U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Monitoring and 

Research Plan to 

Support Glen Canyon 

Dam Adaptive 

Management Program, 

Fiscal Years 2007–11

Prepared by the

Grand Canyon 

Monitoring and 

Research Center 

Developed in cooperation 

with the Glen Canyon Dam 

Adaptive Management 

Program

Draft

September 13, 2006

Monitoring and Research Plan to Support 

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management 

Program, Fiscal Years 2007–11

Prepared by the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

Developed in cooperation with the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management 

Program

September 13, 2006

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Draft

iii

Contents

Chapter 1. Introduction, Purpose, and Organization ................................................................................1

Introduction............................................................................................................................................1

Science Planning Process .........................................................................................................1

Purpose...................................................................................................................................................3

Organization ...........................................................................................................................................3

Core Monitoring Activities .........................................................................................................3

Research and Development Activities .....................................................................................4

Long-term Experimental Activities ............................................................................................5

Integrated and Interdisciplinary Science .........................................................................................6

Staffing and Organization Capacity ..........................................................................................6

Conceptual Ecosystem Model Enhancement .........................................................................6

Sediment Dynamics .....................................................................................................................7

Temperature Control Device Evaluation and Planning ..........................................................7

Critical Research and Monitoring Needs Outside of the GCDAMP .............................................8

Little Colorado River Threats .....................................................................................................8

Lake Powell Water Quality .........................................................................................................9

Effects of Climate Change and Drought ...................................................................................9

Chapter 2. Proposed FY07–FY11 Monitoring and Research Plan Activities .......................................11

GCDAMP Goal 1 ..................................................................................................................................19

GCDAMP Goal 2 ..................................................................................................................................21

GCDAMP Goal 3 ..................................................................................................................................25

GCDAMP Goal 4 ..................................................................................................................................26

GCDAMP Goal 5 ..................................................................................................................................27

GCDAMP Goal 6 ..................................................................................................................................29

GCDAMP Goal 7 ..................................................................................................................................31

GCDAMP Goal 8 ..................................................................................................................................35

GCDAMP Goal 9 ..................................................................................................................................40

GCDAMP Goal 10 ................................................................................................................................45

GCDAMP Goal 11 ................................................................................................................................47

GCDAMP Goal 12 ................................................................................................................................52

Chapter 3. Funding for Proposed FY07–FY11 Monitoring and Research Plan ...................................57

References Cited..........................................................................................................................................58

Appendix A. AMWG Priorities and Associated Strategic Science Questions .................................59

Figures

 1.1 Collaborative science planning and implementation process ............................................2

1.2 Recent mainstem warming pattern above the mouth of the Little Colorado River ..........7

 2.1 Flow chart showing the proposed experimental strategy for evaluating a flow only 

operational strategy ................................................................................................................38
iv

Tables

 2.1 Summary of proposed science activities for FY07–FY11 ...................................................12

 2.2 Overview of core monitoring information needs related to GCDAMP Goal 8 ................36

 3.1 Total anticipated funding to support GCMRC Monitoring and Research Plan in fiscal 

years 2007 through 2011 ..........................................................................................................57
Introduction

The Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program 

(GCDAMP) was established in 1996 by the Secretary of the 

Interior to implement the Grand Canyon Protection Act of 

1992, the 1995 Operation of Glen Canyon Dam Final Environmental Impact Statement, and the 1996 Record of Decision. 

Adaptive management in Grand Canyon was envisioned as a 

new paradigm for addressing the complex environmental problems related to the operation of Glen Canyon Dam through the 

dynamic interplay of ecosystem science, collaboration, and 

management. As a result, GCDAMP consists of five major 

components, including the Adaptive Management Work Group 

(AMWG), the Secretary of the Interior’s Designee, the Technical Work Group (TWG), the U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) 

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC), 

and independent review panels (IRPs). Each entity has a specific role: 

The Adaptive Management Work Group is a Federal 

Advisory Committee composed of 24 stakeholders that 

was established to oversee/guide the implementation of 

the GCDAMP. It reviews and develops alternative dam 

operations and related conservation measures and provides recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior. 

The Secretary of the Interior’s Designee serves as the 

chair of the AMWG and provides a direct link between 

the AMWG and the Secretary of the Interior.

The Technical Work Group translates AMWG policy 

and goals into information needs, provides questions that 

serve as the basis for long-term monitoring and research 

activities, and conveys research results to AMWG members.

The Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

provides credible, objective scientific information on the 

effects of the operation of Glen Canyon Dam and related 

factors on natural, cultural, and recreational resources 

along the Colorado River from Glen Canyon Dam to Lake 

Mead. 

The independent review panels provide independent 

assessments of program proposals and accomplishments 

to ensure scientific objectivity and credibility. For example, a formal group of Science Advisors (SAs) consisting 

of academic experts in fields germane to studies within 

the scope of the GCDAMP serves as an IRP.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Science Planning Process

The GCDAMP has adopted a science planning process to 

develop a credible, objective science program that is responsive to the goals and priority needs identified by the AMWG. 

Since 1996, the AMWG has used a structured process for 

specifying their information needs. Through a series of 

workshops, extensive energy has been expended to develop 

a hierarchy of goals, objectives, core monitoring information 

needs (CMINs), and research information needs (RINs). The 

AMWG also specified 12 goals (hereafter GCDAMP goals, see 

chapter 2) that provide general guidance for planning, monitoring, and research efforts. However, the list of objectives grew 

to more than 40 and the various information needs to more than 

160, complicating science planning and priority setting.

Given this complexity, the AMWG identified the need for 

a different approach in 2004 and identified 5 priority questions 

related to the 12 GCDAMP goals that were to be used to focus 

science activities. In 2005, to further focus science planning efforts, 

the GCMRC initiated a Knowledge Assessment Workshop (KAW) 

that identified areas of scientific uncertainty and specified strategic science questions related to the five priority questions. 

For these reasons, the 12 GCDAMP goals are used to 

organize the science activities articulated in the Monitoring 

and Research Plan to Support Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Years 2007–11 (hereafter Monitoring and Research Plan or MRP). Monitoring and 

research activities are focused on AMWG priority questions 

and the strategic science questions that grew out of the KAW 

(Appendix A). In some cases, CMINs and RINs are referenced to clarify the intent of both AMWG priority questions 

and strategic science questions.

The Monitoring and Research Plan has been developed by 

GCMRC in cooperation with the GCDAMP Science Planning 

Group (SPG) to specify monitoring and research programs 

consistent with the strategies and priorities in the both the Final 

Draft GCDAMP Strategic Plan (AMPSP) and the GCMRC 

Strategic Science Plan (SSP). The AMPSP is a long-term 

plan drafted by GCDAMP participants in cooperation with the 

GCMRC in August 2001 and refined in 2003, which identifies 

the Adaptive Management Work Group’s vision and mission, 

principles, goals, management objectives, information needs, 

and management actions. The SSP was developed by the 

GCMRC in cooperation with GCDAMP participants to identify 

strategies for providing science information that are responsive 

to goals, management objectives, and priority questions of 

GCDAMP participants, and consistent with the AMPSP. 

CHAPTER 1. Introduction, Purpose, and Organization
2 Monitoring and Research Plan to Support Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Years 2007–11

Specific projects to implement the MRP will be described 

in the GCMRC Biennial Work Plan (BWP), which will 

identify the scope, objectives, and budget for monitoring and 

research projects consistent with the MRP during a 2-year 

period. In the meantime, a transitional Annual Work Plan 

(AWP) was developed for fiscal year 2007 (FY07) while 

consideration is given to the development of the Long-term 

Experimental Plan (LTEP), a funding plan for a temperature 

control device (TCD), and development of a recovery program 

for humpback chub (HBC) in Grand Canyon. The projects 

identified in the transitional FY07 AMP are summarized in the 

Monitoring and Research Plan. 

To maintain continuity, the transitional FY07 AWP will 

provide the foundation for the development of the FY08–FY09 

BWP. This foundation will be augmented by new information 

that is anticipated in FY07, which among other things includes 

(1) the completion of a Long-term Experimental Plan, (2) the 

implementation of a process for evaluating and selecting core 

monitoring projects, and (3) the development of a process for 

implementing ecosystem science approaches. 

Figure 1.1 depicts the flow of information in the science planning and implementation process. Annually, the 

GCMRC will report on accomplishments related to projects 

included in the BWP and evaluate how science has advanced 

knowledge relative to GCDAMP goals and management 

objectives. At 5-year intervals, the GCMRC shall formally 

synthesize new scientific information and knowledge in the 

form of an updated State of the Colorado River Ecosystem 

in Grand Canyon (SCORE) report (Gloss and others, 2005), 

Knowledge Assessment Report (KAR) (Melis and others, 

2006), and other reports, as appropriate. Priority information 

needs and science questions will be evaluated by scientists and 

managers to determine what program revisions are needed. This 

includes the development of revised SSP and MRP documents. 

The MRP also incorporates information from appropriate 

agency and GCDAMP plans such as the National Park Service 

(NPS) Colorado River Management Plan (CRMP) and the 

Humpback Chub Comprehensive Plan. GCMRC will attempt 

to provide science information that is consistent with and supports these plans as appropriate and practical.

GCMRC science planning is designed to be done in 

conjunction with parallel planning efforts by the GCDAMP to 

specify or update priority goals/questions, information needs, 

and management actions and treatments. Concurrent planning will help ensure the science program is properly aligned 

with current management objectives and priorities. A priority need exists for the GCDAMP and the Department of the 

Interior (DOI) to define specific desired future conditions for 

priority GCDAMP resources such as humpback chub (HBC), 

sandbars, and camping beaches. This information will allow 

the GCMRC to design more targeted monitoring and research 

projects that are responsive to management goals.

Figure 1.1. Collaborative science planning and implementation process. The Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program and 

the Department of the Interior have lead responsibility for the shaded boxes. The Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center has 

lead responsibility for the boxes that are not shaded.

 SSP 

 MRP 

 AWP 

Annual

Work 

Activities

Annual/Final

Reports

Annual

Review

5-year Analysis 

x SCORE Report 

x KA Report 

 AMPSP 

5-Year

Analysis and 

Report

Annual

Analysis & 

Report

Annual

Analysis & 

Report

Other Plans: 

x HBC Comp Plan 

x NPS CRMP 

x Colorado River AOP 

x Etc.
 3

Purpose

The purpose of the Monitoring and Research Plan is to 

describe the scope and objectives of a 5-year monitoring and 

research program to address priority goals, questions, and 

information needs specified by the GCDAMP. The plan will 

identify specific priority science needs for FY07; more general 

needs will be defined for FY08–FY11. 

The MRP is designed to be consistent with and implement 

the GCMRC SSP, which emphasizes four key components:

Incorporating interdisciplinary, integrated river science 

Building bridges between science and management

Addressing priority AMWG goals/questions and associated strategic science questions as articulated in the 

Knowledge Assessment Report (Appendix A)

Addressing critical monitoring and research needs 

outside the scope of the GCDAMP

Organization

Chapter 2 of the MRP describes the monitoring and 

research activities for FY07–FY11 related to the 12 goals 

included in the GCDAMP Strategic Plan. Within each 

GCDAMP goal, monitoring and research activities are generally organized into one of three categories:

Core Monitoring Activities: Scientifically validated 

protocols or methods to assess the condition and trend of 

priority GCDAMP resources (HBC, sediment, food base, 

etc.)

Research and Development Activities: Research 

projects aimed at (a) addressing specific hypotheses or 

information needs related to a priority GCDAMP resource 

or (b) developing/testing new technologies or monitoring 

procedures

Long-term Experimental Activities: A suite of flow and 

non-flow treatments and management actions designed to 

improve the condition of target resources (HBC, cultural 

sites, sediment, etc.) and, through monitoring and research, 

allow for an understanding of the relationship between 

treatments/management actions and target resources

In addition to organizing chapter 2 around the 12 

GCDAMP goals, the 5 priority questions identified by the 

AMWG and the related strategic science questions (Appendix A) were used to identify and prioritize monitoring and 

research activities. As a result, the MRP is focused on AMWG 

priority questions and related strategic science questions. 

Other GCDAMP goals and information needs will still be 

•

•

•

•

1.

2.

3.

pursued, but with less intensity, until priority issues of concern 

are resolved and monies can be reprogrammed or obtained 

through alternate sources. 

All monitoring and research activities described in 

chapter 2 will be designed and carried out in an integrated and 

interdisciplinary fashion as discussed later in the introduction. 

Core Monitoring Activities

Core Monitoring: Consistent, long-term, repeated 

measurements using scientifically accepted protocols to measure status and trends of key resources to 

answer specific questions. Core monitoring is implemented on a fixed schedule regardless of budget or 

other circumstances (e.g., water year, experimental 

flows, temperature control, stocking strategy, nonnative control, etc.) affecting target resources (Draft 

GCDAMP Strategic Plan, 2001).

The need for a long-term core monitoring plan for the 

GCDAMP has been identified as a critical program need since 

the inception of the program in 1996. However, completion of 

a long-term core monitoring plan has remained an elusive goal 

for a variety of reasons. First, the process for the systematic 

development of monitoring programs generally involves the 

establishment of a protocol evaluation panel (PEP) for each 

key resource area, followed by several years of pilot testing of 

monitoring protocols, then a period of analysis, synthesis, and 

re-evaluation, culminating in the implementation of long-term 

monitoring protocols. This process was initiated in 1998 and 

is in progress for many elements of the program today (e.g., 

terrestrial ecosystems, archaeological and tribal resources, 

aquatic food base, recreation, and fisheries). Other factors 

have hindered rapid progress in the development of a core 

monitoring plan, including: 

Lack of agreement among GCDAMP stakeholders 

about scope, purposes, and objectives of core monitoring projects under the GCDAMP 

Lack of agreement among GCDAMP stakeholders 

and scientists about what defines core monitoring as 

opposed to other kinds of monitoring, such as monitoring effects of experimental actions or monitoring the 

effectiveness of management actions 

Lack of agreement about the required levels of precision and accuracy in monitoring data necessary to 

achieve program goals

A Provisional Core Monitoring Plan (PCMP) (Fairley and 

others, 2005) was drafted by the GCMRC in cooperation with 

a GCDAMP Core Monitoring Team. However, the plan only 

addressed a few highly developed monitoring efforts (so-called 

“green” projects) and was neither formally adopted by the 

TWG or the AMWG, nor was it finalized. Nevertheless, the 

PCMP represents the best guidance currently available for the 

development of core monitoring projects for FY07–FY11. 

•

•

•
4 Monitoring and Research Plan to Support Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Years 2007–11

The current monitoring projects associated with various 

GCDAMP resources will be subjected to an evaluation by the 

GCMRC in cooperation with the TWG. The evaluation of 

projects for core monitoring suitability is critical because the 

implementation of core monitoring activities has significant 

budget implications for the science program that could limit 

the flexibility of the GCMRC and the GCDAMP to respond 

to high-priority research needs. Accordingly, all monitoring 

projects considered for core monitoring status will undergo the 

following technical evaluation process for determining core 

monitoring status:

General Core Monitoring Proposal: In FY07, the 

GCMRC will draft a General Core Monitoring Proposal 

that identifies by resource area the general goals, objectives, scope, schedule, and funding level for each proposed core monitoring project. The proposal will be based 

on AMWG priorities, currently identified information 

needs, the feasibility of developing monitoring protocols 

to meet those needs, and other relevant information. The 

proposal will be provided to the TWG for review. 

Information Needs Workshop: Annually, the GCMRC 

will conduct a TWG workshop to refine and formulate 

recommendations concerning specific management goals, 

information needs, and the scope of all monitoring projects that will be evaluated for core monitoring status in a 

given fiscal year. The workshop will also identify specific 

questions that managers would like to have addressed in the 

follow-up protocol evaluation panel for each resource goal.

Protocol Evaluation Panel Review: For each resource 

goal, the GCMRC will convene a PEP to evaluate the 

results of the information needs workshop, review the 

results of past monitoring efforts and relevant research 

and development activities, and recommend future monitoring protocols and other technical specifications for the 

monitoring project. 

Core Monitoring Program Reports: Based on the 

results of the workshop and the PEP evaluation, the 

GCMRC will prepare a report to the TWG for each 

project being evaluated for core monitoring status. Core 

monitoring program reports will provide the TWG sufficient information to evaluate individual programs/projects 

for core monitoring status. The reports will include the 

following information:

AMWG goal(s) addressed

Project title

Principal investigator(s) 

Geographic scope 

Justification for monitoring effort

1.

2.

3.

4.

•

•

•

•

•

 Project goals, tasks, and schedule by task

Key science questions and managers’ information 

needs addressed

Linkage to other resources processes and models

Monitoring protocols, including sampling designs, 

level of data resolution, accuracy and precision assessment, etc.

Expected outcomes, including outputs by fiscal year, 

reports, guidelines, models, etc. 

Costs of project/program by fiscal year

Those projects approved by the TWG for core monitoring 

status will receive first consideration for funding each year and 

will not undergo the same annual competitive review as other 

projects. However, core monitoring projects will be reviewed 

during the development of the BWP to incorporate new information, findings, and monitoring techniques that may improve 

their effectiveness. A more comprehensive review of core monitoring projects will be conducted at 5-year intervals.

The initial focus of the evaluation process described 

above will be to evaluate for core monitoring status those 

“green” projects that have undergone a PEP evaluation, have 

been piloted and results peer reviewed, and that have been 

implemented for one to several years using methods deemed 

adequate for long-term monitoring. Projects in this category 

and their anticipated review schedule include: 

Downstream surface-water parameters (discharge, 

stage measurements) and specific water-quality parameters related to sediment (e.g., suspended-sediment 

transport measurements and modeling) (FY07)

Status of Lees Ferry rainbow trout (FY07)

Status of humpback chub in the Little Colorado River 

(to be reviewed through PEP with Colorado River 

population) (FY08)

In addition, several monitoring projects that have undergone an initial PEP review have subsequently undergone a 

period of research and development or pilot testing and are 

now ready for a second PEP review before being implemented 

as part of the long-term core monitoring plan. Other projects, 

such as food base and cultural resources, have only recently 

started their multiyear research and development phase. These 

projects will be brought forward for review over the course of 

the next 5 years with the goal of having a fully developed core 

monitoring program in place by FY11. The proposed schedule 

for undertaking core monitoring reviews of these projects is as 

follows:

Sand storage monitoring (FY07)

Terrestrial ecosystem monitoring (FY07)

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•
 5

Status of humpback chub in the mainstem of the 

Colorado River (to be reviewed through PEP with LCR 

population) (FY08)

Integrated quality of water project (Lake Powell and 

downstream parameters, including specific conductivity, dissolved oxygen, and temperature) (FY09)

Kanab ambersnail habitat and population monitoring 

(FY09)

Camping beaches monitoring (FY09)

Cultural site monitoring (archeological, traditional 

cultural properties) (FY10)

Aquatic food base (FY10–FY11)

Monitoring of traditional cultural properties (TCPs) and 

tribal values in the CRE is a component of the GCDAMP; 

however, the GCMRC faces a number of challenges in determining how to integrate tribal perspectives into core monitoring. This is in part because of differing perceptions about what 

constitutes appropriate indicators of ecosystem “health” and 

also because most of the tribes have been reluctant to formally 

identify their TCPs. Furthermore, in many cases a tribe’s 

resource interests are tied to specific, culturally important 

places in the river corridor, the locations of which are considered to be proprietary information. Without a clear articulation 

of the tribes’ needs for monitoring data, it is impossible for the 

GCMRC to develop monitoring projects to meet tribal needs. 

The tribes were funded by the GCDAMP in FY06 to 

define their monitoring projects and associated methods and 

metrics for evaluating the resources and places of specific 

tribal interest in the CRE. These projects are scheduled to 

be brought forward to the TWG for review and discussion in 

FY07. If the methods and rationales for these proposed monitoring projects are shared with the GCDAMP and subjected 

to peer review, then they may fit within the GCDAMP science 

program as currently defined. Otherwise, the information 

derived from the tribal monitoring effort may be more appropriately incorporated into the GCDAMP decision-making process via ongoing consultation between the tribes, GCDAMP 

stakeholders, and DOI agencies. The GCMRC will describe 

the tribal monitoring component of the 5-year science program 

with more specificity after the tribal monitoring needs are 

defined and brought forward for TWG review in FY07. 

Research and Development Activities

Research and development activities include projects 

aimed at (a) addressing specific hypotheses or information 

needs related to a priority GCDAMP resource(s) and (b) developing and testing new technologies or monitoring procedures. 

Examples of research and development projects included in 

the MRP are as follows:

•

•

•

•

•

•

Link whole-system carbon cycling to food webs in the 

Colorado River, which will provide the basis for the food 

base monitoring program

Investigate remote passive integrated transponder (PIT) 

tag reading technology

Investigate sonic tag technology

Advanced development of downstream flow, temperature, 

and suspended-sediment models 

Evaluate quality of historical remote-sensing imagery for 

change detection

Statistical evaluation of HBC habitat preferences

In the MRP, research and development projects will focus 

on addressing specific information needs and hypotheses 

related to the AMWG priority strategic science questions and 

the development and refinement of monitoring protocols. 

Long-term Experimental Activities

The Monitoring and Research Plan will be consistent 

with and implement the Long-term Experimental Plan, or 

LTEP, to be developed through the GCDAMP in FY07. The 

LTEP must also be endorsed by the Department of the Interior. It is assumed that the LTEP will reflect the concept of a 

“hybrid” experimental design embraced by the GCDAMP. The 

hybrid experimental design incorporates assessments of both 

management actions and experimental treatments. Management actions are those activities that provide a demonstrated 

resource response that no longer require further research. For 

example, control methods developed for coldwater fish in the 

2003–6 research program have been proven effective at reducing the abundance and distribution of rainbow trout within 

treatment reaches near the confluence of the Little Colorado 

River (LCR). As such, further GCMRC research on this activity is not included in the MRP. Future implementation of this 

action should be carried out primarily by the appropriate land 

and resource management agencies. 

A component of the LTEP will include research to test 

various hypotheses associated with different experimental 

flows from GCD, such as evaluating the effects of different 

ramping rates on downstream resources, evaluating alternative 

triggers for steady flows, or assessing the effects of short-duration flow spikes on aquatic productivity or drift. One area of 

emphasis will be further research on the use of beach/habitatbuilding flows (BHBF), or controlled floods, to build sandbars that support several GCDAMP goals such as providing 

camping beaches, fish habitat, and riparian habitat. BHBFs are 

triggered by predetermined target levels of natural deposits of 

sediment in the mainstem Colorado River below the Paria and 

Little Colorado Rivers. In the FY07–FY11 period, GCMRC 

anticipates two additional BHBF tests. Estimated costs for the 

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.
6 Monitoring and Research Plan to Support Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Years 2007–11

monitoring and research associated with the BHBF tests are $1 

to $1.5 million per test. 

In 2005, the GCDAMP recommended the establishment 

of an experimental fund to pay for experimental research projects so they can be conducted without financially impacting 

other ongoing aspects of the science program. The current balance of the experimental fund at the end of the FY06 is anticipated to be approximately $400,000. An additional $500,000 

will be set aside by the GCMRC annually in an account at the 

Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) to fund the BHBF tests 

and other research related to experimental efforts.1

 Deposits to 

the experimental account will cease when the balance reaches 

$2.5 million. 

Consistent with the available funds, the GCMRC will 

develop a LTEP work plan in consultation with the GCDAMP. 

Experimental research will be coordinated with ongoing monitoring and research projects to maximize cost effectiveness. 

NOTE: Several flow and non-flow experiments for FY07–

FY11 are currently being evaluated by the GCMRC and the 

GCDAMP. Once this evaluation is complete and a LTEP is finalized, the agreed upon experimental actions will be incorporated 

into the MRP. The LTEP will be implemented following approval 

by the Secretary of the Interior and completion of appropriate 

environmental compliance requirements (e.g., National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act). The GCMRC 

will provide scientific information to support the environmental 

compliance process, as requested. 

Integrated and Interdisciplinary 

Science

The GCMRC will provide increased emphasis on using 

an integrated, interdisciplinary science approach over the next 

5 years. An integrated and interdisciplinary approach is the 

only practical way to appropriately link the physical, biological, and sociocultural components of the CRE. In order to 

provide a framework for appropriately integrating scientific 

activities, the MRP is structured around overarching strategic 

science questions (Appendix A). The integrated, interdisciplinary science approach to be developed in FY07 will emphasize 

four areas, which are discussed in greater detail below. By 

focusing on integrated science questions that emphasize priorities, it should be possible to completely address key questions 

in no more than 5 years.

Staffing and Organizational Capacity

In FY06, the GCMRC staff was realigned to create a 

Deputy GCMRC Chief position that is responsible for managing and supervising day-to-day operations at the GCMRC and 

assuring that integrated/interdisciplinary methods and procedures are used in the science program. In addition, in FY08, 

the GCMRC proposes to recruit a part-time/visiting ecosystem 

scientist/ecologist to work with GCMRC staff and cooperators 

to pursue specific integrated, interdisciplinary, ecosystem-science strategies. Possible strategies include the application of 

the CRE conceptual model to science planning and project 

design, and the evaluation and implementation of decisionsupport tools to improve the application of science information 

in the GCDAMP process (see below). The efficacy of hiring 

the visiting scientist will be reviewed based on the Science 

Advisors’ proposed FY07 evaluation and recommendations 

related to opportunities for incorporating an ecosystem science 

approach into the current science program (see below). 

Conceptual Ecosystem Model Enhancement

In 1998, Walters and others (2000) conducted a workshop to assist scientists and managers in development of a 

conceptual model of the CRE affected by GCD operations. 

The model proved to be useful for helping to understand the 

relationship among various ecosystem component, identifying knowledge gaps, and predicting the response of some 

ecosystem components to policy change. However, it lacked 

the capability to predict the effects of policy decisions on 

several key areas such as long-term sediment storage, fisheries response to habitat restoration, and socioeconomic effects. 

Expanded design, development, and use of the conceptual 

ecosystem model is needed to increase its utility in ecosystem 

science planning and management processes, and to provide 

information that is relevant to each high-priority AMWG 

goal/question. 

In FY07–FY08, the GCMRC will work with the Science 

Advisors to identify and incorporate more robust integrated, 

interdisciplinary science approaches into its overall program 

effort. The Science Advisors’ review will address practical 

approaches and opportunities to improve the ability of the 

GCMRC to address priority GCDAMP information needs 

using an integrated, interdisciplinary science approach. A 

specific objective of the SAs’ review will be to evaluate the 

redesign and expansion of the conceptual CRE model. A preliminary list of priority expansions of the CRE model include:

Expanding the fishery elements to address coldwater 

and warmwater fish predation on HBC young-of-year 

(YoY), HBC habitat use, etc.

Modeling outcomes of non-flow management activities (e.g., operation of a temperature control device, 

mechanical removal of nonnative fish, translocation 

efforts for HBC, tributary triggers for BHBFs)

•

• 1

 The Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center will set aside funds 

for experimental research projects under Project ADM 12.E1.07 (FY07–FY08 

Carry Forward Fund for Experiment Phase II), which is described in the fiscal 

year 2007 Annual Work Plan.
 7

Linking Lake Powell and downstream temperature 

simulations to fine sediment, food web, and fisheries 

sub-models

Expanding the model to provide a broader landscape 

perspective by incorporating Lake Powell, the Little 

Colorado and Paria Rivers, and terrestrial habitats in 

the CRE

Enhancing the use of climatic input data and simulations

Recreational use and campsite size, abundance, and 

distribution

Cultural site change and protection strategies (archaeological sites, TCPs)

Financial impact simulations coupled to the flow/dam 

operations sub-models

Sediment Dynamics 

Sediment and sand supplies are critical ecosystem components important to the long-term maintenance of several 

priority GCDAMP resources. For example, high-elevation 

sandbars provide camping beaches, support riparian habitat and associated wildlife, and are a source of aeolian sand 

that affords protection for some archaeological sites in close 

proximity to the river. Sandbars also provide backwater habitats that are warmer than main channel habitats and may be 

important to the growth and survival of humpback chub and 

other native fishes. As part of the experimental program, two 

BHBF experiments are planned for the FY07–FY11 period 

•

•

•

•

•

•

Figure 1.2. Recent mainstem 

warming patterns above the 

mouth of the Little Colorado 

River. The natural warming 

of the river is expected to 

occur at least through water 

year 2006 and provides a 

unique opportunity to study 

the effects of warmer water 

on Colorado River ecosystem 

resources before the possible 

construction of a temperature 

control device. 

to enhance sand dynamics and related resources, provided 

sediment triggers are reached. A focus of these experiments 

and the BHBF work plan will be to determine the relationships between creation and maintenance of sandbars and these 

GCDAMP resources. 

Temperature Control Device Evaluation and 

Planning

It is essential that adopting the use of a TCD as a 

management policy be accompanied by a commitment to a comprehensive long-term level of research 

and monitoring that provides timely results in evaluating its value as a management tool (GCDAMP 

Science Advisors, 2003).

The design and possible construction of a TCD for GCD 

has been identified as a priority activity for the GCDAMP in 

the FY07–FY11 period. The objective of the TCD would be 

to allow for regulation of temperatures and other water-quality parameters (e.g., dissolved oxygen) of water released from 

GCD. The primary goal would be to create mainstem water 

temperature conditions that promote natural reproduction and 

recruitment of humpback chub in the mainstem of the Colorado River. Other potential effects of a TCD may include: 

Increased aquatic productivity

 Increased distribution and abundance of native fishes

Increased trout productivity in the Lees Ferry reach and 

associated improvements in the trout fishery

•

•

•

Recent Mainstem Warming Patterns above mouth 

of Little Colorado River
8 Monitoring and Research Plan to Support Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Years 2007–11

related plan for one or more refuges for HBC to support efforts to avert the catastrophic decline of HBC 

populations associated with the proliferation of nonnative fishes

Organize and conduct a workshop to develop a comprehensive science plan to address the operation of a TCD

Critical Monitoring and Research 

Needs Outside of the GCDAMP

The uses of GCDAMP funds are currently focused on 

addressing the impacts of dam operations on resources in the 

immediate Colorado River corridor downstream of Glen Canyon Dam to Lake Mead. As a result, some potentially significant external threats to CRE resources that are relevant to the 

GCDAMP mission and goals are not being addressed. USGS 

will seek funding outside the GCDAMP to address three critical needs: (1) Little Colorado River threats, (2) Lake Powell 

water quality, and (3) effects of climate change and drought in 

the Colorado River Basin.

Little Colorado River Threats

The lower reach of the LCR located just above 

its confluence with the main Colorado River is critical spawning and rearing habitat for virtually the entire 

endangered HBC population in Grand Canyon. However, 

only the lower few miles of the LCR watershed are being 

addressed by the GCDAMP. Possible spills of hazardous 

materials and the potential for water-quality contamination in upstream areas of the LCR watershed have been 

identified by the FWS as a significant threat to the endangered HBC. The FWS has identified the need to develop 

a hazardous material spill response plan to help avert the 

catastrophic loss of the HBC population. 

The GCMRC proposes the following activities to support 

this need:

Enhance the existing stream gage in the lower LCR 

to include water-quaility sampling consistent with the 

existing mainstem quality-of-water program, which 

would improve the capacity to detect changes in water 

quality resulting from contamination in the upper 

watershed

Synthesize existing historical hydrology, sediment, 

water-quality, and land-use information in the LCR 

Basin in relation to habitat requirements of humpback 

chub in the lower reach of the LCR

Assess the risk of water contamination from various 

sources in the LCR 

7.

•

•

•

Increased satisfaction with the river recreation experience 

Increased flexibility to generate hydropower at very 

low reservoir elevations

The primary risk associated with a TCD involves the 

proliferation of warmwater nonnative fishes that may compete 

with or prey upon native fishes. (Warmwater nonnative fishes 

are considered a threat to the humpback chub and other native 

fishes in the Colorado River ecosystem.) 

Since 2003, the Colorado River water temperatures below 

GCD have been increasing (Figure 1.2) owing to prolonged 

drought conditions and lower water levels in Lake Powell. 

The low water levels have resulted in warmer water passing 

through the dam than would have occurred under higher reservoir elevations. These warm water releases are correlated with 

a number of changes in the fisheries, including:

Evidence of mainstem spawning of HBC, which is indicated by the presence of YoY HBC at river mile 30 on the 

Colorado River

Increased numbers of juvenile HBC in comparison to 

recent years 

A decline in the rainbow trout population in the Lees 

Ferry reach possibly owing to reductions in dissolved 

oxygen associated with the warmer GCD releases 

Increased observations of warmwater nonnative fishes that 

may prey upon or compete with native fishes

The GCMRC proposes the following studies and activities to evaluate the effects of natural river warming and to 

assist in the decisions related to funding and design of a TCD:

Develop and test water temperature model to better predict the effects of GCD operations on downstream water 

temperature and associated shoreline habitats

Synthesize water-quality data for Lake Powell and link 

Lake Powell to the Colorado River quality-of-water models 

Synthesize and evaluate currently available water temperature data focused on the Colorado River near the 

confluence of the LCR 

Develop and test a nonnative fish management plan that 

will (a) assess the implications and expected response of 

both the native and nonnative fisheries communities to 

warmer water and (b) identify methods of control that will 

be tested/refined (FY07–FY11)

Continue to gather and evaluate baseline data on the 

effects of natural warming of river temperatures on the 

distribution, abundance, and reproductive success of 

native and nonnative fishes (FY07–FY11)

Work with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) 

to develop a HBC Genetics Management Plan and a 

•

•

1.

2.

3.

4.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.
 9

Lake Powell Water Quality

A primary determinant of water quality in the Colorado 

River below Glen Canyon Dam is the water released from 

Lake Powell. In addition, the water-quality characteristics and 

dynamics of Lake Powell have significant implications for 

the design and operation of a TCD that will allow for regulating the temperature and other water-quality characteristics of 

releases from GCD. While extensive physical and biological 

data on Lake Powell water quality have been collected for over 

two decades, the data have not been synthesized or subjected 

to extensive analysis and advanced modeling to simulate both 

temperature and dissolved oxygen characteristics for GCD 

operations and resulting releases. Under this activity, historical 

Lake Powell data would be synthesized to identify trends in 

quality of water. In addition, trends in dam operations, basin 

hydrology, and climate variability will be linked with biological data both in the reservoir and downstream of GCD (aquatic 

productivity and both nonnative and native fish trends). 

Information from this activity will support efforts to model 

both Lake Powell quality of water and downstream release 

characteristics associated with projected use and testing of a 

TCD. These assessments could significantly advance knowledge of potential future water quality in Lake Powell and the 

appropriate design and operation of the TCD. This study will 

be carried out in partnership with the Bureau of Reclamation. 

Effects of Climate Change and Drought

Long-term drought and climate change have significant 

implications for decisions about future water management and 

hydropower production in the Colorado River Basin and the 

conservation of natural resources in Grand Canyon. Run-off in 

2000–4 in the upper Colorado River Basin was the lowest in 

the period of record; Lake Powell is currently (2006) less than 

50% full. Water managers increasingly need predictive capability for climate change and related drought forecasting over 

annual-to-decadal time spans. However, the causal mechanisms of drought are not presently well enough understood to 

make accurate predictions to meet the needs of managers at 

even seasonal-to-annual scales. In addition, continued climate 

change and long-term drought will have potentially significant 

implications for several identified strategies for the operation 

of GCD to attain a variety of GCDAMP goals (e.g., native 

fishes, sediment, cultural resources, and recreation). 

Under this research initiative, basin-scale climate studies 

will be conducted on how new emerging climate information 

could be used by water and other resource managers in the 

GCDAMP program. The specific focus will be on: (1) how 

climate forecast information could be used in decisions related 

to the operation of GCD and other Colorado River Storage 

Project operations, and (2) the role of climate variability and 

hydrological variance (upper basin runoff versus the flood 

frequency of major tributaries below GCD) in ecosystem 

responses and their relationship to operation of GCD. This 

study will be carried out in cooperation with the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Bureau of 

Reclamation. 
10 Monitoring and Research Plan to Support Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Years 2007–11
 11

Proposed science activities for FY07–FY11 are summarized in table 2.1. These activities are categorized as core 

monitoring, research and development, and long-term experimental. All proposed science activities are related to both 

GCDAMP goals and AMWG priorities. 

The following section summarizes the core monitoring, 

long-term experimental, and research and development activiCHAPTER 2. Proposed FY07–FY11 Monitoring and 

Research Plan Activities

ties for GCDAMP goals 1–11. General activities are described 

for goal 12. This chapter also discusses by goal efforts to link 

and integrate monitoring and research activities across goals, 

illustrating how specific science elements of individual goals 

are integrated across several goals. Strategic science questions 

that will be addressed are a product of the Strategic Science 

Plan and 2005 Knowledge Assessment Workshop (KAW). 
12 Monitoring and Research Plan to Support Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Years 2007–11

Table 2.1. Summary of core monitoring, research and development, and experimental activities described in the Monitoring and Research Plan to Support Glen Canyon Dam 

Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Years 2007–11. Several long-term experimental activities currently under discussion are not reflected in the table; additional experimental 

activities will be specified pending the finalization of the Long-term Experimental Plan. Activities address Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP) goals 1–12 in relation to science questions and information needs. Priority and related strategic science questions are paraphrased from the Draft GCMRC Strategic Science Plan (Appendix A). Information needs are paraphrased from the GCDAMP Strategic Plan. Abbreviations are as follows: SSQ=strategic science question, CMIN=core monitoring information need, RIN=research information need, and SA=GCDAMP Science Advisors summary questions. 

GCDA

MP goal Priority science questions and information needs 

(Questions from Strategic Science Plan and 

Monitoring and Research Plan in italics) 

Core monitoring activities Experimental activities Research and development 

activities

1. Food base AMWG Priority:1, 3, and 5 

SSQ 1-5. What are the important pathways that link lower trophic levels with fish and how will they link to dam operations? SSQ 1-6. Are fish populations, trends, or indicators from fish, such as growth, condition, and body composition, correlated with patterns in invertebrate flux?SSQ 5-2. Is invertebrate flux affected by water quality (e.g., temperature, nutrient concentrations, turbidity) and dam operations?

FY09: Aquatic food base monitoring program will be reviewed and evaluated for core monitoring status FY10–FY11: Implement aquatic food base core monitoring 

FY08–FY11: Evaluate effects of experimental flows on food web 

FY06–FY09: Determine carbon budget to understand how energy is exchanged among organisms in the Colorado River ; develop monitoring techniques and metrics for key organisms FY07: Diet, drift, and predation data analysis 

2. Humpback chub (HBC) and other native fishes (A.)

AMWG Priority:1, 3, and 5 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 1-4. Can long-term decreases in abundance rainbow trout 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.CMIN 2.1.2 Determine and track abundance and distribution of all size classes of HBC in the LCR and the mainstem. 

FY07–FY08: Monitor status and trends of HBC in Little Colorado River (LCR) and mainstem using existing protocols FY08: HBC monitoring program will be reviewed and evaluated for core monitoring status in protocol evaluation panel (PEP) FY09–FY11: Implement HBC core monitoring 

FY08–FY11: Evaluate effects of experimental flows on HBC and other native fishes 

FY06 and ongoing: Stock assessment FY07–FY08: Gear efficiency/sampling evaluation FY07–FY11: Statistical review of existing HBC monitoring protocols and habitat data FY07–FY11: Evaluate protocols for warmwater and coldwater nonnative fish monitoring, removal, and control; effects on native fish 
 13

Table 2.1. Summary of core monitoring, research and development, and experimental activities described in the Monitoring and Research Plan to Support Glen Canyon Dam 

Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Years 2007–11. Several long-term experimental activities currently under discussion are not reflected in the table; additional experimental 

activities will be specified pending the finalization of the Long-term Experimental Plan. Activities address Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP) goals 1–12 in relation to science questions and information needs. Priority and related strategic science questions are paraphrased from the Draft GCMRC Strategic Science Plan (Appendix A). Information needs are paraphrased from the GCDAMP Strategic Plan. Abbreviations are as follows: SSQ=strategic science question, CMIN=core monitoring information need, RIN=research information need, and SA=GCDAMP Science Advisors summary questions. —Continued 

GCDAMP goal Priority science questions and information needs 

(Questions from Strategic Science Plan and 

Monitoring and Research Plan in italics) 

Core monitoring activities Experimental activities Research and development 

activities

2. Humpback chub and other native fishes (B.) 

AMWG Priority:1, 3, and 5 SSQ 1-2. Does a decrease in the abundance of rainbow trout and other coldwater and warmwater nonnatives in Marble and eastern Grand Canyons result in an improvement in the recruitment rate of juvenile humpback chub to the adult population? SSQ 1-4. 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? 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? CMIN 2.4.1 Determine and track the abundance and distribution of nonnative predatory fish species in the CRE and their impacts on native fish. 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? 

FY07–FY08: Continue mainstem monitoring of fish community 

FY07–FY10: Develop and test nonnative fish management planFY07–FY11: Develop abundance estimation framework that allows scientists to better estimate nonnative fish numbers in mechanical removal reaches FY07–FY10: Develop bioenergetic model to predict changes in fish communities in response to environmental changes

2. Humpback chub and other native fishes (C.) 

AMWG Priority:1, 3, and 5 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? 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? 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? 

FY07–FY10: Review data and literature on HBC in upper basin to see if HBC habitat can be identified, protected, and recreated below GCD 
14 Monitoring and Research Plan to Support Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Years 2007–11

Table 2.1. Summary of core monitoring, research and development, and experimental activities described in the Monitoring and Research Plan to Support Glen Canyon Dam 

Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Years 2007–11. Several long-term experimental activities currently under discussion are not reflected in the table; additional experimental 

activities will be specified pending the finalization of the Long-term Experimental Plan. Activities address Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP) goals 1–12 in relation to science questions and information needs. Priority and related strategic science questions are paraphrased from the Draft GCMRC Strategic Science Plan (Appendix A). Information needs are paraphrased from the GCDAMP Strategic Plan. Abbreviations are as follows: SSQ=strategic science question, CMIN=core monitoring information need, RIN=research information need, and SA=GCDAMP Science Advisors summary questions.—Continued 

GCDA

MP goal Priority science questions and information needs 

(Questions from Strategic Science Plan and 

Monitoring and Research Plan in italics) 

Core monitoring activities Experimental activities Research and development 

activities

2. Humpback chub and other native fishes (D.) 

AMWG Priority:1, 3, and 5 SSQ 1-8. How can native and nonnative fishes best be monitored while minimizing impacts from capture and handling or sampling? 

FY07–FY09: Develop alternative, noninvasive HBC monitoring gear to reduce stress on fish (e.g., DIDSON camera, remote PIT tag reading, and sonic tags) FY07–FY09. Evaluate the effects of trammel net sampling 

3. Extirpated species No projects FY07–FY11:

Evaluation and planning of temperature control device

No projects 

4. Rainbow trout (RBT)

AMWG Priority: 3 SSQ 3-6: What Glen Canyon Dam operations (ramping rates, daily flow range, etc.) maximize trout fishing opportunities and catchability? CMIN 4.1.2 Determine annual proportional stock density of rainbow trout in 

the Lees Ferry reach. CMIN 4.1.4 Determine annual standard condition (Kn) and relative weight of rainbow trout in the Lees Ferry reach. 

FY07–FY11: Monitor status and trends of Lees Ferry BRT population FY07: Review/evaluate RBT monitoring for core monitoring status FY08–FY11: Implement RBT core monitoring 

FY07: Evaluate effects of modified low fluctuating flow (MLFF) operations on RBTFY08–FY11: Evaluate effects of experimental flows on RBT 

5. Kanab ambersnail (KAS) 

AMWG Priority: 3 CMIN 5.1.1 Determine and track the abundance and distribution of KAS at Vasey’s Paradise. CMIN 5.2.1 Determine and track the size and composition of the habitat used by KAS at Vasey’s Paradise. 

FY07: KAS habitat monitoring; evaluate for core monitoring status in conjunction with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service species status review 

FY08–FY11: Evaluate effects of experimental flows, especially beach/habitat-buildingflows (BHBF), on KAS 

FY07: Evaluation of alternative survey methods of KAS habitat 
 15

Table 2.1. Summary of core monitoring, research and development, and experimental activities described in the Monitoring and Research Plan to Support Glen Canyon Dam 

Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Years 2007–11. Several long-term experimental activities currently under discussion are not reflected in the table; additional experimental 

activities will be specified pending the finalization of the Long-term Experimental Plan. Activities address Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP) goals 1–12 in relation to science questions and information needs. Priority and related strategic science questions are paraphrased from the Draft GCMRC Strategic Science Plan (Appendix A). Information needs are paraphrased from the GCDAMP Strategic Plan. Abbreviations are as follows: SSQ=strategic science question, CMIN=core monitoring information need, RIN=research information need, and SA=GCDAMP Science Advisors summary questions.—Continued 

GCDAMP goal Priority science questions and information needs 

(Questions from Strategic Science Plan and 

Monitoring and Research Plan in italics) 

Core monitoring activities Experimental activities Research and development 

activities

6. Springs /riparian AMWG Priority: 4 

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 3-2. 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?CMIN 6.1.1., 6.6.1., 6.2.1., 6.5.1. Determine and track the abundance, 

composition, distribution, and area of terrestrial native and nonnative vegetation species in the CRE. 

FY07: Conduct a PEP to advice development of vegetation core monitoring FY08–FY11: Implement vegetation core monitoring 

FY08–FY11: Evaluate allochthonous contribution during experimental flows 

FY07: Terrestrial monitoring FY07 and ongoing: Terrestrial mapping FY07–FY11: Vegetation synthesis project 

7. Quality-of-water AMWG Priority:1, 3, and 5 

SSQ 3-5. How is invertebrate flux affected by water quality (e.g., temperature, nutrient concentrations, turbidity) and dam operations? 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 near shore 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? CMIN 7.3.1. What are the status and trends of water quality releases from Glen Canyon Dam? 

FY07–FY09: Lake Powell monitoring using existing protocols FY09: Lake Powell monitoring PEP FY07–FY11: Downstream integrated quality-of-water monitoring (including suspended-sediment flux) FY10–FY11: Implement Lake Powell core monitoring 

FY08–FY11: Collect water-quality and suspended-sediment data in support in support of experimental flow research efforts 

FY08–FY10: Lake Powell synthesis and modeling FY07–FY11: Advanced development of downstream flow, temperature, and suspended-sediment models 
16 Monitoring and Research Plan to Support Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Years 2007–11

Table 2.1. Summary of core monitoring, research and development, and experimental activities described in the Monitoring and Research Plan to Support Glen Canyon Dam 

Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Years 2007–11. Several long-term experimental activities currently under discussion are not reflected in the table; additional experimental 

activities will be specified pending the finalization of the Long-term Experimental Plan. Activities address Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP) goals 1–12 in relation to science questions and information needs. Priority and related strategic science questions are paraphrased from the Draft GCMRC Strategic Science Plan (Appendix A). Information needs are paraphrased from the GCDAMP Strategic Plan. Abbreviations are as follows: SSQ=strategic science question, CMIN=core monitoring information need, RIN=research information need, and SA=GCDAMP Science Advisors summary questions.—Continued 

GCDA

MP goal Priority science questions and information needs 

(Questions from Strategic Science Plan and 

Monitoring and Research Plan in italics) 

Core monitoring activities Experimental activities Research and development 

activities

8. Sediment (sandbars and debris fans/rapids)

AMWG Priority: 1,2,3, and 4 SSQ 4-1. Is there a “Flow-Only” operation (i.e. a strategy for dam releases, including managing tributary inputs with BHBFs, without sediment augmentation) that will restore and maintain sandbar habitats over decadal time scales? 

FY07–FY11:Implementation of recommendations from the final SEDS-PEP (summer 2006) FY07: Detection of trends in sandbars through biennial measurements of sand-storage changes as reflected in campsite area monitoring (see goal 9, below) 

FY08–FY11: Evaluate the effects of BHBFs and alternative ramping rates on sandbars and sediment 

FY07–FY11: Map change in nearshore habitat resulting from 2004 BHBF; convert exiting overflight analog images to digital to facilitate research 

9. Recreation (A) AMWG Priority: 3 and 4 

SSQ 3-9. How do varying flows positively or negatively affect campsite attributes that are important to visitor experience? 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. 

FY07–FY11: Monitor change in sandbar campable area, topography, and volume (see above, project linked to sandbar monitoring) 

FY08–FY11: Evaluate effects of experimental flows and ramping rates on campsites 

FY07–FY08: Complete campsite inventory and GIS atlasFY07–FY08: Evaluate use of field data vs. remotely sensed data for campable area monitoring FY09: Evaluate vegetation encroachment on campsites; revisit Weeden survey data 
 17

Table 2.1. Summary of core monitoring, research and development, and experimental activities described in the Monitoring and Research Plan to Support Glen Canyon Dam 

Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Years 2007–11. Several long-term experimental activities currently under discussion are not reflected in the table; additional experimental 

activities will be specified pending the finalization of the Long-term Experimental Plan. Activities address Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP) goals 1–12 in relation to science questions and information needs. Priority and related strategic science questions are paraphrased from the Draft GCMRC Strategic Science Plan (Appendix A). Information needs are paraphrased from the GCDAMP Strategic Plan. Abbreviations are as follows: SSQ=strategic science question, CMIN=core monitoring information need, RIN=research information need, and SA=GCDAMP Science Advisors summary questions.—Continued 

GCDAMP goal Priority science questions and information needs 

(Questions from Strategic Science Plan and 

Monitoring and Research Plan in italics) 

Core monitoring activities Experimental activities Research and development 

activities

9. Recreation (B) AMWG Priority: 3 

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? SSQ 3-10. How can safety and navigability be reliably measured relative to flows?SSQ 3-11. How do varying flows positively or negatively affect visitor safety, health and navigability of the rapids? SSQ 3-12. How do varying flows positively or negatively affect group encounter rates, campsite competition, and other social parameters that are known to be important variables of visitor experience? 

FY08–FY11: Evaluate effects of experimental flows and ramping rates on visitor safety and visitor health 

FY07 or FY08: Compile and analyze existing safety data FY08–FY09: Evaluate relative importance and potential effects of different flows on recreation experience qualities FY10–FY11: Update regional recreation economic surveys 

10. Hydropower AMWG Priority: 3 

 SSQ 3-3. What are annual hydropower replacement costs of the MLFF since 1996? 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 of experimental design)? CMIN 10.1.1. 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, maximum flow limit of 25,000 cfs minimum flow limit of 5,000 cfs). 

FY07–FY11: Monitor power generation and market values under current and future dam operations 

FY08–FY11: Evaluate economic implications of experimental flows (with focus on hydropower and the Basin Fund) 
18 Monitoring and Research Plan to Support Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Years 2007–11

Table 2.1. Summary of core monitoring, research and development, and experimental activities described in the Monitoring and Research Plan to Support Glen Canyon Dam 

Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Years 2007–11. Several long-term experimental activities currently under discussion are not reflected in the table; additional experimental 

activities will be specified pending the finalization of the Long-term Experimental Plan. Activities address Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP) goals 1–12 in relation to science questions and information needs. Priority and related strategic science questions are paraphrased from the Draft GCMRC Strategic Science Plan (Appendix A). Information needs are paraphrased from the GCDAMP Strategic Plan. Abbreviations are as follows: SSQ=strategic science question, CMIN=core monitoring information need, RIN=research information need, and SA=GCDAMP Science Advisors summary questions.—Continued 

GCDA

MP goal Priority science questions and information needs 

(Questions from Strategic Science Plan and 

Monitoring and Research Plan in italics) 

Core monitoring activities Experimental activities Research and development 

activities

11. Cultural AMWG Priority:2, 3, and 4 

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?SSQ 2-7. Are dam controlled flows affecting TCPs and other tribally-valued resources, and if so, in what respects? CMIN 11.1.1 Determine the condition and integrity of archaeological sites and TCPs in the CRE through tracking rates of erosion, visitor impacts, and other relevant variables. (SPG revised CMIN) CMIN 11:2.1 Determine the condition of traditionally important resources and locations using tribal perspectives and values. (SPG revised CMIN) 

FY10: Cultural PEP II FY08–FY11: Evaluate 

effects of experimental flows on sediment supply and deposition at archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties (TCPs) 

FY07: Research and development towards core monitoring (development of protocols for archaeological sites and TCPs) FY07: Implement Technical Work Group (TWG) approved tribal monitoring projects FY08–FY10: Integrated archaeological site monitoring pilot projectFY09–FY10: Expand pilot study to evaluate geomorphic changes in the CRE using remotely sensed imagery FY08–FY10: Develop geomorphic model of archaeological site vulnerability

12. High-quality monitoring, research, and adaptive management program (A.) Data acquisition, storage, and analysis 

AMWG Priority:1,2, 3, 4, and 5 FY07–FY11: Remote 

sensing activities related to the preparation, acquisition, and storage of 2009 terrestrial resource monitoring data 

No projects FY07–FY11: Convert existing 

analog images (especially overflight imagery) and reports t o digital (see also goal 8) FY07–FY11: Shoreline habitat and change detection mapping (see goals 2 and 8) 
 19

Strategic Science Questions and 

Information Needs

Food availability and quality are often important determinants of fish density and condition. For this reason, the Monitoring and Research Plan seeks to address discreet scientific 

questions, information needs, and objectives related to these 

conditions in an effort to advance goal 1. Specifically, adaptive 

Management Work Group (AMWG) priority questions from 

the Knowledge Assessment Report were used to frame key 

strategic science questions for GCDAMP goal 1. The strategic 

science questions that emerged as the focus of monitoring and 

research activities for goal 1 are listed below: 

SSQ 1-5. What are the important pathways, and the rate 

of flux among them, that link lower trophic levels with 

fish?

SSQ 1-6. Are trends in the abundance of fish populations, 

or indicators from fish such as growth, condition, and 

body composition (e.g., lipids), correlated with patterns in 

invertebrate flux?

SSQ 5-2. How is invertebrate flux affected by water quality (e.g., temperature, nutrient concentrations, turbidity) 

and dam operations?

Monitoring and Research Activities

Food base monitoring and research activities for FY07–

FY11 carry forward two elements of the overall Monitoring and 

Research Plan, core monitoring and research and development. 

Individual food base monitoring and research activities are discussed in terms of both the specific objectives the are designed to 

achieve and the individual element of the plan they are support.

1.

2.

3.

GCDAMP Goal 1: Protect or improve the aquatic food base so 

that it will support viable populations of desired species at 

higher trophic levels 

Core Monitoring Activities

Monitoring the Aquatic Food Base

The aquatic protocol evaluation panel (Anders and others, 

2001) recommended that “the food base program needs to be 

critically reviewed because the current level of understanding about the linkages between lower trophic levels and food 

availability of native fishes is not adequate to interpret food 

base data in relation to the management goal.” There are 

two main reasons for this uncertainty: (1) the feeding habits 

of many fishes have never been studied and (2) the relative 

contribution of algae and allochthonous carbon to invertebrate, 

and ultimately fish, production is unclear. In other words, 

we do not have a good understanding of what constitutes the 

food base for many fishes and aquatic invertebrates. The new 

food base research initiative is focused on understanding the 

linkages that connect lower trophic levels with fish (i.e., what 

are invertebrates eating, what are fish eating), quantifying 

the availability of basal and invertebrate food resources, and 

documenting the feeding habits of fish throughout the system. 

Equipped with this knowledge, in FY09 we intend to develop 

a monitoring program that is focused on the most important 

components and drivers of the food base. Activities in this 

category address SSQ 1-5 and SSQ 5-2. 

FY09–FY11. Evaluation and Implementation of New 

Protocols for Monitoring the Aquatic Food Base

Insights from the new food base research initiative 

(see below) will form the basis for new food base monitoring protocols that will be evaluated and implemented 

in FY09–FY11. A competitive solicitation process will be 

used to select cooperators to implement the new monitoring protocols.
20 Monitoring and Research Plan to Support Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Years 2007–11

Research and Development Activities

Trophic Linkages

Managers of native and nonnative fishes need to understand the amounts and quality of aquatic food resources that 

are available to fishes to help direct management actions. In 

particular, managers need to understand how different flow 

regimens affect the aquatic food base. Results from previous 

food base research provide some indication of the food items 

that are most often consumed by rainbow trout and humpback 

chub (HBC), but there is very little data on what constitutes 

the food base for other fish that are common in the Colorado 

River ecosystem. Further, the relative contribution of allochthonous and autochthonous carbon to invertebrate, and ultimately fish, production remains unclear. Yet, an understanding 

of what sources of carbon contribute to invertebrate and fish 

production is critical to making informed management decisions because the supply of autochthonous carbon is strongly 

affected by dam operations while the supply of allochthonous 

carbon is not. Activities in this category address SSQ 1-5, SSQ 

1-6, and SSQ 5-2. 

FY05–FY09. Aquatic Food Base (Project BIO 1.R1.07)

This project was initiated in 2005, and field work began 

in spring 2006, to identify energy pathways and quantify basal 

resources through multiple approaches. The project incorporates stable isotope and diet analysis of invertebrates and fish 

to identify trophic pathways. Flux along trophic pathways 

will be quantified by calculating invertebrate densities and 

estimating production and growth, and also estimating rates 

of food consumption by fish using bioenergetic approaches. 

Whole stream metabolism, terrestrial litter inputs from the 

riparian corridor, and allocthonous inputs from tributary flooding events will be measured to assess basal resources. Lastly, 

these data will be incorporated into a bioenergetics model for the 

aquatic ecosystem. Although the focus of the project is on carbon 

cycling, flux of dissolved and particulate nitrogen and phosphorus 

is also being studied. Results from this work, scheduled to end 

in FY09, will contribute to the development of a core monitoring 

program for the Grand Canyon food base in subsequent years. 

FY07. Diet, Drift, and Predation Analysis (Project BIO 

1.R3.07)

Rainbow and brown trout diet, food resource availability, and incidence of piscivory were areas of investigation 

associated with the effort to remove trout from the Little 

Colorado River inflow reach of the Colorado River in Grand 

Canyon. Some of the tasks associated with these projects have 

been completed, including field work, laboratory analysis of 

samples, and data entry. However, the data from these projects 

have not been assessed for data omission, data entry errors, nor 

have the data been completely compiled into a database. Only 

preliminary analysis has been conducted to date and results have 

not been documented. This project is a 1-year effort for FY07 

and will lead to the completion of the database, including quality control, and synthesis of the data in the form of reports and 

manuscripts. Completion and synthesis of the database provides 

value to the GCDAMP by increasing understanding of trout 

diets along downstream reaches of the Colorado River, information that is valuable to managers as they evaluate the information generated by the first project for this goal, above.

Integration

Physical Sciences

Five of the seven study reaches in the whole-system carbon cycling project are FIST (fine-grained integrated sediment 

transport) and integrated water-quality monitoring sites, which 

will facilitate integration of the physical environment data 

with the standing mass, distribution, and production of basal 

resources and invertebrates, further supporting a long-term 

core monitoring program. The temperature model that is being 

developed by the Physical Science and Modeling Program 

will be a valuable tool for estimating systemwide growth rates 

of algae and invertebrates (temperature is the most important determinant of invertebrate growth rates). Sampling of 

organic inputs during recent tributary flood events, including a 

moderate sized Paria River flood, indicates that organic matter 

constitutes between 3%–6% of total transported material with 

the other remainder being sand, silt, and clay. If this relationship holds up, the food base project will be able to estimate 

organic inputs from tributary floods events based on estimates 

of sediments inputs obtained by the Physical Science and 

Modeling Program. 

Fisheries

Ongoing fisheries monitoring data on the distribution 

and relative density of common native and nonnative fishes 

will be used to determine rates of energy flow to fishes in 

the system. Where possible, cooperating scientists will also 

rely on existing fisheries monitoring efforts to obtain the fish 

stomachs and tissue samples required for gut content and 

stable isotope analysis, respectively. The analysis of trout diets 

and other data collected during the mechanical removal effort 

will provide valuable information on the temporal variability 

of basal resources and food habits of fish that are outside the 

scope of the food base research initiative. Further, completing the stomach content analysis of samples taken during the 

mechanical removal project will help managers evaluate what 

rainbow trout in the removal reach have been eating and how 

this may or may not impact humpback chub entering and exiting the Little Colorado River.
 21

Strategic Science Questions and 

Information Needs

The Monitoring and Research Plan (MRP) for FY07–

FY11 seeks to address discreet scientific questions, information needs, and objectives that support maintenance of viable 

populations of native fish. Adaptive Management Work Group 

(AMWG) priority questions from the Knowledge Assessment Report were used to frame key strategic science questions for GCDAMP goal 2. The strategic science questions 

that emerged as the focus of monitoring and research activities for goal 2 are listed below. Relevant Science Planning 

Group (SPG) prioritized core monitoring information needs 

(CMINs), and a summary question posed by the Science Advisors (SA 1) are identified. 

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?

SSQ 1-2. Does a decrease in the abundance of rainbow 

trout and other cold and warm water non-natives in 

Marble and eastern Grand Canyons result in an improvement in the recruitment rate of juvenile humpback chub to 

the adult population?

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 re-colonization 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.

1.

2.

3.

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 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?

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?

CMIN 2.1.2. Determine and track recruitment (identify 

life stage), abundance and distribution of HBC in the 

LCR.

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?

Note: Razorback sucker are not currently regularly 

observed in Grand Canyon. Ongoing monitoring for native 

and nonnative fishes may capture this species if it is present or 

returns to the system. 

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

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
22 Monitoring and Research Plan to Support Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Years 2007–11

Monitoring and Research Activities

Monitoring and research activities to support goal 2 range 

from monitoring efforts designed to provide decision makers 

with status and trends information on both native and nonnative fishes to efforts to understand the habitat preferences of 

humpback chub and the effects of modified low fluctuating 

flow operations on rainbow trout. Individually, activities can 

generally be characterized as core monitoring, research and 

development, or experimental in keeping with the structure of 

the Monitoring and Research Plan; however, when considered 

together, the activities described below are designed to complement one another and strategically address the myriad factors 

related to reaching goal 2. Many of the activities described 

below will be undertaken in partnership with GCDAMP stakeholders, especially the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the 

Arizona Game and Fish Department. 

 Core Monitoring Activities

Monitoring of Native and Nonnative Fishes 

Monitoring the status and trends of the fish community 

of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon is integral to assessing the impacts of dam operations on these species. This 

assessment is led by the GCMRC working with GCDAMP 

partners, especially the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 

the Arizona Game and Fish Department, to provide managers with fish status and trend information that they can use to 

support management decisions. Different flow regimens and 

non-flow actions (especially the mechanical removal of nonnative fishes near the Little Colorado River inflow) have been 

implemented in recent years. Continued monitoring is needed 

to help evaluate whether these actions have been beneficial or 

detrimental to native and nonnative fishes. Because of its federally endangered status, the humpback chub is often the focus 

of Grand Canyon fish monitoring efforts. Current monitoring 

will be maintained in FY07 and FY08, building on the current 

long-term data set for humpback chub and other fish species. 

The current monitoring results will also be used to inform the 

development of core monitoring for humpback chub, the subject of a protocol evaluation panel (PEP) scheduled for FY08. 

The recommendations from this PEP will be implemented in 

FY09 and beyond. The primary questions and information 

needs addressed by these activities are SSQ 1-1, SSQ 1-2, and 

CMIN 2.1.2.

FY07–FY08. Little Colorado River Humpback Chub 

Monitoring Lower 15 km (Project BIO 2.R1.07) 

This monitoring of the known spawning tributary of 

humpback chub in Grand Canyon will be led by the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. Sampling is conducted with hoop nets 

during four annual trips, two in the spring and two in the fall, 

as a continuation of the Little Colorado River (LCR) humpback chub stock assessment program initiated in the fall of 

2000. These trips will occur in March, April, September, and 

October. This effort will provide spring and fall abundance 

estimates of HBC in the Little Colorado River. Tags deployed 

during fall and spring LCR trips will potentially be available 

for later recapture during mainstem activities. In addition to 

the short-term estimates and inferences that these sampling 

trips will support, this monitoring provides continued data 

collection in support of the ASMR open population model for 

humpback chub.

FY07–FY08. Little Colorado River Humpback Chub 

Monitoring Lower 1,200 m (Project BIO 2.R2.07) 

This monitoring maintains a data set that has been 

conducted annually, with few exceptions, since the 1980s. 

Humpback chub are monitored with hoop nets near the mouth 

of the Little Colorado River (LCR). It is led by the Arizona 

Game and Fish Department (AZGFD).

FY07–FY08. Humpback Chub Monitoring Above Chute Falls 

(Project BIO 2.R3.07)

This project, led by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

monitors the population of humpback chub found above Chute 

Falls (river km 16.2), a frequent, if inconsistent, barrier to 

upstream fish movement in the Little Colorado River. Humpback chub have been translocated above the falls in 2003, 2004, 

and 2005 and presented evidence of spawning (production of 

young fish) in 2005. Untagged adult fish were captured in 2006 

indicating that limited movement above the falls is possible. 

FY07–FY08. Monitoring Mainstem Fishes (includes below 

Diamond Creek) (Project BIO 2.R4.07) 

This project combines elements of multiple projects 

from previous years, including sampling of the fish community in the Colorado River mainstem between Lees Ferry and 

Diamond Creek and from Diamond Creek to Pearce Ferry. 

The timing has been developed to coincide with three of the 

four lower 15 km LCR sampling events so that concurrent 

sampling is accomplished, consistent with reviewer recommendations. While humpback chub sampling is the focus of 

this work, information on other native and nonnative fishes is 

also gathered. The full mainstem sampling events will be conducted once in the spring and once in the fall to provide biannual snapshots of the fish community. The mainstem monitoring will also detect changes in nonnative fish populations that 

will be used to inform future nonnative control efforts. 

Mechanical Removal of Nonnative Fish

One of the biotic factors thought to be limiting to native 

fishes is nonnative fish, which are thought to compete with 

native fish for food and prey on young native fish. This threat 

has been addressed during fiscal years 2003–6 with the 

mechanical removal of rainbow trout and other nonnative fish 
 23

using boat electrofishing. With warming of the Colorado River 

in the Grand Canyon the nonnative fish species posing the 

greatest threat to natives may change to species more adapted 

to warmer water. A comprehensive nonnative control plan 

will be prepared to address this threat. The plan will address 

how nonnative species posing the greatest threat to natives are 

identified and potentially controlled. Questions and information needs addressed by these projects are SSQ 1-4, SSQ 5-6, 

CMIN 2.4.1, RIN 2.4.1, and RIN 2.4.3.

FY07–FY10. Nonnative Control Planning and Nonnative 

Control Pilot Testing (Project BIO 2.R5.07 and Project BIO 

2.R6.07)

The threats from nonnative species will be addressed in a 

comprehensive nonnative species control plan to be developed 

in fiscal years 2007–10. This time period will also be utilized 

to implement pilot projects, assess their value, and then refine 

the techniques. The DIDSON camera may be deployed along 

with some gear types to evaluate its efficacy.

Modeling Populations

As managers and scientists strive to manage and conserve 

the natural resources of the Grand Canyon, it is important to 

characterize the population size of the resident humpback chub 

population and the trend of the population over years. The 

GCMRC has been taking the lead in estimating the population 

size and trend and will continue to lead this effort in the future. 

Characterization and modeling of the population is dependent 

on some of the other projects described above, especially 

ongoing monitoring. Associated projects include development 

of a bioenergetic model of the Grand Canyon fish community 

to help predict anticipated changes in the fish communities in 

response to environmental changes, and development of abundance estimation procedures for nonnative fishes. Utilization 

and analysis of data collected in the field informs decisions 

regarding sampling design and gear selection. Questions and 

information needs addressed by these projects are SSQ 1-2, 

SSQ 1-4, SSQ 5-6, CMIN 2.4.1, and RIN 2.4.3.

FY07–FY11. Stock Assessment of Native Fish in Grand 

Canyon (model development) (Project BIO 2.R7.07)

To provide HBC status and trend information, the 

GCMRC mark-recapture database will be annually updated 

with most recent data collected during routine monitoring 

efforts. Following this update, the HBC mark-recapture 

database will be reanalyzed using (where appropriate) both 

open and closed mark-recapture based abundance estimators to provide the most current information on humpback 

chub status and trend. In particular we will rely on ASMR 

models and other appropriate models to determine trends 

in HBC abundance and recruitment trends. Finally, we will 

evaluate the applicability of similar techniques as described 

above to assessing stocks of flannelmouth sucker and 

bluehead sucker.

FY07–FY11. Abundance Estimation Procedures (Project 

BIO 2.R8.07)

Currently, the traditional Zippin abundance estimator is 

used to estimate the abundance of nonnative fish (primarily 

rainbow trout) in the mechanical removal reaches of the Colorado River. Though accepted and widely applied, this estimator 

makes the strict assumption that the vulnerability of fish among 

depletion passes is constant. Because large changes in turbidity 

are commonly observed within and among removal trips, this 

assumption is questionable. A more contemporary Bayesian 

estimation framework allows relaxation of this assumption if the 

relationship between a covariate (e.g., turbidity or sediment concentration) and vulnerability can be estimated. Additionally, this 

framework may allow more efficient use of the available data 

by allowing model-based aggregation of site specific estimates. 

Program BUGS (Bayesian Inference using the Gibbs sampler) 

will be used to fit models to our removal data.

FY07–FY10. Bioenergetic Modeling (Project: BIO 2.R9.07) 

We will construct an ecopath model (http://www.ecopath.

org/) using data available from previous studies conducted in 

Grand Canyon as well as the relevant scientific literature. Of 

particular importance will be the diet data collected associated 

with the mechanical removal project. 

Monitoring Technology Research

The native fish population of the Grand Canyon, especially humpback chub, is handled regularly as part of efforts to 

understand the population size status and trends and also during mechanical removal. Electroshocking and netting of fish 

can cause stress to, and reduce the growth of, these animals, 

especially when they are handled repeatedly (e.g., Paukert and 

others, 2005). Potential negative effects of capture and study, 

especially of endangered fishes, have lead researchers to seek 

less invasive methods for evaluating the populations including alternative gears and remote monitoring technologies as 

part of the effort to define the most appropriate gear to be 

used to study Grand Canyon fishes. Tagging technologies that 

could reduce repeated handling of fishes need to be evaluated 

for their effectiveness in Grand Canyon. Acoustic imaging 

technologies show promise for describing distribution/habitat 

selection of native fishes. Research of some alternative monitoring technologies will be conducted beginning in FY07. The 

question addressed by these projects is SSQ 1-8.

FY07–FY09. Trammel Net Effects (Project BIO 2.R12.07) 

Trammel nets have been used extensively to capture 

native fishes in the Colorado River, but have also been 

implicated in the injury of fish. This project provides partial 

support to a Northern Arizona University graduate student to 

investigate the impacts of these nets on fish. The results of the 

student’s research will be used to evaluate this gear type for 

future studies of native fishes in Grand Canyon.
24 Monitoring and Research Plan to Support Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Years 2007–11

FY07–FY09. Remote PIT Tag Reading (Project BIO 2.R13.07) 

Fisheries researchers in Grand Canyon (and around the 

world) inject fish with a unique electronic identifying code 

in a passive integrated transponder, or PIT, tag. The standard 

method for reading these tags is to check for the presence of 

a PIT tag upon capture of an individual fish, but remote PIT 

tag reading technologies are being developed. Experimentation with the use of remote antennae to read PIT tags will be 

conducted. The study area will focus, at least initially, on the 

LCR confluence with the Colorado River.

FY07–FY09. Test Sonic Tags (Project BIO 2.R14.07) 

Experimentation with sonic tags will be led by GCMRC 

and AZGFD personnel, working closely with the product’s 

manufacturer. Initial efforts will focus on capturing nonnative 

fish that will be implanted with these tags and released to see 

if the equipment is effective in the Colorado River.

FY07–FY09. Test DIDSON Camera (Project BIO 2.R15.07) 

The DIDSON camera is owned by the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), and is housed in Denver, Colo. The 

camera uses acoustic technology to produce an underwater 

image. It is especially effective in low light and turbid conditions as are common in the Colorado River. The camera’s 

operator will be accompanied by GCMRC personnel on a river 

trip to test what habitat types can be sampled most effectively 

and to determine if fish aggregations can be identified.

Research and Development Activities

Habitat

The published assumptions regarding which habitats are 

optimum and available for different life stages of HBC need to be 

tested, but they could potentially serve to direct long-term monitoring and population modeling efforts, and the selection of flow 

regimens. To the extent possible, the characteristics of habitats 

(physical, water quality), particularly in the mainstem Colorado 

River, that are most important to native fishes need to be identified. Habitat characteristics needed by young-of-year (YoY) and 

juvenile HBC are most important to identify and protect because 

of the endangered status of this species. The questions addressed 

by this project are SSQ 1-1, SSQ 1-7, and SA 1. 

FY07–FY10. Native Fishes Habitat Data Analysis (Project 

BIO 2.R11.07) 

The GCMRC will review existing data and available literature and information from the upper basin regarding HBC habitat 

usage and preferences to see if such habitats can be identified from 

available data. A multivariate statistical method for linking environmental variables to fish populations will be tested for potential 

value in defining important habitat characteristics, including river 

flows, water-quality characteristics, and physical habitat.

Long-term Experimental Activities

Evaluating Effects of Experimental Flows on Fish

The habitats used by native fishes have been the subject 

of substantial research, but the research remains scattered in 

many different references. One of the shortcomings of this 

research is a lack of quantification of existing habitat types 

and how those habitat types change over time. In order to 

address this information need, GCMRC staff and cooperators 

will undertake efforts to detect changes in the abundance and 

distribution of different shoreline habitat types, especially 

sandbars and backwaters, in the Colorado River (Project 

DASA 12.D6.07). In terms of fish, knowledge of the distribution, abundance, and change potential of these habitats in 

the mainstem will help scientists evaluate the potential of the 

mainstem to support young HBC under various flow regimes. 

This project will build on the baseline data set of shoreline 

habitat for six habitat types at the 8,000 cfs elevation developed from 2000 data. Three other remote-sensing data sets 

from 2002–5 data will be used to extend the time series for a 

5-year period. Using data taken in a variety of years will support this experimental effort to extend the data set to include 

higher elevation habitats up to 45,000 cfs. Higher elevation 

information will allow for better correlation of existing fish 

collection information with a variety of flows.

Integration

The food base research is closely associated with the fish 

community in Glen and Grand Canyons because most of the 

native and nonnative fish species depend on primary and secondary production for sustenance. The current food base study 

includes a component that integrates carbon flow through the 

system, including fishes. Monitoring of the native and nonnative fish populations will provide additional information for 

evaluating the results of the food base study; for example, the 

results of flux in fish populations can be correlated with flux 

of the food base to help critically evaluate the importance of 

primary and secondary production for fishes. 

Monitoring and characterization of the fish community of 

Grand Canyon will be integrated with monitoring and modeling of physical habitat and water-quality parameters, especially in relation to various Glen Canyon Dam release regimens. Additional details of integration strategies and products 

are provided above and in the FY07 Annual Work Plan.
 25

Goal 3 is not currently a Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive 

Management Program (GCDAMP) priority goal; however, 

the goal is part of the National Park Service (NPS) and U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) long-term resource management objectives. If goal 3 becomes a higher priority for the 

GCDAMP in the future, initial efforts will be to investigate the 

feasibility of reintroducing the target extirpated species.

The knowledge gained from Grand Canyon Monitoring 

and Research Center monitoring and research efforts on key 

GCDAMP Goal 3: Restore populations of extirpated 

species, as feasible and advisable

ecosystem drivers—the operation of the Glen Canyon Dam, 

riparian zone health and function, and water quality—will 

be useful to assess the steps necessary to reintroduce specified extirpated native fish, mammals, and amphibians into the 

river ecosystem. As the Colorado River ecosystem improves 

and changes the NPS, FWS, and the Arizona Game and Fish 

Department will, in cooperation with the GCDAMP, prioritize 

any reintroduction efforts. 
26 Monitoring and Research Plan to Support Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Years 2007–11

Strategic Science Questions and 

Information Needs

Monitoring of the rainbow trout population above the Paria 

River is an important activity for understanding the population 

status and trends and evaluating whether the observed status and 

trends are meeting goal 4. Therefore, monitoring of this population is to continue during FY07–FY11. Monitoring data will 

be used to support a protocol evaluation panel (PEP), which is 

scheduled for FY07. The fate of trout eggs and very young fish 

in response to dam operations will be the subject of continuing 

research in FY07 and FY08. The primary science questions and 

information needs addressed by both projects are as follows:

SSQ 3-6. What GCD operations (ramping rates, daily 

flow range, etc.) maximize trout fishing opportunities and 

catchability?

CMIN 4.1.2. Determine annual proportional stock density 

of rainbow trout in the Lees Ferry reach.

CMIN 4.1.4. Determine annual 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 

(i.e., trade-off between numbers and size) for rainbow 

trout in the Lees Ferry reach?

Monitoring and Research

Core Monitoring Activities

The monitoring of the rainbow trout population above the 

Paria River will continue to document population changes and 

condition factors. Current monitoring results and those from 

previous years will be used to inform the FY07 PEP, which, in 

turn, will be used as guidance for core monitoring of rainbow 

trout population above the Paria River. 

1.

2.

3.

4.

FY07. Status and Trends of Lees Ferry Trout (Project BIO 

4.M1.07) 

The fishery is sampled by electrofishing to estimate biological parameters used to assess the status and trends of the 

fishery. Electrofishing provides information on size composition, relative abundance (catch per minute as a surrogate for 

population size), and condition (length weight relationships). 

Samples are collected for whirling disease examination. The 

project addresses SSQ 3-6, CMIN 4.1.2., and CMIN 4.1.4.

FY07. Rainbow Trout Redds and Larvae (Project BIO 4.E1.07) 

Analysis of redd (nest) production, egg production, and 

larval survival will be continued in FY07 to determine population responses to flows, and also to inform the PEP process. 

Information from this project and monitoring helps managers 

and peer reviewers trying to address RIN 4.1.1, as well as the 

SSQ 3-6, CMIN 4.1.2, and CMIN 4.1.4.

Research and Development Activities

The aquatic food base research project described under 

goal 1 will support efforts to determine the amount and quality 

of food available for trout.

Long-term Experimental Activities 

The project will monitor fish population and habitat 

responses to various experimental flow regimens. The results 

of such monitoring will contribute to understanding what flow 

regimens best support and maintain the rainbow trout present 

below Glen Canyon Dam.

Integration

The aquatic food base research project described under 

goal 1 helps provide evaluation of the amount and quality of 

food available for trout.

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
 27

Strategic Science Questions and 

Information Needs

Managers and scientists continue to investigate the highly 

variable population of Kanab ambersnail (KAS) in Grand Canyon. Population size and habitat measurements reveal that both 

snail numbers and habitat availability can vary dramatically, 

therefore the natural, acceptable population and habitat size 

variability remains undefined. Understanding what amount of 

variability is natural (i.e., what is acceptable for managers), 

will be one of the prime questions addressed by the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (FWS) as part of their status review of 

this species in 2006 and 2007. Another important question for 

FWS to consider will be the taxonomic status of the Vasey’s 

Paradise population. This population has been included in 

populations that are the subject of genetics research being 

concluded in 2007 at the University of Arizona under contract 

with the GCMRC. The GCMRC will be closely involved in 

providing science support to the FWS during their review. 

GCMRC in cooperation with partner agencies will 

continue to address the following core monitoring information 

needs (CMINs) for the Kanab ambersnail: 

CMIN 5.1.1. Determine and track the abundance and 

distribution of Kanab ambersnail at Vasey’s 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 the habitat used by Kanab ambersnail at Vasey’s Paradise.

1.

2.

Monitoring and Research Activities

Core Monitoring Activities

Population and habitat monitoring methods for Kanab 

ambersnail continue to be defined and refined. Working closely with the Arizona Game and Fish Department 

(AZGFD) and the National Park Service (NPS), the GCMRC 

is providing logistics support and data analysis for ongoing 

monitoring. The species status review being conducted by the 

FWS in 2006 and 2007 will provide important guidance for 

determining what constitutes core monitoring for this species. 

This guidance will be subject to review by GCDAMP committees and the National Park Service when determining their 

core monitoring needs. Monitoring activities address CMIN 

5.1.1 and CMIN 5.2.1. 

 FY07–FY11. Monitoring Kanab Ambersnail (Project: BIO 

5.R1.07) 

Habitat surveys at Vasey’s Paradise include surveying the 

total area of the habitat and surveying individual patches of 

vegetation within the habitat. Areas are determined using traditional land-survey methods. Habitat surveys are conducted in 

the spring and fall of each year. Within each designated patch, 

the cover and heights of dominant plant species are recorded 

as are variables associated with soil moisture. Snail densities 

are determined by randomly sampling areas within vegetation 

GCDAMP Goal 5: Maintain or attain viable populations of Kanab 

ambersnail
28 Monitoring and Research Plan to Support Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Years 2007–11

patches. Snail densities are extremely variable seasonally and 

among vegetation patches. Consequently, confidence intervals 

around subsequent population estimates are large and considered to be statistically unreliable, so more emphasis is needed 

with regard to sampling emphasis and approaches. The project 

addresses CMIN 5.1.1 and CMIN 5.2.1. 

Research and Development Activities

Testing Alternative Methods 

Surveying in Vasey’s Paradise to determine the extent of 

the habitat can be invasive. Remote technologies that include 

oblique orthorectified imagery and land-based LiDAR may 

be two methods that can be used to determine area cover and 

heights of dominant plants without the need for a person to step 

into the habitat. Alternative methods will be tested beginning 

in FY07 to assess potential survey and monitoring approaches 

for incorporation into long-term monitoring. Depending on the 

results of these tests, conducted in conjunction with monitoring, 

additional projects could be identified in future fiscal years. 

Genetic Research

Current genetics research of the Oxyloma species has 

been supported by GCDAMP funds through the GCMRC. 

The results of the research effort are expected in 2007 and are 

expected to contribute to the species status review.

Long-term Experimental Activities

Experimental Flows Population Monitoring and 

Habitat Salvage

In November 2004, the GCMRC and the AZGFD 

temporarily removed habitat patches that were determined to 

be subject to scouring before the 2004 experimental beach/

habitat-building flows (BHBF). These patches were moved 

above the inundation level and then returned to their original 

locations. The habitat survived the temporary removal and 

provided a means to reduce habitat loss under high-elevation 

flow scenarios. Population response to this action suggests that 

removal and replacement of habitat patches can be conducted 

during the period of low flows before and following high-flow 

tests, respectively. To assure confidence in this result, monitoring of this technique and especially its safety for the KAS 

population, should accompany future BHBFs.

Integration

The Kanab ambersnail monitoring trips are conducted 

in conjunction with river trips that sample backwater habitats 

for small-bodied fishes with seines. This arrangement allows 

researchers to monitor two very different species and habitats 

with a single river trip. 
 29

Strategic Science Questions and 

Information Needs

The riparian and spring vegetation communities of Grand 

Canyon are a component of many other resources, including vertebrate habitats, organic inputs into the river, sediment 

transport, recreation sites, and cultural resources. Understanding how dam operations and other factors, especially climate, 

affect the vegetation communities requires definition of the 

existing vegetation communities and how they change. The 

projects planned under this goal are designed to document and 

model the vegetation communities and how they change with 

the eventual goal of developing some remote monitoring and 

modeling capabilities to inform management needs. 

Monitoring and research activities related to goal 2 are 

designed to address the following strategic science questions 

(SSQs) and core monitoring information needs (CMINs):

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 backwater 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?

CMINs 6.1.1, 6.2.1., 6.5.1, and 6.6.1. Determine and 

track the abundance, composition, distribution, and area 

of terrestrial native and nonnative vegetation in the CRE.

1.

2.

3.

Monitoring and Research Activities

Core Monitoring Activities

Riparian vegetation monitoring requires systemwide 

assessment of vegetation change at the broad scale (e.g., new 

high-water zone) as well as at the local scale (e.g., plot data at 

25,000 cfs). While knowing how much vegetation in the river 

corridor exists is useful, it is equally useful to know how the 

species that make up the vegetation may be changing. Changes 

in riparian vegetation are associated with dam operations 

(Stevens and others, 1995; Kearsley and others, 2006) and can 

include the propagation of exotic species like tamarisk (Porter, 

2002). Yearly transects can detect changes among herbaceous 

species, including invasives, while remotely sensed data collected at a 5-year intervals can assess changes in overstory 

wood species that change more slowly. Monitoring in this way 

provides data across temporal and spatial scales. In FY07, this 

work is being developed as a core monitoring project and will 

be reviewed by a protocol evaluation panel (PEP). Monitoring 

activities address SSQ 2-1, CMIN 6.1.1, CMIN 6.2.1, CMIN 

6.5.1, and CMIN 6.6.1.

FY07–FY08. Vegetation Mapping (Project BIO 6.R1.07)

FY07–FY11. Vegetation Transects (Project BIO 6.R2.07)

These two field-based projects are designed to compliment one another. Annual monitoring that uses vegetation 

transects (Project BIO 6.R2.07) associated with specific stage 

elevations records species diversity, richness, and cover. The 

GCDAMP Goal 6: Protect or improve the biotic riparian and 

spring communities, including threatened and endangered 

species and their critical habitat
30 Monitoring and Research Plan to Support Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Years 2007–11

changes in vegetation parameters that this monitoring detects 

is relevant to perennial and annual herbaceous species like 

bunch grasses, marsh species, and invasive species that can 

change on an annual basis. Vegetation mapping (Project BIO 

6.R1.07) utilizes the overflight digital imagery (a product of 

the Data Acquisition, Storage, and Analysis Program) to quantify larger scale area changes (e.g., expansion of arrowweed 

patches, or extent and type of vegetated shoreline). Analysis 

of change detection in the vegetation mapping project would 

incorporate the annual transect survey results to help explain 

patterns of change that may occur over a 5-year time frame. 

The two projects compliment each other because they provide information about changes in riparian habitat at different 

ecological scales that may affect other riparian community 

constituents like invertebrate biomass and riparian bird abundance. 

Research and Development Activities

Our understanding of how riparian vegetation changes as 

a result of dam operations is well developed for marsh species 

(see Stevens and others, 1995). The authors related decadal 

changes in operations, geomorphic reach, and distance from 

the dam to area cover and species composition. Our knowledge regarding this community was reaffirmed in the Knowledge Assessment Workshop, which is summarized in Melis 

and others (2006). However, as one moves upslope from the 

channel, our understanding of how operations influence vegetation change is less conclusive. As a result of the vegetation 

transects completed from 2000 to 2004, we do know that dam 

operations affect vegetation cover, richness, and diversity up 

to the 35,000 cfs river stage elevation, while the local environment appears to affect vegetation above this elevation. We do 

not know, however, how short duration high flows (discharges 

greater than 31, 000 cfs), may change riparian vegetation. 

These questions will be considered within the scope of the 

vegetation synthesis.

FY07–FY11. Vegetation Synthesis (Project BIO 6.R3.07) 

The vegetation synthesis will use previous mapping and 

monitoring results to test mechanisms that affect riparian vegetation establishment and expansion, including rates of change 

and potential colonization sites. The synthesis seeks to address 

knowledge gaps identified by the Knowledge Assessment. For 

example, the Knowledge Assessment revealed that there was 

some certainty about the relationship of marsh community 

development and flows for the Colorado River ecosystem, 

but that this certainty decreased as one progresses upslope. 

Additionally, the Knowledge Assessment found the need for 

an understanding of the integrated role of riparian vegetation 

with other resources (e.g., aquatic and cultural resources). A 

synthesis is a step toward filling these needs and will be implemented in two parts. Part I (FY07–FY09) will address local 

processes and systemwide change and Part II (FY09–FY11) 

will integrate faunal and cultural components. This project 

addresses SSQ 1-5 and SSQ 3-2.

Long-term Experimental Activities 

Experiments associated with riparian vegetation will be 

curtailed until Part I of the vegetation synthesis is completed 

in FY09. A potential experiment associated with riparian 

vegetation that could be subsequently implemented would be 

to remove vegetation that is subject to inundation during high 

flows, including low-growing limbs, to determine the effect of 

reduced vegetation on sediment transport and deposition, and 

to observe colonization rates in understory and open-beach 

areas. The colonization rates would examine how native versus 

introduced species compete and occupy newly available space. 

The results would be used to test hypotheses generated in the 

synthesis. In the interim, annual monitoring that is correlated 

with stage variation will be conducted to provide a general 

picture of vegetation response to changes in operations associated with long-term experimental planning from FY07–FY11.

Integration

Riparian vegetation is a critical interface between aquatic 

and terrestrial environments around the world. In the Colorado River ecosystem, 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 uses. Changes in the composition or structure of 

riparian vegetation like the expansion of an exotic species may 

alter these interactions. Riparian vegetation regulates nutrient exchange between the land and water. For example, 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, in part, addressed 

through the food base initiative. The linkage could be further 

defined through studies that focus on terrestrial productivity and processes. Again, changes in abundance or kind of 

riparian carbon sources may influence aquatic productivity 

processes. In addition, an understanding of how vegetation 

influences cultural resources is needed, which was noted in the 

Knowledge Assessment. Through a combination of monitoring, synthesis, and field research, the Biology Program will 

improve the understanding of the role riparian vegetation plays 

in influencing other resources.
 31

Strategic Science Questions and 

Information Needs

Recognizing the importance of the qualities of water 

released from Glen Canyon Dam (GCD), the GCMRC seeks 

to better understand how water-quality conditions in Lake 

Powell affect and interact with downstream quality of water 

and aquatic resources below the dam. This will be addressed 

with an integrated program of monitoring and modeling both 

in Lake Powell and downstream. 

In 2004, the Adaptive Management Work Group 

(AMWG) identified several priority questions, one of which 

relates directly to downstream quality of water, particularly 

water temperature below Glen Canyon Dam: 

AMWG Priority 3: What is the best flow regime? 

In addition, during the 2005 Knowledge Assessment 

Workshop, biological scientists also identified uncertainty 

related to options for achieving fishery and food web objectives related to downstream water quality and temperature. As 

a result, the scientists formulated several key strategic science 

questions for GCDAMP goal 7 around those uncertainties. 

The most critical strategic science questions that emerged as 

the focus of monitoring and research activities for goal 7 are 

as follows:

SSQ 3-5. How is invertebrate flux affected by water quality (e.g., temperature, nutrient concentrations, turbidity) 

and dam operations? 

SSQ 5-1. How do dam release temperatures, flows (average and fluctuating component), meteorology, canyon 

1.

2.

orientation and geometry, and reach morphology interact 

to determine mainstem and near shore 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? 

As part of the GCDAMP strategic plan, several core 

monitoring information needs (CMINs) for measurements of 

downstream flow and water temperature, as well as the quality of water leaving GCD, were identified. The key CMINS 

related to goal 7 are as follows: 

CMIN 7.1.1. Determine the water temperature dynamics 

in the mainstem, tributaries (as appropriate), backwaters, and nearshore 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 mainstem throughout the Colorado River 

ecosystem.

CMIN 7.3.1. What are the status and trends of water quality releases from Glen Canyon Dam?

Monitoring of stage and discharge below Glen Canyon Dam 

provides a means for determining when dam operations are in 

compliance with the 1996 Record of Decision, as well as when 

departures occur under emergency criteria. Owing to the fact that 

suspended-sediment measurements are usually considered to be a 

component of the quality-of-water monitoring project, the CMINs 

associated with goal 8 for sediment are also tied to monitoring of 

downstream quality of water (see goal 8, this report).

3.

1.

2.

3.

GCDAMP Goal 7: Establish water temperature, quality, and flow 

dynamics to achieve the AMP ecosystem goals
32 Monitoring and Research Plan to Support Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Years 2007–11

Monitoring and Research Activities

Monitoring and research activities related to goal 7 are 

carried out by the integrated quality-of-water (IQW) project and involve Lake Powell, the tailwater of Glen Canyon 

Dam, and the water downstream of Glen Canyon Dam. All 

of the activities related to goal 7 carry forward one or more 

of the three elements of the overall Monitoring and Research 

Plan, including core monitoring, research and development, 

and long-term experimentation. For this reason, individual 

monitoring and research activities are discussed in terms of the 

element of the plan they are designed to support. 

Core Monitoring Activities 

Upstream Quality of Water Monitoring of Lake 

Powell and Glen Canyon Dam Tailwater

Processes within Lake Powell, climate changes in the 

upper Colorado River Basin, the structure of the GCD, and 

various aspects of dam operations affect the quality of water 

released from GCD to the Colorado River ecosystem (CRE) 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. Activities in this category are designed to address strategic science questions SSQ 

3-5, SSQ 5-1, and SSQ 5-3. 

FY07–FY11. Quality of Water Monitoring of Lake Powell 

and the Glen Canyon Dam Tailwater (Project BIO 7.R1.07)

Water quality, including temperature, in Lake Powell 

makes a fundamental contribution to the aquatic environment 

downstream of Glen Canyon Dam. This monitoring project 

maintains a 40-year long database of water-quality information that managers can use to help understand the aquatic 

environment that is available to organisms downstream. These 

data are currently being combined with other data to support 

downstream thermal modeling. A data report that includes 

status and trends of parameters and identification of recurring 

patterns will be produced by the GCMRC in FY07. This report 

will inform further analysis that is anticipated in future years 

of reservoir processes, climatic versus operational effects, and 

suitability of the released water for downstream resources. 

The results of the ongoing monitoring will be a fundamental resource for an expert protocol evaluation panel (PEP) 

anticipated in FY09. The PEP will look critically at the current 

protocols and recommend any necessary changes.

Downstream Quality of Water Monitoring 

Suspended-sediment transport data for both sand and 

finer particles are analyzed and used to update managers about 

the status of suspended-sediment flux between the two major 

tributaries (influx) and export to upper Lake Mead (efflux). 

The measurements and modeling estimates for tributary sand 

influx and main channel efflux are used to support experimental flow triggers related to testing of beach/habitat-building 

flows (BHBFs) and to evaluate research flows, such as alternative fluctuating operations and stable flows. Temperature, flow, 

and stage data are also made available for use by scientists in 

assessing habitat characteristics for aquatic organisms. This 

effort addresses SSQ5-1.

FY07–FY11. Downstream Integrated Quality-of-Water 

Monitoring (below Glen Canyon Dam) (Project PHY 

7.M1.07)

The downstream integrated quality-of-water monitoring project focuses primarily on monitoring, but also has the 

capacity to support research related to experimental flows, 

including BHBFs. There are several general components to 

the monitoring strategy for goal 7, relating to the downstream 

integrated quality-of-water project:

Monitor and report real-time data of release pattern of 

Glen Canyon Dam (stage and discharge, as measured 

at the Colorado River gage near Lees Ferry and key 

points downstream)

Monitor and report real-time quality-of-water data for 

downstream segments of the Colorado River ecosystem 

that focus on managers’ needs and supports modeling 

efforts below Glen Canyon Dam (temperature, specific 

conductivity, and other characteristics in the main 

channel and selected tributaries)

Monitor and report estimates for (measurements and 

modeling) sand and silt/clay volumes (with grain sizes) 

delivered by major and lesser tributaries below Glen 

Canyon Dam (ecosystem’s influx of fine sediments)

Monitor and report estimates for (measurements and 

modeling) sand and silt/clay volumes (and grain sizes) 

transported by the Colorado River downstream below 

Glen Canyon Dam (ecosystem’s efflux of fine sediments)

Monitoring to support experimental flows, including collecting, as need arises, additional similar data 

in support of experimental flows released from Glen 

Canyon Dam

•

•

•

•

•
 33

Research and Development Activities

Advanced Development of Downstream Flow, 

Temperature, and Sediment Modeling 

FY07–FY08. Monitoring Support Linked with Integrated 

Quality-of-Water Monitoring (Project PHY 7.R1.07)

Several modeling efforts and related research activities 

are planned for the 2007–11 monitoring and research period:

Ongoing development and verification of thermal and 

sediment-transport models below GCD as well as user 

interfaces and World Wide Web access to data

Applications of sediment and thermal modeling simulations for science planning support

Interdisciplinary cooperation between scientists modeling water quality and food web researchers working 

on the development of nutrient monitoring and mass 

balance

Evaluation of use of hydroacoustic instrumentation 

for continuous monitoring of organic drift in the Lees 

Ferry reach

As part of science efforts between 2007 and 2011, the 

GCMRC shall continue development of a downstream model 

for temperature (initiated in 2006). Temperature monitoring 

along the main channel is proposed to be expanded to include 

continuous measurements in selected nearshore environments, 

such as backwaters (return-current channel) within Marble and 

eastern Grand Canyons. These data are intended to support 

ongoing development of a downstream thermal model for the 

main channel and associated nearshore habitats of importance 

to aquatic organisms and fish.

During 2007 and 2008, GCMRC scientists and cooperators conducting research on nutrient dynamics related to the 

ecosystem’s aquatic productivity and the quality-of-water 

project are scheduled to continue collaborative efforts to 

define future monitoring activities. One objective of the food 

web research is to help the GCMRC identify elements of 

downstream monitoring that might be of interest to managers. 

Strategies for expanding downstream quality-of-water measurements and integrating new protocols with existing measurements shall be explored during the remainder of the food 

web research. Use of acoustic backscattering data for estimating drifting organic matter that leaves the Lees Ferry reach has 

been attempted as a pilot study in 2005. Preliminary evaluation 

of this approach shows promise and is the motivation for more 

detailed field activities between the IQW staff and aquatic 

scientists within the GCRMC in FY07 and beyond.

•

•

•

•

Long-term Experimental Activities

Experimental Flow Support

The IQW project will collect, as need arises, additional 

similar quality-of-water and suspended-sediment data in 

support of experimental flows released from GCD, including 

future BHBF tests.

Depending upon the suite of experimental flows included 

in the long-term experimental design, additional experimental 

studies, such as alternative fluctuating flows, might also be 

the focus of field measurements and modeling simulations to 

address the above science questions related to fine sediment 

dynamics, conservation of sandbars, etc.

The experimental design for future BHBF studies has 

not been fully determined, but is likely to focus on replication 

of a high-flow release of similar duration to the experiment 

conducted in 2004 (41,000 to 45,000 cfs for approximately 

2 days) under similarly sand-enriched conditions from the 

Paria and Little Colorado Rivers. The logic for replication of 

additional BHBFs under sand-enriched conditions similar to 

the antecedent conditions that preceded the 2004 experiment is 

described in the next section related to goal 8 (sediment).

Additional flow and sediment studies are most likely to 

focus on alternative fluctuating flows, possible stable flows, or 

even thermally modify releases from GCD by the end of the 

monitoring and research period.

Integration

The potential for interdisciplinary studies between other 

resource areas and the IQW project is great owing to the fact 

that it results in high-resolution data streams for temperature, 

conductivity, and suspended-sediment data throughout the 

CRE. Integration will be necessary to answer most of the 

strategic science questions associated with AMWG priority 5. 

For example, dissolved oxygen data measured in the tailwater 

below the dam and in Lake Powell are of special interest to 

fisheries biologist and managers in the Lees Ferry reach. Temperature and suspended-sediment data are particularly important to scientists working on problems of fishery habitat use 

and productivity above and below the Lees Ferry reach. River 

discharge and associated downstream stage data are important 

for understanding nutrient spiraling and habitat conditions 

throughout the main channel of the ecosystem. The evolving 

state of the fine-sediment mass balance throughout the ecosystem influences efforts to restore and maintain beaches of interest to managers and scientists for their roles in both the aquatic 

and terrestrial environments. Continued in-situ preservation of 

cultural resource sites depends upon nearshore beach habitats 
34 Monitoring and Research Plan to Support Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Years 2007–11

being sufficiently nourished by new tributary sand supplies 

(presumably, through effective BHBF implementation) to 

contribute to wind transported sand into arroyos and other 

geomorphic setting where archaeological sites have eroded.

During the monitoring and research period of FY07–

FY11, new efforts shall be made to bridge or link core 

monitoring within the downstream IQW project to food 

web, fishery, recreation, and archaeological science projects. 

Special emphasis shall also be made within the monitoring project to collect temperature data that directly supports 

increased modeling capabilities for predicting downstream 

water temperature in the main channel and near-shore habitats. 

These nearshore data shall be collected specifically within the 

context of seasonal field activities conducted within the fishery 

and food web research trips and at sites where those science 

efforts are already being focused.

The primary objective toward promoting use of the IQW 

core monitoring data to achieve greater integrated science 

shall be to not only collect these data, but then to make them 

readily accessible to other cooperating scientists and managers 

so that they can be used and integrated into focused research and 

development, as well as experimental research efforts. Historical 

temperature, flow, and sediment data shall be used also in updating 

and advancing the Grand Canyon conceptual model, previously 

developed in the late 1990s. Conceptual modeling workshops held 

during the 2007–11 period shall have access to quality-of-water 

data from both Lake Powell and downstream IQW efforts.

Sand beach mapping and change detection studies, 

scheduled for 2007 and beyond, shall also have the advantage of using the continuous fine-sediment mass balance core 

monitoring data for use in evaluating sandbar area, volume and 

grain size changes that are identified over the period 1999–

2009, when airborne, remote-sensing missions capture imagery of ecosystem shorelines. By having these core monitoring 

data for fine-sediment flux, scientists and managers may better 

evaluate the relationship between dam operations (including 

BHBF tests) and physical habitat responses associated with 

sandbars throughout the river corridor.
 35

Strategic Science Questions and 

Information Needs

Recognizing that maintaining or attaining a sufficient 

level of sandbars and related habitats is a long-term goal, the 

Monitoring and Research Plan seeks to address discreet scientific questions, information needs, and objectives required to 

achieve this larger goal. In 2004, the Adaptive Management 

Work Group (AMWG) identified several priority questions, including priority question 4 which relates directly to sediment: What is 

the impact of sediment loss and what should we do about it? 

In addition, during the 2005 Knowledge Assessment 

Workshop, sediment scientists also identified uncertainty 

related to options for achieving sandbar conservation objectives and posed key strategic science questions for GCDAMP 

goal 8 around those uncertainties. The most critical strategic 

science question that emerged as the focus of monitoring and 

research activities for goal 8 is:

SSQ 4-1. Is there a “Flow-Only” operation (i.e. a 

strategy for dam releases, including managing tributary 

inputs with BHBFs, without sediment augmentation) 

that will restore and maintain sandbar habitats over 

decadal time scales?

Also identified as part of the GCDAMP Strategic Plan are 

several core monitoring information needs (CMINs), which 

are briefly summarized in table 2.2.

Monitoring and Research Activities

Monitoring and research activities are categorized below 

into three activities: core monitoring, research and development linked to monitoring and modeling, and long-term flow 

experimentation. In the case of goal 8, monitoring activities 

•

for detecting changes in sand storage throughout the river ecosystem were extensively reviewed through the protocols evaluation panel (SEDS-PEP) process during the period 1998–2006. 

The SEDS-PEP review process for sediment monitoring was 

concluded in August 2006 with a final meeting and report to 

the GCMRC. Recommendations for future monitoring shall 

be integrated into the science planning process during 2007, 

as planning for the FY08–FY09 Biennial Work Plan occurs. 

As a result of the timing associated with this ongoing process, 

only general elements of long-term sediment monitoring are 

discussed in this section of the Monitoring and Research Plan.

Core Monitoring Activities

Core monitoring activities will focus on:

Monitoring and reporting biennial field measurements (site-specific conventional surveys) on status of 

sandbar area, volumes, and grain size characteristics 

at a selected sub-sample of sandbars within specified 

geomorphic reaches

Monitoring and reporting remotely sensed measurements of sandbar areas systemwide, as derived from 

multispectral, orthorectified, digital imagery flown 

once every 4 years

Monitoring and reporting changes in the distribution 

and abundance of shoreline types pertaining to terrestrial and aquatic habitats of interest to managers, such 

as backwaters, camping areas, cultural preservation 

sites using data derived from multispectral, orthorectified, digital imagery flown once every 4 years

Monitoring and reporting changes in the geomorphic 

impacts along the Colorado River ecosystem that result 

from tributary debris flows and stream floods

•

•

•

•

GCDAMP Goal 8: Maintain or attain levels of sediment 

storage within the main channel and along shorelines to 

achieve Adaptive Management ecosystem goals
36 Monitoring and Research Plan to Support Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Years 2007–11

Monitoring Changes in Sediment Storage

External Peer Review of Sediment Protocols in 2006–7

The external review of sediment protocols to take 

place from 2006–7 will be followed by planning for sandbar 

monitoring toward implementation in 2008–11 and beyond. 

Recommendations from external peer reviewers on options for 

monitoring of sediment storage throughout the ecosystem shall 

be incorporated into a GCMRC-led core monitoring workshop 

with the Technical Work Group (TWG) during 2007. The 

purpose of the 2007 workshop is to ensure that stakeholder 

information needs related to sediment resources are specifically considered during planning for future monitoring. The 

GCDAMP’ approved core monitoring information needs for 

sediment are summarized in table 2.2. 

Of these information needs for sediment, the Science 

Planning Group recently identified a prioritization for sediment monitoring that identified measurements and modeling 

estimates of sediment inputs from major tributaries as the 

most important monitoring activity (see goal 7, this report). 

The measurement of changes in high-elevation sandbars along 

the main channel of the ecosystem was the next most important activity. Because retention of tributary sand inputs has 

been identified by scientists and managers as a precursor for 

experimental beach/habitat-building flows (BHBF) intended 

to restore and maintain sandbars, sand export from the upper 

reaches of the ecosystem is also a monitoring priority in 

support of research aimed at evaluating sediment triggers for 

future high-flow tests.

Owing to the fact that fine-sediment deposits (beaches 

within eddies) are closely related to the distribution of 

coarse-grained sediment deposits (tributary debris fans), 

core monitoring for changes in gravel deposits is also needed 

at decade-scale periods to fully evaluate changes in sand 

beaches, whitewater rapids, and related geomorphic settings 

and habitats.

Monitoring Changes in Coarse-Grained Sediments and 

Impacts from Tributary Debris Flows

Core Monitoring activities related to coarse sediment in 

the ecosystem are to be determined during FY07, following 

external peer review and report on recommendations from 

the SEDS-PEP panel meeting (August 2006). Future core 

monitoring efforts for both fine and coarse-grained sediment 

deposits shall be planned on the basis of: managers’ core 

information needs (table 2.2), results from recent research and 

development (2000–6 study results), external peer review, and 

planning with the Technical Work Group.

Over 700 tributaries have the potential to contribute 

coarse-grained sediment to the CRE. The addition of coarse 

sediment is known to alter beaches and debris fans and can 

change the way that finer sediment is stored throughout the 

main channel. Such changes occur as a result of aggregation of 

Environment Discharge range Goal 8 Core Monitoring Information Need(s)

Tributaries N/A

Monthly sand and silt/clay input volumes and grain-size 

characteristics from the Paria and Little Colorado Rivers and 

other major tributaries like Kanab and Havasu creeks, and 

“lesser” tributaries

Main channel < 5,000

Biennial fine-sediment 

volume and grain-size 

changes by reach

Monthly sand and silt/clay loads 

and grain-size characteristics 

at Lees Ferry, lower Marble 

Canyon, Grand Canyon, and 

Diamond Creek

Channel margins 

(not eddies) 5,000 – 25,000 Biennial sandbar area, volume and grain-size changes by reach

Eddies

< 5,000 Biennial sandbar area, volume and grain-size changes by reach

5,000 – 25,000 Annual sandbar area, volume and grain-size changes by reach

> 25,000 Biennial sandbar area, volume and grain-size changes by reach

Throughout the 

CR ecosystem N/A Changes in coarse sediment (> 2 mm) abundance and distribution

Table 2.2 Overview of core 

monitoring information needs 

related to GCDAMP goal 8.
 37

main channel rapids, upper pools, and runs above rapids and 

through deposition of new gravel on existing debris fans and 

eddies. These geomorphic changes influence the ecosystem’s 

flow dynamics in and between rapids and effectively increase 

the abundance of gravel substrates spatially. Monitoring of 

changes resulting from continuing tributary inputs of gravel 

shall be conducted on a systemwide basis through the use of 

remotely sensed imagery once during 2007–11, using imagery obtained in 2005 and 2009. Additional field activities 

may be scheduled for purposes of ground truthing in support 

of change detection. In the event of larger tributary debris 

flows that significantly alter navigational characteristics of 

the main channel, additional field activities may needed on 

a contingency basis. Monitoring data from this project shall 

be reported to managers at biennial science symposia and 

TWG meetings (on a period basis) and will be available for 

integration into other resource area efforts, such as food web, 

cultural/recreational, and fisheries projects.

Research and Development Activities

Development of Core Monitoring Protocols for Sediment

 From 2000 through 2006, research and development 

efforts were proposed, funded competitively through solicitations, and completed by a consortium of sediment scientists 

from the U.S. Geological Survey, Northern Arizona University and Utah State University. The results of these long-term 

studies were reviewed in summer 2006 by an expert panel 

of sediment scientists who were charged with evaluating the 

results of the studies, as well as developing science-based 

recommendations for what protocols are appropriate for use 

in core monitoring of sandbar changes throughout the CRE. 

Additionally, the review panel also critically evaluated the 

results of a major sediment modeling initiative programmed 

by the GCMRC between 2001 and 2006. While the sediment 

protocols evaluation panel’s (SED-PEP) draft report includes 

recommendations for additional research studies and focused 

evaluations, the main goal of the GCMRC is to incorporate 

the panel’s review recommendations into a core monitoring 

plan for goal 8 (sediment) information needs in FY08 and 

beyond. The proposed schedule for core monitoring is likely 

to be tied to a biennial strategy of field measurements, as well 

as change-detection mapping and evaluation tied to airborne 

remote-sensing overflights (digital imagery) collected once 

every 4 years. The next such mission is proposed in FY09.

Strategy for Ongoing Development of Sediment Transport 

Models 

Initial written comments received from the 2006 SEDPEP related to proposed FY07 modeling activities indicate the 

need for additional testing and review of the sand transport 

modeling project. This former research project (2002–6), 

funded through competitive solicitation in FY01, was focused 

on simulating the short-term (i.e., weeks to months) fate of 

tributary inputs using a pseudo-one-dimensional model, as 

well as modeling the effects of single BHBF on eddy storage. 

Comments from the SED-PEP indicate substantial concern 

regarding the adequacy of the existing sediment transport 

models for the Colorado River ecosystem. Therefore, the 

original FY07 modeling work plan (referred to in goal 7, this 

report) has undergone modification to include further testing 

of the models by their developers, as well as additional review. 

A second important recommendation from the PEP related 

to sand transport modeling was the need to develop a model 

for simulating the long-term fate (i.e., years to decades) of 

sandbar deposits. A long-term model would be an invaluable 

tool for evaluating various “flow only” alternatives (presumably centered around repeated use of BHBFs) for restoring 

sandbars over decadal time scales (i.e., answering the strategic 

sediment question above). Thus, the additional sand transport model review will occur in FY07 in combination with a 

workshop designed to formulate a strategy for development 

of this long-term model, which could be implemented in 

FY08–FY09.

Long-term Experimental Activities

Generally, the experimental science support objective for 

goal 8 is tied to evaluation of “flow only” options for sandbar 

restoration and maintenance through use of beach/habitatbuilding flows. For this reason, in support of the evaluation 

of experimental flows from Glen Canyon Dam, GCMRC program staff will collect, as need arises, additional sand storage 

data throughout the main channel of the CRE.

Two specific types of experimental sediment activities are 

anticipated during the FY08–FY11 period of monitoring and 

research are described below.

Experimentally Replicate the 2004 Beach/Habitat-Building 

Flow Test

Sediment research results from the 2004 experimental 

high flow suggested that short-duration dam releases in the 

range of 41,000 to 45,000 cfs that are release in the same season or year that significant sand is delivered to the Colorado 

River by larger tributaries can result in a net positive change 

in sandbar resources. Following this result, sediment scientists 

have recommended that replication of the sediment enriched 

test during winter or spring months could answer the question about whether repeated implementation of such releases 

following sediment inputs might be a sustainable means of 

restoration and maintenance of sandbars and related ecosystem habitats. The logic associated with such an experimental 

strategy for sandbar restoration is shown in fig. 2.1.

In the event that results from a repeat of the sediment test 

conducted in 2004 (similar with respect to sand enrichment 

regardless of seasonal timing) are not net positive, then future 

tests might need to occur when more highly constrained dam 
38 Monitoring and Research Plan to Support Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Years 2007–11

releases allow downstream tributary sand inputs to accumulate over time or when sand can be imported from upstream 

sources (or perhaps some combination of both).

The strategy of attempting to replicate the net positive 

sand mass balance documented as the result of the 2004 high 

flow experiment is intended to directly answer the primary 

strategic science question for sediment (SSQ 4.1) listed above. 

If replication of the 2004 test suggests that the “flow only” 

operational strategy for sandbar restoration is sustainable 

through repeated implementation following tributary sand 

inputs, then additional monitoring and research (perhaps combined with flow and sediment modeling) might be undertaken 

to determine an optimal recurrence interval for BHBFs that 

is required to achieve future desired conditions for sandbar 

resources throughout the ecosystem.

Experimentally Evaluate Alternative Ramping Rates

The stability of sandbars and their fate following BHBFs 

under patterns of diurnal fluctuating releases is another important topic of concern for the GCDAMP. One of the critical 

elements of daily fluctuating operations linked with sandbar 

stability is the hourly rates at which flows are increased and 

decreased. This operational parameter relates to sandbar 

stability, particularly with regard to the down-ramp rate 

of dam releases that affect the rate at which perched water 

within sandbars is able to drain from beach sands as the river 

stage drops toward the daily low flow. Alternative ramping 

rates, particularly increased rates for the down ramping, are 

therefore identified as a priority for further experimental flow 

research to determine if down ramping at more than the currently allowed rate of 1,500 cfs/hour significantly increases 

sandbar erosion rates between episodes of beach building and 

sandbar restoration.

Data relating to SSQ 4 -1 shall be collected through a 

focused strategy of monitoring measurements made before 

and after future BHBFs using methods developed for sandbar 

monitoring during the 2000–5 era or research and development. Measurements shall focus on areas identified as representative for eddy and sandbar responses within Glen, Marble, 

and Grand Canyons as reported in recent synthesis research 

reports. Resolving the answer to strategic science question 

4-1, assumes that at least one more sand-enriched BHBF test 

occurs in the future research period of 2007–11 (to be compared with data from the 2004 high flow experiment).

Data relating to alternative ramping rates could be 

collected through a focused strategy of experimental field 

measurements, modeling, and laboratory studies of alternative fluctuating flows during the research period 2008–11. 

This research represents a return to the types of studies that 

were conducted during the 1990–94 environmental impact 

statement era using methods developed for sandbar monitoring during the 2000–5 era or research and development. New 

methods shall also be used to further refine the information on 

Figure 2.1 Flow chart 

showing the proposed 

experimental strategy for 

evaluating whether a “flow 

only” operational strategy for 

restoration and maintenance of 

sand bars below Glen Canyon 

Dam can be successfully 

implemented through repeated 

implementation of beach/

habitat-building flows during 

years when tributaries produce 

average to above-average 

sand inputs to the Colorado 

River ecosystem. 
 39

how alternative ramping rates and daily stage ranges (relative to the Record of Decision) influence sandbar stability 

and related habitats below the dam. Sandbar measurements 

shall focus on areas identified as representative for eddy and 

sandbar responses within Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons, 

as reported in recent synthesis research reports. Ongoing 

monitoring data on suspended-sediment transport shall also be 

evaluated to determine how alternative fluctuating flow operations influence downstream sand transport (export).

Integration

Initiated in 2003, monthly integrated science meetings are 

convened by the GCMRC to explore and identify methods for 

linking past and present monitoring and research activities to 

one another. At these meetings, staff and cooperating scientists 

discuss strategic science questions that have been identified 

by stakeholders and evaluate monitoring and research progress that is being made by individual projects in the program. 

Future integration efforts are generally identified and are then 

considered during the annual science planning process that is 

conducted jointly between GCMRC Program Managers and 

the Technical Work Group to develop budgets and work plans. 

Another major effort by the GCMRC to better support integrated science activities has been to work within and between 

individual projects to ensure that databases resulting from the 

science efforts are documented in terms of metadata as they 

enter the GCMRC Oracle database. This initiative is an ongoing 

task of the GCMRC’s Data Acquisition, Storage and Analysis 

(DASA) Program and is intended to allow for integrated analyses of spatial data as integrated studies are identified.

Sand storage monitoring and research efforts shall continue to be integrated into monitoring and research related to 

recreation camping site areas, terrestrial vegetation, preservation 

of archaeological sites, and nearshore habitats and substrate distributions related to fish and food web dynamics in the aquatic 

ecosystem. Most importantly, the changes in sand storage that 

are measured through monitoring and mapping efforts shall be 

used to verify results of the fine-sediment mass flux element of 

the downstream integrated quality-of-water project, as well as to 

verify sand transport and sandbar modeling results.

Changes in the distribution, abundance and morphology of gravel deposits that are derived from coarse-grained 

monitoring shall be related to recreational whitewater boating (navigation) experience, terrestrial and aquatic substrate, 

campsite areas, nearshore habitats (backwaters), as well as 

the abundance and distribution of sand storage throughout the 

ecosystem (changes in eddy storage).

An example of an integrated project related to sediment 

resources is the integrated analysis of mapping shoreline habitat 

changes project (Project DASA 12.D6.07). During FY07, the 

GCMRC staff and its science cooperators shall undertake efforts 

at mapping changes in the distribution and abundance of sandbars and related nearshore habitats throughout the CRE. This 

effort shall be undertaken as an experimental support activity 

associated with the collection of May 2005 digital, remotely 

sensed imagery (systemwide data were also collected in 2002 

and 2004) and is directly related to conservation measures identified with the November 2004 high flow experiment.
40 Monitoring and Research Plan to Support Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Years 2007–11

Strategic Science Questions and 

Information Needs

Maintaining or improving the quality of the recreational 

experience is a multifaceted and complex goal. For example, 

dam operations affect a myriad of physical and biological 

attributes that have direct or indirect effects on river-based 

recreation, and a specific flow regime may have both positive 

and negative effects on different attributes of the overall recreation experience. As a result, the Monitoring and Research 

Plan seeks to address discreet scientific questions, information 

needs, and objectives required to achieve goal 9. 

In 2004, the Adaptive Management Work Group 

(AMWG) identified several priority questions. Priority 3 

relates directly to goal 9:

AMWG Priority 3: What is the best flow regime?

In addition, a number of strategic science questions 

related to the effects of flows on recreation emerged from the 

Knowledge Assessment Workshop (KAW) conducted in July 

2005. The strategic science questions that emerged from the 

KAW are primarily targeted at improving our understanding of 

how flows affect biophysical conditions and social attributes 

that are important to the quality of recreation experiences in 

the Colorado River ecosystem (CRE). The most critical strategic science questions that emerged as the focus of monitoring 

and research activities for goal 9 are the following:

SSQ 3-6. What GCD 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? 

1.

2.

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? 

SSQ 3-9. How do varying flows positively or negatively 

affect campsite attributes that are important to visitor 

experience? 

SSQ 3-10. How can safety and navigability be reliably 

measured relative to flows? 

SSQ 3-11. How do varying flows positively or negatively 

affect visitor safety, health, and navigability of the rapids? 

SSQ 3-12. 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? 

The GCDAMP identified several core monitoring information needs under each of the five recreation management 

objectives. The Science Planning Group (SPG) subsequently 

refined and prioritized the core monitoring information needs 

(CMINs) for the purposes of defining the most important 

monitoring needs of each goal in order to allocate future funding. The latter process resulted in the following ranking of 

CMINs for recreation: 

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 9.1.1 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 9.5.1 Determine and track the frequency and 

scheduling of research and monitoring activity in Glen 

and Grand Canyons 

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

1.

2.

3.

GCDAMP Goal 9: Maintain or improve the quality of recreational 

experiences for users of the Colorado River ecosystem, within 

the framework of the GCDAMP ecosystems goals
 41

CMIN 9.1.2 Determine and track the frequency and 

scheduling of river-related use patterns. 

CMIN 9.2.2 Determine and track accident rates for 

visitors participating in river-related activities including 

causes and location (i.e. on-river or off-river), equipment 

type, operator experience, and other factors of these accidents in the Colorado River ecosystem.

Note: In June 2005, a protocol evaluation panel 

(PEP) reviewed the entire GCDAMP recreation program 

and produced a final report (Loomis and others, 2005), 

which included numerous recommendations for improving 

GCMRC’s recreation monitoring and research program. The 

recreation PEP recognized that most of the recommended 

monitoring and research programs had the potential to benefit 

both the GCDAMP and the National Park Service (NPS) 

Colorado River Management Plan (CRMP). In addition to the 

strategic science questions, the recommendations provided in 

the PEP report form the foundation for the FY07–FY11 recreation program described below.

Monitoring and Research Activities

Monitoring and research activities related to recreation 

for FY07–FY11 encompass all three elements of the overall 

Monitoring and Research Plan, including core monitoring, 

research and development, and experimental activities.

Core Monitoring Activities

Status and Trends in Campsite Area

A key concern of recreational rafters in Grand Canyon 

is the diminishing number and size of campsites along the 

Colorado River. In FY07–FY11, The GCMRC will continue 

to monitor changes in campable area at the Northern Arizona 

University (NAU) sandbar study sites, while concurrently 

exploring alternative and additional methods to evaluate 

changes in campable area throughout the CRE.

FY07–FY11. Sandbar and Campable Area Monitoring 

(Project REC.9.R1.07)

In FY07–FY11, the GCMRC will continue to monitor 

campable area at the NAU sandbar study sites, using conventional survey methods as in the past (Kaplinksi and others, 

2005), but with more emphasis on differentiating optimal 

campable area (level and flat sandy areas) from suboptimal 

campable area (sloping, lightly vegetated, and/or rockier terrain). A major thrust of the FY07–FY11 monitoring program 

will be to more closely integrate the campable area monitor4.

5.

ing work with that of the NAU sandbar monitoring program 

so that the latter program can inform the former with respect 

to the effects of changing sandbar area and morphology on 

campable area.

Concurrently, in FY07, the GCMRC will explore options 

for using remote-sensing data to evaluate changes in campable 

area in the future through a focused research and development 

effort (see Project REC 9.R2.07 and Project REC 9.2.R3.07 

below). 

Status and Trends in Recreational Angling

A key interest of recreational anglers in lower Glen 

Canyon is the quality of the rainbow trout fishery (specifically 

size, number, and health of fish), which is directly related to 

the available food supply. In FY07–FY11, the condition of the 

Lees Ferry trout fishery will be monitored through routine stock 

assessment procedures conducted by Arizona Game and Fish 

Department (AZGFD) (see goal 4, this report). In addition, the 

GCMRC proposes to work with AZGFD biologists to upgrade 

the quality and consistency of angler satisfaction data being collected through intermittent AZGFD-sponsored creel surveys. 

In addition to trout condition and numbers, anglers 

have previously expressed concern about fishing conditions (“fishability”) and boating access upstream from 

Lees Ferry, and they also have concerns about safety issues 

(primarily for waders and independent shoreline fishermen) 

because of fluctuating flows. All of these issues have direct 

relevance to the goal of maintaining a high-quality recreation experience. The role of fluctuating flows in affecting 

fishability and boater safety will be evaluated as part of the 

long-term experiment (see discussion under ramping rate 

experiments), while effects of flows on other recreational 

experience attributes will be evaluated as part of a focused 

research effort in FY08–FY09 designed to improve our 

current understanding about how flows effect recreational 

experience (see Project 9.R5.08 below).

Research and Development Activities

The 2005 recreation PEP recommended that the GCMRC 

initiate several foundational research studies to provide a 

baseline of information against which the effects of future 

experiments and management actions can be evaluated and 

compared. Furthermore, they recommended that the GCMRC 

invest in studies that would provide data that could be used 

to better predict the effects of experiments and management 

flows on recreation in lieu of investing in long-term visitor 

satisfaction monitoring programs. The following research 

programs will be implemented in FY07–FY11 in response to 

the 2005 PEP recommendations:
42 Monitoring and Research Plan to Support Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Years 2007–11

FY07–FY08. Compile Campsite Inventory and GIS Atlas 

(Project REC 9.R3.07)

The last comprehensive campsite inventory was completed more than 20 years ago after the 1983 uncontrolled 

release from Glen Canyon Dam. Since that time, many of the 

camps identified during that survey have fallen into disuse or 

disappeared entirely because of sandbar changes and vegetation encroachment, while some new ones have emerged. 

A new inventory is needed to evaluate changes in the CRE 

during the past two decades and to provide an up-to-date 

baseline for designing future studies. In FY07–08, an up-todate inventory and GIS atlas of all previous and currently 

available campsites in the CRE will be compiled. The atlas 

will include information on campsite characteristics and 

attributes that are known to be important to visitors (e.g., 

physical size, estimated size of group that can be reasonably accommodated, frequency of use, amount of open sand 

versus vegetation, availability of shade, mooring attributes, 

etc.). This baseline inventory will define the population of 

campsites from which samples can be drawn to characterize 

systemwide changes, and it will serve as a basis for evaluating recreation impacts on other CRE resources of concern 

such as archaeological sites. 

FY07. Evaluate Campable Area Monitoring Results Using 

Measured Field Data vs. Remotely Sensed Data (Project 

REC 9.R2.07)

A formal comparison of campable area monitoring results 

derived through field measurements and GIS-based analysis 

of remotely sensed imagery and topography will be completed 

in FY07. A pilot effort conducted in FY05 demonstrated that 

estimates derived from remotely sensed data consistently 

over-estimated campable area compared with measurements 

derived from field surveys; therefore, one desired outcome of 

the proposed study will be the development of an algorithm 

to allow future comparisons of previously collected campable 

area data (derived from field surveys) with future data derived 

via remotely sensed imagery. Depending on the study results, 

it may be possible to transition the campable area monitoring program to one based largely, or exclusively, on remotely 

sensed imagery.

FY07. Compile and Analyze Existing Safety Data (Project 

REC 9.R4.07)

Using graduate student labor, existing safety data 

maintained in various NPS databases and in published 

and unpublished reports will be compiled and evaluated 

as a prelude to conducting safety and navigability evaluations under experimental flows. This project is targeted 

for implementation in FY07 contingent on the availability 

of funding. If funding is not available in FY07, the project 

will be deferred to FY08. 

FY08–FY09. Evaluate the Relative Importance of and 

Trade-offs to Recreation-related Attributes Affected by 

Flows on Recreation Experience (Project: REC 9.R5.08)

The quality of a recreation experience is determined by 

multiple interacting physical, biological, and social factors, 

many of which are affected by flows (e.g., the size, quality and distribution of campsites; the size, navigability, and 

“thrill-factor” of the rapids; the rate of boat movement down 

river with consequent implications for social encounters and 

crowding; and the size, abundance, and condition of rainbow 

trout). Flows affect these recreational attributes in varying and 

sometimes conflicting ways. The purpose of this study is to 

determine the relative importance of the various recreationrelated physical, biological, and social attributes and conditions that are affected by flows and to analyze the trade-offs to 

recreational experience quality that are created by implementing various flow regimes. 

FY09. 1973 Weeden Survey Revisited

The 1973 Weeden survey was the first attempt to comprehensively inventory and document campsites in the CRE. This 

effort produced hundreds of photographs and aerial imagery 

maps of campsites in the CRE. The NPS is currently working on relocating the photo points used to obtain the images. 

In FY07–FY08, using CRMP funding and both volunteer and 

professional photographers, the NPS will duplicate the aerial 

imagery and related campsite data from the 1973 Weeden survey. In FY09, this data will be integrated into the campsite atlas, 

and a formal analysis of differences between the photographic 

images from the Weeden survey and identical images collected 

in 2007–8 will be undertaken to provide a diachronic perspective on campsites change in the CRE during the past 35+ years.

FY09. Quantify Vegetation Encroachment at Campsites

Vegetation encroachment rates and the relative significance 

of vegetation encroachment in diminishing campable area will 

be evaluated by comparing vegetated areas at a stratified sample 

of heavily used and infrequently used camps using remotely 

sensed imagery and analyzing these data in a GIS environment.

FY10–FY11. Update Regional Recreation Economic 

Studies

By FY10, existing economic baseline studies will be 20 

to 25 years old (!), so in FY10–FY11, economic valuation 

studies for CRE-based recreation will be repeated.

Long-term Experimental Activities

Several specific studies will be initiated in conjunction 

with the experimental flows of FY08–FY11 to evaluate effects 

of various experimental flows on recreation. These studies will 
 43

evaluate effects of beach/habitat-building flows (BHBF) and 

ramping rate experiments on beach morphology, beach size, and 

distribution (e.g. campable area), as well as post-BHBF effects 

to the Lees Ferry trout fishery and angling experience. In addition, GCMRC will partner with NPS to evaluate effects of high, 

low, steady, and fluctuating flows on human health and safety. 

Evaluate Effects of Ramping Rates and BHBFs on 

Campsites 

Changes in campable area within the CRE are the result 

of a variety of flow-related factors, including changes is 

sediment deposits, modification of sandbar topography, and 

vegetation encroachment. This project will focus on evaluating 

the roles of different ramping rates and effects of BHBFs on 

these three critical attributes.

Evaluate Effects of BHBFs, Low Steady Flows, and 

Fluctuating Flows on Navigability and Safety

Safety issues associated with high and low flows and 

varying ramping rates were a primary concern of the public 

during the scoping phase of the Glen Canyon Dam environmental impact statement process. This project will build upon previous studies undertaken during past experimental flows to assess 

how changes in flow volume and ramping rates affect the numbers 

and types of river-based incidents that potentially affect the safety 

of recreational anglers and whitewater boaters in the CRE. The 

proposed safety data compilation study (Project REC.9.R4.07) 

will provide a foundation for this experimental study.

Evaluate Effects of Steady Flows vs. Fluctuating Flows on 

Visitor Health 

Issues associated with human health were identified 

by river guides in relation to the low summer steady flows 

(LSSF) experiment of 2000, when many boating parties in 

Grand Canyon were affected by a waterborne virus. Although 

possibly a coincidence, the Norwalk viral outbreak of summer 

2000 raised the possibility that certain flow regimes are more 

conducive to spreading human pathogens than others. This 

project will evaluate human health risks associated with specific experimental flows. Specifically, the study will attempt 

to determine if steady flows or highly fluctuating flows have 

a measurable effect on sanitary conditions at heavily used 

camping beaches. This project will be implemented through a 

cooperative partnership with the National Park Service.

Integration 

Physical Science Program

Changes in campable area are largely, but not exclusively, 

because of changes in sandbar area and volume. Other factors 

that may be contributing to campsite area decline in the CRE 

include changes in bar morphology (e.g., steeping of slopes 

under certain flow regimes). To evaluate the role of sandbar 

morphology in affecting campable area requires comparisons 

of topographic data derived from the sand storage monitoring 

program against prior campable area survey results. The sand 

storage monitoring program will be undergoing a PEP review 

in FY06, and the definition of future core monitoring protocols 

for tracking sediment storage in the CRE will be determined 

on the basis of the PEP review. Although the specific protocols 

for sand storage monitoring have not been defined, campable 

area monitoring will continue to rely on and be integrated with 

data derived from the Physical Science and Modeling Program 

to a large degree.

In addition, flow-stage modeling based on the improved 

STARS model will be useful for defining stage relations at 

camps for which survey data are not currently available. The 

analysis and storage of campsite data and the creation and 

maintenance of the GIS atlas will require direct involvement 

from members of GCMRC’s Data Acquisition, Storage, and 

Analysis Program.

Biological Sciences

Monitoring of trout condition is a critical proxy measurement for angler satisfaction in lower Glen Canyon. GCMRC 

and AZGFD will work together to define additional angler satisfaction measurements that can be collected through periodic 

AZGFD creel surveys.

Although sand supply is a critical factor affecting campable area in the CRE, another significant process that may 

be contributing to campsite loss is vegetation encroachment. 

Evaluating the role of vegetation encroachment on campable 

area will require using remotely sensed vegetation data collected during the 2000, 2002, and 2005 remote-sensing missions and the results of the ongoing vegetation mapping effort 

(Project BIO 6.R1.07) in combination with the data developed 

for the GIS campsite atlas (Project REC 9.R3.07.) 

NPS Colorado River Management Plan

As discussed in the PEP review of the GCDAMP 

recreation program, there is considerable overlap in information needs for the CRMP and the GCDAMP. However, while 

closely intertwined, the interests and emphases of these two 

programs are not identical: the CRMP is primarily focused on 

evaluating effects of NPS visitor management decisions on 

river-based visitor experience qualities and associated physical and biological resource values, while the GCDAMP is 

concerned primarily with monitoring and researching effects 

of dam operations on CRE resources, including the visitor-use 

values associated with those resources. The GCDAMP recreation program has historically focused on the effects of dam 

operations (flows) on physical and biological attributes important to recreation (e.g., camping beaches, trout); although, 
44 Monitoring and Research Plan to Support Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Years 2007–11

multiple reviews of the GCDAMP have identified the need 

for more emphasis to be placed on social/experiential and 

economic effects of dam-controlled flows. Also, the geographic 

scope of the GCDAMP is considerably more restricted than that 

of the CRMP. The CRMP addresses issues associated with visitor 

use of side canyons and other attraction sites accessed from the 

river but located outside the mainstem river corridor, whereas the 

focus of the GCDAMP is on the Colorado River ecosystem.

The NPS has been allotted $500,000 per year for the 

next 5 years to design and implement monitoring and research 

programs relevant to the information needs of the CRMP. 

To the extent that these programs overlap with those of the 

GCDAMP, it will be beneficial for the GCMRC and the NPS 

to develop coordinated, integrated, and jointly funded projects 

to satisfy multiple needs simultaneously. However, since some 

CRMP-driven needs for information lie outside the scope of 

the GCDAMP, not all CRMP funding will apply to resources 

of mutual concern. Projects that are likely to be jointly funded 

and co-managed in the next 5 years include the campsite 

inventory and GIS atlas, the safety data compilation, evaluation of ramping rates and steady flows on visitor health, and 

the duplication of the Weeden survey photographs. 
 45

Strategic Science Questions and 

Information Needs

The third priority question identified by the Adaptive 

Management Work Group (AMWG) at their August 2004 

meeting was: “What are the best flows?” This question has 

obvious direct implications for hydropower in terms of not 

only evaluating the best flows from the perspective of optimizing hydropower generation, but also in terms of evaluating the 

potential costs of implementing flows that optimize benefits 

to other resources, such as endangered fish and sediment. 

Power-production capacity and the related economic activities 

are tied to a range of variables. For this reason, the Monitoring and Research Plan focuses on discrete scientific questions, 

information needs, and objectives. The 2005 Knowledge 

Assessment Workshop (KAW) identified two key strategic science questions related to goal 10, which are as follows: 

SSQ 3-3. What are the hydropower replacements costs of 

the MLFF (annually, since 1996)?

SSQ 3-4. What are the projected costs associated with 

the various alternative flow regimes being discussed for 

future experimental science (as defined in the next phase 

experimental design)?

The GCDAMP Science Planning Group (SPG) reviewed, 

revised, and prioritized the core monitoring information needs 

(CMINs) in the GCDAMP Strategic Plan. The SPG redefined the 

primary core monitoring information need for goal 10 as follows:

CMIN 10.1.1. 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, maximum flow limit 

of 25,000 cfs, minimum flow limit of 5,000 cfs).

1.

2.

1.

Monitoring and Research Activities

Core Monitoring Activities

Data on Glen Canyon Dam hydropower generation 

and opportunity costs under modified low fluctuating flow 

(MLLF) operations have been identified as information needs 

by the GCDAMP. These parameters are routinely monitored 

by the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and Western 

Area Power Administration (WAPA), but the data are not readily accessible to most GCDAMP stakeholders. To meet the 

need for core monitoring information related to power generation and replacement costs, WAPA will provide data on power 

generation and marketable capacity valuations. These data 

will be provided to the GCMRC on a daily or monthly basis 

depending on the parameter. These data will then be made 

available through the GCMRC Web site.

FY07–FY11 (New). Monitor Power Generation and Market 

Values Under Current and Future Dam Operations (Project 

HYD 10.M1.07)

Reclamation tracks hourly hydropower generation capacity and WAPA and its customers track power source availability and market changes on an hourly basis in assessing the 

need, cost, and accessibility for additional power resources to 

meet contractual obligations or unanticipated demand. Market 

pricing, resulting cost of power purchases, and the impact 

on Basin Fund cash flow are recorded in the WAPA Energy 

Tracking Database (ISA) and reported monthly. In FY07, the 

GCMRC will work with Reclamation and WAPA to serve and 

archive these existing hydropower and replacement-cost data 

through the GCMRC Web site in order to address this current 

program information need shortfall. 

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
46 Monitoring and Research Plan to Support Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Years 2007–11

Long-term Experimental Activities

Experimental flow studies are currently (FY06) being 

discussed that would evaluate alternative ramping rates and 

daily fluctuating ranges. These studies would initially focus 

on the influence of such alternative operations on downstream 

sandbar stability and related habitats, and eventually on other 

related ecosystem processes, but effects on costs to power 

generation capacity must also be considered. 

Economic implications of various flow regimes, in terms 

of energy generation capacity and power replacement costs, 

are important variables to consider when selecting future flow 

regimes, yet with few exceptions (e.g., low summer steady 

flow experiment of 2000), independent, peer-reviewed data 

and analyses on costs and revenues associated with various dam operations have not been readily available for the 

GCDAMP to factor into their recommendations to Department 

of the Interior. 

In preparation to conducting future experimental flows, 

an economic analysis of predicted hydropower opportunity 

costs under various alternative experimental scenarios is being 

undertaken in FY06. This study will evaluate the economic 

implications of various experimental flows being considered 

by the GCDAMP in terms of energy generation capacity and 

replacement costs. WAPA and Colorado River Energy Distributors Association (CREDA) are providing input on the models 

and assumptions used to generate the results and will provide 

the hydropower production cost and power sales data that will 

be factored into the analyses.

FY10–FY11. Evaluate Economic Implications of 

Experimental Flows 

Once the experiment is initiated, the GCMRC will 

track costs associated with the approved experiment using 

the monitoring program described above. The evaluation of 

economic implications will focus primarily on hydropower 

replacement costs and associated impacts to the Basin Fund. 

In FY10–FY11, the GCMRC will conduct an independent 

analysis to determine whether the predictions were accurate or 

not, and to determine where and why they may have deviated 

from expected outcomes. 
 47

Strategic Science Questions and 

Information Needs

In August 2004, the Adaptive Management Work Group 

(AMWG) identified the following questions as the second 

highest priority of the GCDAMP: “Which cultural resources, 

including TCPs (traditional cultural properties), are within the 

Area of Potential Affect from dam operations, which should 

we treat, and how do we best protect them? What are the 

status and trends of cultural resources and what are the agents 

of deterioration?” Since that time, the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and the National Park Service (NPS) have 

agreed to develop a treatment plan for 161 archaeological 

sites of the 323 sites potentially affected by dam operations 

in the Colorado River ecosystem (CRE). The sites subject 

to treatment have been determined by NPS to be actively 

deteriorating because of a variety of impacting agents. With 

immediate treatment needs now being addressed by Reclamation and NPS, the GCMRC monitoring and research activities 

will focus on assessing the overall status and trends of cultural 

resources in the CRE, the relative contributions of the various 

agents of deterioration in affecting cultural resource condition, 

and the long-term effectiveness of the implemented treatment 

measures. 

To focus monitoring and research activities for cultural 

resources even more, the Monitoring and Research Plan is 

placing its attention on three key strategic science questions, 

which are as follows:

SSQ 2-1. Do dam controlled flows increase or decrease 

rates of erosion at arch sites and TCP sites, and if so, 

how? 

SSQ 2-2. How do flows impact Old High Water zone 

terraces in the CRE, and what kinds of important informa1.

2.

tion about the historical ecology and human history of the 

CRE are being lost due toongoing erosion of the Holocene 

sedimentary deposits?

SSQ 2-3. If flows contribute to arch site/TCP erosion, 

what are the optimal flows for minimizing impacts to 

these cultural resources?

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?

SSQ 2-7. 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?

The GCDAMP also identified several core monitoring 

information needs (CMINs) under goal 11. The GCDAMP 

Science Planning Group (SPG) subsequently refined and 

prioritized the CMINs for cultural resources for the purposes 

of defining the most important monitoring needs under each 

GCDAMP goal in order to allocate future funding. The latter 

process resulted in the following ranking of CMINS for cultural resources: 

CMIN 11.1.1 (SPG revised) Determine the condition and 

integrity of prehistoric and historic sites in the Colorado 

River ecosystem through tracking rates of erosion, visitor impacts, and other relevant variables. Determine the 

condition and integrity of TCPs in the Colorado River 

ecosystem. 

CMIN 11.2.1 (SPG revised). Determine the condition of 

traditionally important resources and locations using tribal 

perspectives and values.

3.

4.

5.

1.

2.

GCDAMP Goal 11: Preserve, protect, manage and treat cultural 

resources for the inspiration and benefit of past, present, and 

future generations
48 Monitoring and Research Plan to Support Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Years 2007–11

level of dam-controlled flows. Presumably, monitoring and 

evaluating the effects of flows on culturally significant plants 

and animals can be most efficiently and effectively achieved 

by more closely integrating cultural resource monitoring 

objectives with physical and biological program elements of 

the science program. In FY06, the tribes are being funded to 

synthesize their existing monitoring data and define specific approaches to monitor culturally important resources 

in the CRE. In FY07 or FY08, the tribes will implement 

their proposed monitoring programs on a pilot basis (Project 

CUL 11.R2.07). The results of these and other pilot cultural 

resource monitoring projects will subsequently be evaluated 

by a cultural resource protocol evaluation panel (PEP) in 

FY10. 

As noted above, core monitoring programs are currently 

under development (see discussion under research and development activities section below). The plan calls for implementation of revised core monitoring protocols for cultural 

resources for a 3-year pilot program in FY08–FY10, followed 

by a cultural protocol evaluation panel in FY10. 

FY10 (New). Cultural Protocol Evaluation Panel Review 

Following completion of research and development for 

core monitoring and effects monitoring and completion of a 

3-year pilot monitoring program, a follow-up PEP review of 

the cultural program will be conducted to evaluate changes 

made to the program since the 2000 cultural PEP and evaluate 

the results of research and development work in FY06–FY10. 

Based on the findings of the second PEP, or Cultural PEP II, a 

refined core monitoring program will be implemented beginning in FY11.

Research and Development Activities

In FY07, the GCMRC will continue several research 

and development activities initiated in FY06 to evaluate the 

most appropriate core monitoring indicators and protocols for 

tracking archaeological site condition and the effectiveness 

of erosion-control treatments through time. Since erosion of 

archaeological sites is tied directly and indirectly to dam presence and dam operations, considerable effort will be devoted 

to refining methods for measuring and tracking erosion. However, erosion is only one of several factors affecting resource 

condition, so the evaluation of other indicators, such as human 

disturbance indicators and weather parameters, will also be 

pursued. 

FY06–FY07. Research and Development Toward Core 

Monitoring (Project CUL.11.R1.07)

The project involves the following three tasks (for more 

detail, see project description in the FY07 Annual Work Plan):

Task 1: Assessment of Archaeological Sites for Future 

Monitoring. Continue geomorphic and archaeological 

integrity assessments initiated in FY06 at a subset of 

1.

Monitoring and Research Activities

Core Monitoring Activities

Past research indicates that dam-controlled flows influence archaeological site condition in a variety of ways. Several 

hypotheses have been advanced to account for the role of 

dam operations in archaeological site degradation, but these 

hypotheses require further research, testing, and refinement. 

Understanding if and how cultural site condition is affected 

by dam-controlled flows is important to achieving the stated 

goals of the GCDAMP and Grand Canyon Protection Act. 

Because the condition of archaeological sites and other placebased cultural resources is inevitably a product of multiple 

interacting processes, determining the agents of degradation 

requires improving our understanding of the full suite of 

agents affecting cultural resource condition in the CRE (e.g., 

climate and weather events, human behavior, geomorphic and 

biotic processes), in addition to conducting additional focused 

research on direct, indirect, and interactive effects of flow 

regimes. To partially address this need, in FY06 the GCMRC 

initiated a multiyear, multifaceted archaeological site monitoring research and development project that will continue during 

the first years of this MRP. This work will be supported by 

compilation and analysis of existing archaeological site legacy 

data in FY06–FY07. 

At a minimum, a better understanding of how dam-controlled flows affect erosion rates at cultural sites is needed. 

This need can be met by designing and implementing monitoring protocols that directly measure physical change at repetitive intervals and through integrating relevant data from other 

program areas, such as the physical sciences (e.g., flow-stage 

modeling, sandbar monitoring) and biological sciences (e.g., 

terrestrial vegetation monitoring) programs. 

To date, very little research has been focused on evaluating how dam operations affect TCPs or other cultural 

resources besides archaeological sites. In addition to sitespecific cultural resources, the Native American tribes who 

participate in the GCDAMP are concerned about how dam 

operations may affect traditionally valued terrestrial plants and 

animals in the CRE. Like the place-based cultural resources, 

culturally important biological resources are affected by 

dam-controlled flows both directly and indirectly. Direct 

effects include periodic inundation and flow-induced scouring 

and disturbance that prune older plants, induce new growth, 

open up areas for colonization, impact the characteristics of 

habitats used by various fauna, and redistribute seeds and 

nutrients. Direct effects also include the consequences related 

to timing and frequency of such inundation and flow-induced 

disturbance events. Indirect effects include changes to the 

sediment substrate from flows, changes to the water table and 

consequent effects to old high water-zone vegetation (e.g., 

mesquite), and long-term changes in species composition and 

abundance because of the timing, frequency and discharge 
 49

archaeological sites in the CRE to define most appropriate 

protocols for future monitoring

Task 2: Continue evaluations of existing legacy monitoring data. The emphasis will be on evaluating the 

accuracy, consistency, redundancy, and statistical value 

of existing monitoring data. In FY07, we will also focus 

on defining appropriate applications for the existing data 

(e.g., attempt to utilize existing monitoring data to detect 

trends in site condition relative to dam operations) and 

evaluate utility and limitations of other legacy data, particularly the extensive photographic record that has been 

compiled by the NPS over the past 15+ years

Task 3: Continue to evaluate monitoring protocols for 

quantifying geomorphic change. This study component 

will compare and contrast alternative methods for measuring erosion/topographic change at a sample of sites. Specifically we will evaluate the trade-offs involved in using 

conventional survey methods versus ground-based and 

airborne LiDAR in terms of field and post-field processing time, efficiency, accuracy, precision, costs, equipment limitations, and short-term and long-term resource 

impacts. Additional sub-tasks that will be included under 

this protocol evaluation task are: 

FY07–FY08: Refine Protocols for Evaluating Erosion Control Effectiveness. In addition to refining 

protocols for core monitoring, in FY07–FY08 the 

GCMRC proposes to continue evaluating and refining methods for measuring and tracking erosioncontrol effectiveness at a sample of treated sites. 

This evaluation process will build on a pilot study 

initiated by Utah State University under the treatment planning effort in FY06.

FY07–FY08: Test and Refine Weather Monitoring Protocols. This effort will explore options 

for monitoring weather parameters using various 

technologies at a sample of intensively monitored 

archaeological sites distributed throughout the CRE 

to meet multiple needs for weather monitoring data 

related specifically to the cultural resource monitoring program.

FY07–FY08: Pilot Study to Evaluate Terrace 

Changes Using Remotely Sensed Imagery. In 

order to explore the utility of existing remotely 

sensed imagery for tracking geomorphic change at 

archaeological sites, in FY07, the GCMRC will initiate a pilot study to evaluate rates of terrace retreat 

and arroyo erosion using digitized images of historical aerial imagery. This project hinges on completion of an ongoing FY06 internal GCMRC effort to 

digitize and evaluate the accuracy of historical aerial 

photographs that are currently stored in hard-copy 

format at the GCMRC library.

2.

3.

•

•

•

FY07–FY08: Test and Refine Human Impact 

Monitoring Protocols. This effort will explore 

options for tracking and quantifying impacts because 

of human visitation that result in measurable changes 

to archaeological site condition. These protocols will 

be developed in coordination with the NPS Colorado 

River Management Plan to meet multiple agency 

needs for human impact data in the CRE.

FY08–FY10. Pilot Integrated Archaeological Site 

Monitoring and Tribal Resources Monitoring Projects 

As noted above, the results of this initial research and 

development phase will be incorporated into a pilot version of 

an integrated cultural resource monitoring project that will be 

implemented in FY08 on a trial basis for a 3-year period. The 

archaeological site monitoring program is being developed by 

the GCMRC in collaboration with Reclamation, NPS, Native 

American tribes, and other GCDAMP stakeholders to meet 

multiple needs for compliance with Sections 106 and 110 of 

the National Historic Preservation Act (for both Reclamation 

and NPS), as well as the mandates of the Grand Canyon Protection Act. In FY06, the tribes are being funded to develop or 

refine protocols for monitoring TCPs and other tribally valued 

resources. The tribal monitoring programs are being developed 

by the individual tribes who value these resources, but, in the 

future, the plan is to integrate tribal monitoring efforts with 

the archaeological site monitoring program where feasible and 

practical to reduce resource impacts, redundancy, and program 

costs. The GCMRC will confer with the Cultural Resources 

Ad Hoc Group (CRAHG, an ad hoc committee of the 

GCDAMP Technical Work Group) in developing specific criteria to help guide the site selection process for the long-term 

monitoring program and the specific protocols to be piloted 

in FY08–FY10. The specific details of the FY08–FY10 pilot 

monitoring programs will be determined upon completion of 

the initial research and development phase at the end of FY07 

or early in FY08. This pilot monitoring effort comprises the 

second phase of research and development towards core monitoring and, as such, will conclude with a protocol evaluation 

panel review at the end of FY10.

In FY09 and beyond, additional research projects will 

be initiated to refine our understanding of how flows affect 

cultural resource sites in the CRE. Identified projects include 

the following:

FY09–FY10 (New). Expand Pilot Study to Evaluate 

Geomorphic Changes in the CRE Using Remotely Sensed 

Imagery 

This project will build upon the results of the pilot study 

initiated in FY07. It will continue to explore the utility of 

using digitized historical aerial photographs to track and quantify geomorphic changes because of operations of the dam 

and interacting physical processes, using methods developed 

in the FY07 pilot effort and applying them to other reaches 

•
50 Monitoring and Research Plan to Support Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Years 2007–11

Integration

Archaeological site condition is the product of multiple 

interacting agents including dam presence, dam operations, 

human visitation, weather, and various other biological and 

physical processes. Thus, future monitoring of cultural resource 

conditions will necessarily rely on data from other GCMRC 

science programs. It may also require some focused interdisciplinary research for a limited period of time (2–5 years) in 

order to gather physical and biological data that are relevant to 

cultural concerns (e.g., tracking weather parameters in proximity to a sample of archaeological sites, measuring erosion rates 

at intervals that allow for analysis in relation to flow releases 

from Glen Canyon Dam, relating these data to impacts that are 

quantified at a sample of cultural sites). Some of these studies 

are already underway and others are proposed, but increased 

integration is needed across all program areas. 

 Physical Sciences

The Physical Science and Modeling Program will continue to track sediment supply and storage in the CRE using 

methods that will be formalized following the FY06 PEP 

review with respect to the physical sciences. The interests of 

the cultural program remain focused on the creation and retention of sandbar deposits above the 25,000 cfs stage, the potential for backfilling of erosional gullies by BHBFs, the quantification of sediment contributions from higher elevations in the 

CRE to the systemwide sediment budget, and the potential for 

redistribution of riverine sediments to higher elevation areas 

where archaeological sites, terrestrial resources, and TCPs 

are concentrated. The needs of the cultural program for data 

related to the sub-arial sedimentary deposits and processes in the 

CRE will be incorporated into the future sediment monitoring 

program.

Biological Sciences

Vegetation growth and vegetation cover is an important 

variable affecting erosion rates in the CRE. The development 

of repeat mapping capabilities using remotely sensed data to 

quantify vegetation change can also be applied to measuring 

vegetation change in and around archaeological sites. Once 

the techniques have been tested and refined, these methods 

will have utility as a monitoring tool for tracking vegetation 

changes at cultural sites.

In addition to the implications of vegetation cover for 

mediating erosion rates at archaeological sites, the Native 

American tribes who participate in the GCDAMP have interests in monitoring specific vegetation and faunal resources of 

the CRE because of their traditional cultural values. The tribes 

will be defining their needs for biological resources monitoring data in FY06–FY07, and a PEP of the terrestrial ecosystem 

monitoring program will be convened in FY07 to evaluate the 

of the CRE with high concentrations of culturally significant 

resources.

FY09–FY10 (New): Geomorphic Model of Archaeological 

Site Vulnerability 

Another important element of the research and development program for cultural resources involves the development 

of a geomorphic model to help quantify future geomorphic 

change at archaeological sites under various flow and climatic 

regimes and evaluate future site vulnerability to erosion. 

This model will be integrated as a sub-model of the broader 

CRE conceptual model that is proposed for development in 

FY08–FY09. Development of the geomorphic model will 

build on some of the geomorphic and weather data that will be 

collected through the research and development program for 

core monitoring and experimental effects monitoring, as well 

as other data sources (e.g., improved STARS model for stagedischarge relations in the CRE). 

Long-term Experimental Activities 

Beginning in FY08, the following studies will be initiated 

in conjunction with experimental flows:

FY08–FY11. Evaluate Effects of BHBF Sediment Deposition 

at Archaeological Sites and TCPs

This focused study will assess the effects of BHBFs at 

historic properties in terms of sub-aerial sediment transport 

rates before and after BHBFs and the effects/rates of retention 

of flood deposits in arroyo mouths in relation to subsequent 

erosion at a sample of archaeological sites. This study will 

partially address SSQ 2-1, SSQ 2-3, and EIN 11.1.1.

FY08–FY11. Evaluate Effects of Steady Flows and 

Fluctuating Flows (ramping rates) on Archaeological Site 

Sediment Supply

This study will evaluate how critical sandbars that serve 

or have the potential to serve as key sediment source areas 

for archaeological sites change under experimental flows and 

how the sediment transport rates from these sandbars to the 

archaeological sites are affected by these changes. This study 

will partially address SSQ 2-1, SSQ 2-3, and EIN 11.1.1.

FY08–FY11. Test and Refine the Wiele Model

A model recently developed by Wiele and Torrizo (2005) 

predicts the response of sandbars at several critical archaeological site areas under varying flow and sediment-supply conditions. This study will evaluate the accuracy of the model predictions through comparing predicted deposition at these cultural 

sites against actual measurements of post-flood deposits. This 

study will partially address SSQ 2-1, SSQ 2-3, and EIN 11.1.1.
 51

tribal monitoring protocols in conjunction with the terrestrial 

ecosystem (TEM) monitoring protocols that were piloted in 

FY02–FY05 by NAU and the University of New Mexico, with 

the intent of designing one or more monitoring approaches to 

serve the broad spectrum of interests for TEM data, including 

those of the Native American tribes.

NPS Colorado River Management Plan

In addition to increasing integration with other GCMRC 

science programs, there is need for close coordination with 

relevant monitoring and research programs being developed by 

Grand Canyon National Park (GRCA) under the auspices of 

the CRMP implementation effort. In FY06, GRCA is initiating a multiyear research and development effort to improve 

understanding of the interactive effects of recreational activities 

on the ecology and condition of natural and cultural resources 

in the CRE. While not directly focused on improving understanding of dam effects, these research and development 

efforts can help improve our understanding of dam effects by 

evaluating the role of visitation in affecting rates and types of 

deterioration at cultural resources. Previous research in GRCA 

and elsewhere shows that human visitation can adversely 

impact cryptobiotic crusts and vegetation cover and can lay the 

groundwork for future gully erosion through compacting soils 

and creating linear, compacted trails that channel run-off. Proximity to heavily used recreation sites (e.g., campsites) may be a 

significant variable in determining rates of archaeological site 

deterioration in the CRE—perhaps equal to or surpassing the 

effects of dam operations. However, unless and until recreation 

data can be compiled and analyzed in a systematic fashion, the 

relationship between recreation sites and archaeological site 

deterioration remains unknown. As noted previously under goal 

9, the GCMRC proposes to closely coordinate future monitoring and research efforts with those of the NPS to reduce redundancy of effort while simultaneously enhancing our understanding of the interactive roles of recreation, dam operations, 

and weather in affecting cultural resource condition. 
52 Monitoring and Research Plan to Support Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Years 2007–11

GCDAMP Goal 12: Maintain a high-quality monitoring, 

research, and adaptive management program

Goal 12 includes a variety of activities aimed at maintaining a high-quality science and adaptive management program. These activities transcend Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive 

Management Program (GCDAMP) goals 1–11 because they 

are fundamental to addressing priority Adaptive Management 

Work Group (AMWG) questions and related science questions 

and information needs. The activities fall into the following 7 

categories:

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center 

(GCMRC) staffing

Reporting

Independent science advice and review

Bridging science and management

Logistical support

Data acquisition, storage, and analysis

Administrative and information technology support

GCMRC Staffing 

The objective of this activity is to maintain a staff of 

quality GCMRC managers and scientists to effectively plan, 

manage, coordinate, and execute an interdisciplinary science 

program to meet GCDAMP needs and provide high-quality 

and timely science support to the GCDAMP work groups.

The GCMRC will maintain a core staff of managers to 

effectively manage and administer GCMRC projects, supervise staff, oversee contracts and cooperative agreements, track 

budgets, and create a quality work environment. In addition, 

GCMRC staff will support the GCDAMP by providing timely 

scientific reports and information to the GCDAMP and assist 

the AMWG and Technical Work Group (TWG) to develop 

and implement efficient and effective collaborative manage1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

ment planning and management processes. The GCMRC staff 

was realigned to establish a Deputy Chief position in FY06 to 

provide more direct management and supervision of GCMRC 

activities and to coordinate implementation of the Monitoring 

and Research Plan, or MRP, within GCMRC. 

The GCMRC will include permanent and temporary science 

and technical staff to implement or coordinate various monitoring 

and research projects. Contractors and cooperators will be used to 

conduct a large number of our field work activities and feed the 

data back to GCMRC scientists for analysis, synthesis, and publication. GCMRC scientists will be engaged in the implementation 

of field monitoring and research when in-house staff members 

with the appropriate expertise are available and their use is cost 

effective. The GCMRC will hold its own proposals to the same 

level of rigorous external peer review as all others.

Program Planning and Management (Project ADM 12.A2.07)

GCMRC’s goal is to 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 the Interior (DOI). Productive, well-qualified personnel are critical to meeting and 

achieving this goal. In order to provide strong leadership that 

provides a quality science program that is responsive to the 

needs of the GCDAMP, the GCMRC will be administered by a 

core program management staff to direct GCMRC operations 

and oversee the five major program areas: Physical Sciences 

and Modeling; Biological Science; Cultural and Socioeconomic; Logistics; and Data Acquisition, Storage, and Analysis. In addition to their program management responsibilities, 

the Program Managers will also be experts in their respective fields. GCMRC Program Managers and scientific staff 

will 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 Cultural and Sociocultural Program Manager will also 

functions as the Native American Coordinator. The Program 

Managers will supervise additional technical and support staff, 

and act as project leads with their cooperators.
 53

Reporting

The objective of this activity is to provide timely reporting of GCMRC science project accomplishments and findings. 

The GCMRC will work with contractors and cooperators to 

publish major results and finding in peer-reviewed journals 

and proceedings. Final reports and papers will be presented 

orally to the TWG and AMWG and posted on the GCMRC 

Web site for ready access by GCDAMP participants and 

interested parties. In addition, preliminary findings that have 

significant management implications will be presented to 

the TWG or appropriate ad hoc work groups before they are 

published to facilitate timely use of the new scientific findings in the GCDAMP process. Significant findings will also 

be published as U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) fact sheets 

or informational products in accordance with USGS policy. 

The GCMRC will also produce an annual accomplishment 

report in December of each year that will briefly summarize 

accomplishments or shortcoming for each project included in 

the biannual work plan (BWP). The annual accomplishment 

report will also include recommendations for modifications, 

as needed. In FY10 and FY11, the GCMRC will update the 

Knowledge Assessment Report and State of the Colorado 

River Ecosystem in Grand Canyon (SCORE) report to provide 

an updated synthesis of science information for use in planning the next phase of science and management activities.

Project Note: Reporting requirements will be subsumed 

within each project conducted or funded by the GCMRC.

Independent Science Advice and 

Reviews

The objective of this activity is to ensure that the 

GCMRC science program is efficient, unbiased, objective, 

and scientifically sound. To achieve this objective, the Science 

Advisors will be maintained and used to provide independent scientific oversight and technical advice to ensure that 

GCMRC science activities are efficient, unbiased, objective, 

and scientifically sound. The Science Advisors will be used in 

both a review and advisory capacity during the FY07–FY11 

period to evaluate the efficacy and effectiveness of the science 

program. Using the Science Advisors in an advisory capacity 

will be closely monitored to ensure that it does not affect their 

objectivity as an external independent review panel.

The Science Advisors will be managed and operated 

in accordance with AMWG approved protocols adopted in 

October 2000. Eight scientists will serve as Science Advisors 

and an executive secretary will administer, coordinate, and 

report on their activities. In FY07, the Science Advisors will 

evaluate the most appropriate opportunities for implementing 

an integrated ecosystem science and modeling approach into 

the current science program and invoke greater interdisciplinary approaches in FY08–FY11 science activities. Specifically, by no later than September 2007, the Science Advisors 

will evaluate opportunities for increased use of integrated 

ecosystem science paradigms within GCMRC monitoring, 

research, and experimental activities, including the refinement 

and use of conceptual and predictive ecosystem models and 

decision-support tools. The assessment will evaluate improvements in information required by managers on Colorado River 

ecosystem (CRE) resources, GCMRC staffing, and costs of 

implementing new ecosystem strategies. The Science Advisors’ recommendations will be reviewed by the GCDAMP and 

implemented as appropriate in FY08–FY11.

In addition to the Science Advisors’ reviews, all GCMRC 

proposals, project-specific work plans, and final reports will 

be subjected to independent peer review in accordance with 

the established GCMRC peer-review process.

FY07–FY11. Independent Reviews (Project ADM 12.A4.07)

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 maintain the established 

peer-review process. All unsolicited, solicited, or in-house proposals and all draft reports received by the GCMRC will undergo 

independent, external peer review. Additionally, the Science Advisors will be maintained to provide independent scientific oversight 

and technical advice to ensure that GCMRC science activities are 

efficient, unbiased, objective, and scientifically sound.

Bridging Science and Management

The success of the GCDAMP in general and the effective use of scientific information in the adaptive management 

process in particular are confounded by the following factors:

The ability of the GCMRC to design studies that will 

produce relevant scientific information depends on how 

well the GCDAMP managers clearly define and agree 

on resource goals and desired outcomes. This has been 

a challenge for the GCDAMP because of value-based 

conflicts and the varying levels of collaborative skills 

development possessed by GCDAMP stakeholders. 

To be successful, GCMRC scientists and GCDAMP 

managers must work together as partners—partners that 

recognize that they each have distinct but complimentary 

roles. In some cases, the roles and responsibilities of the 

various groups and entities involved in the GCDAMP are 

not well defined, understood, or respected. In other cases, 

there is a perceived imbalance of power among stakeholders that limits their effectiveness influencing GCDAMP 

decisions and direction.

The success of the GCDAMP is dependent not only on 

the ability of the GCMRC to produce scientific information that is relevant to management needs, but also upon 

the effective use of that information by managers in the 

decision-making process. The challenge for the GCMRC 

1.

2.

3.
54 Monitoring and Research Plan to Support Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Years 2007–11

is to synthesize large amounts of diverse and often highly 

technical data into a form that is relevant to a decision 

with implications for multiple resources in different areas 

and time frames. The challenge for managers is to rely on 

synthesized information in the decision-making process.

The GCMRC proposes a collaborative strategy among 

scientists and GCDAMP participants over the next 5 years 

to improve the effectiveness of the GCDAMP and the use of 

scientific information. A major element of this strategy will 

include using the science advisors’ review of the GCDAMP to 

develop an action plan for addressing priority issues, needs, or 

opportunities related to the effectiveness of the GCDAMP and 

the use of scientific information in the adaptive management 

process. Additionally, the feasibility of developing and using 

decision-support systems will be assessed following the science 

advisors’ evaluation of opportunities for improving interdisciplinary, integrated science in the GCDAMP, which is planned 

for FY07. In FY08–FY09, the GCMRC will issue a contract 

to assess the feasibility of using decision-support systems and 

tools to facilitate the integration and use of scientific data and 

information in GCDAMP decision-making processes, including 

resource trade-off analyses, risk assessments, and innovative 

ways to organize and display data. The feasibility assessment 

will result in a prioritized implementation plan, schedule, and 

budget. Recommendations will be implemented in FY09–FY11 

in accordance with established budget priorities.

FY07. GCDAMP Effectiveness Workshop (Project PLAN12.P2.07) 

In FY06–FY07, the science advisors will conduct a 

limited review of the effectiveness of the GCDAMP. Results of 

the review and other information provided by the GCDAMP 

will be used by the GCMRC as a basis for organizing a 2–3 

day workshop to develop an action plan for addressing priority issues, needs, or opportunities related to the effectiveness 

of the GCDAMP and the use of scientific information in 

the GCDAMP process. The workshop, which will include 

GCDAMP participants and national experts in collaboration, 

partnerships, Native American involvement, and conflict 

resolution, will occur in early 2007. The workshop will be 

designed and conducted in cooperation with GCDAMP participants. The GCMRC recommends the establishment of an ad 

hoc group made up of representatives of the TWG, AMWG, 

Science Advisors, and the Secretary’s Designee to serve as a 

steering committee for the workshop. The action plan developed through the workshop will be implemented and tested 

over the 2008–11 program period.

FY07–FY08. Enhancing the Conceptual Ecosystem Model 

to Identify Critical Ecosystem Interactions and Data Gap 

(Project PLAN 12.P1.07)

In FY07–FY08, the GCMRC will work with the science 

advisors to identify and incorporate more robust, integrated 

ecosystem science approaches into GCMRC’s overall 

program effort. The first step will be to evaluate redesign 

and expansion of the Colorado River ecosystem conceptual 

ecosystem model (CEM). 

In FY08 and FY09, the GCMRC proposes to recruit a 

part-time/visiting ecosystem scientist/ecologist to work with 

GCMRC staff and cooperators to develop and implement an 

integrated, interdisciplinary ecosystem science program. The 

primary focus of the visiting scientist will be to integrate the 

science advisors’ recommendations and the results of the CEM 

exercise into the GCMRC science program. 

Logistical Support

Implementation of the GCMRC mission to provide 

scientific information to the GCDAMP begins with effective 

coordination of all technical and logistical support of research 

activities. The objective of this activity is to provide logistical support for field activities that emphasizes safety and cost 

effectiveness while complying with all permitting requirements with the National Park Service (NPS) and all other 

Federal, State, and Tribal agencies. The program encompasses 

the integration of both permitting and logistical operations. 

Research projects supported by the GCMRC must 

acquire required permits in compliance with Federal, State, 

Tribal, and local agencies in which project activities are conducted. Research activities conducted within Grand Canyon 

National Park and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area 

require NPS Research and Collecting Permits and Access Permits for all river launches, backcountry use, overflights, and 

media (filming) production. All permits acquired for GCMRCsupported projects will be processed and submitted through 

the NPS Research Coordination and Support Program. 

The GCMRC will provide complete logistical support 

for 30–50 research, monitoring, and administrative river trips 

through Grand Canyon annually. These trips range in length 

from 7 to 21 days and from 4 to 36 people in size. Trips will 

use a variety of motor- and oar-powered boats operated by 

contracted boat operators. Projects operating in the Glen Canyon reach of the Colorado River (Glen Canyon Dam to Lees 

Ferry) will be supported by a variety of motor-powered boats 

operated by GCMRC researchers and contracted boat operators. Additionally, research activities on the Little Colorado 

River and at other locations outside of Grand Canyon National 

Park boundaries are supported by helicopter services contracted with the Bureau of Reclamation. Ground-based support 

for research activities outside of the river corridor are also 

accomplished with the use of vehicles leased by the GCMRC.

FY07–Fy11. Logistics Base Costs (Project SUP 12.S1.07) 

The GCMRC will use government-owned boats and 

river logistical equipment in conjunction with a contracted 

vendor who supplies technical and logistical boat operators. 
 55

Put-in and take-out transportation is provided through the use 

of Government Service Administration 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 used previously. Retaining control over the process of supporting trips 

also facilitates compliance with NPS and other regulations 

and allows greater control over issues sensitive to the general 

public and the “recreational river community.” 

The logistics budget will be distributed to GCMRC 

projects based on a formula proportional to use of services. 

The formula takes into account contractor costs, trip size and 

length, and a percentage of operating expenses, including salaries, equipment replacement, and permitting costs.

Data Acquisition, Storage, and Analysis

The objective of the Data Acquisition, Storage, and Analysis 

(DASA) Program is to provide timely support for the acquisition, 

archiving, retrieval, analysis, and modeling of all scientific data 

sets and reports. These activities support most of the scientific 

projects undertaken by the GCMRC, making them a critical support function for advancing the 12 GCDAMP goals. 

FY07–FY11. Preparation for Monitoring Data Acquisition 

(remote sensing) (Project DASA 12.D1.07) 

This project provides multispectral digital images used for 

detecting macro-scale changes in habitat conditions throughout 

the Colorado River corridor below Glen Canyon Dam. These 

data are fundamental inputs to many of the GCMRC scientific studies and models used for spatial analysis and change 

detection. Quadrennial overflights are proposed as a broad 

strategy for the long-term monitoring program because gathering data through overflights at 4-year intervals balances budget 

constraints with the need to detect longer term (decade-scale) 

resource trends. The next planned over flight is scheduled to 

occur in FY09; the last overflight was conducted in May 2005.

FY07–11. Grand Canyon Integrated Oracle Database 

Management System (Project DASA 12.D2.07)

This project establishes an electronic repository for project data and the tools necessary to analyze and interpret this 

data, providing a fundamental support service to GCMRC scientific investigations and decision-support processes. Working 

with data stewards from each scientific program at GCMRC, 

the integrated database will be designed to accommodate both 

newly collected and existing data. Developing the integrated 

database design also involves extensive review of existing data 

sets and current data collection protocols. Tools, including 

Web-based interfaces, will be developed that enable users to 

extract related data sets and perform appropriate analyses. 

FY07–FY11. Library Operations (Project DASA 12.D3.07)

The GCMRC library acts as the physical repository for 

reports and data generated by GCMRC scientists and cooperators. The library also acquires and makes available resources 

related to the Colorado River, Grand Canyon, and adaptive 

management. In order to facilitate the use of the materials 

maintained by the library, a searchable catalogue of library 

holdings is available through the GCMRC Web site. The 

Web-based catalogue also provides links to downloadable versions of project reports and other materials. Library staff are 

available to assist with research needs and the acquisition of 

materials needed to support monitoring and research activities. 

The library is available to the general public.

FY07–FY11. Legacy Analog Data Conversion (Analog to 

Digital – Reports and Imagery) (Project DASA 12.D4.07) 

Through this project GCMRC staff will convert all materials 

in the library to digital format and make them available from the 

GCMRC Web site. A major emphasis of this effort is the conversion of analog overflight images to digital images to extend the 

historical information available for targeted resources, including 

sandbars, backwaters, and vegetation. The objective of the project 

is to make the specialized materials maintained by the GCMRC 

library easily available to users outside of Flagstaff, Ariz., and to 

protect unique items from damage or loss. 

FY07–FY11. GIS General Support for Integrated Analyses 

and Projects, GIS Lead (Project DASA 12.D5.07)

The objective of the project is to support science program 

activities through spatial database development, programming, and analysis. As most GCMRC projects have a spatial 

component to them, GIS provides a means by which data 

collected in the CRE can be catalogued within a consistent 

spatial reference system. At the most basic level, this allows 

for the overlaying and querying of data sets collected from 

any and all projects within the GCMRC. The project will also 

provide a higher level of support for specific GIS application 

development and analysis. Services provided by the project 

include the creation of maps suitable for publications; design 

and printing of maps and graphics for posters; creation of 

improved base maps for Lake Powell and Grand Canyon; 

instructional sessions for staff, cooperators, and contractors on 

GIS layer development, integration and analysis; and advanced 

spatial analysis for monitoring projects.

FY07–FY11. Integrated Analysis and Modeling – Mapping 

Shoreline Habitat Changes (Project DASA 12.D6.07) 

The main objective of the project is to study the shoreline 

environment along the Colorado River downstream of Glen 

Canyon Dam. As a result, the project will analyze multiyear 

multispectral digital imagery. A baseline data set of shoreline 
56 Monitoring and Research Plan to Support Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Years 2007–11

habitat currently exists as a linear classification of six habitat 

types at 8,000 cfs for the year 2000. Three other remote sensing data sets exist for 2002–5 that will be used to extend the 

time series of the shoreline habitat for a 5-year period. Additionally, a need exists to expand this classification into higher 

stages (above 8,000 cfs up to at least 45,000 cfs) in an effort to 

better correlate shoreline habitat with fish data and recreation 

habitat data also collected by the GCMRC and its cooperators. 

The original classification scheme for the shoreline will be 

extended to include backwater habitats, providing an update 

to the existing backwater data set (developed by Utah State 

University) up to the year 2005 (Goeking and others, 2003). 

In addition to the classification effort, an automated suite of 

methods could be developed to facilitate shoreline change 

detection across a range of stages.

FY07–FY11. Survey Operations (Project SUP 12.S2.07) 

All spatial data collected under the direction of the 

GCMRC requires referencing to the primary geodetic control 

network established by the National Geodetic Survey (NGS) 

and the GCMRC. The geodetic control network is the framework for the GIS. The primary network has been expanded 

to secondary and tertiary levels of control within the CRE 

in reaches of monitoring and research activities. Consistent 

methods and protocols have been developed and implemented 

for spatial data collection and its integration into the GIS. The 

trained GCMRC survey staff supports monitoring and research 

activities by collecting survey data with these protocols, and by 

delivering the data in the formats consistent with data standards. 

FY07–FY11. Control Network (Project SUP 12.S3.07) 

The objective of this project is to develop a high-precision control network throughout the CRE. Control monuments 

will be established at consistent intervals throughout the CRE 

and at locations required for accurate positions and elevations 

of past, current, and future data sets. The goal of the project is 

the expansion of the control network into the necessary areas 

before spatial data collection required by GCMRC research 

and core monitoring activities. Having stable control monuments and accurate coordinates completed before spatial data 

acquisition begins allows for reduction in the effort required in 

post-processing methods, and conservation of both human and 

funding resources. Historical data sets are accurately rectified 

for integration into the database.

Administrative and Information 

Technology Support

The objective of this activity is to provide a smooth 

running, transparent administrative operation that enables 

GCMRC scientists to focus on their research rather than on 

the administrative details. The Southwest Biological Science 

Center (SBSC) provides the oversight and management of 

facilities, burden and overhead; personnel issues; expenditure 

tracking; processing of 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 among the 

USGS administrative groups (Western Region Budget and Fiscal Services and Contracting Offices, Headquarters in Reston, 

and the Biological Headquarters). In addition, this activity 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 and to respond to congressional inquiries 

with turnaround times as short as 12 hours. In addition, the 

SBSC Information Technology Department supports a variety 

of technology needs for various GCMRC program areas. 

FY07–FY11. Administrative Operations (Project ADM 12.A1.07)

The goals of the project are to provide budgetary oversight and support to the Chief, Program Managers, and all 

employees of GCMRC so that they may conduct their responsibilities in the most ethical, professional, and efficient manner 

possible; to enable the employees to be unburdened, to the 

largest extent possible, by mundane administrative matters; 

and to support the USGS and the GCMRC missions of conducting unbiased scientific research. 

GCMRC Component of SBSC Systems Administration 

Support (Project ADM 12.A5.07)

The Southwest Biological Science Center through its 

Information Technology (IT) Department supports a variety of 

technology needs for the GCMRC, including computer security, systems administration, procurement of new servers and 

computers, and Web site development and maintenance. The 

goal of the IT Department is to ensure that the GCMRC is able 

to conduct scientific and administrative functions smoothly 

and with the least amount of disruption in service as possible. These support, development, and maintenance services 

are cost shared between the GCMRC and the SBSC. The IT 

Department also maintains the security of GCMRC and SBSC 

networks up to current Federal standards and ensures 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 works in coordination with DASA to 

provide full and easy access to publicly released data via the 

GCMRC Web sites.

FY07–FY11. AMWG/TWG Participation (Project ADM 12.A3.07)

The goal of this project is to create an account to hold and 

track funds for the travel expenses of employees who participate in AMWG and TWG meetings. 
 57

CHAPTER 3. Funding for Proposed FY07–FY11 Monitoring 

and Research Plan

 FUNDING SOURCES: FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 TOTALS: 

 Power Revenues Under Cap - 

Estimated USGS Portion(1) 8,094,034 8,336,855 8,586,961 8,844,569 9,109,907 42,972,326

 USGS Appropriations - Assistance 

with Burden Costs (Cost Share) 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 5,000,000

USGS Appropriations - Assistance 

for scientific research outside of 

but related to GCDAMP goals and 

activities(2)

 0 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 4,000,000 

 BOR Operations & Maintenance 

(Water Quality Lake Powell & 

Tailwaters Agreement)(1) 

 226,659 233,459 240,463 247,676 255,107 1,203,364 

 TOTAL AVAILABLE FUNDS: 9,320,693 10,570,314 10,827,424 11,092,245 11,365,014 53,175,690

(1) Fiscal Year cost increases estimated at an average CPI increase of 3% per historical application used by the Bureau of 

Reclamation.

(2) This additional appropriated funding has been requested but has not yet been approved.

(3) Tribal Participation Funding is not included in this table.

Table 3.1. Total anticipated funding to support the GCMRC Monitoring and Research Plan in fiscal years 2007 through 2011.

Table 3.1 identifies the total anticipated funding to support GCMRC monitoring and research activities related to 

the GCDAMP, including anticipated power revenues, continued Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) funding for Lake 

Powell monitoring, and anticipated U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS) appropriations to support the GCDAMP activities. In 

general, funding priorities will be established in cooperation 

with the GCDAMP based on the guidance included in the final 

GCRMC Strategic Science Plan and Monitoring and Research 

Plan. Funding emphasis will be given to address the strategic 

science questions associated with priority AMWG questions and information needs (Appendix A). Specific funding 

priorities will be established through the Biannual Work Plan 

planning process. 

To respond to expanding science needs, the GCMRC will 

work with the AMWG and the Secretary’s Designee to (1) 

develop greater support from the Secretary of the Interior and 

Congress to maintain existing budgets and to expand budgets 

to meet critical needs that cannot be addressed within current 

budget constraints and (2) explore cooperative partnerships 

with GCDAMP agencies and others to address critical monitoring and research needs. For example, GCMRC will work 

with the Department of Interior (DOI) and Reclamation to 

secure the additional funds to assist with evaluating and testing of a temperature control device for Glen Canyon Dam. In 

addition, GCMRC will work with USGS and the DOI leadership to secure additional base funding to address high-priority 

monitoring and research needs related to the GCDAMP.
58 Monitoring and Research Plan to Support Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Years 2007–11

References Cited

Anders, P., Bradford, M., Higgins, P., Nislow, K.H., Rabeni, 

C., and Tate, C., 2001, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center protocols evaluation program: Final report 

of the aquatic protocol evaluation panel, unpublished, 43 p. 

Andgradi, T.R., 1994, Trophic linkages in the lower Colorado 

River—multiple stable isotope evidence: Journal of the 

North American Benthological Society, v. 13, p. 479–495.

Conner, M.E., and Naiman, R.J., 1984, Particulate allochthonous inputs: relationship with stream size in an undisturbed 

watershed: Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, v. 41, p. 1473–1484. 

Fairley, H., Coggins, L., Fritzinger, C., Gonzales, M., Gushue, 

T., Hueftle, S., Kennedy, T., Liszewski, M., Melis, T., 

Ralston, B., Topping, D., Vernieu, W., and Wright, S., 2005. 

Provisional Core Monitoring Plan Final Draft. 

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, 220 p.

Goeking, S.A., Schmidt, J.C., and Webb, M.K., 2003, Spatial 

and temporal trends in the size and number of backwaters 

between 1935 and 2000, Marble and Grand Canyons, Arizona: Cooperative Agreement 0WRAG0059. 

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., The state of the Colorado River ecosystem in Grand Canyon: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 

1282, p. 193–205.

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 Grand Canyon: an integrative approach: 2004 

draft report to the U.S. Geological Survey Grand Canyon 

Monitoring and Research Center, cooperative agreement no. 

01-WRAG-0044 and 01-WRAG-0034, 126 p. 

Korman, J., Wiele, S.M., and Torrizo, M., 2004, Modelling effects of dicharge on habitat quality and dispersal of 

juvenile humpback chub (Gila cypha) in the Colorado River, 

Grand Canyon: Regulated Rivers, v. 20, p. 379–400.

Loomis, J., Cole, D., Foti, P., Manning, R., Moisey, R. N., 

Ratcliffe, R., 2005. Final Report of the protocol evaluation 

panel (PEP) for the recreation monitoring program of the 

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC). 

Ms. dated September 28, 2005. On file, Grand Canyon 

Monitoring and Research Center, Flagstaff, Ariz.

Naiman, R.J., Decamps, H., and McClain, M.E., 2005, 

Riparia: ecology, conservation and management of streamside communities: Oxford, England, Elsevier Academic 

Press, 430 p.

Nakano, S., and Murakami, M., 2001, Reciprocal subsidies: 

dynamic interdependence between terrestrial and aquatic 

food webs: PNAS, v. 98, p. 166–170.

Paetzold, A., Schubert, C.J., and Tockner, K., 2005, Aquatic 

terrestrial linkages along a braided-river: riparian arthropods 

feeding on aquatic insects: Ecosystems, v. 8, p. 748–759.

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. 

Paukert, C.P., Ward, D.L., Sponholtz, P., and Hilwig, K.D., 

2005, Effects of repeated hoopnetting and handling on 

bonytail chub: Journal of Freshwater Ecology, v. 20, p. 

649–653.

Romanuk, T.N., and Levings, C.D., 2003, Associations 

between arthropods and the supralittoral ecotone: dependence of aquatic and terrestrial taxa on riparian vegetation: 

Environmental Entomology, v. 32, no. 6, p. 1343–1353.

Stevens, L.E., Buck, K. ., Brown, B.T., and Kline, N.C., 

1997a, Dam and geomorphological influences on Colorado River waterbird distribution, Grand Canyon, Arizona, 

USA: Regulated Rivers: Research & Management, v. 13, p. 

151–169. 

Stevens, L.E., Schmidt, J.C., Ayers, T.J., and Brown, B.T., 

1995, Flow regulation, geomorphology, and Colorado River 

marsh development in the Grand Canyon, Arizona: Ecological Applications, v. 5, p. 1025–1039. 

Stevens, L.E., Shannon, J.P., and Blinn, D.W., 1997b. Colorado River benthic ecology in Grand Canyon, Arizona, 

USA: dam, tributary and geomorphological influences: 

Regulated Rivers: Research and Management, v. 13, p. 

129–149.

Walters, C., Korman, J., Stevens, L.E., and Gold, B., 2000, 

Ecosystem modeling for evaluation of adaptive management 

policies in the Grand Canyon: Journal of Conservation Ecology, v. 4, no. 2, http://www.consecol.org/vol4/iss2/art1/.
 59

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)

Key Strategic Science Questions

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 (YoY) and 

juvenile stages in the main stem, or by changes 

in growth and maturation in the adult population 

as influenced by main stem conditions? [FY06–

FY11]

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? [FY06–FY11]

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? [FY07–FY11]

4. Can long-term decreases in abundance rainbow 

trout in Marble and eastern Grand Canyons 

be sustained with a reduced level of effort of 

mechanical removal or will re-colonization 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. 

[FY07–FY11]

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? [FY06–FY09]

6. Are trends in the abundance of fish populations, 

or indicators from fish such as growth, 

condition, and body composition (e.g., lipids), 

correlated with patterns in invertebrate flux? 

[FY06–FY09].

7. Which tributary and mainstem habitats are most 

important to native fishes and how can these 

habitats best be made useable and maintained? 

[FY 08–FY09].

8. How can native and nonnative fishes best be 

monitored while minimizing impacts from 

capture and handling or sampling? [FY07–

FY11].

AMWG Priority 2: Which cultural resources, 

including Traditional Cultural Properties (TCP), 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). 

Key Strategic Science Questions

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? [FY07–FY11]

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? [FY04–FY11]

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? [FY09–FY11]

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? [FY06–FY11]

APPENDIX A. AMWG Priorities and Associated Strategic 

Science Questions from the GCMRC Strategic Science 

Plan
60 Monitoring and Research Plan to Support Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Years 2007–11

5. What are the TCPs in the CRE, and where are 

they located? [FY06–FY11]

6. How can tribal values/data/analyses be 

appropriately incorporated into a sciencedriven adaptive management process in order 

to evaluate the effects of flow operations and 

management actions on TCPs? [FY06–FY08]

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? [FY06–FY11]

AMWG Priority 3: What is the best flow regime? 

(GCDAMP Goals 1-11)

Key Strategic Science Questions

1. Is there a “Flow-Only” operation (i.e. a 

strategy for dam releases, including managing 

tributary inputs with BHBFs, without sediment 

augmentation) that will restore and maintain 

sandbar habitats over decadal time scales? [FY08–

FY11] 

2. To what extent could predation impacts by 

nonnative fish be mitigated by higher turbidities or 

dam controlled high flow releases? [FY07–FY08] 

3. What are the hydropower replacements costs 

of the Modified Low Fluctuating Flow (MLFF) 

(annually, since 1996)? [FY07–FY08]

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)? 

[FY06–FY07]

5. How is invertebrate flux affected by water 

quality (e.g., temperature, nutrient concentrations, 

turbidity) and dam operations? [FY06–FY09]

6. What GCD operations (ramping rates, 

daily flow range, etc.) maximize trout fishing 

opportunities and catchability? [FY07–FY08]

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? [FY07–FY08]

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? [FY07–FY09]

9. How do varying flows positively or negatively 

affect campsite attributes that are important to 

visitor experience? [FY09–FY11]

10. How can safety and navigability be reliably 

measured relative to flows? [FY07–FY08]

11. How do varying flows positively or negatively 

affect visitor safety, health, and navigability of the 

rapids? [FY07–FY09]

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? [FY07–FY09]

AMWG Priority 4: What is the impact of sediment 

loss and what should we do about it? (GCDAMP 

Goal 8)

Key Strategic Science Questions

1. Is there a “Flow-Only” operation (i.e. a 

strategy for dam releases, including managing 

tributary inputs with BHBFs, without sediment 

augmentation) that will restore and maintain 

sandbar habitats over decadal time scales? (FY 

08–FY11)

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? 

[FY07–FY11]
 61

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)

Strategic Science Questions

1. How do dam release temperatures, flows 

(average and fluctuating component), 

meteorology, canyon orientation and geometry, 

and reach morphology interact to determine 

mainstem and near shore water temperatures 

throughout the CRE? [FY06–FY08]

2. How is invertebrate flux affected by 

water quality (e.g., temperature, nutrient 

concentrations, turbidity) and dam operations? 

[FY06–FY08]

3. To what extent do temperature and fluctuations 

in flow limit spawning and incubation success 

for native fish? [FY03–FY08]

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? [FY03–FY08]

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? 

[FY03–FY08]

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? [FY07–FY11]

7. How do warmer releases affect viability and 

productivity of native/nonnative vegetation? 

[FY07–FY11]