Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Agenda Item Information 

September 30, 2009

Agenda Item

Biennial Budget Process Development 

Action Requested

9 Consider how to move forward with the development of a biennial budget process – use BAHG 

or other group? 

Presenters

Shane Capron, TWG Chair 

Previous Action Taken

9 By AMWG (August 2009): AMWG directs TWG to develop a two-year, FY11-12 two-year, 

non-rolling budget; and that a description of that process be provided by TWG to AMWG at its 

next meeting. 

Motion was passed by consensus. The next AMWG meeting is scheduled for February 3-4, 2010. 

Background Information

In 2009, TWG developed a discussion paper on the potential use of a two-year non-rolling budget 

vs. a two-year rolling budget. This was forwarded to AMWG at the June 2009 TWG meeting. 

AMWG considered the FY 2010-11 budget and the discussion paper and passed a motion to 

instruct TWG to a) develop a non-rolling budget for FY 2011-12, and b) develop a draft description 

of this budget process for AMWG at their February 3-4, 2010, meeting. 

The following document was developed based on that discussion paper and the outline that was 

found in the most recent budget description from the AMP Strategic Plan, which included a 

document from 2001 describing the budget issues. This is meant as a starting template to begin 

consideration of the budget description. This provides only a rough outline in an attempt to capture 

the major topics which need to be discussed. TWG should consider how best to move forward, to 

assign a new ad hoc or utilize the BAHG in the development of this budget description. 

 Page 1 
Biennial Budget Process Development 

BIENNIAL BUDGET PROCESS 

Draft outline for TWG Review 

At its August 12-13, 2009 meeting, the AMWG directed TWG to develop a 2-year non-rolling 

budget beginning in 2011-12. This document describes the biennial (2-year) non-rolling budget 

approach and some of the history that led up to its development. The goal is to reduce the effort 

currently expended on the budget process while maintaining a high-quality adaptive management 

program. 

MOTION: AMWG directs TWG to develop a two-year, FY11-12 two-year, non-rolling 

budget; and that a description of that process be provided by TWG to AMWG at its next 

meeting. 

Motion was passed by consensus 

Background 

The previous budget process was approved by AMWG in 2004 and helped to bring some needed 

structure to the budget process. Within that structure, the primary element was a biennial budget 

and work plan which would roll the second year of the budget into the first year of the next budget 

such that each year TWG would develop a 2-year work plan. This approach was intended to provide 

some planning benefits in looking forward a few years and provided opportunity for non-federal 

entities to lobby for additional federal funding. 

The major components of the 2004 budget process were described as: 

 Two year budget and work plans with rollover of year 2 into year 1 of the next biennial budget,

and would include (yet undeveloped) criteria for reopening the budget

 Appropriations request for Federal agency budget or for Congressional write‐in

 Strategic 5‐year outlook to forecast major changes, determine need for contingencies, and

develop draft out‐year projects

 Fiscal Reporting, expenditures for the previous fiscal year

 Project Progress Reports, mid‐year and end end‐of‐year reports

 Budget Spreadsheet and work plan

 Formation of the Budget Ad Hoc Group (BAHG)

Since adoption of the new process in 2004, the AMP implemented many aspects of the budget 

process (outlined above), especially those dealing with reporting, work plans, and budget 

spreadsheets. However, it was not until 2009 that the AMP developed the first biennial budget for 

FY 2010-11. During this process it became clear that this process would not reduce effort spent on 

the budget and may have actually increased the amount of effort needed by the program. Thus, an 

alternative to the rolling budget (i.e., non-rolling biennial budget) was described in general terms to 

AMWG and adopted by the AMWG for the FY 2011-12 budget cycle (see AMWG motion above). 

Description of a Two-year Non-rolling Budget Process 

The general approach is to use a process similar to that taken by the upper basin RIP with the goal 

of reducing the effort expended on the annual budget process while improving the effectiveness of 

TWG, GCMRC, and AMWG. TWG would develop a two-year budget the first year of the process. 

Then, in the second year the AMP would revisit year-two of the budget and make only small 

corrections in the budget to allow for minor changes in projects or potential new starts not 

envisioned during year one. The key benefit to this process is that substantial effort may be saved in 

 Page 2 
Biennial Budget Process Development 

year-two of the budget process allowing for time and effort to be used on other endeavors of 

interest to the AMP. 

The major components of the 2009 two-year budget process would include: 

 Two‐year budgets and work plans,

 Modifications of the year‐two budget based on specific criteria,

 Fiscal reporting, including expenditures for the previous fiscal year (mid‐year and end end‐of‐

year reports),

 Project progress reports, including an annual reporting meeting in January

 Budget spreadsheet and work plan, and

 Utilization of a Budget Ad Hoc Group (BAHG) of the TWG

 Strategic outlook? (5 years)

Much of the rest of the process would be as described in 2004, reporting requirements, budget 

spreadsheets and a work plan would all be developed. TWG and GCMRC would also still hold the 

annual reports meeting workshop in January to review progress on the previous year’s work plan. 

The following describes the specific elements of the budget process and describes responsibilities. 

Budget Principles

Budget based on the following: 

• AMP Strategic Plan, updated AMWG priority questions and SSQs 

• GCMRC MRP and SSP, outside input (e.g., PEP reviews) 

• Input from BAHG/TWG/AMWG 

Timeline

The timing of TWG and AMWG budget considerations within the budget process has been a 

problem and has been discussed. We need to describe a timeline with roles 

Budget process components 

Budget Ad Hoc Group (BAHG)

TWG consideration of the budget has been facilitated by a small ad hoc group which has worked 

with the USBR and GCMRC throughout the entire budget process. TWG should utilize this subgroup to work through issues from the initial formulation to formal budget presentations and on 

through the execution phases. This group should work with USBR and GCMRC in the budget 

process, do required liaison with TWG members, and help USBR and GCMRC bring to the TWG 

budgets that have had comprehensive review where the major issues have been discussed, and are 

prepared for full TWG discussion and recommendation. 

Other issues/notes: 1) timeline has been challenging, 2) has the BAHG had the appropriate focus, 

detail vs. priorities?, can we describe that focus better here?, 3) describe responsibilities, 

Priorities

All parties (AMWG, TWG, GCMRC, USBR, USGS) recognize the fact that not all funds needed 

and requested will always be made available. Prioritization of work is essential to the budgeting 

process. This is especially true as we move toward a budget that may include core monitoring and 

 Page 3 
Biennial Budget Process Development 

 Page 4 

management actions. A system must be devised that gives the TWG /AMWG a clear idea as to how 

available funds will be allocated if there are more projects than funding available. 

The Strategic Plan, the Goals and Management Objectives, and especially the prioritized 

Information Needs should serve as the base for determining budget priorities. At its basic level the 

budget should put the baseline monitoring and high priority information needs ahead of other 

activities. This will necessarily be modified year to year by hydrology and other scientific 

considerations. 

Other issues/notes: 1) how will core monitoring fit in, 

Mid-year and end of year fiscal reporting, including carry over

January reporting meeting

Budget spreadsheet and work plan

Criteria for year-two review and revisions

TWG Chair

The chairman of the TWG assure that TWG agenda gives appropriate time for full discussion of the 

budget, and that budget documents are furnished to TWG members sufficiently in advance to allow 

for their review prior to the meeting. 

Roles

AMWG’s role – priority list, update SSQs, 

BOR role 

GCMRC role 

TWG role 

Management actions: what role will they, if any, in the budget process? 
 

Prepared in cooperation with the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management 

Program 

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program 

Budget and Work Plan—Biennial Years 2010–11 

Prepared by 

Bureau of Reclamation 

Upper Colorado Regional Office 

Salt Lake City, Utah 

and 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Southwest Biological Science Center 

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center 

Flagstaff, Arizona 

TWG Review Draft 

June 22, 2009 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Geological Survey 
Contents 

Contents ............................................................................................................................................................................... ii

Chapter 1. Bureau of Reclamation’s Upper Colorado Region’s Draft Biennial Budget and Work 

Plan—Biennial Years 2010–11......................................................................................................................................... 1

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

A.1. Personnel Costs ...................................................................................................................................................... 3

A.2. AMWG Member Travel Reimbursement............................................................................................................ 4

A.3. Reclamation Travel................................................................................................................................................. 5

A.4. Facilitation Contract............................................................................................................................................... 6

A.5. Public Outreach ..................................................................................................................................................... 7

A.6. Other ........................................................................................................................................................................ 8

B.1. Personnel Costs ..................................................................................................................................................... 9

B.2. TWG Member Travel Reimbursement ............................................................................................................. 10

B.3. Reclamation Travel ............................................................................................................................................. 11

B.4. TWG Chair Reimbursement ............................................................................................................................... 12

B.5. Other ...................................................................................................................................................................... 13

C.1. Compliance Documents...................................................................................................................................... 14

C.2. Administrative Support for NPS Permitting .................................................................................................... 15

C.3. Contract Administration...................................................................................................................................... 16

C.4. Experimental Carryover Funds .......................................................................................................................... 17

C.5. Integrated Tribal Resources Monitoring ......................................................................................................... 18

C.6. Nonnative Fish Suppression Contingency Fund............................................................................................. 19

D.1. Programmatic Agreement: Reclamation Administrative Costs................................................................... 20

General project description........................................................................................................................................ 20

D.2. Canyon Treatment Plan and Implementation ................................................................................................. 21

Expected results ........................................................................................................................................................... 21

E. Tribal Consultation: Sole-Source Reimbursable Contracts with Tribes ........................................................ 22

Chapter 2. U.S. Geological Survey, Southwest Biological Science Center, Grand Canyon 

Monitoring and Research Center Biennial Budget and Work Plan—Fiscal Years 2010–11 .............................. 23

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................... 23

Annual Reporting.......................................................................................................................................................... 39

Project Descriptions .................................................................................................................................................... 39

GCDAMP Goal 1: Protect or improve the aquatic foodbase so that it will support viable 

populations of desired species at higher trophic levels ........................................................................................... 40

BIO 1.R1.10: Aquatic Food Base................................................................................................................................. 40

BIO 1.R4.10: Impacts of Flows on the Aquatic Food Base .................................................................................... 40

BIO 1.M1.11: Aquatic Food Base Monitoring .......................................................................................................... 40

ii
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................................................................................................................................................................................. 46

BIO 2.R1.10: Little Colorado River Humpback Chub Monitoring Lower 13.6 km (Population 

Estimates) ...................................................................................................................................................................... 46

BIO 2.R2.10: Little Colorado River Humpback Chub Monitoring Lower 1,200 m................................................ 46

BIO 2.M1.11: Little Colorado River Humpback Chub Monitoring ......................................................................... 46

BIO 2.M3.10–11: Humpback Chub Translocation and Monitoring Above Chute Falls ..................................... 52

BIO 2.M4.10–11: Monitoring Mainstem Fishes........................................................................................................ 56

BIO 2.R7.10–11: Stock Assessment of Grand Canyon Native Fishes .................................................................. 62

BIO 2.R13.10–11: Remote PIT Tag Reading.............................................................................................................. 66

BIO 2.R15.10–11: Nearshore Ecology / Fall Steady Flows..................................................................................... 69

BIO 2.R16.10–11 Mainstem Nonnative Fish Control (Ongoing)............................................................................ 74

(This page will be completed in the near future).................................................................................................... 74

BIO 2.R17.10–11: Nonnative Control Plan Science Support ................................................................................. 75

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........................................................................................................................................................................... 79

BIO 4.M2.10–11: Monitoring Lees Ferry Fishes....................................................................................................... 79

GCDAMP Goal 5: Maintain or attain viable populations of Kanab ambersnail..................................................... 84

BIO 5.R1.10–11: Monitor Kanab ambersnail ............................................................................................................ 84

GCDAMP Goal 6: Protect or improve the biotic riparian and spring communities, including 

threatened and endangered species and their critical habitat............................................................................... 87

BIO 6.M1.10: Vegetation Mapping............................................................................................................................. 87

BIO 6.M2.11: Vegetation Transects........................................................................................................................... 87

BIO 6.R3.10: Vegetation Synthesis............................................................................................................................. 92

BIO 6.R4.10: Terrestrial Habitat Monitoring............................................................................................................. 95

GCDAMP Goal 7: Establish water temperature, quality, and flow dynamics to achieve the Adaptive 

Management Program ecosystem goals..................................................................................................................... 96

BIO 7.R1.10–11: Water Quality Monitoring of Lake Powell and the Glen Canyon Dam Tailwater..................... 96

Principal Investigator................................................................................................................................................... 96

PHY 7.M1.10–11. Core Monitoring of Downstream Integrated Quality of Water (below Glen 

Canyon Dam) ............................................................................................................................................................... 102

PHY 7.R2.10 : Integrated Flow, Temperature, and Sediment Modeling and .................................................... 109

PHY 7.R3.11: Modeling Support................................................................................................................................ 109

GCDAMP Goal 8: Maintain or attain levels of sediment storage within the main channel and along 

shorelines to achieve the Adaptive Management Program ecosystem goals................................................... 117

PHY 8.M2.10–11: Core Monitoring for the Sediment Budget and Sandbar Status Throughout the 

CRE Utilizing Direct Topographic/Bathymetric Measurements and Remote Sensing .................................. 117

GCDAMP Goal 9: Maintain or improve the quality of recreational experiences for users of the 

Colorado River ecosystem, within the framework of GCDAMP ecosystem goals............................................. 125

REC 9.R1.10–11: Campsite Area Monitoring .......................................................................................................... 126

REC 9.R2.10: Evaluate Remotely Sensed Data for Monitoring Campable Area Change in the CRE ............ 131

iii
Deferred in FY2010...................................................................................................................................................... 131

REC 9.R3.10–11: Incorporate and Analyze Campsite Data in the GIS Atlas..................................................... 132

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. ................................................................................................................................................................................ 136

HYD 10.M1.10–11: Monitor Power Generation and Market Values under Current and Future Dam 

Operations ................................................................................................................................................................... 136

GCDAMP Goal 11: Preserve, protect, manage, and treat cultural resources for the inspiration and 

benefit of past, present, and future generations...................................................................................................... 140

CUL 11.R1.10–11: Cultural Research and Development towards Core Monitoring, Phase II – 

Implement Pilot Monitoring Project (contingent on being permitted to complete Phase I in Fall, 

2009) .............................................................................................................................................................................. 140

GCDAMP Goal 12: Maintain a high-quality monitoring, research, and adaptive management 

program............................................................................................................................................................................ 146

DASA 12.D1.10-11 Quadrennial and Resource-Specific Remote Sensing Overflight (Working 

Capital Fund) (FY2010--Ongoing).............................................................................................................................. 146

DASA 12.D2.10–11: Grand Canyon Integrated Oracle Database Management System ............................... 151

DASA 12.D3.10–11: Library Operations (now includes Legacy Data Conversion).......................................... 155

DASA 12.D5.10–11: GIS General Support for Integrated Analyses and Projects, GIS Lead......................... 158

DASA 12.D8.10–11: Biometrics and General Analysis ......................................................................................... 161

DASA 12.D9.10–11: Integrated Image Analysis and Change Detection ........................................................... 164

PLAN 12.P1.10–11: Identify Critical Ecosystem Interactions and Data Gaps .................................................. 174

Products/Reports........................................................................................................................................................ 178

PLAN 12.P3.10 AMWG Requested Project⎯Low Steady Summer Flows⎯Data and Research 

Compilation, Synopsis, and Synthesis .................................................................................................................... 180

PLAN: 12.P4.11 – Knowledge Assessment and SCORE Report 2011................................................................. 186

SUP 12.S1.10–11: Logistics Base Costs.................................................................................................................. 190

SUP 12.S2.10–11: Survey Operations ...................................................................................................................... 192

SUP 12.S3.10–11: Control Network (Ongoing) ....................................................................................................... 195

ADM 12.A1.10-11 (A): Administrative Operations ................................................................................................. 198

ADM 12.A1.10-11 (B): Administrative Operations – GSA Vehicle Costs (Ongoing) ........................................ 201

ADM 12.A1.10-11 (C): Administrative Operations – Interior Vehicle Costs (Ongoing) ................................... 203

ADM 12.A2.10-11: Program Planning and Management..................................................................................... 205

ADM 12.A3.10-11: AMWG/TWG Meeting Travel Funds ...................................................................................... 208

ADM 12.A4.10-11(A): Independent Reviews.......................................................................................................... 210

ADM 12.A4.10-11(B): Executive Director of Science Advisors Review............................................................ 213

ADM 12.A5.10-11: GCMRC Component of SBSC Computer Systems Support ................................................ 216

EXP 7 FY2010: Experimental Research Synthesis: Synthesis of High Flow Experimental Results 

(1996, 2004, and 2008)................................................................................................................................................. 219

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................................... 222

APPENDIX A. Key Strategic Science Questions Addressed in the FY2007–11 Science Program .............. 231

APPENDIX B DEFERRED PROJECTS..................................................................................................................... 234

BIO 6.R4.10: Terrestrial Habitat Monitoring........................................................................................................... 234

iv
BIO 6.M1.10: Vegetation Mapping........................................................................................................................... 238

REC 9.R2.10: Evaluate Remotely Sensed Data for Monitoring Campable Area Change in the CRE ............ 239

REC 9.R5.xx: Evaluate Relation Between Flows and Recreation Experience.................................................. 242

REC 9.R6.xx: 1973 Weeden Survey Revisited......................................................................................................... 243

REC 9.R7.xx: Update Regional Recreation Economic Study ............................................................................... 244

CUL 11.R3.xx: Geomorphic Model of Archaeological Site Vulnerability .......................................................... 245

DASA 12.D1.10-11 Quadrennial and Resource-Specific Remote Sensing Overflight (Working 

Capital Fund) (FY2010--Ongoing).............................................................................................................................. 246

DASA 12.D9.10–11: Integrated Image Analysis and Change Detection ........................................................... 248

PLAN 12.P1.10–11: Identify Critical Ecosystem Interactions and Data Gaps .................................................. 250

Products/Reports........................................................................................................................................................ 251

APPENDIX C. Conservation Measures from 2008 Biological Opinion .............................................................. 252

APPENDIX D. Fiscal Year 2010-11 Budget Explanatory Material ...................................................................... 255

APPENDIX E. GCDAMP Fiscal Year 2010–11 Budget........................................................................................... 257

v
vi

Page left blank intentionally
Chapter 1. Bureau of Reclamation’s Upper Colorado 

Region’s Draft Biennial Budget and Work Plan—Biennial 

Years 2010–11 

Introduction 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The fiscal year (FY) 2010–11 work plan was developed on the basis of previous budgets and work plans, the 

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

Research Plan—all of which have been approved by the Adaptive Management Work Group (AMWG). In 

FY2010–11, additional consideration was given to meeting the commitments outlined in the conservation 

measures sections of two biological opinions issues by the USFWS: (1) the 2007 Biological Opinion for the 

Proposed Adoption of Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and Coordinated 

Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead (known as the shortage criteria biological opinion), and (2) the 

2008 Final Biological Opinion for the Operation of Glen Canyon Dam. 

The process used to arrive at the FY2010–11 budget and work plan was adopted by the AMWG in 2004. In 

summary, the Budget Ad Hoc Group (BAHG) of the Technical Work Group (TWG), with input from the 

Cultural Resources Ad Hoc Group (CRAHG), worked with BRUC and GCMRC to develop a proposal for 

the TWG. The TWG reviewed the proposed budget and work plan and developed a recommendation to the 

AMWG (this document). 

The projected water year (WY) 2010 Lake Powell releases hydrograph (figure 1) is based on forecasted 

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

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

and Lake Powell, and the 2008 Finding of No Significant Impact on the environmental assessment of 

experimental releases for the period 2008–12. It also observes commitments made in the 2007 and 2008 

biological opinions. The forecasted hydrograph is based on best estimates available from Reclamation’s 24-

month study released in June 2008; however, the forecast is subject to change as further data becomes 

available. 

This document consists of two chapters: chapter 1, which contains the BRUC budget, and chapter 2, which 

contains GCMRC’s work plan and budget. A comprehensive budget spreadsheet is provided in Appendix E. 

1
Figure 1. (Top) Proposed WY 2010 Lake Powell monthly release volumes (kaf) under most probable 

conditions; (Bottom) Proposed WY 2010 Lake Powell high, average daily, and low releases (cfs) under most 

probable conditions. Source: Upper Colorado Region, Bureau of Reclamation, June 3, 2009 (subject to 

revision) 

 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1,000

1,100

1,200

1,300

Oct-09

Nov-09

Dec-09

Jan-10

Feb-10

Mar-10

Apr-10

May-10

Jun-10

Jul-10

Aug-10

Sep-10

Month

Release (CFS)

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

22,000

24,000

26,000

Oct-09

Nov-09

Dec-09

Jan-10

Feb-10

Mar-10

Apr-10

May-10

Jun-10

Jul-10

Aug-10

Sep-10

Month

Release (CFS)

Approximate High Flow

Average Daily Flow

Approximate Low Flow

2
A.1. Personnel Costs 

General project description 

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

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

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

information to the AMWG, preparing and tracking budget expenses, and updating Reclamation’s web page. 

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

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

FACA database. Reclamation is now required to complete all stakeholder travel from preparing travel 

authorizations to completing travel vouchers. Depending on litigation issues the Department of the Interior 

is involved in, the Upper Colorado Region must provide documentation to various solicitors which often 

require many hours of work not programmed into the fiscal year budget(s). 

Project goals and objectives 

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

using the funds available as prudently as possible. Secondary goals include increasing each stakeholder’s 

awareness of significant budget and legislative issues related to the AMP, improving working relationships 

with the AMWG members/alternates, finding constructive ways to resolve differences, and addressing 

individual concerns in an open and accepting forum of discussion. 

Expected results: 

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

increased above the consumer price index (CPI). Reclamation staff will provide budget information to the 

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

AMWG members/alternates and interested parties. Budget reports will be presented in a format conducive to 

AMWG needs. 

Budget: FY2010 = $176,747 FY2011 = $182,049 

Reclamation Project A.1. Personnel Costs—Funding History 

Activity 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 

Outside Reclamation 

science/labor 

— — — — — — 

Logistics field support — — — — — — 

Project-related 

travel/training 

— — — — — — 

Operations/supplies — — — — — — 

Reclamation salaries 116,375 119,866 123,223 132,892 132,892 136,879 

Subtotal 116,375 119,866 123,223 132,892 132,892 136,879 

DOI Customer burden 

(33% for FY09 and FY10) 40,043 34,762 35,735 43,855 43,855 45,170 

Project total 159,418 154,628 158,958 176,747 176,747 182,049 

Total outsourced (%) 

3
A.2. AMWG Member Travel Reimbursement 

General project description 

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

AMWG meetings. 

Project goals and objectives 

The primary goal for reimbursing travel expenses to AMWG members or alternates is to encourage their 

attendance at all meetings. Because the meetings are often scheduled in Phoenix, Arizona, many members 

must incur air or POV travel, and by having Reclamation reimburse those and other related travel costs, e.g., 

hotel, per diem, rental car, etc., opportunities are increased for more members to participate in a variety of 

AMWG assignments. Also, because Reclamation can purchase airline tickets at the Federal Government 

rate, there are additional cost savings to the program. 

Expected results 

The GCDAMP will benefit by having all AMWG members participating in regularly scheduled meetings. 

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

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

Budget: FY2010 = $17,467 FY2011 = $17,991 

Reclamation Project A.2. AMWG Travel Reimbursement—Funding History 

Activity 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 

Outside Reclamation science/labor — — — — — — 

Logistics field support — — — — — — 

Project-related travel/training 15,725 16,197 16,651 17,467 17,467 17,991 

Operations/supplies — — — — — — 

Reclamation salaries — — — — — — 

Subtotal 15,725 16,197 16,651 17,467 17,467 17,991 

DOI Customer burden 

(33% for FY09 and FY10) — — — — — — 

Project total 15,725 16,197 16,651 17,467 17,467 17,991 

Total outsourced (%) — — — — — — 

4
A.3. Reclamation Travel 

General project description 

This project covers travel expenses Reclamation staff incur to attend AMWG and ad hoc group meetings. In 

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

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

Project goals and objectives 

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

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

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

obtaining the results from science work being done in the canyon. 

Expected results 

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

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

work toward consensus on a variety of sensitive issues. 

Budget: FY2010 = $14,178 FY2011 = $14,873 

Reclamation Project A.3. Reclamation Travel—Funding History 

Activity 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 

Outside Reclamation science/labor — — — — — — 

Logistics field support — — — — — — 

Project-related travel/training 13,000 13,390 13,765 14,439 14,439 14,873 

Operations/supplies — — — — — — 

Reclamation salaries — — — — — — 

Subtotal 13,000 13,390 13,765 14,178 14,178 14,873 

DOI Customer burden 

(33% for FY09 and FY10) — — — — — — 

Project total 13,000 13,390 13,765 14,178 14,178 14,873 

Total outsourced (%) — — — — — — 

5
A.4. Facilitation Contract 

General project description 

This project represents the work assigned to one individual under contract to the Reclamation to facilitate at 

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

Project goals and objectives 

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

reach consensus on important issues. The facilitator creates a setting in which all members and the public 

are able to express their views. 

Expected results 

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

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

consensus on pertinent issues affecting the GCD AMP when possible. 

Budget: FY2010 = $ 26,959 FY2011 = $27,768

Reclamation Project A.4. Facilitation Contract—Funding History 

Activity 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 

Outside Reclamation science/labor — — — — — — 

Logistics field support — — — — — — 

Project-related travel/training 25,000 25,000 25,700 26,959 26,959 27,768 

Operations/supplies — — — — — — 

Reclamation salaries — — — — — — 

Subtotal 25,000 25,000 25,700 26,959 26,959 27,768 

DOI Customer burden 

(33% for FY09 and FY10) — — — — — — 

Project total 25,000 25,000 25,700 26,959 26,959 27,768 

Total outsourced (%) — — — — — — 

6
A.5. Public Outreach 

General project description 

This project covers the expenses for Reclamation staff and the Public Outreach Ad Hoc Group (POAHG) to 

develop materials for the GCDAMP public outreach efforts. 

Project goals and objectives 

Reclamation Public Affairs staff and the POAHG will work jointly in developing materials to inform and 

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

advised of progress and expenditures. 

Expected results 

Products will include fact sheets, website information, tribal outreach materials, video B-roll, special events, 

conference participation, and other pertinent means of advising the public and program members on the 

achievements of the GCDAMP. The POAHG will maintain accurate records of payments made against the 

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

Budget: FY2010 = $ 55,536 FY2011 = $57,202

Reclamation Project A.5. Public Outreach—Funding History 

Activity 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 

Outside Reclamation science/labor — — — — — — 

Logistics field support — — — — — — 

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

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

Reclamation salaries 50,000 51,500 41,040 38,846 36,346 38,509 

Subtotal 50,000 51,500 41,040 40,846 40,846 43,009 

DOI Customer burden 

(33% for FY09 and FY10) 11,902 13,684 13,684 14,193 

Project total 50,000 51,500 52,942 55,536 55,536 57,202 

Total outsourced (%) — — — — — — 

7
A.6. Other 

General project description 

This project represents some of the other “miscellaneous” expenses incurred in operation of the AMWG. 

For example: 

• overnight mailings of AMWG meeting packets 

• copying of reports 

• purchasing meeting materials (cassette tapes, markers, paper, software upgrades for AMP website 

posting, etc.) 

• equipment (audio recording/transcribing machines) 

In addition to the above, training courses are often required for staff to keep current on environmental issues, 

FACA changes, computer technology improvements, etc. Also included in this category are monetary 

awards given to Reclamation staff who have contributed significantly to the success of the GCDAMP. 

Project goals and objectives 

The primary goal is to limit spending on “other” items as much as possible. By doing so, more money can 

be applied to science and research. 

Expected results 

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

budget. 

Budget: FY2010 = $ 7,969 FY2011 = $8,208

Reclamation Project A.6. Other—Funding History 

Activity 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 

Outside Reclamation science/labor — — — — — — 

Logistics field support — — — — — — 

Project-related travel/training 5,000 5,390 5,597 5,969 5,969 6,208 

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

Reclamation salaries — — — — — — 

Subtotal 7,175 7,390 7,597 7,969 7,969 8,208 

DOI Customer burden 

(33% for FY09 and FY10) — — — — — — 

Project total 7,175 7,390 7,597 7,969 7,969 8,208 

Total outsourced (%) — — — — — — 

8
B.1. Personnel Costs 

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

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

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

disseminating pertinent information to the TWG, preparing and tracking budget expenses, and updating 

Reclamation’s web page. Reclamation also completes all stakeholder travel from preparing travel 

authorizations to completing travel vouchers. 

Project goals and objectives 

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

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

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

information to the TWG, preparing and tracking budget expenses, and updating Reclamation’s web page. 

Expected results 

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

increased above the CPI. Reclamation staff will provide budget information to the TWG on a regular basis. 

Completed work products will be promptly distributed to TWG members/alternates and interested parties. 

Budget: FY2010 = $86,195 FY2011 = $88,780 

Reclamation Project B.1. Personnel Costs—Funding History 

Activity 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 

Outside Reclamation science/labor — — — — — — 

Logistics field support — — — — — — 

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

Operations/supplies — — — — — — 

Reclamation salaries 53,178 54,773 56,306 64,808 64,808 66,752 

Subtotal 53,178 54,773 56,306 64,808 64,808 66,752 

DOI Customer burden 

(33% for FY09 and FY10) 19,669 15,884 16,329 21,387 21,387 22,028 

Project total 72,847 70,657 72,635 86,195 86,195 88,780 

Total outsourced (%) — — — — — — 

9
B.2. TWG Member Travel Reimbursement 

General project description 

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

meetings. 

Project goals and objectives 

The primary goal for reimbursing travel expenses to TWG members or alternates is to encourage their 

attendance at all meetings. Because the meetings are often scheduled in Phoenix, Arizona, many members 

must incur air or personal vehicle travel. By reimbursing those and other related travel costs, e.g., hotel, per 

diem, rental car, etc., opportunities are increased for more members to participate in a variety of 

AMWG/TWG assignments. 

Expected results 

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

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

recommendations to the AMWG for continued research in the canyon. 

Budget: FY2010 = $23,952 FY2011 = $24,670 

Reclamation Project B.2. TWG Member Travel Reimbursement—Funding History 

Activity 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 

Outside Reclamation science/labor — — — — — — 

Logistics field support — — — — — — 

Project-related travel/training 20,836 22,211 22,833 23,952 23,952 24,670 

Operations/supplies — — — — — — 

Reclamation salaries — — — — — — 

Subtotal 20,836 22,211 22,833 23,952 23,952 24,670 

DOI Customer burden 

(33% for FY09 and FY10) — — — — — — 

Project total 20,836 22,211 22,833 23,952 23,952 24,670 

Total outsourced (%) — — — — — — 

10
B.3. Reclamation Travel 

General project description 

This project covers travel expenses Reclamation staff will incur to prepare and attend TWG meetings as 

well as ad hoc group meetings which result from AMWG/TWG assignments. In order to work on those 

assignments, the meetings are often held in Phoenix, Arizona, because it is centrally located to those 

entities/states represented on the AMWG/TWG. This often requires Reclamation staff to make additional 

trips throughout the year in completion of AMWG/TWG assignments. 

Project goals and objectives 

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

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

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

obtaining the necessary results from science work done in the canyon. 

Expected results 

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

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

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

Budget: FY2010 = $ 17,658 FY2011 = $18,188 

Reclamation Project B.3. Reclamation Travel—Funding History 

Activity 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 

Outside Reclamation science/labor — — — — — — 

Logistics field support — — — — — — 

Project-related travel/training 15,898 16,375 16,834 17,658 17,658 18,188 

Operations/supplies — — — — — — 

Reclamation salaries — — — — — — 

Subtotal 15,898 16,375 16,834 17,658 17,658 18,188 

DOI Customer burden 

(33% for FY09 and FY10) — — — — — — 

Project total 15,898 16,375 16,834 17,658 17,658 18,188 

Total outsourced (%) — — — — — — 

11
B.4. TWG Chair Reimbursement 

General project description 

This project represents the work assigned to one individual under contract to the Bureau of Reclamation to 

act as chairperson at TWG meetings. This person may also work on AMWG/TWG ad hoc group 

assignments. 

Project goals and objectives 

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

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

meeting agendas. The chairperson follows up on TWG and ad hoc group assignments and ensures that 

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

Expected results 

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

comfortable expressing their individual viewpoints. The chairperson will bring the TWG members to 

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

the best scientific information available to the GCDAMP. The chairperson will follow up on action items 

and make assignments as necessary to accomplish TWG objectives. 

Budget: FY2010 = $24,625 FY2011 = $25,363 

Reclamation Project B.4. TWG Chair Reimbursement—Funding History 

Activity 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 

Outside Reclamation science/labor — — — — — — 

Logistics field support — — — — — — 

Project-related travel/training 22,171 22,836 23,474 24,625 24,625 25,363 

Operations/supplies — — — — — — 

Reclamation salaries — — — — — — 

Subtotal 22,171 22,836 23,474 24,625 24,625 25,363 

DOI Customer burden 

(33% for FY09 and FY10) — — — — — — 

Project total 22,171 22,836 23,474 24,625 24,625 25,363 

Total outsourced (%) — — — — — — 

12
B.5. Other 

General project description 

This project represents some of the other “miscellaneous” expenses incurred in operation of the TWG. For 

example: 

• overnight mailings of TWG meeting packets 

• copying of reports 

• purchasing meeting materials (cassette tapes, markers, paper, etc.) 

• equipment (audio recording/transcribing machines) 

Project goals and objectives 

 The primary goal is to limit spending on “other” items as much as possible. By doing so, more money can 

be spent on science and research. 

Expected results 

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

Budget: FY2010 = $ 2,277 FY2011 = $2,345

Reclamation Project B.5. Other—Funding History 

Activity 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 

Outside Reclamation science/labor — — — — — — 

Logistics field support — — — — — — 

Project-related travel/training 2,050 2,112 2,171 2,277 2,277 2,345 

Operations/supplies — — — — — — 

Reclamation salaries — — — — — — 

Subtotal 2,050 2,112 2,171 2,277 2,277 2,345 

DOI Customer burden 

(33% for FY09 and FY10) — — — — — — 

Project total 2,050 2,112 2,171 2,277 2,277 2,345 

Total outsourced (%) — — — — — — 

13
C.1. Compliance Documents 

General Project Description 

This project covers the costs for preparing compliance documents for AMP-proposed actions in order to 

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

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). In FY 2010–11 these funds will be carried forward for anticipated use in 

2012 unless the Secretary of the Interior agrees to a recommendation for a large scale experiment. 

Project goals and objectives 

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

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

GCDAMP. 

Expected results 

Reclamation staff will be involved in all compliance issues related to the GCDAMP. They will utilize travel 

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

Budget: FY2010 = $50,000 FY2011 = $51,500 

Reclamation Project C.1. Compliance Documents—Funding History 

Activity 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 

Outside Reclamation 

science/labor 

— — — — — — 

Logistics field support — — — — — — 

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

Operations/supplies — — — — — — 

Reclamation salaries 22,450 263,62

2 

210,080 37,594 37,594 38,722 

Subtotal 60,923 37,594 37,594 38,722 

DOI Customer burden 

(33% for FY09 and FY10) 12,406 12,406 12,778 

Project total 22,450 263,62

2 

271,003 50,000 50,000 51,500 

Total outsourced (%) — — — — — — 

14
C.2. Administrative Support for NPS Permitting 

General project description 

This project provides funding to support the Grand Canyon National Park (GCPA) permitting of research 

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

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

the GCDAMP. The program provides these funds to offset the administrative burden of the GCPA in 

providing these services. 

Project goals and objectives 

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

the NPS. 

Expected results 

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

Budget: FY2010 = $118,852 FY2011 = $122,417 

Reclamation Project C.2. Administrative Support for NPS Permitting—Funding History 

Activity 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 

Outside Reclamation 

science/labor 

— — — — — — 

Logistics field support — — — — — — 

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

Operations/supplies — — — — — — 

Reclamation salaries — — — — — — 

Subtotal 100,000 110,000 113,300 118,852 118,852 122,417 

DOI Customer burden 

(33% for FY09 and FY10) — — — — — — 

Project total 100,000 110,000 113,300 118,852 118,852 122,417 

Total outsourced (%) — — — — — — 

15
C.3. Contract Administration 

General project description 

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

GCDAMP. Specifically, these contracts are for AMWG Facilitation, TWG Chairperson reimbursement, 

tribal participation, and Programmatic Agreement (PA) work. 

Project goals and objectives 

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

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

reporting can be made to both AMWG and TWG members. 

Expected results 

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

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

informed of discrepancies or concerns. Work will be completed on time and within the limits of the contract. 

Budget: FY2010 = $39,953 FY2011 = $41,152 

Reclamation Project C.3. Contract Administration—Funding History 

Activity 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 

Outside Reclamation science/labor — — — — — — 

Logistics field support — — — — — — 

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

Operations/supplies — — — — — — 

Reclamation salaries 24,394 32,413 25,830 30,040 30,040 30,941 

Subtotal 24,394 32,413 25,830 30,040 30,040 30,941 

DOI Customer burden 

(33% for FY09 and FY10) 7,491 9,913 9,913 10,211 

Project total 24,394 32,413 33,321 39,953 39,953 41,152 

Total outsourced (%) — — — — — — 

16
C.4. Experimental Carryover Funds 

General project description 

This budget item reserves funds for conducting experiments under the GCDAMP. The estimated need for a 

large scale (high flow experiment (HFE)) experiment based on past experience is approximately $1.5 

million. This amount will be reserved over the course of several years so that the effects on annual budget 

and work plan are minimized. 

Project goals and objectives 

As above. 

Expected results 

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

Budget: FY2010 = $500,000 FY2011 = $515,000 

Reclamation Project C.4. Experimental Carryover Funds—Funding History 

Activity 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 

Outside Reclamation 

science/labor 

— — — — — — 

Logistics field support — — — — — — 

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

Operations/supplies — — — — — — 

Reclamation salaries — — — — — — 

Subtotal 424,675 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 515,000 

DOI Customer burden 

(33% for FY09 and FY10) — — — — — — 

Project total 424,675 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 515,000 

Total outsourced (%) — — — — — — 

17
C.5. Integrated Tribal Resources Monitoring 

General project description 

Funding is provided for identification of traditional cultural properties (TCPs) and implementation of Native 

American monitoring protocols that were developed in the FY2007 as recommended by the TWG as part of 

core monitoring development. 

In addition, the five AMP tribes (Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Tribe, Kaibab-Paiute Tribe, Pueblo of Zuni, Navajo 

Nation) will work with Reclamation and NPS to implement monitoring of historic properties in Glen and 

Grand Canyons. This will be accomplished by adding an additional 3 days to the annual AMP monitoring 

trips. 

Project goals and objectives 

Primary goal is to evaluate effects of dam operations and other actions under the authority of the Secretary 

of the Interior on resources of value to Native American tribes. A second goal is to conduct condition 

monitoring of historic properties to assist Reclamation in compliance with Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act. 

Expected results 

Annual reports detailing their activities, findings, and monitoring results from implementing protocols as 

part of core monitoring. Provide condition monitoring data to Reclamation in order to assist in prioritization 

of historic properties for treatment in subsequent years. In addition, these data will be used to update NPS 

databases. 

Power Revenues: FY2010=$142,884 Appropriated Funds: FY2010 = $75,000 

 FY2011=$147,171 Appropriated Funds: FY2011=$75,000 

Reclamation Project C.5. Integrated Tribal Resources Monitoring—Funding History 

Activity 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 

Outside Reclamation 

science/labor 

— — — — — — 

Logistics field support — — — — — — 

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

Operations/supplies — — — — — — 

Reclamation salaries — — — — — — 

Subtotal (power revenues) 125,000 132,500 136,210 142,884 142,884 147,171 

DOI Customer burden 

(33% for FY09 and FY10) — — — — — — 

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

Project total 125,000 132,500 136,210 142,884 217,884 222,171 

Total outsourced (%) — — — — — — 

18
C.6. Nonnative Fish Suppression Contingency Fund 

General project description 

Nonnative fish, particularly rapidly reproducing warmwater species, may become problematic and require 

control measures to be adequately funded and implemented more rapidly than can be accommodated by the 

standard biennial budget process. Concern for these events and attention to addressing them is found in the 

2008 Biological Opinion on Glen Canyon Dam operations. To ensure that funds are available for this 

purpose, a nonnative fish suppression contingency fund is established. This fund will be incremented by 

future carryover dollars when available. A plan of action for nonnative fish control is being developed by 

GCMRC and will be used to determine when and how these funds will be used, when it has been 

recommended by AMWG and accepted by the Secretary of the Interior. 

Project goals and objectives 

The goal of this project is to ensure that funds are available for nonnative fish control, particularly rapidly 

reproducing warmwater species that can become problematic at time scales unsuitable for addressing with 

the standard biennial GCDAMP process. 

Expected results 

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

populations of problematic species. 

Budget: FY2010 = $48,483 FY2011 = $49,937 

Reclamation Project C.6. Non-native Fish Suppression Contingency Fund—Funding History 

Activity 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 

Outside Reclamation science/labor — — — — — — 

Logistics field support — — — — — — 

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

Operations/supplies — — — — — — 

Reclamation salaries — — — — — — 

Subtotal — — — 48,483 48,483 49,937 

DOI Customer burden 

(33% for FY09 and FY10) — — — — — — 

Project total — — — 48,483 48,483 49,937 

Total outsourced (%) — — — — — — 

19
D.1. Programmatic Agreement: Reclamation Administrative Costs 

General project description 

Reclamation’s regional archeologist administers the PA program and tribal contracts. This project funds 

salary, travel, and indirect costs of program administration. The costs integrate the PA and tribal 

consultation into the larger AMP. 

Project goals and objectives: 

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

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

American monitoring protocols. 

• Management of the treatment plan contract (second and third option year) for data recovery of atrisk historic properties. 

• Chair one PA meeting and attend TWG and AMWG meetings. 

• Oversee completion of the Native American Consultation Plan and the Historic Preservation Plan. 

Expected results 

The major product is administration of the Glen and Grand Canyon treatment plans, accountability for the 

tribal contracts and use of both appropriated dollars and power revenues. 

Budget: FY2010 = $60,164 FY2011 = $61,969 

Reclamation Project D.1. Programmatic Agreement: Reclamation Administrative Costs—Funding 

History 

Activity 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 

Outside Reclamation science/labor — — — — — — 

Logistics field support — — — — — — 

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

Operations/supplies — — — — — — 

Reclamation salaries 54,107 71,892 57,354 42,236 42,236 43,593 

Subtotal 54,107 71,892 57,354 45,236 45,236 46,593 

DOI Customer burden 

(33% for FY09 and FY10) — — — 14,928 14,928 15,376 

Project total 54,107 71,892 57,354 60,164 60,164 61,969 

Total outsourced (%) — — — — — — 

20
D.2. Canyon Treatment Plan and Implementation 

General project description 

In consultation with Grand Canyon NPS, the Arizona State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the 

remainder of the PA signatories, Reclamation completed a scope-of-work for the development of a treatment 

plan for the cultural resources of Grand Canyon. A request for proposal (RFP) based on this scope-of-work 

was issued in FY2008 and the contract was awarded to Utah State University and the Zuni Cultural 

Resource Enterprise. Four sites were targeted for data recovery in FY2008 and five to six sites will be 

excavated in FY2009. 

Project goals and objectives: 

• Implementation of a treatment plan memorandum of agreement (MOA) through consultation with 

SHPO, NPS, Tribes and other stakeholders. 

• Government-to-Government consultation with tribal councils based upon the treatment plan 

recommendations. 

• Field work to be initiated in winter of 2008 and completed in spring and fall of 2009. Five to six 

sites will be selected for treatment in FY2009. 

• Collaboration with NPS archaeologists in carrying out field activities (see project D.2 NPS Support 

for Archeological Treatment Plan). 

Expected results 

Prioritization, based on significance, of all affected Glen and Grand Canyon properties and implementation 

of an MOA for treatment of adverse effects. Detailed and comprehensive reports on consultant activities, 

results, and recommendations. Evaluation and implementation of mitigative measures or total data recovery, 

following the Secretary of the Interior Standards and Guidelines for Historic Preservation and guidance of 

the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. 

Budget: FY2010 = $500,000 FY2011 = $515,000 

Reclamation Project D.2. Canyon Treatment Plan and Implementation—Funding History 

Activity 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 

Outside Reclamation science/labor — — — — — — 

Logistics field support — — — — — — 

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

Operations/supplies — — — — — — 

Reclamation salaries — — — — — — 

Subtotal 500,000 500,000 500,000 

DOI Customer burden 

(33% for FY09 and FY10) 

Project total 500,000 500,000 500,000 

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

21
E. Tribal Consultation: Sole-Source Reimbursable Contracts with Tribes 

General project description 

Government-to-government consultation will be maintained between the five AMP tribes (Hopi Tribe, 

Hualapai Tribe, Kaibab Paiute tribe, Pueblo of Zuni, Navajo Nation) and five Interior agencies (U.S. 

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

Indian Affairs) with Reclamation serving as lead agency. 

Project goals and objectives 

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

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

Expected results 

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

to the Secretary. In addition, the tribes prepare annual reports on activities funded under the contracts. 

Continued funding of government-to-government consultation through the agreements ensures enhanced 

communication and understanding of the AMP issues and concerns. 

Budget: FY2010 = $475,000 FY2011 = $475,000 (appropriated funds) 

Reclamation Project E. Tribal Consultation: Sole-Source Reimbursable Contracts with Tribes—

Funding History 

Activity 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 

Outside Reclamation 

science/labor 

— — — — — — 

Logistics field support — — — — — — 

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

Operations/supplies — — — — — — 

Reclamation salaries — — — — — — 

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

DOI Customer burden 

(33% for FY09 and FY10) 

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

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

 

22
Chapter 2. U.S. Geological Survey, Southwest Biological 

Science Center, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research 

Center Biennial Budget and Work Plan—Fiscal Years 

2010–11 

Introduction 

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

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

emphasizing learning through monitoring, research, and experimentation. The U.S. Geological Survey’s 

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

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

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

Program Budget and Biennial Work Plan (BWP)—Fiscal Year (FY) 2010–11. In April 2009, the AMWG 

recommended approval of amendments to GCMRC’s Strategic Science Plan (SSP) and Monitoring and 

Research Plan (MRP) to reflect the requirements of the 2007 Final Biological Opinion for the Proposed 

Adoption of Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and Coordinated Operations for 

Lake Powell (shortage criteria) and Lake Mead, and the 2008 Final Biological Opinion for the Operation of 

Glen Canyon Dam. The amended SSP and MRP were used as a basis for formulation of the BWP. 

Purpose 

The BWP describes the core monitoring, long term experimental, research and development, and related 

activities that will be implemented in FY2010–11 to address priority goals, questions, and information needs 

specified by the GCDAMP. 

Overview of the GCMRC Strategic Science Plan and Monitoring and Research Plan 

The BWP is designed to implement and be consistent with the GCMRC SSP and MRP. The principal 

elements of the MRP and SSP that are addressed by the FY2010–11 BWP include: 

• Employing the adaptive environmental assessment and management approach to resources 

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

Adaptive Management Program Strategic Plan (AMPSP); 

• Using a collaborative science planning process (figure 2); 

• Addressing GCDAMP priority questions and the associated strategic science questions (SSQs) and 

using them to provide the primary (but not exclusive) basis for designing the science program 

(appendix A); 

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

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

23
Canyon Ecosystem Model (GCEM) to assist in long term experimental planning such as future high 

flow experiments; 

• Bridging science and management through a collaborative planning and assessment among 

scientists and GCDAMP participants. In FY2011, GCMRC will update the 2005 Knowledge 

Assessment and Status of the Colorado River Ecosystem (SCORE) Report for managers and 

stakeholders for planning management actions and the next phase of research and experimentation. 

Figure 2. Diagram outlining the collaborative science planning and implementation process. The 

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program and the U.S. 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. 

Overview of Biennial Work Plan and Budget

The FY2010–11 BWP was developed based on guidance provided in the GCMRC’s MRP, which was 

approved by the Adaptive Management Work Group (AMWG) in August 2007 and amended in April 2009, 

to address the conservation measures included in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) 2007 

Biological Opinion for shortage criteria and 2008 Biological Opinion on GCD operations. 

24
In addition, the GCMRC discussed FY2010–11 budget priorities with the Budget Ad Hoc Work Group 

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

considered in the development of the BWP. 

This BWP assumes that the FY2010 hydrograph will consist of modified low fluctuating flow (MLFF) 

operations, including experimental steady flows in October 2009/10 and September 2010–11. The BWP 

does not address a potential high flow experiment (HFE) in FY2010 or FY2011. Currently, an HFE has not 

been authorized by the Secretary of the Interior for FY2010–11. 

The proposed budget provides for the continued implementation of a number of ongoing projects included in 

the approved FY2009 Annual Work Plan and Budget. Funding for ongoing projects was adjusted to reflect 

cost of living increases, increased salary costs, logistical support, past performance, etc. 

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

funding being requested for several new or expanded projects and for other non-discretionary increases in 

costs for continuing projects. These adjustments are noted in the attached spreadsheet. Highlights and major 

changes related to FY2010–11 BWP include:

Goal 2. Native Fishes 

• Establishment of mainstem fish monitoring and Little Colorado River (LCR) monitoring as Core 

Monitoring projects beginning in FY2011(BIO 2.M1.11). The scope and budget for these 

monitoring efforts considered the recommendations of the protocol evaluation panel (PEP) review 

that occurred in May 2009. 

• Establish a new project in FY2010 to provide science support for implementation of the Nonnative 

Fishes Management Plan (BIO 2.R17.10) that will be completed in FY2010. 

• Continue to provide GCMRC biology staff support to work with the Senior Scientist to develop 

more robust ecosystem models (PLAN 12.P1.10). 

• Begin in FY2010 to direct funding from the Nonnative Control Pilot Testing Project (BIO 2.R6.09) 

to the Mainstem Fish Monitoring project (BIO 2.M4.10) to increase the ability to detect changes in 

abundance or distribution of nonnative fishes. 

Goal 4. Rainbow Trout 

• Establish Lees Ferry Rainbow Trout Monitoring Project as a Core Monitoring project beginning in 

FY2010 (BIO 4.M2.10). The scope and budget for the monitoring effort considered the 

recommendations of the May 2009 PEP review. 

Goal 6. Riparian/Springs 

• Establish vegetation mapping and transects projects as Core Monitoring projects beginning in 

FY2010 (BIO 6.M1.10 and BIO 6.M2.11, respectively). Vegetation transects (BIO 2.M2.11) will be 

conducted every other year beginning in FY2011. 

Goal 8. Sediment 

• Suspend channel and sandbar mapping in FY2010 and focus on analysis and reporting of data 

collected in FY2009 and before. Beginning in FY2011, channel mapping will occur annually and 

measurements at the Northern Arizona University (NAU) sandbar study sites would occur every 

other year. 

Goal 9. Recreation 

25
• Suspend sandbar and campsite mapping field work in FY2010 (REC 9.R1.10) and focus on analysis 

and reporting of data collected in the past, with a PEP review early in FY2011 to determine the 

scope and direction of future monitoring. 

• Establish sand bar and campable area monitoring (REC 9.R1.11) as a Core Monitoring project 

beginning in FY2011. 

• Include staff support for maintenance, updating, and analysis of the information in the GIS 

Campsite Atlas (REC 9.R3.10). 

• Discontinue the project to compile and analyze existing safety data (REC 9.R4.09) in FY2010. 

Goal 11. Cultural 

• Reduce the scope and budget of the Cultural Monitoring Research and Development (R&D) Project 

(CUL 11.R1.10) to eliminate National Park Service (NPS) funding, and reduce survey and 

cooperator support in FY2010 and FY2011; assumes closer integration with NPS-funded Colorado 

River Monitoring Plan (CRMP) monitoring efforts beginning in FY2009. A final PEP review will 

be conducted in FY2012 to determine the long term monitoring program. 

Goal 12. DASA 

• Establish a new initiative (DASA 12.D9.10) to coordinate/manage various image acquisition, 

processing, and change detection projects including vegetation mapping, Legacy Data Conversion, 

Goal 8 Channel Change, and sandbar and campable area mapping/change detection. Funding is 

derived from existing projects (Integrated Image Analysis and Change Detection (DASA 

12.D9.10)), Vegetation Mapping (BIO 6.M1.10), and Campsite Atlas (REC 9.R3.10). 

• Establish a new initiative to synthesize the results of the 1996, 2004, and 2008 HFE using a portion 

of the Experimental Funds (EXP 7). 

• Establish a new initiative to provide study design and statistical support for Biometrics and General 

Analysis (DASA 12.D8.10–11) for GCMRC science projects. 

Finally, the FY2010 budget assumed a 0 percent increase in funding based on the consumer price index 

(CPI) and a 3 percent CPI increase from FY2010 to FY2011. 

The proposed budget addresses all of the Conservation Measures included in the 2007 and 2008 USFWS 

Biological Opinions that are within the purview of GCMRC (See appendix C for a summary of the 

conservation measures). This was accomplished in part by using additional appropriations from 

Reclamation. Projects that address a Conservation Measure are identified with the code BOCM in the 

comment column of the budget table (appendix E). 

Table 1 summarizes core monitoring, research and development, and experimental activities presented in 

this BWP to address GCDAMP goals 1–11. These three types of activities are briefly explained below, 

including a current progress update and anticipated progress in FY2010–11: 

1. Core-monitoring activities are consistent, long-term repeated measurements using scientifically 

accepted protocols to measure status and trends of key resources. Core monitoring activities are those 

that have been pilot tested for one to several years, have undergone a PEP and independent peer review, 

and have been approved by the GCDAMP for core monitoring status. 

A summary of projects that will be proposed as Core Monitoring projects in FY2010–11 are shown in 

Table 2. 

26
27

2. Research and development activities are aimed at (1) addressing specific hypotheses or information 

needs related to a priority GCDAMP resource(s) and (2) developing and testing new technologies or 

monitoring procedures. 

The majority of research and development activities presented in this FY2010–11 BWP are aimed at 

developing long term core monitoring protocols associated with GCDAMP goals 1–11 (excluding goal 

3). Another major research project includes the nearshore ecology project. 

3. Experimental activities are flow and nonflow treatments and management actions designed to 

improve conditions of target resources while allowing for an understanding of the relationship between 

actions and the target resources. 

In FY2010, the analysis and reporting of the results of the March 2008 High Flow Experiment will be 

completed. Other experimental activities planned for FY2010–11 is (1) the evaluation of experimental 

steady flows to be released from GCD in September and October, beginning 2008 and continuing through 

2012 and (2) experimental mainstem nonnative fish removal. 
Table 1. Summary of core-monitoring, research and development, and experimental activities in the fiscal year 2010 and 2011 (FY2010–11) biennial w

Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC). Activities address Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP) goals 1–12 and rel

information needs. Priority and related strategic science questions are paraphrased from the GCMRC Strategic Science Plan (appendix A). Information the GCDAMP Strategic Plan. Abbreviations are as follows: SSQ = strategic science question, CMIN = core-monitoring information need, RIN = research GCDAMP Science Advisors summary questions. 

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 Resea

1. Foodbase AMWG Priority: 1, 3, and 5 

SSQ 1-5. 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? SSQ 1-6. Are trends in the abundance of fish populations, or indicators from fish such as growth, condition, and body composition (for example, lipids), correlated with patterns in 

invertebrate flux?SSQ 5-2. How is invertebrate flux affected by water quality (for example, temperature, nutrient concentrations, turbidity) and dam operations? 

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 youngof-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 of rainbow trout in Marble and eastern Grand Canyons be sustained with a reduced level of effort of mechanical removal or will recolonization from tributaries and from downstream and upstream of the removal reach require that mechanical removal be an ongoing management action? This question also 

applies to future removal programs targeting other nonnative species. CMIN 2.1.2 Determine and track abundance and distribution of all size classes of HBC in the Little Colorado River (LCR) 

2. HBC 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 cold- and warmwater nonnatives in Marble and eastern Grand Canyons result in an improvement in the recruitment rate of juvenile HBC 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? 

28
Table 1. Summary of core-monitoring, research and development, and experimental activities in the fiscal year 2010 and 2011 (FY2010–11) biennial w

Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC). Activities address Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP) goals 1–12 and rel

information needs. Priority and related strategic science questions are paraphrased from the GCMRC Strategic Science Plan (appendix A). Information the GCDAMP Strategic Plan. Abbreviations are as follows: SSQ = strategic science question, CMIN = core-monitoring information need, RIN = research GCDAMP Science Advisors summary questions. 

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 Resea

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?

2. HBC 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? 

2. HBC 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? 

3. Extirpated species 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? 

29
Table 1. Summary of core-monitoring, research and development, and experimental activities in the fiscal year 2010 and 2011 (FY2010–11) biennial w

Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC). Activities address Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP) goals 1–12 and rel

information needs. Priority and related strategic science questions are paraphrased from the GCMRC Strategic Science Plan (appendix A). Information the GCDAMP Strategic Plan. Abbreviations are as follows: SSQ = strategic science question, CMIN = core-monitoring information need, RIN = research GCDAMP Science Advisors summary questions. 

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 Resea

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. 

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 4-2. How important are backwaters and vegetated shoreline habitats to the overall growth and survival of YoY and juvenile native fish? Does the long-term benefit of increasing these habitats outweigh short-term potential costs? 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. 

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

SSQ 3-5. How is invertebrate flux affected by water quality (for example, 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 nearshore water temperatures throughout the CRE)? SSQ 5-3. To what extent do temperature and fluctuations in flow limit spawning and incubation success for native fish? CMIN 7.2.1. Determine the seasonal and yearly trends in turbidity, conductivity, DO, and pH, (decide below whether selenium is important) changes in the mainstem throughout the Colorado River ecosystem? 

30
Table 1. Summary of core-monitoring, research and development, and experimental activities in the fiscal year 2010 and 2011 (FY2010–11) biennial w

Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC). Activities address Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP) goals 1–12 and rel

information needs. Priority and related strategic science questions are paraphrased from the GCMRC Strategic Science Plan (appendix A). Information the GCDAMP Strategic Plan. Abbreviations are as follows: SSQ = strategic science question, CMIN = core-monitoring information need, RIN = research GCDAMP Science Advisors summary questions. 

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 Resea

8. Sediment (fine and coarse sediment)

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

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. 

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? 

31
Table 1. Summary of core-monitoring, research and development, and experimental activities in the fiscal year 2010 and 2011 (FY2010–11) biennial w

Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC). Activities address Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP) goals 1–12 and rel

information needs. Priority and related strategic science questions are paraphrased from the GCMRC Strategic Science Plan (appendix A). Information the GCDAMP Strategic Plan. Abbreviations are as follows: SSQ = strategic science question, CMIN = core-monitoring information need, RIN = research GCDAMP Science Advisors summary questions. 

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 Resea

10. Hydropower AMWG Priority: 3 

SSQ 3-3. What are annual hydropower replacement costs of the modified low fluctuating flow (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).

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 (for example, check dams, vegetation management, etc.) in slowing rates of erosion at archaeological sites over the long term? SSQ 2-7. Are trends in the abundance of fish populations, or indicators from fish such as growth, condition, and body composition (for example, lipids), correlated with patterns in 

invertebrate flux? CMIN 11.1.1 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. CMIN 11:2.1 Determine the condition and integrity of TCPs in the Colorado River ecosystem. 

32
Table 1. Summary of core-monitoring, research and development, and experimental activities in the fiscal year 2010 and 2011 (FY2010–11) biennial w

Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC). Activities address Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP) goals 1–12 and relinformation needs. Priority and related strategic science questions are paraphrased from the GCMRC Strategic Science Plan (appendix A). Information 

the GCDAMP Strategic Plan. Abbreviations are as follows: SSQ = strategic science question, CMIN = core-monitoring information need, RIN = research GCDAMP Science Advisors summary questions. 

33

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 Resea

12. High-quality monitoring, research, and Adaptive Management Program (A.) Data acquisition, storage, and analysis 

AMWG Priority: 1,2, 3, 4, and 5 
Table 2. Schedule for PEP Reviews and Development of Final Core Monitoring Plans in FY2010–11

PROJECT TASK FY2010 FY2011 

Aquatic Foodbase/Lake Powell 

and Downstream Water Quality 

Monitoring 

Final PEP 

Core Monitoring Plan 

X 

X 

Native and Nonnative Fish 

Monitoring (LCR/Mainstem/ Lees 

Ferry Trout) 

Core Monitoring Plan X 

Vegetation Core Monitoring Plan X 

Camping Beaches Final PEP 

Core Monitoring Plan 

X X 

X 

The FY2010–11 BWP includes a variety of projects and activities associated with GCDAMP goal 12 (that 

is, the maintenance of a high quality monitoring, research, and adaptive management program (AMP)). In 

general, these activities are aimed at effective management and administration of the GCMRC science 

program, logistical support for field activities, data management and analysis, and independent peer 

review. These science support activities fall into nine categories: 

1. Data acquisition, storage, and analysis (DASA), which includes: 

• conducting the next quadrennial aerial overflight to acquire remote sensing data of the entire 

Colorado River ecosystem (CRE) in May 2013 

• maintaining, updating, and enhancing the Oracle database

• converting analogue data (report and imagery) to digital format

• providing geographic information system (GIS) support to science projects

• supporting the GCMRC library 

2. Logistical support for field activities/river trips and survey operations 

3. Compilation, synopsis, and synthesis of the data and results of the studies carried out in conjunction 

with the experimental flows of 2000 (low steady summer flows (LSSF)) 

4. Retaining the services of a senior ecosystem scientist to better understand the factors contributing to 

native fish population status and trends and updating key elements of the Grand Canyon Ecosystem 

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

5. Various administrative support services for the GCMRC and its cooperative science programs 

6. GCMRC program planning and management support (including support for the GCDAMP) 

7. Independent peer review, PEPs, and science advisor support 

8. Information technology (IT) support, which is provided by the Southwest Biological Science Center 

(SBSC) 

9. Update and publish the SCORE and Knowledge Assessment reports in FY2011 to include new 

information and findings since publication of the documents in 2005 

34
FY2010–11 Funding Sources 

A summary of the anticipated GCMRC FY2010–11 funding by funding source is provided in table 3. 

Funding for the activities of the GCMRC comes from the following sources: 

• GCDAMP power revenues ($7,967,420 in FY2010 and $8,206,442 in FY2011)—GCDAMP 

power revenues are capped by Congress and adjusted annually based on the consumer price index 

(CPI). For the purposes of this budget, the CPI is estimated at 0 percent in FY2010 and 3 percent 

in FY2011. The budget will be adjusted in fall 2010 to reflect the actual CPI for FY2010. 

• GCDAMP power revenue carry forward funding ($1,244,064)—Funding from the GCMRC 

FY2009 GCDAMP budget that was deferred for use in FY2010. 

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

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

$1,000,000 in support appropriations, the GCMRC is able to maintain the Department of Interior 

(DOI) customer rate of 15 percent plus facilities for the GCDAMP agreement. In FY2010–11, the 

DOI customer rate is estimated to be 21percent. 

• Lake Powell water quality monitoring ($275,502 in FY2010 and $286,342 in FY2011)—This is 

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

monitor water quality in Lake Powell. 

• Experimental funds $258,674 in FY2010 and $484,251 in FY2011 

• Nonnative Fish Contingency Fund $96,966 in FY2010 and $0 in FY2011 

35 
Table 3. Total anticipated funding to support the GCMRC in fiscal year 2010 (FY2010).

Funding 

source 

Agreement title 

and number Type of funds Estimated FY2009 

carry forward 

funds 

FY2010 

Funds 

Gross 

funding 

total 

Percent 

of 

FY2010 

GCMRC 

budget 

Notes 

Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) 

Lake Powell water quality – Unknown Agreement # (Replaces 05AA402385) 

Power revenues not under cap 

$0 $275,502 $275,502 2.53% 

Reclamation Nearshore fish 

ecology—08AA402080 

Appropriated funds $536,641 $16,184 $552,825 5.10% FY2010 funding recei

FY2009 

Reclamation Glen Canyon Dam 

Adaptive Mgmt Program—

06AA402439 

Power revenues under cap (GCDAMP) 

$641,097 $7,967,420 $8,608,517 79.27% 

Reclamation Glen Canyon Dam 

Adaptive Management Program—

06AA402439 

High-flow experiment modification for FY2008–FY2009 

$ 66,326 $0 $66,326 0.61% 

Reclamation Glen Canyon Dam 

Adaptive Management Program – Unknown Agreement # 

Experimental Funds held by Reclamation 

$0 $258,674 $258,674 2.39% Supplement FY2010 p

Reclamation Glen Canyon Dam 

Adaptive Management Program – Unknown Agreement # 

Non-native Fish Suppression Contingency Funds held by Reclamation 

$0 $96,966 $96,966 0.90% Supplement FY2010 p

Subtotal of funding received from Reclamation: $1,244,064 $8,614,746 $9,858,810 USGS Headquarters 

Cost-share burden assistance—09W331040 

USGS appropriated funds for cost-share use for GCMRC annual work plan 

$0 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 9.20% 

Total of estimated funding to be received for FY2010: $1,244,064 $9,614,746 $10,858,810 100.00% 

36
37

Table 3. (Cont’d) Total anticipated funding to support the GCMRC in fiscal year 2011 (FY2011). 

Funding 

source 

Agreement title 

and number 

Type of funds Estimated 

FY2010 

carry 

forward 

funds 

FY2010 

Funds 

Gross 

funding 

total 

Percent 

of 

FY2010 

GCMRC 

budget 

Notes 

Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) 

Lake Powell water quality – Unknown Agreement # (Replaces 05AA402385) 

Power revenues not under cap 

$0 $286,342 $286,342 2.72% 

Reclamation Nearshore fish 

ecology—08AA402080 

Appropriated funds 

$0 $556,911 $556,911 5.28% 

Reclamation Glen Canyon Dam 

Adaptive Mgmt Program—06AA402439 

Power revenues under cap (GCDAMP) 

$0 $8,206,442 $8,206,442 77.90% 

Reclamation Glen Canyon Dam 

Adaptive Management Program – Unknown Agreement # 

Experimental Funds held by Reclamation 

$0 $484,251 $484,251 4.60% Supplement FY2011 proje

Subtotal of funding received from Reclamation: $0 $9,533,946 $9,533,946 USGS Headquarters 

Cost-share burden assistance—10W331040 

USGS appropriated funds for cost-share use for GCMRC annual work plan 

$0 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 9.50% 

Total of estimated funding to be received for FY2011: $0 $1,000,000 $10,533,946 100.00% 
Figure 3 summarizes the GCMRC’s FY2009, FY2010 and 2011 budgets by GCDAMP goal. A breakout of 

the projects included as part of goal 12 is summarized in figure 4. The budget for each project in the work 

plan is included in the project descriptions and summarized for the entire budget in the separate budget 

attachment. 

Figure 3. Bar chart showing a comparison of Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center 

fiscal year (FY) 2009 approved budget and FY2010 and FY2011 preliminary budget by Glen Canyon 

Dam Adaptive Management Program goal. 

GCMRC Portion of the GCDAMP Budgets: Approved FY09 

Budget, Proposed FY10 and FY11 Budgets

June 22, 2009

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Goal 1 Food Base

Goal 2 Native Fishes

Goal 3 Extirpated Species

Goal 4 Rainbow Trout

Goal 5 Kanab Ambersnail

Goal 6 Springs/Riparian

Goal 7 Quality-of-Water

Goal 8 Sediment

Goal 9 Recreation

Goal 10 Hydropower

Goal 11 Cultural

Goal 12 DASA

Goal 12 Logistics/Survey

Goal 12 Planning

Goal 12 Program Management

FY2009

FY2010

FY2011

Figure 4. Bar chart comparing the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center FY2009 

approved budget and FY2010–11 preliminary budgets by Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management 

Program by project for goal 12. 

(These charts will be provided as handouts at the June 22, 2009, TWG meeting) 

38
39

Annual Reporting 

An annual report for projects included in the FY2010–11 BWP will be completed by December 15, 2010 

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

recommendations for additional studies or project modifications. The GCMRC will host a meeting in midJanuary 2011and 2012 for GCDAMP stakeholders to review the annual reports and discuss their 

implications for the next BWP. 

Project Descriptions

Detailed descriptions of each activity included in the FY2010–11 BWP are provided in the following 

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

included in the BWP will be carried out in an integrated, interdisciplinary fashion. Integration efforts are 

described as an element of each project description. 

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

balance across all goals adopted by the program. The current focus of the GCDAMP is on SSQs associated 

with high priority AMWG information needs and on meeting the Conservation Measures included in the 

2007 and 2008 USFWS Biological Opinions. Other GCDAMP goals will still be pursued but with less 

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

alternative sources. The BWP, with the exception of GCDAMP goal 3 (restore extirpated species), includes 

at least one activity to address each GCDAMP goal. 
40

GCDAMP Goal 1: Protect or improve the aquatic foodbase 

so that it will support viable populations of desired 

species at higher trophic levels 

BIO 1.R1.10: Aquatic Food Base 

BIO 1.R4.10: Impacts of Flows on the Aquatic Food Base 

BIO 1.M1.11: Aquatic Food Base Monitoring 

Start Date 

September 2005 

 

End Date 

September 2010 (BIO 1.R1.10 and BIO 1.R4.10) with BIO 1.M1.11 ongoing) 

Principal Investigator(s) 

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

University of Wyoming; Emma Rosi-Marshall, Loyola University, Chicago; and Colden Baxter, Idaho 

State University 

Geographic Scope 

Systemwide with monthly sampling at accessible sites (Glen Canyon, about river mile (RM) -15–0, and 

Diamond Creek, about RM 225) and once per year at less accessible sites (Marble Canyon, about RM 30; 

below the LCR confluence, about RM 61; Randy’s Rock, about RM 126; and below Havasu Creek, about 

RM 163). Three of these sites are known aggregations of humpback chub (HBC). More than one river trip 

per year may be required starting in 2012 when we fully implement a new systemwide foodbase 

monitoring program. 

Project Goals 

The overall goal of this project is to determine the role that food is playing in the distribution, condition, 

and abundance of fishes throughout the entire system. Quantifying the density and production of basal 

resources (that is, algae, terrestrial leaf litter, etc.) and invertebrates will determine the amount of energy 

that is available to support production of fishes. The trophic basis of production calculations, where the 

types and amounts of different food items eaten by invertebrates and fishes are quantified, will determine 
41

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

results of this work will establish the degree to which native fishes are limited by food resources, by either 

low production at the base of the food web or via shunting of energy to nonnative animals such as New 

Zealand mudsnails or rainbow trout (RBT). This information, in turn, provides guidance to managers 

considering various management options. 

The specific objectives that are addressed by this project include: 

• determining the important energy sources and pathways that support fishes, especially native 

species and trout, 

• quantifying the abundance of basal resources using a carbon budget framework to determine 

potential available energy for higher trophic levels, 

• identifying composition and quantity of drifting organic matter and invertebrates, 

• incorporating knowledge into bioenergetics model and trophic basis of production calculations, 

and 

• developing core monitoring strategies for the aquatic foodbase in the Colorado River from Glen 

Canyon Dam to Diamond Creek. 

Specific goals for FY2010 include: 

• Complete the processing and analysis of all backlogged samples (e.g., fish diet samples, 

invertebrate biomass samples, etc.) and data. 

• Produce a final report and peer reviewed publications that summarize our findings and provide 

protocols for long term monitoring of the aquatic food base. 

• Monthly data collection at Lees Ferry and Diamond Creek, with less accessible sites sampled once 

per year, to ensure continuity as this project transitions from research to monitoring. 

Specific goals for FY2011 include: 

• Fully implement long term monitoring protocols at Lees Ferry and Diamond Creek, implement 

monitoring protocols at less accessible sites once per year. 

• Convene a Protocol Evaluation Panel. 

• Produce a Core Monitoring Report based on the recommendations of the PEP. 

Need for Project 

After habitat, food is the resource that most often limits the distribution or abundance of animal 

populations (Krebs 1999). With the changes in the Colorado River that have accompanied the installation 

of Glen Canyon Dam has come some dramatic changes in the species and productivity of primary and 

secondary producers found below the dam, especially between the dam and the Paria River near Lees 

Ferry, Arizona. The clear, relatively cold tailwaters now have increased levels of primary productivity, in 

the form of algae and diatoms, which in turn support a short list of invertebrate species. Both of these 

resources, primary and secondary producers, are consumed by the vertebrates of the Colorado River 

including rainbow trout in the Lees Ferry sport fishery, and native and nonnative fishes downstream of 

Lees Ferry in Marble and Grand Canyons. Project BIO1.R1.10 is evaluating whether food might be 

limiting the distribution or abundance of native and nonnative fishes using an ecosystem context. Project 

BIO 1.R4.10 complements these efforts by evaluating whether dam operations impact rates of invertebrate 

drift, which is an important component of available food resources, and by purchasing equipment that has 

allowed continuous measurement of algae production. 
42

Strategic Science Questions 

Primary SSQ addressed: 

SSQ 1-5. 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? 

SSQ 1-6. Are trends in the abundance of fish populations, or indicators from fish such as growth, 

condition, and body composition (for example, lipids), correlated with patterns in invertebrate flux? 

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

concentrations, turbidity) and dam operations? 

Information Needs Addressed 

RIN 1.1. What are the fundamental trophic interactions in the aquatic ecosystem? 

RIN 1.4. What is the current carbon budget for the Colorado River ecosystem? 

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

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

regime. 

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

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

regime. 

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

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

Methods and Tasks 

Fiscal Years 2010–11 

The aquatic foodbase projects are already collecting several streams of data that should address important 

questions related to the proposed fall steady flows. Primary production is being measured continuously at 

Lees Ferry and at Diamond Creek. Primary production data collected during September and October 2008–

12 will be compared with the months before and after to determine whether steady flows affect rates of instream primary production. Organic and invertebrate drift is measured monthly at Lees Ferry and Diamond 

Creek. To determine whether steady flows affect drift rates, we will compare data collected in September 

and October 2008–12 with the months before and after. As part of the 2008 High Flow Experiment project 

1D funding, the foodbase project began intensive study of backwaters on their April 2008 river trip. Data 

collected in backwaters includes primary and invertebrate production and dye-tracer studies to determine 

water residence time. Because data collection in backwaters began in April 2008, we do not have data on 

biological parameters from previous years to compare with 2008 fall steady flows data. However, water 

residence time will only be affected by the morphology of backwaters and the flow regime, but not season. 

Thus, we can determine whether steady flows affect water residence time in backwaters by comparing data 

collected during other flow regimes (i.e., April and June 2008 and January 2009). The foodbase project is 

planning a river trip in September 2009 to collect additional samples and water residence time 

measurements during the steady flow experiment. Monthly sampling at Lees Ferry and Diamond Creek 

will continue in FY2010 and FY2011. In each year, we will also launch one river trip, probably in early 

summer, and collect samples at each of the four less accessible sites. 
43

Quantify Basal Resources Using a Carbon Budget Framework (RIN 1.4, CMIN 1.1.1) 

Primary production and ecosystem respiration will be quantified using whole-stream metabolism 

calculations. Diel changes in dissolved oxygen concentration, a byproduct of algal photosynthesis, will be 

used to determine rates of algae production for mile-long reaches of the river. Nighttime sags in dissolved 

oxygen concentration will be used to determine ecosystem respiration, a measure of basal resource (both 

leaf litter and algae) consumption. If the quantity of carbon consumed during respiration exceeds quantity 

of carbon produced by algal photosynthesis, this indicates allochthonous inputs may be an important basal 

resource fueling the aquatic food web. Data are being collected monthly at Glen Canyon and Diamond 

Creek and once per year along the river corridor. 

Allochthonous Inputs 

Allochthonous inputs originate from riparian vegetation, tributaries, and Lake Powell. Allochthonous 

inputs from riparian vegetation have been quantified by Ralston and Kennedy (U.S . Geological Survey, 

unpub. data, 2008). ISCO automated water samplers (only at Paria River and LCR) will be used to collect 

samples of particulate organic matter during flooding events. The coarse organic matter on the Paria River 

will be sampled during flooding events using large plankton nets. Water samples and plankton nets will be 

used to quantify the concentration of dissolved nutrients, dissolved organic matter, and plankton coming 

from Lake Powell. Samples will be collected monthly. 

Standing Stocks 

The standing stock of algae and organic matter will be quantified using a Hess sampler, a modified suction 

sampler, or by scraping algae off rocks (method depends on habitat type). These data will provide a 

measure of basal resource availability within each reach. Collections will occur quarterly at Glen Canyon 

and Diamond Creek and once per year at downstream locations. 

Transported Organic Matter and Invertebrates 

The amount of organic matter and invertebrates transported into and out of each reach will determine the 

extent to which downstream reaches are linked to upstream processes. Depth integrated water samples will 

be used to quantify transported organic matter and invertebrates. 

Determine Important Trophic Pathways Linking Basal Resources with Fishes (RIN 1.1) 

Stable isotope and diet analysis of invertebrates and fish were conducted during the first 3 years of this 

project. We will use these samples to determine trophic pathways. No additional samples will be collected 

in FY2010–11. 

Determine Flux along Trophic Pathways (CMIN 1.2.1) 

Invertebrate density, production, and growth measurements were made by the project through sampling all 

benthic habitats (that is, cobble bars, cliff faces, boulders, talus slopes, sandy bottom, etc.) to quantify 

density of invertebrates. Habitat specific density estimates will be made using shoreline and bed 

classification data from the Physical Science and Modeling Program. Growth measurements were made for 

the most common invertebrates (for example, New Zealand mudsnails, Gammarus, chironomids, 

simuliids) in controlled chambers. Production of invertebrates will be calculated using density estimates 

coupled with growth measurements. During FY2010–11 we will quantify invertebrate density quarterly at 

Glen Canyon and Diamond Creek and once per year at downstream locations. 

Fish density and production estimates were made during the first 3 years of the project. No such sampling 

will occur in FY2010–11. Density estimates for small bodied and juvenile fishes have been determined 

quarterly using the multi-pass depletion method. Density estimates for larger bodied fishes have been 
44

derived using existing fisheries monitoring data. Production estimates will be attempted using existing 

fisheries data and literature values. 

Bioenergetics modeling and trophic basis of production calculations will be made in FY2010–11. 

Invertebrate and fish production data will be coupled with diet information (derived from both gut content 

and stable isotope analysis) to determine the relative contribution of basal resources to invertebrate and fish 

production. 

Organic and invertebrate drift concentrations will be measured monthly at Lees Ferry and Diamond Creek 

and once per year at the LCR confluence. Samples will be collected across a range of discharge to 

determine the effect that dam operations have on drifting food resources. Continuous measurements of 

whole stream metabolism are being conducted at Lees Ferry to determine the effect that dam operations 

have on algae production and ecosystem respiration. YSI 6600 sondes are deployed continuously at RM -8 

and RM0 to measure dissolved oxygen concentrations, which are used in metabolism calculations. We are 

also developing estimates of algae production at Diamond Creek using a YSI 6920 sonde that is 

continuously deployed there. These instruments are recalibrated once per month concurrent with collection 

of drift samples. 

Links/Relationships to Other Projects 

Physical Sciences 

Four of our six study reaches are fine grained integrated sediment transport (FIST) and integrated water 

quality (IWQ) monitoring sites. We will use bathymetry, bed classification, sediment transport, and water 

quality data to determine how the physical environment affects the standing mass, distribution, and 

production of basal resources and invertebrates. We will work closely with the Physical Science and 

Modeling Program, relying on their infrastructure and capabilities to estimate inputs of organic matter from 

the Paria River during base flow and flooding events. Finally, 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 because temperature is an important determinant of 

algae and invertebrate growth rates. 

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, existing 

fisheries monitoring efforts will be relied on to obtain the fish stomachs and tissue samples required for gut 

content and stable isotope analysis, respectively. 

Terrestrial Resources 

Ongoing vegetation mapping efforts have been used to estimate rates of allochthonous inputs to the 

mainstem Colorado River. 

Logistics 

We will conduct monthly sampling at Lees Ferry and Diamond Creek. We will also launch one river trip 

per year to sample less accessible sites. 
45

Products/Reports 

Publications 

At least six publications in peer reviewed journals will be produced as a result of this project. Tentative 

subjects for these publications include: 

• Measuring air-water gas exchange and whole-system metabolism in a large, regulated river (proofof-concept paper); 

• Assessing the seasonal and spatial variation in organic matter inputs to the Colorado River, Grand 

Canyon (synthesis paper of metabolism, allochthonous inputs, lake inputs, tributary inputs, etc.); 

• Determining spatial variation of secondary production of invertebrates in the Colorado River; 

• Analyzing the spatial variation in the relative importance of basal resources to invertebrate and fish 

production in the Colorado River; 

• Linking whole river carbon flows with food webs in the Colorado River; and 

• Determining impacts of New Zealand mudsnails on invertebrate and fish production in the 

Colorado River. 

Reports 

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

trip to comply with permitting requirements 

• Multiple manuscripts using the data from this effort are being prepared for submittal to the peer 

reviewed literature 

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

• A final report summarizing our findings from the March 2008 HFE will be submitted by December 

31, 2009. 

• A Core Monitoring Report will be produced by September 2011 

A draft final report summarizing major results and recommendations will be submitted by May 2010. 

Budget 

FY2010 

BIO 1.R1.10: $505,945 

BIO 1.R4.10: $62,111 

FY2011 

BIO 1.M1.11: $250,712
46

GCDAMP Goal 2: Maintain or attain viable populations of 

existing native fish, remove jeopardy from humpback chub 

and razorback sucker, and prevent adverse modification 

to their critical habitat. 

BIO 2.R1.10: Little Colorado River Humpback Chub Monitoring Lower 13.6 

km (Population Estimates) 

BIO 2.R2.10: Little Colorado River Humpback Chub Monitoring Lower 

1,200 m 

BIO 2.M1.11: Little Colorado River Humpback Chub Monitoring 

Start Date 

2000 

End Date 

Ongoing

Principal Investigator(s) 

D.R. Van Haverbeke, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FY2010–11), W. Persons, Arizona Game and Fish 

Department (FY2010) 

Geographic Scope 

Little Colorado River

Project Goals 

This project seeks to maintain monitoring of the HBC in their primary spawning tributary, the LCR in 

Grand Canyon, using three monitoring efforts in FY2010. If additional data analyses indicate that effort 

may be reduced in FY2011, as recommended by the 2009 PEP for Grand Canyon Fishes, then one 

modified effort will be mounted in FY2011 with the goal of implementing an on-going core monitoring of 

HBC in the LCR. 

The specific objectives that are addressed by this project are: 
47

• Provide an annual assessment of the HBC population in the LCR by collecting the mark-recapture 

data that supports an annual closed population estimate of HBC in the lower 13.6 km of the LCR. 

• Collect and report biological data including length frequency data, community composition, sexual 

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

external parasites (primarily Lernaea cyprinacea), and predation frequency. 

• Collect and report biological data including length frequency data and catch rates for nonnative 

fishes in the lower 13.6 km of the LCR. 

• Collect other pertinent information related to physical parameters of the LCR, especially 

temperature and turbidity. 

• Determine the critical physical and biotic factors that may be limiting to, or supportive of, the HBC 

and other native fish populations in Grand Canyon. Seek methods that reduce, eliminate, or control 

limiting factors. 

Need for Project 

The data collected from this project has been essential to the modeling of the Grand Canyon population of 

HBC (Coggins and Walters, 2009). Because HBC is an endangered species and a resource of concern for 

the GCDAMP and natural resource managers, monitoring of the population addresses an important, ongoing information need. Because the majority of the Grand Canyon HBC population is found either in or 

near the LCR (Paukert and others, 2006), monitoring in the LCR is an efficient way to gather data on the 

population. 

This project was reviewed by the 2009 PEP for Grand Canyon Fishes. Since 2000, this project has included 

an annual spring and fall mark-recapture effort and concurrent with the spring mark-recapture effort, an 

annual monitoring in the lower 1,200 m of the LCR. The PEP recommends that the spring sampling of 

HBC in the LCR is one of the most important fish monitoring projects that GCMRC and cooperators 

conduct on behalf of the GCDAMP. Because the largest proportion of HBC captured in the LCR is seen 

with the spring mark-recapture closed population effort, the PEP recommended that this project be 

maintained. 

While the PEP recognized that much good HBC information had been generated by the fall monitoring and 

the lower 1,200 m monitoring, they did not identify these projects as critical to maintain as core 

monitoring, though they observed that the projects might have other purposes, such as occasional increased 

tagging efforts, in the future. The PEP did recommend that elements of the lower 1,200 m monitoring may 

be maintained, such as sampling protocol, gear types, and analysis. The established program of three LCR 

monitoring trips, spring and fall mark-recapture efforts and a lower 1,200 effort in spring, will be 

continued in FY2010 until subsequent data analyses can determine the ramifications on monitoring results 

and modeling. The additional analyses will be conducted early in FY2010 and a meeting of the cooperating 

agencies and interested AMP parties will be convened to discuss the results. This meeting will be used to 

identify the specific monitoring techniques, gears, and analysis to be conducted in FY2011 and beyond. 

Additional analyses are described in other work plans within Goal 2. If the additional analysis in FY2010 

does not support the recommendations of the PEP, e.g., if dropping one effort or another leads to 

unacceptable loss of certainty in the data analysis, then one or more efforts described in FY2010 will be 

maintained. 

Strategic Science Questions 

Primary SSQ addressed: 
48

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

from tributaries, spawning and incubation in the mainstem, survival of young-of-year (YoY) and 

juvenile stages in the mainstem, or by changes in growth and maturation in the adult population as 

influenced by mainstem conditions? 

Additional science question addressed by these projects: 

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

nonnatives in Marble and eastern Grand Canyons result in an improvement in the recruitment rate of 

juvenile HBC to the adult population? 

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

outlined here specifically address this question, especially their evaluation of annual spawning success): 

SA 1. What are the most limiting factors to successful HBC adult recruitment in the mainstem: 

spawning success, predation on YoY and juveniles, habitat (water, temperature), pathogens, adult 

maturation, food availability, competition? 

Information Needs Addressed 

Primary information needs addressed: 

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

HBC in the LCR. 

Methods and Tasks 

Annual Spring (March and April) Humpback Chub Abundance Assessments in the Lower 

13.6 km of the Little Colorado River (FY 2010) 

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

(rkm) of the LCR to estimate the abundance of HBC (>100 mm TL). This program has been ongoing since 

2000 and produces annual closed population assessments of HBC abundance. These efforts rely on 

multiple event mark-recapture analysis of passive integrated transponder (PIT) tag data to produce 

abundance estimates using closed population models. Additionally, this sampling effort provides both data 

for populating the ASMR stock assessment model (open population model) and measures of relative 

abundance on the spawning and resident populations of HBC in the LCR below river kilometer 13.6. 

During each LCR trip, three camps are established: Salt Canyon, Coyote Canyon and Boulders Camps. 

Unbaited hoop nets (0.5 - 0.6 m dia., 1.0 m length, 6 mm mesh, single 10 cm throat) are set from shorelines 

to capture and PIT tag HBC as part of a mark-recapture program to estimate the abundance of HBC ≥ 100 

mm in the lower 13.57 km of the LCR. Each camp is responsible for fishing hoop nets throughout a 5 km 

reach from 9.6 to 13.57 km. Sixty hoop nets will be fished throughout this reach with the average spacing 

between nets approximately 80–150 m. Each hoop net will be positioned in favorable habitat suspected of 

yielding good catches of HBC. Nets will be repositioned as needed. On average, each hoop net will be 

checked once every 24 hours. Each reach will be broken down into three sub-reaches and nets will be 

fished for three net checks (3 days) in each sub-reach. In addition to fishing hoop nets as detailed above, 

personnel will be responsible for the following tasks: 

• Measure and record the fork and total lengths, sex, sexual condition, and sexual characteristics for 

all captured native fishes (except speckled dace). 

• Measure and record the total length, sex, and sexual condition of all other captured fish. 
49

• Record the stomach contents of all captured large-bodied nonnative fish (except common carp). 

• PIT tag all HBC ≥ 100 mm total length and all other native fish ≥ 150 mm total length. In order to 

reduce PIT tagging, but still obtain needed population information, bluehead suckers will only be 

tagged during the April trip. When tagged fish are recaptured on the same marking effort they will 

also be fin-clipped. 

• Record the location, shoreline habitat, hydraulic unit, and set and pull time, and map locations for 

each hoop net set. 

Personnel at Boulders Camp make daily measurements of turbidity with the Hach 2100 turbidimeter and 

water temperature. 

Annual Fall (September and October) Humpback Chub Abundance Assessments in the 

Lower 13.6 km of the Little Colorado River (FY2010) 

The fall sampling is aimed primarily at providing an estimate of the abundance of subadult fishes rearing in 

the LCR. These data support the ASMR model to assess HBC population numbers. Two trips into the LCR 

are conducted to collect the data used to construct these estimates in the fall (September and October). 

Findings from the fall trip are used as a complementary comparison to the spring-abundance estimates. 

Sampling is predominantly conducted using hoop nets evenly distributed throughout the lower 15 km of 

the LCR. Other types of sampling gear are not used in the LCR because they have been shown to be less 

efficient at capturing HBC >150 mm total length in the LCR. 

Mainstem Hopi-Salt site: 

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

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

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

Annual Spring Relative Humpback Chub Abundance Assessment in the Lower 1,200 m of 

the Little Colorado River (FY2010) 

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

operated continuously through 2004, except from 2000 to 2001 (Arizona Game and Fish Department, 

unpub. data, 2008). The program produces annual assessments of the relative abundance (that is, catch per 

unit effort) of all size classes of HBC, flannelmouth suckers, bluehead suckers, speckled dace, and a host 

of nonnative fishes in the lower 1,200 m of the LCR. Data is collected during a 30- to 40-day period in 

spring (April and May) using hoop nets set in standardized locations throughout the reach. In general, this 

effort has produced the longest and most consistent relative abundance data set available to infer trends for 

the population of HBC in the LCR. Results provide an independent comparison to the mark-recapture 

based assessments. The statistical power of this portion of the monitoring program has not yet been 

assessed, but statistically significant differences in relative abundance are apparent in current data. 

Annual Spring Humpback Chub Monitoring in the Lower 13.6 km of the Little Colorado River 

(FY2011) 

Analysis of all of the historic data of HBC monitoring generated by the three projects listed above will be 

conducted in FY2010. The three cooperating agencies (USGS, USFWS, and AZGFD) will provide their 

data and participate in these analyses. The focus of the analyses will be to examine trends in HBC 

population information if specific efforts are censored out of the full data base. The primary analysis of 

interest will be to investigate the closed population efforts and ASMR population estimate if only spring 

catch data are provided. If a spring monitoring effort, using one or more of the sampling approaches 

described above, can be used and still provide useful HBC population information, as well as information 
50

on other native and nonnative fish species, then a single monitoring effort will be employed in FY2011. 

For planning purposes it is assumed that the spring sampling, the first project described above, would be 

the basis for the FY2011 project, subject to modification with additional analysis. Specific sampling 

methods, gears, and analysis are to be determined in an analysis meeting of the cooperators anticipated for 

late calendar 2009. This project will be led by USFWS with support from AZGFD. 

Links/Relationships to Other Projects 

Improvement of the status of the HBC will be necessary for the species to be considered for downlisting or 

delisting. The GCDAMP can contribute to an improved status for HBC, thereby decreasing the amount of 

effort required of the GCDAMP stakeholders on behalf of this species. The most recent iteration of the 

recovery goals for the HBC (initiated in 2007) required a minimum of 2,100 adults in Grand Canyon, a 

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

requirements. One element of HBC conservation in Grand Canyon could be a GCD flow-release regimen 

that supports this species. These flows can be expected to impact many elements of the canyon resources, 

including sediment, cultural resources, and recreation. Therefore, releases that benefit one resource like the 

HBC must also be consistent with conservation of other resources. Conservation of LCR resources, 

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

HBC population in the LCR but also to protect other organisms found there. 

The HBC monitoring conducted in the LCR has been fundamental to increasing understanding of the life 

history of Grand Canyon HBC. Stone and Gorman (2006) found that young life stages of HBC rely heavily 

on shallow, nearshore habitats by day to avoid predation and cannibalism. This is one piece of evidence 

that has led GCMRC, USFWS, and AZGFD researchers to be interested in the fate of young HBC in 

shallow, nearshore habitats of the mainstem Colorado River. The interest in expanding knowledge of HBC 

in the nearshore mainstem habitats to support conservation of this species has contributed to the 

development of the nearshore ecology/fall steady flows project described below. 

Logistics 

FY2010: 

Lower 13.6 km: Two spring mark-recapture trips, two fall mark-recapture trips, helicopter support 

Lower 1200 m: One spring trip, helicopter support 

FY2011: 

Lower 13.6 km: Two spring mark-recapture trips, helicopter support 

Products/Reports 

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

including data collected, to the GCMRC. The trip reports will be summarized and analyzed in a 

final report delivered to the GCMRC in January of the following year. These reports address the 

lower 15-km monitoring and the monitoring above Chute Falls. 

• The AZGFD will deliver one annual report on the results of their monitoring of the lower 1,200 m 

to the GCMRC. The data collected in these monitoring efforts support the stock assessment project 

described below. These data also contribute to the HBC core-monitoring report. Annual reporting 

due: December 15 of each year. 
51

• A core monitoring report, summarizing core monitoring efforts, 2009 PEP recommendations, and 

results of analyses recommended by the 2009 PEP, will be completed in FY2011. 

Budget 

FY2010 

BIO 2.R1.10: $455,735 

BIO 2.R2.10: $57,421 

FY2011 

BIO 2.M1.11: $308,824 
52

BIO 2.M3.10–11: Humpback Chub Translocation and Monitoring Above 

Chute Falls 

Start Date 

2003 

End Date 

Ongoing

Principal Investigator(s) 

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

Geographic Scope 

The Little Colorado River (LCR) above Chute Falls 

Project Goals 

This project is planned for FY2010-11. The goals of the project are: 

• Determine the critical physical and biotic factors that may be limiting to, or supportive of, 

humpback chub (HBC) and other native fish populations in Grand Canyon. Seek methods that 

reduce, eliminate, or control limiting factors 

• Identify the habitat characteristics that are most important to all life stages of HBC and seek 

methods that maintain, and possibly replicate, suitable habitats 

• Reduce predation risk to HBC from nonnative species that may ascend the LCR from the 

mainstem Colorado River 

Specific objectives of the projects are: 

• Translocate small HBC from near the confluence with the Colorado River to above Chute Falls 

• Obtain population estimates of HBC ≥100 mm and ≥200 mm above Chute Falls 

Need for Project 

Translocating HBC above Chute Falls (series of waterfalls), approximately 16 km upstream on the LCR 

above the confluence with the Colorado River, has been conducted since 2003. Despite evidence that fish 

do move above Chute Falls on their own, the potential exists for genetic drift in this population, a 

phenomenon commonly referred to as “founder effect.” Managers wish to avoid genetic drift, that is, a 

change in the genetic makeup of the population when compared to the main HBC population farther 

downstream on the LCR. This concern has been reviewed in the draft Humpback Chub Genetics 

Management Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, unpub. data, 2008). The recommended approach to 

avoiding founder effect above Chute Falls is to: 

• Provide for an influx of fish to span a generation (long lived fish) 
53

• Establish a reasonable approximation of a natural population 

• Select fish of normal size, age distribution, and gene flow from donor source 

Translocating HBC above Chute Falls has now been conducted five times between 2003 and 2009. 

Translocating these fish to an area less affected by nonnatives from the lower portion of the LCR helps 

managers assess the degree of impact imposed by interactions with nonnatives. Because a limited amount 

of reproduction has been documented, this translocation is helping to support population growth and 

increase the demographic range of this fish by nearly 5 km. Managers have been able to document the 

movement of HBC from below Chute Falls to above the barrier, providing new information about the 

movement capabilities of HBC and the potential that the population may be able to expand with limited 

human interference. Monitoring of the translocation is important for evaluating its effectiveness. 

Monitoring of the HBC translocated above Chute Falls was reviewed by the 2009 PEP for Grand Canyon 

Fishes. The PEP recommended that if the translocation is continued, then monitoring of the translocation 

should continue. The need for additional translocations and the timing of those efforts should be compared 

to the recommendations of the final Humpback Chub Genetics Management Plan being prepared by the 

USFWS when it is available. 

Translocation is a management action designed to help conserve HBC. Because this project includes 

translocation, external funding for the management action should be developed. 

Strategic Science Questions 

GCDAMP SAs have summarized the SSQs with the following question (the projects outlined here 

specifically address this question, especially their evaluation of annual spawning success): 

SA 1. What are the most limiting factors to successful HBC adult recruitment in the mainstem: 

spawning success, predation on YoY and juveniles, habitat (water, temperature), pathogens, adult 

maturation, food availability, competition? 

Information Needs Addressed 

Primary information need addressed: 

CMIN 2.1.2 Determine and track recruitment (identify life stage), abundance, and distribution of HBC 

in the LCR. 

Methods and Tasks 

As part of the monitoring program, two separate trips are conducted in the summer above Chute Falls in 

the LCR to monitor translocated individuals and potential offspring. These trips occur during late May or 

early June when the LCR discharge is at base flow to provide an annual abundance estimate of HBC within 

this region. In addition to the annual population estimates, these data can be incorporated into open 

population models for HBC being developed by the GCMRC. Moreover, because these fish continue to be 

implanted with PIT tags (Biomark, Inc.), it is likely that some individuals will eventually be recaptured in 

the lower LCR corridor and/or Colorado River, which would increase our knowledge of migration patterns. 

During the LCR trip, personnel will reside at the established translocation camp located at 16.2 rkm on 

Navajo lands. This camp has an established helicopter landing pad and offers high ground protection from 

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

set from shorelines to capture and PIT-tag HBC as part of a mark-recapture program to estimate the 

abundance of individuals ≥100 mm in the upper 13.6 km of the LCR. 
54

Personnel will be responsible for fishing baited hoop nets in the LCR corridor above Chute Falls (13.6 

rkm), which is the upstream extent of the current downstream LCR monitoring. Approximately 50 hoop 

nets will be fished throughout this upper reach from 13.6 to 18.0 rkm, with an average spacing between 

nets of approximately 100−150 m. Hoop nets will be positioned in favorable habitats for good catches of 

HBC. Nets will be repositioned as needed. On average, each hoop net will be checked once every 24 hours. 

Each net will be baited near its cod end by attaching a nylon mesh bag (30- by 30-cm, 6-mm mesh) 

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

captured HBC will be examined for colored elastomer tags and PIT tags. Individuals not previously PIT 

tagged, but of sufficient size to be tagged without injury, will be held overnight (either offshore in an 

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

thereafter tagged and released. 

The overall reach will be broken down into two subreaches and each subreach fished for 3 days. The upper 

reach designation will be from 18.0 to 15.0 rkm (at an undesignated point below Blue Spring to the first 

travertine dam above Chute Falls). Currently, 18 rkm is the highest point in which HBC have been located 

above Chute Falls. The lower subreach will extend from 15.0 to 13.6 rkm (from the first dam above Chute 

Falls to Lower Atomizer Falls, where lower LCR monitoring begins). The lower subreach is relatively 

small because of the time needed to maneuver around major travertine dams to sample the myriad of adult 

HBC habitats (deep pools, large boulders, etc.) existing within this subreach. In addition to fishing baited 

hoop nets and PIT-tagging HBC as detailed above, personnel will be responsible for: 

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

characteristics for all captured native fishes (except speckled dace) 

• Measuring and recording the total length, gender, and spawning condition of all other captured fish 

• Recording the stomach contents of all captured large-bodied nonnative fish, except common carp 

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

each hoop net set 

• Measuring daily turbidity (using the Hach 2100 turbidimeter), water temperature, and CO2 (using 

titration) 

Links/Relationships to Other Projects 

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

population support the basinwide goal of conserving HBC with the long term goal of downlisting and 

delisting the species from the Federal Endangered Species list. The experiences gained, and successes 

realized, in this project have been fundamental to supporting additional translocation efforts. Further 

translocations and monitoring are expected to provide important techniques and life history information to 

inform additional translocations to other tributaries, currently expected to be Shinumo Creek, and perhaps 

Havasu and Bright Angel Creeks. 

Logistics 

Both the translocation trip and the monitoring trip for this effort require helicopter support. Translocation is 

anticipated in the summer with follow-up monitoring in the fall. 
55

Products/Reports 

• The USFWS will deliver two trip reports annually, including data collected, to the GCMRC by 

December of each year. The trip reports will be summarized and analyzed in a final report 

delivered to the GCMRC in January of the following year. These reports address HBC monitoring 

in the lower 13.6 km of the LCR and incorporate the translocation and the monitoring above Chute 

Falls. 

Budget 

FY2010 

BIO 2.M3.10: $143,194 

FY2011 

BIO 2.M3.11: $145,494 
56

BIO 2.M4.10–11: Monitoring Mainstem Fishes 

Start Date 

2010 

End Date 

Ongoing

Principal Investigators 

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

M.E. Andersen and K.D. Hilwig, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center 

Geographic Scope 

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

Project Goals 

This project is intended to increase knowledge of native and nonnative fishes in the Colorado River 

mainstem. It is intended to be responsive to the recommendations of the 2009 PEP for Grand Canyon Fish. 

The primary goals are: 

• Monitor the documented HBC aggregations in the mainstem Colorado River. 

• Continue to monitor native and nonnative fishes in the mainstem Colorado River. 

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

fishes. 

• Implement an effort consisting of three monitoring trips that are responsive to advances in data 

analysis, sampling design, and gear selection. A flexible approach that builds on prior knowledge 

is needed to develop monitoring of the Colorado River fish population that is responsive to 

continuing changes in dam operations, climate, local meteorology, species population sizes, and 

management actions. Primary emphasis is on broad sampling, with a secondary emphasis on 

developing high statistical confidence in species specific trends. If this monitoring suggests 

changes in either native or nonnative populations then future monitoring can be directed at 

gathering more data on a specific species and/or location. 

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

design, gear, and data analyses. The cooperating agencies will meet in at least one formal meeting 

annually with each other and interested AMP members to review and potentially modify sampling 

design, gear, and data analyses. The three lead cooperators (AZGFD, USFWS, and GCMRC) will 

assume responsibility, with other cooperators as assigned, for data reporting and analysis.

Annual review of these monitoring efforts may suggest modification of objectives and efforts is needed 

which may include, but are not limited to: 
57

• Increasing sampling at known humpback chub aggregations. Managers and scientists may 

investigate population expansions, especially in support of range-wide Recovery Goals (USFWS, 

2008). 

• Increasing sampling of nonnative fishes. Managers and scientists may concentrate efforts to reduce 

threats from nonnatives. 

Tasks to address the goals described above will be phased in over the FY2010-11 period, and are to be 

included in analysis of existing fish capture data recommended by the 2009 PEP. 

Need for Project 

Native fish populations in Grand Canyon are key resources of concern influencing decisions on both the 

operation of GCD and nonflow actions. To inform these decisions, it is imperative that accurate and timely 

information on the status of fish populations, particularly the endangered HBC, be available to managers. 

A suite of adaptive experimental management actions are being contemplated to better understand the 

mechanisms controlling the population dynamics of native fishes, and to identify policies that are 

consistent with the attainment of management goals. The assessments generated from this project provide a 

baseline from which to assess the effects of implemented experimental actions. This information is 

therefore crucial to (1) inform the program as to attainment of identified goals, (2) provide baseline status 

and trend information to be used as a backdrop to further understand mechanisms controlling native fish 

population dynamics, and (3) evaluate the efficacy of particular management policies in attaining program 

goals. The results of this project are potentially useful in assessing changes to the Federal Endangered 

Species Act listing status of HBC in Grand Canyon. 

Nonnative fishes are among the greatest threats to native fishes in Western North American rivers (Miller, 

1961; Minckley and Deacon, 1991; Tyus and Saunders, 2000; Coggins, 2008). Nonnative fishes may 

threaten native fishes by direct predation, by competing for available food and other resources, and by 

habitat modification (Minckley, 1991; Hawkins and Nesler, 1991). Nonnative fishes were introduced into 

Grand Canyon not later than early in the 20th century (Woodbury, 1959; Valdez and Ryel, 1995). While 

native fishes survived these initial introductions at least long enough to be described by early researchers, 

other system stressors, especially the modification of natural flows as a result of dam installation, appear to 

have increased the threats to native fishes from nonnative fishes (Minckley, 1991; Clarkson and Childs, 

2000). 

The GCDAMP has recognized nonnative fishes as a threat that needs to be addressed, and has proceeded 

with implementation of a nonnative fish control experiment around the LCR inflow reach from 2003 to 

2006. The 2003 to 2006 control project was most successful at removing rainbow trout (RBT). This work 

plan builds on that effort. As the Colorado River mainstem becomes warmer due to climate effects (Seager 

and others, 2007), the potential for an increased threat from warmwater adapted nonnative fishes increases 

(Eaton and Scheller, 1996; Chu and others, 2005; Rahel and Olden, 2008). There is an immediate need to 

begin investigating which species pose the greatest threats to natives in Grand Canyon, to understand how 

those species might be better monitored and controlled, and to test control approaches for efficacy. 

The 2009 PEP for Grand Canyon Fishes concluded that, in response to identified AMP Goals, it is 

important to conduct mainstem fish monitoring with a variety of sampling designs and gear types. They 

determined that fine resolution of confidence in species specific mark-recapture population estimates could 

only be accomplished with large amounts of personnel time, sampling gear and equipment, and funding 

that is not currently available. Further, the panel determined that even if more resources could be utilized, 

fine-scale data collection every year was not warranted and could cause harm to native fish. Therefore, 

they recommended a broad approach to use multiple gear types at various times of the year and over a 

broad geographic range to give scientists and managers the most useful data on an annual basis. 
58

Strategic Science Questions 

Primary SSQ addressed: 

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

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

stages in the mainstem, or by changes in growth and maturation in the adult population as influenced 

by mainstem conditions? 

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

nonnatives in Marble and eastern Grand Canyons result in an improvement in the recruitment rate of 

juvenile humpback chub to the adult population? 

Additional SSQs addressed: 

SSQ 1-4. Can long-term decreases in abundance of rainbow trout in Marble and eastern Grand 

Canyons be sustained with a reduced level of effort of mechanical removal or will recolonization from 

tributaries and from downstream and upstream of the removal reach require that mechanical removal 

be an ongoing management action? This question also applies to future removal programs targeting 

other nonnative species. 

SSQ 1-8. How can native and nonnative fishes best be monitored while minimizing impacts from 

capture and handling or sampling? 

SSQ 5-6. Do the potential benefits of improved rearing habitat (warmer, more stable, more backwater 

and vegetated shorelines, more food) outweigh negative impacts due to increases in nonnative fish 

abundance? 

The GCDAMP SAs have articulated the following summary science questions that are addressed by this 

project: 

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

mainstem: spawning success, predation on young of year and juveniles, habitat (water, temperature), 

pathogens, adult maturation, food availability, competition? 

SA 2. What are the most probably positive and negative impacts of warming the Colorado River on 

humpback chub adults and juveniles? 

Information Needs Addressed 

Primary information needs addressed: 

CMIN 2.1.2. Determine and track recruitment of all life stages, abundance, and distribution of HBC in 

the Colorado River. 

CMIN 2.4.1. Determine and track the abundance and distribution of nonnative predatory fish species 

in the Colorado River. 

CMIN 2.6.1. Determine and track the abundance and distribution of flannelmouth sucker, bluehead 

sucker, and speckled dace populations in the Colorado River ecosystem. 
59

RIN 2.4.2. Determine if suppression of nonnative predators and competitors increases native fish 

populations. 

RIN 2.4.3. To what degree, which species, and where in the system are exotic fish a detriment to the 

existence of native fish through predation or competition? 

RIN 2.4.4. What are the target population levels, body size, and age structure for nonnative fish in the 

Colorado River ecosystem that limit their levels to those commensurate with the viability of native fish 

populations? 

Methods and Tasks 

The methods described are intended to be consistent with the 2009 PEP for Grand Canyon Fishes. The 

methods will be compared to the final report of the PEP for consistency when that document is available. 

These methods are planned for FY2010–11. Annual review may indicate alternative methods are required, 

especially if expanding HBC populations or expanding nonnative fish populations are indicated by the data 

from this and other trips collected in these and previous years. This approach is intended to sample species 

and habitats as broadly as possible in order to give managers and scientists diverse information on which to 

direct this and other projects in future years. If the analyses conducted by GCMRC, USFWS, and AZGFD 

in 2009 and 2010 indicate that the methods described herein and the recommendations of the 2009 PEP are 

not warranted, then alternative approaches to monitoring will be developed and implemented. 

Mainstem Spring Electrofishing 

Electrofishing at stratified random sites: Monitoring is not conducted in immediate proximity to 

recreational campers. 

Mainstem fish monitoring, including the monitoring below Diamond Creek, has used boat operated 

electrofishing to provide a general assessment of the status and trends of native and nonnative fishes in the 

Colorado River between Lees Ferry and Lake Mead since 2001. The electrofishing gear is not without its 

limitations⎯in particular, it is not effective at sampling deep water habitats or when conditions are turbid. 

However, it remains the most important tool for providing an overall assessment of the mainstem fish 

community, and its use will be retained in FY2010–11. Data from these trips supports annual analyses of 

species catch rate data and also support the update of the ASMR model for HBC if this species is captured. 

Mainstem Fall Humpback Chub Monitoring 

This trip will conduct multi-gear monitoring at HBC aggregations and also stratified random sites. Primary 

HBC aggregations to sample are 30 Mile, Below LCR, and Inner Granite Gorge. This trip will sample at 

and below the mouth of Shinumo Creek to investigate whether HBC translocated to this tributary have 

moved into mainstem habitats. Gear types may include, but not be limited to: hoop nets, trammel nets 

(water temperature below 20 deg. C), and seines (backwaters). Gear selection is dependent on habitats 

sampled. 

Three known aggregations of HBC (Valdez and Ryel, 1995) are sampled with a variety of nets by this 

project. Additional sites selected by a stratified random selection will also be sampled. This project makes 

use of trammel nets when water temperatures are below 20 degree C to limit stress on captured fish. 

Trammell net sets are 2 hours or less. Because working trammel nets requires use of motor boats, this 

monitoring will emphasize use of trammel nets in locations determined in advance of the trip, but other 

gear types may be deployed as time and opportunity is available. Sampling in the LCR reach is not 

conducted in areas where the nearshore ecology project is working. Data from this monitoring may support 

the update of the ASMR model for HBC. 
60

Mainstem Fall Monitoring 

This project will conduct multi-gear monitoring at potential nonnative aggregations, especially near HBC 

aggregations, and also stratified random sites. Primary HBC aggregations to sample are 30 Mile, Below 

LCR, and Inner Granite Gorge. Gear types may include, but not be limited to: hoop nets, backpack 

electroshockers, seines, and angling. Gear selection is dependent on habitats sampled. This trip is 

conducted in October so that an assessment of species presence/absence and distribution, especially warm 

water nonnatives, is conducted when dam release temperatures are typically at their warmest for the year. 

The primary site selection for this trip will be conducted using a stratified random design. As additional 

information is gathered regarding nonnative species, this trip may also be focused on areas where 

nonnative concentrations may be found. When not sampling at potential nonnative aggregations alternative 

locations are sampled using a stratified random approach. Data from these trips supports annual analyses of 

species catch rate data and may also support the update of the ASMR model for HBC. 

Links/Relationships to Other Projects 

Understanding the factors influencing the dynamics of the Grand Canyon native fish populations, 

especially the endangered HBC, is important to evaluating the effects of management and conservation 

activities, especially GCD operations. To determine these factors, a combination of large scale 

manipulations (for example, experimental removal of nonnative fish or long term implementation of 

contrasting flow regimes) and smaller scale process oriented research (for example, assessment of juvenile 

fish growth rates under various temperature regimes or availability of particular food items) will likely 

prove most efficient in determining the key mechanisms regulating native fish populations. In each of these 

endeavors, it is critical that baseline trends in population abundance and recruitment be known. Only with 

this knowledge is it possible to assess the population level effects of large scale manipulations. Although it 

is informative to assess the effects of experimental management on processes thought to be important, like 

growth or survival at particular life stages, this is not enough to determine the efficacy of particular 

management actions. Linkages between these processes and ultimate recruitment to populations must be 

established. Again, these linkages can only be made if baseline trends in population abundance and 

recruitment are available. 

Logistics 

Mainstem Spring Electrofishing Monitoring (2 trips, February and March, motorized): AZGFD (FY2010–

11) 

Mainstem Fall Humpback Chub Monitoring (1 trip, September, motorized): GCMRC (FY2010); USFWS 

(FY2011) 

Mainstem Fall Fishes Monitoring (1 trip, October, float): GCMRC (FY2011) 

Products/Reports 

• Annual reporting on the catch rates, species encountered, size class distributions, and locations of 

captures for the mainstem spring electrofishing will be the responsibility of AZGFD in FY2010 

and FY2011. 

• Annual reporting on the catch rates, species encountered, size class distributions, and locations of 

captures for the fall HBC monitoring will be the responsibility of GCMRC in FY2010 and USFWS 

in FY2011. 
61

• Annual reporting on the catch rates, species encountered, size class distributions, and locations of 

captures for the fall mainstem fish monitoring will be the responsibility of GCMRC in FY2011. 

• All fish data will be submitted to GCMRC for inclusion in the fish database. These data are used 

for other projects, especially the stock assessment project and to support nonnative fish 

monitoring. 

Budget 

FY 2010

BIO 2.M4.10: $632,461 

FY 2011 

BIO 2.M4.11: $798,930 
62

BIO 2.R7.10–11: Stock Assessment of Grand Canyon Native Fishes 

Start Date 

2007 

End Date 

Ongoing

Principal Investigators 

Fisheries Biologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center and C.J. 

Walters, University of British Columbia 

Geographic Scope 

Colorado and Little Colorado Rivers in Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons 

Project Goals 

This project will provide annual updates of size composition and capture rates of HBC and other Grand 

Canyon fishes to the AMP committees and other managers. Reporting will include retrospective time series 

to allow for comparison with previous years’ data. The assembled HBC data from the Grand Canyon fish 

monitoring projects will be incorporated into updates of the age-structured mark-recapture (ASMR) model 

every 3 years (the next ASMR update will be published in 2012). 

This project will lead the analyses of existing fish capture information recommended by the 2009 PEP for 

Grand Canyon Fishes. The goal of these analyses is to evaluate whether the fish monitoring project 

changes recommended by the PEP, especially to reduce some efforts and increase others, are consistent 

with the available data. 

This project will seek to develop and implement methods for making the HBC database available 

electronically. Data serving must be done in a manner consistent with USGS Fundamental Science 

Practices. 

Need for Project 

Native fish populations in Grand Canyon are key resources of concern influencing decisions on both the 

operation of GCD and other non-flow actions. To inform these decisions, it is imperative that accurate and 

timely information on the status of native fish populations, particularly the endangered HBC, be available 

to managers. 

• Several adaptive experimental management actions are being contemplated to better understand the 

mechanisms controlling the population dynamics of native fishes and to identify policies that are 

consistent with management goals. The stock assessments generated from this project will support 

assessment of implemented experimental actions. This information is therefore crucial to: 

• inform the program as to attainment of identified goals, 
63

• provide baseline status and trend information to be used as a backdrop to understand the 

mechanisms controlling native fish population dynamics, and 

• evaluate the efficacy of particular management policies in attaining program goals. Finally, results 

from this project are potentially useful in assessing changes to Federal Endangered Species Act 

listing status of HBC in the Colorado River. 

Strategic Science Questions 

Primary SSQ addressed: 

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

from tributaries, spawning and incubation in the mainstem, survival of YoY and juvenile stages in the 

mainstem, or by changes in growth and maturation in the adult population as influenced by mainstem 

conditions? 

Additional SSQ addressed: 

SSQ 1-8. How can native and nonnative fishes best be monitored while minimizing impacts from 

capture and handling or sampling? 

The Adaptive Management Program Science Advisors have articulated the following science question, 

which is partially addressed by this project: 

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

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

adult maturation, food availability, competition? 

Information Needs 

RIN 2.2.8. What combination of dam release patterns and nonnative fish control facilitates successful 

spawning and recruitment of humpback chub in the Colorado River ecosystem? 

RIN 2.4.2. Determine if suppression of nonnative predators and competitors increases native fish 

populations. 

Methods and Tasks 

To provide HBC status and trend information, the GCMRC mark-recapture database will be annually 

updated with the 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 markrecapture-based abundance estimators to provide the most current information on HBC status and trend. In 

particular, the ASMR models (Coggins and others, 2006a and 2006b; Coggins, 2007; Coggins and Walters, 

2009) will be used to determine trends in HBC abundance and recruitment over multi-year time scales. 

Over annual time scales this project will assemble and deliver summaries of annual catch rate and size 

class composition of HBC and other species from the LCR and mainstem to the GCDAMP and managers. 

It will also deliver other species metrics, likely to include results of closed population estimates and 

juvenile abundance from the LCR. 

This project was reviewed by the 2009 PEP for Grand Canyon Fishes. The panel recommended that 

because of the inherent variability in the ASMR, e.g., estimates of growth and mortality rates limit its 
64

ability to detect fine scale changes, preparing annual updates of the model was an inefficient use of 

personnel time, especially for the long lived HBC. The PEP also observed that the ASMR has only limited 

sensitivity to detect small annual population changes, and that it requires long periods of personnel and 

computer time to generate. Based on these observations of ASMR, the PEP recommended that it be 

updated every 3 to 5 years. Because GCMRC is planning to prepare the next SCORE report in FY2011, 

GCMRC will accelerate this recommendation for the next iteration and include an update of ASMR in the 

FY2011 SCORE report. For the future, GCMRC intends the next iteration of the ASMR following the 

FY2011 update will be scheduled for FY2014, consistent with the PEP recommendation. Updates will 

include not only estimates of HBC abundance and recruitment from ASMR, but also summaries of annual 

catch-rate and size composition estimates from LCR hoop net sampling, summaries of annual catch-rate 

and size composition estimates from mainstem Colorado River hoop and trammel net sampling, and closed 

population abundance estimates of HBC adults and rearing juveniles in the LCR as these data are available. 

Finally, the applicability of similar techniques to those described above will be evaluated to assess stocks 

of flannelmouth sucker and bluehead sucker. 

The GCMRC fisheries biologist will work with agency and cooperative personnel to evaluate the utility of 

the remote passive integrated transponder (PIT) tag antenna project to provide information useful in 

determining movement rates of HBC into and out of the LCR, empirical capture probability estimates of 

LCR hoop het sampling, and PIT tag recapture information for inclusion in ASMR. 

The 2009 PEP for Grand Canyon Fishes made a series of recommendations that direct shifting monitoring 

efforts to decrease efforts in the LCR and increase efforts in the mainstem of the Colorado River, subject to 

an analysis of the existing data to see if their recommendations are consistent with the data. The GCMRC 

fisheries biologist working on this project will be responsible for assembling and/or conducting the 

analyses necessary to evaluate the recommendations. Data analyses of individual projects will also be 

conducted by AZGFD and USFWS personnel to support this effort. If the recommendations are found to 

be warranted, the shift to different monitoring will be initiated in FY2011; these projects are described 

elsewhere in Goal 2 of this work plan. If the data analyses are not found to support the recommendations, 

projects will revert to the work plans described for FY2010. The full analysis of all the data will not be 

required in FY2011, so there will be some shifting of the fisheries biologist time to other projects. 

Links/Relationships to Other Projects 

The status and trend of the Grand Canyon HBC population are two of the key metrics utilized in GCDAMP 

to evaluate the success of the GCDAMP and actions undertaken under the sponsorship of the GCDAMP. 

Therefore, annually updating the HBC catch rates and size-class composition and updating ASMR model 

runs every 3 years is related to many other GCDAMP work plan elements, especially experimental actions 

such as the March 2008 High Flow Experiment (described in a separate science plan) or removal of 

nonnative fishes. The annual HBC population status will be important to projects studying biotic and 

abiotic aspects of the system⎯including the aquatic food base, riparian vegetation mapping, and nearshore 

ecology projects⎯because changes in the parameters measured by these projects can be compared to 

trends in the HBC population to search for relevant correlations. 

Logistics 

There are no logistical needs for this project. 

Products/Reports 
65

• This project will be the lead for retrospective analysis of the fish catch rate data, especially for 

HBC. The analyses will also be supported by AZGFD and USFWS personnel as part of the 

reporting for their respective projects. Under this project GCMRC will convene an annual fish 

meeting to review these analyses and see if the 2009 PEP recommendations are consistent with 

project changes in FY2011. 

• The next scheduled update of the ASMR model will be in FY2011 to coincide with the next 

SCORE report, with the next update to occur in FY2014. 

• Annual reports of the status and trends of HBC will be delivered to the GCDAMP committees by 

December 15 of each year. These updates will include summaries of annual catch-rate and size 

composition estimates from LCR hoop net sampling, summaries of annual catch-rate and size 

composition estimates from mainstem Colorado River hoop and trammel net sampling, and closed 

population abundance estimates of HBC adults and rearing juveniles in the LCR as these data are 

available. 

• This project will pursue making the HBC data base information available electronically. This will 

be done in a manner consistent with USGS Fundamental Science Practices. 

Budget 

FY2010 

BIO 2.R7.10: $110,877 

FY2011 

BIO 2.R7.11: $103,776 
66

BIO 2.R13.10–11: Remote PIT Tag Reading 

Start Date 

October 2006 

End Date 

Ongoing 

Principal Investigator(s) 

W. Persons, Arizona Game and Fish Department 

Geographic Scope 

The Little Colorado River in Grand Canyon 

Project Goals 

This project is planned for FY2010–11. The goals of the project are: 

• Determine and refine the most appropriate method(s) for estimating the population size of HBC 

and other Grand Canyon fishes, including sampling design and development of remote monitoring 

methods. 

• Determine movement patterns of fishes in Grand Canyon using the LCR. 

This project will test monitoring methods that do not require repeated handling of fishes, capture of evasive 

species, or additional field sampling trips. Remote antennae can read the PIT tags that pass the station. PIT 

tags are already implanted in a large fraction of the adult population of HBC in Grand Canyon. Because 

some PIT tag antennae were installed in the LCR in FY2009, this project also seeks to provide operation 

and maintenance to the equipment already in place. 

Need for Project 

A limited number of HBC and other native fishes are present in the modern day Colorado River in Grand 

Canyon. Nonnative fish species are also present and are important to study because of the known predatory 

and competitive threats they pose to native fishes. Scientists and managers wish to know the spatial and 

temporal movement patterns of these species and the effectiveness of sampling gears in sampling 

populations. They also wish to obtain population information in the least intrusive manner(s) possible, 

especially when sampling the endangered HBC. Remote PIT-tag antennae have been shown in other, 

generally smaller rivers and streams, to be very effective at continuous monitoring, alleviating the need for 

additional field sampling trips and multiple fish handling events. 

The 2009 PEP for Grand Canyon Fishes reviewed the initial implementation of this project and 

recommended that it be continued and expanded. This project description is designed to be consistent with 

their recommendations. 
67

Strategic Science Questions 

Primary SSQ addressed: 

SSQ 1-8. How can native and nonnative fishes best be monitored while minimizing impacts from 

capture and handling or sampling? 

Information Needs Addressed 

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

in the LCR. 

RIN 2.2.2. Determine if a population dynamics model can effectively predict response of native fish 

under different flow regimes and environmental conditions. 

Methods and Tasks 

Experimentation with the use of remote antennae to read PIT tags was conducted by personnel from 

GCMRC, AZGFD, and the USGS Columbia River Research Lab in FY2009. The equipment installed 

generally performed as anticipated, though some improvements will be sought, especially detection 

distance and equipment stability in high flows. PIT-tag antennae are initially evaluated with passing tags 

over the antennae, then by assessing whether they are reading and recording deployed tags. The study area 

will focus, at least initially, on the LCR because of the smaller width of this river and because HBC spawn 

in and are concentrated there. In each year of this project, progressively more sophisticated equipment, and 

more extensive deployments, has been tested. This incremental approach has allowed for efficient use of 

funds, specific evaluation of equipment and methods, and consultation with tribes that must permit the 

deployment. 

In FY2010, additional arrays will be deployed in the LCR to increase coverage of the width of the river, 

increasing the probability of captures. Personnel from USGS and AZGFD will cooperate to expand the 

coverage and detection capabilities beyond those already observed. USGS Columbia River Research Lab 

personnel will be consulted as necessary to expand detection distance. Personnel from USGS will assist 

with data analysis. 

Together with AZGFD, GCMRC will seek to identify an appropriate graduate student to work on this 

project, both as the primary person for maintenance and for data analysis. The USGS Cooperative Unit 

Leader from Colorado State University has indicated initial interest in serving as the major advisor for this 

person, and thereby would also contribute to data analysis. 

Remote data telemetry will be attempted in FY2010. This will allow biologists to remotely download the 

data from the remote PIT-tag detector and determine operational status and maintenance needs instead of 

visiting the site regularly throughout the year. 

Links/Relationships to Other Projects 

If the PIT tag readers continue to be successful, more ‘recapture’ data on individual tagged native and 

nonnative fishes is expected. Currently about one-half of the fish captured have been HBC, with other 

natives and common carp making up the remainder. These data will be important for support of the annual 
68

catch rate indexes and multi-year model updates. More information on life history, specifically movement 

into and out of the LCR, is anticipated, which informs managers working to conserve and protect HBC. 

Logistics 

Trips that require large equipment transport will require helicopters into and out of the LCR. In FY2010, 3 

days of helicopter transport are budgeted. The goal of the FY2010 trips will be to bring in all of the large 

equipment that might be anticipated, especially the large antenna. The logistics budget for FY2010 also 

includes costs for boat transport of personnel. Emergency operations and maintenance may be supported 

by helicopter if boat and hiking trips are not practical. Two trips for two people are expected to conduct 

servicing and downloading trips. Based on work done in FY2009, we anticipate that it will take a crew of 

5 people about 5 days to install the second antenna array. 

In FY2011, it is anticipated that only smaller repair components will be needed and that two helicopter 

trips will be necessary to accomplish this. Servicing and studying personnel will schedule appropriate 

servicing and downloading trips using a combination of hiking and boat travel, ideally in combination with 

other science trips, but this project includes logistics costs to support the minor additional demands of 

small crews in the LCR to service the PIT antennae. 

Products/Reports 

Annual reporting on the installation, operation, and data will be delivered to GCMRC by December of each 

year. These data are to be discussed in at least one annual meeting by the fish cooperators, managers, and 

interested AMP committee members. 

AZGFD and GCMRC will pursue the identification of an appropriate graduate student and institution to 

support additional data analysis, in cooperation with the agencies. A graduate student would be expected to 

provide a thesis and one or more peer reviewed reports analyzing the data collected by this project. Project 

emphases may include detailed descriptions of the movement patterns of HBC in to and out of the LCR. 

Budget 

FY2010 

BIO 2.R13.10: $217,268 

FY2011 

BIO 2.R13.11: $224,557 
69

BIO 2.R15.10–11: Nearshore Ecology / Fall Steady Flows 

Start Date 

2008 

End Date 

September 2012

Principal Investigators 

William E. Pine, III, University of Florida, in cooperation with M.D. Yard, L.G. Coggins, Jr., U.S. 

Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, and C.J. Walters, University of British 

Columbia 

Geographic Scope 

The mainstem Colorado River in Grand Canyon below the mouth of the Little Colorado River 

Project Goals 

The primary goal of the nearshore ecology study is to relate river flow variables and ecological attributes of 

nearshore habitats to better understand the relative importance of the biotic and abiotic attributes of these 

habitats to juvenile (less than 200mm total length) native and nonnative fishes. 

The objectives that are addressed by this project are as follows: 

• Develop sampling approaches and analytical methods to use for determining abundance, density, 

or occurrence of native and nonnative fishes among different nearshore habitat types. 

• Assess past and current data and integrate data across multiple sources and disciplines to determine 

small bodied and juvenile fish nearshore habitat selection at local, geomorphic, and landscape 

scales. 

• Evaluate past habitat classification schemes and associated data collection efforts. This effort 

should include both habitat information associated with the fisheries database and the DASA GIS 

habitat classification methods. 

• Develop methods to use for measuring and estimating small bodied and juvenile fish vital rates 

(growth and survival) among different nearshore habitat types and during steady versus fluctuating 

flow operations. 

• Determine the key factors (abiotic and biotic) influencing nearshore habitat selection among small 

bodied and juvenile fish. 

• Determine the effect(s) of fluctuating and steady flow releases have on nearshore habitat selection, 

movement, growth, and survival of native and nonnative fishes. 

• Design and implement a multiyear (FY2009–12) experimental plan (process oriented) to determine 

the effect(s) of fluctuating and steady flow releases (September–October) on nearshore habitat 

selection, movement, growth, and survival of native and nonnative fishes. 
70

• Develop a contingency plan for releases above peak powerplant capacity that details how these 

releases will affect the proposed research and a research plan for assessing the potential impacts of 

these releases on nearshore habitat selection among small bodied and juvenile fish. 

The goal of this project is to provide information for developing future models with the capability to 

predict small bodied and juvenile fish composition, distribution, and abundance in relation to changes in 

management actions (for example, flows, temperatures, and nonnative fish interactions) and nearshore 

habitat availability. 

Need for Project 

The mainstem Colorado River life history requirements of HBC are not well understood. The habitat 

selection of HBC, and how those habitats may or may not be affected by human activities such as dam 

operations, are of particular interest to the GCDAMP and managers. To help meet these information needs, 

this project is intended to identify juvenile native fish habitat requirements, and how habitat selection, 

preference, and availability affect native fish vital rates such as growth and survival. Findings from this 

project are intended to provide information on native fish habitat requirements and guide future GCDAMP 

recommendations for the Department of the Interior to consider as management or experimental actions. 

Strategic Science Questions 

Primary SSQs addressed: 

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

from tributaries, spawning and incubation in the mainstem, survival of young-of-year (YoY) and 

juvenile stages in the mainstem, or by changes in growth and maturation in the adult population as 

influenced by mainstem conditions? 

SSQ 1-7. Which tributary and mainstem habitats are most important to native fishes and how can these 

habitats best be made useable and maintained? 

SSQ 3-2. To what extent could predation impacts by nonnative fish be mitigated by higher turbidities 

or dam-controlled high-flow releases? 

SSQ 4-2. How important are backwaters and vegetated shoreline habitats to the overall growth and 

survival of YoY and juvenile native fish? Does the long-term benefit of increasing these habitats 

outweigh short-term potential costs (displacement and possibly mortality of young humpback chub) 

associated with high flows? 

SSQ 5-4. What is the relative importance of increased water temperature, shoreline stability, and food 

availability on the survival and growth of YoY and juvenile native fish? 

SSQ 5-6. Do the potential benefits of improved rearing habitat (warmer, more stable, more backwater 

and vegetated shorelines, more food) outweigh negative impacts due to increases in nonnative fish 

abundance? 

Information Needs Addressed 

RIN 2.1.3 What is the relationship between size of HBC and mortality in the LCR and the mainstem? 

What are the sources of mortality (that is, predation, cannibalism, other) in the LCR and the mainstem? 
71

RIN 2.1.4 What habitats enhance recruitment of native fish in the LCR and mainstem? What are the 

physical and biological characteristics of those habitats? 

RIN 2.4.3 To what degree, which species, and where in the system are exotic fish a detriment to the 

existence of native fish through predation or competition? 

RIN 4.2.6 To what extent are RBT below the Paria River predators of native fish, primarily HBC? At 

what size do they become predators of native fish, especially HBC, that is, how do the trophic 

interactions between RBT and native fish change with size of fish? 

RIN 2.4.4 What are the target population levels, body size and age structure for nonnative fish in the 

Colorado River ecosystem that limit their levels to those commensurate with the viability of native fish 

populations? 

RIN 12.9.1 What is the impact on downstream resources of short-term increases to maximum flow, 

daily fluctuations, and downramp limits? 

RIN 2.6.6 How is the rate of mortality for flannelmouth sucker, bluehead sucker, and speckled dace in 

the Colorado River ecosystem related to individual body size? What are the sources of mortality for 

flannelmouth sucker, bluehead sucker, and speckled dace in the Colorado River ecosystem? 

RIN 4.2.5 To what extent is there overlap in the Colorado River ecosystem below the Paria River of 

RBT habitat and native fish habitat? 

RIN 7.4.1 What is the desired range of seasonal and annual flow dynamics associated with powerplant 

operations, BHBFs, and habitat maintenance flows, or other flows that meet GCDAMP goals and 

objectives? 

EIN 2.1.1 How does the abundance and distribution of all size classes of HBC in the LCR and 

mainstem change in response to an experiment performed under the Record of Decision, unanticipated 

event, or other management action? 

EIN 2.1.2 How does the year class strength of HBC (51 – 150 mm) in the LCR and mainstem change 

in response to an experiment performed under the Record of Decision, unanticipated event, or other 

management action? 

EIN 2.4.1 How does the abundance and distribution of nonnative predatory fish species and their 

impacts on native fish species in the Colorado River ecosystem change in response to an experiment 

performed under the Record of Decision, unanticipated event, or other management action? 

EIN 2.6.1 How does the abundance, distribution, recruitment and mortality of flannelmouth sucker, 

bluehead sucker and speckled dace populations in the Colorado River ecosystem change in response to 

an experiment performed under the Record of Decision, unanticipated event, or other management 

action? 

SIN 8.5.4 What is the role of turbidity and how can it be managed to achieve biological objectives? 

Methods and Tasks 

The potential effects of fall steady flows on biological resources are being investigated with three GCMRC 

projects: aquatic food base (Goal 1), rainbow trout monitoring (Goal 4), and nearshore ecology (Goal 2). 

Descriptions of the first two projects are found under the work plan sections for those respective goals. 
72

The near shore ecology study is to incorporate findings from ongoing studies and to develop new sampling 

and analytical approaches that examine the effects of the March 2008 High Flow Experiment on nearshore 

habitats and address the effects of modified low fluctuating flows, including September–October steady 

flows, on juvenile HBC and other native fishes. 

The method that will be used to study nearshore ecology of Grand Canyon fishes is summarized as 

follows: 

• Investigate sampling methods to estimate fish habitat use, growth, and survival. Estimation of 

juvenile abundance, survival rate, growth rate, and habitat use is fundamental to resolving 

uncertainties in the conceptual model and the two key research questions outlined and identified 

above. We propose sampling trips in late July and late August to characterize abundance, habitat 

use, growth, and survival rate of juvenile fish over the summer under MLFF flow fluctuations. 

These trips would be followed by sampling trips in early September and late October to 

characterize juvenile fish responses during the MLFF-fall steady experimental flow (FSEF) 

transition, and FSEF period. Differences in abundance in each habitat type, between sampling 

trips would be used to estimate habitat specific, reach wide survival rates across flow events. 

• We propose two basic sampling approaches for estimating these characteristics: (1) reach-wide 

abundance estimation (RWAE); and (2) robust-design mark-recapture (RDMR) at replicate sites. 

• Site selection. We expect to use existing data and models from the GCMRC physical science 

program to quantify habitat availability over the study reach that contains the RDMR sites, habitat 

availability within the sites, and how habitat changes with flow. The existing GCMRC shoreline 

GIS database and other surveys can be used to stratify habitat into classes such as talus slopes, 

open sand bars, vegetated sand bars, cobble bars, and backwaters. We hypothesize that unstable 

habitat types will be used only minimally during the summer unsteady flow period, but that use of 

these habitats will increase during the fall steady period when flows are stabilized. If this 

difference in habitat use is ecologically important, we would also predict increase in growth and 

survival during the fall steady flow period relative to the summer. 

• Assess native fish habitat use and response to Fall Steady Flows. Any mark-recapture approach to 

estimating abundance and density depends on recapturing sufficient numbers of marked 

individuals to draw inferences on the parameters of interest. Closed population models generally 

have fewer parameters (and assumptions) than open models and are thus better able to estimate 

parameters of interest (capture probability and abundance) when recaptures are low. We will 

evaluate the closure assumption in our mark-recapture experiments using methods similar to 

Korman and others (2009). Additionally, recaptures of fish marked on previous trips will provide 

useful information on growth and movement (e.g., movement into backwaters during periods of 

steady flow) between sampling trips and associated flow conditions. The NSE pilot sampling data 

from 2008 should provide some information on closure and also provide information on capture 

probability which is necessary to fully assess how violation of the closure assumption biases 

abundance estimates. This project will evaluate occupancy models (MacKenzie and others, 2006) 

and sonic tags to support habitat use assessment. This project will utilize otoliths (inner ear bones) 

from humpback chub and other natives to investigate habitat use and origin of fish. Otoliths may 

also prove useful for determining growth and survival rates of humpback chub and other fishes. 

These methods are discussed in greater detail in the project proposal submitted by Pine and others. These 

methods require repeated sampling at multiple locations in the study reach, the LCR reach of the mainstem 

Colorado River. Repeated sampling is needed to develop statistical confidence in abundance estimation, 

which in turn is needed to draw conclusions about habitat use. Repeated sampling will require use of motor 

boats and electroshocking equipment, including generators. 
73

Links/Relationships to Other Projects 

This project utilizes habitat information developed largely by the GCMRC Physical Sciences program and 

the Data Acquisition, Storage, and Analysis (DASA) program. The results of this project will help evaluate 

responses of small size classes of fish to various dam release flows, and will provide some of the 

information needed to assess the status and trends of humpback chub in the mainstem Colorado River. 

Logistics 

This project will utilize four trips, one each in July, August, September, and October for 3 years, FY2009–

11, subject to permit approval. All four trips are to be motor supported. The first three are scheduled to 

launch in the motor season, but the October trip will require authority from Grand Canyon National Park to 

use motors during the non-motor season. Sampling in October supports investigation of the possible effects 

of steady flows on fish habitat use and so authority to conduct the trip will be requested. 

Products/Reports 

• Annual reports of project results will be delivered in December of each year of the field work, 

FY2009–11. A final, synthetic report will be delivered by September 2012. 

Budget 

FY2010 

BIO 2.R15.10: $552,825 

FY2011 

BIO 2.R15.11: $556,911 
74

BIO 2.R16.10–11 Mainstem Nonnative Fish Control (Ongoing) 

(This page will be completed in the near future) 

Start Date 

End Date 

Ongoing 

Principal Investigator(s) 

Geographic Scope 

Project Goals 

Need for Project 

Strategic Science Questions 

Information Needs Addressed 

Methods and Tasks 

Links/Relationships to Other Projects 

Logistics 

Products/Reports 

Budget 

FY2010 

BIO 2.R16.10: $315,308: $68,842 - Power revenues under cap 

 $96,466 – Reclamation Nonnative Contingency Fund 

 $150,000 – Reclamation Experimental Fund 

FY2011 

BIO 2.R17.11: $309,251: Reclamation Experimental Fund 
75

BIO 2.R17.10–11: Nonnative Control Plan Science Support 

Start Date 

October 2009 

End Date 

Ongoing 

Principal Investigator(s) 

K.D. Hilwig, Fisheries Biologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center 

Geographic Scope 

The Colorado River ecosystem in Grand Canyon 

Project Goals 

This project provides ongoing science support to efforts to monitor nonnative fishes in Grand Canyon and 

to recommend appropriate control methods if monitoring results indicate control is necessary. It 

implements the analysis functions of the Nonnative Control Plan prepared by GCMRC to be delivered in 

FY2009. This project will also utilize the risk assessment to be developed by GCMRC in FY2010 to help 

direct efforts, especially the fall mainstem monitoring with multiple gear types. This project utilizes the 

capture information provided by all fish sampling and monitoring projects (Lees Ferry, LCR, Colorado 

River) to assess species presence/absence data and locations to support assessment of the potential need for 

nonnative control efforts. 

In addition to summarizing nonnative capture information, specific project goals for FY2010 are to deliver 

the following products: 

• An assessment of the relative risks to native fishes from nonnative species in Grand Canyon 

• An assessment of habitat use by nonnatives (occupancy model or other appropriate model) 

• A report summarizing the known sources of nonnative fishes found in Grand Canyon

Need for Project 

Nonnative fishes are among the greatest threats to native fishes in Western North American rivers (Miller, 

1961; Minckley and Deacon, 1991; Tyus and Saunders, 2000; Coggins, 2008). Nonnative fishes may 

threaten native fishes by direct predation, by competing for available food and other resources, and by 

habitat modification (Minckley, 1991; Hawkins and Nesler, 1991). Nonnative fishes were introduced into 

Grand Canyon not later than early in the 20th century (Woodbury, 1959; Valdez and Ryel, 1995). While 

native fishes survived these initial introductions at least long enough to be described by early researchers, 

other system stressors, especially the modification of natural flows as a result of dam installation, appear to 

have increased the threats to native fishes from nonnative fishes (Minckley, 1991; Clarkson and Childs, 

2000). 
76

The GCDAMP has recognized nonnative fishes as a threat that needs to be addressed, and implemented a 

nonnative fish control experiment around the LCR inflow reach from 2003 to 2006. The 2003 to 2006 

control project was most successful at removing rainbow trout (RBT). This work plan builds on that effort. 

As the Colorado River mainstem becomes warmer due to climate effects (Seager and others, 2007), the 

potential for an increased threat from warmwater adapted nonnative fishes increases (Eaton and Scheller, 

1996; Chu and others, 2005; Rahel and Olden, 2008). There is an immediate need to begin investigating 

which species pose the greatest threats to natives in Grand Canyon, to understand how those species might 

be better monitored and controlled, and to test control approaches for efficacy. 

Strategic Science Questions 

Primary SSQs addressed: 

SSQ 1-4. Can long-term decreases in abundance of rainbow trout in Marble and eastern Grand 

Canyons be sustained with a reduced level of effort of mechanical removal or will recolonization from 

tributaries and from downstream and upstream of the removal reach require that mechanical removal 

be an ongoing management action? This question also applies to future removal programs targeting 

other nonnative species. 

SSQ 5-6. Do the potential benefits of improved rearing habitat (warmer, more stable, more backwater 

and vegetated shorelines, more food) outweigh negative impacts due to increases in nonnative fish 

abundance? 

Information Needs Addressed 

Primary information needs addressed: 

CMIN 2.4.1. Determine and track the abundance and distribution of nonnative predatory fish species 

in the Colorado River. 

RIN 2.4.1. What are the most effective strategies and control methods to limit nonnative fish predation 

and competition on native fish? 

RIN 2.4.3. To what degree, which species, and where in the system are exotic fish a detriment to the 

existence of native fish through predation or competition? 

Methods and Tasks 

A nonnative species control plan has been drafted by GCMRC, including responding to reviews by the 

GCDAMP Science Advisors. It will be delivered to the GCDAMP committees in FY2009. Monitoring of 

nonnative species will be conducted with other fish projects described elsewhere in this work plan. Those 

projects will utilize different gear types to sample different species and different habitat types. 

In FY2010, this project will implement some of the higher priority research recommendations of the plan 

including the following: 

• development of a bioenergetics or ecosystem modeling approach to identify nonnative species of 

greatest risk 
77

• improving monitoring methods through implementation of an occupancy modeling to track 

changes in abundance and distribution of nonnative fish, 

• identification of sources of juvenile and adult nonnative fish into the mainstem such as tributary 

inflows, dam passage, and stocking, as well as isotope and larval drift studies to identify spawning 

areas and natal origins of nonnative fish, 

This project is also responsible for conducting an annual nonnative fish workshop with agency fish 

cooperators, managers and other nonnative fish experts. 

In 2010, the nonnative biologist will participate in a larger ecosystem modeling effort that will include 

many of the GCMRC biologists, with a focus on incorporating nonnative fish elements in the model and 

using those results to inform the bioenergetics model mentioned above. The results of this model should 

inform nonnative sampling and monitoring in FY2011 and future years. 

In 2011, in addition to continuing to assemble and present all nonnative catch data received from other 

projects, this project will compare the risk assessment model results to the catch data for that year. Results 

from the risk assessment, occupancy model, and source report will be utilized to inform projects 

conducting field work at Lees Ferry, the LCR, and the Colorado River regarding species and locations to 

target to maximize catches of nonnative fishes. The nonnative control plan will also be utilized as a source 

of available and potential gear types to provide additional recommendations to field projects with a 

nonnative fish sampling component. 

Links/Relationships to Other Projects

One of the management approaches that have been proposed to support HBC and other native fishes in 

Grand Canyon is the installation of a selective withdrawal structure on the GCD so that water of various 

temperatures, especially warmer water from the reservoir’s epilimnion (the upper layer of water), may be 

preferentially released. A potential concern with this approach is that warmer mainstem temperatures may 

also favor warmer water nonnatives, increasing the risk from these species to natives. In FY2010, the 

project biologist will evaluate the impact of a selective withdrawal structure by investigating this potential 

threat from nonnatives in the context of ecosystem/bioenergetical modeling and how threats may be 

addressed. Temperature modeling information and actual temperature data will also be used to develop and 

validate the bioenergetic risk assessment. 

This project links to several ongoing projects. Nonnative fish are or are proposed to be sampled as part of 

the mainstem monitoring project, the LCR monitoring project, the aquatic foodbase project, the nearshore 

ecology project, and the Lees Ferry fish monitoring project. These programs gather information on 

nonnative species captured in Grand Canyon: the relative abundance of these species, their size 

distribution, and their role in the food web, which contributes to the parameters needed for bioenergetic 

modeling. The information gained from these projects will support this project in assessment of potential 

changes in nonnative fish populations, and assist in the bioenergetic risk assessment. 

Logistics 

There are no logistics requirements for this project. The data provided to this project are yielded from 

projects described elsewhere in this plan. The specific logistics needs of each supporting project are 

described with those projects. 
78

Products/Reports 

This project will assemble annual reporting of nonnative information from other trips which are due to 

GCMRC by December 15 of each year. These data will be discussed at an annual nonnative control 

meeting of the fish cooperators to develop specific monitoring strategies and gear types to be used in the 

following year. In addition to the annual reporting summary this project will deliver three reports in 

FY2010 as follows: 

• risk assessment 

• habitat use model 

• nonnative sources report 

Budget 

FY2010 

BIO 2.R17.10: $78,058 

FY2011 

BIO 2.R17.11: $138,599 
79

GCDAMP Goal 4. Maintain a naturally reproducing 

population of rainbow trout above the Paria River, to the 

extent practicable and consistent with the maintenance of 

viable populations of native fish. 

BIO 4.M2.10–11: Monitoring Lees Ferry Fishes 

Start Date 

2010 

End Date 

Ongoing

Principal Investigator(s) 

A.S. Makinster, Arizona Game and Fish Department

Geographic Scope 

Colorado River from Glen Canyon Dam to Lees Ferry 

Project Goals 

The goals of this project are: 

• Monitor the rainbow trout (RBT) recreational fishery between Glen Canyon Dam and the Paria 

River 

• Monitor for presence/absence of other nonnative fishes in this reach 

• Monitor RBT redds and early life stages to support assessment of experimental flow releases from 

Glen Canyon Dam 

Operation of the Glen Canyon Dam affects the ecology of RBT and the aquatic foodbase in the Lees Ferry 

reach (McKinney and others, 1999, 2001). The Lees Ferry recreational fishery was recognized as a 

resource of concern in the Operation of Glen Canyon Dam Final Environmental Impact Statement (U.S. 

Department of the Interior (DOI), 1995): “Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP) 

goals for the trout fishery are to provide a recreational resource while maintaining and conserving native 

fish in Grand Canyon.” The management objectives of the GCDAMP are to maintain a blue ribbon trout 

fishery producing a healthy, self sustaining population of at least 100,000 age-2 RBT that achieve 18 

inches in length by age-3 with a mean annual relative weight of at least 0.90. 

This project is designed to monitor the status and population of this RBT fishery in response to 

management actions, and to determine how abundance, reproduction, survival, and growth are influenced 
80

by operations of GCD, including fall steady flows. Trend analysis using indices of abundance can be used 

to compare operational changes at GCD to determine whether these changes are having population level 

effects on the fishery. 

This project was reviewed by the 2009 PEP for Grand Canyon Fishes. The panel recommended that it was 

not cost effective or necessary to conduct multiple population monitoring and assessment trips each year to 

assess the Lees Ferry rainbow trout fishery. Rather, the panel recommended a single electrofishing trip at 

the randomized sites each year to physically observe the adult population and perhaps to tag fish if that was 

desired for more data collection. Analysis of this long term dataset will be completed in FY2009 to 

determine impacts of the recommended reduction in effort and the ability to meet management objectives. 

The 2009 PEP for Grand Canyon Fishes also recognized the importance of sampling, and potentially 

removing, other nonnative fishes in the Lees Ferry reach. The relative ease of conducting river boat 

operations for this reach, and the potential risk to other species downstream from nonnatives that might 

enter or expand in the Glen Canyon/Lees Ferry reach, suggests that at least one monitoring trip be 

conducted annually focused not on the recreational RBT fishery but on other nonnative species. Known 

aggregations of common carp should be sampled and could be considered for mechanical removal actions. 

The 2009 PEP for Grand Canyon Fishes did not recommend maintaining the monitoring of early life stages 

of rainbow trout that has been conducted for 5 of the last 7 years. However, this monitoring technique may 

be useful for studying the response of the fishery to experimental dam releases, and it should be maintained 

through FY2012 in response to the fall steady flow regime. 

Need for Project 

The AZGFD has managed the Lees Ferry recreational fishery since 1964. Lees Ferry serves as a popular 

destination fishery for international and national anglers. As such, it provides significant contributions to 

the Marble Canyon business community. The fishery is regulated by biotic and abiotic mechanisms that 

may in turn be affected by the operations of GCD. The monitoring of basic fish population elements, 

including abundance and distribution of native and nonnative fishes, provides the information necessary to 

assess the status of these resources and inform the GCDAMP. 

Strategic Science Questions 

Primary SSQ addressed: 

• SSQ 3-6. What GCD operations (ramping rates, daily flow range, etc.) maximize trout fishing 

opportunities and catchability? 

This project also seeks to develop information to inform the following SSQ: 

• SSQ 1-3. Do rainbow trout immigrate from Glen to Marble and eastern Grand Canyons, and, if so, 

during what life stages? To what extent do Glen Canyon immigrants support the population in 

Marble and eastern Grand Canyon? 

Information Needs Addressed 

Information needs are the basis for developing and implementing the long term strategic and annual 

monitoring and research programs. Identified below are the current information needs pertinent to the 

monitoring plan for the Lees Ferry Glen Canyon trout fishery. 
81

Primary information needs addressed: 

• CMIN 4.1.1. Determine annual population estimates for age 2+ rainbow trout in the Lees Ferry 

reach 

• CMIN 4.1.2. Determine annual proportional stock density of rainbow trout in the Lees Ferry 

reach.

• CMIN 4.1.4. Determine annual growth rate, standard condition (Kn), and relative weight of 

rainbow trout in the Lees Ferry reach. 

There are a number of RINs that are partially addressed by this project, or which depend, in part, on the 

results of this project. The primary RIN addressed is the following: 

• RIN 4.1.1. What is the target proportional stock density (that is, tradeoff between numbers and 

size) for rainbow trout in the Lees Ferry reach? 

Data collected from this monitoring project provide the basis which managers make decisions. 

Methods and Tasks 

Summary of annual monitoring/sampling: 

• Two annual standardized random sampling surveys 

• Two annual early life history trips (one or both may extend below Paria River) 

• One annual nonnative survey (may extend below Paria River) 

• Creel surveys are supported by AZGFD 

RBT are sampled using electrofishing to estimate biological parameters and to assess the status and trends 

of the fishery. The sampling design, methods, and analyses provide sufficient information on the relative 

abundance, size, and condition of the fish community in the Lees Ferry reach of the Colorado River. The 

purpose of this sampling design is to have a monitoring tool with the temporal “power” to detect 

population trends without biases in site selection, as well as a means to precisely estimate status of the 

RBT population (Urquhart and other, 1998). Electrofishing provides information on size composition, 

relative abundance (catch per minute as an index of population size), condition (length-weight 

relationships), and disease. Equipment costs are captured in BIO 2.M4.10–11. Samples are collected 

annually for whirling disease examination. Electrofishing prior to FY2010 occurred 3 times per year with 

sampling effort stratified over 27 random and 9 fixed sites. Present sampling design can detect a 6–10 

percent linear change in abundance over a 5-year period. Work is currently underway to assess the 

statistical power of intra- and interannual comparisons. 

Present methods for assessing abundance using catch rate indices may or may not be adequate for 

addressing management objectives and targets. If managers require a population estimate, further work is 

needed. The project will likely suggest some alternative methods to assess the abundance objective rather 

than “annual population estimates” as stated in CMIN 4.1, or attempt to clarify the CMIN. The stock 

assessment model developed for the fishery will be updated and revised as needed. 

Over the last 7 years a contractor, Ecometric, Inc., has been conducting surveys of RBT redds and early life 

stages of RBT in the Lees Ferry reach. These studies have been useful, especially in the analysis of dam 

operation impact to RBT. Similar studies may not be incorporated into long term monitoring, but in light of 

the continued experimental operations of Glen Canyon Dam through FY2012 the work is to be maintained, 

at least for FY2010–11. In FY2010–11 the AZGFD will work cooperatively with Ecometric, Inc. to 
82

transfer the techniques and data analysis for this project from the contractor to the agency, anticipating that 

AZGFD will be completely responsible for the conduct of any early life stage monitoring that may be 

necessary in FY2012 and beyond. 

Consistent with the recommendations of the 2009 PEP for Grand Canyon Fishes, this project will seek to 

expand efforts to monitor nonnative fishes other than RBT and will also attempt sampling to see if 

movement of RBT or other species downstream of the Paria River can be successful. Surveys of RBT and 

other nonnative fishes below the Paria River will be combined with other field efforts of this project to 

compared distributions of these species above and below the mouth of the Paria River and, thereby, 

provide data such as catch rates, presence/absence, and distribution to help support multi-year analysis of 

movement of nonnatives downstream. Specific reaches to study will be determined in the winter FY2009 

fish data meetings to be convened between the cooperating fish agencies AZGFD, USFWS, GCMRC and 

interested GCDAMP members. 

Links/Relationships to Other Projects 

Understanding the status of the Lees Ferry RBT population is critical to estimate the risk that this species 

may pose to native fishes further downstream in the CRE. With the reinitiation of a project to remove RBT 

from the LCR reach of the Colorado River, it will be critical to understand the status and trends of Lees 

Ferry RBT to evaluate the movement and repopulation of RBT that may occur in downstream reaches. 

Monitoring Lees Ferry is an important project to conduct to support AMP and managers monitoring the 

nonnative fish species that may expand in or be introduced into the Lees Ferry Reach. Analysis of early life 

stage data supports analysis of the impact of dam operations on the rainbow trout fishery and other 

nonnative species in the Lees Ferry Reach. 

Logistics 

This project will field five trips annually as follows: 

• Two annual standardized random sampling surveys 

• Two annual early life history trips (one or both may extend below Paria River) 

• One annual nonnative survey (may extend below Paria River) 

All trips are motor supported, launching from and returning to Lees Ferry just upstream of the mouth of the 

Paria River. 

Products/Reports 

• Annual reporting of the results of all monitoring efforts will be delivered to GCMRC by December 

15 of each year. 

• AZGFD and GCMRC will be working together to develop additional peer reviewed products 

documenting the status and trends of the Lees Ferry RBT fishery in FY2010–11. 

• AZGFD will be responsible for delivering analysis of the data from this project to fish cooperator 

meetings in calendar year 2009 and beyond. 
83

Budget 

FY 2010 

BIO 4.M2.10: $175,737 

FY 2011 

BIO 4.M2.11: $182,819 
84

GCDAMP Goal 5: Maintain or attain viable populations of 

Kanab ambersnail. 

BIO 5.R1.10–11: Monitor Kanab ambersnail 

Start Date 

April 2007 

End Date 

September 2011

Principal Investigator(s) 

J.A. Sorensen, Arizona Game and Fish Department 

Geographic Scope 

Vaseys Paradise, located 31.5 RM downstream of Lees Ferry; surveys encompass the springs around the 

pour-off at Vaseys Paradise. The monitoring of Kanab ambersnail (KAS) is conducted in conjunction with 

fall fish monitoring led by GCMRC (BIO 2.R4.10). 

Project Goals 

This project is proposed for FY2010–11. The goals of this project are to determine the extent and kind of 

vegetation that exists as habitat for the KAS and to track the abundance and distribution of KAS at Vaseys 

Paradise. 

Need for Project 

Knowing the extent of habitat is needed in the event of a high flow experiment to develop a biological 

opinion and to determine snail densities. Changes in snail numbers can be associated with changes in 

vegetation. By monitoring the vegetation at Vaseys Paradise, the snails are indirectly monitored, based on 

the assumption that if the preferred habitat is present, snails will also be present. Total habitat can be 

measured using remote methods, but the composition of the habitat may still require on-the-ground 

sampling. Sampling at Vaseys Paradise can also provide data for GCDAMP goal 6, which refers to the 

protection and improvement of riparian and spring communities. 

The KAS is a federally listed endangered species; however, the legal status is under review by USFWS. 

Conducting this project in FY2010 and FY2011 will allow for consistent surveying during the review 

period. If it is determined that the KAS is no longer listed as endangered, the GCDAMP will need to 

consider if their support for monitoring of the species increases, decreases, or remains about the same. 
85

Strategic Science Questions 

There are no SSQs that are directly related to the goal of maintaining or attaining viable KAS populations. 

Information Needs Addressed 

Primary information needs addressed: 

CMIN 5.1.1. Determine and track the abundance and distribution of Kanab ambersnail at Vaseys 

Paradise in the lower zone (below 100,000 cfs) and the upper zone (above 100,000 cfs).

CMIN 5.2.1. Determine and track the size and composition of habitat used by Kanab ambersnail at 

Vaseys Paradise. 

Methods and Tasks 

Determine percent cover, diversity, and distribution of vegetation that constitutes KAS habitat. Random 

samples of habitat document percent cover, plant height of dominant plants, and soil moisture. Survey total 

habitat and plots using conventional survey methods. Habitat area is calculated by the GCMRC survey 

department. Data are analyzed using univariate and multivariate approaches. 

• Monitor relocated vegetation associated with high flow experimental conservation measures. 

• Sample vegetation plots at Vaseys Paradise to determine patch composition and areal extent (fall 

of each year). Sample for the presence of KAS in plots. 

• Enter data and conduct quality control on data entry. Provide data to the GCMRC for vegetation 

analysis. 

• Compare previous vegetation composition to previous vegetation/habitat surveys to assess habitat. 

Provide abundance estimates of snails. Write reports for the GCMRC during the winter of each 

year. 

Links/Relationships to Other Projects 

Riparian vegetation, including vegetation at springs, is a critical interface between aquatic and terrestrial 

environments around the world. There are multiple components that riparian and spring communities either 

contribute to or influence (for example, foodbase, available habitat). In the CRE, the spring vegetation 

itself serves as a host for invertebrates like KAS, provides breeding and foraging habitat for small 

mammals and birds, provides cover in the heat of the day, and provides spring water that may be used for 

ceremonial purposes. Changes in the composition or structure of riparian spring communities, like 

expansion of an exotic species, may alter these interactions. Riparian and spring vegetation regulates 

nutrient exchange between the land and water, and leaf litter is a terrestrial carbon source that may 

influence in-stream invertebrate production. The relative importance of terrestrial carbon in the aquatic 

food web is being addressed in part through the foodbase 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 and terrestrial productivity processes. 
86

Logistics 

The survey work described in this work plan is supported by delivering two scientists to Vaseys Paradise 

for 1 day of surveying in the fall. The scientists will accompany the GCMRC fall monitoring trip.

Products/Reports 

• An annual report for KAS habitat and density estimates is produced by Arizona Game and Fish 

Department by December 15 of each year. 

Budget 

FY2010 

BIO 5.R1.10: $24,764 

FY2011 

BIO 5.R1.11: $25,700 
87

GCDAMP Goal 6: Protect or improve the biotic riparian 

and spring communities, including threatened and 

endangered species and their critical habitat. 

BIO 6.M1.10: Vegetation Mapping 

BIO 6.M2.11: Vegetation Transects 

Start Date 

September 2009

End Date 

Ongoing. FY2010 is the initiation of long term monitoring for riparian vegetation. 

Principal Investigator(s) 

Barbara E. Ralston, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center; and other 

cooperators, to be determined 

Geographic Scope 

The riparian zone, including the old high-water zone (OHWZ; >97,000 cfs), in the Colorado River corridor 

from Glen Canyon Dam to Lake Mead

Project Goals

The goals of these projects are to determine the areal extent of vegetation classes among the major habitat 

zones in the Colorado River ecosystem (CRE) (for example, new high-water zone [NHWZ], sand beach 

community, old high water zone (OHWZ), and how Glen Canyon Dam (GCD) operations affect vegetation 

cover, richness, and diversity by surface elevation measured at a meaningful time interval, per the PEP 

recommendations (Cooper and others, 2008). The project evaluates vegetation change at both the 

landscape scale and the community scale over time. 

Need for Project 

Riparian vegetation expansion since operations at GCD began in 1963 has played a pivotal role in the 

ecology of the postdam river corridor. The reduction in annual flood volumes has allowed vegetation to 

expand and more permanently occupy land previously subjected to scouring in most years. The expansion 

has included marsh habitat occurring throughout the CRE, whereas previously these habitats were 

restricted to Glen Canyon and the western Grand Canyon (Clover and Jotter, 1944; Turner and Karpiscak, 

1980). The plants associated with the expansion include alien species like tamarisk (Tamarix ramossisma), 

camel thorn (Alhagi maurorum), and peppergrass (Lepidium latifolium), but also native species such as 

arrowweed (Pluchea sericea), seepwillow (Baccharis emoryi), and coyote willow (Salix exigua). Variable 

operations at the dam over the years have resulted in an ebb and flow of vegetation expansion with 

vegetated area generally increasing over time (Turner and Karpiscak, 1980; Waring, 1995; Ralston and 
88

others, 2008). The increase in terrestrial vegetation contributes to above ground primary productivity, 

arthropod densities, and associated food resources for terrestrial and aquatic vertebrates. It is also a source 

of culturally important plant species and can cause conflicts with recreational activities requiring available 

camping area. Because riparian vegetation is linked to multiple resources, knowing how vegetation is 

changing by monitoring (for example, which species are expanding or declining and where) is an important 

source of data when evaluating dam operations. 

Addressing the AMWG information needs associated with riparian vegetation requires systemwide 

assessment of vegetation change at the broad scale (new high water zone (NHWZ)) and at the local scale 

(community composition). While knowing the amount of vegetation in the river corridor is useful, it is 

equally useful to note changes in the species makeup of the vegetation. Riparian systems are highly 

susceptible to exotic species introductions (Nilsson and Jansson, 1995). Because riparian vegetation 

contributes to aquatic productivity (Naiman and others, 2005) and serves as a host to terrestrial 

invertebrates and higher order vertebrates (for example, lizards and birds), assessing the quality of these 

plants can help explain changes observed in higher order vertebrate abundances, including fish species 

(Nakano and Murakami, 2001). Changes in riparian vegetation are associated with dam operations 

(Stevens and others, 1995; Kearsley, 2006), which can affect the propagation of exotic species like 

tamarisk (Porter, 2002). Monitoring transects at a biologically meaningful frequency to detect changes 

among herbaceous species, including invasives, can assess how operations inhibit or encourage invasive 

species colonization and expansion, which cannot be determined through remote sensing techniques (the 

scale is too small for image resolution). Monitoring changes in the composition of vegetation requires onthe-ground sampling. Remotely sensed data can assess changes in overstory wood species that change 

more slowly. 

These two projects, on-the-ground sampling and remote sensing, complement each other. Monitoring of 

composition change in vegetation is done relatively frequently (for example, occurring at annual and 

biennial intervals, see Cooper and others, 2008) and records species diversity, richness, and cover at 

specific stage elevations. The changes in vegetation parameters that this monitoring detects are relevant to 

perennial and annual herbaceous species like bunch grasses, marsh species, and invasive species that can 

change at higher frequencies than woody vegetation. Vegetation mapping with remote sensing utilizes 

digital overflight imagery (using the data acquisition, storage, and analysis program (DASA)) to quantify 

larger scale area changes (for example, expansion of arrowweed patches, or extent and type of vegetated 

shoreline). Landscape scale change is determined by comparing area changes of vegetation between years, 

for example, imagery from a FY2005 overflight is compared with imagery from a FY2002 overflight for 

the purposes of change detection. Analysis of change detection between years can identify patterns of 

change in woody riparian shrubs that may not be observable over shorter time periods or at the local scale. 

The two projects complement each other because they provide information about changes in riparian 

habitat at different ecological scales that affect riparian community constituents like invertebrate biomass 

and riparian bird abundances. 

GCDAMP goal 6 is directed at the protection or improvement of riparian and spring communities. This 

goal is based on the recognition that the riparian and spring environments are hosts for some endangered 

species like the Southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus). The protection of these 

species’ critical habitats is part of this goal. Riparian plant communities can be viewed at either a singleresource level without ecosystem linkages, or at an integrative level where riparian vegetation is linked to 

aquatic and terrestrial ecosystem processes (for example, when it contributes to secondary production and 

cover). Riparian plant communities interact with cultural resources associated with recreation (for example, 

camping sites) and traditional cultural properties (TCPs), or affects aeolian sand transport and possibly 

archaeological site erosion rates. Understanding how riparian vegetation responds to flows and affects 

other resources of concern forms the basis for managing critical resources like native fish, archaeological 

properties, and recreational resources. 
89

Strategic Science Questions 

Primary SSQs addressed: 

SSQ 2-1. Do dam-controlled flows affect (increase or decrease) rates of erosion and vegetation growth 

at archaeological sites and TCP sites, and if so, how? 

SSQ 4-2. How important are backwaters and vegetated shoreline habitats to the overall growth and 

survival of YoY and juvenile native fish? Does the long-term benefit of increasing these habitats 

outweigh short-term potential costs (displacement and possible mortality of young humpback chub) 

associated with high flows? 

SSQ 5-7. How do warmer releases affect viability and productivity of native/nonnative vegetation? 

Information Needs Addressed 

The primary information needs addressed by these projects are CMINs 6.1.1., 6.2.1, 6.5.1, and 6.6.1, which 

are summarized as the following: 

• Determine and track the abundance, composition, distribution, and area of terrestrial native and 

nonnative vegetation species in the CRE. 

• Determine parameters and metrics to be measured, and the information needs that address each 

element. 

• Determine how the abundance, composition, and distribution of the OHWZ, NHWZ, and sand 

beach community have changed since dam closure (1963), high flows (1984), interim flows 

(1991), and the implementation of ROD operations (RIN 6.2.1, 6.3.1, 6.4.1, 6.5.1, 6.5.2, 6.5.3). 

These information needs will be addressed through the following actions: 

• Quadrennial color infrared digital imagery mapping that quantifies (1) area change of dominant 

overstory species, (2) community composition and possibly changes in understory community 

composition through groundtruthing associated with mapping, and (3) coarse primary productivity 

estimates for riparian vegetation. 

• Vegetation transects conducted at an appropriate frequency correlated with river stage elevations 

zones. Quantifies cover, richness, and diversity, and community composition at each zone. This 

work is most informative for herbaceous annuals and perennials, including invasive species. This 

component may incorporate marsh-monitoring needs of tribes. 

Methods and Tasks 

Vegetation Mapping 

Community identification in the field will be done using the 50 m2 plot data obtained from the vegetation 

transect monitoring. In these plots, the presence and cover of species will be recorded. Cover scales use a 

Daubenmire scale. Data are recorded as categorical data, but plant height of the dominant species is also 

recorded. Samples come from a stratified sample approach within geomorphic reach, and include 

vegetation sample data from debris fans, sandbars, and channel margins. These data are analyzed using 

nonmetric multidimensional scaling (McCune and Grace, 2002), per the PEP recommendations (Cooper 

and others, 2008) to identify the dominant communities along the river corridor. Classification follows the 
90

National Vegetation Classification System. Field efforts include initial vegetation sampling to identify 

vegetation classes and a subsequent accuracy assessment the year following data acquisition and analysis. 

Vegetation classification will use supervised classification routines that are available in an imageprocessing software package ENVI (ITT, 2005). Training areas will be selected from previous 

groundtruthed areas. Classes that will likely be used for this effort include tamarisk (Baccharis/Salix), 

marsh/wetlands, mesquite/acacia, arrowweed, and bare ground (Ralston and others, 2008). User and 

producer accuracies will be determined and class aggregation may be required to meet national vegetationmapping standards. The FY2009 overflight and subsequent years will be compared with previously 

mapped imagery (e.g., FY2005 and FY2002) for vegetation area change detection purposes. 

Quantification of changes in riparian communities will be done using a Geographic Information Systems 

(GIS) platform (ArcMap; Environmental Systems Research Institute, 2002). 

The following tasks in FY2010 are designed to reach the goal for vegetation mapping: 

• Determine the capabilities of the FY2009 imagery for vegetation classification. 

• Identify community types from FY2008–09 field samples. 

• Use FY2002 and FY2005 vegetation data to compare total vegetation change. 

• Develop draft report of community change and accuracy assessment based on May 2009 groundtruth data. 

• Compare revised vegetation map to FY2002 vegetation map (Ralston and others, 2008) to 

determine area change for vegetation classes. Write draft report (summer 2010). 

• Accuracy assessment in association with vegetation transects in FY2011. 

Vegetation Transects 

A biannual, canyon-wide, stratified sampling approach tied to hydrologic zones and geomorphic features 

will be used for the vegetation transect work, following the PEP recommendations (Cooper and others, 

2008). Plots will be approximately 50 m2 in size to ensure characterization of species found within a 

hydrologic zone. Hydrologic zones that are sampled consist of four zones: 8–20k cfs, 20–31k cfs, 31–45k 

cfs, and >45k cfs. An additional higher zone specific to the OHWZ is sampled on a less frequent basis 

(every 4 years). Geomorphic features sampled include debris fans, sandbar eddys, and channel margins. 

Each of these features can consist of somewhat different riparian species assemblages. 

At each sampling point and within each zone a list of species encountered and an assigned cover value is 

given using a categorical scale of cover. These data are included in the univariate measures (cover, 

richness, diversity) and in developing community descriptions for vegetation mapping purposes. 

Sampling will take place every other year, coinciding with vegetation mapping overflights and accuracy 

assessments that also occur on a biannual basis. In the event of a HFE, transects will be conducted around 

the event to supplement monitoring as per the PEP recommendations (Cooper and others, 2008). 

Links/Relationships to Other Projects 

Riparian vegetation is a critical interface between aquatic and terrestrial environments around the world. In 

the CRE, the vegetation itself serves as a host for invertebrates, provides breeding and foraging habitat for 

birds, provides cover in the heat of the day, and may be harvested for cultural purposes. Changes in the 

composition or structure of riparian vegetation like expansion of an exotic species may alter these 

interactions. Riparian vegetation regulates nutrient exchange between the land and water, and leaf litter is a 

terrestrial carbon source that may influence in-stream invertebrate production. The relative importance of 
91

terrestrial carbon in the aquatic food web is being addressed in part through the foodbase 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. The 

2005 knowledge assessment workshop revealed that there was some certainty about the relationship of 

marsh community development and flows for the CRE, but that this certainty decreased as one progressed 

upslope (Melis and others, 2006). The outcome of the knowledge assessment workshop and the science 

questions for riparian habitats indicate that, besides knowing the influence of flow on composition and 

extent of riparian vegetation, an understanding of the integrated role of riparian vegetation with other 

resources is needed (for example, aquatic or cultural resources). This understanding would come from a 

combination of monitoring, synthesis, and field research. 

Logistics 

Logistics require a 4-boat oar trip or a single snout and sport boat trip in May 2011. 

Products/Reports 

These projects will produce a USGS draft report on vegetation change from 2002 to 2009, update the 

vegetation base layer for GIS, and develop a core-monitoring report for vegetation monitoring for delivery 

by September 2012. A species list by hydrologic zone and geomorphic feature will also be developed for 

the use of tribal monitoring. 

Budget 

FY2010 

BIO 6.M1.10: $95,828 

BIO 6.M2.10:$0.00 

FY2011 

BIO 6.M1.11: $106,211 

BIO 6.M2.11: $142,917 
92

BIO 6.R3.10: Vegetation Synthesis 

Start Date 

October 2006 

End Date 

September 2010 

Principal Investigator(s) 

Barbara E. Ralston, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center; and other 

cooperators to be determined

Geographic Scope 

The riparian zone, including the old high-water zone (>97,000 cfs), in the Colorado River corridor from 

Glen Canyon Dam to Lake Mead

Project Goals 

The goal of this project is to utilize existing data from previous investigations associated with the riparian 

zone to characterize temporal and spatial responses of riparian vegetation to GCD operations. 

Characterization can include compositional changes in species over time and the effects of spatial scale on 

data interpretation. Results of both aspects have implications for long term monitoring approaches for 

riparian vegetation in terms of frequency and sampling location aspects. 

Need for Project 

A large amount of information exists in the gray literature associated with riparian vegetation for the 

Colorado River. Several studies were specific research projects associated with the EIS process for the 

operation of GCD (Waring and Stevens, 1986; Anderson and Ruffner, 1987; Stevens and Ayers, 1993; 

Kearsley and Ayers, 1996) or associated with experimental flows from 1996 or 2000 (Kearsley and Ayers, 

1999; Stevens and others, 2001; Porter, 2002). The project is intended to utilize data and results of these 

studies to construct a more cohesive view of riparian vegetation changes within the CRE. A multi-temporal 

and spatial scale approach could possibly better characterize vegetation dynamics and vegetation change 

along the river corridor. By establishing a basic depiction of riparian vegetation constituents and 

identifying variables that affect riparian vegetation dynamics along the CRE, more integrative analyses and 

hypothesis testing involving aquatic and terrestrial resources are likely. 

Strategic Science Questions 

Primary SSQs addressed: 

SSQ 2-1. Do dam-controlled flows affect (increase or decrease) rates of erosion and vegetation 

growth at archaeological sites and TCP sites, and if so, how? 

SSQ 4-2. How important are backwaters and vegetated shoreline habitats to the overall growth and 

survival of YoY and juvenile native fish? Does the long-term benefit of increasing these habitats 
93

outweigh short-term potential costs (displacement and possible mortality of young humpback 

chub) associated with high flows? 

SSQ 5-7. How do warmer releases affect viability and productivity of native/nonnative vegetation? 

Information Needs Addressed 

The primary information needs addressed by these projects are CMINs 6.1.1., 6.2.1, 6.5.1, and 6.6.1, which 

are summarized as the following: 

• Determine and track the abundance, composition, distribution, and area of terrestrial native and 

nonnative vegetation species in the CRE. 

• Determine parameters and metrics to be measured, and the information needs that address each 

element. 

• Determine how the abundance, composition, and distribution of the OHWZ, NHWZ, and sand 

beach community have changed since dam closure (1963), high flows (1984), interim flows 

(1991), and the implementation of ROD operations (RIN 6.2.1, 6.3.1, 6.4.1, 6.5.1, 6.5.2, 6.5.3). 

General Methods/Tasks 

Transect data from 2001 to 2005 (Kearsley, 2006) will be reanalyzed to consider tributary effects on 

richness and diversity and to evaluate scale effects on interpretation of change. Discharge frequency and 

magnitude from GCD and the tributaries (the Paria and Little Colorado Rivers) will be used in the analysis 

to determine how frequency of disturbance affects richness and diversity downstream. 

Large scale area change detection will use GIS analysis tools (ArcMap; Environmental Systems Research 

Institute, 2002) to identify area change for vegetation classes or zones of interest between years. 

Identification of tamarisk in black and white imagery will be conducted using 2002 and 2005 imagery to 

compare vegetation characteristics. The scanning project in DASA intended to orthorectify historic 

imagery to permit retrospective analysis of vegetation change has been delayed due to funding limitations. 

As a consequence, smaller areas already orthorectified will be compared to determine the feasibility of 

retrospective analysis. 

This project will compare vegetation patches from the FY2002 vegetation base map (Ralston and others, in 

press) with previous vegetation maps (Waring, 1995) completed for sections of the river for the years 1965, 

1973, 1984, 1990, and 1991 to determine distribution and abundance information at a gross scale (for 

example, NHWZ, OHWZ, sand beach, marsh). Area coverage will be provided for different zones. 

Perform change detection between years to identify change in area and distributional changes for woody 

exotics (for example, tamarisk). Quantify allochthonous inputs using a combination of field and mapping 

data to estimate annual inputs. 

Links/Relationships to Other Projects 

The expansion of vegetation along the river corridor affects multiples resources. The increased shoreline 

vegetation contributes to aquatic drift and may serve as a supplemental source of carbon for aquatic food 

webs in addition to in-stream production. The ecology of human behaviors along the river corridor is 

affected by riparian vegetation. Exotic species that spread by tributary introductions (for example, camel 

thorn) impact campable area by making some beaches unusable. Available campsite area is dependent on 

the amount of open sand, availability of trees and shrubs for shade and wind breaks, and accessibility to the 

river (that is, steepness of bank), among other variables (Kearsley and others, 1994; Kaplinski and others, 
94

2005). In a similar vein, culturally important plants and locations have been monitored under the auspices 

of the AMP since the 1990s (Phillips and Jackson, 1996; Austin and others, 1997; Lomaomvaya and 

others, 2001). How these data have changed over time also needs to be incorporated into a synthesis to 

provide a holistic view of the riparian community. 

Logistics 

No logistics are required. 

Products/Reports 

As a result of this project, reports are anticipated on the following topics: 

• Marsh and riparian species richness and diversity patterns with the Colorado River corridor (U.S. 

Geological Survey, unpub. data, 2008) 

• Vegetated area changes and rates of change within the Colorado River corridor since 1965 (The 

product will use 2002 and 2005 vegetation map information (Pr 6.2) as well as legacy data to 

document vegetated area change and rates of change among vegetation classes.) 

• Quantification of annual allochthonous production of marsh and riparian vegetation to the aquatic 

system in the Colorado River ecosystem (U.S. Geological Survey, unpub. data, 2008) 

Budget 

FY2010 

BIO 6.R3.10: $38,526 

FY2011 

BIO 6.R3.11: $0
95

BIO 6.R4.10: Terrestrial Habitat Monitoring 

DEFERRED IN FY2010 AND FY2011 
96

GCDAMP Goal 7: Establish water temperature, quality, and 

flow dynamics to achieve the Adaptive Management 

Program ecosystem goals. 

BIO 7.R1.10–11: Water Quality Monitoring of Lake Powell 

and the Glen Canyon Dam Tailwater 

Start Date 

1991 

End Date 

Ongoing 

Principal Investigator 

William S. Vernieu, Hydrologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

Geographic Scope 

Lake Powell and its major tributary arms, inflow tributaries entering Lake Powell, and the tailwater from 

Glen Canyon Dam to Lees Ferry 

Project Goals 

The objectives addressed by this project are as follows: 

• To maintain a water quality monitoring program for Lake Powell to predict and track processes in 

the reservoir that may influence Glen Canyon Dam (GCD) release water quality 

• To maintain water quality monitoring in GCD tailwater to directly evaluate the quality of GCD 

releases, the effects of GCD operations, and suitability for downstream aquatic resources 

• To contribute to ongoing modeling efforts by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, currently the CEQUAL-W2 model, to predict future changes in the water quality of Lake Powell and GCD 

releases; simulate the effects of various proposed and hypothetical climate, experimental, and 

operational scenarios; and guide future monitoring program revisions 

• To compile and publish biological information, as USGS Data Series Report, from the long term 

database of Lake Powell water quality information and provide further interpretation, synthesis, 

and analysis of this and previously published chemical and physical data. 

• To implement a revised monitoring program, in conjunction with development of the CE-QUALW2 model and historical data analysis, utilizing new instrumentation and methodologies, reducing 

level of chemical sampling, and re-establishing inflow water quality monitoring to ensure and 

maintain a cost-effective and reliable monitoring program. 
97

predictions of these processes and conditions under various projected and hypothetical operational and 

• To conduct a PEP review of the monitoring program to ensure scientific credibility of the 

monitoring program and adequate linkages with other downstream resources. 

Need for Project 

Processes within Lake Powell, climate changes in the upper Colorado River Basin, the structure of GCD, 

and various aspects of dam operations affect the quality of water released from GCD to the Colorado River 

in Grand Canyon. Temperature, dissolved oxygen concentrations, nutrient concentrations, biological 

composition, and other characteristics of GCD releases can have a profound effect on the aquatic 

ecosystem below the dam. 

Since 1999, inflow to Lake Powell has been below average in every year except water years (WY) 2005 

and 2008. The 5-year period of below normal inflows in the upper Colorado River Basin from 2000 to 

2004 resulted in a drawdown of Lake Powell by more than 140 ft to 3,555 ft, decreasing total capacity of 

the reservoir to 38 percent. The increasing influence of Lake Powell surface layers on GCD releases caused 

warmer release temperatures, decreased release nutrient concentrations, and increased the export of aquatic 

biota from Lake Powell. The lower level of warm surface layers in relation to withdrawal levels at the 

penstock resulted in above normal late summer release temperatures from WY2003 to WY2007. Release 

temperatures of 16 degree C were recorded in October 2005, representing the warmest releases since 1971. 

Resuspension of exposed deltaic sediments from reservoir drawdown by WY2005 inflow currents resulted 

in a plume of hypoxic water that appeared at GCD and began to be incorporated in GCD releases in July 

2005. This resulted in dam releases containing the lowest concentrations of dissolved oxygen on record, 

only 3.3 milligrams per liter in October 2005. Changes to individual turbine operations at GCD in 

September and October 2005 were shown to have a significant effect on the reaeration of hypoxic releases. 

Differential routing of winter inflow currents can cause longer term changes to the water quality of Lake 

Powell and eventual dam releases. For the period WY2000–07, with the exception of WY2006, winter 

underflow density currents moved along the bottom of the reservoir and refreshed oxygen concentrations in 

the deepest layers of Lake Powell, displacing older hypolimnetic water upward to be entrained in penstock 

releases. In contrast, from WY1994 to WY1999 and during other periods in Lake Powell’s history, winter 

density currents moved through the reservoir in intermediate layers as an interflow, which caused 

stagnation and a reduction of dissolved oxygen concentrations in the deepest hypolimnetic water of the 

reservoir. This interflow pattern again appeared in WY2006. Exceptionally cold winter inflows caused an 

underflow in January 2007, increasing hypolimnetic density and increasing the likelihood of future 

interflow conditions, which may cause reductions in hypolimnetic dissolved oxygen in future years. A 

weak underflow current was observed in early WY2008, but was absent in WY2009. 

Since 2007, the western United States has experienced a rapid invasion of the nonnative quagga (Dreissena 

rostriformis bugensis) and zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) and has been found in several Colorado 

River reservoirs above and below Lake Powell. These mussels have the potential to drastically alter 

reservoir and lake ecosystems and as yet, have not been documented in Lake Powell. Zooplankton and 

phytoplankton sampling at Lake Powell has been conducted since 1990. The analyses from these samples 

forms a rich database from which to establish a pre-invasion baseline at Lake Powell and evaluate changes 

to the ecosystem if these mussels become established at Lake Powell. 

The GCMRC works in cooperation with the Reclamation on the development of the CE-QUAL-W2 model 

by providing monitoring data to be used for model calibration and verification. This monitoring data 

consists of information describing the quality of water in GCD releases, Lake Powell, and tributary inflows 

into Lake Powell. In addition, the GCMRC provides comments on the direction of model development so 

that a product can be developed that meets the needs of both Reclamation and the GCDAMP. A functional 

model is expected to provide reliable simulations of hydrodynamic processes and water quality conditions 

in the reservoir, including validation with historical observations. It is also expected to provide reasonable 
98

ify 

h 

As model development progresses, many components of the water quality monitoring program and Lake 

 be 

late 

Strategic Science Questions 

hile the 2005 Knowledge Assessment Workshop specified many SSQs addressing the effects of water 

:

MWG Priority 3: What is the best flow regime? 

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

MWG Priority 5: What will happen when we test or implement the temperature control device (TCD)? 

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

e 

• SSQ 5-3. To what extent do temperature and fluctuations in flow limit spawning and incubation 

Information Needs Addressed 

he following information needs (including synthesis information needs [SINs]) (as updated June 23, 

• CMIN 7.1.1. Determine the water temperature dynamics in the mainstem, tributaries (as 

roughout 

• CMIN 7.2.1. Determine the seasonal and yearly trends in turbidity, water temperature, 

cosystem. 

• SIN 7.2.1. How do the hydrodynamics and stratification of Lake Powell influence the food base or 

fisheries downstream? 

climatological scenarios. Comparison of these predictions with monitoring observations may help to ver

or refute the sensitivity of the model to various input factors. Beyond simulations of historical and future 

conditions, many questions may be posed that could be addressed by a well constructed and calibrated 

model. It is likely that GCMRC, Reclamation, and other parties will have different priorities and researc

interests for questions to be addressed by the model. A functional, calibrated model with a common set of 

input files would provide a common basis from which the research needs of these various entities could be 

met.

Powell data synthesis can be facilitated with results from the model, such as identifying parameters for 

which the model is more or less sensitive and restructuring monitoring efforts appropriately. Results can

used to identify the need for more detailed inflow water quality monitoring, establish and maintain 

additional meteorological stations at the reservoir, and modify sampling methods and frequency for 

biological parameters such as chlorophyll and plankton, in order to refine the model's ability to simu

productivity processes in the reservoir. 

W

quality on various resources (sediment, foodbase, fisheries, recreation), no SSQs were proposed that dealt

directly with tracking and predicting changes in water quality in Lake Powell or GCD releases. The 

following questions are the SSQs most closely related to the effects of water quality on key resources

A

concentrations, turbidity) and dam operations? 

A

How should it be operated? Are safeguards needed for management? 

meteorology, canyon orientation and geometry, and reach morphology interact to determin

mainstem and nearshore water temperatures throughout the CRE? 

success for native fish? 

T

2003) relate directly to water quality monitoring in Lake Powell and the GCD tailwater.

appropriate, temperature only in mainstem and LCR), backwaters, and near-shore areas th

the Colorado River ecosystem.. 

conductivity, DO, and pH changes in the main channel throughout the Colorado River e
99

tions under various operating scenarios, supplant monitoring efforts and elucidate 

understanding of the effects of dam operations, climate, and basin hydrology on Colorado River 

in 

ll as a function of regional hydrologic conditions and their relation to downstream 

releases. 

 Lake Powell and their relation to GCD operations to predict seasonal patterns and 

trends in downstream releases. 

• SIN 7.3.1. Measure appropriate water-quality parameters to determine the influence of these 

tem. 

ment 

action? 

r 

 TCD on GCD? 

• RIN 7.2.1. Which major ions should be measured? Where and how often? 

• RIN 7.2.2. Which nutrients should be measured? Where and how often? 

• RIN 7.2.3. Which metals should be measured? Where and how often? 

General Methods/Tasks 

nducted monthly in the GCD forebay and quarterly at 25–30 sites throughout 

ical parameters (temperature, specific conductance, pH, dissolved oxygen, 

rbidity, redox potential) are collected through the water column at each site in the reservoir. Chemical 

ample collection. Grand Canyon 

onitoring consists primarily of collection of temperature and conductance at various locations. 

• SIN 7.2.2. Which water-quality variables influence food base and fisheries in the Colorado River 

ecosystem? 

• RIN 7.3.1. Develop simulation models for Lake Powell and the Colorado River to predict waterquality condi

water quality. 

o 7.3.1.a. Determine status and trends of chemical and biological components of water quality 

Lake Powe

o 7.3.1.b. Determine stratification, convective mixing patterns, and behavior of advective 

currents in

• RIN 7.3.3. How do dam operations affect reservoir limnology? 

parameters on biological resources in the Colorado River ecosys

• EIN 7.3.1. How does the water quality of releases from GCD change in response to an experi

performed under the ROD, unanticipated event, or other management 

Other information needs (as updated June 23, 2003) require supporting information from water quality 

monitoring in Lake Powell and the GCD tailwater: 

• RIN 7.1.1. What are the desired ranges of spatial and temporal patterns of water temperatures fo

the CRE? 

• RIN 7.1.2. What are the most likely downstream temperature responses to a variety of scenarios 

involving a

• RIN 7.1.3. What are the potential ecological effects of increasing mainstem water temperature? 

Lake Powell monitoring is co

the reservoir. Profiles of phys

tu

(major ions and nutrients) and biological samples (chlorophyll and plankton) are collected at selected sites 

to characterize major strata and advective currents in the reservoir. 

GCD tailwater monitoring consists of continuous monitoring (temperature, specific conductance, pH, 

dissolved oxygen, turbidity) with monthly chemical and biological s

m
100

nutrient 

ompounds of phosphorus and nitrogen. Plankton analyses include enumeration and identification of 

lyses 

ument for Lake Powell since 1993. A 

placement system is proposed and will be in place for the FY2010–11 period and will incorporate statee 

ng 

ing. Current model 

evelopment has progressed to include calibrations for dissolved oxygen concentration, algal components, 

-stream changes can have a profound effect on various 

yon. Temperature affects metabolic rates of various 

rganisms, including bacteria, plants, invertebrates, and vertebrates. It also affects reproductive processes, 

ses 

 is 

ious 

ake Powell monitoring program provides its own logistic support and does not require 

 the GCMRC Logistics program, with the exception of the use of GCRMC vehicles for 

ansportation of personnel and equipment between Flagstaff and Lake Powell. Lake Powell logistics 

ts and 

ive report describing the 43-year history of Lake Powell water quality monitoring 

as published in FY2009. 

Lake Powell monitoring parameters include temperature, conductance, pH, dissolved oxygen, redox 

potential, and turbidity. Chemical analyses include determination of major ionic constituents and 

c

species, biomass estimates, and relative abundance calculations. All measurements and laboratory ana

are performed in accordance with standard approved methods. 

In FY2009, the Hydrolab H20/Surveyor III multi-parameter water quality monitoring system was lost at 

Lake Powell. The system has been the primary monitoring instr

re

of-the-art sensors and oceanographic methodologies. With its replacement, the monitoring program will b

restructured with input from analysis of historical data and simulation modeling. Part of the restructuri

will be the reduction of some of the chemical sampling, higher spatial resolution of in situ monitoring and 

establishment of meteorological and inflow water quality monitoring stations. 

Reservoir modeling is performed cooperatively between Reclamation and the GCMRC to achieve 

predictive capabilities, and guide, redirect, or supplant some aspects of monitor

d

and oxygen demand from deltaic resuspension. 

Links/Relationships to Other Projects 

The quality of dam releases and subsequent in

aspects of the aquatic ecosystem in Grand Can

o

larval development, and behavior of native and nonnative fishes. Nutrient concentrations in dam relea

can influence primary productivity processes in the clear water Lees Ferry reach. Dissolved oxygen

essential to maintaining healthy fish and invertebrate populations throughout Grand Canyon. Temperature 

and dissolved oxygen have the most direct effect on native and nonnative fish populations. Suspended 

sediment concentrations limit the light available for primary productivity and affect the behavior of var

fishes. Tracking status and trends of these water quality parameters represent a direct link with various 

foodbase and fishery studies currently underway in Grand Canyon. 

Logistics 

The current L

support from

tr

consists of operation, fuel, maintenance, and repair costs for the Uniflite limnology vessel. Food cos

procurement for field monitoring crews are borne by the monitoring crew travel costs.

Products/Reports 

• A comprehens

w

• A compilation of existing biological data, analysis of the existing backlog of biological samples, 

and a preliminary analysis of the existing data will be performed in FY2010 

• An interpretive data synthesis report will be developed in FY2010 to build upon the monitoring 

data and provide insights into how climatological, meteorological, and hydrodynamic processes, 
101

 of 

r interested 

 

BIO 7.R1.10: $275,502 

IO 7.R1.11: $286,342 

and the operation of GCD, affect inflow routing and stratification in the reservoir and the quality

releases from GCD. 

• Periodic reports of water quality conditions will be posted on the GCMRC website. 

• Updates on water quality conditions will be provided to the AMWG, TWG, and othe

parties through written reports or oral presentations periodically. 

Budget: 

FY2010

FY2011 

B
102

PHY 7.M1.10–11. Core Monitoring of Downstream Integrated Quality of 

Water (below Glen Canyon Dam) 

Start Date 

October 2006 

End Date 

Ongoing. FY2010 and FY2011 will be the fourth and fifth years of a project that was initiated to perform 

core monitoring to meet the information needs related to GCDAMP goals 7 and 8. This monitoring project 

follows a 6-year research and development phase conducted from FY2001 to FY2006. No substantive 

difference is anticipated between FY2010 and FY2011 activities. 

Principal Investigator 

David Topping, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

Geographic Scope 

The downstream integrated quality of water (IQW) project focuses on the main channel of the Colorado 

River from the tailwaters of GCD (RM -15) downstream to the upper end of Lake Mead (as measured at 

the gaging station above Diamond Creek at RM 226). The project also includes a combination of 

monitoring and modeling of tributary sediment inputs. Sediment and flow monitoring activities are 

conducted for the Paria River at Lees Ferry, the LCR near Cameron, Arizona, the LCR above the Colorado 

River confluence, and various lesser tributaries in Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons. 

Project Goals 

The primary objectives of the downstream IQW monitoring project concern the measurement of water 

stage and discharge throughout the river ecosystem, and measurement of IQW parameters of water 

temperature, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, turbidity, and suspended sediment concentration and 

grain size. Although the focus is on monitoring, the project also supports research related to stable flow 

testing, evaluation of alternative fluctuating flows, tests of high flows, and ongoing development and 

evaluation of numerical modeling. In some instances, monitoring activities are closely related to 

experimental activities. For example, monitoring of the sediment budget may be considered core 

monitoring, but it is also required to assess a trigger for high flows such that this monitoring may also be 

considered experimental research support. In the section on project tasks, the individual project elements 

are described. 

In addition, the IQW monitoring project directly supports achievement of the following GCDAMP goals: 

Goal 7: Establish water temperature, quality, and flow dynamics to achieve GCDAMP ecosystem 

goals. 

Goal 8: Maintain or attain levels of sediment storage within the main channel and along shorelines to 

achieve GCDAMP ecosystem goals. 
103

Because this monitoring project addresses the physical framework of the ecosystem, which underlies many 

biological, cultural, and recreational resource objectives, it indirectly supports achievement of almost all 

other GCDAMP goals, including: 

Goal 1: Protect or improve the aquatic foodbase so that it will support viable populations of desired 

species at higher trophic levels. 

The downstream IQW monitoring project supports this goal by providing information on flows, water 

temperature, and turbidity that aids in foodbase studies, such as the assessment of primary productivity and 

allochthonous inputs. 

Goal 2: Maintain or attain a viable population of existing native fish, remove jeopardy for HBC and 

razorback sucker, and prevent adverse modification to their critical habitats. 

The downstream IQW monitoring project supports the native fish program by providing nearshore water 

temperature data for the assessment of growth rates, sediment concentration data that are used to adjust for 

catch efficiency in population models, flow and stage data that are important to understanding the effects 

of nearshore habitat disruption caused by fluctuating flows, and data on sandbars and resulting backwater 

habitats that are helpful in understanding the importance of sandbars for native fish. 

Goal 4: Maintain a wild reproducing population of RBT above the Paria River to the extent practicable 

and consistent with the maintenance of viable populations of native fish. 

The downstream IQW monitoring project monitors dam releases and Glen Canyon IQW, which are 

critically important when dissolved oxygen levels are low, requiring modifications to release patterns in 

order to raise oxygen levels. 

Goal 6: Protect or improve the biotic riparian and spring communities within the CRE, including 

threatened and endangered species and their critical habitat. 

The downstream IQW monitoring project also tracks the transport and fate of fine sediment, which 

provides the substrate for riparian vegetation and marsh communities. 

Goal 9: Maintain or improve the quality of recreational experiences for users of the CRE within the 

framework of GCDAMP ecosystem goals. 

The downstream IQW monitoring project also produces monitoring data and supports experimental and 

modeling research to understand flow dynamics and the size and abundance of sandbars, which are 

resources that affect the recreational experiences of Colorado River users such as rafters and fishermen. 

Goal 11: Preserve, protect, manage, and treat cultural resources for the inspiration and benefit of past, 

present, and future generations. 

The downstream IQW monitoring project also provides monitoring data on riverine sandbars, which are a 

source of sediment, through aeolian transport, to high elevation sand deposits that contain archaeological 

resources. In addition, the downstream IQW monitoring project has also developed stage modeling 

capabilities that can assess the flow level inundating a given cultural site. 

In August 2004, the AMWG reviewed these goals and identified priority questions. The top five priority 

questions are as follows: 

Priority 1: Why are HBC not thriving, and what can we do about it? How many HBC are there and 

how are they doing? 
104

Priority 2: Which cultural resources, including TCPs, are within the area of potential effect (APE), 

which should we treat, and how do we best protect them? What is the status and trends of cultural 

resources and what are the agents of deterioration? 

Priority 3: What is the best flow regime? 

Priority 4: What is the impact of sediment loss and what should we do about it? 

Priority 5: What will happen when a TCD is tested or implemented? How should it be operated? Are 

safeguards needed for management? 

The downstream IQW monitoring project provides direct support to some of the priority questions, while 

indirectly supporting others. Monitoring and research on flows, sediment transport, and water temperature 

support priority questions 3, 4, and 5 directly and indirectly support priority questions 1 and 2 by providing 

information on the general physical framework of the riverine environment. 

Need for the Project 

Information on flow, water quality, and suspended sediment transport is critical to understanding the 

physical environment upon which biological and sociocultural resources depend. In order to understand the 

responses of these resources to dam operations, we must understand and monitor the effects of dam 

operations on the physical environment. The goal of the downstream IQW project is to provide this 

information and link dam operations to changes in the physical environment. 

Strategic Science Questions 

The downstream IQW monitoring project is designed with the goal of providing data that supports 

answering the two primary physical resources questions identified during the knowledge assessment 

workshop conducted in the summer of 2005, as follows: 

SSQ 4-1. Is there a “Flow-Only” operation (that is, a strategy for dam releases, including managing 

tributary inputs with BHBFs, without sediment augmentation) that will restore and maintain sandbar 

habitats over decadal timescales? 

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

canyon orientation and geometry, and reach morphology interact to determine mainstem and nearshore 

water temperatures throughout the CRE? 

Also, as detailed throughout this project description, the downstream IQW monitoring project provides 

information on the physical environment that is critical to other resource areas and will thus contribute 

indirectly to answering a variety of other science questions related to other resources. 

Information Needs Addressed 

The downstream IQW monitoring project directly addresses several of the CMINs and RINs related to 

GCDAMP goals 7 and 8. Selections of the information needs that are addressed by downstream IQW 

monitoring project are listed below. The downstream IQW monitoring project addresses many more 

CMINs, but the ones listed below are considered most relevant to answering the science questions outlined 

above. 

CMIN 7.4.2. Determine and track flow releases (gage data and SCADA data; time interval still TBD) 

from Glen Canyon Dam, under all operating conditions, particularly related to flow duration, upramp, 
105

and downramp conditions (parameters are upramp and downramp rates, volume, daily minimum and 

maximum). 

CMIN 7.1.2. Determine and track LCR discharge and temperature near the mouth (below springs). 

CMIN 7.1.1. Determine the water temperature dynamics in the mainstem, tributaries (as appropriate, 

temperature only in mainstem and LCR), backwaters, and nearshore areas throughout the Colorado 

River ecosystem. 

CMIN 8.1.3. Track, as appropriate, the monthly sand and silt/clay volumes and grain-size 

characteristics, by reach, as measured or estimated at the Paria and LCR [near Cameron, Ariz., and 

above the confluence] stations, other major tributaries like Kanab and Havasu Creeks, and “lesser” 

tributaries? 

CMIN 8.1.2. What are the monthly sand and silt/clay export volumes and grain-size characteristics, by 

reach, as measured or estimated at Lees Ferry, Lower Marble Canyon, Grand Canyon, and Diamond 

Creek Stations? 

The monitoring data from the downstream IQW monitoring project not only fulfill the CMINs listed above, 

but are also intended to feed new information directly into modeling efforts (see PHY 7.R2.10) that will 

allow sediment transport modelers the opportunity to address RINs related to GCDAMP goals 7 and 8. 

RIN 7.4.1. What is the desired range of seasonal and annual flow dynamics associated with powerplant 

operations, BHBFs, and habitat maintenance flows, or other flows that meet GCDAMP goals and 

objectives? 

RIN 7.3.1. Develop simulation models for Lake Powell and the Colorado River to predict waterquality conditions under various operating scenarios, supplant monitoring efforts, and elucidate 

understanding of the effects of dam operations, climate, and basin hydrology on Colorado River water 

quality. 

RIN 8.5.1. What elements of ROD operations (upramp, downramp, maximum and minimum flow, 

MLFF, high modified flow (HMF), and BHBF) are most/least critical to conserving new fine sediment 

inputs, and stabilizing sediment deposits above the 25,000 cfs stage? 

Methods and Tasks 

FY2010 

Discharge, stage, water temperature, specific conductance, turbidity, and suspended sediment data are 

collected using standard USGS protocols with quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) (Rantz and 

others, 1982a). Suspended sediment sampling is supplemented through the use of emerging technologies, 

including acoustics and laser diffraction (Melis and others, 2003; Topping and others, 2004, 2006, 2007). 

Stage, water temperature (Voichick and Wright, 2007), specific conductance (Voichick, 2008), turbidity, 

and suspended sediment surrogates (acoustics and laser diffraction) are monitored with in situ 

instrumentation recording at 15 minute intervals. Water discharge is measured episodically and used to 

develop a stage discharge rating curve, providing 15 minute flow records (Rantz and others, 1982b). 

Similarly, suspended sediment concentration is measured episodically using standard USGS protocols 

(Edwards and Glysson, 1999) and used to calibrate acoustic and laser diffraction instrumentation, 

providing 15 minute records of concentration (sand and silt/clay), and sand grain size. 
106

Flow and Stage Monitoring 

Continued monitoring of flow and stage at established mainstem locations and major tributaries (RM -15, 

RM 0, RM 30, RM 61, RM 87, RM 166, RM 225, Paria River at the Highway 89 bridge and near Lees 

Ferry, and two sites on the LCR). Category(s): core monitoring. Schedule: ongoing. Official surface water 

records are collected at Paria River at the Highway 89 bridge and published by the USGS Utah Water 

Science Center. Official surface water records are collected and published by the USGS Arizona Water 

Science Center at the following tributary gage sites: Paria River near Lees Ferry, Ariz.; LCR near 

Cameron, Ariz.; LCR above the mouth near Desert View, Ariz.; Kanab Creek near Kanab, Utah; Havasu 

Creek above the mouth near Supai, Ariz.; and at the mainstem gages at RM 0, RM 87, and RM 225, Ariz. 

The RM -15 flow measurements are reported by Reclamation. 

Quality-of-Water Monitoring 

Continued monitoring of water temperature at established mainstem locations and major tributaries (RM -

15, RM 0, RM 30, RM 61, RM 87, RM 166, RM 225, RM 246, Paria River at Lees Ferry, two sites on the 

LCR, and Kanab and Havasu Creeks). Continue a new nearshore/backwater temperature monitoring 

program at selected sites. Continue monitoring of specific conductivity at established stations (RM -15, 

RM 0, RM 30, RM 61, RM 87, and RM 225). Continue monitoring of turbidity at established stations (RM 

30, RM 61, RM 87, and RM 225). Continue monitoring of dissolved oxygen at established stations (RM -

15, RM 0, and RM 225). 

Suspended-Sediment Flux Monitoring 

Continued monitoring of suspended sediment flux at established mainstem locations and major tributaries 

(RM 30, RM 61, RM 87, RM 166, RM 225, Paria River at Lees Ferry, and several sites along the lower 

LCR and it major sand supplying tributary, Moenkopi Wash). Because sediment based high flow triggers 

are based on sediment retention within the mainstem and tributary supplied sand is exported quickly 

downstream under all but the lowest dam releases, it is insufficient to monitor tributary sand inputs only. 

Coordination with Other Resource Areas 

Regular meetings and interaction with other resource area personnel, particularly at the program manager 

level, in order to facilitate an ecosystem approach to our scientific studies and ensure that the downstream 

IQW monitoring project is providing useful information regarding the physical environment to the other 

resource areas. Category(s): Program Management. Schedule: ongoing. 

FY2011 

The tasks and methods are expected to be the same for FY2011 as for FY2010. 

Links/Relationships to Other Projects 

Long Term Monitoring for Changes in Sediment Storage -- SedTrend 

The downstream IQW monitoring project is closely related to the SedTrend component of the program for 

long term monitoring of sediment storage that is described under goal 8, below. The downstream IQW 

monitoring includes the tracking of sediment fluxes entering and exiting each of the five sediment 

monitoring segments over short time scales (up to ~ 5 years) for planning high flows or other dam 

operations designed to improve or maintain sandbars. The SedTrend program uses direct measurements of 

channel topography and bathymetry to track longterm (5 years and longer) changes in sediment storage for 

the same monitoring segments. 
107

Aquatic Food Web Research 

The downstream IQW monitoring project supports research focused on the food web of the river 

ecosystem by providing continuous data on surface flow in the main channel and major tributaries, as well 

as related IQW data, such as water temperature, specific conductivity, dissolved oxygen, and suspended 

sediment concentrations and grain size for suspended particles in transport. 

Fisheries Monitoring and Research 

The downstream IQW monitoring project also supports science activities in the fisheries program by 

providing flow and IQW data that may be used by fisheries biologists in evaluating their fish catch data, as 

well as growth, movement, and habitat use information. 

Logistics 

This project requires two motorized river trips annually. Project needs require that the trips occur at 

approximately 6 month intervals. Motors are required for sampling activities and servicing the 

instrumented gage sites. Typically, the trips have two support boats and one technical boat. The current 

plan is to continue with one trip in February and one trip in August. 

Products/Reports 

FY2010

• Streamflow, stage, and tributary sediment data will be published annually in Arizona and Utah 

Water Resources Data reports (surface water and sediment records published by the USGS Utah 

and Arizona Water Science Centers) and served through the GCMRC Web page 

(http://www.gcmrc.gov/products/) (data delivered on or before February 28, 2011). 

• Mainstem sediment transport and IQW data will be served through the GCMRC web page and a 

web-based application will be implemented to provide stakeholders and interested public with the 

ability to perform interactive online data visualization and analysis. 

• Conference abstracts and proceedings articles (2–4 annually), journal articles (1–3 annually), and 

presentations at stakeholder meetings will result from this project. 

• All work conducted under the IQW project will be summarized in annual reports, with the FY2010 

report to be completed by January 1, 2011. 

FY2011

• Streamflow, stage, and tributary sediment data will be published annually in Arizona and Utah 

Water Resources Data reports (surface water and sediment records published by the USGS Utah 

and Arizona Water Science Centers) and served through the GCMRC Web page 

(http://www.gcmrc.gov/products/) (data delivered on or before February 28, 2012). 

• Mainstem sediment transport and water-quality data will be served through the GCMRC web page 

and a web-based application will be implemented to provide stakeholders and interested public 

with the ability to perform interactive online data visualization and analysis. 

• Conference abstracts and proceedings articles (2–4 annually), journal articles (1–3 annually), and 

presentations at stakeholder meetings will result from this project. 

• All work conducted under the IQW project will be summarized in annual reports, with the FY2011 

report to be completed by January 1, 2012. 
108

Budget 

FY2010 

PHY 7.M1.10: $979,691 

FY2011 

PHY 7.M1.11: $1,025,906 
109

PHY 7.R2.10 : Integrated Flow, Temperature, and Sediment Modeling and 

PHY 7.R3.11: Modeling Support 

Start Date 

October 2008 

End Date 

September 2010 for PHY 7.R2.10 and ongoing for PHY 7.R3.11. FY2010 will mark the end of a 2-year 

model development period; however it is expected that support for model development and improvements 

will continue in parallel to the monitoring programs. As new data are collected, existing models can be 

continuously tested, improved, and applied. 

Principal Investigator(s) 

Scott A. Wright, U.S. Geological Survey, California Water Science Center; Jonathan Nelson, U.S. 

Geological Survey, National Research Program; Mark Schmeeckle, Arizona State University; David J. 

Topping, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center; Peter R. Wilcock, 

Johns Hopkins University; Paul E. Grams, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center; and David M. Rubin, U.S. Geological Survey, Marine Geology Team 

Geographic Scope 

The one-dimensional flow, temperature, and sediment transport modeling activities are spatially parallel to 

the IQW project and also focus on the main channel of the CRE between GCD (RM -15) to Diamond 

Creek (RM 226). Multidimensional modeling efforts will be applied at specific locations where appropriate 

topographic, bathymetric, and other calibration data have been collected. 

Project Goals 

The modeling initiative is designed to advance the predictive modeling capabilities needed to predict the 

fate of flow releases from GCD and associated water quality constituents such as temperature and 

suspended sediment. Advancements in both detailed multidimensional models, which can only be applied 

to a few specific locations, and general one-dimensional models, which can be applied to the entire CRE, is 

required to improve the ability to predict downstream thermal regimes and the fate of fine sediment inputs 

that enter the ecosystem from sources such as the Paria and Little Colorado Rivers. 

Ongoing development of models to simulate flow, sediment transport, and downstream water temperature 

are intended to be closely interfaced with ongoing monitoring activities throughout the science program. 

The downstream IQW monitoring project includes measurements of surface flow throughout the river 

ecosystem, as well as monitoring of IQW parameters such as temperature, specific conductivity, dissolved 

oxygen, and suspended sediment transport. These projects directly support achievement of the following 

GCDAMP goals: 

Goal 7: Establish water temperature, quality, and flow dynamics to achieve GCDAMP ecosystem 

goals. 

Goal 8: Maintain or attain levels of sediment storage within the main channel and along shorelines to 

achieve GCDAMP ecosystem goals. 
110

Need for Project 

Modeling capability is needed to provide predictive capacity in linking dam operations with changes in the 

physical environment, including water flow, sediment conditions, and temperature. Better models for water 

flow are needed to predict the depth and velocity of flow for specified locations for specified dam 

operations. Models for sediment transport are needed to help determine the optimal magnitude and 

duration for high flow releases and estimate the potential long term impact of changes in dam operations or 

sediment supply conditions. Temperature models are needed to link dam operations with temperature 

dynamics in the downstream channel and, in particular, near shore habitats. Thus, the goal of the modeling 

activities is to provide increased predictive capabilities in the form of simulations that can be used as 

planning tools for linking dam operations to changes in the physical environment. Models of the physical 

system are also needed to develop and expand interdisciplinary relationships with biological, cultural, 

economic, and recreational elements of GCDAMP. 

Strategic Science Questions 

The integrated modeling activities are designed with the objective of providing predictive capability that 

supports answering the two primary physical resource questions identified during the knowledge 

assessment workshop conducted in the summer of 2005: 

SSQ 4-1. Is there a “Flow-Only” operation (that is, a strategy for dam releases, including managing 

tributary inputs with BHBFs, without sediment augmentation) that will restore and maintain sandbar 

habitats over decadal timescales? 

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

canyon orientation and geometry, and reach morphology interact to determine mainstem and nearshore 

water temperatures throughout the CRE? 

In the process of developing a formal project proposal in FY2009, the current team of modeling scientists 

listed five related science and related management questions that the project seeks to address: 

• Science question: How do eddy sandbars evolve for a given sediment supply and flow hydrograph, 

including short duration high flow releases? 

• Related management question: What is the “optimal” high flow hydrograph (peak and duration) for 

a given supply condition? 

• Science question: How are tributary sediment inputs transported through the mainstem for a given 

flow hydrograph? 

• Related management question: How long will tributary sediments be available (and where will 

they be) for a given operation (i.e. monthly volume, daily peak, daily range)? 

• Science question: How does the long-term (i.e. decadal scale) sand budget evolve for a given flow 

hydrograph and tributary sediment supply (and/or sediment augmentation)? 

• Related management question: How do different operations compare with respect to long-term 

sustainability? 

• Science question: What controls the slope stability of sandbars that fill and drain on a daily basis 

due to fluctuating flows? 

• Management: How do various ramping rates affect the stability of sandbars? 

• Science question: How does channel complexity and habitat type affect shoreline water 

temperature distribution and dynamics? 
111

• Related management question: Do various fluctuating and steady flow regimes affect shoreline 

water temperature differently? 

Information Needs Addressed 

The modeling project directly addresses several of the RINs related to GCDAMP goals 7 and 8: 

RIN 7.4.1. What is the desired range of seasonal and annual flow dynamics associated with powerplant 

operations, BHBFs, and habitat maintenance flows, or other flows that meet GCDAMP goals and 

objectives? 

RIN 7.3.1. Develop simulation models for Lake Powell and the Colorado River to predict waterquality conditions under various operating scenarios, supplant monitoring efforts, and elucidate 

understanding of the effects of dam operations, climate, and basin hydrology on Colorado River water 

quality. 

RIN 8.5.1. What elements of ROD operations (upramp, downramp, maximum and minimum flow, 

MLFF, HMF, and BHBF) are most/least critical to conserving new fine sediment inputs, and 

stabilizing sediment deposits above the 25,000 cfs stage? 

Methods and Tasks 

The present modeling approach explicitly acknowledges that a suite of modeling tools is required to 

address the various science and management questions that are outlined above, because these questions 

span a wide range of time and spatial scales. For example, models appropriate for simulating the evolution 

of an individual sandbar during a high flow release are not appropriate for simulating the long term 

(decadal) sand budget for the canyon. In general, models of short time scales and high spatial resolution 

can apply fundamental governing equations (though some empiricism is always required) whereas models 

of longer time scales require increasing degrees of simplifying assumptions and substantially more 

empirical data. Thus, a variety of modeling approaches are required to address the disparity in scales, 

potentially with information sharing between the models. To this end, we have outlined four basic 

modeling approaches that are appropriate for addressing the set of questions outlined above, as follows: 

• Eddy scale modeling (ESM): This approach is designed to simulate flow, sediment transport, 

morphology, and temperature dynamics at the scale of individual eddies. Resolution of these finer 

spatial scales limits the length of simulation that can be performed due to computational 

constraints, such that this modeling approach is appropriate for time scales of days to weeks. The 

short time scale and high spatial resolution allows for the use of numerical modeling tools based on 

basic conservation equations. However, even at these scales some simplifications are necessary 

such that model calibration is required. The parameterization and calibration of the ESMs will be 

accomplished using the high resolution velocity, sediment transport, and bathymetric data collected 

in middle Marble Canyon (Eminence and Willie Taylor eddies) during the March 2008 high flow 

release. The temperature component of the ESMs will be calibrated using water temperature data 

collected in a range of shoreline habitat types at various locations along the river over the past 

several years. 

• Bar stability modeling (BSM): The ESMs predict transport, erosion, and deposition based on shear 

stress imparted from the flow onto the bed of the river, but do not account for slope failures 

resulting from elevated pore water pressures during rising and falling river stages. Because normal 

hydropower dam operations include daily flow fluctuations, this bar failure mechanism is 

important to understand when considering alternative flow ramping rates. The BSM is applied to 

an individual bar in a two-dimensional profile (i.e. a vertical cut through the bar face). In the 

future, the model could be linked to the ESMs to incorporate the failed material back into the flow. 
112

• Reach scale modeling (RSM): The ESMs are not applicable to broader spatial scales and longer 

time scales. For these scales, further simplifications are required in order to be computationally 

feasible. There are several potential applications for reach scale models in Grand Canyon. One 

application is modeling the cross-sectionally averaged (i.e. one-dimensional) mainstem sediment 

transport and temperature dynamics. These models can be used to simulate the fate of tributary 

inputs as they move downstream through the mainstem, and the downstream warming of dam 

releases that occurs for most of the year. This information can be used to evaluate various dam 

release scenarios (for flow and possibly temperature control), and the models can also be used to 

deliver boundary conditions to the ESMs. The RSM for mainstem temperature has already been 

developed, tested, and documented (Anderson and Wright, 2007). A RSM for sediment transport 

has been developed and documented (Wiele and others, 2007) but was deemed in need of further 

testing and potential refinement by the modeling review panel. This further testing is described in 

Task 2 of the following section. 

• Decadal scale modeling (DSM): The third modeling approach is designed to simulate the long term 

sand budget for the river at relatively low spatial resolution. The unsteady, one-dimensional RSMs 

described above, while substantially simplified from the ESMs, are still too complex to apply to 

decadal time scales particularly if the goal is to simulate a range of potential future conditions, for 

example, with Monte Carlo simulation. This approach relies heavily on high resolution sand 

transport data that is currently collected at several sites along the river (Topping and others, 2006). 

The basic methodology is to allow the relationship between sand concentration and discharge to 

shift up and down depending on the level of sand supply in the system (i.e. a “shifting rating 

curve”), a phenomenon that has been observed and substantially documented since the 1996 HFE. 

Because of the empirical nature of the approach, the sand budget can only be resolved at the same 

spatial resolution as the sand transport monitoring, currently ~30 mile reaches encompassing upper 

Marble Canyon (river miles 0 to 30), lower Marble Canyon (river miles 30 to 61) and Eastern 

Grand Canyon (river miles 61 to 87). 

The overall modeling approach (Table 4) is similar in many respects to that pursued by Wiele and others 

(2007) leading to the development of their RSM for sand transport. However, our approach will go beyond 

this previous effort by taking advantage of the development of more advanced modeling tools (e.g. 

Delft3D) and, most importantly, the recent availability of several new datasets, including: 

• high-resolution sand concentration and grain-size data for the boundaries of the DSM reaches, 

described above, 

• repeat topographic and multibeam bathymetric surveys of several reaches that are 3 to 5 km in 

length, 

• repeat surveys of surface grain-size for the same short reaches, and 

• detailed repeat surveys of bathymetry and velocity structure of two eddies during the March 2008 

high flow release. 

 In addition, a multibeam bathymetric survey of one entire 30-mile segment bracketed by sediment 

monitoring stations was collected in FY2009. The availability of these datasets allows for significant 

advancements in all four types of modeling approaches outlined above. The modeling project must be 

closely linked with the monitoring programs in order to facilitate these advancements. 

Table 4. Summary of modeling approach.
113

Modeling 

approach 

Time 

scale Spatial scale and resolution Brief description Primary questions addressed 

Eddy 

scale 

(ESM) 

Days to 

weeks 

Individual eddies 

or short reaches 

resolved on meter 

scale grids 

Multi-dimensional 

models of flow, 

sediment, and heat. 

Physically-based with 

relatively little 

empiricism. 

How do eddy sandbars 

evolve? 

What is the “optimal” 

high flow hydrograph 

shape (peak and 

duration)? 

Bar 

stability 

(BSM) 

Days 

2D slices of 

individual sandbar 

faces 

Slope stability 

modeling in the 

presence of rising and 

falling water stage; 

method of slices 

How do various ramping 

rates affect the stability 

of sandbars? 

Reach 

scale 

(RSM) 

Months 

to years 

Long reaches 

resolved at widely 

spaced (~0.1-1 

km) cross-sections 

One-dimensional 

models of flow, 

sediment, and heat. 

Physically-based but 

with substantial 

empiricism. 

How are tributary 

sediments transported 

through the mainstem? 

At what rate does 

downstream warming 

occur in the mainstem? 

Decadal 

scale 

(DSM) 

Years 

to 

decades 

Long reaches 

resolved at the 

resolution of the 

monitoring sites 

Sand budget 

calculations using 

shifting rating curves. 

Highly empirical with 

a minimum amount 

of physics. 

How do various dam 

operations compare with 

respect to the long-term 

sand budget? 

In addition to developing specific modeling tools, the project must also focus on the application of models 

to meet stakeholder and management needs. Integration of the modeling approaches will provide a suite of 

tools that incorporates appropriate processes over short and long time scales, thereby allowing predictions 

of water temperature dynamics, the long term sand budget, or the response of eddy morphology to 

hypothetical hydrographs, dam release temperatures, and tributary sand supply rates. This approach 

captures the importance of tributary inputs, the local storage of sediment in the mainstem that can be made 

available by higher flows for storage in eddies, the processes of exchange between the eddies and 

mainstem over short time scales, and the potential for mechanical failure of the eddy deposits. We believe 

it is the simplest scientifically defensible methodology for relating dam management and eddy 

morphology. 

Specific modeling applications must be devised in close cooperation with stakeholders of the GCDAMP. 

This cooperation requires information sharing so that 1) the stakeholders clearly understand the capabilities 

of the models, and 2) the modelers clearly understand the desired scenarios to be modeled. Below are thee 

examples of potential applications of the models, for illustrative purposes. 

Example 1: Predicting the long term sand budget for a range of dam release scenarios. A matrix has 

already been developed by GCDAMP stakeholders delineating a range of fluctuating and steady flows as 

well as a range of annual release volumes. This type of question is ideally suited for the shifting rating 

curve model, and was the motivation for development of such a model. The model can also evaluate the 

effects of a range of tributary sand supply conditions. Once up and running, it will be relatively easy to 

evaluate a wide range of flow conditions on the long term sand budget, due to the simplicity of the model 
114

formulation. Korman will refine an existing model of downstream flows based on operating constraints to 

drive the sand budget model. 

Example 2: Designing a hydrograph for a high flow event. If substantial tributary inputs occur in the future 

and a high flow event is scheduled, the suite of models can be used to evaluate various proposals for the 

hydrograph (i.e. peak, duration, ramping rates). First, the DSM and/or RSM would be run to estimate the 

distribution of new tributary sand throughout the canyon and the concentrations during the high flow. The 

ESMs and BSM would then be run for the quantification sites to evaluate the sandbar responses to the 

various hydrographs, allowing for tradeoff analysis and selection of a hydrograph. 

Example 3: Modeling in support of nearshore ecology. Over the next several years, extensive field work 

will be occurring in the reach below LCR for the study of the ecology of nearshore habitats, in particular 

their importance to native fish. The RMS and ESM temperature models can be used to interpolate and 

extrapolate estimates of water temperature in space and time throughout the study reach. Thus, high 

resolution (space and time) estimates of water temperature (as well as depth and velocity) can be developed 

and used to assist interpretation of native fish habitat use. 

FY2010 

• Development of decadal scale models: Completion of shifting rating curve model. The shifting 

rating curve model is being worked on in FY2009. Work in FY2010 is expected to consist of final 

publication and applications, discussed under Task 5, below. 

• Development of reach scale models: Testing and calibration of existing sand routing models. Work 

on this task is occurring in FY2009. Work in FY2010 is expected to include the finalization of this 

task, including recommendations for future developments of reach scale models. 

• Development of eddy scale models: Testing and calibration of eddy scale models. This work is 

commencing in FY2009 applying the model to the sites where calibration data were collected 

during the FY2008 high flow experiment. Work will continue in FY2010 with the expansion to up 

to 10 to 15 additional sites. 

• Bar stability modeling and experiments. Work on this task is occurring in FY2009 and is expected 

to be completed during FY2010. 

• Modeling applications. Work on this task in FY2010 is expected to consist of application of the 

shifting rating curve model to various dam release scenarios and the use of eddy scale models in 

designing high flow hydrographs and understanding nearshore temperature dynamics. 

FY2011 

The FY2009–10 work on decadal scale models, reach scale models, and bar stability models is expected to 

be complete by the end of FY2010. It is expected that FY2011 will include some additional work on eddy 

scale models, but with a primary focus on model integration and application. Depending on the outcome of 

the FY2009–10 evaluation of existing reach scale models, additional work on reach scale models may be 

recommended for FY2011. 

Links/Relationship to Other Projects 

Because ongoing modeling efforts are linked to the downstream IQW monitoring project, it is also 

intended to address and support elements of the physical framework of the ecosystem, which underlies 

many biological, cultural, and recreational resource objectives. As a result, the modeling efforts indirectly 

support achievement of almost all other GCDAMP goals, as described in the previous section on PHY 

7.M1.10. The ongoing activities associated with the development of simulation capabilities and verification 

of existing models can benefit from monitoring data from the downstream IQW project. These simulation 
115

models include flow routing, suspended sediment transport, sandbar evolution, and downstream thermal 

simulations throughout the main channel. Improved predictive capabilities for physical resources related to 

dam operations will be of great value as a support tool in planning future experimental treatments, as well 

as evaluating proposed management actions in the river ecosystem that generally relate to GCDAMP goal 

1, goal 2, goal 4, goal 6, goal 9, and goal 11. In addition, goal 12 is also supported by efforts to advance 

modeling activities for the ecosystem. 

Aquatic Food Web Research 

Both the downstream IQW monitoring project and its modeling support link to thermal and suspended 

sediment transport can help to support new research on the river ecosystem food web by providing 

continuous data on surface flow in the main channel and major tributaries, as well as related IQW data 

such as water temperature, specific conductivity, dissolved oxygen, suspended sediment concentrations, 

and suspended particle grain size. This project and its modeling support link can also provide simulations 

for predicting downstream boundary conditions that limit in-stream productivity. 

Fisheries Monitoring and Research 

The downstream IQW modeling activities provide support beyond IQW data by making simulations for 

physical habitat changes, such as backwaters, available to fishery scientists before future HFE tests. Such 

information can assist scientists in planning better integrated studies. 

Logistics 

This project has no logistical requirements. 

Products/Reports 

FY2010 

• The GCMRC convened modeling workshops in FY2008 and FY2009; additional workshops will 

be scheduled in FY2010 and are expected to focus on modeling results and applications 

• Testing and refinement of near shore water-temperature-modeling capabilities, including detailed 

multidimensional models of areas with available bathymetry. This work is in progress in FY2009 

and will be continued, resulting in peer reviewed publications 

• Testing and refinement of multidimensional models of eddy-sandbar environments. Work in 

progress during FY2009 includes application at sites where data were collected during the FY2008 

HFE. Work to be conducted in FY2010 will expand the application to an additional 10 to 15 sites 

• Experimentally validated bar-face stability model that managers can use to evaluate the massfailure potential of sandbar beaches under differing dam operation scenarios 

• Documentation and calibration information for existing one-dimensional sand-routing model 

• Preparation of conference abstracts and proceedings articles (more than one per year) and journal 

articles (more than one per year) 

• Presentations at GCDAMP meetings (as necessary) 

• All work conducted under the integrated modeling project will be summarized in annual reports, 

with the FY2010 report to be completed by January 1, 2011 
116

FY2011 

At the funding level included in this work plan, the modeling project transitions from a research phase to 

an applications phase in FY2011 that includes fewer new products but continued stakeholder interaction. 

• Stakeholder workshops on modeling results and applications are expected to continue through 

FY2011 

• Presentations at GCDAMP meetings (as necessary) 

• Preparation of conference abstracts, proceedings articles, and journal articles (one or more per 

year) 

• All work conducted under the integrated modeling project will be summarized in annual reports, 

with the FY2011 report to be completed by January 1, 2012 

Budget 

FY2010 

PHY 7.R2.10: $295,398 

FY2011 

PHY 7.R3.11: $138,028 
117

GCDAMP Goal 8: Maintain or attain levels of sediment 

storage within the main channel and along shorelines to 

achieve the Adaptive Management Program ecosystem 

goals. 

PHY 8.M2.10–11: Core Monitoring for the Sediment Budget and Sandbar 

Status Throughout the CRE Utilizing Direct Topographic/Bathymetric 

Measurements and Remote Sensing 

Start Date 

October 2008 

End Date 

Ongoing (FY2010 will be the second year of the project) 

Principal Investigator(s) 

Matt Kaplinski, Joseph E. Hazel, Jr., and Roderic Parnell, Northern Arizona University, Department of 

Geology; David J. Topping and Paul E. Grams, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center 

Geographic Scope

Core monitoring for the sediment budget and sandbar status throughout the CRE utilizing direct 

topographic/bathymetric measurements and remote sensing is focused on detecting long term (5-year to 

multidecadal) trends in the CRE sediment budget for both fine (sand and finer material) and coarse 

sediment. In addition, this project utilizes a combination of direct topographic measurement and remote 

sensing to monitor the status of sandbars above the stage associated with a discharge of 8,000 cubic feet 

per second (cfs). The total geographic extent of this monitoring is from GCD to the upper end of Lake 

Mead (near Separation Canyon). The airborne remote sensing component occurred in spring FY2009 and 

covered the entire geographic extent. The next overflight is expected to occur in spring FY2013. During 

FY2009, channel mapping occurred from river mile (RM) 30 to RM 61, referred to herein as lower Marble 

Canyon. For FY2010, no channel mapping or sandbar monitoring is scheduled (see below). For FY2011, 

channel mapping is planned to resume with the segment between RM 166 and RM 226. Sandbars study 

sites located throughout the CRE are monitored on alternating years; a survey is scheduled for fall FY2009 

(funded in the FY2009 work plan) with the next survey scheduled for fall FY2011. 

Project Goals 

Achieving the goal of maintaining or expanding sandbars requires a careful balance between the two 

competing effects of dam releases on fine sediment. High releases in excess of powerplant capacity are 

needed to build sandbars above the zone associated with normal dam operations. However, in the absence 
118

of tributary sediment inputs, both high flows and normal dam operations result in net export of fine 

sediment. Thus, GCMRC has recommended that high flows be conducted only during periods of relative 

fine sediment enrichment in the main channel that occur following tributary sediment inputs. The 

magnitude of tributary inputs and main channel enrichment are tracked by the goal 7 Mass Balance 

program, which provides the information needed to appropriately time high flows. Yet, the continued 

effectiveness of high flows to build sandbars also requires that total fine sediment storage is maintained or 

increased over periods spanning multiple high flows and intervening dam operations. Progressive depletion 

of fine sediment storage is likely to result in a decrease in the ability of high flows to build sandbars. 

Because uncertainties in sediment flux measurements accumulate over time, the goal 7 monitoring cannot 

be used to monitor trends in storage over these 5-year to decadal periods. The purpose of the goal 8 

monitoring is to collect the data that will demonstrate whether the net result of dam operations (including 

high flows and powerplant operations) and tributary sediment inputs is accumulation, maintenance, or 

depletion of sand storage. More specifically, the “SedTrend” monitoring is designed to determine 

magnitudes and trends in fine sediment storage throughout the CRE in the main channel and eddies for 

three major sand-storage elevation zones: 

• below the stage associated with a discharge of 8,000 cfs where over 90 percent of the fine sediment 

in the CRE is typically stored, 

• between the stages associated with discharges of 8,000 and 25,000 cfs, and 

• above the stage associated with a discharge of 25,000 cfs. 

Secondary goals of this project include tracking trends in sandbar area, volume, and distribution (in support 

of goal 9), measurements of backwater geometry and distribution (in support of goal 2), and monitoring of 

the availability of open dry sand on sandbars that can be transported by the wind upslope into archeological 

sites (in support of goal 11). 

The sediment monitoring program directly supports achievement of the following GCDAMP goals:

Goal 8: Maintain or attain levels of sediment storage within the main channel and along shorelines to 

achieve GCDAMP ecosystem goals. 

Goal 9: Maintain or improve the quality of recreational experiences for users of the Colorado River 

ecosystem within the framework of GCDAMP ecosystem goals. The monitoring provides information 

on the size and abundance of sandbars, which are resources that affect the recreational experiences of 

Colorado River users. 

Goal 11: Preserve, protect, manage, and treat cultural resources for the inspiration and benefit of past, 

present, and future generations. The program includes monitoring sandbars that provide a source of 

sediment, through aeolian transport, to high-elevation sand deposits that contain archaeological 

resources.

Because sediment monitoring addresses the physical framework of the ecosystem, which underlies many 

biological resource objectives, it also indirectly supports achievement of the following GCDAMP goals: 

Goal 1: Protect or improve the aquatic foodbase so that it will support viable populations of desired 

species at higher trophic levels. The SedTrend monitoring supports this goal by providing information 

on the size and distribution of channel substrate.

Goal 2: Maintain or attain a viable population of existing native fish, remove jeopardy for humpback 

chub and razorback sucker, and prevent adverse modification to their critical habitats. The SedTrend 

and sandbar monitoring supports this goal by providing information on sandbars which create 

backwater habitats.
119

Goal 6: Protect or improve the biotic riparian and spring communities within the Colorado River 

ecosystem, including threatened and endangered species and their critical habitat. The SedTrend and 

sandbar monitoring tracks the status of the fine sediment deposits which provides the substrate for 

riparian vegetation and marsh communities. 

Need for Project 

Completion of Glen Canyon Dam in 1963 resulted in at least a 90 percent reduction in sediment supply to 

the CRE in Grand Canyon (Topping and others, 2000). Moreover, operations of the dam tend to result in 

net export of sand and finer sediment in most years (Topping and others, 2000). In response to this 

reduction in sand supply and the alteration of the natural hydrograph by dam operations, sandbars in 

Marble Canyon and the upstream part of Grand Canyon have substantially decreased in size (Schmidt and 

others, 2004) and are still in decline under normal powerplant operations at the dam (Wright and others, 

2005). 

The primary signal for fine sediment is the change in storage volume of the fine sediment below the 8,000 

cfs water stage. While the quality of water monitoring program tracks the fluxes of fine sediment and 

enables calculation of the change in storage, the uncertainty in these estimates accumulates and restricts the 

use of that method to time scales of ~5 years or less. The essential data to detect trends in storage change 

over periods longer than ~5 years are repeat measurements of channel bathymetry that are compared to 

determine change in storage between the measurement intervals. Because of technological and logistical 

constraints, additional monitoring is required to track trends in high elevation sand storage. For this 

monitoring, the essential parameters that must be measured are area and volume of sand exposed above the 

8,000 cfs stage. 

Growing concern about the effects of the operations of GCD on the CRE led to the initiation of systematic 

measurements of sandbars in the 1970s (Dolan and others, 1974; Howard, 1975; Howard and Dolan, 

1981). This sandbar monitoring program was revisited in the 1980s (Schmidt and Graf, 1990; Beus and 

others, 1992), and eventually led to the sandbar monitoring program conducted by NAU during the 1990s 

(Hazel and others, 1999; Schmidt and others, 2004). Evaluation begun in the 1990s and finalized in the 

geomorphic synthesis of Schmidt and others (2004) indicated that the observations of change made during 

these site based programs were not necessarily representative of changes in the fine sediment resource over 

longer reaches of the Colorado River, because these programs utilized surveys of relatively small areas and 

the variability between sites was large. Moreover, the fact that substantial positive changes in sediment 

volume were observed in these site based programs during periods when no sediment entered the system 

called into question the value of sediment budgeting based on monitoring of small sites (Hazel and others, 

2006). In contrast to the large variability within the site based NAU data, analysis of cross-section data 

collected by the USGS indicated near universal scour of sediment from the CRE during the 1990s (Flynn 

and Hornewer, 2003). These observations led to the initiation in 1999 of flux based monitoring. By 2001, 

research and development activities led to the current reach based Mass Balance project that combines 

conventional sediment transport sampling with sediment surrogate techniques to provide a high resolution 

sand flux monitoring dataset used for calculating the fine sediment mass balance systemwide. 

These previous research and monitoring efforts guided the development of the current fine sediment core 

monitoring plan. Results from the 2002–05 period of the Mass Balance project demonstrated that 90 

percent or more of the fine sediment is stored in the eddies and channels at elevations lower than the 8,000 

cfs stage (Hazel and others, 2006). This study also demonstrated that change in low elevation sediment 

storage computed from repeat measurements over short (~ 15 km) reaches is not consistent with the change 

in storage computed based on the measurements of sediment transport over longer (~50 km) reaches 

(Topping and others, 2006). While the measurements of sediment transport that are made as part of the 

Mass Balance project are used to detect changes in sediment storage in long reaches over short timescales 

(up to ~ 5 years), accumulated uncertainty in these measurements will prevent the determination of longer 

term trends in sediment storage with adequate certainty. Transport monitoring is necessary to track the 

accumulation and fate of tributary inputs and provide information needed to plan high flow events. 
120

However, in order to determine whether sediment storage in the system as a whole is increasing, 

decreasing, or stable requires repeat measurements of sand storage throughout the entire system. For these 

reasons, goal 8 fine sediment monitoring includes systemwide measurements of channel and eddy sand 

storage in addition to monitoring related to high elevation sandbars, campsites, and backwaters. 

At the FY2004 AMWG priority setting workshop, questions relating specifically to sediment were 

identified within three of the top five priorities of the GCDAMP: 

GCDAMP Priority 4: What is the impact of sediment loss and what should we do about it? 

GCDAMP Priority 3: What is the best flow regime? 

GCDAMP Priority 2: Which cultural resources, including traditional cultural properties, are within 

the Area of Potential Effect, which should we treat, and how do we best protect them? What is the 

status and trends of cultural resources and what are the agents of deterioration? 

Strategic Science Questions 

Several SSQs were identified by scientists and managers during the knowledge assessment workshop 

conducted in the summer of 2005 (Melis and others, 2006). The SedTrend monitoring project provides 

valuable information to help answer several of the questions related to sediment conservation, and in 

particular the following primary sediment question: 

SSQ 4-1. Is there a “Flow Only” operation (that is, a strategy for dam releases, including managing 

tributary inputs with BHBFs, without sediment augmentation) that will rebuild and maintain sandbar 

habitats over decadal timescales? 

Information Needs Addressed 

The 2003 GCDAMP Strategic Plan identified Core Monitoring Information Needs (CMINs) related to 

sediment storage (goal 8). The CMINS that are addressed by the SedTrend and sandbar monitoring are 

listed below. For each, the prioritization ranking applied by the GCDAMP Science Planning Group (SPG) 

in 2006 is also included. 

CMIN 8.1.1. Determine and track the biennial sandbar area and fine-sediment volume and grain-size 

changes within eddies below 5,000 cfs stage, by reach. (fourth-ranked goal 8 CMIN).

CMIN 8.2.1. Track, as appropriate, the biennial or annual sandbar area, volume. and grain-size 

changes within and outside of eddies between 5,000 and 25,000 cfs stage, by reach. (second-ranked 

goal 8 CMIN). 

CMIN 8.5.1. Track, as appropriate, the biennial sandbar area, volume, and grain-size changes above 

25,000 cfs stage, by reach (fifth-ranked goal 8 CMIN). 

SedTrend monitoring also addresses this unranked goal 8 CMIN: 

CMIN 8.6.1. Track, as appropriate, changes in coarse sediment (> 2 mm) abundance and distribution.

The SedTrend and sandbar monitoring also directly address this top-ranked goal 9 CMIN priority (jointly 

with REC 9.R1.10: Sandbar and Campable Area Monitoring): 

CMIN 9.3.1. Determine and track the size, quality, and distribution of camping beaches by reach and 

stage level in Glen and Grand Canyons (top-ranked goal 9 CMIN). 
121

Developing and testing monitoring protocols for these CMINs was the primary focus of research and 

development conducted during FY1998–2006, and was reviewed during the physical sciences protocols 

evaluation program, SEDS-PEP III (Wohl and others, 2006). 

Methods and Tasks 

FY2010 and FY2011 

During the FY2010–11 period, SedTrend and sandbar monitoring will include work on all three tasks 

described below. Task 1 sandbar monitoring will be completed using protocols described by Hazel and 

others (1999); Task 3 is conducted using standard ground based surveying protocols and multibeam sonar 

bathymetric surveying protocols described in Kaplinski and others (2000, 2007). The grain size data 

collected under task 3 (recommended by the final PEP, Wohl and others, 2006) are collected and processed 

using protocols described in Rubin and others (2006, 2007) and Rubin (2004). The task 2 systemwide 

inventory of high elevation sand deposits is described in section DASA 12.D9.10 of this work plan. 

Task 1. Monitoring High-Elevation Sandbar Study Sites 

Task 1 consists of monitoring of the area and volume of fine sediment above the stage associated with 

8,000 cfs for subsets of sandbars and campsites throughout the CRE using conventional ground based 

surveying methods. This dataset is commonly referred to as the “Northern Arizona University (NAU) 

sandbar time series” and is the longest running dataset on the state of sandbars currently available (initiated 

in 1990). As an element of the goal 8 core monitoring program, it is essential that GCMRC and cooperators 

prepare a comprehensive report on the methods and data that result from this monitoring such that the 

entire data series and subsequent updates may be made publically available through the GCMRC online 

database. This reporting will be the major work product for this task in FY2010. Monitoring will resume in 

FY2011 and occur in alternating years thereafter. Previous results from this monitoring have shown steady 

declines in sandbar area and volume between high flow events (Wright and others, 2005). Thus, except 

around high flows, biennial monitoring will be sufficient to document future trends in sandbar area and 

volume. This task is conducted in coordination with goal 9 campsite monitoring, described under project 

REC 9.R1.10 and REC 9.R1.11. 

Task 2. Repeat Systemwide Inventory of High Elevation Sand Deposits 

Approximately once every 4 years (but only in years without BHBFs or HFEs), the systemwide area of fine 

sediment above the stage associated with a discharge of 8,000 cfs (that is, approximately 10 percent of the 

fine sediment in the CRE) will be monitored using orthrectified aerial photography images collected during 

overflights (the volume of fine sediment may also be monitored if light detection and ranging [LiDAR] 

sensors are deployed). These remote sensing data are used to help monitor the magnitude and trends in 

campsite area, backwater area and distribution, and the availability of open dry sand on sandbars, as well as 

for monitoring of other resource areas such as riparian vegetation. These data will also be used to help 

quantify the inputs of gravel from tributaries. These gravel inputs provide important substrate for the 

aquatic food web. The overflight consisting of 4-band images occurred in May 2009. Analysis of these 

images will occur in FY2010 and is described in the coordinated image analysis project, DASA 12.D9.10-

11. 

Task 3. Monitoring In-Channel Sediment Storage--SedTrend 

Monitoring of the area and volume of fine sediment at all elevations over long reaches is designed to occur 

each year that a high flow does not occur using multibeam bathymetric surveys, ground based topographic 

surveys, underwater video transects, and underwater camera measurements of bed grain size. This task is 

planned to be performed on a systemwide basis every 5–10 years in order to estimate fine sediment 

budgets over timescales for which the goal 7 mass balance sediment budgets likely become inconclusive 

due to accumulating measurement errors. In addition to providing this key sediment budget information 

(that is, the status of the fine sediment “bank account”), these data will provide information on the location 
122

and geometries of backwaters thought to be important habitat for native fish. Currently, it is logistically 

impossible to survey the bathymetry of the entire river in any given year. Therefore, a different reach of the 

river will be surveyed each year on a rotating basis. The reaches will correspond to the segments outlined 

in the goal 7 Mass Balance project, such that upon completion of a repeat survey for a given reach, all 

components of the sediment budget for that reach will have been measured directly. The reaches are as 

follows: reach 1, RM 0 to RM 30 (upper Marble Canyon); reach 2, RM 30 to RM 61 (lower Marble 

Canyon); reach 3, RM 61 to RM 87 (eastern Grand Canyon); reach 4, RM 87 to RM 166 (central Grand 

Canyon); reach 5, RM 166 to RM 226 (western Grand Canyon). 

These surveys are scheduled for late spring and will only be completed in years without high flows. In the 

absence of high flow experiments, each reach would be surveyed every 5 years, or, if a high flow 

experiment occurred on average every other year, then each reach would be surveyed on average every 10 

years. This 5–10 year interval between repeat bathymetric and topographic surveys coupled with the Mass 

Balance flux monitoring is expected to provide a robust quantification of long term trends in the fine 

sediment budget. Because reaches 4 and 5 are much longer than reaches 1 through 3, it is possible that 

portions of these reaches will not be surveyed. Existing data will be used to identify the portions of these 

reaches that are most likely to store fine sediment. It is also possible that continued technological 

advancements and improvements in methods will allow for complete surveys of these reaches in the future. 

The schedule for SedTrend monitoring under goal 8 is complicated by the potential for high flow 

experiments. It is advantageous for task 2 remote sensing missions and task 3 channel monitoring surveys 

to occur in years without experiments so that the monitoring data are not dominated by the effects of a 

single high flow test. Rather, remote sensing and reach survey monitoring should represent the integral 

response of the system to several years of dam operations and tributary inputs. Further, logistical 

constraints would make it difficult to conduct the remote sensing and channel mapping in addition to high 

flow monitoring. Thus, without knowing the exact frequency of experiments, it is impossible to outline the 

exact schedule for SedTrend monitoring. 

In FY2009, channel mapping data were collected in reach 2 (RM 30 to RM 61). Significant analyses of 

these data are required to ensure the data meet the needs of the planned monitoring program within 

acceptable ranges of certainty. The desired outcome of a computation of change in storage over a long 

reach requires that we have a thorough examination of error and uncertainty such that we can apply 

confidence levels to these computations. Although repeat measurements of topographic and bathymetry 

have been used routinely in the GCMRC monitoring over the past 10 years and longer, the channel 

mapping project represents a significant scaling upwards of these methods. Thus, new methods and 

analyses must be applied to these data. Because GCMRC staff and cooperators have been engaged in 

analysis and reporting related to the FY2008 high flow experiment for much of FY2009, and budgetary 

constraints limit the number of scientists that can be involved in the project, GCMRC has proposed that 

data collection be suspended for FY2010 and all resources be directed towards analysis and reporting. 

The essential analyses that will be completed in FY2010 will include uncertainty analyses, change 

detection analyses, and mass balance analyses. The uncertainty analysis is the necessary first step and will 

begin with an independent assessment of the uncertainty in the bathymetric surfaces. This uncertainty 

estimate will be integrated with existing uncertainty assessments for terrestrial topographic data and 

methods will be developed to apply the uncertainty quantification to the joint topographic-bathymetric 

surfaces. Change detection analyses will then be performed comparing the area surveyed in FY2009 with 

previous measurements made in the reach between 30-mile and 61-mile. Because the entire 30-mile reach 

has never been surveyed completely in a single episode, these comparisons will be for segments of that 

reach. The uncertainty assessment will be incorporated in the change detection analyses such that areas of 

significant change can be distinguished from insignificant change and that confidence levels can be 

provided for areas of significant change. Finally, the change detection analysis will be used to compute 

changes in sediment storage or “mass balance” where possible. These mass balance calculations will also 

incorporate the uncertainty assessment. The outcome at the conclusion of FY2010 will be a report or series 

of reports describing the methods and results of these analyses. 
123

Data collection will resume in FY2011 with the segment between RM 166 and RM 226. This segment has 

been proposed because of its location in western Grand Canyon. This reach is the most likely to have a 

positive mass balance owing to its downstream location. Thus, a positive mass balance following repeat 

mapping in this reach would indicate the possibility of a positive mass balance for upstream reaches while 

a negative mass balance would suggest that upstream reaches most likely have a negative mass balance. 

Summary Schedule of Goal 8 Tasks 

Table 5 presents two possible 10-year schedules based on different assumptions regarding high flow 

frequency for illustrative purposes. The first is the schedule in the absence of high flow experiment where 

the exact schedule can be delineated. The second schedule assumes that high flow experiments occur every 

other year, which would be the approximate frequency under previous triggers based on tributary sediment 

supply. In reality, even if the frequency were every other year on average, there would likely be periods 

with successive years of experiments and successive years without tests such that the core monitoring 

schedule for remote sensing and reach surveys must be flexible. The sequence of the channel mapping 

surveys is based on priority for long term monitoring. Reaches 2 and 5 are likely to be the best indicators 

of long term trends because they are not immediately downstream from major tributaries and are, therefore, 

likely to have smaller fluctuations in storage resulting from tributary inputs. The sequence is interrupted by 

an early resurvey of reach 2. This will allow calculation of a change in fine sediment storage for this reach 

over a time period for which the uncertainty in the goal 7 mass balance is well constrained. This will also 

provide an early demonstration of how the long term SedTrend monitoring data will be analyzed and 

presented. 

Table 5. Alternative schedules for the completion of the tasks outlined under project PHY 

8.M1.10-11. 

Year Schedule without high-flow 

experiment

With high-flow experiments every other 

year 

Task 1: 

subsample 

campsites/ 

sandbars 

Task 2: 

4-year 

overflights 

Task 3: 

SedTrend 

channel 

mapping 

Task 1: 

subsample 

campsites/ 

sandbars 

Task 2: 

4-year 

overflights 

Task 3: SedTrend 

channel mapping 

2009 X X Reach 2 X X Reach 2 

2010 (high 

flow 

experiment) 

Suspend 

data 

collectio

n 

* 

2011 X Reach 5 X Reach 5 

2012 (high 

flow 

experiment) 

Reach 2 * 

2013 X X Reach 3 X X Reach 2 

2014 (high 

flow 

experiment) 

Reach 1 * 

2015 X Reach 4 X Reach 3 

2016 (high 

flow 

experiment) 

Reach 2 * 

2017 X X Reach 5 X X Reach 1 

2018 (high 

flow Reach 3 * 
124

experiment) 

*Additional monitoring may occur as part of the HFE 

Links/Relationships to Other Projects 

SedTrend monitoring provides data (that is, maps showing the topography and distribution of sediment 

types over about 30-mile reaches of the river) that are essential to the development and testing of numerical 

predictive models of discharge, stage, sediment transport, and sandbar morphology. These predictive 

models can be used to evaluate a wide range of resource responses, such as the fate of sandbar habitats, to 

various dam release scenarios, such as HFEs, steady flows, fluctuating flows, etc. 

SedTrend monitoring provides data to be used to evaluate the effectiveness of dam operations (including 

high flow experiments) for rebuilding and maintaining sandbars in the CRE. Additionally, SedTrend 

monitoring will provide the data showing whether dam operations continue to mine the long term fine 

sediment reserve stored at elevations below the stage associated with a discharge of 8,000 cfs (more than 

90 percent of the fine sediment in the system is currently stored below this elevation). If the amount of 

sediment in this “bank account” continues to decrease, then operations will ultimately not be able to sustain 

fine sediment resources at higher elevations. 

Sandbar monitoring supports the campsite inventories conducted under goal 9 by characterizing the status 

and trends of the sandbars used as campsites (covered under project REC 9.R1.10–11: sandbar and 

campable area monitoring under goal 9). 

SedTrend and sandbar monitoring support goal 11 by characterizing the status of fine sediment at higher 

elevations in and around cultural sites, and by characterizing the amount of open dry sand available to be 

transported by the wind into these cultural sites. 

SedTrend monitoring also supports new research focused on the food web of the river ecosystem by 

providing data on the input of gravel used as a substrate by the aquatic food web (goal 1). 

SedTrend monitoring provides information on the distribution of the fine sediment deposits that form the 

substrate for the riparian ecology (goal 6). 

Finally, SedTrend and sandbar monitoring supports science activities in the fisheries program by providing 

the data to characterize the locations and geometries of backwaters thought to be important habitat for 

native fish (goal 2). 

Logistics 

This project requires no logistical support in FY2010. In FY2011, logistical support is required for one 

“channel mapping” trip in the spring (May) and one “sandbar and campsite survey” trip in the fall 

(October). The channel mapping trip is a motorized trip that requires at least three technical boats, two of 

which are dedicated sonar boats, and at least two support boats. The sandbar survey trip is a rowing trip. 

Products/Reports 

FY2010 

The SedTrend channel mapping will ultimately result in decadal timescale sediment budgets for each of the 

five channel mapping segments, providing information on the long term status of the fine sediment reserve. 

These sediment budgets will also be compared to the sediment budgets computed for these reaches under 
125

the complementary mass balance project described under goal 7. These comparisons, however, cannot be 

made until the segment mapped in FY2009 is repeated. 

• Data series report and journal article on the Northern Arizona University sandbar data, 1990-2009 

• Topographic/bathymetric maps of the RM 29 to RM 61 segment mapped during the FY2009 

SedTrend field work 

• Analysis of uncertainty in the SedTrend topographic/bathymetric maps. This analysis is necessary 

to demonstrate that maps generated over long reaches have sufficient accuracy that they can be 

used to compute changes in fine sediment storage within acceptable levels of uncertainty. This 

analysis will result in one or more peer reviewed reports and journal articles 

• Comparisons between the data collected in lower Marble Canyon in FY2009 and multibeam-sonar 

data collected in parts of lower Marble Canyon between FY2000 and FY2008 to evaluate volume 

changes in the fine sediment reserve, resulting in at least one peer reviewed report or journal article 

• Preparation of conference abstracts and/or proceedings articles 

• Presentations at GCDAMP meetings (as necessary) 

• All work conducted for the SedTrend and sandbar monitoring project will be summarized in 

annual reports, with the FY2010 report to be completed by January 1, 2011 

FY2011 

Collection of channel mapping data for the SedTrend project and sandbar monitoring will both occur in 

FY2011. These data will not be fully processed and reported until FY2012. 

• Collection of SedTrend channel mapping data for an additional one of the five channel mapping 

segments. Currently, this work is planned to occur in the segment between RM 166 and RM 225 

• Repeat surveys of the NAU sandbar study sites 

• Finalization of reports listed above for FY2010 

• Preparation of conference abstracts and/or proceedings articles 

• Presentations at GCDAMP meetings (as necessary) 

• All work conducted for the SedTrend and sandbar monitoring project will be summarized in 

annual reports, with the FY2011 report to be completed by January 1, 2012 

Budget 

FY2010 

PHY 8.M2.10: $219,668 

FY2011 

PHY 8.M2.11: $381,990 

GCDAMP Goal 9: Maintain or improve the quality of 

recreational experiences for users of the Colorado River 
126

ecosystem, within the framework of GCDAMP ecosystem 

goals. 

REC 9.R1.10–11: Campsite Area Monitoring 

Start Date 

October 1998 (This project is a continuation of a monitoring project that has been occurring annually since 

1998.) 

End Date 

Ongoing 

Principal Investigator(s) 

R. Parnell, M. Kaplinski, and J. Hazel, Northern Arizona University, Geology Department; in cooperation 

with U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center staff scientists and a 

cooperating recreation specialist (TBD). 

Geographic Scope 

Campable area monitoring for GCDAMP has historically focused on monitoring campable space at 

approximately 31 sandbars located along the main channel of the Colorado River between Lees Ferry (RM 

0) and Diamond Creek (RM 226). 

Campsites in the reach below Diamond Creek are of interest to NPS and tribal managers due to the 

increasing recreational use of the “Diamond Down” reach and the fact that persistent sandbars are now 

exposed along a flowing river reach as a result of the recent years of lower reservoir elevations and sand 

storage in Lake Mead. Therefore, additional sand bar campsites between RM 226 and the western 

boundary of the geographical scope of the GCDAMP program (approximately RM 278) may be included 

in future versions of this monitoring project (after FY2010). 

Project Goals 

The goal of this project is to track change in campable area using established monitoring protocols (repeat 

total station surveys) while alternative monitoring approaches using remotely sensed data are being 

explored and evaluated (see project REC 9.R2.10/DASA 12.D9.10): 

The specific objectives of this study include the following: 

• Measure campsite area at a series of long term monitoring sandbar sites; 

• Evaluate changes in campsite area in relation to changes in bar volume and topography; and 

• Evaluate how changes in campsite area affect other attributes that relate to camp site quality and 

visitor experience. 
127

Need for Project 

Public concern with the ongoing loss of sandbar “beaches” and recreational capacity in the Colorado River 

corridor was a key factor leading to the development of the 1995 Glen Canyon Dam Final Environmental 

Impact Statement and passage of the Grand Canyon Protection Act (GCPA) in 1992. Given that the supply 

of new sand below the dam is estimated to be about 6 percent of the pre-dam supply in Marble Canyon and 

about 16 percent of the pre-dam supply below the confluence with the LCR (RM 61–278), there is still 

uncertainty about the future fate and long term sustainability of sandbar campsites below GCD under 

proposed operational strategies intended to promote sand conservation of tributary inputs. The protection 

of visitor use values is specifically identified as a goal of GCPA. This project directly addresses one 

element of the top priority core monitoring information need (change in campsite size) for goal 9 of the 

GCDAMP Strategic Plan, and indirectly addresses aspects of campsite quality and visitor experience 

quality. This project will provide data to managers about the status and trend of campsite area throughout 

the CRE below GCD at sites that have been monitored annually since 1998. 

Strategic Science Questions 

In terms of questions that are specific to the AMP goals for recreation, this project directly addresses the 

following SSQ: 

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

visitor experience? 

Because campsite size can affect visitor experience, this project also indirectly addresses two other 

important science questions related to recreation in the CRE: 

SSQ 3-7. How do dam-controlled flows affect visitors’ recreational experiences, and what is/are the 

optimal flows for maintaining a high-quality recreational experience in the CRE? 

SSQ 3-8. What are the drivers for recreational experiences in the CRE, and how important are flows 

relative to other drivers in shaping recreational experience outcomes? 

Indirectly, this project is also relevant to resolving the primary strategic science question for sediment, in 

that it provides another measurement of sand bar habitat (in this case, human habitat): 

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 timescales? 

Information Needs Addressed 

This project directly addresses one part of the top priority CMIN for goal 9 (campsite size): 

CMIN 9.3.1. Determine and track the size, quality, and distribution of camping beaches by reach and 

stage level in Glen and Grand Canyons. (This project specifically addresses the part of the CMIN 

concerned with campsite size.) 

This project partially addresses a second campsite CMIN (9.3.2) that is closely related to the top priority 

CMIN for camping beaches (Note: The Science Planning Group of the TWG recommended that CMINs 

9.3.1 and 9.3.2 be combined as one): 
128

CMIN 9.3.2. Determine and track the effects of ROD operations on the size, quality, and distribution 

of camping beaches in the CRE. 

This monitoring project also contributes to tracking the long term effects of the FY2008 experimental flow 

on camping beaches (campable area), as defined by EIN 9.3.1: 

EIN 9.3.1. How do the size, quality, and distribution of camping beaches change in response to an 

experiment performed under the ROD, unanticipated event, or other management action? 

Methods and Tasks 

Repeat surveys of sandbars have been conducted since 1990 using trained field personnel under the joint 

direction of the GCMRC’s survey department staff and scientists from the NAU Department of Geology. 

Campable area survey protocols were subsequently established and have been applied consistently to a 

sub-set of these long term sand bar monitoring sites by the same team of NAU scientists since 1998 

(Kaplinski and others, 2005). As described in the SCORE report (Kaplinski and others, 2005, p. 196), 

campable area surveys are conducted annually in the fall, at the conclusion of the prime river recreation 

season. Survey crews from NAU Department of Geology survey the study sites using standard total station 

survey techniques (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1994). Topographic data are collected and referenced to 

Ariz. State Plane Coordinates generated through the GCMRC’s survey control network throughout the 

CRE. Data are reduced and analyzed by the NAU team in cooperation with GCMRC partners and 

presented in a variety of formats, but most typically are reported as cumulative area totals. The campable 

areas are also assessed relative to flow and stage elevations linked to dam operations. These data will be 

integrated with and analyzed in relation to sandbar measurement data (area and volume relative to stage 

elevations) that are being collected as a component of the core monitoring program for sediment (see 

project PHY 8.M2.10–11). 

Surveyors follow the criteria of Kearsley (1995) and Kearsley and Quartaroli (1997) to identify campable 

area. Campable area is defined as “a smooth substrate (preferably sand) with no more than 8 degrees of 

slope with little or no vegetation” (Kaplinski and others, 2005, p.196). Although the goal is to capture the 

total campable area at each site, camping areas located at considerable distance (>100 m) from the main 

mooring/cooking areas are generally not included in the totals. In the future, these protocols may be 

adjusted to measure all campable area with variable slope criteria within the NPS-defined campsite 

boundaries using remotely sensed data (see research project description REC 9.R2.10/DASA 12.D9.10–

11); however, until new protocols are tested and refined, the existing monitoring program will continue. 

FY2010 

We propose to focus FY2010 work primarily on compiling, analyzing, and synthesizing the campable area 

data that has been collected by NAU for the past 10+ years and analyzing it in relation to changes in sand 

bar area and topography. Specifically, in FY2010, researchers will compile all accumulated survey data 

concerning changes in campable area, analyze it on a site-by-site basis as well as in terms of cumulative 

trends data, and produce a report synthesizing the results of these analyses comprehensively. In addition, 

GCMRC will continue to support Grand Canyon River Guides with a modest amount of funding ($10K) to 

continue the collection, analysis, digitizing, and archiving of photographic records of change occurring at 

45 popular campsites. These data, which are collected by river guides on a volunteer basis and compiled, 

digitized, and analyzed by a paid staff person, provide another form of monitoring data targeted at tracking 

changes in campsite area, shoreline/mooring characteristics, and overall camp quality through time. 

FY2011 

In FY2011, upon completion of the site specific and synthetic campsite area analyses and the 

comprehensive report, GCMRC will convene a PEP to specifically review existing monitoring protocols 
129

for campsites. Upon completion of this PEP, monitoring of campsites will recommence, subject to 

revisions recommended by the PEP. The FY2011 budget anticipates that a program of tracking changes in 

campsite area that is generally similar to the one that has been in place for the past 10 years will continue 

in future years (perhaps supplemented with additional protocols designed to track other important campsite 

attributes such as campsite distribution and visitor experience quality factors.) 

Links/Relationships to Other Projects 

Sand Bar Monitoring 

This monitoring project will continue to occur in conjunction with and will be analyzed in relation to the 

data collected from NAU’s long term sandbar monitoring sites, a project that has been underway since the 

early 1990s. The campable area surveys that this project focuses on have occurred annually at a subset of 

the NAU sandbar sites since 1998. Both the NAU sandbar survey and campable area monitoring projects 

are concerned with monitoring sandbar sediment, albeit in different respects. The NAU sandbar survey 

tracks changes in total area and volume of the sandbars above the 5,000 cfs level, while the campable area 

monitoring project specifically evaluates changes in the amount of campable area available at a subset of 

these sandbar sites. In combination, these two projects provide a relatively holistic assessment of how 

flows are affecting the sandbar habitats used by recreational boaters for camping. 

Campsite Inventory and GIS Atlas 

The sites being assessed by this monitoring project constitute a relatively small and non-random (but fairly 

representative – see Schmidt and others, 2004) subset of the total number of campsites located throughout 

the river ecosystem. Data resulting from this monitoring project will be incorporated into the GIS campsite 

atlas in FY2010–11 (REC 9.R3.10-11). In addition, these data will be used to assess the quality and 

accuracy of campable area data derived from remotely sensed imagery (see project REC 9.R2.10/DASA 

12.D9.10–11.) 

Changes in High Elevation Sand Availability 

In addition to recreation resources, sandbars are closely linked with other resources of GCDAMP concern, 

such as terrestrial and aquatic habitats related to native fish rearing areas (backwaters) and cultural site 

preservation. Campable area monitoring provides information on changes in area of open sand above the 

active fluctuating flow operating zone (above 25,000 cfs stage) and indirectly provides information about 

whether sand storage in those areas is stable, increasing, or decreasing through time in response to normal 

operations or experimental high flows intended to promote conservation of new sand supplies. The 

abundance of open sand areas along shorelines also provides another indirect measurement of the 

potentially available sand for transport by wind to higher elevations where archaeological preservation 

sites are located. In the future, additional process studies at such cultural sites may be tied to sandbar 

monitoring at existing camping sites that are proximal to cultural research sites. 

Logistics 

A single oar powered river trip is currently planned for September–October 2009 that will be supported 

with FY2009 funding. In FY2010, no river trip will occur; instead, researchers will devote all of FY2010 to 

compiling, synthesizing, and reporting on the work that has been conducted for this project over the past 10 

years and integrating these results with the synthesis of results from sand bar surveys and from past 

experimental high flows (1996, 2004, and 2008.) In FY2011, field work will resume with an oar trip 

planned for late September–early October 2011. 
130

Products/Reports 

A comprehensive, synthetic, peer reviewed report documenting the change in campable area over the past 

10 years and relating these changes to other monitored changes, such as sand bar area and volume, will be 

prepared in FY2010. This report, and the data gathered as a result of this project, will be served through the 

GCMRC web site and Campsite GIS Atlas. Project findings will also be presented at the biennial GCMRC 

science symposium. 

Budget 

FY2010 

REC 9.R1.10: $78,118 

FY2011 

REC 9.R1.11: $78,082 
131

REC 9.R2.10: Evaluate Remotely Sensed Data for Monitoring Campable 

Area Change in the CRE 

Deferred in FY2010 

See Project DASA 12.D9.10 
132

REC 9.R3.10–11: Incorporate and Analyze Campsite Data in the GIS Atlas 

Start Date 

2007 

End Date 

September 30, 2011 

Principal Investigator(s) 

Helen Fairley, Sociocultural Program Manager, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center, with GCMRC staff support. 

Geographic Scope 

Entire Colorado River ecosystem (CRE), from base of Glen Canyon Dam (GCD) to Lake Mead (Mile 

277). 

Project Goals 

The goals of this project are to expand the existing GIS campsite atlas database and start using the atlas as 

a tool for analyzing and documenting changes in campsite attributes that are potentially being affected by 

dam controlled flows. These goals will be accomplished by: 

• adding recently collected campsite related data to the atlas database, 

• continuing to expand the legacy data component of the atlas, and 

• beginning the process of analyzing the currently compiled campsite data in terms of documenting 

changes in the spatial extent, geographic distribution, and associated attributes of campsites located 

throughout the CRE. 

The atlas currently contains tabular data on current campsite attributes that are important to maintaining a 

high quality recreation experience in the CRE and that have the potential to be affected by flows (e.g., 

campable area, amount of open sand area, type and amount of vegetation cover, and shoreline/mooring 

characteristics under varying flows.) The atlas also documents the locations and attributes of past 

campsites identified in previous inventories that have since disappeared due to loss of sediment and/or 

vegetation encroachment. The atlas is designed to serve as the primary electronic repository for all data 

(e.g., repeat photographs, campable area survey data, vegetation transect data, human impact data, etc.) that 

have been collected for campsites over the past few decades, and it also serves as the baseline “status” 

record for future monitoring and research projects. It defines the boundaries of current campsites in a GIS 

environment so that future evaluations that rely on remotely sensed data and statistical samples to quantify 

change in campsite attributes relative to dam operations have a common spatial basis for evaluating change 

through time. 
133

Need for Project 

Baseline inventories provide the foundation for long term monitoring programs and research studies. 

Comprehensive campsite inventories in the CRE conducted initially in 1973 were repeated in1984 

(Weeden and others, 1975; Brian and Thomas, 1984) and again in the 1990s. The last comprehensive 

campsite inventory was completed 18 years ago in 1991 (Kearsley and Warren, 1993). The 1991 inventory 

showed a dramatic decline in number and size of campsites compared with previous inventories (Kaplinski 

and others, 2005). As conditions change, additional comprehensive inventories are needed periodically to 

assess status and trends related to camp size, quality, and distribution throughout the CRE. The atlas 

provides the baseline data against which future changes can be assessed. This atlas will also serve as the 

central repository for all campsite data collected during future inventory and monitoring projects. The 

FY2005 recreation PEP identified the development of this atlas as the highest priority research need under 

management objective 9.3. In addition to assessing overall changes in campsite area and distribution, there 

is a need to understand the specific factors contributing to changes in campsite area through time. The 

work proposed in FY2010–11 will focus on causal issues by evaluating the role of vegetation in affecting 

available camping area and influencing the quality of campsites through time. 

Strategic Science Questions 

This project directly addresses the following strategic science question: 

SSQ 3-9. How do varying flows positively or negatively affect campsite attributes that are 

important to visitor experience? 

Indirectly, this project will also provide information that is relevant for addressing a second strategic 

science question about the effects of flows on the quality of recreational experience in the CRE: 

 

SSQ 3-8. What are the drivers for recreational experiences in the CRE, and how important are 

flows relative to other drivers in shaping recreational experience outcomes? 

Information Needs Addressed 

This project is designed to address management objective 9.3 and specifically, the AMP’s top priority 

CMIN for Goal 9: 

CMIN 9.3.1. Determine and track the size, quality, and distribution of camping beaches by reach 

and stage level in Glen and Grand Canyons. 

CMIN 9.3.1 is very closely related to a second CMIN under Management Objective. 9.3 

CMIN 9.3.2. Determine and track the effects of ROD operations on the size, quality, and 

distribution of camping beaches in the CRE. 

The current recreation monitoring program focuses primarily on one aspect of CMIN 9.3.1: campsite size. 

Component 3 of this project will contribute information relative to elucidating the role of vegetation 

encroachment on campsite size, but in addition, it will develop additional data relevant to tracking the other 

key relevant campsite variables, e.g., campsite distribution and quality. Through analyzing the FY2002, 

FY2005, and FY2009 post-experimental flows imagery in relation to campsites, this project will also 
134

contribute valuable information relative to interpreting the effects of experimental flows on camping sites, 

as defined by EIN 9.3.1. 

EIN 9.3.1. How do the size, quality, and distribution of camping beaches change in response to an 

experiment performed under the ROD, unanticipated event, or other management action? 

Methods and Tasks 

The work proposed in FY2010–11 will involve three primary components; 

• incorporate data from FY2008–09 campsite monitoring efforts and the FY2008–09 campsiterelated HFE studies to the GIS atlas; 

• scan additional maps, slides, and photographs and incorporate additional legacy data from past 

campsite monitoring projects into the atlas; and 

• analyze vegetation encroachment at both the NAU long term sand bar sites and at a random sample 

of campsites using multiple lines of evidence, including the campsite polygon data overlaid on 

FY2002, FY2005, and FY2009 overflight imagery and oblique photographic records from a 

sample of campsites. 

o Tabular data, survey data, supporting metadata, and photographs collected in 2008 and 2009 

will be scanned and linked to GIS/spatial data 

o Using aerial imagery collected in 2002, 2005, and 2009, we will analyze the amount of 

vegetation contained within the established polygon boundaries at the NAU sand bar sites and 

at a randomly-selected sample of sites to determine how much vegetation encroachment has 

contributed to changing campable area through time 

Links/Relationships to Other Projects 

The GIS atlas is designed to serve as the definitive source for information on prior and current campsite 

inventory data. It provides a foundation and repository for all future research and monitoring projects 

related to CRE campsites. In addition to meeting GCDAMP needs, data from this project will be used by 

the National Park Service as they develop implementation plans and resource monitoring projects tied to 

the Colorado River Management Plan. For example, in addition to documenting areas used for recreational 

camping, the GIS campsite layer documents areas of the CRE most heavily used and impacted by humans. 

This information will be useful for assessing human impacts rates on nearby cultural resources such as 

archaeological sites and TCPs. 

Logistics 

Field work required to verify or update the atlas data will be accomplished through a single oar powered 

trip in FY2010. 

Products/Reports 

An assessment of the role of vegetation in affecting campsite area will be published as a Scientific 

Investigation Report in FY2011. 
135

Budget 

FY2010 

REC 9.R3.10: $75,020 

FY2011 

REC 9.R3.11: $60,500 
136

GCDAMP Goal 10: Maintain power production capacity 

and energy generation, and increase where feasible and 

advisable, within the framework of the Adaptive 

Management ecosystem goals. 

HYD 10.M1.10–11: Monitor Power Generation and Market Values under 

Current and Future Dam Operations 

Start Date 

October 2006 

End Date 

Ongoing 

Principal Investigator(s) 

Data will be provided by Western Area Power Administration and distributed via the U.S. Geological 

Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center Website 

Geographic Scope 

Hydropower generation data and market values for the energy generated by Glen Canyon Dam 

Project Goals 

The goal of this core monitoring project is to monitor and document hourly hydropower generation and 

potential opportunity (replacement) costs under current and future flow regimes. 

Need for Project 

Power generated at GCD is marketed mostly in six western states by the Department of Energy's Western 

Area Power Administration (WAPA). WAPA’s primary mission is to sell power from Federal water 

project powerplants under statutory criteria in the Reclamation Project Act of 1939, the Flood Control Act 

of 1944, and the Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP) Act of 1956. These criteria include the following: 

• Preference in the sale of power must go to municipalities, public corporations, cooperatives, and 

other nonprofit organizations. 

• Power must be marketed at the lowest possible rates consistent with sound business practices. 

• Revenues generated from power sales must pay for power generation and all allocated investment 

costs under the original CRSP Act. 

• Projects should generate the greatest amount of power and energy that can be sold at firm power 

and energy rates, consistent with other project purposes. 
137

Tracking generation (as impacted by operations for other project purposes), power market rates, necessary 

power purchases, and Basin Fund cash flow provides the means to assess the impact of changes in GCD 

operations in relation to the four statutory criteria. 

Currently, there are no ongoing core monitoring activities related to goal 10. Although data on GCD 

hydropower generation and opportunity costs under MLFF operations are currently being gathered by 

Reclamation and WAPA as routine agency functions, these data are not readily accessible to the 

GCDAMP. The need for this information in a readily accessible format has been identified as a program 

need, and this project will help to fill this critical information gap. 

Strategic Science Questions 

Primary SSQs addressed: 

SSQ 3-3. What are the hydropower replacement costs of the modified low fluctuating flow (MLFF) 

annually 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 experimental design)? 

Information Needs Addressed 

This project responds to the core monitoring information need for goal 10, as originally articulated in the 

FY2003 version of the GCDAMP Strategic Plan, and redefined by the SPG: 

IN 10.1. Determine and track the impacts to power users from implementation of ROD dam operations 

and segregate those effects from other causes such as changes in the power market. 

CMIN 10.1.1 (as redefined by SPG). Determine and track the marketable capacity and energy 

produced through dam operations in relation to the various release scenarios (daily fluctuation limit, 

upramp and downramp limits, etc.). 

Methods and Tasks 

WAPA and Reclamation continuously schedule and monitor power generation to meet anticipated and 

real-time power demand. This information is available on an hourly time step reported daily, weekly, and 

monthly from System Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) data. 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 purchases, and the impact on Basin Fund cash flow are recorded in the WAPA Energy 

Tracking Database (ISA). This information is reported monthly and annually and is available through 

WAPA-CRSP, but not publicly published. Table 6 summarizes the metrics and frequency of data collection 

for power costs. 
138

Table 6. Metrics and frequency of data collection for power costs. 

Objective Parameters Methods Location(s) Frequency Accuracy 

and 

Precision 

Monitor 

monthly energy 

generation 

MW SCADA SCADA 

Phoenix – 

Dumped 

Energy 

Management 

System 

(ISA) 

Hourly N/A 

Monitor hourly 

power market 

price 

$/MWH WAPA 

Energy 

Tracking 

Database 

(ISA) 

WAPA – 

Montrose 

Hourly N/A 

Monitor 

monthly 

firming power 

purchases 

$ and MW 

purchased 

WAPA 

Energy 

Tracking 

Database 

(ISA) 

WAPAMontrose Monthly N/A 

Monitor 

monthly Basin 

Fund Balance 

$ WAPA 

Energy 

Tracking 

Database 

(ISA) 

WAPACRSP Monthly N/A 

Data Sources 

Energy generated: The SCADA system that measures generation at GCD is reported to a database that is 

accessible by the WAPA Phoenix, Ariz, office. Currently, those data are input into the CRSP-Montrose 

office ISA, and from ISA monthly generation is calculated by summing all the hourly values. Hourly 

generation totals are not currently reported but can be accessed by WAPA-CRSP or WAPA-Montrose. For 

the purposes of this project, hourly data will be reported. 

Hourly market prices: Market prices vary at different purchase points throughout the system. The price that 

WAPA-Montrose pays for power is pertinent to WAPA and its customers. This value is available only for 

the hours in which WAPA buys or sells power; therefore, the dataset is incomplete. If complete data is 

needed by WAPA-Montrose, they may look at the Dow Jones for a representative point of sale and record 

that data price. These data can be accessed via the Web and reported to an Excel spreadsheet if access is 

requested and granted by WAPA-Montrose. 

Basin fund balance: The financial manager for the CRSP office completes an end-of-month cash balance 

and Basin Fund balance report found on WAPA’s Web site. The reports are usually completed by the 15th 

of the following month. These data will be for the previous month’s billing on the 2 months previous 

services. 

Monthly firming purchases: These data are found in the WAPA-Montrose TDB database. Purchases made 

by WAPA for customers are reported by the 10th of the following month, broken out by customer 

(purchased from). This report is sent to WAPA and can be made available to the public via GCMRC’s 

website. 
139

Links/Relationships to Other Projects 

This project is specifically related to the current overall long-term planning needs of the GCDAMP. 

Logistics 

There are no logistical needs to this project. 

Products/Reports 

Hourly data will be collected by WAPA and made available to the GCMRC on a daily basis. These data 

will be served through the GCMRC Web site. Monthly data will be made available to the GCMRC at the 

conclusion of each month. 

Budget 

FY2010 

HYD 10.M1.10: $9,680 

FY2011 

HYD 10.M1.11: $10,890 
140

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

cultural resources for the inspiration and benefit of past, 

present, and future generations. 

CUL 11.R1.10–11: Cultural Research and Development towards Core 

Monitoring, Phase II – Implement Pilot Monitoring Project (contingent on 

being permitted to complete Phase I in Fall, 2009) 

Start Date 

October 2005 

End Date 

September 2012 

Principal Investigator(s) 

Helen Fairley, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center. Individual tasks 

are being accomplished using a combination of Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center personnel 

and various federal and academic cooperators. 

Geographic Scope 

Colorado River ecosystem as defined in the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program Strategic 

Plan 

Project Goals 

The overarching goal of this project is to develop an interrelated suite of objective, quantitative monitoring 

protocols for assessing the effects of GCD operations and the efficacy of various management actions at 

archaeological sites and other cultural resources that are valued by the American people. Monitoring 

protocols are being specifically designed to track status and trends in archaeological site condition on a 

ecosystem-wide basis and assess where, how rapidly, and in what respects cultural sites are changing under 

current (and future) dam operations. The protocols are being evaluated in terms of their suitability for 

being applied in a routine, systematic manner in the logistically challenging field setting of Grand Canyon 

National Park. The monitoring program is also being designed to: 

• generate data useful for studying effects of experimental flow and non-flow actions on cultural 

resources in the CRE; 

• provide data suitable for informing and/or building future geomorphic models, and 

• provide data useful for determining future treatment needs at archaeological sites and the most 

effective treatment methods, regardless of the ultimate cause of the deterioration. 
141

Need for Project 

Grand Canyon is one of the classic erosional landscapes of the world. Recent ggeomorphic studies (e.g., 

Lucchitta and others, 2000; Pederson and others, 2006) document a dynamic landscape that is continuously 

changing in response to tectonic forces, climatic factors, and ongoing erosion by the Colorado River. While 

some erosion of unconsolidated deposits in the Colorado River corridor and the cultural resources 

contained in them is inevitable given these dynamic environmental conditions, past studies (e.g. Hereford 

and others, 1993) indicate that erosion of the Holocene-age sediment that forms the substrate of many 

cultural sites in the CRE appears to have increased within the past few decades. Several hypotheses have 

been proposed to explain this purported increase in erosion including changes in the intensity of rainfall 

and regional precipitation patterns during the 1970s-early 1980s, the ongoing removal of sediment and lack 

of replenishment due to dam operations, and secondary effects related to increased visitation and 

cumulative impacts from recreational use of the river corridor (Herefored and others, 1993; Thompson and 

others, 2000; Fairley 2005). Regardless of what ultimately is causing observed changes in cultural resource 

condition (e.g. Leap and others,2000), the AMP is charged with tracking the status and trends of cultural 

resources in the CRE, evaluating the role that dam operations play in influencing resource condition, and 

determining how best to mitigate effects to National Park resources due to dam operations, Development of 

an accurate, reliable, and objective monitoring program to track the amount and rate of change occurring at 

cultural sites in the CRE is therefore a key need of this program. 

The National Park Service began monitoring cultural sites in the river corridor during the late 1970s and 

continues to do so to meet its statutory responsibilities as a federal land managing agency; however, past 

NPS monitoring programs were not specifically designed to objectively assess dam effects or track the 

efficacy of management actions undertaken to control erosion. In FY2000, a cultural PEP convened by 

GCMRC on behalf of the GCDAMP recommended redesigning the Park Services’ FY1999–2000 

Programmatic Agreement Monitoring Program to focus more specifically on tracking effects of dam 

operations and evaluating the efficacy of erosion control efforts (Doelle, 2000). Subsequently, the Science 

Planning Group (SPG) and Cultural Resources Ad Hoc Group (CRAHG) redefined the primary core 

monitoring need for historic properties in the CRE to be the following: track status and trends of site 

condition and integrity through monitoring rates of erosion, visitor impacts, and other variables or 

processes known to affect cultural site condition. This project is exploring and evaluating various options 

for measuring change and achieving these defined monitoring objectives. 

Strategic Science Questions 

This research and development project, and the future cultural monitoring program, is designed to address 

two primary SSQs: 

SSQ 2-1. Do dam-controlled flows affect (increase or decrease) rates of erosion, and vegetation 

growth, at archaeological sites and TCP sites in the CRE, and if so, how? 

SSQ 2-4. How effective are various treatments (e.g., check dams, vegetation management, etc.) in 

slowing rates of erosion at archaeological sites over the long term? 

Information Needs Addressed 

This project is a research and development effort aimed at addressing the highest priority CMIN for 

historic properties (as revised by the CRAHG and SPG in fall 2005), specifically, the properties known as 

archaeological sites: 
142

CMIN 11.1.1 (SPG revised). Determine the condition and integrity of prehistoric and historic sites in 

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

condition and integrity of TCPs in the CRE. 

This project also directly addresses EIN 11.1 (formerly CMIN 11.1.2 of the GCDAMP Strategic Plan 

renumbered by CRAHG/SPG as EIN 11.1): 

EIN 11.1. Determine the efficacy of treatments for mitigation of adverse effects to historic properties. 

Additionally, this project addresses an AMP research IN (formerly identified as CMIN 11.1.4 in the 2001 

GCDAMP Strategic Plan): 

• How effective is monitoring, what are the appropriate strategies to capture change at an 

archaeological site⎯qualitative, quantitative? 

Methods and Tasks 

This cultural monitoring project is part of a phased program of research and development towards 

implementation of a long term core monitoring program. The first phase of this project (Phase I) began in 

the spring of 2006 and focused on completing a comprehensive assessment of the geomorphic and 

archaeological attributes of sites to aid in the development of the long term monitoring approach. It also 

involved testing a variety of survey techniques for objectively measuring change in resource condition. 

When the project was initially conceived, Phase I was intended to continue for 2 years (FY2006–07), and 

FY2008 was intended to be the first year of a 3-year monitoring cycle employing the refined protocols 

developed during the preceding phase. However, a later than anticipated start in FY2006, coupled with the 

high flow experiment in FY2008, delayed the project schedule by approximately 8 months. Therefore, 

FY2008 became a transitional year in which we continued to build on several research and development 

activities initiated in FY2006, including: 

• continuing to gather data on several short term, small scale studies to evaluate the effectiveness, 

efficiency, and accuracy of various field measurement techniques before implementing them as 

part of a long term monitoring program (weather monitoring, LiDAR mapping, and thalweg survey 

measurements at a subset of sites); 

• compiling, analyzing, and preparing reports on all the data collected during the previous 2 years of 

field work; and 

• compiling and evaluating legacy data needed for assessing geomorphic characteristics related to 

site stability and preparing the GIS foundation for the future monitoring program. 

In spring FY2010 (assuming we are permitted to complete Phase I work in fall FY2009), we will begin to 

implement the pilot monitoring program. The scope of this project encompasses the full range of 

archaeological resources located in the area of potential affect from dam operations. The actual number of 

archaeological sites that will be included in the pilot monitoring program will be determined upon 

completion of the data analysis phase of this project (currently underway). The ultimate outcome of this 

research and development effort will be a final report recommending specific monitoring protocols. The 

program will ultimately be subject to a final review by a PEP in FY2012, with additional refinement of 

protocols (if necessary) before being implemented as the long term program. Below is the list of tasks 

proposed for implementation in FY2010–11. 
143

Continue to Monitor Topographic Change and Establish New Baseline Topographic 

Records for Future Change-detection Purposes 

In FY2010–11, we will continue to develop baseline data needed for tracking topographic change at 

archaeological sites using a combination of conventional total station mapping (or RTK GPS) for gully 

surveys and ground based high density LiDAR data for site surfaces at a sample of study sites. Ground 

based surveys will be directed by either GCMRC personnel or by cooperating scientists following methods 

employed and refined in Phase I to capture topographic and other types of surface changes using high 

density data collection methods (e.g., Yeatts, 1996; Hazel and others, 2000; Pederson and others, 2003; 

Collins and others, 2008, 2009). LiDAR data will be manually edited and filtered to produce a “bare-earth” 

terrain model without reflections from vegetation canopy. These highly accurate three-dimensional surface 

maps will be duplicated in future years using the same methodology to document the amount, rate, and 

location of erosion and deposition, vegetation encroachment, and structural deterioration occurring at sites; 

we also intend to continue to explore the utility of LiDAR for tracking changes in soil crust cover and 

artifact movement, both of which are strong indicators of site stability. GCMRC intends to work with NPS 

staff in summer 2009 to try and resolve NPS issues surrounding the use of ground based LiDAR for 

monitoring archaeological sites. 

Weather Monitoring 

In FY2007, 10 weather stations were established at 8 study sites in the CRE. The study sites include the 

same ones where gully measurements and LiDAR surveys are occurring, plus two additional sites. In 

FY2008 and continuing through FY2009, two additional stations, plus four additional sand traps were 

installed to capture data specifically related to monitoring effects of the FY2008 HFE. In FY2010–11, 

these stations will continue to collect data on precipitation amount and intensity, wind direction and 

velocity, temperature, humidity, barometric pressure, and sediment transport rates. Because of the spatially 

isolated nature of monsoon thunderstorms and the significant role that precipitation and wind play in 

downcutting and backfilling gullies, weather stations and sand traps have been distributed throughout the 

length of the river corridor, in proximity to several sites that will continue to be monitored periodically in 

future years, so that changes detected from repeat topographic mapping can be related to timing and 

duration of local or regional weather events. Equipment maintenance, data collection, and sediment sample 

processing tasks are being managed internally by GCMRC staff; data processing and analysis is being 

handled through an internal USGS sub-allocation to USGS Western Coastal Geology and Marine Division. 

Supplementary Site Condition Evaluations 

Concurrent with the topographic monitoring work, observational data will be collected on surface 

indicators of condition using a standardized recording format. These data will document a combination of 

indicators that reflect both geomorphic and human agents of change affecting site condition and integrity in 

the CRE. 

Geomorphic Legacy Data Compilation and Workshop 

In FY2010, per request of AMWG, GCMRC will work with interested stakeholders to define the scope and 

desired outcomes of a geomorphic model to help inform the AMP about the geomorphic process affecting 

cultural sites in the CRE, the predicted vulnerability of sites to future deterioration, and the likelihood for 

reducing erosion rates using check dams or other erosion control methods. Previously, in September 2007, 

an independent panel of scientists had strongly recommended that any future monitoring program should 

be structured in relation to a model that articulates current scientific understanding of the factors and 

processes affecting site condition. Other independent scientific panels have made similar recommendations 

in the past, either by recommending development of quantitative geomorphic models (geomorphology 

symposium panel, FY2005) or GIS data and maps of the Holocene deposits (cultural PEP panel, FY2000) 

to help inform the future cultural resources monitoring program. GCMRC staff concluded that a 

comprehensive assessment of existing geomorphic data was the first step needed; this work is currently 
144

(FY2009) underway through a cooperative agreement with Utah State University. While still in progress, it 

is clear from the analysis conducted to date that additional work will be needed in FY2010 to bring existing 

legacy together in a format that will be useful for developing a geomorphic model and long term 

monitoring plan. Therefore, in FY2010 we will direct a small portion of the cultural monitoring research 

and development budget towards continuing this legacy data compilation, part of which will be used to 

host one or two workshops to resolve issues related to the interpretation and integration of the various 

geomorphic legacy data sets collected from the CRE over the past 30 years and to define a general scope of 

work for a future request for proposal to design a predictive geomorphic model. 

Links/Relationships to Other Projects 

This project builds upon several past research efforts, including the previous work of Draut and Rubin 

(2005, 2006), Pederson and others (2003), and Damp and others (2007.) Specifically, it builds upon the 

work of Draut and Rubin (2005, 2006) by extending the weather monitoring record and measurements of 

Aeolian sand transport at selected locations in the CRE. It also expands information on gully erosion rates 

initiated by Utah State University (USU) in FY 2001–02 and continued in FY2006–07, and it expands on 

the geomorphic baseline dataset collected for the 151site treatment plan (Damp and others, 2007). This 

study is also closely linked to the NPS CRMP implementation effort. Monitoring protocols for assessing 

impacts of human visitation at archaeological sites are being developed independently by NPS to serve the 

monitoring needs of the CRMP. The quantitative approaches for monitoring change in archaeological site 

condition that are being developed through the current R&D project are designed to complement the 

observational monitoring protocols proposed by NPS for CRMP compliance purposes. 

Other ongoing projects that have benefited or are likely to benefit from the work being undertaken for the 

cultural monitoring research and development effort include: 

• the integrated flow, temperature, and sediment modeling project (temperature data from the 

weather stations); 

• the vegetation monitoring program (the full suite of weather data which may be useful for 

interpreting observed changes in vegetation); 

• the conceptual modeling project (data on terrestrial/geomorphic processes); and 

• the geomorphic model project proposed for FY2010–11 (specific monitoring data related to 

geomorphic processes and rates of change will be used to populate the model.) 

Opportunities for integrating the results of this research and development effort with those of the tribal 

monitoring projects will be explored after completing the initial research and development phase of this 

project. This delay in integration is necessary in order for the needs and approaches of the tribal monitoring 

programs and the Federal agencies to be articulated and the appropriate protocols identified. Integration of 

monitoring efforts, as appropriate, will occur during implementation of the pilot monitoring phase 

(FY2010−11). 

Logistics 

Two motor-supported river trips will occur during the motor season (April and September) in FY2010 and 

FY2011. 

Products/Reports 

A report synthesizing the results of the Phase I research (2006-2009) will be completed in FY10. 
145

Annual descriptive reports will be prepared by cooperators during Phase II of the pilot monitoring 

program. In addition, a synthetic peer-reviewed report summarizing the entire project will be prepared at 

the conclusion of this study. 

Budget 

FY2010 

CUL 11.R1.10: $373,577 

FY2011 

CUL 11.R1.11: $361,989 
146

GCDAMP Goal 12: Maintain a high-quality monitoring, 

research, and adaptive management program 

DASA 12.D1.10-11 Quadrennial and Resource-Specific Remote Sensing 

Overflight (Working Capital Fund) (FY2010--Ongoing) 

Start Date 

October 2007 

End Date 

Ongoing

Principal Investigator(s) 

Philip A. Davis, U.S. Geological Survey, Western Mineral Resources Science Center 

Geographic Scope 

Entire Colorado River ecosystem corridor from forebay of Glen Canyon Dam to upper Lake Mead and, for 

specific resources, site specific 

Project Goals 

Conduct aerial overflights to acquire digital imagery and topography of the CRE: mission planning, 

contract solicitation, mission execution, and ground support. 

Need for Project 

The quadrennial overflight will be conducted in FY2013. The airborne data to be collected are 

multispectral orthorectified images of the CRE. Area and volumetric analysis of these data sets are used to 

identify and classify elements of interest. Comparison of data sets acquired over time allow for change 

detection as long as the data continue to be collected. Airborne data is the basis for many of the science 

questions and research activities conducted in the Grand Canyon. Application examples include the 

following: 

• Characterization of nearshore habitat used by small fishes may lead to new directions in population 

estimates and life stage resource preference 

• Shoreline location and character at different flow regimes and the distance to cultural sites. 
147

• Document possible loss of vegetation at old high water zone 

• Geomorphic characteristics of the CRE 8,000 to 25,000 cfs at 2-m resolution may be applied to 

quantifying biomass and production estimates 

• Existence and change detection of areas of possible terrestrial organic input contributing to the 

carbon budget; riparian zone community composition; sandbar habitat including vegetation 

encroachment on camp site areas; backwaters, marshes, debris fans, cobble bars, and talus 

• Maps used for positioning GCMRC monitoring areas are a few of the applications of airborne data 

A primary fiscal objective is to reserve sufficient funding to cover mission costs during implementation. 

No salaries are funded for this project; work performed will be addressed by GIS personnel funded by the 

GIS general support project (DASA 12.D5) and the Integrated Image Analysis and Change Detection 

project (DASA 12.D9). Because of the dependent nature of remote sensing and GIS technologies, products 

described in this project will result from a combination of efforts across multiple DASA projects. 

In addition, we anticipate performing an airborne data collection that addresses more specific issues. The 

following instrument is currently being considered with its purpose and funding source identified. 

• Hyperspectral deferred in FY2010 

• $200,000 contribution to FY2013 overflight deferred in FY2011

Strategic Science Questions 

Some of the resource areas and science questions identified during the 2005 Knowledge Assessment and 

found within the GCMRC’s Strategic Science Plan and Monitoring and Research Plan (see appendix A) 

that can be addressed with airborne image data include those listed below. 

Additional SSQs addressed: 

SSQ 4-1. Is there a “Flow-Only” operation (that is, a strategy for dam releases, including managing 

tributary inputs with BHBFs, without sediment augmentation) that will restore and maintain sandbar 

habitats over decadal timescales? 

• Sandbar detection and analysis comparisons between data sets (that is, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2009, 

2013) 

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

canyon orientation and geometry, and reach morphology interact to determine mainstem and nearshore 

water temperatures throughout the CRE? 

• If funding allows, a Forward Looking Infrared instrument returns a data set that may be used to 

characterize river temperatures throughout the CRE. 

SSQ 1-7. Which tributary and mainstem habitats are most important to native fishes and how can these 

habitats best be made useable and maintained? 

• Two meter resolution shoreline geomorphic mapping may provide nearshore habitat characteristics 

linking resource preference with native fishes. 

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? 
148

• Detection and change analysis of vegetation presence and density may be linked to erosion studies. 

SSQ 2-2. How do flows impact old high-water zone terraces in the CRE (where the majority of 

archaeological sites occur), and what kinds of important information about the historical ecology and 

human history of the CRE are being lost due to ongoing erosion of the Holocene sedimentary deposits? 

• Sand detection and change analysis may provide further insight. 

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

visitor experience? 

• Sand/Vegetation and encroachment detection and change analysis are a key factor. 

Information Needs Addressed 

Numerous GCDAMP goals and resource area programs that are concerned with remote sensing analysis 

are the chief beneficiaries. 

IN 12.1. Develop information that can be used by the TWG, in collaboration with the GCMRC, to establish 

current and target levels for all resources within the GCDAMP as called for in the GCDAMP strategic 

plan. 

• Canyonwide detection and change analysis of detectable resources such as sand and vegetation 

propagate to provide information on campsite areas, cultural sites, and food base potentials in the 8 

to 25k zone. 

CMIN 4.1.6. Determine quantity and quality of spawning habitat for RBT in the Lees Ferry reach as 

measured at 5-year intervals. 

• Two meter resolution shoreline geomorphic mapping may provide nearshore habitat characteristics 

to provide quantitative estimates RBT spawning habitat. 

CMIN 6.1.1. Determine and track the abundance, composition, distribution, and area of the marsh 

community as measured at 5-year or other appropriate intervals based on life cycles of the species and rates 

of change for the community. 

• Marsh detection algorithms may be developed for tracking this resource. 

CMIN 6.4.1. Determine and track composition, abundance, and distribution of the sand beach community 

as measured at 5-year or other appropriate intervals based on life cycles of the species and rates of change 

for the community. 

• Sand detection methodologies may quantify areas where these communities exist. 

CMIN 9.3.1. Determine and track the size, quality, and distribution of camping beaches by reach and stage 

level in Glen and Grand Canyons. 

• Sand and vegetation detection / change methodologies may quantify these areas for tracking. 

RIN 6.1.1. How have the abundance, composition, distribution, and area of the marsh community changed 

since dam closure (1963), high flows (1984), interim flows (1991), and the implementation of ROD 

operations (1996)? 
149

• Marsh detection algorithms modified for legacy overflights may provide a quantitative analysis. 

RIN 8.6.1. How do ongoing inputs of coarse-sediment from tributaries influence storage of fine sediment 

within pools, runs and eddies throughout the CRE? 

• Inventory of eddies combined with sand detection may provide part of the picture. 

EIN 4.1.1. How does RBT abundance, proportional stock density, length at age, condition, spawning 

habitat, natural recruitment, whirling disease and other parasitic infections change in response to an 

experiment performed under the Record of Decision, unanticipated event, or other management action? 

• Two meter resolution geomorphic mapping may provide new insight to resource preference and 

stock assessments. 

EIN 6.1.1. How do marsh community abundance, composition, distribution, and area change in response to 

an experiment performed under the Record of Decision, unanticipated event, or other management action? 

• Marsh detection algorithms may be developed for tracking this resource. 

EIN 6.4.1. How do the abundance, composition, and distribution of the sand beach community change in 

response to an experiment performed under the Record of Decision, unanticipated event, or other 

management action? 

• Sand detection methodologies may quantify areas where these communities exist. 

EIN 9.3.1. How do the size, quality, and distribution of camping beaches change in response to an 

experiment performed under the Record of Decision, unanticipated event, or other management action? 

• Sand and vegetation detection / change methodologies may quantify these areas for tracking. 

In total, approximately one-third of the GCDAMP information needs may be directly or indirectly 

addressed through analysis and use of the systemwide digital imagery. 

Methods and Tasks 

FY2010–14 

• Project will closely coordinate with Reclamation on flows and the overall project will be 

coordinated closely with NPS, as well as NPS and DOI Aviation Officers. 

• Remote sensing instruments deployed in fixed wing aircraft or helicopters are flown over the CRE 

to produce canyonwide data sets. 

• A steady flow for a period of 6–7 days is required for full coverage of the CRE (weather conditions 

are a large factor and required extending constant flows for 10 days during the FY2009 overflight). 

A steady flow rate of 8,000 cfs is required to allow comparisons/change detection with previous 

overflight data sets. Regulation and Spinning Reserves to be picked up by other dams in the 

Colorado River Storage Project. 

• Optimally the overflight occurs as close to the summer solstice (June 21 in non-leap years) as 

possible to minimize shadowing in the optical sensor data sets. Several previous overflights have 

been conducted around the Memorial Day holiday to minimize Glen Canyon Dam revenue loss; 

and is the proposed timeframe for the FY2013 overflight. 
150

• Efforts will be focused on obtaining a contractor that can provide greatest accuracy, greatest 

number of spectral bands, and a variety of onboard imaging instruments. Delivery of orthorectified 

images is expected early in FY2014. 

• A data collection permit must be reviewed and updated through Grand Canyon National Park to 

reflect the types of remote sensing technologies that will be required to help fulfill the core 

monitoring and experimental research needs for all GCMRC programs. 

• DASA and survey support will include deploying Rim GPS Reference points during overflight. 

Links/Relationships to Other Projects 

Acquisition of systemwide digital images in this project supports addressing numerous resource questions 

within other programs, such as abundance and systemwide distribution of both aquatic and terrestrial 

habitats related to fish, vegetation, and availability and status of campsites along the CRE. The digital 

products procured by the DASA directly support a varied array of projects within GCDAMP goals 1–11, 

such as detecting shoreline habitat and changes tied to dam operations and high flow experiments. 

Additionally, these data are used in terrestrial vegetation and sandbar mapping projects for determining 

surface texture and land cover classifications within designated study reaches, as well as canyonwide over 

subsequent years following the overflights (trend analysis).

Logistics 

This will require rim support by GCMRC personnel to occupy three nearby base stations. 

Products/Reports 

FY2010 

• All data sets are proposed to be served through an instance of Environmental Systems Research 

Institute (ESRI) ArcGIS Server. 

FY2014 

• Overflight data will be documented with metadata files conforming to the Federal Geographic Data 

Committee (FGDC) standards 

o The data sets are proposed to be served through an instance of Environmental Systems 

Research Institute (ESRI) ArcGIS Server 

Budget 

FY2010 

DASA 12.D1.10: $200,000 

FY2011 

DASA 12.D1.11: $0 (Project deferred due to budget constraints) 
151

DASA 12.D2.10–11: Grand Canyon Integrated Oracle Database 

Management System 

Start Date 

2007 

End Date 

Ongoing 

Principal Investigator(s) 

Paul Alley, Database Administrator, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research 

Center 

Geographic Scope 

Entire Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center study area, from the forebay of Lake Powell to 

upper Lake Mead 

Project Goals 

The goal of the database management system at the GCMRC is to provide an organized, secure, and 

readily available electronic repository for all scientific data collected in the ongoing research and 

monitoring activities of GCMRC. The relational database management system (RDBMS) also serves as the 

electronic storage foundation of GCMRC’s GIS, providing the repository for all aerial photography, survey 

control, and geographic layers. The program is therefore a vital component of the decision support process 

and for the adaptive management of the GCD. 

Need for Project 

This project establishes the electronic repository and tools necessary to analyze and interpret scientific data 

collected by the GCMRC, thereby providing a fundamental support service to GCMRC scientific 

investigations and decision support processes. 

Strategic Science Questions 

This project provides the foundation for all projects concerned with scientific data analysis. 

Information Needs Addressed 

Provides access for analysis for all GCMRC data sets 

RIN 12.1. Develop information that can be used by the TWG, in collaboration with the GCMRC, to 

establish current and target levels for all resources within the GCDAMP as called for in the GCDAMP 

strategic plan. 
152

RIN 12.3.1. As necessary, investigate the most effective methods to integrate and synthesize resource data. 

RIN 12.5.4. What is the most effective way to distribute information to our stakeholders and the public in a 

secure and accessible fashion? 

Methods and Tasks 

Working with data stewards from each scientific program at the GCMRC, the integrated database design 

will be extended in modular fashion to accommodate both newly collected data, such as with aquatic 

foodbase monitoring, and legacy data that have yet to be imported into the RDBMS. This process involves 

extensive review of existing data sets as well as current data collection protocols, and the information 

needs of each discipline. As these information needs are fully understood by programming staff, 

applications will be written that enable users to extract related data sets from the RDBMS and perform 

appropriate analyses. Generally these applications are written with a Web or Windows Application 

interface. 

The following are core tasks that will continue during FY2010–11: 

• Electronically archive all incoming data sets in their original form 

• Error check and import newly collected data sets to the centralized RDBMS 

• Administer database, including backup, recovery, and security 

• Continue to consolidate and import legacy data to the system 

• Continue to support data acquisition, import, and analyses by disciplines such as fish and water 

sampling in the Colorado River, and survey control 

• Extend database structure to incorporate newly acquired data sets, such as aquatic foodbase and 

daily downstream water quality 

• Extend routines to automate the process of error checking and importing data sets 

• Extend Web application architecture to distribute newly collected data sets 

• Provide data analysis support for scientific monitoring and research analyses 

• Integrate tabular and spatial data sets in conjunction with DASA GIS staff 

Links/Relationships to Other Projects 

Most programs generate data sets that will be archived, served, and analyzed using DASA database 

services. The best example of the power and utility of the Oracle database is its ability to handle terabytes 

of data generated in multiple years such as those data that are associated with systemwide airborne digital 

imagery. Additionally, data stewards from all GCMRC programs utilize the DASA database management 

system to archive and serve tabular datasets through a single data management application tailored 

specifically for each project. DASA database staff assists projects with field data collection by developing 

software and other data collection strategies that help ensure observed field data is collected, organized, 

and securely archived for future analysis. 

Logistics 

There are no logistical needs for this project. 
153

Products/Reports 

Database modules and Web applications (as data become available from researchers): 

FY2010 

• Database modules and Web applications 

o Photo Databases 

 Repeat Photography 

3⁄4 Stanton 100 year time span 

3⁄4 Jack Schmitt USU Sand Bars 

 Grams Time Series Sand Bars 

 Fairley Campsite Photos 

 Kohl GCMRC Control Grid Locations 

 General Structure for additional Photo Datasets 

o Application to integrate power data, as provided by WAPA, into DASA data management 

system 

• Applications and Software: 

o Version 2 Refactor of DASA mSystem Data-Sync-Web-Server application 

o Version 2 Refactor of Mark–recapture specimen tag synchronization 

o Field-based electronic data collection system(s) for nearshore ecology 

• Annual progress report summarizing activities will be provided by December 15, 2010 

FY2011 

• Database modules and Web applications 

o Survey Control points 

o Integrated tabular/GIS data query tools 

o Integrate fish database into DASA data management system 

• Applications and Software: 

o Supplement DASA mSystem data-sync application with additional validation and error 

checking; Web delivery of downloadable metadata 

o Develop software for documenting and archiving incoming data sets/reports 

o Online interactive data visualization and analysis tools on GCMRC website 

• Annual progress report summarizing activities will be provided by December 15, 2011 
154

Budget 

FY2010 

DASA 12.D2.10: $166,858 

FY2011 

DASA 12.D2.11: $166,858 
155

DASA 12.D3.10–11: Library Operations (now includes Legacy Data 

Conversion) 

Start Date 

October 2007 

End Date 

Ongoing 

Principal Investigator(s) 

Esther Hamilton, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center 

Geographic Scope 

Entire Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center study area—forebay of Glen Canyon Dam to upper 

Lake Mead 

Project Goals 

Library operations facilitate monitoring and research by providing a centralized repository for hard copy 

information such as books, reports, maps, photography, and videos. The library converts hard copy 

materials to digital format and stores the digital files on long term optical media for preservation and for 

on-line distribution. The library maintains the on-line catalogue of library materials to facilitate 

information search and retrieval or digital reports. The library houses original and duplicate copies of all 

digital remote sensing data and selectively converts historical aerial photography to digital format in order 

to preserve and to utilize such data to extend research and monitoring back in time. 

Need for Project 

The GCMRC library acts as the physical repository for reports and data generated by GCMRC scientists as 

well as materials related to the Colorado River, Grand Canyon, and adaptive management. The digital 

conversion of historical data, not only preserves the data, but also makes it available for scientific analysis. 

Strategic Science Questions 

This project provides a research materials and remote-sensing data (recent and historical) that allow all 

programs access to data covering a large timeframe in order to address scientific issues over decadal scales 

in the past. 

Information Needs Addressed 

The library provides access to current and historical scientific findings of the GCDAMP. 

RIN 12.5.4. What is the most effective way to distribute information to our stakeholders and the public in a 

secure and accessible fashion? 
156

IN 12.1. Develop information that can be used by the TWG, in collaboration with the GCMRC, to 

establish current and target levels for all resources within the GCDAMP as called for in the GCDAMP 

strategic plan. 

CMIN 6.1.1. Determine and track the abundance, composition, distribution, and area of the marsh 

community as measured at 5-year or other appropriate intervals based on life cycles of the species and rates 

of change for the community. 

RIN 6.1.1. How have the abundance, composition, distribution, and area of the marsh community changed 

since dam closure (1963), high flows (1984), interim flows (1991), and the implementation of Record of 

Decision operations (1996)? 

RIN 6.4.1. How have the abundance, composition, and distribution of the sand beach community changed 

since dam closure (1963), high flows (1984), interim flows (1991), and the implementation of Record of 

Decision operations (1996)? 

EIN 6.1.1. How do marsh community abundance, composition, distribution, and area change in response to 

an experiment performed under the Record of Decision, unanticipated event, or other management action? 

Methods and Tasks 

The library catalogs all new materials that come from staff scientists, contractors, and cooperators as well 

as items related to Grand Canyon, the Colorado River, and adaptive management. Library staff provides 

support to cooperators, contractors, and staff scientists by researching and obtaining current and legacy 

articles and reports related to science projects. 

Library operations facilitate monitoring and research by providing a centralized repository for hard copy 

information such as books, reports, maps, photography, and videos, which will someday be completely 

digital. The following are specific functions of the library: 

• Scanning and converting paper reports into digital PDF files, making the documents searchable by 

using optical character recognition software (depending on quality of hardcopy and as time 

allows), and then posting the files in the library database on the GCMRC Web site 

• Scanning relevant analog aerial film and photos using the Vexcel Ultrascan 5000, allowing the 

digital images to be used for 2-D and 3-D analyses, such detection of changes in area, height, 

volume, and surface material, as well as investigations of cause-effect relations. 

• Digitizing flight line maps to provide a searchable mechanism to locate individual scanned aerial 

photos 

• Converting VHS tapes to DVDs 

• Scanning legacy slides to create digital images using the Nikon SuperCoolScan scanner 

Links/Relationships to Other Projects 

This project supports all other projects. 
157

Logistics 

There are no logistical needs for this project. 

Products/Reports 

FY2010 

• Up-to-date on-line library catalog, which provides access to more than 8,000 publications. 

• Catalog records of all materials (continually updated). 

• Assistance to cooperators, stakeholders, media contacts, and the public by providing access to 

reports, aerial photos, maps, slides, and photos in hard-copy and digital form. 

• Research in locating contemporary and legacy materials. 

• A research facility for researchers, GCMRC employees, cooperators, and the public. 

• Access to 17,652 aerial photographs, 9,000 digital aerial images, 8,000 hard-copy reports, 8,000 

photos and slides, and 700 videos in broadcast and VHS format. In addition, once the library 

scanning project is complete, this information will be available in digital format from the library 

via digital media such as DVD and online via the Web. 

• Scientific appraisal of all available historical data in order to prioritize the scanning process and to 

obtain a firm understanding of the schedule required to complete digital conversions based on 

established priorities. 

• As these conversion products are produced, they are cataloged and made available. 

• Annual progress report summarizing major results will be provided by December 15, 2010. 

FY2011 

• Same as FY2010 

• Annual progress report summarizing major results will be provided by December 15, 2011. 

Budget 

FY2010 

DASA 12.D3.10: $80,263

FY2011 

DASA 12.D3.11: $78,709
158

DASA 12.D5.10–11: GIS General Support for Integrated Analyses and 

Projects, GIS Lead 

Start Date 

2007 

End Date 

Ongoing 

Principal Investigator(s) 

Thomas Gushue, GIS Coordinator, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research 

Center

Geographic Scope 

Entire Colorado River ecosystem corridor between Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Mead, and the greater 

Colorado River Basin 

Project Goals 

Advanced spatial analysis in support of GCMRC projects; Creation of specialized maps and intuitive data 

retrieval specific to individual project needs; consultation and instruction related to GIS operation and 

spatial data analysis for GCMRC staff; management and dissemination of spatial data. 

Need for Project 

The role of GIS has grown within GCMRC over the past few years, providing for extended applications 

across all resource programs and allowing for advanced spatial data analysis in support of on-going 

GCMRC projects. The demand for spatial analysis and customized GIS applications continues to increase 

ever year as the technology matures and becomes integrated with strategic science efforts. The GIS 

program is inherently service oriented, providing spatial database development and programming and 

analysis support to the science programs and their cooperators on both a planned and an as-needed basis. 

Given this increased demand, the GIS program must also expand to provide a consistent level of expertise 

and support to specific projects. 

To continue functioning in this capacity it is imperative to factor in designated blocks of time to maintain 

and in some cases improve the level of GIS support. GIS general support benefits core-monitoring, 

experimental programs, and research and development projects alike in the form of GIS and remotesensing software installation, maintenance and support, creation and maintenance of spatial databases used 

by science projects, and the development of mapping and analysis tools for use by GCMRC staff and 

cooperators across all resource programs. A need also exists for more advanced support directed at 

specific GIS application development and analysis of available spatial data. This higher level of support is 

often achieved through automation of data processing and manipulation procedures to standardize and 

streamline repetitive tasks as well as provide a basis for standard operating procedures. 
159

DASA projects: DASA 12.D1.10–11: Quadrennial and Resource-Specific Remote Sensing Overflight and 

DASA 12.D9.10–11: Integrated Image Analysis and Change Detection are dependent on efforts funded 

through this project. 

Strategic Science Questions 

The spatial aspects of Grand Canyon investigations are addressed in this project.

Information Needs Addressed 

IN 12.1. Develop information that can be used by the TWG, in collaboration with the GCMRC, to 

establish current and target levels for all resources within the GCDAMP as called for in the GCDAMP 

strategic plan. 

RIN 12.3.1. As necessary, investigate the most effective methods to integrate and synthesize resource data. 

RIN 12.5.4. What is the most effective way to distribute information to our stakeholders and the public in a 

secure and accessible fashion? 

Methods and Tasks 

The collection of spatial data is achieved through a variety of methods that include, but are not limited to, 

remote sensing data collection missions, traditional survey and global positioning system (GPS) operations, 

field mapping using hard copy map or pen tablet computers, onscreen digitizing using previously collected 

remote sensing data as source information, and through other standard data entry methods. Spatial data are 

generally stored in one of the standard ESRI file types (shape file, coverage, geodatabase) as well as in 

ASCII format. Methods used for spatial data processing and analysis will vary depending on the questions 

that need to be answered. 

Links/Relationships to Other Projects 

Most GCMRC projects have a spatial component tied to the data being collected in support of the science 

questions developed for each project. The GIS provides a stable platform upon which all data collected 

along the CRE are catalogued within a consistent spatial reference system and maintained in consistent file 

formats with appropriate metadata. At the most basic level, this allows for the overlaying and querying of 

data sets collected from any and all projects within the GCMRC. Utilization of these technologies goes 

beyond this creating a platform for conducting fully integrated spatial analysis in support of scientific 

research. 

Logistics 

There are no logistical needs for this project. 

Products/Reports 

As a result of GIS support, a wide range of products will be produced: 
160

• Maps for publications; generation 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 

• Advanced spatial analysis for monitoring projects 

• Annual progress report summarizing major results will be provided by December 15, 2010 and 

2011 

Budget 

FY2010 

DASA 12.D5.10: $351,882 

FY2011 

DASA 12.D5.11: $366,171 
161

DASA 12.D8.10–11: Biometrics and General Analysis 

Start Date 

2010 

End Date 

Ongoing 

Principal Investigators 

L.G. Coggins, Jr., U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center 

Geographic Scope 

Associated projects within the CRE

Project Goals 

The primary goal of the GCMRC Biometrics position is to provide necessary and relevant statistical and 

modeling support in planning and analyzing science projects conducted or supported by GCMRC and the 

AMP. Additionally, the GCMRC biometrician will conduct focused research in areas such as model 

development and analytical techniques to further the science capability of the GCMRC. 

Need for Project 

GCMRC has identified the need for greater technical oversight and rigor with regard to study planning and 

analysis of some AMP sponsored projects. This need includes both projects conducted primarily by 

GCMRC staff and cooperating scientists. To meet this need GCMRC will employ a staff biometrician 

whose role will be to provide analysis and modeling support for AMP sponsored projects, particularly in 

the biological discipline. As needed, this support will focus primarily in assisting in the development and 

review of research and study plans as well as data analysis and modeling. Additionally, GCMRC 

recognizes the need to provide additional training opportunities in analytical techniques for GCMRC staff 

and cooperating scientists. The biometrician position will support this need by conducting workshops (4-5 

days) on topics relevant to current statistical and modeling challenges faced by GCMRC staff and 

cooperating scientists. Recently identified topics include: basic probability models and likelihood based 

inference, occupancy rate estimation, capture-recapture models, hierarchical Bayes modeling, simulation 

techniques to inform study design, and ecosystem modeling using Ecopath/Ecosim models. 

Strategic Science Questions 

This project is a primary support project that provides study design and data analysis guidance to the 

projects, so provides secondary support to a number of SSQs. The role of the biometrician is to support 

GCMRC and cooperating scientists in developing greater certainty about their study designs and results, so 

it is anticipated that many SSQs will be addressed in this and future years. For example, the primary SSQs 

this project will support is: 
162

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

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

juvenile stages in the main stem, or by changes in growth and maturation in the adult population as 

influenced by main stem conditions? 

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

nonnatives in Marble and eastern Grand Canyons result in an improvement in the recruitment rate 

of juvenile HBC to the adult population? 

Information Needs Addressed 

This project is a primary support project that provides study design and data analysis guidance to the 

projects, so provides secondary support to a number of information needs. As an example of the RINs most 

directly addressed by this project, in FY2010 task 1 below will support modeling to investigate patterns in 

native and nonnative fish population abundance and distribution allowing for comparison with various 

environmental factors. Other RINs about fish responses to environmental conditions that can be partially 

addressed with this modeling effort include the following:

RIN 2.2.8. What combination of dam release patterns and nonnative fish control facilitates 

successful spawning and recruitment of humpback chub in the Colorado River ecosystem? 

RIN 2.4.2. Determine if suppression of nonnative predators and competitors increases native fish 

populations. 

Methods and Tasks 

Anticipated tasks for this project during FY2010 include: 

• Assist in the development of Ecopath/Ecosim models for key reaches of the Colorado River 

associated with project PLAN 12.P1.10. 

• Assist GCMRC fisheries biologist, cooperating scientists, and the biology program manager in 

evaluating implications to the ability to detect changes in fisheries resources associated with 

recommended changes to the fisheries monitoring program by the 2009 Fisheries Monitoring 

Protocol Evaluation Panel. 

• Assist Arizona Game and Fish Department cooperating scientists in analyzing fisheries mechanical 

removal data from project BIO 2.R17.10 using hierarchical Bayes depletion models. 

• Assist in study planning and analysis of PIT tag data collected from project BIO 2.R13.10. 

• Assist with study design and analysis of fish capture-recapture data from the Nearshore Ecology 

Project (BIO 2.R15.10) to estimate fish abundance and occupancy rate among various habitat 

types. 

• Assist with analysis of terrestrial, aquatic foodbase, or other data from AMP sponsored projects as 

needed. 

• Conduct two or three approximately 5-day workshops on the following or related topics: basic 

probability models and likelihood-based inference, occupancy-rate estimation, capture-recapture 

models, hierarchical Bayes modeling, simulation techniques to inform study design, and ecosystem 

modeling using Ecopath/Ecosim models. 
163

Anticipated tasks for this project during FY2011 include:

• Assist in the development of Ecopath/Ecosim models for key reaches of the Colorado River 

associated with project PLAN 12.P1.11. 

• Assist Arizona Game and Fish Department cooperating scientists in analyzing fisheries mechanical 

removal data from project BIO 2.R17.10 using hierarchical Bayes depletion models. 

• Assist in study planning and analysis of PIT tag data collected from project BIO 2.R13.10. 

• Assist with study design and analysis of fish capture-recapture data from the Nearshore Ecology 

Project (BIO 2.R15.11) to estimate fish abundance and occupancy rate among various habitat 

types. 

• Assist with analysis of terrestrial, foodbase, or other data from AMP sponsored projects as needed. 

• Conduct two or three approximately 5 day workshops on the following or related topics: basic 

probability models and likelihood-based inference, occupancy-rate estimation, capture-recapture 

models, hierarchical Bayes modeling, simulation techniques to inform study design, and ecosystem 

modeling using Ecopath/Ecosim models. 

Links/Relationships to Other Projects 

This project is primarily a support project to the projects listed above. 

Logistics 

There are no logistical needs for this project. 

Products/Reports 

This project will contribute to and co-author, as appropriate, reports and manuscripts associated with the 

tasks above and other projects associated with Goals 1, 2, 4, and others as needed. 

Budget 

FY2010 

DASA 12.D8.10: $165,841 

FY2011

DASA 12.D8.11: $165,840 
164

DASA 12.D9.10–11: Integrated Image Analysis and Change Detection 

Start Date 

October 2009 

End Date 

Ongoing 

Principal Investigator(s) 

Philip A. Davis, U.S. Geological Survey, Western Mineral Resources Science Center, Glenn Bennett, Paul 

Grams, Barbara Ralston, and Helen Fairley, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center 

Geographic Scope 

Colorado River ecosystem corridor between the forebay of Glen Canyon Dam and upper Lake Mead 

Project Goals 

The purpose of this project is to provide coordinated, comprehensive analyses of the remotely sensed data 

that were acquired in May 2009 to address a diverse set of monitoring and research questions. The primary 

datasets that will be analyzed consist of the 4-band digital images and a digital surface model (DSM) of 

elevation of the river corridor between Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Mead. The primary objectives of the 

analyses are to: 

• produce a systemwide land cover map that depicts bare sand (and sandbars), cobble bars, debris 

fans, bedrock, cliff, and gross vegetation above the 8,000 cfs (the flow stage at which the data were 

acquired); these data depict shoreline habitats; 

• produce a vegetation map up to the old high water zone at the community classification level or 

better; 

• determine if the photogrammetric DSM provides a sufficient accuracy to examine volumetric 

change in the sandbars and, if so, determine those volumetric changes; and 

• determine if changes in vegetation have affected established campsites. 

All four of these objectives will include a temporal analysis of changes observed from such databases 

derived from similar airborne data acquired during FY2002, FY2005, and FY2009. 

Additional project components consider other remotely sensed databases previously collected as aerial 

photographs or planned for collection as digital imagery or topography in FY2010. These components 

include: 

• photogrammetric analyses of historical aerial photography – Deferred in FY2010 

• detailed analyses of hyperspectral imagery – Deferred in FY2010 
165

• evaluation of DSM and image data from FY2002, FY2005, and FY2009 as a remote sensing 

surrogate for ground surveys to determine and monitor campable area on a systemwide basis and to 

determine the effects of vegetation encroachment on campable area; 

• analysis of historical aerial photography to determine pre- and post-dam erosion near selected 

archaeological sites; and 

• analysis of historical aerial color-infrared photography to classify the vegetation within selected 

areas during allowable periods in order to extend temporal vegetation change analyses to be 

extended back in time. 

Each project component is described with additional detail below. 

Need for Project 

Remotely sensed data are essential to provide a robust tracking of the status of certain physical, biological, 

and cultural attributes of the CRE. Ground based monitoring provides detailed observations but is limited 

by the number of study sites, resulting in under sampling and poor ability to infer systemwide trends. 

Monitoring vegetation 

To support analysis of the impacts of dam operations, climate, and meteorology on riparian vegetation, 

airborne image data collected in FY2009 will be used to update the vegetation map published in 2008 

(Ralston and others, 2008) that was produced using FY2002 airborne image data. This analysis will 

address questions such as: What is the total gain or loss of riparian vegetation in the new and old high 

water zones relative to FY2002, FY2005, and FY2009? How are the gains or losses in vegetation 

represented among the vegetation classes within each hydrologic zone? What are the limitations of 4-band 

imagery on riparian vegetation monitoring? Can hyperspectral imagery provide vegetation classification at 

the community level, provide species compositions of classes, correctly classify woody and senescent 

vegetation as to their species, and map crytogamic soil? 

Monitoring sediment, sand bars, and shoreline habitats 

To support the analysis of impacts of dam operations, climate, and meteorology on the stability of sand 

deposits, especially different sediment deposits that provide wildlife habitats, airborne image and DSM 

data and historical aerial photographic imagery and derived topographic data will be used to evaluate 

cause-effect relations and to determine various protocols for mitigation of adverse effects, where possible. 

Monitoring campable beaches 

 To support the analysis of impacts of dam operations, climate, and meteorology on campable beaches 

systemwide, airborne image and DSM data will be used to evaluate campsite quality (determined by 

surface area and slope), as well as the factors that have affected quality, such as vegetation encroachment, 

surface water and wind erosion of sand, dissection by erosional processes, etc. 

Monitoring archaeological sites 

To support the analysis of impacts of dam operations, climate, meteorology, and visitors on selected 

archaeological sites, high resolution airborne photography and photogrammetric derived from these 

imagery will be used to examine erosion rates and surface modifications within the pre-dam and post-dam 

eras. High resolution LiDAR topography and imagery will be analyzed in order to monitor present day 

surface changes, causal processes, and mitigation efforts. 
166

Strategic Science Questions 

Primary SSQs addressed for vegetation: 

SSQ 2-1. Do dam-controlled flows affect (increase or decrease) rates of erosion and vegetation growth 

at archaeological sites and TCP sites, and if so, how? 

SSQ 4-2. How important are backwaters and vegetated shoreline habitats to the overall growth and 

survival of young-of-year (YoY) and juvenile native fish? Does the long-term benefit of increasing 

these habitats outweigh short-term potential costs (displacement and possible mortality of young 

humpback chub) associated with high flows? 

SSQ 5-7. How do warmer releases affect viability and productivity of native/nonnative vegetation? 

GCDAMP goal 6 is directed at the protection or improvement of riparian and spring communities. This 

goal is based on the recognition that the riparian and spring environments are hosts for some endangered 

species like the Southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus). The protection of these 

species’ critical habitats is part of this goal. Riparian plant communities can be viewed at either a single 

resource level without ecosystem linkages, or at an integrative level where riparian vegetation is linked to 

aquatic and terrestrial ecosystem processes (for example, when it contributes to secondary production and 

cover). Riparian plant communities interact with cultural resources associated with recreation (for example, 

camping sites) and TCPs, or affects aeolian sand transport and possibly archaeological site erosion rates. 

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

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

Primary SSQs addressed for sand-bar and backwater habitats: 

SSQ 3.1. Is there a “Flow-Only” operation (that is, a strategy for dam releases, including managing 

tributary inputs with HFEs, without sediment augmentation) that will restore and maintain sandbar habitats 

over decadal timescales? 

SSQ 4.2. How important are backwaters and vegetated shoreline habitats to the overall growth and survival 

of YoY and juvenile native fish? Does the long-term benefit of increasing these habitats outweigh shortterm potential costs (displacement and possibly mortality of young humpback chub) associated with high 

flows? 

Primary SSQs addressed for campable beaches: 

In terms of questions that are specific to the AMP goals for recreation, this project directly addresses the 

following SSQ: 

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

visitor experience? 

Because campsite size can affect visitor experience, this project also indirectly addresses two other 

important science questions related to recreation in the CRE: 

SSQ 3-7. How do dam-controlled flows affect visitors’ recreational experiences, and what is/are the 

optimal flows for maintaining a high-quality recreational experience in the CRE? 

SSQ 3-8. What are the drivers for recreational experiences in the CRE, and how important are flows 

relative to other drivers in shaping recreational experience outcomes? 
167

Primary SSQs addressed for archaeological sites: 

This research and development project, and the future cultural monitoring program, is designed to 

addresses two primary SSQs: 

SSQ 2-1. Do dam-controlled flows affect (increase or decrease) rates of erosion, and vegetation 

growth, at archaeological sites and TCP sites in the CRE, and if so, how? 

SSQ 2-4. How effective are various treatments (e.g., check dams, vegetation management, etc.) in 

slowing rates of erosion at archaeological sites over the long term? 

Other science questions: 

• What is the rate of change in eddy storage (erosion) during time intervals between high-flow tests? 

• What are the most appropriate methods for detecting change in shoreline habitat along the entire 

CRE, given the available datasets collected using different technologies (scanned analog vs. 

digital), different platforms (Leica ADS-40/ISTAR vs. DMC/3001, Inc.), and different image 

resolutions (30 cm, 22 cm, or 18 cm)? What is the most appropriate scale/minimum mapping unit 

to map the shoreline habitat for all years in order to support related science questions? 

• What level of change can be detected in shoreline habitat using remotely sensed data collected in 

the past 5 years? What changes have occurred to the shoreline habitat across the CRE in the past 5 

years? 

• Where have the most significant changes taken place in shoreline habitat along the CRE in the past 

5 years, and within which shoreline habitat classes are the most noticeable changes seen? How 

does the shoreline habitat relate to backwater environments/habitats? What have changes in 

backwater abundance/size/shape occurred over the past 5 years? 

• As historical analog overflights become available in digital format, can the timeline be extended 

back to previous years? 

A time-series comparison of shoreline characteristics may prove quite useful for the following SSQ:

SSQ 1-7. Which tributary and mainstem habitats are most important to native fishes and how can these 

habitats best be made useable and maintained? 

Information Needs Addressed 

Primary information needs addressed for riparian vegetation: 

The primary information needs for riparian vegetation addressed by tasks within this project are CMINs 

6.1.1., 6.2.1, 6.5.1, and 6.6.1, which are summarized as the following: 

• Determine and track the abundance, composition, distribution, and area of terrestrial native and 

nonnative vegetation species in the CRE. 

• Determine parameters and metrics to be measured, and the information needs that address each 

element. 

• Determine how the abundance, composition, and distribution of the OHWZ, NHWZ, and sand 

beach community have changed since dam closure (1963), high flows (1984), interim flows 

(1991), and the implementation of ROD operations (RIN 6.2.1, 6.3.1, 6.4.1, 6.5.1, 6.5.2, 6.5.3). 
168

These information needs will be addressed through the following actions: 

• Semidecadal color infrared digital imagery mapping that quantifies (1) area change of dominant 

overstory species, (2) community composition and possibly changes in understory community 

composition through groundtruthing associated with mapping, and (3) coarse primary productivity 

estimates for riparian vegetation. 

Vegetation transects/grid surveys conducted at an appropriate frequency that correlate with river stage 

elevations of 15,000, 25,000, 35,000, 45,000, and 60,000 cubic feet per second. Quantifies cover, richness 

and diversity, and wetland species scores at each stage elevation. This work is most informative for 

herbaceous annuals and perennials, including invasive species. This component may incorporate marshmonitoring needs of tribes. 

Primary information needs addressed for sand-bar and backwater habitats: 

IN 12.1. Develop information that can be used by the TWG, in collaboration with the GCMRC, to 

establish current and target levels for all resources within the GCDAMP as called for in the GCDAMP 

strategic plan. 

CMIN 2.1.2 Determine and track recruitment (identify life stage), abundance and distribution of HBC in 

the LCR 

CMIN 2.6.1 Determine and track the abundance and distribution of flannelmouth sucker, bluehead sucker, 

and speckled dace populations in the Colorado River ecosystem. 

CMIN 8.2.1. Track, as appropriate, the biennial sandbar area, volume, and grain-size changes outside of 

eddies between 5,000 and 25,000 cfs stage, by reach. 

CMIN 8.4.1. Track, as appropriate, the biennial or annual sandbar area, volume, and grain-size changes 

within eddies between 5,000 and 25,000 cfs stage, by reach. 

EIN 6.4.1. How does the abundance, composition, and distribution of the sand beach community change in 

response to an experiment performed under the Record of Decision, unanticipated event, or other 

management action? 

Primary information needs addressed for campable beaches: 

This project directly addresses one part of the top priority CMIN for goal 9 (campsite size): 

• CMIN 9.3.1. Determine and track the size, quality, and distribution of camping beaches by reach 

and stage level in Glen and Grand Canyons. (This project specifically addresses the part of the 

CMIN concerned with campsite size.) 

This project partially addresses a second campsite CMIN (9.3.2) that is closely related to the top-priority 

CMIN for camping beaches (Note: The Science Planning Group of the TWG recommended that CMINs 

9.3.1 and 9.3.2 be combined as one): 

• CMIN 9.3.2. Determine and track the effects of ROD operations on the size, quality, and 

distribution of camping beaches in the CRE. 

This monitoring project also contributes to tracking the long term effects of the FY2008 experimental flow 

on camping beaches (campable area), as defined by EIN 9.3.1: 
169

• EIN 9.3.1. How do the size, quality, and distribution of camping beaches change in response to an 

experiment performed under the ROD, unanticipated event, or other management action? 

Primary information needs addressed for archaeological sites: 

This project is a research and development effort aimed at addressing the highest priority CMIN for 

historic properties (as revised by the CRAHG and SPG in fall 2005), specifically, the properties known as 

archaeological sites: 

• CMIN 11.1.1 (SPG revised). Determine the condition and integrity of prehistoric and historic sites 

in the CRE through tracking rates of erosion, visitor impacts, and other relevant variables. 

Determine the condition and integrity of TCPs in the CRE. 

This project also directly addresses EIN 11.1 (formerly CMIN 11.1.2 of the GCDAMP Strategic Plan 

renumbered by CRAHG/SPG as EIN 11.1): 

• EIN 11.1. Determine the efficacy of treatments for mitigation of adverse effects to historic 

properties. 

This project also addresses an AMP research IN (no number) (formerly identified as CMIN 11.1.4 in the 

GCDAMP Strategic Plan): 

• How effective is monitoring, what are the appropriate strategies to capture change at an 

archaeological site⎯qualitative, quantitative?

Methods and Tasks

FY2010 

Monitoring system-wide trends in subaerial sandbar area (Lead Scientist – P. Grams) 

Annual or biennial monitoring of approximately 45 sandbars (PHY 8.M2.10–11) provides monitoring 

information on the area and volume of sand for these long term study sites, many of which are also 

important recreation sites. The ground based monitoring does not, however, adequately sample the over 

2,000 sandbars that have been identified by analysis of the FY2002 and FY2005 overflight images. This 

project will analyze the FY2009 overflight images to provide long term monitoring of exposed sand above 

the 8,000 cfs stage throughout the CRE. This project will also provide an updated shoreline habitat 

classification based on the 2009 images. The updated shoreline habitat classification will be used by the 

nearshore ecology project to assist in associating fish capture data with physical habitat characteristics. 

The images will first be analyzed to classify the extent of sand and vegetation (discussed below) using 

methods developed to classify the FY2002 and FY2005 images. The sand classification uses image 

processing algorithms that rely on roughness and brightness characteristics to distinguish sand from other 

surface material (Gushue and others, in press). Following these automated routines, sand areas are 

manually inspected for error and consistency. More stable features such as bedrock, talus, and debris fans 

will not be reclassified but will be inspected. The updated shoreline habitat classification will require 

updating the modeled shorelines for a range of discharges. This will be accomplished using existing 

modeled water-surface elevations (Magirl and others, 2008) and the May 2009 digital elevation model that 

will be provided by the contractors responsible for the collection and processing of the FY2009 overflight 

data. 

This project will result in: 
170

• digital surficial geologic maps showing areas of sand and other map units, 

• updated “virtual” shorelines based on the May 2009 digital elevation model, 

• updated shoreline habitat classification for a range of discharges, and 

• a peer reviewed report or journal article describing the results. 

Monitoring system-wide trends in vegetation (Lead Scientist – B. Ralston) 

This task will use the FY2009 airborne imagery to classify all vegetation up to the old-high-water flow 

stage to at least the association level. This classification will use the 4-band reflectance data and vegetation 

texture (derived from a statistical analysis of the near-infrared band imagery) and the same classification 

methods established for and performed on the FY2002 image data. The FY2009 image data should be 

better than previous imagery, thus improved (more detailed) vegetation compositional data may be derived 

from this analysis. This analysis may be completed in FY2010. When completed, the biological program 

will perform change detection analyses within FY2011, which should provide insights into systemwide 

vegetation changes at the association level. The FY2009 vegetation map database will be published as a 

USGS Digital Data Series. 

Analysis of historical aerial photographs to determine 1984 sandbar topography (Lead Scientist – P. Grams) 

 Deferred in FY2010 

Evaluation of airborne DSM and imagery data as a surrogate for ground-based surveys to calculate 

campable area on a system-wide basis (Lead Scientist – H. Fairley) 

Campable area is defined as an open, smooth substrate measuring at least 1x2 m with a slope of less than 8 

degrees. Changes in campable area in the CRE are currently being monitored as part of the NAU long term 

sand bar monitoring project. However, this sampling is limited in scope due to logistical issues. This task 

will explore the feasibility of using the systemwide airborne DSM data, in combination with its imagery, to 

define campable area throughout the entire CRE, in lieu of or in addition to repeat ground surveys. The 

initial analysis will be conducted between river miles 30 and 50 where there are multiple campable areas 

with FY2009 ground survey data. In FY2010, DASA will provide the initial bare sand land-cover map and 

the slope map generated from the DSM derived from the FY2009 airborne data collection. If the remote 

sensing results show a strong correlation with the survey data, campable area will then be calculated for the 

system as a whole using the remotely sensed data by the cultural program, but their systemwide analysis 

will probably be performed in FY2011, when the systemwide land-cover database is completed. Results 

will be published by cultural resources personnel. 

Digital analysis of historical aerial photography to determine erosion near arch sites within the pre- and 

post-dam era (Lead Scientist – H. Fairley) 

Erosion of archaeological sites is ongoing in the CRE, but rates of erosion are hypothesized to have 

increased under post-dam conditions, due to a variety of factors, but this is just a hypothesis at this time. 

The purpose of this task is to evaluate whether scanned aerial photography from the pre-dam and post-dam 

eras can be georectified with sufficient accuracy to determine and quantify areal changes due to gully 

erosion and also potentially to determine the volume of material that has been removed from specific areas 

between 1935–65 and 1966–96. DASA will provide the initial georectification products and with 

acceptable results will transfer that technology to the cultural program for application. In FY2010, a pilot 

study will be conducted to evaluate the areal accuracy provided by georectification of scanned aerial 

photographs for a few selected areas in the CRE with known archaeological site concentrations. If these 

results provide acceptable accuracy, further rectification will then be performed on other areas to determine 
171

where change has occurred and quantify its type and area. Results will be published by cultural resources 

personnel. 

Methods and Tasks 

FY2011 

Evaluation of FY2009 airborne photogrammetric elevation data to detect system-wide trends in sandbar 

elevation (Lead Scientist – P. Grams) 

The project for high elevation sandbar monitoring, described above, uses established methods to monitor 

trends in sand area. It is known that significant changes in sandbar volume can occur while area does not 

change significantly (Hazel and others, 1999), which can affect the utility of sandbars as campsites or 

habitats. The purpose of this task is to evaluate the feasibility of monitoring sandbar elevation and volume 

changes throughout the CRE using remotely sensed data. The FY2009 airborne data collection provides a 

DSM (elevation model) derived by digital photogrammetric methods. If the DSM meets our requested 30-

cm vertical accuracy, this task will use that DSM to evaluate its potential for monitoring systemwide 

changes in sand elevation. This analysis will use the ground based measurements of sandbar topography 

made immediately before the May 2009 overflight as a basis for the evaluation. This project will result in 

topographic maps of sand areas system wide and an annual report. Our FY2002 DSM has a vertical 

accuracy of 25 cm; if the FY2009 DSM has similar or better accuracy, we will perform systemwide sand 

elevation change detection within this 7-year interval, and will produce a peer reviewed report or journal 

article. 

Analysis of historical aerial photographs to determine 1984 sandbar topography (Lead Scientist – P. Grams) 

– Deferred in FY2011 

Analysis of hyperspectral imagery for improved vegetation mapping and monitoring (Lead Scientist – B. 

Ralston) 

Hyperspectral image data – Deferred in FY2011 

Analysis of historical aerial photography to determine vegetation changes since 1980’s (Lead Scientist – B. 

Ralston) 

GCMRC has 1988 color-infrared photographic film at a scale of 1:4,800 (7 cm resolution) for the entire 

CRE, which is the oldest image data useful for mapping vegetation. These data will be visually examined 

relative to FY2002 and FY2009 imagery to determine areas with large diverse vegetation patches where 

there has been both notable change and little to no change. Currently, there are about 50 large vegetation 

patches within the Canyon; such patches may have been more or less abundant or in different locations in 

1988. The 1988 analog photographs that cover these selected areas will be digitally scanned, georectified 

to FY2002/2009 image data, and classified, similar to the FY2002 and FY2009 digital imagery, to produce 

a 1988 vegetation maps of the areas. Change analyses will be performed in order to determine what 

changed, the areal amount, and possible causes. The registered digital data will be stored in the GCMRC 

archives and the results of the investigation will be published within the USGS or in a journal. 

Digital analysis of historical aerial photography to determine erosion near arch sites within the pre- and 

post-dam era (Lead Scientist – H. Fairley) 

In FY2011, the sites shown to have areal change will be examined by the stereo photogrammetric method 

developed in a previous task in an attempt to quantify volumetric change. If successful, this technique 
172

would then be applied to a larger portion of the river corridor as part of a future analysis to compare predam erosion rates to post-dam erosion rates. DASA will provide the initial photogrammetric tests in 

FY2011, and will then transfer the technology to the cultural program for application and for reporting 

their results. 

Investigation of how changes in vegetation have affected campable areas (Lead Scientist – H. Fairley) 

According to analysis of long term monitoring data collected by NAU, campable area is declining faster 

than sand bar area, suggesting that factors other than sand bar erosion are contributing to loss of campable 

area in the CRE. Researchers have speculated that the loss of campable area may be due in large measure 

to vegetation encroachment (Kaplinski and others, 2005), but reliable, objective data to support or refute 

this assumption is currently lacking. The goal of this analysis is to compare vegetated areas in FY2002, 

FY2005, and FY2009 aerial imagery at a random sample of campsite areas identified in the GIS campsite 

atlas and calculate the amount of vegetated area change within each campsite polygon and within the 

sample as a whole from one year to the next. We will also compare changes in campable area calculated by 

NAU using total station surveys at long term sandbar/campsite sites with changes in vegetated areas in the 

aerial imagery. Oblique photo records will also be analyzed to supplement analyses using aerial digital 

imagery. Cultural resources personnel will report the findings. 

Links/Relationships to Other Projects 

A number of projects in the past few years have used the shoreline habitat data developed from the March 

2000 imagery dataset. Shoreline habitat type has been used in conjunction with native and nonnative 

downstream fish sampling in the mainstem of the Colorado River, and it has also been used as a guide to 

delineate sampling sites of redds in Glen and Marble Canyons. Similarly, these data are currently being 

incorporated into the new aquatic foodbase initiative at the GCMRC. This layer has also been applied to 

studies of the terrestrial environment, including the vegetation mapping project and initial campsite 

monitoring efforts conducted over the past 2 years. It is expected that new, more recent classifications will 

be used in similar fashion for future analysis. With newer tools, it may be possible to more closely relate 

habitat availability with catch rates. In the sediment realm, reworking previously collected multibeam data 

to align with the current GCMRC control network will allow for change detection in upper Marble Canyon 

in FY2010. 

Products/Reports 

FY2010 

• Digital land-cover maps based on the FY2009 data showing sand units, gross vegetation, and other 

map units will be published as a USGS Digital Data Series and the subsequent temporal change 

results will be published as a journal article. 

• Updated “virtual” shorelines based on the May 2009 digital elevation model will be produced and 

placed on the ArcGIS Server. 

• Updated shoreline habitat classification for a range of discharges will be published as a USGS 

Open-File Report. 

• The FY2009 vegetation map database derived from the FY2009 image data will be published as a 

USGS Digital Data Series and Open-File Report, along with subsequent temporal change analysis 

using the FY2002 vegetation map. Digital elevation models using digitally scanned 1984 stereo 

photographs and results from our evaluations of the results will be reported in an annual report and 

included in a peer reviewed report or journal article

• Published USGS report or journal article on the use of remote sensing data to determine campsite 

suitability and its changes over time. 
173

• Published USGS report on the use of historical aerial photography and contemporary airborne 

digital imagery to detect surficial changes within archaeological sites. All data sets are proposed to 

be served through an instance of Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) ArcGIS Server. 

FY2011 

• Topographic maps produced from the FY2009 image data will be published as a USGS Digital 

Data Series and in an annual report. Results from our systemwide sand elevation change detection 

between FY2002 and FY2009 will be published in a peer reviewed report or journal article. 

• Results from our integrated, long term topographic analyses for sand bars will be included in an 

annual report and in a peer reviewed report or journal article produced in cooperation with project 

PHY 8.M2.10–11. 

• The results of the hyperspectral data analysis – Deferred in FY2011

• The registered digital data produced from 1988 aerial photography for historical vegetation 

analysis will be stored in the GCMRC archives and the results of the vegetation change 

investigation will be published within the USGS or in a journal article. 

• Published USGS report or journal articles describing long-term surficial and volumetric changes 

within archaeological sites. 

• Published USGS report on the observed effects of vegetation encroachment on campable area over 

time. 

• All data sets are proposed to be served through an instance of Environmental Systems Research 

Institute (ESRI) ArcGIS Server. 

Budget 

FY2010 

DASA 12.D9.10: $234,674 

FY2011 

DASA 12.D9.11: $245,482 
174

PLAN 12.P1.10–11: Identify Critical Ecosystem Interactions and Data Gaps 

Start Date 

August 2008

End Date 

December 2011

Principal Investigator(s) 

Carl Walters, University of British Columbia 

CO-I(s): Scott Wright, U.S. Geological Survey, California Water Science Center, William Pine, University 

of Florida, Karen Limburg, University of New York, Syracuse (SUNY), Robert Hall, University of 

Wyoming, Emma Rossi-Marshall, Loyola University, Colden Baxter, Idaho State University, Josh 

Korman, Ecometric Research, Inc.; Lew Coggins, Ted Kennedy, Kara Hilwig and Mike Yard, U.S. 

Geological Survey Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, Dale Robertson, U.S. Geological 

Survey, Wisconsin Water Science Center 

Geographic Scope 

Continued research and decision support for review, revision, upgrade and use of various Ecosystem 

Models in collaboration with Senior Ecologist and other cooperators; Includes additional support from 

GCMRC staff, Senior Ecologist, and select cooperators 

Entire Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center study area, from the forebay of Lake Powell to 

upper Lake Mead. During FY2010–11, the work will focus mainly in the Lees Ferry and LCR confluence 

reaches of the Colorado River, where current aquatic ecosystem values and monitoring (rainbow trout, 

native fishes) are concentrated. Some monitoring evaluations and data analysis will extend from GCD to 

Lake Mead, especially to evaluate longitudinal changes in aquatic system productivity and carrying 

capacity for native fishes. 

Project Goals 

The main aim of this project will be to provide advisory assistance to GCMRC scientists and cooperators 

on data analysis methods and integration of physical and biological research data into models for response 

of aquatic ecosystem indicator variables to possible management actions. The goal of such modeling is to 

provide screening of alternative adaptive management proposals for improving responses of performance 

indicators such as abundance of humpback chub. These models are likely to be developed in an 

Ecopath/Ecosim platform, but other methods may be employed. 

A secondary objective of the Senior Ecologist will be to assist GCMRC scientists and cooperators in 

communicating research results and quantitative modeling analyses to each other and to GCDAMP 

stakeholders (TWG, AMWG), via structured workshops that use advanced ecosystem modeling as a means 

to enhance communication and explore policy options. Emphasis in this phase of the research (FY2009–

11) remains focused on the aquatic elements of the CRE below GCD (primarily, GCDAMP goals #1 

through 4 and 7–8). 
175

During FY2010, the flow and sediment submodel of the existing Grand Canyon Ecosystem Model 

(GCEM) shall be fully revised to include a new shifting rating curve for suspended sand transport (routing 

of Paria and Little Colorado Rivers sand inputs downstream through current monitoring reaches upstream 

of Lake Mead) by Wright and Korman. This 1-dimensional sand routing model will result in a 20-yearlong hind cast simulation (1989 to 2009) of suspended sediment concentrations that will then be made 

available to the Ecopath/Ecosim modeling team of Walters and others for their use. 

Need for Project 

While a variety of experimental management policies have been implemented in recent years, analysis and 

communication of results and responses of indicators to policies have not been completed. More complete 

analysis and subsequent communication of the results of analysis (including modeling) will allow more 

effective selection of further experimental tests. For example, the LSSF flow experiment of summer 2000 

was not fully evaluated until 2008, and likewise there have not been definitive reviews of all high flow 

experimental results (1996 to 2008) or the effects of mechanical removal of nonnative fishes, although the 

synthesis of flow tests and nonnative control analyses are now forthcoming. Such analyses have been 

hampered by confounding of multiple factors in causing changes (e.g., temperature changes have made it 

hard to interpret fish responses to mechanical removal). Modeling tools provided by the Senior Ecologist 

(Walters) can help to at least clarify alternative hypotheses about the possible roles and relative importance 

of the factors. 

Additional advancement of the flow and sediment elements of the existing GCEM is also planned as an 

additional element of the new Integrated Flow, Sediment, and Temperature Modeling research project 

(Wright and others in collaboration with Korman and Walters) as a further means of assessing fine 

sediment dynamics associated with various stakeholder planning needs and associated tasks tied to 

developing desired future conditions for GCDAMP goals.

Strategic Science Questions 

The ecological modeling efforts will be directed at addressing priority AMWG questions, SSQs, and 

additional science questions (SAs) - provided by the Science Advisors (SA) in the integrated modeling 

efforts, as follows: 

Abundance trends of rainbow trout in the Lees Ferry reach: 

• SSQ 1-4. Can long-term decreases in abundance of rainbow trout in Marble and eastern Grand 

Canyons be sustained with a reduced level of effort of mechanical removal or will recolonization 

from tributaries and from downstream and upstream of the removal reach require that mechanical 

removal be an ongoing management action? 

This question also applies to future removal programs targeting other nonnative species. 

• SSQ 1-8. How can native and nonnative fishes best be monitored while minimizing impacts from 

capture and handling or sampling? 

Abundance trends in native fishes below the Lees Ferry reach: 

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

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

juvenile stages in the mainstem, or by changes in growth and maturation in the adult population as 

influenced by mainstem conditions? 

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

mainstem: spawning success, predation on young of year and juveniles, habitat (water, 

temperature), pathogens, adult maturation, food availability, competition? 
176

• SA 2. What are the most probably positive and negative impacts of warming the Colorado River 

on humpback chub adults and juveniles?] 

Linkages between (productivity) food web changes and fish population changes: 

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

concentrations, turbidity) and dam operations? 

• SA 1. What are the most limiting factors to successful HBC adult recruitment in the mainstem: 

spawning success, predation on YoY and juveniles, habitat (water, temperature), pathogens, adult 

maturation, food availability, competition? 

Responses of native fish to mechanical removal of nonnative fish, fall steady flows, and backwaters 

created by experimental high flows: 

 

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

nonnatives in Marble and eastern Grand Canyons result in an improvement in the recruitment rate 

of juvenile HBC to the adult population? 

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

meteorology, canyon orientation and geometry, and reach morphology interact to determine 

mainstem and nearshore water temperatures throughout the CRE? 

Using the new shifting rating curve method for routing suspended sand through the CRE, the project will 

produced advanced simulations for flow operations at Glen Canyon Dam and fate of tributary supplied 

sand inputs: 

 

• SSQ 4-1. Is there a “Flow Only” operation (that is, a strategy for dam releases, including managing 

tributary inputs with BHBFs, without sediment augmentation) that will rebuild and maintain 

sandbar habitats over decadal timescales? 

Note: Results from element 5, will integrate suspended-sediment simulations with aquatic/fish simulations 

within the Ecopath/Ecosim modeling being developed by Walters and others. 

Methods and Tasks 

FY2010: 

1. Senior Ecologist (Walters) will lead in development of individual-based simulation model (IBM) 

for native fishes in Grand Canyon, for use in evaluation of mark-recapture population estimation 

methods and prediction of responses to experimental management policies. An early version of this 

model was developed in FY2009 to evaluate apparent retrospective biases in assessment of HBC 

abundances. The program will be further developed to represent other native fishes (flannelmouth 

sucker, bluehead sucker) and for simulation of recent changes in tagging protocols that should 

allow earlier assessment of recruitment responses to management actions. 

2. Senior Ecologist (Walters) will lead fisheries team (GCMRC fish biologist and Biometrician 

(Coggins)) in advanced development of stock assessment for native suckers (flannelmouth, 

bluehead) in Grand Canyon to complement existing assessments for HBC and to provide more 

accurate abundance trends for use in testing ecosystem models that represent competition and 

predation interactions among native and nonnative fishes. This will involve working with GCMRC 

scientists to develop ASMR models using the sucker data, and analysis of historical lengthfrequency data to provide growth curve inputs for the ASMR back-calculation of age at tagging. 
177

3. Senior Ecologist (Walters) will lead in development and testing of Ecopath/Ecosim (EwE) models 

for food web interactions in the aquatic communities of the Lees Ferry and Little Colorado reaches 

of Grand Canyon. This will involve continued development and fitting to historical abundance 

trend data of EwE models developed during FY2009 in cooperation with GCMRC scientists. 

Model parameter estimates will be refined using information provided by GCMRC cooperators, 

and formal parameter estimation procedures will be applied to estimate key production parameters 

by fitting the models to historical fish population trend data for 1990–2009. 

4. Senior Ecologist (Walters) will lead in use of the GCEM ecosystem model to reconstruct historical 

changes in the Colorado River food base for native and nonnative fishes, associated with changes 

in diurnal flow regimes and turbidity conditions caused by tributary sediment inputs. The EwE 

food web models in task 3 above need to be fitted to historical abundance trend data, and that 

model fitting will be misleading unless the EwE models are provided with realistic time forcing 

data on past changes in primary and secondary (insect, amphipod) production owing to change in 

turbidity. The GCEM model will be run with historical tributary sediment inputs, along with 

refined estimates of regrowth rates of primary producers following periods of low productivity due 

to high turbidity, to provide monthly estimates for 1990–2009 of food biomass likely to have been 

available to native and nonnative fishes in reaches of Grand Canyon near and below the LCR. 

5. Ongoing collaboration with University of Florida and University of New York at Syracuse – 

Evaluation of pilot study results from flannelmouth sucker otolith analyses resulting from 

cooperative research with University of Florida and SUNY (Pine and Limburg). This task will 

employ geochemical signatures in water and native fish otoliths to infer natal origin, tributary 

habitat use, and migration patterns. The project will conduct pilot analyses of flannelmouth sucker 

otoliths and water samples collected in FY2008. Preliminary analyses of the water samples suggest 

promising uniqueness among Colorado River tributaries for describing patterns in flannelmouth 

sucker otoliths associated with ontogenetic shifts in tributary versus Colorado River occupancy. If 

these pilot analyses are fruitful, additional analyses with HBC otoliths are possible to better 

understand changes in HBC rearing habitat and tributary use. One use of the knowledge gained in 

pursuit of this task will be to better parameterize and justify relationships imbedded in aquatic 

ecosystem models (e.g., Ecopath/Ecosim) that describe ontogenetic shifts in native fish use of 

tributaries during early life history stanzas. This effort is tied in with the next task also. 

6. Senior Ecologist (Walters) will participate in field work and analysis of the Nearshore Ecology 

(NSE) project with objective of troubleshooting field methods and data analysis procedures, with 

particular emphasis on assessment of changes in native fish dispersal and survival rates in relation 

to changes from fluctuating to fall steady flows. 

7. Senior Ecologist (Walters) will participate in high flow experimental synthesis reporting as advisor 

and possibly co-author on biological outcomes report. 

8. Cooperators (Wright and Korman) will collaborate with Senior Ecologist (Walters) and GCMRC 

to further develop physical submodel element (sand routing) of the GCEM to include use of 

updated Colorado River Basin hydrology and shifting rating curve algorithm. 

FY2011: 

• Similar to those associated with FY2010 (tasks 1 through 7 will continue into FY2011, while task 

8 is to be concluded in FY2010). 

Links/Relationships to Other Projects 

This project will utilize data from all studies which collect information on the aquatic biota of Glen, 

Marble, and Grand Canyons, including the aquatic foodweb, HBC monitoring, Lees Ferry trout 

monitoring, mechanical removal, nonnative fish monitoring, and the NSE project. The main benefits to the 
178

projects listed will be to provide novel analyses of data and methods for linking project results into overall 

conceptual and quantitative models for response of the CR aquatic ecosystem to management changes. The 

flow and sediment modeling elements of this project are linked most closely to the Integrated Flow, 

Sediment, and Temperature Modeling project. 

Logistics 

There are no logistical needs for this project 

Products/Reports 

FY2010: 

• ChubIBM.exe computer program, narrative review for GCMRC fish scientists on probable biases 

and precision of future population estimates (Walters and others). 

• Spreadsheets for use by GCMRC scientists in checking ASMR results from existing assessment 

programs, stock assessment report providing abundance trend estimates for sucker species (Walters 

and others).

• Revised flow and suspended-sediment submodel of the GCEM, including the recently innovated 

“shifting rating curve” for sand transport that will be reported by Wright and others (manuscript 

currently in preparation). This work is being integrated with ongoing modeling research funded in 

FY2010 (Wright and Korman).

• Ecopath/Ecosim (EwE) Access database (mdb) with improved models and historical forcing data, 

including forcing time series data from updated GCEM, narrative report sections for use by 

GCMRC scientists in preparation of peer-reviewed papers on findings from the EwE models and 

GCEM/EwE model linkage (Walters and others). 

• Senior Ecologist (Walters) will lead a science workshop for GCMRC scientists and cooperators in 

February/March 2010 to evaluate ecosystem model performance and produce a consensus 

scientific report on role of trophic interactions (food base changes, predator-prey interactions) in 

causing recent changes in native and nonnative fish abundances. 

• Oral presentation (Walters) of the consensus ecosystem response report in a workshop/retreat for 

GCDAMP stakeholders (TWG, AMWG) in April 2010 (proposed venue - Saguaro Lake Ranch, 

Ariz).

• Oral presentation (Wright and Korman) to TWG on progress of physical submodel upgrade 

(shifting sand rating curve model), along with simulations of suspended-sediment concentrations 

between Lees Ferry and Diamond Creek (output delivered to Walters for use in Ecopath/Ecosim 

model) during fall/winter 2009–10.

• Results of isotopic analyses of flannelmouth sucker otoliths from Limburg’s SUNY laboratory. 

FY2011: 

• Submission of refereed journal article with Josh Korman on “Surprise and opportunity in Grand 

Canyon ecosystem management”

• Contributions by Senior Ecologist and co-investigators to the High Flow Experimental synthesis 

(proposed as report by Schmidt and others) relating to the sediment and biological responses 

associated with the 1996, 2004 and 2008 experimental releases.

• Multi-attribute tradeoff analysis (MATA) workshop deferred in FY2011
179

Budgets 

FY2010 

PLAN 12.P1.10: $238,986 

FY2011 

PLAN 12.P1.11: $148,945
180

PLAN 12.P3.10 AMWG Requested Project⎯Low Steady Summer 

Flows⎯Data and Research Compilation, Synopsis, and Synthesis 

Start Date 

2008 

End Date 

July 2010 

Principal Investigator(s) 

Barbara E. Ralston, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center 

Geographic Scope 

Entire Colorado River ecosystem corridor from forebay of Glen Canyon Dam to upper Lake Mead 

Project Goals 

The overall goal of this project is to develop a synthesis of the effects of the FY2000 low steady summer 

flow (LSSF) experiment on the CRE in Grand Canyon. The four phases we will employ to achieve the goal 

are: 

• Phase I. Status of reports/data and synopsis. Identify data and products associated with the FY2000 

LSSF experiment; synopsize the results of the individual projects. This synopsis was completed in 

the summer of 2008 and was provided to workshop participants. 

• Phase II. Data evaluation and identification of secondary analyses. Evaluate individual data sets 

and provide recommendations for further analysis and/or integration of resource responses to 

operations. Two workshops were conducted in FY2008 to gather input from original investigators 

and external reviewers. 

• Phase III. Synthesis. Use integrated analysis results to develop a synthesis of the effects of the 

FY2000 LSSF Experiment on the CRE. A draft of this document will be completed in FY2009. 

• Phase IV. Publication. Publication of secondary analysis in a special volume of a journal or USGS 

circular or other publishing source. This phase will be completed in FY2010. 

The project outcome is intended to provide managers, and others interested in resource management, with 

information about how multiple resources respond to a series of flows that varied in duration from several 

days to several months and in magnitude from 8,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) to 31,000 cfs. 

Need for Project 

In August 2007, the GCDAMP AMWG identified the need to produce a summary document of the effects 

of the LSSF experiment (implemented in spring and summer 2000) on resources. The managers requested 

this summary project so that the results could be used by managers as they implement long term 

experiments associated with the AMP for GCD. 
181

The data collected in association with the FY2000 experiment were in the areas of sediment transport and 

storage, mainstem and shoreline water temperature, small bodied fish sampling, long term monitoring 

methods development for fishes, vegetation change, and recreational aspects of the varied flows. To date, 

several of the data collection efforts have resulted in data reports or journal publications, while other 

projects remain incomplete, lacking a final report. A unifying document regarding the flow experiment 

investigations has been lacking to date due to other funding and administrative priorities (for example, fish 

removal experiments, long term planning documents). The lack of such a document may be perceived as an 

impediment to learning and applying this knowledge in an adaptive management setting. It is for this 

reason that a summary document is being proposed that synopsizes individual resource response and 

considers collective resource responses within an ecosystem framework to create a subsequent synthesis. 

Strategic Science Questions 

The LSSF experiment was expected to affect, and possibly show benefit to, multiple resources in the CRE. 

Similarly, there are multiple SSQs, developed as guidance for GCMRC after the LSSF, that pertain to the 

flow experiment. The summary project will investigate whether, and to what degree, these SSQs were 

addressed by the FY2000 LSSF experiment. Those SSQs most pertinent to the LSSF experiment are listed 

below. 

SSQ 4-1. Is there a “Flow-Only” operation (that is, a strategy for dam releases, including managing 

tributary inputs with BHBFs, without sediment augmentation) that will restore and maintain sandbar 

habitats over decadal timescales? 

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

canyon orientation and geometry, and reach morphology interact to determine mainstem and nearshore 

water temperatures throughout the CRE? 

SSQ 4-2. How important are backwaters and vegetated shoreline habitats to the overall growth and 

survival of YoY and juvenile native fish? Does the long-term benefit of increasing these habitats 

outweigh short-term potential costs (displacement and possibly mortality of young humpback chub) 

associated with high flows? 

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

visitor experience? 

Information Needs Addressed 

Information needs that pertain to work done during the LSSF are focused on experimental information 

needs for each resource. Specific information needs that focus on adaptive management and that are 

pertinent to the proposed project are the following: 

IN 12.1. Develop information that can be used by the TWG, in collaboration with the GCMRC, to 

establish current and target levels for all resources within the GCDAMP as called for in the GCDAMP 

strategic plan. 

RIN 12.3.1. As necessary, investigate the most effective methods to integrate and synthesize resource 

data. 
Methods and Tasks 

As a part of the 1995 Biological Opinion on the Operations of the Glen Canyon Dam (USFWS, 1995), the 

USFWS described reasonable and prudent alternatives (RPAs). One element of the RPAs directed 

Reclamation to develop and test a program of steady flows under minimum hydrologic conditions. The 

intention of these experimental releases was to move toward the removal of the jeopardy opinion for HBC 

in the CRE. 

A plan of flows developed by SWCA Environmental Consultants, Inc. (SWCA, 2000) intended to address 

1995 USFWS reasonable and prudent alternatives to the biological opinion (USFWS, 1995). The plan 

incorporated high steady spring flows and low summer steady flows and divided the flows into three time 

periods: March−May (high flows of 21,000 cfs with a 31,000-cfs spike), June−September (steady flows of 

8,000 cfs, ending with a 31,000-cfs spike), and October−February (8,000-cfs flows). The flows that were 

implemented in spring 2000 were slightly different in that the high flows in the spring were a slightly lower 

discharge of 17,500 cfs rather than 21,000 cfs, and the duration of the flows was shorter by approximately 

a month in the beginning and by 5 months in the end, ending in September rather than February (figure 5). 

Figure 5. Hydrograph from March−December 2000 including discharge pattern associated with the LSSF 

experiment. 

 

Data collected around these flows focused on physical resources (sediment, water temperature), biological 

resources (aquatic productivity, fisheries, vegetation), and cultural resources (recreation, economics). 

SWCA (2000) provided some hypotheses regarding the benefits and risks to abiotic and biotic resources 

relative to each flow period (table 7). These hypotheses form the basis for data consolidation, synopsis, and 

subsequent synthesis. 

 

 

 

 

Table 7. Hypothesized effects of flows on physical and biological resources. 

182
183

Benefits/risk

s to 

resources 

Period I: 

March−May 

Period II: 

June−September 

Period III: 

October−February 

Benefit to 

physical 

resources/ 

habitat 

• Scouring 

backwaters 

• May spike flow to 

mobilize and store 

sands and sediment 

• Storing of sand and 

sediment in river 

channel 

• Expansion of 

campable beach area 

• September spike flow 

• Resuspension, storing 

of sand from summer 

tributary inputs 

Risks to 

physical 

resources/ 

habitat 

Export of sediment, 

reduction of campsite 

areas 

September spike flow, 

export of sand and 

sediment instead of 

storing it 

No significant risks 

Benefits to 

biotic 

resources 

• Ponded tributary 

inflows as thermal 

refuges for drifting 

larvae and young 

fish 

• Ponded tributary 

inflows ease access 

for spawning native 

fishes 

• Destabilizing of 

habitats to 

disadvantage 

nonnatives 

• Redistribution of 

nutrients 

• Resetting of 

community 

production 

• Spike flows to flush 

nonnative fish from 

nearshore habitats 

• Increased growth and 

survival of young 

native fishes 

• Increased autotrophic 

algal and 

macroinvertebrate 

production 

• Possible mainstem 

hatching success 

• Spike flows to flush 

nonnatives fish from 

nearshore habitats 

• Increased survival of 

young native fishes 

• Maintenance of 

stable winter 

conditions to 

minimize energy 

expenditure 

• Maintenance of 

overwinter 

autotrophic 

production in 

mainstem, 

shorelines, 

backwaters 

Risk to biotic 

resources 

Attraction of nonnative 

fish 

redators/competitors to 

ponded tributaries 

• Mainstem 

reproduction by 

nonnative fishes 

• Increased growth and 

survival of nonnative 

fishes 

• Increased infestation 

of parasites and 

• Possible 

overwinter survival 

and expansion of 

nonnative fishes 

• Possible greater 

spawning success 

of downstream 

populations of trout 

• Increased predation 
184

diseases 

• Decreased drift of 

food for fish 

• Minimized thermal 

plume at 30-mile may 

reduce survival of 

young HBC 

• Increased water clarity 

leading to increased 

predation of native 

fish by sight predators 

by sight feeders 

• Decreased drift of 

food for fish 

Status of Project 

Phase I. Status of reports/data and synopsis (FY2008) 

• Identification of studies in LSSF plan⎯Completed studies and metadata regarding overflights 

conducted throughout the period of March through September provided in a summary document. 

The document described the scope of each completed study and includes the authors’ 

recommendations for subsequent analysis. Draft provided in June 2008. Synopsis to be included in 

final synthesis report. 

• Determination of location of data and other deliverables⎯call principal investigators (PIs) to 

determine status of project, location of data, and identification of any work that was not done 

and/or cannot be done and consolidating data. Completed in conjunction with summary document. 

Phase II. Data evaluation and identification of secondary analyses (FY2008–09) 

• Convened two workshops (August 2008 and October 2008) to evaluate possibility of subsequent 

analysis among studies. Workshop composed of LSSF PIs, GCMRC staff, ecosystem scientist, 

science advisors, and other resource specific experts. Natural resource managers attended to offer 

their perspectives on relating science information to management needs. The August 2008 

workshop focused on biological and physical resources and the October 2008 workshop focused 

on social sciences. 

• Identification of potential secondary analyses of data including incorporating more recent 

monitoring and research data to provide longer term analyses of effects. 

• Presented findings/recommendations to AMWG in September 2008 for FY2009 work plan. 

• Limited funding and a need to expedite the process resulted in GCMRC taking the lead in 

synthesis. 

Phase III. Synthesis (FY2009–10, 15 months) 

• The 2008 workshops resulted in only limited recommendations for additional analyses. The 

investigators agreed to provide the reports and data originally collected, and GCMRC determined 

to synthesize as much of the existing data as possible, anticipating that the collected results from 

the finalized projects could comprise a single peer reviewed volume or USGS circular publication. 

These results would also be incorporated in the 5-year SCORE report scheduled in FY2011. 
185

Phase IV. Publication (FY2010, 3 months) 

• In coordination with editing staff at the GCMRC/SBSC, complete publication of manuscripts in 

target journal or circular. 

Links/Relationships to Other Projects 

Because much of the biological data collected in FY2000, in association with the LSSF, represent a single 

growing season or single cohort, data from subsequent years could be used to understand the effects of 

conditions in a single year on recruitment signals or species compositions in subsequent surveys. These 

LSSF data would be linked to monitoring data from fisheries and vegetation collected since FY2000. 

Following single cohorts of endangered fishes can be problematic, however, given the already low 

numbers of individuals within the population and observing a recruitment signal from a single summer 

treatment may be an unrealistic expectation. 

The sediment response throughout the duration of the project can be incorporated into the current shoreline 

study project to understand the relationship of reworking eddy sand supply and available shoreline habitats 

through remote-sensing analysis. In the same vein, water temperature data collected in FY2000 is 

applicable to current water temperature modeling efforts for shoreline habitats. Lastly, recreational aspects 

associated with downstream travel and visitation could be interpreted under the current Colorado River 

Management Plan to determine how similar flows, if they occur in the future, might affect recreational 

experiences. 

Products/Reports 

• Phase I. Synopses of individual project, metadata, background information about LSSF was 

completed in July 2008 and provided to participants in the workshops of August and October 2008 

• Phase II. Workshops to discuss data from and results of original investigations were conducted in 

August and October 2008. 

• Phase III. Initiation of synthesis (FY2009). Draft for internal review submitted by September 2009. 

Finalized manuscript submitted by March 2010 (FY2010) 

• Phase IV. Complete publication of manuscript. Completed by July 2010 

Budget 

FY2010 

PLAN 12.P3.10: $16,409 

FY2011 

PLAN 12.P3.11: $0
186

PLAN: 12.P4.11 – Knowledge Assessment and SCORE Report 2011 

Start Date 

October 2010

End Date 

December 2011

Principal Investigator(s) 

U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center staff and various cooperators; 

including Carl Walters, Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia 

Geographic Scope 

Entire Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center study area, from the forebay of Lake Powell to 

upper Lake Mead. 

Project Goals 

Five years after the first knowledge assessment (Melis and others, 2006a) and SCORE report published by 

the GCMRC (Gloss and others, 2005), the GCMRC proposes to conduct a second knowledge assessment 

to inform the FY2012–16 Monitoring and Research Plan. The second SCORE report, following the 

FY2011 knowledge assessment is intended to: 

• update the status and trends of GCDAMP resource goals and 

• report results of all experimental treatments implemented under the GCDAMP since completion of 

the 1995 EIS. 

In contrast to the approach taken in the first SCORE report, which focused mainly on reporting status and 

trends of each of the resources of importance to the GCDAMP, the FY2011 SCORE report shall identify 

critical information that ties resource responses (monitoring and research data) to experimental flow and 

non-flow treatments associated with the 1996 Record of Decision operations and other treatments 

implemented by the Department of the Interior since 1996 at the recommendation of the GCDAMP. 

Experimental research topics will include record of decision MLFF, experimental winter fluctuations of 

FY2003–05, the FY2000 LSSF testing, various fall steady flow tests, three HMF tests, three HFEs, 

mechanical removal of nonnative fishes, and translocation of HBC and Kanab ambersnail. These 

experimental treatments will be evaluated relative to the resource goals of the GCDAMP strategic plan as 

part of a knowledge assessment conducted in advance of the SCORE reporting, similar to the approach 

taken in FY2005 (see table 8). 

Need for Project 

The array of experimental treatments and conservation measures implemented on the CRE over the last 

two decades represents one of the best examples of adaptive ecosystem assessment and management to 

date (Gloss and others, 2005; Melis and others, 2005; Boesch and others, 2006). The experimental flow 

treatments that will be reported in the FY2011 SCORE report include a variety of flow treatments 
187

described in the 1995 final Glen Canyon Dam Operations EIS, but will also include some non-flow 

treatments that came about through the GCDAMP planning efforts following the EIS. As with the FY2005 

SCORE report, the proposed FY2011 SCORE report will be preceded by a second knowledge assessment 

conducted as a means of informing resource managers about whether these experimental actions have 

benefitted resources below GCD (Lovich and Melis, 2007). The FY2011 SCORE report will be the 

documented outcome of the knowledge assessment and will identify where learning about how dam 

operations and other treatments have occurred and might be used in the future to achieve GCDAMP goals. 

After more than a decade since the 1995 Record of Decision was implemented, a comprehensive report that 

attempts to document cause and effect relationships is needed. Such a report will inform future planning as 

the FY2012–16 Monitoring and Research Plan is developed jointly by the GCDAMP and the GCMRC. 

A priority need in the FY2011 knowledge assessment will be to identify resource responses that were not 

predicted in the 1995 EIS or identified in the last knowledge assessment. One example that provides an 

excellent opportunity for learning is the arrested decline of the HBC adult population (Melis and others, 

2006b) and the recent increasing trend in this endangered fish (Coggins, 2009). The turnaround in HBC 

population has occurred despite a high level of uncertainty about limiting its early life history below GCD. 

Fine sediment, another example of resource response that was not well anticipated in the 1995 EIS, will 

also be a major focus of the FY2011 knowledge assessment and SCORE following recent modeling 

research advances in FY2009–10 (Wright and others, 2008). 

Strategic Science Questions 

The FY2011 knowledge assessment and resulting SCORE report will be aimed at addressing priority 

AMWG questions identified by the GCDAMP in 2004, the Strategic Science Questions derived from the 

2005 knowledge assessment and additional questions identified since then by the Science Advisors: 

SSQ 4-1. Is there a “Flow Only” operation (that is, a strategy for dam releases, including managing 

tributary inputs with BHBFs, without sediment augmentation) that will rebuild and maintain sandbar 

habitats over decadal timescales? 

SSQ 1-4. Can long-term decreases in abundance of rainbow trout in Marble and eastern Grand 

Canyons be sustained with a reduced level of effort of mechanical removal or will recolonization from 

tributaries and from downstream and upstream of the removal reach require that mechanical removal 

be an ongoing management action? This question also applies to future removal programs targeting 

other nonnative species. 

SSQ 1-8. How can native and nonnative fishes best be monitored while minimizing impacts from 

capture and handling or sampling?

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

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

stages in the mainstem, or by changes in growth and maturation in the adult population as influenced 

by mainstem conditions? 

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

concentrations, turbidity) and dam operations? 

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

nonnatives in Marble and eastern Grand Canyons result in an improvement in the recruitment rate of 

juvenile HBC to the adult population? 
188

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

canyon orientation and geometry, and reach morphology interact to determine mainstem and nearshore 

water temperatures throughout the CRE? 

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

mainstem: spawning success, predation on young of year and juveniles, habitat (water, temperature), 

pathogens, adult maturation, food availability, competition? 

SA 2. What are the most probably positive and negative impacts of warming the Colorado River on 

humpback chub adults and juveniles?

Methods and Tasks 

FY2011 

The proposed reporting on experimental flow and non-flow treatments would follow the topics shown in 

the matrix below. The Xs shown in table 8 denote the resource response topics that would be reported on in 

each chapter devoted to a specific experimental treatment. 

Table 8. Matrix of various flow and nonflow experimental treatments implemented within the 

Colorado River ecosystem versus resources identified within the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive 

Management Program’s strategic plan. 

Experimental 

Treatment 

versus 

Resource 

Goals 

included in 

GCDAMP 

Strategic 

Plan 

MLFF EXP WinterFluctuations BHBF HMF Steady 

Flows 

Nonnative 

Fish 

Control 

Translocating 

HBC and KAS 

Food 

Availability 

X X X X X X N/A 

Native Fish X X X X X X X 

Extirpated 

Species 

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Lees Ferry 

Rainbow 

Trout 

X X X X X N/A N/A 

Springs and 

Related 

Species 

(KAS) 

X X X X X N/A X 

Riparian 

Community 

X X X X X N/A N/A 

Downstream 

Quality of 

Water 

X X X X X N/A N/A 

Sediment X X X X X N/A N/A 
189

Recreational 

Experiences 

X X X X X N/A N/A 

Hydropower X X X X X N/A N/A 

Cultural 

Resources - 

TCPs 

X X X X X N/A N/A 

Links/Relationships to Other Projects 

The SCORE report would be linked with a second knowledge assessment conducted in the first quarter of 

2011 that would be designed to focus the reporting on experimental treatments and the previous syntheses 

on Low Summer Steady Flow and High Flow Experiments would be used to develop the knowledge 

assessment and publication of the SCORE report. 

Logistics 

None 

Products/Reports 

FY2011: 

• Multi-chapter USGS Circular with numerous authors that documents the outcome of the 2011 

knowledge assessment across all GCDAMP resource goals and experimental treatments evaluated 

below Glen Canyon Dam since 1995.

Budget 

FY2010 

PLAN 12.P4.10: $0 

FY2011 

PLAN 12.P4.11: $175,000
190

SUP 12.S1.10–11: Logistics Base Costs 

Start Date 

Ongoing

End Date 

Ongoing

Principal Investigator(s) 

Carol Fritzinger, Logistics and Survey Program Manager, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon 

Monitoring and Research Center 

Geographic Scope 

Entire Colorado River ecosystem corridor between Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Mead, and the greater 

Colorado River Basin 

Project Goals 

Provide cost effective, efficient, and complete logistical support for all GCMRC funded projects 

Need for Project 

The GCMRC provides complete logistical support for 25–40 research, monitoring, administrative, and 

tribal river trips through the Grand Canyon annually. These trips range in length from 7–21 days and from 

4–24 people in size. Trips utilize a variety of motor- and oar-powered boats operated by contracted boat 

operators. Projects operating in the Glen Canyon reach of the Colorado River (GCD to Lees Ferry) are 

supported by a variety of motor-powered boats operated by GCMRC researchers and contracted boat 

operators. Additionally, research activities on the Little Colorado River and at other locations outside of 

the Grand Canyon National Park boundaries are supported by helicopter services contracted with 

Reclamation. Ground based support for other research activities outside of the river corridor is also 

coordinated with the GCMRC Logistics Program. 

Strategic Science Questions 

N/A 

Information Needs Addressed 

N/A 

Methods and Tasks 

FY2010 

The GCMRC utilizes Government-owned boats and river logistical equipment in conjunction with a 

contracted vendor who supplies technical and logistical boat operators. Put-in and takeout transportation is 
191

provided with the use of General Service Administration (GSA) leased vehicles and contracted shuttle 

drivers. 

Effective communication with principal investigators and sensitivity to and awareness of the challenges 

they face in implementing their studies enable the GCMRC to offer more customized (and therefore more 

cost effective and productive) logistical support than other support strategies utilized previously. Retaining 

control over the process of supporting trips also facilitates compliance with NPS regulations and allows 

greater control over issues sensitive to the general public and the “recreational river community.” 

FY2011

Same as FY2010 

Links/Relationships to Other Projects 

All GCMRC projects which have field data collection components are supported by the GCMRC logistics 

program. 

Logistics 

There are no logistical needs for this project. 

Products/Reports 

N/A 

Budget 

FY2010 

SUP 12.S1.10: $210,252 

FY2011 

SUP 12.S1.11: $223,626 
192

SUP 12.S2.10–11: Survey Operations 

Start Date 

Ongoing 

End Date 

Ongoing

Principal Investigator(s) 

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

Geographic Scope 

Survey operations occur throughout the CRE in support of scientific activities.

Project Goals 

We must supply GCMRC principal investigators with all necessary information, equipment, and survey 

knowledge to address their scientific needs. In some cases, that means performing all collection, 

processing, and documentation of all spatial data required by their research. The principal investigators and 

researchers must be educated regarding the limits of various mapping techniques. Datasets used for change 

detection analysis must be conscientiously evaluated for precision so as provide accurate scientific analysis 

and resulting decision making. 

Need for Project 

Spatial measurements are required for any long-term monitoring program. The measurements are made 

using a variety of survey methods and stored in a variety of formats. All measurements reference a position 

of greater confidence whether the measurement is made using the GPS, LiDAR, digital or analog imagery, 

conventional survey angles and distances to reflective prisms, or sub aqueous bathymetry. With consistent 

reference, and explicit protocols, the survey operations program ensures the integrity of spatial data sets, 

which increases confidence in scientific analysis. 

Strategic Science Questions 

Many strategic science questions require stage discharge relationships to determine inundation extents 

under various flows. These relationships must be collected in the field using consistent survey methods and 

be referenced to validated control. Answers to questions relating to habitat (e.g. sand bar, sand terraces, old 

and new high water zones, reach morphology, etc) will all require survey measurements. All SSQ’s 

addressed in projects supported by Survey Operations are applicable. 

Information Needs Addressed 

Accurate and consistent spatial positioning of scientific data is necessary for facilitating change detection. 

Change detection methods are applied to spatial data collected within the cultural, biological, and physical 

programs to determine impacts on habitat, validate models, and to determine fine and course sediment 
193

storage. Survey protocols also provide spatial data as the foundation of the GIS database. All information 

needs addressed in projects supported by Survey Operations are applicable. 

Methods and Tasks 

FY2010 

Survey marks are typically stable positions (referred to as survey marks, survey monuments, control points, 

stations, etc.) on bedrock or large boulders with positions preserved by chiseling or scribing marks, or by 

physical attachment of foreign substances (nails, caps, screws, bolts, rebar, etc.). These stations were 

placed in a manner that allows for tripods and conventional or GPS survey equipment to set up over the 

control point. The points that are occupied regularly are located above the stage reached by the flow of 

30,000 cubic feet per second (ft3/s) and have fair but diminishing line of sight due to expanding vegetation. 

Some stations may be lower in elevation and are occasionally inundated by water during normal dam 

operations. The survey marks are reference for measurements of:

• sandbar sites located throughout the CRE, many of which have a spatial dataset of topographic and 

bathymetric data collected at least once per year since 1990 

• long term monitoring reaches where topography, bathymetry, and LiDAR, digital imagery were 

collected between FY2000 and FY2008 

• line-of-site stations between GCD and Bright Angel Creek plus 15 miles of traverse points from 

Blue Springs to the LCR/ Colorado River confluence. The traverses used acceptable distances for 

conventional optical equipment (typically 600 meters and consistently less than 1,000 meters) 

• photo-identifiable fixed points 

• cultural sites including locations of features, artifacts, and erosion controls 

• USGS stage gages 09380000 : “Colorado River at Lee’s Ferry” and 09402500 “Colorado River 

near Grand Canyon” 

• instrumentation sites (weather, LISST, Acoustic Doppler, water quality, pump samplers) 

FY2011

Same as FY2010 

Links/Relationships to Other Projects 

Any and all spatial data collection required by GCDAMP is supported through this program. 

Logistics 

FY2010 

Survey support is provided for GCMRC projects as required by specific project needs, no stand alone 

logistics are required. 

FY2011 

Same as FY2010 
194

Products/Reports 

Control monuments are established at consistent intervals throughout the CRE and at locations required for 

accurate positions and elevations of past, current, and future datasets. Stable control monuments and 

accurate coordinates should be completed prior to spatial data acquisition to reduce post processing efforts, 

conserving considerable manpower. Documentation of station information, coordinate history and network 

accuracy are provided. Current and historical datasets are accurately prepared for integration into the GIS 

database. 

Budget 

FY2010 

SUP 12.S2.10: $88,242 

FY2011 

SUP 12.S2.11: $90,122 
195

SUP 12.S3.10–11: Control Network (Ongoing) 

Start Date 

Ongoing 

End Date 

Ongoing 

Principal Investigator(s) 

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

Geographic Scope 

High accuracy geodetic control now encompasses the entire Colorado River ecosystem corridor between 

Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Mead, and the greater Colorado River Basin. 

Project Goals 

The objective of this effort is to: 

• document methods and results of the geodetic control network developed within Grand Canyon’s 

CRE, 

• maintain the integrity of the network and all future spatial data referenced to the network by 

proposing data collection, processing, adjustment and documentation standards, 

• provide reference and methods for consistent and accurate error determination for several spatial 

data measurement types, and 

• provide valid reference for emphasis on spatial data collection and evaluation of remote sensing 

surveying techniques for river monitoring. Datasets used for change detection analysis must be 

conscientiously evaluated for accuracy and blunders so as not to skew scientific analysis and 

resulting decision making. 

Need for Project 

According to Executive Order 12906 (OMB< 2002), federal agencies must: 

• prepare, maintain, publish, and implement a strategy for advancing geographic information and 

related spatial data activities appropriate to their mission, 

• allocate agency resources to fulfill the responsibilities of effective spatial data collection, 

production, and stewardship, 

• coordinate and work in partnership with federal, state, tribal and local government agencies, 

academia and the private sector to efficiently and cost-effectively collect, integrate, maintain, 

disseminate, and preserve spatial data, building upon local data wherever possible, and 
196

• use Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) data standards, such as the Geospatial 

Positioning Accuracy Standards and the Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata, and 

other appropriate standards to ensure all relevant data and metadata are appropriately documented 

before finally making the metadata available to the public online. 

These standards include publications on reporting methodology, standards for geodetic networks, and the 

National Standard for Spatial Data Accuracy (NSSDA). It is the purpose of this effort to document 

adherence to these standards and add recommendations that will ensure policy decisions based on long 

term monitoring data and analysis are based on accurate and quality assured datasets. 

Strategic Science Questions 

Accurate and consistent spatial positioning of scientific data is necessary for facilitating change detection. 

Change detection methods are applied to spatial data collected within the cultural, biological, and physical 

programs to determine impacts on habitat, validate models, and determines fine and course sediment 

storage. Many strategic science questions require stage discharge relationships to determine inundation 

extents under various flows. These relationships must be collected in the field using consistent survey 

methods and be referenced to validated control. Answers to questions relating to habitat (e.g. sand bar, 

sand terraces, old and new high water zones, reach morphology, etc) will all require survey measurements. 

All SSQ’s addressed in projects supported by Control Network Operations are applicable. 

Information Needs Addressed 

Accurate and consistent spatial positioning of scientific data is necessary for facilitating change detection. 

Change detection methods are applied to spatial data collected within the cultural, biological, and physical 

programs to determine impacts on habitat, validate models, and determines fine and course sediment 

storage. Survey protocols also provide spatial data as the foundation of the GIS database. All information 

needs addressed in projects supported by Control Network Operations are applicable. 

Methods and Tasks 

FY2010 

The geodetic control network establishes the foundation for all spatial measurements within the CRE. The 

survey stations are all referenced to the most accurate and up-to-date coordinates available designated as 

NSRS2007. This is the most recent realization of the North American Datum of 1983 as determined in a 

multi-year nationwide readjustment performed by the National Geodetic Survey (NGS) and completed in 

2007. These stations provide the primary reference for both kinematic GPS positioning of aircraft during 

remote sensing flights and static GPS surveys to hundreds of monuments along the river corridor. This 

consistent framework allows for accurate and reliable accuracy assessment of all spatial data collected 

within the CRE, and assures the integrity of spatial analysis and resulting management decisions. 

FY2011

Same as FY2010 

Links/Relationships to Other Projects 

Any and all spatial data collection required by GCDAMG is supported through this program. 
197

Logistics 

FY2010 

The control network project will require one motor trip annually to support field data collection. 

Month Boats Length # personnel budget 

April 2-33’, 2-sport 15 days 12 $38,000 

FY2011 

The control network project will require one motor trip annually to support field data collection. 

Month Boats Length # personnel budget 

April 2-33’, 2-sport 15 days 12 $40,000 

Products/Reports 

We will work with GCMRC staff to identify realistic and achievable accuracies using existing technologies 

and theory. This will also include meeting with GCMRC scientists to establish accuracy requirements that 

are appropriate for supporting CRE scientific investigations. 

We will generate a comprehensive report on the survey control network. The report will include collection 

and processing methodologies, analysis and discussion of results, accuracy validation per FGDC 

requirements, and recommendations for ensuring the network meets the positioning needs of GCMRC for 

current and future scientific endeavors. 

Budget 

FY2010 

SUP 12.S3.10: $180,009 

FY2011 

SUP 12.S3.11: $185,704 

 
198

ADM 12.A1.10-11 (A): Administrative Operations 

Start Date 

1996

End Date 

Ongoing 

Principal Investigator 

John Hamill, Chief, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

Geographic Scope 

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center 

Project Goals 

The goals of the project are to: 

• provide budgetary oversight and support to the chief, program managers, and all employees of the 

GCMRC so that they may conduct their responsibilities in the most efficient, ethical, and 

professional manner possible; 

• to unburden the scientists, to the largest extent possible, of mundane administrative matters; and 

• to support the USGS and GCMRC missions of conducting scientific research in support of the 

GCDAMP. 

Need for Project 

It is necessary to have smooth running, transparent administrative operations that ensure that the GCMRC 

scientists can focus on their research rather than on the administrative details involved with the payment of 

rent and utilities, timekeeping concerns, filing, and various other administrative topics. Administrative 

operations activities provide the oversight and management of facilities, burden, and overhead; personnel 

issues; expenditure tracking; processing and financial management of cooperative and interagency 

agreements; processing of contracts; timekeeping; bank card tracking and reconciliation; travel plans and 

voucher processing; and liaison activities between the USGS administrative groups (Flagstaff Science 

Center Administration, Western Region Budget and Fiscal Services and Contracting Offices, Biological 

Headquarters in Reston, VA). In addition, this project is innately involved with the USGS nationwide 

budget tracking and reporting system known as BASIS+, which is used by the USGS Headquarters and 

Regional offices to make their annual reports to Congress, as well as to respond to Congressional inquiries 

with short turnaround times. (As part of the GCDAMP, GCMRC administrators have been called upon to 

provide information of this type from the system on many occasions.) 

Many standard overhead charges, including facilities, space, general office supplies, costs for the USGS 

local network, and support for the Flagstaff Science Center and USGS regional services (including 

contracting and personnel, as well as salaries and general travel for the GCMRC secretary and budget 

analyst) are paid for out of the Southwest Biological Science Center’s (SBSC) overhead account. Only 
199

charges directly tied and traceable to the GCMRC continue to be directly charged to the administrative 

operations account. These charges include General Services Administration vehicle lease and maintenance; 

Department of the Interior vehicle gas, maintenance, and replacement costs; safety and/or other nonproject-specific mandated training; GCMRC non-project-specific personnel support; telecommunications 

and shipping charges; and others. 

Strategic Science Questions 

Not applicable 

Information Needs Addressed 

Not applicable 

Methods and Tasks 

General methods will include standard accounting procedures and regulatory and legal standards as 

required by the USGS and other Federal agencies with legal oversight. Monthly updates to program 

managers will be provided as well as budgetary and other information provided upon request. The 

GCMRC will follow USGS guidelines as assigned for personnel, travel, and other processes. 

Administrative personnel will focus on how to accomplish requests most efficiently within Federal laws 

and regulations. The SBSC Administrative Officer and the GCMRC Budget Analyst will report biannually 

to the AMWG/TWG on mid-year and year-end projections and on the actual expenditures for the previous 

fiscal year. 

Links/Relationships to Other Projects 

This project is innately linked to all other projects. All project budgets are impacted by burden charges that 

are tracked and managed through administrative operations, all employees are required to track their time 

through a USGS personnel system, and many program managers use cooperative or interagency 

agreements that are processed and tracked financially via administrative operations. Every project is given 

an account number and must be entered into and tracked, via its budget and its narrative, through the 

BASIS+ system. Administrative operations activities are tied to each project at the project’s earliest 

development. 

Logistics 

There are no logistical needs for this project. 

Products/Reports 

The SBSC Administrative Officer and the GCMRC Budget Analyst will produce a projection report 

(usually at the August AMWG meeting) for year end. In addition, they will present a report in actual 

expenditures for the previous fiscal year that will normally be presented at the March AMWG meeting. 
200

Budget 

FY2010 

ADM 12.A1.10 (A): $161,908 

FY2011 

ADM 12.A1.11 (A): $167,995
201

ADM 12.A1.10-11 (B): Administrative Operations – GSA Vehicle Costs 

(Ongoing) 

Start Date 

1996

End Date 

Ongoing 

Principal Investigator 

John Hamill, Chief, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

Geographic Scope 

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center 

Project Goals 

The goals of the project are to provide reliable transportation for GCMRC. 

Need for Project 

It is necessary to have reliable transportation for GCMRC 

Strategic Science Questions 

Not applicable 

Information Needs Addressed 

Not applicable 

Methods and Tasks 

General methods will include standard accounting procedures and regulatory and legal standards as 

required by the USGS and other Federal agencies with legal oversight. 

Links/Relationships to Other Projects 

This project is innately linked to all other projects. 

Logistics 

There are no logistical needs for this project. 
202

Products/Reports 

N/A 

Budget 

FY2010 

ADM 12.A1.10 (B): $63,525 

FY2011 

ADM 12.A1.11 (B): $66,550
203

ADM 12.A1.10-11 (C): Administrative Operations – Interior Vehicle Costs 

(Ongoing) 

Start Date 

1996

End Date 

Ongoing 

Principal Investigator 

John Hamill, Chief, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

Geographic Scope 

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center 

Project Goals 

The goals of the project are to provide reliable transportation for GCMRC. 

Need for Project 

It is necessary to have reliable transportation for GCMRC 

Strategic Science Questions 

Not applicable 

Information Needs Addressed 

Not applicable 

Methods and Tasks 

General methods will include standard accounting procedures and regulatory and legal standards as 

required by the USGS and other Federal agencies with legal oversight. 

Links/Relationships to Other Projects 

This project is innately linked to all other projects. 

Logistics 

There are no logistical needs for this project. 
204

Products/Reports 

N/A 

Budget 

FY2010 

ADM 12.A1.10 (C): $32,065 

FY2011 

ADM 12.A1.11 (C): $33,880
205

ADM 12.A2.10-11: Program Planning and Management 

Start Date 

1996

End Date 

Ongoing 

Principal Investigator 

John Hamill, Chief, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

Geographic Scope 

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center 

Project Goals 

The 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 

Interior. Productive, well-qualified personnel are critical to achieving this goal. 

Need for Project 

Successful scientific research and reporting can be enhanced by strong and effective leadership that 

provides close working relationships between managers and employees and between GCMRC and the 

GCDAMP stakeholders. Good managers can apply knowledge as management actions that can enhance 

scientific research and imagination. In addition to their program management responsibilities, the GCMRC 

program managers are also subject area experts in their respective fields. It is important that GCMRC 

program managers and scientific staff maintain this expertise so they can provide high-quality technical 

assistance in the form of expert analysis, opinion, and advice to the Chief, TWG, and AMWG, as 

requested. The Sociocultural Program Manager also functions as the Native American coordinator. The 

program managers supervise additional technical and support staff, and act as project leads with their 

cooperators. 

Beginning in FY2006, in an effort to simplify distribution of program planning and management salaries 

and travel, the Program Manager salaries were assigned to this category exclusively. Salaries and travel 

costs, separate from TWG and AMWG meeting travel for the Chief, Deputy Chief, and five program 

managers, are included in the program planning and management budget. Position descriptions are 

provided below. 

Strategic Science Questions 

Not applicable 
206

Information Needs Addressed 

Not applicable 

General Methods/Tasks 

In order to provide strong leadership of a quality science program that is responsive to the needs of the 

GCDAMP, the GCMRC will be administered by a core program management staff that includes the 

following key positions: 

Center Chief 

Establishes GCMRC science policies and strategic direction and provides accountability for the GCMRC 

budget. Interfaces with USGS management, the Secretary of the Interior’s GCDAMP Designee, and 

GCDAMP managers to ensure that quality science is provided in a timely manner on priority issues 

identified by the GCDAMP leadership. 

Deputy Chief 

The Deputy Chief shall be responsible for oversight of the Physical Science and Modeling and Data 

Acquisition, Storage, and Analysis (DASA) Programs and shall ensure that integrated ecosystem science 

methods and procedures are utilized in science design and analysis. 

Program Managers 

Responsible for the timely execution of the science program within their program area; interaction with 

other program areas to ensure integrated ecosystem approaches, quality control of products and 

contractors/cooperators; contract/agreement management; management of budget within their program 

area, and production of reports to GCDAMP work groups as needed. The GCMRC activities now 

encompass five major program areas: 

1. The Physical Science and Modeling Program conducts research and monitoring activities on 

physical elements of the CRE, including studies of sediment storage and transport in the regulated 

river, and integrated downstream water-quality monitoring and research. The program has been 

responsible for monitoring several experimental high flow releases from GCD to conserve 

sediment resources for building beaches and improving habitat for native aquatic species in the 

Colorado River. More recent tasks have included development of a downstream temperature model 

for the ecosystem. 

2. The Data Acquisition, Storage, and Analysis Program provides GIS, data quality control, data 

management, and library services support to all program areas. In addition, DASA also participates 

in collaborative science analyses with GCMRC program staff and cooperators to help achieve 

better integrated science outcomes. The DASA program manager also oversees the GCMRC peerreview process under guidelines of the USGS Fundamental Science Practice protocols. 

3. The Biological Program provides scientific information that supports the conservation of native 

species in the Grand Canyon and the Lees Ferry trout fishery. Elements of the program include 

assessing the effects of GCD on fishery resources; characterizing the aquatic food base; evaluating 

terrestrial contributions to the aquatic food base; improving fish community monitoring, 

developing, and testing of techniques to control nonnative fishes; evaluate the nearshore ecology of 

native fishes and the effects of fall steady flows on native fish recruitment; evaluating terrestrial 

vegetation changes as a result of dam operations; and water quality monitoring and modeling in 

Lake Powell and the Colorado River below GCD. 
207

4. The Cultural and Socioeconomic Program develops research and monitoring projects to determine 

the effects of Glen Canyon Dam on culturally significant sites and recreation activities. The current 

focus is on development of comprehensive monitoring programs to assess the condition of the 

culturally significant sites and recreation campsites affected by the operation of GCD. In addition, 

the program oversees research and monitoring related to assessing the economic effects of Glen 

Canyon Dam operations on recreation, hydropower, and other program elements and coordinates 

Native American consultation activities on behalf of GCMRC. 

5. The Logistics and Survey Support Program supports up to 40 river trips per year and coordinates 

research permit management for the GCMRC. The Logistics Program also provides survey support 

to various program and activities, as well as maintains integrity of the network and spatial data of 

the geodetic control network. 

Links/Relationships to Other Projects 

This project is linked by nature to all other projects, since each project must be managed by a program 

manager or the Chief. 

Logistics 

There are no logistical needs for this project 

Products/Reports 

All products and reports produced by the GCMRC are a result of this project. 

Budget 

FY2010 

ADM 12.A2.10: $1,195,480 

FY2011 

ADM 12.A2.11: $1,238,435
208

ADM 12.A3.10-11: AMWG/TWG Meeting Travel Funds 

Start Date 

1996

End Date 

Ongoing 

Principal Investigator 

John Hamill, Chief, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

Geographic Scope 

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center 

Project Goals 

To provide travel funds for employees who participate in AMWG and TWG meetings. 

Need for Project 

This project is an account to hold funds for travel expenses for GCMRC employees who participate in 

AMWG and TWG meetings. Project-related travel expenses are accounted for by projects, and 

administrative travel (for example, general safety and security training) is planned under the 

Administrative Operations budget. 

Strategic Science Questions 

Not applicable 

Information Needs Addressed 

Not applicable

General Methods/Tasks 

Methods used are standard USGS travel authorizations and vouchers. 

Links/Relationships to Other Projects 

Not applicable 

Logistics 

There are no logistical needs for this project
209

Products/Reports 

Not applicable 

Budget 

FY2010 

ADM 12.A3.10: $19,481 

FY2011 

ADM 12.A3.11: $19,965 
210

ADM 12.A4.10-11(A): Independent Reviews 

Start Date 

1996

End Date 

Ongoing 

Principal Investigator 

John Hamill, Chief, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

Geographic Scope 

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center 

Project Goals 

To increase the efficiency and quality of the science being developed by the GCMRC and used by the 

AMWG and the Secretary of the Interior, the GCMRC will establish a peer review process to ensure that 

all unsolicited, solicited, or in-house proposals and all draft reports received by the GCMRC undergo 

independent, external peer review. 

Need for Project 

Independent external review is at the heart of the GCMRC’s approach to program management and 

implementation. Together with the competitive process, independent external peer review ensures the 

quality and objectivity of the GCMRC’s programs. Independent review panels are used to evaluate the 

GCMRC’s plans and activities. All proposals, reports, and programs are subject to independent peer review 

according to the GCMRC’s peer review protocols. GCMRC’s peer-review process is managed by the 

SBSC secretary under the supervision of the SBSC Deputy Center Director. 

To ensure program integrity, Science Advisors (SAs) provide independent scientific oversight and 

technical advice to ensure that all GCMRC science plans and programs are efficient, unbiased, objective, 

and scientifically sound. The SAs are expected upon request to review and comment on the following: 

• Results of ongoing and completed monitoring and research program activities, as well as any 

synthesis and assessment activities initiated by the GCMRC 

• The appropriateness of the GCMRC’s Requests for Proposals (RFPs), especially their 

responsiveness to management objectives 

• Protocols used in GCMRC-sponsored scientific activities, including a 5-year review of GCMRC 

monitoring and research protocols 

• GCMRC’s long-term monitoring plan 

• GCMRC’s biennual monitoring and research plans 
211

• GCMRC’s biennual budget proposals, to ensure that the science program is efficiently and 

effectively responding to AMWG goals (that is, management objectives) 

The SAs and Executive Director also provide other program-specific scientific and technical advice when 

asked by the AMWG, the GCMRC, or the Secretary of the Interior. 

Strategic Science Questions 

Not applicable 

Information Needs Addressed 

Not applicable 

Methods and Tasks 

Peer Review 

All of GCMRC's scientific activities undergo an independent, external peer review, including all 

unsolicited, solicited, or in-house proposals. Similarly, all draft reports received by the GCMRC undergo 

independent external peer review. The peer review protocols developed by the GCMRC meet or exceed the 

standards articulated by the Secretary of the Interior for DOI agencies. 

Peer review for proposals received by the GCMRC in response to an RFP is conducted through a panel 

process, while peer reviews for unsolicited and in-house proposals, as well as project reports, are 

conducted through correspondence. In all cases, the reviewers are offered anonymity, and the individual 

and panel reviews, where applicable, are provided to the principal investigators along with comments from 

the GCMRC. In addition, the GCMRC conducts PEPs to review and assess GCMRC’s projects and 

methodologies. To date, PEPs have been held for remote sensing, physical, survey control, terrestrial and 

aquatic, cultural resource, biological, and water quality programs. No PEPs are planned for FY2010. 

FY2011 includes PEP reviews for: 

• Aquatic foodbase in conjunction with Lake Powell downstream IQW 

• Camping beaches monitoring 

The GCMRC review process is handled by a Southwest Biological Science Center Review Coordinator to 

ensure that the peer-review process is not under the immediate supervision of individual GCMRC program 

managers to guard against any conflicts of interest⎯real or perceived. Strict conflict-of-interest guidelines 

are adhered to. The GCMRC annually recruits new peer reviewers and maintains a database of almost 500 

potential reviewers, organized by area of expertise. GCMRC peer reviewers come from academia; Federal, 

State, and Tribal governmental and nongovernmental organizations; and the private sector. Reviewers are 

selected on the basis of their record of scientific accomplishment and expertise. 

Links/Relationships to Other Projects 

Not applicable 

Products/Reports 

Not applicable
212

Budget 

FY2010 

ADM 12.A4.10(A): $22,400 

FY2011 

ADM 12.A4.11(A): $73,205
213

ADM 12.A4.10-11(B): Executive Director of Science Advisors Review 

Start Date 

End Date 

Ongoing 

Principal Investigator 

Lawrence D. Garrett, Principal M3 Research 

Program Overview 

The Science Advisors (SAs) contribute to the overall science needs of the GCDAMP as one of the 

Independent Review Panels (IRPs). They serve special functions not provided by other IRPs. SAs service 

is enlisted to increase the efficiency and quality of the science being developed by GCMRC and used by 

the AMWG and the Secretary. SAs provide independent scientific oversight and technical advice to insure 

that GCMRC science programs are efficient, unbiased, objective and scientifically sound. The SAs for FY 

2010/2011 will be comprised of six interdisciplinary senior scientists, primarily from universities 

supporting natural resource research programs. 

The SAs provide two areas of science support. One area is review of scientific and technical planning 

documents of GCMRC, TWG, and AMWG, including multiyear and annual strategic and operational 

plans, budgets, and special projects, i.e., EIS, HFE, LSSF, Humpback Chub Comprehensive Plan 

(HBCCP), etc. They also provide advisory service to GCMRC, AMWG, and TWG regarding adaptive 

management and long term experimental approaches, general science planning, development of new 

ecosystem science approaches, and technical projects such as a temperature control device (TCD) and 

management actions. 

Administrative Services of Science Advisor Program 

The SAs make minor adjustments in their administrative programming on an annual basis. However, in 

FY2009 the GCMRC and GCDAMP requested a significant revision of the SA Group. The revisions will 

cause replacement of all but three disciplines and recruiting three to five new SA members in full time/part 

time positions. Several activities to support new positions will occur in 2010, including: 

• Executive Coordinator work with GCMRC screening specialists for three to five SA positions, 

awarding positions, briefing material development and reviews, issuing contracts, revising 

procedures, refining SA reviews, etc., 

• SAs orientation combined with review meeting, 

• A SAs/GCMRC/TWG meeting combined with GCMRC or TWG workshop. 
214

Independent Reviews Projected FY2010–11 

The SAs projected review services are based upon specific GCMRC plans and general TWG and AMWG 

plans. All items listed are expected to be submitted to the SAs for review sometime in FY2010–11. Over 

the past 4 years, almost all projected reviews were eventually completed: 

• Assessment of general core monitoring proposal (proposed resources and time commitments, 

general approaches)

• Review of effectiveness of proposed 2011–12 Science Program and activities. Assessment of 

integration into the existing Strategic Science Plan and Monitoring and Research Plan

• Review of potential effectiveness of proposed 2011 science program budget

• Review of GCMRC’s Fall Steady Flow Science Plan

• Review of 2000 LSSF Synthesis Report

• Review Core Monitoring Plans for: 

o Aquatic Foodbase/Lake Powell and Downstream Water Quality Monitoring; 

o Native and Nonnative Fish Monitoring; 

o Vegetation Monitoring; and 

o Camping Beaches Monitoring

• Review of overall fisheries science and modeling direction

• Review of overall sediment science and modeling direction

• Review of TWG/AMWG/GCMRC proposed socioeconomic science RFP/science plan

• Review of management/science planning direction regarding HBC translocation and trout 

abatement

• Review of 2008 HFE project reports (projects 1-5) in first quarter of FY2010

• Review of HFE Synthesis report(s) in mid FY2010.

Science Advisory Service Project for GCDAMP 

The SAs provide both reviews and advisory service to the GCMRC, TWG, AMWG, and Secretary 

Designee. Advisory service is diverse and broad. Service ranges from telephone calls, and e-mails with 

GCMRC and GCDAMP members, facilitators, and other scientists and managers, clarifying SA review 

positions; providing information and/or developing prospectus for collaborative efforts; one to multiple 

workshops to assist in evaluating or developing program direction; writing short or extended reports on 

provided services, etc. 

It is difficult for the AMP entities to give the specific timeframe for when a service will start or be 

completed, i.e., delays of 6 months are common. However, generally parts or all of programs planned for 

the 2-year SA task periods are completed in the period. 

The following service is projected for the GCDAMP in FY2010–11. For the past 4 years the projected 

demands have been expanded by the GCDAMP during the planning period: 

• AMWG/TWG/GCMRC/SA workshop on GCDAMP effectiveness. SAs assist in prospectus 

development and participation 
215

• TWG/GCMRC/SA workshop on management actions. SAs assist in prospectus development, 

facilitation, reports 

• GCMRC/TWG/SA workshop on socioeconomics program plan. SAs assist in prospectus 

development, workshop, report 

• GCMRC science workshop on aquatics/fisheries ecosystem modeling led by Senior Ecologist. SA 

participation in March 2010 meeting 

• Assist GCMRC in designing and implementing ecosystem science approaches in research and 

monitoring programs, experimental options, modeling, sampling designs, etc. 

• Working with GCMRC Chief, leadership team, and Senior Ecologist, assess opportunities for 

greater integration and improved overall system assessments of biology programs 

• Participation in January 2010 annual reporting workshop/TWG meeting on 2008 HFE results 

• Participation in April 2010 science/stakeholder workshop on aquatic ecosystem modeling 

outcomes (Saguaro Lake Ranch) 

• Participate in combined FINAL Quality-of-Water (including Lake Powell) and Aquatics PEP in 

FY2011 

• Participate in FINAL Recreational PEP in FY2011 

• Following the knowledge assessment of 2005, assist GCMRC in development of advanced 

knowledge assessment procedures to support workshop(s) and participation in the workshop(s) in 

FY2011 

• Participate in development of SCORE II report (selected chapters as appropriate) as outcome of 

knowledge assessment in FY2011 

FY2010–11 Budget Projection 

M3 Research 5-year bid award on a GCMRC RFP in 2009 included the following budgets for FY2010–11 

for direct cost of reviews and services. 

Budget 

FY2010 

ADM 12.A4.10(B): $217,800 

FY2011 

ADM 12.A4.11(B): $223,850 
216

ADM 12.A5.10-11: GCMRC Component of SBSC Computer Systems 

Support 

Start Date 

FY2005

End Date 

Ongoing 

Principal Investigator(s) 

John Hamill, Chief, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

Geographic Scope 

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center 

Project Goals 

It is the Information Technology (IT) Department’s goal to ensure that GCMRC and all stations within 

SBSC are able to conduct scientific and administrative functions smoothly and with the least amount of 

disruption in service as possible. It is the IT Department’s task to make IT functions as transparent as 

possible, to ensure each program has adequate current and future storage, and to provide excellent 

customer service at all times. IT maintains the security of GCMRC and SBSC networks up to current 

Federal standards and ensures that all those who access the systems meet Federal security standards in 

order to protect personal information and scientific research that has not yet been released to the public. At 

the same time, the IT Department ensures that the public has full and easy access to publicly released data 

via GCMRC Web sites and works closely with the DASA program to make this possible. 

Need for Project 

The IT Department of the SBSC supports a variety of technology needs of the GCMRC’s various program 

areas: computer security, systems administration and procurement of new servers and computers, as well as 

Web site development and Web page maintenance. These support, development, and maintenance services 

costs are shared between the GCMRC, the SBSC, and the IT Department, and coordinated by the Center’s 

Deputy Director to meet the IT needs of all four research stations. 

Strategic Science Questions 

Not applicable 

Information Needs Addressed 

Not applicable 

Methods and Tasks 
217

The IT Department follows all Federal, DOI, and USGS regulations regarding purchase of, access to, and 

distribution and release of electronic information. Methods also include the following: 

• Network environment: Computer interconnectivity is provided using transmission control 

protocol/Internet protocol (TCP/IP) network communication protocol running on 1000baseT and 

100baseT network media. Network traffic is arbitrated by 6 3COM switches and hubs operating at 

1 gigabyte per second (Gbps). 

• Internet connectivity: The GCMRC computer network is linked to the Internet through the 

Flagstaff Science Center GEOnet-3 router that provides a DS-3 (45 Megabytes [Mbps]) virtual 

circuit to Menlo Park, where it joins the USGS GEOnet network. Also located in Menlo Park is a 

network portal to the Internet operated by the USGS and NASA through a peering partnership. 

GEOnet provides a secure Surveywide networking environment that interconnects headquarter 

region, district, and field offices located throughout the United States. 

• Intranet Web site: GCMRC’s intranet offers a secure centralized medium for information exchange 

among GCMRC employees. Among things to be internally shared via the intranet are standard 

operating procedures, personnel availability and contact info, vehicle and equipment checkout, and 

an IT support system. The GCMRC intranet is served from a Windows 2003 Server utilizing 

Active Server Pages (ASP). 

• GCMRC.GOV: The GCMRC Web site will continue to be redesigned in FY2010-11 to improve 

functionality and provide direct user/stakeholder access to all GCMRC products. 

• Computer security: Network security is provided by firewalls, routers, a patch management server, 

a systems management server (SMS), and antivirus software. Firewalls and routers are configured 

and maintained to restrict outside access to authorized systems. Operating systems are updated 

monthly to minimize vulnerabilities using Software Update Services (SUS), which automates a 

central delivery system for patch management. Antivirus updates are downloaded from the Web as 

released and pushed to all systems the same night. 

• Desktop and servers: CMRC’s computing environment is based upon the PC platform, Microsoft 

Windows operating system, and Microsoft Office automation software. Systems maintenance is 

performed using a combination of warranty service, service contracts, and in-house service as 

needed to facilitate quick turnaround, minimize downtime, and reduce costs. 

• System backup and disaster recovery: System backup and disaster recovery is accomplished using 

dual linear tape open (LTO) tape drives in a 30-slot carriage with a capacity of 12 Terabytes 

(Tbytes) native up to 24 Tbytes compressed before swapping tapes. Tapes are stored locally in a 

fire vault and archival tapes are stored offsite. Server disks are configured to run either a raid-5 

array or mirrored for redundancy. 

• Troubleshooting and maintenance: Helpdesk support is provided as requested/required. Requests 

are received via the Web, email, and telephone. 

• Assistance with GCMRC’s data storage: Over 30 Tbytes of online disk storage is provided by 

multiple servers with small computer system interface (SCSI) disk arrays. Server disk arrays are 

hot swappable to minimize downtime. GCMRC also utilizes networked attached storage (NAS) 

devices. Integrated Drive Electronics (IDE) and Serial Advanced Technology Attachment (STA) 

drives connected to a SCSI backplane. NAS units are used to provide bulk storage capacity at less 

expense. Servers are connected via a Fiber 1Gbps backbone to multiple NAS units. 

Links/Relationships to Other Projects 

All projects are integrated with IT support. Refer to the DASA section for more information on integration 

with these projects. 
218

Products/Reports 

The primary products and services of the SBSC Information Technology Department with respect to 

ongoing support of the GCMRC’s needs are as follows: 

• Comprehensive and fully functional Web site development and maintenance, with access to all 

nonsensitive digital data and information relating to the effects of dam operations on the CRE. 

GCMRC Web sites to make the mission and findings of the GCMRC accessible to the public (Sites 

offer our updated work plan, descriptions of our program areas, and various interactive stores of 

data including an Internet Map Server and an online library) 

• Coordination with GCMRC’s DASA to ensure and support a comprehensive and fully functional 

library containing all hard copy and digital media (cataloged and accessible) with data and 

information relating to the effects of dam operations on the CRE (Sensitive and nonreleasable data 

and information will be archived and secured separately from releasable data and information) 

• Fully functional and integrated computing environment 

Budget 

FY2010 

ADM 12.A5.10: $263,526 

FY2011 

ADM 12.A5.11: $225,181
219

EXP 7 FY2010: Experimental Research Synthesis: Synthesis of High Flow 

Experimental Results (1996, 2004, and 2008) 

Start Date 

2009

End Date 

September 2010

Principal Investigator(s) 

John Schmidt, Utah State University (Team Lead) and Richard Valdez (co-lead) a variety of other 

cooperating scientists, as contributing co-authors 

Geographic Scope 

Entire Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center study area, from the forebay of Lake Powell to 

upper Lake Mead. 

Project Goals 

Comprehensive synthesis of experimental findings associated with past HFE) at GCD; including quality of 

water (flow, temperature and sediment), biological, cultural, recreational, and economic data reported for 

tests conducted in FY1996, FY2004, and FY2008. The synthesis should aim to identify the ecological 

learning that has occurred with respect to the objectives originally identified for such flow releases in the 

1995 Final EIS on Glen Canyon Dam operations, as well as the objectives associated with the 12 

GCDAMP goals. Where possible, data and reports relating to earlier high flow releases from GCD 

(FY1965 and FY1983–86) will also be evaluated and included in the synthesis. The synthesis of HFEs at 

GCD should also be placed in context with other reported findings about such flow releases that have been 

previously published in other settings. 

Need for Project 

Resource managers have requested that the previous results of three HFEs be synthesized to achieve a 

more comprehensive understanding about how effective such operations have been at achieving resource 

objectives within the CRE. The focus of HFE tests has been primarily, but not exclusively, on the 

conservation of fine sediment and creation and maintenance of associated sandbar habitats, such as 

backwaters and higher elevation sandbars that support riparian vegetation, as well as recreational camping 

areas. A complete synthesis of the HFE findings is required for managers to determine future plans for 

additional experiments and to support current flow, sediment and temperature modeling research. The 

project will also support the proposed knowledge assessment effort during FY2011. 
220

Strategic Science Questions 

The Experimental High Flow Synthesis will address the following SSQ on sediment and other associated 

resource issues: 

Fate of nearshore habitats, including backwaters, created by HFEs: 

SSQ 1.3. Do RBT immigrate from Glen to Marble and eastern Grand Canyons, and, if so, during what 

life stages? To what extent do Glen Canyon immigrants support the population in Marble and eastern 

Grand Canyons? [FY2007–11] 

SSQ 2. 2. How do flows impact old high-water zone terraces in the Colorado River ecosystem (CRE) 

(where the majority of archaeological sites occur), and what kinds of important information about the 

historical ecology and human history of the CRE are being lost due to ongoing erosion of the Holocene 

sedimentary deposits? [FY2004–11] 

SSQ 3.1. Is there a “Flow-Only” operation (that is, a strategy for dam releases, including managing 

tributary inputs with BHBFs, without sediment augmentation) that will restore and maintain sandbar 

habitats over decadal timescales? [FY2008–11] 

SSQ 3.2. To what extent could predation impacts by nonnative fish be mitigated by higher turbidities 

or dam-controlled high-flow releases? [FY2007–08] 

SSQ 4-1. Is there a “Flow Only” operation (that is, a strategy for dam releases, including managing 

tributary inputs with BHBFs, without sediment augmentation) that will rebuild and maintain sandbar 

habitats over decadal timescales?] 

Information Needs Addressed 

N/A 

Methods and Tasks 

FY2010: 

Schmidt and others will convene meetings with variety of previous HFE authors and cooperating scientists 

to review and evaluate previous findings of the FY1996, FY2004, and FY2008 HFEs. At least one or two 

workshops will be convened as part of the synthesis, similar to that convened during the FY2008 Low 

Summer Steady Flow (LSSF) synthesis effort. In addition, the three habitat maintenance flow experiments 

(HMF) of FY1997 and FY2000 will also be reviewed and evaluated to determine the degree to which those 

experimental results should also be included in the HFE synthesis. 

Links/Relationships to Other Projects 

This experimental synthesis project will use data from previously published HFE studies in FY1996 and 

FY2004, as well as reports published in FY2009 on the March 2008 HFE. 
221

Logistics 

There are no logistical needs for this project. 

Products/Reports 

FY2010

Preliminary drafts of syntheses of natural and cultural resource findings associated with the FY1996, 

FY2004, and FY2008 HFEs, plus change detection analyses of sandbars and associated habitats recorded 

in the May 2009 overflight imagery.

• Oral presentation (Schmidt and others) on preliminary HFE synthesis to GCDAMP stakeholders 

(TWG, AMWG) in fall 2010.

• High Flow Experimental synthesis (proposed as report by Schmidt and others) relating to the 

sediment, biological, cultural, recreational and economic responses associated with the FY1996, 

FY2004 and FY2008 experimental releases.

Budget (proposed to be funded from FY2010 Experimental Fund) 

FY2010 

EXP 7: $175,000 

FY2011 

EXP 7: $0
222

REFERENCES 

Anderson, C.R., and Wright, S.A., 2007, Development and application of a water temperature model for 

the Colorado River ecosystem below Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona. Hydrological Science and Technology 

, vol. 23 (1-4): Proceedings of the American Institute of Hydrology 2007 Annual Meeting and 

International Conference, pp. 13-26. 

Anderson, L.S., and Ruffner, G.A., 1987, Effects of the post-Glen Canyon Dam flow regime on the old 

high water line plant community along the Colorado River in Grand Canyon: Glen Canyon 

Environmental Studies, executive summaries of technical reports, NTIS no. PG-183504/AS. 

Antvogel, H. and A. Bonn. 2004. Environmental parameters and microspatial distribution of insects: a case 

study of carabids in an alluvial forest. Ecography 24:470-482. 

Aspinall, R., J., 2002,Use of logistic regression for validation of maps of the spatial distribution of 

vegetation species derived from high spatial resolution hyperspectral remotely sensed data, Ecological 

Modelling 157, p. 301-312. 

Austin, D.E., Osife, C.E., Drye, B., Phillips, A.M., III, Gardner, A., and Suinarich, J., 1997, 1997 Southern 

Paiute Consortium Colorado River corridor monitoring and education program: Summary report, Bureau 

of Reclamation, cooperative agreement no. 4-FC-40-15620, 12 p. 

Beus, S.S., David, J.N., Lojko, F.B., and Stevens, L.E., 1992, Colorado River investigations XI, Report 

submitted to Grand Canyon National Park, on file at USGS Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research 

Center, Flagstaff, AZ., 175 p. 

Boesch, D.F., Manley, P.N. and Melis, T.S., 2006, The future of water resources adaptive management: 

challenges and overcoming them, Impact, American Water Resources Association, May issue. 

Brian, N.J., and Thomas, J.R., 1984, 1983 Colorado River sand bar campsite inventory: National Park 

Service, Division of Resources Management, Grand Canyon National Park, Ariz. 

Chu, C., Mandrak, N.E., and Minns, C.K., 2005, Potential impacts of climate change on the distributions of 

several common and rare freshwater fishes in Canada, Diversity and Distributions, 11, 299-310. 

Clarkson, R.W. and Childs, M.R., 2000, Temperature Effects of Hypolimnial-Release Dams on Early Life 

Stages of Colorado River Basin Big-River Fishes. Copeia 2000(2):402-412. 

Clover, E.U., and Jotter, L., 1944, Floristic studies in the canyon of the Colorado and tributaries: American 

Midland Naturalist, v. 32, p. 591–642. 

Coggins, L.G., 2008, Active adaptive management for native fish conservation in the Grand Canyon: 

implementation and evaluation. PhD Dissertation, University of Florida. 

Coggins, L.G., Jr. 2007. Abundance trends and status of the Little Colorado River population of humpback 

chub: an update considering 1989-2006 data. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2007-1402, 53 p. 

ACCESS: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2007/1402/

Coggins, L.G., Jr., and Waters, C.J., 2009, Abundance trends and status of the Little Colorado River 

population of humpback chub; an update considering data from 1989-2008: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 2009-1075, 18 p. 

Coggins, L.G., Jr., and Waters, C.J., 2009, Abundance trends and status of the Little Colorado River 

population of humpback chub; an update considering data from 1989-2008: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 2009-1075, 18 p. 
223

Coggins, L.G., Jr., Pine, W.E. III, Walters, C.J., Martell, S. J. D., 2006b, Age-structured mark-recapture 

analysis: a virtual-population-analysis-based model for analyzing age-structured capture-recapture data. 

North American Journal of Fisheries Management 26:201-205. 

Coggins, L.G., Jr., Pine, W.E., III, Walters, C.J., Van Haverbeke, D.R., Ward, D., and Johnstone, H.C.. 

2006a, Abundance trends and status of the Little Colorado River population of humpback chub. North 

American Journal of Fisheries Management 26:233-245. 

Collins, B.D., Brown, K.B., and Fairley, H., 2008. Evaluation of Terrestrial LIDAR for Monitoring 

Geomorphic Change at Archaeological Sites in Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona: U.S. Geological 

Survey, Open File Report 2008-1384, 60 p. [http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1384/]. 

Collins, B.D., Minasian, D., and Kayen, R., 2009, Topographic Change Detection at Select Archaeological 

Sites in Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona, 2006-2007: U.S. Geological Survey, Scientific 

Investigations Report 2009-5116, 97p. 

Cooper, D., Battaglia, L., Batzer, D., Chong, G., Hudak, A., Young, M., 2008, Review of terrestrial 

monitoring protocols for the Grand Canyon: Report of the Protocol Evaluation Panel (PEP): report to 

USGS Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, 31 p. 

Damp, J., Pederson, J. and O’Brian, G. 2007. Geoarchaeological Investigations and an Archaeological 

Treatment Plan for 151 Sites in the Grand Canyon, Arizona. Unpublished report submitted to the 

Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Regional Office, Salt Lake City, 501 p. 

Davis, P. A., 2004, Review of results and recommendations from the GCMRC 2000-2003 remote-sensing 

initiative for monitoring environmental resources within the Colorado River ecosystem, U.S Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 2004-1206, 73 p. 

Davis, P. A., and Melis, T. S., 2009, Mapping full-channel geometry in the Grand Canyon using airborne 

bathymetric LiDAR: The Lees Ferry test case, U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet, in press. 

Doelle, W.H., 2000, Final Report: Cultural Resource Program Assessment: manuscript on file, Grand 

Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, Flagstaff, Ariz. 

Dolan, R., Howard, A., and Gallenson, A., 1974, Man's impact on the Colorado River in the Grand 

Canyon: American Scientist, v. 62, p. 393-401. 

Draut, A.E., and Rubin, D.M., 2005, Measurements of wind, aeolian sand transport, and precipitation in the 

Colorado River corridor, Grand Canyon, Arizona—November 2003 to December 2004: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 2005-1309. 

Draut, A.E., and Rubin, D.M., 2006, Measurements of wind, aeolian sand transport, and precipitation in the 

Colorado River corridor, Grand Canyon, Arizona—November 2003 to December 2004: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 2006-1188. 

Eaton, J.G. and Scheller, R.M., 1996, Effects of climate warming on fish thermal habitat in streams of the 

United States, Limnology and Oceanography, Vol. 41, No. 5, Freshwater Ecosystems and Climate 

Change in North America, pp. 1109-1115. 

Edwards, T.K., and Glysson, G.D., 1999, Field methods for measurement of fluvial sediment: Techniques 

of Water-Resources Investigations of the U.S. Geological Survey, book 3, chapter C2, 89 p. 

Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc., 2005, ArcMap Version 9.1: Redlands, CA, USA. 

Flynn, M.E., and Hornewer, N.J., 2003, Variations in sand storage measured at monumented cross sections 

in the Colorado River between Glen Canyon Dam and Lava Falls Rapid, Northern Arizona, 1992-99: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 03-4104, 39 p. 

Gloss, S.P., Lovich, J.E., and Melis, T.S., eds., 2005, The state of the Colorado River ecosystem in Grand 

Canyon: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1282. 
224

Gushue, T. M., Breedlove, M. J., Andrews, T., Schmidt, J. C., and Hansen, J. R., 2009, Shoreline habitat 

mapping of the Colorado River ecosystem in Grand Canyon, Arizona, U.S. Geological Survey Fact 

Sheet, in press. 

Hauer, R. F., and Lorang, M. S., 2004, River regulation, decline of ecological resources, and potential for 

restoration in a semi-arid lands river in the western USA, Aquatic Science 66, p. 388-401. 

Hawkins, J.A., and Nesler, T.P., 1991, Nonnative fishes of the upper Colorado River basin: an issue paper. 

Final Report of Colorado State University Larval Fish Laboratory to Upper Colorado River Endangered 

Fish Recovery Program, Denver, Colorado. 

Hazel, J.E. Jr., Kaplinski, M., Parnell, R., and M. Manone, 2000, Sand deposition in the Colorado River 

ecosystem from flooding of the Paria River and the effects of the November 1997, Glen Canyon Dam 

Test Flow: Final Report to the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center: Flagstaff, Ariz., 

Northern Arizona University, 37 p. 

Hazel, J.E., Jr., Kaplinski, M., Parnell, R., Manone, M., and Dale, A., 1999, Topographic and bathymetric 

changes at thirty-three long-term study sites, in Webb, R.H., Schmidt, J.C., Marzolf, G.R., and Valdez, 

R.A., eds., The 1996 controlled flood in Grand Canyon: Washington, D.C., American Geophysical 

Union, Geophysical Monograph 110, p. 161−184. 

Hazel, J.E., Jr., Topping, D.J., Schmidt, J.C., and Kaplinski, M., 2006, Influence of a dam on fine-sediment 

storage in a canyon river: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 111, no. F01025, 16 p. 

Hereford, R., Fairley, H.C., Thompson, K.S., and Balsom, J.R., 1993, Surficial geology, geomorphology 

and erosion of archeologic sites along the Colorado River, eastern Grand Canyon, Grand Canyon 

National Park, Arizona. Grand Canyon National Park in cooperation with the Bureau of Reclamation, 

Glen Canyon Environmental Studies, Flagstaff, Ariz.: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 93-517. 

Howard, A., and Dolan, R., 1981, Geomorphology of the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon: Journal of 

Geology, v. 89, no. 3, p. 269-298. 

Howard, A.D., 1975, Establishment of benchmark study sites along the Colorado River in Grand Canyon 

National Park for monitoring of beach erosion caused by natural forces and human impact, p. 14. 

Huisinga, K. and M. Yeatts. 2003. An analysis of the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center’s 

terrestrial monitoring program and the development of a Hopi long-term plan. Technical Report to the 

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, Cooperative Agreement No. 01WRSA0358. 

ITT Visual Information Solutions, 2005, ENVI (Environment for Visualizing Images), Version 4.4.: 

Boulder, Colo. 

Kalkhan, M. A., 2003, Landscape assessment of invasive plants, cryptobiotic crust cover, and wildfire 

hazards of Rocky Mountain regions: ecology, models, and maps, 7

Th

Biennial Conference of Research on 

the Colorado Plateau, November 1-5, 2003, Northern Arizona University, du Bois Conference Center, 

Flagstaff, Arizona, USA. 

Kaplinski, M., Behan, J., Hazel, J.E., Jr., Parnell, R.A., and Fairley, H.C., 2005, Recreational values and 

campsites in the Colorado River ecosystem, in Gloss, S.P., Lovich, J.E., and Melis, T.S., eds., The state 

of the Colorado River ecosystem in Grand Canyon: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1282, p. 193–205. 

Kaplinski, M., Hazel, J.E., and Parnell, R., 2005, Campsite area monitoring in the Colorado River 

ecosystem: 1998 to 2003: Final report submitted to Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, 

Flagstaff, Ariz., 39 p. 

Kaplinski, M., Hazel, J.E., Jr., Parnell, R., Breedlove, M., and Schmidt, J.C., 2007, Integrating 

bathymetric, topographic, and LiDAR surveys of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon to assess the 

effect of a flow experiment from Glen Canyon Dam on the Colorado River ecosystem: Proceedings of 

the Hydrographic Society of America 2007 Annual Meeting, May 14−17, Norfolk, Va., 22 p. 
225

Kaplinski, M., Hazel, J.E., Parnell, R., Manone, M., and Gonzales, M., 2000, Evaluation of hydrographic 

survey techniques used for channel mapping by the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center in 

the Colorado River ecosystem, Grand Canyon, Arizona: final report to the Grand Canyon Monitoring 

and Research Center, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Ariz., 37 p. 

Kearsley, L.H., 1995, Monitoring the effects of Glen Canyon Dam interim flows on campsite size along 

the Colorado River in Grand Canyon National Park (final report): National Park Service, Division of 

Resources Management, Grand Canyon National Park. 

Kearsley, L.H., and Quartaroli, R., 1997, Effects of a sand bar/habitat building flow on campsites in Grand 

Canyon: Final report of Applied Technology Associates for the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies, 18 

p. 

Kearsley, L.H., and Warren, K., 1993, River campsites in Grand Canyon National Park: inventories and 

effects of discharge on campsite size and availability (final report): National Park Service, Division of 

Resources Management, Grand Canyon National Park. 

Kearsley, L.H., Schmidt, J.C., and Warren, K.D., 1994, Effects of Glen Canyon Dam on Colorado River 

sand deposits used as campsites in Grand Canyon National Park, USA: Regulated Rivers: Research and 

Management, v. 9, p. 137–149. 

Kearsley, M.J.C., 2006, Vegetation dynamics, in Kearsley, M.J.C., ed., Inventory and monitoring of 

terrestrial riparian resources in the Colorado River corridor of Grand Canyon: an integrative approach: 

final report from Northern Arizona University submitted to Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research 

Center, U.S. Geological Survey, Flagstaff, Ariz., 262 p. 

Kearsley, M.J.C., and Ayers, T.J., 1996, The effects of interim flows from Glen Canyon Dam on riparian 

vegetation in the Colorado River corridor, Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona: Final report from 

Northern Arizona University submitted to the Grand Canyon Science Center, Grand Canyon National 

Park, Grand Canyon, Ariz., 40 p., appendices. 

Kearsley, M.J.C., and Ayers, T.J., 1999, Riparian vegetation responses: snatching defeat from the jaws of 

victory and vice versa, in Webb, R.H., Schmidt, J.C., Marzold, G.R., and Valdez, R.A., eds., The 

controlled flood in Grand Canyon: Washington, D.C., American Geophysical Union, Geophysical 

Monograph Series, v. 110, p. 309–327. 

Kearsley, M.J.C., Cobb, N., Yard, H., Lightfoot, D., Brantley, S., Carpenter, G., and Frey J. 2006. 

Inventory and monitoring of terrestrial riparian resources in the Colorado River corridor of the Grand 

Canyon: an integrative approach: Final report from Northern Arizona University submitted to the Grand 

Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, U.S. Geological Survey, Flagstaff, Ariz., 218p. 

Korman, J., Yard, M., Walters, C., and L.G. Coggins, 2009, Effects of fish size, habitat, flow, and density 

on capture probabilities of age-0 rainbow trout estimated from electrofishing at discrete sites in a large 

river. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 128:58-75. 

Krebs, C.J., 1994, Ecology: the experimental analysis of distribution and abundance. 4th Ed. Harper 

Collins. New York. 

Lomaomvaya, M., Ferguson, T.J., and Yeatts, M., 2001, Ongtuvqava Sakwtala: Hopi ethnobotany in the 

Grand Canyon: submitted to the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center. 

Lovich, J. and Melis, T.S., 2007, The state of the Colorado River ecosystem in Grand Canyon: Lessons 

from 10 years of adaptive ecosystem management, Intl. J. River Basin Management Vol. 5, No. 3, p. 

207–221. 

Lucchitta, I., Curtis, G.H., Davis, M.E., Davis, S.W., and Turin,B., 2000, Cyclical aggradation and 

downcutting, fluvial response to volcanic activity, and calibration of soil-carbonate stages in western 

Grand Canyon, Arizona: Quaternary Research, v. 53, pp.23-33. 
226

MacKenzie, D. I., Nichols, J. D., Royle, J. A., Pollock, K. H., Bailey, L. L., and Hines, J. E., 2006, 

Occupancy Estimation and Modeling: Inferring Patterns and Dynamics of Species Occurrence. Elsevier. 

San Diego, California. 

Magirl, C. S., Breedlove, M. J., Webb, R. H., and Griffiths, P. G., 2008, Modeling water-surface elevations 

and virtual shorelines for the Colorado River in Grand Canyon, Arizona, U.S. Geological Survey 

Scientific Investigations Report 2008-5075, 32 p. 

McCune, B., and Grace, J.B., 2002, Analysis of ecological communities: MjM Software Design: Gleneden 

Beach, Oreg., 300 p. 

McKinney, T. and W.R. Persons. 1999a. Rainbow trout and lower tropic levels in the Lee's Ferry 

tailwater below Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona: A Review. Final Report to U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, Flagstaff, Arizona. Arizona Game and Fish 

Department, Phoenix, AZ. Cooperative Agreement No. 1425-98-FC-40-22690. 

McKinney, T., D.W. Speas, R.S. Rogers, and W.R. Persons. 2001a. Rainbow trout in a regulated river 

below Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona, following increased minimum flows and reduced discharge 

variability. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 21:216-222. 

McKinney, T., D.W. Speas, R.W. Rogers, and W.R. Persons. 1999b. Rainbow trout in the Lee's Ferry 

recreational fishery below Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona, following establishment of minimum flow 

requirements. Final Report to U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research 

Center, Flagstaff, Arizona. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. Cooperative Agreement 

No. 1425-98-FC-40-22690. 109 pp 

McKinney, T.D., R.S. Rogers, A.D. Ayers, and W.R. Persons. 1999c. Lotic community responses in the 

Lee’s Ferry reach. In R.H. Webb, J.S. Schmidt, G.R. Marzolf and R.A. Valdez (editors). The 1996 

controlled flood in Grand Canyon: scientific experiment and management demonstration. Geophysical 

Monograph 110:249-258. 

McKinney, T.D., R.S. Rogers, and W.R. Persons. 1999d. Effects of flow reduction on aquatic biota of the 

Colorado River below Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 

19:984-991. 

Melis, T.S., Korman, J. and Walters, C.J., 2005, Active Adaptive Management of the Colorado River 

Ecosystem Below Glen Canyon Dam, USA: Using Modeling and Experimental Design to Resolve 

Uncertainty in Large-River Management: Proceedings of the International Conference on Reservoir 

Operations & River Management, Guangzhou, China, September 18-23, 2005, 8 p. 

Melis, T.S., Martell, S.J.D., Coggins, L.G., Jr., Pine, W.E., III, and Andersen, M.E., 2006, Adaptive 

management of the Colorado River ecosystem below Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona: using science and 

modeling to resolve uncertainty in river management, in Specialty Summer Conference on Adaptive 

Management of Water Resources, Missoula, Mont., CD-ROM Proceedings (ISBN 1-882132-71-8): 

Middleburg, Va., American Water Resources Association. 

Melis, T.S., Topping, D.J., and Rubin D.M., 2003, Testing laser-based sensors for continuous in situ 

monitoring of suspended sediment in the Colorado River, Arizona, in Bogen, J., Fergus, T., and Walling, 

D.E., eds., Erosion and sediment transport measurement in rivers: technological and methodological 

advances: Wallingford, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom, IAHS Press, IAHS Publication 283, p. 21–27. 

Melis, T.S., Wright, S.A., Ralston, B., Fairley, H., Kennedy, T., Coggins, L., and Korman, J., 2006, 

Knowledge assessment of the effects of Glen Canyon Dam on the Colorado River ecosystem, Grand 

Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, U.S. Geological Survey, Flagstaff, Ariz., 77 p. 

Melis, Theodore S., Martel, Steven J.D. l, Coggins, Lewis G., Pine, William E. III and Andersen, Matthew 

E., 2006b, Adaptive Management of the Colorado River Ecosystem below Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona: 

Using Science and Modeling to Resolve Uncertainty in River Management in Proceedings of the 
227

Adaptive Management of Water Resources AWRA Summer Specialty Conference, Missoula, Montana, 

June 26-28, 2006. 6 p. 

Melis, Theodore S., Steven, Wright, Scott A., Ralston, Barbara E., Fairley, Helen C., Kennedy, Theodore 

A., Andersen, Matthew E., and Coggins, Lewis G., Jr., 2006a, Knowledge Assessment of the Effects of 

Glen Canyon Dam on the Colorado River Ecosystem: An Experimental Planning Support Document, 

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, 87 p. 

Miller, R.R, 1961, Man and the changing fish fauna of the American Southwest: Papers of the Michigan 

Academy of Science, Arts, and Literature, v. 46, p. 365-404. 

Minckley, W.L., 1991, Native fishes of the Grand Canyon, an Obituary?, in Marzolf, G.R. ed., Colorado 

River ecology and dam management: Washington, D.C., National Academy Press, p. 124-177. 

Minckley, W.L., and Deacon, J.E., 1991, Battle against extinction: native fish management in the 

American West: Tucson, Arizona, University of Arizona Press. 

Naiman, R.J., Décamps, H., McClain, M.E., eds., 2005, Riparia—ecology, conservation and management 

of streamside communities: London, Elsevier Academic Press. 

Nakano, S., and Murakami, M., 2001, Reciprocal subsidies: dynamic interdependence between terrestrial 

and aquatic food webs: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, v. 98, p. 166–170. 

O’Brien, L. E., Coleman, A., Blank, B. L., Grams, P. E., and Schmidt, J. C., 2000, Testing the Application 

of Digital Photogrammetry to Monitor Topographic Changes of Sandbars in the Colorado River 

Ecosystem, Unpublished Final Report to GCMRC on Cooperative Agreement 1425-98-FC-40-22640, 

Utah State University, Logan, UT, 59 p. 

Office of Management and Budget Circular A-16 (2002) National Spatial Data Infrastructure [available 

online at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a016/a016_rev.html 

Paukert, C.P., Coggins, L.G. Jr., and Flaccus, C.E., 2006, Distribution and movement of humpback chub in 

the Colorado River, Grand Canyon, based on recaptures. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 

135:539-544. 

Pederson, J.L., Petersen, P.A., MacFarlane, W.W., Gonzales, M.F., and Kohl, K., 2003, Mitigation, 

monitoring, and geomorphology related to gully erosion of cultural sites in Grand Canyon. Final report 

in fulfillment of CA-01-WRAG-0074: on file, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, 

Flagstaff, Ariz. 

Pederson, J.L., Anders, M.D., Rittenhour, T.M., Sharp, W.D., Gosse, J.C., and Karlstrom, K.E., 2006, 

Using fill terraces to understand incision rates and evolution of the Colorado River in eastern Grand 

Canyon, Arizona: Journal of Geophysical Research (Earth Surface), v. 111, F02003, 

doi:10.1029/2004JF000201. 

Phillips, A.M., III, and Jackson, L., 1996, Evaluation and mitigation efforts for the March 1996 Colorado 

River test flow experiment: final report: Peach Springs, Ariz., Hualapai Tribe Cultural Resources 

Division, 10 p. 

Porter, M.E., 2002, Riparian vegetation responses to contrasting managed flows of the Colorado River in 

Grand Canyon, Arizona: Flagstaff, Northern Arizona University, M.S. thesis, 33 p. 

Rahel, F.J., and Olden, J.D., 2008, Assessing the effects of climate change on aquatic invasive species, 

Conservation Biology 22(3), 521-533. 

Ralston, B. E., Davis, P. A., Weber, R. M., and Rundall, J. M., 2008, A vegetation database for the 

Colorado River ecosystem from Glenn Canyon dam to the western boundary of Grand Canyon National 

Park, Arizona, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2008-1216, 44p. 
228

Ralston, B.E., Davis, P.A., Weber, R.M., and Rundall, J.M., 2008, A vegetation database for the Colorado 

River ecosystem from Glen Canyon Dam to the western boundary of Grand Canyon National Park: 

Open-File Report 2008-1216, U.S. Geological Survey. 

Rantz, S.E. and others, 1982a, Measurement and computation of streamflow: volume 1, measurement of 

stage and discharge: U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 2175, 284 p, 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/wsp/wsp2175/, accessed October 7, 2008. 

Rantz, Saul Edward; and others, 1982b, Measurement and computation of streamflow: volume 2, 

computation of discharge, U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 2175, 631 p, 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/wsp/wsp2175/, accessed October 7, 2008. 

Rubin, D.M., 2004, A simple autocorrelation algorithm for determining grain size from digital images of 

sediment: Journal of Sedimentary Research, v. 74, p. 160−165. 

Rubin, D.M., Chezar, H., Harney, J.N., Topping, D.J., Melis, T.S., and Sherwood, C.R., 2006, Underwater 

microscope for measuring spatial and temporal changes in bed-sediment grain size: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 2006-1360, http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1360/, accessed March 30, 2008. 

Rubin, D.M., Chezar, H., Harney, J.N., Topping, D.J., Melis, T.S., and Sherwood, C.R., 2007, Underwater 

microscope for measuring spatial and temporal changes in bed-sediment grain size: Sedimentary 

Geology, v. 202, no. 3, p. 402-408. 

Schmidt, J. C., Grams, P. E., and Leschin, M. F., 1999, Variation in the magnitude and style of deposition 

and erosion on three long (8-12 km) reaches as determined by photographic analysis. In Webb, R. H., 

Schmidt, J. C., Marzolf, G. R., and Valdez, R. A. (Eds.), The Controlled Flood in Grand Canyon, 

American Geophysical Union, Geophysical Monograph Series. v. 110, p. 185-204. 

Schmidt, J.C., and Graf, J.B., 1990, Aggradation and degradation of alluvial sand deposits, 1965 to 1986, 

Colorado River, Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 

1493, 74 p. 

Schmidt, J.C., Topping, D.J., Grams, P.E., and Hazel, J.E., Jr., 2004, System-wide changes in the 

distribution of fine sediment in the Colorado River corridor between Glen Canyon Dam and Bright 

Angel Creek, Arizona: final report submitted to Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, 

Flagstaff, Ariz., 117 p., http://www.gcmrc.gov/library/reports/physical/Fine_Sed/Schmidt2004.pdf, 

accessed March 30, 2008. 

Seager, R., Ting, M., Held, I., Kushnir, Y., Lu, J., Vecchi, G., Huang, H.-P., Harnik, N., Leetmaa, A., Lau, 

N.-C., Li, C., Velez, J., and Naik, N., 2007, Model projections of an imminent transition to a more arid 

climate in southwestern North America: Science, v. 316, p. 1181–1184. 

Stevens, L.E., and Ayers T.J., 1993, The impacts of Glen Canyon Dam on riparian vegetation and soil 

stability in the Colorado River corridor, Grand Canyon, Arizona: 1992 Final Report, Final report to 

National Park Service Cooperative Studies Unit, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Ariz. 

Stevens, L.E., Ayers, T.J., Bennett, J.B., Christensen, K., Kearsley, M.J.C., Meretsky, V.J, Phillips, A.M.. 

III, Parnell, R.A., Spence, J., Sogge, M.K., Springer, A.E., and Wegner, D.L., 2001, Planned flooding 

and Colorado River riparian trade-offs downstream from Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona: Ecological 

Applications. v. 11, p. 701–710. 

Stone, D.M., and Gorman, O. T., 2006, Ontogenesis of endangered humpback chub (Gila cypha) in the 

Little Colorado River, Arizona, American Midland Naturalist 155:123-135. 

SWCA, Inc. 2000. A program of experimental flow for endangered and native fishes of the Colorado River 

in Grand Canyon. Final report to Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, USGS, Flagstaff, 

Ariz. 57 p. 
229

Topping, D.J., Melis, T.S., Rubin, D.M., and Wright, S.A., 2004, High-resolution monitoring of 

suspended-sediment concentration and grain size in the Colorado River in Grand Canyon using a laseracoustic system, in Hu, C., and Tan, Y, eds., Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium on River 

Sedimentation, October 18−21, 2004: Yichang, China: People’s Republic of China, Tsinghua University 

Press, p. 2507−2514. 

Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., and Vierra, L.E., Jr., 2000, Colorado River sediment transport 1. Natural 

sediment supply limitation and the influence of Glen Canyon Dam: Water Resources Research, v. 36, p. 

515−542. 

Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., Schmidt, J.C., Hazel, J.E., Jr., Melis, T.S., Wright, S.A., Kaplinski, M., Draut, 

A.E., and Breedlove, M.J., 2006, Comparison of sediment-transport and bar-response results from the 

1996 and 2004 controlled-flood experiments on the Colorado River in Grand Canyon: CD-ROM 

Proceedings of the 8th Federal Inter-Agency Sedimentation Conference, Reno, Nev., April 2-6, 2006, 

ISBN 0-9779007-1-1. 

Topping, D.J., Wright, S.A., Melis, T.S., and Rubin, D.M., 2006. High-resolution monitoring of 

suspended-sediment concentration and grain size in the Colorado River using laser-diffraction 

instruments and a three-frequency acoustic system, Proceedings, 8th Federal Interagency Sedimentation 

Conference, April 2-6, 2006, Reno, NV, CD-ROM only, ISBN 0-9779007-1-1. 

Topping, D.J., Wright, S.A., Melis, T.S., and Rubin, D.M., 2007, High-resolution measurements of 

suspended-sediment concentration and grain size in the Colorado River in Grand Canyon using a multifrequency acoustic system: Proceedings of the Tenth International Symposium on River Sedimentation, 

August 1-4, 2007, Moscow, Russia, v. 3, p. 330–339. 

Turner, R.M., and Karpiscak, M.M., 1980, Recent vegetation changes along the Colorado River between 

Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Mead, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1132, 125 p. 

Tyus, H.M., and Saunders, J.F., III, 2000, Nonnative Fish Control and Endangered Fish Recovery: Lessons 

from the Colorado River. Fisheries 25(9):17-24. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1994, Engineering and design-topographic accuracy standards: EM1110-1-

1005, p. 2–1 to 2–12. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. 1995, Operation of Glen Canyon Dam: Colorado River Storage project, 

Arizona: Final Environmental Impact Statement. Washington DC: United States Government Printing 

Office. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. 1996, Record of Decision: Operation of Glen Canyon Dam: Final 

Environmental Impact Statement. Washington DC: United States Government Printing Office. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Final Biological Opinion on the Operation of Glen Canyon Dam (2-

21-93-F-167). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico, January 7, 1995. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2008, Draft Humpback chub (Gila cypha) recovery goals—amendment and 

supplement to the Humpback Chub Recovery Plan: Denver, Colo., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Mountain-Prairie Region (6). 

Urquhart, N.S., S.G. Paulsen, and D.P. Larsen. 1998. Monitoring for policy-relevant regional trends over 

time. Ecological Applications 8:246-257. 

Valdez, R.A., and R.J. Ryel. 1995. Life history and ecology of humpback chub (Gila cypha) in the 

Colorado River, Grand Canyon, Arizona. Final report to the Bureau of Reclamation, Salt Lake City, 

Utah, Contract No. 0-CS-40-09110. BIO/WEST Report No. TR-250-08. BIO/WEST, Inc., Logan, Utah. 

Valdez, R.A., and Ryel, R.J., 1995, Life history and ecology of the humpback chub (Gila cypha) in the 

Colorado River, Arizona. Report to Bureau of Reclamation, September 1995. 

Voichick, N., 2008, Specific conductance in the Colorado River between Glen Canyon Dam and Diamond 

Creek, Northern Arizona, 1988–2006: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 363, 24 p. 
230

Voichick, N., and Wright, S.A., 2007, Water-temperature data for the Colorado River and tributaries 

between Glen Canyon Dam and Spencer Canyon, northern Arizona, 1988–2005: U.S. Geological Survey 

Data Series 251, 24 p. 

Waring, G.L., 1995, Current and historical riparian vegetation trends in Grand Canyon, using 

multitemporal remote sensing analyses of GIS sites. Final report, National Park Service, 24 p. 

Waring, G.L., and Stevens, L.E., 1986, The effects of recent flooding on riparian plant establishment in 

Grand Canyon: Glen Canyon Environmental Studies, executive summaries of technical reports, NTIS 

no. PB-183496.

Weeden, H., Borden, F., Turner, B., Thompson, D., Strauss, C., and Johnson, R., 1975, Grand Canyon 

National Park campsite inventory, contract no. CX 001-3-0061 with the National Park Service: 

University Park, Pennsylvania State University. 

Wiele, S.M., Wilcock, P.R, and Grams, P.E., 2007, Reach-averaged sediment routing model of a canyon 

river, Water Resources Research, v. 43, doi:10.1029/2005WR004824. 

Wohl, E., Bennett, J.P., Blum, M.D., Grant, G.E., Hanes, D.M., Howard, A.D., Mueller, D.S., 

Schoellhamer, D.H., and Simoes, F.J., 2006, Protocols Evaluation Program (PEP-SEDS III): Final report 

of the physical resources monitoring peer review panel. U.S. Geological Survey Grand Canyon 

Monitoring and Research Center Administrative Document, 27 p., 

http://www.gcmrc.gov/library/reports/PEP/Wohl2006.pdf, accessed may 19, 2008. 

Woodbury, A. M., 1959, Ecological studies of flora and fauna in Glen Canyon. Report no. 40. Salt Lake 

City, Utah, University of Utah Press. 

Woodbury, A. M., 1959, Ecological studies of flora and fauna in Glen Canyon. Report no. 40. Salt Lake 

City, Utah, University of Utah Press. 

Wright, S.A., Melis, T.S., Topping, D.J., and Rubin, D.M., 2005, Influence of Glen Canyon Dam 

operations on downstream sand resources of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon, in Gloss, S.P., 

Lovich, J.E., and Melis, T.S., eds., The state of the Colorado River ecosystem in Grand Canyon: U.S. 

Geological Survey Circular 1282, p. 17−31. 

Wright, S.A., Schmidt, J.C., Melis, T.S., Topping, D.J. and Rubin, D.M., 2008, Is there enough sand? 

Evaluating the fate of Grand Canyon sandbars, GSA Today, Geological Society of America. Vol. 18, no. 

8, p. 4-10. 

Yard, H.K., Van Riper III, C., Brown, B.T., and Kearsely, M.J. 2004. Diets of insectivorous birds along 

the Colorado River in Grand Canyon, Arizona. Condor 106:106-115.

Yeatts, M., 1996, High elevation sand retention following the 1996 Spike Flow: An Assessment for 

Cultural Resources Stabilization, chap. 4 of Balsom, J.R., and Larralde, Signa, eds., Mitigation and 

Monitoring of Cultural Resources in Response to the Experimental Habitat Building Flow in Glen and 

Grand Canyons, Spring 1996: Salt Lake City, Utah, Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado River 

Region. 
231

APPENDIX A. Key Strategic Science Questions Addressed in the FY2007–

11 Science Program 

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 mainstem, survival of young-of-year (YoY) and juvenile 

stages in the mainstem, or by changes in growth and maturation in the adult population as influenced 

by mainstem conditions? [FY2006–11] 

2. Does a decrease in the abundance of rainbow trout (RBT) and other cold- and warmwater nonnatives in 

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

humpback chub to the adult population? [FY2006–11] 

3. Do RBT immigrate from Glen to Marble and eastern Grand Canyons, and, if so, during what life 

stages? To what extent do Glen Canyon immigrants support the population in Marble and eastern 

Grand Canyons? [FY2007–11] 

4. Can long-term decreases in abundance of RBT in Marble and eastern Grand Canyons be sustained with 

a reduced level of effort of mechanical removal or will recolonization from tributaries and from 

downstream and upstream of the removal reach require that mechanical removal be an ongoing 

management action? This question also applies to future removal programs targeting other nonnative 

species. [FY2007–11] 

5. What are the important pathways, and the rate of flux among them, that link lower trophic levels with 

fish and how will they link to dam operations? [FY2006–09] 

6. Are trends in the abundance of fish populations, or indicators from fish such as growth, condition, and 

body composition (for example, lipids), correlated with patterns in invertebrate flux? [FY2006–09]. 

7. Which tributary and mainstem habitats are most important to native fishes and how can these habitats 

best be made useable and maintained? [FY2008–09]. 

8. How can native and nonnative fishes best be monitored while minimizing impacts from capture and 

handling or sampling? [FY2007–11]. 

AMWG Priority 2: Which cultural resources, including traditional cultural properties, are within the Area 

of Potential Effect, which should we treat, and how do we best protect them? What is the status and trends 

of cultural resources and what are the agents of deterioration? (GCDAMP goal 11). 

Key Strategic Science Questions 

1. Do dam-controlled flows affect (increase or decrease) rates of erosion and vegetation growth at 

archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties (TCP) sites, and if so, how? [FY2007–11] 

2. How do flows impact old high-water zone terraces in the Colorado River ecosystem (CRE) (where the 

majority of archaeological sites occur), and what kinds of important information about the historical 

ecology and human history of the CRE are being lost due to ongoing erosion of the Holocene 

sedimentary deposits? [FY2004–11] 
232

3. If dam-controlled flows are contributing to (influencing rates of) archaeological site/TCP erosion, what 

are the optimal flows for minimizing future impacts to historic properties? [FY2009–11] 

4. How effective are various treatments (for example, check dams, vegetation management, etc.) in 

slowing rates of erosion at archaeological sites over the long term? [FY2006–11] 

5. What are the TCPs in the CRE, and where are they located? [FY2006–11] 

6. How can Tribal values/data/analyses be appropriately incorporated into a science-driven adaptive 

management process in order to evaluate the effects of flow operations and management actions on 

TCPs? [FY2006–08] 

7. Are dam-controlled flows affecting TCPs and other tribally valued resources in the CRE, and, if so, in 

what respects are they being affected, and are those effects considered positive or negative by the tribes 

who value these resources? [FY2006–11] 

AMWG Priority 3: What is the best flow regime? (GCDAMP goals 1–11) 

Key Strategic Science Questions 

1. Is there a “Flow-Only” operation (that is, a strategy for dam releases, including managing tributary 

inputs with BHBFs, without sediment augmentation) that will restore and maintain sandbar habitats 

over decadal timescales? [FY2008–11] 

2. To what extent could predation impacts by nonnative fish be mitigated by higher turbidities or damcontrolled high-flow releases? [FY2007–08] 

3. What are the hydropower replacements costs of the modified low fluctuating flow (MLFF) (annually, 

since 1996)? [FY2007–08] 

4. What are the projected hydropower costs associated with the various alternative flow regimes being 

discussed for future experimental science (as defined in the next phase experimental design)? 

[FY2006–07] 

5. How is invertebrate flux affected by water quality (for example, temperature, nutrient concentrations, 

turbidity) and dam operations? [FY2006–08] 

6. What Glen Canyon Dam operations (ramping rates, daily flow range, etc.) maximize trout fishing 

opportunities and catchability? [FY2007–08] 

7. How do dam-controlled flows affect visitors’ recreational experiences, and what is/are the optimal 

flows for maintaining a high-quality recreational experience in the CRE? [FY2007–08] 

8. What are the drivers for recreational experiences in the CRE, and how important are flows relative to 

other drivers in shaping recreational experience outcomes? [FY2007–09] 

9. How do varying flows positively or negatively affect campsite attributes that are important to visitor 

experience? [FY2009–11] 

10. How can safety and navigability be reliably measured relative to flows? [FY2007–08] 

11. How do varying flows positively or negatively affect visitor safety, health, and navigability of the 

rapids? [FY2007–09] 

12. How do varying flows regimes positively or negatively affect group encounter rates, campsite 

competition, and other social parameters that are known to be important variables of visitor 

experience? [FY2007–09] 
233

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 (that is, a strategy for dam releases, including managing tributary 

inputs with BHBFs, without sediment augmentation) that will restore and maintain sandbar habitats 

over decadal timescales? (FY2008–11) 

2. How important are backwaters and vegetated shoreline habitats to the overall growth and survival of 

YoY and juvenile native fish? Does the long-term benefit of increasing these habitats outweigh shortterm potential costs (displacement and possibly mortality of young humpback chub) associated with 

high flows? [FY2007–11] 

AMWG Priority 5: What will happen when we test or implement the temperature control device (TCD)? 

How should it be operated? Are safeguards needed for management? (GCDAMP goals 1–4 and 7–10) 

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 nearshore water 

temperatures throughout the CRE? [FY2006–08] 

2. How is invertebrate flux affected by water quality (for example, temperature, nutrient concentrations, 

turbidity) and dam operations? [FY2006–08] 

3. To what extent do temperature and fluctuations in flow limit spawning and incubation success for 

native fish? [FY2003–08] 

4. What is the relative importance of increased water temperature, shoreline stability, and food 

availability on the survival and growth of YoY and juvenile native fish? [FY2003–08] 

5. Will increased water temperatures increase the incidence of Asian tapeworm in humpback chub or the 

magnitude of infestation, and if so, what is the impact on survival and growth rates? [FY2003–08] 

6. Do the potential benefits of improved rearing habitat (warmer, more stable, more backwater and 

vegetated shorelines, more food) outweigh negative impacts due to increases in nonnative fish 

abundance? [FY2007–11] 

7. How do warmer releases affect viability and productivity of native/nonnative vegetation? [FY2007–11] 
234

APPENDIX B DEFERRED PROJECTS 

BIO 6.R4.10: Terrestrial Habitat Monitoring 

Start Date 

September 2010

End Date 

2012 (and possibly ongoing as a part of core monitoring) 

Principal Investigator(s) 

Barbara E. Ralston, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, and other 

cooperators, to be determined 

Geographic Scope 

The riparian zone, including the old high-water zone (OHWZ; >97,000 cfs), in the Colorado River corridor 

from Glen Canyon Dam to Lake Mead

Project Goals 

The goal of this project is to evaluate the efficacy of arthropod sampling for monitoring change in the 

NHWZ and OHWZ of the riparian system. Arthropods perform essential ecosystem functions such as 

decomposition, nutrient recycling and pollination, and are an important food resource for higher organisms. 

Their small size and rapid population growth rates permit them to be responsive to both fine scale spatial 

variation and short temporal scales. Consequently, arthropods are typically useful indicators of 

environmental change. Arthropods are likely to respond rapidly to management practices, potentially 

informing these decisions faster than if longer lived organisms are used. 

The goal of monitoring ground dwelling arthropods (e.g., beetles, ants, spiders) is to provide status and 

trends data on key species and community composition as one of several indicators of ecosystem condition. 

Questions to be addressed are relative to the NHWZ and OHWZ and include: 

• What are the seasonal and annual trends in arthropod composition and abundance? 

• What are the relationships among arthropod composition and abundance, vegetation structure and 

composition, soil stability, and soil moisture? 

• Information of the status and trends in ground-dwelling arthropod assemblages can be integrated 

with monitoring data relating to: 

o vegetation composition and structure, 

o soil stability and upland hydrologic function, and 

o bird community dynamics, to report on the overall condition of these ecosystems. 
235

Need for Project 

Ground arthropod species composition (e.g., beetles, ants, spiders, crickets, grasshoppers) and abundance 

are greatly determined by soil texture (i.e., grain size and sandbar coarseness) and moisture conditions, 

which in shoreline and new high water zones are directly affected by discharges from Glen Canyon Dam. 

They are also related to overall habitat structure resulting from variation in topography and vegetation 

structure and cover (Antvogel and Bonn, 2004) which, themselves, are indirectly linked to dam operations. 

As the vegetated cover changes, these changes should be correlated with arthropod densities and 

composition. Their links to other resources biotic resources include the periodic contribution to fish diets 

(Valdez and Ryel, 1995; Yard and Coggins, in review), and their primary contribution to the diets of 

riparian breeding birds (Yard and others, 2004). 

There are interests in arthropods beyond their ecological roles. Some arthropod taxa are of special interest 

to both Native American tribes and to recreational visitors in Grand Canyon. The Hopi are interested in 

spiders, dragonflies, and butterflies (Huisinga & Yeatts, 2003). Spiders comprised a significant part of the 

arthropods sampled during the terrestrial ecosystem monitoring (TEM) project (Kearsley and others, 2006). 

Dragonflies and butterflies live and breed in the smaller side canyon streams of Grand Canyon, but not in 

the mainstem. Spiders are common riparian arthropods in Grand Canyon, and in that respect, they are an 

important group of arthropods of Hopi concern for future monitoring studies. Recreation visitors in Grand 

Canyon are particularly concerned about arthropods that pose health concerns, especially scorpions, 

spiders, ants, and biting flies. 

Strategic Science Questions 

This project does not directly address a strategic science question. 

Information Needs Addressed 

The primary information needs addressed by these projects are CMINs 6.1.1., 6.2.1, 6.5.1, and 6.6.1 as 

applied to a broader sense of community, which area summarized as the following: 

• Determine how the abundance, composition, and distribution of the OHWZ, NHWZ, and sand 

beach community. 

These information needs will be addressed through the following actions: 

• Pitfall traps will be located in OHWZ and NHWZ sites along the river corridor. The traps will be 

deployed over the spring and summer months and emptied on a monthly basis to determine 

arthropod composition, distribution and abundance within zones and along the river corridor. 

Methods and Tasks 

Site set-up 

At each site there will be placed 8–10 pitfall traps 5 meters apart in a line parallel with the river for both a 

NHWZ and a OHWZ area. The exact study sites and trap locations are to be determined. A pitfall tap is 4.5 

cm diameter and 22 cm deep. A 5 cm wide soil auger creates a hole with minimum soil disturbance. A 

rebar is inserted into the ground prior to soil auger use to make sure there is enough soil depth to hold a 

pitfall trap. Within each pitfall tube we place a borosilicate test tube filled half-way with propylene glycol 

for preserving arthropods. A 6 cm X 7.5 cm PVC tube segment is placed over the trap and secured with 

medium gage wire to prevent rain from entering the trap and animals from disturbing the trap. Trapping 

periods can vary, but once a time period has been set it is important to maintain that time schedule. Other 

project sites typically trap for 3 week periods throughout the trapping season. 
236

Analysis 

Apply three types of statistical analyses to test for effects of water zone on ground dwelling arthropods. 

• Repeated-measures ANOVA tests to test for differences in arthropod abundances and species 

richness. 

• Multi-response permutation procedure (MRPP) will be used to determine arthropod community 

difference among water zones. 

• Non-metric multi dimensional scaling (NMS) scatter plot (Clarke, 1993) will be used to examine 

similarities of arthropod assemblages among water zones based on Bray-Curtis distances (Beals, 

1984; McCune and Beals, 1993). 

• Finally, a species indicator analysis to determine if specific arthropod taxa are responding to water 

zone using a Monte Carlo Test of significance. 

• Compare our results with those presented in Kearsley and others (2006). 

The following tasks in FY2010 are designed to reach the goal for vegetation mapping: 

• Consult with GRCA regarding efficacy of long term trap deployment. 

• Release an RFP for arthropod sampling. 

• Determine sampling sites with cooperator and in consultation with GRCA. 

• Deploy traps and empty samples on monthly schedule. 

• Analyze data in fall 2010. 

Links/Relationships to Other Projects 

Riparian areas are a critical interface between aquatic and terrestrial environments around the world. In the 

CRE, the vegetation itself serves as a host for invertebrates, which provide forage for birds and fishes. 

Changes in the composition or structure of riparian vegetation like expansion of an exotic species may alter 

higher trophic level interactions. Ground arthropod species composition (e.g., beetles, ants, spiders, 

crickets, grasshoppers) and abundance are greatly determined by soil texture (i.e., grain size and sandbar 

coarseness associated with Goal 8) and moisture conditions, which in shoreline and new high water zones 

are directly affected by discharges from GCD (Goal 7). They are also related to overall habitat structure 

resulting from variation in topography and vegetation structure and cover (Antvogel and Bonn, 2004) 

which, themselves, are indirectly linked to dam operations (sediment transport and conservation Goal 8). 

Their links to other resources biotic resources include the periodic contribution to fish diets (Valdez and 

Ryel, 1995; Yard and Coggins, in review), and their primary contribution to the diets of riparian breeding 

birds (Yard and others, 2004). Some arthropods also affect recreational experience (Goal 9) in a negative 

manner (e.g., biting flies, stinging ants in popular camp areas) and may be an indication of campsite 

quality. 

Logistics 

A single snout trip in April and September FY2010 for deployment of traps and follow-up trips 

coordinated with other resource trips or Grand Canyon Youth trips to empty traps on a regular basis 

through September. 
237

Products/Reports 

These projects will produce a USGS draft report on arthropod composition along the CRE for FY2010, 

including a species list for those taxa identifiable to species. It will also evaluate the utility of the approach 

for long-term implementation. 

Budget 

FY2010 

BIO 6.R4.10: $95,395 

FY2011 

BIO 6.R4.11: $0 
238

BIO 6.M1.10: Vegetation Mapping 

Start Date 

September 2009

End Date 

Ongoing. FY2010 is the initiation of long term monitoring for riparian vegetation. 

Principal Investigator(s) 

Barbara E. Ralston, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center; and other 

cooperators, to be determined 

Geographic Scope 

The riparian zone, including the old high-water zone (OHWZ; >97,000 cfs), in the Colorado River corridor 

from Glen Canyon Dam to Lake Mead

Project Goals

Logistics for groundtruthing hyperspectral overflight deferred due to budget constraints in FY2010. 

Need for Project 

Strategic Science Questions 

Information Needs Addressed 

Methods and Tasks 

Links/Relationships to Other Projects 

Logistics 

Logistics for groundtruthing hyperspectral overflight will be deferred. 

Products/Reports 

Budget 

FY2010 

BIO 6.M1.10: $48,400 

FY2011 

BIO 6.M1.11: $0 
239

REC 9.R2.10: Evaluate Remotely Sensed Data for Monitoring Campable 

Area Change in the CRE 

See Project DASA 12.D9.10

Start Date 

October 1, 2009 

End Date 

September 30, 2011 

Principal Investigator(s) 

Helen Fairley, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, with Michael 

Breedlove, Utah State University, and Hoda Sondossi, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring 

and Research Center 

Geographic Scope 

Entire Colorado River ecosystem from base of Glen Canyon Dam (GCD) to Lake Mead (Mile 277) 

Project Goals 

The goals of this project are to systematically evaluate whether and to what degree remotely sensed 

imagery combined with photogrammetric data can be used to quantify the total amount of campable area in 

the CRE. These goals will be accomplished by: 

• evaluating campable area derived from imagery and photogrametry to campable area 

measurements obtained just prior to the May 2009 overflight at a sample of sites, and 

• if step 1 shows a strong agreement between the two data sets, by expanding the analysis to include 

an assessment of total campable area at a random sample of campsites and at all heavily used (NPS 

priority 1) campsites in the CRE. 

See description of Project DASA 12.D9.10–11 for more details about this analysis project. 

Need for Project 

Current campsite monitoring for the GCDAMP focuses on measuring changes in campable area at a 

relatively small, non-random but presumably fairly representative sample of sites. However, there are 

concerns that the sites being monitored at the long term sand bar sites are not an adequate representation of 

all campsites, nor do they provide adequate data concerning distribution of campsite areas throughout the 

CRE. If remotely sensed data can be used to assess changes in campsite area and distribution throughout 

the CRE, this would reduce or perhaps eliminate the need for frequent repeat surveys using total stations 

and would provide a more systemwide perspective on the effects of flows on campsite area and 

distribution. This analysis will be completed in advance of the FY2011 campsite PEP to provide additional 

options for consideration as future core monitoring approaches. 
240

Strategic Science Questions 

This project directly addresses the following strategic science question: 

SSQ 3-9. How do varying flows positively or negatively affect campsite attributes that are 

important to visitor experience? 

Indirectly, this project will also provide information that is relevant for addressing a second strategic 

science question about the effects of flows on the quality of recreational experience in the CRE: 

 

SSQ 3-8. What are the drivers for recreational experiences in the CRE, and how important are 

flows relative to other drivers in shaping recreational experience outcomes? 

Information Needs Addressed 

This project is designed to address management objective 9.3 and specifically, the AMP’s top priority 

CMIN for Goal 9: 

CMIN 9.3.1. Determine and track the size, quality, and distribution of camping beaches by reach 

and stage level in Glen and Grand Canyons. 

CMIN 9.3.1 is very closely related to a second CMIN under Management Objective. 9.3 

CMIN 9.3.2. Determine and track the effects of ROD operations on the size, quality, and 

distribution of camping beaches in the CRE. 

The current recreation monitoring program focuses primarily on one aspect of CMIN 9.3.1: campsite size. 

This project will contribute information relative to assessing changes in camp size on a systemwide basis, 

and will explore alternative options for meeting the information objectives of CMIN 9.3.1 and will also 

contribute potentially valuable information relative to interpreting the effects of experimental flows on 

camping sites, as defined by EIN 9.3.1. 

EIN 9.3.1. How do the size, quality, and distribution of camping beaches change in response to an 

experiment performed under the ROD, unanticipated event, or other management action? 

Methods and Tasks 

The work proposed in FY2010–11 will involve two primary components; 

• evaluate remotely sensed imagery and photogrammetric data in relation to survey data of campable 

area collected just prior to the May 2009 overflight; and 

• use the photogrammetric data collected in 2009, as appropriate and feasible, to assess the overall 

amount of campable area at a random sample of sites and at the most heavily used sites in the 

CRE. 
241

Links/Relationships to Other Projects 

This project is part of the remotely sensed image analysis project described under Goal 12. This project 

will provide additional data about potential alternative or supplementary approaches for monitoring 

campsites that can be considered by the FY2011 campsite monitoring PEP. 

Logistics 

The work planned for FY2010–11 does not anticipate a need for project specific logistical support. Field 

work required to verify or update the remotely sensed data will be accomplished through coordination with 

other projects with planned river trips (e.g. campsite atlas or other trips to ground truth or update survey 

data for the imagery analysis project). 

Products/Reports 

An assessment of the quality and accuracy of remotely sensed data for determining campsite area 

systemwide will be published as an OFR or Scientific Investigation Report in FY2011. 

Budget 

FY2010

REC 9.R2.10: See Project DASA 12.D9.10 
242

REC 9.R5.xx: Evaluate Relation Between Flows and Recreation 

Experience 

Start Date 

End Date 

Principal Investigator(s) 

Geographic Scope 

Project Goals

Need for Project 

Strategic Science Questions 

Information Needs Addressed 

Methods and Tasks 

Links/Relationships to Other Projects 

Logistics 

Products/Reports 

Budget 

FY2010 

REC 9.R5.xx: $225,000 

FY2011 

REC 9.R5.xx: $225,000 
243

REC 9.R6.xx: 1973 Weeden Survey Revisited 

Start Date 

End Date 

Principal Investigator(s) 

Geographic Scope 

Project Goals

Need for Project 

Strategic Science Questions 

Information Needs Addressed 

Methods and Tasks 

Links/Relationships to Other Projects 

Logistics 

Products/Reports 

Budget 

FY2010 

REC 9.R6.xx: $75,000 

FY2011 

REC 9.R6.xx: $75,000 
244

REC 9.R7.xx: Update Regional Recreation Economic Study 

Start Date 

End Date 

Principal Investigator(s) 

Geographic Scope 

Project Goals

Need for Project 

Strategic Science Questions 

Information Needs Addressed 

Methods and Tasks 

Links/Relationships to Other Projects 

Logistics 

Products/Reports 

Budget 

FY2010 

REC 9.R7.xx: $250,000 

FY2011 

REC 9.R7.xx: $250,000 
245

CUL 11.R3.xx: Geomorphic Model of Archaeological Site Vulnerability 

Start Date 

End Date 

Principal Investigator(s) 

Geographic Scope 

Project Goals

Need for Project 

Strategic Science Questions 

Information Needs Addressed 

Methods and Tasks 

Links/Relationships to Other Projects 

Logistics 

Products/Reports 

Budget 

FY2010 

CUL 11.R3.xx: $250,000 

FY2011 

CUL 11.R3.xx: $250,000 
246

DASA 12.D1.10-11 Quadrennial and Resource-Specific Remote Sensing 

Overflight (Working Capital Fund) (FY2010--Ongoing) 

Start Date 

October 1, 2009 

End Date 

Ongoing 

Principal Investigator(s) 

Philip A. Davis, U.S. Geological Survey, Western Mineral Resources Science Center 

Geographic Scope 

Project Goals

Hyperspectral airborne imagery that provides 357 bands between 0.4 and 2.5 micrometers of wavelength 

flown at 2,500 feet above the riparian zone between river miles 42 to 73. The purpose of this flight is to 

evaluate the use of hyperspectral image data for core monitoring of marsh vegetation, better identification 

of species of woody vegetation, as well as all vegetation species, and to collect baseline information for 

monitoring potential tamarisk defoliation due to the tamarisk beetle. Current 4-band sensors provide 

limited discrimination and identification of riparian and xeric species; recent research has shown 

hyperspectral data to provide significantly increased discrimination, including senescent vegetation and 

crytogamic soil (Aspinall, 2002; Kalkhan, 2003; Hauer and Lorang, 2004). Funds for this overflight are 

already available; the flight would occur during early September 2010 during the scheduled steady flow. If 

this system can accurately map most or all major vegetation species within the river corridor, then the 

vegetation inventory will be dramatically more accurate and more useful for monitoring vegetation change 

due to dam release, climate, and infestation. In addition, these data may be able to map cryptogamic soil 

within the corridor, to map nearshore aquatic vegetation, and to determine certain water properties. 

• Specific to FY2010, we intend to collect hyperspectral image data over a 30-mile segment of the 

CRE during early September 2010. This will involve a fixed wing aircraft flying at 2,500 feet 

above the channel and providing calibrated, reflectance data for 357 spectral bands at a spatial 

resolution near 1 meter. This will require rim support by GCMRC personnel to occupy three 

nearby base stations. Ground truth surveys near the time of overflight will be conducted under the 

guidance and permit of the biological program (B. Ralston), with participation of a remote sensing 

specialist (P. Davis). Analysis of the data will commence in early FY2011 and is discussed under 

the task “Integrated Analysis of Remotely Sensed Data,” 
247

Need for Project 

Strategic Science Questions 

Information Needs Addressed 

Methods and Tasks 

Links/Relationships to Other Projects 

Logistics 

Products/Reports 

Budget 

FY2010 

DASA 12.D1.10: $46,776 

FY2011 

DASA 12.D1.11: $200,000
248

DASA 12.D9.10–11: Integrated Image Analysis and Change Detection 

Start Date 

October 2009 

End Date 

Ongoing 

Principal Investigator(s) 

Philip A. Davis, U.S. Geological Survey, Western Mineral Resources Science Center, Glenn Bennett, Paul 

Grams, Barbara Ralston, and Helen Fairley, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center 

Geographic Scope 

Colorado River ecosystem corridor between the forebay of Glen Canyon Dam and upper Lake Mead 

Project Goals 

• photogrammetric analyses of historical aerial photography for selected river reaches to derive 

sandbar topography and extend sandbar volumetric change analyses back in time to 1984; 

• detailed analyses of hyperspectral imagery to determine level of species discrimination and 

accuracy of mapping vegetation composition at the alliance level, as well as to determine the 

ability of the data for mapping cryptogamic soil; 

Methods and Tasks

Analysis of historical aerial photographs to determine 1984 sandbar topography (Lead Scientist – P. Grams) 

Aerial photographs from the mid-1930s, 1951-52, 1965, 1973, 1984, 1990, and 1996 have been used to 

map the area of exposed sand in broad elevation categories for select monitoring reaches (Schmidt and 

others, 1999). A pilot study completed in FY2000 (O’Brien and others, 2000) investigated the feasibility of 

applying digital photogrammetric methods to the 1984 photographs to derive sandbar topography for 

comparison with modern surveys. Although this study found that the photogrammetric surfaces did not 

agree perfectly with ground-based surveys, the elevations for sand areas were generally within 30 cm of 

surveyed elevations, which is sufficient for detecting significant change in sandbar elevation. This task will 

apply similar methods using more sophisticated techniques for selected sandbar study sites in order to 

extend the NAU sandbar time series back in time. This project will produce digital elevation models using 

digitally scanned 1984 stereo photographs. In FY2010, representative sites will be selected and various 

techniques and approaches will be tested to determine the method that produces the best, acceptable 

results. The results will be reported in an annual report and included in a peer reviewed report or journal 

article produced in cooperation with project PHY 8.M2.10–11. 
249

Methods and Tasks 

Analysis of historical aerial photographs to determine 1984 sandbar topography (Lead Scientist – P. Grams) 

In FY2011, the method developed in FY2010 will be applied to other selected, but larger areas. The 

results from this analysis and all previous ground based and airborne data collections will be analyzed to 

examine changes within the available time series. The results will be reported in an annual report and 

included in a peer reviewed report or journal article produced in cooperation with project PHY 8.M2.10-

11. 

Analysis of hyperspectral imagery for improved vegetation mapping and monitoring (Lead Scientist – B. 

Ralston) 

If we collect hyperspectral image data in FY2010, we will analyze the data to determine its ability to 

accurately map the major vegetation species within the CRE, including vegetation that is mostly woody or 

in senescence. This analysis will require ground-truth data for selected, large vegetation patches that 

collectively possess the range of species within the CRE. We may also need to collect ground reflectance 

data for some vegetation patches near the time of the data collection. All of these ground data will be used 

to determine the full capability of the hyperspectral data for mapping and monitoring vegetation at the 

community level or better. An important result would be the ability to not only map communities but also 

determine their vegetation compositions, which ultimately will allow close, detailed mapping and 

monitoring change in native and nonnative species, dam release and climatic effects, potential tamarisk 

beetle effects, habitat quality, and cryptogamic soil. The results of this analysis will be presented to the 

AMWG and TWG and will be published in a formal USGS or journal publication. 

Products/Reports 

• The results of the hyperspectral data analysis for improved vegetation mapping and monitoring 

will be presented to the AMWG and TWG and published as a formal USGS or journal publication 

Budget 

FY2010 

DASA 12.D9.10: $89,568 

FY2011 

DASA 12.D9.11: $0 
250

PLAN 12.P1.10–11: Identify Critical Ecosystem Interactions and Data Gaps 

Start Date 

August 2008

End Date 

December 2011

Principal Investigator(s) 

Carl Walters, University of British Columbia 

CO-I(s): Scott Wright, U.S. Geological Survey, California Water Science Center, William Pine, University 

of Florida, Karen Limburg, University of New York, Syracuse (SUNY), Robert Hall, University of 

Wyoming, Emma Rossi-Marshall, Loyola University, Colden Baxter, Idaho State University, Josh 

Korman, Ecometric Research, Inc.; Lew Coggins, Ted Kennedy, Kara Hilwig and Mike Yard, U.S. 

Geological Survey Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, Dale Robertson, U.S. Geological 

Survey, Wisconsin Water Science Center 

Geographic Scope 

Continued research and decision support for review, revision, upgrade and use of various Ecosystem 

Models in collaboration with Senior Ecologist and other cooperators; Includes additional support from 

GCMRC staff, Senior Ecologist, and select cooperators 

Entire Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center study area, from the forebay of Lake Powell to 

upper Lake Mead. During FY2010–11, the work will focus mainly in the Lees Ferry and LCR confluence 

reaches of the Colorado River, where current aquatic ecosystem values and monitoring (rainbow trout, 

native fishes) are concentrated. Some monitoring evaluations and data analysis will extend from GCD to 

Lake Mead, especially to evaluate longitudinal changes in aquatic system productivity and carrying 

capacity for native fishes. 

Project Goals 

Need for Project 
251

Strategic Science Questions 

Methods and Tasks 

FY2011: 

• Multi-attribute tradeoff analysis (MATA) workshop deferred in FY2011

Links/Relationships to Other Projects 

This project will utilize data from all studies which collect information on the aquatic biota of Glen, 

Marble, and Grand Canyons, including the aquatic foodweb, HBC monitoring, Lees Ferry trout 

monitoring, mechanical removal, nonnative fish monitoring, and the NSE project. The main benefits to the 

projects listed will be to provide novel analyses of data and methods for linking project results into overall 

conceptual and quantitative models for response of the CR aquatic ecosystem to management changes. The 

flow and sediment modeling elements of this project are linked most closely to the Integrated Flow, 

Sediment, and Temperature Modeling project. 

Logistics 

There are no logistical needs for this project 

Products/Reports 

FY2011: 

• Multi-attribute tradeoff analysis (MATA) workshop deferred in FY2011

Budgets 

FY2011 

PLAN 12.P1.11: $33,169
252

APPENDIX C. Conservation Measures from 2008 Biological Opinion

Pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS) consulted with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) on the operation of Glen 

Canyon Dam and developed Conservation Measures. The following conservation measures are extracted 

directly from the USFWS February 27, 2008, Final Biological Opinion for the Operation of Glen Canyon 

Dam. 

Conservation Measures 

Reclamation has included the following conservation measures for listed species in the action area as part 

of its proposed action. As described above, the AMP provides a process for assessing the effects of current 

operations of Glen Canyon Dam on downstream resources and using the results to develop 

recommendations for modifying dam operations and other resource management and conservation actions. 

The AMP also provides for long-term monitoring and research activities to evaluate the effectiveness of 

the operational modifications to Glen Canyon Dam and other management actions. Many of the 

conservation measures listed below have already been occurring through the AMP at various levels. We 

believe conservation measures carried out through the AMP have resulted in significant conservation 

benefits to humpback chub and Kanab ambersnail. The existence of the AMP and the history of 

conservation of these species through the AMP serve to substantiate that the following conservation 

measures will be implemented as proposed by Reclamation. Implementation of some of these conservation 

measures may require additional compliance. USFWS is currently investigating the feasibility of 

developing a recovery program for humpback chub in Grand Canyon. All of the conservation measures 

listed here could fall under such a program. Agreements would need to be developed to facilitate cost 

sharing with other agencies and organizations, both within and outside of the AMP, to fully implement a 

recovery program. 

Humpback Chub 

Humpback Chub Consultation Trigger 

Pursuant to 50 CFR § 402.16 (c), reinitiation of formal consultation is required and shall be requested by 

the Federal agency or by the USFWS, where discretionary Federal involvement or control over the action 

has been retained or is authorized by law and if new information reveals effects of the action that may 

affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not previously considered. Reclamation 

and USFWS agree to specifically define this reinitiation trigger relative to humpback chub, in part, as 

being exceeded if the population of adult humpback chub (•200 mm [7.87 in] TL) in Grand Canyon 

declines significantly, or, if in any single year, based on the age-structured mark recapture model (ASMR; 

Coggins 2007), the population drops below 3,500 adult fish within the 95 percent confidence interval. 

USFWS and Reclamation have agreed on this trigger based on the current estimated population size and 

past population trend, genetic considerations, and the capabilities of the ASMR model to estimate 

population size. This number was derived as a conservative approach to preventing the population from 

declining to the minimum viable population size for humpback chub, estimated to be 2,100 adult fish (U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service 2002a), with consideration for a buffer and acknowledging the variance inherent 

in the ASMR resulting from age estimation based on recent results from this model (Coggins 2007). This 

trigger provides additional protection against possible adverse affects to humpback chub from the proposed 

action. If the population of humpback chub declines to this level, Reclamation and USFWS will consider 

appropriate actions through reinitiated section 7 consultation, for example, extending the period of steady 

releases to include July and August. Conversely, if the population of humpback chub expands significantly, 
253

USFWS and Reclamation will consider the potential for reinitiation of consultation to determine if steady 

flows continue to be necessary. 

Comprehensive Plan for the Management and Conservation of Humpback Chub in Grand Canyon 

Reclamation has been a primary contributor to the development of the AMP’s Comprehensive Plan for the 

Management and Conservation of Humpback Chub in Grand Canyon. Reclamation will continue to work 

with AMP cooperators to develop a comprehensive approach to management of humpback chub. 

Reclamation has committed to specific conservation measures in this biological opinion, but will also 

consider funding and implementing other actions not identified here to implement the plan. 

Humpback Chub Translocation 

In coordination with other Department of the Interior (DOI) AMP participants and through the AMP, 

Reclamation will assist NPS and the AMP in funding and implementation of translocation of humpback 

chub into tributaries of the Colorado River in Marble and Grand canyons. Nonnative control in these 

tributaries will be an essential precursor to translocation, so Reclamation will help fund control of both 

cold and warm-water nonnative fish in tributaries, as well as efforts to translocate humpback chub into 

these tributaries. Havasu, Shinumo and Bright Angel creeks will initially be targeted for translocation, 

although other tributaries may be considered. Reclamation will work with USFWS, NPS and other 

cooperators to develop translocation plans for each of these streams, utilizing existing information 

available such as SWCA and Grand Canyon Wildlands (2007) and Valdez and others. (2000a). These plans 

will consider and utilize genetic assessments (Douglas and Douglas 2007, Keeler-Foster in prep.), identify 

legal requirements and jurisdictional issues, methods, and assess needs for nonnative control, monitoring 

and other logistics, as well as an implementation schedule, funding sources, and permitting. Reclamation 

and the AMP will also fund and implement translocation of up to 500 young humpback chub from the 

lower Little Colorado River to above Chute Falls in 2008 if USFWS determines that a translocation is 

warranted. Reclamation and the AMP will continue to monitor humpback chub in the reach of the Little 

Colorado River above Chute Falls for the 5-year period of the proposed action, and will undertake 

additional translocations above Chute Falls as deemed necessary by USFWS. 

Nonnative Fish Control 

As first presented in the biological opinion on the Shortage Guidelines, Reclamation will, in coordination 

with other DOI AMP participants and through the AMP, continue efforts to assist NPS and the AMP in 

control of both cold- and warm-water nonnative fish species in both the mainstem of Marble and Grand 

canyons and in their tributaries, including determining and implementing levels of nonnative fish control as 

necessary. Because Reclamation predicts that dam releases will be cool to cold during the period of the 

proposed action, control of nonnative trout may be particularly important. Control of these species will 

utilize mechanical removal, similar to recent efforts by the AMP, and may utilize other methods, to help to 

reduce this threat. GCMRC is preparing a nonnative fish control plan through the AMP process that 

addresses both cold and warm-water species that will further guide implementation of this conservation 

measure. 

Humpback Chub Nearshore Ecology Study 

In coordination with other DOI AMP participants and through the AMP, Reclamation will implement a 

nearshore ecology study that will relate river flow variables to ecological attributes of nearshore habitats 

(velocity, depth, temperature, productivity, etc.) and the relative importance of such habitat conditions to 

important life stages of native and nonnative fishes. This study will incorporate planned science activities 

for evaluating the high flow test on nearshore habitats as well as the 5-year period of steady flow releases 

in September and October. A research plan will be developed with US via the AMP for this study by 

August 1, 2008, and a 5-year review report will be completed by 2013. The plan will include monitoring of 

sufficient intensity to ensure significant relationships can be established, as acceptable to the USFWS. This 

conservation measure is consistent with the Sediment Research conservation measure in the Shortage 
254

Guidelines biological opinion. This study will help clarify the relationship between flows and mainstem 

habitat characteristics and availability for young-of-year and juvenile humpback chub, other native fish, 

and competitive or predaceous nonnative fish, and support continued management to sustain mainstem 

aggregations. The feasibility and effectiveness of marking small humpback chub (<150 and <100 mm TL 

[5.91 and 3.93 in]) will also be evaluated as part of the study, and if effective, marking young fish will be 

utilized in the study. Marking young humpback chub, if feasible and effective, could greatly aid in 

developing information on the early life history, growth and survival of young humpback chub.

Monthly Flow Transition Study 

Transitions between monthly flow volumes can often result in drastic changes to nearshore habitats. For 

example, past transitions from August to September in some years have consisted of a transition from a 

lower limit of 10,000 cfs in August to an upper limit of 10,000 cfs in September. Such a transition results 

in a river stage level that is below the varial zone of the previous month’s flow, and may be detrimental to 

fishes and foodbase for fish. Reclamation has committed to adjusting daily flows between months to 

attempt to attenuate these transitions such that they are more gradual, and to studying the biological effects 

of these transitions, in particular to humpback chub. If possible, Reclamation will work to adjust 

September and October monthly flow volumes to achieve improved conditions for young-of-year, juvenile, 

and adult humpback chub, as acceptable to the USFWS. 

Humpback Chub Refuge 

Once appropriate planning documents are in place, and refuge populations of humpback chub are created 

(as a conservation measure of the Shortage Guidelines biological opinion), Reclamation will assist USFWS 

in maintenance of a humpback chub refuge population at a Federal hatchery or other appropriate facility by 

providing funding to assist in annual maintenance. In case of a catastrophic loss of the Grand Canyon 

population of humpback chub, a humpback chub refuge will provide a permanent source of sufficient 

numbers of genetically representative stock for repatriating the species. This action would also be an 

important step toward attaining recovery. 

Little Colorado River Watershed Planning 

Reclamation will continue its efforts to help other stakeholders in the Little Colorado River watershed 

develop watershed planning efforts, with consideration for watershed level effects to the humpback chub in 

Grand Canyon. 

Kanab Ambersnail 

Habitat Protection 

Reclamation will, through the AMP, temporarily remove and safe-guard all Kanab ambersnails found in 

the zone that would be inundated during the high flow test, as well as approximately 15 percent (17 m2 

[180 ft2]) of the Kanab ambersnail habitat that would be flooded by the experimental high flow test. The 

ambersnails would be released above the inundation zone, and habitat would be held locally above the 

level of inundation until the high flow test has ended (approximately 60 hours). Habitat will be replaced in 

a manner that will facilitate regrowth of vegetation. Subsequent monitoring of this conservation measure 

will be coordinated with GCMRC. 
255

APPENDIX D. Fiscal Year 2010-11 Budget Explanatory Material 

The draft budget for the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP) for fiscal years 

(FY) 2010 and 2011, which includes budgets for GCDAMP activities preformed by Reclamation and the 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC), is attached 

separately. Table C.1 explains the information found in various columns of the budget document. 

Following the table is an explanation of USGS policy on cost-recovery accounting and cost share. 

Table D.1. Explanation of information found in columns of draft fiscal year (FY) 2010-11 Glen Canyon Dam 

Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP) budget. 

Column Title Key 

A Grand 

Canyon 

Monitoring 

and 

Research 

Center 

(GCMRC) 

Project ID 

Characters 1−3 Identify program area 

BIO: Biology 

PHY: Physical Science 

REC: Recreation 

HYD: Hydropower 

CUL: Cultural 

DASA: Data Acquisition, Storage and Analysis 

SUP: Support (Logistics and Survey) 

ADM: Administration and Management 

PLA: Planning 

Characters 4−5 Identify GCDAMP goal number 

Characters 6−7 Identify GCMRC project number 

Characters 8−9 Identify fiscal year 

B Status O: Ongoing 

N: New 

C: Complete 

D: Deferred 

NA: Not applicable 

APM: Administrative program management. Activities/projects that are administrative in nature or are 

conducted in support of the overall GCMRC science program, including base funding for program 

managers, logistics staff and permanent DASA staff. 

COR: Core-monitoring project. Monitoring projects that have been piloted, subjected to initial and 

secondary protocols evaluation panel (PEP) reviews, documented through a core-monitoring report and 

formally adopted as a core-monitoring project by the Technical Work Group (TWG). 

CRD: Core-monitoring research and development project. Monitoring projects that are currently 

undergoing research and development, including projects that have been piloted and peer reviewed but 

which have not yet been formally documented with a core-monitoring report or formally adopted as a 

core-monitoring project by the TWG. 

LTE: Long-term experiment. Projects specifically undertaken as part of or in direct support of the LongTerm Experimental Plan. 

C 

Funding 

emphasis 

ORD: Other research and development projects. Other research projects or research and development 

work that is NOT directly tied to the development of core-monitoring projects. 

D Project 

description 

Project title (start date−end date) 

E Actual 

FY2009 

budget 

Actual GCDAMP FY2009 gross budget figures as of this revision date 

F Proposed 

FY2010 or 

FY2011 

budget 

Proposed FY2010 or FY2011 gross cost of project as of this revision date 
256

Explanation of USGS Policy on Cost Share 

In FY2003, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) began full-cost recovery accounting and instituted a 

Department of the Interior (DOI) customer rate of 15 percent against all DOI agency reimbursable funding. 

In FY2010-11, the customer rate is estimated at the 15-percent DOI customer rate with an additional 6 

percent added to achieve the required additional facilities costs. The DOI customer rate was established by 

the USGS Headquarters and determined to be significantly lower than the “full” burden rate that varies 

annually and includes facilities and the Cost Center and the Bureau-level burdens. In addition to the above 

rates, a special “pass through” rate of 6 percent was also instated. As a transitional aid to the GCMRC, 

which had received under a previous administration the guarantee that USGS would not charge the power 

revenue funds any burden, the Bureau allowed the entire GCMRC power revenue budget to be charged 

only the 6-percent special rate (3 percent was retained by the Cost Center and 3 percent by Headquarters) 

for FY2003 only. 

Beginning in FY2004, USGS Headquarters approved the special rate of 6 percent for a portion of 

GCMRC’s power revenue funding. This rate is applied to approximately $3 million of funding that is 

directly “passed through” to GCMRC cooperators. The balance of power revenue funds are charged the 

full DOI customer rate of 15 percent plus facilities. As a part of the full-cost recovery policy, the USGS 

established a process, referred to as cost share, as a means of handling a limited electronic financial system. 

Cost share is the funding that “covers” the balance of the full burden rate minus the DOI customer rate. In 

most cases, reimbursable funding from non-DOI agencies is charged the full burden rate. In FY2009, the 

full burden rate for the GCMRC was approximately 56 percent (including facilities). The difference 

between the full rate of 56 percent and the DOI customer rate of 21 percent (which includes approximately 

4 percent for facilities), equals 35 percent (all percentages are approximate). In FY2009 the cost-share 

funding requirement for all DOI agency reimbursable dollars received by the GCMRC was approximately 

$1 million. USGS policy requires that cost-share funding be from appropriated dollars only, and those 

appropriated funds are also charged the Cost Center burden rate. In essence, the approximately $1 million 

appropriation provided by the USGS to the GCMRC in FY2009 had the effect of not adding funding, but 

merely filling the holes created by the cost-share policy. 

In previous fiscal years, the USGS appropriation requested for GCMRC (approximately $1 million each 

fiscal year) has been used for cost-share funding. Per the full-cost accounting policy and the requirement 

that cost-share dollars be appropriated dollars only, the effect of these appropriations is entirely transparent 

and does not add funding to the GCDAMP. The issue relating to how these cost-share funds are derived in 

the future has and continues to be a major area of concern for the GCMRC science program. 
257

APPENDIX E. GCDAMP Fiscal Year 2010–11 Budget 

Oversized budget sheets follow this page. (attached) 
DRAFT FY2010/11 GCDAMP BUDGET for the USBR and the USGS GCMRC

APPENDIX E

FY2010

123456789

1011121314151617

18

A BC D E F G H I J K L M N 

ID Project Descriptions 

 Carry Over 

Funding from 

FY09 Available 

for Use in 

FY10 

 FY10 

Experimental 

Funds 

 Approved 

FY09 Budget 

(incl 4.9% CPI 

Increase) 

 FY10 GROSS 

Proposed 

Budget (incl 

0% CPI 

Increase) 

A Adaptive Management Work Group 

 Personnel Costs - 1 - 176,747 176,747

 AMWG Member Travel Reimbursement - 2 - 17,467 17,467

 Reclamation Travel - 3 - 14,178 14,178

 Facilitation Contract - 4 - 26,959 26,959

 POAHG Expenses - 5 - 55,536 55,536

 Other - 6 - 7,969 7,969

Reclamation AMWG Subtotal - - 298,856 298,856

B Technical Work Group 

 Personnel Costs - 1 - 86,195 86,195

 TWG Member Travel Reimbursement - 2 - 23,952 23,952

 Reclamation Travel - 3 - 17,658 17,658

 TWG Chair Reimbursement - 4 - 24,625 24,625

 Other - 5 - 2,277 2,277

Reclamation TWG Subtotal - - 154,707 154,707C Other

 Comments 

Reclamation Administration Power Revenue Under Cap Funded Projects

Page 1 of 18

181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647

C Other

 Compliance Documents - 1 - 50,000 50,000

 2 Administrative Support for NPS Permitting - - 118,852 118,852

 Contract Administration - 3 - 39,953 39,953

 Experimental Carryover Funds - to be held by BOR - 4 (258,674) 500,000 500,000

 Integrated Tribal Resources Monitoring - 5 - 142,884 142,884

 Mainstem Non-native Mechanical Removal - 6 - - -

 Non-native Fish Suppression Contingency Fund - 7 - 48,483 48,483

Other Subtotal (258,674) - 900,172 900,172Reclamation Administrative Subtotal (258,674) - 1,353,735 1,353,735

D Programmatic Agreement Cultural Resources 

 Reclamation Administration - 1 - 60,164 60,164

 Canyon Treatment Plan and Implementation - 2 - 500,000 500,000

Programmatic Agreement Subtotal - - 560,164 560,164

 (258,674) - 1,913,899 1,913,899

Reclamation Appropriated Funded Projects

HCA Development of a LCR Management Plan - -

Tribal Consultation

A Cooperative Agreements with Tribes  Hopi Tribe - 1 - 95,000 95,000

 Hualapai Tribe - 2 - 95,000 95,000

 Navajo Nation - 3 - 95,000 95,000

 Pueblo of Zuni - 4 - 95,000 95,000

 Southern Paiute - 5 - 95,000 95,000

 DOI Handling Fee - 6 - - -

Tribal Consultation Subtotal - - 475,000 475,000

Reclamation Appropriated Projects Subtotal: - - 475,000 475,000

- (258 674) 2 388 899 2 388 899

 $500,000 TOTAL Available FY10 less $258,674 used in FY10 by GCMRC = $241,326 Balance 09/30/20 FY09 Carryover to FY10 = $48,483 + FY10 Funding $48,483 = $96,966 TOTAL Available FY10 less $9609/30/2010

 Reclamation Power Revenue Under Cap Program 

 + 75k Appropriated Funds from Tribal Consultation Carryover from Prior Fiscal Years 

47 BUREAU OF RECLAMATION TOTAL AMP BUREAU OF RECLAMATION TOTAL AMP - (258,674) 2,388,899 2,388,899

Page 1 of 18
DRAFT FY2010/11 GCDAMP BUDGET for the USBR and the USGS GCMRC

APPENDIX E

FY2010

4849505152535455565758

A BC D E F G H I J K L M N 

 GCMRC 

Project ID 

 FY10 Status 

 Funding Emphasis Project Descriptions Carry Over Funding from FY09 Available for Use in FY10 BOR Experimental Funds Used in FY10 (included in FY10 Gross Budget) Approved FY09 Budget (incl 4.9% CPI Increase) FY10 GROSS Proposed Budget (incl 0% CPI Increase) FY10 DOI Customer Burden (Combined 6.09%, 21% and/or Other Rate) FY10 NET Project Subtotal (w/o Burden) FY10 GCMRC Personnel Costs (21% Burden) FY10 GCMRC Project Related Travel / Training (21% Burden) FY10 GCMRC Operations / Supplies / Publishing (21% Burden) FY10 GCMRC Equipment Purchase / Replacement (21% Burden) F

L

S

(21

U.S. Geological Survey - Biological Resource Division - GCMRC - Power Revenues Under Cap Funded Projects

GOAL 1 - FOOD BASE

BIO 1.R1.10 O CRD Aquatic Food Base (FY05--FY10) 20,000 - 510,626 505,945 60,823 445,122 185,122 5,000 5,000 1,000 

 

BIO 1.M1.11 - COR Aquatic Food Base (FY11--Ongoing) - - - - - - - - - - 

 

BIO 1.R4.10 O CRD Impacts of Various Flow Regimes on the Aquatic Food Base (FY08--FY10) - - 85,472 62,111 5,851 56,260 11,260 - - - 

 

 SUB-TOTAL GOAL 1 20,000 - 596,098 568,055 66,673 501,382 196,382 5,000 5,000 1,000 

 

GOAL 2 - NATIVE FISHES

BIO 2.R1.10 O CRD LCR HBC Monitoring Lower 13.6km (HBC Population Est) (Ongoing) - - 487,666 455,735 36,280 419,455 - - - 20,000 

 

Page 2 of 18

5960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081

BIO 2.R2.10 O CRD LCR HBC Monitoring Lower 1,200m (Ongoing) - - 61,635 57,421 4,421 53,000 - - - - 

 

BIO 2.M1.11 - COR LCR Fish Monitoring (FY11--Ongoing) - - - - - - - - - 

 

BIO 2.M3.10 O CRD HBC Monitoring Above Chute Falls (Ongoing) - - 136,490 143,194 15,950 127,244 - - - - 

 

BIO 2.R4.09 C ORD Monitoring Mainstem Fishes (incl Diamond Down) (FY09) - - 474,723 - - - - - - - 

 

BIO 2.M4.10 N COR Monitoring Mainstem Fishes (FY10--Ongoing) - - - 632,461 72,799 559,662 59,662 10,000 10,000 30,000 

 

BIO 2.R5.09 C ORD Nonnative Control Planning (FY06--FY09) - - 63,640 - - - - - - - 

 

BIO 2.R6.09 C ORD Nonnative Control Pilot Testing (FY06--FY09) - - 110,281 - - - - - - - 

 

BIO 2.R17.10 N ORD Nonnative Control Plan Science Support (FY10-- Ongoing) - - - 78,058 13,547 64,511 62,511 2,000 - - 

 

BIO 2.R7.10 O ORD Stock Assessment of Native Fish in Grand Canyon (FY07--Ongoing) - - 54,619 110,877 19,243 91,634 86,634 3,000 2,000 - 

 

BIO 2.R9.09 C CRD Mainstem Fish Survival (FY07--FY09) - - 96,013 - - - - - - - 

 

BIO 2.R13.10 O CRD Remote PIT Tag Reading (FY07--Ongoing) - - 107,319 217,268 21,689 195,579 5,579 - - 45,000 

 

BIO 2.R15.10 O CRD Near Shore Ecology / Fall Steady Flows (FY08--FY12) - - 11,970 - - - - - - - 

 

BIO 2.R16.10 O ORD Mainstem Nonnative Fish Control (Ongoing) - 150,000 141,023 68,842 11,948 56,894 20,000 1,554 2,000 23,000 

 

BIO 2.TBD O ORD Nonnative Fish Contingency Fund 36,818 - - - - - - - - - 

 

 SUB-TOTAL GOAL 2 36,818 150,000 1,745,379 1,763,855 195,876 1,567,979 234,386 16,554 14,000 118,000 

 

GOAL 3 - EXTIRPATED SPECIES

07.3.00 - NA None Identified - - - - - - - - - - 

 

 SUB-TOTAL GOAL 3 - - - - - - - - - - 

 

GOAL 4 - RAINBOW TROUT

BIO 4.M1.09 C COR Monitoring Lees Ferry Trout (FY96--FY09) - - 118,454 - - - - - - - 

 

BIO 4.E1.09 C LTE Monitoring Rainbow Trout Redds & Larvae (FY07-- FY09) - - - - - - - - - - 

 

BIO 4.M2.10 N COR Monitoring Lees Ferry Fishes (FY10--Ongoing) - - - 175,737 12,879 162,858 4,858 

 

 SUB-TOTAL GOAL 4 - - 118,454 175,737 12,879 162,858 4,858 - - - 

 

82838485868788899091

, , , , , 

GOAL 5 - KANAB AMBERSNAIL

BIO 5.R1.10 O CRD Monitor Kanab Ambersnail (FY07--FY11) - - 22,883 24,764 2,124 22,640 - - - - 

 

 SUB-TOTAL GOAL 5 - - 22,883 24,764 2,124 22,640 - - - - 

 

GOAL 6 - SPRINGS / RIPARIAN

BIO 6.R1.09 C CRD Vegetation Mapping (FY07--FY09) - - 121,804 - - - - - - - 

 

BIO 6.M1.10 N COR Vegetation Mapping (FY10--Ongoing) - - - 95,828 16,631 79,197 73,197 2,000 3,000 1,000 

 

BIO 6.R2.09 C COR Vegetation Transects (FY07--FY09) 41,777 - 52,502 - - - - - - - 

 

BIO 6.M2.11 - COR Vegetation Transects (FY11--Ongoing) - - - - - - - - - - 

 

BIO 6.R3.10 O CRD Vegetation Synthesis (FY07--FY10) 5,000 - 60,364 38,526 6,686 31,840 31,840 - - - 

 

 SUB-TOTAL GOAL 6 46,777 - 234,670 134,355 23,318 111,037 105,037 2,000 3,000 1,000 

 

Page 2 of 18
DRAFT FY2010/11 GCDAMP BUDGET for the USBR and the USGS GCMRC

APPENDIX E

FY2010

9293949596

A BC D E F G H I J K L M N 

 GCMRC 

Project ID 

 FY10 Status 

 Funding Emphasis Project Descriptions Carry Over Funding from FY09 Available for Use in FY10 BOR Experimental Funds Used in FY10 (included in FY10 Gross Budget) Approved FY09 Budget (incl 4.9% CPI Increase) FY10 GROSS Proposed Budget (incl 0% CPI Increase) FY10 DOI Customer Burden (Combined 6.09%, 21% and/or Other Rate) FY10 NET Project Subtotal (w/o Burden) FY10 GCMRC Personnel Costs (21% Burden) FY10 GCMRC Project Related Travel / Training (21% Burden) FY10 GCMRC Operations / Supplies / Publishing (21% Burden) FY10 GCMRC Equipment Purchase / Replacement (21% Burden) F

L

S

(21

GOAL 7 - QUALITY-OF-WATER

BIO 7.R1.10 O CRD Water Quality Monitoring Lake - Powell & Tailwaters (BUDGET PRESENTED BELOW) (Ongoing) - - - - - - - - - - 

 

PHY 7.M1.10 O COR Integrated Quality-of-Water Monitoring (Downstream of GCD) (FY07--Ongoing) - - 931,513 979,691 106,569 873,122 397,262 9,270 30,900 9,270 

 

PHY 7.R2.10 O CRD Integrated Flow, Sediment Transport and Temperature Modeling of the CRE (FY09--FY10) - - 127,134 295,398 21,086 274,312 70,158 6,000 8,000 9,000 

 

Page 3 of 18

979899

100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114

PHY 7.R3.11 - CRD Modeling Support & Temperature Models (FY11-- Ongoing) - - - - - - - - - - 

 

 SUB-TOTAL GOAL 7 - - 1,058,647 1,275,089 127,655 1,147,434 467,420 15,270 38,900 18,270 

 

GOAL 8 - SEDIMENT

PHY 8.M2.10 O COR Integrated Longterm Monitoring of System Wide Changes in Sediment Storage (FY09--Ongoing) - - 309,224 219,668 21,372 198,296 50,725 4,120 7,500 - 

 

 SUB-TOTAL GOAL 8 - - 309,224 219,668 21,372 198,296 50,725 4,120 7,500 - 

 

GOAL 9 - RECREATIONAL EXPERIENCE

 REC 9.R1.10 O CRD Sand Bar and Campable Area Monitoring R & D (FY98-- Ongoing) - - 55,075 78,118 5,918 72,200 7,200 - 3,000 - 

 

REC 9.R3.10 O CRD Compile Campsite Inventory and GIS Atlas (FY07-- FY11) - - - 75,020 13,020 62,000 40,000 3,000 4,000 - 

 

REC 9.R4.09 C CRD Compile and Analyze Existing Safety Data (FY09) - - 26,296 - - - - - - - 

 

 SUB-TOTAL GOAL 9 - - 81,371 153,138 18,938 134,200 47,200 3,000 7,000 - 

 

GOAL 10 - HYDROPOWER

HYD 10.M1.10 O CRD Monitor Power Generation and Market Values under Current and Future Dam Operations (FY07--Ongoing) - - 19,587 9,680 1,680 8,000 5,000 - 3,000 - 

 

 SUB-TOTAL GOAL 10 - - 19,587 9,680 1,680 8,000 5,000 - 3,000 - 

 

GOAL 11 - CULTURAL

CUL 11.R1.10 O CRD Cultural Research & Development toward Core Monitoring, Phase II (FY06--FY12) 287,904 - 448,088 373,577 38,577 335,000 95,000 3,500 10,000 8,000 

 

CUL 11.R2.10 O CRD Implement Tribal Monitoring Projects (See funding in BOR section) - - - - - - - - - 

 

 SUB-TOTAL GOAL 11 287,904 - 448,088 373,577 38,577 335,000 95,000 3,500 10,000 8,000 

 

GOAL 12 - HIGH QUALITY MONITORING, RESEARCH & ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

DASA 12 D1 10 O CRD

 Quadrennial & Resource-Specific Remote Sensing Overflight <Previously Acquisition for Monitoring Data 160 928 202 340 200 000 11 481 188 519 

115116117118119120121122123

DASA 12.D1.10 O CRD Overflight Previously Acquisition for Monitoring Data Acquisition - 4 Band Imagery (Remote Sensing)> (FY08-

-Ongoing) 

 - 160,928 202,340 200,000 11,481 188,519 - - - - 

 

DASA 12.D9.10 N APM Integrated Image Analysis and Change Detection (FY10--Ongoing) - - - 234,674 25,731 208,943 87,231 - - - 

 

DASA 12.D2.10 O APM Grand Canyon Integrated Oracle Database Management System (FY07--Ongoing) - - 184,485 166,858 28,959 137,899 1 - 37,899 - - 

 

DASA 12.D8.10 N APM Biometrics & General Analysis (FY10--Ongoing) - - - 165,841 28,782 137,059 126,784 3,000 7,275 - 

 

DASA 12.D3.10 O APM Library Operations (FY08--Ongoing) - 56,284 80,263 13,930 66,333 56,058 - 10,275 - 

 

DASA 12.D4.10 O APM Legacy Analog Data Conversion (Analog to Digital - Reports & Imagery) (FY08--Ongoing) - - 130,739 - - - - - - - 

 

DASA 12.D5.10 O APM GIS Support for Integrated Analyses and Projects, GIS Lead (FY07--Ongoing) - 32,860 332,871 351,882 46,073 305,809 179,797 - 4,300 - 

 

DASA 12.D7.10 C CRD Integrated Analysis and Modeling - FY09 Overflight (FY09) - - 129,124 - - - - - - - 

 

 Sub-total Goal 12 DASA Portion 193,788 - 1,035,843 1,199,517 154,955 1,044,562 587,769 3,000 21,850 - 

 

Page 3 of 18
DRAFT FY2010/11 GCDAMP BUDGET for the USBR and the USGS GCMRC

APPENDIX E

FY2010

124125126127128129130131

A BC D E F G H I J K L M N 

 GCMRC 

Project ID 

 FY10 Status 

 Funding Emphasis Project Descriptions Carry Over Funding from FY09 Available for Use in FY10 BOR Experimental Funds Used in FY10 (included in FY10 Gross Budget) Approved FY09 Budget (incl 4.9% CPI Increase) FY10 GROSS Proposed Budget (incl 0% CPI Increase) FY10 DOI Customer Burden (Combined 6.09%, 21% and/or Other Rate) FY10 NET Project Subtotal (w/o Burden) FY10 GCMRC Personnel Costs (21% Burden) FY10 GCMRC Project Related Travel / Training (21% Burden) FY10 GCMRC Operations / Supplies / Publishing (21% Burden) FY10 GCMRC Equipment Purchase / Replacement (21% Burden) F

L

S

(21

SUP 12.S1.10 O APM Logistics Base Costs (See each project for project related logistics costs) (Ongoing) - - 180,531 210,252 36,490 173,762 138,762 - - 35,000 SUP 12.S2.10 O APM Survey Operations (Ongoing) - - 114,718 88,242 15,315 72,927 47,927 - - 25,000 

 

SUP 12.S3.10 O APM Control Network (Ongoing) - - 91,104 180,009 28,161 151,848 88,848 - - - 

 

 Sub-total Goal 12 Support Portion - - 386,353 478,502 79,965 398,537 275,537 - - 60,000 

 

PLAN 12.P1.10 O CRD

 Enhancing the Conceptual Ecosystem Model to Identify Critical Ecosystem Interactions and Data Gap (FY08--FY12) 

 - - 50,585 239,986 32,532 207,454 97,454 36,000 - - 

 

PLAN 12.P3.10 O LTE Low Steady Summer Flows - Data and Research Compilation, Synopsis and Synthesis (FY08--FY10) - 18,067 29,251 16,409 2,848 13,561 8,561 - 5,000 - 

 

 Sub-total Goal 12 Planning Portion 18,067 - 79,836 256,395 35,380 221,015 106,015 36,000 5,000 - 

 

ADM 12 A1 10 (A) O APM Administrative Operations (Ongoing) 23 930 173 812 161 908 22 308 139 600 44 100 5 300 30 200 13 000 

Page 4 of 18

132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153

ADM 12.A1.10 (A) O APM Administrative Operations (Ongoing) 23,930 - 173,812 161,908 22,308 139,600 44,100 5,300 30,200 

13,000 

ADM 12.A1.10 (B) O APM Administrative Operations - GSA Vehicle Costs (Ongoing) - - 50,950 63,525 11,025 52,500 - - 52,500 - 

 

ADM 12.A1.10 (C) O APM Administrative Operations - Interior Vehicle Costs (Ongoing) - - 25,475 32,065 5,565 26,500 - - 26,500 - 

 

ADM 12.A2.10 O APM Program Planning & Management (Ongoing) - - 1,111,596 1,195,480 207,480 988,000 936,000 41,000 11,000 - 

 

ADM 12.A3.10 O APM AMWG/TWG Meeting Travel Funds (Ongoing) - - 19,154 19,481 3,381 16,100 - 16,100 - - 

 

ADM 12.A4.10 (A) O APM Independent Reviews (Ongoing) 8,663 - 21,423 22,400 2,100 20,300 - - 10,000 - 

 

ADM 12.A4.10 (B) O APM

 Executive Director of Science Advisors Review and Coordination; includes Science Advisors' Expenses (Ongoing) 

 - - 214,227 217,800 37,800 180,000 - - 180,000 - 

 

ADM 12.A6.10 O APM 2010 Colorado River Basin Science and Management Symposium (Biennial--Ongoing) - - - - - - - - - - 

 

ADM 12.A5.10 O APM GCMRC Component of SBSC Sys Admin Support (FY05--Ongoing) 5,150 - 214,350 263,526 44,868 218,658 38,658 - 69,000 106,000 

 

 - 37,743 1,830,987 1,976,185 334,527 1,641,658 1,018,758 62,400 379,200 119,000 

 

 SUB-TOTAL GOAL 12 249,598 - 3,333,019 3,910,600 604,828 3,305,772 1,988,079 101,400 406,050 179,000 

 

 641,097 150,000 7,967,420 8,608,517 1,113,919 7,494,598 3,194,087 150,844 494,450 325,270 

Capped Funding based on FY09 Budget with 0% CPI Index 7,967,420 7,967,420 

GROSS Spending <Deficit> - (641,097)

GCMRC Power Revenue Funded Projects (NOT Capped) and Other Funded Projects FY2010

BIO 7.R1.10 O CRD Water Quality Monitoring - Lake Powell & Tailwaters (FY07-Ongoing) - - 257,137 275,502 45,350 230,152 166,152 11,000 23,000 10,000 

 

 257,137 275,502 45,350 230,152 166,152 11,000 23,000 10,000 

GCMRC Other Agreement Funding FY2010

BIO 2.R15.10 O CRD Near Shore Ecology / Fall Steady Flows (FY08--FY12) 536,641 - 500,000 552,825 55,281 497,544 67,544 - - - 

 

BIO 2 R16 10 O CRD M i t N ti Fi h C t l (O i ) 150 000 246 966 31 525 215 441 8 768 

GCMRC Power Revenues Under Cap Projects Sub-totals

 GCMRC Other Power Revenue Agreements Projects Subtotals 

 Sub-total Goal 12 Administrative/Management Portion 

154155156157158159160161162

BIO 2.R16.10 O CRD Mainstem Nonnative Fish Control (Ongoing) 150,000 - 246,966 31,525 215,441 - - - 8,768 

 

Exp 7 O EXP Experimental Study - 7 - Synthesis of Knowledge 66,326 108,674 66,326 175,000 30,372 144,628 144,628 - - - 

 

PLAN 12.P4.11 - APM S.C.O.R.E. Report & Knowledge Assessment Updates (FY11) - - - - - - - - - - 

 

 602,967 258,674 566,326 974,792 117,179 857,613 212,172 - - 8,768  602,967 258,674 823,463 1,250,293 162,528 1,087,765 378,324 11,000 23,000 18,768 

 GCMRC TOTAL AMP FY2010 PLANNED PROGRAM COSTS 258,674 1,244,064 8,790,883 9,858,811 1,276,448 8,582,363 3,572,411 161,844 517,450 344,038 

 

 GCMRC Other Agreement Funding Projects Subtotals 

 GCMRC ALL Other Agreements Projects TOTALS 

Page 4 of 18
DRAFT FY2010/11 GCDAMP BUDGET for the USBR and the USGS GCMRC

APPENDIX E

FY2010

163164165166167168169170171172173174175

A BC D E F G H I J K L M N 

GCMRC Carryover Funds from Prior Years Available for Use in FY10

 Gross 

Carryover 

from FY09 by 

Project 

BIO 1.R1.09 C CRD Aquatic Food Base (FY05--FY10) 20,000 

BIO TBD O Nonnative Fish Contingency Plan 36,818 

BIO 6.R2.09 C COR Vegetation Transects (FY07--FY09) 41,777 BIO 6.R3.09 C CRD Vegetation Synthesis (FY07--FY10) 5,000 

CUL 11.R1.09 O CRD Research & Development toward Core Monitoring (FY06--FY11) 287,904 

DASA 12.D1.09 O CRD Acquisition for Monitoring Data Acquisition - 4 Band Imagery (Remote Sensing) (FY08--Ongoing) 160,928DASA 12.D5.09 O APM GIS Support for Integrated Analyses and Projects, GIS Lead (FY07--Ongoing) 32,860 

PLAN 12.P3.09 O ORD Low Steady Summer Flows - Data and Research Compilation, Synopsis and Synthesis 18,067 

ADM 12.A1.09 (A) O APM Administrative Operations (Ongoing) 23,930 

ADM 12.A4.09 O APM Independent Reviews (Ongoing) 8,663 ADM 12.A5.09 O APM GCMRC Component of SBSC Sys Admin Support (FY05--Ongoing) 5,150 

GCMRC FY2009 Carryover Funds - Capped Revenues Subtotal 641 097

 Comments 

 8,633 FY09 Suballocation not used in FY09  5,150 FY09 Suballocation not used in FY09  Personnel costs due to lapse in position not used in FY09  Planned carry forward to FY10 in FY09 if indicated by BIO 2.R16.09  Cooperative Agreement not used; planned carry forward to FY10 in FY09 for hyperspectral overflight  Cooperative Agreement not used; planned carry forward to FY10 in FY09 for hyperspectral overflight  27,166 Logistics, 81,533 Suballocati0on, 174,000 COOP not used in FY09 due to permitting restraints  135,000 FY09 Contingency fund / shoals flight not used due to permitting restraints  32,860 FY09 COOP not used in FY09  18,067 FY09 COOP not used in FY09  23,930 FY09 COOP not used in FY09 

Page 5 of 18

175176177178179180181182183184185186187188189190

GCMRC FY2009 Carryover Funds - Capped Revenues Subtotal 641,097

BIO 2.R15.09 O CRD Near Shore Ecology / Fall Steady Flows - New Initiative 536,641 

HFE Experiment 7 O EXP Experimental Study - 7 - Synthesis of Knowledge 66,326 

GCMRC FY2009 Carryover Funds - All Funding Sources Total 1,244,064

BOR Experimental Fund Summary

 Gross FY10 

Proposed 

Funding from 

BOR 

Experimental 

Fund 

 BOR 

Experimental 

Fund Balance 

BIO 2.R16.10 O CRD Mainstem Nonnative Fish Control (Ongoing) 150,000 350,000

Exp 7 O EXP Experimental Study - 7 - Synthesis of Knowledge 108,674 241,326

 241,326 258,674

DEFERRED / Unfunded Projects 

 Deferred / 

Unfunded 

GROSS FY10 

Budget 

 DOI Customer 

Burden 

 NET Project 

Subtotal 

(w/o Burden) 

 GCMRC 

Personnel 

Costs 

 GCMRC 

Project Related 

Travel / 

Training 

 GCMRC 

Operations / 

Supplies / 

Publishing 

 GCMRC 

Equipment 

Purchase / 

Replacement 

 AMP 

Logistics 

Support 

 Suballocation 

Outside 

GCMRC 

Contract & 

Science Labor 

 Coop & Inter 

Agency Agmts 

BIO 6.R4.10 N ORD Terrestrial Habitat Monitoring R & D (FY10--FY12) 95,395 10,395 85,000 - 2,000 2,000 1,000 30,000 - 50,000

BIO 6.M1.10 N CRD Vegetation Mapping (FY10--Ongoing) 48,400 8,400 40,000 - - - - 40,000 - -

REC 9.R5.xx D CRD Evaluate Relation between Flows and Recreation Experience 225,000 25,755 199,245 46,353 30,000 15,000 - - - 107,892REC 9.R6.xx D CRD 1973 Weeden Survey Revisited 75,000 4,305 70,695 - - - - - - 70,695REC 9.R7.xx D ORD Update Regional Recreation Economic Study 250,000 26,137 223,863 60,863 15, 8,000 000 - - - 140,000

BOR Experimental Fund Summary

 $350,000 Balance less $108,674 = $241,326 Balance as of 09/30/2010 BOR FY10 Contribution $500,000 less $150,000 = $350,000 Balance

 Comments 

 Sam Logi Defe Defe Defe

 Planned carry forward to FY10 - received FY10 funds in FY09  Planned carry forward to FY10 

-

190191192193194195196

CUL 11.R3.xx D CRD Geomorphic Model of Archaeological Site Vulnerability 250,000 15,194 234,806 - 3,000 3,000 - - - 228,806

DASA 12.D1.10 O CRD

 Quadrennial & Resource-Specific Remote Sensing Overflight <Previously Acquisition for Monitoring Data 

Acquisition - 4 Band Imagery (Remote Sensing> (FY08--Ongoing) 

 46,776 2,685 44,091 - - - - - - 44,091

DASA 12.D9.10 D ORD Integrated Image Analysis and Change Detection (FY10--Ongoing) 89,568 6,303 83,265 - - - 8,265 - - 75,000

 FY10 Deferred / Unfunded Projects 1,080,140 99,175 980,965 107,216 50,000 28,000 9,265 70,000 - 716,484 

 Hyp Pho Defe

Page 5 of 18
DRAFT FY2010/11 GCDAMP BUDGET for the USBR and the USGS GCMRC

APPENDIX E

FY2010

197198199200201202203204205206207208

A BC D E F G H I J K L M N 

PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 2009 FISCAL YEAR 2010 

COSTS 1,913,899 1,913,899 

 8,608,517 7,967,420 8,608,517

 9,881,319 10,522,416 

PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 2009 FISCAL YEAR 2010 

FUNDING 1,824,747 1,824,747 

 7,967,420 7,967,420

 641,097 - 8,608,517 

 9,792,167 10,433,264 (0)

 (89,152) (89,152)

PROGRAM BOR Appropriated and Other Program COSTS FISCAL FISCAL 

 GCMRC Total FY2010 Revenues under Cap Including FY2009 Carryover  GCMRC Difference between FY2010 Total Revenues and Expenses Under Cap  GCMRC FY2010 Expenses under Cap 

BOR Power Revenues Under Cap Program COSTS BOR Power Revenues Under Cap Program COSTS 

 GCMRC Power Revenues Under Cap Program COSTS  Subtotal BOR & GCMRC Power Revenue Program COSTS Under Cap 

BOR Power REVENUES Under Cap Program FundingBOR Power REVENUES Under Cap Funding

 GCMRC FY2009 Carryover Power REVENUES Under Cap Funding  Subtotal BOR & GCMRC Power REVENUE Under Cap Funding  Subtotal Difference between FY2010 Estimated Costs and Estimated Revenues Under Cap  GCMRC Power REVENUES Under Cap Funding 

Page 6 of 18

209210211212213214215216217218219220221222223224225226227228229230231

PROGRAM BOR Appropriated and Other Program COSTS YEAR 2009 YEAR 2010 

COSTS 475,000 475,000 

 823,463 1,250,293 1,250,293  1,298,463 1,725,293 

PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 2009 FISCAL YEAR 2010 

FUNDING 475,000 475,000 

 1,257,137 647,326 

 602,967 - 1,250,293 

 1,732,137 1,725,293 - 

 433,674 - 

Explanation of information found in columns A and H, & R of the Draft Budget for the GCMRC GCDAMP FY2010-11

Column

4-5 GCDAMP Goal Number6-7 Project Number within GCMRC Annual Work Plan7-8 Fiscal Year of Proposed Budget / Annual Work Plan

Column

Status

 GCMRC Appropriated and Other Program FUNDING  Subtotal BOR & GCMRC Appropriated and Other (Non-Capped) 

 GCMRC FY2010 Expenses - Appropriated and Other Fund Sources  GCMRC Total FY2010 Appropriated & Other Revenues  GCMRC Difference between FY2010 Total Other Funding and Other Expenses (Not-Capped) 

 GCMRC FY2009 Carryover Appropriated and Other FUNDING 

 BIO: Biology PHY: Physical Science REC: Recreation HYD: Hydropower CUL: Cultural DASA: Data Acquisition, Storage and Analysis SUP: Support PLA: Planning ADM: Administration 

 GCMRC Project ID 

Program Areas 

1-3

A

 BOR Appropriated and Other Program COSTS  GCMRC Appropriated and Other Program COSTS  Subtotal BOR & GCMRC Power Revenue (Non-Capped) and Other Funded Program COSTS 

BOR Appropriated and Other Program Funding

 BOR Appropriated and Other Program FUNDING  Difference between Projected COSTS and INCOME for FY2010 POWER REVENUES UNDER CAP 

 B O: Ongoing N: New C: Complete

231232233234235236237238239240241242243244

ColumnColumn

 Project Description Project Title (Start Date -- End Date)

Column

 Gross Carryover 

Column

 Experimental Fund 

Column

 FY09 Approved 

Budget 

Column

 FY10 Proposed 

Budget 

Anticipates completion of the Core Monitoring plan according to the process defined in the MRP (including AMP Committeand approval by the Secretary)

Category

 APM: Admin & Program Mgmt COR: Core Monitoring 

CD

G

H FY 2010 GCDAMP Proposed Draft Budget

FY 2009 GCDAMP Approved Budget

E FY 2009 Gross Carryover to FY 2010

F FY 2010 Use of BOR Experimental Funds

 CRD: Core Monitoring Research & Development ORD: Ongoing Research and Development  LTE: Longterm Experiment NA: Not Applicable 

Page 6 of 18
DRAFT FY2010/11 GCDAMP BUDGET for the USBR and the USGS GCMRC

APPENDIX E

FY2010

245246

A BC D E F G H I J K L M N 

Column

 Comments R Comments; BOCM represents Biological Opinion Core Monitoring items 

Page 7 of 18
DRAFT FY2010/11 GCDAMP BUDGET for the USBR and the USGS GCMRC

APPENDIX E

FY2011

123456789

101112131415161718

A BC D E F G H I J K L 

ID Project Descriptions FY10 Gross Proposed Budget FY11 Experimental Funds FY11 Gross Proposed Budget (incl 3% CPI Increase) 

A Adaptive Management Work Group

1 Personnel Costs 176,747 - 182,0492 AMWG Member Travel Reimbursement 17,467 - 17,9913 Reclamation Travel 14,178 - 14,8734 Facilitation Contract 26,959 - 27,7685 POAHG Expenses 55,536 - 57,2026 Other 7,969 - 8,208

 - 298,856 308,091

B Technical Work Group

1 Personnel Costs 86,195 - 88,7802 TWG Member Travel Reimbursement 23,952 - 24,6703 Reclamation Travel 17,658 - 18,1884 TWG Chair Reimbursement 24,625 - 25,3635 Other 2,277 - 2,345

Reclamation TWG Subtotal 154,707 - 159,346

C Other Reclamation AMWG Subtotal

 Co

Reclamation Administration Power Revenue Under Cap Funded Projects

19202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243

1 Compliance Documents 50,000 - 51,5002 Administrative Support for NPS Permitting 118,852 - 122,4173 Contract Administration 39,953 - 41,1524 Experimental Carryover Funds - to be held by BOR 500,000 (484,251) 515,0005 Integrated Tribal Resources Monitoring 142,884 - 147,1716 Mainstem Non-native Mechanical Removal - - -7 Non-native Fish Suppression Contingency Fund 48,483 - 49,937

Other Subtotal 900,172 (484,251) 927,177

Reclamation Administrative Subtotal 1,353,735 (484,251) 1,394,614

D Programmatic Agreement Cultural Resources -

1 Reclamation Administration 60,164 - 61,9692 Canyon Treatment Plan and Implementation 500,000 - 500,000

Programmatic Agreement Subtotal - 560,164 561,969

 (484,251) 1,913,899 1,956,583

Reclamation Appropriated Funded Projects

HCA Development of a LCR Management Plan

Tribal Consultation

A Cooperative Agreements with Tribes1 Hopi Tribe 95,000 - 95,0002 Hualapai Tribe 95,000 - 95,0003 Navajo Nation 95,000 - 95,0004 Pueblo of Zuni 95,000 - 95,0005 Southern Paiute 95,000 - 95,0006 DOI Handling Fee - - -

Reclamation Power Revenue Under Cap Program Subtotal

 $241,326 FY10 Balance + $515,000 = $756,326 Available for use in FY11 less $484,251  + 75k Appropriated Funds from Tribal Consultation Carryover from Prior Fiscal Years  $0 FY10 Balance + $49,937 FY11 Funding = $49,937 Balance Available as of 09/30/201

44454647

Tribal Consultation Subtotal - 475,000 475,000Reclamation Appropriated Projects Subtotal - 475,000 475,000

 (484,251) 2,388,899 2,431,583 BUREAU OF RECLAMATION TOTAL AMP PROGRAM COSTS

Page 8 of 18
DRAFT FY2010/11 GCDAMP BUDGET for the USBR and the USGS GCMRC

APPENDIX E

FY2011

48495051525354555657

A BC D E F G H I J K L 

 GCMRC 

Project ID 

 FY11 Status 

 Funding Emphasis Project Descriptions FY10 Gross Proposed Budget BOR Experimental Funds Used in FY11 (included in FY11 Gross Budget) FY11 Gross Proposed Budget (incl 3% CPI Increase) FY11 DOI Customer Burden (Combined 6.09%, 21% and/or Other Rate) FY11 NET Project Subtotal (w/o Burden) FY11 GCMRC Personnel Costs (21% Burden) FY11 GCMRC Project Related Travel / Training (21% Burden) FY11 GCMR

Operations 

Supplies / Publishing (21% Burden

U.S. Geological Survey - Biological Resource Division - GCMRC - Power Revenues Under Cap Funded Projects

GOAL 1 - FOOD BASE

BIO 1.R1.10 C CRD Aquatic Food Base (FY05--FY10) 505,945 - - - - - - 

 

BIO 1.M1.11 N COR Aquatic Food Base (FY11--Ongoing) - - 250,712 43,512 207,200 164,200 3,000 5,00

 

BIO 1.R4.10 C CRD Impacts of Various Flow Regimes on the Aquatic Food Base (FY08--FY10) - 62,111 - - - - - 

 

SUB-TOTAL GOAL 1 568,056 - 250,712 43,512 207,200 164,200 3,000 5,00

 

GOAL 2 - NATIVE FISHES

BIO 2.R1.10 C CRD LCR HBC Monitoring Lower 13.6km (HBC Population Est) (Ongoing) - 455,735 - - - - - 

 

585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081

BIO 2.R2.10 C CRD LCR HBC Monitoring Lower 1,200m (Ongoing) 57,421 - - - - - - 

 

BIO 2.M1.11 N COR LCR Fish Monitoring (FY11--Ongoing) - - 308,824 23,349 285,475 - - 

 

BIO 2.M3.11 O CRD HBC Monitoring Above Chute Falls (Ongoing) 143,194 - 145,494 16,082 129,412 - - 

 

BIO 2.M4.11 O COR Monitoring Mainstem Fishes (FY10--Ongoing) 632,461 - 798,930 80,126 718,804 43,804 10,0 10,00

00 

BIO 2.R17.11 O ORD Nonnative Control Plan Science Support (FY10--Ongoing) - 78,058 138,599 24,054 114,545 111,545 3,000 

 

BIO 2.R7.11 O ORD Stock Assessment of Native Fish in Grand Canyon (FY07--Ongoing) - 110,877 103,776 18,011 85,765 80,765 3,0 2,00

00 

BIO 2.R13.11 O CRD Remote PIT Tag Reading (FY07--Ongoing) 217,268 - 224,557 22,153 202,404 5,904 - 

 

BIO 2.R15.10 O CRD Near Shore Ecology / Fall Steady Flows (FY08--FY12) - - - - - - - 

 

BIO 2.R16.09 O ORD Mainstem Nonnative Fish Control (Ongoing) 68,842 - - - - - - 

 

SUB-TOTAL GOAL 2 1,763,856 - 1,720,180 183,775 1,536,405 242,018 16,000 12,00

 

GOAL 3 - EXTIRPATED SPECIES

07.3.00 - NA None Identified - - - - - - - 

 

SUB-TOTAL GOAL 3 - - - - - - - 

 

GOAL 4 - RAINBOW TROUT

BIO 4.M2.11 O COR Monitoring Lees Ferry Fishes (FY10--Ongoing) 175,737 - 182,819 13,319 169,500 5,100 - 

 

SUB-TOTAL GOAL 4 175,737 - 182,819 13,319 169,500 5,100 - 

 

GOAL 5 - KANAB AMBERSNAIL

BIO 5.R1.11 O CRD Monitor Kanab Ambersnail (FY07--FY11) 24,764 - 25,700 2,178 23,522 - - 

 

SUB-TOTAL GOAL 5 24,764 - 25,700 2,178 23,522 - - 

 

GOAL 6 - SPRINGS / RIPARIAN

BIO 6.M1.11 O COR Vegetation Mapping (FY10--Ongoing) 95,828 - 106,211 18,433 87,778 81,778 2,0 3,00

00 

BIO 6.M2.11 N COR Vegetation Transects (FY11--Ongoing) - - 142,917 18,643 124,274 35,274 3,00 5,00

0 

BIO 6.R3.10 C CRD Vegetation Synthesis (FY07--FY10) 38,526 - - - - - - 

 

81 SUB TOTAL GOAL 6 134 354 249 128 37 076 212 052 117 052 5 000 8 00828384858687888990

SUB-TOTAL GOAL 6 134,354 - 249,128 37,076 212,052 117,052 5,000 8,00

 

GOAL 7 - QUALITY-OF-WATER

BIO 7.R1.11 O CRD Water Quality Monitoring Lake - Powell & Tailwaters (BUDGET PRESENTED BELOW) (Ongoing) - - - - - - - 

 

PHY 7.M1.11 O COR Integrated Quality-of-Water Monitoring (Downstream of GCD) (FY07--Ongoing) 979,691 - 1,025,906 112,686 913,220 423,084 9,548 31,82

 

PHY 7.R2.10 C CRD Integrated Flow, Sediment Transport and Temperature Modeling of the CRE (FY09--FY10) - 295,398 - - - - - 

 

PHY 7.R3.11 N CRD Modeling Support & Temperature Models (FY11--Ongoing) - - 138,028 17,787 120,241 74,718 1,98 4,00

0 

SUB-TOTAL GOAL 7 1,275,089 - 1,163,934 130,473 1,033,461 497,802 11,528 35,82

 

GOAL 8 - SEDIMENT

PHY 8.M2.11 O COR Integrated Longterm Monitoring of System Wide Changes in Sediment Storage (FY09--Ongoing) - 219,668 381,990 46,406 335,584 66,747 2,12 11,15

2 

SUB-TOTAL GOAL 8 219,668 - 381,990 46,406 335,584 66,747 2,122 11,15

 

Page 9 of 18
DRAFT FY2010/11 GCDAMP BUDGET for the USBR and the USGS GCMRC

APPENDIX E

FY2011

919293949596979899

100

A BC D E F G H I J K L 

 GCMRC 

Project ID 

 FY11 Status 

 Funding Emphasis Project Descriptions FY10 Gross Proposed Budget BOR Experimental Funds Used in FY11 (included in FY11 Gross Budget) FY11 Gross Proposed Budget (incl 3% CPI Increase) FY11 DOI Customer Burden (Combined 6.09%, 21% and/or Other Rate) FY11 NET Project Subtotal (w/o Burden) FY11 GCMRC Personnel Costs (21% Burden) FY11 GCMRC Project Related Travel / Training (21% Burden) FY11 GCMR

Operations 

Supplies / Publishing (21% Burden

GOAL 9 - RECREATIONAL EXPERIENCE

 REC 9.R1.11 O CRD Sand Bar and Campable Area Monitoring (FY11--Ongoing) 78,118 - 78,082 7,082 71,000 7,500 - 3,00

 

REC 9.R3.11 O CRD Compile Campsite Inventory and GIS Atlas (FY07- -FY11) 75,020 - 60,500 10,500 50,000 43,000 3,000 4,00

 

SUB-TOTAL GOAL 9 153,138 - 138,582 17,582 121,000 50,500 3,000 7,00

 

GOAL 10 - HYDROPOWER

HYD 10.M1.11 O CRD Monitor Power Generation and Market Values under Current and Future Dam Operations (FY07--Ongoing) 9,680 - 10,890 1,890 9,000 5,500 - 3,50

 

SUB-TOTAL GOAL 10 9,680 - 10,890 1,890 9,000 5,500 - 3,50

 

GOAL 11 - CULTURAL

CUL 11.R1.11 O CRD Cultural Research & Development toward Core Monitoring (FY06--FY12) 373,577 - 361,989 37,989 324,000 96,000 4,000 10,00

 

I l t T ib l M it i P j t

101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122

CUL 11.R2.11 O CRD Implement Tribal Monitoring Projects (See funding in BOR section) - - - - - - - 

 

SUB-TOTAL GOAL 11 373,577 - 361,989 37,989 324,000 96,000 4,000 10,00

 

GOAL 12 - HIGH QUALITY MONITORING, RESEARCH & ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

DASA 12.D9.11 O APM Integrated Image Analysis and Change Detection (FY10--Ongoing) - 234,674 245,482 26,707 218,775 89,761 - DASA 12.D2.12 O APM Grand Canyon Integrated Oracle Database Management System (FY07--Ongoing) 166,858 - 166,858 28,959 137,899 137,899 - 

 

DASA 12.D8.11 O APM Biometrics & General Analysis (FY10--Ongoing) 165,841 - 165,840 28,782 137,058 137,058 - 

 

DASA 12.D3.11 O APM Library Operations (FY08--Ongoing) 80,263 - 78,709 13,660 65,049 65,049 - 

 

DASA 12.D5.11 O APM GIS Support for Integrated Analyses and Projects, GIS Lead (FY07--Ongoing) - 351,882 366,171 47,653 318,518 185,204 2,000 2,30

 

Sub-total Goal 12 DASA Portion 999,518 - 1,023,060 145,761 877,299 614,971 2,000 2,30

 

SUP 12.S1.11 O APM Logistics Base Costs (See each project for project related logistics costs) (Ongoing) 210,252 - 223,626 38,811 184,815 147,930 1,885 

 

SUP 12.S2.11 O APM Survey Operations (Ongoing) 88,242 - 90,122 15,641 74,481 49,481 - 

 

SUP 12.S3.11 O APM Control Network (Ongoing) 180,009 - 185,704 29,149 156,555 91,555 - 

 

Sub-total Goal 12 Support Portion 478,503 - 499,452 83,601 415,851 288,966 1,885 

 

PLAN 12.P1.11 O CRD

Enhancing the Conceptual Ecosystem Model to Identify Critical Ecosystem Interactions and Data Gap (FY08--FY12)

 239,986 - 148,945 19,689 129,256 79,256 - 

 

PLAN 12.P3.10 C LTE Low Steady Summer Flows - Data and Research Compilation, Synopsis and Synthesis (FY08--FY10) - 16,409 - - - - - 

 

Sub-total Goal 12 Planning Portion 256,395 - 148,945 19,689 129,256 79,256 - 

 

ADM 12.A1.11 (A) O APM Administrative Operations (Ongoing) 161,908 - 167,995 22,995 145,000 45,000 5,500 31,10

 

ADM 12.A1.11 (B) O APM Administrative Operations - GSA Vehicle Costs (Ongoing) 63,525 - 66,550 11,550 55,000 - - 55,00

 

ADM 12.A1.11 (C) O APM Administrative Operations - Interior Vehicle Costs (Ongoing) 32,065 - 33,880 5,880 28,000 - - 28,00

 

ADM 12.A2.11 O APM Program Planning & Management (Ongoing) 1,195,480 - 1,238,435 214,935 1,023,500 970,000 42,000 11,50

 

ADM 12.A3.11 O APM AMWG/TWG Meeting Travel Funds (Ongoing) 19,481 - 19,965 3,465 16,500 - 16,500 

 

ADM 12.A4.11 (A) O APM Independent Reviews (Ongoing) 22,400 - 73,205 12,705 60,500 - - 50,00

 

123124125126127128129130131132133

ADM 12.A4.11 (B) O APM

Executive Director of Science Advisors Review and Coordination; includes Science Advisors' Expenses (Ongoing)

 217,800 - 223,850 38,850 185,000 - - 185,00

 

ADM 12.A6.11 O APM 2011 Colorado River Basin Science and Management Symposium (Biennial--Ongoing) - - - - - - - 

 

ADM 12.A5.11 O APM GCMRC Component of SBSC Sys Admin Support (FY05--Ongoing) 216,750 - 225,181 39,081 186,100 - - 71,00

 

 - 1,929,409 2,049,061 349,461 1,699,600 1,015,000 64,000 431,60

 

SUB-TOTAL GOAL 12 3,663,825 - 3,720,518 598,512 3,122,006 1,998,193 67,885 433,90

 

 8,361,744 - 8,206,442 1,112,712 7,093,730 3,243,112 112,535 526,38

GCMRC Power Revenue Funded Projects (NOT Capped) and Other Funded Projects

BIO 7.R1.11 O CRD Water Quality Monitoring - Lake Powell & Tailwaters (FY07-Ongoing) - 275,502 286,342 47,108 239,234 172,234 12,00 24,00

0 

 275,502 - 286,342 47,108 239,234 172,234 12,000 24,00

GCMRC Power Revenues Under Cap Projects Sub-totals

GCMRC Other Power Revenue Agreements Projects Subtotals

Sub-total Goal 12 Administrative/Management Portion

Page 10 of 18
DRAFT FY2010/11 GCDAMP BUDGET for the USBR and the USGS GCMRC

APPENDIX E

FY2011

134135136137138139140141142143144

A BC D E F G H I J K L 

 GCMRC 

Project ID 

 FY11 Status 

 Funding Emphasis Project Descriptions FY10 Gross Proposed Budget BOR Experimental Funds Used in FY11 (included in FY11 Gross Budget) FY11 Gross Proposed Budget (incl 3% CPI Increase) FY11 DOI Customer Burden (Combined 6.09%, 21% and/or Other Rate) FY11 NET Project Subtotal (w/o Burden) FY11 GCMRC Personnel Costs (21% Burden) FY11 GCMRC Project Related Travel / Training (21% Burden) FY11 GCMR

Operations 

Supplies / Publishing (21% Burden

GCMRC Other Agreement Funding FY2009

BIO 2.R15.11 O CRD Near Shore Ecology / Fall Steady Flows (FY08--FY12) - 552,825 556,911 55,990 500,921 70,921 - 

 

BIO 2.R16.09 O ORD Mainstem Nonnative Fish Control (Ongoing) 150,000 309,251 309,251 41,349 267,902 7,806 - 

 

PLAN 12.P4.11 N APM S.C.O.R.E. Report & Knowledge Assessment Updates (FY11) 175,000 175,000 175,000 21,130 153,870 25,000 3,870 50,00

 

 877,825 484,251 1,041,163 118,470 922,693 103,727 3,870 50,00 1,153,327 484,251 1,327,505 165,578 1,161,927 275,961 15,870 74,00

 484,251 9,515,071 9,533,947 1,278,290 8,255,657 3,519,073 128,405 600,38

 

BOR Experimental Fund Summary

 Gross FY11 

Proposed Funding 

from BOR 

Experimental Fund

 BOR Experimental 

Fund Balance Comments 

GCMRC Other Agreement Funding Projects Subtotals

GCMRC ALL Other Agreements Projects TOTALS

 GCMRC TOTAL AMP FY2008 PLANNED PROGRAM COSTS

144145146147148149150151152153154155156157

Experimental Fund

BIO 2.R16.11 O CRD Mainstem Nonnative Fish Control (Ongoing) 309,251 447,075

PLAN 12.P4.11 N APM S.C.O.R.E. & Knowledge Assessment Updates 175,000 272,075

484,251

DEFERRED / Unfunded Projects 

 Deferred / 

Unfunded GROSS 

FY11 Budget 

 DOI Customer 

Burden 

 NET Project 

Subtotal 

(w/o Burden) 

 GCMRC 

Personnel Costs 

 GCMRC 

Project Related 

Travel / 

Training 

 GCMRC 

Operations / 

Supplies / 

Publishing 

 GCMRC 

Equipment 

Purchase / 

Replacement 

 AMP Logistic

Support 

REC 9.R5.xx D CRD Evaluate Relation between Flows and Recreation Experience 225,000 25,755 199,245 46,353 30,000 15,000 - 

 

REC 9.R6.xx D CRD 1973 Weeden Survey Revisited 75,000 4,305 70,695 - - - - 

 

REC 9.R7.xx D Update Regional Recreation Economic Study 250,000 26,137 223,863 60,863 15,000 8,000 - 

 

CUL 11.R3.xx D CRD Geomorphic Model of Archaeological Site Vulnerability 250,000 15,194 234,806 - 3,000 3,000 - 

 

DASA 12.D1.11 D CRD

Quadrennial & Resource-Specific Remote Sensing Overflight Working Capital Fund <Previously Acquisition for Monitoring Data Acquisition - 4 Band Imagery (Remote Sensing> (FY08--Ongoing)

 200,000 11,481 188,519 - - - - 

 

PLAN 12.P1.11 O CRD

Enhancing the Conceptual Ecosystem Model to Identify Critical Ecosystem Interactions and Data Gap (Funded in FY08 w/Carryover - not included in FY08 Power Revenue Budget Total)

 33,169 3,169 30,000 - 9,000 - - 

 

 947,128 107,216 57,000 26,000 - - - 756,91

BOR Experimental Fund and OTHER Funding Sources Summary

BOR FY10 Balance $241,326 + $515,000 = $756,326 Available less $309,251 = $447,075 Balance $447,075 Balance less $175,000 = $272,075 Balance as of 09/30/2011

GCMRC FY2011 Deferred Projects

Page 11 of 18
DRAFT FY2010/11 GCDAMP BUDGET for the USBR and the USGS GCMRC

APPENDIX E

FY2011

158159160161162163164165166167168169

A BC D E F G H I J K L 

PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 2010 FISCAL YEAR 2011 

COSTS 1,913,899 1,956,583 

 8,206,442 7,967,420 8,206,442

 9,881,319 10,163,025 

PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 2010 FISCAL YEAR 2011 

FUNDING 1,824,747 1,879,489 

 8,206,443 7,967,420 8,206,443 

 9,792,167 10,085,932 0 

 (89,152) (77,093)

PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 2010 FISCAL YEAR 2011

BOR Power REVENUES Under Cap Program GCMRC Power REVENUES Under Cap Program Subtotal BOR & GCMRC Power REVENUES Under Cap ProgramSubtotal Difference between FY2011 Estimated Costs and Estimated Revenues Under Cap BOR Power Revenues Under Cap Program COSTS BOR Power Revenues Under Cap Program COSTS GCMRC Power Revenues Under Cap Program COSTSSubtotal BOR & GCMRC Power Revenue Under Cap Program COSTSBOR Appropriated and Other Program COSTS

 GCMRC FY2011 Expenses under Cap GCMRC Total FY2011 Revenues under Cap GCMRC Difference between FY2011 Total Revenues and Expenses Under Cap 

 BOR Power REVENUES Under Cap Program Funding 

169170171172173174175176177178179180181182183184185186187188189190

2010 2011

COSTS 475,000 475,000 

 1,153,327 1,327,505 1,327,505  1,628,327 1,802,505 

PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 2010 FISCAL YEAR 2011 

FUNDING 475,000 475,000 

 1,153,327 1,327,505 1,327,505  1,628,327 1,802,505 - 

 - - 

Explanation of information found in columns A and H, & Q of the Draft Budget for the GCMRC GCDAMP FY2010-11

Column

4-5 GCDAMP Goal Number6-7 Project Number within GCMRC Annual Work Plan7-8 Fiscal Year of Proposed Budget / Annual Work Plan

Column

Status

GCMRC FY2011 Expenses - Appropriated and Other Fund SourcesGCMRC Total FY2011 Appropriated & Other RevenuesGCMRC Difference between FY2011 Total Other Funding and Other Expenses (Not-

Anticipates completion of the Core Monitoring plan according to the process defined in the 

Subtotal BOR & GCMRC Power REVENUE (NonCapped) and Other Funded Program FUNDINGDifference between Projected COSTS and REVENUE for FY11 POWER REVENUES UNDER CAP

 BIO: Biology PHY: Physical Science REC: Recreation HYD: Hydropower CUL: Cultural DASA: Data 

Acquisition, Storage and Analysis SUP: Support PLA: Planning ADM: Administration 

O: Ongoing N: New C: Complete

BOR Appropriated and Other Program Funding

 GCMRC Project 

ID Program Areas 

BOR Appropriated and Other Program COSTSGCMRC Appropriated and Other Program COSTS

A

1-3

 B 

Subtotal BOR & GCMRC Power Revenue (NonCapped) and Other Funded Program COSTSBOR Appropriated and Other Program FUNDINGGCMRC Appropriated and Other Program FUNDING

191192193194195196197198199200201202203

ColumnColumn

 Project 

Description Project Title (Start Date -- End Date)

Column

 Gross Carryover 

Column

 Experimental 

Fund 

Column

 FY11 Proposed 

Budget 

Column

 Comments 

FY 2011 Use of BOR Experimental Funds

E

F

D

Anticipates completion of the Core Monitoring plan according to the process defined in the 

by the Secretary)

 CRD: Core Monitoring Research & Development ORD: Ongoing Research and Development  LTE: Longterm Experiment NA: Not Applicable 

FY 2010 GDAMP Proposed Draft Budget

C

 APM: Admin & Program Mgmt COR: Core Monitoring 

Category

H FY 2011 GCDAMP Proposed Draft Budget

Q Comments; BOCM represents Biological Opinion Core Monitoring items 

Page 12 of 18
DRAFT FY2010/11 GCDAMP BUDGET for the USBR and the USGS GCMRC

APPENDIX E

123456789

101112131415161718192021

A B C D EF GH 

 Project Descriptions 

 Carry Over 

Funding from 

FY09 Available 

for Use in 

FY10 

 Approved 

FY09 Budget 

(incl 4.9% CPI 

Increase) 

FY10 GROSS 

Proposed 

Budget (incl 

0% CPI 

Increase) 

FY11 GROSS 

Proposed 

Budget (incl 

3% CPI 

Increase) 

 Adaptive Management Work Group 

 Personnel Costs - 176,747 176,747 182,049

 AMWG Member Travel Reimbursement - 17,467 17,467 17,991

 Reclamation Travel - 14,178 14,178 14,873

 Facilitation Contract - 26,959 26,959 27,768

 POAHG Expenses - 55,536 55,536 57,202

 Other - 7,969 7,969 8,208

 298,856 - 298,856 308,091

 Technical Work Group 

 Personnel Costs - 86,195 86,195 88,780

 TWG Member Travel Reimbursement - 23,952 23,952 24,670

 Reclamation Travel - 17,658 17,658 18,188

 TWG Chair Reimbursement - 24,625 24,625 25,363

 Other - 2,277 2,277 2,345

 154,707 - 154,707 159,346

 Other 

 Compliance Documents - 50,000 50,000 51,500

 Administrative Support for NPS Permitting - 118,852 118,852 122,417

 Contract Administration - 39,953 39,953 41,152

2223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647

 Experimental Carryover Funds - to be held by BOR - 500,000 500,000 515,000

 Integrated Tribal Resources Monitoring - 142,884 142,884 147,171

 Mainstem Non-native Mechanical Removal - - - -

 Non-native Fish Suppression Contingency Fund - 48,483 48,483 49,937

 900,172 - 927,177 900,172 1,353,735 - 1,353,735 1,394,614

 Programmatic Agreement Cultural Resources 

 Reclamation Administration - 60,164 60,164 61,969

 Canyon Treatment Plan and Implementation - 500,000 500,000 500,000

 560,164 - 560,164 561,969

 1,913,899 - 1,913,899 1,956,583

 Development of a LCR Management Plan - - -

 Cooperative Agreements with Tribes  Hopi Tribe - 95,000 95,000 95,000

 Hualapai Tribe - 95,000 95,000 95,000

 Navajo Nation - 95,000 95,000 95,000

 Pueblo of Zuni - 95,000 95,000 95,000

 Southern Paiute - 95,000 95,000 95,000

 DOI Handling Fee - - - -

 475,000 - 475,000 475,000

 475,000 - 475,000 475,000

 2,388,899 - 2,388,899 2,431,583

Page 13 of 18

O:\!Admin Restricted\GCMRC FILES\BMs Working Files\AMWG & T
DRAFT FY2010/11 GCDAMP BUDGET for the USBR and the USGS GCMRC

APPENDIX E

484950515253545556575859606162

A B C D EF GH 

 GCMRC 

Project ID Project Descriptions 

 Carry Over 

Funding from 

FY09 Available 

for Use in 

FY10 

 Approved 

FY09 Budget 

(incl 4.9% CPI 

Increase) 

FY10 GROSS 

Proposed 

Budget (incl 

0% CPI 

Increase) 

FY11 GROSS 

Proposed 

Budget (incl 

3% CPI 

Increase) 

U.S. Geological Survey - Biological Resource Division - GCMRC - Power Revenues Under Cap Funded Projects

GOAL 1 - FOOD BASE

BIO 1.R1.10 Aquatic Food Base (FY05--FY10) 20,000 510,626 505,945 - 

BIO 1.M1.11 Aquatic Food Base (FY11--Ongoing) - - - 250,712 

BIO 1.R4.10 Impacts of Various Flow Regimes on the Aquatic Food Base (FY08--FY10) 85,472 - 62,111 - 

 SUB-TOTAL GOAL 1 20,000 596,098 568,056 250,712

GOAL 2 - NATIVE FISHES

BIO 2.R1.10 LCR HBC Monitoring Lower 13.6km (HBC Population Est) (Ongoing) 487,666 - 455,735 - BIO 2.R2.10 LCR HBC Monitoring Lower 1,200m (Ongoing) - 61,635 57,421 - 

BIO 2.M1.11 LCR Fish Monitoring (FY11--Ongoing) - - 308,824 BIO 2.M3.10 HBC Monitoring Above Chute Falls (Ongoing) - 136,490 143,194 145,494 

BIO 2.R4.09 Monitoring Mainstem Fishes (incl Diamond Down) (FY09) 474,723 - - - 62

63646566676869707172737475767778798081828384

(FY09)

BIO 2.M4.10 Monitoring Mainstem Fishes (FY10--Ongoing) - - 632,461 798,930 

BIO 2.R5.09 Nonnative Control Planning (FY06--FY09) - 63,640 - - BIO 2.R6.09 Nonnative Control Pilot Testing (FY06--FY09) - 110,281 - - 

BIO 2.R17.10 Nonnative Control Plan Science Support (FY10-- Ongoing) - - 78,057 138,599 

BIO 2.R7.10 Stock Assessment of Native Fish in Grand Canyon (FY07--Ongoing) 54,619 - 110,877 103,776 BIO 2.R9.09 Mainstem Fish Survival (FY07--FY09) - 96,013 - - 

BIO 2.R13.10 Remote PIT Tag Reading (FY07--Ongoing) - 107,319 217,268 224,557 BIO 2.R15.10 Near Shore Ecology / Fall Steady Flows (FY08--FY12) - 11,970 - - BIO 2.R16.10 Mainstem Nonnative Fish Control (Ongoing) - 141,023 68,842 - 

BIO 2.TBD Nonnative Fish Contingency Fund 36,818 - - - 

 SUB-TOTAL GOAL 2 36,818 1,745,379 1,763,855 1,720,180

GOAL 3 - EXTIRPATED SPECIES

07.3.00 None Identified - - - - 

 SUB-TOTAL GOAL 3 - - - -

GOAL 4 - RAINBOW TROUT

BIO 4.M1.09 Monitoring Lees Ferry Trout (FY96--FY09) - 118,454 - - 

BIO 4.E1.09 Monitoring Rainbow Trout Redds & Larvae (FY07-- FY09) - - - - 

BIO 4.M2.10 Monitoring Lees Ferry Fishes (FY10--Ongoing) - - 175,737 182,819 

 SUB-TOTAL GOAL 4 - 118,454 175,737 182,819

GOAL 5 - KANAB AMBERSNAIL

BIO 5.R1.10 Monitor Kanab Ambersnail (FY07--FY11) - 22,883 24,764 25,700 

 SUB-TOTAL GOAL 5 - 22,883 24,764 25,700

Page 14 of 18

O:\!Admin Restricted\GCMRC FILES\BMs Working Files\AMWG & T
DRAFT FY2010/11 GCDAMP BUDGET for the USBR and the USGS GCMRC

APPENDIX E

858687888990919293949596979899

100

A B C D EF GH 

 GCMRC 

Project ID Project Descriptions 

 Carry Over 

Funding from 

FY09 Available 

for Use in 

FY10 

 Approved 

FY09 Budget 

(incl 4.9% CPI 

Increase) 

FY10 GROSS 

Proposed 

Budget (incl 

0% CPI 

Increase) 

FY11 GROSS 

Proposed 

Budget (incl 

3% CPI 

Increase) 

GOAL 6 - SPRINGS / RIPARIAN

BIO 6.R1.09 Vegetation Mapping (FY07--FY09) - 121,804 - - 

BIO 6.M1.10 Vegetation Mapping (FY10--Ongoing) - - 95,828 106,211 

BIO 6.R2.09 Vegetation Transects (FY07--FY09) 41,777 52,502 - - 

BIO 6.M2.11 Vegetation Transects (FY11--Ongoing) - - - 142,917 

BIO 6.R3.10 Vegetation Synthesis (FY07--FY10) 5,000 60,364 38,526 - 

 SUB-TOTAL GOAL 6 46,777 234,670 134,354 249,128

GOAL 7 - QUALITY-OF-WATER

BIO 7.R1.10 Water Quality Monitoring Lake - Powell & Tailwaters (BUDGET PRESENTED BELOW) (Ongoing) - - - - 

PHY 7.M1.10 Integrated Quality-of-Water Monitoring (Downstream of GCD) (FY07--Ongoing) - 931,513 979,691 1,025,906 

PHY 7.R2.10 Integrated Flow, Sediment Transport and Temperature Modeling of the CRE (FY09--FY10) 127,134 - 295,398 - PHY 7.R3.11 Modeling Support & Temperature Models (FY11-- Ongoing) - - - 138,028 

 SUB-TOTAL GOAL 7 - 1,058,647 1,275,089 1,163,934

GOAL 8 - SEDIMENT

PHY 8.M2.10 Integrated Longterm Monitoring of System Wide Changes in Sediment Storage (FY09--Ongoing) 309,224 - 219,668 381,990 

100101102103104105106107108109110111112113

 SUB-TOTAL GOAL 8 - 309,224 219,668 381,990

GOAL 9 - RECREATIONAL EXPERIENCE

 REC 9.R1.10 Sand Bar and Campable Area Monitoring R & D (FY98-- Ongoing) - 55,075 78,118 78,082 

REC 9.R3.10 Compile Campsite Inventory and GIS Atlas (FY07-- FY11) - - 75,020 60,500 REC 9.R4.09 Compile and Analyze Existing Safety Data (FY09) - 26,296 - - 

 SUB-TOTAL GOAL 9 - 81,371 153,138 138,582

GOAL 10 - HYDROPOWER

HYD 10.M1.10 Monitor Power Generation and Market Values under Current and Future Dam Operations (FY07--Ongoing) - 19,587 9,680 10,890 

 SUB-TOTAL GOAL 10 - 19,587 9,680 10,890

GOAL 11 - CULTURAL

CUL 11.R1.10 Cultural Research & Development toward Core Monitoring, Phase II (FY06--FY12) 287,904 448,088 373,577 361,989 CUL 11.R2.10 Implement Tribal Monitoring Projects (See funding in BOR section) - - -

 SUB-TOTAL GOAL 11 287,904 448,088 373,577 361,989

Page 15 of 18

O:\!Admin Restricted\GCMRC FILES\BMs Working Files\AMWG & T
DRAFT FY2010/11 GCDAMP BUDGET for the USBR and the USGS GCMRC

APPENDIX E

114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128

A B C D EF GH 

 GCMRC 

Project ID Project Descriptions 

 Carry Over 

Funding from 

FY09 Available 

for Use in 

FY10 

 Approved 

FY09 Budget 

(incl 4.9% CPI 

Increase) 

FY10 GROSS 

Proposed 

Budget (incl 

0% CPI 

Increase) 

FY10 GROSS 

Proposed 

Budget (incl 

0% CPI 

Increase) 

GOAL 12 - HIGH QUALITY MONITORING, RESEARCH & ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

DASA 12.D1.10

 Quadrennial & Resource-Specific Remote Sensing Overflight <Previously Acquisition for Monitoring Data Acquisition - 4 Band Imagery (Remote Sensing)> (FY08--Ongoing) 

 202,340 160,928 200,000 - 

DASA 12.D9.10 Integrated Image Analysis and Change Detection (FY10--Ongoing) - - 234,674 245,482 DASA 12.D2.10 Grand Canyon Integrated Oracle Database Management System (FY07--Ongoing) - 184,485 166,858 166,858 DASA 12.D8.10 Biometrics & General Analysis (FY10--Ongoing) - - 165,841 165,840 DASA 12.D3.10 Library Operations (FY08--Ongoing) 56,284 80,263 78,709 DASA 12.D4.10 Legacy Analog Data Conversion (Analog to Digital - Reports & Imagery) (FY08--Ongoing) 130,739 - - - DASA 12.D5.10 GIS Support for Integrated Analyses and Projects, GIS Lead (FY07--Ongoing) 332,871 32,860 351,882 366,171 DASA 12.D7.10 Integrated Analysis and Modeling - FY09 Overflight (FY09) 129,124 - - - 

 Sub-total Goal 12 DASA Portion 193,788 1,035,843 1,199,518 1,023,060

SUP 12.S1.10 Logistics Base Costs (See each project for project related logistics costs) (Ongoing) - 180,531 210,252 223,626 SUP 12.S2.10 Survey Operations (Ongoing) - 114,718 88,242 90,122 SUP 12.S3.10 Control Network (Ongoing) - 91,104 180,009 185,704 

128 Sub-total Goal 12 Support Portion - 386 478 ,353 499 ,503 ,452129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145

Sub total Goal 12 Support Portion 386,353 478,503 499,452

PLAN 12.P1.10

 Enhancing the Conceptual Ecosystem Model to Identify Critical Ecosystem Interactions and Data Gap (FY08--FY12) 

 - 50,585 239,986 148,945 

PLAN 12.P3.10 Low Steady Summer Flows - Data and Research Compilation, Synopsis and Synthesis (FY08--FY10) 29,251 18,067 16,409 - 

 Sub-total Goal 12 Planning Portion 18,067 79,836 256,395 148,945

ADM 12.A1.10 (A) Administrative Operations (Ongoing) 23,930 173,812 161,908 167,995 ADM 12.A1.10 (B) Administrative Operations - GSA Vehicle Costs (Ongoing) - 50,950 63,525 66,550 

ADM 12.A1.10 (C) Administrative Operations - Interior Vehicle Costs (Ongoing) - 25,475 32,065 33,880 

ADM 12.A2.10 Program Planning & Management (Ongoing) - 1,111,596 1,195,480 1,238,435 ADM 12.A3.10 AMWG/TWG Meeting Travel Funds (Ongoing) - 19,154 19,481 19,965 

ADM 12.A4.10 (A) Independent Reviews (Ongoing) 8,663 21,423 22,400 73,205 ADM 12.A4.10 (B)

 Executive Director of Science Advisors Review and Coordination; includes Science Advisors' Expenses (Ongoing) 

 - 214,227 217,800 223,850 

ADM 12.A6.10 2010 Colorado River Basin Science and Management Symposium (Biennial--Ongoing) - - - - ADM 12.A5.10 GCMRC Component of SBSC Sys Admin Support (FY05--Ongoing) 5,150 214,350 263,526 225,181 

 1,830,987 37,743 1,976,185 2,049,061

 SUB-TOTAL GOAL 12 249,598 3,333,019 3,910,601 3,720,518

 641,097 7,967,420 8,608,518 8,206,442 

Capped Funding based on FY09 Budget with 0% CPI Index 7,967,420 7,967,420 8,206,442 

GROSS Spending <Deficit> - (641,098) - 

 Sub-total Goal 12 Administrative/Management Portion 

 GCMRC Power Revenues Under Cap Projects 

Sub-totals 

Page 16 of 18

O:\!Admin Restricted\GCMRC FILES\BMs Working Files\AMWG & T
DRAFT FY2010/11 GCDAMP BUDGET for the USBR and the USGS GCMRC

APPENDIX E

146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160161

A B C D EF GH 

GCMRC Power Revenue Funded Projects (NOT Capped) and Other Funded Projects 

BIO 7.R1.10 Water Quality Monitoring - Lake Powell & Tailwaters (FY07-Ongoing) 257,137 - 275,502 286,342 

 257,137 275,502 286,342 

GCMRC Other Agreement Funding 

BIO 2.R15.10 Near Shore Ecology / Fall Steady Flows (FY08--FY12) 536,641 500,000 552,825 556,911 BIO 2.R16.10 Mainstem Nonnative Fish Control (Ongoing) - 246,966 309,251 

Exp 7 Experimental Study - 7 - Synthesis of Knowledge 66,326 500,000 175,000 - 

PLAN 12.P4.11 S.C.O.R.E. Report & Knowledge Assessment Updates (FY11) - - - 175,000 

 602,967 1,000,000 974,791 1,041,162  602,967 1,257,137 1,250,293 1,327,504 

 9,224,557 1,244,064 9,858,811 9,533,946 GCMRC TOTAL AMP PLANNED PROGRAM COSTS 

 GCMRC Other Power Revenue Agreements Projects 

Subtotals 

 GCMRC Other Agreement Funding Projects Subtotals 

 GCMRC ALL Other Agreements Projects TOTALS 

162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177

 Gross 

Carryover 

from FY09 by 

Project 

BIO 1.R1.09 Aquatic Food Base (FY05--FY10) 20,000 

BIO TBD Nonnative Fish Contingency Plan 36,818 

BIO 6.R2.09 Vegetation Transects (FY07--FY09) 41,777 BIO 6.R3.09 Vegetation Synthesis (FY07--FY10) 5,000 

CUL 11.R1.09 Research & Development toward Core Monitoring (FY06--FY11) 287,904 

DASA 12.D1.09 Acquisition for Monitoring Data Acquisition - 4 Band Imagery (Remote Sensing) (FY08--Ongoing) 160,928DASA 12.D5.09 GIS Support for Integrated Analyses and Projects, GIS Lead (FY07--Ongoing) 32,860 

PLAN 12.P3.09 Low Steady Summer Flows - Data and Research Compilation, Synopsis and Synthesis 18,067 

ADM 12.A1.09 (A) Administrative Operations (Ongoing) 23,930 

ADM 12.A4.09 Independent Reviews (Ongoing) 8,663 ADM 12.A5.09 GCMRC Component of SBSC Sys Admin Support (FY05--Ongoing) 5,150 

MRC FY2009 Carryover Funds - Capped Revenues Subtotal 641,097

BIO 2.R15.09 Near Shore Ecology / Fall Steady Flows - New Initiative 536,641 

HFE Experiment 7 Experimental Study - 7 - Synthesis of Knowledge 66,326 

CMRC FY2009 Carryover Funds - All Funding Sources Total 1,244,064

 GCMRC Carryover Funds from Prior Years Available 

for Use in FY10 

Page 17 of 18

O:\!Admin Restricted\GCMRC FILES\BMs Working Files\AMWG & T
DRAFT FY2010/11 GCDAMP BUDGET for the USBR and the USGS GCMRC

APPENDIX E

178179180181182183184185186

A B C D EF GH 

BOR Experimental Fund Summary

 Gross 

FY10/11 

Proposed 

Funding from 

BOR 

Experimental 

Fund 

 BOR 

Experimental 

Fund Balance 

BIO 2.R16.10 Mainstem Nonnative Fish Control (Ongoing) 459,251 555,749

PLAN 12.P4.11 S.C.O.R.E. Report & Knowledge Assessment Updates 175,000 380,749

Exp 7 Experimental Study - 7 - Synthesis of Knowledge 108,674 272,075

 272,075 742,925

DEFERRED / Unfunded Projects 

 Deferred / 

Unfunded 

GROSS 

FY10/11 

Budgets 

BIO 6.R4.10 Terrestrial Habitat Monitoring R & D (FY10--FY12) 95,395 

BIO 6 M1 10 Vegetation Mapping (FY10 Ongoing) 48 400

BOR Experimental Fund Summary

 Comments 

 Comments 

 Sampling for arthropods; Proposed to be implemented as a research proje(FY10 & FY12); Deferred in FY10 and FY11 

Logistics for ground truthing Hyperspectral Overflight Deferred FY10 and F

187188189190191192193194195196197

BIO 6.M1.10 Vegetation Mapping (FY10--Ongoing) 48,400

REC 9.R5.xx Evaluate Relation between Flows and Recreation Experience 225,000 REC 9.R6.xx 1973 Weeden Survey Revisited 75,000 REC 9.R7.xx Update Regional Recreation Economic Study 250,000 

CUL 11.R3.xx Geomorphic Model of Archaeological Site Vulnerability 250,000 

DASA 12.D1.10

 Quadrennial & Resource-Specific Remote Sensing Overflight <Previously Acquisition for Monitoring Data Acquisition - 4 Band Imagery (Remote Sensing> (FY08--Ongoing) 

 246,776 

DASA 12.D9.10 Integrated Image Analysis and Change Detection (FY10--Ongoing) 89,568 

PLAN 12.P1.11 Enhancing the Conceptual Ecosystem Model to Identify Critical Ecosystem Interactions and Data Gap 33,169 

 FY10 Deferred / Unfunded Projects 1,313,308 

 Deferred in FY09, FY10 and FY11  Deferred in FY09, FY10 and FY11  Deferred in FY09, FY10 and FY11  $46,776 Hyperspectral Overflight for Vegetation Mapping Deferred in FY10 Contribution to Quadrennial Overflight Deferred in FY11  Photogrammetry Deferred in FY10 and FY11  Deferred MATA Workshop FY11 

Logistics for ground truthing Hyperspectral Overflight Deferred FY10 and F

 Deferred in FY09, FY10 and FY11 

Page 18 of 18

O:\!Admin Restricted\GCMRC FILES\BMs Working Files\AMWG & T