIN 9.1.4 Determine and track the economic benefits of river related recreational opportunities

RIN 9.1.1 What are the attributes of a quality river experience?

The following description of methods reflects the recommendations of the 2005 Recreation 

PEP and is adapted directly from their report (Loomis and others, 2005). In addition, this project 

responds to recommendations from the independent panel at the December 2009 Socioeconomic 

Workshop (Hamilton and others, 2010).

As previously mentioned, a key core monitoring need of the AMP is to determine and track 

visitor satisfaction for river-related recreational opportunities. Conceptually, visitor satisfaction is an 

important element of a recreation monitoring program. However, monitoring overall visitor 

satisfaction has several important weaknesses, including its currently undefined nature and problems 

of visitor displacement and other coping mechanisms whereby overall visitor satisfaction may be high 

even though the type of recreation experience provided is considerably different than what was 

intended or is considered appropriate by managers of the resource. Consequently, monitoring overall 

visitor satisfaction by itself is not recommended or proposed; instead, we propose to conduct some 
147

basic research to identify relationships between dam operations, recreation resource conditions, 

recreation trip attributes, and visitor satisfaction with specific resource conditions and trip attributes. 

AMWG management objectives can best be met by conducting initial research that relates 

dam operations directly to trip attributes that influence visitor satisfaction (see Figure 5 below). Once 

these relationships are established, there should be less need for annual monitoring of visitor 

satisfaction; instead we can focus on monitoring the dam operations that have been shown to influence 

the resource conditions and trip attributes that determine visitor satisfaction. After completing this 

baseline study, we anticipate that only periodic (e.g., every five years) monitoring of visitor experience

quality and satisfaction would be necessary to ensure that the relationships among dam-related trip 

attributes and the visitor satisfaction remain unchanged. 

2. Unique Characteristics of Glen & 

Grand Canyon (e.g. geology)

3. Recreation Conditions: (Physical, Biological, Social and Management) 

(e.g. flows, beach size, camp shading, and number of launches)

1. Management Actions

BR (Dam Releases), 

NPS (Launch Schedules, etc.)

AZGFD (Fishing Regulation)

6. Recreational Experiences

(what visitors experience on 

their trip, including aspects of 

wilderness experience)

7. Visitor Evaluations of 

Their Experience

5. Visitor Evaluations of 

Recreation Conditions 

and Trip Attributes

4. Trip Attributes

(e.g. rate of travel, length of 

trip, size & number of 

rapids, encounters with other 

groups, discretionary time, 

safety)
148

Knowing how each recreation resource condition and trip attribute contributes to visitor

satisfaction and how these conditions are related to dam operations and other management actions 

provides the information Reclamation, NPS and AZGFD need to maintain recreation experience 

quality in the Glen Canyon Reach. Once these relationships are known, the GCMRC and others can 

focus monitoring on the relevant resource conditions and trip attributes and be able to reliably infer 

what is occurring to the visitor experience. This approach also provides the information needed to 

modify management actions that may be leading to a decrease in visitor satisfaction or to mitigate 

adverse effects of such actions. 

An additional advantage of the trip attribute model is that it provides managers an 

understanding of how visitors trade-off different levels of trip attributes in terms of their experience 

satisfaction or quality. For example, lower flows often mean rockier shoals but denser concentrations 

of fish at certain locations. Using a quantitative trip attribute model (described below), the relative 

effect of different changes in trip attributes can be compared in terms of relative contribution to overall 

trip satisfaction. As also described in more detail below, organizing monitoring around a trip attribute 

model can simultaneously allow for quantifying the economic benefits received by the visitors. This 

allows addressing CMIN 9.1.4 with mostly additional statistical analysis rather than a separate data 

collection effort. 

Ideally, we would like to be able to monitor visitor experiences directly (Box 6) and 

understand the relationships between management actions, particularly dam operations, and visitor 

experiences. While there have been a multitude of studies of outdoor recreation experiences, many of 

them conducted on rivers, and several of them focused specifically on the Colorado River in Grand 

Canyon (SWCA, 2002, Stewart et al. 2000), these studies have not specifically identified the cause and 

effect relationships between management actions, trip attributes and recreational experiences in the 

context of the Colorado River. Therefore, we propose to initially focus research on determining the

recreation resource conditions such as physical, biological, social and management conditions (Box 3), 

trip attributes (Box 4) and visitor evaluation of resource conditions and attributes (Box 5) that are 

important to providing the types of visitor experiences that make recreation in the Glen Canyon Reach 

a world-class experience. This essentially involves estimating the linkages in the conceptual model in 

Figure 5 for Glen Canyon day use rafters and Glen Canyon anglers. 

The first step in this recommendation is to synthesize the work done to date. Extending the 

work of Hall and Shelby (2000), Stewart et al. (2000) and Shelby and Whittaker (2005) on the 

importance of biophysical characteristics and trip attributes to high quality experiences is needed. For 

example, Hall and Shelby (2000) had visitors identify attributes that make the Colorado River in 

Grand Canyon better than other rivers. Stewart et al. (2000) asked visitors to rate the importance of 

various attributes they experienced on their Grand Canyon trip. A similar survey tailored specifically 

to the Glen Canyon reach and the types of trips conducted there would be undertaken for this project. 

The next phase would involve estimating how flows and NPS management influence these important 

characteristics and trip attributes. By understanding these relationships, it is possible to predict how 

dam flows and NPS management affects visitor experience, recreation quality and visitor satisfaction. 

Thus, instead of focusing monitoring solely on overall visitor satisfaction (which can problematic, as 

noted earlier), future core monitoring could focus on monitoring the resource conditions such as flows 

and trip attributes that are known to affect visitor experience in predictable ways. Using this approach, 

direct surveys of visitors would only be necessary every five years or so to reevaluate visitor 

perceptions of resource conditions and trip attribute relationships in the conceptual model.

The economic benefits of recreation can be measured as part of the trip attribute model 

presented in Figure 5, especially Box 5. For example, a typical trip attribute survey would have visitors 

rate the satisfaction they would have on a 1-10 scale associated with different trip profiles or would 

have them choose between two or more different trip profiles that have different levels of the trip 

attributes relevant for that activity/setting (e.g., fly fishing in Glen Canyon or flat water rafting in Glen 

Canyon). 
149

In terms of economic value of trip attributes to visitors, since the trip cost attribute is 

denominated in dollars, the monetary value of other attributes can be calculated by dividing the other 

trip attribute regression coefficients by the coefficient on trip cost (Holmes and Adamowicz, 2003). 

Separate trip attribute surveys and models would need to be estimated for Glen Canyon day use rafting 

and Glen Canyon angling. 

Visitor spending related to commercial outfitters, guides, land and air shuttles, hotels, 

restaurants, etc. supports a substantial industry in northern Arizona, Utah, Las Vegas, etc. As part of a 

survey aimed at obtaining visitor values ascribed to specific trip attributes, the same survey can obtain 

information regarding visitor expenditures. This information would be by expenditure category and by 

geographic area of spending. This information can be analyzed in a series of input-output models to 

calculate the multiplier effects in regions of varying size. Like past analyses, it can be done to reflect 

the multi-county income and employment in northern Arizona only (Douglas and Harpman, 1995). 

However, the 2005 PEP felt that limiting the analysis to just this small geographic area did not fully 

reflect the extent of the outfitting and guiding industry and tourism related to lower Glen Canyon. The 

2005 PEP therefore recommended (and the 2009 socioeconomic panel concurred) that in addition to 

northern Arizona, it was appropriate to include an adjacent state regional model composed of Arizona 

and Utah, or perhaps a multi-state model reflecting the same geographic area as encompassed for the 

hydropower marketing (i.e., CRSP Area). 

This project fulfills a long-standing recommendation of the 2005 Recreation PEP and also 

fulfills one recommendation of the 2009 Fish PEP and a Phase I recommendation of the 

socioeconomic panel resulting from the 2009 Socioeconomic workshop. In addition to addressing a 

fundamental intent of GCPA to research and monitor visitor use values potentially affected by 

operations of Glen Canyon Dam, it will provide a solid foundation for evaluating potential effects of 

future high flows and other experimental operating regimes on recreational values in the Glen Canyon 

reach of the CRE. Thus, it is a key component of the science plan proposed for the High Flow 

Protocol experiment.

This project will complement and be informed to some degree by the biological monitoring 

data being collected through project BIO 4.M2. 

This project will require multiple road trips to Lees Ferry and at least one on-river trip

launching from, and returning to, Lees Ferry just upstream of the mouth of the Paria River.

AZGFD and GCMRC will work together to develop a survey instrument for implementation 

in FY201. Peer-reviewed products documenting the recreational values and the status and trends of 

visitor experience quality tied to those values in the Lees Ferry Reach will be produced in FY2012.
150

October 2010

October 2012

Western Area Power Administration staff and cooperators will work with GCMRC staff and 

cooperators to complete this project

The geographic extent of the western electrical grid

The immediate primary goal of this project is to objectively evaluate the suitability of Western 

Area Power Administration (WAPA)‘s GTMax model for assessing how changes in GCD operations 

affects hydropower economics within the context of the Nation‘s western power grid. The longer term 

goal is to use this model (or if necessary, another more suitable model) to monitor, do economic 

forecasting of, and conduct post hoc analyses of, the economic implications of changing dam 

operations, in terms of hydropower production costs. This project specifically focuses on conducting a 

thorough evaluation of the suitability of the GTMax model for performing the kinds of economic 

analyses recommended by the independent panel at the December 2009 socioeconomic workshop.

Need for Project

WAPA has recently offered to conduct future economic analyses for the Adaptive 

Management Program on the economic implications of altering hydropower operations using its 

existing GTMax model. They have offered to do this using a fully transparent, peer reviewed process 

at no additional cost to the AMP. This generous offer is fraught with a number of uncertainties, 

however, including the degree to which the model has been previously independently peer reviewed 

and its suitability for assessing economic costs and benefits within the larger context of the Nation‘s 

western electrical grid. The western electrical grid, which is overseen by the Western Energy 

Coordinating Council and is therefore hereafter referred to as the WECC, defines the economic context 

in which hydropower values at Glen Canyon Dam need to be evaluated.
151

The GTMax model was originally developed by Argonne National Laboratories at the request of 

WAPA for modeling optimal operational scenarios to maximize power generation and minimize costs 

under changing hydroelectric demands or environmental conditions that affect power generation in the 

Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP) system. The model has never been explicitly or systematically 

evaluated as tool for conducting economic assessments for the GCDAMP within the larger context of 

the Nation‘s western electrical grid. One recommendation from the December 2009 panel was to 

conduct a thorough, fully transparent evaluation of the GTMax model in terms of its suitability for use 

in this larger economic context. The following project description reflects the recommendations of the 

independent panel at the December 2009 workshop:

The main effect of any future changes in the operation of GCD will most likely be a change in 

the timing of hydropower generation during the course of the day, the week and the year, rather than 

any change in the total Kwh generated at GCD over the course of the year. Because electric power has 

a different economic value at different times of the day, the week, and the year, this can translate into 

an economic cost. To assess the economic cost it is necessary to look at the real economic value of the 

power generated at GCD rather than the contract prices at which much of the power is sold. Also the 

GCD contract prices may involve economic transfers and therefore understate the economic value of 

this resource. 

GCD and the Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP) system are embedded in the larger 

western power grid (the WECC). Similarly, the utilities to which CRSP sells power are embedded in 

the WECC. Therefore, in principle, the market by reference to which the economic value of GCD 

power is determined is not the CRSP system but the WECC. At any point in time, it is the marginal 

price of electricity in the WECC that determines the economic value of power generated at GCD.

The capital costs of existing power plants, whether in CRSP or the WECC generally, do not 

constitute a net economic cost to society of changes in operations. They are sunk costs, and they do not 

count as an economic cost of the existing power plants‘ operations. As a general statement, there 

currently exists excess capacity in the WECC. But, to the extent that, at some point in the future, 

reductions in power generation at GCD require an increment in generating capacity somewhere in the 

WECC system, the marginal cost of this extra capacity does count as a real economic cost. Again, it is 

not necessarily the cost of additional capacity in CRSP that matters; it is the cost of additional capacity 

anywhere in the WECC system to which WAPA and/or WAPA contractors have access. Moreover, 

such costs would be determined by the capital cost associated with the cheapest alternative source of 

additional capacity, which could be based on non-fossil fuel or could take the form of investments in 

the promotion of energy conservation (a.k.a., ―negawatts‖). The point is that these costs need to be 

considered within the larger economic framework of the WECC.

The existing power contracts for GCD expire in 2024. This creates the possibility that, when 

new contracts are negotiated for post-2024, it would be possible (and desirable) for WAPA to seek 

contract modifications that take into account the power generation impacts of any modification in 

GCD operations. The opportunity for contract adaptation should be factored into the economic 

assessment of the economic costs of changes in GCD operations for the period after 2024. 

Given the alternatives, an analysis of the existing GTMax model used by WAPA to optimize 

the operation of the integrated CRSP system of generation resources appears to offer the most practical 

and expedient option for determining if all consequences of changed operations can be managed 

within the WAPA marketing area, or if electrical (and thus economic) ―spill-over‖ effects will alter 

generation patterns, market prices or transmission bottlenecks elsewhere in the WECC system. If the 

effects of changed operations at Glen Canyon can be managed by WAPA without economically 

significant changes in the rest of the western U.S., then the economic consequences of such operations 

will be limited to WAPA‘s customers, and future modeling efforts can also be limited in scope. 

However, at this point there is no way to know if such changes will spill over into the rest of the 

WECC system beyond WAPA without actually checking this by using a model of the WAPA system 

and checking changes at flowgates where WAPA interconnects with the rest of the WECC.
152

In addition to the above information needs, there are currently no ongoing core-monitoring 

activities related to goal 10. Although data on GCD hydropower generation and opportunity costs 

under MLFF operations are currently being gathered by Reclamation and WAPA as routine agency 

functions, these data are not readily accessible to the GCDAMP. The need for this information in a 

readily accessible format has been identified as a program need for many years. Therefore, in addition 

to fulfilling the primary project purpose, this project will help to fill the long standing core monitoring 

information need gap through making the raw data used in WAPA analyses available to the AMP 

program via the web in a much more open transparent manner than it has occurred in the past. 

Primary SSQs addressed:

SSQ 3-4. What are the projected hydropower costs associated with the various alternative flow 

regimes being discussed for future experimental science (as defined in the next phase experimental 

design)?

In addition to addressing a critical SSQ, this project responds to a core Information Need (IN) 

for goal 10, as originally articulated in the FY2003 version of the GCDAMP Strategic Plan, and a 

core-monitoring information need (CMIN) as redefined by the SPG in 2005: 

IN 10.1. Determine and track the impacts to power users from implementation of ROD dam 

operations and segregate those effects from other causes such as changes in the power market.

CMIN 10.1.1 (as redefined by SPG). Determine and track the marketable capacity and energy 

produced through dam operations in relation to the various release scenarios (daily fluctuation 

limit, upramp and downramp limits, etc.).

WAPA will provide the GCMRC with a copy of the GTMax model and any specialized 

software needed to run the model. The GCMRC will organize and host a workshop involving 

technical staff from WAPA, a representative from National Argonne Laboratories, and a small group 

of independent hydropower modeling experts. During this workshop, the functions, assumptions, and 

data needed to run the model will be described in detail and demonstrated through hands-on 

involvement of all subject experts. GCDAMP stakeholders will be invited to observe the workshop, 

but the focus of this workshop will be on providing an opportunity for independent experts to become 

thoroughly familiar with and be able to independently assess the model in terms of its potential 

suitability for use as an economic forecasting tool and post hoc assessment tool in the AMP. 

Once the model has been fully peer reviewed, and assuming it passes peer review for 

continuing use in the AMP, WAPA will proceed to use the model to analyze if effects of changed 

operations at Glen Canyon can be managed by WAPA without economically significant changes in the 

rest of the WECC. If WAPA‘s power flow models demonstrate changes in flows at the border of 

WAPA‘s system, or at interconnection points with other systems, then a more extensive modeling 

effort will be required to check for changes in four indicators (generation, transmission, reliability, and 

hub prices) throughout the WECC. A near-term year and a long-term year should be modeled. After 

the analysis has been completed and a report fully documenting the work and results has been 

prepared, the report on this analysis will be subject to a separate round of peer review managed 

through the normal GCMRC peer review process.

After the structure and suitability of the GTMax model has been thoroughly evaluated, the 

next step will be to establish a ―base case‖ against which various scenarios for hydroelectric operations 
153

can be compared. The base case, and all scenarios, must be developed in sufficient detail that existing 

modeling tools can be used to estimate economic effects. Given the nature of markets in the western 

U.S., such detail should include at a monthly level, peak (hourly) demand, and peak and off-peak 

energy output. More sophisticated analyses may require even more detail (e.g., within-hour energy 

production in the base case and relevant scenarios). Current operations will be considered the ―base 

case‖, but in keeping with the recommendations of the socioeconomic panel, operations in some 

historical period prior to 1990, defined by a lack of environmental constraints, should also be modeled 

so that arguments about cumulative changes in equity can be adequately considered. Once a base case 

is established, alternative scenarios for future operations must be clearly defined at the same level of 

detail (e.g., peak demand and peak and off-peak energy). 

Whatever existing power flow model is found to be most suitable will be used to analyze the 

expected effects of changes in generation at Glen Canyon Dam, including effects on (a) generation 

(federal or non-federal) within the WAPA system, (b) loadings on transmission lines, (c) ability to 

meet reliability criteria, and (d) spot market prices at the Palo Verde Hub. These effects should be 

estimated for a near-term year (e.g., 2012) and a long-term year (e.g., 2020), because in the long-run 

more changes can typically be made via investments that could mitigate any short-term effects.

Any economic effects will be identified with specific parties, both inside WAPA and 

elsewhere in the WECC system. Candidates for such identification include the following: WAPA‘s 

customers, end-users of WAPA‘s customers, other end-users in the WECC, other producers inside the 

WAPA marketing area, and producers outside the WAPA marketing area but inside WECC. Because 

western power markets do not meet the definition of ―perfect competition‖, some effort must be taken 

to account for market imperfections, since it is at least theoretically possible that changes in operations 

at Glen Canyon Dam will provide opportunities for some suppliers to exercise market power, at least 

in the short run. (Additional generation and transmission resources may be built in the long run and 

thus may eliminate such concerns.)

The analysis will also incorporate an assessment of the financial effects on individual WAPA 

contractors. The analysis of financial effects tracks flows of funds (e.g., changes in WAPA‘s overall 

revenue requirement or transfers between WAPA customers). Financial effects are important to those 

who are actually paying the bills (or those who are being told what the bills are without having 

adequate information to assess the basis of those numbers) while economic effects are important from 

a national policy perspective.

This project is specifically related to the current overall long-term planning needs of the 

GCDAMP. As recommended by the independent panel at the December 2009 socioeconomic 

workshop, if analysis of the existing model shows effects outside the WAPA marketing area, 

additional analyses for the entire WECC will need to be performed in future, potentially requiring the 

involvement of additional outside cooperators and substantial modification of the above plan. To the 

extent that repeated analyses of power market impacts are required as part of the future decisionmaking during the extended experimentation contemplated by the Adaptive Management Program, it 

may be possible to ease complexity of calculating economic and financial impacts in the future by 

developing a simplified response-surface model, embodied in a spreadsheet, linking changes within 

the CRSP service area to impacts on prices and capacity requirements within WECC.

There are no field logistics associated with this project.
154

FY2011:

A written assessment of the GTMax model will prepared by a team of independent experts as 

one outcome of the initial workshop

WAPA will prepare a detailed report on its analysis of the initial model assessment conducted 

to ascertain the extent to which economic impacts extend beyond the CRSP system and have economic 

effects on the larger WECC

FY2012:

WAPA will produce a report summarizing its ―base case‖ scenarios and any impacts to the 

base case that may result under different operating scenarios; the scenarios that will be evaluated will 

be determined through workshops conducted for other projects, such as the Long Term Experimental 

Plan initiative

Copies of the GTMax model, the actual data used to populate and run models, as well as final 

raw data resulting from individual modeling runs discussed in final reports, will be provided to the 

GCMRC for archiving and distribution through the GCMRC website

In addition, the hourly flow, power generation data, and non-proprietary financial data 

normally collected by WAPA and any additional data used by WAPA in modeling economic costs of 

alternative flow scenarios will be made available to the AMP via a web link provided on GCMRC‘s 

website. Flow and power generation data will be made available on a daily basis, while financial data, 

including the Basin Fund balance, will be updated monthly. 
155

October 2005

September 2013

Helen Fairley, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center 

Colorado River ecosystem as defined in the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management 

Program Strategic Plan

The overarching goal of this project is to develop an interrelated suite of objective, 

quantitative monitoring protocols for assessing the effects of GCD operations and the efficacy of 

various management actions (e.g., future dam operating regimes or future stabilization treatments) at

archaeological sites and other cultural resources that are valued by the American people. Monitoring 

protocols are being specifically designed to track status and trends in archaeological site conditions on 

an ecosystem-wide basis and to assess where, how rapidly, and in what respects cultural sites are 

changing under current (and future) dam operations. Establishing quantitative methods for objectively 

tracking status and trends is a pre-requisite for being able to establish cause and affect relationships in 

the future. The protocols are being evaluated in terms of their suitability for being applied in a routine, 

systematic manner in the logistically challenging field setting of Grand Canyon National Park. The 

monitoring program is also being designed to:

Generate data useful for studying and understanding effects of ROD operations, experimental 

flows, and non-flow actions on cultural resources in the CRE

Provide data useful for determining future treatment needs at archaeological sites and the most 

effective treatment methods, regardless of the ultimate cause of the deterioration

Provide data suitable for informing and/or building future geomorphic models

Be integrated with, complement, and enhance other monitoring and management-related data 

being collected by the National Park Service (NPS) (e.g., data being collected by Grand Canyon 

National Park for the Archaeological Sites Management and Information System) 
156

Grand Canyon is one of the iconic erosional landscapes of the world. Recent geomorphic 

studies (e.g., Lucchitta and others, 2000; Pederson and others, 2006) document a dynamic landscape 

that is continuously changing in response to tectonic forces, climatic factors, and ongoing erosion by 

the Colorado River. While some erosion of unconsolidated deposits in the Colorado River corridor and 

the cultural resources contained in them is inevitable given these dynamic environmental conditions, 

past studies (e.g., Hereford and others, 1993) indicate that erosion of the Holocene-age sediment that 

forms the substrate of many cultural sites in the CRE appears to have increased within the past few 

decades relative to the decades immediately preceding construction of Glen Canyon Dam (GCD).

Several hypotheses have been proposed to explain this purported increase in erosion, including 

changes in the intensity of rainfall and regional precipitation patterns during the late 1970s-early 

1980s, the ongoing removal of sediment and lack of sandbar replenishment due to dam operations, and 

secondary effects related to increased visitation and cumulative impacts from recreational use of the 

river corridor (Hereford and others, 1993; Thompson and others, 2000; Fairley 2005). Regardless of 

what ultimately is causing observed changes in cultural resource condition (e.g., Leap and others, 

2000), having quantitative methods and data for objectively tracking status and trends in erosion rates 

and other key indicators of resource condition is a basic pre-requisite for being able to establish cause 

and effect relationships. The stated goals of the AMP are to track the status and trends of cultural 

resources in the CRE, evaluate the role that dam operations play in influencing resource condition, and 

determine how best to mitigate effects due to dam operations. Development of an accurate, reliable, 

and objective monitoring program to track the amount and rate of change occurring at cultural sites in 

the CRE is therefore a key need of this program. 

The National Park Service began monitoring cultural sites in the river corridor during the late 

1970s and continues to do so to meet its statutory responsibilities as a Federal land managing agency; 

however, past NPS monitoring programs were not specifically designed to objectively assess dam 

effects or track the efficacy of management actions undertaken to control erosion. In 2000, a cultural 

PEP convened by GCMRC on behalf of the GCDAMP recommended (along with many other 

suggestions) redesigning the National Park Service‘s 1994–2000 Programmatic Agreement Monitoring 

Program to focus more specifically on tracking effects of dam operations and evaluating the efficacy 

of erosion control efforts (Doelle, 2000); the current R&D project was initiated to address these 

specific PEP recommendations. Subsequently, the Science Planning Group (SPG) and Cultural 

Resources Ad Hoc Group (CRAHG) redefined the primary core monitoring need for historic 

properties in the CRE to be the following: track status and trends of site condition and integrity 

through monitoring rates of erosion, visitor impacts, and other variables or processes known to affect 

cultural site condition. For the past several years, this project has been exploring and evaluating

various options for measuring change and achieving these defined monitoring objectives. Starting in 

FY2011, we will initiate a pilot monitoring program to apply the knowledge gained during Phase I of 

this project in a more formalized manner at a stratified random sample of sites located throughout the 

CRE. The pilot program will continue through FY2013, after which a PEP review will be conducted 

to evaluate and possibly refine the final protocols for implementation on a long-term basis. 

This research and development project, and the future cultural monitoring program, is 

designed to address two primary SSQs:

SSQ 2-1. Do dam-controlled flows affect (increase or decrease) rates of erosion, and 

vegetation growth, at archaeological sites and TCP sites in the CRE, and if so, how? 

SSQ 2-4. How effective are various treatments (e.g., experimental flows, check dams, 

vegetation management, etc.) in slowing rates of erosion at archaeological sites over the long 

term?
157

This project is a research and development effort aimed at addressing the highest priority 

CMIN for historic properties (as revised by the CRAHG and SPG in fall 2005), specifically, the 

properties known as archaeological sites: 

CMIN 11.1.1 (SPG revised). Determine the condition and integrity of prehistoric and historic 

sites in the CRE through tracking rates of erosion, visitor impacts, and other relevant variables. 

Determine the condition and integrity of TCPs in the CRE. 

A high quality monitoring program is also essential for determining whether management 

actions designed to stabilize or improve site conditions are working as intended. Therefore, this 

project also directly addresses EIN 11.1 (formerly CMIN 11.1.2 of the GCDAMP Strategic Plan, 

subsequently redesignated by CRAHG/SPG as EIN 11.1):

EIN 11.1. Determine the efficacy of treatments for mitigation of adverse effects to historic 

properties. 

Additionally, this project addresses an AMP research IN (formerly identified as CMIN 11.1.4 

in the 2001 GCDAMP Strategic Plan):

How effective is monitoring, what are the appropriate strategies to capture change at an 

archaeological site qualitative, quantitative?

In conclusion, this project is being designed to be responsive to the stated goals of the AMP, 

the recommendations of the 2000 PEP, the various needs of the NPS and Bureau of Reclamation 

(BOR) related to compliance with Sections 110 and 106, and the strategic science questions identified 

in the 2007 Monitoring and Research Plan for developing monitoring methods to track and detect in an 

accurate, reliable, efficient manner changes in the condition and stability of archaeological sites related 

to a variety of dam operations, with a particular focus on monitoring changes that may trigger the need 

for taking additional management actions in the future. The protocols are also being designed to be 

useful for assessing the effects and effectiveness of experimental management actions such as HFEs, 

as well as other management actions that may be initiated in the future to achieve the National Park 

Service’s management goals for in situ resource preservation of archaeological sites or other desired 

future conditions.

This cultural research and monitoring project is part of a phased program of research and 

development towards implementation of a long-term core-monitoring program. The first phase of this 

project (Phase I) began in the spring of 2006 and initially focused on completing a comprehensive 

assessment of the geomorphic and archaeological attributes of sites to aid in the development of the 

long-term monitoring approach. It also involved testing a variety of survey techniques for objectively 

measuring change in resource condition (e.g., Collins and others, 2008; Collins and others, 2009). 

When the project was initially conceived, Phase I was intended to continue for 2 years 

(FY2006–07), and FY2008 was intended to be the first year of a 3-year monitoring cycle employing 

the refined protocols developed during the preceding phase. However, a later than anticipated start 

date in FY2006, coupled with the high-flow experiment in 2008, delayed the project schedule by 

approximately 8 months. Therefore, FY2008 became a transitional year, in which we continued to 

build on several research and development activities initiated in FY2006, including:

Continuing to gather data on several short term, small scale studies to evaluate the 

effectiveness, efficiency, and accuracy of various field measurement techniques before implementing 
158

them as part of a long-term monitoring program (weather monitoring, LiDAR mapping, and Thalweg 

survey measurements at a subset of sites)

Compiling, analyzing, and preparing reports on all the data collected during the previous 2 

years of field work

Compiling and evaluating legacy data needed for assessing geomorphic characteristics related 

to site stability and preparing the GIS foundation for the future monitoring program

Permitting concerns of the NPS led to a halt of all project field work starting in FY2008 and 

continuing through FY2009. In April, 2010 Grand Canyon National Park permitted the work to 

resume, and it is now (FY2010) anticipated that following another round of field work in September 

2010, Phase I of this project will be brought to conclusion. Reports documenting the results of Phase I 

work will be completed in the fall and winter of 2010-2011, with Phase II (the pilot monitoring 

program) scheduled to commence immediately thereafter. 

In April-May 2011, we will begin implementing the pilot monitoring program. The scope of 

this project encompasses the full range of archaeological resources located in the area of potential 

affect from dam operations. The actual number of archaeological sites that will be included in the pilot 

monitoring program will be determined upon completion of the data analysis phase of this project 

(currently underway), but is anticipated to include approximately 30 sites. These sites will be selected 

using a stratified random sampling approach, with strata based on constellations of geomorphic and 

archaeological attributes that will be determined through clustering the data using both geomorphic 

and archaeological attributes. The rationale for this approach is to ensure that the sample population 

captures the full range of site types and geomorphic settings within the Area of Potential Effects from 

dam operations. The ultimate outcome of this research and development effort will be a final report 

recommending specific monitoring protocols. The program will ultimately be subject to a final review 

by a PEP in FY2013, with additional refinement of protocols (if necessary) before being implemented 

as the long-term program. 

In FY2011, we will develop initial baseline data at the selected sample sites to serve as the basis 

for future comparisons of changes occurring over the long term. These data will be collected using a 

combination of conventional total station mapping or RTK GPS for establishing control and gully 

surveys and ground based high density LiDAR for mapping total site surfaces at a sample of study 

sites. Ground based surveys will be directed by either GCMRC personnel or by cooperating scientists

following methods employed and refined in Phase I to capture topographic and other types of surface

changes using high density data collection methods (e.g., Yeatts, 1996; Hazel and others, 2000; 

Pederson and others, 2003; Collins and others, 2008, 2009). LiDAR data will be manually edited and 

filtered to produce a ―bare-earth‖ terrain model without reflections from vegetation canopy. These 

highly accurate three-dimensional surface maps will be duplicated in future years using the same 

methodology to document the amount, rate, and location of erosion and deposition, vegetation 

encroachment, and structural deterioration that is occurring at sites. Depending on the outcome of 

exploratory work conducted in FY2010, we may also use LiDAR data for tracking changes in soil 

crust cover and artifact movement, both of which are strong indicators of site stability.

In FY2007-08, 11 weather monitoring stations and 14 sand traps were established at 9 study 

sites throughout the CRE. In FY2011–12, these stations will continue to collect data on precipitation 

amount and intensity, wind direction and velocity, temperature, humidity, barometric pressure, and 

sediment transport rates. Because of the spatially isolated nature of monsoon thunderstorms and the 

significant role that precipitation and wind play in downcutting and backfilling gullies, weather 
159

stations and sand traps have been distributed throughout the length of the river corridor, in proximity 

to several sites that will continue to be monitored periodically in future years, so that changes detected 

from repeat topographic mapping can be related to timing and duration of local or regional weather 

events. The GCMRC staff is managing equipment maintenance, data collection, and sediment sample 

processing tasks internally; data processing and analysis is being handled through an internal USGS 

sub-allocation to USGS Western Coastal Geology and Marine Division.

Opportunities for integrating the results of the pilot monitoring program with those of the 

tribal monitoring projects and NPS CRMP monitoring efforts will be explored through a workshop 

hosted by the GCMRC early in FY2011 (fall 2010), after completing the initial research and 

development phase of this project. This delay in integration is necessary in order for the needs and 

approaches of the tribal monitoring programs and the Federal agencies to be defined and fully 

documented in written reports and the specific protocols identified. Integration of monitoring efforts, 

as appropriate, will occur during implementation of the pilot monitoring phase in 2011.

This project builds upon several past research efforts, including the previous work of Draut 

and Rubin (2005, 2008), Pederson and others (2003), and Damp and others (2007). Specifically, it 

builds upon the work of Draut and Rubin (2005, 2006) by extending the weather monitoring record 

and measurements of Aeolian sand transport at selected locations in the CRE. It also expands 

information on gully erosion rates initiated by Utah State University (USU) in FY2001–02 and 

continued in FY2006–07, and it expands on the geomorphic baseline data set collected for the 151 site 

treatment plan (Damp and others, 2007). 

This study is also closely linked to the NPS CRMP implementation effort. Monitoring 

protocols for assessing impacts of human visitation at archaeological sites are being developed 

independently by NPS to serve the monitoring needs of the Park Service‘s CRMP. The quantitative 

approaches for monitoring change in archaeological site condition that are being developed through 

the current R&D project are designed to complement and supplement the observational monitoring 

protocols proposed by NPS for CRMP compliance purposes. 

Other ongoing projects that have benefited or are likely to benefit from the work being 

undertaken for the cultural monitoring research and development effort include:

The integrated flow, temperature, and sediment modeling project (temperature data from the 

weather stations)

The vegetation monitoring program (the full suite of weather data which may be useful for 

interpreting observed changes in vegetation)

The conceptual modeling project (data on terrestrial/geomorphic processes)

The geomorphic model project (specific monitoring data related to geomorphic processes and 

rates of change can be used to populate the model)

Two motor-supported river trips will occur during the motor season (April and September) in 

FY2011 and FY2012.
160

A report synthesizing the results of the Phase I research (2006–09) will be completed in spring 

2011

Cooperators will prepare annual descriptive reports during Phase II of the pilot monitoring 

program

A synthetic peer-reviewed report summarizing the entire project will be prepared at the 

conclusion of this study
161

October 2007

Ongoing

Philip A. Davis, U.S. Geological Survey, Western Mineral Resources Science Center 

Entire Colorado River ecosystem corridor from forebay of Glen Canyon Dam to upper Lake 

Mead and, for specific resources, site specific

Conduct aerial overflights to acquire digital imagery and topography of the CRE: mission 

planning, contract solicitation, mission execution, and ground support

The next quadrennial overflight will be conducted in FY2013. The airborne data to be 

collected are multispectral orthorectified images of the CRE. Area and volumetric analysis of these 

data sets are used to identify and classify elements of interest. Comparison of data sets acquired over 

time allow for change detection as long as the data continue to be collected. Airborne data is the basis 

for many of the science questions and research activities conducted in the Grand Canyon. Application 

examples include the following:
162

Characterization of nearshore habitat used by small fish may lead to new directions in 

population estimates and life stage resource preference

Shoreline location and character at different flow regimes and the distance to cultural sites

Document possible loss of vegetation at old high water zone

Geomorphic characteristics of the CRE 8,000 to 25,000 cfs at 23-m resolution may be applied 

to quantifying biomass and production estimates

Existence and change detection of areas of possible terrestrial organic input contributing to the 

carbon budget, riparian zone community composition, sandbar habitat including vegetation 

encroachment on camp site areas, backwaters, marshes, debris fans, cobble bars, and talus

Maps used for positioning the GCMRC monitoring areas are a few of the applications of 

airborne data

A primary fiscal objective is to reserve sufficient funding to cover mission costs during 

implementation. No salaries are funded for this project; work performed will be addressed by GIS 

personnel funded by the GIS general support project (DASA 12.D5) and the Integrated Image Analysis 

and Change Detection project (DASA 12.D9). Because of the dependent nature of remote sensing and 

GIS technologies, products described in this project will result from a combination of efforts across 

multiple DASA projects.

In addition, we anticipate performing an airborne data collection that addresses more specific 

issues. The following instrument is currently being considered with its purpose and funding source 

identified:

Hyperspectral deferred 

$200k variable funding across multiple fiscal cycles is proposed to set aside $600k total for the 

FY2013 overflight. 

Some of the resource areas and science questions identified during the 2005 Knowledge 

Assessment and found within the GCMRC‘s Strategic Science Plan and Monitoring and Research Plan 

that can be addressed with airborne image data include those listed below.

Additional SSQs addressed:

SSQ 4-1. Is there a ―Flow-Only‖ operation (that is, a strategy for dam releases, including 

managing tributary inputs with BHBFs, without sediment augmentation) that will restore and 

maintain sandbar habitats over decadal timescales?

Sandbar detection and analysis comparisons between data sets (that is, 2002, 2004, 2005, 

2009, 2013)

SSQ 5-1. How do dam release temperatures, flows (average and fluctuating component), 

meteorology, canyon orientation and geometry, and reach morphology interact to determine 

mainstem and nearshore water temperatures throughout the CRE?

If funding allows, a Forward Looking Infrared instrument returns a data set that may be used 

to characterize river temperatures throughout the CRE

SSQ 1-7. Which tributary and mainstem habitats are most important to native fishes and how 

can these habitats best be made useable and maintained?
163

Fine resolution shoreline geomorphic mapping may provide nearshore habitat characteristics 

linking resource preference with native fish

SSQ 2-1. Do dam-controlled flows affect (increase or decrease) rates of erosion and vegetation 

growth at archaeological sites and TCP sites, and if so, how? 

Detection and change analysis of vegetation presence and density may be linked to erosion 

studies

SSQ 2-2. How do flows impact old high-water zone terraces in the CRE (where the majority of 

archaeological sites occur), and what kinds of important information about the historical ecology 

and human history of the CRE are being lost due to ongoing erosion of the Holocene sedimentary 

deposits? 

Sand detection and change analysis may provide further insight

SSQ 3-9. How do varying flows positively or negatively affect campsite attributes that are 

important to visitor experience? 

Sand/Vegetation and encroachment detection and change analysis are a key factor

Numerous GCDAMP goals and resource area programs that are concerned with remote

sensing analysis are the chief beneficiaries. 

IN 12.1. Develop information that can be used by the TWG, in collaboration with the GCMRC, to 

establish current and target levels for all resources within the GCDAMP as called for in the 

GCDAMP strategic plan. 

Canyonwide detection and change analysis of detectable resources such as sand and vegetation 

propagate to provide information on campsite areas, cultural sites, and food base potentials in 

the 8-25k zone

CMIN 4.1.6. Determine quantity and quality of spawning habitat for RBT in the Lees Ferry reach 

as measured at 5-year intervals. 

Two meter resolution shoreline geomorphic mapping may provide nearshore habitat 

characteristics to provide quantitative estimates RBT spawning habitat

CMIN 6.1.1. Determine and track the abundance, composition, distribution, and area of the marsh 

community as measured at 5-year or other appropriate intervals based on life cycles of the species 

and rates of change for the community.

Marsh detection algorithms may be developed for tracking this resource

CMIN 6.4.1. Determine and track composition, abundance, and distribution of the sand beach 

community as measured at 5-year or other appropriate intervals based on life cycles of the species 

and rates of change for the community. 

Sand detection methodologies may quantify areas where these communities exist

CMIN 9.3.1. Determine and track the size, quality, and distribution of camping beaches by reach 

and stage level in Glen and Grand Canyons. 
164

Sand and vegetation detection / change methodologies may quantify these areas for tracking

RIN 6.1.1. How have the abundance, composition, distribution, and area of the marsh community 

changed since dam closure (1963), high flows (1984), interim flows (1991), and the 

implementation of ROD operations (1996)? 

Marsh detection algorithms modified for legacy overflights may provide a quantitative 

analysis.

RIN 8.6.1. How do ongoing inputs of coarse-sediment from tributaries influence storage of fine 

sediment within pools, runs and eddies throughout the CRE? 

Inventory of eddies combined with sand detection may provide part of the picture

EIN 4.1.1. How does RBT abundance, proportional stock density, length at age, condition, 

spawning habitat, natural recruitment, whirling disease and other parasitic infections change in 

response to an experiment performed under the Record of Decision, unanticipated event, or other 

management action? 

Two meter resolution geomorphic mapping may provide new insight to resource preference 

and stock assessments

EIN 6.1.1. How do marsh community abundance, composition, distribution, and area change in 

response to an experiment performed under the Record of Decision, unanticipated event, or other 

management action? 

Marsh detection algorithms may be developed for tracking this resource

EIN 6.4.1. How do the abundance, composition, and distribution of the sand beach community 

change in response to an experiment performed under the Record of Decision, unanticipated event, 

or other management action? 

Sand detection methodologies may quantify areas where these communities exist

EIN 9.3.1. How do the size, quality, and distribution of camping beaches change in response to an 

experiment performed under the Record of Decision, unanticipated event, or other management 

action? 

Sand and vegetation detection / change methodologies may quantify these areas for tracking

In total, approximately one-third of the GCDAMP information needs may be directly or 

indirectly addressed through analysis and use of the systemwide digital imagery.

Project will closely coordinate with Reclamation on flows and the overall project will be 

coordinated closely with the National Park Service (NPS), as well as NPS and Department of 

Interior (DOI) Aviation Officers

Remote sensing instruments deployed in fixed wing aircraft or helicopters are flown over the 

CRE to produce canyon-wide data sets

A steady flow for a period of 8-10 days is required for full coverage of the CRE (weather 

conditions are a large factor and required extending constant flows for 10 days during the 2009 

overflight). A steady flow rate of 8,000 cfs is required to allow comparisons/change detection 
165

with previous overflight data sets. Regulation and Spinning Reserves to be picked up by other 

dams in the Colorado River Storage Project

Optimally, the overflight occurs as close to the summer solstice (June 21 in non-leap years) as 

possible to minimize shadowing in the optical sensor data sets. Several previous overflights 

have been conducted around the Memorial Day holiday to minimize Glen Canyon Dam 

revenue loss; this same timeframe is proposed for the FY2013 overflight

Efforts will be focused on obtaining a contractor that can provide greatest accuracy, greatest 

number of spectral bands, and a variety of onboard imaging instruments. Delivery of 

orthorectified images is expected early in FY2014

A data collection permit must be reviewed and updated through Grand Canyon National Park 

to reflect the types of remote sensing technologies that will be required to help fulfill the coremonitoring and experimental research needs for all GCMRC programs

DASA and survey support will include deploying Rim GPS Reference points during overflight

Acquisition of systemwide digital images in this project supports addressing numerous 

resource questions within other programs, such as abundance and systemwide distribution of both 

aquatic and terrestrial habitats related to fish, vegetation, and availability and status of campsites along 

the CRE. The digital products procured by the DASA directly support a varied array of projects within 

GCDAMP goals 1–11, such as detecting shoreline habitat and changes tied to dam operations and 

high-flow experiments. Additionally, these data are used in terrestrial vegetation and sandbar mapping 

projects for determining surface texture and land cover classifications within designated study reaches, 

as well as canyonwide over subsequent years following the overflights (trend analysis).

This will require rim support by the GCMRC personnel to occupy multiple nearby base stations

throughout the entire mission.

Data sets are proposed to be served through an instance of Environmental Systems Research 

Institute (ESRI) ArcGIS Server

Annual progress report summarizing major results will be provided by December 15, 2010 and 

2011

Overflight data will be documented with metadata files conforming to the Federal Geographic 

Data Committee (FGDC) standards

o The data sets are proposed to be served through an instance of Environmental Systems 

Research Institute (ESRI) ArcGIS Server
166
167

2007

Ongoing

Paul Alley, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

Entire Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center study area, from the forebay of Lake 

Powell to upper Lake Mead

The goal of the database management system at the GCMRC is to provide an organized, 

secure, and readily available electronic repository for all scientific data collected in the ongoing 

research and monitoring activities of the GCMRC. The relational database management system 

(RDBMS) also serves as the electronic storage foundation of the GCMRC‘s GIS, providing the 

repository for all aerial photography, survey control, and geographic layers. The program is therefore a 

vital component of the decision support process and for the adaptive management of the Glen Canyon 

Dam. 

This project establishes the electronic repository and tools necessary to analyze and interpret 

scientific data collected by the GCMRC, thereby providing a fundamental support service to the 

GCMRC scientific investigations and decision support processes. 

This project provides the foundation for all projects concerned with scientific data analysis.

Provides access for analysis for all the GCMRC data sets

RIN 12.1. Develop information that can be used by the TWG, in collaboration with the 

GCMRC, to establish current and target levels for all resources within the GCDAMP as called 

for in the GCDAMP strategic plan.

RIN 12.3.1. As necessary, investigate the most effective methods to integrate and synthesize 

resource data.

RIN 12.5.4. What is the most effective way to distribute information to our stakeholders and 

the public in a secure and accessible fashion?
168

The GCMRC integrated database project is tasked with the following core project support 

duties:

Providing data management consulting and support for GCMRC projects and programs

Maintaining a centralized relational database system for archiving, managing, and serving the 

GCMRC spatial and tabular data

Developing software and custom applications for end user data management, automated data 

retrieval, and analysis and modeling

As a result of these core roles of providing data management support to projects on an asneeded basis and ensuring the long term viability and archiving of the GCMRC science data, the 

ability of the GCMRC integrated database project to develop annual  ̳products and reports‘ is highly 

dependent on the level of support and assistance required by other GCMRC projects throughout the 

year.

The following are ongoing support activities associated with the integrated database project:

Electronically archive all incoming data sets in their original form

Provide queries and format data subsets for scientific data analysis

Error check and import newly collected data sets to the centralized RDBMS

Administer database, including backup, recovery, and security

Coordinate and extend FGDC metadata for legacy and current GCMRC datasets

Continue to consolidate and import legacy data to the system

Continue to support data acquisition, import, and analyses of datasets such as fish, water 

sampling in the Colorado River, and survey control

Extend database structure to incorporate newly acquired data sets, such as aquatic food base

and daily downstream water quality

Extend routines to automate the process of error checking and importing data sets

Extend Web application architecture to distribute newly collected data sets

Provide data analysis support for scientific monitoring and research analyses

Integrate tabular and spatial data sets in conjunction with DASA GIS staff

Goal Project

Level of Support Expected

Basic

< 1 week

Intermediate

> 1 week

< 1 month

Advanced

> 1 month

GCDAMP Goal 1—

Protect or improve the 

aquatic food base so that it 

will support viable 

populations of desired 

species at higher trophic 

levels

BIO 1.M1—Aquatic 

Food Base Monitoring

X

GCDAMP Goal 2—
169

Goal Project

Level of Support Expected

Basic

< 1 week

Intermediate

> 1 week

< 1 month

Advanced

> 1 month

Maintain or attain viable 

populations of existing 

native fish, remove 

jeopardy from humpback 

chub and razorback sucker, 

and prevent adverse 

modification to their 

critical habitat.

BIO 2.R1—Little 

Colorado River 

Humpback Chub 

Monitoring Lower 13.6 

km (Population 

Estimates)

X

BIO 2.M1—Little 

Colorado River 

Humpback Chub 

Monitoring

X

BIO 2.M3—Humpback 

Chub Translocation and 

Monitoring Above Chute 

Falls

X

BIO 2.M4—Monitoring 

Mainstem Fish

X

BIO 2.R7—Stock 

Assessment of Grand 

Canyon Native Fish

X

BIO 2.R13—Remote PIT 

Tag Reading

X

BIO 2.R15—Nearshore 

Ecology / Fall Steady 

Flows

X

BIO 2.R16—Mainstem 

Nonnative Fish Control

X

BIO 2.R17—Nonnative 

Control Plan Science 

Support

X

BIO 2.E18—Natal 

Origins of Rainbow Trout 

in Grand Canyon

GCDAMP Goal 4. 

Maintain a naturally 

reproducing population of 

rainbow trout above the 

Paria River, to the extent 

practicable and consistent 

with the maintenance of 

viable populations of 

native fish
170

Goal Project

Level of Support Expected

Basic

< 1 week

Intermediate

> 1 week

< 1 month

Advanced

> 1 month

BIO 4.M2—Monitoring 

Lees Ferry Fish

X

GCDAMP Goal 5—

Maintain or attain viable 

populations of Kanab 

ambersnail

BIO 5.R1—Monitor 

Kanab Ambersnail

X

GCDAMP Goal 6—

Protect or improve the 

biotic riparian and spring 

communities, including 

threatened and endangered 

species and their critical 

habitat

BIO 6.M1—Vegetation 

Mapping

BIO 6.M2—Vegetation 

Transects

GCDAMP Goal 7—

Establish water 

temperature, quality, and 

flow dynamics to achieve 

the Adaptive Management 

Program ecosystem goals

BIO 7.R1—Water-quality 

Monitoring of Lake 

Powell and the Glen 

Canyon Dam Tailwater

X

PHY 7.M1—Integrated 

Quality of Water 

Monitoring (below Glen 

Canyon Dam)

X

PHY 7.R3—Modeling 

Support

GCDAMP Goal 8—

Maintain or attain levels of 

sediment storage within 

the main channel and 

along shorelines to achieve 

the Adaptive Management 

Program ecosystem goals

PHY 8.M2— Integrated 

Long-term Monitoring of 

Systemwide Changes in 

Sediment Storage

GCDAMP Goal 9—

Maintain or improve the 

quality of recreational 
171

Goal Project

Level of Support Expected

Basic

< 1 week

Intermediate

> 1 week

< 1 month

Advanced

> 1 month

experiences for users of 

the Colorado River 

ecosystem, within the 

framework of GCDAMP 

ecosystem goals

REC 9.R1—Campsite 

Area Monitoring

REC 9.R3—Expand and 

Analyze Campsite Data 

in the GIS Atlas

X

GCDAMP Goal 10—

Maintain power production 

capacity and energy 

generation, and increase 

where feasible and 

advisable, within the 

framework of the Adaptive 

Management ecosystem 

goals

HYD 10.M1— Evaluate 

the Suitability of the 

GTMax Model for 

Modeling Economic 

Implications of Power 

Generation under Current 

and Future Dam 

Operations and Conduct 

Initial Analyses

X

GCDAMP Goal 11—

Preserve, protect, manage, 

and treat cultural resources 

for the inspiration and 

benefit of past, present, 

and future generations

CUL 11.R1—Cultural 

Research and 

Development towards 

Core Monitoring, Phase 

II

GCDAMP Goal 12—

Maintain a high-quality 

monitoring, research, and 

adaptive management 

program

DASA 12.D1—

Quadrennial RemoteSensing Overflight

DASA 12.D3—Library 

Operations

X
172

Goal Project

Level of Support Expected

Basic

< 1 week

Intermediate

> 1 week

< 1 month

Advanced

> 1 month

DASA 12.D5—GIS 

Support for Integrated 

Analyses and Projects, 

GIS Lead

DASA 12.D8—

Biometrics and General 

Analysis

X

DASA 12.D9—

Integrated Image 

Analysis and Change 

Detection

Planing

PLAN 12.P1— Support 

and Enhancement of 

Ecosystem Modeling 

Efforts

PLAN: 12.P4—Update of 

Knowledge Assessment 

and SCORE Report

There are no logistical needs for this project.

Since ongoing support of GCMRC science projects, as described in the ―Methods and Tasks‖ 

section above, is the primary focus of the GCMRC database project, the following products will be 

completed by the GCMRC integrated database project as time permits:

Upgrade Oracle spatial database to version 11g coinciding with ESRI ArcServer upgrade

Develop interactive DASA website for internal and external users to retrieve data, maps, 

imagery, etc.

Dynamic generation of graphics based on tabular data

Photo database (Stanton repeat, Schmitt USU sandbars, Grams time series, Fairley campsite 

photos, control network photos)

NSE data analysis and data collection software

Annual progress report summarizing activities will be provided by December 15, 2010

Foodbase sample inventory and tracking system

Application to integrate power data, as provided by WAPA, into DASA data management 

system

Version 2 Refactor of DASA mSystem Data-Sync-Web-Server application 

Version 2 Refactor of Mark–recapture specimen tag synchronization 

Online interactive data visualization and analysis tools on GCMRC Web site

Annual progress report summarizing activities will be provided by December 15, 2011
173
174

October 2007

Ongoing

Esther Hamilton, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

Entire Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center study area—forebay of Glen Canyon 

Dam to upper Lake Mead

Library operations facilitate monitoring and research by providing a centralized repository for 

hard copy information such as books, reports, maps, photography, and videos. The library converts 

hard copy materials to digital format and stores the digital files on long-term optical media for 

preservation and for on-line distribution. The library maintains the on-line catalogue of library 

materials to facilitate information search and retrieval or digital reports. The library houses original 

and duplicate copies of all digital remote-sensing data and selectively converts historical aerial 

photography to digital format in order to preserve and to use such data to extend research and 

monitoring back in time. DASA library staff has been reduced from two full time positions to one 

halftime position. Library functions will be continued at a reduced level. 

The GCMRC library acts as the physical repository for reports and data generated by the 

GCMRC scientists as well as materials related to the Colorado River, Grand Canyon, and adaptive 

management. The digital conversion of historical data not only preserves the data, but also makes it 

available for scientific analysis.

This project provides a research materials and remote-sensing data (recent and historical) that 

allow all programs access to data covering a large timeframe in order to address scientific issues over 

decadal scales in the past. 

The library provides access to current and historical scientific findings of the GCDAMP.

RIN 12.5.4. What is the most effective way to distribute information to our stakeholders and 

the public in a secure and accessible fashion?

IN 12.1. Develop information that can be used by the TWG, in collaboration with the 

GCMRC, to establish current and target levels for all resources within the GCDAMP as called 

for in the GCDAMP strategic plan.
175

CMIN 6.1.1. Determine and track the abundance, composition, distribution, and area of the 

marsh community as measured at 5-year or other appropriate intervals based on life cycles of 

the species and rates of change for the community.

RIN 6.1.1. How have the abundance, composition, distribution, and area of the marsh 

community changed since dam closure (1963), high flows (1984), interim flows (1991), and 

the implementation of Record of Decision operations (1996)?

RIN 6.4.1. How have the abundance, composition, and distribution of the sand beach 

community changed since dam closure (1963), high flows (1984), interim flows (1991), and 

the implementation of Record of Decision operations (1996)?

EIN 6.1.1. How do marsh community abundance, composition, distribution, and area change 

in response to an experiment performed under the Record of Decision, unanticipated event, or 

other management action?

The library catalogs all new materials that come from staff scientists, contractors, and 

cooperators as well as items related to Grand Canyon, the Colorado River, and adaptive management. 

Library staff provides support to cooperators, contractors, and staff scientists by researching and 

obtaining current and legacy articles and reports related to science projects.

Library operations facilitate monitoring and research by providing a centralized repository for 

hard copy information such as books, reports, maps, photography, and videos, which will someday be 

completely digital. The following are specific functions of the library:

Scanning and converting paper reports into digital PDF files, making the documents 

searchable by using optical character recognition software (depending on quality of hardcopy 

and as time allows), and then posting the files in the library database on the GCMRC Web site

Scanning relevant analog aerial film and photos using the Vexcel Ultrascan 5000, allowing the 

digital images to be used for 2-D and 3-D analyses, for detection of changes in area, height, 

volume, and surface material, as well as investigations of cause-effect relations

Digitizing flight line maps to provide a searchable mechanism to locate individual scanned 

aerial photos

Converting VHS tapes to DVDs

Scanning legacy slides to create digital images using the Nikon SuperCoolScan scanner

This project supports all other projects.

There are no logistical needs for this project.

Up-to-date on-line library catalog, which provides access to more than 8,000 publications
176

Catalog records of all materials (continually updated)

Assist cooperators, stakeholders, media contacts, and the public by providing access to reports, 

aerial photos, maps, slides, and photos in hard copy and digital form

Research in locating contemporary and legacy materials

A research facility for researchers, the GCMRC employees, cooperators, and the public

Access to 17,652 aerial photographs, 9,000 digital aerial images, 8,000 hard-copy reports, 

8,000 photos and slides, and 700 videos in broadcast and VHS format. In addition, once the 

library scanning project is complete, this information will be available in digital format from 

the library via digital media such as DVD and online via the Web

Scientific appraisal of all available historical data in order to prioritize the scanning process 

and to obtain a firm understanding of the schedule required to complete digital conversions 

based on established priorities as these conversion products are produced, they are cataloged 

and made available

Annual progress report summarizing major results will be provided by December 15, 2010

Same as FY2011

Annual progress report summarizing major results will be provided by December 15, 2011
177

2007

Ongoing

Thomas Gushue, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

Entire Colorado River ecosystem corridor between Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Mead, and the 

greater Colorado River Basin

Advanced spatial analysis in support of the GCMRC projects; Creation of specialized maps 

and intuitive data retrieval specific to individual project needs; consultation and instruction related to 

GIS operation and spatial data analysis for the GCMRC staff; management and dissemination of 

spatial data.

The role of GIS has grown within the GCMRC over the past few years, providing for extended 

applications across all resource programs and allowing for advanced spatial data analysis in support of 

on-going GCMRC projects. The demand for spatial analysis and customized GIS applications 

continues to increase ever year as technology matures and becomes integrated with strategic science 

efforts. Given this increased demand, the GIS program must also expand the level of expertise and 

support to specific projects. The GIS program is inherently service oriented, providing spatial database 

development, programming and analysis support to the science programs and their cooperators on both 

a planned and an as-needed basis. 

GIS general support benefits core-monitoring, experimental programs, and research and 

development projects alike in the form of GIS and remote-sensing software installation, maintenance 

and support, creation and maintenance of spatial databases used by science projects, and the 

development of mapping and analysis tools for use by the GCMRC staff and cooperators across all 

resource programs. A need also exists for more advanced support directed at specific GIS application 

development and analysis of available spatial data. This higher level of support is often achieved 

through automation of data processing and manipulation procedures to standardize and streamline 

repetitive tasks as well as provide a basis for standard operating procedures. Additional field support 

that exists outside the scope of traditional GIS functions is also made available to the GCMRC staff 

and cooperators. This support comes in the form of electrical engineering and programming expertise 

that has proven to be invaluable is assisting other projects in vital field instrumentation deployment 

and adhering to proper safety protocols for powering equipment in the field.
178

DASA projects: DASA 12.D1: Quadrennial and Resource-Specific Remote Sensing 

Overflight and DASA 12.D9: Integrated Image Analysis and Change Detection are dependent on 

efforts funded through this project.

The spatial aspects of Grand Canyon investigations are addressed in this project.

IN 12.1. Develop information that can be used by the TWG, in collaboration with the 

GCMRC, to establish current and target levels for all resources within the GCDAMP as called for in 

the GCDAMP strategic plan.

RIN 12.3.1. As necessary, investigate the most effective methods to integrate and synthesize 

resource data.

RIN 12.5.4. What is the most effective way to distribute information to our stakeholders and 

the public in a secure and accessible fashion?

The collection of spatial data is achieved through a variety of methods that include, but are not 

limited to, remote sensing data collection missions, traditional survey and global positioning system 

(GPS) operations, field mapping using hard copy map or pen tablet computers, onscreen digitizing 

using previously collected remote sensing data as source information, and through other standard data 

entry methods. Spatial data are generally stored in one of the standard ESRI file types (shape file, 

coverage, geodatabase) as well as in ASCII format. Methods used for spatial data processing and 

analysis will vary depending on the questions that need to be answered. 

Most GCMRC projects have a spatial component tied to the data being collected in support of 

the science questions developed for each project. The GIS provides a stable platform upon which all 

data collected along the CRE are catalogued within a consistent spatial reference system and 

maintained in consistent file formats with appropriate metadata. At the most basic level, this allows for 

the overlaying and querying of data sets collected from any and all projects within the GCMRC. At 

the most advanced level, the utilization of these technologies goes beyond this, creating a platform for 

conducting fully integrated spatial analysis in support of scientific research.

Below is a key that categorizes the level of GIS support anticipated over the upcoming 2011 –

2012 fiscal cycle.

Key to Level of GIS Support

Basic (~1 week)

1. Develop, create, edit and maintain representative thematic GIS layers for a project.

2. Produce river map atlases to be used for data collection efforts in the field.

3. Create professional-quality maps, figures and other data relating to spatial elements of a 

project.

Intermediate (1 to 4 weeks)

Perform routine, mid- to low-level analyses in support of project objectives.
179

Provide advice and instruction on proper analytical techniques for spatial data and operation of 

GIS and remote sensing software.

Review existing and newly created spatial data sets and associated metadata for accuracy, 

completeness and adherence to federal standards. 

Advanced (4+ weeks)

1. Direct the application of spatial concepts and analytical techniques to drive sampling 

designs.

2. Create customized mapping programs and other field implementations designed for 

improving accuracy and efficiency during data collection and database development 

phases of project.

3. Perform high-level spatial analyses and modeling for project-specific information needs.

Provide expertise on appropriate uses of spatial data for integrated analyses involving different 

resource projects.

Develop and implement advanced web mapping applications that provide access to spatial and 

tabular data sets for specific projects.

 

The following Goals and Projects will be dependent upon the level of GIS support indicated 

below for maintaining high-quality monitoring and research throughout the entire program:

GOAL PROJECT

LEVEL GIS SUPPORT 

EXPECTED

B

ASIC

INTERM

EDIATE

ADV

ANCED

GCDAMP Goal 

1—Protect or improve the 

aquatic food base so that it 

will support viable 

populations of desired 

species at higher trophic 

levels

BIO 1.M1—

Aquatic Food Base 

Monitoring

X X X

GCDAMP Goal 

2—Maintain or attain 

viable populations of 

existing native fish, 

remove jeopardy from 

humpback chub and 

razorback sucker, and 

prevent adverse 

modification to their 

critical habitat

BIO 2.M1—Little 

Colorado River 

Humpback Chub 

Monitoring

X X X

BIO 2.M3—

Humpback Chub 

Translocation and 

Monitoring Above Chute 

X X
180

GOAL PROJECT

LEVEL GIS SUPPORT 

EXPECTED

B

ASIC

INTERM

EDIATE

ADV

ANCED

Falls

BIO 2.M4—

Monitoring Mainstem 

Fish

X X X

BIO 2.R7—Stock 

Assessment of Grand 

Canyon Native Fish

BIO 2.R13—

Remote PIT Tag Reading X

BIO 2.R15—

Nearshore Ecology / Fall 

Steady Flows

X X X

BIO 2.R16—

Mainstem Nonnative Fish 

Control

X X X

BIO 2.R17—

Nonnative Control Plan 

Science Support

X

BIO 2.E18—

Natal Origins of Trout X X X

BIO 2.R19—

Biometrics and General 

Analysis

X X

GCDAMP Goal 4. 

Maintain a naturally 

reproducing population of 

rainbow trout above the 

Paria River, to the extent 

practicable and consistent 

with the maintenance of 

viable populations of 

native fish.

BIO 4.M2—

Monitoring Lees Ferry 

Fish

X X X

GCDAMP Goal 

5—Maintain or attain 

viable populations of 

Kanab ambersnail.

BIO 5.M1—

Monitor Kanab 

Ambersnail

GCDAMP Goal 

6—Protect or improve the 

biotic riparian and spring 

communities, including 

threatened and endangered 

species and their critical 

habitat.

BIO 6.M1—

Vegetation Mapping

X X X

BIO 6.M2—

Vegetation Transects X

GCDAMP Goal 

7—Establish water 

temperature, quality, and 

BIO 7.R1—

Water Quaility of Lake 

Powell
181

GOAL PROJECT

LEVEL GIS SUPPORT 

EXPECTED

B

ASIC

INTERM

EDIATE

ADV

ANCED

flow dynamics to achieve 

the Adaptive Management 

Program ecosystem goals.

PHY 7.M2—

Integrated Flow, 

Temperature, and 

Sediment Modeling

X

PHY 7.R3—

Modeling Support X

GCDAMP Goal 

8—Maintain or attain 

levels of sediment storage 

within the main channel 

and along shorelines to 

achieve the Adaptive 

Management Program 

ecosystem goals.

PHY 8.M2—

Integrated Long term 

Monitoring of 

Systemwide Changes in 

Sediment Storage X X X

GCDAMP Goal 

9—Maintain or improve 

the quality of recreational 

experiences for users of 

the Colorado River 

ecosystem, within the 

framework of GCDAMP 

ecosystem goals.

REC 9.R1—

Campsite Area 

Monitoring

X X

REC 9.R3—

Expand and Analyze 

Campsite Data in the GIS 

Atlas

X X X

HYD 10.M1.10–

11—Monitor Power 

Generation and Market 

Values under Current and 

Future Dam Operations

HYD 10.R2--

Evaluate the Suitability of 

the GTMax Model for 

Modeling Economic 

Implications of Power 

Generation under Current 

and Future Dam 

Operations and Conduct 

Initial Analyses

GCDAMP Goal 

11—Preserve, protect, 

manage, and treat cultural 

resources for the 

inspiration and benefit of 

past, present, and future 

generations.

CUL 11.R1—

Cultural Research and 

Development towards 

Core Monitoring, Phase II

GCDAMP Goal 

12—Maintain a high 

quality monitoring, 

research, and adaptive 

PLAN 12.P1—

Support and Enhancement 

of Ecosystem Modeling 

Efforts

X X
182

GOAL PROJECT

LEVEL GIS SUPPORT 

EXPECTED

B

ASIC

INTERM

EDIATE

ADV

ANCED

management program

PLAN: 12.P4—

Update of Knowledge 

Assessment and SCORE 

Report

X

SUP 12.S2—

Survey Operations X

SUP 12.S3—

Control Network X X X

There are no logistical needs for this project.

In addition to the project support highlighted above, the GIS staff will also produce a wide 

range of products as time permits over the next two fiscal cycles:

Maps for publications; generation and printing of maps and graphics for posters outside of 

scheduled project work

Improved web-based map applications for Lake Powell and Grand Canyon

Instructional sessions for staff, cooperators, and contractors on GIS layer development, 

integration and analysis on an as-needed basis

Development of spatial models and scripts for improving overall efficiency of GIS tasks

Spatial models and associated report describing accuracy assessment of remotely-sensed 

imagery and elevation data sets

Annual progress report summarizing major results will be provided by December 15, 2010 and 

2011
183

October 2006

Ongoing

Philip A. Davis, U.S. Geological Survey, Western Mineral Resources Science Center; and 

Glenn Bennett, Paul Grams, Barbara Ralston, and Helen Fairley, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand 

Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

Colorado River ecosystem corridor between the forebay of Glen Canyon Dam and upper Lake 

Mead

The purpose of this project is to provide coordinated, comprehensive analyses of the remotely 

sensed data that were acquired in May 2009 to address a diverse set of monitoring and research 

questions. The primary data sets that will be analyzed consist of the 4-band digital images and a digital 

surface model (DSM) of elevation of the river corridor between Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Mead. 

The primary objectives of the analyses are to:

Produce a systemwide land cover map that depicts bare sand (and sandbars), cobble bars, 

debris fans, bedrock, cliff, and gross vegetation above the 8,000 cfs (the flow stage at which the data 

were acquired); these data depict shoreline habitats

Produce a vegetation map up to the old high water zone at the community classification level 

or better

Determine if the photogrammetric DSM provides a sufficient accuracy to examine volumetric 

change in the sandbars and, if so, determine those volumetric changes

Determine if changes in vegetation have affected established campsites

All four of these objectives will include a temporal analysis of changes observed from such 

databases derived from similar airborne data acquired during 2002, 2005, and 2009.

Additional project components consider other remotely sensed databases previously collected 

as aerial photographs or planned for collection as digital imagery or topography in FY2011-12. These 

components include: 

Photogrammetric analyses of historical aerial photography – Deferred 

Detailed analyses of hyperspectral imagery – Deferred 
184

Evaluation of DSM and image data from 2002, 2005, and 2009 as a remote sensing surrogate 

for ground surveys to determine and monitor campable area on a systemwide basis and to determine 

the effects of vegetation encroachment on campable area

Analysis of historical aerial photography to determine pre- and post-dam erosion near selected 

archaeological sites 

Analysis of historical aerial color-infrared photography to classify the vegetation within 

selected areas during allowable periods in order to extend temporal vegetation change analyses to be 

extended back in time

There are few processing aspects of any particular remote-sensing data set that are considered 

standard and can be applied without some modification and judgment. The DASA program will 

continue efforts to increase accuracy and precision of derived data set products. It is possible that the 

development of new algorithms and processing techniques needed to improve results and better meet 

program requirements may delay the delivery of the analysis.

Remotely sensed data are essential to provide a robust tracking of the status of certain 

physical, biological, and cultural attributes of the CRE. Ground based monitoring provides detailed 

observations but is limited by the number of study sites, resulting in under sampling and poor ability to 

infer systemwide trends. 

To support analysis of the impacts of dam operations, climate, and meteorology on riparian 

vegetation, airborne image data collected in 2009 will be used to update the vegetation map published 

in 2008 (Ralston and others, 2008) that was produced using 2002 airborne image data. This analysis 

will address questions such as: What is the total gain or loss of riparian vegetation in the new and old 

high water zones relative to 2002, 2005, and 2009? How are the gains or losses in vegetation 

represented among the vegetation classes within each hydrologic zone? What are the limitations of 4-

band imagery on riparian vegetation monitoring? Can hyperspectral imagery provide vegetation 

classification at the community level, provide species compositions of classes, correctly classify 

woody and senescent vegetation as to their species, and map crytogamic soil?

To support the analysis of impacts of dam operations, climate, and meteorology on the 

stability of sand deposits, especially different sediment deposits that provide wildlife habitats, airborne 

image and DSM data and historical aerial photographic imagery and derived topographic data will be 

used to evaluate cause-effect relations and to determine various protocols for mitigation of adverse 

effects, where possible.

To support the analysis of impacts of dam operations, climate, and meteorology on campable

beaches systemwide, airborne image and DSM data will be used to evaluate campsite quality 

(determined by surface area and slope), as well as the factors that have affected quality, such as 

vegetation encroachment, surface water and wind erosion of sand, dissection by erosional processes, 

etc.
185

To support the analysis of impacts of dam operations, climate, meteorology, and visitors on 

selected archaeological sites, high resolution airborne photography and photogrammetric derived from 

these imagery will be used to examine erosion rates and surface modifications within the pre-dam and 

post-dam eras. High-resolution LiDAR topography and imagery will be analyzed in order to monitor 

present day surface changes, causal processes, and mitigation efforts.

SSQ 2-1. Do dam-controlled flows affect (increase or decrease) rates of erosion and vegetation 

growth at archaeological sites and TCP sites, and if so, how?

SSQ 4-2. How important are backwaters and vegetated shoreline habitats to the overall growth and 

survival of young-of-year (YoY) and juvenile native fish? Does the long-term benefit of increasing 

these habitats outweigh short-term potential costs (displacement and possible mortality of young 

humpback chub) associated with high flows?

SSQ 5-7. How do warmer releases affect viability and productivity of native/nonnative 

vegetation?

GCDAMP Goal 6 is directed at the protection or improvement of riparian and spring 

communities. This goal is based on the recognition that the riparian and spring environments are hosts 

for some endangered species like the Southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus). 

The protection of these species‘ critical habitats is part of this goal. Riparian plant communities can be 

viewed at either a single resource level without ecosystem linkages, or at an integrative level where 

riparian vegetation is linked to aquatic and terrestrial ecosystem processes (for example, when it 

contributes to secondary production and cover). Riparian plant communities interact with cultural 

resources associated with recreation (for example, camping sites) and TCPs, or affects aeolian sand 

transport and possibly archaeological site erosion rates. Understanding how riparian vegetation 

responds to flows and affects other resources of concern forms a basis for managing critical resources 

like native fish, archaeological properties, and recreational resources.

SSQ 3.1. Is there a ―Flow-Only‖ operation (that is, a strategy for dam releases, including 

managing tributary inputs with HFEs, without sediment augmentation) that will restore and maintain 

sandbar habitats over decadal timescales?

SSQ 4.2. How important are backwaters and vegetated shoreline habitats to the overall growth 

and survival of YoY and juvenile native fish? Does the long-term benefit of increasing these habitats 

outweigh short-term potential costs (displacement and possibly mortality of young humpback chub) 

associated with high flows? 

In terms of questions that are specific to the AMP goals for recreation, this project directly 

addresses the following SSQ:

SSQ 3-9. How do varying flows positively or negatively affect campsite attributes that are 

important to visitor experience? 
186

Because campsite size can affect visitor experience, this project also indirectly addresses two 

other important science questions related to recreation in the CRE:

SSQ 3-7. How do dam-controlled flows affect visitors’ recreational experiences, and what is/are 

the optimal flows for maintaining a high-quality recreational experience in the CRE? 

SSQ 3-8. What are the drivers for recreational experiences in the CRE, and how important are 

flows relative to other drivers in shaping recreational experience outcomes?

This research and development project, and the future cultural monitoring program, is 

designed to addresses two primary SSQs:

SSQ 2-1. Do dam-controlled flows affect (increase or decrease) rates of erosion, and 

vegetation growth, at archaeological sites and TCP sites in the CRE, and if so, how? 

SSQ 2-4. How effective are various treatments (e.g., check dams, vegetation management, 

etc.) in slowing rates of erosion at archaeological sites over the long term?

What is the rate of change in eddy storage (erosion) during time intervals between high-flow 

tests?

What are the most appropriate methods for detecting change in shoreline habitat along the 

entire CRE, given the available data sets collected using different technologies (scanned 

analog vs. digital), different platforms (Leica ADS-40/ISTAR vs. DMC/3001, Inc.), and 

different image resolutions (30 cm, 22 cm, or 18 cm)? What is the most appropriate 

scale/minimum mapping unit to map the shoreline habitat for all years in order to support 

related science questions? 

What level of change can be detected in shoreline habitat using remotely sensed data collected 

in the past 5 years? What changes have occurred to the shoreline habitat across the CRE in the 

past 5 years? 

Where have the most significant changes taken place in shoreline habitat along the CRE in the 

past 5 years, and within which shoreline habitat classes are the most noticeable changes seen? 

How does the shoreline habitat relate to backwater environments/habitats? What have changes 

in backwater abundance/size/shape occurred over the past 5 years?

As historical analog overflights become available in digital format, can the timeline be 

extended back to previous years?

A time-series comparison of shoreline characteristics may prove quite useful for the following 

SSQ:

SSQ 1-7. Which tributary and mainstem habitats are most important to native fishes and how can 

these habitats best be made useable and maintained?

The primary information needs for riparian vegetation addressed by tasks within this project 

are CMINs 6.1.1., 6.2.1, 6.5.1, and 6.6.1, which are summarized as the following:
187

Determine and track the abundance, composition, distribution, and area of terrestrial native 

and nonnative vegetation species in the CRE.

Determine parameters and metrics to be measured, and the information needs that address each 

element. 

Determine how the abundance, composition, and distribution of the OHWZ, NHWZ, and sand 

beach community have changed since dam closure (1963), high flows (1984), interim flows 

(1991), and the implementation of ROD operations (RIN 6.2.1, 6.3.1, 6.4.1, 6.5.1, 6.5.2, 

6.5.3).

These information needs will be addressed through the following actions:

Semidecadal color infrared digital imagery mapping that quantifies (1) area change of 

dominant overstory species, (2) community composition and possibly changes in understory 

community composition through ground truthing associated with mapping, and (3) coarse 

primary productivity estimates for riparian vegetation.

Vegetation transects/grid surveys conducted at an appropriate frequency that correlate with 

river stage elevations of 15,000, 25,000, 35,000, 45,000, and 60,000 cubic feet per second quantifies 

cover, richness and diversity, and wetland species scores at each stage elevation. This work is most 

informative for herbaceous annuals and perennials, including invasive species. This component may 

incorporate marsh-monitoring needs of Tribes.

IN 12.1. Develop information that can be used by the TWG, in collaboration with the 

GCMRC, to establish current and target levels for all resources within the GCDAMP as called 

for in the GCDAMP strategic plan.

CMIN 2.1.2 Determine and track recruitment (identify life stage), abundance and distribution 

of HBC in the LCR

CMIN 2.6.1 Determine and track the abundance and distribution of flannelmouth sucker, 

bluehead sucker, and speckled dace populations in the Colorado River ecosystem.

CMIN 8.2.1. Track, as appropriate, the biennial sandbar area, volume, and grain-size changes 

outside of eddies between 5,000 and 25,000 cfs stage, by reach.

CMIN 8.4.1. Track, as appropriate, the biennial or annual sandbar area, volume, and grainsize changes within eddies between 5,000 and 25,000 cfs stage, by reach.

EIN 6.4.1. How does the abundance, composition, and distribution of the sand beach 

community change in response to an experiment performed under the Record of Decision, 

unanticipated event, or other management action?

This project directly addresses one part of the top priority CMIN for goal 9 (campsite size): 

CMIN 9.3.1. Determine and track the size, quality, and distribution of camping beaches by 

reach and stage level in Glen and Grand Canyons. (This project specifically addresses the part 

of the CMIN concerned with campsite size.)

This project partially addresses a second campsite CMIN (9.3.2) that is closely related to the 

top-priority CMIN for camping beaches (Note: The Science Planning Group of the TWG 

recommended that CMINs 9.3.1 and 9.3.2 be combined as one): 
188

CMIN 9.3.2. Determine and track the effects of ROD operations on the size, quality, and 

distribution of camping beaches in the CRE.

This monitoring project also contributes to tracking the long-term effects of the 2008 

experimental flow on camping beaches (campable area), as defined by EIN 9.3.1:

EIN 9.3.1. How do the size, quality, and distribution of camping beaches change in response 

to an experiment performed under the ROD, unanticipated event, or other management action?

This project is a research and development effort aimed at addressing the highest priority 

CMIN for historic properties (as revised by the CRAHG and SPG in fall 2005), specifically, the 

properties known as archaeological sites: 

CMIN 11.1.1 (SPG revised). Determine the condition and integrity of prehistoric and historic 

sites in the CRE through tracking rates of erosion, visitor impacts, and other relevant variables. 

Determine the condition and integrity of TCPs in the CRE. 

This project also directly addresses EIN 11.1 (formerly CMIN 11.1.2 of the GCDAMP 

Strategic Plan renumbered by CRAHG/SPG as EIN 11.1):

EIN 11.1. Determine the efficacy of treatments for mitigation of adverse effects to historic 

properties. 

This project also addresses an AMP research IN (no number) (formerly identified as CMIN 

11.1.4 in the GCDAMP Strategic Plan):

How effective is monitoring, what are the appropriate strategies to capture change at an 

archaeological site qualitative, quantitative?

Annual or biennial monitoring of approximately 45 sandbars (PHY 8.M2) provides monitoring 

information on the area and volume of sand for these long-term study sites, many of which are also 

important recreation sites. The ground based monitoring does not, however, adequately sample the 

over 2,000 sandbars that have been identified by analysis of the 2002 and 2005 overflight images. This 

project will analyze the 2009 overflight images to provide long-term monitoring of exposed sand 

above the 8,000 cfs stage throughout the CRE. This project will also provide an updated shoreline 

habitat classification based on the 2009 images. The updated shoreline habitat classification will be 

used by the nearshore ecology project to assist in associating fish capture data with physical habitat 

characteristics.

The images will first be analyzed to classify the extent of sand and vegetation (discussed 

below) using methods developed to classify the 2002 and 2005 images. The sand classification uses 

image-processing algorithms that rely on roughness and brightness characteristics to distinguish sand 

from other surface material (Gushue and others, in press). Following these automated routines, sand 

areas are manually inspected for error and consistency. More stable features such as bedrock, talus, 

and debris fans will not be reclassified but will be inspected. The updated shoreline habitat 

classification will require updating the modeled shorelines for a range of discharges. This will be 
189

accomplished using existing modeled water-surface elevations (Magirl and others, 2008) and the May 

2009 digital elevation model that will be provided by the contractors responsible for the collection and 

processing of the 2009 overflight data.

This project will result in:

Digital surficial geologic maps showing areas of sand and other map units

Updated ―virtual‖ shorelines based on the May 2009 digital elevation model 

Updated shoreline habitat classification for a range of discharges

A peer reviewed report or journal article describing the results

This task will use the 2009 airborne imagery to classify all vegetation up to the old-high-water 

flow stage to at least the association level. This classification will use the 4-band reflectance data and 

vegetation texture (derived from a statistical analysis of the near-infrared band imagery) and the same 

classification methods established for and performed on the 2002 image data. The 2009 image data 

should be better than previous imagery, thus improved (more detailed) vegetation compositional data 

may be derived from this analysis. This analysis may be completed in FY2010. When completed, the 

biological program will perform change detection analyses within FY2011, which should provide 

insights into systemwide vegetation changes at the association level. The 2009 vegetation map 

database will be published as a USGS Digital Data Series.

Deferred 

Campable area is defined as an open, smooth substrate measuring at least 1x2 m with a slope 

of less than 8 degrees. Changes in campable area in the CRE are currently being monitored as part of 

the Northern Arizona University (NAU) long-term sandbar monitoring project. However, this 

sampling is limited in scope due to logistical issues. This task will explore the feasibility of using the 

systemwide airborne DSM data, in combination with its imagery, to define campable area throughout 

the entire CRE, in lieu of or in addition to repeat ground surveys. The initial analysis will be conducted 

between river miles 30 and 50 where there are multiple campable areas with 2009 ground survey data.

In FY2010, DASA will provide the initial bare sand land-cover map and the slope map generated from 

the DSM derived from the 2009 airborne data collection. If the remote sensing results show a strong 

correlation with the survey data, campable area will then be calculated for the system as a whole using 

the remotely sensed data by the cultural program, but their systemwide analysis will probably be 

performed in FY2011, when the systemwide land-cover database is completed. Cultural resources 

personnel will publish results.

Deferred
190

The project for high elevation sandbar monitoring, described above, uses established methods 

to monitor trends in sand area. It is known that significant changes in sandbar volume can occur while 

area does not change significantly (Hazel and others, 1999), which can affect the utility of sandbars as 

campsites or habitats. The purpose of this task is to evaluate the feasibility of monitoring sandbar 

elevation and volume changes throughout the CRE using remotely sensed data. The 2009 airborne data 

collection provides a DSM (elevation model) derived by digital photogrammetric methods. If the DSM 

meets our requested 30-cm vertical accuracy, this task will use that DSM to evaluate its potential for 

monitoring systemwide changes in sand elevation. This analysis will use the ground-based 

measurements of sandbar topography made immediately before the May 2009 overflight as a basis for 

the evaluation. This project will result in topographic maps of sand areas system wide and an annual 

report. Our 2002 DSM has a vertical accuracy of 25 cm; if the 2009 DSM has similar or better 

accuracy, we will perform systemwide sand elevation change detection within this 7-year interval, and 

will produce a peer reviewed report or journal article.

Deferred 

Analysis of Hyperspectral Imagery for Improved Vegetation Mapping and Monitoring (Lead Scientist 

– B. Ralston)

Deferred 

GCMRC has 1988 color-infrared photographic film at a scale of 1:4,800 (7 cm resolution) for 

the entire CRE, which is the oldest image data useful for mapping vegetation. These data will be 

visually examined relative to 2002 and 2009 imagery to determine areas with large diverse vegetation 

patches where there has been both notable change and little to no change. Currently, there are about 50 

large vegetation patches within the Canyon; such patches may have been more or less abundant or in 

different locations in 1988. The 1988 analog photographs that cover these selected areas will be 

digitally scanned, georectified to 2002/2009 image data, and classified, similar to the 2002 and 2009 

digital imagery, to produce a 1988 vegetation maps of the areas. Change analyses will be performed in 

order to determine what changed, the areal amount, and possible causes. The registered digital data 

will be stored in the GCMRC archives and the results of the investigation will be published within the 

USGS or in a journal.

Deferred 
191

According to analysis of long-term monitoring data collected by NAU, campable area is 

declining faster than sandbar area, suggesting that factors other than sandbar erosion are contributing 

to loss of campable area in the CRE. Researchers have speculated that the loss of campable area may 

be due in large measure to vegetation encroachment (Kaplinski and others, 2005), but reliable, 

objective data to support or refute this assumption is currently lacking. The goal of this analysis is to 

compare vegetated areas in 2002, 2005, and 2009 aerial imagery at a random sample of campsite areas 

identified in the GIS campsite atlas and calculate the amount of vegetated area change within each 

campsite polygon and within the sample as a whole from one year to the next. We will also compare 

changes in campable area calculated by NAU using total station surveys at long-term sandbar/campsite 

sites with changes in vegetated areas in the aerial imagery. Oblique photo records will also be analyzed 

to supplement analyses using aerial digital imagery. Cultural resources personnel will report the 

findings.

A number of projects over the past years have used the shoreline habitat classification data 

developed from the May 2002 and 2005 imagery data sets. Shoreline habitat type is being applied to 

native and nonnative downstream fish sampling in the mainstem of the Colorado River, and it has also 

been used as a guide to delineate sampling sites of redds in Glen and Marble Canyons. Similarly, 

these data are currently being used by a substrate mapping effort within the aquatic food base project

at the GCMRC. The Table 8 below summarizes the link from integrated image analysis to other 

projects within the GCMRC for FY2011-12. Project linkage is rated as low or high depending on the 

project. Projects with a high linkage are explicitly dependent on intermediate or final image analysis 

products to conduct further advanced analysis from the derived data sets, while projects rated as low 

linkage will depend on intermediate or final results for mapping, field sampling site selection or 

possibly some amount of additional spatial analysis.

GOAL PROJECT

Integrate

d Image Analysis 

Project Links

L

ow

H

igh

GCDAMP Goal 1—Protect or improve the 

aquatic food base so that it will support viable 

populations of desired species at higher trophic 

levels

BIO 1.M—Aquatic 

Food Base X

GCDAMP Goal 2—Maintain or attain 

viable populations of existing native fish, remove 

jeopardy from humpback chub and razorback 

sucker, and prevent adverse modification to their 

critical habitat

BIO 2.M4—

Monitoring Mainstem Fish

X

BIO 2.R15—

Nearshore Ecology / Fall 

Steady Flows

X

BIO 2.R16—

Mainstem Nonnative Fish 

Control

X

BIO 2.R17— X
192

GOAL PROJECT

Integrate

d Image Analysis 

Project Links

L

ow

H

igh

Nonnative Control Plan 

Science Support

BIO 2.R18—Natal 

Origins of Rainbow Trout in 

Grand Canyon

X

GCDAMP Goal 4. Maintain a naturally 

reproducing population of rainbow trout above the 

Paria River, to the extent practicable and consistent 

with the maintenance of viable populations of 

native fish.

BIO 4.M2—

Monitoring Lees Ferry Fish

X

GCDAMP Goal 6—Protect or improve the 

biotic riparian and spring communities, including 

threatened and endangered species and their critical 

habitat.

BIO 6.M1—

Vegetation Mapping X

GCDAMP Goal 8—Maintain or attain 

levels of sediment storage within the main channel 

and along shorelines to achieve the Adaptive 

Management Program ecosystem goals.

PHY 8.M2—

Integrated Long term 

Monitoring of Systemwide 

Changes in Sediment 

Storage

X X

GCDAMP Goal 9—Maintain or improve 

the quality of recreational experiences for users of 

the Colorado River ecosystem, within the 

framework of GCDAMP ecosystem goals.

REC 9.R1—

Campsite Area Monitoring X

REC 9.R3—Expand 

and Analyze Campsite Data 

in the GIS Atlas

X

Digital land-cover maps based on the 2009 data showing sand units, gross vegetation, and 

other map units will be published as a USGS Digital Data Series and the subsequent temporal 

change results will be published as a journal article

Updated ―virtual‖ shorelines based on the May 2009 digital elevation model will be produced 

and placed on the ArcGIS Server

Updated shoreline habitat classification for a range of discharges will be published as a USGS 

Open-File Report

The 2009 vegetation map database derived from the 2009 image data will be published as a 

USGS Digital Data Series and Open-File Report, along with subsequent temporal change 

analysis using the 2002 vegetation map

Published USGS report or journal article on the use of remote sensing data to determine 

campsite suitability and its changes over time 
193

Topographic maps produced from the 2009 image data will be published as a USGS Digital 

Data Series and in an annual report. Results from our systemwide sand elevation change 

detection between 2002 and 2009 will be published in a peer reviewed report or journal article

Results from our integrated, long-term topographic analyses for sandbars will be included in 

an annual report and in a peer reviewed report or journal article produced in cooperation with 

project PHY 8.M2

Published USGS report or journal articles describing long-term surficial and volumetric 

changes within archaeological sites

Published USGS report on the observed effects of vegetation encroachment on campable area 

over time

All data sets that have cleared USGS Fundamental Science Practices review and approval are 

proposed to be served through an instance of Environmental Systems Research Institute 

(ESRI) ArcGIS Server 
194

August 2008

December 2012

Carl Walters, University of British Columbia

CO-I(s): Scott Wright, U.S. Geological Survey, California Water Science Center, William 

Pine, University of Florida, Karen Limburg, University of New York, Syracuse (SUNY), Robert Hall, 

University of Wyoming, Emma Rossi-Marshall, Cary Institute, Colden Baxter, Idaho State University, 

Josh Korman, Ecometric Research, Inc. Ted Kennedy, Kara Hilwig and Mike Yard, U.S. Geological 

Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, Dale Robertson, U.S. Geological Survey, 

Wisconsin Water Science Center

Continued research and decision support for review, revision, upgrade and use of various 

ecosystem models in collaboration with Senior Ecologist and other cooperators; includes additional 

support from the GCMRC staff. Pending further guidance to the GCMRC from USDOI in FY2011, 

additional emphasis in this project may be focused in the area of supporting AMWG activities aimed 

at determining Desired Future Conditions for the various resources of interest within the Colorado 

River ecosystem.

Entire Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center study area, from the forebay of Lake 

Powell to upper Lake Mead. During FY2011–12, the work will focus mainly in the Lees Ferry and 

LCR confluence reaches of the Colorado River, where current aquatic ecosystem values and 

monitoring (rainbow trout, native fish) are concentrated. Some monitoring evaluations and data 

analysis will extend from GCD to Lake Mead, especially to evaluate longitudinal changes in aquatic 

system productivity and carrying capacity for native fish. Reaches of the CRE where additional 

emphasis will be placed on aquatic food and rainbow trout production include Glen and Marble 

Canyons, river miles minus 15 to 61. Particular focus shall be made in these reaches with respect to 

the influence of high flow experimental releases, native and nonnative fish interactions, as well as 

downstream migration of rainbow trout from the Glen to Marble Canyon reaches.

The main aim of this project continues to be to provide advisory assistance to the GCMRC 

scientists and cooperators on data analysis methods and integration of physical and biological research 

data into models for response of aquatic ecosystem indicator variables to possible management 

actions. The goal of such modeling is to provide screening of alternative adaptive management 

proposals (experimental policies) for improving responses of performance indicators such as 

abundance of humpback chub, aquatic food production, etc. Two ecosystem models (referred to 

informally as the Lees Ferry and Little Colorado River confluence, respectively) were developed 

during FY2009-10 in an Ecopath/Ecosim platform by the Senior Ecologist and GCMRC team and 

have since resulted in development of other types of related models, such as a rainbow trout 

production and downstream dispersal models.
195

A secondary objective of the Senior Ecologist continues to be to assist the GCMRC scientists 

and cooperators in communicating research results and quantitative modeling analyses to each other 

and to GCDAMP stakeholders (TWG, AMWG), via structured workshops that use advanced 

ecosystem modeling as a means to enhance communication and explore policy options. Emphasis in 

the initial phase of the research (FY2009–10) was focused on the aquatic elements of the CRE below 

GCD (primarily GCDAMP goals #1-4 and 7–8).

During FY2010, the flow and sediment submodel of the existing Grand Canyon Ecosystem 

Model (GCEM) was replaced by a new shifting rating curve for suspended sand transport (1-D 

routing of Paria and Little Colorado Rivers sand inputs downstream through current monitoring 

reaches upstream of Lake Mead) by Wright and others (in press). This 1-dimensional sand routing 

model was used during FY2010 to develop preliminary sand simulation scenarios for a range of 

hydrologic and sand supply conditions within the CRE and these preliminary results were shared with 

cooperators and stakeholders during a spring 2010 ecosystem workshop.

While a variety of experimental management policies have been implemented in recent years, 

analysis and communication of results and responses of indicators to policies have not been completed. 

More complete analysis and subsequent communication of the results of analysis (including modeling) 

will allow more effective selection of further experimental tests. For example, the LSSF flow 

experiment of summer 2000 was not fully evaluated until 2008, and likewise there have not been 

definitive reviews of all high-flow experimental results (1996 to 2008) or the effects of mechanical 

removal of nonnative fish, although the synthesis of flow tests and nonnative control analyses are now 

forthcoming. Such analyses have been hampered by confounding of multiple factors in causing 

changes (for example, temperature changes have made it hard to interpret fish responses to mechanical 

removal). Modeling tools, such as Ecopath w/ Ecosim provided by the Senior Ecologist (Walters), can 

help to at least clarify alternative hypotheses about the possible roles and relative importance of the 

factors.

Additional advancement of the flow and sediment elements of the existing GCEM is also 

planned as an additional element of the new Integrated Flow, Sediment, and Temperature Modeling 

research project (Wright and others in collaboration with Korman and Walters) as a further means of 

assessing fine sediment dynamics associated with various stakeholder planning needs and associated 

tasks tied to developing desired future conditions for GCDAMP goals. During late FY2010, the new 

1-D sand routing modeling was being used by the GCMRC and its cooperators to support sediment 

analyses intended to inform environmental compliance related to a new High Flow Experimental 

Protocol at Glen Canyon Dam.

The ecological modeling efforts will be directed at addressing priority AMWG questions, 

SSQs, and additional science questions (SAs) - provided by the Science Advisors (SA) in the 

integrated modeling efforts, as follows:

Abundance trends of rainbow trout in the Lees Ferry reach:

SSQ 1-4. Can long-term decreases in abundance of rainbow trout in Marble and eastern Grand 

Canyons be sustained with a reduced level of effort of mechanical removal or will recolonization from tributaries and from downstream and upstream of the removal reach require 

that mechanical removal be an ongoing management action? 

This question also applies to future nonnative control and removal programs targeting other 

nonnative species. 
196

SSQ 1-8. How can native and nonnative fishes best be monitored while minimizing impacts 

from capture and handling or sampling?

Abundance trends in native fish below the Lees Ferry reach:

SSQ 1-1. To what extent are adult populations of native fish controlled by production of 

young fish from tributaries, spawning and incubation in the mainstem, survival of young-ofyear and juvenile stages in the mainstem, or by changes in growth and maturation in the adult 

population as influenced by mainstem conditions?

SA 1. What are the most limiting factors to successful humpback chub adult recruitment in the 

mainstem: spawning success, predation on young of year and juveniles, habitat (water, 

temperature), pathogens, adult maturation, food availability, competition?

SA 2. What are the most probably positive and negative impacts of warming the Colorado 

River on humpback chub adults and juveniles?]

Linkages between (productivity) food web changes and fish population changes:

SSQ 3-5. How is invertebrate flux affected by water quality (for example, temperature, 

nutrient concentrations, turbidity) and dam operations?

SA 1. What are the most limiting factors to successful HBC adult recruitment in the mainstem: 

spawning success, predation on YoY and juveniles, habitat (water, temperature), pathogens, 

adult maturation, food availability, competition?

Responses of native fish to mechanical removal of nonnative fish, fall steady flows, and 

backwaters created by high flow experiments:

SSQ 1-2. Does a decrease in the abundance of rainbow trout and other cold- and warm water

nonnatives in Marble and eastern Grand Canyons result in an improvement in the recruitment 

rate of juvenile HBC to the adult population?

SSQ 5-1. How do dam release temperatures, flows (average and fluctuating component), 

meteorology, canyon orientation and geometry, and reach morphology interact to determine 

mainstem and nearshore water temperatures throughout the CRE?

Using the new shifting rating curve method for routing suspended sand through the CRE in FY 

2010, the project has already produced preliminary advanced simulations for flow operations 

at Glen Canyon Dam and fate of tributary supplied sand inputs:

SSQ 4-1. Is there a ―Flow Only‖ operation (that is, a strategy for dam releases, including 

managing tributary inputs with BHBFs, without sediment augmentation) that will rebuild and 

maintain sandbar habitats over decadal timescales?

Note: Results from element 5, now provides the potential to integrate suspended-sand 

simulations with aquatic/fish simulations within the Ecopath w/ Ecosim modeling developed by 

Walters and others during FY 2010.

1. Senior Ecologist (Walters) will continue to lead fisheries team (the GCMRC fish biologist and 

Biometrician) in advanced development of stock assessment for native suckers (flannelmouth, 

bluehead) in Grand Canyon to complement existing assessments for HBC and to provide more

accurate abundance trends for use in testing ecosystem models that represent competition and 

predation interactions among native and nonnative fish. This will involve completing work 

with the GCMRC scientists to develop and publish an ASMR model using the flannelmouth 

and bluehead sucker data, and analysis of historical length-frequency data to provide growth 

curve inputs for the ASMR back-calculation of age at tagging.

2. Senior Ecologist (Walters) will continue to lead the GCMRC staff and key foodweb and 

fisheries research cooperators in ongoing development and testing of Ecopath/Ecosim (EwE) 
197

models for food web interactions in the aquatic communities of the Lees Ferry and Little 

Colorado reaches of Grand Canyon. This ongoing work will involve continued development 

and fitting to historical abundance trend data of EwE models developed during FY2010 in 

cooperation with the GCMRC scientists. Model parameter estimates will be refined using 

information provided by GCMRC cooperators, and formal parameter estimation procedures 

will be applied to estimate key production parameters by fitting the models to historical fish 

population trend data for 1990–2010.

3. Senior Ecologist (Walters) will lead in use of the existing GCEM ecosystem model to 

reconstruct historical changes in the Colorado River food base for native and nonnative fish, 

associated with changes in diurnal flow regimes and turbidity conditions caused by tributary 

sediment inputs. The EwE food web models in task 2 above need to be fitted to historical 

abundance trend data, and that model fitting will be misleading unless the EwE models are 

provided with realistic time forcing data on past changes in primary and secondary (insect, 

amphipod) production owing to change in turbidity. The GCEM model will be run with 

historical tributary inputs, along with refined estimates of regrowth rates of primary producers 

following periods of low productivity due to high turbidity, to provide monthly estimates for 

1990–2010 of food biomass likely to have been available to native and nonnative fish in 

reaches of Grand Canyon near and below the LCR.

Continue ongoing collaboration with University of Florida and University of New York at 

Syracuse – Phase II valuation of pilot study results from flannelmouth sucker otolith analyses resulting 

from cooperative research with University of Florida and SUNY (Pine and Limburg). This ongoing 

task will continue to employ geochemical signatures in water and native fish otoliths to infer natal 

origin, tributary habitat use, and migration patterns. The project conducted pilot analyses of 

flannelmouth sucker otoliths and water samples collected in FY2008. Preliminary analyses of the 

water samples suggest promising uniqueness among Colorado River tributaries for describing patterns 

in flannelmouth sucker otoliths associated with ontogenetic shifts in tributary versus Colorado River 

occupancy. Owing to the fact that these pilot analyses were fruitful, additional analyses with HBC 

otoliths are now proposed in FY2011 to better understand changes in HBC rearing habitat and 

tributary use. One use of the knowledge gained in pursuit of this task will be to better parameterize and 

justify relationships imbedded in aquatic ecosystem models (for example, Ecopath/Ecosim) that 

describe ontogenetic shifts in native fish use of tributaries during early life history stanzas. This effort 

is tied in with the next task also.

4. Senior Ecologist (Walters) will continue to be involved in review and consultation on field 

work and analysis of the Nearshore Ecology (NSE) project with objective of troubleshooting 

field methods and data analysis procedures, with particular emphasis on assessment of changes 

in native fish dispersal and survival rates in relation to changes from fluctuating to fall steady 

flows.

5. Senior Ecologist (Walters) has participated in high-flow experimental synthesis reporting as 

advisor to the GCMRC staff biologists and fishery cooperator (Valdez) during FY2010 and 

reviewer on biological outcomes report. In this role, the senior ecologist will continue to work 

with the GCMRC and cooperators to provide decision support to stakeholders concerning high 

flow experimental design and related Desired Future Conditions for native and nonnative fish, 

as well as aquatic food production and linkages with sandbar conservation objectives, etc.

6. During FY2011, cooperators (Ecometric Research and Arizona Game and Fish) will 

collaborate with the Senior Ecologist (Walters) and the GCMRC staff to develop a new

submodel (rainbow trout production in the Glen Canyon reach) utilizing two decades of 

rainbow trout monitoring data collected by the Arizona Game and Fish Department. In 

addition, efforts may also focus on development of a second rainbow trout model intended to 

predict downstream movement of trout from Glen to Marble Canyons.
198

This project will use data from all studies that collect information on the aquatic biota of Glen, 

Marble, and Grand Canyons, including the aquatic food web, HBC monitoring, Lees Ferry trout 

monitoring, mechanical removal, nonnative fish monitoring, and the NSE project. The main benefits to 

the projects listed will be to provide novel analyses of data and methods for linking project results into 

overall conceptual and quantitative models for response of the Colorado River aquatic ecosystem to 

management changes. The flow and sediment modeling elements of this project are linked most 

closely to the Integrated Flow, Sediment, and Temperature Modeling project.

There are no logistical needs for this project. Products/Reports 

Completed - ChubIBM.exe computer program, narrative review for the GCMRC fish scientists 

on probable biases and precision of future population estimates (Walters and Hilwig).Completed -

Spreadsheets for use by the GCMRC scientists in checking ASMR results from existing assessment 

programs, stock assessment report providing abundance trend estimates for sucker species (Walters 

and others).

Completed - New 1-dimensional flow and suspended-sand model including the recently 

innovated ―shifting rating curve‖ for sand transport that was reported by Wright and others at 

two meetings with TWG members during FY2010. This work is being integrated with ongoing 

modeling research funded in FY2010 (Wright and others, in press).

Phase I completion with ongoing development - Ecopath/Ecosim (EwE) Access database 

(mdb) with improved models and historical forcing data, including forcing time series data 

from updated GCEM.

In March 2010, Senior Ecologist (Walters) led a science workshop for the GCMRC scientists 

and cooperators March 1-5, 2010, to evaluate ecosystem model performance and produce a 

consensus scientific report on role of trophic interactions (food base changes, predator-prey 

interactions) in causing recent changes in native and nonnative fish abundances. The outcome 

of this workshop provided most of the basis for the workshop with stakeholders in April 2010.

An oral presentation by Carl Walters was given on the ecosystem modeling progress in a 

workshop/retreat for GCDAMP stakeholders (TWG, AMWG) April 14-15, 2010 (Saguaro 

Lake Ranch, Ariz).

Oral presentations were made by both Wright and Logan to TWG members on progress of 

physical submodel upgrade (shifting sand rating curve model), along with simulations of 

suspended-sediment concentrations between Lees Ferry and Phantom Ranch gage, as well as 

progress made in sandbar evolution modeling within eddies on April 13, 2010 at the Saguaro 

Lake Ranch ecosystem modeling workshop.

A series of oral presentations were made by Korman related to recently published rainbow 

trout modeling and high flow experimental research results derived from the March 2008 

HFE. The various findings were reported to the TWG at the January 2010 Annual Reporting 

Meeting, and again shared with science cooperators at the March 2010 Cedar Key, FL 

ecosystem workshop. These results were also presented again to the TWG members at the 

Saguaro Lake ecosystem workshop in April 2010, as well as at an international conference in 

May 2010.

Preliminary results of Phase I isotopic analyses of 2008 flannelmouth sucker otoliths from 

Limburg’s SUNY laboratory were presented to the GCMRC staff and cooperators by Limburg 

Hayden at the March 1-5, 2010 Cedar Key, FL ecopath w/ ecosim workshop. In response to 
199

the Phase I results, a Phase II proposal was received from these SUNY researchers and 

reviewed by the GCMRC and its Senior Ecologist, resulting in a recommendation that the next 

phase of otolith work be funded if possible as part of the NSE research project in FY2011.

Completion and submission of refereed journal article with Josh Korman on ―Surprise and 

opportunity in Grand Canyon ecosystem management Planning‖ for FY2011. Follow up 

ecosystem workshop with scientists and stakeholders in fall 2010, with possibility for using 

existing data and ecosystem models to support efforts by GCDAMP to develop Desired Future 

Conditions for the Colorado River ecosystem below Glen Canyon Dam.

Implementation in FY2011 (October 2010) of a follow up ecosystem workshop with scientists 

and stakeholders, with possibility for using existing data and ecosystem models to support 

efforts by GCDAMP to develop Desired Future Conditions for the Colorado River ecosystem 

below Glen Canyon Dam. This workshop may include the support for developing DFCs, but 

is contingent upon request from the AMWG and further guidance from the DOI leadership.

Manuscript submitted to journal for possible publication on ASMR modeling of flannelmouth 

and bluehead suckers in Grand Canyon (Walters and Coggins)

January 2012 annual report on various ongoing ecosystem modeling initiatives,

Manuscript describing development and attributes of Lees Ferry rainbow trout production 

model, including various analyses of historical monitoring data used in developing the model.
200

October 2010

October 2012

U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center staff and various 

cooperators, including Carl Walters, Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia

Entire Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center study area, from the forebay of Lake 

Powell to upper Lake Mead. 

Five years after the first knowledge assessment (KA) (Melis and others, 2006a) and Status of 

Colorado River Ecosystem (SCORE) report published by the GCMRC (Gloss and others, 2005), the 

GCMRC proposes to conduct a second knowledge assessment to inform the FY2012–16 Monitoring 

and Research Plan. The second SCORE report, following the FY2011 knowledge assessment is 

intended to:

Update the status and trends of GCDAMP resource goals 

Report results of all experimental treatments implemented under the GCDAMP since 

completion of the 1995 EIS.

In contrast to the approach taken in the first SCORE report, which focused mainly on 

reporting status and trends of each of the resources of importance to the GCDAMP, the FY2011 

SCORE report shall identify critical information that ties resource responses (monitoring and research 

data) to experimental flow and non-flow treatments associated with the 1996 Record of Decision 

operations and other treatments implemented by the Department of the Interior since 1996 at the 

recommendation of the GCDAMP. Experimental research topics will include record of decision 

MLFF, experimental winter fluctuations of 2003–05, the 2000 LSSF testing, various fall steady flow 

tests, three HMF tests, three HFEs, mechanical removal of nonnative fish, and translocation of HBC 

and Kanab ambersnail. These experimental treatments will be evaluated relative to the resource goals 

of the GCDAMP strategic plan as part of a knowledge assessment conducted in advance of the 

SCORE reporting, similar to the approach taken in 2005 (see Table 9).

A key element of the collaborative science planning process outlined in the FY 2007-11 

Strategic Science Plan (SSP) (USGS 2006) and Monitoring and Research Plan (MRP) (USGS 2007) is 

a synthesis at 5 year intervals of new science information in an updated SCORE report and knowledge 

assessment. The SCORE report and KA are a critical part of the adaptive management process that are 

needed to inform the review and revision of the GCDAMP Strategic Plan and the FY 2012-17 SSP and

MRP. The KA and SCORE report will incorporate, summarize and evaluate new information 

regarding statues and trends of AMP resources and responses of those resources to various 
201

experimental treatments in a format useful by managers, stakeholders and scientists as they consider 

new directions in the GCDAMP science and management activities.

A priority need in the FY2011 knowledge assessment will be to identify resource responses 

that were not predicted in the 1995 EIS or identified in the last knowledge assessment. One example 

that provides an excellent opportunity for learning is the arrested decline of the HBC adult population 

(Melis and others, 2006b) and the recent increasing trend in this endangered fish (Coggins, 2009). The 

turnaround in HBC population has occurred despite a high level of uncertainty about limiting its early 

life history below GCD. Fine sediment, another example of resource response that was not well 

anticipated in the 1995 EIS, will also be a major focus of the FY2011 knowledge assessment and 

FY2012 SCORE report following recent modeling research advances in FY2009–10 (Wright and 

others, 2008).

The FY2011 knowledge assessment and resulting FY2012 SCORE report will be aimed at 

addressing priority AMWG questions identified by the GCDAMP in 2004, the Strategic Science 

Questions derived from the 2005 knowledge assessment and additional questions identified since then 

by the Science Advisors:

SSQ 4-1. Is there a ―Flow Only‖ operation (that is, a strategy for dam releases, including 

managing tributary inputs with BHBFs, without sediment augmentation) that will rebuild and 

maintain sandbar habitats over decadal timescales?

SSQ 1-4. Can long-term decreases in abundance of rainbow trout in Marble and eastern Grand 

Canyons be sustained with a reduced level of effort of mechanical removal or will 

recolonization from tributaries and from downstream and upstream of the removal reach 

require that mechanical removal be an ongoing management action? This question also applies

to future removal programs targeting other nonnative species.

SSQ 1-8. How can native and nonnative fish

best be monitored while minimizing impacts from capture and handling or sampling?

SSQ 1-1. To what extent are adult populations of native fish controlled by production of 

young fish from tributaries, spawning and incubation in the mainstem, survival of young-ofyear and juvenile stages in the mainstem, or by changes in growth and maturation in the adult 

population as influenced by mainstem conditions?

SSQ 3-5. How is invertebrate flux affected by water quality (for example, temperature, 

nutrient concentrations, turbidity) and dam operations?

SSQ 1-2. Does a decrease in the abundance of rainbow trout and other cold- and warm water 

nonnatives in Marble and eastern Grand Canyons result in an improvement in the recruitment 

rate of juvenile HBC to the adult population?

SSQ 5-1. How do dam release temperatures, flows (average and fluctuating component), 

meteorology, canyon orientation and geometry, and reach morphology interact to determine 

mainstem and nearshore water temperatures throughout the CRE?

SA 1. What are the most limiting factors to successful humpback chub adult recruitment in the 

mainstem: spawning success, predation on young of year and juveniles, habitat (water, 

temperature), pathogens, adult maturation, food availability, competition?

SA 2. What are the most probably positive and negative impacts of warming the Colorado 

River on humpback chub adults and juveniles?
202

The GCMRC will work with the GCDAMP stakeholders, Science Advisors and science 

cooperators to develop the FY20011 knowledge assessment process. It is anticipated that the KA 

process will involve one or more workshops with scientists and stakeholders. Alternative approaches 

will be reviewed to determine the most appropriate method for summarizing knowledge, 

characterizing the level of certainty associated resource responses to treatments or management actions 

and engaging scientists, managers and stakeholders in the process. New information that will be 

addressed in the KA workshops and FY2012 SCORE report includes:

• 2008 HFE results

• Synthesis of the 1996, 2004 and 2008 HFE‘s

• Campsite and sandbar monitoring results

• Results of the Aquatic Food Base Research and Develop Project

• Ecosystem modeling and workshop results (including two new Ecopath w/ Ecosim models 

for Lees Ferry and the Little Colorado River confluence area)

• Integrated sediment, flow, and temp modeling results

• Vegetation mapping and transects synthesis results

• Low Summer Steady Flows synthesis results

Results of the RTELSS studies of 2003 through 2009

Assessment of the effects of experimental flow and non-flow treatments would encompass the 

topics shown in the matrix below. The Xs shown in Table 9 denote the resource response topics that 

would be addressed in the knowledge assessment and reported by goal in the FY2012 SCORE report.

Resources MLFF EXP winterfluctuations BHBF HMF Steady 

Flows

Nonnative 

fish 

control

Translocating 

HBC and 

KAS

Food Availability X X X X X X N/A

Native Fish X X X X X X X

Extirpated Species N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Lees Ferry 

Rainbow Trout X X X X X N/A N/A
203

Resources MLFF EXP winterfluctuations BHBF HMF Steady 

Flows

Nonnative 

fish 

control

Translocating 

HBC and 

KAS

Springs and 

Related Species 

(KAS)

X X X X X N/A X

Riparian 

Community X X X X X N/A N/A

Downstream

Quality of Water X X X X X N/A N/A

Sediment X X X X X N/A N/A

Recreational 

Experiences X X X X X N/A N/A

Hydropower X X X X X N/A N/A

Cultural Resources 

- TCPs X X X X X N/A N/A

The FY2012 SCORE report would be linked with a second knowledge assessment conducted 

in the first through third quarters of 2011 through implementation of at least two workshops involving 

scientists and stakeholders. The 2011 KA workshop(s) and FY2012 Score report will provide updated 

status and trends information, including the effects of experimental treatments, for all GCDAMP 

resource goals.

None, excepting travel to workshop locations, most likely to be held in Phoenix and Flagstaff, 

AZ

Proceedings (USGS Open File Report) that documents the 2011 knowledge assessment

workshop(s).

Multi-chapter USGS Circular that updates resource status and trends, following after the 2005 

SCORE report, but with additional content on modeling development and cause and effect 

relationships between various experimental treatments and resource responses
204

October 2010

Ongoing (as defined in the HFE protocol Environmental Assessment)

Matthew Andersen, Helen Fairley, Paul Grams, Kara Hilwig, Theodore Kennedy, Bill 

Persons, Barbara Ralston, David Topping, and Bill Vernieu: U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon 

Monitoring and Research Center

The Colorado River from Glen Canyon Dam to the upper end of Lake Mead 

The goal of this experimental project is to test the hypothesis that a series of sand-enriched 

high flows will be an effective strategy for rebuilding and maintaining sandbars using dam operations

(Topping and others, 2006). Testing this hypothesis requires that high flows occur each time the sand 

input triggering criteria are met. The details of high flow triggering criteria are currently being 

developed in the context of an Environmental Assessment for a High Flow Protocol (see below). 

The second goal will be to evaluate the effects of implementation of the High Flow Protocol 

on a variety of other priority AMP resources including aquatic food base, native fish, Lees‘ Ferry trout 

and angler satisfaction, riparian vegetation, and archaeological sites. 

Previous high flow experiments from Glen Canyon Dam were conducted in 1996, 2004, and 

2008. These experiments generally concluded that one of the best tools available for rebuilding sand 

bars using dam operations is to release short duration high flows after tributary floods deposit new 

sand into the main channel of the Colorado River. On December 31, 2009, a Federal Register Notice 

was issued for development of an experimental protocol for high flow releases from Glen Canyon 

Dam (FR vol 74, no 250 p 69361). As described in the Federal Register, the high flow protocol will be 

designed to further evaluate the hypothesis that repeated high flow releases conducted under 

conditions of sand enrichment may result in cumulative increases in sand bar area and volume. 

Currently, the details of the high flow protocol are being developed in an Environmental Assessment 

(EA) process pursuant to NEPA. However the Federal Register Notices indicates the Protocol is 

anticipated to be a multi-year experimental that will address such factors as the appropriate number of 

experiments, the appropriate sand input triggering criteria, the timing and duration of high flow 

releases to optimize sand conservation, the interval between high flows releases as well as the 
205

anticipated approach to monitoring results and the effectiveness of the experiment. The purpose of 

this work plan is to outline how current monitoring projects will address the evaluation of the 

effectiveness of the HFE protocol. Some changes to this work plan may be needed once the Protocol 

is finalized pursuant to the EA process. Additional revisions may be required to address additional 

experimental activites that may be identified in the Long Term Experimental and Management Plan 

EIS.

The proposed approach will rely on existing quality of water, sediment, and other resource 

monitoring projects to assess the effects of the HFE protocol. No new studies would be added, 

however, some existing monitoring efforts will be expanded. 

In the Methods and Tasks Section below, high flow monitoring associated with each 

GCDAMP project is summarized with references to the section in the work plan where the details of 

the respective monitoring program are contained. Budget implications are discussed where 

appropriate.

The science activities conducted to evaluate the HFE protocol will address the following 

strategic science question(s) and associated HFE protocol science questions (listed within the task 

descriptions). The HFE protocol science questions are considered preliminary and subject to revision 

in the course of the planning process. 

SSQ 4-1. Is there a ―Flow Only‖ operation (that is, a strategy for dam releases, including 

managing tributary inputs with BHBFs, without sediment augmentation) that will rebuild and 

maintain sandbar habitats over decadal timescales? 

Tasks related to high flow monitoring are summarized below. Please refer to the individual 

project descriptions in the work plan for more detailed descriptions. The budget figures provided in 

the task descriptions and the summary table are in gross dollars and reflect a differential cost to the 

respective project, not a total project cost. The budget figures assume that the respective annual work 

plan projects are funded at the level indicated in this work plan. Changes to budgets in the work plan 

would require revising the cost estimates, below.

HFE protocol science question 1: Will multiple high flows conducted over a period of several 

years result in net increases in sandbar area and volume (time domain to be addressed in the course 

of HFE protocol development)? This question is related to CMIN 8.2.1. -- Track, as appropriate, 

the biennial or annual sandbar area, volume, and grain-size changes within and outside of eddies 

between 5,000 and 25,000 cfs stage, by reach; CMIN 8.5.1. -- Track, as appropriate, the biennial 

sandbar area, volume, and grain-size changes above 25,000 cfs stage, by reach; CMIN 8.1.1. --

Determine and track the biennial sandbar area and fine-sediment volume and grain-size changes 

within eddies below 5,000 cfs stage, by reach; and CMIN 9.3.1. -- Determine and track the size, 

quality, and distribution of camping beaches by reach and stage level in Glen and Grand 

Canyons.

HFE protocol science question 2: With the available sand supply (i.e. tributary inputs) is the 

approach of using repeated floods to build sandbars sustainable? This question is related to all of 

the CMIN’s listed for question 1 and the following: CMIN 7.4.2. -- Determine and track flow 

releases from Glen Canyon Dam, under all operating conditions, particularly related to flow 
206

duration, upramp, and downramp conditions; CMIN 8.1.3. -- Track, as appropriate, the monthly 

sand and silt/clay volumes and grain-size characteristics, by reach, as measured or estimated at 

the Paria and LCR stations, other major tributaries like Kanab and Havasu Creeks, and ―lesser‖ 

tributaries; and CMIN 8.1.2. -- What are the monthly sand and silt/clay export volumes and grainsize characteristics, by reach, as measured or estimated at Lees Ferry, Lower Marble Canyon, 

Grand Canyon, and Diamond Creek Stations?

This project addresses the HFE protocol science question 1 by tracking net changes in the area 

and volume of sandbars at stages above and below 8,000 cfs. This project also address HFE protocol 

science question 2 by tracking changes in sand storage for the study period. The SedTrend channel 

mapping project is designed to monitor the cumulative results of multiple high flows over a 5 to 10 

year period. The results from previous high flow monitoring demonstrate that high flows build 

sandbars and that the magnitude of bar building is greatest when sand concentrations are highest. The 

question that is unresolved, which this program seeks to address, is whether repeated high flows and 

intervening dam operations can result in maintenance or increase in sandbars over longer periods of 

time. This objective of the project is described in detail in the goal 8 project description (PHY 8.M2). 

In summary, these monitoring data will allow us to determine at the end of the experimental period 

whether the continued use of high flows is likely to be a sustainable approach to building and 

maintaining sandbars or whether more sand than the tributaries supply is required to avoid progressive 

sand export and erosion. Because the objective is to monitor sandbars and the channel in a ―typical‖ 

condition, the channel mapping should occur 6 months or more following a high flow. To simplify the 

scheduling, the channel mapping is currently scheduled to occur only in years that do not have high 

flows. Deferment of channel mapping in these years makes available about $110,000 in logistical and 

other expenses. Personnel are retained to continue with data processing and reporting.

HFE protocol science question 1: Will multiple high flows conducted over a period of several 

years result in net increases in sandbar area and volume? (see above for CMINs)

This project addresses HFE protocol science question 1 by tracking changes in sandbar area 

and volume at the long-term sandbar monitoring sites above the stage of 8,000 cfs. See the goal 8 

project description for a summary of the methods and the Goal 9 project description for a summary of 

the campsite monitoring component. In the absence of high flows, the repeat surveys of these sites 

have documented that the sandbars gradually erode. For this reason, the monitoring is scheduled to 

occur every two years unless a high flow occurs. Similarly, the surveys done immediately before and 

after high flows have repeatedly documented deposition. While continued quantification of the precise 

magnitude of deposition associated with each high flow would be beneficial, it is not critical 

monitoring. Instead, we propose to perform a survey approximately 6 months following each flood and 

use that as the benchmark monitoring record. This monitoring would be accomplished by the regular 

biennial sandbar survey unless the high flow occurs in an off year. In that case, an additional 

monitoring trip would be required at an added cost to Goal 8 of about $50,000. A sandbar monitoring 

trip is currently planned for FY 2011, so FY 2012 is the first year that this need could occur. 

Monitoring of the immediate response of future high flows would be limited to information gained by 

daily photographs taken by remote cameras. The photographic data would allow comparison of the 

degree of sandbar building between past and future high flows. Currently 18 sandbar monitoring sites 

are instrumented with remote cameras. We propose installing cameras at an additional 20 sites before 

the next high flow. This would require a one-time cost (prior to the next high flow) of about $50,000. 
207

HFE protocol science question 3: Will multiple high flows conducted over a period of 

several years result in net increases in campable area within the Colorado River ecosystem (time 

domain to be addressed in the course of HFE protocol development)? This question is related to 

CMIN 9.3.1. --Determine and track the size, quality, and distribution of camping beaches by reach and 

stage level in Glen and Grand Canyons (top-ranked goal 9 CMIN); EIN 9.3.1. -- How do the size, 

quality and distribution of camping beaches change in response to an experiment performed under the 

Record of Decision, unanticipated event, or other management action?; and SSQ 3-9. -- How do 

varying flows positively or negatively affect campsite attributes that are important to visitor 

experience?

Monitoring the high-elevation campsite study sites (a subset of the NAU sandbar time series) 

is necessary to maintain continuity in the campable area monitoring record. Monitoring is currently 

scheduled to occur every two years unless a high flow occurs (see the goal 9 project description under 

REC 9.R1.11-12 for a summary of the planned campsite monitoring component.) In the absence of 

high flows, repeat surveys of the campable area at these sites have documented that the lower elevation 

portions of the sandbars erode while vegetation encroaches on the higher elevation open sand areas 

that form the major component of campable area in the CRE. While continued quantification of the 

precise magnitude of deposition and erosion associated with each high flow would be beneficial, it is 

not critical; instead, we propose to perform a campable area survey approximately 6 months following 

each high flow in conjunction with the proposed sand bar monitoring program following each HFE 

and will use that as the benchmark monitoring record. This monitoring would be accomplished by the 

regular biennial sandbar survey unless the high flow occurs in an off year. In that case, an additional 

monitoring trip would be required at an added cost (to Goal 8) of about $58,745. A sandbar monitoring 

trip is currently planned for FY 2011, so FY 2012 is the first year that this need for supplementary 

funding could occur.

HFE protocol science question 1: Will multiple high flows conducted over a period of several 

years result in net increases in sandbar area and volume? (See above for CMINs)

This project addresses HFE protocol science question 1 by tracking changes in sandbar area 

throughout the CRE between Lees Ferry and the upper end of Lake Mead above the stage of 8,000 cfs. 

Remote sensing can provide a systemwide quantitative measure of the area of sand exposed above the 

water surface at the time of imagery collection (usually about 8,000 cfs). Collection and processing of 

these data will provide the long-term monitoring of the area of exposed sand to evaluate the 

cumulative result of multiple high flows and intervening operations over the experimental period. 

These data will also be used to quantify changes in vegetation distribution that may result in increases 

or decreases in the area of exposed sand. See Goal 8 (PHY 8.M2) and goal 12 (DASA 12.D9) for 

more detailed project descriptions. This is part of the regular monitoring program that addresses high 

flows and does not require additional funding when high flows occur.
208

HFE protocol science question 4: Will multiple high flows conducted over a period of several 

years improve archaeological site condition as reflected in increased sand deposition, increased 

site stability, and reduction in rates of erosion (time domain to be addressed in the course of HFE 

protocol development)? This question is related to CMIN 11.1.1 -- Determine the condition and 

integrity of prehistoric and historic sites in the CRE through tracking rates of erosion, visitor 

impacts, and other relevant variables; EIN 11.1 -- Determine the efficacy of treatments (e.g., 

alternative flows) for mitigation of adverse effects to historic properties; SSQ 2-1. -- Do dam 

controlled flows affect (increase or decrease) rates of erosion and vegetation growth at 

archaeological sites and TCP sites in the CRE, and if so, how?; and SSQ 2-4. -- How effective are 

various treatments (e.g., repeated high flow events) in slowing rates of erosion at archaeological 

sites over the long term?

The monitoring protocols being developed and piloted by GCMRC as part of project CUL 

11.R1.11-12 are specifically designed to be applicable for evaluating physical changes at 

archaeological sites tied to changes in sediment supply under a variety of dam operations. The 

planned monitoring program, which will be piloted starting in FY11, will allow GCMRC and AMP 

stakeholders to objectively determine whether changes in sand bar area and volume resulting from 

repeated high flows translate into measurable changes in the amount and rates of sediment being 

deposited at or eroded from a sample of archaeological sites distributed throughout the CRE. In the 

current work plan, baseline measurements will be collected in FY11 at approximately 30 sites selected 

from a stratified population of cultural sites in the CRE; this stratified random sample will serve as the 

initial sample population for evaluating system-wide changes at archaeological sites due to dam 

operations, including changes resulting from any high flows conducted as part of the HF protocol or 

any subsequent alternative flow experiments. Completing a robust evaluation of high flow effects on 

archaeological sites requires implementation of the cultural monitoring project (CUL11.R1.11-12) as 

currently planned; no additional monitoring beyond what is already described in project CUL 

11.R1.11-12 is anticipated to be needed to evaluate the effects of an HF protocol experiment at 

archaeological sites.

HFE protocol science question 2: With the available sand supply (i.e. tributary inputs) is the 

approach of using repeated floods to build sandbars sustainable? (see above for CMINs)

This project addresses HFE protocol science question 2 by tracking sand inputs and export, by 

reach. Monitoring of sediment (sand and finer) flux during future high flows will be conducted as part 

of the regular goal 7 downstream integrated quality of water program. The methods, monitoring sites, 

and planned products are described in the goal 7 (PHY 7.M1) project description. This task does 

require added work during a high flow to maintain the monitoring record because the instrumentation 

is vulnerable to high dam releases and additional samples are required to maintain instrument 

calibration. This added work requires about $110,000 in addition to the regular Goal 7 budget.
209

SSQ 3-5. How is invertebrate flux affected by water quality (for example, temperature, 

nutrient concentrations, turbidity) and dam operations?

The aquatic food base project has been working since 2006 to establish a monitoring protocol 

that accurately captures key metrics that are relevant to other resources in the Colorado River, 

especially rainbow trout and humpback chub. Based on their work to date the aquatic food base 

research scientists have determined that monthly monitoring of benthic organisms and Lees Ferry and 

at Diamond Creek, and monthly monitoring of drifting organisms is critically important information 

that supports assessment of all Glen Canyon Dam release regimes, whether modified low fluctuating 

flows, an experimental high flow, or other flows. Therefore, the aquatic food base project presented in 

this FY 11-12 work plan (BIO 1.1M.11) includes the sampling strategies described above. Collecting 

these data in years without a high flow provides important baseline information, including assessment 

of seasonal variability. Collecting these data in years when a high flow release occurs allows the 

scientists to assess the amount of change, if any, that occurs as a result of the high flow. 

RIN 4.2.7. What dam release patterns most effectively maintain the Lees Ferry rainbow trout 

trophy fishery while limiting rainbow trout survival below the Paria River?

Monitoring of the adult rainbow trout population in the Lees Ferry reach has been conducted 

regularly since the closure of Glen Canyon Dam in 1963. In 2010, in response to the 2009 Protocol

Evaluation Panel for Monitoring Grand Canyon Fishes, GCMRC and cooperating agencies, but 

especially the Arizona Game and Fish Department, made some adjustments to the protocols for 

monitoring fish between Glen Canyon Dam and Lees Ferry. Monitoring of stratified random sites 

continues to be conducted as a tool to monitor adult rainbow trout, but now also collects data that help 

monitor other native and nonnative fishes. A monitoring trip to specifically look for nonnative fishes is 

now also conducted. The monitoring of rainbow trout redds (nests) and age-0 abundance, conducted in 

the 2000s as a research project, has now been added to the Lees Ferry fish monitoring, specifically 

because of the utility of this monitoring in assessing impacts of dam flows on young life stages of 

rainbow trout. A new research project proposed in this budget adds additional fish monitoring below 

Lees Ferry. Continuing to conduct all of this monitoring is important to understanding the existing 

variability of the fish community in the Lees Ferry reach; when a high flow is conducted, this 

monitoring should still be conducted to allow for assessment of changes that may occur in this fish 

community. This additional work is intended to evaluate the timing and age structuring of rainbow 

trout movement, when it occurs. The new work below Lees Ferry, conducted from the mouth of the 

Paria River to Badger Rapid, is also intended to begin establishing the relationship, if any, between the 

size and condition of the Lees Ferry rainbow trout population to downstream movement, as might 

occur in response to a high flow. The new monitoring between the Paria and Badger Rapid would be a 

precursor to any new removal efforts, including potentially removing rainbow trout alive. Please see 

projects BIO 2.18R.11 and BIO 4.1M.10 for more details. 
210

HFE protocol science question 5: How will multiple high flows conducted over a period of 

several years affect recreational experience quality in the Colorado River corridor (time domain to be 

addressed in the course of HFE protocol development)? This task is related to CMIN 9.1.1 --

Determine and track the changes attributable to dam operations in recreational quality, opportunities 

and use, impacts, serious incidents, and perceptions of users, including the level of satisfaction in the 

Colorado River Ecosystem; EIN 9.1.1 -- How do recreational use trends, impacts, and perceptions 

change in response to an experiment performed under the Record of Decision, unanticipated events, or 

other management action?; SSQ 3-6. -- What Glen Canyon Dam operations (ramping rates, daily 

flow range, etc.) maximize trout fishing opportunities and catchability?; SSQ 3-7. -- How do dam 

controlled flows affect visitors’ recreational experiences, and what is/are the optimal flows for 

maintaining a high quality recreational experience in the CRE?; and SSQ 3-8. -- What are the drivers 

for recreational experiences in the CRE, and how important are flows relative to other drivers in 

shaping recreational experience outcomes?

In FY2011-2012, GCMRC proposes to initiate a recreation experience valuation study for the 

Glen Canyon reach of the CRE. This study will evaluate the value and relative importance of a suite 

of biophysical attributes that are affected by dam releases and which anglers and other visitors 

determine to be important to maintaining a high quality recreation experience in the uppermost reach 

of the CRE. This study will also update monetary values associated with current recreational activities 

in the Glen Canyon reach. The intent of this study is to provide a foundation for evaluating how 

different dam operations, including future high flow experiments, affect the biophysical attributes of 

the Glen Canyon reach that visitors value and consider to be important for maintaining a high quality 

recreation experience in the Glen Canyon reach. See project REC 9.R4 for specific details of the 

proposed study approach.

RIN 2.2.8. What combination of dam release patterns and nonnative fish control facilitates 

successful spawning and recruitment of humpback chub in the Colorado River ecosystem?

Monitoring of the Colorado River mainstem fish community has been conducted by various 

researchers on an irregular schedule since the 1940s. More consistent, systematic monitoring began 

with BOR‘s Grand Canyon Environmental Studies that began in the 1990s. Since 1996 mainstem 

monitoring has been conducted by GCMRC and cooperating agencies, especially the Arizona Game 

and Fish Department. The principal long-term, full river monitoring has been 2 river-wide 

electroshocking trips, usually conducted in the spring. For many of the years in the decade of the 

2000s this regular pair of trips was accompanied by intensive monitoring collected as a component of 

the mechanical removal project conducted between river miles 55 and 75. Together these data provide 

a picture of the distribution and relative abundance of the most common large bodied fish species in 

the mainstem. Backwater seining trips, conducted during the mid 1990s and from 2003 to present, 

have provided a picture of the relative abundance, distribution, and species composition of smallbodied fishes (juveniles and adults) in backwater habitats. Together these efforts have provided the 

currently available Grand Canyon fish data, and have also shown where additional data are needed. 

The existing fish data show where larger concentrations of the more common species are most likely 
211

to be found and how those populations have fluctuated over time. The constraints and challenges of 

sampling widely in a large, turbid river are also highlighted in these data because the methods show 

that only some gear types are effective in the Colorado River, making some aquatic habitat types 

difficult, if not impossible, to sample. However, GCMRC and cooperators, primarily the University of 

Florida, have established an intensive habitat-specific monitoring program, the Near Shore Ecology 

project, to help define small-bodied fish distributions and responses to flow changes in the mainstem 

just below the mouth of the Little Colorado River. The NSE project will be conducting field studies in 

2011 and this intensive effort has the best potential for detecting any localized effects on small-bodied 

fishes in the mainstem. Analyses of all fish community monitoring data are continuing, but some 

relative abundance, population size, and distributional trends are evident. These monitoring programs 

should continue and be expanded as recommended by the 2009 Protocol Evaluation Panel to help 

assess any changes that result from a high flow released from Glen Canyon Dam. This 2011-12 work 

plan includes expanding monitoring of humpback chub aggregations and testing other gear types. The 

springtime mainstem monitoring is planned for years when a large-scale mechanical removal trip is 

not conducted because a mechanical removal effort will require the people, time, and equipment that 

would otherwise be available for the spring mainstem monitoring. All of these mainstem sampling 

efforts are proposed for implementation in all years to help assess fish responses with and without a 

high flow release. See BIO 2.4M.10 for more details.

RIN 12.9.1 What is the impact on downstream resources of short-term increases to 

maximum flow, daily fluctuations, and downramp limits?

Together with cooperators, GCMRC has been monitoring the riparian vegetation community 

in the 2000s. Because of the distribution and extent of the vegetation community, GCMRC has been 

developing methods that use remotely sensed overflight imagery to assess vegetation changes. Part of 

this development has included identification of the limitations of the overflight data. An important 

limitation is that understory plants and herbaceous species, are difficult if not impossible to detect 

from aerial data. Therefore, the GCMRC monitoring program includes a field component that monitors 

vegetation at established vegetation transects on a biennial schedule. Repeated sampling at established 

vegetation transects allows for the establishment of natural variability versus changes associated with a 

large-scale disturbance, like a controlled flood. Vegetation monitoring using transects is scheduled to 

take place in 2011 and odd-numbered years thereafter. Supplemental monitoring of vegetation in 2012 

would be needed if a controlled flood occurred in 2012. Monitoring vegetation in years with a high 

flow release allows for assessment of high flow impacts to riparian vegetation. The current budget for 

this work plan allows covers the cost of field transect monitoring in 2011. See BIO 6.1M.10 for 

details. A monitoring trip in 2012 if a controlled flood occurred would cost $50,000 and would cover 

the cost of a field crew and single trip taking place in the fall following the flood event. 

RIN 5.1.9. How can incidental take for Kanab ambersnail at Vasey’s Paradise be minimized?

RIN 5.2.2. How does the size and quality of the habitat used by Kanab ambersnail change in 

response to an experiment performed under the Record of Decision, unanticipated event, or 

other management action?
212

In prior experimental high flows the low-elevation habitat for Kanab ambersnail has been 

temporarily moved during the experiment, then replaced so as to maintain this habitat. This 

conservation effort has proved successful in previous experiments and so is planned for future 

experiments.

Existing monitoring of Lake Powell water quality provides an important baseline. Leading up 

to a high flow release this standard monitoring is particularly important for establishing antecedent 

conditions, which vary from year to year. Immediately following a high flow release, additional water 

quality monitoring is needed to assess changes in water quality that may occur. Changes to the 

released water quality, especially dissolved oxygen, were observed in previous high flow releases.

Monitoring of the water quality in Lake Powell, the reservoir impounded by Glen Canyon 

Dam, provides an important piece of information in the assessment of any high-flow release impacts to 

the reservoir itself or to downstream resources that rely on the water released from the dam. Data from 

the Lake Powell monitoring program provides a basis from which the effects of a high-flow release 

can be evaluated. As part of the GCDAMP work plan, regular water-quality monitoring of the Lake 

Powell forebay is conducted on a monthly basis. The entire reservoir is sampled at multiple locations 

on a quarterly basis. This monitoring will be conducted in years without a high flow release to support 

continued characterization of the reservoir and effects to its water quality. See BIO 7.1M.10 for 

details.

In years with a high flow release, some additional monitoring will be conducted so that high 

flow impacts to the water-quality of the reservoir and dam releases can be assessed. This includes: 1) 

additional reservoir monitoring shortly after the high-flow release to assess the short-term effect of 

high-flow releases on the water quality of the reservoir; 2) the establishment of additional monitoring 

sites in the Glen Canyon Dam tailwater during the high-flow release to assess changes in combined 

releases between the dam and Lees Ferry; and 3) further study to resolve temperature anomalies that 

were observed in the 2008 HFE monitoring of river outlet works releases. Anticipated costs associated 

with additional monitoring for high-flow releases are estimated at $9,300. 

CMIN 10.1. Determine and track the marketable capacity and energy produced through dam 

operations in relation to various release scenarios.

SSQ 3-4. What are the projected hydropower costs associated with the various alternative 

flow regimes being discussed for future experimental science (as defined in the next phase 

experimental design)?

In FY2011-2012, GCMRC proposes to undertake an evaluation of WAPA‘s GTMax model 

and explore the utility of this model and potentially other existing models for assessing economic costs 

associated with alternative operating scenarios at Glen Canyon Dam. Depending on the outcome of 

this assessment, the GTMax model or an alternative model may be used to assess potential costs and 

benefits to hydropower from implementing a series of HFEs, as well as for evaluating other alternative 
213

experimental operational scenarios in the future. See project: HYD 10.R1 for specifics about the 

proposed study.

Primary reporting of monitoring activities and results will be performed in the context of 

annual reporting and publications as described in the work plans associated with each individual 

monitoring project (see individual project descriptions). A summary of monitoring results and 

relevant findings specific to each individual HFE will be provided in USGS Open-file Reports and/or 

Fact Sheets in the following fiscal year. A thorough analysis and synthesis of results of the multi-year 

experiment will be provided at the conclusion of the HFE protocol experiment. 

The monitoring projects described above are funded primarily through the annual 

work plan. Some projects are supplemented with experimental funds and there are some 

differences in how these funds are used in years with high flows (Table 10).

Task No HFE With HFE

Task 1 – SedTrend $250,000 $140,000

Task 2 – Sandbar monitoring 50,000 50,000

Task 3 – Campable area monitoring * *

Task 4 – Remote sensing * *

Task 5 – Archeological site monitoring * *

Task 6 – Sediment flux * 110,000

Task 7 – Aquatic food base 100,000 100,000

Task 8 – Lees Ferry fish 22,709 22,709

Task 9 – Lees Ferry recreation experience 25,000 25,000

Task 10 – Mainstem fish monitoring * *

Task 11 – Riparian vegetation * *

Task 12 – Kanab ambersnail * *

Task 13 – Lake Powell * *

Task 14 – Hydropower * *

Total $447,709 $447,709

* Project cost covered entirely by biennial work plan.
214

Ongoing

Ongoing

Carol Fritzinger, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

Entire Colorado River ecosystem corridor between Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Mead, and the greater 

Colorado River Basin

Provide cost effective, efficient, and complete logistical support for all the GCMRC funded projects 

The GCMRC provides complete logistical support for 25–40 research, monitoring, administrative, 

and tribal river trips through the Grand Canyon annually. These trips range in length from 7–21 days 

and from 4–24 people in size. Trips utilize a variety of motor- and oar-powered boats operated by 

contracted boat operators. Projects operating in the Glen Canyon reach of the Colorado River (GCD to 

Lees Ferry) are supported by a variety of motor-powered boats operated by the GCMRC researchers 

and contracted boat operators. Additionally, research activities on the Little Colorado River and at 

other locations outside of the Grand Canyon National Park boundaries are supported by helicopter 

services contracted with Reclamation. Ground based support for other research activities outside of the 

river corridor are also coordinated with the GCMRC logistics program. 

Not applicable

Not applicable

The GCMRC utilizes government-owned boats and river logistical equipment in conjunction 

with a contracted vendor who supplies technical and logistical boat operators. Put-in and takeout 

transportation is provided with the use of General Service Administration (GSA) leased vehicles and 

contracted shuttle drivers.

Effective communication with principal investigators and sensitivity to, and awareness of, the 

challenges they face in implementing their studies enable the GCMRC to offer more customized (and 

therefore more cost effective and productive) logistical support than other support strategies utilized 

previously. Retaining control over the process of supporting trips also facilitates compliance with NPS 
215

regulations and allows greater control over issues sensitive to the general public and the ―recreational 

river community‖.

The GCMRC logistics program supports all GCMRC projects that have field data collection 

components. 

There are no logistical needs for this project.

Not applicable
216

Ongoing

Ongoing

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

Survey operations occur throughout the CRE in support of scientific activities.

We must supply the GCMRC principal investigators with all necessary information, 

equipment, and survey knowledge to address their scientific needs. In some cases, that means 

performing collection, processing, and documentation of all spatial data required by their research. The 

principal investigators and researchers must be educated regarding accuracies and the limits of various 

mapping techniques. Data sets used for change detection analysis must be conscientiously evaluated 

for precision to provide accurate scientific analysis and resulting decision making.

Spatial measurements are required for any long-term monitoring program. The measurements 

are made using a variety of survey methods and stored in a variety of formats. All measurements 

reference a position of greater confidence whether the measurement is made using the GPS, LiDAR, 

digital or analog imagery, conventional survey angles and distances to reflective prisms, or sub 

aqueous bathymetry. With consistent reference, and explicit protocols, survey operations ensure the 

integrity of spatial data sets, which increases confidence in scientific analysis.

Many strategic science questions require stage discharge relationships to determine inundation 

extents under various flows. These relationships must be collected in the field using consistent survey 

methods and be referenced to validated control. Answers to questions relating to habitat (for example,

sandbar, sand terraces, old and new high water zones, reach morphology, etc) will all require survey 

measurements. All SSQ‘s addressed in projects supported by Survey Operations are applicable.

Accurate and consistent spatial positioning of scientific data is necessary for facilitating 

change detection. Change detection methods are applied to spatial data collected within the cultural, 

biological, and physical programs to determine impacts on habitat, validate models, and to determine 

fine and course sediment storage. Survey protocols also provide spatial data as the foundation of the

GIS database. All information needs addressed in projects supported by Survey Operations are 

applicable.
217

Survey marks are typically stable on bedrock or large boulders with positions preserved by 

chiseled or scribed marks, or by physical attachment of foreign substances (nails, caps, screws, bolts, 

rebar, etc.). These stations were placed in a manner that allows for tripods and conventional or GPS 

survey equipment to set up over the control point. The points that are occupied regularly are located 

above the stage reached by the flow of 30,000 cubic feet per second (ft3/s) and have fair but 

diminishing line of sight due to expanding vegetation. Some stations may be lower in elevation and are 

occasionally inundated by water during normal dam operations. The survey marks provide spatial 

reference for measurements of:

Sandbar and backwater sites located throughout the CRE, many of which have a spatial data 

set of topographic / bathymetric data collected yearly since 1990

Long-term monitoring reaches where topography, bathymetry, and LiDAR, digital imagery 

were collected between 2000 and 2009

Line-of-site network between GCD and Bright Angel Creek along with 15 miles of traverse 

points from Blue Springs to the LCR / Colorado River confluence; the traverses used 

acceptable distances for conventional optical equipment (typically 600 meters and consistently 

less than 1,000 meters)

Photo-identifiable fixed points used for remote sensing evaluation and historical imagery 

rectification

Cultural sites including locations of features, artifacts, and erosion controls

USGS stage gages 09380000 : ―Colorado River at Lee’s Ferry‖ and 09402500 ―Colorado 

River near Grand Canyon‖

Instrumentation sites (weather, LISST, Acoustic Doppler, water quality, pump samplers)

The survey support will aid in the spatial data collection related to physical, cultural and 

biological resource programs. The physical program will require equipment and survey support for 

goal 8 channel mapping in March, 2011. Cultural projects require geo-referencing of ground based 

LiDAR along with surface creation and analysis for goal 11 site monitoring in April and September, 

2011. Terrestrial biology requires office processing and mapping of surface areas of vegetation 

polygons. Aquatic biology will benefit from channel mapping products within fish study sites. 

The physical program will require equipment and survey support for Northern Arizona 

University (NAU) time series in October, 2011, goal 8 channel mapping in March, 2012. Cultural 

projects require geo-referencing of ground based lidar along with surface creation and analysis for goal 

11 site monitoring in April and September. Depending on the level of field support required in 

FY2012, the survey department may contribute to the development of methods for photogrammetric 

interpretation of pre-1990 aerial photographs (see PHY 8.M2). This work would support aspects of 

goal 8, goal 9, and goal 11.

Any and all spatial data collection required by GCDAMP is supported through this program.
218

Survey support is provided for GCMRC projects as required by specific project needs, no stand-alone 

logistics are required.

Control monuments are established at consistent intervals throughout the CRE and at locations 

required for accurate positions and elevations of past, current, and future data sets. Stable control 

monuments and accurate coordinates should be completed prior to spatial data acquisition to reduce 

post-processing efforts, conserving considerable manpower. Documentation of station information, 

coordinate history and network accuracy are provided. Current and historical data sets are accurately 

prepared for integration into the GIS database. All work conducted under the survey support project 

will be summarized in annual reports, with the FY2011 report to be completed by January 1, 2012 and 

the FY2012 report to be completed by January 1, 2013.
219

Ongoing

Ongoing

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

High accuracy geodetic control now encompasses the entire Colorado River ecosystem (CRE) 

corridor between Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Mead, and the greater Colorado River Basin.

Substantial areas of the CRE, however, do not yet have geodetic controls. 

Document methods and results of the geodetic control network developed within Grand 

Canyon‘s CRE 

Maintain the integrity of the network and all future spatial data referenced to the network by 

proposing data collection, processing, adjustment and documentation standards

Provide reference and methods for consistent and accurate error determination for several 

spatial data measurement types

Provide valid reference for emphasis on spatial data collection and evaluation of remote 

sensing surveying techniques for river monitoring; data sets used for change detection analysis must 

be conscientiously evaluated for accuracy and blunders so as not to skew scientific analysis and 

resulting decision making

According to Executive Order 12906 (OMB< 2002), Federal agencies must: 

Prepare, maintain, publish, and implement a strategy for advancing geographic information 

and related spatial data activities appropriate to their mission

Allocate agency resources to fulfill the responsibilities of effective spatial data collection, 

production, and stewardship

Coordinate and work in partnership with Federal, state, tribal and local government agencies, 

academia and the private sector to efficiently and cost-effectively collect, integrate, maintain, 

disseminate, and preserve spatial data, building upon local data wherever possible

Use Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) data standards, such as the Geospatial 

Positioning Accuracy Standards and the Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata, and other 

appropriate standards to ensure all relevant data and metadata are appropriately documented before 

finally making the metadata available to the public online
220

These standards include publications on reporting methodology, standards for geodetic 

networks, and the National Standard for Spatial Data Accuracy (NSSDA). It is the purpose of this 

effort to document adherence to these standards and add recommendations that will ensure policy 

decisions based on long-term monitoring data and analysis are based on accurate and quality assured 

data sets.

Accurate and consistent spatial positioning of scientific data is necessary for facilitating 

change detection. Change-detection methods are applied to spatial data collected within the cultural, 

biological, and physical programs to determine impacts on habitat, validate models, and determine fine 

and course sediment storage. Many strategic science questions require stage discharge relationships to 

determine inundation extents under various flows. These relationships must be collected in the field 

using consistent survey methods and be referenced to validated control. Answers to questions relating 

to habitat (for example, sandbar, sand terraces, old and new high-water zones, reach morphology, etc.) 

will all require survey measurements. All SSQ‘s addressed in projects supported by Control Network 

Operations are applicable.

Accurate and consistent spatial positioning of scientific data is necessary for facilitating 

change detection. Change-detection methods are applied to spatial data collected within the cultural, 

biological, and physical programs to determine impacts on habitat, validate models, and determine fine 

and course sediment storage. Survey protocols also provide spatial data as the foundation of the GIS 

database. All information needs addressed in projects supported by Control Network Operations are 

applicable.

The geodetic control network establishes the foundation for all spatial measurements within 

the CRE. The survey stations are all referenced to the most accurate and up-to-date coordinates 

available designated as NSRS2007. The National Spatial Reference System (NSRS) is the most recent 

realization of the North American Datum of 1983 as determined in a multiyear nationwide 

readjustment performed by the National Geodetic Survey (NGS) and completed in 2007. These 

stations provide the primary reference for both kinematic GPS positioning of aircraft during remote 

sensing flights and static GPS surveys to hundreds of monuments along the river corridor. This 

consistent framework allows for accurate and reliable accuracy assessment of all spatial data collected 

within the CRE and assures the integrity of spatial analysis and resulting management decisions.

The control network will expand to areas in support of AMWG projects (e.g. goal 8 channel 

mapping and goal 11 cultural site monitoring). Redundant GPS measurements are necessary to 

improve accuracy and confidence in results. Terrestrial control measurements made during project 

surveys are included in the network least squares adjustment. Additional photo-identifiable points are 

positioned as the time and manpower allows. These known positions are included in remote sensing 

evaluations according to NSSDA standards, and are used as constraints when scanning and rectifying 

analog imagery.

The control network will expand to support goal 8 channel mapping between Bright Angel 

Creek and National Canyon.
221

Any and all spatial data collection required by GCDAMG is supported through this program.

The control network project will require one motor trip to support field data collection of 

single beam and multi beam sonar and shoreline topography.

March 2-33‘, 1-sport 1-

22‘ snout, 1-18‘ 

mini snout

18 days 12 $40,000

The control network project will require one motor trip to support field data collection for goal 

8 channel mapping

April 2-33‘, 2-sport 18 days 12 $52,000

Work with the GCMRC staff to identify realistic and achievable accuracies using existing 

technologies and theory; this will also include meeting with the GCMRC scientists to establish

accuracy requirements that are appropriate for supporting CRE scientific investigations

Generate a comprehensive report on the survey control network, including collection and 

processing methodologies, analysis and discussion of results, accuracy validation per FGDC 

requirements, and recommendations for ensuring the network meets the positioning needs of the 

GCMRC for current and future scientific endeavors

All work conducted under the control network project will be summarized in annual reports, 

with the FY2011 report to be completed by January 1, 2012 and the FY2012 report to be completed by 

January 1, 2013
222

1996

Ongoing

John Hamill, Chief, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

Provide budgetary oversight and support to the chief, program managers, and all employees of the 

GCMRC so that they may conduct their responsibilities in the most efficient, ethical, and professional 

manner possible 

Unburden the scientists, to the largest extent possible, of mundane administrative matters

Support the USGS and the GCMRC missions of conducting scientific research in support of 

the GCDAMP

It is necessary to have smooth running, transparent administrative operations that ensure that 

the GCMRC scientists can focus on their research rather than on the administrative details involved 

with the payment of rent and utilities, timekeeping concerns, filing, and various other administrative 

topics. Administrative operations activities provide the oversight and management of facilities, burden, 

and overhead, personnel issues, expenditure tracking, processing and financial management of 

cooperative and interagency agreements, processing of contracts, timekeeping, bank card tracking and 

reconciliation, travel plans and voucher processing, and liaison activities between the USGS 

administrative groups (e.g. Flagstaff Science Center Administration, Western Region Budget and 

Fiscal Services and Contracting Offices, Biological Headquarters in Reston, VA). In addition, this 

project is innately involved with the USGS nationwide budget tracking and reporting system known as 

BASIS , which is used by the USGS Headquarters and Regional offices to make their annual reports 

to Congress, as well as to respond to Congressional inquiries with short turnaround times. (As part of 

the GCDAMP, GCMRC administrators have been called upon to provide information of this type from 

the system on many occasions.)

Many standard overhead charges, including facilities, space, general office supplies, costs for 

the USGS local network and support for the Flagstaff Science Center and USGS regional services 

(including contracting and personnel, as well as salaries and general travel for the GCMRC secretary 

and budget analyst) are paid for out of the Southwest Biological Science Center‘s (SBSC) overhead 

account. Only charges directly tied and traceable to the GCMRC continue to be directly charged to the 

administrative operations account. These charges include General Services Administration vehicle 

lease and maintenance, Department of the Interior vehicle gas, maintenance, and replacement costs, 

safety and/or other non-project-specific mandated training, GCMRC non-project-specific personnel 
223

support (e.g. Publications and Outreach Coordinator), telecommunications and shipping charges, and 

others.

Not applicable

Not applicable

General methods will include standard accounting procedures and regulatory and legal 

standards as required by the USGS and other Federal agencies with legal oversight. At least monthly 

updates to program managers will be provided, as well as budgetary and other information provided 

upon request. The GCMRC will follow USGS guidelines as for personnel, travel, and other processes. 

Administrative personnel will focus on how to accomplish requests most efficiently within Federal 

laws and regulations. The GCMRC Budget Analyst will report biannually to the AMWG/TWG on 

mid-year and year-end projections and on the actual expenditures for the previous fiscal year. 

GCMRC expanded their Publications and Outreach Coordinator services due to a large volume of 

publications in progress and planned for FY2011-12 and later; this expanded role will oversee the 

GCMRC peer-review process under guidelines of the USGS Fundamental Science Practice protocols

and will better streamline the publication process. 

This project is innately linked to all other projects. All project budgets are impacted by burden 

charges that are tracked and managed through administrative operations, all employees are required to 

track their time through a USGS personnel system, and many program managers use cooperative or 

interagency agreements that are processed and tracked financially via administrative operations. Every 

project is given an account number and must be entered into and tracked, via its budget and its 

narrative, through the BASIS system. Administrative operations activities are tied to each project at 

the project‘s earliest development. Coordination of publications includes tracking documents from 

draft to final publication. Outreach services provide the GCMRC with coordination and 

communication between the GCMRC and the media. 

There are no logistical needs for this project.

The GCMRC Budget Analyst will produce a projection report (usually at the August AMWG 

meeting) for fiscal year end. In addition, a report in actual expenditures for the previous fiscal year will 

normally be presented at the March AMWG meeting. The GCMRC Publications and Outreach 

Coordinator will assist with publications that are project-specific and related to general GCMRC 

activities and updates on an as needed basis. In addition, this position will provide responses to media 

inquiries.
224
225

1996

Ongoing

John Hamill, Chief, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

Provide reliable transportation for the GCMRC

It is necessary to have reliable transportation for GCMRC.

Not applicable

Not applicable

General methods will include standard accounting procedures and regulatory and legal standards as 

required by the USGS and other Federal agencies with legal oversight. 

This project is innately linked to all other projects. 

There are no logistical needs for this project.

Not applicable 
226
227

1996

Ongoing

John Hamill, Chief, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

Provide reliable transportation for GCMRC

It is necessary to have reliable transportation for GCMRC.

Not applicable

Not applicable

General methods will include standard accounting procedures and regulatory and legal 

standards as required by the USGS and other Federal agencies with legal oversight. 

This project is innately linked to all other projects. 

There are no logistical needs for this project.

Not applicable
228
229

1996

Ongoing

John Hamill, Chief, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

Deliver a comprehensive ecosystem science program over the next 5 years that is effective in 

responding to management needs articulated through the GCDAMP and by the Department of Interior; 

utilizing productive, well-qualified personnel are critical to achieving this goal 

Strong and effective leadership enhances successful scientific research and reporting and 

working relationships between managers and employees and between the GCMRC and the GCDAMP 

stakeholders. In addition to their program management responsibilities, the GCMRC program 

managers are subject area experts in their respective fields. It is important that the GCMRC program 

managers and scientific staff maintain this expertise so they can provide high-quality technical 

assistance in the form of expert analysis, opinion, and advice to the Chief, TWG, and AMWG, as 

requested. The program managers supervise additional technical and support staff, and act as project 

leads with their cooperators.

Beginning in FY2006, in an effort to simplify distribution of program planning and 

management salaries and travel, the Program Manager salaries were assigned to this category 

exclusively. Salaries and travel costs, separate from TWG and AMWG meeting travel, are included in 

the program planning and management budget. Position descriptions are provided below.

Not applicable

Not applicable

In order to provide strong leadership of a quality science program that is responsive to the 

needs of the GCDAMP, the GCMRC will be administered by a core program management staff that 

includes the following key positions: 
230

Establishes the GCMRC science policies and strategic direction and provides accountability 

for the GCMRC budget. Interfaces with USGS management, the Secretary of the Interior‘s GCDAMP 

Designee, and GCDAMP managers to ensure that quality science is provided in a timely manner on 

priority issues identified by the GCDAMP leadership. 

The Deputy Chief shall be responsible for oversight of the Physical Science and Modeling and 

Data Acquisition, Storage, and Analysis (DASA) Programs, GCMRC publications coordination and 

the Senior Ecologist (Dr. Carl Walters). In addition, the Deputy Chief ensures that integrated 

ecosystem science methods and procedures are utilized in science design and analysis and coordinates 

the HFE synthesis, the Knowledge Assessment and the SCORE report projects.

Responsible for the timely execution of the science program within their program area; 

interaction with other program areas to ensure integrated ecosystem approaches, quality control of 

products and contractors/cooperators; contract/agreement management; management of budget within 

their program area, and production of reports to GCDAMP work groups as needed. The GCMRC 

activities now encompass five major program areas: 

5. The Physical Science and Modeling Program conducts research and monitoring activities on 

physical elements of the CRE, including studies of sediment storage and transport in the 

regulated river, and integrated downstream water-quality monitoring and research. The 

program has been responsible for monitoring several experimental high-flow releases from 

GCD to conserve sediment resources for building beaches and improving habitat for native 

aquatic species in the Colorado River. More recent tasks have included development of a 

downstream temperature model for the ecosystem. The Physical Science and Modeling 

Program also provides survey support to various program and activities, as well as maintains 

integrity of the network and spatial data of the geodetic control network.

6. The Data Acquisition, Storage, and Analysis Program provides GIS, data quality control, data 

management, and library services support to all program areas. In addition, DASA also 

participates in collaborative science analyses with the GCMRC program staff and cooperators 

to help achieve better integrated science outcomes. 

7. The Biological Program provides scientific information that supports the conservation of 

native species in the Grand Canyon and the Lees Ferry trout fishery. Elements of the program 

include assessing the effects of GCD on fishery resources, characterizing the aquatic food 

base, evaluating terrestrial contributions to the aquatic food base, improving fish community 

monitoring, developing, and testing of techniques to control nonnative fish, evaluating the 

nearshore ecology of native fish and the effects of fall steady flows on native fish recruitment, 

evaluating terrestrial vegetation changes as a result of dam operations, and water-quality

monitoring and modeling in Lake Powell and the Colorado River below GCD. 

8. The Cultural and Socioeconomic Program develops research and monitoring projects to 

determine the effects of Glen Canyon Dam on culturally significant sites and recreation 

activities. The current focus is on development of comprehensive monitoring programs to 

assess the condition of the culturally significant sites and recreation campsites affected by the 

operation of GCD. In addition, the program oversees research and monitoring related to 

assessing the economic effects of Glen Canyon Dam operations on recreation, hydropower, 

and other program elements and coordinates Native American consultation activities on behalf 

of the GCMRC.

9. The Logistics and Survey Support Program supports up to 40 river trips per year and 

coordinates research permit management for the GCMRC. 
231

This project is linked by nature to all other projects, since each project must be managed by a 

program manager or the Chief.

There are no logistical needs for this project.

All products and reports produced by the GCMRC are a result of this project.
232

1996

Ongoing

John Hamill, Chief, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

Provide travel funds for employees who participate in AMWG and TWG meetings

This project is an account to hold funds for travel expenses for the GCMRC employees who 

participate in AMWG and TWG meetings. Project-related travel expenses are accounted for by 

projects, and administrative travel (for example, general safety and security training) is planned under 

the Administrative Operations budget.

Not applicable

Not applicable

Methods used are standard USGS travel authorizations and vouchers.

Not applicable

There are no logistical needs for this project.

Not applicable
233
234

1996

Ongoing

John Hamill, Chief, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

To increase the efficiency and quality of the science being developed by the GCMRC and used 

by the AMWG and the Secretary of the Interior, the GCMRC will establish a peer review process to 

ensure that all unsolicited, solicited, or in-house proposals and all draft reports received by the 

GCMRC undergo independent, external peer review

Independent external review is at the heart of the GCMRC’s approach to program management 

and implementation. Together with the competitive process, independent external peer review ensures 

the quality and objectivity of the GCMRC’s programs. Independent review panels are used to evaluate 

the GCMRC’s plans and activities. All proposals, reports, and programs are subject to independent 

peer review according to the GCMRC’s peer review protocols. 

Not applicable

Not applicable 

All of the GCMRC's scientific activities undergo an independent, external peer review,

including all unsolicited, solicited, or in-house proposals. Similarly, all draft reports received by the 

GCMRC undergo independent external peer review. The peer review protocols developed by the 

GCMRC meet or exceed the standards articulated by the Secretary of the Interior for DOI agencies.

Peer review for proposals received by the GCMRC in response to an RFP is conducted 

through a panel process, while peer reviews for unsolicited and in-house proposals, as well as project 

reports, are conducted through correspondence. In all cases, the reviewers are offered anonymity, and 

the individual and panel reviews, where applicable, are provided to the principal investigators along 
235

with comments from the GCMRC. In addition, the GCMRC conducts PEPs to review and assess the 

GCMRC‘s projects and methodologies. To date, PEPs have been held for remote sensing, physical, 

survey control, terrestrial and aquatic, cultural resource, biological, and water-quality programs.

FY2011 includes PEP reviews for:

Aquatic food base in conjunction with Lake Powell and Downstream Integrated Quality of 

Water Monitoring

FY2012 includes PEP reviews for:

Campsite

Sediment

The GCMRC review process is designed by a Southwest Biological Science Center to ensure 

that the peer-review process is not under the immediate supervision of individual GCMRC program 

managers to guard against any conflicts of interest real or perceived. Strict conflict-of-interest 

guidelines are adhered to. The GCMRC annually recruits new peer reviewers and maintains a database 

of almost 500 potential reviewers, organized by area of expertise. The GCMRC peer reviewers come 

from academia, Federal, State, and Tribal governmental and nongovernmental organizations, and the 

private sector. Reviewers are selected on the basis of their record of scientific accomplishment and 

expertise.

Not applicable

Not applicable
236

FY2009

Ongoing

Lawrence D. Garrett, Principal M3 Research and Executive Coordinator of the Science 

Advisors

The Science Advisors (SAs) provide two types of science support: (1) review of scientific and 

planning documents and (2) advise on a range of scientific issues and questions related to the Glen 

Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP). The SAs review a wide range of scientific 

research and planning documents, including multiyear and annual strategic and operational plans, 

budgets, and special project science plans for activities such as the 2008 high-flow experiment (HFE). 

The SAs also provide advisory services to the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center 

(GCMRC), Adaptive Management Work Group (AMWG), and Technical Work Group (TWG) on 

topics ranging from adaptive management and long-term experimental approaches to the development 

of new ecosystem science approaches and technical projects such as a temperature control device 

(TCD).

In FY2011-12, the SAs will include 4-6 interdisciplinary senior scientists, primarily from 

universities supporting natural resource research programs.

The SAs contribute to the overall science support needs of the GCDAMP as one of the 

Independent Review Panels (IRPs), serving special functions not provided by other IRPs. SAs service 

is enlisted to increase the efficiency and quality of the science being developed by the GCMRC and 

used by the AMWG and the Secretary of the Interior. SAs provide independent scientific oversight 

and technical advice to ensure that the GCMRC science programs are efficient, unbiased, objective,

and scientifically sound. 

The SAs are expected upon request to review and comment on the following:

Results of ongoing and completed monitoring and research program activities, as well as any 

synthesis and assessment activities initiated by the GCMRC

The appropriateness of the GCMRC’s Requests for Proposals (RFPs), especially their 

responsiveness to management objectives

Protocols used in the GCMRC-sponsored scientific activities, including a 5-year review of 

GCMRC monitoring and research protocols

The GCMRC’s long-term monitoring plan

The GCMRC’s biennial monitoring and research plans
237

The GCMRC’s biennial budget proposals, to ensure that the science program is efficiently and 

effectively responding to AMWG goals (that is, management objectives)

The SAs and Executive Director also provide other program-specific scientific and technical 

advice when asked by the AMWG, the GCMRC, or the Secretary of the Interior.

In FY2009, the GCMRC and GCDAMP requested a significant revision of the composition of 

the SAs, which resulted in the replacement of all but three disciplines and recruiting three to five new 

SA members in full- or part-time positions. Several administrative activities to support new positions 

occurred in 2010. The SA Executive Coordinator worked with GCMRC staff to screen specialists to 

fill three to five SA positions, award positions, develop briefing materials, issue contracts, revise

procedures, and other activities, as needed. The new SAs will also be provided an orientation and 

opportunity to meet the GCMRC staff and stakeholders.

Based on activities presented in this work plan, it is anticipated that the SAs will review the 

following planning and science documents and activities in FY2011-12:

Proposed 2011–12 science program and related activities, including the integration of these 

activities into the existing Strategic Science Plan and Monitoring and Research Plan

Proposed 2011 science program budget

2000 low summer steady flows synthesis report

Core-monitoring plans for (1) Aquatic Food Base/Lake Powell and Downstream Water-quality 

Monitoring, (2) Native and Nonnative Fish Monitoring, (3) Vegetation Monitoring; and (4) 

Camping Beaches Monitoring

Overall fisheries science and modeling direction

Overall sediment science and modeling direction

Proposed socioeconomic science request for proposals and science plan

Humpback chub translocation and trout abatement science plan

Review of HFE synthesis report

The SAs provide reviews and advisory service to the GCMRC, the TWG, the AMWG, and the 

Secretary‘s Designee. SAs communicate in a variety of ways (emails, phone conversations, reports, 

and workshops) with the GCMRC and the GCDAMP members, facilitators, outside scientists and 

managers to clarify review positions, provide information, develop prospectus for collaborative efforts, 

and assist with the evaluation and development of program direction. The scope of the advisory 

services will be scaled back due to funding constraints.

FY2011-12, the SAs anticipate providing the following advisory services:

Participate in GCMRC science workshop on aquatics/fisheries ecosystem modeling led by 

Senior Ecologist
238

Work with GCMRC Chief, leadership team, and Senior Ecologist to assess opportunities for 

greater integration and improved overall system assessments of biology programs

Participate in January 2011 and 2012 annual reporting workshop/TWG meeting on HFE 

Synthesis

Participate in combined final quality-of-water (including Lake Powell) and aquatics protocol 

evaluation panel in FY2011

Participate in final recreational protocol evaluation panel in FY2012

Assist GCMRC in development of advanced knowledge assessment procedures to support 

workshop(s) and participation in the workshop(s) in FY2011

Participate in development of State of the Colorado River Ecosystem in Grand Canyon II 

report as outcome of knowledge assessment in FY2011

The M3 Research 5-year award included a base year and 4 option years for reviews and 

services. Due to budget constraints, the GCMRC will significantly reduce the scope of services for 

FY11-12.
239

FY2005

Ongoing

John Hamill, Chief, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

It is the Information Technology (IT) Department‘s goal to ensure that the GCMRC and all 

stations within the SBSC are able to conduct scientific and administrative functions smoothly and with 

the least amount of disruption in service as possible. It is the IT Department‘s task to make IT 

functions as transparent as possible, to ensure each program has adequate current and future storage, 

and to provide excellent customer service at all times. IT maintains the security of the GCMRC and 

the SBSC networks up to current Federal standards and ensures that all those who access the systems 

meet Federal security standards in order to protect personal information and scientific research that has 

not yet been released to the public. At the same time, the IT Department ensures that the public has 

full and easy access to publicly released data via the GCMRC‘s Web sites and works closely with the 

DASA program to make this possible.

The IT Department of the SBSC supports a variety of technology needs of the GCMRC‘s 

various program areas: computer security, systems administration and procurement of new servers and 

computers, as well as Web site development and Web page maintenance. These support, development, 

and maintenance services costs are shared between the GCMRC, the SBSC, and the IT Department, 

and coordinated by the Center‘s Deputy Director to meet the IT needs of all SBSC research stations. 

Not applicable

Not applicable

The IT Department follows all Federal, DOI, and USGS regulations regarding purchase of, 

access to, and distribution and release of electronic information. Methods also include the following:

Network environment: Computer interconnectivity is provided using transmission control 

protocol/Internet protocol (TCP/IP) network communication protocol running on 1000baseT 
240

and 100baseT network media. Network traffic is arbitrated by 6 3COM switches and hubs 

operating at 1 gigabyte per second (Gbps). 

Internet connectivity: The GCMRC computer network is linked to the Internet through the 

Flagstaff Science Center GEOnet-3 router that provides a DS-3 (45 Megabytes [Mbps]) virtual 

circuit to Menlo Park, where it joins the USGS GEOnet network. Also located in Menlo Park 

is a network portal to the Internet operated by the USGS and NASA through a peering 

partnership. GEOnet provides a secure Surveywide networking environment that interconnects 

headquarter region, district, and field offices located throughout the United States.

Intranet Web site: The GCMRC’s intranet offers a secure centralized medium for information 

exchange among the GCMRC employees. Among things to be internally shared via the 

intranet are standard operating procedures, personnel availability and contact info, vehicle and 

equipment checkout, and an IT support system. The GCMRC intranet is served from a 

Windows 2003 Server utilizing Active Server Pages (ASP).

GCMRC.GOV: The GCMRC Web site will continue to be redesigned in FY2010-11 to 

improve functionality and provide direct user/stakeholder access to all GCMRC products.

Computer security: Network security is provided by firewalls, routers, a patch management 

server, a systems management server (SMS), and antivirus software. Firewalls and routers are 

configured and maintained to restrict outside access to authorized systems. Operating systems 

are updated monthly to minimize vulnerabilities using Software Update Services (SUS), which 

automates a central delivery system for patch management. Antivirus updates are downloaded 

from the Web as released and pushed to all systems the same night. 

Desktop and servers: The GCMRC’s computing environment is based upon the PC platform, 

Microsoft Windows operating system, and Microsoft Office automation software. Systems 

maintenance is performed using a combination of warranty service, service contracts, and inhouse service as needed to facilitate quick turnaround, minimize downtime, and reduce costs. 

System backup and disaster recovery: System backup and disaster recovery is accomplished 

using dual linear tape open (LTO) tape drives in a 30-slot carriage with a capacity of 12 

Terabytes (Tbytes) native up to 24 Tbytes compressed before swapping tapes. Tapes are stored 

locally in a fire vault and archival tapes are stored offsite. Server disks are configured to run 

either a raid-5 array or mirrored for redundancy. 

Troubleshooting and maintenance: Helpdesk support is provided as requested/required. 

Requests are received via the Web, email, and telephone.

Assistance with the GCMRC’s data storage: Over 30 Tbytes of online disk storage is provided 

by multiple servers with small computer system interface (SCSI) disk arrays. Server disk 

arrays are hot swappable to minimize downtime. The GCMRC also utilizes networked 

attached storage (NAS) devices. Integrated Drive Electronics (IDE) and Serial Advanced 

Technology Attachment (STA) drives connected to a SCSI backplane. NAS units are used to 

provide bulk storage capacity at less expense. Servers are connected via a Fiber 1Gbps

backbone to multiple NAS units.

All projects are integrated with IT support. Refer to the DASA section for more information 

on integration with these projects.

The primary products and services of the SBSC Information Technology Department with 

respect to ongoing support of the GCMRC’s needs are as follows:
241

Comprehensive and fully functional Web site development and maintenance, with access to all 

nonsensitive digital data and information relating to the effects of dam operations on the CRE. 

The GCMRC Web sites to make the mission and findings of the GCMRC accessible to the 

public (Sites offer our updated work plan, descriptions of our program areas, and various 

interactive stores of data including an Internet Map Server and an online library)

Coordination with the GCMRC’s DASA program to ensure and support a comprehensive and 

fully functional library containing all hard copy and digital media (cataloged and accessible) 

with data and information relating to the effects of dam operations on the CRE (Sensitive and 

nonreleasable data and information will be archived and secured separately from releasable 

data and information)

Fully functional and integrated computing environment
242

Anderson, C.R., and Wright, S.A., 2007, Development and application of a water temperature model 

for the Colorado River ecosystem below Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona. Hydrological Science and 

Technology, vol. 23 (1-4): Proceedings of the American Institute of Hydrology 2007 Annual 

Meeting and International Conference, pp. 13-26.

Anderson, L.S., and Ruffner, G.A., 1987, Effects of the post-Glen Canyon Dam flow regime on the old 

high water line plant community along the Colorado River in Grand Canyon: Glen Canyon 

Environmental Studies, executive summaries of technical reports, NTIS no. PG-183504/AS.

Antvogel, H. and A. Bonn. 2004. Environmental parameters and microspatial distribution of insects: a 

case study of carabids in an alluvial forest. Ecography 24:470-482.

Aspinall, R., J., 2002,Use of logistic regression for validation of maps of the spatial distribution of 

vegetation species derived from high spatial resolution hyperspectral remotely sensed data, 

Ecological Modelling 157, p. 301-312.

Austin, D.E., Osife, C.E., Drye, B., Phillips, A.M., III, Gardner, A., and Suinarich, J., 1997, 1997 

Southern Paiute Consortium Colorado River corridor monitoring and education program: Summary 

report, Bureau of Reclamation, cooperative agreement no. 4-FC-40-15620, 12 p.

Beus, S.S., David, J.N., Lojko, F.B., and Stevens, L.E., 1992, Colorado River investigations XI, 

Report submitted to Grand Canyon National Park, on file at USGS Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center, Flagstaff, AZ., 175 p.

Boesch, D.F., Manley, P.N. and Melis, T.S., 2006, The future of water resources adaptive 

management: challenges and overcoming them, Impact, American Water Resources Association, 

May issue.

Brian, N.J., and Thomas, J.R., 1984, 1983 Colorado River sand bar campsite inventory: National Park 

Service, Division of Resources Management, Grand Canyon National Park, Ariz.

Chu, C., Mandrak, N.E., and Minns, C.K., 2005, Potential impacts of climate change on the 

distributions of several common and rare freshwater fishes in Canada, Diversity and Distributions, 

11, 299-310.

Clarkson, R.W. and Childs, M.R., 2000, Temperature Effects of Hypolimnial-Release Dams on Early 

Life Stages of Colorado River Basin Big-River Fishes. Copeia 2000(2):402-412.

Clover, E.U., and Jotter, L., 1944, Floristic studies in the canyon of the Colorado and tributaries: 

American Midland Naturalist, v. 32, p. 591–642.

Coggins, L.G., 2008, Active adaptive management for native fish conservation in the Grand Canyon: 

implementation and evaluation. PhD Dissertation, University of Florida. 

Coggins, L.G., Jr. 2007. Abundance trends and status of the Little Colorado River population of 

humpback chub: an update considering 1989-2006 data. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

2007-1402, 53 p. ACCESS: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2007/1402/

Coggins, L.G., Jr., and Waters, C.J., 2009, Abundance trends and status of the Little Colorado River 

population of humpback chub; an update considering data from 1989-2008: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 2009-1075, 18 p. 

Coggins, L.G., Jr., and Waters, C.J., 2009, Abundance trends and status of the Little Colorado River 

population of humpback chub; an update considering data from 1989-2008: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 2009-1075, 18 p.
243

Coggins, L.G., Jr., Pine, W.E. III, Walters, C.J., Martell, S. J. D., 2006b, Age-structured markrecapture analysis: a virtual-population-analysis-based model for analyzing age-structured capturerecapture data. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 26:201-205.

Coggins, L.G., Jr., Pine, W.E., III, Walters, C.J., Van Haverbeke, D.R., Ward, D., and Johnstone, H.C.. 

2006a, Abundance trends and status of the Little Colorado River population of humpback chub.

North American Journal of Fisheries Management 26:233-245.

Collins, B.D., Brown, K.B., and Fairley, H., 2008. Evaluation of Terrestrial LIDAR for Monitoring 

Geomorphic Change at Archaeological Sites in Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona: U.S. 

Geological Survey, Open File Report 2008-1384, 60 p. [http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1384/]. 

Collins, B.D., Minasian, D., and Kayen, R., 2009, Topographic Change Detection at Select 

Archaeological Sites in Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona, 2006-2007: U.S. Geological Survey, 

Scientific Investigations Report 2009-5116, 97p.

Cooper, D., Battaglia, L., Batzer, D., Chong, G., Hudak, A., Young, M., 2008, Review of terrestrial 

monitoring protocols for the Grand Canyon: Report of the Protocol Evaluation Panel (PEP): report 

to USGS Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, 31 p.

Damp, J., Pederson, J. and O’Brian, G. 2007. Geoarchaeological Investigations and an Archaeological 

Treatment Plan for 151 Sites in the Grand Canyon, Arizona. Unpublished report submitted to the 

Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Regional Office, Salt Lake City, 501 p. 

Doelle, W.H., 2000, Final Report: Cultural Resource Program Assessment: manuscript on file, Grand 

Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, Flagstaff, Ariz.

Dolan, R., Howard, A., and Gallenson, A., 1974, Man's impact on the Colorado River in the Grand 

Canyon: American Scientist, v. 62, p. 393-401.

Draut, A.E., and Rubin, D.M., 2005, Measurements of wind, aeolian sand transport, and precipitation 

in the Colorado River corridor, Grand Canyon, Arizona—November 2003 to December 2004: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 2005-1309.

Draut, A.E., and Rubin, D.M., 2006, Measurements of wind, aeolian sand transport, and precipitation 

in the Colorado River corridor, Grand Canyon, Arizona—November 2003 to December 2004: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 2006-1188.

Eaton, J.G. and Scheller, R.M., 1996, Effects of climate warming on fish thermal habitat in streams of 

the United States, Limnology and Oceanography, Vol. 41, No. 5, Freshwater Ecosystems and 

Climate Change in North America, pp. 1109-1115.

Edwards, T.K., and Glysson, G.D., 1999, Field methods for measurement of fluvial sediment: 

Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations of the U.S. Geological Survey, book 3, chapter C2, 

89 p.

Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc., 2005, ArcMap Version 9.1: Redlands, CA, USA.

Fairley, H.C., 2005, Cultural resources in the Colorado River corridor, In Gloss, S.P., Lovich, J.E., and 

Melis, T.S., eds., The state of the Colorado River ecosystem in Grand Canyon: U.S. Geological 

Survey Circular 1282, p. 177–192.

Flynn, M.E., and Hornewer, N.J., 2003, Variations in sand storage measured at monumented cross 

sections in the Colorado River between Glen Canyon Dam and Lava Falls Rapid, Northern Arizona, 

1992-99: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 03-4104, 39 p.

Gloss, S.P., Lovich, J.E., and Melis, T.S., eds., 2005, The state of the Colorado River ecosystem in 

Grand Canyon: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1282.

Griffiths, R.E., Topping, D.J., McDonald, R.R., and Sabol, T.A., 2010, The use of the multidimensional surface-water modeling system (MD_SWMS) in calculating discharge and sediment 

transport in remote ephemeral streams: Proceedings of the Joint Federal Interagency Conference on 

Sedimentation and Hydrologic Modeling, June 27 – July 1, 2010, Riviera Hotel, Las Vegas, Nevada.
244

Gushue, T.M., Breedlove, M.J., Andrews, T., Schmidt, J.C., and Hansen, J.R., 2009, Shoreline habitat 

mapping of the Colorado River ecosystem in Grand Canyon, Arizona, U.S. Geological Survey Fact 

Sheet, in press.

Hauer, R. F., and Lorang, M. S., 2004, River regulation, decline of ecological resources, and potential 

for restoration in a semi-arid lands river in the western USA, Aquatic Science 66, p. 388-401.

Hawkins, J.A., and Nesler, T.P., 1991, Nonnative fishes of the upper Colorado River basin: an issue 

paper. Final Report of Colorado State University Larval Fish Laboratory to Upper Colorado River 

Endangered Fish Recovery Program, Denver, Colorado.

Hazel, J.E. Jr., Kaplinski, M., Parnell, R., and M. Manone, 2000, Sand deposition in the Colorado 

River ecosystem from flooding of the Paria River and the effects of the November 1997, Glen 

Canyon Dam Test Flow: Final Report to the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center: 

Flagstaff, Ariz., Northern Arizona University, 37 p.

Hazel, J.E., Jr., Kaplinski, M., Parnell, R., Manone, M., and Dale, A., 1999, Topographic and 

bathymetric changes at thirty-three long-term study sites, in Webb, R.H., Schmidt, J.C., Marzolf, 

G.R., and Valdez, R.A., eds., The 1996 controlled flood in Grand Canyon: Washington, D.C., 

American Geophysical Union, Geophysical Monograph 110, p. 161 184.

Hazel, J.E., Jr., Topping, D.J., Schmidt, J.C., and Kaplinski, M., 2006, Influence of a dam on finesediment storage in a canyon river: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 111, no. F01025, 16 p.

Hereford, R., Fairley, H.C., Thompson, K.S., and Balsom, J.R., 1993, Surficial geology, 

geomorphology and erosion of archeologic sites along the Colorado River, eastern Grand Canyon, 

Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona. Grand Canyon National Park in cooperation with the Bureau 

of Reclamation, Glen Canyon Environmental Studies, Flagstaff, Ariz.: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 93-517.

Holling, C.S., 1978, Adaptive environmental assessment and management: Chichester, New York, 

Wiley, 785 p. 

Howard, A., and Dolan, R., 1981, Geomorphology of the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon: 

Journal of Geology, v. 89, no. 3, p. 269-298.

Howard, A.D., 1975, Establishment of benchmark study sites along the Colorado River in Grand 

Canyon National Park for monitoring of beach erosion caused by natural forces and human impact, 

p. 14.

Huisinga, K. and M. Yeatts. 2003. An analysis of the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research 

Center’s terrestrial monitoring program and the development of a Hopi long-term plan. Technical 

Report to the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, Cooperative Agreement No. 

01WRSA0358.

Hereford, R., Fairley, H.C., Thompson, K.S., and Balsom, J.R., 1993, Surficial geology, 

geomorphology and erosion of archeologic sites along the Colorado River, eastern Grand Canyon, 

Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona. Grand Canyon National Park in cooperation with the Bureau 

of Reclamation, Glen Canyon Environmental Studies, Flagstaff, Ariz.: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 93-517.

ITT Visual Information Solutions, 2005, ENVI (Environment for Visualizing Images), Version 4.4.: 

Boulder, Colo.

Kalkhan, M. A., 2003, Landscape assessment of invasive plants, cryptobiotic crust cover, and wildfire 

hazards of Rocky Mountain regions: ecology, models, and maps, 7

Th

Biennial Conference of 

Research on the Colorado Plateau, November 1-5, 2003, Northern Arizona University, du Bois 

Conference Center, Flagstaff, Arizona, USA.

Kaplinski, M., Behan, J., Hazel, J.E., Jr., Parnell, R.A., and Fairley, H.C., 2005, Recreational values 

and campsites in the Colorado River ecosystem, in Gloss, S.P., Lovich, J.E., and Melis, T.S., eds., 
245

The state of the Colorado River ecosystem in Grand Canyon: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1282, 

p. 193–205. 

Kaplinski, M., Hazel, J.E., and Parnell, R., 2005, Campsite area monitoring in the Colorado River 

ecosystem: 1998 to 2003: Final report submitted to Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, 

Flagstaff, Ariz., 39 p.

Kaplinski, M., Hazel, J.E., Jr., Parnell, R., Breedlove, M., and Schmidt, J.C., 2007, Integrating 

bathymetric, topographic, and LiDAR surveys of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon to assess the 

effect of a flow experiment from Glen Canyon Dam on the Colorado River ecosystem: Proceedings 

of the Hydrographic Society of America 2007 Annual Meeting, May 14 17, Norfolk, Va., 22 p.

Kaplinski, M., Hazel, J.E., Parnell, R., Manone, M., and Gonzales, M., 2000, Evaluation of 

hydrographic survey techniques used for channel mapping by the Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center in the Colorado River ecosystem, Grand Canyon, Arizona: final report to the Grand 

Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Ariz., 37 p.

Kearsley, L.H., 1995, Monitoring the effects of Glen Canyon Dam interim flows on campsite size 

along the Colorado River in Grand Canyon National Park (final report): National Park Service, 

Division of Resources Management, Grand Canyon National Park. 

Kearsley, L.H., and Quartaroli, R., 1997, Effects of a sand bar/habitat building flow on campsites in 

Grand Canyon: Final report of Applied Technology Associates for the Glen Canyon Environmental 

Studies, 18 p. 

Kearsley, L.H., and Warren, K., 1993, River campsites in Grand Canyon National Park: inventories 

and effects of discharge on campsite size and availability (final report): National Park Service, 

Division of Resources Management, Grand Canyon National Park.

Kearsley, L.H., Schmidt, J.C., and Warren, K.D., 1994, Effects of Glen Canyon Dam on Colorado 

River sand deposits used as campsites in Grand Canyon National Park, USA: Regulated Rivers: 

Research and Management, v. 9, p. 137–149.

Kearsley, M.J.C., 2006, Vegetation dynamics, in Kearsley, M.J.C., ed., Inventory and monitoring of 

terrestrial riparian resources in the Colorado River corridor of Grand Canyon: an integrative 

approach: final report from Northern Arizona University submitted to Grand Canyon Monitoring 

and Research Center, U.S. Geological Survey, Flagstaff, Ariz., 262 p.

Kearsley, M.J.C., and Ayers, T.J., 1996, The effects of interim flows from Glen Canyon Dam on 

riparian vegetation in the Colorado River corridor, Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona: Final 

report from Northern Arizona University submitted to the Grand Canyon Science Center, Grand 

Canyon National Park, Grand Canyon, Ariz., 40 p., appendices.

Kearsley, M.J.C., and Ayers, T.J., 1999, Riparian vegetation responses: snatching defeat from the jaws 

of victory and vice versa, in Webb, R.H., Schmidt, J.C., Marzold, G.R., and Valdez, R.A., eds., The 

controlled flood in Grand Canyon: Washington, D.C., American Geophysical Union, Geophysical 

Monograph Series, v. 110, p. 309–327.

Kearsley, M.J.C., Cobb, N., Yard, H., Lightfoot, D., Brantley, S., Carpenter, G., and Frey J. 2006. 

Inventory and monitoring of terrestrial riparian resources in the Colorado River corridor of the 

Grand Canyon: an integrative approach: Final report from Northern Arizona University submitted to 

the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, U.S. Geological Survey, Flagstaff, Ariz., 218p.

Korman, J., Yard, M., Walters, C., and L.G. Coggins, 2009, Effects of fish size, habitat, flow, and 

density on capture probabilities of age-0 rainbow trout estimated from electrofishing at discrete sites 

in a large river. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 128:58-75.

Krebs, C.J., 1994, Ecology: the experimental analysis of distribution and abundance. 4

th Ed. Harper 

Collins. New York.

Leap, L.M., Kunde, J.L., Hubbard, D.C., Andrews, N., Downum, C.E., Miller, A., and Balsom, J.R., 

2000, Grand Canyon monitoring project 1992–1999: synthesis and annual monitoring report FY99. 
246

Grand Canyon National Park River Corridor Monitoring Report No. 66: Submitted to Bureau of 

Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Lomaomvaya, M., Ferguson, T.J., and Yeatts, M., 2001, Ongtuvqava Sakwtala: Hopi ethnobotany in 

the Grand Canyon: submitted to the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center.

Lovich, J. and Melis, T.S., 2007, The state of the Colorado River ecosystem in Grand Canyon: Lessons 

from 10 years of adaptive ecosystem management, Intl. J. River Basin Management Vol. 5, No. 3, p. 

207–221.

Lucchitta, I., Curtis, G.H., Davis, M.E., Davis, S.W., and Turin,B., 2000, Cyclical aggradation and 

downcutting, fluvial response to volcanic activity, and calibration of soil-carbonate stages in western 

Grand Canyon, Arizona: Quaternary Research, v. 53, pp.23-33.

MacKenzie, D. I., Nichols, J. D., Royle, J. A., Pollock, K. H., Bailey, L. L., and Hines, J. E., 2006, 

Occupancy Estimation and Modeling: Inferring Patterns and Dynamics of Species Occurrence.

Elsevier. San Diego, California.

Magirl, C. S., Breedlove, M. J., Webb, R. H., and Griffiths, P. G., 2008, Modeling water-surface 

elevations and virtual shorelines for the Colorado River in Grand Canyon, Arizona, U.S. Geological 

Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2008-5075, 32 p.

McCune, B., and Grace, J.B., 2002, Analysis of ecological communities: MjM Software Design: 

Gleneden Beach, Oreg., 300 p.

McKinney, T. and W.R. Persons. 1999a. Rainbow trout and lower tropic levels in the Lee's Ferry 

tailwater below Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona: A Review. Final Report to Bureau of Reclamation, 

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, Flagstaff, Arizona. Arizona Game and Fish 

Department, Phoenix, AZ. Cooperative Agreement No. 1425-98-FC-40-22690.

McKinney, T., D.W. Speas, R.S. Rogers, and W.R. Persons. 2001a. Rainbow trout in a regulated river 

below Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona, following increased minimum flows and reduced discharge 

variability. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 21:216-222.

McKinney, T., D.W. Speas, R.W. Rogers, and W.R. Persons. 1999b. Rainbow trout in the Lee's Ferry 

recreational fishery below Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona, following establishment of minimum flow 

requirements. Final Report to U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research 

Center, Flagstaff, Arizona. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. Cooperative 

Agreement No. 1425-98-FC-40-22690. 109 pp

McKinney, T.D., R.S. Rogers, A.D. Ayers, and W.R. Persons. 1999c. Lotic community responses in 

the Lee’s Ferry reach. In R.H. Webb, J.S. Schmidt, G.R. Marzolf and R.A. Valdez (editors). The 

1996 controlled flood in Grand Canyon: scientific experiment and management demonstration. 

Geophysical Monograph 110:249-258.

McKinney, T.D., R.S. Rogers, and W.R. Persons. 1999d. Effects of flow reduction on aquatic biota of 

the Colorado River below Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona. North American Journal of Fisheries 

Management 19:984-991.

Melis, T.S., Korman, J. and Walters, C.J., 2005, Active Adaptive Management of the Colorado River 

Ecosystem Below Glen Canyon Dam, USA: Using Modeling and Experimental Design to Resolve 

Uncertainty in Large-River Management: Proceedings of the International Conference on Reservoir 

Operations & River Management, Guangzhou, China, September 18-23, 2005, 8 p.

Melis, T.S., Martell, S.J.D., Coggins, L.G., Jr., Pine, W.E., III, and Andersen, M.E., 2006, Adaptive 

management of the Colorado River ecosystem below Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona: using science and 

modeling to resolve uncertainty in river management, in Specialty Summer Conference on Adaptive 

Management of Water Resources, Missoula, Mont., CD-ROM Proceedings (ISBN 1-882132-71-8): 

Middleburg, Va., American Water Resources Association.

Melis, T.S., Topping, D.J., and Rubin D.M., 2003, Testing laser-based sensors for continuous in situ 

monitoring of suspended sediment in the Colorado River, Arizona, in Bogen, J., Fergus, T., and 
247

Walling, D.E., eds., Erosion and sediment transport measurement in rivers: technological and 

methodological advances: Wallingford, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom, IAHS Press, IAHS 

Publication 283, p. 21–27.

Melis, T.S., Wright, S.A., Ralston, B., Fairley, H., Kennedy, T., Coggins, L., and Korman, J., 2006, 

Knowledge assessment of the effects of Glen Canyon Dam on the Colorado River ecosystem, Grand 

Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, U.S. Geological Survey, Flagstaff, Ariz., 77 p.

Melis, Theodore S., Martel, Steven J.D. l, Coggins, Lewis G., Pine, William E. III and Andersen,

Matthew E., 2006b, Adaptive Management of the Colorado River Ecosystem below Glen Canyon 

Dam, Arizona: Using Science and Modeling to Resolve Uncertainty in River Management in 

Proceedings of the Adaptive Management of Water Resources AWRA Summer Specialty 

Conference, Missoula, Montana, June 26-28, 2006. 6 p.

Melis, Theodore S., Steven, Wright, Scott A., Ralston, Barbara E., Fairley, Helen C., Kennedy,

Theodore A., Andersen, Matthew E., and Coggins, Lewis G., Jr., 2006a, Knowledge Assessment of 

the Effects of Glen Canyon Dam on the Colorado River Ecosystem: An Experimental Planning 

Support Document, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, 87 p.

Miller, R.R, 1961, Man and the changing fish fauna of the American Southwest: Papers of the 

Michigan Academy of Science, Arts, and Literature, v. 46, p. 365-404.

Minckley, W.L., 1991, Native fishes of the Grand Canyon, an Obituary?, in Marzolf, G.R. ed., 

Colorado River ecology and dam management: Washington, D.C., National Academy Press, p. 124-

177.

Minckley, W.L., and Deacon, J.E., 1991, Battle against extinction: native fish management in the 

American West: Tucson, Arizona, University of Arizona Press.

Naiman, R.J., Décamps, H., McClain, M.E., eds., 2005, Riparia—ecology, conservation and 

management of streamside communities: London, Elsevier Academic Press.

Nakano, S., and Murakami, M., 2001, Reciprocal subsidies: dynamic interdependence between 

terrestrial and aquatic food webs: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, v. 98, p. 166–

170.

Nilsson, C., and Jansson, R., 1995, Floristic differences between riparian corridors of regulated and 

free-flowing boreal rivers. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 11:55-66. 

O’Brien, L. E., Coleman, A., Blank, B. L., Grams, P. E., and Schmidt, J. C., 2000, Testing the 

Application of Digital Photogrammetry to Monitor Topographic Changes of Sandbars in the 

Colorado River Ecosystem, Unpublished Final Report to GCMRC on Cooperative Agreement 1425-

98-FC-40-22640, Utah State University, Logan, UT, 59 p.

Office of Management and Budget Circular A-16, 2002, National Spatial Data Infrastructure [available 

online at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a016/a016_rev.html

Paukert, C.P., Coggins, L.G. Jr., and Flaccus, C.E., 2006, Distribution and movement of humpback 

chub in the Colorado River, Grand Canyon, based on recaptures. Transactions of the American 

Fisheries Society 135:539-544.

Pederson, J.L., Petersen, P.A., MacFarlane, W.W., Gonzales, M.F., and Kohl, K., 2003, Mitigation, 

monitoring, and geomorphology related to gully erosion of cultural sites in Grand Canyon. Final 

report in fulfillment of CA-01-WRAG-0074: on file, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research 

Center, Flagstaff, Ariz.

Pederson, J.L., Anders, M.D., Rittenhour, T.M., Sharp, W.D., Gosse, J.C., and Karlstrom, K.E., 2006, 

Using fill terraces to understand incision rates and evolution of the Colorado River in eastern Grand 

Canyon, Arizona: Journal of Geophysical Research (Earth Surface), v. 111, F02003, 

doi:10.1029/2004JF000201.
248

Phillips, A.M., III, and Jackson, L., 1996, Evaluation and mitigation efforts for the March 1996 

Colorado River test flow experiment: final report: Peach Springs, Ariz., Hualapai Tribe Cultural 

Resources Division, 10 p.

Porter, M.E., 2002, Riparian vegetation responses to contrasting managed flows of the Colorado River 

in Grand Canyon, Arizona: Flagstaff, Northern Arizona University, M.S. thesis, 33 p.

Rahel, F.J., and Olden, J.D., 2008, Assessing the effects of climate change on aquatic invasive species, 

Conservation Biology 22(3), 521-533.

Ralston, B. E., Davis, P. A., Weber, R. M., and Rundall, J. M., 2008, A vegetation database for the 

Colorado River ecosystem from Glenn Canyon dam to the western boundary of Grand Canyon 

National Park, Arizona, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2008-1216, 44 p.

Rantz, S.E. and others, 1982a, Measurement and computation of streamflow: volume 1, measurement 

of stage and discharge: U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 2175, 284 p, 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/wsp/wsp2175/, accessed October 7, 2008.

Rantz, Saul Edward; and others, 1982b, Measurement and computation of streamflow: volume 2, 

computation of discharge, U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 2175, 631 p, 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/wsp/wsp2175/, accessed October 7, 2008.

Rubin, D.M., 2004, A simple autocorrelation algorithm for determining grain size from digital images 

of sediment: Journal of Sedimentary Research, v. 74, p. 160 165.

Rubin, D.M., Chezar, H., Harney, J.N., Topping, D.J., Melis, T.S., and Sherwood, C.R., 2006, 

Underwater microscope for measuring spatial and temporal changes in bed-sediment grain size: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 2006-1360, http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1360/, accessed 

March 30, 2008.

Rubin, D.M., Chezar, H., Harney, J.N., Topping, D.J., Melis, T.S., and Sherwood, C.R., 2007, 

Underwater microscope for measuring spatial and temporal changes in bed-sediment grain size: 

Sedimentary Geology, v. 202, no. 3, p. 402-408.

Schmidt, J. C., Grams, P. E., and Leschin, M. F., 1999, Variation in the magnitude and style of 

deposition and erosion on three long (8-12 km) reaches as determined by photographic analysis. In 

Webb, R. H., Schmidt, J. C., Marzolf, G. R., and Valdez, R. A. (Eds.), The Controlled Flood in 

Grand Canyon, American Geophysical Union, Geophysical Monograph Series. v. 110, p. 185-204.

Schmidt, J.C., and Graf, J.B., 1990, Aggradation and degradation of alluvial sand deposits, 1965 to 

1986, Colorado River, Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Professional 

Paper 1493, 74 p.

Schmidt, J.C., Topping, D.J., Grams, P.E., and Hazel, J.E., Jr., 2004, System-wide changes in the 

distribution of fine sediment in the Colorado River corridor between Glen Canyon Dam and Bright 

Angel Creek, Arizona: final report submitted to Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, 

Flagstaff, Ariz., 117 p., http://www.gcmrc.gov/library/reports/physical/Fine_Sed/Schmidt2004.pdf, 

accessed March 30, 2008.

Seager, R., Ting, M., Held, I., Kushnir, Y., Lu, J., Vecchi, G., Huang, H.-P., Harnik, N., Leetmaa, A., 

Lau, N.-C., Li, C., Velez, J., and Naik, N., 2007, Model projections of an imminent transition to a 

more arid climate in southwestern North America: Science, v. 316, p. 1181–1184.

Stevens, L.E., and Ayers T.J., 1993, The impacts of Glen Canyon Dam on riparian vegetation and soil 

stability in the Colorado River corridor, Grand Canyon, Arizona: 1992 Final Report, Final report to 

National Park Service Cooperative Studies Unit, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Ariz. 

Stevens, L.E., Ayers, T.J., Bennett, J.B., Christensen, K., Kearsley, M.J.C., Meretsky, V.J, Phillips, 

A.M.. III, Parnell, R.A., Spence, J., Sogge, M.K., Springer, A.E., and Wegner, D.L., 2001, Planned 

flooding and Colorado River riparian trade-offs downstream from Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona: 

Ecological Applications. v. 11, p. 701–710. 
249

Stevens, L.E., Schmidt, J.S., Ayers, T.J., and Brown ,B.T., 1995. Geomorphic influences on fluvial 

marsh development along the dam-regulated Colorado River in the Grand Canyon, Arizona.

Ecological Applications 5:1035-1039.

Stone, D.M., and Gorman, O. T., 2006, Ontogenesis of endangered humpback chub (Gila cypha) in the 

Little Colorado River, Arizona, American Midland Naturalist 155:123-135.

SWCA, Inc. 2000. A program of experimental flow for endangered and native fishes of the Colorado 

River in Grand Canyon. Final report to Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, USGS, 

Flagstaff, Ariz. 57 p.

Thompson, K.S., Potochnik, A.R., Ryel, R., O’Brien, G., Neal, L.A., 2000, Development of a 

geomorphic model to predict erosion of pre-dam Colorado River terraces containing archaeological 

resources: SWCA, Environmental Consultants, Inc., submitted to Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center, Flagstaff, Ariz.

Topping, D.J., Melis, T.S., Rubin, D.M., and Wright, S.A., 2004, High-resolution monitoring of 

suspended-sediment concentration and grain size in the Colorado River in Grand Canyon using a 

laser-acoustic system, in Hu, C., and Tan, Y, eds., Proceedings of the Ninth International 

Symposium on River Sedimentation, October 18 21, 2004: Yichang, China: People’s Republic of 

China, Tsinghua University Press, p. 2507 2514. 

Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., and Vierra, L.E., Jr., 2000, Colorado River sediment transport 1. Natural 

sediment supply limitation and the influence of Glen Canyon Dam: Water Resources Research, v. 

36, p. 515 542.

Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., Schmidt, J.C., Hazel, J.E., Jr., Melis, T.S., Wright, S.A., Kaplinski, M., 

Draut, A.E., and Breedlove, M.J., 2006, Comparison of sediment-transport and bar-response results 

from the 1996 and 2004 controlled-flood experiments on the Colorado River in Grand Canyon: CDROM Proceedings of the 8th Federal Inter-Agency Sedimentation Conference, Reno, Nev., April 2-

6, 2006, ISBN 0-9779007-1-1.

Topping, D.J., Wright, S.A., Melis, T.S., and Rubin, D.M., 2006. High-resolution monitoring of 

suspended-sediment concentration and grain size in the Colorado River using laser-diffraction 

instruments and a three-frequency acoustic system, Proceedings, 8th Federal Interagency 

Sedimentation Conference, April 2-6, 2006, Reno, NV, CD-ROM only, ISBN 0-9779007-1-1.

Topping, D.J., Wright, S.A., Melis, T.S., and Rubin, D.M., 2007, High-resolution measurements of 

suspended-sediment concentration and grain size in the Colorado River in Grand Canyon using a 

multi-frequency acoustic system: Proceedings of the Tenth International Symposium on River 

Sedimentation, August 1-4, 2007, Moscow, Russia, v. 3, p. 330–339.

Turner, R.M., and Karpiscak, M.M., 1980, Recent vegetation changes along the Colorado River 

between Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Mead, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 

1132, 125 p. 

Tyus, H.M., and Saunders, J.F., III, 2000, Nonnative Fish Control and Endangered Fish Recovery: 

Lessons from the Colorado River. Fisheries 25(9):17-24.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1994, Engineering and design-topographic accuracy standards: 

EM1110-1-1005, p. 2–1 to 2–12.

U.S. Department of the Interior. 1995, Operation of Glen Canyon Dam: Colorado River Storage 

project, Arizona: Final Environmental Impact Statement. Washington DC: United States 

Government Printing Office. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. 1996, Record of Decision: Operation of Glen Canyon Dam: Final 

Environmental Impact Statement. Washington DC: United States Government Printing Office.

U.S. Department of the Interior. 2008. Final Biological Opinion for the Operation of Glen Canyon 

Dam., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, AESO/SE 22410-1993-F-167R1, 88 p. ACCESS: 

http://www.usbr.gov/uc/envdocs/bo/FinalGCDBO2-26-08.pdf
250

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2008, Draft Humpback chub (Gila cypha) recovery goals—

amendment and supplement to the Humpback Chub Recovery Plan: Denver, Colo., U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Mountain-Prairie Region (6).

Urquhart, N.S., S.G. Paulsen, and D.P. Larsen. 1998. Monitoring for policy-relevant regional trends 

over time. Ecological Applications 8:246-257.

Valdez, R.A., and R.J. Ryel. 1995. Life history and ecology of humpback chub (Gila cypha) in the 

Colorado River, Grand Canyon, Arizona. Final report to the Bureau of Reclamation, Salt Lake City, 

Utah, Contract No. 0-CS-40-09110. BIO/WEST Report No. TR-250-08. BIO/WEST, Inc., Logan, 

Utah.

Voichick, N., 2008, Specific conductance in the Colorado River between Glen Canyon Dam and 

Diamond Creek, Northern Arizona, 1988–2006: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 363, 24 p.

Voichick, N., and Wright, S.A., 2007, Water-temperature data for the Colorado River and tributaries 

between Glen Canyon Dam and Spencer Canyon, northern Arizona, 1988–2005: U.S. Geological 

Survey Data Series 251, 24 p.

Walters, Carl J., 1986, Adaptive management of renewable resources, New York, Macmillan, 374 p.

Waring, G.L., 1995, Current and historical riparian vegetation trends in Grand Canyon, using 

multitemporal remote sensing analyses of GIS sites. Final report, National Park Service, 24 p.

Waring, G.L., and Stevens, L.E., 1986, The effects of recent flooding on riparian plant establishment 

in Grand Canyon: Glen Canyon Environmental Studies, executive summaries of technical reports, 

NTIS no. PB-183496.

Weeden, H., Borden, F., Turner, B., Thompson, D., Strauss, C., and Johnson, R., 1975, Grand Canyon 

National Park campsite inventory, contract no. CX 001-3-0061 with the National Park Service: 

University Park, Pennsylvania State University.

Wiele, S.M., Wilcock, P.R, and Grams, P.E., 2007, Reach-averaged sediment routing model of a 

canyon river, Water Resources Research, v. 43, doi:10.1029/2005WR004824.

Wohl, E., Bennett, J.P., Blum, M.D., Grant, G.E., Hanes, D.M., Howard, A.D., Mueller, D.S., 

Schoellhamer, D.H., and Simoes, F.J., 2006, Protocols Evaluation Program (PEP-SEDS III): Final 

report of the physical resources monitoring peer review panel. U.S. Geological Survey Grand 

Canyon Monitoring and Research Center Administrative Document, 27 p., 

http://www.gcmrc.gov/library/reports/PEP/Wohl2006.pdf, accessed may 19, 2008. 

Woodbury, A. M., 1959, Ecological studies of flora and fauna in Glen Canyon. Report no. 40. Salt 

Lake City, Utah, University of Utah Press.

Wright, S.A., Melis, T.S., Topping, D.J., and Rubin, D.M., 2005, Influence of Glen Canyon Dam 

operations on downstream sand resources of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon, in Gloss, S.P., 

Lovich, J.E., and Melis, T.S., eds., The state of the Colorado River ecosystem in Grand Canyon: 

U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1282, p. 17 31.

Wright, S.A., Schmidt, J.C., Melis, T.S., Topping, D.J. and Rubin, D.M., 2008, Is there enough sand? 

Evaluating the fate of Grand Canyon sandbars, GSA Today, Geological Society of America. Vol. 

18, no. 8, p. 4-10.

Yard, H.K., Van Riper III, C., Brown, B.T., and Kearsely, M.J. 2004. Diets of insectivorous birds 

along the Colorado River in Grand Canyon, Arizona. Condor 106:106-115.

Yeatts, M., 1996, High elevation sand retention following the 1996 Spike Flow: An Assessment for 

Cultural Resources Stabilization, chap. 4 of Balsom, J.R., and Larralde, Signa, eds., Mitigation and 

Monitoring of Cultural Resources in Response to the Experimental Habitat Building Flow in Glen 

and Grand Canyons, Spring 1996: Salt Lake City, Utah, Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado 

River Region. 
251

AMWG Priority 1: Why are the humpback chub not thriving, and what can we do about it? How 

many humpback chub are there and how are they doing? (GCDAMP goal 2)

1. To what extent are adult populations of native fish controlled by production of young fish from 

tributaries, spawning and incubation in the mainstem, survival of young-of-year (YoY) and 

juvenile stages in the mainstem, or by changes in growth and maturation in the adult population as 

influenced by mainstem conditions? [FY2006–11]

2. Does a decrease in the abundance of rainbow trout (RBT) and other cold- and warm water

nonnatives in Marble and eastern Grand Canyons result in an improvement in the recruitment rate 

of juvenile humpback chub to the adult population? [FY2006–11]

3. Do RBT immigrate from Glen to Marble and eastern Grand Canyons, and, if so, during what life 

stages? To what extent do Glen Canyon immigrants support the population in Marble and eastern 

Grand Canyons? [FY2007–11]

4. Can long-term decreases in abundance of RBT in Marble and eastern Grand Canyons be sustained 

with a reduced level of effort of mechanical removal or will recolonization from tributaries and 

from downstream and upstream of the removal reach require that mechanical removal be an 

ongoing management action? This question also applies to future removal programs targeting 

other nonnative species. [FY2007–11]

5. What are the important pathways, and the rate of flux among them, that link lower trophic levels 

with fish and how will they link to dam operations? [FY2006–09]

6. Are trends in the abundance of fish populations, or indicators from fish such as growth, condition, 

and body composition (for example, lipids), correlated with patterns in invertebrate flux? 

[FY2006–09].

7. Which tributary and mainstem habitats are most important to native fishes and how can these 

habitats best be made useable and maintained? [FY2008–09].

8. How can native and nonnative fish best be monitored while minimizing impacts from capture and 

handling or sampling? [FY2007–11].

AMWG Priority 2: Which cultural resources, including traditional cultural properties, are within the 

Area of Potential Effect, which should we treat, and how do we best protect them? What is the status 

and trends of cultural resources and what are the agents of deterioration? (GCDAMP Goal 11)

1. Do dam-controlled flows affect (increase or decrease) rates of erosion and vegetation growth at 

archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties (TCP) sites, and if so, how? [FY2007–11]
252

2. How do flows impact old high-water zone terraces in the Colorado River ecosystem (CRE) (where 

the majority of archaeological sites occur), and what kinds of important information about the 

historical ecology and human history of the CRE are being lost due to ongoing erosion of the 

Holocene sedimentary deposits? [FY2004–11]

3. If dam-controlled flows are contributing to (influencing rates of) archaeological site/TCP erosion, 

what are the optimal flows for minimizing future impacts to historic properties? [FY2009–11]

4. How effective are various treatments (for example, check dams, vegetation management, etc.) in 

slowing rates of erosion at archaeological sites over the long term? [FY2006–11]

5. What are the TCPs in the CRE, and where are they located? [FY2006–11]

6. How can Tribal values/data/analyses be appropriately incorporated into a science-driven adaptive 

management process in order to evaluate the effects of flow operations and management actions 

on TCPs? [FY2006–08]

7. Are dam-controlled flows affecting TCPs and other tribally valued resources in the CRE, and, if 

so, in what respects are they being affected, and are those effects considered positive or negative 

by the tribes who value these resources? [FY2006–11]

AMWG Priority 3: What is the best flow regime? (GCDAMP goals 1–11)

1. Is there a ―Flow-Only‖ operation (that is, a strategy for dam releases, including managing tributary 

inputs with BHBFs, without sediment augmentation) that will restore and maintain sandbar 

habitats over decadal timescales? [FY2008–11] 

2. To what extent could predation impacts by nonnative fish be mitigated by higher turbidities or 

dam-controlled high-flow releases? [FY2007–08] 

3. What are the hydropower replacements costs of the modified low fluctuating flow (MLFF) 

(annually, since 1996)? [FY2007–08]

4. What are the projected hydropower costs associated with the various alternative flow regimes 

being discussed for future experimental science (as defined in the next phase experimental 

design)? [FY2006–07]

5. How is invertebrate flux affected by water quality (for example, temperature, nutrient 

concentrations, turbidity) and dam operations? [FY2006–08]

6. What Glen Canyon Dam operations (ramping rates, daily flow range, etc.) maximize trout fishing 

opportunities and catchability? [FY2007–08]

7. How do dam-controlled flows affect visitors’ recreational experiences, and what is/are the optimal 

flows for maintaining a high-quality recreational experience in the CRE? [FY2007–08]

8. What are the drivers for recreational experiences in the CRE, and how important are flows relative 

to other drivers in shaping recreational experience outcomes? [FY2007–09]

9. How do varying flows positively or negatively affect campsite attributes that are important to 

visitor experience? [FY2009–11]

10. How can safety and navigability be reliably measured relative to flows? [FY2007–08]

11. How do varying flows positively or negatively affect visitor safety, health, and navigability of the 

rapids? [FY2007–09]
253

12. How do varying flows regimes positively or negatively affect group encounter rates, campsite 

competition, and other social parameters that are known to be important variables of visitor 

experience? [FY2007–09]

AMWG Priority 4: What is the impact of sediment loss and what should we do about it? (GCDAMP 

goal 8)

1. Is there a ―Flow-Only‖ operation (that is, a strategy for dam releases, including managing tributary 

inputs with BHBFs, without sediment augmentation) that will restore and maintain sandbar 

habitats over decadal timescales? (FY2008–11)

2. How important are backwaters and vegetated shoreline habitats to the overall growth and survival 

of YoY and juvenile native fish? Does the long-term benefit of increasing these habitats outweigh 

short-term potential costs (displacement and possibly mortality of young humpback chub) 

associated with high flows? [FY2007–11]

AMWG Priority 5: What will happen when we test or implement the temperature control device

(TCD)? How should it be operated? Are safeguards needed for management? (GCDAMP goals 1–4 

and 7–10)

1. How do dam release temperatures, flows (average and fluctuating component), meteorology, 

canyon orientation and geometry, and reach morphology interact to determine mainstem and 

nearshore water temperatures throughout the CRE? [FY2006–08]

2. How is invertebrate flux affected by water quality (for example, temperature, nutrient 

concentrations, turbidity) and dam operations? [FY2006–08]

3. To what extent do temperature and fluctuations in flow limit spawning and incubation success for 

native fish? [FY2003–08]

4. What is the relative importance of increased water temperature, shoreline stability, and food 

availability on the survival and growth of YoY and juvenile native fish? [FY2003–08]

5. Will increased water temperatures increase the incidence of Asian tapeworm in humpback chub or 

the magnitude of infestation, and if so, what is the impact on survival and growth rates? [FY2003–

08]

6. Do the potential benefits of improved rearing habitat (warmer, more stable, more backwater and 

vegetated shorelines, more food) outweigh negative impacts due to increases in nonnative fish 

abundance? [FY2007–11]

7. How do warmer releases affect viability and productivity of native/nonnative vegetation? 

[FY2007–11]
254
255

Pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS) consulted with the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) on the operation 

of Glen Canyon Dam and developed Conservation Measures. The following conservation measures are 

extracted directly from the USFWS February 27, 2008, Final Biological Opinion for the Operation of 

Glen Canyon Dam. 

Reclamation has included the following conservation measures for listed species in the action 

area as part of its proposed action. As described above, the AMP provides a process for assessing the 

effects of current operations of Glen Canyon Dam on downstream resources and using the results to 

develop recommendations for modifying dam operations and other resource management and 

conservation actions. The AMP also provides for long-term monitoring and research activities to 

evaluate the effectiveness of the operational modifications to Glen Canyon Dam and other 

management actions. Many of the conservation measures listed below have already been occurring 

through the AMP at various levels. We believe conservation measures carried out through the AMP 

have resulted in significant conservation benefits to humpback chub and Kanab ambersnail. The 

existence of the AMP and the history of conservation of these species through the AMP serve to 

substantiate that the following conservation measures will be implemented as proposed by 

Reclamation. Implementation of some of these conservation measures may require additional 

compliance. USFWS is currently investigating the feasibility of developing a recovery program for 

humpback chub in Grand Canyon. All of the conservation measures listed here could fall under such a 

program. Agreements would need to be developed to facilitate cost sharing with other agencies and 

organizations, both within and outside of the AMP, to fully implement a recovery program.

Pursuant to 50 CFR § 402.16 (c), reinitiation of formal consultation is required and shall be 

requested by the Federal agency or by the USFWS, where discretionary Federal involvement or 

control over the action has been retained or is authorized by law and if new information reveals effects 

of the action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not previously 

considered. Reclamation and USFWS agree to specifically define this reinitiation trigger relative to 

humpback chub, in part, as being exceeded if the population of adult humpback chub (≥200 mm [7.87 

in] TL) in Grand Canyon declines significantly, or, if in any single year, based on the age-structured 

mark recapture model (ASMR; Coggins 2007), the population drops below 3,500 adult fish within the 

95 percent confidence interval. USFWS and Reclamation have agreed on this trigger based on the 

current estimated population size and past population trend, genetic considerations, and the capabilities 

of the ASMR model to estimate population size. This number was derived as a conservative approach 

to preventing the population from declining to the minimum viable population size for humpback 

chub, estimated to be 2,100 adult fish (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2002a), with consideration for a 

buffer and acknowledging the variance inherent in the ASMR resulting from age estimation based on 

recent results from this model (Coggins 2007). This trigger provides additional protection against 

possible adverse affects to humpback chub from the proposed action. If the population of humpback 
256

chub declines to this level, Reclamation and USFWS will consider appropriate actions through 

reinitiated section 7 consultation, for example, extending the period of steady releases to include July 

and August. Conversely, if the population of humpback chub expands significantly, USFWS and 

Reclamation will consider the potential for reinitiation of consultation to determine if steady flows 

continue to be necessary.

Reclamation has been a primary contributor to the development of the AMP‘s Comprehensive 

Plan for the Management and Conservation of Humpback Chub in Grand Canyon. Reclamation will 

continue to work with AMP cooperators to develop a comprehensive approach to management of 

humpback chub. Reclamation has committed to specific conservation measures in this biological 

opinion, but will also consider funding and implementing other actions not identified here to 

implement the plan.

In coordination with other Department of the Interior (DOI) AMP participants and through the 

AMP, Reclamation will assist NPS and the AMP in funding and implementation of translocation of 

humpback chub into tributaries of the Colorado River in Marble and Grand canyons. Nonnative 

control in these tributaries will be an essential precursor to translocation, so Reclamation will help 

fund control of both cold and warm-water nonnative fish in tributaries, as well as efforts to translocate 

humpback chub into these tributaries. Havasu, Shinumo and Bright Angel creeks will initially be 

targeted for translocation, although other tributaries may be considered. Reclamation will work with 

USFWS, NPS and other cooperators to develop translocation plans for each of these streams, utilizing 

existing information available such as SWCA and Grand Canyon Wildlands (2007) and Valdez and 

others. (2000a). These plans will consider and utilize genetic assessments (Douglas and Douglas 2007, 

Keeler-Foster in prep.), identify legal requirements and jurisdictional issues, methods, and assess 

needs for nonnative control, monitoring and other logistics, as well as an implementation schedule, 

funding sources, and permitting. Reclamation and the AMP will also fund and implement translocation 

of up to 500 young humpback chub from the lower Little Colorado River to above Chute Falls in 2008 

if USFWS determines that a translocation is warranted. Reclamation and the AMP will continue to 

monitor humpback chub in the reach of the Little Colorado River above Chute Falls for the 5-year 

period of the proposed action, and will undertake additional translocations above Chute Falls as 

deemed necessary by USFWS.

As first presented in the biological opinion on the Shortage Guidelines, Reclamation will, in 

coordination with other DOI AMP participants and through the AMP, continue efforts to assist NPS 

and the AMP in control of both cold- and warm-water nonnative fish species in both the mainstem of 

Marble and Grand canyons and in their tributaries, including determining and implementing levels of 

nonnative fish control as necessary. Because Reclamation predicts that dam releases will be cool to 

cold during the period of the proposed action, control of nonnative trout may be particularly important. 

Control of these species will utilize mechanical removal, similar to recent efforts by the AMP, and 

may utilize other methods, to help to reduce this threat. GCMRC is preparing a nonnative fish control 

plan through the AMP process that addresses both cold and warm-water species that will further guide 

implementation of this conservation measure.

In coordination with other DOI AMP participants and through the AMP, Reclamation will 

implement a nearshore ecology study that will relate river flow variables to ecological attributes of 

nearshore habitats (velocity, depth, temperature, productivity, etc.) and the relative importance of such 

habitat conditions to important life stages of native and nonnative fish. This study will incorporate 
257

planned science activities for evaluating the high-flow test on nearshore habitats as well as the 5-year 

period of steady flow releases in September and October. A research plan will be developed with US 

via the AMP for this study by August 1, 2008, and a 5-year review report will be completed by 2013. 

The plan will include monitoring of sufficient intensity to ensure significant relationships can be 

established, as acceptable to the USFWS. This conservation measure is consistent with the Sediment 

Research conservation measure in the Shortage Guidelines biological opinion. This study will help 

clarify the relationship between flows and mainstem habitat characteristics and availability for youngof-year and juvenile humpback chub, other native fish, and competitive or predaceous nonnative fish, 

and support continued management to sustain mainstem aggregations. The feasibility and effectiveness 

of marking small humpback chub (<150 and <100 mm TL [5.91 and 3.93 in]) will also be evaluated as 

part of the study, and if effective, marking young fish will be utilized in the study. Marking young 

humpback chub, if feasible and effective, could greatly aid in developing information on the early life 

history, growth and survival of young humpback chub.

Transitions between monthly flow volumes can often result in drastic changes to nearshore 

habitats. For example, past transitions from August to September in some years have consisted of a 

transition from a lower limit of 10,000 cfs in August to an upper limit of 10,000 cfs in September. 

Such a transition results in a river stage level that is below the varial zone of the previous month‘s 

flow, and may be detrimental to fish and food base for fish. Reclamation has committed to adjusting 

daily flows between months to attempt to attenuate these transitions such that they are more gradual, 

and to studying the biological effects of these transitions, in particular to humpback chub. If possible,

Reclamation will work to adjust September and October monthly flow volumes to achieve improved 

conditions for young-of-year, juvenile, and adult humpback chub, as acceptable to the USFWS.

Once appropriate planning documents are in place, and refuge populations of humpback chub 

are created (as a conservation measure of the Shortage Guidelines biological opinion), Reclamation 

will assist USFWS in maintenance of a humpback chub refuge population at a Federal hatchery or 

other appropriate facility by providing funding to assist in annual maintenance. In case of a 

catastrophic loss of the Grand Canyon population of humpback chub, a humpback chub refuge will 

provide a permanent source of sufficient numbers of genetically representative stock for repatriating 

the species. This action would also be an important step toward attaining recovery.

Reclamation will continue its efforts to help other stakeholders in the Little Colorado River 

watershed develop watershed planning efforts, with consideration for watershed level effects to the 

humpback chub in Grand Canyon.

Reclamation will, through the AMP, temporarily remove and safe-guard all Kanab 

ambersnails found in the zone that would be inundated during the high-flow test, as well as 

approximately 15 percent (17 m2 [180 ft2]) of the Kanab ambersnail habitat that would be flooded by 

the experimental high-flow test. The ambersnails would be released above the inundation zone, and 

habitat would be held locally above the level of inundation until the high-flow test has ended 

(approximately 60 hours). Habitat will be replaced in a manner that will facilitate regrowth of 

vegetation. Subsequent monitoring of this conservation measure will be coordinated with GCMRC.
258

The draft budget for the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP) for 

fiscal years (FY) 2011 and 2012, which includes budgets for GCDAMP activities preformed by 

Reclamation and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

(GCMRC), is attached separately. Table D.1 explains the information found in various columns of the 

budget document. Following the table is an explanation of USGS policy on cost-recovery accounting 

and cost share

 Explanation of information found in columns of draft fiscal year (FY) 2011-12 

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP) budget.

A Grand Canyon 

Monitoring and 

Research Center 

(GCMRC) Project 

ID

Characters 1 3 Identify program area

BIO: Biology

PHY: Physical Science

REC: Recreation

HYD: Hydropower

CUL: Cultural

DASA: Data Acquisition, Storage and Analysis

SUP: Support (Logistics and Survey)

ADM: Administration and Management

PLAN: Planning

Characters 4 5 Identify GCDAMP goal number

Characters 6 7 Identify GCMRC project number

Characters 8 9 Identify fiscal year

B Status O: Ongoing

N: New

C: Complete

D: Deferred

NA: Not applicable

C

Funding emphasis

APM: Administrative program management. Activities/projects that are 

administrative in nature or are conducted in support of the overall GCMRC 

science program, including base funding for program managers, logistics staff 

and permanent DASA staff.

COR: Core-monitoring project. Monitoring projects that have been piloted, 

subjected to initial and secondary protocols evaluation panel (PEP) reviews, 

documented through a core-monitoring report and formally adopted as a coremonitoring project by the Technical Work Group (TWG).

CRD: Core-monitoring research and development project. Monitoring projects 

that are currently undergoing research and development, including projects that 

have been piloted and peer reviewed but which have not yet been formally 

documented with a core-monitoring report or formally adopted as a coremonitoring project by the TWG.

LTE: Long-term experiment. Projects specifically undertaken as part of or in 

direct support of the Long-Term Experimental Plan.
259

ORD: Other research and development projects. Other research projects or 

research and development work that is NOT directly tied to the development of 

D Project description core Project title (start date -monitoring projects. end date)

E Actual FY2010

budget

Actual GCDAMP FY2010 gross budget figures as of this revision date

F Previously 

submitted FY11 

Budget

Previously submitted proposed FY2011 budget (submitted with FY2010-11 

budget

G REVISED 

Proposed FY2011 

or FY2012 budget

Proposed FY2011 or FY2012 gross cost of project as of this revision date
260

In FY2003, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) began full-cost recovery accounting and 

instituted a Department of the Interior (DOI) customer rate of 15 percent against all DOI agency 

reimbursable funding. In FY2011-12, the customer rate is estimated at the 15-percent DOI customer 

rate with an additional 6 percent added to achieve the required additional facilities costs. The DOI 

customer rate was established by the USGS Headquarters and is considered a  ̳preferred customer‘ rate 

offered to other DOI agencies. In addition to the DOI rate, a special ―pass through‖ rate of 6 percent 

was also instated. USGS approved the special rate of 6 percent for a portion of GCMRC‘s power 

revenue funding. This rate is applied to approximately $3 million of funding that is directly ―passed 

through‖ to GCMRC cooperators. 

USGS will continue to provide cost share on science activities. However, management actions 

(such as mainstem mechanical fish removal) not tied to a specific scientific study design will be 

assessed full burden. Any unused portion not needed for cost share will be used to support science 

activities that would be complimentary to the GCDAMP science program. 
261
DRAFT FY2011/12 GCDAMP BUDGET for the USBR and the USGS GCMRC APPENDIX E Revised 6/11/2010

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

A B C D E F G H I

 Project Descriptions 

 FY10 GROSS 

Actual Budget 

(incl FY09 

Carryover & 

<1.3%> CPI) 

 FY11 

Previously 

Submitted 

Budget (incl 3% 

CPI) 

 FY11 REVISED 

Gross Proposed 

Budget (incl 2.5% 

CPI) 

 FY12 Gross 

Proposed Budget 

(incl 3% CPI) 

 Comments 

 Adaptive Management Work Group - -

 Personnel Costs 174,449 174,449 178,810 184,175

 AMWG Member Travel Reimbursement 17,240 17,240 17,671 18,201

 Reclamation Travel 13,994 13,994 14,344 14,774

 Facilitation Contract 26,609 26,609 27,274 28,092

 POAHG Expenses 54,814 54,814 56,184 57,870

GCMRC recommends redirection of 

funds: 1/2 FY11 = $28,092, FY12 = 

$28,835 for LTEMP EIS & Nonnative 

Fish Suppression Fund

 Other 7,865 7,865 8,062 8,303

 294,971 294,971 302,345 311,416

 Technical Work Group 

 Personnel Costs 85,074 85,074 87,201 89,817

 TWG Member Travel Reimbursement 23,641 23,641 24,232 24,959

 Reclamation Travel 17,428 17,428 17,864 18,400

 TWG Chair Reimbursement 24,305 24,305 24,913 25,660

 Other 2,247 2,247 2,303 2,372

 152,695 152,695 156,512 161,208

 Other 

 Compliance Documents 49,350 49,350 350,584 361,101

GCMRC recommends redirection of 

funds: FY11 = $50,584, FY12 = 

$52,101 for LTEMP EIS & Nonnative 

Fish Suppression Fund

 Administrative Support for NPS Permitting 117,307 117,307 120,240 123,847

GCMRC recommends redirection of 

funds: FY11 = $60,120, FY12 = 

$61,924 for LTEMP EIS & Nonnative 

Fish Suppression Fund

 Contract Administration 39,434 39,434 40,420 41,632

 Experimental Carryover Funds - to be held by BOR 493,500 493,500 505,838 521,013

See Experimental Fund Summary 

below for GCMRC projected 

expenditures

 Integrated Tribal Resources Monitoring 141,027 141,027 144,553 148,889

Add'l $75k available in FY10 and 

FY11 due to reallocation of previous 

years' appropriated funds

 Mainstem Non-native Mechanical Removal - - - -

 Non-native Fish Suppression Contingency Fund 47,853 47,853 49,049 50,521

GCMRC recommends redirection of 

funds: FY11 = $96,966 FY10 not 

used + FY11 $47,853 = $144,819, 

FY12 = $50,524 for LTEMP EIS & 

Nonnative Fish Suppression Fund

 888,471 888,471 1,210,682 1,247,003

 1,336,137 1,336,137 1,669,540 1,719,626

 Programmatic Agreement Cultural Resources 

 Reclamation Administration 59,362 59,362 60,252 62,060

 Canyon Treatment Plan and Implementation 493,500 493,500 205,838 521,013

GCMRC recommends redirection of 

funds: FY11 = $300k for LTEMP EIS 

& Nonnative Fish Suppression Fund

 552,862 552,862 266,090 583,073

 1,888,999 1,888,999 1,935,630 2,302,699

Page 1 of 12

R:\User Files\Shared\bmckenzie\GCDAMP DRAFT FY11 & FY12 Biennial Budget 06-11-10 SUMMARY for TWG.xlsx
DRAFT FY2011/12 GCDAMP BUDGET for the USBR and the USGS GCMRC APPENDIX E Revised 6/11/2010

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

A B C D E F G H I

 Project Descriptions 

 FY10 GROSS 

Actual Budget 

(incl FY09 

Carryover & 

<1.3%> CPI) 

 FY11 

Previously 

Submitted 

Budget (incl 3% 

CPI) 

 FY11 REVISED 

Gross Proposed 

Budget (incl 2.5% 

CPI) 

 FY12 Gross 

Proposed Budget 

(incl 3% CPI) 

 Comments 

 Development of a LCR Management Plan - - - -

 Financial Agreements with Tribes 

 Hopi Tribe 95,000 95,000 95,000 95,000

 Hualapai Tribe 95,000 95,000 95,000 95,000

 Navajo Nation 95,000 95,000 95,000 95,000

 Pueblo of Zuni 95,000 95,000 95,000 95,000

 Southern Paiute 95,000 95,000 95,000 95,000

 DOI Handling Fee - - - -

 475,000 475,000 475,000 475,000

 475,000 475,000 475,000 475,000

 2,363,999 2,363,999 2,410,630 2,777,699

Proposal put forth to increase by CPI 

funds for those tribes fully expended 

in previous years (not captured in 

this budget pending approval)

Page 2 of 12

R:\User Files\Shared\bmckenzie\GCDAMP DRAFT FY11 & FY12 Biennial Budget 06-11-10 SUMMARY for TWG.xlsx
DRAFT FY2011/12 GCDAMP BUDGET for the USBR and the USGS GCMRC APPENDIX E Revised 6/11/2010

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

A B C D E F G H I

 GCMRC 

Project ID 

 STATUS 

 Funding Emphasis 

Project Descriptions

 FY10 GROSS 

Actual Budget 

(incl FY09 

Carryover & 

<1.3%> CPI) 

 FY11 

Previously 

Submitted 

Budget (incl 3% 

CPI) 

 FY11 REVISED 

Gross Proposed 

Budget (incl 2.5% 

CPI) 

 FY12 Gross 

Proposed Budget 

(incl 3% CPI) 

Comments

U.S. Geological Survey - Biological Resource Division - GCMRC - Power Revenues Under Cap Funded Projects U.S. Geological Survey - Biological Resource Division - GCMRC - Power Revenues Under Cap Funded Projects

GOAL 1 - FOOD BASE

BIO 1.R1.10 C CRD Aquatic Food Base (FY05--FY10) 531,183 - - - 

BIO 1.M1.11 N COR Aquatic Food Base Monitoring (FY11--Ongoing) - 250,712 343,744 332,692 

FY11 Focus on completion of 

research, reports, PEP review, & 

develop core monitor plan; Monthly 

drift & benthos monitoring at LFerry 

& DC only; FY12 Monthly drift & 

benthos monitoring at LF & DC only, 

Implement core monitoring plan 

subject to approval

BIO 1.R4.10 C CRD Impacts of Various Flow Regimes on the Aquatic Food 

Base (FY08--FY10) 61,782 - - - 

SUB-TOTAL GOAL 1 592,965 250,712 343,744 332,692

GOAL 2 - NATIVE FISHES

BIO 2.R1.10 C CRD LCR HBC Monitoring Lower 13.6km 

(HBC Population Est) (FY00--FY10) 454,282 - - - 

BIO 2.R2.10 C CRD LCR HBC Monitoring Lower 1,200m (FY00--FY10) 57,259 - - - 

BIO 2.M1.11 N COR LCR Fish Monitoring (FY11--Ongoing) - 308,824 576,134 604,940 

BOCM Repeat FY10 monitoring, 

revise based on analysis of PEP 

recommendations

BIO 2.M3.11 O CRD HBC Translocation & Monitoring Above Chute Falls 

(Ongoing) 142,129 145,494 131,051 137,602 

BOCM Monitor HBC status and 

translocate fish above Chute Falls; 

include funding for GCMRC 

oversight

BIO 2.M4.11 O COR Monitoring Mainstem Fish (Ongoing) 619,402 798,930 280,503 558,449 

BOCM FY11 Mainstem monitoring 

reduced from 4 to 2 trips (to support 

nonnative control work by BOR; 

FY12 Mainstem monitoring restored 

to 4 trips

BIO 2.R7.11 O ORD Stock Assessment of Grand Canyon Native Fish 

(Ongoing) 94,118 103,776 57,665 60,541 

 Continued analysis of fish stock 

data at reduced level; Complete & 

publish. ASMR estimate humpback 

chub adult population; FY12 

Continued analysis of fish stock data 

at reduced level; No ASMR 

BIO 2.R13.11 O CRD Remote PIT Tag Reading (Ongoing) 225,177 224,557 145,828 152,594 

Operate & maintain equipment and 

analyze data with graduate student 

and advisor; Defer expansion of the 

system

BIO 2.R15.11 O CRD Near Shore Ecology / Fall Steady Flows (FY08--FY12) - - - see below

BIO 2.R16.11 O ORD Mainstem Nonnative Fish Control (Ongoing) 104,765 - - - 

FY11 $600K identified in BOR 

budget to determine scope of work, 

if any; FY12 $300K identified in BOR 

budget to determine scope of work, 

if any

Page 3 of 12

R:\User Files\Shared\bmckenzie\GCDAMP DRAFT FY11 & FY12 Biennial Budget 06-11-10 SUMMARY for TWG.xlsx
DRAFT FY2011/12 GCDAMP BUDGET for the USBR and the USGS GCMRC APPENDIX E Revised 6/11/2010

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

A B C D E F G H I

 GCMRC 

Project ID 

 STATUS 

 Funding Emphasis 

Project Descriptions

 FY10 GROSS 

Actual Budget 

(incl FY09 

Carryover & 

<1.3%> CPI) 

 FY11 

Previously 

Submitted 

Budget (incl 3% 

CPI) 

 FY11 REVISED 

Gross Proposed 

Budget (incl 2.5% 

CPI) 

 FY12 Gross 

Proposed Budget 

(incl 3% CPI) 

Comments

BIO 2.R17.11 O ORD Nonnative Control Plan Science Support (Ongoing) 60,697 138,599 65,204 63,389 

FY11 Monitor and synthesize 

nonnative capture data in Open File 

Report and conduct 2011 nonnative 

workshop; FY12 Monitor and 

synthesize nonnative capture data in 

Open File Report and conduct 2011 

nonnative workshop

BIO 2.E18.11 O EXP

Detection of Rainbow Trout Movement from the Upper 

Reaches of the Colorado River below Glen Canyon 

Dam

 - - 437,201 459,061 

FY11 Investigate RBT movement 

patterns between Paria R. and 

Badger Rapid; FY12 Investigate 

RBT movement patterns between 

Paria R. and Badger Rapid

BIO 2.R19.11 O ORD Biometrics & General Analysis (Vice Coggins) 

(Ongoing) - 165,840 149,627 157,089 

1/3 time BIO 2.R7, 1/3 time PLAN 

12.P1, 1/3 time general biology 

support ASMR, ecosystem 

modeling, and biometric support 

SUB-TOTAL GOAL 2 1,757,829 1,886,020 1,843,213 2,193,665

GOAL 3 - EXTIRPATED SPECIES

07.3.00 - NA None Identified - - - - 

No funded projects; GCMRC will 

participate in extirpated species ad 

hoc group and razorback workgroup

SUB-TOTAL GOAL 3 - - -

GOAL 4 - RAINBOW TROUT

BIO 4.M2.11 O COR Monitoring Lees Ferry Fish (Ongoing) 173,259 182,819 216,846 226,552 

 Continue monitoring of fish 

community in Lees Ferry reach 

including YOY, juvenile and adult 

RBT monitoring 

SUB-TOTAL GOAL 4 173,259 182,819 216,846 226,552

GOAL 5 - KANAB AMBERSNAIL

BIO 5.R1.11 O CRD Monitor Kanab Ambersnail (FY07--FY11) 20,117 25,700 20,637 21,470 BOCM Continue annual monitoring

SUB-TOTAL GOAL 5 20,117 25,700 20,637 21,470

GOAL 6 - SPRINGS / RIPARIAN

BIO 6.M1.11 O COR Vegetation Mapping (Ongoing) 86,842 106,211 86,763 62,242 

 FY11 Implement vegetation transect 

monitoring (assumes approval of 

core monitoring plan); Analyze 2009 

imagery for vegetation change; FY12 

Analyze 2009 imagery and prepare 

report 

BIO 6.M2.11 N COR Vegetation Transects (FY11--Ongoing) 36,821 142,917 153,203 94,997 FY12 Defer bird and/or arthropod 

monitoring 

SUB-TOTAL GOAL 6 123,663 249,128 239,966 157,239

Page 4 of 12

R:\User Files\Shared\bmckenzie\GCDAMP DRAFT FY11 & FY12 Biennial Budget 06-11-10 SUMMARY for TWG.xlsx
DRAFT FY2011/12 GCDAMP BUDGET for the USBR and the USGS GCMRC APPENDIX E Revised 6/11/2010

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

A B C D E F G H I

 GCMRC 

Project ID 

 STATUS 

 Funding Emphasis 

Project Descriptions

 FY10 GROSS 

Actual Budget 

(incl FY09 

Carryover & 

<1.3%> CPI) 

 FY11 

Previously 

Submitted 

Budget (incl 3% 

CPI) 

 FY11 REVISED 

Gross Proposed 

Budget (incl 2.5% 

CPI) 

 FY12 Gross 

Proposed Budget 

(incl 3% CPI) 

Comments

GOAL 7 - QUALITY-OF-WATER

BIO 7.R1.11 O CRD

Water Quality Monitoring of Lake Powell and the Glen 

Canyon Dam Tailwaters (BUDGET PRESENTED 

BELOW) (Ongoing)

 - - - - see below

PHY 7.M1.11 O COR Integrated Quality of Water Monitoring (Downstream of 

GCD) (Ongoing) 1,011,523 1,025,906 999,236 1,020,911 

FY11 Continue monitoring flow, 

temperature and sediment, etc.; 

PEP review of water quality 

component; FY12 Prepare core 

monitoring plan; Implementation of 

core monitoring plan subject to 

approval Continue monitoring flow, 

temperature and sediment, etc.

PHY 7.R2.10 D CRD Integrated Flow, Temperature, and Sediment Modeling 

of the CRE (FY09--FY10) 316,696 - - - 

PHY 7.R3.11 N CRD Modeling Support & Temperature Models 

(FY11--Ongoing) - 138,028 139,864 145,679 Operate & maintain models; no new model development

SUB-TOTAL GOAL 7 1,328,219 1,163,934 1,139,100 1,166,590

GOAL 8 - SEDIMENT

PHY 8.M2.11 O COR Integrated Longterm Monitoring of System-wide 

Changes in Sediment Storage (Ongoing) 223,478 381,990 468,060 486,260 

FY11 Conduct SedTrend core 

monitoring. Monitor sandbar study 

sites. Report on 2009 SedTrend 

monitoring and 2009 remote sensing 

for sandbar area; FY12 Conduct 

SedTrend core monitoring. Report 

on 2011 SedTrend monitoring

SUB-TOTAL GOAL 8 223,478 381,990 468,060 486,260

GOAL 9 - RECREATIONAL EXPERIENCE

 REC 9.R1.11 O CRD Campsite Area Monitoring (Ongoing) 79,684 78,082 74,704 40,864 

FY11 Conduct biennial campsite 

monitoring; Continue river guide 

monitoring; FY12 Camp area field 

monitoring does not resume until 

FY13; Continue river guide 

monitoring 

REC 9.R3.11 O CRD Expand and Analyze Campsite Data in the GIS Atlas 

(FY07--FY12) 73,769 60,500 39,465 41,640 

FY11 Analyze campsite atlas data 

as part of integrated image analysis 

project; Update & maintain campsite 

atlas on website; FY12 Same as 

FY11 + Update & maintain campsite 

atlas on website; Campsite PEP 

review

REC 9.R4.11 N CRD Evaluate Recreation Values and Visitor Experience 

Quality in the Glen Canyon Reach - - 25,000 25,000 

New Project: FY11 & FY12 

Evaluate visitor use values and 

satisfaction in the Lees Ferry Reach 

(HFE Experimental funds); Assumes 

matching funds / shared costs with 

AZGFD

SUB-TOTAL GOAL 9 153,453 138,582 139,169 107,504

Page 5 of 12

R:\User Files\Shared\bmckenzie\GCDAMP DRAFT FY11 & FY12 Biennial Budget 06-11-10 SUMMARY for TWG.xlsx
DRAFT FY2011/12 GCDAMP BUDGET for the USBR and the USGS GCMRC APPENDIX E Revised 6/11/2010

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

A B C D E F G H I

 GCMRC 

Project ID 

 STATUS 

 Funding Emphasis 

Project Descriptions

 FY10 GROSS 

Actual Budget 

(incl FY09 

Carryover & 

<1.3%> CPI) 

 FY11 

Previously 

Submitted 

Budget (incl 3% 

CPI) 

 FY11 REVISED 

Gross Proposed 

Budget (incl 2.5% 

CPI) 

 FY12 Gross 

Proposed Budget 

(incl 3% CPI) 

Comments

GOAL 10 - HYDROPOWER

HYD 10.M1.10 O CRD Monitor Power Generation and Market Values under 

Current and Future Dam Operations (Ongoing) 45,281 10,890 - - 

HYD 10.R2.11 O CRD

Evaluate the Suitability of the GTMax Model for 

Modeling Economic Implications of Power Generation 

under Current and Future Dam Operations and Conduct 

Initial Analyses

 - - 30,758 20,149 

 NEW FY11 Eval GTMax model as 

tool to assess econom costs to 

hydropower in context of western 

electrical grid. Rpt, Serve data, 

Annual rpt; FY12: Use model to 

assess econom costs to hydropower 

from alternative flow regimes; Rpt. 

Serve data; Annual rpt 

SUB-TOTAL GOAL 10 45,281 10,890 30,758 20,149

GOAL 11 - CULTURAL

CUL 11.R1.11 O CRD Cultural Research & Development towards Core 

Monitoring, Phase II (FY06--FY12) 415,582 361,989 354,766 366,361 

Implement pilot monitoring with 

reduced scope (fewer sites, etc), 

which may extend length of project

CUL 11.R2.11 O CRD Implement Tribal Monitoring Projects 

(See funding in BOR section above) - - - - 

SUB-TOTAL GOAL 11 415,582 361,989 354,766 366,361

GOAL 12 - HIGH QUALITY MONITORING, RESEARCH & ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

DASA 12.D1.11 O CRD Quadrennial Remote Sensing Overflight (Ongoing) 200,000 - 116,501 83,499 

FY11 Contribute $116k to overflight 

fund; FY12 Contribute $84k to 

overflight fund

DASA 12.D2.11 O APM Grand Canyon Integrated Oracle Database 

Management System (Ongoing) 179,141 166,858 128,168 134,560 

Update & maintain Oracle database, 

develop custom data management 

applications, provide data modeling, 

data mining, and architecture 

support

DASA 12.D3.11 O APM Library Operations / Scanning Support (Ongoing) 78,924 78,709 38,680 40,614 

Maintain GCMRC library reduced to 

1⁄2 time position; Defer online library 

system

DASA 12.D5.11 O APM GIS Support for Integrated Analyses and Projects, GIS 

Lead (Ongoing) 280,196 366,171 318,759 334,675 

 Provide spatial database and 

analysis support to GCMRC 

projects; continue supporting all 

mapping functions, and expand on 

spatial web applications 

DASA 12.D8.10 C ORD Biometrics & General Analysis Staff Position (FY10) 

(Moved to Biology FY11) 107,036 165,840 - - Moved project to BIO 2.R19.11 

DASA 12.D9.11 O APM Integrated Image Analysis and Change Detection 

(Ongoing) 228,074 245,482 246,243 258,556 

FY11 Integrated Image Analysis & 

Change Detection Coordinate 

analysis of 2009 imagery; Map & 

analyze sandbars, campsites, 

backwaters & vegetation; FY12 Final 

reporting of 2009 imagery; Plan for 

2013 overflight

Sub-total Goal 12 DASA Portion 1,073,371 1,023,060 848,351 851,904

Page 6 of 12

R:\User Files\Shared\bmckenzie\GCDAMP DRAFT FY11 & FY12 Biennial Budget 06-11-10 SUMMARY for TWG.xlsx
DRAFT FY2011/12 GCDAMP BUDGET for the USBR and the USGS GCMRC APPENDIX E Revised 6/11/2010

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

A B C D E F G H I

 GCMRC 

Project ID 

 STATUS 

 Funding Emphasis 

Project Descriptions

 FY10 GROSS 

Actual Budget 

(incl FY09 

Carryover & 

<1.3%> CPI) 

 FY11 

Previously 

Submitted 

Budget (incl 3% 

CPI) 

 FY11 REVISED 

Gross Proposed 

Budget (incl 2.5% 

CPI) 

 FY12 Gross 

Proposed Budget 

(incl 3% CPI) 

Comments

PLAN 12.P1.11 O CRD Support and Enhancement of Ecosystem Modeling 

Efforts (FY08--FY12) 215,895 148,945 122,573 115,997 

Working with senior ecologist, 

continue to update & refine 

ecosystem models, focusing on 

aquatic resources; Defer model 

expansion, publication of results, & 

MATA workshop

PLAN 12.P3.10 C LTE Low Steady Summer Flows Data and Research 

Compilation, Synopsis and Synthesis (FY08--FY10) 15,470 - - - 

PLAN 12.E4.11 N APM Update of Knowledge Assessment & SCORE Report 

(FY11--FY12) - 175,000 175,000 100,138 

 FY11 Complete KA & initiate 

S.C.O.R.E. report; FY12 Finalize 

S.C.O.R.E. report 

PLAN 12.P6.11 N PP NEW HFE Implementation - Evaluation of Effects of the 

High Flow Experiment Protocol - - - - 

Evaluate HFE protocol 

implementation using existing and 

expanded monitoring projects. Open 

file report prepared after each HFE

Sub-total Goal 12 Planning Portion 231,365 323,945 297,573 216,135

SUP 12.S1.11 O APM Logistics Base Costs (See each project for project 

related logistics costs) (Ongoing) 206,748 223,626 208,996 219,505 Provide base logistics support to field operations

SUP 12.S2.11 O APM Survey Operations (Ongoing) 86,770 90,122 51,885 51,885 Provide survey support to GCMRC 

projects (through contract)

SUP 12.S3.11 O APM Control Network (Ongoing) 177,449 185,704 195,560 203,422 Maintain & expand network as 

needed

Sub-total Goal 12 Support Portion 470,967 499,452 456,441 474,812

ADM 12.A1.11 (A) O APM Administrative Operations (Ongoing) 218,972 167,995 266,298 277,891 Continue to provide administrative 

support 

ADM 12.A1.11 (B) O APM Administrative Operations - GSA Vehicle Costs 

(Ongoing) 62,466 66,550 66,550 69,878 GSA vehicle fleet

ADM 12.A1.11 (C) O APM Administrative Operations - Interior Vehicle Costs 

(Ongoing) 31,530 33,880 33,880 35,574 Interior vehicle fleet

ADM 12.A2.11 O APM Program Planning & Management (Ongoing) 1,176,794 1,238,435 1,207,228 1,240,745 Continue to provide planning & 

management support

ADM 12.A3.11 O APM AMWG/TWG Meeting Travel Funds (Ongoing) 19,156 19,965 20,455 21,478 Continue to provide funding to 

attend AMWG & TWG meetings 

ADM 12.A4.11 (A) O APM Independent Reviews (Ongoing) 1,785 73,205 58,900 36,300 

 FY11 Peer review all publications; 

Integrated Water Quality and Food 

Base PEP; FY12 Peer review all 

publications; Campsite & Sediment 

PEPs 

ADM 12.A4.11 (B) O APM Coordination and Review of Services Provided by 

Science Advisors (Ongoing) 214,168 223,850 173,850 179,900 

 FY11 Reduce SA support by 25%; 

FY12 Continue SA support at reduce 

level 

ADM 12.A5.11 O APM GCMRC Component of SBSC Sys Admin Support (IT 

Support) (Ongoing) 259,906 225,181 214,610 221,954 Maintain IT support for GCMRC 

ADM 12.A6.11 O APM 2012 Colorado River Basin Science and Management 

Symposium (Biennial--Ongoing) - - - - 

 Symposium in Fall, 2012; No 

GCMRC / AMP funding identified; 

will seek outside funds from 

cooperators 

Sub-total Goal 12 Administrative/Management 

Portion

 1,984,777 2,049,061 2,041,771 2,083,720

SUB-TOTAL GOAL 12 3,760,480 3,895,518 3,644,136 3,626,571

GCMRC Power Revenues Under Cap Projects Sub-totals 8,594,326 8,547,282 8,440,395 8,705,053 

Page 7 of 12

R:\User Files\Shared\bmckenzie\GCDAMP DRAFT FY11 & FY12 Biennial Budget 06-11-10 SUMMARY for TWG.xlsx
DRAFT FY2011/12 GCDAMP BUDGET for the USBR and the USGS GCMRC APPENDIX E Revised 6/11/2010

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

A B C D E F G H I

 GCMRC 

Project ID 

 STATUS 

 Funding Emphasis 

Project Descriptions

 FY10 GROSS 

Actual Budget 

(incl FY09 

Carryover & 

<1.3%> CPI) 

 FY11 

Previously 

Submitted 

Budget (incl 3% 

CPI) 

 FY11 REVISED 

Gross Proposed 

Budget (incl 2.5% 

CPI) 

 FY12 Gross 

Proposed Budget 

(incl 3% CPI) 

Comments

GCMRC Other Agreement Funding FY2011

BIO 7.R1.11 O CRD Water Quality Monitoring of Lake Powell and the Glen 

Canyon Dam Tailwaters (Ongoing) 270,766 286,342 182,002 188,063 

 FY11: Continue monitoring; PEP 

review; Increase emphasis on 

analysis and modeling; FY12 

Continue monitoring; Prepare core 

monitoring plan; Implementation of 

core monitoring plan subject to 

approval Increase emphasis on 

analysis and modeling 

BIO 2.R15.11 O CRD Near Shore Ecology / Fall Steady Flows (FY08--

FY12) 718,826 556,911 697,039 423,475 

BOCM FY11 Implement project per 

work plan; Increase logistics funding; 

FY12 Implement project per work 

plan; Field work ends in October, 

2011; (FY12) Increase logistics 

funding for October river trip; 

prepare final report

SUP 12.S4.11 O CRD Tribal River Trips (Ongoing) 94,324 - - - Provide as needed 

ADM 12.A6.10 C CRD Science Symposium Proceedings (FY09--FY10) 60,555 - - - 

Exp 1 C EXP Experimental Study 1.A - Sand Budgeting 2,374 - - - 

Exp 1 C EXP Experimental Study - 1.C Response of Sandbars 6,530 - - - 

Exp 1 C EXP Experimental Study - 1.D Backwater Habitats 44,661 - - - 

Exp 3 C EXP Experimental Study - 3 Aquatic Food Base 5,936 - - - 

Exp 7 C EXP Experimental Study - 7 - Synthesis of Knowledge 299,192 - - - 

Complete HFE synthesis by 

01/01/11

 1,503,164 843,253 879,041 611,538 

 10,097,490 9,390,535 9,319,436 9,316,591

 GCMRC TOTAL AMP PLANNED PROGRAM COSTS 10,097,490 9,390,535 9,319,436 9,316,591

 GCMRC TOTAL AMP PLANNED PROGRAM COSTS

 GCMRC ALL Other Agreement Funding Projects 

Page 8 of 12

R:\User Files\Shared\bmckenzie\GCDAMP DRAFT FY11 & FY12 Biennial Budget 06-11-10 SUMMARY for TWG.xlsx
DRAFT FY2011/12 GCDAMP BUDGET for the USBR and the USGS GCMRC APPENDIX E Revised 6/11/2010

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

A B C D E F G H I

 FY10 Gross 

Approved 

Funding from 

Experimental 

Fund 

 FY10 Gross 

Actual Funding 

from BOR 

Experimental 

Fund 

 FY11 REVISED 

Gross Proposed 

Budget (incl 2.5% 

CPI) 

 FY12 Gross 

Proposed Budget 

(incl 3% CPI) 

Comments

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

BIO 2.E18.11 N EXP

Detection of Rainbow Trout Movement from the Upper 

Reaches of the Colorado River below Glen Canyon 

Dam

 - - 198,631 311,610 FY11 Total project = $437,201; 

FY12 Total project = $459,061

BIO 1.M1.11 N EXP HFE Science Plan Implementation Aquatic Food Base - - 100,000 100,000 $100k per year Goal 1 FY11 & FY12

BIO 4.M2.11 N EXP HFE Science Plan Implementation Monitoring Lees 

Ferry Trout - - 22,709 22,709 $22,709 per year Goal 1 FY11 & FY12

PHY 8.M2.11 N EXP HFE Science Plan Implementation Sediment Storage - - 300,000 250,000 $250k per year Goal 8 FY11 & FY12

PHY 8.M2.11 N EXP HFE Science Plan Implementation Sediment Storage - - - 50,000

$50k per year Goal 8 FY11 & FY12 

(will remain in experimental fund if 

HFE is not conducted)

REC 9.R4.11 N CRD Evaluate Recreation Values and Visitor Experience 

Quality in the Glen Canyon Reach - - 25,000 25,000

New Project: FY11 & FY12 

Evaluate visitor use values and 

satisfaction in the Lees Ferry Reach 

(HFE Experimental funds); Assumes 

matching funds / shared costs with 

AZGFD

EXP 7 C EXP HFE Synthesis of Knowledge (Study 7) 108,674 66,326 - -

 108,674 66,326 646,340 759,319

 391,326 427,174 286,672 48,365

BOR Experimental Fund Expenditures Summary

BOR Experimental Fund Summary

Projected BOR Experimental Fund Balance at End of Fiscal Years

Contributions

Page 9 of 12

R:\User Files\Shared\bmckenzie\GCDAMP DRAFT FY11 & FY12 Biennial Budget 06-11-10 SUMMARY for TWG.xlsx
DRAFT FY2011/12 GCDAMP BUDGET for the USBR and the USGS GCMRC APPENDIX E Revised 6/11/2010

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

205

206

207

A B C D E F G H I

 Deferred / 

Unfunded GROSS 

FY11 Budget 

 Deferred / 

Unfunded 

GROSS FY12 

Budget 

BIO 1.M1.11 D COR Aquatic Food Base Monitoring 84,200 84,200 

BIO 2.M4.11 D COR Increased Monitoring of Mainstem Fishes 518,427 239,300 

BIO 6.M2.11 D COR Bird Monitoring / Alternating Years with Vegetation 

Transect Monitoring - 53,000 

DASA 12.D1.11 D COR Hyperspectral Overflight for Vegetation Mapping - 

Specific Remote Sensing Overflight 95,200 95,200 

 697,827 471,700

BIO 2.tbd D EXP NEW NSE / FSF Thermal Imaging 86,200 86,200 

BIO 4.E2.11 D EXP Monitoring Lees Ferry Fishes for Annual Recruitment 79,568 79,568 

 165,768 165,768

BIO 2.R7.11 D CRD Stock Assessment of Grand Canyon Native Fish 48,700 49,000 

BIO 2.R13.11 D CRD Remote PIT Tag Reading 84,500 84,500 

BIO 2.R17.11 D CRD Nonnative Control Plan Science Support 76,900 76,900 

BIO 6.R4.11 D CRD Arthropod Monitoring R & D - 95,400 

PHY 7.R2.11 D CRD Further Develop Integrated Flow, Temperature & 

Sediment Model 145,200 145,200 

REC 9.R5.11 D CRD Evaluate Relation between Flows and Recreation 

Experience 225,000 225,000 

REC 9.R6.11 D CRD 1973 Weeden Survey Revisited 75,000 75,000 

REC 9.R7.11 D CRD Update Regional Recreation Economic Study 250,000 250,000 

HYD 10. tbd D CRD NEW Phase I - Results of Economic Value Workshop 117,300 117,300 

CUL 11.R1.11 D CRD Cultural Research & Development towards Core 

Monitoring, Phase II 45,000 45,000 

CUL 11.R3.11 D CRD Geomorphic Model of Archaeological Site Vulnerability 266,100 266,100 

PLAN 12.P1.11 D CRD Expanded Ecosystem Modeling (Walters, et al) 109,800 109,800 

DASA 12.D9.11 D ORD 1984 Sandbar Image Analysis 89,600 89,600 

 1,533,100 1,628,800

PLAN 12.P1.11 D PP Support and Enhancement of Ecosystem Modeling 

Efforts MATA Workshop 33,200 33,200 

PLAN 12.P5.11 D PP NEW Desired Future Conditions Facilitation & Decision 

Support (FY11--FY12) 60,500 60,500 

 93,700 93,700

SUP 12.S2.11 D APM NEW Assessment of Vertical Accuracy & Precision for 

High-resolution Topographic Surfaces (Survey Ops) 31,276 31,276 

DASA 12.D0.11 D APM Quadrennial Remote Sensing Overflight 83,500 116,500 

DASA 12.D3.11 D APM Library Operations Support 42,000 42,000 

DASA 12.D3.11 D APM Implement New GCMRC Library System 24,200 24,700 

ADM 12.A5.11 D APM NEW Expanded Website Development (Component of 

SBSC Sys Admin Support) 72,900 72,900 

ADM 12.A4.11 (A) D APM Independent Reviews 12,705 - 

ADM 12.A4.11 (B) D APM Coordination and Review of Services Provided by 

Science Advisors (Ongoing) 50,000 50,000 

ADM 12.A tbd D APM NEW Tribal Consultation Staff Support 119,600 119,600 

 436,181 456,976

 2,926,576 2,816,944 

Sub-total Deferred Program Planning

Sub-total Deferred Research & Development

Sub-total Deferred Experimental Research

DEFERRED / Unfunded Projects 

Sub-total Deferred Monitoring

Sub-total Deferred Administrative

Total GCMRC Deferred Projects

Page 10 of 12

R:\User Files\Shared\bmckenzie\GCDAMP DRAFT FY11 & FY12 Biennial Budget 06-11-10 SUMMARY for TWG.xlsx
DRAFT FY2011/12 GCDAMP BUDGET for the USBR and the USGS GCMRC APPENDIX E Revised 6/11/2010

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

215

216

217

218

219

220

221

222

223

224

225

226

227

228

229

230

231

232

A B C D E F G H I

PROGRAM FISCAL 

YEAR 2010 

 FISCAL YEAR 

2011 

 FISCAL YEAR 

2012 

COSTS 1,888,999 1,935,630 2,302,699 

 9,013,574 8,440,395 8,705,053

 10,902,573 10,376,025 11,007,752 

PROGRAM FISCAL 

YEAR 2010 

 FISCAL YEAR 

2011 

 FISCAL YEAR 

2012 

FUNDING 1,888,999 1,935,630 2,302,699 

 8,283,092 8,440,395 8,705,053

 730,482 - -

 10,902,572 10,376,025 11,007,753 

 (0) 0 0 

PROGRAM FISCAL 

YEAR 2010 

 FISCAL YEAR 

2011 

 FISCAL YEAR 

2012 

COSTS 475,000 475,000 475,000 

 1,083,916 879,041 611,538 

 1,558,916 1,354,041 1,086,538 

PROGRAM FISCAL 

YEAR 2010 

 FISCAL YEAR 

2011 

 FISCAL YEAR 

2012 

FUNDING 475,000 475,000 475,000 

 480,949 879,041 611,538 

 602,967 - - 

 1,558,916 1,354,041 1,086,538 

 - - - 

Subtotal BOR & GCMRC Power Revenue Under Cap Program 

COSTS

 BOR Power Revenues Under Cap Program COSTS 

GCMRC Power Revenues Under Cap Program COSTS

BOR Power Revenues Under Cap Program COSTS 

Difference between Projected COSTS and REVENUE for 

FY2010-2012 POWER REVENUES UNDER CAP

 BOR Power REVENUES Under Cap Program Funding 

BOR Power REVENUES Under Cap Program 

GCMRC Power REVENUES Under Cap Program 

GCMRC Appropriated and Other Program FUNDING

GCMRC FY2009 Carryover to FY2010 Appropriated and Other 

Program FUNDING

Subtotal - BOR & GCMRC Power REVENUE (Non-Capped) 

and Other Funded Program FUNDING

Subtotal BOR & GCMRC Power Revenue (Non-Capped) and 

Other Funded Program COSTS

BOR Appropriated and Other Program Funding

BOR Appropriated and Other Program FUNDING

GCMRC Appropriated and Other Program COSTS

Subtotal BOR & GCMRC Power REVENUES Under Cap 

Program

BOR Appropriated and Other Program COSTS

Subtotal - Difference between FY2010-2012 Estimated 

Costs and Estimated Revenues Under Cap

BOR Appropriated and Other Program COSTS

GCMRC FY2009 Carryover to FY2010 Power REVENUES 

Under Cap

Page 11 of 12

R:\User Files\Shared\bmckenzie\GCDAMP DRAFT FY11 & FY12 Biennial Budget 06-11-10 SUMMARY for TWG.xlsx
DRAFT FY2011/12 GCDAMP BUDGET for the USBR and the USGS GCMRC APPENDIX E Revised 6/11/2010

233

234

235

236

237

238

239

240

241

242

243

244

245

246

247

248

249

250

251

252

253

254

255

256

257

258

259

A B C D E F G H I

Explanation of information found in columns A and H, & Q of the Preliminary Draft Budget for the GCMRC GCDAMP FY2011-12

Column

4-5 GCDAMP Goal Number

6-7 Project Number within GCMRC Biennial Work Plan

7-8 Fiscal Year of Proposed Budget / Biennial Work Plan

Column

Status

Column

Column

 Project Description Project Title (Start Date -- End Date)

Column

 FY10 Revised Budget 

Column

 FY11 Previous Budget 

Column

 FY11 Revised Budget 

Column

 FY12 Revised Budget 

Column

 Comments 

1-3 BIO: Biology PHY: Physical Science REC: Recreation HYD: Hydropower CUL: Cultural DASA: Data Acquisition, Storage and 

Analysis SUP: Support PLA: Planning ADM: Administration 

 GCMRC Project ID 

Program Areas 

 B O: Ongoing N: New C: Complete D: Deferred

A

C

 APM Admin & Program Mgmt COR Core Monitoring CRD Core Monitoring Research & Development EXP Experimental Research LTE 

Category Anticipates completion of the Core Monitoring plan according to the process defined in the MRP (including AMP Committed review and approval 

by the Secretary)

 Comments; BOCM represents Biological Opinion Core Monitoring items 

D

E FY 2010 GDAMP Budget Approved 08/13/2009, Revised including <1.3%> CPI + FY2009 Carryover

F FY 2011 GCAMP Previously Submitted Budget, Preliminarily Approved 08/13/2009

G FY 2011 GDAMP Proposed (Revised) Draft Budget

H FY 2012 GDAMP Proposed Draft Budget 

Page 12 of 12

R:\User Files\Shared\bmckenzie\GCDAMP DRAFT FY11 & FY12 Biennial Budget 06-11-10 SUMMARY for TWG.xlsx